California Utilities Plan All Out War On Solar, Please Read And Help

[mspohr]

Is the California Coalition Fighting Subsidies For Rooftop Solar a Fake Grassroots Group? - Inside Climate News

In the fight over California’s rooftop solar policy, a coalition that claims to represent low-income, senior and environmental leaders is running ads warning about a cost shift that forces consumers to subsidize solar for people who live in mansions. This message, by Affordable Clean Energy for...

insideclimatenews.org

But Affordable Clean Energy for All is not a grassroots movement. It is a public relations campaign sponsored by big utility companies that stand to benefit from policies that hurt rooftop solar. Many of the 100-plus groups that make up the coalition have received charitable donations or other financial support from the utilities. Few of them wanted to talk about the campaign when contacted by Inside Climate News.

 

[gene]

CPUC gets more of an earful this week​

Net metering was not on yesterday's CPUC agenda, but 63 amazing community leaders still showed up to give the CPUC an earful about what they need to do. Meanwhile IBEW47 showed up and made the most of 14 comments in favor of the proposal. There was also one social justice and one or two business groups in favor.
Notable statements include:

• Esperanza Vielma, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water: "I am the daughter of a Laborers' International Union member. I’m sure he would’ve been in support of rooftop solar and getting green jobs for our youth going forward. We want to save rooftop solar for environmental justice communities. We oppose NEM 3.0."
• Damon Connolly, Marin County Supervisor: “We need to ensure solar becomes more affordable for low- and middle-income families, not less.”
• Chance Cutrano, Vice Mayor of Fairfax: "It’s critical that low- and middle-income families are not discouraged from enrolling in NEM programs."
• Solar worker Helen Couter Rodriguez: "I work as a manager in a small solar and battery energy firm…I’ve been doing this work since 2014, and this is my second career as a mom returning to the workforce. I’m a Latina and am proud to do the work that I do. This is the fastest-growing industry– employer of women in California and the United States. Please save NEM 2.0 and take out the aggressive charges that you have in the NEM 3.0 proposal."

When an article begins with: "In 1696, a British government desperate for revenue imposed a tax on windows…"​

…you know something unique is happening. Give this 2 minute KQED op/ed a listen and then amplify it

Full page ad in SF Chronicle from environmental groups calls on Gov. Newsom to lead​

Here's a high resolution copy of the ad.

Two articles that take on the utilities' cost shift argument in similar and powerful ways.

1. The first is by People Power Solar Cooperative leader Crystal Huang, and also includes links to additional resources you and others can use to combat the misinformation.
2. The second is by Coalition for Environmental Equity and Economics through their letter to NRDC asking them to stop their attack on rooftop solar.

Both pieces point out that the "cost shift" is premised on planning methods that put the utilities' monopoly business model at the center and bend the public's needs around it. The way it should work, they argue, is to put people's needs at the center, and bend the utilities' business model around the needs of the people.

These can be good pieces to share if people have questions about the ads being run by the utilities.

Federal court rules that Arizona utility may run afoul of anti-trust laws by discriminating against solar users​

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that utility attacks on solar can be liable under antitrust law. This Arizona case is a powerful tool in the fight to stop the utility monopoly from squashing people from making their own energy from the sun.
While the legal issues around the Arizona case are different than what we're facing in California, the court case should nonetheless send a strong warning to Governor Newsom and the CPUC to not enact an anti-competitive net metering decision that could open the door to antitrust liability. More reading. Shout to Center for Biological Diversity for spearheading this lawsuit.

Rooftop solar and batteries could have saved San Diego ratepayers $3 billion and prevented blackouts​

Protect Our Communities Foundation's Bill Powers was on CBS 8 local news explaining how SDG&E's $3 billion powerline project is a boondoggle that is driving up energy bills while doing little to prevent blackouts.
Bill points out that the better solution would have been to outfit East County residents with solar and batteries, which would have been cheaper and safer. https://bit.ly/3oLwFeT

New video ad: "There's a clean energy revolution going on in California. And it's on our rooftops." Watch and amplify it: https://bit.ly/3Buinol​

We need to keep the pressure on the Gov. IF you have time to make a call today or next week here are the details
The Gov still hasn't taken a stand and we need to keep pushing. His # is 916-445-2841. Sample script: "My name is __ and I live in __. Why has Gov. Newsom not taken a stand against the Solar Tax yet? We should make rooftop solar more affordable, not less."

