wait - why do the rates need to go up for the 85%? Maybe they implement a base fee that is common to all, but lower the per kWh charge so that overall bill is the same for the 85%. If the bill goes up for the 15% because of the base fee, they still get a net gain.I think the hardest sell is how can the utilities communicate to everyone that their rates need to go up by some base grid support rate? With how power pricing is structured where not everyone is paying to support the grid (little power users pay so little) and high users moving to solar because, obvious reasons with volumetric pricing would be paying more.
Assuming there are 15% solar owners in CA, it's hard for them to tell the other 85% utility non-solar customers and the 15% solar customers (those will go up too), your cost just went up by $10-$20 because you need to pay to support the grid.
This was my guess as to why they probably targeted the smaller % of solar owners and played the class warfare card even though solar owners income median is going down over the years:
"Among households that added solar in 2019, 21 percent had incomes that were below 80 percent of their “area median income,” a threshold often used to define low income, the report said. The share of solar adopters in this income category continues to rise."
Inside Clean Energy: The Rooftop Solar Income Gap Is (Slowly) Shrinking - Inside Climate News
One of the most common arguments against subsidizing rooftop solar is that the benefits mostly go to affluent households that don’t need any help. But the reality is that the declining costs of rooftop solar, along with access to solar leasing and other financing methods, are helping to reduce...insideclimatenews.org
Obviously, low income people don't own homes nor EVs so there is certainly some 'floor' of assets/income to what a solar owner would be at since a renter isn't going to spend $25k to put solar on a place they rent.
I think they really just need to bite the bullet and tack on some fee to everyone. I think most water costs already does this and seems to be less of a conflict issue since using no water is already like half your bill I've noticed.
I'd still like to see more competition/options where communities can do their solar/battery/storage (like that AUS article) or even own the powerlines, etc...Similar to Internet competition, no competition means they can do whatever they want and aren't responsible for mistakes/waste since people have no other choice, they're stuck.
-
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
Or, of course, once homeowners start using the anvil-in-a-mineshaft storage facility mentioned upthread.
RKCRLR
Active Member
I'm not saying that we don't need the grid. I'm saying that if I have residential solar and use it in a non-export mode to reduce the amount of energy I draw from the grid, don't charge me more than anyone else that uses any other means to reduce the amount of energy they draw from the grid. What is the justification for that?
And if the excess energy I produce has value then pay me for it appropriately. If it doesn't have value, so be it.
However, this approach would likely reduce or eliminate future residential solar. So if residential solar has benefit for everyone in our society then figure out how much that benefit is worth and how to incentivize it. Just don't do it solely on the backs of solar producers.
I could see some long-term flow battery storage being possible for months long storage. When I was at Intersolar last week, there were a few interesting prospects in this field, even for smaller systems.
In general I was amazed to see so many cool new products. There were a couple of Tesla clones there for sure and some with even better features, on the surface.
I'm not an expert in all the details, but it seems to me that the utilities are trying (and succeeding) to hide the real problem (utilities want/need to raise rates because they are mismanaged/badly regulated/corrupt/whatever) by making it look like the problem is solar customers vs non-solar customers.
All their customers are getting screwed, and assigning blame to either faction is bullsh-t misdirection.
Seems to me that long term storage may work better at the grid level than at the residential level, at least based on today's technology.
It might be cheaper but me as a homeowner who gets their power shutdown whenever it gets windy and hot, I really appreciate them being located at my residence.
Flow batteries might be a way to actually go aff grid, assuming your hate of PGE is large and your wallet is larger.
Most AHJ will be the larger barrier to going off grid. However, this whole talk of off-grid only makes any smidge of sense in the climate where the IOU try to make solar so financially infeasible that no homeowner will install it. Some homeowners who already paid for it 15-20 years ago might very well remove it entirely since it will literally cost them money instead of making money or even breaking even.
Some of those older systems priced PV panels at $3-4 per watt with $6-7/watt installed costs, and probably had a 12-15 year payback initially. It has only been the last 5-10 years or so that PV has become somewhat affordable.
