4 ms·

This article carries way too much water for PG&E. Sad, but I guess since we're gearing up for a net-metering 3.0[1] fight we'll see more and more articles like

This article carries way too much water for PG&E. Sad, but I guess since we're gearing up for a net-metering 3.0[1] fight we'll see more and more articles like this one. Here's the places where I think it misses the mark: * The energy generation costs listed by the author actually includes rooftop solar. PG&E paid exactly $0 for you to spend $30k installing the panels, so that number is low for PG&E for a reason. * PG&E turns around and sells your solar power to people enrolled in "Solar Choice" plans who will pay 50% more for electricity than what PG&E net metered you. * California has a green energy mandate and rooftop solar is one of the ways PG&E can meet the mandate while offloading the entire cost of the system onto the homeowners. * Net metering last for 1 year and after that PG&E "credits" you the wholesale value of your excess electricity, which they value at approximately 1c/kWh even though they charged other people $0.40/kWh during peak time for that power you exported. * The CA legislator mandated all new homes are installed with solar panels. Kind of makes sense why PG&E was favorable of this bill. PG&E again has offloaded the cost of installing green energy generation on someone else. * The monthly non-bypassable fee that the author describes as "pretty low" is actually closer to $10/month and expected to rise with NEM 3.0 to $50 a month or more. Keep in mind that PG&E has 5.5 million customers, so this number is significant. * Grid defection is illegal in most municipalities so even if someone wanted to install a battery and go off-grid they still have to pay the $10 a month non-bypassable PG&E fees. Net Metering 3.0[1] "fixes" the problem the author attempts to describe, but really it's a rug-pull on everyone in CA who spent tens of thousands of dollars to install rooftop solar. Customers installing solar panels at their expense is a subsidy FOR PG&E, not the other way around despite what this spin attempts to portray. 1. https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/california-net-metering-changes https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/california-net-metering-ch...

yuliyp 5y ago
Where is this mythical $0.40/kWh price for electricity (not transmission) actually occurring? Net metering does not expire after a year. You can continue to get any power you need matching the power you had put in on a 1:1 basis. The 1c/kWh is for the excess. Most of PG&E's infrastructure is transmission infrastructure, not generation. They wouldn't be building power plants themselves, anyway. Net metering allows rooftop solar to effectively get paid for electricity at a much higher rate than PG&E or local electricity cooperatives than would be paying on the open market. It is designed as a subsidy to motivate people to install solar. Pretending that it's a subsidy for PG&E is missing the mark.
- ed25519FUUU 5y ago
  > Where is this mythical $0.40/kWh price for electricity (not transmission) actually occurring? The standard residental TOU plan for PG&E peak usage ranges from $0.33 to $0.45 depending on the season. Have a look yourself[1]. But PG&E actually classes your solar power as green energy and sells it to "solar choice" customers at even HIGHER prices[2]. > Net metering does not expire after a year. You can continue to get any power you need matching the power you had put in on a 1:1 basis. The 1c/kWh is for the excess. There's no roll over of any extra generated power. You use it or you lose it. If you have $300 in retail credits they'll cash you out for $15 which is the wholesale price of it and you'll start again for the next year. > Net metering allows rooftop solar to effectively get paid for electricity at a much higher rate than PG&E or local electricity cooperatives than would be paying on the open market. You're paid in credits. Kind of like getting a gift card that expires in a year or days depending on when it was generated. It's non-transferrable and for all intents and purposes disappears at the end of the year when they true you up. To think people paying $30k for rooftop solar are somehow taking advantage of PG&E is laughable, especially given PG&E has a green energy mandate and doesn't have to pay a dime for that $30k installation. 1. https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-rates-work/Residential-Rates-Plan-Pricing.pdf https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-ra... 2. https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/options/solar/solar-choice/which-program-is-best-for-you.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/opt...
  - yuliyp 5y ago
    Oh, I guess it'd been a couple years since I viewed the rate tables. In my mind peak prices were closer to $0.30. My mistake. The point is that the 1:1 ability to exchange power you generate for power to consume is a better deal than anyone else gets: Half of the per-kWh cost of electricity PG&E sells goes toward transmission (aka maintaining poles and cables) and half toward the actual generation. If you produce 1 kWh at noon, and consume one at 8 pm, you pay 0, so contribute nothing toward the poles that provided that electricity to you when you needed it. So in the end, you paid $0 for that net neutral exchange, while PG&E received $0.40 from the other customer. They paid ~0.15 for the kWh they provided to you. Overall that means that they delivered 2 kWh over their lines and got $0.25, which is half of what they would have otherwise gotten for delivering 2 kWh over their lines.

yuliyp 5y ago

Where is this mythical $0.40/kWh price for electricity (not transmission) actually occurring? Net metering does not expire after a year. You can continue to get any power you need matching the power you had put in on a 1:1 basis. The 1c/kWh is for the excess. Most of PG&E's infrastructure is transmission infrastructure, not generation. They wouldn't be building power plants themselves, anyway. Net metering allows rooftop solar to effectively get paid for electricity at a much higher rate than PG&E or local electricity cooperatives than would be paying on the open market. It is designed as a subsidy to motivate people to install solar. Pretending that it's a subsidy for PG&E is missing the mark.

ed25519FUUU 5y ago
> Where is this mythical $0.40/kWh price for electricity (not transmission) actually occurring? The standard residental TOU plan for PG&E peak usage ranges from $0.33 to $0.45 depending on the season. Have a look yourself[1]. But PG&E actually classes your solar power as green energy and sells it to "solar choice" customers at even HIGHER prices[2]. > Net metering does not expire after a year. You can continue to get any power you need matching the power you had put in on a 1:1 basis. The 1c/kWh is for the excess. There's no roll over of any extra generated power. You use it or you lose it. If you have $300 in retail credits they'll cash you out for $15 which is the wholesale price of it and you'll start again for the next year. > Net metering allows rooftop solar to effectively get paid for electricity at a much higher rate than PG&E or local electricity cooperatives than would be paying on the open market. You're paid in credits. Kind of like getting a gift card that expires in a year or days depending on when it was generated. It's non-transferrable and for all intents and purposes disappears at the end of the year when they true you up. To think people paying $30k for rooftop solar are somehow taking advantage of PG&E is laughable, especially given PG&E has a green energy mandate and doesn't have to pay a dime for that $30k installation. 1. https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-rates-work/Residential-Rates-Plan-Pricing.pdf https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-ra... 2. https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/options/solar/solar-choice/which-program-is-best-for-you.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/opt...
- yuliyp 5y ago
  Oh, I guess it'd been a couple years since I viewed the rate tables. In my mind peak prices were closer to $0.30. My mistake. The point is that the 1:1 ability to exchange power you generate for power to consume is a better deal than anyone else gets: Half of the per-kWh cost of electricity PG&E sells goes toward transmission (aka maintaining poles and cables) and half toward the actual generation. If you produce 1 kWh at noon, and consume one at 8 pm, you pay 0, so contribute nothing toward the poles that provided that electricity to you when you needed it. So in the end, you paid $0 for that net neutral exchange, while PG&E received $0.40 from the other customer. They paid ~0.15 for the kWh they provided to you. Overall that means that they delivered 2 kWh over their lines and got $0.25, which is half of what they would have otherwise gotten for delivering 2 kWh over their lines.