Article - How an entire columbus neighborhood is getting free solar panels

[justinm001]

How a Columbus neighborhood is getting free solar panels

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Columbus has set its sights on a historic part of town to become the city’s first neighborhood with net-zero emissions, and the project could lower electric bill…

www.nbc4i.com

This is the first I've seen something like this where solar is projected as basically a welfare benefit for low income areas. So many things here, I wonder if the residents own the solar, if they get 100% of the benefits, if every single house in that neighborhood gets them regardless of income, and what happens if the home owners rip them off the roof and sell them? Also wonder how that affects a renter/landlord situation.... If I put solar on a house i'm renting I'd include utilities and mark the rent up a couple hundred.

 

[Q-Dog]

How a Columbus neighborhood is getting free solar panels

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Columbus has set its sights on a historic part of town to become the city’s first neighborhood with net-zero emissions, and the project could lower electric bill…

www.nbc4i.com

This is the first I've seen something like this where solar is projected as basically a welfare benefit for low income areas. So many things here, I wonder if the residents own the solar, if they get 100% of the benefits, if every single house in that neighborhood gets them regardless of income, and what happens if the home owners rip them off the roof and sell them? Also wonder how that affects a renter/landlord situation.... If I put solar on a house i'm renting I'd include utilities and mark the rent up a couple hundred.

They are still trying to figure out if or how this can work. from the article: “What is this going to look like? I think all of us still aren’t entirely sure what this might look like,” Beck said. “We’re on a journey together to figure out what is going to work best for American Addition.”

 

[hwy17]

The worst way to address the net metering cost shift would be with the fantastical belief that the solution is net metering for everybody. We'll all just dump our exports onto the grid at each other and nobody pay anything! Let the grid run itself guys with net metering math it's all nets out to zero!

 

[justinm001]

The worst way to address the net metering cost shift would be with the fantastical belief that the solution is net metering for everybody. We'll all just dump our exports onto the grid at each other and nobody pay anything! Let the grid run itself guys with net metering math it's all nets out to zero!

I disagree. If net metering was a federal law it would push much more innovation and things would be completely different. I also believe that utilities are one of the very few things the federal government should control. Right now utilities are monopolies and are so embedded with the governments already they're basically just pulling exec salaries for nothing.
If a utility company underbills for years they can just add it to future peoples bills as tariffs. Idk of any other company that can do that.

IF the govt owned the grid and allows anyone to use the grid to buy/sell it would create co-ops where people would sell power to their neighbors. And since there's more losses over larger distances it would self contain each into communities automatically.

 

[hwy17]

If net metering was a federal law

Then the grid would financially collapse. It's way to easy to net out consumption with low value mid day exports.

 

[Ampster]

If I put solar on a house i'm renting I'd include utilities and mark the rent up a couple hundred.

In that situation there is no incentive for the tenant to conserve energy. I have a situation like that and the tenant now has an EV. I am fully in support of him buying an EV and already provided a charging outlet. However initially the tenant just charged whenever he felt like it and without regard to the Time of Use rates. When His lease is up I will give him a copy of the solar production and let him pay the bill instead of increasing his rent.

 

[justinm001]

Then the grid would financially collapse. It's way to easy to net out consumption with low value mid day exports.

I disagree. Many businesses and people wouldn't or couldn't install solar on their properties and many more can't outconsume. Imagine an apartment building or downtown area with little sun. Even better if it was residential only. The ones who consume would pay the infrastructure. It'll be a slow rollout anyways and more and more homes would be energy independent and net zero.

As it is now we're having the opposite effect where the grid can't sustain demand and as more EVs and other things become more mainstream I'm betting the problem will continue to get worse.

Here in Ohio the cost of energy is like .10/kwh and there's well under 1% of homes with solar and even then I doubt many are over producing their demand.

 

[justinm001]

In that situation there is no incentive for the tenant to conserve energy. I have a situation like that and the tenant now has an EV. I am fully in support of him buying an EV and already provided a charging outlet. However initially the tenant just charged whenever he felt like it and without regard to the Time of Use rates. When His lease is up I will give him a copy of the solar production and let him pay the bill instead of increasing his rent.

I agree but many don't care or understand energy conservation as it is. I bought my daughter a Tesla and her apartment complex had utilities included. I told her she should run an extension cord outside and just charge of 15a but she wouldn't and just pays for supercharging.

Something happened there and the whole complex got condemned because no electricity after a "fire" so maybe the company was stealing electric from the grid or something. Its been a couple months and still condemned.

Lexington apartment complex catches fire for second time in a month

Firefighters are responding to a fire at the Axis Apartments in Lexington for the second time in a month.

www.lex18.com

 

[hwy17]

Many businesses and people wouldn't or couldn't install solar on their properties and many more can't outconsume. Imagine an apartment building or downtown area with little sun.

Oh so just load the entire cost of the grid onto this minority of customers.

The ones who consume would pay the infrastructure.

People who import do consume, even if they net out.

As it is now we're having the opposite effect where the grid can't sustain demand and as more EVs and other things become more mainstream I'm betting the problem will continue to get worse.

More useless daytime exports does nothing to help support night time charging.

 

[justinm001]

Oh so just load the entire cost of the grid onto this minority of customers.

