CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[Southpasfan]

I'm going to say this again, this doesn't have to be that complicated. They need to throw out the old rate structures and have rate structures based on actual costs instead of artificially constructed rate structures if they expect credibility in the future.

Have a fixed residential connection fee for everyone regardless of what other forms of energy conservation or production they have. The connection fee structure should be directly related to what drives the IOU costs (peak power consumption, whatever). An additional fee should be added to the connection fee to subsidize those that would be regressively impacted by a fixed connection fee.

Have energy charges structured so they reflect the actual costs of providing energy during the different periods of the day, weekends, etc. An additional fee based on consumption from the grid should be added to subsidize those regressively impacted by the energy charges.

Have credit for energy sent to grid based on how much it would cost to get the energy from other sources during the time the energy is being provided to the grid.

If this rate structure doesn't provide enough incentive for customers to install renewable energy generators and storage then provide incentives from the general fund (renewable energy benefits everyone) or an additional fee on the energy charges. Any fees for incentives, subsidies, etc., should be listed separately on the bills for transparency.

I don't see how this could be considered unfair.

Its only complicated because right now the cost of everything other than electricity (I call it "the grid") is over 90% of everyone's bill.

As a result, heavy users are subsidizing the grid to an extent the IOUs want to hide at all costs. Its amazing the arguments out there, including stuff like allocating the entire cost of peak plants to peak times!

A rate structure which allocates costs of the grid pro rata would results in higher bills for like 60 to 70% of all users, they will never do it.

You are correct in that if they redo it there will be no incentive for renewable energy, that's for sure.

I see throwing out the old rate structure as the key first step, for sure.

 

[RKCRLR]

Its only complicated because right now the cost of everything other than electricity (I call it "the grid") is over 90% of everyone's bill.

As a result, heavy users are subsidizing the grid to an extent the IOUs want to hide at all costs. Its amazing the arguments out there, including stuff like allocating the entire cost of peak plants to peak times!

A rate structure which allocates costs of the grid pro rata would results in higher bills for like 60 to 70% of all users, they will never do it.

You are correct in that if they redo it there will be no incentive for renewable energy, that's for sure.

I see throwing out the old rate structure as the key first step, for sure.

If the grid costs are that high then there is something wrong with how they are maintaining the grid.
The way I read it, Truckee Donner PUD charges a $21.33 connection charge and $0.1417/kWh. This is in a rural area of California with high fire danger. If they can maintain the grid for those rates then so should PG&E. I realize their energy charge is lower because their power comes from coal but I don't see a reason PG&E infrastructure costs should be so much higher than theirs (other than inefficiencies).

Rates | Truckee Donner Public Utility District

If the IOU grid costs are really so much higher and they can't control it then people should have the option to be grid defectors. At some point the increased costs from the IOUs could justify the cost of becoming self-sufficient. Yes, that will mean backup generators for most people.

 

[Southpasfan]

If the grid costs are that high then there is something wrong with how they are maintaining the grid.
The way I read it, Truckee Donner PUD charges a $21.33 connection charge and $0.1417/kWh. This is in a rural area of California with high fire danger. If they can maintain the grid for those rates then so should PG&E. I realize their energy charge is lower because their power comes from coal but I don't see a reason PG&E infrastructure costs should be so much higher than theirs (other than inefficiencies).

Rates | Truckee Donner Public Utility District

If the IOU grid costs are really so much higher and they can't control it then people should have the option to be grid defectors. At some point the increased costs from the IOUs could justify the cost of becoming self-sufficient. Yes, that will mean backup generators for most people.

The way I am calculating grid costs is that if you look at CAISO the wholesale price of electricity at production is 3 cents per kwh non peak rising to 6 cents peak.

That's across the entire western U.S.

So, out of, let's say, LADWPs' very reasonable 20 cents per kwh 17 cents is for everything other than the electricity, or 85%.

I have no idea what the IOUs are doing when they charge like 40 cents peak on a 6 cent cost.

Now, some people, even, say Gabe, have said that IOUs have other transmission costs which are things like decomissioning a nuclear plant or something.

I agree with you in that I don't get it. Truckee Donner probably has those charges, because, like LADWP, they have a small district.

My only point is that CAISO doesn't lie. Anyone who thinks that the utilities are going to stop at some $20 connection charge when installing solar deprives them of like $300 per month of revenue that they use for the grid I just think is naive.

