Does that price include PG&E locked in contracts? I thought CAISO is only spot prices
-
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
I really haven't done that deep of a dive.
However, I did go far enough down this rabbit hole to note that in both PG&E's and Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power's audited financials that the cost of electricity is about 22% of overall costs.
My whole point here is that the electric market is like a restaurant. For a given dish, there is the price of the ingredients, meat, salad, spices, whatever, then there is the cost of the chefs, the restaurant, etc. Its not surprising for all of us to learn that the cost we are charged in the restaurant is mostly the cost of "everything other than" the ingredients of the dish.
It was surprising to me to learn, before I even got a solar system, the wholesale price of electricity. A good friend whose family owns a ton of land in Texas has been working on doing a solar/wind project on it. Basically, the project has to be able to produce electricity at 3 cents per kwh, and its tough to get the whole thing built and financed at that price point. I thought that was odd as I had never paid less than about 25 cents per kwh.
Of course, if you buy from Tesla, you can produce electricity on your own roof for about 11 cents per kwh, or like 16 cents including batteries.
But even from Tesla in a perfectly oriented house, there is no way to get your own solar system for 3 cents per kwh.
This whole NEM is a subsidy.
IT IS A SUBISIDY I VERY MUCH LIKE, AND I THINK IT IS A CRITICAL PUBLIC POLICY TO HAVE IT, make no mistake.
But the cost of the electricity is like 20% or less of each of our bills.
Look if the IOUs just said, we will pay SouthPasfan whatever the CAISO price is, and then sell Southpasfan electricity in the evening at whatever we charge everybody else, two things would occur.
First, rooftop solar which over-produces would be uneconomical. Only systems which covered a fraction of a person's use would make any sense.
Systems with battery storage would make sense. But, such a system has to be really, really over sized before you can think of disconnecting from the grid, which is not even allowed.
The other thing that would happen is that we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
We are having it becuase the friggen IOUs don't like this subsidy, to the extent they pay for it. And they do in fact pay for it.
Merrill
Merrill
This whole thread is useless, you cannot convince me that the utility monopoly in California is not making billions. Anything they come up with to explain to the consumer that they have to charge more is BS!
Lolololol, which one of y'all left this public comment for the CPUC in the NEM 3.0 proceeding? We need to get Patrick Burtis to make a TMC account. This guy does not seem to accept the possibility that the CPUC may actually want to want to end the residential solar industry in CA... since there is too much solar and not enough people paying PG&E's outrageous/broken cost structure.
I added line breaks where I thought his paragraphs were starting/ending... the actual post from Patrick is just a wall of text since the CPUC website won't store the line breaks. This unlucky fellow actually paid $5k for a new main service panel + lift and shift. Rip.
----------------------------------------------
Patrick Burtis
Corte Madera, CA
94925
As someone who has just installed a new solar and battery system on our house, I can testify that the proposed new rules will make residential solar systems in CA fundamentally uneconomical. Our new PV system under today’s NEM 2.0 is basically cost neutral versus grid power (even excluding the batteries, which add significant additional cost).
I would NEVER have purchased my system under the newly proposed set of tariffs and fees. I don't know if the CPUC is actively trying to kill the residential solar industry in CA, is using bad data, or is simply oblivious to the real-world implications of its ruling. But the effect will be the same - the new rule will immediately kill after-market residential solar in CA.
A key point which seems to have been overlooked by the commission is that although the cost of PV panels has come down in recent years, the total installed cost of a system has not. Our system, which was installed in November 2021, cost nearly $4/Watt installed (again, excluding batteries), little different from a decade ago. The panels make up only about 10% of the installed cost - the rest is installation and related costs. At $4/Watt installed, with the current NEM 2.0 regime, solar is really just a marginal investment case versus grid power; under the new rules, such a system would make zero economic sense.
