7 ms·

TVA has essentially made home solar financially untenable in the areas they serve. If you want to use grid tie solar, you must sell all the electricity you gene

by eppp 9y ago

TVA has essentially made home solar financially untenable in the areas they serve. If you want to use grid tie solar, you must sell all the electricity you generate to TVA at wholesale cost and buy it back at retail. https://www.knoxmercury.com/2017/03/15/tvas-resistance-net-metering-creates-obstacle-household-solar-power/ https://www.knoxmercury.com/2017/03/15/tvas-resistance-net-m...

sharpshadow 9y ago
Years ago somebody explained to me the same here in Germany and I was shocked that they allow crooked laws like this.
- phil21 9y ago
  You mean they don't allow rich solar panel owners to get their grid battery subsidized by poor folks who lack the capital for their own solar? This is a good thing. No power company should be forced to pay retail for power. It is a regressive tax on those that can least afford it. I don't think it was inappropriate to offer to get the industry off the ground, but it's quickly approaching the time to do away those subsidies - especially those that come directly from other rate-payers.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Nor should the power company force customers to buy the power that they generated themselves at the utility's price. They already paid the capital costs for generating their own power. You want them to pay again? For the transmission lines and peaking plant that they aren't using? Certainly, when the net usage is negative, the utility should pay only the wholesale cost of that portion of production in excess of local usage. When the net usage is positive, the customer should pay the retail price of that portion of usage in excess of local production. But it is nonsensical for the customer to sell the power they generate at wholesale, and immediately buy it back at retail. Immediate use should not be metered in either direction, and time-shifted use should account for peak vs. off-peak. Otherwise, all you are doing is forcing the customer to use bigger batteries to route around your obnoxious local generation policy. That "grid battery" is actually the natural gas fuel supply at the peaking plant that does not need to be used to supplement the baseline plant. Fuel that stays in the tank instead of being burned is the best "battery" we have right now. If you encourage people to use their own redox reaction batteries, you're lowering the efficiency of the entire system, and everyone loses.
    - phil21 9y ago
      Hmm, I think you may be confused/arguing against a strawman here, but I'll bite. > Nor should the power company force customers to buy the power that they generated themselves at the utility's price. No one is forcing customers to do this. I'm not sure where you get that from? If you are using more power than consuming, it does not leave your local premises. Only the excess power you are not using at that point in time is being sent. That's kind of the point of net metering. > Certainly, when the net usage is negative, the utility should pay only the wholesale cost of that portion of production in excess of local usage. Which is precisely what they do. Some are forced to pay retail - which was a temporary subsidy both to spur solar development and honestly was adopted largely due to billing convenience if nothing else 20 years ago. Easy to just let a meter spin backwards and bill/pay based on those numbers vs. developing entirely new billing software but everyone knew at the time it was temporary and financially nonsensical. > When the net usage is positive, the customer should pay the retail price of that portion of usage in excess of local production. Currently the case. > But it is nonsensical for the customer to sell the power they generate at wholesale, and immediately buy it back at retail. This isn't the case anywhere I've heard of, and definitely not the TVA. Even the linked article very clearly describes the situation as net metering as defined everywhere else. Customers are not sending all their generated power out their meter, then putting load on the "grid" on another meter back in. That would indeed be absurd. > Immediate use should not be metered in either direction, and time-shifted use should account for peak vs. off-peak. Completely agreed. > That "grid