[Pearl1]

Everyone,

Imagine that, FPL, following Cali, wants to gut net metering. The FPL bill passed committee yesterday.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1024

The committee is regulated industries.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/Show/RI/

Get involved. I've raised hell today with Sen Albrition and Rep Grant. Get involved.

 

[NR4P]

Many folks won't bother to download the pdf and read the text, and fully understanding it. Some legal jargon is in there.
Perhaps you can summarize why it's bad for Florida Consumers and good for the Utilities? Why leave things as is?

 

[shareef777]

I read it (I don't live in FL), but the gist of it is that as more and more people move over to Solar (and therefore provide their own power generation) the cost burden to maintain the grid will move over to those without solar. Many of whom either can't financially afford it or physically can't due to the position of their home/building or layout (think apartments and condos). Not saying the bill is right, but it's a logical concern especially as most solar systems are still grid tied.

Hypothetically, how does it make sense to generate 20kWh of energy (most of it during the summer), have the grid "credit" you for that power generated so that you can use it during the winter and walk away with a $0 bill over the course of the year. There's still infrastructure and overhead that needs to be paid for beyond your meter.

Relevant section:
57 2. The net metering must ensure that all energy delivered
58 by the public utility is purchased at the public utility's
59 applicable retail rate and that all energy delivered by the
60 customer-owned or -leased renewable generation to the public
61 utility is credited to the customer at the public utility's full
62 avoided costs.

Simple solution for anyone that doesn't like this, buy a bunch of battery backups and get off the grid altogether. Luckily the provision has a grandfather clause for 10 years to maintain the existing net metering deals for anyone that installed a system for will do so this year. This makes sense as Solar will become as ubiquitous as EVs are becoming.

Similarly in IL (where I'm based) our EV annual license registration was a tenth of ICE ($36/2yrs vs $151/yr). The idea was to promote EV adoption. Didn't last long till they realized that EVs sell themselves and they don't contribute to road maintenances paid via gas taxes. So now our registration fees are $251/yr. Sucks for me (got 2 EVs so registration went up $200 annually), but I can't complain as I use the roads and should be contributing to their maintenance.

 

[garsh]

Simple solution for anyone that doesn't like this, buy a bunch of battery backups and get off the grid altogether.

Many municipalities require that homes be connected to the grid.

https://off-grid-home.com/is-it-legal-to-disconnect-your-home-from-the-electricity-grid/

 

[garsh]

In Pennsylvania, they've separated our bills into "electric supplier" and "electric distributor". The "distributer" charges cover maintaining the infrastructure, and you're stuck with your local electric company for that charge. The "supplier" charges cover electricity used, and you're free to switch companies there.

This seems like a reasonable way to have people with solar panels pay to keep the infrastructure maintained.

 

[Pearl1]

Many folks won't bother to download the pdf and read the text, and fully understanding it. Some legal jargon is in there.
Perhaps you can summarize why it's bad for Florida Consumers and good for the Utilities? Why leave things as is?

FPL's argument is that an individual producing their own power cost their neighbor money. Or better yet, it hurts the poor and the children. You know it's BS when they hide behind the poor and the children. Guys wearing suits and flying in fancy helicopters and jets care about the poor? Sure. Next they'll outlaw having a vegetable garden.

Home solar helps FPL and saves my neighbor money:
- An individual investing their own capital $$ to build their own power plant to satisfy their own needs, SAVES FPL capital cost $$$ - fewer power plants to build.

- An individual providing excess power to the grid save the utility their highest production cost $$ - nuclear or fossil fuel, and the cost to transport the power via the grid, because the excess solar power, by nature of the system, will go to the nearest user, your neighbor.

--FPl didn't pay to produce or transport this power but for which they charge the user (my neighbor) full price.

- A solar customer, in exchange, gets a credit in kWh, not money $$. When solar is not producing enough (at night, duh!), the customer pulls from the grid. Night is low demand low cost time for FPL, hence the time of use (TOU) rates. During the day FPL charges ~12 cent/kWh, with TOU FPL charges ~7 cents/kWh. For each credit a solar customer uses, FPL nets 5 cents for the trouble.

