Are California's Utilities Undermining Rooftop Solar Installations? (sandiegouniontribune.com) 255
California now has one million solar roofs, representing about 14% of all renewable power generated in the state. But solar advocates "said the milestone has come despite escalating efforts by utilities to undermine rooftop solar installations," according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
"They said those attacks include everything from hefty fees on ratepayers to calling for dramatic cuts to the credits residents receive for generating energy from the sun." "We will seek sensible solutions that continue to encourage solar power but don't adversely affect working families who can't afford solar systems," said SDG&E spokesman Wes Jones. Advocates have said that utilities are exaggerating the challenges that rooftop solar creates and downplaying the value it adds to the overall system. "They trot out this cost-shifting argument that looks on the face of it like they care about equity, but really the opposite is true," said Dave Rosenfeld, executive director of the Solar Rights Alliance, a new consumer rights group funded by ratepayers and rooftop solar companies. "If you do the numbers right, solar is contributing to a reduction in the cost of operating the electricity grid now and in the future..."
Power providers specifically argued that homeowners with solar panels weren't paying their fair share of the costs associated with building, maintaining and operating the state's extensive energy grid as well as fees associated with state-mandated energy efficiency and other programs. Over the last century, the price tag of expanding the state's electrical infrastructure to service remote communities and hook up to new power plants has largely been socialized, spread evenly over the customer base through rate increases approved by the utilities commission. All of those costs get baked into electric bills, but because the net metering program credits rooftop solar at the retail rate, rather than the wholesale rate, utilities say folks with solar panels have been getting something of a free ride. Utility officials have said that as a result they have had to shift those costs onto customers without solar. "Through the existing net energy metering policy, rooftop solar customers are subsidized by customers without solar rooftops," said Ari Vanrenen, spokesman for PG&E....
Advocates of rooftop solar strongly disagreed with this assessment. They said the technology, especially when paired with batteries, will eventually bring down the cost of electricity for everyone -- specifically by reducing the need for costly upgrades to the power grid. They argued that investor-owned utilities oppose rooftop solar because it will eventually curb the growth model that companies have long used to reward shareholders and pay out large salaries. SDG&E and others have an incentive to build solar out in the desert because it requires building long power lines, which are then used to justify rate hikes, said Bill Powers, a prominent electrical engineering consultant and consumer advocate.
The article also points out that some California utilities have raised their minimum bill -- with one specifically saying they were doing it to target solar customers, and another launching a new $65-a-month fee on any customer who installs solar panels.
"They said those attacks include everything from hefty fees on ratepayers to calling for dramatic cuts to the credits residents receive for generating energy from the sun." "We will seek sensible solutions that continue to encourage solar power but don't adversely affect working families who can't afford solar systems," said SDG&E spokesman Wes Jones. Advocates have said that utilities are exaggerating the challenges that rooftop solar creates and downplaying the value it adds to the overall system. "They trot out this cost-shifting argument that looks on the face of it like they care about equity, but really the opposite is true," said Dave Rosenfeld, executive director of the Solar Rights Alliance, a new consumer rights group funded by ratepayers and rooftop solar companies. "If you do the numbers right, solar is contributing to a reduction in the cost of operating the electricity grid now and in the future..."
Power providers specifically argued that homeowners with solar panels weren't paying their fair share of the costs associated with building, maintaining and operating the state's extensive energy grid as well as fees associated with state-mandated energy efficiency and other programs. Over the last century, the price tag of expanding the state's electrical infrastructure to service remote communities and hook up to new power plants has largely been socialized, spread evenly over the customer base through rate increases approved by the utilities commission. All of those costs get baked into electric bills, but because the net metering program credits rooftop solar at the retail rate, rather than the wholesale rate, utilities say folks with solar panels have been getting something of a free ride. Utility officials have said that as a result they have had to shift those costs onto customers without solar. "Through the existing net energy metering policy, rooftop solar customers are subsidized by customers without solar rooftops," said Ari Vanrenen, spokesman for PG&E....
Advocates of rooftop solar strongly disagreed with this assessment. They said the technology, especially when paired with batteries, will eventually bring down the cost of electricity for everyone -- specifically by reducing the need for costly upgrades to the power grid. They argued that investor-owned utilities oppose rooftop solar because it will eventually curb the growth model that companies have long used to reward shareholders and pay out large salaries. SDG&E and others have an incentive to build solar out in the desert because it requires building long power lines, which are then used to justify rate hikes, said Bill Powers, a prominent electrical engineering consultant and consumer advocate.
The article also points out that some California utilities have raised their minimum bill -- with one specifically saying they were doing it to target solar customers, and another launching a new $65-a-month fee on any customer who installs solar panels.
