I am all for rooftop solar but frankly the new report is underwhelming in terms of ratepayer savings. Just being bumped by EV-A to a new rate plan jacks up my bill almost $1K/year and that's before PG&E jacks rates even more to pay for wildfire damages that keep getting worse. I wonder how much more PG&E will jack up rates now that the Dixie wildfire caused by PG&E is the largest on record. Rooftop solar or no rooftop solar, I think PG&E in its current structure is unsustainable. It's higher priority for the state to take it over for drastic restructuring.
-
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
I am all for rooftop solar but frankly the new report is underwhelming in terms of ratepayer savings. Just being bumped by EV-A to a new rate plan jacks up my bill almost $1K/year and that's before PG&E jacks rates even more to pay for wildfire damages that keep getting worse. I wonder how much more PG&E will jack up rates now that the Dixie wildfire caused by PG&E is the largest on record. Rooftop solar or no rooftop solar, I think PG&E in its current structure is unsustainable. It's higher priority for the state to take it over for drastic restructuring.
LeeM
Member
Yes they are. CPUC and CA Utilities hire E3 to do their dirty work
LeeM
Member
Here is the link to the Vibrant Study: https://vibrantcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/VCE-CCSA_CA_Report.pdf
LeeM
Member
Probably not but the petition signatures are still important to collect
LeeM
Member
thank you for signing the AARP petition. I hope you will share the link with friends and family. No need to be a member or 50+ Tell AARP: Stop lobbying to kill rooftop solar
LeeM
Member
Here is the link to the actual report: https://vibrantcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/VCE-CCSA_CA_Report.pdf
LeeM
Member
LeeM
Member
That's the point to pay rooftop solar a fair price for our generation of engery. We are mini clean energy power plants. No different than CA Utitilites buy energy from other sources.
LeeM
Member
CPUC voted to devalue consumer solar in favor of IOU power plants. CPUC is unelected, unaccountable political appointees. We can hold the Gov responsible. Let's collect 200K public comments Tell him to stand up for solar consumers #UtilityProfitGrab
LeeM
Member
Interesting testimony to the CPUC: REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF BILL POWERS, P.E
Introduction
This rebuttal testimony makes the following arguments:
• The NEM 2.0 residential and non-residential tariffs should be retained in their
current form, supplemented by terms consistent with the proposals of CALSSA or
SEIA/Vote Solar to incentivize inclusion of battery storage with NEM systems.
• Contrary to the assertions in the opening testimonies of the Joint IOUs, Cal
Advocates, and TURN, rising residential rates are driven by rapidly increasing
IOU transmission and distribution (T&D) investments and tiered rate
restructuring, not a NEM cost shift.
• The cost-of-service calculation methodology best represents the cost shift
between NEM and non-NEM customers.
• Neither the cost-of-service methodology nor the avoided cost methodologies
preferred by other parties account for the cost-benefit of proposed T&D projects
that have been—or would be—eliminated by NEM solar.
• Contrary to the assertions of various other parties, there is no cost-shift associated
with non-residential NEM, nor is there a cost-shift associated with residential
NEM when the cost-benefit of proposed T&D that is eliminated by NEM solar is
accounted for.
Bill Powers, P.E., is a registered professional engineer with a background in power
systems who has served as an expert witness in numerous Commission proceedings. His resume
is included as Attachment 1.
Issue 2: What information from the NEM 2.0 Lookback Study should inform the successor
tariff and how should the Commission apply those findings in its consideration?
The following sections of this testimony respond to Issue 2 identified in the Scoping
Memo. As discussed in these sections, the IOUs, TURN, and Cal Advocates improperly
calculate the alleged cost burden imposed by NEM solar and fail to account for the full benefits
of NEM. The Commission should not accept these parties’ calculation of NEM solar’s cost shift
and should instead prioritize the results of the full cost of service analysis contained in the NEM
2.0 Lookback Study.
I. The Commission should prioritize the results of the full cost of service analysis from
the NEM 2.0 Lookback Study, which estimates a substantially smaller cost-shift.
A. The Testimony Submitted by the IOUs, Cal Advocates, and TURN does not
accurately characterize the cost burden of NEM solar.
