Likewise, in markets that are losing retail net metering, it makes no sense to spend $$ on storage in order to make a yet-to-be purchased PV system more attractive. You have to look at both together and separately and compare with all rate schedules that may be available.

Also keep in mind that peak periods under TOU and demand tariffs don’t often align particularly well with PV output. In my experience doing this type of analysis, it usually works out that less than 1/3rd of PV output occurs on-peak.

And finally, any estimate of the relative value of EE vs. PV (such as the “one quarter” statistic you cite) is only useful in the aggregate. For any given home, the cost-value proposition of EE is always continuum — from low-cost high-value measures to high-cost low-value measures, and everything in between. The sweet spot of EE vs PV (and/or storage) is highly dependent upon the specific circumstances for a given home.

A house has only so much area to collect solar so if EE is high then they can store more also.

What then is a winning strategy for EE? Can we sell it to the forward thinking utilities who have not overpaid for obsolete generation infrastructure? Can we get to a point where there is enough solar and storage that utilities simply can no longer be viable?

Witness the changes in the NV Energy billing for solar customers.

NV Energy currently charges all ratepayers, including solar customers, a fixed service fee of $12.75. With the rates approved by the PUC going into effect Friday, solar customers will pay $17.90 starting Jan. 1. By Jan. 1, 2020, that fee will rise to $38.51.

Under a policy known as net metering, NV Energy reimburses solar customers about 11 cents for per kilowatt-hour of excess energy they generate. The value of those credits will slip to about 9 cents Friday and eventually reach 2.6 cents in 2020.
Buffet’s companies have PPA’s with CA at over $.05/kw, but he will be paying rooftop solar producers only $.026….

This shift is already beginning to happen. Regulators, regardless of political stripe, won’t be able to stop this trend. The only question is how it gets addressed.

In the residential sector, infrastructure costs are largely recovered through inflated kWh charges. Generally speaking, there are two pricing strategies that can protect a utility from under-recovery of sunk costs: (a) increase flat rates while reducing kWh charges, or (b) impose time-of-use (TOU) and/or demand (kW) charges.

When a utility shifts from kWh to flat charges, this acts as a incentive to do nothing and flies in the face of the so-called smart grid. A giant step backward on several levels. Dumb.

On the other hand, a shift toward mandatory TOU and/or demand charges depreciates EE, while incentivizing storage and advanced load management technologies. Installing high efficiency equipment, fixing leaky ducts, or adding more insulation only has a marginal impact on energy bills when the bulk of the bill is based on time-of-use or peak demand. That same investment focused on storage or load management tech will always yield greater savings. This is where our industry needs to go. Where we must go. Get ready.

My question is, how does energy conservation play into all this? I believe we can save energy cheaper than we can collect and store it but if we cannot, does that mean the end of our industry?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxryv2XrnqM
interested in youall’s input.

One other item, we now have an option from NVEnergy to choose 50% or 100% (for an added fee) of our power from renewables: