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

Solar panels reduced my electric bill in 2022

mattbruenig.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 510 posts

Re: Solar panels reduced my electric bill in 2022

#171

Post by ericmay »

mdorazio wrote: post #145
hbarka wrote: post #109

Assuming you are grid-tied, the reduction of electric bills is predicated on net metering, where the utility company gives you (ideally) 1-for-1 credit for the electricity you produce. In California, this was called NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0. Every few years the California utilities lobby the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to chip away at the NEM program. This year the PUC voted unanimously to cut net energy metering an…

Over the last 8 quarters their average profit margin is a whopping 3.25%. If you think that’s just too high I’m not sure what to tell you. An alternate way to look at the CA rule change is that CA needs more installed storage to shore up the shitty grid, and incentivizing people to install solar alone via net metering isn’t a great idea anymore. Remember that peak power demand is right around and just after sunset.

> Over the last 8 quarters their average profit margin is a whopping 3.25%

This is the trade-off you take when you become a quasi-government company. You get a low, but nearly guaranteed profit. Executives still get their bonuses, employees get paid, etc.

If they want more variable rates of return then they can drop the public protections and go full private like any other regular company.

Re: Solar panels reduced my electric bill in 2022

#172

Post by londons_explore »

eppp wrote: post #128
hbarka wrote: post #109

Assuming you are grid-tied, the reduction of electric bills is predicated on net metering, where the utility company gives you (ideally) 1-for-1 credit for the electricity you produce. In California, this was called NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0. Every few years the California utilities lobby the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to chip away at the NEM program. This year the PUC voted unanimously to cut net energy metering an…

Because net metering is forcing the utility to purchase power at the retail rate. It doesn't make any sense. It isn't a profit margin issue. There is a massive infrastructure and expense to deliver wholesale power to an individual customer and it has to be recouped. Either you sell back your power at some percent of wholesale or solar installs need to get a corresponding increased delivery fee.

Another option is to split the fee into a 'connection fee', 'transmission fee' and a 'power fee'.

Have the power fee set realtime by a market. The price might go to zero if there is excess generation.

Have the transmission fee capped by a regulator - and charge it for any kilowatt hours that enter the power network.

Allow third parties to arbitrage and offer 'fixed rate' deals, so consumers aren't at the whims of an electricity market with occasional sky high prices.

Re: Solar panels reduced my electric bill in 2022

#173

Post by mertd »

mdorazio wrote: post #145
hbarka wrote: post #109

Assuming you are grid-tied, the reduction of electric bills is predicated on net metering, where the utility company gives you (ideally) 1-for-1 credit for the electricity you produce. In California, this was called NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0. Every few years the California utilities lobby the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to chip away at the NEM program. This year the PUC voted unanimously to cut net energy metering an…

Over the last 8 quarters their average profit margin is a whopping 3.25%. If you think that’s just too high I’m not sure what to tell you. An alternate way to look at the CA rule change is that CA needs more installed storage to shore up the shitty grid, and incentivizing people to install solar alone via net metering isn’t a great idea anymore. Remember that peak power demand is right around and just after sunset.

Does that include all deferred maintenance they had to do after the massive wildfires?

Re: Solar panels reduced my electric bill in 2022

#174

Post by chongli »

brianbreslin wrote: post #106
chongli wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

7-10 years to break even. If the panels last 15 years you'll see a net return of $21,416 on investment of $18,888. If they last 25 years, that net return grows to $48,186. In either case it works out to an annual rate of return of 5%, assuming electricity prices stay the same (BIG ASSUMPTION) and also assuming the weather doesn't change to get cloudier or more violent (also a big assumption).

What's the math if we see annual electricity price increases? we've seen 2 hikes of 10-20% in the last 18 months here in Florida. Making me consider solar sooner rather than later.

If the savings is $2677 on year 8 (first year of profits after paying off the initial investment) and then increases 10% every year after that, the net return is $33675. This works out to an annual return of 7%, a considerable improvement! The same calculation with annual rate increases of 20% yields a net return of $53002 and an annual return of 9%.

Re: Solar panels reduced my electric bill in 2022

#175

Post by wedn3sday »

chongli wrote: post #98
swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #3

> The unsubsidized all-in price for buying and installing the panels was $25,525.43... after counting this $6,636.61 tax credit, the subsidized price was $18,888.82 Looks like a 7 year return on investment after subsidies, 10 years without.

