CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[RKCRLR]

Zabe deserves agreement on one point though. Often lost in the discussion and completely lost in this latest debate over NEM 3.0, is the astonishing portion of a person's electric bill which goes to something other than electricity. We are sort of used to this in the case of buying a soft drink from McDonalds, or a cheap pizza, but I think most people think the actual electricity is the major portion of thier bill. Thats why you see people with an absolutely straight face arguing that a $30 buck or $40 a month charge somehow pays for a share of the grid. Not by the math I see. The grid probably costs about $200 a month per customer, or more.

Perhaps becuase Zabe worked at CAISO, he knows that the electricity is like 10 to 15 percent of the charge.

To put some numbers to it, if my electric bill is 500 a month, $6k a year, that's about, say $800 for electricity and a whopping $5,200 for "the grid" - which includes all administration as well.

If I go from $500 a month to LADWP before solar, and $10 to LADWP after solar and $350 for twenty years on my solar loan two things occur.

One, I save $100 or so a month.

Two, LADWP loses over $400 a month that it otherwise uses to maintain the grid -- A GRID THAT DESPITE MY SYSTEM I STILL NEED.

The IOUs have spun this into "its unfair for Southpasfan to have the benefit of the grid to the extent he needs it and not pay for its maintenance."

I do not agree with that sentence, but you have to hand it to them, its a nicely crafted argument.

The reason I do not agree is the relative burden of anyone as to "the grid" is not based on current rooftop solar customers and their deals, but on volumetric pricing.

LADWP, as a city agency, only charges a "peak premium" of a couple of cents per kwh. Somehow they, unlike the IOUs, get it done at 19 cents off peak, 22 cents or so peak. This, of course, vastly minimizes the so-called "cost shifting" that the IOUs are now so vocally claiming is unfair to "poor" ratepayers.

By the f-ing way, they don't necissarily mean "poor" they just mean people who don't use alot of electricity.

There is some overlap, but its not the same, before I moved, we lived in a condo complex.

My wife always worked at home and our three kids were there all day, so the A/C was on all the time, and the insulation on the condo was so bad they might as well have not bothered. There was a single dude, no kids, in the condo next to us, who worked all the time got home everyday after 10, , and went back to visit his folks in China for like two months a year. I bet his bill was like 20% of ours. For all I know the guys a mulit millionaire.

We used the same, grid, the same pole, the same lines, the same transformer. But due to volumetric pricing, which I did everything to avoid (taped newspaper to all the damn windows on September, what a joke) I paid for 80% more of "the grid"

Paying for "the grid" has never been equitable, so its really rich for the IOUs to trot this out now.

However, residential solar is not scalable if the utility has to act as the battery for the residential solar customer and maintain the grid anyway, without figuring out some way to pay for the grid.

That way is not to disincentivize rooftop solar, in my opinion. Its also not workable to keep raising rates on non-solar customers. Something needs to be done other than the proposed rules.

This is why I think the rate system is a house of cards.
California does things that increase the cost of necessities including energy for everyone. This higher cost disproportionately impacts lower income people. To get around this for energy, they require utilities to provide a rate structure that helps lower income people by charging people more that don't qualify for that rate structure. But when people that don't qualify for the lower rate structure start using less energy, their rate needs to be increased to cover it; which drives those people to use even less energy from the grid. At some point it will collapse unless the rate structure is changed.

 

[brian.c]

This is why I think the rate system is a house of cards.
California does things that increase the cost of necessities including energy for everyone. This higher cost disproportionately impacts lower income people. To get around this for energy, they require utilities to provide a rate structure that helps lower income people by charging people more that don't qualify for that rate structure. But when people that don't qualify for the lower rate structure start using less energy, their rate needs to be increased to cover it; which drives those people to use even less energy from the grid. At some point it will collapse unless the rate structure is changed.

Kind of sounds like our tax system

 

[skepticcyclist]

The grid probably costs about $200 a month per customer, or more.

If that is the case then I have never paid my "fair share" any month in any place I lived, even before my panels. If I were to remove my panels and solely rely on the grid, I still won't reach $200/month. My highest bills were always under $200. So should I pay more because I was always conservative with my electricity and have gas for all appliances?

I don't know where you are getting these figures from. but if it were true I would have to question why they would use consumption rates, encourage people to use less electricity (hence less money to maintain the grid), and offer discounts, incentives, and cash back for joining programs that use less energy (such as controlling your AC.)?

 

[getakey]

PG&E charges a $.16/kWh delivery charge if you switch to a CCA.

 

[Zabe]

One of the reasons I said I have so much difficulty reading many (not all, but a large portion) of your posts on this topic is, beside the confrontational nature of many of your posts, you have stated that you are "just representing non solar customers". Your position appears to be that solar customers are the problem. You are advocating that tearing up of previously agreed contracts is "fair" and something we should be expecting.

