Last edited:
Nothing would surprise me anymore.
They are basically saying they don't want any more power from anyone but still charging 0.45/kWh for it? Crazy.Nothing would surprise me anymore.
We have been trying to figure out a way to do that where We live.They are basically saying they don't want any more power from anyone but still charging 0.45/kWh for it? Crazy.
People need to figure out how to sell to their neighbors at a discounted price if they are simply giving it away for free.
They are adding 1.5 gigawatts of storage capacity a year.Now if the power companies would invest in storage, that would be a different story.
They do something like that with me. An aggregator - OhmConnect - pays me $$$ to feed power back to the grid during power shortages. I've made about $1800 in the past four years.In the future, I wouldn’t put it past them if they find out that you have a battery that they’d try take some power from the house or car without asking or proper compensation during peak.
I take it you are on an older NEM 2.0 tariff/schedule...Totally expected. California currently has more solar than any other state; there are days when solar plus wind supplies 100% of the power in the state. When that happens they literally can't handle any more solar generation. That's why it goes to zero. They don't want it.
We are still on true net metering, DR rate, under NEM 2.0. That means we do get 100% credit for all the solar we generate. We have been fighting tooth and nail to hang on to that and so far we have been successful. But I'm also getting ready to replace our ancient Fronius inverters with an AIO (hopefully the Midnite) because I know that's not going to last forever, and eventually we will get moved to a time-of-use plan with reduced payback.
If I read this correctly, I agree: You export into negative rates, you should actually pay for it.a home with PV wants to act like a generator it should be compensated as one
How was Arizona able to curtail production but California unable to?The last kWh exported may have negative value, but the vast majority were put to use, avoiding combustion of fossil fuel.
The total savings in power generation plus the total amount paid to Arizona to accept our surplus (they curtailed their own production to take PG&E's money) should be aggregated. The net dollar amount divided by the power delivered could be allocated across all rooftop producers.
Correct, though IF under NEM then that doesn't happen per that tariff. But once 20 years is up, and just another generator, yes, either load shed, or pay to produce with negative ratesIf I read this correctly, I agree: You export into negative rates, you should actually pay for it.