California Regulators Propose Cutting Compensation For Rooftop Solar (nytimes.com) 178
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: For a second time in less than a year, regulators in California moved on Thursday to roll back the compensation that homeowners receive from utilities for the excess electricity their rooftop solar panels send to the electric grid -- payments that power companies and some consumer groups have argued hurt poor and low-income households.
The new proposal from the California Public Utilities Commission would cut the benefit for almost all new rooftop solar customers by about 75 percent starting in April. Under current rules, households that send excess power to the grid receive credits on their utility bills that are equivalent to retail electricity rates. The system of credits is known as net energy metering. The measure, which will be subject to public comment before the commission's five members vote on it, would also limit solar systems to 150 percent of a building's electricity load.
Regulators in other states are closely watching how California changes its net metering program. Utilities and solar energy companies have been fighting over energy credits in numerous states. Billions of dollars in investment and revenue are potentially at stake. More generous credits typically encourage people to buy solar panels but can cut into the profits of utilities. California leads the nation by far in the use of rooftop solar, with about 1.5 million such installations. The utilities commission estimates that those systems have the collective capacity to generate 12 gigawatts of electricity, or the equivalent of 12 nuclear power plants.
In a statement, the commission said the new proposal would make net metering more equitable. Average residential customers of Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric who install solar panels would save $100 a month on their electricity bill, and average residential customers installing solar paired with battery storage would save at least $136 a month, the commission stated. As a result of those savings, it said, the average household that installs a new solar or solar and battery system would be able to fully pay off the system in nine years or less. Compensation would not change for homeowners who already had rooftop solar panels, for at least 20 years from when their system was installed. "As rooftop solar systems have spread over the last decade, the utility industry has criticized use of the technology and called net metering an unjust subsidy," adds the report. "Utilities argue that rooftop solar homes that greatly reduce or zero out their monthly electric bills are effectively forcing households without panels to bear more of the cost of maintaining the electric grid. But the solar industry has argued that net metering is needed to encourage use of rooftop solar and reduce the emissions responsible for climate change."
Regulators in other states are closely watching how California changes its net metering program. Utilities and solar energy companies have been fighting over energy credits in numerous states. Billions of dollars in investment and revenue are potentially at stake. More generous credits typically encourage people to buy solar panels but can cut into the profits of utilities. California leads the nation by far in the use of rooftop solar, with about 1.5 million such installations. The utilities commission estimates that those systems have the collective capacity to generate 12 gigawatts of electricity, or the equivalent of 12 nuclear power plants.
In a statement, the commission said the new proposal would make net metering more equitable. Average residential customers of Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric who install solar panels would save $100 a month on their electricity bill, and average residential customers installing solar paired with battery storage would save at least $136 a month, the commission stated. As a result of those savings, it said, the average household that installs a new solar or solar and battery system would be able to fully pay off the system in nine years or less. Compensation would not change for homeowners who already had rooftop solar panels, for at least 20 years from when their system was installed. "As rooftop solar systems have spread over the last decade, the utility industry has criticized use of the technology and called net metering an unjust subsidy," adds the report. "Utilities argue that rooftop solar homes that greatly reduce or zero out their monthly electric bills are effectively forcing households without panels to bear more of the cost of maintaining the electric grid. But the solar industry has argued that net metering is needed to encourage use of rooftop solar and reduce the emissions responsible for climate change."
Whores, all (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the biggest reasons I'm contemplating leaving California is the way the state full throats PG&E, well-known murderers for profit.
PG&E wants this, nobody else does. PG&E wants because they only really profit from building new generation projects, and residential solar competes with that. The regulators and policy makers are obviously getting kickbacks from PG&E. There's no other reason why they would kneecap carbon reduction like this.
The California Public Utility Commision (Score:4, Insightful)
I spend 30 minutes googling local candidates and their positions every other year. It sucks, because they try to hide their positions so as to not put anybody off. Even the good ones.
I don't blame people for not realizing how important it is to vote in these elections, or to research the candidates, I blame schools who teach kids government is a game instead of a life or death choice with real outcomes on their daily quality of life.
CPUC is appointed, not elected (Score:5, Informative)
The CPUC is appointed by the governor, not elected. Gavin Newsom appointed 3 out of 5 of the current commissioners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Vote in your Democratic primary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points. This ^^^.
(And, not necessarily only Democratic primaries).
Re: (Score:3)
As for third parties if you have ranked choice or something like it go right ahead but without voting reform third parties are impossible. Winner take all first past the post voting creates two party systems not the other way around.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't like how it's being run change who you vote for.
