CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[Southpasfan]

Ok, my apologies if everyone was referring to actual consumption versus net. I had the net filter in my head

No need to apologize, its the IOUs which should be apologizing to everyone for intentionally muddying up an argument which matters to all.

The posts about consumption are not off topic but I think illustrate the arguments we need to make. I keep posting because I want to figure out the best way to say this to cut and paste into public comments.

So, even with my large system, yesterday was typical.

Total home consumption was 48kwh. A low day, I did not charge either EV. Total production was 53kwh.

When the sun was up, the system "covered" 19kwh of the 48. This is what would basically happen with any solar system large enough to produce at least 4kwh. Because my system is large, it spends most of the day over 4 kwh, up to 10.7 max yesterday.

So, stopping right here, that's a pretty significant reduction in consumption, 39%. We know that the utilities cannot even handle a 39% reduction in demand under their economic model. This is where a few light bulbs here and there, shaving off what? 5%, is one thing. Rooftop solar which at a minimum cuts over 30% is a real threat.

So then what? If I only had solar, 34kwh would have gone to the grid, it had nowhere else to go. The utilities don't even want this, and they sure as hell dont' want to give someone a 20 cent to 30 cent per kwh credit for something they can already buy at 3 cents. That's it. It has nothing to do with poor v. rich people.

Because I have PWs, and because the day before was good, 31kwh went to the PWS and then 3 went to the grid. Not much to the grid, so they like me so far.

Problem is that my PWs, covered the rest of the day, easily. So as a customer yesterday my reduction was 100%, from 48 kwh without a system to zero.

This is where they have spun "extreme conservation" (i.e., could have been on vacation with the entire house shut off) into "not paying my fair share" - its true, I didn't pay anything, but its not like my not paying anything is directed at poor people.

 

[yblaser]

Does Tesla have a way to make it so the Model 3 charges at exactly rate of surplus energy that would normally go to the Grid? Like if my piddley 6.7 kWp AC system is collecting 6.7 kW at noon, my Powerwalls are full, and the house is using 1.0 kW... then the car automatically sets itself to charge that moment at 5.7 kW? And if it's 2pm and the same system is collecting 4.5 kW (house is still using 1.0 kW) then the Model 3 charges at 3.5 kW?

You know, to just use PG&E as little as possible to save strain on that precious grid.

Not natively unfortunately, but I think I have seen some 3rd party apps/code to do this.

 

[holeydonut]

Not natively unfortunately, but I think I have seen some 3rd party apps/code to do this.

I also need a 3rd party to add a handful of more solar panels on my roof to charge these damn EVs. I hate PG&E so much for barring me those handful of panels while they allow other people to do like 200% sizing. I hate those PG&E jerk-balls.

 

[Southpasfan]

I also need a 3rd party to add a handful of more solar panels on my roof to charge these damn EVs. I hate PG&E so much for barring me those handful of panels while they allow other people to do like 200% sizing. I hate those PG&E jerk-balls.

Before this round I did not really get why the utilities limited anyone's system size.

Now I get it. Its because they lose money even by small systems, the larger the system is the more money it "costs" the utility.

 

[yblaser]

I also need a 3rd party to add a handful of more solar panels on my roof to charge these damn EVs. I hate PG&E so much for barring me those handful of panels while they allow other people to do like 200% sizing. I hate those PG&E jerk-balls.

My wife administers some programs for charging infrastructure for heavy duty EVs. I was surprised when she said PG&E was much easier to work with than SCE, but then again I guess PG&E is making money on these installations vs losing money on solar installations.

 

[STS-134]

Let me amend that to : "every home cannot put in rooftop solar and expect to export at will or the grid will collapse." Presumably with non-export or centrally controlled export, every home could put in rooftop solar.

True, but there are solutions to this:

1. Centrally controlled export, as you mentioned. Allow the grid to command people's inverters to curtail if supply starts to exceed demand.
2. Export the energy to another area: CalISO for example could sell the surplus to other areas of the Western Interconnection, if the surplus can be predicted ahead of time.
3. CPUC orders the IOUs to build industrial scale storage to soak up the surplus during peak solar time, and then they can draw from this storage during peak demand time in the evening. I think this is probably a better solution than distributed storage because it can be constructed for far less cost per kWh and upgraded as needed much more easily. Combined with (1), this can keep the grid stable, and of course, the CPUC should fine the IOUs if they have to order curtailments of exports too often, as this means they're behind the curve on storage.

 

[RKCRLR]

No need to apologize, its the IOUs which should be apologizing to everyone for intentionally muddying up an argument which matters to all.

The posts about consumption are not off topic but I think illustrate the arguments we need to make. I keep posting because I want to figure out the best way to say this to cut and paste into public comments.

So, even with my large system, yesterday was typical.

