Californians -- AB 1139 just got amended

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

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.

Net metering sucks. If it had been done properly with FITs, like civilized countries, the utilities' whines and appeals to resentment could easily be shut down.

 

[holeydonut]

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.

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

Let's hope that Gavin dude isn't recalled then.

 

[skepticcyclist]

So it is looking more and more enticing to set up your own off grid system and not let your provider know by creating a subpanel, battery, inverter, charge controller shed.

 

[holeydonut]

So it is looking more and more enticing to set up your own off grid system and not let your provider know by creating a subpanel, battery, inverter, charge controller shed.

I'm fairly certain what you're saying is illegal in California. The California builders code says that a property cannot go off-grid unless it could somehow do this with no fossil fuel energy sources. And the moment stuff can take a sniff at sharing energy with PG&E's precious infrastructure because it's feeding a common property, it needs to be disclosed and permitted.

 

[miimura]

I'm fairly certain what you're saying is illegal in California. The California builders code says that a property cannot go off-grid unless it could somehow do this with no fossil fuel energy sources. And the moment stuff can take a sniff at sharing energy with PG&E's precious infrastructure because it's feeding a common property, it needs to be disclosed and permitted.

No, it's not illegal. What he's actually proposing is easy to do with traditional hybrid inverter-chargers.
Tesla Powerwall systems use a grid interactive inverters and a disconnect switch for when the grid goes down. If you instead put enough battery and inverter at the same point in the system where the disconnect switch would be, you can isolate your loads from the grid so that they are only powered by the "off-grid" inverter. The inverter-charger has a separate input for battery charging. You connect that input to the grid. Now you have the choice of drawing from the grid when you need it, but never feed solar back into the grid and your loads are not necessarily synchronized to the grid. Since the solar uses charge controllers, they simply curtail the solar when the batteries are full.
This scheme allows you to operate a solar system without utility interconnection permission because you cannot feed into the grid. However, you also lose the ability to use the grid as your battery and you can't get any credit for your unused Summer solar to use in the Winter.

 

[skepticcyclist]

I'm fairly certain what you're saying is illegal in California. The California builders code says that a property cannot go off-grid unless it could somehow do this with no fossil fuel energy sources. And the moment stuff can take a sniff at sharing energy with PG&E's precious infrastructure because it's feeding a common property, it needs to be disclosed and permitted.

There are many things we do that are "illegal". Most self reshingling on roofs, patio cement pours, block wall builds, patio roof builds, water heater installations, window replacements, ceiling fan installations, recessed lighting installs with wiring, and etc. has been done without permits and thus "illegal". Many people do not pull permits, go through inspection, or higher a contracted licensed person to do many of these things. Many of my neighbors even replumbed their whole house on their own by replacing their old galvanized steel pipe with cooper piping without pulling permits or going through inspection.

As far as this goes, I don't think it is illegal unless you do this without permits for all the wiring. You just move some of your breakers from you main grid panel to a subpanel that is separate from the grid panel. No interconnection and no power going back to the grid. As far as the utility company knows, you just happened to reduce your energy use by a lot (maybe you're spending all of your time traveling or at you second home in another part of the country, for all they know???) Or do what miimura mentioned above.

I am not advocating that anyone do these things. I am just pointing out what does happen. When we get more restrictions like this bill is proposing, it leads to more things like this (your own secret partial home off-grid system).

 

[skepticcyclist]

No, it's not illegal. What he's actually proposing is easy to do with traditional hybrid inverter-chargers.
Tesla Powerwall systems use a grid interactive inverters and a disconnect switch for when the grid goes down. If you instead put enough battery and inverter at the same point in the system where the disconnect switch would be, you can isolate your loads from the grid so that they are only powered by the "off-grid" inverter. The inverter-charger has a separate input for battery charging. You connect that input to the grid. Now you have the choice of drawing from the grid when you need it, but never feed solar back into the grid and your loads are not necessarily synchronized to the grid. Since the solar uses charge controllers, they simply curtail the solar when the batteries are full.
This scheme allows you to operate a solar system without utility interconnection permission because you cannot feed into the grid. However, you also lose the ability to use the grid as your battery and you can't get any credit for your unused Summer solar to use in the Winter.

And the nice thing about these off grid inverter charge controllers is that solar can always be used even when the batteries are full. They adjust the output wattage from the panels to match what your home is consuming. They do not do this cycle off and on switching between battery and solar like the PW and gateway do

 

[holeydonut]

How about monthly KW connect charges?

