7 ms·

what really gets me, is when the CPUC proposes plans to punish energy savers by increasing the base billing rate and then reducing the per KW charge. It's the

what really gets me, is when the CPUC proposes plans to punish energy savers by increasing the base billing rate and then reducing the per KW charge. It's the exact opposite of what we need to encourage for reduced power consumption. Also, the ANTI solar campaigns that the CPUC has launched are really egregious. I'm surprised CA would allow such a thing as the new NET 3.0 crap.

andromeduck 3y ago
They should just charge for power variance or correlation in addition to energy.
hightrix 3y ago
This is pure regulatory capture. Plain and simple. Look at the proposals of the past few years to see it. These proposals say things like helping under served communities or combating wealth inequality, but similar to “Save the children” bills, the titles rarely have any relevance to the content. Every proposal has been about nothing other than protecting and increasing utility company profits. From my view as a consumer and constituent, the government has failed. The simple fact that we allow for profit companies to manage and profit from essential utilities is ridiculous. That we are allowing these companies to write laws that increase their profits at the expensive of society and the environment is a tragedy. Simply put, sdge, pge, and friends, need to be non profits run by the government. CA state should nationalize these companies and reduce profits to zero while actually promoting roof top solar.
- mh- 3y ago
  But CPUC is already appointed by the Governor. And they control the prices. I remember when Gray Davis got recalled. The prevailing opinion was that (dramatically) increasing vehicle registration costs pushed that over the finish line. The fact that they've managed to keep virtually all of the outrage directed at the utility companies is an amazing PR success for the Governor.
  - hightrix 3y ago
    Just so that I'm very clear in my points, my anger and outrage is directly entirely at CPUC. I don't expect companies to have my best interests in mind, but I do expect the government to serve me and not PG&E, SDG&E, etc.. shareholders. Naive as that may be.
- briffle 3y ago
  The equipment cost is getting closer and closer to just being able to remove your meter and go on your own. I keep watching them drop, and wonder at what point i'll just pull the trigger. Especially the last year, inverters and 48V batteries are really starting to come down. https://signaturesolar.com/complete-all-in-one-off-grid-solar-kit-kit-e0000 https://signaturesolar.com/complete-all-in-one-off-grid-sola...
  - bhewes 3y ago
    Install costs I have seen for friends stuff is $.50-$.75 per watt self installed as labor costs are about equal.
  - anonuser123456 3y ago
    Goodluck getting approval to disconnect. Your local municipality can simply force you to be connected.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Like HOAs this is something to keep an eye on when moving; what required utilities exist (for example, around here you don't even need to connect to sewer and water if you're on the outskirts and have at least an acre).
    - toast0 3y ago
      If you don't pay your bill, the electric utility will disconnect you. Problem solved ;)
      - anonuser123456 3y ago
        They are two steps ahead; they can put a lien on the property and charge you interest. Worse… they have no incentive to disconnect you since the connection costs zero and they are guaranteed revenue.
    - miguelazo 3y ago
      This is actually something that will end up being a ballot proposition in a place like California, and I suspect it will be very popular. Much easier to sell than reforming the CPUC appointments or sunsetting investor owned utilities.
- 7e 3y ago
  Why promote roof top solar when grid solar is substantially cheaper? Is it for emergency preparedness?
  - mattnewton 3y ago
    Is grid solar always cheaper? I could see that, I could also see that not being the case in the short term if the power lines need to be replaced (or buried in California because of wildfires). It seems harder to do coordinated actions politically rather than let consumers buy products.