Total home consumption was 48kwh. A low day, I did not charge either EV. Total production was 53kwh.

When the sun was up, the system "covered" 19kwh of the 48. This is what would basically happen with any solar system large enough to produce at least 4kwh. Because my system is large, it spends most of the day over 4 kwh, up to 10.7 max yesterday.

So, stopping right here, that's a pretty significant reduction in consumption, 39%. We know that the utilities cannot even handle a 39% reduction in demand under their economic model. This is where a few light bulbs here and there, shaving off what? 5%, is one thing. Rooftop solar which at a minimum cuts over 30% is a real threat.

So then what? If I only had solar, 34kwh would have gone to the grid, it had nowhere else to go. The utilities don't even want this, and they sure as hell dont' want to give someone a 20 cent to 30 cent per kwh credit for something they can already buy at 3 cents. That's it. It has nothing to do with poor v. rich people.

Because I have PWs, and because the day before was good, 31kwh went to the PWS and then 3 went to the grid. Not much to the grid, so they like me so far.

Problem is that my PWs, covered the rest of the day, easily. So as a customer yesterday my reduction was 100%, from 48 kwh without a system to zero.

This is where they have spun "extreme conservation" (i.e., could have been on vacation with the entire house shut off) into "not paying my fair share" - its true, I didn't pay anything, but its not like my not paying anything is directed at poor people.

This illustrates the mess the utilities have got themselves into with their rate structure. With solar+ESS you can practically be off-grid in the summer. If the CPUC pushes ESS then more people that currently have only solar will install ESS and not be paying the per kW rate that is required to support the infrastructure. So the utilities need a higher monthly connection charge to offset the reduced usage if they want to maintain their profits and are going after the solar customers to pay for it.

Solar+ESS won't cut it in the winter so grid imports are required. It will be interesting to see if summer and winter rates reverse in the future and it will be more expensive to get power in the winter especially with the effort to eliminate natural gas.

 

[aesculus]

This illustrates the mess the utilities have got themselves into with their rate structure. With solar+ESS you can practically be off-grid in the summer. If the CPUC pushes ESS then more people that currently have only solar will install ESS and not be paying the per kW rate that is required to support the infrastructure. So the utilities need a higher monthly connection charge to offset the reduced usage if they want to maintain their profits and are going after the solar customers to pay for it.

Solar+ESS won't cut it in the winter so grid imports are required. It will be interesting to see if summer and winter rates reverse in the future and it will be more expensive to get power in the winter especially with the effort to eliminate natural gas.

The utilities lost their fat cows when the Tiered Rate Plans went away and big energy users added solar and ESS. Big energy users were always in the top tier paying the most for energy. That was offsetting the costs for everyone else, especially those who were always in Tier 1 or only dipped into Tier 2.

This I think is the real issue. Everyone should have seen this coming.

 

[Southpasfan]

True, but there are solutions to this:

1. Centrally controlled export, as you mentioned. Allow the grid to command people's inverters to curtail if supply starts to exceed demand.
2. Export the energy to another area: CalISO for example could sell the surplus to other areas of the Western Interconnection, if the surplus can be predicted ahead of time.
3. CPUC orders the IOUs to build industrial scale storage to soak up the surplus during peak solar time, and then they can draw from this storage during peak demand time in the evening. I think this is probably a better solution than distributed storage because it can be constructed for far less cost per kWh and upgraded as needed much more easily. Combined with (1), this can keep the grid stable, and of course, the CPUC should fine the IOUs if they have to order curtailments of exports too often, as this means they're behind the curve on storage.

There are. The problem we face with NEM 3.0 is this.

No form of energy savings available, light bulbs, turning your thermostat, better appliances, better insulation, none of that, saves as much energy as a rooftop solar installation. That savings only occurs during the day, but it does occur. Looking at CAISO, every person who installs a system that covers all their usage during the day is the equivalent of that person going from 50% renewables to 100% renewables.

Its not even close if you add ESS to a larger solar system that can power the house through the night. In addition to the daytime savings, those customers move from, as far as I can see, 100% non renewables (I guess there is some hydro at night and some wind but hardly any) to 100% renewables (the energy from the sun stored in the ESS.

You can have those two things, but you can't have them and have the same people pay a "fair share" for the grid at the same time. Regardless of what the F "fair share" even means, this is because the grid is paid for by volumetric use, not by conservation. If you conserve, you don't pay. If you conserve a lot, apparently its to screw others who can't or won't conserve if you believe this ridiculous argument.

State of Cal. Decide!!!!

Frankly, if the utilities can't handle any more conservation, especially ESS, the State should pay them. The State or CPUC has essentially tried to see if it could incentivize private environmental action by forcing utilities to subsidize it. It worked, but it can't work indefinitely.