For sure they are (Score:5, Informative)
Re: For sure they are (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: For sure they are (Score:5, Insightful)
but their profits are NOT my responsibility!
Ultimately, it is your responsibility.
PG&E has applied for bankruptcy. If the system is not restructured so they can make a reasonable profit, the alternative is to break them up into regional utilties (which will likely be even more inefficient) or to turn them into municipal utilities ... which isn't a bad idea since power generation is once area where socialism actually has a pretty good track record (except for Chernobyl).
California's transmission infrastructure has suffered from decades of under-investment. It will be difficult to kick the can down the road yet again. When the bill comes due, guess who will pay? (Hint: you).
Re: For sure they are (Score:5, Insightful)
California's transmission infrastructure has suffered from decades of under-investment. It will be difficult to kick the can down the road yet again. When the bill comes due, guess who will pay? (Hint: you).
California citizens have already paid for the infrastructure improvements and maintenance... several times over. The executives and directors of PG&E chose to misappropriate these funds by allocating them to executive salaries/bonuses and shareholder dividends instead. This misappropriation of funds has resulted in billions of dollars in damage and the loss of many lives.
If the infrastructure is necessary as a public good, then it should be nationalized and run by the state. The corporation should pay a corporate death penalty for it's mismanagement, not be assured future profits.
Re: For sure they are (Score:4, Informative)
"California citizens have already paid"
Since when has this EVER mattered in California? The land of multi-million dollar porta-potties, and multi-billion dollar high speed rail boondoggles.
If PG&E goes tits-up and hands everything over to the state, how're you going to argue?
You're essentially locked in.
Re: For sure they are (Score:3)
The same incompetence in utilities oversight (Public Utilities Commission) that allowed (and or drove) PG&E to it's current state will be given more power and authority if a state takeover occurs. Somehow I doubt the situation would improve.
California governance is terrible. Everything flows from that.
Re: (Score:3)
PG&E is not the only utility doing this in the state though.
utility monopolies should be state driven (Score:4, Interesting)
utility monopolies should be state driven.
for obvious reasons. like the reasons are really, really, reaaally obvious.
like not overcharging and moving all the money to bahamas while skipping maintenance and using bankruptcy protection to keep going is one good reason. second is that you can't have natural competition anyhow so why bother with acting like privatization of the resource would work out well, because it will not. it will have higher costs and an incentive to cost more to the consumer than it costs to keep maintained if it is privatized.
the problem with californias network is not at all that californians would not have been paying reasonably high rates for the electricity.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm torn between "state owned" and just extremely well regulated, which would include profit caps, rate hike approvals and mandatory safety and infrastructure investment.
The latter is what we have here, and I think it provides just enough profit incentive that you gain some efficiencies you wouldn't gain with a state owned monopoly where there was no incentive for seeking efficiencies.
I'd be game for something like a state owned, but self-contained electric utility that was allowed some level of profit to b
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the costs of building a power plant are capital investment costs. "Socialism" removes that cost.
Nonsense. You still have to pay the money. You still have to source it from somewhere. Socialism changes who pays, and how, but the money is still needed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:For sure they are (Score:5, Insightful)
You generate power closer to the consumer (the business around the block), and the power company no longer has to generate 1/3 of its power to overcome the power line resistance. So, you should get the delivered rate. Thats what you pay, thats what you get back. They charge other consumers more than they charge you anyway. Perhaps there is a middle-ground where if you are positive overall, they give you back 1/2 or something, but you shouldn't pay retail to consume, and then wholesale to produce when in the middle of your billing cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Who decides what's fair?
Usually that would be mathematics.
Re:For sure they are (Score:5, Insightful)
You generate power closer to the consumer (the business around the block), and the power company no longer has to generate 1/3 of its power to overcome the power line resistance.
Power line losses would never get that high. Well, never say never, but that is far from anything common or routine.
So, you should get the delivered rate. Thats what you pay, thats what you get back.
If the law requires net metering then the utility is forced to buy power at a rate far higher than they'd pay to buy it from some power plant. This raises costs for the utility and therefore raises prices paid by the customer. This difference between what they pay the power plant and what they charge the customer is how they pay for the wires, wages, and profits. If they can't make up for their costs, and still make a profit, then maybe the people running this might decide they'd make more money shutting it all down and take up acting as background characters in Hollywood.
Here's my take on this, the homeowner should be just tickled if the utility is willing to pay anything for the power a homeowner feeds to the grid.
Re: (Score:3)
If the law requires net metering then the utility is forced to buy power at a rate far higher than they'd pay to buy it from some power plant. This raises costs for the utility and therefore raises prices paid by the customer.