    - baggy_trough 3y ago
      By "let" you mean "force", correct?
    - bombcar 3y ago
      I don't see how rooftop solar can ever really be "cheaper" than grid, if you allow grid to be "small grid" - e.g., in a local area.
      - sbierwagen 3y ago
        How many people are connected to "small grids" today in California?
        bombcar 3y ago
        Everyone is, because the grid is built out of smaller grids. You and some number of your neighbors are connected to a transformer, some number of those transformers are connected to a larger transformer, and so on up the chain until you have an actual large grid.
        sbierwagen 3y ago
        Okay, but this thread is talking about billing, right? That's the point of talking about costs. How many people in California are paying their electricity bills to a utility that covers just their neighborhood, and nobody else?
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  The 'save the children' crap started decades ago when utilities demanded a lot of extraneous, huge ugly bright scary warning labels, extra disconnect boxes, and so on. The goal was to make it as ugly and expensive as possible to discourage residential installs. Further, an inspection by the local government inspector wasn't sufficient. See, you've also got to get the electric company to inspect the system as well, and they'll demand things not spec'd in the state/national code...or they won't allow the system to be connected. This shit is even going on at the grid level. Our regional electrical grid organization admits that their approval process for grid-scale solar or wind connects can take a decade. They insist that much planning is needed for "reliability."
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > actually promoting roof top solar. You mean more than it does by mandating it on all new single- and multi-family dwellings?
- miguelazo 3y ago
  Wow, you really get it-- do you work in the industry?
  - hightrix 3y ago
    Thankfully, I do not. I just read too much :)
Ajedi32 3y ago
> increasing the base billing rate and then reducing the per KW charge (Almost) every utility should do this. It more accurately reflects the real cost structure of grid maintenance, which doesn't depend on how much energy you use so much as on your peak usage during peak hours. In a world where home solar installations are common it's especially important, since you don't want people relying on the grid for backup power during period of low sun without paying anything to maintain that infrastructure. That's unsustainable in the long term.
mikepavone 3y ago
> I'm surprised CA would allow such a thing as the new NET 3.0 crap. The CA legislature actually required that a change be made with AB 327. The details were ultimately up to CPUC, but CPUC was attempting to meet the broad goals of the legislature in making this change. Additional power produced during times of peak solar insolation is not very useful to the grid because of all the existing solar and is most useful during the late afternoon and early evening when demand is high but solar output is low. Maintaining the grid costs money independent of the cost of electricity generation and under the old rules solar customers were effectively subsidized by non-solar customers. Since non-solar customers are on average poorer than solar customers (owning your home is generally a per-requisite after all) this amounted to a regressive transfer. EDIT: Fixed wording in sentence about customer cross-subsidy
doctorpangloss 3y ago
The rates are laundering the costs of paying everyone market rates for their houses burned down in wildfires. I agree that’s really fucking weird but what can I do? If you feel very strongly about politics in California, you know, run for an elected office.
michael1999 3y ago
What if the new economics of solar mean that maintaining the wires actually costs more than producing the power? Who should pay more of those costs so that your preferred customer can pay less?

