CPUC solar decision?

[miimura]

The fundamental problem is that PG&E keeps demanding compensation for "departing load". This is where the CCA PCIA fee comes from. When the law allowed CCAs to exist and take energy generation away from PG&E, the monopoly demanded compensation for removing that from their business. Now, when they jack up the rates in higher tiers to encourage conservation, people with access to capital look at the situation and see that they can generate their own electricity much cheaper than what the monopoly utility is charging them. Once again, PG&E cries foul.

The reason that the proposal in front of us exists is that a study was put forward that asserted that solar customers' bill reductions put a cost burden on people who don't have solar. In reality, the whole rate system is not based on what it actually costs to serve any individual customer. The way costs are almost completely loaded into the per kWh price is not representative of the fixed and variable costs of providing service. The per kW solar Grid Management fee is just another poorly targeted scheme to assign costs to ratepayers.

PG&E simply cannot accept that a smaller transmission system serving a more distributed grid is an acceptable path for their business. Their profits are based on their ability to sell the CPUC on the need for more transmission assets. The motives of the various stakeholders are not aligned to the public interest.

 

[STS-134]

PG&E simply cannot accept that a smaller transmission system serving a more distributed grid is an acceptable path for their business. Their profits are based on their ability to sell the CPUC on the need for more transmission assets. The motives of the various stakeholders are not aligned to the public interest.

In some ways, that's correct. You cannot downsize the transmission system just because you have distributed (renewable/non traditional) generation. If the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, you still need just as much firm generation as you would have otherwise needed, but most of it is going to operate as peaker plants. Now it might make sense to place some of these peaker plants close to urban areas, nearer to the point of consumption, given that they're not going to be running 24/7. They're likely already making some tradeoffs in cost/efficiency given that these plants aren't going to run very often.

But here's what I have a problem with: every kWh I consume has generation fees and transmission fees. But if some of it was generated by my neighbor who is on the same step-down transformer I am on, it wasn't even transmitted except across the 240V single phase lines that run down my street. And yet, PG&E still charges me transmission fees. So they really should stop complaining because their grid barely has to transmit anything during peak solar production hours but they're still charging everyone like it does.

 

[holeydonut]

PG&E simply cannot accept that a smaller transmission system serving a more distributed grid is an acceptable path for their business. Their profits are based on their ability to sell the CPUC on the need for more transmission assets. The motives of the various stakeholders are not aligned to the public interest.

Yeah, that's the crux of the public comment that I left on the NEM 3 proceeding. I hope you can leave something that also speaks to the CPUC's latest proposal using your conclusion here.

Two recent CPUC appointees, Darcie L. Houck and Genevieve Shiroma, both assert they see a distributed energy future in California. The two are supporting separate proceedings to encourage grid resiliency and clean energy goals by using smaller transmission systems. I want to understand how those two people could somehow fall silent at this most pivotal time and let the CPUC proposal on NEM 3.0 be this ludicrous for distributed residential energy generation.

Do they just go around saying they're for distributed energy, but in fact support the polar opposite under the residential rules of NEM 3.0?