Slashdot Mirror
Utilities Fight Back Against Solar Energy
JoeyRox writes "The exponential growth of rooftop solar adoption has utilities concerned about their financial future. Efficiency gains and cost reductions has brought the price of solar energy to within parity of traditional power generation in states like California and Hawaii. HECO, an electric utility in Hawaii, has started notifying new solar adopters that they will not be allowed to connect to the utility's power grid, citing safety concerns of electric circuits becoming oversaturated from the rapid adoption of solar power on the island. Residents claim it's not about safety but about the utility fighting to protect its profits." We mentioned earlier the connection fee recently approved in Arizona. Do you have a solar system? If not (or if so, for that matter), does this make you think twice about it?
I don't understand why the utilities simply don't build out their grids to accept feed-in from customers' solar rigs, and then split their pricing structure into 1) grid access, and 2) net power supplied? Or is this too simple?
The utilities appear to be doing a one-sided analysis from what I have noticed. They complain about their lines being loaded by customers generating power and don't count the reduction in line use from the local power a home solar instatllation is helping to power the local neighborhood. Yes, we have a rooftop solar installation. Currently around 90,000 of them in California. Increasing fast. Local solar company is hiring 10-15 new installers *every day* according to local paper.
a fantastic story from a neighbor of mine in Watsonville, CA. He fought PG&E over some years and finally won: http://www.solarwarrior.com/pgebattle.html
Except as mentioned above, the power company becomes free off-site "storage" for your off-peak power. You generate power you don't need in the morning, and you get it back "free" from them in the afternoon when you get home from work.
Why yes indeed... I imagine there exists some real progress if the utilities have begun to fear it.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Excess energy on the grid is a real issue, especially if there has been a significant wave of people adopting these systems. If there isn't demand for all the electricity being pumped onto the grid, there has to be a place to dump the energy. This is an even bigger issue with wind and other intermittent sources.
If the grid is overwhelmed and there is no demand, should folks expect to get paid for that energy, which could actually cost the utility money to dump somewhere?
Something else to bear in mind- the utility has to operate base load plants no matter what.
Recent literature indicates that these issues can be overcome (one example from Utilities Policy ), but that the process will take time. Utilities are a very conservative industry and are often slow to adapt new systems because they have stringent boundary conditions.
Just playing the devils advocate here- I'm sure profit is a part of it.
The click bait title makes it look like the utility is purposefully stopping solar power from feeding back into the system in an effort to stay pertinent in the industry. This is not true at all. If they REALLY wanted to screw customers over, they would buy back the electricity at little-to-no cost. The article probably got it's conclusions from some pissed off customers.
Meeting electrical demand is a far more complicated issue then this article makes out.
Why not fund research into energy storage technologies so when the grid is overloaded, the energy can be saved and used later?
I live in the Valley of the Sun, and most of the southern half of my roof is covered in solar panels. I generate about half again as much electricity as I consume. This is by design; the plan is to get an electric vehicle in the not-too-terribly-distant future, and my excess generation capacity is enough that I should be able to drive for basically free. And the whole thing will pay itself off in about seven years total; if you remember the Rule of 70, that works out to about a 10% annual rate of return on my investment.
My utility provider is SRP; it was APS who was taking Koch Brothers money to fuck over their customers.
I've got a really good thing going for myself, obviously, but SRP is also making a nice profit off of me. My peak generation coincides with peak demand here. At the same time as they sell my electricity to my neighbors at $0.14 / kWh, they're paying twice that to spool up diesel generators...and they're paying me about $0.02 / kWh for my surplus. And I've signed over all my green credits to them, as well. Sweet deal for both of us, and I'm glad for it to be that way -- that's how good business profits are supposed to work.
If, however, APS's original proposal went into effect and SRP adopted it or something similar for themselves...well, at that point, I'd tell them to fuck off, get a battery system, and drop off the grid entirely. Changing the equation like that would wipe out any financial advantage I get from my investment and hugely profit the utility -- and, remember, I'm already far and away the most profitable customer they have on the block. It would really suck to have to pay again for a battery system; I've got better things I could do with that money. But I'd much rather invest that money in real physical goods that provide me with actual benefits (including, in this case, having the lights stay on should the grid ever go down) than throw gobs of money for no good reason at greedy profiteering corporate CEOs.
I can assure you, if the utilities keep up this sort of thing...well, they'll "protect" their profits for a little while, but it won't be long before people start dropping off the grid in droves. And that will be a bad thing for everybody -- but, most of all, for the utilities.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
$100M in revenue is not "rich" in the corporate world, using average corporate ROI it equates to $5-10M in net profit. FF companies receive a hell of a lot more than $10M in government subsidies.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If we had truly privatized power companies, I'd expect this behavior. After all, it would only make sense. You invested a bunch of money to build a whole infrastructure for power generation, doing all of your cost calculations based on people relying on it for 100% of their electricity needs. You have no provisions in place to store incoming electricity for future resale to users. What upside would you have if your customers start to generate their own power?
