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

[cali8484]

PG&E wants to make this a fairness/equity issue, but it really is not. When I installed solar, how much did you pay? Zero! How much money did PG&E make? Zero! That's why PG&E wants to attack and discourage solar owners. PG&E wants to be the sole installer of solar so they can tack on a profit margin. The solar that I install will cost you nothing. The solar that PG&E installs will cost you lots. PG&E doesn't care about fairness/equity. PG&E only cares about its profit. People who fall for the fairness/equity narrative will only screw themselves.

Makes sense POCO's play this game but why is CPUC going along with the new proposal so far?

 

[GoSolar]

Makes sense POCO's play this game but why is CPUC going along with the new proposal so far?

MONEY and POLITICS!

PG&E donated heavily to Newsom, who appoints the CPUC commissioners. (‘Blood money' | California politicians and campaigns received $2.1 million from bankrupt, guilty PG&E) Look at this nonsense equity study of electricity rates by 3 UC Berkeley professors: https://haas.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/WP314.pdf . This study is not even peer reviewed but is the basis for at least 2 news articles attacking rooftop solar. (Here’s why your electricity prices are high and soaring and California's electricity prices are so high that researchers worry people won't ditch fossil fuel) And guess what? All 3 utilities are donors to UC Berkeley Energy Institute at Haas. (Funders | Energy Institute | Berkeley Haas)

 

[mikesm]

You responded to "iPlug said: forcing the general population to pay the fair costs of demand management/TOU,"


Not sure what you are arguing against here. What does everyone should have to pay the fair costs of demand management/TOU have to do with you installing solar?

The statement was about the "general population", most of whom do not have solar and most who who are on the non-TOU E-1 rate plan.

I have next to no sympathy for PG&E, but about the same for the consumer who thinks they should be able to consume (from the grid) during peak/high demand times as much as they want and at subsidized prices. Yes, on the non-TOU E-1 rate plan, the consumer is subsidized for the electricity delivered during that time. This is the most expensive energy delivered to the grid and requires relatively expensive solutions if demand management is not imposed. Building new peaker NG plants or even more expensive batteries are required in that case.

The CPUC should be pushing everyone onto a TOU plan that makes everyone have skin in the game.

I agree that everyone should be on a TOU plan. There are incentives for consumers just like utilities. Right now non-TOU users have no incentive to move consumption out of the peak hour.

Does anyone know the current breakdown in terms of % of users on E-1 and other rate plans?

 

[miimura]

Makes sense POCO's play this game but why is CPUC going along with the new proposal so far?

Many people feel that the CPUC is full of industry veterans who are too sympathetic to utility requests and reasoning.

 

[iPlug]

I agree that everyone should be on a TOU plan. There are incentives for consumers just like utilities. Right now non-TOU users have no incentive to move consumption out of the peak hour.

Does anyone know the current breakdown in terms of % of users on E-1 and other rate plans?

Have looked for this over the years without success. Certainly PG&E has the data, maybe the CPUC as well, but unclear if any public access.

E-1 (non-TOU) was always the default rate plan for as long as I was aware, but don't know if that is still the case for those signing up for new electric utility service in recent years. My suspicion is that all customers who have solar are on TOU, most who have BEVs without solar are on TOU, many who have plug-in hybrids without solar are on TOU, but most who have none of these are still on E-1.

The more households off E-1 and onto TOU means more capacity for solar PV on the grid without need for expensive batteries.

 

[mikesm]

Maybe a California FOIA request? California Sample FOIA Request – National Freedom of Information Coalition CPUC must have it.

 

[GoSolar]

I have next to no sympathy for PG&E, but about the same for the consumer who thinks they should be able to consume (from the grid) during peak/high demand times as much as they want and at subsidized prices. Yes, on the non-TOU E-1 rate plan, the consumer is subsidized for the electricity delivered during that time. This is the most expensive energy delivered to the grid and requires relatively expensive solutions if demand management is not imposed. Building new peaker NG plants or even more expensive batteries are required in that case.

