Solar System for Home

[Larry Gude]

Here is a wrench thrown into the mix to consider... the less folks are paying the electric company for their wattage, the less money is available to support the maintenance and upgrades of the grid's infrastructure.

Some Vt. utilities try to put brakes on solar boom - Yahoo! Finance

The Shumlin administration, lawmakers and Vermont's largest utility have been cheering the arrival of solar energy and "net metering" on Vermont's electrical generation scene, while smaller municipal and cooperative utilities have been pushing back.

Net metering allows owners of solar and other renewable power generators to put their excess power on the grid and run their meter backward, reducing their monthly power bills, sometimes to zero.

That's the rub for Washington and some other smaller utilities. They say that when net-metered customers stop paying, others are left to cover the costs of maintaining poles, wires and other operational costs. It's a warning some made during legislative debates at least as far back as 2008.

The announcement from Washington that as of Oct. 1 it would no longer take energy from residential solar systems larger than 5 kilowatts stunned renewable energy advocates who have long admired the East Montpelier-based co-op's pursuit of renewable sources for its power.

Washington officials, like those at the Johnson-based Vermont Electric Cooperative and the municipal electric department in Hardwick, say they worry that allowing some customers to roll their meter back to zero will leave others picking up the utility's fixed costs — sending crews out to fixed downed power lines in storms, running a billing department and the like.

Not collecting those costs from all members "results in a cost shift to those members without net metered installations," Washington's general manager, Patricia Richards, said in an email. "As a not for profit electric utility, which is owned by our members, our only recourse for recovering insufficient revenue is to increase rates."

So, let's get this straight. If I put in a solar system and sell energy back to the utility, taking nothing from them, paying them for what I use, them paying me for what they use, is a net harm on them?

Think that through. They are set up, as a not for profit, to only be able to exist by being paid set amounts. That any efficiency on the part of 'customers' using less energy, requires them to raise rates on everyone else.

Imagine, if you will, a lemonade stand whereby, if they are not selling the planned for amount of cups, they...

...raise their price.

Or, a home builder who is running behind estimates of units sold per month or year and they...raise their prices.

Or, a clothing store not quite meeting sales projections, in response...raising prices.

This is a wonderful example, a fantastic insight into the fabric of the US economy on a marco scale. Think about what this says for any innovation, such as solar panels or increased efficiency or small scale, local nuclear reactors such as pebble bed, whereby, for the consumer, the individual, power will be more stable and....cheaper. And it being bad for the economy.

Too Big To Fail.

Wall Street. GM. Healthcare. You, US citizen, are not doing what you are supposed to do. So, we will make you. We will take your money and give it to Wall Street. Give it to GM. Give it to the healthcare/industrial complex because their 'business' plans require it.

Think it through. For coal. For oil production. For highways. For state governments. Hell, just imagine the shock to the system if we were to find ways to not be on food stamps or not use unemployment benefits. Our military.

This is the enormous 'thing' that is wrong with centralized planning in a free society; it relies on forced participation and it's enemies are innovation and efficiency and thrift.

 

[czygvtwkr]

So, let's get this straight. If I put in a solar system and sell energy back to the utility, taking nothing from them, paying them for what I use, them paying me for what they use, is a net harm on them?

Think that through. They are set up, as a not for profit, to only be able to exist by being paid set amounts. That any efficiency on the part of 'customers' using less energy, requires them to raise rates on everyone else.

Imagine, if you will, a lemonade stand whereby, if they are not selling the planned for amount of cups, they...

...raise their price.

Or, a home builder who is running behind estimates of units sold per month or year and they...raise their prices.

Or, a clothing store not quite meeting sales projections, in response...raising prices.

This is a wonderful example, a fantastic insight into the fabric of the US economy on a marco scale. Think about what this says for any innovation, such as solar panels or increased efficiency or small scale, local nuclear reactors such as pebble bed, whereby, for the consumer, the individual, power will be more stable and....cheaper. And it being bad for the economy.

Too Big To Fail.

Wall Street. GM. Healthcare. You, US citizen, are not doing what you are supposed to do. So, we will make you. We will take your money and give it to Wall Street. Give it to GM. Give it to the healthcare/industrial complex because their 'business' plans require it.

