CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[Zabe]

Lol Zabe thinks he’ll get market rates for his solar under NEM 3.0? No wonder he thought it was still an ok proposition. I guess he ignored every post we made about the ACC rate for exports.

I think it’s a bit hypocritical to bask in NEM 2.0 benefits, but then support policy changes that gatekeep/block future homeowners from similar benefit. Unfortunately pulling away the ladder after climbing up is a popular mentality.

No but I do know how to program my equipment to use power when my solar is generating and therefore the vast majority of it will be at $0.31/kWH. Let's see pool pump check, Thermostat check... Is this too hard for you Donuthole?

If all future homeowners had the same benefit as NEM 2, and they all installed solar, the grid would collapse. It is a bit ideotic to believe that is a good idea.

Keep on railing on PG&E for recovering their fixed investment while you keep crying that you might not recover your own fixed investment, a bit hypocritical.

 

[holeydonut]

No but I do know how to program my equipment to use power when my solar is generating and therefore the vast majority of it will be at $0.31/kWH. Let's see pool pump check, Thermostat check... Is this too hard for you Donuthole?

If all future homeowners had the same benefit as NEM 2, and they all installed solar, the grid would collapse. It is a bit ideotic to believe that is a good idea.

Keep on railing on PG&E for recovering their fixed investment while you keep crying that you might not recover your own fixed investment, a bit hypocritical.

Hey Zape… you may want to actually read my posts before you create the silly premise that I’m being hypocritical. I’ve said repeatedly the cost shift is a red herring to distract people from demanding PG&E be more efficient. You just won’t let the cost shift go and assume we’re all against the cost shift. Start reading the posts here instead of planting your mindset it’s all about ROI. You love to just put words in others to satiate your cost shift position and fixed costs blah blah.

You’re a huge hypocrite for railing NEM policy but then cheerfully taking advantage of it until your grandfathering expires. If you value the concept of paying a fair share, you’d pay your fair share in your new home. Your hypocrisy is you value others paying their fair share while you rationalize ducking that responsibility yourself during the grandfathered NEM.

NEM 3.0 could be an evolution from NEM 2.0; but the PD from the CPUC would effectively kill the proposition for normal hardworking homeowners to get solar next year. NEM 3 is not an evolution, it’s a stark pivot that comes in play just in time that the technology is affordable by many. PG&E could have been investing in DER and safer operations over the last decade. But instead they paid $5Bn in dividends, monster bonuses, and subsidized NG peaker plants that were decommissioned early. Instead of getting their act together, they chose to kill people and then scapegoat solar in a bogus fixed cost argument.

I know it’s convenient for you to just pretend we’re all trying to “avoid fixed costs” in this thread. But do us a favor and start reading the posts instead of whining “fixed costs over and over”.

Oh, one last thing… you may want to get a home energy monitor and actually track your home energy usage to see how much you consume during sun-up hours… especially if you charge an EV. Pool pumps and AC aren’t anywhere near even 50% of an average home’s usage.

 

[Zabe]

Lol Zabe thinks he’ll get market rates for his solar under NEM 3.0? No wonder he thought it was still an ok proposition. I guess he ignored every post we made about the ACC rate for exports.

I think it’s a bit hypocritical to bask in NEM 2.0 benefits, but then support policy changes that gatekeep/block future homeowners from similar benefit. Unfortunately pulling away the ladder after climbing up is a popular mentalit

Hey Zape… you may want to actually read my posts before you create the silly premise that I’m being hypocritical. I’ve said repeatedly the cost shift is a red herring to distract people from demanding PG&E be more efficient. You just won’t let the cost shift go and assume we’re all against the cost shift. Start reading the posts here instead of planting your mindset it’s all about ROI. You love to just put words in others to satiate your cost shift position and fixed costs blah blah.

