It is guaranteed that the IOU's costs plus profit margin will be equal to the total billed costs of its customers. From there they can dice the rates however they want (e.g. flat inteconnection cost, per kWh cost, tiered per kWh cost, TOU per kWh cost, or any combination of these). The rate structures are put in place to drive consumer behavior and also provide the appearance that everybody is paying their "fair share."
-
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
I'll say it was all about the appearance.
For decades, I never thought that the price of electricity was only like 20 to 30 percent of the bill. I figured it was the reverse, 70 to 80 percent.
If it was 70 to 80 percent, then charging more the more I used made sense, it even made sense to have peak pricing to discourage use at certain times.
But when you get a personal energy system, as part of your diligence you look into the details.
The way the math works when the energy itself is 20 percent of the bill, then the remaining 80 percent is upkeep of the grid and profit, and due to the nature of electricity, there is no connection between the amount of electricity you use and the "wear" for want of a better word, you put on the grid.
Certainly for residential customers.
So, in terms of fairness, when I had an apartment and paid $50 bucks a month I was paying $40 per month for the grid. As a homeowner, I might be in the same block, same transformer, same poles, and pay like ten times more, $400 per month for the grid and profits.
Due to volumetric pricing heavy users, whether rich or not, were paying far, far far above their "fair share" if you define "fair share" as each person's ratable cost of the grid.
Of course, the utilities never mentioned this, I never even heard any media outlet mention it.
All I ever heard was about how we need to conserve, and if possible switch to renewables.
Well what a joke to find out that if enough people actually do switch -- we need to charge those people!!!!!!!!
Can you imagine a "per pound of drywall/insulation charge" for someone who spends $30K fully tearing out the walls and insulating their own house? From the utilities perspective, that's the same as a solar system - either way a user who was a real profit center all of a sudden drops out of the system.
The problem is not the users, its the pricing structure itself. Maybe Newsome or his aids are figuring this out.
Let's hope so because the planet needs it.
I haven't even mentioned the next point, which is residential solar shows people how solar actually works, and how it works now, and creates a person who understands renewable energy and is less likely to put up with excuses as to why it can't be done. This is almost as valuable as the system itself.
Which brings me full circle to the Berkeley report by the guy Bornstein.
I am not some sort of flat earth flat taxer. Utility charges can certainly be progressive. No gripe from me subsidizing the less well off, especially on something like energy.
But to accuse me of trying to stick it to the poor by putting in a solar and ESS system is too damn much.
I hasten to add that because LADWP only has like a 4 cent per Kwh spread, the "ROI" (as many know I do not agree with that calculation) on my three powerwalls is like 75 years. They will never pay for themselves. I did it because Tesla made it affordable and its a way to truly take pressure off the grid at peak times by using the electricty my system creates.
The fact that there was no exception to the monthly charge per kw installed for ESS owners is the dead giveaway that its all BS.
I am not some sort of flat earth flat taxer. Utility charges can certainly be progressive. No gripe from me subsidizing the less well off, especially on something like energy.
But to accuse me of trying to stick it to the poor by putting in a solar and ESS system is too damn much.
I hasten to add that because LADWP only has like a 4 cent per Kwh spread, the "ROI" (as many know I do not agree with that calculation) on my three powerwalls is like 75 years. They will never pay for themselves. I did it because Tesla made it affordable and its a way to truly take pressure off the grid at peak times by using the electricty my system creates.
The fact that there was no exception to the monthly charge per kw installed for ESS owners is the dead giveaway that its all BS.
Merrill
Merrill
The problem with power from utilities is that they are a large for profit quasi-monopoly allowed by our governments. A basic energy connection to a house is sorta a basic living essential thing. It's not like everyone needed a Lucid Air or a Rimac sports car, but power is as basic life need similar to IMO, healthcare....Unless we want to see people just drop dead and hospitals just say, you know what, pregnancies are too pricey so we'll just never cover babies, or, your injury looks expensive, so your life is just not "worth it"...it's hard to see how energy works in a state that has public shareholders and has execs with nice bonuses (and according to someone here I think who has seen how PG&E works), no need to decrease cost ever because that's not how the utilities are setup.
