# Floridians get off your butts, SB 1024



## Pearl1 (Sep 23, 2021)

Everyone,

Imagine that, FPL, following Cali, wants to gut net metering. The FPL bill passed committee yesterday.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1024
The committee is regulated industries.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/Show/RI/
Get involved. I've raised hell today with Sen Albrition and Rep Grant. Get involved.


----------



## NR4P (Jul 14, 2018)

Many folks won't bother to download the pdf and read the text, and fully understanding it. Some legal jargon is in there.
Perhaps you can summarize why it's bad for Florida Consumers and good for the Utilities? Why leave things as is?


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

I read it (I don't live in FL), but the gist of it is that as more and more people move over to Solar (and therefore provide their own power generation) the cost burden to maintain the grid will move over to those without solar. Many of whom either can't financially afford it or physically can't due to the position of their home/building or layout (think apartments and condos). Not saying the bill is right, but it's a logical concern especially as most solar systems are still grid tied.

Hypothetically, how does it make sense to generate 20kWh of energy (most of it during the summer), have the grid "credit" you for that power generated so that you can use it during the winter and walk away with a $0 bill over the course of the year. There's still infrastructure and overhead that needs to be paid for beyond your meter.

Relevant section:
57 2. The net metering must ensure that all energy delivered
58 by the public utility is purchased at the public utility's
59 applicable retail rate and that all energy delivered by the
60 customer-owned or -leased renewable generation to the public
61 utility is credited to the customer at the public utility's full
62 avoided costs.

Simple solution for anyone that doesn't like this, buy a bunch of battery backups and get off the grid altogether. Luckily the provision has a grandfather clause for 10 years to maintain the existing net metering deals for anyone that installed a system for will do so this year. This makes sense as Solar will become as ubiquitous as EVs are becoming.

Similarly in IL (where I'm based) our EV annual license registration was a tenth of ICE ($36/2yrs vs $151/yr). The idea was to promote EV adoption. Didn't last long till they realized that EVs sell themselves and they don't contribute to road maintenances paid via gas taxes. So now our registration fees are $251/yr. Sucks for me (got 2 EVs so registration went up $200 annually), but I can't complain as I use the roads and should be contributing to their maintenance.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

shareef777 said:


> Simple solution for anyone that doesn't like this, buy a bunch of battery backups and get off the grid altogether.


Many municipalities require that homes be connected to the grid.

https://off-grid-home.com/is-it-legal-to-disconnect-your-home-from-the-electricity-grid/


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

In Pennsylvania, they've separated our bills into "electric supplier" and "electric distributor". The "distributer" charges cover maintaining the infrastructure, and you're stuck with your local electric company for that charge. The "supplier" charges cover electricity used, and you're free to switch companies there.

This seems like a reasonable way to have people with solar panels pay to keep the infrastructure maintained.


----------



## Pearl1 (Sep 23, 2021)

NR4P said:


> Many folks won't bother to download the pdf and read the text, and fully understanding it. Some legal jargon is in there.
> Perhaps you can summarize why it's bad for Florida Consumers and good for the Utilities? Why leave things as is?


FPL's argument is that an individual producing their own power cost their neighbor money. Or better yet, it hurts the poor and the children. You know it's BS when they hide behind the poor and the children. Guys wearing suits and flying in fancy helicopters and jets care about the poor? Sure. Next they'll outlaw having a vegetable garden.

Home solar helps FPL and saves my neighbor money: 
- An individual investing their own capital $$ to build their own power plant to satisfy their own needs, SAVES FPL capital cost $$$ - fewer power plants to build.

- An individual providing excess power to the grid save the utility their highest production cost $$ - nuclear or fossil fuel, and the cost to transport the power via the grid, because the excess solar power, by nature of the system, will go to the nearest user, your neighbor.

--FPl didn't pay to produce or transport this power but for which they charge the user (my neighbor) full price.

- A solar customer, in exchange, gets a credit in kWh, not money $$. When solar is not producing enough (at night, duh!), the customer pulls from the grid. Night is low demand low cost time for FPL, hence the time of use (TOU) rates. During the day FPL charges ~12 cent/kWh, with TOU FPL charges ~7 cents/kWh. For each credit a solar customer uses, FPL nets 5 cents for the trouble.

-At the end of the billing period, any unused credits carry forward to the next month. If there are no credits remaining, the solar customer pays 12 cents/kWh for power pulled from grid. Good deal right? (sarcasm). Better yet, at the end of the calendar year, if the solar customer has net credits, FPL pays the solar customer for these credits at FPLs cost of generation (COG). FPL doesn't publish this number, but it's believe to be around 1.5 cents/kWh.

At each step in the process, FPL get a taste, but FPL is a greedy SOB. They want it all. Tell us something we don't already know.

In an open economic system, the solar customer should be able to sell that power in the open market. But this is a monopoly. In some states, Cali, you can. Hence the high level of solar adoption and giant fight currently underway over net metering.

What most don't know is that FPL, and most utilities, are on a cost plus markup contract. Higher costs means higher profits.

For property owners, it's not a matter of if you're going to go solar, but a matter of when. Solar is a win-win. You can, over the long run save money, while helping stabilize the grid and stop littering the atmosphere. This is one of the few cases where you can do the right thing and it not be just charitable contribution.

FPL will lose customers and will contract. It's just a matter of time. The technology and economics are here now for all of us to produce our own power. Public utilities will invariably shrink, just like landline telephones have been overtaken by cellular services. Same said for cable TV. It's just a matter of time.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

garsh said:


> In Pennsylvania, they've separated our bills into "electric supplier" and "electric distributor". The "distributer" charges cover maintaining the infrastructure, and you're stuck with your local electric company for that charge. The "supplier" charges cover electricity used, and you're free to switch companies there.
> 
> This seems like a reasonable way to have people with solar panels pay to keep the infrastructure maintained.


Yep, but most solar users would be shocked to find that the "delivery" (as it's called here in IL) is almost half your bill.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

I read the text of the bill last night. It's written to be well-intentioned to try and give it the best chance to pass - but for some reason lawmakers never read in the worst case scenario, which tells me this bill was probably written by FPL, designed to try and _fool_ lawmakers into thinking it's a positive thing.

