I think you should head over to the Energy sub-forum and join the NEM 3.0 conversation. Post your "2 losers and one winner" concept in that stickied thread over there. That way the mods don't think I'm just derailing this thread here.
But to answer your question about sizing a solar array... I'm taking the mindset at this moment for California right now under NEM 2.0. Under this program, homeowners have an annual true up to the extent their entire annual net consumption across their PG&E meter is 'net metered' against their entire annual net solar exports that went back across that same meter.
For some (like myself) the goal is to create a scenario where their home solar generates an amount of energy where
the energy exported to the grid minus the energy the home had to import from the grid equals zero across the true-up year. And yes, this means any solar-produced energy that the home contemporaneously uses in the daytime is automatically offset since it neither pushes energy to or pulls energy from the Grid.
But, I have 3 Powerwalls. The purpose of these as it relates to this thread is to allow my home to go through the entirety of the EV2-A shoulder and peak times (3pm to midnight). The extra objective of my PV+ESS is that my home doesn't put any stress on the grid at those times. The 39 kWh the 3 Powerwalls can hold can power my home even in the hottest of summer days where I don't put stress on the grid with my air conditioners and electric dinner meal prep.
However, my 3 Powerwalls are probably not very common. For homeowners who get solar now under a PG&E coverage area, they are allowed to size their solar array up to 110% of their home's prior year electricity consumption. The "grid" sort of becomes their solar battery, so most solar customers skip the battery. Of course, TMC has a lot of Tesla-nuts that get batteries too because they're cool. But TMC users aren't your average customer.
Under NEM 2.0, the homeowner required to 'net out' only during the contemporaneous moments of sun-up. The homeowner isn't required to somehow have their house consume all that solar power the moment it's generated. And, that's why homeowners by and large do not store energy on-site (Powerwalls) to be used later. But NEM 3.0 is different; it does create disincentives to export energy to the grid. So yes, several TMC users have been discussing how to minimize/throttle exports under NEM 3.0, since the latest proposed language does operate in a way more like how you are thinking about net metering.
Here's an example of the snippet of today's NEM 2.0 form from a TMC user in 2021. You can see this example home with a 7.556 kWp AC rated array at their exact geo-coordinates with a certain azimuth and tilt of panels will generate an estimated 12,573 kWh per year. But this home only used 5,104 kWh in the prior annual year (as reported by PG&E's greenbutton dataest). But, homeowners who are planning a modification that increases their annual electricity load are supposed to be allowed a "planned increase" addition; that PG&E is allowed to grant or deny at their discretion. In this case, the homeowner is trying to say they were getting an EV and doing some home upgrades to switch natural gas appliances to electric. In a crazy turn of events, PG&E authorized the solar array.
View attachment 788630
I was trying to get an extra 1,000 kWh on my proposal (25 panels instead of 22) and PG&E told me to go eff myself. And this was all before I really started to hate PG&E. Back when I started my project, I just wanted to net-meter my solar and add batteries for resiliency.
PG&E made my efforts the worst, which is why now I just straight up hate them.
