Backwards

[Shawn Pixley]

Backwards!

Southern California Edison gave us our PTO (Permit to Operate) for the solar array. So, after flipping the breakers, charging the disconnect, turning the unit on, and waiting for it to warm up and calibrate, the meter reversed and ran backward even at six in the evening. I am so excited. The May bill won't be particularly low, but I look forward to seeing June's (I never thought I would say this about a bill).

[Raymond Fries]

Awesome...

Enjoy the savings! maybe a new tool treat to celebrate with the extra money.

Enjoy Life

[Greg Peterson]

Oklahoma is frowning on solar.

"The prospect of widespread adoption of rooftop solar worries many utilities. A report last year by the industry's research group, the Edison Electric Institute, warns of the risks posed by rooftop solar (PDF). 'When customers have the opportunity to reduce their use of a product or find another provider of such service, utility earnings growth is threatened," the report said. "As this threat to growth becomes more evident, investors will become less attracted to investments in the utility sector.''

The energy sector has a stake in keeping users on the grid. It would be extremely disruptive to the energy sector if large swaths of society were to adapt solar and drive plugin electric cars. Turning one's house into a energy plant, albeit a small one, is a disturbing thought I'm sure.

Congrats on your solar installation. What do you expect the ROI to be?

[Justin Ludwig]

Oklahoma is frowning on solar.

"The prospect of widespread adoption of rooftop solar worries many utilities. A report last year by the industry's research group, the Edison Electric Institute, warns of the risks posed by rooftop solar (PDF). 'When customers have the opportunity to reduce their use of a product or find another provider of such service, utility earnings growth is threatened," the report said. "As this threat to growth becomes more evident, investors will become less attracted to investments in the utility sector.''

The energy sector has a stake in keeping users on the grid. It would be extremely disruptive to the energy sector if large swaths of society were to adapt solar and drive plugin electric cars. Turning one's house into a energy plant, albeit a small one, is a disturbing thought I'm sure.

Congrats on your solar installation. What do you expect the ROI to be?

It's a sad state of affairs, Greg, but the US is capitalistic and driven by profit. T. Boone Pickens doesn't like the prospect of his billions being invested in Wind and Natural Gas energies being thrown down the proverbial drain.

[David Weaver]

The issue is a little bit less nefarious than Greg is making it out to be. They are doing two things:
* advising shareholders, and those shareholders are mostly individuals and retirement plans, etc.
* what greg didn't mention is that a lot of the concern has to do with the cost of keeping up the grid. When net metering is allowed, a user is still using the grid, but if they net out to zero, they are paying nothing to use it. A utility still has expenses to keep up the grid and those are going to have to be paid by someone. A lot of the utilities offloaded generation years ago because it looked like distribution was going to be more fiscally sound. Generation now, especially in the days of natural gas, can pop up quickly and be done very inexpensively.

I'd have an array just like Shawn, but if I were a utility that spent a bunch of money on the electric grid and was face with no shrink in ongoing costs but a decline in revenue, I'd be sounding the alarm, too.

[Greg Peterson]

The issue is a little bit less nefarious than Greg is making it out to be. They are doing two things:
* advising shareholders, and those shareholders are mostly individuals and retirement plans, etc.
* what greg didn't mention is that a lot of the concern has to do with the cost of keeping up the grid. When net metering is allowed, a user is still using the grid, but if they net out to zero, they are paying nothing to use it. A utility still has expenses to keep up the grid and those are going to have to be paid by someone. A lot of the utilities offloaded generation years ago because it looked like distribution was going to be more fiscally sound. Generation now, especially in the days of natural gas, can pop up quickly and be done very inexpensively.

I'd have an array just like Shawn, but if I were a utility that spent a bunch of money on the electric grid and was face with no shrink in ongoing costs but a decline in revenue, I'd be sounding the alarm, too.

My original post did include your argument, therefore I did not feel the need to provide additional arguments in favor of taxing wind and solar energy creators/users.

ALEC is sponsoring the industries interests in the arena. I think it would be unhelpful to presume they are empathetic to individuals who wish to be proactive in their personal energy solutions. ALEC is trying to build an even greater barrier than that which stands between the current system (pun not intended) and residential energy independence.

They are looking to make the investment into residential solar unattractive and economically challenging, pushing the RIO out farther yet. I understand the energy utilities concerns about institutional investors moving their funds elsewhere, but isn't that a function of a free market?

[Brian Elfert]

One problem with solar is the power company is they are buying your power for retail price and then selling it to someone else for the same retail price. They don't collect any money to pay for their overhead or the cost of distribution nor do they make any profit. The only way they make any money on buying back solar is if they can reduce the purchase of extra electricity at peak times. Buying electricity at peak times is very expensive for the power company and often costs more than they sell the power for.

I wouldn't mind doing solar if it didn't cost so darn much up front. The other disadvantage with grid tie is the solar system won't produce electricity when utility power is out. I'm sure they don't want line workers killed by electricity back fed into the system, but why can't they have a switch that opens when there is no utility power?

