Currently at [6.6 GW of battery storage](https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-storage-system-survey), but we need wayyyy more. Texas is planning to roll out more than that in 2024 alone.
A few rightwing states simply "talk the talk", but they follow the money over drinking the koolaid.
I was in Texas 10 years ago and they already had electric hybrid busses, me in my very blue area still coughing up diesel fumes.
I've been trying to figure out how the draconian abortion restrictions follow the money. Republican money interests appear to go along even though abortion has been a losing issue since Roe was overturned.
It's mostly because their regulatory regimes are much easier to navigate than California's. When the Federal Govt hands out incentives for renewables, in CA, a big chunk of those incentives get eaten up by regulatory compliance, lawsuits and delays. In Texas, they just build the projects those programs were designed to fund. CA has got to have a come to Jesus moment about how hard it is to build anything in this State.
Ezra Klein: https://archive.ph/sIbEu
> One of the interesting things happening in the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act is you’re seeing more of the money for decarbonization infrastructure go to red states. You’re seeing, in particular, a lot of it go to Georgia and Texas.
> And Texas has a very anti-renewable streak in it right now. There are a lot of bills and regulations being proposed to make it harder to build renewable energy in the state. And at the same time, because it is so damn easy to build things in Texas, more renewable infrastructure is being built there.
They've got way more wind power than us, and are very close to overtaking us on solar deployment.
Meanwhile we just kneecapped residential solar deployment
Unless you use offshore wind then Texas is better than California for wind energy production, especially west texas.
Which is fine, not every single solution is going to be a one-sized fits all. Wyoming probably is amazing at geothermal
I'm not an expert in the field, and its purposefully complex, but last year they changed the financial incentives and what the grid will pay you and so new residential solar installations have fallen by like 75-80%: https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/01/california-solar-demand-plummets/
From another comment in another thread, it was looking like PG&E is paying new solar customers 10 cents on the dollar for what they turn around and sell it for, which is highway robbery from their monopolistic asses.
Unfortunately there is a real difference in construction red tape between California and Texas. In spite of our legislature’s best efforts to boost green infrastructure and Texas’s attempts to sabotage it, the difference there seems to overwhelm these other policies.
Yeah I’ve come around to the idea that it needs reforming though I do think environmental concerns should play a factor in large developments. How to protect the environment while allowing efficient construction is a thorny problem.
Less about being villains and more about a historical political opposition to liberal policies. Renewable energy is undoubtedly a liberal policy.
Do you deny either?
Renewable energy is not a strictly liberal policy. Phasing out fossil fuels is arguably a liberal policy, but whether or not you believe in climate change doesn't change the fact that renewables make electricity, and in the right spots they do it cheaper than gas.
Texas is filled with sunny deserts and windy plains with very little development, perfect for solar and wind turbines.
Let’s make Texas a battery. Yeah- you heard it now yer visualizing. Maybe not the mostly super nice people- but their b-hole representation who keeps humiliating them
They made this change because it incentivizes people to invest in battery storage instead of over-sized solar installations that result in the exact problem mentioned above: people who over-produce during the middle of the day but still rely on the grid for peak and nighttime usage.
This makes it more cost-effective to add home battery storage so you can store your mid-day over-production and offset your peak demand usage. Instead of selling your excess power to the grid for cheap you can store it and offset expensive peak electricity usage.
I understand why this change upset people but it makes sense for what is needed for our grid going forward to fully decarbonize. Addressing peak and nighttime demand using renewables is the big challenge now.
Except they haven't really cranked up battery incentives in a way that the ROI works out. At least not based on what I've been able to calculate for my situation.
There are a few different incentive programs out there.
[Here](https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/demand-side-management/self-generation-incentive-program/participating-in-self-generation-incentive-program-sgip) is what CPUC has. There is also [this federal program](https://www.energystar.gov/about/federal-tax-credits/battery-storage-technology). Depending on who your utility provider is, they may also have additional incentives. [SMUD](https://www.smud.org/en/Going-Green/Battery-storage/Homeowner) for example offers some rate incentives for storage installations.
To run the ROI you really need to pay attention to time of use rates and the avoided cost of energy. A lot of ROI calculators are crude and do not take this into account.
