Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
please explain this for me anyway so I can understand better how solar interacts with the energy grid from your point of view.
i’m aware of my POV

I have only had solar PV since 1999, almost 22 years, the first 19.5 generating 11% of my needs and the last 2.5 140% of my needs
I welcome additional education always
from what i could tell, my transmission costs were less to move electrons 50 _feet_ as opposed to the around _100,000_ ft (roughly 15-20 or so miles) from the generation plant on the Potomac or other ones since electrons are fungible.
(essentially zero marginal transmission cost)

from whom? the off gridders used “dump loads”
you _are_ famiar with the amounts of energy and electricity presently wasted?
(rejected energy)
(i have been mildly active and studied renewables since the mid 1960’s, worked with computers and biotechnology )
what do you do for a living? just curious
a casual look at below graphic gives a rough 2% from solar at best, though if you go back 10+ years it was a minuscule amount enough to be ignored
what will that graph look like in 10 years when solar and wind are a far larger proportion? The utilities 100 year steady revenue stream is rapidly attenuating
View attachment 648090
 
  • Like
Reactions: gene
You are exactly right. Transmission is usually about moving energy 10s or 100s of miles getting energy from one area to another. Historically it was primarily to get power from the very big remote power plants to where the energy is needed as well as interconnect energy load centers to allow more redundancy and trading to allow access to cheaper energy in other markets. Distribution (smaller wires/towers/voltages) is normally the last mile or so of the journey. Capacity related infrastructure are always sized to moment of greatest need, otherwise you see system failures. This means any solution that doesn’t reduce usage during all hours, only reduces reliance on a particular piece of equipment to the extent the new peak usage hour is lower than the prior peak. Historical energy peaks were in the 3 to 5 hours, but since the 6 to 8 pm hours usage is usually only slightly lower, abundant energy at 3 to 5pm doesn’t remove need for transmission lines at 6 to 8pm. Also the vast majority of solar customers still rely on the grid at night so they still need those miles of transmission lines from sometimes remote power plants to keep their power on. Regarding my claim of transmission expansion needs, this only becomes an issue once an area expands beyond say 5 to 10% (actual amount varies by grid) solar penetration (few are there today, but most have that in their goals for the near future). Germany is well into these area of need. I believe the most obvious signs of this in California would be increasing solar curtailments year over year and transmission expansion projects. California would absolutely prefer to ship the solar that extends beyond their own needs to other states rather than curtail (turn off plants giving up free marginal cost energy), but the availability and capacity of lines are the limitation, thus the reference to solar leading to transmission expansion. When you’re the only solar system in the neighborhood your production that is likely 2 to 5 times your needs on a sunny spring day goes to your 2 to 5 closest neighbors only touching distribution line drops and a transformer bus bar (fraction of distribution system). If you get say all 6 customers in a neighborhood on the same transformer, you’re now likely using that transformer more heavily running in reverse during a sunny spring day than it gets used during even the hottest days of summer and sending that power up distribution lines all the way to a substation. If an entire development is largely solar, you will get the same phenomenon, but it will basically reverse direction for part of the day and become a “step up” voltage transformer rather than a “step down” voltage transformer. I guess my point is the equipment still tends to be heavily used and necessary. NEM often offsets some or much of these costs that aren’t significantly reduced in many cases and this is the challenge that I believe utilities will continue to try to address through updated rate structures. A more justified structure might offset fuel and energy type costs and a limited amount of grid type benefit, which is why I believe these proposals will keep coming. Sorry about the novel. These topics are very technical and deep. To your question I will disclose that I’m an avid believer we need to do more to clean up grids and really all outsized sources of pollution or non-sustainable practices, but I consult in the utility arenas and often conduct detailed analysis of the relative economics of many types of renewables including both rooftop and utility scale solar plants. My view is that the more relevant information that is out there, the more informed decisions we make. This response is already really long so I’ll comment on the LLNL rejected energy study separately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gene
I’m a fan of solar, but pretending it relieves the need for the very infrastructure it relies on and thus shouldn’t share in the cost is just misguided....

...the vast majority of solar customers still rely on the grid at night...NEM often offsets some or much of these costs that aren’t significantly reduced in many cases and this is the challenge that I believe utilities will continue to try to address through updated rate structures. A more justified structure might offset fuel and energy type costs and a limited amount of grid type benefit, which is why I believe these proposals will keep coming....I consult in the utility arenas and often conduct detailed analysis of the relative economics of many types of renewables including both rooftop and utility scale solar plants....
Here in CA, everyone getting service from an IOU such as PG&E is paying minimum delivery charges of ~$10/mo. Are you suggesting that the true infrastructure charges should be higher. If so, what would you suggest and how would you come by such a figure?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gene
Fact is, solar does relieve stress on the infrastructure and we already pay delivery charges, and hook up charges above and beyond what we use. You do in Arizona as well. If you have solar, simply read your bill.

