CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[holeydonut]

Just saw this editorial with a new spin about how rich Californian homeowners are robbing the poor.

Editorial: Rooftop solar program robs from the poor and gives to the rich

PUC should revise California’s incentive program, balance the needs of the electric grid, environment and consumers.

www.mercurynews.com

Apparently (which I think is wrong) the wholesale cost of solar is only $0.03 /kWh… but PG&E is having to “buy” rich people’s solar exports at full retail including the transmission cost. So if PG&E managed all solar generation it would be way cheaper. Barf.

 

[sunwarriors]

Just saw this editorial with a new spin about how rich Californian homeowners are robbing the poor.

Editorial: Rooftop solar program robs from the poor and gives to the rich

PUC should revise California’s incentive program, balance the needs of the electric grid, environment and consumers.

www.mercurynews.com

Apparently (which I think is wrong) the wholesale cost of solar is only $0.03 /kWh… but PG&E is having to “buy” rich people’s solar exports at full retail including the transmission cost. So if PG&E managed all solar generation it would be way cheaper. Barf.

Barf...

Articles like this are annoying when they feel only solar customers should help cover the costs of maintaining the grid when it should be EVERYONE's responsibility in maintaining the grid.

They also always gloss over the tens of thousands of $$ paid upfront to put up solar. That $$ doesn't come from nowhere. If solar had their way, the IOUs would have you pay them the 50k-100k and you get nothing and they just use your $$ to build a mass-large scale storage benefit that won't be maintained and your $$ will be used to pay out more bonuses.

People are getting solar because the IOUs are just charging insane rates. We pay the most in San Diego and some folks here have posted rates just a few blocks over from other energy providers much lower.

Class warfare is never a good thing. I just got solar so I was one of those 'poor' people. I never felt all you 'rich' solar early adopters were robbing me and rates would go up whether there was a single solar install or a million.

 

[Merrill]

This article is so much bs, how does someone who has solar cost others that do not have solar more money. My bill went down but my neighbors bill did not change relative to my solar install, the only way this would be true is if Pacific Graft and Extortion passed on my saving to others. Maybe the people that run these utilities should not be making billions, we need to change our utility monopoly to a better system.

 

[RKCRLR]

Woodsmoke is incredibly polluting, both indoors and outside even from a great fireplace like the Blaze princess (my first choice until my insurer vetoed it).
Wood Burning and the Environment By 2012, the few percent of Californians burning wood were polluting more than the pollution from all the vehicles combined. Today it is closer to three times, despite decreases in the number of homes with wood fired anything, and more vehicles on the road.

Did you know that wood (or charcoal) used for cooking is exempt from the California Air Resources Board restrictions? (Despite the pollution levels!)

All the best,

BG

But that doesn't take the whole cycle into account. What about the smoke from the wildfires? What if forests were thinned and dying trees were removed to prevent wildfires and the removed wood used for heat in clean burning wood stoves instead of of other energy sources for heating?

I live close to where the Caldor fire was. There are many dead standing trees left. Although the trees could be used for lumber, most of the lumber mills have closed down. There is over 10 years worth of dead trees and they will be no good for lumber by then.

Trees are good at sequestering carbon but they eventually die. I haven't seen a study that accounts for the whole cycle and what happens to the carbon after they die. I do know that rotting trees release methane which is worse than carbon. It would be interesting to be a study that accounts for the whole cycle and a comparison of the impact if the unused wood was used as a heat source instead of other energy sources.

 

[Zabe]

Just saw this editorial with a new spin about how rich Californian homeowners are robbing the poor.

Editorial: Rooftop solar program robs from the poor and gives to the rich

PUC should revise California’s incentive program, balance the needs of the electric grid, environment and consumers.

www.mercurynews.com

Apparently (which I think is wrong) the wholesale cost of solar is only $0.03 /kWh… but PG&E is having to “buy” rich people’s solar exports at full retail including the transmission cost. So if PG&E managed all solar generation it would be way cheaper. Barf.

You can check the day ahead, 15 minute, and realtime prices that CAISO pays for power at California ISO - Prices, Today's Outlook

Most commercial solar are probably getting paid the $0.03/kWh on average. The flood of solar from 0700-1600 has caused the price to collapse. I know you all do not want to believe that but it is the truth (I used to run the generation desk at CAISO and have an in depth understanding of system balancing and system prices). Your solar overproduction going to the grid, and your solar production lowering your metered usage has created the duck curve, and caused prices to plummet. I kind of laugh a bit every time I read someone on here saying how much they are helping the grid. You are not helping the grid. You are helping yourself save money on electricity.

 

[Merrill]

But that doesn't take the whole cycle into account. What about the smoke from the wildfires? What if forests were thinned and dying trees were removed to prevent wildfires and the removed wood used for heat in clean burning wood stoves instead of of other energy sources for heating?

I live close to where the Caldor fire was. There are many dead standing trees left. Although the trees could be used for lumber, most of the lumber mills have closed down. There is over 10 years worth of dead trees and they will be no good for lumber by then.

Trees are good at sequestering carbon but they eventually die. I haven't seen a study that accounts for the whole cycle and what happens to the carbon after they die. I do know that rotting trees release methane which is worse than carbon. It would be interesting to be a study that accounts for the whole cycle and a comparison of the impact if the unused wood was used as a heat source instead of other energy sources.

Yes, there is so much wood that could be used but nobody to harvest it.

 

[RKCRLR]

You can check the day ahead, 15 minute, and realtime prices that CAISO pays for power at California ISO - Prices, Today's Outlook

Most commercial solar are probably getting paid the $0.03/kWh on average. The flood of solar from 0700-1600 has caused the price to collapse. I know you all do not want to believe that but it is the truth (I used to run the generation desk at CAISO and have an in depth understanding of system balancing and system prices). Your solar overproduction going to the grid, and your solar production lowering your metered usage has created the duck curve, and caused prices to plummet. I kind of laugh a bit every time I read someone on here saying how much they are helping the grid. You are not helping the grid. You are helping yourself save money on electricity.

I'm fine with making the cost structure reflect the true costs. If the solar produced isn't worth what they are paying then the utilities shouldn't be forced to pay it. But that should be reflected in what they pay for the energy and not by an arbitrary connection fee for solar customers. Allow people to people to do what they want behind the meter to lower their imports from the grid and make the connection fee proportional to the energy they use equal for all customers.

And don't go back on commitments already made.

 

[Zabe]

I'm fine with making the cost structure reflect the true costs. If the solar produced isn't worth what they are paying then the utilities shouldn't be forced to pay it. But that should be reflected in what they pay for the energy and not by an arbitrary connection fee for solar customers. Allow people to people to do what they want behind the meter to lower their imports from the grid and make the connection fee proportional to the energy they use equal for all customers.

And don't go back on commitments already made.

I just looked at my PG&E bill. Over half of my bill is for things other than "generation". Transmission, distribution, etc..... why would your neighbor pay you the full retail rate for your generation when you are not providing the transmission, distribution, etc....?

If they do not go back on commitments made, NEM 1.0 and 2.0 customers continue to stick it to their full rate paying neighbors.

 

[Zabe]

This is the CPUC's mea culpa. NEM 1.0 and 2.0 are a massive benefit to solar customers and a massive cost to non solar customers. And they are still proposing to lock in these unjust rates for 15 years.

Why is it that the average EV owner on here understands that they are using the roads and not paying the fees through gas taxes, but the average solar customer does not understand they are using the grid and not paying the fees through the current rate structure?

 

[RKCRLR]

I just looked at my PG&E bill. Over half of my bill is for things other than "generation". Transmission, distribution, etc..... why would your neighbor pay you the full retail rate for your generation when you are not providing the transmission, distribution, etc....?

If they do not go back on commitments made, NEM 1.0 and 2.0 customers continue to stick it to their full rate paying neighbors.

Because that is the agreement they made. California was in a big push to get solar deployed and felt the cost was worth it. They should have known what the impact was going to be. I made a investment based on that agreement and the agreement should be kept unless they want to unwind the whole deal.

I agree, they've made a house of cards by not structuring rates proportional to the direct costs and now they are trying to figure out how to recover. But they are going about it the wrong way.

 

[Zabe]

Because that is the agreement they made. California was in a big push to get solar deployed and felt the cost was worth it. They should have known what the impact was going to be. I made a investment based on that agreement and the agreement should be kept unless they want to unwind the whole deal.

I agree, they've made a house of cards by not structuring rates proportional to the direct costs and now they are trying to figure out how to recover. But they are going about it the wrong way.

Please explain what you believe the right way is?

 

[yblaser]

If they do not go back on commitments made, NEM 1.0 and 2.0 customers continue to stick it to their full rate paying neighbors.

Can we apply the same logic to the IOUs?

Oh, sorry that 15 year old power plant you built isn't needed any more. Instead of sticking the cost to the rate payers, your investors are going to have to pay for it out of their profit for the next 20 years.

 

[RKCRLR]

Please explain what you believe the right way is?

Make the monthly connection fee based on the impact to the infrastructure, similar to how they do for businesses. They have the data for peak draw, the connection rate structure should be based on that. Residential energy producers shouldn't have to pay significantly more than non-energy producers. I understand that there is a slight increase in burden connecting to a energy producer but the price increase should be proportional to the costs.

Make the energy charges proportional the costs of providing the energy. TOU rates should reflect this.

Make the price they pay for energy produced by residential energy producers similar to what they pay for energy from other sources. But keep what goes on behind the meter out of it. If someone wants to self consume then let them without charging them for it. And if someone with batteries wants to provide power to the grid when it needs it, let them if the costs pencil out.

And don't go back on commitments already made.

 

[taphil]

The right way is to re-start burning coal, clean coal. It's equitable for everyone to breathe.

 

[skepticcyclist]

but the average solar customer does not understand they are using the grid and not paying the fees through the current rate structure?

But we are paying the same fees

 

[Merrill]

I give up, although I put solar panels on my house to help the environment and save some money. Looks like I’m ending up with only one of those. I love get some power from the sun and that will never change.

 

[holeydonut]

You can check the day ahead, 15 minute, and realtime prices that CAISO pays for power at California ISO - Prices, Today's Outlook

Most commercial solar are probably getting paid the $0.03/kWh on average. The flood of solar from 0700-1600 has caused the price to collapse. I know you all do not want to believe that but it is the truth (I used to run the generation desk at CAISO and have an in depth understanding of system balancing and system prices). Your solar overproduction going to the grid, and your solar production lowering your metered usage has created the duck curve, and caused prices to plummet. I kind of laugh a bit every time I read someone on here saying how much they are helping the grid. You are not helping the grid. You are helping yourself save money on electricity.

If you worked the commodity desk you’d know the real problem was the 400+ PPA renewables contracts that PG&E went into unhedged and with no recourse to adjust. These highly lucrative contracts drove the cratering value of spot solar. These PPA were poorly thought out con jobs for the energy IOU’s to funnel absurd profits to their buddies. These are part of the fraud and grift that is enabled by the CPUC.

Homeowners put solar on their roof to offset their own footprint. These PPA’s are massive money grabs by companies who want to suckle off the feat of bad policy. Go roast these energy providers instead of trolling TMC.

You coming into a residential owners forum stirring *sugar* is more of a problem than any person putting solar in their rooftop in 2022.

 

[brian.c]

Please explain what you believe the right way is?

If I move 2 blocks away, my connection fee is less than $30. CPUC proposal puts my fee at over $100. 2 blocks away your total bill will be on average half what PG&E is. I would say simply charge every customer the same connection fee. On peak solar production hours, discount the export, if there is too much supply. I would say, nearly all have a big issue with the per kw fee, and I think we all would be fine if PG&E set a connection fee for all users. Right now that fee is $10 per month, which I think we all agree is too low... My bill goes from $10 to $200 in this proposal, after spending close to $40k for solar. Under this proposal I lose about 60% of my savings. Under this proposal, people will do the math, and not install solar. Find a way to charge based on actual usage, or set fee for all customers. Per kw fees are penalizing people who simply have solar, but those fees are not based on actual usage. If my normal bill with solar is $150 a month, and my neighbor pays $200 without. Should my bill jump to $200 just because I have solar? The problem is, PG&E wants to charge people who use more energy, even if they produce that energy, and use it behind the meter. It would be like the grocery charging you money, if you grew your own food. They need to sell that food, and you are cutting into their profits.

 

[jjrandorin]

You can check the day ahead, 15 minute, and realtime prices that CAISO pays for power at California ISO - Prices, Today's Outlook

Most commercial solar are probably getting paid the $0.03/kWh on average. The flood of solar from 0700-1600 has caused the price to collapse. I know you all do not want to believe that but it is the truth (I used to run the generation desk at CAISO and have an in depth understanding of system balancing and system prices). Your solar overproduction going to the grid, and your solar production lowering your metered usage has created the duck curve, and caused prices to plummet. I kind of laugh a bit every time I read someone on here saying how much they are helping the grid. You are not helping the grid. You are helping yourself save money on electricity.

(Moderator note)

I edited this quoted post above to remove a line that I feel was inflammatory (pun slightly intended), and basically "egging on" conflict. Alternative viewpoints are welcome, attempting to incite a flame war is not.

==========================================

(Regular content, not moderation)

I thought I remembered you saying somewhere here that you were basically a power industry insider, or had been. That makes your position a bit more understandable, although I dont agree with it.

 

[getakey]

Residential solar is not responsible for the duck curve. Utility solar is greater than residential solar. The same duck curve would be there without residential. All of us with Batteries are indeed helping the grid. I shifted my PW usage to exactly match the Peak demand