I understand theoretically it doesn't matter where power is generated but realistically and practically it matters. It's hard enough to work with one POCO. How do you propose to get POCO's and utility regulators across different states and different grid operators to track and manage NY/CA remote solar for individual homes?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
California Utilities Plan All Out War On Solar, Please Read And Help
- Thread starter gene
- Start date
I understand theoretically it doesn't matter where power is generated but realistically and practically it matters. It's hard enough to work with one POCO. How do you propose to get POCO's and utility regulators across different states and different grid operators to track and manage NY/CA remote solar for individual homes?
Yes, the NEM 2.0 tariff needs to change. The utilities are not proposing changes that will integrate rooftop solar. They consider it a nuisance and competition.
The proper way to reform NEM is to establish a single billing standard for all customers, solar and non-solar. The price schedules for connection and power consumption should be the same. If I use less grid power because I have rooftop solar, I should pay less because I’m less dependent on the grid.
The utility proposal tries to tax solar panels, regardless of how that energy is used by the owner. That is unlike any other product you consume. If I add double pane windows or better insulation or an attic fan to my house, I use less electricity. The utility does not propose to tax those conservation measures. If I add solar and storage I reduce my grid impact, if I use the responsibly, so I should pay less. Their proposal would simply tax my panels by the month.
A proper reform should treat me like any other electricity consumer who imports the amount of electricity I import per month (or day if the want). They could then decide if they want to buy my surplus generation and offer me a rate, which I can accept or reject. They need to harmonize their cost allocation among all customers so all impacts and energy are properly priced.
Merrill
Merrill
Yes. And they have recruited utility unions and so-called advocates for the “poor” to demonize rooftop solar.
It will be hard to get a rational policy in this environment because the utilities have never priced their product to include fixed costs. They rolled everything into their rates. SCE has a fixed connection charge for non-solar customers of $0.99 / month. If you go solar, they want $60-90 / month. No explanation for the difference in treatment.
I'm not sure of your point here. This has nothing to do with the RPS I was talking about. The amounts are also a pittance compared to the amount of storage now going in (and already installed).
Oneand0
Member
Doesn’t surprise me. Human nature is to be greedy. You get power and money hungry organizations that have been feeding you a product, that is now being offered up free! What do you expect? It’s a sick world and this is just a piece of it. I wish I had more sun on my roof, I would stick solar on it and a battery in my home in a heart beat.
In California with PG&E, the generation is 1/3 and distribution (without CPUC fees) is 2/3. The current E-TOU-C breakdown for winter peak is generation = $0.11485 and distribution = $0.17307 which is 60.2% and the off-peak numbers are are $0.10342 and $0.17077 which is 62.3% after removing $0.02548 in fees that go to various CPUC programs.
We need to make this a recall issue. Email Newsom's staff tell them you are now a single issue voter. If he supports ab 1139, recall.
Ed Hart
Member
@Oneand0
Lat, Lon: 39.17, -120.1
Lake Tahoe
4kw system
~6,800kWh/year
PVWatts
Estimates the energy production and cost of energy of grid-connected photovoltaic (PV) energy systems throughout the world. It allows homeowners, small building owners, installers and manufacturers to easily develop estimates of the performance of potential PV installations
the first step is getting a solar survey, still a fed tax credit too!
investigate community solar
cpa
Active Member
@Oneand0
Lat, Lon: 39.17, -120.1
Lake Tahoe
4kw system
~6,800kWh/year
PVWatts
Estimates the energy production and cost of energy of grid-connected photovoltaic (PV) energy systems throughout the world. It allows homeowners, small building owners, installers and manufacturers to easily develop estimates of the performance of potential PV installationspvwatts.nrel.gov
the first step is getting a solar survey, still a fed tax credit too!
investigate community solar
Not disputing your thesis.
However, South Shore and the Lake Tahoe area are not part of PG&E territory. While California's 153,000+mi^2 of land and water is mainly controlled by the three investor-owned utilities, there are scores of smaller cooperatives and irrigation districts that have their tiny islands among the ocean of the big three. Plus, there is LADWP, SMUD, and a handful of suburbs in the LA area that have municipal utilities as well.
Full disclosure: I own a lot of EIX. Yet, I believe that the shareholders should be as much at risk as any other shareholder in any other proprietary entity. But the way the rules work is that the shareholders get a return on their investment via dividends that are almost guaranteed. This is wrong. If management is incompetent or careless it is the shareholders who should suffer with declining market value and dividends.
