All Forum Posts by: Steve K.

 It varies by utility, generally set by the PUC for investor owned utilities (IOU’s, love the acronym) while smaller municipal utilities are left to set their own policies. Idaho was the first state to have net metering in 1980, then AZ in 1981 and by the mid nineties about half the states had it, currently 43 states have it. It’s always been a bit of a patchwork, for example here in CO we have 52 utilities and while the net metering rules are set by the PUC for the IOU’s  like Xcel, all the munis have their own, some paying wholesale others more or less. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the federal governmental body that has jurisdiction over the rates, terms & conditions of wholesale electric sales by public utilities. FERC has purposefully stayed out of the fight over net metering nationwide, though although both the industry reps and IOU’s could use some clear guidance to avoid situations like in Nevada where the net metering policy changes drastically every time somebody new gets elected. A nationwide standard would end complex state rules and effectively make the whole country good for solar, from a financial perspective.

 Believe it or not they considered that. The panels don't have to be on the roof, they don't even have to be on the property. Offsite large scale solar arrays shared by whole communities called "community solar" can provide the power if the developer chooses, similar to buying power from any power plant, except less expensive. 

 Nope, no windmills. Very few of those still left in use:

Unless you meant wind Turbines?:

Still no, those aren't for residential areas. 

 They are. 

 Rhonda thanks for taking the time to provide me with some additional context. I definitely see both sides of the issue. Just to clarify: I didn't mean coal plants exclusively. Poor communities surround places like refineries as well (Chevron in North Richmond,  Wilmington in East LA are prime examples). During the civil rights movement they called it environmental racism, because poor people of color always get stuck living near pollution sources where nobody else wants to live. 

Ultimately I think the policy makers feel they have to do something, or people accuse them of sitting on their hands not being effective at their job/lame duck. Then when they do something everyone wishes they had done something closer in line with their own agenda. Once CA committed to being carbon free by 2045 they knew they had to make some brash moves so the current big push is for renewables. 

Another component I think may have played a major factor is job creation. The only thing politicians love more than kissing babies is jobs, and solar is one of the fastest job creators right now, so incentivizing the solar industry plays well politically. Of course, building more houses would create more jobs too. Maybe some of us solar guys will end up using our windfall of cash money to build some new houses, and bring it all full circle! 

There's actually a pretty good market for solar in Chicago despite the snowy winters. We look at the whole year in order to size systems to meet our customer's annual electricity needs. For example I've had snow on my roof basically all winter long here in CO, but I won't get a bill because my system produced more electricity than I consumed all last summer. That extra capacity was credited to my account and stored in my "solar bank" and I'll use those surplus kWh's this winter. 

A common misconception is that solar only makes sense in sunny places which isn't true. Germany has been a world leader in solar for a long time and they don't receive a lot of sun (similar amount to Alaska). Solar works just fine there and most anywhere on the planet or even in space. Think of a solar calculator: it works even inside because wherever there is light there are photons bouncing around that can be converted to electricity. A more important factor than lots of really hot weather is cost of electricity from the grid. Texas has a lot more sun than Connecticut but if electricity costs twice as much in CT, the economics are actually better in CT. 

Another common misconception is the hotter the climate the better for solar. In fact too much sun causes "deration"/less production. Solar panels are made with silicon wafers, PN junctions, bypass diodes, etc: all things that suffer efficiency loss due to excess heat just like any electrical equipment (typically anything over 77 degrees F will create a voltage drop which increases as it gets hotter). So a cold sunny day with a little wind (plenty of that in Chicago) to cool the panels off will actually be better for production than a 100 degree day in AZ. That doesn't mean that Chicago is better for solar production than AZ overall, as AZ obviously has more sunny days throughout the year, but the excess heat in AZ can actually cause a problem for production at times, while meanwhile up in Chicago you're wearing a sweater and ducking out of the wind but your panels are actually cranking out the kWh's, smashing a comparable sized system in AZ. Just some food for thought, sorry if this is too much info, not trying to be the guy that corrects everybody or some sort of "know it all" on here but solar is obviously my wheelhouse. 

 Great points thanks for your insight. 

 I agree that California has a housing crisis but I think the effect this policy will have on the housing market overall is minimal. The mandate applies to about 80,000 new homes being built annually, so far less than 1% of CA housing stock. Additionally many affordable housing developments will be exempt because the mandate only applies to buildings of 3 stories or less. I agree it would have been smart to make an actual exemption for all affordable housing. I'm guessing they didn't do this because in CA clean energy is seen as a benefit to low income communities and they want affordable housing to incorporate solar because it lowers monthly expenses for the building's residents. Groups like GRID alternatives and others have been very active leveraging donated equipment and volunteer labor to install solar for free on low income housing in CA which has made it possible for disadvantaged communities to gain access to free electricity. The mandate may not be a shining example of renewables benefiting low income people because it does add to the expense of new homes, but it's not an isolated policy. Aside from the mandate, clean energy contributes to California's efforts to address the affordable housing crisis such as 35% of proceeds from the cap and trade policy going directly to affordable housing. I think in general increased access to green energy benefits poorer communities, who are impacted more by dirty energy sources because they live in more polluted neighborhoods and closer to industrial sites like coal power plants, causing cancer rates to be a lot higher and life expectancy to be shorter in those communities.  

@Rhonda Wilson

Brian, 

For starters, here is a photo of a windmill, used centuries ago to mill grain or pump water:

And here is a wind TURBINE, the cheapest form of electricity available today:

One thing that's important to understand about energy: all of it is subsidized and always has been. Coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, all of it. Every form of electricity relies on subsidies, and that has always been the case going back to before our country existed (even back then timber, whale blubber, and coal were subsidized by Great Britain). So if you don't think energy should be subsidized, you should support the forms of energy that are on a path to stand on their own. Nobody really wants to pay the true cost of energy as a consumer though; without energy subsidies our economy would grind to a halt immediately. Energy is a complex topic but put simply put all forms of energy have always been propped up in some way, indirectly and directly. It's not a free market in ANY way, and if it were we'd probably all still be huddled around campfires. The coal industry wouldn't be what it is today, we wouldn't have a single nuclear power plant, gas would be prohibitively expensive, etc. Every form of energy is heavily subsidized to the tune of trillions of taxpayer dollars a year. So your comment "If it wasn't for subsidies they would be a complete disaster" applies to each and every single form of energy. Currently the only forms of energy with potential to exist without support from government are wind and solar, so if you truly are an advocate for unsubsidized energy, you should support the forms of energy that have a clear roadmap to becoming cost effective without needing subsidies (although I doubt you'd like to pay the true cost of electricity, gas, or goods being transported).  

@Account Closed Are you still talking about batteries?