But we don't. We have government regulated monopolies. I'm not trying to argue the merits for or against the arrangement right now, except to say this means to me, they should be required to comply with whatever the government believes is the best way forward. If government is going to issue tax breaks and incentives for installing solar power? Then it's clear it thinks this type of energy generation on an individual basis should be encouraged. So how can it sit by and tolerate the power companies imposing rules that run counter to that goal?
Personally, I think as a homeowner, my ideal solar installation would be one where I don't need to be tied to the grid at all. Tesla is working on battery packs for homes that look a lot like refrigerators, which you'd couple to a solar panel installation to provide power at night or during bad weather conditions when the panels aren't capturing energy. I've heard that currently, they make the cost of the installation a bit prohibitive, but there's a good chance they'll become successful as part of a mainstream installation in the next 3 years or so. From what I've heard, reviewers of the setup said it was possible to run the entire home for as long as 48 hours or so on nothing but the battery pack, as long as power was used somewhat sensibly (not just leaving all the lights on in the house for no reason, etc.).
I work for Maui Electric which is a subsidirary of HECO. I am posting AC for this reason. I am copying part of a news release that we gave to these customers to help them understand. "On Sept. 6, the Hawaiian Electric Companies announced they were enabling more small PV systems (10 kW and under) to be added without a potentially time-consuming interconnection study and possible safety upgrades. The new threshold for a possible study was set at the point at which the PV on the circuit reached 100% of that circuit’s daytime minimum load, increased from 75%. At the same time, with a growing number of circuits with high amounts of PV, Hawaiian Electric also announced that customers who want to add PV on circuits that have reached the more liberal 100% threshold would need to await the results of an interconnection study to ensure their PV system can be safely interconnected into the grid. Previously, when PV levels were lower, O‘ahu customers had been allowed to interconnect their systems while they were awaiting final Hawaiian Electric approval of their net energy metering contract. Some customers with loans and/or contractual obligations for a PV system at the time of the announcement were caught in the transition, facing the possibility of being unable to get the benefits of a PV system they had committed to buy or had already installed" We are not denying any customers Solar, Hawaii leads the nation in KW generated per customer. (Solar Electric Power association Rankings). Hope that clears up some questions people may have.
Except as mentioned above, the power company becomes free off-site "storage" for your off-peak power. You generate power you don't need in the morning, and you get it back "free" from them in the afternoon when you get home from work.
And this is still beneficial to the power company, because generally, when you get home from work, it's no longer peak usage. This gives them more peak capacity to satisfy the rest of their customers, without having to build an expensive new plant.
FWIW, the peak demand in California typically occurs about 6PM, well after most PV installations fall off the grid (peak production from solar occurs at 12noon and solar output is largely gone after 3PM). This data is from the California ISO website. This implies that grid tied PV solar without some sort of power storage is NOT an effective source of peak shaving.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Our utility has also put a ban on "Net Metering Connects" as they call it here. They fully admit it is all about money but still try and look green. It is all a sham and a scam.
The way net metering works here is during the summer months when you generate excess power you build up a credit on your account. Then come January 1st take all that extra credit that you have built up and donate it to themselves such that you start the new year with no credit during the darkest, cloudiest time of the year. Now you have to buy power from them until you get to late summer when you've finally got a net metered credit again. Very lucrative for the power company.
So, why don't they want more connections? Because they say the people who are net metering aren't having to pay the cost of power delivery and they are protesting this by demanding a new fee and higher rates.
Pure greed.
All this talk about storing excess PV power. In almost all cases the excess PV power generated by one house flows 100' to his non-PV neighbor who pays the utility exactly what the utility is crediting the PV provider. No power is stored, the "grid" is hardly used at all. Yes, if the number of houses generating excess PV power started hitting 50% or more there could be a "problem" but the real problem is utilities are guaranteed profits based on their capital investments. If their capital investment needs drop, their profits will drop. That's a good thing. No need in the future to drop off the grid entirely if the utilities get too uppity. Just have enough storage capacity for anticipated over production, more closely align peak PV capacity on your house with your peak power consumption and just use far, far less of the utility's expensive power. No doubt they'll be crying about that as well. Let 'em cry. Society doesn't owe utility companies ever increasing profits based on ever increasing capital investments. Or entire neighborhoods will cooperatively put up solar and basically turn the entire neighborhood into a single connection to the utility and sub-meter internally. Instead of the utility paying me a penny for power flowing to my neighbor, we work it out amongst ourselves and leave the utility out in the cold. So they turn to FUD and nonsense about storing excess power and how terrible it is they can't buy your power for a penny and sell it to your next door neighbor for a dime.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi
---
Solar power continues to get cheaper. I'm interested in the implications for the broader energy market. Even a 5% drop in demand for coal, natural gas, and oil could have a tremendous impact on the boarder market.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Stop saying "free storage". It's not. There are two things. First, the power co doesn't "store" those electrons, they SELL THEM. It's more like a loan, and you're the bank. They should pay interest.
