Opinions on grid exporting/net metering. Poll included :)

[Crowz]

I posted this in another thread as a response and it got me to wondering how every one really felt on this issue. Here's what I had posted :

---

I have what I'm sure is considered a weird stance on feeding power to the grid to probably 99% of this site and probably the world. I don't think we have the right to feed anything to the grid and I don't think we have the right to expect to be paid if we do feed to the grid.

The reason I look at it this way is if I take gas to the gas station they are not going to allow me to pump it back into their tanks and they are sure not going to pay me for it.

The water company isn't going to allow me to feed water back into the water system and they sure wouldn't pay me if I did.

So why should the power company be any different?

I enjoy saving power with my solar setup and I enjoy the lower bills and wouldn't mind making all of my power but I like remaining hooked to the grid in case something goes wrong or if I can't make enough for my needs. Expecting a business to support my efforts in savings or my hobby doesn't make much sense from a business stand point.

Now if they want to buy my excess power then sure. But I see people going postal power companies all the time reading things on the net with rates they are paying for back feeding etc which just doesn't seem right.

Now Alabama does have an issue right now with people being taxed for having solar power isn't to right. But I still think expecting the power company to have to buy my excess power just doesn't seem right either.

 

[rodrick]

If you were making a constant amount of electricity 24/7 then maybe but just for a few hours a day and maybe not everyday I would think it’s more of a hassle than help I would not want to deal with it

 

[ArtieKendall]

I haven't given it a lot of thought, but my quick take is if they have a variable rate, i.e. they charge more during peak hours because they have trouble meeting peak demand, then they should compensate people who can help them meet that demand. Otherwise, no.

 

[Hedges]

My power company doesn't produce power. They are in the business of operating wires.
(used to own power plants, but California forced them to divest.)

If they are going to buy power from large scale plants, ship it to consumers, and charge for delivering power, they can buy all the rooftop PV power too. Only question is how much it is worth. It is NOT worth what the very last kWh is worth. That last kWh may be unwanted.

As for the water analogy - If rain falls on the 10 acres I purchase, who owns the water? Me, or the water company?

If photons fall on my roof, who owns those, me or PG&E?
PG&E proposed I have to pay them money for those photons.
So I have no qualms about saying they have to take my green kWh and distribute those, rather than burning even more natural gas (which makes up 40% of our electric production.)

And I own stock in PG&E.

 

[Mattb4]

The problem in perception has came about due to government mandates put in place to encourage residential solar. It created the grid tie industry that could only exist if the utility companies were forced to not only allow interconnection but pay for power (in some shape even if it was a power offset scheme) provided back. Off grid installation require energy storage which used to make the cost uneconomic for home solar except in edge cases and low electrical usage setups.

I personally do not believe the utility companies should be forced to allow grid tie. That if they do so it is because they decided it was in their interest to do so.

 

[GuyG]

Wherever power company utilities have been granted monopoly status (most jurisdictions), the trade off is that they are heavily regulated. The balancing act between their profits and consumer rights is hashed out in public service commissions, where power companies have very sophisticated lobbyists. Very often, they are allowed to pass the costs of monumentally bad decisions onto consumers. Although they could enjoy huge economies of scale by implementing solar and renewable energy at utility scale, many of them have resisted doing so. I won’t shed too many tears for them if their profit margins take a small hit here and there because individual consumers are taking the lead in the transition to RE that the utilities resisted.

 

[EastTexCowboy]

I don't feel like the POCO should be forced to buy power from home solar installs but that's only true if the home owner is not forced to connect to the grid. Yeah, I know, there are a lot of opinions on that topic and it goes back to safety etc., But if they are going to force you to connect to the grid they should have to buy any excess. Pricing? I guess it would only be fair that they buy it at whatever price they're paying wholesale, but that's a whole other question. Of course, I'm out in the country and don't have neighboring homes anywhere close so if I cause a fire I'm not a risk to the folks next door. Nonetheless, I still try my best not to burn anything down.

 

[Tulex]

I believe the power company should have to allow grid tie and offset. Meaning, they don't have to buy any power, just allow you to reduce usage to zero. I don't even mind a small fee to have the connection. I think it's $22 a month for me. That way, I have all the power I need should there be a bad solar stretch, but could reduce it to just the fee with enough solar. Extra goes into the grid, I don't care.

 

[DIYrich]

The problem is the electric utility is divided into two parts: Distribution and Generation.

Distribution's primary responsibility is stability of the grid. They don't care where you get your power. They are paid to move the power.

Your simplistic options don't reflect reality in all areas. Hawaii is having problems integrating all the solar. It overwhelms the distribution grid. In a free market, you sell your excess power to the highest bidder, and you buy your needs from the lowest cost producer. You can choose the spot market or lock in long-term contracts.

If you say "export power and pay you for it", what should the Distribution Utility pay you for it? The spot market? What they can sell it for to the next guy? Should they be able to charge you a fee to wheel the power? What if no one wants your power?

Should a Generator be required to pay you for your power? Again, what price? Cost is on you to deliver the power to them so they can resell it? What if they can't resell it?

I have no problem with the Government mandating that Electric Utilities find a way to deal with the solar power in a way that is "fair" to everyone. I think time of use pricing (buy or sell) is one step in that direction. Between 10am-3pm, price is 3 cents, and between 3pm-9pm, it is 20 cents. In Hawaii, if you made it free between 10am-3pm, it still might be too much supply and not enough demand. With enough spread between periods, storage has an opportunity to become cost effective.

Utility, with government rate setting oversight, sets the buy/sell prices, and then it is up to you to decide if you want to buy/sell at those times and those prices. Option 1: They should be forced to buy/sell, but at prices they post (and are approved by a regulator). Your decision if you want to sell.

 

[OffGridForGood]

I feel they can offer to buy our electricity if they want, but we don't have to sell it to them, and they don't have to buy it from us.
Similarly, I don't have to buy the electricity they produce if I don't need it or want it. Photons hitting my patch of land are mine to use as I see fit, provided I don't recklessly endanger my neighbour; to grow crops, or trees (firewood) or generate PV or just for laying out on the back deck because I feel like it. They have no "right" to tax it, and I in turn can't demand they purchase my excess. If they stay on their side of the property line, I will stay on mine and we will both be happier I can assure you.

 

[1201]

if they buy electricity, great. it helps those people who are paying $3/w for solar

for diy types paying $1/watt and using battery anyway, who cares?

 

[GuyG]

In a free market,

But it’s not a free market. For a hundred years the POCOs have been just fine with having a monopoly. They’ve done well. They enjoy an awful lot of authority over the way in which private citizens can connect (and disconnect) from their grid.

Many times, their decisions are based on nothing more than their economic interests, not safety or grid management. Example: I own a waterfront condo with a common wall between my unit and my neighbor’s. Each of us have separate electric service. We wanted to go in together on a solar system, and consolidate our utility accounts into one. (I.e., keeping one service entrance to feed an AIO inverter, and disconnecting the other service). Lots of savings and better sharing of resources that way. POCO says no; they want the increased revenue of two accounts with two monthly service charges, and their rules allow them to prohibit sharing of power between two adjacent residences. Their economic interest is the ONLY reason for this.

All I’m saying is that when a POCO is granted a monopoly with lots of authority and a virtually guaranteed profit margin, there’s nothing wrong with imposing conditions and restraints.

 

[Rednecktek]

Just to throw another opinion on the fire but...
If my local PUD or state/local government authority REQUIRES that I have solar panels and be tied to the grid, then they should be REQUIRED to pay me for generation. If it's optional then it's optional but if they want me to provide grid tie power they need to pay for it. Generation plants sell their power to offset construction and maintenance costs, so I should be treated the same if I'm providing the same service.

Granted out in my neck of the woods (The green part of WA state) solar is pretty worthless and even if I generated 1.21Jiggawatts every day, I could never have a bill below the $35.50 monthly charge and any taxes and fees and such. Anything above used Kwh is just evaporated at true-up time. That's the big reason I dropped the idea of putting a small grid tied solar array at my cabin, the cost of the equipment and all the NEC 2020 hoops would never pay for the amount of power I use up there in my or my nephews' lifetimes.

 

[Lt.Dan]

I am surprised the amount of people that don't think it should be required, but I get where a lot of people are coming from, and I think it boils down to the individuals situation.

Like @Rednecktek just stated, here in my locale, they are REQUIRING new homes have solar. If they are forcing me to have it, but then don't pay me for excess, and I waste most of it, I would be pretty damn upset.

I personally store all of my solar, and sell-back at peak rates (between 4pm-9pm). Yes, I do it for more credits, and more money, but on the flip side of that, we also have had a lot of times where the grid goes down because it cannot support everybody between 4pm-9pm running their AC's and such, so I see it as me doing a service by helping the grid during those times. I am covering my own usage, and usually selling back enough to at least cover my direct neighbors usage. Helping the grid. If I'm not reimbursed for that in some way, then I wouldn't think about doing it, the grid would go down, and cost them more money than they would just pay me. Not that I am the only person holding the grid together, though.

The reason I look at it this way is if I take gas to the gas station they are not going to allow me to pump it back into their tanks and they are sure not going to pay me for it.

Making gas yourself is not something easily done, especially to the quality and standards that Gas Stations have to be held to. Our solar power is premium 93 octane though, with our inverters producing smoother output and sine waves than the Grid.

You can also store gas VERY cheap and use it at a later date. Solar without batteries is a use it or loose it, which 99% of solar owners do not have ESS. "Well I guess if the gas station won't buy this homemade gas I made in my backyard, I guess I'll just pour it down the sewer drains"

I do lean both ways here though. If it wasn't required, I would be fine with storing and self-consuming. Provided the "minimum connection fee" isn't crazy. Like @Tulex said, $22 is fine. When it starts getting into the $40-50 range, is where I start getting upset and want to tell them to come get their meter. But oh-wait, that's illegal, because if the utility is available to you, you are FORCED to pay for it.

