Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Tesla scheduling a site survey till January next year.
I doubt I will have the system installed before that date, specially with these install timelines.
Assuming NEM3.0 passes tomorrow, if dont get PTO by April 13th 2023, I will be SoL?
Can Tesla summit the paperwork early?

To follow up on that: I asked if they could send the initial interconnection application to secure my grandfathering into NEM 2.0 - everyone is pretty much saying you could just do the initicali with minimal paperwork to secure it, but my advisor just told me to take a hike:

We cannot submit the interconnection application until your system has been installed, passes inspection and your invoice is paid. The passed inspection from the City is required for this application, and we cannot receive this, until the system is installed.

Not sure if at this point should i start looking into local installers that actually know whats going on.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: sunwarriors
Looks like it passed 5-0. I think from everything I've seen, adding future systems make it fall under the original NEM1.0 install date.

Best case is someone ripped out the old, and put in the new and restart the clock, but not really possible realistically. I have read if you get a completely separate meter, then 1 can be NEM1.0, 1 can be NEM2.0, but always do your own research on this.

I assume a lot of people maybe affected so there should be a fair number of folks running into this.

Wow, that's stupid. Proper way to do this is not to lower the export rate, it's to let the retail rate float according to supply and demand and lower the retail rates during the times of day when solar is abundant. If that happens to make solar less profitable because electricity is cheap during the day then so be it, but that's just how market economies work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RKCRLR
To follow up on that: I asked if they could send the initial interconnection application to secure my grandfathering into NEM 2.0 - everyone is pretty much saying you could just do the initicali with minimal paperwork to secure it, but my advisor just told me to take a hike:



Not sure if at this point should i start looking into local installers that actually know whats going on.

I do not think Tesla cares about your NEM2.0 issues if it costs them more work in their interconnection processes. They do not want to invest the resources it would take to ensure as many customers as possible will get NEM 3.0 over the next 3 months. There might even be totally great reasons for that that I really do not understand.

Other companies will charge more and with that money create and maintain local highly skilled jobs. If you chose wisely, the company you choose will be in business in another 20 years. You should certainly know that the $145 interconnection application fee can be paid, and all other steps taken to get you on the NEM 2.0 list, without even a building permit submitted.

I expect those installation companies who have the staff, will be slammed with these applications over the next 3 months or so. After NEM 3.0 many more systems will be paired with a battery, so homeowners without a massive-sized roof or ground mount will need to start installing more batteries that are sized to cover at least 1 average evening demand at peak pricing.

This whole thing played exactly as the utilities probably planned:
1. Propose a really bad decision, know how bad the response is
2. Everyone freaks out
3. Revise that terrible decision so it's slightly less terrible and won't cause lawsuits, but in a confusing way that very few can really understand.
4. Everyone cheers that the terrible decision is dead.

The end result though is that PV production that was worth $0.25-0.30 is now worth about $0.05. PV systems for the most part no longer make financial sense and paybacks will be in the range of 10-15 years depending on what the price of power does.

Hopefully, one response from the technology sector is more EVs and chargers with bi-directional capability and the ability to self-consume some battery power each evening during the demand spike and TOU pricing. Also I want to see more smart appliances that limit their own usage during peak demand. I want to see more car chargers that curtail charge rate based on PV production, or even a developing market of non-interconnected panels driving a heat pump, car charger, pool pumps etc.

This is not a win for the consumers it's just a slightly smaller loss. Power bills especially in the winter will be much worse because there is no more net metering across months, so no more banking juicy summer credits and heating the house with them later.

As PGE says, you can always set your thermostat to 60 degrees and put on a sweater lol. Prepare for more mismanagement, while the prices increase and the PGE executives get another round of tens of millions of dollars in bonuses.
 
That is my understanding, but I have been so focused on projects that I haven't confirmed the details yet.
This is from the CPUC doc, but since this was approved does it means everything proposed is what will be implemented? Monthly true-up would be a huge loss, but I guess my system will be paid off by the time I would have to move to NEM 3.0. Maybe can get some turbines installed at that time to help offset winter usage.

