5 ms·

If you have a wind, solar, and storage setup on your house that supplies 110% of your household needs... who pays for the hookup and maintenance for your house

by shagie 2y ago

If you have a wind, solar, and storage setup on your house that supplies 110% of your household needs... who pays for the hookup and maintenance for your house to be connected to the grid? With the current approach, that is paid for by everyone. If you are just paying for the net energy used from the grid, and that's 0 (or less) then someone else is paying for the grid infrastructure maintenance (that you are using to push your power out onto the grid). That in turn means that the people who can least afford to offset their own power consumption by installing rooftop solar and whole house backup batteries are the ones that are paying proportionally more for those who can do rooftop solar and backup to be able to connect to the grid. And that's where the problem with just net metering is. If it was net metering + flat infrastructure fee, that would be a different thing. The sustainability that PG&E is concerned about in this context is the sustainability of the infrastructure itself - not the power sources. California is concerned that the maintenance of the infrastructure (that everyone uses) is being placed disproportionally on people with less means to put up rooftop solar.

coldtea 2y ago
>If you have a wind, solar, and storage setup on your house that supplies 110% of your household needs... who pays for the hookup and maintenance for your house to be connected to the grid? Presumably people do pay taxes, no? This should get them basic infrastructure as a public power grid - and their house being hooked to it, amond many other things like bridges, roads, running water, and so on.
- shagie 2y ago
  The power lines are maintained by private companies (PG&E for example). Many of these companies across multiple states. The larger interconnect is not necessarily owned by the same organization that does the last mile. Is it your suggestion that the power lines and local power (e.g. Alameda Municipal Power) be taken over by the state itself and be made responsible for their maintenance and funding? Or are you suggesting that California taxes be used to fund the California Independent System Operator (which also operates in Nevada, but not Northern California which is part of WRAP along with southern and central Oregon, south eastern Washington, and a tidbit of Idaho. As it stands, the electric utility is private - not public. A public takeover of a private company (and multiple private companies) would likely be distasteful to many.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I was opposed to it at the time, but I very much regret that California didn't buy PG&E out of bankruptcy and do just that.
    - shagie 2y ago
      But PG&E doesn't own all the lines. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/260b4513acdb4a3a8e4d64e69fc84fee/explore?location=37.540510%2C-121.566865%2C10.37 https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/260b4513acdb4a3a8e4d64e69fc... For example, PG&E owns the line that goes from Coyote to Tracy, but the ones that runs perpendicular to it is owned by Critical Energy. Or https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/260b4513acdb4a3a8e4d64e69fc84fee/explore?location=38.828293%2C-122.001848%2C12.11 https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/260b4513acdb4a3a8e4d64e69fc... One line owned by PG&E, the next line is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_66 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_66 (some of which is owned by PG&E, some of which is owned by other companies). > Two of the power lines run from Malin Substation southeast of Klamath Falls, Oregon to Round Mountain Substation northeast of Redding, California. One of them is owned by Western Area Power Administration, with the other owned by Pacific Gas and Electric and PacifiCorp jointly.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I agree, but i have come to believe customers are best served by a locally controlled retailer that buys power and then pays someone to transport it. I don't have a source handy, but if I recall correctly, most local retailers like Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Smud) have substantially lower rates. Last I checked they were like half of my PG&E bill
        shagie 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Municipal_Power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Municipal_Power > Founded in 1887, it provides electricity to c. 34,000 residential, commercial, and municipal customers at rates up to 20 percent below neighboring communities. > ... > AMP has been providing 100% clean energy since 2020 and did so in 2023 at approximately a 35% saving over comparable PG&E rates. However, my point is one of that the state of California shouldn't be the one owning (and maintaining) the transmission lines. And even if there was a public takeover of PG&E back when it was going through its bankruptcy - there still would have been many transmission lines owned by companies that are not PG&E. Having taxes go to a hypothetical state-PG&E would also get into issues of the public sector directly competing with the private sector and using money from California for areas that they are not serviced by ( https://www.arcgis.com/apps/instant/minimalist/index.html?appid=03ef3d359a2842f0bd87359fb2ffebf8 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/instant/minimalist/index.html?ap... ). You can see that Alameda and Sacramento and many other areas are not serviced by PG&E. Would it be reasonable for California to have bought PG&E and then add to the taxes for California to support the connection fees... and how would you handle the people who live in areas that aren't served by PG&E (like Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Mountain House, Sacramento ... and all of Southern California ... and everything east of the Sierras but still in California)
briffle 2y ago
In my state, there is a connection fee, and a usage fee. Even if I replace my power 100% with solar generated from my own home, and batteries, I would still pay the connection fee for the meter. When I lived in the midwest, the interconnect was a seperate group, and I payed 3 fees on my bill: 1. the connection fee 2. the transmission fee (to ATC to operate the 'grid') 3. a usage fee. In both bills, the usage fee is the one that goes up quickly.

