Lets discuss net metering and PSC possible changes (1 Viewer)

[buzd]

werent you subsidized already? entergy pays taxes like everyone else.

The purchase price was subsidized by tax credits/rebates. What's your point?

 

[BHM]

I believe that you guys are misinterpreting what's being suggested.

"Retail" for the cost of power is not the same as the net cost of power as billed on your power bill.

Again, if I'm not mistaken, your power bill includes a power generation fee or some other wording to reflect the cost for them to produce the power. Then, there are other fees. Franchise fees, maintenance fees. whatever. The utility has surcharges for the cost of oil/gas/coal or whatever too.

They want to lower the rate paid back to the customer versus what ever the current retail rate is to a fuel averaged blah blah blah rate. With all the fees and extras, I really do not follow the details but to keep it simple, it is retail versus wholesale rate. It is more than what they would have to pay to purchase power from another supplier. Entergy credits Kwh for Kwh. So any fee or charge that is based on Kwh is credited back to the customer.

The customer’s Net Metered utility bill is reflected as such:

Energy Supplied by Entergy (kWh)
- Energy Exported to Entergy’s grid by customer (kWh)
Net Energy amount Billed to Customer (kWh)​

Also, when you build a house, the utility where I am charges you an assload to run the meter from the road. There's charge for the line to be run underground or via pole and there's the cost of the meter and your access charges, minimum service amounts and the rest.

Dang, no wonder the poor in your state have it so rough. Slemco furnishes our lines from the pole to the meter for the first 200 feet I believe.

Now, when you run your meter backwards by pushing your excess solar into the grid, the utility's requirement for generation is reduced. Typically, this only occurs during peak use and every bit of the power generated is used. The utility takes the power back into the grid and distributes it including all of their fees and surcharges so it's not a zero margin deal. Still, if it were, who cares? You've created your own power and you're simply getting a credit against what you bought at the same rate.

Two issues with this. During these peak periods, you own demands will typically out strip the capacity of your panels unless you went way overboard. Not many people have the capacity to run a 4 ton air conditioner and a stove at 5:00PM when the peak demand occurs.

Yes, they may get some fees out of it but they could still purchase the power from other suppliers at a cheaper rate. The UC has to build and maintain the lines to your house and generate the power. Why should you get the saem price for your power as they get for theirs?

Do you pay a fee to return a pair of pants or shoes? Maybe.

I certainly understand the possible need to have a discount, but it sure doesn't make sense that they're allowed to do what they do here and pay only the wholesale charge for generation.

Well typically, you have often have to pay return shipping and maybe even a restocking fee. I agree that there should be a discounted rate. how much is a complicated figure and I do not know eneough about UC billing methods to give an accurate number. I would be satisfied if the customer was credited at the same rate that the UC could purchase the power form another utility company.

Also, every dollars worth of power that runs backwards into the utility saves the utility from having to more quickly increased production and power plants are expensive.

Can't argue that but it will only be beneficial to a certain point. If the UC runs lines to a subdivision and next year every house has solar panels for most of their needs, the UC would go out of business.

Anyway, I think the meter spinning one way should cost the same as when it spins the other. They invest in lines and plants, but so has the customer. The lines are a public utility. They're a governmentally mandated monopoly. Why shouldn't they pay the same coming as going?

I disagree. The customer does not have to replace the broken pole or blown transformer or clear the trees. At the end of the day, that monopoly still has to make a profit. Yes the lines are a public utility but they are funded by the Kwh's purchased. Those costs are built into the power rates being purchased. If you do not purchase power then you invested nothing into the system yet the system must still exist to provide you with backup on demand power.

Now if you were paying a per foot fee for the lines to your house, it would be a different story.

For example, Slemco will provide the transformer, base and lines up to 300 feet at no charge. To recoup those costs, they need to you buy power. If you provide 99% of your own power, they would be in the hole for thousands of dollars for each house.

 

[BHM]

The purchase price was subsidized by tax credits/rebates. What's your point?

Guess it seems unfair that the initial purchase was subsidized by other tax payers yet customers want the retail price for the power they produce. Would seem fair of some of that revenue would actually go back the subsidy provider.

Lets look at this through another example. The government is going to subsidize the purchase of diesel fuel for passenger cars. They give you a card that allows you to purchase diesel at two bucks a gallon. Would it be fair if the gas station had to buy your diesel back at the retail price?

 

[BHM]

Entergy campaigns for going green and conserving energy, and while feeding the grid isn't the same as turning off a few lightbulbs, the net result is still that Energy is selling (and needs to produce) less energy. With their convoluted fees and billing, it seems kind of hypocritical for Entergy (et al) to make such a play for cash, when its customers are building their own infrastructure to produce power.

It actually seems more hypocritical as a consumer consumer to have 75% of their cost subsidized by other tax payers and expect retail prices for the power they produce.

Now if they had to build power lines across the city and maintain those lines, that might be a different story. What is being said it that they want the UC to come to their house, pick up the electricity and pay them full retail for it.

 

[Galbreath34]

If you're talking about paying for excess power or net payment to the usual "consumer" I think lower than retail certainly makes sense. Before that, though, it only makes sense to "pay" retail and charge for net draw off the grid. Everyone's billing is essentially net draw, just most don't ever put anything back on.

