Lol you lucky. PG&E said it is >= ... so my peak of 13 kWh in the Greenbutton over 60 minutes = 2x Powerwalls only. Even if peak draw during that 60 minutes likely exceeded 15 kW over say a few minutes.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
SGIP Rebate Extension
- Thread starter slazinger_7
- Start date
Lol you lucky. PG&E said it is >= ... so my peak of 13 kWh in the Greenbutton over 60 minutes = 2x Powerwalls only. Even if peak draw during that 60 minutes likely exceeded 15 kW over say a few minutes.
I suppose it wouldn't be difficult to 'help' it along. 2 EV, 3 pool pumps, halogen pool lights, steam shower, treadmill, electric oven, microwave, central vac, crypto mining rigs, .... suspect I could use all of my 200A service and go for 8 x Powerwall if I really wanted. SCE would promptly freak and insist I upgrade to a 400A panel though.
But, with PGE, if you go over 5, then other stuff kick in which I am glad I avoided, even though I hit 36kwh twice in 60 minutes
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Which is super funny, because for most of the pandemic PGE allowed people to self certify for Medical Baseline without the normally necessary physician’s signature. The self certification is good for 2 years…
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
My equity resiliency project had all the same hoops that @holeydonut had to jump through… physical site inspection, discharge data, multiple rounds of paperwork being returned and resubmitted, etc etc. It’s a marathon.
For someone looking in from the outside, 5 free PWs just sounds crazy and jealously, sounds like a waste of $$ for basic medical/emergency needs during a critical power event. Course, if I got 5 free PWs or anything free, I may feel different, but still sounds crazy that this is how the program is ran again, as someone just looking in hoping to get a measley credit for a few % and still paying for the bulk of their storage.
The system is what it is and I don't fault anyone for signing up and getting what they can, but as someone annoyed with the whole program and the experience, it's painful to try to get any credit scraps from SGIP. My credit, if it ever comes is less than 1 PW.
The system is what it is and I don't fault anyone for signing up and getting what they can, but as someone annoyed with the whole program and the experience, it's painful to try to get any credit scraps from SGIP. My credit, if it ever comes is less than 1 PW.
Agreed ... it is crazy. It's nice to, for once, be on the good end of crazy though. Still, I don't want count my chickens until they hatch. I fully expect the rug will be pulled from under me and I'll be back here to post the QQ.
No way do I want them to reconsider my application nor would I want to wait for the additional 3 powerwall to arrive and risk getting put on NEM3.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Generally agree, the equity resiliency program in particular, while well intended, was terribly thought through. The people who could have benefited most were largely shut out of the program (few can front the $20k+ needed for potentially a year until the rebate check comes in) and there should have been some logical cap or decreasing benefit as the size of the install increases.
I mean, good on those who made it work for them - but I can’t see any way where 100% subsidizing a half dozen Powerwalls to help a wealthy person in a giant home ride out a power outage is a good use of public funds.
We are a SGIP beneficiary, so take this with a grain of salt.
As we all know, the grid in California is not reliable, and the power quality has been deteriorating for decades.
By subsidizing ESS, California avoided having more residents invest in gasoline, or diesel, or propane powered generators, with all of the associated emissions, and leaks.
To me, the sliding scale of reimbursement looks like a classic compromise by committee to cover folks with either low incomes (how many solar owners are "low income"? But I digress...) medical conditions, or dependent upon well water, or any one of the other criteria, such as frequent outages or PSPS events.
For a little perspective, to start a 5HP well pump reliably takes a generator with a capacity something on the order of 7-10X the running rating, that is to say 22-35kW, which is not a small unit, and will often run lightly loaded. (Can you do it with a smaller unit? Sure, but you can't do it reliably.) AC units are easier to start because they don't start against 100% load. Compared to modern cars, those generators are not clean burning engines. Personally, the call came down to a choice between a large diesel generator, with underground fuel storage or solar and Powerwalls. You can't store much propane on site for extended outages, and wildfire is a certain risk. We went with Powerwalls.
Would I have done it without the SGIP? Hard no. It just doesn't pencil out. A big diesel wins hands down. My neighbor went the other way and installed a 25kW generator and is now in the process of expanding their onsite propane storage from the 1,000 gallons they have to something larger.
Would a better investment for California have been grid improvements, e.g. sectionalizers, cable and tower maintenance, large scale ESS deployments distributed around the state to better support solar, and a grid designed for more micro grid support? No question in my mind. But that's not what the CPUC approved.
Over the years, I have come to realize that any system will be gamed by some people. Does/did SGIP make sense for a vacation home? Not to my mind, but the original rules allowed it and some folks followed those rules. Not the desired outcome, so the rules were rewritten. It is iterative.
All the best,
BG
As we all know, the grid in California is not reliable, and the power quality has been deteriorating for decades.
By subsidizing ESS, California avoided having more residents invest in gasoline, or diesel, or propane powered generators, with all of the associated emissions, and leaks.
To me, the sliding scale of reimbursement looks like a classic compromise by committee to cover folks with either low incomes (how many solar owners are "low income"? But I digress...) medical conditions, or dependent upon well water, or any one of the other criteria, such as frequent outages or PSPS events.
