Zero export system without interconnection agreement

[electrofelon]

What you or I consider to be fair is not relevant.

Of course it is. We debate the merits of codes and rules and give our opinions all the time on this forum. I don't think anyone is claiming there is a "disagreement clause" in the AE rules

 

[pv_n00b]

The OP is talking about a cord and plug connected zero export system, probably less than 1kw, AHJ usually is not concerned with such things.
I seriously doubt a POCO has the manpower to send someone around looking for such things.

Showing my age but I remember a phone lineman coming out to my house one time and noting that I was only renting one phone but had two phones in the house, and how that was going to be a problem with AT&T. They have their ways.

 

[analog8484]

The OP is talking about a cord and plug connected zero export system, probably less than 1kw, AHJ usually is not concerned with such things.
I seriously doubt a POCO has the manpower to send someone around looking for such things.

You might want to check the latest offerings ... they go up to 5kW/unit now and some can be even be stacked for more power ... I do agree that POCO's probably don't have the manpower ... and the vendors are probably counting on that ...

 

[tortuga]

That's interesting. I bet they are not cheap.
For that kinda money, in an area that does not offer a favorable rate to solar, I would say make a custom UPS:
Install a 30A subpanel and power it off a stand alone inverter connected to a 120 VDC battery bank.
Connect your critical loads, electric car whatever..
Then charge the battery bank with either your solar or the grid.
AHJ would approve, 100% not grid connected.
I have had this idea for years, but never seen it implemented.
Not like a energy storage becasue its isolated.

 

[electrofelon]

One of the issues that we have here is that people are used to buying electricity by quantity not availability. Because we are used to it, it seems perfectly reasonable that if I use 1/10 the kWh I should pay 1/10 the amount. However this misses the reality that electricity _service_ includes both the stuff delivered (the kWh) _and_ the delivery system (having those kW available when I want them).

If I have a true guaranteed absolute zero export PV system, I might still impact the grid as a whole in the same way as if the PV system were installed on my neighbor's property. In one case there is no accounting because power is flowing from PV source to load on my property behind the meter, in the other case the power flows through two meters. But the variable load as seen by the grid is the same.

So I can understand why the utility has reason to know about (and possibly charge for) production that is always 'behind my meter'.

I am skeptical that Residential PV really matters to or effects the utility and/or grid operator much or at all. Again, we are talking residential so maybe average system size of 6-8KW? (a complete guess). Everyone and their brother has a water heater that is 4500 watts and comes on and off all the time. Its also pretty common to have a fully loaded 20A 240 V electric heat circuit so about 4KW. Tankless water heaters where installed are of course a huge draw. So does a PV system, that is probably more of a stable load most of the time, really matter? Another thing to think about: I did a cannabis grow a few years back that has 200Kw of lighting that comes on all at once. The POCO knew about it, we brought in a new service for it. Did they even ask about timing of the lights? No. Did they request we stagger them? No. Sure the customer gets hit with demand charges, but apparently no other concern from the POCO about this. So I am just quite skeptical of RESI PV impacting the grid at all.

 

[ggunn]

Of course it is. We debate the merits of codes and rules and give our opinions all the time on this forum. I don't think anyone is claiming there is a "disagreement clause" in the AE rules

Of course; we do indeed argue about s__t all the time in here, sometimes to the point where that dead horse is merely a greasy spot on the ground.

What I meant was that what we consider to be fair is not relevant to the AHJs in question.

 

[winnie]

I am skeptical that Residential PV really matters to or effects the utility and/or grid operator much or at all. Again, we are talking residential so maybe average system size of 6-8KW? (a complete guess). Everyone and their brother has a water heater that is 4500 watts and comes on and off all the time. Its also pretty common to have a fully loaded 20A 240 V electric heat circuit so about 4KW. Tankless water heaters where installed are of course a huge draw. So does a PV system, that is probably more of a stable load most of the time, really matter?

I absolutely agree that the utility already has to deal with load variability.

But I'd counter that once you add consumer PV into the mix the utility sees increased variability in the context of lower kWh through the meter. So the cost of accommodating that variability has to be carried with lower sales.

This was my point about 'buy all sell all' feeling unfair (I make electricity, I use it, it never has to go through the meter but you want to charge me for it.)

If the utility says 'you are using fewer kWh but your variability has increased so we have to charge you more per kWh purchased', then that feels much more fair to me even if the total dollars are the same.

