Quote"Under the PUC plan, new solar customers would face a one-time fee for connection to the electric grid. The commission estimates that the fee would range from $75 to $150 per solar customer.
In addition, rooftop solar customers would pay a fee of 2 cents to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity used from the utility companies, no matter how much power their solar systems generate. This fee would amount to about $5 a month for the average solar user.
Utilities also would place new solar customers on time-of-use rates, which rise during periods of high electricity demand.
Existing owners are exempted from all the changes for 20 years from when they installed their solar systems and connected to the grid."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rooftop-solar-subsidy-20151215-story.html
This strikes me as silly at a time when we should be encouraging solar power.
The power utilities do have a valid argument for requiring a monthly fee for providing 'stand-by' power. The problem is, once they establish a toe-hold, fee creep will set in.
If you're going solar in the US, I think the right strategy would be to split off and build the system around separate, stand-alone base-line loads. Maybe start with enough bank to run an HVAC system. The main problem, though, is shifting from generating power to storage.
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/vermont-utility-teams-with-tesla-to-offer-home-battery-installment-plan/410357/
I'm waiting for smart, plug-n-play inverters paired with stand-alone systems requiring NO batteries. We're in the early stages now, similar to the revolution wi-fi brought to the internet.
Quote from: rcjordan on December 16, 2015, 02:19:09 PM
The power utilities do have a valid argument for requiring a monthly fee for providing 'stand-by' power.
Exactly. I am on the maintenance district advisory board of our small water and sewer utility which serves about 250 homes. We see a similar problem when people conserve water for the drought. Income drops and a lot of our costs are fixed. So we have a lot of second home owners who pump very little money into the system, but the system needs to handle their load when they show up on the weekend.
We have standby fees for low-volume users, but it's not enough. We have a rate study under way and we'll see how that shakes out in the future.
Same idea here. If you want the option of partaking in the grid, you need to pay for that infrastructure.
> The main problem, though, is shifting from generating power to storage.
It is interesting to think how electric cars will play into this as they become more widely used. I suppose some day they'll have smart charging where they'll communicate with the grid.
>electric cars
People forget that our existing hybrids have large battery capacity. A couple of years ago, some guy with a Prius got some press after a hurricane by providing aux power for his home with his car rather than a generator.
BTW, these batteries are relatively cheap when salvaged from wrecks. I know a guy who bought one to fix his Honda hybrid.
We are on the cusp of a yet another tech convergence when it comes to power consumption and distribution. Debbie says the fuel and utility companies will face almost the exact issues the cable companies are wrestling with now.
The UK govt is in the process of lowering feed in tariffs and iirc had subsidised installations until recently. At the moment you can earn around 13 pence (20 cents) per kW/h which is probably more than what most people pay in N.America.
Can see the point of the electric companies, Hydro One who we used in Canada had a 'service fee' which would seem more sensible though. Everyone needs the infrastructure regardless of how little/much they need extra juice.
Solving the storage issue would help even out the issue. Peak demand is in darkness here over half the year. It'd be splendid if we could more or less be self sufficient for energy per household within my lifetime.
Quote from: littleman on December 16, 2015, 05:49:03 PM
I suppose some day they'll have smart charging where they'll communicate with the grid.
This has huge potential to even out demand. If you have large parking lots where most spaces have charging stations, cars plug in and have a min charge and a sell/buy threshold. So if you charged at home and you have more than enough range to get home, you sell when everyone's AC kicks on in the summer.
CA utilities got the stand-by fee.
http://gizmodo.com/desperate-california-utilities-win-effort-to-squeeze-mo-1755765770
...now the fee creep begins
LEFT COAST BORN & RAISED
Increase in fees may be offset by:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tampon-tax-could-finally-eliminated-170428732.html
Quote from: rcjordan on January 28, 2016, 11:59:20 PM
CA utilities got the stand-by fee.
http://gizmodo.com/desperate-california-utilities-win-effort-to-squeeze-mo-1755765770
...now the fee creep begins
<RANT>
This article actually just angers me.
First, it is a flat out lie:
Quoteowners to shell over some extra money to their local energy provider—even if they don't need them at all.
No! If you live off the grid, you do not shell out anything. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. You just have to fully opt out, not go half way. Go off the grid and give the finger to the utilities.
This is only for people who want their rooftop solar AND want a backup source in case they feel like running their A/C in excess of the electricity they produce or they feel like running electricity at night in excess of what they can store. And that standby capacity has real costs for utilities.
Imagine the extreme case. 70% have rooftop solar and minimal storage. It's fine nine months of the year. So for those nine months, the utility doesn't produce anything, because the solar people net meter and the juice goes into the grid and powers everyone. Great
But now December rolls around a solar generation drops to half of what's needed to run your house. Now the 30% without solar need juice from, say, a natural gas plant, but so do the 70% of solar users. So at 8pm on December 21, you have the same generating needs as if nobody had a solar panel. Maintaining that standby infrastructure is not only expensive, it gets massively expensive on a KWH basis once people opt out nine months a year.
To me, saying that solar users can tap in without paying a reasonable amount for that insurance is like I saying I can buy car insurance after the accident. It just doesn't make any economic sense and you can't keep a system solvent that way (that's why health insurance to function should be required of everyone in a society, which is how most developed nations function, with one notable exception).
Now if you want to say "Okay, we want to subsidize solar" that's fine, but that should come out of general taxes, not fall disproportionately on a handful of ratepayers who, because of location, may not have the option of running solar (pretty much anyone in an appartment building, for example).
As I mentioned, I sort of help oversee a utility district that has a lot of users who have effectively opted out because they have second homes that they almost never use. The problem with this is that our water and sewer plant has to be built to handle peak weekend flows when everyone is there, but we only collect revenue on that level of usage twice a week and even then only if the weather is good.
Now some people can build just outside the district and put in their own well and septic. More power to 'em. They are fully disconnected and I'm not going to ask them for money. Same situation.
Harumph...
</RANT>
I need to get older. I'm just cranky... I aspire to be a cranky old man, which is more endearing than just cranky.
BTW... I am NOT anti-solar. I am worried about climate change, air quality and many things. I think solar needs some level of assistance either in the form of subsidies or elmination of the indirect subsidies to the petroleum and coal industries (massive beneficiaries who, therefore, have an unfair advantage over solar).
I am in the process if signing up for a program that becomes available next week to pay significantly more and get energy from 100% renewable sources (supposedly at least) because I think it's important to guarantee markets for that infrastructure. But I'm in a position to pay a bit more for me power because it's an issue that is important to me and I have some slack in my finances.
Some people who are just getting by and who can't afford solar, however, also can't afford to subsidize the people can afford to install solar and still have all that standby capacity just in case.