-
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
Tesla is currently having some sort of discount on the Powerwalls. 3 PWs shows a discount of $4050 (if you order solar). Along with the slightly higher 30% tax credit, the total cost for 3 PWs is currently only about $5K more than I paid for my 3 PWs.
Even with the new proposal, I will probably grid defect in 18 years when my NEM 2 is up. I'm assuming that solar and storage will be way cheaper (inflation adjusted of course) than it is now and there should be no reason to rely on the grid in 18 years. In fact, I'm looking at several pieces of land that where it wouldn't even make sense to pay the $200K+ to get utilities to the proposed home sites so I might be off the grid sooner if I end up moving before the 18 years is up.
RKCRLR
Active Member
When I built my house I had to pay to have 3 power poles put in and went underground from my last pole to the service entrance (transformer on pole). It was ~$20K as I remember in 2007. I had an option to keep ownership the poles (more money from me) but get compensated when other parcel owners wanted power or give PG&E ownership. I'm at the end of the road and there aren't any other parcels that would need power (unless I subdivide) so I gave PG&E ownership. I can't remember for sure but I think I would have been responsible for maintenance if I kept ownership. If that was the case I'm glad I didn't. Crews were out here for weeks off and on this summer clearing trees along the power lines and clearing vegetation for a 50 foot radius around each pole. Basically, if a tree could fall and hit the lines it was removed.
Solar and storage wasn't as advanced then so off-grid wasn't wouldn't have been worth it to me. But there are a lot of people further out that are off-grid. If it costs $200K to get utilities now I can see the advantage of going off-grid. $200K can buy a lot of solar+storage+generator.
I agree. It is funny how many rural, and not so rural, homeowners come to the same conclusion. Of course the $200k to get the grid to the house puts all the future maintenance on the utility, instead of the owner, but the net present value of the ongoing maintenance on solar/batteries just doesn't look that bad in comparison when you run the numbers.
All the best,
BG
RKCRLR
Active Member
We paid about $18K (after rebates) for a 3.2 kW solar system from Solar City back in 2007. We just had our yearly True-up and had to pay about $700.
We’ve purchased a Tesla two years ago, and plan to replace our 27 year old gas furnace with a Mitsubishi heat pump system in 2023, and include air conditioning. We also want to replace our gas stove with an induction stove, so our electricity use will increase soon due to these upgrades.
Last night I place an order for a Tesla 7.2 kW solar system with 1 PowerWall ($21,500 after credits) to replace our older system. We live on the SF peninsula (San Carlos). Hopefully we can get this installed before the NEM 3 deadline.
Question… based on the planned upgrade to our house, is the 7.2 kW system overkill? Would a smaller system suffice?
We’ve purchased a Tesla two years ago, and plan to replace our 27 year old gas furnace with a Mitsubishi heat pump system in 2023, and include air conditioning. We also want to replace our gas stove with an induction stove, so our electricity use will increase soon due to these upgrades.
Last night I place an order for a Tesla 7.2 kW solar system with 1 PowerWall ($21,500 after credits) to replace our older system. We live on the SF peninsula (San Carlos). Hopefully we can get this installed before the NEM 3 deadline.
Question… based on the planned upgrade to our house, is the 7.2 kW system overkill? Would a smaller system suffice?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I presume it's just the minimum bill but renamed, which already exists if you have NEM (around $10 currently). Basically it's a fixed cost fee (there are fixed costs to support the grid regardless of how much electricity is used).
The IOUs argue it's way too low and solar users are getting a free ride. That was the whole point behind the grid participation charges (which had the most push back, and similar fees were deemed illegal in other states as being discriminatory).
They don't dare however to push a general fixed charge because there would be even larger pushback from a much larger group of people.
RKCRLR
Active Member
The Minimum Delivery Charge (MDC) could be used to offset Non-Bypasable Charges (NBCs). However the NBT fee is a fee and it doesn't look like it can be used to offset NBCs.
charlesj
Active Member
Maybe. And they are getting a free ride being a monopoly and guaranteed profit.
Not too big because at 10.4 kW, you can probably just barely or not even charge the car with solar alone.
I know when we charge, it starts to drain our batteries (got like 8 kW solar).
dho112
Member
I was speaking with a friend a while back (whose husband works for PG&E) and she explained to me her understanding that the extra taxes that California is attempting to heap on solar users is because, since solar users use so little grid energy, they don’t provide as much revenue as a non-solar customer does for the purpose of maintaining the grid infrastructure.
