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

[RShackleford]

Is that a special EV rate?

Yeah, it's an extension of the usual time-of-day plan (I was already on). That plan was about triple-time during winter mornings and summer afternoons (~$0.30/kwh), and half-time (~$0.05/kwh) otherwise. The EV rate (you have to provide proof you own one) gives you the ~$0.03/kwh from 10pm-5am, but bumps the off-peak rate up a little to ~$0.06/kwh. This is a rural co-op, buying mainly from Duke Energy.

[scrambler]

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 ?

If that is supposed to be an analogy to NEM, I am not sure it is a very realistic one.
A more realistic one would be that you produce 3 cords but can’t use or store two, so you ask your provider if he would not mind coming to your place to pick them up, then brings them back to you at a later time when you will need them.

Ask him if he would consider doing that for you, and if he does how much he would need to charge you to make it worth his while, spending his time doing this rather than his regular business

[bob-n]

This story came out Thursday 7/16/2020 and was covered on many news sites:

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2020/07/16/ferc-revises-purpa-rules-dismisses-solar-net-metering-challenge-but-leaves-the-door-open-for-reform/

FERC revises PURPA rules; dismisses solar net-metering challenge but leaves the door open for reform

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) today revised the rules for the its regulations governing qualifying small power producers and cogenerators under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to address the significant changes that have taken place in the nation’s energy markets since those rules first took effect.

“I am extremely pleased that we are issuing today’s final rule to modernize the Commission’s implementation of PURPA,” FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said. “While PURPA laid the foundation for the competitive wholesale power markets that we have today, the energy landscape in this country has changed drastically since the Commission implemented these regulations four decades ago.”

Congress enacted PURPA to encourage development of small power producers and cogenerators, called qualifying facilities (QFs), and to reduce demand for traditional fossil fuels that were considered to be in short supply. FERC’s regulations were enacted in 1980 and, with limited changes over the ensuing years, remain in effect today.

“It’s been my view from the start that FERC should modernize our regulations in ways that not only meet our statutory obligations, but also protect consumers and preserve competition,” Chatterjee said. “Today’s rule accomplishes those goals. We will continue to encourage QF development while addressing concerns about how PURPA works in today’s electric markets.”

The final rule grants additional flexibility to state regulatory authorities in establishing avoided cost rates for QF sales inside and outside of the organized electric markets. The final rule also grants states the ability to require energy rates (but not capacity rates) to vary during the life of a QF contract.

FERC also modified the “one-mile rule” and reduced the rebuttable presumption for nondiscriminatory access to power markets, from 20 megawatts to 5 megawatts, for small power production, but not cogeneration, facilities. Finally, in order for a QF to establish a legally enforceable obligation, the final rule requires that the QFs must demonstrate commercial viability and financial commitment to build under objective and reasonable state-determined criteria.

The final rule does not change other elements to the Commission’s existing PURPA regulations. A fact sheet about the rule is available here:

https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/07-2020-E-1-PURPA-fact-sheet.pdf

In related news, the commission decided not to take up the New England Ratepayers Association (NERA) petition that sought to set net-metering rates in the U.S. in line with wholesale electricity rates instead of retail rates. Read more about the petition here:

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2020/06/11/net-metering-in-the-us-is-under-attack-and-you-have-until-monday-june-15-to-weigh-in/

The Solar Energy Industries Association, SEIA, a lobbying group for the solar industry, said it believes FERC made the right decision in “dismissing the misguided net-metering petition” and CEO Abigail Ross Harper vowed to “continue working in the states to strengthen net metering policies to generate more jobs and investment and we will advocate for fair treatment of solar at FERC where it has jurisdiction.”

Of the PURPA reform, SEIA was not as happy.
“While we are glad to see FERC include elements of SEIA’s proposals, the overall rule changes approved today will undermine the stated intention of the PURPA statute and stifle competition, allowing utilities to strengthen their monopolies and raise costs for customers,” said SEIA’s vice president of regulatory affairs, Katherine Gensler, adding “We will continue advocating for reforms that strengthen PURPA and allow solar to compete nationwide.”

Mark Pischea, president and CEO of the Conservative Energy Network (CEN) released the following in reaction to the news:
“FERC today once again proved that the government can giveth and the government can taketh away.
“On one hand, CEN is thrilled today to see FERC dismiss the New England Ratepayers Association petition on net metering. In doing so, FERC has decided to uphold decades of precedent and respect the Jeffersonian principle of federalism. CEN is proud to have been in opposition to this petition.
“On the other hand, the changes made to PURPA will stifle competition and allow monopoly utilities to continue their history of blocking lower priced clean energy from entering the market and competing with their more expensive legacy resources.
“In a perfect world energy markets would be free from government intervention and instead be open to all participants and all technologies—each competing to ensure that families and businesses have access to the most affordable, reliable and sustainable solutions available. At CEN we will continue to fight to make this free-market vision a reality as we move towards a clean energy future. All proponents of an open and competitive energy market should join us in opposing today’s ruling.”