You’re a huge hypocrite for railing NEM policy but then cheerfully taking advantage of it until your grandfathering expires. If you value the concept of paying a fair share, you’d pay your fair share in your new home. Your hypocrisy is you value others paying their fair share while you rationalize ducking that responsibility yourself during the grandfathered NEM.

NEM 3.0 could be an evolution from NEM 2.0; but the PD from the CPUC would effectively kill the proposition for normal hardworking homeowners to get solar next year. NEM 3 is not an evolution, it’s a stark pivot that comes in play just in time that the technology is affordable by many. PG&E could have been investing in DER and safer operations over the last decade. But instead they paid $5Bn in dividends, monster bonuses, and subsidized NG peaker plants that were decommissioned early. Instead of getting their act together, they chose to kill people and then scapegoat solar in a bogus fixed cost argument.

I know it’s convenient for you to just pretend we’re all trying to “avoid fixed costs” in this thread. But do us a favor and start reading the posts instead of whining “fixed costs over and over”.

Oh, one last thing… you may want to get a home energy monitor and actually track your home energy usage to see how much you consume during sun-up hours… especially if you charge an EV. Pool pumps and AC aren’t anywhere near even 50% of an average home’s usage.

I bought a house that happens to have solar and I should disconnect it or I am a hypocrite. Well I am not an idiot so that is not going to happen. Guess I am a hypocrite, oh man that stings, okay i am over it.

The vast majority of this thread has been whining about paying fixed costs if NEM 3 passes. A properly sized solar system under NEM 2 can and does routinely avoid most fixed costs which are then covered by non-solar ratepayers. A new installation of a properly sized Tesla solar system will pay for itself in about 4 years yet current NEM 2 lasts for 20 years allowing a new installation to reap 5 times or more of the initial investment while shifting those costs to non-solar customers. The vast majority of people on this forum including yourself will have all of their investment returned and will be paying almost no fixed costs for the grid for 10-15 years.

I run a power grid and you actually think I do not know about my hourly home energy usage, really?

Anyone who has read your posts completely understands why PG&E railed you on your installation.

 

[holeydonut]

I bought a house that happens to have solar and I should disconnect it or I am a hypocrite. Well I am not an idiot so that is not going to happen. Guess I am a hypocrite, oh man that stings, okay i am over it.

The vast majority of this thread has been whining about paying fixed costs if NEM 3 passes. A properly sized solar system under NEM 2 can and does routinely avoid most fixed costs which are then covered by non-solar ratepayers. A new installation of a properly sized Tesla solar system will pay for itself in about 4 years yet current NEM 2 lasts for 20 years allowing a new installation to reap 5 times or more of the initial investment while shifting those costs to non-solar customers. The vast majority of people on this forum including yourself will have all of their investment returned and will be paying almost no fixed costs for the grid for 10-15 years.

I run a power grid and you actually think I do not know about my hourly home energy usage, really?

Anyone who has read your posts completely understands why PG&E railed you on your installation.

Considering you said your future solar generation under the NEM 3 PD was $0.31 per kWh at todays rates… yes I think you’re off base on your home energy usage.

And yeah- screw PG&E. They had a asshole shut off my power in the middle of winter and tell me I was robbing their pension BEFORE my constant flow of PG&E hate on TMC. You may love the utilities because they butter your bread, but I don’t.

Read the posts here again… most are fine paying fixed costs. Lots of proposals on how fixed costs could be fairly applied.

The dramatic tax/fee in the 3.0 PD coupled with the ACC rate on exports made more sense to do a non export agreement. They also only applied the penalty on residential systems. That’s backwards thinking on the future of renewables in California.

Most solar systems in California are sized below annual consumption… they’re paying fixed costs. You just cherry pick a few outlier systems and draw broken conclusions against solar as a whole. Anyway enjoy your solar. There are millions of Californians who won’t be so lucky as you if this PD goes through.

 

[Zabe]

Considering you said your future solar generation under the NEM 3 PD was $0.31 per kWh at todays rates… yes I think you’re off base on your home energy usage.

