• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More signs of Solar's real costs

Visbek said:
Yeah, thing is? That doesn't justify slapping a bunch of fees exclusively on residential solar customers.

Everyone who is connected to the grid ought to pay for the grid. Either that should be a flat fee for all users, or a rated fee based on usage. That isn't what Eversource is doing. They are merely using it as an excuse to hit residential solar customers, who are getting paid rather than paying Eversource.
Click to expand...

So no solar customer ever pushed a single Kwh back into the grid? Of course they do, every second the
household demand is exceeded the surplus goes back into the grid.
Home solar users are not the normal customers, if they were the system would be called grid assist,
where the grid only supplies power with the panels do not, with no feed in.
I think the grid attach fees (which should go to all users) will be worked out, the real
sticking point will be the value assigned to surplus production.
I do not think it can be a single cent over the wholesale price, least we set up a system for failure.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, if you pay 3 cents per kWh to receive energy, maybe it would be fair to be charged 3 cents a kWh to send it too?
Click to expand...
No.

Those residential solar arrays provide power to the grid -- which Eversource then sells to someone else, at market rates. You're proposing that Eversource bill both the generator and consumer of electricity for transmission. How is that fair?

Eversource is just using this as a way to drum up additional revenues from customers who they believe will be less likely to feel it, as they are already generating more electricity than they use. This is just a typical game that utilities play with regulatory agencies in order to increase rates or revenues.


I offer this piece of advice. They need to remain stable. They don't need to be profitable, but they can't take losses either. I don't think the historical consumer should have to pay more, for how changes in individual solar has increased the maintenance percentages of lines per power unit, do you?
Click to expand...
What "losses?" I see no indication that Eversource is losing out here. Their net income has been rising every year, and is now at $940 million.


It seems to be a common item of ignorance to the left. That changes often have negative consequences.
Click to expand...
You can't be serious.

Papering over issues is not the exclusive domain of any specific political tendency or affiliation. Everybody does it.

For example: Conservatives and fossil-fuel advocates have spent decades deliberately ignoring the negative effects of industry on the environment. If you want to talk about "changes that have negative consequences," why aren't you talking about how rolling back environmental regulations will have disastrous consequences on local, regional and global scales?

Spare us the partisan nonsense, kthx.
 
longview said:
So no solar customer ever pushed a single Kwh back into the grid? Of course they do, every second the
household demand is exceeded the surplus goes back into the grid.
Click to expand...
And guess what? Eversource sells that electricity to other customers, at market rates.

You're suggesting that Eversource should be allowed to charge two customers for the same transmission.


Home solar users are not the normal customers, if they were the system would be called grid assist,
where the grid only supplies power with the panels do not, with no feed in.
Click to expand...
These customers -- which includes schools and towns -- are indeed "normal" customers. They use electricity, they generate electricity, and what they don't use goes back into the grid. If they generate more than they use, then Eversource pays them.


I do not think it can be a single cent over the wholesale price, least we set up a system for failure.
Click to expand...
Per above: Eversource is not going bankrupt here.

Solar is more than 4 years ahead of schedule, and Eversource's operating income keeps going up. Unless they produce evidence to the contrary, it sounds like they are crying wolf -- as do so many utilities when negotiating or raising rates.
 
Visbek said:
And guess what? Eversource sells that electricity to other customers, at market rates.

You're suggesting that Eversource should be allowed to charge two customers for the same transmission.



These customers -- which includes schools and towns -- are indeed "normal" customers. They use electricity, they generate electricity, and what they don't use goes back into the grid. If they generate more than they use, then Eversource pays them.



Per above: Eversource is not going bankrupt here.

Solar is more than 4 years ahead of schedule, and Eversource's operating income keeps going up. Unless they produce evidence to the contrary, it sounds like they are crying wolf -- as do so many utilities when negotiating or raising rates.
Click to expand...

If a utility normally buy electricity at $.05 per Kwh and sells it for $.10 per Kwh,
all of the payroll, maintenance, overhead, ect, must come out of that difference.
If the Utility is forced to buy surplus solar power at say $.078 per Kwh,
then that difference must be made up somewhere, they loose $.028 of operating budget
for every Kwh of surplus.
At 1% of solar customers, this is not a big deal, at 10% the non solar customers would have to start paying more.
At 50%, the utility would be near bankruptcy.

