California Renewable Energy Legislation / Progress

[SageBrush]

I hope that more people come to recognize that inverter saturation is a good thing

I've been amazed how fast inverter costs are dropping, in particular the marginal cost difference between a 3 kW and 5 kW inverter.
E.g., a 5 kW SMA at renvu.com is $80 more than the 3.8 kW model. That works out to 4.67 cents a watt after tax credit. I think about it this way: If a 5 kW PV system attached to a 3.8 kW inverter costs $10,000 after tax credits, the same PV attached to a 5 kW inverter would cost $10,056 -- 0.56% more money. If the clipping is more than 0.56% of generation the choice was probably poor.

I'm also inclined to think that an inverter will have better reliability if run under-spec.

This notion of saturating the inverter as a cost optimization strategy for the entire system is mostly obsolete. It still has merit when the utility is capping system size by the inverter or AC generation.

 

[mspohr]

I've been amazed how fast inverter costs are dropping, in particular the marginal cost difference between a 3 kW and 5 kW inverter.
E.g., a 5 kW SMA at renvu.com is $80 more than the 3.8 kW model. That works out to 4.67 cents a watt after tax credit. I think about it this way: If a 5 kW PV system attached to a 3.8 kW inverter costs $10,000 after tax credits, the same PV attached to a 5 kW inverter would cost $10,056 -- 0.56% more money. If the clipping is more than 0.56% of generation the choice was probably poor.

I'm also inclined to think that an inverter will have better reliability if run under-spec.

This notion of saturating the inverter as a cost optimization strategy for the entire system is mostly obsolete. It still has merit when the utility is capping system size by the inverter or AC generation.

In addition, solar panels keep getting cheaper. The only real limit to system size is now space on the roof. It makes sense to install non optimal configurations since the cost is so low.

 

[SageBrush]

In addition, solar panels keep getting cheaper. The only real limit to system size is now space on the roof. It makes sense to install non optimal configurations since the cost is so low.

Yep. In the USA fixed costs and soft costs drive the decisions.

The other way to parse @nwdiver 's panel upgrade story is that he only had enough inverter 'space' for another ~ kW of clipped panels. If that had been a 5 kW inverter, he might have been able to offer up to ~ 6 kW of PV total and still avoid clipping

In general, 'future proofing' PV is not a smart move because of price drops but the inverter stands out as unusual for now.

 

[mspohr]

Yep. In the USA fixed costs and soft costs drive the decisions.

The other way to parse @nwdiver 's panel upgrade story is that he only had enough inverter 'space' for another ~ kW of clipped panels. If that had been a 5 kW inverter, he might have been able to offer up to ~ 6 kW of PV total and still avoid clipping

In general, 'future proofing' PV is not a smart move because of price drops but the inverter stands out as unusual for now.

I found the same thing last year. The 5 kW SMA inverter was only $100 more than the 3.8 kW. I bought the 5 kW and have space for more panels

 

[nwdiver]

I'm also inclined to think that an inverter will have better reliability if run under-spec.

This notion of saturating the inverter as a cost optimization strategy for the entire system is mostly obsolete. It still has merit when the utility is capping system size by the inverter or AC generation.

It's unlikely that oversizing an inverter decreases reliability, ambient temperature is going to have a much more significant influence on life span.

If I was designing this system from scratch I would likely choose a 5kW inverter over a 3.8. But that benefit is mostly due to net metering. PV Watts predicts a loss of 256 kWh/yr due to saturation. A 5kW inverter is ~$70 more than a 3.8kW inverter. At full retail that's a ~2.7 year payback... well worth it. But the average ACTUAL value of surplus generation is currently ~$0.024/kWh and that value will drop as the disparity increases. So as net metering phases out the payback period would increase to ~11 years and that doesn't take into account panel degradation.

 

[SageBrush]

It's unlikely that oversizing an inverter decreases reliability, ambient temperature is going to have a much more significant influence on life span.

If I was designing this system from scratch I would likely choose a 5kW inverter over a 3.8. But that benefit is mostly due to net metering. PV Watts predicts a loss of 256 kWh/yr due to saturation. A 5kW inverter is ~$70 more than a 3.8kW inverter. At full retail that's a ~2.7 year payback... well worth it. But the average ACTUAL value of surplus generation is currently ~$0.024/kWh and that value will drop as the disparity increases. So as net metering phases out the payback period would increase to ~11 years and that doesn't take into account panel degradation.

You have added these IFs to the story:
1. Excess generation
2. Horrible renumeration
3. No tax credit

... and it STILL is reasonable to buy the bigger inverter.

These stories mostly add up to one conclusion: PV+EV is a fantastic antidote for a miserable utility.

 

[RubberToe]

Not necessarily renewable legislation or progress, but when California and the Automakers get together to agree on stricter rules for emissions while the Federal Government is pushing for easing rules and more pollution, gotta point it out:

Automakers, Rejecting Trump Pollution Rule, Strike a Deal With California

Go ahead Mr. President, loosen the emission rules. No impact since the car makers have already voluntarily agreed to follow California's rules, and the entire country will benefit because of it.

RT

 

[SageBrush]

Not necessarily renewable legislation or progress, but when California and the Automakers get together to agree on stricter rules for emissions while the Federal Government is pushing for easing rules and more pollution, gotta point it out:

Automakers, Rejecting Trump Pollution Rule, Strike a Deal With California

Go ahead Mr. President, loosen the emission rules. No impact since the car makers have already voluntarily agreed to follow California's rules, and the entire country will benefit because of it.

RT

It is interesting. Toyota and GM were not signatories, among others.

