CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[RKCRLR]

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:



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

To me, basing the monthly charge on theoretical output (instead of actual output capability) is ridiculous (besides the fact that having a monthly connection charge based on system size is ridiculous). What is the logic in penalizing people that have less than optimum orientations for solar so they to need add additional panels for equivalent output? Isn't the initial charge for additional panels enough of a penalty?

 

[brian.c]

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.

View attachment 744772

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.

Now just think for a moment, what would happen if half those systems went off at the same time, same day, and refused to turn back on until a fair deal is met.

 

[holeydonut]

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

Page 193 of the PDF, or Page A1 of the labeled document is a "Customer Explanation" plain English language for hypothetical future solar customers. It is not considered the rulemaking language.

I would prefer the language you reference to be sitting throughout the rulemaking language. Would it have killed the CPUC to put something in section "8.4.4. Grid Benefits Charges" that says something like "only generation sources are included in the system size; battery export potential is excluded?"

While they're making changes to sections 8.4 and 8.5 ... maybe they will change the residential benefits charge to $0 per kW and make the non-residential $16

Said differently, do you really trust the IOUs to adopt pro-consumer-interpretation when they go to town maximizing their profits?

 

[RKCRLR]

Now just think for a moment, what would happen if half those systems went off at the same time, same day, and refused to turn back on until a fair deal is met.

What may be more effective is to wait for a heat wave and coordinate it then, say for a few hours. Then turn the system back on later when the grid need is lower.

 

[Zorg]

Now just think for a moment, what would happen if half those systems went off at the same time, same day, and refused to turn back on until a fair deal is met.

That would be awesome. I'll gladly go off grid and use my Powerwalls.

 

[holeydonut]

What may be more effective is to wait for a heat wave and coordinate it then, say for a few hours. Then turn the system back on later when the grid need is lower.

Are you saying the disconnects have all the power????

 

[KHYE]

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:



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

I sure hope it goes by the size of inverter. In my case, i have 7.6 kw inverter but a 10.2 kw solar size.

This is in my SCE interconnection agreement that Tesla is submitting:

I asked Tesla if they should update it to 10.2 in the nameplate rating, they told me SCE only cares about the inverter size not the solar size.

 

[h2ofun]

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:



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

It is just nuts. For folks who had a larger inverter, they would be hit. For folks with poor orientation, like my north, I would be hit. Etc. etc. etc.
None of this makes sense from what are they trying to do?

 

[holeydonut]

I sure hope it goes by the size of inverter. In my case, i have 7.6 kw inverter but a 10.2 kw solar size.

This is in my SCE interconnection agreement that Tesla is submitting:

View attachment 744783

I asked Tesla if they should update it to 10.2 in the nameplate rating, they told me SCE only cares about the inverter size not the solar size.

How come all ya'll do not have BULLCRAP PTO documents that look like mine???? So you didn't have to put your Powerwalls into your Generating Facility "Size" in kW?

@h2ofun, PG&E didn't make you subtotal the 5x Powerwalls into your "generating facility" ?

 

[h2ofun]

From co founder of sunrun, which is what I have been saying

No rational customer installing a solar and storage system would take service under the
proposed rate structure because it significantly reduces compensation for exported electricity and imposes high
monthly fees. A rational customer will instead elect to avoid the draconian fees in this rate tariff by choosing a
non-exporting rate tariff and self-consuming their solar-generated power from their batteries overnight and into
the morning, instead of sharing it with the grid in the evening when it’s most needed. Other customers may not
interconnect their solar and storage systems at all, operating their homes either from solar+storage or from the
grid, but never both simultaneously. More may go off-grid entirely.

 

[holeydonut]

From co founder of sunrun, which is what I have been saying

No rational customer installing a solar and storage system would take service under the
proposed rate structure because it significantly reduces compensation for exported electricity and imposes high
monthly fees. A rational customer will instead elect to avoid the draconian fees in this rate tariff by choosing a
non-exporting rate tariff and self-consuming their solar-generated power from their batteries overnight and into
the morning, instead of sharing it with the grid in the evening when it’s most needed. Other customers may not
interconnect their solar and storage systems at all, operating their homes either from solar+storage or from the
grid, but never both simultaneously. More may go off-grid entirely.