You may not believe, but net metering at any rate above the wholesale rate is untenable.
Run some examples for yourself, with the utility keeping the same level of income.
 
longview said:
If a utility normally buy electricity at $.05 per Kwh and sells it for $.10 per Kwh,
all of the payroll, maintenance, overhead, ect, must come out of that difference.
Click to expand...
That doesn't change anything.

You are still suggesting that Eversource bill two different entities for the exact same transmission costs. It'd be like a grocery store charging a dairy farmer for the cost of refrigerating the milk in its store. I don't see how that is fair. It certainly isn't typical.


If the Utility is forced to buy surplus solar power at say $.078 per Kwh,
then that difference must be made up somewhere, they loose $.028 of operating budget
Click to expand...
That's nice, but I see no indication whatsoever that Eversource is paying more for electricity than it can charge.

When something like that does happen, usually the difference is made up by the state in the form of a subsidy.


You may not believe, but net metering at any rate above the wholesale rate is untenable.
Run some examples for yourself, with the utility keeping the same level of income.
Click to expand...
You may not believe, but utilities routinely game the system with regulators. The utility pushes for higher rates; the regulator pushes for lower rates. All's fair in love and business, right? Right.
 
longview said:
Home Solar has a lot of advantages, but many of it's proponents fail to see
that there are a few disadvantages.
Solar home owners have low electric bills, which mean under the old billing system
they are not paying their fair share of the grid maintenance cost.
Now we see companies like Eversource in liberal Mass, justifying, a new change
to home solar customers.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...solar-power/Qdr06nIWav3GPzwtrj5p5N/story.html
To me it is simply a reflection of reality, the most economically viable solar systems are grid tied,
and benefits greatly from the grid connection. It is reasonable to pay for the services used.
Click to expand...

That's always the downside isn't it? I live in a drought prone area where potable water is limited. So when the rain and snow fails to come, which is pretty common, our city imposes watering restrictions and begs us all to cut our water usage as much as possible. As most of us are reasonably responsible citizens, most of us dutifully comply. And then it inevitably follows that the water department informs us that the lower water consumption has resulted in water usage fees too low to meet expenses, so they raise our rates.

I don't knock solar panels in areas where they are super efficient--like here. In areas with lots of wind and hail though, they can significantly raise your home owner's insurance rates and, because our household electric bills are already pretty reasonable because we just don't use huge amounts of electricity, solar panels are unlikely to be cost effective for us. But for many they are.

What I would like to do is for the government to study and remedy the serious vulnerabilities in our national electrical grid which is extremely vulnerable. In the long run that might be the most beneficial approach to take and let the private market handle the solar industry.
 
Visbek said:
That doesn't change anything.

You are still suggesting that Eversource bill two different entities for the exact same transmission costs. It'd be like a grocery store charging a dairy farmer for the cost of refrigerating the milk in its store. I don't see how that is fair. It certainly isn't typical.



That's nice, but I see no indication whatsoever that Eversource is paying more for electricity than it can charge.

When something like that does happen, usually the difference is made up by the state in the form of a subsidy.



You may not believe, but utilities routinely game the system with regulators. The utility pushes for higher rates; the regulator pushes for lower rates. All's fair in love and business, right? Right.
Click to expand...

I am guessing you have not taken any accounting classes.
It is not that the utility is paying more for the electricity than it can charge, but that it is required to pay more
than it's normal price for the electricity, therefore eating into the margin between the cost and the retail price.
 
Visbek said:
No.

Those residential solar arrays provide power to the grid -- which Eversource then sells to someone else, at market rates. You're proposing that Eversource bill both the generator and consumer of electricity for transmission. How is that fair?
Click to expand...
I'm saying they need to make up for lost revenues somehow. The transmission lines need maintaining.
Visbek said:
Eversource is just using this as a way to drum up additional revenues from customers who they believe will be less likely to feel it, as they are already generating more electricity than they use. This is just a typical game that utilities play with regulatory agencies in order to increase rates or revenues.
Click to expand...
But they don't generate it consistently. That alone warrants paying them less for the power that can't be relied on.

