CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[charlesj]

I am also curious how they calculate system payback? It has to be a generalized calculation.
Each system would be different.
And, it seems TURN is on the utility side on this. Maybe I need to cx my membership?

 

[Zabe]

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 would like to bring up the fact that this discussion is about NEM 3.0 not PG&E rates. I am not defending PG&E rates. I am simply pointing out what the report states very clearly. NEM 2.0 is unfair to non-solar customers, period.

 

[Zabe]

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...

Berkeley Lab finds negligible potential rate impacts from distributed solar

The latest report from the respected national lab finds that even if - big if - behind-the-meter solar is raising the rates of other utility customers, the impacts are tiny, especially compared to other activities.

pv-magazine-usa.com

That is a report from 2017 using data from 2015. The CPUC study shows that not only are the poor subsidizing the "Evil rich solar users" but every non-solar customer is subsidizing the "Evil rich solar users"

I will say it again, 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. The answer is NO.

 

[Zabe]

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...

Berkeley Lab finds negligible potential rate impacts from distributed solar

The latest report from the respected national lab finds that even if - big if - behind-the-meter solar is raising the rates of other utility customers, the impacts are tiny, especially compared to other activities.

pv-magazine-usa.com

And to top it off the report has been removed.

 

[nwdiver]

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.

I'm saying that you should always have a way to reduce how much you pay. Either using less energy or using energy at a different time of day. Having 10kW meaning you're stuck with paying $80/mo is absurd.

While I understand the frustration of a non-solar customer seeing their solar neighbors pay ~nothing for electricity, I wonder if the same non-solar customer considers the grid support that the solar customers provide. The answer is NO.

 

[brian.c]

That is a report from 2017 using data from 2015. The CPUC study shows that not only are the poor subsidizing the "Evil rich solar users" but every non-solar customer is subsidizing the "Evil rich solar users"

I will say it again, 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. The answer is NO.

You're not talking about a small price increase, we are talking about going from $200 to $2000+ a year. From what I have read, the claim is the average rate payer pays an additional $200 per year because of NEM... So I guess going green should only be burdened by those willing to put up the cash to get there? So how much do you think rate payers will pay when PG&E has to purchase all carbon neutral power? I am willing to bet, they will pay a lot more than $200 a year. The funny thing to me is, everyone screams about global warming crises, but always wants someone else to pay for it. I really don't feel sorry for someone who has to pay $200 more per year, I have put in nearly $40k worth of solar equipment over the last 10+ years. It will take over 10 years for my first system to break even, now I need to replace a few bad panels. Are rate payers or PG&E going to help me maintain? I mean, if I have to pay them for the system, they should help cover the upkeep. Now to be honest, If I would have known PG&E was going to pull this, we would not have added more solar, and we would have not purchased an EV. The whole plan was use the solar to charge the car to be 100% green, now I see it was a huge mistake. We purchased a car that cost 40% more than we wanted to spend, but justified it with the savings from charging from solar. So after this passes, it will cost me about 10 to 20 times more to charge the car. If we are really serious about cleaning up the environment, everyone needs to pay, people who have solar are not getting a free ride. Just look through posts on how much money is spent installing these systems. Many of these people do for the environment and the cost savings over the life of the PV system. BTW, I am fine with some additional fees, but putting a $8 p/kw fee on every system is the exact opposite we should do, IF we really want to combat carbon emissions. Then again, PG&E is not in the business to help the environment, they are in business to make money for their investors.

 

[Zabe]

I'm saying that you should always have a way to reduce how much you pay. Either using less energy or using energy at a different time of day. Having 10kW meaning you're stuck with paying $80/mo is absurd.

While I understand the frustration of a non-solar customer seeing their solar neighbors pay ~nothing for electricity, I wonder if the same non-solar customer considers the grid support that the solar customers provide. The answer is NO.

I suppose all of us can use less energy, to a point. Maybe we can still shift energy use to a different time of day. At some point there is nothing left to shift, and there is nothing left to reduce.

You claim that for a 10 kW system paying $80/mo is absurd, what fact is this based on? It is based on the fact that you don't want to pay $80 whether or not it is fair.

