CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[sunwarriors]

The problem still boils down to the IOUs being for profit government allowed monopolies. Look at all the power options that aren't the IOUs (Santa Clara Power, etc). When you remove that exec comp, for profit shareholder motives, need/demand, cost/prices can actually drop because less usage is good for environment, people. Conserving like using less drugs or healthcare is a bad thing for IOUs. It makes them more irrelevent.

The current structure of power/IOUs is just not sustainable I don't think.

A fixed cost for everyone, solar or not is a good/decent idea, but like other's say, the cost would be probably so high (they should actually calculate this out) that it'll never pass, esp for the large population of less fortunate folks.

There is still no incentive in my mind for IOUs to ever improve or lower usage/cost/etc...It's just not possible with how they are structured. Large capital projects, they get a cut, I'm sure there are folks who's sole job is to figure out how to get maximum profits and large capital projects because that's how their bonuses/profits/dividens are structured. It's just not helpful at the end of the day for rate payers since they would want to use less, cut infrastructure if they can to lower cost.

As for rural customers, they maybe cheaper to string up because it's above ground, but they're sorta the things causing all the fires to begin with AND, it's 1 customer for all that wiring. Give them their battery, propane and don't even have service there...or let them manage on their own power honestly. They should be happy to cut the IOU thieves. I don't want to pay to maintain their grid.

I still like my idea of local power. Generate locally, use locally. I have less issues supporting or using my energy storage for my neighbors than someone out in the boonies from me.

 

[RKCRLR]

The problem still boils down to the IOUs being for profit government allowed monopolies. Look at all the power options that aren't the IOUs (Santa Clara Power, etc). When you remove that exec comp, for profit shareholder motives, need/demand, cost/prices can actually drop because less usage is good for environment, people. Conserving like using less drugs or healthcare is a bad thing for IOUs. It makes them more irrelevent.

The current structure of power/IOUs is just not sustainable I don't think.

A fixed cost for everyone, solar or not is a good/decent idea, but like other's say, the cost would be probably so high (they should actually calculate this out) that it'll never pass, esp for the large population of less fortunate folks.

There is still no incentive in my mind for IOUs to ever improve or lower usage/cost/etc...It's just not possible with how they are structured. Large capital projects, they get a cut, I'm sure there are folks who's sole job is to figure out how to get maximum profits and large capital projects because that's how their bonuses/profits/dividens are structured. It's just not helpful at the end of the day for rate payers since they would want to use less, cut infrastructure if they can to lower cost.

As for rural customers, they maybe cheaper to string up because it's above ground, but they're sorta the things causing all the fires to begin with AND, it's 1 customer for all that wiring. Give them their battery, propane and don't even have service there...or let them manage on their own power honestly. They should be happy to cut the IOU thieves. I don't want to pay to maintain their grid.

I still like my idea of local power. Generate locally, use locally. I have less issues supporting or using my energy storage for my neighbors than someone out in the boonies from me.

I agree that perhaps IOUs aren't the way but I do think it is possible if structured right. The government isn't known for its efficiency when they are responsible for everything.

If the fixed cost connection cost approach is too high then California should look at other states. Other states have figured out how to keep grid costs reasonable even if their electricity sources aren't green.

Being rural doesn't necessarily mean high costs. There was a post from a Truckee resident that says they pay $0.15/kHw for power from a Nevada utility that is coal powered. That shows that rural infrastructure doesn't necessarily mean rural power needs to be significantly more expensive.

 

[holeydonut]

I understand that there are different costs associated with different portions of the grid, but I am not sure that rural=high cost.

Time for a sad little game... please take a guess at what is PG&E's own calculation regarding costs for their latest "wildfire mitigation plan" (WMP) that is being spent between 2020, 2021, and 2022. The WMP targets high fire threat regions which are to nobody's surprise are mostly rural. And of course these investments aren't a one and done thing; many have to be repeated in a few years.

Please keep in mind this 2020-2022 WMP does NOT INCLUDE the project you may be seeing on TV ads about burying lines underground in rural areas which has an estimated cost of $25 Billion (and the primary reason their general rate case has +18% increases starting 2023).

