Net Metering

[Bacchus]

Net Metering is, roughly, when you have your own source of electrical power generation, such as a solar panel and station setup, and generate more electrical energy than you use and so the excess is fed back into the grid. The electric company pays you that month for your excess energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering

As an example, if some month you generate $400 worth of electrical energy and only use $100, mostly when the sun isn't out, then so the electric company pays you $300 that month. If the next month you only generate $150 worth and consume $250 worth, your bill from the electric company is $100.

I'm expressing this as energy cost rather than actual energy in kilowatt hours because it will simplify the discussion.

This would be net metering, the net difference in electrical power consumed and generated shows up on the meter and your monthly statement from the power utility reflects that difference accordingly.

A couple years ago some states, probably with strong power company lobbies, passed laws (I guess, maybe the companies did this unilaterally) establishing a monthly minimum bill, for example $25. I wasn't sure if this was an additional monthly charge, to be added to what the consumer owed, or whether this was an actual statement minimum. In the first interpretation it would mean that in my first example, instead of getting $300 back from the power company you would only get $275. Not fair, but manageable. My second interpretation is that it is the minimum bill you would have to pay, so instead of getting $300 back you would have to pay $25. This is outrageous.

And from this site

it appears that the second interpretation is the correct one, even though they do call it a "charge" sometimes in the article.

So if you had invested thousands of dollars in your own solar power system to supplement the grid, you would have gone from receiving money back from the utility to paying money.

A few months ago I talked to someone who came to the door about signing up for their solar power system that used net metering. It was interesting to me, but I don't expect to stay in the house long enough to get my money back, and then an Internet background check revealed many unsatisfied customers with that particular company, primarily about unresponsive customer service after the sale. I didn't sign up.

The solution for me would be to use batteries to store my own excess energy generation instead of relying on net metering. Batteries to do this are a significant expense compared to no batteries.

And the point of this post is to warn folks considering solar power that minimum monthly bills could be coming to a state very near you. It might not, but could. Do you trust your state government to do the fair and logical thing?

I'm still interested in solar power, but only with my own batteries. I'm just a beginner at this, so anybody with actual experience in owning a solar power station please jump in and correct me, where necessary.

Read More

 

[Joe13]

I don't have solar but professional experience with electrical and batteries.

I have never jumped on the solar train because the batteries are very expensive and will need to be replaced at some point so you will have continued costs over the years.

The I would not put panels on my roof in the PNW so I would have to have enough south facing property to install them on the ground.

While I do not like it, I can see where the utility companies could not sustain a grid if everyone went solar and had to pay out more then they made every month.

 

[Ducati_Meister]

How often would the batteries need to be replaced?

 

[Bacchus]

While I do not like it, I can see where the utility companies could not sustain a grid if everyone went solar and had to pay out more then they made every month

I can see where the utilities might actually be hurting from net metering if they provide net metering refunds not because they want to, but because misguided government forced it on them. You made a great point. So I have edited my first post accordingly.

Regardless, my point isn't to criticize the utilities but to warn prospective buyers of a system that depends on net metering that the gravy train could get derailed.

 

[Joe13]

How often would the batteries need to be replaced?

Depends on how much they are cycled and are used on a nightly basis.

5-10 years last I looked at them.

There are a lot of factors that go into calculating use, amount of batteries needed etc.

 

[Ducati_Meister]

Guess they are banking on the idea that the saving on energy costs will pay for the upkeep of such batteries and systems.

 

[Bacchus]

And my example might be too extreme. If your energy consumption was $300 and your system provided you with $200 of energy, then the utility would bill you $100 and you wouldn't be losing any money to this new law, you've still saved $200. It's just when your system provides more energy than you need that this new law would sting you. In that case, don't overpay for your solar system, buy one just big enough to break even each month, or smaller.

 

[P7M13]

One problem with Net Metering in a place like Kalifornistan is that the utility has to pay the homeowner retail market rates for the power they put back on the grid, when the power the utility supplies costs then 1/3 to 1/2 that. Then factor in that utility transmission is not cheap, and someone has to pay for those lines too.
My point is, the notion that the homeowner should be paid at market rate is preposterous. They should receive compensation, but it should reflect transmission costs and have a basis on generation market rates.

 

[Provincial]

One factor to consider is that customer generated solar (or wind, or nuclear) relieves the power company from increasing its generating capacity. This is generally a very large cost. When considering this cost, remember, much of the power generation in the Northwest comes from government-built and -operated hydropower dams. Power sold by the power companies that they bought from the government is much lower cost than the power they have to generate themselves.

Paying market rates for customer generation is really a payment for relieving the grid from having to generate the power elsewhere.

Hawaii started out making the power companies pay customers full price for all power generated, and it drove the companies nearly into bankruptcy. In Oregon, you get a credit for each kilowatt you generate in excess of your use, during a period from April 1st. until March 31st. of the following year. You bank kwa through the sunny months and use the credits against use in the winter/rainy season. If you generate more than you use during the cycle, the power company doesn't have to pay you for the excess.

There is a "basic service charge" for providing the hookup and a minimum amount of kwa each month. I know of one case where the property owner had to pay a $20.00/mo. fee to keep the lines extended to the last house on a road until they could replace the derelict one with a livable house. Considering that it would have cost over $80,000 to bring a service that far if it had been abandoned, it was a good deal.

I discovered this summer that even if you are feeding twice what you use back into the grid (and banking the kwa) they can still bill you for using more than a given amount. Apparently, the pricing plan intended to discourage use is applied even if you are generating more than you use!

When the nation's "smartest investor" buys your regulated public utility, you know that the regulators are not going to make it hard for him to make money!

When I shopped for my system, my payback was calculated on my current price of $0.10/kwa. Before the system went into service, my rates increased to $0.14/kwa, which greatly reduced my payback time. If rates continue to rise, which is highly likely, my payback time could easily be cut in half. My niece, who is supplied by PGE, has seen 30% rate increases each of the last two years, so the trend is pretty well established.

 

[Bacchus]

One factor to consider is that customer generated solar (or wind, or nuclear) relieves the power company from increasing its generating capacity.

I've always thought that was probably the reason the government subsidizes homeowners investing in solar power. Also another reason I find it annoying that the government is yanking back net metering in cases where the utility owes the homeowner.

In Oregon, you get a credit for each kilowatt you generate in excess of your use, during a period from April 1st. until March 31st. of the following year. You bank kwa through the sunny months and use the credits against use in the winter/rainy season

That's better than what Florida is doing.

 

[Ducati_Meister]

Gubment don't like seeing free Americans making money, so they got to **** you over somehow, directly or indirectly. Bunch of böölsheet.

 

[Alexx1401]

As battery tech improves they will eventually have ones large enough to store massive amounts to run a home on and price will drop. Until they get to that point I would not be much interested. When it gets to that point it will be fun to watch how the gov starts to step in since many unities are not private. They will NOT like it when they start to make less money.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Rube Goldberg wank factor increases 5x on anything involving the government

 

[Ducati_Meister]

As battery tech improves they will eventually have ones large enough to store massive amounts to run a home on and price will drop. Until they get to that point I would not be much interested. When it gets to that point it will be fun to watch how the gov starts to step in since many unities are not private. They will NOT like it when they start to make less money.

Interesting that WA has said the sales tax revenue is becoming less and less reliable, so they will continue to screw us other ways, including utilities if people start making decent money via solar power generation etc.

 

[gmerkt]

My pal in NM has a solar power system. He did most of the work himself. His local power company isn't interested in any such thing as net metering. As he explained it to me, "they are in the business of selling power, not buying it back."

For those utilities which will net meter, it only makes sense that they do not pay market rates. Because over the years, they set up the system to bring power out to users. They should receive consideration for providing the network that permits net metering.

There is a similar thing going on with electric vehicles. They use public roads, but do not pay gasoline taxes. Therefore, in part, they are using the roads for free. I say in part because license fees typically extract some road use money from them. For example, in Wash. state, the weight fee portion of the tab renewal presumably goes to some degree for roads.

