Things my solar installer should have told me

[maple flats]

When I went grid tied with my solar system (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php/topic,52584.0.html) I made a costly mistake. I was saving the net metering credits for when I built a home on the site in a few years. For the present I was just running the sugarhouse on the 6.32KW solar system. Every month except the first I produced more power than I used (The system was turned on 11/26/12, grid tied/net metered). Each month, even though I had KWH credit in my acct. I was sent a bill for $22.93 for a line charge (including taxes). As of this past May I had over 2600 KWH credit, but still had to pay the utility for a line charge to send the utility free power.
In May, I decided to send the excess to my home meter. When I did, the utility said the 2600+ KWH had no cash value. I was a commercial meter and they do not qualify for getting any cash value for their excess. They said I would need to wait til my next meter reading and then the slate would be wiped clean. From that point on the credit was to be sent to my home meter.
Guess what, when the utility is sending this credit to my residence, I pay no line charge and the credit for electric is applied to my residential meter.
My installer should have told me about this fact. While I installed the initial solar system, when I decided to go grid tied I was not allowed to do it myself, I had to use an "approved installer". (I understand this is different in some areas, some force you to use an "approved installer" others allow you to install your own and have the "approved installer " sign off on it and others allow you to do your own and simply get it inspected by an electrical inspection.) He tied my original into the grid (a battery back-up system) and also installed 4840 watts more on a separate system, grid tied only. I think the installer should have informed me about this. When I switched over the utility also told me that when I build a house on the site, the meter would then be a residential meter and any KWH credits in the bank would have also be lost. It just seems to me that the utility has a license to steel!
If any of you put in solar on a commercial rated meter ask the right questions. If you expect to have excess KWH, you may want to apply it to your residence. Here this can only be done if both meters are in the same district (in the utility co. that is). Ask lots of questions before you proceed.
By the way, I now pay nothing at the sugarhouse (unless I use more than the solar produces) and the credit has either covered all or at least most of my home electric. Even this summer when we ran the central air most of the time, we can't take heat, we keep the t-stat at 62 nights and 66 days.

[OldMasterTech]

Thanks for the heads up - I am researching systems and companies now so all tips are appreciated!

[tmarch]

This is all regulated by the power company and they hate solar for the most part.  While I don't have a "commercial" meter, just the one on my ranch where my solar is installed, I pay $25.00 per month just for the privilege of having a meter and power, KWHs are charged in addition.  The power company really likes me writing them a check for $3.09=last month total. lol
I'm not sure you installer would know this as my installer never really contacted the power company even tho they were supposed to basically do it all.  I contacted the power company, signed the contract, listened to them gripe etc.

[maple flats]

My view is that a good contractor, (who already did all the paper work, processed all solar credits and such), should be at least aware of the finer points the solar customer be told, or at least be informed that they should ask the utility for clarification. While solar contractors very likely install systems across a vast area and as such will generally do connects to a number of utility companies, they should either be informed, or at least have a list of questions each customer should inquire about.

[KiwiBro]

Tesla, the EV car maker, is, along with partners, pouring about $5b into a battery factory they call the gigafactory, and is going to be announcing in a matter of hours, details about their battery packages for home solar, amongst other related gigafactory news.

They have done about 300 or so installations with SolarCity (Elon Musk is on both Tesla and Solar City boards). the idea being it is worth more to the home owner to store excess solar power to displace the electricity used when the sun isn't shining. The gigafactory is supposed to be dropping the cost of battery storage by 30% once production gets into full swing in a few years time, so I don't know what they would charge for the whole set-up now.

Interesting times ahead if it is actually financially viable to drop the grid connection completely, doing away with the fixed charges. I can't see that being viable for a few years yet but happy for it to be so sooner rather than later.

Getting power to a building site I would love to put a house here is going to cost about $60k because no power lines anywhere near it. $60k buys a bit of storage capacity.

[KiwiBro]

So, Tesla introduced their "Powerwall" home battery storage options in two configurations; 10kWh with a weekly cycle profile and a 7 (or was it 7.5?) kWh daily cycle profile, each being modular and up to 9 of them per installation. The 10k was around the $3500 mark sans inverter or anything else, the smaller one around $3k. I don't know if this was the retail price or that to be charged to wholesale customers.

Maybe I was hoping for too much because I can't really find the option compelling.

[mometal77]

U tube Kirsten Dirksen some great ideas and videos plus michael reynolds out of new mexico has stuff up and a website.  I wanted to sell power to the company here but it requires a Ferc License and a migraine.  No real solar here you need sun for this.  Nice topic thanks for sharing.

