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

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The last number I heard was from the SE US I believe and it was at least 5 years ago. The base cost per connection was about $50 a month - so way higher than the $10 or $15 that is typical.
In the SE, the typical electric bill is $100 a month (again 5 years ago). The actual fuel/generation costs were about $50 and the base connection costs were about $50. This is ignoring the regulated approximately 12% profit.
Convert those numbers to CA and a few years later, I suspect you are at $100 base monthly cost per connection. That would be considered quite regressive and certainly not encourage conservation - as the usage costs would decline.
You have a conflict between transparency and conservation. No one seems to think the population can handle the full complex discussion. CA rates are somewhat of a subsidy to the poor. And in some ways not.
About 10 years ago, my solar rate in NC was net metered, between 5 and 6 cents a KWH, with a demand charge based on highest KW over a 15 min period during peak. For much of the time, the demand charge dominated. It was aroun $5 a KW. Interestingly Duke dropped it so when I moved and did solar again, I am now on a typical rate - 11 cents or so.
Demand charges made sense 10 years ago and make more sense today. It is complicated but transparent so the 400A panel person pays more (likely) than the 100A person with solar. I say likely because I had 400A but I could get my demand to 3-5 KW nearly every month. And I was way more electric than the typical CA - dryer, oven, hot water, heat pumps etc. We did have NG backup on the heat which helped minimize peak demand in the winter and I had staged A/C that I could restrict to low stage until off peak.
Demand charges could really hurt renters who don't have much control over things. So again, the regressive nature of proper rate structures is a big barrier.
It really all comes down to income inequality....

It really comes down to policy which mixes welfare in with pricing because it's easier politically than separating them.

What should happen:

Public good: use general taxation revenue
Service: use accurate pricing

What actually happens:
Service: inaccurate pricing and additional taxes and fees cross-subsidizing service costs for the public good

If accurate pricing is a problem for certain groups, then the problem needs to be corrected in policy like minimum wage, welfare, building code and appliance standards, not by making others pay an inflated amount for the same service.

 

[SageBrush]

If accurate pricing is a problem for certain groups, then the problem needs to be corrected in policy like minimum wage, welfare, building code and appliance standards, not by making others pay an inflated amount for the same service.

That is my stance also, although I find this entire drama over "cross-subsidy" to be so much BS. As if the urban subsidization of rural electricity provision is anything but.

 

[STS-134]

Public good: use general taxation revenue
Service: use accurate pricing

Which is exactly what happens when the city/state runs the grid. CA should have seized PG&E's grid when PG&E was in bankruptcy and wiped out the shareholders. But Governor Newscum's "friend" (the same one that was at the infamous French Laundry dinner) lobbies for PG&E so he decided to bail them out instead.

 

[frankvb]

The best solution (IMHO) is to completely separate the grid into a non-profit/community owned entity, and let commercial entities compete on generation and delivery (so capitalism actually works instead of the current monopoly, and you would be able to choose your own electricity provider).

 

[SageBrush]

let commercial entities compete on generation and delivery

What is the substantial part of 'delivery' if not the grid ?

Free market competition of marketing does not address the underlying thorny questions.

 

[frankvb]

What is the substantial part of 'delivery' if not the grid ?

Free market competition of marketing does not address the underlying thorny questions.

Bad wording from my side, I meant delivery to the customer, i.e. generating bills, account management etc.

 

[STS-134]

Bad wording from my side, I meant delivery to the customer, i.e. generating bills, account management etc.

That's not very expensive. The big issue is that transmission is most efficiently done with a single grid. If you had 5 different companies competing and they had to build 5 separate grids side by side, this would be far more expensive than having a single grid. Electricity delivery is a natural monopoly and industries like that need to be either strictly regulated or run by the government.

 

[dfwatt]

That's not very expensive. The big issue is that transmission is most efficiently done with a single grid. If you had 5 different companies competing and they had to build 5 separate grids side by side, this would be far more expensive than having a single grid. Electricity delivery is a natural monopoly and industries like that need to be either strictly regulated or run by the government.

In theory yes but in practice it's really putting the fox in charge of the chickens, given that the utility companies often times have more control over the government agencies and Personnel supervising them than the other way around.

The other problem is that figuring out costs and then adding a fixed profit percentage is something that only a world class forensic accounting team could actually accomplish, given the layers of Financial obfuscation, padding of expenses, executive perks, and other Frills that appear under the putative hard cost of operation and the budgets of most utility companies.

Then there's that whole guaranteed profit thing. In what other area of Life can you run a s*** show operation, with all kinds of inefficiencies, graft, waste, Etc and be absolutely 100% guaranteed a fixed profit? Indeed according to these parametrics, the more money you waste the more money you make in your fixed profit ratio. So what is the incentive for this natural monopoly that you're talking about to do anything other than hose the consumer? Don't see it.

 

[STS-134]

In theory yes but in practice it's really putting the fox in charge of the chickens, given that the utility companies often times have more control over the government agencies and Personnel supervising them than the other way around.

