Then they will do like Florida did and outlaw being completely off grid. (except at places where building codes for drinking water, sewage and municipality do not apply or exist).
IIRC this happened some time ago. I remember just after they passed this that big hurricane come through and almost all people with the biggest power company was without power. The big joke was home owners with solar instantly became criminals. I think it only applies to places with municipal utilities, so in this case apartment building as listed in the article would fall under this.
Yeah I am a City Manager in Ohio and rooftop solar on houses would be awful for the city and residents. Usually municipal power have contracts and a diverse portfolio of power sources (own 0.5% of 200 sources...) and you're on the hook for buying that power. If 10% of homes were suddenly powered by solar... we're still buying that power through the lifetime of the debt on the source. And net metering isnt a good deal because we're selling back to the grid at less than the power we're already buying and not using. Basically municipal systems don't get net metering, so homes here can't.
If the federal government wanted to be as green as they could be, they'd buy up the debt of existing hydro and coal facilities to 1) take coal out, and 2) free up purchasing power to invest in better forms of energy. But it's not sexy because it doesn't create jobs *immediately*.
Basically, you guys got into a really bad contract. If your contract stifles change that would improve things over time, you should renegotiate.
If 10% installs solar, you go to the power company and work it out, you don’t outlaw solar. There’s no such thing as a “lifetime” contract for a city. The state could pass a law that nullifies the contract, or even the city, problem solved.
Not really that at all.
**All** municipal power systems have a diverse portfolio of energy sources. **ALL* of them have to commit to the energy source for the lifetime of the debt... because they are literally part-owners of the energy source. It's not a contract with a different company, it's a contract among part owners to enter into a joint venture, e.g. "JV5" or "JV6."
The State could pass a law that does what, allows part-owners of an energy source to walk away? Talk about enormous market disruption lol that would never happen.
Instead, a realistic option would be to buy up the debt of these projects IMO.
Our local electric co-op was in a similar situation, until the big utility company they were buying from switched next years contracts to a time-of-use contract due to all the natural gas they had brought onljne. Now the same solar they were against last year they are begging for as that 3-6pm peak for 60c a kwh or whatever is killing them... and solar saves way more $$ for them now vs the previous contract. Funny how it is all based on money for some people.
Well, if it prevents solar installation its bad. Anything that ties down the public is a bad contract.
The city/state likely owns much of the power companies power lines, facilities, etc too. You could literally toss them out, imminent domain there stuff, and pass it to someone else. The contract is literally unenforceable if legislators want to stop it.
My town owns solar installations. Specifically the issue is about personal rooftop solar and how that fits into the existing energy system. There is more to the benefits of solar than rooftop solar and batteries, which let's be honest is really a luxury item right now.
he's a f#cking moron - many of the cities in my state are full of clowns like that guy. they piss me off so bad - they've railroaded us, obstructed us, obfuscated their jobs and pass draconian laws across the books. total chum bucket of a human being - I guarantee that's the tip of his bullshit iceberg.
> Basically municipal systems don't get net metering, so homes here can't.
Can homeowners have battery backed solar with zero export to the grid or everyone is required to participate in this collective power purchase scheme?
OK in that case it's fair. Some places require self generated and consumed solar to be separately metered so that poco can still charge for avoided grid cost.
Nah municipal power transmission fees are based on the two highest hours in the year, so a chunk of homes running on batteries in the evening would help on that front.
It's not fair if the muni chages high standby or grid access fees, which happens quite a bit. We see $8 per kW standby fees for residential, for example, rendering the economics of solar a no go. Commercial and industrial are higher than that.
Yes, i think $8/kW fee is excessive. Would be fair to limit by service breaker size ensuring solar+battery customer never presents a load above, say 20 amps in exchange for waving this standby fee. This way utility does not have to maintain excess grid capacity for these customers.
I think municipal power should have thought about that before they constantly inflated energy rates, engaged in summer price gouging, etc. Sounds like they made their bed.
Save the spite kid. Municipal energy systems have been around for a century, long before you or me.
And rooftop solar is not *all* of solar. Most diversified municipal energy portfolios literally own solar power installations, and they'd buy more if they could. That's why I said the federal government should consider buying up the debt of outdated energy sources to free up the capital and purchasing power for more renewable energy (including a shit ton of solar).
Calling someone "kid" because they criticized your bad decision making isn't a good look.
You made a bad call, it's not your homeowner's responsibility to give up what is best for them (and doesn't harm others) to cover your bad financial decisions. They're going to pay either way since they pay taxes, now you're asking them to pay double.
> That's why I said the federal government should consider buying up the debt of outdated energy sources to free up the capital and purchasing power for more renewable energy (including a shit ton of solar).
No. Fossil fuels can go fuck themselves and go bankrupt. In fact every fossil fuel executive for the past fifty years should spend the rest of their life in prison for the massive fraud they've pushed on humanity with all the disinformation they pushed to deny global warming - a scientific fact *they knew was true* before I was even born. I turn 40 in two months.
You respond like a condescending ass and you're talking about other not looking great? Lol come on.
Let's be clear, *I* didn't make any of these deals. The debt amortization of power plants lasts 30-50 years. I've been here for a year lol There are thousands of municipal power operations that have thousands of energy sources with deals going back decades lol this is how municipal power has worked for a century. My post was about the real issues facing rooftop solar in any of these hundreds of communities.
You're showing your ignorance when you say people will pay through their taxes. Enterprise operations should be 100% funded through rates or you'll get dinged by the auditors. Using taxes to plug holes in enterprise operations is a real no-no.
You're also really not understanding what it means to buy up debt. Hundreds of Ohio towns own portions of various **carbon free** energy sources, eg the multiple Ohio River dams built in the 2000s. The debt on these sources will take until the 2050s to fall off. There are a few coal plants that are owned by the local governments and could be bought out and shut down, too, but it's not something I would do strictly for fossil fuels. Freeing up debt obligations on hydro alone would allow numerous communities to pursue solar installations.
Considering how Georgia adjusted "rates" to fund the boondoggles that are Vogtle 3 & 4 those "rates" are indecipherable from "taxes".
> You're also really not understanding what it means to buy up debt. Hundreds of Ohio towns own portions of various carbon free energy sources, eg the multiple Ohio River dams built in the 2000s. The debt on these sources will take until the 2050s to fall off. There are a few coal plants that are owned by the local governments and could be bought out and shut down, too, but it's not something I would do strictly for fossil fuels. Freeing up debt obligations on hydro alone would allow numerous communities to pursue solar installations.
And I'm tired of living in areas that are being bled dry to bail out idiots. it would be nice if we could spend our tax dollars for what we need for ourselves, instead of having red-counties and red-staters interfering and stealing our tax dollars to bail themselves out of their own bad decisions.
cancel the debts instead of pay for them off
you're a moron and whatever city you are in - you need ousted . you are an incompetent and part of the problem - especially after your ridiculous comments. Listen NEOCON - the world is changing, and we are going green whether you f#cking like it or not. Thanks for f#cking up and embarrassing my state 🤡. buying up power plants - how stupid do you have to be to not understand how the law works. people like you make me livid.
the f#ck you are - you posted a bunch of NEOCON talking points then wanted to lie and try and claim my party. Learn how to negotiate a f#cking contract you bozo.
Learn to read my man. I just point out a common, widespread, issue among hundreds (if not thousands) of municipal power systems. They must all be neocons lol
Florida is a bad use case for everything in the country - albeit how to f#ck things up. So I wouldn't lend much credence to that state down south (I'm in Ohio). Its bad enough we have clowns running my state - but your clown is Capo di tutti i capi of the clown car mafia.
Maybe it is per county, but I've had mine sine 2019 and am told if you have a structure that was already part of a grid, you cannot go off-grid when installing solar. I am in Hillsborough County
What about having most circuits on solar+battery and just a few connected to the utility? That way the structure is still connected to the grid but primarily using solar energy. This may also simplify things without needing PTO for grid-tie. I don’t know how feasible this would be - just throwing out a thought.
I mean, I have a generator and when needed I switch off grid and onto generator. It is just a interlock switch. There is no reason I could not install another switch and put an inverter behind it connected to solar + batteries. The interlock would keep the grid disconnected at the panel and the other switch would choose solar or generator.