Yep, the IOU's introduced their "NEM 3.0 ROI" calculator showing positive return with the IOU's proposed rates/BS. CALSSA and SEIA members could not understand how the hell PG&E's model worked, and generally disagreed with the calculated ROI from the IOUs. But PG&E basically just said "trust us this is real" and then the CPUC accepted the IOU's statements around ROI.

The CPUC believes the ROI so strongly that they included these estimates in Appendix B of the 200 page CPUC proposal. But in reality, no sane homeowner is going to trust these calcs or get the estimated residential return over the life of a NEM 3.0 system under the current proposal.

I like to think that TMC forum members are pretty smart. Well not me, but @wwhitney and @Vines for sure. If they have a way to express an ROI under the proposed NEM 3.0 that kind of mirrors the IOU's math, I may start believing the IOU's story around ROI.

But for now, what this Sunrun dude (Edward Fenster) is saying seems more like what we're thinking here on TMC.

 

[nwdiver]

You have no issue with non-solar footing your bill....

.... most people still addicted to fools fuel don't seem to have any issue with the climate chaos they're contributing to. Why should I care if fewer people shoulder a higher burden of fixed costs? And I'm still helping to reduce the need to invest in more expensive transmission by producing energy locally.

 

[gene]

To all you folks upset with this NEM 3.0, please express your feelings to Gavin Newsom 9:00 am to 5:00 pm at (916)445-2841.

Thx!

 

[RKCRLR]

To all you folks upset with this NEM 3.0, please express your feelings to Gavin Newsom 9:00 am to 5:00 pm at (916)445-2841.

Thx!

Tried, mailbox was full.

 

[gene]

Tried, mailbox was full.

Thank you for trying, please try again tomorrow.

 

[holeydonut]

Thank you for trying, please try again tomorrow.

You can send an email/submission too. Your message will probably be filed in the trash next to a copy of Newsom's speech when he said the state had a huge budget deficit in 2020.

First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom | California Governor

govapps.gov.ca.gov

Edit, why would TMC crawl the URL and pull up Newsom's wife's name? So weird.

 

[LeeM]

The proposal would more than double the payback period for a solar investment: 1) $57 per month solar penalty fee for putting solar panels on the roof. The more solar panels, the larger the fee. This includes apartment buildings, new homes built with solar per the state mandate, and solar-powered batteries. The fee would be the largest in the U.S.A. from a private utility. 2) 80% cut to the credit solar users get for sharing surplus solar energy with the grid. The credit would drop from an average of twenty-five cents per kilowatt hour to about five cents. This cut happens immediately; we predict it will end the solar market overnight. 3) Rolls back protections for existing solar users. Existing solar users are currently protected from changes to net metering rules for 20 years from the date their system turned on. The CPUC is now proposing to reduce that protection to 15 years and eliminate the protection altogether if you accept their battery rebate.

The CPUC proposal goes backward on equity​ The CPUC's proposal would make solar more expensive for low-income and environmental and social justice communities. For example, low-income households going solar with PG&E would pay $24 to $50 per month more than under the status quo. That's because slashing the net metering credit by 80% destroys the bill savings that make solar pencil. The CPUC claims they soften the blow for low-income households by exempting them from the solar penalty fee, and with a "Market Transition Credit" of $26 per month for eligible PG&E customers and $31 per month for eligible Southern California Edison customers. None for SDG&E. The incentive payments go away after 10 years. Only customers who sign up to go solar in the next four years would get the incentive at all. Bottom line: the CPUC's proposed incentives aren't enough to offset the 80% cut in the net metering credit.

