If you generate 1 kwh to the grid and you consume that 1 kwh the next hour what fees do you pay?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.
CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion
- Thread starter jjrandorin
- Start date
The utility solar gets $.03/kWh the residential gets retail NEM credits and does not pay transmission, distribution, etc....
I think you are missing the point, no one here thinks it should not change. The current system is too far in favor of solar. Personally, I am fine with the proposal of only wholesale on exports, and pay retail on imports. The per kw fee is what I think many think is excessive. Just changing NEM credits increases my bill 10x, how is this not enough?
You have a solar system so your position is understandable, if I follow your wisdom.
I have exactly zero to do with solar at my company. I have been sharing my expertise as a grid operator. I have been making my point as a PG&E ratepayer who does not have solar. For you to insinuate that I have an alternate agenda, well I guess we could all do that.
So consider a few different alternatives to NEM2 that are less beneficial to residential DER owners:
- Proposed NBT (NEM3)--$8/kW monthly fee
- No export interconnect--no ongoing fees
- Use it or lose it--you are allowed to export, but get $0/kWh for exported energy, no ongoing fees. Doesn't currently exist to my knowledge.
The biggest issue I have with the proposed NBT is that it seems in many cases for the DER owner, "no export" would be a better deal than NBT.
And as far as I know, a DER exported kWh to the CA grid, even during solar noon, is still a net positive to the grid and to society, with at most rare exception. So a "use or lose it" option for interconnection would be better for everyone than "no export," (or no DER at all) and should be offered.
Then if the CPUC wishes to encourage further DER, it needs to make the rules more beneficial to the DER owner than "use it or lose it".
Cheers, Wayne
- Proposed NBT (NEM3)--$8/kW monthly fee
- No export interconnect--no ongoing fees
- Use it or lose it--you are allowed to export, but get $0/kWh for exported energy, no ongoing fees. Doesn't currently exist to my knowledge.
The biggest issue I have with the proposed NBT is that it seems in many cases for the DER owner, "no export" would be a better deal than NBT.
And as far as I know, a DER exported kWh to the CA grid, even during solar noon, is still a net positive to the grid and to society, with at most rare exception. So a "use or lose it" option for interconnection would be better for everyone than "no export," (or no DER at all) and should be offered.
Then if the CPUC wishes to encourage further DER, it needs to make the rules more beneficial to the DER owner than "use it or lose it".
Cheers, Wayne
From what I have read everyone here wants their NEM to stay the same and not change for 20 years.
Yes, revoking something that was guaranteed in the tariff is simply wrong. New connection can follow new rules, but changing the 20 year guarantee to 15 years is just plain wrong.
I think the change that will revoke NEM status upon property sale is also a BIG problem. People invested their own money based on these terms. Relatively speaking, this is a small number of people. Let them ride out their terms.
I think use it or lose it makes the most sense. Plus it can be justified in existing rates as they are currently set. This would incentivize ESS.
No export no fee would incentivize ESS also which would be good.
I think CPUC is attempting to incentivize solar with ESS but they are not doing a very good job of setting an understandable structure within their last proposal.
We signed a Contract, why shouldn't we expect the contract be honored?
I do agree that NEM1 and 2 were lopsided, but it was put there to incentivize solar. I think NEM3 should be less beneficial, but not to the point that there is no ROI for residential solar. That is what it is as proposed. Who would invest in something with a 20 year ROI
In reality we can all argue and debate on here as long as we want. The CPUC is going to do what it is going to do. I have been trying to explain that NEM 1 and 2 got a really sweet deal and should be happy it is going to last for 15 years. You have a sweet deal. It will end eventually. Be happy, not angry.
Ehhhh don't fall for folks like Zabe's trap to even begin to think the "current system of residential NEM is the problem." The belief that NEM is a major problem-source is the result of gaslighting from the IOU's to establish residential solar (comprised of rich people) as the enemy. This line of thinking has put residential solar on the defensive, which they have had a difficult time combating from this position of weakness.
