From The Daily Mail
The Business Department has announced the closure of the ‘export tariff’
It currently pays householders for excess power that is fed back into the grid
Opponents warned that ending the tariff would leave householders who install panels from April having to give away their power to energy companies free
By Joe Middleton For Mailonline
Published: 11:11 EST, 18 December 2018 | Updated: 11:28 EST, 18 December 2018
The Government is closing an energy payment scheme which will mean homes with solar panels could be giving their excess power to the grid for free, provoking outrage among campaigners.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Department (Beis) has announced the closure of the ‘export tariff’ scheme.
It pays householders for excess power that is fed back into the grid, to new solar generators from next April.
The closure of the scheme has prompted fury among green campaigners with Dr Doug Parr, chief scientist for Greenpeace UK, describing it as ‘simply perverse’.
The Business Department (Beis) has announced the closure of the ‘export tariff’ scheme, which pays householders for excess power that is fed back into the grid
It is also closing the ‘feed-in tariff’ scheme, which pays small-scale renewables such as solar panels on homes for the clean power they generate, to new installations in a move which was expected by the industry.
The move to close export tariffs comes despite the opposition of the majority of respondents to a consultation.
Opponents warned that ending the tariff would leave householders who install panels from April having to give away their power to energy companies free of charge.
Chris Hewett, chief executive of industry body the Solar Trade Association, said: ‘Beis has taken this decision even before it sets out how it will overcome a really fundamental market failure that risks seeing new solar homes put power on the grid for free from next April.
‘At a bare minimum, Government should retain the export tariff until an effective, alternative way to fairly remunerate solar power is implemented.’
He said the move would not save anyone money because the export tariff was not a subsidy, with the electricity sold back to consumers.
And he warned that the announcement could further damage market confidence in the solar sector, which is also being hit by the end of the feed-in tariffs.
Frank Gordon, head of policy at the Renewable Energy Association, said: ‘The decision to completely remove the export tariff and the generation tariff, while not a surprise, creates a real hiatus in the market and the lack of a replacement route to market is worrying.
‘The Government must work quickly to consult on, establish and implement a successor scheme to avoid significantly stalling the much-needed deployment of decentralised renewables likely to happen after 31st March 2019, which will have the knock-on effect on jobs and continued investment.’
HT/JBW
Priceless! For those who appreciate delicious irony on the same linked page-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6515227/Antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-125-000-years-ago-caused-global-FLOOD.html
With the Japanese announcing that they intend to resume whaling, this may distract Greenpeace somewhat.
They can complain all they want once they’ve paid back their subsidies.
Actually, the Government should advise the solar panel owners to go out and buy a few hundred thousand Pounds of batteries, switching gear, inverters, etc. Effectively they’ll be simply “putting up” energy just like gardeners put up excess tomatoes during the growing season.
Did the gardeners never got subsidies for excess tomatoes?
Don’t forget the extra insurance because you now have huge batteries in your house that catch fire and can’t easily be put out.
I’ve thought of installing solar power for backup when the grid power goes out, but I really don’t want to burn my house down as a result. I’d rather be cold for a few hours than very warm and then freezing.
You mean I can’t just pump ANY electricity back into the grid at ANY time with ANY harmonics I want and get PAID for it anymore? How RUDE!
How does returning power to the utility grid work, exactly?
Is the consumer’s 240V DC power inverter smart enough to exactly match the power grid? Does the power inverter match the perfectly sinusoidal wave pattern of the grid?
If not, do the neighbors receive noisy inverter power that interferes with their electronics?
If the DC power inverter exactly matches the consumer grid, how is any power actually transferred?
Are the voltage over/under regulators designed for a source of power other than the utility grid?
The consumer’s 240 V AC is eventually stepped down from the 155-765 KV 3 phase AC grid.
Can the reverse actually take place, with the 240 V inverted AC stepped up to 155-765 KV 3 phase AC?
If it’s so easy for consumers to share energy using the grid, why do utility companies experience difficulties in sharing their 3 phase AC power with more than 30% efficiency?
Does the DC inverter, which connects to a meter that calculates the power returned, actually return any power to the utility grid?
240 V inverters are very smart, they phase match, stay in sync with the grid. If the inverter has excess power available, the inverter output voltage is increased in steps, 241V 242V 243V etc until the inverter is sending all of its excess power to the grid.
Transformers do not mind or know which direction power flows, however, if the output of a utility transformer at 240V was driving out 240V and some 240V inverters were ‘sending back’ power, effectively less power would be transferred from the transformer input to the transformer output.
The sun comes up and suddenly the utility has no where to send its electricity.
