That's one way to look at it. I don't view my PV energy fed to the grid as selling to the utility. Rather I see the utility providing an energy storage service for my PV energy. And the NBC's they already charge is the cost I pay to the utility for providing the energy storage service. Net metering is just part of the service.
-
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
That's one way to look at it. I don't view my PV energy fed to the grid as selling to the utility. Rather I see the utility providing an energy storage service for my PV energy. And the NBC's they already charge is the cost I pay to the utility for providing the energy storage service. Net metering is just part of the service.
I also did similar search and didn't find any rigorous study. The doc you referenced is just discussion based on opinions from advocates for each side.
Tell AARP: Stop lobbying to kill rooftop solar
AARP is lobbying, in partnership with utilities like PG&E, to make it more expensive for California seniors to access rooftop solar. AARP's actions will result in higher electricity bills and more blackouts for California seniors. Rooftop solar protects seniors on fixed incomes from utility...
actionnetwork.org
Advocates: California risks ‘solar cliff’
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Sharply reducing net metering payments and imposing high, solar-only fixed charges could slow the growth of rooftop solar installations – and, in the most extreme cases, could ca
environmentamerica.org
Merrill
Merrill
Do we know where Newsom stands on this, I have sent several emails to his office and none returned.
We do not really know where he stands on this. I would assume that he would be on our side but the utilities are making such a conjob out of this, they have even conned NRDC into supporting their plans. I worry Newsom may be duped as well. We really can not take the chance.
LeeM
Member
AARP is working with California utilities to block rooftop solar
Background
AARP is lobbying, in partnership with utilities like PG&E, to make it more expensive for California seniors to access rooftop solar. AARP's actions will result in higher electricity bills and more blackouts for California seniors.
AARP should stop pushing PG&E's agenda, and should instead focus on helping millions more seniors and other Californians get rooftop solar and batteries.
The truth: Rooftop solar benefits all California seniors
1) Rooftop solar protects seniors on fixed incomes from utility price gouging.
2) Solar-powered batteries protect seniors with medical issues and disabilities from life-threatening blackouts.
3) Rooftop solar reduces electricity costs for everyone whether they have solar by reducing the cost of the electrical grid.
AARP claims the opposite, repeating PG&E misinformation, with no independent analysis of their own
AARP's written materials and verbal testimony to the CA Public Utilities Commission repeats misinformation created by utilities and utility-friendly consultants.
Here is an annotated version of AARP's lobbying paper to the CPUC, and their accompanying video testimony (starts at 1:01:51). Both were delivered by Missouri-based John Coffman, a consultant to AARP. Highlights include:
AARP's position will kill rooftop solar in California. That would be terrible for seniors
It bears repeating that AARP's claims are not backed up with independent research, but rather, with studies produced by utility-friendly consulting firms that use accounting methods biased against rooftop solar.
If AARP and the utilities get their way, the cost of rooftop solar will double, putting it out of reach for working and middle class people.
AARP's position is out of step with 150 other California environmental and consumer organizations.
Over 150 statewide and local community organizations are fighting against the utility misinformation about rooftop solar. AARP's efforts are at odds with the consensus position, and appear to serve the utility interest and small echo chamber.
Please tell AARP: Stop your attack on rooftop solar
A group of retired Californians have started a petition to the AARP asking them to stop their ill-informed and harmful campaign against rooftop solar. Please consider adding your voice. Tell AARP: Stop lobbying to kill rooftop solar
Background
AARP is lobbying, in partnership with utilities like PG&E, to make it more expensive for California seniors to access rooftop solar. AARP's actions will result in higher electricity bills and more blackouts for California seniors.
AARP should stop pushing PG&E's agenda, and should instead focus on helping millions more seniors and other Californians get rooftop solar and batteries.
The truth: Rooftop solar benefits all California seniors
1) Rooftop solar protects seniors on fixed incomes from utility price gouging.
2) Solar-powered batteries protect seniors with medical issues and disabilities from life-threatening blackouts.
3) Rooftop solar reduces electricity costs for everyone whether they have solar by reducing the cost of the electrical grid.