But that worst case scenario is probably the ultimate plan. Since the law says that they have to buy back solar generation at actual cost, that means they could theoretically buy back solar at a _negative_ credit simply by documenting that it costs them money to accept your solar generation. A negative credit would mean that they would charge you fees for every kWh you generate, and you could end up with a surprise bill of thousands of dollars a month because that's what the power company says it costs to integrate your solar power generation into the grid.

Of course no one would willingly do that. After one such invoice, most people with solar would cancel the net billing plan and just pay for their actual power usage above solar production, or add batteries if they can afford it. Or even possibly removing the solar altogether.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

Pearl1 said:


> FPL's argument is that an individual producing their own power cost their neighbor money. Or better yet, it hurts the poor and the children. You know it's BS when they hide behind the poor and the children. Guys wearing suits and flying in fancy helicopters and jets care about the poor? Sure. Next they'll outlaw having a vegetable garden.
> 
> Home solar helps FPL and saves my neighbor money:
> - An individual investing their own capital $$ to build their own power plant to satisfy their own needs, SAVES FPL capital cost $$$ - fewer power plants to build.
> ...


How does net metering work right now? The legislation seems to just level the playing field (ie, pay for the cost of the grid that you're using, like the wires and transformers). Section2 that I posted early lays that out clearly, that you'll pay your share of the grid/infrastructure upkeep, but not the power generators.

If what you're asking for is a discount for Solar generated power, then that's something that your politicians will happily ignore as there's no kickback for them (different topic I suppose).


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

shareef777 said:


> How does net metering work right now? The legislation seems to just level the playing field (ie, pay for the cost of the grid that you're using, like the wires and transformers). Section2 that I posted early lays that out clearly, that you'll pay your share of the grid/infrastructure upkeep, but not the power generators.
> 
> If what you're asking for is a discount for Solar generated power, then that's something that your politicians will happily ignore as there's no kickback for them (different topic I suppose).


I don't know about FPL, but Duke Energy charges me an infrastructure fee of something like $15 every month even if I have no net electric usage. They don't pay me the same rate for usage as for buyback - the buyback rate is a few cents less. And they don't pay it cash, it goes as credits on the bill until I use them (which means currently if I install batteries, I'd eventually lose any extra generation).

The two fears I have from a bill like this is drastically having the buyback rate cut so I would have to produce way more solar in order to see any credits - which would result in me being billed every month for usage in the evening or when it's raining. Or worse yet, if the power companies use this weakly worded law to claim accepting your solar generation costs them money, and end up billing _me_ a few cents per kWh to accept it instead of giving me credits.


----------



## Pearl1 (Sep 23, 2021)

shareef777 said:


> How does net metering work right now? The legislation seems to just level the playing field (ie, pay for the cost of the grid that you're using, like the wires and transformers). Section2 that I posted early lays that out clearly, that you'll pay your share of the grid/infrastructure upkeep, but not the power generators.
> 
> If what you're asking for is a discount for Solar generated power, then that's something that your politicians will happily ignore as there's no kickback for them (different topic I suppose).


You make me laugh.

BLUF: This bill is not about paying for infrastructure. Its about discouraging home solar. Home solar breaks up the monopoly.

First couple of lines of the bill deletes the word "promote."

Net metering is utility company idea/program. It's a program where they get access to generation capacity they don't have to pay for. The problem now is that the cost of solar has fallen resulting in accelerating solar adoption.

Unless you completely overpay (or live somewhere completely unsuitable), home solar is profitable now.

Net metered meaning zero. A net meter customer doesn't really use the grid infrastructure and that which they do, they pay for when they pay for the power that they use.

So you think its fair an equitable for someone who has invested their own money so they don't need to use the infrastructure to have to pay for infrastucture they don't use? That's kind of the point of solar, don't use the power company. This bill is like the phone or cable company wanting to charge you for phone lines you don't use after you switched to cellular.

Net metering is the law in Florida, hence the legislation. The scary part for the utilities is that if homeowners were allowed to cut the wire they would in droves. The technology is here now to do just that, and a price that makes sense.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

Pearl1 said:


> You make me laugh.
> 
> BLUF: This bill is not about paying for infrastructure. Its about discouraging home solar. Home solar breaks up the monopoly.
> 
> ...


I'm relatively new to solar (pending an install), but as far as I was aware you definitely use the grid as you generate a bulk of your power during the summer and just send any excess to the grid where it's used by others. You're credited for the excess and are essentially using that credit in the winter when your solar system doesn't produce enough and you need to rely on the grid. From what I gather the concern is that someone that creates enough power in the summer that their overall annual use is zero they don't pay enough to upkeep that grid. Am I missing something? Please exclude anything about greedy politicians/corporations.


----------



## Pearl1 (Sep 23, 2021)

shareef777 said:


> I read it (I don't live in FL), but the gist of it is that as more and more people move over to Solar (and therefore provide their own power generation) the cost burden to maintain the grid will move over to those without solar. Many of whom either can't financially afford it or physically can't due to the position of their home/building or layout (think apartments and condos). Not saying the bill is right, but it's a logical concern especially as most solar systems are still grid tied.
> 
> Hypothetically, how does it make sense to generate 20kWh of energy (most of it during the summer), have the grid "credit" you for that power generated so that you can use it during the winter and walk away with a $0 bill over the course of the year. There's still infrastructure and overhead that needs to be paid for beyond your meter.
> 
> ...


Grid tied is the law in Florida.

FPL limits system size to 125% previous year usage and can further limit based upon limits of the grid infrastructure closest to you, i.e. every house around you already had big solar array you may not be able to because the grid couldn't handle it.

I think a better system would be anyone can sell in the open market at market rates. FPL is so greedy. If you own them you pay .12 cents/kWh, if they owe you 1.5 cents. You'd think a markup like that would be enough. I think I would happily pay for grid cost is I got paid market rates.

But this discussion, all of the discussions about changes to net metering are not about cost sharing, they're about stoping the roof top solar tsunami. Just like the cell phone killed Ma Bell, the clock is ticking on another monopoly. As solar cost fall, with battery cost close behind, before this decade is out, roof top solar will proliferate just like the iPhone. Which is something we should all celebrate. First it will be the coal fired plants, then the natural gas.