7-10 years to break even. If the panels last 15 years you'll see a net return of $21,416 on investment of $18,888. If they last 25 years, that net return grows to $48,186. In either case it works out to an annual rate of return of 5%, assuming electricity prices stay the same (BIG ASSUMPTION) and also assuming the weather doesn't change to get cloudier or more violent (also a big assumption).

I agree its a big assumption to assume that electricity prices will stay the same, my assumption is that electricity price increases will significantly outpace inflation.

Re: Solar panels reduced my electric bill in 2022

#176

Post by yupyup54133 »

eppp wrote: post #128
hbarka wrote: post #109

Assuming you are grid-tied, the reduction of electric bills is predicated on net metering, where the utility company gives you (ideally) 1-for-1 credit for the electricity you produce. In California, this was called NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0. Every few years the California utilities lobby the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to chip away at the NEM program. This year the PUC voted unanimously to cut net energy metering an…

Because net metering is forcing the utility to purchase power at the retail rate. It doesn't make any sense. It isn't a profit margin issue. There is a massive infrastructure and expense to deliver wholesale power to an individual customer and it has to be recouped. Either you sell back your power at some percent of wholesale or solar installs need to get a corresponding increased delivery fee.

What we need is a nationalism of the electricity grid and power plants. A federally owned and operated electric grid solves this issue.

Re: Solar panels reduced my electric bill in 2022

#177

Post by kube-system »

prettychill wrote: post #113
kube-system wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electricity prices listed in the article are quite high, the US average is about half of that.

This is a great point. Avg cost for me last year was less than half, around 11c/kWh Though, https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/ makes me wonder how you are getting 25c/kWh prices, as author estimates. Maybe higher price tiers due to usage.

The reason is that residential customers pay higher rates than average: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

Re: Solar panels reduced my electric bill in 2022

#178

Post by umvi »

praxulus wrote: post #144
hbarka wrote: post #109

Assuming you are grid-tied, the reduction of electric bills is predicated on net metering, where the utility company gives you (ideally) 1-for-1 credit for the electricity you produce. In California, this was called NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0. Every few years the California utilities lobby the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to chip away at the NEM program. This year the PUC voted unanimously to cut net energy metering an…

Net metering just doesn't make sense though. Everyone who wants to rely on the grid for power availability ought to pay for grid upkeep costs. Net metering would make sense if it came on top of a baseline "connectivity fee" that covered grid maintenance, but that's not the current policy, would likely be politically infeasible, and would hurt rooftop solar customers financially anyway. Subsidizing solar is a perfectl…

In Idaho at least, you do have to pay a monthly infrastructure fee even if you are using net metering.

Re: Solar panels reduced my electric bill in 2022

#179

Post by mrguyorama »

praxulus wrote: post #144
hbarka wrote: post #109

Assuming you are grid-tied, the reduction of electric bills is predicated on net metering, where the utility company gives you (ideally) 1-for-1 credit for the electricity you produce. In California, this was called NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0. Every few years the California utilities lobby the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to chip away at the NEM program. This year the PUC voted unanimously to cut net energy metering an…

Net metering just doesn't make sense though. Everyone who wants to rely on the grid for power availability ought to pay for grid upkeep costs. Net metering would make sense if it came on top of a baseline "connectivity fee" that covered grid maintenance, but that's not the current policy, would likely be politically infeasible, and would hurt rooftop solar customers financially anyway. Subsidizing solar is a perfectl…

In maine, CMP charges $11 a month for a "connection" to the grid and your first monthly 50kwh. Is that not the case in california or other net metering markets?

Re: Solar panels reduced my electric bill in 2022

#180

Post by birdyrooster »

KerrAvon wrote: post #139
hbarka wrote: post #109

Assuming you are grid-tied, the reduction of electric bills is predicated on net metering, where the utility company gives you (ideally) 1-for-1 credit for the electricity you produce. In California, this was called NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0. Every few years the California utilities lobby the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to chip away at the NEM program. This year the PUC voted unanimously to cut net energy metering an…

If there’s no net-zero metering, aren’t they incentivizing people to be completely disconnected from the grid, or at least not incentivizing them to be connected? (Which is bad for the grid.) Why would I fuck around with the utility at all if I’m installing enough solar/battery to power my needs?

If the grid is smaller, then it is good for the grid because it reduces capacity and complexity requirements. Also if the net human experience is better, the grids can as bad as what enables that.
Post reply on HN