Installing a Solar City Solar System on your home

[Mudwoman]

The facts all point to this "inconvenient truth" -- the time has come to shut down California's two nuclear power plants as part of a swift transition to an energy policy focused on clean and green renewable sources and conservation.

TOTALLY agreed! Thank-you for voicing this subject for open discussion.

Personally, I've been strongly opposed to nuclear energy generation / nuclear weapons / etc. since the early 1980's. The devastation of two enormous nuclear accidents: Chernobyl and Fukushima....plus the horrendous health consequences of the USA's nuclear weapons in Iraq has only confirmed my position.

Regarding alternative renewable energy production:
California with it's Mediterranean climate has an IDEAL climate for producing solar energy from all of our rooftops. If it never rains again, we can do it year round. (Just joking! Winter & spring rains, please come...)

We converted our home to solar in summer 2011. Our roof, which has a near perfect slant and southern exposure is big enough to produce electricity for THREE households!! As of 2011, Sonoma county has more solar installations than any other county participating in the Solar America Cities program in the nation.
Learn more: https://www.solarsonomacounty.org/

Unfortunately, P,G&E in protecting their own interests has influenced policy, so homeowners do NOT get paid for the extra electricity produced beyond one's household's needs. For us, this means PG&E receives annually almost $400 worth of electricity from our system to resell. PG&E did fund $1500 of the installation via an incentive credit, an investment they'll recoup in less than 4 years...after that it's pure profit.

In the meantime, it will take us a decade to pay off the investment, even with the $1200 annual savings on our utility bill. NOTE: the resale value of a house increases in direct proportion to the cost of a solar installation.

Think of how beneficial it would be to the California economy if individuals were PAID for producing electricity like commercial installations are!!! Many more homeowners would consider converting to solar, not only on principle, but because it could be a dependable, modest income source. And this would create the need for many more employment opportunities in the renewable sector.

BTW, I was invited to assemble a keynote (powerpoint) presentation for Solar Sonoma County to share with other homeowners, who may be considering making an investment in solar. If you want to Go Green and invest in renewables, solar is a great way to go.

[jbox]

TOTALLY agreed! Thank-you for voicing this subject for open discussion. ....

This is an old thread mostly used by Norman Solomon as a political platform in his unsuccessful bid for office in 2012.

[I have split this off to it's own thread - Barry]

I would be interested in a discussion of solar though. I was approached by Solar City who wants to install panels on my roof at no expense to me and I buy the power from them at a lower rate than PG&E. I'm not too keen on somebody else owning a big part of my roof however. What alternatives to this model are available? How is your installation working out? Why did you invest in a system that produces more than you need, in essence subsidizing PG&E? Wouldn't a smaller, less costly system been better tailored to your situation?

[Sara S]

Hi:

I lived without PG&E for 36 years; I sorta homesteaded in the hills west of Caz (with almost no money) before there were home solar systems, and for the first 8 years or so had only kerosene lamps. Then I got 2 little panels and a truck battery, and s few 12-volt bullet lights. I gradually got more panels and an alternator, and my mom bought me a generator (needed to keep the batteries fully charged during some of the winter months, so they'd last longer). I eventually did a big (for me) upgrade, with a bunch of panels, a TuffShed for the battery-bank and the electronics. But this was all for a very simple life: no appliances that used much heat, just low-wattage household stuff. I had neighbors who installed systems JUST to sell to PG&E, and I don't know how that worked out for them.

I'd suggest that you look into the cost of just buying your own stuff and having it installed, freeing you from any obligations to PG&E or a solar company. I seem to recall that there was a tax deduction for it.

Sara S

I would be interested in a discussion of solar though. I was approached by Solar City who wants to install panels on my roof at no expense to me and I buy the power from them at a lower rate than PG&E. I'm not too keen on somebody else owning a big part of my roof however. What alternatives to this model are available? How is your installation working out? Why did you invest in a system that produces more than you need, in essence subsidizing PG&E? Wouldn't a smaller, less costly system been better tailored to your situation?

[Mudwoman]

Our home is within city limits and therefore not permitted to have an independent off-the-grid electrical system.