Check out www.solarrights.org for other actions you can take. Just scroll halfway down the homepage. Thank you!

Thank you all! Have a great weekend!
--
Lee Miller
Solar Rights Alliance

 

[1100MCM]

I don't get why single family home owners just don't buy a few more powerwalls and cut the cord. Anyway, how do the municipal owned utilities feel? Like the various irrigation districts, eastside, trinity, smud, etc.

The payback is not there for owning a lot of storage which is what you would need to “cut the cord”

The irrigation districts are not that fond of home solar either but at least, while not as great as NEM 1.0, the charges (at least for TID) are more reasonable than this highway robbery for IOUs: about $2/kW max demand charges per month for grid use, and $0.10/kWh off peak and $0.14/kWh on peak during summer. The winter time works to $1.75/kW max demand charge and $0.07/kWh for off peak and about $0.10/kWh for on peak. If you generate excess they buy back at wholesale rates which is about $0/kWh during the spring when there’s too much solar and $0.10-0.30/kWh during the hot summer months when power gets expensive.

I used to balk at these prices but now I’m thankful they’re actually reasonable and cheap compared to the IOUs.

Schedule dg 2015

Issuu is a digital publishing platform that makes it simple to publish magazines, catalogs, newspapers, books, and more online. Easily share your publications and get them in front of Issuu’s millions of monthly readers. Title: Schedule dg 2015, Author: Turlock Irrigation District, Length: 2...

issuu.com

 

[mspohr]

Coalition received $1.7 million from three California utilities to push NEM 3.0, a rooftop solar ‘killer’

The Affordable Clean Energy for All coalition received payments from PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E to "stop the cost shift" and support the proposed (and since postponed) Net Energy Metering 3.0 decision.

pv-magazine-usa.com

Three investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Electric (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) contributed a combined $1.7 million in 2020 to the Affordable Clean Energy for All coalition, reports Yahoo Finance. The group was focused on cutting the value of rooftop solar by dramatically cutting payments for excess solar energy generation, and adding a fixed $8/kW fee per month, a cost of $64 a month to a typical 8kW system owne

 

[FlatSix911]

The rate increases are just beginning... here is another proposed $13.5B in spending to be passed onto consumers.

PG&E plan to bury power lines gets price tag; who will foot the bill?

It’s not yet clear how much of the cost will be shouldered by ratepayers.

www.mercurynews.com

"The company announced to stockholders that it plans to bury 3,600 miles of high-risk power lines by the end of 2026 at a cost of $9 billion to $13.5 billion, based on an estimate of $2.5 million to $3.75 million per mile. Last summer, the utility estimated a “starting point” of $15-20 billion for 10,000 miles of lines in high-risk areas.

Although the company did not address the impact of the project on future electric rates, it’s hard to believe such a project could be paid for without ratepayers’ bills significantly increasing, said Mark Toney, executive director with The Utility Reform Network. “We’re reaching a crisis where they’re going to break the piggybank,” Toney said."

 

[mspohr]

The rate increases are just beginning... here is another proposed $13.5B in spending to be passed onto consumers.

PG&E plan to bury power lines gets price tag; who will foot the bill?

It’s not yet clear how much of the cost will be shouldered by ratepayers.

www.mercurynews.com

"The company announced to stockholders that it plans to bury 3,600 miles of high-risk power lines by the end of 2026 at a cost of $9 billion to $13.5 billion, based on an estimate of $2.5 million to $3.75 million per mile. Last summer, the utility estimated a “starting point” of $15-20 billion for 10,000 miles of lines in high-risk areas.

Although the company did not address the impact of the project on future electric rates, it’s hard to believe such a project could be paid for without ratepayers’ bills significantly increasing, said Mark Toney, executive director with The Utility Reform Network. “We’re reaching a crisis where they’re going to break the piggybank,” Toney said."