- In 2018 alone, rooftop solar and energy efficiency prompted the state to scale back more than 20 power line projects, saving $2.6 billion. Source
- Maximizing rooftop solar could save American households nearly $500 billion over the next thirty years, while doubling down on our overreliance on long-distance power lines could cost Americans $350 billion. Source
AARP claims the opposite, repeating PG&E misinformation, with no independent analysis of their own
AARP's written materials and verbal testimony to the CA Public Utilities Commission repeats misinformation created by utilities and utility-friendly consultants.
Here is an annotated version of AARP's lobbying paper to the CPUC, and their accompanying video testimony (starts at 1:01:51). Both were delivered by Missouri-based John Coffman, a consultant to AARP. Highlights include:
- AARP admits to not conducting any independent analysis of the issue, claiming that they don't have expertise. This, despite AARP being a multi-million dollar organization.
- AARP instead repeats findings from utility-friendly consulting firms that routinely use accounting methods that are biased against rooftop solar and in favor of large-scale renewable energy.
- AARP uses the utilities' divisive talking points to incorrectly suggest that there is a conflict between those who have solar and those who don't.
- AARP suggests that current solar users should have known that their solar contracts would be changed, and were foolish to think otherwise.
- AARP endorses a proposal to charge all solar users a monthly fee, just for having solar.
- AARP endorses the end to crediting solar users for sharing their extra energy with the grid.
AARP's position will kill rooftop solar in California. That would be terrible for seniors
It bears repeating that AARP's claims are not backed up with independent research, but rather, with studies produced by utility-friendly consulting firms that use accounting methods biased against rooftop solar.
If AARP and the utilities get their way, the cost of rooftop solar will double, putting it out of reach for working and middle class people.
- This would mean seniors could no longer control their electricity bills with rooftop solar.
- It would mean seniors could no longer protect themselves from blackouts with solar-powered batteries.
- It would mean seniors will pay more for long-distance power lines through their electricity bills.
AARP's position is out of step with 150 other California environmental and consumer organizations.
Over 150 statewide and local community organizations are fighting against the utility misinformation about rooftop solar. AARP's efforts are at odds with the consensus position, and appear to serve the utility interest and small echo chamber.
Please tell AARP: Stop your attack on rooftop solar
A group of retired Californians have started a petition to the AARP asking them to stop their ill-informed and harmful campaign against rooftop solar. Please consider adding your voice. Tell AARP: Stop lobbying to kill rooftop solar
LeeM
Member
Another attack on rooftop solar. This time from the CA state Construction Board passing the IBEW-backed proposal. Their purpose: The Contractors State License Board protects consumers by regulating the construction industry through policies that promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the public in matters relating to construction.
Now this group of the unelected, unaccountable corrupt group has politized the board. At last, weeks meeting the board voted to formally determined that the C-46 (special permit for rooftop solar installers) is not authorized to install BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems). The BESS Report recommends that “CSLB limit the scope of the C-46 to its original scope and preclude C-46 license holders from installing BESS even when paired with solar unless they hold another license under which BESS installation is permitted.” (Page 11 of the BESS Report). This means in 90 days, rooftop installers won't be able to install solar systems.
C-10 is the permit to become an electrician. Up until last week, state regulations allow solar contractors (who hold C-46 licenses Rooftop Solar installers) to install battery energy storage systems when they are installing solar photovoltaic projects. However, only electrical contractors (who hold C-10 licenses) are permitted to install energy storage systems without solar in existing buildings.
This model has worked exceptionally well. With nearly a million PV and energy storage systems installed, C-46 contractors have built California’s solar industry. C-46 contractors do their work as safely as C-10 contractors
The presentation which was created by UC Berkely Labor findings of course is slanted. There have been NO exploding batteries or safety issues in the USA which seems to be the basis of their argument. The presentation starts around page 19.. and is around 80 pages..
Here is the copy of what the agenda outlined in the options and option 2 was the one chosen by
Agenda Item C: Presentation from UC Berkeley on Battery Energy Storage Systems Study A copy of the UC Berkeley study, “Evaluation of Alternative Contractor License Requirements for Battery Energy Storage Systems” (BESS Report), is included in this packet. The authors will present their BESS Report to the Board at the July 27, 2021, Board Meeting. Information about the Authors is included on page 101 of the BESS Report. Agenda Item C (a): Review, Discussion and Possible Action on Study and Recommendations The BESS Report recommend that “CSLB limit the scope of the C-46 to its original scope and preclude C-46 license holders from installing BESS even when paired with solar unless they hold another license under which BESS installation is permitted.” (Page 11 of the BESS Report). This agenda item does not have a staff recommendation. However, staff foresees that there are three possible options for the Board to consider following the presentation of the BESS Report.
