The CPUC has a fundamental decision to make here. The grid needs to be decarbonized. Do they want private capital to play a significant role in that decarbonization in a distributed fashion, or do they want to force utility scale solutions on the commercial generation sector? If they let this proceeding go through, private investment in distributed solar generation will be greatly reduced. Then they will have to force PG&E to buy renewable energy in ever increasing percentages.
-
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
Merrill
Merrill
So if this comes to pass how are they going to determine what size solar system you have so the can decide on the additional charge to your monthly bill.
They just look at your PTO records. The equipment is all listed there and they have the database of the ratings of all equipment.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I think a good cut and dry initiative is that energy produced and consumed your side of the meter is yours. Hard stop. No ifs ands or taxes. $1/kWh fee for exporting surplus at noon? Fine. Special $0.40/kWh fee for solar customers that import energy at 8pm. Fine. But energy you produce and consume locally should belong to the producer/consumer with no taxes or fees.
Does your PTO application list your system "size" as the PV + ESS? Or just the PV? I think they'll be charging that "Grid Participation Charge" on the sum total of PV + ESS since the CPUC proposal simply refers to the "system" and not the solar specifically.
I responded to you in the other thread. PG&E leading the joint IOUs had an ex parte communication with the CPUC specifically about why your per kWh approach is untenable. The IOU argument is that you could simply buy batteries and avoid the export at noon or import at 8pm. So you being a rich moneybags wealthy person (in the eyes of the IOU's) would just find a way to pass the grid-fixed-cost buck to the poor folks who couldn't afford the batteries.
PG&E initially wanted to put a meter on your solar generation and charge you a fee for every kWh you produced. But eventually settled on just charging you a fee for the size of your registered "system".
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
That's where the initiative would come in bypassing the CPUC. And it would be interesting to see how they would address a separate off-grid system and how far it would go. If you had solar powered drive way lights would they count them up to charge you $8/kW too? What if you have a cyber truck with a solar tunnel cover? Why would solar thermal be exempt?
Yeah, if this NEM 3.0 thing passes without much modification from the latest proposal, you'll see a lot of new emerging tech that would enable more off-grid electrical applications.
Trying to think of a silver lining in all this, we could see an "off grid kit" at Home Depot in 15 years where a homeowner could slap in a 8 kW modular energy system to power a variable speed heat pump in an off-grid type of setup without tapping into the grid. Lennox is dabbling with this using some "Sunsource" thing on their XC21, but it'll be interesting to see what others come up with.
Merrill
Merrill
The other issue I forgot to post above was that California passed a law that requires all new homes built will require solar, so now they make you put solar on your new home and then penalize you for obeying the law!
It gets worse. If you buy a new home, you do not qualify for the "market transition credit" that would offset a portion of the "grid benefits charge". So, the breakeven return for a new home build that has solar in SCE territory is estimated to be 16 years for this new home buyer.
And this estimate is coming from the highly dubious calculator created by the IOUs. So you know the break-even is going to be more like "never".
A few months ago during the NEM proceeding, the solar companies (eg Sunrun and Sunpower but not Tesla) asked the utilities to provide more transparency in this vaunted ROI calculator that they kept lauding as proof positive that their proposal was not going to harm residential solar installs in California. Those solar-rights groups got nowhere and basically gave up.
The IOU's have too many resources and too much pull with the CPUC. RIP the intrinsic green motives of any new housing start buyer in 2023.
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I'm wondering if my local electric utility will adopt these extreme measures. I live in the Sierras and our power company is Liberty Utilities. I've been happy with them and they have been progressive in encouraging solar and EVs as well as energy conservation.
I believe the current proposal before the CPUC is from the big three utilities. I'm wondering if I will get nailed with this also?
I believe the current proposal before the CPUC is from the big three utilities. I'm wondering if I will get nailed with this also?
Thanks to climate denier/oil baron Warren Buffet, I believe that Nevada went through this exact scenario some 5 years or so back. At first all the solar installer went out of business in Nevada. The some law suits to get back NEM for already existing customers. Nevada simply cancelled NEM all together. Then a ballot initiate that was very expensive put things back to where they were. We are hoping to simply have Newsom nip this in the bud.
The big difference between Nevada and California was that while Nevada lost net metering, they only had a $16/mo. fee. In California it is going to be $8 per KW of solar panels that you have per month. So, a 10 kw system will be $80/month $960/year.
This sums up Nevada fight: Net metering in Nevada - Wikipedia
Last edited:
This was written very recently by co=founder of SunRun
EXCERPT:
Rather than just have consumers share excess battery capacity with the grid, utilities want to bilk Californians for
the cost of duplicative batteries plus a guaranteed after-tax return of more than 10%. Hawaii made this same
policy mistake in 2016, when it effectively banned power export to the grid. After five years of encouraging
Hawaii residents to build self-consuming solar and storage systems, Hawaii reversed course and created
structures to encourage evening exported power and is now relying on distributed solar to replace power from a
coal-fueled plant. We call on Governor Newsom to not doom California to repeat Hawaii’s mistake. The climate
and power crisis is too urgent.
