Cheburashka
Active Member
How true is it that NEM 2.0 will be grandfathered? Is this 100% guaranteed? The utility guy on a webinar I attended made it sound like they are trying to switch people from NEM 2.0 to NEM 3.0 as well.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What I read stated all could be revisited, NEM1 and NEM2. In politics, nothing is in stone if one follows the money. But, the best beat is any new or adding to PV would force a NEM3, like adding to a NEM1 system forces at NEM2 nowHow true is it that NEM 2.0 will be grandfathered? Is this 100% guaranteed? The utility guy on a webinar I attended made it sound like they are trying to switch people from NEM 2.0 to NEM 3.0 as well.
Absolutely no guaranty NEM 2.0 will be grandfathered.How true is it that NEM 2.0 will be grandfathered? Is this 100% guaranteed? The utility guy on a webinar I attended made it sound like they are trying to switch people from NEM 2.0 to NEM 3.0 as well.
Except that utilities have made promises in the past that will be grandfathered (at least SDG&E did for NEM1). Expect lots of class action lawsuits if they are trying to change that.Or NEM1
so what, lawyers make lots of money and no way one could guess who wins. Again, all I said was nothing is 100% guaranteedExcept that utilities have made promises in the past that will be grandfathered (at least SDG&E did for NEM1). Expect lots of class action lawsuits if they are trying to change that.
Thanks, Grunk.Thank you for posting, and for working in the underappreciated regulatory arena.
To help inform everyone in this debate, the CPUC could help greatly by doing a few things:
1) Get utilities to acknowledge the benefits of avoided transmission costs and potentially distribution system deferrals caused by solar built in communities. In any comparisons of the wholesale cost of solar to the retail feed-in tariff for solar, the avoided transmission & distribution grid costs need to be factored in too.
2) Publish a locational marginal value of solar, and all other conservation measures expressed in $/kW-yr. This should be required in each IRP, and should be included in decisions to procure conservation measures. If you can compute a locational marginal price, computing a locational marginal value of conservation should be a requirement.
3) If there is a cost shift to non-solar customers, get each utility to publish exactly what that value is. The web site supporting solar fees cited San Diego customers were paying $9.50/month. If that subsidy exists, it can be reduced by changing NEM. However, $9.50/month is significantly less than a $86/month solar fee.
4) In future rate design, perhaps all distribution and transmission costs should be included in the base monthly charge for residential, and should never be added to a per-kWh rate. That way the grid costs are paid by everyone regardless of usage. The base monthly charge becomes more like a residential demand charge, just with reasonable assumptions about limits, but with 0 intention to vary the demand charge with the attempt at reducing peak load. That's too hard for consumers to figure out, and TOU rates accomplish much of the same intent within their limits. The cure for bad rate design should be better rate design, not killing solar programs.
5) This cost shift argument will likely be used against behind-the-meter storage soon too. Get utilities to calculate a Demand Flexibility price; ie, imagine a resource that either reduces draw from the grid (or conversely shifts load) to the best time of day every day. This has to be at least as valuable as Demand Response, but utilities are struggling with valuing this appropriately. But someone's energy storage system is helping them become more resilient and can reduce emissions, while providing peak shaving benefits that accrue to the energy storage system owner, the distribution grid operator, and the transmission operator. These have to be quantified in a reviewed forum like an IRP.
It seems like the utility argument for solar fees is overstated but has some grain of truth to it. And it's easily fixable through rate design, if we have a locational marginal value of solar.
Full disclosure: I volunteered with the Sierra Club to help shut down a coal plant. Now I work on Demand Flexibility software - the FlexCharging smart charge app shifts EV load to lower retail electric costs for drivers, wholesale expenditures for utilities while also reducing the carbon emissions used to charge cars and avoiding renewable energy curtailment. I don't live in California, so I'm not sure I have "standing" to issue a public comment to the CPUC.
Food is highly overrated!Buyout an irrigation district and do the solar farms there.
There is much you can do from out of state to help out. I suggest you join this zoom meeting and ask your questions there: Welcome! You are invited to join a meeting: The gameplan to defend California solar. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the meeting.Would written comments from someone who doesn't live in California get read by commissioners and/or staff? Or should I try to join between 4:05 and 4:30 Wednesday? What's the format - 3 minute comment, with no expectation of interaction from commissioners? (I'm more used to talking in Olympia to the WA UTC.)
