OK.... I need someone A LOT smarter than me to explain this....

[ThosEM]

Get a PowerWall and don't sell-back the excess. In my mind, this is the cure for solar customers in these criminal states.

Buy a PowerWall when I already own 8x that much storage in my Model S? PowerWalls are for Prius owners!

Why is Tesla trying to sell Model S owners another battery when we already bought a huge one from them? Back in 2006 when Tesla were talking up the Roadster, this was touted as one of the benefits of a BEV, along with reduced off-peak electric rates. Now we find that it has morphed into a ruse to sell more batteries to people who don't need them. It seems to me that Tesla has become as rapacious as the utilities here.

And please don't reply that Tesla cannot afford to let people use their cars that way because they would load up on free juice at the nearest supercharger. Is that our problem or Tesla's?

 

[TheTalkingMule]

I don't think you'd want to cycle your Model S batteries an additional time each and every day. That being said, I'm with you on this one. Seems so logical to me that we'd eventually use massive car batteries that are just sitting around through the peak heat of the day. Maybe you're just 10 years too early, these things are still crazy expensive after all.

 

[nwdiver]

I don't think you'd want to cycle your Model S batteries an additional time each and every day.

Cycling the the batteries 10% every day... say from 60-50-60% SOC would actually cause LESS wear than driving 150 miles once a week. Small mid range cycles cause negligible wear.

Still... the options are getting cheaper, easier and more abundant. The utilities aren't going to kill solar. They're just going to slow it down.... and piss it off.

 

[jerry33]

Still... the options are getting cheaper, easier and more abundant. The utilities aren't going to kill solar. They're just going to slow it down.... and piss it off.

Given that the deregulated utilities don't add capacity--just milk the existing facilities--they will eventually fall apart on their own and probably leave the mess they create to the taxpayers.

 

[nwdiver]

Given that the deregulated utilities don't add capacity--just milk the existing facilities--they will eventually fall apart on their own and probably leave the mess they create to the taxpayers.

Ironically... it's the deregulated markets that provide the best ecosystem for solar to thrive. In Texas the financials of the grid are split between Generation, Transmission and Sales. As such the RSP that determines your rates couldn't care less if your solar array is hurting generation. Every system I have lined up is in Texas. Solar is dead in SE NM until 'grid-assisted' systems get cheaper. Then the next step for the criminals at Xcel will be to pay their PRC stooges to impose fees on non-interconnected systems. I guess then we'll have to petition google to camouflage PV arrays on google maps.

Regulated markets like NM work if the commission isn't corrupt but that's a bigger and bigger 'if'. Xcel hates distributed generation since it hurts their generation market... and since they control generation, transmission, sales and the PRC they get to set the rules and there is no competition.

 

[nwdiver]

Some interesting updates in the War on Distributed Generation in NM...

NM PRC counsel recommends the PRC reject the production fee increase requested by SPS.

'Staff agrees that SPS has failed to meet its burden of proof to increase its energy charges under Rate 59 and therefore SPS’s request should be denied. There is no testimony in SPS’s Application to support this request.'

Rate 59 appears to still be in effect but it's unraveling... SPS attempted to soften it by applying the standby generation fee to 'usage' instead of production... but IMO that's made their position weaker... they responded to Vote Solars motion to dismiss here;

Part of their argument...
'..... allowing SPS to recover costs associated with generation, transmission, and distribution facilities that are necessary to back-up a customer’s DG system....'

OK.... then shouldn't that fee be applied to IMPORTS? If SPS can be persuaded to apply Rate 59 only to IMPORTS... not usage or production then solar wins in NM...

 

[SageBrush]

No doubt about it -- PUCs are bought stooges for the monopolies.
But I'm not sure I am completely following the economics you face if Rate 59 was approved:

Please correct any errors ...
You are net metered,
Gross exports pay you 2.5 cents a kWh
Imports cost you 4.3 cents a kwh
Your REC gains you ... ?

