Buy all, sell all

Status
Not open for further replies.
electrofelon

electrofelon

Senior Member
Location
Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
Occupation
Electrician
Clearly there are lots of changes in the air in regards to net metering. Net metering is going away in many places and changing to a more dynamic system in regards to the price that is paid for Energy from PV systems. Here in NY state, we are transitioning to what they are calling a "value stack" which I dont know much about yet, but it seems to be rather complicated how the rates are computed. But what my specific question is in regards to this term "buy all sell all". That is not necessarily what is happening in NY (I am not sure), although I hear people call it that. To me, Buy all sell all means you have a "normal" meter that measures your consumption, and another meter for you generation and they are kept essentially totally separate. I think it is fair enough to have a discussion about what a utility should pay someone for power generation, but what I dont agree with is not being able to run my generation in parallel with the utility to lower my consumption. I think we should be able to run in parallel and lower our use, and then sell extra back to the utility at some agreed upon rate. Does anyone out there have "Buy all sell all" structure?
 
If their power is worth $X per kWh, why isn't mine? I have to cover the costs of fuel and infrastructure, too.
 
This is business and not right vs wrong, but what is legal vs illegal can come into play.

I don't expect to see such an issue with the publicly owned non-profit utilities we have here, but certainly do expect such things from for profit organizations where CEO's and investors want to fatten their wallets.
 
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. I do not see the justification for paying full price to POCO for power that you never actually get from their system given that you never put any load on their infrastructure.
This paradox is similar whether or not POCO does time of day or tier of usage pricing.
 
I agree, consumers shouldn't be charged for power they generate and consume simultaneously on their premises. It is easy enough these days for utilities to program meters to track imports and exports separately, not to mention time of use. And it saves the bother of installing extra equipment. This is especially true as more batteries and micro-grids come into play and you have the possibility that the consumer truly does not need the grid to provide any services when they are not importing.
 
Here is a bit I found on maine:

Note: In March 2017, the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) issued an order replacing net metering with a "buy-all, sell-all" compensation structure, which will gradually reduce the credit rate for energy produced by customer-generators from retail rate to the avoided cost rate. Although this entry is categorized as net metering, the policy adopted by the PUC does not meet DSIRE's definition of net metering, as self-consumption will no longer be permitted and production will no longer be netted one-to-one against consumption over the billing period.
Click to expand...

I dont see how anyone would support such a structure. That is basically saying I cant generate and use my own electricity. Seems very un-american.
 
jaggedben said:
I agree, consumers shouldn't be charged for power they generate and consume simultaneously on their premises. It is easy enough these days for utilities to program meters to track imports and exports separately, not to mention time of use. And it saves the bother of installing extra equipment. This is especially true as more batteries and micro-grids come into play and you have the possibility that the consumer truly does not need the grid to provide any services when they are not importing.
Click to expand...

The way it's done here in Austin sounds similar. You have a PV meter that records your production and a utility meter that records what you draw from the utility. Your consumption is the sum of the two and that's what you are charged for, but then the utility buys the power that you produce at a flat rate and reimburses you for it on your bill. Any excess you produce in a month is rolled over against the next month's bill in perpetuity but they will never write you a check.

The reasoning behind this is that since Austin Energy bills on a tiered system, under a straight net metering system someone who uses a lot of energy would get more $ per kWh from their PV system than would someone with less usage. This way, all PV production is worth the same per kWh to everyone. That seems fair to me.

Incidentally, it does to a lot of people. We sell a lot of PV in Austin.
 
BTW, I did a little more digging and NY is NOT going to a buy all sell all, you get to consume what you produce. They have a calculator for estimating what you get for your surplus energy. ITs pretty complicated with lots of fields, many pre-entered so I just ran with it. Seems like I get about 9.5 cents for surplus, vs ~12 cents what I buy from them. Because its not buy all sell all, I of course get full retail price for anything I generate and use simultaneously. Thats not too bad, I can live with that.
 
ggunn said:
The way it's done here in Austin sounds similar. You have a PV meter that records your production and a utility meter that records what you draw from the utility. Your consumption is the sum of the two and that's what you are charged for, but then the utility buys the power that you produce at a flat rate and reimburses you for it on your bill. Any excess you produce in a month is rolled over against the next month's bill in perpetuity but they will never write you a check.

