possible major changes to net metering (for the bad, of course)

[RShackleford]

https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...hat-that-means

[Sunking]

I hope so, tired of subsidizing your luxury life.

[J.P.M.]

https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...hat-that-means

Bad is a matter of some opinion.

After being around solar and alternate energy going on close to half a century, and being it's biggest fan I know of, it seems to me that without NEM or gov. subsidies, solar and alternate energy would not be as common as it is in sunny climates or elsewhere. A lot of folks see that as good.
However, some folks, see that as being not as good for society in general and for getting to a robust and mature solar energy segment of society in particular. In the sense of get strong or die, solar energy in particular would have been stronger, more technically advanced, probably cheaper in terms of unsubsidized LCOE numbers, and better able to meet the needs of more folks besides the well heeled.if it had been allowed to compete or fail on it's merits rather than becoming dependent on subsidies like 30 somethings still living in their parents basements.

What we have now might be described by some, including me, as a lot of poorly or at least often haphazardly designed (note Solarix's post from ~ 24 hrs ago) and usually (using recognized process economic methods anyway) oversized systems systems often installed by poorly run and worse managed solar outfits enabled to stay in business by virtue of little more than tax credits which effectively enabled poorly run outfits to survive until the subsidies run out. The tax credits that consumers were led to believe saved them (the consumers) 30 % probably boost mfgs. and installer prices and maybe bottom line by close to that amount and, in the process allowed inexperienced shyster outfits who ought to be selling shoes or door/door driveway sealing jobs to bilk the often financially well heeled but solar ignorant public all the while peddling a 30 % save story. My guess is most or all (or more ) of the 30 % went from the gov. to the mfgs/installers. The consumer was the middle man in the con.

Full disclosure: I took the 30 % + ~ $1K from CA. I passed it on to the installer (before my tax refund BTW) in the form of prices that were probably higher by maybe 30 % or so because of subsidies. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it, but IMO only subsidies are enabling mechanisms that hurt progress.

[Ampster]

That was an interesting article. I have seen reports about the FERC policy moves in other publications as well. This will be an interesting tug of war in a classic states rights versus federal government struggle. This could take a long time to play out. In the meantime I am hedging my bets.

I am a firm believer that economic factors will be and should be the drivers for change. Subsidies have jump started an industry and demonstrated that renewable energy is at parity with other forms of generation in specific instances. In other posts, I have cited data that no new peaker plants have been constructed in California in the last decade. In the meantime the growth of energy storage, fueled by the efficiency of Lithium batteries as the storage mechanism has added many hundreds of megaWatts to the short term capacity of the grid. A similar process took place in Australia with significant drops in grid stabilization costs. I don't even know if the investment in Australia was subsidized. Perhaps @SolarPete can clarify that. The costs of Lithium batteries continue to decrease stimulated by the growth in the global market for EVs. China seems to be leading the way in that regard. In my travels there over the past ten years I have observed some cities where there are no gasoline powered scooters. Each year I see more buses that are powered by batteries. Tesla has announced a partnership with CATL for LFP batteries to power their Teslas in China.

The foregoing is background or context for what my hedging strategy will be based on. I have committed to purchase 28 kWh of LFP batteries to upgrade the capacity of my hybrid inverter. That will give me the chance to explore the economic trade offs of self consuming more of the solar energy that I produce. That will mean that my exposure to the effects of any erosion of NEM benefits will be minimized. I would be happy to pay a reasonable fixed fee to have the grid as a backup. If this experiment is successful it will mean that I will not need a NEM agreement and I can add more solar or batteries without asking permission of FERC. So far this is a hobby that is less expensive than some former hobbies that I have engaged in. It is also a financial hedge that like any outlay of capital is not without risks. Another factor is that we have been subject to several extended power outages and at my age some of that investment is for the convenience of having resiliency. I suppose one could call that a Green Mafia agenda but it is just one conservative guys attempt to mitigate some risks I see in the future. YMMV

In summary I am not concerned one way or the other whether the FERC policy changes. I do think there will be impacts as detailed in the article.

[RShackleford]

The article was about net metering, was is not ? I don't think I'd consider that a subsidy.

But since you want to talk about subsidies ...

I laugh whenever I hear anyone complain about subsidies for renewables. At the risk of being overtly political (though both sides are guilty here), we subsidize fossil fuels in general by not pricing in the costs to society from pollution. And in the case of oil, one could argue that the spending, in lives and treasure, on various mid-east wars, represents a subsidy; never mind that it's also at least partially responsible for our support of an apartheid state, which support is responsible for one billion Muslims wanting to destroy us.

[Ampster]

Not to mention depletion allowance.

[J.P.M.]

The article was about net metering, was is not ? I don't think I'd consider that a subsidy.

But since you want to talk about subsidies ...

I laugh whenever I hear anyone complain about subsidies for renewables. At the risk of being overtly political (though both sides are guilty here), we subsidize fossil fuels in general by not pricing in the costs to society from pollution. And in the case of oil, one could argue that the spending, in lives and treasure, on various mid-east wars, represents a subsidy; never mind that it's also at least partially responsible for our support of an apartheid state, which support is responsible for one billion Muslims wanting to destroy us.

Well, in a capitalist system, when the cost of something is lowered for reasons other than market forces, that's usually or often called a subsidy. A subsidy is often defined as a benefit, usually, but not necessarily always financial in nature, and usually or often given by a gov. body to promote what's thought of, by some at least, some social good or economic program.

