-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
California Utilities Plan All Out War On Solar, Please Read And Help
- Thread starter gene
- Start date
But what if we are pushing solar energy into the grid from our house while we're on the road?
Theres a reason utilities have begun pushing back on net metering, it’s not a solution by any means. I suspect you know that…
The End Of Net Metering May Be Good For Community Resilience & Nat'l Security - CleanTechnica
Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! In a recent article, we shared the developing story of attacks on net metering policies around the United States, even in solar-friendly states. While not all of the attacks are successful, many are. Many...
cleantechnica.com
Last edited:
Please explain.Theres a reason utilities have begun pushing back on net metering, it’s not a solution by any means. I suspect you know that…
The End Of Net Metering May Be Good For Community Resilience & Nat'l Security - CleanTechnica
Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! In a recent article, we shared the developing story of attacks on net metering policies around the United States, even in solar-friendly states. While not all of the attacks are successful, many are. Many...
If I've invested in PV for my house and I charge my car at the office during the day. We don't own the building and the property manager is not interested in putting PV on roof. I'm essentially providing the energy to the grid as I'm charging my car. The grid is just transporting it for me.
Why is this bad?
It also does not require net metering, just paying for transport of electricity either way.
Net metering did make a lot of sense when fuel was providing electricity to the grid during the day. It obviated the need for peaker plans, especially in summer and allowed other plants to throttle down when the sun was shining. This day, fortunately, is ending.
Did you read the article - or any articles re: the issues with net metering?
The solar you are putting into the grid does not match you charging your car, so the grid is not just transporting it for you. Solar homes pay less for utilities by using less power plant electricity and therefore paying less for the capital equipment required. If a solar home user expects to have power plant electricity whenever needed, then power plants can't reduce their production capacity as it will all be needed at times, and it throws power plants further out of demand balance. You may save the power plant some fuel, but not equipment, labor or other fixed expenses. Now extrapolate that out to most/every home having solar and putting excess on the grid, whether demand uses it. The grid is not a battery. If you want to use solar and your own battery and disconnect from the grid, that's fine. Otherwise net metering is not helpful to all.
And when residential solar is at it's highest generation, is not when peak demand and peaked plants come on line. Net metering has made it harder for power plants, not easier. It just wasn't as big an issue when it was just a small number of solar homeowners, does not scale well.
You seem to think there are unlimited batteries in the system to smooth the fluctuations, there aren't. While it appears huge battery banks are becoming part of the grid, they aren't free. I know there are lots of fluff articles online that seem to think demand and generation don't have to by in sync, they're nonsense.
Last edited:
Yes, I read the article now and back when it came out. Your argument, however, does not address the specific issue I mention though. Your argument does address the misconception many PV owners have though. I'm only talking about when I'm putting energy into the grid from my house and pulling it from the grid for my car at the office at the same time.
I agree fully with the impact on the grid when it is required to have electricity available for me on demand, even when I'm not buying it from them. That was barely sustainable when the grid was powered by fuel and there were few homes with PV. It makes little sense at all (as the article implies)when the grid is supplied from utility-owned solar, with the possible exception of my case where I'm putting electricity onto the grid in one place and pulling it from another place. I'll also agree that my charging is not matched exactly to my PV production.
Utility Tax
As you all know, last year, the Legislature passed a new law: AB 205. This law requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to add a Utility Tax to everyone’s electricity bill based on household income. Now, the utilities and some other organizations are proposing to charge all ratepayers the highest Utility Tax in the country: between $400 and $1,500 per year, depending on household income.
These proposals will INCREASE utility bills on millions of working and middle-class people who live in apartments and smaller homes that use lower-than-average electricity. They would also INCREASE utility bills on people who have invested in conservation, efficiency, and rooftop solar.
This Utility Tax is completely uncapped, with unlimited potential to grow. AB 205 was passed without any public hearings or ddiscussion. Now the CPUC is deciding how much the Utility Tax will be. They are expected to make a final decision by June 2024.
More than 50 groups have signed onto the Utility Tax Coalition. We are gaining momentum!!!
Utility Tax Coalition is not the official name of the Coalition. A name will be selected soon. BUT, you can check out the growing coalition here.
If you belong to an organization or know of an organization that would be interested in having a person present on the Utility Tax and how they can get involved, please get in touch with Cailey Underhill at [email protected]
Call your State Assemblymember and ask them to FIX THIS MESS!!!
Please call your state assembly member next week. The legislature is about to take its summer break, and why don't we give the Assemblymembers something to consider over their vacation?
