Interesting article from Chris at SolarReviews.com

[J.P.M.]

I did read through the entire NEM agreement when I first applied and this was how I remembered it.....Thanks J.P.M............now I don't have to re-read the agreement

You're welcome.

You like our document service, tell your friends.

Regards,

[paul65k]

Paul - are you sure current NEM is tied to the service address and will transfer when sold? I recall the contract references my 10 digit bill number. When I move, the new owner will establish a new account and you are sure the deal will continue for them?

A current and continuing grandparented NEM agreement runs with the system, regardless of the owner, unless the system is taken out of service and becomes derelict, or the owner chooses to not participate in a NEM for whatever reason ( e.g., self generation w/storage and off grid if that should become a viable option in the future), at least as far as stuff published by SDG & E and the CPUC is to be believed for those who take the time and make the effort to read.

The NEM agreement runs with the address only to the extent that the address is that of the NEM authorized system.

I did read through the entire NEM agreement when I first applied and this was how I remembered it.....Thanks J.P.M............now I don't have to re-read the agreement

[J.P.M.]

Paul - are you sure current NEM is tied to the service address and will transfer when sold? I recall the contract references my 10 digit bill number. When I move, the new owner will establish a new account and you are sure the deal will continue for them?

A current and continuing grandparented NEM agreement runs with the system, regardless of the owner, unless the system is taken out of service and becomes derelict, or the owner chooses to not participate in a NEM for whatever reason ( e.g., self generation w/storage and off grid if that should become a viable option in the future), at least as far as stuff published by SDG & E and the CPUC is to be believed for those who take the time and make the effort to read.

The NEM agreement runs with the address only to the extent that the address is that of the NEM authorized system.

[Willaby]

Owned solar systems will add varying degrees of value based on the age and utility of the system but a newer solar system (especially in CA) will add value and likely even more value in the years to come as the Net Metering agreements currently in place are there for 20 years from the install date are are tied to the location (house) and NOT to the person so it will transfer with the property to the new owner with the remaining term of the original agreement.............and as we are all thinking this will be much better than the Net Metering agreements with the "2.0" versions that will be starting next year.

Paul - are you sure current NEM is tied to the service address and will transfer when sold? I recall the contract references my 10 digit bill number. When I move, the new owner will establish a new account and you are sure the deal will continue for them?

[J.P.M.]

SO as a Realtor and a Solar user I agree that homes with Solar are much more desirable on the resale market. As far as setting a standard for value increase on "Solar homes" this is very complicated as the term "Solar Home" means many different thing to different people. For instance a home with a leased solar system can actually diminish the value of a home if the new buyer is looking to purchase with a Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae loan as these loans can not be placed on a home if there is an underlying long term solar lease in place and requires the lessor to remove the lien and then place it back on the home after closing.....most cases this is not an issue but in some cases the leaseholder takes this advantage to rewrite the lease at possibly not as desirable terms.

Owned solar systems will add varying degrees of value based on the age and utility of the system but a newer solar system (especially in CA) will add value and likely even more value in the years to come as the Net Metering agreements currently in place are there for 20 years from the install date are are tied to the location (house) and NOT to the person so it will transfer with the property to the new owner with the remaining term of the original agreement.............and as we are all thinking this will be much better than the Net Metering agreements with the "@.0" versions that will be starting next year.

Thanx for getting the discussion (or me anyway) back on topic. Most folks considering a lease, and I'd bet more than a few current lessors are not aware of the requirements of the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae road bumps.

Depending on how NEM 2.0, etc. on up goes, to the degree that the new tariff agreements are not as good as the old, I'd guess the degree of diff. old/new tariff would have an impact on solar/non solar equipped home pricing.

I wonder if that could create two solar house price tiers in CA: One for houses with grandparented PV systems, and one for non grandparented PV systems. I bet we'll find out.

[paul65k]

SO as a Realtor and a Solar user I agree that homes with Solar are much more desirable on the resale market. As far as setting a standard for value increase on "Solar homes" this is very complicated as the term "Solar Home" means many different thing to different people. For instance a home with a leased solar system can actually diminish the value of a home if the new buyer is looking to purchase with a Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae loan as these loans can not be placed on a home if there is an underlying long term solar lease in place and requires the lessor to remove the lien and then place it back on the home after closing.....most cases this is not an issue but in some cases the leaseholder takes this advantage to rewrite the lease at possibly not as desirable terms.

