Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
One) where did you read this $0.05 kWh equivalence for the $8 per kW per month access charge?
It wasn't an equivalence, it was that the average compensation for exporting a kWh to the grid under the proposal would be around $0.05/kWh. Two different things.

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.
That wasn't my point.

My point was that if you assume that you will use at least some of your solar behind the meter, then with the $8/kW tax, it doesn't pay to export at all. That assumes you could get a non-export agreement where you don't get the $0.05/kWh exported but don't have to pay the $8/kW tax. I.e. you'd be financially better off just throwing away the kWhs you don't need behind the meter, rather than export them . And as I don't think we've hit the point yet where the marginal kWh exported from residential solar is actually bad for the grid, that's a warped economic incentive to provide.

Cheers, Wayne
 
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 don't understand what you're saying at all. Like I tried to break up your sentence into chunks, but I am having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say.


"... that the capacity payment would be greater than people having no system ..."
PG&E has said rich people with solar and batteries owe more than poor people who don't have it. So yes, I agree with you that the "capacity payment" is greater than people paying retail rates. That's why so many solar-advocates who read the CPUC's proposal are unhappy.

Keep in mind that PG&E has said repeatedly they do not want someone to be able to spend their way to getting around paying their fair share back to PG&E. If someone invests in batteries by paying Tesla, PG&E gets nothing to pay for their fixed costs. PG&E has said repeatedly that even if a rich fat cat spends for their own investment, PG&E wants their $$$$$$$.


"... NEM 3 is not trying to get rid of PV with ESS ..."
Go read the responses from the SEIA, CALSSA, Sunrun, Sunpower, etc. They all believe that the latest NEM 3.0 proposal will significantly discourage future adoption of residential PV+ESS. This is the fallacy that makes me super confused what you're arguing. Of course none of us here on TMC want NEM 3.0 to "get rid of PV and ESS". But you know PG&E wants to get rid of residential PV+ESS because PG&E wants to be the ones to build it instead of Jon Q. Public.
 
so why are you advocating NEM3?
That's fair. Because in reading the proposal it seems to be more equitable, more fair.

It seems to me that what the CPUC is saying is WOOOOPS NEM 2.0 wow ummm it is embarrassing but we gave you all way way too good of a deal. NEM 2 systems are being paid off in 3-5 years. This is costing other ratepayers money. We need to lower this to 15 years and come up with a new plan because we as the CPUC completely botched this NEM 2.0. In lowering this to 15 years you will benefit from your system paying itself off 3-5 times over and we think that this is well a GREAT DEAL still. I agree with them. If you are under NEM 2 be happy you have a great deal even with it reduced to 15 years. If you paid 30k for your system you are going to have a paid off system and 60k in your pocket in 15 years.
 
It wasn't an equivalence, it was that the average compensation for exporting a kWh to the grid under the proposal would be around $0.05/kWh. Two different things.


That wasn't my point.

My point was that if you assume that you will use at least some of your solar behind the meter, then with the $8/kW tax, it doesn't pay to export at all. That assumes you could get a non-export agreement where you don't get the $0.05/kWh exported but don't have to pay the $8/kW tax. I.e. you'd be financially better off just throwing away the kWhs you don't need behind the meter, rather than export them . And as I don't think we've hit the point yet where the marginal kWh exported from residential solar is actually bad for the grid, that's a warped economic incentive to provide.

Cheers, Wayne


Oh ok, I thought you were having some luck actually figuring out how the IOU's payback/ROI calculator worked.

I can't figure out how the hell they came up with the $8 per kW per month. And I have no clue how they came up with their daily household usage pattern to self-gen/export/take. I thought you may have been on to something.

Anyway, I have no clue how they do their ROI math.
 
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.