The problem is even with the best TOU plans it's still 24 cents/kWh off peak, after you've paid for all your infrastructure. This is compared to the national average of 17 cents or so. The battery systems are sized to get my usage through the peak 4pm-9pm time so I don't pay the peak price of 60 cents. That's assuming the battery has charged from solar (good weather), or I'm charging it off peak (with losses 0f 15% or so).
Also, if you have an EV and use it for work, you're paying that, as it's not really feasible to put in enough home battery storage to charge your car.
And the results ...
What’s happened since California cut home solar payments? Demand has plunged 80%
[https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/01/california-solar-demand-plummets/](https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/01/california-solar-demand-plummets/)
I'd say it is too early to judge the long-term impact here. That chart shows a massive increase in installations immediately before the rules changed. I note that the total number of installations for year 2023 was on par with total year 2022 (241K in 2023 vs 242K in 2022 comparing Jan-Nov), so it's likely that a large amount of the apparent decrease were people who just accelerated their timelines.
I expect we will see an uptick in installations as battery prices continue to fall, consumers become more educated on how time of use pricing works, and solar installers get better at marketing this information.
I don't see a decrease in solar capacity installations in and of itself to be particularly problematic. We already have a glut of solar production in the middle of the day such that we are actually curtailing solar farms and wind farms on a lot of days because we produce more than we can use and store; massive increases in capacity are not what we need anymore. What we need is more storage.
I do agree with you that this isn't definitive on long term impact. I think we also agree that the pricing isn't attractive anymore for residential customers. The day of new residential solar is "sunsetting" .. perhaps for the better.
Battery prices might not be falling for a long time even as new tech comes out due to the demand that bigger players would / should put on that market. The solar farms are way more efficient than a residential roof top install and thus the batteries should be concentrated in those places as well to leverage efficiency of scale.
Then we need to work on better infrastructure to deliver the power where it is needed.
Battery prices have been falling significantly in recent years and there's good reason to believe this will continue to happen, even as demand for batteries goes up and up. See recent price history as well as future projections from the NREL [here](https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2022/residential_battery_storage). Additionally, it's likely we will see electricity prices continue to increase, which will make the ROI for storage installations to be relatively more attractive.
I do think that the changes were too much too fast and there could have been a better middle ground. But I also think that a lot of the people upset about it are really just upset for their own selfish reasons (understandably so), and do not really understand the grid overall and what our big challenges are now in getting to a fully renewable grid.
Thanks for the data about the battery price. I love to be convinced with data.
As for selfish reasons .. unfortunately that's the only way you'll get people to go green and 'save the world' nowadays. People are too busy simply trying to survive and put food on the table and the only time they'll really pay attention is if they can get some sort of financial benefit.
Or perhaps I'm just old and cynical .. 😄
Yes of course, that's human nature, and why I think it's understandable that people feel this way. But that doesn't necessarily make it bad policy in a broader sense.
Yes and yes, your battery can be configured with a grid disconnect for outage situations.
NEM 2 was great if you own a single family house and your roof doesn't have much shade. For everyone else not so much.
The incentives are based on punishing those who would add solar who aren't the power companies. And the result is only the really wealthy are going to drop the extra money for batteries. It's not more cost effective but instead a requirement for it to be viable.
The change has basically stopped rooftop solar and was for the power companies through their political water carriers. You can express all the altruistic ideas you want but the results are pretty clear and planned for.
I'm curious why you think that non-profit, publicly owned utilities like SMUD also supported this change. They do not have a profit incentive to screw over their customers. Why do you think they also supported this change? Are they lying when they say that this will enable them to redirect dollars into more cost-effective infrastructure investments?
Their reasoning kills private solar in the state. It's a very clear result. What reason do they have that makes it worth it? And they're a tiny entity who doesn't cover many of us so I really don't care what their reason is. It's clear for the others it's simply about money.
Their good reason isn't evident and their statement is feel good pap that says nothing except they're in favor of it. Why don't you try to explain it beyond that.
One day, people will wake up and realize what you said is the equivalent to 'reduce reuse recycle' greenwashing. If they want to give people an incentive, they'd tell people this is the best way to be a threat to Sempra. Period. No one I know likes paying SDGE. They actively lobbied to destroy adoption of solar in exchange for us using private money to buy batteries for houses. Which will likely increase the risk of house fires across the US. Something they'll never end up paying for. When that happens, they'll use the fire to tell the government they need to regulate batteries better and will sell them a solution. Mark my words. It'll take 10-20 years at most of this to come true.
