3 ms·

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 t

by 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.
  - gordyf 9y ago
    > 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. That is exactly what the linked article claims is happening to TVA customers: "Thus, any grid-tied solar system within the TVA region must have dual metering, one to measure power coming off the grid, another to measure power going to the grid. The arrangement with TVA is likewise “buy all, sell all” in that you have no choice but to sell all the power you generate to TVA, then you buy back whatever you actually consume."
  - eppp 9y ago
    I feel like you didnt read it. "Thus, any grid-tied solar system within the TVA region must have dual metering, one to measure power coming off the grid, another to measure power going to the grid. The arrangement with TVA is likewise “buy all, sell all” in that you have no choice but to sell all the power you generate to TVA, then you buy back whatever you actually consume." That is exactly what TVA does. That is what "buy all, sell all" means. http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/01/24/indiana-energy-bill-would-eliminate-net-metering-move-to-buy-all-sell-all-solar-model/ http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/01/24/indiana-energy-bill-...
    - phil21 9y ago
      Yep, I was mistaken. I didn't reach the end of the article apparently the first read. I do agree that is problematic and silly.
- opo 9y ago
  The article is an advocacy piece andit turns out isn't telling the entire story. The rules are described here: https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Valley-Renewable-Energy/Dispersed-Power-Program https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Valley-Renewable-Energy/Dispersed... There are 3 options: >Self-Generation The electricity produced serves the facility’s needs first. Any excess electricity is delivered to the power grid without payment. If the facility needs additional electricity, it must be bought from the local power company. >Self-Generation and Dispersed Power Contract The electricity produced serves the facility’s needs first. TVA purchases any excess electricity that is delivered to the grid. If the facility needs additional electricity, it must be bought from the local power company. >Dispersed Power Sell-All Contract All of the electricity produced and delivered to the power grid is sold to TVA. The facility buys all of its electricity from the local power company. (Two meters—one for electricity purchased by the customer from the local power company, and one for electricity generated by the customer and sold to TVA—are required.)
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    So no one would ever choose option 3, and no one would choose option 1, unless the installation was so small that the capital cost of the dual-channel meter would never be recovered. If it were truly the customer's choice, this would not be an issue, because the customer should always prefer #2 to #3. So what does TVA do (if anything) to get customers to pick #3, or force them into it? Also note that net metering is not an option. #2 uses a dual-channel meter to track outgoing power separately from incoming power. Net metering is not necessarily the optimal metering solution, either, but TVA doesn't even offer it.

by phil21 9y ago

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.
- gordyf 9y ago
  > 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. That is exactly what the linked article claims is happening to TVA customers: "Thus, any grid-tied solar system within the TVA region must have dual metering, one to measure power coming off the grid, another to measure power going to the grid. The arrangement with TVA is likewise “buy all, sell all” in that you have no choice but to sell all the power you generate to TVA, then you buy back whatever you actually consume."
- eppp 9y ago
  I feel like you didnt read it. "Thus, any grid-tied solar system within the TVA region must have dual metering, one to measure power coming off the grid, another to measure power going to the grid. The arrangement with TVA is likewise “buy all, sell all” in that you have no choice but to sell all the power you generate to TVA, then you buy back whatever you actually consume." That is exactly what TVA does. That is what "buy all, sell all" means. http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/01/24/indiana-energy-bill-would-eliminate-net-metering-move-to-buy-all-sell-all-solar-model/ http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/01/24/indiana-energy-bill-...
  - phil21 9y ago
    Yep, I was mistaken. I didn't reach the end of the article apparently the first read. I do agree that is problematic and silly.
opo 9y ago
The article is an advocacy piece andit turns out isn't telling the entire story. The rules are described here: https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Valley-Renewable-Energy/Dispersed-Power-Program https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Valley-Renewable-Energy/Dispersed... There are 3 options: >Self-Generation The electricity produced serves the facility’s needs first. Any excess electricity is delivered to the power grid without payment. If the facility needs additional electricity, it must be bought from the local power company. >Self-Generation and Dispersed Power Contract The electricity produced serves the facility’s needs first. TVA purchases any excess electricity that is delivered to the grid. If the facility needs additional electricity, it must be bought from the local power company. >Dispersed Power Sell-All Contract All of the electricity produced and delivered to the power grid is sold to TVA. The facility buys all of its electricity from the local power company. (Two meters—one for electricity purchased by the customer from the local power company, and one for electricity generated by the customer and sold to TVA—are required.)
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  So no one would ever choose option 3, and no one would choose option 1, unless the installation was so small that the capital cost of the dual-channel meter would never be recovered. If it were truly the customer's choice, this would not be an issue, because the customer should always prefer #2 to #3. So what does TVA do (if anything) to get customers to pick #3, or force them into it? Also note that net metering is not an option. #2 uses a dual-channel meter to track outgoing power separately from incoming power. Net metering is not necessarily the optimal metering solution, either, but TVA doesn't even offer it.