And yeah- screw PG&E. They had a asshole shut off my power in the middle of winter and tell me I was robbing their pension BEFORE my constant flow of PG&E hate on TMC. You may love the utilities because they butter your bread, but I don’t.

Read the posts here again… most are fine paying fixed costs. Lots of proposals on how fixed costs could be fairly applied.

The dramatic tax/fee in the 3.0 PD coupled with the ACC rate on exports made more sense to do a non export agreement. They also only applied the penalty on residential systems. That’s backwards thinking on the future of renewables in California.

Most solar systems in California are sized below annual consumption… they’re paying fixed costs. You just cherry pick a few outlier systems and draw broken conclusions against solar as a whole. Anyway enjoy your solar. There are millions of Californians who won’t be so lucky as you if this PD goes through.

I think I am looking at it different than you are when it comes to the $0.31. Any time that I am using energy from the solar system I am not paying PG&E that rate. I do not believe that under NEM 3 I will be paid that rate. I have said multiple times that if NEM 3 passes I will shift my usage to when I have solar. Does that make more sense? I will intentionally use more of my solar when it is generating making its value to me $0.31/kWH.

Donuthole here is the best part, I qualified for 2 more free powerwalls under the currently open SGIP plan at the new house, and got my letter saying funds are reserved. BUWHUHAHAHA!

 

[holeydonut]

I think I am looking at it different than you are when it comes to the $0.31. Any time that I am using energy from the solar system I am not paying PG&E that rate. I do not believe that under NEM 3 I will be paid that rate. I have said multiple times that if NEM 3 passes I will shift my usage to when I have solar. Does that make more sense? I will intentionally use more of my solar when it is generating making its value to me $0.31/kWH.

Donuthole here is the best part, I qualified for 2 more free powerwalls under the currently open SGIP plan at the new house, and got my letter saying funds are reserved. BUWHUHAHAHA!

You said the entire 11 MWh was worth $0.31 per kWh. Check your own posts man.

I hope the people on TMC read zabe’s hypocrisy… it is an indicator of the problem in this state and the established indoctrination that seeks to prevent us from making progress toward a sustainable, safe, and environmentally friendly grid.

He’ll gladly live in a fire prone area taking public funds for batteries while decrying folks for not paying their fair share. This mindset exists because the utilities, their generation operators, and infrastructure need billions of dollars to persist under their status quo of wasting money and demanding Californians pay higher rates to compensate. His persona and mindset are a microcosm of how the established energy infrastructure operates.

The companies like Tesla, SEIA members, etc that are fighting against this utility mindset.

Tesla has developed technology that has enabled grid improvement at the endpoint homeowner level … their Powerwall installs are part of a VPP that can support 350 MW/675 MWh. And most importantly, taken many of these homes off grid during peak time.

Please keep supporting folks who are part of the solution, instead of the folks that think the solution is to increase rates on Californians.

 

[sunwarriors]

Problem with NEM3.0 is if it doesn't pencil out, I think new home construction requires solar to make financial sense and we saw the initial NEM3.0 proposal being so bad that no one would get solar for anymore new construction if they had to pay $500-$700 just to have it.

15-20 year returns for many folks who stay less than that in a home will simply kill off the whole industry and all the jobs as well.

It'll be interesting to see what the new proposal is after that grab everything wording from the last one.

 

[Southpasfan]

I think I am looking at it different than you are when it comes to the $0.31. Any time that I am using energy from the solar system I am not paying PG&E that rate. I do not believe that under NEM 3 I will be paid that rate. I have said multiple times that if NEM 3 passes I will shift my usage to when I have solar. Does that make more sense? I will intentionally use more of my solar when it is generating making its value to me $0.31/kWH.

Donuthole here is the best part, I qualified for 2 more free powerwalls under the currently open SGIP plan at the new house, and got my letter saying funds are reserved. BUWHUHAHAHA!

the problem with this discussion is highlighted in this post, where Zabe says "...the value to me ....."