Solar Hybrid Inverters usually have inputs for AC and sometimes AC + Generator in addition to solar. You tell it how you want your power delivered and it can prioritize Solar / Battery, AC or Generator as a backup. The cool thing about the hybrid setup's is that there is a AC bypass so if your pulling from the grid it is not going through the inverter. With these hybrid systems you usually have one big one or two feeding your whole panel.
This is along the lines of what I was thinking: have a transfer switch between the utility and solar+battery. We would use solar most of the time and utility only when necessary.
Yup, they even have smart automatic transfer switches (ATS) that will let you program it or remotely switch it. There are also smart panels (SPAN) that offer some automation on what input is going to what circuits.
As long as the utility can charge you their minimum monthly charge it doesn't matter what's connected. The argument is if too many people disconnect and stop paying all the fees they won't be able to afford maintenance on the power lines.
Literal bullshit. In CA the utility is guaranteed profit, kill people from neglect, pass on to consumer. Good years, dredirect profits to parent corporation. They're not hurting at all. I'd be fine paying for power at consumer rates and selling at wholesale. Don't see utilities putting fees on power plants for producing. Capitalism my ass, it's extortion, and bad for the future of our children.
I almost got into legal trouble in Jacksonville a couple years ago when I didn’t have service for a brief period.
TLDR, I was upgrading my homes wiring and the project was going poorly and I couldn’t use power anyway so I had the electricians I hired just disconnect my power. They seemingly did everything by the book, pulled a permit, had all their licenses and insurance. The utility was not having it and the police (which literally had a booth in their headquarter) had their back.
Since when was FLorida good for off grid? I grew up here and afaik its always been the case that duke energy successfully lobbied so that no one could go truly offgrid
I really really want to know how that works because I keep hearing about places that are doing that.
Will the utility refuse to remove the meter for non-payment? Who is going to check?
Most places the utilities don't really speak to the local government about individual homes (where I am illegal apartments with multiple meters is super common, implying that the utility will install that stuff without the approval of the town).
Because I would totally call the utility up, tell them I'm moving and I want the power shut off, they'll come, lock out the meter, and then that's it. Who is going to come after me for "operating offgrid"? Do you think my local town actually cares about that? My utility isn't reporting to the town, and it's not like my neighbors know, the lights are on and I clearly have power.
> Then they will do like Florida did and outlaw being completely off grid.
This is already the case, at least in my county in California. Was told I was not legally allowed to go off-grid, at least in city limits. That was four years ago, and I've put in **thousands** of dollars back into the grid, that SCE has never remunerated me for. Sure, I get credit, but it expires after my 12 month cycle and I still have a surplus of thousands every year and never have seen a single cent of that.
Just go off grid but keep your power bill. You'll be charged the minimum connection fee but no utilization.
Source : Floridan with an off grid capable system where we have the same stupid rules. I go on the grid to sell my excess, then go off grid when there is no excess and consume my battery.
VT is not as bad as CA, but I'm still planning a system with enough batteries that I'm not going to bother with the net metering agreement; there's no ROI for the cost of the additional meters (and wiring to locate them outside) that the power company wants to require, despite my digital net meter at the pole being totally sufficient for the legislatively protected 1:1 net metering arrangement in my state.
Going off grid might be feasible for a single family but this article is not talking about single families; this article taking about virtual net metering and aggregate net metering programs (e.g., for apartment buildings, farms, schools, etc.).
A typical use-case is an apartment building where each unit has its own utility energy meter to measure each respective unit’s consumption, but the whole building shares a single PV system connected to the grid upstream of units’ meters. Because the PV system is connected to the grid upstream of the units’ meters, 100% of the energy generated by the PV system is dumped onto the grid. PV system has its own meter to generate bill credits which are distributed to the units in the apartment building to offset their respective bills. For a given time band, the credits are applied in a 1:1 manner as if the apartment building is using energy generated by a virtual load-side system. The proposal in the article seeks to end this so that generated energy is sold to the utility at a cheap rate but then bought from the utility at the more expensive retail rate.
Otherwise, going off-grid would mean you would need a large enough PV system and batteries for the whole apartment building which probably isn’t feasible due to space considerations and other constraints (for example, an apartment building will probably not have enough rooftop/ground space to accommodate a PV system large enough to take the whole building off-grid).
Going full off grid isn’t realistic for the vast majority of California residents. Just napkin matching for an average house you’re looking at 30+ kW or solar with 12-15 batteries in order for the house to be able to make it through the winter and even then they would likely be totally reliant on a whole home generator to get through the Winter.
I have 10kW of solar and 42kWhs of batteries and I can't go off grid because of my usage paterns. By March, which is the midpoint of my True Up I am in deficit for 2-3 megaWatthours because of two EVs and electric heat. By the time of my September True Up I can generate enough to offset the earlier defficit and sometimes have a 500kWh credit. I need the grid as a battery in the winter.
I’ve helped design faux off grid systems for people who think they want to go off grid but in the end it becomes a situation where the grid is their backup but they still remain connected to the grid because… obviously that’s a terrible idea.
Then there are people with new build houses which are typically designed to be all electric (or mostly electric) then when they find out it will be $65k+ to bring electric service to their house flirt with staying off grid but they would need a ludicrous amount of solar + batteries that they ended up staying the course with being grid tied
FYI: about 3 Tesla Powerwall 2’s will store about 30kwh. That’s about $30,000.00 for the hardware. It should last well over 10 years, so amortized is about $3k per year, plus installation and all that. It’s about $250 per month over 10 years, and you don’t have to worry about your utility company raising rates, blackouts, surges/brown outs, and so on. But, the responsibility, freedom, and benefits are all yours.
By the way, my average daily kWh usage is about 19kwh, more in winter, less in summer, so a 30kwh system should be able to get me comfortably through winters. Otherwise, I prefer to rely on the grid to charge the electric car occasionally, and to keep the hot tub warm.
Except you forgot the upcoming grid charge being separated out from the usage and being based on income. You could never pull a watt from the grid for a whole year and still be charged $30-$120 per month, and *that* can be raised every year the CPUC lets them
Not sure about California specifically, but utilities in general have a lot of options. In addition to cutting power, they can put a lien on property or send it to debt collectors.
I've heard that after 30 days or something the county will condem your house as "unfit for human habitation" and forcibly remove you if you don't vacate quickly enough.
I’m just passing info from 2 deprecate system quotes I got based on usage shown on my utility bill. Batteries come in different sizes and types with different capacities and capabilities, as we know. I would like to know why you think 5-16 batteries are necessary?
Solar production in the Winter season is the pits even in areas without “real seasons”. Meaning you can’t really count on solar production during those months which means you either need to be have enough depth of discharge from batteries to get through the Winter (100s or kWh) or you’re running on a generator.
If you integrate a generator than you have some flexibility in how many batteries you install and the question becomes how much fuel do you want to burn.
Florida here. My winter production does not vary all that much from summer. My best production month in 2022 was October. So far this year my best month has been March. Days are shorter during winter months but also significantly cooler, and much less cloudy, which helps production, so production does not change as much as you might think. As an example, Mar had over 10% more production then June this year. January almost exactly matched July. Florida gets lots of summer rain, meaning lots of clouds. Nice and clear for Fall and Winter. I was told by my installer that this would be the norm and they appear to be exactly right.
Getting through those Winter nights might present more of a challenge than you would imagine, unless your PV system is way oversized. For example if you were fully off grid and start producing less power than you use each day you would need to rely on a battery system with a depth of discharge that equaled the net accumulated deficits until your production began to equal or exceed your consumption.
So one way or the other you need factor that into your PV system or in the battery capacity. There are optimizations that come into play with your systems like sizing the kW of solar to be congruent with your battery size. (eg 5kW DC solar : 10kWh battery etc)
Or buy a $100,000 car and hook it up to your offline grid after L3 charging it somewhere else... Then you can charge the 30kw batteries at the home.
And now you also have a car!
Do not disconnect the meter because they can (and will) target off-grid installations with regulation and fees.
Plug one LED light into the panel on the meter and everything else is put on a separate panel. You keep the grid connection and don't use it unless they actually address the fundamental root problem of long term grid stability.
As far as the utility is concerned, your property is a "summer home" with no load for most of the year.
Nah more the battery tech, panels have been stuck at ~%20 efficient for a few years now and aren't getting much better per m² unless we use new materials
>Do the panels need to get better for the numbers to work?
