4 ms·

"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 powe

"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.
- hvb2 1y ago
  > You don't. Disconnect from the grid completely. If you don't need the power company then disconnect from them. That's not a fair argument. > The costs of the power company are in 2 parts. Generation and Distribution That's the real issue. How, in most places in the us that I know of, these 2 are combined. Which leads to this problem becoming a thing. We all pay taxes for roads. Whether we use them or not. Being connected to the grid should make everyone pay an equal share based on their connection size. Who delivers power over that connection? Pick your provider, make it a free market where power is a true commodity. Generation prices will drop significantly, distribution prices will probably go up. You can apply the above reasoning to the ISPs of the world too. Like roads, and electric connections, I think we can all consider an internet connection as vital to our daily lives as roads are
  - hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
    >> You don't. Disconnect from the grid completely. If you don't need the power company then disconnect from them. > That's not a fair argument. Why not? Plenty of people do it.
    - hvb2 1y ago
      Because disconnecting is so draconian, it comes with many more downsides than upsides. It's like saying we should all use helicopters if we don't like traffic. Smaller grids are harder to get right and more expensive to run because you need more surplus capacity to be able to deal with peak demand.
      - bruce511 1y ago
        Ok, your point is valid. You can't disconnect from the grid if you want all the benefits that the grid bestows. But then the reverse is true - if you are enjoying the benefits that the grid bestows then you need to pay for that. Yes, in the past the "variable benefits" and the "fixed benefits" were all rolled into a single payment, which was based on variable use. It was "simple" and "mostly fair". Now that a single payment is no longer fair, it makes sense that the benefit-cost needs to be split into a variable, and fixed, component. That's not some sort of new tax, or penalty for solar users. It's simply costing benefits correctly. So we return to the point - if you want the benefits, then these are the costs of that. If you don't need the benefits then you can disconnect. (Personally I like the benefits, and hence pay my share of the fixed costs.)
- nfriedly 1y ago
  My bill is currently split between generation and distribution, and the two halves are roughly equal. (I don't have any solar at the moment.) The interesting bit is that the distribution charge is a mix of fixed-fees and per-kWh fees. Obviously the fixed fees will remain if I added solar, but I'm not certain what would happen to the per-kWh fees if I started exporting power to the grid.
- seec 1y ago
  Yep, in France we have a separate "subscription" fee that you have to pay no matter what, even if consumption is zero. It even has power levels and flexibility options that change the subscription prices, but also the electricity prices depending on the time of the day. It makes perfect sense and I don't see why/how it should be different. Asking to pay just for electricity generation is crazy because it is the "easier" step, creating, maintaining and equilibrating the network is by far the more complicated endeavor.
dweinus 1y ago
Most of the cost of power is not the cost of the electrons. You have to account for the transmission and distribution infrastructure, the operation of the grid, the safety programs, customer service, etc. Retail rates bake that all in. When you run local solar, they are still providing all of that for you when you need it, plus the distribution of the power you sell back to them. What would be "fair" would be to net meter at the value of the power, minus the cost of the grid and backup generation. The cold truth is that this would still be a negative number, i.e. what would truly be fair is for the homeowner to pay a fee to the power company even when they are running off of their own solar 24/7.
BoiledCabbage 1y ago
> Why should I, as a homeowner, be forced to pay the power companies...? You keep making this disingenuous argument all over this thread. If you have solar and use their grid to distribute it you pay to use their grid. If you want solar off the grid and want no distribution you pay nothing to them. It's really that simple. There is production and distribution. If you are using their distribution you pay them for it. Not to mention for the stability of still getting power when your solar is insufficient...
SoftTalker 1y ago
If you don't want to pay the power company, drop their service and go it alone. If you want them as a backup for when your solar rig isn't producing what you need, then you should expect to pay the higher costs that more reliable power production demands.
- billy99k 1y ago
  "In California, a "Solar Tax" has been proposed in recent years, which would impose fees or charges on households with rooftop solar panels based on the energy they produce. Proposals have included fees as high as $700 per year for the average solar consumer. These efforts, backed by Governor Newsom’s Public Utilities Commission, were defeated in 2021, 2022, and 2024 due to public outcry but remain under consideration." Just admit that the the Democrats in charge of California don't care about the environmental benefits of solar.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    I don't live in California and don't pay attention to what the Democrats there do. My response was about "net metering." Having to sell your solar power to the utility at the wholesale rate, not the retail rate, would seem fair to me, since you're only selling them power and not any of the other stuff that is necessary to deliver that power to anywhere else. If you don't like the price, don't sell the power, find something else to do with it or some other way to store it.
  - hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
    Repeating the same bullshit propaganda from this group does not make it true. If you have another source for what was actually proposed, I'm all ears. Searching for things like "proposed solar tax California" only brought up articles about the sunsetting of the solar tax credit in CA, which is a far, far cry from being a solar tax.

