Um...no. Foster City and Redwood Shores is called "The Peninsula". South Bay is Santa Clara County, roughly from Palo Alto/Milpitas on both sides of the Bay and south to the Santa Cruz/San Benito County line.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Latest PG&E Bill
- Thread starter getakey
- Start date
Well I do.
All three are in Santa Clara county which includes the southern edges of San Francisco Bay and the San Francisco Giants.
I regularly bike past the Center of Santa Clara Valley plaque. I was being fairly generic, as most people would need to look up Morgan Hill, San Martin (not Marin) or Gilroy and never thought anyone would think that I meant just below San Francisco.
Well I do.
I regularly bike past the Center of Santa Clara Valley plaque. I was being fairly generic, as most people would need to look up Morgan Hill, San Marin or Gilroy and never thought anyone would think that I meant just below San Francisco.
Once you're near San Jose there isn't much SF left to claim and it's just South Bay. "South SF Bay" implies you're near SF... but you're much closer to San Jose. If I claimed "East SF Bay" or something... it make no sense because SF isn't the nearest large city even though the San Francisco Bay is the closest body of water.
Of course It could be worse. You could live in Anaheim and say you live in East LA.
I think the problem is that you're putting "SF" in the name of the area. Most native Bay Area people understand the following:
"The South Bay" ~= Santa Clara County
"The East Bay" ~= Alameda + Contra Costa Counties
"The Peninsula" ~= San Mateo County
"The City" ~= City & County of San Francisco
"The North Bay" ~= Marin + Sonoma + Napa + Solano Counties
Sigh, there are so many "Bays" around the world and even in California it feels pretentious to not distinguish.
Yeah that's why I put East Bay NorCal hah.
Nothing outside of California matters amirite?
As a native of the SF Bay Area living in the South Bay of LA I've looked out at the ocean and have wondered where is the bay they are talking about. It looks more just like a small dent in the coast to me. We don't even really have anything called the North Bay either. Anyway living here made me see the need to qualify the term South Bay.
Edit: Just to add, while the phraseology South SF Bay may be awkward to Bay Area residents the bay being referred to is the San Francisco Bay (not the city) which I think makes South SF Bay probably the most technically correct description.
Edit: Just to add, while the phraseology South SF Bay may be awkward to Bay Area residents the bay being referred to is the San Francisco Bay (not the city) which I think makes South SF Bay probably the most technically correct description.
Last edited:
wait, what? not due to a single event though? i went thru a true-up when i got PTO for the PWs... you're saying there will be another one when the transition to the B&W bill is complete??
No. But, each time something changes, one gets a new true up. So, I got my first true up for solar earlier in the year. I then put in the batteries, and started a new true up process. It took months and was not completed when I put in more solar panels which has started ANOTHER true up process. I expect it will until the end of the year before everything is done. I got changed over to the new huge bill paperwork when I got the batteries.
@holeydonut Going back to the non-geographical portion of this discussion. I just received a letter from my CCA, Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), changing the terms for their annual true-up and net surplus compensation that adds more complications to the calculation.
After the April 2022 true-up the net generation compensation will be changed from the full retail value during the TOU period and season that it was generated to twice (200%) the PG&E Net Surplus Compensation Rates which are set monthly and are not tied to the TOU period. I knew that the current compensation was too generous, but I was happy to get it while I could. This is similar to other CCAs that are 100% or 150% of the PG&E NSC rates.
This is going to really complicate the modelling as it looks like I just want to just get the Cumulative Charges close to zero while maximizing the amount the kWh exported after April. It also makes it more attractive to use any surplus to charge an EV versus getting a credit for it.
Wow your CCA actually gave you surplus energy at the TOU rate? That's like printing money now that PG&E has raised energy rates by like 50% in the last few years.
What was stopping you from going full @h2ofun and installing an array that exported 20 megawatts in excess of the home use? Were you able to take advantage of the previous juicy exports for like 10 years?
I agree with you that with the paltry excess you're about to get, you're better off holding an EV charging party at your house the week before your true-up cycle ends. Let neighbors get your excess NEM kWh for like a 6 pack of beer per 80 kWh (it's gotta be good beers) instead of getting a check from the CCA.
What was stopping you from going full @h2ofun and installing an array that exported 20 megawatts in excess of the home use? Were you able to take advantage of the previous juicy exports for like 10 years?