-At the end of the billing period, any unused credits carry forward to the next month. If there are no credits remaining, the solar customer pays 12 cents/kWh for power pulled from grid. Good deal right? (sarcasm). Better yet, at the end of the calendar year, if the solar customer has net credits, FPL pays the solar customer for these credits at FPLs cost of generation (COG). FPL doesn't publish this number, but it's believe to be around 1.5 cents/kWh.

At each step in the process, FPL get a taste, but FPL is a greedy SOB. They want it all. Tell us something we don't already know.

In an open economic system, the solar customer should be able to sell that power in the open market. But this is a monopoly. In some states, Cali, you can. Hence the high level of solar adoption and giant fight currently underway over net metering.

What most don't know is that FPL, and most utilities, are on a cost plus markup contract. Higher costs means higher profits.

For property owners, it's not a matter of if you're going to go solar, but a matter of when. Solar is a win-win. You can, over the long run save money, while helping stabilize the grid and stop littering the atmosphere. This is one of the few cases where you can do the right thing and it not be just charitable contribution.

FPL will lose customers and will contract. It's just a matter of time. The technology and economics are here now for all of us to produce our own power. Public utilities will invariably shrink, just like landline telephones have been overtaken by cellular services. Same said for cable TV. It's just a matter of time.

 

[shareef777]

In Pennsylvania, they've separated our bills into "electric supplier" and "electric distributor". The "distributer" charges cover maintaining the infrastructure, and you're stuck with your local electric company for that charge. The "supplier" charges cover electricity used, and you're free to switch companies there.

This seems like a reasonable way to have people with solar panels pay to keep the infrastructure maintained.

Yep, but most solar users would be shocked to find that the "delivery" (as it's called here in IL) is almost half your bill.

 

[JasonF]

I read the text of the bill last night. It's written to be well-intentioned to try and give it the best chance to pass - but for some reason lawmakers never read in the worst case scenario, which tells me this bill was probably written by FPL, designed to try and fool lawmakers into thinking it's a positive thing.

But that worst case scenario is probably the ultimate plan. Since the law says that they have to buy back solar generation at actual cost, that means they could theoretically buy back solar at a negative credit simply by documenting that it costs them money to accept your solar generation. A negative credit would mean that they would charge you fees for every kWh you generate, and you could end up with a surprise bill of thousands of dollars a month because that's what the power company says it costs to integrate your solar power generation into the grid.

Of course no one would willingly do that. After one such invoice, most people with solar would cancel the net billing plan and just pay for their actual power usage above solar production, or add batteries if they can afford it. Or even possibly removing the solar altogether.

 

[shareef777]

FPL's argument is that an individual producing their own power cost their neighbor money. Or better yet, it hurts the poor and the children. You know it's BS when they hide behind the poor and the children. Guys wearing suits and flying in fancy helicopters and jets care about the poor? Sure. Next they'll outlaw having a vegetable garden.

Home solar helps FPL and saves my neighbor money:
- An individual investing their own capital $$ to build their own power plant to satisfy their own needs, SAVES FPL capital cost $$$ - fewer power plants to build.

- An individual providing excess power to the grid save the utility their highest production cost $$ - nuclear or fossil fuel, and the cost to transport the power via the grid, because the excess solar power, by nature of the system, will go to the nearest user, your neighbor.

--FPl didn't pay to produce or transport this power but for which they charge the user (my neighbor) full price.

- A solar customer, in exchange, gets a credit in kWh, not money $$. When solar is not producing enough (at night, duh!), the customer pulls from the grid. Night is low demand low cost time for FPL, hence the time of use (TOU) rates. During the day FPL charges ~12 cent/kWh, with TOU FPL charges ~7 cents/kWh. For each credit a solar customer uses, FPL nets 5 cents for the trouble.

-At the end of the billing period, any unused credits carry forward to the next month. If there are no credits remaining, the solar customer pays 12 cents/kWh for power pulled from grid. Good deal right? (sarcasm). Better yet, at the end of the calendar year, if the solar customer has net credits, FPL pays the solar customer for these credits at FPLs cost of generation (COG). FPL doesn't publish this number, but it's believe to be around 1.5 cents/kWh.

At each step in the process, FPL get a taste, but FPL is a greedy SOB. They want it all. Tell us something we don't already know.

In an open economic system, the solar customer should be able to sell that power in the open market. But this is a monopoly. In some states, Cali, you can. Hence the high level of solar adoption and giant fight currently underway over net metering.

What most don't know is that FPL, and most utilities, are on a cost plus markup contract. Higher costs means higher profits.

For property owners, it's not a matter of if you're going to go solar, but a matter of when. Solar is a win-win. You can, over the long run save money, while helping stabilize the grid and stop littering the atmosphere. This is one of the few cases where you can do the right thing and it not be just charitable contribution.

FPL will lose customers and will contract. It's just a matter of time. The technology and economics are here now for all of us to produce our own power. Public utilities will invariably shrink, just like landline telephones have been overtaken by cellular services. Same said for cable TV. It's just a matter of time.

How does net metering work right now? The legislation seems to just level the playing field (ie, pay for the cost of the grid that you're using, like the wires and transformers). Section2 that I posted early lays that out clearly, that you'll pay your share of the grid/infrastructure upkeep, but not the power generators.

If what you're asking for is a discount for Solar generated power, then that's something that your politicians will happily ignore as there's no kickback for them (different topic I suppose).

 

[JasonF]

How does net metering work right now? The legislation seems to just level the playing field (ie, pay for the cost of the grid that you're using, like the wires and transformers). Section2 that I posted early lays that out clearly, that you'll pay your share of the grid/infrastructure upkeep, but not the power generators.

If what you're asking for is a discount for Solar generated power, then that's something that your politicians will happily ignore as there's no kickback for them (different topic I suppose).

I don't know about FPL, but Duke Energy charges me an infrastructure fee of something like $15 every month even if I have no net electric usage. They don't pay me the same rate for usage as for buyback - the buyback rate is a few cents less. And they don't pay it cash, it goes as credits on the bill until I use them (which means currently if I install batteries, I'd eventually lose any extra generation).

The two fears I have from a bill like this is drastically having the buyback rate cut so I would have to produce way more solar in order to see any credits - which would result in me being billed every month for usage in the evening or when it's raining. Or worse yet, if the power companies use this weakly worded law to claim accepting your solar generation costs them money, and end up billing me a few cents per kWh to accept it instead of giving me credits.

 

[Pearl1]

How does net metering work right now? The legislation seems to just level the playing field (ie, pay for the cost of the grid that you're using, like the wires and transformers). Section2 that I posted early lays that out clearly, that you'll pay your share of the grid/infrastructure upkeep, but not the power generators.

If what you're asking for is a discount for Solar generated power, then that's something that your politicians will happily ignore as there's no kickback for them (different topic I suppose).

You make me laugh.

BLUF: This bill is not about paying for infrastructure. Its about discouraging home solar. Home solar breaks up the monopoly.

First couple of lines of the bill deletes the word "promote."

Net metering is utility company idea/program. It's a program where they get access to generation capacity they don't have to pay for. The problem now is that the cost of solar has fallen resulting in accelerating solar adoption.

Unless you completely overpay (or live somewhere completely unsuitable), home solar is profitable now.

Net metered meaning zero. A net meter customer doesn't really use the grid infrastructure and that which they do, they pay for when they pay for the power that they use.

So you think its fair an equitable for someone who has invested their own money so they don't need to use the infrastructure to have to pay for infrastucture they don't use? That's kind of the point of solar, don't use the power company. This bill is like the phone or cable company wanting to charge you for phone lines you don't use after you switched to cellular.

Net metering is the law in Florida, hence the legislation. The scary part for the utilities is that if homeowners were allowed to cut the wire they would in droves. The technology is here now to do just that, and a price that makes sense.

 

[shareef777]

You make me laugh.

BLUF: This bill is not about paying for infrastructure. Its about discouraging home solar. Home solar breaks up the monopoly.

First couple of lines of the bill deletes the word "promote."

Net metering is utility company idea/program. It's a program where they get access to generation capacity they don't have to pay for. The problem now is that the cost of solar has fallen resulting in accelerating solar adoption.