The utilities start with an expected profit and expected dividend payout. Then they go about attaining that profit through the CPUC by manipulating the various tariffs that go into generating gross income. I do not know of any other industry that backs into their sales prices by starting with their expected profitability.
Perhaps it is time we took a hard look at the public utility model to see if there is a decent 21st Century alternative to the early 20th Century anachronism that is still used.
I don't know if we'll get much help from Newsom. He's on his way out. California has been on a drastic decline and needs some new fresh leadership.
RKCRLR
Active Member
I called my state senator's (Dahle - R) office and asked his position on AB 1139. The person I talked to was new and didn't know his position.
I called my assemblyman's (Bigelow - R) and asked his position. The person I talked to said he has already voted no once and will likely vote no again on the last reading. However, she said the previous voting has been along party lines and will likely pass the assembly and move on to the senate. She said knowing Dahle he will likely vote no also. However, the vote will likely again be along party lines and get passed.
So then it will be up to Newsom.
I called my assemblyman's (Bigelow - R) and asked his position. The person I talked to said he has already voted no once and will likely vote no again on the last reading. However, she said the previous voting has been along party lines and will likely pass the assembly and move on to the senate. She said knowing Dahle he will likely vote no also. However, the vote will likely again be along party lines and get passed.
So then it will be up to Newsom.
RKCRLR
Active Member
I asked this in another thread but didn't get an answer.
How dependent on residential solar is the grid during the afternoon?
If all residential solar customers were to turn off their solar on a particular hot afternoon day during peak demand at the same time, would the grid be able to handle it?
How dependent on residential solar is the grid during the afternoon?
If all residential solar customers were to turn off their solar on a particular hot afternoon day during peak demand at the same time, would the grid be able to handle it?
I don't understand why this would be along party lines. Passing this bill will slow the rate of moving from fossil fuels to renewable sources which is against the primary position of most Democratic politicians. I sent emails to my Assemblymember and Senator who are both Dems, but haven't heard anything back. I guess I need to make that call for more impact.
A news article mentioned "more than a million California homes, schools and businesses have installed solar". If they were all sending back 4kW then they would be 4,000 MW. CAISO is forecasting a peak demand of 24,860 MW today.
Merrill
Merrill
I see you are on ETOUC and have similar solar and Powerwalls, wondering how you have set the powerwall app.
Off topic this thread, but in the afternoon I switch to Cost Savings before Peak starts and then to Balanced to consume 0 kWh and send solar to the grid. When I wake up in the morning I switch to Balanced, so that the PWs aren't used Off-Peak overnight and the solar generation goes to the house then the PWs until the PWs are full then it goes to the grid.
I want to minimize charge/discharge of the PWs for longer life and minimize grid imports.
RKCRLR
Active Member
The state of California has been shoving solar generation down the throats of it's citizens for years now. They've come up with all these plans to encourage people to go solar. Here's the question I'd like to ask those voting for AB 1139:
To those home owners (constituents) that made an investment in solar based on a promise that a set of rules would be in place to protect their ROI, how do you justify reneging on the deal?
To those home owners (constituents) that made an investment in solar based on a promise that a set of rules would be in place to protect their ROI, how do you justify reneging on the deal?
There's about 6.3 GW of residential behind the meter solar and 3.2 GW of non-residential behind the meter solar in California - just shy of 10 GW.
This is in addition to all the utility scale solar in operation, which is at least 12-13 GW.
The article I link to at the bottom probably sums it up why. IMO, utilities have long claimed this, but their claims have always been grossly overstated. I'm not sure why politicians have started listening to them. If this is an issue (and I think there needs to be a real independent study done to validate), there are far better ways to phase in changes to net metering to account for it. Any changes need to be done in a planned manner and gradually. Otherwise the disruptions to business will far outweigh any supposed benefits.
I don't think even the biggest solar proponents can argue that if they are net zero, they really should pay zero dollars for their connection to the utility. It's pretty clear that there should be some cost to connect to the grid and some cost for using the grid as a battery. The real question is what should the cost be, and how should those costs be applied. If there is a fixed cost for the grid connection - then it should apply to all users - not just solar customers.
California's rooftop solar program collides with equity concerns
A pandemic-era backlash against California's yawning wealth gap is taking aim at incentives for rooftop solar panels.
www.politico.com
Similar threads