Joint Utilities propose a monthly true-up in which no energy credits would be banked or carried forward from prior billing cycles. Joint Utilities explain that customers would only be allowed to offset within each time-of-use period and not offset kilowatt-hours exported during low-cost hours against grid consumption during high-cost on-peak hours

 
This is from the CPUC doc, but since this was approved does it means everything proposed is what will be implemented? Monthly true-up would be a huge loss, but I guess my system will be paid off by the time I would have to move to NEM 3.0. Maybe can get some turbines installed at that time to help offset winter usage.

Joint Utilities propose a monthly true-up in which no energy credits would be banked or carried forward from prior billing cycles. Joint Utilities explain that customers would only be allowed to offset within each time-of-use period and not offset kilowatt-hours exported during low-cost hours against grid consumption during high-cost on-peak hours

Looking at page 136, it seems that annual true-ups are still a thing, but I do not quite understand what they mean by
However, this decision requires residential customers and nonresidential
customers to pay their bills monthly, meaning customers must pay all incurred
charges every month.


So I am hesitant to really call this one way or the other until I understand it a bit better.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: h2ofun and aesculus
However, this decision requires residential customers and nonresidential
customers to pay their bills monthly, meaning customers must pay all incurred
charges every month.
This was always sort of a stupid policy that the utilities had to hang every month for costs under the assumption you would come back later and either make up for it in credits of the other way round.

But this could be a big deal depending on how they implement it. I guess we will find out pretty soon.
 
Just received an email from Tesla.

Hello,

As we close out 2022, we’d like to share with you some good news for clean energy and invite you to join us in thanking Governor Newsom and the Public Utility Commission (CPUC) for their leadership.


As a reminder, in January, we alerted you to a proposal from the CPUC that would’ve effectively ended rooftop solar and storage as an option for customers in California. The original proposal would’ve imposed a tax on solar customers of roughly $60/month and reduced the period of time existing solar customers can stay on their current NEM tariff.


In response, Tesla customers like you sent over 24,000 messages to the CPUC and Governor’s office, joining thousands of other Californians in protesting the proposal through emails, phone calls, social media, verbal comments at CPUC meetings, protests, op-eds and other civic engagement.


Thankfully, Governor Newsom and CPUC President Alice Reynolds listened, and last week the CPUC approved a revised version of NEM 3 that creates a more reasonable approach to rooftop solar. This wise decision is intended to pair rooftop solar with battery storage, which provides increased benefits for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and grid resiliency.


Importantly, unlike the CPUC’s original proposal, the revised Decision does not penalize solar customers with a discriminatory monthly fixed charge, and it maintains the original 20-year lock-in period on the old NEM rules for customers who previously installed solar.


For solar arrays installed after April 2023, the revised Decision changes how energy sent back to the grid is valued, such that it is no longer credited at the retail rate, and instead is credited at a rate that reflects the value of energy to the grid and for reducing GHG emissions.


Thus, during spring afternoons when energy from the grid comes mostly from inexpensive, GHG-free renewables, NEM credits will be very low, in order to encourage customers to store their solar energy for later use. On summer evenings when grid energy is generated by dirty fossil plants, NEM 3 customers will be compensated at nearly $3/kWh (about 10 times the retail rate) to encourage reducing emissions by sending clean energy back to the grid.


While the new NEM Decision makes it less attractive for customers to install stand-alone solar, customers who install solar paired with storage will still be able to largely offset their own energy use without punitive fees or penalties. Plus, the addition of storage to solar arrays will move the state closer to 100% clean energy, as well as create new benefits for customers, the cleantech economy, the electric grid and the environment.

Thank you for your advocacy, and please join us in applauding the Governor and CPUC leadership for facilitating a more reasonable NEM proposal that will improve grid resilience and reduce carbon pollution.
 
Posted in another related thread, this is substantially better NEM 3 news if true.

