Net Metering to Distributed Generation Program.

[jschner]

The city is holding a "workshop" on Wed. to try to explain things with current and future PV owners. This will be my chance to meet the other PV owners and explain the amount of greed this city electric department has and expose their conflict of interest to owners and the city council who might be there.

I need to explain the benefits solar had for the city prior to the new rates they have passed. Things like:

1. Helped the City meet the demands of California SB1.
2. Helped the city become more green, solar friendly and reduce CO2 emissions.
3. Gave the city 100% of my solar credits.
4. Homeowner takes all the risk in equipment, repairs, and buying quality equipment.
5. PV System reduces peak demand on transmission lines lowering maintenance and expansion costs for the city.

Any other benefits?

I also need info to counter these claims:
They argue they are a for profit utility and I only paid $68.89 last year for electricity at the regular rate. IMO they totally negate the reasons why they need my PV system and it's benefits to the city. Also systems as small as 1kW could have been installed. At $3 a watt for installation and after city and federal rebates it would have only taken $1000 for a home to install a PV system. That makes solar installation competitive to any of the other rebate programs going on in the city available to everyone, including the "poor."

They also argue my PV system is subsidized by the "poor" because my home is connected to their transmission lines at night and poor weather and I use the lines during solar production. Again I also benefit the city by helping to reduce peak demand on their transmission lines which they convioently forgot to be told by the elctric department and partly why they wanted PV systems in the first place. At peak, my home probably offsets three homes. With 13 PV systems that is close to 39 homes being offset during peak times throughout the city. By their arguments those are most likely larger homes.

Also, I am going through my Net Metering agreement and interconnection agreements and it appears that no changes can be made by either party unless we agree in writing. I have not signed anything. I wonder if new contracts will be handed out at this workshop?

After this workshop I plan on giving all this info to the PUC and see if this is even legal.

So I need more ammo here to rile up the owners and make the city council question what the city electric department sold them on.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[J.P.M.]

He isn't the OP. He just came in and giving the wrothless advise to OP and he didn't realize that..... Even OP knew he got screwed by POCO..... ouch, read if you care

FWIW, I think that at least some of that advice makes sense, and whether I agree with it or not, it still has value as an opinion.

[silversaver]

Seems to me you need to get after the local officials and let then know just how unhappy you are. Confront them with the idea that you should get as good treatment as customers of investor owned utilities since they also have to make a profit.

He isn't the OP. He just came in and giving the wrothless advise to OP and he didn't realize that..... Even OP knew he got screwed by POCO..... ouch, read if you care

Looks like you have a few options

- add more solar to reduce what you get from the utility overall
- run the numbers and see when you use city power and see if you can reduce that by either improving efficiency or shifty loads to times when you produce excess
- add a battery system to minimize power sent to the utility as well as power from the utility

very short sited since they save in transmission upgrades and in purchasing power by getting your excess and sending it to the neighbor(s)

You might also want to see if the PUC has anything to say about this. Finally you can complain to your Representative at the state capital see. i can see more utilities (Government run) trying to go down this route to discourage solar.

[Ian S]

Looks like Russ is at least contributing intelligently to the request at hand.

Hopefully the PUC will review this situation and provide clarity since investor owned utilities are on the hook until 2017 for NetMetering. After that who knows.

Best bet would be to reduce consumption as I stated earlier.

And as for the peanut gallery that has nothing intelligent to say:
"Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh at you or pity you."

Seems to me you need to get after the local officials and let then know just how unhappy you are. Confront them with the idea that you should get as good treatment as customers of investor owned utilities since they also have to make a profit.

[inetdog]

I heard that one with two old guys in Oregon the butt of the joke. They had a truck and would buy watermelons in Hermiston for 5 cents/lb, truck them 400 miles and sell them in Portland for 5 cents/lb. They were going broke so they had a business meeting together. While drinking beer they talked over all aspects of the business and came to the conclusion - they were just going to have to get a bigger truck.

Reminds me of the guy who was voted least likely to succeed in his high school class. An academic failure and not much on personality either.
At the ten year reunion he arrived in a very long limo.

When his classmates asked him how he had come by the money, he replied.

"It wasn't hard at all. I just found something I could make for $1 and sell for $3. It's amazing how fast that 2% profit adds up."

[J.P.M.]

Looks like Russ is at least contributing intelligently to the request at hand.

Hopefully the PUC will review this situation and provide clarity since investor owned utilities are on the hook until 2017 for NetMetering. After that who knows.

Best bet would be to reduce consumption as I stated earlier.

And as for the peanut gallery that has nothing intelligent to say:
"Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh at you or pity you."

And since the City of Shasta is not an I.O.U., think they can do what they are doing, at least according to my VERY cursory reading.

[russ]

Two Jewish tailors, Adam and David, with stores side by side are talking in front of their shops about business. Adam is frustrated because business is so slow, and David is happy and extremely busy.

Adam charges $400 for a tailored men's suit and it cost him $350 to make a suit. David on the other hand charges $300 for the same suit, but cost him the same $350 to make it. Naturally David is selling suits faster than he can make them. Adam knows the economics and ask David how he can stay in business selling for a loss. David happily replies: I make up for it in volume.

I heard that one with two old guys in Oregon the butt of the joke. They had a truck and would buy watermelons in Hermiston for 5 cents/lb, truck them 400 miles and sell them in Portland for 5 cents/lb. They were going broke so they had a business meeting together. While drinking beer they talked over all aspects of the business and came to the conclusion - they were just going to have to get a bigger truck.

[raydias]

That was the only question - it is rather silly to install more solar when you get so little for the surplus and you have no idea when the clowns are going to change the rules again.

Looks like Russ is at least contributing intelligently to the request at hand.

Hopefully the PUC will review this situation and provide clarity since investor owned utilities are on the hook until 2017 for NetMetering. After that who knows.

Best bet would be to reduce consumption as I stated earlier.

And as for the peanut gallery that has nothing intelligent to say:
"Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh at you or pity you."

[silversaver]

Two Jewish tailors, Adam and David, with stores side by side are talking in front of their shops about business. Adam is frustrated because business is so slow, and David is happy and extremely busy.

Adam charges $400 for a tailored men's suit and it cost him $350 to make a suit. David on the other hand charges $300 for the same suit, but cost him the same $350 to make it. Naturally David is selling suits faster than he can make them. Adam knows the economics and ask David how he can stay in business selling for a loss. David happily replies: I make up for it in volume.

jerk! LMAO haha

[Sunking]

please explain how my math is wrong, I never mentioned netmetering?

Two Jewish tailors, Adam and David, with stores side by side are talking in front of their shops about business. Adam is frustrated because business is so slow, and David is happy and extremely busy.

Adam charges $400 for a tailored men's suit and it cost him $350 to make a suit. David on the other hand charges $300 for the same suit, but cost him the same $350 to make it. Naturally David is selling suits faster than he can make them. Adam knows the economics and ask David how he can stay in business selling for a loss. David happily replies: I make up for it in volume.

[raydias]

Now, this sounds like politician. Completely worthless.

Ah yes why have facts get in the way or provide actual data to backup your statement. Easier to be a jerk about it.

Now I know who to ignore.

[silversaver]

please explain how my math is wrong, I never mentioned netmetering?

you might want to review the document and example provided and clarify?

if he gets 300kw from the city and produces 500kw he has a charge. If he produces 700kw instead he gets a credit. looks straight forward to me. Now does installing the extra solar to get to that level make financial sense? that's a different question.

So again I am not basing my numbers on netmetering but on the 2 meter setup that the example outlines.

Now, this sounds like politician. Completely worthless.

[russ]

if he gets 300kw from the city and produces 500kw he has a charge. If he produces 700kw instead he gets a credit. looks straight forward to me. Now does installing the extra solar to get to that level make financial sense? that's a different question.

That was the only question - it is rather silly to install more solar when you get so little for the surplus and you have no idea when the clowns are going to change the rules again.

[raydias]

russ is right.

raydias, you need to work on the math part and read. When POCO only offer you $0.0865 per kWh generated, putting more solar is plain stupid. It is 2 meter systems. You sell ALL solar generated and buy ALL from POCO. It isn't net metering.

please explain how my math is wrong, I never mentioned netmetering?

you might want to review the document and example provided and clarify?

if he gets 300kw from the city and produces 500kw he has a charge. If he produces 700kw instead he gets a credit. looks straight forward to me. Now does installing the extra solar to get to that level make financial sense? that's a different question.

So again I am not basing my numbers on netmetering but on the 2 meter setup that the example outlines.

[silversaver]

The more he produces the more he loses.

From what I saw the more he produces the more it will offset the consumption

From the example provided in the City meeting link

City Power 300 KW x Tier 1 rate 0.1404 = $42.12 + service charge of $13.50 and Public benefit $1.59 (2.85) = 57.21
Self produced 500 KW x 0.0865 = 45.85

City $57.21 - Self $45.85 = $11.36 to the city

Now if he produced more
City Power 300 KW x Tier 1 rate 0.1404 = $42.12 + service charge of $13.50 and Public benefit $1.59 (2.85) = 57.21
Self produced 700 KW x 0.0865 = $60.55

City $57.21 - Self $60.55 = $3.34 credit

So he would not be loosing? and if he can reduce the city consumption more the better the numbers.

This is from the example provided on page 17 that compares the old structure to the new. i wouldn't be surprised if they charged a service fee for the new meter as well.... But in the end adding more solar would reduce or eliminate the city bill based on the example provided.

russ is right.

raydias, you need to work on the math part and read. When POCO only offer you $0.0865 per kWh generated, putting more solar is plain stupid. It is 2 meter systems. You sell ALL solar generated and buy ALL from POCO. It isn't net metering.