Net Metering (California Style)

[ggunn]

This particular example speaks to why a billing scheme which has a more realistic facility charge and lower usage charges should apply to everyone.

If the facility charge was $100 and the consumption charge $0 (old analog meter), that load would almost certainly be better served with solar.

If the land owner wants the convenience of having utility power available even though they rarely use it? That is a valuable service which they should pay for.

Jon

A high voltage and zero (or very low) current application is not necessarily well served by solar.

 

[winnie]

A high voltage and zero (or very low) current application is not necessarily well served by solar.

I don't see the relevance. We are not talking about energizing a fence directly with solar cells (although a betavoltaic battery might work...)

We are talking a system with some sort of drive circuit connecting the energy source to the fence. PV would require batteries (that reliably work in all weather) and enough panel area to keep the battery charged with minimal maintenance.

Still we are taking a load that might be 1-2 kWh per month, which makes for a pretty small PV installation.

Jon

 

[ggunn]

I don't see the relevance. We are not talking about energizing a fence directly with solar cells (although a betavoltaic battery might work...)

We are talking a system with some sort of drive circuit connecting the energy source to the fence. PV would require batteries (that reliably work in all weather) and enough panel area to keep the battery charged with minimal maintenance.

Still we are taking a load that might be 1-2 kWh per month, which makes for a pretty small PV installation.

Jon

I see. What you are talking about is actually a battery powered system with solar charging.

 

[retirede]

I don't see the relevance. We are not talking about energizing a fence directly with solar cells (although a betavoltaic battery might work...)

We are talking a system with some sort of drive circuit connecting the energy source to the fence. PV would require batteries (that reliably work in all weather) and enough panel area to keep the battery charged with minimal maintenance.

Still we are taking a load that might be 1-2 kWh per month, which makes for a pretty small PV installation.

Jon

 

[pv_n00b]

All the rate structures we need already exist. They are just not applied to everyone. We have tariffs with an energy charge and a demand charge to correctly charge for both the energy used and the facilities required to deliver that energy. We have standby charge tariffs to charge people who don't normally use any energy from the utility but want it available if they need it. None of these are typically applied to residential customers because it's considered too complex and before the smart meters were not cost-effective for the utility. Facility costs were just put into the usage cost and it all averaged out. Now that there is a significant variation in demand in the residential load caused by PV it does not really hold up anymore.
Utilities back in the day tried to apply a standby charge to residential PV but were denied. At least in CA any charge that singled out owners of PV systems was routinely denied by the CPUC and utilities did not want to apply sweeping tariff changes to their "good" customers without PV. I've heard of a few utilities experimenting with demand charges for residential customers. Utilities are working hard to get residential monthly rates back up to what they consider "normal" and if they have to do that with fixed monthly fees for PV owners they will try to get it approved.