This seems disingenuous at best, but more likely an outright lie.
Every KWH produced by a customer under a net metering agreement is one that the utility resells for full rate and did NOT have to purchase from the power company. So unless the customer is dumping power into a system that already has surplus power it is dumping, there is no cost.
And the company is not due profits on power it didn't sell.
As for line maintenance and CEO bonuses, there are surcharges for that. That's why my $45 of electricity u
Re: (Score:3)
Power line losses would never get that high. Well, never say never, but that is far from anything common or routine.
No, not 1/3rd, but currently about 2% of power in the states is lost due to transmission, and another 4% due to distribution. 6% isn't a third, but it isn't negligible either.
Re: (Score:3)
You generate power closer to the consumer (the business around the block), and the power company no longer has to generate 1/3 of its power to overcome the power line resistance. So, you should get the delivered rate. Thats what you pay, thats what you get back
Okay ignoring the fact that you don't lose 1/3rd in transmission you are looking only at the variable costs. Not the fixed costs which continue to amortise regardless if you are pulling power over the line or not. That $2m transformer is a $2m transformer on the balance sheet regardless if I am pushing a few MVA over it or if it is sitting idle and getting rusty. That $2m transformer's useful life decreases and will need replacing regardless if you use it or not (because at night you want the lights to stay
Re:For sure they are (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For sure they are (Score:4, Informative)
Re:For sure they are (Score:5, Interesting)
Peak usage is the most costly to product. I work for a small local government utility. We have a power plant with two generators that are used 2-3 times per year. That's it. It's only economical (both pure dollars and EPA carbon credit trading) when we're maxed out during the hottest summer days. Every once in a a cooler summer we won't even use both units.
The other choice is we just do rolling black-outs. So we maintain a expensive power plant just to cover those 2-3 times a year, because our customers expect reliable service, and because of so many other constraints California has put on us.
Time of use billing is one way to get customers to shift their usage voluntarily (or not, but then they pay for closer to what it is costing to produce at that point). Do it when things aren't at their peak and the power is more readily available.
Re:For sure they are (Score:5, Interesting)
As the other poster said, the alternative for 2 to 3 hours a couple of times a year is batteries. But batteries on their own aren't enough.
Here in Australia the electricity company isn't required to pay any fixed amount for your feed in. In other words we already have what your utilities are asking for, and people here are whinging about, and saying it will hurt solar, yet Australia has the highest rates of roof top solar in the world. In one state looks like roof top solar will hit 50% of all generation at peak times in the not too distant future.
I can only speculate as to why, but one effect is training. If you get less for power you sell than power you buy, surprise surprise people shift their power consumption. They switch on their air-conditioning and use those timers on washing machines, dish washers and ovens to shift their power consumption to when their solar is generating, which of course means they aren't using it during peak hours.
Somewhat more amazingly, if you arrange things in a certain way, the price the utility pays for your power is almost the same as the price they charge you - and they do it voluntarily. (They do it by both increasing the price they pay while reducing what they charge.) The "certain way" is of course you pay many times the going rate during peak hours. If you do use heavily during peak hours you will lose badly, but if you install a smallish battery (say, 4kW hr) then you can easily guarantee you won't use any power during the peak period.
Why does this happen? Because in Australia the generators can't sell directly to you - they must sell to retailers. The retailers are essentially useless middle men, or at least they would be if they didn't compete amongst themselves. One of their major costs is the price of power during those peak days you mentioned. Unlike your typical consumer who is contracted to a single supplier for a year or so, they buy power in 5 minute intervals and they can buy it off anyone - including interstate and their own customers with batteries.
It's amazing what a healthy market will do. As electricity ends towards a natural monopolies you only get a healthy market with strong government regulation, but people don't call Australia a nanny state for no reason.
Re:For sure they are (Score:4, Informative)
Looked at it 10 years ago. Numbers don't pan out. Need a breakthrough in battery storage technology. Bean counters run the numbers each year.
But when you have a generator plant that was built in 1970 and still works and just needs some maintenance to run, very hard to change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Australia says otherwise in those numbers not working out.
You are an idiot. Here's a hint on why the numbers are different, "sunk costs".
Re: (Score:3)
And to boot, they just changed peak hours to 4-9p,
Errr that's because peak hours *are* 4-9pm precisely due to solar reducing load during the rest of the day. Google "duck curve".
I remember seeing these ads on YouTube (Score:4, Insightful)
The advert ended with a "Vote No On Proposition such and such" which as it turned out was a law meant to ban "net metering" where the local utility had to pay you for the power your solar fed back into the grid.
The law passed with a healthy majority.
