Florida Power & Light : Customer had to pay more for energy because of Home Solar

[SunEagle]

Sorry, but at least here where I live in Florida, we are already getting hist for those infrastructure additions. Higher than average tax rates on new homes (Florida has a very strange property tax schedule), AND, an huge "impact fee" on new construction. That impact fee, if you call your county and ask what it's for, is specifically to pay your portion of infrastructure need increases. Road signage, sewer, water, and electric. So, you are missing the option of "Tax new construction." --- which is already being done.

Unfortunately "impact fees" and "real estate" taxes really does not cover or pay for the Electric Utility infrastructure. It covers those utilities provided to you by the town and county like; roads, schools, fire, police, sewer and maybe water.

The POCO still needs to maintain their infrastructure and the money to do that comes from part of what they charge you per kWh used. If you use less (it doesn't matter if you have pv or just turn off your loads) the POCO gets less to maintain the infrastructure you use. That can lead to higher electric rates if the POCO shows it's needs to the PUC so then everyone "pays" a little more to cover the loss that pv system owners (or low users) don't pay for.

I remember when we had a "water use" restriction due to a drought. Most people lowered the amount of water they used so then the Water Utility cried it was not getting enough to maintain their city water system so the rates went up. How fair is that? Use less to help out and pay more to help them.

This is also no different then the part of the cost of gasoline tax is used to maintain the roadways. People who own an EV don't pay this tax so the roadway maintenance fund is smaller yet the roadway usage does not go down.

So to answer your question. FP&L is correct when they say that non solar owners (or heavy users) are paying more (whatever that amount is) to help maintain the power infrastructure. But in the end their claim is really nothing more than a reason to justify a rate increase. It will be up to the PUC to determine if they get one and how much they get.

[thastinger]

If your amortized cost to produce from your array is .15 Kwh, you can buy it for .11 from the POCO and you can sell it for .085 to the POCO why do you have it and what would you like smarter people to do in order to help you recover some of the cost of your bad investment? I have to assume that you knew all this upon installation, so the only remaining reasons to install your array would be for a. reducing your consumption from the grid b. future planning for carbon taxes etc.

I'd just consider the price difference as part of plan a or b.

[inetdog]

Personally, I am very angry! My cost to produce 1kWh is $4.50 (equipment and installation amortized over a 20 year expected life). FPL buys power from me at $0.085/kWh. Of that, 1/3 is for fossile fuel costs, and on top of an service and storm charge.

You either have a typo or a miscalculation here, or else you have been royally swindled by the person who installed your GTI system. (If you have a battery system, you have screwed yourself).

The typical amortized cost for solar PV, based on an typical installed cost of $3-5 per kW of capacity, is under $.15 per kWh. If it were not, nobody would be installing it.

You first need to calculate how many kWh your system produces per day. For example a 3kW (size of panel array) system in a location with an average solar hour count over the year of 4 hours will produce 12kWh per day.
Multiply that times 365 and then by 20 to get the total number of kWh produced over the life of the system.
In this example that would be 87,600 kWh. So, by your cost of $4.50 per kWh, that system would cost $394,200. I doubt that anyone in their right mind would pay that.

A more common actual cost for such a system, before any rebates or tax credits, would be $12,000. That would work out to a cost per kWh of $.1396. Once you include Federal tax credits and local rebates the price is much lower.
And even if it still more than the $0.085 they are paying you, the majority of your production will instead go to offset what you would have paid POCO for what you use, and that is hopefully more than 8.5 cents per kWh.

It is a good illustration that it does not usually pay to size the system to more than offset your annual power bill, and a good reminder that Net Metering will get you a better return than full consumption billing and limited payment for each month (or day) overproduction.

[Ian S]

Based on APS' own almost certainly inflated cost numbers, it appears that their solar customer base adds a little north of a buck a month to each non-solar customer's bill in Arizona. I'm skeptical that APS put forward a balanced evaluation of the benefits of solar so I expect that the true cost - if there really is any - is actually significantly lower.

[DanKegel]

There are no easy answers.

True!

Best we can hope for is to find the lightest touch that nudges industry and users in a direction that won't cause ruin down the line.

[jflorey2]

Like I said, it depends on the timescale. If you think long term, then burning carbon-based fuels may be much more expensive than you think, and those neighbors who keep burning fossil fuels may be costing solar users quite a bit of money.

Yep. And if you think long-term, then advocating for solar in the US may be far more expensive than you think. If higher power prices for typical customers drive industry to other countries, then in the mid term our economy (and the planet) will likely suffer as industry moves to locations with dirtier, cheaper power.

There are no easy answers.

[DanKegel]

But in any case that's not the issue. The issue, right now, is that utilities have to pay for the stuff they install.

Like I said, it depends on the timescale. If you think long term, then burning carbon-based fuels may be much more expensive than you think, and those neighbors who keep burning fossil fuels may be costing solar users quite a bit of money.

[jflorey2]

Depends on the timescale. Neighbors who continue using fossil-fuel-based electricity may be partially responsible for, say, extreme weather and flood damages, and those can be very expensive indeed.

Solar users are also responsible for those things. A system with a lot of solar generation has to run peakers more often, and peakers are generally much dirtier power plants than the combined-cycle baseload plants that are designed to run 24/7.

But in any case that's not the issue. The issue, right now, is that utilities have to pay for the stuff they install. Much larger issues (like will climate change make our grandkids have to use more power, or will India overtake us economically unless we have cheap power) are better dealt with at a higher level, like the government. If you want to add a "CO2 climate change surcharge" to everyone's power bill, then get a law passed to do that. That way it applies to all POCO's (and customers) equally.

