6 ms·

California strikes another blow against rooftop solar

56 points by miguelazo 3y ago

someonehere 3y ago
I was on the previous incentive for solar generation and my bill last month was $0 (I only look at the summary emailed to me and let autopay handle it). I assume I generated more than I consumed and that offset my gas consumption. CPUC is full of cronies tied to Sacramento and Newsom. Guarantee the solar changes in this article are being pushed by the energy companies. PG&E is putting all this money into preventing the next wave of wildfires caused by their negligence and passing it on to consumers. This feels like the power companies getting in front of shrinking revenue to stop backlash from raising rates for non-solar customers. I can’t imagine power companies continuing to pay outrageous executive salaries while everyone switches to solar and lowering revenue.
- miguelazo 3y ago
  >CPUC is full of cronies tied to Sacramento and Newsom. This-- with a revolving door to industry. And all of their rationales for this proposal are literally Investor-Owned Utility talking points. The most ridiculous part is that CPUC will say that rates are getting too high, provide zero data to show that solar is causing a real cost shift (independent study by Lawrence Livermore found negligible, if any), make zero effort to investigate the utilities' General Rate Case in any serious way, then approve the rate increases that they're now blaming on solar. And keep in mind, this is just the beginning-- they're also ramming the fixed charge (utility tax) other posters were advocating as an alternative down our throats very soon. This will result in far fewer rooftop solar installs, which will mean more giant solar farms in our open spaces that require far more expensive infrastructure/maintenance, which, surprise-- is what really drives up rates up (beyond the obscene waste you'll find at IOUs).
Night_Thastus 3y ago
To me this situation has always seemed backwards. Instead of charging per KW/hr, charge based on the actual costs to the electric provider. A fixed monthly cost representing the cost of upkeep and being connected to the grid, and a variable cost portion that actually reflects usage. Yes, this doesn't encourage reducing electricity usage, which isn't as great for the environment. But if solar is getting large enough that this is becoming a problem for the utilities, then the answer is to fix the pricing issue - not to stop putting up solar.
- ender341341 3y ago
  There's a similar issue with water usage, lots of locales have been so successful in lowering water usage in their communities that previous usage based fees don't cover the minimum operating cost of the utilities.
  - ThatPlayer 3y ago
    It's also happening with gas. Especially because switching to entirely electric is an alternative (and being pushed). So gas prices have to raise to make up for infrastructure cost, incentivizing individuals to move off gas to save money, repeat.
- sowbug 3y ago
  If the money earmarked for upkeep goes to upkeep, that sounds like a nice plan. Unfortunately, PG&E has a history of collecting upkeep fees and paying them out as shareholder dividends.
- dixie_land 3y ago
  The situation is backwards because instead of taxing the sh*t out of everyone (including non solar homeowners) and give incentives to select few, people can simply afford solar (or whatever solution they want) if the government hasn't robbed them.
  - deepsun 3y ago
    Sorry couldn't resist a side nitpick: > if the government hasn't robbed them Since dawn of times government robbed people (aka taxes). That's basically the definition of a state. It's actually the first and most important task of any state -- collecting tribute (the second is preventing other states doing the same). So, if we're looking for a state that doesn't rob it's people, we should look for another universe perhaps.
- lazide 3y ago
  FYI, this creates a perverse incentive for the utility to create as high costs as they can plausibly get away with. It’s a big issue with military contracts too, or any ‘cost plus’ arrangement. They are not incentivized to be efficient anymore, rather the opposite.
spa3thyb 3y ago
It's the article's title, for sure, but it feels misleading to call a reduction in incentives from a successful program (rooftop solar generating 11% of California's power is amazing) a strike against the goals of that program. LEDs/CCFLs being subsidized until consumers switched over to them (I know the story is more complex than this) made sense too.
- ThatPlayer 3y ago
  California's grid already has so much power during peak solar that energy is exported to other grids. So adding more solar is diminishing returns. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/balancing_authority/CISO https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electr...
  - miguelazo 3y ago
    This is also a positive given the trajectory of EV adoption and projected increases in demand.
  - miguelazo 3y ago
    And yet they're still running natural gas plants during those peaks and have an aging nuclear facility that accounts for much of their clean energy that was scheduled to close in 2025.
