3 ms·

pjc50, I really hope you give the sibling comment's argument a chance. Net metering is not at all unambiguously good, and in practice is simply a wealth transf

pjc50, I really hope you give the sibling comment's argument a chance. Net metering is not at all unambiguously good, and in practice is simply a wealth transfer to the wealthy (who own a house and can afford panels) from the poor. It might be a decent way to kick start solar (like other subsidies) but as a long term policy it is extremely regressive.

pjc50 8y ago
As you say, if we want green power it's going to have to be mandate or subsidy to someone, and it's not a bad idea to bribe the middle class to support green energy. Otherwise you end up with the argument that "building a wind farm is simply a wealth transfer to the capitalist bankers who funded it from the poor people who have to pay for energy", which is true but ignores the wind farm. "Energy poverty" is a real problem but that needs to be addressed separately. I'd rather raise energy prices and increase transfer payments than try to keep energy cheap, so long as any of it is generated by fossil fuels.
- reitzensteinm 8y ago
  I'm OK with society as a whole bearing the cost burden of transitioning to renewables. I'm opposed to making the poor pay for it. Why use horribly regressive net metering, when you could just subsidize panels out of the general tax pool which is progressive in most countries? The reason net metering is chosen is people don't understand or choose to ignore the hidden (but very real) increase in the price of electricity paid by the poor, unlike a line item on a budget which must be explicitly allocated out of the budget. > Economics 101: producing more of a product makes it more expensive! No, wait, the other thing. The sibling commenter was absolutely right on that point (I don't agree with him eveywhere). If you view it as so trivially wrong that you can be flippant about it, it's because you don't understand the issue.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Neither of you have really presented an argument that (a) establishes that net metering is overall more expensive than other renewable means of supplying the electricity (b) the price of electricity fed to the grid is strongly coupled to the retail price charged for it, rather than a operating as two separate markets; (c) that electricity pricing, which everyone consumes, is actually regressive; (d) that the effect of solar energy supplied at peak time is actually an overall increase in prices, especially those paid by retail consumers ("duck curve"); (e) that this overrides all other ethical or redistributive concerns. There's plenty of argument in the other direction: http://www.renewwisconsin-blog.org/2014/06/judge-overturns-regressive-net-metering.html http://www.renewwisconsin-blog.org/2014/06/judge-overturns-r... https://ctmirror.org/category/ct-viewpoints/eliminating-net-metering-is-a-huge-step-backward/ https://ctmirror.org/category/ct-viewpoints/eliminating-net-... "This “cost-shift” argument is a tactic from the utility playbook and is commonly used by clean energy opponents. But it lacks any basis in fact" https://www.utilitydive.com/news/wellinghoff-and-tong-a-common-confusion-over-net-metering-is-undermining-u/355388/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/wellinghoff-and-tong-a-comm...
    - tostrstrudel 8y ago
      This author makes a good argument as to why rooftop solar is a bad deal from a technical perspective, specifically with regard to system stability: https://syonyk.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-typical-home-solar-setup-does-not-work-off-grid.html https://syonyk.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-typical-home-solar-s... See the section on "Power Grid Stability and Rooftop Solar"
    - reitzensteinm 8y ago
      The first link is a judicial decision on the interpretation of the law, and the second a diatribe with nothing backing it up. The third actually makes some arguments and links to data, which is great, so I went and read the reports they're linking to, to see if they back up the claims made. 1) The Nevada study > They contend that, far from shifting costs, NEM customers create net value to the grid and all grid users. One only need look to a study commissioned by the neutral Nevada Public Utility Commission that shows NEM customers provide a net present value benefit of $36M to non-NEM customers in Nevada. The Nevada study does not tackle net metering in a vacuum. It's comparing it as an alternative to legislated renewable energy quotas and finds it a wash, i.e. the utility builds solar or buys it from customers. This isn't surprising, and doesn't support the claims the article makes. 2) CPUC Study > But critics (as well as NEM advocates) overlooked that the same CPUC report also found that NEM customers as a whole “appear to be paying slightly more than their full cost of service” – 103% of their costs, to be precise. The link was broken, but I hunted it down. The full table looks like this: [Customer Type] [Without DG] [With DG] Residential: 154% 81% Non Residential: 122% 112% Combined: 133% 103% In other words, a residential customer that installs solar under net metering will go from paying their cost and providing a profit margin for the utility, to paying far less than their cost, raising the price for other customers (as we have been saying). The benefits to non residential customers under net metering laws are lower, because it doesn't necessarily help with the demand charge (because the power is actually paid for in a more fair way). Pointing to a combined number in a table and discounting the need for a profit margin is basically an outright fabrication. The table explicitly supports the fact that net metering is a regressive transfer of wealth, and the author used it to argue the opposite. So while the first two links were obviously rubbish, I had to waste half an hour of my life digging in to the reports behind the third link to find out that it, in turn, also turns out to be rubbish. The author was clearly just mining reports for data points that would fit their narrative.

