If ab1139 passes, thought it only went into effect if the new NEM3 does no happen via the CPUC?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Californians -- AB 1139 just got amended
- Thread starter Southpasfan
- Start date
I think this topic branches back into NEM 3.0... so this is going to get messy. Maybe @jjrandorin will break my reply here into a new thread so people start to truly understand how terrible NEM 3.0 can become.
Ok so let's start with a hypothetical... let's pretend that you're negotiating with me for me to buy your house for a "fair value." In this case, the state has a law (let's call it AB 327) where you have to sell your house to me; we just have to figure out what it's worth in a fair fashion.
Today, I propose that I think your house is worth $100,000 because it will serve as a great public lot to park some homeless people RVs and they can use your lake access for a bath. I have some bids from 3rd party operators to make sure power and service is provided to your site, and I have some not-for-profit grants that will use your space effectively at $100,000. Lots of help for many people; and your house is $100,000.
Today, you think I'm full of absolute crap, and say your house was just appraised by somebody on a refi at $1,300,000; and you also see this assessment on Redfin/Zillow/ etc. But your house can only help one person by the Lake in Auburn for $1,300,000. There's no way I can rationalize paying that exorbitant rate when my intention is to help the disadvantaged.
So our gap is very far apart. And it's time to negotiate! Right? I mean we have to legally abide by AB 327.
But here's the rub, now some woman named Gonzalez comes in and sets a ticking clock. It determines that if we don't arrive at an agreed value by August 2022, then you sell me the house for $100,000. Good luck to you.
Now you're thinking... this analogy is ABSURD AND GARBAGE. Go the hell away and stop wasting my time.
But consider this. PG&E (and the other utilities in their Joint IOU submission) gave to the CPUC their proposal for NEM 3.0 on March 15, 2021. You can find their proposal under the public documents filed under CPUC action R.14-07-002. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess what the IOUs want. They want all export to be at the ACC rate at the time the export is made. Screw the "Net" in Net Metering because they want to pay you what your electricity is worth at the time you export it to that "public good" known as The Grid. This used to be called the "wholesale" rate, but now it's just called the ACC rate.
Naturally CALSSA and other groups submitted much less robust proposals to "save NEM". But we're focusing on PG&E for now because PG&E (by way of it's PACs and lobbying) is hands deep in the pockets of your elected officials.
The CPUC even commissioned a company called E3 to calculate the "avoided cost" by month and by hour in 2030 to get an idea of what your solar will generate for PG&E at noon on a March day in 2030. The E3 calculator says your solar is worth $0.02 per kWh at noon. PG&E thinks you deserve to get $0.02 and have stated with conviction that ACC rate is the only fair value you should be reimbursed for your energy at that time.
And now you have AB 1139 saying that if the coalition of parties interested in NEM do not reach a conclusion by whatever date... then AB 1139 goes into affect as law. And AB 1139 says you will be paid for your solar export at $0.02 (the ACC rate).
So now do you see why this AB 1139 is a problem? All PG&E has to do is slow-roll the CPUC and keep filing motion and delays to hit the new deadline. Then they get your solar for $0.02 per kWh. Or in my stupid analogy, they get your house for $100,000. I'm not trying to fear-monger here. I'm just showing you the absurdity of AB 1139 and how it is dangerous even if it only comes into play "if" NEM 3 doesn't hit the target deadline.
Snippet from PG&E, SCE, SoCalEdison, whatever's joint proposal:
Last edited:
As an aside, I think we now know why Tesla isn't getting involved with NEM 3.0. They have filed zero submissions and voiced zero concerns over NEM 3.0.
Tesla stands to be the premier provider of the one technology that will save unfortunate homeowners from their out of control solar-cursed energy bills. So even if PG&E's proposal or AB 1139 goes in and it really harms people, Tesla has the second-most to gain out of this (the utilities have the most benefit). And if NEM 3.0 somehow miraculously emerges as a pro-solar agreement, Tesla can keep on trying to sell solar.
Elon is no dummy. He's just playing the arms race and hedging to make $ no matter who wins. If you're long TSLA, you're betting on a genius m-fer. Although that genius is also prone to pricing changes on solar roofs to kind of screw some people over. Go figure.