The reasoning behind this is that since Austin Energy bills on a tiered system, under a straight net metering system someone who uses a lot of energy would get more $ per kWh from their PV system than would someone with less usage. This way, all PV production is worth the same per kWh to everyone. That seems fair to me.

Incidentally, it does to a lot of people. We sell a lot of PV in Austin.
Click to expand...

I was trying to remember how you had described Austin's system in the past. Of course if the utility pays an advantageous rate for solar produced then it will make financial sense for people to install solar. But that doesn't convince me that it's conceptually 'fair'. There's no reason that all PV production should necessarily be the same worth per kWh to everyone, when all consumption drawn from the grid isn't. And I wonder if anything is forcing Austin Energy to keep solar customers on tiered rates; if not, then that can't really justify the practice. In California nowadays when you go solar you have to switch to a time of use rate (tiered or non-tiered), and the available rates have peak hours in the afternoon to early evening when grid ramping to replace declining solar is most expensive. That seems more fair to me. That is, to the extent someone manages to have their PV power their home when the grid is at its most expensive, they shouldn't get a meager savings for that because 'all PV production should be considered equal'. I guess that if 'buy all, sell all' involves flat rates and the 'buy all' rate is something solar can compete at, then it will not punish the homeowner and may seem 'fair'. But I think such a system has limited flexibility for managing the markets long term. Put another way... I don't think it' makes any sense from the standpoint of a grid-operator who wants to incorporate as much solar production as possible at fair prices. Or another gloss I could put on this: in places like California and Hawaii, where PV penetration is high, the systems are much more nuanced than that.

What does Austin do if someone wants to install batteries and increase their self consumption? Does battery charging and discharging get counted towards the solar production or the net meter production? What if the system setup doesn't allow for complete separation?
 
Last edited:
jaggedben said:
I was trying to remember how you had described Austin's system in the past. Of course if the utility pays an advantageous rate for solar produced then it will make financial sense for people to install solar. But that doesn't convince me that it's conceptually 'fair'. There's no reason that all PV production should necessarily be the same worth per kWh to everyone, when all consumption drawn from the grid isn't. And I wonder if anything is forcing Austin Energy to keep solar customers on tiered rates; if not, then that can't really justify the practice. In California nowadays when you go solar you have to switch to a time of use rate (tiered or non-tiered), and the available rates have peak hours in the afternoon to early evening when grid ramping to replace declining solar is most expensive. That seems more fair to me. That is, to the extent someone manages to have their PV power their home when the grid is at its most expensive, they shouldn't get a meager savings for that because 'all PV production should be considered equal'. I guess that if 'buy all, sell all' involves flat rates and the 'buy all' rate is something solar can compete at, then it will not punish the homeowner and may seem 'fair'. But I think such a system has limited flexibility for managing the markets long term. Put another way... I don't think it' makes any sense from the standpoint of a grid-operator who wants to incorporate as much solar production as possible at fair prices. Or another gloss I could put on this: in places like California and Hawaii, where PV penetration is high, the systems are much more nuanced than that.

What does Austin do if someone wants to install batteries and increase their self consumption? Does battery charging and discharging get counted towards the solar production or the net meter production? What if the system setup doesn't allow for complete separation?
Click to expand...
If peak demand is in middle to late afternoon and that drives rates up as a general rule during that period - only makes sense that if you as customer have PV production but also experience peak demand on your own usage, that you won't be selling as much or even any energy back to POCO if done via net metering methods during that time period. You are doing the POCO a favor by reducing demand so they don't have to come up with extra energy for the rest of the network. Why should that be penalized or for that matter get much reward, as user you are already rewarded by not paying extra demand charges no matter the reason you reduced the demand. Around here some higher use facilities avoid demand charges by running during off peak hours instead of during day. If you run 24/7 that doesn't matter but for those that don't they sometimes do adjust schedules to avoid demand penalties. They could also use on site electric production and it isn't really any of POCO's business. Might not be cheaper, unless demand penalties are steep enough.

