U.S. Solar Industry Anticipates Utility Backlash Over Metering

Christopher Martin, Bloomberg
September 13, 2012 | 54 Comments

The growing use of rooftop solar systems are spurring concern that U.S. utilities may decline to purchase power generated by the panels, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Utilities are required to buy power generated by solar panels installed on consumers’ homes under so-called net- metering policies, an arrangement that may become less viable as solar systems become more common, said Rhone Resch, chief executive officer of the Washington-based trade group.

California, the largest solar market, capped the amount of panels utilities are mandated to connect to their grids and other states are considering similar policies. Some utilities see the requirement to buy solar power from every rooftop system as a threat to their profitability, Resch said.

“Net metering works for us now, but we’re going to see a backlash from utilities as solar penetration increases over the next few years,” Resch said yesterday in an interview at the Solar Power International conference in Orlando, Florida.

California regulators capped the amount of rooftop solar that may be connected to the grid at 5 percent of a a utility’s power needs, and is studying the long-term impact upon their profits. Other states may consider similar actions, said Tony Clifford, chief executive officer of Standard Solar Inc., a closely held developer based in Rockville, Maryland.

‘Utility Pushback’

“I’m really concerned about a utility pushback on net- metering,” Clifford said in an interview. “What we need is an honest assessment of the true costs and benefits of managing distributed generation and I don’t think we’ve seen that yet.”

Utilities are considering ways to offset the cost of buying solar, including Sempra Energy’s San Diego Gas & Electric, which proposed a fee for residential solarcustomers, said Aaron Hall, president of the San Diego-based developer Borrego Solar Systems Inc. Regulars blocked the proposal in January.

“That would have made almost every installation lose money and prevent new projects from getting financing,” Hall said.

Developers installed 98.2 megawatts of residential rooftop solar panels in the second quarter, according to SEIA.

Lead image: Transmission via Shutterstock

54 Comments

Cliff Claven
October 3, 2012

@William-Fitch: Just dug into LCOE. Here's what I found for 2010: US national average Levelized Costs of Electricity (LCOE) in $/kWh: Nuclear: 48.73 Coal: 46.09 Gas: 61.84 (lower in 2012 with falling NG prices) Onshore wind: >90.00 (estimate) Offshore wind: 101.02 Solar PV: 215.45 Hydro: ~19.00 (estimate). This is based on actual US cost data submitted to IEA. Pretty stark contrasts when the subsidies are stripped away and things are normalized by actual power output. (Reference: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Energy Agency, and OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Projected costs of generating electricity. Paris: International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010.)

Delroy Leslie
October 3, 2012

Why are we computing Solar ROE based on current electric rate when we know that electric rates increase by approximately 6% annually?

Most of this argument about payback period is based on people's mindset. It is much more economical to use public transport than owning a car, yet most people choose to invest in a motor vehicle that only last a few years. People do not think about upfront cost when they are buying an automobile yet they use it as an excuse when talking about Renewable Energy. If there is a concern about upfront cost, go to the bank and finance the project or lease it. This way you are getting a commodity that increases your property value immediately and last for many years in comparison to an automobile that depreciates the minute it leaves the car lot.

John DAngelo
October 3, 2012

Soalr electricity is the least expensive energy one can every purchase. The trouble is that we are not conditioned to pay for one's electricity for a lifetime "upfront". Think about it Amy, you buy a product that has a warranty of 25 years, but we know from REAL WORLD experiences that solar electric modules AND inverters last well over that, in fact we have no idea just how long they will last.

In the net metering world, utilities WILL get to tack on a "storage fee" for all solar installations to recoup some of the lost revenue that comes when a solar system goes on someone's property.

The solar lease now account for about 60% or more of all solar sales. WHy? because it is hard for people to turn away a NO MONEY UPFRONT deal when it comes to solar energy. This is EXACTLY the utility business model, no money upfront and pay every month. Now we can compete with the utility as long as the customer has a space for a PV array.

Now imagine buying an EV that will last as long as your PV modules. Free energy, free transportation (of course you have to pay for a new battery bank now and then, but far better than paying for gasoline that has no end to price increases, what more could one want?

Amy Malloy
October 3, 2012

Until it is less expensive to invest in renewable energy than it is to purchase power from utilities, financial incentives will be necessary to support solar growth. As net metering policies reach their maximums in many states, the fairness of the policy continues to be debated. It will be interesting to see how regulators and utilities react. Some possible alternatives or changes to net metering that may be considered are discussed here: (http://www.everblue.edu/blog/net-metering-caps-now-what). Can off-grid systems, an adjusted billing structure from utilities, or a shift toward feed-in tariffs pick up where net metering leaves off in terms of encouraging growth in distributed solar? Time will tell how the politics play out.

William Fitch
September 20, 2012

Hi: #47, No, payback really was just a dessert for me... I am doing it for energy independence, deleveraging myself from energy dependence and to stop polluting the environment. As a general rule of thumb, I have always done RE as soon as I can afford it independent of ROI or any other statistical 'feel good'. But in my opinion ROI is pathetic and 'plays' into the hands of the conventionals industry, etc.. a far better one to look at if you are so inclined is LCOE. .....Bill

Tim Dolan
September 19, 2012

taking into account payoff includes increasing the resale price of my home even without incentives and at the price I paid and at the low efficiency rate my panels have relative to the future. My panels would pay off within 25 years.

With all the incentives, if I include the increased value of my house, my panels have already paid off (and within 3 years).

You don't get to add resale value to industrial farm arrays, but it does add to the value of a home.

Phil Manke
September 19, 2012

John, The same argument on payback time could applied to efficiency as well. Compared to what? Land space for growing turnips? I look at my PV array and the CVT solar thermal collectors as a 100% efficient hardware investment. Everything I get is free!...... I installed it myself, so must I compare the time to what else I might have done and the money I could have made doing that? Or is it comparable to abject slavery? Or perhaps carefree idleness? I actually compared the work of installing to doing nothing to ensure my future is free of slavery to endless costs and work. It was then a deal I couldn't refuse.

John DAngelo
September 19, 2012

Cliff,

Energy subsidies will NEVER end ofr the fosil fuel peopel and nnculaers industries. They simply control to many congressmen. RE has a long way to go to be able to have thattype of power. Politicans are basically bought in todays world.

Longwatcher,

Keep dreamer about your 50% PV module efficiency. I guess you did not make note that 50% solar efficiency is already here! To bad you ignore it. That is your choice. I will stick with my prediction that PV module efficiency will not increase more than about 5% in the net 10 years. Time will tell who is correct, but history is on my side, lab tests are on yours which rarely end up in commercial production.

