We can have a discussion about the fundamental flaws in the rate structure. It will not end with a conclusion that NEM and NEM 2 customers are paying their fair share for the grid. The individuals on here that actually have posted about their actual cost prove that.
-
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
.
Please read that link I posted earlier - specifically his comments under point number 4 regarding that “fair share” malarkey that you just won’t let go.
If this “fair share” thing is all you’ve got to rationalize the PD (IOU proposal), it is very telling how bad this IOU proposal really is.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link, I just read that point. It made the same point I was about to make before reading it. If the issue is a cost shift to other rate payers, to address this, shouldn't there be a sufficiently large fixed minimum fee that is charged to all rate payers? Why are only solar users being targeted, especially while California is trying to promote solar (even forcing it in new homes). I also highly doubt the calculation they did to determine the amount is the true "fair" amount.
I see he did not say the facts as we have seen on this very NEM 3 discussion. Customer C pays $9/month and is a solar customer and they are not paying their fair share. You must be one of those very bias customers. Are you paying $10/mon?
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
I’d love to see a plain as day ready to serve charge listed as line 1A on my PG&E bill, sized according to service size, and charged to EVERY connection. Give the poor folks a credit to offset some if need be. If this is about paying a “fair share” for grid maintenance, then make it actually fair and transparent.
My water company does this. It’s easy to understand, equitable, and proportional to the size of your connection. Why can’t the electric utilities figure this out?
To be quite frank, I think the “fair share” argument is totally worthless, unless we’re going to account for all of the variables. What value are we assigning “clean air” in this calculation? What value do we attribute to mitigating the effect of climate change? What national security value is associated with not importing oil and gas from hostile adversaries? Last I checked poor people without solar breathed air too.
My water company does this. It’s easy to understand, equitable, and proportional to the size of your connection. Why can’t the electric utilities figure this out?
To be quite frank, I think the “fair share” argument is totally worthless, unless we’re going to account for all of the variables. What value are we assigning “clean air” in this calculation? What value do we attribute to mitigating the effect of climate change? What national security value is associated with not importing oil and gas from hostile adversaries? Last I checked poor people without solar breathed air too.
Who pays for the replacement of the transformer and wiring that goes from the distribution system to a solar customers home when they are paying $10/mon for 20 years? Who pays for the winding replacement on the transformer that feeds the 12kV system that feeds the solar customers area? Who pays for the wages of the troubleman who is troubleshooting the outage in the solar customers area? The fair share argument is worthless to those not paying the fair share.
Last edited:
I personally agree that a lower credit for exported electricity would be better, though the 5c proposal is a joke. The $8 solar tax is just plain stupid, and most likely won't pass.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
What about Customer D that pays $9/month and is not a solar customer? If this is a core issue, why is only the solar customer being targeted? This also ignores the contributory effects of the solar customer (which is the other point, it's very much not the $0.05/kWh they are proposing, especially given most solar customers live near people that don't have solar and would contribute to the neighborhood grid, thus generating close to, if not more than average base rates values for the grid). The point is well made that the way the utilities operate inherently has cost shifting, and it doesn't make sense to single out solar users in this aspect, especially while the state is trying to promote home solar. If instead California wants to make it loud and clear they don't want people to install home solar, then that's a different story, but that's not what the politicians are saying.
Reminds me of the EV fees states are trying to charge. Instead of figuring out a more reliable way to charge cars a fair rate for infrastructure use, they charge only EVs a flat fee that many times is not "fair" vs what an efficient gas car is paying.
Last edited:
As I have stated we can have a discussion about the overall rate structure and how it is very likely to always have some cost shifting.
Why do you believe that your solar value is greater than the utilities avoided cost?
If everyone switched to electric vehicles we would need some sort of fee structure for infrastructure.
If everyone put in rooftop solar under NEM 2, the grid would collapse, and we would need some sort of fee structure for infrastructure.
If it were up to me:
- charge everyone a flat monthly of $20-30
- reduce the price charged for each KWh to reflect the impact of flat fee
- have an export offset at 50% of import to encourage use of storage
That would still make solar financially interesting and fair, and charge everyone to support the grid.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The wear on these components are based on usage, so should be rolled into whatever per kWh NEM rate they are going to propose. It doesn't make sense to pay for this as a fixed rate, especially not as an installed capacity rate (should be based on kWh input/output on the grid, as that is the actual wear, not the installed capacity, which is a number few people get close to generating even at ideal seasons). This is putting beside the point that solar users may reduce some of that wear by contributing to neighborhood energy demand, thus reducing the wear upstream.