IMHO one of the problems with 'classic' net metering is that it makes the grid a free battery. The charges for putting PV on the grid should include the cost of that virtual battery.

-Jon

 

[ggunn]

This was my point about 'buy all sell all' feeling unfair (I make electricity, I use it, it never has to go through the meter but you want to charge me for it.)

[...]

IMHO one of the problems with 'classic' net metering is that it makes the grid a free battery. The charges for putting PV on the grid should include the cost of that virtual battery.

Your second statement explains the first. From the utilities' perspective whether you use the energy you produce yourself or export it to the grid you are setting yourself up as a grid energy supplier, and in "traditional" net metering you get the financial benefit of that arrangement without any of the liabilities. The utility has a lot of overhead; they cannot pay retail for all the energy they get from other sources; why should they pay you retail?

I know that there are those among us who rankle at this, but as I continue to point out, if you are going to play in their sandbox you have to play by their rules.

 

[electrofelon]

Your second statement explains the first. From the utilities' perspective whether you use the energy you produce yourself or export it to the grid you are setting yourself up as a grid energy supplier, and in "traditional" net metering you get the financial benefit of that arrangement without any of the liabilities. The utility has a lot of overhead; they cannot pay retail for all the energy they get from other sources; why should they pay you retail?

I know that there are those among us who rankle at this, but as I continue to point out, if you are going to play in their sandbox you have to play by their rules.

Well yes, but.... Utilities are a regulated entity, so the govt and thus the people can dictate certain aspects of policy (theoretically )

I lived off grid for 12 years so I definitely appreciate the value of a good battery and am willing to pay for it. I don't think net metering Is fair, but I also don't think "buy all sell all" is fair either. The one thing I will not yield on is being able to use MY generation locally first.

 

[analog8484]

Your second statement explains the first. From the utilities' perspective whether you use the energy you produce yourself or export it to the grid you are setting yourself up as a grid energy supplier, and in "traditional" net metering you get the financial benefit of that arrangement without any of the liabilities. The utility has a lot of overhead; they cannot pay retail for all the energy they get from other sources; why should they pay you retail?

That's the typical POCO view but a different but equally valid view is that PV owners are not selling excess PV energy to POCO's. Instead PV owners are simply using the grid as a battery to store their excess PV energy during the day and taking it back at night. PV owners already pay various fixed and variable fees to POCO's for the grid infrastructure and resources to provide this service.

 

[wwhitney]

PV owners already pay various fixed and variable fees to POCO's for the grid infrastructure and resources to provide this service.

I think a lot of the concerns with finding a "fair" PV interconnection scheme is due to the fact that historically a power company's cost structure is mismatched with its pricing structure. A lot of the costs are fixed or near fixed, but those costs are spread out over the energy rate prices, rather than as part of the fixed price portion or minimum monthly price. So then straight NEM does create an imbalance, which PV customers potentially paying less than a pro rata share of the fixed costs.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ggunn]

Well yes, but.... Utilities are a regulated entity, so the govt and thus the people can dictate certain aspects of policy (theoretically )

I lived off grid for 12 years so I definitely appreciate the value of a good battery and am willing to pay for it. I don't think net metering Is fair, but I also don't think "buy all sell all" is fair either. The one thing I will not yield on is being able to use MY generation locally first.

You can still do that, of course, anywhere you live; that's how grid tied PV physically works. Also of course, you are subject to the financial rules set forth in the interconnection agreement that you must enter into with your utility in order to interconnect your PV system with the grid. Unless you are off the grid, the days of guerilla PV are pretty much over.

 

[analog8484]

That's interesting. I bet they are not cheap.
For that kinda money, in an area that does not offer a favorable rate to solar, I would say make a custom UPS:
Install a 30A subpanel and power it off a stand alone inverter connected to a 120 VDC battery bank.
Connect your critical loads, electric car whatever..
Then charge the battery bank with either your solar or the grid.
AHJ would approve, 100% not grid connected.
I have had this idea for years, but never seen it implemented.
Not like a energy storage becasue its isolated.

They are not cheap but still much cheaper than typical home battery systems and much less complex install. I just get a chuckle out of seeing these units plugged in to home circuits using effectively suicide cords and apparently without serious consequences.

 

[analog8484]

I think a lot of the concerns with finding a "fair" PV interconnection scheme is due to the fact that historically a power company's cost structure is mismatched with its pricing structure. A lot of the costs are fixed or near fixed, but those costs are spread out over the energy rate prices, rather than as part of the fixed price portion or minimum monthly price. So then straight NEM does create an imbalance, which PV customers potentially paying less than a pro rata share of the fixed costs.