Less working-class people will go solar​ The CPUC proposes a new fund of up to $150 million per year for four years, to further incentivize solar for low-income households. Details are undefined. We estimate that is enough to fund 15,000 low-income solar homes per year. That would be less than the 19,000 California families earning less than $50,000/year who went solar in 2019 under NEM2. (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab) The NEM-3 proposed decision also does nothing to promote solar cooperatives or community solar projects.

Gov. Newsom has not weighed in yet. This is the opportunity.​ We believe this proposal is the work of one CPUC commissioner, Martha Guzman Acevez, who we learned last week is leaving the CPUC on December 20th. The Governor has not yet weighed in. It is our job to convince the Governor and the other four commissioners to fix this mess.

Here is the Action Plan​

Step One: Call the Governor's office. Get everyone you know to do the same.​ His # is (916) 445-2841. His lines are open 9-5 Monday thru Friday. We need to flood his office with calls and keep those calls coming. Sometimes his lines shut down. Sometimes his voicemail box is full. Sometimes you have to stay on hold. Please warn people of this and encourage them to keep at it. Here's a sample script. Modify as you see fit. “My name is ___ and I live in ____. I am against the proposed Solar Penalty Fee and I’m against slashing the value of rooftop solar 80%! Nobody should pay a penalty for putting solar panels on their roof and California should be doing more, not less, to promote rooftop solar. Give us relief from rate hikes, blackouts and air pollution. Say no to the utilities’ profit grab, and yes to helping millions of working and middle class people get solar.“

Step two: If you have a social media account, post a message.​ Here's a sample: California should not charge people a monthly penalty fee for putting solar panels on their rooftops. @GavinNewsom please #SaveSolar

Step three: Mark your calendar for January 13th and join an in-person protest in either San Francisco or LA.​ More details to come soon.

 

[tomuo]

Real world numbers:
Tesla app shows I generated 7.69MWh year-to-date, with 27% of that going to the grid. panel output is nameplate 11kWh.

SCE here, my cost to purchase that much power without solar would be at least 20c(/kWh) * (7.69MWh * (1-27%)) = $1123
The $8/kW would be $1056 per year, and the credit for the power sent back would be 5c * (7.69MWh* 27%) or $104
So that's
no solar : $1123
NEM2 solar : (20c * 7.69MWh * 27%) = $415 credit
NEM3 solar : (1056 - 104) = $952

So the difference in going from NEM2 to NEM3 is larger than having no solar.

 

[wwhitney]

Some theoretical numbers:

Say I put 1.3kW of PV panels on a unshaded 34 degree tilt due south roof in my area, connected to a 1 kW inverter. Per PVWatts (I used 10% system losses and 98% inverter efficiency; could use some pointers to know if those inputs are reasonable) that system is expected to generate 2150 kWh per year.

Now if the $0.05/kWh exported average I read is accurate (didn't look into that), and if the $8/kW monthly charge is based on inverter size, then exporting all that energy would generate $12/year ($108 - $96).

Obviously it makes no economic sense to install 1 DC W of PV panels at a cost of $2-$3 to get a return of $0.01/year over the life of the panels. So the value of PV will be solely in the avoided costs from reduced electricity import when the PV energy is consumed behind the meter.

Then if at least 1/9 of the generated energy is consumed behind the meter, the $8/kW monthly charge will outweigh the value of any energy exported. Thus, as referenced in post #140 above, if interconnecting with a non-export agreement is a way to avoid the $8/kW monthly charge, it will be advantageous to do so, and simply generate less PV energy.

In other words, the proposal appears to provide an economic incentive for reduced PV exports, which I'm pretty sure is a net negative for the state.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jjrandorin]

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.)

My Natural gas bill ("The gas company") averages about $22-25 a month, except for dec and jan when I use my central heat. Its about $80-90 for those two months. My bill from the gas company (thats the gas utility name for those unaware) is a complete non issue for me, really. Not nearly enough for me to consider moving to electric for water heater, or my dryer (the dryer would be considerable expense, with a new line run, etc).

I have a gas dryer (no electric plug in my laundry room), but my double ovens are electric. I do have a 6 burner gas stove though, and a gas water heater.