Per that Tesla email sent out today, this seems to contradict some earlier information reported from the CPUC. Prior reports suggested everything exported to grid would be compensated below the retail rate customers would be charged to import at the same time. But Tesla claims summer evening exports will be the opposite:

...during spring afternoons when energy from the grid comes mostly from inexpensive, GHG-free renewables, NEM credits will be very low, in order to encourage customers to store their solar energy for later use. On summer evenings when grid energy is generated by dirty fossil plants, NEM 3 customers will be compensated at nearly $3/kWh (about 10 times the retail rate) to encourage reducing emissions by sending clean energy back to the grid...
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Dave EV
$3/kWh would only be those summer evenings where demand is running right up against supply, like the heatwave we had in California in early Sept this year. In the chart that was shared previously, the evenings would be around 30 cents (in that specific chart example), so that's when everyone needs to toggle export everything to bank the credits.
 
$3/kWh would only be those summer evenings where demand is running right up against supply, like the heatwave we had in California in early Sept this year. In the chart that was shared previously, the evenings would be around 30 cents (in that specific chart example), so that's when everyone needs to toggle export everything to bank the credits.
There are now 576 different values for the value of solar energy created. just to make sure nobody can keep track of things.

As people are researching the details I found this article that seems pretty current and accurate: https://help.aurorasolar.com/hc/en-us/articles/4415184686739-Modeling-California-s-NEM-3-0-in-Aurora
 
There are now 576 different values for the value of solar energy created. just to make sure nobody can keep track of things.

As people are researching the details I found this article that seems pretty current and accurate: https://help.aurorasolar.com/hc/en-us/articles/4415184686739-Modeling-California-s-NEM-3-0-in-Aurora


Thanks! So the ACC rates are actually locked in and so theoretically the rate wouldn’t proactively get adjusted upwards when extreme heat is forecasted for example next week.
 
Thanks! So the ACC rates are actually locked in and so theoretically the rate wouldn’t proactively get adjusted upwards when extreme heat is forecasted for example next week.
Yeah, looks like they are updated every two years and you have the option of switching if the new rates are better, for example.

This still leaves me with a few questions:
  • Why is Tesla so bullish on NEM3?
    The only reason I can think of is that you really need batteries now, and batteries are more profitable for them than solar.
  • When will the expected ACC rates be announced for the first two years?
  • If you have batteries and ACC rates are higher than retail rates at certain hours of the day, can you use stored battery energy to export to the grid instead of just bringing your house to NET-zero if your solar is not producing?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Vines
Looking at page 136, it seems that annual true-ups are still a thing, but I do not quite understand what they mean by
However, this decision requires residential customers and nonresidential
customers to pay their bills monthly, meaning customers must pay all incurred
charges every month.


So I am hesitant to really call this one way or the other until I understand it a bit better.
My reading of the full portion quoted below is that if your true up balance is positive in a given month, you must pay. If it is negative, it can be carried forward. This is already the way that my CCA, SVCE, does their billing. However, it brings up the sticky situation where they may have to refund the energy charges already paid when you end up with a credit balance when your true-up falls at the end of the Summer. With full annual true-up this never happens.

This decision declines to revise the true-up period and retains, unchanged, the terms of the NEM 2.0 tariff, which established the annual true-up one year from interconnection as the retail netting period. Annual true-ups are maintained for both residential and nonresidential customers of the successor tariff, meaning bill credits can be carried forward to future months within a 12-month billing period. Customers may make a one-time request that their true-up date be changed going forward in order to use any generation credits accrued in the summer, which will alleviate winter bills. However, this decision requires residential customers and nonresidential customers to pay their bills monthly, meaning customers must pay all incurred charges every month. The Commission agrees with CALSSA that an annual true-up allows generation to be credited for exactly what it is valued based upon the rate at that hour. Further, the Commission disagrees with Joint Utilities that annual true-ups undermine California’s greenhouse gas emissions goals. Joint Utilities argue that currently a net energy metering customer can carry over credits during less costly months to more costly months. However, as noted by CALSSA, those earned credits are valued at the appropriate prices. The purpose in maintaining annual true-up periods is to create a successor tariff that balances the various requirements of the statute.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: aesculus
Looks like exporting rate is high during peak for all of september and close to retail in aug. If nem 3 customer eligible for VPP might be almost $5\ kwh total compensation during flex alert.

1671518404508.png

 
  • Like
Reactions: tfan2018