 

[Zabe]

You're not talking about a small price increase, we are talking about going from $200 to $2000+ a year. From what I have read, the claim is the average rate payer pays an additional $200 per year because of NEM... So I guess going green should only be burdened by those willing to put up the cash to get there? So how much do you think rate payers will pay when PG&E has to purchase all carbon neutral power? I am willing to bet, they will pay a lot more than $200 a year. The funny thing to me is, everyone screams about global warming crises, but always wants someone else to pay for it. I really don't feel sorry for someone who has to pay $200 more per year, I have put in nearly $40k worth of solar equipment over the last 10+ years. It will take over 10 years for my first system to break even, now I need to replace a few bad panels. Are rate payers or PG&E going to help me maintain? I mean, if I have to pay them for the system, they should help cover the upkeep. Now to be honest, If I would have known PG&E was going to pull this, we would not have added more solar, and we would have not purchased an EV. The whole plan was use the solar to charge the car to be 100% green, now I see it was a huge mistake. We purchased a car that cost 40% more than we wanted to spend, but justified it with the savings from charging from solar. So after this passes, it will cost me about 10 to 20 times more to charge the car. If we are really serious about cleaning up the environment, everyone needs to pay, people who have solar are not getting a free ride. Just look through posts on how much money is spent installing these systems. Many of these people do for the environment and the cost savings over the life of the PV system. BTW, I am fine with some additional fees, but putting a $8 p/kw fee on every system is the exact opposite we should do, IF we really want to combat carbon emissions. Then again, PG&E is not in the business to help the environment, they are in business to make money for their investors.

If $8/kW fee is the exact amount that should be paid by solar owners to make NEM 3.0 equitable to both solar and non-solar owners would that be fair?

 

[brian.c]

I suppose all of us can use less energy, to a point. Maybe we can still shift energy use to a different time of day. At some point there is nothing left to shift, and there is nothing left to reduce.

You claim that for a 10 kW system paying $80/mo is absurd, what fact is this based on? It is based on the fact that you don't want to pay $80 whether or not it is fair.

For one, per kw fee is not fair because not all panel installations are equal. If you are not southern facing, with 0 shade, you are not getting anything near rated panel output. My system does not generate well, because I have no southern facing panels, so we added more panels to make up the difference. So at the end of the year, a system with ideal placement can produce considerably more energy, all while a home with shading produces considerably less, yet they would both pay the same rate. The new NEM should take into account grid usage, not the size. If someone generate and uses all their power, nothing touches the grid, should they pay more than say someone who uses the grid as a battery? I should also add, my panel size is 9.5, but inverter is only 7.6... The fee is based on 9.5, which is impossible to ever be reached, the max under ideal conditions would be 7.6kw... Which I have yet to ever see. So I get charged on the 9.5, yet the most I ever generate is 7... My old system is much worse, its old, multiple panels under perform or don't work... Its rated at 3.2, but it never generates over about 1.8kw... So I get charged on 12.7 total, yet the max my 2 systems have ever generated is maybe 9kw. $1219.20 vs $864 per year... Per KW pricing is an unfair way to gauge grid charges. This would be like charging you based on the size of your home, not actual usage.

 

[nwdiver]

You claim that for a 10 kW system paying $80/mo is absurd, what fact is this based on? It is based on the fact that you don't want to pay $80 whether or not it is fair.

..... common sense. I'm home... using ~1500kWh/mo. If I have a 10kW system I would pay $80. I go on vacation for a month... using ~15kWh for the month. My electric bill is still $80. That makes sense to you???

 

[Zabe]

For one, per kw fee is not fair because not all panel installations are equal. If you are not southern facing, with 0 shade, you are not getting anything near rated panel output. My system does not generate well, because I have no southern facing panels, so we added more panels to make up the difference. So at the end of the year, a system with ideal placement can produce considerably more energy, all while a home with shading produces considerably less, yet they would both pay the same rate. The new NEM should take into account grid usage, not the size. If someone generate and uses all their power, nothing touches the grid, should they pay more than say someone who uses the grid as a battery?

I am sure that this could be argued to the CPUC it does sounds fairly complex for a NEM rate plan.

"If someone generate and uses all their power, nothing touches the grid, should they pay more than say someone who uses the grid as a battery?" Good question. If I was making policy I would not charge someone this capacity fee if they can show that they are self powered, no excess generation going to the grid and no off solar peak power coming from the grid. Of course this hypothetical system does not exist without some form of backup power generation and/or a massive overbuild of solar and batteries.

 

[nwdiver]

Good question. If I was making policy I would not charge someone this capacity fee if they can show that they are self powered, no excess generation going to the grid and no off solar peak power coming from the grid. Of course this hypothetical system does not exist without some form of backup power generation and/or a massive overbuild of solar and batteries.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? The proposed revision is $0.06/kWh for exports and $0.25/kWh for imports. Would that not charge people based on their use of the grid? You pay ~$0.19/kWh 'stored' in the grid. $/kW is just lazy and idiotic. Heck... I would even be ok with charging a fee for exports in the hours around noon since there's often too much solar.

 

[Zabe]

..... common sense. I'm home... using ~1500kWh/mo. If I have a 10kW system I would pay $80. I go on vacation for a month... using ~15kWh for the month. My electric bill is still $80. That makes sense to you???