The CPUC should be pushing everyone onto a TOU plan that makes everyone have skin in the game.

Under the E1 rate, one is allowed 10.1 kW/day (back in 2018) before getting bumped to tier 2 rate. 1) There is no such thing as consume as much as they want at subsidized prices. 2) Once at tier 2, one pays much higher rate during off-peak.

I don't know how to judge fairness between E1 and TOU rates, but I do know that I always consume more than 10.1 kW/day. For energy savers who can stay under that limit, maybe there should be some reward for their energy conservation.

 

[iPlug]

Under the E1 rate, one is allowed 10.1 kW/day (back in 2018) before getting bumped to tier 2 rate. 1) There is no such thing as consume as much as they want at subsidized prices. 2) Once at tier 2, one pays much higher rate during off-peak.

We're talking about the duck curve time - late afternoon to a few hours after sundown. E-1 customers pay no TOU then and this electricity is very expensive, hence the subsidization. This is different than the E-1 tiers which don't align at all with grid needs. If an E-1 customer knows he will go over Tier 1, might as well do it during the duck curve to cool the house with AC. No incentive to not run other major appliances during that time like dishwasher, dryer, washing machine, pool pump, etc.

Whether one has solar or not, demand response prices should be shouldered by all.

 

[GoSolar]

We're talking about the duck curve time - late afternoon to a few hours after sundown. E-1 customers pay no TOU then and this electricity is very expensive, hence the subsidization. This is different than the E-1 tiers which don't align at all with grid needs. If an E-1 customer knows he will go over Tier 1, might as well do it during the duck curve to cool the house with AC. No incentive to not run other major appliances during that time like dishwasher, dryer, washing machine, pool pump, etc.

Whether one has solar or not, demand response prices should be shouldered by all.

I understand what you are saying, but that only applies to 4pm - 9pm. People use electricity 24/7. You are concerned about people over using electricity during that time. I get it. But that will only cause them to pay more for electricity during off-peak time. You are not considering that. Like I said, I don't know how it balances out when you consider both peak and off-peak charges, but it's not as simple as considering usage during peak hours.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with you. We all need to conserve energy during peak hours, but we also need to conserve energy during off-peak hours. Someone that is stay under 10.1 kWh/day is doing a very good job of conserving energy. That person is not likely to be running a lot of AC, dishwasher, dryer, washing machine, pool pump, etc. The E1 customers who exceed 10.1 kWh/day will pay higher rates during off-peak hours.

 

[FlyF4]

I am hoping this can be a sticky thread, so many of us are from California and what happens in California may spread across the country. This fight will last most of the year so a sticky thread would be very nice. The California investor owned utilities are lobbying heavily for NEM 3.0. This will include high monthly fees for solar owners and to top that off, every month will be a true-up month. This means you can not apply your high productions summer months as credit against your low production winter months. The monthly fees will pretty much sink solar in California. California's Public Utility Commission is made of 5 members. Three of them are in the middle "on the fence", one is leaning towards the utilities, and one is heavily pro utility. There is not a single member of the CPUC that is a champion for rooftop solar! For us, the CPUC is not going to be our friend. Gavin Newsome is our only possible chance here.

We have just a few months to have people contact Gavin Newsome. Governor Newsome is our best hope to prevent this new, nightmare NEM 3 from becoming a reality.

There are good guys and bad guys in this fight.

Here are the utility coerced or funded bad guys, this website full of misinformation: Fix The Cost Shift

Please visit: Here are the good guys where you can help out as well as be informed: Save California Solar

Please visit: More good guys here: Stand up for your right to make energy from the sun!

The utilities are asking for these new fees to be retroactive, if this happens your grandfathered rates will be threatened.

Just released a few days ago are these new proposed fees by the utilities:

View attachment 645723

fine, I would just go completely off the grid

 

[h2ofun]

fine, I would just go completely off the grid

wish I could but what it would cost to cover winter, with heat pumps, is just not possible. Most folks who have gas heating just are playing a different game

 

[gene]

We need some help to save California Solar against fees and save net metering. I am planning to do all these things and even make the demonstration in Sacramento.--Gene Rubin

Can you help? If so, let Lee Miller know that you can help: [email protected]

From Lee Miller: "Our focus for the next several weeks is to kill AB1139 introduced by .@LorenaSGonzalez AB 1139 is a utility-industry-backed bill that would completely gut net metering, including for the state's one million existing solar users. The bill is an attempt to both distract our campaign and bully the .@californiapuc into the utilities' position. AB 1139 would move California backward in achieving energy equity by harming existing low-income solar users, eliminating the market for multifamily housing, and bringing solar benefits to fewer at-risk communities than today’s net metering-based market. AB1139 Would Add Fees, Cut Savings for Low & Moderate-Income Solar Users. AB1139 would allow utilities to charge a $50 average monthly fee on all low-income solar users regardless of whether they ever export a single electron back to the grid.

We will have a Kill AB 1139 texting campaign which will begin on Tuesday, May 4th. And we will continue to text for the next couple of weeks. Can you help? If so, let Lee Miller know that you can help: [email protected]

Besides texting, there are several other actions where perhaps you can help. We will need help recruiting people you know to show up to a Kill AB1139 rally at the state capitol on May 19th at 10am. Everyone would bring a sign which says: Stop the Utility Profit Grab NO on AB1139!!!! Solar companies will bring their company trucks out and circle around the capital.
Can you help? If so, let Lee Miller know that you can help: [email protected]

But another effort that where you can help us: Organize a calling/tweet campaign with the people you know and have those people call their state assembly person the weeks of 5/15 and 5/22. I will send you the phone call script the week before 5/15 to distribute to your group of callers. For those that tweet, we will have some talking points to tweet which I will send you the week before 5/15. I will get you up to speed the week before 5/15 with details for the rally and/or the phone calls into your assembly members' office. Who is your assembly member?
Can you help? If so, let Lee Miller know that you can help: [email protected]

 

[gene]

fine, I would just go completely off the grid

If you leave the grid, all that excess summer production just goes to waste. Hooked up to the grid allows you to help California decrease its carbon footprint.

 

[iPlug]

I understand what you are saying, but that only applies to 4pm - 9pm. People use electricity 24/7. You are concerned about people over using electricity during that time. I get it. But that will only cause them to pay more for electricity during off-peak time. You are not considering that. Like I said, I don't know how it balances out when you consider both peak and off-peak charges, but it's not as simple as considering usage during peak hours.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with you. We all need to conserve energy during peak hours, but we also need to conserve energy during off-peak hours. Someone that is stay under 10.1 kWh/day is doing a very good job of conserving energy. That person is not likely to be running a lot of AC, dishwasher, dryer, washing machine, pool pump, etc. The E1 customers who exceed 10.1 kWh/day will pay higher rates during off-peak hours.

Energy conservation is an an important goal for everyone and always considered, but that is not the problem here. This is about expenses for what is costs to upgrade/maintain the grid and energy supply costs and who should pay for it.

Someone using 10 kWh/day but all during peak hours is using, in total, higher energy cost and grid interconnect resource cost than say someone with solar PV using almost all 40kWh during off peak and self consuming. In the former case, expensive new NG peaker plants have to be built (or more expensive battery storage) and local grid transformer, substation, and regional distribution lines have to be upgraded. In the later case, no one is being burdened with extra energy costs and the grid conversely benefits from stabilization without any upgrades needed and has enhanced capacity to absorb more renewable energy.

On E1, there is no incentive to avoid these very expensive scenarios, and yes, others subsidize those consumers.

 

[gene]

Readers of this thread, please consider joining: Save California Solar

 

[cali8484]

MONEY and POLITICS!