Every home owner should have roof top solar. It's good for you $$ and good the planet.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

Pearl1 said:


> Grid tied is the law in Florida.


There is a pretty stupid reason for that. It's because if you operate your own solar generation without grid tying and net metering, you have to be licensed as a public utility and submit to state utility regulations. Even if you only supply your own house.



Pearl1 said:


> FPL limits system size to 125% previous year usage and can further limit based upon limits of the grid infrastructure closest to you, i.e. every house around you already had big solar array you may not be able to because the grid couldn't handle it.


The grid is demand based, not supply based. Solar arrays have inverters that regulate the generated current to a specified amount of amps - you can see how much it's limited to by looking at the circuit breaker cutoff where the power from the solar array comes into the house. I think mine is 100 amps, which is a pretty small backfeed considering that a) I'll probably be using a lot of it before it goes back to the grid; and b) It's probably not designed to actually _reach_ 100 amps because then the breaker would trip.

At even 100 amps, by the time the transformer scales it up to transmission current, we're talking about tenths of an amp. An entire neighborhood with solar would barely shift the power company's energy production at all. If it starts getting into a measurable percentage of a city, then it might become an issue for them. But we're not nearly there yet.

When you apply for net metering, one of the checks the power company does is whether or not they can accept your net metering based on how many other solar installations are around you, if the local grid can handle it, and whether you have a battery array (because obviously you'll be backfeeding a lot less if you have one). If you don't _have_ a battery, you're basically using the power grid as your battery via energy credits. If too many people get solar arrays that use net metering in an area, the power company should start requiring new solar suppliers to have batteries.



Pearl1 said:


> I think a better system would be anyone can sell in the open market at market rates. FPL is so greedy. If you own them you pay .12 cents/kWh, if they owe you 1.5 cents. You'd think a markup like that would be enough. I think I would happily pay for grid cost is I got paid market rates.


Then the power companies would demand solar equipped homeowners be regulated as utility competitors, which would make it more expensive to operate.



Pearl1 said:


> But this discussion, all of the discussions about changes to net metering are not about cost sharing, they're about stoping the roof top solar tsunami. Just like the cell phone killed Ma Bell, the clock is ticking on another monopoly. As solar cost fall, with battery cost close behind, before this decade is out, roof top solar will proliferate just like the iPhone. Which is something we should all celebrate. First it will be the coal fired plants, then the natural gas.


The biggest issue is that the power companies are sticking like glue to returning things to the way they were - central power generation via fuel, delivery to customers, nothing in between. They need to accept that people _will_ get solar until it's specifically outlawed or forcibly made so expensive to operate that people would be forced to give it up (and then the power companies would hopefully be looking at massive lawsuits).

What they need to do is embrace it instead. Take it out of the hands of independent suppliers and installers, and lease the panels to homeowners directly at a price that independent dealers can barely compete with. People who want to own their own array can still use independents, and pay out of pocket, and do without net metering. But think about it - if people had the option, they absolutely would pay a flat monthly rate for a solar and battery array they don't own or have to take care of, and makes them immune to most power outages. And the power companies don't have to fight with regulators to install more generation capacity, or buy as much fuel. Everybody wins in the end.


----------



## sharksfan22 (Nov 26, 2018)

So here in the People's Glorious Socialist State of California, residents were sold the idea of "helping the environment", "doing our part", etc. to get solar. Part of the carrot dangled in front of us was that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would pay me (the ratepayer) for excess energy I produce and send to PG&E for distribution elsewhere. Sounds great but in reality, the math payback barely makes sense today (cost of PV system vs. bill from PG&E) but it does come out positive. Adding PowerWalls helps as well. But the buy/sell is very asymmetrical (between 5 and 12:1 depending on the time of day) as they pay me much less for the same electricity I purchase from them, using the transmission and distribution cost as their excuse.

In reality, much like governments realizing that each electric vehicle pays zero in gas tax, this initiative is nothing more than the utilities realizing that their pension-funding and lawsuit-payout revenue coming from ratepayers is dropping.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

sharksfan22 said:


> So here in the People's Glorious Socialist State of California, residents were sold the idea of "helping the environment", "doing our part", etc. to get solar. Part of the carrot dangled in front of us was that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would pay me (the ratepayer) for excess energy I produce and send to PG&E for distribution elsewhere. Sounds great but in reality, the math payback barely makes sense today (cost of PV system vs. bill from PG&E) but it does come out positive. Adding PowerWalls helps as well. But the buy/sell is very asymmetrical (between 5 and 12:1 depending on the time of day) as they pay me much less for the same electricity I purchase from them, using the transmission and distribution cost as their excuse.
> 
> In reality, much like governments realizing that each electric vehicle pays zero in gas tax, this initiative is nothing more than the utilities realizing that their pension-funding and lawsuit-payout revenue coming from ratepayers is dropping.


I've recently read some details about the CA proposal. It's eye watering, considering you'd end up paying MORE for solar than you would just being tied to the grid. Haven't found any specific pricing details on the FL legislation though.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

shareef777 said:


> I've recently read some details about the CA proposal. It's eye watering, considering you'd end up paying MORE for solar than you would just being tied to the grid. Haven't found any specific pricing details on the FL legislation though.


That's what I was worried that legislation was capable of - because it would be completely legal under that new law for the power companies to insist that they are buying solar power from customers at a huge loss, and pass that loss on to the solar array owners via even higher bills. In fact I highly suspect that's why it was written in the first place, using language like it's trying to prevent non-solar customers for subsidizing solar customers.


----------



## Pearl1 (Sep 23, 2021)

Solar customers are subsidize by non-solar? Show us the data. I downloaded and read the Nextra energy annual report. That thing is written like someone trying to hid something. It didn’t even breakout the cost; generation, transmission, etc. It did say that the PSC rate structure provided an 11.5% ROE.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

Pearl1 said:


> Solar customers are subsidize by non-solar? Show us the data. I downloaded and read the Nextra energy annual report. That thing is written like someone trying to hid something. It didn't even breakout the cost; generation, transmission, etc. It did say that the PSC rate structure provided an 11.5% ROE.


Suppose it depends on the billing methods used by the provider. Ideally they'd split your bill between the cost of generating the power you use and the cost of delivering that power over the grid (as ComEd does here in IL).

