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

[Vines]

As someone on the other side of the country, I am certainly glad this isn't affecting me directly but appreciate seeing CA figure this out as other states will no doubt need to confront some of these issues over time. It seems like some of this came about because the state did not do a good enough job of planning ahead when to sunset/cap some of their incentives and is now in a position where they feel like too many are getting them. However, the solution should not be to change the rules on people who were given promises that induced them to install solar. It seems like the bill text talking abut the advantages customers will still have (lower bills) don't acknowledge the large fixed cost.



I feel like #2 in your list is the piece generally being overlooked in that linked legislation/CPUC finding. There is no doubt NEM is a subsidy, and it does benefit those who are able to install solar, at the expense of ratepayers generally. But that money is intended to support the public good of cleaner energy, and the societal benefits associated with it. While I wouldn't support retroactive changes, it seems like the question the state should be looking at is whether subsidies for residential solar at different levels are an efficient way to support this public good. If the answer is no, then it may make sense to close the programs. But if the answer is yes, then they should continue, with debate held over a fair method for allocating the costs, which could include continuing to assign costs to ratepayers, but could also involve other taxing/subsidy options.

It is a reasonable position to slowly lessen the subsidy as the grid gets cleaner and cleaner, but really we need to continue to healthily subsidize the residential systems installed with at least one battery, and can help with the duck curve problem.

Valuing residential rooftop PV at wholesale rates is way overboard though. Breaking existing NEM 1.0 and 2.0 agreements is crossing a red line.

Something that sounds more fair to me: Under NEM 3.0 you get paid a percentage of the $0.11 /kWh assumed actual value of PV generation each month based on how well you can turn your usage close to 0 during the high demand evenings that month. This would not only reward PV plus ESS, but still reward PV plus efficiency upgrades would get a similar but smaller benefit.

So for instance 3 different customers. I am just throwing some numbers out there for example.

Customer #1 has PV plus ESS and can turn his grid usage to 0 from 4-9 pm 10 of 12 months of the year.
During those 10 months of avoiding draw during peak times, he gains full 0.11 /kWh credit for his daily PV generation
During the 2 months he cannot generate enough, and uses about 50% of what an average home would draw during peak times.
He gets a reduced rate of 0.06/kWh for his excess generation during those months. (moderate subsidy)

Customer #2 has PV only and an eye for efficiency. They avoid car charging and all high use loads at peak hours, and maintain a 50% lower than average grid draw during peak hours for 9 of 12 months. During winter they consume an average amount of power.
They get 0.06/kWh (small subsidy) for PV generation the 9 months when they otherwise are very careful of peak time grid draw.
During those other 3 months, its reduced to 0.04/kWh (No subsidy)

Customer #3 has PV only and does not care about the peak times. They get paid only 0.04/kWh for PV production, as their usage is more typical. (No subsidy)

 

[Vines]

I sure do not understand how he gets by during the winter. He may have lots of batteries, but am surprised the solar is so small. What am I missing?

New efficient LEED gold or platinum home, 27 kW of PV and what looks like great solar exposure.

 

[h2ofun]

It is a reasonable position to slowly lessen the subsidy as the grid gets cleaner and cleaner, but really we need to continue to healthily subsidize the residential systems installed with at least one battery, and can help with the duck curve problem.

Valuing residential rooftop PV at wholesale rates is way overboard though. Breaking existing NEM 1.0 and 2.0 agreements is crossing a red line.

Something that sounds more fair to me: Under NEM 3.0 you get paid a percentage of the $0.11 /kWh assumed actual value of PV generation each month based on how well you can turn your usage close to 0 during the high demand evenings that month. This would not only reward PV plus ESS, but still reward PV plus efficiency upgrades would get a similar but smaller benefit.

So for instance 3 different customers. I am just throwing some numbers out there for example.

Customer #1 has PV plus ESS and can turn his grid usage to 0 from 4-9 pm 10 of 12 months of the year.
During those 10 months of avoiding draw during peak times, he gains full 0.11 /kWh credit for his daily PV generation
During the 2 months he cannot generate enough, and uses about 50% of what an average home would draw during peak times.
He gets a reduced rate of 0.06/kWh for his excess generation during those months. (moderate subsidy)

Customer #2 has PV only and an eye for efficiency. They avoid car charging and all high use loads at peak hours, and maintain a 50% lower than average grid draw during peak hours for 9 of 12 months. During winter they consume an average amount of power.
They get 0.06/kWh (small subsidy) for PV generation the 9 months when they otherwise are very careful of peak time grid draw.
During those other 3 months, its reduced to 0.04/kWh (No subsidy)

Customer #3 has PV only and does not care about the peak times. They get paid only 0.04/kWh for PV production, as their usage is more typical. (No subsidy)

At those numbers, the ROI for solar in Calif would be super hard to justify.

