-
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
How exactly are you being screwed with your legacy system?
<conspiracy_hat on>
I am starting to think that a lot of the these news articles and YouTube clips that proclaim the death of rooftop solar because of NEM changes is a FUD campaign run by the utilities to convince homeowners to not install solar. This is then echoed by solar lobby groups because they want to go back to the more beneficial program and by badly run installers to use as a reason explain why their undersized systems suck or at worse to take deposits, file for bankruptcy and screw over their customers and suppliers.
<conspiracy_hat off>
Upstream in this thread I ran numbers for systems with/without ESS and with/without NEM and in California (can't say the same for other states) going solar is a winner even without NEM and NEM 3.0 does give you something back. Solar always reduces the total amount of imported kWh which is a direct savings and with the high rates in California every kWh that doesn't come from the IOU is a big savings.
Post 3217 - Cost model that shows at least $1,000/year savings
Post 3224 - First payback model post, plus more iterations based on forum questions after
My neighbor had a Tesla Solar installation done in December and should be getting PTO shortly, even with the low December hours and rain he is happy to be getting savings in self-powered mode. We talked before the installation and he mentioned that he had modeled his usage and system and expected to break even in 10 years even with NEM 3.0. I don't know how detailed his modeling was, but I consider him to be capable side of doing it right. He was originally scheduled for late January, but then they bumped him up to the first week in December likely because someone else got cold feet from all of the FUD.
Edit: One thing may screw all legacy systems and all future solar installation is the fixed $80+/month charge if the household makes more than $180K which will likely be the majority of people in California installing solar. That $960+/year would likely wipe out any option to save with solar.
Last edited:
charlesj
Active Member
Is that the charge? Does that apply for solar customer only or everyone? Will it offset any usage not offset by solar production or pay the posted rate for anyone?
wow.
This is why even as a possible doom/gloomer, I'm skeptical of any article I see posting very negative news right now.
I'd prefer if real installers here share how much business has changed with NEM3.0. I simply don't think it's possible for it to not be slower using common sense that:
1) There's no net 1:1 metering anymore
2) The install cost isn't any lower than before (it's higher actually)
3) There is the planned fixed monthly fee based on income mid this year so why rush? (my advice currently).
Volume #s are probably good because rich people in new rich houses can always afford solar so install cost with batteries will always be higher. It's the normal $50k-$100k income folks who were getting only panels, and now, needs another $20k for batteries since exports are worthless (1 : 0.13 in San Diego) being a hard sale. Like you state, add in the extra $120/month possibly soon and that can change things. They also plan to drop rates, but I think it'll all simply go up later again (both the monthly fee AND the rates).
I think even on NEM2.0, folks without solar weren't in a rush so maybe their usage was too low to care. I've asked neighbors without solar and they just don't use that much energy.
In your pricing numbers from those posts, I looked briefly at those messages, but didn't see how much the install cost were. If the main $$ numbers are what you ran it with, I don't think using your $$s back in 2020 is a good comparison. $32.5k for 8k solar + 2 PWs is not possible for most people now. That makes the whole calculation not valid anymore. There was Covid, lack of business back then.
Your $17,800 for 8k solar means $2.18/W. Not happening for most folks now. Make it more like $3/W and rerun all the numbers. Tesla also doesn't install in every market anymore. I just went and plugged in a random San Diego address for 8.1 kW Solar and it's over $23k+ so more like $2.90/W right now, even from Tesla. With 2x PWs and all the discounts, it is around $40k. Without discounts, it's closer to $45k.
Everyone. They still need to debate/finalize what the fixed rate should be. It's impossible to offset I think. Not sure how they will implement it since I don't think anyone really wants the power company to know their income.
There were a lot of articles last year, just found this one right now:
California Electricity Bills Will Soon Be Based on Income. Here's How It Might Work
A progressive fixed rate could ease the burden for lower-income customers, but critics say it will deter interest in energy efficiency.
www.cnet.com
I guess we're more screwed in San Diego vs. Bay area folks (as usual). Maybe I should be glad I'm not in the rich tier. A person in poverty in San Diego is still going to be out $24/month, but maybe CARE plans will make it free or something.
I've been ignoring the fixed charge by income proposal in the hopes that the legislature will realize that they screwed up and it gets repealed, so I'm not an expert.