EXCERPT:
Rather than just have consumers share excess battery capacity with the grid, utilities want to bilk Californians for
the cost of duplicative batteries plus a guaranteed after-tax return of more than 10%. Hawaii made this same
policy mistake in 2016, when it effectively banned power export to the grid. After five years of encouraging
Hawaii residents to build self-consuming solar and storage systems, Hawaii reversed course and created
structures to encourage evening exported power and is now relying on distributed solar to replace power from a
coal-fueled plant. We call on Governor Newsom to not doom California to repeat Hawaii’s mistake. The climate
and power crisis is too urgent.
This is what I have been saying from the article
No rational customer installing a solar and storage system would take service under the
proposed rate structure because it significantly reduces compensation for exported electricity and imposes high
monthly fees. A rational customer will instead elect to avoid the draconian fees in this rate tariff by choosing a
non-exporting rate tariff and self-consuming their solar-generated power from their batteries overnight and into
the morning, instead of sharing it with the grid in the evening when it’s most needed. Other customers may not
interconnect their solar and storage systems at all, operating their homes either from solar+storage or from the
grid, but never both simultaneously. More may go off-grid entirely.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
The retroactive proposal should be challenged in court... the CA utilities should not be allowed to move the goalposts on existing PV customers.
Today, the CPUC released their proposed decision on net metering, and it appears that the CPUC has sided with the utilities.
The bottom line: If the proposed decision is approved by the CPUC, it will make solar and batteries too expensive for middle and working class people. The CPUC is scheduled to make a final decision on January 27th. The decision would take effect four months after the vote (May 28th).
This, even after hearing from 120,000 members of the public and over 600 nonprofit organizations, community leaders, affordable housing advocates, faith leaders, elected officials, schools and municipalities.
More analysis to come shortly, but the topline details of the CPUC's proposed decision are as follows:
1) Highest solar penalty fee in the U.S.
If you put solar panels on your rooftop, you will be charged on average $57 / month on average.
The only other utilities that charge solar penalty fees this high are in Wyoming and Alabama.
- PG&E customers: $48 / month
- SCE customers: $60 / month
- SDG&E customers: $64 / month
2) Massive cut to the credit solar users receive for the extra energy they produce for the community.
Currently, solar users are credited on average twenty-five cents per kilowatt hour for their excess energy. The proposed decision slashes the credit to about five cents per kilowatt hour. This cut would happen right away, with no transition period.
3) These changes will be retroactive on existing solar users.
The current 20-year protection for solar users on "NEM1" and "NEM2" will be reduced to 15 years.
The bottom line: Most middle and working class people will not install solar if these changes go into effect. That would cause the rooftop solar market to significantly contract, putting tens of thousands of jobs on the line.
The window-dressing in the proposal
As expected, the CPUC included items intended to make it seem like they are helping more working class people afford solar. For example, they exempt some low-income people from the solar penalty fee, and also offer a temporary subsidy for ten years (unless you happen to live in SDG&E territory).
These items are window-dressing. The CPUC's "incentive" would only partially offset the other changes, making it on the whole worse for working communities than the status quo.
Groups like CALSSA and Protect Our Communities Foundation and Vote Solar have already laid out how to actually increase solar access in working class communities. The CPUC chose to ignore those substantive proposals.
What we need to do next
The top thing is to flood Governor Newsom's office with calls. Like hundreds every day. His number is 916-445-2841.
A sample message could be:
"My name is ___. I live in ____. I am strongly opposed to the rooftop solar proposal released by your Public Utilities Commission. California should not charge people penalty fees for putting solar panels on their rooftop! If you are serious about helping people control their energy bills, avoid blackouts and fight climate change, you need to encourage MORE people to install rooftop solar. Governor Newsom, this is on you. We are watching what you do next. "
More analysis will come tomorrow, along with more resources to mobilize and take action.
What to expect from the campaign
The fight has now truly begun. For inspiration, below is a photo from our delivery event last Wednesday and some recent editorials to remind you that the facts and the people are on our side.
Sacramento Bee: "Everything about this cynical, corporate-driven argument stinks"
The Sacramento Bee editorial board:
"The push for rooftop solar reforms has nothing to do with ideology or classism or systemic inequities. It is about companies trying to manipulate the public into believing that democratized clean energy production is bad for the state. The CPUC should not once again bail out corporations like PG&E, which has routinely scorched olive branches it never deserved. Why would California give it another?"
LA Times: "So it’s a bit of a head scratcher why Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration is preparing to make it harder for Californians to go solar."
Link to editorial
SF Chronicle: "If California is worried about energy prices, take on PG&E before gouging rooftop solar"
Link to editorial
Thank you so much for all you do to make the world a better place for everyone!
-- Dave Rosenfeld, Save California Solar campaign
This thread will also be interesting to the discussion here: CPUC Nem 3.0 discussion as it relates to Energy Products
The question is, would we be able to have a non exporting tariff? I am thinking, no NEM is better then NEM3. The monthly fee would pretty much offset any savings with exporting. I would have to do the math, but simply giving us an option of no exporting, or simply not be paid for the export if you just want to donate whatever you have left over. I already go to great lengths to use most my generated energy when the sun is up. Charge the car, laundry, dishes, pool pumps are pretty much only running when we have excess production. I am willing to bet, with no NEM, I could keep my bill below the cost of the per kw pricing.
Ed Hart
Member
I think you have said that correctly, Miimura. Of late, I have been proposing a way for private capital to play a role in a utility-scale solution that is meant to assure the fullest utilization of solar power in the deserts of the US Southwest. What I have labeled Remote Home Solar would put the homeowners panels in the desert, with batteries at the home. With the Duck Curve and grid loading in mind, the batteries would be controlled by the utility on a use program agreed to with the homeowner. Here's a FAKE Tesla offering sheet to show what the customer argument might look like:
Attachments
Here's the crazy thing - these fixed fees give the real possibility of a solar system losing money.
I shudder to think of how many people signed solar leases where they agreed to pay for the energy a solar system produces + some annual adder for 25 years - and now 15 years into their contract, it's quite possible they are in a situation where having solar no longer saves them money, but costs them money. People affected by this are very likely to be people who are least able to afford any increase in monthly costs.
Another example - a 5 kW solar system will incur a monthly $40 connection fee or $480 / year. In California, a well designed system will generate around 1500 kWh / year per kW of solar - so a 5 kW system will generate around 7500 kWh / year.
Let's say that your house doesn't use any energy while the sun is out and you export all the solar energy - at $0.05 / kWh, you will only generate $375 worth of energy - you will pay $105 MORE than if you didn't have any solar at all. Extreme example - but not necessarily all that crazy.
Another example - let's say your house uses 500W on average while the sun is out and you use 4380 kWh / year because of that and export the rest - 3120 kWh. The retail value of the energy you used directly is $0.25 / kWh or $1095 - the other 3120 kWh is worth $156 so you end up saving about $1251 / yr.
To get to a claimed 10 year break-even, that solar system can only cost $12,510. That's a system cost of about $2.50 / Watt. Besides Tesla - who else does that? Is that usage example typical? To get a 7-year payback - the system can only cost $8,757 - A Tesla system after the current federal tax incentive can get around there - but can anyone else?
If you add batteries - that doubles the cost of the system - but in Tesla's case you can only shift up to 13 kWh / day at a value of perhaps $0.20 / kWh. Over 10 years that's only $9,490 worth of time shifting assuming you can completely charge / discharge the battery every day and that you still have 13 kWh of capacity after 10 years. That is still a long ways from having a reasonable break-even point.
All that said - the biggest issue with these changes is the light switch they're turning off in a very short period of time. This is the type of that that needs to be scaled in over a 5 year time period - not months.
I shudder to think of how many people signed solar leases where they agreed to pay for the energy a solar system produces + some annual adder for 25 years - and now 15 years into their contract, it's quite possible they are in a situation where having solar no longer saves them money, but costs them money. People affected by this are very likely to be people who are least able to afford any increase in monthly costs.
Another example - a 5 kW solar system will incur a monthly $40 connection fee or $480 / year. In California, a well designed system will generate around 1500 kWh / year per kW of solar - so a 5 kW system will generate around 7500 kWh / year.
Let's say that your house doesn't use any energy while the sun is out and you export all the solar energy - at $0.05 / kWh, you will only generate $375 worth of energy - you will pay $105 MORE than if you didn't have any solar at all. Extreme example - but not necessarily all that crazy.
Another example - let's say your house uses 500W on average while the sun is out and you use 4380 kWh / year because of that and export the rest - 3120 kWh. The retail value of the energy you used directly is $0.25 / kWh or $1095 - the other 3120 kWh is worth $156 so you end up saving about $1251 / yr.
To get to a claimed 10 year break-even, that solar system can only cost $12,510. That's a system cost of about $2.50 / Watt. Besides Tesla - who else does that? Is that usage example typical? To get a 7-year payback - the system can only cost $8,757 - A Tesla system after the current federal tax incentive can get around there - but can anyone else?
If you add batteries - that doubles the cost of the system - but in Tesla's case you can only shift up to 13 kWh / day at a value of perhaps $0.20 / kWh. Over 10 years that's only $9,490 worth of time shifting assuming you can completely charge / discharge the battery every day and that you still have 13 kWh of capacity after 10 years. That is still a long ways from having a reasonable break-even point.
All that said - the biggest issue with these changes is the light switch they're turning off in a very short period of time. This is the type of that that needs to be scaled in over a 5 year time period - not months.
Similar threads