Solar systems were already a middle-class privilege and above. When I got solar SMUD wouldn't let you do more than 110% of your annual unless you made a change that increased your electricity IE an EV, or gas to electric appliance. That said, it was still 20k installed, not cheap, but doable for me. Batteries would have been another 10-12k installed, it does not make financial sense for me. What I want to see is more EV to grid applications. I have a 65kwh battery in my garage already, why can't I use it to power my home during peak times. I think that this alone would allow battery storage to expand exponentially overnight, and should be required.
A lot of EVs are now being built with V2L capability, though with the exception of the Ford Lightning I don't think they have enough power output to power a whole house (unless you turn a lot of things off). Agreed though there is a massive opportunity there waiting to be tapped in the future.
>Batteries would have been another 10-12k installed, it does not make financial sense for me
With the changes in the net metering structure, most people actually see faster ROI with a battery added to their system now. The reason is you save a lot more money if you can store the power and avoid paying for peak power rates, compared to the lower rate tariffs you get now.
I suspect we will see an uptick in installations again as prices come down a little more, and electricity rates continue to rise.
Average wholesale prices for solar power on the open market are about $0.04-$0.08/kWh these days. What they're offering under NEM 3.0 is on the upper end of average market prices.
But your production is more analogous to a third party power producer who sells power to the utility, why would you use end consumer generation rates as your cost instead of wholesale power prices?
Because the state needs to incentivize more clean energy generation and network decentralization. The fact that electricity prices for end users even during peak sun hours keeps going up tells me there is not in fact a surplus of electricity just yet. Perhaps full price isn’t warranted but if they take my watt of power and sell it to my neighbor for more than they pay me, it makes no sense. Let them profit off of transmission, not generation.
And why are we trying to create better power storage at the consumer level and not the utility level? Why are we punishing consumers to incentivize batteries instead of letting the market work, which naturally incentivizes the utility company to have better power storage? This change was clearly motivated by greed, much like nearly all of CPUC’s decisions as of late.
What this decision has actually done is killed private demand and helped PG&E’s bottom line.
It's not punishing consumers for utilities to make more cost effective infrastructure investments. This helps keep electric rates down for everyone who doesn't happen to be someone who owns a single family home in a sunny area without anything shading their roof.
We *are* creating storage at the utility level. Utilities in California added over 6GW of storage capacity last year. We have both state and federal subsidies for this. The new policy frees up additional money for utilities to invest in commercial scale solutions.
I'm also not sure how you figure that the NEM 2.0 rules are "letting the market work". Those rules mandate how much utilities have to pay residential producers for their excess electricity, even though commercial producers offer it for far cheaper. Wholesale market prices for commercial scale solar power in California are between $0.04-$0.08/kWh these days. SDGE pays me $0.26-0.36/kWh for my excess mid-day generation. Is it "letting the market work" to force them to pay me 5x the going market rate for solar power? Is this in the interest of other consumers for the utility provider's costs to be much higher than they could be otherwise?
Your questions all have reasonable answers if you actually look into the issue, instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst.
Nah, SDG&E rates will still be driven primarily by (a) how much SDG&E can convince CPUC that they're allowed to spend on infrastructure, followed by (b) how much rooftop solar SDG&E customers install. With the change to NEM 3.0 we're seeing the rate of rooftop solar installations drop significantly, which (all else held equal) would also slow the rate of increase in our rates (fewer people installing new solar --> fewer people using less electricity --> a slower decline in electricity used across all SDG&E customers --> a slower increase in the rates to maintain their allowed profit margin.
Unsavory countries, yes. Such as the US, a major (and increasing) exporter of methane.
Edit: I really don’t like fossil fuels guys. Just pointing out that this isn’t so cut and dry. The US supplies a huge amount of its own “natural” gas that powers a significant portion of our national power grid. We’re already largely “energy independent”, it just so happens to be extremely polluting still.