This is what's wrong with this country. This was literally the Old Glory Robot Insurance ad come to life and given flesh; and it worked.
This is why I want mandatory voting. I don't trust old people. Your brain goes in your old age and you become susceptible for all sorts of tricks like this. Not everybody, but enough to win elections in a system where it's mostly old folks voting. Young folks shouldn't be allowed to shirk their civic duty. As an added bonus you can't do voter suppression when voting's mandatory.
Re: (Score:2)
Your brain goes in your old age
Not necessarily true.
Re:I remember seeing these ads on YouTube (Score:5, Informative)
The power companies are right on this one. Your power bill is not just for electricity. it's (cost of generating electricity) + (cost of maintaining and upgrading the distribution grid). Because electricity used to flow only one way, the utilities just rolled both costs into a single per kWh electricity rate to keep things simple.
The people behind the proposition wanted the utilities to pay people with rooftop solar the same per kWh rate that the utility charged. If the retail price were only generation costs, then that would make sense. But because it also includes the cost of distributing electricity on the grid, paying rooftop solar owners full retail price is essentially making the utilities pay people for using their grid. It's like requiring landlords to pay tenants, or toll road owners to pay the cars who use the roads, instead of the other way around. Makes no sense. The party using the item or service (power grid, apartment, toll road) needs to pay the party which builds and maintains the item or service.
The long-term solution is for utilities to break apart the power bill into generation and distribution components. The people with rooftop solar who put excess electricity onto the grid can then be paid an equal generation price, minus the cost for using the utility's grid to distribute their electricity. I'm already seeing this on my power bill - it's breaking down to roughly half generation, half distribution, meaning the net money you get for selling electricity back isn't much. (Whether that's a fair breakdown is another argument. But the utilities are regulated by each state's Public Utilities Commission, which usually has complete access to the utility's accounting books. So I assume it'd be difficult to impossible to cheat on this breakdown. It's already done this way with natural gas. The gas company tallies up its costs for building and maintaining the piplines, and comes up with a distribution charge to recoup those costs. Natural gas suppliers then pay the gas company that distribution cost for using the pipelines to distribute their gas to customers. And the money the supplier receives is how much the customer pays, minus the distribution cost.)
A similar problem is occurring with EVs. The money for constructing and maintaining the roads comes from fuel taxes. But EVs don't use fuel, so they're not contributing money to building and maintaining the roads they use. If you follow the logic of the rooftop solar owners, the state should be paying EV owners for the wear and tear EVs put on the roads. Obviously that doesn't make sense. So states are beginning to experiment with a vehicle registration surcharge for EVs. When you renew the EV's registration each year, you pay a couple hundred bucks extra to make up for the fuel taxes you aren't paying.
Just because a company is opposed to something doesn't automatically mean it's right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> The power companies are right on this one. Your power bill is not just for electricity. it's (cost of generating electricity) + (cost of maintaining and upgrading the distribution grid). Because electricity used to flow only one way, the utilities just rolled both costs into a single per kWh electricity rate to keep things simple.
This is what the utilities say, but it is not true. If you have solar here in California, you pay a grid maintenance fee of $15/month. This is already a resolved issue, and th
About 1/4 of the cost is generation (Score:2)
The price of power is roughly 1/4 generation, 1/4 transmission, 1/4 distribution, 1/4 overheads such as solar subsidies.
People want to reduce their power from the grid but still have the grid there at night, and also get paid 4 times the wholesale price of power.
Splitting the bill into grid + power will help for a bit. But as batteries become cheaper, people will go off grid altogether if there are large fixed charges. A small natural gas powered generator can fill in the gaps.
Except, of course, for those
Re:I remember seeing these ads on YouTube (Score:4, Insightful)
This is already how it is here. But the utility still says that solar customers don't help maintain the grid.
So, just because the utility says this it must be false? Have you considered that they are not lying?
This is already a resolved issue, and they're just pushing to squeeze more money out of solar customers by trotting out lies like these.
Net metering requires that the utility buy the power these solar panels produce, at a rate higher than that from a power plant, whether they want this power or not. How are residential net meter customers getting "squeezed" here? It is the utility getting squeezed, and if they want to stay in business then they have no option but to get more money from their customers. They make money on buying low and selling high, if the law says they have to buy high then they have to sell higher to pay their overhead costs.
Re: (Score:3)
You have picked the wrong target there. Damage to roads is proportional to the 4th power of the weight applied by the wheels, so, if you want to tax according to the amount of maintenance that driving along the road causes, you need to propose a massive increase in taxes for trucks (and bu
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I want mandatory voting. I don't trust old people.
