4 ms·

As someone who greatly supports solar power and the rights of homeowners to install solar, I think your link is total bullshit and calling it a "solar tax" is d

As someone who greatly supports solar power and the rights of homeowners to install solar, I think your link is total bullshit and calling it a "solar tax" is disingenuous by people that want something for free The fundamental problem with net metering is that it is obviously unsustainable and unfair. People who are hooked up to the grid benefit from more than just the energy they consume, but the hookup costs and maintenance of the grid is a real cost that power companies need to pay for. Perhaps even more obviously, any company that is in a retail business can only survive if they buy a product at a (cheaper) wholesale rate and sell it at a (more expensive) retail rate. Net metering is exactly the same as forcing power companies to buy energy at a retail rate. Again, this is obviously not sustainable. As a homeowner, of course I would love net metering, because I'd be getting a sweet deal. But it's not hard for me to see how this can't continue as solar power installations increase. Austin, TX, was one of the first locales to use "value of solar" pricing, and yeah, while it sucks for the homeowner, it is also fairer and more sustainable. I'm also not saying this is the only way to do things (e.g. you could have a monthly connection fee and a separate monthly power charge), but this "solar rights" group is just spinning bullshit because their sweet deal is about to come to an end.

megaman821 1y ago
Austin's "value of solar" is the opposite of net metering. 100% of the solar you produce goes back into the grid, which is bought at some cheap rate, and then you buy back your own electricity at retail rates. You litterally lose more money at tier 3 rates than you get paid.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  > Austin's "value of solar" is the opposite of net metering. Yes, that is exactly my point. And yes, I'd love it if I got paid more as a homeowner. But Austin is basically paying me wholesale rates for my power I send to the grid, which fundamentally makes sense from an economics perspective. Again, net metering is inherently infeasible for the power company without a vast reconfiguring of how grid electricity is charged.
oceanplexian 1y ago
The electric company isn't "entitled" to their subscribers either. My city recently enacted a tax on solar called a generation fee or something like that. That is, if you put up solar panels, generate all your own power, and export ZERO back to the grid you need to pay them "fee" for every kWh generated because they are making less back in distribution costs to their subscribers since you stopped buying their power. Sounds to me like their broken business model is their problem. After doing the math in some places it make sense to disconnect completely, avoid the interconnect fees, and run a standby generator for the edge cases where solar doesn't work. I've heard this is becoming popular in places like Australia and California more recently (Of course, then the government tries to make living off grid illegal to protect electric company profits)
- beAbU 1y ago
  Someone needs to pay to maintain the connection to your house, even if you don't draw any electricity from it.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  Like you point out, it's totally viable for you to disconnect from the grid if you so desire, and then you don't pay the power company anything. So what's your beef?
billy99k 1y ago
"As a homeowner, of course I would love net metering, because I'd be getting a sweet deal. But it's not hard for me to see how this can't continue as solar power installations increase. Austin, TX, was one of the first locales to use "value of solar" pricing, and yeah, while it sucks for the homeowner, it is also fairer and more sustainable. " Solar should be saving the homeowner money and not risking increased taxes in the future, especially if the homeowner has to foot the bill for thousands of dollars it takes to install the panels/system. "Net metering is exactly the same as forcing power companies to buy energy at a retail rate. Again, this is obviously not sustainable." Why prop up power companies if the business model is unsustainable? Especially if you want to convert to something like solar? Why should I, as a homeowner, be forced to pay the power companies just because they can't change with the times?
- bruce511 1y ago
  You don't. Disconnect from the grid completely. If you don't need the power company then disconnect from them. The problem lies when you need the power company 'some of the time'. The costs of the power company are in 2 parts. Generation and Distribution. Traditionally those costs were bundled together, those who used more paid more (for both generation and Distribution. ) If I generate my own solar, say 65% of the time, then I'm paying 65% less for generation (which is fair, I'm using 65% less) but I'm also paying 65% less for distribution (which is unfair because the cost of distribution is fixed, not variable. ) The power company can solve this by billing the two parts separately. Indeed in some places in the world utilities are formally splitting the two parts into different companies. Generation has variable cost depending on consumption- Distribution has fixed cost if you are connected at all. Of course people without solar want this split (it fairly distributes Distribution), folks with solar want the old way to continue (less for me to pay, cost to everyone else goes up.) Power companies are trying to change with the times, by separately billing. Some homeowners are the ones trying to straddle the best of both words, and effectively get "100% availability" for no cost.
  - aaronbaugher 1y ago
    My electric bill already shows a fixed "facility" charge and a variable "energy" charge. If I didn't use any electricity one month, I would still owe the facility charge. I thought they all did it that way.