Determining the solar system size to install is a best guess calculation:

• It needs to be big enough for your household's needs and possible future needs (within reason).
• Household usage varies. I am careful to run our appliances (stove, oven, dishwasher, washer & dryer) during off-peak or partial peak times to minimize our electricity costs applied against the electricity we generate.
• Also, weather and landscaping (ie. tall trees that may shade the roof) factors in. If we have a very sunny season like the current winter drought, then MUCH more electricity is produced. If we have a lot of rain and foggy summer days, then less is produced.

I wouldn't want to have some else own the installation either. If you ever wanted to sell your house, it would complicate things enormously.

An important reason to invest in solar is to FIX your future electricity costs. Costs WILL go up! We first considered solar in 1999. Was curious to compare what we paid annually in 2001 to when we purchased our system in 2011. Our utility bill (in the same house, but now with half the people....kids grew up and left home), increased by 228%. Projections to 2020, at the same rate of increase, indicated we would be paying $4016 per year with no end in sight!!!

Our system out-of-pocket (after Federal & State - PG&E funded - rebates) cost = $18,273. A good solar system should work well for at least 25 years....basically, the rest of our lifetimes.

Another curious cost comparison: In 1999, we got an estimate of $25,000 to install solar. In 2011 before rebates were applied, the cost was $27, 603....only a 10% increase over a decade. With the substantial federal and state rebates available to homeowners, my husband and I knew NOW was the time to invest. Our neighbors across the street followed suit and had solar installed by the same excellent company we worked with.

Hope this gives you info you need. Check out the Solar Sonoma link I included in my first post. They're an EXCELLENT resource for homeowners considering solar.

[tomcat]

AB920 requires PG&E to pay you for any overproduction of electricity from your solar panels at your true-up. However, they only pay you at the wholesale rate of 3 or 4 cents and not the 13 cent retail rate.
PG&E applied our 36 dollar overproduction credit towards our gas bill.
You can also contact them and have them send you a check.

Net Surplus Compensation (AB 920)

https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/D...netsurplus.htm

Go to the website above for all the info about AB 920

On October 11, 2009, Governor Schwarznegger signed into law AB 920, requiring California utilities to compensate Net Energy Metering (NEM) customers for electricity produced in excess of on-site load over a 12-month period.

Looks like we may now have to PAY PG&E for the privilege of having solar panels on our roof.

https://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/gov...olar-bill.html

California Governor Jerry Brown signed a controversial bill Monday that would change how the state regulates rooftop solar owners' agreements with utilities, but he encouraged the state agency responsible for crafting the new rules to protect the interests of current solar owners.

Assembly Bill 327, Authored by Fresno-area Democratic Assembly member Henry Perea, would allow utilities to recoup what they claim are costs unfairly incurred in providing rooftop solar customers backup power during times when their solar panels aren't producing power. The bill would allow California utilities to charge a monthly fee of up to $10 for California to cover those costs, though it's up to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to decide how to structure that fee.

Tom

...Unfortunately, P,G&E in protecting their own interests has influenced policy, so homeowners do NOT get paid for the extra electricity produced beyond one's household's needs. For us, this means PG&E receives annually almost $400 worth of electricity from our system to resell. PG&E did fund $1500 of the installation via an incentive credit, an investment they'll recoup in less than 4 years...after that it's pure profit.

In the meantime, it will take us a decade to pay off the investment, even with the $1200 annual savings on our utility bill. NOTE: the resale value of a house increases in direct proportion to the cost of a solar installation.

Think of how beneficial it would be to the California economy if individuals were PAID for producing electricity like commercial installations are!!! Many more homeowners would consider converting to solar, not only on principle, but because it could be a dependable, modest income source. And this would create the need for many more employment opportunities in the renewable sector.

BTW, I was invited to assemble a keynote (powerpoint) presentation for Solar Sonoma County to share with other homeowners, who may be considering making an investment in solar. If you want to Go Green and invest in renewables, solar is a great way to go.