AB 1139 doesn't seem to include a fixed cost of monthly connection charges. But assuming AB 1139 is just a strongarm tactic to force through the PG&E (and other IOU blah blah) proposal, there will be a fixed fee shown in the table at the bottom of this post. This image is taken from the PG&E proposal for non-EV TOU future "NEM" customers. They would pay a monthly $20.66. Then, when they draw from the grid, they will pay that retail TOU rate. And as we discussed already, when they export back to the grid they get the ACC rate. No annual true up.

PG&E loves to over-complicate things because it gives them wiggle room to concede on the small crap while people miss the boat on the larger issues. It's an obvious tactic but people always fall into the trap. The CALSSA could end up bickering over the peak times and fixed charge and miss the boat entirely that NEM is being blown up.

Anyway, let's simplify (as best we can) PG&E's proposal for a PV-only home in September (summer) that generates 1000 kWh and uses 1000 kWh. For the sake of this example, let's get rid of partial-peak and simplify this homeowner's 1000 kWh.


Ok let's consider PG&E BS into 5 primary buckets.
Bucket 1: From Grid used in Home Off peak (no solar available)
Bucket 2: From Solar used in Home Off peak (solar powered the house solar benefit)
Bucket 3: From Solar export To Grid Off peak (excess solar export)
Bucket 4: From Solar used in Home Peak (solar powered the house solar benefit)
Bucket 5: From Grid used in Home Peak (not enough solar to power the house)


Here's the hypothetical starting point of a customer before considering solar benefit:
Bucket 1: $0.22 cost x 333 kWh used = $73.26 off peak owed to PG&E
Bucket 2: Nothing; consider zero solar for now
Bucket 3: Nothing; consider zero solar for now
Bucket 4: Nothing; consider zero solar for now
Bucket 5: $0.40 x 666 = $266.40 peak owed to PG&E
Fixed interconnect = $20.66 owed to PG&E
$360.32 base cost with no solar (before fees, taxes, CCA overhead, blah blah blah).


If I use my hourly PV watts estimate (I'm in NorCal) and my daily usage pattern, I can begin to estimate what my PV will give me to run home loads as well as any surplus that could be exported. For me, I am offsetting about 15% of my monthly energy usage with the contemporaneous solar generation during off peak. And I could offset about 5% of my monthly energy with contemporaneous peak solar generation (it's a very tiny window).

Oh during off-peak time, if I cross-multiply that ACC calculation for CZ12 (Sac area), then the off-peak PV is worth $0.035 ACC on average.

Bucket 1: $0.22 cost x 333 kWh used = $73.26 off peak owed to PG&E
Bucket 2: ($0.22 opportunity savings with off-peak solar) x 150 kW self powered = ($33 savings)
Bucket 3: ($0.035 ACC off-peak export) x 800 kW = ($28 credit paid per ACC)
Bucket 4: ($0.40 opportunity savings wit peak solar) x 50 kW self powered ($20 savings)
Bucket 5: $0.40 x 666 = $266.40 peak owed to PG&E
Fixed interconnect = $20.66 owed to PG&E
$279.32 base cost with solar benefit (before fees, taxes, CCA overhead, blah blah blah). Savings of $81.


If you think my numbers are garbage... consider that PG&E expects the future NEM customer to have a solar payback of 15 YEARS. What do you think a PV system should cost that can generate 1,000 kWh in the month of September? I don't think my numbers are that far off from the reality that PG&E wants future solar customers to have.

 

[JazzPaw]

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.

I’ve read those reports and the IOU proposal. The fairness argument is way overplayed. The retail rate compensation is too generous to solar owners, but those reports lard that up with bogus accounting. They assume we should pay grid fees for power that stays behind the meter. That’s crazy. We don’t pay grid fees when we install better insulation or an attic fan!

Solar advocates should abandon Net Energy Metering as a concept. It leaves us open to this fairness and subsidy argument, and we don’t even get NEM. Better to just push for being treated as any other electricity consumer for power we use from the grid, regardless of solar. We consume less, we pay less just like anyone else who uses electricity.

We then concentrate on what the rate for exports is. If they don’t offer a decent rate, we don’t push the power into the grid. Simple and completely separate from the grid import side. Batteries will keep the cost down for rooftop solar under such a system.

Otherwise, we get screwed by paying grid fees on power that never sees the grid. Keep the argument simple and it’s harder to make their argument.