Serious question, do you think young people are better?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't trust old people. Your brain goes in your old age and you become susceptible for all sorts of tricks like this.
Which is why we need Bernie (two shy of four score years). Or Joe (but one year less than Bernie). At least we'll get good Jell-o at the home with either of them in the White House...
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I want mandatory voting. I don't trust old people.
Mandatory voting would get even worse results. Why would you assume that forcing someone whose level of political caring is low enough that they wouldn't vote given the choice is somehow going to change them info a fully informed rational voter?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it's older people in general or just the current generation. They did well out of screwing the younger generations but now gen X is getting to middle age are we going to do the same?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about old people, it's about informed voters. Young voters are at least as bad, and often worse, because they have no clue what they are voting on. In TFA: Voting on a law about net metering? First and foremost you ought to have to correctly answer a question "WTF is net metering".
The people who blindly vote for candidates because of the political party they belong to? Nope. They ought to have to correctly identify the candidates' actual position on a couple of key issues, before they are allowed t
Re: I remember seeing these ads on YouTube (Score:5, Insightful)
The only problem with manadatory voting...
So you're saying that countries like Greece and Australia have a problem?
... is you're introducing voters who know nothing about propositions.
As opposed to today, where voluntary voters probably know nothing about propositions.
Or maybe they come to vote about one proposition they care about and just pick randomly for the ones they don't care about.
Maybe if people knew they were going to have to vote they might actually learn something about the issues.
If you went that route, People would need something like a proposition aptitude test and if they don't know the arguments for and against to a basic degree they shouldn't be able to vote on it.
Maybe you'd like to include a skin color test as part of it too?
It's not "one intelligent person, one vote." Nor is it "one person I like, one vote." This isn't Russia. Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
> So you're saying that countries like Greece and Australia have a problem?
Have you seen [ga.gov.au] Australia recently?
Of course, a lot of that is due to interference in our democratic processes by foreign agents [thewrap.com], but still...
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they come to vote about one proposition they care about and just pick randomly for the ones they don't care about.
I generally try and get up to speed on the issues but if by chance there's one I really don't know enough about to have a solid opinion I leave it blank. It's good to know your limits and do no harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you mean you get to check who agrees with you, after all anyone who disagrees is wrong and should not be able to vote.
Voter suppression in the USA is already disgusting.
Good look, PG&E... (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
There's several different sides to that problem. The grid does need to be paid for, but the utilities have an incentive to overcharge. And part of the reason for poor maintenance was that nobody wanted to pay for the maintenance (it isn't free, after all). Yes, they should have been doing a much better job of it, but the PUC didn't want them to spend "excessively" on it.
OTOH, the PUC was right, in that there are instances where the utility *did* overcharge (and still not do enough maintenance).
Any simple
More growing pains (Score:5, Interesting)
I know for a fact that there are counties in the United States that require you to have public utilities not only hooked up to your house, but actively used, and if you don't meet those 'requirements', your house is declared 'uninhabitable' and is condemned. Two guesses who's behind that and the first guess doesn't count. That's the sort of mentality we're dealing with here.
If that sort of law doesn't apply to where you live, then I'd be tempted to tell you to install all the solar you can, get one of those Tesla battery banks, and disconnect the house from the grid entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thus, under the Electric Code's definition, "interconnection" may be broader than just connection to a utility, but does not include batteries. It could be argued that solar plus battery systems, in conjunction with a generator, could satisfy the Energy Code.
So, people in California can go off grid.
Poor subsidizing the rich aka the Tesla model (Score:4, Interesting)
Solar is mostly installed by upper middle class folks who own their homes not rent and who have enough income and good credit. Hardly the demographic needing a handout but these are the folks always first in line for their handouts whether its solar, EVs or subsidized guaranteed college loans or employer subsidized health insurance.
Utilities have 3 costs - Generation, long distance transmission and local distribution. Nowadays they break the generation cost out but the long distance transmission and distribution costs are still clubbed and its the local distribution - the last mile (or 5 miles to be more accurate) which costs the most in maintenance and monitoring labor costs. Utilities bake this cost into the per kwH rate.
Now Solar customers with grid backup cost just as much to maintain the distribution but they hardly pay any of the rate due to net metering. If net metering was only on the generation and long distance transmission costs and not on the local distribution than it might be fair but the upper middle class wont like that. Folks living in tiny apartments with 40 apartments to a building cost much less in last mile distribution than folks living on country estates and single family ranch houses.
They might be shocked to know that for years even prior to solar the poor have been subsidizing the rich.
Re:Poor subsidizing the rich aka the Tesla model (Score:4, Insightful)
Solar is mostly installed by upper middle class folks who own their homes not rent and who have enough income and good credit. Hardly the demographic needing a handout but these are the folks always first in line for their handouts whether its solar, EVs or subsidized guaranteed college loans or employer subsidized health insurance.
That's the very demographic that pays the most in taxes by percent and generally makes areas nice. They pay their taxes and don't commit many crimes per capita. They don't buy off politicians the way the uber rich do. They should be respected and courted, not demonized. The poor on the other hand consume far more than they give and make areas lousy and full of crime. If you step out of your ivory tower you would see this. Want the poor better taken care of? Then you better hope for more upper middle class since they will fund the various services that you are likely pushing for.
Re: Poor subsidizing the rich aka the Tesla model (Score:2)
It makes sense to subsidize early adopters of non-carbon-based energy. The idea is to bring the costs down for everyone else over time due to efficiencies realized by manufacturing at scale and potential Mooreâ(TM)s Law type effects. In the ideal case, itâ(TM)s a tragedy of the commons, in reverse.
In the short term I would love to see a system that also motivates both tenants and landlords to get solar panels installed on every single unit of rental stock, with each party in the equation holding b
Re: (Score:3)
It makes sense to subsidize early adopters of non-carbon-based energy.
Let's assume this is true. What is the time frame and/or other conditions that need to be met for this early adopter subsidy to end? Will we still be paying out solar power subsidies after it reaches 99% of our electricity supply?
Solar power has been getting these "bootstrap" subsidies for decades. At some point this isn't "bootstrap" funds any more. Then it becomes corporate welfare. Taxing the poor to pay the rich. Money that could be pricing out cheaper and lower carbon energy. If the answer is th
Someone does need to pay for infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
If a substantial amount of solar is going to be installed, the electricity distribution infrastructure needs to be paid for by some mechanism. There is a risk that wealthier people with more capital will be able to afford solar, pushing the support of the grid more onto the poor.
Lots of ways to fix this, including changing tax structures etc, but some care is needed to avoid a rather common problem that environmental incentives turn out to support wealthier people - eg "Tesla lanes" on freeways.
PG&E itself is of course horribly inefficient and probably corrupt, but some funding is needed to support the infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3)
If a substantial amount of solar is going to be installed, the electricity distribution infrastructure needs to be paid for by some mechanism. There is a risk that wealthier people with more capital will be able to afford solar, pushing the support of the grid more onto the poor.
Lots of ways to fix this, including changing tax structures etc, but some care is needed to avoid a rather common problem that environmental incentives turn out to support wealthier people - eg "Tesla lanes" on freeways.
PG&E itself is of course horribly inefficient and probably corrupt, but some funding is needed to support the infrastructure.
This is the same problem that will manifest with greater adoption of EVs as well. Fuel taxes pay for much of the transportation infrastructure, and that revenue model is going to have to change also.
It's quaint these people want to save the world and all, but not on the backs of everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To which I replied: then fix the damn billing.
Even so, if I can generate enough to offset the infra charge, why shouldn't I be able to pay it in kind, i.e. with electricity. If I put 100 kWh on the
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the daily minimum charge is for.
It's a mess (Score:5, Interesting)
But now personal solar installations and batteries are breaking this scheme, and there's no established commonly accepted scheme to replace it. Just look at what happened to music in the switch from CDs to digital purchase to streaming, all in the span of like a decade. Music companies couldn't keep up, and had to figure things out as they went. Now, are utilities also trying to sabotage the threat to their monopoly on power generation? Obviously yes. But at the same time they're trying to figure out what, and how much, they can charge people to keep them connected to the grid in a way that doesn't rely on charging for "kilowatt hours". That there's a bunch of regulations in place that define things in terms of charging for "kilowatt hours" actually doesn't help anyone in figuring out that second part.
The end result is that there's a mess of conflicting interests and established practices and laws that are going to take a while to figure out. And while preventing utilities from being anti monopoly is important, doing so should keep in mind that there's other things that are mixed up in that process.
Re:It's a mess (Score:4, Insightful)
Working for a not-for-profit utility, we're not trying to sabotage anyone. We're just trying to keep things equitable. Those who can afford solar shouldn't do it on the backs of those who cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The low end apartment dwellers row houses etc will be stuck with the utility. The big and powerful interests who have peeled off will have the political power and the utilities will follo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Things are certainly a mess, but at least here in AZ for 5 sites the group I'm part of has, the raw cost of power, along with metering, distribution, transmission, and generation charges, are all itemized on the monthly statement, and have been for at least the last 10 years (that I've been paying attention). Power entity type (we have both private for-profit and co-op non-profit), distribution, transmission, and generation all vary a little bit in the overall mix, as well as depending on the site location.