Yes, the inverted power is conditioned, and if it fails to meet quality requirements, the inverter is automatically disconnected from the grid. See https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/grid-connected-renewable-energy-systems
At the end of the day people will gladly use “green technologies” when they make sense. Right now they don’t make sense and the mad rush (by mad government) to force their use despite the lack of readiness is insanity.
Go away, keep working in the labs and come forward with a plan when it is ready for mass consumption.
People use “green technologies” already. They are called natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear.
When will all the campaigners, fundraisers, and policy directors work to halt clear cutting of forests for wood pellets?
Clear-cut. How very dare you. Every one knows they only burn naturally shed pine needles and bark flakes harvested by elves and delivered by packunicorn.
This energy is actually worth less than zero since it destabilizes the grid.
So being paid zero is still a subsidy.
I just paid a $7 power bill for 0 kwh.
Of course that is the charge for being connected to the grid. I keep a camping trailer there and it was not used. Last year I kept in plugged in and had a $15 bill for the frig and inverter.
When I am at this property I am usually in the motor home and have the ability to produce my own power. Of course I can not produce power cheaper than the utility when only fuel costs are considered.
The bottom line is electricity is a very cheap commodity to produce. The value of grid connected solar is essentially zero. It cost more to meter and bill.
On the other hand electricity has huge value when the benefits are considered. In the US, power companies are a regulated public service. That means they can not charge what you would pay but only cost + a modest profit.
The consumer is protected from the power company.
However, the consumer is not protected from their goverment depending on where you live. Consumers are not protected from solar sc*m artist.
For example, in-laws in California bought a house in bought a house with solar panels. They got a bill for $900 because the panels did not produce enough power. They assumed that solar was a good thing. Now they are monitoring the systems closely. Recently the meter stopped working. So they called the company that has the lease on the solar panels and charges them for the company’s system not working. No hurry to fix the problems.
So not getting paid for excess power is better?
“Put solar panels on your house and you’ll be coining it.” Ho Ho Ho.
‘At a bare minimum, Government should retain the export tariff until an effective, alternative way to fairly remunerate solar power is implemented.’
How about, “Virtue is its own reward.”
The amount of “feed back” electricity from private rooftop solar to the grid is minuscule, not measurable at the grid level, and useless for load planning. The only recipients of money from it are the owners of the panels (not necessarily the home owner). They are paid a subsidy to install it, then another subsidy for the electricity used, then again for electricity not used. If that’s not a scam then nothing is.
I live in Klickitat County, Washington, which has a publicly owned utility (Klickitat Public Utility District) that gets essentially all of its electricity from the Bonneville Power Administration. KPUD pays about 3.75 cents/kWh to Bonneville, and charges its customers 9.5 cents + a flat $20 a month. The markup covers the costs of administering the utility and maintenance of the grid.
Early in this decade, WA State enacted a generous set of incentives for solar panels and home-scale wind turbines. There were two broad categories. The first paid very heavy direct subsidies, but was sharply limited and has long since ended for new customers. Ongoing payment of those incentives expires in 2020, and I’m not at all sure they’ll survive after that.
The second subsidy was subtler: so-called “net metering,” by which the panel or windmill owner feeds his excess back to the utility, and which are then returned on a 1:1 basis when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. In essence, the grid-tied solar panel user is paid the retail rate for his juice; in Klickitat County, his meter literally runs backward when he’s feeding power to the grid. Maintenance and administration (the difference between the wholesale cost and retail rate) is paid by non-panel, non-windmill customers.
There is considerable irony and inequity involved. For starters, because solar panels or the very occasional small windmill involves a considerable capital outlay, affluent people are the ones who have them. They are subsidized by far less affluent ordinary customers, Klickitat County having a whole lot of them. Secondly, given that KPUD’s generation sources are 87% hyrdo and utility-scale wind (the Columbia River Gorge having a lot of big wind turbines) and 8% nuclear from a generator at the famous Hanford reservation (which is there because it made the plutonium for the U.S. nuclear force), and only 3% fossil, it turns out that a solar panel user is responsible for a minimum of twice as much CO2 output as a utility customer. And that’s only if you include the CO2 output involved with the making of the concrete and steel for the Columbia River’s dams, the last of which went into service about 60 years ago.
As soon as home generation reaches 0.5% of all electricity use, a utility can stop offering net metering. This has happened in Klickitat County, so KPUD terminated net metering for new solar panel customers as of a few months ago. Now, KPUD will pay the same wholesale rate for panel power that it pays to Bonneville — about 3.75 cents/kWh — while charging panel users the retail rate of 9.5 cents/kWh for power they use when the sun isn’t shining at all, or not enough. Existing panel customers will keep net metering, but not new ones.
