58 MPG by 2032

[WinterDeere]

1.5 going and 40 coming really brings it into prospective…

Where'd you get 1.5 vs. 40? I was seeing 1.5 vs. 17, after inclusion of transmission fees.

In reality, it's basically the utility paying 8.8 c/kwh on his juice, but subtracting their transmission fee (7.3 cents), as the customer is using their grid to transmit this power. Since they resell the product at 9.4 c/kwh, their "mark-up" on the generation is only 7%.

I don't look at it as the utility being evil or greedy, but just another example of why residential-scale solar really just doesn't work for most households, economically speaking. Utility-scale solar can work, but only thanks to economy of scale. Companies who talk about ROI on the PV systems they are selling nearly always ignore the factor of inflation (presently 6%!) in their calculations. A 2030 dollar doesn’t have the same value as a 2023 dollar, and perhaps a few outliers like fatjay aside, most system owners are endlessly chasing inflation in trying to earn back their initial investment.

 

[Torvy]

Initially, the power companies were getting completely hosed by these deals. It was yet another way to make people believe that solar generation is cost effective. Essentially, hide the costs by making everyone else absorb them. Let's play this out...imagine 100% buy-in by consumers and everyone has their own solar for daytime and relies on a now defunct power company for storage/backup. Oops. Those companies are paying for new lines and the maintenance and salaries for the linemen and support staff. They pay for the trucks and other equipment. Why in the name of all that is holy would anyone expect to get full retail for a few KwH of generation?

The only reason PGE needs that power is that their hands have been tied in terms of producing power more effectively.

 

[ultrarunner]

Where'd you get 1.5 vs. 40? I was seeing 1.5 vs. 17, after inclusion of transmission fees.

In reality, it's basically the utility paying 8.8 c/kwh on his juice, but subtracting their transmission fee (7.3 cents), as the customer is using their grid to transmit this power. Since they resell the product at 9.4 c/kwh, their "mark-up" on the generation is only 7%.

I don't look at it as the utility being evil or greedy, but just another example of why residential-scale solar really just doesn't work for most households, economically speaking. Utility-scale solar can work, but only thanks to economy of scale. Companies who talk about ROI on the PV systems they are selling nearly always ignore the factor of inflation (presently 6%!) in their calculations. A 2030 dollar doesn’t have the same value as a 2023 dollar, and perhaps a few outliers like fatjay aside, most system owners are endlessly chasing inflation in trying to earn back their initial investment.

Just going on the proposed rate structure for my part of California…

Those connecting now do not have nears as good a deal as the early adopters.

 

[ultrarunner]

Initially, the power companies were getting completely hosed by these deals. It was yet another way to make people believe that solar generation is cost effective. Essentially, hide the costs by making everyone else absorb them. Let's play this out...imagine 100% buy-in by consumers and everyone has their own solar for daytime and relies on a now defunct power company for storage/backup. Oops. Those companies are paying for new lines and the maintenance and salaries for the linemen and support staff. They pay for the trucks and other equipment. Why in the name of all that is holy would anyone expect to get full retail for a few KwH of generation?

The only reason PGE needs that power is that their hands have been tied in terms of producing power more effectively.

Maybe hosed but sure promoted their solar efforts at every opportunity.

Proud of partnering with home solar for a green future and reducing CO2, etc.

 

[Torvy]

Maybe hosed but sure promoted their solar efforts at every opportunity.

Proud of partnering with home solar for a green future and reducing CO2, etc.

Did you ever have the fortune, or misfortune, to work with a marketing department? They make their living making lemonade out of lemons...probably more accurate to say putting lipstick on a pig. I've seen many of them spin design flaws into "features ".

 

[Grumpycat]

Where'd you get 1.5 vs. 40? I was seeing 1.5 vs. 17, after inclusion of transmission fees.

I'm not going to search this thread to find where 1.5¢/kWh was first mentioned, but I know I mentioned the TVA Audited Cost Of Incremental Generation is 1.5¢. I didn't mention Alabama Power is 2.5¢.

TVA also applies a "fuel cost surcharge" but doesn't itemize on the consumer's bill, which is handled by "TVA Partners", aka Local Utilities.

The Federal law mandates paying a minimum of the Audited Cost Of Incremental Generation for grid-tie power. This is what the generating utility pays to make one more kWh than they were a moment ago. The fuel cost surcharge would also be a cost of generation, so the actual TVA payment for PV power is more than 1.5¢.

My whole point in this is how Federal law does not mandate "net metering" which is commonly used in Progressive states. Meter runs forward and backwards, same price either way. They might use 2 meters just to know how much you generated. In particular I know of a place near Pittsburg where this is the rule. It lets one use the utility as a free battery. As I have written before, this is not fair to the utility.

Alabama Power is permitted by the PSC to charge a connect fee so great as to be very near what one could recoup by providing PV power to the grid. At one time not long ago there were only 50 PV systems on Alabama Power. There are essentially no solar systems in Birmingham Alabama.

 

[fatjay]

My whole point in this is how Federal law does not mandate "net metering" which is commonly used in Progressive states. Meter runs forward and backwards, same price either way. They might use 2 meters just to know how much you generated. In particular I know of a place near Pittsburg where this is the rule. It lets one use the utility as a free battery. As I have written before, this is not fair to the utility.

I don't disagree with you on the free battery idea. I think it's reasonable to not recoup transmission. If I pay 10c in generation and 10c in transmission, and I sell back to the power company, I can understand not getting the transmission back, but I would want something close to the generation. Considering they're just selling my power to the next guy for 10c. They're profiting off my investment in generation

 

[WinterDeere]

I don't disagree with you on the free battery idea. I think it's reasonable to not recoup transmission. If I pay 10c in generation and 10c in transmission, and I sell back to the power company, I can understand not getting the transmission back, but I would want something close to the generation. Considering they're just selling my power to the next guy for 10c. They're profiting off my investment in generation

I guess it could be argued both ways, with some legitimacy on both sides.

Group A will argue that you're putting power back onto the grid, thus transmitting over their lines, and you should pay transmission fee both directions. In that case, the 10 c/kwh earned by your generation would be completely undone by 10 c/kwh paid in transmission. Valid point, in the sense that the utility must still pay to maintain lines and transformers running to your house, even if you're net positive on power generation.

Group B will argue that all transmission is being paid by the customers receiving the power you've generated. While I'm not sure that would completely cover the costs, they do have a point, in that those generating power and putting it onto the grid are otherwise receiving nearly nothing for the power they're generating.

Like with everything, reality probably lies somewhere in the middle, between these two opposites.

 

[Grumpycat]

I don't disagree with you on the free battery idea. I think it's reasonable to not recoup transmission. If I pay 10c in generation and 10c in transmission, and I sell back to the power company, I can understand not getting the transmission back, but I would want something close to the generation. Considering they're just selling my power to the next guy for 10c. They're profiting off my investment in generation

So you think the tractor dealer should sell your trade for what they paid you?

There is profit built into their 10¢, but to sell your power at 10¢ they get nothing but the bother of billing and shrinkage (loss in the power lines).

 

[ultrarunner]

Still odd the Utility sends out thank you messages when consumption drops and pushes rebates for a multitude of energy saving appliances and measures.


If my business is selling electricity why would I spend money and provide incentives to customers for buying less of what I have to offer?