Buy all, sell all

[ggunn]

We both know how these systems work, physically.

Usually you are participating as a supplier to the grid, but not necessarily. And that will become more so. Look at the guy with the Powerwall posting from Puerto Rico who hardly ever draws from the grid and never exports. You've not responded to this point.

Some of your other comments about tiers and prices are strawmen with respect to what I've said. We could go back and forth on appropriate prices and rate structures all day but that wasn't related to any point I've made so far. I never put forward any argument for full retail for exports. By all means charge appropriate prices for exports and imports. Charge for vars, even, if you want. But don't charge for energy that never traveled over your wires.

Well, I don't make AE's policy, although I agree with it. You (you and the others who have chimed in) and I disagree on this point, and that's OK.

All I can do is follow their rules if I want to service the market here, and the market here is very strong as it is. Like it or not, more and more AHJ's are adopting this sort of policy. Hey, at least it's not New Braunfels.

 

[winnie]

I am still not quite clear on how "buy all sell all" is actually implemented.

If I generate energy at noon, and use it at 6 pm (in the same billing period) then I am clearly using utility resources and should be paying for that.

If I generate energy at noon and use it the instant that I generate it, so that there is no net flow to or from the grid, then I am using much less utility resources. I am still using _something_, because the grid is providing a huge 'flywheel' to stabilize my system. Additionally if my generation drops but my consumption is not automatically cut, then the grid provides the difference...and there is value in this _potential usage_.

At the same time, if I have a PV system producing 1 KW at the same time I have a 1 KW load running, how is that different from having that 1KW load connected to the grid yet turned off?

-Jon

 

[kwired]

I am still not quite clear on how "buy all sell all" is actually implemented.

If I generate energy at noon, and use it at 6 pm (in the same billing period) then I am clearly using utility resources and should be paying for that.

If I generate energy at noon and use it the instant that I generate it, so that there is no net flow to or from the grid, then I am using much less utility resources. I am still using _something_, because the grid is providing a huge 'flywheel' to stabilize my system. Additionally if my generation drops but my consumption is not automatically cut, then the grid provides the difference...and there is value in this _potential usage_.

At the same time, if I have a PV system producing 1 KW at the same time I have a 1 KW load running, how is that different from having that 1KW load connected to the grid yet turned off?

-Jon

Correct. "Buy all, Sell all" with an input and an output meter as I see it is a concept by the CEO's and investors of the POCO to collect more $$ and nothing else. They will continue to sell you energy under traditional practices, including demand charges, peak demand charges, power factor penalties.... but want to fix rate of all energy going back into their system and likely won't matter what peak demands and such are like, you get the same low rate no matter how much benefit they get.

But if you create you own energy during peak demand, there should be nothing they can do about it, they want to force you to pay peak demand charges so they make more, even though you are lessening the peak they need to be able to supply if you are producing energy on your site and they seem to want this whether you are putting power back into the grid or not from some of what has been said in this thread.

 

[ggunn]

Correct. "Buy all, Sell all" with an input and an output meter as I see it is a concept by the CEO's and investors of the POCO to collect more $$ and nothing else. They will continue to sell you energy under traditional practices, including demand charges, peak demand charges, power factor penalties.... but want to fix rate of all energy going back into their system and likely won't matter what peak demands and such are like, you get the same low rate no matter how much benefit they get.

But if you create you own energy during peak demand, there should be nothing they can do about it, they want to force you to pay peak demand charges so they make more, even though you are lessening the peak they need to be able to supply if you are producing energy on your site and they seem to want this whether you are putting power back into the grid or not from some of what has been said in this thread.

In Austin the intent is to levelize the value of solar to all customers so that everyone's PV generated kWh's are worth the same no matter which consumption tier they are in. Austin Energy is very pro solar; I have been designing solar here for over 10 years and I know all the people in their distributed generation department.

 

[BillK-AZ]

Arizona Utility Policies

Arizona Utility Policies

The Arizona Solar Center has two recent articles on this subject as regards Arizona utilities.

Arizona Electric Utility Information : https://azsolarcenter.org/economics/arizona-electric-utility-information

Considerations in sizing a PV system in Arizona: https://azsolarcenter.org/considerations-in-sizing-a-pv-system-in-arizona

Note that the tariffs are different for residential vs commercial. SRP greatly reduced the number of residential installs with their policy.