We looked at my bill, and even though it’s still hard for me to understand, I showed her all the line items for things like “Wildlife defense funding”, “power differential charges”, and various other taxes and charges in the non bypassable charge; explaining that I pay these charges every month just for having solar. Even if I used absolutely no grid power at all.
She seemed surprised by that and thought solar was a one to one thing (Every kwh generated equals 1 kwh credit and if you used no grid power your pge bill was “zero”) I explained I get credited for the wholesale cost to pge for power I send back to the grid which in my area is typically 1/3rd of what I get charged to import power, and this credit can only be used to offset electricity and that credit zeroes out every year no matter how much is in it.
I used an analogy of digging a well on my property and becoming water independent, but still paying a flat fee every month to the city for maintaining the water district infrastructure, and how I agreed this made sense (fire hydrants, park maintenance etc that benefits me) but then having the city charge me even more taxes on top of that claiming I wasn’t shouldering my fair share, when I was, thru their non bypassable charges.
She didn’t understand my water analogy, but she had recently come back from a family trip to Disneyland so I said it would be like you paid your entrance fee, but then had to just stand with your family in the plaza and rode no rides and attended no attractions, with Disneyland saying it was fair because you were “using” their venue. Additionally, you occasionally shuttled people in from the parking lot using your own car for which you only received a restroom token which expired every hour.
Even though I wasn’t sure I was entirely accurate and fair with that analogy, she understood it much better.
We looked at my bill, and even though it’s still hard for me to understand, I showed her all the line items for things like “Wildlife defense funding”, “power differential charges”, and various other taxes and charges in the non bypassable charge; explaining that I pay these charges every month just for having solar. Even if I used absolutely no grid power at all.
She seemed surprised by that and thought solar was a one to one thing (Every kwh generated equals 1 kwh credit and if you used no grid power your pge bill was “zero”) I explained I get credited for the wholesale cost to pge for power I send back to the grid which in my area is typically 1/3rd of what I get charged to import power, and this credit can only be used to offset electricity and that credit zeroes out every year no matter how much is in it.
I used an analogy of digging a well on my property and becoming water independent, but still paying a flat fee every month to the city for maintaining the water district infrastructure, and how I agreed this made sense (fire hydrants, park maintenance etc that benefits me) but then having the city charge me even more taxes on top of that claiming I wasn’t shouldering my fair share, when I was, thru their non bypassable charges.
She didn’t understand my water analogy, but she had recently come back from a family trip to Disneyland so I said it would be like you paid your entrance fee, but then had to just stand with your family in the plaza and rode no rides and attended no attractions, with Disneyland saying it was fair because you were “using” their venue. Additionally, you occasionally shuttled people in from the parking lot using your own car for which you only received a restroom token which expired every hour.
Even though I wasn’t sure I was entirely accurate and fair with that analogy, she understood it much better.
I think the whole point of solar/batteries is that some customers (the "RICH" people according to the IOUs even though it's been data checked that middle income folks get solar now) simply aren't on the grid when the IOUs have to fire up very dirty/expensive peaker plants.
Remember that heat wave a month back or something where energy cost in the spot market was the highest of all time?
People with solar/batteries are not pulling at that time and some, with VPP even sent back energy to the grid at a HIGHLY discounted rate than what PG&E had to pay for in the open market.
These IOU shills never talk about the benefits of solar that homeowners provide, but are quick to start anything about class warfare to distract consumers and pit them against one another. I think like our politics, it's REALLY all about distracting everyone and make everyone against everyone else to not solve problems since people are stupid and a lot of the blame I feel are simply capitalistic business practices.
I was watching some video where the GREAT USA was compared to a ton of 1st class countries and even though we like to say we're the best, #1/this/that, we're like so not when you pull data in so many areas.
Getting so tired of the class warfare talk that the IOUs keep bringing up. Energy I don't need from the IOUs means they don't have to build more power plants and transmission lines (the only way they make $$) which is why they simply HATE HATE HATE solar.
Remember that heat wave a month back or something where energy cost in the spot market was the highest of all time?
People with solar/batteries are not pulling at that time and some, with VPP even sent back energy to the grid at a HIGHLY discounted rate than what PG&E had to pay for in the open market.
These IOU shills never talk about the benefits of solar that homeowners provide, but are quick to start anything about class warfare to distract consumers and pit them against one another. I think like our politics, it's REALLY all about distracting everyone and make everyone against everyone else to not solve problems since people are stupid and a lot of the blame I feel are simply capitalistic business practices.
