On grid zero export system???

[Mb190e]

Nope - you pay that to use the grid as a battery and backup - cheap actually

You can spin it however you want. The 3 years that I lived in this house before solar panels, I still paid the same $17.11 per month, whether I used any electricity or not. Just like everybody else in my part of the state that doesn't have solar.

[DanKegel]

Demand charges - where you get charged for your peak power use rather than your total energy use - are a bit of a shock, but they make at least some sense because they provide a price signal that reflects the higher cost of providing peak energy. (Done in a way that makes the utility the most money, but nevermind that; you're at least potentially able to avoid the charge by leveling your load.)

The Arizona ones, described at http://www.azcentral.com/story/money...omers/24086473 , are particularly unfair because they're applied only to solar customers; to be fair, everybody should have to pay based on peak demand. Hawaii's moving in the same direction -- and explicitly moving towards encouraging local storage, see http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...s-are-laid-off

I suspect the future holds more of this and less net metering. That's one reason Solar City and Enphase are both exploring battery storage ( http://www.solarcity.com/residential/energy-storage, http://enphase.com/ac-battery/ ).

It seems clear that in this brave new world, appliances in a home (and the solar inverter, in houses with solar systems) are going to have to talk to each other at least a little to reduce peak demand. That's just barely starting to happen today, but it will heat up as more utilities follow Arizona and Hawaii's lead.

In the meantime, point your panels west, young man Or at least think of how to match panel output to reduce daily peak demand.

[HX_Guy]

That's exactly my beef with it too. If the POCO's argument is that we should pay based on peak demand, because they need to have the capacity to delivery peak demand in case I need it, then why doesn't the same apply to non-solar customers? Shouldn't they also have the capacity to delivery their peak demand if needed?

One way that I hear solar company are trying to combat this here in AZ is by installing load controllers along with the solar systems on customer houses. I'm not too familiar with load controllers and if they can be programmed between different hours and so forth. Plus as POCOs start seeing how people are trying to beat their system, they may redo their rates again.

In California, I've read that the POCO actually monitors you demand from solar and from the grid, not just from the grid like AZ is doing. Their logic is what if your solar goes down or its a cloudy day? They want to know your peak demand at all times, not just the net minus solar production.

[DanKegel]

I haven't heard anything about California (my state) caring about anything but net load.

Here's a presentation from 2010 about incentives to shave net load:

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C79FE3BC-8135-43ED-A99E-75A8F3F60DBD/0/Presentation5bEnergyStorage.pdf

[HX_Guy]

I haven't heard anything about California (my state) caring about anything but net load.

Here's a presentation from 2010 about incentives to shave net load:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/...rgyStorage.pdf

Apparently its for commercial only right now, not residential. But if people try to game the system by limiting the demand only during very specific times, I could see the POCOs trying to charged based on peak from either generation or grid use.

[russ]

You can spin it however you want.

Spin my aching backside - you are connected to the grid? You pay -

[DanKegel]

if people try to game the system by limiting the demand only during very specific times, I could see the POCOs trying to charged based on peak from either generation or grid use.

Curb your paranoia They would only do this if they owned the solar panels.

They are setting up incentives to drive people to reduce peak load.
How the customer does this doesn't matter - solar, storage charged
from solar, storage charged from grid off peak, load scheduling, antimatter converters -
as long as the peak load goes down, the utility is getting what they want.

[J.P.M.]

That's exactly my beef with it too. If the POCO's argument is that we should pay based on peak demand, because they need to have the capacity to delivery peak demand in case I need it, then why doesn't the same apply to non-solar customers? Shouldn't they also have the capacity to delivery their peak demand if needed?

One way that I hear solar company are trying to combat this here in AZ is by installing load controllers along with the solar systems on customer houses. I'm not too familiar with load controllers and if they can be programmed between different hours and so forth. Plus as POCOs start seeing how people are trying to beat their system, they may redo their rates again.

In California, I've read that the POCO actually monitors you demand from solar and from the grid, not just from the grid like AZ is doing. Their logic is what if your solar goes down or its a cloudy day? They want to know your peak demand at all times, not just the net minus solar production.

