CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[skepticcyclist]

Your bill is the whole point. An argument has been submitted to the CPUC that solar customer are not even paying for their cost of service due to the structure of NEM 1 and NEM 2 contracts. That is the whole point. Your $12 bill does not pay for your cost of service. $12 that does not even pay for a happy meal.

Just admit you're wrong and move on. Every argument you have made throughout this entire thread was just falsified by this bill and what man others of posted. We pay every single fee required to provide service and maintain lines. We just don't pay for what we don't use, like everyone else. If you went a whole month without using an electricity in your house your bill would be exactly the same as mine.

And It is $20, not $12.00. That $9.83 credit is the one for the thermostat where they control my thermostat that anyone can apply to use.

Prior to me moving into this house our bill was about $50 ($20 of it was these same fees.) Because I didn't have solar does that too mean I should pay more? $50 isn't even a nice meal after all.

It is because of people like me with a battery and solar that YOU don't have to endure as many rolling blackouts.

Would it be better if I just completely disconnected, paid nothing, and contributed nothing? I am providing you electricity AND paying fees for something I seldom use

 

[h2ofun]

Your bill is the whole point. An argument has been submitted to the CPUC that solar customer are not even paying for their cost of service due to the structure of NEM 1 and NEM 2 contracts. That is the whole point. Your $12 bill does not pay for your cost of service. $12 that does not even pay for a happy meal.

I never would have spent the money on my solar without their contract for 20 years, 10 bucks connection, and retail pricing. Just like I never would have bought a home if after the fact they came back and said the load is due sooner, and is more money!!

So the only solution I see is to setup a non export policy with PGE so I do not get charged 8 bucks per month per KW, or I just get no credit. The 8 bucks per KW is the deal breaker!!!! To have me pay 240 a month is nuts just because I spent 100K to put on solar to help the grid?

 

[dailo]

I think it would be fair if somehow we could not export to the grid, you don’t have to pay the fee. Given that everyone has a different use of the grid, I don’t think it’s fair to have a flat fee of the system size but if a customer chooses not to export and only consume solar they will just end up paying what every other PGE customer pays when using the grid.

 

[Zabe]

Can you draw the line from "add 6000 MW of behind the meter solar" to "the price craters"? Because I'm not seeing it.

BTW, CAISO "net demand" is demand - utility scale renewables, right? So do we have any data on how the 6000 MW of behind the meter solar is affecting the CAISO demand curve? A reasonable way to estimate what the demand curve would look like without the 6000 MW of behind the meter solar?

Cheers, Wayne

The 6000MW of behind the meter solar would like like lower demand from CAISO perspective.

From a market perspective behind the meter solar is must take energy with no bids. Most thermal generation has a minimum output where the unit can not operate below a certain value. When all the solar ramps up when the sun comes up, CAISO has to have dispatchable generation that can lower their output to maintain the grid operating at 60hz. This causes the price to "crater". In general this is why different TOU rates have been established. In general minimum load for CAISO is at peak solar while loads are still low (9-10 am summertime) and at 3am and this energy has the least value when run through a market.

 

[Zabe]

I think it would be fair if somehow we could not export to the grid, you don’t have to pay the fee. Given that everyone has a different use of the grid, I don’t think it’s fair to have a flat fee of the system size but if a customer chooses not to export and only consume solar they will just end up paying what every other PGE customer pays when using the grid.

How much is Brightsource or Siemens paying in transmission costs when they jam the utility scale solar generation kWh into the grid as they pursue profits?

They are paying full transmission costs to load. They are probably even paying for their own substation to connect to the grid. Plus they can reduce output.

 

[wwhitney]

From a market perspective behind the meter solar is must take energy with no bids.

Sure. So is conservation. So is off-grid electricity usage in lieu of a grid connection.

Most thermal generation has a minimum output where the unit can not operate below a certain value. When all the solar ramps up when the sun comes up, CAISO has to have dispatchable generation that can lower their output to maintain the grid operating at 60hz.

Or they could curtail the utility scale solar.

If utility scale solar is twice the size of NEM solar, then if I buy your argument, seems like NEM solar is only 1/3 the cause of the price cratering.

