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

[SolarOwner]

I have read through the B.S. of NEM 3.0.
When I spent my Wife and I lifesaving to go green and put 71 solar panels on our roof to total 24.5KW system to contribute to the Grid with a payback from PGE not worth Collecting in costs, where am i being compensated for my good deed to give back to PGE to help with the Grid Delivery System. My System will never be paid off at @ 90K in our lifetime so now for our good intentions will be penalized with added cost?
This is absolutely terrible I feel of NEM 3.0 goes through PGE should be legally responsible for my losses. I feel every need to speak out and if Governor Newsom won't help to the stop to this crisis, it's time for him to get out and let some with Balls lead California. I am very sad that I opposed the recall for his seat and now have a different view on his position to lead.

Second part of what I read is disconnecting from the Grid, if all Californians did this and went to Battery Backup want about the Hazardous waste this will Pollute our planet. this is backward and the Purpose of clean energy was to lessen use of the Power Grid in California and provide less Brownouts and get power to the homes and Business and Hospitals, etc. and families who need it.
It's time to Stop and Make all PGE stakeholders and CEO's that made millions neglecting the knowledge that their power lines were failing and yet they are stealing monies at big payouts in retirement of representee seat fees. I think this is B.S. and it's time to stop P.G.E in their tracks making people pay for their faults to manage their equipment and take money to look the other way and now they want all customers to continue to pay for they lack of responsibility.
Its time to STOP overcharging Customers for Power.

Sorry for the lack of grammar and typos as i never post my opinion but felt I wanted to speak out.

 

[Doc Brown]

Utilities are guaranteed 10% each year ROI.
That's why they like to build big expensive power plants, etc.
They don't earn anything on rooftop solar.

Not true for public utilities. Only IOUs.

 

[mspohr]

Not true for public utilities. Only IOUs.

Public utilities don't have stockholders that need to be paid. Sounds good.

 

[mspohr]

Here is the Sierra Club's submission to the CPUC on solar NEM. Very detailed analysis of the flaws.

https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M436/K665/436665095.PDF

 

[Big Dog]

Public utilities don't have stockholders that need to be paid. Sounds good.

You guys fail to understand how non-profits work. Non-profit doesn't mean no-profit; they just don't pay (federal or state) taxes on that profit. They will have a built-in profit margin. It may not be 10%, but it will be something. But a non-profit controlled by the Sacto politicians will still be an inefficient jobs program. It will still build big stuff -- more jobs. It will still hire incompetent managers.

 

[mspohr]

You guys fail to understand how non-profits work. Non-profit doesn't mean no-profit; they just don't pay (federal or state) taxes on that profit. They will have a built-in profit margin. It may not be 10%, but it will be something. But a non-profit controlled by the Sacto politicians will still be an inefficient jobs program. It will still build big stuff -- more jobs. It will still hire incompetent managers.

The one common condition is not paying out profits (“no part of the organization’s net earnings can inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual”); hence the term, “nonprofit.”

 

[mspohr]

CleanTechnica: California Solar Energy — Attacks on Solar Net Metering, Rooftop Solar’s Many Benefits. California Solar Energy — Attacks on Net Metering, Consumer Benefits

. In simple terms, some pro-utility bad apples seem to have finagled their way onto the board and have become a serious threat to rooftop solar power in California, and thus the country (California dominates the rooftop solar industry). Calling it a bit of “overreach,” Alex said, “It’s kind of like they saw a crack in the door and tried to drive a truck through it.”

One thing that surprised me quite a bit, though, was how directly Alex pushed back against the widespread utility claim that rooftop solar benefits the super rich at the cost of the rest of society. He said that wasn’t the case at all from his experience in the industry. “I’ve always found that that’s a very interesting argument to try and make because, being in the industry, I mean — 75 maybe 80 percent of our customers would be considered lower-middle [income] or even lower-income. And so, for me it’s always been like: the rich people aren’t the ones getting solar. We have literally thousands of installs a year happening and a high, high, high percentage of them are not what people would consider wealthy.” He added that everyone in the industry he’s discussed this with has said the same thing.

 

[Big Dog]

The one common condition is not paying out profits (“no part of the organization’s net earnings can inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual”); hence the term, “nonprofit.”

Yes, there can be no inurement by insiders at a nonprofit, but so what? Why should anyone care what a for profit company is paying out in stock options if that company was doing great work? (Would you prefer Tesla was a non-profit?)

