Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Believe me I'm more than cognizant of the relationship. I live thru the privilege of being deregulated and being "Enroned". Ok, reasonable observation.
I think they have a point about providing the grid and being compensated for it. They should be able to cover their fixed cost for that. Unfortunately a significant portion of an IOU comes from building production plants. I'm not interested in paying for that as I produce more than I consume, including charging our car. Whats fair to me is that they pay me for what I produce at the going wholesale rate, not the 4 cents they currently pay and I'll pay a fee for the grid.
Kind've sorta..... I've done a fair amount of import/export. FOB Hong Kong vs FOB LA. Pick your poison.
Yes. Electricity is electricity. When you flow into the grid more than you use, they have a net positive production and sell that electricity to someone else.
This goes back to not only this but take any service where the consumer is being forced (ok maybe coerced or given few other options) to provide services to the very companies or utilities that charge a retail rate for something and then demand or expect the consumer to chip in but in turn pay them nothing or less than wholesale.
There is the flaw in the regulations.
I note that the utility isn't going to help pay the our infrastructure to harvest solar energy and flow into the grid.
At some point, if this continues, the cost for the utilities will decrease significantly because of the large penetration of rooftop solar. At that point they are just providing transport. If you add up the infrastructure costs for rooftop solar as a total, it is no small sum yet isn't being compensated or offset. Yet the utility wants a fee to offset theirs. That doesn't make much sense.
If you have a net positive, then you've essentially become a power producer yet your contribution is treated as a nearly free resource to a company that charges you money to give them something which they in turn sell at a profit.
Yes. Electricity is electricity. When you flow into the grid more than you use, they have a net positive production and sell that electricity to someone else.
This goes back to not only this but take any service where the consumer is being forced (ok maybe coerced or given few other options) to provide services to the very companies or utilities that charge a retail rate for something and then demand or expect the consumer to chip in but in turn pay them nothing or less than wholesale.
There is the flaw in the regulations.
I note that the utility isn't going to help pay the our infrastructure to harvest solar energy and flow into the grid.
At some point, if this continues, the cost for the utilities will decrease significantly because of the large penetration of rooftop solar. At that point they are just providing transport. If you add up the infrastructure costs for rooftop solar as a total, it is no small sum yet isn't being compensated or offset. Yet the utility wants a fee to offset theirs. That doesn't make much sense.
If you have a net positive, then you've essentially become a power producer yet your contribution is treated as a nearly free resource to a company that charges you money to give them something which they in turn sell at a profit.
IOUs are a strange animal. They have a difficult deciding whether to be in the power generating business or the power distribution business. Their quandary is that they have 2 masters, their stockholders and the public utility commission. The best deal for them is when they can convince the puc that they need to build power plants and expand infrastructure. They get to charge the ratepayers for this and make a profit doing it. I'm not familiar with other states but I believe some utilities are distribution only, they produce no power of their own. Considering they are a monopoly, this is probably the best setup for the ratepayers.
I'm grandfathered in for 20 years on my net metering plan. Once the utility hits their state mandated renewable energy target I would expect them to drop it like a hot rock.
Yes. Electricity is electricity. When you flow into the grid more than you use, they have a net positive production and sell that electricity to someone else.
But in a typical net-metering arrangement they sell that electricity for the same rate they give you for it, since you're just trading kWh in for out at the same rate. This is appropriate for retail accounts, were the cost of managing and providing the infrastructure and managing the billing, etc. can be considerable. That's why a minimum monthly fee for grid-tie connections is being instituted in many places.
Quote:
If you have a net positive, then you've essentially become a power producer yet your contribution is treated as a nearly free resource to a company that charges you money to give them something which they in turn sell at a profit.
This is flawed thinking, which does not correlate with reality. .
Independent electricity producers, who contract to supply wholesale amounts of electricity to the utility, are paid wholesale rates, and are not charged grid-tie fees.
Individual users with retail net-metering accounts, who basically trade small quantities of electricity back and forth with the utility for convenience are "paid" at the same rate as they "buy," and are charged a minimal fee for connection to the grid.
There are some variations, of course, as utility companies and Public Utility Commissioners endeavor to find the proper balance in order to keep effective incentives in place, yet not scalp the other customers. Still, this is the basic pattern of existing agreements across the country.
IOUs are a strange animal. They have a difficult deciding whether to be in the power generating business or the power distribution business. Their quandary is that they have 2 masters, their stockholders and the public utility commission. The best deal for them is when they can convince the puc that they need to build power plants and expand infrastructure. They get to charge the ratepayers for this and make a profit doing it. I'm not familiar with other states but I believe some utilities are distribution only, they produce no power of their own. Considering they are a monopoly, this is probably the best setup for the ratepayers.
I'm grandfathered in for 20 years on my net metering plan. Once the utility hits their state mandated renewable energy target I would expect them to drop it like a hot rock.