Bill,

Is "payback" the only reason you bought A PV array? I hope not. For me buying a PV array was a LIFESTYLE choice and nothing more. Who the hell cares about "Payback" in the first place. TO bad the industry continues to deal with the whole payback issue. IT is simply unfair. When your gas furnace guy or your geothermal guy bills you for his goods do you ask the guy "what is the Payback"? No you do not because there is no "Payback" for any type of fossil fuel heating system.Why? because you have to buy FUEL forever., Thus any heating source that you have to FEED any type of energy has NO payback, ever. But actually a solar system DOES have a payback , however long it takes. But again most people do not buy a RE system because of payback but because they want a cleaner lifestyle, a cleaner environment, not have to go to gas stations anymore and yes put money back in your pocket all rolled into one simple package. Win, WIn, WIn. Forward, Forward, Forward!

William Fitch
September 19, 2012

Hi: Yes, the free market laissez-faire capitalism cry never gets retired along with the touted trickle up economics of the Regan years. The current Republican party's R&R live for the day when the castle walls are real and visible again.... all those moochers...LOL.. You 'hear' posters always cry for the removal of RE 'help' in any form, but their mouths were sewn shut when all was/is being given to Conventional and Nuclear interests, who have shared in 100 years/50 years respectively of Fed help, right up to today. I will disagree on PV pay backs of 3 years as a worst case. I am doing my own 9.1KW tracking system with backup in PA. SREC price is a joke at $16 a MWH. My gross will be in the 28K$ range. If I can take advantage of the full 30% tax credit (5 years to use it or loose it) my payback will be in the 7 to 9 year range at .07KWH PPL rates... and I am doing the whole system myself, otherwise it would be 50K$!!! But, it won't be too many more years until your statement is really true... .....Bill

Maury Markowitz
September 19, 2012

"All the energy invested into manufacturing and installing them is not getting a good ROI. We're ultimately going to retire a lot of today's solar infrastructure with a lifetime negative net energy balance"

Complete and utter balogna. Panels pay off their energy balance in around 3 years in the worst case, and about 1 year in the best.

"the payback will be 10 years instead of 25 or more, and the market will take off naturally"

Ahhh, the siren call of the free market. Tell me, how large would the trucking industry be without the subsidy of the interstates? Close to zero I suspect. And the railways would have been happy to see this. So in this case the government supported one industry over another for your benefit.

Closing down coal plants should be a major short term goal. Frankly, I don't care what replaces it, I'm happy with NG, nukes, hydro, wind or solar. But in all of these cases, the entrenched players have a natural advantage, and *some* sort of subsidy is going to be needed if you want it to go away.

Tim Dolan
September 19, 2012

Why I think we can get to 50% within 20 years, probably sooner is because of some recent developments that allow the solar cells to collect even higher amount of light because of the way they are made. These new methods are only available because of nano-manufacturing techniques that were not available 20 years ago.

Also there have been recent research into multi-spectral panels, While each portion of the spectrum may only get 20% at best, by being able to collect multiple spectrum simultaneously you get more power and for far longer periods. I am especially enthusiastic about work in the mid and long-wave infrared portions of the spectrum. combined with the current visible portion that silicon PV uses today you should be able to double the output of the panel compared to today's availability. In the lab they can get 40% out of the visible spectrum, so likely 30% in practical terms at the home. but if you then double that it would make 60%, but even I don't think that is realistic. 50% is probably much closer.

At the stage they are in at the labs, it is about 7-15 years away from commercial production. Some of it may not pan out, but there are enough different methods, one ot two should make it to market within that time period. Faster if we as a country spend the money on the research and development.

Just my opinion though.

Cliff Claven
September 19, 2012

Markets work if not manipulated by subsidies and FITs and quotas and tax gimmicks. Residential solar is almost at lifecycle breakeven now, and will be much better in 5-10 years. Enticing people to put it on their rooftops before it has the EROI of existing energy sources is tantamount to needlessly burning extra coal and gas in solar panel factories instead of in power plants. All the energy invested into manufacturing and installing them is not getting a good ROI. We're ultimately going to retire a lot of today's solar infrastructure with a lifetime negative net energy balance. However, we are on the cusp of it being a net positive. If the market wasn't rigged, consumers could tell by the price when the time to switch was right. When the efficiency and EROI and power density and cheap and effective local storage technology is there, the payback will be 10 years instead of 25 or more, and the market will take off naturally. The electric utilities will not be able to stop it. I actually predict they will be smart enough to become installers and will lease solar panels and fuel cells to their residential and industrial customers to get in on the action and reduce the need to rewire neighborhoods to power the higher demand created by electric vehicles. If we really care about the environment and about reducing our dependence upon oil, we need to be as efficient as possible, not force inefficient 'green' solutions on people prematurely. Kill ALL energy subsidies and kill all funding of start-ups. Redirect a tiny fraction of that saved (not borrowed from China) money toward multiple $100M X-Prize competitions (no government-funded R&D) for electrical storage and energy density and efficiency technology targets. Track progress in terms of lifecycle EROI. When we hit 8:1 or better (fossil fuel equivalence), the government can pay a billion for U.S. national patent rights, hand them out, and we can all sit back and watch as private capital funds the revolution.

John DAngelo
September 19, 2012

Cliff,

I highly doubt that solar modules will reach a 50% efficiency any time soon. I have been in the solar electric business for over 40 years and over that time the module efficiency has AVERAGED about 14%. Thin film is about 8% efficient. Sunpower modules claim about 17%. Other companies are introducing their "high efficiency" modules that basically match the 17% figure.

I believe the norm of the next 10 years will be about 17-20% but I do not believe a PV module will ever approach 50% efficiency in the "real world". You can do almost anything in a "lab" environment that rarely translates into the "real world". If you want 50% efficiency or higher from solar energy then install a solar thermal collector and you will have your 50% +!

People to often overlook solar thermal, but as far as "efficiency" it sure beats a solar electric module hands down and that will not change anytime soon. That is why I use both. PV modules to do what PV modules do best. PRovide ELECTRICITY to operate the things that use electricity and solar thermal for the things that require the use of hot water such as daily hygiene and winter heating needs.

Utility companies will not go away anytime soon, but one day ALL energy will be generated "on site". In fact one day power lines will be taken down and fetch quite a nice price for the recycled materials in the wire and steel for the towers. Stay tuned!

I can guarantee you one thing. Utilities will either perish or start buying up RE systems like crazy and realize that either the customer buys his own generating system and they are out of the game or that they get in the game and supply the customer with the same service as before, but with " Free fuel" energy sources such as wind and solar electricity unlike coal, nuclear and natural gas sources.

