5 ms·

> stop the attacks on solar installation I've not heard of any attacks, just reductions in subsidies (tax credits, net metering). Can you share what you're ref

> stop the attacks on solar installation I've not heard of any attacks, just reductions in subsidies (tax credits, net metering). Can you share what you're referring to?

KptMarchewa 3y ago
Removing those subsidies while keeping fossil fuel ones is kind of attack.
TheOsiris 3y ago
isn't that an attack? removing/reducing subsidies removes incentives for people to install more solar
- gnicholas 3y ago
  I don't generally view the removal of subsidies as being "attacks". I view that as the end of the free money.
- janpieterz 3y ago
  Depends how you see it. If you assume a neutral state of no incentives, adding benefits to stimulate growth and later removing this benefits once growth is achieved can be seen as "attacking this positive state" or simply "bringing back to neutral". I moved to SoCal recently and didn't realize things like net metering even existed, so when people started to rant about these new measures I was very surprised to learn about them, and especially about people presuming these things to be "normal".
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    > when people started to rant about these new measures I was very surprised to learn about them, and especially about people presuming these things to be "normal". I think at first people were (reasonably) scared that net metering might go away with no grandfathering for existing installations. People had a reasonable reliance interest in maintaining at least some of their existing benefits for the payoff period of their panels. Once it was clear that existing installations would be grandfathered, I didn't hear much ranting anymore — just people who were bummed that a subsidy was going away (or people rushing to get in under the wire).
- opo 3y ago
  The problem with rooftop solar is that it is very, very, expensive compared to utility grade solar: >…Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings and nuclear power have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 117 and 282 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour. https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz... If we want to subsidize a renewable energy source, why should we subsidize rooftop solar when we could subsidize utility grade solar or wind? Money is fungible and not unlimited - a dollar that goes to subsidize residential rooftop solar is a dollar that would go much, much further if it was used to subsidize utility grade solar or wind. Rooftop solar subsidies are also unusual in that much of the subsidy is often paid by less well-off households to subsidize their wealthier neighbors - sort of a reverse Robinhood scheme.
what_ever 3y ago
Is net metering a subsidy?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Absolutely. If a customer is permitted to buy as much electricity as they want at a fixed price while also being able to sell as much as they can at a different time at a fixed price, it seems like there's an obvious subsidy happening anytime they sell electricity at other than when the wholesale price is the highest or buy other than when the wholesale price is lowest. (In areas with an excess of solar generation capacity, these distortions become quite large.) (I'm still all for these subsidies on the balance of factors; we just shouldn't pretend that they're not subsidies.)
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    But until the relevant grid is saturated with solar generation, surely the surplus just needs to be moved around. And if the grid itself is saturated, that means it isn't big enough.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  If few people use net metering it's kind of fair. Your solar installation generates electricity, any excess gets delivered to your neighbors. The electricity is providing the infrastructure for that without making any money on that specific transaction (it gets deducted from your meter and added to your neighbors' meter), but that's easy enough to account for in base fees. The issues start if too many people do net metering. Imagine everyone has a solar roof and reaches net-zero electricity. You can still maintain the infrastructure with base fees, but the electricity company still has to run power plants in the morning and evening when demand outstrips solar supply, and for baseload in the night. And during the day there's now an oversupply of electricity that they somehow have to sell. In commercial electricity generation many countries have a kind of spot market for electricity, where prices are determined by demand (down to the minute) and available supply. Prices can go close to zero if lots of solar and wind capacity is available, or far above the price charged to consumer for capacity to cover the evening peak. If we changed consumer prices to more accurately reflected this "true" market price (plus markup for the grid operator), with prices changing by the minute, net metering would be pretty fair. But so far there's little desire to dump all that complexity on regular consumers.
SECProto 3y ago
All electricity generation throughout the US is subsidized in various ways already - eg low interest loans for new generation capacity, programs for low income earners, not (or not effectively) charging for carbon and methane emissions, low fuel taxes on sources used for electricity generation. The "subsidies" you list help make a desirable energy source compete on a more level playing field - matching benefits that competing energy sources already receive.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  My understanding is that when utilities buy energy from solar farms, they do so based on the demand and available supply, meaning that solar farms get paid more or less depending on these factors. But with net metering for residential solar installations, utilities are buying independent of supply/demand, which gives the residents a subsidy even vis-a-vis other solar producers. I understand that all kinds of energy production methods are subsidized, but if net metering lets residential solar owners get paid more for the energy they produce than solar farms would be paid, I don't see how that's anything but a subsidy.
