Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
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.
Creating a new rate just for solar customers and requiring them to be on it is the same thing as going back on the commitment. That was not part of the original deal and is no different than requiring them to go on NEM3 earlier than agreed to.
 
Creating a new rate just for solar customers and requiring them to be on it is the same thing as going back on the commitment. That was not part of the original deal and is no different than requiring them to go on NEM3 earlier than agreed to.
So you are saying your original deal had a locked in rate for a certain period of time?

I went and read your earlier post add you said you did not have a locked in rate....woops

I am confused how do you propose resolving this cost issue? No rate change, got it, no NEM change, sure thing, Oh I SEE!
 
Last edited:
So you are saying your original deal had a locked in rate for a certain period of time?
No, there was never any commitment for any Rate Schedule. The only commitment was the NEM 1 or NEM 2 Tariff. PG&E can and has changed the Rate Schedules all around, stopped enrollments and kicked people out of various rate plans. They even changed the how steep the Tiers are in E-1 to change the penalty for high consumers. This all happens with the consent of and under the direction of the CPUC. Customers generally have the choice of any "Applicable Rate Schedule". At various times people have been allowed TOU or non-TOU rate plans and certain people who receive subsidies are locked to certain rate plans that limit what is Applicable to them. Mandatory TOU for solar and mandatory EV2 for SGIP recipients are such limitations.

During the time that I have had solar, I have been kicked out of E-9A and EV-A. Both of those rate plans were more advantageous to me. The change from EV-A to EV2-A was clearly designed to devalue solar generation.

Revoking NEM Tariffs and changing their terms is unprecedented.
 
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.
This isn't correct.

NBCs have four components none of which are related to transmission costs. Those components are Public Purpose Program, Nuclear Decommissioning, Competition Transition Charge, and the Wildfire Fund. This adds up to $0.02252/kWh and is included in the unbundled Distribution rate. For some reason the distribution rates vary by tariff and season, with the current rates of $0.11521 (Winter Peak), $0.10018 (Winter Off-Peak), $0.14415 (Summer Peak) and $0.13415 (Summer Off-Peak).
 
No, just that solar users have access to the same rate plans that non-solar users have. Blocking that access and requiring them to be on a separate plan was not part of the original deal.
They block you from many rate plans currently do they not? Tiered E-1, EV-B if you do not have a seperate meter.

You have no "deal" that locks you into a rate plan and you have no "deal" that prevents forcing you to a new rate plan.
 
The utility solar gets $.03/kWh the residential gets retail NEM credits and does not pay transmission, distribution, etc....
Well, that is on paper only as at true up one gets wholesale from PG&E for excess generation, if that. I should know what they paid.

And, how much did they make reselling my excess generation to the grid? Oh, wait, whatever they could sell it for like the going charge for that time and whatever tier the customer is at that time.
 
They block you from many rate plans currently do they not? Tiered E-1, EV-B if you do not have a seperate meter.

You have no "deal" that locks you into a rate plan and you have no "deal" that prevents forcing you to a new rate plan.
Part of the deal when I upgraded my solar is I had to switch to NEM2 and switch to a TOU plan that was available to new customers. But I could choose any current TOU plan I wanted. And the requirement of needing to be on a TOU plan for NEM2 was known at the time a made the agreement. And I could go to EV-B when I got the SGIP incentive if I wanted to install a separate meter but that wasn't practical.

Sure, they could do something like create new rate plans for non solar customers, jack up the rates on existing plans, and not allow solar customers to be on the new plans. Again, they're the government - they can do anything they want. But it definitely wouldn't be in the spirit of the original agreement. And it sure wouldn't make me trust them for future deals.
 
We signed a Contract, why shouldn't we expect the contract be honored?
I do agree that NEM1 and 2 were lopsided, but it was put there to incentivize solar. I think NEM3 should be less beneficial, but not to the point that there is no ROI for residential solar. That is what it is as proposed. Who would invest in something with a 20 year ROI
Yes, why am I paying taxes to cover the tax break for those who buy electric cars? ;) :D :D :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: h2ofun
Well, that is on paper only as at true up one gets wholesale from PG&E for excess generation, if that. I should know what they paid.

And, how much did they make reselling my excess generation to the grid? Oh, wait, whatever they could sell it for like the going charge for that time and whatever tier the customer is at that time.
So your 1 kWh excess generation goes to the grid, you get a credit for it for the entire retail rate, they store it for you for free, they ship it back to you when you need it and you are asking how much "they" made off your kWh?
 
Yes, revoking something that was guaranteed in the tariff is simply wrong. New connection can follow new rules, but changing the 20 year guarantee to 15 years is just plain wrong.