Tim Dolan
September 19, 2012

To make my dream reality only two things need be present that are not already. 1. low cost energy storage capable of holding 72 hours reserve power for the local grid area. 2. Modern High capacity intercontinental transmission lines (say from East Coast to mid-west at least. There is almost no way that both the east coast, mid-west, and west coasts would all simultaneously have conditions preventing solar generation, much less both north and southern US at the same time. I note that even as a hurricane was passing over my house my system was still generating some electricity so if the solar is distributed enough there would be enough power. I have a two story house, most houses are one story so they have more roof surface area for solar capacity. even better if designed with solar in mind. The energy storage part is the ONLY part that is not available today. The rest is already here. granted the solar will get better. My panels are at around 14-17% efficiency (cell efficiency in the 18-21% range). I have read test results of panels in the 40% range from the labs and multi-spectral panels coming down the road that can also increase the total power the system produces, so I think realistically your assessment of 50% is probably a safe bet for 15-20 years from now. But my dream dies if the utility companies restrict the ability of the public to participate in solar power. And as a result the security of the nation will also suffer as a result.

Cliff Claven
September 19, 2012

@longwatcher: your thoughts on energy assurance are profound. For relatively low power-density energy consumers solar can work and the grid can function as you describe essentially as a buffer to moderate between the diurnal and weather-related variations in demand and supply. The current generation of installed PV solar supports customers who can survive on an annual average of ~25 W/m2 for a single contiguous array, or a solar farm at 20% land coverage delivering ~5 W/m2. As the efficiency of panels improves, the higher power density will support more customers. I would estimate that PV solar power density will surely double, and perhaps double again to delivering 100 W/m2 for an individual array (50% efficiency) and 50 W/m2 for a farm at an optimized 50% land coverage. However, solar will never be a good choice to support the high power-density customers. This includes likely all 24 quads of our national energy used for the industrial sector, and large fractions of the 27 quads used for transportation, the 9 quads used for commercial, and the 12 quads used for residential (the high-rise urban dwellers). The power companies will still be power generators.

Tim Dolan
September 18, 2012

For the long term of energy companies, what they need to change their model to is energy broker between home-systems and industrial use. there is no way an industrial center is going to generate enough solar (or wind) power. i would use the shipyard near my house as example. It basically takes a good chunk of a coal or nuclear power plant to support the shipyard (humorously they build nuclear powered aircraft carriers).

If some (or all) of that power they use during the day-time could come from homes in the area then the power plants needed could be much smaller and easier to maintain. If we eventually develop low-cost energy storage, then homes generate the power for industries and the home owner eventually gets some back from the excess power they generate.

Meanwhile the power company has one primary function - energy assurance. It no longer needs to be about energy generation. They make their money off of say a 10 or 20% broker fee between the generator (the homeowner) and the industry. The higher the fee the higher the priority in either making sure power is available or repairing the system that feeds that location. I am willing to pay a small fee to insure I have reliable power 24/7. in fact I do today with the line fee I pay. If the utility company ran the charges by time of day and was just brokering the exchange then it would encourage industries (and homes) to spread the load out so there was no sharp peak power period.

I am kind of rambling here, but I think you get the idea, instead of providing the electricity the power companies need to become energy assurance companies, not power generation companies. i think they would maintain the infrastructure better if they went that way also.

John DAngelo
September 18, 2012

Londwatcher,

Thanks for sharing!

erikkiehle,

There really is no mystery as to why utilities do not like net metering. Let me list the ways they hate RE systems:
1. They take away revenue from their bottom line
2. If it catches on then their revenue base will erode and then they will have to raise prices, as their prices rise, and RE system prices fall you have a real problem for the central power model.
3. You cannot store solar energy during the day when you do not have peak loads in non cooling regions.
4. They do not own the system (but they can and will in the future)
5. You cannot turn solar on with an on-off button. They want to be able to CONTROL their energy source. With control comes POWER. Right?
6. It empowers the "little guy" like you and me. Frowned on in corporate America.
7. Wind energy is really hated the most because the wind often blows at night when the utilities have no need for power at 2 Am in the morning. Without storage wind power can often go to "waste". If you utility owns a wind farm, tuff luck for the utility. Lots of wind energy with NO ONE to sell it to at 2 AM, bummer! They really need to embrace EV's BIG TIME!
8. The CEO won't be able to earn his bonus of 10 million anymore because of lack of revenue , boo hoo.
9. You cannot control RE owners
10. They hate the idea that YOU can zero out your utility bill and get paid REATIL prices when they have for a hundred years, bought wholesale and sold retail. When you sell at retail then back to #1. YOU CAN"T MAKE MONEY.

If you have not figured it out let me sum it up in one word. MONEY!

Tim Dolan
September 18, 2012

My PV system is made up of 30x 270 watt Suntech panels. it is covering about 900 sq foot of roof area or basically almost 100% of the back of the main roof of my two story house. The size decision was made based on being in a historic district so certain energy efficiencies are not available. My goal was 100%, the math said 90% with those panels in my area of Virginia. The reality is 115% of my needs. I will only claim that my A/C got replaced shortly after the system went in, but it is also a more powerful A/C then was in originally. Yes electric oven, no to water heat yet, still natural gas on that until the water heater dies then I will change out to on-demand water heater. I will have to redo plumbing at same time so need to save my money for that one.

A bit of humor is that I was told a on-demand water heater can takes several seconds to heat the water, right now it takes about 2 minutes to get hot water out of the pipes upstairs, so 15-20 seconds is a much quicker hot water time - can't wait. :)

My other main electrical use is heavy computer processing for photography and video work I do as a part-time business.

My system averages 33.5kWh per day over the past 3 years, however I recently stopped paying attention as much as I used to since it is doing even better this year then last and I never even got close to zero on my balance from net metering. Although we have had a lot of rain, I think we have also had a lot more sunny days this year, so with the rain keeping the dust down and more sun I may even be doing better then 115% this year. Oh and this with a tree branch directly over one panel. I expected a hit in power because of this, but haven't seen it this year so not in a hurry to cut the branch. Also last fall i had a panel come off when hurricane Irene came through, it made it the 40 foot to the ground face down, but intact and is back on the roof after being checked out. I have a lot of faith in solar these days.

Erik Kiehle
September 18, 2012

It's worth returning to the original article's premise; that grid operators or electricity providers (not always the same) don't like solar for some reason.

I can indeed see why wind could be productive at night when demand is low, supply is idle, and the electric company is forced by net metering to roll back the customer's billable kWh just when they don't want the power.

I cannot see why solar wouldn't be welcome. It produces at times that match peak demand and generally tight supply. Those are the expensive time-of-day pricing when the electricity company could well be paying just as much /kWh on the spot market as their retail rate to the customer.

So, can anyone explain the logical reason/justification utilities might have against solar net metering? Right now in TX our grid manager ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of TX) is forecasting shortages of power in the coming years. Is it better to build more coal/NG/nuclear plants? Well in TX we have a shortage of water too. What power source doesn't need water to operate and doesn't pollute? Ding, ding, ding! Wind and solar.

