Thanks for doing your part. I remember one of the earlier threads on these forums, some months ago, about the NEM 3 discussions mentioned about doing away with grandfathering for NEM 1.0 and 2.0. But I could never find the exact thread and reference again, nor any searching on the Interwebs.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Discussion: Is Tesla's new PV+PW strategy influenced by Planned Utility NEM Changes?
- Thread starter kengchang
- Start date
Yep, when I approached companies about my project in the start of 2020, I told every one of them my desire to be as distanced from PG&E’s time of use imbalanced NEM policies as I could. I didn’t care if batteries had a round trip loss. I wanted as close to zero as possible energy leaving my house or coming from PG&E.
It was rather disappointing when every solar and ESS company was confused. They were like - but that’s dumb... there’s no ROI there. I guess they thought PG&E and the CPUC would continue to be residential solar friendly for decades. I guess they never thought lawmakers would punish California’s rich solar customers to pay more of a “fair share”
But now, I’m thinking I need even more batteries hah. I just wish I could fit more solar panels on this house...
I can fit about 50 more panels. Can I afford or get approved, I might find out. I need more panels, not batteries
“Poor people have it pretty good, wish I was poor” That’s quite the hot take on the issue. Not saying I agree with the proposal, but that seems like the wrong way to be against it.
Just wait until you have to pay $ to the PoCo for the privilege of exporting power to them. I know the slippery slope fallacy is in play here (because I hate PG&E you know where my biases are haha). But, I think it's only a matter of time before some lawmaker is brainwashed by the utilities to believe that the PoCo is "providing a service" to rich well-to-do-Tesla-owning-choking-on-silver-spoon folks by accepting extra solar generation.
So I do think eventually, instead of giving wholesale rates, they just start charging an administrative fee for a solar customer to leave their array on in the daytime. Who was it here that said the utility is basically a "big battery" that stores energy for NEM use later? Yeah that service will cost you money if PG&E has it's way.
That link that reviewed the bill being pushed by Lorena Gonzalez says the CPUC finding believes Solar is biased against edit (disadvantaged) people. That finding didn't come from PG&E. That finding literally came from regulators. The CPUC has indicated repeatedly they want wealthy homeowners pay their fair share to use publicly approved monopoly infrastructure since somebody has to pay the below-market CARE rates.
Last edited:
NathanielHrnblwr
Member
For those in San Diego County, Lorena is Nathan Fletcher's (SD County Supervisor for district 4 & Chair) wife. Perhaps feedback to him and/or his office is warranted. Obviously, he isn't the author, but he is an elected public figure that those in his district may want to share their concerns with.
Lol, and to think before COVID he accepted a "solar advocates" award.
I'm sure by now he's turned and will spout the same song and dance as his wife that solar is great when it's equitable, but the current state is "biased".
I can't imagine him being out of sync with his wife on the policy to revise NEM rules to increase the net cost of solar. The double-talk about Lorena's bill is that it still wants people to get solar. The bill just wants the wealthier solar clients to pay their fair share. So she'll argue all day long that the bill won't slow/harm people from getting solar.
NathanielHrnblwr
Member
oh, and here's prior legislation by her signed by Gov. Brown in 2017.
a80.asmdc.org
Yeah, it's intimidating when representatives want to change the rules after you invest 5 figures into solar with a planned ROI to help the environment.
Gov. Brown Signs Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher Rooftop Solar Consumer Protection Bill | Official Website - Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Representing the 80th California Assembly District
SACRAMENTO – (Wednesday, October 11, 2017) – Gov. Jerry Brown today signed a bill by California State Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-San Diego) that will protect consumers looking to invest in solar power for their homes.
Yeah, it's intimidating when representatives want to change the rules after you invest 5 figures into solar with a planned ROI to help the environment.
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.
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.
While I agree with @wjgjr that this is an issue local to California, I do think that precedent is being set for others, and I think @wjgjr is right to point out the externalities to NEM, and whether this admittedly blunt instrument makes sense in the larger perspective. Personally, I see the benefit to solar power and am willing to subsidize it.
For those in California, I signed this petition to Governor Newsom to keep rooftop solar growing in California. Can I ask you consider signing it too?
Sign Petition — Save California Solar
The California utilities are lobbying the state to make it harder and more expensive for people to get solar. They are trying to gut net metering, which lets solar users share their extra solar energy with the neighbors for a bill credit. If you don't think it is reasonable, please consider signing, and forwarding the petition to others.
All the best,
BG
For those in California, I signed this petition to Governor Newsom to keep rooftop solar growing in California. Can I ask you consider signing it too?
Sign Petition — Save California Solar
The California utilities are lobbying the state to make it harder and more expensive for people to get solar. They are trying to gut net metering, which lets solar users share their extra solar energy with the neighbors for a bill credit. If you don't think it is reasonable, please consider signing, and forwarding the petition to others.
All the best,
BG
Most technologies that are new usually are "funded" by the folks who can afford it. What folks do you think bought the first VCRs at 1K? Then over time, the technology gets cheaper and more can afford. So if this process gets stopped, seems innovation may slow down?
Well, the problem here is that I don't have a lot of confidence that politicians, any of them, understand the technical situation. We need to find some politician connected with this who has solar and PWs.
Right now there are three situations.
1. What I would call "small systems." Before the recent improvements in panel effeciency, many had this. The system did not, or hardly ever, overproduced solar relative to the homeowner. So, conceptually and economically, there was no difference between installing a small system and conserving energy.
2. What I would call, "right sized" solar systems. Panel efficiency now meant that if you used, say 20,000kwh per year you could get a system which would produce 20k kwh per year. The problem from a cost perspective is the economics are totally dependent upon the credits, or lack thereof, or lets just call it a "subsidy." Its one thing if you get 1 to 1 NEM. Then its as if the utility is acting as your own personal battery. But the reason its a subsidy is so much of the cost of a Kwh is made up of "not the energy." From the utility perspective, they have to maintain the grid, as to you, service it, as to you, and account for the energy, as to you, and although you exchange electrons with them we know that the electrons are only a fraction of the cost. I think, that the government ought to step in here, and it has, by forcing NEM contracts.
3. Solar and PWs. Now we are talking. These systems allow for the customer to be off the grid for long periods of time, and not dependent on what is in effect electricity arbitrage. Something needs to be done about the fact that the utilities are facing such high costs of maintenance and delivery, but far less needs to be "done" in comparison to situation 2.
The issue is that current fees are based on a "per customer" format and having customers become little power plants screws up the entire system.
As I said, the government needs to fill the gap.
By the way, its not much better if everyone buys an integrated Tesla system, because that just kicks the can down the road, from an economic perspective.
The whole system is not designed for individuals, rich, poor, or whatever, to have their own mini power plants.
Right now there are three situations.
1. What I would call "small systems." Before the recent improvements in panel effeciency, many had this. The system did not, or hardly ever, overproduced solar relative to the homeowner. So, conceptually and economically, there was no difference between installing a small system and conserving energy.
2. What I would call, "right sized" solar systems. Panel efficiency now meant that if you used, say 20,000kwh per year you could get a system which would produce 20k kwh per year. The problem from a cost perspective is the economics are totally dependent upon the credits, or lack thereof, or lets just call it a "subsidy." Its one thing if you get 1 to 1 NEM. Then its as if the utility is acting as your own personal battery. But the reason its a subsidy is so much of the cost of a Kwh is made up of "not the energy." From the utility perspective, they have to maintain the grid, as to you, service it, as to you, and account for the energy, as to you, and although you exchange electrons with them we know that the electrons are only a fraction of the cost. I think, that the government ought to step in here, and it has, by forcing NEM contracts.
3. Solar and PWs. Now we are talking. These systems allow for the customer to be off the grid for long periods of time, and not dependent on what is in effect electricity arbitrage. Something needs to be done about the fact that the utilities are facing such high costs of maintenance and delivery, but far less needs to be "done" in comparison to situation 2.
The issue is that current fees are based on a "per customer" format and having customers become little power plants screws up the entire system.
As I said, the government needs to fill the gap.
By the way, its not much better if everyone buys an integrated Tesla system, because that just kicks the can down the road, from an economic perspective.
The whole system is not designed for individuals, rich, poor, or whatever, to have their own mini power plants.
Personally, with the rapid decrease in solar and battery costs, yes I think it would be more economical to do what you propose than paying monster fees to PG&E.
This is counter to common sense where a centralized power grid should be more cost effective than a completely de-centralized energy ecosystem where every home is not interconnected with one another. Only in California could the fees and poorly run utilities (the ones who demand a fair profit in spite of their inefficiency) exist to the extent it's even remotely more economical to be permanently off-grid than on-grid.
I think the worst impact of all these changes will be felt by homes that don't have the ability to add enough solar. Some homes simply don't have a good roof/pane for all this, so those homeowners will need to continue paying out-of-control prices with no option to break completely away. I wish I could add another 4 kWp of solar... but alas
Looks like 22kW NG home generators start at ~$2.5k + labor + other parts (NG plumbing, electrical connections, service panel work, etc). Paradoxically this would make the grid less green. For those with PWs (power load and energy buffer), could go with lower power NG generator like 11kW which is ~$1.5k.
Then utilities like PG&E might increase their NG minimum monthly charge fees...
There is no way out.
Then utilities like PG&E might increase their NG minimum monthly charge fees...
There is no way out.
Looks like 22kW NG home generators start at ~$2.5k + labor + other parts (NG plumbing, electrical connections, service panel work, etc). Paradoxically this would make the grid less green. For those with PWs (power load and energy buffer), could go with lower power NG generator like 11kW which is ~$1.5k.
Then utilities like PG&E might increase their NG minimum monthly charge fees...
There is no way out.
Clearly I can't make my own natural gas..
. I would rather invest in my own house infrastructure than pay PG&E BS fees.Similar threads
