# Utility dream, bad news for solar or conservation



## Circus (Sep 15, 2014)

both We Energies and Alliant Energy asked state regulators Friday to reduce the amount they'll pay for customers' solar power, starting next year.
Madison Gas & Electric Co., this month sought permission to double its fixed charge in 2015, from $10.44 today to nearly $22 a month for a typical residential customer. Over time, the utility initially proposed to boost customers' non-energy charges to $68 by 2017

http://www.jsonline.com/business/gr...isconsin-utilities-b99295581z1-265066971.html


----------



## Jags (Sep 15, 2014)

When local/home storage becomes a viable and cost effective solution I am going to get a small amount of satisfaction watching these folks wither and die on the vine.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Sep 15, 2014)

Home storage is viable now.  People just have to decide not to use an average of 900 kilowatt hours each month.  The lower the use age, the fewer panels and batteries that need to be bought.


----------



## Slow1 (Sep 16, 2014)

I'm not sure it is financially viable yet once you consider lifetime $/kwh.  Paying the utility monthly to maintain the grid is still likely much less expensive than maintaining and periodically replacing batteries.  Then again "viable" is perhaps subjective...  Rather depends on other alternatives.

I do agree that reduction of monthly usage is the key - conservation is almost always less expensive than adding infrastructure (even if just "local" to the home).  IF utilities go to a fixed monthly fee to connect to the grid, those who use less are going to find disconnecting more attractive.  I was burning about $100/mo in power prior to solar - right now I have a fixed $4/mo cost to be connected so batteries clearly don't make sense.  Raise that connect fee to $68 as being cited by OP and I'll be looking to see what I need to do to get batteries.

I do wonder - are these utilities cutting the $/kwh charges at the same time or are they simply increasing their cost to all?  IF they reduce the marginal costs then this will almost certainly make adoption of grid-tied solar production less attractive.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 16, 2014)

Slow1 said:


> IF they reduce the marginal costs then this will almost certainly make adoption of grid-tied solar production less attractive.



And that is likely the intent.  Rather than adapt their business model to the new reality, they are seeking to insulate themselves from it and forestall the inevitable.


----------



## jebatty (Sep 17, 2014)

The utilities are seeking a double whammy: by increasing the fixed charges the persons hurt the most are low income users, and the utility can argue that PV is hurting those least able to pay. Therefore, reduce the utility buy back rate and keep the fixed charges low, thus putting the $$ burden on those most able to buy PV. The strategy is perverse. Perhaps short term good for profits, long term hurts everyone, the utility included as the utility business model continues to collapse.


----------



## Ehouse (Sep 17, 2014)

The next shoe waiting to drop is the "everyone pays" scenario.  You can be off grid as far as energy usage but you'll still get the non-energy bill (now conveniently separated from the energy charges) if you live anywhere near a power line.  I've seen reference to this having been written into energy regs. but I've been unable to find it again.  I think it was at the state level here in NY.


----------



## Circus (Sep 17, 2014)

Just another example of the corporate argument ignoring the benefits of the non centralized, peak output at peak demand and benign nature of solar. Maybe it's time to break up these powerful monopolies for the sake of national security, the common good and life on earth.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 17, 2014)

Ehouse said:


> The next shoe waiting to drop is the "everyone pays" scenario.  You can be off grid as far as energy usage but you'll still get the non-energy bill (now conveniently separated from the energy charges) if you live anywhere near a power line.  I've seen reference to this having been written into energy regs. but I've been unable to find it again.  I think it was at the state level here in NY.



I wonder how they are going to deal with the Amish in this type of scenario ? The Amish I know would probably tell the power company to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Scott


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 17, 2014)

sloeffle said:


> I wonder how they are going to deal with the Amish in this type of scenario ? The Amish I know would probably tell the power company to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
> Scott



If they tried that near me, I might have to decide that I'm Amish and demand an exemption!


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Sep 19, 2014)

Gas and water Co is doing the same thing. All these companies have been increasing the fixed monthly cost to insulated themselves from market price fluctuations for fuel as well as people who like to conserve.


