CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[holeydonut]

Much better for the reasons @ohmman mentions, if you have solar. Peak starting at 2pm means I'm selling at $0.60/kwh, not buying. Also, all the morning solar generation is credited at mid-peak rates instead of off-peak. EV-A really is "too good to be true" for NEM solar.

The PGE rate plan estimator tells me my annual true up would almost double - EV-A is about $1500, EV2-A is nearly $3,000 (this is before storage).

Lol no wonder PG&E thinks ya'll are banking fat subsidies. I'm NEM 2.0, but I got hosed with their aggressive attempts to stop my solar+ESS project, and I'm stuck on EV2A.

I feel like the real cost shift isn't related to NEM. It's related to these juicy TOU tiers you all have

 

[miimura]

Much better for the reasons @ohmman mentions. Peak starting at 2pm means I'm selling at $0.60/kwh, not buying. Also, all the morning solar generation is credited at mid-peak rates instead of off-peak.

The PGE rate plan estimator tells me my annual true up would almost double - EV-A is about $1500, EV2-A is nearly $3,000 (this is before storage).

This is exactly the reason - solar generation on EV-A earns Part-Peak credits instead of Off-Peak from 7am-2pm. EV2 is Off-Peak midnight until 3pm.

If PG&E really wants to stick it to solar-only customers (ie. no battery), they just need to force them onto a TOU plan like EV2 that has Off-Peak credits during solar generating hours. They don't need to revoke NEM to tilt the game in their own favor. Seriously, imagine a Super-Off-Peak from 8am-2pm at like $0.15/kWh while overnight from midnight to 8am is $0.21/kWh like EV2 is now. That makes EV charging overnight even more costly and would encourage people to charge their cars during solar generating hours.

 

[holeydonut]

This is exactly the reason - solar generation on EV-A earns Part-Peak credits instead of Off-Peak from 7am-2pm. EV2 is Off-Peak midnight until 3pm.

If PG&E really wants to stick it to solar-only customers (ie. no battery), they just need to force them onto a TOU plan like EV2 that has Off-Peak credits during solar generating hours. They don't need to revoke NEM to tilt the game in their own favor. Seriously, imagine a Super-Off-Peak from 8am-2pm at like $0.15/kWh while overnight from midnight to 8am is $0.21/kWh like EV2 is now. That makes EV charging overnight even more costly and would encourage people to charge their cars during solar generating hours.

Lol, they want to really stick it to solar customers twice. Once with a monthly fixed cost, and once again with future TOU changes to push solar-only rates into what you just described. Your super-off-peak proposal is already very close to what EV2A is today hah.

Can you imagine being a solar customer in 2023... and going into super-negative ROI territory just because the IOU's push you to a new TOU schedule (very short 5-year grandfathering for TOU schedules).

PS... how is a working-class-poor-person supposed to charge their car at home at 10am if they're like... driving to work?

 

[taphil]

like solar, electric cars are for rich people only

 

[miimura]

Lol, they want to really stick it to solar customers twice. Once with a monthly fixed cost, and once again with future TOU changes to push solar-only rates into what you just described. Your super-off-peak proposal is already very close to what EV2A is today hah.

Can you imagine being a solar customer in 2023... and going into super-negative ROI territory just because the IOU's push you to a new TOU schedule (very short 5-year grandfathering for TOU schedules).

PS... how is a working-class-poor-person supposed to charge their car at home at 10am if they're like... driving to work?

At least EV2-A is 1:1 kWh for EV charging overnight. That means the solar generation during most of the generating hours is credited at the same price or higher than the overnight EV charging. With the Super-Off-Peak scenario, you would have to pay more for the kWh you put into the car overnight than you get for putting that kWh into the grid during the day. This is why parking lots need solar and EV charging - put the solar into cars where they're normally parked.

 

[holeydonut]

At least EV2-A is 1:1 kWh for EV charging overnight. That means the solar generation during most of the generating hours is credited at the same price or higher than the overnight EV charging. With the Super-Off-Peak scenario, you would have to pay more for the kWh you put into the car overnight than you get for putting that kWh into the grid during the day. This is why parking lots need solar and EV charging - put the solar into cars where they're normally parked.

You know it's funny... the building I work at actually has a PG&E office on an above floor. PG&E helped the landlord get subsidies to put in solar arrays over the parking lot and installed a Powerpack so they could offset the building TOU. The upgrade is heavily subsidized and will drop our shared utility fees by quite a bit.

Ooooo they're installing a powerpack outside of my work office building

Where are the disconnects and bollards????

teslamotorsclub.com

But of course, the are not implementing any useful EV charging setup that I can tell. There's literally one new EV charging station they added that is reserved for some guy that dives a Taycan.

I wonder if PG&E is going to punish this non-residential Solar + ESS project for not paying their fair share of grid costs. Those shady rich tenants (PG&E) are stealing from the poor...

 

[ohmman]

how is a working-class-poor-person supposed to charge their car at home at 10am if they're like... driving to work?

Workplace charging incentives are a good idea, as @miimura states. Throughout the pandemic, we've seen quite a shift to work-from-home as well, some of which doesn't plan to return to the office. The nonprofit I serve is looking for a new office space and we've completely rethought how that's going to look because so many of the employees have become satisfied with working from home.

Proper TOU rates will encourage peak time charging; I've shifted my EV charging to 1pm myself, though mine is done through home automation depending on a number of variables (SOC of my PWs, SOC of my Teslas, which one is plugged in, solar production).

 

[BGbreeder]

Right, but others are saying they were kicked off for adding storage, despite having time left in their grandfathering period.

Yup, that was us.

I was on E6 NEM1 and had to get moved to TOUC NEM2 to qualify for my SGIP incentive to add my powerwalls. Original solar installed 2010, not sure what would have happened if I did not ask for the incentive.

This is what we had as well. I specifically asked about staying on E-6 or other available rates and was told EV2-A or EV2-B were the only options. If it was a buried requirement in the SGIP paperwork, I missed it.

The EV2-A has been a real relearning of electric appliance usage habits to move discretionary usage to before noon on all days.

All the best,

BG

 

[sunwarriors]

A column in the LA Times today:

Skelton: There’s a battle brewing over changes to California solar incentives. Newsom is in the middle

These articles never mention that the solar/storage owner spent $25k-$50k of their own money to lower their own monthly costs and go green. That cost of money is a real cost and this is why some "rich" folks who can afford it don't even go solar (because they don't use much energy to begin with, but they can certainly afford it).

I think a fail deal is possible. Simply higher rates for everyone to support the grid, less generous NEM rates. Possibly lower grandfathering for later installs and no changes to the original 20 years.

Still, a better solution is simply to break up the utilities since guaranteed profits for a quasi-government entity for a basic necessity was always a bad structure to begin with. PG&E should've just been broken up in bankruptcy and all those bad payment energy deals should be written off (and investors lose $$).

I still like the idea of energy more locally generated/stored/dependent/non-profit and less power to a behemoth utility.

 

[yblaser]

These articles never mention that the solar/storage owner spent $25k-$50k of their own money to lower their own monthly costs and go green. That cost of money is a real cost and this is why some "rich" folks who can afford it don't even go solar (because they don't use much energy to begin with, but they can certainly afford it).

I think a fail deal is possible. Simply higher rates for everyone to support the grid, less generous NEM rates. Possibly lower grandfathering for later installs and no changes to the original 20 years.

Still, a better solution is simply to break up the utilities since guaranteed profits for a quasi-government entity for a basic necessity was always a bad structure to begin with. PG&E should've just been broken up in bankruptcy and all those bad payment energy deals should be written off (and investors lose $$).

I still like the idea of energy more locally generated/stored/dependent/non-profit and less power to a behemoth utility.

Yeah I'm lighting my Cuban cigar with burning $100 bills as I type .

The article glossed over the arguments but I was more interested in the political pressure to the governor and his influence on the CPUC. It seems as one might expect the solar tax is the big disagreement.

Much better than another columnist's article in the LA Times the other week who bought the IOU argument hook, line, and sinker (autocorrect wanted to say that was sucker).

 

[holeydonut]

Does anyone know if there is a comment period for the new proposal? I just see that there is a vote in February now, but what are they voting on? Can they just barely change anything and vote it through?

FWIW, there is nothing on the agenda for the NEM 3.0 proceeding on the CPUC Feb 10 voting meeting.

I can't really tell when the CPUC will be discussing the NEM 3.0 PD or hearing new arguments. All I see in the proceeding notes are a bunch of exparte meetings rehashing the same old concerns. I don't really know how the CPUC is convening to re-assess changes to the PD.

 

[charlesj]

Yeah I'm lighting my Cuban cigar with burning $100 bills as I type .

...

You mean those cancer sticks.
I use those bills to light my cherries jubilee.

 

[Redhill_qik]

This is an interesting ruling, I don't know enough about how this might apply to the NEM 3.0 proposal which is a very different process with the CPUC purportedly an arms length regulator.

An Arizona utility just lost in appeals court for price gouging rooftop solar customers

Arizona utility Salt River Project, which services Phoenix, charged customers who own rooftop solar panels higher electricity rates.

electrek.co

 

[Merrill]

This is what our California utilities are trying to do, I hope they see this ruling.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This is an interesting ruling, I don't know enough about how this might apply to the NEM 3.0 proposal which is a very different process with the CPUC purportedly an arms length regulator.

An Arizona utility just lost in appeals court for price gouging rooftop solar customers

Arizona utility Salt River Project, which services Phoenix, charged customers who own rooftop solar panels higher electricity rates.

electrek.co

Might help on the fixed fee portion if it passes, as it very clearly does the same thing.

 

[charlesj]

This needs to be sent to the solar groups in the state to get ready for a lawsuit in federal court, anti-trust violation.
We may have a case even for our base fee now.

 

[Redhill_qik]

This needs to be sent to the solar groups in the state to get ready for a lawsuit in federal court, anti-trust violation.
We may have a case even for our base fee now.

Base fee? Do you mean the minimum fault charge? If so that is uniformly applied to all referral l residential customers.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This needs to be sent to the solar groups in the state to get ready for a lawsuit in federal court, anti-trust violation.
We may have a case even for our base fee now.

I don't think there would be a case for the base fee (presuming you mean the minimum delivery charge on PG&E), given that one applies to all rate payers that have a low bill. Also if CPUC decides to change the fixed fee for solar into a fee that applies to everyone, that also wouldn't apply.

The case in Arizona was won specifically because the higher rates targeted only solar customers and was a clear effort to prevent competition against the utility.

 

[Merrill]

I have a question on the grandfather clause on changes to net metering, everywhere I read that from your original pto on solar you are grandfathered in for 20 years. Now I read here that it is 15, is that if the CPUC proposal goes thru or did it change recently.

 

[sunwarriors]

Found this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/si9wgq

Where it says no vote planned on Feb 10th.