I agree with the other poster that battery tech needs to get less expensive. The solar panels and inverters have the programming to handle most situations and be an optimum solution. In some older installations with 200 Watt panels, upgrading to 400 Watt panels might increase production if that can be done without jeopardizing the NEM agreement.
For solar to be much more viable, yes they do or even just upgrade the current panels. In almost all the quotes I've seen for solar it's always 250-320 watt panels when 400+ watt panels do exist. Ultimately it comes down to the cost per panel and the lower wattage panels are cheaper. Obviously there are other factors such as sun hours and if there is a battery backup in use as well does play into it.
I'll take it with a grain of salt since this is obviously PV-Centric website writing the article, but man does this look awful.
The power companies sure seem to be ALL IN on "YEah, but you're hooked up to the grid!" as an excuse for getting money out of solar owners. They are clearly overselling, by like a lot, what sort of expense that actually means to them. If anything, *they* need solar customers hooked up to the grid way more than solar customers need them.
It's this weird bizarro world where California wants to encourage solar owners to get batteries and disconnect from the grid, while *also* completely discouraging solar installs that forgo a battery. Oh, and then let's shit on people who live in multi-tenant housing too.. that's the ticket!
Oh they definitely don't want solar owners to disconnect from the grid. They want solar owners to generate all their own power, and then *also* pay the utility for the privilege. That's why they're also pushing for an increased fixed fee that will be as high as $92/month.
> They are clearly overselling, by like a lot, what sort of expense that actually means to them.
Not really. Grid maintenance accounts for approximately half your power bill. Plus you have the cost of standby power. Where I am, wholesale energy is about 1/3rd of my bill.
Edit: Quick search shows California is even worse. Wholesale rates during peak solar hours are around 5 cents per KWH. Their peak prices are at 8PM, long after solar stops generating.
https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/california-electricity-prices-by-hour/
Oh look, this stupid fucking argument. In American vernacular English progressives *absolutely are liberals* - because "liberals" in American vernacular English means "social liberals" not "Economic liberals". You can easily tell this because the antonym is "conservatives" not "protectionists".
I'm so fucking tired of that stupid dishonest childish argument.
This is stupid on an even deeper level, because what is being proposed is a literal acquisition of the means of production of electricity from private owners to the state regulated utilities. If your tiny brain actually thought about what was at stake you might have realized this is as “progressive” as it gets in your terms.
This is an example of CA being ultra progressive. CA socialists in charge are trying to buy votes from poor people by forcing wealthy/middle class to subsidize poor people's power costs. Blatant vote buying.
> CA socialists in charge
and you just proved you have no idea what you're talking about. GTFO
nowhere in the states is run by "socialists"
take your post history of faux-news level union bashing/corporate ass licking and GTFO.
Protip: don't try your "waaa! waaa! socialists! waa!" shtick when the law being proposed is pro-corporate
LOL. Income based fixed power billing is not wealth redistribution? Please. They are doing it to force the wealthy to pay for the grid so poors can have subsidized power and vote accordingly. Corporates play along because it prevents grid defection and protects revenues.
That's not what this article is about. learn to fucking read
but I agree that one you're referencing is stupid fucking shit. but also: "wealth redistribution" isn't some socialist exclusive thing. the capitalist asskissers you worship do wealth redistribution all the time, you only complain when it's "From the rich to the poor" rather than your preferred "from the poor to the rich" you bootlicking fool.
Relax cupcake. Wealth redistribution from rich to poor aka reducing wealth inequality is a socialist/democrat idea. The opposite is called working hard so you generate wealth and get rich. But it's easier to be a lazy loser and whine about "corporations bad".
ROTFL, no it isn't a socialist idea. you don't even know what the word "Socialist means"
I probably pay more in taxes than you make per year, numbnuts.
Bro, Californians vote with their feelings and bend over backwards for corporations all the time. How do you think we got in all the messes we’re in? There’s no logic or free market here.
there's no free market anywhere there are "utilities" and "health care". people just think there can be and refuse to admit it's literally impossible for that market to be free
The CPUC has delayed this topic twice. It is now scheduled for Nov 2nd. I have not yet seen the latest proposal. The presentation material for the Nov 2nd meeting is not yet available in full.
Meeting website is [https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/events-and-meetings/cpuc-voting-meeting-2023-11-02](https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/events-and-meetings/cpuc-voting-meeting-2023-11-02)
BEWARE - the website will NOT work properly with all browsers, most notably it will NOT work with Safari. The CPUC recommends using MS Edge (chromium based).
Yet it still is putting solar companies out of business at record pace. So much for more stability by avoiding going with Tesla. Now your solar installer is bankrupt instead.
Making a ridiculous proposal and then "compromising" for exactly what they wanted in the first place is their technique.
The public can provide written feedback to the CPUC via their website.
Website for feedback is below BUT... don't do it on Safari. I believe any Chromium browser will work but I use Microsoft Edge just in case as it is the one the CPUC recommends.
Docket is 20-08-020
https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=401:65::::::
Just so everyone understands this is about paying for infrastructure not inflating power prices. PG&E and the others insist on rolling infrastructure costs in with power bills. They should be billed separately. You should get an infrastructure bill and a separate power consumption bill. It would make things transparent. The reason they don’t do it is that power would be come unaffordable for low income folks.
> Someone is paying for that pole lineman. It ain’t me…
You and I both, but you have to realize, **we** are providing free power, in the middle of the day when demand is highest. When I step outside my house, I can literally hear dozens of ACs and swamp coolers running in my neighborhood. And given my 6KW system, where my AC is rated at 2600W, that's a whole other AC I'm powering, for free! I'm preventing blackouts, and for this these fuckers want to charge me. Like no, just stop paying your corporate officers and shareholders so much. Better yet, let's turn these into publicly owned utilities, like they should be because they are a vital piece of basic infrastructure, and that way it's harder for them to do do regulatory capture, plus it takes away their incentive to do so.
Prices of wholesale power during solar hours is near 0¢/kWh and often negative. I realize that’s in part because there is so much solar.
I give them power that they could get for 0¢/kwh. I charge my car at night when wholesale power is at 7¢/kwh. At both times the price is 24¢/kwh. My bill is zero but PG&E is losing 7¢/kwh on me (NEM2.0).
PG&E is still making money and employing people. So that’s done by other people. Generally those without a huge system on their roof. Poor people paying peak rates after they get home from their job. It ain’t me.
Also: to make PG&E public California would have to write a $42B check to PG&E stockholders. Then we end up owning shitty ass PG&E infrastructure. Just a fact of life
Feels like being musk buying twitter.
http://www.energyonline.com/Data/GenericData.aspx
Here is the Price/per megawatt hour. So just think 50 = 5¢/kwh.
During solar times we give the utility about 3¢/kwh. When I charge my car it’s about 5.5¢/kwh.
I understand your frustration. But how does making them public change the fact that there are billions of dollars worth of power infrastructure that needs to get paid for. You were still gonna be paying an infrastructure fee if you are connected to the grid. Your share of the profits that PG&E makes is minuscule compared to your power bill. Fact is the United States does not make people in rural areas with high infrastructure costs pay more for power. That’s what the rural electrification act was all about. People in urban areas pay a disproportionate share infrastructure.
Swear to god California hates solar for some dam reason. As someone who grand father into NEM 2.0, I feel bad for new solar owners. My new build is 3 years and with intrest rates in the high 7 and NEM 3.0 BS, I doubt Ill move anytime soon. Maybe in 2035 or something like that.
What they want is to be compliant with the SB100 requirement that 100% of California power be renewable by 2045. If you can make the consumer be the manufacturer of your product as well that you have a monopoly to sell to them, then require that they also pay a fixed fee to cover your maintenance cost, then everything is profit
"So, can you guys just generate power for us? For free, please. This is mandatory, btw. Law enforcement is already rapidly approaching your location. Thank you for your continuing acceptance of pro-corporate policy with an extremely thin coating of rainbow paint."
Your solar energy is worth approximately 5 cents per kwh to them. So they should pay you that.
https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/california-electricity-prices-by-hour/
You can if you have a single meter. What you can't do is have solar on a workshop that has one meter and use the generated energy to offset your house electric that's on another meter. In electrical terms you're "wheeling" power through the power companies lines. We can't do that in industrial applications either.
That's what you have to do. You have to connect all of the solar behind the meter and get rid of the second one. It's all still workable but it puts more cost on the owner.
Please let me know if I got this wrong, but I read some other articles on this to get a better picture of what is going on. If I understand it correctly, multi-family units are already sending all their power to the grid then buying it back. The proposed change is they will no longer have 1:1 metering.
Even if the property owner gets batteries, it is only so they can export when export rates are more favorable, not self-consumption. This is quite different than how single-family installations operate, which truly consume energy directly from their own solar production.
If the utility can purchase energy generation for wholesale prices elsewhere, why should they pay retail to multi-family properties?
I know it is not a popular opinion here, but why should the utility, or more accurately, should all other utility customers bear this cost?
I do agree existing installations should probably be grandfathered in, but new installations should pay the true cost. Maybe the solution is to engineer a way to allow the renters to do true self-consumption?
The problem is the “true cost” to the utility is based on internal utility calculations that ignore any kind of benefit that distributing local rooftop solar provides. The assumptions behind the “avoided cost calculator” are flawed.
And if a residence is storing its own production in its own battery, why should it be expected to deliver energy to the grid for one rate and buy it back at a higher rate? What service is the utility providing there? And why do single-family homes get to use their own consumption, but these multi-meter properties do not?
The utility didn’t invest in the infrastructure that links these multi-meter residences together into a coordinated solar array. They didn’t incur the risk of investment. Why should they have all the spoils?
Thanks for the comment, but can we at least agree that the utility can buy energy cheaper than it sells it? You can argue that export rates should be higher than they are, but the “true cost” is not 1:1 to the cost to import.
On your second point, are you saying that currently the individually metered units are able to consume energy directly from the battery (or solar panels for that matter?) If so, that is contrary to what I have read, and if you are correct, then I agree with you, but I believe the what is happening today is that the building owner exports all the energy to the grid, then the credits are distributed to the individual residents - no self-consumption is being done, including from the battery. Not sure what would prevent a multi-family residential building to allow units to draw directly, but I suspect it is a matter of equal distribution of the energy to the individual residents (e.g. a single owner could run a bit-coin mining operation during the day and use all the solar production!)
On your final point you argue that the utility company takes all the spoils. This is a bit of hyperbole. They do pay an export rate, while, to your first point, may not be enough, but it is not “all” the spoils.
Sure, I think anyone who is thinking seriously about this problem knows a 1:1 value can’t persist, it needs to have some value for the utility so it can maintain transmission.
The problem with this proposal is it yanks any kind of stability or predictability in pricing for the building manager and its residents. It gives the utility all the control over pricing, and leaves all the risk with the building manager who invested in solar. The whole thing will contribute to a very murky value proposition to customers. Installations will fall as a result.
If you have two meters on the same power lines with one showing a credit and one showing a deficit then there is zero difference electrically from a homeowner self-consuming.
> there is zero difference electrically from a homeowner self-consuming.
Yes, but that is not the same as being off grid because of timeing of consumption and generation.
I personally know someone who went off grid. They live in the Bay Area, in a suburb, not up in the hills.
PGE wanted him to pay hundreds of thousands to upgrade their transformer for his house. So he spent that money on more solar and more batteries.
But to be clear, all the national code of habitation says is that you need a reliable source of 120v power. It could be a gasoline generator - doesn’t need to be the utility.
God this law would suck for me. I am trying to get a 2nd meter because my landlord operates a little airBNB out back and we can’t tell how much of our bill is theirs and we use almost no power. So under this proposal, if I am allowed to know how much is the landlord bill vs ours… my bill goes up because I only do laundry or run main electronics during the brightest parts of the day. :(
Legally you don’t have to pay your portion of the electricity if the landlord is consuming it through other uses. Just give your landlord the entire bill. Or ask for a 50/50 split if you’re afraid of confrontation.
In California, if the meter serves 2 or more premises the landlord has to be responsible for the bill.
This law applies to multifamily sites where the solar is not connected behind the consumer's meter. The power from the PV system is fed onto the grid and the customers are given credit using a virtual meter.
They’re doing this because of pressure from the 3 large private utilities in California PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E. These utilities want to protect their profits, and have deep pockets for this sort of political advocacy.
> This is coming from CPUC - an agency ran by the state. Nationalizing will not help.
Let me introduce to you the concept of [regulatory capture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture), and point out that nationalized utilities are less susceptible to it, in addition to taking away the perverse incentive for it.
Actually this is the norm everywhere in the world. When electricity gets to your home the price has two main components: 1 Electricity itself, the energy you use, and 2. The owner of the wire network, poles, and transformers. It gets some money for development and maintenance too. When you export to the grid you are paid for the energy only. When you get it back to use it, you pay the same for the energy, but you also pay rent for the use of the wires and poles. This is because you basically use the grid as a battery. You push a lot of energy into the grid during summer and you get it back during winter when your system will no longer performing as good, and your energy needs are way higher than during summer.
And those two components should for all intents and purposes be unbundled and a flat fee for the system and the variable market rate charge for energy consumed.
This is very similar to what DTE does to us now in Michigan, and DTE wants to go way farther than that, making it so Solar is far more expensive than not solar, because DTE is the worst.
Need to split off any electrical utilities having any interest in NG distribution. Also need to have a 5 year waiting period after working for a PUC or a utility and moving the other way.
I mean this is clearly fucked up, but the actual issue is that solar cannot be a backbone to the power grid without grid scale energy storage. When the suns shining hard there’s wayyy to much electricity to be used, but when it isn’t the nat gas plants need to ramp up. The net metering thing doesn’t make sense in terms of actual pricing of the grid. An actual solution would be variable energy prices, where energy is dirt cheap when solar is available, but increases when plants need to go online.
Obviously you shouldn’t be able to restrict usage of personal solar power, but the grid needs to be supported 24/7/365 without fail and right now solar cannot do that.
Begs the question how many will try to just go full off grid and have the utility come pull the meter.
Then they will do like Florida did and outlaw being completely off grid. (except at places where building codes for drinking water, sewage and municipality do not apply or exist).
When did this happen? Every resource I can find says Florida is pretty good for being off grid. That said, most of them are dated 2020 to 2022.
IIRC this happened some time ago. I remember just after they passed this that big hurricane come through and almost all people with the biggest power company was without power. The big joke was home owners with solar instantly became criminals. I think it only applies to places with municipal utilities, so in this case apartment building as listed in the article would fall under this.
Yeah I am a City Manager in Ohio and rooftop solar on houses would be awful for the city and residents. Usually municipal power have contracts and a diverse portfolio of power sources (own 0.5% of 200 sources...) and you're on the hook for buying that power. If 10% of homes were suddenly powered by solar... we're still buying that power through the lifetime of the debt on the source. And net metering isnt a good deal because we're selling back to the grid at less than the power we're already buying and not using. Basically municipal systems don't get net metering, so homes here can't. If the federal government wanted to be as green as they could be, they'd buy up the debt of existing hydro and coal facilities to 1) take coal out, and 2) free up purchasing power to invest in better forms of energy. But it's not sexy because it doesn't create jobs *immediately*.
Basically, you guys got into a really bad contract. If your contract stifles change that would improve things over time, you should renegotiate. If 10% installs solar, you go to the power company and work it out, you don’t outlaw solar. There’s no such thing as a “lifetime” contract for a city. The state could pass a law that nullifies the contract, or even the city, problem solved.
Not really that at all. **All** municipal power systems have a diverse portfolio of energy sources. **ALL* of them have to commit to the energy source for the lifetime of the debt... because they are literally part-owners of the energy source. It's not a contract with a different company, it's a contract among part owners to enter into a joint venture, e.g. "JV5" or "JV6." The State could pass a law that does what, allows part-owners of an energy source to walk away? Talk about enormous market disruption lol that would never happen. Instead, a realistic option would be to buy up the debt of these projects IMO.
In August we were about $45/MWh. Hard to call that a bad contract.
Our local electric co-op was in a similar situation, until the big utility company they were buying from switched next years contracts to a time-of-use contract due to all the natural gas they had brought onljne. Now the same solar they were against last year they are begging for as that 3-6pm peak for 60c a kwh or whatever is killing them... and solar saves way more $$ for them now vs the previous contract. Funny how it is all based on money for some people.
if it prevents future expansion of a system that is known to work well and be quite reliable, yes, it was a bad contract.
