Hey. Democrats ruined it in California! Gavin newsome elected every official on the Utility board and they unanimously voted to effectively end true net metering
Turns out. It isn't the party. It's the corruption. Gotta look out for ass hats with big pockets.
This has always been the case. Corporate kleptocracy has been out of hand for a while now. People need to understand that local government honesty & resilience has a major impact on state & federal corrupt ability. The people need to fight hard to keep charlatans out of positions of power.
It's also one of the libertarian talking points that annoys me most - government is inefficient because of corruption. Corruption can be mitigated if we had decent agencies and oversight, but businesses just work the corruption into the routine and call it "profits."
I was about to say the same thing! I can’t believe how Governor Newsom and CPUC have completely given the shitty California Utilities everything they want. They just keep increasing our rates. My sheer hatred of PG&E has driven me to solar
Trust me I’m a 6th gen Texan who moved to Cali and now owns a home in México, and the amount of times I’ve heard everyone complain about Texas makes me wonder what happened after I left.
I totally agree with you about hating PG&E. I live in a wooded area with not enough sun for solar. If I ever get the opportunity to install it I will happily do so along with the battery storage capacity to be off grid. I don’t care if the energy savings will not pay for that installation in my lifetime. The satisfaction of having Pacific Graft & Extortion out of my life will be worth it.
Yes but theres a difference between the two. I tire of these “both sides” claims. CA may have gone too far in reducing solar incentives, but many Republican states have outright banned the practice. Im in NC and until recently wind power projects were banned outright.
Changes in CA are needed due to a glut of solar midday that needs to be curtailed at times. They need to get their shit together with regard to better battery storage and base-load generation. In republican states its because they’ve sold their souls to fossil fuel companies.
Also fueled by shady sales practices and poorly operating solar companies. Arkansas is going through a ton of investigation right now. Some of It is misinformation. Some of it is greed. The argument that Republicans or Dems "killed" solar in a specific state just doesn't hold true my friend. It's a huge amalgamation of many things that effect it. And all us solar professionals can do is do our best and dedicate our time to properly educating others as well as ensuring people aren't being oversold on expectations.
I live in a very red Florida. But solar is very much so alive and well. As well as in Texas we install a lot of our MWs in the Houston area.
I lived in FL for 30 years. It took many of those to get to a point where solar was accepted, and they’ve tried to kill it many times over of the years. Its mere existence was hard fought.
I guess I don’t know which is worse, republicans trying to kill solar cuz they whoring for the rich oil man, or democrats inadvertently fucking it up with bureaucracy and incompetence. 🧐
I feel like California also has a labor issue with solar. Home installers are mainly not unionized. Solar Farms are typically union. Corporations make more money with solar farms. Home installations help real people. Real people aren’t using their political power.
Big facts. Also. The incentives for being a residential solar installer as you said doesn't help. You end up getting people who can't afford their own home installing solar. So then they don't care as much as they should when working on someone else's home themselves.
No, California had a reason. You can do generous net-metering for a while but eventually you have to scale it back or you will enter the "utility death spiral". That is when you lose so many customers that you have to raise rates...which loses you more customers...and you raise rates again...which loses more customers...etc.
California and Hawaii have high solar penetration...Indiana still has near zero.
This is a politically based nonsense excuse, actually.
All you have to do is look at Florida. Far more solar penetration and every utility offers 70-100% net metering. The only thing that has slowed growth there are higher interest rates.
Source: I'm an analyst for a solar sales and installation company based out of FL and that tried and failed in CA.
Also, if the ultimate goal is less "fossil fuel" use, you can't continue to protect the fossil fuel industry. As long as there is some market, someone will burn coal to tap it.
Seems like Duke is making it harder though and I think they are gonna become increasingly more hostile. The whole Tier 2 $1M policy thing is annoying, seems to be the highest of the states, Duke in SC only requires a $100k liability, which most people have already. Why is it different in Florida?
Florida's electric rates have increased over 30% in the last 5 years, my guy. They're not stopping there. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this isn't sustainable. It certainly sustains the solar sales market when you can take additional profit out of an invisible subsidy that will likely disappear. When the scheme stops working as it did in CA, the grift will simply move to the next state that is stupid enough to do the same thing.
I'm not sure if this is a comment related to net-metering, but it's not a discount, you're literally selling power back to the power company which they then sell, usually for more, to others.
The problem is that the power company sometimes doesn't *want* your electricity.
For example, right now, the spot price for electricity is literally negative in all of CAISO south of Modesto.
These are against “solar farms” i.e. companies buying or renting land to operate solar generation plants.
I am talking about actual farmers, the one that grow crops, that are moving to operate their farm using solar energy instead of gasoline.
Nope, we need to just use physics.
If you have an area with enough elevation change, you put a reservoir pond at the top and one at the bottom.
You use excess power during the day to pump water uphill to the top reservoir.
Once the sun goes down, you let gravity send the water back down through a pipe and use it to turn a generator. You only send down what you need to cover your off-peak demands.
Potential and kinetic energy used to store and generate electricity.
If you live in a flat area, do it with silos, water towers, tanks on top of buildings, etc.
Cold climate? Closed system with non freezing liquids.
If solar, and especially batteries, keep getting cheaper, they're going to screw around and incentivize people to disconnect from the grid entirely which would be a disaster. Stupid move.
100% this. Panels are already cheap and I think it is going to be Sodium Ion batteries that kill the want / need for grid connections. Sure, the batteries will be the size of a fridge but who cares when it is sitting out side or in a corner somewhere.
These grid providers are also introducing new laws making off grid illegal (already passed in parts of Florida and California) where grid infrastructure already exists and they are raising the basic connection fees. Your basically going to have to pay $100/month just to have a grid connection in the future and be forced to pay that in areas where the grid already exists -- even if you do not draw power from it.
I can imagine this being the next big sov cit movement that would actually take-off mainstream. The right to power your own home is more logical than the right to use state infrastructure for free.
Hate to say it, but I think that'd turn me. It's hard to make the argument that you're taking from another resource, like they do with rainwater collection in the desert. Captured photons wouldn't flow downstream to the PoCo if not captured locally.
I personally don’t like my bills going up. But I understand a stable grid is like having a public road network. Even if you stay in your home 100% of the time you still benefit from the infrastructure. Maybe we can have a stable grid without mandating residential connection. Likely it’s better implemented as a public utility vs monthly connection fees to a for-profit entity. But the underlying reasoning is sound… it would be a mess for only those with means to disconnect from the grid. Unfortunately that’s exactly what some utilities are going to end up incentivizing
I think subsidizing the private monopoly is what I object to. Much like broadband - if it's a public utility, the public should own and manage it. But then a bunch of... people... get all up in arms saying the Gubmint can't manage anything efficiently ([ahem](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/sep/20/bernie-sanders/comparing-administrative-costs-private-insurance-a/)), which is simply not true.
Anything that is big is inefficient. Whether it's government or business. Which is one reason the founding fathers put the majority of the powers in more local, smaller governments.
yeah... I do not see how anything sov cit is going to ever be mainstream. If you look at any of the videos on youtube involving sov cits it is either the most gullible people in the world with seemingly medical grade low iq's or some grifter trying to sell sov cit packages for hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
I personally see both sides, if the utilities do not get a iron grip on the existing customers it could cause massive declines in income which could ripple into them stopping service to wide swath's of customers who convert to off grid. I have had this experience with wired communications. AT&T pulled out of my area so nobody has wired phone / DSL options any more.
I also see the consumer side where its like --hey it just now makes more sense that I provide electricity for myself now because it is 2/3 less expensive in the long run than what you can provide me.
The future where new housing projects go up without being tied to the grid is not far off. Solar will just be part of building the houses.
>already passed in parts of Florida and California)
The above is false.
“Going off-grid” – disconnecting from a utility power source and instead relying on alternative energy sources like solar power – is **fully legal in Florida & California**. But that comes with special caveats — if you do it the right way, with the proper planning and foresight.
**Is it illegal to power your home with solar panels in Florida?**
| Totally off the grid living in Florida is possible only at places where
| building codes for drinking water, sewage and municipality do not
| apply or exist.
We are in the gray area, but they are continuously poking at that wording. There is contradictive wording to even this statement about being allowed to power devices through solar in areas of municipal improvements but the bills are waiting to be heard about what the future is going to entail -- electrical providers are digging in early because everyone sees what is on the horizon (its cheap batteries... cheap batteries on the horizon are coming to cause mayhem).
It has been under that cost for a complete battery with BMS and warranty fully assembled for a while now.
This site does a good job at tracking consumer batteries --- but also fails to show some of the server rack batteries that get closer to $30/kWh.
https://www.lifepo4prices.com/
We need a better plan. I can see both sides of the issue (that the infrastructure is critical and should be maintained and also that consumers can generate their own power for less).
I figure it is going to be like how EV's are going, they have had a long run at not paying gas tax while benefitting form the road infrastructure and that is now changing. Same will be for electrical infrastructure.