Given volumetric pricing and the alleged need for "grid support", I think larger minimum charges may be a reasonable way to go for NEM customers. CPUC needs to force the IOUs to come to grips with the fact that the cash cows (customers with high bills) are going to self generate to reduce those bills. Another way to handle it is to have a scaled fixed monthly charge based on service size. Clearly residential customers with 100A / 200A / 400A / and higher service should not be paying the same basic monthly charge. The fact that they do and the cost is supposed to be recovered in volumetric charges is skewing the system. IMHO, it is reasonable for a McMansion with a huge solar system and net usage the same as a small apartment should pay more than that apartment customer. However, that McMansion should get fair compensation for their exports and the exports should be allowed to offset their fixed monthly costs.
They can also make it up with interconnection fees. NEM2-MT had a ~$2,500 interconnection versus the ~$900 for NEM2-PS. One of the explanations I was told for this higher fee was to support the increased use of "the grid."
IOU lookback study said that NEM 1.0 folks received the most amount of subsidy (edit: AKA cost shift). So they actually want those "rich early adopters" to begin paying their fair share ASAP. While some folks want to confuse the issue as a 15 year from now problem way down the road... the IOUs get benefit starting in a few months if this PD goes through.
If the PD goes through, by the 15th year anniversary of NEM 3.0 there will be over 1 million California homes under NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0 paying a fixed cost stream. And, the only way for those homes to avoid this fee is to rip out their solar. The IOU wins either way; they get $ or they get the homeowner to take out their solar so the IOU gets more $.
Last edited:
If you want to figure out what is "fair" - you have to narrow down the argument. In addition to the "rooftop solar is reverse robin hood" argument, the whole "ROI" argument is ridiculous. Why, in the living F, should the utilities even care what someone's "ROI" is? We know what their "ROI" is - they have to be constantly profitable.
When you just look at what the effect of a rooftop solar installation is, it becomes more clear, but not perfectly clear, because of the following.
Here is my conclusion, the grid has to be paid for, but the proposed fixed charge per kwh installed is complete and utter BS. Theyare going to get plenty of money by just adjusting the credit for exports.
Consider situation one, a homeowner who either has a small system or does not export. I mean, for this homeowner, all that is happening is that there is a reduction in use that the utility sees. The fact that the reduction is caused by solar in my mind is completely irrelevant, as it could also be caused by (a) super insulation or installing energy efficient applicances, or (b) simply cutting back. No, a charge per kw installed non-starter.
Situation two: Some export, but under the proposal the homeowner only gets a partial credit. How friggen greedy are they? You are giving credit at 5 cents and charging 60 cents and you also need a charge per kw installed? Why not just give no credit and take the energy for free? At 5 cents the utility is making a profit on the energy exported - where is that in the calculation? Again its not like the utility is screwed -- that's why they are focusing on the homeowners' financials, because once they get the 5 cents credit I can't imagine how many systems are so large that the utility is not making bank anyway.
Situation three, homeowner has system so large that they over export. I don't even see where this exists at 5 cents credit. LADWP solves it by never paying you if you over export, which, frankly is fair, LADWP is going to get to sell about 1,000 or more kwh per year from me so that "free" electricity will compensate them for me now chipping in for the grid -- and frankly I am chipping in, just with Kwh not with money. LADWP turns my Kwh into money.
Frankly, at 5 cents credit they are going to dent residential solar already, 5 cents credit plus the $8 is a kill shot.
When you just look at what the effect of a rooftop solar installation is, it becomes more clear, but not perfectly clear, because of the following.
Here is my conclusion, the grid has to be paid for, but the proposed fixed charge per kwh installed is complete and utter BS. Theyare going to get plenty of money by just adjusting the credit for exports.
Consider situation one, a homeowner who either has a small system or does not export. I mean, for this homeowner, all that is happening is that there is a reduction in use that the utility sees. The fact that the reduction is caused by solar in my mind is completely irrelevant, as it could also be caused by (a) super insulation or installing energy efficient applicances, or (b) simply cutting back. No, a charge per kw installed non-starter.