Logically, solar customers don't pay anything (up to) for any power their system generates. But they DO need to pay to transmit that power over the grid as most of them don't have capacity to store all the excess power they generate in the summer (that will be credited later in the winter). It's not as clear cut as, use less than you create and you get no bill.


----------



## Bigriver (Jan 26, 2018)

garsh said:


> In Pennsylvania, they've separated our bills into "electric supplier" and "electric distributor". The "distributer" charges cover maintaining the infrastructure, and you're stuck with your local electric company for that charge. The "supplier" charges cover electricity used, and you're free to switch companies there.
> 
> This seems like a reasonable way to have people with solar panels pay to keep the infrastructure maintained.


Solar customers in PA do not pay the distribution charge in the net metering agreement. As I provide a kWh to the grid, I get to later use a kWh with no charge. The distribution part only shows up for a solar customer if they use more than they produce and have no kWh in their bank from net metering. So I'm not sure what you are referring to that has PA solar customers paying to keep the infrastructure maintained? I do have a monthly base customer charge of about $13/month. Don't know what that is theoretically covering, but I've always thought of it as an administrative fee. Even that is covered for me by the excess that I send back to the grid. So as I send an excess of about 2000 kWh/year (credited at about $0.08/kWh) is that enough of a contribution so I don't owe any more to sustain the grid? I definitely need the grid, both during the winter as I need thousands more kWh than I produce, but also I need it the rest of the year as a place to send my thousands of extra kWh that I generate.



shareef777 said:


> I'm relatively new to solar (pending an install), but as far as I was aware you definitely use the grid as you generate a bulk of your power during the summer and just send any excess to the grid where it's used by others. You're credited for the excess and are essentially using that credit in the winter when your solar system doesn't produce enough and you need to rely on the grid. From what I gather the concern is that someone that creates enough power in the summer that their overall annual use is zero they don't pay enough to upkeep that grid. Am I missing something?


You have described exactly how it is for me in PA. But I'm not sure that is how it plays out for someone in Florida. I get the impression that their seasonal production and usage curves are more aligned. So as I described above that I am actually interacting with the grid all year long, either giving or taking. I have Powerwalls, so I'm not talking daily loads but seasonal. That interaction would be less if someone's production and usage are closely matched throughout the year.

I think this idea of grid support is difficult. Before anyone had solar, grid support got proportioned by how much a house used. Then you get a few solar installations and net metering is a simple, logical tracking method. The few customers who do this have no notable impact on the grid economics. But as more people have solar, I see that something might have to change in the rules/pricing. I personally don't know the financial side of the grid, but I do think it is an important infrastructure element and needs to be maintained. I don't think solar customers should be disproportionately burdened by it, nor do I think we should be absolved from it.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

Bigriver said:


> I think this idea of grid support is difficult. Before anyone had solar, grid support got proportioned by how much a house used. Then you get a few solar installations and net metering is a simple, logical tracking method. The few customers who do this have no notable impact on the grid economics. But as more people have solar, I see that something might have to change in the rules/pricing. I personally don't know the financial side of the grid, but I do think it is an important infrastructure element and needs to be maintained. I don't think solar customers should be disproportionately burdened by it, nor do I think we should be absolved from it.


Here's the crazy thing: I read the language in the bill, and it doesn't say "grid support" at all. It says that solar array owners should pay a share of the actual generation costs.

The face value intent of the bill is to allow the power companies to set the buyback rate, discounting it based on the cost of what the generation of power would be if you didn't supply them with solar. It's disguised as a social justice move, supposing that because you can afford solar, you can also afford to subsidize the cost of electricity for those who can't afford it. Except the power companies will do nothing of the sort, they'll just keep the extra money.

But the dangerous part is it's also a license for Florida Power and Light (who is sponsoring the bill) to claim high costs associated with accepting your solar generation and stick you with a huge bill. Imagine paying 12 cents per kWh to buy power from them, and you paying them 5 cents per kWh for them to buy your surplus (as opposed to them paying you credits). That would make it a lot harder to save money by selling them excess power, and possibly even make it cheaper to stop selling them excess and either add batteries, or pay to suck more power from the grid with no credits to rely on. You would never save enough to offset the payment you're making on the solar. And that's kind of the idea, to take the attractiveness away from solar to save on energy bills. It would return to the realm of die-hard environmentalists willing to spend extra money to save the planet. That might also be why they're grandfathering in existing installs - giving those people some time to either add batteries or get rid of their solar array before they get hit with bigger bills.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

JasonF said:


> Here's the crazy thing: I read the language in the bill, and it doesn't say "grid support" at all. It says that solar array owners should pay a share of the actual generation costs.
> 
> The face value intent of the bill is to allow the power companies to set the buyback rate, discounting it based on the cost of what the generation of power would be if you didn't supply them with solar. It's disguised as a social justice move, supposing that because you can afford solar, you can also afford to subsidize the cost of electricity for those who can't afford it. Except the power companies will do nothing of the sort, they'll just keep the extra money.
> 
> But the dangerous part is it's also a license for Florida Power and Light (who is sponsoring the bill) to claim high costs associated with accepting your solar generation and stick you with a huge bill. Imagine paying 12 cents per kWh to buy power from them, and you paying them 5 cents per kWh for them to buy your surplus (as opposed to them paying you credits). That would make it a lot harder to save money by selling them excess power, and possibly even make it cheaper to stop selling them excess and either add batteries, or pay to suck more power from the grid with no credits to rely on. You would never save enough to offset the payment you're making on the solar. And that's kind of the idea, to take the attractiveness away from solar to save on energy bills. It would return to the realm of die-hard environmentalists willing to spend extra money to save the planet. That might also be why they're grandfathering in existing installs - giving those people some time to either add batteries or get rid of their solar array before they get hit with bigger bills.


Well, the grandfathering in of 15years should help anyone with an existing install pay it off within the payoff period. But you're right, this will massively disincentive solar. Thing is (playing an unbiased devils advocate role), this just proves that Solar isn't viable on a large scale because of the need for an alternative energy source in the winters. Assume a majority of the people are on solar, who's paying for the grid and power generations during the winter when everyone has an excess credit?