The basics are that there would be at least three levels of charges and different amounts for SCE, SDG&E and PG&E. The low end is ~$25/month, the mid at ~$50/month, and the high end at $80-$100/month at $180k. The per kWh numbers are supposed to be reduced. My understanding is that this would apply to everyone solar and non-solar. Not sure if this would be a non-bypasssable charge or if exports would offset the amount.
charlesj
Active Member
If everyone pays, plus what they use, nonsolar household will really get the short end of the stick.
Yep, the fixed cost, which was not there when I put in!! Fixed cost on 30k of solar, .....
The same cost question (2020 vs now) was brought up then and I addressed in Post 3227 and the equivalent system was $44.2K vs $32.5K. Slightly lower today at $43.0K purchase and $29.7K after tax credit and a minor PG&E credit. The interest rate has gone up since Post 3227 (6.0% vs 7.99%), but PG&E rates have gone up a lot as well.
8.5kW in panels and two Powerwalls.
Well, this is interesting and first I've heard of it:
www.sandiegouniontribune.com
At first glance, I'd probably support this and if San Diegan's are stupid managers, then I guess we paid/selected our own poison. At least no more Sacramento CPUC and Newsom padding their $$. This may only apply to certain parts of San Diego though. The local only/non-profit/muni power idea should be done more. It's sorta maddening San Diego has the most expensive power in ALL of the USA. Not surprisingly, the unions are against this as they are on the side of the CPUC since that affects their work/profits (they need large scale infrastructure projects for $$ and why they are against rooftop solar too since they don't do that work).
Edit: Some other article I found about SDCP having to pay fines (why I like the idea of managing myself vs. having other folks manage it for me (not to mention I waste enough time here/on this anyways):
www.sandiegouniontribune.com
I suggest doing as Hawaiians and do massive energy storage locally.
electrek.co
I'd like to buy one of these too being LFP:
"Interestingly, Plus Power revealed that the Tesla Megapacks that they are using are built with lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery cells."
Group wants to oust SDG&E and form a municipal utility by getting a petition on the November 2024 ballot
Power San Diego needs to collect 80,200 signatures to get the initiative before voters
www.sandiegouniontribune.com
At first glance, I'd probably support this and if San Diegan's are stupid managers, then I guess we paid/selected our own poison. At least no more Sacramento CPUC and Newsom padding their $$. This may only apply to certain parts of San Diego though. The local only/non-profit/muni power idea should be done more. It's sorta maddening San Diego has the most expensive power in ALL of the USA. Not surprisingly, the unions are against this as they are on the side of the CPUC since that affects their work/profits (they need large scale infrastructure projects for $$ and why they are against rooftop solar too since they don't do that work).
Edit: Some other article I found about SDCP having to pay fines (why I like the idea of managing myself vs. having other folks manage it for me (not to mention I waste enough time here/on this anyways):
State fines San Diego community choice energy program $1 million
Regulators say San Diego Community Power did not line up sufficient backup resources; SDCP says there wasn't enough available to purchase
www.sandiegouniontribune.com
I suggest doing as Hawaiians and do massive energy storage locally.
Tesla Megapack battery turns on to replace Hawaii's last coal plant
A Tesla Megapack battery system has officially turned on to replace Hawaii’s very last coal power plant. In early 2022,...
electrek.co
I'd like to buy one of these too being LFP:
"Interestingly, Plus Power revealed that the Tesla Megapacks that they are using are built with lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery cells."
Last edited:
Negative news and the shenanigans going on (not surprising). Sounds like the housing crash/market of 2008-2010 all over again. We know people who had loan finance people fake their income back then to close loans:
time.com
ADT leaving solar market:
www.marketwatch.com
Residential Solar Is In Trouble
Complicated financial products helped the U.S. rooftop-solar-power industry grow, but now put it at risk of implosion.
ADT leaving solar market:
ADT To Exit Residential Solar Business
By Ben Glickman ADT will exit its residential solar business as economic conditions and higher interest rates weigh on the sector. The company also announced...
www.marketwatch.com
Well, this is interesting and first I've heard of it:
Group wants to oust SDG&E and form a municipal utility by getting a petition on the November 2024 ballot
Power San Diego needs to collect 80,200 signatures to get the initiative before voters
At first glance, I'd probably support this and if San Diegan's are stupid managers, then I guess we paid/selected our own poison. At least no more Sacramento CPUC and Newsom padding their $$. This may only apply to certain parts of San Diego though. The local only/non-profit/muni power idea should be done more. It's sorta maddening San Diego has the most expensive power in ALL of the USA. Not surprisingly, the unions are against this as they are on the side of the CPUC since that affects their work/profits (they need large scale infrastructure projects for $$ and why they are against rooftop solar too since they don't do that work).