----------



## begreen (Sep 19, 2014)

This is not untypical in states that have a majority of their power generated by coal or oil. It is an organized effort by these industries with heavy lobbying to keep their vested interests alive. Florida, where solar should be king is a prime example of this practice. Corporations are often better represented by these congresses than the will of people of the the state.

_"John Porter, the former mayor of Cape Canaveral and the managing partner of the solar energy company CleanFootprint, said Workman, R-Melbourne, and others in the Legislature oppose the amendment because voters would likely approve it._

_"Nothing polls over 90 percent (among voters), but solar does," he said. "If the people of Florida are given a choice in this issue, they are going to vote yes. … They understand how valuable it is to their air, their water and to the future of Florida."_

http://www.tampabay.com/news/busine...-solar-power-blocked-in-florida-house/2173065
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-no-solar-20140810-story.html#page=1


----------



## CaptSpiff (Sep 20, 2014)

Isn't the discussion in the southwest to add a simple fixed fee ($20 to $60/mo) to the electric bill of any PV customer to cover the cost of "maintaining" the existing T&D infrastructure? The argument being that those PV customers will periodically need that infrastructure capacity, and otherwise only the remaining non-PV customers would get stuck paying for it.

On a tangent, my power co used to place a "power limiter" on the house meter pan if you were severely late on your payments. It consisted of a 20 amp per leg breaker that fit between the pan & meter, preventing the homeowner from using more than about 5Kw at any one time. If it popped, the homeowner would need to walk outside to his meter and reset (press back in) the popped breaker.

Perhaps the future will allow PV customers this option, rather than to go completely off grid, and thereby forego the "fixed PV monthly charge". I think that argument could win because those customers would not need the present & expensive "robust/overbuilt" T&D infrastructure.


----------



## begreen (Sep 20, 2014)

I had a couple meetings with our regional power company as the WA state solar initiative plan was coming together. They were very supportive for a couple reasons. The first was because there is one remaining coal plant in WA state and it is being phased out in about 10 years. New power plants are very expensive. And the second was the increase in electric cars. They are very concerned about having enough power for charging cars in the state 10-20 yrs for now. If nothing else, WA states rapid embracing of solar buys them time.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 20, 2014)

CaptSpiff said:


> Isn't the discussion in the southwest to add a simple fixed fee ($20 to $60/mo) to the electric bill of any PV customer to cover the cost of "maintaining" the existing T&D infrastructure? The argument being that those PV customers will periodically need that infrastructure capacity, and otherwise only the remaining non-PV customers would get stuck paying for it.



The higher fixed rates are for ALL customers, not just PV.  

The power a residential PV array pushes into the grid all gets used by your immediate neighbors, and the utility is getting paid full retail by the neighbors for the power you put in, without straining the long distance transmission of the utility, or its transformers at all.  The only utility equipment being used is 100' of low voltage wire and a couple power meters.

So, the true value/price of the solar power would be slightly less than the average retail rate during the day.  Since wholesale power prices peak during sunny days, this is above the residential retail rate they are currently getting under most net-metering arrangements.  IOW, distribution companies are _making_ money on existing net meter arrangements and low PV penetration. Generation companies are selling slightly less power, but at the same price as before.

The worry is all about the future when the time of use rates get inverted by big solar, which renders a lot of the utilities generation capacity stranded and a lot less profitable.  This is not about 'PV owners not paying for the transmission grid they use', it is about utilities making bad investments in non-throttle-able generation equipment, and now wanting us to bail them out.


----------



## Where2 (Sep 20, 2014)

Nice to see someone understands how the system is "rigged", thank you WG. I recognize most days of the week my neighbors purchase my excess from the power company at full retail rate paying T&D fees for the energy that moved all the way from my roof to their A/C or refrigerator.