  - SECProto 3y ago
    There are all kinds of complications - commercial solar isn't dispatchable so it does tend to get lower rates than most other sources. In my jurisdiction residential (net metering) customers are only allowed to install a certain numbers of panels - corresponding with household energy consumption and assumed production levels (i.e. your monthly bill will never be negative - at lowest you'll be paying distribution charges and 0 for consumption). With low levels of residential solar installation, locally installed panels can help balance the grid as it is consumed on distribution lines and doesnt need transmission lines (conversely, high levels can unbalance the grid). > if net metering lets residential solar owners get paid more for the energy they produce than solar farms would be paid, I don't see how that's anything but a subsidy. Paying them nothing would be even more unfair (and that's the only option available where I am at least - net metering or no household generation)
    - 3y ago
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> > stop the attacks on solar installation > I've not heard of any attacks, just reductions in subsidies. Can you share what you're referring to? I do appreciate a softball. https://duckduckgo.com/?va=c&t=he&q=political+attacks+on+solar+energy https://duckduckgo.com/?va=c&t=he&q=political+attacks+on+sol...
- gnicholas 3y ago
  I guess you didn't actually click through to the links; they refer to windmills, solar panel pricing issues in SE Asia, and various other topics (I'm sure some links involve the CA govt attacking solar, but the first several didn't). Maybe next time you can post a couple links that you've actually read, instead of just giving the impression that there are scads of attacks at your fingertips?
bagels 3y ago
California specific: income based minimum pricing, and 'wholesale' pricing for power sent to the grid.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Income-based base billing is indeed terrible, but it is not an attack on solar. You'd pay it whether you have panels or not. Also, legislators have apparently come to their senses and are looking to repeal it. [1-2] As for the pricing for power sent to the grid, I did mention the changes to net metering, which offer grandfathering for existing installations. 1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-progressive-california-epiphany-over-soaring-electricity-rates-climate-energy-7f564c60 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-progressive-california-epipha... 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39320388#39320860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39320388#39320860
  - bagels 3y ago
    The high fixed monthly cost regardless of utilization means that compared to previous, my total costs for solar go up, even if my total costs for PGE supplied power don't. That will cause many fewer people to switch to solar or solar + battery.
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      It doesn't change the calculus for switching. It's the same fixed cost either way. The price is simply going up for customers who are not poor. I don't see how this makes someone more or less likely to switch to solar, since the dollar amount they can save stays the same. An analogy: your kid's preschool has an option where you can volunteer once a month and save $50/month. One day, they announce that they are going to institute a new fee that ranges from $10-100, depending on your income. How does that new fee cause fewer people to decide to volunteer?
      - bagels 3y ago
        Previously: Spend $60k to save $200/month Now: Spend $60k to save $100/month Break even would then be much further in to the future. Solar is a large capital expenditure, and this change reduces the return on that investment.
brlewis 3y ago
I'm not the OP, but probably https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/01/30/arizona-proposes-solar-power-export-tax/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/01/30/arizona-proposes-sola...
- gnicholas 3y ago
  OP was complaining about CA, and this appears to be an proposed law in AZ. It could affect CA utility prices because it relates to export, but it's not up to CA to decide what laws are passed in another state, governing the usage of land in that state.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    In California the switch to NEM 3.0 more or less means that folks with solar will get socked with high monthly fees and much lower export rates (roughly wholesale instead of retail). NEM 3.0 came into effect in April of last year.
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      > folks with solar will get socked That's not quite right. Existing installs are grandfathered for 20 years, right? [1] 1: https://www.ecowatch.com/solar/net-metering/net-metering-3-0 https://www.ecowatch.com/solar/net-metering/net-metering-3-0
      - inferiorhuman 3y ago
        Right but we're talking the effect on new installs (and upgrades beyond a certain amount, and eventual maintenance on older NEM 1.0 and 2.0 installs). With NEM 1 exports were paid out at retail rates and there were no interconnect fees. With NEM 3 exports are paid at roughly wholesale rates with a $145 monthly interconnect fee. NEM 3 is absolutely an attack on solar installs.
        gnicholas 3y ago
vondur 3y ago
Basically, to get subsidies, you need to install a battery storage system with a solar installation. This can be quite a bit more expensive than the solar alone. (worth it if possible, adds a backup in case of a power outage too)

> stop the attacks on solar installation I've not heard of any attacks, just reductions in subsidies (tax credits, net metering). Can you share what you're referring to?

