California Power De-Regulation

[Michael]

apoppin - Since the utilities are bankrupt, don't you think there is a big risk they will not pay the rebate? You'll be very, very far down in the list of creditors.

Michael

 

[shifrbv]

I wish that solar power would become more affordable. Right now, it's about double per KWH than what my local utilities charge and many states have very few incentive programs to install it. I've noticed on many of the solar power forums that people putting it in are those who want to do so for hobby reasons or because they can afford it and care about the environment. I think it will be quite some time before it's an option for the general public in the US. Probably like electric/fuel-cell/hydrogen cars. It seems like they're always just on the horizon, but only available to just a few.

 

[apoppin]

No, there is no risk to the rebate. The State guarantees it, not the utilities themselves.

Of course, the utilities might not pay for what little extra I may generate - who cares, as long as I am nearly self-sufficient with as close to a zero bill is what I am aiming for.

EDIT: As to affordability, I am in a small house with great insulation - the max I need is a 80 KW per month Solar Panel system. Costs for the system without installation (or batteries) is about $6,500 dollars. (I can install it myself - mostly with an electrician neighbor and still qualify for the rebate.)

When you look at it that way, it should pay for itself in about 5 years (or less).
BTW, I live in the Cali hi-desert so solar power is ideal.

 

[brandc]

<< The big California utilities are allowed no &quot;wiggle room&quot; at all by the governmental regulating agencies. >>




<< As an example, when it comes to &quot;scheduled maintenance&quot; -- these utilities must get approval from the regulating body... >>




<< During deregulation Edison, PGE, Smud. Were forced to sell most of their power plants to other companies... Now they are forced to buy power from these plants they sold.. >>



For being called de-regulation, there certainly seems to be a lot of regulating goin' on.

 

[Nick Stone]

Michael
I think you agree with me and for the most part I agree with you.
BTW your items (1) thru (4) are not things that the big utilities are allowed to do.

I question your item (4). Give more money (taxpayers money?) to environmental review boards? Would that cause them not to be obstructionists? I think not.

I don't think that most people realize that at sometime in the past (the 50's?) California used to be energy self-sufficient. I realize that their air polution problems called for extreme measures, but California has a large amount of area and much of it is dessert or otherwise unattractive. Why do Californians persist in not allowing anything unattractive (such as a power plant or manufacturing plant or Oil and Gas facilities) from being built on their soil? They must expect others, outside the state to provide this support at below market prices. Correct?

Chris A
Your company is obviously one of the 1200 or so who agreed to a contract that allows your power to be turned off in time of high power demand in exchange for a lower overall rate. I think that the government agency controlling the grid makes the decision to enforce this contract. I'm sorry that your company leaders made a bad choice. However, turning the power off to these companies probably prevents more serious blackouts.

apoppin
Have you already paid the the solar system and do you have delivery scheduled? Are you going to install it yourself? Contrators will be pretty busy.
Give us the ecconomic details. What drove you to consider this option. Cost or environmental concerns? I'm especially interested in the projected maintenance costs. That is, what does a yearly maintenance contract cost? And as Michael says, which state agency is paying your rebate?
How much room does it take up and -- sorry for the sarcasm -- it is beautiful?

shifrbv
Why should state agencies have incentives to install solar power? That simply means that the taxpayers as a whole have to foot the bill for these incentives. Why is a solar powered system that is unecconical to purchase or run, necessarily environmentally friendly? It costs energy to manufacture it, install it, maintain it, and if it is not ecconomical to opporate, then it will fall into disuse and disrepair and more energy will be required to dismantle it and dispose of it.
The only economic solar powered uses I see are to support transmitters in remote locations. However, I have an open mind and would love to be reminded of other exceptions.

 

[~zonker~]

apopin..

you have any links to info on that solar power system?

 

[Chris A]

Nick Stone,

Correct on your assumtion. This was a great deal when it started.. They are only allowed to shut us down so many times in a year and will in the next week or two reach that limit.. These are supposed to happen only in the summer not in the dead of winter. I fear that this summer will get real ugly when they cant shut down these 1200 companies..

Check this out we watch this site all the time from work. Yes we are working this weekend in anticipation of being shut down all next week again.. Level three on a sunday...

California power grid.

 

[apoppin]

Nick Stone, the system is ugly as hell but it will sit on the roof of the garage (unshaded South Exposure). It's pretty big and takes up half of the roof (8 panels). I am going to install it myself as I have a (small) background in carpentry - my friend is an electrician and can hook it to the box.

Concerns - two; environmental AND economic. Maintanance is minor - cleaning is important as well as adjusting the angle of the panels Spring and Fall. Most Solar Panels are extremely reliable have a 25 year guarantee. Much of the maintanace would be the power inverter and batteries.

I am not scheduled yet for this. I am refinancing the house (anyway, to take advantage of the low interest rates) and should do this next month or as late as March.



~zonker~, just do an Internet search on &quot;solar panels&quot;. You'll get hundreds of hits. Make sure you get panels that are &quot;efficient&quot; in the 11-13% range.