You are correct RKCRLR, the whole system of charging needs to be overhauled

 

[getakey]

The way I am calculating grid costs is that if you look at CAISO the wholesale price of electricity at production is 3 cents per kwh non peak rising to 6 cents peak.

That's across the entire western U.S.

So, out of, let's say, LADWPs' very reasonable 20 cents per kwh 17 cents is for everything other than the electricity, or 85%.

I have no idea what the IOUs are doing when they charge like 40 cents peak on a 6 cent cost.

Now, some people, even, say Gabe, have said that IOUs have other transmission costs which are things like decomissioning a nuclear plant or something.

I agree with you in that I don't get it. Truckee Donner probably has those charges, because, like LADWP, they have a small district.

My only point is that CAISO doesn't lie. Anyone who thinks that the utilities are going to stop at some $20 connection charge when installing solar deprives them of like $300 per month of revenue that they use for the grid I just think is naive.

You are correct RKCRLR, the whole system of charging needs to be overhauled

where are you getting the 6 cents at peak price?

 

[Southpasfan]

where are you getting the 6 cents at peak price?

If you log on to CAISO you can see it, its not the most easily accessible website but close.

Today, (at the moment, just logged on) its more like 4 cents to 5.7 cents, since you asked I will log on tonight to see. Maybe slight inflation has hit elecrical energy.

Anyway IOUs price energy as if it was like 20-30 cents per kwh, not always under 10 cents and typically less than 5 cents.

The "demand trends" part of the website is interesting, you can really see how much A/C effects demand by comparing now, with, say May.

 

[getakey]

If you log on to CAISO you can see it, its not the most easily accessible website but close.

Today, (at the moment, just logged on) its more like 4 cents to 5.7 cents, since you asked I will log on tonight to see. Maybe slight inflation has hit elecrical energy.

Anyway IOUs price energy as if it was like 20-30 cents per kwh, not always under 10 cents and typically less than 5 cents.

The "demand trends" part of the website is interesting, you can really see how much A/C effects demand by comparing now, with, say May.

right - I look at that site often. But peak prices are usually well above 6 cents

 

[holeydonut]

If you log on to CAISO you can see it, its not the most easily accessible website but close.

Today, (at the moment, just logged on) its more like 4 cents to 5.7 cents, since you asked I will log on tonight to see. Maybe slight inflation has hit elecrical energy.

Anyway IOUs price energy as if it was like 20-30 cents per kwh, not always under 10 cents and typically less than 5 cents.

The "demand trends" part of the website is interesting, you can really see how much A/C effects demand by comparing now, with, say May.

The price the IOU’s pay for energy is oftentimes much higher than the CAISO cost. That’s why I’m always railing on the utility scale PPA’s.

PG&E has billions of forward contracts to buy energy at fixed rates. And PG&E covers some fixed cost allocation of those MWh on top of the underlying commodity.

The generators use these forward contracts to build their projects and get their own fat ROI. Since ratepayers are ultimately the ones to pay the PPA through PG&E’s pass through approach, each PPA agreement is essentially backed by California at large.

With such a steady base of cash flow, the projects enabled by the PPA are usually AAA rated. The PPA’s couldn’t even be restructured when PG&E was bankrupt. This guaranteed revenue stream allows the utility scale generators easy access to lending capital so the generators can make their own sweet profits separately of the standard 13% ROE that PG&E gets.

The utility scale generators do pay for accessing the grid to supply energy, but of course they amortize these costs into the rates charged to PG&E which are then passed to rate payers.

TLDR The CAISO rate you see is just the spot market rate outside of the portion paid by the PPA’s.

 

[Redhill_qik]

The price the IOU’s pay for energy is oftentimes much higher than the CAISO cost. That’s why I’m always railing on the utility scale PPA’s.

PG&E has billions of forward contracts to buy energy at fixed rates. And PG&E covers some fixed cost allocation of those MWh on top of the underlying commodity.

The generators use these forward contracts to build their projects and get their own fat ROI. Since ratepayers are ultimately the ones to pay the PPA through PG&E’s pass through approach, each PPA agreement is essentially backed by California at large.

With such a steady base of cash flow, the projects enabled by the PPA are usually AAA rated. The PPA’s couldn’t even be restructured when PG&E was bankrupt. This guaranteed revenue stream allows the utility scale generators easy access to lending capital so the generators can make their own sweet profits separately of the standard 13% ROE that PG&E gets.

The utility scale generators do pay for accessing the grid to supply energy, but of course they amortize these costs into the rates charged to PG&E which are then passed to rate payers.