Here's a short script for you to use when you call
Hello, my name is _____. I live in _____. I just learned that the legislature voted for a Utility Tax that will increase bills on millions of people living in apartments, condos, and small homes that don’t use much energy. This will also discourage all forms of energy conservation.
I am opposed to this Utility Tax. Since the legislature voted for this Utility Tax, I expect you to fix this mess. Please let me know your plan to stop this Utility Tax from happening. Thank you.
You can look up their phone number here
Next week I should have information to share regarding the Contractor's license board meeting on Thursday. Thank you to everyone who attended or called into the meeting to comment publicly. Thank you to everyone that took the time to write to the Contractors Board!
I hope you all have a great weekend!
As you all know, last year, the Legislature passed a new law: AB 205. This law requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to add a Utility Tax to everyone’s electricity bill based on household income. Now, the utilities and some other organizations are proposing to charge all ratepayers the highest Utility Tax in the country: between $400 and $1,500 per year, depending on household income.
These proposals will INCREASE utility bills on millions of working and middle-class people who live in apartments and smaller homes that use lower-than-average electricity. They would also INCREASE utility bills on people who have invested in conservation, efficiency, and rooftop solar.
This Utility Tax is completely uncapped, with unlimited potential to grow. AB 205 was passed without any public hearings or ddiscussion. Now the CPUC is deciding how much the Utility Tax will be. They are expected to make a final decision by June 2024.
More than 50 groups have signed onto the Utility Tax Coalition. We are gaining momentum!!!
Utility Tax Coalition is not the official name of the Coalition. A name will be selected soon. BUT, you can check out the growing coalition here.
If you belong to an organization or know of an organization that would be interested in having a person present on the Utility Tax and how they can get involved, please get in touch with Cailey Underhill at [email protected]
Call your State Assemblymember and ask them to FIX THIS MESS!!!
Please call your state assembly member next week. The legislature is about to take its summer break, and why don't we give the Assemblymembers something to consider over their vacation?
Here's a short script for you to use when you call
Hello, my name is _____. I live in _____. I just learned that the legislature voted for a Utility Tax that will increase bills on millions of people living in apartments, condos, and small homes that don’t use much energy. This will also discourage all forms of energy conservation.
I am opposed to this Utility Tax. Since the legislature voted for this Utility Tax, I expect you to fix this mess. Please let me know your plan to stop this Utility Tax from happening. Thank you.
You can look up their phone number here
Next week I should have information to share regarding the Contractor's license board meeting on Thursday. Thank you to everyone who attended or called into the meeting to comment publicly. Thank you to everyone that took the time to write to the Contractors Board!
I hope you all have a great weekend!
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Dang.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I read you post as saying that EVERY household will pay this tax, unrelated to generation or consumption. It reads as another connection fee, albeit tiered by income.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I've seen you post this argument before but I'm not sure I understand it. 'Net metering' has a lot of variations. My home has one kWh = one kWh, which is probably the version you oppose, and I agree with the criticism. Net metering tied to TOU is a lot closer to FIT. Left unaccounted for are transmission and distribution costs (T&D). I don't expect there to be significant (or any) transmission costs, so what would be your take on Net metering with TOU kWh credits and a supplemental distribution cost for consumption of utility supplied kWh ?
Yes, it's effectively replacing their CARE program with the PUC creating income-based fixed fees. Essentially, treating electrical service as a public good, but paying for it the wrong way.
You are correct. You could have invested in enough solar to completely offset 100% of your consumption. In
my case, I over produce by 15% per year which I purposely designed so as to help with climate solutions, yet I and every Californian household will stay pay through the nose. In my case $1600 per year. More so than the money, what’s infuriating is how this is a corrupt money grab.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I cannot make that call, not being in CA or having forensic accounting tools or a close look at the IOU books. I do know that the IOUs are still paying back ENRON era debt, and they have outsized climate change related costs. It is the latter that I would find most annoying since the IOUs could have cleaned up their energy sources decades ago but chose not to. Lots of blame to share on that one.
My local utility PNM is infuriating in that regard. They put forward proposals to expand NG consumption because it has the 'best cost/pollution' ratio -- but that is only 'true' because they use trump era discount rates on the cost of pollution (clearly BS), and they ignore the upstream pollution. It was not so long ago that many in CA were pretty proud of their 'clean' NG sources so the NG stupidity clearly crosses political boundaries.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
California puts multi-meter rooftop solar at risk with proposed decision
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has returned with another proposed decision to stack the deck against rooftop solar.
www.pv-magazine.com
The decision sets hard limits on how much electricity produced by rooftop solar can be self-consumed by multi-meter properties. The policy effectively forces customers to first sell their solar production to the utility, and then buy it back at higher rates.
