Buy all, sell all

[ggunn]

Just want to be sure you are understanding my position. You seem to keep not commenting specifically on it and keep talking about terms like "batteries" and " net metering". Having one meter doesn't have to be net metering. Basically one meter just allows you to directly consume what you make. Exports to the grid could still be a different rate than imports. I don't believe it's "their grid" inside my house

I"ll speak to your position: It is their grid inside your house, especially if you are pumping energy into it. The grid isn't just the wires, it's the whole electrical distribution system right down to whatever you plug into a wall outlet. If you are connected to it, you are part of it.

See my previous post about the AHJ near here that only allows PV to be connected outside the customer's meter (FIT topology). There's no question there as to whose grid the PV is connecting to, and I'll wager that that's why they do it that way. But from an increasing number of POCOs' POV it makes no difference where you are injecting energy into the grid, inside your meter or miles away. It also makes no difference that you disagree with them; you play by their rules or you don't play. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the way it is.

The days of net metering are numbered. That does not mean that solar is going away, not by a long shot. The solar market here in Austin under AE's Value Of Solar is thriving.

 

[electrofelon]

..... But from most POCOs' POV it makes no difference where you are injecting energy into the grid, inside your meter or miles away.

But it does, thats what this whole discussion is about: if the interconnection is on the customer side of the meter (one meter, whether it is net metered or not), than one can use the power they generate BEFORE sending it to the grid. The other arrangement being a " sell all".

You dont think people should have the right to utilize the power they make "directly" before sending surplus to the grid? Note that has nothing to do with net metering.

 

[ggunn]

But it does, thats what this whole discussion is about: if the interconnection is on the customer side of the meter (one meter, whether it is net metered or not), than one can use the power they generate BEFORE sending it to the grid. The other arrangement being a " sell all".

You dont think people should have the right to utilize the power they make "directly" before sending surplus to the grid? Note that has nothing to do with net metering.

That's not the way a parallel circuit works; everything is connected to everything else and the stuff behind your meter is not "before" the rest of the grid. A PV system injects energy onto the massively parallel bus of the grid and the point of interconnection relative to your meter is inconsequential to the supply and demand balance of the grid.

You are, of course, free to disconnect your house from the grid, and make and use all the energy you want. You cannot, however, use the grid to support your PV system's functionality in order to go into competition with them and expect them to just roll over. Not any more, anyway.

 

[jaggedben]

That's not the way a parallel circuit works; everything is connected to everything else and the stuff behind your meter is not "before" the rest of the grid.

By that logic there was never a reason to meter the energy consumption of homes and businesses, instead of just having a flat fee for connection to the grid. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that any feature of a 'parallel circuit' has any bearing on policy here. The placement of meters has always been determined by ownership and law, not electrical theory.

A PV system injects energy onto the massively parallel bus of the grid ...

And loads consume energy from the grid. If you're doing both, then what your asking of the grid is the net. Why should what you pay for using the grid be determined by anything else?

... and the point of interconnection relative to your meter is inconsequential to the supply and demand balance of the grid.

If the point of connection of loads relative to your meter is consequential, I don't see why the point of connection of a supply should not be.

You are, of course, free to disconnect your house from the grid, and make and use all the energy you want. You cannot, however, use the grid to support your PV system's functionality in order to go into competition with them and expect them to just roll over. Not any more, anyway.

Nobody advocated expecting anyone to roll over. You keep seeming to claim that there is no way for a single meter to fairly account for costs, but you haven't offered any logic or evidence to support that.

(By the way, it's a side issue, but around here you can't just disconnect from the grid without paying financial penalties.)

 

[electrofelon]

That's not the way a parallel circuit works; everything is connected to everything else and the stuff behind your meter is not "before" the rest of the grid. A PV system injects energy onto the massively parallel bus of the grid and the point of interconnection relative to your meter is inconsequential to the supply and demand balance of the grid.