 

[Ampster]

It is interesting. Toyota and GM were not signatories, among others.

Yes, not yet. Apparently the four approached California to do a deal. They purposely kept the group small.

 

[mspohr]

US gas utility funds 'front' consumer group to fight natural gas bans

America’s largest gas utility is trying to stymie efforts to limit the use of natural gas in California beyond usual corporate lobbying efforts, going so far as to establish and fund a consumer group that pushes for “balanced energy solutions”.

 

[SageBrush]

Yes, not yet. Apparently the four approached California to do a deal. They purposely kept the group small.

The really interesting participant is Ford. Otherwise this breaks down by reliance on trucks for company profits.

 

[Ampster]

America’s largest gas utility is trying to stymie efforts to limit the use of natural gas in California......

Should be interesting to see how this rolls out. PG&E is in Bankruptcy and some theories of their plans suggest they might sell off their gas business.

 

[RubberToe]

Should be interesting to see how this rolls out. PG&E is in Bankruptcy and some theories of their plans suggest they might sell off their gas business.

Could be some smart cookies see the writing on the wall for natural gas. With Bloomberg determined to get us Beyond Carbon, maybe the coal bankruptcy wave turns into the gas bankruptcy wave.

Along similar lines, Berkeley becomes the first California city to ban the installation of gas lines into new buildings:

Berkeley first city in California to ban natural gas in new buildings

I would expect other California cities to follow suit.

I considered getting a bumper sticker for my Model 3 that says: "Electrify Everything". But I didn't want to risk my car getting keyed by someone or possibly getting thrown in jail for such a radical idea.

RT

 

[KSilver2000]

Automakers, Rejecting Trump Pollution Rule, Strike a Deal With California

Go ahead Mr. President, loosen the emission rules. No impact since the car makers have already voluntarily agreed to follow California's rules, and the entire country will benefit because of it.

RT

Im glad this agreement was made.
But, you can’t say it had “no” impact. The effect was a reduction in improvement from 5% to 3.7%.
Maybe he knew a complete delay was not impossible and just targeted negotiating a lesser amount. He essentially gave them a couple more years.
Still better than nothing, though.

 

[miimura]

If California wants to do away with natural gas in new construction, they need to revamp Title 24. I had a house built in 2012 and I wanted to install solar thermal water heating with electric boosting in the winter. My Title 24 consultant said it would kill my compliance score and I would have to do other more expensive things to make up for it. So, I just installed a 97% efficient condensing tankless gas water heater. It works really well, but at the time they were discouraging high draw electric appliances. Anyone up to date on Title 24?

 

[Ampster]

Anyone up to date on Title 24?

No but I did hear the natural gas lobby was effective at crippling Title 24 and possibly the new 2030 solar roof legislation.
I have a lot of solar and replaced my gas water heater with a HPWH. My long term goal is to eliminate gas altogether but my furnace is less than 10 years old. My CCA, Sonoma Clean Power offers incentives to put in induction cook tops.

 

[ohmman]

No but I did hear the natural gas lobby was effective at crippling Title 24 and possibly the new 2030 solar roof legislation.
I have a lot of solar and replaced my gas water heater with a HPWH. My long term goal is to eliminate gas altogether but my furnace is less than 10 years old. My CCA, Sonoma Clean Power offers incentives to put in induction cook tops.

I need to change to SCP, and now is a good time as I just passed true-up. I am also transitioning completely away from gas and have plans to go with mini-splits to replace my old furnace, but I need to make sure there's capacity on my panel. Induction cooktop as well, though that's a minor use of gas compared to the furnace.

 

[Ampster]

I need to change to SCP, and now is a good time as I just passed true-up.

Yes it is easy to Opt In. I have two true up balances but the SCP one pays me cash at the retail value accrued on my statement. The acrual includes a $0.01 premium for generation. I also got a free EVSE and a $5 a month credit for letting them turn it off when the grid is stressed. Since I charge from 11PM to 7AM I don't think I will ever have my charging turned off.

 

[RubberToe]

Thought I would provide an update since the July SPV numbers hit an all time high. The most interesting chart though is the one that shows the total electric power year over year figures. Here it is:

ISO is delivering less power over time. I'm pretty sure this is the result of residential SPV reducing the amount of power needing to be procured. Where this really ends up showing up is if you look at the maximum total power required on any day in a given month. This is essentially the maximum system load, though hourly load might tell a bit different story. The lower that number gets over time, the easier it is for the ISO to be able to provide that much peak power. Also, the gas peaker plants that are typically used to supply it won't be fired up as much when the peak is lower.

I don't have a chart for this yet, but here is some of the raw data for June and July the last few years:

June (16-17-18-19) daily maximum (GWh) : 832, 836, 712, 793
July (16-17-18-19) daily maximum (GWh) : 877, 851, 876, 817

Of course, a lot of this is the result of "what is the hottest day of the month". But as battery storage gets added at the residential level, it will tend to decrease total power generation required. Not sure if ISO counts delivered battery power from utility scale batteries in their "total power" numbers or not.

Here is the normalized curve for all production:

You can see that we slipped below the 33% line after being above it for a bit. And here is a bit of good news from the YOY SPV generation chart:

After quite a few months of total YOY SPV increases trending down, we finally have a big YOY increase. It could have just been a cloudy July 2018, new facilities coming online, or some combination.

I think I'm going to become a big fan of the shrinking daily maximum total power number...

RT

 

[Ampster]

What does that mean for the revenue stream of the IOUs? Are we going to see more fixed charges to make up the difference?