PS. Here's the map of where the impacted 2020-2022 WMP circuits are. Distribution in green and transmission in purple. As far as I can tell, the $25Bn underground burying thing hasn't actually been mapped out. PG&E just estimates $2.5mm per mile over 10,000 miles.

 

[miimura]

I would like to hear a good explanation why solar users should get less than the Generation portion of their Tariff for what they feed into the grid. That credit should also be allowed to offset any fixed monthly fees for grid connection. No matter what, every kWh exported by a solar customer will be delivered to the nearest neighbor that is consuming and that customer will be billed at full retail rate. In this scenario, the utility is collecting all the Transmission and Distribution fees for doing nothing but maintaining the grid that's already there. This usage also doesn't contribute to overall grid demand because the load is satisfied locally.
I don't like paying more for electricity I consume and don't like smaller reimbursement for my excess solar, but I would actually support forcing solar customers to a TOU plan that had Super-Off-Peak during peak solar hours like 10am-2pm. At least that makes logical sense. The fixed solar fee per kW installed is a totally illogical dumbed down shortcut to prop up utility profits.

 

[Big Dog]

The problem still boils down to the IOUs being for profit government allowed monopolies.

Almost.

IMO, the 'problem' is that the IOUs are not managed by the politicians in Sacto. Instead, they'd rather support more good paying (union) jobs across the state so they keep approving larger budgets for teh IOUs. As a result, efficiency is not in the mission statement, nor is less executive comp. The IOU officers make bank bcos CA politicians enable the process.

(yes, the IOU's report to the PUC, but the PUC is appointed by the Governor and nothing gets approved unless all of the pols agree.)

 

[STS-134]

I would like to hear a good explanation why solar users should get less than the Generation portion of their Tariff for what they feed into the grid. That credit should also be allowed to offset any fixed monthly fees for grid connection. No matter what, every kWh exported by a solar customer will be delivered to the nearest neighbor that is consuming and that customer will be billed at full retail rate. In this scenario, the utility is collecting all the Transmission and Distribution fees for doing nothing but maintaining the grid that's already there. This usage also doesn't contribute to overall grid demand because the load is satisfied locally.
I don't like paying more for electricity I consume and don't like smaller reimbursement for my excess solar, but I would actually support forcing solar customers to a TOU plan that had Super-Off-Peak during peak solar hours like 10am-2pm. At least that makes logical sense. The fixed solar fee per kW installed is a totally illogical dumbed down shortcut to prop up utility profits.

No rates should be fixed. They should vary according to instantaneous supply and demand. You shouldn't ever know what rate you're going to get until the spot prices are determined that day. They just need to make sure they communicate those rates to customers, unlike what Texas did.

 

[miimura]

No rates should be fixed. They should vary according to instantaneous supply and demand. You shouldn't ever know what rate you're going to get until the spot prices are determined that day. They just need to make sure they communicate those rates to customers, unlike what Texas did.

That's not going to work for most people. Rates need to be predictable over a period of at least 1-3 months and it's the utility's job to smooth out those instantaneous variations. Today, prices only systematically vary by Summer / Winter but then have rate changes 3-6 times per year. They could go to a model where the prices are fixed for a quarter, one month before that quarter begins. Of course, that means that the utility needs to reconcile how their costs matched the forecast and adjust accordingly.

Real time rates should only be for individuals or businesses that have the ability to respond to those rates and have a mechanism for receiving the data.

 

[holeydonut]

I would like to hear a good explanation why solar users should get less than the Generation portion of their Tariff for what they feed into the grid. That credit should also be allowed to offset any fixed monthly fees for grid connection. No matter what, every kWh exported by a solar customer will be delivered to the nearest neighbor that is consuming and that customer will be billed at full retail rate. In this scenario, the utility is collecting all the Transmission and Distribution fees for doing nothing but maintaining the grid that's already there. This usage also doesn't contribute to overall grid demand because the load is satisfied locally.
I don't like paying more for electricity I consume and don't like smaller reimbursement for my excess solar, but I would actually support forcing solar customers to a TOU plan that had Super-Off-Peak during peak solar hours like 10am-2pm. At least that makes logical sense. The fixed solar fee per kW installed is a totally illogical dumbed down shortcut to prop up utility profits.

