I think a lot of the issues (VAT, sars, etc) goes away if you simply stick with the current rebate system. No money changes hands. Amounts smaller than R1000 is not paid out. Summer production can be offset against winter consumption.
Hand in hand with this, I expect you will go on a time-of-use tariff as well. It would be unfair to offset cheap summer energy against expensive winter energy. There has to be an upside for the utility too.
Do it right, and the more expensive evening rates wipe out the income made during the day… but nobody cares because the bill is down. You essentially store your energy at Steenbras, and you pay for it by giving them some of that energy.
While they are giving out programmable meters:
They should be forward-thinking and consider “time of use” tariffs and APIs.
The Oz example is an excellent example of what the future can be.
( If they do it right).
The national cost of load-shedding is some stupidly high billion figure per hour per stage.
The utility is burning Diesel and selling a kWh at a loss because of it.
The utility is begging people to use less of their product.
Is it not enough that the customer is relieving the country and the utility’s burden at his own capital expense without them trying to squeeze the customer for a buck?
Sadly not being a Eskom direct customer, with a very backwater municipality this will take a long time to filter down to me, but.
Personally I would be very happy if they simply deducted any surplus from my municipal account until it reaches 0.
If I can use my excess PV to only offset it against my property tax etc I would be more than happy.
I read somewhere (I can’t recall if it was ESKOM documentation or COCTs).
That the rebate wasn’t per property electricity bill but per user. In other words, the rebate on the overproduction on rural property 1 could offset the bill on urban property 2. If both property were owned by the same user.
But in the end, it is still a rebate, you have to pay more to get something back.
It isn’t worth it except probably in rare circumstances.
No, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying keep it exactly as is. I mean, expand it as far as it would go, but keep it a rebate system.
For example, at the moment it is really REALLY difficult to get a zero bill. That is a lot of room right there. You can play with tariffs to make it easier to get a lower (or zero) bill and still keep it such that no money has to be paid out to the consumer, thereby avoiding the nightmare around tax and all that.
Well, maybe that won’t work, but I think an investigation should at least be done.
“SSEG and wheeling customers who want to feed energy into the grid need to have their system approved and have an AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) meter installed by the City. This is a bi-directional meter that allows accurate reporting of the amounts of energy consumed and generated. We know this meter is still too costly for many, and we are working on finding an alternative option of comparable quality and reliability.”
From that article:
“The City also dropped the policy requirement that customers be “net users” of electricity, which previously only allowed municipal bills to be credited for excess power, instead of cash payments.”
So COCT is moving away from a rebate system.
But:
“These customers may now produce as much power as they can from their approved systems and feed it into Cape Town’s grid.”
As far as I know, an approved system for the standard domestic user in COCT is max 3.6kW.
A user with a 3.6kW system is rarely going to be in a position to export very much power after his own needs are met.
This size limit is so conservative that regardless of the purchase price, users won’t have the power to sell.
Again, the OZ experience should guide the COCT regarding the size of the systems. They are on the right track though.
Edit: The norm in OZ is a grid-tied inverter system of 8-10kW with a 5kW export cap. That allows a user the cater to his own needs and still export. ( Oz is 220-240V & 50Hz like ZA)
I crunched some numbers, and that tariff incentive would not be enough to make me want to expand my solar after my own needs were met.
(Even with a free meter).
Sorry COCT, whilst it’s nice to have options, it won’t accomplish what you want at that rate.
That’s because it still doesn’t make economic sense.
If I were the COCT mayor, I would make it really, really worthwhile for a limited 3-5 year period.
Once the capacity is installed, customers won’t uninstall solar because of a reduction in the tariff.
"This was “a new initiative from the board”, discussed with management “to relieve each other” from the challenge of energy experts poking holes into the power utility’s system reports. "
What we need to establish is the centrality of Eskom in Eskom decision-making… Or is Eskom now inheriting decisions taken elsewhere? If that’s the case, what’s the point of having Eskom?
That’s a rather stupid objection. I mean, you may be right that Eskom should do it’s own decision making… but that valdiation at the end, that “what is the point” question… the point of Eskom is to generate and distribute power. Geez isn’t that obvious?
Yes, there is the potential that something underhanded is going on. But on the other hand, a government committee saying that an external watchdog is not required… also pretty suspect.
The sooner SA realises, this is not about solving the energy crises at all but how to insert Letstealy House into the money chain. CancER is bankrupt, needs to get monies to fund the election, ie use taxpayer money (a lot of taxpayers are not members) so taking that money to buy the election is far game.
That’s basically their biggest headache. The bulk of the money in the country comes for people who didn’t vote for the present government. Now the age old adage says that when you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging, but sometimes I think our dear leaders simply get out of the hole, blame someone else for it, and then go dig a new one…
Indeed, and in my case, for example, I didn’t build a system with the idea of feeding-in in mind. This means I don’t have heaps of spare capacity laying around anyways. Maybe 5-10kWh depending on the day, and also only 3 of the 4 seasons. In winter I scrape by. I’m sure that I’m not the only one that specced their system like this.
And I’m most surely not going to run my battery-backup inverter at full tilt all day. I want it to survive as long as possible. Assuming it has some number of kWhs that it can produce in a lifetime, I have the option of reducing my energy bill ar R3.x per kWh, or feed-in at R1. Seems a no brainer to not feed-in.