We have a small municipal power company in a nearby town. They built a local generating plant, runs on diesel. It only runs for the most part in summer months to shave off peak demand from their normal wholesaler. This has allowed them to purchase wholesale power at a lower demand rate and to generate excess when needed during peak demand periods. Supposedly was anticipated to pay for itself in just a few years in reduced demand charges alone.
 
jaggedben said:
What does Austin do if someone wants to install batteries and increase their self consumption? Does battery charging and discharging get counted towards the solar production or the net meter production? What if the system setup doesn't allow for complete separation?
Click to expand...

Austin does not use TOU (time of use) tariffs, and battery charging and discharging is a less than zero sum game, kWh-wise. What Austin pays for solar might be less than what a high tier user pays for consumption, but batteries are expensive. We have run the numbers and batteries virtually never are worth the expense here. Some people really want them, anyway, so after we are sure that they have all the facts, we sell them batteries if they still want them.

Austin Energy does allow for storage on their grid, but they still monitor production and consumption, and they charge and compensate as I have related.

As to the issue of fairness, keep in mind that you as a customer do not own the grid and you depend on it to behave as a battery for a grid tied PV system. It isn't reasonable for you to expect to be able to sell kWh's back to the grid at the full retail price (and that's what you are doing in a net monitoring environment even if all you are doing is offsetting your bill), especially if the only reason those kWh's are so expensive for you is because you use so many of them. Why would the utility pay you so much more per kWh than what they would pay on the spot market?

If you want to cut ties to the utility and generate and store all your energy yourself, you are welcome to do it, but if the grid is always (or nearly always) there, it's usually not financially advantageous to do so.
 
Last edited:
ggunn said:
Austin does not use TOU (time of use) tariffs, and battery charging and discharging is a less than zero sum game, kWh-wise. What Austin pays for solar might be less than what a high tier user pays for consumption, but batteries are expensive. We have run the numbers and batteries virtually never are worth the expense here. Some people really want them, anyway, so after we are sure that they have all the facts, we sell them batteries if they still want them.

Austin Energy does allow for storage on their grid, but they still monitor production and consumption, and they charge and compensate as I have related.

As to the issue of fairness, keep in mind that you as a customer do not own the grid and you depend on it to behave as a battery for a grid tied PV system. It isn't reasonable for you to expect to be able to sell kWh's back to the grid at the full retail price (and that's what you are doing in a net monitoring environment even if all you are doing is offsetting your bill), especially if the only reason those kWh's are so expensive for you is because you use so many of them. Why would the utility pay you so much more per kWh than what they would pay on the spot market?

If you want to cut ties to the utility and generate and store all your energy yourself, you are welcome to do it, but if the grid is always (or nearly always) there, it's usually not financially advantageous to do so.
Click to expand...

'Selling kWh's back to the grid at full retail price' is not the issue. The issue is paying the utility to use electricity when you are actually exporting electricity to them. i.e. not allowing 'self-consumption'. That's what you're doing if the utility is counting your total solar production instead of your imports and exports, and then paying you less for production than consumption.

The economics of batteries from the customer's point of view wasn't my point either. For the time being, customers getting batteries, in my experience, want it for the backup feature in case of emergency. But whatever the reason they're paying for it doesn't much change the effect it has on the grid, when the systems are set up to maximize self-consumption. These customers are now basically eliminating their daytime demand on the grid, and things like the ramping demand I mentioned above are substantially reduced if not eliminated for those customers. So again, why should they pay anything for their self-consumption?

As far as the rest of it, of course it depends, it depends, it depends. But I think the grid-as-battery analogy only goes so far. What's really happening is that distributed generation has various realtime complicated effects on grid operations and wholesale electricity prices, depending on the weather, total grid demand, etc. etc. I have no problem in principle with consumer rate schedules reflecting those realities, in a fair way. But this buy-all sell-all system doesn't seem to do that. Like the phony rebate programs you posted about a little while ago, it seems more designed to discourage solar and limit fair competition from distributed generation.
 
Also I'm still curious what Austin would do with a system like the SolarEdge StorEdge inverter. The backup loads panel is on the 'load' side of the inverter output, so they would not be able to meter its consumption separately from the solar output. Would they install a third meter? Or just ban customers from installing this particular product? This goes to the more practical point, which is the extra expense and the kludginess of installing extra metering equipment in order to nose into what's happening on the customers side of the service equipment. There are better ways, IMO.
 
jaggedben said:
'Selling kWh's back to the grid at full retail price' is not the issue. The issue is paying the utility to use electricity when you are actually exporting electricity to them. i.e. not allowing 'self-consumption'. That's what you're doing if the utility is counting your total solar production instead of your imports and exports, and then paying you less for production than consumption.
Click to expand...

