Almost $200. It's been over a year now that the law changed, forcing CA utilities to pay for surplus that their customers generate. So, we were wondering WHY So Cal Edison hasn't pony'd up yet. In CA you can either let the utility keep the value and get nothing for it ... you can let the amount sit there like a bank account, drawing no interest, or (like we did) you can sign up to have 'em mail you your dough. At a measly 2.9ยข per kWh (though PV surplus is generated during the utility's peak load time) we've generated a good amount of surplus ... even tho we're charging our EV almost 1/2 the time at home. Like I mentioned, it's been over a year, so I called to find out why we hadn't received our payment. The gal said because we never asked for it. So ... why did we fill out a form stating, "SEND A CHECK" ? Who knew we had to ask. Glad I did ! .
That's horrible they only give you 2.9 cents/kWh. Up here, the lowest tier PG&E rates on a non-TOU plan at >3x taht.
I can't speak on whether the 2.9 cents is a fair wholesale price, but you can't have the utility pay retail for the PV surplus. They would lose money when transmission losses and maintenance fees are factored in. Which leads to them fighting the implementation of any such systems.
when you push solar on to the grid during peak load times, it means the utility company doesn't have to push their grid generated power out as far to their customers. I really don't mind the low surplus pay out. It's better than the bIg 0 that we use to get. Is anybody else on the board gettIng a surplus payment? If so how much? SGH-I717R ? 2
Utilities don't lose money. They pass any costs on to the customers. I am still paying for a bad investment my electric company made 20 years ago in a never-completed nuke plant. Paying retail for PV power is a lot cheaper (for them) than paying for wholesale peak power. So they would probably be saving money much of the time. You can be sure they won't pass that on to the customers.
Exactly. Read more: http://priuschat.com/threads/pv-solar-surplus-our-utility-just-wrote-a-check.111318/#ixzz1yugLvrel
If a law stated they had to pay the PV owner the same retail rate they charge, they might. They might add fees, but giving them a reason not to support net metering isn't a good idea. I'm not sure what hub exactly covers Hill, but the wholesale peak price appears to be 3.67 to 3.02 cents kW/hr. Electricity - Analysis & Projections - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Your link is to prices for electricity consumed during peak hours, but bought a day ahead of time. The relevant data is spot pricing. I find 25-75 cents/kwh, although it is very variable by time of year and market. kw/hr has no meaning here. kWh is a unit of energy.
Ok http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/overview/elec-ovr-on-pk-elec-pr.pdf That's the average spot on peak price for 2011. They are still around the 3 cent point per kwh.
I still think we are talking apples and oranges. The 'spot' data you found, if I understand correctly, is pricing from the federal regulated electricity exchange. That is the right place to look, as it (I think ?) aggregates all cash now purchases of electricity, but that includes much more than only immediate delivery. PV's value to a utility (or so we PV advocates like to think) is in controlling demand spikes during a day, often in the summer related to AC use.
Platts probably has the specific info, but I didn't feel like registering, even for free, to get a look.
in Ma net metering became law back in 2010. Prior to that MA customers were only credited generation charges, not delivery charges, about 8c of the 20c/kwh charge. Now we receive net metering but they charge me $3 a month to connect to the grid(fair enough). But in MA they do NOT cut you check! I can leave surplus on my account for a (literally) rainy day, or credit it to another account, like a relative.