If you have the time to call in on Wednesday, you should try, though with the small window of time and increased interest in this subject you may have trouble beating others to the microphone. The Commission will absolutely read written comments from someone out-of-state as there's a recognition that California's policies often influence what other states may consider for their own NEM/Solar policies, and of course being out-of-state doesn't mean your ideas/concerns can't apply to CA solar policy. To submit written comments, I would follow these guidelines put together by the CPUC's Public Advisor's Office (phone # and email at the bottom of that page).Would written comments from someone who doesn't live in California get read by commissioners and/or staff? Or should I try to join between 4:05 and 4:30 Wednesday? What's the format - 3 minute comment, with no expectation of interaction from commissioners? (I'm more used to talking in Olympia to the WA UTC.)
And if they want to do monthly true-up, than they should pay us the same rates for the surplus power we provide to the grid as they want to charge us for the power we use when our systems fall short. Basic fairness.I'd like to address your questions.
Your understanding of the situation is understandable as the utilities have spent a lot of money over the years to make the impression that rooftop solar is an expense to the grid and a liability. They have hooked you and gotten their money's worth. The reality is that the utilities' greatest expense is transmission lines, many of them those huge towers traveling across public lands. When a house has solar on it, there is no transmission required, better yet, over production of a solar system travels the path of least resistance right through the neighboring house's meter (making transmission free, high net profit for the utility) and into the home's consumption. So you ask about infrastructure? We solar owners ARE infrastructure!
You ask about "service", I think you mean fees? The proposed fees of $59/month to $86/month connection fees is more than what some solar owner's electric bill were before they bought solar and in most other cases renders the installation of solar a no-go. These fees are off the charts and designed to completely end any further solar implementation. How about those fees to school districts $950 to $3400/mo?
Lastly, the battery helps with daily net metering, that's it. It does not solve outrageous fees nor the fact that the true-up of over/under production becomes monthly rather than annual.
These utilities are investor owned and have had a policy of pushing for ever higher profits since their inception. They do not lobby for policy for the good of the public.
The whole point of them wanting to do monthly true-up is to only pay Net Surplus Compensation for any month that you over produce kWh. They are not interested in fairness.And if they want to do monthly true-up, than they should pay us the same rates for the surplus power we provide to the grid as they want to charge us for the power we use when our systems fall short. Basic fairness.
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.I'd like to address your questions.
Your understanding of the situation is understandable as the utilities have spent a lot of money over the years to make the impression that rooftop solar is an expense to the grid and a liability. They have hooked you and gotten their money's worth. The reality is that the utilities' greatest expense is transmission lines, many of them those huge towers traveling across public lands. When a house has solar on it, there is no transmission required, better yet, over production of a solar system travels the path of least resistance right through the neighboring house's meter (making transmission free, high net profit for the utility) and into the home's consumption. So you ask about infrastructure? We solar owners ARE infrastructure!
You ask about "service", I think you mean fees? The proposed fees of $59/month to $86/month connection fees is more than what some solar owner's electric bill were before they bought solar and in most other cases renders the installation of solar a no-go. These fees are off the charts and designed to completely end any further solar implementation. How about those fees to school districts $950 to $3400/mo?
Lastly, the battery helps with daily net metering, that's it. It does not solve outrageous fees nor the fact that the true-up of over/under production becomes monthly rather than annual.
These utilities are investor owned and have had a policy of pushing for ever higher profits since their inception. They do not lobby for policy for the good of the public.
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.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.
I’m pretty familiar with my bill. Transmission expenses are only 10 to 20% of the bill as they are in most areas. The towers and wires can’t go away just because there is distributed generation at noon, if there is only minimal generation at 6 pm when energy usage is still at or near peak levels. Wires are sized to peak use so lessening usage during some hours doesn’t lessen need for or cost of wires if still needed at night. Again, I like solar and think it’s part of our future, but I also understand what it is and isn’t. Solar replaces primarily fuel type costs. It doesn’t do a lot to ease need for wires or capacity so those costs probably shouldn’t be shifted to others as is usually the case with NEM. Anybody who truly understands how solar interacts with an energy grid is probably familiar with what solar does to transmission costs when there are significant amounts of it. There is almost always discussion of the need to build bigger transmission lines to find somewhere to ship the excess solar to when it exceeds needs of the grid. Look at your solar production at noon during a sunny spring day. It will likely be several times your usage during those hours. During those hours your utilities are curtailing many of their own solar plants and paying others to take the excess solar they don’t need at those times and also crediting NEM customers for the generation that costs them money to dispose of. These explain some of the cost shifts and they will continue to be real and expand if we don’t acknowledge them. Everything I share is easily discoverable in public information and can be verified with minimal research if people know where to look and use data rather than headlines and opinions to help their understanding. Let me know if you’d like a source for anything I shared.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.
