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

[mspohr]

............ If people could afford the interest on a home improvement LOAN, and then buy the power walls (I have three) the savings on power will easily pay for the power walls over time. My power bills were over $300 a month, and I live frugally. SO, to rephrase the question, how many people can afford NOT to buy power walls. They buy cars for well over the $25,000 it costs for three power walls which will last longer than the car, and I am now in the position where PG&E owes ME nearly $800 for the year, on top of my not paying anything more than about $5 per month for being connected to the grid. Sure, there were initial costs of installing solar panels and controllers, but in the end it has cost me almost nothing.

You make a good point. People are wary of the high cost of solar/storage but they fail to do even a basic ROI calc. They buy/finance a car which depreciates quickly and only costs money for fuel and maintenance. Solar/storage provides a real ROI so in most cases is a good investment.
My solar/storage investments are at the point now where they have paid back their cost after 6 years and now I have free electricity for probably at least the next 20 years and am insulated from electricity price increases.

 

[RSpanner]

............ If people could afford the interest on a home improvement LOAN, and then buy the power walls (I have three) the savings on power will easily pay for the power walls over time. My power bills were over $300 a month, and I live frugally. SO, to rephrase the question, how many people can afford NOT to buy power walls. They buy cars for well over the $25,000 it costs for three power walls which will last longer than the car, and I am now in the position where PG&E owes ME nearly $800 for the year, on top of my not paying anything more than about $5 per month for being connected to the grid. Sure, there were initial costs of installing solar panels and controllers, but in the end it has cost me almost nothing.

We an anomaly I suppose. Our yearly average for Electricity is $55. We bought a house with an existing solar panels and are grid tied.We get very little money back from our Electic company, but our rates are low. I can't see spending $10K for a powerwall in our scenario.

 

[gene]

This is the script from an oral public comment that a friend of mine made at a PUC metting recently:

"
My name is XXX XXX. I live in Sacramento. My husband and I have solar and we are not rich. My husband and I are both retired and on limited incomes.

How dare you spread PG&E's lies. 91 felony charges, due to causing wildfires in our state. They have NO credibility.

Just under half of all new solar is going into working- and middle-class households and that trend is getting bigger every single year.

In a new study New Berkeley Lab report on solar-adopter income and demographic trends

39% are < $100k annual income

63% are < $150k

about the same % are <50k as are >$250k



38% are < 120% of Area Median Income (AMI), a threshold sometimes used to define Low and Moderate Income (LMI) households.



The CPUC has been captured by the utilities and there is no accountability. The commissioners are supposed to be working for us, not the utilities. Did you know their consultant is also a vendor for the utilities? Why in the world would you trust anything they say? How dare you slander the working and middle class people like myself who are looking for a way out of crazy energy bills that you politicians are doing nothing about.

Solar users pay our share of the grid. We pay a minimum bill and the utility also deducts money from our solar credit to pay for the wires. By not using those long distance power lines we reduce the cost of the grid for everyone.

The legislature needs to stop shilling for PG&E and start standing up for everyday people like me..

The CPUC NEM 3.0 proposal needs to include the following.

· No Solar Tax of any kind

· Ensure that solar becomes more affordable for working and middle class households, not less

· Honor the existing 20-year protection for solar users

 

[Big Dog]

............ If people could afford the interest on a home improvement LOAN, and then buy the power walls (I have three) the savings on power will easily pay for the power walls over time. My power bills were over $300 a month, and I live frugally. SO, to rephrase the question, how many people can afford NOT to buy power walls. They buy cars for well over the $25,000 it costs for three power walls which will last longer than the car, and I am now in the position where PG&E owes ME nearly $800 for the year, on top of my not paying anything more than about $5 per month for being connected to the grid. Sure, there were initial costs of installing solar panels and controllers, but in the end it has cost me almost nothing.

Isn't this a good example of why NEM 3.0 is being considered? (I like to think I live frugally too, and our electric bills average <$100/mo. But if SoCalEdison was gonna pay me $800 extra on of zero bills for the next 20+ years, solar+battery might make some sense!)

