We need to be fair to poor people by blocking them from profit

[superstition]

This is the new messaging from the utility companies concerning solar power.

They just don't say it this way.

They say, instead, that individuals' solar power (typically rooftop) is unfair to poor people because only wealthy people can afford to buy into it.

That sounds awfully sweet — rich and powerful interests concerning themselves with poor people. I wonder why they would say that?

How about because their real goals are:

a) Protect the privilege, the profiting, of rich people who already bought into solar, back when it truly was only for the wealthy to afford. (Now that the cost on entry has drastically declined we must prevent the unwashed from getting in on the deal!)

b) Protect utilities from the drastic reduction in solar power installation cost as well as their ability to use solar's reduced cost for themselves by blocking ordinary consumers from being able to participate less passively in power generation.

The way they do this is to do it how they just did it in Arizona. You'd think that a place like that would be ideal for solar power, wouldn't you? It gets lots of sun. It's dry. There isn't a lot of nice rich farmland or forest to be concerned over. It doesn't get extreme weather like the thunderstorm-prone Midwest.

But, no. We need to make sure net metering is dead, but not for the rich people who already put in solar installations to take advantage of the tax credits and their deep pockets. No, they get 20 more years (plus, one should expect, extensions after that) to enjoy the profits. Meanwhile, everyone else... well... you should have been wealthy. We all know that there are two types of citizen in this country: those who profit when profit is available and those who should be thankful for their crust of bread.

evidence

Arizona Corporation Commission vote puts an end to net metering for new solar customers, provides extension of 20 years for existing installations.

"Rich relations give, crust of bread, and such...
You can help yourself
but don't take too much..."

 

[C1]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a24372/las-vegas-renewable-energy/?src=socialflowFB

 

[boomerang]

Why don't you link to the source of your ire along with posting your diatribe?

 

[superstition]

Why don't you link to the source of your ire along with posting your diatribe?

It helps to read the post prior to making erroneous complaint.

 

[boomerang]

It helps to read the post prior to making erroneous complaint.

Lighten up. I read your entire post. Your one word link shows up almost the same color as regular text when using the 'In A Forum Darkly' theme. It does not present itself clearly as a link.

 

[superstition]

Lighten up. I read your entire post. Your one word link shows up almost the same color as regular text when using the 'In A Forum Darkly' theme. It does not present itself clearly as a link.

 

[pauldun170]

This article from National Geographic seemed a bit clearer in presenting the issue
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...226-utilities-dispute-net-metering-for-solar/

 

[superstition]

This article from National Geographic seemed a bit clearer in presenting the issue
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...226-utilities-dispute-net-metering-for-solar/

utilities argue that net metering enables solar customers to benefit from a reliable electric grid without paying for its use.

This is false dilemma. Not only do utilities charge solar owners for insurance the privately-owned panels reinforce grids rather than weaken them.

The net metering conflict has erupted because of one important development: Solar is now within the price range of far more customers.

And, like anything else, politicians and the elite in general are highly responsive toward making sure regular people can't take part in profit-making.

This is the point that's lost on everyone. They like to talk about the surface but underneath it is the preservation of elite privilege, just as it always is.

Solar rooftops represent "the largest near-term threat" to the utility business model, a "disruptive challenge," even though they still represent less than one percent of the U.S. retail electricity market, an industry study said earlier this year.

Less than one percent. Where have I heard that before?

 

[superstition]

U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz says the net metering dispute is an important milestone for renewable energy. "Without taking sides in the argument,

Cute. A "milestone" but you're not taking sides (by framing net metering as being something that gets passed by over time).

I also like how telling the truth isn't important. What's important, apparently, is not taking a side (like the "side" of the truth).

 

[momeNt]

Sounds like they need some accurate accounting so they can justify "grid costs" and be able to separate electricity generation costs.

Solar panel owners should not have to pay for the cost to generate the electricity, but if they are still connected to the grid, there is some sort of maintenance costs that they should take part in.

The utility providers have a responsibility to adapt and scale back their generation as solar grows, yet still be covered on a grid maintenance side of things.

 

[xthetenth]

Cute. A "milestone" but you're not taking sides (by framing net metering as being something that gets passed by over time).

I also like how telling the truth isn't important. What's important, apparently, is not taking a side (like the "side" of the truth).

People conflate being fair and being balanced, so it's very easy to hide being unfair behind a fig leaf of being balanced.

 

[realibrad]

This is false dilemma. Not only do utilities charge solar owners for insurance the privately-owned panels reinforce grids rather than weaken them.


And, like anything else, politicians and the elite in general are highly responsive toward making sure regular people can't take part in profit-making.

This is the point that's lost on everyone. They like to talk about the surface but underneath it is the preservation of elite privilege, just as it always is.


Less than one percent. Where have I heard that before?

Utilities charge solar owners insurance?

 

[Sunburn74]

Obviously captialism and the free market is working well in this regard.

A side note,is it possible to entirely be so self sufficient with solar that you can completely disconnect from the utility grid entirely?

