Local energy provider (SMUD) forced me to reduce my planned production

[Guest]

There was an item on the news yesterday evening that the California State fund incentivizing people to install residential solar panels may be close to running out. I'm trying to determine whether this is a fact or speculation. Anybody know?
<spam links removed>
I'm on the fence about solar because it won't be factoring the increase in home resale value into my break-even calculations. It's speculative and I'm not planning to sell. So for me, the real questions become:

• Is solar going to improve my overall energy situation when the cost of the panels, permits and installation are factored in (should I purchase)?
• Will having solar stabilize my electric bill or will I still be subject to the whims of SDG&E (I think I already know the answer to this one)
• Is a substantial incentive about to be taken off the table (subject of this post)?
• Will solar help me out more than ToU or are these orthogonal>

Additionally, I'm looking for feedback on leasing versus purchasing and what capacity array to get. I have a P85 that I drive relatively lightly (home office) and a HPWC. I'm guessing an evening's charge would normally be 20kWh or probably less. (Yeah, I know, I coulda gotten by with a 40 but ... needed the fancy toy.)
All of you seem to have done such in depth digging on these subjects, I'm really looking forward to your feedback!
Thanks


---Mod Note: I have removed a bunch of spam links from your post. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt for the moment since you appear to be asking legitimate questions. But you are being watched.
I am also a bit puzzled why you are using a Font called HeiS ASC Simplified Chinese

[J.P.M.]

Where is this "10 kw" thing coming from?
The OP never said anything about 10kw. Nor said that the SMUD rep said anything about 10kW.

No, the OP didn't, except perhaps in the confusion between kW and kWh. It also came from other posts within the thread, and some of the usual confusion between kW and kWh that the OP seems to have had, as well as Inetdog's reference, and someone at SMUD apparently telling the OP that the proposed system size would produce more than the OP's historic annual usage and therefore exceeded SMUD allowable size.

Whether the system size will be 6 kW or 10 kW, one of my points was that I could not find anything that SMUD put out that limits system size as f(usage), except that that it looks to me like SMUD will not pay their $500 system rebate for systems that result in overgeneration (SMUD, solar FAQ's, costs, "What is a properly sized system").

That denial however, does not seem to be a disallowance of NEM based on system size in any of the SMUD blurbs I could find, which was one of my points.

Other SMUD docs do mention special requirements for residential solar sizes beyond 20 kW, or 30 kW for agricultural applications that involve rule 21 and some other stuff, but that too, is not denial of NEM based on system size.

Whether it's 6 kW or 10 kW, or any size, or no size limits, my other point was that, IMO, it looks like someone at SMUD may have been confused, and that confusion may have resulted in miscommunication and possibly incorrect information being conveyed to the OP, and that further checking/conversations may be necessary/worthwhile to get clarification on who actually said what. No more. No less. Not my POCO/house/money/life.

[jflorey2]

This thread is a perfect example of why we should scrap the net metering scheme. It wastes resources (ie ideal solar roof space) and creates needless bureaucracy. If you are a excess power producer then expect to sell your power into the national grid at wholesale prices just like any other producer.....its called net billing. Need a better payback.......build a bigger or more efficient system.

I don't think net metering wastes "ideal roof space" nor does it create needless bureaucracy, since no bureaucracy is needed to support it. Indeed, it is one of the factors that have led to that USE of ideal solar roof space.

However, I also agree that it's not ideal and there are much better ways to structure such an arrangement. I'd be all for replacing it with something more sensible (like separate dynamic sell and buy prices.)

[foo1bar]

Whether the system size will be 6 kW or 10 kW, one of my points was that I could not find anything that SMUD put out that limits system size as f(usage), except that that it looks to me like SMUD will not pay their $500 system rebate for systems that result in overgeneration (SMUD, solar FAQ's, costs, "What is a properly sized system").

That may be what OP is being told - that an oversized system (generating more than prev. 12 months usage ) won't get the $500 rebate.

further checking/conversations may be necessary/worthwhile to get clarification on who actually said what.