This type of cost is what the minimum delivery charge is supposed to pay for, if it's not high enough, that should be raised (and should be raised for all rate payers, not just solar). But I highly doubt the $8/kW based on installed capacity is a fair rate for that, given that labor cost doesn't change based on installed capacity (it should be the same for everyone, regardless of solar capacity).
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Nope, because those paying $9-10/month net might be covering their fair costs already if the particular user is generating enough energy for the grid, while being a low energy consumer themselves. Just knowing they pay a net of $9-10/month does not tell you their impact on the grid.
If instead you are talking about the minimum delivery flat charge before considering that (meaning possibly they even get a credit as a net), I would only agree if you agree that all grid users should pay the higher flat rate. But it seems instead you are trying to get me to implicitly say it makes sense to charge a higher flat rate than that only for solar users, while not doing the same for all the other grid users, as this proposal is doing. I'm completely opposed to that.
I'm personally fine paying either a higher minimum delivery charge (assuming it is raised for everyone equally or based on service size or some other measure to estimate relative impact) or even a fixed service charge on all bills based on service size regardless of minimum use (as proposed by some up thread). I'm paying PG&E bills for both non-solar and solar properties, so either change would potentially affect both types, but it would be fair and I would be happy to pay it. However, something that targets only solar and is based on solar capacity definitely is not fair.
This was pointed out by other analysis, but this whole "fairness" discussion seems like a red herring by the utilities anyways. They are trying to get public support against a minority by bringing this point up (it's a similar tactic applied to EV fees), while they know there may be much stronger public opposition if they actually proposed "fair" charges that applied to everyone.
Last edited:
I agree, strip out the current charges for transmission and have everyone pay a flat fee.
Something not mentioned a lot and ignored, but is a fact is someone with solar already 'paid' someone (the solar manufacturers/installers/Tesla, just not the utility other than the fees/interconnection/etc) $20k-50k. They didn't start this $$ math equation the same as someone without solar.
They're already negative ~$25k so the CPUC is now saying it's fair for them to help the grid (export any excess generated at $0.03/$0.04 which the utility then charges to non-battery/non-solar people at $0.60+ in SD), but make them pay punitive charges after the fact as well just because they installed solar?
Sometimes, I keep wondering if it's simply better to let the utilities fail, turn them into non-profit community owned projects, self funded without any profit margins or a stock price, exec bonus, etc. The whole utility structure where everyone uses less/solar, but utilities have to now charge more is flawed to begin with.
The obvious thing with NEM3.0 is it will kill a lot of jobs, go back to more utility dependence (what they ultimately want and why it's so bad) and will probably result in NEM4.0 to fix NEM3.0. Lawsuits will also fly similar to NV about the 20 -> 15 year grandfathering.
Trusting/assuming utilities will do the right thing seems laughable. Execs/employees are typically just too short term sighted to care I feel and it'd be great if people recorded/leaked what really is discussed internally at these utilities and their thinking.
They're already negative ~$25k so the CPUC is now saying it's fair for them to help the grid (export any excess generated at $0.03/$0.04 which the utility then charges to non-battery/non-solar people at $0.60+ in SD), but make them pay punitive charges after the fact as well just because they installed solar?
Sometimes, I keep wondering if it's simply better to let the utilities fail, turn them into non-profit community owned projects, self funded without any profit margins or a stock price, exec bonus, etc. The whole utility structure where everyone uses less/solar, but utilities have to now charge more is flawed to begin with.
The obvious thing with NEM3.0 is it will kill a lot of jobs, go back to more utility dependence (what they ultimately want and why it's so bad) and will probably result in NEM4.0 to fix NEM3.0. Lawsuits will also fly similar to NV about the 20 -> 15 year grandfathering.
Trusting/assuming utilities will do the right thing seems laughable. Execs/employees are typically just too short term sighted to care I feel and it'd be great if people recorded/leaked what really is discussed internally at these utilities and their thinking.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Why did you deliberately choose to disregard the first part of my post advocating for a clear, above-line ready to serve fee charged to every meter, separate from generation costs?
Nobody is saying grid maintenance costs don’t exist. I’m saying the way being currently proposed to rectify the problem by severely penalizing clean energy is batshit crazy and fails to capture all of the variables in the calculus.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
