Philosophical questions that highlight how absurd a fee on self-generation is.

[rolosrevenge]

That is absurd logic. Shall I call my utility before I turn on my dishwasher? What if my neighbor and I turn on our Christmas lights at exactly the same moment?

The grid isn't a delicate flower, it is a utility designed and intended to serve the needs of the public.

Um, that's not logic, it's physics. And it wasn't designed to have a bunch of solar systems on it. So after a certain solar penetration, it needs to be upgraded. Who should pay for the upgrades required for solar integration?

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Germany went from 0% solar to upwards of 40-50% at peak with no major grid upgrades. This is not about grid capabilities, it is 100% about LOST REVENUE.

 

[rolosrevenge]

Germany went from 0% solar to upwards of 40-50% at peak with no major grid upgrades. This is not about grid capabilities, it is 100% about LOST REVENUE.

Says the man who doesn't do power system analysis. A nice read about the current state of solar in Germany is found here. An interesting bit.

The user who consumes self-generated electricity can by no means consider the difference
between the gross electricity price (electricity from the grid) and the EEG feed-in
tariff (estimated value of the electricity generation costs) as profit. For one, selfconsumption
increases the fixed costs per kilowatt-hour withdrawn. Considering that
the same connection costs are distributed over a smaller amount of withdrawn electricity,
the electricity purchased per kWh becomes more expensive. Also, the electricity
withdrawn from a PV system for self-consumption may be subject to extra taxes and
charges. These can reach appreciable values, depending on the tax classification of the
system

So you see, the Germans also are charging people who self consume, because they want to have a grid that still works.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

So you see, the Germans also are charging people who self consume, because they want to have a grid that still works.

I must say that's the first time I ever heard that mentioned regarding Germany. Now is this an official part of the EEG? Is it actually being charged to anyone?

This still would be a considerably different scenario considering the differences in the financial arrangement in NM. In Germany the entire renewables transition program is integrated into the FiT nationwide, all rates, fees, etc... New Mexico is just wholesale and retail, they certainly don't have an integrated renewables transition plan.

That's wild though. I would not have though that would even be a possibility in DE considering the advantages baked into the system for wind/solar. Will do some more reading and see if it's being paid and how much.

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless, it's still absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

A quick google indicates this rule was passed in Germany in early 2014, but applied only to industrial and commercial arrays over 10kw with on-site consumption. Makes some sense since it's my understanding that they had been shielded from any costs related to the EEG and were in some cases already paying super-low wholesale level prices for electricity.

There was still an uproar and it's unclear if or when it was actually implemented. I guess we can see what might very well have caused the German install slowdown to grow.

Still boggles the mind that any German would approve of such irrational rules.

 

[rolosrevenge]

And I tell you, that when you analyze the grid impacts of the system, the rules make perfect sense. Since you haven't performed the studies you don't understand it, but I have performed the studies so I know.

 

[nwdiver]

The problems caused by solar don't increase linearly, they are largely non-existent for small penetration levels but after it gets around 20% of a feeder load, the costs of integration sky rocket.

EXACTLY! Penetration in SPS service territory is <0.1%! If we where even at 10% and I was being charged $0.035/kWh for EXPORTS (Production fees are NEVER ok) I would be fine with that.

No one is arguing that solar won't cause issues at some level of penetration. Most of what we're seeing isn't a utility or PRC protecting the stability of the grid. This is the PRC protecting the profit margin of the utility.

THAT.... IS... WHAT.... WE.... ARE.... ARGUING..... HERE.

The utility business model must change for everyones sake. This is no longer a simple world where they generate, transmit and deliver energy. They need to make money off arbitrage. Buy from DERs at $0.03/kWh (or even charge a fee for energy exported during certain hours if things really get out hand) then sell it back at night for a profit. Mold rates to encourage production, demand response and storage when and where they are needed instead of imposing onerous fees that are obviously intended to protect their 'kingdom' and keep us addicted to coal and gas.

And I tell you, that when you analyze the grid impacts of the system, the rules make perfect sense. Since you haven't performed the studies you don't understand it, but I have performed the studies so I know.

???? So why are the rules so different? Texas doesn't even meter production => no production fees. Do the laws of physics change between here and the Texas border 10 miles away?

 

[rolosrevenge]

The problems caused by the solar are the same, there's lots of different ways to structure how it gets paid for, and different people have different views about who should pay for what. It doesn't matter if the total service area penetration is less than 0.1%. In some areas it may be clustered and still cause problems. I can't condemn any utility's solar rate structure until I've seen all of the studies, data, and considerations that went into developing the rate structure. You claim that these fees are protecting the profit margin of the utility, do you have any data to back that up? You also never answer any of my questions that I ask about who should pay for system upgrades required to accommodate solar. Should everyone have to pay or just the solar owners?

 

[nwdiver]

The problems caused by the solar are the same, there's lots of different ways to structure how it gets paid for, and different people have different views about who should pay for what. It doesn't matter if the total service area penetration is less than 0.1%. In some areas it may be clustered and still cause problems. I can't condemn any utility's solar rate structure until I've seen all of the studies, data, and considerations that went into developing the rate structure. You claim that these fees are protecting the profit margin of the utility, do you have any data to back that up? You also never answer any of my questions that I ask about who should pay for system upgrades required to accommodate solar. Should everyone have to pay or just the solar owners?

Do I have any data to support that utilities charge fees to make money? I suspect my response to that question would be considered 'snippy' so I'll leave it at that :wink:

Absent a carbon tax everyone should pay to support upgrades to support more solar penetration. If non-solar customers aren't going to compensate me for the costs of their dirty energy consumption then the least they can do is share the burden in expanding solar generation beyond 20%.

Here's the rub... you're presenting all these issues that solar causes (beyond 20%). Demand response helps to alleviate those problems. Storage helps to alleviate those problems. West facing panels help. Please explain how a fee on generation helps solve any of that... A fee on exports would help. Arbitrage between imports and exports would help. A demand fee would help. So ask yourself.... why would they impose a fee on GENERATION? The answer is incredibly obvious.

There's obviously a mix... but do you honestly believe that most utilities act in good faith to support and promote as much solar generation as their infrastructure can support?

 

[beeeerock]

Given the impact on the grid seems to vary depending on who you talk to, I'm going to continue to believe that there is enough dirty work going on behind the scenes to allow any study to find ways to make the data work for the utility. The fact that California doesn't seem to be having huge insurmountable problems... not to mention other countries and states... makes me wonder who's telling the full truth. Plenty of scientists and doctors were willing to sell their soul to 'prove' smoking didn't cause cancer. If the existing grid is in poor condition and poorly-maintained, undersized... etc... then perhaps there could be grid impact. But I don't know why the solar producer should be saddled with the costs to sort out decades of the utility's poor efforts and miserly practices.

Might there be grid impact? Yes, to some degree, depending on where you're looking and how much solar is being injected.

Is that justification for the punitive costs? Not a frickin' chance... it's about utility companies trying to hold onto the only business model they know and fight the inevitable future.

Here's an interesting one...: The Koch Brothers' Dirty War on Solar Power | Rolling Stone

 

[woof]

Hey Rolo, thanks for the answers. It's given me a better view from the other side, and lots to think about.

I'll answer your "who should pay for it questions", all the rate payers, just as they do now when a new transformer needs installing or a transmission line needs fixing. Or whatever pieces of equipment are needed to keep the grid functioning and safe, just like today. Isn't that what utilities do...spread the fixed costs of operation out among all the users? If that means adding additional equipment for protection of the grid, that's the grid's problem to deal with.

So it net metering isn't the right model, as you are saying now and and Robert has said in other threads, then a new model is needed. If the costs of accepting solar/wind onto the grid are an issue, then yes those whose power needs more "cleaning up" like intermittent sources, should get paid less for their power. (Although I do think some form of carbon tax/credit should be used to cover the external costs of dirtier sources.)

However, for those who self generate (with solar, or wind or natural gas or small fusion reactors) behind the meter, there sure is a perception problem that charging them per kWh for using their own power that the grid never sees is just wrong. Physics be damned, it's wrong. So smart guys like you are going to have to come up with a more palatable scheme to make this work to balance out the perception with the physics. (This was a philosophical discussion, after all!)

If wild swings of power usage are the problem with behind the meter users, than isn't that what demand charges were created for, to compensate the power company for having to deal with the swings, and to incentivize the user to lessen the swings? Seems like batteries would help here. (Oh yeah, you gave a whole talk at TMC Connect about that...) If the home owner buys batteries her demand charges will go down. Incentivize creating less of thing that causes the actual problems. Charging people per kWh for their own generation is daft, and is not incentivizing the right thing at all.

 

[jerry33]

If the existing grid is in poor condition and poorly-maintained, undersized... etc... then perhaps there could be grid impact.

Isn't that always the case with deregulated electricity grids?