[spam1]

costs unfairly incurred in providing rooftop solar customers backup power during times when their solar panels aren't producing power. The bill would allow California utilities to charge a monthly fee of up to $10 for California to cover those costs, though it's up to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to decide how to structure that fee.

Tom

This was inevitable. In the limit, all homes produce net energy, all have plenty during the day, but none is available at night. So you have to have backup production, and pay for lines to carry it to your house (and to carry your net excess to others). Just live through a stormy winter to realize that there are real costs to keep those lines up. Even the Sonoma Co. PUD will need to pay for transmission costs.

[CSummer]

I would agree: $10 a month to be connected to the grid seems pretty reasonable. Compare that to the cost of having your own battery storage system, which would be needed if you weren't connected to the grid and wanted electricity when the panels weren't providing enough (or any) power.

I wonder why this thread is titled as it is, unless someone is plugging for Solar City. If anyone's interested in solar-electric for their home, I'd strongly recommend shopping around - especially with the local solar companies. You'll probably get a better deal and end up owning the system.

CSummer

This was inevitable. In the limit, all homes produce net energy, all have plenty during the day, but none is available at night. So you have to have backup production, and pay for lines to carry it to your house (and to carry your net excess to others). Just live through a stormy winter to realize that there are real costs to keep those lines up. Even the Sonoma Co. PUD will need to pay for transmission costs.

[seenhear]

I would agree: $10 a month to be connected to the grid seems pretty reasonable. Compare that to the cost of having your own battery storage system, which would be needed if you weren't connected to the grid and wanted electricity when the panels weren't providing enough (or any) power.
CSummer

I don't think it's reasonable at all. A grid-tie system isn't imposing any more work on PG&E than if I didn't have the grid-tie system. I currently don't have solar. If I do get a grid-tie system, all that PG&E has to do is come inspect it and sign off on it.

Here's my situation: I have an average monthly bill of around $300-$400 (big family, big house, pool...) I don't have much room for solar panels though. If I do get solar, it won't produce enough to cover all our needs. It will only reduce our consumption from the grid. So (I hope) our bill would drop to around $100-$200 per month. If I'm still paying PG&E for most of my kW-hours of power, why should I have to pay them an additional $10/month for a solar system which I installed/paid for?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[seenhear]

As of 2011, Sonoma county has more solar installations than any other county participating in the Solar America Cities program in the nation.

Honolulu, HI must not be included in that group then. Has anyone been there recently? Solar panels EVERYWHERE!!! It's really awesome. Even rinky-dink falling-apart homes in rural areas have panels. The state must have a big subsidy over there, because I'd estimate ~75% of homes have solar panels on them.

[spam1]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Which is why I said "in the limit", by which I mean, if eventually everyone had no net usage, still someone would have to pay for the grid. The two main costs for electricity is production and distribution. Today, they are both paid for on a per kWHr basis. In the future, it will likely be a grid tie cost and an usage cost. How does that not make sense? You pay a flat fee for grid tie and a per unit cost for usage...

[Mudwoman]

AB920 requires PG&E to pay you for any overproduction of electricity from your solar panels at your true-up. However, they only pay you at the wholesale rate of 3 or 4 cents and not the 13 cent retail rate.
PG&E applied our 36 dollar overproduction credit towards our gas bill.
You can also contact them and have them send you a check.

Net Surplus Compensation (AB 920)

https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/D...netsurplus.htm

Tom

Thanks! Tom ~ I'll have to check our annual true-up credit (which we DO receive). It's something pitiful like $56 or less, when the electricity we put back into the grid can be sold for close to $400. Based on your figures above, we should be receiving @ $100 true-up credit....but I seem to recall being told that a credit cap is in place. I'll have to double-check all this. All the complicated nuances of solar politics is not my arena of expertise.

Appreciate your time on sharing these resources,
Mudwoman

[Mudwoman]

I would agree: $10 a month to be connected to the grid seems pretty reasonable. Compare that to the cost of having your own battery storage system, which would be needed if you weren't connected to the grid and wanted electricity when the panels weren't providing enough (or any) power.