Think it through. For coal. For oil production. For highways. For state governments. Hell, just imagine the shock to the system if we were to find ways to not be on food stamps or not use unemployment benefits. Our military.

This is the enormous 'thing' that is wrong with centralized planning in a free society; it relies on forced participation and it's enemies are innovation and efficiency and thrift.

Larry you are really complicating the matter. The short of it is the utility has over head costs, those costs are built into the per unit of the electricity. Either the utility needs to lower the price paid to the solar users to cover this or they need to charge them a flat over head fee. Otherwise the overhead is divided up by fewer customers and their price raises. The solar houses should pay the overhead fees after all they are using the lines, transfomers etc.

Not everything is about too big to fail, Bush etc.

 

[GWguy]

Larry you are really complicating the matter. The short of it is the utility has over head costs, those costs are built into the per unit of the electricity. Either the utility needs to lower the price paid to the solar users to cover this or they need to charge them a flat over head fee. Otherwise the overhead is divided up by fewer customers and their price raises. The solar houses should pay the overhead fees after all they are using the lines, transfomers etc.

Not everything is about too big to fail, Bush etc.

Agree with this. A customer's KWH charge can drop to $0, but the service and line connection fees (already on the bill) should not be part of the reduction calculation. They are providing connection and infrastructure maint using those fees.

Look at it this way: if you have excess electricity being fed back into the grid and pay you money out of their pockets each month, why should they send a line crew to your house to repair your line which costs them MORE money? They still have to pay the crew somehow.

 

[nutz]

Look at it this way: if you have excess electricity being fed back into the grid and pay you money out of their pockets each month, why should they send a line crew to your house to repair your line which costs them MORE money? They still have to pay the crew somehow.

Isn't that where some of the difference in price comes into play? 3.8 cents per KWh plus SMECO's separate charges for distribution service (facilities and lines)

I have solar. they then sell me solar power back at a cheaper rate then SMECO. Also it is at a fixed price or a fixed rate of increase. Today I am paying 9.9 cents a kw compared to 13.7 with SMECO.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Isn't that where some of the difference in price comes into play? 3.8 cents per KWh plus SMECO's separate charges for distribution service (facilities and lines)

It is based on what you use though, if you use none you basically get your electric lines for free.

 

[SquirrelBait]

It is based on what you use though, if you use none you basically get your electric lines for free.

Wrong, if you are hooked to the grid then you pay, period.

As for selling power to SMECO, the buy it at wholesale rate. So you are now paying 13 cents and change they will buy what you got spare for 7 cents

Electric companies MUST have so many renewable energy credits a year. SMECO is ok, but they can sell their extra ones. Electric companies need you and need solar. They welcome you to get panels and help them or the feds will fine them

 

[czygvtwkr]

Wrong, if you are hooked to the grid then you pay, period.

As for selling power to SMECO, the buy it at wholesale rate. So you are now paying 13 cents and change they will buy what you got spare for 7 cents

Electric companies MUST have so many renewable energy credits a year. SMECO is ok, but they can sell their extra ones. Electric companies need you and need solar. They welcome you to get panels and help them or the feds will fine them

Why is it multiplied by how many KWhs I used on my bill then slick?

 

[jasonandjen]

i dont see why the power companies cant sell electric for 13c/kw, but only buy it back for 8 or 9c/kw. theyre not paying 13c from the wholesalers who made the power. (for example, pepco sells power to smeco for 7c, they distribute to us for 13)

then again, if they are legislated to buy it back at full price, so be it. if theyre trying to make laws to encourage more homes on solar power, all the better. we need to get off oil eventually. gotta phase it in somehow.

 

[SquirrelBait]

Why is it multiplied by how many KWhs I used on my bill then slick?

Slim Shady, you are reading the wrong line, Look beside the 8.60 charge

 

[czygvtwkr]

Slim Shady, you are reading the wrong line, Look beside the 8.60 charge

That is the "facility charge" whatever that is, maybe the charge to use their bathroom? We were talking about the transmission charge which is a per kWhr charge. If there were no laws made about it and subsidies etc you can damn well bet you would be paying them more.