I agree with you that with the paltry excess you're about to get, you're better off holding an EV charging party at your house the week before your true-up cycle ends. Let neighbors get your excess NEM kWh for like a 6 pack of beer per 80 kWh (it's gotta be good beers) instead of getting a check from the CCA.
Wow, those are wholesale rates, which seem to basically kill NEM. And since our solar does not do much in the winter, ....Hope PG&E does not do this
The CCA only charges for the electricity generation portion and PG&E is all of the delivery portion. So the SVCE TOU rate that was being charged in the summer for E-TOU-C was $0.06134 Off-Peak and $0.11425 Peak plus another $0.008 if you are on the GreenPrime plan.
PG&E keeps track of the cumulative charges/credits on their delivery plus the PCIA for your "vintage" and if this is less $0 at the PG&E annual true-up then you just deal with the MDC and cumulative NBCs.
SVCE keeps track (on the blue bill) of the energy generation portion and if was less than $0 at their April true-up then you got 100% of that back. In fact they sent me a check for $111 in May for my first 6 months (new to solar like you and @h2ofun ) of net generation. Now, that is going to change for April 2023 and if the amount is less than $0 the compensation will be reduced to 200% of the PG&E NSC rates. I'm not clear if that will be averaged over year and applied to the total net kWh or if they will somehow calculate it on a monthly basis. Not sure how that works when I am slightly positive in Dec-Feb and negative the rest of the year.
The NEM 2.0 1:1 charge/credit system remains intact for the import/exporting for the year, this is only for when that calculation is less than zero and you are a net generator. This is basically how PG&E handles net generation, but my CCA SVCE will be paying at 200% of the PG&E rates for the net generation.
Those are the wholesale rates that are paid if your annual solar export is in excess of your annual solar production. Most CCA's are "generous" and give 2x the wholesale rate. But the CCA is effectively selling your excess energy back to PG&E at the retail rate so they're pocketing a crap ton on the excess.
I still can't believe how PG&E's ACC (edit: avoided cost calculator... CCA and ACC are two different things) rate in the NEM 3.0 proposal is basically today's wholesale rate for most of the day. AAhhhhh I hate Energy Policy in California. Terrible.
Last edited:
Am still waiting to get my billing updated for my 3rd true up with everything I have now. The first thing I look at is the allowed generation amount. So far it is not close to double what I had with first set of panels. But yep, it is taking 3 to 4 months to fully update.
What is the current status of NEM3 roll out? Or what is going to be voted on?
The CPUC has allowed all the parties who submitted recommendations to poke holes in each others arguments and build a case. As I mentioned in some other thread, the utilities are at an advantage because the E3 consulting firm that the CPUC paid to conduct a study about NEM basically found all these "problems" with NEM 1.0 and 2.0 with regard to how poor non-solar people are now bearing an inordinate amount of the costs to maintain the grid. They found the NBCs were insufficient for solar homeowners to pay their fair share. Furthermore the E3 found that the solar generation from noon to 3pm was basically worthless (as shown in their avoided cost calculator).
Basically the E3 finding plays straight into the argument that the Joint Utilities and the "Coalition of California Utilities Employees" put forth for their NEM 3.0 recommendation. The general tone of NEM 3.0 is starting in a place that dramatically favors the utilities.
The utilities contend that any of CALSSA's more rooftop-solar-friendly proposal is simply a delay tactic that will continue to harm poor folks and create inequality. The utilities want the daytime solar exports to be next to worthless, and the utilities want a grid benefits charge to get the solar-fat-cats to pay their fair share of the grid.
The Joint IOUs also recently fought to get Sunrun's own annual reports into scope. In Sunrun's 10K filed in February, they state:
"We depreciate the costs of our solar energy systems over their estimated useful life of 35 years."
The Joint IOUs contend that rooftop solar is a 35 year asset and having a breakeven of 10 years or so demonstrates how the rich solar folks are simply stealing from the general population. The Joint IOU proposal would cause solar-payback to be more like 25 years... and they are using Sunrun's own words (as the #1 installer) to indicate how the new NEM 3.0 ROI is still positive for solar projects so it's still a fair proposal.
Anyway, here's the latest PG&E, SCE, SDG&E summary. From what I understand, it is the leading proposal. It is backed by elected officials; it is backed by an "independent analysis commissioned by the CPUC"; it still provides a positive ROI for rooftop solar; and it is the one that apparently stops rich from stomping on the poor which creates equality:
Last edited:
