Comment by westurner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by westurner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

With Buy-All Sell-All you buy all you use at retail rates and sell all you produce at wholesale rates. Buy-All Sell-All has a later breakeven point than Net Metering, where you buy what you can't produce at retail and sell back the rest at wholesale or better, which is an indirect subsidy for a resilient power grid with residential renewables with external benefits.

What you describe sounds like Buy-All Sell-All, except you're allowed to use and store what you produce before paying retail rates for electricity purchased from the service provider.

Is it anti-competitive to deny residential renewable energy producers the right to use the clean energy they invested in producing if they want to purchase electricity?

Another exclusive monopoly contract: if you buy water from me, you can't use the water you capture yourself.

Net metering in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering_in_the_United_Sta...

Net metering > "Post-net metering" successor tariffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering#Post-net_metering...

We want there to be renewable residential energy. Subsidizing renewable energy will hasten adoption. We should subsidize residential renewable energy if we want there to be more renewable energy.

If we make the break-even point later in time, residential renewable energy will be less lucrative.

I’m so confused, is there something that prevents the “use what you produce and sell excess at wholesale?” That seems like it would be the sanest policy. If you can’t use your own power then I think getting paid retail rates is the only fair thing since that’s how much the power is worth to you.

That is exactly how it works in Finland.

FWIU, Buy-All Sell-All contracts have a "termination of agreement to provide service clause" if the residential renewables are not directly attached to the grid; it's against their TOS to use your own renewable energy and sell the rest, which is probably monopolistic and anti-competitive.

Is it legal to have a cutover so that it's possible to use one's own renewable energy when the power's out, given an exclusive Buy-All Sell-All agreement?

Perhaps there's an opportunity for a solution here: at the junction of batteries, renewables, and local [government-granted-monopoly with exclusive first-mover rights of way over and under other infrastructure] electrical-utility junction; there could be a controller that knows at least:

- 1a) when the grid is down

- 1b) when the grid wants the customer to slowly increase load e.g. after the power has been out

- 1c) when it's safe to send more electricity to the grid e.g. at retail or wholesale or intraday rates

- 2a) how full are the local batteries

- 2b) the current and projected local load && how much of that can be throttled down

- 2ba) how full and heated the hot water tank(s) are

- 2bb) the current and projected external and internal air temperature and humidity

- 2bba) the current and projected internal air temperature and humidity, per e.g. bath fans and attic fans with or without in-wall-controllers with humidistats

- 2bc) projected electrical needs for cooking, baking, microwaving (typically at 100W*15amps=1500W or more)

- 2c) how many volts at how many amps the local renewables are producing

But IIUC, Buy-All Sell-All service provision agreements threaten termination of service if the customer/competitor does anything but sell all locally produced electricity to the grid by direct connection, so an emergency cut-over that charges your batteries off your solar panels instead of the grid (e.g. when the grid is down) is forbidden.

Thanks! You gave me a whole lot of rabbit hole to head down, so maybe I shouldn't thank you :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com