Californians -- AB 1139 just got amended

[holeydonut]

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

OOOOOoooooo. Nice.

Edit: If you're represented in your district by the following... you know who you should try to replace during the next vote. That is, unless you were in favor of AB 1139 at which point you know who is fighting the fight to help the utilities create equity.

Arambula, Bryan, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Cooper, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Lorena Gonzalez, Gray, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Medina, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ramos, Reyes, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Stone, Ting, Villapudua, Rendon

 

[power.saver]

OOOOOoooooo. Nice.

View attachment 669264

See above that: Type of Measure, Inactive Bill - Failed.

 

[JazzPaw]

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.

These “studies” intermix the legitimate subsidy argument, from not paying grid fees on actual grid imports, with an argument that it’s basically unfair to invest in solar and get a decent payback.

I agree that solar owners should pay for grid electricity they use under the same rate schedule that non-solar customers do. And if we export power, we are charged for grid usage. Of course, if it costs me a net amount to export power, I will not export.
The IOUs and advocates for ratepayers and the low income have teamed up to try to hose solar owners. It won’t work, even if they get what they propose, because they’ll kill rooftop solar as an add-on. They know that solar will be required on new homes, so they figure they can tax it and it will still grow, but not be profitable. Very cynical!

 

[JazzPaw]

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

Now it’s on to NEM 3.0.

 

[skepticcyclist]

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

So what exactly does this mean and what happens next?

 

[power.saver]

Means it's dead. No time left this legislative year to pass it out of the Assembly. It failed on a 27-27 vote yesterday.

Now the CPUC can continue their work on NEM 3.0 without a legislative deadline.

 

[holeydonut]

So what exactly does this mean and what happens next?

Considering the yay/nay vote was tied at 27; and it just needs a majority to move ahead... Carillo has already filed a motion to reconsider and get this back up again . But not any time soon

Lots of assembly members didn't vote; it'll only take 1 to get the majority they need to continue. But as others have stated, having such lukewarm reception at assembly should basically mean this won't proceed at the state senate level. But we'll see. Maybe someone's rooftop solar panel falls and lands on a basketful of puppies, and PG&E gets a big win to swing support against rooftop solar.

 

[holeydonut]

Means it's dead. No time left this legislative year to pass it out of the Assembly. It failed on a 27-27 vote yesterday.

Now the CPUC can continue their work on NEM 3.0 without a legislative deadline.

I thought session was active through September?

 

[power.saver]

Considering the yay/nay vote was tied at 27; and it just needs a majority to move ahead... Carillo has already filed a motion to reconsider and get this back up again . But not any time soon

Lots of assembly members didn't vote; it'll only take 1 to get the majority they need to continue. But as others have stated, having such lukewarm reception at assembly should basically mean this won't proceed at the state senate level. But we'll see. Maybe someone's rooftop solar panel falls and lands on a basketful of puppies, and PG&E gets a big win to swing support against rooftop solar.

No, they needed 41 votes for it to pass, so not just one more. There were 25 non voting members.

 

[JazzPaw]

So what exactly does this mean and what happens next?

A Motion to Reconsider has been filed. It only got 27 votes. 27 against, 25 not voting. Maybe it’s dead meat.

 

[power.saver]

I thought session was active through September?

The session is until September, but any Assembly Bill must pass by June 4, so only one more day. You can't pull a bill out of the Inactive File in less than one day. So it's done. She didn't have the votes yesterday, and the motion to reconsider would not have changed the outcome.

 

[power.saver]

A Motion to Reconsider has been filed. It only got 27 votes. 27 against, 25 not voting. Maybe it’s dead meat.

That was yesterday, and today it was moved to the Inactive File by the author, without any reconsideration.

 

[skepticcyclist]

So with the focus now on NEM 3.0, what exactly does 3.0 offer that 2.0 doesn’t? And will we be forced to 3.0 or be grandfathered into 2.0?

 

[holeydonut]

That was yesterday, and today it was moved to the Inactive File by the author, without any reconsideration.

Nice. I hope this also means general sentiment is not in favor of PG&E getting this "full equity" treatment for NEM 3.0.

 

[getakey]

does the Legislature have to approve NEM 3.0?

 

[JazzPaw]

So with the focus now on NEM 3.0, what exactly does 3.0 offer that 2.0 doesn’t? And will we be forced to 3.0 or be grandfathered into 2.0?

That is still to be determined. There are many proposals and “studies” to consider.

I think it’s clear that exports will not be paid for at retail rates. New buyers will get less back than they pay for power in the same time period.

Battery storage will be important going forward. You will be better off shifting your own power to the evening because exports will not be net metered.

The real fight will be over fixed Grid Charges that are not based on your usage. Many players want to tax solar to pay for the grid, beyond your actual usage. A small amount may be legit for public programs, but much of the proposed fees are an attempt to keep solar owners from avoiding paying for what they don’t need anymore.

 

[h2ofun]

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, solar would become a HUGE negative in selling my house. Taking completely off might be better

 

[sorka]

5. This California bill proposes that the utility will only have to pay you like 4 cents and then they can sell back to you for 40 cents. Unless you send back ten times what you use later in the day you will be paying.

My long term plan assumes PGE&E will eventually have their way and we will all be screwed trying to NEM anything.

My long term plan is to up my solar by 50% and double my storage and disconnect from the grid completely since PG&E will eventually stick us with a $90/month connection fee that is non bypassable as well. It's very likely this will be at a new location where I build a house that is too far away from any utility that serves electricity. Between solar, storage, and Starlink, I'll have all the utilities I need from the sun and orbit!

I'll take advantage of NEM 2.0 grandfathering as long as I can but as soon as I lose EV2-A or current NEM - NBCs, I'll get divorced from them.

 

[sorka]

Today, for generation that is below your annual consumption, you are getting the retail time of use rate for your export minus about $0.03 of fee for "non bypassable charges." Once you hit your annual usage, then any surplus export is at the wholesale rate.

Where are you getting 3 cents / kwh for NBCs?

 

[sorka]

Are you sure the NBCs work that way? I only see NBCs for power I consume from the grid

There are 4 components that make up NBCs in the "energy rate". When you export to the grid, you only get credit for the "energy rate" minus NBCs. When you consume from the grid, you get charged the full rate.

Everyone, even non solar customers, pay NBC (currently about 2.1 cents kwh) for consuming off the grid. But since you don't get credited the NBC portion of the rate and your export credit can't offset the NBCs from consumption, those accrue every month towards your true-up.

Net export wholesale credit, however, can offset NBCs.

My current true-up due (in December) as it stands today is a little over $12 but that's because the export credit factors in the 3 cents / kwh wholesale which comes off the $44 in NBCs that have accrued.

I of course plan to use that export credit before my true-up otherwise I'm leaving a ton on the table so as December approaches and I start using more than I generate in october and november, I'll hopefully not have any NBCs offset by wholesale credit.