charlesj
Active Member
What is this fee for? I am confused as this is the first I am hearing about this fee.
-
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
Do see they now say it is okay to put 150% panels one. Why not, they get more money from the panels, and only have to give 5 cents nowDon't forget that the reason this is a flat $ per month on the size of the system is because PG&E has seen the developments in other countries.
Australians could be charged for exporting energy from rooftop solar panels to the grid
Proposed changes to the national energy market rules aims to prevent ‘traffic jams’ of electricity on sunny dayswww.theguardian.com
The policies in some sun-soaked places basically resulted in the concept that turning off their solar array at noon time could be smarter than to leave the system on. It's because the homeowner's export value is actually worth less than the fee they got smacked with for that export.
PG&E solved this issue by simply saying every homeowner has their own IOU-mandated fixed cost basis to overcome... a magical $8 per kW for the privilege of the rooftop solar system existing. This means each homeowner will leave their solar system on, because even if they are only getting $0.05 per kWh of export at noon, that's still better than $0. The homeowner needs the generation and will be incentivized to leave the system running.
How absolutely mind bogglingly STUPID is this when you say it out loud? The regular homeowner is already paying for their own fixed costs of putting all the solar and ESS on their effing house! Now they have to pay an outrageously high disproportionate fee to pay for PG&E's fixed costs too?
In plain terms it appears that fee is for "having solar and being connected to the grid".
The Order in the Proposed Decision starts on document page 180, and the only part of it that references NEM1 and NEM2 is item 12, which I have pasted in below. The only change is the 20 years becomes 15 years.
Cheers, Wayne
12. The original Net Energy Metering tariff, referred to as NEM 1.0, and its
successor, referred to as NEM 2.0, are revised as follows:
(a) Existing non-California Alternate Rates for Energy
(CARE) residential customers on these two tariffs shall
transition to the tariff we approve in Ordering
Paragraph 3 above no later than 15 years after the
customer’s interconnection date.
(b) Existing NEM 2.0 tariff customers who voluntarily
transfer to the net billing tariff adopted in this decision,
within four years from its inception, are eligible to receive
a $0.20 per watt hour storage rebate. The storage rebate
is available for a total of four years but will decrease by
25 percent a year over the subsequent four years.
Customers are eligible for the storage rebate in the year
they transition to the successor tariff. Customers must
claim the rebate within three years of their transition to
the net billing tariff by submitting proof of an energy
storage system installation.
(c) Immediate replacement of the 20-year legacy period with
a 15-year legacy period for all future NEM 2.0 tariff
customers, including residential customers who take
service under NEM 2.0 after the adoption of this decision,
as well as customers taking control of (i.e., owning,
leasing, or paying a power purchase agreement for) a
residential system, other than when the subsequent
customer is the legal partner (i.e., spouse or domestic
partner) of the original customer.
charlesj
Active Member
Thanks. But $8 per kWh of what? Over production, transferred to the grid from excess solar energy? Excess NEM. And as mentioned if one goes off grid, what is that placed on?
How will being part of a community power agency affect this?
kW of capacity. If you have a 10 kW system, you pay $80/month
Who knows how this would impact CCAs. I bet PG&E will get the fee tacked on no matter what. CPUC is crooked
I've posted this a few times but people don't seem to interpret the language in the CPUC proposal the same as me.
Technically I can see an interpretation where the ESS also contribute to the kW in a "system". So, maybe a 10 kWp AC solar system with 2x Powerwall 2's (10 kW total for the two) would be a 20 kW system.
Consider my NEM2-MT interconnect agreement. It clearly lists my total system size as 6.7 kW of solar + 15.0 kW 3x PW2 = 21.7 kW total "facility". I would expect a NEM 3.0 person with a system identical as mine to pay PG&E 21.7 x $8.00 per month if this bogus proposal passes.
I asked Sunrun to submit my PTO application as a 6.7 kW system so PG&E wouldn't bump my total system size over 20 kW; which would require a higher tier of insurance coverage naming PG&E as an insured. PG&E countered immediately saying ESS is part of a system size and I need to update the form.
Edit: @h2ofun, does your PTO agreement list your system size as 32 kW or 57 kw (including 5x Powerwalls)?