Simple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Less people using the system lowers the total cost
Not that much - it would raise the cost per watt and per user.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cloudy days, distribution network and meter maint. (Score:5, Insightful)
Having been in a power scheduling room for a small electric utility, do you know what a partially cloudy day is like? Going from total sun production to 50% to 5%, it's like juggling on a unicycle. Oh, and then it suddenly clears up, and you've got to ramp down all that generation that had to get spun up to cover for the cloudy loss of solar generation. Complete overcast is much easier to deal with.
The actual cost of electricity on the wholesale market is pennies and then resold for a dime or more. The mark-up for the rate is a way to "share" to cost with those who use the service the most. Another way to "share" the cost is have a base meter/connection fee that is equal to all, and reduce the power rate (or keep the rate the same, and instead of a needed rate increase, adjust the base fee up for all).
Those who have solar and bank power "in the grid" are still using the distribution and even transmission networks and their meter as much as they did before - if not even more so because now they're banking power and then taking it later. But there is no such thing as truly "banking" power - unless you install a battery, it has to get used up instantaneously.
If you really want to go solar and not pay the power company, get a power wall or other local battery storage solution. Bank your own power and disconnect from the grid. You'll find that's not economically feasible - and neither is it reasonable to think that one should be able to bank that power "in the grid" and expect to get it back on demand later with no mark-up. It cost money for the meter and the billing infrastructure behind it and the distribution network to take that power away and assuming the power is going from a large area to another then costs for that transmission network, millions for the transformers, etc.
Power companies should be able to treat solar generators as wholesale markets and buy at wholesale prices, and then sell back at retail rates. Suddenly solar panels don't make sense, even with huge subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
Do it like they do in Australia where you pay a fixed daily supply charge that is meant to cover the cost of the infrastructure and a per kWh charge for the power you actually use.
Solar owners do get paid for the power they generate but the feed-in tariff is lower than the per-kWh charge they pay out when they use electricity from the grid.
wait wait wait (Score:3)
This is some Amercian version of the word 'socialized' where it's a corporation getting the public to pay for its (then privately owned and profit generating) infrastructure...?
Some people in economic theory attribute that kind of behaviour to a certain type of government, and it's not a democratic republic. If this all lines up then it explains a few things.
The competition will only get more heated (Score:2)
As time goes by and people get more efficient methods of generating their own electricity, the local monopolies will eventually lobby for taxes against these methods.
Yes, they will start taxing the light from the sun and the wind that blows the air we breathe, sighting their right to profit from their monopoly.
They're all rubbing their hands together greedily as they wait for more electric cars to roll out and increase the demand for electricity, so they can jack the prices up based on that demand.
Needless
hypothetical question (Score:2)
Fair (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well its not simply poor vs rich. Obviously more "rich" people don't have solar than do, at least at this point. So it is more accurate to say that everybody needs to help pay to improve the environment, particularly since everybody has been getting a free ride (i.e. not paying the true costs) of damaging the environment. And the now small numbers of "rich" people that invest in solar do need at least some incentive to do so, since it ultimately, hopefully, will reduce the total costs of living in the envir
Rooftop solar is undermining rooftop solar (Score:4, Interesting)
Rooftop solar is very expensive. The only reason people buy it is because of the tax subsidies and net metering.
Solar produced power to the home when people are least likely to be there. The power produced gets put on the grid too late for the morning demand surge and disappears before the evening demand surge. This is assuming cloud cover does not disrupt this more.
Unless the house has a battery the solar panels cannot provide power in case of utility outages. In this case it's the battery keeping the lights on, not the solar panels. This is especially true at night and in cloud cover, which is more likely than the sun shining.
The solar panels add little value to the utility, the solar panels are providing energy at the wrong time if they produce any at all. The homeowner gains little since it's the battery and inverters that keep the lights on, the solar panels are likely the most expensive part of this system and it will rarely add value in keeping the lights on.
If solar was a good idea then the utility would be all over this with far less expensive utility scale arrays of solar panels. They can put them on a single or double axis sun following mount to collect more sun. And they aren't paying the far higher residential rates for it. If for some reason there is simply too much sun then they can disconnect the solar panels from the grid. Like with the residential solar system there will almost always be a need for storage to manage this solar power. But once the utility has the batteries then they can use their thermal power plants to charge the batteries, saving them from having to use expensive and inefficient natural gas turbines to meet peak demands.
Solar collectors cost a lot of money. Batteries cost a lot of money. More than natural gas. Likely more than nuclear power.
People are placing the blame on the wrong place here. The problem is not the utility. As much as they are money grubbing capitalist pigs just looking for another penny they are also people trying to keep their customers happy. They can't do this if government subsidies and mandates are driving up prices by inducing people to put solar panels on their rooftops.