You mention people saving energy, and now, since they aren't getting their profits/revenues, are FORCED to raise rates because people are saving or simply, not using as much energy now. Long term, all this just looks like simply the wrong structure as they want people to pay them more, but people should be saving/conserving.
If it's true that distribution/grid maintenance is the biggest cost at 70-80% and the energy is only worth 20%, it does seem all those proposals by people who talk about IOU large scale storage/grid investments just seem to make less sense to me since it's all centralized and farther away. If there is little/no transmission, less grid maintenance needed right?, seems to be cheaper to just chop off that piece majorly. A lot of fires are started from above ground powerlines, I live in San Diego and we have like little above ground power lines being in a newer built area, we rarely/if ever get power outages.
I guess for me, it's always been that I simply don't trust anything coming out of an IOUs mouth. Similar to drug companies or healthcare, it's not in their benefit for me to use less energy (use less drugs, be healthier means less hospital visits, less drugs, etc) so the whole power model doesn't make sense.
I don't have an answer for how to fix all this, but is it possible for smaller cities/communities, and hopefully, less for profit minded people to band together and just re-invest in their town's power lines (underground), buy their own Tesla (or someone else) mega batteries and put solar in that small city/community? Less transmission, less upkeep, everyone paying into it is taking care of their own city and there is little need for profits, etc...
San Diego has the most expensive power in CA I believe...Why in NEM 3.0, they said that we don't get some credit because our power is already so costly, any solar is worth it according to them.
We're getting close to $0.60/kWh during the summer months at top ToU rates. I think this is higher than Hawaii actually. Our blackouts and fire situation is better than Nor Cal at least.
Yeah this is why I think this PG&E thing is so upsetting to anyone that isn't personally benefitting from the IOUs.
The grifters all want a piece of the IOUs because by design... the IOU is authorized a constant return no matter what. If the IOU is efficient, they actually lose total dollars of profit. If they are wasteful, the stakeholders make more money. If PG&E is well managed, it would receive less funds. If PG&E kills people through horrendous fire-y and explosion-y deaths, they get authorization to spend more. It's completely backwards to normal motivations.
But anyone whose bread is buttered by the IOUs, the utility energy producers living off of gravy PPAs, and massive industry they employ will fight tooth and nail to keep their livelihood. It was never rich vs poor. It was just "not the IOU" vs "the IOU". The entrenched decades old monopoly and their leeches just want more money, and Californians have to give it.
charlesj
Active Member
Excess generation from true up NEW is rewarded with wholesale prices, not subsidies. Anything in between is mostly just paper prices, not what actually ends up in solar owner's pockets. They should be glad they don't have to generate more than what they already generate if we didn't have the panels.
And, we are already paying a fee each month to be connected.
How do they explain the mandate to have solar on new construction, pay for it and pay a good bit to be connected.
And, we are already paying a fee each month to be connected.
How do they explain the mandate to have solar on new construction, pay for it and pay a good bit to be connected.
charlesj
Active Member
Do you actually get that in real dollars each month into your bank account or just a bookkeeping amount and get paid wholesale at true up time for excess generation?....
We're getting close to $0.60/kWh during the summer months at top ToU rates. ...
No, we are charged $0.61 when anyone uses the power (with or without solar).
Like everyone else in CA, at true-up, we only get wholesale $$ for excess generation (so like $0.03). I see some threads on reddit that the IOUs shouldn't be paying solar owners retail prices for power and they don't understand that the utilities never paid us these $0.61. As you know, a solar homeowner can only zero out their bill, but anything more and the IOUs pay you $0.03, but has been selling your excess during the summer to your neighbor with/without solar at $0.61.
This is the default ToU summer pricing in San Diego. I assume next year, will be worst. Before I got solar, it's impossible for me to be under 130% baseline.
Attachments
Yep, that's why the 15,000 MW RFP that I posted earlier for utility-scale renewables + ESS is a slap in the face of NEM.
The CPUC is asking their leeches to submit proposals for how they will create new solar generation and massive profits/waste for their big machine. They'll propose all sorts of projects but require fixed revenue streams to recoup their investment and establish a strong ROI. And of course all this will be passed to the rate payers. Even if one of these projects "pays to connect to the grid"; by design that project will receive offsetting revenue paid by the ratepayers. These projects cannot lose money because they are connected to the inefficient IOU process.