The CPUC has said many times they 100% disagree with your statements heh. The CPUC's Public Advocates Office (known as Cal Advocates) has expressed its "core findings" about this topic. Naturally we have learned the "P" in CPUC doesn't mean what you and I think it does.

Anyway, the Cal Advocates commissioned a study around the cost shift, and concluded it was unfair. They also expressed the belief that ratepayer bills would go down if NEM 3.0 were to repair issues of NEM 2.0.

To accomplish the "public's" goals under NEM 3.0, Cal Advocates said:

NEM customers should be fairly compensated for the value they provide the energy system.

• Your electric utility should buy any excess energy from a rooftop system at a fair price, based on its value. The simplest way to do this is to compensate customers that export NEM electricity in a manner which accounts for all the costs that rooftop solar installations actually avoid. The CPUC's most recent Avoided Cost Calculator does just that.
• Retail electricity rates do not represent the cost of producing energy from rooftop solar systems. It is unsustainable and unnecessary to have the incentive for rooftop solar be the same as the utility's rapidly increasing retail electricity rates.

NEM customers should pay their fair share of grid, wildfire, and other related costs.

• Customers with rooftop solar depend on the electric distribution and transmission systems (grid) to use electricity when their rooftop solar systems are not generating electricity, i.e., due to weather impacts or times of day when the sun is not shining. A reasonable fixed charge is a simple and appropriate mechanism to ensure a NEM customer makes a nominal payment to offset their share of distribution and transmission costs.
• NEM customers should pay their fair share of wildfire and other non-electric service-related costs that support a safe and reliable grid.

Comprehensive reform should include all NEM customers.

• Customers who installed rooftop solar years ago and have earned enough credits from the utility to have the systems pay for themselves should be encouraged to switch to a more accurate and equitable compensation rate. Current utility rates are so high that typical rooftop solar systems pay for themselves in under 5 years (in 2014, studies noted by the Commission showed payback periods of between 8 to 12 years). After the system is paid off, a rooftop solar customer's bills are paid by non-NEM customers for as long as the panels continue to generate electricity. With rates continuing to increase, and rooftop solar costs decreasing, systems will pay for themselves even more quickly, leaving renters and those who are not able to afford rooftop solar to foot the bill.

They spent millions of dollars to do the avoided cost calculator to value solar exports at $0.04 per kWh (projection in 2030). Visit that link I embedded if you want to ruin your day learning about the ACC.

Next, the CPUC spent zero dollars trying to estimate the second bullet. They left it up to the utilities to determine what is the fair share of the grid being "used" by Solar Customers; and the utilities would I guess inform the CPUC. SDG&E had their strategy and design manager Gwendolyn Morien do a calc around a fair grid benefits charge. Her team concluded the GBC per month would range from "$10.24/kW to $14.13/kW, depending on the utility". The CPUC PD went with $8 per kW per month and didn't really say why they chose that value. BTW mods, I'm not doxxing Gwendolyn. Her name is all over the joint IOU submission from September last year as the cited source for why they say what they say.

And on the 3rd bullet, the CPUC researched and determined the ROI on a residential solar system was "too high" under NEM 2.0. Also of importance, they asked the NREL to estimate the cost to install a system as $2.71 per watt DC before the ITC (I don't now how this calc was performed; even the CALSSA doesn't really know). Edit: The NREL says the $2.71 per watt DC before the ITC is the retail price (includes profit margin for the installer). But the value is based on 2020 costs... and the CPUC felt costs would continue to come down from there. The CPUC based a lot of their NEM 3.0 PD on what is a fair ROI if the investment was around $2.50 per watt DC. The CALSSA has asked the CPUC to challenge the NREL assumptions, but with zero luck so far.