View attachment 744846

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.
Based on those numbers I would not do solar again. My first system had a payback of about 10 years, after 10 years started having issues. Now its in need of repairs. So you finally get your money back, warranty is up, and bam something goes wrong. You are then paying PG&E for a non working, or partially working system. You can pay to fix, that will take another 3 years or so to payback. By then something else will go wrong. You will never get ahead. Roof leak? good luck, you are now never going to break even. 7k to r&r panels for repairs etc. My guess is, if you want to disconnect an old pv system, PG&E will require building permits and plans. There goes a few thousand more when you are sick of paying PG&E for a broken system. There are just too many things that can go wrong. I guess now, best bet is go to harbor freight and buy the ground mount pv system and little inverter for charging our cars 🤣... I was hoping to move in 10 years, maybe I will need to bump that up to 5 when my grandfathering expires.
 
That's fair. Because in reading the proposal it seems to be more equitable, more fair.

It seems to me that what the CPUC is saying is WOOOOPS NEM 2.0 wow ummm it is embarrassing but we gave you all way way too good of a deal. NEM 2 systems are being paid off in 3-5 years. This is costing other ratepayers money. We need to lower this to 15 years and come up with a new plan because we as the CPUC completely botched this NEM 2.0. In lowering this to 15 years you will benefit from your system paying itself off 3-5 times over and we think that this is well a GREAT DEAL still. I agree with them. If you are under NEM 2 be happy you have a great deal even with it reduced to 15 years. If you paid 30k for your system you are going to have a paid off system and 60k in your pocket in 15 years.
I agree that NEM1/2 is lop sided. But would you invest in a 15 yr ROI with unexpected outcomes? No one does. Most people don't stay in one home for 15 years. Prove me wrong
 
My Natural gas bill ("The gas company") averages about $22-25 a month, except for dec and jan when I use my central heat. Its about $80-90 for those two months. My bill from the gas company (thats the gas utility name for those unaware) is a complete non issue for me, really. Not nearly enough for me to consider moving to electric for water heater, or my dryer (the dryer would be considerable expense, with a new line run, etc).

I have a gas dryer (no electric plug in my laundry room), but my double ovens are electric. I do have a 6 burner gas stove though, and a gas water heater.
Yep. With inexpensive gas and the cost of upgrading equipment and electrical, it is just not worth it to switch over to electric appliances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: h2ofun
Is the system size they use based on DC or AC?

I have a 5.98 kW DC panel system. But the micorinverters max AC output is 75% of that at 4.5 kW. They always use microinverters that have a lower voltage than the panels and then add the loss of energy when converting from DC to AC. The max my house can get at any one time under the best ideal conditions based on max microinverter output is 4.5 kW
 
That's fair. Because in reading the proposal it seems to be more equitable, more fair.

It seems to me that what the CPUC is saying is WOOOOPS NEM 2.0 wow ummm it is embarrassing but we gave you all way way too good of a deal. NEM 2 systems are being paid off in 3-5 years. This is costing other ratepayers money. We need to lower this to 15 years and come up with a new plan because we as the CPUC completely botched this NEM 2.0. In lowering this to 15 years you will benefit from your system paying itself off 3-5 times over and we think that this is well a GREAT DEAL still. I agree with them. If you are under NEM 2 be happy you have a great deal even with it reduced to 15 years. If you paid 30k for your system you are going to have a paid off system and 60k in your pocket in 15 years.
Problem with this is, these systems will be lucky to make it 15 years with no repairs. The life of the system is rated for 25, inverter is 10-15... So with these numbers, at the end of 25 years you paid more than you saved. My system is just a tad over 10 years, I need to have 4 panels replaced. The price of the panels alone are about $300 each. Figure installation, permitting, submitting paperwork to PG&E, another 1-2k. I am sure they are also not taking into account regular cleanings, figure 200-300 a year. God forbid others also have to help pay for a clean environment. A person dishes out 20-40k on a system, currently takes about 5 years to break even. Yet, we are worried about people who pay an extra $200 a year for cleaner power. I could have taken the same money, put into my mortgage, bought another rental, put in the stock market, all of which could have an excellent return on investment. People who went solar, were trying to do something good, now we are the bad guys. Want to change it, fine don't mess with existing solar customers. Let us finish our grandfathering with what we were promised. 5 years cut off my grandfathering pretty much removes all profit for my investments.
 
