Moderator Note: 20 posts moved to Efficient Use of Air-source Heat Pumps.
-
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
dho112
Member
That was the other thing! PG&E went on and on about how solar systems cannot be utilized by the “poor” and so it’s unfair to them, but I was looking over incentives, rebates, tax credits for solar battery systems and was astounded that low income incentives both state and federal make such systems almost free!
Also, doesn’t the fact that I draw no power from the grid and actually SEND power to it during critical times of peak demand have a much greater impact on what they call “poor” people because I and the other “rich” people support the grid against rolling blackouts and worse? Where is the recognition of that if they want to use class in the argument, and my infrastructure wasn’t free either. I incur “infrastructure” costs as well…
The $10.xxx charge is not a non by-passable charge; it is instead a minimum daily charge or MDC. NBCs are a charge per kW while MDC are per day. NEM2 participants are charged the greater of the MDC or the NBC, as calculated on either a daily or monthly basis (I don't remember). BTW, all users of electricity in CA are subject to NBCs and/or MDCs. NBCs only become an obvious charge when a solar user exports back to the grid and offsets most of the imports.But for the first 3 months after my PTO I used no grid power at all, and the $10.xxx NBC was always there on my bill. My understanding is that that was my part of infrastructure cost wether I imported any power or not. I’m totally ok with that too, and was told there is no way to avoid NBC no matter what (Which is why it was called NBC)
Am I wrong about this?
Indeed.
This argument really rankles with me, because its a classic, a classic example of something being "not false" but at the same time "not relevant."
Its "not false" to say that a person who has rooftop solar "shifts" costs to non rooftop solar customers, but that has nothing to do with solar, it has to do with the fact that since the grid is paid for by use, any reduction of use means that the people that are using kwh continue to pay.
Its also "not false" to generalize and say that "the poor" whoever they are, don't typically have solar so they are the shiftees, or whatever.
But all of this is irrelevant. What is relevant is we are in the middle of a climate crisis which demands a shift from fossil fuels to clean energy (see, not only did I use the word shift, but I said from what to what).
Solar, and rooftop solar, accomplish that goal.
Its also true, and relevant, that the pricing structure of utilities cannot handle a drop in use. I don't see that being discussed at all. The bottom line, also not discussed, is that the utilities are fine with any conservation as long as it doesn't actually work.
If it works, like rooftop solar does, then its as problem.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
The main issue I see is the fantastically complex, opaque, and Byzantine rate structures the IOUs have in place.
The obvious answer is to increase transparency and simplify rate structures. Unbundle grid maintenance costs from energy costs. Charge a flat grid maintenance fee to ALL residential customers based on their service size as line 1 on the bill.
The model exists and it works well. My water utility charges me a “ready to serve” fee of $30/mo based on my meter size. Doesn’t matter if I use 1 gallon or 100,000 gallons, the fee to maintain the infrastructure is the same and consumption is billed separately.
The obvious answer is to increase transparency and simplify rate structures. Unbundle grid maintenance costs from energy costs. Charge a flat grid maintenance fee to ALL residential customers based on their service size as line 1 on the bill.
The model exists and it works well. My water utility charges me a “ready to serve” fee of $30/mo based on my meter size. Doesn’t matter if I use 1 gallon or 100,000 gallons, the fee to maintain the infrastructure is the same and consumption is billed separately.
Wow a 133 page thread is still being moderated to stay on track hah.
Elon should hire Ohman to moderate Twitter
Elon should hire Ohman to moderate Twitter
dho112
Member
Actually that was 253 kwh for the entire 7 month period of which almost all of that was
I have to admit, I was very confused as to NBCs and MDCs (Still learning) and my initial confusion as to taking no power from the grid was based on my first months on solar where I was going from the Tesla Energy app where, on the page where you can list by month the energy “sources” it read energy from grid as “0%” but if you scrolled over each day individually almost all would read “0%” but a few read “<.1”
Which was even more confusing to me because in that month the PGE version of events bill had a bigger monthly number. I’m not sure what’s going on there, but initially I was going by the Tesla app number
I wonder if it has something to do with if my system is running and the solar is providing say 7.7 Kw and the house is using say, 1Kw then my wife turned on the dryer which pulls 4Kw, even though the battery is 100% charged and can deliver 5.8Kw the house draw will indeed go up to 5, but instead of the solar and battery providing all the needed power it will draw something like 4Kw from the grid for 20-30 seconds before settling in with the battery and solar providing everything slowly. I wonder if that’s why I always have some grid usage when there were months where it was totally unnecessary (I relaxed my monitoring greatly after the 4th month or so…)
Perhaps some of the discrepancy stems from how often the values are recorded. The display on the app appears to sample every 5 minutes, probably averaging during that period. That makes sense because the app gets that data from Tesla's servers, and updating more frequently would create a lot more network traffic. Anyway, this might make it look like PW is a bit slow to respond even if it reacts in milliseconds. Even the local display update only once a second or so, and when things change rapidly, you can often see moments when the displayed numbers don't add up. And then there is the rounding error... Utility meters will have some of the same issues, but they typically report only hourly cumulative numbers. Oh, and PGE meter read dates may not match Tesla month ends... So many ways to make the numbers not match exactly.Actually that was 253 kwh for the entire 7 month period of which almost all of that was
I have to admit, I was very confused as to NBCs and MDCs (Still learning) and my initial confusion as to taking no power from the grid was based on my first months on solar where I was going from the Tesla Energy app where, on the page where you can list by month the energy “sources” it read energy from grid as “0%” but if you scrolled over each day individually almost all would read “0%” but a few read “<.1”
Which was even more confusing to me because in that month the PGE version of events bill had a bigger monthly number. I’m not sure what’s going on there, but initially I was going by the Tesla app number
I wonder if it has something to do with if my system is running and the solar is providing say 7.7 Kw and the house is using say, 1Kw then my wife turned on the dryer which pulls 4Kw, even though the battery is 100% charged and can deliver 5.8Kw the house draw will indeed go up to 5, but instead of the solar and battery providing all the needed power it will draw something like 4Kw from the grid for 20-30 seconds before settling in with the battery and solar providing everything slowly. ...
Maybe also the PW reacts slower when the grid is up and connected. When off grid the PW monitors the voltage very quickly, continuously adjusting the current to maintain the 60 HZ sine wave voltage. But when grid tied, it monitors the power via it's current transformers in the breaker boxes, and since it is the grid's job to keep the voltage right, PW does not need to respond instantly to load changes. In fact, PW does not directly measure the house load, but rather computes it as the difference between the grid, solar and PW currents - the sum of these four currents is always zero.
Finally, if one measures more precisely, PW often allows grid flows in and out of less than 50 Watts, which round down to 0.0 kW on the display. This per my old TED system which measures to the single Watt. 40 W X 24 Hr X 30 Days = 28.8 kWh per month, worst case. Fortunately, PW internally measures more precisely and must try to keep the average closer to zero. Still, this might be part of what you are seeing.
SW
The Minimum Daily Charges, MDCs, are comprised all of the individual tariff sub-components for 1kWh and amount to ~$0.341/day. You always need to pay PG&E this amount which is why you pay it monthly. The Non-Bypassable Charges, NBCs, are just four of those sub-components and amount to $0.02667/kWh and are applied to every kWh that you import that is net with exports on 15-minute intervals. If your annual NBCs are more than your annual MDCs then you pay NBCs-MDCs, but if your NBCs are less than your MDCs you owe nothing extra. This amounts to about 13 kWh/day or 4,700 kWh/year that you can import before having to pay anything more than your MDCs.Actually that was 253 kwh for the entire 7 month period of which almost all of that was
I have to admit, I was very confused as to NBCs and MDCs (Still learning) and my initial confusion as to taking no power from the grid was based on my first months on solar where I was going from the Tesla Energy app where, on the page where you can list by month the energy “sources” it read energy from grid as “0%” but if you scrolled over each day individually almost all would read “0%” but a few read “<.1”
Which was even more confusing to me because in that month the PGE version of events bill had a bigger monthly number. I’m not sure what’s going on there, but initially I was going by the Tesla app number
I wonder if it has something to do with if my system is running and the solar is providing say 7.7 Kw and the house is using say, 1Kw then my wife turned on the dryer which pulls 4Kw, even though the battery is 100% charged and can deliver 5.8Kw the house draw will indeed go up to 5, but instead of the solar and battery providing all the needed power it will draw something like 4Kw from the grid for 20-30 seconds before settling in with the battery and solar providing everything slowly. I wonder if that’s why I always have some grid usage when there were months where it was totally unnecessary (I relaxed my monitoring greatly after the 4th month or so…)
You are net exporter/generator/producer and must be running in self-powered mode to be having the smallest grid import numbers that I have seen anyone here have. Don't worry about MDCs and NBCs you are fine.
I might be worried about what your Tesla App is reporting for your home and grid consumption if the numbers are very far off from PG&Es. Often the installers make a mistake with installing or configuring the Current Transformers, CTs, that measure the current going through the various parts of the system. You might want to do a side-by-side compare of the app number for the grid versus what your PG&E smart meter is displaying under different loads.
I'd like to see the math behind this claim
The CPUC estimated “solar plus storage” could save residential customers across the state at least $136 per month, and projected that customers would fully pay off their systems in fewer than nine years — 4.7 years for SDG&E customers.
www.sandiegouniontribune.com
The CPUC estimated “solar plus storage” could save residential customers across the state at least $136 per month, and projected that customers would fully pay off their systems in fewer than nine years — 4.7 years for SDG&E customers.
California Public Utilities Commission gets an earful about its new rooftop solar proposal
Commissioners hear critiques of proposed decision ahead of scheduled Dec. 15 vote
www.sandiegouniontribune.com
RKCRLR
Active Member
Ignore the cost of storage installation and the math works...I'd like to see the math behind this claim
The CPUC estimated “solar plus storage” could save residential customers across the state at least $136 per month, and projected that customers would fully pay off their systems in fewer than nine years — 4.7 years for SDG&E customers.
California Public Utilities Commission gets an earful about its new rooftop solar proposal
Commissioners hear critiques of proposed decision ahead of scheduled Dec. 15 vote
I think as a final rate structure, it is OK. But the biggest problem I have with it is how quickly they are pushing to have it take effect.
A drastic change like this should be phased in over years - not 3-4 months. This is going to be hugely disruptive to the California solar industry as a mad rush of installs at elevated rates are installed in the next 3-4 months, then a lot of companies are going to go out of business as it dries up.
This is a bad deal for Californias and a huge change from the really good California solar rebates 10-15 years ago that really helped to get solar going in the state which had multiple, well defined tiers that allowed customers and businesses plan around reductions in incentives.
It will probably achieve the utilities' goal of killing off rooftop solar. They like their monopoly on energy, but like any monopoly, enforcing it with regulation is not good for anybody except the utilities.
The new proposal sounds OK for us only because we would be grandfathered. But the new proposal is designed to divide us current solar owners from potential future owners and the industry. We really should support our neighbors and our solar suppliers, not to mention that every kWh of solar is one less kWh from fossil fuel. So don't fall for this!
Solar Rights Alliance held a one hour web discussion on Wed.
SW
RKCRLR
Active Member
The problem with the utilities funding rooftop solar is the funding ultimately comes from the ratepayers. If California wants to promote rooftop solar (under the premise that reducing greenhouse gases benefits everyone equally no how matter how much they pay for power) then the subsidizing should come from outside of the utility rate structure. Californians already pay much more for electricity than residents of other states do.
I'm only grandfathered for another 7 years since I installed a 4kW system in 2009 and then an additional 6kW system in 2019 (another thing I disagree with - I should have been grandfathered from 2019 like PG&E told me I was going to be) so I will be feeling the pain also.
Last edited:
I agree - it will kill residential solar and a lot of jobs. Who wants more big solar farms, when there are plenty of roof tops
The problem is still how IOUs make money. It's all about capital spending/projects, transmission lines, etc etc...Until that changes, I don't see how it can ever improve for the masses or even solar folks.
Sorta like the whole idea of conservation, simply use less energy. That's not going to go over well with a for profit company that generates said profits by spending $$. They don't make $$ if they don't spend on capital projects.
Do you see the problem?
NEM is not a subsidy. In fact, residential solar NEM decreases utility costs.
Consider residential solar without export, i.e. no net metering. By covering some of the residences' load, this simply reduces revenue for the utility. It is just like using LED's for light or insulation to reduce HVAC demand. Of course they don't like reduction in revenue, but it is in no way a subsidy. (Some distortion does exist because of the volume pricing model which makes large consumers subsidize the fixed costs for low volume users. But that is not caused by NEM, and outside the realm of the current proposals.)
Now add in NEM. This is revenue neutral, with retail credit for exports to be applied to imports at a different time. In fact, the economic impact is a reduction in total utility costs, because all the solar export offsets otherwise needed generation and also reduces load on and needed capacity of transmission lines.
The cost shifting argument is based on a fallacy.
Another way to see through it is to notice that the proposed solution will result in a large increase in revenue for the utilities, with no balancing price reduction for non-solar customers. If NEM3 was just ending a significant cost shift, then it would be revenue neutral. Instead, it increases prices for solar users while not decreasing other's prices.
Now, CPUC's SGIP program, which funded many PowerWalls and other batteries was a rate payer subsidized program, largely for solar owners. But batteries have the effect of reducing peak hour loads, a high leverage cost saver for utilities and hence for all ratepayers. This is why PG&E invested in it's huge "Elkhorn" battery at Moss Landing, which is also paid for by ratepayers, but it results in additional guaranteed ongoing return on the investment for PG&E, also payed for by ratepayers.
SW
the argument from the utilities is that the solar export is during the time when they already have excess capacity. Only solar with storage can offset the export to when it is needed
With EV's and heat pump HVACs, heat pump water heaters and even heat pump clothes dryers becoming standard, I don't think the electric utilities are going to suffer falling demand any time soon.
However it might be interesting to consider wide spread, full solar build-out. Could solar provide 100% of our power? Probably not, but as heat pumps replace gas heating, the seasonal loads may smooth out some, aggravating the winter solar shortage. This would suggest seasonal storage might become more important, unless solar becomes cheaper than long term energy storage. So just maybe the utilities business will shift from generation to long term storage, making NEM their main business. In that case, revenue neutral NEM would not work...
There are certainly issues with the current pricing (accidental pun) structure, but those issues pertain across the board, not just to the NEM proposals being considered now. They seemed to have worked to get rural electrification done, but now appear obsolete. However, the legislature mandated review of NEM may be scoped too narrowly.
SW
Similar threads
- Locked