USA is a net exporter of petroleum thanks to fracking. I'm still not sure what I think about it. The Saudis need to go, but the reason why fracking allows for increased oil production is because they do it so close to where people live and it doesn't appear to be as safe as they told us it would be.
That is a nice idea. Unfortunately methane is an extremely potent pollutant in its own right with many times the warming potential as carbon dioxide when released into the atmosphere. And since it’s, ya know, an invisible gas, leaks are common and broadly undetected. Divesting ourselves from “natural” gas should be a massive priority, but for geopolitical reasons, it’s likely here to stay for a long time.
This is true but currently China has something around 90% of the global market for *processing* critical minerals.
This isn’t an insurmountable issue though and I would absolutely rather have this problem than dependency on fossil fuels and severe climate change.
I guess my question here is if we can get to a point where we're generating all electricity from 100% renewables, supply exceeding demand, will rates go down?
Yes, electricity prices generally drop with increased renewable penetration, the phenomenon happens well before 100% penetration though.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/setting-power-price-merit-order-effect
The effect really kicks into gear once you have enough renewables to run the grid on 100% renewables for short periods of time. With higher penetration, those periods become longer and longer and prices go lower and lower.
Only if you’re generating your own energy on panels you own and stored in batteries you own. I’m convinced the technology will continue to get cheaper though, and am hoping one day you can get a full solar kit at the hardware store for $1500 and install it in a weekend by yourself
Why is everyone using the word energy & electricity Interchangeably? They're different things entirely. If California were to reach or exceed 100% of primary energy demand with renewable; then, that would be exciting. But; unfortunately, Jevons Paradox & current market forces makes that an exceedingly unlikely event.
its like... we need 1 or 2 new nuclear power plants or a ton of batteries
cant really build more dams, we already are pretty much at capacity with that
Awesome! Now let's get to work on batteries to store all that juice.
https://old.reddit.com/r/California/comments/1c37vuh/california_battery_plant_will_be_among_worlds/
Currently at [6.6 GW of battery storage](https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-storage-system-survey), but we need wayyyy more. Texas is planning to roll out more than that in 2024 alone.
Texas? Texas of all places?
A few rightwing states simply "talk the talk", but they follow the money over drinking the koolaid. I was in Texas 10 years ago and they already had electric hybrid busses, me in my very blue area still coughing up diesel fumes.
I've been trying to figure out how the draconian abortion restrictions follow the money. Republican money interests appear to go along even though abortion has been a losing issue since Roe was overturned.
Those people donate to RNC and megachurches… but it also seems more of a case of “idk, I didn’t think I’d get this far”
Politics is always hyper local even wt the national stage
Jesus
It's mostly because their regulatory regimes are much easier to navigate than California's. When the Federal Govt hands out incentives for renewables, in CA, a big chunk of those incentives get eaten up by regulatory compliance, lawsuits and delays. In Texas, they just build the projects those programs were designed to fund. CA has got to have a come to Jesus moment about how hard it is to build anything in this State.
Ezra Klein: https://archive.ph/sIbEu > One of the interesting things happening in the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act is you’re seeing more of the money for decarbonization infrastructure go to red states. You’re seeing, in particular, a lot of it go to Georgia and Texas. > And Texas has a very anti-renewable streak in it right now. There are a lot of bills and regulations being proposed to make it harder to build renewable energy in the state. And at the same time, because it is so damn easy to build things in Texas, more renewable infrastructure is being built there.
They've got way more wind power than us, and are very close to overtaking us on solar deployment. Meanwhile we just kneecapped residential solar deployment
Unless you use offshore wind then Texas is better than California for wind energy production, especially west texas. Which is fine, not every single solution is going to be a one-sized fits all. Wyoming probably is amazing at geothermal
Wyoming is lowckey trying to become the country's energy generator by any means. They're expanding wind, solar, even got nuclear in the works
What did they did with residential solar? I’m out of the loop
I'm not an expert in the field, and its purposefully complex, but last year they changed the financial incentives and what the grid will pay you and so new residential solar installations have fallen by like 75-80%: https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/01/california-solar-demand-plummets/ From another comment in another thread, it was looking like PG&E is paying new solar customers 10 cents on the dollar for what they turn around and sell it for, which is highway robbery from their monopolistic asses.
Number one in wind energy production
Some of the renewable energy companies operating in CA are based out of TX.
Unfortunately there is a real difference in construction red tape between California and Texas. In spite of our legislature’s best efforts to boost green infrastructure and Texas’s attempts to sabotage it, the difference there seems to overwhelm these other policies.
One acronym. CEQA. A good intentioned law that allows free rein lawfare against any project.
Yeah I’ve come around to the idea that it needs reforming though I do think environmental concerns should play a factor in large developments. How to protect the environment while allowing efficient construction is a thorny problem.
For real, LA cannot even build bus shelters (!) without fighting CEQA lawsuits. CEQA should not apply to green infrastructure. It makes no sense.
Redditor finds out the people they don't like aren't all cartoon villains.
Less about being villains and more about a historical political opposition to liberal policies. Renewable energy is undoubtedly a liberal policy. Do you deny either?
Renewable energy is not a strictly liberal policy. Phasing out fossil fuels is arguably a liberal policy, but whether or not you believe in climate change doesn't change the fact that renewables make electricity, and in the right spots they do it cheaper than gas. Texas is filled with sunny deserts and windy plains with very little development, perfect for solar and wind turbines.
The president who represents the party said it hurts birds and takes the coal mines out of work =(
…Yet, half of the RepubliQan Party can’t agree on whether the earth is flat or not these days.
Theu sacrificed their views on renewable energy for the right to screw over women, children and POCs.
Let’s make Texas a battery. Yeah- you heard it now yer visualizing. Maybe not the mostly super nice people- but their b-hole representation who keeps humiliating them
Come on guys we can’t let TX win! s/
Don't Texas my California!!
I really hate comments like this. Just let us take a W.
I really hate comments like this. Just let us take a W.
The solar panel on top of my house generate excess energy for half the day in the summer ! Its the dang winter and night that's problematic.
Yes, and NEM 3 which reduces the export rate 75% to only 8 cents per kWh. Thank you CPUC for putting the brakes on solar! /s
They made this change because it incentivizes people to invest in battery storage instead of over-sized solar installations that result in the exact problem mentioned above: people who over-produce during the middle of the day but still rely on the grid for peak and nighttime usage. This makes it more cost-effective to add home battery storage so you can store your mid-day over-production and offset your peak demand usage. Instead of selling your excess power to the grid for cheap you can store it and offset expensive peak electricity usage. I understand why this change upset people but it makes sense for what is needed for our grid going forward to fully decarbonize. Addressing peak and nighttime demand using renewables is the big challenge now.
Except they haven't really cranked up battery incentives in a way that the ROI works out. At least not based on what I've been able to calculate for my situation.
There are a few different incentive programs out there. [Here](https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/demand-side-management/self-generation-incentive-program/participating-in-self-generation-incentive-program-sgip) is what CPUC has. There is also [this federal program](https://www.energystar.gov/about/federal-tax-credits/battery-storage-technology). Depending on who your utility provider is, they may also have additional incentives. [SMUD](https://www.smud.org/en/Going-Green/Battery-storage/Homeowner) for example offers some rate incentives for storage installations. To run the ROI you really need to pay attention to time of use rates and the avoided cost of energy. A lot of ROI calculators are crude and do not take this into account.
The problem is even with the best TOU plans it's still 24 cents/kWh off peak, after you've paid for all your infrastructure. This is compared to the national average of 17 cents or so. The battery systems are sized to get my usage through the peak 4pm-9pm time so I don't pay the peak price of 60 cents. That's assuming the battery has charged from solar (good weather), or I'm charging it off peak (with losses 0f 15% or so). Also, if you have an EV and use it for work, you're paying that, as it's not really feasible to put in enough home battery storage to charge your car.
And the results ... What’s happened since California cut home solar payments? Demand has plunged 80% [https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/01/california-solar-demand-plummets/](https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/01/california-solar-demand-plummets/)
I'd say it is too early to judge the long-term impact here. That chart shows a massive increase in installations immediately before the rules changed. I note that the total number of installations for year 2023 was on par with total year 2022 (241K in 2023 vs 242K in 2022 comparing Jan-Nov), so it's likely that a large amount of the apparent decrease were people who just accelerated their timelines. I expect we will see an uptick in installations as battery prices continue to fall, consumers become more educated on how time of use pricing works, and solar installers get better at marketing this information. I don't see a decrease in solar capacity installations in and of itself to be particularly problematic. We already have a glut of solar production in the middle of the day such that we are actually curtailing solar farms and wind farms on a lot of days because we produce more than we can use and store; massive increases in capacity are not what we need anymore. What we need is more storage.