Seems sort of like a money grab to in essence surcharge for lower draw rates. Consumers may get rebates for installing productive infrastructure, but they're on the hook for running and maintaining it. Much of the labor, maintenance and facilities costs that go along with creating the value of wholesale to retail are not paid in this case by the utility, and when spread out over thousands of small new producers it actually saves the utility on these costs at their main plants.

 

[efil4stnias]

Guess it seems unfair that the initial purchase was subsidized by other tax payers yet customers want the retail price for the power they produce. Would seem fair of some of that revenue would actually go back the subsidy provider.

Lets look at this through another example. The government is going to subsidize the purchase of diesel fuel for passenger cars. They give you a card that allows you to purchase diesel at two bucks a gallon. Would it be fair if the gas station had to buy your diesel back at the retail price?

You do know that the incentive is in the form of a tax credit to the buyer only, right? Neither Fed nor State actually cut a check. So no money coming from the "other tax payers"

Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk 2

 

[buzd]

You do know that the incentive is in the form of a tax credit to the buyer only, right? Neither Fed nor State actually cut a check. So no money coming from the "other tax payers"

In Louisiana, the state cuts a check. Fed is a credit.

Edit: Quick google tells me that is not the case, but that was my understanding at the time I went through the process.

 

[Galbreath34]

AFAIK, almost everywhere the incentives are rebates or tax reductions. Owner still has to pay the bulk of the initial investment too, as I think even the biggest single credits are only 30% of the equipment and don't apply to installation inspection or certification costs. Technically you could say that's other tax payers funding it, but it's like saying renters fund your mortgage because you can write off the interest as a deduction.

 

[BHM]

AFAIK, almost everywhere the incentives are rebates or tax reductions. Owner still has to pay the bulk of the initial investment too, as I think even the biggest single credits are only 30% of the equipment and don't apply to installation inspection or certification costs. Technically you could say that's other tax payers funding it, but it's like saying renters fund your mortgage because you can write off the interest as a deduction.

I believe in Louisiana the total state and federal rebates/deductions are 80%. Some solar companies offer interest free loans until you get your taxes in.

Yes, other tax payers are funding it. It is less revenue for the government. Same as large corporations getting subsidies. You can't play it both ways.

 

[Galbreath34]

Bah, same as any tax deduction then, mortgage, higher deduction for married couples, etc. The other tax payers argument gets stale. The government always uses tax incentives for things it wants: married people, people in houses owning property, educated workers, etc.

Most homeowners have children in public schools for less than the length of their mortgages, but we pay property tax to support schools because it's right for our community. You can argue that you want more coal/oil dependence, but most think that things that lessen that are worth relatively minor incentives.

 

[dtc]

In Louisiana, the state cuts a check. Fed is a credit.

Edit: Quick google tells me that is not the case, but that was my understanding at the time I went through the process.

Here, if you're in line on the one day the program funds, you get a check from the state. You also get a 30% refundable tax credit from the feds so even though it's a credit, they'll send you a check so it's actually money.

The local utilities here are distributing credits as well, but I'm pretty sure those are funded by the feds.

Oh, and BHM, just about every place I've put panels on can run its own cooling off solar while at peak use.

You couldn't do it with a 10 yr old 6 SEER forced air unit, but the one I'm finishing now runs a 3600 sq ft house just fine. Geothermal HP and batteries help, but the other main point to remember is that you have to have a very efficient house to do it.

 

[Galbreath34]

If I won the lottery I'd install solar wind and geothermal

 

[BHM]

You do know that the incentive is in the form of a tax credit to the buyer only, right? Neither Fed nor State actually cut a check. So no money coming from the "other tax payers"

Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk 2

That is money that was originally owed to the government to provide services. Because of the tax credit, that is less revenue they would have collected without the incentive. That revenue is made up somewhere.

Using you analogy, tax credits and deductions used by corporations such as big oil companies do not affect us citizens. Same goes for tax deductions by rich folks right? If no money is coming from other tax payers, then just give every person a tax credit equal to what they would have owed in taxes.

To put another way, if Louisiana gives out 2000 tax credits for 50% of the cost of a $20,000 solar system, that would reduce our tax revenue by 20 million bucks. That loss in revenue will either be made up some how of we will see a reduction in services.

 

[BHM]

If I won the lottery I'd install solar wind and geothermal

Not me, I want my own reactor just to **** off my neighbors.

 

[BHM]

Here, if you're in line on the one day the program funds, you get a check from the state. You also get a 30% refundable tax credit from the feds so even though it's a credit, they'll send you a check so it's actually money.

The local utilities here are distributing credits as well, but I'm pretty sure those are funded by the feds.

Oh, and BHM, just about every place I've put panels on can run its own cooling off solar while at peak use.

You couldn't do it with a 10 yr old 6 SEER forced air unit, but the one I'm finishing now runs a 3600 sq ft house just fine. Geothermal HP and batteries help, but the other main point to remember is that you have to have a very efficient house to do it.

Care to share what the costs and output ratings are on those systems along with he geothermal heat pump and batteries?

I am thinking you need about 5 to 6 tons of cooling. I am guessing the power draw would be around 17 to 20Kw. That is about 70 250 watt panels unless I figured wrong which I tend to do with solar. How much is that bank of batteries large enough o run that home on a rainy day?

I know you do high end homes but I think a solar system large enough to run a 2500sqft home would be out of the price range of the average home owner especially with the measly tax incentives offered in Florida.