 

[nwdiver]

No doubt about it -- PUCs are bought stooges for the monopolies.
But I'm not sure I am completely following the economics you face if Rate 59 was approved:

Please correct any errors ...
You are net metered,
Gross exports pay you 2.5 cents a kWh
Imports cost you 4.3 cents a kwh
Your REC gains you ... ?

I am net metered
I am paid ~2.5 cents for net exports (Exports-Imports)
Imports in excess of exports cost me ~$0.10/kWh (typically only in Dec)
I am paid $0.10/kWh for my RECs (Now depleted so there are no RECs for new systems)

Under the existing Rate 59 I pay $0.036/kWh PRODUCED.

The economics are still favorable for me due to the RECs but completely unworkable for any new solar.

A revised Rate 59 was submitted that would increase the fee to $0.043/kWh but that fee would only be applies to USAGE. Usage = Production - Exports + Imports. This new methodology would at least solve the absurd situation where a DG owner going on vacation would save money by turning off the PV array before leaving...

Vote Solar and CCAE challenged the increase on multiple ground and the PRC staff are recommending to the commission that the revised rate 59 be rejected. I am hopeful that a compromise can be reached where Rate 59 is applied only to IMPORTS.

I've attached the PRC staff response and the SPS Response. It sure appear clear that Rate 59 should be applied only to imports...

 

[SageBrush]

I am net metered
I am paid ~2.5 cents for net exports (Exports-Imports)
Imports in excess of exports cost me ~$0.10/kWh (typically only in Dec)
I am paid $0.10/kWh for my RECs (Now depleted so there are no RECs for new systems)

Under the existing Rate 59 I pay $0.036/kWh PRODUCED.

The economics are still favorable for me due to the RECs but completely unworkable for any new solar.

A revised Rate 59 was submitted that would increase the fee to $0.043/kWh but that fee would only be applies to USAGE. Usage = Production - Exports + Imports. This new methodology would at least solve the absurd situation where a DG owner going on vacation would save money by turning off the PV array before leaving...

Vote Solar and CCAE challenged the increase on multiple ground and the PRC staff are recommending to the commission that the revised rate 59 be rejected. I am hopeful that a compromise can be reached where Rate 59 is applied only to IMPORTS.

I've attached the PRC staff response and the SPS Response. It sure appear clear that Rate 59 should be applied only to imports...

Thanks. Crazy stuff

I want to try and take the side of the utility for a moment -- I know it will be over-simplified, and let's say there are no net exports.
Prior to DG, They buy a kWh for 4 cents from a wholesaler and sell it for 10 cents to a consumer, so your consumption is grossing them 6 cents a kWh.

Under revised rate 59, you do not pay them for production you use locally, but you pay the utility 4.3 cents for a banked kWh. This reduces their gross revenue in two ways from you as a customer: you are billed for less kWh overall, and they gross less per kWh.

Is this anywhere near correct ?

OK.... then shouldn't that fee be applied to IMPORTS? If SPS can be persuaded to apply Rate 59 only to IMPORTS...

If the import is charged at the usual utility retail amount of 10 cents per kwh it already includes their costs of doing business + profit.

 

[nwdiver]

Thanks. Crazy stuff

I want to try and take the side of the utility for a moment -- I know it will be over-simplified, and let's say there are no net exports.
Prior to DG, They buy a kWh for 4 cents from a wholesaler and sell it for 10 cents to a consumer, so your consumption is grossing them 6 cents a kWh.

Under revised rate 59, you do not pay them for production you use locally, but you pay the utility 4.3 cents for a banked kWh. This reduces their gross revenue in two ways from you as a customer: you are billed for less kWh overall, and they gross less per kWh.

Is this anywhere near correct ?

If the import is charged at the usual utility retail amount of 10 cents per kwh it already includes their costs of doing business + profit.

I am still paying them for production I use locally... that's the main thing I take issue with. It's nice that they agree I shouldn't be charged for production I don't use...

Under revised rate 59 I'm not paying $0.043/kWh for a banked kWh... that would be under the rate 59 I've suggested and agree with. Under the current and revised rate 59 if I produce 1000kWh and self-consume 100% by using batteries and load management I still pay $43 for the 1000kWh even though none of it was ever banked. The compromise I suggested would be that I would only pay the fee if I export a kWh and bank it. I'm using the grid to 'store' energy... a service I value and don't mind paying for.