There are four values to a home solar and ESS system, all different.

1. The value to the homeowner.
2. The value to the utility
3. The value to all other ratepayers
4. The value to the environment.

Number 1 is easily defined as the difference between what would be paid to the utility and the cost of the system. That's the easy one, and its currently a good deal so we have, unsurprisingly, an entire industry ready to sell systems.

Number 4 is almost as easy. If utilities could do utility scale renewables there would be no need, at all for all of us to have little power plants at our houses. Since its illogical to wait around for utilities, some of us have chosen to accelerate the switch to clean energy by getting solar plus ESS. Solar alone, is better than nothing, but pretty soon there will be plenty of clean energy when the sun is up, and after that point solar alone will have little, to none, environmental benefit. I have seen some days on CAISO where solar at noon is already over 90% of all energy.

Number 2 is also an easy answer= none. There is no value to the utility at all, and so its unsurprising that utilities have moved from grudging acceptance to outright opposition.

Number 3 is the tricky one. Since the utilities don't want to frame the argument in terms of them, they are currently pointing out that the grid has to be paid for somehow, and since the benefits of Number 1 are really down to rooftop solar avoiding the 80 to 90 percent of the bill that goes to "The grid" while still using the grid, its a "cost shift." I don't know why Zabe never mentions the unbelievable "cost shift" to users of alot of energy or users of energy that is easily at hand to pay for lines run out to the countryside, but the reality is most people have no idea what the cost of the kwhs they buy consists of, and every utility bill I have ever seen does its best, its absolute best, to obscure the facts.

I've used tons of energy over my lifetime, and I could easily make the argument that I've done my bit and someone else can pay for the damn grid. But I didn't even know I was one of the all time "grid supporters" until I got into this subject. They should get me a plaque on some substation or something.

Yes, if out of 5 million customers, 4,999,999 switch to solar, the one left is getting a bill for like 10 billion dollars a year. No f ing kidding.

Do we have the right to conserve energy or not? I say not only "yes" but we have the right to conserve energy by switching from utility energy to 100% solar, which is essentially what we are all doing. The fact that utitlities cannot handle conservation just means their business model needs to change.

 

[holeydonut]

I don't know why Zabe never mentions the unbelievable "cost shift" to users of alot of energy or users of energy that is easily at hand to pay for lines run out to the countryside

We asked Zabe why he only talks about the cost shift between solar vs non-solar. Why he chooses to ignore the cost shift between cities/suburbs and folks who choose to live out in the sticks in fire prone areas that cost more to serve on a per capita basis. He said this is a NEM 3.0 thread. So it's pointless to talk about his own burden on the grid since such shift is out of scope of NEM 3.0.

As we've seen countless times in policymaking... folks are easily convinced by rules for thee; not for me. When the solar industry proposed a reasonable transition to help "cover costs" ... the IOUs said "nope, not fast enough". And instead they convinced the CPUC to push the IOU agenda to crush residential solar, because both the CPUC and the IOUs think energy management is best left to the old-guard-institutions.

The utilities "won" NEM 3.0 the moment they framed the question to be around why solar customers have to pay for an outrageously expensive/mismanaged infrastructure. If we had a CPUC that actually represented consumers, they would have been asking why there is an expensive/mismanaged infrastructure to begin with.

(edit, I put "it's sad" in the wrong paragraph) Intelligent folks like wwhitney could be thinking of ways to progress adoption of renewables and technology to help us. Look at how many of us benefit from his advice here on TMC. Imagine if his mindset were magnified through policy instead of reactionary to random TMC questions.

But instead, it's sad that wwhitney spent time looking for ways to create a future solar system that is not grid tied (no export) because the can't make the numbers work within the confines of the fixed costs tax that was proposed. The public benefits when people are looking at solving solutions. But the utilities and the CPUC want to look backwards so we all pay for PG&E's inefficiency and legacy waste.