Option 1: Do nothing. CSLB staff will continue to apply its existing policy, that the C-10 Electrical Contractor license (C-10) is appropriate to install BESS in all applications, that the general Building Contractor (B) and A-General Engineering Contractor (A) may install BESS within their existing classifications, and the C-46 Solar Contractor license (C-46) is appropriate to install BESS only when paired with the installation of a new solar photovoltaic system.
Option 2: Formally determine that the C-46 is not authorized to install BESS in any application for two reasons: (1) BESS is a separate “trade, craft, or skill” that is not required to install a photovoltaic solar energy system, pursuant to the C-46 classification description in the California Code of Regulations Section 832.46 and (2) due to the health and safety risks identified in the BESS Report. Under this option, the A and B classification will continue to be authorized to install BESS within their defined scope of work unless changed by legislation. The C-10 would continue to be appropriate for the installation of BESS in all applications. If this option is pursued, the board should provide 90-days to educate C-46 licensees regarding the classification restrictions and C-10 contractors on the need to use certified electrifications for BESS installations. Meaning: C-46 solar contractors from continuing to install behind-the-meter solar paired with battery storage. They alleged it was a safety issue which was the same argument they gave in 2014. BS then and now. Rather than limit installations to only C-10 solar contractors, why not look more closely at the differences between C-10 and C-46 license requirements and — if anyone provides evidence that either C-10 or C-46 requirements are not sufficient — make amendments to both sets of requirements and build a more robust skill set across both licenses. There is no need to marginalize an entire class of experienced license holders without due cause, particularly since C-46 installers have so successfully driven the distributed energy storage and solar industry.
Many solar installers [who spoke at the hearing in 2019] pointed out that they have been connecting PV systems to homes and commercial buildings for decades without any problems. In response, an electrical workers’ attorney argued that the CSLB did not need any evidence that there has been a problem with the current practice of installing solar or solar plus storage. Instead, he argued the CSLB could take a ‘precautionary’ action to prohibit solar contractors from installing solar plus storage based on the potential for harm.”
CSLB should have recognized that taking “precautionary” action without evidence of any existing problem is not sufficient grounds for locking out the C-46 contractors who have been crucial to California’s economic growth, innovation, and renewable energy goals
Option 3. Take an alternative course of action not described here.
So there you have it. Another unelected, unaccountable, corrupt board
Now this group of the unelected, unaccountable corrupt group has politized the board. At last, weeks meeting the board voted to formally determined that the C-46 (special permit for rooftop solar installers) is not authorized to install BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems). The BESS Report recommends that “CSLB limit the scope of the C-46 to its original scope and preclude C-46 license holders from installing BESS even when paired with solar unless they hold another license under which BESS installation is permitted.” (Page 11 of the BESS Report). This means in 90 days, rooftop installers won't be able to install solar systems.
C-10 is the permit to become an electrician. Up until last week, state regulations allow solar contractors (who hold C-46 licenses Rooftop Solar installers) to install battery energy storage systems when they are installing solar photovoltaic projects. However, only electrical contractors (who hold C-10 licenses) are permitted to install energy storage systems without solar in existing buildings.
This model has worked exceptionally well. With nearly a million PV and energy storage systems installed, C-46 contractors have built California’s solar industry. C-46 contractors do their work as safely as C-10 contractors
The presentation which was created by UC Berkely Labor findings of course is slanted. There have been NO exploding batteries or safety issues in the USA which seems to be the basis of their argument. The presentation starts around page 19.. and is around 80 pages..