 

[miimura]

@holeydonut so, my takeaway from your well written post is that 90% of the NEM 3 proceeding is self-serving garbage from the IOUs.
IMHO, Avoided Cost is only one aspect of utility rates. I still don't understand why there is no reconciliation on the revenue side when my solar exports result in retail revenue for the utility. Where is the study balancing the fraction of total grid usage for Commercial customers versus Residential customers? Also, where is the study analyzing the energy flow and revenue flows of two equal sized residential customers, one with solar and one without? The main problem I have with the proceeding is that the solution is framed as an US vs THEM problem. It is typical political divisiveness used as a tool for the utilities to avoid implementing the modern grid that we NEED to have to address climate change and renewable energy penetration.

Everyone understands that the NEM tariffs were implemented as a way to promote renewable energy while the penetration was low and the impact on the utilities was correspondingly low. I'm not saying that it should go on forever, but the analysis should be fair and reasonable and comparable to people implementing conservation measures. The utilities should not be allowed to stomp their feet and throw a tantrum just because people are using less of their product. They should be forced to adapt to climate and market realities in a way that serves the public interest.

 

[Southpasfan]

The CPUC has said many times they 100% disagree with your statements heh. The CPUC's Public Advocates Office (known as Cal Advocates) has expressed its "core findings" about this topic. Naturally we have learned the "P" in CPUC doesn't mean what you and I think it does.

Anyway, the Cal Advocates commissioned a study around the cost shift, and concluded it was unfair. They also expressed the belief that ratepayer bills would go down if NEM 3.0 were to repair issues of NEM 2.0.

To accomplish the "public's" goals under NEM 3.0, Cal Advocates said:

NEM customers should be fairly compensated for the value they provide the energy system.

• Your electric utility should buy any excess energy from a rooftop system at a fair price, based on its value. The simplest way to do this is to compensate customers that export NEM electricity in a manner which accounts for all the costs that rooftop solar installations actually avoid. The CPUC's most recent Avoided Cost Calculator does just that.
• Retail electricity rates do not represent the cost of producing energy from rooftop solar systems. It is unsustainable and unnecessary to have the incentive for rooftop solar be the same as the utility's rapidly increasing retail electricity rates.

NEM customers should pay their fair share of grid, wildfire, and other related costs.

• Customers with rooftop solar depend on the electric distribution and transmission systems (grid) to use electricity when their rooftop solar systems are not generating electricity, i.e., due to weather impacts or times of day when the sun is not shining. A reasonable fixed charge is a simple and appropriate mechanism to ensure a NEM customer makes a nominal payment to offset their share of distribution and transmission costs.
• NEM customers should pay their fair share of wildfire and other non-electric service-related costs that support a safe and reliable grid.

Comprehensive reform should include all NEM customers.

• Customers who installed rooftop solar years ago and have earned enough credits from the utility to have the systems pay for themselves should be encouraged to switch to a more accurate and equitable compensation rate. Current utility rates are so high that typical rooftop solar systems pay for themselves in under 5 years (in 2014, studies noted by the Commission showed payback periods of between 8 to 12 years). After the system is paid off, a rooftop solar customer's bills are paid by non-NEM customers for as long as the panels continue to generate electricity. With rates continuing to increase, and rooftop solar costs decreasing, systems will pay for themselves even more quickly, leaving renters and those who are not able to afford rooftop solar to foot the bill.

They spent millions of dollars to do the avoided cost calculator to value solar exports at $0.04 per kWh (projection in 2030). Visit that link I embedded if you want to ruin your day learning about the ACC.

Next, the CPUC spent zero dollars trying to estimate the second bullet. They left it up to the utilities to determine what is the fair share of the grid being "used" by Solar Customers; and the utilities would I guess inform the CPUC. SDG&E had their strategy and design manager Gwendolyn Morien do a calc around a fair grid benefits charge. Her team concluded the GBC per month would range from "$10.24/kW to $14.13/kW, depending on the utility". The CPUC PD went with $8 per kW per month and didn't really say why they chose that value. BTW mods, I'm not doxxing Gwendolyn. Her name is all over the joint IOU submission from September last year as the cited source for why they say what they say.