 

[nwdiver]

Very apropos...

This weeks 'The Energy Gang'

Adapt or Die? National Grid's Plan to embrace the Future of Energy

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Um, that's not logic, it's physics. And it wasn't designed to have a bunch of solar systems on it. So after a certain solar penetration, it needs to be upgraded. Who should pay for the upgrades required for solar integration?

I don't think anyone is claiming individual generators shouldn't be responsible for their impact on the grid. However, they should also have options for mitigating that impact that have been proven by other utilities to be viable. That way, an individual can choose to pay for an needed equipment upgrades, or if viable, they can also choose to voluntarily or involuntarily shed demand or load.

The problem with certain utilities (SRP and co) is that they restrict the options of individuals with PV panels and use that restriction as an excuse to impose punitive (and profitable) costs on those individuals. Passing on the levelized costs of upgrading the grid to fit both PV production and use is perfectly fine. Artificially restricting the choices individuals have to align their production and consumption with the operating requirements of the grid in order to increase or maintain profits for other generators is BS, plain and simple.

 

[beeeerock]

Isn't that always the case with deregulated electricity grids?

I can't say I have any direct experience with that around here. Our system works well and apparently has little or no concerns with adding solar... or wind... or run of the river generation projects. Yes, it's regulated and it is very reliable and fairly priced. Something else that sets it apart from many other utilities on the continent - it's mostly hydro-generated (85% seems to be the number). Big up front costs to build dams, but you don't have to mine or pump the water, transport it to the dam and feed it in. In other words, it's not tightly connected to the fossil fuel industry. That disconnect is key to the motivations and general business ethics, I suspect.

Back almost a decade ago Shai Agassi did some serious research into the impact of EV's on the grid, including charging, solar power, vehicle to grid... etc. The reality was the existing grid could typically manage the new requirements. The failure of Better Place wasn't caused by the grid.

If the grid isn't up to it, you have to question whether there has been some serious deferred maintenance or deferred expansion that is now needed. If the utilities can't accept the new reality and plan/build for it, they're going to fail. As they should. I wouldn't shed a single tear for them. The lobbying influence they swing around is clearly designed to continue their monopoly and maximize their profits. That was a model that sort of worked yesterday. It won't work moving forward. The article I linked a few posts above is an interesting read.

I suggest that most of the resistance to change is caused by a desire to do business tomorrow the same way as yesterday... not because the grid it going to blow up in our faces. If work is required, they need to get on with it... and not attempt to finance it with cash grabs from the individual people who are doing their best to improve the situation for the rest of the common folk. Those big companies haven't exactly been operating as non-profit charities...

 

[jerry33]

I can't say I have any direct experience with that around here. Our system works well and apparently has little or no concerns with adding solar... or wind... or run of the river generation projects. Yes, it's regulated and it is very reliable and fairly priced. Something else that sets it apart from many other utilities on the continent - it's mostly hydro-generated (85% seems to be the number). Big up front costs to build dams, but you don't have to mine or pump the water, transport it to the dam and feed it in. In other words, it's not tightly connected to the fossil fuel industry. That disconnect is key to the motivations and general business ethics, I suspect.

I lived in Vancouver for many years. Electricity was always good and reasonably priced. Here in Texas I have a 6 KVA UPS to ensure the longevity of electrical equipment (computers and A/V). Flickering lights are normal because the utility only fixes things if there is a complete outage. Electricity is cheap here but only because they almost never upgrade capacity.

 

[beeeerock]

I lived in Vancouver for many years. Electricity was always good and reasonably priced. Here in Texas I have a 6 KVA UPS to ensure the longevity of electrical equipment (computers and A/V). Flickering lights are normal because the utility only fixes things if there is a complete outage. Electricity is cheap here but only because they almost never upgrade capacity.

Yes, so you get it!

BC Hydro isn't a losing proposition but doesn't appear to be obsessed with maximizing profits at any cost either. Regulation seems to balance the interests of subscribers and the utility itself. I'm sure there would be some that would dispute that suggestion, but having known this as my electric utility reality all my life, it's difficult to understand how other models can offer less reliable power at higher costs... unless they're rewarding the shareholder instead. We have a small population spread across a large land area, much of it less than hospitable from a high tension power line perspective. Plenty of infrastructure to service the remote communities. A similar situation to the highway network - the 'miles to maintain per subscriber' number must be higher than in many other places.

In a sense, I think BCH could be a partial model for how utilities will be operated in the future, when renewables provide a bigger proportion of the supply than they do today.

