Comment by rblatz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rblatz | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand why this is such a large issue. I get charged a generation fee, and a transmission fee for my electricity. If my generation is done by the power company, my neighbor with solar panels, or a giant wind farm out in the desert I'd expect the generation money to go to the person who generated the power[1]. Then the transmission fee would be paid to the power company to maintain the grid and everything else that goes with it.

So as people start generating their own power, transmissions charges go down. This means that transmission charges for people not generating their own power go up to cover the mostly fixed cost of maintaining the electric grid. I think charging a reasonable transmission fee (or toll) per kWh sold back to the power company is a reasonable compromise that prevents people from benefiting from a fully maintained electrical grid, but not paying for it.

[1]Obviously it's impossible to tell where any specific user's generation came from

Under "net metering" rules, which were enacted broadly to support distributed solar, that's not how it works: the generating consumer can offset billing for power use from the grid with excess power generation pushed back into the grid on a 1:1 basis, which amounts to paying them both for generation and for transmission.

People who have solar, who sell solar, who install solar, want to install solar, or who think distributed solar are a public good worthy of subsidy want to keep this rule.

Thanks, I think solar should be subsidized, but I don't know if I agree that the local utility should be the one subsidizing it.

Exactly. Also, the argument that solar provides the grid with power when it needs it most is incorrect. Solar production peaks at around noon while electric consumption peaks around five when people arrive home from work. Solar houses basically use the utility as a no-cost battery.

Commercial consumption peaks at noon, residential consumption peaks at 21, but with a much less prominent spike.

In addition, the price of energy and the economy behind new plants is based on the commercial peak ("please run your washing machine in the afternoon", used to remember you state-run companies with every bill). Nice graph at http://www.mpoweruk.com/images/elec_load_demand.gif from http://www.mpoweruk.com/electricity_demand.html (please note that that graph is from 1999's Californa; now the commercial spike is much higher due to air conditioners being active in almost all office).

Thus, solar helps when it is "needed" the most.

Another thing to help is if solar is overproducing around noon, homes could leave their AC temperatures cooler than they normally would, and the AC wouldn't have to work as hard when they get home.

I.e., using the home's temperature as a very inefficient battery but better than throwing it away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com