The next question is whether the price cratering is a bad thing.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Zabe]

Just admit you're wrong and move on. Every argument you have made throughout this entire thread was just falsified by this bill and what man others of posted. We pay every single fee required to provide service and maintain lines. We just don't pay for what we don't use, like everyone else. If you went a whole month without using an electricity in your house your bill would be exactly the same as mine.

And It is $20, not $12.00. That $9.83 credit is the one for the thermostat where they control my thermostat that anyone can apply to use.

Prior to me moving into this house our bill was about $50 ($20 of it was these same fees.) Because I didn't have solar does that too mean I should pay more? $50 isn't even a nice meal after all.

It is because of people like me with a battery and solar that YOU don't have to endure as many rolling blackouts.

Would it be better if I just completely disconnected, paid nothing, and contributed nothing? I am providing you electricity AND paying fees for something I seldom use

People like you with solar and battery are actually helping and I think the CPUC needs to fix that issue. I would argue solar with ESS should not have the $8/kW fee. I have batteries now so YOU are not helping me endure PSPS blackouts, which do not roll.

 

[wwhitney]

Your bill is the whole point. An argument has been submitted to the CPUC that solar customer are not even paying for their cost of service due to the structure of NEM 1 and NEM 2 contracts.

That was the deal. In lieu of paying our proportionate dollar share of the costs, society and the grid gain the various non-tangible clean energy DER benefits. It was a market intervention to move the market in a socially desirable direction, because various externalities (like carbon cost) are not priced into the market. Same as EV incentives, etc.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Zabe]

Sure. So is conservation. So is off-grid electricity usage in lieu of a grid connection.


Or they could curtail the utility scale solar.

If utility scale solar is twice the size of NEM solar, then if I buy your argument, seems like NEM solar is only 1/3 the cause of the price cratering.

The next question is whether the price cratering is a bad thing.

Cheers, Wayne

Conservation is not a fixed injection to the grid.

They can curtail utility scale generation you are correct. Do you get why the price is cratering?

 

[Zabe]

That was the deal. In lieu of paying our proportionate dollar share of the costs, society and the grid gain the various non-tangible clean energy DER benefits. It was a market intervention to move the market in a socially desirable direction, because various externalities (like carbon cost) are not priced into the market. Same as EV incentives, etc.

Cheers, Wayne

Wayne, I think what the CPUC proposed decision is saying is that they made a mistake.

 

[Southpasfan]

Wayne, I think what the CPUC proposed decision is saying is that they made a mistake.

Well, it looks to me like rather than point out the obvious -- which is that residential solar (without ESS, or frankly, with ESS if the ESS "imperfectly" means that the grid still has to be maintained) cannot scale past, well, we don't know exactly but if the actual cost of the electricity is like 15% of the bill, it can't possibly scale to a significant extent 20%? 40%? 60%? of all customers, before the issue of 60% of customers paying for their own system instead of paying what they would otherwise pay towards the "non-electricity portion of their electric bill" is unsustainable.

Without ESS, basically the utility is your battery. I don't look at it this way, but since I paid for 3 Powerwalls if I was so inclined I would take a look at my neighbor who does not have ESS and feel like, "hey, this guys getting a deal."

Which is all BS. We are trying to save the damn planet, not shave costs off of our electric bills. Had the utilities been able to get it together with respect to renewable energy we wouldn't be even having this discussion, because if that were the case the only market for individual power plants would be those who could note rely on the grid.

Granted, in CA that's a significant cohort, but its not everybody.

We need to find a way to pay for the grid, potentially for a long time, because as anyone on this board can tell you, true ability to not have a grid is a long way away.

Residential solar has highlighted a problem in the utility pricing structure that most people never even think about until they get their own personal power plant. The cost of the grid should have always been a completely separate cost item, like roads. I think the cost of the grid is better handled exactly like roads, individuals should not pay for it based on how much energy they use or don't use. Right now the utilities are just passing on costs with no risk, no wonder bills are so high here. At least, with all its inefficiencies, the gov would get some handle on grid costs and upkeep, which is obiously being failed at by IOUs.

The proposed cost per kw of installed is a pretty ham handed way to address this, but that's what its aimed at.

 

[RKCRLR]

And they believe they have the right to breach the contract.

I don't know if I'd call it a right, but they can. They are the government. They could even come back and say solar producers owe them money retroactively claiming they weren't paying their fair share under under NEM1/2.

