4 ms·

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. Th

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.
- fleventynine 3y ago
  Imagine a world where everyone in the state has an overbuilt solar battery system installed, but still relies on the grid those few times a year with extended cloud cover. It would cost a ton of money to maintain all that (mostly unused) infrastructure, and somebody needs to pay for it... If you don't want to pay for the convenience of having on-demand power whenever you need it, disconnect from the grid. Now whether these fees should be income-based is another debate, but some sort of flat connection fee makes a lot of sense in the future...
  - searealist 3y ago
    > Imagine a world where everyone in the state has an overbuilt solar battery system installed, but still relies on the grid those few times a year with extended cloud cover. It would cost a ton of money to maintain all that (mostly unused) infrastructure, and somebody needs to pay for it... You are starting from the "I don't believe in rooftop solar" position and are contriving arguments to support that position. Your argument could apply to _anything_ with variable consumption. What if someone goes to the store once a week and only buys a bottle of wine? They benefit from the convenience of an on-demand grocery store, but if all their customers did this, the store could not exist. Should the store reject this person as a customer? No, the store's fixed costs exist whether or not this particular customer shops there or not. Nothing is to be gained by keeping them away. The same is true with power delivery, those fixed costs exist even if this solar + batteries customer disappears. > If you don't want to pay for the convenience of having on-demand power whenever you need it, disconnect from the grid. This is not an argument, just a projection of power. You can say this to non-solar users now.
    - fleventynine 3y ago
      As it is provisioned for peak demand, the grid will cost roughly the same to maintain as it does today, even if people only use it 10 days a year. In this world, there aren't many options: 1. Charge a fixed fee to everyone hooked up to cover the cost of maintenance and repair (and servicing any bonds). 2. Don't charge a fixed fee, but increase the electricy rate by 36x (365/10) so the overall income is the same as before. This will bankrupt those few folks who can't afford their own solar-battery system (or don't have sunlight reaching their rooftop). 3. Have the government maintain the grid and generation infrastructure, similar to roads. This is very similar to option 1 (especially the means-tested version of #1), except the money is collected via taxes instead of a bill from the utility. 4. Let the grid fail by not maintaining it. Everyone must maintain their own self-generation infrastructure, with no economies of scale. I don't think options 2 or 4 are wise...

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.

fleventynine 3y ago
Imagine a world where everyone in the state has an overbuilt solar battery system installed, but still relies on the grid those few times a year with extended cloud cover. It would cost a ton of money to maintain all that (mostly unused) infrastructure, and somebody needs to pay for it... If you don't want to pay for the convenience of having on-demand power whenever you need it, disconnect from the grid. Now whether these fees should be income-based is another debate, but some sort of flat connection fee makes a lot of sense in the future...
- searealist 3y ago
  > Imagine a world where everyone in the state has an overbuilt solar battery system installed, but still relies on the grid those few times a year with extended cloud cover. It would cost a ton of money to maintain all that (mostly unused) infrastructure, and somebody needs to pay for it... You are starting from the "I don't believe in rooftop solar" position and are contriving arguments to support that position. Your argument could apply to _anything_ with variable consumption. What if someone goes to the store once a week and only buys a bottle of wine? They benefit from the convenience of an on-demand grocery store, but if all their customers did this, the store could not exist. Should the store reject this person as a customer? No, the store's fixed costs exist whether or not this particular customer shops there or not. Nothing is to be gained by keeping them away. The same is true with power delivery, those fixed costs exist even if this solar + batteries customer disappears. > If you don't want to pay for the convenience of having on-demand power whenever you need it, disconnect from the grid. This is not an argument, just a projection of power. You can say this to non-solar users now.
  - fleventynine 3y ago
    As it is provisioned for peak demand, the grid will cost roughly the same to maintain as it does today, even if people only use it 10 days a year. In this world, there aren't many options: 1. Charge a fixed fee to everyone hooked up to cover the cost of maintenance and repair (and servicing any bonds). 2. Don't charge a fixed fee, but increase the electricy rate by 36x (365/10) so the overall income is the same as before. This will bankrupt those few folks who can't afford their own solar-battery system (or don't have sunlight reaching their rooftop). 3. Have the government maintain the grid and generation infrastructure, similar to roads. This is very similar to option 1 (especially the means-tested version of #1), except the money is collected via taxes instead of a bill from the utility. 4. Let the grid fail by not maintaining it. Everyone must maintain their own self-generation infrastructure, with no economies of scale. I don't think options 2 or 4 are wise...