KptMarchewa 3y ago

Removing those subsidies while keeping fossil fuel ones is kind of attack.

TheOsiris 3y ago

isn't that an attack? removing/reducing subsidies removes incentives for people to install more solar

gnicholas 3y ago
I don't generally view the removal of subsidies as being "attacks". I view that as the end of the free money.
janpieterz 3y ago
Depends how you see it. If you assume a neutral state of no incentives, adding benefits to stimulate growth and later removing this benefits once growth is achieved can be seen as "attacking this positive state" or simply "bringing back to neutral". I moved to SoCal recently and didn't realize things like net metering even existed, so when people started to rant about these new measures I was very surprised to learn about them, and especially about people presuming these things to be "normal".
- gnicholas 3y ago
  > when people started to rant about these new measures I was very surprised to learn about them, and especially about people presuming these things to be "normal". I think at first people were (reasonably) scared that net metering might go away with no grandfathering for existing installations. People had a reasonable reliance interest in maintaining at least some of their existing benefits for the payoff period of their panels. Once it was clear that existing installations would be grandfathered, I didn't hear much ranting anymore — just people who were bummed that a subsidy was going away (or people rushing to get in under the wire).
opo 3y ago
The problem with rooftop solar is that it is very, very, expensive compared to utility grade solar: >…Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings and nuclear power have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 117 and 282 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour. https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz... If we want to subsidize a renewable energy source, why should we subsidize rooftop solar when we could subsidize utility grade solar or wind? Money is fungible and not unlimited - a dollar that goes to subsidize residential rooftop solar is a dollar that would go much, much further if it was used to subsidize utility grade solar or wind. Rooftop solar subsidies are also unusual in that much of the subsidy is often paid by less well-off households to subsidize their wealthier neighbors - sort of a reverse Robinhood scheme.

what_ever 3y ago

Is net metering a subsidy?

sokoloff 3y ago
Absolutely. If a customer is permitted to buy as much electricity as they want at a fixed price while also being able to sell as much as they can at a different time at a fixed price, it seems like there's an obvious subsidy happening anytime they sell electricity at other than when the wholesale price is the highest or buy other than when the wholesale price is lowest. (In areas with an excess of solar generation capacity, these distortions become quite large.) (I'm still all for these subsidies on the balance of factors; we just shouldn't pretend that they're not subsidies.)
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  But until the relevant grid is saturated with solar generation, surely the surplus just needs to be moved around. And if the grid itself is saturated, that means it isn't big enough.
wongarsu 3y ago
If few people use net metering it's kind of fair. Your solar installation generates electricity, any excess gets delivered to your neighbors. The electricity is providing the infrastructure for that without making any money on that specific transaction (it gets deducted from your meter and added to your neighbors' meter), but that's easy enough to account for in base fees. The issues start if too many people do net metering. Imagine everyone has a solar roof and reaches net-zero electricity. You can still maintain the infrastructure with base fees, but the electricity company still has to run power plants in the morning and evening when demand outstrips solar supply, and for baseload in the night. And during the day there's now an oversupply of electricity that they somehow have to sell. In commercial electricity generation many countries have a kind of spot market for electricity, where prices are determined by demand (down to the minute) and available supply. Prices can go close to zero if lots of solar and wind capacity is available, or far above the price charged to consumer for capacity to cover the evening peak. If we changed consumer prices to more accurately reflected this "true" market price (plus markup for the grid operator), with prices changing by the minute, net metering would be pretty fair. But so far there's little desire to dump all that complexity on regular consumers.

SECProto 3y ago

All electricity generation throughout the US is subsidized in various ways already - eg low interest loans for new generation capacity, programs for low income earners, not (or not effectively) charging for carbon and methane emissions, low fuel taxes on sources used for electricity generation. The "subsidies" you list help make a desirable energy source compete on a more level playing field - matching benefits that competing energy sources already receive.