 

[hwy17]

if they buy electricity, great. it helps those people who are paying $3/w for solar

But if they are forced to pay above market rate for the power to subsidize those people who are overpaying for solar, it costs all that solar customer's neighbors more in higher rates to fund that.

 

[Crowz]

I am surprised the amount of people that don't think it should be required, but I get where a lot of people are coming from, and I think it boils down to the individuals situation.

Like @Rednecktek just stated, here in my locale, they are REQUIRING new homes have solar. If they are forcing me to have it, but then don't pay me for excess, and I waste most of it, I would be pretty damn upset.

I personally store all of my solar, and sell-back at peak rates (between 4pm-9pm). Yes, I do it for more credits, and more money, but on the flip side of that, we also have had a lot of times where the grid goes down because it cannot support everybody between 4pm-9pm running their AC's and such, so I see it as me doing a service by helping the grid during those times. I am covering my own usage, and usually selling back enough to at least cover my direct neighbors usage. Helping the grid. If I'm not reimbursed for that in some way, then I wouldn't think about doing it, the grid would go down, and cost them more money than they would just pay me. Not that I am the only person holding the grid together, though.


Making gas yourself is not something easily done, especially to the quality and standards that Gas Stations have to be held to. Our solar power is premium 93 octane though, with our inverters producing smoother output and sine waves than the Grid.

You can also store gas VERY cheap and use it at a later date. Solar without batteries is a use it or loose it, which 99% of solar owners do not have ESS. "Well I guess if the gas station won't buy this homemade gas I made in my backyard, I guess I'll just pour it down the sewer drains"

I do lean both ways here though. If it wasn't required, I would be fine with storing and self-consuming. Provided the "minimum connection fee" isn't crazy. Like @Tulex said, $22 is fine. When it starts getting into the $40-50 range, is where I start getting upset and want to tell them to come get their meter. But oh-wait, that's illegal, because if the utility is available to you, you are FORCED to pay for it.

If a local regulation requires you to be grid connected then you should be able to sell at a profit back to the grid in my opinion. Also as another mentioned if new homes are required to have solar then you should be allowed to sell excess in my opinion.

But on a whole I don't believe they should not be forced to pay for your decision to go solar unless your being forced into using them. Just because they have a monopoly on the lines themselves doesn't mean they should have to buy from you in my opinion.

 

[rhino]

But if they are forced to pay above market rate for the power to subsidize those people who are overpaying for solar, it costs all that solar customer's neighbors more in higher rates to fund that.

If you start getting into the weeds you can also state that most utility companies have their operations subsidized by the public by dumping pollution into the air and causing health issues, mercury in fish that people eat, using herbicides everywhere because it is cheaper then cutting, etc..

 

[OffGridForGood]

here in my locale, they are REQUIRING new homes have solar.

If they are requiring it, and they are the energy experts and they want control over it: then why don't they take responsibility for the PV installation and RENT the roof space?
-becase they want the benefits without the responsibilities?

It would be "nice" if we could have a super well operated integrated solar-wind-other generation system that was interactive and well designed to prioritize renewable over conventional generation, taking advantage of predictable uses like high A/C demand during high solar periods, planned large scale storage like pumped hydro, and localized short term storage like neighbourhood level battery banks; however the fact of the situation is: they lost our trust.
As a result, I accept lower overall efficiency in my on-site PV power generation & storage, in exchange for maintaining control over how it is used and financed.
To this end; EV's are my ultimate solution to on site storage, in a sense I do produce "gasoline" and I do get paid for it, by reduced purchasing of actual gasoline, and they don't need to know the quality of my gasoline, and I don't need to put it into a jerry can and deliver it to the gas station either.
{and reduced air emissions are just a bonus}
Using your solar instead of buying gasoline is like having a car that runs on 2-3 cents per mile, and never has the cost of oil change/exhaust-system/engine repairs.

 

[hwy17]

If you start getting into the weeds you can also state that most utility companies have their operations subsidized by the public by dumping pollution into the air and causing health issues, mercury in fish that people eat, using herbicides everywhere because it is cheaper then cutting, etc..

And urban customers invariably subsidize rural customers with higher costs of distribution if there is a regional universal rate.

The utility model is chock full of cost shifts up and down left and right, but that doesn't mean they don't need to be scrutinized. The solar subsidy paid by non solar customers in California is debated but generally agreed to be north of 10% of a non solar customer's bill by now.

 

[rhino]

And urban customers invariably subsidize rural customers with higher costs of distribution if there is a regional universal rate.

The utility model is chock full of cost shifts up and down left and right, but that doesn't mean they don't need to be scrutinized. The solar subsidy paid by non solar customers in California is debated but generally agreed to be north of 10% of a non solar customer's bill by now.

I think what this points out is there is huge variability on what is going on depending on where you live.. so some people can firmly believe one way based on what their experience is where they live and same person if they moved someplace else feel differently.