I wonder why this thread is titled as it is, unless someone is plugging for Solar City. If anyone's interested in solar-electric for their home, I'd strongly recommend shopping around - especially with the local solar companies. You'll probably get a better deal and end up owning the system.

CSummer

Agreed...anyone considering solar needs to talk to several contractors. I met with 5 solar installation companies, several of whom were building contractors, not electrical contractors. We chose a LOCAL company (electrical contractors) whose bid fell in the mid-range of the 5. The bids varied widely. I learned more from each person I spoke to. It was very educational.

BTW, a battery storage system for our installation would have added $10,000-$12,000 to the cost plus the upkeep hassle and needing to find a place to install it on our small urban lot.

Mudwoman

[seenhear]

Which is why I said "in the limit", by which I mean, if eventually everyone had no net usage, still someone would have to pay for the grid. The two main costs for electricity is production and distribution. Today, they are both paid for on a per kWHr basis. In the future, it will likely be a grid tie cost and an usage cost. How does that not make sense? You pay a flat fee for grid tie and a per unit cost for usage...

I know what "in the limit" means, and in this case, it just isn't realistic. It's not a feasible limit that you propose. It's not possible for everyone to have no net usage, since many, if not most (i.e. more than half of) houses are not amenable to solar arrays (no south facing roof, no ground space, etc.) I just saw that my old house I sold last year just got 16 panels on their East-facing roof. There's no way those panels are offsetting even half of their bill, let alone all of it, they have no south facing roof, and their west-facing roof is shaded for most of the day.

I still say it doesn't make sense for PG&E to charge me monthly for installing a grid-tie system. If their per-kWhr pricing is well designed, then if I produce as much as I use, they should be ahead of the game. Heck right now they pay people for power produced above the user's needs. If they are PAYING you, why then CHARGE you right back? It makes no sense. From their side, the system doesn't cost anything more. They would just see less net usage by me. Heck if one didn't want all the incentives and what not, it's possible if you know what you're doing (experienced electrician, say) to install a grid tie system without PG&E even knowing. It'd be illegal as all get-out but it's technically possible.

So by ponying up thousands of dollars to save the grid some power, I then also have to pay an extra monthly fee. That's messed up in any situation, but especially for the case where the homeowner is still net-using power from the grid.

[rossmen]

right now intertie system owners are getting a free deal, it is unsustainable. there are substantial costs to maintaining the grid. the future is demonstrated by sonoma clean power. intertie system owners will be paying far more than $10/month. more like 1/2 your old bill...

I know what "in the limit" means, and in this case, it just isn't realistic. It's not a feasible limit that you propose. It's not possible for everyone to have no net usage, ...

[seenhear]

right now intertie system owners are getting a free deal, it is unsustainable. there are substantial costs to maintaining the grid. the future is demonstrated by sonoma clean power. intertie system owners will be paying far more than $10/month. more like 1/2 your old bill...

I still don't see the logic there.

If I have an average bill of $300/mo, and I go all green on all my appliances, and cut way back on usage, and cut my bill to $150/mo (keep in mind half the cost is not half the kWhr, since pricing is tiered) then PG&E gives me a pat on the back and says "good job".

But you're saying if *I* pay for a $16,000 solar system that also cuts my $300/mo bill to $150/mo without any changes in my behavior or appliances (say I'm already totally green & conservationist at $300/mo) then PG&E will slap me with an extra service fee?

How does that make sense to any one? Explain this to me, please.

BTW, "grid-tie" is a more accurate term. It implies a customer's own (solar or wind usually) system tied to the grid. An "Intertie" system is one in which multiple Utility companies serve the same area. So "intertie" could technically describe a home solar grid-tie system, but it is ambiguous; it's not specific. "Intertie" more commonly describes the situation where one utility sells & sends excess power to another utility over long distances via high-voltage lines. This is done between CA and NV, and CA and OR, and I think CA and WA (all those are CA buying power from utilities in less populous states).