That sound to me like good advice.

The other thing that I think would be really good is to look at TOU tarriffs and whether that will allow you to get a $0 bill even though you're only generating 80% or 90% of the kwh. Friends of mine with PG&E have a system that's ~80% of their kwh, but $0 due to TOU metering.

[J.P.M.]

The other thing that I think would be really good is to look at TOU tarriffs and whether that will allow you to get a $0 bill even though you're only generating 80% or 90% of the kwh. Friends of mine with PG&E have a system that's ~80% of their kwh, but $0 due to TOU metering.

Or whether, for example, an unusually good solar power production year would result in a lot of overproduction, or if an extended period away from home would lower use. Or ... ???

My cursory perusal of the SMUD stuff is that since they have a mechanism in place to actually pay for excess generation at avoided fuel cost according to a published schedule, or carry it forward at a retail price credit against future use, there seems to be no clear path that I've seen yet to understand whether the current ~ $0.06/kWh paid for excess generation can be used to offset the $18/mo. flat fee (I think), to zero out a bill.

I've already learned more about SMUD policy than I really wanted to know, so the current correct answer as to whether or not a zero SMUD electric bill is possible is something I'd rather leave to others.

However, on the more general subject of system sizing and how PV system cost effectiveness may be impacted by TOU tariffs from any POCO, the amount of excess $$ "credits" (not necessarily or solely kWh production), accounted for as retail credit to offset use, is partly a function of what the user does and how they may change their use times/patterns (time shifting of loads for example).

Depending on the TOU tariff, it's often, but not always possible to look at a PV system strictly as a revenue producer, separate from owner energy use. With no use, all the system production can be thought of as system income = (hourly production X TOU rate), with that income being used to offset any use at any time as the user needs/sees fit.

With knowledge of use and use patterns, it then becomes possible to tailor a system size as some f(use, use patterns) - Basically making system income match the user TOU bill by tailoring the system size until it's annual revenue matches the annual electric bill.

For some tariffs, it's more complicated than that, partly because for those tariffs there is still some interconnection with tier pricing, and the above scheme won't work as well. My POCO and SMUD TOU tariffs are of the more simple type.

A grossly oversimplified example only: A POCO has TOU pricing tariff that is $0.40/kWh for generation and use between 6 A.M to 8 P.M. and $0.20/kWh at all other times, year round, 7 days/week. If I was a determined user with an annual use of 12,000 kWh, I could offset my entire electric bill with a system that produced ~ 6,000 kWh/yr. by only using electricity between 8 P.M. and 6 A.M. Not likely to happen but theoretically possible.

In the specific case of SMUD users and zeroing out a bill, it seems to me that a user would be ill advised to oversize a system to generate (18*12)/($0.06) = 3,600 kWh/yr. at an additional system cost of something like $5K after tax credit to save $216/yr., using the ~ $0.06/kWh SMUD reimbursement figure.

[steveholtam]

Wow. Great reading! I'm the original poster of this thread. I called SMUD again today to determine what justification they use to allow or deny system sizes and they use two metrics. First is maximum annual historic usage in a prior year, going back up to three years. And lastly, and this makes no sense to me, 22 kw per sq. foot of the home. Whichever is higher is the cap on the solar. My house is about 2,000 sq.ft. I'm really bad at "solar electricity math", so I have no idea how that works to my actual size except that the lady at SMUD said my usage was the cap they used.

I asked for more information but sadly, that was all she knew. She said any California solar company should know these rules.... lol

I would be happy to call back and ask her partner who know "all the rules" if I can get better wording on what to ask.

In regards to some of thought from this thread, my personal feelings on the POCO's is that the fear roof top solar. They have to make nice, and act like they care, but in reality, all they see is their customers turning into micro-competitors. The fixed costs of a POCO are so great that the tipping point of being green vs. staying in business/turning a profit is going to happen sooner than later I feel. First the $18 a month connection fee will begin to increase. That will be the tell that solar is starting to chip into the bottom line. And it's an easy fix, up the connection fee so they still get paid. Consumers will respond by going off grid as battery prices fall, further reducing customers and revenue. It might get ugly...

