3 ms·
> Like more than 40 other U.S. states, Nevada forces utilities to buy the excess energy at rates set by regulators—usually the same rate utilities charge (hence
by bko 11y ago
> Like more than 40 other U.S. states, Nevada forces utilities to buy the excess energy at rates set by regulators—usually the same rate utilities charge (hence, the net in net metering).
It seems to me that the obvious solution would be to allow energy companies to purchase the excess energy created by these solar panels without a mandated price. I understand that the company is producing energy at X and selling it at Y where Y > X. If it is forced to buy and sell at Y, it's losing money when compared to producing the energy themselves. The energy companies are basically being forced to subsidize the solar companies by eating away their profit margin so I understand where they're coming from.
> First, NV Energy deployed its lobbyists to limit the total amount of energy homeowners and small businesses were allowed to generate to 3 percent of peak capacity for all utilities. Then it expertly argued its case before regulators, who rewrote the rules for net-metering customers. In December it scored a major win: Nevada’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) imposed rules that not only make it more expensive to go solar, but also make it uneconomical for those who’ve already signed up.
Instead, the solution appears to be lobbying from the energy producer to put arbitrary restrictions on the energy capacity that can be produced by solar. This seems crazy, or am I missing something?
- csense 11y agoThe problem is that solar doesn't have storage or inertia. If too big a percentage of the grid is solar, you have a problem at night or on cloudy days (no storage) and you have instability when the load changes suddenly (no inertia).
- ZeroGravitas 11y agoThe original 1:1 ratio was set for mechanical reasons I believe. One unit of energy coming in from the grid spins the meter a certain amount, one unit going back to the grid winds the meter back to where it started from. I think I read that the first solar panel user just plugged in without telling anyone and it just kind of worked so everyone adopted it and not enough people had solar for it to matter very much. For similar reasons, most people pay a single energy rate despite peak generation costing much more to generate. With more modern meters you can have off-peak tariffs or even more complicated schemes. Now of course, solar starts to matter as uptake rises, but there's no reason to assume that the energy is necessarily worth less than the retail rate (in which case the homeowner would be subsidising the utility rather than vice versa). Solar correlates well with peak loads on both a daily and yearly cycle so the cost of generation avoided at those specific times may well be much higher than even the retail rate. As far as I can tell the wholesale rate they mention is the average for the whole year, not just the peaks when solar is contributing.
- celticninja 11y agoBut then the energy firm will just offer a ridiculously low price, where else will the homeowner sell the energy to but their monopoly energy provider. In a competitive market this may be a suitable option but it doesnt sound like the energy market in this location could be considered competitive.