4 ms·

This is all rather bizarre. If PG&E charges 30 cents/kWh for a marginal kWh delivered, then either something is quite wrong with the pricing model or it really

by amluto 4y ago

This is all rather bizarre. If PG&E charges 30 cents/kWh for a marginal kWh delivered, then either something is quite wrong with the pricing model or it really does cost some respectable fraction of 30 cents/kWh to get a marginal kWh through their system into their distribution network where the customer is. If it's the latter, then reduction of 1 kWh delivered should save them the same amount of money. I think the real issue is that the pricing is almost completely divorced from the actual cost structure, so the whole rate system is a kludge that gives everyone the wrong incentives.

secabeen 4y ago
Reduction of 1kWh delivered does not save them the same amount of money because the cost of connection is dominated by the 1st kW delivered. Scaling delivered power does have some cost, but the majority of delivery is in being able to deliver power to a particular area in the first place and to the maintenance of the lines providing any power.
- amluto 4y ago
  Yes and no. If I draw an extra 10 kWh one random hour and export 10 kWh back at some other random hour, this costs the utility essentially nothing. The transformer is already there, and other customers near me will consume it possibly without even involving the transformer. (I say “essentially” because there is some tiny loss in the system, but that’s maybe 2%, not 70%.)
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Absolutely false. Wholesale electricity costs vary wildly with time of day. You’re saying the grid should be forced to act as an unlimited battery for free and that just doesn’t make sense.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
eppp 4y ago
The issue is that you have to size the hardware for a multiple of the power draw you expect and the cost doesn't go down because people use less temporarily. You also have to do all the vegetation management and billing and it and billing regardless of the amount of kWh that are used even if a solar install is negative. They might draw today and it has to be available.
- amluto 4y ago
  > They might draw today and it has to be available. This is true for non-solar customers too. It may be more true for solar, but unexpectedly high residential loads happen for all kinds of reasons. (A big one is heat on a very cold day, and that tends to be a correlated load.)
majormajor 4y ago
> If it's the latter, then reduction of 1 kWh delivered should save them the same amount of money. The "net metering" policy being changed isn't regarding "saving the grid the money by reducing the amount delivered to a customer." If you don't use the power from them, you don't pay for it. But this is about the utility paying the customer the retail rate for excess generation - aka paying retail rate for something that would offset a cost they'd otherwise pay wholesale rate to generate. This is about the current (not the new) system: https://news.energysage.com/net-metering-2-0-in-california-everything-you-need-to-know/ https://news.energysage.com/net-metering-2-0-in-california-e... It's not clear to me at all that it makes sense to compel the utility to purchase your excess power at the retail rate, if you're generating more than you can use. It also seems to gives weird incentives to size and spend on your home setup.

by amluto 4y ago

secabeen 4y ago

Reduction of 1kWh delivered does not save them the same amount of money because the cost of connection is dominated by the 1st kW delivered. Scaling delivered power does have some cost, but the majority of delivery is in being able to deliver power to a particular area in the first place and to the maintenance of the lines providing any power.

amluto 4y ago
Yes and no. If I draw an extra 10 kWh one random hour and export 10 kWh back at some other random hour, this costs the utility essentially nothing. The transformer is already there, and other customers near me will consume it possibly without even involving the transformer. (I say “essentially” because there is some tiny loss in the system, but that’s maybe 2%, not 70%.)
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Absolutely false. Wholesale electricity costs vary wildly with time of day. You’re saying the grid should be forced to act as an unlimited battery for free and that just doesn’t make sense.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

eppp 4y ago

The issue is that you have to size the hardware for a multiple of the power draw you expect and the cost doesn't go down because people use less temporarily. You also have to do all the vegetation management and billing and it and billing regardless of the amount of kWh that are used even if a solar install is negative. They might draw today and it has to be available.

amluto 4y ago
> They might draw today and it has to be available. This is true for non-solar customers too. It may be more true for solar, but unexpectedly high residential loads happen for all kinds of reasons. (A big one is heat on a very cold day, and that tends to be a correlated load.)

majormajor 4y ago

> If it's the latter, then reduction of 1 kWh delivered should save them the same amount of money. The "net metering" policy being changed isn't regarding "saving the grid the money by reducing the amount delivered to a customer." If you don't use the power from them, you don't pay for it. But this is about the utility paying the customer the retail rate for excess generation - aka paying retail rate for something that would offset a cost they'd otherwise pay wholesale rate to generate. This is about the current (not the new) system: https://news.energysage.com/net-metering-2-0-in-california-everything-you-need-to-know/ https://news.energysage.com/net-metering-2-0-in-california-e... It's not clear to me at all that it makes sense to compel the utility to purchase your excess power at the retail rate, if you're generating more than you can use. It also seems to gives weird incentives to size and spend on your home setup.