NEM

[electro7]

Current NEM in FL works much like in CA for IOU's. The bill that just passed the FL House is similar to the CA NEM 3.0 proposal that failed in terms of phasing out NEM and adding fixed monthly charges just for having solar. The bill also adds some liability insurance requirements for larger systems (i.e. more cost). So, FL solar market is likely to crash if the bill gets signed by the governor.

Thanks. I was under the impression it had already taken effect. Maybe the governor will veto it. I think there has to be a win-win-win situation. Win for the customer, win for the utility company and win for the solar contractors (which I am).

 

[Hv&Lv]

Hv- so your a utility guy (some of my relatives are as well- lineman). Is this what you think is fair all the way around (for solar homeowners & commercial owners and the utility company)?
If the utility pays twice the retail rate during peak hours from the generating station do you think it would be fair to credit the homeowner (who generates excess solar during peak hours) the same cost amount- twice the retail rate? Is this what you guys do now?

We don’t pay twice retail, it’s way more complicated than that. Tier pricing is how we get it. Base rate, intermediate, and peak rates.
we pay premium to solar exporters who deliver during peak hours.

 

[electrofelon]

We don’t pay twice retail, it’s way more complicated than that. Tier pricing is how we get it. Base rate, intermediate, and peak rates.
we pay premium to solar exporters who deliver during peak hours.

So I know it's complicated and hard to throw out specific numbers in such a general situation,. But it seems like net metering may not be such a bad deal for the utilities then no? Solar exports will of course be largely during peak or semi-peak times. Even not considering use of the grid as a battery, isn't the demand reduction in air conditioning climates valuable?

 

[winnie]

So I know it's complicated and hard to throw out specific numbers in such a general situation,. But it seems like net metering may not be such a bad deal for the utilities then no? Solar exports will of course be largely during peak or semi-peak times. Even not considering use of the grid as a battery, isn't the demand reduction in air conditioning climates valuable?

This would depend upon the specific climate and the arrangement of the solar panels.

I recall (vaguely) that in some regions where raw net metering was mandated by the state, the utility would pay solar owners to tilt their panels toward the west, which reduced the total output but better aligned the output with the utility peak need.

-Jon

 

[electrofelon]

This would depend upon the specific climate and the arrangement of the solar panels.

I recall (vaguely) that in some regions where raw net metering was mandated by the state, the utility would pay solar owners to tilt their panels toward the west, which reduced the total output but better aligned the output with the utility peak need.

-Jon

Yes, I do know peak solar and peak utility demand are typically offset, hence the infamous duck curve problem..... I am just curious about the economics of a "typical" time of use rate structure and PV system that has lots of exports during the day, vs a simple net metering scheme. I believe California has lots of time of use rate structures, perhaps @jaggedben can comment on this question?

 

[jaggedben]

California's typical peak rate hours shifted from noon-6pm to 3-8pm and then to 4-9pm, because of solar (both net metered and utility supplied solar, I believe). This being over the last 6 years or so. There's also now an EV rate that has a 'partial peak' from 3-4pm and 9pm-midnight. People with energy storage can get on the EV rate even if they don't have an EV.

 

[pv_n00b]

Yes, I do know peak solar and peak utility demand are typically offset, hence the infamous duck curve problem..... I am just curious about the economics of a "typical" time of use rate structure and PV system that has lots of exports during the day, vs a simple net metering scheme. I believe California has lots of time of use rate structures, perhaps @jaggedben can comment on this question?

CA NEM and TOU rates at one time incentivized the export of PV production in the afternoon and that lead some people to trade-off maximum energy production for higher-value export in the afternoon by tilting modules to the West.
Under NEM TOU the NEM true up was based on the value of the exported energy offset against the value of the energy used, not a kWhr export offset a kWhr of import. So, total energy production went down but the value of the energy exported went up so the NEM dollar for dollar offset was better. That was fine when the peak TOU was around 3 pm. When they changed it to the early evening after 4 pm no amount of PV module tilt adjustment was going to help. People who installed their PV system to maximize afternoon export now had a less valuable system.

 

[jaggedben]

CA NEM and TOU rates at one time incentivized the export of PV production in the afternoon and that lead some people to trade-off maximum energy production for higher-value export in the afternoon by tilting modules to the West.
Under NEM TOU the NEM true up was based on the value of the exported energy offset against the value of the energy used, not a kWhr export offset a kWhr of import. So, total energy production went down but the value of the energy exported went up so the NEM dollar for dollar offset was better. That was fine when the peak TOU was around 3 pm. When they changed it to the early evening after 4 pm no amount of PV module tilt adjustment was going to help. People who installed their PV system to maximize afternoon export now had a less valuable system.

Not sure it made that much difference, the sun doesn't set until 8pm or later in the summer, when rates are highest. And the difference in annual production between 180deg and 270 is more marginal that the cost differential in the rates. Our analyses still often suggest that west facing does as well or better financially on residential systems.

 

[electro7]

Jaggedben, do you have any thoughts on the CA NEM 3.0 changes?
What do you think will happen to solar in CA if it passes similar to what was originally proposed?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

 

[pv_n00b]

Jaggedben, do you have any thoughts on the CA NEM 3.0 changes?
What do you think will happen to solar in CA if it passes similar to what was originally proposed?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

The CA NEM 3.0 update has been dropped by the CPUC for now. When it is brought back up who knows what it might look like. Before it was dropped it was basically a Christmas list of what the IOUs would have liked to have passed.

 

[pv_n00b]

Not sure it made that much difference, the sun doesn't set until 8pm or later in the summer, when rates are highest. And the difference in annual production between 180deg and 270 is more marginal that the cost differential in the rates. Our analyses still often suggest that west facing does as well or better financially on residential systems.

The sun angle is very low and the AM is getting pretty high at 4 pm and later, so the available solar insolation is low. Shading in residential applications also tends to be much higher after 3 pm. Back when peak time started at noon or even 2 pm it was possible to get a decent trade-off for West facing modules. Not so great after 4 pm for the average installation from what I have seen. If it works out that a particular site has an unobstructed west view and the modules can be tilted just right then maybe the financials will work out better.

 

[jaggedben]

The sun angle is very low and the AM is getting pretty high at 4 pm and later, so the available solar insolation is low. Shading in residential applications also tends to be much higher after 3 pm. Back when peak time started at noon or even 2 pm it was possible to get a decent trade-off for West facing modules. Not so great after 4 pm for the average installation from what I have seen. If it works out that a particular site has an unobstructed west view and the modules can be tilted just right then maybe the financials will work out better.

Well, to both agree and disagree... From what I've seen the difference is marginal enough that some extra shading to the south such as you describe in your last sentence will definitely tip the balance. Without shading the ideal azimuth is probably around 225 somewhere.