[DanKegel]

It has nothing to do with climate change.

Depends on the timescale. Neighbors who continue using fossil-fuel-based electricity
may be partially responsible for, say, extreme weather and flood damages,
and those can be very expensive indeed.

[jflorey2]

Sorry, but at least here where I live in Florida, we are already getting hist for those infrastructure additions. Higher than average tax rates on new homes (Florida has a very strange property tax schedule), AND, an huge "impact fee" on new construction. That impact fee, if you call your county and ask what it's for, is specifically to pay your portion of infrastructure need increases. Road signage, sewer, water, and electric. So, you are missing the option of "Tax new construction." --- which is already being done.

Taxes, in general, do not take into account the extra costs that solar energy adds to infrastructure buildout for utilities. However, I agree that you can just up taxes for new construction. (Same issue though - do you tax solar homes at a higher rate? Or just increase everyone's taxes?)

[lkruper]

Sorry, the context of the thread may have been lost on my last post. The question is "Am I putting an extra financial burden on my neighbors because I installed solar panels and am net metering?" My last post about impact fees was my response to the proposal that the infrastructure set up the grid to handle my home energy needs was burdened by others. My point was, no, I paid the impact fee and pay above average property taxes just like all of my neighbors. Nothing special was granted or given to me on that account.

I misunderstood your point. Any don't get me wrong, I have no agenda or firmly held belief on this subject and want to hear both sides. At this point I do believe that if someone sells electricity to the utility for more than the utility would need to spend, that those who don't have solar are picking up the difference. Whether that is right or wrong or good or bad is not something I am addressing.

[rpenoyer]

Well, you probably want electricity even when the sun does not shine and at night, right

Sorry, the context of the thread may have been lost on my last post. The question is "Am I putting an extra financial burden on my neighbors because I installed solar panels and am net metering?" My last post about impact fees was my response to the proposal that the infrastructure set up the grid to handle my home energy needs was burdened by others. My point was, no, I paid the impact fee and pay above average property taxes just like all of my neighbors. Nothing special was granted or given to me on that account.

[lkruper]

Sorry, but at least here where I live in Florida, we are already getting hist for those infrastructure additions. Higher than average tax rates on new homes (Florida has a very strange property tax schedule), AND, an huge "impact fee" on new construction. That impact fee, if you call your county and ask what it's for, is specifically to pay your portion of infrastructure need increases. Road signage, sewer, water, and electric. So, you are missing the option of "Tax new construction." --- which is already being done.

Well, you probably want electricity even when the sun does not shine and at night, right

[rpenoyer]

But let's say a developer opens a huge new housing development. Every single house has solar that will cover 100% of their use under net metering. Environmentalists celebrate. But the utility now has a problem. They have to, by law, provide electrical service to these homes. They need new transmission lines, transformers, circuit protection devices, monitors etc. They may even have to start building new generators. But they are going to make almost no money off these new homes due to the net metering laws. And in fact they may have to install MORE infrastructure than they normally would, since solar maximum power is going to be the same for all the people in that development - so power will peak all at the same time, which is worst-case from an infrastructure design standpoint.

So what do they do? They have three choices:
-Eat the loss and continue to do so until they go bankrupt. (Would take a lot of solar to do that, but we're installing a lot of solar.)
-Increase rates on people who use solar power
-Increase rates on people who don't use solar power

Sorry, but at least here where I live in Florida, we are already getting hist for those infrastructure additions. Higher than average tax rates on new homes (Florida has a very strange property tax schedule), AND, an huge "impact fee" on new construction. That impact fee, if you call your county and ask what it's for, is specifically to pay your portion of infrastructure need increases. Road signage, sewer, water, and electric. So, you are missing the option of "Tax new construction." --- which is already being done.

[jflorey2]

I think the answer depends on whether you think climate change caused by co2 emissions (aka AGW) is an urgent problem.

It has nothing to do with climate change.

A utility incurs costs in providing power to people. Their pricing structure is designed to allow them to provide energy while making some money. (Usually not a lot; public utilities are scrutinized pretty carefully when it comes to rate hikes, expenses etc.) Depending on their business model their costs may include fuel, generator fees, infrastructure, insurance etc. Their income is via their tariffs.

If one guy puts solar on his roof, then not much changes from the utility's perspective. Under net metering laws they don't get as much money from him, but it's a drop in the bucket.

But let's say a developer opens a huge new housing development. Every single house has solar that will cover 100% of their use under net metering. Environmentalists celebrate. But the utility now has a problem. They have to, by law, provide electrical service to these homes. They need new transmission lines, transformers, circuit protection devices, monitors etc. They may even have to start building new generators. But they are going to make almost no money off these new homes due to the net metering laws. And in fact they may have to install MORE infrastructure than they normally would, since solar maximum power is going to be the same for all the people in that development - so power will peak all at the same time, which is worst-case from an infrastructure design standpoint.

So what do they do? They have three choices:
-Eat the loss and continue to do so until they go bankrupt. (Would take a lot of solar to do that, but we're installing a lot of solar.)
-Increase rates on people who use solar power
-Increase rates on people who don't use solar power

What's fair? Solar owners will tend to say "increase everyone else's rates; I am being virtuous!" Non-solar owners will tend to say "I didn't ask these people to install solar; why am I being fined because of their decisions?" (Actually both will say "I don't care as long as you don't raise my rates" but that's not very useful in terms of making the above decision.)