-
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
The issue is NOT how many PW's one has, its the ability to charge them. One should have like 6kw per PW.
Got 7KW and 2 PW, and it's not enough PW in the summer, but one would be more than enough in the winter. That's why 2/3 self consumption, 1/3 export may be optimistic (with PW) over the course of a year. In the winter, we're always consuming more than exporting.
RKCRLR
Active Member
Another fallout of this could be loss of warranties from installation companies if they go under or get out of the business.
I have 2 systems, an older string system and a newer Panasonic/Enphase system.
My older panels panels are technically under a 25 year warranty but the company was bought out by a Chinese company and now its focus is crypto mining. They stopped maintaining their solar production monitoring website and I suspect if I need a panel warrantied I'll be SOL.
My recent install has the Panasonic TripleGuard warranty so I should be good there however my installation company guaranteed to cover any gaps. Hopefully, he'll stay in business.
But I imagine if this goes through there may be some relatively large companies that don't survive since California is such a big market. Many of those companies provided the warranty service.
I have 2 systems, an older string system and a newer Panasonic/Enphase system.
My older panels panels are technically under a 25 year warranty but the company was bought out by a Chinese company and now its focus is crypto mining. They stopped maintaining their solar production monitoring website and I suspect if I need a panel warrantied I'll be SOL.
My recent install has the Panasonic TripleGuard warranty so I should be good there however my installation company guaranteed to cover any gaps. Hopefully, he'll stay in business.
But I imagine if this goes through there may be some relatively large companies that don't survive since California is such a big market. Many of those companies provided the warranty service.
I notice on the LA Times article, there is a blurb about 20 year for low income folks:
www.latimes.com
Does that mean if someone retired and is now, "low" income at say, year 15, someone could continue operating under the old program for the full 20 years after installation (5 more years)? This 5 year drop annoys me a lot since that's 25% more cost you will be paying vs. the original 20 years. That's moving the goal posts.
Another thing is this blurb:
"He told me one of the utilities commission’s biggest mistakes is assuming that rooftop solar costs $2.34 per Watt, based on data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He pointed to a different data set from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory showing that installed system costs actually hit $3.87 per Watt in California last year, which he described as closer to reality."
This is probably how the CPUC came out with their great ROI numbers. My install was higher than this $2.34 per Watt and much much higher with batteries. Outside of Tesla installs, almost no one gets close to $2 I think.
I also saw an article today saying ~42% of solar installs in CA were by families with under $100k in income. In CA, I don't think anyone thinks $100k is "rich" , especially not in any major metro area (Bay Area, LA, San Diego).
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
- Require homes that already have solar panels to switch from the existing net metering program to the new program described above — known as “net billing” — no later than 15 years after their systems were installed. Low-income homes could keep operating under the more favorable terms of the old program for 20 years after installation.
Does that mean if someone retired and is now, "low" income at say, year 15, someone could continue operating under the old program for the full 20 years after installation (5 more years)? This 5 year drop annoys me a lot since that's 25% more cost you will be paying vs. the original 20 years. That's moving the goal posts.
Another thing is this blurb:
"He told me one of the utilities commission’s biggest mistakes is assuming that rooftop solar costs $2.34 per Watt, based on data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He pointed to a different data set from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory showing that installed system costs actually hit $3.87 per Watt in California last year, which he described as closer to reality."
This is probably how the CPUC came out with their great ROI numbers. My install was higher than this $2.34 per Watt and much much higher with batteries. Outside of Tesla installs, almost no one gets close to $2 I think.
I also saw an article today saying ~42% of solar installs in CA were by families with under $100k in income. In CA, I don't think anyone thinks $100k is "rich" , especially not in any major metro area (Bay Area, LA, San Diego).
There is a new program under NEM 3 that is a credit for the PW's I don't know if you captured that in your calculations.
I did not. I also did not capture:
- the time value of money
- the fact the IOUs will keep increasing the monthly fee over the next 20 years
- the fact that not everyone can get a Tesla PV, and would have to pay 30% more for their solar
- any additional maintenance cost over those 20 years
- the fact that most people don't have a roof that points due south and my production estimate is a best case scenario.
My math is very quick and dirty, and I welcome anyone to improve it. But, at first glance, one would have to be a fool to go solar after NEM 3 goes live. CPUC is estimating a 10 year pay back and solar advocates estimate a 16 year pay back. I think that most people can do better things with their money with that kind of abysmal returns.
Side note: folks in Truckee pay $0.15 a KWh all day every day. They source their energy from NV. Compare this to what PG&E and SCE are charging us. This is crazy. This new program creates ever more redistribution (charge more to "rich" solar owners and then redistribute to low income, etc.). I wonder how much money will be wasted administrating these redistribution programs. We wouldn't need any of those programs if the IOUs were efficient and weren't robbing us blind.
In the report by LBNL it is clearly stated that the price of $3.87/W is prior to incentives.
Last edited:
No way in winter if one has heat pumps like me. Even with 30kw of solar, I still have to pull tons from the grid.
Without the BBB passing, incentives actually will be going down in a few years. I think we can all come up with some numbers to support our stance so I think this discussion with certain people is just a waste of time at this point. People will say/think what they believe is in their best interest really and there is no changing any of that.
The eventual proof will be if this passes in it's current form, will we see the massive drop in solar installs that was seen in Hawaii and Nevada? I think it was like 100 installs/month in Hawaii, then it dropped to less than 5. I feel from these terms, our solar situation is actually worst than both those states if this passes.
I think changing the goalpost is criminal and the 20 year shouldn't be changed to 15 just because they said so. There is also no guarantees that things won't be changed again since they are proposing to change NEM1.0 and NEM2.0 terms so why should anyone trust what the IOUs/CPUC says? Then can change that $8 to $20/month, anything, if politicians and governing bodies allows this, you have no recourse unless we start seeing lawsuits (hopeful on that).
I suppose in your mind, would you go solar yourself based on the CPUC ROI of 7-16 years? Remember, after a certain amount of time, like a new home, things break and your warranty is out. Batteries are only 10 years. I think SolarEdge inverters are 10 years warranty and those break regularly from what I see here. In SDG&E land, the article said my ROI is like 6 years. I think before this proposal, I calculated it was like 5 or so (only solar) on NEM2.0 and I think it's a lie that ROI will be just 1 year worst. You tack on losing 5 years of NEM2.0 and it's much more than anyone specced out pricing wise.
There is also the cost of capital mentioned (100k for some folks) and the extra hassles of managing a solar install that not many articles seem to care about.
Maybe when all the jobs are lost, things will backfire on these policies (it has in other states) since now, the "poor" solar installers are taking it on the chin and this class warfare that's constantly brought about solar being bad can hopefully stop.
Tying up that much capital on a solar install under NEM3.0 that "might" break even is just a bad investment when you may/may not even stay in your home that long and they can simply change your ROI again instantly due to a policy shift later. If no one buys into solar after this (what the IOUs are REALLY after), clearly NEM3.0 is bad policy and CA isn't going to get closer to it's zero emmissions goal.
Last edited:
One thing that is being overlooked in the media is how under NEM2.0 some homeowners were already looking at 15 year plus ROI’s due to their financing structures.
PPA agreements, leases, and PACE loans routinely pushed ROI out to almost 20 years already. Most of the alleged “wealthy” people getting solar in the last decade weren’t forking over $50,000 cash. Look at the size of the securitizations being executed by Sunrun, Sunpower, etc. These high yield stuff was being captured by the lender, not the homeowner.
The NEM 3 changes would basically kill any chance the majority middle class (but non-CARE) would have to even afford a system. A solar lease wont be able to use a non-export agreement.
In case others want to join the rally at the CPUC headquarters RSVP to the CALSSA link: Save Our Solar Jobs Rally — CA Solar & Storage Association
skepticcyclist
Member
Yep. I'm a high school teacher and my wife is a forensic scientist. What many may think of as middle class income in other states would be considered lower income here in CA. We both work for the government and we are middle class.
We had to finance our solar system on a 20 year loan. For years we put off going solar because it wasn't worth the cost. It wasn't until we got to a point where what we will be paying in electricity for the next 20 years and what we will pay for our solar during the same time would be about the same or less for solar. We budgeted and planned based on the NEM 2.0 agreement. If they change this agreement, that is like a breach of contract for us and will hurt us.
We are not rich at all. We live in an upper middle class neighborhood in a socioeconomically disadvantaged city on the edge of the Inland Empire. We could afford to live in a middle class neighborhood in a middle class or upper middle class city or any city closer to downtown LA if we sacrificed.
Many people with solar are in the same situation as us - middle class folks conservatively budgeting and making sound financial decisions. We are not people who can easily say, "hey, let's just put up $50k worth of solar and pay out of pocket." Changing the agreement hurts many of us as it screws with what we budgeted and planned
I wonder how many people quit paying on those leases and loans when they realize their monthly lease/loan payment + PG&E fees cost more than no solar at all. I know when I looked at the leases, you did not save that much over your normal PG&E bill. But you were generating green energy, and saving a few bucks.
I think its pretty clear though, CPUC and the IOUs could care less about the average family. They care about making profits, making their investors happy.In a normal business we could go elsewhere, but they have a monopoly and we have no choice. We can't even disconnect if we thought we could be 100% off grid. The way this is structured, you can not even lower your usage to lower costs. This bill will only hurt middle and low income families, does anyone think millionaires are too concerned about a few thousand a year? The amount we lose will hurt us financially, it will be noticeable, it will force us to cut spending elsewhere.
On another note to those who might think this is a good idea, once they get approval to raise fees on certain groups of people, based on their perceived costs, be prepared to be targeted in the future. Live in the mountains or out in the country, I can see them tacking on a $200 monthly fee to bury the lines etc. I mean its only fair if we are worried about cost shifting... Why should I have to pay more for your choices on where to live?
skepticcyclist
Member
I can't speak for others, but I can say that we waited until we knew our monthly loan payments plus any SCE monthly fees would be less than what we were paying a year for electricity without solar. This was the case for our first year. We were net producer and we have a battery where we do time shifting. We got more back with our true up than the monthly fees we paid SCE for the whole year and while making loan payments less than our average monthly bill.
Of course this had a lot to do with the fact that we had the driest and sunniest winter on record last year producing more solar than a normal winter, and a relatively cool summer where we ran our AC about 40-80 hours less per month (which is 80-160 kWh less of electricity use per moth alone.)
Great example of why full grandfathering is necessary and justified. If the proposal passes then a class action lawsuit is almost certain based what happened in Nevada (Solar customers file lawsuit against NV Energy over new net metering rates) and the chance of winning looks pretty good.
I wonder why there is no result since this from 2016. Maybe they settled out of court and they kept their old terms.
RKCRLR
Active Member
Depends on where you live. Some cities/counties require you to have utilities and will red tag your house if you don't.
Similar threads
- Locked