 

[kwired]

In Austin the intent is to levelize the value of solar to all customers so that everyone's PV generated kWh's are worth the same no matter which consumption tier they are in. Austin Energy is very pro solar; I have been designing solar here for over 10 years and I know all the people in their distributed generation department.

But that favors the POCO. As a customer you essentially are paying the markup on what you produced in the energy you used at your facility. That is a little like having onsite energy production that isn't interconnected with POCO and them still charging you for that energy. Customer should only pay for or get credit for difference in energy input vs output from grid in all fairness.

 

[ggunn]

But that favors the POCO. As a customer you essentially are paying the markup on what you produced in the energy you used at your facility. That is a little like having onsite energy production that isn't interconnected with POCO and them still charging you for that energy. Customer should only pay for or get credit for difference in energy input vs output from grid in all fairness.

I disagree, as I have said before; it makes no difference to which side of the meter you inject power onto their grid, it is still their grid. It is nothing like having production not connected to the grid and the POCO charging you for it; you are welcome to do that. It will cost you an arm an a leg, and the POCO's support is what makes the difference; it's unreasonable for you to expect them to give it to you for free. It's also unreasonable for you to expect to get an inflated value for the kWh's you produce just because you consume a lot of energy.

But really, the point is moot. It is our choice to play by their rules in this jurisdiction or not to play. It's a no-brainer; we play.

 

[winnie]

It is nothing like having production not connected to the grid and the POCO charging you for it; you are welcome to do that. It will cost you an arm an a leg, and the POCO's support is what makes the difference; it's unreasonable for you to expect them to give it to you for free. It's also unreasonable for you to expect to get an inflated value for the kWh's you produce just because you consume a lot of energy.

As I said above, there is real value to being connected to the grid, even if your production exactly matches your consumption. Note: I am not talking about using the grid as a battery, where you produce at one time and consume at another. I am specifically talking about the situation where consumption and production are matched.

However if you are being charged full price for energy you consume, and being paid whatever the discount wholesale rate is for energy you produce, even when _your_ production is matched to _your_ consumption, then that is also unfair. It is as if you are being charged by the hour for a device that you've connected to the grid but leave off.

It seems to me that there should be some consideration for any loads which are adjusted to match production, or loads which by design are matched by production, and perhaps a fixed charge for the connected capacity to compensate for the value of being 'connected to the spinning reserve' even when you are not a net energy user.

-Jon

 

[ggunn]

However if you are being charged full price for energy you consume, and being paid whatever the discount wholesale rate is for energy you produce, even when _your_ production is matched to _your_ consumption, then that is also unfair. It is as if you are being charged by the hour for a device that you've connected to the grid but leave off.

In Austin the VOS (Value Of Solar) paid for PV production is not the "wholesale rate" (in quotes because what Austin Energy pays for the energy it distributes can change pretty much on a minute to minute basis), but instead it is close to the retail rate that the lowest tier consumer pays for consumption from the grid. If you are a lowest tier consumer of energy it is nearly the same as net metering. As I said, the intent is to make everyone's PV generated kWh's worth the same, not to soak their customers or to discourage solar.

 

[kwired]

In Austin the VOS (Value Of Solar) paid for PV production is not the "wholesale rate" (in quotes because what Austin Energy pays for the energy it distributes can change pretty much on a minute to minute basis), but instead it is close to the retail rate that the lowest tier consumer pays for consumption from the grid. If you are a lowest tier consumer of energy it is nearly the same as net metering. As I said, the intent is to make everyone's PV generated kWh's worth the same, not to soak their customers or to discourage solar.

If it is set up to be fair and mostly results in about same as net metering, I have no issue with it. If that is what they are doing why not just go with net metering, seems like a simpler process.

 

[ggunn]

If it is set up to be fair and mostly results in about same as net metering, I have no issue with it. If that is what they are doing why not just go with net metering, seems like a simpler process.

As I said, the difference between their method and net metering is that if you are in a higher rate tier your kWh's from PV are not bought back at a higher rate than those generated by someone in a lower tier. AE buys back kWh's from PV at the same rate for everybody.

 

[winnie]

This all sounds like an opportunity for me I have a patent for a 'virtual skylight', essentially a solar panel attached to a LED array with no grid connection. This would let companies use solar to reduce their power consumption, without 'generating to the grid'.

-Jon

 

[ggunn]

This all sounds like an opportunity for me I have a patent for a 'virtual skylight', essentially a solar panel attached to a LED array with no grid connection. This would let companies use solar to reduce their power consumption, without 'generating to the grid'.