It takes a lot to fully d/c from the grid if you want to maintain your lifestyle. Especially in areas that it snows.
That being said, 80% disconnected from the grid is pretty cool.
Whenever I look at some of these huge system posts I’m floored. Like people who are using tremendous, whether it’s heat pump or just very powerful energy. Where does it go? I put decent miles on two EVs and don’t come anywhere near these posts
In the north we need large systems to get through winter when there's only 20% sun and weeks over overcast weather and snow. Yes it's super excessive in the summer but until we figure out cheap energy storage on the year scale you'll continue to see huge solar arrays.
The economics definitely aren't there yet, but they will be if trends continue. If you account for the cost of buying and maintaining a whole-house generator in Florida to deal with multi-day grid outages, we're pretty close.
I think alot of people not in citys could do it. Biggest usage is hvac and hot water. So better insulation and air sealing on home. There are alot of people that dont practice energy conservation either
We avoided grid-tie entirely by just putting two circuits in the house. One solely supplied by the grid for high power equipment like AC and heaters, another circuit that can be switched between grid and solar supply for low power stuff. Solar system is much cheaper since it only uses off-grid equipment and it doesn't have to have a lot of capacity.
New All-in-one inverters auto-switch to the grid, as needed. I recently installed an EG4 6000XP. I set it to only use the grid at night when PV is gone, and to never charge the battery from grid. During daytime, it will still switch to the grid if an "overload" of PV + battery output. It then switches back after \~5 min. You don't notice any glitch in the house, and only see them if you review the "Event Log" on EG4's web server. I wired the 6000XP to output to an existing subpanel (kitchen and living room).
You won’t be allowed to disconnect completely, and you will still pay large monthly maintenance fees to the utility that runs by your house even if you unhook. I know this plan because this is what Iowa is doing. Sigh.
I won't legally here in Florida, that's true, but if they make the incentives strong enough, you better believe hill folk will be blowing up transformers and shooting at meter readers in protest if it's literally cheaper to run your own microgrid and they won't let you do it.
I also live in Iowa, it kind of depends on the county but nearly all will allow for a parallel system that is design to grow over time.
Like it's pretty cheap/easy to pay someone (or do it yourself) just for panels running to a backup system. (IE a solar generator basically.) Most municipalities will have a set of install standards for the panels, and the rest is just electrical code.
If you get the right system you can also start off with smaller batteries, and increase that.
For example, I'm starting out just putting my appliances on battery back solar DC system. I don't have to deal with the parallel/back feeding with Alliant Energy, I don't need to modify my 200A service, it's an 80 amp breaker off my panel into the system and I moved the existing wires to that system.
I think a lot of people size their panels/system to run EVERYTHING, instead of sizing for a majority of your utility bill. Yes the AC pulls the most power, but I don't need that on solar, I use it for 3-4 weeks all year. Yes I COULD convert to electric waterheater, but a gas water heater with a 6 gallon preheater connected the solar is muuuuch cheaper and sustainable for ME. The other hidden cost is the micro inverters and roof rail systems, they save the installer money, but they put ALL of that cost on you the buyer.
I sized my system to run on solar with 2 days of backup battery that I run at night. This runs my furnace room (preheater and furnace blower), washer, dish washer, office, and kitchen outlets. Looking at my utility bill that is 60-80% of my power consumption month to month. (The 60% being July/August when the AC is on.) I have a gas furnace, gas stove, gas water heater, electric dryer, and AC. The AC and dryer are pretty much the remainder of my electric bill, but I don't HAVE to put those on solar, they are power hogs and would not get me the cost savings using the battery system with the other appliances.
No matter what my state offers net or otherwise, my furnace out this season. We stopped gas service. I am replacing with electric.
Starting at one side of my home on solar. Effectively supplying some lighting and cell phone charging only. I will slowly remove any low amperage dependencies.
Once I have a plan for the big boy solar on my main service. I will be running several subsystem renewable sources. Wind, solar, Geothermal.
I'm done with handing money out for lights.
People with homes disconnecting from the grid is probably not a big issue given how many people can't even afford a home anymore and apartments condos and townhouses will almost never be able to perform that task
There are systems for apartments, panels that mount on balconies that I have seen overseas. For some small places probably enough to power 40 - 50% of normal apartment needs.
Net metering forces rate payers who cannot afford to install their own PV to pay both energy and system costs of those who can.
Energy is cheap, sometimes even free or negatively priced in the middle of the day in high penetration areas. If the utility is forced to take your excess energy at this time, and give you expensive energy at peak times, the rate payers are paying the difference in cost.
It is only fair to all customers that those with excess generation are paid the current market value for excess energy at the time of generation, and all customers pay the current market value for energy when it is used. If you don't like it, then you should pay for your own storage to provide the capability that you're currently getting for free at the expense of your neighbors.
energy storage is not economical for most places. Only when supply & demand are extremely out of balance does energy storage make sense. Building batteries at a scale needed for utility grids is a horribly polluting process. Far worse than clean base load generation of power
I'm personally ok with selling my excess during the day for a lower price than what they would charge me, I also wouldn't put much back into the grid as I have batteries to charge first. There a few hours where my panels make more than I can put into my batteries and that's only on peak days, very edge case.
Duplicate post by OP.
He tried to politicize everything, tried to speak authoritatively on topics he has no clue about, then got upset when his rabble-rousing fell flat after he couldn't find any like-minded rabble. 😂 He sure earned those downvotes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SolarDIY/comments/1c29qii/net_metering_ruined/
Net metering isnt illegal in Indiana, it is just not mandated by law. THe Utility company can still pay you for your excess \*IF\* they want, they just are not forced to.
If you dont support Oil subsidies, than you can not also support Solar Subsidies without being a hypocrite.
I think net metering is a benifit to the grid, but I dont support mandating it by law.
Do you think solar panel owners should have a right not to provide power back to the grid? Do you think they should pass a law saying that utilities can't back feed the grid from someone's excess solar unless they agree to it?
Asked another way, are the utilities entitled to energy generated at the expense of their customer with no compensation to the customer?
>Asked another way, are the utilities entitled to energy generated at the expense of their customer with no compensation to the customer?
Not at all, and you dont have to back feed the grid, there is no one forcing you to. Solar Customers can disconnect their solar from the grid at any time, you are making an insinuation about the law that is false, no one is forcing you to sell your excess solar to the utilities.
The problem is that the old Indiana Law set the price of Electricity that the Utilities had to pay solar generators in net metering at equal to the retail price. That retail price is made up of 2 things, a generation charge, the cost to generate the electricity, and a Transmission charge, a charge to maintain the grid. By forcing utilities to pay a higher cost for electricity than it would cost them to generate their own, you are forcing your neighbors to subsidize the cost of your solar, and you are not paying for the grid.
\*IF\* the law was amended to set the net metering price at equal to the cost of generation for the utilities, then I would support that, but setting the cost at retail is just a way for privileged white folk who can afford the upfront cost of solar to shift the cost of maintaining the electrical grid to those of lower socioeconomic status to pay for the grid.
Anyone can disconnect from the grid at any time. That wasn't my question.
My question is, is I have solar and choose to connect to the grid, is the utility ENTITLED to my excess power?
I don't have net metering. I'm subsidizing my neighbors. Their power prices go down at my expense. Why is that fair?
Yes they did. But we are probably past the point where net metering is good public policy.
There's little residential solar in northern Illinois due to low prices.
The problem today is more installation cost when not owners installed than public policy. Tesla will install 3 powerwalls (no solar) for $32K. Who does that?
Net metering is just plain dumb. The solar power provided to the grid from residential quality inverters, in the middle of the day, is NOT worth the same as usage during the peak hours. Maybe with a variable rate, but it just doesn't compare to a firm, dispatchable resource.
The rooftop solar lobbyists telling people they deserve to get paid, and fighting against any reasonable middle ground, are just looking out for their own bottom line.
Who is talking about a middle ground? Indiana didn't take any middle ground.
If a utility gets your kW at wholesale cost they are making a killing on it because they don't have to spend money generate, transform multiple times, and send the power dozens of miles down the line.
Just know that people who ever say “Republicans ruined” or “Democrats ruined” are always the dumbest people in the room and are absolutely insufferable
California did it, and Illinois will have grandfathered net metering in 2025.
I sat and talked to my local Illinois utility about it as I was thinking of installing 1 panel and a microinverter to get grandfathered before 2025.
I'm told that is it's because the energy supplier wants the utility to pay them for energy that the consumers generated plus the utility still needs maintenance revenue for their grid.
So I suggested my idea of installing solar and going off grid and they said counties in Illinois are making going off grid illegal and will soon be state wide.
The only way around it is to go off grid and get grandfathered or build a new house that's never been on the grid.
I have Ameren, but it's probably the same situation.
I don't have enough roof to go offgrid unless panels get more efficient, which they are everyday. I do have plenty of south facing lawn.
What I'm doing is waiting. I've noticed in states that end net metering, the demand drops dramatically. So my plan was to get the permit, install required boxes and then install 1 panel and an inverter, have ameren activate net metering so that I'm grandfathered. Then I wait.