We're obviously nowhere near that scale (and likely won't for another decade+. And I agree that politicians agendas aren't in the people's interest (well, a very select few, let's say 1% of the population).


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Bigriver said:


> Solar customers in PA do not pay the distribution charge in the net metering agreement. As I provide a kWh to the grid, I get to later use a kWh with no charge. The distribution part only shows up for a solar customer if they use more than they produce and have no kWh in their bank from net metering.


Huh. Thank you for the information. Given how those charges were described, I had assumed that distribution charges would apply whether you were supplying or using electricity.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

shareef777 said:


> Well, the grandfathering in of 15years should help anyone with an existing install pay it off within the payoff period. But you're right, this will massively disincentive solar. Thing is (playing an unbiased devils advocate role), this just proves that Solar isn't viable on a large scale because of the need for an alternative energy source in the winters. Assume a majority of the people are on solar, who's paying for the grid and power generations during the winter when everyone has an excess credit?
> 
> We're obviously nowhere near that scale (and likely won't for another decade+. And I agree that politicians agendas aren't in the people's interest (well, a very select few, let's say 1% of the population).


Ultimately it's not that the power companies themselves want to kill solar - they want full control of the production and delivery of electricity, a full monopoly. They probably would lease solar to customers to keep third parties out of the energy business, except that they don't want to lay out the cash. They might do that if the government puts up the money, or they can get customers to pay part or all of the install costs but not actually own the panels or electricity.

But what decreases the likelihood of that further is power companies will often have agreements with fuel distributors for a better than market fuel cost on gas or coal. Some of them might even be making agreements with fuel companies for a better price if they can do something to get control of and curb customer solar and increase fuel usage. That would lead to them not only slowing customer solar adoption, but only building token wind and solar farms to get subsidies for green energy, but not really doing much with it seriously.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

JasonF said:


> Ultimately it's not that the power companies themselves want to kill solar - they want full control of the production and delivery of electricity, a full monopoly. They probably would lease solar to customers to keep third parties out of the energy business, except that they don't want to lay out the cash. They might do that if the government puts up the money, or they can get customers to pay part or all of the install costs but not actually own the panels or electricity.
> 
> But what decreases the likelihood of that further is power companies will often have agreements with fuel distributors for a better than market fuel cost on gas or coal. Some of them might even be making agreements with fuel companies for a better price if they can do something to get control of and curb customer solar and increase fuel usage. That would lead to them not only slowing customer solar adoption, but only building token wind and solar farms to get subsidies for green energy, but not really doing much with it seriously.


Yeah, unfortunately the all mighty dollar still rules all.


----------



## Copterguy (Apr 12, 2019)

Interesting reading through this thread. I'm currently in the nanny state of Hawaii, about to move to FL. The monopoly, HECO, offers the most expensive electricity in the nation. I've got 25 panels and a solar wall, still on the grid, but can't detach from the grid. I get charged a $26 monthly fee to be attatched.... Their NEM changed as more people got solar, no longer crediting excess power generation from our homes. Hopefully this FPL pushed Bill fails.


----------



## Pearl1 (Sep 23, 2021)

The companion bill is steadily moving through the Florida House.

The first link is the House Staff Analysis. Interesting and lacking in many areas, it talks about avoiding a cross subsidy, but provides no data as to how much this is. Only 1% of Florida customers have net metering. Probably not a lot of money, that's why there is no mention of it.

The bill calls the net metering credits IOUs and will direct the Florida Public Service commission to change the rules so that the net metering IOUs reflects this. The rub is, how do you calculate fully burden cost?

Excess solar goes to the nearest electrical demand, your neighbor. FPL charges your neighbor full price, to include production and transportation from the FPL power plant. Even though the electrons only traveled a few hundred feet! For excess solar, FPL is over charging the customer, unless this over charging is the net meter credit.

The only real cross subsidy is for the power that travels from house to house. How do you quantify this? Also how do you quantify, the cost of product avoided. Both of these are probably small and probably offsetting. So, really no cross subsidy.

https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sect...entType=Analysis&BillNumber=0741&Session=2022
https://floridapolitics.com/archive...romise-amendment-heads-to-final-senate-panel/
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=75044


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

I can’t trust lawmakers anymore who are dumb enough to believe that home solar generation has no costs associated with it (because they themselves are wealthy enough to pay for it with pocket change, and not finance it) and it’s simply a loophole for homeowners to not pay a fair power bill like everyone else.

They’re likely the same idiots who believe that EV’s are purchased solely to avoid buying gas and paying taxes, so therefore need to pay enough fees and taxes to displace a diesel truck to make things fair.

The message is becoming clear. There is a Chinese saying about the nail that sticks out being hammered down, and that philosophy is becoming prevalent here as well. If you don’t pay the same for electricity as everyone else, and buy gasoline like everyone else, you’re going to be punished.

What can I do about it? Nothing, most likely, because lawmakers will be supported as long as they can pretend they’re making things fair, and only hurting those who stray from what’s considered normal.


----------



## Pearl1 (Sep 23, 2021)

JasonF said:


> I can't trust lawmakers anymore who are dumb enough to believe that home solar generation has no costs associated with it (because they themselves are wealthy enough to pay for it with pocket change, and not finance it) and it's simply a loophole for homeowners to not pay a fair power bill like everyone else.


The lawmakers are willfully ignorant. Follow the posted links and you can watch the committee hearings. For someone who wants to believe we are a government of, by, and for the people, to watch is very disheartening.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

Pearl1 said:


> The lawmakers are willfully ignorant. Follow the posted links and you can watch the committee hearings. For someone who wants to believe we are a government of, by, and for the people, to watch is very disheartening.


I believe it's worse than that - the lawmakers are fighting a war against citizens on behalf of lobbyists. If we end up losing all of our civil rights and/or have our right to choose taken away permanently, it will be lobbyists who sponsor it, and lawmakers who champion it and tell us why it's good for us. It's not a class war, it's a war of control over what we're allowed to do and how it impacts the way lobbyists' organizations operate. It's not only about corporate greed, either, because organized religion and special interest groups are involved in it as well.

Take a look at how the Right to Repair battle is going. It looked for a while like RtR was winning, but then lobbyists struck back, and now there's a good possibility that their proprietary behavior could be enforced criminally someday like DMCA is. I'm just glad that a few companies decided on their own to embrace RtR on their own.