You know, if the State paid the utilities based on the number of customers with solar, you would slowly move towards whatever level of adoption there was and pure progressive funding of the "grid" - and you get to keep all the rooftop solar industry going, and you get the fastest environmental adoption.

The more you look at it the more this current argument seems to be sort of an attempt by utilities to distract from the almost non-existent nightime renewable energy currently on line.

Where is it? SCE made a billion dollars in profit last year for ****'s sake.

 

[STS-134]

Frankly, if the utilities can't handle any more conservation, especially ESS, the State should pay them. The State or CPUC has essentially tried to see if it could incentivize private environmental action by forcing utilities to subsidize it. It worked, but it can't work indefinitely.

Why do we even need IOUs? The State should simply take over the grid via eminent domain, operate the grid itself, and disband the IOUs. I've always thought it was strange that we had companies with a fiduciary duty to their shareholders operating what is supposed to be a public utility in the first place. Everywhere around here that a government entity rather than PG&E operates the grid (i.e. the cities of Santa Clara and Palo Alto), the rates are much better than what PG&E charges.

 

[RKCRLR]

Why do we even need IOUs? The State should simply take over the grid via eminent domain, operate the grid itself, and disband the IOUs. I've always thought it was strange that we had companies with a fiduciary duty to their shareholders operating what is supposed to be a public utility in the first place. Everywhere around here that a government entity rather than PG&E operates the grid (i.e. the cities of Santa Clara and Palo Alto), the rates are much better than what PG&E charges.

Part if the reason that government run utilities have better rates is they are in urban areas where less infrastructure per customer is needed. PG&E gets left with areas where it isn't as efficient to provide power because there is more infrastructure per customer required.

 

[Southpasfan]

Part if the reason that government run utilities have better rates is they are in urban areas where less infrastructure per customer is needed. PG&E gets left with areas where it isn't as efficient to provide power because there is more infrastructure per customer required.

That may well be true, and its an argument in favor of not having the IOUs run on a for profit basis.

Even the city of LA is much more compact than running transmission lines all the way out to Bakersfield or wherever. Not sure SoCal Edison gets such an easy pass.

But the real thing that's blowing up is the NEM rate structure is an example, from the perspective of the utilities, of the Gov forcing them to finance public policy. There are plenty of ways that can work, but it appears the power grid is not one of them.

The only irony is you go on to the web site of any utility and its page after page about how to conserve, yet they really cannot handle serious conservation of energy.

 

[MJ_CA_2019]

No need to apologize, its the IOUs which should be apologizing to everyone for intentionally muddying up an argument which matters to all.

The posts about consumption are not off topic but I think illustrate the arguments we need to make. I keep posting because I want to figure out the best way to say this to cut and paste into public comments.

So, even with my large system, yesterday was typical.

Total home consumption was 48kwh. A low day, I did not charge either EV. Total production was 53kwh.

When the sun was up, the system "covered" 19kwh of the 48. This is what would basically happen with any solar system large enough to produce at least 4kwh. Because my system is large, it spends most of the day over 4 kwh, up to 10.7 max yesterday.

So, stopping right here, that's a pretty significant reduction in consumption, 39%. We know that the utilities cannot even handle a 39% reduction in demand under their economic model. This is where a few light bulbs here and there, shaving off what? 5%, is one thing. Rooftop solar which at a minimum cuts over 30% is a real threat.

So then what? If I only had solar, 34kwh would have gone to the grid, it had nowhere else to go. The utilities don't even want this, and they sure as hell dont' want to give someone a 20 cent to 30 cent per kwh credit for something they can already buy at 3 cents. That's it. It has nothing to do with poor v. rich people.

Because I have PWs, and because the day before was good, 31kwh went to the PWS and then 3 went to the grid. Not much to the grid, so they like me so far.

Problem is that my PWs, covered the rest of the day, easily. So as a customer yesterday my reduction was 100%, from 48 kwh without a system to zero.

This is where they have spun "extreme conservation" (i.e., could have been on vacation with the entire house shut off) into "not paying my fair share" - its true, I didn't pay anything, but its not like my not paying anything is directed at poor people.

The reason I posted my 2021 stats earlier was to show that even with a system that produced 94% of my home energy use, my home still sourced 42% of it's power from the grid. (My PV destinations were Home 32%, Powerwall 34%, grid 34%).

Again I am PV + ESS so not the same as everyone's situation.
The vast majority of my grid supplied kWh were in the hottest summer months (June, July, August, Sept).
For example, in August 59% of my home usage was supplied from the grid. In Sept it was 64%.
However, I has 0 kWh of peak usage. If that is a problem, then don't put me on a TOU plan.

I am not taking advantage of the grid. I am shifting when I utilize the grid so I use near zero peak kWh and I export a small amount at peak rates.

Does this look like the bill of someone working the system?

