Florida Power & Light : Customer had to pay more for energy because of Home Solar

[lkruper]

Sorry, but at least here where I live in Florida, we are already getting hist for those infrastructure additions. Higher than average tax rates on new homes (Florida has a very strange property tax schedule), AND, an huge "impact fee" on new construction. That impact fee, if you call your county and ask what it's for, is specifically to pay your portion of infrastructure need increases. Road signage, sewer, water, and electric. So, you are missing the option of "Tax new construction." --- which is already being done.

Well, you probably want electricity even when the sun does not shine and at night, right

[rpenoyer]

Well, you probably want electricity even when the sun does not shine and at night, right

Sorry, the context of the thread may have been lost on my last post. The question is "Am I putting an extra financial burden on my neighbors because I installed solar panels and am net metering?" My last post about impact fees was my response to the proposal that the infrastructure set up the grid to handle my home energy needs was burdened by others. My point was, no, I paid the impact fee and pay above average property taxes just like all of my neighbors. Nothing special was granted or given to me on that account.

[lkruper]

Sorry, the context of the thread may have been lost on my last post. The question is "Am I putting an extra financial burden on my neighbors because I installed solar panels and am net metering?" My last post about impact fees was my response to the proposal that the infrastructure set up the grid to handle my home energy needs was burdened by others. My point was, no, I paid the impact fee and pay above average property taxes just like all of my neighbors. Nothing special was granted or given to me on that account.

I misunderstood your point. Any don't get me wrong, I have no agenda or firmly held belief on this subject and want to hear both sides. At this point I do believe that if someone sells electricity to the utility for more than the utility would need to spend, that those who don't have solar are picking up the difference. Whether that is right or wrong or good or bad is not something I am addressing.

[jflorey2]

Sorry, but at least here where I live in Florida, we are already getting hist for those infrastructure additions. Higher than average tax rates on new homes (Florida has a very strange property tax schedule), AND, an huge "impact fee" on new construction. That impact fee, if you call your county and ask what it's for, is specifically to pay your portion of infrastructure need increases. Road signage, sewer, water, and electric. So, you are missing the option of "Tax new construction." --- which is already being done.

Taxes, in general, do not take into account the extra costs that solar energy adds to infrastructure buildout for utilities. However, I agree that you can just up taxes for new construction. (Same issue though - do you tax solar homes at a higher rate? Or just increase everyone's taxes?)

[DanKegel]

It has nothing to do with climate change.

Depends on the timescale. Neighbors who continue using fossil-fuel-based electricity
may be partially responsible for, say, extreme weather and flood damages,
and those can be very expensive indeed.

[jflorey2]

Depends on the timescale. Neighbors who continue using fossil-fuel-based electricity may be partially responsible for, say, extreme weather and flood damages, and those can be very expensive indeed.

Solar users are also responsible for those things. A system with a lot of solar generation has to run peakers more often, and peakers are generally much dirtier power plants than the combined-cycle baseload plants that are designed to run 24/7.

But in any case that's not the issue. The issue, right now, is that utilities have to pay for the stuff they install. Much larger issues (like will climate change make our grandkids have to use more power, or will India overtake us economically unless we have cheap power) are better dealt with at a higher level, like the government. If you want to add a "CO2 climate change surcharge" to everyone's power bill, then get a law passed to do that. That way it applies to all POCO's (and customers) equally.

[DanKegel]

But in any case that's not the issue. The issue, right now, is that utilities have to pay for the stuff they install.

Like I said, it depends on the timescale. If you think long term, then burning carbon-based fuels may be much more expensive than you think, and those neighbors who keep burning fossil fuels may be costing solar users quite a bit of money.

[jflorey2]

Like I said, it depends on the timescale. If you think long term, then burning carbon-based fuels may be much more expensive than you think, and those neighbors who keep burning fossil fuels may be costing solar users quite a bit of money.

Yep. And if you think long-term, then advocating for solar in the US may be far more expensive than you think. If higher power prices for typical customers drive industry to other countries, then in the mid term our economy (and the planet) will likely suffer as industry moves to locations with dirtier, cheaper power.