Visbek said:
What "losses?" I see no indication that Eversource is losing out here. Their net income has been rising every year, and is now at $940 million.
Click to expand...
No losses yet, but when home solar is a larger percentage of power used, the revenues from transmission and distribution fees will diminish if they are not recouped somehow. At some point, the power company starts losing money.

Visbek said:
You can't be serious.
Click to expand...
I am.
 
longview said:
I am guessing you have not taken any accounting classes.
It is not that the utility is paying more for the electricity than it can charge, but that it is required to pay more
than it's normal price for the electricity, therefore eating into the margin between the cost and the retail price.
Click to expand...
I am guessing that you are talking out of your posterior.

First of all, you're moving the goalposts. At first, the problem was "the generators are using the grid - charge 'em!" When I pointed out that this is double-booking, you ignore that objection and pretend that all along, you were defending the poor utility from paying too much for generated power.

Second, there is no indication that Eversource is paying too much for the energy. It sound much more like the generators are all sending more electricity to the grid than is needed during peak hours. However, they don't seem to be doing anything to actually address the issue -- such as implementing a type of smart metering, which will allow generators to turn down or off their PV panels at times when the electricity can't be used. Instead of implement proper economic incentives to address the surplus, they are just slamming those generators with an extra fee.

So what is the solution Eversource has picked?
• Eliminating time-of-use rates
• Slamming residential solar customers with a fee based on peak usage, no matter when it happens -- including times when the customer is generating its own power

This has nothing to do with the grid. They aren't charging these users for access to or effect on the grid, they're just charging them more with the excuse that they aren't paying enough for Eversource's tastes.

I.e. It's a big middle finger to residential solar customers.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm saying they need to make up for lost revenues somehow.
Click to expand...
What "lost revenue?" Where is the evidence that they are being forced to pay more for this electricity than it's worth? How much are they paying? How much are they charging? Why aren't they smart metering, to reduce generation when it isn't needed?


The transmission lines need maintaining.
Click to expand...
Uh huh

Your description says you live in Portland. Apparently, your utility rates will go up 5.6% this month, so that PGE can... improve the grid and pay higher transmission costs. Please enjoy.


But they don't generate it consistently. That alone warrants paying them less for the power that can't be relied on.
Click to expand...
Or, that's nonsense. If they need to flatten generation, they should focus on smart metering or similar technologies, rather than just fatten their bottom line with residential generators.


No losses yet, but when home solar is a larger percentage of power used, the revenues from transmission and distribution fees will diminish if they are not recouped somehow. At some point, the power company starts losing money.
Click to expand...
Yes, because utilities are always honest in their negotiations with regulators.

By the way, I have this bridge for sale. Cheap!

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
I am guessing that you are talking out of your posterior.

First of all, you're moving the goalposts. At first, the problem was "the generators are using the grid - charge 'em!" When I pointed out that this is double-booking, you ignore that objection and pretend that all along, you were defending the poor utility from paying too much for generated power.

Second, there is no indication that Eversource is paying too much for the energy. It sound much more like the generators are all sending more electricity to the grid than is needed during peak hours. However, they don't seem to be doing anything to actually address the issue -- such as implementing a type of smart metering, which will allow generators to turn down or off their PV panels at times when the electricity can't be used. Instead of implement proper economic incentives to address the surplus, they are just slamming those generators with an extra fee.

So what is the solution Eversource has picked?
• Eliminating time-of-use rates
• Slamming residential solar customers with a fee based on peak usage, no matter when it happens -- including times when the customer is generating its own power

This has nothing to do with the grid. They aren't charging these users for access to or effect on the grid, they're just charging them more with the excuse that they aren't paying enough for Eversource's tastes.

I.e. It's a big middle finger to residential solar customers.
Click to expand...

No moving goalposts, the problem is that the utility must be able to pay for it's cost of goods sold for the power it sells.
I could not tell you if Eversouce's solution is a viable one, but the costs do need to be paid.
Many current net metering plans move the target in the wrong direction, by increasing the cost of goods sold of the utilities.
If you run out the numbers at 20% 50%, and higher, the old way of prorating the cost of the grid into the usage,
only leads to untenable high electric rates for the non solar users.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom