Are your Home Solar Panels Facing in the Wrong Direction

[SolarLEDideas]

Are your solar panels faceing the right way.

There is quite a conflict between the environment savings through solar and other alternative energy and the traditional suppliers of electricity. These traditional suppliers often coal fired generation have large investments that they wish to continue to receive an economic return. It would be a very positive process if the pace of implementing home solar units and the development of large scale commercial solar and wind farms could be coincided with the phasing out of old coal fired generators past their use-by date. This may not be fast enough for the environmental lobby however economic capability must also be considered. If at the same time there was a moratorium on increasing coal and oil fired generation the alternative sources could be increased to match the natural increase in consumption due to population growth. Energy efficient products and practices can still create a reduction in energy consumption. An extra charge or levee on those who have installed net solar panels would be a serious negative towards environmental improvement.

The AZ Corporate Commission recently held a hearing for APS where they decide to start implementing a solar service fee to solar customer. I don't remember the exact figure, but I think it was $0.70 for every kw in your system size (you get charged $7/month if your system size is 10kw). This is not final/permanent and may be subject to change again in the next rate case hearing. APS wants to charge a service fee of $50 or more, so they didn't quite get their way for now.

[Volusiano]

One thing that might be done : Get rid of the accelerated depreciation that the IRS allows for corps. who own leases, or arrange the situation so all solar owners can take advantage of it. As a bit of a closet Libertarian, I'd support getting rid of it.

Amen! I would second your proposal to allow all solar owners accelerated depreciation. This loop hole has allowed the corporate leasers to milk the solar lease situation on both ends. They squeeze the government on one end and the homeowner on the other end and come out miles ahead. Some of them even artificially inflate the purchase price so they can squeeze even more out of the tax credit. Although it looks like the government has caught on and this practice is under scrutiny now.

[SolarLEDideas]

SolarLEDideas

Very Interesting reading about the northern hemisphere. We down-under in the land of Aus have similar issues of which direction to face the panels. First of all we face to the north instead of south otherwise east and west are the same.
1) I have a 2 KW Gross system that feeds the grid directly and my generous government decided to pay me $0.60 per KWh so I am building a credit. We are also on time of day charging so 2 pm to 8pm is peak @ $0.49 per KWh. In this case I have a north facing and a west facing aspect to my dwelling. I split the 20 panels equally with 10 panels north and 10 panels west. I was told I gained 5% additional with this. This system cost $5890 and so far after almost 3 years has earned $4000.

2) I have just signed up for a 2.5 KW Net unit to be installed in 5 weeks. I had the option of 50% east and 50% west or all on the west side. This was to maximize the early morning sunlight and the late afternoon. The company I chose advised it would increase the installation cost to split the system as suggested. As a result of reading these threads I am glad I opted for the West side as I will maximize the generation during the 2pm to 8pm high cost period particularly during daylight saving. I will only be paid $0.077 per KWh for the excess energy sent to the grid however I have decided to add this system (Pay back est 5.4 years) to reduce the daytime electricity which averages $0.32 Per KWh and hence this saving when my subsidy stops in 2 years will still mean I do not have to pay any electricity bills. In other words I should be earning $0.32 per KWh.

3) The third system my son has purchased is a 2 KW system that will pay off in the future. He is flat rate charged and has off peak hot water. He lives alone during the week and is at work from 5-30 am to 4-30 pm and hence has little use during the week. We expect him to generate to the grid @ $ 0.077 during the week and use most of the solar during weekends. His main uses will be lights, air cooling and heating and the water pump to pressurize the water lines.This will only be installed on the west facing roof.

Hope this is of interest.
SolarLEDideas.com

[J.P.M.]

100% correct - There is no good reason to force everyone to support those that install solar.

My complaint about leasing is that it is set up so the leasing company makes the money at the expense of the home owner and the government. It should have been arranged where the home owner gets the full advantage.

One thing that might be done : Get rid of the accelerated depreciation that the IRS allows for corps. who own leases, or arrange the situation so all solar owners can take advantage of it. As a bit of a closet Libertarian, I'd support getting rid of it.

[albert436]

Solar Panel Owners should pay a premium. Many more Electric Companies are going to take SDGE lead and start suing state governments for failing enitlement programs that do not benefit anyone.

Dude.jpg

[albert436]

SDG & E may sue some folks or businesses but their request to charge net metering customers $10/month was part of a request filed with the CPUC. I do not think litigation was involved. Other CA investor owned utilities were involved and it finally came about as a result of the AB 327 legislation. That's a lot different than suing. I'm no fan of POCO's but the current practice of net metering seems unsustainable as a business model (kind of hard to buy something for the same price you sell it and make money) and somewhat unfair from a non solar ratepayer standpoint. Who pays for the infrastructure among other things ?