 

[mspohr]

Isn't this a good example of why NEM 3.0 is being considered? (I like to think I live frugally too, and our electric bills average <$100/mo. But if SoCalEdison was gonna pay me $800 extra on of zero bills for the next 20+ years, solar+battery might make some sense!)

No. NEM 3 fails to consider the valuable services rooftop solar provides such as reducing the need for transmission lines, demand management and grid stability.
Utilities earn a guaranteed 10% ROI when they install solar. Why shouldn't homeowners earn the same?
Rather than pay consumers for their excess electricity, utilities want to keep that to increase their profit. It's a literal power grab.

 

[h2ofun]

Isn't this a good example of why NEM 3.0 is being considered? (I like to think I live frugally too, and our electric bills average <$100/mo. But if SoCalEdison was gonna pay me $800 extra on of zero bills for the next 20+ years, solar+battery might make some sense!)

I am like over 3000 they owe me now

 

[miimura]

The amount of your PG&E credit tally during the year has no meaning. If you are a net consumer it will be simply wiped out with no compensation. If you are a net producer (exported more kWh than imported) then you will be given Net Surplus Compensation. If you are on a CCA, PG&E will never pay you anything at true-up and you will be left with whatever the CCA pays you, if anything. For example, in April 2022, SVCE is changing from full retail Generation rate compensation to a "double PG&E NSC" rate. This will cut compensation for most people by about half and will probably leave a number of people in the same no-mans-land as PG&E when they have a Generation credit but were still a net kWh consumer. Be certain to look for reimbursement for generation paid when your monthly bill was positive and paid monthly versus a credit at true-up.

 

[Big Dog]

No. NEM 3 fails to consider the valuable services rooftop solar provides such as reducing the need for transmission lines, demand management and grid stability.
Utilities earn a guaranteed 10% ROI when they install solar. Why shouldn't homeowners earn the same?
Rather than pay consumers for their excess electricity, utilities want to keep that to increase their profit. It's a literal power grab.

Not quite correct or complete.

"NEM 3 fails to consider the valuable services rooftop solar provides..." They do, but just not in amount that you would prefer.

"Utilities earn a guaranteed 10% ROI when they install solar. Why shouldn't homeowners earn the same?" What is the current ROI for homeowners? Over what time frame? (fwiw: I just entered my info into Tesla's website for solar panels and I estimate an ~11% return after 25 years, which is typical for a long-lived capital addition.)

"Rather than pay consumers for their excess electricity" [in the amount/rates that consumers want for a short ROI]....

 

[dfwatt]

Not quite correct or complete.

"NEM 3 fails to consider the valuable services rooftop solar provides..." They do, but just not in amount that you would prefer.

"Utilities earn a guaranteed 10% ROI when they install solar. Why shouldn't homeowners earn the same?" What is the current ROI for homeowners? Over what time frame? (fwiw: I just entered my info into Tesla's website for solar panels and I estimate an ~11% return after 25 years, which is typical for a long-lived capital addition.)

"Rather than pay consumers for their excess electricity" [in the amount/rates that consumers want for a short ROI]....

I'll quote your own words here because your post is "not quite correct or complete." The purpose of the surcharging of solar is not to recoup infrastructure costs and detailed forensic grade analysis of infrastructure costs put that at well under what most public utilities are trying to get in terms of solar surcharges or taxes or even just flat rate connection fees. It's real purpose to make solar unattractive so that a heavily centralized grid can be maintained. Public Utilities simply cannot compete with the cost of electricity generation which at this point for even a medium-sized system is somewhere around 10 to 12 cents a kilowatt-hour. Improvements in panel efficiency and output are probably going to put that well under $0.10 some time reasonably soon.

Utilities rightly see this as an existential threat to their hegemony and monopolies. That's the purpose of the surcharge. Maintain the monopoly, rationalize this as promoting social justice (what a joke!), and squelch the existential threat of a distributed grid. This is disruptive technology coming for the fat bank accounts of "public" utilities, and they rightly see it as an existential threat. If you can surcharge it enough so that the payback period goes from 10-15 years to 40 years (longer than the life of the system) maybe you can stop it before it disrupts your hold on power generation.

So you're framing of this is counterfactual and seems more than a little naive about the true motivation of the utility companies.