The existing Interties with other state utilities is also a good example of why the suggestion that PG&E will start charging grid-tie customers is not very believable. CA can not produce enough power for its own needs. CA needs to buy power from other states. This is why the state and the utilities reward customers who cut back usage, with tiered rates and with bonuses and kick-backs and subsidies. This is also why solar and wind systems are subsidized. They NEED us to cut back and/or produce our own power. That they would then charge us for doing so is ridiculous. I'm not saying it won't happen (crazier things have). But it sure doesn't make sense, no matter how you slice it.

[rossmen]

most grid-tie systems are engineered to zero out energy use over the year after other reasonable conservation measures are also done. this is how the market is structured by pg&e rebates and tax incentives. this is unsustainable for pg&e's bottom line as the percentage of homes and businesses with solar panels rise. so it will change and sonoma clean power provides a model for how to account for everything but the power. look at it from the perspective of a puc regulator, the utility needs money to stay in business.

yes from a home or business owners point of view it sucks because payback and utility bill expectations are changed. there will be a grid-tie fee whatever you use or produce. why do you think it is ok that other customers pay your share of grid costs?

i was just talking about solar electric with my sister who lives in sacramento. there nobody does it because power cost is so low. they have a public utility run by elected officials who have invested heavily in renewable power generation.

I still don't see the logic there.

If I have an average bill of $300/mo, and I go all green on all my appliances, and cut way back on usage, and cut my bill to $150/mo (keep in mind half the cost is not half the kWhr, since pricing is tiered) then PG&E gives me a pat on the back and says "good job".

But you're saying if *I* pay for a $16,000 solar system that also cuts my $300/mo bill to $150/mo without any changes in my behavior or appliances (say I'm already totally green & conservationist at $300/mo) then PG&E will slap me with an extra service fee?

How does that make sense to any one? Explain this to me, please.

BTW, "grid-tie" is a more accurate term. It implies a customer's own (solar or wind usually) system tied to the grid. An "Intertie" system is one in which multiple Utility companies serve the same area. So "intertie" could technically describe a home solar grid-tie system, but it is ambiguous; it's not specific. "Intertie" more commonly describes the situation where one utility sells & sends excess power to another utility over long distances via high-voltage lines. This is done between CA and NV, and CA and OR, and I think CA and WA (all those are CA buying power from utilities in less populous states).

The existing Interties with other state utilities is also a good example of why the suggestion that PG&E will start charging grid-tie customers is not very believable. CA can not produce enough power for its own needs. CA needs to buy power from other states. This is why the state and the utilities reward customers who cut back usage, with tiered rates and with bonuses and kick-backs and subsidies. This is also why solar and wind systems are subsidized. They NEED us to cut back and/or produce our own power. That they would then charge us for doing so is ridiculous. I'm not saying it won't happen (crazier things have). But it sure doesn't make sense, no matter how you slice it.

[tomcat]

PG&E pays us the same rate (3 or 4 cents) for our surplus production that they pay other wholesalers. I don't understand why you would want them to pay us more? Their retail price (13 cents) includes the cost of doing business and profit.
Tom

Thanks! Tom ~ I'll have to check our annual true-up credit (which we DO receive). It's something pitiful like $56 or less, when the electricity we put back into the grid can be sold for close to $400. Based on your figures above, we should be receiving @ $100 true-up credit....but I seem to recall being told that a credit cap is in place. I'll have to double-check all this. All the complicated nuances of solar politics is not my arena of expertise.

Appreciate your time on sharing these resources,
Mudwoman

[tomcat]

When I made my deal to go Solar, I was told that I would pay a four dollar monthly fee for gridtie with PG&E which would cover transmission, taxes, etc. That is NOT a free deal.

If they figured that was their cost then, what has changed?

So if someone has no solar, but is tied to the grid, and they work all day and only uses a small amount of power at night, should they also have to pay a $10/month grid fee?

I think that PG&E should be very happy to get my surplus solar power, produced during the day when demand is high, and only pay me for my yearly overproduction at wholesale cost.

Since I am tied to the grid anyway, what difference does it make if I provide them with clean solar power?

Tom

right now intertie system owners are getting a free deal, it is unsustainable. there are substantial costs to maintaining the grid. the future is demonstrated by sonoma clean power. intertie system owners will be paying far more than $10/month. more like 1/2 your old bill...