Situation two: Some export, but under the proposal the homeowner only gets a partial credit. How friggen greedy are they? You are giving credit at 5 cents and charging 60 cents and you also need a charge per kw installed? Why not just give no credit and take the energy for free? At 5 cents the utility is making a profit on the energy exported - where is that in the calculation? Again its not like the utility is screwed -- that's why they are focusing on the homeowners' financials, because once they get the 5 cents credit I can't imagine how many systems are so large that the utility is not making bank anyway.
Situation three, homeowner has system so large that they over export. I don't even see where this exists at 5 cents credit. LADWP solves it by never paying you if you over export, which, frankly is fair, LADWP is going to get to sell about 1,000 or more kwh per year from me so that "free" electricity will compensate them for me now chipping in for the grid -- and frankly I am chipping in, just with Kwh not with money. LADWP turns my Kwh into money.
Frankly, at 5 cents credit they are going to dent residential solar already, 5 cents credit plus the $8 is a kill shot.
charlesj
Active Member
I think the Tennessee Valley Authority if a federal government run operation.
Why is 85% or residential water in the US is a municipal system? Ours, a for profit monopoly, is the most expensive water in the 48 states and possible a;ll 50.
Or, for those with the later combination of hatred and wallets, and with location based potential, aquifer pumped storage is a long shot option. As a homeowner with a deep well, the concept is appealing. But contamination risks, etc. seem like tall barricades.
charlesj
Active Member
I am in that group, in my 10th year. Back then a system was expensive, long payback.
As far as monopolies, take a look at other power companies compared with PGE.
Palo Alto actually has a pretty good utility, and if you look at their rates they are very reasonable. $0.13/kWh for tier 1 and $0.19/kWh for tier 2 with a minimum bill of $0.30 per day. Generation from PV is credited at about $0.11 per kWh.
There are plenty of examples of utilities near PGE territory that manage this better, with less resources.
Palo Alto actually has a pretty good utility, and if you look at their rates they are very reasonable. $0.13/kWh for tier 1 and $0.19/kWh for tier 2 with a minimum bill of $0.30 per day. Generation from PV is credited at about $0.11 per kWh.
There are plenty of examples of utilities near PGE territory that manage this better, with less resources.
charlesj
Active Member
Interesting thought patterns. What happened with our for profit water company, most expensive in the nation here, when we started to save water, a lot, they raised their prices AND they reach back many years to recover lost revenues because of our efforts to save water.
Now the district wants to take it over as a municipal agency, eminent domain. What a fight on our hands.
Could PG&E be broken up? I assume Palo Alto still gets the actual power from someone through PG&E lines?
Each city will just manage their own grid sorta like most of the US grids, but still be connected to other cities (unlike Texas). It seems almost worth it to buy out and leave PG&E and not have to deal with their constant management.
charlesj
Active Member
When my son lived in Santa Clara I looked at his electric bill. I couldn't believe how inexpensive it was. I called his provider; they own the whole system, wires, poles, everything in their territory.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
That's what surveys have said, in a survey of 4000 active solar shoppers, 68.4% would no longer be interested due to the 5 cents rate, while 95.4% would no longer be interested under a $8/kW proposal.
Survey says 95% of shoppers would not buy solar under NEM 3.0
I think the utilities are perfectly fine with that however, they would likely be happy if 100% of solar shoppers give up on solar. The issue however is that CA policy supports home solar, even requiring it to be installed in new homes. There's the contradiction. If the politicians are going to push for home solar, they need to stop this proposal. If they are going to support this proposal, they should reverse the requirements for people to install home solar, and stop claiming they support home solar.
That article also mentioned battery storage. If the goal is to push for home battery storage, there needs to either be an exemption for anyone that has battery storage, or there needs to be an permanent equivalent $/kWh bill credit to offset it (not just the initial short incentives). However, the battery storage point is also likely another red herring designed to muddy the waters. Battery storage can help owners avoid peak rates and hurt utility profits, so I doubt they are truly supportive of it.
Similar threads
- Locked