I'm not sure the FUD will work any more against wind/solar. Just too many obvious reasons why they're desirable and cost-competitive.

Erik Kiehle
September 18, 2012

@Cliff
"It's best to do a little research before starting to type one's rebuttals. Here is the link to the Nissan Leaf charging specs. Sorry if you don't like them or don't agree. Sometimes the facts just refuse to change to suit one's reality. http://gas2.org/2010/04/09/up-close-with-aerovironments-nissan-leaf-home-charging-unit/ "

You do realize you're citing pre-release market fluff data right?

Here's a currently available Level 2 home 240v charger. It draws 16A @ 240V. Again, about the same as a clothes dryer. In my TX all-electric house I have two electric hot water heaters, an electric double oven, an electric cooktop, and of course that electric clothes dryer. All running through a standard 200A utility service. A level 2 charger for an EV would fit right in, and never need changes to the grid or utility. That's just FUD from EV-haters.
http://www.leviton.com/OA_HTML/ProductDetail.jsp?partnumber=EVB22-3PM§ion=37741&minisite=10251

The Nissan Leaf comes with timed programmable charging so you can charge it while that utility demand curve is at the bottom with surplus generation sitting idle. "You can set a charging timer right on the dash, or remotely from a mobile device or computer."
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/home-charging?next=ev_micro.root_nav.charging

BTW, I have 4 on-road vehicles (and then 2 riding mowers and 1 tractor). The 8mpg motorhome isn't for daily driving. The 17-ish mpg '97 4Runner I'll keep for towing stuff like my trailer. The '99 Lexus gets about 20mpg but that's the wife's car and she likes it. That leaves an extra '03 Honda Accord (about 20mpg) that I could replace with a Leaf. Maybe I'll get solar or maybe not. But at least the power would be locally US produced instead of imported from the middle east as with an ICE.

John DAngelo
September 18, 2012

Cliff,

Yep an 8 kW + is a very large PV array IMO. I have a 5 KW PV array and my average production is 700 kWh (in Colorado) yet we CONSUME only about 250-300 without the EV. and we can even do better than 250-300 kWh as time goes on . Examples I have a 20 gallon aquarium and just replaced the T5 aquarium light that has a 36W rating with an LED aquarium light that uses only 8 Watts. It is really amazing what happens when you buy the most energy efficient appliances on the market. We also replaced our 5 year old 18 Cu ft ref/freezer with a uint that uses about 40 kWh a month. The more we can "free up" we can use for other things like transportation. Free sure beats $3.70 for a gallon of gasoline! Ever think about how much time is spent at a gas station?

I assume longwatcher has many 240 V AC loads like Air conditioning, a heat pump, maybe even electric hot water tank, electric stove, etc.whenever i can.

Maury Markowitz
September 18, 2012

"Feed-in tariffs are far simpler than net metering, which can get very complicated very fast, so I see this evolution as a good thing"

They also have their problems. Here in Ontario, the metering policy requires that the generation meter be placed on the grid-side of the connection. This means that an electrician has to come and pull power to the home, remove the existing single meter, replace it with a new double meter, and the hook everything back up. Combined with the fees for disco/reco, this adds several thousand dollars to every system. Worse, we still don't get power in the house from the panels, so when the contract ends in 20 years, you have to re-wire the system again to get net metering.

Cliff Claven
September 18, 2012

@longwatcher, you have roughly double the wattage of most home systems. May I ask how many square meters of panels you have installed and if they are anything particularly special. Looking to keep abreast of the installed state of the art. Thank you.

John DAngelo
September 18, 2012

Longwatcher,

Congratulations! You are a doer and not a watcher. I like doers!

Today with the lowest prices of PV modules (less than $1.00 a watt) almost anyone can install a PV system and have a POSITIVE cash flow from day #1.

Yes a PV array will last 30-50 years and a car can last that long to IF WE MAKE CARS TO LAST. For example, my 1980 100% EV is 32 years old. It will last another 32 years . Why ? Because it is made of materials that will last that long. ABS plastic bode and Aluminum frame. Tesla Model S has an aluminum body. It should last 40 years or so, the car will last that long but the "styling" will not. Until we can live with the vehicle for that long, great.

But lets get back on the original subject. Net metering. Utilities hate RE and will fight tooth and nail until they can and will own your roof top PV array and then BILL you for the energy that is generated on your own roof top. It amazing me how many people will pay for a service when they can generate their own electricity virtually trouble free. But hey many people cannot live without a utility company, period.

PV modules can last easily 50+ years, Microinverter's now have 25 year warranties, string inverters typically 10 years. There is no reason why inverters cannot last as long as PV modules. Battery storage: Nickel iron batteries have proven to last up to 80 years.enough said.

We can all be part of the solution to high energy prices, climate change, and more pollution (buy RE systems, EV's) or bitch and moan about high energy prices and demand that we drill more, build more, but never consider the obvious clean alternatives to the status quo. All quality RE systems will last a lifetime. Those are facts, not lies. Should we not demand the cleanest energy source, and not the dirtiest, for present and future humans, let alone our planet?

Tim Dolan
September 18, 2012

Just some comments on the comments. My 8.1kW solar PV system on my roof is currently covering 115% of my electrical needs. My home is NOT energy efficient other then I have some LED/LCD TVs and CFL bulbs. I do not yet have an electric car, because I decided solar PV was the better option to start with. The PV system will last for 40-50 years (or the rest of my life) with a couple of relatively cheap inverter changes. A car will likely have to be replaced every 10-15 years. I have however looked at the Leaf (and my driving habits) and if I add about 6 more panels (my back porch roof has space for about 12-16) I could generate enough to stay at zero balance while using the Leaf on a daily basis. If energy storage gets to the makes since to me level, then I could store my excess during the day and charge the car at night. I looked into using used electric car batteries, but too many other folks have the same idea raising the cost beyond what i considered feasible at this time. In short, really the only component missing for my daily use is energy storage technology and I have read of many promising things in that area available in the next 5-20 years. And as for payoff, with current incentives, I will start to make a PROFIT on my PV system at around the 6-7 year mark at this rate (mainly due to SRECs)

John DAngelo
September 18, 2012

Steven,

Nuclear power is not a peril to everyone when you have a nuclear power meltdown? In fact the Japan disaster was a triple header! Radioactive fallout effects us all or at least most of us. Japan and Germany are going in the right direction. Not sure why you love nuclear power but you are obvious in denial when it comes to seeing the downside.

Coal is ugly to, radiation is also emitted from coal plants so really both are nasty stuff. RE will replace both IN THE FUTURE, but it will take some time.