Here is the copy of what the agenda outlined in the options and option 2 was the one chosen by
Agenda Item C: Presentation from UC Berkeley on Battery Energy Storage Systems Study A copy of the UC Berkeley study, “Evaluation of Alternative Contractor License Requirements for Battery Energy Storage Systems” (BESS Report), is included in this packet. The authors will present their BESS Report to the Board at the July 27, 2021, Board Meeting. Information about the Authors is included on page 101 of the BESS Report. Agenda Item C (a): Review, Discussion and Possible Action on Study and Recommendations The BESS Report recommend that “CSLB limit the scope of the C-46 to its original scope and preclude C-46 license holders from installing BESS even when paired with solar unless they hold another license under which BESS installation is permitted.” (Page 11 of the BESS Report). This agenda item does not have a staff recommendation. However, staff foresees that there are three possible options for the Board to consider following the presentation of the BESS Report.
Option 1: Do nothing. CSLB staff will continue to apply its existing policy, that the C-10 Electrical Contractor license (C-10) is appropriate to install BESS in all applications, that the general Building Contractor (B) and A-General Engineering Contractor (A) may install BESS within their existing classifications, and the C-46 Solar Contractor license (C-46) is appropriate to install BESS only when paired with the installation of a new solar photovoltaic system.
Option 2: Formally determine that the C-46 is not authorized to install BESS in any application for two reasons: (1) BESS is a separate “trade, craft, or skill” that is not required to install a photovoltaic solar energy system, pursuant to the C-46 classification description in the California Code of Regulations Section 832.46 and (2) due to the health and safety risks identified in the BESS Report. Under this option, the A and B classification will continue to be authorized to install BESS within their defined scope of work unless changed by legislation. The C-10 would continue to be appropriate for the installation of BESS in all applications. If this option is pursued, the board should provide 90-days to educate C-46 licensees regarding the classification restrictions and C-10 contractors on the need to use certified electrifications for BESS installations. Meaning: C-46 solar contractors from continuing to install behind-the-meter solar paired with battery storage. They alleged it was a safety issue which was the same argument they gave in 2014. BS then and now. Rather than limit installations to only C-10 solar contractors, why not look more closely at the differences between C-10 and C-46 license requirements and — if anyone provides evidence that either C-10 or C-46 requirements are not sufficient — make amendments to both sets of requirements and build a more robust skill set across both licenses. There is no need to marginalize an entire class of experienced license holders without due cause, particularly since C-46 installers have so successfully driven the distributed energy storage and solar industry.
Many solar installers [who spoke at the hearing in 2019] pointed out that they have been connecting PV systems to homes and commercial buildings for decades without any problems. In response, an electrical workers’ attorney argued that the CSLB did not need any evidence that there has been a problem with the current practice of installing solar or solar plus storage. Instead, he argued the CSLB could take a ‘precautionary’ action to prohibit solar contractors from installing solar plus storage based on the potential for harm.”
CSLB should have recognized that taking “precautionary” action without evidence of any existing problem is not sufficient grounds for locking out the C-46 contractors who have been crucial to California’s economic growth, innovation, and renewable energy goals
Option 3. Take an alternative course of action not described here.
So there you have it. Another unelected, unaccountable, corrupt board
LeeM
Member
Utility corruption on full display at the CPUC last week
Over the past week and next week, the CPUC is hosting "evidentiary hearings" in the rooftop solar proceeding. During this time, the parties can question each other directly about their rooftop solar claims, while CPUC officials watch and form their opinions.
Former CPUC commissioner Carla Petermen is leading the charge for PG&E as their lobbyist during these hearings.
Even the state of New York, home of The Godfather, has a lifetime ban on PUC officials working for the companies they once regulated.
LeeM
Member
New Report: Californians can save $120 billion if rooftop solar continues to grow
Former NOAA researcher Dr. Christopher Clack is back with a groundbreaking new study showing that Californians can pay $120 billion less for energy over the next thirty years with more rooftop solar and battery storage.
The report compared two scenarios in which we get to 100% clean energy:
- Only large wind and solar farms and no rooftop solar (the utility profit grab).
- Both, but where we optimize the use of rooftop solar for maximum advantage (preferred).
- Consumers can save $120 billion, or $295 per year per ratepayer over the next thirty years.
- 374,000 additional jobs will be created - local, consistent jobs in every county and community.
- Global warming emissions drop by an additional 4.1 metric tons, and occur faster than under the utility-scale only scenario
Where do the savings come from? Long-distance power lines and wind farms.
