Discussion: Is Tesla's new PV+PW strategy influenced by Planned Utility NEM Changes?

[kengchang]

Probably a move to counter California Utility pushing for $70-80 connection fee a month to the solar customer

NEM 3.0 in California: What homeowners need to know about Net Billing

NEM 3.0 is here, with a new type of solar rate plan called Net Billing. There's reduced compensation for excess solar energy and increased incentive to install batteries, but you can still save money with solar in California

www.solarreviews.com

What the utilities proposed​

1) Charge consumers the highest solar fees in America – up to $91/month

• SDG&E residential customers would pay $91/month on average just to have solar on their roof. PG&E customers would pay $86/month; SCE customers would pay $56/month. This is based on a typical 6 kilowatt residential solar system.
• Non-residential customers would also be hit. A typical school, for example, wanting to invest in solar would be charged an unavoidable $950 monthly fee in PG&E territory, $1,100 in Southern California Edison territory, and $3,400 per month in the San Diego area. This is based on a 250 kilowatt commercial solar system

2) Slash the credit consumers receive for surplus solar electricity sent back to the grid by 77%. This means that when a solar user shares electricity with their neighbor, the utility would charge the neighbor 25 cents while giving the solar user just 5.7 cents in bill credits.

3) Prevent consumers from carrying forward their unused solar credits from month to month. Currently solar users may carry forward their unused credits month to month for one year before they expire.

 

[ucmndd]

Probably a move to counter California Utility pushing for $70-80 connection fee a month to the solar customer

What the utilities proposed​

1) Charge consumers the highest solar fees in America – up to $91/month

• SDG&E residential customers would pay $91/month on average just to have solar on their roof. PG&E customers would pay $86/month; SCE customers would pay $56/month. This is based on a typical 6 kilowatt residential solar system.
• Non-residential customers would also be hit. A typical school, for example, wanting to invest in solar would be charged an unavoidable $950 monthly fee in PG&E territory, $1,100 in Southern California Edison territory, and $3,400 per month in the San Diego area. This is based on a 250 kilowatt commercial solar system

2) Slash the credit consumers receive for surplus solar electricity sent back to the grid by 77%. This means that when a solar user shares electricity with their neighbor, the utility would charge the neighbor 25 cents while giving the solar user just 5.7 cents in bill credits.

3) Prevent consumers from carrying forward their unused solar credits from month to month. Currently solar users may carry forward their unused credits month to month for one year before they expire.

Where are you copying and pasting from?

 

[skepticcyclist]

Probably a move to counter California Utility pushing for $70-80 connection fee a month to the solar customer

NEM 3.0 in California: What homeowners need to know about Net Billing

NEM 3.0 is here, with a new type of solar rate plan called Net Billing. There's reduced compensation for excess solar energy and increased incentive to install batteries, but you can still save money with solar in California

www.solarreviews.com

What the utilities proposed​

1) Charge consumers the highest solar fees in America – up to $91/month

• SDG&E residential customers would pay $91/month on average just to have solar on their roof. PG&E customers would pay $86/month; SCE customers would pay $56/month. This is based on a typical 6 kilowatt residential solar system.
• Non-residential customers would also be hit. A typical school, for example, wanting to invest in solar would be charged an unavoidable $950 monthly fee in PG&E territory, $1,100 in Southern California Edison territory, and $3,400 per month in the San Diego area. This is based on a 250 kilowatt commercial solar system

2) Slash the credit consumers receive for surplus solar electricity sent back to the grid by 77%. This means that when a solar user shares electricity with their neighbor, the utility would charge the neighbor 25 cents while giving the solar user just 5.7 cents in bill credits.

3) Prevent consumers from carrying forward their unused solar credits from month to month. Currently solar users may carry forward their unused credits month to month for one year before they expire.

I'm assuming that if this passes it will only affect customers that sign their NEM after this takes effect? Those of us with our current 2.0 agreement will be grandfathered in?

 

[h2ofun]

I'm assuming that if this passes it will only affect customers that sign their NEM after this takes effect? Those of us with our current 2.0 agreement will be grandfathered in?

thats the hope but nothing is out of the question

 

[jboy210]

Keep in mind the restrictions on Powerwall feeding the grid directly are caused by the wording of the Solar Federal Tax Credit. And the Biden administration is now working on a separate energy storage tax credit that would eliminate that requirement.

In other countries where Tesla installs Powerwalls, they're free to buy and sell energy from the grid at will.

I did not know that they were looking at separate the solar and storage. Seems like a good step forward and would drive the sales of storage systems.

 

[willow_hiller]

I did not know that they were looking at separate the solar and storage. Seems like a good step forward and would drive the sales of storage systems.