Cliff,

I charge my MiEV with a 120V outlet. It works fine. Typically our RT is about 40 miles. When we plug in it is fully charged the next morning. SUre a 240 V charger is great and one day we may get one, but not now. I though we needed one but sometimes you think you need something when you do not. And if one does need a 240 V outlet it is not usually a big deal to install a 240V 30 A breaker in most 200 A main house panels.

You miss the whole point of a PV system when you say "it will not pay for itself in its lifetime". Does your car ever "pay for itself"? or your vacation to the bahamas? My PV system gives me financial freedom and fuel freedom you may never achieve. If you are happy with your utility company SERVICE, good for you, but I have chosen to OWN something of value, my PV system.

Few advocate just having just an 100% EV, but have one EV and of course an ICE. Most families have 2-3 cars, Believe me once you get a 100% EV you will be surprised at how little you use or even want to use a ICE. But you will never know that until you actually y BUY an EV. Have you seen the TV adds on the Chevy Volt? The users say how little gas they use. Why? because the facts do not lie. (average person travels 32 miles RT), well within the Volts electric mode range. My choice is simple. Drive the EV for a 9 cents a mile (battery replacement since the fuel is free) or my ICE for 26 cents a mile?

William Fitch
September 18, 2012

Hi: # 27. You should read your own references. CAN ACCOMMODATE 30 to 80.. It has fast charge capability AVAILABLE. The fact that they have rapid charge capability built in is not a negative. You can tap the lower 30 amp rate if you like, which would translate to about 3-1/2 to 4 hours for a full charge...
The leaf's charger has that rapid capability...not all do....
As for energy efficiencies and RE being niche... Niche is niche only if the masses choose it to be. That is why the infinite stall and mis-information tactics by the conventional fuel industry works so well, not that anyone here on this site would try them of course...

Renewables to keep on living....

.....Bill

Cliff Claven
September 18, 2012

It's best to do a little research before starting to type one's rebuttals. Here is the link to the Nissan Leaf charging specs. Sorry if you don't like them or don't agree. Sometimes the facts just refuse to change to suit one's reality. http://gas2.org/2010/04/09/up-close-with-aerovironments-nissan-leaf-home-charging-unit/ The problem is not any single appliance, it is adding to the net electrical load of a home. Adding a 220V anything to an American home is a big deal. Most people get by with one electric clothes dryer, not two. BTW, how many families with kids can survive with just one car? How does the multiple electric car scenario work with folks claiming they can live within the energy budget of their rooftop panels. Yeah, I've heard about solar thermal (and passive solar homes, and concentrating solar). All technologies with niche applications for a select segment of the population living in certain climes and latitudes with certain lifestyles. Better batteries and a better price point are what I'm waiting for. I'm not willing to increase my mortgage for something that will not pay for itself in its lifetime nor settle for 40% of a car at 150% of the price. Will we get there eventually, I think we will; but pushing this before it's ready is imposing up-front financial and environmental costs and energy inefficiencies on everyone. In any case, solar is four times better than wind and 16 times better than biofuels, so its the least losing horse in the race right now.

ANONYMOUS
September 18, 2012

John writes in comment #22:

"Obviously you are very anti renewables.

Japan is not short sighted, but sees a far different path now that there soil has become radioactive. It is funny when something does not effect one directly how they can have such views as you do. "

I'm merely opposed to false assumptions and erroneous statements--not renewables in general. As for the drivel about "when something does not effect one directly" I'd say climate change is likely to affect all of us and when major economic players such as Japan and Germany choose to continue to rely heavily on coal so they can address the comparatively minor risks of nuclear power it imperils everyone.
Steven

John DAngelo
September 17, 2012

Hi William,

People will be in denial about electric cars for some time to come as well as still thinking a PV array is somehow "expensive". But once YOU do the math, 100% EV are no joke, but are not only a way to put money back into your pocket but also do wonders for the environment. Single fact: The average person drive 16 miles one way (32M RT). That is why EVERY home needs oen EV in their driveway!

I charge my EV for free. I have now owned 4, 100% EVs and most people have never even owned one. I have waited patiently for 30 years to buy my 4th EV. The wait was well worth it. My fuel costs are basically ZERO. I love driving my EV. It is FUN!

There are so many myths created my the status quo. It is such a shame that we simply cannot move forward without all these myths getting in the way. Tesla has done a terrific job dispelling a lot of those myths, some will never part with their beloved ICE or nuclear power plants just like there will always be people who will never give up plastic records.

Right on with your point about HVAC systems. More than one way to heat and cool a home. But you did forget to mention that a GEO THERMAL heat pump is the MOST expensive HVAC system to install for any home. That is why most people do not do it. That is why I like to have a building envelope super insulated and then stick in a small AC or Heating unit depending on what type of climate you live in.

Erik Kiehle
September 17, 2012

>"Whose electric hair dryer in the US runs on 220V and pulls 30-80 amps?"
@Cliff - Please read more closely, and attempt to use reason. I said "electric dryer". As a guy I don't think of hair dryers, I think of clothes dryers like the GE linked below. It uses 5600 Watts, or 24A at 240V.
http://products.geappliances.com/ApplProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=SpecPage&Sku=GTDL210GDWW

The Nissan Leaf uses 15-30A at 240V (depending on bulk or slow charge) so about the same. **Again, are you saying the grid cannot handle a neighborhood all running their electric clothes dryers at the same time?
http://www.franklin-gov.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3119

>And that's just the charger for the Nissan Leaf with its tiny 24kVh battery (less than 1 gallon of gas equivalent).
Well what you call a gallon of gas equivalent can power a Leaf for a range of 80+ miles. Better MPG equivalent than your car? Certainly better than any of the 4 on-road vehicles I own.

>Guess folks will just have to work night jobs so they can leave their cars home to charge during the day. Kids can walk to their games and practices.
Charge it at night when CAISO shows surplus supply. How many miles do you drive a day, 80+?
Most Americans drive far less in a single day's vehicle travel, including me and I live in a sparsely populated TX county outside of the city. It's 10miles to town, so round trip is ~20 miles. Am I going to travel around town for another 60+ miles? EVs aren't for everyone, but they're the best MPG equivalent options available commercially today. They're here, they work, and they're no more a threat to the "grid" than an electric clothes dryer.