Owned solar systems will add varying degrees of value based on the age and utility of the system but a newer solar system (especially in CA) will add value and likely even more value in the years to come as the Net Metering agreements currently in place are there for 20 years from the install date are are tied to the location (house) and NOT to the person so it will transfer with the property to the new owner with the remaining term of the original agreement.............and as we are all thinking this will be much better than the Net Metering agreements with the "2.0" versions that will be starting next year.

[J.P.M.]

Whoa, I wasn't presuming or thinking anything like that! You asked a question... "What's up with the residential use data from energy only providers ?" I assumed that this, like most of these matters, was something with which you were much more familiar than I. It took some time to find a specific data set that was broken out by provider, and once I found it, I could see a trend that may have led to your question. Not knowing what an energy only provider was, I searched through more of the EIA site until I found a definition. I didn't know it was on the bottom of something easy to find, the definition I found was buried in an annual report. Anyway, having found the data, and read enough to at least get a superficial understanding of what slice of the market the data was representing, I attempted to answer "what's up?"

Really man, no conflict was intended here. I didn't get that you were making a point about data spinning, I'm sorry I missed it.

Fair enough. For my part, I probably could have been less obtuse about where I was going and stayed on topic. If you feel my remarks were over the line, I apologize, but I took your text explanation as a bit condescending and therefore, unwarranted.

I'm moving on.

Add: As another example of presumption. I'm presuming you're truthful, including, what seems to me anyway, your presumptive comment about your opinion of our relative knowledge levels in R.E. related matters. However, the accuracy of that presumption seems to be itself a presumption on your part, and in any case, and IMO anyway, probably relative to, and dependent on the particular area. Just sayin'.

The usual take what you want rant applies.

[sensij]

Maybe my post was off topic, but it was not an attempt at refutation of any data, or your presentation. Rather, it was meant as an implied reference to how any data, even as one of your references seems to be at odds with what you write, can be dissected, reassembled and re- or mis-interpreted, sort of after Kiplings's admonition to "hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools."

People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, and usually willing to latch onto whatever reinforces their view of reality.

FWIW, such distinctions between energy only and delivery only service providers, etc., doesn't seem to me to be helpful to this side bar discussion of what I thought was a discussion of rates of increase residential electricity use.

BTW, I can and did read what's at the bottom of the information and understand it. Please don't presume to think or imply I'm a complete moron.

Whoa, I wasn't presuming or thinking anything like that! You asked a question... "What's up with the residential use data from energy only providers ?" I assumed that this, like most of these matters, was something with which you were much more familiar than I. It took some time to find a specific data set that was broken out by provider, and once I found it, I could see a trend that may have led to your question. Not knowing what an energy only provider was, I searched through more of the EIA site until I found a definition. I didn't know it was on the bottom of something easy to find, the definition I found was buried in an annual report. Anyway, having found the data, and read enough to at least get a superficial understanding of what slice of the market the data was representing, I attempted to answer "what's up?"

Really man, no conflict was intended here. I didn't get that you were making a point about data spinning, I'm sorry I missed it.

[J.P.M.]

Yes, that is a slice of data showing a very strong trend. From the definitions:

Full-Service Providers sell bundled electricity services (e.g., both energy and delivery) to end users. Full-Service Providers
may purchase electricity from others (such as Independent Power Producers or other Full-Service Providers) prior to
delivery. Direct sales from independent facility generators to end use consumers are reported under Full-Service Providers.

Energy-Only Providers sell energy to end use customers; incumbent utility distribution firms provide Delivery-Only Services
for these customers.


So I guess some people have an option to buy energy from a specific source, any pay their Poco to deliver it? The increasing trend a sign of increasing deregulation or a healthier market for alternatives, perhaps?

Maybe my post was off topic, but it was not an attempt at refutation of any data, or your presentation. Rather, it was meant as an implied reference to how any data, even as one of your references seems to be at odds with what you write, can be dissected, reassembled and re- or mis-interpreted, sort of after Kiplings's admonition to "hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools."

People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, and usually willing to latch onto whatever reinforces their view of reality.

FWIW, such distinctions between energy only and delivery only service providers, etc., doesn't seem to me to be helpful to this side bar discussion of what I thought was a discussion of rates of increase residential electricity use.

BTW, I can and did read what's at the bottom of the information and understand it. Please don't presume to think or imply I'm a complete moron.

[SunEagle]

The EIA consumption data don't really show much of a trend since 2007, mostly driven by regional differences (some up and some down, mostly flat) and not uniform national data. When coupled with the growing US population, also evidenced by an increasing residential electricity customer base, to me it paints a picture of convincingly *decreasing* per capita residential energy consumption.

Is there some other data out there I should be looking at that tells a different story?

