2_dam_hi t1_ja48doj wrote
So who will be the first moron to propose some insane fee for owners of solar that destroys the purpose of having it?
Tai9ch t1_ja4eear wrote
In general? That's standard in several western states, most infamously Nevada.
Here in NH? Probably Eversource.
newenglandpolarbear t1_ja4tyo2 wrote
>Eversource
Screw eversource. If they decided to do something like that, I wonder if there is legal precedent in which a case could be made for a lawsuit.
TurretLauncher OP t1_ja4zp6i wrote
State governments control what utilities can charge. Utilities often try to influence state government by paying for lobbyists, making campaign contributions, Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge...
newenglandpolarbear t1_ja68ry8 wrote
True, thank you citizens united.
magellanNH t1_ja9s1cu wrote
...and sometimes not as subtle as a wink and a nudg:
nullcompany t1_ja4hsa8 wrote
most solar is grid-tied, so it'd be easier to just crank up the delivery rate to get that money back ...
ANewMachine615 t1_ja4x6sk wrote
There is a possible free rider problem. Grid maintenance costs don't change much with lower use, and in some ways, more distributed generation offsets lower use of centrally generated power. Grid maintenance is billed on a per KwH, to my understanding. So folks with solar don't pay as much towards grid maintenance as other users. This is one of the ways solar pays for itself, but so long as you're still connected to the grid, it is a problem. Solvable by changing the funding model, of course. Same as the gas tax for highway maintenance will need to change as EVs become a larger share of the market to remain a viable funding model.
ConcentrateNice7752 t1_ja5lzwm wrote
Many states already charge hundreds or thousands a year of extra money for registrations for EVs
ANewMachine615 t1_ja607va wrote
I wasn't aware of that, but it's a good change. They're less costly in terms of externalities, but they do tend to be heavier on average due to battery weight, and that can wear on roads over time.
Lots of stuff is gonna have to change from taxing the input to taxing the use, I think, if we really do get to change over to a more electrified and dsitributed energy system.
GRADIUSIC_CYBER t1_ja6181s wrote
the heavier weight of an EV is irrelevant, almost all wear and tear on roads is from tractor trailers, buses, and snowplows. A BEV sedan is like 4-5k pounds, vs 3-4k for an equivalent ICE vehicle. VS an 80000 pound tractor trailer.
ANewMachine615 t1_ja64ano wrote
Good to know! They do still have the gas tax problem, but that's fixable.
scottieducati t1_ja7ozq6 wrote
Except when the pavement is already deteriorating.
wenestvedt t1_ja7vp2q wrote
> heavier on average due to battery weight
I find it hard to believe that the small population of electric cars, compared to the enormous population of (enormous) pickup trucks & SUVs -- which are the most commonly sold cars these days, by a large margin -- are disproportionally affecting the roads.
And especially not in NH.
ANewMachine615 t1_ja827xj wrote
Not now, no, but they will eventually. And one of the most successful electric vehicles out there in terms of selling out its production for years to come is the F-150 Lightning, which is both electric and a larger chassis. But an average Tesla sedan is about the same weight as a standard F-150.
But as another comment here pointed out, most of the wear and tear still comes from heavy loads, 18 wheelers, etc.
Edit: my overall point was that you can't expand these things endlessly with our current funding model for upkeep of the networks they rely on (power or roads). For me, the fix is changing how we fund those networks rather than simply blaming the new tech abstractly. Heck I'd be down for a large gas tax increase + a registration fee for EVs that offset each other, so gas still pays for more of the maintenance as a method of discouraging further use of ICE cars.
wenestvedt t1_ja88u79 wrote
> gas still pays for more of the maintenance as a method of discouraging further use of ICE cars.
Well, as long as something works to reduce gas use, I am in.
I wish that we had better public transit, but a lot of America is just too spread out for that. I have spent time living in the UK and Europe, and it's so awesome to be able to walk places or hop on a regional train...but that's not practical in northern NH or Minnesota's Iron Range!
SkiingAway t1_ja518wm wrote
You have days, or even weeks where solar in the northeast is basically producing no power, so you still have to maintain a similar amount of non-solar generation as you have now. Batteries are a good bridge for the time-shift problem (peak demand, is often well before/after solar's peak output for the day), but it's unlikely we're going to build absurd quantities of batteries to handle a week of low output when a major storm moves through.
So your traditional generation will not run anywhere near as much in the past, but still has to be maintained and ready to operate. While some portion of maintenance costs are related to how often it runs ("this thing needs replacement every XXX hours of operation"), some portion are just for keeping the thing ready to run even if it's only used once a year.
The same also applies to the grid itself - when that solar isn't outputting for days, your house will draw the same power as if you didn't have solar, so the grid has to remain built out and ready to provide the same capacity to everyone as before.
How you allocate these costs fairly gets thorny.
For fairness, you'll probably see a somewhat higher share of your bills priced at a flat rate in the long run rather than per kWH/by usage.
Total bills paid by the population should be lower, but bills for a current solar owner might be somewhat higher.
I don't think this will kill the value proposition of home solar (especially with further cost declines/tech improvements), but it'll be a little less favorable in that sense.
wmass t1_ja55t56 wrote
Photoelectric cells do produce power even on cloudy days, just not as much.
SkiingAway t1_ja66imy wrote
If you have shitty enough weather, that output amounts to virtually nothing. Especially in the shortest days of winter where you're stacking the short days, low sun angle, and potential of snowfall literally covering the panels temporarily/further interfering with sunlight reaching them.
Scroll to the bottom for a cold spell w/uncooperative weather and the solar outputs estimated:
https://www.iso-ne.com/about/what-we-do/in-depth/solar-power-in-new-england-locations-and-impact
gweased_pig t1_ja5sfro wrote
Cali already did
aredubya t1_ja5tgb7 wrote
Morons have already started such proposals, in the Moron State of Florida. Indeed, the GOP-dominated legislature passed a bill that would have reduced "net metering" to save the state power monopoly from having to pay as much (or at all) for home solar power fed back to the grid. DeSantis vetoed it last April, but only after a groundswell of conservative voters rebelling. https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/05/10/panhandles-anger-over-fpl-may-have-helped-spur-desantis-veto-of-anti-solar-bill/
ConcentrateNice7752 t1_ja5lt51 wrote
Democrats will try to tax the e energy residential customers produce and don't use to make up for lost revenue from them not buying electricity like a good consumer.
ShortUSA t1_ja7m0l8 wrote
In which states is this happening?
ConcentrateNice7752 t1_ja7mc73 wrote
CA, CO, GA, ID, IL, IN, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NC, OR, SC, TN, UT, VI, WA, WI.
T Range from 50 to 200 a year.
ShortUSA t1_ja7ou2m wrote
Many of those states are Republican. So is this really an R vs D thing? Seems not.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments