3 ms·

> The resulting Kafka-esque bits were what regional grid operators and regulators jointly required _a long time ago_ as part of the transition to a "deregulated

by SilasX 5y ago

> The resulting Kafka-esque bits were what regional grid operators and regulators jointly required _a long time ago_ as part of the transition to a "deregulated" electricity market (e.g. this was not enacted in response to solar). That’s not the part I was referring to as Kafkaesque. I meant the part where the OP had to go though an obscured workflow and wait over months to receive slow replies just to get the process moving to be paid for their solar contribution. If it was a long time because that was an inherent difficulty of complying with necessary safety regulations, I would not call it Kafkaesque. But here, it’s where there are obvious attempts to scare off all but the most diligent, just to get the super-watered-down version of being paid. Ditto for stuff like “you can only trade energy within the same time bands because we have no concept of a conversion factor between different time bands”.

oogali 5y ago
> I meant the part where the OP had to go though an obscured workflow and wait over months to receive slow replies just to get the process moving to be paid for their solar contribution. This is the same workflow that commercial entities go through but employ an army of lawyers as expensive lubrication to keep the process moving. > If it was a long time because that was an inherent difficulty of complying with necessary safety regulations... Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I think you're classifying regulations as primarily for safety reasons. The important part here is regulations determine not only safety, but who can participate, what are the required qualifications[1], who gets paid, and what they get paid[2]. > But here, it’s where there are obvious attempts to scare off all but the most diligent... Yes, the regulations are fully meant to scare off anyone who isn't diligent (or the word they would prefer is "compliant"). > ...just to get the super-watered-down version of being paid. This might be a bit of hyperbole, but it's probably because the end goal is to eliminate net metering[3]. The telecom industry went through the exact same thing in the late '90s, early '00s. Its version of net metering is called "reciprocal compensation" (based on call flows). Regulators and incumbent lawyers worked in tandem to chip away at this until the rates were so low it didn't matter. > Ditto for stuff like “you can only trade energy within the same time bands because we have no concept of a conversion factor between different time bands”. Hoo boy, look at page 4 and 5 of that TX PUC document[3] where the regulators make a decision to disallow the utilities from using meters that would allow for net metering due to time bands. 1: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/UT/htm/UT.37.htm https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/UT/htm/UT.37.htm 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing 3: https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/rulesnlaws/subrules/electric/25.217/34890adt.pdf https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/rulesnlaws/subrules/electri...
- SilasX 5y ago
  > This is the same workflow that commercial entities go through but employ an army of lawyers as expensive lubrication to keep the process moving. And? How does that make it any more defensible in the context of the point I was making there? What is that replying to? > Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I think you're classifying regulations as primarily for safety reasons. No, I was referring back to your own claim[1] that some of them are for that reason: >>> The primary things the utility (both transmission and generation) wants to avoid is backfeeding and islanding — the former is dangerous to linemen, the latter is dangerous to your neighbors’ equipment. And then using that in a hypothetical to clarify what I would vs would not count as Kafkaesque processes intended to scare off solar users (vs satisfy an inherent domain constraint). I don’t know what, once read in context, would give a different impression. > This might be a bit of hyperbole, but it's probably because the end goal is to eliminate net metering[3]. Yes? That was my point all along? That rather than make token efforts to get the incentives in alignment, they’re just stubbornly fighting things that would benefit solar because “sigh, more work [as things currently stand]”. > Yes, the regulations are fully meant to scare off anyone who isn't diligent (or the word they would prefer is "compliant"). You’re mixing two separate issues there. Yes, we want people to comply with regulations. No, we don’t want to trick people into not selling their solar because they failed to keep calling and escalating their tickets to an agency that ghosts them. I was referring to the latter, and for some reason you’re redefining the point to refer to the former, and then acting like I don’t understand why we’d want people who can follow regulations. > Hoo boy, look at page 4 and 5 of that TX PUC document[3] where the regulators make a decision to disallow the utilities from using meters that would allow for net metering due to time bands. I’m not sure what that means since it’s not a coherent claim, as I understand the original issue, which was whether you can apply credit for power supplied in one time to power drawn at a different time *on your bill. So “crediting you for your power contribution” is an accounting-level concept, not a hardware-level concept. You trade energy at one time for energy at another time via accounting; you don’t need special meters for it beyond their ability to know when the power passed through. (Unless you’re saying that they prohibited meters with any awareness of time, which is doubtful since they still would need to use billing periods.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30195749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30195749