pjc50 8y ago

As you say, if we want green power it's going to have to be mandate or subsidy to someone, and it's not a bad idea to bribe the middle class to support green energy. Otherwise you end up with the argument that "building a wind farm is simply a wealth transfer to the capitalist bankers who funded it from the poor people who have to pay for energy", which is true but ignores the wind farm. "Energy poverty" is a real problem but that needs to be addressed separately. I'd rather raise energy prices and increase transfer payments than try to keep energy cheap, so long as any of it is generated by fossil fuels.

reitzensteinm 8y ago
I'm OK with society as a whole bearing the cost burden of transitioning to renewables. I'm opposed to making the poor pay for it. Why use horribly regressive net metering, when you could just subsidize panels out of the general tax pool which is progressive in most countries? The reason net metering is chosen is people don't understand or choose to ignore the hidden (but very real) increase in the price of electricity paid by the poor, unlike a line item on a budget which must be explicitly allocated out of the budget. > Economics 101: producing more of a product makes it more expensive! No, wait, the other thing. The sibling commenter was absolutely right on that point (I don't agree with him eveywhere). If you view it as so trivially wrong that you can be flippant about it, it's because you don't understand the issue.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Neither of you have really presented an argument that (a) establishes that net metering is overall more expensive than other renewable means of supplying the electricity (b) the price of electricity fed to the grid is strongly coupled to the retail price charged for it, rather than a operating as two separate markets; (c) that electricity pricing, which everyone consumes, is actually regressive; (d) that the effect of solar energy supplied at peak time is actually an overall increase in prices, especially those paid by retail consumers ("duck curve"); (e) that this overrides all other ethical or redistributive concerns. There's plenty of argument in the other direction: http://www.renewwisconsin-blog.org/2014/06/judge-overturns-regressive-net-metering.html http://www.renewwisconsin-blog.org/2014/06/judge-overturns-r... https://ctmirror.org/category/ct-viewpoints/eliminating-net-metering-is-a-huge-step-backward/ https://ctmirror.org/category/ct-viewpoints/eliminating-net-... "This “cost-shift” argument is a tactic from the utility playbook and is commonly used by clean energy opponents. But it lacks any basis in fact" https://www.utilitydive.com/news/wellinghoff-and-tong-a-common-confusion-over-net-metering-is-undermining-u/355388/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/wellinghoff-and-tong-a-comm...
  - tostrstrudel 8y ago
    This author makes a good argument as to why rooftop solar is a bad deal from a technical perspective, specifically with regard to system stability: https://syonyk.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-typical-home-solar-setup-does-not-work-off-grid.html https://syonyk.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-typical-home-solar-s... See the section on "Power Grid Stability and Rooftop Solar"
  - reitzensteinm 8y ago
    The first link is a judicial decision on the interpretation of the law, and the second a diatribe with nothing backing it up. The third actually makes some arguments and links to data, which is great, so I went and read the reports they're linking to, to see if they back up the claims made. 1) The Nevada study > They contend that, far from shifting costs, NEM customers create net value to the grid and all grid users. One only need look to a study commissioned by the neutral Nevada Public Utility Commission that shows NEM customers provide a net present value benefit of $36M to non-NEM customers in Nevada. The Nevada study does not tackle net metering in a vacuum. It's comparing it as an alternative to legislated renewable energy quotas and finds it a wash, i.e. the utility builds solar or buys it from customers. This isn't surprising, and doesn't support the claims the article makes. 2) CPUC Study > But critics (as well as NEM advocates) overlooked that the same CPUC report also found that NEM customers as a whole “appear to be paying slightly more than their full cost of service” – 103% of their costs, to be precise. The link was broken, but I hunted it down. The full table looks like this: [Customer Type] [Without DG] [With DG] Residential: 154% 81% Non Residential: 122% 112% Combined: 133% 103% In other words, a residential customer that installs solar under net metering will go from paying their cost and providing a profit margin for the utility, to paying far less than their cost, raising the price for other customers (as we have been saying). The benefits to non residential customers under net metering laws are lower, because it doesn't necessarily help with the demand charge (because the power is actually paid for in a more fair way). Pointing to a combined number in a table and discounting the need for a profit margin is basically an outright fabrication. The table explicitly supports the fact that net metering is a regressive transfer of wealth, and the author used it to argue the opposite. So while the first two links were obviously rubbish, I had to waste half an hour of my life digging in to the reports behind the third link to find out that it, in turn, also turns out to be rubbish. The author was clearly just mining reports for data points that would fit their narrative.