CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[RKCRLR]

The mandate for fluorescent bulb format fixtures versus CFL that screwed into a standard A19 socket was to prevent people/builders from switching back to incandescent after the permit inspections. The rise of LEDs as a lower cost, lower wattage, longer lifetime alternative to CFLs that have higher environmental waste concerns just wasn't foreseen.

When my fluorescent tubes died in the garage, I replaced them with an LED tube. I have a couple of remaining CFLs for the cans in the kitchen and bathrooms, but when they go I need to find a good PL-C LED replacement or go into the ceilings to bypass the balast an install flush LED cans. Not a lot of PL-C LED options, but hopefully that will improve over time.

I'm going through the replacement now as the fluorescent lights die. Yes, people could have changed back to standard bulbs but many wouldn't have. I would have just replaced the CFLs when they died with another CFL if LEDs weren't cost effective yet. What the state should have done is just relied on CFL incentives (like many localities did). Whether or not the state should have foreseen the rise of LEDs is debatable. At any rate the proper thing to do is not to outlaw the sale fluorescent lights to people that were required to install them, LED lights are already preferable for new construction. It is just an example of how the government can muck things up and then pass the financial consequences on to its citizens.

A better example is probably fire insurance. My Farmers' home insurance was about $2500 annually and then I got a non-renewal notice. I had to go with the California FAIR plan which doubled that to $5K (and that is just for fire insurance, I still have to pay Farmers for the wrap around policy to cover other stuff). This year my Fair plan doubled again to $10K. The reason? Because California has such strict regulations on insurance, insurers are leaving the state since they can't be profitable with the rules currently in place. The FAIR plan is a pool and as insurers exit the pool and more people enter the pool the costs go up. The insurance commission is scrambling to revise the rules to try to bring insurers back but in the meantime I'm (and many other people) stuck with extraordinarily high rates.

I could provide other examples but my point is that when the state bureaucracy gets more involved it isn't necessarily good for its citizens. And in my personal experience it hasn't been. So it is going to take some convincing for me to think creating a huge state bureaucracy to operate the utilities is going to be in my best interest.

 

[cali8484]

Then we can have the efficiency of the DMV.

Still 10x+ better than IOU's.

 

[RKCRLR]

Still 10x+ better than IOU's.

I definitely disagree with this statement based on my last DMV experience. I spent many hours correcting a mistake on their part.

 

[sunwarriors]

Yes but where is the money supposed to come from? The CPUC let it get this way in the first place. You could say the stockholders but it isn't going to happen, the costs are too high. Ultimately if something isn't fixed there will be another bankruptcy. I think if something like this wound up in court and PG&E said we wanted to bury the lines but were told that they couldn't charge customers to do it that the court would side with PG&E.

Maybe it makes sense to have less long transmission lines to those few 100 people and instead, maybe they can do a solar/battery thing locally so we can save on cost, fire risk, etc?

Oh wait, that's what rooftop solar is.

Those places have been getting free batteries already, seems like maybe less transmission (since that's what we always here fires are coming from) is a lower fire risk than burying long transmission lines (since it's a pricey project).

 

[sunwarriors]

I grew up in northern California foothills (Nevada City area) and we never had wildfires like we do now, times have changed. Fires just didn't get as big as they often do now and I don't think PG&E did any more maintenance then than they do now. I'm not a PG&E fan but it is like filling a room with gasoline and then blaming PG&E for the spark that set it off.

Wasn't it already proven during their bankruptcy that they neglected maintenance, the tree trimming, etc for bonuses/more profits though?

 

[RKCRLR]

Maybe it makes sense to have less long transmission lines to those few 100 people and instead, maybe they can do a solar/battery thing locally so we can save on cost, fire risk, etc?

Oh wait, that's what rooftop solar is.

Those places have been getting free batteries already, seems like maybe less transmission (since that's what we always here fires are coming from) is a lower fire risk than burying long transmission lines (since it's a pricey project).

The problem is you would still have to rely on a generator for power during some periods (unless the solar and batteries were huge) and the state wouldn't like that. But it may be a more practical solution.

 

[sunwarriors]

I'm not convinced of that, I've never been impressed when dealing with the state bureaucracy. PG&E is "regulated" through the CPUC and the CPUC let them get to this point in the first place.

I'll give an example of my personal dealings. When I built my house I was required to put in a certain percentage of high efficacy lighting. I was forced to put in a bunch of fluorescent lighting. Additionally I wasn't allowed to install standard lighting cans and use CFLs. They had to only accept fluorescent lights (I actually had to put in more lighting than I needed to offset some pendant lights I had with standard bulb threads). Now California has banned the sale of fluorescent lights. So I need to replace some fixtures or bypass the ballasts and install adapters so I can switch over to LEDs. If I had been allowed to put in standard fixtures with CFLs it would have been a lot easier and cheaper to convert to LEDs.

I agree that California needs to do something but putting a California bureaucracy in charge of the details isn't the answer.

It should be a more local bureaucracy where everyone on the board lives in that area. I think all of San Diego is too big for San Diego, but it'd be ideal to just carve out individual cities assuming they have the land, can build some storage.

 

[RKCRLR]

Wasn't it already proven during their bankruptcy that they neglected maintenance, the tree trimming, etc for bonuses/more profits though?

I believe so but the problem is that is history and it doesn't matter at this point. I'm assuming the court approved the bankruptcy and as long as PG&E is complying with the terms there isn't anything that can be done about what happened before then unless it is in the terms. But I admit I have no idea what those terms are.

 

[Dave EV]

PG&E recently applied to raise rates to cover an aggressive campaign to bury cables and thereby reduce fire risk. The request was denied, and PG&E was forced to dial back its plans to bury cable. That's actually a case where PG&E wanted to be conservative on safety, and regulators said it'd be too expensive for consumers.

That doesn't strike me as deciding "to raise rates to increase profit margins." A regulated utility has a fixed profit margin by law, and they have to get regulator approval for their spending plans. They can't increase profit margins per se. I think they can make higher profits unexpectedly, but they can't propose plans to increase their profits.

I disagree. Aggressive plans to spend money on the transmission system is exactly how they raise rates and thus raise profits.

You are taking my quote out of context - the utility gets fixed profit margins in exchange for a monopoly, so they can't change their profit margins.

If PG&E spends $1 to build and maintain the grid and gets $0.10 profit this year, but decides to spend $2 to build and maintain the grid with $0.20 profit next year, it's pretty easy to see why they have limited to no incentive to be efficient about how they spend money building and maintaining the grid.

 

[sunwarriors]

A better example is probably fire insurance. My Farmers' home insurance was about $2500 annually and then I got a non-renewal notice. I had to go with the California FAIR plan which doubled that to $5K (and that is just for fire insurance, I still have to pay Farmers for the wrap around policy to cover other stuff). This year my Fair plan doubled again to $10K. The reason? Because California has such strict regulations on insurance, insurers are leaving the state since they can't be profitable with the rules currently in place. The FAIR plan is a pool and as insurers exit the pool and more people enter the pool the costs go up. The insurance commission is scrambling to revise the rules to try to bring insurers back but in the meantime I'm (and many other people) stuck with extraordinarily high rates.

I could provide other examples but my point is that when the state bureaucracy gets more involved it isn't necessarily good for its citizens. And in my personal experience it hasn't been. So it is going to take some convincing for me to think creating a huge state bureaucracy to operate the utilities is going to be in my best interest.

The fire example is relevant to all of us, but insurance companies are purely for profit companies you can "sometimes", pick different insurers. Not you of course since you're on FAIR plan now, but unlike the power company, there was never a choice with your utility.

I'm not surprised insurers are pulling out since claims/costs/everything is too high from what we read. This will probably be seen in other states as well I'm guessing. FL is already a big mess (I think their version of FAIR is already the largest insurer) and we're seeing strange weather everywhere now where some storm of the century is happening every 5 years now.

Insurers just don't want to gamble for the risks involved financially, simple as that. Maybe, later, we'll all have to do more home fire prevention every year like spray fire protection on houses every summer, cut down near all trees/plants/hill dry fuel.

I suppose self-insure for electricity is just go off grid. Maybe someone can post a link of how one can do that with ELI5 instructions for major metro areas.

 

[sunwarriors]

I definitely disagree with this statement based on my last DMV experience. I spent many hours correcting a mistake on their part.

At least you only have to deal with them once every 5 years. We use power daily.

 

[RKCRLR]

At least you only have to deal with them once every 5 years. We use power daily.

I don't know how you get away with dealing with them only once every 5 years but I have 4 registered road vehicles that require annual registration, two of which require smog checks every two years; two trailers that require registration every 5 years, and a boat and ATV that require registration every other year. And I had a non-operational vehicle that I still had to submit annual paperwork for but I finally got rid of it. That was the one that took me hours to get the DMV paperwork corrected before I could sell it. It seems like least once a year I have to deal with DMV paperwork problems. I spend much more time sorting out problems with the DMV than I ever have ever spent sorting out problems with PG&E. And PG&E actually answers their phone. I would not want to deal with a DMV type bureaucracy if I had a problem with my PG&E bill.

 

[BGbreeder]

Given that utilities manage to keep the lights on in other parts of the country that have snow, ice storms, and things like say tornados and hurricanes, I'm not impressed with PG&E's performance to date. Plus those other utilities don't charge PG&E power rates either.

Just my$0.02...

BG

 

[ohmman]

Just my$0.02...

Don't you mean your $0.549/kWh?

 

[dakhlkt22]

I'm going through the replacement now as the fluorescent lights die. Yes, people could have changed back to standard bulbs but many wouldn't have. I would have just replaced the CFLs when they died with another CFL if LEDs weren't cost effective yet. What the state should have done is just relied on CFL incentives (like many localities did). Whether or not the state should have foreseen the rise of LEDs is debatable. At any rate the proper thing to do is not to outlaw the sale fluorescent lights to people that were required to install them, LED lights are already preferable for new construction. It is just an example of how the government can muck things up and then pass the financial consequences on to its citizens.

A better example is probably fire insurance. My Farmers' home insurance was about $2500 annually and then I got a non-renewal notice. I had to go with the California FAIR plan which doubled that to $5K (and that is just for fire insurance, I still have to pay Farmers for the wrap around policy to cover other stuff). This year my Fair plan doubled again to $10K. The reason? Because California has such strict regulations on insurance, insurers are leaving the state since they can't be profitable with the rules currently in place. The FAIR plan is a pool and as insurers exit the pool and more people enter the pool the costs go up. The insurance commission is scrambling to revise the rules to try to bring insurers back but in the meantime I'm (and many other people) stuck with extraordinarily high rates.

I could provide other examples but my point is that when the state bureaucracy gets more involved it isn't necessarily good for its citizens. And in my personal experience it hasn't been. So it is going to take some convincing for me to think creating a huge state bureaucracy to operate the utilities is going to be in my best interest.

From what I've read, regulators in California had a tendency to stop insurance companies from raising premiums too much unless they could justify it with their models. Eventually some insurers decided they had had enough and weren't making enough profits and left.

All insurers in California are trying to raise their fire premiums, particularly in rural forested areas, to pay for the claims that they have faced in recent years. So it's not clear to me that rates will be low when private insurance companies come back.

 

[sunwarriors]

I don't know how you get away with dealing with them only once every 5 years but I have 4 registered road vehicles that require annual registration, two of which require smog checks every two years; two trailers that require registration every 5 years, and a boat and ATV that require registration every other year. And I had a non-operational vehicle that I still had to submit annual paperwork for but I finally got rid of it. That was the one that took me hours to get the DMV paperwork corrected before I could sell it. It seems like least once a year I have to deal with DMV paperwork problems. I spend much more time sorting out problems with the DMV than I ever have ever spent sorting out problems with PG&E. And PG&E actually answers their phone. I would not want to deal with a DMV type bureaucracy if I had a problem with my PG&E bill.

I have less vehicles than you and no boats, ATVs, but I just pay registrations online and do license renewals by mail. No problems from recent memory paying any of the bills, knock on wood.

Smog is annoying, but another reason to get EVs and never deal with that again (CA problem). Newer cars also don't require smog if you go ICE, but if you have like 7 or 8 things that are old, you're going to have more stuff to deal with in general.

I've called SDG&E for stuff and they still haven't responded to my issue.

Maybe your one case for that non-op vehicle is giving you a sense it's far worst.

 

[sunwarriors]

The problem is you would still have to rely on a generator for power during some periods (unless the solar and batteries were huge) and the state wouldn't like that. But it may be a more practical solution.

I absolutely plan/expect to rely on another fuel source. It's just an impossibility still to assume we can escape some form of fossil fuel at this time. Until we can all get mini fusion reactors or something in the far away future, that's the go to at this point in my mind.

Hawaii may have ditched their last coal plant, but I think there are still natural gas ones.

 

[RKCRLR]

From what I've read, regulators in California had a tendency to stop insurance companies from raising premiums too much unless they could justify it with their models. Eventually some insurers decided they had had enough and weren't making enough profits and left.

All insurers in California are trying to raise their fire premiums, particularly in rural forested areas, to pay for the claims that they have faced in recent years. So it's not clear to me that rates will be low when private insurance companies come back.

Yes, not allowing insurance companies to use their models to justify increasing the rates was one of the problems. Another problem was California wouldn't allow reinsurance to spread out the risk.