The key to a nonprofit is not paying taxes. Think about a for profit company that has $1bn in earnings. To get there, they've already paid nearly $900m in taxes, including nearly $180m to the general fund of the State of California. (you think Legislators don't love that kind of unrestricted cash that they can spend?) And yes, that $180m comes primarily from rate payers.

Folks are just hung up on the messenger, and have created a bogeyman to blame. IMO, the real problem -- or root cause to use a popular term today -- is in Sacto that enables this Utility crap 'management' to continue. And the real point is regardless of for-profit or non-profit, any successor company will still be under the same Legislative-Government control.

 

[dfwatt]

Yes, there can be no inurement by insiders at a nonprofit, but so what? Why should anyone care what a for profit company is paying out in stock options if that company was doing great work? (Would you prefer Tesla was a non-profit?)

The key to a nonprofit is not paying taxes. Think about a for profit company that has $1bn in earnings. To get there, they've already paid nearly $900m in taxes, including nearly $180m to the general fund of the State of California. (you think Legislators don't love that kind of unrestricted cash that they can spend?) And yes, that $180m comes primarily from rate payers.

Folks are just hung up on the messenger, and have created a bogeyman to blame. IMO, the real problem -- or root cause to use a popular term today -- is in Sacto that enables this Utility crap 'management' to continue. And the real point is regardless of for-profit or non-profit, any successor company will still be under the same Legislative-Government control.

Boy that's a staggeringly naive analysis. The notion that billion-dollar corporations are just as good at protecting consumers as consumers might be is laughable. All this raciocination about the distinction between for profits and nonprofits misses the point. When powerful vested interests are in charge of a multibillion-dollar process and a disruptive technology (rooftop solar) comes along threatening the concept of the centralized grid you better believe that that billion dollar company is going to mobilize all its assets including disinformation and propaganda to unravel the threat of the disruptive technology. All you have to do is tax or otherwise surcharge the technology so that it no longer has any payback period at all, and you've secured your continued control and hegemony over the grid and its management. I think you're missing the forest for the trees. To borrow from Lord Acton with a slight modification, Power and money corrupt with absolute power and absolute money corrupting absolutely. Curious where you got the idea that aggregates of capital are immune from the distorting effects of greed and other natural vulnerabilities of human nature

 

[mspohr]

The key to a nonprofit is not paying taxes.

No, the key to a nonprofit is not needing to generate a profit to pay to stockholders. This means that they can charge less. It also reduces the incentive to overcharge solar customers, build expensive unnecessary infrastructure, and bribe politicians.

Think about a for profit company that has $1bn in earnings. To get there, they've already paid nearly $900m in taxes, including nearly $180m to the general fund of the State of California.

I don't follow you here. If they have $1bn in earnings (I'll assume you mean profit, not revenue) why are they paying $900m in taxes? AFAIK, tax rates on corporations are very low and they get to write off a bunch of investments. No way they are paying 90%.

 

[Big Dog]

Boy that's a staggeringly naive analysis. The notion that billion-dollar corporations are just as good at protecting consumers as consumers might be is laughable. All this raciocination about the distinction between for profits and nonprofits misses the point. When powerful vested interests are in charge of a multibillion-dollar process and a disruptive technology (rooftop solar) comes along threatening the concept of the centralized grid you better believe that that billion dollar company is going to mobilize all its assets including disinformation and propaganda to unravel the threat of the disruptive technology. All you have to do is tax or otherwise surcharge the technology so that it no longer has any payback period at all, and you've secured your continued control and hegemony over the grid and its management. I think you're missing the forest for the trees. To borrow from Lord Acton with a slight modification, Power and money corrupt with absolute power and absolute money corrupting absolutely. Curious where you got the idea that aggregates of capital are immune from the distorting effects of greed and other natural vulnerabilities of human nature

That's some poor critical reading skills. I never stated/implied/inferred (fill in your favorite word) that any size corporation is good at protecting consumers.

Never said that aggregates of capital are immune either.

 

[dfwatt]

That's some poor critical reading skills. I never stated/implied/inferred (fill in your favorite word) that any size corporation is good at protecting consumers.

Never said that aggregates of capital are immune either.

Well be honest if those concerns were somewhere embedded in your text they sure were virtually subliminal. Good to have you clarify that you're not saying something that ridiculous. We have enough greenwashing of greed and rationalizing of plutocracy in other quarters. Don't need more of it especially here.