 

[h2ofun]

We asked Zabe why he only talks about the cost shift between solar vs non-solar. Why he chooses to ignore the cost shift between cities/suburbs and folks who choose to live out in the sticks in fire prone areas that cost more to serve on a per capita basis. He said this is a NEM 3.0 thread. So it's pointless to talk about his own burden on the grid since such shift is out of scope of NEM 3.0.

As we've seen countless times in policymaking... folks are easily convinced by rules for thee; not for me. When the solar industry proposed a reasonable transition to help "cover costs" ... the IOUs said "nope, not fast enough". And instead they convinced the CPUC to push the IOU agenda to crush residential solar, because both the CPUC and the IOUs think energy management is best left to the old-guard-institutions.

The utilities "won" NEM 3.0 the moment they framed the question to be around why solar customers have to pay for an outrageously expensive/mismanaged infrastructure. If we had a CPUC that actually represented consumers, they would have been asking why there is an expensive/mismanaged infrastructure to begin with.

It is sad that intelligent folks like wwhitney could be thinking of ways to progress adoption of renewables and technology to help us. Look at how many of us benefit from his advice here on TMC. Imagine if his mindset were magnified through policy instead of reactionary to random TMC questions.

But instead, wwhitney spent time looking for ways to create a future solar system that is not grid tied (no export) because the can't make the numbers work within the confines of the fixed costs tax that was proposed. The public benefits when people are looking at solving solutions. But the utilities and the CPUC want to look backwards so we all pay for PG&E's inefficiency and legacy waste.

yep, if they did a KW charge, I would be working with folks on how to change what I do. Since this time of the year I am sending TONS of solar back to the grid, and my AC is set for 68 downstairs, and 74 up stairs, not sure what I would do.

 

[Southpasfan]

yep, if they did a KW charge, I would be working with folks on how to change what I do. Since this time of the year I am sending TONS of solar back to the grid, and my AC is set for 68 downstairs, and 74 up stairs, not sure what I would do.

Since I am so far down this rabbit hole, this is what I would do:

A. the grid is decopled from being supported by ratepayers, its supported by the state.
B. Ratepayers only pay for energy.

If A is done properly, the bills of the less well off drop to nominal rates. At 6 cents per kwy a family using 1,000 per month pays $60.

This would have the weird result of oddly, leaving rooftop solar and ESS only to people who are motivated by the environment, which is why it won't happen.
What will happen is brutal sausage making where the solar industry and the utilities slug it out by carving up charges.

 

[holeydonut]

A. the grid is decopled from being supported by ratepayers, its supported by the state.

Please let me know if there is any local policymaker willing to support this.

 

[STS-134]

Since I am so far down this rabbit hole, this is what I would do:

A. the grid is decopled from being supported by ratepayers, its supported by the state.
B. Ratepayers only pay for energy.

There are two problems:
1. All users should pay some sort of baseline charge to support the grid, irrespective of whether they are a net importer, a net exporter, or neutral
2. The users who consume lots of energy during peak times are the ones who cause the grid to have to be upgraded. So they should bring some sort of demand charge to home users.

Solar users would presumably be paying the baseline charge, but fewer of the demand charges if they have storage. Any home users who conserve during peak hours would likewise pay less in demand charges.

 

[Southpasfan]

There are two problems:
1. All users should pay some sort of baseline charge to support the grid, irrespective of whether they are a net importer, a net exporter, or neutral
2. The users who consume lots of energy during peak times are the ones who cause the grid to have to be upgraded. So they should bring some sort of demand charge to home users.

Solar users would presumably be paying the baseline charge, but fewer of the demand charges if they have storage. Any home users who conserve during peak hours would likewise pay less in demand charges.