There are no easy answers.

[DanKegel]

There are no easy answers.

True!

Best we can hope for is to find the lightest touch that nudges industry and users in a direction that won't cause ruin down the line.

[Ian S]

Based on APS' own almost certainly inflated cost numbers, it appears that their solar customer base adds a little north of a buck a month to each non-solar customer's bill in Arizona. I'm skeptical that APS put forward a balanced evaluation of the benefits of solar so I expect that the true cost - if there really is any - is actually significantly lower.

[inetdog]

Personally, I am very angry! My cost to produce 1kWh is $4.50 (equipment and installation amortized over a 20 year expected life). FPL buys power from me at $0.085/kWh. Of that, 1/3 is for fossile fuel costs, and on top of an service and storm charge.

You either have a typo or a miscalculation here, or else you have been royally swindled by the person who installed your GTI system. (If you have a battery system, you have screwed yourself).

The typical amortized cost for solar PV, based on an typical installed cost of $3-5 per kW of capacity, is under $.15 per kWh. If it were not, nobody would be installing it.

You first need to calculate how many kWh your system produces per day. For example a 3kW (size of panel array) system in a location with an average solar hour count over the year of 4 hours will produce 12kWh per day.
Multiply that times 365 and then by 20 to get the total number of kWh produced over the life of the system.
In this example that would be 87,600 kWh. So, by your cost of $4.50 per kWh, that system would cost $394,200. I doubt that anyone in their right mind would pay that.

A more common actual cost for such a system, before any rebates or tax credits, would be $12,000. That would work out to a cost per kWh of $.1396. Once you include Federal tax credits and local rebates the price is much lower.
And even if it still more than the $0.085 they are paying you, the majority of your production will instead go to offset what you would have paid POCO for what you use, and that is hopefully more than 8.5 cents per kWh.

It is a good illustration that it does not usually pay to size the system to more than offset your annual power bill, and a good reminder that Net Metering will get you a better return than full consumption billing and limited payment for each month (or day) overproduction.

[thastinger]

If your amortized cost to produce from your array is .15 Kwh, you can buy it for .11 from the POCO and you can sell it for .085 to the POCO why do you have it and what would you like smarter people to do in order to help you recover some of the cost of your bad investment? I have to assume that you knew all this upon installation, so the only remaining reasons to install your array would be for a. reducing your consumption from the grid b. future planning for carbon taxes etc.

I'd just consider the price difference as part of plan a or b.

[SunEagle]

Sorry, but at least here where I live in Florida, we are already getting hist for those infrastructure additions. Higher than average tax rates on new homes (Florida has a very strange property tax schedule), AND, an huge "impact fee" on new construction. That impact fee, if you call your county and ask what it's for, is specifically to pay your portion of infrastructure need increases. Road signage, sewer, water, and electric. So, you are missing the option of "Tax new construction." --- which is already being done.

Unfortunately "impact fees" and "real estate" taxes really does not cover or pay for the Electric Utility infrastructure. It covers those utilities provided to you by the town and county like; roads, schools, fire, police, sewer and maybe water.

The POCO still needs to maintain their infrastructure and the money to do that comes from part of what they charge you per kWh used. If you use less (it doesn't matter if you have pv or just turn off your loads) the POCO gets less to maintain the infrastructure you use. That can lead to higher electric rates if the POCO shows it's needs to the PUC so then everyone "pays" a little more to cover the loss that pv system owners (or low users) don't pay for.

I remember when we had a "water use" restriction due to a drought. Most people lowered the amount of water they used so then the Water Utility cried it was not getting enough to maintain their city water system so the rates went up. How fair is that? Use less to help out and pay more to help them.

This is also no different then the part of the cost of gasoline tax is used to maintain the roadways. People who own an EV don't pay this tax so the roadway maintenance fund is smaller yet the roadway usage does not go down.

So to answer your question. FP&L is correct when they say that non solar owners (or heavy users) are paying more (whatever that amount is) to help maintain the power infrastructure. But in the end their claim is really nothing more than a reason to justify a rate increase. It will be up to the PUC to determine if they get one and how much they get.