I agree that numbers don't lie. Based on those websites it looks like the US is consuming less per person then it did a few years ago.

Maybe I have taken the input from a minority of people that have stated they have increased their electrical usage into believing it was a much higher percentage than actual.

I wonder if those reports included the power consumed by home owner's from their pv generated sources or was it just from POCO generated power.

[sensij]

Probably, but I don't know of one. I suppose regional differences, and how results are reported and interpreted can make for differences in how the data is perceived. As in: What's up with the residential use data from energy only providers ?

Yes, that is a slice of data showing a very strong trend. From the definitions:

Full-Service Providers sell bundled electricity services (e.g., both energy and delivery) to end users. Full-Service Providers
may purchase electricity from others (such as Independent Power Producers or other Full-Service Providers) prior to
delivery. Direct sales from independent facility generators to end use consumers are reported under Full-Service Providers.

Energy-Only Providers sell energy to end use customers; incumbent utility distribution firms provide Delivery-Only Services
for these customers.


So I guess some people have an option to buy energy from a specific source, any pay their Poco to deliver it? The increasing trend a sign of increasing deregulation or a healthier market for alternatives, perhaps?

[J.P.M.]

The EIA consumption data don't really show much of a trend since 2007, mostly driven by regional differences (some up and some down, mostly flat) and not uniform national data. When coupled with the growing US population, also evidenced by an increasing residential electricity customer base, to me it paints a picture of convincingly *decreasing* per capita residential energy consumption.

Is there some other data out there I should be looking at that tells a different story?

Probably, but I don't know of one. I suppose regional differences, and how results are reported and interpreted can make for differences in how the data is perceived. As in: What's up with the residential use data from energy only providers ?

[J.P.M.]

The EIA consumption data don't really show much of a trend since 2007, mostly driven by regional differences (some up and some down, mostly flat) and not uniform national data. When coupled with the growing US population, also evidenced by an increasing residential electricity customer base, to me it paints a picture of convincingly *decreasing* per capita residential energy consumption.

Is there some other data out there I should be looking at that tells a different story?

Probably, but I don't know of one. I suppose regional differences, and how results are reported and interpreted can make for differences in how the data is perceived.

[sensij]

The EIA consumption data don't really show much of a trend since 2007, mostly driven by regional differences (some up and some down, mostly flat) and not uniform national data. When coupled with the growing US population, also evidenced by an increasing residential electricity customer base, to me it paints a picture of convincingly *decreasing* per capita residential energy consumption.

Is there some other data out there I should be looking at that tells a different story?

[SunEagle]

I'd remark that the terms "energy efficient" and ""net zero energy" are not necessarily the same. I suppose in theory, an energy hog house could be a "zero net energy" dwelling by throwing a lot of generating equipment at it. I'm not sure how environmentally conscious not to mention cost ineffective that might be. I'd also question the logic of thinking any 5,000 ft.^2 home as energy efficient or environmentally conscious. Maybe environmentally unconscious.

In CA, new homes are built to mandated requirements that, say, 30 years ago, were considered quite eccentric (higher insulation levels, Tyvek wrapping, duct insulation, blower door testing, etc.). While more measures are possible, the physical limits of further potential use reductions are a lot closer. I've been away from it for awhile, but I suspect a lot of zero net energy homes or some such names are little more that homes built to (quite good) title 24 stds. w/solar added to the roof and a fancy title attached as a marketing tool.

What probably has not changed is the difference in use patterns and attitudes about how energy is used in a home. I can't point to documentation so I'm out on a limb here, but I seem to recall studies of identical, side/side homes w/same fam. size in each often resulting in very different energy use for each dwelling. A lot of home energy use or reduction of it starts with attitude.

What has changed, in spite of all the hoopla about energy conservation, is the average amount of energy used by households in the U.S. It's gone up. Steadily.

To the extent there is any connection between the perception of what a commodity costs (in this case electricity) and how much it's consumed, I'd wonder what that says about what folks think about how much they pay for electricity, or if their ignorance masks their awareness ?

I have to agree that for some reason the consumption of electricity by the home owners has gone up yet the industrial and commercial consumption has gone down.

It is pretty much a trend across most of the US that we as a Nation are consuming less then we did a few years ago which has slowed down the need for the POCO's to build more generating plants.

Most of the lower consumption is probably due to higher efficient lighting, motors and HVAC equipment, but lowering the electric bill is still a big motivator toward lower consumption.

That is unless the homeowner has installed a "free energy" generating system.

That seems to be a reason that consumption seems to have resin instead of going down.