For a little perspective, to start a 5HP well pump reliably takes a generator with a capacity something on the order of 7-10X the running rating, that is to say 22-35kW, which is not a small unit, and will often run lightly loaded. (Can you do it with a smaller unit? Sure, but you can't do it reliably.) AC units are easier to start because they don't start against 100% load. Compared to modern cars, those generators are not clean burning engines. Personally, the call came down to a choice between a large diesel generator, with underground fuel storage or solar and Powerwalls. You can't store much propane on site for extended outages, and wildfire is a certain risk. We went with Powerwalls.
Would I have done it without the SGIP? Hard no. It just doesn't pencil out. A big diesel wins hands down. My neighbor went the other way and installed a 25kW generator and is now in the process of expanding their onsite propane storage from the 1,000 gallons they have to something larger.
Would a better investment for California have been grid improvements, e.g. sectionalizers, cable and tower maintenance, large scale ESS deployments distributed around the state to better support solar, and a grid designed for more micro grid support? No question in my mind. But that's not what the CPUC approved.
Over the years, I have come to realize that any system will be gamed by some people. Does/did SGIP make sense for a vacation home? Not to my mind, but the original rules allowed it and some folks followed those rules. Not the desired outcome, so the rules were rewritten. It is iterative.
All the best,
BG
RKCRLR
Active Member
It's how the government works. They take your money and you do what you can to get some of it back. I would have much preferred they left the money in my pocket in the first place for me to best determine how to spend it but that wasn't an option.
SGIP is a utility rate payer funded activity. Technically the non-solar-non-ESS customers are paying higher rates for these batteries. If you believe the NEM 3.0 narrative from the IOUs, then any time someone takes SGIP money, they just robbed some working class apartment dweller who can't even get ESS even if they tried.
HOW IS THE SELF-GENERATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM FUNDED?
SGIP is a utility ratepayer-funded program. It is paid by and available to utility ratepayers of SDG&E, SoCal Gas, SCE and PG&E
RKCRLR
Active Member
I agree SGIP is utility rate payer based funding, but are they funding the program on their own accord or is there a government requirement for them to have the program?SGIP is a utility rate payer funded activity. Technically the non-solar-non-ESS customers are paying higher rates for these batteries. If you believe the NEM 3.0 narrative from the IOUs, then any time someone takes SGIP money, they just robbed some working class apartment dweller who can't even get ESS even if they tried.
HOW IS THE SELF-GENERATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM FUNDED?
SGIP is a utility ratepayer-funded program. It is paid by and available to utility ratepayers of SDG&E, SoCal Gas, SCE and PG&E
Ratepayers and taxpayers ... suspect all of us are both, no? SGIP was authorized by the CPUC ... a regulatory agency. So SGIP is a government sanctioned program that takes in money (in this case via utility rate appropriation) and hands it back out per its policy goals. This feels like a distinction without a difference.SGIP is a utility rate payer funded activity. Technically the non-solar-non-ESS customers are paying higher rates for these batteries. If you believe the NEM 3.0 narrative from the IOUs, then any time someone takes SGIP money, they just robbed some working class apartment dweller who can't even get ESS even if they tried.
HOW IS THE SELF-GENERATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM FUNDED?
SGIP is a utility ratepayer-funded program. It is paid by and available to utility ratepayers of SDG&E, SoCal Gas, SCE and PG&E
Taxpayers usually have a vote on whether or not specific taxes are approved for initiatives like this at the local level. And voters have some way to affect their representatives that push for specific policies at the state level. Rate payers are asked to pay whenever the CPUC authorizes stuff that never goes to a vote. And I think all CPUC leaders are appointed or internally hired; not voted upon.
Also remember, some NEM customers aren't paying rates at all since they are basking in the glory of their mega solar arrays and only paying nominal NBCs (which do not include costs for programs such as SGIP). There is no convenient way to evade stuff that gets funded by a sales tax, excise tax, property tax, etc. @h2ofun is a taxpayer, but he isn't a ratepayer any more (for the next 19 years... then he'll have to become a ratepayer again).
But yeah I agree in general. Someone who gets an SGIP Battery is benefitting from others who aren't paying. Just like the bazillions of other public goods that benefit some but are paid for by all. Cost shifts FTW and FTL.
But my mega solar array cost me LOTS of money, and I probably will never have a ROI. I never ever would have done it under NEM 3.0
SGIP is the result of several CPUC proceedings to discuss how to promote distributed energy resource (DER) initiatives. The part of SGIP we frequently talk about on TMC is the residential-facing aspect. But overall I think the majority of funds actually went into non-residential and large-scale projects.
Technically California legislature set in motion certain targets in terms of renewable %, energy policy, cap and trade blah blah etc. So the DER initiatives are just parts to try and realize this overarching legislation.
I'm not sure who is embodied by your use of the pronoun "they" when you say "are they funding"... but the IOUs are the ones to execute SGIP. And as far as I can tell, the portion of SGIP that results in the IOUs incurring operating costs is part of the guaranteed monopoly ROI with the IOUs. So the IOUs are required to collect ratepayer money to subsidize the actual SGIP payments for our fancy Powerwalls. But then the IOUs are technically incentivized to execute SGIP in the least efficient way possible so they can get 10.23% on all their overhead dollars to make the magic happen.
So yeah, Tesla benefits by selling lot of Powerwalls to people in fire prone regions paid for by poor apartment dwellers. And PG&E gets to make 10.23% when they have 1,000 extra headcount to administrate the project which creates lots of jobs! I guess It's a win-win for everybody in the long run because the California reaches its combined goals that technically are in everyone's best interest.
RKCRLR
Active Member
The government makes the rules, I just play by them to the best of my ability.
Similar threads
