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

[bkp_duke]

Didn't the government make money on the GM bailout when it sold its stake several years later? I don't have issues with a car company being publicly traded the same way I do with a public utility that operates in a market that is a natural monopoly.

It's my understanding that CPUC guarantees utilities some fixed profit (in %) for any capital they spend on projects like upgrading power lines or building new power plants (yes, PG&E is a generator as well as a grid operator). If that's true then that's absolutely nuts. It's worse than encouraging them to not be competitive, it actually gives them an incentive to be inefficient, because a fixed % of a bigger number is a larger profit.

Yes, they do guarantee a fixed % of profit. But it is worse than that. When the utilities have issues (like failed maintenance results in a major wildfire - PG&E I'm looking at you), they petition the CPUC for a rate increase, and specifically state that increase is to cover the cost of dealing with the aftermath.

The governor appoints the 5 seats on the CPUC, and guess who contributes to BOTH of the major candidates to make sure they have leverage . . . that's right, all 3 of the utilities. Millions each election cycle, and not just to the governor, but to many different candidates running for state offices that might have influence on the CPUC.



The latest NEM 3.0 is so slanted towards the utilities (it was shot down 3X before they got it passed), that I fully expect a voter referendum in 2 years. Everyone I talk to here (low socioeconomic included) is PISSED that solar costs and payback are going to skyrocket.


EDIT - no, the gov didn't make money on the bailout. GM hasn't even fully repaid the bailout money.

 

[mspohr]

Didn't the government make money on the GM bailout when it sold its stake several years later? I don't have issues with a car company being publicly traded the same way I do with a public utility that operates in a market that is a natural monopoly.

General Motors Bailout Cost Taxpayers $11.2 Billion

The total cost of the government's bailout out GM has come to $11.2 billion after the Treasury sold the last of its assets in December

time.com

 

[dfwatt]

Here's my favorite cartoon about all this and although this one was developed in Florida it surely applies to California as well

 

[dfwatt]

Yes, they do guarantee a fixed % of profit. But it is worse than that. When the utilities have issues (like failed maintenance results in a major wildfire - PG&E I'm looking at you), they petition the CPUC for a rate increase, and specifically state that increase is to cover the cost of dealing with the aftermath.

The governor appoints the 5 seats on the CPUC, and guess who contributes to BOTH of the major candidates to make sure they have leverage . . . that's right, all 3 of the utilities. Millions each election cycle, and not just to the governor, but to many different candidates running for state offices that might have influence on the CPUC.



The latest NEM 3.0 is so slanted towards the utilities (it was shot down 3X before they got it passed), that I fully expect a voter referendum in 2 years. Everyone I talk to here (low socioeconomic included) is PISSED that solar costs and payback are going to skyrocket.


EDIT - no, the gov didn't make money on the bailout. GM hasn't even fully repaid the bailout money.

Yes and let's remember that GM is leading the electric vehicle revolution according to Mary (Em)barra(ssing)!!!

 

[SageBrush]

Yes and let's remember that GM is leading the electric vehicle revolution according to Mary (Em)barra(ssing)!!!

I think Biden was the first utter that nonsense, but I don't remember Mbarra correcting his error

 

[dfwatt]

I think Biden was the first utter that nonsense, but I don't remember Mbarra correcting his error

She's made that claim herself many times. After all let's remember we are now in the post-fact age where facts are irrelevant or worse, not real.

 

[h2ofun]

Sounds like you've had a bad experience. Outside of one lightning strike we've had no reliability issues with our solar. Pretty much just works. Who installed yours?

In 25 years, you expect no issues. I have an inverter die. I have had fw updates on inverters not work. I have to watch it all the time it is working. Its just not put it on and ignore it

 

[dfwatt]

In 25 years, you expect no issues. I have an inverter die. I have had fw updates on inverters not work. I have to watch it all the time it is working. Its just not put it on and ignore it

We have solar edge Inverters which appear to be pretty much highly reliable. Certainly not bulletproof but highly reliable

 

[SageBrush]

I found this example export/import TOU graph on What is NEM 3.0 and How Will it Impact California Solar Owners?