[spam1]

When I made my deal to go Solar, I was told that I would pay a four dollar monthly fee for gridtie with PG&E which would cover transmission, taxes, etc. That is NOT a free deal.

If they figured that was their cost then, what has changed?

What changed is likely that $4 does not cover the actual cost, which is subsidized by the per kWh fee. So when PGE doesn't sell as many kWh, the actual cost will have to be recovered. My well is on a separate meter, on a time of use and pumps only at night, and I also have to pay a connection fee even though I use only about $1 worth of electricity each month in the winter. In fact, I have been surprised PGE has such a low cost for service for someone who uses so little electricity.

[rossmen]

my guess is that pige has substantial costs for maintenence, repair, nuclear insanity, and of course, administration. where i live, up the hill from a substation just off a significant feeder line, they trim all trees close to the line every year. they have done this ever since a tree arced the lines and burnt up some expensive homes in the valley of the moon in 85 and they had to pay 250 mill. most of us pay to subsidize electric for more rural areas with aging lines, like everything west of sebtown, lots of storm repair. the deal you signed was forced on pige in a moment of weakness. pige pays less than what it pays you for excess solar for most of the power they supply. thats why sonoma clean can undercut pige prices even though they only get half the bill. your free deal for a line to the devil will probably last for a few more years ; )

When I made my deal to go Solar, I was told that I would pay a four dollar monthly fee for gridtie with PG&E which would cover transmission, taxes, etc. That is NOT a free deal.

If they figured that was their cost then, what has changed?

So if someone has no solar, but is tied to the grid, and they work all day and only uses a small amount of power at night, should they also have to pay a $10/month grid fee?

I think that PG&E should be very happy to get my surplus solar power, produced during the day when demand is high, and only pay me for my yearly overproduction at wholesale cost.

Since I am tied to the grid anyway, what difference does it make if I provide them with clean solar power?

Tom

[tomcat]

OK, so I get from what you've said that: 1. You THINK PG&E has higher maintenance costs than what they are charging their customers for transmission fees. 2. Some of us subsidize rural electric users. 3. SOMEONE forced PG&E into some kind of money losing deal because of some kind of momentary weakness by someone. 4. You still think that we get some kind of a FREE deal, even though we do pay a transmission fee. 5. PG&E pays less to other wholesalers than it does to solar producers for their excess solar power production and that's why Sonoma Clean Power can make a profit. 6. PG&E is the Devil and will raise our transmission fees in a few more years.

SO, did I understand you correctly? Do you have any clarifications?

Thank you for your participation in the discussion.

Tom

my guess is that pige has substantial costs for maintenence, repair, nuclear insanity, and of course, administration. where i live, up the hill from a substation just off a significant feeder line, they trim all trees close to the line every year. they have done this ever since a tree arced the lines and burnt up some expensive homes in the valley of the moon in 85 and they had to pay 250 mill. most of us pay to subsidize electric for more rural areas with aging lines, like everything west of sebtown, lots of storm repair. the deal you signed was forced on pige in a moment of weakness. pige pays less than what it pays you for excess solar for most of the power they supply. thats why sonoma clean can undercut pige prices even though they only get half the bill. your free deal for a line to the devil will probably last for a few more years ; )

[rossmen]

yes these are roughly similar to my thoughts, all backed by observations and reported history. it is a lot of info to take in, very dense. one clarification, pige users are required by puc to pay for diablo canyon, thats the devil tie!

OK, so I get from what you've said that: 1. You THINK PG&E has higher maintenance costs than what they are charging their customers for transmission fees. 2. Some of us subsidize rural electric users. 3. SOMEONE forced PG&E into some kind of money losing deal because of some kind of momentary weakness by someone. 4. You still think that we get some kind of a FREE deal, even though we do pay a transmission fee. 5. PG&E pays less to other wholesalers than it does to solar producers for their excess solar power production and that's why Sonoma Clean Power can make a profit. 6. PG&E is the Devil and will raise our transmission fees in a few more years.

SO, did I understand you correctly? Do you have any clarifications?

Thank you for your participation in the discussion.

Tom