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago
      Because natural gas plants don't just turn on and off. They're engines that take time to ramp up and down. If you can't ramp up fast enough to meet demand when solar ramps down as the sun sets, you have power outages. Adding more solar makes this problem worse. They call it the duck curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
      - miguelazo 3y ago
        Yeah. Another reason why gas plants will soon be obsolete. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/giant-batteries-drain-economics-gas-power-plants-2023-11-21/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/giant-batteries-drai...
1letterunixname 3y ago
Brought to you by CPUC/CAISO (was CAL-ISO) who brought you Enron rolling blackouts. Note: There is no mention of Enron on CAISO's revisionist history Wikipedia page.
solardev 3y ago
Why didn't California dissolve PG&E and turn it into a public utility?
- tomcam 3y ago
  What public utilities in California are doing such a good job that you feel that kind of drastic action would be justified?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - solardev 3y ago
    Are there any right now? PG&E has done a pretty poor job, burned down half the state and then went bankrupt. Partially despite/because of heavy regulations. Why not nationalize them altogether and remove the profit seeking middlemen and just let the state run it?
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Are there any right now? Yes, several, e.g., SMUD in Sacramento (PG&E spent a boatload lobbying against SMUD expansion to some of its territories a while back.)
      - solardev 3y ago
        How are they?
        LexGray 3y ago
        From reporting I have seen Sacramento SMUD is generally 25% cheaper than PG&E with faster outage response and more green initiatives. Supposedly carbon neutral. Potentially 35% of power generated from natural gas which replaced decommissioned nuclear. Generally considered superior across the board.
    - 3y ago
e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
Electricity has always had two parts: production and distribution. The problem with most places is that distribution is a natural monopoly: you don't want two or more lets of wires running to every house, so distribution monopolies are a natural consequence. Production, however, is different; there's much more competition, which means that competitive pressure drives prices down. Over time, distribution monopolies and other parties get more and more intertwined as they capture each other. The state uses distributors to levy taxes, unions parasitise the distributors and seek rents from their customers, companies capture regulators who set their prices, and that's why distribution is costly. The beauty of rooftop solar is that you can completely disconnect yourself from the grid and thus the politics that drives prices up. It is true that giant solar farms in the desert and grid-scale batteries are more efficient, but they're captured and don't act in the customer's best interest. In a world where distribution monopolies don't charge more than cost, where distributors are not agents of the state, rooftop solar would be more expensive than grid solar, but that's not the world we live in.
- yummypaint 3y ago
  Part of being a distribution monopoly is delivering power to everyone, not just places where it's profitable. People in rural areas are able to afford grid electricity because the disproportionate cost of delivering power to them is subsidized by people living in cities paying the same rates. Rooftop solar being cheaper overall than a grid connection for some people isn't that surprising. There are lots of other costs and externalities associated with running a grid that don't need to be contemplated for off grid home solar.
  - e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
    Rural electrification subsidies distort the cost of living in the middle of nowhere. This is the same problem as low-density suburban housing: the cost of their infrastructure far exceeds their taxes, so they're subsidised by urban core where infrastructure costs are low. This is an even better argument against delivering power to everyone, all the time.
    - 3y ago
datavirtue 3y ago
We need to stop government incentives and let the market price solar. The government incentives are driving up prices by a ridiculous amount. The solar installation companies are dependent on them. The incentives are affecting the business structure of these companies making them brittle. The companies have to offer warrantees to justify the prices they charge but most can't manage to stay in business. It's a mess and most people are going to learn the hard way, which is not going to drive solar adoption. Roof top solar is going to end up with a really bad reputation for no reason. We stepped on the gas pedal and left the damn car in first gear.
pxmpxm 3y ago
I like how reducing subsidies is somehow a blow against the premise.

56 points by miguelazo 3y ago

I was on the previous incentive for solar generation and my bill last month was $0 (I only look at the summary emailed to me and let autopay handle it). I assume I generated more than I consumed and that offset my gas consumption. CPUC is full of cronies tied to Sacramento and Newsom. Guarantee the solar changes in this article are being pushed by the energy companies. PG&E is putting all this money into preventing the next wave of wildfires caused by their negligence and passing it on to consumers. This feels like the power companies getting in front of shrinking revenue to stop backlash from raising rates for non-solar customers. I can’t imagine power companies continuing to pay outrageous executive salaries while everyone switches to solar and lowering revenue.

miguelazo 3y ago
>CPUC is full of cronies tied to Sacramento and Newsom. This-- with a revolving door to industry. And all of their rationales for this proposal are literally Investor-Owned Utility talking points. The most ridiculous part is that CPUC will say that rates are getting too high, provide zero data to show that solar is causing a real cost shift (independent study by Lawrence Livermore found negligible, if any), make zero effort to investigate the utilities' General Rate Case in any serious way, then approve the rate increases that they're now blaming on solar. And keep in mind, this is just the beginning-- they're also ramming the fixed charge (utility tax) other posters were advocating as an alternative down our throats very soon. This will result in far fewer rooftop solar installs, which will mean more giant solar farms in our open spaces that require far more expensive infrastructure/maintenance, which, surprise-- is what really drives up rates up (beyond the obscene waste you'll find at IOUs).

Night_Thastus 3y ago

To me this situation has always seemed backwards. Instead of charging per KW/hr, charge based on the actual costs to the electric provider. A fixed monthly cost representing the cost of upkeep and being connected to the grid, and a variable cost portion that actually reflects usage. Yes, this doesn't encourage reducing electricity usage, which isn't as great for the environment. But if solar is getting large enough that this is becoming a problem for the utilities, then the answer is to fix the pricing issue - not to stop putting up solar.

ender341341 3y ago
There's a similar issue with water usage, lots of locales have been so successful in lowering water usage in their communities that previous usage based fees don't cover the minimum operating cost of the utilities.
- ThatPlayer 3y ago
  It's also happening with gas. Especially because switching to entirely electric is an alternative (and being pushed). So gas prices have to raise to make up for infrastructure cost, incentivizing individuals to move off gas to save money, repeat.
sowbug 3y ago
If the money earmarked for upkeep goes to upkeep, that sounds like a nice plan. Unfortunately, PG&E has a history of collecting upkeep fees and paying them out as shareholder dividends.
dixie_land 3y ago
The situation is backwards because instead of taxing the sh*t out of everyone (including non solar homeowners) and give incentives to select few, people can simply afford solar (or whatever solution they want) if the government hasn't robbed them.
- deepsun 3y ago
  Sorry couldn't resist a side nitpick: > if the government hasn't robbed them Since dawn of times government robbed people (aka taxes). That's basically the definition of a state. It's actually the first and most important task of any state -- collecting tribute (the second is preventing other states doing the same). So, if we're looking for a state that doesn't rob it's people, we should look for another universe perhaps.
lazide 3y ago
FYI, this creates a perverse incentive for the utility to create as high costs as they can plausibly get away with. It’s a big issue with military contracts too, or any ‘cost plus’ arrangement. They are not incentivized to be efficient anymore, rather the opposite.

spa3thyb 3y ago

It's the article's title, for sure, but it feels misleading to call a reduction in incentives from a successful program (rooftop solar generating 11% of California's power is amazing) a strike against the goals of that program. LEDs/CCFLs being subsidized until consumers switched over to them (I know the story is more complex than this) made sense too.