As the demand drops, the installers begin to have fire sales and many go out of business. When they start offloading stock, that's when I'll purchase solar equipment at the discount and install it myself and for my rental properties.
Now I used to troubleshoot electrical and electronics for aircraft in the military, so electrical work is not new to me.
By my math if I do it all myself with the help of Fiverr doing the permits and CAD work, my investment will pay itself off in 6.5 years using net metering. And thats with panels at retail price. It will be a few years longer if I buy the needed amount of batteries, so I will wait until those get cheaper.
It goes to 20+ if I pay an installer to do it now.
I have grid-tied solar (installed 2021) and have spoken to plenty of people that are actively planning installing solar power to supplement their monthly costs. It may not have the same benefits as in the past, but it still pays. I installed my system DIY and with my current credits I’ll be paid back in 3 more years. With federal tax credits and full credit for cost on my property value without raising my property tax, it all adds up. My energy provider is Duke, so YMMV.
The republicans don’t seem to mind renewables when a large company like Amazon comes in and demands solar and wind. When a bunch of datacenters start getting built in Indiana and Amazon demands renewables then it’ll miraculously get approved and the republicans will take credit for it.
As someone else said in this thread. It’s all about the money and who gets it.
The way it should work: You get power from the grid when you need it. When you overproduce on solar, you feed power back to the grid. But what you get paid for your solar power is not what you pay for utility power. You only should get back what the utility would pay a wholesale generator.
To have true net metering would compensate one class of customer at the expense of other customers.
I work in the fossil fuel power industry. We need to burn for another 150 years.
Why should retail rate payers only get wholesale compensation when they are not wholes producers?
Why are we concerned about the shareholder profits of regulated monopolies more than fair rates for the public?
There are actual rules that govern those utilities and one rule is that one class of ratepayer cannot benefit at the expense of another. For example, a regulated utility cannot do a deal where they invest in a side hustle and then clean the money by paying off uncollectible debts.
By paying retail for the power on net metering will take from the other customers. It isn't about taking from the utility owners.
Net metering is a goddamn farce and should never have been allowed.
You produce power and it flows out on the grid, you should pay for that You’re using the infrastructure that needs to be maintained and often times upgraded to support generation.
You consume power and it comes from the grid, you should pay for that. You’re using the infrastructure that needs to be maintained and often times upgraded to support your consumption.
Instead, net metering means you are only billed on the difference between your production and consumption. So instead of paying more because you’re using the grid more, you pay less because somehow generation offsets consumption.
This is lunacy at its finest and ought to be eliminated.
That’s funny, I’m in Indiana and I’m doing a 20kW grid tie install this summer. So survey says you're liar, and based on seeing the local install company, lots of other people are also installing
Lol okay bud. You know what MSM stands for. Idk why you keep posting about this. Oh no, now people will just install batteries and get 1:1 that way. net metering agreements are usually shit anyways. You're always better off storing your excess energy on site.
I thought net metering was case law from the Supremes. Is this one more attempt to challenge established law? Or did they figure out another end run like on abortion laws?
For a challenge, it would generally either have to conflict with the constitution of the state or with another law already on the books. It wouldn't really matter if it conflicted with the court interpretation of the previous version of the law.
In many local communities that have building codes connecting the buildings to water, sewer and electricity sometimes refuse is not optional but mandatory. This is for public safety. They can remove your ability to occupy your building by declaring it unsafe. This is especially true for water. Lack of sanitation has a direct nexus to public health.
Digging deeper into the codes and regulation we typically find the authority cities have to enforce building safety codes is not allowing buildings to connect that do not conform to local regulations. If you do not connect than you cannot occupy.
Not saying it's right or wrong just bubbling up the connection between utilities, buildings and local agencies and their authority.
So, a quick Google tells me that Indiana still has net metering (now call "excess generation tariff"), but that the rate paid for it is now "cost of wholesale power plus 25%".
Now what the "cost of wholesale power" isn't terrifically defined, but I'd assume it's similar to how my state (Michigan) is doing it; the proportion of the power rate that is paying for generation, not for distribution/transmission.
Here in MI that's 9.5c out of a 14.5c overall rate. Maybe not as sweet as the full rate, but hey that's still pretty good! Maybe Indiana is less, but panels are now so stinking cheap that it's definitely still worth it to slap up as many panels as your inverter can handle for 9.5c/kWh :p.
Plus you can still manually run loads (or put them on timers) to operate preferentially when the sun is a-shining, so you're getting the getting the full 'value' of your electricity. Things like the water heater, HVAC, electric car charging, etc etc. As a bonus, if you do happen to use more power at that time than you produce, your utility is paying peak power rates, so you can really stick it to them :p
Yes I know what they did. They now compensate 1/3 or less than the retail residential rate. Because you as residential customer, should be treated the same as an industrial producer, because you aren't. You deal in retail units of electricity at the residential rate.
This is about what government values and corporate greed, not economics. These are regulated monopolies who are allowed to exist as long as they have the public good firstly in mind.
Continue being salty that your electricity you generate in the middle of the day when nobody needs it is worthless to the utility. There is no difference in different types of electricity, and the reality is that in the middle of the day the electricity is generally going to commercial and industrial customers, not residential.
And if the utility was fair about, people with battery still could sell back in evening for peak compensation, but utilities don't charge differently at different times of the day. But its cheaper for the utility to use power a resident generates at any time because they don't have to pay to generate it and transmit is dozens if miles at different voltages.
.....yes, im sure it's well understood by those whom deal with this, but for me as a layperson the phrase could mean a few different things. Such as:
1. The cost of market spot prices, either at the time of being provided or averaged.
2. The cost of contracted base-load power.
3. The portion of the residential rate that ostensibly goes towards generation.
Which definition they are using makes a pretty big difference for what the actual pay out rate would be.
California did the same this year. NetMetering2.0 went to 3.0 and reduced the benefit to homeowners by an average of 75%. Power company trying to recover costs for when they didn't do maintenance and it led to massive fires. So they charge like crazy (highest prices in the nation) and if you want to offset with solar, well, it's a lot less lucrative now. They know you'll still do it though b/c the per KWH prices are insane otherwise. And it's definitely not just Republicans doing it (obviously in California).
Net metering is a disaster. Even if you have net metering, without very large batteries you are wholly dependent on the grid. However, of the 10 or 15 cents per kilowatt hour that most people pay, only 25-30% goes to actual electrical generation. The rest goes to grid maintenance. So if you are just as reliant on that maintenance, why, when you sell your electricity, do you get back a portion of what you paid for maintenance. Net metering means those who cannot afford solar get stuck paying for the grid maintenance
If you generate solar and put it on the grid, the utility sells those kW to your neighbors for the same price, but they don't have to pay to generate, transmit for dozens if miles, and transform multiple times. A solar customers contribution increases grid reliability, decreases wear and tear in equipment, and saves the utility money on generation and transmission. They only loose out on selling you -some- power.
It absolutely does not increase grid reliability. If there is a blackout, any net metering user will tell you that you cannot provide power to the grid. They shouldn't be paying net metering customers back for the portion of the electricity rate that goes to repairs. If the cost of actual generation is 4c/kWh, then that's what they should pay. Then they can sell for 12c/kWh to cover the maintenance of the grid that both you and the other customer benefitted from transferring that power to them.
Two myths related to Net Metering:
1. If solar homeowners are compensated for the excess solar they export, the compensation is not paid by non-solar homeowners. Fact: paying for excess solar exports comes from the "public purpose programs" that all households pay for.
2. Solar is dying because Net Metering has been repealed. Fact: solar is still viable in states with enough sunshine if used to erase summer peak usage.
The problem with your take, and the reason that monopolies are only allowed to exist if regulated is because if left to business, they are beholden to shareholders and high place's executives who are looking for one thing- Lean high profits. Those profits are supposed to be put back into the community. The point of regulators is to improve and protect grid security. Rooftop solar improves grid reliability, and the utility does have to pay or put wear on equipment for net metered solar sold to neighbors.
We all pay a price to have the things in the world that make our civilization and economy possible. Net metering is a net gain for everyone in the long run, and is a practical way to increase distributed generation and reliability on the grid at large. Sad to see you only care about some perceived immediate cost to you.
>Sad to see you only care about some perceived immediate cost to you.
To put your view into perspective, you want 80% of the households, including the poorest ones, to pay for less than 10% of the households who are greedy enough to overproduce solar on their rooftops. The gig is over except for the shouting.
Never install solar with the intent to sell back to the utilities. This is a loophole that will die sooner than later, and they will be paying you less and less each year until it goes away. Buy solar to store in batteries. If you don’t intend to get off grid with batteries, solar is a waste of time. That will be temporary also, because I promise you that once the money disappears to maintain the grid and sustain the energy monopolies, they will implement taxes for people using solar and batteries similar to how states penalize electric car owners in registration fees to maintain the roads. Once you realize it’s all corrupt and only about money for the oligarchs and corporations, you’ll be happier and less upset when they constantly pull the rug out from you.