>When it's sunny, PV solar can't generate even a fraction of what's needed for HVAC, and it when its cloudy, it provides even less.
The point is that solar PV production matches the time of day when electricity demand is highest. http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx#SupplyandDemand

William Fitch
September 17, 2012

Hi: Hold on number 21... Lets do some number/fact checking.... First at 240VAC, current 20 amps is 4.8 KW. 4.8 KW for a period of only six hours over night equals 28.8KWH @90% charge eff nets 25.9KWH enough for the TINY 24KWH battery bank and 100 miles of driving!! SO, 30 to 80 amps is not tapped by normal home over night chargers. Now rapid quick chargers maybe, but, even only 40 amps which is still smaller than a standard breaker on an electric stove (50) will deliver 100 miles of driving in 3 hours... and I believe #19 was speaking of a 240 VAC electric clothes dryer, normally breaker'ed at 30 amps, not a hair dryer... As for PV generating whats needed for HVAC, I have HVAC geo thermal for heat and AC and my PV will have no trouble generating that load. In fact when complete, my array will produce twice what I use which includes heating and cooling my home. As for the energy used in the transportation 'world', remember, 85% of the oil used is wasted into heat. So with electric, you only need 15% of that current usage to equal the same amount of 'movement'. Think of it, your 1 gallon of gasoline at 125,000 BTU's gross = 36.6KWH (125,000/3413 = 36.6). That will get you, lets say 30 miles.. Only 24KWH (65% as much, 24/36.6=.655) in an electric gets you 100 miles!!! NOW THAT's A WOW!!!! .....Bill

John DAngelo
September 17, 2012

Anonymous

Obviously you are very anti renewables.

Japan is not short sighted, but sees a far different path now that there soil has become radioactive. It is funny when something does not effect one directly how they can have such views as you do. When anther nuclear power "accident" happens (and IT WILL) then we shall see how many people want it in that country.

I am not up to date on Sweden's vision of phasing out all its nuclear plants.

Maybe a nuclear power plant does not give off as much CO2 as a coal fured plant, but it does create radioactive waste. but with more and more renewable energy in Germany and Japan (in the future) who will need nuclear energy or even a coal fired power plant? I think you miss the whole point as to why Germany and Japan DO NOT WANT nuclear power plants any more. Bottom line: Nuclear power plants are a NIGHTMARE to clean up. When they work they work great, when they do not they are a disaster. When a wind generator falls over or a solar electric module breaks from an earthquake there is no radioactive waste anywhere to be found. Amazing huh?

Cliff,

Every hear of "solar thermal"? Far more efficient than solar electric at collecting BTU's. Solar thermal has proven to do quite well in almost any heating climate and now solar thermal can also cool as well in almost any cooling climate.

We have to quit talking and start DOING and the world will be a much beter place.

We can have a society in which all energy comes from renewables IF WE WANT to. We do not need nuclear power plants nor coal fired power plants, but it is what we have NOW but over time when enough RE systems are installed (both on a large scale AND small scale) then those plants WILL shut down and utilities will have little if no incentive to keep them operational.

After all free fuel is a no brainer, even for the utility companies!

Cliff Claven
September 17, 2012

Whose electric hair dryer in the US runs on 220V and pulls 30-80 amps? And that's just the charger for the Nissan Leaf with its tiny 24kVh battery (less than 1 gallon of gas equivalent). Guess folks will just have to work night jobs so they can leave their cars home to charge during the day. Kids can walk to their games and practices. When it's sunny, PV solar can't generate even a fraction of what's needed for HVAC, and it when its cloudy, it provides even less. How is the 0.14% of US power that solar is providing anything like a "peaking" capacity? People need to get a sense of scale.

ANONYMOUS
September 17, 2012

John writes in comment #13:
"I guess Japan is also "short sighted" because they plan to phase out their 50 nuclear power plants in 30 years.. In fact Germany, Sweden (which you have not mentioned was the first country to get rid of its nuclear plants) are not short sighted at all but are bringing their countries into the future and putting their words into actions and their people have chosen a different path than France and other countries that rely heavily on nuclear power."

Well rumors of a Swedish nuclear phase out are false; the country continues to generate a large portion of its electricity from nuclear power and the government is allowing old reactors to be replaced.

As for the decision in Japan, it was not only short sighted by irresponsible. With both Germany and Japan--two of the four largest economies in the world choosing to phase out nuclear power instead of coal it sends a terrible message about the need to address the threat of climate change. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising at an accelerating rate, and this is a much more serious concern than the manageable risks of nuclear power plants.
Steven

Erik Kiehle
September 17, 2012

"If everybody had solar and everybody was on the grid, then everybody would be pushing excess power to each other at noon on a sunny day (forcing the utility companies to shutdown all their generating capacity), and then everybody would be drawing huge amounts of power simultaneously at night to recharge their electric cars"

HORSE PUCKY.
Go view the California grid power page and view time of day demand.
http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx#SupplyandDemand

Solar produces when the grid MOST NEEDS ADDITIONAL POWER.
EVs on timers can CHARGE WHEN DEMAND IS LOWEST.

Solar is GOOD. Having to build "peaker" plants that get used only when grid demand peaks is expensive for utilities. Peak power (aka, time of use) is also the most expensive. This is why solar is GOOD, it offsets these peak mid-day demand times with peak mid-day solar production.

EVs are barely selling at all. Someday, maybe, they'll be a serious force on the grid but that day is far, far away. Most use the same electricity draw as an electric dryer. Which is LESS than the average home's HVAC unit. EVs simply are NOT A FACTOR to the grid today and are unlikely to become a significant factor EVER. HVAC will likely continue to be a bigger grid demand factor.

"(forcing the utility companies to have even more generating capacity and to upgrade the transmission and distribution lines right down to the individual homes which each now draw much more current)."
No, sorry you are wrong. Transmission and distribution lines to individual homes do not need to be upgraded for solar. They also don't need to be tampered with for EVs. Again, EVs demand a similar electric load as an electric dryer. Are you implying that if everyone in your neighborhood turned on an electric dryer at the same time the grid would fail? If so you're making a compelling argument for site-generated power.

Winter Weather Causes Outages
http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=5106

ANONYMOUS
September 17, 2012

U.S. Solar Industry Anticipates Utility Backlash Over Metering
By Christopher Martin, Bloomberg

I believe the title of this article is missing the word "Net" before metering.

And for what it is worth, Germany has reduced its FIT compensation and has planned to phase out FIT entirely by the next decade. It replacement plan is customer self service (very similar to Net-Energy-Metering).

William Fitch
September 17, 2012

Hi:

Well yes Phil, but I was taking the longer view here. The bottom line, if the current utilities try and garnish or control small producers to maintain profits, people will just learn how to efficiently load flatten and drop off the grid. This at the moment is expensive and complicated. However, bring a cheap long term electrical storage device and cheap efficient PV into the equation and there is no longer a reason for the residential central model. Industry can provide a greater challenge, but with bigger but like capabilities, community models could handle that load. The whole driver for a central energy model is density at the LOAD point expressed in power and time. If commodity priced storage and generation exists, the bulk can be handled in decentralized models. That is just fact. Current political farces of all color will effect the near term, but eventually will cave to availability. Once the dam starts springing leaks, it will eventually bust. There are just too many up sides to local power generation, PARTICULARLY in a turbulent world.