The decision to not let multi-meter properties consume electricity from a system they own and operate comes with a clear motive: profit protection. If a rooftop solar owner is using their own electricity, they aren’t buying it from the utility. The CPUC has shown time and again that protecting utility profits is chief among its functions in the last year of rooftop solar rulemaking decisions.
And the current and corrupt PUC appointed by governor Newsom. We have had ZERO help from Newsom on this, even after extraordinary letters and calls by the tens of thousands to his office.California puts multi-meter rooftop solar at risk with proposed decision
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has returned with another proposed decision to stack the deck against rooftop solar.
The CPUC has shown time and again that protecting utility profits is chief among its functions in the last year of rooftop solar rulemaking decisions.
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Newsome receives lots of bribes from California Utilities. He won't bite the hands that feed him.And the current and corrupt PUC appointed by governor Newsom. We have had ZERO help from Newsom on this, even after extraordinary letters and calls by the tens of thousands to his office.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Therein lies the root of the problem. Politicians beholden to donors, and not constituents.
And the current and corrupt PUC appointed by governor Newsom. We have had ZERO help from Newsom on this, even after extraordinary letters and calls by the tens of thousands to his office.
And this is a surprise? Newsom is busy looking for his next job. Doesn't have time to focus on his current job.
Hello Everyone.. I hope you have had a great week and mostly avoided the heat. If anyone has the time to help out:
In case you missed the Clean Coalition webinar, here is the link to the recording
Speaker slides
Ben Schwartz represents the Clean Coalition in proceedings at the CPUC, focusing on microgrids, interconnection, net energy metering, renewable procurement, rate design, and more. With a background in environmental studies and public policy, he brings valuable insight to the diverse local, state, and national policy work at the Clean Coalition.
Josh Plaisted received his MSME at UW Madison's Solar Energy Laboratory in tandem with a certificate in energy analysis and policy. He has over two decades of experience in the solar field, running product development, systems simulation, and field performance validation from startups to publicly traded multinational corporations. Mr. Plaisted has assisted in developing regulatory standards and provided guidance and testimony before the CEC and CPUC.
Here are 2 actions below, if you would like to participate
ACTION 1: Call your assemblymember and tell them they must fix the Utility Tax. While your at it, why not call your State Senate
CALL
Here’s a suggested Phone message. Feel free to modify it:
Hello, my name is _____. I live in _____. I just learned that the legislature voted for a Utility Tax that will increase bills on millions of people living in apartments, condos, and small homes that don’t use much energy.
This will also discourage all forms of energy conservation. I am opposed to this Utility Tax. Since the legislature voted for this Utility Tax, I expect you to fix this mess.
ACTION 2: You can email your assemblymember directly or submit your comments using your assemblymember's website. While you are at it, why not email your state Senator
If you would like to email yourAssemblymember use this link, If no email is found, then submit a comment on their website. If you don't know who your state reps are: Use this link to find out
Email Subject: Proposed utility tax
Sample message below or any of the scripts above.
I recently learned that the legislature, including you, voted for a utility tax to increase bills on all users, including seniors and low-income people who don’t use much energy. This will discourage all forms of energy conservation, and I am totally opposed to this Utility Tax. Since you voted for this tax, I expect you to fix this mess.
Please let me know your plan to stop this Utility TAX from happening.
Will you do one of two things?
1, Either author legislation to re-cap the Utility Tax at or below the national average of $120/year?
2. Or direct the CPUC to do the same?
I am anxiously awaiting your response.
Your Name
City, Zip Code
Phone #
Topic 2: CPUC to prohibit apartment buildings, other multi-family homes, schools, and small farms from rooftop solar to reduce their electricity bill
Last week, the CA Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) proposed to block renters, farmers, and schools from using their own solar energy. This would close the door on rooftop solar for apartments, farms, and schools across California.
While single-family homeowners have preserved their right to make their own solar energy instead of buying it from the utility, that same right is now in question for renters, landlords, schools, small farms, and other businesses.
Yes, you read it correctly. The CPUC is essentially letting the utilities seize control over privately-owned rooftop solar systems on apartments, condos, farms, and schools—and then making the property owner pay the utility to get their own solar power back!
Action 1: You can support the right for renters, farmers, and others to use their own solar energy by submitting a public comment to the CPUC through the CPUC online portal. We've put out an article on it here with more background information if you're interested!