You are, of course, free to disconnect your house from the grid, and make and use all the energy you want. You cannot, however, use the grid to support your PV system's functionality in order to go into competition with them and expect them to just roll over. Not any more, anyway.

I understand your position, but do not agree. I have the right to generate my own power and "directly" use that power. If I make excess energy, the POCO will buy it, and Im ok if that rate is less than retail, fair enough. If I need to draw on POCO to fill in the gaps when my PV system isnt making enough to meet my demand, that is what they are there for to sell me power.

I dont really have a problem with certain requirements having to be met to get subsidies. I didnt take $5k in subsidies on my system because I didnt want to play by their rules (in this case "they" was the state, not the POCO)

Finally, There is a difference between something being "fair" and something that the POCO does or doesnt "like". :angel:

 

[winnie]

It seems to me that there can be a big difference between a facility that is using 100 kW but at the same time generating 90 kW versus a facility that is using 10 kW.

If solar is very variable, the the effect on the grid by the 100 kW/10 kW net is much greater than the straight 10 kW.

On the other hand is the solar producer is managing their loads so that the grid does not see the variability, then the 100 kW/10 kW net user is essentially a straight 10 kW user.

I guess I am arguing that 'BASA' is fair unless the user is doing something to at lease be pseudo-off-grid.

-Jon

 

[jaggedben]

It seems to me that there can be a big difference between a facility that is using 100 kW but at the same time generating 90 kW versus a facility that is using 10 kW.

If solar is very variable, the the effect on the grid by the 100 kW/10 kW net is much greater than the straight 10 kW.

On the other hand is the solar producer is managing their loads so that the grid does not see the variability, then the 100 kW/10 kW net user is essentially a straight 10 kW user.

I guess I am arguing that 'BASA' is fair unless the user is doing something to at lease be pseudo-off-grid.

-Jon

Nobody talks about customer load variability this way. That is, nobody says that a customer has to be doing something special to keep their load relatively stable in order to have the privilege of using 100kW instead of 10kW. There might be demand charges, of course, and rewards for demand response programs, etc. But say if that customer installs solar ... there can still be demand charges. There could even be demand charges that are calculated based on the net interval change (from export to import, or import to export) at the meter in series with the service point.

In other words, what you've said still doesn't provide a justification for metering solar separately on premises.

 

[ggunn]

Nobody advocated expecting anyone to roll over. You keep seeming to claim that there is no way for a single meter to fairly account for costs, but you haven't offered any logic or evidence to support that.

But I have, repeatedly. It is Austin Energy's position that everyone's PV generated kWhs should be worth the same irrespective of their energy consumption, and unless they meter PV separately they cannot make that happen in conjunction with their consumption tiered tariff. Under net metering any energy you produce is worth the same per kWh as you are paying for energy, and if you are in a higher rate tier because you use more energy, the kWhs you make with PV are commensurately worth more. It is their position and mine as well (although, to be clear, I have no vote in making AE policy) that their flat rate return methodology is fairer to everyone - high energy consumers with PV, low energy consumers with PV, and customers with no PV.

I don't expect my opinions on the matter to be popular with a lot of solar advocates because it doesn't completely favor solar at everyone else's expense, but I am a solar advocate. You commented earlier that you didn't think I was considering the long game. Au contraire; I believe this sort of thing will help the industry in the long run. Like it or not, net metering is going away, and a reasonably set flat rate of return for solar is, in my opinion, a good compromise.

Beyond that we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Incidentally, AE is soon to launch a Community Solar project. This will be a large ground mounted array that a customer can invest in and receive the same VOS return for the prorated production from their portion of the array just as if it were mounted on their roof. It's not only monitored separately from their consumption but from miles away from their home, and the customer can take advantage of the economies of scale; it's cheaper to build one large array than the equivalent capacity in a bunch of small ones.

 

[jaggedben]

...You commented earlier that you didn't think I was considering the long game. Au contraire; I believe this sort of thing will help the industry in the long run. Like it or not, net metering is going away, and a reasonably set flat rate of return for solar is, in my opinion, a good compromise.
...

