CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[holeydonut]

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.

View attachment 805685

Unfortunately @BGbreeder didn't try to play my sad little game on guessing the costs PG&E is incurring to help people who live in rural / fire prone areas specific to just two programs (the WMP 2020-2022 and the upcoming underground power lines thing.)

Anyway, PG&E projects the WMP 2020-2022 will have cost $15 Billion by the end of 2022. And, the proposed underground burying project is $2.5m x 10,000 miles = $25 Billion. The GRC necessary to fund the underground power lines thing has a ton of support, because PG&E says it's necessary and nobody can find a reasonable alternative. Maybe some folks will challenge the $2.5mm per mile, but the project is going to eventually happen.

So that's $40 Billion of costs being incurred due to folks in one type of area that is being shifted onto other rate payers who won't see much individual benefit relative to what they paid. And by PG&E's own studies, the high-fire-risk / rural comprise about 25% of their rate payers (see below). So 75% are paying for investment that is being shifted elsewhere.

But you know what? There is no outcry of "fair share" from the city dwellers. Folks in the Counties Marin, SF, Contra Costs, Alameda, and Santa Clara are going to pay billions, but PG&E won't hardly do anything to help people living there with the extra money. However, PG&E and policymakers aren't stoking the flames of BS to pit urban vs rural. If the grid is a public good, then there's always a cost shift, and it's just a cost to being part of the system. So we live with it.

As a total population of all Californians, we would wish that PG&E would efficiently and intelligently deploy capital to service needs. Unfortunately, it's been proven time and time again how inefficient/wasteful PG&E is.

The Joint IOU's (PG&E + SCE + SDG&E) were successful splitting the ratepayers into complaining about a $3 Billion cost shift due to solar NEM, so they could try to kill residential solar. $3 is less than $40 amirite? But discussing cost shift of the $40 doesn't help the IOU's, so they don't stoke the flames.

Pitting ratepayers against one another on NEM benefit the IOU agenda; but was a detriment to ratepayers because it takes away one of their means to try and reduce their own homeowner costs while simultaneously helping us reach our state renewables goal. Unfortunately, many rate payers fell into this hook line and sinker. The entire NEM 3.0 cost shift crap is a strawman and completely BS. The "wah wah wah fixed costs fixed costs wah wah wah" is beyond lame. But it is so easy to push this agenda onto unsuspecting folks who don't have enough transparency to see the forest for the trees. Bottom line, we need PG&E to be smarter about where it puts its dollars; not complaining about who is paying their fair share.

Edit, sorry the pictures didn't come through correctly.

 

[miimura]

Growth "in lands previously undeveloped and bordering fire prone wildland areas" should pay for their own underground power lines as a part of their development costs. If it's prohibitively expensive for those developers, perhaps they should not develop those areas.

Yes, I am against the cost shift from rural and wildfire prone areas to us "city dwellers".

 

[holeydonut]

Growth "in lands previously undeveloped and bordering fire prone wildland areas" should pay for their own underground power lines as a part of their development costs. If it's prohibitively expensive for those developers, perhaps they should not develop those areas.

Yes, I am against the cost shift from rural and wildfire prone areas to us "city dwellers".

I guess you should attend the next NEM proceeding and let them know the $3Bn NEM cost shift is peanuts compared to this rural vs urban cost shift. Maybe you can ask for solar customers in high fire risk regions to pay $200 per kW per month in fees while the sub/urban ones pay $0.50 per kW per month. So the rural solar customers pay their fair share for the rural grid.

"Fair Share" and "Grid Benefits" for all.

 

[STS-134]

I guess you should attend the next NEM proceeding and let them know the $3Bn NEM cost shift is peanuts compared to this rural vs urban cost shift. Maybe you can ask for solar customers in high fire risk regions to pay $200 per kW per month in fees while the sub/urban ones pay $0.50 per kW per month. So the rural solar customers pay their fair share for the rural grid.

"Fair Share" and "Grid Benefits" for all.

Nah. But if all of them have to pay a $500 monthly fee just for grid access because their house needs 2 miles of transmission lines maintained just to serve them, they should be charged that amount. Urban customers should not have to be paying for this.