TLDR The CAISO rate you see is just the spot market rate outside of the portion paid by the PPA’s.

The weird thing about these PPA contracts is that they must be getting worse rather than better over time based on the PCIA numbers. If you switched to a CCA in 2018 or earlier your PCIA rate is lower than 2019-2022 and those rates are lower than the current unbundled PCIA rate in the latest tariff schedules.

At first glance it seems like mismanagement in the negotiations of these contracts, but there may also be some forced higher rates coming from the CPUC to increase green generation.

 

[holeydonut]

The weird thing about these PPA contracts is that they must be getting worse rather than better over time based on the PCIA numbers. If you switched to a CCA in 2018 or earlier your PCIA rate is lower than 2019-2022 and those rates are lower than the current unbundled PCIA rate in the latest tariff schedules.

At first glance it seems like mismanagement in the negotiations of these contracts, but there may also be some forced higher rates coming from the CPUC to increase green generation.

Yeah, it's a combination of the State's mandates through the OPR; the integrated resource plan and long term resource plan (IRP, LTRP); the GHG cap and trade targets; the CPUC's processes that seem to encourage as much wasteful spending as possible; PG&E's ability to take on the PPAs without consequence since all costs are passed to rate payers; and the CAISO members all having a really exclusive club that helps them get their proposals/grifts approved; and millions of ratepayers stuck footing the bill with no say in the matter.

Feel free to follow CPUC proceeding R2005003 so you can see all the cool activity for how the CPUC will procure 11,500 MW of capacity (with much of this also being paired with energy storage) between 2023 and 2026. I posted about this on page 38 of this megathread, but I doubt anyone here cares lolol.

CPUC Orders Clean Energy Procurement To Ensure Electric Grid Reliability

www.cpuc.ca.gov

As you are well aware by now, the CPUC wants this future investment to come from utility scale operators funneling through the established regimes. The CPUC has planned for a very small incremental contribution to come from future residential solar+ESS installs. Basically the residents and ratepayers need to help fund all this; they shall not be part of the future energy solution except for providing the dollars.

So... let me know how you feel about the whole energy BS once you dig into how future generation is planned, subsidized, and managed. All with the amazingly cool energy markets in play and an aging/destructive grid moving the electrons around. The only solution the entire energy industry has accepted is that rate payers will keep on paying more and more and more to keep this beast alive. They want all the money and decision making going toward the few who have mastered playing this game.

All the while... those IOUs and utility generators will keep saying it's losers like myself (solar and Powerwalls) who are the problem.

 

[Southpasfan]

PS: I guess I should go by CAISO more often, as it looks like gas pricing caused a 50% increase starting last quarter, which is why instead of 3 cents during solar peak its 4 point something.

Incredibly, now that gas plants are kicking it, I see prices over 10 cents per kwh.

 

[getakey]

if you look now, it is jumping past 15 cents

 

[getakey]

NEM3 will hurt renters most of whom are lower income

California, don't give renters a raw deal with new solar net metering rules

While most associate NEM with traditional homeowners, tenants have also been able to reap the benefits through Virtual Net Energy Metering (VNEM) programs.

www.desertsun.com

 

[holeydonut]

NEM3 will hurt renters most of whom are lower income

California, don't give renters a raw deal with new solar net metering rules

While most associate NEM with traditional homeowners, tenants have also been able to reap the benefits through Virtual Net Energy Metering (VNEM) programs.

www.desertsun.com

Lol it's because the article you linked is thinking of renters in the short term. But the CPUC and PG&E are thinking about things in the long term (after all, the CPUC and PG&E will unfortunately outlast everyone posting in this forum). The only long-term thing the old-guard gives a damn about is how to keep their monopoly and regulatory existance alive.

The CalAdvocates (the arm of the CPUC that I believe took the IOU bribes) finding said:
"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."

What that should have said was :
"Residential rooftop solar is often a way to try and reduce dependency on the Grid. The CPUC doesn't like the idea of residential rooftop solar. The CPUC wants as many people as possible to foot an outrageously high energy bill because the CPUC needs someone to pay for this mis-managed grid."

Anyway, the article you posted believes that renters who have no avenue to try and get solar themselves are harmed because then they're stuck with the Grid. But being stuck with the grid is what the CPUC wants. The CPUC wants everyone to pay pay pay. The CPUC wants both renters or homeowners to pay for the grid no matter what and no matter how little of the grid they use. They messed up when they approved NEM 2.0 since they didn't anticipate their own mismanagement of the grid would lead to energy costs as high as they are today. Oooops.