Is the system size they use based on DC or AC?

I have a 5.98 kW DC panel system. But the micorinverters max AC output is 75% of that at 4.5 kW. They always use microinverters that have a lower voltage than the panels and then add the loss of energy when converting from DC to AC. The max my house can get at any one time under the best ideal conditions based on max microinverter output is 4.5 kW

The rulemaking language doesn't say, but everything the PoCo typically does is AC.

I have never seen DC listed on any SGIP, PTO, or other solar document. They usually ask for the inverter rating for the PV and ESS.
 
Wow so your batteries aren't even mentioned? Frack... 10 kW or less...
Mentioned to show that we have 10kW or less:
1639633662883.png
 
That's fair. Because in reading the proposal it seems to be more equitable, more fair.

It seems to me that what the CPUC is saying is WOOOOPS NEM 2.0 wow ummm it is embarrassing but we gave you all way way too good of a deal. NEM 2 systems are being paid off in 3-5 years. This is costing other ratepayers money. We need to lower this to 15 years and come up with a new plan because we as the CPUC completely botched this NEM 2.0. In lowering this to 15 years you will benefit from your system paying itself off 3-5 times over and we think that this is well a GREAT DEAL still. I agree with them. If you are under NEM 2 be happy you have a great deal even with it reduced to 15 years. If you paid 30k for your system you are going to have a paid off system and 60k in your pocket in 15 years.
I agree NEM 2.0 incentive was too generous with the buy back pricing. They are fixing that but also now penalizing solar owners with the flat rate per kW charge. The IOU are trying to recoup lost revenue because we are using less energy. I think there is a big difference between reducing incentives and charging these fees.

I certainty am not going to end up with $60k in my pocket on NEM 2.0 for 15 years. I would be curious who would?
 
  • Like
Reactions: h2ofun
Problem with this is, these systems will be lucky to make it 15 years with no repairs. The life of the system is rated for 25, inverter is 10-15... So with these numbers, at the end of 25 years you paid more than you saved. My system is just a tad over 10 years, I need to have 4 panels replaced. The price of the panels alone are about $300 each. Figure installation, permitting, submitting paperwork to PG&E, another 1-2k. I am sure they are also not taking into account regular cleanings, figure 200-300 a year. God forbid others also have to help pay for a clean environment. A person dishes out 20-40k on a system, currently takes about 5 years to break even. Yet, we are worried about people who pay an extra $200 a year for cleaner power. I could have taken the same money, put into my mortgage, bought another rental, put in the stock market, all of which could have an excellent return on investment. People who went solar, were trying to do something good, now we are the bad guys. Want to change it, fine don't mess with existing solar customers. Let us finish our grandfathering with what we were promised. 5 years cut off my grandfathering pretty much removes all profit for my investments.
Go read the report. Your results are not typical. NEM 2 is going to be changed and CPUC believes they have the right to lower NEM 2 to 15 years from 20.
 
I agree NEM 2.0 incentive was too generous with the buy back pricing. They are fixing that but also now penalizing solar owners with the flat rate per kW charge. The IOU are trying to recoup lost revenue because we are using less energy. I think there is a big difference between reducing incentives and charging these fees.

I certainty am not going to end up with $60k in my pocket on NEM 2.0 for 15 years. I would be curious who would?
Have you done the math on what kind of savings you are having on your electric bills? While you might not have $60k in your pocket you might save $60k over 15 years.
 
I agree NEM 2.0 incentive was too generous with the buy back pricing. They are fixing that but also now penalizing solar owners with the flat rate per kW charge. The IOU are trying to recoup lost revenue because we are using less energy. I think there is a big difference between reducing incentives and charging these fees.

I certainty am not going to end up with $60k in my pocket on NEM 2.0 for 15 years. I would be curious who would?

Me.