Why am I still having to pay a Electricity Standing Charge, when I export more than I import.

mmmmikey

davidkerr1956 said:

Out of interest, has CSI_Yorkshire, a Solar installation as the I am amazed at your point:
” I recommend that, should you wish to get involved in similar discussions in the future, you obtain "knowledge of real hard facts" before mistakenly arguing a false point”.
I have quoted hard facts, yours appears to be ill thought out opinion.

@CSI_Yorkshire - if you look at the number of likes you got I think it's pretty clear that you don't really need to respond to this :-:smile:

@davidkerr1956 - nothing wrong with swimming against the tide and always interesting to hear different views and opinions, but it should be pretty clear to you by now that you are not so much "swimming against the tide" as "swimming against the tsunami"! 

If you look at the numerous threads about standing charges on this forum you should quickly see why. There's a large body of opinion that supports lowering standing charges (and a similarly large body against doing that). But nobody I can think of has argued that standing charges should be lowered to provide even greater benefit to solar panel/battery system owners. 

Bottom line is you use the grid and the overwhelming concensus here is that you should expect to have to pay for that benefit.

Scot_39

[Deleted User] said:

This is what is being considered in Australia:

‘Households with solar panels that export power to the grid could be slugged a fee under a proposal by the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC).

The AEMC said the increasing number of households with solar panels were causing "traffic jams" in some areas of the grid. 

It said tariffs would give network operators the option of encouraging people to export energy back into the grid at times it could handle it, while discouraging it at a time when the grid was overwhelmed with supply.

In the proposal, it said solar panel owners would lose some cash on existing returns, but doing nothing would result in blackouts and intermittent blocking of energy exports — ultimately leaving customers worse off.

The AEMC said the scheme would also raise money for network upgrades, instead of going to all consumers.’

Ofgem had this on its radar a couple of years ago.

Sounds sensible.

As above it seems pointless paying for domestic export - "dumping" as another user termed it  - GW combined onto grid - then paying others who are properly regulated not to generate.

EssexHebridean

The obvious answer here is surely once the powerwall arrives, to simply ask for a disconnection and meter removal, and rely on the energy that you generate to supply your needs? Sure, you won't be able to feed back, but it doesn't sound as though that is sitting well with you in any event, and you would still be doing your bit for the green agenda in terms of generating of power rather than taking it from the grid. Once the meter is removed that will of course mean that you no longer have the connection to the infrastructure that the SC pays for, and so thee will be no SC to pay. 

I would also remind you that it is a massive privilege to be in a position to do what you have done - certainly it's a good thing to do, but let's not forget that it does benefit you also, so perhaps should not be seen as quite as altruistic as you are maybe hinting it is? In answer to your original question, do I think that someone using the grid and infrastructure, but with the financial privilege to be able to fit a solar array and a battery should get the use of the infrastructure for free? No, I'm afraid I don't. I'd sooner see those in financial hardship getting a subsidy or complete cancellation of their standing charges, to be honest. 

cloudseeker99

I think many people here are being a little disingenuous. If you all think that the national grid will support everyone having EVs and air source heat pumps to heat their homes, then you need to wake up and smell the roses. This chap, and people like him, have invested a significant amount of their own money to provide their own infrastructure help support the grid, something you all benefit from, particularly at peak times. Yes, it saves them some money but I seriously doubt they will recoup their outlay, possibly ever. I could understand your arguments if we as a nation where totally self sufficient in our power demands from our renewable sources, but we are a country mile away from that point and things are only going to get worse. We should be supporting people, not lambasting them for asking a reasonable question. After all, he will not be paid a daily charge for providing his equipment in support of the national grid.

MeteredOut

Just wait until someone in government/OfGem realises there's an argument that people who use the grid to get paid for their electricity, as well as to consume electricity, could be charged 2 sets of standing charge due to the extra load on the grid...

(although it could also be argued those electrons might only get as far as their neighbour)

dunstonh

 This chap, and people like him, have invested a significant amount of their own money to provide their own infrastructure help support the grid, something you all benefit from, particularly at peak times.

This chap and people like him have required the National Grid to invest further to allow them to do what they do.

We should be supporting people, not lambasting them for asking a reasonable question.

The question wasn't asking for something reasonable.  They were after a freebie at the expense of others.

cloudseeker99

dunstonh said:

 This chap, and people like him, have invested a significant amount of their own money to provide their own infrastructure help support the grid, something you all benefit from, particularly at peak times.

This chap and people like him have required the National Grid to invest further to allow them to do what they do.

While that might be true, the 100%+ markup energy companies put on the electricity they buy and then sell to you and me would more than cover this cost, given that for the average installation that adds up to way more than the standing charge. 

BarelySentientAI

cloudseeker99 said:

dunstonh said:

 This chap, and people like him, have invested a significant amount of their own money to provide their own infrastructure help support the grid, something you all benefit from, particularly at peak times.

This chap and people like him have required the National Grid to invest further to allow them to do what they do.

While that might be true, the 100%+ markup energy companies put on the electricity they buy and then sell to you and me would more than cover this cost, given that for the average installation that adds up to way more than the standing charge. 

It does cover it, by about 3% at price cap rates.  Talking about markup is extremely disingenuous.

This chap's system does not "help support the grid", as the grid has not control over what it does and when.  This chap's system, just like almost everyone's, just takes or gives whatever it happens to need to at the time.

Would you be "supporting the system" if you just rocked up at a petrol station with a can of fuel and insisted they tipped it into their main tank?

Qyburn

MeteredOut said:

... due to the extra load on the grid...

(although it could also be argued those electrons might only get as far as their neighbour)

Although your comment was no doubt tongue in cheek that was exactly how SSEN viewed it around 10 years ago. They only accessed the impact of what they called "embedded" generation in terms of it's actual point of connection. They weren't concerned about effect on their network and worked on the assumption that load would always exceed generation.

Scot_39

Depends whether look at grid or local distrinutiin - but domestic solars growth easily now impacts both in different ways.

Last uk wide estimate i saw c1.3m solar installs by early 2024 - nearly 5% of homes -  no doubt with very localised pockets as it's not a cheap install.

Not sure that load vs local balance will be true in many areas - on a bright sunny summers day say mid afternoon when many houses will be empty /  using little power.

For ex - my demand lows are c20 W midday - c80W when fridge freezer compressor active - 100-150W if have TV on - I dont currently.

One 4kW array on a local house could supply that 200->50->25 times over. In many cases even in town there won't be that many houses on the one phase from a local 230V street level DNO transformer.

However if one person switches on a kettle - the 3kW will absorb most of it - well for a few minutes anyway.

1.3m homes that's getting close to 1 in 20.

Solar installs up over 15% to get to that  c1.3m number in last year (183k new solar installs in 2023 alone according to Energy Savings Trust).

And so yes even in UK manual visits for tap adjustments have been required to cope with impact of those wishing to export their excess rather than store it.

And nationally - at an average install of 3.5-4kWp - that's potentialky 4-5GW - about 20% total average weekend demand let alone just domestic midday in summer.

Less of course if many taking it up also installed / have sufficient battery storage not to export - but that easily doubles cost. 

Like other green initiatives - emissions prioritised and given  political spin and greenwashing by media.
All too often ignoring the negative practical impact at local and national grid level - on distribution and capacity planning - and of course real and significant secondary costs.

Anyone who wants to export (sell for gain - or as read here in past by another "dump it")  excess solar for payment one day but take from the grid a couple of hours later when dark - or when it clouds over - or the next day or week or month etc is just another grid planning problem.

Ultimately requiring duplicated generating capacity - paid to exist - when not needed, so as can still be accessed by them when they do.


For all the emissions benefits, many renewables negative impacts on grid / network stability and associated costs were less important when numbers were small.

That's changed dramatically in last decade - and there are now many grid projects trying to keep pace - to keep the voltage / frequency /  balancing of grid stable.

Domestic generation growth may need even more action at local DNO level.  There's a limit to what you can do with old power transformer stations.

Renewables and their impact are complex. Technically for grid and lower level distribution systems.  Variability (*) in capacity planning.  Green benefit vs cost.  Those who can afford to adopt, others who cannot etc.

But much of the headline pro spin has hidden the inherent costs - or the lows of output reprting the highs or averages.

Read ESO predictions re things like renewables curtailment - current peak £3bn pa by 2030.
Or ESO grid upgrade costs - there  beyond 2030 strategy estimate - £58bn by 2035.
Or last years NG ESO estimated balancing costs of iirc £2.8bn 2023, lot lower than previous year £4.2 bn 


(*) Renewables Variability 
21.8GW  high vs c1.6GW low (or was it 1.3GW)  iirc - last years uk 1/2 hrly wind delivery range - proves it is not a generation source we can truly rely on.
Similarly - solar might generate at often lower than rated nominal kWp -  just 7 hrs a day in UK winter.

UK is still building new conventional (gas and nuclear) plants and a tiny fraction of potential needed storage - but with some projects delayed by years - arguably neither fast enough.

Those who glibly say can build more wind faster - need to address issues
- on lows of output,
- the gross overcapacity to make it comparible to reliably meet demand or cost of backup storage  (and how you fund it)
- grid balancing costs
and in reality even at current build rates let alone accelerated 
- significant grid curtailment costs (unless build local to demand)