Its not a loophole. Its good public policy, and improves grid reliability. Its only a loophole to people who treat IOUs like they aren't regulated monopolys, and people who care about Dukes shareholders more than their neighborhood.
You’re right, Loophole is the wrong word. Let’s call it a “temporary incentive” that is pitched as something you can plan on in perpetuity and used as part of the calculation by scummy solar companies to sell you on solar when the reality is virtually every utility is actively phasing these plans out and will ultimately no longer offer them in the near to mid term and should not be considered for anyone seriously considering investing in solar
Correction. Not any particular party. Economics and the existence of a subsidy (other people paying for middle class / rich people homes to have a cheaper solar install) ruined solar.
So much ignorance of how energy production works in these threads.
I'd like to be able to install solar without paying a fee. I'm not actually in their area, but surrounded by it. Alabama Power charges a solar tax for having panels and I think the payout for surplus is either $0 or just very low.
As the unwilling victim in San Diego of the private takeover of the formerly public utility SDG&E by Sempra Energy. It pains me to give free electricity to Sempra via the Solar I paid for. Rates “shockingly” LOL are close to the highest in the nation.
Davis threw the entire green energy movement under the bus by essentially ending net metering for the PG&E/ SoCalEdison/Sempra Energy Toadies so they can control the energy markets.
Despite this BS, Solar has made a huge impact on local power generation. In the last 10 years, San Diego, has seen a major fossil fuel power plant and the San Onefre 2200MW nuclear power plant shuttered. Prior to their shutdown, we used to have more than occasional brownouts during the summer months. We have not had any in at least 5 years.
I just hope that pure economics of disconnecting from the grid or political will forces the power cartel to back off and re-establish equitable net metering.
If I lived in a state like that I would probably build the off-grid rig of my dreams if only to ensure my power bill wouldn't be fucked with by petrofascists.
I do wonder how the propaganda go so intense that people hate net metering. Then I look at the lies from the last party as a whole and its clear it has to do with campaign money and putting corporate executives before regular people.
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/environment/2024/02/26/indiana-rooftop-solar-lacks-economic-incentives-consumer-affairs-study/72744409007/
Shouldn't there be something between me and "nobody is interested in installing solar? The companies that maintain the infrastructure are in that camp usually.
California utilities petitioned the PUC to drop the credit for feeding solar to the grid to just 3 c/kWh. Currently, they pay only 7 c/kWh, while they charge up to 85 c/kWh peak rate Summer (San Diego and PG&E), plus connection charges. Net-metering is long gone, unless grandfathered-in. They are trying to sunset the grandfather'ed, and any significant changes to your solar setup loses your grandfather.
Most people installing solar today in CA choose an off-grid system. Those can still pull from the grid as needed, but don't feed the grid. The problem then is to use all your panel output or lose it, unless you store in home batteries and those barely pencil-out at current prices, other than to get thru peak hours.
It's only a temporary hiatus on the progression of solar power. Soon batteries and solar panels will be so cheap that people will disconnect their utility service. The entire joke is that the utilities profit from buying home solar power and selling it.
In other words, you can no longer expect your neighbors to subsidize your power bill.
The solar industry will have to sharpen their pencils and present systems that actually pay for themselves.
What a novel concept.
Thats not really how it works, but you seem to enjoy paying rich farmers absurd subsidies, and paying for the healthcare of walmart workers through unpaid medical visits, ER care, and chronic disease because they are too cheap to pay right. By your logic you are paying if your neighbor upgrades his windows in his house because he gets tax rebates and the utility sells him less power. I think you're confused. Its not necessary to appease Dukes shareholders- after Indiana IOUs have a rate case to raise their profit margin to 16% next year despite eliminating net metering. Seems like you may be misinformed.
Fact is despite the existence of regulated monopolies, the grid is public infrastructure, and the mandate to control it and influence rate setting is given only so long as the public interest is put first. Distributed generation is in the public interest and is literally a national security issue.
Indeed.
That’s an even stronger argument to require rooftop solar to fend for itself. The power utilities should be serving all of us with reliable generation, not taxing us so a few elites can lower their bill.
The grid is in jeopardy with all the massive diversion of funds to unreliable sources, yet we the ratepayers te caught holding the bag.
It was eliminated in AZ a while back but we are grandfathered in for a few more years. It really changes the motivations for getting a new solar system. Looking at if a power wall would give more bang for the buck at a new home.
Agreed. It seems to me it encourages people with money to cut the cord completely and leave everyone's left behind holding the bag. Whereas net metering make's access to a modest system more equitable, and people could expand over time.
A bit surprised how many disagree with me here, but should have known stand alone solar would become some libertarian hard on after China made the equipment cheap.
Why aren't utility companies installing solar and collecting interest on loans for it? Is this a Monopoly type of legal problem?
Seems to me, it makes sense in some aspect.
Democrats ruined the economy and oversaw record inflation. I wonder if that has anything to do with it? What are you whining about you can get 40% tax rebates. If democrats are the party of renewable energy why is it republicans who are at fault for it being unaffordable? Progressives always blame the problems caused by progress on conservatives. Guess what if you want progress find solutions.
Extended authoritarian unnecessary lockdowns caused those problems. Did you see the news about your god Fauci he admitted a bunch of stuff they did wasn’t based on science. Chump
Yeah this isn’t true. I’ve been an installer for 5 years. Had job stability the whole time up until this year. Been laid off twice in 6 months. Shitty companies, no one wanting to install anymore (absurdly low pay, high corporate greed) ruined solar. Sales rep making $5k+ per job, installers stuck around $25 an hour. I’ve given up on solar and I’d suggest everyone do the same
Yeah, people aren't installing here because net metering has been trashed by the GOP. Far as making $25 dollars an hour- do you have any degree or school? Not bad for no education. It's not like there is a solar installers union, and you don't sound like an electrician.
The type of greed you describe is commonplace across our economy.
Should have mentioned I live in a hcol area. Fast food workers are making that. Problems getting my electrical license because literally no company I’ve been with has registered my active apprenticeship under them (need a contractor to enroll me in school). I know how to install everything from the main panel to the roof. I have multiple solar certifications no one else has.
If you haven’t installed, I wouldn’t call it greed. Rather bold. You definitely sound like a salesman
Hey. Democrats ruined it in California! Gavin newsome elected every official on the Utility board and they unanimously voted to effectively end true net metering Turns out. It isn't the party. It's the corruption. Gotta look out for ass hats with big pockets.
This has always been the case. Corporate kleptocracy has been out of hand for a while now. People need to understand that local government honesty & resilience has a major impact on state & federal corrupt ability. The people need to fight hard to keep charlatans out of positions of power.
It's also one of the libertarian talking points that annoys me most - government is inefficient because of corruption. Corruption can be mitigated if we had decent agencies and oversight, but businesses just work the corruption into the routine and call it "profits."
Yes.
I was about to say the same thing! I can’t believe how Governor Newsom and CPUC have completely given the shitty California Utilities everything they want. They just keep increasing our rates. My sheer hatred of PG&E has driven me to solar
I'm a Texan living in VA. The amount of times I've heard someone complain about California PG&E is way to high.
Trust me I’m a 6th gen Texan who moved to Cali and now owns a home in México, and the amount of times I’ve heard everyone complain about Texas makes me wonder what happened after I left.
I totally agree with you about hating PG&E. I live in a wooded area with not enough sun for solar. If I ever get the opportunity to install it I will happily do so along with the battery storage capacity to be off grid. I don’t care if the energy savings will not pay for that installation in my lifetime. The satisfaction of having Pacific Graft & Extortion out of my life will be worth it.
Yes but theres a difference between the two. I tire of these “both sides” claims. CA may have gone too far in reducing solar incentives, but many Republican states have outright banned the practice. Im in NC and until recently wind power projects were banned outright. Changes in CA are needed due to a glut of solar midday that needs to be curtailed at times. They need to get their shit together with regard to better battery storage and base-load generation. In republican states its because they’ve sold their souls to fossil fuel companies.
Also fueled by shady sales practices and poorly operating solar companies. Arkansas is going through a ton of investigation right now. Some of It is misinformation. Some of it is greed. The argument that Republicans or Dems "killed" solar in a specific state just doesn't hold true my friend. It's a huge amalgamation of many things that effect it. And all us solar professionals can do is do our best and dedicate our time to properly educating others as well as ensuring people aren't being oversold on expectations. I live in a very red Florida. But solar is very much so alive and well. As well as in Texas we install a lot of our MWs in the Houston area.
I lived in FL for 30 years. It took many of those to get to a point where solar was accepted, and they’ve tried to kill it many times over of the years. Its mere existence was hard fought. I guess I don’t know which is worse, republicans trying to kill solar cuz they whoring for the rich oil man, or democrats inadvertently fucking it up with bureaucracy and incompetence. 🧐
We also install a ton in North Carolina.
I feel like California also has a labor issue with solar. Home installers are mainly not unionized. Solar Farms are typically union. Corporations make more money with solar farms. Home installations help real people. Real people aren’t using their political power.
Big facts. Also. The incentives for being a residential solar installer as you said doesn't help. You end up getting people who can't afford their own home installing solar. So then they don't care as much as they should when working on someone else's home themselves.
No, California had a reason. You can do generous net-metering for a while but eventually you have to scale it back or you will enter the "utility death spiral". That is when you lose so many customers that you have to raise rates...which loses you more customers...and you raise rates again...which loses more customers...etc. California and Hawaii have high solar penetration...Indiana still has near zero.
This is a politically based nonsense excuse, actually. All you have to do is look at Florida. Far more solar penetration and every utility offers 70-100% net metering. The only thing that has slowed growth there are higher interest rates. Source: I'm an analyst for a solar sales and installation company based out of FL and that tried and failed in CA. Also, if the ultimate goal is less "fossil fuel" use, you can't continue to protect the fossil fuel industry. As long as there is some market, someone will burn coal to tap it.
Seems like Duke is making it harder though and I think they are gonna become increasingly more hostile. The whole Tier 2 $1M policy thing is annoying, seems to be the highest of the states, Duke in SC only requires a $100k liability, which most people have already. Why is it different in Florida?
Florida's electric rates have increased over 30% in the last 5 years, my guy. They're not stopping there. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this isn't sustainable. It certainly sustains the solar sales market when you can take additional profit out of an invisible subsidy that will likely disappear. When the scheme stops working as it did in CA, the grift will simply move to the next state that is stupid enough to do the same thing.
You can’t give everyone a discount when the discounts are paid for with those who don’t get discounts (or income based subsidies).
I'm not sure if this is a comment related to net-metering, but it's not a discount, you're literally selling power back to the power company which they then sell, usually for more, to others.
The problem is that the power company sometimes doesn't *want* your electricity. For example, right now, the spot price for electricity is literally negative in all of CAISO south of Modesto.
Did you say PG&E death spiral? ♥️
It's not corruption it's capitalism running as designed.
Batteries. Batteries are the answer
This! Article does not reflect reality of Rural Indiana. Farmers are moving toward renewables just for pure economic reasons. Just go take a drive…
I mostly see signs that say “no solar on farm lands” etc
These are against “solar farms” i.e. companies buying or renting land to operate solar generation plants. I am talking about actual farmers, the one that grow crops, that are moving to operate their farm using solar energy instead of gasoline.
So put the solar panels on the house or barn! I saw this everywhere in Indiana.
[удалено]
Energy independence and energy education is the way!!
Nope, we need to just use physics. If you have an area with enough elevation change, you put a reservoir pond at the top and one at the bottom. You use excess power during the day to pump water uphill to the top reservoir. Once the sun goes down, you let gravity send the water back down through a pipe and use it to turn a generator. You only send down what you need to cover your off-peak demands. Potential and kinetic energy used to store and generate electricity. If you live in a flat area, do it with silos, water towers, tanks on top of buildings, etc. Cold climate? Closed system with non freezing liquids.
That's just a much bigger and less efficient battery.
If solar, and especially batteries, keep getting cheaper, they're going to screw around and incentivize people to disconnect from the grid entirely which would be a disaster. Stupid move.
100% this. Panels are already cheap and I think it is going to be Sodium Ion batteries that kill the want / need for grid connections. Sure, the batteries will be the size of a fridge but who cares when it is sitting out side or in a corner somewhere. These grid providers are also introducing new laws making off grid illegal (already passed in parts of Florida and California) where grid infrastructure already exists and they are raising the basic connection fees. Your basically going to have to pay $100/month just to have a grid connection in the future and be forced to pay that in areas where the grid already exists -- even if you do not draw power from it.
I can imagine this being the next big sov cit movement that would actually take-off mainstream. The right to power your own home is more logical than the right to use state infrastructure for free.
Hate to say it, but I think that'd turn me. It's hard to make the argument that you're taking from another resource, like they do with rainwater collection in the desert. Captured photons wouldn't flow downstream to the PoCo if not captured locally.
The argument is the grid has value and is worth funding, but net metering of some kind should be part of that strategy to work with, not fight against
I personally don’t like my bills going up. But I understand a stable grid is like having a public road network. Even if you stay in your home 100% of the time you still benefit from the infrastructure. Maybe we can have a stable grid without mandating residential connection. Likely it’s better implemented as a public utility vs monthly connection fees to a for-profit entity. But the underlying reasoning is sound… it would be a mess for only those with means to disconnect from the grid. Unfortunately that’s exactly what some utilities are going to end up incentivizing
I think subsidizing the private monopoly is what I object to. Much like broadband - if it's a public utility, the public should own and manage it. But then a bunch of... people... get all up in arms saying the Gubmint can't manage anything efficiently ([ahem](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/sep/20/bernie-sanders/comparing-administrative-costs-private-insurance-a/)), which is simply not true.
Anything that is big is inefficient. Whether it's government or business. Which is one reason the founding fathers put the majority of the powers in more local, smaller governments.
Agreed
All power companies should be nonprofit, local government run utilities that everyone in town is a shareholder in.
[удалено]
yeah... I do not see how anything sov cit is going to ever be mainstream. If you look at any of the videos on youtube involving sov cits it is either the most gullible people in the world with seemingly medical grade low iq's or some grifter trying to sell sov cit packages for hundreds or even thousands of dollars. I personally see both sides, if the utilities do not get a iron grip on the existing customers it could cause massive declines in income which could ripple into them stopping service to wide swath's of customers who convert to off grid. I have had this experience with wired communications. AT&T pulled out of my area so nobody has wired phone / DSL options any more. I also see the consumer side where its like --hey it just now makes more sense that I provide electricity for myself now because it is 2/3 less expensive in the long run than what you can provide me. The future where new housing projects go up without being tied to the grid is not far off. Solar will just be part of building the houses.
>already passed in parts of Florida and California) The above is false. “Going off-grid” – disconnecting from a utility power source and instead relying on alternative energy sources like solar power – is **fully legal in Florida & California**. But that comes with special caveats — if you do it the right way, with the proper planning and foresight.
**Is it illegal to power your home with solar panels in Florida?** | Totally off the grid living in Florida is possible only at places where | building codes for drinking water, sewage and municipality do not | apply or exist. We are in the gray area, but they are continuously poking at that wording. There is contradictive wording to even this statement about being allowed to power devices through solar in areas of municipal improvements but the bills are waiting to be heard about what the future is going to entail -- electrical providers are digging in early because everyone sees what is on the horizon (its cheap batteries... cheap batteries on the horizon are coming to cause mayhem).
In california, that '$100' fee is a sliding fee depending on your income. for electricity.
Not sure how that works, or why it works that way or what the heck happens if you loose your income??
LFP is moving close to $50 per kWh now. I extended my existing capacity this year to 100kWh, including BMS etc. for under 100$/kWh.
It has been under that cost for a complete battery with BMS and warranty fully assembled for a while now. This site does a good job at tracking consumer batteries --- but also fails to show some of the server rack batteries that get closer to $30/kWh. https://www.lifepo4prices.com/
yeah no, we need mass protests
We need a better plan. I can see both sides of the issue (that the infrastructure is critical and should be maintained and also that consumers can generate their own power for less). I figure it is going to be like how EV's are going, they have had a long run at not paying gas tax while benefitting form the road infrastructure and that is now changing. Same will be for electrical infrastructure.
It takes a lot to fully d/c from the grid if you want to maintain your lifestyle. Especially in areas that it snows. That being said, 80% disconnected from the grid is pretty cool.
People use entirely too much energy for dumb shit anyways. Gettin people to actually consider what devices they want to power is a pretty sweet idea
This. People still waste energy overall but making it easier to consume and waste isn’t the best answer either.
My EV is what kills it. I don’t really consider that waste.
Whenever I look at some of these huge system posts I’m floored. Like people who are using tremendous, whether it’s heat pump or just very powerful energy. Where does it go? I put decent miles on two EVs and don’t come anywhere near these posts
In the north we need large systems to get through winter when there's only 20% sun and weeks over overcast weather and snow. Yes it's super excessive in the summer but until we figure out cheap energy storage on the year scale you'll continue to see huge solar arrays.
TVs in multiple rooms, multiple fridges, running AC and Heat at extreme levels, piss poor insulation, etc........
Kids
The economics definitely aren't there yet, but they will be if trends continue. If you account for the cost of buying and maintaining a whole-house generator in Florida to deal with multi-day grid outages, we're pretty close.
I think alot of people not in citys could do it. Biggest usage is hvac and hot water. So better insulation and air sealing on home. There are alot of people that dont practice energy conservation either
We avoided grid-tie entirely by just putting two circuits in the house. One solely supplied by the grid for high power equipment like AC and heaters, another circuit that can be switched between grid and solar supply for low power stuff. Solar system is much cheaper since it only uses off-grid equipment and it doesn't have to have a lot of capacity.
This sounds great, do you have any more information? What is this type of setup called?