How are the much lower export values in the late morning and early evening justified, given the much higher import values ?

 

[mspohr]

I found this example export/import TOU graph on What is NEM 3.0 and How Will it Impact California Solar Owners?

How are the much lower export values in the late morning and early evening justified, given the much higher import values ?

View attachment 886110

They really are screwing solar. The already low solar export prices go even lower during solar production times while the import prices skyrocket.

 

[sunwarriors]

We'll have to agree to disagree. My definition of capitalism has always meant an OPEN MARKET, one that has competition. What you are referring to is a gov-sponsored monopoly, I don't consider that capitalism, at all.

The problem with pure OPEN MARKETS is that sometimes, it's simply not worth the hassle for businesses to serve certain communities. If insurance companies had their way, you might as well just not insure young women who can have kids. Childbirth is simply more expensive than most other health services with high cost/lotsa risk. You can also start cutting out old people or eliminate anyone with any genetic risk of certain diseases.


In energy markets, we can translate this to any rural areas. There is certainly cost shifting from rural areas to others where they need long transmission lines just to serve a few thousand people or simply less people. Wonder why no one brings this up often, but instead, we have class warfare between rich/poor for solar instead.

I don't know what Texas does about those areas and maybe someone can share.

It'd be smarter to simply not bother to serve those markets and if you have open market capitalism, some places will just have nothing. We already see this in shipping say with FedEx, UPS, etc...We see it in internet, high speed broadband as well.

I think my feeling is energy is a pretty basic need now. I still feel we should get to some community model. I personally don't want Sacramento dictating things down in So. Cal or really. I'd rather it be pretty local personally and remove any desire for profit, shareholders, etc...so the whole energy structure should be different. Maybe more like water.

The investor owned utilities model will never be balanced because there is always a conflict of interest when it's a basic need and a for profit enterprise. Look at PG&E, less investment leads to more fires, maintenance, etc, but as the CEO during that small window you were CEO, your bonuses might be bigger, etc. if you had better numbers.

 

[sunwarriors]

See my post above - there is one transmission network, it is regulated (and profits on it regulated), but power producers are allowed to compete. There is a reason that power in TX costs 1/3 that of California, and per the NERC the historical uptime for that grid is as good as any other (despite being 1/4 the size).

I think there has been plenty of examples of anyone NOT part of the large IOUs (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E) with massively lower rates so those energy companies IN California aren't charging IOU rates.

They could be literally next to an area PG&E services so something simply doesn't add up. It's not purely regulation since they have CA oversight too I'd imagine.

 

[sunwarriors]

Me - I think government is THE MOST INEFFICIENT utilizer of resources, and is horrible at innovation (they don't innovate for the most part).

I think I'll agree government is pretty bad. This is why I still think we should go really local at this point. A lot of us have solar/storage and manage it for 1 house. There will be less waste/inefficiency if a local area simply sees what they are paying for transparently, getting for their local area, etc...Even I'd be willing to load share my storage if it was just my area vs. some folks 800 miles away.

Sorta like when you shop for yourself, I think people spending their own $$ on stuff for their own local area will do a better job than larger government (with a lot of waste).

Look at all those threads on reading a PG&E black/white bill.

 

[bkp_duke]

The problem with pure OPEN MARKETS is that sometimes, it's simply not worth the hassle for businesses to serve certain communities. If insurance companies had their way, you might as well just not insure young women who can have kids. Childbirth is simply more expensive than most other health services with a lot cost/risk. You can also start cutting out old people or eliminate anyone with any genetic risk of certain diseases.


In energy markets, we can translate this to any rural areas. There is certainly cost shifting from rural areas to others where they need long tranmission lines just to serve a few thousand people or simply less people. Wonder why no one brings this up often, but instead, we have class warfare between rich/poor for solar instead.

I don't know what Texas does about those areas and maybe someone can share.

It'd be smarter to simply not bother to serve those markets and if you have open market capitalism, some places will just have nothing. We already see this in shipping say with FedEx, UPS, etc...We see it in internet, high speed broadband as well.