So, how about adding ROI for each of those customers. If I only got .11, I would be screwed since no way would that come close to covering my winter heat pumps.

I think it also make a huge difference if your customers uses gas for heating, or someone like me, who is 99% electric in a large house. Just watching my electric washer and dryer running now are huge numbers.

 

[h2ofun]

New efficient LEED gold or platinum home, 27 kW of PV and what looks like great solar exposure.

Good point, if he build the home to super Title 24 standards, his heating and cooling load could be very small. To have that kind of money

 

[Vines]

At those numbers, the ROI for solar in Calif would be super hard to justify.

So, how about adding ROI for each of those customers. If I only got .11, I would be screwed since no way would that come close to covering my winter heat pumps.

I think it also make a huge difference if your customers uses gas for heating, or someone like me, who is 99% electric in a large house. Just watching my electric washer and dryer running now are huge numbers.

My point was not to define the number but a concept.

Those who help the grid get a subsidy, rather than just any PV production gets a subsidy. The actual numbers I used are only relevant relative to each other.

 

[jjrandorin]

It is a reasonable position to slowly lessen the subsidy as the grid gets cleaner and cleaner, but really we need to continue to healthily subsidize the residential systems installed with at least one battery, and can help with the duck curve problem.

Valuing residential rooftop PV at wholesale rates is way overboard though. Breaking existing NEM 1.0 and 2.0 agreements is crossing a red line.

Something that sounds more fair to me: Under NEM 3.0 you get paid a percentage of the $0.11 /kWh assumed actual value of PV generation each month based on how well you can turn your usage close to 0 during the high demand evenings that month. This would not only reward PV plus ESS, but still reward PV plus efficiency upgrades would get a similar but smaller benefit.

So for instance 3 different customers. I am just throwing some numbers out there for example.

Customer #1 has PV plus ESS and can turn his grid usage to 0 from 4-9 pm 10 of 12 months of the year.
During those 10 months of avoiding draw during peak times, he gains full 0.11 /kWh credit for his daily PV generation
During the 2 months he cannot generate enough, and uses about 50% of what an average home would draw during peak times.
He gets a reduced rate of 0.06/kWh for his excess generation during those months. (moderate subsidy)

Customer #2 has PV only and an eye for efficiency. They avoid car charging and all high use loads at peak hours, and maintain a 50% lower than average grid draw during peak hours for 9 of 12 months. During winter they consume an average amount of power.
They get 0.06/kWh (small subsidy) for PV generation the 9 months when they otherwise are very careful of peak time grid draw.
During those other 3 months, its reduced to 0.04/kWh (No subsidy)

Customer #3 has PV only and does not care about the peak times. They get paid only 0.04/kWh for PV production, as their usage is more typical. (No subsidy)

I like this suggestion (but I have storage and can reduce my peak grid draw to zero, so of course I would like a suggestion that makes that advantageous).

 

[RKCRLR]

My city and location requires us to be connected to our local electrical (SCE), gas (SoCalGas), and trash/water/sewer (the city). If we fail to sign up with any of these within a given time of obtaining residency we would be fined. Failure to sign and pay the fine would result in a lien for an owner or eviction for a tenant.

We can’t install our own well; we have to use the city water supply. We have to pay for water service even if we don’t use water. We have to pay for trash service even if we never put out trash to be picked up. We have to pay electrical connection even if we never use electricity. We have to pay gas service even if we replaced all appliances with electrical ones and don’t use gas at all. We pay for the service fees for these things as part of the general taxes for the whole community.

The only areas in the city that don’t have to are the more rural areas that don’t have to be connected. But they pay 5 figure permit fees just to do their own things as a way to discourage them from doing so.

So, at a top level, this is what it is:

The electric utility can set the the fees and rates at whatever the government will allow.
The government requires you to be connected and pay the fees.
You are compelled to use as little electricity as possible (even if you don't want to be connected in the first place) and get penalized if you use more than has been determined to be adequate.
There is no requirement for the utility to provide reliable power.
If you want 100% reliable power it is up to you to pay for and maintain in your own generating system.
You will have to pay increased connection fees if you have your own solar generation system and are not allowed to disconnect even if you can generate enough power to be self sufficient.

Do I have this right?

 

[dareed1]

New efficient LEED gold or platinum home, 27 kW of PV and what looks like great solar exposure.

This house is less than 4 miles from our house as the crow flies, and since I going on a bike ride close by, I swung by to take a look. A car pulled up just as I stopped in front. They were looking at the house as an example of the architects work, and I mentioned to them that the house had a very interesting solar installation. As we were discussing this, the owner himself strolled down the driveway and we had a nice conversation.

He was required to show that the house could go for 7 days with zero solar production, so the house is set up with a propane tank and radiant heat. Probably he will switch to a heat pump once more history of cloudy day solar production is available. The part of the house that I could see has mostly modest window sizes, but there is a ~10 foot sliding door facing southeast. He said the house is steel framed with perhaps 6" of foam insulation in walls and roof. He said the usage at present is around 30-35kWhs per day. I don't know if that includes the Model S that I saw in the garage.

He said that the fire department had no concerns about 5000 lbs of Lithium ion batteries.

The panels face SE and have minimal shading.

 

[BGbreeder]

Good point, if he build the home to super Title 24 standards, his heating and cooling load could be very small. To have that kind of money

He did it because the cost to install power from PG&E was even more expensive, IIRC $232k.

All the best,

BG

 

[h2ofun]

This house is less than 4 miles from our house as the crow flies, and since I going on a bike ride close by, I swung by to take a look. A car pulled up just as I stopped in front. They were looking at the house as an example of the architects work, and I mentioned to them that the house had a very interesting solar installation. As we were discussing this, the owner himself strolled down the driveway and we had a nice conversation.

He was required to show that the house could go for 7 days with zero solar production, so the house is set up with a propane tank and radiant heat. Probably he will switch to a heat pump once more history of cloudy day solar production is available. The part of the house that I could see has mostly modest window sizes, but there is a ~10 foot sliding door facing southeast. He said the house is steel framed with perhaps 6" of foam insulation in walls and roof. He said the usage at present is around 30-35kWhs per day. I don't know if that includes the Model S that I saw in the garage.

He said that the fire department had no concerns about 5000 lbs of Lithium ion batteries.

The panels face SE and have minimal shading.

Okay, he has propane heat for backup. Now it makes more sense

 

[cali8484]

It is a reasonable position to slowly lessen the subsidy as the grid gets cleaner and cleaner, but really we need to continue to healthily subsidize the residential systems installed with at least one battery, and can help with the duck curve problem.

Valuing residential rooftop PV at wholesale rates is way overboard though. Breaking existing NEM 1.0 and 2.0 agreements is crossing a red line.

Something that sounds more fair to me: Under NEM 3.0 you get paid a percentage of the $0.11 /kWh assumed actual value of PV generation each month based on how well you can turn your usage close to 0 during the high demand evenings that month. This would not only reward PV plus ESS, but still reward PV plus efficiency upgrades would get a similar but smaller benefit.

So for instance 3 different customers. I am just throwing some numbers out there for example.

Customer #1 has PV plus ESS and can turn his grid usage to 0 from 4-9 pm 10 of 12 months of the year.
During those 10 months of avoiding draw during peak times, he gains full 0.11 /kWh credit for his daily PV generation
During the 2 months he cannot generate enough, and uses about 50% of what an average home would draw during peak times.
He gets a reduced rate of 0.06/kWh for his excess generation during those months. (moderate subsidy)

Customer #2 has PV only and an eye for efficiency. They avoid car charging and all high use loads at peak hours, and maintain a 50% lower than average grid draw during peak hours for 9 of 12 months. During winter they consume an average amount of power.
They get 0.06/kWh (small subsidy) for PV generation the 9 months when they otherwise are very careful of peak time grid draw.
During those other 3 months, its reduced to 0.04/kWh (No subsidy)

Customer #3 has PV only and does not care about the peak times. They get paid only 0.04/kWh for PV production, as their usage is more typical. (No subsidy)

I like the suggestion but frankly I can even understand it if they decide to phase out NEM completely like Hawaii but reneging on NEM 1/2 contracts is ridiculous. If they actually do that then why would anyone trust NEM 3.

 

[h2ofun]

I like the suggestion but frankly I can even understand it if they decide to phase out NEM completely like Hawaii but reneging on NEM 1/2 contracts is ridiculous. If they actually do that then why would anyone trust NEM 3.

For the amount of money I have spent to follow the rules and laws, and if they were to ignore, well, .......

 

[cali8484]

For the amount of money I have spent to follow the rules and laws, and if they were to ignore, well, .......

plenty justification for class action lawsuit