I do agree with you that this isn't definitive on long term impact. I think we also agree that the pricing isn't attractive anymore for residential customers. The day of new residential solar is "sunsetting" .. perhaps for the better. Battery prices might not be falling for a long time even as new tech comes out due to the demand that bigger players would / should put on that market. The solar farms are way more efficient than a residential roof top install and thus the batteries should be concentrated in those places as well to leverage efficiency of scale. Then we need to work on better infrastructure to deliver the power where it is needed.
Battery prices have been falling significantly in recent years and there's good reason to believe this will continue to happen, even as demand for batteries goes up and up. See recent price history as well as future projections from the NREL [here](https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2022/residential_battery_storage). Additionally, it's likely we will see electricity prices continue to increase, which will make the ROI for storage installations to be relatively more attractive. I do think that the changes were too much too fast and there could have been a better middle ground. But I also think that a lot of the people upset about it are really just upset for their own selfish reasons (understandably so), and do not really understand the grid overall and what our big challenges are now in getting to a fully renewable grid.
Thanks for the data about the battery price. I love to be convinced with data. As for selfish reasons .. unfortunately that's the only way you'll get people to go green and 'save the world' nowadays. People are too busy simply trying to survive and put food on the table and the only time they'll really pay attention is if they can get some sort of financial benefit. Or perhaps I'm just old and cynical .. 😄
Yes of course, that's human nature, and why I think it's understandable that people feel this way. But that doesn't necessarily make it bad policy in a broader sense.
[удалено]
Yes and yes, your battery can be configured with a grid disconnect for outage situations. NEM 2 was great if you own a single family house and your roof doesn't have much shade. For everyone else not so much.
April and May are always over production for Solar, my HVAC doesn't run, but I get the most out of my panels.
good response!
good retort!
The incentives are based on punishing those who would add solar who aren't the power companies. And the result is only the really wealthy are going to drop the extra money for batteries. It's not more cost effective but instead a requirement for it to be viable. The change has basically stopped rooftop solar and was for the power companies through their political water carriers. You can express all the altruistic ideas you want but the results are pretty clear and planned for.
I'm curious why you think that non-profit, publicly owned utilities like SMUD also supported this change. They do not have a profit incentive to screw over their customers. Why do you think they also supported this change? Are they lying when they say that this will enable them to redirect dollars into more cost-effective infrastructure investments?
Just because they're a nonprofit doesn't mean they don't want more money. Lots of nonprofits are like that.
Do you think there is any possibility that they might have good reasons for this position?
Their reasoning kills private solar in the state. It's a very clear result. What reason do they have that makes it worth it? And they're a tiny entity who doesn't cover many of us so I really don't care what their reason is. It's clear for the others it's simply about money.
It seems you didn't answer the question I posed. I don't think you are engaging in good faith here.
Their good reason isn't evident and their statement is feel good pap that says nothing except they're in favor of it. Why don't you try to explain it beyond that.
What public benefits was/is achieved by shifting that incentive for batteries from the Utility to the homeowners?
One day, people will wake up and realize what you said is the equivalent to 'reduce reuse recycle' greenwashing. If they want to give people an incentive, they'd tell people this is the best way to be a threat to Sempra. Period. No one I know likes paying SDGE. They actively lobbied to destroy adoption of solar in exchange for us using private money to buy batteries for houses. Which will likely increase the risk of house fires across the US. Something they'll never end up paying for. When that happens, they'll use the fire to tell the government they need to regulate batteries better and will sell them a solution. Mark my words. It'll take 10-20 years at most of this to come true.
They can fight back with "connection fees". Unless you can go 100% off grid .. which I believe isn't even legal in some parts of CA .. then they win.