 

[holeydonut]

No, it's not illegal. What he's actually proposing is easy to do with traditional hybrid inverter-chargers.
Tesla Powerwall systems use a grid interactive inverters and a disconnect switch for when the grid goes down. If you instead put enough battery and inverter at the same point in the system where the disconnect switch would be, you can isolate your loads from the grid so that they are only powered by the "off-grid" inverter. The inverter-charger has a separate input for battery charging. You connect that input to the grid. Now you have the choice of drawing from the grid when you need it, but never feed solar back into the grid and your loads are not necessarily synchronized to the grid. Since the solar uses charge controllers, they simply curtail the solar when the batteries are full.
This scheme allows you to operate a solar system without utility interconnection permission because you cannot feed into the grid. However, you also lose the ability to use the grid as your battery and you can't get any credit for your unused Summer solar to use in the Winter.

Oh ok yeah I hear of people setups like this for pool pumps or well pumps. But I thought skepticcyclist was trying to basically install a non-permitted array and try to keep it off-grid in a more figurative sense than a literal isolated mini-grid.

 

[getakey]

t

AB 1139 doesn't seem to include a fixed cost of monthly connection charges. But assuming AB 1139 is just a strongarm tactic to force through the PG&E (and other IOU blah blah) proposal, there will be a fixed fee shown in the table at the bottom of this post. This image is taken from the PG&E proposal for non-EV TOU future "NEM" customers. They would pay a monthly $20.66. Then, when they draw from the grid, they will pay that retail TOU rate. And as we discussed already, when they export back to the grid they get the ACC rate. No annual true up.

PG&E loves to over-complicate things because it gives them wiggle room to concede on the small crap while people miss the boat on the larger issues. It's an obvious tactic but people always fall into the trap. The CALSSA could end up bickering over the peak times and fixed charge and miss the boat entirely that NEM is being blown up.

Anyway, let's simplify (as best we can) PG&E's proposal for a PV-only home in September (summer) that generates 1000 kWh and uses 1000 kWh. For the sake of this example, let's get rid of partial-peak and simplify this homeowner's 1000 kWh.


Ok let's consider PG&E BS into 5 primary buckets.
Bucket 1: From Grid used in Home Off peak (no solar available)
Bucket 2: From Solar used in Home Off peak (solar powered the house solar benefit)
Bucket 3: From Solar export To Grid Off peak (excess solar export)
Bucket 4: From Solar used in Home Peak (solar powered the house solar benefit)
Bucket 5: From Grid used in Home Peak (not enough solar to power the house)


Here's the hypothetical starting point of a customer before considering solar benefit:
Bucket 1: $0.22 cost x 333 kWh used = $73.26 off peak owed to PG&E
Bucket 2: Nothing; consider zero solar for now
Bucket 3: Nothing; consider zero solar for now
Bucket 4: Nothing; consider zero solar for now
Bucket 5: $0.40 x 666 = $266.40 peak owed to PG&E
Fixed interconnect = $20.66 owed to PG&E
$360.32 base cost with no solar (before fees, taxes, CCA overhead, blah blah blah).


If I use my hourly PV watts estimate (I'm in NorCal) and my daily usage pattern, I can begin to estimate what my PV will give me to run home loads as well as any surplus that could be exported. For me, I am offsetting about 15% of my monthly energy usage with the contemporaneous solar generation during off peak. And I could offset about 5% of my monthly energy with contemporaneous peak solar generation (it's a very tiny window).

Oh during peak off-time, if I cross-multiply that ACC calculation for CZ12 (Sac area), then the off-peak PV is worth $0.035 ACC on average.

Bucket 1: $0.22 cost x 333 kWh used = $73.26 off peak owed to PG&E
Bucket 2: ($0.22 opportunity savings with off-peak solar) x 150 kW self powered = ($33 savings)
Bucket 3: ($0.035 ACC off-peak export) x 800 kW = ($28 credit paid per ACC)
Bucket 4: ($0.40 opportunity savings wit peak solar) x 50 kW self powered ($20 savings)
Bucket 5: $0.40 x 666 = $266.40 peak owed to PG&E
Fixed interconnect = $20.66 owed to PG&E
$279.32 base cost with solar benefit (before fees, taxes, CCA overhead, blah blah blah). Savings of $81.


If you think my numbers are garbage... consider that PG&E expects the future NEM customer to have a solar payback of 15 YEARS. What do you think a PV system should cost that can generate 1,000 kWh in the month of September? I don't think my numbers are that far off from the reality that PG&E wants future solar customers to have.


View attachment 669219

View attachment 669243

wow - that totally reverse the payback from solar only to solar+battery
My payback off solar only will be ~5 years. The additional cost of PWs pushes the payback way out, but I bought them for backup. Under PG&E new plan the PWs actually have a payback albeit long

 

[skepticcyclist]

And the utility companies here have a lot of power. Two of them PG&E and SCE are the two largest in the whole nation. Think about that. CA alone has the two largest in the whole nation.

