4 ms·

It is not really about subsidies in this case. It is about a change to Net metering and the addition of a new fixed monthly fee just for solar users. Fixed fee

by jsight 11y ago

It is not really about subsidies in this case. It is about a change to Net metering and the addition of a new fixed monthly fee just for solar users. Fixed fees can significantly affect the cost of solar and some reports have this fee as high as $40/month[1]. The fact that they have also made this retroactive to existing solar customers adds a lot of uncertainty to the market as well. That can't help from a sales perspective. [1] http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/28/nevada-solar-fee-retroactive-makes-solarcity-exit-state-2000-nevada-employees-all/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/28/nevada-solar-fee-retroac...

skrause 11y ago
> It is about a change to Net metering and the addition of a new fixed monthly fee just for solar users. I've predicted rising fixed fees for solar customers before [1] and I think it's just the beginning. When a significant amount of households have a solar installation they're not really providing a service to the grid anymore. Everyone sends a lot of power into the grid when nobody else needs it during the day, and then wants power from the grid at night. So what you're basically doing is using the grid as a giant battery. The grid doesn't really need your energy most of the time, but has high fixed costs to maintain the infrastructure. I think it's just fair that you pay them for this service. If you don't want it, you need to get off the grid and install your own batteries. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10473509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10473509
- mikeash 11y ago
  The grid doesn't need your energy most of the time, but when it does need your energy it tends to be right around when you're giving it, because peak solar production lines up pretty well (admittedly not perfectly) with peak electricity consumption. If having a bunch of household solar saves the power company from spinning up expensive peaking plants, you're saving them a ton of money and performing a great service. Of course, if enough households have solar then you'll exceed what the system needs even at peak times. But we're so far away from that point that there's no reason to discuss it in the context of current policy. The big question to me in this case is, when the power company buys back solar power at wholesale rates, are they paying average wholesale rates, or are they actually paying the marginal wholesale rates at the time in question? How well do their retail rates reflect their peak marginal costs? In many places, residential rates can end up below cost at peak times, even with time of use metering. In a situation like that, switching from net metering to paying true wholesale rates could be a net gain for homeowners with solar. But I have a feeling the setup here is not quite so fair.
dpark 11y ago
I think wholesale prices or fees make sense. The combo of the two is a little ridiculous. It starts to make more sense to just burn off excess solar rather than send it back to the grid.

by jsight 11y ago

skrause 11y ago

> It is about a change to Net metering and the addition of a new fixed monthly fee just for solar users. I've predicted rising fixed fees for solar customers before [1] and I think it's just the beginning. When a significant amount of households have a solar installation they're not really providing a service to the grid anymore. Everyone sends a lot of power into the grid when nobody else needs it during the day, and then wants power from the grid at night. So what you're basically doing is using the grid as a giant battery. The grid doesn't really need your energy most of the time, but has high fixed costs to maintain the infrastructure. I think it's just fair that you pay them for this service. If you don't want it, you need to get off the grid and install your own batteries. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10473509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10473509

mikeash 11y ago
The grid doesn't need your energy most of the time, but when it does need your energy it tends to be right around when you're giving it, because peak solar production lines up pretty well (admittedly not perfectly) with peak electricity consumption. If having a bunch of household solar saves the power company from spinning up expensive peaking plants, you're saving them a ton of money and performing a great service. Of course, if enough households have solar then you'll exceed what the system needs even at peak times. But we're so far away from that point that there's no reason to discuss it in the context of current policy. The big question to me in this case is, when the power company buys back solar power at wholesale rates, are they paying average wholesale rates, or are they actually paying the marginal wholesale rates at the time in question? How well do their retail rates reflect their peak marginal costs? In many places, residential rates can end up below cost at peak times, even with time of use metering. In a situation like that, switching from net metering to paying true wholesale rates could be a net gain for homeowners with solar. But I have a feeling the setup here is not quite so fair.

dpark 11y ago

I think wholesale prices or fees make sense. The combo of the two is a little ridiculous. It starts to make more sense to just burn off excess solar rather than send it back to the grid.