And on the 3rd bullet, the CPUC researched and determined the ROI on a residential solar system was "too high" under NEM 2.0. Also of importance, they asked the NREL to estimate the cost to install a system as $2.71 per watt DC before the ITC (I don't now how this calc was performed; even the CALSSA doesn't really know). Edit: The NREL says the $2.71 per watt DC before the ITC is the retail price (includes profit margin for the installer). But the value is based on 2020 costs... and the CPUC felt costs would continue to come down from there. The CPUC based a lot of their NEM 3.0 PD on what is a fair ROI if the investment was around $2.50 per watt DC. The CALSSA has asked the CPUC to challenge the NREL assumptions, but with zero luck so far.

The level of BS in this report is so high that even the largest poop emoji in the world could not do it justice.

Here is the problem. Scenario 1: Let's say that the cost of the grid is 10% of the cost of everyone's kwh charge. If out of 100 users, the average monthly electric bill is $100, then you could say, "OK, so in the new system, we are charging everyone $10 bucks per month, even solar owners" You could even if you were more concerned about heavy users getting away with something, just say "OK, its not "$10 bucks" a month, its 10%, and for solar and ESS people were even going to figure out how to charge for whatever you use. Sure, that would not go down well, but since in this hypothetical its only 10% switching to solar would still save money.

But we have Scenario 2: Its the reverse, the average cost of the grid is 90% of everyone's kwh charge. If you say, now we are charging everyone $90 per month, I mean, that's going to mathematically increase the bills of like the bottom 40% of all users!! I am not good enough at calculus but if you assume an even distribution someone could figure it out I think. If you try the second option, which is basically what the "$8 per installed kw" idea was, you make solar and solar plus ESS uneconomical. You might was well not install it.

So, there is no "monthly charge" which can replace the "costs" or "grid donations" that a heavy user conserves when they switch to solar or solar plus ESS.

Well there is one, but it is so high it would make it more expensive to have solar then it would be to not bother.

Not only that, but with the grid paid for by volumetric pricing, there is an actual limit on the amount of private solar/ESS you can even have before the utilities basically go under. And as much as we dislike them, they can't "go under."

So, we are going to have this ridiculous public policy death match with utilities and math challenged policy makers concerned with "cost shifting" on the one side and environmentalists, the solar industry, and solar users on the other.

Once again humans can't have nice things. We have the technological solution to at least California's energy - yet, protecting everyone's OX from being gored is going to slow down adoption.

Unless, as I say, someone realizes the grid has to be paid for like roads and highways - we need them, we pay for them - that's it.

 

[holeydonut]

@holeydonut so, my takeaway from your well written post is that 90% of the NEM 3 proceeding is self-serving garbage from the IOUs.
IMHO, Avoided Cost is only one aspect of utility rates. I still don't understand why there is no reconciliation on the revenue side when my solar exports result in retail revenue for the utility. Where is the study balancing the fraction of total grid usage for Commercial customers versus Residential customers? Also, where is the study analyzing the energy flow and revenue flows of two equal sized residential customers, one with solar and one without? The main problem I have with the proceeding is that the solution is framed as an US vs THEM problem. It is typical political divisiveness used as a tool for the utilities to avoid implementing the modern grid that we NEED to have to address climate change and renewable energy penetration.

Everyone understands that the NEM tariffs were implemented as a way to promote renewable energy while the penetration was low and the impact on the utilities was correspondingly low. I'm not saying that it should go on forever, but the analysis should be fair and reasonable and comparable to people implementing conservation measures. The utilities should not be allowed to stomp their feet and throw a tantrum just because people are using less of their product. They should be forced to adapt to climate and market realities in a way that serves the public interest.

Completely agree with you. The IOUs made this easy on themselves by dividing the ratepayers over the fixed costs argument. Many are totally bought into the fixed costs argument. Zabe gives us a front and center view of this. There are some other folks in the Policy sub that give you a clear view of how strongly people are bought into how residential solar is just a bonus for the rich.