Yet, you yourself got free powerwalls from a program that is funded either by the utility or by taxpayer money. What you are arguing should happen to solar customers would be the equivalent of the SGIP program telling you:
=============
(obviously hypothetical)

"I know you got those powerwalls expecting to be reimbursed for them, but we have decided that is not a sustainable business model. We know you already spent the money expecting reimbursement, but we have decided that we are only going to reimburse 75% of what we said we were going to previously, and we are also going to pay that out monthly over the next 15 years."
=============

Your "free" powerwalls probably cost the utility more than they will pay for any solar customer, and they had to pay it all out now, instead of over 15 years. I certainly have not saved 20k+ off my utility bills since they were installed. Your position that you are arguing for "non solar customers because solar customers are taking money from them", somehow doesnt include the money you have received, which is more than what most of us have saved.

Everyone is free to have whatever opinion they want to carry on this (or obviously anything else). Your position on "fairness" doesnt make much sense to me, from the position what you yourself has cost the utility. You do not appear to be arguing that the SGIP program is not "fair", yet its a few people costing the utility a lot that is coming from a larger majority that can not take advantage of it.

The above is why I previously said "its hard for me to read your posts challenging solar customers when you got free powerwalls"

==================================
(moderator note)

I should probably separate this into a separate post, as its not related to what I said above. Those that have been here a while know that I separate the act of moderation from my own posts / feelings. I am not a robot, but I try to be very careful in this regard. If I dont agree with something personally, I am very careful about moderation of same. With that being said...

Some of your posts have been informative, with information I would categorize as interesting / "I didnt know that" type of information. Others have been argumentative, and almost appear to be trying to incite a flame war. I have said before that TMC is welcoming of different opinions, even if they are not popular ones. What I am not welcoming of, is flame wars. I would suggest leaning into the information and away from the attempts to fan flames.

What do the powerwalls I got under SGIP have to do with the NEM 3 discussion? Nothing, it is a red herring. I pay for all my power which includes powerwall losses. I pay for the large portion of my bill that is NOT energy and that payment for non energy is based on how much energy I used at the meter as Southpasfan pointed out more eloquently than I can. The NEM 3 discussion is about how does the non energy portion get paid.

SGIP
PG&E making my home uninhabitable due to not having running water (all water is via my own well) is the reason for my submission to the SGIP program. You can argue that it was poorly designed (it was). You can argue that it was a waste of money (somewhat yes). You can even give the what if they made me pay for it (I would be upset and I would write a check). You can't argue that I am cost shifting grid charges to solar customers.

Why I put in for the program
When I saw that CPUC had approved an SGIP 100% rebate for qualifying customers I thought hey I should probably sign up for that, and I also thought wow they are blowing a lot of money, the ROI is NEVER. But after having already suffered through more than 30 days (and I mean 30 full Fing days with no power) of power outages in the previous 2 years, all primarily caused by my local IOU not doing their job maintaining their system and not completing brush abatement of course I jumped at it. Now after also suffering through 16 days of mandatory evacuation due to the Caldor fire, which I would argue was directly impacted by lack of resources due to the Dixie fire (most likely caused by PG&E equipment) I really am glad that I got into the program before they closed it. They give me a couple of days of backup power for the next PSPS event or storm event or PG&E just sucking at their job event.

 

[Southpasfan]

If that is the case then I have never paid my "fair share" any month in any place I lived, even before my panels. If I were to remove my panels and solely rely on the grid, I still won't reach $200/month. My highest bills were always under $200. So should I pay more because I was always conservative with my electricity and have gas for all appliances?

I don't know where you are getting these figures from. but if it were true I would have to question why they would use consumption rates, encourage people to use less electricity (hence less money to maintain the grid), and offer discounts, incentives, and cash back for joining programs that use less energy (such as controlling your AC.)?

I was off by only a bit, using PG&E financials it’s $166 a month. Based on 5 million electric customers, divided by 10 billion in costs other than electricity, divided by 12. For PG&E, cost of electricity per thier financials is 22% of the total cost.

I am sure plenty of people have a total bill under $166 a month, but there are obviously plenty of others who have a larger bill.

 

[Zabe]

Zabe deserves agreement on one point though. Often lost in the discussion and completely lost in this latest debate over NEM 3.0, is the astonishing portion of a person's electric bill which goes to something other than electricity. We are sort of used to this in the case of buying a soft drink from McDonalds, or a cheap pizza, but I think most people think the actual electricity is the major portion of thier bill. Thats why you see people with an absolutely straight face arguing that a $30 buck or $40 a month charge somehow pays for a share of the grid. Not by the math I see. The grid probably costs about $200 a month per customer, or more.