Well... I mean it does until it doesn't. If you have 30GW of demand and 15GW of solar you're relieving stress on the grid. If you have 35GW of solar trying to push into the grid and 30GW of demand solar is no longer 'relieving stress'. Too much of a good thing can be stressful.
 
Here in CA and probably similar elsewhere, maximum grid demand typically remains in the late afternoon to early evening - the head of the so called "duck curve". Solar PV definitely reduces (fossil) fuel use/costs, but does not lower the head of the duck such as batteries do.

It looks like most here agree that there should be some minimum interconnect fee for all customers to pay a fair share or infrastructure. The bigger question is, what price is fair.
 
It looks like most here agree that there should be some minimum interconnect fee for all customers to pay a fair share or infrastructure. The bigger question is, what price is fair.

I would much rather see payment structured by how the grid is used. IMHO the absolute worst outcome is a capacity fee or kWh generated fee. There should be a disincentive for exporting at noon and an incentive for exporting at 8pm. Any fee should be able to pass a simple litmus test. Is this fee structured in a way that it encourages grid friendly behavior?

My most recent install just went online. You can tell what my preference was for panel orientation. There needs to be an incentive for more production curves that look like this...

IMG_3475.PNG


And fewer like this...
IMG_3476.PNG
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iPlug
I would much rather see payment structured by how the grid is used. IMHO the absolute worst outcome is a capacity fee or kWh generated fee. There should be a disincentive for exporting at noon and an incentive for exporting at 8pm. Any fee should be able to pass a simple litmus test. Is this fee structured in a way that it encourages grid friendly behavior?
If they would allows us to charge our batteries from the grid when we cannot get enough solar, and then ideally go 100% off grid from 3pm to 12pm, would this not be ideal?
 
If they would allows us to charge our batteries from the grid when we cannot get enough solar, and then ideally go 100% off grid from 3pm to 12pm, would this not be ideal?

Not necessarily. It's the grid... it's a system... so you need to take a whole system approach NOT an individual approach. What's best for the individual isn't necessarily what's best for the system.

There was a study recently that found storage was adding to emissions instead of reducing them because it wasn't being used intelligently. If you're not using surplus renewables to charge batteries you're not helping. Surplus for the system not surplus for the individual.
 
You don't need transmission to ship excess solar. Where would you ship it? Perhaps to someplace where they also have an excess of solar?
You need storage and demand management.
Transmission is only needed in our outdated energy grid with large fossil fuel plants. Distributed generation wind, solar, storage doesn't need long distance transmission.
The utilities are attempting to hold back this sea change by charging for unnecessary transmission and charges for excess production when they should be investing in storage and demand management.
An energy grid has to constantly balance energy in and energy out to maintain proper voltages. Rooftop solar is more or less a “must run” type energy. It runs when the sun shines. Each grid adapts first by turning down other plants (fuel savings and improved carbon emissions but less efficient use of other plants as fixed costs are spread over less production), once all plants that can be throttled down or turned off (including the curtailment of utility owned solar plants at times) have been, to the extend energy exceeds need, that energy has to be exported or the imbalance becomes a problem. An entire energy market was created and designed (I believe in California) to help deal with this called the Energy Imbalance Market (EIM). If this wasn’t the case EIM wouldn’t have been created and curtailments wouldn’t be occurring. Batteries will be a game changer with time, but if you compare the solar/wind to battery ratio today it’s so lopsided that it will take many, many years of adding batteries as quickly as they can be produced to cover that need and alleviate transmission needs. Costs are also dropping quickly on battery front, but only short duration batteries are economically in the ballpark of being competitive with other options today, when a battery is used to last the entire night (replacing traditional power plants) that’s a much more expensive proposition. There might be more to utility slowness to evolve than stubbornness. It might also be based on cost to all customers. The analysis and understanding of how all these pieces come together is incredibly complex, but is something I’ve studied for years. This is first time I’ve posted because honestly the side of the story I’m telling Is boring and will get a thumbs down response instead of thumbs up, but it is real information.
 
Yeah, that's Tesla only thing. They made it easier for themselves to get government subsidies at the expense of customers.
I think it is an SGIP program thing, not a Tesla thing. Those retail customers who saved thousands (no profit to Tesla) on SGIP rebates are not allowed to charge from the grid for something like 3, or is it 5 years. Tesla batteries have been historically available without solar and can charge from the grid. But without solar charging your batteries, you can not get the 26% federal credit on the batteries. In any event Tesla gets zero incentives on the battery sales. The check for SGIP is literally written to the end user.
 