Hmm...you just signed up today to make these comments...interesting...........I’m pretty familiar with my bill. Transmission expenses are only 10 to 20% of the bill as they are in most areas. The towers and wires can’t go away just because there is distributed generation at noon, if there is only minimal generation at 6 pm when energy usage is still at or near peak levels. Wires are sized to peak use so lessening usage during some hours doesn’t lessen need for or cost of wires if still needed at night. Again, I like solar and think it’s part of our future, but I also understand what it is and isn’t. Solar replaces primarily fuel type costs. It doesn’t do a lot to ease need for wires or capacity so those costs probably shouldn’t be shifted to others as is usually the case with NEM. Anybody who truly understands how solar interacts with an energy grid is probably familiar with what solar does to transmission costs when there are significant amounts of it. There is almost always discussion of the need to build bigger transmission lines to find somewhere to ship the excess solar to when it exceeds needs of the grid. Look at your solar production at noon during a sunny spring day. It will likely be several times your usage during those hours. During those hours your utilities are curtailing many of their own solar plants and paying others to take the excess solar they don’t need at those times and also crediting NEM customers for the generation that costs them money to dispose of. These explain some of the cost shifts and they will continue to be real and expand if we don’t acknowledge them. Everything I share is easily discoverable in public information and can be verified with minimal research if people know where to look and use data rather than headlines and opinions to help their understanding. Let me know if you’d like a source for anything I shared.
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 pretty familiar with my bill. ..............Anybody who truly understands how solar interacts with an energy grid is probably familiar with what solar does to transmission costs when there are significant amounts of it.
from whom? the off gridders used “dump loads”.......There is almost always discussion of the need to build bigger transmission lines to find somewhere to ship the excess solar to when it exceeds needs of the grid
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?I’m pretty familiar with my bill. Transmission expenses are only 10 to 20% of the bill as they are in most areas. The towers and wires can’t go away just because there is distributed generation at noon, if there is only minimal generation at 6 pm when energy usage is still at or near peak levels. Wires are sized to peak use so lessening usage during some hours doesn’t lessen need for or cost of wires if still needed at night. Again, I like solar and think it’s part of our future, but I also understand what it is and isn’t. Solar replaces primarily fuel type costs. It doesn’t do a lot to ease need for wires or capacity so those costs probably shouldn’t be shifted to others as is usually the case with NEM. Anybody who truly understands how solar interacts with an energy grid is probably familiar with what solar does to transmission costs when there are significant amounts of it. There is almost always discussion of the need to build bigger transmission lines to find somewhere to ship the excess solar to when it exceeds needs of the grid. Look at your solar production at noon during a sunny spring day. It will likely be several times your usage during those hours. During those hours your utilities are curtailing many of their own solar plants and paying others to take the excess solar they don’t need at those times and also crediting NEM customers for the generation that costs them money to dispose of. These explain some of the cost shifts and they will continue to be real and expand if we don’t acknowledge them. Everything I share is easily discoverable in public information and can be verified with minimal research if people know where to look and use data rather than headlines and opinions to help their understanding. Let me know if you’d like a source for anything I shared.
Regarding signing up a few days ago to post, I apologize if it appears opportunistic. I own a Tesla and have another on order. I frequently read comments in this and other forums, it’s just this is my first time commenting which caused me to have to register. I engaged here because a friend forwarded me this link as we were discussing this very topic the other day when discussing the pros and cons of rooftop solar and I was speculating that the trend of utility proposals will accelerate in the future. Not trying to attack anybody, just highlight some of the less understood or appreciated dynamics. Market tends to eventually align with the data.Hmm...you just signed up today to make these comments...interesting...........