The rule takes effect 120 days after publication in the Federal Register.

[Ampster]

In summary they did not take up the proposal by the lobbying group for the utilities. That lobbying group had a stealth title suggesting that they represented rate payers.

[blueman2]

Am I the only one who cringed each time they used the word "renumeration" rather than the correct "remuneration"?

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com...5-to-weigh-in/

[bcroe]

Am I the only one who cringed each time they used the word "renumeration" rather than the correct "remuneration"?

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com...5-to-weigh-in/

I cringe every time posters show they do not know the difference between to, too, and two,
or there and their, or you're and your, or lie and lay, and others. But if I tried to correct them
all nobody would talk to me, so I limit corrections to incorrect units for values. Bruce Roe

[RShackleford]

I cringe every time posters show they do not know the difference between to, too, and two,
or there and their, or you're and your, or lie and lay, and others. But if I tried to correct them
all nobody would talk to me, so I limit corrections to incorrect units for values. Bruce Roe

And when people say "try and" instead of "try to". Also, Facebook people who don't seem aware that it's possible to edit a post or comment, and then make a comment with the correction.

[scrambler]

it's possible to edit a post or comment

That said, on this site, if you edit your post to make a correction, you almost always get your posts thrown into moderation which is very annoying and makes you think twice before making a correction

I know why they do that, but may be it could be made less annoying if the correction detection was smarter. I can understand if you add a link to the post, but it does not need to freak out if you make spelling or grammar corrections.
It could also disable that check for people with enough posting history.

My 2 cents

[RShackleford]

That said, on this site, if you edit your post to make a correction, you almost always get your posts thrown into moderation which is very annoying and makes you think twice before making a correction

I know why they do that, but may be it could be made less annoying if the correction detection was smarter. I can understand if you add a link to the post, but it does not need to freak out if you make spelling or grammar corrections.
It could also disable that check for people with enough posting history.

My 2 cents

I agree. It's really lame. I've never really seen anything like it at other forums. And yeah on your last thing - do we never get any sort of trusted status ?

[inetdog]

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.

Q1: How many Chicago School economists (including Friedman) does it take to change a light bulb?



A1: None. In an ideal economy market forces will cause the light bulb to change itself.

__________________________________________________ ___________________________-

Q2. How many Keynsian economists does it take to change a light bulb?



A2: All of them, thereby leading to increased employment and an upward shift in the demand curve.

Anyone with their own variations is invited to contribute.

[inetdog]

That said, on this site, if you edit your post to make a correction, you almost always get your posts thrown into moderation which is very annoying and makes you think twice before making a correction

I know why they do that, but may be it could be made less annoying if the correction detection was smarter. I can understand if you add a link to the post, but it does not need to freak out if you make spelling or grammar corrections.
It could also disable that check for people with enough posting history.

My 2 cents

As far as I know it is not deliberate. If you can provide more information in a new thread in the General section of the Forum, we can try to track this down and improve things. I have never seen this happen myself, but as a Moderator I might not be subject to some obscure rule.

PS: This line was edited in without any problems.

[scrambler]

As far as I know it is not deliberate. If you can provide more information in a new thread in the General section of the Forum, we can try to track this down and improve things. I have never seen this happen myself, but as a Moderator I might not be subject to some obscure rule.

PS: This line was edited in without any problems.

In my early days on the forum, it was systematic, so there is definitely some automated rule at play.

Now it is less frequent, but it still happens, sometimes not on the first edits but on succeeding ones

I will attempt to do several edits on this one and see if that happens.
Of course now it seems to work...

I did three edits so far, make it four, makes me wonder if it depends on the edits, who knows. Next time it happens I will try to flag it afterwards

[scrambler]

Well, it did take a number of edits, but it finally threw the post in moderation. You cant see it right now, but it will appear once it has been cleared.
The post has Today 06:43 PM #27 Unapproved at the top

Mod edit: As of 5:26 PDT I do not see it waiting for approval, nor as approved. It seems to have disappeared?

[inetdog]

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 ?

This corresponds to the rare situation where the utility insists that the PV connection be upstream of your consumption meter, with its own revenue grade meter to count up your production. They would then charge you full timed price for your consumption and pay you provider rate for your production. This is far different from Net Metering and can only be required by POCO in states that do not have Net Metering laws.

Well, not quite. Your exact analogy is perhaps a little ambiguous about "whatever he saved". If you really mean whatever he saved, you could not do that without knowing the instantaneous time correlation between production and consumption. So instead he credits you with whatever he would pay a bulk power provider at its gateway to his system. Which seems pretty unfair.

As currently implemented in most places Net Metering amounts to requiring POCO to store your excess production at no cost to you and deliver it back whenever you want it. Which is also unfair.

[SunEagle]

Well, it did take a number of edits, but it finally threw the post in moderation. You cant see it right now, but it will appear once it has been cleared.
The post has Today 06:43 PM #27 Unapproved at the top

It is now cleared