But our government relies on trust. And purposely breaching a contract removes trust. For me, it would be the last time I ever support any program that relies on trusting the government no matter how good they claim the cause is. And I suspect there will be a lot of solar customers that will feel the same way. And even people that didn't invest in solar may see it as a near miss for other things they may have participated in that relied on trusting the government.

 

[holeydonut]

Wayne, I think what the CPUC proposed decision is saying is that they made a mistake.

They made a mistake allowing the IOUs to completely mis-manage the incentives they offered to producers creating a market issue. This is both in terms of how much energy can be supplied and the amount the IOUs pay for that energy. But I don't see the CPUC clamoring to slap all those generators and businesses with 8 per KW export fees per month.


BTW, your response about generators paying for transmission costs is what I expected and what make sense. As Skepticyclist pointed out residential solar customers pay fixed transmission costs in their NBCs. And to your example utility generators pay as well.

100,000 solar customers paying a few happy meals or utility scale solar generators buying a few McDonalds. The money is there, and both groups are paying. Unfortunately, you seem to think on the Residential NEM folks are contributing to a problem and therefore the only ones on the hook to solve the problem.

I don't know who butters your bread, but those companies should be paying more of their fair share if you think Homeowners have to pay more as well.

I still think we'd all be paying less if the IOUs weren't the epitome of waste and mismanagement. They should fix their own busted processes before they start advocating for homeowners to pay billions more.

 

[holeydonut]

If utility scale solar is twice the size of NEM solar, then if I buy your argument, seems like NEM solar is only 1/3 the cause of the price cratering.

The next question is whether the price cratering is a bad thing.

Cheers, Wayne

Agreed, the level of disparity just makes it worse how Utility solar has created a problem that the CPUC wants to solve with NEM policy. NEM solar was simply pushing down demand and supply; it is not causing the utility solar market to crater since it's not even part of the equation of sources to meet that demand.

Utility scale generation was given way too many irrational incentives to come online. And now they're guaranteed very high base load $ per kWh.

Repairing that mismanagement shouldn't be hoisted onto the shoulders of Residential NEM to solve through sky high fixed costs and unworkable reimbursement for rooftop export.

 

[wwhitney]

Wayne, I think what the CPUC proposed decision is saying is that they made a mistake.

Doesn't seem to me the magnitude of the mistake is at the level that it is worth violating the principle of "a deal is a deal."

And it's not so clear to me it's a mistake so far, as opposed to perhaps simply time to update the deal going forward. Given the market penetration achieved to date, and the increasing difficulties and possibly decreasing benefits of further market penetration.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Zabe]

Does residential NEM have a locked in TOU rate for a certain period of time?

 

[RKCRLR]

Does residential NEM have a locked in TOU rate for a certain period of time?

No. But I had to transition to a TOU rate when I upgraded my solar and went from NEM1 to NEM2. And I had to go to EV2-A when I got a SGIP incentive for my Powerwalls.

 

[Zabe]

No. But I had to transition to a TOU rate when I upgraded my solar and went from NEM1 to NEM2. And I had to go to EV2-A when I got a SGIP incentive for my Powerwalls.

If NEM customers are not locked into a TOU rate I believe the CPUC should just adjust the rates. Make rates lower during hours that typically have excess generation and increase rates for hours when they have had shortages. This would incentivize solar customers to add ESS and non-solar customers to load shift to cheaper hours. I don't know if the math would work but at least it could address some of the issues while not pissing off all the solar customers by changing their contracts.

 

[RKCRLR]

If NEM customers are not locked into a TOU rate I believe the CPUC should just adjust the rates. Make rates lower during hours that typically have excess generation and increase rates for hours when they have had shortages. This would incentivize solar customers to add ESS and non-solar customers to load shift to cheaper hours. I don't know if the math would work but at least it could address some of the issues while not pissing off all the solar customers by changing their contracts.

I would agree if you're not proposing separate solar rates for current NEM1/2 customers. But creating separate residential solar rates and requiring solar customers to be on them wasn't part of the original agreement.

 

[Zabe]

I would agree if you're not proposing separate solar rates for current NEM1/2 customers. But creating separate residential solar rates and requiring solar customers to be on them wasn't part of the original agreement.

Sorry but I don't understand. I was not proposing a separate solar rate, but I was proposing a new rate that solar customers would need to be transitioned too.