In my view, this is simply hoax being created by Utility Companies in advance to protect slide in their business in long term. Solar panel based electricity production is dampening their growth in short term and in long term going to kill them.. They are starting all this noise so these net metering could be killed and solar panels become un-attractive for future home owners. They know for sure that solar panel prices are continue to fall and within 5-10-20 years, they will become norm at each house.
Here is my take on why net metering is valid and in fact not only eligible for retail rate but in my view even higher prices then retail. Here are some of thoughts on this:
‘NET METERING’
Analysis says solar will carry high cost
Industry battles news that nonusers may pay $1.1B per year by 2020
By Dana Hull
dhull@mercurynews.com
A long-awaited analysis of “net metering,” the policy that allows homeowners, school districts and businesses to offset the cost of their electric use with the rooftop solar power they generate and export to the grid, finds the policy will cost California’s nonsolar customers $1.1 billion a year by 2020.
The lengthy “California Net Energy Metering Evaluation,” released Thursday by the California Public Utilities Commission, will strongly influence discussions among state regulators about how to restructure electric rates.
The solar industry is already crying foul, saying the study design was stacked against solar. Others say it’s time for net metering to be overhauled.
“There’s no question that there’s a subsidy to solar customers,” said Marcel Hawiger of TURN, the Utility Reform Network. “Net metering was a policy designed to jump-start the solar industry in California, but it’s not a sustainable policy.”
Large utilities like PG&E have a four-tiered rate system: The more electricity you use, the more you pay. Tier 1 customers pay 13.2 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity, while at Tier 4 it’s 35.1 cents. The tiered rate structure has been a big driver of rooftop solar in California, since many homeowners who go solar do so to cut down on high monthly bills. Solar customers are reimbursed for the electricity they generate and export to the grid at the retail rate.
Utilities have argued that under the current rate structure, customers using net metering do not pay their fair share of the costs of the transmission and distribution grid. And since solar customers tend to be more affluent, utilities argue that lower-income, nonsolar ratepayers are subsidizing solar customers.
The solar industry is already fighting back against the report, noting solar is increasingly being adopted by middle-income consumers, creates jobs for installers and that everyone benefits from “avoided costs,” or the need for utilities to build additional power plants.
“The study design was stacked against solar,” said Susannah Churchill, solar policy director at Vote Solar, a solar advocacy group in San Francisco. “To do a cost-benefit analysis and not include benefits like public health and jobs just inflates utility claims. Rooftop solar is a threat to the utility business model, and they are doing everything possible to stop its momentum.”
The report, by the San Francisco- based consulting group E3, found that most homeowners who have solar systems are high energy users with an average household income of $91,000, well above the state average of $54,000, and that the savings that solar customers achieve on their own bills is shifted to other ratepayers who must make up the difference.
PG&E has more than 93,000 customers on net metering and adds roughly 2,000 more each month at a pace that, from a utility perspective, is not financially sustainable.
“PG&E has long supported solar for its environmental benefits,” said spokeswoman Lynsey Paulo. “We are the largest buyer of solar energy in the nation, and lead the nation in the number of customers who have installed solar on their rooftops. We look forward to working with lawmakers, regulators, industry and our customers to chart a path to a bright and sustainable solar future.”
E3 will present the results of the NEM study in the PUC auditorium at 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, on Friday, and is accepting public comments until Oct. 10.
Contact Dana Hull at 408-920-2706. Follow her at Twitter.com/danahull.
Here is my take on why net metering is valid and in fact not only eligible for retail rate but in my view even higher prices then retail. Here are some of thoughts on this:
- Solar Panels usually produce maximum when we have peak demand and help reduce peak demand of the grid. Utilities maintain specific peakers (small power plant or additional capacity in power plants) which they can get rid of or at least reduce capacity
- Regarding this talk about retail Vs wholesale price paid for electricity pumped back to grid by homeowners - this electricity is produced right next to the consumption point.. theoretically, your next door neighbor might be consuming the additional electricity generated by solar panels. It is not that this power is bloody going back to power station traversing all the transformers and grid.. NO.. It just uses few meters of the power cables and it gets consumed right next door.. It actually takes out the stress of grid and in a way help elongate life of the equipment. Reducing their failures and thus reducing their maintenance costs.. In a way it reduces overall transmission and distribution losses incurred while transporting electricity from central power plants to your home. In my view, they should be paid more than retail price!! and this is no joke.. even utility companies knows the value of this distributed generation..
‘NET METERING’
Analysis says solar will carry high cost
Industry battles news that nonusers may pay $1.1B per year by 2020
By Dana Hull
dhull@mercurynews.com
A long-awaited analysis of “net metering,” the policy that allows homeowners, school districts and businesses to offset the cost of their electric use with the rooftop solar power they generate and export to the grid, finds the policy will cost California’s nonsolar customers $1.1 billion a year by 2020.
The lengthy “California Net Energy Metering Evaluation,” released Thursday by the California Public Utilities Commission, will strongly influence discussions among state regulators about how to restructure electric rates.
The solar industry is already crying foul, saying the study design was stacked against solar. Others say it’s time for net metering to be overhauled.
“There’s no question that there’s a subsidy to solar customers,” said Marcel Hawiger of TURN, the Utility Reform Network. “Net metering was a policy designed to jump-start the solar industry in California, but it’s not a sustainable policy.”
Large utilities like PG&E have a four-tiered rate system: The more electricity you use, the more you pay. Tier 1 customers pay 13.2 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity, while at Tier 4 it’s 35.1 cents. The tiered rate structure has been a big driver of rooftop solar in California, since many homeowners who go solar do so to cut down on high monthly bills. Solar customers are reimbursed for the electricity they generate and export to the grid at the retail rate.
Utilities have argued that under the current rate structure, customers using net metering do not pay their fair share of the costs of the transmission and distribution grid. And since solar customers tend to be more affluent, utilities argue that lower-income, nonsolar ratepayers are subsidizing solar customers.
The solar industry is already fighting back against the report, noting solar is increasingly being adopted by middle-income consumers, creates jobs for installers and that everyone benefits from “avoided costs,” or the need for utilities to build additional power plants.
“The study design was stacked against solar,” said Susannah Churchill, solar policy director at Vote Solar, a solar advocacy group in San Francisco. “To do a cost-benefit analysis and not include benefits like public health and jobs just inflates utility claims. Rooftop solar is a threat to the utility business model, and they are doing everything possible to stop its momentum.”
The report, by the San Francisco- based consulting group E3, found that most homeowners who have solar systems are high energy users with an average household income of $91,000, well above the state average of $54,000, and that the savings that solar customers achieve on their own bills is shifted to other ratepayers who must make up the difference.
PG&E has more than 93,000 customers on net metering and adds roughly 2,000 more each month at a pace that, from a utility perspective, is not financially sustainable.
“PG&E has long supported solar for its environmental benefits,” said spokeswoman Lynsey Paulo. “We are the largest buyer of solar energy in the nation, and lead the nation in the number of customers who have installed solar on their rooftops. We look forward to working with lawmakers, regulators, industry and our customers to chart a path to a bright and sustainable solar future.”
E3 will present the results of the NEM study in the PUC auditorium at 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, on Friday, and is accepting public comments until Oct. 10.
Contact Dana Hull at 408-920-2706. Follow her at Twitter.com/danahull.
No comments:
Post a Comment