My retired parents are fed off the same neighborhood transformer as my PV system feeds into. My excess energy isn't getting stepped up and shipped across town, it's getting used in my neighborhood, probably by the retired folks down the street who won't put in solar because it won't pay back in their lifetime (dad's own words as he helped me install my PV system).


----------



## CaptSpiff (Sep 20, 2014)

Where2 said:


> Nice to see someone understands how the system is "rigged", thank you WG. I recognize most days of the week my neighbors purchase my excess from the power company at full retail rate paying T&D fees for the energy that moved all the way from my roof to their A/C or refrigerator.



Aren't you net metered, and getting a full retail price credit for each kw you send out?
If so, that seems like they are buying it from you at full retail.

I wish I had PV. Right now my power company is buying energy wholesale at 3.6 cents/kw, but my bills this year have averaged 10 cents for the energy portion.
http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/maps/index.jsp

I just dug up my two monthly bill sets, one for LI,NY and the other for Poconos, PA:
LI,NY: April: Meter Charge = $11/month, Delivery T&D = 10 cents/kwh, Generator Supply = 11 cents/kwh
Poconos,PA: April: Meter = $14/month, Delivery T&D = 4.1 cents/kwh, Generator Supply = 9.1 cents/kwh

I think we must be using gold wires on Long Island.

***EDIT: just 5 minutes after posting this i noticed that the wholesale price of energy jumped to 11.4 cents/kwh. Maybe I'll just leave that coaster ride to them and shut my mouth.


----------



## Where2 (Sep 20, 2014)

CaptSpiff said:


> Aren't you net metered, and getting a full retail price credit for each kw you send out?
> If so, that seems like they are buying it from you at full retail.



Yes, I am net metering, but I realize there is a drastic push away from net metering as evidenced by the Edison Institute's infomercial that tries to portray PV system owners who net meter as free riders who don't help pay to maintain the grid. I also have watched closely what the utilities have been doing in states where they have been challenging net metering. 

My 4.4kW PV array only took out 66% of my home energy needs. I still have an electric bill, anywhere from 50-550kWh per month. I have automated energy hogs like my electric water heater to run during my peak PV output to use the most of my surplus. I usually only "net meter" 250-400kWh per month. I was limited to a 4.4kW array by the physical size of my southerly facing second floor roof. To utilize more PV, I'll have to dedicate space in the backyard for a ground mount system. The challenge for me is that a ground mount needs to be capable of surviving a 3-second gust of 160mph to get approval from my local building department. The cost of that mount system is substantial and begins to outweigh the fact that inverters and panels are pretty cheap these days. 

The utilities have a method to charge net meter users for their grid tie use by simply looking at how many kWh each user sends to the grid every month. My single Landis & Gyr electric meter tracks "delivered" and "net" in one meter. If I'm generating more than my house needs, the meter adds to the "net" value. All the schemes I've heard to charge PV owners for the privilege of net metering seem to revolve around a ridiculous fixed monthly base charge which could potentially be higher than what I used to pay in T&D fees before I ever had a PV system.


----------



## begreen (Sep 21, 2014)

Don't most electric utilities charge a flat fee regardless of usage for the first xxx KWh? Isn't that supposed to cover their fixed costs? This whole deal smells like someone burning Koch coal.


----------



## jebatty (Sep 21, 2014)

Our utility has changed its marketing regarding the fixed monthly amount, currently $14/mo, recently raised from $12/mo. Now the marketing says that fixed and variable are balanced in some way to cover the costs of the electric service. I look at this as a move to protect profits by raising the guaranteed income stream as more and more customers go PV.

I live rural, and generally each residence is supplied from a separate transformer off what I believe to be a 2400v distribution line. That would mean my net metered PV is stepped up as it leaves my property and then again stepped down when it arrives at the neighbor. Regardless, I doubt that my net metered PV makes it even a mile before being used by neighbors, since none of my neighbors have any PV. 

Different question: what portion of the grid is commercial/industrial vs homeowner? I would estimate that about 2/3 of electricity is to meet these non-residential needs. Therefore, shouldn't the bulk of the cost of the very high capacity and expensive grid should be paid by non-residential customers? On the other side is residential vs commercial/industrial distribution. What is the cost of providing and maintaining each?