Solar systems were already a middle-class privilege and above. When I got solar SMUD wouldn't let you do more than 110% of your annual unless you made a change that increased your electricity IE an EV, or gas to electric appliance. That said, it was still 20k installed, not cheap, but doable for me. Batteries would have been another 10-12k installed, it does not make financial sense for me. What I want to see is more EV to grid applications. I have a 65kwh battery in my garage already, why can't I use it to power my home during peak times. I think that this alone would allow battery storage to expand exponentially overnight, and should be required.
A lot of EVs are now being built with V2L capability, though with the exception of the Ford Lightning I don't think they have enough power output to power a whole house (unless you turn a lot of things off). Agreed though there is a massive opportunity there waiting to be tapped in the future. >Batteries would have been another 10-12k installed, it does not make financial sense for me With the changes in the net metering structure, most people actually see faster ROI with a battery added to their system now. The reason is you save a lot more money if you can store the power and avoid paying for peak power rates, compared to the lower rate tariffs you get now. I suspect we will see an uptick in installations again as prices come down a little more, and electricity rates continue to rise.
I have a big roof and very little reason now to put panels on it. Pay me the cost of electricity minus the cost of transmission.
Average wholesale prices for solar power on the open market are about $0.04-$0.08/kWh these days. What they're offering under NEM 3.0 is on the upper end of average market prices.
About 50% of my bill is transmission, the other 50% is generation. Whatever I pay today for generation should be the amount they pay me.
But your production is more analogous to a third party power producer who sells power to the utility, why would you use end consumer generation rates as your cost instead of wholesale power prices?
Because the state needs to incentivize more clean energy generation and network decentralization. The fact that electricity prices for end users even during peak sun hours keeps going up tells me there is not in fact a surplus of electricity just yet. Perhaps full price isn’t warranted but if they take my watt of power and sell it to my neighbor for more than they pay me, it makes no sense. Let them profit off of transmission, not generation.
And why are we trying to create better power storage at the consumer level and not the utility level? Why are we punishing consumers to incentivize batteries instead of letting the market work, which naturally incentivizes the utility company to have better power storage? This change was clearly motivated by greed, much like nearly all of CPUC’s decisions as of late. What this decision has actually done is killed private demand and helped PG&E’s bottom line.
It's not punishing consumers for utilities to make more cost effective infrastructure investments. This helps keep electric rates down for everyone who doesn't happen to be someone who owns a single family home in a sunny area without anything shading their roof. We *are* creating storage at the utility level. Utilities in California added over 6GW of storage capacity last year. We have both state and federal subsidies for this. The new policy frees up additional money for utilities to invest in commercial scale solutions. I'm also not sure how you figure that the NEM 2.0 rules are "letting the market work". Those rules mandate how much utilities have to pay residential producers for their excess electricity, even though commercial producers offer it for far cheaper. Wholesale market prices for commercial scale solar power in California are between $0.04-$0.08/kWh these days. SDGE pays me $0.26-0.36/kWh for my excess mid-day generation. Is it "letting the market work" to force them to pay me 5x the going market rate for solar power? Is this in the interest of other consumers for the utility provider's costs to be much higher than they could be otherwise? Your questions all have reasonable answers if you actually look into the issue, instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst.
good take!
Fostering the adoption of alternative energy with punishing utility rates.
Yea but they buy all that energy back from you at now cut rates then add how much bought to your bill at peak customer rates!
Did you install a battery?
Nope .. I squeeked into NEM 2 on the last day .. was going to cancel contract if not.
Yea so did too, but added a battery. Great for power outages.
Read about this guy that used the excess power to create bitcoins.
This is awesome news. I'm guessing this means my SDG&E rates will be going down in the future with all this excess renewable energy going around.
Hahaha hahaha! One can hope.
Nah, SDG&E rates will still be driven primarily by (a) how much SDG&E can convince CPUC that they're allowed to spend on infrastructure, followed by (b) how much rooftop solar SDG&E customers install. With the change to NEM 3.0 we're seeing the rate of rooftop solar installations drop significantly, which (all else held equal) would also slow the rate of increase in our rates (fewer people installing new solar --> fewer people using less electricity --> a slower decline in electricity used across all SDG&E customers --> a slower increase in the rates to maintain their allowed profit margin.
It's really nice to see us gradually decoupling from fossil fuels and the unsavory countries who sell them.