CALSSA and SEIA for some reason refuse to go on an absolute offensive and actually point the finger at the real problem that is definitely not NEM.
For proof (and I'll do this without pasting screenshots since some people think I manipulate my screenshots).
Go look at last summer's peak solar generation on the CAISO website. On the Summer solstice June 2021, peak solar (excluding imports) was about 12,400 MW.
California ISO - Supply, Today's Outlook
View real-time and historical data on generation resources, including renewables, currently on the system.
www.caiso.com
As I pointed out much earlier in this thread, the approximate capacity of all of California's Residential NEM in 2021 was about 6,400 MW.
CaliforniaDGStats
If you do simple straight math and assume no generator purposely de-activated their solar production on the Solstice on purpose, that means about 6,000 MW of solar is producing somewhere alongside the residential solar.
So here's where the first fallacy of the CPUC logic comes in. If one were to truly believe there is a "problem" of too much solar capacity in California, then the burden to fix this issue should lie with the entirety of the 12,400 MW generating sources. Homeowners and businesses are both producing this 12,400 MW. But the CPUC and IOUs has focused exclusively on Residential NEM because it's easier to blame a "rich homeowner" than it is to blame a "rich billionaire".
So what is this 6,000 MW? It's primarily power purchase agreements worth almost $20Bn of terribly priced futures contracts for solar energy.
The IOUs insist that the 6,000 MW cannot be remedied. For some reason, it's easier for policy makers to kick half a million homeowners in the nuts than it is to kick even one of the bad PPA agreements in the nuts.
The moment you think the "problem" is on homeowners to remedy is the moment the CPUC/IOU's win. Because so far, the CPUC has produced ZERO initiatives I can find to actually address the 6,000 MW that was poorly subsidized. Why is Residential NEM being asked to solve a problem created by the CPUC and PG&E?
And this leads us to the second fallacy of the CPUC logic... remember the 6,400 MW residential NEM capacity and the 6,000 MW other capacity are NOT THE SAME. Residents forked over their own money as a means to offset their home's carbon footprint and contribute in some small way to achieving our clean energy goals.
The folks who invested in the PPAs just wanted to tap into the absurdly juicy money from PG&E mismanagement. They wanted profits and ROI; and PG&E handed them ludicrously expensive ROI. These PPA's were unhedged, and were an estimated $20Bn of above-market-waste that PG&E identified during their bankruptcy.
So... if there's a problem, then why does the CPUC think @h2ofun should be the one to fix it instead of Brightsource Energy?
That "sweet deal" was intentional, in order to spur the growth of DER. And it worked, so maybe it's time to change the rules for future DER. But to change the rules retroactively is a bait-and-switch, breach of contract.
Cheers, Wayne
yep and PG&E will honor those contractsEhhhh don't fall for folks like Zabe's trap to even begin to think the "current system of residential NEM is the problem." The belief that NEM is a major problem-source is the result of gaslighting from the IOU's to establish residential solar (comprised of rich people) as the enemy. This line of thinking has put residential solar on the defensive, which they have had a difficult time combating from this position of weakness.
CALSSA and SEIA for some reason refuse to go on an absolute offensive and actually point the finger at the real problem that is definitely not NEM.
For proof (and I'll do this without pasting screenshots since some people think I manipulate my screenshots).
Go look at last summer's peak solar generation on the CAISO website. On the Summer solstice June 2021, peak solar (excluding imports) was about 12,400 MW.
California ISO - Supply, Today's Outlook
View real-time and historical data on generation resources, including renewables, currently on the system.www.caiso.com
As I pointed out much earlier in this thread, the approximate capacity of all of California's Residential NEM in 2021 was about 6,400 MW.
CaliforniaDGStats
If you do simple straight math and assume no generator purposely de-activated their solar production on the Solstice on purpose, that means about 6,000 MW of solar is producing somewhere alongside the residential solar.