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Sep 21, 2014)

You mean, should the grid costs be charged to corporations which in turn pass the costs on to you?

They do.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 21, 2014)

Ok.  In my PA market, we have a flat generation cost, a flat distribution cost and a fixed mo payment.  Today, the fixed cost is $6/mo, the generation is 8-9 cents, and the distribution is 4 cents.  You could argue that PV should only get paid for generation, 8-9 cents, since one is still 'using the grid' to sell PV electricity.  I am arguing since my (hypothetical) power goes to my next-door neighbor, and they are paying the utility generation+distribution (and doing nothing to make that power and v little to deliver it 100') then they are basically 'even' if they pay me generation+distribution in my net-meter arrangement.

Realistically, the wholesale market price (for generation) varies with time of day, being most expensive during the day.  Some utilities are just distributors, who are passing on a time average generation cost to customers.  Any PV fed into the grid during the day, and bought back at night at the same price actually makes those distributor utilities a tidy profit, the difference in daytime and nighttime rates.  OF course, generators are different....they have fixed and variable costs, which are packaged into those variable wholesale rates we don't see.  A generator who built a lot of 'peakers' for daytime use, assuming they could charge a bundle for peak power (wholesale) are now SOL due to PV.  Utilities with baseline generation (usually nukes) are currently selling power below cost at night and above cost during the day, and will lose money if peak daytime rates fall (until the nighttime rates get increased, as they will).

IOW, the current economics of solar have **nothing** to do with PV owners being 'free riders' on grid services.  That's just easily understood propaganda.  It has everything to do with PV power rocking the shaky boat of generator profitability, and that varies immensely with the specific choices that the different generators made over the last decade or more....some are well positioned to alter their business model, some others are totally screw-geed with huge sunk costs that look like they will be effectively stranded in a few more years.


----------



## jebatty (Sep 21, 2014)

> You mean, should the grid costs be charged to corporations which in turn pass the costs on to you?


 Absolutely, yes. Failure to include costs in the production of a product distort the market and result in non-producers of the product paying that cost. The cost has to be paid by someone, and I see no reason why that cost should not be paid by the business that incurs the cost.

For example, if I choose to use walk for transportation, why through my electric rates should I be required to subsidize the electrical costs incurred by an auto factory? People who buy cars should pay those costs.


----------



## Circus (Sep 21, 2014)

jebatty said:


> I see no reason why that cost should not be paid by the business that incurs the cost.


 

Ever wonder why white collar crime go's unpunished?  It's difficult to do. Residental customers are easy targets.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Sep 21, 2014)

begreen said:


> Don't most electric utilities charge a flat fee regardless of usage for the first xxx KWh? Isn't that supposed to cover their fixed costs? This whole deal smells like someone burning Koch coal.


My power CO (PP&L)was granted a major increase in fixed minimum bill charges last year. My bills went from about $8.50 a month minimum ch to around $16.50 before any charges for any usage was figured in. Pretty much a 100 percent increase. Gas and water utilities  have been doing the same although a bit more gradually. Water is the worst cuz when you figure in the fixed sewer fee you will pay about $70.00 a month even if your usage is ZERO.


----------



## BrotherBart (Sep 21, 2014)

Our fixed charge jumped from $5.00 to $15.00 year.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Sep 21, 2014)

Seasoned Oak said:


> My power CO (PP&L)was granted a major increase in fixed minimum bill charges last year. My bills went from about $8.50 a month minimum ch to around $16.50 before any charges for any usage was figured in. Pretty much a 100 percent increase. Gas and water utilities  have been doing the same although a bit more gradually. Water is the worst cuz when you figure in the fixed sewer fee you will pay about $70.00 a month even if your usage is ZERO.




Utility fixed costs are a tough issue.  The next community over just did a big increase.  It seems that 4 water main breaks in a week finally got the residents to demand something is done regarding the 70 yo pipes.  Granted, something like 10 breaks a year have been happening each year for a while.