Remember that Zabe's feelings may be a minority opinion on this TMC sub, but his views are a mostly 50% viewpoint when you sample the average California ratepayer population. Many people think residential Solar is a bane. TMC can be an echo chamber; if you go outside the TMC bubble, it's amazingly difficult to make progress. But keep trying on non-TMC avenues ... every little bit helps.

Regarding your other comments, the simple root cause explanation for why the IOUs are allowed to just stop their feet is explained here.

Most state lawmakers took PG&E money, did yours keep it?

Eight out of 10 members of the California legislature accepted campaign donations from corporate felon PG&E. Here's who gave it back and who didn't.

www.abc10.com

The only solace I have right now is my assembly member didn't accept PG&E donations and is actively trying to push for DER/ESS adoption. Unfortunately she's not as influential as folks such as your Governor.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Completely agree with you. The IOUs made this easy on themselves by dividing the ratepayers over the fixed costs argument. Many are totally bought into the fixed costs argument. Zabe gives us a front and center view of this. There are some other folks in the Policy sub that give you a clear view of how strongly people are bought into how residential solar is just a bonus for the rich.

Remember that Zabe's feelings may be a minority opinion on this TMC sub, but his views are a mostly 50% viewpoint when you sample the average California ratepayer population. Many people think residential Solar is a bane. TMC can be an echo chamber; if you go outside the TMC bubble, it's amazingly difficult to make progress. But keep trying on non-TMC avenues ... every little bit helps.

Regarding your other comments, the simple root cause explanation for why the IOUs are allowed to just stop their feet is explained here.

Most state lawmakers took PG&E money, did yours keep it?

Eight out of 10 members of the California legislature accepted campaign donations from corporate felon PG&E. Here's who gave it back and who didn't.

www.abc10.com

The only solace I have right now is my assembly member didn't accept PG&E donations and is actively trying to push for DER/ESS adoption. Unfortunately she's not as influential as folks such as your Governor.

That's exactly the strategy, use the fixed costs argument to divide and conquer. Basically because solar owners are a small minority, blaming all the fixed costs problem on them is an easier way to get public support (similar to some EV fee policies vs gas taxes). However, although some people have bought into that hook line and sinker, I'm not sure the strategy has worked that well. Even the people that have bought into it are not enthusiastic enough about the issue to bother making comments to CPUC in support of NEM 3.0, so in the end the overwhelming response from actual members of the public end up being solar owners.

 

[STS-134]

That's not going to work for most people. Rates need to be predictable over a period of at least 1-3 months and it's the utility's job to smooth out those instantaneous variations. Today, prices only systematically vary by Summer / Winter but then have rate changes 3-6 times per year. They could go to a model where the prices are fixed for a quarter, one month before that quarter begins. Of course, that means that the utility needs to reconcile how their costs matched the forecast and adjust accordingly.

Real time rates should only be for individuals or businesses that have the ability to respond to those rates and have a mechanism for receiving the data.

Every time there's a crunch and reserves dip too low, it is because of the lack of a feedback mechanism. High prices should lower demand and resolve the shortage. This doesn't currently happen because the prices are fixed while the demand varies according to weather. And the supply isn't fixed either; it varies according to how many generating stations are working, how much wind and solar there is, etc. As long as I know what the rates will be at least an hour or two in advance, I can easily respond to any changes in pricing.

 

[holeydonut]

Hahaha, SDG&E just submitted a +18% rate increase for 2024 (compared to 2023 levels) for Non-CARE customers. And this will not change no matter what NEM 3.0 fixed costs fee comes in. But so many non-solar customers think their rates will come down if "rich solar jerks" get their just desserts under NEM 3.0.

