this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
192 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

59429 readers
2916 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

I mean, the existing scheme is economically-problematic, because it means that non-solar-generation users are subsidizing solar-generation-users grid connections.

The utilities have two separate set of costs, one from providing the grid connection, and the other from providing power over it.

Traditionally, because the two were linked for practical purposes, utilities just generated their revenue from charging a fee based on electricity use.

But they became decoupled when home solar power generation became more-common. That caused people who were doing solar power generation to not just not pay for electricity being provided -- which is fine, they're providing that -- but also to not pay the costs of keeping the grid available, which is not. Under the traditional billing system, those grid maintenance costs were transferred to people -- who statistically are poorer, another point of contention -- weren't doing home solar power generation.

Having a grid connection provides value to solar generation users. It means reliability, and ability to scale up use on demand. It costs something to provide that. And the folks who are incurring the cost and benefiting from it should pay those costs.

And yeah, I agree that it makes solar less-advantageous, and some rooftop solar users got sold a bill of goods by rooftop solar installers who promised that their rooftop solar would make more economic sense than it did, because they could exploit that billing inefficiency. But the point is, it was a bad policy, and rooftop solar installers had no ability to guarantee that it would continue.

If you've got rooftop solar, you can still avoid paying for the electricity that you're generating rather than pulling from the grid. You just have to pay your share of the grid maintenance cost. Or, if you really don't need that connectivity and you legitimately feel that you're better off off-grid -- which I suspect is probably not the case for most people -- you can just cut off from the grid, rely entirely on your local generation capacity of whatever sort. The only thing you can't do is have grid access and have non-solar-rooftop generation customers subsidize that grid access.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago

We already pay a grid connect fee and on top of that we purchased over 10k in hardware and we make it so their needs to be less grid upgrades and we provide our excess power for 8 cents a kw for NO hardware cost to them. Sounds like they are getting a nice deal. But of course that is not nice enough for PG&E they want it all.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Could easily just charge separate lines on the bill, just like they do for everything else.

1 - $0.0x c/KWh for line maintenance - this charges on both incoming and outgoing power.
2 - $0.xx c/KWh for power usage - this charges only on the incoming side.
3 - $xx flat fee every month for administration of your account.

Charge what things cost and it won't matter how your use your energy.

edit: formatting

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

I agree -- that decoupling of fees is what's happening and is what the article is complaining about.

EDIT: I'd also add I kind of feel like this pattern is turning into something of a chronic problem for California. The same sort of thing happened with EVs getting to ignore carpool rules.

  1. California tells people that if they buy an EV, they can ignore carpool rules and use the carpool lane without carpooling. Advocates get this past voters by billing it as being "green".

  2. EV companies sell a relatively-costly product, implying that the policy will continue ad-infinitum. They can charge a premium because they're giving special road access bundled with the vehicle. This is lucrative for EV manufacturers; they're actually profiting by selling access to a state service that they aren't paying for.

  1. Well-to-do people do the math and figure out that while the car costs more, it's a pretty cheap deal for your own road. They buy the car.

  2. California announces that the policy is going to expire. People who paid more and had an expectation of never-ending special road access are angry.

    https://abc7news.com/california-clean-air-vehicle-decals-for-carpool-lane-access-likely-expiring-2025/14604142/

    There are over 400,000 drivers in California who currently have decals - many of them bought their clean air vehicle to speed up their commute so losing that privilege is a big deal.

    A Tesla driver says, " It is frustrating. Like I said the main reason for the decision is driving in Bay Area traffic."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

And they 100% should.

I'm in the Great Republic of Texistan, and that split billing is how it works here: I pay the power delivery people $x+($0.0xkwh), and then the power generator $0.0xkwh.

The screw-you happens because the power buy back from the power company is a percentage of what I pay the REP (power company). So I get something like 85% of half the cost of a KWH back for every KWH I put back on the grid, and pay full sticker price for anything I import.

Solar is a piss-poor worthless investment here, simply because power isn't expensive enough, and the payback for surplus isn't even a McDouble at this point. Average monthly credit tends to be under $20 on a ~$130 bill. Better than nothing but the solar generation + buyback won't ever pay for the panels before they're EOL. Nevermind if I had spent $15k on batteries to go with it.

It'd be a shame to see that happen in other places that have historically done much better simply because of unsustainable costs due to well, greed and incompetence.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 101 points 2 months ago (7 children)

I make the investment and then don't get the return. Sounds about right for the criminals at PG&E and their paid for people in office. Time to turn them into a not for profit public institution.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Here in europe we're gonna have to pay the electrical company for the energy our own solar panels generate above a certain amount.

"Can we just turn them off?"

"No 😠"

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Where in Europe is this? Europe isn't a monolith, after all.
Here in the Netherlands we (currently) still have the "salderingsregeling" which is used to reimburse people for the solar they feed back into the grid, though that will eventually go away.

Paying people for solar on the roof is a bit tricky in general, and probably not sustainable long term:

  • The money to maintain the grid has to come from somewhere, and if a lot of people have a bill of zero euros or a negative amount, that system kind of breaks down.
  • The grid has a maximum capacity (especially in residential neighbourhoods) so you cannot pump an infinite amount of power back into the grid. If many houses in a neighbourhood have solar the grid simply cannot cope.
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Are they providing support for the things?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

They provide no support for the solar. If I have problems I have to go to my solar installer.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What happens if you just......don't pay the bill?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Then you get disconnected.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I thought that was the point of paying so much for solar? To be OFF the grid?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (6 children)

No going off-grid is a substantially larger investment than most people can afford. To be off grid you have to be able to make enough electricity even on cloudy, short winter days. That means your system must be massively oversized for your needs during most of the year. You also need adequate batteries to store energy for overnight.

Instead people get enough solar to offset some or all of the electricity they use - but on average over time. So they produce a ton during the day and then draw from grid at night.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That is not the point. Solar provides most of your power and if you need additional power you can easily get additional power from the grid. That power can come from other people that have solar connected to the grid or other sources. It allows people to not have to spend huge amounts of money on batteries while providing power for themselves and others.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That is nuts. We need to take back power from these companies.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›