There's room for 15,000 MW of solar and ESS in California; but only if the cronies build it.
This 15,000 MW will not be asked to produce fixed costs that come out of the Dividends or residual profits of the generators. And yet, they want $8/Kwatt/month from homeowners because that's the only "fair" way to recoup costs for the crappy grid.
Last edited:
Tesla just sent out the following email. I guess any of their customers waiting for an install and not aware of NEM 3.0 are going to go whoa...what?
Over the coming weeks, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will consider adopting a proposal that negatively impacts customers of PG&E, SCE or SDG&E who have installed solar or are considering doing so. We want to make you aware of the proposed discriminatory changes, how they may impact you, and how you can get involved as the CPUC considers this proposal.
The CPUC is proposing a new net metering tariff (NEM 3.0) that includes a solar tax of $8/kW per month, which could add an average of $57 to the monthly electric bill of a typical solar customer. If adopted, this would be the steepest tax on solar anywhere in the country. In addition, the NEM 3.0 proposal would reduce the value of credits given to customers in exchange for energy they send to the grid by about 80 percent.
If you already have solar, the proposal would reduce the length of the “grandfathering period” under which you can remain on NEM 1.0 or NEM 2.0. The change to existing customers violates the basic principles of regulatory fairness by changing the rules after families, businesses and non-profits have already invested in solar. For customers who are considering installing solar, the proposed solar tax and other NEM 3.0 rules would go into effect after May 28, 2022.
The CPUC may vote on whether to adopt the NEM 3.0 proposal as soon as January 27, 2022, and they are currently taking feedback from the public until that time. Click below to learn more about this issue and make your voice heard to the CPUC and Governor Newsom.
Over the coming weeks, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will consider adopting a proposal that negatively impacts customers of PG&E, SCE or SDG&E who have installed solar or are considering doing so. We want to make you aware of the proposed discriminatory changes, how they may impact you, and how you can get involved as the CPUC considers this proposal.
The CPUC is proposing a new net metering tariff (NEM 3.0) that includes a solar tax of $8/kW per month, which could add an average of $57 to the monthly electric bill of a typical solar customer. If adopted, this would be the steepest tax on solar anywhere in the country. In addition, the NEM 3.0 proposal would reduce the value of credits given to customers in exchange for energy they send to the grid by about 80 percent.
If you already have solar, the proposal would reduce the length of the “grandfathering period” under which you can remain on NEM 1.0 or NEM 2.0. The change to existing customers violates the basic principles of regulatory fairness by changing the rules after families, businesses and non-profits have already invested in solar. For customers who are considering installing solar, the proposed solar tax and other NEM 3.0 rules would go into effect after May 28, 2022.
The CPUC may vote on whether to adopt the NEM 3.0 proposal as soon as January 27, 2022, and they are currently taking feedback from the public until that time. Click below to learn more about this issue and make your voice heard to the CPUC and Governor Newsom.
someone calling like it is
pv-magazine-usa.com
Grid expert slams NEM 3.0 as “proposed dystopia” in ROTH Capital webinar, offers ten reasons why
Utility rate design expert and economist-at-large Dr. Ahmad Faruqui appeared on a webinar led by Philip Shen, managing director at ROTH Capital Partners, and explained why he views the proposed California solar net metering rate design as disastrous and called upon Governor Newsom to intervene.
pv-magazine-usa.com
Sadly, It doesn't need to take a PHD or expert to know the proposal doesn't make any sense. But they went ahead to publish it.someone calling like it is
Grid expert slams NEM 3.0 as “proposed dystopia” in ROTH Capital webinar, offers ten reasons why
Utility rate design expert and economist-at-large Dr. Ahmad Faruqui appeared on a webinar led by Philip Shen, managing director at ROTH Capital Partners, and explained why he views the proposed California solar net metering rate design as disastrous and called upon Governor Newsom to intervene.
exactly. You can do a back of the envelop calculation and see that ROI under NEM3 is 15 to 20 years
If we were smarter about this, the SEIA would find a way to
Gotta fight fire with fire. Newsom can't turn a profit with emails from constituents the way the IOUs can profit off of this CPUC decision.
Similar threads
- Locked