 

[holeydonut]

My point about this urban/rural shift wasn’t to make everyone start wanting rural people to pay their fair share. It was to point out how the grid itself is “unfair”…

And it’s not wise to single out one cost-shift around solar as a way to torpedo an entire industry of clean energy jobs just because it was a challenge to PG&E’s monopoly. Just like it isn't wise to bicker over what a rural person is paying. We should all be banded together sticking it to PG&E to shape up and get their costs under control. Not arguing amongst ourselves over who is paying what is "fair" of those costs.

NEM 3.0 could have been a gradual easement to long term success. But the IOU’s used the $3Bn shift to just launch torpedoes and try to kill edit: residential solar with whack fixed costs + the ACC.

Fair share = red herring

 

[miimura]

My point about this urban/rural shift wasn’t to make everyone start wanting rural people to pay their fair share. It was to point out how the grid itself is “unfair”…

And it’s not wise to single out one cost-shift around solar as a way to torpedo an entire industry of clean energy jobs just because it was a challenge to PG&E’s monopoly. Just like it isn't wise to bicker over what a rural person is paying. We should all be banded together sticking it to PG&E to shape up and get their costs under control. Not arguing amongst ourselves over who is paying what is "fair" of those costs.

NEM 3.0 could have been a gradual easement to long term success. But the IOU’s used the $3Bn shift to just launch torpedoes and try to kill edit: residential solar with whack fixed costs + the ACC.

Fair share = red herring

I agree 100%. I was exaggerating for dramatic effect. When you have a territory as large as PG&E it will never really be "fair" to everyone. However, I wonder how rural co-ops are able to serve their members with affordable electricity and IOU's can't. I mean besides the obvious answer that they're greedy b*tards.

 

[BGbreeder]

Just a point on undergrounding powerlines; it is a capital expenditure, so PG&E benefits from the cost plus nature of it. Total boondoggle in my opinion. I believe that the more cost effective, and I think effective, way is more sectionalizing equipment that shuts the grid off before the fires start. (Think grid sized arc fault breakers). San Diego used it to cut their fires by a factor of ten, at a much lower cost.

For those of you who haven't done it, when you do build in a new/remote area, you pay 100% of whatever the utility says is the cost to run power to you from the nearest service point that has access/easements. So, everybody is equal, suburban developers pay to run power in a subdivision. You sometimes are allowed to used approved contractors to the utility specifications, but not always.

PG&E is overdue for new owners and management in my estimation.

All the best,

BG

 

[holeydonut]

I agree 100%. I was exaggerating for dramatic effect. When you have a territory as large as PG&E it will never really be "fair" to everyone. However, I wonder how rural co-ops are able to serve their members with affordable electricity and IOU's can't. I mean besides the obvious answer that they're greedy b*tards.

Lol @ohmman gave you a thumbs up. Maybe he doesn’t like the fire-prone-out-in-burnsville cost shift.

 

[sunwarriors]

I think actually not having the IOUs would be in the public interest (I do not think IOUs are doing anything for anyone elses benefit and we're in the mess because of their greed/profit motive/shareholders/monopoly/lack of choice/etc). As I have stopped responding to Zabe directly anymore (pointless), maybe we can just wait to see what is actually proposed.

Life is clearly not fair. Being in the US/any major developed country alone makes you better off than probably what, 30% of people in less fortunate areas.

I don't see any real good way to fix this IMO. If NEM3.0 is too draconian like the original terms, we'll see a ton of lost jobs in CA, new homes will not install solar even though it's mandated by the state because there is now, 0 benefit (that law can be voided I think if that's the case).

At the end of the day, it's simply two sides with totally different motives. Folks with solar are willing to put up $$ now and have more control and not be robbed even more by IOUs. IOUs want you to have no control and take as much $$ from you as they can while they can.

When push comes to shove and if it gets impossible to live with IOUs, I think technology will improve and people of means will simply seriously leave the IOUs. Maybe like many places in So Cal where you aren't required to have real lawns anymore even though 10-20 years ago, it was needed to keep the "look" of your community. I'd like to see our solar systems have the ability to turn off any exporting. See how the IOUs like it if solar customers decided to just take their ball (energy) and go home during peak summer with lots of sun.