Here's why I think VOS won't do in the long run. You'll eventually get to a point where the amount of extra solar going into the grid gets to the point where a realistic VOS can't pay for solar. If you have time of use and let people install storage and/or manage loads for self-consumption in other ways, it doesn't have to get to that point, or at least not as fast.

I don't think net metering is going away anytime soon. It will continue to change obviously, but that's not the same as going away.

Neither a flat VOS nor simple net-metering with full retail credit can appropriately account for what needs to come, in my estimation.

 

[kwired]

Nobody talks about customer load variability this way. That is, nobody says that a customer has to be doing something special to keep their load relatively stable in order to have the privilege of using 100kW instead of 10kW. There might be demand charges, of course, and rewards for demand response programs, etc. But say if that customer installs solar ... there can still be demand charges. There could even be demand charges that are calculated based on the net interval change (from export to import, or import to export) at the meter in series with the service point.

In other words, what you've said still doesn't provide a justification for metering solar separately on premises.

Which were there before the solar came along. If you find a way to reduce your demand you won't have demand charges.

Some instances you have a minimum demand charge that you pay whether you use it or not. Having alternate supply is one way to have a lower minimum demand charge. Should your alternate supply fail and you draw too much you also might up paying a penalty for too much demand, or may be based on time of day or even seasonal factors when you can exceed certain demand without penalty.

Buy all Sell all just means the POCO wants to get their hands on a piece of the pie at all times. Reality is you still have a net use or production at any given moment in time.

 

[ggunn]

Which were there before the solar came along. If you find a way to reduce your demand you won't have demand charges.

Some instances you have a minimum demand charge that you pay whether you use it or not. Having alternate supply is one way to have a lower minimum demand charge. Should your alternate supply fail and you draw too much you also might up paying a penalty for too much demand, or may be based on time of day or even seasonal factors when you can exceed certain demand without penalty.

Buy all Sell all just means the POCO wants to get their hands on a piece of the pie at all times. Reality is you still have a net use or production at any given moment in time.

We cannot use peak demand reduction as a sales tool for PV. The chances are pretty good that during at least one 15 minute period of high demand during a given month the PV system will not be running at or near full capacity.

 

[ggunn]

I don't think net metering is going away anytime soon. It will continue to change obviously, but that's not the same as going away.

Net metering either is or it isn't. Any modification makes it not net metering. Or, since you cannot have it both ways, Austin Energy's policy is "modified" net metering.

 

[kwired]

We cannot use peak demand reduction as a sales tool for PV. The chances are pretty good that during at least one 15 minute period of high demand during a given month the PV system will not be running at or near full capacity.

Why not?

Small municipal POCO nearby installed large diesel generators a few years ago, the entire intent was to minimize demand charges. They can purchase wholesale power in smaller demand block and when demand is high they fire up those generators to avoid demand penalties. Diesel is expensive to run on all the time, but it still saves money when only used as needed during peak demand situations. It was expected to pay for itself in reduced demand charges in just a few years.

A disadvantage of solar is if sun isn't shining you have to draw from the grid, but highest peak demand for utility around here is in afternoon and into evening on summer days, in fact there usually isn't any (over) demand charges other than during summer months around here. That can be different where you are though.

 

[ggunn]

I think I have said all I can on this topic. I have described to the best of my ability how one AHJ in particular (Austin Energy) approaches the issue, and I have (also to the best of my ability) explained the reasoning behind their policy. It isn't conjecture on my part; I know these folks and I have discussed it with them many times over the last ten years.

I have also gone to some lengths to tell why I agree with them that this is the best way to handle it when all points of view are considered, although it is pointless to get into arguments over the right or wrong of their policy; it is what it is.

So, anyway, I will fall back and lurk. Unless someone has a new point that hasn't been brought up I will try my best not to respond.