CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[yblaser]

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.

Yes I have and no I won't.

 

[Zorg]

NEM 3 as written will be the death of new solar install in CA. 2 years from now, we'll have a NEM 4 because the morons at the CPUC seem to think that people are okay with a 15 year breakeven. The fact that this proposal is actually entertained as good policy shows the CPUC is either a bunch of IOU lemings or clueless as to how the world works.

 

[Zabe]

Yes I have and no I won't.

So how much are you going to save over 15 years and what did your system cost?

 

[Zabe]

NEM 3 as written will be the death of new solar install in CA. 2 years from now, we'll have a NEM 4 because the morons at the CPUC seem to think that people are okay with a 15 year breakeven. The fact that this proposal is actually entertained as good policy shows the CPUC is either a bunch of IOU lemings or clueless as to how the world works.

Do all new homes in California require solar?

 

[yblaser]

So how much are you going to save over 15 years and what did your system cost?

$200/month for $35k.

 

[Zabe]

$200/month for $35k.

And you have adjusted what your bills would have been with the constant rate increases? I know my typical bill has gone from $106 in 2015 to $194 in 2021 for the same number of kWH.

 

[Zorg]

Do all new homes in California require solar?

That's a pretty amazing thing: require solar on all houses and then tax it via NEM3. Double whammy for the new homeowner...

Number of single family homes built per year in CA: 50-55,000. Not all of them will be required to have solar (shading, roof size, etc.). For 2021, the estimate is that about 1,200-1,300 MW of residential PV will be installed in CA. Depending on average solar array size, that could be anywhere from 150,000 to 200,000 installations. So, thanks to NEM 3, that number will shrink to a fraction of its original size, and won't go to zero due to the solar mandate on new houses.

 

[Zabe]

$200/month for $35k.

Did you get a tax credit toward the $35k?

 

[charlesj]

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.

I have very similar setup but do have a 240V capability by the dryer just in case a future owner wants it, cover plate on box.
Single electric oven, gas cooktop and a couple of electric substitutes to not use that power hungry oven unless really need it.
Do have a radiant floor heat with its own gas water tank but my need for it is about 4-5 month with Jan maybe Feb being the most used.
I really should have had a 240V outlet in the garage.

 

[sorka]

Do all new homes in California require solar?

Yes.

 

[sorka]

Hmmm IIRC your system was installed before 2020 when PG&E started to deploy NEM2-MT PTO forms. I'm really curious what Vines has since he's like S-Tier-expert-level and his system I believe is NEM2-MT.

Ugh, I really hope PG&E doesn't include ESS when my NEM 2 ends.

My comment was a jab at the fact that kw is not storage. kWh is.

 

[dareed1]

My comment was a jab at the fact that kw is not storage. kWh is.

Storage batteries store energy (kWh) and can export it to the house or grid at some power (kW). Each powerwall can provide up to 5kW of continuous power. In the context of generation and effect on the grid, the power capability is the more important factor. Your 3 PWs can provide 15kW. For PG&E (and I suppose other CA utilities) the dividing line for NEM2-PS versus NEM2-MT is 10kW of power delivery capability, as I understand it.

 

[brian.c]

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.

Take a look at what anyone paid 10 years ago, cut them off at 15, they barely break even. I don't need to read the report, I have the numbers from my systems I have installed. Please go read all the responses from all the pro solar groups before thinking what CPUC believes is fact. Its not... Take the accounts from everyone on this board, I have yet to see a single person say "I would purchase a new system under NEM 3"... No one will, at least not anyone who does any bit of research. Its pretty clear this is just a money grab. You want a fair system, everyone pays a grid connection fee. Solar users pay export fees... Non solar users pay a surcharge to help cover the cost of moving to carbon neutral power. Please explain why non solar users should get a free ride to cleaner energy? I am perfectly fine paying higher import/export fees, after my 20yr grandfather period expires. Let me ask you this... If you were to invest your money, and the banker said you get 5% interest rate for 20 years... Then after 15 years he comes back and says, we now are going to charge you a $20 monthly fee, and your rate is reduced to .05% because its not fair for others. Would you be okay with that?

 

[jjrandorin]

Did you get a tax credit toward the $35k?

I realize that this is just as discussion, but I am having a hard time reading the comments of "this is fair" "how much did you spend" "how much exactly are you going to save", from a person who basically is getting powerwalls for free, and is now arguing that those of us who paid for solar somehow did something wrong.

 

[Zabe]

I realize that this is just as discussion, but I am having a hard time reading the comments of "this is fair" "how much did you spend" "how much exactly are you going to save", from a person who basically is getting powerwalls for free, and is now arguing that those of us who paid for solar somehow did something wrong.

I didn't basically get powerwalls for free, they were actually free.

So are you saying because I got free powerwalls I have no ability to give my opinion on what is fair?

I read the report, did you?

 

[jjrandorin]

I didn't basically get powerwalls for free, they were actually free.

So are you saying because I got free powerwalls I have no ability to give my opinion on what is fair?

I read the report, did you?

No, I didnt read the report, I am looking at the cliff notes from people posting here. I didnt say you couldnt provide your opinion. I said I find it hard to read statements from a person telling us "whats fair" and questioning what people spent, basically challenging multiple people, when yours was free.

That doesnt say you cant say it, it just says I find it hard to read.

Edit: I should also clarify that this is a personal opinion, and has nothing to do with moderation. I certainly am not saying there is anything at all from your stance, or statements or anything like that, from a moderation perspective. Nor am I trying to imply that this opinion is anyone other than my own personal one.