Unless you completely overpay (or live somewhere completely unsuitable), home solar is profitable now.

Net metered meaning zero. A net meter customer doesn't really use the grid infrastructure and that which they do, they pay for when they pay for the power that they use.

So you think its fair an equitable for someone who has invested their own money so they don't need to use the infrastructure to have to pay for infrastucture they don't use? That's kind of the point of solar, don't use the power company. This bill is like the phone or cable company wanting to charge you for phone lines you don't use after you switched to cellular.

Net metering is the law in Florida, hence the legislation. The scary part for the utilities is that if homeowners were allowed to cut the wire they would in droves. The technology is here now to do just that, and a price that makes sense.

I'm relatively new to solar (pending an install), but as far as I was aware you definitely use the grid as you generate a bulk of your power during the summer and just send any excess to the grid where it's used by others. You're credited for the excess and are essentially using that credit in the winter when your solar system doesn't produce enough and you need to rely on the grid. From what I gather the concern is that someone that creates enough power in the summer that their overall annual use is zero they don't pay enough to upkeep that grid. Am I missing something? Please exclude anything about greedy politicians/corporations.

 

[Pearl1]

I read it (I don't live in FL), but the gist of it is that as more and more people move over to Solar (and therefore provide their own power generation) the cost burden to maintain the grid will move over to those without solar. Many of whom either can't financially afford it or physically can't due to the position of their home/building or layout (think apartments and condos). Not saying the bill is right, but it's a logical concern especially as most solar systems are still grid tied.

Hypothetically, how does it make sense to generate 20kWh of energy (most of it during the summer), have the grid "credit" you for that power generated so that you can use it during the winter and walk away with a $0 bill over the course of the year. There's still infrastructure and overhead that needs to be paid for beyond your meter.

Relevant section:
57 2. The net metering must ensure that all energy delivered
58 by the public utility is purchased at the public utility's
59 applicable retail rate and that all energy delivered by the
60 customer-owned or -leased renewable generation to the public
61 utility is credited to the customer at the public utility's full
62 avoided costs.

Simple solution for anyone that doesn't like this, buy a bunch of battery backups and get off the grid altogether. Luckily the provision has a grandfather clause for 10 years to maintain the existing net metering deals for anyone that installed a system for will do so this year. This makes sense as Solar will become as ubiquitous as EVs are becoming.

Similarly in IL (where I'm based) our EV annual license registration was a tenth of ICE ($36/2yrs vs $151/yr). The idea was to promote EV adoption. Didn't last long till they realized that EVs sell themselves and they don't contribute to road maintenances paid via gas taxes. So now our registration fees are $251/yr. Sucks for me (got 2 EVs so registration went up $200 annually), but I can't complain as I use the roads and should be contributing to their maintenance.

Grid tied is the law in Florida.

FPL limits system size to 125% previous year usage and can further limit based upon limits of the grid infrastructure closest to you, i.e. every house around you already had big solar array you may not be able to because the grid couldn't handle it.

I think a better system would be anyone can sell in the open market at market rates. FPL is so greedy. If you own them you pay .12 cents/kWh, if they owe you 1.5 cents. You'd think a markup like that would be enough. I think I would happily pay for grid cost is I got paid market rates.

But this discussion, all of the discussions about changes to net metering are not about cost sharing, they're about stoping the roof top solar tsunami. Just like the cell phone killed Ma Bell, the clock is ticking on another monopoly. As solar cost fall, with battery cost close behind, before this decade is out, roof top solar will proliferate just like the iPhone. Which is something we should all celebrate. First it will be the coal fired plants, then the natural gas.

Every home owner should have roof top solar. It's good for you $$ and good the planet.

 

[JasonF]

Grid tied is the law in Florida.

There is a pretty stupid reason for that. It's because if you operate your own solar generation without grid tying and net metering, you have to be licensed as a public utility and submit to state utility regulations. Even if you only supply your own house.

FPL limits system size to 125% previous year usage and can further limit based upon limits of the grid infrastructure closest to you, i.e. every house around you already had big solar array you may not be able to because the grid couldn't handle it.

