charlesj
Active Member
What is this fee for? I am confused as this is the first I am hearing about this fee.How will that allow you not having to pay $8/kw monthly fee?
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What is this fee for? I am confused as this is the first I am hearing about this fee.How will that allow you not having to pay $8/kw monthly fee?
Wow, that's really bad. Good way to kill off all solar like Hawaii/Nevada. Would this new fee, 5c for excess apply to NEM1.0/2.0 folks?
This has nothing balanced/promoting clean energy. It's totally lopsided that it's like "Why bother?" for anyone looking at solar at these terms.
Do see they now say it is okay to put 150% panels one. Why not, they get more money from the panels, and only have to give 5 cents nowDon't forget that the reason this is a flat $ per month on the size of the system is because PG&E has seen the developments in other countries.
![]()
Australians could be charged for exporting energy from rooftop solar panels to the grid
Proposed changes to the national energy market rules aims to prevent ‘traffic jams’ of electricity on sunny dayswww.theguardian.com
The policies in some sun-soaked places basically resulted in the concept that turning off their solar array at noon time could be smarter than to leave the system on. It's because the homeowner's export value is actually worth less than the fee they got smacked with for that export.
PG&E solved this issue by simply saying every homeowner has their own IOU-mandated fixed cost basis to overcome... a magical $8 per kW for the privilege of the rooftop solar system existing. This means each homeowner will leave their solar system on, because even if they are only getting $0.05 per kWh of export at noon, that's still better than $0. The homeowner needs the generation and will be incentivized to leave the system running.
How absolutely mind bogglingly STUPID is this when you say it out loud? The regular homeowner is already paying for their own fixed costs of putting all the solar and ESS on their effing house! Now they have to pay an outrageously high disproportionate fee to pay for PG&E's fixed costs too?
What is this fee for? I am confused as this is the first I am hearing about this fee.
The Order in the Proposed Decision starts on document page 180, and the only part of it that references NEM1 and NEM2 is item 12, which I have pasted in below. The only change is the 20 years becomes 15 years.I tried to find the review a person had posted saying this, but could not find. So it is to me just not 100% clear.
yeah, of course, more for them to legally steal.Do see they now say it is okay to put 150% panels one. Why not, they get more money from the panels, and only have to give 5 cents now
Thanks. But $8 per kWh of what? Over production, transferred to the grid from excess solar energy? Excess NEM. And as mentioned if one goes off grid, what is that placed on?In plain terms it appears that fee is for "having solar and being connected to the grid".
kW of capacity. If you have a 10 kW system, you pay $80/monthThanks. But $8 per kWh of what? Over production, transferred to the grid from excess solar energy? Excess NEM. And as mentioned if one goes off grid, what is that placed on?
How will being part of a community power agency affect this?
kW of capacity. If you have a 10 kW system, you pay $80/month
Who knows how this would impact CCAs. I bet PG&E will get the fee tacked on no matter what. CPUC is crooked
The charge will be a fixed monthly charge based on the number of kilowatts installed in a residential customer’s system. Because most nonresidential customers already have fixed and demand charges included in rates, we find it reasonable to only apply the Grid Participation Charge to residential customers.
The Grid Participation Charge is $8 per kilowatt (kW) of solarI've posted this a few times but people don't seem to interpret the language in the CPUC proposal the same as me.
Technically I can see an interpretation where the ESS also contribute to the kW in a "system". So, maybe a 10 kWp AC solar system with 2x Powerwall 2's (10 kW total for the two) would be a 20 kW system.
Consider my NEM2-MT interconnect agreement. It clearly lists my total system size as 6.7 kW of solar + 15.0 kW 3x PW2 = 21.7 kW total "facility". I would expect a NEM 3.0 person with a system identical as mine to pay PG&E 21.7 x $8.00 per month if this bogus proposal passes.
I asked Sunrun to submit my PTO application as a 6.7 kW system so PG&E wouldn't bump my total system size over 20 kW; which would require a higher tier of insurance coverage naming PG&E as an insured. PG&E countered immediately saying ESS is part of a system size and I need to update the form.
Edit: @h2ofun, does your PTO agreement list your system size as 32 kW or 57 kw (including 5x Powerwalls)?
I think we need to be ultra careful with how the CPUC and the IOUs ultimately enforce this. Unless someone expressly adds language to define what is a "residential customer's system", you should include the ESS in the size because the IOUs have set precedent that they interpret system size this way.
Quote from the CPUC propsal:
The Grid Participation Charge is $8 per kilowatt (kW) of solar
installed per month. Page 193 under Bill Charges.
So what if you have 10 kW total from your panels but only 8 kW max from your microinverters (microinverters always max out less than what the panels can produce), will you be charged for 8 or 10 kW. Technically your system can only produce 8The Grid Participation Charge is $8 per kilowatt (kW) of solar
installed per month. Page 193 under Bill Charges.