PG&E donated heavily to Newsom, who appoints the CPUC commissioners. (‘Blood money' | California politicians and campaigns received $2.1 million from bankrupt, guilty PG&E) Look at this nonsense equity study of electricity rates by 3 UC Berkeley professors: https://haas.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/WP314.pdf . This study is not even peer reviewed but is the basis for at least 2 news articles attacking rooftop solar. (Here’s why your electricity prices are high and soaring and California's electricity prices are so high that researchers worry people won't ditch fossil fuel) And guess what? All 3 utilities are donors to UC Berkeley Energy Institute at Haas. (Funders | Energy Institute | Berkeley Haas)

Thanks for the info. As flawed as the study is it's interesting to note that the primary recommendation by the authors to recover fixed costs is to increase state income and sales tax rather than killing NEM as the current proposal would.

 

[Kandiru]

Yep, solar neighborhods of cord cutters should defund those biaxxxxs enough to stop bribing politicians. Real shame, stopping progress in the name of profits.

 

[dazizmor]

Many people feel that the CPUC is full of industry veterans who are too sympathetic to utility requests and reasoning.

If you're going to make veiled accusations of corruption, you should at least use an actual source rather than the amorphous "many people feel."

I work at the CPUC - it is not filled with former employees from PG&E, SoCal Edison, or SDG&E. While there are some people who fit that description, they are in the minority. And considering PG&E pays better than the CPUC, the incentive for workers to switch employers is not in the direction you're claiming.

 

[miimura]

If you're going to make veiled accusations of corruption, you should at least use an actual source rather than the amorphous "many people feel."

I work at the CPUC - it is not filled with former employees from PG&E, SoCal Edison, or SDG&E. While there are some people who fit that description, they are in the minority. And considering PG&E pays better than the CPUC, the incentive for workers to switch employers is not in the direction you're claiming.

I am not accusing corruption - that would imply that someone was actually "on the take". I don't think that anyone is actually taking money for favorable treatment. I just don't see that the overall decisions are in the rate payers' interest over the utility shareholder interest. That is what I mean by "sympathetic to utility requests" in rate cases.

What we really need is a better system to align rate payer interest and utility compensation. It should not be possible for the utility to propose some huge capital project with flimsy justification just so they can take their percentage and pay their executives their ridiculous compensation and give their shareholders their guaranteed return just because the application had all the i's dotted and t's crossed. I would have been ecstatic if the Bankruptcy had resulted in PG&E becoming a State owned non-profit entity.

 

[dazizmor]

I am not accusing corruption - that would imply that someone was actually "on the take". I don't think that anyone is actually taking money for favorable treatment. I just don't see that the overall decisions are in the rate payers' interest over the utility shareholder interest. That is what I mean by "sympathetic to utility requests" in rate cases.

What we really need is a better system to align rate payer interest and utility compensation. It should not be possible for the utility to propose some huge capital project with flimsy justification just so they can take their percentage and pay their executives their ridiculous compensation and give their shareholders their guaranteed return just because the application had all the i's dotted and t's crossed. I would have been ecstatic if the Bankruptcy had resulted in PG&E becoming a State owned non-profit entity.

Three things:
(1) There is a large division within the CPUC specifically tasked with representing ratepayers' interests: the Public Advocates Office and they do very good work.

(2) There are more than just the utilities in CPUC proceedings - anyone can participate/oppose the utilities if they so desire, and we definitely see environmental groups, solar industry groups, customer advocates, etc. challenging the utilities and having impacts on proceeding outcomes. While we certainly listen to what utilities have to say, as we should, they get no special sympathy either.

(3) PG&E becoming a state-owned entity would be a change and it might even be for the better, but it wouldn't necessarily solve the problems it has - the state owning it wouldn't immediately change the condition of PG&E's transmission system (electric AND gas) which has been a big part of the problem.