andromeduck 3y ago

They should just charge for power variance or correlation in addition to energy.

hightrix 3y ago

This is pure regulatory capture. Plain and simple. Look at the proposals of the past few years to see it. These proposals say things like helping under served communities or combating wealth inequality, but similar to “Save the children” bills, the titles rarely have any relevance to the content. Every proposal has been about nothing other than protecting and increasing utility company profits. From my view as a consumer and constituent, the government has failed. The simple fact that we allow for profit companies to manage and profit from essential utilities is ridiculous. That we are allowing these companies to write laws that increase their profits at the expensive of society and the environment is a tragedy. Simply put, sdge, pge, and friends, need to be non profits run by the government. CA state should nationalize these companies and reduce profits to zero while actually promoting roof top solar.

mh- 3y ago
But CPUC is already appointed by the Governor. And they control the prices. I remember when Gray Davis got recalled. The prevailing opinion was that (dramatically) increasing vehicle registration costs pushed that over the finish line. The fact that they've managed to keep virtually all of the outrage directed at the utility companies is an amazing PR success for the Governor.
- hightrix 3y ago
  Just so that I'm very clear in my points, my anger and outrage is directly entirely at CPUC. I don't expect companies to have my best interests in mind, but I do expect the government to serve me and not PG&E, SDG&E, etc.. shareholders. Naive as that may be.
briffle 3y ago
The equipment cost is getting closer and closer to just being able to remove your meter and go on your own. I keep watching them drop, and wonder at what point i'll just pull the trigger. Especially the last year, inverters and 48V batteries are really starting to come down. https://signaturesolar.com/complete-all-in-one-off-grid-solar-kit-kit-e0000 https://signaturesolar.com/complete-all-in-one-off-grid-sola...
- bhewes 3y ago
  Install costs I have seen for friends stuff is $.50-$.75 per watt self installed as labor costs are about equal.
- anonuser123456 3y ago
  Goodluck getting approval to disconnect. Your local municipality can simply force you to be connected.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Like HOAs this is something to keep an eye on when moving; what required utilities exist (for example, around here you don't even need to connect to sewer and water if you're on the outskirts and have at least an acre).
  - toast0 3y ago
    If you don't pay your bill, the electric utility will disconnect you. Problem solved ;)
    - anonuser123456 3y ago
      They are two steps ahead; they can put a lien on the property and charge you interest. Worse… they have no incentive to disconnect you since the connection costs zero and they are guaranteed revenue.
  - miguelazo 3y ago
    This is actually something that will end up being a ballot proposition in a place like California, and I suspect it will be very popular. Much easier to sell than reforming the CPUC appointments or sunsetting investor owned utilities.
7e 3y ago
Why promote roof top solar when grid solar is substantially cheaper? Is it for emergency preparedness?
- mattnewton 3y ago
  Is grid solar always cheaper? I could see that, I could also see that not being the case in the short term if the power lines need to be replaced (or buried in California because of wildfires). It seems harder to do coordinated actions politically rather than let consumers buy products.
  - baggy_trough 3y ago
    By "let" you mean "force", correct?
  - bombcar 3y ago
    I don't see how rooftop solar can ever really be "cheaper" than grid, if you allow grid to be "small grid" - e.g., in a local area.
    - sbierwagen 3y ago
      How many people are connected to "small grids" today in California?
      - bombcar 3y ago
        Everyone is, because the grid is built out of smaller grids. You and some number of your neighbors are connected to a transformer, some number of those transformers are connected to a larger transformer, and so on up the chain until you have an actual large grid.
        sbierwagen 3y ago
        Okay, but this thread is talking about billing, right? That's the point of talking about costs. How many people in California are paying their electricity bills to a utility that covers just their neighborhood, and nobody else?
KennyBlanken 3y ago
The 'save the children' crap started decades ago when utilities demanded a lot of extraneous, huge ugly bright scary warning labels, extra disconnect boxes, and so on. The goal was to make it as ugly and expensive as possible to discourage residential installs. Further, an inspection by the local government inspector wasn't sufficient. See, you've also got to get the electric company to inspect the system as well, and they'll demand things not spec'd in the state/national code...or they won't allow the system to be connected. This shit is even going on at the grid level. Our regional electrical grid organization admits that their approval process for grid-scale solar or wind connects can take a decade. They insist that much planning is needed for "reliability."
dragonwriter 3y ago
> actually promoting roof top solar. You mean more than it does by mandating it on all new single- and multi-family dwellings?
miguelazo 3y ago
Wow, you really get it-- do you work in the industry?
- hightrix 3y ago
  Thankfully, I do not. I just read too much :)

Ajedi32 3y ago

> increasing the base billing rate and then reducing the per KW charge (Almost) every utility should do this. It more accurately reflects the real cost structure of grid maintenance, which doesn't depend on how much energy you use so much as on your peak usage during peak hours. In a world where home solar installations are common it's especially important, since you don't want people relying on the grid for backup power during period of low sun without paying anything to maintain that infrastructure. That's unsustainable in the long term.

mikepavone 3y ago

> I'm surprised CA would allow such a thing as the new NET 3.0 crap. The CA legislature actually required that a change be made with AB 327. The details were ultimately up to CPUC, but CPUC was attempting to meet the broad goals of the legislature in making this change. Additional power produced during times of peak solar insolation is not very useful to the grid because of all the existing solar and is most useful during the late afternoon and early evening when demand is high but solar output is low. Maintaining the grid costs money independent of the cost of electricity generation and under the old rules solar customers were effectively subsidized by non-solar customers. Since non-solar customers are on average poorer than solar customers (owning your home is generally a per-requisite after all) this amounted to a regressive transfer. EDIT: Fixed wording in sentence about customer cross-subsidy

doctorpangloss 3y ago

The rates are laundering the costs of paying everyone market rates for their houses burned down in wildfires. I agree that’s really fucking weird but what can I do? If you feel very strongly about politics in California, you know, run for an elected office.

michael1999 3y ago

What if the new economics of solar mean that maintaining the wires actually costs more than producing the power? Who should pay more of those costs so that your preferred customer can pay less?