Just came across this article on LUS introducing extra fee's for solar users:
http://theind.com/article-24174-lus-quietly-clouds-solar’s-future.html
http://theind.com/article-24174-lus-quietly-clouds-solar’s-future.html
As with so many things, this is only a partial truth or a partial lie, depending on the direction of the view. Utilities have so many ways to fudge the rates that making sense out of the rate/cost structure is difficult.A big part of the problem is full rate net metering is a subsidy to the homeowner than ignores the costs of maintaining the grid and the differing day/night values of energy.
Solar and wind kwh's are a big disrupter to a business model of regulated monopoly and guaranteed rates of return.
A big part of the problem is full rate net metering is a subsidy to the homeowner than ignores the costs of maintaining the grid. Most seem to stick with having a monthly minimum charge that is intended to cover most of the infrastructure cost.
Why is grid maintenance for a PV system owner any more costly than a low energy consumer? Take for instance, a seasonal resident:
It's not actually just about the grid maintenance, but also about the imbalance of value. Depending on how much contracted power (including net metered) the utility has coming into their system, the value of additional Watts can be close to zero, or even negative at times, or it can be tens or even hundreds of times as much as the billed rate. If you feed more back to the utility at times when they're paying a low rate, but draw more at times they're paying a high rate, this imbalance is increased.
If there is a potential imbalance of kWh value or negative kWh value during the hours where PV works, why would my utility be adding 1,000,000 PV panels to their grid as their own production source? Solar and other renewable sources presently provide 0.06% of my utility's supply. Purchased power presently provides 7%; 70% comes from natural gas fired plants; 17% from nuclear; 5% from coal; 0.38% from oil.