[SunEagle]

Wow. Great reading! I'm the original poster of this thread. I called SMUD again today to determine what justification they use to allow or deny system sizes and they use two metrics. First is maximum annual historic usage in a prior year, going back up to three years. And lastly, and this makes no sense to me, 22 kw per sq. foot of the home. Whichever is higher is the cap on the solar. My house is about 2,000 sq.ft. I'm really bad at "solar electricity math", so I have no idea how that works to my actual size except that the lady at SMUD said my usage was the cap they used.

I asked for more information but sadly, that was all she knew. She said any California solar company should know these rules.... lol

I would be happy to call back and ask her partner who know "all the rules" if I can get better wording on what to ask.

In regards to some of thought from this thread, my personal feelings on the POCO's is that the fear roof top solar. They have to make nice, and act like they care, but in reality, all they see is their customers turning into micro-competitors. The fixed costs of a POCO are so great that the tipping point of being green vs. staying in business/turning a profit is going to happen sooner than later I feel. First the $18 a month connection fee will begin to increase. That will be the tell that solar is starting to chip into the bottom line. And it's an easy fix, up the connection fee so they still get paid. Consumers will respond by going off grid as battery prices fall, further reducing customers and revenue. It might get ugly...

I would not hold my breath thinking the POCOs will fear the loss of their consumers going off grid. The chance of a large portion of the populace doing that is next to zero.

What I will tell you is that some of the small inverter manufacturers for home solar are now looking into building larger 3 phase systems to meet the demand of Utility sized solar farms. Those will be the future since the cost per watt to install will continue to drop and the cost to generate power will start to get close to parity with other types of power generation. Trust me when I say it will not be the home customers leaving the grid that will scare the POCO's into doing anything.

[foo1bar]

And lastly, and this makes no sense to me, 22 kw per sq. foot of the home. Whichever is higher is the cap on the solar. My house is about 2,000 sq.ft. I'm really bad at "solar electricity math", so I have no idea how that works to my actual size except that the lady at SMUD said my usage was the cap they used.

22kW? or 22kWH?
22kWh/sqft* 2000 sqft = 44000 kwh.
44000kwh is much larger than your ~10,000kwh usage and your ~10,000kwh planned install size.

First thing for you to do - understand the difference between kwh and DC watts.
THEN call back and make sure you understand what they're saying. (22kw/sq ft makes no sense to me for a limit)
I'd also ask how they determine the amount of kwh expected to be generated by the PV system. (since that's assumably what they're using for comparison to their limit)

The fixed costs of a POCO are so great that the tipping point of being green vs. staying in business/turning a profit is going to happen sooner than later I feel. First the $18 a month connection fee will begin to increase.

$18/month for a "limitless" battery that you can put your energy into during the summer and pull it back out in winter? That's actually really cheap IMO.
Or if you look at it from a maintenance/cost perspective - $18/mon is undercharging for the infrastructure - it costs more than $216/year to keep the lines from your house to the substation working (especially when you add in capital expenses for replacing them and the substation equipment and such as needed)
The good news for you is SMUD isn't worried about profit. SMUD is a government agency. So they won't ever go out of business and "profit" in one year means reinvestment in infrastructure the next (Or reduced rates).

BTW "and as battery prices fall" - I don't see that happening really.
price per unit of stored energy vs. time is a graph that shows gradual improvements - nothing like the exponential you get when looking at something silicon based like price per PV watt vs. time. And even the great things being done with LiIon aren't making much change to that battery graph.

[J.P.M.]

[QUOTE=steveholtam;n331293]I'm really bad at "solar electricity math", so I have no idea how that works to my actual size except that the lady at SMUD said my usage was the cap they used./QUOTE]

You need to get informed. Start with a read of "Solar Power Your Home for Dummies". An older version is a free on line download. 20 bucks for a more recent hard copy at bookstores or Amazon.