 

[pauldun170]

It's a tough call since we are talking infrastructure.
This is a public utility and goes beyond the direct relationship between the consumer and the provider.
Saying "I don't draw from the grid therefore I shouldn't have to pay grid cost" is not accurate.
Everyone derives benefit from the grid. Directly and indirectly.
It's like listening to someone without a car complain about paying taxes to fix the roads.

http://www.governing.com/news/headlines/utility-companies-have-a-.html

The Coalition for Solar Rights, which advocates for solar, called net metering “one of the most important state policies for empowering Americans to generate their own power from the sun.”

Utilities, however, say many solar customers aren’t paying their fair share. While net-metering polices vary by state, customers with solar systems are usually credited at the full retail electricity rate, which includes not just the cost of the power, but all the fixed costs of the poles, wires, meters and other infrastructure that make the electric grid safe and reliable.

An average residential customer paying $110 a month for electricity is receiving $60 worth of grid service, according to a report from the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group that represents U.S. utility companies.

“Through the credit, net-metered customers effectively are avoiding paying these costs for the grid,” the institute wrote. These costs then are passed on to other customers, it said.

...
Some utilities are now pressing state regulators or legislatures to charge solar customers a fee or to reduce the rollover credits with the money going to help maintain the power grid. That was the issue last year in Arizona, where the state’s largest electric utility, Arizona Public Service Co., succeeded in attaching a fee to new solar installations. The company estimated that each of the state’s 20,000 solar rooftop customers costs $1,000 in upkeep to the grid, which was shifted to other nonsolar customers.

 

[Double Trouble]

This is the new messaging from the utility companies concerning solar power.

They just don't say it this way.

They say, instead, that individuals' solar power (typically rooftop) is unfair to poor people because only wealthy people can afford to buy into it.

That sounds awfully sweet — rich and powerful interests concerning themselves with poor people. I wonder why they would say that?

How about because their real goals are:

a) Protect the privilege, the profiting, of rich people who already bought into solar, back when it truly was only for the wealthy to afford. (Now that the cost on entry has drastically declined we must prevent the unwashed from getting in on the deal!)

b) Protect utilities from the drastic reduction in solar power installation cost as well as their ability to use solar's reduced cost for themselves by blocking ordinary consumers from being able to participate less passively in power generation.

The way they do this is to do it how they just did it in Arizona. You'd think that a place like that would be ideal for solar power, wouldn't you? It gets lots of sun. It's dry. There isn't a lot of nice rich farmland or forest to be concerned over. It doesn't get extreme weather like the thunderstorm-prone Midwest.

But, no. We need to make sure net metering is dead, but not for the rich people who already put in solar installations to take advantage of the tax credits and their deep pockets. No, they get 20 more years (plus, one should expect, extensions after that) to enjoy the profits. Meanwhile, everyone else... well... you should have been wealthy. We all know that there are two types of citizen in this country: those who profit when profit is available and those who should be thankful for their crust of bread.

evidence




"Rich relations give, crust of bread, and such...
You can help yourself
but don't take too much..."

Interesting rant, but the article you linked to doesn't support either of your "real goals". If people generate their own solar and pay less (or even negative) rates, who ends up paying for the grid that must still remain functional and able to provide everyone with power when they need it? With net metering, people without solar panels end up paying disproportionately for the maintenance of the grid and for the additional generating capacity the utility has to maintain.

IMO this is solved by separating the generation from the distribution/maintenance/other costs. If you want to be connected to the grid and the utility has to be able to provide you with power when needed, then you have to pay your share of the distribution/maintenance/capacity costs. You're lowering your consumption by generating your own power which is great, but you still have to contribute to the grid if you expect it to be there for you when you need it.

The reason they grandfather existing installations is that those people installed their panels based on the net metering that was in place. You can't just change the rules of the game on them after they've already installed. You can change the rules for new installations though. It has nothing to do with "protecting privilege", "blocking the poor from profit" or some other class bullshit.

 

[K1052]

A side note,is it possible to entirely be so self sufficient with solar that you can completely disconnect from the utility grid entirely?

With an appropriately sized solar array and battery bank, sure.

 

[Sunburn74]

It's a tough call since we are talking infrastructure.
This is a public utility and goes beyond the direct relationship between the consumer and the provider.
Saying "I don't draw from the grid therefore I shouldn't have to pay grid cost" is not accurate.
Everyone derives benefit from the grid. Directly and indirectly.
It's like listening to someone without a car complain about paying taxes to fix the roads.

http://www.governing.com/news/headlines/utility-companies-have-a-.html

Yeah but if you draw from the grid, you pay to have it maintained.

if you don't draw from the grid and even are supplying power to the grid, why should you pay to have it maintained?

I mean if everyone went solar in Arizona and no one needed the grid at all, should we still pay just to keep it around? It sounds like a cash grab.