 

[rolosrevenge]

The problem with certain utilities (SRP and co) is that they restrict the options of individuals with PV panels and use that restriction as an excuse to impose punitive (and profitable) costs on those individuals. Passing on the levelized costs of upgrading the grid to fit both PV production and use is perfectly fine. Artificially restricting the choices individuals have to align their production and consumption with the operating requirements of the grid in order to increase or maintain profits for other generators is BS, plain and simple.

There are a lot of things at play. Every utility has a different philosophy with what they want to do about solar. Some of them don't want to deal with it, and make the solar owners cover all of the projected costs of grid upgrades as well as operate in ways that cause minimal disturbances. A lot of time this is a reflection of the majority opinion of their rate payers. Other utilities embrace solar, spread the costs to all rate payers, and then try can come up with innovative solutions to make it cheaper. The thing to remember is that in all cases, the costs can be justified from an engineering standpoint, even if they aren't the best long term solution.

 

[nwdiver]

There are a lot of things at play. Every utility has a different philosophy with what they want to do about solar. Some of them don't want to deal with it, and make the solar owners cover all of the projected costs of grid upgrades as well as operate in ways that cause minimal disturbances. A lot of time this is a reflection of the majority opinion of their rate payers. Other utilities embrace solar, spread the costs to all rate payers, and then try can come up with innovative solutions to make it cheaper. The thing to remember is that in all cases, the costs can be justified from an engineering standpoint, even if they aren't the best long term solution.

Can you explain the justification for charging for power that never reaches the grid? Generation that from the grids perspective is just decreased demand. A fee on exports might make sense... not a fee on production. (Although... that would be weird to SAVE $$$ by running space heaters outside instead of exporting electricity)

The other day we were test running our diesel at work in export mode to load it and jokingly a co-worker asked if Xcel was going to pay us. We're a 20MW plant testing to 2MW generator so that power is never going to make it to our switchyard. I responded, 'Technically we're supposed to pay them'

 

[rolosrevenge]

Can you explain the justification for charging for power that never reaches the grid? Generation that from the grids perspective is just decreased demand. A fee on exports might make sense... not a fee on production. (Although... that would be weird to SAVE $$$ by running space heaters outside instead of exporting electricity)

The other day we were test running our diesel at work in export mode to load it and jokingly a co-worker asked if Xcel was going to pay us. We're a 20MW plant testing to 2MW generator so that power is never going to make it to our switchyard. I responded, 'Technically we're supposed to pay them'

Yes, I've explained many times, that the grid costs are bundled into the cost of energy. By generating and consuming onsite, you aren't paying your share of the grid, so they charge for everything you produce. In addition, lots of solar, even if it doesn't export, still increase the variability which can lead to voltage flicker in high penetration, and it can cause steep ramps as the sun sets. Then there is the fact that since it is uncontrollable generation, it may not reduce daily usage much at all on a cloudy or rainy day, so the same amount of generation must be kept at ready, and may be forced in to less efficient, more expensive, more polluting operating regimes. So all of these are costs associated with solar that is physically stopped from feeding into the grid. If you can export to the grid at all, assuming there isn't a power electronics connection between your house and the grid, then high voltage problems can result and the protection system may need to be updated, even if your house almost never exports.

The best solution in the long term is to completely decouple grid fees from energy fees. The monthly grid costs will then be between $50-$100/mo. And then the utility buys excess solar at wholesale rate. I'm not sure if I want extra grid upgrades to be paid by everyone or just solar, but if they do have only solar pay, there should be a carbon tax on fossil fuels so everyone is accountable for their own negative externalities.

 

[nwdiver]

Yes, I've explained many times, that the grid costs are bundled into the cost of energy. By generating and consuming onsite, you aren't paying your share of the grid, so they charge for everything you produce.

Can you link to a technical publication or something? How reduced demand due to generation and reduced demand due to reduced demand could effect the grid differently makes zero sense to me... I'm not referring to exports... only smaller imports.

The best solution in the long term is to completely decouple grid fees from energy fees. The monthly grid costs will then be between $50-$100/mo.

Flat fee or based on grid use? Should a ratepayer that uses the grid constantly with a peak demand of 30kW pay the same as someone who rarely uses the grid with a peak demand of 2kW? Should there be an incentive for storage and demand response?

I'm not sure if I want extra grid upgrades to be paid by everyone or just solar, but if they do have only solar pay, there should be a carbon tax on fossil fuels so everyone is accountable for their own negative externalities.

Finally some agreement....