Utilities Dealing with Home Solar

Aerowhatt said:

I run into this perspective a lot. Most of us with solar systems are net exporters of electricity during full sun hours. Many utilities don't pay you extra to produce power for them. Hence the idea that you are giving it away, if you let it go back to the grid. I'm not aware of anywhere that is not "net metered"............... That said, I'm a strong proponent of doing most of your elective power usage while your array is producing, but not for financial reasons.......
................don't concern yourself with banking a few retail KWH for later use.

Aerowhatt

Click to expand...

Pardon me for straying off-topic:
Different localities/cultures have different philosophies about dealing with distributed home solar.
Some utilities are sort of at least semi-hostile to it and only allowing as much of it as they are forced to.
Some legislators and utilities in Nevada wanted to put a surcharge on homes using solar PV and net metering.
At least until Elon Musk the Tesla CEO said "if you guys pull this crap I'll cancel my plans to build a massive battery manufacturing facility in your state."

My local Ashland Oregon city run utility is very green-friendly. They are proposing a plan where if you exceed the amount of excess annual PV energy that you can (under current state law) sell back to them at retail price you would be able to sell the excess it to anyone in their power distribution system... on any terms you two are happy with...... and they'll do the bookkeeping between the two of you.

A couple of years ago I mentioned to the manager of the power utility that (under the then current rules) that if a very large proportion of the city residents started selling even the allowed 1000KwHrs per year excess power back to the city at retail the economic model on his end would break down.
His answer was "That is a problem I would LOVE to have."
What a difference an enlightened attitude can make.

Alex

acensor said:

A couple of years ago I mentioned to the manager of the power utility that (under the then current rules) that if a very large proportion of the city residents started selling even the allowed 1000KwHrs per year excess power back to the city at retail the economic model on his end would break down.
His answer was "That is a problem I would LOVE to have."
What a difference an enlightened attitude can make.
Alex

Click to expand...

I think the key here is "city run"

We had a city owned and run water utility. Which the then Mayor pushed through a privatization deal about 8 - 10 years ago. Service, water quality, infrastructure maintenance, have all suffered noticably since. While consumer costs are up sharply. Their "attitude" is driven by a corporate profit model. Not the right model for a monopoly! Imagine what would happen if they weren't held back by the (never before needed) regulatory agency that we pay for with our taxes.

Same with electricity, only it happened longer ago. The corporate for profit utility tried to put through a $5.00 per Kwh installed per month surcharge on rooftop solar. With a grass roots effort and a team of lawyers on both sides the PRC denied the increase this time. But the PRC members are elected officials and we all know how undemocratic that can turn out, with enough money involved. So for now it's still a fair deal solar, or not for consumers . . . but for how long. Also, who pays for the legal fight which is beginning again in earnest with new numbers. We do! both sides of it in fact! We pay for the corporate lawyers through higher rates. We pay for the PRC and it's team of lawyers through taxes. We pay for the grass roots effort with time and donations to fund it's lawyers. It's nuts, plain and simple and the consumer, taxpayer, activist, foots the entire bill. There is nothing to work as a disincentive to get them to cool it and play fair. We pay for their continued fight, where is the downside for them to keep pushing or even buy elections. As icing on the irony cake, their name starts with "Public Service"

Aerowhatt