SPS has already revised Rate 59 to correct 1 blatant flaw... the 'vacation paradox'... hopefully they can now revise it again to fix the 'storage paradox'.

 

[SageBrush]

Got it, thanks for being patient with me.

Are they really only paying 4 cents a kWh for wholesale PV ??
That would be lower than anything I have ever read of. If true, I wonder if there is other accounting going on that is undisclosed; e.g. the utility paid for infrastructure.

Here is some info from a local newspaper:

The Chaves County Commission took its first step Thursday in support of a $290 million solar power project northeast of Roswell that would be the largest solar project in state history, capable of powering every home in Roswell and then some.

The commission on Thursday unanimously approved an “inducement resolution,” paving the way for the commission to approve an ordinance next month that would authorize Chaves County to issue $290 million of 30-year industrial revenue bonds on behalf of Juno Beach, Florida-based NextEra Energy Resources LLC.

County leaders have repeatedly said the bond sale would in no way financially obligate the county. The resolution approved by the commission Thursday reiterates the county would not be on the hook.

“Nothing contained in this resolution or in any other instrument shall be considered as obligating the county to any pecuniary liability or a charge upon the general credit of the county or against its taxing power, it being understood that no costs are to be borne by the county and that all costs incurred by the county in connection with the bonds are to be promptly reimbursed by the companies,” the resolution states.

NextEra Energy Resources, the largest generator of renewable wind and solar energy in North America, has proposed building three separate solar farms on 1,300 acres of private land northeast of Roswell, all near the intersection of Wrangler and East Pine Lodge roads, 5 to 8 miles northeast of downtown Roswell.

Two projects would involve 70-megawatt solar fields, while the third project would entail a 30-megawatt project, said Jim Shandalov, executive director of development for NextEra Energy.

---
Anybody in the forum a forensic accountant ?

 

[MitchMitch]

2.9 cents/kWh for excess production last I checked on Colorado's Western Slope. (Xcel Energy)
Still, Colorado is one of the better states for solar ROI. I think retail is currently only 4.6 cents kWh "Non-summer"
When I bought my net metered 4.4 KW system in 2007 the excess rate was 4.8 cents, and Xcel picked up half of the $30,000.00 system cost. I pay $7.75 a month, which is the base every customer pays for "infrastructure". The first year I got a $150 check in February for yearly excess generation, but since the "wholesale" rate is so low, I've added an electric scooter (EVTA - "stone knives and bear skins" ) and some electric heat to defray other energy costs. This year my excess energy check was two-hundred-and-eighty-one . . . . cents.
When I eventually get into a Tesla, I will happily end up buying electricity once again. . .or add some newer, more efficient panels.

 

[SageBrush]

2.9 cents/kWh for excess production last I checked on Colorado's Western Slope. (Xcel Energy)
Still, Colorado is one of the better states for solar ROI. I think retail is currently only 4.6 cents kWh "Non-summer"
When I bought my net metered 4.4 KW system in 2007 the excess rate was 4.8 cents, and Xcel picked up half of the $30,000.00 system cost. I pay $7.75 a month, which is the base every customer pays for "infrastructure". .

I live about an hour drive south of you in SW Colorado, yet my utility (Empire Electric) is no where near as user friendly. I pay about $30 a month connection charge, and 9-10 cents a kWh for coal based electricity.

Net metered PV is subsidized to the tune of about 2 cents a kWh production the last time I checked, but the paperwork and licensing/inspections/etc are fairly annoying.

Nothing as nasty as nwDiver's situation though.

 

[nwdiver]

Are they really only paying 4 cents a kWh for wholesale PV ??

The $0.043/kWh fee I mentioned is applied to PRODUCTION; Not EXPORTS.. I pay $0.043/kWh for energy that I produce. NM has net metering so I am credited exports against imports. If my exports exceed imports I am paid ~$0.03/kWh for my excess for the month.

