Is Your State Next In The Battle Against Net Metering?

Do solar panel owners have an unfair advantage when it comes to shouldering the costs of maintaining and enhancing our utility grid?

Discover the reasons behind Idaho and California's termination of net metering and why other states are contemplating changes to their net metering agreements. In this video, Larry and Warren dive into what these net metering regulation changes mean for solar panel owners and the future of the solar industry.

If California's loss of 17,000 solar jobs is any indication, the future may not be as bright as we hope.

*START YOUR SOLAR JOURNEY HERE*

0:00 Introduction
1:00 The War Against Net Metering
8:22 The Good News For Existing Solar Owners
12:02 California's Solar Industry Is In Crisis
17:16 Batteries Could Save The Day

********************************
Who are we?

Paradise Energy Solutions is a family-owned, full-service solar energy company. Since 2009, our team of 100+ solar experts has installed over 2,000 solar systems for businesses and homeowners throughout the mid-Atlantic region of the USA.

Learn more:

[jazzfan]

when talking about California nobody ever mentions that it's not "California" that cut back the payments, it's the Public Utility Commission, which sets rules for "investor-owned", meaning private, for-profit utilities that switched from NEM2 to the stingier NEM3. There are other large utilities in the state -- LA Dept. of Water and Power and Pasadena Water and Power are 2 of them -- which AREN'T controlled by the PUC and are still on NEM 2. It's true that most of the state switched to NEM 3, but it's not true that ALL of the state switched.

[LTVoyager]

As both a new solar owner and a board member of a distribution cooperative, I see both sides of this. The reality is that residential solar producers are being subsidized by other electric users and by other taxpayers. When I did the economic analysis for my system, I found that without net metering and without the 30% tax subsidy, the system made zero economic sense in northern PA. With just the 30% tax subsidy and no net metering, the system probably still makes sense, but the payback period approaches the useful life of the system.

The reality is that the fixed monthly charge that electric companies charge simply doesn’t come close to covering their fixed costs to keep a line to a home. If this fixed charge was set appropriately and did cover the fixed costs, then no subsidy would be provided to residential solar producers as their fixed monthly cost would cover the fixed utility cost to keep the line connected. However, that isn’t the case since no state PUC will approve such a “correct” rate structure.

The other sad fact is that many cooperatives are NOT grandfathering in existing systems, at least not in PA. I agree that is a mistake, but that is the reality. I assume you are aware of that.

[MR_Garage]

Already low HAH! SRP in Arizona has been ripping us off for years at .281 cents per kWh. And they force us into paying for an extra meter which is not required, for THEIR data collection.

[edc]

I’m from the UK and I’m on an agile priced tariff, electricity is not a fixed cost product, sometimes the energy company pays me for using electricity other times the charge me 50cents (and this is capped). The idea you can use the grid as a seasonal battery is crazy - it doesn’t work like that.

[JamesGreen-gvyn]

A couple of items.

The term net metering refers to the metering that measures the amount of electricity going to or from an installation. Using this to refer to a method of billing (1 to 1 kwh) is at best confusing. It would be nice if everyone stopped using the term this way.

You touched on the connection fee that Idaho is increasing. This is the part of the bill that will always be charged and does not go away when you produce more than you use. At least in my state. If this is the amount that covers being connected to the grid, there is no excuse for saying these changes are used for maintaining the grid (unless there is no such fee). More likely is the transmission losses when sending power over the grid need to be taken into account. People seem to forget (or not understand) that power is lost in may ways. Transmission lines are not 100% efficient and we should not expect a power company to ignore that fact and cover the cost of the loss for us when allowing a customer with solar panels to send them power and get some portion of it back in return.

Related item often overlooked when talking about installing batteries to keep the power on site in order to avoid the difference in these new changes. Batteries are also not 100% efficient. Depending on your situation and the power company in your area, this may or may not be a better deal. The benefit of having some power when the grid goes down is a different reason to install them.

[vevenaneathna]

people with solar installations are improving the reliability of the grid and take loads off of the current infrastructure. transformers dont need to supply power and people with solar, especially batteries tend to load shift away from peak demand.

[tommcgrath]

Indiana maybe did not respect the existing net metering? I'm asking. Thanks

[firstbigbarney]

Utilities should only pay the avoided cost at the time of use...
All solar should have 2 meters with ratchets and both should be TOU meters...
Pay both ways at the current rate at time of use...

[ericlamideas]

let's be real, utilities will do everything they can to fight the changing market. they will not lay down and just take it. history rhymes this has happened hundreds of times in the past in other industries. nature always runs its course. ultimately - solar prices need to come down substantially. the government incentives are great but always result in volatile frothy markets.

[blainecelestaine]

The infrastructure argument is weak. Because the infrastructure is proportional to the producer. Relatively the solar producer a higher production cost and one customer. In Louisiana grandfathered accounts get $.12-.13 New accounts get$.19 expletive ridiculous. furthermore solar accounts are paying the base rate as any customer and very few have a zero bill. So actually they are paying for their own infrastructure and contributing to the utility company infrastructure as well

[court]

Lets be honest. Net netering is free loading off your neighborhood. Using the grid has a cost. The utilities have fixed costs, infrastructure, staff. If you produce solar they aren't generating revenue, but still have all the costs. So as a solar producer who is paying for all those costs when net metering? Your community does. As solar expands the utilities get less and kess revenue, but the costs remain the same. So they will have to raise rates.

The rate changes are necessary to keep the grid operating. The only question I see is what are fair rates. It sounds like many utilities are trying to make it overly expensive.

[BrandonSorenson-fbgg]

This is why privatized utility companies make no sense. Power and gas should be supplied by either a state or municipality and remove the profit incentive to get accurate representation of these costs

[richardamick]

You have no good information. You're quoting the sierra club

[charlespaine]

What about the utilities paying their fair share for your investment and maintenance on your property and equipment roi for them but not for you .corruption incarnate