omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
I don't think so. In that case, there is no cross-subsidy because you (off-grid) are no longer receiving any benefit for which you are not paying.
- - - Updated - - -
The rate-case to implement this will be an extremely interesting test case, if properly prosecuted. Some random thoughts, sitting with a pint in Heathrow:
1. There is no requirement that the charge be greater than zero. If solar advocates can make the case that there is a net benefit from additional solar installations in reducing costs to all customers, then the charge should be set to zero. Arguably, it could be set to a negative value to prevent cross-subsidies from PV households to non-PV households.
2. There's a "nanny state" problem created by the fact that residential customers don't see the real-time wholesale price. If PV households paid/received the spot price of power, then @lolachampcars points would be directly addressed (namely, that "peak power" during the day is worth more than the same kWh over night). This fact means that PV households are overpaying for power, on average.
3. On the other hand, a grid-connected PV household is getting more benefits from the grid connection than is directly measured by net usage. I've discussed this before: if I drive across a toll bridge and then return, my "net usage" is zero but I shouldn't be allowed to avoid paying the toll. The utility has real costs of maintaining the distribution and transmission system to support customers even if those customers' PV systems are producing nothing. And they've purchased and maintain a fleet of generation to provide power round-the-clock and to deliver necessary "ancillary services" to stabilize the grid in real time.
The question boils down to whether the benefits from #2 are greater than the costs of #3. This is an empirical question, very specific to the utility in question.
I agree with all of that, except for forcing a customer to pay for grid stabilization. If a local utility wants to go with a-la-carte charges, great. But if I want to opt out of paying some grid-stability charge and will let the utility cut me off if there are issues, then that should be an option.
In addition, utilities should also tally any benefits they've incurred due to PV installations and include that in their empirical analysis. The alternative is that the utility will just zero out, or pay very little, for excess PV generators if they offset more expensive generation in the aggregate, pocket the difference, and once they start incurring costs, will switch to charging PV users, which is ridiculous. They should include any benefits they've received from PV generation as a buffer that would need to be eroded prior to charging PV users.