[Myk Rian]

I'm sure they don't want line workers killed by electricity back fed into the system, but why can't they have a switch that opens when there is no utility power?

Those are already available for when running a generator.

[Brian Elfert]

Those are already available for when running a generator.

Yes, I have an automatic transfer switch for my standby generator. The thing is, almost all solar systems that are grid tie will cut the power generation ability altogether when utility power is lost. It wouldn't be a transfer switch, but just something that opens the connection to utility power when utility power is lost.

[Shawn Pixley]

The solar inverter must have AC power as well as DC power to work. In normal conditions, the inverter must align the phases with the grid's to connect. When the grid goes down, the system shuts off. I am sure that you could get a proper disconnect to align it with a standby generator when the grid is down. Or there could be a disconnect between the panel and the meter to allow the solar array to run with the grid down without killing linemen. Conversely, you can get battery back-ups to store power like a large UPS does. The longest time we have experienced an outage is about 4 hours when the transformer in the lot next to us died a couple of years ago.

[David Weaver]

They are looking to make the investment into residential solar unattractive and economically challenging, pushing the RIO out farther yet. I understand the energy utilities concerns about institutional investors moving their funds elsewhere, but isn't that a function of a free market?

It's one thing to describe it as a boo hoo argument about investors, but another thing entirely when there is a chance it will threaten upkeep and maintenance of the grid. Not long ago, we heard how the grid was going to be upgraded so that alternative energy could be generated in one part of the country and distributed elsewhere. If net metering is common and the power companies are to continue to maintain the grid, then they will charge more for distribution, there's no other way for them to keep it in place. Items that are absolute necessities never really have been a free market (food, power, etc, because when you absolutely need to turn on a light or use electricity to run some sort of in home personal healthcare device, you're not going to want to have someone say, well, the free market removed the grid and you'll have to wait until tomorrow when the sun is out).

[Greg Peterson]

It's one thing to describe it as a boo hoo argument about investors, but another thing entirely when there is a chance it will threaten upkeep and maintenance of the grid. Not long ago, we heard how the grid was going to be upgraded so that alternative energy could be generated in one part of the country and distributed elsewhere. If net metering is common and the power companies are to continue to maintain the grid, then they will charge more for distribution, there's no other way for them to keep it in place. Items that are absolute necessities never really have been a free market (food, power, etc, because when you absolutely need to turn on a light or use electricity to run some sort of in home personal healthcare device, you're not going to want to have someone say, well, the free market removed the grid and you'll have to wait until tomorrow when the sun is out).

It isn't a boo-hoo argument.Why should a residence that is providing peak hours supply to the grid be penalized?

That delivering power via the grid could become extremely expensive is not a valid reason to discourage adaptation of energy independance at the private citizen level.

Are you suggesting that we can not migrate away from the existing energy based economy?

Instituatoonal investors will find other places to park their money. As solar becomes more common, it's cost will go down and energy providers will have to compete. What happens if new construction decide to not bother to connect to the grid? Will the Edisons decide these properties must help fund the grid because they are denying the industry it's necessary growth?

[Duane Meadows]

Are you suggesting that we can not migrate away from the existing energy based economy?

If you are suggesting we can, I suggest an experiment. Use no energy for 1 week. Of course we will have to await the end of the experiment to here you results. The internet runs on... energy, also

[Art Mann]

It isn't a boo-hoo argument.Why should a residence that is providing peak hours supply to the grid be penalized?

That delivering power via the grid could become extremely expensive is not a valid reason to discourage adaptation of energy independance at the private citizen level.

Are you suggesting that we can not migrate away from the existing energy based economy?

Instituatoonal investors will find other places to park their money. As solar becomes more common, it's cost will go down and energy providers will have to compete. What happens if new construction decide to not bother to connect to the grid? Will the Edisons decide these properties must help fund the grid because they are denying the industry it's necessary growth?

I think I can understand what David Weaver is saying. For now, it isn't possible to operate an average home off the grid. In order for the grid to remain in place, the power company is going to have to make enough money to maintain and sometimes expand it and still make a profit. The result is that if more people adopt solar power, the rates per kwh are going to have to go way up to compensate or there will be a very high "grid access" fee independent of consumption that will make up for lost kwh revenue. In the long run, there will be no free ride until the power company umbilical cord is cut entirely.

[David Weaver]

I think I can understand what David Weaver is saying. For now, it isn't possible to operate an average home off the grid.

Exactly. When we have no need for the grid, then there will be no need for a rational system compensating the people who own and operate the grid (and anyone who has provided them equity or purchased debt so they could do it). In the meantime, the grid still needs to be maintained and nobody is going to do it for free. Trying to "stick it" to "big companies" rationale is just another veiled version of "it's OK if I make money, and I get to decide what level of it is OK, but it's not OK for someone else to".

I like to believe I have no problem compensating people for providing me with a service. Otherwise, I shouldn't be using such a service because I wouldn't want to work for free, either. That's our short term situation. I also don't like to compensate people for a service I don't use, and that's more of a long term issue with the grid - probably (our prospects for solar where I am are poor, and even worse for wind).