Action 2: Email CPUC commissioners directly
Email Subject line if you email the commissioners: R2008020 - Public Comments: Order Instituting Rulemaking to Revisit Net Energy Metering Tariffs Pursuant to Decision 16-01-044, and to Address Other Issues Related to Net Energy Metering.
At the end of your email,
Your Name
City, Zip Code
Phone #
Email addresses for commissioners
[email protected][email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] Executive Director CPUC
[email protected]
[email protected]
MESSAGE FOR YOUR EMAIL, Posting to the CPUC website, Calling the Gov or posting to his website
Please modify the order to include on-site netting so that people like me [or my tenants, if you're a landlord; or students; or school districts; or my farm - modify as appropriate] can benefit from local, renewable, and affordable energy in the form of rooftop solar. Such a tariff should, at minimum, include on-site netting (the ability of those in multifamily housing, schools, or farms to benefit from the local renewable energy that their own solar system generates.
In your own words, one reason to back up your request. Below are some options. Of course, say it in your own words. It is more powerful that way!
The proposed decision is discriminatory: It would deprive multifamily housing tenants [or condominium owners], schools, and farmers of the ability to receive full savings on their energy bill from the solar that our solar roof produces/would produce - a benefit enjoyed by single-family homeowners with solar. Modify the proposed decision to include on-site netting, thereby ensuring an opportunity for tenants, property owners alike, schools, and small farmers, to save costs through solar on their own rooftops or farms.
No one should have to choose between paying their rent and paying their utility bills: At a time when the cost of both is dramatically going up, rooftop solar can save multifamily tenants as much as $50/month in utility bills. Please don't abandon this important lifeline for renters in the name of further profit to the utilities. Modify the proposed decision to include on-site netting, thereby ensuring an opportunity for tenants, property owners alike, schools, and small farmers, to save costs through solar on their own rooftops or farms.
The proposed decision flies in the face of the Governor's own commitment to housing affordability. The Governor has often spoken about the need to build more multifamily housing to address the housing affordability crisis renters [or working/middle-class families] like me face. The utilities' proposal makes the cost of building and maintaining this housing more expensive. Modify the proposed decision to include on-site netting, thereby ensuring an opportunity for tenants, property owners alike, schools, and small farmers, to save costs through solar on their own rooftops or farms.
Action 3: You can also give a verbal public comment by phone at the CPUC's next meeting on August 31st at 10am. Instructions for giving a public comment by phone.
Have a great weekend.
- The Utility and a list of actions for you to take
- CPUC to prohibit apartment buildings, other multi-family homes, schools, and small farms from rooftop solar to reduce their electricity bill and a list of actions you can take
In case you missed the Clean Coalition webinar, here is the link to the recording
Speaker slides
- Ben Schwartz's presentation slides are available in PPT and PDF format.
- Josh Plaisted's presentation slides are available in PPT and PDF format.
- The Clean Coalition's rebuttal testimony, proposing a modest Fixed Charge, can be found in PDF format.
- Josh Plaisted's Fixed Charge Whitepaper is available in PDF format.
Ben Schwartz represents the Clean Coalition in proceedings at the CPUC, focusing on microgrids, interconnection, net energy metering, renewable procurement, rate design, and more. With a background in environmental studies and public policy, he brings valuable insight to the diverse local, state, and national policy work at the Clean Coalition.
Josh Plaisted received his MSME at UW Madison's Solar Energy Laboratory in tandem with a certificate in energy analysis and policy. He has over two decades of experience in the solar field, running product development, systems simulation, and field performance validation from startups to publicly traded multinational corporations. Mr. Plaisted has assisted in developing regulatory standards and provided guidance and testimony before the CEC and CPUC.
Here are 2 actions below, if you would like to participate
ACTION 1: Call your assemblymember and tell them they must fix the Utility Tax. While your at it, why not call your State Senate
CALL
- Either author legislation to re-cap the Utility Tax at or below the national average of $120/year?
- Or direct the CPUC to do the same?
Here’s a suggested Phone message. Feel free to modify it:
Hello, my name is _____. I live in _____. I just learned that the legislature voted for a Utility Tax that will increase bills on millions of people living in apartments, condos, and small homes that don’t use much energy.
This will also discourage all forms of energy conservation. I am opposed to this Utility Tax. Since the legislature voted for this Utility Tax, I expect you to fix this mess.
- Either author legislation to re-cap the Utility Tax at or below the national average of $120/year?
