4 ms·

> retail = wholesale No. > Is transmission and distribution fully covered by the connection fee? No. Retail cost pays for long distance transmission and dis

by sliken 4y ago

> retail = wholesale No. > Is transmission and distribution fully covered by the connection fee? No. Retail cost pays for long distance transmission and distribution. Thus PGE paying some power plant 100 miles away, running high voltage long distance lines, paying for land, paying for towers, paying for transmission losses, maintenance of the towers, substations along the way, etc. > If so, then the retail price is the wholesale price. If I have a 10Kwh surplus and my neighbor uses it. Why should I get paid wholesale and they pay retail? The infrastructure is trivial, just the neighborhoods normal power infrastructure. Why should it subsidize buying land, towers, copper etc to connect to a distant power station, just to send power across a neighbor? The connection to the local power grid is what the connection is for. That way even if a neighborhood uses net zero power over a month, PGE gets the connection fee to run the local grid. I do however believe that the "free battery" should be time of use based. If it's $0.05 per kwh at noon (peak solar or so) and $0.20 at 9pm then you have to contribute 4 kwh at noon to get a "free" kwh at 9pm.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
You aren't selling it to your neighbor. You are selling it to the power company who is then selling it to your neighbor. If the power company had the option, their strong preference would be to buy from a generator 500 miles away for 5-10% the cost. Your neighborhood needs to be connected to the grid because of weather and winter, So the infrastructure needs are fixed. Rooftop solar doesn't help reduce this need for infrastructure. Once they are built, PGE would rather use them to buy from the cheapest generator possible than let transmission sit idle and pay 20x more for a local rooftop generator. Sourcing expensive power locally when available doesnt save PGE or the neighbor anything. It is purely a financial waste for both of them.
- sliken 4y ago
  "their strong preference would be to buy from a generator 500 miles away for 5-10% the cost." Agreed, they want to maximize profit in an environment where they don't pay for externalizes like carbon emissions, pollution, global warming, etc. "Your neighborhood needs to be connected to the grid because of weather and winter, So the infrastructure needs are fixed. Rooftop solar doesn't help reduce this need for infrastructure." Actually it does. Grids are designed for the worst case, typically the hottest day of the year where AC use is the highest. Typically in the 3-6pm range which is usually the hottest part of the day. Measures include starting up peaker plants, scheduling hydro for peak output, dropping voltages, and consumer programs where they raise the thermostat so the AC goes on less. Exactly the kind of thing that solar helps with. With battery programs (like SGIP in California) the solar benefit is even extended a few hours into the evening. The dreaded "duck" curve caused by solar could provide significant incentives for batteries and non-solar, which also decreases the cost of grid. > Sourcing expensive power locally when available doesn't save PGE or the neighbor anything. It is purely a financial waste for both of them. It shouldn't be about saving money, it should be about doing whats right for the environment. Sure PGE won't have as much money for executive bonuses and stock dividends. But cleaner air, less carbon emissions, and a more resilient grid are worthy goals. It also means the neighbors pay quite a bit less, at least if they are willing to shift their usages. If half the homes in California had solar the day time power would be nearly free, and some batteries and time shifted power use would mean that the average home would pay less than today.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I disagree with everything you're saying and think that I have pointed out why. The 5-10% cost is for commercial solar. Not for carbon generation. PG&E profits are limited by law. The grid needs capacity to provide 100% non-local power. Rooftop solar doesn't reduce any grid costs.

by sliken 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

You aren't selling it to your neighbor. You are selling it to the power company who is then selling it to your neighbor. If the power company had the option, their strong preference would be to buy from a generator 500 miles away for 5-10% the cost. Your neighborhood needs to be connected to the grid because of weather and winter, So the infrastructure needs are fixed. Rooftop solar doesn't help reduce this need for infrastructure. Once they are built, PGE would rather use them to buy from the cheapest generator possible than let transmission sit idle and pay 20x more for a local rooftop generator. Sourcing expensive power locally when available doesnt save PGE or the neighbor anything. It is purely a financial waste for both of them.

sliken 4y ago
"their strong preference would be to buy from a generator 500 miles away for 5-10% the cost." Agreed, they want to maximize profit in an environment where they don't pay for externalizes like carbon emissions, pollution, global warming, etc. "Your neighborhood needs to be connected to the grid because of weather and winter, So the infrastructure needs are fixed. Rooftop solar doesn't help reduce this need for infrastructure." Actually it does. Grids are designed for the worst case, typically the hottest day of the year where AC use is the highest. Typically in the 3-6pm range which is usually the hottest part of the day. Measures include starting up peaker plants, scheduling hydro for peak output, dropping voltages, and consumer programs where they raise the thermostat so the AC goes on less. Exactly the kind of thing that solar helps with. With battery programs (like SGIP in California) the solar benefit is even extended a few hours into the evening. The dreaded "duck" curve caused by solar could provide significant incentives for batteries and non-solar, which also decreases the cost of grid. > Sourcing expensive power locally when available doesn't save PGE or the neighbor anything. It is purely a financial waste for both of them. It shouldn't be about saving money, it should be about doing whats right for the environment. Sure PGE won't have as much money for executive bonuses and stock dividends. But cleaner air, less carbon emissions, and a more resilient grid are worthy goals. It also means the neighbors pay quite a bit less, at least if they are willing to shift their usages. If half the homes in California had solar the day time power would be nearly free, and some batteries and time shifted power use would mean that the average home would pay less than today.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I disagree with everything you're saying and think that I have pointed out why. The 5-10% cost is for commercial solar. Not for carbon generation. PG&E profits are limited by law. The grid needs capacity to provide 100% non-local power. Rooftop solar doesn't reduce any grid costs.