quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
2. Any excess is given to the utility for free.

You're not getting paid/credited for the excess?

Everyone I know in the neighborhood is getting credit for whatever they feed back into the grid. That is what covers their usage at night

Yeah, here in California we're currently on "Net Metering 2" and soon possibly on "Net Metering 3". On original Net Metering 1, you sold your power back to the utility at a full cost. On Net Metering 2, you sell power back to the utility at the wholesale rate that they pay for the power generation. So, during a peak hour you might pay .40 per kwh, but only sell back to utility at .08 kwh.

Previously, you could over-size your system and sell well more than you would ever use yourself and generate a hefty "profit" each year that would offset the solar purchase.

These days, you want to size your system as closely as possible to your actual usage, as any money spent to oversize your system won't see a good return.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
As far I can see, the credit is pennies on the dollar. It's so low to be effectively zero - rounding error amounts relative to all other costs and prices. Credits don't enter into the value equation.

The credits are nothing. You do solar to avoid paying consumption rates, not for the credit you supposedly get for excess.

Yes.

Using made numbers for this example; from what I understand in California, if your system generates excess electricity (because you’re at work) at 4pm, when demand is highest and the utility company sells at $1.00 / KWh but at 4am they sell electricity at $0.10 / KWh, the resident gets credited at the lowest rate.

Also, the resident will never receive a check, only credit. This is because the resident is not a licensed energy producer nor broker to sell.

At least that’s how it was explained to me.

Close-ish.

Here in Southern California with Southern California Edison, my production is given full credit during the period in which I produce it--off peak, mid peak, peak, etc. Everything is calculated in a full year basis. EXCESS production, on Net Metering 2, is PAID out at a wholesale rate. BUT, REGULAR production and consumption is credited at FULL rates.

For example, lets pretend (using fake numbers for ease of understanding) that my Off-Peak power costs $0.10/kwh but my PEAK power costs four times as much $0.40/kwh. Lets pretend, that on any given day, I PRODUCE 20kwh each of Off-Peak and Peak power. So, $2 "worth" of Off-Peak power and $8 worth of Peak power, for a total offset of $10 a day. I get a bill credit for that full $10 a day, regardless of how much power I use from the utility or what time of day.

Now, at the end of the year when I square up with the utility, the utility will look at my generation and say that I've consumed $4000 worth of power (various rates during various times of day and different rates for seasonality), and generated $3,650 worth of credits. I write a check for $350 dollars and we call it even.

However, if at the end of the year, the utility looks at my bill and sees that I've only consumed $3000 worth of power (but generated $3650 worth of credits), the utility does NOT write me a check for $650. They instead covert the $650 back into kwh and then pay me some lesser wholesale rate for the excess power I generated.

The idea is that I can't easily profit from the utility. They want me to produce power for them to use, but they don't want me to produce so much of it that I'm taking money out of their system which is used to support the infrastructure.

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:
For the central Florida members, if you have Duke, there is a minimum monthly charge even if your bill is $0

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/harSOdBPaK8" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

I do agree with Duke energy on the minimum monthly bill. If the customer is still attached to the grid then they should have to pay for some of the up keep. When the power goes out even if you have solar you still get some of your power from the power company and some one has to fix the problem to not only get the power back on but to be able to sell your excess back to the power co.

As far as what the power co buys the excess back at it should be the same as what they pay to buy it from a power generating station.
I saw some of the legislation the story talked about but do not know how it made out in the legislation secession.

This is why solar is so confusing to me. People that have come to my door obviously are not telling the truth and it makes me very skeptical about the whole industry.
I have heard of people in other states that their bills did not go down. This means they are not saving the money promised to make the payments on the loans for their systems.

I like the idea of solar I just do not want to pay more than I am paying now for my electric.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
As far I can see, the credit is pennies on the dollar. It's so low to be effectively zero - rounding error amounts relative to all other costs and prices. Credits don't enter into the value equation.

The credits are nothing. You do solar to avoid paying consumption rates, not for the credit you supposedly get for excess.

So you excess production isn't used to offset the cost of the electricity you're using at night?

quote:

Originally posted by 71 TRUCK:

I like the idea of solar I just do not want to pay more than I am paying now for my electric.

Ask the sales person to break it down as a price per watt-hour of system capacity. No other number matters. Price. Per. Watt. Hour.

My 8.16 kWH system cost about $12,600 or $1.54 per watt hour.

If the price per watt hour creeps up, your break even point gets pushed out way too far. People who are spending $40k on residential systems have no realistic expectation of break even.

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
As far I can see, the credit is pennies on the dollar. It's so low to be effectively zero - rounding error amounts relative to all other costs and prices. Credits don't enter into the value equation.

The credits are nothing. You do solar to avoid paying consumption rates, not for the credit you supposedly get for excess.

So you excess production isn't used to offset the cost of the electricity you're using at night?

Net metering is calculated in whole-year increments. Your daily production is used to offset consumption on a whole-year basis.

If, after a WHOLE YEAR, you have excess, then the excess is paid out to you at a nominal wholesale rate.

However, your substantial summertime output is used offset your lesser wintertime output, and your daytime production offsets your nighttime usage, etc. You true-up at the end of a 12 month period and do your calculation there.

One of the things I wanted to do when I moved out here was to install solar power. My investigation and sone additional research showed that at peak summer load my home draws enough that I would size my house for a 10 kW system. Obviously in the winter that load is reduced by about half.

The cost out here 3 years ago was $3200 per kW so my upfront cost would be about $32000. Now there was a credit available from the feds for 25% or $8000 so that reduces it to $24000.

No net metering here in Tucson any longer.

My average electric bill is about $170 a month over 12 months. So the payback to break even in the investment exceeds my expected life span.

If you’re young and have a 30 or 40 year window then it might make sense but in my case I couldn’t justify it.

Several homes in my neighborhood have panels but none were sized to run the house as a stand alone. And TEP is still going to charge you $50 a month even if you didn’t use a single watt of their power.

Out here it’s damned hard to get rid of the power company.