When I was growing up in NH cars had be inspected every 6 months then it moved to every year when the overall reliability got better. There is also a mandatory inspection when the ownership is transferred. I was surprised to not find the same requirement in California when I moved here.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion
- Thread starter jjrandorin
- Start date
This thread will also be of interest to those discussing here: California Utilities Plan All Out War On Solar, Please Read And Help
LA Times article too, link in their to send them comments
www.latimes.com
Everything you need to know about California's plan to slash solar incentives
Want to go solar, or already have rooftop panels? Here's how proposed changes would affect you.
www.latimes.com
I just think it's funny that by Wayne's math, the monthly grid access charge wipes out any possible export value. This is supposed to be "NEM" 3.0 not "Get Rekt" 3.0.
I don't understand how the CPUC could reasonably justify their NEM 3.0 proposal to be a positive and fair system that would continue to encourage residential solar adoption if it through one single fee erases what NEM is supposed to be.
RKCRLR
Active Member
And, for someone with less favorable orientation/shading, it could wind up costing them money.
Well, the $0.05/kWh may be wrong, I haven't looked into the ACC details that you mentioned here: CPUC Nem 3.0 discussion as it relates to Energy Products Modeling the value of "export only" PV using a distribution like that would require some minimal computational programming (e.g. a spreadsheet).
Cheers, Wayne
The E3 calculator model (which includes the ACC) is available for download here:
Avoided Cost Calculator for Distributed Energy Resources (DER) - E3
E3 has developed the methodology for estimating the value of avoided costs for use in evaluating distributed energy resource programs in California. 2022 E3 Avoided Cost Calculator (latest) 2022 ACC Models Latest Version 2022 ACC Models Prior Version v1a 2022 ACC Models Prior Version v1b Files...
www.ethree.com
Based on some simple calculations for myself, basically no NEM would likely be cheaper than being paid for exporting. I could change habits a bit more and likely bring the number down even further. This is with no batteries at the moment... We already try to use appliances/charging/etc only when the sun is up, so my night time usage is very low. Its tough to say for sure though, since our second system has only been installed since May. Just running some simple numbers taking into account the $100 a month fee, most months would be less than that. This is not even taking into account the much lower export value. Just not sure how I would do in Dec-Feb. If we could drop NEM, I may consider adding batteries, but under the proposal not spending another dime.
Thought some more about this. I think that the actual answer is actually simpler (and worse):
A Tesla 4.8KW solar array with 2 PW after incentives: $21,000
Production of said solar array over 20 years: 4.8 x 1500 KWh/year/KW x 20 years = 144,000 KWh
Total monthly fees over 20 years: $8 x 4.8 x 20 x 12= $9,216 (and that fee will go up....)
So total costs to go solar: ~$30,000
Assuming 2/3 self consumption, 1/3 export, the savings from the install:
Self consumption: $0.25 x 144,000 x 2/3 = $24,000
Export: $0.05 x 144,000 x 1/3 = $2,400
Total savings $26,400
Now, same install, but no PW: Tesla solar array cost after incentives $8,200
Same 144,000 KWh production, same $9200 fixed monthly fees. Total costs over 20 years: $17,400
Self consumption: 10%. Export 90%. Savings:
Self consumption: $0.25 x 144,000 x 1/10 = $3,600
Export: $0.05 x 144,000 x 9/10 = $6,480
Total savings $10,080
Unless my math is wrong (and it well could be), the ROI is negative under either situation. No idea why anybody would buy solar.
A Tesla 4.8KW solar array with 2 PW after incentives: $21,000
Production of said solar array over 20 years: 4.8 x 1500 KWh/year/KW x 20 years = 144,000 KWh
Total monthly fees over 20 years: $8 x 4.8 x 20 x 12= $9,216 (and that fee will go up....)
So total costs to go solar: ~$30,000
Assuming 2/3 self consumption, 1/3 export, the savings from the install:
Self consumption: $0.25 x 144,000 x 2/3 = $24,000
Export: $0.05 x 144,000 x 1/3 = $2,400
Total savings $26,400
Now, same install, but no PW: Tesla solar array cost after incentives $8,200
Same 144,000 KWh production, same $9200 fixed monthly fees. Total costs over 20 years: $17,400
Self consumption: 10%. Export 90%. Savings:
Self consumption: $0.25 x 144,000 x 1/10 = $3,600
Export: $0.05 x 144,000 x 9/10 = $6,480
Total savings $10,080
Unless my math is wrong (and it well could be), the ROI is negative under either situation. No idea why anybody would buy solar.
With all these calculations, does it factor in the value of $$? $47,500 invested or even in longer term bonds (guaranteed returns) is worth a lot.
An EV per mile tax can be done during registration.
BUUUUUT, the problem is now, you're hurting the 'pooor' people again because only 'pooor' people drive a lot since they can't work from home and are driving uber.