The FAIR plan rates will always be higher because it a last resort plan and it was never planned to have so many people in it. The idea is to get more insurance companies back in California. The private insurance rates will be higher than they were historically but they will still be lower than the FAIR plan. And as more people move back to private insurance the number of people in the FAIR plan will diminish and the number of insurance companies participating in the FAIR plan pool will increase (insurance companies are required to participate in the FAIR plan to do business in California) and, hopefully, decrease the rates for people still in the FAIR plan.

As a side note, the FAIR plan uses a FireLine score to determine rates which is a proprietary private company model based on location. I'm on 25 wooded hilly acres. I could clear cut my property or conversely stack a bunch of brush around my house and it wouldn't make a difference in my rates. And there is no way to review their input data (steepness of terrain, closest fire hydrant, etc.) for accuracy. This is changing and there are requirements coming out to take defensible space and home hardening into account in the rates. Assembly bill AB 3074 required the California Board of Forestry to come up with a plan for a new Zone 0 around the house by January 1, 2023 but the plan still hasn't been released. Just more examples of how state bureaucracy works.

 

[dakhlkt22]

Yes, not allowing insurance companies to use their models to justify increasing the rates was one of the problems. Another problem was California wouldn't allow reinsurance to spread out the risk.

The FAIR plan rates will always be higher because it a last resort plan and it was never planned to have so many people in it. The idea is to get more insurance companies back in California. The private insurance rates will be higher than they were historically but they will still be lower than the FAIR plan. And as more people move back to private insurance the number of people in the FAIR plan will diminish and the number of insurance companies participating in the FAIR plan pool will increase (insurance companies are required to participate in the FAIR plan to do business in California) and, hopefully, decrease the rates for people still in the FAIR plan.

As a side note, the FAIR plan uses a FireLine score to determine rates which is a proprietary private company model based on location. I'm on 25 wooded hilly acres. I could clear cut my property or conversely stack a bunch of brush around my house and it wouldn't make a difference in my rates. And there is no way to review their input data (steepness of terrain, closest fire hydrant, etc.) for accuracy. This is changing and there are requirements coming out to take defensible space and home hardening into account in the rates. Assembly bill AB 3074 required the California Board of Forestry to come up with a plan for a new Zone 0 around the house by January 1, 2023 but the plan still hasn't been released. Just more examples of how state bureaucracy works.

I've had a house in a rural area before and was never asked terrain and home hardening questions. Is this common already, or are insurance companies just now starting to do these systems to differentiate houses in rural/forested areas?

On a related note, when I signed up for new HO insurance recently, I was asked whether various aspects of the house had been "renovated." Like, how could they possibly identify risk from a rank amateur's statement that part of the house has been "renovated." That suggests to me that HO models probably aren't based on very accurate data if it is just coming from a homeowner's assertions. All they did to verify was to send someone out to take photos of the house from the outside. Either their modeling data isn't that accurate, or it actually doesn't affect risk that much.

 

[RKCRLR]

I have less vehicles than you and no boats, ATVs, but I just pay registrations online and do license renewals by mail. No problems from recent memory paying any of the bills, knock on wood.

Smog is annoying, but another reason to get EVs and never deal with that again (CA problem). Newer cars also don't require smog if you go ICE, but if you have like 7 or 8 things that are old, you're going to have more stuff to deal with in general.

I've called SDG&E for stuff and they still haven't responded to my issue.

Maybe your one case for that non-op vehicle is giving you a sense it's far worst.

I pay online when I'm allowed but sometimes the DMV requires the renewal to be mailed (and they don't tell you that until you enter the data to pay online). And for some reason you can only checkout one item at a time if you use your checking account to pay online.

The smog check itself isn't what I have a problem with, it is the requirement for the vehicle to be ready for a smog check that creates the problem. One of my vehicles is a 2000 one ton truck that I use to haul my 4000 lb truck camper and tow my boat, and for hauling large items when necessary. I only put a few thousand miles on it a year. If the battery is disconnected it loses it's memory and you have to complete a drive cycle to get it ready for smog. Here is the GM drive cycle:

General Motors (GM) OBD-II Driving Cycle | Car OBD Diagnostics, ECU Chip Tuning & Auto Repair Support

Notice that it says it could take up to 5 cycles to complete. I live in a rural area in the hills and need to take it down to the valley to have a safe area to perform the drive cycles. And it takes about half a tank of gas to get it to get it ready for a smog check. I have a 34 gallon tank so you can imagine the cost plus I have to dedicate an afternoon (and burning gas to pass a smog check sort of defeats the purpose). And sometimes it takes more. I took the truck to LA and back once and it wasn't ready for a smog check until it was halfway back since you have to complete all of the items in the cycle. And keep in mind that it isn't just when the battery dies (if you let the battery get low enough to struggle to start the engine it will clear the drive cycles), it is anytime you disconnect the battery for doing maintenance. And my normal driving for what I use this truck for doesn't always reset the drive cycle, I've gone for over a year without it being ready for smog. And this system was approved by the state when the vehicle was approved for sale in California. I have to go through this almost every other year.