 

[holeydonut]

The Joint IOUs submitted their comments about the fixed cost / NBC query, As you'd imagine they're saying the CPUC isn't going far enough by only charging a $8 per month per kW AC fixed cost. The joint IOUs also want gross consumption metered and more NBCs charged.

@Redhill_qik is probably the only person on this forum that understands what the hell this means, but here's the joint IOU recommendation...

"The Joint Utilities contend that the Commission must rectify the ongoing discriminatory treatment and cost shifting by requiring NBT (Net Billing Tariff) customers to pay all non-bypassable charges on the same basis as all other customer generators. Specifically, the Commission should require new NBT customers to pay (1) the OAT NBCs, including PPPC, NDC, NSGC, and all other NBCs on gross consumption, including their departing load, and (2) the CRS NBCs, including the PCIA, WFC, Ongoing CTC and the FRC, based on their departing load (i.e., the kWh served by the customer’s generation facility), pursuant to the Utilities’ respective tariffs, as well as standby charges comparable to other customer generation under the OAT."

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M489/K140/489140487.PDF

Anyway, the bottom line is that while we don't expect the CPUC to approve this gross consumption NBC, it's likely the CPUC will need to keep the $8 per kW AC fixed cost because so far nobody has actually argued anything new/compelling to say that is untenable.

The CPUC still swears up and down the NEM 3.0 PD makes economic benefit for future installs. But I don't understand that claim lol. I still think it's wacky that for the life of me I can't make a reasonable ROI case for the NEM 3.0 PD economics. And so far nobody has actually shown me a calculator that NEM 3.0 PD can make economic sense for a future residential solar install. Every single time I model this, I come to the conclusion that NEM 3.0 is worse than no NEM at all (which is unfortunately illegal?). I wish the CPUC would reveal their damn model lol.

 

[aesculus]

The CPUC still swears up and down the NEM 3.0 PD makes economic benefit for future installs. But I don't understand that claim lol. I still think it's wacky that for the life of me I can't make a reasonable ROI case for the NEM 3.0 PD economics. And so far nobody has actually shown me a calculator that NEM 3.0 PD can make economic sense for a future residential solar install. Every single time I model this, I come to the conclusion that NEM 3.0 is worse than no NEM at all (which is unfortunately illegal?). I wish the CPUC would reveal their damn model lol.

Does the governor have veto power over the CAPUC? If so I would imagine that the PV/PS industry is going to be putting a lot of pressure on him to make this more palatable if CA is planning on making their energy and environmental goals, not to speak about revenue etc.

 

[buckets0fun]

Does the governor have veto power over the CAPUC? If so I would imagine that the PV/PS industry is going to be putting a lot of pressure on him to make this more palatable if CA is planning on making their energy and environmental goals, not to speak about revenue etc.

He seems a bit preoccupied with his (potential) presidential run.

 

[RKCRLR]

The Joint IOUs submitted their comments about the fixed cost / NBC query, As you'd imagine they're saying the CPUC isn't going far enough by only charging a $8 per month per kW AC fixed cost. The joint IOUs also want gross consumption metered and more NBCs charged.

@Redhill_qik is probably the only person on this forum that understands what the hell this means, but here's the joint IOU recommendation...

"The Joint Utilities contend that the Commission must rectify the ongoing discriminatory treatment and cost shifting by requiring NBT (Net Billing Tariff) customers to pay all non-bypassable charges on the same basis as all other customer generators. Specifically, the Commission should require new NBT customers to pay (1) the OAT NBCs, including PPPC, NDC, NSGC, and all other NBCs on gross consumption, including their departing load, and (2) the CRS NBCs, including the PCIA, WFC, Ongoing CTC and the FRC, based on their departing load (i.e., the kWh served by the customer’s generation facility), pursuant to the Utilities’ respective tariffs, as well as standby charges comparable to other customer generation under the OAT."

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M489/K140/489140487.PDF

Anyway, the bottom line is that while we don't expect the CPUC to approve this gross consumption NBC, it's likely the CPUC will need to keep the $8 per kW AC fixed cost because so far nobody has actually argued anything new/compelling to say that is untenable.

The CPUC still swears up and down the NEM 3.0 PD makes economic benefit for future installs. But I don't understand that claim lol. I still think it's wacky that for the life of me I can't make a reasonable ROI case for the NEM 3.0 PD economics. And so far nobody has actually shown me a calculator that NEM 3.0 PD can make economic sense for a future residential solar install. Every single time I model this, I come to the conclusion that NEM 3.0 is worse than no NEM at all (which is unfortunately illegal?). I wish the CPUC would reveal their damn model lol.