I think the change that will revoke NEM status upon property sale is also a BIG problem. People invested their own money based on these terms. Relatively speaking, this is a small number of people. Let them ride out their terms.
I wonder what a class action lawsuit, breach of contract, would do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunwarriors
Part of the deal when I upgraded my solar is I had to switch to NEM2 and switch to a TOU plan that was available to new customers. But I could choose any current TOU plan I wanted. And the requirement of needing to be on a TOU plan for NEM2 was known at the time a made the agreement. And I could go to EV-B when I got the SGIP incentive if I wanted to install a separate meter but that wasn't practical.

Sure, they could do something like create new rate plans for non solar customers, jack up the rates on existing plans, and not allow solar customers to be on the new plans. Again, they're the government - they can do anything they want. But it definitely wouldn't be in the spirit of the original agreement. And it sure wouldn't make me trust them for future deals.
So how are they supposed to deal with the issue presented to them, solar customers not paying for cost of service?
 
So your 1 kWh excess generation goes to the grid, you get a credit for it for the entire retail rate, they store it for you for free, they ship it back to you when you need it and you are asking how much "they" made off your kWh?

I bit too clever here. You have several audiences on this board. One of them based the vast majority of their decision to switch to solar on the fact that they thought their utility was screwing them over. You will be here quite a while before any of that group even acknowledges that a IOU has a right to exist, let alone raise rates on them or anyone.

Another distinct group had, as their motivation, the fact that IOUs were so lagging in figuring out a way to adopt clean technology that the gov had to figure out a way to incentivize private power plants in order to get some movement on saving the planet. To this group, as someone mentioned, there was already not enough pricing of the externalities of using off the shelf grid electricity as it was, and by installing a system not only was some money saved, but even assuming, if it could be proven, that non-solar customers somehow were paying "more" --- this group would argue to the death that non-solar customers are already dodging the external costs of simply checking out and buying whatever the utility is selling, so you aren't going to get any joy from this group talking about the cost structure of utilities either.

A final group which may consist only of me, is more concerned with figuring out a practical way towards a total clean energy system, including personal systems, personal ESS, and EVs. I have actually spent a fair amount of time on CAISO. And as much time then breaking down what utilities are currently doing. I understand the gap between wholesale electricity and delivered electricity, and how a personal power plant slips nicely into the gap.

Wholesale is about 3 cents to 10 cents, and right now in California with a decent non shaded roof and current interest rates a personal power plant is about 11 cents (solar alone) to 16 cents (with Powerwalls ,same generation, just more cost, as an ESS system is the only way that you get to use all of what you produce without the dance of death with the utility).

We need to do two things. Move towards more storage, and torture utilities until a true, non-profit way of covering grid costs is arrived at which is not based on volumetric pricing.

Tier and TOU rates are both a complete scam. No one would even consider going to a supermarket where the price of milk was based on how much milk you had personally used, yet people have accepted this in electricity pricing for so long ..... well, I beat a dead horse at this point.
 
We signed a Contract, why shouldn't we expect the contract be honored?
I do agree that NEM1 and 2 were lopsided, but it was put there to incentivize solar. I think NEM3 should be less beneficial, but not to the point that there is no ROI for residential solar. That is what it is as proposed. Who would invest in something with a 20 year ROI

I hope similar to Nevada, the lawsuits fly if/once these NEM3.0 terms go live. Simple as that. Changing things after the fact means nothing is worth anything that's agreed to. NEM3.0? Why not just say it's $50/kW now? Change it and just be a king/tyrant with backpocket CPUC members and just agree that all solar people should just pay $10k a year because...It's pointless if policies/terms are not abide to on both sides and changed retroactively.

I, like most folks, agree that things will/should change, but to what extent? As great as $0 export is (and no solar size fee), no export alone killed solar by itself in Hawaii and Nevada. I suppose we need to ask ourselves if we want solar to simply stop being installed (since that will happen to the happiness of the IOUs if this goes into effect as planned).

The problem, like healthcare, is that these companies are for profit. Is power to the home a right to have or a luxury?

I'm not going to bother to get into it anymore with Zabe so I won't reply to any of his posts, but like the BBB plan, if the pot was $1 trillion and it taxed someone else but not you, you tend to support things which don't affect you or simply, cost you more $$. Let's not try to overthink any of these discussions/back and forth.


This is out now by these guys...so many messages in the last day alone. Will read this when I get more time to catch up.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: Zabe
So how are they supposed to deal with the issue presented to them, solar customers not paying for cost of service?
Spread the current NEM1/2 costs over the whole rate structure just like they do with any other bad contract they've entered or bad decision they've made. Then, once the existing NEM1/2 customer's terms expire, make the solar cost structure reflect true costs. But let people install solar behind the meter and pay the same rates as non-solar customers. If the utility values the residential energy produced then offer to pay what it is worth to have them export it.

This assumes solar doesn't have environmental value for everyone. If it does have an environmental value then figure out other sources to incentivize solar if not from the rate structure. But don't expect residential solar customers to disproportionately absorb the cost of solar.