ThatPlayer 3y ago
California's grid already has so much power during peak solar that energy is exported to other grids. So adding more solar is diminishing returns. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/balancing_authority/CISO https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electr...
- miguelazo 3y ago
  This is also a positive given the trajectory of EV adoption and projected increases in demand.
- miguelazo 3y ago
  And yet they're still running natural gas plants during those peaks and have an aging nuclear facility that accounts for much of their clean energy that was scheduled to close in 2025.
  - ThatPlayer 3y ago
    Because natural gas plants don't just turn on and off. They're engines that take time to ramp up and down. If you can't ramp up fast enough to meet demand when solar ramps down as the sun sets, you have power outages. Adding more solar makes this problem worse. They call it the duck curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
    - miguelazo 3y ago
      Yeah. Another reason why gas plants will soon be obsolete. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/giant-batteries-drain-economics-gas-power-plants-2023-11-21/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/giant-batteries-drai...

1letterunixname 3y ago

Brought to you by CPUC/CAISO (was CAL-ISO) who brought you Enron rolling blackouts. Note: There is no mention of Enron on CAISO's revisionist history Wikipedia page.

solardev 3y ago

Why didn't California dissolve PG&E and turn it into a public utility?

tomcam 3y ago
What public utilities in California are doing such a good job that you feel that kind of drastic action would be justified?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- solardev 3y ago
  Are there any right now? PG&E has done a pretty poor job, burned down half the state and then went bankrupt. Partially despite/because of heavy regulations. Why not nationalize them altogether and remove the profit seeking middlemen and just let the state run it?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Are there any right now? Yes, several, e.g., SMUD in Sacramento (PG&E spent a boatload lobbying against SMUD expansion to some of its territories a while back.)
    - solardev 3y ago
      How are they?
      - LexGray 3y ago
        From reporting I have seen Sacramento SMUD is generally 25% cheaper than PG&E with faster outage response and more green initiatives. Supposedly carbon neutral. Potentially 35% of power generated from natural gas which replaced decommissioned nuclear. Generally considered superior across the board.
  - 3y ago

e63f67dd-065b 3y ago

Electricity has always had two parts: production and distribution. The problem with most places is that distribution is a natural monopoly: you don't want two or more lets of wires running to every house, so distribution monopolies are a natural consequence. Production, however, is different; there's much more competition, which means that competitive pressure drives prices down. Over time, distribution monopolies and other parties get more and more intertwined as they capture each other. The state uses distributors to levy taxes, unions parasitise the distributors and seek rents from their customers, companies capture regulators who set their prices, and that's why distribution is costly. The beauty of rooftop solar is that you can completely disconnect yourself from the grid and thus the politics that drives prices up. It is true that giant solar farms in the desert and grid-scale batteries are more efficient, but they're captured and don't act in the customer's best interest. In a world where distribution monopolies don't charge more than cost, where distributors are not agents of the state, rooftop solar would be more expensive than grid solar, but that's not the world we live in.

yummypaint 3y ago
Part of being a distribution monopoly is delivering power to everyone, not just places where it's profitable. People in rural areas are able to afford grid electricity because the disproportionate cost of delivering power to them is subsidized by people living in cities paying the same rates. Rooftop solar being cheaper overall than a grid connection for some people isn't that surprising. There are lots of other costs and externalities associated with running a grid that don't need to be contemplated for off grid home solar.
- e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
  Rural electrification subsidies distort the cost of living in the middle of nowhere. This is the same problem as low-density suburban housing: the cost of their infrastructure far exceeds their taxes, so they're subsidised by urban core where infrastructure costs are low. This is an even better argument against delivering power to everyone, all the time.
  - 3y ago

datavirtue 3y ago

We need to stop government incentives and let the market price solar. The government incentives are driving up prices by a ridiculous amount. The solar installation companies are dependent on them. The incentives are affecting the business structure of these companies making them brittle. The companies have to offer warrantees to justify the prices they charge but most can't manage to stay in business. It's a mess and most people are going to learn the hard way, which is not going to drive solar adoption. Roof top solar is going to end up with a really bad reputation for no reason. We stepped on the gas pedal and left the damn car in first gear.

pxmpxm 3y ago

I like how reducing subsidies is somehow a blow against the premise.