Companies like Sunrun and Semper are all in on the side likely to lose with no hedge on the other side in California.
Tesla stands to be the premier provider of the one technology that will save unfortunate homeowners from their out of control solar-cursed energy bills. So even if PG&E's proposal or AB 1139 goes in and it really harms people, Tesla has the second-most to gain out of this (the utilities have the most benefit). And if NEM 3.0 somehow miraculously emerges as a pro-solar agreement, Tesla can keep on trying to sell solar.
Elon is no dummy. He's just playing the arms race and hedging to make $ no matter who wins. If you're long TSLA, you're betting on a genius m-fer. Although that genius is also prone to pricing changes on solar roofs to kind of screw some people over. Go figure.
Companies like Sunrun and Semper are all in on the side likely to lose with no hedge on the other side in California.
There are two different discussions happening here. We (SCE) get retail rate during the year, the wholesale only happens at trueup if you are a net producer.
You are talking about "at true up" (only at true up) and they are talking about "monthly credits"
(moderator note: since this is a policy discussion, and belongs in the energy section in the existing thread on this exact topic there, yet people seem to want to have that discussion here for some reason, I am going to move this thread there, but leave a re direct. That seems to solve the "this is a california specific topic" as well as the "I want to talk about it here" issue)
EDIT: I wasnt able to merge it with the existing thread in the energy section and leave the re direct, so I moved it and left a permanent re direct in tesla energy section.
EDIT: I wasnt able to merge it with the existing thread in the energy section and leave the re direct, so I moved it and left a permanent re direct in tesla energy section.
Last edited:
Lol I tried to drag the topic back to Elon and some Tesla BS to keep it in the old forum 
Nobody every posts in this sub... threads go here to kind of die unless someone says the earth is flat and climate change only affects the bottom side of the Earth.
Nobody every posts in this sub... threads go here to kind of die unless someone says the earth is flat and climate change only affects the bottom side of the Earth.
Lol I tried to drag the topic back to Elon and some Tesla BS to keep it in the old forum
Nobody every posts in this sub... threads go here to kind of die unless someone says the earth is flat and climate change only affects the bottom side of the Earth.
Here is the thing, though (my opinion on this, in a bit of detail)
TMC already has a subforum for energy discussions. This is a California specific energy policy discussion. If we wanted to say "hey @jjrandorin , this belongs in the California subforum:
That also makes sense, because its a CA specific topic. Since this is policy thats NOT implemented, there isnt (and cant be) a discussion in tesla energy section along the lines of "Hey everyone, since this policy is now in force, how do we set our equipment up to mitigate it?" We could have a discussion more focused on "hey everyone, does it make sense to buy more powerwalls if this passes?" or something like that.
Thats not where these discussions go, though. They go into the policy weeds, on something that currently does not impact anyone outside of CA. I do realize that a lot of states follow the lead of CA on some of this stuff, but I also dont want it to look like "CA is the center of the universe" when there are (2) other sections that are specifically better suited for "An energy policy discussion in California".
Both the California section, and the Energy Policy section, are more on point for a energy policy discussion about policy in CA.
The latest compromise I made was to leave a permanent link in energy to this thread, so if someone clicks on it, they will auto re direct here. Frankly I find that as a compromise, for the reasons above, but because the CA members of the Tesla energy section keep wanting to have that discussion there, a compromise worth making.
Last edited:
nomis_nehc
Member
Yes, but the way you stated made it sound like you're not getting credited at retail, when in fact you are. Converting credits to wholesale is common practice for utilities across the board, not just SCE.
One way or the other NEM will be replaced and degraded for new buyers. It would be best to support a new simplified system for new buyers that treats solar owners the same as non-solar customers using the same amount of grid power in the same rate periods. That would make their cost shift argument harder to win.
Solar buyers could add some PWs and consume little grid energy. It’s just energy conservation. The only remaining issue is exports to the grid, which should be kept separate from grid imports. The export rate will not be as good as retail, but the most important thing now is to kill their Grid Benefits Charge, which is the realm solar killer.
Solar buyers could add some PWs and consume little grid energy. It’s just energy conservation. The only remaining issue is exports to the grid, which should be kept separate from grid imports. The export rate will not be as good as retail, but the most important thing now is to kill their Grid Benefits Charge, which is the realm solar killer.
