Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I predict that there will a NEM 4 within 2 years. NEM 3 is going to pretty much kill all new solar installs. That's pretty obvious. So, a couple years from now, the idiots at the CPUC will revise NEM 3 when they'll discover (shocker...) that new PV installs will have stopped.

For those of you who have been under NEM1/2 for a few years, you may consider adding another 1000W of solar panels before end of May 2022, as I believe that it restarts your NEM. For sure, if you're under NEM1, that will push you into NEM2 (that happened to me), and that should restart your 15 years grandfathered NEM. I haven't read the CPUC nonsense, so this is a personal opinion not based on actual facts. :)
That would mean one would have to justify the expansion. I guess I need to buy a Tesla as justification and start driving it a bunch more than what I drive now. :D
 
I predict that there will a NEM 4 within 2 years. NEM 3 is going to pretty much kill all new solar installs. That's pretty obvious. So, a couple years from now, the idiots at the CPUC will revise NEM 3 when they'll discover (shocker...) that new PV installs will have stopped.

For those of you who have been under NEM1/2 for a few years, you may consider adding another 1000W of solar panels before end of May 2022, as I believe that it restarts your NEM. For sure, if you're under NEM1, that will push you into NEM2 (that happened to me), and that should restart your 15 years grandfathered NEM. I haven't read the CPUC nonsense, so this is a personal opinion not based on actual facts. :)
I do not believe it resets, when I added my second system, they went off the original install date of the first system. I was told i could keep them separate, but would have to pay to have a second meter installed. I was never given a straight answer on the costs, but from what I could find it would be about $5k. Decided easier to move both to NEM 2. I could be wrong for NEM 3, but my guess they are not going to let anyone reset.
 
I do not believe it resets, when I added my second system, they went off the original install date of the first system. I was told i could keep them separate, but would have to pay to have a second meter installed. I was never given a straight answer on the costs, but from what I could find it would be about $5k. Decided easier to move both to NEM 2. I could be wrong for NEM 3, but my guess they are not going to let anyone reset.
I had a system installed under NEM1 and then another system installed in 2019. I was required to move to NEM2 (with the new date) unless I wanted to install another meter to keep them separate. I would think if someone upgraded a system (by more than 10%) that was previously under NEM2 today they would be under NEM2 with a new date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brian.c
I had a system installed under NEM1 and then another system installed in 2019. I was required to move to NEM2 (with the new date) unless I wanted to install another meter to keep them separate. I would think if someone upgraded a system (by more than 10%) that was previously under NEM2 today they would be under NEM2 with a new date.
I believe my interconnection agreement said 10% or 1 kW whichever is lower.
 
I do not believe it resets, when I added my second system, they went off the original install date of the first system. I was told i could keep them separate, but would have to pay to have a second meter installed. I was never given a straight answer on the costs, but from what I could find it would be about $5k. Decided easier to move both to NEM 2. I could be wrong for NEM 3, but my guess they are not going to let anyone reset.
Just wait for NEM 4, which is bound to happen
 
  • Like
Reactions: brian.c
The proposed export & import tariffs are $0.06 vs $0.25. So you're still better off using energy than exporting it. Why add another bill? One of the best things I did was disconnect my gas service. Saves me $14/mo just in a service fees. Probably more in CA.
Unfortunately for me I have no choice. We have no 220/240v outlets anywhere in the house. I would have to pay to upgrade all my electrical, including the panel, double or triple my solar panels (for which I have no more roof space unless I put them on the north side), add one or two more batteries, replace all my appliances (including the furnace). Those costs alone are not worth me saving $20/month on gas (yes, our gas is really cheap.)
 
You have no issue with non-solar footing your bill....

I actually just got solar literally a month or two ago and others, have had it for 10+ years? I've never felt the "rich" solar folks were taking advantage of me for footing their bill so NO, you're wrong on that front.

The plan is just messed up based how it's changed and again, will be the death of new solar projects in California. Look at other states with drasitic NEM changes and solar simply dies off.