Without the gov. mandated NEM that provides a means and mechanism for a PV array to provide a financial benefit to the system owner, a lot of the savings from lowered residential electricity costs associated with residential PV would either be less or non existent. My electric bills are lower because of my PV system. That sounds to me like the gov. has mandated a mechanism (NEM) that enables a benefit (lower bills) to promote some social good (more $$ in my pocket). There's also another (but smaller) benefit to the bill savings that might be thought of a s subsidy if only indirectly - the bill savings are in untaxed $$.

I don't laugh about subsidies for renewables, but it seems to me a bit foolish, to me anyway, or at least disingenuous and the result of shallow thinking for folks who do complain about gov. subsidies such as oil depletion allowances, etc. to be condemning them out of one side of their mouth, but want gov. subsidies of a type similar to what they just condemned to benefit another segments of the energy market. Ya' can't have it both ways.

If/For anyone who cares, and to be clear, I think any gov. interference in a capitalist system distorts it and usually for the worse. I'd get rid of all subsidies, tax breaks or whatever for all and everyone and let the market forces decide winners and losers.

All these tax shams/loopholes are the devil's playground for crooks/conmen and dull witted, mentally slothful financial slugs anyway.

Some visual food for thought as maybe an example of the unfairness and scam: I don't see many arrays on roofs in poor neighborhoods.

[scrambler]

If/For anyone who cares, and to be clear, I think any gov. interference in a capitalist system distorts it and usually for the worse. I'd get rid of all subsidies, tax breaks or whatever for all and everyone and let the market forces decide winners and losers.

Not sure that would be any better

Experience has proven you cannot expect the Market forces to always produce actual benefits to our society. Greed and corruption too often gets in the way and can lead to choices that are beneficial to individuals and corporations, but not to the bettering of our Society.

So instead of blindly trusting Market forces, I think intelligent well balanced stimulation can be a good thing.
This is the same argument around regulations or government no regulations/government is just as bad as too much of them. The key is shooting for quality

And yes you are right the greed and corruption inherent to our specie always ends up screwing up even the best of things…

[Ampster]

.......... I think intelligent well balanced stimulation can be a good thing.
This is the same argument around regulations or government no regulations/government is just as bad as too much of them. The key is shooting for quality.......

I studied Economics under Professors who were followers of Milton Friedman. Years later even some of them had to admit that we are all Keynesians now.

[RShackleford]

Well, in a capitalist system, when the cost of something is lowered for reasons other than market forces, that's usually or often called a subsidy. ... My electric bills are lower because of my PV system. That sounds to me like the gov. has mandated a mechanism (NEM) that enables a benefit (lower bills) to promote some social good (more $$ in my pocket).

The reason your bills are lower is because you have generated some electricity. The net result is that the POCO is providing less of the electricity that you use. It's a hot summer day and you house uses 20kwh, but your PV generates 15kwh. You're only consuming 5kwh off the grid, so it seems reasonable to me that you only pay the POCO for 5kwh, which would be the result of net metering.

I suppose you could argue that during time periods when you generate more than you use, you should only get credit for the POCO's cost to generate (but what granularity do you use for these periods, hours, day ?). I believe this happens right now, but the granularity is months. (I'm still unclear, my system not yet being online).

[scrambler]

To be honest, Net Metering is a favor made to use by the electrical company.

The electrical company is in the business of buying power at a certain market price, and selling it to us at a higher price to cover expenses and profit margin.
Based on that, the “normal” way of handling us deciding to become producers or electricity, would be to buy our electricity at their regular buying market price, and selling it to us a usual (what I understand is called net billing).

Making an exception for us by actually accepting to buy the electricity we send to the grid and the resale price is a favor.
Let us face it, Companies are not in the favor business, so this is indeed a subsidy

[Ampster]

The reason your bills are lower is because you have generated some electricity. ....

I agree, that is another way to look at this issue and that is how I view the issue. My strategy after watching years of NEM erosion, is to assume that the benefits of NEM will continue to erode. But the benefits of generating energy will continue to be an economic benefit. I am working on a long term plan to use the grid less and self consume more of my production. I mentioned that in more detail earlier in this conversation.
Because I drive EVs and because the grid in California has this duck curve, I am also planning around the eventuality that I could get paid for putting load on the grid. I currently am part of a program that I receive a monthly rebate for allowing my charger to be turned off when the grid is stressed during the neck of the duck curve. Charging during the belly of the duck curve would just be an addition to that program because they can already control my charger.

[RShackleford]

I am also planning around the eventuality that I could get paid for putting load on the grid..

I almost get paid for charging EV during the wee hours, by paying a ludicrouslty low rate just below $0.03/kwh.

[RShackleford]

Let's say I heat mostly with wood (which I do) and bought most of my firewood (which I don't). I burn three cords per winter. I harvest 1 cord off my land, and my supplier sells me 2 cords. Should I pay the supplier for 2 cords, or should I pay him for 3 cords, minus whatever he saved by only providing me with 2 cords instead of 3 ?

[Ampster]

I almost get paid for charging EV during the wee hours, by paying a ludicrouslty low rate just below $0.03/kwh.

Is that a special EV rate?
Wait, don't answer that, or we might be accused of getting subsidies.