The grid is demand based, not supply based. Solar arrays have inverters that regulate the generated current to a specified amount of amps - you can see how much it's limited to by looking at the circuit breaker cutoff where the power from the solar array comes into the house. I think mine is 100 amps, which is a pretty small backfeed considering that a) I'll probably be using a lot of it before it goes back to the grid; and b) It's probably not designed to actually reach 100 amps because then the breaker would trip.

At even 100 amps, by the time the transformer scales it up to transmission current, we're talking about tenths of an amp. An entire neighborhood with solar would barely shift the power company's energy production at all. If it starts getting into a measurable percentage of a city, then it might become an issue for them. But we're not nearly there yet.

When you apply for net metering, one of the checks the power company does is whether or not they can accept your net metering based on how many other solar installations are around you, if the local grid can handle it, and whether you have a battery array (because obviously you'll be backfeeding a lot less if you have one). If you don't have a battery, you're basically using the power grid as your battery via energy credits. If too many people get solar arrays that use net metering in an area, the power company should start requiring new solar suppliers to have batteries.

I think a better system would be anyone can sell in the open market at market rates. FPL is so greedy. If you own them you pay .12 cents/kWh, if they owe you 1.5 cents. You'd think a markup like that would be enough. I think I would happily pay for grid cost is I got paid market rates.

Then the power companies would demand solar equipped homeowners be regulated as utility competitors, which would make it more expensive to operate.

But this discussion, all of the discussions about changes to net metering are not about cost sharing, they're about stoping the roof top solar tsunami. Just like the cell phone killed Ma Bell, the clock is ticking on another monopoly. As solar cost fall, with battery cost close behind, before this decade is out, roof top solar will proliferate just like the iPhone. Which is something we should all celebrate. First it will be the coal fired plants, then the natural gas.

The biggest issue is that the power companies are sticking like glue to returning things to the way they were - central power generation via fuel, delivery to customers, nothing in between. They need to accept that people will get solar until it's specifically outlawed or forcibly made so expensive to operate that people would be forced to give it up (and then the power companies would hopefully be looking at massive lawsuits).

What they need to do is embrace it instead. Take it out of the hands of independent suppliers and installers, and lease the panels to homeowners directly at a price that independent dealers can barely compete with. People who want to own their own array can still use independents, and pay out of pocket, and do without net metering. But think about it - if people had the option, they absolutely would pay a flat monthly rate for a solar and battery array they don't own or have to take care of, and makes them immune to most power outages. And the power companies don't have to fight with regulators to install more generation capacity, or buy as much fuel. Everybody wins in the end.

 

[sharksfan22]

So here in the People's Glorious Socialist State of California, residents were sold the idea of "helping the environment", "doing our part", etc. to get solar. Part of the carrot dangled in front of us was that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would pay me (the ratepayer) for excess energy I produce and send to PG&E for distribution elsewhere. Sounds great but in reality, the math payback barely makes sense today (cost of PV system vs. bill from PG&E) but it does come out positive. Adding PowerWalls helps as well. But the buy/sell is very asymmetrical (between 5 and 12:1 depending on the time of day) as they pay me much less for the same electricity I purchase from them, using the transmission and distribution cost as their excuse.

In reality, much like governments realizing that each electric vehicle pays zero in gas tax, this initiative is nothing more than the utilities realizing that their pension-funding and lawsuit-payout revenue coming from ratepayers is dropping.

 

[shareef777]

So here in the People's Glorious Socialist State of California, residents were sold the idea of "helping the environment", "doing our part", etc. to get solar. Part of the carrot dangled in front of us was that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would pay me (the ratepayer) for excess energy I produce and send to PG&E for distribution elsewhere. Sounds great but in reality, the math payback barely makes sense today (cost of PV system vs. bill from PG&E) but it does come out positive. Adding PowerWalls helps as well. But the buy/sell is very asymmetrical (between 5 and 12:1 depending on the time of day) as they pay me much less for the same electricity I purchase from them, using the transmission and distribution cost as their excuse.

In reality, much like governments realizing that each electric vehicle pays zero in gas tax, this initiative is nothing more than the utilities realizing that their pension-funding and lawsuit-payout revenue coming from ratepayers is dropping.