Maybe in a few years, I'll get a generator that can run natural gas/diesel and use that to charge the batteries on cloudy days like today...That and get another couple of batteries maybe.

 

[STS-134]

I don't see any real good way to fix this IMO.

Eminent domain. Seize the grid and have the state operate it. Disband the IOUs.

 

[Zabe]

I think actually not having the IOUs would be in the public interest (I do not think IOUs are doing anything for anyone elses benefit and we're in the mess because of their greed/profit motive/shareholders/monopoly/lack of choice/etc). As I have stopped responding to Zabe directly anymore (pointless), maybe we can just wait to see what is actually proposed.

Life is clearly not fair. Being in the US/any major developed country alone makes you better off than probably what, 30% of people in less fortunate areas.

I don't see any real good way to fix this IMO. If NEM3.0 is too draconian like the original terms, we'll see a ton of lost jobs in CA, new homes will not install solar even though it's mandated by the state because there is now, 0 benefit (that law can be voided I think if that's the case).

At the end of the day, it's simply two sides with totally different motives. Folks with solar are willing to put up $$ now and have more control and not be robbed even more by IOUs. IOUs want you to have no control and take as much $$ from you as they can while they can.

When push comes to shove and if it gets impossible to live with IOUs, I think technology will improve and people of means will simply seriously leave the IOUs. Maybe like many places in So Cal where you aren't required to have real lawns anymore even though 10-20 years ago, it was needed to keep the "look" of your community. I'd like to see our solar systems have the ability to turn off any exporting. See how the IOUs like it if solar customers decided to just take their ball (energy) and go home during peak summer with lots of sun.

Maybe in a few years, I'll get a generator that can run natural gas/diesel and use that to charge the batteries on cloudy days like today...That and get another couple of batteries maybe.

Another bogus argument. You are not leaving the IOU's by turning off exports. Disconnection is leaving, good luck with that.

 

[miimura]

Eminent domain. Seize the grid and have the state operate it. Disband the IOUs.

The PG&E Bankruptcy proceeding was the perfect opportunity for the State to take over the utility and it didn't happen. Likely because of utility lobbying efforts. If the State tried to Eminent Domain the grid, it would be tied up in lawsuits forever.

 

[Big Dog]

The PG&E Bankruptcy proceeding was the perfect opportunity for the State to take over the utility and it didn't happen. Likely because of utility lobbying efforts....

Which is and has always been my point. Everyone loves to bash PG&E (with good reason), but the State Pols clearly prefer to keep them in charge. And it works. Sacto has delegated running-the-show to PG&E management so everyone --- like most on the blog -- will blame Corp management, which leaves Sacto's hands clean. If State voters would hold their local elected Reps accountable, change would happen. But we voters don't, so State government and all that it controls, is lacking efficiency by design (or purposeful neglect).

PG&E is the perfect scapegoat bcos they can't push back.

 

[sunwarriors]

Which is and has always been my point. Everyone loves to bash PG&E (with good reason), but the State Pols clearly prefer to keep them in charge. And it works. Sacto has delegated running-the-show to PG&E management so everyone --- like most on the blog -- will blame Corp management, which leaves Sacto's hands clean. If State voters would hold their local elected Reps accountable, change would happen. But we voters don't, so State government and all that it controls, is lacking efficiency by design (or purposeful neglect).

PG&E is the perfect scapegoat bcos they can't push back.

This is why my point and suggestion points back to going local, kick large IOUs to the curb and manage it in city. A lot of the decent small energy ones seem to be city ran with lower rates, etc.

This is where large government regulating you from far away (Sacramento for all of CA) and massive IOUs isn't a benefit to anyone. As for politicians, I think higher up political office is just so unproductive. It's too expensive without all the $$ needed to win and you pretty much have to belong to one of the 2 major political parties. A lot, maybe all politicians take $$ from special interests so it's not as simple as blaming elected officials because I'd assume any high up politician sold something to someone to even get elected to begin with. Without that $$, someone simply won't win.