Well, let see. "the Problem(s)"

1. With solar alone "the problem" is anything more than a credit for the actual value of electricity (3 cents avg) results in that particular user not chipping in for "grid maintenance" that, and this is important, that particular use was chipping in before installing the system. Even at 3 cents from the utilities perspective its a loss. By way of example, if the "before" was that particular user was paying like $500 bucks non peak and, I don't know, $3,000 bucks peak, per year, now they are paying zero non peak, and, after their 3 cent credit, say $2,700 peak. An NEM system which only pays 3 cents would mean solar alone has less financial savings, by far, than now. Of course, as long as non-peak charges exceed the cost of the electricity produced by the system, then small systems do in fact result in savings but only to the extent they avoid charges. In any event the "problem" is wholly from the utility perspective - their system is not set up for someone to reduce volume, no matter how it is done.

2. With solar plus ESS, "the problem" is even worse for the utility, because now the customer reduces consumption of BOTH non-peak and peak.

Its like the old joke about contractors, you can have excellent, cheap, or quick, pick any two.

I don't believe there is a baseline charge that can (a) replace the grid contributions of the presumably high energy consuming rate payer, (b) is fair to non-high energy consumers, and (c) allows for some sort of economic incentive for distributed solar and solar plus ESS.

Any charge close to (a) fails (c) spectacularly. This is why we have this thread. There is simply no way.

Choice (b) should not even be on there, because the low volume/poor ratepayers aren't really contributing a pro-rata share to "the grid" now. There hasn't been any "cost shifting" its all BS from the utilities and a couple of energy economics professors who are on a theoretical tangent.

Finally, with all respect, I don't think its been proven to me that "users who consume alot of energy during peak times are the ones who cause the grid to be upgraded.." Oh, I know the utilities SAY that, I just reject it.

 

[STS-134]

Well, let see. "the Problem(s)"

1. With solar alone "the problem" is anything more than a credit for the actual value of electricity (3 cents avg) results in that particular user not chipping in for "grid maintenance" that, and this is important, that particular use was chipping in before installing the system. Even at 3 cents from the utilities perspective its a loss. By way of example, if the "before" was that particular user was paying like $500 bucks non peak and, I don't know, $3,000 bucks peak, per year, now they are paying zero non peak, and, after their 3 cent credit, say $2,700 peak. An NEM system which only pays 3 cents would mean solar alone has less financial savings, by far, than now. Of course, as long as non-peak charges exceed the cost of the electricity produced by the system, then small systems do in fact result in savings but only to the extent they avoid charges. In any event the "problem" is wholly from the utility perspective - their system is not set up for someone to reduce volume, no matter how it is done.

They need to decouple grid maintenance costs from the electrical rates. You pay a certain amount just to maintain the grid. The per kWh fees for usage are absurd because they've rolled the grid maintenance costs into the per kWh costs.

 

[Southpasfan]

They need to decouple grid maintenance costs from the electrical rates. You pay a certain amount just to maintain the grid. The per kWh fees for usage are absurd because they've rolled the grid maintenance costs into the per kWh costs.

I agree.

I just don't think the math will work for low and high energy consumers. I know it won't work if you try to factor in solar and ESS customers.

Right now, I would bet that the actual pro rata cost per homeowner is, I don't know $200 per house?

Some people are only paying like $125 total, including the electricity, and those people are offset by someone, say, like me, who with houses that were always like 2,000 square feet and were chipping in between $400 and $500 per month for "the grid."

If you "de-couple" the grid, the "certain amount" is going to result in an increase for like half of all ratepayers, a total non-starter.

What can happen is de coupling, as you say, along with, frankly (I was wrong, above) the State chipping in for the losses caused by residential solar and ESS.

So, if I put in a system, and the utility goes "whoa! Due to Southpas fan's system we are now out $5k a year" the state of CA gives them $5k, no one else's rates or charges goes up.

 

[STS-134]

I agree.

I just don't think the math will work for low and high energy consumers. I know it won't work if you try to factor in solar and ESS customers.

Right now, I would bet that the actual pro rata cost per homeowner is, I don't know $200 per house?