----------



## Where2 (Sep 21, 2014)

begreen said:


> Don't most electric utilities charge a flat fee regardless of usage for the first xxx KWh? Isn't that supposed to cover their fixed costs?



My Power Co. in Florida at 26.8°N provides 0kWh for the base customer charge of $7.58 (up $0.30 over the last 12 months). The $7.58 does not include local municipal taxes, storm surcharges or other fees.

I was recently looking into energy providers at 45.8°N and found that the base customer charge of $7.59 per month includes up to 100kWh of energy for the base charge regardless of whether you used 1kWh or 99.99kWh. 

What the base fee covers or includes seems to vary depending on provider and location.


----------



## begreen (Sep 22, 2014)

The Koch argument is self-serving politics, period. What is necessary is a sea-change so that commonsense prevails. Contrast the coal state attitude with that of WA state. This is how it is written in our state's law books and should be written in all state's code.

*Findings -- Intent -- 2005 c 300:* "The legislature finds that the use of renewable energy resources generated from local sources such as solar and wind power benefit our state by reducing the load on the state's electric energy grid, by providing nonpolluting sources of electricity generation, and by the creation of jobs for local industries that develop and sell renewable energy products and technologies.

  The legislature finds that Washington state has become a national and international leader in the technologies related to the solar electric markets. The state can support these industries by providing incentives for the purchase of locally made renewable energy products. Locally made renewable technologies benefit and protect the state's environment. The legislature also finds that the state's economy can be enhanced through the creation of incentives to develop additional renewable energy industries in the state.

  The legislature intends to provide incentives for the greater use of locally created renewable energy technologies, support and retain existing local industries, and create new opportunities for renewable energy industries to develop in Washington state." [2005 c 300 § 1.]

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=82.16.110


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Sep 23, 2014)

As long as Coal ,oil & gas $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ pour into political campaigns at the rate they do, renewables will have a tough time. Money talks and its screaming "dont mess with my cash cow" . Tesla,s battery plant is a bold step into the future. Just might make Elon musk the Steve Jobs of transportation and energy storage.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 23, 2014)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Just might make Elon musk the Steve Jobs of transportation and energy storage.



Hopefully it won't take Elon 25 years to come out on top, as it did with Steve.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 28, 2014)

was it this link...?  http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/28/us-solar-battlelines-insight-idUSKCN0HN07P20140928


----------



## Where2 (Sep 30, 2014)

Anyone notice this the other day?

http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/351437119/solar-advocates-fight-utilities-over-grid-access

The limitation on 110% of a homes previous year usage negates some ability to install a PV system intent on using the energy to power an EV, if you don't buy the EV first. 

My POCO limits residential customers net metered systems to 10kW or less regardless of any previous consumption data. Mind you, a 10kW setup would put out about 15MWh/yr in my area...


----------



## gregbesia (Oct 2, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> was it this link...?  http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/28/us-solar-battlelines-insight-idUSKCN0HN07P20140928


Yes it is. Thanks Geek, I seem to have a senior moment. Anyway, an interesting read, I think.


----------



## begreen (Oct 2, 2014)

Looks like the Kochs lost one in South Dakota. Good to see common sense prevail. 
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/fo...cle_971d6e1d-d6b1-54d4-aab4-9b4bdb4da010.html


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Oct 2, 2014)

THe end result of all this may be to drive some people completely off the grid atogether. I would be nice not to have to buy a load of deep cycle batteries, but it depends which choice is the lessor of two evils.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 1, 2014)

A relevant follow up....looks like there was a *fake* petition in WI to make PV look bad.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/texas-lobbying-group-busted-for-phony-anti-solar-campaign/


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Nov 10, 2014)

The answer is to localize power generation to towns and cities.  This is the way America use to create power.  Small plants run locally.  

The issue?  I'm sure part of it was environmental regulation and the lobbying to get rid of them by environmentalists.