And if you don't get the smog check by the time the registration expires (the DMV still requires you to send in your payment to avoid penalties) you have to get a temporary operating permit that costs $50 and is only good for 60 days. And they won't take your word that it isn't ready for a smog check (there isn't a light on the dash that tells you this - you have to use a code reader), you have to take it to a smog station, pay to fail the test, and then go to the DMV and pay your $50 to get the permit and hope you can get it ready within 60 days.

Now you might say I should by a new truck (and I'm considering it), perhaps an EV. First, show me an EV that can haul my 4000 lb truck camper plus boat over the Donner summit or anywhere summit in the Sierras to a no hookup campground and then bring everything back home. But it is hard to justify the cost for just a few thousand miles a year. And it just isn't the initial cost, it is the annual registration fees (new 1 ton trucks cost a lot to register) and insurance. I've done a financial evaluation and it would be cheaper for us to get rid of my wife's fuel efficient car and just drive the truck even with its worse gas mileage.

While you got me on it, I'll give you another example of an ongoing problem. My boat still has my ex wife listed as co-owner. We've been divorced for decades. I brought the DMV my divorce settlement that states I get the boat. They say I need to get her to sign a release to take her off as co-owner. I told them I have no idea where she lives or if she is even still alive. They said I need to show proof that I attempted to contact her (i.e., private investigator report or something) and fill out some form and pay a fee. And what am I supposed to do if I find here and she refuses to sign? I've come to the conclusion that I'm going to own that boat until I die and it will be my current wife's problem or the executor of my estate's problem.

I could provide many more examples of the state bureaucracy. Again, you are going to have a hard time the state can efficiently run a utility company.

I've had a house in a rural area before and was never asked terrain and home hardening questions. Is this common already, or are insurance companies just now starting to do these systems to differentiate houses in rural/forested areas?

On a related note, when I signed up for new HO insurance recently, I was asked whether various aspects of the house had been "renovated." Like, how could they possibly identify risk from a rank amateur's statement that part of the house has been "renovated." That suggests to me that HO models probably aren't based on very accurate data if it is just coming from a homeowner's assertions. All they did to verify was to send someone out to take photos of the house from the outside. Either their modeling data isn't that accurate, or it actually doesn't affect risk that much.

The modeling takes terrain, vegetation, accessibility, etc. into account when they develop a FireLine score:

Wildfire Risk and Mitigation Analytics with FireLine

FireLine examines wildfire risk factors—fuel, slope, access, and wind, combined with property and community-level mitigation analytics.

www.verisk.com

The FAIR plan bases the insurance premium on your fireline score among other things. It is based on factors around your address and there is nothing you as an individual can do to change it. They don't ask you about your terrain, they just use the score. As I mentioned my main frustration is that there is nothing you can do to verify they used the correct data when they develop a score for your address. I.e., if their data shows that you live on a dead end road but you don't there isn't any way for you to verify their data doesn't show you living on a dead end road. When I first signed up for the FAIR plan I got a quote that wasn't much higher than what I was paying with Farmers. When I got the contract the premium was significantly higher than the quote. It turns my insurance agent put a typo in the address (they asked for the address in three different places, it was correct in two of the places but two digits were transposed in the third). The FireLine score for the non-existent address was lower than my actual address.

Insurance companies in high wildfire areas are starting to inspect for defensible space and home hardening (class A roofing, enclosed eves, non-flammable siding, approved vents, etc.). The FAIR plan sent me a checklist for what I needed to do to receive discounts for defensible space and home hardening in my renewal notice however they didn't define the details. They also had notice of a surcharge for an undisclosed reason and amount stating that I needed to make an undisclosed correction to avoid the surcharge. They are impossible to reach and don't respond to emails so I don't know if I meet their definitions of home hardening. My insurance agent said just say you meet the requirements and send the attestation to him along with the surcharge notice so he could send it to them. That was in November and I haven't heard back. My annual premium was due January 26 but I just received the official bill today (I paid it online before I got my bill to avoid being uninsured). No discounts for home hardening or defensible space and no explination of what I need to do to avoid the surcharge. Typical bureaucracy.