----------



## Pearl1 (Sep 23, 2021)

Last week, the Florida House pass bill 741 which guts net metering in Florida. It is scheduled to get a third reading and a vote this week.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1024
It's easy to email the Senators.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Senators
[Moderator Edit: no political statements in the forums please. Just post the facts]


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

Ironic that the moderator edit is what caused the off topic arguing. I don’t really care about the politics about it anyway, since it doesn’t matter - lobbyists are behind it, and they have both parties in their pockets.

Unfortunately fighting this law also likely won’t matter. The power companies think they have it in the bag, because Duke Energy introduced a “minimum bill charge” fee that forces a $12 bill up to a minimum of $30. Since they started doing that before this law passed, it’s unlikely they’ll remove it even if the law doesn’t pass. But they’re very certain it will.

Also, $30 is an arbitrary amount that Duke decided that’s the minimum everyone has to pay no matter what. Since it’s not usage based, it’s very easy for them to also arbitrarily raise that minumum gradually, or maybe even suddenly. Any given month they could decide that nobody should be paying less than $100, and then I get a bill with $12 of fees plus an $88 minimum bill fee.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

How about that! DeSantis has vetoed the bill. 

https://www.tampabay.com/news/flori...ing-bill-opposed-by-rooftop-solar-proponents/


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

garsh said:


> How about that! DeSantis has vetoed the bill.


Vetoed it because it was a thinly veiled price increase. Gives me hope that he will do something about the insurance problem here, too.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

garsh said:


> How about that! DeSantis has vetoed the bill.
> 
> https://www.tampabay.com/news/flori...ing-bill-opposed-by-rooftop-solar-proponents/


"The bill would have required that solar customers pay all fixed costs of having access to transmission lines and backup energy generation as determined by the Public Service Commission, but the solar customers would not have received any benefits for reducing the utility's electricity demand."

Anyone know the details of how the billing would have been setup? I still see the logic in charging to transmit power from your solar generation to the grid (if you're using the infrastructure, you better be paying for that infrastructure). I believe their current net metering is just a flat charge on the kWH used. So if you produce more then you consume you'd get a credit. Issue is that they're paying you for helping offset their generation costs. But what about the grid itself? The power source is only ONE part of the total expenses for operating the grid. Transmission lines, transformers, etc are not being calculated separately. As more and more people switch to solar, the utility provider will go bankrupt.

Though, IMHO, the solution is not to pass a law to bill solar customers. Just split the current bill up between power generation (cost of the plant/generator operation) and power transmission (cost of the power lines/transformers, ie, everything OUTSIDE of running the plant).


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

shareef777 said:


> "The bill would have required that solar customers pay all fixed costs of having access to transmission lines and backup energy generation as determined by the Public Service Commission, but the solar customers would not have received any benefits for reducing the utility's electricity demand."


What scared me about that is they are not specified even in the loosest of terms. It's the power companies saying, "Just trust us, we'll be fair about it. We promise."

And then next thing you know, you actually get _billed_ for power you send to the grid rather than a credit, and you're forced to cough up a lot more money to install batteries to store the surplus and cut down on the amount you drop into the grid. Or remove the net billing, and only use your solar generation during the daytime without selling any back, or getting rid of your solar panels. The reason why they grandfathered it in is because of the supposed useful life of solar panels. Rather than have you replace them as they go bad, they would rather have you retire them instead because they're getting too expensive to operate. Over time they make solar extinct.


----------



## Dfwatt (Mar 17, 2019)

U


shareef777 said:


> I read it (I don't live in FL), but the gist of it is that as more and more people move over to Solar (and therefore provide their own power generation) the cost burden to maintain the grid will move over to those without solar. Many of whom either can't financially afford it or physically can't due to the position of their home/building or layout (think apartments and condos). Not saying the bill is right, but it's a logical concern especially as most solar systems are still grid tied.
> 
> Hypothetically, how does it make sense to generate 20kWh of energy (most of it during the summer), have the grid "credit" you for that power generated so that you can use it during the winter and walk away with a $0 bill over the course of the year. There's still infrastructure and overhead that needs to be paid for beyond your meter.
> 
> ...


What is really troubling is to see on Tesla forums (of all places!) people operating as though they believe that what is in the best interest of plutocrats and monopolies is also in their best interest - do you work for FPL? Because you sure have swallowed their party line – hook, line and sinker. I simply don't understand this kind of naïveté and as someone once said it's really analogous to large scale voting against interest (Another puzzling widespread trend in the United States). Your interests as a residential customer are not ultimately aligned with the interests of FPL. Maybe you have figured that out, but it seems to me that you need a reality check on this.

The Florida bill never had anything to do with the realistic apportionment of infrastructure costs - we actually already pay that in terms of a basic connection fee even if we never use any power from the grid, and *we are *_*legally required to be connected*_. And we also had to pay significant money to have the house connected so there is your infrastructure tax. That was never its real target. *It's real target was to make solar economically nonviable*. In other words, if you can tax the system in some fashion, so that its payback period goes from 10 years to 100 years or to never, you've eliminated the fundamental and existential threat to your monopoly, and your guaranteed fat profits (cost-plus percentage fee structure – no matter how poorly you do your job, you're guaranteed to make money - where can I get a job like that!). *Individual residence solar generation Is a disruptive technology that is an existential threat to the current monopolistic model of how to do grid power.* And you'd better believe that every single power monopoly from California to Florida understands this existential threat. This is why net metering is now the number one target of disinformation, negative publicity campaigns and frank bull---, to the point of suggesting that solar is 'elitist' and that folks making their own power are 'victimizing the poor.' Hah!