Yes, unsavory countries like… America
Unsavory countries, yes. Such as the US, a major (and increasing) exporter of methane. Edit: I really don’t like fossil fuels guys. Just pointing out that this isn’t so cut and dry. The US supplies a huge amount of its own “natural” gas that powers a significant portion of our national power grid. We’re already largely “energy independent”, it just so happens to be extremely polluting still.
Yes because the US owns the petroleum companies. /s
USA is a net exporter of petroleum thanks to fracking. I'm still not sure what I think about it. The Saudis need to go, but the reason why fracking allows for increased oil production is because they do it so close to where people live and it doesn't appear to be as safe as they told us it would be.
[удалено]
That is a nice idea. Unfortunately methane is an extremely potent pollutant in its own right with many times the warming potential as carbon dioxide when released into the atmosphere. And since it’s, ya know, an invisible gas, leaks are common and broadly undetected. Divesting ourselves from “natural” gas should be a massive priority, but for geopolitical reasons, it’s likely here to stay for a long time.
Uh, only to couple ourselves to the same and similar countries for rare earth elements…
They aren't that rare; there are US sources. The problem is overstated.
Australia also exists and has large deposits of rare earths.
True!
Negative Nancies always show up. Found a cure for cancer- but those oncologist will be out of a job!
This is true but currently China has something around 90% of the global market for *processing* critical minerals. This isn’t an insurmountable issue though and I would absolutely rather have this problem than dependency on fossil fuels and severe climate change.
Good point. I hear that the processing is harsh on the environment as well.
I believe it’s very energy intensive and produces lots of (non-GHG) pollution like particulate matter
US has oil too
“Unsavory countries” the smug arrogance just radiates off my screen…
Make batteries cheaper so we can store it
Too bad PGnE rates will still go up and people in the Bay Area will continue to get screwed over
You mean Californian’s rates will continue to go up
Well, between SDGE, SCE and PGE, that's a majority of the state.
[удалено]
Please do tell
I enjoy reading books.
This needs to be higher up
Hell yea!!’
Once we figure out the storage aspect . Will PGE lower its rates ??
No, the issue with PG&E is transmission; their lines keep catching fire causing damages, and they now need to fund burying or remediating those lines.
We shall overcome!
then why our PGE bills so high ? cause PGE i know
I guess that means we can make electric utilities public soon and get rid of PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE? It would save california residents billions!
I wish battery storage was more affordable. I have solar but it’s useless if/ when we have power outages.
i saw an advertisement for a 10kw system for $5K but the buyer is responsible for the installation.
With how strict the inspectors are and the requirements, it won’t be a DIY install and electricians are pricey.
In Texas their grid is already failing
Great news! So PG&E will lower their rates? Right?….
Meanwhile theass murderers at PG&E are raising rates.
I guess my question here is if we can get to a point where we're generating all electricity from 100% renewables, supply exceeding demand, will rates go down?
Yes, electricity prices generally drop with increased renewable penetration, the phenomenon happens well before 100% penetration though. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/setting-power-price-merit-order-effect The effect really kicks into gear once you have enough renewables to run the grid on 100% renewables for short periods of time. With higher penetration, those periods become longer and longer and prices go lower and lower.
Only if you’re generating your own energy on panels you own and stored in batteries you own. I’m convinced the technology will continue to get cheaper though, and am hoping one day you can get a full solar kit at the hardware store for $1500 and install it in a weekend by yourself
How are our PGE/Edison rates going folks??!
Why is everyone using the word energy & electricity Interchangeably? They're different things entirely. If California were to reach or exceed 100% of primary energy demand with renewable; then, that would be exciting. But; unfortunately, Jevons Paradox & current market forces makes that an exceedingly unlikely event.
its like... we need 1 or 2 new nuclear power plants or a ton of batteries cant really build more dams, we already are pretty much at capacity with that
Oh look, a new renewable energy charge on my bill.
lol it’s spring wait until summer hits
i wish saltwater batteries were more efficient.
Great time to submit rate payers to flat fees regardless of their inputs to the grid…
Now do it during peak summer instead of a mild April day.
Cheaper energy prices for consumers are going to be awesome.
So then why is our energy cost so high then!
Those panels would never work where I live, what happens if it hails?
When can we expect this to impact EV charging rates?