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

[h2ofun]

I don't understand this myself but I found this description of how it works in NEM 2 which may help. Not sure about the details (in flux) for NEM 3.
(A worrying part is the "including the electrons generated by the customer’s rooftop solar array and delivered directly to their own homes" part.)

UPDATED — The ultimate guide to NEM 2.0: non-bypassable charges explained

The Net Billing Tariff, NEM 3.0, has gone into effect. This post reviews non-bypassable charges and highlights further NEM 3.0 resources.

www.aurorasolar.com

Non-bypassable charges (NBCs) are just components of the total electric rate, which are separated under NEM 2.0. If you look through a utility rate schedule such as PG&E’s TOU-A, you will see the total electric rate broken down into a number of different types of charges, as follows:

Generation	$0.18232 / kWh
Distribution	$0.10183 / kWh
Transmission	$0.02536 / kWh
Public Purpose Programs*	$0.01501 / kWh
Nuclear Decommissioning*	$0.00149 / kWh
Competition Transition Charges*	$0.00130 / kWh
DWR Bond*	$0.00549 / kWh
Total Electricity Rate	$0.39336 / kWh

Table 1: Partial list of the unbundled rate components that make up the total electric rate. Source: PG&E Electric Schedule E-TOU Option A – Summer Peak Rate, Effective March 1 2017

There are a few more small line items and the table above is for illustrative purposes. The items marked with a (*) are components of NBCs, and total $0.023/kWh for the current utility rate. The other components of the rate are energy charges.

How are NBCs billed?​

For an NEM 2.0 customer, energy charges and NBCs are tabulated separately. When they buy from the grid, they are billed at the energy rate plus the NBC rate, but when they export to the grid they are compensated at only the energy rate. For residential NEM 2.0 customers, NBCs are assessed on the hourly net energy consumption.

Logically, I do not believe PGE can see, or control, anything behind the panel? But it seems, if I send solar back to PGE, that when I reuse it,
this new costs might be higher? If so, and NO fixed cost per month per kw panel sizes, I sure will be happy. And if so, then seems batteries will make a lot more sense?

 

[mspohr]

Logically, I do not believe PGE can see, or control, anything behind the panel? But it seems, if I send solar back to PGE, that when I reuse it,
this new costs might be higher? If so, and NO fixed cost per month per kw panel sizes, I sure will be happy. And if so, then seems batteries will make a lot more sense?

I don't know how they would find out how much self-consumption I would have but I wouldn't put it past them to come up with something.
The fixed monthly charges for solar panels should be a non-starter.

I don't think solar should have extra grid charges. If the utilities are not collecting enough to support the grid, they should unbundle grid charges from electricity cost for ALL customers, not just solar customers. Have everyone pay a grid maintenance charge, not just solar.

 

[SageBrush]

Logically, I do not believe PGE can see, or control, anything behind the panel?

My utility in NM required a revenue grade meter that counts inverter output.

 

[Redhill_qik]

What does this mean?

The “non-bypassable charges” provision would add $0.05/kWh to a customer’s bill, whether or not they have solar panels on their roof. These charges would apply to all end-use electricity, including the electrons generated by the customer’s rooftop solar array and delivered directly to their own homes

I assume this is only for stuff from the grid, not from batteries?

My understanding is that NEM 3.0 would add some of the other rate components to the current four that are non-bypassable. That would take the current $0.02423/kWh to ~$0.05/kWh. I have no idea how they would determine how much solar was used by the home and not exported. My best guess is that they would use the current method to estimate PV generation and subtract the amount exported as most installations do not have a meter on the solar array.

 

[h2ofun]

My understanding is that NEM 3.0 would add some of the other rate components to the current four that are non-bypassable. That would take the current $0.02423/kWh to ~$0.05/kWh. I have no idea how they would determine how much solar was used by the home and not exported. My best guess is that they would use the current method to estimate PV generation and subtract the amount exported as most installations do not have a meter on the solar array.

That would be the pits. Many times our inverters break or other things that cause solar not to be produced. But, it sure is better than 10 bucks a month per KW. That would have been a reason to put on more panels, and batteries, and not tell pge.

 

[SageBrush]

That would have been a reason to put on more panels, and batteries, and not tell pge

Empty threat since you only put up PV and batteries when it is paid for by others

 

[mspohr]

Empty threat since you only put up PV and batteries when it is paid for by others

I don't understand your point.
Everybody I know has paid for their own PV and batteries. Where can I find these other people to pay for my system?
(There are sometimes tax credits available but these only cover a small part of the cost.)