- Or direct the CPUC to do the same? Thank you
ACTION 2: You can email your assemblymember directly or submit your comments using your assemblymember's website. While you are at it, why not email your state Senator
If you would like to email yourAssemblymember use this link, If no email is found, then submit a comment on their website. If you don't know who your state reps are: Use this link to find out
Email Subject: Proposed utility tax
Sample message below or any of the scripts above.
I recently learned that the legislature, including you, voted for a utility tax to increase bills on all users, including seniors and low-income people who don’t use much energy. This will discourage all forms of energy conservation, and I am totally opposed to this Utility Tax. Since you voted for this tax, I expect you to fix this mess.
Please let me know your plan to stop this Utility TAX from happening.
Will you do one of two things?
1, Either author legislation to re-cap the Utility Tax at or below the national average of $120/year?
2. Or direct the CPUC to do the same?
I am anxiously awaiting your response.
Your Name
City, Zip Code
Phone #
Topic 2: CPUC to prohibit apartment buildings, other multi-family homes, schools, and small farms from rooftop solar to reduce their electricity bill
Last week, the CA Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) proposed to block renters, farmers, and schools from using their own solar energy. This would close the door on rooftop solar for apartments, farms, and schools across California.
While single-family homeowners have preserved their right to make their own solar energy instead of buying it from the utility, that same right is now in question for renters, landlords, schools, small farms, and other businesses.
- CPUC proposes that properties with more than one electrical meter be blocked from directly using their rooftop solar energy.
- Instead, the CPUC proposes that the utilities be given exclusive control over that rooftop solar energy as soon as it is made. The landlord and tenants of the apartment building would then have to buy their own solar energy back from the utility.
Yes, you read it correctly. The CPUC is essentially letting the utilities seize control over privately-owned rooftop solar systems on apartments, condos, farms, and schools—and then making the property owner pay the utility to get their own solar power back!
Action 1: You can support the right for renters, farmers, and others to use their own solar energy by submitting a public comment to the CPUC through the CPUC online portal. We've put out an article on it here with more background information if you're interested!
Action 2: Email CPUC commissioners directly
Email Subject line if you email the commissioners: R2008020 - Public Comments: Order Instituting Rulemaking to Revisit Net Energy Metering Tariffs Pursuant to Decision 16-01-044, and to Address Other Issues Related to Net Energy Metering.
At the end of your email,
Your Name
City, Zip Code
Phone #
Email addresses for commissioners
[email protected][email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] Executive Director CPUC
[email protected]
[email protected]
MESSAGE FOR YOUR EMAIL, Posting to the CPUC website, Calling the Gov or posting to his website
Please modify the order to include on-site netting so that people like me [or my tenants, if you're a landlord; or students; or school districts; or my farm - modify as appropriate] can benefit from local, renewable, and affordable energy in the form of rooftop solar. Such a tariff should, at minimum, include on-site netting (the ability of those in multifamily housing, schools, or farms to benefit from the local renewable energy that their own solar system generates.
In your own words, one reason to back up your request. Below are some options. Of course, say it in your own words. It is more powerful that way!
The proposed decision is discriminatory: It would deprive multifamily housing tenants [or condominium owners], schools, and farmers of the ability to receive full savings on their energy bill from the solar that our solar roof produces/would produce - a benefit enjoyed by single-family homeowners with solar. Modify the proposed decision to include on-site netting, thereby ensuring an opportunity for tenants, property owners alike, schools, and small farmers, to save costs through solar on their own rooftops or farms.
No one should have to choose between paying their rent and paying their utility bills: At a time when the cost of both is dramatically going up, rooftop solar can save multifamily tenants as much as $50/month in utility bills. Please don't abandon this important lifeline for renters in the name of further profit to the utilities. Modify the proposed decision to include on-site netting, thereby ensuring an opportunity for tenants, property owners alike, schools, and small farmers, to save costs through solar on their own rooftops or farms.
The proposed decision flies in the face of the Governor's own commitment to housing affordability. The Governor has often spoken about the need to build more multifamily housing to address the housing affordability crisis renters [or working/middle-class families] like me face. The utilities' proposal makes the cost of building and maintaining this housing more expensive. Modify the proposed decision to include on-site netting, thereby ensuring an opportunity for tenants, property owners alike, schools, and small farmers, to save costs through solar on their own rooftops or farms.
Action 3: You can also give a verbal public comment by phone at the CPUC's next meeting on August 31st at 10am. Instructions for giving a public comment by phone.
Have a great weekend.
Similar threads