.....Bill

Tim Dolan
September 17, 2012

I still say the best argument against large industrial arrays favored by the power companies is the security one. Anarchists or Terrorists both can take out one big array easier then lots of little ones.

The more robust and distributed the system the more secure and reliable it is. Much like the internet, Our energy production must be distributed in the future.

Phil Manke
September 17, 2012

Sounds great, Bill. But don't you believe the centralized power scheme is the one prefered by industry? I see the settup being gradually being put in place for the ute's to control all the electrical power supplies, and they may be influential enough to move laws to enable their favor, as they seem to be doing right along. As long as they can pervert honesty and thus the perception of reality, they can control public opinion and subdue outrage. Witness the political balony passing for reason today, and tell me they are not having some success. Perhaps not for me and you, but most people?

William Fitch
September 16, 2012

Hi: All fuel based energy sources will in the long run be obsolete. Once PV efficiencies even double from where the average is today, all non industry demands could be handled on site or one step up to a community based system. Battery storage will continue to increase density and cycle life. Once tipping points are reached, a central model makes no more sense. Small distributed power systems are more resilient, the cost of the power scaled by the locations energy capabilities. All the long distance transport loses and costs go away, along with the vulnerabilities created by the distance from generation to load. The SUN, WIND and EARTH (geo) have always been on our head, in our face and under our feet. We just lacked the tech to use them. Once we have that, all that we see today goes away in the central realm....
Now, if Fracking doesn't pollute all our fresh water we have left to drink and nature has fresh water to feed the food chains, we might be lucky enough to be here to enjoy the new clean world....

.....Bill

John DAngelo
September 16, 2012

Anonymous,

I guess Japan is also "short sighted" because they plan to phase out their 50 nuclear power plants in 30 years.. In fact Germany, Sweden (which you have not mentioned was the first country to get rid of its nuclear plants) are not short sighted at all but are bringing their countries into the future and putting their words into actions and their people have chosen a different path than France and other countries that rely heavily on nuclear power. Japan just put another nail in the nuclear coffin! Yea!

I just wish our country (USA) would phase out all our nuclear power plants, but that will not happen anytime soon. They have to die on their own as natural gas and renewable energy start taking center stage. The cost of nuclear power plants are just to high and the risks to great. If you take away the PRICE ANDERSON ACT (which limits the utilities liability from a nuclear power "accident) no utility company in the USA would EVER build a nuclear power plant. But unfortunately that act got renewed once again.

Believe me, we can figure out a way to get a base load from some other energy sources besides nuclear power plants. If we have enough renewable energy mix in the grid between solar and wind there is an old saying that goes "when the wind blows the sun does not shine and when the sun shines the wind does not blow. However often times BOTH the wind blows and the sun shines. As smart grids evolve and communication takes place TWO ways then everything changes. You are making assumptions based on past grid models which are changing this very moment.

People create problems in their minds that have not even happened yet!

Tim Dolan
September 16, 2012

Looking at my own location in Virginia, it looks very much like you would need over 10% solar PV peak production before the solar energy production starts actually costing the utilities money on a straight across net metering basis. We are not even at 1% yet and they are trying to change the rules already to make sure solar PV becomes non-viable for home-owners.

As a side note: I pay $8.54 a month for a line fee, which is what it costs me to not have batteries (also to be eligible for SRECs). I actually think this is probably lower then it should be, but in this case the local power company (Dominion) long ago folded most of the line charges into the cost of electricity and their customers would be up in arms (and their legislature's faces) if they started to return that to its proper value here.

What they probably need to do is change net-metering to a time-of-day system and buy it at the current rate they are paying to generate the electricity and then separate out the current incentives from that. However, it has been so obscured (on purpose no doubt) that it would probably cost the power companies more then net metering does. I note they charge 11 cents/kWh to residential users (and thus currently I sell it at the same), but on hot days they may exceed 30 cents a kWh during day-time and 20 cents/kWh during the summer is not unusual.

I think the fastest way to cut down on electrical use would be to charge by time of day as well for everyone.

RANDY DUNTON
September 16, 2012

I have nothing against the utilities, they have a great service and it is a local industry - all good, however this story is not an issue, just an excuse to make more money for a monopolistic industry.

These are just crocodile tears - we are at less than 2% penetration, it will take 10-20 years for this PV energy to become a significant contribution to the grid, especially considering the shift of oil (for transportation) to the grid. Keep in mind that the utility makes over 30% profit from you selling the energy to them at retail and then for them to sell it to your next door neighbor. How can that be?, well first of all the transmission losses, not an issue when my PV power goes to my neighbor. and the capital investment and maintenance costs, I paid for my PV power plant the utility did not. The utilities will do just fine, the petro $$ coming their way will be enormous, they can hardly wait till we all are driving EVs. crocodile tears.

ANONYMOUS
September 15, 2012

Tam writes in comment #6:
"Feed-in tariff costs for solar, biomass and wind have in fact been found to be net positive for the German economy. Germany now has enough solar on their grid to show a substantial reduction in peak power costs on the wholesale market:http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/03/27/why-generators-are-terrified-of-solar/. "

This has been claimed by some but not found (which suggests some form of proof of the claim) by any. FIT costs have contributed to electricity rates that are dramatically higher than in other countries (more than triple the mean cost in the US) and the modest savings from the reduced spot market prices does not outweigh these additional costs.

A point that does not seem to be well appreciated is that the peak in the spot market prices has moved from midday to (typically) the early evening, where it cannot be significantly affected by further increases in solar PV generation and this shift in the spot market peak location occurred at a market penetration for PV of only about 3%. A further increase in PV will no longer be effective in reducing spot market prices. At levels that will be needed to offset the loss of Germany's nuclear power, there will be losses from curtailment when supply exceeds demand or merely exceeds what can be readily transmitted to where the demand is. Increased need for transmission infrastructure, backup capacity, losses due to curtailment, and similar problems are going to become significant issues as Germany tries to replace stable base load nuclear power with intermittent renewables. Further price increases and an increased reliance on coal are the predictable outcomes of the shortsighted phaseout of nuclear power.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
September 15, 2012

Delroy writes in comment #7:
"Within a few years that will not be necessary because the cost of storage will be low enough that it will be more economical for a customer to install a solar system with low cost storage system. Then they will be completely off-grid and be free from the utilities."

I am unconvinced there will ever be a large fraction of users that will want to go off grid. With net metering you only need a system that meets your average demand; if you go off grid you have to size a system to meet your peak needs and include enough storage (or alternative generation) to deal with extended periods of low production, for example, in case a major snowstorm completely covers your panels. Even if you neglect streaks of very bad weather, usage on a hot day in July is often much higher than on a temperate day in April and planning for worst case needs adds costs. Batteries take up space, require maintenance and replacement, increase the complexity of the system, and are an unnecessary hassle. Even if the costs were to drop very significantly--something I doubt is in the cards--many users would not want them.
Steven

John DAngelo
September 15, 2012

Delroy,,

I believe your prediction is accurate on storage costs being reduced over time, I just am not sure about the time frame.

