10-14-2015, 12:26 PM
You need to remember that if they didn't reduce the amount of money paid for the solar power they are buying, the other option is that they were going to increase the grid tie fees.
Our 19th century power distribution system was designed to transmit power ONE direction. Power companies lose a lot less power through copper resistance when they transmit extremely high voltages and the power is stepped down to the consumer at the end of the transmission. Installing the equipment to take a few extra watts generated by your solar system and step it UP to something that can be added to the grid isn't free. If the rest of the grid was off and you were out in the middle of nowhere, resistance would eat up all of your power generation before it could get to your neighbor. Since it isn't "fair" to charge non-solar customers the costs of upgrading the grid from one-direction to multi-directional so that grid ties can sell their power, they have only two options: increase the grid tie fees for solar customers, or pay them less for the power they contribute. In some areas, the grid-tie fees have risen so high that some customers are reporting they are nearly as high as what their electrical bills were before they went solar. Which do you prefer?
Personally, I'm holding out for a better battery solution. While I wait I'm guessing the panel prices will continue to drop or the panels will continue gaining efficiency. Or both. Through basic conservation (solar hot water, LED lighting, energy efficient appliances, etc) our electricity bill hovers between below to slightly above $100, much of that just fees unrelated to power consumption. It doesn't make sense for us to switch to solar at this time but the next big battery thing is just around the corner. Then its goodbye Hellco.
ETA: grammar
Our 19th century power distribution system was designed to transmit power ONE direction. Power companies lose a lot less power through copper resistance when they transmit extremely high voltages and the power is stepped down to the consumer at the end of the transmission. Installing the equipment to take a few extra watts generated by your solar system and step it UP to something that can be added to the grid isn't free. If the rest of the grid was off and you were out in the middle of nowhere, resistance would eat up all of your power generation before it could get to your neighbor. Since it isn't "fair" to charge non-solar customers the costs of upgrading the grid from one-direction to multi-directional so that grid ties can sell their power, they have only two options: increase the grid tie fees for solar customers, or pay them less for the power they contribute. In some areas, the grid-tie fees have risen so high that some customers are reporting they are nearly as high as what their electrical bills were before they went solar. Which do you prefer?
Personally, I'm holding out for a better battery solution. While I wait I'm guessing the panel prices will continue to drop or the panels will continue gaining efficiency. Or both. Through basic conservation (solar hot water, LED lighting, energy efficient appliances, etc) our electricity bill hovers between below to slightly above $100, much of that just fees unrelated to power consumption. It doesn't make sense for us to switch to solar at this time but the next big battery thing is just around the corner. Then its goodbye Hellco.
ETA: grammar