The other problem is that figuring out costs and then adding a fixed profit percentage is something that only a world class forensic accounting team could actually accomplish, given the layers of Financial obfuscation, padding of expenses, executive perks, and other Frills that appear under the putative hard cost of operation and the budgets of most utility companies.

Then there's that whole guaranteed profit thing. In what other area of Life can you run a s***** operation, with all kinds of inefficiencies, graft, waste, Etc and be absolutely 100% guaranteed a fixed profit? Indeed according to these parametrics, the more money you waste the more money you make in your fixed profit ratio. So what is the incentive for this natural monopoly that you're talking about to do anything other than hose the consumer? Don't see it.

Which leaves only one option: having the government directly operate the grid. Which is exactly what has happened in Santa Clara (the city not the county) and Palo Alto, which both have rates far lower than Pacific Gouge & Extort.

 

[dfwatt]

Which leaves only one option: having the government directly operate the grid. Which is exactly what has happened in Santa Clara (the city not the county) and Palo Alto, which both have rates far lower than Pacific Gouge & Extort.

No I don't really relish trading one set of corrupted and character disordered Executives for another although there may be some local governments where politicians actually care about their constituents but they might be the exception that proves the rule. I do think competition weeds a lot of this s*** out and the problem is that right now the competition is coming from a disruptive technology. Rooftop solar right now can hit 10 cents per kilowatt hour over the lifetime of the system in areas with at least reasonable sun. That's a number almost no utility can actually hit outside of those powered by hydroelectric power.

So the solution is to transition to a much skinnier grid with many integrated local grids working off wind and solar including rooftop as well as solar farms and Battery Systems taking the place of Mega grids run by fossil fuel systems and corrupt corporate executives.

The disruptive technology is rooftop solar. It is disrupting the power industry just as electric vehicles are disrupting the internal combustion engine vehicle.

 

[STS-134]

No I don't really relish trading one set of corrupted and character disordered Executives for another.

Governments are accountable to the voters. The rates of Silicon Valley Power and Palo Alto Utilities speak for themselves.

I do think competition weeds a lot of this s*** out and the problem is that right now the competition is coming from a disruptive technology. Rooftop solar right now can hit 10 cents per kilowatt hour over the lifetime of the system in areas with at least reasonable sun. That's a number almost no utility can actually hit outside of those powered by hydroelectric power.

So the solution is to transition to a much skinnier grid with many integrated local grids working off wind and solar including rooftop as well as solar farms and Battery Systems taking the place of Mega grids run by fossil fuel systems and corrupt corporate executives.

The disruptive technology is rooftop solar. It is disrupting the power industry just as electric vehicles are disrupting the internal combustion engine vehicle.

You still need a robust grid that can supply all of the energy everyone needs, because you can't shut down your economy whenever conditions aren't suitable for generating electricity (unless you're Texas). In California, this is unlikely to be severe cold but is more likely to be overcast days with no wind. Rooftop solar and storage reduce the average demand on the grid but does nothing about the peak, and you have to build for the peak, not the average.

 

[dfwatt]

Governments are accountable to the voters. The rates of Silicon Valley Power and Palo Alto Utilities speak for themselves.

You still need a robust grid that can supply all of the energy everyone needs, because you can't shut down your economy whenever conditions aren't suitable for generating electricity (unless you're Texas). In California, this is unlikely to be severe cold but is more likely to be overcast days with no wind. Rooftop solar and storage reduce the average demand on the grid but does nothing about the peak, and you have to build for the peak, not the average.

That's true and everybody will have to pay into the network so to speak but there has to be a way to arrive at an equitable and realistic cost for that shared infrastructure maintenance as opposed to the crazy numbers that most utilities are talking about for folks with rooftop solar. As the cost of batteries and other forms of energy storage come down which is already happening, the disjunction between Peak solar generating times and Peak demand times will be solved. Folks with powerwalls are already contributing to that in some areas of California from my understanding. And getting paid pretty nice rates too!

 

[Dave EV]

The last number I heard was from the SE US I believe and it was at least 5 years ago. The base cost per connection was about $50 a month - so way higher than the $10 or $15 that is typical.
In the SE, the typical electric bill is $100 a month (again 5 years ago). The actual fuel/generation costs were about $50 and the base connection costs were about $50. This is ignoring the regulated approximately 12% profit.
Convert those numbers to CA and a few years later, I suspect you are at $100 base monthly cost per connection. That would be considered quite regressive and certainly not encourage conservation - as the usage costs would decline.
You have a conflict between transparency and conservation. No one seems to think the population can handle the full complex discussion. CA rates are somewhat of a subsidy to the poor. And in some ways not.
About 10 years ago, my solar rate in NC was net metered, between 5 and 6 cents a KWH, with a demand charge based on highest KW over a 15 min period during peak. For much of the time, the demand charge dominated. It was aroun $5 a KW. Interestingly Duke dropped it so when I moved and did solar again, I am now on a typical rate - 11 cents or so.
Demand charges made sense 10 years ago and make more sense today. It is complicated but transparent so the 400A panel person pays more (likely) than the 100A person with solar. I say likely because I had 400A but I could get my demand to 3-5 KW nearly every month. And I was way more electric than the typical CA - dryer, oven, hot water, heat pumps etc. We did have NG backup on the heat which helped minimize peak demand in the winter and I had staged A/C that I could restrict to low stage until off peak.
Demand charges could really hurt renters who don't have much control over things. So again, the regressive nature of proper rate structures is a big barrier.
It really all comes down to income inequality....

