CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[Zabe]

If all of you would take the time to read the proposed decision you would realize that the CPUC protected NEM 2.0 customers from far more gargantuan changes which many recommended should happen far sooner.

 

[h2ofun]

Some theoretical numbers:

Say I put 1.3kW of PV panels on a unshaded 34 degree tilt due south roof in my area, connected to a 1 kW inverter. Per PVWatts (I used 10% system losses and 98% inverter efficiency; could use some pointers to know if those inputs are reasonable) that system is expected to generate 2150 kWh per year.

Now if the $0.05/kWh exported average I read is accurate (didn't look into that), and if the $8/kW monthly charge is based on inverter size, then exporting all that energy would generate $12/year ($108 - $96).

Obviously it makes no economic sense to install 1 DC W of PV panels at a cost of $2-$3 to get a return of $0.01/year over the life of the panels. So the value of PV will be solely in the avoided costs from reduced electricity import when the PV energy is consumed behind the meter.

Then if at least 1/9 of the generated energy is consumed behind the meter, the $8/kW monthly charge will outweigh the value of any energy exported. Thus, as referenced in post #140 above, if interconnecting with a non-export agreement is a way to avoid the $8/kW monthly charge, it will be advantageous to do so, and simply generate less PV energy.

In other words, the proposal appears to provide an economic incentive for reduced PV exports, which I'm pretty sure is a net negative for the state.

Cheers, Wayne

Post 197 says goes to 5 cents right away for exports. This is why I am trying to see if an option for me is to get a non export agreement since I would say 3000 per year! That a lot of electricity I can use to break even.

 

[h2ofun]

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 gave away my propane dryer for an electric. May have been a big mistake, let alone going to heat pumps for heating

 

[Zabe]

Post 197 says goes to 5 cents right away for exports. This is why I am trying to see if an option for me is to get a non export agreement since I would say 3000 per year! That a lot of electricity I can use to break even.

Based on reading the proposed decision you are locked in for 15 years from PTO to your current NEM 2.0 agreement. This was lowered from 20 years. You can read the section yourself page 144 section 8.6.4 Revisions to NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0 Tariffs.

 

[sunwarriors]

so why are you advocating NEM3?

Because like the CPUC (and most people), if it doesn't affect them, he simply doesn't care other's are being penalized after the fact (this whole 20>15 year thing).

He wants to use his PWs to charge them up from 12-6am cheap, then use it when energy prices are higher and laugh at everyone else with solar.

If they tacked on a fee on his PWs to do this, he'll shutup. It's always the selfishness of people and the whole class warfare thing made up with solar to pit everyone against each other.

Again, I'll state when I had no $$ and was too poor to get solar, I was never blaming the "rich" folks taking advantage of me. Honestly, our power rates like EVERYTHING else will continue going up whether people put solar or not. If there was no solar installs, power will still be up a ton. Look at places right next to PG&E land. Prices are much much lower.

Bottom line is Zabe is just protecting his own interests so as long as rates go up for everyone else, it's ok for him since he's not affected (could be affected eventually, who knows) since once changes are made, solar is worthless and people will simply do rate arbitrage now and ditch panels and get PWs to charge when costs are low, use massive batteries and play that game.

 

[sunwarriors]

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.

Yeah, long ROI just never makes sense because you may move, that money has a cost that could be invested in the markets for 10-15 years and you would be MUCH better off financially if the ROI is too long.

Stating a 15+ year ROIs is a joke and people are much better off taking the $$ and dumping it in the markets really.

As you mention, near the end of warranties, expect it to break and you'd have to spend $$ again to fix stuff in general.

One thing that's grossly missing is the high $$ used to put the solar in place. I can agree with changing the terms to make it slightly more balanced, but from quick glance, none of the CPUP stuff seems to realize that people put $20k-$60k in their installs since the ongoing monthly charges alone makes it not worth it.

Also, just because the CPUC states these numbers, we're to take them as truth? What's holding them to also raise rates and change terms again to their liking?

 

[sunwarriors]

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.

No one one does this to save $60k over 15 years, then start paying more just because they have solar.

That $60k invested is now probably $120k-$180k honestly.

Bottom line is solar will simply be dead in CA if this passes in it's current form...similar to Hawaii and Nevada...

 

[yblaser]

Also, just because the CPUC states these numbers, we're to take them as truth? What's holding them to also raise rates and change terms again to their liking?

The CPUC:

 

[sunwarriors]

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.

Yep, this plan will kill solar in CA so we have to ask ourselves why this can ever be good or balanced. It's not balanced currently and changing terms after the fact is really bad (can we sue?).

It's one thing to have some stepped up export agreeement or lower 1:1 NEM like some other states I've seen, but something completely different when they rip up old grandfather rules and just change from 1:1 to $0.27:$0.05 just because they say it's unfair.

Honestly, poor people will never get solar (or health insurance or a 50k EV, etc...).

The ROI is just too much risk to bother if this passes and no one will risk doing an install as it's much more flexible to just keep cash on hand.

 

[sunwarriors]

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.

As I keep saying, Zabe is just being selfish and as long as he doesn't pay, he really doesn't care.

That's really it. There is no discussion on whether the proposed NEM3.0 details are good/bad/fair equitable. It's not about that. NEM3.0 to me, from everything I've read will pretty much stop all solar installs. If that's good for CA (kill off the industry), then that's what will happen.

I think most/all of us can bet lots of $$ on that.

He even got his PWs free...Sorta pathetic honestly the level of selfishness since the NEM3.0 is pretty punitive to have any panels at all. If he was from PG&E or an IOU, at least he has a stake in the game to make it work for all. It's sorta like me spouting off policy in some far off country that has no effect on me so anything that a dictator says (CPUC/IOUs) is right because they said so.

I'm not even happy with the 15 years. Why change that? People who paid more for solar 10 years ago has 5 years left now with no warranty anymore? Slap in the face.

 

[RKCRLR]

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.

How is it "fair" to backtrack on an obligation? I may have invested differently if I based my RIO on 15 years instead of 20 years.

The government wonders why the people don't trust government. Even considering going back on an obligation is a poster child for why.

 

[RKCRLR]

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.

I don't have a problem with changing the cost structure, but it shouldn't be based on system size and an associated monthly connection fee. It should be based on how much you export and then re-import from the utility. If the amount you pay for re-imported electricity doesn't justify the expense then so be it.

But charging fees for what goes on behind the meter doesn't make sense.

If someone spends a lot of money for super insulation and super efficient appliances, should they be charged monthly fees because they've reduced their consumption and shifted the cost of grid maintenance?

And, again, stick to the commitments that were already made.

 

[Vines]

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".

View attachment 744849

For real, please show me more examples of your NEM PTO agreements that clearly exclude your Powerwalls form your site nameplate.

My NEM2MT agreement looks like yours. Both PV and PW inverter sizes are totaled. This makes more sense now that Tesla VPP is starting up and PW inverters are actually back feeding the grid.

EDIT: There is so much to discuss about NEM 3.0, but right now during crunch time I really don't have that time to really engage.

 

[Redhill_qik]

If $8/kW fee is the exact amount that should be paid by solar owners to make NEM 3.0 equitable to both solar and non-solar owners would that be fair?

No it would not.

What would be fair is if these fixed costs are included as a line item for every (solar and non-solar) grid connection as a replacement to the current Minimum Daily Charge tariff. This should be based on the service type that you have. One value for a 100A service, higher for 200A, higher again for 400A. Now everyone is paying their fair share for the basics and the variable charges for power distribution would be reduced to account for the increased fixed charge.

I have 8.16kW of panels on my house with an inverter that maxes at 7.6kW and due to the panel orientations I can only get a maximum of 6.2kW for a few hours in the June. Fixating on the raw panel kW is the wrong metric.

 

[sunwarriors]

What would be fair is if these fixed costs are included as a line item for every (solar and non-solar) grid connection as a replacement to the current Minimum Daily Charge tariff.

I would support this...the grid maintenance should be on everyone's bill, not to have solar owners support everyone else neither.

 

[jjrandorin]

As I keep saying, Zabe is just being selfish and as long as he doesn't pay, he really doesn't care.

That's really it. There is no discussion on whether the proposed NEM3.0 details are good/bad/fair equitable. It's not about that. NEM3.0 to me, from everything I've read will pretty much stop all solar installs. If that's good for CA (kill off the industry), then that's what will happen.

I think most/all of us can bet lots of $$ on that.

He even got his PWs free...Sorta pathetic honestly the level of selfishness since the NEM3.0 is pretty punitive to have any panels at all. If he was from PG&E or an IOU, at least he has a stake in the game to make it work for all. It's sorta like me spouting off policy in some far off country that has no effect on me so anything that a dictator says (CPUC/IOUs) is right because they said so.

I'm not even happy with the 15 years. Why change that? People who paid more for solar 10 years ago has 5 years left now with no warranty anymore? Slap in the face.

(moderator note)

You can be unhappy with the ideas and position of someone, and state that you are unhappy with those in polite terms, but debate the ideas, and do not direct specific things toward the person behind the ideas. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and entitled to express them without being attacked themselves.

As I think I expressed earlier, I do not happen to share @Zabe 's particular position on this, but will defend his right to make it, without personal attacks.

 

[h2ofun]

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.

I thought from what I read the 5 cents per kwh is all one get sending back, no retail anymore, starting as soon as it passes?

 

[h2ofun]

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".

View attachment 744849

For real, please show me more examples of your NEM PTO agreements that clearly exclude your Powerwalls form your site nameplate.

He is what I had sent in. What do you make of it compared to yours?

 

[h2ofun]

(moderator note)

You can be unhappy with the ideas and position of someone, and state that you are unhappy with those in polite terms, but debate the ideas, and do not direct specific things toward the person behind the ideas. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and entitled to express them without being attacked themselves.

As I think I expressed earlier, I do not happen to share @Zabe 's particular position on this, but will defend his right to make it, without personal attacks.

Best way to deal with this is to not respond to them

 

[h2ofun]

Agree, but we don't know if it would be possible to get a non-export agreement.

this is what we need to find out