 

[Big Dog]

I'll quote your own words here because your post is "not quite correct or complete." The purpose of the surcharging of solar is not to recoup infrastructure costs and detailed forensic grade analysis of infrastructure costs put that at well under what most public utilities are trying to get in terms of solar surcharges or taxes or even just flat rate connection fees. It's real purpose to make solar unattractive so that a heavily centralized grid can be maintained. Public Utilities simply cannot compete with the cost of electricity generation which at this point for even a medium-sized system is somewhere around 10 to 12 cents a kilowatt-hour. Improvements in panel efficiency and output are probably going to put that well under $0.10 some time reasonably soon.

Utilities rightly see this as an existential threat to their hegemony and monopolies. That's the purpose of the surcharge. Maintain the monopoly, rationalize this as promoting social justice (what a joke!), and squelch the existential threat of a distributed grid. This is disruptive technology coming for the fat bank accounts of "public" utilities, and they rightly see it as an existential threat. If you can surcharge it enough so that the payback period goes from 10-15 years to 40 years (longer than the life of the system) maybe you can stop it before it disrupts your hold on power generation.

So you're framing of this is counterfactual and seems more than a little naive about the true motivation of the utility companies.

I don't necessarily disagree with the true motivation of the utility companies, but in CA that really means the State regulators -- all appointed by the Governor -- since the PUC approves the budgets of the utilities. Regardless of their motivation, which I did NOT comment on earlier, what do you really disagree with in my response to msp?

- Does the PUC/Utils not consider the value of the clean energy generated by rooftop solar? Of course they do. Do they want to pay for rooftop solar? It would be zero if they could get away with it, but the PUC requires that they have to pay 'something' and that something is less than what solar owners want. btw: the method of payment is meaningless -- surcharge, lower import reimbursement, flat fee for grid connection -- its all just fungible cash paid by the homeowner.

- Roof top solar could have a 10% ROI if you take it out enough years -- its simple math -- but again that is much slower than solar owners desire. (In business, a capital project's cash flows are based on the estimated life of the project. MSP said that utilities are allowed to earn a guaranteed 10% ROI, which I take a face value, but also recognize that the 10% is based on the life of the project; for example, 5-6 years for a new truck, or 40+ years for a new high energy power line.) So what is missing is the utilities estimated lifespan for their installed solar -- if we are gonna give homeowners teh same 10% deal, we need to know what deal that the utils have. I would bet that the 10% ROI is much longer than the 5-6 years payback that some solar owner prefer. (I suggested 10-12 years payback earlier and got a lot of push back.) And, btw, the simple math is clear: a 5-6 year payback is a whole lot more than 10% ROI.

- And yes, utilities want to pay less for rooftop solar to boost profits. I never said otherwise.

 

[mspohr]

I don't necessarily disagree with the true motivation of the utility companies, but in CA that really means the State regulators -- all appointed by the Governor -- since the PUC approves the budgets of the utilities. Regardless of their motivation, which I did NOT comment on earlier, what do you really disagree with in my response to msp?

- Does the PUC/Utils not consider the value of the clean energy generated by rooftop solar? Of course they do. Do they want to pay for rooftop solar? It would be zero if they could get away with it, but the PUC requires that they have to pay 'something' and that something is less than what solar owners want. btw: the method of payment is meaningless -- surcharge, lower import reimbursement, flat fee for grid connection -- its all just fungible cash paid by the homeowner.

- Roof top solar could have a 10% ROI if you take it out enough years -- its simple math -- but again that is much slower than solar owners desire. (In business, a capital project's cash flows are based on the estimated life of the project. MSP said that utilities are allowed to earn a guaranteed 10% ROI, which I take a face value, but also recognize that the 10% is based on the life of the project; for example, 5-6 years for a new truck, or 40+ years for a new high energy power line.) So what is missing is the utilities estimated lifespan for their installed solar -- if we are gonna give homeowners teh same 10% deal, we need to know what deal that the utils have. I would bet that the 10% ROI is much longer than the 5-6 years payback that some solar owner prefer. (I suggested 10-12 years payback earlier and got a lot of push back.) And, btw, the simple math is clear: a 5-6 year payback is a whole lot more than 10% ROI.

- And yes, utilities want to pay less for rooftop solar to boost profits. I never said otherwise.

Utilities are guaranteed 10% each year ROI.
That's why they like to build big expensive power plants, etc.
They don't earn anything on rooftop solar.

 

[dfwatt]

I don't necessarily disagree with the true motivation of the utility companies, but in CA that really means the State regulators -- all appointed by the Governor -- since the PUC approves the budgets of the utilities. Regardless of their motivation, which I did NOT comment on earlier, what do you really disagree with in my response to msp?

- Does the PUC/Utils not consider the value of the clean energy generated by rooftop solar? Of course they do. Do they want to pay for rooftop solar? It would be zero if they could get away with it, but the PUC requires that they have to pay 'something' and that something is less than what solar owners want. btw: the method of payment is meaningless -- surcharge, lower import reimbursement, flat fee for grid connection -- its all just fungible cash paid by the homeowner.

- Roof top solar could have a 10% ROI if you take it out enough years -- its simple math -- but again that is much slower than solar owners desire. (In business, a capital project's cash flows are based on the estimated life of the project. MSP said that utilities are allowed to earn a guaranteed 10% ROI, which I take a face value, but also recognize that the 10% is based on the life of the project; for example, 5-6 years for a new truck, or 40+ years for a new high energy power line.) So what is missing is the utilities estimated lifespan for their installed solar -- if we are gonna give homeowners teh same 10% deal, we need to know what deal that the utils have. I would bet that the 10% ROI is much longer than the 5-6 years payback that some solar owner prefer. (I suggested 10-12 years payback earlier and got a lot of push back.) And, btw, the simple math is clear: a 5-6 year payback is a whole lot more than 10% ROI.

- And yes, utilities want to pay less for rooftop solar to boost profits. I never said otherwise.

This is a lot of what we would call highly detailed analysis that ends up missing the forest for all the trees. In other words I don't think you really have the big picture properly gauged here - this is not simply about utilities "wanting to make more money"(of course that's true) it's about wanting to survive and discredit the only existential threat on the board to their model of centralized power Monopoly, private investment, and huge returns for their investors and Executives.

In other words rooftop solar is an existential threat as a disruptive technology to the models that have dominated our thinking about grids for literally two hundred years when we first envisioned such a thing. So I think again you are naive about the extent to which utility companies see that and appreciate that. They already cannot truly compete with a cost of electricity generation even with a measly 12 kilowatt system. They are hoping to capture the 'green' moral High Ground by creating grid solar (which is billions of dollars away for most of them) but the more immediate goal and need is again to maintain control over a centralized grid. When you talk about how they just want to add to their profits again I don't think you're getting the point. This is a battle for their survival and the best way to ensure that is to discredit rooftop solar, argue that it's an elitist operation favoring the wealthy (projection!) and saddle it with heavy costs to make its payback period 40 plus years or so and therefore nobody has any real incentive to adopt this existential threat. Under naivete, see the many folks who once debated with Lord Acton about his comment that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's kind of the operative principle here and again it's not clear that you see that. Expecting monopolies to behave ethically and to value fair competition is like expecting Putin to develop empathy.

 

[Big Dog]

Utilities are guaranteed 10% each year ROI.
That's why they like to build big expensive power plants, etc.
They don't earn anything on rooftop solar.

In YOUR post #585, you clearly wrote: "Utilities earn a guaranteed 10% ROI when they install solar". [emphasis added] So, are you backtracking on your point?

 

[Big Dog]

This is a lot of what we would call highly detailed analysis that ends up missing the forest for all the trees. In other words I don't think you really have the big picture properly gauged here - this is not simply about utilities "wanting to make more money"(of course that's true) it's about wanting to survive and discredit the only existential threat on the board to their model of centralized power Monopoly, private investment, and huge returns for their investors and Executives.