Look through the SMUD literature on the net and see if you can find backup for some of the hoops they seem to be wanting you to jump through. I couldn't find them. Maybe you'll have better luck.

Your fears are based on ignorance. So is most of your confusion. You can address both of those.

[steveholtam]

$18/month for a "limitless" battery that you can put your energy into during the summer and pull it back out in winter? That's actually really cheap IMO.
Or if you look at it from a maintenance/cost perspective - $18/mon is undercharging for the infrastructure - it costs more than $216/year to keep the lines from your house to the substation working.

You don't think solar could be a disruptive innovation at any scale? I wonder if that is what film cameras, music cd's and home telephone companies thought? And the above quote is part of my reasoning. $18/month to access that limitless battery might actually not be enough if solar customers are normally just returning their stored credit. Maybe every so often they buy a few kWh, chipping a few bucks to the grid. Could the grid support itself at such minimal monetary inputs if a few million people moved to solar and just accessed the limitless battery?

Typical US home bill, $114 x 12 = $1,368 x 2,000,000 = $2,736,000,000 per year
Solar Fixed cost, $18 x 12 = $216 x 2,000,000 = $432,000,000 per year

That is a huge difference. I'm guessing that lost revenue will come from a combination of increased energy costs and much higher fixed connection fees. Or they will limit peoples system sizes to keep them from being break-even.

[foo1bar]

. Could the grid support itself at such minimal monetary inputs if a few million people moved to solar and just accessed the limitless battery?

That's the point - that $18/month is likely to increase.
And it's $18 right now with SMUD, $15 with another utility, and something else at another.

That is a huge difference. I'm guessing that lost revenue will come from a combination of increased energy costs and much higher fixed connection fees. Or they will limit peoples system sizes to keep them from being break-even.

What they'll do (and have already done) is limit the number of customers that can install solar and get net metering.
It's capped at only 5% of their customer base that goes solar, - and they have already a mandate to get to >33% renewable energy.
So at most they have a 5% loss in revenue - and not even that, since they'll still make some money off those customers.
And it's contributing to their mandated RPS.

All of this adds up to the POCOs surviving just fine.

They could even raise the minimum monthly fee significantly for solar PV customers, and those customers still wouldn't change to use batteries because the POCO grid will still be a much cheaper option.
IF batteries ever do get cheap enough to become viable, my prediction is we'll see more of the POCOs taking advantage of them. Because they will be able to do projects at 1000x the size of a residence, so will get better deals. And they have significant power that they could shift from one time of the day to another. Hawaii is already trying some use of batteries on a grid scale. (not too successfully yet from what I read)

[SunEagle]

You don't think solar could be a disruptive innovation at any scale? I wonder if that is what film cameras, music cd's and home telephone companies thought? And the above quote is part of my reasoning. $18/month to access that limitless battery might actually not be enough if solar customers are normally just returning their stored credit. Maybe every so often they buy a few kWh, chipping a few bucks to the grid. Could the grid support itself at such minimal monetary inputs if a few million people moved to solar and just accessed the limitless battery?

Typical US home bill, $114 x 12 = $1,368 x 2,000,000 = $2,736,000,000 per year
Solar Fixed cost, $18 x 12 = $216 x 2,000,000 = $432,000,000 per year

That is a huge difference. I'm guessing that lost revenue will come from a combination of increased energy costs and much higher fixed connection fees. Or they will limit peoples system sizes to keep them from being break-even.

It doesn't matter if a few million people move off the grid because the 10's of millions still on the grid will just pay more to support it and the POCO's will continue to make money.

Most of the country does not have high electric rates to make it financially smart to move off grid even if battery prices come down. It only seems to make sense to people in some states that are paying rates that are very high as well as now having solar connection fees that may rise along with getting less or nothing for their Net metering.

Sure solar power makes sense but for the vast majority of the US public it does not because first they can't install a system because they do not live in a private home and second there quite a few states that have very low electric rates making any ROI over a decade or more in time.