Perhaps becuase Zabe worked at CAISO, he knows that the electricity is like 10 to 15 percent of the charge.

To put some numbers to it, if my electric bill is 500 a month, $6k a year, that's about, say $800 for electricity and a whopping $5,200 for "the grid" - which includes all administration as well.

If I go from $500 a month to LADWP before solar, and $10 to LADWP after solar and $350 for twenty years on my solar loan two things occur.

One, I save $100 or so a month.

Two, LADWP loses over $400 a month that it otherwise uses to maintain the grid -- A GRID THAT DESPITE MY SYSTEM I STILL NEED.

The IOUs have spun this into "its unfair for Southpasfan to have the benefit of the grid to the extent he needs it and not pay for its maintenance."

I do not agree with that sentence, but you have to hand it to them, its a nicely crafted argument.

The reason I do not agree is the relative burden of anyone as to "the grid" is not based on current rooftop solar customers and their deals, but on volumetric pricing.

LADWP, as a city agency, only charges a "peak premium" of a couple of cents per kwh. Somehow they, unlike the IOUs, get it done at 19 cents off peak, 22 cents or so peak. This, of course, vastly minimizes the so-called "cost shifting" that the IOUs are now so vocally claiming is unfair to "poor" ratepayers.

By the f-ing way, they don't necissarily mean "poor" they just mean people who don't use alot of electricity.

There is some overlap, but its not the same, before I moved, we lived in a condo complex.

My wife always worked at home and our three kids were there all day, so the A/C was on all the time, and the insulation on the condo was so bad they might as well have not bothered. There was a single dude, no kids, in the condo next to us, who worked all the time got home everyday after 10, , and went back to visit his folks in China for like two months a year. I bet his bill was like 20% of ours. For all I know the guys a mulit millionaire.

We used the same, grid, the same pole, the same lines, the same transformer. But due to volumetric pricing, which I did everything to avoid (taped newspaper to all the damn windows on September, what a joke) I paid for 80% more of "the grid"

Paying for "the grid" has never been equitable, so its really rich for the IOUs to trot this out now.

However, residential solar is not scalable if the utility has to act as the battery for the residential solar customer and maintain the grid anyway, without figuring out some way to pay for the grid.

That way is not to disincentivize rooftop solar, in my opinion. Its also not workable to keep raising rates on non-solar customers. Something needs to be done other than the proposed rules.

Thanks for doing a much better job than I have done explaining what I mean

 

[getakey]

I was off by only a bit, using PG&E financials it’s $166 a month. Based on 5 million electric customers, divided by 10 billion in costs other than electricity, divided by 12. For PG&E, cost of electricity per thier financials is 22% of the total cost.

I am sure plenty of people have a total bill under $166 a month, but there are obviously plenty of others who have a larger bill.

nah, it is $200/month because of all the solar people not paying $166.

 

[getakey]

What do the powerwalls I got under SGIP have to do with the NEM 3 discussion? Nothing, it is a red herring. I pay for all my power which includes powerwall losses. I pay for the large portion of my bill that is NOT energy and that payment for non energy is based on how much energy I used at the meter as Southpasfan pointed out more eloquently than I can. The NEM 3 discussion is about how does the non energy portion get paid.

SGIP
PG&E making my home uninhabitable due to not having running water (all water is via my own well) is the reason for my submission to the SGIP program. You can argue that it was poorly designed (it was). You can argue that it was a waste of money (somewhat yes). You can even give the what if they made me pay for it (I would be upset and I would write a check). You can't argue that I am cost shifting grid charges to solar customers.

Why I put in for the program
When I saw that CPUC had approved an SGIP 100% rebate for qualifying customers I thought hey I should probably sign up for that, and I also thought wow they are blowing a lot of money, the ROI is NEVER. But after having already suffered through more than 30 days (and I mean 30 full Fing days with no power) of power outages in the previous 2 years, all primarily caused by my local IOU not doing their job maintaining their system and not completing brush abatement of course I jumped at it. Now after also suffering through 16 days of mandatory evacuation due to the Caldor fire, which I would argue was directly impacted by lack of resources due to the Dixie fire (most likely caused by PG&E equipment) I really am glad that I got into the program before they closed it. They give me a couple of days of backup power for the next PSPS event or storm event or PG&E just sucking at their job event.

You chose to live in fire danger with water supplied by well. You could have put in a backup generator. Generators would have been far less costly than giving away PWs

 

[Southpasfan]

LADWP gets it done for about $52 per customer per month.

I would say it’s a combination of better management and the fact that LADWPs grid is so much more compact than the IOUs

 

[Zabe]

You chose to live in fire danger with water supplied by well. You could have put in a backup generator. Generators would have been far less costly than giving away PWs

I moved into the home before PSPS was even a thing. I have a backup generator. I agree generators would have cost less.