Here's the problem - you are saying that the cost to connect to the grid is $50. Does that include just the meter? The wires to the meter? The wires to the meter all the way to the generation plant? What exactly?

Even demand charges are approximations - If you share a 1500 kVA transformer with a bunch of people, whats your cost to hook up if the transformer has plenty of capacity? The hour of the year that you have your peak demand is what really drives infrastructure costs. You can pull 100 kW at 3 AM in the morning and your affect on infrastructure means nothing. But if you pull 100 kW at 7 PM on a weekday in September - that kW of demand is going to cost you.

No matter what, there is inequality in utility rate structures. It's not income inequality - most utilities already have CARE rates which discount rates for low income households, which other customers then subsidize.

So how do you choose which customers to subsidize and which will do the subsidizing?

 

[David_Cary]

The cost to connect to the grid is hard to calculate. In this case, I was using an estimate that included all but fuel costs. The meter obviously is cheap. It is the ongoing capital costs of everything and maintenance of it all.
I have solar - 2 houses - 10 years in total.

The grid is essential in my case and so that $50 is roughly what my portion is and I pay $14. My total is about $50 including my usage but obviously am using some fuel. Now - can they get by with a few less peaker plants because of the home solar - sure. So maybe $48 as we all know peaker plants are cheap.

Home solar is great but it really isn't that disruptive. To have backup batteries to make the grid go away costs more than the grid in most places and certainly the SE. At $50 a month, you would need a 10 year life battery to cost like $5k. And work in all situations. Not happening .. yet. So the grid is essential still for residences. No serious vision shows no grid. If solar+battery got that cheap, it would still favor groups sharing - otherwise you are oversizing 100 million different systems.

The demand charge for me applied only to peak time. And the hours changed winter vs summer. Not perfect for sure but reasonable. Winter 1-4 PM was off peak as an example. And 6 AM started peak in winter - heating up the house in the AM and hot water for showers.

Income inequality makes the case for rate inequality. The fact is the poor don't pay their share of the grid and the rich pay more than their share (in CA at least). So the income inequality limits our options. I am all for $10 a gallon gas and $1 a kwh. But the poor starve in that situation.

Yes - there will be some rate inequality always. I would love to see that gradually fixed to a rational situation. That would involve a higher monthly fixed cost to match the true fixed cost of the grid. And that hurts home solar. But why should we be subsidizing the rich with cheap fixed cost and net metering?

Ideally, we would subsidize no one. We would tax carbon to the ends of the world while cutting SS taxes for the poor with the money. Which would really just be internalizing the externality - cue up my 1991 environmental science class. I am getting old....

I realize we can't do what rational thinking would dictate. That is a political problem and an entitlement problem - like everyone feels entitled to everything (not talking SS and Medicare). Seeing the rich whine about subsidies going away doesn't help politically either.

Yes, we live in an oligarchy where corporations run the government. That is another problem altogether. And that is part of the PG&E problem too. Interestingly, I live in Duke Energy power land. For sure they run the government also but the rate structure is reasonable. They have a full monopoly. I pay $.11 cents or so. They are asking for an 18% increase and they will probably get 1/2 of that. Which is reasonable given inflation and NG costs. So it isn't just graft and extortion.

 

[OldPro]

I've given up trying to keep track of all the machinations SDGE has laid out to continue to reduce my investment in my Solar Panel system. I'm retired and fast approaching age 70. I should be fully retired and just catching rays!

 

[OldPro]

Now the power companies in California want to set your electricity rates to income level.

 

[Big Dog]

Now the power companies in California want to set your electricity rates to income level.

I believe that they are only following the state law approved in 2022.

High-stakes battle brewing over California power bills

Utility companies say a new payment structure will help lower-income Californians. But Republicans say it might backfire.

calmatters.org

 

[SageBrush]

I believe that they are only following the state law approved in 2022.

High-stakes battle brewing over California power bills

Utility companies say a new payment structure will help lower-income Californians. But Republicans say it might backfire.

calmatters.org

Those are crazy high monthly connection fees. After NEM 3.0, clearly the next agenda for the utilities is to gut the value of PV by moving costs to connection.

 

[OldPro]

I believe that they are only following the state law approved in 2022.

High-stakes battle brewing over California power bills

Utility companies say a new payment structure will help lower-income Californians. But Republicans say it might backfire.

calmatters.org

The Law the paid via contributions to State Legislatures! This is Class Warfare

 

[gene]

California utilities commission sued for gouging rooftop solar payments

Three leading environmental groups have filed a petition to the California Court of Appeals to review the state’s solar net energy metering cuts.

pv-magazine-usa.com