7 ms·

> The policy, called net metering, has become a lightning rod of controversy since it was adopted decades ago: solar backers say it has been crucial to supporti

by msie 5y ago

> The policy, called net metering, has become a lightning rod of controversy since it was adopted decades ago: solar backers say it has been crucial to supporting the industry's growth in the fight against climate change, while critics contend it amounts to a multi-billion dollar subsidy for wealthy homeowners at the expense of other utility ratepayers. I don't agree. Isn't it just a matter of buying energy from those homeowners? Or is there more to it?

willcipriano 5y ago
The electricity you consume is fairly cheap, the infrastructure to deliver the electricity is the bulk of the cost. The infrastructure cost is included in the per kilowatt price consumers pay, if you have solar panels you can pay much less for electricity, but the per unit costs of delivering service to your household hasn't changed and gets picked up by other consumers who are consuming the same amount of energy as you, just not from a solar panel.
- philipkglass 5y ago
  In principle this can be fixed by splitting infrastructure charges from energy consumption charges. But that opens another can of worms because of how consumers have previously enjoyed effective subsidies from bundling costs into per-unit charges. Rural customers in low density areas would have higher bills if they paid for infrastructure explicitly. So would customers in dense areas who consume only a little electricity each month but still need the infrastructure to work around the clock. Customers who live in urban or suburban areas and consume a lot of electricity would see their bills fall. Since this latter group tends to be more affluent than the previous two groups, charging each customer for their actual infrastructure costs is also likely to be perceived as unfair.
- throwaway81523 5y ago
  > The electricity you consume is fairly cheap, the infrastructure to deliver the electricity is the bulk of the cost. That sounds outlandish given the way electricity prices have jumped and are strongly tied to fuel prices. Anyway, if a solar panel keeps some amount of CO2 out of the air, that's worth cutting into the de facto subsidy that the power utility is otherwise getting by being allowed to emit it.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    To start with you lose about 30% of any power generated in losses between generation and delivering it to the consumer, so at a minimum you have to add 30% to the prices utility companies are paying for power to contrast it correctly with consumer prices. From there you have to run and then maintain, something like hundreds of thousands of miles of lines, that are dangerous to work on, twenty four hours a day. You need teams of workers, parking lots full of bucket trucks, and millions of dollars of specialized equipment and spare parts. Pulling some coal out of a mine in Appalachia, putting it on a train and throwing it into a furnace, while difficult is a lot simpler in comparison.
    - philipkglass 5y ago
      Transmission and distribution losses in the United States are about 5%, not 30%: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3
      - willcipriano 5y ago
        Looks like I misremembered, you are correct.
- supertrope 5y ago
  Generation 56% transmission 13% distribution 31% https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-f...

by msie 5y ago

willcipriano 5y ago

The electricity you consume is fairly cheap, the infrastructure to deliver the electricity is the bulk of the cost. The infrastructure cost is included in the per kilowatt price consumers pay, if you have solar panels you can pay much less for electricity, but the per unit costs of delivering service to your household hasn't changed and gets picked up by other consumers who are consuming the same amount of energy as you, just not from a solar panel.

philipkglass 5y ago
In principle this can be fixed by splitting infrastructure charges from energy consumption charges. But that opens another can of worms because of how consumers have previously enjoyed effective subsidies from bundling costs into per-unit charges. Rural customers in low density areas would have higher bills if they paid for infrastructure explicitly. So would customers in dense areas who consume only a little electricity each month but still need the infrastructure to work around the clock. Customers who live in urban or suburban areas and consume a lot of electricity would see their bills fall. Since this latter group tends to be more affluent than the previous two groups, charging each customer for their actual infrastructure costs is also likely to be perceived as unfair.
throwaway81523 5y ago
> The electricity you consume is fairly cheap, the infrastructure to deliver the electricity is the bulk of the cost. That sounds outlandish given the way electricity prices have jumped and are strongly tied to fuel prices. Anyway, if a solar panel keeps some amount of CO2 out of the air, that's worth cutting into the de facto subsidy that the power utility is otherwise getting by being allowed to emit it.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  To start with you lose about 30% of any power generated in losses between generation and delivering it to the consumer, so at a minimum you have to add 30% to the prices utility companies are paying for power to contrast it correctly with consumer prices. From there you have to run and then maintain, something like hundreds of thousands of miles of lines, that are dangerous to work on, twenty four hours a day. You need teams of workers, parking lots full of bucket trucks, and millions of dollars of specialized equipment and spare parts. Pulling some coal out of a mine in Appalachia, putting it on a train and throwing it into a furnace, while difficult is a lot simpler in comparison.
  - philipkglass 5y ago
    Transmission and distribution losses in the United States are about 5%, not 30%: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      Looks like I misremembered, you are correct.
supertrope 5y ago
Generation 56% transmission 13% distribution 31% https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-f...