battery" is actually the natural gas fuel supply at the peaking plant that does not need to be used to supplement the baseline plant. Fuel that stays in the tank instead of being burned is the best "battery" we have right now. Yes and no. You might be surprised solar load does not match up nearly as well with peak power demand as is reported. This of course is a fine point to debate, and generally is in your favor. My main point is that power companies being forced to operate a free battery for rich solar customers is immoral when think of who is subsidizing that free battery. Rooftop solar may be about the least valuable form of power to a power company as they can do nothing to schedule production, and the rest of the rate-payers shouldn't be forced to pay retail rates to the rich few who prefer to save $15k on a local battery pack so they don't need the grid battery at night. I don't think we should force folks to require battery packs, but I also know that the financial incentives are currently lined up to have us end up with a bunch of rich folks paying nothing for power with solar systems, and a bunch of poor renters paying for 100% of the capex on things like the nuclear baseload plants so the solar folks get power at night.
- elago 9y ago
  How is it crooked? The utility company pays to builds and maintains the grid infrastructure with the expectation they can use the infrastructure to sell power to consumers. One person selling back some unspecified amount of solar with questionable reliability, without the utility company having any say when the power is provided, isn't exactly a very useful thing for a utility company, so it's surprising they even pay the same wholesale rate. Why not get a basic battery system and use that to power some loads in your house, instead of buying power from the utility company for those loads?
  - jfoutz 9y ago
    You're not allowed to use the electricity you generate. _All_ power you produce is sold to the utility at wholesale. _All_ power you consume is purchased from the utility at retail. Two separate meters.
    - elago 9y ago
      Wait what? How? Is this a Tennessee specific thing? This seems absurd and impossible to enforce. If I hypothetically spend a couple hundred bucks on a solar panel, 12v lead acid battery, and basic 12VDC -> 120VAC inverter, put those items on a wagon, and drag it across my yard to use power tools where an extension cord won't reach is the power company going to arrest/fine me? Is it only illegal once I use the batteries/inverter under my own roof?
      - jfoutz 9y ago
        If i understand the article correctly, it's illegal when you wire it to the grid. So, powertools and a battery will be fine. i suppose you could have a big switch outside your house that lets you pick local generation or grid generation, ala a datacenter failover switch. But nobody wants that. Really, i don't think many people care about selling the power back either. But they've made it already, why waste it? What people want is i'll make the first 5 kwh, and i want to buy any extra from the grid. And i don't want a big switch system for each light in my house. Which seems very normal and sane.
- wil421 9y ago
  It’s up to the states to decide I guess. In my state, the local power company lets you use what you need and then sell what you don’t use at whole sale rates. They will send you a check if you produce more than you consume. I’m not sure if you had to pay for the meter but they would install one.
logfromblammo 9y ago
And that just encourages development of an automatic switching system such that power generated on site is always used on site. It never goes out to the grid until after 100% of local demand is met, and all local storage devices are topped up. And that, in turn, would encourage those customers to just go completely independent from the grid and either find some other flexible use for excess power or shut down excess production. Pretending that local power is using grid infrastructure does not make it so. People can and will disconnect from the grid to disprove that lie.
- jedberg 9y ago
  > People can and will disconnect from the grid to disprove that lie. More and more municipalities are making this illegal. To protect their utilities, they require that you tie to the grid and sell all electricity you generate to the grid and then buy it back for more.
