another hiccup to going solar?

[orezok]

OK, where does the wind take it to then? Pluto?

I think Most of it ends upon the east coast. It apparently is affecting a lot of peoples brains. LOL

 

[bnold]

OK, where does the wind take it to then? Pluto?

Look up trade winds.

 

[bnold]

Apparently there are a lot of people in California that stopped paying the electric bill during covid and a law prevented the electric company from shutting off power. A lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck too and that's if they even have a job. Sounds like it might be a solution to prevent a bigger crisis.

Got it, solution - steal from the haves and give it to the have nots, thought that is what i said?

 

[Hay Dude]

Look up trade winds.

OK so once the pollution goes into the trade winds, does it disappear? Or does it pollute other countries outside their borders?

Do the innocent citizens of China have a right to breathe clean air?

Or does shoving the coal to them make you feel better because Americans aren’t breathing polluted air?

If someone really wants to virtue signal-I mean really wants to know what they did helped the earth and coal was that bad, they wouldn’t sell it to anyone. Here or abroad.

 

[ponytug]

Depends on location and power company, I sell mine back for the exact rate I purchase for.

Therefore a battery system makes zero sense for me. Negative payback period.

For some more complex situations, stored power sold back during peak demand times can pencil out pretty nice with batteries.

For some situations, the sell back rate is a fraction of the purchase rate (which I think is BS)



$1.33/W installed here.

Even if you don't get credit for selling back to the utility, there may be an ROI if power costs differ during the day, e.g. we have a peak rate period from 4-9pm that is about 2x off peak. By using batteries, we move solar power generated during off peak rates to peak rate time periods, reducing the cost of power.

All the best, Peter

 

[ponytug]

I just read a news article where the power companies in California are requesting a change to the way customers are billed. They want it changed to a fixed rate based on income.

• Households earning less than $28,000 a year would pay a fixed charge of $15 a month on their electric bills in Edison and PG&E territories and $24 a month in SDG&E territory.
• Households with annual income from $28,000 – $69,000 would pay $20 a month in Edison territory, $34 a month in SDG&E territory and $30 a month in PG&E territory.
• Households earning from $69,000 – $180,000 would pay $51 a month in Edison and PG&E territories and $73 a month in SDG&E territory.
• Those with incomes above $180,000 would pay $85 a month in Edison territory, $128 a month in SDG&E territory and $92 a month in PG&E territory.

These fixed rates are very low, even for high income households and it seems investing in renewable energy is not even considered. What the hell?

First, this is a proposal/request by the utilities. It may or may not happen.
More here;

Income Based Electric Rate System Proposed by California Energy Companies – California Globe

californiaglobe.com

The utilities are trying to get from a bundled cost of power (generation cost+transmission cost+distribution cost+misc costs) to a power tariff with a generation cost of power, and a base monthly payment for the fixed costs. I ran a back of the envelope summary of the costs divided by the number of power customers and got a monthly meter fee of $200 or so. That left out lots of information out business versus homeowners, but it was the data that I had access to.

I believe that the utilities are trying to unwind paying for solar at retail rates; this is the latest attempt. It is connected to an increasing renewables supply, but perhaps not the most cost effective or rational way to proceed. California utilities are guaranteed a 10% return on capital investments, so they tend to favor construction over other schemes...

All the best,

Peter

 

[bnold]

Even if you don't get credit for selling back to the utility, there may be an ROI if power costs differ during the day, e.g. we have a peak rate period from 4-9pm that is about 2x off peak. By using batteries, we move solar power generated during off peak rates to peak rate time periods, reducing the cost of power.

All the best, Peter

No doubt, believe I referenced that earlier. That is really the only way that battery based systems pencil out.

They would not for me, mine is purely net generation at the same rate in vs out.

 

[bnold]

First, this is a proposal/request by the utilities. It may or may not happen.
More here;

Income Based Electric Rate System Proposed by California Energy Companies – California Globe

californiaglobe.com

The utilities are trying to get from a bundled cost of power (generation cost+transmission cost+distribution cost+misc costs) to a power tariff with a generation cost of power, and a base monthly payment for the fixed costs. I ran a back of the envelope summary of the costs divided by the number of power customers and got a monthly meter fee of $200 or so. That left out lots of information out business versus homeowners, but it was the data that I had access to.

I believe that the utilities are trying to unwind paying for solar at retail rates; this is the latest attempt. It is connected to an increasing renewables supply, but perhaps not the most cost effective or rational way to proceed. California utilities are guaranteed a 10% return on capital investments, so they tend to favor construction over other schemes...

All the best,

Peter

Utilities should not be reimbursing at total cost. Just generation cost, if this is the intent, then I agree with that part.

What does household income have to do with setting base rates though?

If they want to do something more fair, they could base the distribution cost on peak demand like many power companies do for commercial. That is a fair way to spread distribution costs.

 

[ponytug]

Utilities should not be reimbursing at total cost. Just generation cost, if this is the intent, then I agree with that part.

What does household income have to do with setting base rates though?

If they want to do something more fair, they could base the distribution cost on peak demand like many power companies do for commercial. That is a fair way to spread distribution costs.

I believe that Texas has some tariffs as you suggest that do offer real time pricing, along the lines that you suggest. As most people aren't very aware of the real-time costs of electricity, it caused some consumer in Texas to have monthly bills in the thousands to tens of thousands of dollars during the freeze a few years ago. I don't know how you communicate the real time price to the average consumer effectively.

I guess, based on my back of the envelope calculation that even our utility realized rather regressive tax nature of charging everyone $200/meter/mo, a rather third rail item politically, especially because making electricity cheaper, but the fixed costs higher favors large consumers of power, like wealthy owners of large homes with AC, pools, multiple electric vehicles, and jacuzzis.

Just a guess...

All the best,

Peter

 

[TN8Man]

First, this is a proposal/request by the utilities. It may or may not happen.
More here;

Income Based Electric Rate System Proposed by California Energy Companies – California Globe

californiaglobe.com

The utilities are trying to get from a bundled cost of power (generation cost+transmission cost+distribution cost+misc costs) to a power tariff with a generation cost of power, and a base monthly payment for the fixed costs. I ran a back of the envelope summary of the costs divided by the number of power customers and got a monthly meter fee of $200 or so. That left out lots of information out business versus homeowners, but it was the data that I had access to.

I believe that the utilities are trying to unwind paying for solar at retail rates; this is the latest attempt. It is connected to an increasing renewables supply, but perhaps not the most cost effective or rational way to proceed. California utilities are guaranteed a 10% return on capital investments, so they tend to favor construction over other schemes...

All the best,

Peter

Yes, a proposal by some of the largest electric companies in California but it sounds like they are mandated by law to come up with a solution and apparently this is it.

After the ENRON scandal and being in California who knows what really behind this.