Spinning up a coal or heavy polluting power plant isn't going to happen, but massive solar arrays in some citys with large energy storage as well as maybe incentives locally to get generators could solve some locations I think. If they don't want to do it in a centralized location, homeowners can foot the bill like they do now, and offer to export at retail rates to HELP their local community when there is less sun or not enough. Own/maintain their own powerlines and kick the IOU to the curb and out of your town.

 

[yblaser]

Which is and has always been my point. Everyone loves to bash PG&E (with good reason), but the State Pols clearly prefer to keep them in charge. And it works. Sacto has delegated running-the-show to PG&E management so everyone --- like most on the blog -- will blame Corp management, which leaves Sacto's hands clean. If State voters would hold their local elected Reps accountable, change would happen. But we voters don't, so State government and all that it controls, is lacking efficiency by design (or purposeful neglect).

PG&E is the perfect scapegoat bcos they can't push back.

Seems like a fundamental issue with representative democracy. There are hundreds of policy positions and a couple of viable candidates. Better regulation of the IOUs is probably not on the top of most voters policy priorities (except @holeydonut of course) even though most would agree on theory. Voters choose based on a handful of policy priorities and with the increased polarization between the parties and electorate it makes it even harder to breakthrough on an issue like this even if there is broad bipartisan support.

 

[Patrick66]

My point about this wasn’t ... It was to point out how the grid itself is “unfair”…

Worse! The Grid itself is Socialist!!

Which, when you actually get down to the need for solutions is why eminant domain and local energy cooperatives are really the only realistic solution for Rural and ExUrban California. Do community/neighborhood level microgrids with solar and and battery (at a minimum) and a smaller grid connection for buy/sell and you have a winning plan. The cost is lower for everybody in the end and the system is significantly more efficient and reliable.

 

[holeydonut]

Alrighty... so it's obvious that I dislike PG&E and wish (keyword is "wish") they would be broken apart and better managed to incentivize efficient operations in lieu of "maximize total profit dollars". But as we've seen with the recent bankruptcy proceeding; when there was an opportunity to make meaningful change to the concept of PG&E, nothing happened. We didn't see much change there since change for things as large and insidious as "the grid" take time. There simply isn't a "boil the ocean" approach to addressing policy around the IOUs. Progress takes time and effort... which is slow and painful.

Unfortunately, the only major change was a new mindset to address wildfire risk; which is shaping up to actually cost billions extra rate-payer-dollars in the coming years. Most Californian homeowners probably wanted to see something new that would represent a novel approach the IOUs, grid efficiency, or ISOs. Personally, I think California ratepayers would benefit with performance based regulation (PBR)... but I'll discuss more about this later.

First, I want to address why the IOUs and their proponents frequently use statements that resonate along the lines of "if you don't like the IOUs, you can just leave... good luck with that." This is because to the IOUs, there is no room for marginal improvement or change. They view any change as an assault against them, and fight anything that would be a compromise for our mutual benefit. On one hand, they present the extreme of the IOUs vanishing overnight which they paint to be dire and untenable. And on the other hand, they present the option for the homeowner to defect... which is almost impossible for most of us. Given these two choices, the IOUs assert to the homeowner that the best option is to fall in line and allow the IOUs and their terrible infrastructure keep doing what they've been doing all along unabated.

Please be aware that this approach is the typical tactic used by passive aggressive abusers. PG&E literally uses the same tactics an abusive spouse may use against a family member or an abusive employer uses against an employee "If you don't like it, then leave" implies the status quo is the only option next to 100% defection; and there is no room for marginal change/improvement. If you're a homeowner who wants to make a difference; do not fall for this abusive trap. There are outlets where you can influence for positive change in the situation you're in. If you hear someone say "if you don't like it then leave" ... do not play into their games. Instead, realize the bully tactic and work around it.

So, now that you realize you're in a rather abusive relationship with your IOU... please don't just shrug and give up or play into the abuse of thinking your only next step is to try and defect from the grid. Here are some options:

1) As TMC users in this sub are aware, (since most have solar and ESS)... There are a lot of clean energy companies (eg the SEIA and CALSSA members) that are trying to give homeowners direct interaction to manage their own energy footprint. Please continue to support and invest in their products and services.

