I had a similar experience with more typical home discounts. They give discounts for security systems and for automatic water shutoff systems. However, there were no "official" specifications. The only way I was able to determine what the insurance companies considered adequate was that my agent has some marketing materials with referrals to certain automatic water shutoff companies. For security systems, it was just a list of questions, and it was up to me to answer those questions accurately. So I'm not surprised they didn't give you any detailed specifications. Maybe you can just google best practices to get an idea of what to do and then ask the insurance agent for the written questionnaire so you can see the specific questions that you have to answer to qualify for the discount. I figure as long as you answer the questions accurately and to the best of your ability, you're probably not giving them a reason to deny coverage. "I'm not an expert" is probably a decent argument as long as you did some research on best practices and truly answered as accurately as you knew how.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:
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.
The modeling takes terrain, vegetation, accessibility, etc. into account when they develop a FireLine score:
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.
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
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.
-
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
Back on topic - I have a question:
I currently have a smaller PV system under NEM1.0. I submitted the plans/paperwork to my utility before the deadline last year to upgrade the system under NEM2.0.
I would like to add batteries to my house, which I did not include at the time as I was in a rush and wanted to make sure the docs got in an approved.
As I understand it, adding batteries at any time won't change your existing NEM situation.
But what if I decide to add batteries before I complete the solar upgrade?
(Long story short, but installing batteries is easier than solar as I have to do other work like replace the roof before adding more solar.)
I currently have a smaller PV system under NEM1.0. I submitted the plans/paperwork to my utility before the deadline last year to upgrade the system under NEM2.0.
I would like to add batteries to my house, which I did not include at the time as I was in a rush and wanted to make sure the docs got in an approved.
As I understand it, adding batteries at any time won't change your existing NEM situation.
But what if I decide to add batteries before I complete the solar upgrade?
(Long story short, but installing batteries is easier than solar as I have to do other work like replace the roof before adding more solar.)
I would not install the batteries before the solar expansion is finished. I had a hard time finding a solar installer that would work with my existing battery system. I ended up having to get the solar from the PowerWall installer at a premium price. However, since I got it under NEM2, it was worth it. Don’t risk your NEM2 solar expansion by installing batteries too soon.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Power and utility companies poured millions of dollars in 2023 towards lobbying, particularly Pacificorp, which spent $5 million and Pacific Gas and Electric, which spent $3.1 million for the whole year. Besides attempting to influence several state agencies, including the Public Utilities Commission, these companies aim to have a sway in electric rates, construction of new facilities and utility-related legislation.
Another reason why even the DMV is 10x better than IOU's. IOU's claim they don't have money to fix problem so they have to raise rates while spending plenty of money for lobbying and propaganda commercials.
I am sure whoever runs the DMV get paid well but I doubt the total compensation is anywhere close to $14M:
The US's largest solar + battery storage project just came online
The US's largest solar + battery storage project, Edwards & Sanborn, has come online in Kern County, California.
electrek.co
Way off topic, but you're right. Based on the most recent data I could quickly find, Steve Gordon, DMV Director (equivalent of CEO) was paid around $190k back in 2019. Probably getting more than that now, but almost certainly no where near what the CEO of PG&E (not to mention SCE and SDG&E/Sempra) get.
The Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles' total compensation is around $250,000 per year, or less than 2 percent of the total compensation of the CEO of PG&E. And I think the Director of DMV is doing a better job.
'steve gordon' search results | Transparent California
Search California public, government employee, workers salaries, pensions and compensation
transparentcalifornia.com
Nice. Definitely showing in our CAISO data. Noticed at one point a couple days ago, batteries were charging at nearly 6GW, then later in the day supplying the grid at as much as ~5GW for a couple hours:The US's largest solar + battery storage project just came online
The US's largest solar + battery storage project, Edwards & Sanborn, has come online in Kern County, California.
California ISO - Supply, Today's Outlook
Need to figure out how to completely shut down that gas power generation during the day instead of exporting the same power out of state while keeping the pollution!
Looks like the battery power supplanted electricity imports rather than natural gas generation. Maybe the price of imports is higher.
I don’t think it has anything to do with price or pollution, it has to do with contracts. Somebody has a contract to run those gas power plants, so they’re going to collect their fees no matter what.
Also, if they are large NG Plants, its not that easy to turn them off and start them back up. Takes many hours. Peaker Plants can be turned off/on, but I'm not sure CA has many of those. I could be wrong
@dakhlkt22 can correct me if wrong, but I took the comment to mean that batteries are not necessarily affecting the stubborn minimum ~3GW mid-day nadir use of NG, rather supplanting electricity imports for a few hours when they feed back into the grid later in the day rather than supplanting natural gas generation at that time. If that is the correct interpretation, price may play a role.
Yes, I was pointing to 5-9pm when solar drops to zero, batteries step in and then decline, and NG rises to compensate for some of that decline. Then it's interesting that from 9pm-12am, imports rise but not NG generation. One could infer that there is some reason PG&E prefers to keep at a stable 11 GW of NG production overnight, e.g. maybe there is a price premium when NG production exceeds 11 GW, and so PG&E then turns to presumably cheaper imports at night.
It'd depend on the fee structure in the contracts, but it seems like utilities typically have a price structure which requires them to compensate the power producer for the fixed costs of operating the plant, regardless of whether the utility takes any power from the plant. Then, there is an additional fee that the utility pays depending on how much additional power they take, and this compensates the plant for their variable costs (e.g. for natural gas fuel).
If PG&E has some kind of minimum offtake requirement from the natural gas plant that it pays for even it doesn't offtake any power from them, and maybe the superior efficiency of keeping a plant running and avoiding shutdowns is built into the fee structure somehow too, then that ~3GW mid-day nadir use of NG might be related to a minimum offtake requirement for PG&E that it pays for no matter what. But I guess we'd have to know the actual details of the PG&E power supply contracts to know why it chooses certain power sources at certain times.
California introduces bill to reevaluate rooftop solar net metering
Assemblymember Laura Friedman introduced a bill that would require the California Public Utilities Commission to consider the costs and benefits of rooftop solar and its non-energy benefits when designing net metering rates.
pv-magazine-usa.com
I'm guessing this will be a nothing burger for the CPUC and nothing will be done/changed.
From:
Someone's post:
"The multi-tennant rules recently enacted completely suck - the solar power must be connected OUTSIDE the tennant's electric meters, and the tennants must all pay full market rates for the locally generated solar is just morally wrong."
Blame it on the rich folks, they stick it to the poor folks too (renters in apartments).
Having lived in a condo for over 20 years, I'm pessimistic that any sort of multi-dwelling/multi-tenant solar arrangement will ever be practical. Using my own HOA as an example, installing community solar would require a complete electrical infrastructure overhaul for ~250 units spread across ~70 different buildings. At a minimum, all new main panels would need to be installed in expanded utility closets on the sides of each building (architectural work). It would cost every unit thousands of dollars before a single solar panel is installed. There is zero chance the members would ever vote to approve such a project.
Assemblymember Connolly Introduces Legislation to Save California Solar | Official Website - Assemblymember Damon Connolly Representing the 12th California Assembly District
SACRAMENTO, CA – Assemblymember Damon Connolly (D-San Rafael) has introduced new legislation to reduce fees and taxes on residential solar projects and r
Similar threads
- Locked