gnicholas 3y ago
My understanding is that when utilities buy energy from solar farms, they do so based on the demand and available supply, meaning that solar farms get paid more or less depending on these factors. But with net metering for residential solar installations, utilities are buying independent of supply/demand, which gives the residents a subsidy even vis-a-vis other solar producers. I understand that all kinds of energy production methods are subsidized, but if net metering lets residential solar owners get paid more for the energy they produce than solar farms would be paid, I don't see how that's anything but a subsidy.
- SECProto 3y ago
  There are all kinds of complications - commercial solar isn't dispatchable so it does tend to get lower rates than most other sources. In my jurisdiction residential (net metering) customers are only allowed to install a certain numbers of panels - corresponding with household energy consumption and assumed production levels (i.e. your monthly bill will never be negative - at lowest you'll be paying distribution charges and 0 for consumption). With low levels of residential solar installation, locally installed panels can help balance the grid as it is consumed on distribution lines and doesnt need transmission lines (conversely, high levels can unbalance the grid). > if net metering lets residential solar owners get paid more for the energy they produce than solar farms would be paid, I don't see how that's anything but a subsidy. Paying them nothing would be even more unfair (and that's the only option available where I am at least - net metering or no household generation)
  - 3y ago

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> > stop the attacks on solar installation > I've not heard of any attacks, just reductions in subsidies. Can you share what you're referring to? I do appreciate a softball. https://duckduckgo.com/?va=c&t=he&q=political+attacks+on+solar+energy https://duckduckgo.com/?va=c&t=he&q=political+attacks+on+sol...

gnicholas 3y ago
I guess you didn't actually click through to the links; they refer to windmills, solar panel pricing issues in SE Asia, and various other topics (I'm sure some links involve the CA govt attacking solar, but the first several didn't). Maybe next time you can post a couple links that you've actually read, instead of just giving the impression that there are scads of attacks at your fingertips?

bagels 3y ago

California specific: income based minimum pricing, and 'wholesale' pricing for power sent to the grid.

gnicholas 3y ago
Income-based base billing is indeed terrible, but it is not an attack on solar. You'd pay it whether you have panels or not. Also, legislators have apparently come to their senses and are looking to repeal it. [1-2] As for the pricing for power sent to the grid, I did mention the changes to net metering, which offer grandfathering for existing installations. 1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-progressive-california-epiphany-over-soaring-electricity-rates-climate-energy-7f564c60 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-progressive-california-epipha... 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39320388#39320860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39320388#39320860
- bagels 3y ago
  The high fixed monthly cost regardless of utilization means that compared to previous, my total costs for solar go up, even if my total costs for PGE supplied power don't. That will cause many fewer people to switch to solar or solar + battery.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    It doesn't change the calculus for switching. It's the same fixed cost either way. The price is simply going up for customers who are not poor. I don't see how this makes someone more or less likely to switch to solar, since the dollar amount they can save stays the same. An analogy: your kid's preschool has an option where you can volunteer once a month and save $50/month. One day, they announce that they are going to institute a new fee that ranges from $10-100, depending on your income. How does that new fee cause fewer people to decide to volunteer?
    - bagels 3y ago
      Previously: Spend $60k to save $200/month Now: Spend $60k to save $100/month Break even would then be much further in to the future. Solar is a large capital expenditure, and this change reduces the return on that investment.

brlewis 3y ago

I'm not the OP, but probably https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/01/30/arizona-proposes-solar-power-export-tax/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/01/30/arizona-proposes-sola...

gnicholas 3y ago
OP was complaining about CA, and this appears to be an proposed law in AZ. It could affect CA utility prices because it relates to export, but it's not up to CA to decide what laws are passed in another state, governing the usage of land in that state.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  In California the switch to NEM 3.0 more or less means that folks with solar will get socked with high monthly fees and much lower export rates (roughly wholesale instead of retail). NEM 3.0 came into effect in April of last year.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    > folks with solar will get socked That's not quite right. Existing installs are grandfathered for 20 years, right? [1] 1: https://www.ecowatch.com/solar/net-metering/net-metering-3-0 https://www.ecowatch.com/solar/net-metering/net-metering-3-0
    - inferiorhuman 3y ago
      Right but we're talking the effect on new installs (and upgrades beyond a certain amount, and eventual maintenance on older NEM 1.0 and 2.0 installs). With NEM 1 exports were paid out at retail rates and there were no interconnect fees. With NEM 3 exports are paid at roughly wholesale rates with a $145 monthly interconnect fee. NEM 3 is absolutely an attack on solar installs.
      - gnicholas 3y ago

vondur 3y ago

Basically, to get subsidies, you need to install a battery storage system with a solar installation. This can be quite a bit more expensive than the solar alone. (worth it if possible, adds a backup in case of a power outage too)