Connecticut looking to end net metering.

[bcroe]

On balance, for me only, my perception is that life is much better here in the land of fruits and nuts

Yes I have worn out cars visiting friends and things at all the places you mentioned. But am not convinced to
stay. Seems like a few months of COLD drive many away from here. But there are plenty of other kinds of
bad to disastrous weather we see around the country, with secondary results of outages, floods, droughts, fires,
slides, more, that just don't happen here. Another really big motivator for me, its a lot easier here to stay
debt free. Bruce Roe

[J.P.M.]

Yes I have worn out cars visiting friends and things at all the places you mentioned. But am not convinced to
stay. Seems like a few months of COLD drive many away from here. But there are plenty of other kinds of
bad to disastrous weather we see around the country, with secondary results of outages, floods, droughts, fires,
slides, more, that just don't happen here. Another really big motivator for me, its a lot easier here to stay
debt free. Bruce Roe

Still my point: Pay your money, take your choice. Just don't denigrate one area simply because it's not to your liking or lifestyle. Besides, reality is, no one or few anyway gives a rat's patoot what you or I consider desirable or undesirable characteristics of an area.

[BackwoodsEE]

I don't know of anyone, me included (and near the front of the line), rich or poor who knowingly leaves money on the table.

I did, to some extent. Here in green and mostly liberal Washington State, there is a generous rebate from the state for your PV-generated power. When I did the application for net metering (yes, I'm certainly going for that!), the guy from the power company just assumed I'd be wanting extra power meters hooked up for the rebate as well. No, I didn't. There's no reason for the state to be handing me money for my expensive hobby.

[J.P.M.]

I did, to some extent. Here in green and mostly liberal Washington State, there is a generous rebate from the state for your PV-generated power. When I did the application for net metering (yes, I'm certainly going for that!), the guy from the power company just assumed I'd be wanting extra power meters hooked up for the rebate as well. No, I didn't. There's no reason for the state to be handing me money for my expensive hobby.

Everyone's priorities are different. If you're east of the cascades, you might actually get a semi cost effective system more easily than closer to the coast..

I never knew WA had so much arid land until I took a drive through the Grand (North & South) Coulee a long time ago.

[BackwoodsEE]

Everyone's priorities are different. If you're east of the cascades, you might actually get a semi cost effective system more easily than closer to the coast..

I never knew WA had so much arid land until I took a drive through the Grand (North & South) Coulee a long time ago.

Yes, east of the Cascades and a lot drier than near Puget Sound or the coast. But don't let the Ponderosa Pines and scrubland fool ya, there is still plenty of cloud cover for much of the year, and latitude is latitude. That 18 degree sun elevation at high noon in late December is not going to offer much solar production even with clear blue skies.

[BFW577]

My biggest issue is not being able to use self generated solar power on site. I would assume I would be grandfathered in to my existing net metering arrangement. They would have to redo my entire setup and install 2 meters.

Why can't I cut and paste from an article on here? The site rejects it every time?

Capture.JPG

[J.P.M.]

Yes, east of the Cascades and a lot drier than near Puget Sound or the coast. But don't let the Ponderosa Pines and scrubland fool ya, there is still plenty of cloud cover for much of the year, and latitude is latitude. That 18 degree sun elevation at high noon in late December is not going to offer much solar production even with clear blue skies.

Understood. Places like Yakima and Redmond get ~ 25 % more irradiance than places like Seattle and Portland and so about that much or perhaps a little more PV production over a year.

As for 18 deg. tilts, most good designs take latitude into account and good designers know that tilt = latitude and a 180 deg. array azimuth is a good place to begin. However, the reality being one of a lot of roofs at 18 - 20 deg. tilts with azimuths all over the place, the costs, design requirements and aesthetics of increasing tilt angles are some of many reasons why the number of residential PV applications/capita in an area tends to be somewhat inversely proportional with latitude.

Still, west of the Cascades is a very pretty part of the country.