-Jon

And if it works that would be fine with everyone. There are lots of gizmos like that, from stock watering pumps to gate openers to attic vents to cellphone chargers to parking lot lights, etc. Some use batteries and some don't.

 

[electrofelon]

As I said, the difference between their method and net metering is that if you are in a higher rate tier your kWh's from PV are not bought back at a higher rate than those generated by someone in a lower tier. AE buys back kWh's from PV at the same rate for everybody.

But that is different and unrelated to dis-allowing "self consumption" of one's own generation. Sorry if this is going around in circles, I'm just not clear on how it works there: So you cant self consume there? IF so I would call that buy all sell all..

 

[ggunn]

But that is different and unrelated to dis-allowing "self consumption" of one's own generation. Sorry if this is going around in circles, I'm just not clear on how it works there: So you cant self consume there? IF so I would call that buy all sell all..

You can if you want but it doesn't buy you anything. The POCO monitors energy through the PV meter and through the utility meter, and it disregards energy going in and out of any storage. Since there is no TOU rate structure here there's no point in shifting the timing of your loads, and since no battery is 100% round trip efficient, self consumption in this environment is itself a net loss, and that's not to mention the cost of the batteries.

 

[electrofelon]

You can if you want but it doesn't buy you anything. The POCO monitors energy through the PV meter and through the utility meter, and it disregards energy going in and out of any storage. Since there is no TOU rate structure here there's no point in shifting the timing of your loads, and since no battery is 100% round trip efficient self consumption in this environment is itself a net loss, not to mention the cost of the batteries.

So, If I am visualizing that correctly, you cant consume what you make. Say a customer buys power at 12 cents. Everything they generate is sold, at say 10 cents. When they are using and generating, their generation doesnt reduce what they are buying form POCO, correct?

 

[ggunn]

So, If I am visualizing that correctly, you cant consume what you make. Say a customer buys power at 12 cents. Everything they generate is sold, at say 10 cents. When they are using and generating, their generation doesnt reduce what they are buying form POCO, correct?

If you are asking if you are buying from the POCO whether the power is coming through the utility meter, the PV meter, or both, that is correct. The POCO is buying from you whatever is coming through the PV meter at a flat rate and then selling it to you in accordance with whatever tier your consumption puts you into. I know that grates on some of you but them's the rules and we have to play by them. Personally, I have no problem with it; I support the idea that everyone's PV pays the same per kWh.

 

[jaggedben]

You can if you want but it doesn't buy you anything. The POCO monitors energy through the PV meter and through the utility meter, and it disregards energy going in and out of any storage. ...

I'm still curious how they accomplish that on a StorEdge with a backup panel, for example. Third meter? It seems needlessly complicated. There are plenty of ways to achieve similar equity to VOS without the extra hardware. And I think Austin's approach will eventually become unsustainable. Not as quickly as Maine though, which per the post above seems to want to use a similar approach to just kill solar.

 

[ggunn]

From the description, this concept of "buy all, sell all" seems to be grossly unfair to the PV system owner, in that if they simply arranged their load timing so that they never imported any net power at any point in time they would still end up owing a bill which is close to what they would get if they did not have a PV system at all.

Such is not the case here. AE charges for your consumption no matter where it comes from and buys your PV production at a fair rate. There's no way that customers' bills are nearly what they would be if they didn't have PV. Not even close. If it were, there would be no market for residential PV systems.

I am beginning to understand why one AHJ we deal with only lets customers interconnect outside their meter. It avoids the whole "it's inside my meter so it's my business" argument. If you supply power to the grid, whether it's inside or outside your meter, it affects the grid and is subject to regulation by your POCO. If nothing else, you are competing with them for market share. You are welcome to turn off your main disconnect and power your house on your own, but as you know, it will be very expensive, and infrastructure support from the POCO is responsible for the difference.

 

[ggunn]

I just wanted to make one more point. If you were to buy some land, put a PV system on it, and approach the POCO to sell them power from your system, you'd have to negotiate with them as to what they'd pay you for it. They certainly wouldn't pay you what they charge their customers; in fact, I'd wager that it would be a whole lot less than Austin Energy's VOS rate. If you have a system behind your meter, from the POCO's POV, what's the difference? You are consuming energy somewhere; what difference does it make which meter it's passing through?

Austin Energy is very pro-solar; they have, IMO, struck an effective balance in a complex environment of desires and priorities. AE's Board of Directors is also the Austin City Council; there are political realities they have to consider and after all, this is Texas <wink>.