5 ms·

California Rooftop Solar Reckoning

10 points by hindsightbias 3y ago

fleventynine 3y ago
Once home batteries are available in the $200/kWh price range, the California home solar market will come back. NEM 2.0 was a ridiculous transfer of wealth to rich households who could afford panels, and I'm glad it's over.
- hypothesis 3y ago
  We’re never going to solve any existential problems with this attitude, instead we’re just all going to perish except some people will have this smug smile on their face because “rich people”…
  - fleventynine 3y ago
    NEM 2.0 pays solar homeowners a rate that is far above the market rate of instantaneous power (paid via an unsustainable, regressive "tax" on non-solar households paying astronomical rates). Roof solar panels are far less economically efficient than dedicated solar installations in the desert. I agree that subsidizing solar plant construction was a good idea, but NEM 2.0 was bad policy. Poor folks don't have the capital to install solar or upgrade the insulation on their houses, and (in California) typically live in a much more hostile climate. They need to consume significant energy to live and end up paying for a significant portion of the NEM 2.0 "subsidies" as part of their power bill. Government subsidies could come from the general revenue of the state, which is mostly fed by progressive taxes (poor folks contribute much less money than rich folks). It would be better to subsidize green energy directly from general revenues.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Affric 3y ago
      In Australia this was the case for our incentive rates for early adopters but their windows were all quite small and they started to wind up. They helped hugely with bringing the cost of installation down and also creating a positive attitude to solar panels. Sometimes giving free money to the rich means that it’s electorally popular enough that the right wing won’t roll it back when they get in.
- searealist 3y ago
  AB 205 kills both NEM 2.0 and batteries.
searealist 3y ago
The article only focuses on the change to NEM 3.0 from NEM 2.0 which just means you get a 25% instead of 75% credit for the power that you put into the grid. The article doesn’t mention at all bill AB205 which is what is really going to kill solar. This bill moves most of the cost of your monthly power to a fixed fee, which is dependent on your income. Under the new rules, you may end up paying a monthly $130 fixed fee even if you only use five dollars of power beyond what your solar provides. This true even if you are using batteries on a NEM 3.0 plan to save your excess instead of putting it into the grid for a 25% credit.
- fleventynine 3y ago
  They need to be careful with how high these charges are. Replacing their grid connection with an oversized solar-battery system combined with a propane backup generator might be more attractive to rich folks.
  - dalyons 3y ago
    They’ll just pass another law to make it illegal to go off grid in a grid serviced area. Pge/cpuc corruption knows no shame
    - everybodyknows 3y ago
      It's bigger than PGE/CPUC, the solar and Community Aggregation industries are big players too. And with the legislature having full freedom to shift subsidies according to current direction of the political breeze, power charges are effectively integrated into the California tax code, not to be analyzed apart from it: > The utilities commission has $280 million in an “equity fund” to assist low-income consumers.
- lttlrck 3y ago
  I've spoke to multiple people that think the flat-fee is a flat-rate. Its devious. And most reporting doesn't really unearth the details. It's sad that the solar lobby isn't up in arms about this, instead they are still on the radio peddling their wares to consumers that are in for a rude awakening.

10 points by hindsightbias 3y ago

Once home batteries are available in the $200/kWh price range, the California home solar market will come back. NEM 2.0 was a ridiculous transfer of wealth to rich households who could afford panels, and I'm glad it's over.

hypothesis 3y ago
We’re never going to solve any existential problems with this attitude, instead we’re just all going to perish except some people will have this smug smile on their face because “rich people”…
- fleventynine 3y ago
  NEM 2.0 pays solar homeowners a rate that is far above the market rate of instantaneous power (paid via an unsustainable, regressive "tax" on non-solar households paying astronomical rates). Roof solar panels are far less economically efficient than dedicated solar installations in the desert. I agree that subsidizing solar plant construction was a good idea, but NEM 2.0 was bad policy. Poor folks don't have the capital to install solar or upgrade the insulation on their houses, and (in California) typically live in a much more hostile climate. They need to consume significant energy to live and end up paying for a significant portion of the NEM 2.0 "subsidies" as part of their power bill. Government subsidies could come from the general revenue of the state, which is mostly fed by progressive taxes (poor folks contribute much less money than rich folks). It would be better to subsidize green energy directly from general revenues.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Affric 3y ago
    In Australia this was the case for our incentive rates for early adopters but their windows were all quite small and they started to wind up. They helped hugely with bringing the cost of installation down and also creating a positive attitude to solar panels. Sometimes giving free money to the rich means that it’s electorally popular enough that the right wing won’t roll it back when they get in.
searealist 3y ago
AB 205 kills both NEM 2.0 and batteries.

searealist 3y ago

The article only focuses on the change to NEM 3.0 from NEM 2.0 which just means you get a 25% instead of 75% credit for the power that you put into the grid. The article doesn’t mention at all bill AB205 which is what is really going to kill solar. This bill moves most of the cost of your monthly power to a fixed fee, which is dependent on your income. Under the new rules, you may end up paying a monthly $130 fixed fee even if you only use five dollars of power beyond what your solar provides. This true even if you are using batteries on a NEM 3.0 plan to save your excess instead of putting it into the grid for a 25% credit.

fleventynine 3y ago
They need to be careful with how high these charges are. Replacing their grid connection with an oversized solar-battery system combined with a propane backup generator might be more attractive to rich folks.
- dalyons 3y ago
  They’ll just pass another law to make it illegal to go off grid in a grid serviced area. Pge/cpuc corruption knows no shame
  - everybodyknows 3y ago
    It's bigger than PGE/CPUC, the solar and Community Aggregation industries are big players too. And with the legislature having full freedom to shift subsidies according to current direction of the political breeze, power charges are effectively integrated into the California tax code, not to be analyzed apart from it: > The utilities commission has $280 million in an “equity fund” to assist low-income consumers.
lttlrck 3y ago
I've spoke to multiple people that think the flat-fee is a flat-rate. Its devious. And most reporting doesn't really unearth the details. It's sad that the solar lobby isn't up in arms about this, instead they are still on the radio peddling their wares to consumers that are in for a rude awakening.