I think it's funny the only solution that people seem to have consensus agreement on in this thread is that in the future doing a no-export PTO is in everyone's best interest here as homeowners.
And somehow the CPUC thinks this new NEM 3.0 proposal is a boon on the Distributed Energy Resource (DER) model and will steer California into a net zero future.
Like... wtf the chasm is so wide it could actually keep a PG&E wild-fire from jumping the gap.
I think your assumptions of only 2/3 self-consumption with 2 PWs, and only 10% self-consumption without PWs, are both pretty pessimistic.
But clearly there's an incentive to size solar to increase self-consumption and minimize export.
Cheers, Wayne
If we get the mentioned $2/kWh for demand response from our batteries, you could potentially make back the Summer season fees depending on the relative size of you solar and battery. However, Peak Day events are unlikely in the 8 months defined as EV2 Winter season and people without batteries are screwed regardless.
TIL that California has changed the smog check rules for new ICE cars from a 4 year grace period to 8 years. So you have 2 more years before your first smog check.
Yeah, I think one of my biggest issues with the per kw fee is trying to deal with it in the future when a system stops working, end of life etc. I think we all know, who has dealt with IOU that getting PTO etc can be a real pita. Its not gonna be a simple, unplug, call PG&E to remove the fee. Most likely going to have to get building permits, pull the system, line drawings etc. So at end of life, we might get stuck paying thousands just to get PG&E to remove the 8 p/kw fee. Even though I still think the total is completely inflated, my bigger concern right now is dealing with the systems when they stop working. They need to figure out a way based on grid usage, not size, this is gonna turn into a nightmare as soon as anything goes wrong with a system. Inverter dies, takes 3 months to get a new one installed... there goes $300 for nothing, plus paying full retail for all energy used... Its like they think adding a solar is a migical energy generator that will last a lifetime, never breakdown, never need maintenance etc. Maybe if anything breaks, I will just keep calling pg&e and telling them to come fix their equipment, since obviously we don't actually own it anymore.
I just hope battery prices drop in the next few years and the permitting folks get less annoying. If I could double up my Powerwall stack to have 6x total, that'll be enough to have 100% self-consumption and definitely zero export.
Apparently, based on Zabe's math, I'm about to get $60,000 cash in my pocket over the next 5 years to pay for this stuff. ROI for days.
NEM was the only way residential solar without storage could make any sense at all.
Now, the utilities have convinced the CUPC that residential solar without storage threatens their profit model, which it does.
The reason it does is that a large percentage of the volumetric pricing, as high as 80%, goes to the grid, maintaining it, and general overhead, and residential solar customers (a) drop their own consumption and (b) require the grid at night anyway. I would add, (c), that generally as a technical matter residential solar customers without storage are getting "credit" which includes charges for the grid that the residential solar customer is ceasing to pay for.
Sheesh. Anyway. Note the monthly cost figure. That's basically "you still need the grid, buddy, cough up for it."
They are going to pass this bitch anyway. The only honorable thing is to waive the monthly cost for people who include storage. At least if you include storage you are truly paying to (i) not over-produce during midday, and (ii) help out with the "alleged" needs during peak time. They probably won't do that though.
Oddly, I read the rules were coupled with eliminating limits on the size of the system. By any other name the only systems which make sense are now ones so small that excess to the grid (and the monthly per kwh charge) are minimized, which is the same thing as simply using less electricity during the day. But this is all because of a lack of honesty in what the new rules are supposed to address.
They aren't addressing anything except profit for utilities.
Now, the utilities have convinced the CUPC that residential solar without storage threatens their profit model, which it does.
The reason it does is that a large percentage of the volumetric pricing, as high as 80%, goes to the grid, maintaining it, and general overhead, and residential solar customers (a) drop their own consumption and (b) require the grid at night anyway. I would add, (c), that generally as a technical matter residential solar customers without storage are getting "credit" which includes charges for the grid that the residential solar customer is ceasing to pay for.
Sheesh. Anyway. Note the monthly cost figure. That's basically "you still need the grid, buddy, cough up for it."
They are going to pass this bitch anyway. The only honorable thing is to waive the monthly cost for people who include storage. At least if you include storage you are truly paying to (i) not over-produce during midday, and (ii) help out with the "alleged" needs during peak time. They probably won't do that though.
Oddly, I read the rules were coupled with eliminating limits on the size of the system. By any other name the only systems which make sense are now ones so small that excess to the grid (and the monthly per kwh charge) are minimized, which is the same thing as simply using less electricity during the day. But this is all because of a lack of honesty in what the new rules are supposed to address.
They aren't addressing anything except profit for utilities.
@jjrandorin, I'm sure you can already imagine the first angry post in the future on TMC from someone who just paid to get their system active; got PTO under NEM 3; started paying $8 per kW for their solar system grid access fee; then can't get Tesla out to fix their broken inverter.
Similar threads
- Locked