The Joint IOUs, the Public Advocates Office (“Cal Advocates”), and TURN have cherry-
picked extreme avoided cost calculation methodologies to assert that residential NEM customers
are causing billions in shifted costs, but they ignore the results of the “full cost of service”
analyses that undercut their massive-cost-shift argument.
You can read the rest of the rebuttal here: Bill Powers16-july-21_R20-08-020 NEM Rebuttal Testimony of Bill Powers, P.E..pdf
Introduction
This rebuttal testimony makes the following arguments:
• The NEM 2.0 residential and non-residential tariffs should be retained in their
current form, supplemented by terms consistent with the proposals of CALSSA or
SEIA/Vote Solar to incentivize inclusion of battery storage with NEM systems.
• Contrary to the assertions in the opening testimonies of the Joint IOUs, Cal
Advocates, and TURN, rising residential rates are driven by rapidly increasing
IOU transmission and distribution (T&D) investments and tiered rate
restructuring, not a NEM cost shift.
• The cost-of-service calculation methodology best represents the cost shift
between NEM and non-NEM customers.
• Neither the cost-of-service methodology nor the avoided cost methodologies
preferred by other parties account for the cost-benefit of proposed T&D projects
that have been—or would be—eliminated by NEM solar.
• Contrary to the assertions of various other parties, there is no cost-shift associated
with non-residential NEM, nor is there a cost-shift associated with residential
NEM when the cost-benefit of proposed T&D that is eliminated by NEM solar is
accounted for.
Bill Powers, P.E., is a registered professional engineer with a background in power
systems who has served as an expert witness in numerous Commission proceedings. His resume
is included as Attachment 1.
Issue 2: What information from the NEM 2.0 Lookback Study should inform the successor
tariff and how should the Commission apply those findings in its consideration?
The following sections of this testimony respond to Issue 2 identified in the Scoping
Memo. As discussed in these sections, the IOUs, TURN, and Cal Advocates improperly
calculate the alleged cost burden imposed by NEM solar and fail to account for the full benefits
of NEM. The Commission should not accept these parties’ calculation of NEM solar’s cost shift
and should instead prioritize the results of the full cost of service analysis contained in the NEM
2.0 Lookback Study.
I. The Commission should prioritize the results of the full cost of service analysis from
the NEM 2.0 Lookback Study, which estimates a substantially smaller cost-shift.
A. The Testimony Submitted by the IOUs, Cal Advocates, and TURN does not
accurately characterize the cost burden of NEM solar.
The Joint IOUs, the Public Advocates Office (“Cal Advocates”), and TURN have cherry-
picked extreme avoided cost calculation methodologies to assert that residential NEM customers
are causing billions in shifted costs, but they ignore the results of the “full cost of service”
analyses that undercut their massive-cost-shift argument.
You can read the rest of the rebuttal here: Bill Powers16-july-21_R20-08-020 NEM Rebuttal Testimony of Bill Powers, P.E..pdf
LeeM
Member
The Coalition for Community Solar Access (CCSA) and Local Solar for All commissioned Vibrant Clean Energy (VCE®) to investigate scenarios that electrify and completely decarbonize the economy for the state of California by 2045. The scenarios discussed in this report model California undergoing economy-wide electrification with the decarbonization of the electricity sector while using distributed generation as part of the decarbonization strategy.
The modeling was performed using the WIS:dom®-P, a state-of-the-art model capable of performing detailed capacity expansion and production cost while cooptimizing utility-scale generation, storage, transmission, and distributed energy resources (DERs). The modeled scenarios use the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) 2020 “moderate” cost projections for installed capital and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs. For fuel costs, forecasts from the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2020 High Oil and Gas supply scenario are used.
The scenarios modeled in this study are:
(1) Electrify and decarbonize CA without distribution co-optimization and no new distributed generation (“Utility-scale Only”): In this scenario, California undergoes economy-wide electrification and decarbonization of the electricity sector without cooptimizing the distribution system with the utility-scale generation. In addition, no new distributed generation is allowed to be installed after 2020. All nuclear generation in California is assumed to be retired by 2025. This scenario serves as a counterfactual to compare changes in system costs and retail rates for customers as a result of cooptimizing the distribution system and utilizing distributed generation.