I have no problem with increasing NBCs to reflect actual costs, but there should be no NBCs on gross consumption other than a connection fee that is the same for solar and non-solar customers. And the $8/kWh connection fee for solar customers is ridiculous. Why isn't that getting opposition?

When my old 4Kw string inverter finally dies it will probably be more cost effective to decommission it than repair it. This system that was installed in 2009 is the one that is driving my 20 year NEM grandfathering to expire in 2029 (or sooner depending what they do to grandfathering in NEM3). I wonder if I decommission it I can move my NEM expiration to 2039 for the remaining 6kW system that was installed in 2019.

 

[holeydonut]

I have no problem with increasing NBCs to reflect actual costs, but there should be no NBCs on gross consumption other than a connection fee that is the same for solar and non-solar customers. And the $8/kWh connection fee for solar customers is ridiculous. Why isn't that getting opposition?

When my old 4Kw string inverter finally dies it will probably be more cost effective to decommission it than repair it. This system that was installed in 2009 is the one that is driving my 20 year NEM grandfathering to expire in 2029 (or sooner depending what they do to grandfathering in NEM3). I wonder if I decommission it I can move my NEM expiration to 2039 for the remaining 6kW system that was installed in 2019.

The IOUs argue that if a customer were to have zero solar, then they're paying NBCs on their gross consumption. So requiring a solar customer to do the same isn't discriminatory at all. The IOUs do not feel it is prudent to allow a homeowner to install solar to reduce their grid consumption and fees owed. The IOUs are fine if a homeowner could install energy efficient appliances, but the IOUs are not fine if the homeowner's net consumption goes to zero.

The pro-residential-solar folks are putting up opposition to the $8 per kW AC per month fixed charge. The problem is the CPUC's own "Cal Advocates" group recommended an even higher monthly fee. The CPUC feels they've already conceded room to help the rooftop solar industry by having the fixed cost in the PD be only $8.

IMO, the CPUC wants to kill rooftop solar, since the CPUC sees the benefit to the homeowners with solar as a general "lose" for California as a whole. The IOUs and California energy thinktanks (who are often taking kickbacks/subsidies from the independent generator operators) have concluded that the Grid and energy generation should to be in the wheelhouse of the IOUs and CAISO members. The CPUC does not like the concept of millions of rogue homeowners trying to shirk their responsibilities to pay pay pay.

So if the $8 per month coupled with the ACC rate on exports coupled with aggressive interconnection fees coupled with it being illegal to go NEM-less all add up to a negative business case... the CPUC wants to see the rooftop solar go away since it is a "broken" model. Which is unfortunate since new residential home construction is required to have rooftop solar lololol.

The irony is not lost on me that the CPUC seems totally fine with a broken IOU business model that requires +25% rate increases passed through to all rate payers because the grid is mismanaged. and the CPUC is fine with a CAISO network that delivers energy at 2x the national average cost of utility scale generation costs.

 

[Redhill_qik]

The Joint IOUs submitted their comments about the fixed cost / NBC query, As you'd imagine they're saying the CPUC isn't going far enough by only charging a $8 per month per kW AC fixed cost. The joint IOUs also want gross consumption metered and more NBCs charged.

@Redhill_qik is probably the only person on this forum that understands what the hell this means, but here's the joint IOU recommendation...

"The Joint Utilities contend that the Commission must rectify the ongoing discriminatory treatment and cost shifting by requiring NBT (Net Billing Tariff) customers to pay all non-bypassable charges on the same basis as all other customer generators. Specifically, the Commission should require new NBT customers to pay (1) the OAT NBCs, including PPPC, NDC, NSGC, and all other NBCs on gross consumption, including their departing load, and (2) the CRS NBCs, including the PCIA, WFC, Ongoing CTC and the FRC, based on their departing load (i.e., the kWh served by the customer’s generation facility), pursuant to the Utilities’ respective tariffs, as well as standby charges comparable to other customer generation under the OAT."

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M489/K140/489140487.PDF

Anyway, the bottom line is that while we don't expect the CPUC to approve this gross consumption NBC, it's likely the CPUC will need to keep the $8 per kW AC fixed cost because so far nobody has actually argued anything new/compelling to say that is untenable.

