4 ms·
Well, if my net usage from the grid were to drop to zero, without solar (say because I used a gas generator or whatnot), I’d basically be paying the utility zer
by greendave 5y ago
Well, if my net usage from the grid were to drop to zero, without solar (say because I used a gas generator or whatnot), I’d basically be paying the utility zero too (modulo some small connection fees). The utility still wouldn’t save on any of its fixed costs though. What net metering with solar does is simply make this option much more practical.
The straightforward solution would be to fund major infrastructure costs using something other than volumetric pricing. But it’s easier to just impose fees on solar.
- Macha 5y agoOr to put in a smaller scale and not require adding your own generation, are you stealing from an electricity company's fixed costs if you turn all your applicances off when you go on holiday, or if you have a holiday home which is only occupied 25% of the year? I think the answer is clearly not.
- greendave 5y agoOr for that matter, switching to more efficient appliances or other types of conservation.
- SamBam 5y agoBut there's a huge difference between actual zero usage and net-zero usage. That's the whole point. If you're using a generator (or, as another comment said, just use hardly any electricity) then you're not a burden on the system at all (or barely). If you're "net zero" because you feed the grid your excess power during the day and take away power during the night, you're using all their infrastructure. In your example, you don't need the grid, so it makes sense not to pay grid overhead (minus arguments about how we still pay for schools with taxes even if we're not using them). In the solar example you absolutely need the grid. So net metering down to zero is definitely a subsidy. A subsidy I absolutely agree with, but a subsidy none-the-less.