I do not have the answer to this. I would look at your system documentation. I do not have solar.So what if you have 10 kW total from your panels but only 8 kW max from your microinverters (microinverters always max out less than what the panels can produce), will you be charged for 8 or 10 kW. Technically your system can only produce 8
I read a good amount of the CPUC proposed decision. The proposed decision is fairly straight forward in my opinion. It is clear to the commission that NEM 2.0 solar customers are getting a rapid payback on their investment, and this cost is coming from customers that do not have solar. They are proposing changing the rate structure to increase the length of time of this payback and to more equitably align costs to customers.IMO, there are dozens of other pages in that draft that mention the Grid Participation Charge; but do not explain it to be solar-only. I don't trust one instance of the word "solar" in Appendix A to be a confidence inspiring item. I'd prefer they expressly say "solar peak kW-AC generation" instead of just saying "system" in the pages that further discuss the Grid Participation charge. I expect someone to sneakily remove that instance of "Solar" on page 193 by the time this goes to press.
I'm a pessimist man... PG&E doesn't play fair.
As an aside, to you see the solar ROI/payback in the Appendix B? For SCE customers in new housing starts (who don't get the MTC credit), it's upwards to 16.5 years! And that's at the initial TOU rates and a rather optimal solar deployment with minimal shading.
You know SCE customers will get further shifted TOU rates eventually; that ROI is straight up going negative. And those new house customers are mandated by law to have solar on their rooftops. Lolololol. RIP.
This is the thing that really annoys me. The effect on low-income ratepayers is exactly what the CPUC decides it will be. Asserting that solar customers are disproportionately harming low income ratepayers is ridiculous. Technically, low income ratepayers are not on a general rate plan, they are on CARE or FERA rates. If you want to say that the current tariffs assign too much cost to the class of non-solar customers and not enough on the class of solar customers, that's one thing, but the low income thing is a red herring that is just being used to justify the proceeding." Our review of the current net energy metering tariff, referred to as
NEM 2.0, found that the tariff negatively impacts non-participating customers; is
not cost-effective; and disproportionately harms low-income ratepayers."
While I understand the frustration of a solar customer seeing their costs increase due to these changes, I wonder if the same solar customer considers the increased costs that the non-solar customers have had and what their level of frustration is.
If you want to say that the current tariffs assign too much cost to the class of non-solar customers and not enough on the class of solar customers, that's one thing, but the low income thing is a red herring that is just being used to justify the proceeding.
While I understand the frustration of a solar customer seeing their costs increase due to these changes, I wonder if the same solar customer considers the increased costs that the non-solar customers have had and what their level of frustration is.
Thanks. Would this be on top of the current minimum charge of around $10? Or total based on system capacity?kW of capacity. If you have a 10 kW system, you pay $80/month
Who knows how this would impact CCAs. I bet PG&E will get the fee tacked on no matter what. CPUC is crooked
So solar customers under NEM 2.0 are pushing costs to non-solar customers and you believe that the non-solar customers should adopt solar to push even more costs to those that don't have solar? You do realize that some people can't get solar for a wide variety of reasons.Non-Solar customers are more than welcome to get solar to reduce their bill. What option would solar owners have to reduce their bill?
I would like to bring up the fact that PG&E rates have exploded since we purchased this home in 2008, I really doubt the rate tripled all because of solar users. Now, the city next to me, has their own city owned utility, guess what, their rate is less than half PG&E rates. Rates I keep kicking myself for not buying a house 2 blocks away, out of PG&E territory. So I really find it hard to believe its only because of people installing solar, and btw, the city next to me has lots of homes with solar. Not too mention all the new construction with solar etc... So if this passes, I would expect PG&E to lower rates? Yeah right, they are already looking at another 18% rate increase in 2023... Its all about the money "Ninety-eight sitting members of the California legislature took campaign money from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company".. So when it comes to anything California says about Global Warming, I am gonna have to call BS..I read a good amount of the CPUC proposed decision. The proposed decision is fairly straight forward in my opinion. It is clear to the commission that NEM 2.0 solar customers are getting a rapid payback on their investment, and this cost is coming from customers that do not have solar. They are proposing changing the rate structure to increase the length of time of this payback and to more equitably align costs to customers.
" Our review of the current net energy metering tariff, referred to as
NEM 2.0, found that the tariff negatively impacts non-participating customers; is
not cost-effective; and disproportionately harms low-income ratepayers."
While I understand the frustration of a solar customer seeing their costs increase due to these changes, I wonder if the same solar customer considers the increased costs that the non-solar customers have had and what their level of frustration is.
There are many articles and studies that have debunked the cost shift argument. That argument is just something that sounds good... Evil rich solar users are being subsidized by the poor...So solar customers under NEM 2.0 are pushing costs to non-solar customers and you believe that the non-solar customers should adopt solar to push even more costs to those that don't have solar? You do realize that some people can't get solar for a wide variety of reasons.