I think my feeling is energy is a pretty basic need now. I still feel we should get to some community model. I personally don't want Sacramento dictating things down in So. Cal or really. I'd rather it be pretty local personally and remove any desire for profit, shareholders, etc...so the whole energy structure should be different. Maybe more like water rates.

The investor owned utilities model will never be balanced because there is always a conflict of interest when it's a basic need and a for profit enterprise. Look at PG&E, less investment leads to more fires, maintenance, etc, but as the CEO during that small window you were CEO, your bonuses might be bigger, etc. if you had better numbers.

Sure, but again that's where there is a legitimate case for a FRAMEWORK by the gov to mandate that certain markets be serviced.


And the argument that solar is a rich person thing is one that has been steadily changing, and a new US Gov study by a major national lab showed that adoption by lower socioeconomic groups is accelerating:

Here’s how US rooftop solar adoption breaks down by income – it might surprise you

Here are the latest trends broken down by income bracket among 2.8 million US rooftop solar adopters, according to a new report.

electrek.co

 

[bkp_duke]

I think there has been plenty of examples of anyone NOT part of the large IOUs (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E) with massively lower rates so those energy companies IN California aren't charging IOU rates.

They could be literally next to an area PG&E services so something simply doesn't add up. It's not purely regulation since they have CA oversight too I'd imagine.

There is a CCA here in SDG&E territory, unfortunately the rates are only marginally lower than SDG&E, because . . . they have to pay SDG&E to use the wires (and SDG&E sets the rates, which they can set to almost anything they want).

 

[bkp_duke]

I think I'll agree government is pretty bad. This is why I still think we should go really local at this point. A lot of us have solar/storage and manage it for 1 house. There will be less waste/inefficiency if a local area simply sees what they are paying for transparently, getting for their local area, etc...Even I'd be willing to load share my storage if it was just my area vs. some folks 800 miles away.

Sorta like when you shop for yourself, I think people spending their own $$ on stuff for their own local area will do a better job than larger government (with a lot of waste).

Look at all those threads on reading a PG&E black/white bill.

Yep, completely agree. We wouldn't need to pay for as many of those long-distance HVDC transmission lines either, which would further reduce utility costs.

 

[sunwarriors]

She's made that claim herself many times. After all let's remember we are now in the post-fact age where facts are irrelevant or worse, not real.

I hear some Stanford wunderkind said to Fake it till you make it. Wonder how she's doing now...

/s

 

[sunwarriors]

Sure, but again that's where there is a legitimate case for a FRAMEWORK by the gov to mandate that certain markets be serviced.


And the argument that solar is a rich person thing is one that has been steadily changing, and a new US Gov study by a major national lab showed that adoption by lower socioeconomic groups is accelerating:

Here’s how US rooftop solar adoption breaks down by income – it might surprise you

Here are the latest trends broken down by income bracket among 2.8 million US rooftop solar adopters, according to a new report.

electrek.co

Yeah, the whole framework in CA has to change, but as a not wealthy person at all and having shared that solar link before (why solar even took this long), that whole rich/poor thing is annoying.

Simply put also, poor people don't own homes so they don't have solar. It's as simple as that. I certainly didn't hate on the rich thinking they made my power bills higher. SDG&E will make it higher either way without any solar IMO.

 

[STS-134]

They really are screwing solar. The already low solar export prices go even lower during solar production times while the import prices skyrocket.

With the new rules, if they go into effect, the thing to do will be to get solar and use it to charge your on-site storage, and then set up your on-site storage to supply your house with electricity during peak times during the summer. For all other times, just hold the energy as a backup. Now what they need to do is dramatically lower retail prices during times when electricity is abundant.

 

[mspohr]

I think there has been plenty of examples of anyone NOT part of the large IOUs (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E) with massively lower rates so those energy companies IN California aren't charging IOU rates.

They could be literally next to an area PG&E services so something simply doesn't add up. It's not purely regulation since they have CA oversight too I'd imagine.

I live in Eastern CA adjacent to PGE and have much lower rates than them. Liberty utilities arguably has higher cost due to large area and low population density but keeps rates low and offers generous solar subsidies.