 

[boomerang]

Yeah but if you draw from the grid, you pay to have it maintained.

if you don't draw from the grid, why should you pay to have it maintained? I mean if everyone went solar in Arizona and no one needed the grid at all, should we still pay just to keep it around?

If residences could all go solar, what about businesses? What about Airports, Hospitals, etc. Will solar generate enough reliable electricity for them to operate 24/7/365? If not, which is what I suspect, then the grid is needed. Who then supports the grid?

This should be an easy conclusion to reach.

 

[superstition]

The reason they grandfather existing installations is that those people installed their panels based on the net metering that was in place.

No, that's not the "real" reason. That's the superficially-given one. But, it is true that rich people revolting against your policy changes is not something many politicians/elites tend to favor.

You can't just change the rules of the game on them after they've already installed.

Wrong. Getting rid of net metering at all is changing the rules, including 20 year extensions or whatever it is that people arbitrarily decide to add or not add.

There is no federal law that requires that net metering policies be maintained. People can change the rules of the game after the fact. That's one of the worst aspects of buying into solar now. In fact, this uncertainty is part of the game — the game being trying to keep the profit-making opportunity away from the unwashed masses.

It has nothing to do with "protecting privilege", "blocking the poor from profit" or some other class bullshit.

Of course it does. All money has to do with class.

 

[superstition]

If residences could all go solar, what about businesses? What about Airports, Hospitals, etc. Will solar generate enough reliable electricity for them to operate 24/7/365? If not, which is what I suspect, then the grid is needed. Who then supports the grid?

This should be an easy conclusion to reach.

It's also easy enough to discover that having lots of solar installations strengthens the grid.

"The grid will collapse" is a cute trick. It's like saying people who take measures to save power are threatening the grid by making it less profitable to make it strong. Then, when people need the power it will shatter.

If you are energy frugal you're going to cause the grid to crumble.

 

[superstition]

is it possible to entirely be so self sufficient with solar that you can completely disconnect from the utility grid entirely?

Yes, but not profitable. Battery storage is a big money pit currently. The only way it's efficient is if you're extremely frugal with energy consumption and, even then, high-quality nickle iron batteries aren't made anymore. The recycled ones are overpriced, too. Lithion ion is unstable and expensive but Tesla is working on it.

Lead acid batteries, the most commonly-used solar batteries, are terrible for that purpose because they permanently degrade when discharged. Lead acid batteries are only a good idea for systems where they remain mostly at full charge at all times. When they are discharged, even partially, the liquid precipitates into insoluble lead sulfate, permanently reducing the capacity of the battery.

To strengthen the grid, private solar installations ideally have a mix of south-facing and west-facing panels. West-facing panels in particular help to boost the power available in the grid during the highest demand period of the day.

 

[superstition]

If residences could all go solar, what about businesses? What about Airports, Hospitals, etc. Will solar generate enough reliable electricity for them to operate 24/7/365?

Solar isn't about replacing all other power generation. It's about supplementing it greatly.

Perovskite-based cells, if they can be stabilized, will be very cheap to make. They can be sprayed onto surfaces. So, eventually, any surface exposed to even a small amount of solar radiation could become a solar collector. That means the entire surface of buildings. Even glass has been worked on that gathers solar energy. Hopefully tin-based (or possibly bismuth-based), rather than lead-based, perovskite, will become the most commonplace.

If not, which is what I suspect, then the grid is needed. Who then supports the grid?

An efficient policy that benefits everyone instead of which is mainly corporate welfare would be a good start. Those who use the grid the most would pay a proportional share for its maintenance.

 

[Sunburn74]

If residences could all go solar, what about businesses? What about Airports, Hospitals, etc. Will solar generate enough reliable electricity for them to operate 24/7/365? If not, which is what I suspect, then the grid is needed. Who then supports the grid?

This should be an easy conclusion to reach.

I'm just saying if the technology advances to where it's so good that clearly people and large businesses can come off why should we pay to support a private enterprise?

And if airports and etc can't afford to go all solar, they should pay for the grid and pass the costs on with ticket prices and etc. The reality though is the more people who go solar the cheaper energy on the grid should be for everyone.

 

[superstition]

Utilities charge solar owners insurance?

Yes. A typical charge is safety insurance so that if one of their workers gets zapped on your property your insurance policy will pay damages to them. Reality is, of course, that if they are competent at working with electricity they won't be zapped but it's a disincentive utilities use for people wanting to have private solar.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sounds like they need some accurate accounting so they can justify "grid costs" and be able to separate electricity generation costs.

Solar panel owners should not have to pay for the cost to generate the electricity, but if they are still connected to the grid, there is some sort of maintenance costs that they should take part in.

The utility providers have a responsibility to adapt and scale back their generation as solar grows, yet still be covered on a grid maintenance side of things.

Utilities need to be able to provide at peak demand, typically evening, when solar can't. That doesn't change no matter how much solar there is. More solar means they sell less power at reduced revenues during peak solar hours for maintaining the same infrastructure.

Where all that balances out I don't know.