 

[mspohr]

That's some poor critical reading skills. I never stated/implied/inferred (fill in your favorite word) that any size corporation is good at protecting consumers.

Never said that aggregates of capital are immune either.

And the real point is regardless of for-profit or non-profit, any successor company will still be under the same Legislative-Government control.

You are ignoring the fact that nonprofits are accountable to their customers whereas forprofits are accountable to their shareholders. That a big difference. Can you see it?

 

[mspohr]

This is how corruption works

Investigation: Newsom’s PG&E bailout law written by firm that had represented PG&E

They still have a law firm that previously represented PG&E now representing the state. They're treating PG&E like another office of the governor.” “The way that decisions are being made on our energy system… would be appalling to any third grader who's trying to figure out how a bill becomes a law,” said Pete Woiwode with Reclaim Our Power, a left-leaning group pushing for PG&E’s power grid to be converted to a non-profit public utility.

In interviews for this story, multiple fire survivors pointed to the fact that Newsom’s campaign and a supermajority of state lawmakers benefitted PG&E political donations and that the company gave money to a nonprofit founded by Newsom’s wife.

 

[Big Dog]

You are ignoring the fact that nonprofits are accountable to their customers whereas forprofits are accountable to their shareholders. That a big difference. Can you see it?

Sorry, but there is 'nothing to see here'. You are confusing a regular nonprofit who has to raise money and serve a public good vs. a utility (nonprofit). The former has to serve donors (and recipients) to survive; if donors don't like what the Board is doing, the donors can give elsewhere. The latter (nonprofit utility) can just keep jacking up rates and doing stupid stuff since it has a captured audience -- customers can complain all the want, but cannot go anywhere else.

Again, y'all are blaming the bogeyman, when it's the Sacto pols (which we keep electing) that are ulimately responsible for the policy and rate decisions made by the PUC. The beauty of the bogeyman (utility) is that it diverts the pressure off of the pols.

Your post #614 and the quote that you shared this morning just supports my point.

 

[mspohr]

Sorry, but there is 'nothing to see here'. You are confusing a regular nonprofit who has to raise money and serve a public good vs. a utility (nonprofit). The former has to serve donors (and recipients) to survive; if donors don't like what the Board is doing, the donors can give elsewhere. The latter (nonprofit utility) can just keep jacking up rates and doing stupid stuff since it has a captured audience -- customers can complain all the want, but cannot go anywhere else.

Again, y'all are blaming the bogeyman, when it's the Sacto pols (which we keep electing) that are ulimately responsible for the policy and rate decisions made by the PUC. The beauty of the bogeyman (utility) is that it diverts the pressure off of the pols.

Your post #614 and the quote that you shared this morning just supports my point.

I understand that the pols are corrupt but nonprofits answer to customers, not stockholders.

 

[mspohr]

Sunrun says better policy is needed to add “vast” amounts of distributed solar and storage

"Given our climate crisis, state utility commissions must act with urgency and prioritize innovation in the way utilities are regulated," says the Sunrun policy team in a paper. Noting great progress by Hawaii and Vermont, they also call for state regulators to "rethink" how utilities make money.

pv-magazine-usa.com

Without distributed solar and storage, “utilities will need more power plants, lines, and poles” as demand increases due to electrification, the authors say. Those utility investments “will be funded by charging customers higher electricity rates,” burdening “those who can least afford it.”

Flagging the importance of leadership by a state’s public utility commission, the authors said regulatory authorities around the US “should look to the Hawaii PUC as an example of leading the way to a modern power system.

Vermont utility Green Mountain Power has provided a circuit-level hosting capacity map since 2017 that has enabled more distributed solar, the authors say. A utility program to promote battery adoption has “unlocked millions in utility cost savings” and has been a model for similar utility programs around the country. And an alternative rate plan proposed by the utility that “decouples its financial interests from electricity sales” has been approved by state regulators.

 

[Merrill]

Good luck with Pacific Graft and Extortion.

 

[mspohr]

Good luck with Pacific Graft and Extortion.

Unfortunately, they have "regulatory capture" through corrupt politicians so don't expect much there.

 

[Merrill]

Unfortunately, they have "regulatory capture" through corrupt politicians so don't expect much there.

You mean they are getting paid off, wow what a concept.