by shagie 2y ago

coldtea 2y ago

>If you have a wind, solar, and storage setup on your house that supplies 110% of your household needs... who pays for the hookup and maintenance for your house to be connected to the grid? Presumably people do pay taxes, no? This should get them basic infrastructure as a public power grid - and their house being hooked to it, amond many other things like bridges, roads, running water, and so on.

shagie 2y ago
The power lines are maintained by private companies (PG&E for example). Many of these companies across multiple states. The larger interconnect is not necessarily owned by the same organization that does the last mile. Is it your suggestion that the power lines and local power (e.g. Alameda Municipal Power) be taken over by the state itself and be made responsible for their maintenance and funding? Or are you suggesting that California taxes be used to fund the California Independent System Operator (which also operates in Nevada, but not Northern California which is part of WRAP along with southern and central Oregon, south eastern Washington, and a tidbit of Idaho. As it stands, the electric utility is private - not public. A public takeover of a private company (and multiple private companies) would likely be distasteful to many.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I was opposed to it at the time, but I very much regret that California didn't buy PG&E out of bankruptcy and do just that.
  - shagie 2y ago
    But PG&E doesn't own all the lines. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/260b4513acdb4a3a8e4d64e69fc84fee/explore?location=37.540510%2C-121.566865%2C10.37 https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/260b4513acdb4a3a8e4d64e69fc... For example, PG&E owns the line that goes from Coyote to Tracy, but the ones that runs perpendicular to it is owned by Critical Energy. Or https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/260b4513acdb4a3a8e4d64e69fc84fee/explore?location=38.828293%2C-122.001848%2C12.11 https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/260b4513acdb4a3a8e4d64e69fc... One line owned by PG&E, the next line is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_66 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_66 (some of which is owned by PG&E, some of which is owned by other companies). > Two of the power lines run from Malin Substation southeast of Klamath Falls, Oregon to Round Mountain Substation northeast of Redding, California. One of them is owned by Western Area Power Administration, with the other owned by Pacific Gas and Electric and PacifiCorp jointly.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I agree, but i have come to believe customers are best served by a locally controlled retailer that buys power and then pays someone to transport it. I don't have a source handy, but if I recall correctly, most local retailers like Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Smud) have substantially lower rates. Last I checked they were like half of my PG&E bill
      - shagie 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Municipal_Power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_Municipal_Power > Founded in 1887, it provides electricity to c. 34,000 residential, commercial, and municipal customers at rates up to 20 percent below neighboring communities. > ... > AMP has been providing 100% clean energy since 2020 and did so in 2023 at approximately a 35% saving over comparable PG&E rates. However, my point is one of that the state of California shouldn't be the one owning (and maintaining) the transmission lines. And even if there was a public takeover of PG&E back when it was going through its bankruptcy - there still would have been many transmission lines owned by companies that are not PG&E. Having taxes go to a hypothetical state-PG&E would also get into issues of the public sector directly competing with the private sector and using money from California for areas that they are not serviced by ( https://www.arcgis.com/apps/instant/minimalist/index.html?appid=03ef3d359a2842f0bd87359fb2ffebf8 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/instant/minimalist/index.html?ap... ). You can see that Alameda and Sacramento and many other areas are not serviced by PG&E. Would it be reasonable for California to have bought PG&E and then add to the taxes for California to support the connection fees... and how would you handle the people who live in areas that aren't served by PG&E (like Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Mountain House, Sacramento ... and all of Southern California ... and everything east of the Sierras but still in California)

briffle 2y ago

In my state, there is a connection fee, and a usage fee. Even if I replace my power 100% with solar generated from my own home, and batteries, I would still pay the connection fee for the meter. When I lived in the midwest, the interconnect was a seperate group, and I payed 3 fees on my bill: 1. the connection fee 2. the transmission fee (to ATC to operate the 'grid') 3. a usage fee. In both bills, the usage fee is the one that goes up quickly.