3 ms·

The whole "paying the fair share" is just propaganda from oil companies. I saw a great video about that recently which sums up the situation nicely. https://www

by oittaa 3y ago

The whole "paying the fair share" is just propaganda from oil companies. I saw a great video about that recently which sums up the situation nicely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPfpa2KqYk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPfpa2KqYk0

timerol 3y ago
> Why is this important? Because the potential impact of net-metered solar on electricity prices doesn’t even become relevant until you reach higher levels of penetration, or roughly 10% and beyond. I think what I said was in line with that video's conclusions, which seemed to be arguing for continued net metering in the eastern half of the country, and used CA as an example of when the current policy hits its limits.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Real time variable rates are needed. These would also incentivize all sorts of load shifting strategies, which are very economically advantageous, if the damned pricing system can allow them.
  - oittaa 3y ago
    That's very common in Finland and I think in many other countries in Europe. People use their water heaters, charge cars, etc. during the night when it's basically free. https://sähkösopimukset.com/en/ https://xn--shksopimukset-bfb6y.com/en/
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      The old scheme was variable rates on a fixed schedule. I'm talking about more flexible variable rates that correspond to actual conditions (both supply and demand), adjusted at high cadence.
  - ed25519FUUU 3y ago
    That makes it harder for PG&E to gouged customers!
MostlyStable 3y ago
I'm a fan of this guys channel, he does good work and is generally well informed and informative. This video was by far his worst ever. Yes, the groups supporting this stuff have questionable motives, but the fact is that the payment model for power needs to change under a "prosumer" paradigm. Disentangling grid connection fees and power fees just makes sense. And yes, it does reduce the incentive of putting rooftop solar, but that's because the incentive was artificially high. Being connected to the grid is a valuable service that should be paid for. We used to pay for that because the cost was baked into the price of power. Now that some people are, on net, not buying power, it needs to be disentangled. Infrastructure needs to be maintained, and that has costs that need to be paid even as we switch to a renewable future. Imagine a situation where everyone has rooftop solar, enough that, under net metering, they pay no fees. What happens? The power company goes under and now you don't have a grid. Which every one of those solar users _still needs_. There is _value_ in being able to buy power when you want it and produce it when you don't, and that value should be paid for.

by oittaa 3y ago

timerol 3y ago

> Why is this important? Because the potential impact of net-metered solar on electricity prices doesn’t even become relevant until you reach higher levels of penetration, or roughly 10% and beyond. I think what I said was in line with that video's conclusions, which seemed to be arguing for continued net metering in the eastern half of the country, and used CA as an example of when the current policy hits its limits.

pfdietz 3y ago
Real time variable rates are needed. These would also incentivize all sorts of load shifting strategies, which are very economically advantageous, if the damned pricing system can allow them.
- oittaa 3y ago
  That's very common in Finland and I think in many other countries in Europe. People use their water heaters, charge cars, etc. during the night when it's basically free. https://sähkösopimukset.com/en/ https://xn--shksopimukset-bfb6y.com/en/
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The old scheme was variable rates on a fixed schedule. I'm talking about more flexible variable rates that correspond to actual conditions (both supply and demand), adjusted at high cadence.
- ed25519FUUU 3y ago
  That makes it harder for PG&E to gouged customers!

MostlyStable 3y ago

I'm a fan of this guys channel, he does good work and is generally well informed and informative. This video was by far his worst ever. Yes, the groups supporting this stuff have questionable motives, but the fact is that the payment model for power needs to change under a "prosumer" paradigm. Disentangling grid connection fees and power fees just makes sense. And yes, it does reduce the incentive of putting rooftop solar, but that's because the incentive was artificially high. Being connected to the grid is a valuable service that should be paid for. We used to pay for that because the cost was baked into the price of power. Now that some people are, on net, not buying power, it needs to be disentangled. Infrastructure needs to be maintained, and that has costs that need to be paid even as we switch to a renewable future. Imagine a situation where everyone has rooftop solar, enough that, under net metering, they pay no fees. What happens? The power company goes under and now you don't have a grid. Which every one of those solar users _still needs_. There is _value_ in being able to buy power when you want it and produce it when you don't, and that value should be paid for.