Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

solarthermalmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 213 posts

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#201

Post by encoderer »

jhall1468 wrote: post #200
encoderer wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit more complicated than that, too. I don't know about NV, but in California the power company never actually buys net power from you. At best you can owe $0, you never get a check from the power company, even if you pump all of your juice to the grid. So it's only paying "retail prices" insofar as it's offsetting the retail prices you're paying for your overnight/cloudy day power. And incidentally, overnight…

You can get compensated, but doing so is opt-in. You have to fill out a form.

Edit: Ok, this makes more sense to me now. It's really more nuanced. On my rate plan, retail cost for electricity is ~20c. (link below). So as my bill, over the year, accrues a negative balance, that balance reflects a retail rate. For example, on my final true up statement, by balance was -$360. But, my end of year true-up compensation was $72. How is this? First, they deduct their minimum monthly charges of $72 which I have no issue with. If my negative balance doesn't cover that, i owe them cash. But if it does, they then ignore that credit balance, and they use the number of surplus kw/h, multiplied by a wholesale rate of $0.03403, and use that to arrive at what they owe me.

So there's the whole story. They do not refund your credit balance at the end of the year.

Rates: http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/plans/tiers/ind...?

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#202

Post by coldtea »

vinceguidry wrote: post #81
CWuestefeld wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's a long reach to get to the OP's "de facto ban on rooftop solar". If we take the OP at face value, then, it seems to be declaring that solar energy is completely impractical, and can't survive without life support. I realize that other forms of energy generation are all subsidized in various ways, so it's clearly not as serious as my above interpretation, but still, it doesn't speak well of solar.

It's not that simple. Solar is only really practical if it fits into the grid system, otherwise there's no real point. The energy it gives you goes up and down, and not in sync with your own household needs. So you need something to do with excess capacity. All by itself, units of power aren't all that expensive. But a solar installation is very expensive. You need to amortize the cost of the installation, the people…

>It's not that simple. Solar is only really practical if it fits into the grid system, otherwise there's no real point. The energy it gives you goes up and down, and not in sync with your own household needs.

As long as it is always above your household needs it would still be OK, but that's not the case, is it?

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#203

Post by encoderer »

amluto wrote: post #178
encoderer wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit more complicated than that, too. I don't know about NV, but in California the power company never actually buys net power from you. At best you can owe $0, you never get a check from the power company, even if you pump all of your juice to the grid. So it's only paying "retail prices" insofar as it's offsetting the retail prices you're paying for your overnight/cloudy day power. And incidentally, overnight…

Incorrect. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/DistGen/netsurplus.htm

Only somewhat -- but i can't edit the comment anymore. You carry a credit balance at retail prices but your refund is decimated and paid at wholesale prices.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#204

Post by xavi »

polartx wrote: post #176
xavi wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of subsidizing green power, I think it would make more sense that producers of non-green power would pay for the real cost of their power, including the environmental cost, through a carbon tax for example (also suggested by others, https://twitter.com/paultoo/status/672568359033040896 ). Because, it's not that we have to do a favor to green producers, but we should make non-green producers pay for the possib…

The state already taxes electricity consumption, the same way you pay state taxes per your rate of gasoline consumption. People that drive 'green' cars are inherently rewarded with paying few taxes at the pump, because they are buying less fuel. Though they may be using the roads and travel infrastructure (which are partially funded by gas taxes) as much as 'non-green' drivers..is this fair for all? Not really, but i…

To fund roads use tolls. That's fair for all.

The money collected from the punishments can be used wherever is needed. Maybe to partially fund the roads, thus benefiting users of roads with lower tolls. Maybe to support free health and education, thus benefiting everyone.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#205

Post by ilaksh »

vinceguidry wrote: post #81
CWuestefeld wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's a long reach to get to the OP's "de facto ban on rooftop solar". If we take the OP at face value, then, it seems to be declaring that solar energy is completely impractical, and can't survive without life support. I realize that other forms of energy generation are all subsidized in various ways, so it's clearly not as serious as my above interpretation, but still, it doesn't speak well of solar.

It's not that simple. Solar is only really practical if it fits into the grid system, otherwise there's no real point. The energy it gives you goes up and down, and not in sync with your own household needs. So you need something to do with excess capacity. All by itself, units of power aren't all that expensive. But a solar installation is very expensive. You need to amortize the cost of the installation, the people…

> Solar is only really practical if it fits into the grid system, otherwise there's no real point. The energy it gives you goes up and down, and not in sync with your own household needs.

Build a smaller, energy efficient house, get lots of batteries, and stop wasting so much electricity.

You also don't have to go 100% solar all at once. You can get panels and kits off of Amazon or from Home Depot and incrementally add capacity. Actually I believe with current prices and so many individuals out there that you can hire to help do installs now, at this point you should start small and go incremental rather than getting a loan. Otherwise you are wasting money, and just feeding into the racket that solar installers have set up.

Your information is outdated.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#207

Post by mchahn »

encoderer wrote: post #203
amluto wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/DistGen/netsurplus.htm

Only somewhat -- but i can't edit the comment anymore. You carry a credit balance at retail prices but your refund is decimated and paid at wholesale prices.

> your refund is decimated and paid at wholesale prices.

No. It is paid at the same retail rate that consumers pay. However, because the amount paid is low, the retail rate used is tier 0, which is basically a lifeline rate. But it still isn't wholesale.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#208

Post by encoderer »

mchahn wrote: post #207
encoderer wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only somewhat -- but i can't edit the comment anymore. You carry a credit balance at retail prices but your refund is decimated and paid at wholesale prices.

> your refund is decimated and paid at wholesale prices. No. It is paid at the same retail rate that consumers pay. However, because the amount paid is low, the retail rate used is tier 0, which is basically a lifeline rate. But it still isn't wholesale.

I don't see a 3 cent rate tier. Do you have a link? http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/plans/tiers/ind...

The pay-out on the true-up statement is very clear about the 3.xx cent rate.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#209

Post by ZeroGravitas »

rhino369 wrote: post #190
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people with rooftop solar are providing a subsidy to everyone else, because even at net rates, they're not being fully compensated for the value they provide to the grid. I realise that might sound "crazy" because lots of well paid PR people are telling you the opposite, but it's true.

What extra value are they bringing the the grid.

Energy production that correlates (in many parts of the world) with peak load from air conditioning. This saves fuel and wear and tear on expensive peaker plants.

The generation is distributed, which saves on distribution and transmission costs.

Planning for expansion is also based on peak loads, which as noted above, solar reduces saving yet more money.

There's some worked examples for Minesota here:

https://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/state_local_governments...

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#210

Post by mchahn »

encoderer wrote: post #208
mchahn wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your refund is decimated and paid at wholesale prices. No. It is paid at the same retail rate that consumers pay. However, because the amount paid is low, the retail rate used is tier 0, which is basically a lifeline rate. But it still isn't wholesale.

I don't see a 3 cent rate tier. Do you have a link? http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/plans/tiers/ind... The pay-out on the true-up statement is very clear about the 3.xx cent rate.

You are correct. I was going by what a solar city engineer told me. I should have known better than to take them at their word.

Our first year we didn't go negative so we had a payment to make at the end of the year. Now that I know the return rate is so low I'll try to stay positive, switching some appliances to electric if I have to.

Post reply on HN