There was a saying back in the Hippie days, "Gas, grass or a**, nobody rides for free."

 

[Member 24198]

How often would the batteries need to be replaced?

Depending on the technology, 5-10 years.

 

[Member 55555]

When we lived in San Diego, 20 Years ago, we installed a photo-voltaic system. The company examined our usage and designed a system to just cover our needs because, at that time SDG&E was not buying back power. We did get a special meter that ran backwards during the day and forward at night. The lowest our monthly bill got was $5.
We also installed batteries to store the load.
Several years after we got it San Diego had a power outage; Human error/equipment failure, that lasted three days. Ours was the only house in the neighborhood with lights at night. One brave neighbor knocked and asked why we had electricity. I told her we made our own through solar panels. She looked puzzled trying to figure out how that worked at night. She didn't ask and I didn't explain how batteries work.
Anyway, that also increased the marketability of our house when we sold it a few years later; we got almost 25% over market value.

 

[salmon creek gary]

My pal in NM has a solar power system. He did most of the work himself. His local power company isn't interested in any such thing as net metering. As he explained it to me, "they are in the business of selling power, not buying it back."

For those utilities which will net meter, it only makes sense that they do not pay market rates. Because over the years, they set up the system to bring power out to users. They should receive consideration for providing the network that permits net metering.

There is a similar thing going on with electric vehicles. They use public roads, but do not pay gasoline taxes. Therefore, in part, they are using the roads for free. I say in part because license fees typically extract some road use money from them. For example, in Wash. state, the weight fee portion of the tab renewal presumably goes to some degree for roads.

There was a saying back in the Hippie days, "Gas, grass or a**, nobody rides for free."

Back in 2021, I traded in my last hybrid vehicle because the WA registration fees began to include an extra $70 specifically (they said) for building the EV recharging infrastructure in WA. Since I and my hybrid vehicle did not and would not ever use any recharging station, I could only see it as gov't overreach.

So I flipped "em off by ditching the hybrid for a Tacoma. Yeah, sure, I know . . . going from 38 mpg down to 18 mpg was sort of cutting off my nose to spite my face, especially since Jay didn't know I did it or why I did it, and wouldn't give a bubblegum if he did know.

 

[gmerkt]

Back in 2021, I traded in my last hybrid vehicle because the WA registration fees began to include an extra $70 specifically (they said) for building the EV recharging infrastructure in WA. Since I and my hybrid vehicle did not and would not ever use any recharging station, I could only see it as gov't overreach.

You're quite right about this, I was not up to date. I just looked at the RCW's. Both pure electrics and hybrids have multiple fees based on their source of propulsion. Plus other fees, including the Sound Transit fee which affected Regional Transit Authority counties (this is a big one, see below).

So electric vehicle owners in Wash. are not getting a free ride because they don't pay gasoline tax. The state will always find ever more ways to grab more money.

In Sound Transit counties, the renewal fee is pretty staggering. Here is where inflation really hurts. Because value based fees just keep going up. My son bought a new Honda SUV, has had it a year, just lately got the renewal notice. Over $600, of which about $500 was due to Sound Transit fee.

 

[Alexx1401]

Back in 2021, I traded in my last hybrid vehicle because the WA registration fees began to include an extra $70 specifically (they said) for building the EV recharging infrastructure in WA. Since I and my hybrid vehicle did not and would not ever use any recharging station, I could only see it as gov't overreach.

So I flipped "em off by ditching the hybrid for a Tacoma. Yeah, sure, I know . . . going from 38 mpg down to 18 mpg was sort of cutting off my nose to spite my face, especially since Jay didn't know I did it or why I did it, and wouldn't give a bubblegum if he did know.

Two shoes are going to drop on the EV's. One is free juice. LOT of places right now have free charging. Like the free lunch someone has to pay. The other is the tax lost by the gov on people not buying gas. Its only a matter of time till both of these go away and the screaming and crying will be fun to watch.