[solarix]

I'm all for leveling the playing field and getting rid of tariffs and subsidies, but lets be fair about it. The utilities then ought to pay the full cost of their burning coal and atoms. The Harvard Medical School did a study on the deleterious health effects of burning coal and estimated the yearly cost in the USA at $300 billion to $500 billion. And I don't think we have to go into the costs of nuclear waste etc not to mention possible climate change. Society has turned a huge blind eye to these problems in the interest of "cheap" electric rates for the poor ratepayer and then the utilities complain about how its "not fair" that clean, renewable solar gets a net-metering incentive. Let the utilities charge rate payers $1000 per person per year to cover the costs of their cheap fuel and I'd be glad to pay the full cost of grid access for my solar. I can't believe this solar forum has so many solar naysayers.....

[Sunking]

I I can't believe this solar forum has so many solar naysayers.....

Because it is a SCAM.

[bcroe]

The Harvard Medical School did a study on the deleterious health effects of burning coal and estimated the yearly
cost in the USA at $300 billion to $500 billion. And I don't think we have to go into the costs of nuclear waste etc

It is certainly more complicated than if the PoCo is making a big enough profit. I don't think the full
picture is close to being defined yet, there are lots of knee jerk regulations.

I don't like seeing all net metering plans lumped together, when they vary so widely. How about more
spread sheets, etc of all the plans, with present and future costs and benefits to all involved? Here the
PoCo never pays me anything; every year I give them money and/or free energy. In the process I help
them level out the demand (running my neighbors air under the hottest sun), reduce distribution losses.

A plan that the PoCo only gives back perhaps 90% of the energy I am credited over the year would be
fine with me. Bruce Roe

[DanS26]

My biggest issue is not being able to use self generated solar power on site. I would assume I would be grandfathered in to my existing net metering arrangement. They would have to redo my entire setup and install 2 meters.

Why can't I cut and paste from an article on here? The site rejects it every time?
Capture.JPG

Indiana killed net metering last year for publicly owned POCOs. The original bill had the "buy all sell all" clause. That requirement met a lot of resistance and was dropped from the final bill that reached the governor's desk.

It seems to me from my 100' perch is that the POCOs use the "buy all sell all" requirement as a bargaining chip so that they can "compromise" on killing net metering without much opposition.

You are on the right track though......if a cost effective energy storage breakthrough happens then the POCOs will be screaming for a "buy all sell all" scheme which of course will drive most off the grid to the detriment of all.

[reader2580]

Buy all, sell all is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to install new solar in such a situation. If I was forced into buy all, sell all I would strongly consider just turning my solar system off.

A much fairer way to deal with solar would be to buy excess power at wholesale rates instead of retail. My CO-OP pays approximately 7.5 cents per KWh for wholesale power and sells the power for 12 cents per KWh in the winter and 13 cents per KWh in the summer. I currently have net metering and it appears unlikely to change any time soon. I have enough solar production to cover at least 150% of my usage so I still come out okay if net metering goes away.

[reader2580]

Because it is a SCAM.

I fail to understand how someone has over 20,000 posts on a solar forum if they think solar is a scam.

[DanS26]

Buy all, sell all is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to install new solar in such a situation. If I was forced into buy all, sell all I would strongly consider just turning my solar system off.

A much fairer way to deal with solar would be to buy excess power at wholesale rates instead of retail. My CO-OP pays approximately 7.5 cents per KWh for wholesale power and sells the power for 12 cents per KWh in the winter and 13 cents per KWh in the summer. I currently have net metering and it appears unlikely to change any time soon. I have enough solar production to cover at least 150% of my usage so I still come out okay if net metering goes away.

Net metering is a gift.....and all of you who benefit from this gift should thank your lucky stars.

What you describe is net billing and it is the future for residential and small commercial solar producers.

[Mike90250]

I fail to understand how someone has over 20,000 posts on a solar forum if they think solar is a scam.

I think he misspoke The fraudulent sales pitches, Tax rebates and subsidized Utility rates are the scam.

Oh, I'm getting something for free. Anything the government gives to you, they took from somebody else. (I'm bitter and doing my taxes today)