Some people are only paying like $125 total, including the electricity, and those people are offset by someone, say, like me, who with houses that were always like 2,000 square feet and were chipping in between $400 and $500 per month for "the grid."

If you "de-couple" the grid, the "certain amount" is going to result in an increase for like half of all ratepayers, a total non-starter.

What can happen is de coupling, as you say, along with, frankly (I was wrong, above) the State chipping in for the losses caused by residential solar and ESS.

So, if I put in a system, and the utility goes "whoa! Due to Southpas fan's system we are now out $5k a year" the state of CA gives them $5k, no one else's rates or charges goes up.

Not necessarily. You can charge grid maintenance costs by the size of the service line, just like water companies charge for connections by the size of the water main. Anything under 200A can be the same charge. 400A would be an additional charge (I'd hate this, given that I just upgraded to 400A, but whatever). And then there are the big commercial and industrial customers with 3 phase service, which would pay higher connection fees in accordance with how big their service lines are.

 

[BGbreeder]

We asked Zabe why he only talks about the cost shift between solar vs non-solar. Why he chooses to ignore the cost shift between cities/suburbs and folks who choose to live out in the sticks in fire prone areas that cost more to serve on a per capita basis. He said this is a NEM 3.0 thread. So it's pointless to talk about his own burden on the grid since such shift is out of scope of NEM 3.0.

As we've seen countless times in policymaking... folks are easily convinced by rules for thee; not for me. When the solar industry proposed a reasonable transition to help "cover costs" ... the IOUs said "nope, not fast enough". And instead they convinced the CPUC to push the IOU agenda to crush residential solar, because both the CPUC and the IOUs think energy management is best left to the old-guard-institutions.

The utilities "won" NEM 3.0 the moment they framed the question to be around why solar customers have to pay for an outrageously expensive/mismanaged infrastructure. If we had a CPUC that actually represented consumers, they would have been asking why there is an expensive/mismanaged infrastructure to begin with.

(edit, I put "it's sad" in the wrong paragraph) Intelligent folks like wwhitney could be thinking of ways to progress adoption of renewables and technology to help us. Look at how many of us benefit from his advice here on TMC. Imagine if his mindset were magnified through policy instead of reactionary to random TMC questions.

But instead, it's sad that wwhitney spent time looking for ways to create a future solar system that is not grid tied (no export) because the can't make the numbers work within the confines of the fixed costs tax that was proposed. The public benefits when people are looking at solving solutions. But the utilities and the CPUC want to look backwards so we all pay for PG&E's inefficiency and legacy waste.

I understand that there are different costs associated with different portions of the grid, but I am not sure that rural=high cost, as the grid there is above ground, easy to maintain, and has a longer lifespan than buried cables. Maintaining electric underground cables in a heavily built up area (urban) is quite expensive, although there are more users per mile.

However, I think that the bigger issue is that all consumers benefit from a reliable grid, which for the moment and foreseeable future requires grid interconnects, and long distance transmission. Important to have, even if they aren't used frequently, or to capacity, when that tornado/earthquake/gas shortage hits. There is no point in having a remote hydropower facility if it isn't connected to a grid that will enable the power to flow to the end consumers.

Personally, I would love to see a broader application of the VPP and V2G options to ameliorate the peak loads on the grid, near the centers of demand. That would help everyone, benefit the planet, and could readily be supported with a reasonable pricing schema.

All the best,

BG

 

[Big Dog]

the problem with this discussion is highlighted in this post, where Zabe says "...the value to me ....."

There are four values to a home solar and ESS system, all different.

1. The value to the homeowner.
2. The value to the utility
3. The value to all other ratepayers
4. The value to the environment.

Number 1 is easily defined as the difference between what would be paid to the utility and the cost of the system. That's the easy one, and its currently a good deal so we have, unsurprisingly, an entire industry ready to sell systems.

