Solar power systems for the home

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

That's pretty cool, although I'm selfishly worried if adoption is really high net-metering will go bye-bye and I need to find room and $ for batteries.

Also, I bet you $10 my production is the same as all of yours today!

Good on you for recognizing that net metering is selfish. People with roof top solar installations should absolutely be compensated for any energy dispatched to the grid. They absolutely are not entitled to avoid distribution and transmission charges simply because they have rooftop solar.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Good on you for recognizing that net metering is selfish. People with roof top solar installations should absolutely be compensated for any energy dispatched to the grid. They absolutely are not entitled to avoid distribution and transmission charges simply because they have rooftop solar.

What does this mean? Net Metering in Alberta sells and purchases power at the same price, no tariffs for higher sale of electricity production which has gotten other provinces in trouble for Solar homeowners.

Solar homeowners are still charged transmission and distribution charges for any power they pull off the grid.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

What does this mean? Net Metering in Alberta sells and purchases power at the same price, no tariffs for higher sale of electricity production which has gotten other provinces in trouble for Solar homeowners.

Solar homeowners are still charged transmission and distribution charges for any power they pull off the grid.

On a net basis.

So if you use 600Kwh of power and sell 400kwh to the grid you are only charged transmission on 200kwh. (I think)

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by GGG

On a net basis.

So if you use 600Kwh of power and sell 400kwh to the grid you are only charged transmission on 200kwh. (I think)

I know, I didn't understand the selfish part of the comment. Those with Solar pay the same fixed components of the delivery fees no matter what, and they pay the same variable delivery costs based on whatever they still pull from the grid. Maybe my sarcasm meter isn't working but I didn't understand the premise of the comment.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by GGG

On a net basis.



So if you use 600Kwh of power and sell 400kwh to the grid you are only charged transmission on 200kwh. (I think)

Correct, this forces those avoided charges on other ratepayers.

That's wrong in my opinion.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

I know, I didn't understand the selfish part of the comment. Those with Solar pay the same fixed components of the delivery fees no matter what, and they pay the same variable delivery costs based on whatever they still pull from the grid. Maybe my sarcasm meter isn't working but I didn't understand the premise of the comment.

I don’t believe they do. They pay on the Net draw from the grid.

So during the day let’s say the system produces let’s say the system produces 5kwh extra beyond what was used. Then at night when the solar system is producing 0 thr home owner uses 3kwh.

So on a net basis they sell 2kwh to the grid and pay no distribution. On a non-net basis they would pay distribution on 3 kWh.

So they only pay distribution on the difference between what they produce and what they use rather than on each kWh drawn from the grid.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

I know, I didn't understand the selfish part of the comment. Those with Solar pay the same fixed components of the delivery fees no matter what, and they pay the same variable delivery costs based on whatever they still pull from the grid. Maybe my sarcasm meter isn't working but I didn't understand the premise of the comment.

One of the selfish parts is that the true value of electricity during the mid-day is less than that during the evening, and especially during the evening in winter. But in Alberta for the most part, that difference is not accounted for.

So with a relatively large install, a household could build up enough credit from supplying the grid during the late spring to early fall, especially with the generous 30c solar club type plans, to pay for much of their electricity costs in the winter.

That's why most of the high solar penetration jurisdictions have gone to time-of-use to plans where the mid-day electricity is charged/paid lower rates and the peak rate is in the late-afternoon to mid-evening.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t believe they do. They pay on the Net draw from the grid.

So during the day let’s say the system produces let’s say the system produces 5kwh extra beyond what was used. Then at night when the solar system is producing 0 thr home owner uses 3kwh.

So on a net basis they sell 2kwh to the grid and pay no distribution. On a non-net basis they would pay distribution on 3 kWh.

So they only pay distribution on the difference between what they produce and what they use rather than on each kWh drawn from the grid.

Solar producers pay fees based on consumption. In my last bill I bought 300kwh and sold 620kwh. I paid transmission, distribution, local access fee and balancing pool on 300kwh.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Correct, this forces those avoided charges on other ratepayers.

That's wrong in my opinion.

There are fixed components of the transmission and distribution charges that no homeowner can avoid. If you have Solar, even if you were never ever use a single kWh of power from the grid, you still pay these fixed components on every bill.

The variable charges are based on what you pull from the grid. In the case of the Solar homeowner, that avoidance of fees came with paying a large up front investment in something allowing them to own their own power production. They are still paying the delivery charges on every single kWh they pull from the grid. Conversely to your point, is it wrong that a home with a single occupant that uses less electricity than a similar sized home with a family of 4 uses avoids more variable charges since they aren't requiring it? Why should that homeowner pay the same delivery charges as another home who is using more electricity?