  - Caveman_Coder 9y ago
    Can confirm...when I was living in AZ the main argument against net metering is that the Utility company would suffer...nevermind the fact that solar users would benefit, the state legislators and ACC (Arizona Corporation Commission) always sides with the utility company.
- jonnycoder 9y ago
  I'm surprised this area of smart switches aren't more available or popular. I've done a small amount of research because I could not find a smart charge controller with AC inputs and I was considering making one with a Raspberry pi. I did however find a smart air conditioning split system that uses solar panels directly and gets any extra power from 120v ac plug: https://www.practicalpreppers.com/air-conditioning/ac-dc-air-conditioner-hybrid https://www.practicalpreppers.com/air-conditioning/ac-dc-air... It's quite effective because when the sun is shining, that's when indoor cooling is needed the most.
opo 9y ago
This seems the most fair way to handle power that is not generated by the utility. If the consumer wants to cut themselves off the grid and have enough extra solar panels and batteries to be self sufficient, that should also be allowed.
mseebach 9y ago
Yes, if you're selling product to a wholesaler, you should expect to be paid wholesale prices. The alternative is just a subsidy.
- redblacktree 9y ago
  On the other hand, wheat you grow for use on your own farm should offset the cost you pay at retail to buy supplemental wheat.
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    That's true when you're using the power as you generate it, but when you sell it back to use later, you're essentially buying power storage. Efficient power storage is harder than efficient wheat storage, so they're not very comparable.
  - dbjacobs 9y ago
    If you are generating 5kw and using 4kw only 1kw gets sent to the grid. So you are not selling those 4kw at wholesale prices and buying it back at retail. Only the power that is time shifted gets this treatment. You are free to buy batteries to do your own shifting. Also remember that wholesale costs typically just account for power generation, while retail costs also account for grid maintenance. An owner with solar is benefiting from grid maintenance, so it makes sense that they contribute. Now from a societal perspective you may want to subsidize solar. But it certainly isn't "unfair" to buy power at wholesale and sell it at retail.
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      According to the link sent by eppp TVA doesn’t allow net metering. Edit: I got the terminology wrong. I agree that expecting net metering (“free” time-shifting) is not reasonable. And it seems that in addition to the “sell all, buy all” solution it is also possible to sell (or buy) only what remains after (or is required for) local consumption. https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Valley-Renewable-Energy/Dispersed-Power-Program https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Valley-Renewable-Energy/Dispersed...
lurker10000 9y ago
This could be because of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. It basically regulates all commerce at scale in the US of A. I bet TVA took its position because of Roscoe Filbrun, a wheat farmer with a similar argument in 1942. This is a really great piece on it if you're interested. http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-one-nation-under-money/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect...
Johnny555 9y ago
Well.... they've made grid-tie solar untenable, but off-grid solar is becoming more viable with products like the Tesla Powerwall. Costs aren't low enough to make it financially viable for most people, but for new construction that faces high costs to run utility power, it can already be cheaper. By discouraging grid-tie solar, utilities may be shooting themselves in the foot as off-grid becomes more affordable.
- gwbas1c 9y ago
  Assuming a normal electric consumption, an off grid solar system costs $30-40k more than grid tied. Furthermore, the batteries won't last forever. (That's assuming electric cars, heat pump, basically an all electric household.) You gotta be far in the woods to save money!
jedharris 9y ago
PG&E here in Northern California does offer net metering -- sell to them when the sun is up and buy back at night, guaranteed a wash in $$. Good deal for us.