That's not the way it works.When you set up a PV system you are participating as a supplier of energy to the grid. It's a parallel system and which side of your meter the PV is connected on makes no difference; the utility is buying your kWh's whether you are a net importer or exporter of energy. Buying them at full retail high tier prices makes no sense for them; why would they do that? You cannot "self consume" without the grid's support; when I said that the grid is your battery I didn't mean only for storing your excess kWh's.

Until Austin Energy adopted their VOS (Value Of Solar) tariff structure they were under constant fire from those who considered solar to be a rich man's toy that gave all its advantages to the well-to-do. The fact that the Austin City Council is also AE's Board Of Directors is a salient point; AE is politically culpable for their actions in a way that many other utilities are not.

IMO, AE's VOS strikes a balance between utilities that act against their own interests and those who actively discourage distributed generation. I am told that its tariff system is being used as a model for many other AHJ's.
 
jaggedben said:
Also I'm still curious what Austin would do with a system like the SolarEdge StorEdge inverter. The backup loads panel is on the 'load' side of the inverter output, so they would not be able to meter its consumption separately from the solar output. Would they install a third meter? Or just ban customers from installing this particular product? This goes to the more practical point, which is the extra expense and the kludginess of installing extra metering equipment in order to nose into what's happening on the customers side of the service equipment. There are better ways, IMO.
Click to expand...
What customer wants to install that doesn't draw or add to their system isn't any of their business. Yes how much demand can they expect to be able to deliver is, but customer can certainly find ways other than solar to reduce demand, whether it be some other source, or simply finding ways to minimize peak demand, or even shifting peak demand to a time period that doesn't correspond to the peak demand of the entire POCO network. Those numbers crunchers for the POCO need to realize a customer that manages demand still pays them $$ for the energy they do purchase but a customer that goes totally off grid or changes a major load from say electric to gas pays them nothing (for the load involved anyway) and that they need to work with customers so everyone is happy.
 
ggunn said:
That's not the way it works.When you set up a PV system you are participating as a supplier of energy to the grid. It's a parallel system and which side of your meter the PV is connected on makes no difference; the utility is buying your kWh's whether you are a net importer or exporter of energy. Buying them at full retail high tier prices makes no sense for them; why would they do that? You cannot "self consume" without the grid's support; when I said that the grid is your battery I didn't mean only for storing your excess kWh's.
Click to expand...

I just cant agree with that. I feel I should have the right to make my own energy and connect it in parallel with the utility's power in my home. Its none of their business, just like whether I use LED bulbs or turn down my thermostat. I'll install a reverse power relay if I have to, but dont tell me I cant make and use electricity.
 
electrofelon said:
I just cant agree with that. I feel I should have the right to make my own energy and connect it in parallel with the utility's power in my home. Its none of their business, just like whether I use LED bulbs or turn down my thermostat. I'll install a reverse power relay if I have to, but dont tell me I cant make and use electricity.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup::thumbsup:

If you are sending power back to the grid, they have some business sticking their nose into things, but if you lessen your load (any way you wish) and not send any power back into the grid, it really isn't any of their business.

Now if you establish something that lessens your demand from them and it breaks down, they have every right to charge you for increased demand if you draw it from them.

If you are selling power to them, both parties typically come to an agreement, though many times it is POCO that says you agree to these terms or you don't sell us any power.
 
Getting away from the philosophical side of things to the more practical, It would be interesting to study the language of these laws and see what exactly they say. I assume there wouldn't be any issue with one having a standalone system power its own dedicated loads. Then I can presumably charge my storage from the utility if I desire - but them if I am producing and using while I am charging, that is not really any different than "being in parallel". OR even say I make an SDS with an isolation transformer, now there is no direct electrical connection and I am coupled through a magnetic field......
 
ggunn said:
That's not the way it works.When you set up a PV system you are participating as a supplier of energy to the grid. It's a parallel system and which side of your meter the PV is connected on makes no difference; the utility is buying your kWh's whether you are a net importer or exporter of energy. ...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top