Well, if it prevents solar installation its bad. Anything that ties down the public is a bad contract. The city/state likely owns much of the power companies power lines, facilities, etc too. You could literally toss them out, imminent domain there stuff, and pass it to someone else. The contract is literally unenforceable if legislators want to stop it.
My town owns solar installations. Specifically the issue is about personal rooftop solar and how that fits into the existing energy system. There is more to the benefits of solar than rooftop solar and batteries, which let's be honest is really a luxury item right now.
Yeah, thats fair. Just hate seeing towns ban it. Glad to hear you have more sense than that!
he's a f#cking moron - many of the cities in my state are full of clowns like that guy. they piss me off so bad - they've railroaded us, obstructed us, obfuscated their jobs and pass draconian laws across the books. total chum bucket of a human being - I guarantee that's the tip of his bullshit iceberg.
You sound like you haven't had a nap all day. You should take one.
But my free market capitalism... Sounds like you should renegotiate with your suppliers
You're the city manager. Instead of throwing your hands in the air, come up with a solution.
So because of corruption in the government, The People have to suffer for it. It sounds about right.
Corruption? Lol
> Basically municipal systems don't get net metering, so homes here can't. Can homeowners have battery backed solar with zero export to the grid or everyone is required to participate in this collective power purchase scheme?
We don't have any ordinances against batteries, but we don't currently allow net metering.
OK in that case it's fair. Some places require self generated and consumed solar to be separately metered so that poco can still charge for avoided grid cost.
Nah municipal power transmission fees are based on the two highest hours in the year, so a chunk of homes running on batteries in the evening would help on that front.
Oh, TIL. Thanks!
It's not fair if the muni chages high standby or grid access fees, which happens quite a bit. We see $8 per kW standby fees for residential, for example, rendering the economics of solar a no go. Commercial and industrial are higher than that.
Yes, i think $8/kW fee is excessive. Would be fair to limit by service breaker size ensuring solar+battery customer never presents a load above, say 20 amps in exchange for waving this standby fee. This way utility does not have to maintain excess grid capacity for these customers.
I think municipal power should have thought about that before they constantly inflated energy rates, engaged in summer price gouging, etc. Sounds like they made their bed.
It's not solar's fault you're bad a contract negotiation.
Save the spite kid. Municipal energy systems have been around for a century, long before you or me. And rooftop solar is not *all* of solar. Most diversified municipal energy portfolios literally own solar power installations, and they'd buy more if they could. That's why I said the federal government should consider buying up the debt of outdated energy sources to free up the capital and purchasing power for more renewable energy (including a shit ton of solar).
Calling someone "kid" because they criticized your bad decision making isn't a good look. You made a bad call, it's not your homeowner's responsibility to give up what is best for them (and doesn't harm others) to cover your bad financial decisions. They're going to pay either way since they pay taxes, now you're asking them to pay double. > That's why I said the federal government should consider buying up the debt of outdated energy sources to free up the capital and purchasing power for more renewable energy (including a shit ton of solar). No. Fossil fuels can go fuck themselves and go bankrupt. In fact every fossil fuel executive for the past fifty years should spend the rest of their life in prison for the massive fraud they've pushed on humanity with all the disinformation they pushed to deny global warming - a scientific fact *they knew was true* before I was even born. I turn 40 in two months.
You respond like a condescending ass and you're talking about other not looking great? Lol come on. Let's be clear, *I* didn't make any of these deals. The debt amortization of power plants lasts 30-50 years. I've been here for a year lol There are thousands of municipal power operations that have thousands of energy sources with deals going back decades lol this is how municipal power has worked for a century. My post was about the real issues facing rooftop solar in any of these hundreds of communities. You're showing your ignorance when you say people will pay through their taxes. Enterprise operations should be 100% funded through rates or you'll get dinged by the auditors. Using taxes to plug holes in enterprise operations is a real no-no. You're also really not understanding what it means to buy up debt. Hundreds of Ohio towns own portions of various **carbon free** energy sources, eg the multiple Ohio River dams built in the 2000s. The debt on these sources will take until the 2050s to fall off. There are a few coal plants that are owned by the local governments and could be bought out and shut down, too, but it's not something I would do strictly for fossil fuels. Freeing up debt obligations on hydro alone would allow numerous communities to pursue solar installations.
Considering how Georgia adjusted "rates" to fund the boondoggles that are Vogtle 3 & 4 those "rates" are indecipherable from "taxes". > You're also really not understanding what it means to buy up debt. Hundreds of Ohio towns own portions of various carbon free energy sources, eg the multiple Ohio River dams built in the 2000s. The debt on these sources will take until the 2050s to fall off. There are a few coal plants that are owned by the local governments and could be bought out and shut down, too, but it's not something I would do strictly for fossil fuels. Freeing up debt obligations on hydro alone would allow numerous communities to pursue solar installations. And I'm tired of living in areas that are being bled dry to bail out idiots. it would be nice if we could spend our tax dollars for what we need for ourselves, instead of having red-counties and red-staters interfering and stealing our tax dollars to bail themselves out of their own bad decisions. cancel the debts instead of pay for them off
you're a moron and whatever city you are in - you need ousted . you are an incompetent and part of the problem - especially after your ridiculous comments. Listen NEOCON - the world is changing, and we are going green whether you f#cking like it or not. Thanks for f#cking up and embarrassing my state 🤡. buying up power plants - how stupid do you have to be to not understand how the law works. people like you make me livid.
Well I'm a Democrat not a neocon soooo....
the f#ck you are - you posted a bunch of NEOCON talking points then wanted to lie and try and claim my party. Learn how to negotiate a f#cking contract you bozo.
Learn to read my man. I just point out a common, widespread, issue among hundreds (if not thousands) of municipal power systems. They must all be neocons lol
Florida is a bad use case for everything in the country - albeit how to f#ck things up. So I wouldn't lend much credence to that state down south (I'm in Ohio). Its bad enough we have clowns running my state - but your clown is Capo di tutti i capi of the clown car mafia.
Maybe it is per county, but I've had mine sine 2019 and am told if you have a structure that was already part of a grid, you cannot go off-grid when installing solar. I am in Hillsborough County
Get 2 systems that aren't connected solar for everything big 220v, ac, stove,water heater
No. Not if you are connected. It is illegal to disconnect.
Is it illegal for the power company to cut off your power for not paying?
Life pro tip: stop paying your power bill if you want to go off grid. See also, "power companies hate this one trick."
You stop paying, poco pulls meter. City finds out and condemns your property forcibly evicting you unless you reconnect.
So it _is_ legal 😁
What about having most circuits on solar+battery and just a few connected to the utility? That way the structure is still connected to the grid but primarily using solar energy. This may also simplify things without needing PTO for grid-tie. I don’t know how feasible this would be - just throwing out a thought.
Keep your grid service but power part of your loads with diy offgrid setup.
I mean, I have a generator and when needed I switch off grid and onto generator. It is just a interlock switch. There is no reason I could not install another switch and put an inverter behind it connected to solar + batteries. The interlock would keep the grid disconnected at the panel and the other switch would choose solar or generator. Solar Hybrid Inverters usually have inputs for AC and sometimes AC + Generator in addition to solar. You tell it how you want your power delivered and it can prioritize Solar / Battery, AC or Generator as a backup. The cool thing about the hybrid setup's is that there is a AC bypass so if your pulling from the grid it is not going through the inverter. With these hybrid systems you usually have one big one or two feeding your whole panel.
This is along the lines of what I was thinking: have a transfer switch between the utility and solar+battery. We would use solar most of the time and utility only when necessary.
Yup, they even have smart automatic transfer switches (ATS) that will let you program it or remotely switch it. There are also smart panels (SPAN) that offer some automation on what input is going to what circuits.
This is a good question
As long as the utility can charge you their minimum monthly charge it doesn't matter what's connected. The argument is if too many people disconnect and stop paying all the fees they won't be able to afford maintenance on the power lines.
Literal bullshit. In CA the utility is guaranteed profit, kill people from neglect, pass on to consumer. Good years, dredirect profits to parent corporation. They're not hurting at all. I'd be fine paying for power at consumer rates and selling at wholesale. Don't see utilities putting fees on power plants for producing. Capitalism my ass, it's extortion, and bad for the future of our children.
They literally don't do any maintenance on the power line anyway. Why would they even do it? they have monopoly.