I've recently read some details about the CA proposal. It's eye watering, considering you'd end up paying MORE for solar than you would just being tied to the grid. Haven't found any specific pricing details on the FL legislation though.

 

[JasonF]

I've recently read some details about the CA proposal. It's eye watering, considering you'd end up paying MORE for solar than you would just being tied to the grid. Haven't found any specific pricing details on the FL legislation though.

That's what I was worried that legislation was capable of - because it would be completely legal under that new law for the power companies to insist that they are buying solar power from customers at a huge loss, and pass that loss on to the solar array owners via even higher bills. In fact I highly suspect that's why it was written in the first place, using language like it's trying to prevent non-solar customers for subsidizing solar customers.

 

[Pearl1]

Solar customers are subsidize by non-solar? Show us the data. I downloaded and read the Nextra energy annual report. That thing is written like someone trying to hid something. It didn’t even breakout the cost; generation, transmission, etc. It did say that the PSC rate structure provided an 11.5% ROE.

 

[shareef777]

Solar customers are subsidize by non-solar? Show us the data. I downloaded and read the Nextra energy annual report. That thing is written like someone trying to hid something. It didn't even breakout the cost; generation, transmission, etc. It did say that the PSC rate structure provided an 11.5% ROE.

Suppose it depends on the billing methods used by the provider. Ideally they'd split your bill between the cost of generating the power you use and the cost of delivering that power over the grid (as ComEd does here in IL).

Logically, solar customers don't pay anything (up to) for any power their system generates. But they DO need to pay to transmit that power over the grid as most of them don't have capacity to store all the excess power they generate in the summer (that will be credited later in the winter). It's not as clear cut as, use less than you create and you get no bill.

 

[Bigriver]

In Pennsylvania, they've separated our bills into "electric supplier" and "electric distributor". The "distributer" charges cover maintaining the infrastructure, and you're stuck with your local electric company for that charge. The "supplier" charges cover electricity used, and you're free to switch companies there.

This seems like a reasonable way to have people with solar panels pay to keep the infrastructure maintained.

Solar customers in PA do not pay the distribution charge in the net metering agreement. As I provide a kWh to the grid, I get to later use a kWh with no charge. The distribution part only shows up for a solar customer if they use more than they produce and have no kWh in their bank from net metering. So I'm not sure what you are referring to that has PA solar customers paying to keep the infrastructure maintained? I do have a monthly base customer charge of about $13/month. Don't know what that is theoretically covering, but I've always thought of it as an administrative fee. Even that is covered for me by the excess that I send back to the grid. So as I send an excess of about 2000 kWh/year (credited at about $0.08/kWh) is that enough of a contribution so I don't owe any more to sustain the grid? I definitely need the grid, both during the winter as I need thousands more kWh than I produce, but also I need it the rest of the year as a place to send my thousands of extra kWh that I generate.

I'm relatively new to solar (pending an install), but as far as I was aware you definitely use the grid as you generate a bulk of your power during the summer and just send any excess to the grid where it's used by others. You're credited for the excess and are essentially using that credit in the winter when your solar system doesn't produce enough and you need to rely on the grid. From what I gather the concern is that someone that creates enough power in the summer that their overall annual use is zero they don't pay enough to upkeep that grid. Am I missing something?

You have described exactly how it is for me in PA. But I'm not sure that is how it plays out for someone in Florida. I get the impression that their seasonal production and usage curves are more aligned. So as I described above that I am actually interacting with the grid all year long, either giving or taking. I have Powerwalls, so I'm not talking daily loads but seasonal. That interaction would be less if someone's production and usage are closely matched throughout the year.

I think this idea of grid support is difficult. Before anyone had solar, grid support got proportioned by how much a house used. Then you get a few solar installations and net metering is a simple, logical tracking method. The few customers who do this have no notable impact on the grid economics. But as more people have solar, I see that something might have to change in the rules/pricing. I personally don't know the financial side of the grid, but I do think it is an important infrastructure element and needs to be maintained. I don't think solar customers should be disproportionately burdened by it, nor do I think we should be absolved from it.