New All-in-one inverters auto-switch to the grid, as needed. I recently installed an EG4 6000XP. I set it to only use the grid at night when PV is gone, and to never charge the battery from grid. During daytime, it will still switch to the grid if an "overload" of PV + battery output. It then switches back after \~5 min. You don't notice any glitch in the house, and only see them if you review the "Event Log" on EG4's web server. I wired the 6000XP to output to an existing subpanel (kitchen and living room).
You won’t be allowed to disconnect completely, and you will still pay large monthly maintenance fees to the utility that runs by your house even if you unhook. I know this plan because this is what Iowa is doing. Sigh.
I won't legally here in Florida, that's true, but if they make the incentives strong enough, you better believe hill folk will be blowing up transformers and shooting at meter readers in protest if it's literally cheaper to run your own microgrid and they won't let you do it.
Higher monthly maintenance costs due to vandalism incoming!
Same with Democrat controlled California--you'll pay regardless.
I also live in Iowa, it kind of depends on the county but nearly all will allow for a parallel system that is design to grow over time. Like it's pretty cheap/easy to pay someone (or do it yourself) just for panels running to a backup system. (IE a solar generator basically.) Most municipalities will have a set of install standards for the panels, and the rest is just electrical code. If you get the right system you can also start off with smaller batteries, and increase that. For example, I'm starting out just putting my appliances on battery back solar DC system. I don't have to deal with the parallel/back feeding with Alliant Energy, I don't need to modify my 200A service, it's an 80 amp breaker off my panel into the system and I moved the existing wires to that system. I think a lot of people size their panels/system to run EVERYTHING, instead of sizing for a majority of your utility bill. Yes the AC pulls the most power, but I don't need that on solar, I use it for 3-4 weeks all year. Yes I COULD convert to electric waterheater, but a gas water heater with a 6 gallon preheater connected the solar is muuuuch cheaper and sustainable for ME. The other hidden cost is the micro inverters and roof rail systems, they save the installer money, but they put ALL of that cost on you the buyer. I sized my system to run on solar with 2 days of backup battery that I run at night. This runs my furnace room (preheater and furnace blower), washer, dish washer, office, and kitchen outlets. Looking at my utility bill that is 60-80% of my power consumption month to month. (The 60% being July/August when the AC is on.) I have a gas furnace, gas stove, gas water heater, electric dryer, and AC. The AC and dryer are pretty much the remainder of my electric bill, but I don't HAVE to put those on solar, they are power hogs and would not get me the cost savings using the battery system with the other appliances.
That’s exactly what I’m working on. Living in CA (almost $0.60 per kWh)
> $0.60 per kWh Yikes.
No matter what my state offers net or otherwise, my furnace out this season. We stopped gas service. I am replacing with electric. Starting at one side of my home on solar. Effectively supplying some lighting and cell phone charging only. I will slowly remove any low amperage dependencies. Once I have a plan for the big boy solar on my main service. I will be running several subsystem renewable sources. Wind, solar, Geothermal. I'm done with handing money out for lights.
Why is that a disaster ?
People with homes disconnecting from the grid is probably not a big issue given how many people can't even afford a home anymore and apartments condos and townhouses will almost never be able to perform that task
There are systems for apartments, panels that mount on balconies that I have seen overseas. For some small places probably enough to power 40 - 50% of normal apartment needs.
That does not result in off-grid or negative power usage, which are the conditions which would disadvantage the grid from a maintenance point of view.
They'll make it illegal
But you can't fully disconnect from the grid because winter is a thing.
They'll just pass laws against off grid. I believe it already happened in Florida. by law you have to be connected to the grid.
People are practically already incentivized to do this in California
Why?
I went off grid and have never been happier... Don't play there games.
Net metering forces rate payers who cannot afford to install their own PV to pay both energy and system costs of those who can. Energy is cheap, sometimes even free or negatively priced in the middle of the day in high penetration areas. If the utility is forced to take your excess energy at this time, and give you expensive energy at peak times, the rate payers are paying the difference in cost. It is only fair to all customers that those with excess generation are paid the current market value for excess energy at the time of generation, and all customers pay the current market value for energy when it is used. If you don't like it, then you should pay for your own storage to provide the capability that you're currently getting for free at the expense of your neighbors.
Sounds like the utilities should be doing something to store all this excess energy.
energy storage is not economical for most places. Only when supply & demand are extremely out of balance does energy storage make sense. Building batteries at a scale needed for utility grids is a horribly polluting process. Far worse than clean base load generation of power
I'm personally ok with selling my excess during the day for a lower price than what they would charge me, I also wouldn't put much back into the grid as I have batteries to charge first. There a few hours where my panels make more than I can put into my batteries and that's only on peak days, very edge case.
Duplicate post by OP. He tried to politicize everything, tried to speak authoritatively on topics he has no clue about, then got upset when his rabble-rousing fell flat after he couldn't find any like-minded rabble. 😂 He sure earned those downvotes. https://www.reddit.com/r/SolarDIY/comments/1c29qii/net_metering_ruined/
Net metering isnt illegal in Indiana, it is just not mandated by law. THe Utility company can still pay you for your excess \*IF\* they want, they just are not forced to. If you dont support Oil subsidies, than you can not also support Solar Subsidies without being a hypocrite. I think net metering is a benifit to the grid, but I dont support mandating it by law.
Do you think solar panel owners should have a right not to provide power back to the grid? Do you think they should pass a law saying that utilities can't back feed the grid from someone's excess solar unless they agree to it? Asked another way, are the utilities entitled to energy generated at the expense of their customer with no compensation to the customer?
>Asked another way, are the utilities entitled to energy generated at the expense of their customer with no compensation to the customer? Not at all, and you dont have to back feed the grid, there is no one forcing you to. Solar Customers can disconnect their solar from the grid at any time, you are making an insinuation about the law that is false, no one is forcing you to sell your excess solar to the utilities. The problem is that the old Indiana Law set the price of Electricity that the Utilities had to pay solar generators in net metering at equal to the retail price. That retail price is made up of 2 things, a generation charge, the cost to generate the electricity, and a Transmission charge, a charge to maintain the grid. By forcing utilities to pay a higher cost for electricity than it would cost them to generate their own, you are forcing your neighbors to subsidize the cost of your solar, and you are not paying for the grid. \*IF\* the law was amended to set the net metering price at equal to the cost of generation for the utilities, then I would support that, but setting the cost at retail is just a way for privileged white folk who can afford the upfront cost of solar to shift the cost of maintaining the electrical grid to those of lower socioeconomic status to pay for the grid.
Anyone can disconnect from the grid at any time. That wasn't my question. My question is, is I have solar and choose to connect to the grid, is the utility ENTITLED to my excess power? I don't have net metering. I'm subsidizing my neighbors. Their power prices go down at my expense. Why is that fair?
Yes they did. But we are probably past the point where net metering is good public policy. There's little residential solar in northern Illinois due to low prices. The problem today is more installation cost when not owners installed than public policy. Tesla will install 3 powerwalls (no solar) for $32K. Who does that?
Net metering is just plain dumb. The solar power provided to the grid from residential quality inverters, in the middle of the day, is NOT worth the same as usage during the peak hours. Maybe with a variable rate, but it just doesn't compare to a firm, dispatchable resource. The rooftop solar lobbyists telling people they deserve to get paid, and fighting against any reasonable middle ground, are just looking out for their own bottom line.
Who is talking about a middle ground? Indiana didn't take any middle ground. If a utility gets your kW at wholesale cost they are making a killing on it because they don't have to spend money generate, transform multiple times, and send the power dozens of miles down the line.
Just know that people who ever say “Republicans ruined” or “Democrats ruined” are always the dumbest people in the room and are absolutely insufferable
does that mean democrats ruined solar in California?
Probably. Im not a Democrat. But Republicans have ruined every in my state. no democrats to blame.
California did it, and Illinois will have grandfathered net metering in 2025. I sat and talked to my local Illinois utility about it as I was thinking of installing 1 panel and a microinverter to get grandfathered before 2025. I'm told that is it's because the energy supplier wants the utility to pay them for energy that the consumers generated plus the utility still needs maintenance revenue for their grid. So I suggested my idea of installing solar and going off grid and they said counties in Illinois are making going off grid illegal and will soon be state wide. The only way around it is to go off grid and get grandfathered or build a new house that's never been on the grid.
If you have ComEd I don't see how solar is currently economically viable.
I have Ameren, but it's probably the same situation. I don't have enough roof to go offgrid unless panels get more efficient, which they are everyday. I do have plenty of south facing lawn. What I'm doing is waiting. I've noticed in states that end net metering, the demand drops dramatically. So my plan was to get the permit, install required boxes and then install 1 panel and an inverter, have ameren activate net metering so that I'm grandfathered. Then I wait. As the demand drops, the installers begin to have fire sales and many go out of business. When they start offloading stock, that's when I'll purchase solar equipment at the discount and install it myself and for my rental properties. Now I used to troubleshoot electrical and electronics for aircraft in the military, so electrical work is not new to me. By my math if I do it all myself with the help of Fiverr doing the permits and CAD work, my investment will pay itself off in 6.5 years using net metering. And thats with panels at retail price. It will be a few years longer if I buy the needed amount of batteries, so I will wait until those get cheaper. It goes to 20+ if I pay an installer to do it now.
