Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumAustin Energy’s Value of Solar Tariff: Could It Work Anywhere Else?
Austins solar policy framework may just be too weird to duplicate.
ANNIE LAPPÉ, SOLAR POLICY DIRECTOR AT VOTE SOLAR: MARCH 8, 2013
Last fall, Austin Energy become the first utility in the U.S. to offer a Value of Solar Tariff (VOST) to its residential electricity customers.
The VOST rate is presented as an alternative to net metering, the bill credit mechanism that has driven most customer adoption of solar in the U.S. today. Some utilities elsewhere in the country are looking to ditch net metering and jump on the VOST bandwagon. But will that be a good tradeoff for current and future solar customers?
...Heres how the Austin VOST works: When a residential customer, lets call her Sally, goes solar in Austin Energys service area, she is automatically signed up for the VOST. Sally continues to pay a monthly energy bill based on how many kilowatt-hours of electricity she and her family consume. However, now that she has a solar energy system, she is also given a credit for each and every kilowatt-hour her system generates. That credit is subtracted off Sallys total monthly electricity bill. According to Austin Energy, the VOST rate is set up to more fairly reward solar system operators for the energy they produce. A VOST may soon be developed for commercial customers as well.
The VOST credit applied to a customers monthly electric bill is calculated using a value of solar algorithm originally developed by Clean Power Research in 2006. This algorithm is updated annually, and it currently accounts for the following benefits of distributed solar:
- Avoided fuel costs, which is valued at the marginal costs of the displaced energy
- Avoided capital cost of installing new power generation due to the added capacity of the solar PV system
- Avoided transmission and distribution expenses
- Line loss savings
- Fuel price hedge value
- Environmental benefits
If this list looks familiar...
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/austin-energys-value-of-solar-tariff-could-it-work-anywhere-else?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=headline&utm_campaign=GTMDaily
msongs
(67,401 posts)corporations want to control solar to their advantage instead of having to buy back excess solar electricity from rooftop system owners. rooftop solar threatens to take away corporate power. well screw the shareholders. it is our sun, not theirs
OnlinePoker
(5,719 posts)I know I can't afford it, and where I live (Canada's west coast) the systems would never payback what it costs to install them. Don't say "the taxpayer", because that means me and everyone like me who can't afford these systems in the first place would end up subsidizing yours. That's completely regressive taxation. Who do you think produces your solar panels if not for corporations (primarily outsourced to China)? Who installs them? Corporations (albeit normally local, smaller corporations). Speaking of taxation, I can see the government looking at your electricity savings from solar as income and starting to tax it in the future (especially if your system was bought using government grants). For instance, if you were paying $1200 a year pre-solar, and only $200 a year post-solar, they would consider the $1000 as income for tax purposes. I don't know if it's happened yet, but I'm sure someone will propose it if everybody has solar on their roofs.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The price trend for renewables is steadily down, and in many cases they are already the least cost option. Those instances are expanding and as fossil/nuclear market share is lost to that expansion it pushes the wholesale cost of the fossil/nuclear generation higher - expanding still further the opportunity for renewables.
The money now going to fossil/nuclear generation will, by nature, be channelled into the newer technology.
OnlinePoker
(5,719 posts)The poster I was responding to talks about solar on every house. I can't afford it and probably never will and taking my taxes to subsidize someone who can just means they get a benefit I don't at my expense (since I also have to continue paying for utility electricity whereas they won't). This is the epitome of a regressive tax.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)somebody, please.
post the prices.
TIA