[Ron Wenrich]

I heard a little bit on NPR about Tesla and his "new" battery idea.  They threw around a $3500 installation number, but I don't know if its correct.  They also said that other companies already offer the same battery.  This is more of a marketing ploy so that when you buy the battery pack, you'll buy the solar from Solar City.  I would imagine they would link up on this.  Their goal is 2 billion units. 

[KiwiBro]

I get the feeling Tesla is more of a change agent seeking to profit from either battery supply or even further up the chain as a franchisor of manufacturing technology. Electric vehicles are not a new concept but the auto industry wasn't willing to cannibalise their existing investments or jump ship until Tesla came along side drilled a hole in it, forcing them to pile overboard or at least build better liferafts. That change was started by Tesla who proved the market and is poised to make EV's compelling to the all-important mass market. Watch the traditional auto-makers pile into this market (as opposed to token gestures and PR that was never going to see the light of day on a showroom floor) if Tesla has done a good enough job to prove to them they don't really have the option of holding back.

Similarly, the home (and most intriguingly for me, the grid or micro grid-scale) electric storage market is in Teslas sights and I can see a similar pattern playing out.

Tesla, as the change agent, will rark everyone up, the market will expand, and incumbent utilities and other large players, much like the auto-makers, will need to put their money on the table or leave. At the point it threatens to hit a mass-market appeal or the utilities find the case of such storage compelling, Tesla can make its money from either producing the batteries or producing the tech and factories for others to produce the batteries, etc.

I wonder if Tesla may well be extremely happy to have their retail/public focussed parts of the business bought out by a consortium of very large players that would rather buy their way in than differentiate upon what Tesla has done or plans to do, but maybe that depends on how much of a head start it gets in the hearts and minds of the mass market, if any.

Interesting times ahead. Their $5b battery complex starts producing soon (is it about 6 months time?). I wonder how many other such factories/complexes of theirs will be in the pipeline by then.

Personally, I don't think there is a mass-market compelling case for the sort of solar+home storage package they are promoting, but it's now so much closer than ever before. SolarCity's main competitor has teamed up with a (German?) battery manufacturer to offer a similar package that from what I can understand is better. Further, there are already solar storage batteries that have far greater performance (but don't look so pretty) than the Powerwall products. But they are already in the market and haven't been hyped like it seems only Tesla can achieve. Tesla really is brilliant at that and growing the market. It's fantastic to see.

It just strikes me that mass market EV's or home storage would either not be happening or be far further away without deep-pocket change agents like Tesla and partners. Good on them for that at least.

[Ljohnsaw]

Very interesting thread. I'm going to have my cabin off grid and will initially have some batteries and LED lights.  With Tesla "forcing" the market, it couldn't be better for me - when they hit the market, driving prices down, I'll be ready to purchase.  I would then also incorporate an inverter so I can have some "conveniences" like a vacuum cleaner and microwave oven  :D

Back to the OP - I put solar on my home last year (13 months ago).  I had four companies bid and they all wanted to make my yearly bill net zero.  I used to work in the electric industry and told them they were fools.  Why would I purchase 40-50 cent electricity (in the form of solar panels) to offset 14 cent from the power company?  I ended up putting in about 3/5 of what they wanted to sell me.  As it turned out, my electric bill last month was $0.06.  A combination of very sunny days and cool breezes that allowed the panels to run at peak performance.  My annual bill was lowered by about $1,200.  "Payback" on my panels is about 10 years.  BTW, my minimum bill monthly is a daily charge of about 15 cents/day - typically $4.50/month.  IF I have a net-zero bill for the year, I get it all back.  IF I over produce, they will pay me a whopping 3 cents a kwh!

[gimpy]

IF I over produce, they will pay me a whopping 3 cents a kwh!

I'm betting someone has misinformed you. I don't know about other states but in CA, if you produce more than you use annually, they will say think you for the extra. They will pay you zilch. Why? Because you are not a power company and only power companies can sell power. At least over and above what you use.

Power companies don't want the competition. Good luck.

[Ljohnsaw]

IF I over produce, they will pay me a whopping 3 cents a kwh!

I'm betting someone has misinformed you. I don't know about other states but in CA, if you produce more than you use annually, they will say think you for the extra. They will pay you zilch. Why? Because you are not a power company and only power companies can sell power. At least over and above what you use.

Power companies don't want the competition. Good luck.