It was introduced to committees around the same time as all of those draft EV tax credit extension bills: Federal bills creating standalone storage tax credit raise hopes for significant boost, akin to solar

 

[BGbreeder]

Probably a move to counter California Utility pushing for $70-80 connection fee a month to the solar customer

NEM 3.0 in California: What homeowners need to know about Net Billing

NEM 3.0 is here, with a new type of solar rate plan called Net Billing. There's reduced compensation for excess solar energy and increased incentive to install batteries, but you can still save money with solar in California

www.solarreviews.com

What the utilities proposed​

1) Charge consumers the highest solar fees in America – up to $91/month

• SDG&E residential customers would pay $91/month on average just to have solar on their roof. PG&E customers would pay $86/month; SCE customers would pay $56/month. This is based on a typical 6 kilowatt residential solar system.
• Non-residential customers would also be hit. A typical school, for example, wanting to invest in solar would be charged an unavoidable $950 monthly fee in PG&E territory, $1,100 in Southern California Edison territory, and $3,400 per month in the San Diego area. This is based on a 250 kilowatt commercial solar system

2) Slash the credit consumers receive for surplus solar electricity sent back to the grid by 77%. This means that when a solar user shares electricity with their neighbor, the utility would charge the neighbor 25 cents while giving the solar user just 5.7 cents in bill credits.

3) Prevent consumers from carrying forward their unused solar credits from month to month. Currently solar users may carry forward their unused credits month to month for one year before they expire.

Probably worth signing the petition to let the governor know that there are voters out there who care about the shenanigans being played wi NEM. Can't hurt.

Thanks for sharing this, though I think it has already been posted back in February.

All the best,

BG

 

[Vines]

I'm assuming that if this passes it will only affect customers that sign their NEM after this takes effect? Those of us with our current 2.0 agreement will be grandfathered in?

The bill I spoke out on AB1139, planned to literally eliminate any grandfathering from NEM 1.0 and 2.0.

Not sure how the voting went but It was important enough that I spent a few hours waiting in the queue to have my 10 seconds of declared opposition.

 

[holeydonut]

The bill I spoke out on AB1139, planned to literally eliminate any grandfathering from NEM 1.0 and 2.0.

Not sure how the voting went but It was important enough that I spent a few hours waiting in the queue to have my 10 seconds of declared opposition.

Dude wtf... you should have posted about this sooner. This Lorena Gonzalez assembly member is proposing one of the most jacked policies. This has to be opposed... but it received 12 aye votes to continue in committee (no nay votes).

The language doesn’t just kill NEM grandfathering, it massively increases the discounts for CARE and FERA low income households and opens the door for monster increases to solar and normal rate payers.

Look at the groups in favor of this vs oppose...

Bill Analysis -

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

 

[h2ofun]

Dude wtf... you should have posted about this sooner. This Lorena Gonzalez assembly member is proposing one of the most jacked policies. This has to be opposed... but it received 12 aye votes to continue in committee (no nay votes).

The language doesn’t just kill NEM grandfathering, it massively increases the discounts for CARE and FERA low income households and opens the door for monster increases to solar and normal rate payers.

Look at the groups in favor of this vs opposed.

Bill Analysis -

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Welcome to socialism in California. Are you really surprised. Anyone who has a Tesla, EV, solar, ESS, etc. is just a rich SOB that has to give back to the poor.

Bill Text - AB-1139 Net energy metering.

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

(i) To remedy the growing unjust and unreasonable charges, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 327 (Chapter 611 of the Statutes of 2013). Certain provisions of that act required the commission to revise the net energy metering program so that nonparticipating customers do not subsidize rooftop solar energy system customers. The commission has not done so, resulting in a continuation of this unsustainable and unjust cost shift.
(j) It is time to reduce rates for electrical service for all customers and particularly for lower income customers.
(k) It is time to make California’s net energy metering programs fairer to lower income customers. Customers who have been burdened by high rates and shut out of solar energy system programs deserve lower rates and more opportunities to participate in the solar energy system revolution.
(l) This act replaces the current net energy metering structure for residential customers with a fairer net energy metering structure.
(m) Rooftop solar customers will continue to see economic benefits from their solar energy systems in two ways. Rooftop solar customers will be paid the wholesale market rate for electricity they export to the electrical grid and will continue to self-supply their own usage, rather than buying electricity from their electrical utility or community choice aggregator. This will allow rooftop solar customers to continue to have lower electrical service bills than nonparticipating customers.
(n) To the extent they obtain their electricity over the electrical grid, rooftop solar customers will also pay for their usage of the transmission and distribution grid they rely on just like customers that do not participate in net energy metering.

 

[Vines]

Dude wtf... you should have posted about this sooner. This Lorena Gonzalez assembly member is proposing one of the most jacked policies. This has to be opposed... but it received 12 aye votes to continue in committee (no nay votes).

The language doesn’t just kill NEM grandfathering, it massively increases the discounts for CARE and FERA low income households and opens the door for monster increases to solar and normal rate payers.

Look at the groups in favor of this vs oppose...

Bill Analysis -

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

I would have spread the word further, except the queue was 200 more people than could speak already.

Every solar company I recognized was there, and the only ones in support were IBEW workers.

 

[Vines]

Ah this makes sense now, shes the same one who tweeted "F*ck Elon Musk"

It appears shes working hard against clean energy.

 

[getakey]

I would have spread the word further, except the queue was 200 more people than could speak already.

Every solar company I recognized was there, and the only ones in support were IBEW workers.

should we have a separate thread on this?

 

[holeydonut]

Welcome to socialism in California. Are you really surprised. Anyone who has a Tesla, EV, solar, ESS, etc. is just a rich SOB that has to give back to the poor.

Bill Text - AB-1139 Net energy metering.

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Yeah, the Bill says...

A recent study commissioned by the CPUC also found that, as compared to the general California population, NEM customers are disproportionately older, located in high-income areas, likely to own their home, and less likely to live in a disadvantaged community. Consequently, the costs of NEM are disproportionately paid by younger, less wealthy, and more disadvantaged ratepayers, many of whom are renters.

I’m waiting for the CPUC to say something like...

A recent study commissioned by prosecutors has found PG&E criminally responsible for the deaths of 84 people and blowing up some more in some gas pipe explosions. Maybe they should actually fix their own crap before asking homeowners to pay $1.00 per kWh during peak time and charging $100 of stupid fees each month for NEM tariffs.

 

[holeydonut]

should we have a separate thread on this?

Yes, yes, yes, yes we need a thread for this. As much as I want to believe that the solar companies in California are trying their best to oppose, the proponents of AB1139 are the utilities themselves and all their grifters buying into the pocketbooks of lawmakers.

AB1139 basically disincentives people to go green and ties them into continuing to pay PG&E's extortive rates.

 

[h2ofun]

Yes, yes, yes, yes we need a thread for this. As much as I want to believe that the solar companies in California are trying their best to oppose, the proponents of AB1139 are the utilities themselves and all their grifters buying into the pocketbooks of lawmakers.

AB1139 basically disincentives people to go green and ties them into continuing to pay PG&E's extortive rates.

worst than this, if I knew there was no NEM2 for 20 years, I am not sure I would have ever put solar on my house. No way do I want a cost per KW even if I never use it. This is just nuts! Getting so tired of the but the poor. You keep giving them free stuff and yep, I would stay poor too.

 

[MP3Mike]

should we have a separate thread on this?

There is already one: California Utilities Plan All Out War On Solar, Please Read And Help

 

[Southpasfan]

I would have spread the word further, except the queue was 200 more people than could speak already.

Every solar company I recognized was there, and the only ones in support were IBEW workers.

So doesn't think basically mean that in order to save money you probably need PWs?

Per my post above, that does not solve the structural problem, but 1 to 1 kwh NEM is basically a subsidy (I mean, its a subsidy I am in favor of) but if you take a look at CAISO and see utilities are paying 3 cents per Kwh its a subsidy to pay an individual customer 20 cents or whatever.

What's sort of shocking, is that the 3 cents is paid to companies other than the utility who have to build the production faciliity, whether it be gas, solar, or coal, and that's all they get. So the fact that it cost me $50k to produce something I can sell for 3 cents really "is what it is."

You would expect an individual system to be vastly inefficient as to a power plant, of course, and sure enough, it turns out that it is.

But the real thing which needs to be addressed is that by installing my system:

1. I get a benefit because at the moment I get out of paying for the grid.
2. The environment gets a benefit, because my installation increases green energy.
3. The utility gets nothing out of it, since my using less 3 cents energy is nothing to them. It barely reduces their costs as to me and my neighborhood at all. And they buy energy at the time of day they don't even need it. Because in solar only systems the energy has to go somewhere.
4. Other customers get nothing out of it. Other customers would get something out of it if my production simply helped the overall system, but unless my battery back up is signed up to a program which (some have posted about) where individual storage is used to reduce brown outs, then its nothing to my neighbors.

Of course, I don't buy for a second that my installation costs the general public anything, but that's not the problem really. The utilities know this, their issue is point 3, their PR is point 4.

Which brings me full circle. PWs allow me to get out of this whole buying/selling and what to get credit for rabbit hole. I might still send stuff back to the grid, but the whole net metering is reduced -- in comparison to a solar only install where net metering is a critical, critical portion of the entire set up.

 

[jjrandorin]

should we have a separate thread on this?

(moderator note: Agreed. Separate thread created, and posts discussing how these changes may be driving / impacting Tesla's decision moved to the new thread, which is where I am making this reply)

 

[jjrandorin]

There is already one: California Utilities Plan All Out War On Solar, Please Read And Help

(moderator note: I am aware of that thread in the energy section, however this thread appears to me to be discussing how, in general, utility company program changes might be driving tesla's energy strategy, so I feel its ok to be in this section here vs me moving it there)