 

[STS-134]

What does this mean?

The “non-bypassable charges” provision would add $0.05/kWh to a customer’s bill, whether or not they have solar panels on their roof.

My understanding is that an non-bypassable charge (NBC) is a charge that is is added to the price of every kWh taken from the grid but is not paid to you when you sell a kWh to the grid. In other words, if you import 1 kWh and then export 1 kWh during the same time period, you will still have to pay the NBC. But yeah, if you are an importer only (no solar), you'd have to pay the NBCs on all energy you import.

These charges would apply to all end-use electricity, including the electrons generated by the customer’s rooftop solar array and delivered directly to their own homes

Now that is BS.

Logically, I do not believe PGE can see, or control, anything behind the panel? But it seems, if I send solar back to PGE, that when I reuse it,
this new costs might be higher? If so, and NO fixed cost per month per kw panel sizes, I sure will be happy. And if so, then seems batteries will make a lot more sense?

If their only visibility into the system is through the meter, then yes, they can only determine net usage. But look up UL 1741 ("smart inverters"): Advanced Inverters UL 1741 SA Webinar

I'm not sure exactly what visibility the grid has into what the UL 1741 inverter is doing but the CPUC needs to ban charging NBCs on energy that's generated and immediately consumed within the premises. The only information the utility really has a need to know is how much power is the inverter exporting to the grid (inverter usage minus usage on premises) and the only command they should be able to send to it is a command to export no more than a certain amount (if total renewable supply exceeds grid usage and they have nowhere to export or store it).

 

[SageBrush]

I don't understand your point.
Everybody I know has paid for their own PV and batteries. Where can I find these other people to pay for my system?
(There are sometimes tax credits available but these only cover a small part of the cost.)

h20fun can tell you, or you can read his posts.

He exploits every subsidy possible and then whines about the socialist state of CA

 

[iPlug]

My utility in NM required a revenue grade meter that counts inverter output.

Trying to understand the setup in NM - so their meter (or additional meter) sits between the inverter and service panel?

Our smart meter sits between the grid and our service panel, so PG&E has no way to measure how much our microinverters are pushing into the service panel.

 

[Redhill_qik]

That would be the pits. Many times our inverters break or other things that cause solar not to be produced. But, it sure is better than 10 bucks a month per KW. That would have been a reason to put on more panels, and batteries, and not tell pge.

The CPUC needs to move to a fixed monthly connection charge for all customers to cover fixed costs based on the size of your connection. An apartment with 100A service is less than a 200A service which is less than a 400A service. If you are on CARES then 50% discount on the fixed monthly rate.

Everyone is then planning their fair share and it is transparent. This of course is the antithesis of the Berkeley profs position that electric rates should be progressive for income disparity reasons.

 

[STS-134]

The CPUC needs to move to a fixed monthly connection charge for all customers to cover fixed costs based on the size of your connection. An apartment with 100A service is less than a 200A service which is less than a 400A service. If you are on CARES then 50% discount on the fixed monthly rate.

Yep that's what I've said before in another thread. Depending on the fixed monthly charge, I might be kicking myself for upgrading to 400A despite only really needing 200A, but whatever. I am part of a very small percentage of people who have done this.

 

[h2ofun]

The CPUC needs to move to a fixed monthly connection charge for all customers to cover fixed costs based on the size of your connection. An apartment with 100A service is less than a 200A service which is less than a 400A service. If you are on CARES then 50% discount on the fixed monthly rate.

Everyone is then planning their fair share and it is transparent. This of course is the antithesis of the Berkeley profs position that electric rates should be progressive for income disparity reasons.

That is what the water connections are in my area. The larger the water meter connection, the higher the monthly fee

 

[miimura]

That is what the water connections are in my area. The larger the water meter connection, the higher the monthly fee

Me too. However, my meter was installed before we got a decision on whether we needed fire sprinklers. The meter is oversized to allow for fire sprinkler flow but we were not required to install them in our building permit. So, I've been paying the higher monthly fee for 9 years for nothing. I have wondered if I could ask them change out the meter for a smaller one.