Yes, in many cases the utilities distribute but they do through system operators control demand from various power generator companies. The system operators check what additional power is needed and selects the generator according to a set of guidelines that include least dirty first, dirty last in simple terms.
As more roof top comes into play, we'll see a significant portion of the demand being met by that source. This is especially true in daytime when residential use is lowest and commercial use highest. Since there is no storage involved, that means an even greater profit selling the roof top flow.
Storage would eliminate much of that nearly free electricity flow but the regulations regarding off-grid storage are very strict if you tie into the grid in any way. In some places, almost impossible to get permits to do it. While the regulations prohibiting it or restricting it have some value by insuring safe designs and so on, dual off-grid storage with grid tie use is a proven technology and used all over the country, its just not generally allowable for residential buildings.
Yes, in many cases the utilities distribute but they do through system operators control demand from various power generator companies. The system operators check what additional power is needed and selects the generator according to a set of guidelines that include least dirty first, dirty last in simple terms.
As more roof top comes into play, we'll see a significant portion of the demand being met by that source. This is especially true in daytime when residential use is lowest and commercial use highest. Since there is no storage involved, that means an even greater profit selling the roof top flow.
Storage would eliminate much of that nearly free electricity flow but the regulations regarding off-grid storage are very strict if you tie into the grid in any way. In some places, almost impossible to get permits to do it. While the regulations prohibiting it or restricting it have some value by insuring safe designs and so on, dual off-grid storage with grid tie use is a proven technology and used all over the country, its just not generally allowable for residential buildings.
Rightfully so IMO, big safety concerns when maintenance or repairs being done by the utility. Inverters are set up to not allow flow to the grid if it does not detect a live feed from the POCO. My boat had a similar deal between the gensets and the 2 30amp shore power cords, just in reverse. Also economically anyone with grid access is far better off on a net metering plan vs the cost of a grid tied system with battery back-up. The battery cost capacity ratio is not here yet.
Rightfully so IMO, big safety concerns when maintenance or repairs being done by the utility. Inverters are set up to not allow flow to the grid if it does not detect a live feed from the POCO. My boat had a similar deal between the gensets and the 2 30amp shore power cords, just in reverse. Also economically anyone with grid access is far better off on a net metering plan vs the cost of a grid tied system with battery back-up. The battery cost capacity ratio is not here yet.
Standardization for inverters could address one of the problems and part of the contract could be that the utilities could have access to the inverter, they already have easements and a right of way to the services on private property.
The utilities would want to supply the inverter and then not sell but lease or rent it so it creates sort of a catch-22 for the homeowner.
Like your configuration, there are probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of RVs and boats that have off-grid storage but also connect to grid power although never flowing to grid because of the ATS.
One solution though is easy enough to use, dual receptacles with one set for grid and other for the renewable resource that is local. Then you have the choice on what to use and when to use it, independent of the utility. I think we are pretty close to the point where residential off-grid storage will make sense from a financial standpoint.
Standardization for inverters could address one of the problems and part of the contract could be that the utilities could have access to the inverter, they already have easements and a right of way to the services on private property.
The utilities would want to supply the inverter and then not sell but lease or rent it so it creates sort of a catch-22 for the homeowner.
Like your configuration, there are probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of RVs and boats that have off-grid storage but also connect to grid power although never flowing to grid because of the ATS.
One solution though is easy enough to use, dual receptacles with one set for grid and other for the renewable resource that is local. Then you have the choice on what to use and when to use it, independent of the utility. I think we are pretty close to the point where residential off-grid storage will make sense from a financial standpoint.
Battery storage will never make financial sense on a typical net metering plan on a properly sized system unless the additional equipment is free. What is the benefit to storing electricity when it is always available from the grid? If you produce a 1000 kw a month and use 1000kw your net cost is zero, why pay to store it? If your concern is power interruption than install a genset, much cheaper and less to maintain.
Standardization for inverters could address one of the problems and part of the contract could be that the utilities could have access to the inverter, they already have easements and a right of way to the services on private property.
In the latest, most efficient technology, there is no "the" inverter. Instead there is a micro-inverter on each panel and they feed AC back to the controller, not DC. And they're on the roof.
Battery storage will never make financial sense on a typical net metering plan on a properly sized system unless the additional equipment is free. What is the benefit to storing electricity when it is always available from the grid? If you produce a 1000 kw a month and use 1000kw your net cost is zero, why pay to store it? If your concern is power interruption than install a genset, much cheaper and less to maintain.
Or perhaps a fuel-cell, yes. Now that the major auto manufacturers are bring fuel-cell powered ZEVs to market, I expect to see more of that technology "trickling down" to alternate uses.
Toyota is sure making a big bet on them, should be interesting. Infrastructure is real sketchy even here in Socal, I think we only have a few hydrogen stations here in San Diego. Automakers are losing massive amounts of money on all the zev stuff. Ford just cut the cost of the Focus electric another $6k. Making money on these is not even in the equation yet for these guys.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