Here is a map of all of CA's utility service companies

 

[skepticcyclist]

Oh ok yeah I hear of people setups like this for pool pumps or well pumps. But I thought skepticcyclist was trying to basically install a non-permitted array and try to keep it off-grid in a more figurative sense than a literal isolated mini-grid.

You’re correct. That was what I was stating. What I was stating is illegal. My point was not to promote this tactic, but to point out that some may just do this because of the restrictions put in place

 

[JazzPaw]

AB 1139 doesn't seem to include a fixed cost of monthly connection charges. But assuming AB 1139 is just a strongarm tactic to force through the PG&E (and other IOU blah blah) proposal, there will be a fixed fee shown in the table at the bottom of this post. This image is taken from the PG&E proposal for non-EV TOU future "NEM" customers. They would pay a monthly $20.66. Then, when they draw from the grid, they will pay that retail TOU rate. And as we discussed already, when they export back to the grid they get the ACC rate. No annual true up.

PG&E loves to over-complicate things because it gives them wiggle room to concede on the small crap while people miss the boat on the larger issues. It's an obvious tactic but people always fall into the trap. The CALSSA could end up bickering over the peak times and fixed charge and miss the boat entirely that NEM is being blown up.

Anyway, let's simplify (as best we can) PG&E's proposal for a PV-only home in September (summer) that generates 1000 kWh and uses 1000 kWh. For the sake of this example, let's get rid of partial-peak and simplify this homeowner's 1000 kWh.


Ok let's consider PG&E BS into 5 primary buckets.
Bucket 1: From Grid used in Home Off peak (no solar available)
Bucket 2: From Solar used in Home Off peak (solar powered the house solar benefit)
Bucket 3: From Solar export To Grid Off peak (excess solar export)
Bucket 4: From Solar used in Home Peak (solar powered the house solar benefit)
Bucket 5: From Grid used in Home Peak (not enough solar to power the house)


Here's the hypothetical starting point of a customer before considering solar benefit:
Bucket 1: $0.22 cost x 333 kWh used = $73.26 off peak owed to PG&E
Bucket 2: Nothing; consider zero solar for now
Bucket 3: Nothing; consider zero solar for now
Bucket 4: Nothing; consider zero solar for now
Bucket 5: $0.40 x 666 = $266.40 peak owed to PG&E
Fixed interconnect = $20.66 owed to PG&E
$360.32 base cost with no solar (before fees, taxes, CCA overhead, blah blah blah).


If I use my hourly PV watts estimate (I'm in NorCal) and my daily usage pattern, I can begin to estimate what my PV will give me to run home loads as well as any surplus that could be exported. For me, I am offsetting about 15% of my monthly energy usage with the contemporaneous solar generation during off peak. And I could offset about 5% of my monthly energy with contemporaneous peak solar generation (it's a very tiny window).

Oh during off-peak time, if I cross-multiply that ACC calculation for CZ12 (Sac area), then the off-peak PV is worth $0.035 ACC on average.

Bucket 1: $0.22 cost x 333 kWh used = $73.26 off peak owed to PG&E
Bucket 2: ($0.22 opportunity savings with off-peak solar) x 150 kW self powered = ($33 savings)
Bucket 3: ($0.035 ACC off-peak export) x 800 kW = ($28 credit paid per ACC)
Bucket 4: ($0.40 opportunity savings wit peak solar) x 50 kW self powered ($20 savings)
Bucket 5: $0.40 x 666 = $266.40 peak owed to PG&E
Fixed interconnect = $20.66 owed to PG&E
$279.32 base cost with solar benefit (before fees, taxes, CCA overhead, blah blah blah). Savings of $81.


If you think my numbers are garbage... consider that PG&E expects the future NEM customer to have a solar payback of 15 YEARS. What do you think a PV system should cost that can generate 1,000 kWh in the month of September? I don't think my numbers are that far off from the reality that PG&E wants future solar customers to have.


View attachment 669219

View attachment 669243

You forgot the Grid Benefits Charge. See Table 12. PG&E wants $10.93 per kW of system size per month. For your system that could be a 7kW system, so pay them an extra $76.51 per month. It’s all in the document. They want a grid fee for your self-consumed power.