(2) Electrify and decarbonize CA with distribution co-optimization and with increased distributed generation buildout (“Local Solar & Storage Future”): In this scenario, WIS:dom-P co-optimizes the distribution system with utility-scale generation to decarbonize California by 100% by 2045 while undergoing economy-wide electrification. All nuclear generation in California is assumed to retire by 2025. In this scenario a minimum level of distributed solar and community solar adoption is assumed per year as shown in Fig. 1.1.
The modeling was performed using the WIS:dom®-P, a state-of-the-art model capable of performing detailed capacity expansion and production cost while cooptimizing utility-scale generation, storage, transmission, and distributed energy resources (DERs). The modeled scenarios use the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) 2020 “moderate” cost projections for installed capital and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs. For fuel costs, forecasts from the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2020 High Oil and Gas supply scenario are used.
The scenarios modeled in this study are:
(1) Electrify and decarbonize CA without distribution co-optimization and no new distributed generation (“Utility-scale Only”): In this scenario, California undergoes economy-wide electrification and decarbonization of the electricity sector without cooptimizing the distribution system with the utility-scale generation. In addition, no new distributed generation is allowed to be installed after 2020. All nuclear generation in California is assumed to be retired by 2025. This scenario serves as a counterfactual to compare changes in system costs and retail rates for customers as a result of cooptimizing the distribution system and utilizing distributed generation.
(2) Electrify and decarbonize CA with distribution co-optimization and with increased distributed generation buildout (“Local Solar & Storage Future”): In this scenario, WIS:dom-P co-optimizes the distribution system with utility-scale generation to decarbonize California by 100% by 2045 while undergoing economy-wide electrification. All nuclear generation in California is assumed to retire by 2025. In this scenario a minimum level of distributed solar and community solar adoption is assumed per year as shown in Fig. 1.1.
LeeM
Member
In case you missed the webinar
|
|
|
|
Who is working against distributed solar: Strategies for defense
A new report explores who is behind efforts to curb distributed energy and solar deployment. In this part, we look at policy and regulatory recommendations highlighted by the authors as a playbook to fight against anti-solar efforts, and how parties can curb campaigns before they begin.
pv-magazine-usa.com
Opinion: California should bury PG&E, not just its power lines
We don’t have time to hope the utility will actually start digging trenches when it’s already so busy digging our graves.
www.mercurynews.com
347 Organizations Sign Letter to Protect Rooftop Solar Power in California - CleanTechnica
Influential grassroots organizations across the state and sectors come together in asking Governor Newsom and CPUC to prioritize rooftop solar and storage for a more equitable and resilient energy grid.
cleantechnica.com
Solar Rights Alliance Strives To "Save Rooftop Solar" In California - CleanTechnica
Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! I recently wrote an article about the threat to rooftop solar net metering — and thus rooftop solar power growth — in California. Then, a few days later, one of our editors found and ... [continued]
cleantechnica.com
I just sent this to Newsom:
Dear Governor Newsom,
The damage from oil spills and the continued fossil fueled climate crisis points out how getting all cars on the road to be EV's is a goal we must reach. Equally important is that EV owners be able to charge their cars from the sunshine on their roofs.
PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E are lobbying the CPUC to allow high monthly fees for homes with solar. This will put a stop to home solar ownership and then EV owners will have to charge from the dirty grid.
I know that you, of all people, want our state to go solar.
Please be sure the CPUC does not give into the utility money grab.
BTW, I worked on your "Stop The Recall Campaign"
Gene
>>>>If you care to write Newsom here's the link: First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom | California Governor
Dear Governor Newsom,
The damage from oil spills and the continued fossil fueled climate crisis points out how getting all cars on the road to be EV's is a goal we must reach. Equally important is that EV owners be able to charge their cars from the sunshine on their roofs.
PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E are lobbying the CPUC to allow high monthly fees for homes with solar. This will put a stop to home solar ownership and then EV owners will have to charge from the dirty grid.
I know that you, of all people, want our state to go solar.
Please be sure the CPUC does not give into the utility money grab.
BTW, I worked on your "Stop The Recall Campaign"
Gene
>>>>If you care to write Newsom here's the link: First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom | California Governor
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Similar threads
