This would be the opposite of the "help the grid" thing that tesla has setup (if all tesla powerwall owners went off grid at once, at some pre determined time, to "make a point"). I would certainly be willing to participate in such a planned outage / demonstration, myself.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion
- Thread starter jjrandorin
- Start date
This would be the opposite of the "help the grid" thing that tesla has setup (if all tesla powerwall owners went off grid at once, at some pre determined time, to "make a point"). I would certainly be willing to participate in such a planned outage / demonstration, myself.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I bet a mass PV boycott & EV charge session from ~4pm to 7pm in the summer would cause some problems.
I agree PG&E does a crap job with their grid. I agree that PG&E shareholders should foot the bill for that. The CPUC study believes that under the new NEM 3 worst case payback was around 16 years. Payback is a funny thing when it comes to electricity. Do you compare your old rate plan and usage or do you compare your new rate plan with new usage. Did you add an EV that completely blows up any comparisons. Customers that add solar under NEM 3 will find out and I am sure there will be new adjustments.
Where did you copy and paste this from? This is one of the only things (other than my own rants) where someone seems to think the solar-powered-battery export potential kW is included in the monthly grid access charge (or as this person calls it, a penalty).
Hi Wayne, a couple of thoughts for you.
One) where did you read this $0.05 kWh equivalence for the $8 per kW per month access charge?
I gave a weird example yesterday of my own system actually used PG&E's grid to move a total kWh in one month. Assuming my Powerwalls are not included in the monthly access charge, then my hypothetical calculation was that the monthly access charge would be $0.05 per kWh I moved to and from the grid.
But I don't think I've seen anywhere else mention the $8 per kW per month kind of works out to $0.05 per kWh transported. I would be interested to learn if someone else is coming up with that hypothetical burdened value on a per kWh transported basis.
Two) I agree with you that there appears no reasonable way for a solar-only household that only uses 1/9 of contemporaneously generated solar power behind the meter to make any sense of a PV install.
However, there is an angle of NEM 3 that few are talking about. The joint IOUs have structured their NEM 3.0 proposal (and now the CPUC's proposal) in such a way as to discourage the creation of a system that offsets 100% of home loads. You can see in the Appendix B of the CPUC proposal that the systems sized to only 50% of load have a much shorter payback.
Basically PG&E has posited that NEM 3.0 will continue to encourage solar adoption, but only small-ish arrays where maybe 2/3 of the contemporaneously generated solar power is immediately consumed behind the meter. This way the...
a) $8 per month is spread across a much smaller amount of kW-AC.
b) the homeowner gets to save by paying less during the daytime
c) the homeowner is encouraged to reduce energy consumption from 6pm to 9pm per the TOU policies
Personally I think this is all a load of BS. But it is the way that PG&E has explained why their ROI calculator is "right." The law that says new housing needs solar doesn't say it needs solar to offset 100% of usage. The NEM 3.0 policies proposed so far would basically work against the spirit of the law that was passed to encourage solar adoption. And somehow the CPUC thinks this is the right move. Sad.
TLDR PG&E wants people to adopt new systems that only offset 25% or 50% of annual usage. They want to discourage anyone who tries to offset 100% (or more) of their annual usage.
If you read the entire thread you will notice multiple people mention that adding powerwalls did NOT change their NEM status ONLY adding PV changed their NEM status. NEM is for solar. I have powerwalls only I do not have a NEM contract.
Holeydonut you should stop putting out that powerwalls will be included in the NEM 3.0 capacity, you are wrong.
Go read the report yourself it is in there. I believe the longest payback was SCE. Heck I believe it is referenced in this thread.
show me the math here. no way there is a payback with $.05/ kWh credit. Does not compute
Per the CPUC proposal (and using the IOU's calculator), they estimate a new housing install (one that does not get the MTC) will have this payback if the solar is sized to offset 50% or 100% of the home loads.
SCE non-CARE is looking kinda scary. As others have said, homeowners are forced by California law to put that solar system in. But with this type of ROI, who would you want to bear the cost.
I am wrong all the time, but in this case nobody has actually produced language or examples of their own PTO agreement that would refute me.
The section 8.4 and 8.5 of the CPUC proposal contain the rulemaking language. Show me the lines in the actual rules (not some bogus appendix) that say battery kW inverter size is excluded from the grid access charge.
Here's the portion of my NEM agreement that I begrudgingly signed. I did not want the batteries listed as "generating equipment" or part of my "generating facility". But here we are. My "system" is 21,670 kW (only 6.7 kW is solar) per my own PTO. Show me your PTO with batteries but no mention of them under "generating facility".
For real, please show me more examples of your NEM PTO agreements that clearly exclude your Powerwalls form your site nameplate.
Ohhhh you want to know how the calculator works. haha, yeah that ain't happening because I don't think anyone knows
If you go to the NEM 3 proceedings page (the legacy one that the CPUC shut down a few months ago), there are some slides and examples buried in there when the SEIA and CALSSA asked for more explanation to walk people through this ROI and payback calculator.
I'm kind of hoping Vines or WWhitney can decipher the IOU/CPUC payback maths.
Edit: I believe the secret to the IOU calculator is what I said to wwhitney above. That the solar system output will contemporaneously be consumed by the home, causing there to be minimal exporting and the savings will be that homeowner not paying retail rates for electricity during the day.
I have powerwalls only and no NEM contract. Powerwall additions do not change a solar NEM contract to a different contract.
You do realize, when I say powerwalls will be included in the NEM 3.0 grid access charge; that I am only referring to systems that will be affected by NEM 3.0. You know, instances where Powerwalls are installed alongside solar.
Like h2ofun's system... or my own system. I did not mean to apply my per-kW-grid-access-battery-hell scenario to mean the Powerwall only installs that don't even get impacted by NEM.
@Vines, you have NEM2-MT with PV+ESS right? How did PG&E size your system/facility for PTO?
This is NEM2-PS, and the generation does not include our two Powerwalls:
I guess that most of the posters here don't have more than 10kW of storage, so they aren't on NEM2-MT.
I guess that most of the posters here don't have more than 10kW of storage, so they aren't on NEM2-MT.
I am kind of shocked that even though you know that if they counted solar capacity plus battery capacity that the capacity payment would be greater than people having no system just paying retail rates yet you continue to push this idea of yours. NEM 3 is not trying to get rid of PV with ESS and you know that.
I go negative NEM $1000/ yr in the summer in NEM2. That would go away in NEM3 and cost me another $1000/yr in the connection charges for 12 months
do you believe that? I don't
Similar threads
- Locked