2) There are advocacy groups like TURN, Clean Coalition, the Solar Rights Alliance, Environment California (and many others) who you can donate to.

3) Look for legislation that you think interests you... and get it in front of your reps. For example... here's a Transmission Access proposal to address why your transmission costs are > generation costs (which are already really expensive).

Transmission Access Charges - Clean Coalition

clean-coalition.org

4) Hopefully someone here can help me to learn more about how to drive this issue ... but there once was a push for "performance based regulation" or PBR. This link is worth a read if you're into energy policy.

https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/files/uploadedfiles/cpuc_public_website/content/about_us/history/aas-pbr-paper-final-may-16.pdf

TLDR of this document:

Performance-based regulation (PBR) has been implemented in many natural monopoly industries as an alternative to Cost-of-service-regulation (COSR). PBR mechanisms are designed to control costs by overcoming the information asymmetries between regulators and firms. To accomplish this goal, PBR mechanisms establish an exogenously benchmarked price- or revenue-cap. If utilities are able to identify cost savings, then they may earn a higher return. On the other hand, if utilities exceed their revenue-cap, then they will incur losses. This combination of an upside and downside replicates the market discipline of a firm that faces competition.

As you can imagine, the CPUC at the time filed this in the garbage bin and said "we looked, but it won't work sorry." But I'm interested to learn if there's any initiative moving in this area since I think this one could have the most impact in the long term.


Good luck. Things won't get better overnight, but caring is better than buying into the "just defect if you don't like it" mindset.

 

[getakey]

I saw this posted on NextDoor. Apologize if it has been posted before

Just received this from the Solar Alliance Group: ======================= Despite clear public opposition to a Solar Tax and to making solar unaffordable, the CPUC announced last week that they are still considering a Solar Tax of between $300 to $600 per year for the average solar user, while also slashing the credit for the solar energy sent back to the grid.
Because we were so successful at stopping their first Solar Tax, the CPUC is now trying to hide the ball by calling the tax by a different name. Their latest idea is to tax the solar energy you produce and use at home. The less energy you buy from the utility because of your solar, the higher the tax. This is like taxing people who hang-dry their clothing instead of running the dryer. It's absurd, it's intrusive, and it violates every principle of conservation and responsible citizenship.
It contradicts everything the Newsom Administration says it is for: solving climate change, promoting clean energy, making solar more equitable, and keeping the lights on. We are also quite sure it is illegal. But, unless we speak out forcefully against this new Solar Tax proposal, it may very well become the new reality in California. Earlier this year, your voice helped to defeat the CPUC's first Solar Tax.
We need your voice again, as loud as ever:
1) Attend a Don't Tax the Sun Rally on June 2nd in Los Angeles or San Francisco. The events will be held in conjunction with the June 2 meeting of the CPUC. Our goal is create the largest ever submission of live and video-recorded public comments in CPUC history. We need thousands to show up. RSVP for Don't Tax the Sun - Los Angeles - Gather with thousands of solar supporters at Grand Park in LA to make sure the CPUC hears from SoCal! The day will kick off with powerful speakers followed by an opportunity for all attendees to record a short video and submit it to the CPUC and the Governor. We’ll also have food trucks, sign making stations, information booths, and other activities for everyone. RSVP for Don't Tax the Sun - San Francisco - Look the CPUC in the eye and tell them what you think in person on June 2nd! We will kick it off with a rally on the steps of the CPUC, and then help you sign up and speak directly to the CPUC. And, of course, we'll have refreshments! Bonus: All attendees will get a red “Don’t Tax the Sun” and “Stop the Solar Tax” t-shirt along with a sticker that reads, “I testified against the Solar Tax!”
2) Please call Governor Newsom right now at 916-445-2841. His office is open Monday - Friday 9-5. Say your name and where you live. Here's a suggested message: "The CPUC's latest rooftop solar plan is as bad as their first proposal. California should not tax the sun, period. We need more solar, not less. Gov. Newsom must show leadership, right now."
3) Spread the word, however it makes sense for you. Forward this email, make a flyer for your neighbors, post on NextDoor or other social media, whatever works. More detail about the CPUC's new Solar Tax and their plan to send rooftop solar off a cliff. While it totally stinks that we have to keep fighting to stop the CPUC from taxing the Sun, do not be discouraged. They are testing the public to see if they can be tricked or worn down. Let's show them that every time they try that, we fight back even harder.
Thank you for all you do, -- Dave Rosenfeld, Executive Director