by eppp 9y ago

sharpshadow 9y ago

Years ago somebody explained to me the same here in Germany and I was shocked that they allow crooked laws like this.

phil21 9y ago
You mean they don't allow rich solar panel owners to get their grid battery subsidized by poor folks who lack the capital for their own solar? This is a good thing. No power company should be forced to pay retail for power. It is a regressive tax on those that can least afford it. I don't think it was inappropriate to offer to get the industry off the ground, but it's quickly approaching the time to do away those subsidies - especially those that come directly from other rate-payers.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Nor should the power company force customers to buy the power that they generated themselves at the utility's price. They already paid the capital costs for generating their own power. You want them to pay again? For the transmission lines and peaking plant that they aren't using? Certainly, when the net usage is negative, the utility should pay only the wholesale cost of that portion of production in excess of local usage. When the net usage is positive, the customer should pay the retail price of that portion of usage in excess of local production. But it is nonsensical for the customer to sell the power they generate at wholesale, and immediately buy it back at retail. Immediate use should not be metered in either direction, and time-shifted use should account for peak vs. off-peak. Otherwise, all you are doing is forcing the customer to use bigger batteries to route around your obnoxious local generation policy. That "grid battery" is actually the natural gas fuel supply at the peaking plant that does not need to be used to supplement the baseline plant. Fuel that stays in the tank instead of being burned is the best "battery" we have right now. If you encourage people to use their own redox reaction batteries, you're lowering the efficiency of the entire system, and everyone loses.
  - phil21 9y ago
    Hmm, I think you may be confused/arguing against a strawman here, but I'll bite. > Nor should the power company force customers to buy the power that they generated themselves at the utility's price. No one is forcing customers to do this. I'm not sure where you get that from? If you are using more power than consuming, it does not leave your local premises. Only the excess power you are not using at that point in time is being sent. That's kind of the point of net metering. > Certainly, when the net usage is negative, the utility should pay only the wholesale cost of that portion of production in excess of local usage. Which is precisely what they do. Some are forced to pay retail - which was a temporary subsidy both to spur solar development and honestly was adopted largely due to billing convenience if nothing else 20 years ago. Easy to just let a meter spin backwards and bill/pay based on those numbers vs. developing entirely new billing software but everyone knew at the time it was temporary and financially nonsensical. > When the net usage is positive, the customer should pay the retail price of that portion of usage in excess of local production. Currently the case. > But it is nonsensical for the customer to sell the power they generate at wholesale, and immediately buy it back at retail. This isn't the case anywhere I've heard of, and definitely not the TVA. Even the linked article very clearly describes the situation as net metering as defined everywhere else. Customers are not sending all their generated power out their meter, then putting load on the "grid" on another meter back in. That would indeed be absurd. > Immediate use should not be metered in either direction, and time-shifted use should account for peak vs. off-peak. Completely agreed. > That "grid battery" is actually the natural gas fuel supply at the peaking plant that does not need to be used to supplement the baseline plant. Fuel that stays in the tank instead of being burned is the best "battery" we have right now. Yes and no. You might be surprised solar load does not match up nearly as well with peak power demand as is reported. This of course is a fine point to debate, and generally is in your favor. My main point is that power companies being forced to operate a free battery for rich solar customers is immoral when think of who is subsidizing that free battery. Rooftop solar may be about the least valuable form of power to a power company as they can do nothing to schedule production, and the rest of the rate-payers shouldn't be forced to pay retail rates to the rich few who prefer to save $15k on a local battery pack so they don't need the grid battery at night. I don't think we should force folks to require battery packs, but I also know that the financial incentives are currently lined up to have us end up with a bunch of rich folks paying nothing for power with solar systems, and a bunch of poor renters paying for 100% of the capex on things like the nuclear baseload plants so the solar folks get power at night.
elago 9y ago
How is it crooked? The utility company pays to builds and maintains the grid infrastructure with the expectation they can use the infrastructure to sell power to consumers. One person selling back some unspecified amount of solar with questionable reliability, without the utility company having any say when the power is provided, isn't exactly a very useful thing for a utility company, so it's surprising they even pay the same wholesale rate. Why not get a basic battery system and use that to power some loads in your house, instead of buying power from the utility company for those loads?
- jfoutz 9y ago
  You're not allowed to use the electricity you generate. _All_ power you produce is sold to the utility at wholesale. _All_ power you consume is purchased from the utility at retail. Two separate meters.
  - elago 9y ago
    Wait what? How? Is this a Tennessee specific thing? This seems absurd and impossible to enforce. If I hypothetically spend a couple hundred bucks on a solar panel, 12v lead acid battery, and basic 12VDC -> 120VAC inverter, put those items on a wagon, and drag it across my yard to use power tools where an extension cord won't reach is the power company going to arrest/fine me? Is it only illegal once I use the batteries/inverter under my own roof?
    - jfoutz 9y ago
      If i understand the article correctly, it's illegal when you wire it to the grid. So, powertools and a battery will be fine. i suppose you could have a big switch outside your house that lets you pick local generation or grid generation, ala a datacenter failover switch. But nobody wants that. Really, i don't think many people care about selling the power back either. But they've made it already, why waste it? What people want is i'll make the first 5 kwh, and i want to buy any extra from the grid. And i don't want a big switch system for each light in my house. Which seems very normal and sane.
wil421 9y ago
It’s up to the states to decide I guess. In my state, the local power company lets you use what you need and then sell what you don’t use at whole sale rates. They will send you a check if you produce more than you consume. I’m not sure if you had to pay for the meter but they would install one.