People who import do consume, even if they net out.

More useless daytime exports does nothing to help support night time charging.

I don't think it'll be the minority for decades if at all. 4,227,503 homes have solar (under 5%) and 1,866,359 of those are in CA alone.

• California has 1,866,359 Solar Homes.
• Arizona has 290,786 Solar Homes.
• New York has 202,406 Solar Homes.
• Florida has 195,136 Solar Homes.
• New Jersey has 181,294 Solar Homes.
• Massachusetts has 158,723 Solar Homes.
• Colorado has 134,729 Solar Homes.
• Nevada has 110,687 Solar Homes.
• Maryland has 99,504 Solar Homes.
• Hawaii has 96,622 Solar Homes.

Outside of these few states its under 1% and just because they have solar doesn't mean they're producing more than they're consuming. I'd bet a large percent of these stats have very few panels. Net metering for all would push these numbers up but I seriously doubt it'll be the majority anytime soon. And increasing the grid cost to those not producing helps promote those to produce their own and creates less demand on the grid.


Most energy demand is during the day and thats with areas that have peak hours where it charges more during the day.

Hourly electricity consumption varies throughout the day and across seasons - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

I'd suspect those with EVs and if peak hours were at night would charge during the day. Also I'd suspect the average EV is plugged in before 6pm. Someone would drive to work at their 9-5 then come home and plug in. Charge for an hour and be topped off for next day. I doubt many people are plugging in when sun goes down.

 

[hwy17]

I don't think it'll be the minority for decades if at all.

If you want to kick the can down the road and say "yes but we can use an unsustainable revenue model for now, because it's small" then ok, but I'd rather deal with a working model.

 

[justinm001]

If you want to kick the can down the road and say "yes but we can use an unsustainable revenue model for now, because it's small" then ok, but I'd rather deal with a working model.

Isn't the whole point to create an unsustainable revenue model for electric companies? Build energy independence for every home to minimize the dependence of monopoly utility companies. The model right now only works in the interest of the utility.

On top of all this what percent of the utility bill is actually grid maintenance? 10% maybe 20%? And how is that impacted when the grid demand is a quarter of that it is currently? The infrastructure's already built, we already paid for it. Only thing left is maintenance, repairs and adding new areas. I believe like 70% of the US power grid is 50 years old.

 

[hwy17]

Isn't the whole point to create an unsustainable revenue model for electric companies?

If you are cheering for the collapse of civilization, maybe.

 

[Q-Dog]

If you want to kick the can down the road and say "yes but we can use an unsustainable revenue model for now, because it's small" then ok, but I'd rather deal with a working model.

I've been paying my electric bill for almost 25 years in this same spot. The power lines outside my house have been there for 50 years. Every other year a few of them get blown down by hurricanes and the electric company puts them back up. Then they charge us a "hurricane charge" for the cost to put them back up. The infrastructure has been paid for many times over.

 

[hwy17]

I've been paying my electric bill for almost 25 years in this same spot. The power lines outside my house have been there for 50 years. Every other year a few of them get blown down by hurricanes and the electric company puts them back up. Then they charge us a "hurricane charge" for the cost to put them back up. The infrastructure has been paid for many times over.

All I hear is all your aging lines and poles are coming due for replacement soon.

 

[Dagoth Ur Does Solar]

Devlin said that the installation of solar panels and batteries will come at no cost to the homeowners, and that residents could expect to pay less for their electricity.

To be clear, not suggesting any of this is a good idea, but... If the idea is to subsidize their electric costs, why not simply subsidize their electric bills? Or subsidize the utilities building out the grid at scale to lower their electric costs?

Just seems like another way to enrich some "solar installers" who will likely grossly undersize the PV arrays or the battery banks, and also will almost certainly leave the community with the long-term costs of maintaining the systems.

Really sounds like the usual "taxpayer money going to enrich the middlemen" type of deals.

 

[hwy17]

Just seems like another way to enrich some "solar installers"

Here's 3.5kW of micros that we slapped up in a day, that'll be $17k enjoy the roof leaks in 10 years

 

[justinm001]

All I hear is all your aging lines and poles are coming due for replacement soon.

I don't think they've came out with new power line technology like ever. I don't think there's a lifecycle for power lines and the rest of the grid but could be mistaken. But the point still stands that the "GRID" is the cheapest part of utility service.

 

[Q-Dog]

All I hear is all your aging lines and poles are coming due for replacement soon.

OR, they have been charging for "infrastructure improvements" for 50 years and been pocketing that money.

 

[justinm001]

To be clear, not suggesting any of this is a good idea, but... If the idea is to subsidize their electric costs, why not simply subsidize their electric bills? Or subsidize the utilities building out the grid at scale to lower their electric costs?

Just seems like another way to enrich some "solar installers" who will likely grossly undersize the PV arrays or the battery banks, and also will almost certainly leave the community with the long-term costs of maintaining the systems.

Really sounds like the usual "taxpayer money going to enrich the middlemen" type of deals.

They probably already have programs that include electric costs in them, so can't decrease or subsidize them anymore. Also I have a feeling like almost every other government program its a scheme to make some wealthy people even wealthier. I'd love to see the stats on that neighborhood on renters vs owners.