P.S. If you are planning to vote in next month's state primary election, you may want to look up how your local candidates for State Legislature responded to our Rooftop Solar Candidate Questionnaire.

 

[holeydonut]

I saw this posted on NextDoor. Apologize if it has been posted before

Just received this from the Solar Alliance Group: ======================= Despite clear public opposition to a Solar Tax and to making solar unaffordable, the CPUC announced last week that they are still considering a Solar Tax of between $300 to $600 per year for the average solar user, while also slashing the credit for the solar energy sent back to the grid.
Because we were so successful at stopping their first Solar Tax, the CPUC is now trying to hide the ball by calling the tax by a different name. Their latest idea is to tax the solar energy you produce and use at home. The less energy you buy from the utility because of your solar, the higher the tax. This is like taxing people who hang-dry their clothing instead of running the dryer. It's absurd, it's intrusive, and it violates every principle of conservation and responsible citizenship.
It contradicts everything the Newsom Administration says it is for: solving climate change, promoting clean energy, making solar more equitable, and keeping the lights on. We are also quite sure it is illegal. But, unless we speak out forcefully against this new Solar Tax proposal, it may very well become the new reality in California. Earlier this year, your voice helped to defeat the CPUC's first Solar Tax.
We need your voice again, as loud as ever:
1) Attend a Don't Tax the Sun Rally on June 2nd in Los Angeles or San Francisco. The events will be held in conjunction with the June 2 meeting of the CPUC. Our goal is create the largest ever submission of live and video-recorded public comments in CPUC history. We need thousands to show up. RSVP for Don't Tax the Sun - Los Angeles - Gather with thousands of solar supporters at Grand Park in LA to make sure the CPUC hears from SoCal! The day will kick off with powerful speakers followed by an opportunity for all attendees to record a short video and submit it to the CPUC and the Governor. We’ll also have food trucks, sign making stations, information booths, and other activities for everyone. RSVP for Don't Tax the Sun - San Francisco - Look the CPUC in the eye and tell them what you think in person on June 2nd! We will kick it off with a rally on the steps of the CPUC, and then help you sign up and speak directly to the CPUC. And, of course, we'll have refreshments! Bonus: All attendees will get a red “Don’t Tax the Sun” and “Stop the Solar Tax” t-shirt along with a sticker that reads, “I testified against the Solar Tax!”
2) Please call Governor Newsom right now at 916-445-2841. His office is open Monday - Friday 9-5. Say your name and where you live. Here's a suggested message: "The CPUC's latest rooftop solar plan is as bad as their first proposal. California should not tax the sun, period. We need more solar, not less. Gov. Newsom must show leadership, right now."
3) Spread the word, however it makes sense for you. Forward this email, make a flyer for your neighbors, post on NextDoor or other social media, whatever works. More detail about the CPUC's new Solar Tax and their plan to send rooftop solar off a cliff. While it totally stinks that we have to keep fighting to stop the CPUC from taxing the Sun, do not be discouraged. They are testing the public to see if they can be tricked or worn down. Let's show them that every time they try that, we fight back even harder.
Thank you for all you do, -- Dave Rosenfeld, Executive Director

P.S. If you are planning to vote in next month's state primary election, you may want to look up how your local candidates for State Legislature responded to our Rooftop Solar Candidate Questionnaire.

I think you mean the solar rights alliance...

Don't Tax the Sun Rallies

secure.everyaction.com

 

[charlesj]

...

2) There are advocacy groups like TURN, ...

When did TURN favor solar and battery? They are in favor of NEM3 when I called them so I cx'd my membership. They think they are defending the poor non solar households.
Give them a call; perhaps they changed their errors of their way?