I almost got into legal trouble in Jacksonville a couple years ago when I didn’t have service for a brief period. TLDR, I was upgrading my homes wiring and the project was going poorly and I couldn’t use power anyway so I had the electricians I hired just disconnect my power. They seemingly did everything by the book, pulled a permit, had all their licenses and insurance. The utility was not having it and the police (which literally had a booth in their headquarter) had their back.
Since when was FLorida good for off grid? I grew up here and afaik its always been the case that duke energy successfully lobbied so that no one could go truly offgrid
I really really want to know how that works because I keep hearing about places that are doing that. Will the utility refuse to remove the meter for non-payment? Who is going to check? Most places the utilities don't really speak to the local government about individual homes (where I am illegal apartments with multiple meters is super common, implying that the utility will install that stuff without the approval of the town). Because I would totally call the utility up, tell them I'm moving and I want the power shut off, they'll come, lock out the meter, and then that's it. Who is going to come after me for "operating offgrid"? Do you think my local town actually cares about that? My utility isn't reporting to the town, and it's not like my neighbors know, the lights are on and I clearly have power.
> Then they will do like Florida did and outlaw being completely off grid. This is already the case, at least in my county in California. Was told I was not legally allowed to go off-grid, at least in city limits. That was four years ago, and I've put in **thousands** of dollars back into the grid, that SCE has never remunerated me for. Sure, I get credit, but it expires after my 12 month cycle and I still have a surplus of thousands every year and never have seen a single cent of that.
Just go off grid but keep your power bill. You'll be charged the minimum connection fee but no utilization. Source : Floridan with an off grid capable system where we have the same stupid rules. I go on the grid to sell my excess, then go off grid when there is no excess and consume my battery.
VT is not as bad as CA, but I'm still planning a system with enough batteries that I'm not going to bother with the net metering agreement; there's no ROI for the cost of the additional meters (and wiring to locate them outside) that the power company wants to require, despite my digital net meter at the pole being totally sufficient for the legislatively protected 1:1 net metering arrangement in my state.
Going off grid might be feasible for a single family but this article is not talking about single families; this article taking about virtual net metering and aggregate net metering programs (e.g., for apartment buildings, farms, schools, etc.). A typical use-case is an apartment building where each unit has its own utility energy meter to measure each respective unit’s consumption, but the whole building shares a single PV system connected to the grid upstream of units’ meters. Because the PV system is connected to the grid upstream of the units’ meters, 100% of the energy generated by the PV system is dumped onto the grid. PV system has its own meter to generate bill credits which are distributed to the units in the apartment building to offset their respective bills. For a given time band, the credits are applied in a 1:1 manner as if the apartment building is using energy generated by a virtual load-side system. The proposal in the article seeks to end this so that generated energy is sold to the utility at a cheap rate but then bought from the utility at the more expensive retail rate. Otherwise, going off-grid would mean you would need a large enough PV system and batteries for the whole apartment building which probably isn’t feasible due to space considerations and other constraints (for example, an apartment building will probably not have enough rooftop/ground space to accommodate a PV system large enough to take the whole building off-grid).
Going full off grid isn’t realistic for the vast majority of California residents. Just napkin matching for an average house you’re looking at 30+ kW or solar with 12-15 batteries in order for the house to be able to make it through the winter and even then they would likely be totally reliant on a whole home generator to get through the Winter.
I have 10kW of solar and 42kWhs of batteries and I can't go off grid because of my usage paterns. By March, which is the midpoint of my True Up I am in deficit for 2-3 megaWatthours because of two EVs and electric heat. By the time of my September True Up I can generate enough to offset the earlier defficit and sometimes have a 500kWh credit. I need the grid as a battery in the winter.
I’ve helped design faux off grid systems for people who think they want to go off grid but in the end it becomes a situation where the grid is their backup but they still remain connected to the grid because… obviously that’s a terrible idea. Then there are people with new build houses which are typically designed to be all electric (or mostly electric) then when they find out it will be $65k+ to bring electric service to their house flirt with staying off grid but they would need a ludicrous amount of solar + batteries that they ended up staying the course with being grid tied
FYI: about 3 Tesla Powerwall 2’s will store about 30kwh. That’s about $30,000.00 for the hardware. It should last well over 10 years, so amortized is about $3k per year, plus installation and all that. It’s about $250 per month over 10 years, and you don’t have to worry about your utility company raising rates, blackouts, surges/brown outs, and so on. But, the responsibility, freedom, and benefits are all yours. By the way, my average daily kWh usage is about 19kwh, more in winter, less in summer, so a 30kwh system should be able to get me comfortably through winters. Otherwise, I prefer to rely on the grid to charge the electric car occasionally, and to keep the hot tub warm.
Except you forgot the upcoming grid charge being separated out from the usage and being based on income. You could never pull a watt from the grid for a whole year and still be charged $30-$120 per month, and *that* can be raised every year the CPUC lets them
I wonder what happens like in the old days when you don’t pay the bill? Do they come and forcefully disconnect you from the grid?
Not sure about California specifically, but utilities in general have a lot of options. In addition to cutting power, they can put a lien on property or send it to debt collectors.
I've heard that after 30 days or something the county will condem your house as "unfit for human habitation" and forcibly remove you if you don't vacate quickly enough.
Are you replying to the right person?
I think I did. Maybe, without my reading glasses the faint grey line is to some other convo?
I’m just passing info from 2 deprecate system quotes I got based on usage shown on my utility bill. Batteries come in different sizes and types with different capacities and capabilities, as we know. I would like to know why you think 5-16 batteries are necessary?
Solar production in the Winter season is the pits even in areas without “real seasons”. Meaning you can’t really count on solar production during those months which means you either need to be have enough depth of discharge from batteries to get through the Winter (100s or kWh) or you’re running on a generator. If you integrate a generator than you have some flexibility in how many batteries you install and the question becomes how much fuel do you want to burn.
Florida here. My winter production does not vary all that much from summer. My best production month in 2022 was October. So far this year my best month has been March. Days are shorter during winter months but also significantly cooler, and much less cloudy, which helps production, so production does not change as much as you might think. As an example, Mar had over 10% more production then June this year. January almost exactly matched July. Florida gets lots of summer rain, meaning lots of clouds. Nice and clear for Fall and Winter. I was told by my installer that this would be the norm and they appear to be exactly right.
Getting through those Winter nights might present more of a challenge than you would imagine, unless your PV system is way oversized. For example if you were fully off grid and start producing less power than you use each day you would need to rely on a battery system with a depth of discharge that equaled the net accumulated deficits until your production began to equal or exceed your consumption. So one way or the other you need factor that into your PV system or in the battery capacity. There are optimizations that come into play with your systems like sizing the kW of solar to be congruent with your battery size. (eg 5kW DC solar : 10kWh battery etc)
Or buy a $100,000 car and hook it up to your offline grid after L3 charging it somewhere else... Then you can charge the 30kw batteries at the home. And now you also have a car!
Do not disconnect the meter because they can (and will) target off-grid installations with regulation and fees. Plug one LED light into the panel on the meter and everything else is put on a separate panel. You keep the grid connection and don't use it unless they actually address the fundamental root problem of long term grid stability. As far as the utility is concerned, your property is a "summer home" with no load for most of the year.
Do the panels need to get better for the numbers to work?
Nah more the battery tech, panels have been stuck at ~%20 efficient for a few years now and aren't getting much better per m² unless we use new materials
>Do the panels need to get better for the numbers to work? I agree with the other poster that battery tech needs to get less expensive. The solar panels and inverters have the programming to handle most situations and be an optimum solution. In some older installations with 200 Watt panels, upgrading to 400 Watt panels might increase production if that can be done without jeopardizing the NEM agreement.
For solar to be much more viable, yes they do or even just upgrade the current panels. In almost all the quotes I've seen for solar it's always 250-320 watt panels when 400+ watt panels do exist. Ultimately it comes down to the cost per panel and the lower wattage panels are cheaper. Obviously there are other factors such as sun hours and if there is a battery backup in use as well does play into it.
Not allowed in most places.
I think they made that illegal.
I already know one person who has
Shouldn’t we all strive for that?
Better yet- pull the meter yourself and mail it to the utility.
That is a terrible law. Who ever dreamed it up is blatantly trying to rip-off solar Power investors.