The report is consistent with other data showing that rooftop solar reduces the need to build and maintain long-distance power lines and large-scale renewable energy farms. For example, in 2018, the state's grid operator scaled back 20 power line projects at a $2.6 billion savings because of both rooftop solar and energy efficiency. Utilities and their echo chamber try to pretend this doesn't happen. But it does, and the report is a powerful piece of evidence.
What this really means:
The report underscores the stakes of this fight. The utilities' plan will literally cheat the public out of money, jobs, and the climate future.This report not only makes the case for strengthening policies like net metering. It also exposes the flimsy nature of the utilities' false claims about rooftop solar. It also stands in stark contrast with the outdated and corrupt methods that the CPUC is relying on to calculate the value of rooftop solar.
Here's some links
- Executive Summary
- Slide deck with topline findings
- Local Solar for All press release
- Recording of presentation to media
LeeM
Member
One way to get his attention is to sign this petition. We need him to take action Take Action: Tell Governor Newsom to stop the Utility Profit Grab and keep solar growing
LeeM
Member
Former NOAA researcher Dr. Christopher Clack is back with a groundbreaking new study showing that Californians can pay $120 billion less for energy over the next thirty years with more rooftop solar and battery storage.
The report compared two scenarios in which we get to 100% clean energy:
- Only large wind and solar farms and no rooftop solar (the utility profit grab).
- Both, but where we optimize the use of rooftop solar for maximum advantage (preferred).
- Consumers can save $120 billion, or $295 per year per ratepayer over the next thirty years.
- 374,000 additional jobs will be created - local, consistent jobs in every county and community.
- Global warming emissions drop by an additional 4.1 metric tons, and occur faster than under the utility-scale only scenario.
LeeM
Member
Take Action: Tell Governor Newsom to stop the Utility Profit Grab and keep solar growingDamn …
I cannot believe the CPUC is siding with that E3 avoided cost calculator. Get ready for your off peak solar generation to get you $0.03 per kWh…
CPUC to vote on updated solar "Avoided Cost Calculator" on June 24
Solar advocates are strongly opposed to these changes and are urging the CPUC to pull back the resolution and eliminate the updates.www.solarpowerworldonline.com
Lol they’ll probably charge you $10,000 for the privilege of disconnecting your service.
Merrill
Merrill
I have signed every possible petition against this as well as sending Newsom and AARP emails, this is so much bs and will be very disappointed in our government if this gets passed. I have discontinued my AARP subscription.
LeeM
Member
Webinar: How deploying more local solar and storage will save Californians billions
I attended a meeting today and had the opportunity to view the slide presentation which explained a new study using mega data to forecast energy. This is a game-changer and it blew me away. I urge you all to attend the webinar on Aug 11 at 1pm. It is a 1hr meetingKarl R. Rábago operates Rábago Energy, based in Denver and Bernadette Del Chiaro, Executive Director of the California Solar & Storage Association (CALSSA) will be presenting on the study and new forecast modeling that shows that big is not better. Small scale energy such as rooftop solar and wind are as important.
Please attend the Clean Coalition webinar next Weds Aug 11 at 1pm. Please come if you can, and spread the word so we can get the word out to as many people as possible about this important study:
Here is an overview of the webinar
The traditional thinking is that economies of scale make remote energy generation more cost-effective. But a new study from the Local Solar for All Coalition, based on results from the powerful new WIS-dom-P model from Vibrant Clean Energy, turns this thinking on its head.
Using a much more sophisticated model than other studies employ, the Local Solar for All team found that deploying far more clean local energy, in close coordination with remote renewables, will save Californians billions — while helping the state achieve our clean energy goals and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
This webinar will cover:
- Conventional thinking compared to the needed paradigm shift
- The study’s methodology and assumptions
- The importance of coordinating the utility-scale electricity grid with the distribution grid to find the overall lowest system cost
- Detailed findings of the study
- Benefits of local solar+storage
The joint iou submission shows they want more solar plus battery installs. Since that tech helps everyone.
They just want to meter the solar so they can get a piece to allegedly lower rates for disadvantaged people. Total BS.
Similar threads
