Net Metering to Distributed Generation Program.

[pleppik]

Anyway, I was the only one there out of the 13 solar homes but the council agreed to check into the grandfathering for existing solar homes. They were also invited to the solar workshop tomorrow run by the City Electric Director who personally tried to argue points and obviously does not have solar in his best interest.

Trying to get a few of the other 13 solars to jump onboard. We will see how it all goes.

One resource which might be helpful in arguing your case is Minnesota's "Value of Solar" methodology document.

The quick summary is that last year the state passed a law allowing utilities to substitute a Value of Solar (VoS) tariff for net metering; under this tariff the customer would buy all power at retail and sell all produced power at VoS. But the state also specified that the VoS rate had to include all the benefits to the utility of the generated PV, as well as avoided pollution costs.

So the state went through a months-long process to figure out how to calculate VoS, and everyone (utilities, customers, PV installers, etc.) got to have their say as to what the value of solar really is.

And at the end, they produced a detailed document with actual calculations. Here it is.

The exact numbers will differ quite a bit from place to place, but this gives you a concrete way to show that PV really does have value, and a way to calculate it.

By the way, after lobbying hard to get VoS passed into law last year, none of the utilities have actually filed a VoS tariff yet. Some people think that's because, when the utilities are forced to actually calculate the VoS rate including all the factors they are required to include, it will come out to be higher than retail. Here's an example calculation which comes out to about $0.03/kWh higher than our current retail electric rates in MN. That's partly because VoS includes avoided environmental costs, which the utility does not currently have to pay but which have to be borne by the community at large. In other words, power companies are being subsidized by not having to pay the full cost of the pollution they create.

[pleppik]

Good luck, seriously. Whether we all agree or not, you're doing what more of us (me included) take for granted and maybe could be doing more of in a free society. FWIW, your actions give me pause for thought and make me a bit embarrassed and ashamed for my laziness and cynicism. Bitching is easy. Getting involved takes a sack.

Funny thing is, getting involved at a local level is really easy.

Over the past year I have been heavily involved in a (successful) lobbying effort unrelated to solar power. And I learned some amazing things:

• Nobody ever goes to city council meetings. Show up and you will be heard.
• Very few people ever meet with their state legislators in person. Show up and you will be heard.
• Most politicians at the local level are just like me: ordinary citizens who cared enough to get involved.

[Ian S]

Some people think that's because, when the utilities are forced to actually calculate the VoS rate including all the factors they are required to include, it will come out to be higher than retail. Here's an example calculation which comes out to about $0.03/kWh higher than our current retail electric rates in MN. That's partly because VoS includes avoided environmental costs, which the utility does not currently have to pay but which have to be borne by the community at large. In other words, power companies are being subsidized by not having to pay the full cost of the pollution they create.

I love it! That may be useful here in Arizona. TUSK is organizing a rally at the state house on June 4 to lobby against property tax on leased solar. I'll be there.

[+3 Golfer]

..

By the way, after lobbying hard to get VoS passed into law last year, none of the utilities have actually filed a VoS tariff yet. Some people think that's because, when the utilities are forced to actually calculate the VoS rate including all the factors they are required to include, it will come out to be higher than retail. Here's an example calculation which comes out to about $0.03/kWh higher than our current retail electric rates in MN. That's partly because VoS includes avoided environmental costs, which the utility does not currently have to pay but which have to be borne by the community at large. In other words, power companies are being subsidized by not having to pay the full cost of the pollution they create.

All that is happening is ratepayers (community at large) will be paying $ now to avoid paying them later. Where does the utility get the $? From those that can't afford solar. Where do the $ go? To the people that can afford solar.

1978 PURPA again.

[jschner]

So I went to the workshop tonight and and met a couple other solar producers. Most were not there which was unfortunate. And really it is 24 solar households now instead of 13.

The workshop was really just a sales job for the new program.

Their biggest arguments were,

Solar absolutely has no benefit to the city in any way at all. I asked if there was any benefit at all and the Director said a flat out "No!"

The city is non-profit and they are losing money with Net Metering.

If we can buy power at $0.0865, why should we buy your solar power at the usage rate of $0.144?

Solar credits have never been used so not valid.

Peak or non-peak absolutely does not matter at all as the rate is the same and the power costs are the same.

"The poor" and "the little old lady next door" is subsidizing your solar, need to protect all the other non-solar customers.

They city basically said they funded the solar program rebates and Net Meter agreements the last 5 years out of the goodness of their hearts for no benefit at all to the city.

It was interesting to say the least.

Anyone want to tackle any of those?

[russ]

The city is non-profit and they are losing money with Net Metering.

If we can buy power at $0.0865, why should we buy your solar power at the usage rate of $0.144?

They happen to be right but they should have never opened the door then.

[silversaver]

I know it is a "2 meters" system now. you sell all your generated power back to the grid at 0.0865 per kWh. Is it the net (after your usage like net metering) or you have to sell ALL of your power generatied? Find out on this part, it is very important. At least you can use less energy from the grid during solar production and make your money worth.

[Sunking]

Isn't the purpose of California SB1 to help offset peak demand? If it can do it on a large scale, does that not happen on a smaller scale such as the city transmission lines too? I can understand when the solar production surpasses the usage on the transmission lines but, with only 13 PV systems in the whole city electric area of about 2500 homes, it seems to me the 15-20 amps my PV system is generating is being used up with my home and immediate neighbors giving 4kW to 5kW of relief to miles of transmission lines in the city and state.

The flaw in your thinking is that 15 to 25 amps on your side of the service transformer equates to 15 to 20 amps on the transmission side if completely false. Distribution is at 13.2 Kv and Transmission as high as 750 Kv, not the 240 volts at your transformer. 5 Kw on a 13.2 Kv Distribution line is 0.38 amps, and on 750 Kv Transmission is .006 amps. Neither is enough to make a bit of difference on lines that carry up to 2000 amps. It is like saying carrying an extra quarter in your pocket is going to effect your cars gas mileage. So if you bring that up to informed people are going to know that and completely dismiss anything you have to say.

[Sunking]

So I went to the workshop tonight and and met a couple other solar producers. Most were not there which was unfortunate. And really it is 24 solar households now instead of 13.

The workshop was really just a sales job for the new program.

Their biggest arguments were,

Solar absolutely has no benefit to the city in any way at all. I asked if there was any benefit at all and the Director said a flat out "No!"

The city is non-profit and they are losing money with Net Metering.

If we can buy power at $0.0865, why should we buy your solar power at the usage rate of $0.144?

Solar credits have never been used so not valid.

Peak or non-peak absolutely does not matter at all as the rate is the same and the power costs are the same.

"The poor" and "the little old lady next door" is subsidizing your solar, need to protect all the other non-solar customers.

They city basically said they funded the solar program rebates and Net Meter agreements the last 5 years out of the goodness of their hearts for no benefit at all to the city.

It was interesting to say the least.

Anyone want to tackle any of those?

Everything they said is TRUE. Look at it this way. You need gas in your car. There are 2 gas stations on the corner. One sells gas for $3/gal and the other $6/gal. Which one do you buy? The choice and truth is easy to see.

[Sunking]

I know it is a "2 meters" system now. you sell all your generated power back to the grid at 0.0865 per kWh. Is it the net (after your usage like net metering) or you have to sell ALL of your power generatied? Find out on this part, it is very important. At least you can use less energy from the grid during solar production and make your money worth.

Net Metering by legal definition is you buy and sell at the same price. If you are a biz and do that you go bankrupt.

[ButchDeal]

Everything they said is TRUE. Look at it this way. You need gas in your car. There are 2 gas stations on the corner. One sells gas for $3/gal and the other $6/gal. Which one do you buy? The choice and truth is easy to see.

Yes but the flaw is that it is a two meter system. He is being forced to sell ALL his power low and purchase back his own power at higher prices.
If it were a single meter he would be able to use his own power and avoid purchasing the higher cost power from the grid. Yes his excess power would be sold less than the net price but at lease he could time his usage to take best advantage of his own production.

[jschner]

The flaw in your thinking is that 15 to 25 amps on your side of the service transformer equates to 15 to 20 amps on the transmission side if completely false. Distribution is at 13.2 Kv and Transmission as high as 750 Kv, not the 240 volts at your transformer. 5 Kw on a 13.2 Kv Distribution line is 0.38 amps, and on 750 Kv Transmission is .006 amps. Neither is enough to make a bit of difference on lines that carry up to 2000 amps. It is like saying carrying an extra quarter in your pocket is going to effect your cars gas mileage. So if you bring that up to informed people are going to know that and completely dismiss anything you have to say.

Re-read what I wrote. I switched from 20 amps on my side to saying 4kW to 5kW of relief on the transmission side because I did not know what their voltage was.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

[+3 Golfer]

Re-read what I wrote. I switched from 20 amps on my side to saying 4kW to 5kW of relief on the transmission side because I did not know what their voltage was.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

The City says they can buy power at $0.0865 per kWh. The presumption is that is the delivered price to the City. Get a copy of their power purchase contracts. So, if it is the delivered price, the City is in essence paying for transmission of the power to the City under FERC approved tariffs. The relief on the City side is virtually non-existent and won't be a factor until there is a high saturation of solar. So, why should a non-solar City customer pay extra now to help increase solar in the City so that perhaps there is a distribution or other benefits years in the future.

The problem you are facing is that Solar cannot stand alone now without subsidies / tax credits / net metering in the hopes that the benefits will be reaped by all in the future. IMO, your best bet is to seek grandfathering since the City promoted solar in prior years. You really need to get the other solar owners to perhaps sign a petition to such indicating how they were "duped" by the City when they put in solar. The City needs to recognize that perhaps they made a mistake earlier in support of solar but should honor their original support of solar as they are now causing financial harm to 13 CIty residential customers with their decision.

[Ian S]

You really need to get the other solar owners to perhaps sign a petition to such indicating how they were "duped" by the City when they put in solar. The City needs to recognize that perhaps they made a mistake earlier in support of solar but should honor their original support of solar as they are now causing financial harm to 13 CIty residential customers with their decision.

Exactly. The city made a decision that they now regret and they're screwing those who made a long term financial commitment based on trusting the city's original decision. Grandfathering is a fair and cheap solution (so few solar customers anyway) and if they won't go for that, then if I were living there, I'd make sure the council did not get re-elected and I'd bad-mouth the city every chance I got.

[russ]

Exactly. The city made a decision that they now regret and they're screwing those who made a long term financial commitment based on trusting the city's original decision. Grandfathering is a fair and cheap solution (so few solar customers anyway) and if they won't go for that, then if I were living there, I'd make sure the council did not get re-elected and I'd bad-mouth the city every chance I got.

I am sure the city council cares - not. This is a downside for those who have taken advantage of subsidies and incentives. The vast majority that haven't used those financial aids are not too sympathetic. On the site solar is the big thing but in the real world - different story.