I didn't think it would be economically feasible to form a municipal utility in California at this late stage. The main difference from a CCA is they would be responsible for not just generation, but also distribution/transmission (plus retail servicing/billing, but ignore that for now). Distribution/transmission is more than half the bill from PG&E, so how are they going to offset that?
When people talk about the local municipal utilities, the ones nearest me, Palo Alto and Santa Clara (city), they were formed more than 100 years ago as local grids. I researched a bit as best how they could provide inexpensive power a few years back, aside from having lower overhead and profit goals - in the beginning they had their own power plants, which gave them leverage over their own costs. But as the larger regional grids formed, and they connected to them - well, I could never find out, but I suspect because of their leverage at the time, they got long-term or even permanent sweetheart deals to connect to the regional grids - specifically the long-distance transmission lines. Enough leverage that they no longer needed to generate power locally, as they could build or source elsewhere and have it sent long-distance for cheap. AFAIK, Palo Alto shut down its last local power plants a while back, Santa Clara has some local gas plants but they source more (clean) power from afar.
The San Diego initiative is about buying back the local distribution lines within city boundaries from SDGE for $2+ billion, and own/maintain them. They assume a reasonable cost of $0.02/kwh over 30 years. But what about transmission? Surely they don't get a sweetheart deal on transmission lines from plants to connect to the regional grid (do they pay PG&E? CAISO? this is half their price/kwh) - so you can bet customers will pay as much, or more, than current CCA customers do. So rates won't be cheaper than a CCA, which have mostly ended up being only a penny cheaper than the big utilities (just cleaner power).
Otherwise they go back 100 years, and start building local power plants within city boundaries to control costs. Is there cheap land for wind/solar/batteries in San Diego? Or do they build a bunch of new gas-fired plants locally? So unless a municipality is in some rural area with extremely cheap and undeveloped land, I don't know they could economically build their own local utility now - I feel that ship sailed about 60 years ago....
mspohr
Well-Known Member
When PGE went nearly bankrupt after mismanagement fires, some locales wanted to buy parts of it but Newsome bailed them out to keep the campaign contributions flowing.
Yeah, not disputing that - that certainly would have been one chance to dissolve the monopoly, or at least put it under the government, but it didn't happen. I'm beginning to conclude now they avoided the latter so they could basically raise additional taxes without legislation (beyond what the state does directly) via our utility bills for various climate and social programs - just with the Big 3 utilities taking a 10% cut as middlemen.
I'm not necessarily disputing some societal benefit of those climate and social programs, but certainly would rather not have to pay PG&E an additional 10% processing fee....
huge decline in new solar
calmatters.org
What's happened since California cut home solar payments? Demand has plunged 80%
As rooftop solar projects have plummeted, about 17,000 workers could lose their jobs. Will this derail California's climate and clean energy goals?
calmatters.org
mspohr
Well-Known Member
That was the intended result. Utilities, CPUC and politicians are all corrupt.huge decline in new solar
What's happened since California cut home solar payments? Demand has plunged 80%
As rooftop solar projects have plummeted, about 17,000 workers could lose their jobs. Will this derail California's climate and clean energy goals?
what? Faster payoff with batteries? Would like to see that math. Batteries double the price. A 6 to 8 year pay off is a pipe dream
And as their use of power from the grid declines and they get paid for excess power, customers generally expect to have their new solar system paid off in six to eight years, according to the utilities commission. It's faster for installations that include battery storage.
And as their use of power from the grid declines and they get paid for excess power, customers generally expect to have their new solar system paid off in six to eight years, according to the utilities commission. It's faster for installations that include battery storage.
State/local governments should own most distribution/transmission networks just like other major critical infrastructure (e.g. roads, water, etc.) instead of for-profit monopolies.
Looks all the shady sales people from mortgage and pharma industries moved over to solar.
Similar threads
- Locked