One reason for the persistent high installed price is that costs related to construction and electrical work are at all-time highs, with no imminent signs of abatement - this spills over to solar installers. Another key factor is a new rule imposed by PG&E that requires most people to upgrade and/or move their electrical panel if they install solar. In our case, this added $5,000 to the project cost, or approximately $1/Watt. This is not a coincidence. PG&E is fighting solar tooth and nail. And now you propose to help them do so!
The rules as written are a huge disincentive to those who (like my family) would otherwise be willing to invest our personal capital to fight climate change and improve the resiliency of the grid by installing solar and batteries. This proposal will freeze the flow of private capital from families like ours which help fund the state’s transition to renewable power - effectively putting the burden back on the state. I understand and applaud the equity argument in the new rules. But we can make solar affordable to low-income households without punishing those who can afford to – and of their own volition, choose to - invest in a green future. Don't punish those of us who want to do the right thing!
The state should be incenting homeowners to install MORE solar, in order to meet our ambitious renewables targets and net zero goals, and should be forcing the utilities to make it easier - not harder - for people to install solar. The proposed rules do the exact opposite. Perversely, they actually reward PG&E and the other utilities for their efforts to block the transition to renewable power in CA. It is ironic that many families like ours have felt compelled to install solar and batteries to insulate ourselves from the frequent power outages imposed by an incompetent PG&E.
And now, instead of helping people make the transition to energy independence, instead of supporting private investment which makes the grid more resilient and supports progress towards CA’s energy goals, you are punishing citizens who want to install solar, and rewarding the main culprit, PG&E? What gives??
I am astonished and dismayed by the counterproductive and short-sighted position the CPUC is taking here. The new rules are completely anathema to the forward-thinking, environmentally-minded CPUC that I have known in my nearly 20 years in CA. I urge you to halt these disastrous new rules before they go into effect. Sincerely - Patrick R. Burtis
I added line breaks where I thought his paragraphs were starting/ending... the actual post from Patrick is just a wall of text since the CPUC website won't store the line breaks. This unlucky fellow actually paid $5k for a new main service panel + lift and shift. Rip.
----------------------------------------------
Patrick Burtis
Corte Madera, CA
94925
As someone who has just installed a new solar and battery system on our house, I can testify that the proposed new rules will make residential solar systems in CA fundamentally uneconomical. Our new PV system under today’s NEM 2.0 is basically cost neutral versus grid power (even excluding the batteries, which add significant additional cost).
I would NEVER have purchased my system under the newly proposed set of tariffs and fees. I don't know if the CPUC is actively trying to kill the residential solar industry in CA, is using bad data, or is simply oblivious to the real-world implications of its ruling. But the effect will be the same - the new rule will immediately kill after-market residential solar in CA.
A key point which seems to have been overlooked by the commission is that although the cost of PV panels has come down in recent years, the total installed cost of a system has not. Our system, which was installed in November 2021, cost nearly $4/Watt installed (again, excluding batteries), little different from a decade ago. The panels make up only about 10% of the installed cost - the rest is installation and related costs. At $4/Watt installed, with the current NEM 2.0 regime, solar is really just a marginal investment case versus grid power; under the new rules, such a system would make zero economic sense.
One reason for the persistent high installed price is that costs related to construction and electrical work are at all-time highs, with no imminent signs of abatement - this spills over to solar installers. Another key factor is a new rule imposed by PG&E that requires most people to upgrade and/or move their electrical panel if they install solar. In our case, this added $5,000 to the project cost, or approximately $1/Watt. This is not a coincidence. PG&E is fighting solar tooth and nail. And now you propose to help them do so!
The rules as written are a huge disincentive to those who (like my family) would otherwise be willing to invest our personal capital to fight climate change and improve the resiliency of the grid by installing solar and batteries. This proposal will freeze the flow of private capital from families like ours which help fund the state’s transition to renewable power - effectively putting the burden back on the state. I understand and applaud the equity argument in the new rules. But we can make solar affordable to low-income households without punishing those who can afford to – and of their own volition, choose to - invest in a green future. Don't punish those of us who want to do the right thing!
The state should be incenting homeowners to install MORE solar, in order to meet our ambitious renewables targets and net zero goals, and should be forcing the utilities to make it easier - not harder - for people to install solar. The proposed rules do the exact opposite. Perversely, they actually reward PG&E and the other utilities for their efforts to block the transition to renewable power in CA. It is ironic that many families like ours have felt compelled to install solar and batteries to insulate ourselves from the frequent power outages imposed by an incompetent PG&E.
And now, instead of helping people make the transition to energy independence, instead of supporting private investment which makes the grid more resilient and supports progress towards CA’s energy goals, you are punishing citizens who want to install solar, and rewarding the main culprit, PG&E? What gives??
I am astonished and dismayed by the counterproductive and short-sighted position the CPUC is taking here. The new rules are completely anathema to the forward-thinking, environmentally-minded CPUC that I have known in my nearly 20 years in CA. I urge you to halt these disastrous new rules before they go into effect. Sincerely - Patrick R. Burtis
Merrill
Merrill
This is well said, I just do not understand why our governor would go along with this. What happened to California’s goal of being net 0 carbon, if you kill solar in California you are not helping the environment.
LOL Newsom is governor "do as I say, not as I do" and only cares about things like green energy, crime, homelessness when his polling numbers are down. When he pits poor people who can't afford solar against everyone else, his popularity skyrockets.
that grid maintenance is so good that some Customers in Tahoe will be without power for 15 days!
Yep, my dad has been out for a few days now, he lives right above Auburn. I went up to help him bring up firewood, as I was leaving, all the lines down the street were on the ground from falling trees. As of now they have no ETA, but a friend who has connections was saying likely be mid Jan before they get to his area.
This brings up a good point that maybe was poorly estimated in the NEM3.0 proposal. Does someone know what number was used for the cost of a solar install in the proposal?
I'm guessing they were probably closer to $2.50/W and I think outside of Tesla and large installers who subcontracts up the wazoo, most people going with a local solar installer are closer to $3.25 - $4+/W. I've gotten 10+ proposals when I did my install and they were all over the price spectrum. Highest was over $4/W.
If Newsom goes along with this, out, maybe consider a diff candidate.
If allowed, not sure if I can, I plan to vote against whoever Lorena Gonzalez is running against for her AB1139 proposal earlier this year.
Merrill
Merrill
In the pockets of executives at Pacific Graft and Extortion. Oh and buy the way look for an increase in your electrical bill when this is over.
charlesj
Active Member
Is that all? They need to think up dozens more to impress me. One could be "not thought of excuse."
You can certainly donate to whomever runs against Lorena Gonzalez. I plan to do so.This brings up a good point that maybe was poorly estimated in the NEM3.0 proposal. Does someone know what number was used for the cost of a solar install in the proposal?
I'm guessing they were probably closer to $2.50/W and I think outside of Tesla and large installers who subcontracts up the wazoo, most people going with a local solar installer are closer to $3.25 - $4+/W. I've gotten 10+ proposals when I did my install and they were all over the price spectrum. Highest was over $4/W.
If Newsom goes along with this, out, maybe consider a diff candidate.
If allowed, not sure if I can, I plan to vote against whoever Lorena Gonzalez is running against for her AB1139 proposal earlier this year.
This brings up a good point that maybe was poorly estimated in the NEM3.0 proposal. Does someone know what number was used for the cost of a solar install in the proposal?
I'm guessing they were probably closer to $2.50/W and I think outside of Tesla and large installers who subcontracts up the wazoo, most people going with a local solar installer are closer to $3.25 - $4+/W. I've gotten 10+ proposals when I did my install and they were all over the price spectrum. Highest was over $4/W.
If Newsom goes along with this, out, maybe consider a diff candidate.