That's clearly what all the IOU's want. It's not about anything else. If they could bottle air and charge you for it, they would.
 
The amount of money I spent to go to 99% electric is nuts! If I had knows what I know now, I should not have done either of these! I did what was suggested, and now screwed. All these folks that have said need to go total electric in the house, and cars, well, what are they saying now? Pretty quiet.

You're even more screwed if this passes and they add your 5x PWs in. Even Zabe would get hit with his PWs.

Let's see, your 30kW and 5 powerwalls = 97.5 * $8 = $780/month * 12 = $9360/year just for the benefit of having solar. This is why this proposal is criminal. I don't know what your power bill was before, but if it wasn't $780/month, you'd have a lot more $$ around.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Zabe and h2ofun
I actually just got solar literally a month or two ago and others, have had it for 10+ years? I've never felt the "rich" solar folks were taking advantage of me for footing their bill so NO, you're wrong on that front.

The plan is just messed up based how it's changed and again, will be the death of new solar projects in California. Look at other states with drasitic NEM changes and solar simply dies off.

That's clearly what all the IOU's want. It's not about anything else. If they could bottle air and charge you for it, they would.


Yep, cumulative Residential solar capacity in California is now about 6,800 megawatts. Most of this was put into service over the last decade. If you do the math on what this cost at $3 per watt (a figure that I know is lower than what homeowners are actually paying for rooftop solar), that is about $20 Billion in private investment that California homeowners have put into the Grid.

Does anyone who is not a PG&E schill really think that PG&E could have done this better? From what I've seen, solar has had a few issues of localized fires and some leaking roofs. But nowhere am I seeing felony deaths and massive legislation necessitating an "overhaul" of this energy success story.

1639609024751.png


Just about every study (except the ones commissioned by the IOUs) believes every person in California would have seen higher energy bills had PG&E been the driving force instead of private investment. It turns out truly independent profit-driven companies plus green-thinking homeowners can do some good!

But PG&E just sees the $20Bn as lost opportunity for them since they didn't get to invest that $20Bn for us. And you know if they did it, it'd be more like $40 Bn. They lost the chance to skim their 10% profit on mismanaging the $40Bn and the lost opportunity of funneling money to politician interests and special interest pet projects.
 
You're even more screwed if this passes and they add your 5x PWs in. Even Zabe would get hit with his PWs.

Let's see, your 30kW and 5 powerwalls = 97.5 * $8 = $780/month * 12 = $9360/year just for the benefit of having solar. This is why this proposal is criminal. I don't know what your power bill was before, but if it wasn't $780/month, you'd have a lot more $$ around.

Yep, I've been thinking the failure of defining a "system" in the rulemaking language opens the door for this interpretation.

The numerous mentions of the "grid benefits charge" in the proposed rulemaking language do not expressly mention the GBC is solar-only. The only time you see a connection the the GBC is only for solar is a weak appendix section that they added to try and explain things in plain English for consumers.

But you know some PG&E lawyer-person is going to press hard that ESS is part of the total "system" that can export to that precious grid.

I hope the SEIA and CALSSA can push really hard to make sure that benefits charge is only a fraction of $8 and put in language that expressly limits the GBC only to solar generation. But at this point the CPUC has neutered/rejected the proposals brought forth by the SEIA and CALSSA. They need to find a new angle/appeal very quickly.
 
Yep, I've been thinking the failure of defining a "system" in the rulemaking language opens the door for this interpretation.
You seem to have missed the earlier comment that the proposed decision clarifies that the Grid Participation Charge is only accessed on the PV installation:

The Grid Participation Charge is $8 per kilowatt (kW) of solar installed per month. Page 193 under Bill Charges.

It's PDF page 193, document page A1. Which says "The Grid Participation Charge is $8 per kilowatt (kW) of solar installed per month."

That doesn't distinguish between DC rating and AC rating, but I would expect that it would go by inverter (AC) rating. In which case it would incentivize higher DC/AC ratios, as inverters become more expensive.

Cheers, Wayne
 
  • Like
Reactions: h2ofun