3 ms·

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

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.

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.