Solar

User Forum Topic
Submitted by moneymaker on June 9, 2016 - 1:36pm

My solar has produced $4000 in the last 2 years at the 18¢ per KWh rate. Double that amount for the 40¢ rate, so I am very happy with my system and it may even pay for itself sooner than I thought, especially if SDGE keeps raising their rates.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 9, 2016 - 5:14pm.

That's pretty awesome.
Go solar.

My dream house is a single story house built under a solar canopy array that doubles as shade cover.

Submitted by svelte on June 12, 2016 - 10:40am.

just completed our first year with Solar.

Received over $100 back, which means we generated more power than we used for the year.

Submitted by Coronita on June 12, 2016 - 11:34am.

So what is the latest on the solar credits. I was talking to someone in the park today that mentioned that while the old program of sdge paying you for unused generated electricity has expired, there is a new 2.0 program that is just as good.

I am tempted to consider solar if prices have fallen.

Submitted by utcsox on June 12, 2016 - 3:53pm.

Project Sunroof is an interesting tool that you shall take a look at it: https://www.google.com/get/sunroof

Submitted by svelte on June 12, 2016 - 9:08pm.

flu wrote:
So what is the latest on the solar credits. I was talking to someone in the park today that mentioned that while the old program of sdge paying you for unused generated electricity has expired, there is a new 2.0 program that is just as good...

I haven't kept up very closely since I already have panels, but the reports I have read are conflicting. Some say 2.0 isn't as good, others are less clear on the topic:

http://nowgosolar.com/time-is-running-ou...

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/...

"Consensus from the solar industry is that while the decision is a step down from the earlier program, the market will still be able to move forward."

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/...

A 6 month old article:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/r...

Submitted by ocrenter on August 14, 2016 - 12:13am.

just got an e-mail from Solare Energy regarding the new SDGE rate:

"To put this in perspective, in 2011 tier 1 rates for SDG&E were $0.14 and they currently sit at $0.19. Now, we expect a raise in our electricity rates gradually over time, SDG&E and most California Utility Companies have higher growth rate than the national 1.8%-3.2%. We see on average 6%-7.5% here in SDG&E territory. With the flattening of tiers from 4 to 2, the tier 2 rate of $0.16 in 2011 has increased to $0.39. Tier 4 in 2011 was at $0.31 and tier 3 was at $0.29."

I verified this and the numbers are legit.

At around 1000 kWh per month the new rate would have cost me $325

With EV-TOU the monthly would be $220.

With solar + EV-TOU, my monthly is a $120 credit.

The spread between the new tiered rate vs solar + EV-TOU is $445, at least during the summer months.

Is SDGE just egging consumers to jump to solar? The higher their rates, the faster people will jump to solar. They do realize that's bad for business right?

Submitted by an on August 14, 2016 - 12:49am.

SDG&E have reached its net metering cap. So, how would that affect EV-TOU?

Submitted by ocrenter on August 14, 2016 - 7:50am.

AN wrote:
SDG&E have reached its net metering cap. So, how would that affect EV-TOU?

My understanding re: net metering 2.0 is TOU is mandatory and there's a one time sign up charge of around $135 at the time of installation.

https://www.sunrun.com/solar-by-state/ca...

Submitted by Escoguy on August 14, 2016 - 8:11am.

New rates were approved in July.

Submitted by svelte on August 14, 2016 - 4:39pm.

ocrenter wrote:

Is SDGE just egging consumers to jump to solar? The higher their rates, the faster people will jump to solar. They do realize that's bad for business right?

Looks similar to what I see SW companies do all the time. When they see their product is rapidly approaching end of life, they gouge the customer for as much as they can in the short-term, knowing it will take years for their customers to switch over to something open source.

With SDGE, if the power infrastructure is going solar anyway, why wouldn't they try and maximize their take now while they still have a captive audience?

Submitted by ocrenter on August 16, 2016 - 6:06am.

svelte wrote:
ocrenter wrote:

Is SDGE just egging consumers to jump to solar? The higher their rates, the faster people will jump to solar. They do realize that's bad for business right?

Looks similar to what I see SW companies do all the time. When they see their product is rapidly approaching end of life, they gouge the customer for as much as they can in the short-term, knowing it will take years for their customers to switch over to something open source.

With SDGE, if the power infrastructure is going solar anyway, why wouldn't they try and maximize their take now while they still have a captive audience?

I suppose. Although they might be accelerating the process. I'm certainly happy about it since it speeds up the ROI on my PV system.

Submitted by an on August 16, 2016 - 8:55am.

ocrenter wrote:
I suppose. Although they might be accelerating the process. I'm certainly happy about it since it speeds up the ROI on my PV system.

