[mkozlows]

It's not a scam. Connecting to the grid has enormous value, and keeping the grid up has real costs. A model where your generation pays you retail prices doesn't make sense.

California's current net metering system, which is more reflective of the true benefits and costs of solar to the power system, has been incentivizing people to add storage to keep their solar rather than get paid big money to feed back midday low-value solar, which is a big win.

[zugi]

> Connecting to the grid has enormous value

Yet in most locales it's illegal to disconnect from the grid.

If disconnection were legal for those who want to be energy self-sufficient, then charging just to connect would be more defensible.

[bsder]

> Yet in most locales it's illegal to disconnect from the grid.

That's kind of ... required?

Otherwise you have a bunch of people who are off the grid until the sun doesn't shine for a week and they run their batteries down and then they all try to connect simultaneously and collapse your grid.

Most places I know of don't care if you never connect to the grid--you get your exemption and get on with life.

However, once you are connected to the grid even once, the grid operator has to size things for the worst case when everybody is connected to the grid and drawing power and work things out for stability when everybody disconnects and they have to back off generation. At that point, the grid operator is well within their rights to demand that you comply with cooperative regulations like making a request to connect/disconnect from the grid itself.

[labcomputer]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It is illegal to discontinue your relationship with your local electrical utility. As in, completely disconnect from the grid, cut the wires and never look back.

As the previous poster said, charging for the “privilege” of connecting to the enormously-valuable grid would be a little bit defensible if having a connection were not legally required in most places.

[bsder]

The problem is that there are two different costs associated with running an electrical grid. The first one is a variable usage cost tied to generation and is what everybody thinks about. The problem is that there is also a second constant capital cost to simply maintain your connection to the grid.

In the past, the variable usage generation cost was much greater than the capital cost of maintenance. Solar generation (and decades of energy efficiency programs) breaks that.

The solution is to split electrical bills explicitly into the two parts (variable and constant). The problem with that is that a bunch of people installed solar with the expectation of an amortization schedule of much, much lower electricity bills since most of the cost was bundled into the usage cost which solar would reduce. If you change that billing, the amortization of that solar system goes right out the window.

The secondary problem is that this is politically dangerous because the people you are upsetting are homeowners who have some money and vote fairly reliably.

Furthermore, it is not illegal to COMPLETELY disconnect from the grid. As long as you follow the building codes, you can have the utility come out and completely disconnect the wires and you're good to go. You will likely have to demonstrate some local electrical system within the bounds of your local building codes. However, it is not uncommon for houses in the less populated areas of California to not be connected to the grid at all.

What is NOT legal is leaving those wires connected to the grid and toggling your connection on and off. If you are on or even possibly on the grid, you are expected to cooperate, and you have to help pay for the grid.

[gamblor956]

You have it exactly backwards.

It is illegal for the utility to disconnect you for nonpayment. There is nothing requiring you to connect to the utility.

In CA, the requirement is that the building either be connected to the electric grid or demonstrate that it has a code-compliant alternative power system capable of meeting all of the buildings expected power needs. The issue is that most residential solar installations aren't capable of meeting all needs except possibly in the summer.

[HWR_14]

I have no idea where it would be illegal not to connect to the grid. You can just not pay your electric bill.

[hparadiz]

You know I can just not use that grid electricity, pay the absolute minimum, and then do everything off grid right?

[hahahaa]

Not according to this ancestor comment:

> Now they want solar panel owners to pay a surcharge for “connecting to the grid”, upwards of $100/month or more than my actual solar bill

[DANmode]

Depending on jurisdiction.

This is not ubiquitous. It is common.

[perpetuallunch]

Since all we’re doing is opinions, and all opinions are equal.

It’s a scam.

All that money we’re coughing up for rooftop solar and batteries at home would be better spent investing in grid scale electricity generation, of any technology.

That way the best ideas generate more profit than the lesser ideas, and market discovery can solve problems.

Maybe governments could incentivise renters and home owners alike by discounting tax liabilities on new power generation investments. Or share holders could be offered discount rates. I’m open to ideas.

Rather than government picking winners, which seems to have a terrible track record.

Therefore, I posit my opinion is more valuable than yours.

[mullingitover]

> All that money we’re coughing up for rooftop solar and batteries at home would be better spent investing in grid scale electricity generation, of any technology.

In my city we literally can't buy any more grid scale solar. We rely on the county for transmission, we're buying all we can, and we're maxed. So you either get solar installed or you're paying some of the highest rates for electricity in the country.

I'm installing the max balcony solar the law allows the day it's legal. It's the biggest no-brainer every, it'll pay itself off in ~2 years in my case because it's knocking out the most expensive part of my power bill.

[perpetuallunch]

> in my city we literally can't buy any more grid scale solar.

Ok. That’s not the argument I was making though.

And neither is the rest of your comment a reply to anything I wrote.

Of course in the absence of the full suite of options, people will and should make rational economic decisions based on the options they do have.

And hopefully keep voting the bastards out until better options are on the table.