As an index of its existential threat status, residential solar is approaching, or in some cases, already reaching, the magic $.10 per kilowatt hour lifetime cost – a number that very few utilities right now can hit – and none that do not rely on hydroelectric or other non-fossil fuels. So roll out the fog machine, hype net metering as an elitist evil, and act like you give a rat's ass about the average person struggling to pay their electric bills. The real point of the discrediting of net metering is to ensure that the big utilities capture all the potential income from solar by building big solar farms – and they're scrambling to do this while they're greenwashing their track record of climate denial and fossil fuel rationalization. Rooftop solar is not simply an existential threat to the current largely fossil Fuel based traditional grid monopolies, it's a threat to their future monopoly, which they know will be mostly solar and wind, if they can stop rooftop solar from eventually cutting most of their action. All they have to do is bribe enough lawmakers in enough states to pass bills that make the cost of solar versus its savings essentially a wash. They can rationalize that in terms of some sort of inflated estimate of infrastructure costs and when you actually look at the numbers they have presented on these, they are wildly optimistic. The fact of the matter is that many residential solar customers are actually supporting the grid – we put 1.5 MW free every year (our excess power, much of it during the summer during peak AC usage in FL) into FPL's power generation for the neighborhood – and we never have received a dime for this. Long story short look more skeptically at the rationalizations offered by sociopathic operators.

The real shocker in this story is that Ron DeSantis – a plutocrat's plutocrat – vetoed the bill because he realized that it would be incredibly unpopular and was a giveaway to the utilities while punishing the middle class and the fast growing FL solar industry. Didn't know Ron had it in him – but in any case, we dodged a bullet. But FPL will be back - with a slicker bill and more BS rationalizations. Their real target is not "recovery of infrastructure costs," but the preservation of their monopolistic business model. Don't kid yourself that rooftop solar isn't an existential and huge threat to those guaranteed millions/billions. Or that the executive group at FPL gives a hoot about the middle class or poor.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

Dfwatt said:


> U
> 
> 
> What is really troubling is to see on Tesla forums (of all places!) people operating as though they believe that what is in the best interest of plutocrats and monopolies is also in their best interest - do you work for FPL? Because you sure have swallowed their party line – hook, line and sinker. I simply don't understand this kind of naïveté and as someone once said it's really analogous to large scale voting against interest (Another puzzling widespread trend in the United States). Your interests as a residential customer are not ultimately aligned with the interests of FPL. Maybe you have figured that out, but it seems to me that you need a reality check on this.
> ...


So you don’t think everyone should pay a FAIR share!? Sorry I don’t have a fanboy/cultist mindset. Just because I got Solar doesn’t mean I’m entitled to special privileges and everyone that doesn’t have Solar should now pay for ME to use the grid.

Your “connection/meter fee” does NOT cover infrastructure repairs. If you think a $15 meter fee is enough to pay for storm repairs and grid upkeep, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you!

IANAL, but the bill seems to indicate that owners of Solar should only be alleviated of costs related to power generation, which is what your Solar is doing. It’s alleviating power generation from the utility provider (get it?). Here’s the thing, you still need those wires outside your home. We use those wires no different then our neighbors that don’t have Solar.

Now, I’m not saying politicians should be trusted at face value (far from it, I despise both parties). BUT the general idea is sound. A net power use isn’t a fair calculator, it should account for infrastructure use. ComEd (my utility provider) seems to have a good grasp of that idea.











They have a separate line showing how much the cost was just to transmit the power I used. So ideally if I had a net credit of 724kWh, I’d still pay a net bill of $25.31. Approximately $10 more over just a meter fee. And I’m ok with that. Fair is fair.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

shareef777 said:


> So you don’t think everyone should pay a FAIR share!? Sorry I don’t have a fanboy/cultist mindset. Just because I got Solar doesn’t mean I’m entitled to special privileges and everyone that doesn’t have Solar should now pay for ME to use the grid.


First, this thread has been necro'd because the Florida governor already vetoed this bill.

Second, what you're asserting would only be true if the power company was required to buy back power at the same rate they sell it to you. This is not the case - the buyback rate is far lower. They are already subtracting the delivery cost from what they buy back from you.

What that bill would have done (as I mentioned above) is allow the power companies to add even more arbitrary costs to the buyback rate without any kind of outside approval. Theoretically it even means the power company can claim that it's _losing money_ buying power from solar owners, and charge them full _usage rate_ or more for all power they have to buy from them beyond what they use. They could force people who have solar and are relying on the buyback to either shell out more for batteries, or disconnect their solar to avoid more fees. 

That's in large part why I didn't like it, the lack of limits in the bill wording, while it gives the power companies full control over whether its customers are "allowed" to have solar.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

JasonF said:


> First, this thread has been necro'd because the Florida governor already vetoed this bill.
> 
> Second, what you're asserting would only be true if the power company was required to buy back power at the same rate they sell it to you. This is not the case - the buyback rate is far lower. They are already subtracting the delivery cost from what they buy back from you.
> 
> ...


What they MAY is totally up in the air. 

What I was referring to is that the essence of the bill is to better account for the ACTUAL cost burden of solar owners. It’s not a 1:1 ratio where you only pay for net grid use. We need to pay to send to the grid as well. Can it be abused, well yeah, like practically EVERY law/regulation is abused. Yay capitalism 🙄! Reminds me of a great line in the Independence Day movie:










The ideal solution is to nationalize core necessities like gas/electric/health care, but comments like that open a whole other can of worms 😂


----------



## Dfwatt (Mar 17, 2019)

shareef777 said:


> So you don’t think everyone should pay a FAIR share!? Sorry I don’t have a fanboy/cultist mindset. Just because I got Solar doesn’t mean I’m entitled to special privileges and everyone that doesn’t have Solar should now pay for ME to use the grid.
> 
> Your “connection/meter fee” does NOT cover infrastructure repairs. If you think a $15 meter fee is enough to pay for storm repairs and grid upkeep, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you!
> 
> ...


Well, thank God the Oxford definition of fairness isn't in your hands. You accuse someone disagreeing with you of entitlement (classic ad hominem argument!), imply that my position is due to being a 'fanboy,' or 'cultist,' (more character assassination?), conflate the FL infrastructure cost with what is on your bill (!), and uncritically accept the right of a monopoly to force people to belong, while that monopoly has the right to degrade and block their access to alternate sources of energy. If you don't work for FPL, you should! BTW, under fair and accepted debating and discussion tactics, see how many you have just violated. Fairness indeed!


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

shareef777 said:


> What I was referring to is that the essence of the bill is to better account for the ACTUAL cost burden of solar owners. It’s not a 1:1 ratio where you only pay for net grid use. We need to pay to send to the grid as well. Can it be abused, well yeah, like practically EVERY law/regulation is abused.