I believe that utility scale projects are currently the #1 type of installation at this point in time and I think that will only accelerate. With solar PV only about 1% of our national energy production we have one heck of a long way to go.

The sad part as I see it is that people will allow the utilities to bill them for electricity they can make for virtual nothing. Oh well! Central power vs Decentralized power. CP may utilnately win and you know who loses, as usual.

Delroy Leslie
September 15, 2012

As mentioned in my earlier post, we tell our customers that it is more economical to pay the small fee to the utility to store the energy for later usage. Within a few years that will not be necessary because the cost of storage will be low enough that it will be more economical for a customer to install a solar system with low cost storage system. Then they will be completely off-grid and be free from the utilities.

Similar to how the cost of solar installation has fallen considerably over the past few months, electrical storage will be falling in the next few years also.

As John mentioned earlier, the utilities are not interested in building new power plants because of the cost of fuel, they want to squeeze every last cent out of their current operating plants while they slowly diversify to renewable energy where the weather is fine and the sun is free. We should also note that most of the solar installation within the past 2 quarters are utility projects.

Tam Hunt
September 15, 2012

Cliff, your facts are off with respect to Germany. Feed-in tariff costs for solar, biomass and wind have in fact been found to be net positive for the German economy. Germany now has enough solar on their grid to show a substantial reduction in peak power costs on the wholesale market:http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/03/27/why-generators-are-terrified-of-solar/. Germany is not trying to use solar as baseload, it's obviously a peak power source not baseload. Germany is in fact taking its entire baseload nuclear fleet offline due to safety concerns, and biomass along with storage for wind and solar can in fact make a big dent in any baseload requirements that remain. California could do the same and this is actually being studied in the current Long-term Procurement Planning process at the CPUC. As for variability more generally, this is not a technical problem, it's a cost problem. As a cost problem, it's becoming increasingly viable to backup variable renewables like solar and wind with various types of storage, with battery storage probably the most viable in the long-term. That said, most jurisdictions, including CA, are still far from the point where we need any backup to variable renewables because we're at only about 3% penetration of wind and solar, 5% baseload geothermal the rest natural gas, nuclear, large hydro, biomass and a little bit of coal. We have huge amounts of surplus capacity on our grid right now because we massively overbuilt after the power crisis in 2000/2001 due to the mistaken perception that the crisis was caused by a lack of sufficient power instead of malfeasance. The bottomline: any problems with variable renewables can be readily solved and probably at very reasonable cost because the cost curves for renewables and storage are coming down steadily with scale, whereas the long-term trend for fossil fuel costs is clearly up (even though natural gas is very low now and may stay that way for a few more years until int'l arbitrage leads to high

Phil Manke
September 15, 2012

Cliff, I do not forsee the saturation of distributed solar energy to happen uncomfortably quickly. As it does, the charging of electric autos, (also not happening uncomfortably quickly), may also take place during daylight from various rate policies and commercial incentives. I see this as an interesting challenge for the energy industries to undertake, and one that will enable quantum shift in how we see more peaceful consumer values.

Cliff Claven
September 15, 2012

The insurmountable problem with solar is variability. If everybody had solar and everybody was on the grid, then everybody would be pushing excess power to each other at noon on a sunny day (forcing the utility companies to shutdown all their generating capacity), and then everybody would be drawing huge amounts of power simultaneously at night to recharge their electric cars (forcing the utility companies to have even more generating capacity and to upgrade the transmission and distribution lines right down to the individual homes which each now draw much more current). Who pays for the increased electrical generating plant capacity that now only gets used intermittently, reducing its efficiency and greatly increasing its marginal cost? Who pays for the electrical infrastructure upgrades? We all do, whether by increases in electricity rates or by taxes for government subsidies and tariffs. Read the recent news articles about Germany and their high electricity rates and their inability to sustain their solar subsidies and their exporting of excess electricity below cost to other countries because of the insane policies that try to use variable solar power for baseload and steady plant power for peaking. Until there is true grid storage capacity, all this manufacturing and installing of panel and needless power plant churn is achieving the opposite of every efficiency and GHG emissions and climate goal.

John DAngelo
September 15, 2012

Utilities wil fight back until such a time when they will form subsidiaries and get in on the action themselves. It is just a matter of time. If you own the generation then you can meter it. They own the generation when they install or purchase energy from wind or solar farms and they will own more and more wind and solar wind farms moving forward. At the end of the day the consumer has to make up their mind, do they want to own the generation or do they want the utility to and get billed for FREE ENERGY the rest of their lives? Why rent when you can own? At one time people could not own their own telephones, but once they could people bought them. BUt solar energy is still belived to be 'expensive' for most people because of the initial upfront cost. Solar electric is about as inexpensive as it is going to get with very small downward pricing moving forward. I predict utilities will start installing more and more PV solar farms. In fact they will discover they cannot put them in fast enough because once they realize they do not have to buy natural gas, coal or uranium to generate electricity BINGO there will be no turing back. But they cannot just throw out their existing generators, those will have to be scrapped gradually. The utility company of the future will look nothing like one's today. In fact low natural gas prices are hurting coal, but less expensive solar and wind energy and not having FUEL costs will put the nail in the coal generation coffin once and for all.

Tam Hunt
September 14, 2012

California has always had a cap on net metering - this is not new at all. What is new is that CA has actually steadily INCREASED the cap, and it is now at 5%, up from 1.5% a few years ago. Yes, the utilities always push back on increasing the cap and this will be a problem in coming years as penetration increases. The long-term solution is to pursue feed-in tariffs and other wholesale policies that allow generators to sell power directly to the utility, with or without offsetting power demand onsite first. Feed-in tariffs are far simpler than net metering, which can get very complicated very fast, so I see this evolution as a good thing. Germany has of course pursued the pure feed-in tariff model for years now, with great success. They have now about 30,000 MW of solar installed and another 30,000 MW of wind, all under feed-in tariff policies, compared to CA's paltry 2,000 MW of solar and 4,000 MW of wind. Even adjusting for population, we're still far far behind Germany.

Delroy Leslie
September 14, 2012

Our utilities use the two meter system for net metering. The first meter measure the amount of energy that the customer produces which is bought entirely by the utility. The second meter is the regular meter that measures the amount of energy the customer buys and uses from the utility. This enables the utility to still charge the customer like every other customer, while purchasing all the energy that the customer produces.

When we install systems for our customers, we tell them that this is fair because they are using the grid as storage and the $25.00 that they pay each month is a lot cheaper than investing in a battery for storing their excess electricity.