 

[Zabe]

No, I didnt read the report, I am looking at the cliff notes from people posting here. I didnt say you couldnt provide your opinion. I said I find it hard to read statements from a person telling us "whats fair" and questioning what people spent, basically challenging multiple people, when yours was free.

That doesnt say you cant say it, it just says I find it hard to read.

Read at least the first 20 pages of the report, not the biased cliff notes presented mostly by people who feel they are getting a raw deal on any changes to NEM 2.0, the Lookback Study data is telling.

The Lookback Study presented several key takeaways.
First, with respect to cost-effectiveness, the study found the benefits to
NEM 2.0 customers in the form of bill savings and the federal investment tax
credit (ITC) outweigh the costs. The Lookback Study concluded that NEM 2.0
systems are not cost-effective from the combined participant/utility perspective,
which is shown by the TRC benefit-cost ratio result of less than 1.0. Further, the
study also found customer-sited renewables under the NEM 2.0 tariff have a
RIM benefit-cost ratio less than 1.0, “indicating that the NEM 2.0 program may
result in an increase in rates for ratepayers.”18
In terms of the cost-of-service analysis, the Lookback Study indicates that
for both residential and nonresidential customers average bill payments prior to
installing a NEM 2.0 system are higher than the cost of service. The study found
that, after installing the NEM 2.0 system, residential customers on average pay
lower bills than the utility’s cost to serve them.

 

[sorka]

Storage batteries store energy (kWh) and can export it to the house or grid at some power (kW). Each powerwall can provide up to 5kW of continuous power. In the context of generation and effect on the grid, the power capability is the more important factor. Your 3 PWs can provide 15kW. For PG&E (and I suppose other CA utilities) the dividing line for NEM2-PS versus NEM2-MT is 10kW of power delivery capability, as I understand it.

All true but unrelated to my comment.

 

[brian.c]

Read at least the first 20 pages of the report, not the biased cliff notes presented mostly by people who feel they are getting a raw deal on any changes to NEM 2.0, the Lookback Study data is telling.

The Lookback Study presented several key takeaways.
First, with respect to cost-effectiveness, the study found the benefits to
NEM 2.0 customers in the form of bill savings and the federal investment tax
credit (ITC) outweigh the costs. The Lookback Study concluded that NEM 2.0
systems are not cost-effective from the combined participant/utility perspective,
which is shown by the TRC benefit-cost ratio result of less than 1.0. Further, the
study also found customer-sited renewables under the NEM 2.0 tariff have a
RIM benefit-cost ratio less than 1.0, “indicating that the NEM 2.0 program may
result in an increase in rates for ratepayers.”18
In terms of the cost-of-service analysis, the Lookback Study indicates that
for both residential and nonresidential customers average bill payments prior to
installing a NEM 2.0 system are higher than the cost of service. The study found
that, after installing the NEM 2.0 system, residential customers on average pay
lower bills than the utility’s cost to serve them.

What stands out to me "indicating that the NEM 2.0 program may result in an increase in rates for ratepayers.", key word may. Does not state it does, so it may, or it may not. Another "The study found that, after installing the NEM 2.0 system, residential customers on average pay lower bills than the utility’s cost to serve them.".. On average? so some do some don't? Well how much? But we'll just tack on a big fee for all solar users. okay, then what is the actual cost to serve them. It surely is not the same as the per kw fee they are trying to impose. I am pretty sure I can have a bill for less than $100 if I don't have solar, but with solar I will have a minimum bill of at least 100? Sounds fair... From PG&E "The Minimum Delivery Charge accounts for the cost to deliver energy and is $10.12 for Non-CARE customers and $5.06 for CARE customers. All customers are subject to pay both the Minimum Delivery Charge and Energy Charge associated with kilo-watt (kWh) usage.", so if a person uses very little they will be charged a minimum of 10.12, but if you have solar, and use very little, you pay $8 p/kw for your panels, regardless of your usage. again, sounds fair... , Sounds to me PG&E should just increase the minimum across the board, tack on some export fees for solar users. BUT, that does not make their investors happy because they are all about profits. From the little you posted that surely does not convince me even the slightest, i just see a lot of maybe this, maybe that. Maybe if the iou ran their business a little better, there would not be this problem... Funny how smaller utilities in the state, charge half as much, and don't try to constantly screw over their customers, oh and burn them alive, blow them up etc...

 

[Zabe]

I am pretty sure I can have a bill for less than $100 if I don't have solar, but with solar I will have a minimum bill of at least 100?

If you only use 330kWH/mo why do you have solar? Also, if you only use 330kWH how will your minimum bill be $100 with solar?

so if a person uses very little they will be charged a minimum of 10.12, but if you have solar, and use very little, you pay $8 p/kw for your panels, regardless of your usage.

Hence, we find a grid benefits charge in combination with the retail rate will
provide improved accuracy, in the case of net energy metering customers. The
addition of the grid benefits charge will lead to just and reasonable rates for all
customers, decreasing the cost shift currently created by the inaccuracies related
to the two-way street of imports and exports. Further, we agree that net energy
metering customers cause costs even when not directly importing energy from
the grid. As NRDC described, net energy metering customers intermittently
reduce usage depending upon the performance of the solar system. Thus, the
grid must be always prepared for the intermittent decrease and increase of
usage.

You should really read the proposed decision.