So here's where the first fallacy of the CPUC logic comes in. If one were to truly believe there is a "problem" of too much solar capacity in California, then the burden to fix this issue should lie with the entirety of the 12,400 MW generating sources. Homeowners and businesses are both producing this 12,400 MW. But the CPUC and IOUs has focused exclusively on Residential NEM because it's easier to blame a "rich homeowner" than it is to blame a "rich billionaire".
So what is this 6,000 MW? It's primarily power purchase agreements worth almost $20Bn of terribly priced futures contracts for solar energy.
The IOUs insist that the 6,000 MW cannot be remedied. For some reason, it's easier for policy makers to kick half a million homeowners in the nuts than it is to kick even one of the bad PPA agreements in the nuts.
The moment you think the "problem" is on homeowners to remedy is the moment the CPUC/IOU's win. Because so far, the CPUC has produced ZERO initiatives I can find to actually address the 6,000 MW that was poorly subsidized. Why is Residential NEM being asked to solve a problem created by the CPUC and PG&E?
And this leads us to the second fallacy of the CPUC logic... remember the 6,400 MW residential NEM capacity and the 6,000 MW other capacity are NOT THE SAME. Residents forked over their own money as a means to offset their home's carbon footprint and contribute in some small way to achieving our clean energy goals.
The folks who invested in the PPAs just wanted to tap into the absurdly juicy money from PG&E mismanagement. They wanted profits and ROI; and PG&E handed them ludicrously expensive ROI. These PPA's were unhedged, and were an estimated $20Bn of above-market-waste that PG&E identified during their bankruptcy.
So... if there's a problem, then why does the CPUC think @h2ofun should be the one to fix it instead of Brightsource Energy?
PG&E Pledges to Honor Renewable Contracts in Bankruptcy Plan
California utility’s $18 billion pledge for wildfire victims faces scrutiny, but legacy renewable contract holders are breathing a sigh of relief.
www.greentechmedia.com
Do the CAISO number include residential NEM solar, or is it just utility scale solar? I.e. you assumed the 6,400 subtracts from the 12,400, but it could be in addition to the 12,400.
Cheers, Wayne
Well that is pretty obvious, if I buy something with the terms being 20 years, it should not change. The 20 years is posted all over PG&E, so its not like its some theoretic could go away term. No where that I have ever seen does the IOUs state that the 20 year grandfather is arbitrary and can change at any time. If I buy a car with a 20 year warranty, can they change to 15 when they are losing money. I did not set the terms, I am abiding to the terms set forth. I can not break the terms, so why should they.
And no, I do not want to change the statement. No one should be able to change the terms, period. We purchased under those terms, and it was very clear that those terms would be there to protect our investment. The entire idea of the grandfathering is so we can calculate our savings, changing terms after the fact is wrong...
No where else would anyone think that was a good idea... Buy a 20yr bond with expectation of 5% growth over 20 years, and year 10, oh we are losing money on this bond, so we are gonna change the terms. Take a 30 year mortgage, after year 20 bank says they are changing terms to 25 and expect your to pay up. I am amazed that people actually think its a good idea to renege on the terms of an agreement. All for the benefit of a for profit corporation...
RKCRLR
Active Member
If they don't like the deal they committed to then they should offer to remove my solar and give me back my money with interest.
I was under the impression the CAISO documented supply was from all solar renewable sources... at least I remember reading that someplace like months ago when I first started getting upset about NEM 3.0 and how the IOUs were vilifying residential rooftop solar.
The demand on the Summer Solstice roughly equals the Supply on the Summer Solstice (some losses due to transmission)... and the demand was supposed to be all measured demand. It would be really interesting if it turns out both demand and supply get artificially pushed downward because rooftop residential solar was suppressing both factors.
Regardless, I think you're onto something; the CAISO demand/supply calc exclude the contemporaneous production and consumption in the home that had rooftop generation. I think the "supply" figure in the CAISO data only includes the excess rooftop residential solar exported to the grid. That means the overall residential NEM supply would be less; and more supply coming from dedicated suppliers (either on a PPA or supplying at the cratered spot rate).
Similar threads
- Locked