You wouldn't expect them to pay for this out of their excessive profits and bonuses.
Of course you will pay... every year... forever.

 

[Big Dog]

Coalition received $1.7 million from three California utilities to push NEM 3.0, a rooftop solar ‘killer’

The Affordable Clean Energy for All coalition received payments from PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E to "stop the cost shift" and support the proposed (and since postponed) Net Energy Metering 3.0 decision.

pv-magazine-usa.com

Three investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Electric (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) contributed a combined $1.7 million in 2020 to the Affordable Clean Energy for All coalition, reports Yahoo Finance. The group was focused on cutting the value of rooftop solar by dramatically cutting payments for excess solar energy generation, and adding a fixed $8/kW fee per month, a cost of $64 a month to a typical 8kW system owne

That's not accurate. There is nothing on the Affordable Clean Energy website that requests/supports such numbers. Their advocacy appears to be pretty generic: everyone should pay their 'fair share'. But yes, paying fair share would definitely result in 'cutting the value of rooftop solar'.

Home - Fix The Cost Shift

California’s rooftop solar program is outdated, causing higher bills for millions of customers—including those least able to pay. Lack of progress on reform is costing Californians without solar $12 million more a day in higher electricity costs, or more than $2 billion so far this year. That...

fixthecostshift.com

 

[mspohr]

That's not accurate. There is nothing on the Affordable Clean Energy website that requests/supports such numbers. Their advocacy appears to be pretty generic: everyone should pay their 'fair share'. But yes, paying fair share would definitely result in 'cutting the value of rooftop solar'.

Home - Fix The Cost Shift

California’s rooftop solar program is outdated, causing higher bills for millions of customers—including those least able to pay. Lack of progress on reform is costing Californians without solar $12 million more a day in higher electricity costs, or more than $2 billion so far this year. That...

fixthecostshift.com

Fair Share?
This issue has been extensively researched and discussed. The utilities think that it's "unfair" for people to generate their own electricity which reduces their profits. They are funding astroturf groups to spread the lie that poor people pay for rich people's solar.

 

[Merrill]

No matter what you call this that the utilities are promoting it is just a profit grab. I received an email back from Governor Newsom and it basically said nothing, just dribble.

 

[mspohr]

No matter what you call this that the utilities are promoting it is just a profit grab. I received an email back from Governor Newsom and it basically said nothing, just dribble.

The governor has been bought and paid for by the utilities.
He will offer nothing but dribble.

 

[mspohr]

Energy Institute at Haas: Everyone Should Pay a “Solar Tax” – Energy Institute Blog. Everyone Should Pay a “Solar Tax”

Everyone Should Pay a “Solar Tax”

Monthly connection fees are good for the climate. Regular readers of this blog are well aware that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) published a proposed decision on reforming net …

energyathaas.wordpress.com

The solution, which makes too much sense to ever be widely adopted in California, is to make NEM irrelevant. We have spent too long arguing about the rates paid by solar homes and not enough time talking about the rates paid by everyone else. The proposed monthly fixed charge (e.g. solar tax) is simply a means of recovering the fixed costs of distributing electricity in California. But we shouldn’t stop at only the solar homes. The road to electrification is to shift everyone to a rate structure that encourages electrification, one that accurately reflects the high costs of connecting to the grid and the low costs of actually consuming electricity. This means moving everyone to a monthly connection charge and lowering the marginal price of electricity by an amount that offsets the revenues raised by the connection fees. It’s not a revolutionary idea. Lots of electric utilities already do it. Our gas utilities in California already do it. In fact, California’s CPUC regulated electric utilities are about the only utilities in the country to not charge a monthly connection fee.

 

[mspohr]

Smart Rate Design for a Smart Future, we do propose that every customer should pay a fixed charge. A customer charge should cover the costs of metering, billing, and collection, about $5 – $10/month. And a “site infrastructure” charge should recover the costs of customer-specific distribution system investment — a share of the final transformer (typically shared with other customers) and the secondary service lines (shared in apartments; dedicated in single-family homes). For apartments, this is about $4/month, for single-family homes, about $10/month.

Smart Rate Design for a Smart Future

That customer charge and site infrastructure charge should apply to every customer on the same basis, solar and non-solar. It would make bills for apartments a little lower, and those for single family homes (where nearly all of the solar panels are) a little higher. But it would better reflect cost causation.

Coupled with time-of-use rates for kilowatt-hours, this produces an efficient and fair rate design. Where the cheapest power is mid-day when solar is plentiful, such as in California and Hawaii, this lets solar customers enjoy the value of their solar production during the daytime, but then pay higher rates for power used in the evening or overnight, when they are dependent on the grid. In Hawaii, we found that the average solar customer would owe about $75/month with this type of rate design, even if they used a “net” of zero kilowatt-hours across a month.

 

[Big Dog]

deleted

 

[Doc Brown]

You’re in California (like me). If you follow energy markets and know even the basics of power generation and transmission, and energy marketing (and regulation) - you’ll know that there is a glut of "renewable" energy (wind and solar) during the day. So much so that sometimes there are NEGATIVE energy prices. That’s when your solar panels are generating the most. I know this - because I’m in the renewable energy business (hydro). we have full time staff participating in the day ahead and spot market for our hydro generation. In the free market - you would be required to pay the grid to absorb your power - because during peak wind and solar production - there is too much power. When that happens - instead of selling electricity - electric generators have to pay the grid to take their energy! Crazy - right?

The current problem with the glut of solar is that homeowners expect to be able to force companies to buy their power (even when prices are negative) and then resell it for them over the transmission infrastructure without having to pay for that infrastructure. Solar producing and selling homes should most definitely pay for the infrastructure needed to distribute the generated energy. They should also be subject to negative pricing like the rest of the market.

12.3 The Curious Case of the Negative Prices | EBF 483: Introduction to Electricity Markets

"The second reason that negative prices arise is because of subsidies to wind and solar technologies. Many wind power plants, for example, receive a subsidy known as a Production Tax Credit for every MWh that they produce. This subsidy, currently equal to $23 per MWh, gives wind projects an economic incentive to produce as much electricity as possible. It is even possible that a wind project would accept a negative price in order to get the $23 subsidy for each MWh generated. If the plant gets paid $23/MWh and the price is -$5/MWh, the net revenue for the plant is still $18/MWh. Thus, some renewable energy market participants submit supply offers into the day-ahead or real-time market at negative prices, all but ensuring that their offers will be the cheapest."

https://www.caiso.com/documents/flexibleresourceshelprenewables_fastfacts.pdf

 

[Doc Brown]

daily and real time supply:

California ISO - Supply, Today's Outlook

View real-time and historical data on generation resources, including renewables, currently on the system.

www.caiso.com

pricing: California ISO - Price Map

 

[mspohr]

You’re in California (like me). If you follow energy markets and know even the basics of power generation and transmission, and energy marketing (and regulation) - you’ll know that there is a glut of "renewable" energy (wind and solar) during the day. So much so that sometimes there are NEGATIVE energy prices. That’s when your solar panels are generating the most. I know this - because I’m in the renewable energy business (hydro). we have full time staff participating in the day ahead and spot market for our hydro generation. In the free market - you would be required to pay the grid to absorb your power - because during peak wind and solar production - there is too much power. When that happens - instead of selling electricity - electric generators have to pay the grid to take their energy! Crazy - right?

The current problem with the glut of solar is that homeowners expect to be able to force companies to buy their power (even when prices are negative) and then resell it for them over the transmission infrastructure without having to pay for that infrastructure. Solar producing and selling homes should most definitely pay for the infrastructure needed to distribute the generated energy. They should also be subject to negative pricing like the rest of the market.