If NEM 3.0 in its current form is adopted, you go on vacation for a month, and you have a 10kW PV system, than yes that would make sense to me.

If you go on vacation for a month do you still pay your mortgage or rent? Do you still pay for your internet service?

 

[nwdiver]

If you go on vacation for a month do you still pay your mortgage or rent? Do you still pay for your internet service?

Yeah... because I have an empty house. If I'm not using the grid that capacity is available. And why the double standard? Why not just charge everyone solar and non-solar a fixed flat rate and save ourselves the expense of metering electricity?

 

[Zabe]

Why does it have to be all or nothing? The proposed revision is $0.06/kWh for exports and $0.25/kWh for imports. Would that not charge people based on their use of the grid? You pay ~$0.19/kWh 'stored' in the grid. $/kW is just lazy and idiotic. Heck... I would even be ok with charging a fee for exports in the hours around noon since there's often too much solar.

They did a study, they found out solar customers on NEM 2.0 are not paying their fair share, they are trying to fix it. Is it perfect I am sure it is not. Is NEM 2.0 perfect, NO.

I am not blaming any of you personally for getting solar and trying to do something for the environment and to lower your power bill. I am just pointing out what the study says. I have powerwalls only. I am sure one of these days they will change the rates or charge me some capacity fee also.

 

[nwdiver]

They did a study, they found out solar customers on NEM 2.0 are not paying their fair share, they are trying to fix it. Is it perfect I am sure it is not. Is NEM 2.0 perfect, NO.

$/kW is about as far from perfect as it can get. Really can't get worse. For dozens of reasons. Here's another one. West facing panels are better for the grid because they better match demand. Solar energy at 7pm is more valuable than energy at 1pm. But you get ~15% less energy.... and still pay $8/kW??? What if you have shaded panels? Dirty panels? North facing panels? Still same price but you're producing less energy? It's just idiotic.

$0.06/kWh for exports and $0.25/kWh for imports accomplishes the goal. You pay for grid use. $/kW is just lazy and idiotic.

 

[Zabe]

Yeah... because I have an empty house. If I'm not using the grid that capacity is available. And why the double standard? Why not just charge everyone solar and non-solar a fixed flat rate and save ourselves the expense of metering electricity?

We know what would happen if we charged a flat rate for unlimited electricity. We would all get bitcoin rigs, and more rigs, right until the grid collapsed.

There is always an exception to the rule. Your scenario of being on vacation for a month and having an $80 bill of course does not make sense. I don't think that would be the norm for most people most of the time.

 

[Zabe]

$/kW is about as far from perfect as it can get. Really can't get worse. For dozens of reasons. Here's another one. West facing panels are better for the grid because they better match demand. Solar energy at 7pm is more valuable than energy at 1pm. But you get ~15% less energy.... and still pay $8/kW??? What if you have shaded panels? Dirty panels? North facing panels? Still same price but you're producing less energy? It's just idiotic.

$0.06/kWh for exports and $0.25/kWh for imports accomplishes the goal. You pay for grid use. $/kW is just lazy and idiotic.

Maybe the export/import pricing would accomplish the goal, I do not know. It seems like it might be a good solution. But what about someone in a situation like H20 has. He exports 20,000 kWH in the summer and imports 20,000 kWH in the winter, he has a 30kW system. Capacity payment would be $240/mo. Under your scenario he would get paid $1200 for his exports but pay $5000 for his imports or $316/mo.

 

[nwdiver]

Maybe the export/import pricing would accomplish the goal, I do not know. It seems like it might be a good solution. But what about someone in a situation like H20 has. He exports 20,000 kWH in the summer and imports 20,000 kWH in the winter, he has a 30kW system. Capacity payment would be $240/mo. Under your scenario he would get paid $1200 for his exports but pay $5000 for his imports or $316/mo.

.... $316/mo is A LOT better than $556/mo... and people can always increase the angle of the panels to shift more production into the winter months. Yet ANOTHER reason why $/kW is idiotic.... there's no incentive to behave in ways that are beneficial to the grid.

 

[Zabe]

.... $316/mo is A LOT better than $556/mo... and people can always increase the angle of the panels to shift more production into the winter months. Yet ANOTHER reason why $/kW is idiotic.... there's no incentive to behave in ways that are beneficial to the grid.

$/kW might be idiotic for the reasons that you have mentioned. If solar users are being subsidized by XXX amount you can charge them in many different ways. If you take away the $/kW I am pretty sure CPUC would need to make it up with a greater import/export differential. So if you hate a fixed capacity payment instead you will get a larger differential payment. Like you said at least you can cut your usage to lower your cost. I don't have a horse in this race so I don't really care if it is $/kW or import/export cost or any other rate structure.