logfromblammo 9y ago

And that just encourages development of an automatic switching system such that power generated on site is always used on site. It never goes out to the grid until after 100% of local demand is met, and all local storage devices are topped up. And that, in turn, would encourage those customers to just go completely independent from the grid and either find some other flexible use for excess power or shut down excess production. Pretending that local power is using grid infrastructure does not make it so. People can and will disconnect from the grid to disprove that lie.

jedberg 9y ago
> People can and will disconnect from the grid to disprove that lie. More and more municipalities are making this illegal. To protect their utilities, they require that you tie to the grid and sell all electricity you generate to the grid and then buy it back for more.
- Caveman_Coder 9y ago
  Can confirm...when I was living in AZ the main argument against net metering is that the Utility company would suffer...nevermind the fact that solar users would benefit, the state legislators and ACC (Arizona Corporation Commission) always sides with the utility company.
jonnycoder 9y ago
I'm surprised this area of smart switches aren't more available or popular. I've done a small amount of research because I could not find a smart charge controller with AC inputs and I was considering making one with a Raspberry pi. I did however find a smart air conditioning split system that uses solar panels directly and gets any extra power from 120v ac plug: https://www.practicalpreppers.com/air-conditioning/ac-dc-air-conditioner-hybrid https://www.practicalpreppers.com/air-conditioning/ac-dc-air... It's quite effective because when the sun is shining, that's when indoor cooling is needed the most.

opo 9y ago

This seems the most fair way to handle power that is not generated by the utility. If the consumer wants to cut themselves off the grid and have enough extra solar panels and batteries to be self sufficient, that should also be allowed.

mseebach 9y ago

Yes, if you're selling product to a wholesaler, you should expect to be paid wholesale prices. The alternative is just a subsidy.

redblacktree 9y ago
On the other hand, wheat you grow for use on your own farm should offset the cost you pay at retail to buy supplemental wheat.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  That's true when you're using the power as you generate it, but when you sell it back to use later, you're essentially buying power storage. Efficient power storage is harder than efficient wheat storage, so they're not very comparable.
- dbjacobs 9y ago
  If you are generating 5kw and using 4kw only 1kw gets sent to the grid. So you are not selling those 4kw at wholesale prices and buying it back at retail. Only the power that is time shifted gets this treatment. You are free to buy batteries to do your own shifting. Also remember that wholesale costs typically just account for power generation, while retail costs also account for grid maintenance. An owner with solar is benefiting from grid maintenance, so it makes sense that they contribute. Now from a societal perspective you may want to subsidize solar. But it certainly isn't "unfair" to buy power at wholesale and sell it at retail.
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    According to the link sent by eppp TVA doesn’t allow net metering. Edit: I got the terminology wrong. I agree that expecting net metering (“free” time-shifting) is not reasonable. And it seems that in addition to the “sell all, buy all” solution it is also possible to sell (or buy) only what remains after (or is required for) local consumption. https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Valley-Renewable-Energy/Dispersed-Power-Program https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Valley-Renewable-Energy/Dispersed...

lurker10000 9y ago

This could be because of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. It basically regulates all commerce at scale in the US of A. I bet TVA took its position because of Roscoe Filbrun, a wheat farmer with a similar argument in 1942. This is a really great piece on it if you're interested. http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-one-nation-under-money/ http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect...

Johnny555 9y ago

Well.... they've made grid-tie solar untenable, but off-grid solar is becoming more viable with products like the Tesla Powerwall. Costs aren't low enough to make it financially viable for most people, but for new construction that faces high costs to run utility power, it can already be cheaper. By discouraging grid-tie solar, utilities may be shooting themselves in the foot as off-grid becomes more affordable.

gwbas1c 9y ago
Assuming a normal electric consumption, an off grid solar system costs $30-40k more than grid tied. Furthermore, the batteries won't last forever. (That's assuming electric cars, heat pump, basically an all electric household.) You gotta be far in the woods to save money!

jedharris 9y ago

PG&E here in Northern California does offer net metering -- sell to them when the sun is up and buy back at night, guaranteed a wash in $$. Good deal for us.