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t believe they do. They pay on the Net draw from the grid.

So during the day let’s say the system produces let’s say the system produces 5kwh extra beyond what was used. Then at night when the solar system is producing 0 thr home owner uses 3kwh.

So on a net basis they sell 2kwh to the grid and pay no distribution. On a non-net basis they would pay distribution on 3 kWh.

So they only pay distribution on the difference between what they produce and what they use rather than on each kWh drawn from the grid.

In your example, the Solar homeowner would pay the full delivery costs on the 3 kWh pulled in evening/night hours as would a non solar homeowner. The 5kWh that they over produced would be sold back as a credit, however you don't get to charge back delivery fees to the utility, you are credited at your fixed rate. So essentially the Solar Homeowner has only offset the fixed rates, not their distribution on any non-production hour usage.

Now what's actually selfish is the 5kWh they sold back to the grid is being used by the neighbouring 15-20 homes tied to the same transformer, and that homeowner is still being charged the full delivery cost by the utility retailer even though that power didn't come from a power plant and didn't have to travel to get there.

In Alberta, average homes use 50% of their electricity in daylight production hours and 50% of their electricity in evening/night non-production hours. If you simplify it, a home at a 100% offset would not pay any delivery charges on the 50% of the electricity they produce during daylight hours, and they'd have the fixed rates covered on the 50% they use during non-production nightime hours, but again the variable delivery charges are still there on the 50% they use in evening and at night, as well as the fixed costs of delivery they can never get away from. However that's a simplified way of looking at is since the electricity draw even during daylight hours is non linear. Even if they are in the middle of highest production hours of the day, if they are using AC as well as dishwasher/washing machine, they may still be drawing from the grid and paying those fees at that point.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

There are fixed components of the transmission and distribution charges that no homeowner can avoid. If you have Solar, even if you were never ever use a single kWh of power from the grid, you still pay these fixed components on every bill.

Under a pure net metering scheme they do avoid those charges as they only pay the difference. Transmission and Distribution charges are based on consumption.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Under a pure net metering scheme they do avoid those charges as they only pay the difference. Transmission and Distribution charges are based on consumption.

I see, you were referring to the concept in general and I was referring to how it works in Alberta. In most provinces, the pure net metering you refer to has never really been something that has been put into practice and most handle it where what you pull off the grid, you are paying the same fees for. The pure net metering concept is something that if it was introduced in a jurisdiction has been adjusted in most cases. Here is a great article about how the net-metering concept has been adjusting and changing:

https://aurorasolar.com/blog/how-net...-need-to-know/

Provinces like Ontario tried to spur on Solar by offering a tariff based system where you would sell back at much higher levels compared to what you purchase at (at one point Solar energy was being purchased back at 85c per kWh, multiple times higher than what the electricity was being purchased at). This was an ill advised scheme as it made the cost of electricity for non-solar homeowners escalate. There were even rural individuals who would install arc lighting systems above their solar panels since the cost they were purchasing the electricity at to run those lights at was less than what they were able to produce from the panels, even at nightime from the arc lighting... crazy. That tariff system quickly changed and is why you see Solar production taxed in certain areas where Solar caught flack for the rest of the population.

Alberta's approach to Solar policy is a fair market approach, you always purchase and sell at the same fixed price, and the 100% offset limit allows as many homes tied to those neighbourhood transformers to go Solar without one home building some massive system over producing and thus not allowing other homes on those transformers to go Solar (this has happened in California, where many areas you can no longer go Solar without investing in battery systems). Additionally, having fixed fees for delivery, along with variable fees for delivery based on how much is pulled off the grid, is the correct approach to Solar policy in my opinion. The growth of Solar in Alberta has been the highest in the country for many years and I don't see any reason our approach to net metering would end any time soon. Like any new technology, it's usually the early adopters that get the most benefit and I think the policies will change but not until we see 1/4 of our homes with Solar which is likely 20+ years away.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

Alberta's approach to Solar policy is a fair market approach, you always purchase and sell at the same fixed price.

This is going to be an issue for the incumbent generators as the penetration of solar increases to the point that it starts to affect the pool price.

This all is resolved by moving retail pricing towards a Time-of-use rate scheme.

Paying people the same rate for electricity up or down is inherently unfair as it doesn't reflect the market price for that power at the time of dispatch. Fair would be paying the pool price for that dispatch according to the usual settlement rules.

I do agree with your point that early adopters need to be incentivized, but would suggest that the industry is mature enough and those incentives are no longer needed.

Last point, using Ontario as support for any argument in the electricity space is akin to comparing oneself to a serial killer.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This is going to be an issue for the incumbent generators as the penetration of solar increases to the point that it starts to affect the pool price.