I think it is an SGIP program thing, not a Tesla thing. Those retail customers who saved thousands (no profit to Tesla) on SGIP rebates are not allowed to charge from the grid for something like 3, or is it 5 years. Tesla batteries have been historically available without solar and can charge from the grid. But without solar charging your batteries, you can not get the 26% federal credit on the batteries. In any event Tesla gets zero incentives on the battery sales. The check for SGIP is literally written to the end user.
It is NOT a sgip thing. Read the info in their handbook. They want load shifting. If one gets ITC, then no. But the ER stuff does not get ITC so it is totally legal to charge from grid both from SGIP and PGE rules. Tesla can do whatever than want. But if I do get challenged from SGIP for cycling, I believe I have enough stuff in writing now to prove I asked, with the facts, and was ignored, so not my issue when I cannot cycle in the winter. Would be fun to be taken to court.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: gene
I think it is an SGIP program thing, not a Tesla thing. Those retail customers who saved thousands (no profit to Tesla) on SGIP rebates are not allowed to charge from the grid for something like 3, or is it 5 years. Tesla batteries have been historically available without solar and can charge from the grid. But without solar charging your batteries, you can not get the 26% federal credit on the batteries. In any event Tesla gets zero incentives on the battery sales. The check for SGIP is literally written to the end user.
It's not. SGIP and other government subsidy programs require evidence of meeting program requirements like cycling if they audit. The battery owners can do that on their own and that's what all the other home battery manufacturers do by default.
 
It's not. SGIP and other government subsidy programs require evidence of meeting program requirements like cycling if they audit. The battery owners can do that on their own and that's what all the other home battery manufacturers do by default.
And again, ER SGIP folks do not get ITC, which is why IMO from what I have read in the SGIP handbook, and PGE website, they support, allow and encourage charging batteries from the grid if needed, so one can use to avoid the grid during peak times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cali8484
And again, ER SGIP folks do not get ITC, which is why IMO from what I have read in the SGIP handbook, and PGE website, they support, allow and encourage charging batteries from the grid if needed, so one can use to avoid the grid during peak times.
I am not sure what you mean by "ER", maybe your comment would make sense if I understood what ER stands for? So, I am either totally misunderstanding your statement or you are wrong here. I can attest as I have 2 Powerwalls with SGIP program. SGIP program battery buyers absolutely receive the investment tax credit (ITC). SGIP does not encourage charging the batteries from the grid, in fact it is blocked from the ability to charge from the grid on the app controls. Both SGIP and ITC require you are charging only from solar. In December 2019, my 2 Powerwalls were installed. Price with permitting, install etc, and connected to my PV system was $21,000 less SGIP check that I recieved of $7400 less the 30% ITC of $6300 for a net cost of $7,300.
 
I am not sure what you mean by "ER", maybe your comment would make sense if I understood what ER stands for? So, I am either totally misunderstanding your statement or you are wrong here. I can attest as I have 2 Powerwalls with SGIP program. SGIP program battery buyers absolutely receive the investment tax credit (ITC). SGIP does not encourage charging the batteries from the grid, in fact it is blocked from the ability to charge from the grid on the app controls. Both SGIP and ITC require you are charging only from solar. In December 2019, my 2 Powerwalls were installed. Price with permitting, install etc, and connected to my PV system was $21,000 less SGIP check that I recieved of $7400 less the 30% ITC of $6300 for a net cost of $7,300.

The equity resiliency, covers 100% of cost, must cycle batteries 52 times per year, for 5 years, and DOES NOT get ITC.
 

The equity resiliency, covers 100% of cost, must cycle batteries 52 times per year, for 5 years, and DOES NOT get ITC.
Aha! I think the difference of what we are discussing is that you are looking at Powerwalls that charge from the grid. Yes, in that case no ITC (Why would anyone do this, just add solar it is cheap and a 4 to 5 year payback). If you are charging your Powerwalls from solar, you absolutely get the ITC. I received my ITC as did several friends of mine with Powerwalls.

"Powerwall is designed to qualify for the Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) when it is installed on an existing or new solar system and is charged 100% with solar energy. Discover more about state, utility and local energy incentives here."
 
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.
My solar averages around 58 kwh per day during the peak summer month and less than 7 kwh per day during the minimum winter month. My peak use is in winter of about 70kwh per day. Peak daily use in the summer is less. So how would I be able to cut the cord. The cost of 2 powerwalls would be about $20,000. I don't see any way I can justify this cost based on cost savings.