I think what's happening is, people like us are causing them to gouge those who can't get solar. They have to recoup the revenue from somewhere. Not everyone can get solar (poorer areas, people w/ roof that's facing bad directions, people living in condos, rentals, etc). There are a lot more people in those categories than people like us. So, be blessed that they chose to do it that way and you skirt paying your fair share instead of them charging a flat fee for transmission/grid use. After all, we don't have backup battery to be completely off grid, so we're still using their infrastructure, but we don't have to pay for it.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on August 16, 2016 - 10:42am.

ocrenter wrote:

" With the flattening of tiers from 4 to 2, the tier 2 rate of $0.16 in 2011 has increased to $0.39. "

I verified this and the numbers are legit.

Where are you getting these rates from? My June electric Bill (before I turned on Solar) had following rates Tier 1 (< 288Kwh): $0.18, Tier 2 (288-374KWh): $0.21 and Tier 3 (>374KWh) : $0.41

Submitted by meadandale on August 16, 2016 - 11:42am.

enron_by_the_sea wrote:
ocrenter wrote:

" With the flattening of tiers from 4 to 2, the tier 2 rate of $0.16 in 2011 has increased to $0.39. "

I verified this and the numbers are legit.

Where are you getting these rates from? My June electric Bill (before I turned on Solar) had following rates Tier 1 (< 288Kwh): $0.18, Tier 2 (288-374KWh): $0.21 and Tier 3 (>374KWh) : $0.41

That's the old rate schedule. This is the current one:

https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 16, 2016 - 11:48am.

AN wrote:
ocrenter wrote:
I suppose. Although they might be accelerating the process. I'm certainly happy about it since it speeds up the ROI on my PV system.

I think what's happening is, people like us are causing them to gouge those who can't get solar. They have to recoup the revenue from somewhere. Not everyone can get solar (poorer areas, people w/ roof that's facing bad directions, people living in condos, rentals, etc). There are a lot more people in those categories than people like us. So, be blessed that they chose to do it that way and you skirt paying your fair share instead of them charging a flat fee for transmission/grid use. After all, we don't have backup battery to be completely off grid, so we're still using their infrastructure, but we don't have to pay for it.

That's a pretty honest comment AN.
I'm kinda pissed off that I need to pay more because I live in a condo.

I don't know if you've been following solar in HI and NV but the utilities won't allow more connections. They worry that solar migration will spell financial troubles. A new model will be needed to maintain the grid.

Submitted by meadandale on August 16, 2016 - 12:10pm.

I'm still surprised that the power companies still haven't done the obvious thing: put rooftop solar on their customer's homes. Customer pays normal rates and gets a small leasing cost similar to what cell towers do for property owners when they install transmitters.

The solar companies are doing this and they are making money. Ten years ago I predicted this was the future for the power companies, but much like the recording industry, they just keep dragging their feet and living in the past.

It reduces the need for new long haul transmission lines to build new central capacity and new plants. It also eliminates expensive permitting and land acquisition costs, environmental cleanup and decommissioning costs. It really seems like a no brainer...

Submitted by ocrenter on August 16, 2016 - 1:57pm.

AN wrote:
ocrenter wrote:
I suppose. Although they might be accelerating the process. I'm certainly happy about it since it speeds up the ROI on my PV system.

I think what's happening is, people like us are causing them to gouge those who can't get solar. They have to recoup the revenue from somewhere. Not everyone can get solar (poorer areas, people w/ roof that's facing bad directions, people living in condos, rentals, etc). There are a lot more people in those categories than people like us. So, be blessed that they chose to do it that way and you skirt paying your fair share instead of them charging a flat fee for transmission/grid use. After all, we don't have backup battery to be completely off grid, so we're still using their infrastructure, but we don't have to pay for it.

I do agree they are gouging those that have not gone solar. But just judging by the roofs driving around, would say the majority of SFR throughout the county are still without solar. They will only speed up the conversion to solar either via purchase or lease.

I just don't understand the short sighted business case here, that's all.

Submitted by an on August 16, 2016 - 4:37pm.

ocrenter wrote:
I do agree they are gouging those that have not gone solar. But just judging by the roofs driving around, would say the majority of SFR throughout the county are still without solar. They will only speed up the conversion to solar either via purchase or lease.

I just don't understand the short sighted business case here, that's all.


Again, I don't see those who would be pushing over the fence and get solar will be that much. Again, I think the majority are in the group that can't get solar (either physically or financially or just doesn't make sense for them to, since they're paying <$100/month in electricity). So, they can continue to increase the rate. My bet is, at some point, they'll start charging us for usage of the grid, then the math might no longer make sense for some.