by SilasX 5y ago

oogali 5y ago

> I meant the part where the OP had to go though an obscured workflow and wait over months to receive slow replies just to get the process moving to be paid for their solar contribution. This is the same workflow that commercial entities go through but employ an army of lawyers as expensive lubrication to keep the process moving. > If it was a long time because that was an inherent difficulty of complying with necessary safety regulations... Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I think you're classifying regulations as primarily for safety reasons. The important part here is regulations determine not only safety, but who can participate, what are the required qualifications[1], who gets paid, and what they get paid[2]. > But here, it’s where there are obvious attempts to scare off all but the most diligent... Yes, the regulations are fully meant to scare off anyone who isn't diligent (or the word they would prefer is "compliant"). > ...just to get the super-watered-down version of being paid. This might be a bit of hyperbole, but it's probably because the end goal is to eliminate net metering[3]. The telecom industry went through the exact same thing in the late '90s, early '00s. Its version of net metering is called "reciprocal compensation" (based on call flows). Regulators and incumbent lawyers worked in tandem to chip away at this until the rates were so low it didn't matter. > Ditto for stuff like “you can only trade energy within the same time bands because we have no concept of a conversion factor between different time bands”. Hoo boy, look at page 4 and 5 of that TX PUC document[3] where the regulators make a decision to disallow the utilities from using meters that would allow for net metering due to time bands. 1: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/UT/htm/UT.37.htm https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/UT/htm/UT.37.htm 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing 3: https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/rulesnlaws/subrules/electric/25.217/34890adt.pdf https://www.puc.texas.gov/agency/rulesnlaws/subrules/electri...

SilasX 5y ago
> This is the same workflow that commercial entities go through but employ an army of lawyers as expensive lubrication to keep the process moving. And? How does that make it any more defensible in the context of the point I was making there? What is that replying to? > Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I think you're classifying regulations as primarily for safety reasons. No, I was referring back to your own claim[1] that some of them are for that reason: >>> The primary things the utility (both transmission and generation) wants to avoid is backfeeding and islanding — the former is dangerous to linemen, the latter is dangerous to your neighbors’ equipment. And then using that in a hypothetical to clarify what I would vs would not count as Kafkaesque processes intended to scare off solar users (vs satisfy an inherent domain constraint). I don’t know what, once read in context, would give a different impression. > This might be a bit of hyperbole, but it's probably because the end goal is to eliminate net metering[3]. Yes? That was my point all along? That rather than make token efforts to get the incentives in alignment, they’re just stubbornly fighting things that would benefit solar because “sigh, more work [as things currently stand]”. > Yes, the regulations are fully meant to scare off anyone who isn't diligent (or the word they would prefer is "compliant"). You’re mixing two separate issues there. Yes, we want people to comply with regulations. No, we don’t want to trick people into not selling their solar because they failed to keep calling and escalating their tickets to an agency that ghosts them. I was referring to the latter, and for some reason you’re redefining the point to refer to the former, and then acting like I don’t understand why we’d want people who can follow regulations. > Hoo boy, look at page 4 and 5 of that TX PUC document[3] where the regulators make a decision to disallow the utilities from using meters that would allow for net metering due to time bands. I’m not sure what that means since it’s not a coherent claim, as I understand the original issue, which was whether you can apply credit for power supplied in one time to power drawn at a different time *on your bill. So “crediting you for your power contribution” is an accounting-level concept, not a hardware-level concept. You trade energy at one time for energy at another time via accounting; you don’t need special meters for it beyond their ability to know when the power passed through. (Unless you’re saying that they prohibited meters with any awareness of time, which is doubtful since they still would need to use billing periods.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30195749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30195749