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.
hvb2 1y ago
> You don't. Disconnect from the grid completely. If you don't need the power company then disconnect from them. That's not a fair argument. > The costs of the power company are in 2 parts. Generation and Distribution That's the real issue. How, in most places in the us that I know of, these 2 are combined. Which leads to this problem becoming a thing. We all pay taxes for roads. Whether we use them or not. Being connected to the grid should make everyone pay an equal share based on their connection size. Who delivers power over that connection? Pick your provider, make it a free market where power is a true commodity. Generation prices will drop significantly, distribution prices will probably go up. You can apply the above reasoning to the ISPs of the world too. Like roads, and electric connections, I think we can all consider an internet connection as vital to our daily lives as roads are
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  >> You don't. Disconnect from the grid completely. If you don't need the power company then disconnect from them. > That's not a fair argument. Why not? Plenty of people do it.
  - hvb2 1y ago
    Because disconnecting is so draconian, it comes with many more downsides than upsides. It's like saying we should all use helicopters if we don't like traffic. Smaller grids are harder to get right and more expensive to run because you need more surplus capacity to be able to deal with peak demand.
    - bruce511 1y ago
      Ok, your point is valid. You can't disconnect from the grid if you want all the benefits that the grid bestows. But then the reverse is true - if you are enjoying the benefits that the grid bestows then you need to pay for that. Yes, in the past the "variable benefits" and the "fixed benefits" were all rolled into a single payment, which was based on variable use. It was "simple" and "mostly fair". Now that a single payment is no longer fair, it makes sense that the benefit-cost needs to be split into a variable, and fixed, component. That's not some sort of new tax, or penalty for solar users. It's simply costing benefits correctly. So we return to the point - if you want the benefits, then these are the costs of that. If you don't need the benefits then you can disconnect. (Personally I like the benefits, and hence pay my share of the fixed costs.)
nfriedly 1y ago
My bill is currently split between generation and distribution, and the two halves are roughly equal. (I don't have any solar at the moment.) The interesting bit is that the distribution charge is a mix of fixed-fees and per-kWh fees. Obviously the fixed fees will remain if I added solar, but I'm not certain what would happen to the per-kWh fees if I started exporting power to the grid.
seec 1y ago
Yep, in France we have a separate "subscription" fee that you have to pay no matter what, even if consumption is zero. It even has power levels and flexibility options that change the subscription prices, but also the electricity prices depending on the time of the day. It makes perfect sense and I don't see why/how it should be different. Asking to pay just for electricity generation is crazy because it is the "easier" step, creating, maintaining and equilibrating the network is by far the more complicated endeavor.

dweinus 1y ago

Most of the cost of power is not the cost of the electrons. You have to account for the transmission and distribution infrastructure, the operation of the grid, the safety programs, customer service, etc. Retail rates bake that all in. When you run local solar, they are still providing all of that for you when you need it, plus the distribution of the power you sell back to them. What would be "fair" would be to net meter at the value of the power, minus the cost of the grid and backup generation. The cold truth is that this would still be a negative number, i.e. what would truly be fair is for the homeowner to pay a fee to the power company even when they are running off of their own solar 24/7.

BoiledCabbage 1y ago

> Why should I, as a homeowner, be forced to pay the power companies...? You keep making this disingenuous argument all over this thread. If you have solar and use their grid to distribute it you pay to use their grid. If you want solar off the grid and want no distribution you pay nothing to them. It's really that simple. There is production and distribution. If you are using their distribution you pay them for it. Not to mention for the stability of still getting power when your solar is insufficient...

SoftTalker 1y ago

If you don't want to pay the power company, drop their service and go it alone. If you want them as a backup for when your solar rig isn't producing what you need, then you should expect to pay the higher costs that more reliable power production demands.

billy99k 1y ago
"In California, a "Solar Tax" has been proposed in recent years, which would impose fees or charges on households with rooftop solar panels based on the energy they produce. Proposals have included fees as high as $700 per year for the average solar consumer. These efforts, backed by Governor Newsom’s Public Utilities Commission, were defeated in 2021, 2022, and 2024 due to public outcry but remain under consideration." Just admit that the the Democrats in charge of California don't care about the environmental benefits of solar.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  I don't live in California and don't pay attention to what the Democrats there do. My response was about "net metering." Having to sell your solar power to the utility at the wholesale rate, not the retail rate, would seem fair to me, since you're only selling them power and not any of the other stuff that is necessary to deliver that power to anywhere else. If you don't like the price, don't sell the power, find something else to do with it or some other way to store it.
- hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
  Repeating the same bullshit propaganda from this group does not make it true. If you have another source for what was actually proposed, I'm all ears. Searching for things like "proposed solar tax California" only brought up articles about the sunsetting of the solar tax credit in CA, which is a far, far cry from being a solar tax.