You are absolutely right, let me rephrase that just to say the matter was settled in court -- my mistake, very careless wording there.

Oh time to get ready for work, darn it, will have to resume discussion later!

[russ]

SDG & E may sue some folks or businesses but their request to charge net metering customers $10/month was part of a request filed with the CPUC. I do not think litigation was involved. Other CA investor owned utilities were involved and it finally came about as a result of the AB 327 legislation. That's a lot different than suing. I'm no fan of POCO's but the current practice of net metering seems unsustainable as a business model (kind of hard to buy something for the same price you sell it and make money) and somewhat unfair from a non solar ratepayer standpoint. Who pays for the infrastructure among other things ?

100% correct - There is no good reason to force everyone to support those that install solar.

My complaint about leasing is that it is set up so the leasing company makes the money at the expense of the home owner and the government. It should have been arranged where the home owner gets the full advantage.

[Volusiano]

SDG & E may sue some folks or businesses but their request to charge net metering customers $10/month was part of a request filed with the CPUC. I do not think litigation was involved. Other CA investor owned utilities were involved and it finally came about as a result of the AB 327 legislation. That's a lot different than suing. I'm no fan of POCO's but the current practice of net metering seems unsustainable as a business model (kind of hard to buy something for the same price you sell it and make money) and somewhat unfair from a non solar ratepayer standpoint. Who pays for the infrastructure among other things ?

Here's a thread about this discussion a little while back during the AZ corporate commission hearing with APS and the solar industry. There are some good links in there about the pros and cons of the debate if anyone is interested in reading up.

[J.P.M.]

Thanks, I found those and copy/pasted them into my thread.

I haven't paid too much attention to rate changes, but I was alarmed when SDGE sued to make solar owners pay a premium.

The link I was looking for had to do with the demand curves mentioned. (not even sure I would understand them!)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3615[/ATTACH]

SDG & E may sue some folks or businesses but their request to charge net metering customers $10/month was part of a request filed with the CPUC. I do not think litigation was involved. Other CA investor owned utilities were involved and it finally came about as a result of the AB 327 legislation. That's a lot different than suing. I'm no fan of POCO's but the current practice of net metering seems unsustainable as a business model (kind of hard to buy something for the same price you sell it and make money) and somewhat unfair from a non solar ratepayer standpoint. Who pays for the infrastructure among other things ?

[Volusiano]

I was alarmed when SDGE sued to make solar owners pay a premium.

The AZ Corporate Commission recently held a hearing for APS where they decide to start implementing a solar service fee to solar customer. I don't remember the exact figure, but I think it was $0.70 for every kw in your system size (you get charged $7/month if your system size is 10kw). This is not final/permanent and may be subject to change again in the next rate case hearing. APS wants to charge a service fee of $50 or more, so they didn't quite get their way for now.

[Sunking]

I haven't paid too much attention to rate changes, but I was alarmed when SDGE sued to make solar owners pay a premium.

Solar Panel Owners should pay a premium. Many more Electric Companies are going to take SDGE lead and start suing state governments for failing enitlement programs that do not benefit anyone.

[albert436]

Thanks, I found those and copy/pasted them into my thread.

I haven't paid too much attention to rate changes, but I was alarmed when SDGE sued to make solar owners pay a premium.

The link I was looking for had to do with the demand curves mentioned. (not even sure I would understand them!)

SunSmiley1.gif

[J.P.M.]

Might you be able to post a link to a specific part of that site? I'm not quite sure where to look.

Thanks.

If you're looking for T.O.U. rates, check the SDG & E web site. also, be aware that AB 327 will probably change things some. Also, Rates change about every 3 months or so.

[albert436]

Grid peak demand can be high through 9pm. See ferc.gov for various grid demand curve charts in different regulated markets.

Might you be able to post a link to a specific part of that site? I'm not quite sure where to look.

Thanks.

[SunEagle]

If you have TOU pricing and the peak or near peak extends into the late afternoon, but does not include the morning hours, then a west-facing array may actually get you a greater return on your grid-tie investment than a south-facing array.

Also take into account when your loads will be scheduled. If the home is empty during the day but you need the AC on before you get home, west-facing may be the way to go for someone who gets a wholesale repurchase price instead of net metering.

Both good suggestions but neither apply for me. While I have two rates it is not TOU.

I have a rate of $0.10 up to 1000 kWh and then $0.12 for anything above.

I also have my wife and mother in law that are in the house all day so the usage changes both hourly and daily.

Still something to think about anyway. I am hoping that Florida gets in step with other states pushing for renewables. Until then there is no way I can lease a system or get any rebates to help reduce my installed cost.