If you do not like your location and electric costs then either make a change or live with it. Complaining about it or hoping you can threaten the POCO's into doing something in your favor is akin to holding your breath until mommy and daddy buys you that toy you want so much. I am sorry but that is very childish thinking.

[brewbeer]

...
I'd let solar or other alternate supply means compete with conventional supply sources, get some real competition going, and watch solar processes improve and get (or be perceived as) more cost effective than the competition. Or, leave the market due to inability to compete. The way it is now, to some it seems NEM and subsidies such as tax credits game the system to R.E.'s market advantage and remove or slow the pace of improvements in equipment and price reductions that true competition would force.
...

Non-renewable power generation does not currently include the current and future costs associated with carbon and non-carbon pollution produced by such power generation. We are, in effect, shifting these cost burdens onto future generations of humanity, when the legacy of the pollution caused by fossil fuel power generation will need to be more aggressively managed. Until fossil fuel generated power costs are fully accounted for and passed on to the end user, solar and other renewable power generation should be appropriately subsidized.

[J.P.M.]

Non-renewable power generation does not currently include the current and future costs associated with carbon and non-carbon pollution produced by such power generation. We are, in effect, shifting these cost burdens onto future generations of humanity, when the legacy of the pollution caused by fossil fuel power generation will need to be more aggressively managed. Until fossil fuel generated power costs are fully accounted for and passed on to the end user, solar and other renewable power generation should be appropriately subsidized.

While respecting your opinion as stated here and other similar opinions heard over the years, and being one of R.E.'s biggest fans for a long time, I've been hearing such arguments since the '70's. and understand that everything from with depletion allowances, to gov. funded research into nuclear power generation, to sweetheart power deals for POCOs by good buddy PUC's and a lot of other things doesn't seem fair and probably isn't in a lot of ways.

However, having the R.E. business, in effect, join in it's claim of unfairness by implying that the same suck for R.E. will make things better, i.e., sucking at the same trough as other energy businesses, and thus sinking to the same common denominator is, in the long run, and IMO only, not improving the outlook or quality of R.E. or doing much to improve the lives of energy consumers, at least if current market penetration for solar for the amount of gov. subsidy is any indication. What it does do is make a case for more already unhealthy solar subsidies, while offering no real improvement in either the price or the quality of solar equipment, or reduction in the cost of the energy it provides.

I'm also of the long standing opinion through observation, discussion and experience that the unfairness issue is one of the more favorite mantras that the bottom feeding/huckster portion of the R.E. business uses, and is usually one of the first places they go when costs of R.E. supplied energy are seen as high compared to conventional energy. Nice pivot away from the higher cost of R.E. without discussion about how to lower those costs, with the added bonus of the implication that the subsidies/tax structure ought to be increased for R.E. as if that would result in lower R.E. energy costs, and also the lack of concern of what taking gov. subsidies away from other energy sources would do to those prices.

It's long past time for the R.E. business to give itself an enema, throw out the dead wood, a lot of which is probably more suited to flipping burgers or working for the TSA than solar engineering anyway, stop living in the government's basement, grow up and make a place in the world on it's own, and stop the continued dragging off the gov. tit, unless it wants to remain in permanent adolescence.

If you think any substantial portion of the population is either altruistic or informed enough to give a rat's butt about pollution when they are looking at self inflicted high energy bills that make them apoplectic, especially when everything they see and everyone they talk to on the subject is trying to cram the most expensive solution down their throat, and they go like sheeple to be shorn, feel free.

My training and experience lead me to a different opinion.

Pollution does indeed need to be managed aggressively. Subsidies are not the way to do it. Having real, understandable, quantifiable goals, and ways to verify results rather than hopes and wishes based on vague goals that can be gamed by conmen seems one of any number of better ways to manifest the aggression.

I didn't make the rules, just think I know how the game is run based on what I've seen and experienced for the last 40 years. Subsidies hurt solar and are very inefficient at helping reduce pollution.