It's worth noting that while net metering is helpful for bootstrapping rooftop solar, ratepayers are essentially subsidizing solar arrays on the houses of (wealthier) homeowners.<p>The utility company would normally pay wholesale rates for solar energy (which has an aggressive duck curve), but instead they're forced to pay retail prices to net metering customers.<p>California pays wholesale rates now (they're on NEM 3.0) with a fixed fee for maintaining the wires even if you don't use them a whole lot.
Rooftop solar in the US is absurldy expensive. The 30% federal subsidies alone are greater than the full buildout cost of utility scale solar. At these prices rooftop solar makes no sense.<p>This seems to be more about the US market than rooftop vs utility scale. Australia shows it is possible to install rooftop solar cheaply. Why can't we?
I wish this article recognized that there is a cost to maintaining the grid, both in transmission infrastructure, but also in maintaining the dispatchable generation capacity to smooth out solar's variability. As frustrating as this policy change sounds for consumers, I can see the case that the utility has variable && fixed costs related to net metering that warrants a sub-retail rate of exchange. In point of fact, roughly the rate that Dominion is willing to pay for solar energy in commercial PPAs.<p>The SREC situation is more complicated. I'm not familiar with Virginia's program, but I could see a case that Dominion doesn't <i>deserve</i> those credits... or one that says if they're building/operating their grid around accepting rooftop solar, some of those tax credits should accrue to their operations. I don't know. I wonder if commercial PPAs also transfer credits in exchange?
Classic case of people not wanting to give up a subsidy.<p>It's not sustainable or efficient to continue subsidising solar at this point. If we paid wholesale prices for electricity generated by solar customers, incentives would shift - getting 0-5c on your solar energy would demonstrate that the grid doesn't actually need more energy during the day - the 50c+ prices in the evening would show that we need more batteries (or other dispatchable power)
"When the utility puts up capital to build a plant, they are promised a return on that investment over time."
People understand that the energy companies need an ROI on their capital investments. None, or very few, see the other side of the equation. With NEM 2.0 the providers chose to forego capital investments in plants, and instead chose to spend that money to subsidize rooftop solar. In effect, they shifted the capital burden to homeowners and businesses. Those who invested their own capital into rooftop solar projects must have an ROI,too. By changing the rules, the energy companies are essentially stealing from individual investors in rooftop projects. Furthermore, by shifting to NEM 3, they are asking for even larger capital investments from individuals while providing limited ROI. This is what is killing small rooftop projects.
net metering is virtue signaling.<p>using solar on site is not virtue signaling<p>Building your house to NOT waste as much energy as possible is not virtue signaling.<p>( What your house loses thru chimney/flue is same amount of energy my house needs to let me be in luxurious west comfort. and if disaster happens, and power gets cut, my house will not fall under 29C/67F for three days without power.... in coldest of days overcast. so i have 3 days before i have to put hoodie on, to find energy to keep my house going, one tenths of amount of energy you need, at least 1/10 if not more. while your children start to cry because they are cold next morning. we do not talk in same language. it is different universe. my house needs same energy to heat as you lose thru chimney. i need less energy for heating than for hot water. with PV my hot water is 85+% of year 100% from solar (PV!), 5%-99% from sun rest of the year. only hot water PV got paid in 5 years, what is expected life for PV? so it is 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 "TCO" vs net metering ? )<p>use subsidies to renovate your house. google/ask AI what is difference between "passive" and "net zero" house standard. so you do not get scammed again.<p>leverage - bank loan.<p>opportunity cost with houses can be tricky, i admit but it is also - what can i achieve in properly designed and properly built house vs in house where im constantly nervous, ill etc?<p>1/10 of energy for comfort + 50% of that 100% from own roof per year... virtue for your wallet.
Wow. I don't think we've had net metering in Australia basically ever (maybe if you DIYed decades ago, the analogue counter would have simply spun backwards... not sure if that was ever legal though). If you have solar, there's always two one-way metres with seperate rates (and now real-time smart meters with the optional capability to use a provider that offers time-of-use wholesale rates - so you can profit in energy trading/arbitrage if you have a battery).
In a case like this it seems like batteries for homeowners would be economically viable and ultimately would actually result in more financial stress for the utilities, as their usefulness would drop to third tier usage.<p>Right now, a 50kw LiTo pack will run about $10kusd (FOB China). LiFeO2 more like 5$K for LiFeO2.<p>With batteries such as LiTo, cycle life goes to around 20k so batteries would be a 20year+ cost, potentially 40 years… so I expect we will see stationary batteries becoming much more cost effective. 50KW will handle most household needs, so that would work out to about $25-$50 a month for battery costs.<p>I’m not sure how utilities are going to survive long term, as their expensive distribution infrastructure is hard to justify for household use where solar is viable.<p>I guess 2x -5x rates is probably going to be the answer, which is only going to accelerate solar / battery adoption?
This swings too far. 1:1 Net metering is not sustainable for utilities, this is too punitive to homeowners.<p>I’m an executive at a non-VA residential solar EPC.