12.3 The Curious Case of the Negative Prices | EBF 483: Introduction to Electricity Markets

"The second reason that negative prices arise is because of subsidies to wind and solar technologies. Many wind power plants, for example, receive a subsidy known as a Production Tax Credit for every MWh that they produce. This subsidy, currently equal to $23 per MWh, gives wind projects an economic incentive to produce as much electricity as possible. It is even possible that a wind project would accept a negative price in order to get the $23 subsidy for each MWh generated. If the plant gets paid $23/MWh and the price is -$5/MWh, the net revenue for the plant is still $18/MWh. Thus, some renewable energy market participants submit supply offers into the day-ahead or real-time market at negative prices, all but ensuring that their offers will be the cheapest."

https://www.caiso.com/documents/flexibleresourceshelprenewables_fastfacts.pdf

TOU prices and a "grid charge" for EVERYONE should take care of this situation.

 

[miimura]

If solar surplus in the middle of the day is really the issue, then I would be more supportive of a Super-Off-Peak TOU period from 10am-2pm than this $8/kW monthly fee nonsense. Of course, it has to go both ways so I can charge my car at a lower price during those hours too. Slightly higher NBCs would also be reasonable, but not more than $0.05/kWh.

 

[Doc Brown]

TOU prices and a "grid charge" for EVERYONE should take care of this situation.

No. What do you think should happen to your solar generation when prices are negative? In those circumstances - producers are required to pay to send energy to the grid - instead of getting paid. Are you, as a solar producer, ready to live by those rules?

I despise PG&E and SDE. I know them (too) well. PG&E is inept and should have been permitted to fail after the Camp Fire.

That said - I keep hearing home solar people say they should get all the benefits of government subsidies for solar (mandatory purchase by companies) yet they don’t want to pay the transmission cost associated with their power or be subject to the actual price (market) for energy. You can’t have it both ways. During peak generation - the grid has to find a way to dump your generated power somewhere that needs it. That might be in the PNW or somewhere else. Who should pay to dump your power?

its easy to have 30,000 foot level arguments about this stuff - but if you’re going to plant a flag, you should know how it all works. Grid charges "for everyone" doesn’t address the overproduction of renewables. It just doesn’t. subsidization of renewables is being done, in california, to shutter natural gas plants. It’s a fact. the problem is there’s nothing to pick up the slack when solar and wind drop off. Battery storage? Please. Pumped hydro? Can’t cover the whole gap. Nuclear? Not viable in the US anymore. So now what? We’ll keep having "Flex Alerts" to try to reduce demand after 3pm.

Most people that wade into this arena don’t understand how the system works or otherwise talk in slogans or anecdotes. It’s not how the actual system works.

 

[Doc Brown]

I deal with this every day.

GE Will Shutter California Natural Gas Plant 20 Years Early - Clean Power Exchange

Pity poor General Electric. Once the dominant global leader in turbines for making electricity from coal or natural gas, its business has hit the skids in recent years as demand for its products has collapsed. We can thank the steep decline in the price of renewable energy for that. Now GE has...

cleanpowerexchange.org

https://www.courthousenews.com/california-approves-goal-to-double-green-energy/

Renewables, Imports Replace Natural Gas in California Energy Mix

Natural gas use went down 20 percent this summer.

www.greentechmedia.com

"The shift to more renewables and demand-side resources, such as energy storage and efficiency, is likely only to increase in coming years. To manage the threats of rolling blackouts next year, Southern California utilities are investing in battery storage at record speed to accommodate the natural-gas limits that are expected from shutting down the natural-gas storage facility at Aliso Canyon."

you want to know the funniest part of all of this? The state knows we can’t go completely renewable. So - they’re paying people with huge diesel generators to fire those up during peak demands to avoid "flex alerts" and they appearance of power shortages.

 

[Doc Brown]

read up on CalISO’s ”Emergency Load Reduction Program". That provides substantial payments to Diesel Backup Generator owners / operators to fire those up to mask the potential Flex Alerts and rolling blackouts. We’ve been offered millions in standby payments for big generators that would need to be turned on to avoid flex alerts, when solar and wind diminish in the afternoon.

It’s an actual state-sponsored program - but not a lot of people are paying attention.

Emergency Load Reduction Program

www.cpuc.ca.gov

California ISO - Demand response and load