 

[GWguy]

i dont see why the power companies cant sell electric for 13c/kw, but only buy it back for 8 or 9c/kw.

Because once they send the power out, it's considered 'used' and is depreciated, just like driving a new car off a lot.

 

[Larry Gude]

Because once they send the power out, it's considered 'used' and is depreciated, just like driving a new car off a lot.

 

[SquirrelBait]

That is the "facility charge" whatever that is, maybe the charge to use their bathroom? We were talking about the transmission charge which is a per kWhr charge. If there were no laws made about it and subsidies etc you can damn well bet you would be paying them more.

Facility charge is what you have to pay to be hooked to the grid. No getting away from it as long as you have a meter

 

[czygvtwkr]

Well according to SMECO

The Customer Charge will remain unchanged at $8.60 per month for residential customers, but it will be renamed and will now be called the Facilities Charge. The charge, which has not been changed in 16 years, helps to pay for facilities required to serve customers, including billing and payment processing, and electric service and metering facilities.

And the overhead for the poles, transformers etc, you know the part you said I was wrong about.....

The Distribution Service charges cover the cost of our business operations, including the equipment necessary to bring power to your home or business. These costs are incurred regardless of the quantity of electricity purchased, and include:

• Poles
• Conductors
• Transformers
• Lines
• Vehicles
• Buildings
• Personnel

For residential customers, the Distribution Charge will increase about 7/10 of a cent—less than a penny—from 2.89 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) to 3.606 cents per kWh. The adjustment will result in a monthly increase of $7.16 for someone who uses 1,000 kWh per month, about five percent of the overall annual electric bill, though figures will vary depending on individual usage.

SMECO Newsletter

 

[ArkRescue]

Two for One in Solar Power: New Process Could Revo

Just saw this:

"Nov. 17, 2013 — Solar cells offer the opportunity to harvest abundant, renewable energy. Although the highest energy light occurs in the ultraviolet and visible spectrum, most solar energy is in the infrared. There is a trade-off in harvesting this light, so that solar cells are efficient in the infrared but waste much of the energy available from the more energetic photons in the visible part of the spectrum."

Two for one in solar power: New process could revolutionize solar energy harvesting

 

[ginwoman]

Any updated thoughts on solar power? Reading all this sounds so complicated. Seems like there is no Yes or No answer as to if it is a good thing or not.

 

[GURPS]

Any updated thoughts on solar power? Reading all this sounds so complicated. Seems like there is no Yes or No answer as to if it is a good thing or not.

it is not cost effective for end users like home owners .... a subscription to Home Power might help, the greenies aren't my kind of people, but there is good info

 

[sillywillynilly]

We went ahead with this last year and, so far, I have no regrets other than I wish we could have purchased the system outright. But, since we didn't have the money sitting around to do this, I think we did the next best thing. While we did not get the tax benefit and we don't get the monthly benefit from SMECO, we do get the savings in our electric bill each month. We pay a nominal amount each month to the Solar company to lease the panels and our SMECO bill has dropped significantly. Our roof was not large enough to install enough panels to power our whole house, so we still get a small bill from SMECO. But both the lease amount and the residual SMECO bill each month does not come close to the amount we used to pay for electric before. The other point to consider is that the lease amount will not change for as long as we have the system. Even as electric costs go up, the lease amount stays the same.

 

[GURPS]

... and we don't get the monthly benefit from SMECO, we do get the savings in our electric bill each month.

Good for you !!

 

[BadGirl]

We went ahead with this last year and, so far, I have no regrets other than I wish we could have purchased the system outright. But, since we didn't have the money sitting around to do this, I think we did the next best thing. While we did not get the tax benefit and we don't get the monthly benefit from SMECO, we do get the savings in our electric bill each month. We pay a nominal amount each month to the Solar company to lease the panels and our SMECO bill has dropped significantly. Our roof was not large enough to install enough panels to power our whole house, so we still get a small bill from SMECO. But both the lease amount and the residual SMECO bill each month does not come close to the amount we used to pay for electric before. The other point to consider is that the lease amount will not change for as long as we have the system. Even as electric costs go up, the lease amount stays the same.

Which Company did you go with? Are you satisfied with their customer service?