We do pay a share of the maintenance cost though, since the buyback rate is lower. Lower than the "generation cost" that the power company sets for itself.

The problem isn't that it _can_ be abused, but that I estimate it _would be._ Do you know how many profitable companies, especially monopolies, every year report an "operating loss"? It would be too easy for them to claim that the operating loss is specifically caused by having to pay solar customers for excess power generation (even at a reduced rate). And then the new law would have allowed them adjust the buyback rate _without any additional government approval_. That's the part that disturbed me the most.


----------



## shareef777 (Mar 10, 2019)

Dfwatt said:


> Well, thank God the Oxford definition of fairness isn't in your hands. You accuse someone disagreeing with you of entitlement (classic ad hominem argument!), imply that my position is due to being a 'fanboy,' or 'cultist,' (more character assassination?), conflate the FL infrastructure cost with what is on your bill (!), and uncritically accept the right of a monopoly to force people to belong, while that monopoly has the right to degrade and block their access to alternate sources of energy. If you don't work for FPL, you should! BTW, under fair and accepted debating and discussion tactics, see how many you have just violated. Fairness indeed!





Dfwatt said:


> What is really troubling is to see on Tesla forums (of all places!) people operating as though they believe that what is in the best interest of plutocrats and monopolies is also in their best interest - do you work for FPL? Because you sure have swallowed their party line – hook, line and sinker.


"Character assassination"!? Your FIRST post in this thread started with you calling me a "corporate shill".

See my previous post about ComEd (MY utility provider). They seem to have it nailed down properly. But the idea that "meter fees" are good enough just won't cut it.


----------



## Dfwatt (Mar 17, 2019)

JasonF said:


> We do pay a share of the maintenance cost though, since the buyback rate is lower. Lower than the "generation cost" that the power company sets for itself.
> 
> The problem isn't that it _can_ be abused, but that I estimate it _would be._ Do you know how many profitable companies, especially monopolies, every year report an "operating loss"? It would be too easy for them to claim that the operating loss is specifically caused by having to pay solar customers for excess power generation (even at a reduced rate). And then the new law would have allowed them adjust the buyback rate _without any additional government approval_. That's the part that disturbed me the most.


Yes that is very troubling. But it certainly would guarantee that they could make a lot of money at the expense of anyone with a solar system. We have some forum member to seem to believe there's no problem with putting the fox in charge of the chickens.


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Please stop belittling other forum members. It's ok to simply disagree with what others believe without having to make a statement about the other persons.


----------



## Dfwatt (Mar 17, 2019)

Here's yet more strange goings on in terms of factors that might dissuade people from putting solar on their roof. It does appear that there is some feedback between FPL's campaign against residential solar, in this case their bogus notion that there is significant risk of damage to the grid from home solar systems, which appears to be at least one factor if not a primary factor in dissuading insurance companies in Florida to cover solar installations. Some insurance companies dropping Florida customers if they put solar panels on their homes

This of course is a big win for Florida Power and Light and might achieve at least a significant fraction of what their home solar tax strategy, vetoed by the governor, failed to do.


----------



## Klaus-rf (Mar 6, 2019)

Dfwatt said:


> ... in this case their bogus notion that there is significant risk of damage to the grid from home solar systems,


 I bet if FPL were in the business of leasing those same solar systems to end users, all of that supposed damage would magically go away.

The only change being the direction the $$$$ are going.


----------



## Dfwatt (Mar 17, 2019)

Klaus-rf said:


> I bet if FPL were in the business of leasing those same solar systems to end users, all of that supposed damage would magically go away.
> 
> The only change being the direction the $$$$ are going.


Agreed. People naively assume that with all the 'green washing' advertising of their modest existing and still to be developed (larger) solar farms, that FPL is very pro-solar. They are instead just pro-monopoly and they long ago realized which way the winds (and costs) were blowing, so they want to be your green energy provider - just the only one you are allowed to have, as opposed to any kind of small cooperative or any version of self sufficient. And again, as I indicated to the skeptical, the 'infrastructure tax' rationalization hides their projected numbers being exactly where they would need to be to make residential solar no longer cost effective or all that attractive to homeowners - about $50-60/month/8kw installation. Coincidence? Doubtful. It's too perfect a fit. You don't have to go crazy with 'infrastructure tax' (and that wouldn't fly or pass muster in any case), just make the cost such that the payback never happens. Just like the numbers proposed by the Cali monopolies. And no one outside of FPL believes that those are actual distribution costs.

It's in their best corporate interests to keep their monopoly - everything else is rationalization/cut and paste to that goal. They see the threat posed by a whole lot of people being self-sufficient, and even with expensive batteries, having a payback period inside the lifetime of the system. Right now you are required to be on grid, so as long as they can keep that law from effective challenge, and tax residential solar installations so that the disruptive technology is stopped before it spreads much further, their guaranteed profiles (cost plus a fixed percentage) are safe. BTW, FPL spends more (of your money) on lobbying and political contributions than any comparably sized company in FL, so they know where and how to get laws passed to protect their monopoly.

The real mystery is why anyone would think that a bunch of wealthy executives in a publicly traded monopoly would have any other approach to the protection of the goose laying the golden eggs. Does anyone really think that they are primarily interested in what is best for consumers, or for that matter, the planet? What's particularly laughable is that all this is rationalized as 'free market' capitalism, which is the antithesis of their behavior.


----------



## JasonF (Oct 26, 2018)

There are two reasons I see why power companies don’t want customers to have solar installations at all, whether leased by them or not: First is they don’t want the possibility of going off grid to even be a passing thought. And second, they want to be able to bill _something _for every single watt the customer uses, even if it’s generated on their own home’s rooftop, but if the customer owns the installation, it blinds the power company to how much they’re actually using.

There is also a possible third reason - they don’t want customers to know the actual generation costs of solar. They can’t mark that up 300% if people know they’re doing so.


----------



## Dfwatt (Mar 17, 2019)

Here's another sign of the times. See this article in the New York Times if it's not hidden behind a paywall explaining how a California firm is going to offer a micro grids to developing neighborhoods.

A Solar Firm Plans to Build Off-Grid Neighborhoods in California https://nyti.ms/3wSnoWr


----------