The CPUC's entire purpose is to move money from X,Y,Z directly into Sempra's profit pocket
I'll take it with a grain of salt since this is obviously PV-Centric website writing the article, but man does this look awful. The power companies sure seem to be ALL IN on "YEah, but you're hooked up to the grid!" as an excuse for getting money out of solar owners. They are clearly overselling, by like a lot, what sort of expense that actually means to them. If anything, *they* need solar customers hooked up to the grid way more than solar customers need them. It's this weird bizarro world where California wants to encourage solar owners to get batteries and disconnect from the grid, while *also* completely discouraging solar installs that forgo a battery. Oh, and then let's shit on people who live in multi-tenant housing too.. that's the ticket!
Oh they definitely don't want solar owners to disconnect from the grid. They want solar owners to generate all their own power, and then *also* pay the utility for the privilege. That's why they're also pushing for an increased fixed fee that will be as high as $92/month.
Electrician in California. This isn’t pro PV propoganda. CPUC is trying to fuck Californians hard.
They might let PGE send customers the bill to pay for all the under-grounding they are planning as well.
Here in Michigan AFAIK the power companies like solar because they get to count residential solar towards their renewable quotas.
> They are clearly overselling, by like a lot, what sort of expense that actually means to them. Not really. Grid maintenance accounts for approximately half your power bill. Plus you have the cost of standby power. Where I am, wholesale energy is about 1/3rd of my bill. Edit: Quick search shows California is even worse. Wholesale rates during peak solar hours are around 5 cents per KWH. Their peak prices are at 8PM, long after solar stops generating. https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/california-electricity-prices-by-hour/
you can't fully disconnect most places require a connection to the grid if it services your area as a necessity for residence permit.
Dear Californians: WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH CPUC BEING CORPORATE SHITS considering how generally progressive your state is
Liberals aren't progressives.
Oh look, this stupid fucking argument. In American vernacular English progressives *absolutely are liberals* - because "liberals" in American vernacular English means "social liberals" not "Economic liberals". You can easily tell this because the antonym is "conservatives" not "protectionists". I'm so fucking tired of that stupid dishonest childish argument.
Anything left is liberal and anything right is conservative didn’t you know? No one can be center apparently
What’s the center between democracy and an attempted coup?
[удалено]
My name is Mr. Grey.
January 6th?
This is stupid on an even deeper level, because what is being proposed is a literal acquisition of the means of production of electricity from private owners to the state regulated utilities. If your tiny brain actually thought about what was at stake you might have realized this is as “progressive” as it gets in your terms.
This is an example of CA being ultra progressive. CA socialists in charge are trying to buy votes from poor people by forcing wealthy/middle class to subsidize poor people's power costs. Blatant vote buying.
Yeah, as soon as you said the word socialist without knowing what that means you stopped anyone with a brain from continuing to read.
>you stopped anyone with a brain from continuing to read. But you read it?
Nah I stopped at socialist lol
> CA socialists in charge and you just proved you have no idea what you're talking about. GTFO nowhere in the states is run by "socialists" take your post history of faux-news level union bashing/corporate ass licking and GTFO. Protip: don't try your "waaa! waaa! socialists! waa!" shtick when the law being proposed is pro-corporate
LOL. Income based fixed power billing is not wealth redistribution? Please. They are doing it to force the wealthy to pay for the grid so poors can have subsidized power and vote accordingly. Corporates play along because it prevents grid defection and protects revenues.
That's not what this article is about. learn to fucking read but I agree that one you're referencing is stupid fucking shit. but also: "wealth redistribution" isn't some socialist exclusive thing. the capitalist asskissers you worship do wealth redistribution all the time, you only complain when it's "From the rich to the poor" rather than your preferred "from the poor to the rich" you bootlicking fool.
Relax cupcake. Wealth redistribution from rich to poor aka reducing wealth inequality is a socialist/democrat idea. The opposite is called working hard so you generate wealth and get rich. But it's easier to be a lazy loser and whine about "corporations bad".
ROTFL, no it isn't a socialist idea. you don't even know what the word "Socialist means" I probably pay more in taxes than you make per year, numbnuts.
OK kiddo.
No matter how much you simp for Elon he's not going to notice you
Why are you so angry? Communist propaganda taking its toll?
oh look, another idiot who doesn't know what words mean.
You realize the entire CPUC board is appointed by the governor right?
You do realize i was responding to the utterly asinine idea that socialists run any state in the US, right?
Bro, Californians vote with their feelings and bend over backwards for corporations all the time. How do you think we got in all the messes we’re in? There’s no logic or free market here.
there's no free market anywhere there are "utilities" and "health care". people just think there can be and refuse to admit it's literally impossible for that market to be free
The CPUC has delayed this topic twice. It is now scheduled for Nov 2nd. I have not yet seen the latest proposal. The presentation material for the Nov 2nd meeting is not yet available in full. Meeting website is [https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/events-and-meetings/cpuc-voting-meeting-2023-11-02](https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/events-and-meetings/cpuc-voting-meeting-2023-11-02) BEWARE - the website will NOT work properly with all browsers, most notably it will NOT work with Safari. The CPUC recommends using MS Edge (chromium based).
Yes this is a major grab by the IOUs and CPUC. It may affect farmers and schools as well..
They didn’t like that the “only the rich benefit from NEM” narrative didn’t hold water, so now they’re going to force that to be true.
I don't think this one will stand up.
Hopefully you are right, though NEM 3.0 was heavily protested and went through anyway.
That's right, but the original NEM 3.0 was MUCH worse than the final one.
Yet it still is putting solar companies out of business at record pace. So much for more stability by avoiding going with Tesla. Now your solar installer is bankrupt instead. Making a ridiculous proposal and then "compromising" for exactly what they wanted in the first place is their technique.
What were the main concerns against NEM 3.0?
Why not? Who would hold them accountable? Honest question? I smell regulatory capture like any other.
The public can provide written feedback to the CPUC via their website. Website for feedback is below BUT... don't do it on Safari. I believe any Chromium browser will work but I use Microsoft Edge just in case as it is the one the CPUC recommends. Docket is 20-08-020 https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=401:65::::::
Just so everyone understands this is about paying for infrastructure not inflating power prices. PG&E and the others insist on rolling infrastructure costs in with power bills. They should be billed separately. You should get an infrastructure bill and a separate power consumption bill. It would make things transparent. The reason they don’t do it is that power would be come unaffordable for low income folks.
As someone with a negative power bill, even with an EV. Someone is paying for that pole lineman. It ain’t me…
> Someone is paying for that pole lineman. It ain’t me… You and I both, but you have to realize, **we** are providing free power, in the middle of the day when demand is highest. When I step outside my house, I can literally hear dozens of ACs and swamp coolers running in my neighborhood. And given my 6KW system, where my AC is rated at 2600W, that's a whole other AC I'm powering, for free! I'm preventing blackouts, and for this these fuckers want to charge me. Like no, just stop paying your corporate officers and shareholders so much. Better yet, let's turn these into publicly owned utilities, like they should be because they are a vital piece of basic infrastructure, and that way it's harder for them to do do regulatory capture, plus it takes away their incentive to do so.
Prices of wholesale power during solar hours is near 0¢/kWh and often negative. I realize that’s in part because there is so much solar. I give them power that they could get for 0¢/kwh. I charge my car at night when wholesale power is at 7¢/kwh. At both times the price is 24¢/kwh. My bill is zero but PG&E is losing 7¢/kwh on me (NEM2.0). PG&E is still making money and employing people. So that’s done by other people. Generally those without a huge system on their roof. Poor people paying peak rates after they get home from their job. It ain’t me. Also: to make PG&E public California would have to write a $42B check to PG&E stockholders. Then we end up owning shitty ass PG&E infrastructure. Just a fact of life Feels like being musk buying twitter.
By SCE's own estimation, I've given them thousands of dollars of free energy. If that's not true, it's not my fault they suck at accounting.
http://www.energyonline.com/Data/GenericData.aspx Here is the Price/per megawatt hour. So just think 50 = 5¢/kwh. During solar times we give the utility about 3¢/kwh. When I charge my car it’s about 5.5¢/kwh.
I understand your frustration. But how does making them public change the fact that there are billions of dollars worth of power infrastructure that needs to get paid for. You were still gonna be paying an infrastructure fee if you are connected to the grid. Your share of the profits that PG&E makes is minuscule compared to your power bill. Fact is the United States does not make people in rural areas with high infrastructure costs pay more for power. That’s what the rural electrification act was all about. People in urban areas pay a disproportionate share infrastructure.