Part of the reason they want to have that knowledge is to be able to meet that peak demand, maybe get a heads' up and just maybe get better at meeting it, with a better shot at avoiding supply problems and service interruptions. Think like the POCO.

[sensij]

I haven't heard anything about California (my state) caring about anything but net load.

Here's a presentation from 2010 about incentives to shave net load:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/...rgyStorage.pdf

There are optional net metering plans from some Poco's in CA that require a generation meter to be installed along with the consumption meter. Their proposals for the successor to today's net metering plans are heavily weighted toward some kind of feed-in tariff, which also require that a meter be installed to track generation. My read of the situation could certainly be wrong, but I think that within the next 1-3 years CA poco's will be caring about more than net load on new installations.

[HX_Guy]

There are optional net metering plans from some Poco's in CA that require a generation meter to be installed along with the consumption meter. Their proposals for the successor to today's net metering plans are heavily weighted toward some kind of feed-in tariff, which also require that a meter be installed to track generation. My read of the situation could certainly be wrong, but I think that within the next 1-3 years CA poco's will be caring about more than net load on new installations.

As long as it's net load, that's not so bad.

And is it not common already for POCO's to install two meters? All installs in AZ look like this, both POCO smart meters...

[sensij]

As long as it's net load, that's not so bad.

And is it not common already for POCO's to install two meters? All installs in AZ look like this, both POCO smart meters...

No, in CA it is not common.

[DanKegel]

I'm in California, in LADWP territory, and they required both a generation meter and a net meter,
but they only read the net one (at least, only that appears on our bill).

Which rate plan bills based on generation in California, or are people just fearing that such a thing might happen in the future?

[sensij]

AB327 prevents rate plans that treat generation and consumption separately, for now:

(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (4) and in Section 2827.1, every electric utility shall develop a standard contract or tariff providing for net energy metering, and shall make this standard contract or tariff available to eligible customer-generators, upon request, on a first-come-first-served basis until the time that the total rated generating capacity used by eligible customer-generators exceeds 5 percent of the electric utility’s aggregate customer peak demand. Net energy metering shall be accomplished using a single meter capable of registering the flow of electricity in two directions. An additional meter or meters to monitor the flow of electricity in each direction may be installed with the consent of the eligible customer-generator, at the expense of the electric utility, and the additional metering shall be used only to provide the information necessary to accurately bill or credit the eligible customer-generator pursuant to subdivision (h), or to collect generating system performance information for research purposes relative to a renewable electrical generation facility.

"Fearing" is one word, but if you read the proposals being floated, in my opinion, "anticipating" is probably more appropriate. A year from now we should have a firmer idea of what is coming down the pipe, since SDG&E is on track to hit their NEM cap not long after that. The tool that CPUC is developing to model the different proposals should be up and running sometime in the next few months, if this schedule is to be believed. Also, according to that schedule, the CPUC decision on 2015-2018 rate design should be coming soon, which should help firm up some of the projections (guesses) that need to be made to justify a PV system right now.

[DanKegel]

It's clear things are going to change for new customers in 2017, and that the new rules will be set by the end of 2015.
( http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Di...op04232014.htm )

Currently we have net metering with banked hours.
That's pretty sweet; it was done to make things affordable back when panels were expensive.

What do you think is the most likely thing to replace it?

[J.P.M.]

It's clear things are going to change for new customers in 2017, and that the new rules will be set by the end of 2015.
( http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Di...op04232014.htm )

Currently we have net metering with banked hours.
That's pretty sweet; it was done to make things affordable back when panels were expensive.

What do you think is the most likely thing to replace it?

Following the mandates of AB 327 and how they will be accomplished is still unclear. The original intent of AB 327 was rate revision to correct some of the inequities that developed back in the early 2000's from that CA energy scare. One thing in AB 327 to be addressed is how to put a value on the "environmental attributes of solar generated electricity, work that into a rate structure, and still minimize or eliminate impact on non solar customers.

What may happen is anyone's guess. Speculation may be premature at this time, but one possible direction might be that the IOU's may allow full credit for everything produced as a power generation charge in some form, and apply some demand or per kWh charge for everything supplied. If done that way, two of the above mentioned mandates might be hit. Metering using smart meters could be a problem though.