Number 4 is almost as easy. If utilities could do utility scale renewables there would be no need, at all for all of us to have little power plants at our houses. Since its illogical to wait around for utilities, some of us have chosen to accelerate the switch to clean energy by getting solar plus ESS. Solar alone, is better than nothing, but pretty soon there will be plenty of clean energy when the sun is up, and after that point solar alone will have little, to none, environmental benefit. I have seen some days on CAISO where solar at noon is already over 90% of all energy.

Number 2 is also an easy answer= none. There is no value to the utility at all, and so its unsurprising that utilities have moved from grudging acceptance to outright opposition.

Number 3 is the tricky one. Since the utilities don't want to frame the argument in terms of them, they are currently pointing out that the grid has to be paid for somehow, and since the benefits of Number 1 are really down to rooftop solar avoiding the 80 to 90 percent of the bill that goes to "The grid" while still using the grid, its a "cost shift." I don't know why Zabe never mentions the unbelievable "cost shift" to users of alot of energy or users of energy that is easily at hand to pay for lines run out to the countryside, but the reality is most people have no idea what the cost of the kwhs they buy consists of, and every utility bill I have ever seen does its best, its absolute best, to obscure the facts.

I've used tons of energy over my lifetime, and I could easily make the argument that I've done my bit and someone else can pay for the damn grid. But I didn't even know I was one of the all time "grid supporters" until I got into this subject. They should get me a plaque on some substation or something.

Yes, if out of 5 million customers, 4,999,999 switch to solar, the one left is getting a bill for like 10 billion dollars a year. No f ing kidding.

Do we have the right to conserve energy or not? I say not only "yes" but we have the right to conserve energy by switching from utility energy to 100% solar, which is essentially what we are all doing. The fact that utitlities cannot handle conservation just means their business model needs to change.

Methinks #1 is not all that easy. I would submit that Homeowner is really current+future homeowners. The typical person moves ~7 years, but the system should last 20+ years, so on average 2 future homeowners will also benefit. This is no different than a HVAC install. A nice new system today gets added to the price 7 years hence, and might even be under an extended warranty. But 20+ years down the line, that same HVAC is valued near zero by a purchaser as they know its on its last legs.

Yet, a current homeowner is only looking at his/her payback, i.e., 7 years is almost too long. In comparison, the utils and gubmint see a system that will perform for 20+ years, regardless of who owns the house.

 

[RKCRLR]

This is not that complicated. The problem is that the CPUC put policies in place that increased the cost of electricity and the IOUs structured the rates so that heavy users (i.e., wealthy) supported the grid and subsidized the poor. There used to be no alternatives for heavy users but now there is solar. And since solar is available to the middle class the number of both heavy users and moderate users is declining. The current rate structure is unsustainable.

Every house should have a connection fee to support the grid. The fee should be based on peak consumption or whatever drives the costs for the grid. This connection fee should be independent of whether someone has solar, how much electricity they use, how they conserve, etc.

The cost for electricity should be proportional to what it costs the IOU to provide the electricity. If it costs more to provide the electricity during certain periods then those costs should be passed on to the customer.

The reimbursement the IOU gives to its customer for electricity fed to the grid should be proportional to the value of that electricity during the time period it is being provided. The IOU shouldn't be forced to pay more for customer provided electricity that it can get from other sources. The CPUC can control the other sources to ensure they are green if desired. If it actually costs IOUs to take electricity when they don't need it then those charges should be passed on to the customer. I'm sure solutions would become available to stop production when not needed if that were the case.

If this cost structure is too much of a burden for lower income people then subsidies should be provided to them. Whether these subsidies come from other IOU customers or out of the general fund is debatable.

Transitioning to solar and other renewable resources benefits the world. Climate change does not respect political boundaries. The additional cost of transitioning to renewable energy should be shared across the globe. However, it is not practical to force the rest of the world to contribute. Nor even the United States. If California wants to incentivize transitioning to power sources that don't contribute to climate change then the cost should not be borne by customers that install solar power or other renewable sources. The cost for incentivizing renewable resources should come out of the general fund since the world benefits.