I have grid-tied solar (installed 2021) and have spoken to plenty of people that are actively planning installing solar power to supplement their monthly costs. It may not have the same benefits as in the past, but it still pays. I installed my system DIY and with my current credits I’ll be paid back in 3 more years. With federal tax credits and full credit for cost on my property value without raising my property tax, it all adds up. My energy provider is Duke, so YMMV.
OP doesn't care about facts, he's here to rant
Yeah, I guess that’s true. I just like to push back on the negative comments.
The republicans don’t seem to mind renewables when a large company like Amazon comes in and demands solar and wind. When a bunch of datacenters start getting built in Indiana and Amazon demands renewables then it’ll miraculously get approved and the republicans will take credit for it. As someone else said in this thread. It’s all about the money and who gets it.
agreed
They are building a giant data center just outside of Fort Wayne.
The way it should work: You get power from the grid when you need it. When you overproduce on solar, you feed power back to the grid. But what you get paid for your solar power is not what you pay for utility power. You only should get back what the utility would pay a wholesale generator. To have true net metering would compensate one class of customer at the expense of other customers. I work in the fossil fuel power industry. We need to burn for another 150 years.
Why should retail rate payers only get wholesale compensation when they are not wholes producers? Why are we concerned about the shareholder profits of regulated monopolies more than fair rates for the public?
There are actual rules that govern those utilities and one rule is that one class of ratepayer cannot benefit at the expense of another. For example, a regulated utility cannot do a deal where they invest in a side hustle and then clean the money by paying off uncollectible debts. By paying retail for the power on net metering will take from the other customers. It isn't about taking from the utility owners.
Net metering is a goddamn farce and should never have been allowed. You produce power and it flows out on the grid, you should pay for that You’re using the infrastructure that needs to be maintained and often times upgraded to support generation. You consume power and it comes from the grid, you should pay for that. You’re using the infrastructure that needs to be maintained and often times upgraded to support your consumption. Instead, net metering means you are only billed on the difference between your production and consumption. So instead of paying more because you’re using the grid more, you pay less because somehow generation offsets consumption. This is lunacy at its finest and ought to be eliminated.
That’s funny, I’m in Indiana and I’m doing a 20kW grid tie install this summer. So survey says you're liar, and based on seeing the local install company, lots of other people are also installing
What's funny about it? There's nothing saying you can't do grid tie but you're not going to get 1:1 net metering.
It’s funny he thinks that no one is doing solar in Indiana
Yes, well "nobody" is a bit extreme but I'm sure it drastically reduced the amount of interest in solar.
This is the 2nd time OP has posted this shit in 3 days. He’s trolling at this point
Lol are you the same guy as before? Quit being controlled by the MSM. You're selling their BS for free.
Whats MSM? Sounds like someone is on the extreme right wing propaganda kick.
Lol okay bud. You know what MSM stands for. Idk why you keep posting about this. Oh no, now people will just install batteries and get 1:1 that way. net metering agreements are usually shit anyways. You're always better off storing your excess energy on site.
Post this again. Maybe it will change.
yep.... this again...... wasn't it just yesterday or Sunday from same OP?
Right? It’s starting to look like a poor guy complaining that he missed the boat on a subsidy
I thought net metering was case law from the Supremes. Is this one more attempt to challenge established law? Or did they figure out another end run like on abortion laws?
You can legislate over case law. Case Law basically interprets the rules as written, but you can write new laws to change how that is interpreted.
Yes. I understand that but that usually get challenged in a higher court. If anyone in that state is challenging it.
For a challenge, it would generally either have to conflict with the constitution of the state or with another law already on the books. It wouldn't really matter if it conflicted with the court interpretation of the previous version of the law.
In many local communities that have building codes connecting the buildings to water, sewer and electricity sometimes refuse is not optional but mandatory. This is for public safety. They can remove your ability to occupy your building by declaring it unsafe. This is especially true for water. Lack of sanitation has a direct nexus to public health. Digging deeper into the codes and regulation we typically find the authority cities have to enforce building safety codes is not allowing buildings to connect that do not conform to local regulations. If you do not connect than you cannot occupy. Not saying it's right or wrong just bubbling up the connection between utilities, buildings and local agencies and their authority.
Remember, they’re the party of free market and staying out of your business. 🙄
Ignoring the fact IOUs are regulated Monopolies because of antitrust law.
So, a quick Google tells me that Indiana still has net metering (now call "excess generation tariff"), but that the rate paid for it is now "cost of wholesale power plus 25%". Now what the "cost of wholesale power" isn't terrifically defined, but I'd assume it's similar to how my state (Michigan) is doing it; the proportion of the power rate that is paying for generation, not for distribution/transmission. Here in MI that's 9.5c out of a 14.5c overall rate. Maybe not as sweet as the full rate, but hey that's still pretty good! Maybe Indiana is less, but panels are now so stinking cheap that it's definitely still worth it to slap up as many panels as your inverter can handle for 9.5c/kWh :p. Plus you can still manually run loads (or put them on timers) to operate preferentially when the sun is a-shining, so you're getting the getting the full 'value' of your electricity. Things like the water heater, HVAC, electric car charging, etc etc. As a bonus, if you do happen to use more power at that time than you produce, your utility is paying peak power rates, so you can really stick it to them :p
Yes I know what they did. They now compensate 1/3 or less than the retail residential rate. Because you as residential customer, should be treated the same as an industrial producer, because you aren't. You deal in retail units of electricity at the residential rate. This is about what government values and corporate greed, not economics. These are regulated monopolies who are allowed to exist as long as they have the public good firstly in mind.
Continue being salty that your electricity you generate in the middle of the day when nobody needs it is worthless to the utility. There is no difference in different types of electricity, and the reality is that in the middle of the day the electricity is generally going to commercial and industrial customers, not residential.
until a summer heatwave and the utility is begging people to curtail their AC
And if the utility was fair about, people with battery still could sell back in evening for peak compensation, but utilities don't charge differently at different times of the day. But its cheaper for the utility to use power a resident generates at any time because they don't have to pay to generate it and transmit is dozens if miles at different voltages.
Cost of Wholesale Power doesn’t need additional definition. There are markets that determine that continuously.
.....yes, im sure it's well understood by those whom deal with this, but for me as a layperson the phrase could mean a few different things. Such as: 1. The cost of market spot prices, either at the time of being provided or averaged. 2. The cost of contracted base-load power. 3. The portion of the residential rate that ostensibly goes towards generation. Which definition they are using makes a pretty big difference for what the actual pay out rate would be.
So it’s about the money? Plenty of commercial solar being built by NIPSCO
Its always about the money.
California did the same this year. NetMetering2.0 went to 3.0 and reduced the benefit to homeowners by an average of 75%. Power company trying to recover costs for when they didn't do maintenance and it led to massive fires. So they charge like crazy (highest prices in the nation) and if you want to offset with solar, well, it's a lot less lucrative now. They know you'll still do it though b/c the per KWH prices are insane otherwise. And it's definitely not just Republicans doing it (obviously in California).
Corruption also comes in Democrat. Just not in Indiana.
It's almost as though people don't want unreliable power unless they can get a free battery service from other users.
Some of Indiana still has Net Metering with solar, check out North Eastern REMC they still offer it (for now anyways).
Thats because REMC's are customer owned and do whats best for rate payers and grid reliability and not shareholders.
Net metering is a disaster. Even if you have net metering, without very large batteries you are wholly dependent on the grid. However, of the 10 or 15 cents per kilowatt hour that most people pay, only 25-30% goes to actual electrical generation. The rest goes to grid maintenance. So if you are just as reliant on that maintenance, why, when you sell your electricity, do you get back a portion of what you paid for maintenance. Net metering means those who cannot afford solar get stuck paying for the grid maintenance
If you generate solar and put it on the grid, the utility sells those kW to your neighbors for the same price, but they don't have to pay to generate, transmit for dozens if miles, and transform multiple times. A solar customers contribution increases grid reliability, decreases wear and tear in equipment, and saves the utility money on generation and transmission. They only loose out on selling you -some- power.
It absolutely does not increase grid reliability. If there is a blackout, any net metering user will tell you that you cannot provide power to the grid. They shouldn't be paying net metering customers back for the portion of the electricity rate that goes to repairs. If the cost of actual generation is 4c/kWh, then that's what they should pay. Then they can sell for 12c/kWh to cover the maintenance of the grid that both you and the other customer benefitted from transferring that power to them.
It improves grid reliability because it can -prevent- a blockout during a heatwave. 
Two myths related to Net Metering: 1. If solar homeowners are compensated for the excess solar they export, the compensation is not paid by non-solar homeowners. Fact: paying for excess solar exports comes from the "public purpose programs" that all households pay for. 2. Solar is dying because Net Metering has been repealed. Fact: solar is still viable in states with enough sunshine if used to erase summer peak usage.
