Hacker News Reader

Instead of subsidizing green power, I think it would make more sense that producers of non-green power would pay for the real cost of their power, including the environmental cost, through a carbon tax for example (also suggested by others, https://twitter.com/paultoo/status/672568359033040896). Because, it's not that we have to do a favor to green producers, but we should make non-green producers pay for the possibly irreversible damage to our planet, and so to us. Ideally we shouldn't allow it, but if we do, let's punish it.

The state already taxes electricity consumption, the same way you pay state taxes per your rate of gasoline consumption.

People that drive 'green' cars are inherently rewarded with paying few taxes at the pump, because they are buying less fuel. Though they may be using the roads and travel infrastructure (which are partially funded by gas taxes) as much as 'non-green' drivers..is this fair for all? Not really, but imagine the fallout of charging Prius drivers more per gallon in order to increase their contribution to the infrastructure that they're using.

In many places, people using solar energy ARE charged more per kilowatt, for the exact scenario above--Increase their contribution to the infrastructure they're using--which is the opposite of what you proposed.

In your proposal to punish the folks that haven't jumped on the solar power band wagon--who receives the benefit$ of their 'punishments'?

> Not really, but imagine the fallout of charging Prius drivers more per gallon in order to increase their contribution to the infrastructure that they're using.

More than one jurisdiction has actually attempted a hybrid/electric surcharge with that exact purported justification: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nc-lawmakers-propose-50-100-f...

To fund roads use tolls. That's fair for all.

The money collected from the punishments can be used wherever is needed. Maybe to partially fund the roads, thus benefiting users of roads with lower tolls. Maybe to support free health and education, thus benefiting everyone.

"So why, if they can always buy at wholesale prices, should they deliberately pay retail prices instead?"

It is worse. Wholesale prices vary during the day. If you force them to buy at average price at times when wholesale prices are low and sell at average price when they are high. That will cost them money, potentially lots of it (nowadays, wholesale prices can go negative when there is a lot of supply from wind or solar farms)

It's a bit more complicated than that, too. I don't know about NV, but in California the power company never actually buys net power from you. At best you can owe $0, you never get a check from the power company, even if you pump all of your juice to the grid. So it's only paying "retail prices" insofar as it's offsetting the retail prices you're paying for your overnight/cloudy day power. And incidentally, overnight/cloudy days are off-peak times for power cos.

Incorrect.

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/DistGen/netsurplus.htm

Only somewhat -- but i can't edit the comment anymore. You carry a credit balance at retail prices but your refund is decimated and paid at wholesale prices.

> your refund is decimated and paid at wholesale prices.

No. It is paid at the same retail rate that consumers pay. However, because the amount paid is low, the retail rate used is tier 0, which is basically a lifeline rate. But it still isn't wholesale.

I don't see a 3 cent rate tier. Do you have a link? http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/plans/tiers/ind...

The pay-out on the true-up statement is very clear about the 3.xx cent rate.

You are correct. I was going by what a solar city engineer told me. I should have known better than to take them at their word.

Our first year we didn't go negative so we had a payment to make at the end of the year. Now that I know the return rate is so low I'll try to stay positive, switching some appliances to electric if I have to.

I think it's fair to say that the situation is pretty opaque and confusing. For 2 years I thought we lost our credit balance. I didn't notice the small credit that applied because in effect it only offset about half of our gas bill each January (which, with PG&E is on the same bill for us)

You can get compensated, but doing so is opt-in. You have to fill out a form.

Edit: Ok, this makes more sense to me now. It's really more nuanced. On my rate plan, retail cost for electricity is ~20c. (link below). So as my bill, over the year, accrues a negative balance, that balance reflects a retail rate. For example, on my final true up statement, by balance was -$360. But, my end of year true-up compensation was $72. How is this? First, they deduct their minimum monthly charges of $72 which I have no issue with. If my negative balance doesn't cover that, i owe them cash. But if it does, they then ignore that credit balance, and they use the number of surplus kw/h, multiplied by a wholesale rate of $0.03403, and use that to arrive at what they owe me.

So there's the whole story. They do not refund your credit balance at the end of the year.

Rates: http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/plans/tiers/ind...?

Because we are talking about offsetting credits here. In most schemes the power company won't cut you a check, they just run your bill down to zero (assuming you overproduce for the entire year).

By paying wholesale when you have excess yet charging retail when you don't they are effectively charging you _their_ profit margin on _your_ own electricity.

Solar customers already pay the grid maintenance charges. Even if we assumed the utilities were entitled to some compensation for providing this service to solar customers it certainly wouldn't be the spread between wholesale and retail rates.

The people with rooftop solar are providing a subsidy to everyone else, because even at net rates, they're not being fully compensated for the value they provide to the grid.

I realise that might sound "crazy" because lots of well paid PR people are telling you the opposite, but it's true.

What extra value are they bringing the the grid.

An electrical current.

That was the value they are getting compensated at fair market value for. What is the EXTRA value for which they should get above market pricing.

Energy production that correlates (in many parts of the world) with peak load from air conditioning. This saves fuel and wear and tear on expensive peaker plants.

The generation is distributed, which saves on distribution and transmission costs.

Planning for expansion is also based on peak loads, which as noted above, solar reduces saving yet more money.

There's some worked examples for Minesota here:

https://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/state_local_governments...

Is peaker rate bought off the market interchanges ever more than the retail rate?

Because if you, as a consumer who can't pay wholesale, take a watt and then put back a watt, are still out some rent money.

> Because if you, as a consumer who can't pay wholesale, take a watt and then put back a watt, are still out some rent money.

And in that same case, the power company is out some infrastructure and maintenance costs.

But either way, you state that as though power grids have some fundamental property that necessitates the same rates for purchase and sale, a property that most other exchanges do not have.

> And in that same case, the power company is out some infrastructure and maintenance costs.

As I understand my bill, PG&E still bills you for that as a separate item.

> But either way, you state that as though power grids have some fundamental property that necessitates the same rates for purchase and sale, a property that most other exchanges do not have.

That property would be "legal monopoly".

That property makes them subject to regulation; it doesn't inherently mean they should pay the same price to buy power as to sell.

Even markets with a legal monopoly have a bid-ask spread.