Here is just one link to solar kits click here. and This link from the LA Dept of Water and Power. Make sure you explore the second link's &quot;incentives&quot;. See if you can find a flaw in the rebate program (I can't really afford it without a rebate).

 

[Nick Stone]

apoppin
I need to try not to sound discouraging to you. But let me list things I would be concerned about. Keep in mind that I don't own one and actually have never studied one on these systems up close.
1. Is there a working fluid? I guess not based on your description.
2. What about doing maintenance to the roof underneath. Will it cause roof leaks? Will it trap leaves underneath? When it's time to re-roof can you remove it and replace it yourself.
3. How fragile is it? Windstorms, falling tree limbs -- I guess you don't have hail in California.
4. Service contracts or extended warrenty: I would never buy one or need one for my computer but pricing one gives me an idea of what the average user can expect if they need help. If your company doesn't offer one then why not? If they do then what does it cost?
5. What % of your electricity do you expect to generate in this way?

One thing concerns me. If solar panels are such a viable option in California, then surely you would have brand new neighborhoods in which the entire neighborhood is self-powered by solar arrays -- and the lenders and insurance companies, neighborhood compliance committees etc. would fully approve of this practice. Do these totally self-suffucient (meaning each house generates it's complete energy requirements) neighborhoods exist for lower, middle-class or upper class neighborhoods in California? If not, then is there a flaw in the ecconomics somewhere?

 

[apoppin]

Discourage away, Nick Stone.

First of all there is no maintanance on the panels. There are no moving parts. I am building the frames so will make sure the roof can be maintained and repaired. No trees near the garage. Panels are extremely weatherproof and insurance will take care of a disaster (earthquake, etc).

This rebate program only began last October. It is not for builders, only homeowners or businesses. However, there are entire tracts going in with some kind of solar power.

Follow my two links to get an idea of solar power. For an &quot;average&quot; house, a complete system costs 10-25,000 installed before rebate. Since my house is so small and I am doing most of the installation, I can get away under 10 thousand (probably $5-6,000 after rebate).

I expect it to generate ALL of my electrical needs and a (very) small surplus back into the grid.

 

[shifrbv]

apoppin - How can you get by with only 80 KWH per month? Right now with the cold spell we've had, 77 KWH is my daily average. Even in warm weather, don't you use more than 80 KWH a month for a water heater, washer/dryer, computer, TV, other appliances, etc.?

I live in a 1500 SF 2-story house and the best I've been able to average since I moved in is 738 KWH per month. Either I have a really inefficient house or I'm not interpreting the figures correctly.

 

[apoppin]

I looked over the past two years of my bills and have never gone over 80kwh in a month. Always well below the baseline.

Why? - super good insulation, gas water heater and panel heating, wood stove, no need for a/c (just a swamp cooler is fine in this dry place) fluorescent lights and conservation. Plus the house is very compact for 3 bedrooms.

 

[rahvin]

<<It will be nice to see the meter spin backwards for a change. And battery backup for when the grid goes down.>>

I don't think California is a netmetering state. Better check your rules on that.

Please also do a little research before you buy. Photovotolic cells have a peak output, but rarely reach it, so if you are planning for 80KW using the peak rate you won't be hitting even 80% of that most of the time. There are is a LOT of research out there on the web that will even give you detailed instructions on how to wire, what states Netmeter and tips and hints that will help you maximize your panels. Please do research, at $800+ a panel you wanna get it right.

 

[apoppin]

Thanks for your concern, rahvin.

I HAVE been doing research. California just recently joined the other 15 net-metering states.

The system I am looking at provides 80-120KWH. I have never gone over 77 usage. In the Summer it is nearly half that so I will have a surplus. What is best about my area is that it is desert, so the sun is out most of the daylight hours all year.

The good thing about solar panels is that more can be added later (if I build onto the house, for example).

 

[Nick Stone]

apoppin
How much is your electric bill each month? At $.10 per Kwt/hr wouldn't that be just $8.00 per month? I thought I read that the big utilities were capped at charging their customers 5.7 to 6.5 cents per Kwt/hr.
what am I missing?
If I might intrude on your personal lifestyle, do live like a hermitt? Surely you're electricy usage is not average for your neighborhood.

 

[~zonker~]

My bill(N. Cal) has the charge at .133/Kwh, they claim to be paying .333/Kwh! Triple my electric bill and a roof full of Solar Panels will be very attractive!

 

[ride525]

<< How much is your electric bill each month? At $.10 per Kwt/hr wouldn't that be just $8.00 per month? I thought I read that the big utilities were capped at charging their customers 5.7 to 6.5 cents per Kwt/hr. >>



<< My bill(N. Cal) has the charge at .133/Kwh, they claim to be paying .333/Kwh! >>



The Utilities are paying about $0.33/kwh and can now charge $0.064/kwh(was $0.054/kwh until a few weeks ago). These prices paid and can charge are for the cost of generation only..

The utilities have other costs, such a distributing the electricity, billing, etc. The $0.133/kwh also quoted above is the price they can charge for generation and these other costs.

But, needless to say, the Utilities cannot be expected to exist selling electric generation for 6 cents when it costs them 30 cents.