I was watching some video where the GREAT USA was compared to a ton of 1st class countries and even though we like to say we're the best, #1/this/that, we're like so not when you pull data in so many areas.
Getting so tired of the class warfare talk that the IOUs keep bringing up. Energy I don't need from the IOUs means they don't have to build more power plants and transmission lines (the only way they make $$) which is why they simply HATE HATE HATE solar.
RKCRLR
Active Member
I agree with her premise but it is solely because of how the utilities artificially structure their rates. If the utilities had a flat rate FOR EVERYONE to be connected to the grid and an additional fee structure for the power they draw then everyone would be paying their fair share to be connected to the grid.
I'm actually OK with the latest NEM 3 proposal. Although I think everyone should be paying a connection fee, the NBT fee they are proposing isn't unreasonable. And if the ACC actually correctly reflects the value of solar provided to the grid (I'm not 100% convinced) then the compensation is reasonable, although I don't understand why NBCs aren't built into the ACC compensation.
If the ACC is accurate but the current NEM 3 proposal would kill future distributed solar, and California wants to promote distributed solar, then the funding for promoting distributed solar should come from outside utility revenue.
If you absolutely used no grid power at all then you would not be charged NBCs.
You get credits at the retail rate - NBCs and any excess is zeroed out at the end of the year. If you are a net producer at the end of the year then you are reimbursed at closer to the wholesale cost of electricity which is ~ 1/10th the retail rate.
Keeping with the water theme, I think the more apt analogy (although analogies in general suck) would be if you initially relied on water trucked into you residence. You installed a well that on average produces all the water you need in a year but for whatever reason you can over produce part of the year and under produce the rest of the year. Would you expect the water truck to come and take your over production and then deliver it back later in the year at 1/10th the cost they charged to deliver water from somewhere else?
I'm not fan of the IOUs but to be realistic NEM 2.0 was/is a subsidy to encourage roof top solar installation and for good reason. In my opinion the original NEM 3.0 PD swung so far the other way it became a penalty. The new NEM 3.0 PD I think is closer to being neutral.
dho112
Member
But for the first 3 months after my PTO I used no grid power at all, and the $10.xxx NBC was always there on my bill. My understanding is that that was my part of infrastructure cost wether I imported any power or not. I’m totally ok with that too, and was told there is no way to avoid NBC no matter what (Which is why it was called NBC 
)
Am I wrong about this?
)Am I wrong about this?
Also, I have no doubt that the poor returns we get at true up on kWhs we sell back to utilities has any loss of revenue factored in to reduce our returns.
Your friend is halfway there. Next time point out that she has correctly figured out that "the grid" is paid for by use, and that the majority of someone's bill is not for electricity but for the cost to deliver it.
And then point out that this means that anyone who conserves electricity, for any reason, from lightbulbs to getting more energy efficient appliances, to whatever else, is in effect not paying for the grid.
And then point out that residential solar is, fundamentally, by far the best conservation method invented yet.
And see where that goes. The whole NEM discussion is downstream from that. Far downstream. We had incentives for clean energy which, as an economic fact, also resulted in individual conservation of energy (from the perspective of the utilities). Now the utilities are pointing out that they simply cannot handle conservation and actual reduction of use by their clients (us).
And then point out that this means that anyone who conserves electricity, for any reason, from lightbulbs to getting more energy efficient appliances, to whatever else, is in effect not paying for the grid.
And then point out that residential solar is, fundamentally, by far the best conservation method invented yet.
And see where that goes. The whole NEM discussion is downstream from that. Far downstream. We had incentives for clean energy which, as an economic fact, also resulted in individual conservation of energy (from the perspective of the utilities). Now the utilities are pointing out that they simply cannot handle conservation and actual reduction of use by their clients (us).
From your other thread you used 253 kWh from the grid. Yes, you sent back energy to more than offset the usage but you still pulled 253 kWhs from the grid and that is what the NBC charge is for. Maybe it is semantics but I would say that does not qualify as using absolutely no grid power.But for the first 3 months after my PTO I used no grid power at all, and the $10.xxx NBC was always there on my bill. My understanding is that that was my part of infrastructure cost wether I imported any power or not. I’m totally ok with that too, and was told there is no way to avoid NBC no matter what (Which is why it was called NBC
Am I wrong about this?
Similar threads
- Locked
