CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[wwhitney]

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?

Only for "NEM3," aka the Net Billing Tariff. Anyone who applies for interconnection I think 120 days after the proposed order is adopted (unless this part is amended) would end up on the Net Billing Tariff eventually, but the IOUs have some time to set up their billing systems to implement that. In the meantime those customers would be on NEM2, but switched over to the Net Billing Tariff when it is operational.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[h2ofun]

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.

I do not trust anything yet. What I care about is the connection fee, and export credit. I do not think I have read anything that I see as in stone with answers.
But, I may call pge today and ask what it would take to get a non export setup so I cannot save with NEM3 the 3000 bucks a year in connection fees, IMO.

I want to put a spreadsheet together with my numbers to see what it looks like. But, it still is not clear what the export credits will be under the 15 year NEM2.
Just seems retail is going away now, but

 

[h2ofun]

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?

I wish I only had put in 60K, mine is pushing 100K

 

[h2ofun]

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.

Can you tell a potential customer now, being NEM3, that they should buy solar?

 

[h2ofun]

Only for "NEM3," aka the Net Billing Tariff. Anyone who applies for interconnection I think 120 days after the proposed order is adopted (unless this part is amended) would end up on the Net Billing Tariff eventually, but the IOUs have some time to set up their billing systems to implement that. In the meantime those customers would be on NEM2, but switched over to the Net Billing Tariff when it is operational.

Cheers, Wayne

So do you know in stone, you are saying, that NEM2 folks for 15 years get retail credit and no $8/kw of panels charge monthly? I would take a bet on that

 

[wwhitney]

So do you know in stone, you are saying, that NEM2 folks for 15 years get retail credit and no $8/kw of panels charge monthly? I would take a bet on that

My reading of the recent proposal is that the above is true. I'm not going to wager on whether the proposal will change, or on what will happen 5 years from now. But I would say that you don't have any concrete reason to worry yet, just a concern about further creep beyond what has already been proposed.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

this is what we need to find out

Fairly sure the answer is yes. Glancing through PG&E's general non-export stuff, worst case should be $800 interconnection fee and putting PG&E on your insurance. That's just preliminary.

There's also a pilot program that Tesla suggested and is underway allowing for non-export interconnection of up to 30 kW of inverters (presumably both ESS and PV count) without preapplication to the IOU, just after the fact notification. Not sure what the fees are. The decision:

https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M387/K064/387064665.PDF

Cheers, Wayne

 

[h2ofun]

My reading of the recent proposal is that the above is true. I'm not going to wager on whether the proposal will change, or on what will happen 5 years from now. But I would say that you don't have any concrete reason to worry yet, just a concern about further creep beyond what has already been proposed.

Cheers, Wayne

hope you are right

 

[skepticcyclist]

LA Times article about this

Everything you need to know about California's plan to slash solar incentives

Want to go solar, or already have rooftop panels? Here's how proposed changes would affect you.

www.latimes.com

 

[brian.c]

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?


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.

Here is what is gonna happen, when people realize those costs outweigh the benefits, they will begin removing panels and systems. Under the new proposed rules, I will pull one of my systems offline. Is this better for CA? That means that green energy will be replaced with natural gas, is that better? I am not going to pay to keep a system running, that costs me more money then it saves. I guess I find it hard to believe some people can't see through this money grab policy. Charging fixed fees, based on size is a pure money grab. Charge all the usage fees you want, fine... The problem is, they know we can reduce our usage, so now they go after something they know we can not easily change. Can you image how difficult it will be to remove the fees when your system stops working? So one day your inverter breaks, you don't want to fix, do you think PG&E is just gonna say "okay, we will stop billing you"... Nope, they are gonna require building permits, remove all equipment, resubmit interconnection agreements etc. Then, PG&E will do what they do with all interconnection agreements, take their sweet time approving it. Once this fee is imposed, you will be stuck paying, no matter the output, when its down for maintenance, etc... Like I mentioned before, my old system generates substantially less then when installed do to bad panels, degradation of panels, and no southern exposure... But I will pay the same as a brand new system, with perfect southern exposure that generates nearly double what my system generates... This is why I will pull it down if this goes into affect.

 

[skepticcyclist]

In the long run it may be less expensive for me to add one more battery, a few more panels, a little 1kW turbine, and/or a backup natural gas generator with transfer switch connected to the gas line in my house to go completely off grid. Don't pay a penny to SCE

 

[nwdiver]

Here is what is gonna happen, when people realize those costs outweigh the benefits,

A good south facing array in CA is going to produce ~120kWh/mo per kW. At $8/kW that comes out to <$0.07/kWh. Still A LOT cheaper than buying it from the grid. As absurd as it is to basically buy it from yourself and pay the utility.

I would just carve off a separate off-grid system. An electric water heater would also be good... heat water with surplus solar.

 

[holeydonut]

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?

Ooohhhh when you all say $0.05 per kWh you are talking about the avoided cost calculator (ACC) export credit rate at noon. lololol. Coffee does wonders to my brain.

Yes, the "E3" study that PG&E commissioned to calculate the "fair rate for exports" came up with $0.03 per kWh for the peak non-time in the future years that NEM 3.0 was supposed to impact.

PG&E said they were doing solar customers a solid by rounding this up to $0.05 per kWh since it's almost double the E3 calculator.

Between 2pm and 5pm the ACC rate increases, which will help with the ROI of a NEM 3.0 project.

 

[holeydonut]

Can you tell a potential customer now, being NEM3, that they should buy solar?

Right now, the impact of NEM 3.0 hasn't been priced into what installers are charging. That's why my first post in this thread was to recommend anyone ordering a system now to simply wait or ask the installer to put in writing that their system will be de-valued by 25% if the installer is unable to secure PTO under NEM 2.0.

A customer who pays NEM 2.0 prices for NEM 3.0 policy is getting hosed. That customer should just wait if neither themselves or the installer can come to terms with a pricing adjustment should the installation miss the NEM 2.0 window.

Pricing aside, NEM 3.0 solar still makes reasonable sense for a homeowner is looking at a solar +ESS project that would offset about 50% of annual consumption. The 100% to 150% projects like yours make very little sense under the latest NEM 3.0 proposal.

 

[brian.c]

A good south facing array in CA is going to produce ~120kWh/mo per kW. At $8/kW that comes out to <$0.07/kWh. Still A LOT cheaper than buying it from the grid. As absurd as it is to basically buy it from yourself and pay the utility.

I would just carve off a separate off-grid system. An electric water heater would also be good... heat water with surplus solar.

Yeah, I agree... What i have is 2 systems, a newer along with a small old system. The small old system has issues and is going to need repairs in the future. I just can't justify replacing panels, and repairing if it takes another 5-10 years to earn back those costs. Obviously will let it run its course for now, and do the math when the time comes. What would be ideal is remove it from interconnection, and connect that to an off grid battery for car charger, maybe also run the pool equipment.

 

[Redhill_qik]

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.

What exactly are your definitions of equitable and fair as it relates to NEM?

On the ROI, that is just a red herring and isn't an equity or fairness issue. With solar you are simply using less of a commodity and it isn't money that is going into your pocket. Do you also fault people from switching from a 60W incandescent bulb to a 13W LED? Switching a bulb that is on 24 hours for 365 days reduces consumption by 411.7 kWh over the year and at $0.35/kWh that that will save you $144.10 for a bulb that costs $2.00 for a ROI of 72x in just one year.

IMHO, solar is no different. I went from using 9,130 kWh in 2017 at a cost of $2,364 down to 6,810 kWh in 2019 at a cost of $1,605 reducing my usage by 2,320 kWh and lowering my cost by $759 by only switching to LED bulbs and watching what was left on. Was this unfair or inequitable for me to do? My first year of solar I further reduced by grid usage to just 2,677 kWh. I have batteries, so no usage during peak, and using the E-TOU-C Off-Peak Summer pricing of $0.35673 and Winter of $0.30665 would have cost $820.12 without NEM credits. The proposed $8.00/kW for my 7.6kW (assuming that is the invertor rating and not the PV panel rating) would be $668.80 which is slightly higher. However, those numbers are the bundled rates and really we should only be talking about the unbundle distribution rates of $0.13415 for Summer and $0.09353 for Winter which so makes the un-NEM cost for my grid usage of 2,677 kWh $278.15 which is much lower than the proposed $668.80 for the just having solar and reduce my load on the network.

What's fair? IMHO, either everyone connected to the grid pays a fix cost based on their service rating (100A, 200A, 400A, etc) with a reduction in the distribution tariffs or make the entire distribution portion a Non-Bypassable Charge (NBC) and not included in NEM credits. The broad bush charge by PV/invertor size is not the right method.

 

[MJ_CA_2019]

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?

 

[nwdiver]

IMHO, solar is no different. I went from using 9,130 kWh in 2017 at a cost of $2,364 down to 6,810 kWh in 2019 at a cost of $1,605 reducing my usage by 2,320 kWh and lowering my cost by $759 by only switching to LED bulbs and watching what was left on. Was this unfair or inequitable for me to do?

This $8/kW nonsense seems a lot like this...

 

[holeydonut]

What exactly are your definitions of equitable and fair as it relates to NEM?

On the ROI, that is just a red herring and isn't an equity or fairness issue. With solar you are simply using less of a commodity and it isn't money that is going into your pocket. Do you also fault people from switching from a 60W incandescent bulb to a 13W LED? Switching a bulb that is on 24 hours for 365 days reduces consumption by 411.7 kWh over the year and at $0.35/kWh that that will save you $144.10 for a bulb that costs $2.00 for a ROI of 72x in just one year.

I agree with what you're saying completely; that every day people invest in things for personal gain.

But playing devil's advocate here for a second, remember that there is a growing-grumble that rich fat-cat EV drivers are not paying their fair share of maintenance of public roadways and infrastructure.

It's the same argument that PG&E uses for the grid, but now you have equity rights groups saying wealthy EV drivers are not paying a fair share of excise taxes (state and federal) that help with road maintenance and new construction. Things like Senate Bill 1 are in the ~$0.70 per gallon that "poor petrol powered people pay at the pump."

You can see how quickly the class warfare argument can spread from NEM 3.0 having a fixed kW fee on solar into a property tax on EV's on a per kW basis as well. If the industry (solar and EV) cannot effectively figure out how to contribute to these equity programs, then lawmakers typically come in with very aggressive changes like what we're seeing under NEM 3 to force the issue.

 

[holeydonut]

View attachment 744988

Make sure to leave a public comment that you think the NEM 3 grid access fee should be for solar-only kW and not the gross nameplate ...