----------



## Circus (Nov 15, 2014)

*Posted by Renew Wisconsin at 11/14/2014 02:32:00 PM *
*Friday, November 14, 2014*
*Public Service Commission Approves We Energies' Rate Hikes & “Solar Tax” *
RELEASED FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2014

MADISON, WI – With a 2-1 vote voiced at an open meeting Friday afternoon, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission approved a 75% increase in monthly fixed charges and sweeping changes that will pile additional charges on customers who choose to install solar energy panels starting in 2015. The vote was split down partisan lines with Gov. Scott Walker appointees Chairperson Phil Montgomery and Commissioner Ellen Nowak supporting the changes; and Commissioner Eric Callisto, an appointee of Gov. Jim Doyle, opposed.

“Under this decision, customers who use more will see lower bills and customers who use less will see higher bills. It sends the wrong price signals on energy efficiency because it makes it harder for customers to control their monthly bills,” said Robert Kelter, senior attorney with the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

“The Public Service Commission has effectively approved a new tax to be collected from residential and small business customers that would like to create some of their own energy, such as with solar panels,” said Tyler Huebner, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin. “This decision is bad for job creation, bad for energy independence, bad for the environment, and bad for customers. Today our Republican-appointed Commissioners approved a new tax, killed jobs, and restricted energy choice in Wisconsin.”

“The commission has ignored the facts in this case and decided whether you embrace energy efficiency, or want to generate some of your own electricity with solar panels, you should pay more,” Kelter said.

“It also ignored a record level of over 1,900 public comments, 89% of which were opposed to these changes,” Huebner added.

The Public Service Commission decision will:


Increase monthly fixed fees from $9.13 to $16.00
Impose a $3.79 monthly tax on every kilowatt of a solar installation (a 4 kilowatt system would pay $181.97 a year)
Transfer about 40% of the value of solar installation from the homeowner to We Energies through changes in payments and charge
Pay just 4.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of energy generated by customer renewable energy systems
From   greenbaypressgazette
Green Bay-based utility to increase fixed costs from $10.40 per month to $19 per month for electricity, but their share is determined by the amount of electricity they use.
If customers don't use any electricity at all, they'll pay the full $19. If they use more than 600 kilowatt hours they won't see an increase, said WPS spokesman Kerry Spees.
The utility argues that customers who use alternative energy but stay connected to the grid are subsidized by customers who use more electricity and therefore pay more of the cost of keeping generation plants operating.

From Circus 
For the record solar is far far less than 1%. Livestock isn't the only thing that smells in Wisconsin.


----------



## Circus (Nov 17, 2014)

Circus said:


> Public Service Commission Approves We Energies' Rate Hikes & “Solar Tax”
> RELEASED FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2014


 

Why?


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-solar-energy.html?_r=0
　
*The Koch Attack on Solar Energy*
APRIL 26, 2014
For the last few months, the Kochs and other big polluters have been spending heavily to fight incentives for renewable energy adopted by most states. They particularly dislike state laws that allow homeowners with solar panels to sell power they don’t need back to electric utilities. They’ve been pushing legislatures to impose a surtax making solar panels on houses less attractive.
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), dictate bills to Republican state houses, receives financing from the utility industry and fossil-fuel producers. It's trying to repeal or freeze the renewable energy goals of states. States can now anticipate well-financed campaigns to eliminate these targets or scale them back.
Coal producers see the inevitable solar and wind energy as a long-term threat to their businesses.
Currently, 43 states require utilities to buy excess power generated by consumers with solar arrays. Net metering. The utilities hate this requirement, for obvious reasons. They says this kind of law will put "a squeeze on profitability," and warns that if state incentives are not rolled back, "it may be too late to repair the utility business model."
Since that’s an unsympathetic argument, the utilities have devised another: Solar expansion, they claim, will actually hurt consumers. This campaign is really about the profits of Koch Carbon and the utilities, which to its organizers is much more important than clean air and the consequences of climate change.