 

[Zabe]

True, but there are solutions to this:

1. Centrally controlled export, as you mentioned. Allow the grid to command people's inverters to curtail if supply starts to exceed demand.
2. Export the energy to another area: CalISO for example could sell the surplus to other areas of the Western Interconnection, if the surplus can be predicted ahead of time.
3. CPUC orders the IOUs to build industrial scale storage to soak up the surplus during peak solar time, and then they can draw from this storage during peak demand time in the evening. I think this is probably a better solution than distributed storage because it can be constructed for far less cost per kWh and upgraded as needed much more easily. Combined with (1), this can keep the grid stable, and of course, the CPUC should fine the IOUs if they have to order curtailments of exports too often, as this means they're behind the curve on storage.

Wind and Solar curtailments by month

Expand they view field to "all" and you will see the issue.

 

[Southpasfan]

Wind and Solar curtailments by month

That's great.

I don't get it. I probably don't get it because the charts don't show curtailment as it relates to supply.

The supply graphs show that at max, Solar is about 50 to 60% of supply at noon.

So why would there be any curtailment?

Is it sort of -- "local" curtailment? In an area served by a given plant they don't need it in that area?

 

[MJ_CA_2019]

Wind and Solar curtailments by month

Expand they view field to "all" and you will see the issue.

God forbid that we curtail fossil fuel plants.

 

[Zabe]

That's great.

I don't get it. I probably don't get it because the charts don't show curtailment as it relates to supply.

The supply graphs show that at max, Solar is about 50 to 60% of supply at noon.

So why would there be any curtailment?

Is it sort of -- "local" curtailment? In an area served by a given plant they don't need it in that area?

Oversupply and curtailments​

The shift to a clean, efficient and modern grid is essential to California's economy and its environment. This transition to a low-carbon grid provides challenges and opportunities, as the state incorporates increasing amounts of renewable energy on to the electric system. Sometimes, during the middle of the day, California's renewable resources can generate more electricity than is needed.

During these periods of surplus energy, the ISO's market automatically reduces the production of energy from renewable resources, or “curtail" generation. In rare instances, when economic bids from generators are insufficient, ISO operators manually curtail production to maintain the balance between supply and demand.

While curtailment is an acceptable operational tool, as increasing amounts of renewable resources, oversupply conditions are expected to occur more often. The ISO is seeking solutions to avoid or reduce the amount of curtailment of renewable power to maximize the use of clean energy sources.

Almost 350,000 MWH for May 2021 of curtailments due to oversupply!

 

[Zabe]

God forbid that we curtail fossil fuel plants.

Fossil fuel plants can and are curtailed. The problem is with say a thermal gas powered generator is they have to shutdown the unit they cannot just flip a switch and turn it back on. So they go down to minimum loading. The nuc's they are base loaded at full output. The hydro generation must release water and will run their generators they do not have unlimited storage of water. Utilities have long term contracted power from remote suppliers. It is a very very complex system. They are curtailing wind and solar only because WIND and SOLAR are the oversupply problem at the time. They are not curtailing them because they don't want to use them.

 

[Southpasfan]

Oversupply and curtailments​

The shift to a clean, efficient and modern grid is essential to California's economy and its environment. This transition to a low-carbon grid provides challenges and opportunities, as the state incorporates increasing amounts of renewable energy on to the electric system. Sometimes, during the middle of the day, California's renewable resources can generate more electricity than is needed.

During these periods of surplus energy, the ISO's market automatically reduces the production of energy from renewable resources, or “curtail" generation. In rare instances, when economic bids from generators are insufficient, ISO operators manually curtail production to maintain the balance between supply and demand.

While curtailment is an acceptable operational tool, as increasing amounts of renewable resources, oversupply conditions are expected to occur more often. The ISO is seeking solutions to avoid or reduce the amount of curtailment of renewable power to maximize the use of clean energy sources.

Almost 350,000 MWH for May 2021 of curtailments due to oversupply!

I read that part.

I have seen, only a couple of times when LADWP, which is pretty reliable, went out, that the Gateway shut off the panels rather than export.

But it does not appear to be "oversupply" in the sense that one would think of from common sense.

Everybody here knows that the amount of electricity produced has to equal the amount of electricity used. So we get it.

I note, that the supply from nuclear is always a flat line. It never varies up or down. That's probably becuase shutting down nuclear plants only happens easily in movies.

My guess is its easier to curtail solar than mess arounds with natural gas plants. Maybe that is because, as I read somewhere, that natural gas plants are difficult to turn on or off.

But if that's the case, its not an argument against solar, solar is easy to curtail compared to a natural gas plant, far far easier.

 

[MJ_CA_2019]

Utilities have long term contracted power from remote suppliers.

Exactly; they don't actually care about maximizing renewable energy generation.
They care about lining the pockets of the fat cats that kick back and lobby.