You are correct. Read the IOU proposal. They assume that a solar owner should pay grid charges for ALL electricity consumed onsite, regardless of source.
The new proposed Grid Benefits Charge is designed to “recover” the grid charges currently being avoided when solar owners use their own power. The proposal envisions that battery storage might allow even more grid independence, necessitating a HIGHER Grid Benefits Charge.
Bottom Line: The IOUs want your post solar bill to be 85-90% of your pre solar bill. The power isn’t yours, just the cost of installing and maintaining.
skepticcyclist
Member
If you don't send any back to the grid and use very little from the grid, how will they even know how much you use and produce from you own panels?
They propose to assess you a Grid Benefits Charge based on the size of your solar system. They consider that a proxy for your usage.
aesculus
Still Trying to Figure This All Out
Unfortunately Rule 21 gets them the ability to see what you are doing and to even control what you are doing, in the interest of "grid stability".
skepticcyclist
Member
Not if you turn your main breaker off to the grid and use only solar and battery. They will have no idea how much you are generating and using
skepticcyclist
Member
So it is an assumption under ideal conditions all year? So if you have a really bad year with a lot of cloudy and rainy days, producing only a fraction of what your system is designed to produce, they charge you based on what is supposed to produce? Charging you for what you did not produce, use, or consume? That doesn't seem right
Exactly... On my older Sunrun system, I have 4 panels under performing, 1 panel not working at all... So under the new rules they want to impose, I would be paying for energy never produced. I also have the issue of no south facing panels, so my production is no where near ideal. When we tested my new system, 9.5kw, the highest we saw was about 6.5kw. This is also inline with my older 3.2kw system, which hits a high of about 2.5kw. I looked at the fees being proposed, at the higher end I saw, would be more then my current electric bills.
If PG&E (and the other California IOUs; but I hate PG&E so I always type PG&E) gets their way... new solar installs will require an output meter installed. This "NGOM" will also allow PG&E to bill the homeowner for energy exported from the ESS back into the home.
It’s essentially a solar panel TAX that goes to support the investors in the utility. The amount of the charge will be adjusted to make sure they get the money the want.
I agree with you; but you should know the argument that PG&E is using.
The CPUC and Utilities are basing the bulk of their argument about "solar inequality" on findings from E3:
The E3 Story - E3
hen E3 started out in the early 1990s, founder Ren Orans would not have predicted the energy industry’s rapid pace of change. He certainly didn’t know the E3 team would eventually support efforts to create landmark energy and climate legislation, inform international agreements, and have a hand...
www.ethree.com
Assuming for a second that E3 is completely independent and unbiased, their finding is that current NEM residential customers with solar benefit $0.31 per kWh produced/consumed that is a cost now pushed onto rate payers who aren't on NEM. Thus, for a NEM customer who produces/consumes 10,000 kWh per year, the E3 calculation assumes the solar customer's payback is about 4 years ($12,000 savings).
This finding is the crux of what the utilities' NEM3 proposal and AB 1139 want to fix. They effectively want the solar customer to not have a net favorable terms to have such a generous payback. Rather, they want the payback for a solar-only customer to be 11 to 15 years. This is the only "fair" approach in their eyes since this would allow the solar customer to continue to be "green" while not placing the burden of solar on the general grid.
So to your point, the only way PG&E can make sure a solar customer receives as little benefit as possible is to carefully monitor the generation and consumption of the solar-enabled household. While AB 1139 doesn't seem to have the full language of what IOU's want, it puts a big first domino in play to allow PG&E to achieve its goal of managing all energy in the state by bending NEM rules wildly into the IOU's court.
According to an analysis done by Philip Shen of Roth Capital Partners, the probability of AB 1139’s passage is “low.” Shen said that even if the Assembly passed the bill, the Senate likely would reject. If it were to pass both chambers, Shen said that Gov. Gavin Newsom almost certainly would veto it.
pv-magazine-usa.com
Controversial California solar bill undergoes major revisions
Assembly Bill 1139 underwent major revision, but that doesn't mean the bill has been entirely declawed.
pv-magazine-usa.com
Similar threads