Your statement is true if you don't have a net meter installed.  It measures/records what energy is flowing in and out of the meter (running it backwards, so to say).  There was a laps of two weeks between when my solar was up and running and the power company reprogramming my meter to be a net meter.  I did my best to use up my solar power in the middle of the day (running my clothes washer, dishwasher) so they didn't get it for free for two weeks :D

In my case, my statement is correct, actually, they state I would get paid the cost of electricity, typically between 3 and 4 cents/kwh.  It is in the NEM (Net Energy Meter) agreement and I believe it showed up on my True-Up bill.  The difference between the "cost" of electricity and what costs on my electric bill is the costs of transportation, bond debt, electric department wages, etc.  I worked in the electric industry and don't agree with what they will pay.  My local generation is helping them avoid having to transport the electricity to my house and *I feel* that I should be compensated for helping them.  Oh well :-\  Our Dispatchers could usually find power to buy at around 3.5 to 5 cents/kwh depending on the season and location.  Then they had to arrange transportation and deliver it to our cities who would then add on their operation costs.  Before you knew it, it was costing 10 to 14 cents a kwh, depending on the delivery location.

In any event, it is totally foolish for a homeowner to build a solar installation with the hopes of making money!

[KiwiBro]

What if  a business came up with a domestic metering product that was plug and play so we could legally sell excess to neighbours at below market rate but way higher than utility buyback rates?

[Ianab]

What if  a business came up with a domestic metering product that was plug and play so we could legally sell excess to neighbours at below market rate but way higher than utility buyback rates?

They interviewed a NZ power company rep (Wellington Power?) on TV the other night along with a bit on the Tesla home battery pack. He said that was exactly what they were looking at shifting towards. Because most power companies in NZ don't own their own generation capacity, they buy power anyway, currently most of it from the large generation companies. It makes little difference to their profit who they actually buy power from. 

But the problem with domestic generation is that it tends to be unpredictable, and out of sync with demand. Peak solar power is around noon, when demand is generally lower. Peak domestic demand is more around dinner time, when the solar is cutting off for the day. So they still have to have supply contracts in place for that peak load period. 

However NZ is in a pretty good position to use some solar power still. Most of our power is hydro, and there is plenty of peak generating capacity there, even if storage is limited. The hydro stations can be shut back to minimum if other sources are generating, and the water stored for later. Then all the turbines spun up to cover peak load periods.

This is why the wind generators are practical here. First we have plenty of wind, and second, they work well with a large hydro base as backup. Solar slots in the mix as well, because if the sun is shining, it's probably not raining or windy.

So although it takes a bit of a shift in the power retailers business model, they are planning for it to happen. They make their margin by shuffling power from one place to another, and the fixed charges for the wiring. Exactly who's generating and who's using isn't really an issue. They charge you for the use of the power grid, AND the kWH you use. So paying (a lesser rate) for excess power you generate isn't out of the question. Just they wont be paying top dollar for it because of the unreliable supply and time of day it's produced.

[KiwiBro]

They charge you for the use of the power grid

I doubt there is the regulatory framework, even if the battery options improve to be worthwhile doing so, for people to go off-grid completely AND sell to their neighbour to help recover some of the costs, and cut the retailer out of the loop.

That's what I would call genuinely disruptive. Neighbours selling to each other, or a street having its own battery banks and every suitable house in the street feeding into and every house drawing out.

On a smaller scale, the neighbour plugging into your storage so when you are sorted, the neighbour can suck the excess juice and pay you for it at less than retail rates. There is already a wireless option that monitors the batteries and when they have enough and the panels are generating more than the house currently needs at that time, the wireless monitor will turn on an appliance to make best use of that excess generation rather than sell it back to the grid. That appliance could be next door :-)

I dare not imagine the hoops the regulation would present for such endeavours to jump through though.

It's just a slightly different take on the leasing options prevalent in the USA with the likes of SolarCity, etc. But in this case, any joe blogs with some money and training could do something similar. For example - find a the best few houses in the street and offer them a compelling lease deal to completely displace their current electricity use, if you can load their house or business roof with solar and store a few batteries at theirs and then hook the neighbour up and retail the excess power to them.

Similarly, what sparked my interest many years ago was the massive consumption of milk sheds on all the diary farms I work on. When I ran the numbers on micro-hydro for one of them it came in at a less than 3 year payback period, given the hidiously high rates they were being stung by the retailers. But no cockie in the area had the $35k needed to implement the scheme. It got me thinking, and looking at their sheds, the hot water, the water pumps, the condensers/chillers and if ever there was a business case for offering energy saving alternatives, that was it right there. Need a business to offer to install at no cost, and charge half the savings as a fee. Cockies save a good amount of $ with no outlay, and installer makes a very good amount of money.

Then a few years roll by and I see the 'lecky retailers doing something similar but only on domestic from what I can tell and their proposition doesn't really stack up, unless they have changed it in the last 6 months or so?