And the Red Herring continues, Nice job Moderator!

 

[Southpasfan]

LAdWP also has power as a percentage of costs at 36%, meaning that that the grid costs are less.

 

[Zabe]

Most of the massive price disparity commenced shortly after AB 1890 which exempted municipal utilities, and passed in 1996. This created CAISO and the power exchange. The power exchange folded a couple years later. PG&E went through bankruptcy. Companies like ENRON drow up prices and broke the market. We still pay for all this today. Muni's don't.

Deregulation AB1890

 

[Southpasfan]

I should add that i used to be in SCE territory at up to 40 cents per Kwh. Anyway, the math stands. Even the best non IOUs have the majority of costs as grid costs.

 

[h2ofun]

You chose to live in fire danger with water supplied by well. You could have put in a backup generator. Generators would have been far less costly than giving away PWs

Always amazing how some can justify anything that helps them, and miss the point

 

[wwhitney]

The grid probably costs about $200 a month per customer, or more.

Seems to me "per customer" would be an unfair distribution of grid maintenance costs between residential and other customers. How about per kVA of nominal utility service size? I'd be interested to see that number, a fit for "total electrical infrastructure cost" as $X / kVA services connected + $Y / kWh delivered.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[charlesj]

Seems to me "per customer" would be an unfair distribution of grid maintenance costs between residential and other customers. How about per kVA of nominal utility service size? I'd be interested to see that number, a fit for "total electrical infrastructure cost" as $X / kVA services connected + $Y / kWh delivered.

Cheers, Wayne

That would be interesting.
That 5 million customers mentioned earlier included industry and commercial operations? If so, how can one say grid costs are equal to all customers?
You cannot. If it doesn't include them, what is their share of the cost?
Maybe the state should take over?

 

[Southpasfan]

Seems to me "per customer" would be an unfair distribution of grid maintenance costs between residential and other customers. How about per kVA of nominal utility service size? I'd be interested to see that number, a fit for "total electrical infrastructure cost" as $X / kVA services connected + $Y / kWh delivered.

Cheers, Wayne

I couldn't figure out how to find that.

Basically it just occurred to me last year that for most customers, who do not have excessive special hardward needs like a factory might have, charging for the grid based on kwh billed is flawed.

 

[getakey]

interestingly enough, I took that $.16/kWh that PG&E charges CCA customers for "delivery" and used one of my summer months usage (prior to solar). Got $180.

 

[holeydonut]

Zabe deserves agreement on one point though. Often lost in the discussion and completely lost in this latest debate over NEM 3.0, is the astonishing portion of a person's electric bill which goes to something other than electricity. We are sort of used to this in the case of buying a soft drink from McDonalds, or a cheap pizza, but I think most people think the actual electricity is the major portion of thier bill. Thats why you see people with an absolutely straight face arguing that a $30 buck or $40 a month charge somehow pays for a share of the grid. Not by the math I see. The grid probably costs about $200 a month per customer, or more.

Perhaps becuase Zabe worked at CAISO, he knows that the electricity is like 10 to 15 percent of the charge.

Lol, why you got to articulate Zabe's position so well? Now it seems like there is an issue and it's up to NEM solar customers to contribute to fix it.

What do the powerwalls I got under SGIP have to do with the NEM 3 discussion? Nothing, it is a red herring.

The fact that you live in a high fire zone area and require extraordinary costs to service safely is not a red herring. Southpasfan has explained this very well, and how you choose to cherry pick how your play a role in the "problem".

The IOUs think it's up to "somebody" to pay all of the astronomical poorly managed fixed costs and poorly executed operations. So they go out there fracturing the voter base trying to shove the burden on anyone they can.

They could pick wealthy homeowners with solar. Or they could pick wealthy people in Placerville since it costs much more on a per capital basis to service them being out in the sticks compared to someone in a San Francisco condo.

Personally, I think anyone who lives in a high fire zone area should be paying 10x more fixed costs than someone who smartly picked a more suburban area that isn't contributing to all these fires and above ground issues. Naturally, I believe folks like Zabe think some rich fat cat with solar on their house should be the one to pay for the fixed costs.

The red herring is deliberating which of the above two groups should be paying. The real problem is PG&E is horribly mismanaged. They should be looking for ways to shed costs and improve operations before they just ask for more billions of hand outs from whichever group they decide to target.


Solar being a massive black hole is due to that 12,000 MW utility solar capacity that came online with poorly constructed agreements. If you want to take a swing at fixing the solar issue, go after them instead of 500,000 private citizens who put solar on their homes to effectively reduce daytime energy demand (edit: thanks Zabe for confirming that residential solar isn't the reason the CAISO-measured supply/demand of solar has cratered).