solar costs keep shrinking and then you have power companies like SDGE that want to punish solar owners based on their salary and set a $125 min cost to be connected to the grid
I don't think utility companies are entirely wrong to charge some flat rate for being connected to the grid, there are fixed costs with each customer and solar homes are not actually independent from the grid even if they're net neutral their night time power has to come from somewhere. Even if we get to enough residential solar to completely power the grid from solar and charge enough storage to last overnight there's still the costs associated with storing that power overnight we can't get around.
The trouble with this logic is that public utility commissions across the country have measured the impact that solar has on the grid, and found that not only does it not impose a cost, but it confers a benefit, in some studies up to 33 cents per kilowatt hour.
I completely agree with your core point, which is that there need to be costs associated with impact on the grid, to make sure that there's no incentivization of freeloading in either direction. Whether utilities owe solar owners a one time payment, an ongoing payment, or should be contributing to the financing of new construction of solar panels is an open question imo.
No one wants to hear it, but this is the case. We need to revamp how we charge for electricity.
A flat fee that accounts for all the fixed costs that the grid requires, then an additional fee based on usage. There is no magical bullet that removes that. Maintaining lines and transformers and keeping it all monitored and balanced and so on takes money.
That will make it so solar is still viable without making utilities complete money holes.
1) Those fixed costs go down with more distributed generation. No need for large solar farms in a different zip code if many customers have it on their roof.
2) Many/most utilities don't pay retail rates for excess power, so there's already profit built into the arrangement with solar customers.
3) You didn't address a utility charging monthly fixed fees based on income.
Utility companies around me will gaslight you into not getting solar--bury you in paperwork, FUD, and last ditch efforts to buy into some kind of solar timeshare program.
I'm hoping to see more decentralized/hyper-local power generation and storage.
>I'm hoping to see more decentralized/hyper-local power generation and storage
With the scale we're dealing with decentralization does not work. You need to centralize for efficiency (i.e. optimize power generation and maintenance per unit of land-area). Though in this case the point is moot, since we don't have any grid-scale storage solutions for wind/solar - making them non-viable as the primary power generation regardless of price.
rtkwe|1 year ago
glenstein|1 year ago
I completely agree with your core point, which is that there need to be costs associated with impact on the grid, to make sure that there's no incentivization of freeloading in either direction. Whether utilities owe solar owners a one time payment, an ongoing payment, or should be contributing to the financing of new construction of solar panels is an open question imo.
Night_Thastus|1 year ago
A flat fee that accounts for all the fixed costs that the grid requires, then an additional fee based on usage. There is no magical bullet that removes that. Maintaining lines and transformers and keeping it all monitored and balanced and so on takes money.
That will make it so solar is still viable without making utilities complete money holes.
beembeem|1 year ago
2) Many/most utilities don't pay retail rates for excess power, so there's already profit built into the arrangement with solar customers.
3) You didn't address a utility charging monthly fixed fees based on income.
candiddevmike|1 year ago
I'm hoping to see more decentralized/hyper-local power generation and storage.
macspoofing|1 year ago
With the scale we're dealing with decentralization does not work. You need to centralize for efficiency (i.e. optimize power generation and maintenance per unit of land-area). Though in this case the point is moot, since we don't have any grid-scale storage solutions for wind/solar - making them non-viable as the primary power generation regardless of price.