If allowed, not sure if I can, I plan to vote against whoever Lorena Gonzalez is running against for her AB1139 proposal earlier this year.
You can download all the models and stuff they've been deliberating over for years for NEM 3.0.
Avoided Cost Calculator for Distributed Energy Resources (DER) - E3
E3 has developed the methodology for estimating the value of avoided costs for use in evaluating distributed energy resource programs in California. 2022 E3 Avoided Cost Calculator (latest) 2022 ACC Models Latest Version 2022 ACC Models Prior Version v1a 2022 ACC Models Prior Version v1b Files...
www.ethree.com
I don't think anyone has clearly explained those wacky paypack/ROI calcs that the CPUC are using to say that NEM 3.0 is still favorable to homeowners.
Presumably, we're all homeowners who have done similar ROI calcs for ourselves. And presumably CALSSA and SEIA members have done ROI calculations for their own customers to describe the benefit of solar. I can't replicate anything to even come close to the anticipated homeowner payback found in the back-end of that CPUC proposal. And CALSSA thinks the new proposal would gut the California residential solar market; so they don't see the ROI either.
It would be helpful for us to understand how the hell the joint IOU proposal (and now the CPUC proposal) outlines ROI for homeowners under NEM 3.0. I was hoping Vines or WWhitney could help explain how the CPUC came up with their break-even/payback/ROI/etc. But deep down I think the reality is there is no favorable ROI. The CPUC is just saying there is favorable ROI and that's that. The CPUC wants to gut residential solar.
In my opinion ROI is the wrong way for CPUC to be looking at it in the first place. Why does it really even matter? It just sounds like they are trying to justify the hefty fees being imposed. Can anyone think the $8 per kw fee is fair? I could care less about NEM, kill it completely, but the $8 fee is pure theft as far as I am concerned. Could you imagine if the IOUs started basing minimum charges based on square footage of a home... Oh, well your home is 3000 sqf, and your bill was only $150, so you need to cough up another $150 to pay your fair share. ROI has way too many factors for them to effectively calculate it in the first place. I am trying to not spend too much time on this topic, I will wait to see if it actually goes through as planned. I just think the proposal is way too far out there for it to actually pass the votes. Maybe I am wrong, who knows... CA has definitely surprised me in the wrong way more than once. Using the ROI argument could basically go back to any energy upgrades you make. That light saves you too much money... Your HVAC is too efficient, and now you are not paying enough... Hopefully CPUC realizes how bad this will be and return to the drawing board.You can download all the models and stuff they've been deliberating over for years for NEM 3.0.
Avoided Cost Calculator for Distributed Energy Resources (DER) - E3
E3 has developed the methodology for estimating the value of avoided costs for use in evaluating distributed energy resource programs in California. 2022 E3 Avoided Cost Calculator (latest) 2022 ACC Models Latest Version 2022 ACC Models Prior Version v1a 2022 ACC Models Prior Version v1b Files...
I don't think anyone has clearly explained those wacky paypack/ROI calcs that the CPUC are using to say that NEM 3.0 is still favorable to homeowners.
Presumably, we're all homeowners who have done similar ROI calcs for ourselves. And presumably CALSSA and SEIA members have done ROI calculations for their own customers to describe the benefit of solar. I can't replicate anything to even come close to the anticipated homeowner payback found in the back-end of that CPUC proposal. And CALSSA thinks the new proposal would gut the California residential solar market; so they don't see the ROI either.
It would be helpful for us to understand how the hell the joint IOU proposal (and now the CPUC proposal) outlines ROI for homeowners under NEM 3.0. I was hoping Vines or WWhitney could help explain how the CPUC came up with their break-even/payback/ROI/etc. But deep down I think the reality is there is no favorable ROI. The CPUC is just saying there is favorable ROI and that's that. The CPUC wants to gut residential solar.
charlesj
Active Member
Is the CPUC using ROI in any of their many other decision making process or just this one?
Similar threads
- Locked