----------



## Husky (Nov 17, 2014)

Jags said:


> When local/home storage becomes a viable and cost effective solution I am going to get a small amount of satisfaction watching these folks wither and die on the vine.


The problem with that, is only the poor workers that have no control over what the company CEO's and boards do are the ones that get the shaft. The higher ups will get there money with golden parachutes in their contracts. Even as the company is going under the upper management will be taking big paychecks and bonuses to wind things down. Its your neighbors and friends that are trying to make a living that get screwed.


----------



## chrispr1 (Nov 17, 2014)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Home storage is viable now.  People just have to decide not to use an average of 900 kilowatt hours each month.  The lower the use age, the fewer panels and batteries that need to be bought.



I use less than half that amount per month consistently over the last 8+ years and have been told by 4 different installers that home storage still isn't viable until you get to half of my usage.  And this was just in the springtime.  Have things changed since then or am I just getting a bad story?


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 17, 2014)

I couldn't tell you.  I imagine it's relative.  Viable to one isn't the same as viable to another.  Some choose to pay more each month so their electricity comes from only wind power.  It seems silly to me, but is important to them.


My average usage last year was 289kwh/mo.  This year it's 291/mo so far.  90 of that is my refrigerator.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 17, 2014)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I couldn't tell you.  I imagine it's relative.  Viable to one isn't the same as viable to another.  Some choose to pay more each month so their electricity comes from only wind power.  It seems silly to me, but is important to them.



Currently I am choosing to pay _less_ for wind power, and it is important to me.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Nov 17, 2014)

Less is always better.


----------



## chrispr1 (Nov 18, 2014)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I couldn't tell you.  I imagine it's relative.  Viable to one isn't the same as viable to another.  Some choose to pay more each month so their electricity comes from only wind power.  It seems silly to me, but is important to them.



True. The mean cost to install an array on my house (not a large house) was 30k split three ways between the Feds, the State, and by me. With a monthly bill of under $100, unless I can store or sell back significant amounts, the costs just don't add up for me yet. Hopefully that will change in the future as technology progresses. I'd love to save every month and be insulated from any price spikes but the initial investment far exceeds the savings.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Nov 18, 2014)

I'm also taking the slow road on this big investment, but feel like I've gotten the fire hose of learning over this past year. I sense that the govt rules, as well as the technology, are still too fluid for me to see the future clearly. I know what I want it to be, but you know what that's worth.

As for the Tech, I really like the way the Micro Inverter has made PV almost a DIY possibility. And the panel Watt/$ continue to get better.

The Govt rule changes are the big variable. Govt has broken the Utility's franchise (90yr business model) by allowing net metering. However the Govt isn't "letting em swing" because it's granting them almost unchallenged rate increases. The Govt also has been using the Utilities as surrogate tax collectors, so they are very aware that any bill reductions means State Tax Revenue short falls, and they can't have that. That makes me think that any bill savings I see from PV may well be replaced by a future tax or surcharge. This makes projecting ROI's over more that a few years nearly impossible.

One thing I've learned for sure is that the cost of the Grid (the transmission & distribution part of my bill) is not going down. I looked at the electricity load use profile for my region, and from Sept to May the peak usage comes between 7pm and 9pm, well after all PV production has fallen to zero. That means I'll still be dependent on some distant generator shipping the power over that spaghetti grid of wires. So the size and cost to maintain the grid will likely stay the same, and the Utility will need to collect the same dollars per year. Even if I make tons of PV in daytime, and my end of month KWH usage is quite low, the Utility/Govt will find a way to pull money out of me to pay for the shortfall. We are seeing that right now in the northeast as Utilities are asking for big increases in their flat monthly meter charges. I can see PV homeowner monthly connection surcharges in our future too.

So I am moving slowly with eyes wide open. I want our future to be cleaner & healthier air, water and earth. I want Solar and Wind and new smarter (smaller) Nuclear to power it, but I also know I'm going to pay more for it. So in the short term I'm practicing energy efficiency and learning as much as can.


----------