 

[JazzPaw]

t

wow - that totally reverse the payback from solar only to solar+battery
My payback off solar only will be ~5 years. The additional cost of PWs pushes the payback way out, but I bought them for backup. Under PG&E new plan the PWs actually have a payback albeit long

Read the fine print in their proposal. If too many start using storage and pulling less power after hours, they will demand a higher Grid Benefits Charge. You won’t stop paying them.

 

[h2ofun]

You forgot the Grid Benefits Charge. See Table 12. PG&E wants $10.93 per kW of system size per month. For your system that could be a 7kW system, so pay them an extra $76.51 per month. It’s all in the document. They want a grid fee for your self-consumed power.

I have 15 now, and might have 30. That cost to not use would be more than my use would have been without solar. This stuff is nuts

 

[holeydonut]

You forgot the Grid Benefits Charge. See Table 12. PG&E wants $10.93 per kW of system size per month. For your system that could be a 7kW system, so pay them an extra $76.51 per month. It’s all in the document. They want a grid fee for your self-consumed power.

Ohhhh... I thought that $10.93 was in lieu of the CPUC allowing a constant fixed customer charge that was in excess of the marginal $17.32/month cost that PG&E claims every home costs them to be connected to the grid. You're saying my $20.66 is additive to the $10.93 per kW?

Can you imagine @h2ofun paying $10.93 per kW of solar he's about to put on his roof? He'll literally be paying like $500 just for the privilege of having solar lololol. Instead of selling his house to me for $1,300,000 (my dumb analogy), I'd offer to take it for free since his solar is such a PV liability hehe.

 

[holeydonut]

I’ve read those reports and the IOU proposal. The fairness argument is way overplayed. The retail rate compensation is too generous to solar owners, but those reports lard that up with bogus accounting. They assume we should pay grid fees for power that stays behind the meter. That’s crazy. We don’t pay grid fees when we install better insulation or an attic fan!

Solar advocates should abandon Net Energy Metering as a concept. It leaves us open to this fairness and subsidy argument, and we don’t even get NEM. Better to just push for being treated as any other electricity consumer for power we use from the grid, regardless of solar. We consume less, we pay less just like anyone else who uses electricity.

We then concentrate on what the rate for exports is. If they don’t offer a decent rate, we don’t push the power into the grid. Simple and completely separate from the grid import side. Batteries will keep the cost down for rooftop solar under such a system.

Otherwise, we get screwed by paying grid fees on power that never sees the grid. Keep the argument simple and it’s harder to make their argument.

Yeah, based on what I've seen about (R.) 20-08-020 and (R.) 14-07-002, it seems like the SEIA and CALSSA have no chance to get rid of the findings from E3 that show this huuuuge cost advantage currently enjoyed by NEM 1.0 and 2.0. If they lose the fairness battle, they will be left to bicker over whether PG&E can meter energy behind the meter. PG&E really just wants to impose the mega tariff to interconnect and get rid of paying much of anything for solar exports.

You're right; ESS basically becomes a must-have to navigate residential energy in 2030 when the grandfathering starts to wane.

I still feel bad for anybody on a PPA. If the new language of the NEM proposals and AB 1139 really pays out in a worst case scenario for them, then their energy bills are going to skyrocket. These PPA participants are already stuck on mega-long-tail payback streams. They definitely aren't seeing that $0.31 per kWh solar savings that the E3 found.

 

[JazzPaw]

Ohhhh... I thought that $10.93 was in lieu of the CPUC allowing a constant fixed customer charge that was in excess of the marginal $17.32/month cost that PG&E claims every home costs them to be connected to the grid. You're saying my $20.66 is additive to the $10.93 per kW?

Can you imagine @h2ofun paying $10.93 per kW of solar he's about to put on his roof? He'll literally be paying like $500 just for the privilege of having solar lololol. Instead of selling his house to me for $1,300,000 (my dumb analogy), I'd offer to take it for free since his solar is such a PV liability hehe.

Yes, it’s additive. The purpose of it is clearly stated. The more you avoid their grid power with solar, the less you are paying for their grid. They assume that solar customers are avoiding about 50% of their grid power needs, so they average the “lost” grid fees over all the solar panels the customers are using. That gives them an easy way to “recover” those fees. You owe them for grid fees on ALL of the power you use, and they say grid fees are almost all of the cost of grid power. So, solar won’t save you any significant money because the more you generate, the more you pay the utility.

Imagine if my local grocery could send me Retail Grocery Benefits Charge for vegetables I grow myself or buy at the farmers market. Well, it’s just “unfair” to make other customers pay for the store that’s available to you as well.

 

[power.saver]

AB 1139 was moved to the inactive file by the author.