The CPUC still swears up and down the NEM 3.0 PD makes economic benefit for future installs. But I don't understand that claim lol. I still think it's wacky that for the life of me I can't make a reasonable ROI case for the NEM 3.0 PD economics. And so far nobody has actually shown me a calculator that NEM 3.0 PD can make economic sense for a future residential solar install. Every single time I model this, I come to the conclusion that NEM 3.0 is worse than no NEM at all (which is unfortunately illegal?). I wish the CPUC would reveal their damn model lol.

I skimmed through this section in the PDF and it appears that the new position of the "Joint Utilities" is that the current NEM is unlawful and that the CPUC has to correct this illegality. This gives the CPUC some cover to impose what they want under threat of a lawsuit. The whole section and footnotes is mess and it isn't well defined. My reading indicates that they want two class of NBCs, the first being on the charged on gross consumption with a minimum of the departing load and the second on the departing load.

The want to model this after the SCE DL-NBC or PG&E E-DCG tariffs, but instead of just the departing load they added the twist of gross consumption. Here is my best guess as to what this means:

Name	Code	PG&E-6/1/22	NEM 2.0	PG&E E-DCG	NEM3-GC	NEM3-DL
Transmission	TRANS	0.04787
Transmission Rate Adjustment	TRBAA	0.00167
Reliability	RMR	0.00012
Public Purpose Programs	PPP	0.02197	0.02197	0.02197	0.02197
Nuclear Decommissioning	ND	-0.0001	-0.00013	-0.00013	-0.00013
Competition Transition Charge	OCF/CTC	0.00023	0.00023	0.00023		0.00023
Energy Cost Recovery Amount	1DR/ECRA	-0.0043		-0.00429
Wildfire Fund	DWR/WFC	0.00459	0.00459	0.00459		0.00459
New System Generation Charge	NSGC	0.00299			0.00299
Wildfire Hardening Charge	WH/WHC	0.00141		0.00141		0.00141
Recovery Bond Charge	RB	0.00548		0.00548	0.00548
Recovery Bond Credit	RBC	-0.00548		-0.00548	-0.00548
Power Charge Indifference Adjustment	PCIA	0.02572		0.02572		0.02572
n/a	Total	0.10215	0.02666	0.04950	0.02483	0.03195

Adding NEM3-GC (Gross Consumption) and the NEM3-DL (Departing Load) would be $0.05678/kWh which is higher E-DCG as it includes the NSGC and doesn't include the ECRA (which isn't mentioned anywhere in the PDF). Charging based on the departing load probably makes sense and at least that avoids having to add a meter for gross consumption and doesn't penalize customers from converting gas to electric or adding EV charging.

 

[RKCRLR]

The IOUs argue that if a customer were to have zero solar, then they're paying NBCs on their gross consumption. So requiring a solar customer to do the same isn't discriminatory at all. The IOUs do not feel it is prudent to allow a homeowner to install solar to reduce their grid consumption and fees owed. The IOUs are fine if a homeowner could install energy efficient appliances, but the IOUs are not fine if the homeowner's net consumption goes to zero.

The pro-residential-solar folks are putting up opposition to the $8 per kW AC per month fixed charge. The problem is the CPUC's own "Cal Advocates" group recommended an even higher monthly fee. The CPUC feels they've already conceded room to help the rooftop solar industry by having the fixed cost in the PD be only $8.

IMO, the CPUC wants to kill rooftop solar, since the CPUC sees the benefit to the homeowners with solar as a general "lose" for California as a whole. The IOUs and California energy thinktanks (who are often taking kickbacks/subsidies from the independent generator operators) have concluded that the Grid and energy generation should to be in the wheelhouse of the IOUs and CAISO members. The CPUC does not like the concept of millions of rogue homeowners trying to shirk their responsibilities to pay pay pay.

So if the $8 per month coupled with the ACC rate on exports coupled with aggressive interconnection fees coupled with it being illegal to go NEM-less all add up to a negative business case... the CPUC wants to see the rooftop solar go away since it is a "broken" model. Which is unfortunate since new residential home construction is required to have rooftop solar lololol.

The irony is not lost on me that the CPUC seems totally fine with a broken IOU business model that requires +25% rate increases passed through to all rate payers because the grid is mismanaged. and the CPUC is fine with a CAISO network that delivers energy at 2x the national average cost of utility scale generation costs.

Lets say there two houses. One is a zero energy house without solar and storage and the other is a standard home with solar and storage. And they both consume the same amount of energy from the grid at the same times.

What is the logic in charging the house with solar and storage more than the zero energy house? Why isn't this question being brought into the mix?