This all is resolved by moving retail pricing towards a Time-of-use rate scheme.

Paying people the same rate for electricity up or down is inherently unfair as it doesn't reflect the market price for that power at the time of dispatch. Fair would be paying the pool price for that dispatch according to the usual settlement rules.

I do agree with your point that early adopters need to be incentivized, but would suggest that the industry is mature enough and those incentives are no longer needed.

Last point, using Ontario as support for any argument in the electricity space is akin to comparing oneself to a serial killer.

Time of use pricing is likely inevitable in Alberta, as we've seen a few dangerously high consumption peaks in the past year in January as well as a few summer instances and EV adoption and high migration rates to the province will only stress this further.

With that said, your point has nothing to do with Solar Homeowners being selfish or net metering being selfish in its current practice in our province. All homeowners in Alberta, Solar or Not, have the ability to use their electricity at any time without any adjustments for peak hours. If time of use was introduced, and Solar homeowners were able to sell back at peak pricing regardless of when sale of production happened, I'd agree that wouldn't be fair.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This is going to be an issue for the incumbent generators as the penetration of solar increases to the point that it starts to affect the pool price.

This all is resolved by moving retail pricing towards a Time-of-use rate scheme.

Paying people the same rate for electricity up or down is inherently unfair as it doesn't reflect the market price for that power at the time of dispatch. Fair would be paying the pool price for that dispatch according to the usual settlement rules.

I do agree with your point that early adopters need to be incentivized, but would suggest that the industry is mature enough and those incentives are no longer needed.

Last point, using Ontario as support for any argument in the electricity space is akin to comparing oneself to a serial killer.

I think this would also incentivize battery installs as well if prices continue to fall. Someone needs to modularize the process though so soft costs can fall. Look what's happening in Texas

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

I see, you were referring to the concept in general and I was referring to how it works in Alberta. In most provinces, the pure net metering you refer to has never really been something that has been put into practice and most handle it where what you pull off the grid, you are paying the same fees for. The pure net metering concept is something that if it was introduced in a jurisdiction has been adjusted in most cases. Here is a great article about how the net-metering concept has been adjusting and changing:



https://aurorasolar.com/blog/how-net...-need-to-know/



Provinces like Ontario tried to spur on Solar by offering a tariff based system where you would sell back at much higher levels compared to what you purchase at (at one point Solar energy was being purchased back at 85c per kWh, multiple times higher than what the electricity was being purchased at). This was an ill advised scheme as it made the cost of electricity for non-solar homeowners escalate. There were even rural individuals who would install arc lighting systems above their solar panels since the cost they were purchasing the electricity at to run those lights at was less than what they were able to produce from the panels, even at nightime from the arc lighting... crazy. That tariff system quickly changed and is why you see Solar production taxed in certain areas where Solar caught flack for the rest of the population.



Alberta's approach to Solar policy is a fair market approach, you always purchase and sell at the same fixed price, and the 100% offset limit allows as many homes tied to those neighbourhood transformers to go Solar without one home building some massive system over producing and thus not allowing other homes on those transformers to go Solar (this has happened in California, where many areas you can no longer go Solar without investing in battery systems). Additionally, having fixed fees for delivery, along with variable fees for delivery based on how much is pulled off the grid, is the correct approach to Solar policy in my opinion. The growth of Solar in Alberta has been the highest in the country for many years and I don't see any reason our approach to net metering would end any time soon. Like any new technology, it's usually the early adopters that get the most benefit and I think the policies will change but not until we see 1/4 of our homes with Solar which is likely 20+ years away.

BC has an all in pricing scheme where you pay a basic rate of around $6 a month to have an account plus a set rate per kWh with all T&D included. $0.10 until 1300/kWh in a 2 month cycle and 0.14 after that. No other fees.

Net metering is therefore also subsidizing T&D

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Net metering is therefore also subsidizing T&D

I know you aren't serious.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I know you aren't serious.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I meant that by doing net metering, the utility is paying the customer's t&d costs, which isn't sustainable

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think you're misunderstanding me. I meant that by doing net metering, the utility is paying the customer's t&d costs, which isn't sustainable

I think you don't understand what net metering is.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I think you don't understand what net metering is.

Net metering is where the utility credits me full retail rate for every kWh I export.

In BC, where we pay a flat rate inclusive of T&D costs, BC Hydro is not only paying retail rate for really cheap electricity, they're also receiving almost no money from me for T&D costs. That isn't sustainable at higher penetration

My entire monthly charges are the $6 a month which is for the daily rate which is just meant for administration. Therefore, BC Hydro is not just paying high prices for my cheap electricity as we're on the Western Interconnection (mid day wholesale is cheap), I pay nothing for the grid infrastructure I use 10-12 hours a day.