megaman821 1y ago

Austin's "value of solar" is the opposite of net metering. 100% of the solar you produce goes back into the grid, which is bought at some cheap rate, and then you buy back your own electricity at retail rates. You litterally lose more money at tier 3 rates than you get paid.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
> Austin's "value of solar" is the opposite of net metering. Yes, that is exactly my point. And yes, I'd love it if I got paid more as a homeowner. But Austin is basically paying me wholesale rates for my power I send to the grid, which fundamentally makes sense from an economics perspective. Again, net metering is inherently infeasible for the power company without a vast reconfiguring of how grid electricity is charged.

oceanplexian 1y ago

The electric company isn't "entitled" to their subscribers either. My city recently enacted a tax on solar called a generation fee or something like that. That is, if you put up solar panels, generate all your own power, and export ZERO back to the grid you need to pay them "fee" for every kWh generated because they are making less back in distribution costs to their subscribers since you stopped buying their power. Sounds to me like their broken business model is their problem. After doing the math in some places it make sense to disconnect completely, avoid the interconnect fees, and run a standby generator for the edge cases where solar doesn't work. I've heard this is becoming popular in places like Australia and California more recently (Of course, then the government tries to make living off grid illegal to protect electric company profits)

beAbU 1y ago
Someone needs to pay to maintain the connection to your house, even if you don't draw any electricity from it.
hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
Like you point out, it's totally viable for you to disconnect from the grid if you so desire, and then you don't pay the power company anything. So what's your beef?

billy99k 1y ago

"As a homeowner, of course I would love net metering, because I'd be getting a sweet deal. But it's not hard for me to see how this can't continue as solar power installations increase. Austin, TX, was one of the first locales to use "value of solar" pricing, and yeah, while it sucks for the homeowner, it is also fairer and more sustainable. " Solar should be saving the homeowner money and not risking increased taxes in the future, especially if the homeowner has to foot the bill for thousands of dollars it takes to install the panels/system. "Net metering is exactly the same as forcing power companies to buy energy at a retail rate. Again, this is obviously not sustainable." Why prop up power companies if the business model is unsustainable? Especially if you want to convert to something like solar? Why should I, as a homeowner, be forced to pay the power companies just because they can't change with the times?

bruce511 1y ago
You don't. Disconnect from the grid completely. If you don't need the power company then disconnect from them. The problem lies when you need the power company 'some of the time'. The costs of the power company are in 2 parts. Generation and Distribution. Traditionally those costs were bundled together, those who used more paid more (for both generation and Distribution. ) If I generate my own solar, say 65% of the time, then I'm paying 65% less for generation (which is fair, I'm using 65% less) but I'm also paying 65% less for distribution (which is unfair because the cost of distribution is fixed, not variable. ) The power company can solve this by billing the two parts separately. Indeed in some places in the world utilities are formally splitting the two parts into different companies. Generation has variable cost depending on consumption- Distribution has fixed cost if you are connected at all. Of course people without solar want this split (it fairly distributes Distribution), folks with solar want the old way to continue (less for me to pay, cost to everyone else goes up.) Power companies are trying to change with the times, by separately billing. Some homeowners are the ones trying to straddle the best of both words, and effectively get "100% availability" for no cost.
- aaronbaugher 1y ago
  My electric bill already shows a fixed "facility" charge and a variable "energy" charge. If I didn't use any electricity one month, I would still owe the facility charge. I thought they all did it that way.