Oh, the hue and cry! I had been investigating panels for the house we built a year ago, but dropped the idea when I learned about the change. I was on a solar power e-mail distribution list for a while, and defended the KPUD move on the grounds of economic equity and the lack of any environmental benefit from panels even if you care about CO2. The response of the list keepers was to end the list, and then reform a new list without me on it. Hell hath no fury like a fake-o “environmentalist” scorned. I laughed, and considered it a compliment.
Now to the final point.
I’m going to be doing a lot more research into KPUD. We are a shockingly well-run county, a true night-and-day contrast with Seattle/King County, where we moved from. There are only 22,000 people in Klickitat County’s 1,900 square miles. I am just floored by the talent, integrity, and diligence on display in our county’s government. Soon, I’m going to be meeting with members of the utility commission to get the details about Bonneville’s wind turbines, and about the county distribution grid.
Subject to later fact-gathering, my inclination is to think that a utility should pay their wholesale rate to solar panel users for their excess power, provided that this power can be used as easily as other wholesale sources. In principle — again, subject to details I might learn — I don’t think it would be fair to pay nothing at all, just as I don’t think it has been fair to pay a subsidy in the form of net metering.
My utility is Cowlitz Co PUD – similarly situated to KPUD.
I also used to work for Portland General Electric [see Trojan Nuclear Plant]. There is one point that needs to be added to the arguments about whether the utility should be paid or not.
All utilities have the responsibility to provide and maintain all the necessary transmission lines substations, generators – or contracts in the case of Cowlitz PUD or KPUD, etc. They also, per State Utility Commission rules are REQUIRED to provide electric service if you want it. This means they have to provide to you when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow. THAT means some kind of fossil (coal or nat gas) generators must run at all times – NO DELAY – for when that happens. It turns out that this spinning reserve must usually nearly equal the utilitie’s maximum load. THAT requires a lot of investment $$ and maintenance expense.
Therefore, the argument usually is that, while your solar or wind system is feeding your excess energy to the grid the ONLY cost the utility saves is the fuel cost they didn’t have to use. That, minus the per kw cost of moving the power over the lines is all they should owe the homeowner.
Correct me if I wrong, but please be specific and thorough. I have an appetite for detail.
Doesn’t the difference between wholesale and retail cover what you mention? Believe me, I am open minded, but facts rule.
The homes with solar panels are in essence using the power grid as a giant battery. Since they’re not being charged for “energy storage” it’s actually fair for the utilities to distribute their excess power to others. I doubt they’re contributing enough excess power to make any noticeable difference in the utility company balance sheet.
If someone has grid-tied solar (which is always what it is, given the exorbitant cost of batteries), you have hit the nail on the head. Given my present state of knowledge, yes, the utility distributes their excess to others. The question is what the utility should pay for that electricity. At present, I am inclined to think that the utility should pay the wholesale rate, but that’s subject to having more information than I do right now.
Until this problem is fixed I will not allow solar panels on my roof that provide free power to the power companies. I will only allow solar panels to be installed on my roof if everything is under my terms.
At present, I don’t think you should provide power for free. I think you should be paid the wholesale rate, adjusted for any additional costs the utility might incur in taking your power.
All of this winds up being very much a numbers game. “Your terms” are yours, but you have one customer. In that reality, you are a price taker, not a price maker.
It’s only worth wholesale, if it’s available when the utility needs it, not when you feel like providing it.
Randomly available power isn’t worthless, it’s worth is actually negative.
For example, there are times when California utilities actually end up paying surrounding utilities to take their excess power, because wind and solar are producing more then the utilities can use, and it would cost them even more to throttle back the other sources of electrical power.
Professional leftist hippies whine when the money boost pumps fail ? Nothing new under the sun. Green business as usual.
Free isn’t really fair. Charge them the lowest wholesale rate on the system at the time. That’s fair and will cost very little as wholesale rates are low.
Charge who?
I’m not sure this applies to existing installations, anyway. Only ones brought online after the deadline next year.
Going off the grid and not hooking up to “the system” will lead to entrepreneurs coming up with a way for homeowners to use left over energy in some way. On the other hand, just turn off your private source till your batteries can handle more energy. I vote for plain ol’ self sufficiency with sending energy back to “the system” be damned.
This is all fine and good as a sentiment, but when you actually think about doing it and then look at the realities …
Thank goodness – at least this is a start. There must be no follow on subsidy system of any sort and now we need to pull back on the existing subsidy commitments too. This whole solar energy issue has been shown to be a monumental scam.
The only mechanism that could be considered sensible would be for the feedback of domestic solar energy to be treated as a storage system so allowing users to ‘bank electricity’ that they (and only they) can draw on in cooler times.
The panelists should be happy. Actually they would have to pay for the superfluous network grid load.