SDG&E 2024 General Rate Case | San Diego Gas & Electric

www.sdge.com

Also, SDG&E Non-CARE rates from 2022 to 2023 are also projected to go up like 10% for the portion unrelated to commodity prices. So someone who doesn't have solar can take their bill today and just x 1.25 to it and that'll be a rough approximation of what they'll be paying in 2024. No wonder the IOUs want to kill residential solar. Going solar has been the only way to dodge this BS.

The IOUs have convinced many that "solar is the problem". It's too bad the CPUC won't view the way these IOUs conduct business in their legacy, wasteful manner as "the problem". It was too easy for the IOUs to scapegoat California Homeowners as "the problem."

 

[Big Dog]

Hahaha, SDG&E just submitted a +18% rate increase for 2024 (compared to 2023 levels) for Non-CARE customers. And this will not change no matter what NEM 3.0 fixed costs fee comes in. But so many non-solar customers think their rates will come down if "rich solar jerks" get their just desserts under NEM 3.0.

SDG&E 2024 General Rate Case | San Diego Gas & Electric

www.sdge.com

Also, SDG&E Non-CARE rates from 2022 to 2023 are also projected to go up like 10% for the portion unrelated to commodity prices. So someone who doesn't have solar can take their bill today and just x 1.25 to it and that'll be a rough approximation of what they'll be paying in 2024. No wonder the IOUs want to kill residential solar. Going solar has been the only way to dodge this BS.

The IOUs have convinced many that "solar is the problem". It's too bad the CPUC won't view the way these IOUs conduct business in their legacy, wasteful manner as "the problem". It was too easy for the IOUs to scapegoat California Homeowners as "the problem."

Never gonna happen. Just the opposite. Inefficient (aka wasteful) ops just means a reason for bigger budgets and bigger budgets mean more money for 'politically favored' projects. Nobody is watching the spendthrift henhouse by design.

Wrt to the recent application for an 18% increase. It's all for show. SDG&E probably only "needs" 5-7%, but they ask for 18%, so PUC can cut that application in half and approve only 9-10%. Win-win.

 

[miimura]

Every time there's a crunch and reserves dip too low, it is because of the lack of a feedback mechanism. High prices should lower demand and resolve the shortage. This doesn't currently happen because the prices are fixed while the demand varies according to weather. And the supply isn't fixed either; it varies according to how many generating stations are working, how much wind and solar there is, etc. As long as I know what the rates will be at least an hour or two in advance, I can easily respond to any changes in pricing.

While I agree that you should have the option to respond to demand and pay real time rates, the reality is that most people cannot make meaningful changes to their usage. I think the right answer is the direction that the CPUC is already going with Demand programs that are triggered during Flex Alert events. Pay $1/kWh for either curtailed usage or battery export during these events. I would happily discharge my batteries into such an event with that level of compensation - basically $0.50/kWh for normal tariff NEM credits and $0.50/kWh for demand response credit.

 

[sunwarriors]

Hahaha, SDG&E just submitted a +18% rate increase for 2024 (compared to 2023 levels) for Non-CARE customers. And this will not change no matter what NEM 3.0 fixed costs fee comes in. But so many non-solar customers think their rates will come down if "rich solar jerks" get their just desserts under NEM 3.0.

SDG&E 2024 General Rate Case | San Diego Gas & Electric

www.sdge.com

Also, SDG&E Non-CARE rates from 2022 to 2023 are also projected to go up like 10% for the portion unrelated to commodity prices. So someone who doesn't have solar can take their bill today and just x 1.25 to it and that'll be a rough approximation of what they'll be paying in 2024. No wonder the IOUs want to kill residential solar. Going solar has been the only way to dodge this BS.

The IOUs have convinced many that "solar is the problem". It's too bad the CPUC won't view the way these IOUs conduct business in their legacy, wasteful manner as "the problem". It was too easy for the IOUs to scapegoat California Homeowners as "the problem."

This was 1 reason I got batteries for me. For all we know, on-peak pricing can be some insane $50/kWh. If it's night, without solar, you're pretty much stuck with whatever the IOU charges. You have no protection at all, and batteries provide some protection. Of course, $50 is crazy, but some would say we're already in crazy pricing when folks have $500 bills/month.