I think we need to be ultra careful with how the CPUC and the IOUs ultimately enforce this. Unless someone expressly adds language to define what is a "residential customer's system", you should include the ESS in the size because the IOUs have set precedent that they interpret system size this way.
Quote from the CPUC propsal:
Last edited:
The Grid Participation Charge is $8 per kilowatt (kW) of solar
installed per month. Page 193 under Bill Charges.
IMO, there are dozens of other pages in that draft that mention the Grid Participation Charge; but do not explain it to be solar-only. I don't trust one instance of the word "solar" in Appendix A to be a confidence inspiring item. I'd prefer they expressly say "solar peak kW-AC generation" instead of just saying "system" in the pages that further discuss the Grid Participation charge. I expect someone to sneakily remove that instance of "Solar" on page 193 by the time this goes to press.
I'm a pessimist man... PG&E doesn't play fair.
As an aside, to you see the solar ROI/payback in the Appendix B? For SCE customers in new housing starts (who don't get the MTC credit), it's upwards to 16.5 years! And that's at the initial TOU rates and a rather optimal solar deployment with minimal shading.
You know SCE customers will get further shifted TOU rates eventually; that ROI is straight up going negative. And those new house customers are mandated by law to have solar on their rooftops. Lolololol. RIP.
skepticcyclist
Member
So what if you have 10 kW total from your panels but only 8 kW max from your microinverters (microinverters always max out less than what the panels can produce), will you be charged for 8 or 10 kW. Technically your system can only produce 8
I do not have the answer to this. I would look at your system documentation. I do not have solar.
I read a good amount of the CPUC proposed decision. The proposed decision is fairly straight forward in my opinion. It is clear to the commission that NEM 2.0 solar customers are getting a rapid payback on their investment, and this cost is coming from customers that do not have solar. They are proposing changing the rate structure to increase the length of time of this payback and to more equitably align costs to customers.
" Our review of the current net energy metering tariff, referred to as
NEM 2.0, found that the tariff negatively impacts non-participating customers; is
not cost-effective; and disproportionately harms low-income ratepayers."
While I understand the frustration of a solar customer seeing their costs increase due to these changes, I wonder if the same solar customer considers the increased costs that the non-solar customers have had and what their level of frustration is.
This is the thing that really annoys me. The effect on low-income ratepayers is exactly what the CPUC decides it will be. Asserting that solar customers are disproportionately harming low income ratepayers is ridiculous. Technically, low income ratepayers are not on a general rate plan, they are on CARE or FERA rates. If you want to say that the current tariffs assign too much cost to the class of non-solar customers and not enough on the class of solar customers, that's one thing, but the low income thing is a red herring that is just being used to justify the proceeding.
Our review of the current net energy metering tariff, referred to as
NEM 2.0, found that the tariff negatively impacts non-participating customers
They did say just that.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Non-Solar customers are more than welcome to get solar to reduce their bill. What option would solar owners have to reduce their bill?
charlesj
Active Member
Thanks. Would this be on top of the current minimum charge of around $10? Or total based on system capacity?
So solar customers under NEM 2.0 are pushing costs to non-solar customers and you believe that the non-solar customers should adopt solar to push even more costs to those that don't have solar? You do realize that some people can't get solar for a wide variety of reasons.
I would like to bring up the fact that PG&E rates have exploded since we purchased this home in 2008, I really doubt the rate tripled all because of solar users. Now, the city next to me, has their own city owned utility, guess what, their rate is less than half PG&E rates. Rates I keep kicking myself for not buying a house 2 blocks away, out of PG&E territory. So I really find it hard to believe its only because of people installing solar, and btw, the city next to me has lots of homes with solar. Not too mention all the new construction with solar etc... So if this passes, I would expect PG&E to lower rates? Yeah right, they are already looking at another 18% rate increase in 2023... Its all about the money "Ninety-eight sitting members of the California legislature took campaign money from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company".. So when it comes to anything California says about Global Warming, I am gonna have to call BS..
There are many articles and studies that have debunked the cost shift argument. That argument is just something that sounds good... Evil rich solar users are being subsidized by the poor...
Berkeley Lab finds negligible potential rate impacts from distributed solar
The latest report from the respected national lab finds that even if - big if - behind-the-meter solar is raising the rates of other utility customers, the impacts are tiny, especially compared to other activities.
pv-magazine-usa.com
Similar threads
- Locked
