A year of solar: Starting to look like a bad choice

[CodeeCB]

For all you people in MN: Why the big secret about not revealing who you buy your power from ? I don't doubt your veracity, but please understand that while possible in what seem to be very rare instances, full retail reimbursement for overgeneration is a rarity.

Apparently Excel is one big provider with several coops providing more power. CenterPoint and Connexus appear to be two coops in/around Ham Lake, neither one mentioning much of anything about NEM or grid tied residential PV. Any sites you can point to that I've missed that can enlighten me about NEM possibilities in MN ?

Good evening!

No secrets here lol the post 1 or 2 above this I specifically mentioned that myself and the other guy both seem to have Connexus Energy. Centerpoint is the gas company and Xcel is the electric and gas company across the river. Xcel customers actually get paid an additional amount per kWh above and beyond retail (an extra $.08) for 10 years It's called Xcel Solar rewards but you are limited to 120% of your previous years usage when your syatem gets approved.

I can post a screenshot of my contract if you'd like showing the payment options I had, but my bill above shows a credit of $311 on a single bill for Energy buy back along with the rates for both purchasing and selling it. I'm beginning to think that Minnesota is a rarity in this regard?

[reader2580]

For all you people in MN: Why the big secret about not revealing who you buy your power from ? I don't doubt your veracity, but please understand that while possible in what seem to be very rare instances, full retail reimbursement for overgeneration is a rarity.

Apparently Excel is one big provider with several coops providing more power. CenterPoint and Connexus appear to be two coops in/around Ham Lake, neither one mentioning much of anything about NEM or grid tied residential PV. Any sites you can point to that I've missed that can enlighten me about NEM possibilities in MN ?

I didn't think who I have for electricity was important for the discussion. I have Connexus Energy in MN for electricity. Other than the other poster I doubt anyone would have heard of them since Connexus just told me Friday that they only have 140 customers with solar. The low number of solar customers probably explains why the city of Ham Lake seemed to have very little experience with solar.

I don't know where to find the NEM stuff for Minnesota without some digging.

[Steve C]

Maybe i am oversimplifying the idea. But, did the OP lay down $10,000 cash to avoid a $61/month bill?

[NCmountainsOffgrid]

agreed, I can understand wanting to be 'self sufficient', maybe, but offsetting such a low energy bill seems to be fraught with high up-front costs and it's certainly not a guarantee of success, especially if you're still 'attached' to the grid.

[J.P.M.]

I didn't think who I have for electricity was important for the discussion. I have Connexus Energy in MN for electricity. Other than the other poster I doubt anyone would have heard of them since Connexus just told me Friday that they only have 140 customers with solar. The low number of solar customers probably explains why the city of Ham Lake seemed to have very little experience with solar.

I don't know where to find the NEM stuff for Minnesota without some digging.

Thank you for the information. I kind of figured that's who it is. It may/may not be important to this discussion, but it's important for my curiosity in order to get closer to the bottom story and rules behind what your coop pays for excess generation.

[ButchDeal]

Thank you for the information. I kind of figured that's who it is. It may/may not be important to this discussion, but it's important for my curiosity in order to get closer to the bottom story and rules behind what your coop pays for excess generation.

MN has had some strange ones like the "made in MN" debacle incentive, which had some poor manufacturers scrambling to make an assembly plant and toss together some over priced PV modules. Similar results with the Made in WA incentives. The Made in .. incentives have pretty much just kept companies like TenK alive.
We sold only a few using them as we found the homeowners were financially better off going with cheaper Tier 1 brand equipment and hitting the lower payout incentive mark.

Any time (in any state) a homeowner has a coop or municipal utility you need to check with them as they are not regulated the same as the publicly traded utilities and can and often do change policy after installs. A few offer contracts to give net meter customers some stability.

[reader2580]

Maybe i am oversimplifying the idea. But, did the OP lay down $10,000 cash to avoid a $61/month bill?

$62 a month actually. PVwatts says I should generate 12,671 KWh per year using the standard 14% loss. I am just looking to offset my bill. I used 4,547 KWh in the year before solar was turned on.

i didn't change my usage since I got solar that I am aware of. I still keep the A/C at the same temp and turn off unused lights and all that. I live alone so just me to influence electric use.

I still didn't get network hooked up to inverters as fixing my snow blower is much more important right now with multiple snow events coming.

[J.P.M.]

MN has had some strange ones like the "made in MN" debacle incentive, which had some poor manufacturers scrambling to make an assembly plant and toss together some over priced PV modules. Similar results with the Made in WA incentives. The Made in .. incentives have pretty much just kept companies like TenK alive.
We sold only a few using them as we found the homeowners were financially better off going with cheaper Tier 1 brand equipment and hitting the lower payout incentive mark.

Any time (in any state) a homeowner has a coop or municipal utility you need to check with them as they are not regulated the same as the publicly traded utilities and can and often do change policy after installs. A few offer contracts to give net meter customers some stability.

Understood. I appreciate and am mostly aware of what you write. TenK for example, is/was a poster child for local (state level) porkbarrel scam/junk your describe. A poster here w/the handle pleppik had a TenK system and described it and some of its performance about 5 yrs. or so ago. He seemed convinced of the rightness of his cause, but struck me a s a good example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

In this current situation, I sniff a lot of confusion. Maybe things are exactly as Reader2580 states. But maybe there's some confusion on everyone's part, or maybe the coop does indeed buy trueup excess from PV generators at full retail and I'm ignorant. Example: Maybe trueup happens each billing period. Or/Also, having only a couple hundred PV customers makes me wonder if the coop might have only one oar in the water with respect to NEM policy. On the other hand, the local coop (Connexus) appears to be part of a larger operation doing business in several states. Either or any way, my curiosity is piqued.

Film @ 11 . Details when they break.

[reader2580]

If I recall correctly TenK went under before the MN made program ended. The MN made program ended in 2017 and all installations had to be completed by Oct 31, 2018. One manufacturer said they would close their MN facility by the end of 2018.

See the following link for the MN statute covering net metering: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/216b.164 The MN PUC also has a webpage on net metering here: https://mn.gov/puc/energy/distribute.../net-metering/

[wwu123]

From my quick read, both reader2580 and CodeeCB are subject to Rate A50 in the Minnesota utility rate book, which I found on Xcel's site but perhaps applies to Connexus and other Minnesota utilities as well:

https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/PDF/Regulatory/Me_Section_9.pdf

That does seem to compensate around $0.12 for excess generation depending on season. Rather than Rate A51, which only compensates $0.01-0.02. But based on the sample bill, $42.83 does seem to be a net charge for the month, not a credit - but it seems to highly suggest that same month a refund check of $88.87 was cut for a previous net balance? Perhaps the wife does the monthly bills and is cashing checks that came with the statements, I don't know? What else does "credit refund" mean - the answer is with that mysterious line item, because that is a huge charge that is added for no other reason.

reader2580 does NOT appear to qualify for the additional $0.08/kwh for Solar Rewards program that CodeeCB mentions, as the system limit size is 120% of annual usage, and reader2580's system size is over 200% of annual usage.

[reader2580]

I live alone, so no wife. I don't qualify for Solar Rewards as that program is not for Connexus Energy customers.

I figured out the issue with the bill I posted. On the other page of my bill it shows a $46.04 credit and says do not pay. No idea where the $42.xx came from.

[CodeeCB]

From my quick read, both reader2580 and CodeeCB are subject to Rate A50 in the Minnesota utility rate book, which I found on Xcel's site but perhaps applies to Connexus and other Minnesota utilities as well:

https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfil..._Section_9.pdf

That does seem to compensate around $0.12 for excess generation depending on season. Rather than Rate A51, which only compensates $0.01-0.02. But based on the sample bill, $42.83 does seem to be a net charge for the month, not a credit - but it seems to highly suggest that same month a refund check of $88.87 was cut for a previous net balance? Perhaps the wife does the monthly bills and is cashing checks that came with the statements, I don't know? What else does "credit refund" mean - the answer is with that mysterious line item, because that is a huge charge that is added for no other reason.

reader2580 does NOT appear to qualify for the additional $0.08/kwh for Solar Rewards program that CodeeCB mentions, as the system limit size is 120% of annual usage, and reader2580's system size is over 200% of annual usage.

There is no confusion, this is very straight forward basic information. I am posting a Connexus bill for a month showing credits and usage Connexus Bill.jpg along with my Uniform Statewide Contract for small solar production facilities MN Solar Info.jpg and a snapshot of my monthly bills before and after my solar got installed (End of April). Connexus Billing.jpg

Connexus electric rates are below, we don't have any of that time of use rates, tiers or any of that other junk luckily. *There is a special rate for electric vehicle charging along with a $500 credit for each level 2 charger "The most economical way to a full battery is to charge your vehicle during off-peak hours, when the cost for electricity is at its lowest.With the Off-Peak Charging rate, you'll pay 4.45

[reader2580]

Man, I could only dream of doing as well as CodeeCB. Going from owing $251 a month to getting paid over $200 a month is incredible. Your system is just over twice as big as mine yet you sold back three times as much as I did for essentially the same period. (I realize that amounts used will vary.)

[J.P.M.]

I live alone, so no wife. I don't qualify for Solar Rewards as that program is not for Connexus Energy customers.

I figured out the issue with the bill I posted. On the other page of my bill it shows a $46.04 credit and says do not pay. No idea where the $42.xx came from.

Sounds like you are one of the legendary MN bachelor farmers. OOFDAH !

[J.P.M.]

From my quick read, both reader2580 and CodeeCB are subject to Rate A50 in the Minnesota utility rate book, which I found on Xcel's site but perhaps applies to Connexus and other Minnesota utilities as well:

https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/PDF/Regulatory/Me_Section_9.pdf

That does seem to compensate around $0.12 for excess generation depending on season. Rather than Rate A51, which only compensates $0.01-0.02. But based on the sample bill, $42.83 does seem to be a net charge for the month, not a credit - but it seems to highly suggest that same month a refund check of $88.87 was cut for a previous net balance? Perhaps the wife does the monthly bills and is cashing checks that came with the statements, I don't know? What else does "credit refund" mean - the answer is with that mysterious line item, because that is a huge charge that is added for no other reason.

reader2580 does NOT appear to qualify for the additional $0.08/kwh for Solar Rewards program that CodeeCB mentions, as the system limit size is 120% of annual usage, and reader2580's system size is over 200% of annual usage.

I'd generally and mostly agree with that.

What I found so far going to the source (the MN legislation), it looks to me like MN energy statutes are similar in intent to other states. Looking/combing through 216B.164 of MN statues that covers cogeneration and small power production, as well as a lot (but not all) of the supporting stuff that fleshes out that legislation, it seems to me that retail rate compensation for excess generation is in fact possible for both public and coop utilities in MN, at least when the legislation was written and in force.

Subd.3. (covering : "Purchases; small facilities") of that legislation seems to cover how coops can pay for excess generation from independent, small (< 40 kW) PV customers excess generation. That para. points to 3 subsequent paragraphs listing 3 ways a customer can be compensated for excess generation:

Under Subd.3.c., the method amounts to the coop calc'ing an "avoided cost". I didn't dig too far into how such "avoided cost" might be calc'ed, but from the brief description given in the legislation, it sounds similar to the ways other utilities approach the issue. I'd cautiously think that might be what the schedules that speak to avoided costs ( schedules 51-52-53..., etc.) are meant to address. I'd also think that using this method would result in the highest probability of the least compensation being paid to the PV owner by the service provider and some of the reason for sch. 51 ... etc.

Under Subd.3.d., the coop pays the PV owner for excess generation on a monthly basis, effectively at the retail rate. The legislation does not say when such compensation is paid, but from what Reader2580's and other's info/bills posted on this thread look like, it seems that the excess may be paid on a per billing period basis.

Subd.3. f. carries net excess generation for prior billing periods forward to the next billing period. Then, at the end of the relevant year, the slate gets wiped clean and no further compensation for the prior relevant year is paid.

What I also suspect is that Reader2580's coop, and other coops, are fully aware of what they might gain by calc'ing avoided costs, but given only 168 NEM customers at this time, they may just have figured it's small potatoes to pay retail for excess generation until more NEM cust. come along, but that's pure speculation on my part.

So, it seems that in MN, at this time, and after some preliminary digging to the source, that compensation for excess generation at full retail rate is possible.

To Reader 2580: Enjoy it while you have it, but I'd respectfully suggest you not make any long term commitments without a lot of homework about what the deal is, what factors affect the deal, or how long it might last.