I've also felt that the IOUs know the majority of people don't have energy storage and only solar so I think on-peak pricing (4-9pm when solar slows down) rates will be raised a ton and there's little non-storage folks can do about it.

I think the CPUC just rubber stamps everything so I could see them getting what they want. On the plus side, we tend to rarely/never get power outages here in SD and if these increases are to pay for some capital project, it seems easier for them to convince the CPUC who'll stamp it anyways. Sorta like your manager who always has your back, the CPUC has the IOUs back.

Add in folks getting their first EV and you now have folks even on NEM1.0 wondering why they are using so much power if they had to commute 60 miles a day. Since NEM1.0, charging off hours isn't going to help.

The class warfare argument has always been a scam since I think we'd all agree that even without solar, all our rates would've increased (it's how those companies profit so why wouldn't they do more capital projects?).

 

[holeydonut]

The class warfare argument has always been a scam since I think we'd all agree that even without solar, all our rates would've increased (it's how those companies profit so why wouldn't they do more capital projects?).

The entire IOU value proposition is a scam lol. Over the last 100 years, if they were incentivized to run "the grid" as a normal business, they would have had to make changes and improve over time. They would have found things that weren't working and adopted those resources into things that were setting them up for future success. But instead, the IOUs were dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way since they'd fight any activity that actually makes them more efficient or more modern. And now the IOUs are the lifeblood of so many careers, industries, and politicians that the IOUs retain broad support with policymakers.

I 100% agree that NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0 aren't right for the future. With the reality that the IOUs are completely screwed (and will remain screwed for the next century since they resist change)... we need some NEM reform.

But the IOU joint proposal and CPUC PD was off-the-scale messed up. Almost every person here who did some basic what-if came to the same conclusion. That a solar+ess system with NEM 3.0 in play was better off not grid exporting. Somehow a homeowner becomes economically disadvantaged to have any solar or ESS export touch the grid and get hit with the GBC or NBCs on the return trip. The future NEM 3.0 solar+ess system would be only valuable to the extent energy could be produced and stored/used on site. Anything else leaving that home was a net negative to the homeowner.

How could the CPUC have missed this? They have gigabytes worth of stupid azz spreadsheets on the avoided cost, NPV on blah blah. And they couldn't do the simple math? It takes randoms on a web forum to determine a homeowner was better off simply making their solar systems not-grid-export and therefore duck the GBC?

This isn't the same as what Australians experienced where their panels were remotely de-activated during times with too much solar.

Authorities remotely switch off thousands of SA home solar panels due to lack of power grid demand

Energy authorities in SA use new solar switch-off powers for the first time, remotely cutting output from thousands of rooftop units during "near-record minimum demand" to maintain the stability of the grid.

www.abc.net.au

This is a situation where you're going to have homes literally incentivized to permanently isolate their solar from the grid to avoid fees/taxes. It's mind boggling how regressive this is to the concept of renewables in California. I forget who said it here, but if you have a lot of people ducking NEM all together and simply using solar to reduce net grid imports... then the next step for the utilities would be to complain that folks who reduce usage aren't paying their fair share. So any big home that has little usage will be penalized with more fees just for existing.

 

[STS-134]

This isn't the same as what Australians experienced where their panels were remotely de-activated during times with too much solar.

Authorities remotely switch off thousands of SA home solar panels due to lack of power grid demand

Energy authorities in SA use new solar switch-off powers for the first time, remotely cutting output from thousands of rooftop units during "near-record minimum demand" to maintain the stability of the grid.

www.abc.net.au

That's just stupid, and can also be solved with dynamic pricing. Announce that electricity is either extremely cheap or free and watch as people turn or shift usage of pool pumps, HVAC systems, and start charging their cars.

 

[holeydonut]

That's just stupid, and can also be solved with dynamic pricing. Announce that electricity is either extremely cheap or free and watch as people turn or shift usage of pool pumps, HVAC systems, and start charging their cars.

But who is going to pay the fixed costs of the grid if all that kWh was "free"? har har har