[lkruper]

If your amortized cost to produce from your array is .15 Kwh, you can buy it for .11 from the POCO and you can sell it for .085 to the POCO why do you have it and what would you like smarter people to do in order to help you recover some of the cost of your bad investment? I have to assume that you knew all this upon installation, so the only remaining reasons to install your array would be for a. reducing your consumption from the grid b. future planning for carbon taxes etc.

I'd just consider the price difference as part of plan a or b.

Maybe some people think that if they lose a little for every kWH they sell, they can make it up with greater volume

[deyounte]

Wow. I see a lot of discussion as to how solar is to the disadvantage of the POCO. I'll give you a different view. This is in general terms for many solar owners and their POCO.

A typical small installation is sized to cover no more than the current solar owners load/bill. Any more is typically not economical for the solar owner. The effect of this is that the solar owner isn't a net provider of energy to the outside world at all. The solar owner may or may not over-generate at times and send energy back into the POCO grid. Any over-generation of electricity will only happen during sunlight (Peak) hours when the POCO's energy costs are highest. This allows the POCO to reduce how much high cost energy needs to be obtained to supply their other customers. That energy that comes from the solar owner does not hurt the POCO at all. Where do you think that energy goes? It goes to someone else's meter! I.e. The POCO sells your excess power to someone else during sunshine (Peak) hours when they can take the most advantage of the (temporarily free) energy. The other side of the coin goes that later when the sun goes down the solar owner then needs to obtain energy from the POCO. The POCO simply pays back the solar owner with off peak (lower) cost energy. The POCO benefits on the cost/price spread between on peak and off peak energy for the energy they have to pay back to the solar owner.

Another piece of the puzzle though is that the POCO loses the ability to sell power to the solar owner. In some cases the POCO only receives the base charges for any solar customer if that solar owner produces enough to offset all of their consumption. If the rate structures are set appropriately (which may not always be the case), the base costs will cover the cost of the interconnection to the solar owner and maintenance for that interconnection. This means that the POCO loses an opportunity to sell energy to the solar owner, but doesn't actually lose money since they didn't have to incur the cost to provide any energy.

What about other customers? Well, their energy needs are still being met and they are still paying their bill every month and sometimes a part of that energy that was sold to them came from the solar from some solar owners system. The POCO received and sold this low cost energy but didn't pay on peak high costs to obtain it, so the POCO's costs are reduced which would theoretically reduce the pressure to raise electric rates in some small way. If solar owners multiply across the POCO grid then the effect could be pronounced.

What about the comparison of private solar owners vs. the POCO installing their own solar? Many POCO's have both on the same POCO grid. That by itself says something about the benefits of solar. Why would any energy that comes from a solar installation that the POCO didn't pay for be bad for that POCO? They didn't have to pay for the solar owners system (in many cases). The cost of the solar to the POCO in that case again is based on the on peak/off peak cost spread - that's definitely to the benefit of the POCO.

All of this relates to the topic of "peak shaving" for POCO energy load, but this writeup is a more detailed view of the economics of how small solar with net metering works and it is not all necessarily to the detriment of the POCO or other customers. In general terms the POCO gets to "Sell High and Buy Low" with the daytime solar energy they sell (sell high) as if it was their own, and then have to replace at night (buy low) with low cost off peak energy.

Part of the overall effect of not having to buy on peak energy is that somewhere a power plant may not have to be built to address the POCO's load peak. This is a cost avoidance. Another is that with the distributed generation that small solar represents, the need for long distance transmission is decreased. This could potentially avoid the costs of transmission line construction which is another huge capital expense for POCO's. Again these are part of the costs of having to support on peak energy.

Of course these are all generalizations, but many POCO's and regions will fit into this scenario. There are other complexities in case anyone cares to hear about them - mainly about the energy noise that solar installations create on the grid. This really is a problem for the POCO's, but its' a problem that many POCO's have to deal with with their own installed solar and wind. I will write about those on request.

Tim D.
Melbourne, FL