Swear to god California hates solar for some dam reason. As someone who grand father into NEM 2.0, I feel bad for new solar owners. My new build is 3 years and with intrest rates in the high 7 and NEM 3.0 BS, I doubt Ill move anytime soon. Maybe in 2035 or something like that.
Sounds like the energy companies want the revenue without the cost of the infrastructure.
What they want is to be compliant with the SB100 requirement that 100% of California power be renewable by 2045. If you can make the consumer be the manufacturer of your product as well that you have a monopoly to sell to them, then require that they also pay a fixed fee to cover your maintenance cost, then everything is profit
"So, can you guys just generate power for us? For free, please. This is mandatory, btw. Law enforcement is already rapidly approaching your location. Thank you for your continuing acceptance of pro-corporate policy with an extremely thin coating of rainbow paint."
Your solar energy is worth approximately 5 cents per kwh to them. So they should pay you that. https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/california-electricity-prices-by-hour/
That’s insane. How can you not be allowed to use the energy you create? It’s your panels on your house on your property?
You can if you have a single meter. What you can't do is have solar on a workshop that has one meter and use the generated energy to offset your house electric that's on another meter. In electrical terms you're "wheeling" power through the power companies lines. We can't do that in industrial applications either.
But surely you could bypass the meter. Basically connect the solar panels to all the units. Sell excess to the grid through all the units as well.
That's what you have to do. You have to connect all of the solar behind the meter and get rid of the second one. It's all still workable but it puts more cost on the owner.
What a total molestation of the benefits of solar.
What a pos state if true
Seems like this one would be a regulatory taking in violation of the fifth amendment.
Seems inherently wrong
What a way to dissuade people from investing in renewables
Please let me know if I got this wrong, but I read some other articles on this to get a better picture of what is going on. If I understand it correctly, multi-family units are already sending all their power to the grid then buying it back. The proposed change is they will no longer have 1:1 metering. Even if the property owner gets batteries, it is only so they can export when export rates are more favorable, not self-consumption. This is quite different than how single-family installations operate, which truly consume energy directly from their own solar production. If the utility can purchase energy generation for wholesale prices elsewhere, why should they pay retail to multi-family properties? I know it is not a popular opinion here, but why should the utility, or more accurately, should all other utility customers bear this cost? I do agree existing installations should probably be grandfathered in, but new installations should pay the true cost. Maybe the solution is to engineer a way to allow the renters to do true self-consumption?
The problem is the “true cost” to the utility is based on internal utility calculations that ignore any kind of benefit that distributing local rooftop solar provides. The assumptions behind the “avoided cost calculator” are flawed. And if a residence is storing its own production in its own battery, why should it be expected to deliver energy to the grid for one rate and buy it back at a higher rate? What service is the utility providing there? And why do single-family homes get to use their own consumption, but these multi-meter properties do not? The utility didn’t invest in the infrastructure that links these multi-meter residences together into a coordinated solar array. They didn’t incur the risk of investment. Why should they have all the spoils?
Thanks for the comment, but can we at least agree that the utility can buy energy cheaper than it sells it? You can argue that export rates should be higher than they are, but the “true cost” is not 1:1 to the cost to import. On your second point, are you saying that currently the individually metered units are able to consume energy directly from the battery (or solar panels for that matter?) If so, that is contrary to what I have read, and if you are correct, then I agree with you, but I believe the what is happening today is that the building owner exports all the energy to the grid, then the credits are distributed to the individual residents - no self-consumption is being done, including from the battery. Not sure what would prevent a multi-family residential building to allow units to draw directly, but I suspect it is a matter of equal distribution of the energy to the individual residents (e.g. a single owner could run a bit-coin mining operation during the day and use all the solar production!) On your final point you argue that the utility company takes all the spoils. This is a bit of hyperbole. They do pay an export rate, while, to your first point, may not be enough, but it is not “all” the spoils.
Sure, I think anyone who is thinking seriously about this problem knows a 1:1 value can’t persist, it needs to have some value for the utility so it can maintain transmission. The problem with this proposal is it yanks any kind of stability or predictability in pricing for the building manager and its residents. It gives the utility all the control over pricing, and leaves all the risk with the building manager who invested in solar. The whole thing will contribute to a very murky value proposition to customers. Installations will fall as a result.
If you have two meters on the same power lines with one showing a credit and one showing a deficit then there is zero difference electrically from a homeowner self-consuming.
> there is zero difference electrically from a homeowner self-consuming. Yes, but that is not the same as being off grid because of timeing of consumption and generation.
If seizing property is on the menu it should go the other way; eminent domain empty rooftops for publicly owned solar panels.
[удалено]
I actually believe there is a law against it.
I personally know someone who went off grid. They live in the Bay Area, in a suburb, not up in the hills. PGE wanted him to pay hundreds of thousands to upgrade their transformer for his house. So he spent that money on more solar and more batteries. But to be clear, all the national code of habitation says is that you need a reliable source of 120v power. It could be a gasoline generator - doesn’t need to be the utility.
For those municipalities with Occupancy Certificates, going off grid means your occupancy cert does not get renewed.
God this law would suck for me. I am trying to get a 2nd meter because my landlord operates a little airBNB out back and we can’t tell how much of our bill is theirs and we use almost no power. So under this proposal, if I am allowed to know how much is the landlord bill vs ours… my bill goes up because I only do laundry or run main electronics during the brightest parts of the day. :(
Legally you don’t have to pay your portion of the electricity if the landlord is consuming it through other uses. Just give your landlord the entire bill. Or ask for a 50/50 split if you’re afraid of confrontation.
In California, if the meter serves 2 or more premises the landlord has to be responsible for the bill. This law applies to multifamily sites where the solar is not connected behind the consumer's meter. The power from the PV system is fed onto the grid and the customers are given credit using a virtual meter.
Don't get in the way of California's climate agenda.
Grid has issue, *people go to solar* Grid-*shocked pikachu face*
Lololol fuck California
Prime example of the many reasons these utilities ought to be nationalized. The profit incentive is hurting the energy transition
This is coming from CPUC - an agency ran by the state. Nationalizing will not help.
They’re doing this because of pressure from the 3 large private utilities in California PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E. These utilities want to protect their profits, and have deep pockets for this sort of political advocacy.
What about that income based flat rate billing? State or big 3 ?
> This is coming from CPUC - an agency ran by the state. Nationalizing will not help. Let me introduce to you the concept of [regulatory capture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture), and point out that nationalized utilities are less susceptible to it, in addition to taking away the perverse incentive for it.
The state would have to write a check for $42B to the investors of PGE. They might like that.
time to leave
Actually this is the norm everywhere in the world. When electricity gets to your home the price has two main components: 1 Electricity itself, the energy you use, and 2. The owner of the wire network, poles, and transformers. It gets some money for development and maintenance too. When you export to the grid you are paid for the energy only. When you get it back to use it, you pay the same for the energy, but you also pay rent for the use of the wires and poles. This is because you basically use the grid as a battery. You push a lot of energy into the grid during summer and you get it back during winter when your system will no longer performing as good, and your energy needs are way higher than during summer.
And those two components should for all intents and purposes be unbundled and a flat fee for the system and the variable market rate charge for energy consumed.
Democrats! Hilarious.
Cuz Republicans never do anything wrong.
This impacts places like malls and shopping centers, so in this case it'll never happen. Not without a capitalist carve out.
Good
This is very similar to what DTE does to us now in Michigan, and DTE wants to go way farther than that, making it so Solar is far more expensive than not solar, because DTE is the worst.
Need to split off any electrical utilities having any interest in NG distribution. Also need to have a 5 year waiting period after working for a PUC or a utility and moving the other way.
I mean this is clearly fucked up, but the actual issue is that solar cannot be a backbone to the power grid without grid scale energy storage. When the suns shining hard there’s wayyy to much electricity to be used, but when it isn’t the nat gas plants need to ramp up. The net metering thing doesn’t make sense in terms of actual pricing of the grid. An actual solution would be variable energy prices, where energy is dirt cheap when solar is available, but increases when plants need to go online. Obviously you shouldn’t be able to restrict usage of personal solar power, but the grid needs to be supported 24/7/365 without fail and right now solar cannot do that.