In other words rooftop solar is an existential threat as a disruptive technology to the models that have dominated our thinking about grids for literally two hundred years when we first envisioned such a thing. So I think again you are naive about the extent to which utility companies see that and appreciate that. They already cannot truly compete with a cost of electricity generation even with a measly 12 kilowatt system. They are hoping to capture the 'green' moral High Ground by creating grid solar (which is billions of dollars away for most of them) but the more immediate goal and need is again to maintain control over a centralized grid. When you talk about how they just want to add to their profits again I don't think you're getting the point. This is a battle for their survival and the best way to ensure that is to discredit rooftop solar, argue that it's an elitist operation favoring the wealthy (projection!) and saddle it with heavy costs to make its payback period 40 plus years or so and therefore nobody has any real incentive to adopt this existential threat. Under naivete, see the many folks who once debated with Lord Acton about his comment that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's kind of the operative principle here and again it's not clear that you see that. Expecting monopolies to behave ethically and to value fair competition is like expecting Putin to develop empathy.

The Governor of California has legal authority to appoint all regulators of the Utils. It does not matter what the Utils believe is an existential threat, unless they can convince the Governor of same. Those regulators approve all rates, budgets adn spending for the power companies in California. So the Utils do not have any authority whatsoever to put home solar out of business unless the Governor & his regulators approve. (Perhaps your state is different.)

Much of the hate for PG&E is justified, but some of it should be directed to the PUC as they hold the power company purse strings ,so to speak.

 

[mspohr]

In YOUR post #585, you clearly wrote: "Utilities earn a guaranteed 10% ROI when they install solar". [emphasis added] So, are you backtracking on your point?

They earn 10% on everything. Solar, coal, NG, nuclear, transmission lines, trucks, etc.

 

[mspohr]

The Governor of California has legal authority to appoint all regulators of the Utils. It does not matter what the Utils believe is an existential threat, unless they can convince the Governor of same. Those regulators approve all rates, budgets adn spending for the power companies in California. So the Utils do not have any authority whatsoever to put home solar out of business unless the Governor & his regulators approve. (Perhaps your state is different.)

Much of the hate for PG&E is justified, but some of it should be directed to the PUC as they hold the power company purse strings ,so to speak.

Utilities have contributed heavily to the governor so they own him.
A few million dollars a year buys a lot.

 

[dfwatt]

The Governor of California has legal authority to appoint all regulators of the Utils. It does not matter what the Utils believe is an existential threat, unless they can convince the Governor of same. Those regulators approve all rates, budgets adn spending for the power companies in California. So the Utils do not have any authority whatsoever to put home solar out of business unless the Governor & his regulators approve. (Perhaps your state is different.)

Much of the hate for PG&E is justified, but some of it should be directed to the PUC as they hold the power company purse strings ,so to speak.

Both Governors are in hock to private utility companies. That doesn't invalidate the single aspect of my analysis. But it does go to the intrinsic difficulty in getting anything past the plutocracy

 

[RandyS]

They earn 10% on everything. Solar, coal, NG, nuclear, transmission lines, trucks, etc.

Hey mspohr! Here comes the retired utility guy with 36 years of experience again Just to let you know, only Capital expenditures that are approved by the CPUC qualify to earn the rate of return. All O&M expenses are reimbursed at cost, with no additional earning potential (those O&M items are submitted and vetted by the CPUC in the utility rate cases that are filed periodically - and they do occasionally disallow or negotiate down some rate case expenditures/proposals after the fact)...Anyways, thought you'd like to know...

 

[mspohr]

Hey mspohr! Here comes the retired utility guy with 36 years of experience again Just to let you know, only Capital expenditures that are approved by the CPUC qualify to earn the rate of return. All O&M expenses are reimbursed at cost, with no additional earning potential (those O&M items are submitted and vetted by the CPUC in the utility rate cases that are filed periodically - and they do occasionally disallow or negotiate down some rate case expenditures/proposals after the fact)...Anyways, thought you'd like to know...

Thanks for the clarification.
So not the trucks?

 

[RandyS]

Thanks for the clarification.
So not the trucks?

Right, not trucks or anything that is not charged to a particular capital project. Off the top of my head, that would include items like office supplies, non-project travel for CPUC matters, training or conferences, non-capital employee hours, vehicle fuel, vehicle maintenance, health care, benefits, CPUC mandated programs like energy efficiency rebates, etc. There's probably more that I'm just not thinking of at the moment...