Second, they power co benefits from your electrons. During peak times, which is generally when the sun is shining and people have their AC cranked, the power co would normally have to send tons of power out, losing a TON in the transmission due to capacitance and resistance loss. Until we get superconducting wiring to the transformers, they suffer loss. But when someone sends power to a nearby neighbor, far fewer electrons are lost and the power company charges them the full amount, yet would have to send far more energy from the power plant if not for that neighbor.
Call me an old fart, or what you like. Or just ignore me.
I have seen this before, yes, it is the money. City of Tucson in the 1970-80's had a program to use water smartly, called "Beat the Peak". An education program to explain that you shouldn't water you lawn in the middle of the 100F day, do it in the evening, after dark or wee hours of the morning. You'll use less and have just as green a lawn (this was in the 1980's, please). And it worked, people used less water and had really green lawns.
It worked so well, the Water Department had to raise the rates because there was less usage, less money coming in. They were quoted as not having the funds for Capital Improvements, gee, you think?
This isn't entirely a bad thing. Higher energy costs spur investment in alternative energy sources and efficiency gains.
Which wouldn't be needed if you simply used nuclear power. Solar would improve anyway for other reasons. But in the meantime you wouldn't be wasting a lot of money better spent on forcing alternative energy on people before it's ready (or in the case of wind power, propping up a zombie until it dies once more as it does every few decades).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Here's the practical outcome of these policies: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/12/20/81497/baucus-tax-reform-cuts-46-billion-in-oil-breaks/
The tax subsidies for renewable energy are dwarfed by the tax subsidies for oil and gas. The oil and gas production industry is hugely profitable. When an industry has the top five companies making a trillion dollars profit over ten years why do they need any tax breaks that other businesses don't get?
The real rich bastards are the oil company executives. You know how they spend that vast profit? Stock buybacks. About 25% of big oil company profit is going into stock buy back programs, which is more then they spend on exploration and acquisitions. Because of way that executive compensation is structured with stock options and deferred payouts, this ends up being a huge multiplier payout multiplier for the executives. They get their stock at a ridiculous discount, pump up the value and realize vast personal wealth.
All the investors are happy because they see their valuation go up as well so they don't complain. It's short term gain over long term profit. According to this 2007 Bloomberg article, the big oil companies are effectively liquidating themselves over the longer term.
Why is Snark Required?
This is a world wide problem, utilities are running scared and the politicians in their pocket are following their pied piper. Keep pressing on for being able to create your own power. If the utilities won't let you plug in. Screw em and invest in battery back up, companies are already scrambling to make affordable, benign battery power http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html the sooner you let the power utilities depending on power drawn from old fermented dinosaurs or power created with other environmental deadly pollutants as a result like nuclear die the better. Keep adapting alternate power generation technology, not only will you be free from the utilities and save a lot of money freeing up your personal resources. Unfortunately governments all over the world are in cahoots with the utilities so do not expect any help from them. This is a battle you as an individual will have to take upon yourself to win. Educate yourself in how you can save, personally I have been able to cut my electricity consumption 22% by doing simple things like cutting off vampire loads, remembering to turn off lights when not around etc. without in any way having less comfort at home or making "sacrifice" and I have not even yet started investing in energy harvesting nor A+ or better household things like dishwasher, fridge/freezer, washing machine etc. stopped using the dryer in the previous billing cycle, that saved a bundle as well but is not counted in this round, but energy harvesting and buying less power consuming equipment is next on the list. I wish all of you the best of luck in the search for cheaper and cleaner energy free from the power monopolies of the utilities. Don't buy into the lie that you are using the utilities as a backup battery, they are benefiting from your production, they are actually able to use less energy to produce load for the grid etc. and actually able to earn money from your production to anyone claiming something else I will in the holiday spirit offer a "bah humbug", and if they won't let you plug in, find alternate ways to store and utilize your energy. Don't let the utilities win. Let them go the way of the dinosaurs, you do not need them. Learn and live free!
MS, ALS, Aphasia ? http://globability.org - Me http://einarpetersen.com