You want whole house battery backups on your home? I think that is a great idea. You want solar panels to keep the batteries charged up? Sure, go ahead. You think the utility should be required to buy your excess solar power? This is where I draw the line on good ideas. Net metering is the problem. It's making the job of the utility more difficult, it's driving up their costs, and it's not helping in lowering the CO2 emissions. The utilities will even point this out but people will simply ignore them because they must be just money grubbing capitalist pigs.
Tell me something. Who should these people listen to? What would be considered a knowledgeable disinterested neutral party? I really want to know. Net metering is a bad idea and I want to know who it is that everyone would listen to if this person said that net metering is a bad idea.
Service vs usage (Score:2)
So separate out the service cost (providing the infrastructure) and the usage cost. Everyone pays the service charge even if they don't use any power.
Re:Huh ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh ? (Score:5, Interesting)
What are you talking about. It is happening as we speak, a new competitor has come to town, collective energy generation. You compete against the existing power companies. The real current problem is quite clear, the energy generators need to be separated from the grid owners. Power generations and electrical distribution clearly needs to be separated, so collective generators out in the burbs, can under the rules of capitalism, compete on an equal basis for the supply of electricity to the grid and drawing current from the grid.
Clearly under current rules, crony capitalism, campaign donation corruption and lobbyists are blocking the normal activity of capitalism to replace it with corruption. Not making enough profit, well, so fucking what, go the fuck out of business and let someone else take over, that is the way capitalism works.
Clearly the collective suburban solar power station is a far more competitive supplier and blocking them from accessing the grid and saving all those companies using electricity getting those inputs at a competitive price is an illegal anti-competitive practice.
Clearly power generating companies need to be separated from electrical grid companies, as soon as possible, it is holding up development of far more cost effective energy solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best thing about cronyism, is that you can claim it's capitalism and all your victims will stand up and salute and vote into office the people you want.
Capitalism isn't the problem (Score:4, Informative)
I'm going to point out, along with the others, that utilities, along with our healthcare market, aren't exactly bastions of free market capitalism. Instead, they're paragons of the effects of government oversight and control.
I mean, think about it. They have to petition the government in order to raise rates, are mandated to set various rate structures by law(charging you more per kWh if you use more than "average"), have to have special programs for those with sufficiently low income, etc... They also have to ask the government if they want to buy or build new capacity, even maintenance activities sometimes need approval.
with out government no ER for poor and no rural po (Score:2)
with out government no ER for poor and no rural power
Re: (Score:2)
with out government no ER for poor and no rural power
This is California, would people even notice?
Re: Huh ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The US is not free from poverty, millions of children are homeless, and speaking of children the separation of illegal immigrant families is so bad that they believe many will never be reunited...but hey
Millions have been killed by right wing extremists too.
I am centrist, extremes of left and right are equally bad.
The US's current probl
Re: Huh ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The US is already socialist for many things.
By that definition every government is a socialist government. Providing public services does not make a nation socialist. What defines socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
The farms are privately owned and operated. Just because the government offers subsidized flood and crop insurance doesn't suddenly make this socialism. An operational military does not make a government socialist. Enforcing right of way for roads, pipes, power lines, and so on does not make a socialist nation.
The rest of your post goes even deeper into nonsense, and I won't go there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, the alternative is to bill his sewage usage based on his water usage plus rainfall.
My sewage bill is as expensive as my water bill - they're both based on the same inflow meter on my water lines. It's actually unfair to bill me for water I'm using on my lawn, but whatcha gonna do?
However, my city has a clue, and actually has a rebate for permanently installed rain barrels set up to be used to water foilage. I've purchased 2 of them so far. I'll be adding 2 more next year (there is a limit of 2 per h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some states ban storage for anything other than outdoor use citing health risk reasons, have permitting requirements, and maximum storage amounts. Georgia is one such state that restricts usage to outdoor-only. Kansas can require a permit to do so.
Oregon restricts rainwater collection to rooftops.
Utah restricts collection to two 100 gallon containers, unless you register with DWR, and then the limit is 2,500 gallons.
Colorado allows storage of only two containers, not to exceed 110 gallons total, only to b
Re: (Score:2)
Here in QLD (as I understand it) rainwater tanks are mandated for new builds in most urban areas but they can't be used for potable water (because the water that goes into the tank may not be safe for human consumption). They are generally connected to toilet cisterns and washing machine taps and also to some outdoor taps (e.g. for watering the garden)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and in many bushfire areas, the tank water is also required to be available to firefighters if they need it.
Re: (Score:3)