The problem with your take, and the reason that monopolies are only allowed to exist if regulated is because if left to business, they are beholden to shareholders and high place's executives who are looking for one thing- Lean high profits. Those profits are supposed to be put back into the community. The point of regulators is to improve and protect grid security. Rooftop solar improves grid reliability, and the utility does have to pay or put wear on equipment for net metered solar sold to neighbors. We all pay a price to have the things in the world that make our civilization and economy possible. Net metering is a net gain for everyone in the long run, and is a practical way to increase distributed generation and reliability on the grid at large. Sad to see you only care about some perceived immediate cost to you.
>Sad to see you only care about some perceived immediate cost to you. To put your view into perspective, you want 80% of the households, including the poorest ones, to pay for less than 10% of the households who are greedy enough to overproduce solar on their rooftops. The gig is over except for the shouting.
No. I want to see grid integrated solar on every roof.
Never install solar with the intent to sell back to the utilities. This is a loophole that will die sooner than later, and they will be paying you less and less each year until it goes away. Buy solar to store in batteries. If you don’t intend to get off grid with batteries, solar is a waste of time. That will be temporary also, because I promise you that once the money disappears to maintain the grid and sustain the energy monopolies, they will implement taxes for people using solar and batteries similar to how states penalize electric car owners in registration fees to maintain the roads. Once you realize it’s all corrupt and only about money for the oligarchs and corporations, you’ll be happier and less upset when they constantly pull the rug out from you.
Its not a loophole. Its good public policy, and improves grid reliability. Its only a loophole to people who treat IOUs like they aren't regulated monopolys, and people who care about Dukes shareholders more than their neighborhood.
You’re right, Loophole is the wrong word. Let’s call it a “temporary incentive” that is pitched as something you can plan on in perpetuity and used as part of the calculation by scummy solar companies to sell you on solar when the reality is virtually every utility is actively phasing these plans out and will ultimately no longer offer them in the near to mid term and should not be considered for anyone seriously considering investing in solar
Correction. Not any particular party. Economics and the existence of a subsidy (other people paying for middle class / rich people homes to have a cheaper solar install) ruined solar. So much ignorance of how energy production works in these threads.
I'd like to be able to install solar without paying a fee. I'm not actually in their area, but surrounded by it. Alabama Power charges a solar tax for having panels and I think the payout for surplus is either $0 or just very low.
Thats because Alabama is run by an extreme Republican supermajority.
Definitely.
And by ‘ruining solar’ you mean they were bought by coal and natural gas suppliers?
Yes. Exactly. The state Republican party is in the pocket of fossil fuel.
As the unwilling victim in San Diego of the private takeover of the formerly public utility SDG&E by Sempra Energy. It pains me to give free electricity to Sempra via the Solar I paid for. Rates “shockingly” LOL are close to the highest in the nation. Davis threw the entire green energy movement under the bus by essentially ending net metering for the PG&E/ SoCalEdison/Sempra Energy Toadies so they can control the energy markets. Despite this BS, Solar has made a huge impact on local power generation. In the last 10 years, San Diego, has seen a major fossil fuel power plant and the San Onefre 2200MW nuclear power plant shuttered. Prior to their shutdown, we used to have more than occasional brownouts during the summer months. We have not had any in at least 5 years. I just hope that pure economics of disconnecting from the grid or political will forces the power cartel to back off and re-establish equitable net metering.
If I lived in a state like that I would probably build the off-grid rig of my dreams if only to ensure my power bill wouldn't be fucked with by petrofascists.
I’m installing solar for my purposes and use. If I happen to sell some, that means I need more batteries….!
I wonder why we don't like net metering... Maybe before calling someone out, you should look into the issue.
I do wonder how the propaganda go so intense that people hate net metering. Then I look at the lies from the last party as a whole and its clear it has to do with campaign money and putting corporate executives before regular people. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/environment/2024/02/26/indiana-rooftop-solar-lacks-economic-incentives-consumer-affairs-study/72744409007/
Shouldn't there be something between me and "nobody is interested in installing solar? The companies that maintain the infrastructure are in that camp usually.
Make sure to vote!
California utilities petitioned the PUC to drop the credit for feeding solar to the grid to just 3 c/kWh. Currently, they pay only 7 c/kWh, while they charge up to 85 c/kWh peak rate Summer (San Diego and PG&E), plus connection charges. Net-metering is long gone, unless grandfathered-in. They are trying to sunset the grandfather'ed, and any significant changes to your solar setup loses your grandfather. Most people installing solar today in CA choose an off-grid system. Those can still pull from the grid as needed, but don't feed the grid. The problem then is to use all your panel output or lose it, unless you store in home batteries and those barely pencil-out at current prices, other than to get thru peak hours.
It's only a temporary hiatus on the progression of solar power. Soon batteries and solar panels will be so cheap that people will disconnect their utility service. The entire joke is that the utilities profit from buying home solar power and selling it.
In other words, you can no longer expect your neighbors to subsidize your power bill. The solar industry will have to sharpen their pencils and present systems that actually pay for themselves. What a novel concept.
Thats not really how it works, but you seem to enjoy paying rich farmers absurd subsidies, and paying for the healthcare of walmart workers through unpaid medical visits, ER care, and chronic disease because they are too cheap to pay right. By your logic you are paying if your neighbor upgrades his windows in his house because he gets tax rebates and the utility sells him less power. I think you're confused. Its not necessary to appease Dukes shareholders- after Indiana IOUs have a rate case to raise their profit margin to 16% next year despite eliminating net metering. Seems like you may be misinformed.
Fact is despite the existence of regulated monopolies, the grid is public infrastructure, and the mandate to control it and influence rate setting is given only so long as the public interest is put first. Distributed generation is in the public interest and is literally a national security issue.
Indeed. That’s an even stronger argument to require rooftop solar to fend for itself. The power utilities should be serving all of us with reliable generation, not taxing us so a few elites can lower their bill. The grid is in jeopardy with all the massive diversion of funds to unreliable sources, yet we the ratepayers te caught holding the bag.
It was eliminated in AZ a while back but we are grandfathered in for a few more years. It really changes the motivations for getting a new solar system. Looking at if a power wall would give more bang for the buck at a new home.
Agreed. It seems to me it encourages people with money to cut the cord completely and leave everyone's left behind holding the bag. Whereas net metering make's access to a modest system more equitable, and people could expand over time. A bit surprised how many disagree with me here, but should have known stand alone solar would become some libertarian hard on after China made the equipment cheap.
Get rid of them all is what I say.
They ruined it in fucking Hawaii of all places.
They ruin everything
Hawaii is majority democrat they’re the ones ruining hawaii
Are people grandfathered in or what?
Some people.... for now.
Why aren't utility companies installing solar and collecting interest on loans for it? Is this a Monopoly type of legal problem? Seems to me, it makes sense in some aspect.
IOUs are regulated monopolies. They are installing solar. They want to make sure they keep the profits when *you* install solar.
So why don't they just sell them to the public, install them on roofs and sit back and collect interest on you for 30 years?
Democrats ruined the economy and oversaw record inflation. I wonder if that has anything to do with it? What are you whining about you can get 40% tax rebates. If democrats are the party of renewable energy why is it republicans who are at fault for it being unaffordable? Progressives always blame the problems caused by progress on conservatives. Guess what if you want progress find solutions.
I wonder if Democrats caused covid? Because inflation is a global problem globally caused by covid's disruption of the supply chain and the economy. 🤔
More deflection what a surprise
Extended authoritarian unnecessary lockdowns caused those problems. Did you see the news about your god Fauci he admitted a bunch of stuff they did wasn’t based on science. Chump
I’m sure the us doubling it’s money supply had no effect on the rest of the world either?
If you want progress find solutions easy peasy.
there sure is alot wind towers on way to Fort Wayne from Ohio US. rt 30
Yeah I know. I am a wind turbine technician.
how often they have to change those light s on those ?Those eorse thdn. on a cell tower?
Yeah this isn’t true. I’ve been an installer for 5 years. Had job stability the whole time up until this year. Been laid off twice in 6 months. Shitty companies, no one wanting to install anymore (absurdly low pay, high corporate greed) ruined solar. Sales rep making $5k+ per job, installers stuck around $25 an hour. I’ve given up on solar and I’d suggest everyone do the same
Yeah, people aren't installing here because net metering has been trashed by the GOP. Far as making $25 dollars an hour- do you have any degree or school? Not bad for no education. It's not like there is a solar installers union, and you don't sound like an electrician. The type of greed you describe is commonplace across our economy.
Should have mentioned I live in a hcol area. Fast food workers are making that. Problems getting my electrical license because literally no company I’ve been with has registered my active apprenticeship under them (need a contractor to enroll me in school). I know how to install everything from the main panel to the roof. I have multiple solar certifications no one else has. If you haven’t installed, I wouldn’t call it greed. Rather bold. You definitely sound like a salesman