On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 11:05:57 AM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2017 07:54:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:




Industry officials say they support their customers right to generate electricity on their own property, but they say rooftop solars new popularity is creating a serious cost imbalance. While homeowners with solar panels usually see dramatic reductions in their electric bills, they still rely on the grid for electricity at night and on cloudy days. The utility collects less revenue, even though the infrastructure costs €” from expensive power plants to transmission lines and maintenance crews €” remain the same.

Ultimately, someone pays those costs, said David K. Owens, an executive vice president for Edison Electric Institute, the trade association that represents the nations investor-owned utilities


that has some truth to it but also leaves out some truth.
electricity cost more to make during peak times.

It does not cost more to make power during peak times, it cost more to
buy it during those periods due to the law of supply and demand.

The power company wants you to use less power during peak times so they don't
have to build a new peaker plant.
So there is two sides to this coin.
Solar unfairly uses the grid for storage without paying.

In my area, we pay a flat fee for access to the grid, in other words,
everyone who is connected to the grid, pays to support the grid.


Solar helps the power company smooth out the peak load.

The utility company is getting quite a bargain as the price they pay
individual solar generators is significantly less then they would pay
to buy power from a commercial producer.


That isn't true in most states, it's actually the direct opposite.
In most states, the utilities are buying power from residential solar
at the full retail price of electricity, not at the wholesale rate
they would pay to buy it from other sources on the grid.






I think the only fair way to sort this out is to charge the true cost for each aspect of usage.

One cost for simply connecting to the grid to cover line maintenance.
You pay this amount even if your net kWh = 0

Already exists in many regions.


IDK where these many regions are. Here in NJ for example, half of
my electric bill is for distribution. If you have a $150 bill,
about $75 is for generation, $75 for distribution. If I used zero,
my bill would be zero. What is the cost of this fixed grid charge
for you, that is separate from the cost
for the energy used? Seems if this arrangement was widespread,
the utilities would not all be fighting to do something to fix
the problem.