Cheers, Wayne

POCO's can only blame themselves for playing games with the rate plans. Accurate transparency on actual fixed costs would be a good first step to help everyone.

 

[winnie]

Your second statement explains the first. From the utilities' perspective whether you use the energy you produce yourself or export it to the grid you are setting yourself up as a grid energy supplier, and in "traditional" net metering you get the financial benefit of that arrangement without any of the liabilities. The utility has a lot of overhead; they cannot pay retail for all the energy they get from other sources; why should they pay you retail?

I know that there are those among us who rankle at this, but as I continue to point out, if you are going to play in their sandbox you have to play by their rules.

I think I get this point. What I was trying to get at is that depending upon how the utility accounts for/charges for their use as a battery can seem more or less fair, even though the net dollars is exactly the same.

If I generate 100kWh but consume 120kWh, and the utility charges me for 20kWh as well as the fixed costs associated with my potential use of 100kWh more (because I have an intermittent source), that feels far more fair than the utility buying that 100kWh from me at one price and selling 120kWh back to me at another price. It ends up the same thing if you are talking PV without local energy storage or load matching, but one version 'feels' more fair than the other.

-Jon

 

[ggunn]

I think I get this point. What I was trying to get at is that depending upon how the utility accounts for/charges for their use as a battery can seem more or less fair, even though the net dollars is exactly the same.

If I generate 100kWh but consume 120kWh, and the utility charges me for 20kWh as well as the fixed costs associated with my potential use of 100kWh more (because I have an intermittent source), that feels far more fair than the utility buying that 100kWh from me at one price and selling 120kWh back to me at another price. It ends up the same thing if you are talking PV without local energy storage or load matching, but one version 'feels' more fair than the other.

-Jon

And of course what is "fair" depends very much upon whom you ask. ;^)

 

[jaggedben]

I think a lot of the concerns with finding a "fair" PV interconnection scheme is due to the fact that historically a power company's cost structure is mismatched with its pricing structure. A lot of the costs are fixed or near fixed, but those costs are spread out over the energy rate prices, rather than as part of the fixed price portion or minimum monthly price. So then straight NEM does create an imbalance, which PV customers potentially paying less than a pro rata share of the fixed costs.

Cheers, Wayne

So then the solution is to migrate the price structure to more accurately reflect the cost structure. For everyone, not just solar owners.

 

[gadfly56]

That's the typical POCO view but a different but equally valid view is that PV owners are not selling excess PV energy to POCO's. Instead PV owners are simply using the grid as a battery to store their excess PV energy during the day and taking it back at night. PV owners already pay various fixed and variable fees to POCO's for the grid infrastructure and resources to provide this service.

You may view the grid as a "battery" but that has no connection to reality. Power has to be consumed as created, or stored in a real battery. There isn't a bucket with your name on it containing "your" electrons that they can just pour into your service connection.

 

[gadfly56]

I think I get this point. What I was trying to get at is that depending upon how the utility accounts for/charges for their use as a battery can seem more or less fair, even though the net dollars is exactly the same.

If I generate 100kWh but consume 120kWh, and the utility charges me for 20kWh as well as the fixed costs associated with my potential use of 100kWh more (because I have an intermittent source), that feels far more fair than the utility buying that 100kWh from me at one price and selling 120kWh back to me at another price. It ends up the same thing if you are talking PV without local energy storage or load matching, but one version 'feels' more fair than the other.

-Jon

But the purpose of the differential rates is to make sure that the POCO stays covered for their infrastructure, yes?

 

[winnie]

But the purpose of the differential rates is to make sure that the POCO stays covered for their infrastructure, yes?

That is my understanding of the purpose. As I said, even if the $$ at the end of the day, one description of the cost feels fair to me as a customer, and the other does not.

But thinking more on this, there is a core difference between the two approaches.

Say I have a PV array, and generate 100 kWh while consuming 120kWh. If the power company uses differential charging to cover the infrastructure costs of that 100kWh, then I have no incentive to change my consumption to match my production.

If, instead the power company charges me directly for the infrastructure (say by a demand charge that covers both peak consumption or export through the meter) then I have an incentive to match my consumption to my production. The more my usage looks 'off grid', the less the power company should care what I do.

Jon