Under the current Rate 59 $0.036/kWh... if I went on vacation and produced 1000kWh... consumed/imported 0kWh and exported 1000kWh I would owe $6 for the 1000kWh I exported.

 

[SageBrush]

I understand, I was referring to the NextEra contract.
Today I read that Palo-Alto has signed a couple of 25 year PV PPA's at 3.6 cents a kWh to start 2017-2018. So I suppose it is *possible* that your utility found wholesale PV at 4 cents a kWh without under the table, undisclosed 'arrangements' but I am still skeptical.

E.g., I gather that the NextEra PV farm cost 290M for 140 MW, thus 207 cents per watt. If the federal tax credit was obtained then the cost is 145 cents a watt installed. If the lifetime production is about 1.7 kWh/watt for 25 years, the production cost before profit, maintenance, repairs and financing is 145/(25*1.7) = 3.4 cents a kWh. Energy then sold at 15% over ? I don't think so.

What do you make of the 290M bond that was floated by the county that hosts the NextEra PV farms ? Is that taxpayer money that will be collected ?

 

[nwdiver]

E.g., I gather that the NextEra PV farm cost 290M for 140 MW, thus 207 cents per watt. If the federal tax credit was obtained then the cost is 145 cents a watt installed. If the lifetime production is about 1.7 kWh/watt for 25 years, the production cost before profit, maintenance, repairs and financing is 145/(25*1.7) = 3.4 cents a kWh. Energy then sold at 15% over ? I don't think so.

I don't know what the capital cost of the farm is but here is the link to the PRC request. The deal is for ~$0.042/kWh over 25 years.

 

[adiggs]

The $0.043/kWh fee I mentioned is applied to PRODUCTION; Not EXPORTS.. I pay $0.043/kWh for energy that I produce. NM has net metering so I am credited exports against imports. If my exports exceed imports I am paid ~$0.03/kWh for my excess for the month.

Under the current Rate 59 $0.036/kWh... if I went on vacation and produced 1000kWh... consumed/imported 0kWh and exported 1000kWh I would owe $6 for the 1000kWh I exported.

Sure sounds to me like they would rather you disconnected from the grid and weren't a customer any longer.

 

[neroden]

Wow. Your situation in NM is completely disgusting, nwdiver. Any luck getting the government to change the rules to stop penalizing people for self-consumed production?

If not, I think New Mexico is going to become a major Powerwall state. I'd go off grid under those circumstances just to say F-you to Xcel.

 

[bkp_duke]

I feel your pain. Living in San Diego, we have the 2nd highest electricity rate in the nation, behind Hawaii. Solar is very prevalent here because of this, however if you make your house energy efficient or buy an oversized solar installation, you don't get back anything significant from overages put back into the grid.

My tack on this problem was to go out and buy two Model S's to charge from my overage. Since the utility won't give me anything for it, might as well "drive for free".

 

[nwdiver]

Wow. Your situation in NM is completely disgusting, nwdiver. Any luck getting the government to change the rules to stop penalizing people for self-consumed production?

If not, I think New Mexico is going to become a major Powerwall state. I'd go off grid under those circumstances just to say F-you to Xcel.

The recent rate case made thing a liiiiittle better... they're going to charge me $0.036/kWh 'consumed' instead of 'produced' So if I produce 1500 kWh Export 500 and Import ZERO I'll 'only' be charged for the 1000 kWh I self-consumed vs the 1500 kWh that I produced... (yay)

Huge thank you to Vote Solar, Earth Justice and The Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy for providing the legal muscle in this fight. Seriously; Yes, things could be better but Xcel wanted to increase the production fee to $0.041/kWh...

I'm hopeful that the utility commission finds a small amount of sanity and decides that I shouldn't be charged anything for electricity that never sees the grid and shifts the fee to imports.

I already have sufficient batteries to divorce myself from the grid for 10 months out of the year... and I've done the math... I could buy a $300 propane generator to make up for the small deficit in the remaining two months and come out ahead. I'd rather not go there... I enjoy displacing fools fuel generation with my excess energy... I'd rather export electricity than curtail it.