Should Homeowners With Solar Panels Pay To Maintain Electrical Grid?

NPR ^ | 11 Dec 2014 | Peter Overby

[Theoria]

The costs of solar energy are plummeting, and now are about on par with the electricity generated at big power plants. This new reality intensifies a long-running business and regulatory battle, between the mainline electric utility companies and newer firms that provide solar systems for homeowners' rooftops. Sometimes the rivalry looks more like hardball politics than marketplace economics.

The way rooftop solar typically works, the homeowner leases rooftop panels from a company that owns and installs them. It can be an expensive proposition, but the homeowner saves some money by drawing less power from the utility company's electric plants, and even by selling some solar power back up the electrical grid to the utility.

Utilities say rooftop solar users need to pay their fair share to maintain that grid.

David Owens, a vice president of the Edison Electric Institute, the trade association of investor-owned utilities, says they want to preserve the choice that customers have. "If they want to put on rooftop solar, that is their right. And we think it's a great technology. What we are arguing for is fairness in paying for the grid," he says.

The rooftop solar companies say the utilities just want to drive them out of business. "It's a state-by-state battle where the utilities are trying to stop competition," says Bryan Miller, vice president of solar company SunRun and co-chair of a trade group, The Alliance for Solar Choice. Utilities "are monopolies," he says. "Monopolies don't like competition, and that's what these fights are about."

Driving the competition are solar power and other new technologies, which reduce the demand to generate more electricity.

[a fool in paradise]

They should only have to pay an amount equal to what the utility wastes on non infrastructure related expenses. That would be about 90%.

Spending $300,000,000 on naming rights for a sports stadium is considered "branding". Does that count as infrastructure?

[SgtHooper]

It is “ethical” only from the perspective of those parasites that receive it!

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

If you never hook up to it no but these people want the best of both worlds. They expect the convenience of the power grid but don’t feel they should have to pay for that convenience.

[RegulatorCountry]

What’s the minimum rate for maintaining an electrical connection, $25.00 a month? How many vacation homes and vacant buildings are there, with power shut off at the panel but connected to the grid? They don’t force these customers to pay anything but the basic connection fee. Any more than that for customers with solar should not be legal, they’d be charged for services not rendered.

[dalereed]

Hell yes!!!

Eliminate all subsidies and kill stupid solar!!!

[FunkyZero]

I know what our general tendencies are... You can buy a car that gets 10MPG or one that gets 50MPG. You simply pay for what you use, nothing more, nothing less. However, what blows up this particular argument is that these utility companies do not operate on the open market, they are regulated utilities. Free market principles don’t completely apply because government has messed with the natural order of things. Normally I would say it’s none of anyones damned business where the electricity goes or how much goes into my home after the meter. Reducing the amount I consume by either shutting everything off, or by supplementing with solar power is not their business. Now, if by some magical feat the meter is always pushing back more than I consume, then yes, I should be paying for the right to connect and sell back to them. for some reason, I just don’t see that happening though.

[jjr153]

Yes, Even if they are completely off the grid. As freekitty said in #11, “People with no children have to pay school taxes.”

People have always had to pay for services and utilities that the entire community uses even though any one individual might not use all of the services taxes and other fees support, we all pay for it. Schools, water, sewers, garbage, parks, etc...

[Minsc]

Solar leasing is a scam.

[House Atreides]

“The costs of solar energy are plummeting, and now are about on par with the electricity generated at big power plants....”
**********************************************************************************************************
I love how progressives like to start off a “presentation” with a canard. The reality is that “the costs of solar energy...are about on par with the electricity generated at big power plants” is about as true as the statement “the quality and value of a Yugo car is about on par with the quality and value of a Mercedes”.

Just putting a canard to paper doesn’t make it true. Any argument made supported solely by a canard is intrinsically a lie.

[Ted Grant]

They still benefit from the grid - stoplights, for example. They should contribute.

[John S Mosby]

Edison. Not Tesla. Theres the first problem. Reminds when there was a drought— state wanted to put meters on rural wells and tax their water use. Water under land they owned. It did not pass.

[RightOnTheBorder]

If someone is disconnected from the grid he should never have to pay anything to an electric utility. However anyone who choses to remain connected to the grid, even if he uses no electricity, should have to pay his share of the installation and maintenance of the infrastructure. It would only be extortion if one were forced to be connected.

[RightOnTheBorder]

The homeowner with solar currently pays for any electricity it uses from the grid. It does not pay for electricity from the grid it does not use.

That seems fair to me.

For the cost of the electricity that is fair, but don't forget the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure to deliver that electricity he does use.

[familyop]

"If someone is disconnected from the grid he should never have to pay anything to an electric utility. However anyone who choses to remain connected to the grid, even if he uses no electricity, should have to pay his share of the installation and maintenance of the infrastructure."

That's fair enough. Is there a minimum charge for customers connected to the grid but not using it? I remember that at least some natural gas companies do it that way. If so, that would appear to be the proper amount. It's what the other customers pay.

"It would only be extortion if one were forced to be connected."

Or forced to pay without being connected, but the essence of your good argument stands.

I believe this is related, too. We really don't produce enough useful things on American soil, and that is one of the causes of mounting government debts, another cause being excessive government spending. Before long, many people employed by the government will be laid off. And bond investors won't take haircuts alone, so many pensioners from various levels of government will take them, too. When government debt becomes too risky for investment, government will only have real revenues from U.S. production to rely on.

The stoppage of spending from debt will result in a slower economy, and a vicious cycle will begin. Many people who are current producing nothing of real value should prepare themselves for the layoffs instead of looking for more ways to rob the populace.

The majority of unemployed people who once comprised most of our true private sector have nothing to take and should be left to rebuild. They are the real producers, and many of them are doing all that they can to begin producing again on their own, when again, nothing will stand in the way of their attempts to start small manufacturing shops (zoning, fees, other local regulations against productive activities).

[Ozark Tom]

Then buy your own residential transformer and connections, also a service contract inclusive of component replacement to cover outages.

All this is rolled into historical residential service as a percentage of the rate per kilowatt hour. More recently, the installation/ maintenance of service is partitioned as a separate item to reflect the average costs incurred per connection. Kilowatt power delivery is an optional extra cost, once connected.

Every person whom contracts for electrical service pays to fund repair services and replacement hardware, in return for reliable delivery. Remote feed-lines above a set distance costs extra, in addition to the customary connection fee.

[WhirlwindAttack]

bump

[Cvengr]

Those who heavily invest in solar power on their residence, frequently flow unused power back to the local distribution system, which also has to be designed for these new power sources.

Then when they need power when their solar systems or storage is inadequate for their demand, they also use the local distribution systems.

A third issue arises regarding the ISO. Once they have entered the market, they also have liabilities associated in maintaining as a coop, the interconnect service organization as part of the deregulated power marketplace.

If the PV operates standalone, then no they don’t have to pay for that service.

[A CA Guy]

Yes, especially those who got subsidized equipment.

[Edward Teach]

Say what? Stoplights are paid for by taxes.

[plymaniac]

Say what? Stoplights are paid for by taxes.

You are right. As far as I know, cities pay for traffic signal energy through their franchise agreements. There is no billing mechanism for off-gridders to pay for "social" electricity.

Not today anyway.