I also have 400A electric service that I don't really need. I have one 200A main breaker and a space for another main breaker that sits empty. I would not have a problem paying a higher monthly fee for the 400A capacity if they were to change the tariffs along those lines. However, I would also expect that I would be credited for my surplus solar to pay for that higher monthly fee. Making the monthly grid charge completely "non-bypassable" is not acceptable.

 

[SageBrush]

Trying to understand the setup in NM - so their meter (or additional meter) sits between the inverter and service panel?

yep

I asked PNM about it, and was told it is used for customer support and accounting. I asked for a waiver since I opted out of clean energy generation credits and was refused. <<shrug>>

 

[Redhill_qik]

Me too. However, my meter was installed before we got a decision on whether we needed fire sprinklers. The meter is oversized to allow for fire sprinkler flow but we were not required to install them in our building permit. So, I've been paying the higher monthly fee for 9 years for nothing. I have wondered if I could ask them change out the meter for a smaller one.

I also have 400A electric service that I don't really need. I have one 200A main breaker and a space for another main breaker that sits empty. I would not have a problem paying a higher monthly fee for the 400A capacity if they were to change the tariffs along those lines. However, I would also expect that I would be credited for my surplus solar to pay for that higher monthly fee. Making the monthly grid charge completely "non-bypassable" is not acceptable.

Not acceptable to you, but it is acceptable to me.

 

[h2ofun]

Me too. However, my meter was installed before we got a decision on whether we needed fire sprinklers. The meter is oversized to allow for fire sprinkler flow but we were not required to install them in our building permit. So, I've been paying the higher monthly fee for 9 years for nothing. I have wondered if I could ask them change out the meter for a smaller one.

I also have 400A electric service that I don't really need. I have one 200A main breaker and a space for another main breaker that sits empty. I would not have a problem paying a higher monthly fee for the 400A capacity if they were to change the tariffs along those lines. However, I would also expect that I would be credited for my surplus solar to pay for that higher monthly fee. Making the monthly grid charge completely "non-bypassable" is not acceptable.

we can pay to have the water main increased or decreased in size

 

[mspohr]

Any idea if FERC will prevent utilities from charging customers to lobby it?

Meet the group lobbying against climate regulations — using your electric bill

The federal government is considering a rule change that would make it harder for utility companies to recover trade association dues.

grist.org

Within the next year or two, however, this financial model could come to an end. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, the top government agency overseeing the utility industry, is considering a rule change that would make it harder for companies to recover these costs. While utilities are already nominally barred from passing lobbying costs along to their customers, consumer advocates and environmental groups argue that much trade association activity that isn’t technically “lobbying” under the IRS’s definition is still political in nature — and that households are being unfairly charged for it.

 

[Dave EV]

The CPUC needs to move to a fixed monthly connection charge for all customers to cover fixed costs based on the size of your connection. An apartment with 100A service is less than a 200A service which is less than a 400A service. If you are on CARES then 50% discount on the fixed monthly rate.

Everyone is then planning their fair share and it is transparent. This of course is the antithesis of the Berkeley profs position that electric rates should be progressive for income disparity reasons.

I think a monthly demand charge would make more sense than paying based on the size of service, because as many have mentioned they have service larger than they really need. Peak demand is really the main issue that drives cost, not the size of the meter as that only determines the potential peak demand.

Hopefully demand charges aren't anywhere near the commercial rates, though. Maybe $1/kW or something, but they should also be TOU based. I'd rather see a small fixed charge, personally as I think demand charges would quickly get out of hand.

 

[miimura]

I think a monthly demand charge would make more sense than paying based on the size of service, because as many have mentioned they have service larger than they really need. Peak demand is really the main issue that drives cost, not the size of the meter as that only determines the potential peak demand.

Hopefully demand charges aren't anywhere near the commercial rates, though. Maybe $1/kW or something, but they should also be TOU based. I'd rather see a small fixed charge, personally as I think demand charges would quickly get out of hand.

They are more interested in inciting class warfare than accurately billing based on true costs.

That said, I think it's reasonable to have a Monthly Charge based on the size of your service 100A / 200A / 400A / etc. but if you export enough energy, you should be able to offset that charge. I think its also reasonable to have a Demand charge in $/kW for Part Peak and $$/kW for Peak for any customer on TOU rate schedules. However, these charges should be overall revenue neutral. When you add a demand charge, you have to reduce the volumetric ($/kWh) charge.