Submitted by no_such_reality on August 16, 2016 - 8:11pm.

Lol. You guys really don't get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.

Submitted by farbet on August 16, 2016 - 9:13pm.

Lack of Trump yard signs in the 92078 zip.
Any reason why?

Submitted by an on August 16, 2016 - 9:18pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
Lol. You guys really don't get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.

LoL, I'm fully aware of that too. But energy mix isn't the only reason.

Submitted by njtosd on August 16, 2016 - 10:25pm.

farbet wrote:
Lack of Trump yard signs in the 92078 zip.
Any reason why?

I don't see any yard signs anywhere. Why is this such a big issue? You started another thread about it . . . this seems a little like thread jacking. Is this Brian under another name??

Submitted by ocrenter on August 17, 2016 - 2:57am.

AN wrote:
ocrenter wrote:
I do agree they are gouging those that have not gone solar. But just judging by the roofs driving around, would say the majority of SFR throughout the county are still without solar. They will only speed up the conversion to solar either via purchase or lease.

I just don't understand the short sighted business case here, that's all.


Again, I don't see those who would be pushing over the fence and get solar will be that much. Again, I think the majority are in the group that can't get solar (either physically or financially or just doesn't make sense for them to, since they're paying <$100/month in electricity). So, they can continue to increase the rate. My bet is, at some point, they'll start charging us for usage of the grid, then the math might no longer make sense for some.

Time will tell for sure.

Submitted by no_such_reality on August 17, 2016 - 5:41am.

AN wrote:
no_such_reality wrote:
Lol. You guys really don't get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.

LoL, I'm fully aware of that too. But energy mix isn't the only reason.

You're right those smart meter infrastructure improvements cost money too. ;-)

I went solar years ago as soon as the Cali started dictating the solution. Well and as long as the taxpayer was paying for 80% of it.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on August 17, 2016 - 8:45am.

no_such_reality wrote:
Lol. You guys really don't get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.

The CPUC is not exactly the voters. There is a corruption investigation.

Submitted by meadandale on August 17, 2016 - 10:21am.

no_such_reality wrote:
Lol. You guys really don't get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.

I found this interesting...adding all these renewables to the grid are causing problems...and they are just having to dump green energy. This just shows that the grid needs to evolve and provide storage solutions. The on demand model doesn't work as you add a higher proportion of renewables to the mix.

https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/04/04/...

Submitted by ocrenter on August 17, 2016 - 12:31pm.

meadandale wrote:
no_such_reality wrote:
Lol. You guys really don't get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.

I found this interesting...adding all these renewables to the grid are causing problems...and they are just having to dump green energy. This just shows that the grid needs to evolve and provide storage solutions. The on demand model doesn't work as you add a higher proportion of renewables to the mix.

https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/04/04/what-will-california-do-with-too-much-solar/

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/15/ev-b...

Large scale battery for storage will gradually eliminate this problem, and eliminate the "imported" energy seen in light blue.

Submitted by meadandale on August 17, 2016 - 1:28pm.

ocrenter wrote:
meadandale wrote:
no_such_reality wrote:
Lol. You guys really don't get it do you.

The rates are going up because we the voters drank the loo laid and dictated the percentage of green energy in the mix by given date. The rate increases are to provide the incentives for the renewables and for purchasing power from the higher cost sources.

I found this interesting...adding all these renewables to the grid are causing problems...and they are just having to dump green energy. This just shows that the grid needs to evolve and provide storage solutions. The on demand model doesn't work as you add a higher proportion of renewables to the mix.

https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/04/04/what-will-california-do-with-too-much-solar/

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/15/ev-b...

Large scale battery for storage will gradually eliminate this problem, and eliminate the "imported" energy seen in light blue.

I don't think battery storage for the grid will ever be feasible unless costs come WAY down. They seem to be focusing on things like compressed air and other more mechanical methods of converting electricity back into stored energy rather than storing as electricity directly. The mechanical methods tend to be cheaper and have much higher cycle lifetimes.

Submitted by ocrenter on August 19, 2016 - 12:11am.

meadandale wrote:

I don't think battery storage for the grid will ever be feasible unless costs come WAY down. They seem to be focusing on things like compressed air and other more mechanical methods of converting electricity back into stored energy rather than storing as electricity directly. The mechanical methods tend to be cheaper and have much higher cycle lifetimes.

Battery storage will be part of the solution, just like the turbine solution you mentioned. Then there's the timed incentive for charging as well with the gradual increase in EV percentage of overall fleet.

https://www.ft.com/content/a703e24a-8d4f...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.