Both parties are equally corrupt, and so are the independent candidates. Changing who you vote for merely changes which corporate interests you get sold-out to, not whether or not you get sold out.
There are a few simple and obvious reasons for this. First off, power naturally attracts the already-corrupt. It's their thing. So the pool of candidates has corruption over-represented from the get-go. The precious few candidates who are authentica
Re:The California Public Utility Commision (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't like how it's being run change who you vote for.
Both parties are equally corrupt, and so are the independent candidates.
Both parties have flaws, but no, they are not "equal".
Corruption is not the only flaw.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, no, now the way California runs elections you will often have a "choice" of 2 democrats.
I live in the SF Bay Area, as true blue as you can get (Nancy Pelosi won re-election with something like 80+% of the vote). I'm pretty sure just about every race I just voted in was one Democrat versus one Republican. Not ideal since I don't like either party but not as bad as it could be. Even the Gubernatorial and Senate seats we had up for grabs went Team Red/Team Blue.
That being said, clearly the "open-primary with two advancing to the fall" isn't yielding the results we might have hoped for. The system
Re: (Score:3)
That being said, clearly the "open-primary with two advancing to the fall" isn't yielding the results we might have hoped for.
It's only effect has been to kill off third party and independent candidates.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, no, now the way California runs elections you will often have a "choice" of 2 democrats. It's a blue owned state. If you don't like how it's being run change who you vote for. It's the fault of blindly blue voters like you who turned the state into a single party mess. And now you want to move and bring your poison with you? What state are you planning to destroy next?
To clarify the above for those NOT in California:
California is a non-party affiliation state. The candidates who receive the most votes in the primaries, regardless of party affiliation, earn a place on the ballot for election.
Most elections still come down to choice of a republican and a democrat, but many are between two democrats, and some are between a democrat and an independant/minority party candidate. Primaries are important in California and anyone is allowed to declare their candidacy.
Re: (Score:2)
When Democrats are your only choice that's when you have to sit down and do research to figure out which one is the corporate whore. And I speak from experience there's always one that is and one that isn't.
Meh. Sometimes there's just whore jr and whore sr. Also, sometimes you're right about one not being one at all, but often they have no chance whatsoever to get elected.
Re:Yes, flamebait. (Score:5, Insightful)
By all means, cuckservatives, attempt to cancel my comments because my political views are not aligned with yours...
Nope.
My political views are pretty close to yours, but I nevertheless will mod posts like this down, because anybody starting posts with insults like "cuckservatives" is not interested in contributing to the conversation, just getting lulz from slinging shit.
By making your views look like the opinions held by assholes, you damage everything you say, and I'd like to see your views moved to -1 so that adults can be heard.
Re: Yes, flamebait. (Score:2)
Yeah, youâ(TM)re so balls deep in the problem that youâ(TM)re basically part of it.
Maybe you should try being balls deep in a meaningful solution to the problem instead. The whole smoldering with impotent rage look is pretty well played out at this point.
Re: Yes, flamebait. (Score:2)
So you put your dick in the problem?
Hit Piece (Score:4, Insightful)
This article has many of the signs of a hit piece. They make broad claims like "some consumer groups have argued it hurts low-income households" without stating which consumer groups feel that way. And no effort is given to showcase how it hurts low-income households. If households are being paid more than their energy is worth, thus putting that burden on homes without solar, then say so. Any reader must assume one of two things after reading the article: homes with excess solar are being paid at least 75% more than their energy is worth to the grid (based on the reduction to payments mentioned in the article), or industry lobbyists are trying to increase their profits by reducing the use of renewable energy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The truth is that net metering forces the utility company to pay full retail price for residential rooftop solar electricity, whether they need it or not, while they pay other electricity suppliers wholesale prices.
The difference between wholesale and retail (and the customer connection fee, which for me, not in California, includes a fixed and a usage-based component) pays for the utility maintaining the distribution network. Net Metering is not a sustainable long-term policy; decision-makers chose it as
Re: Hit Piece (Score:3)
You forget that because wholesale price varies with demand, the most expensive price is during the day and especially when most A/Cs are working hardest, which so happens to alighn perfectly. Solar peaks at peak wholesale price which is usually way more expensive than night rates. I doubt net metering gives people with panels such a significant subsidy. Even if it did, the whole idea is that we have been subsidising big oil forever, it's time to reverse the trend.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, without cited sources I have no idea if you are telling the truth. You may not be lying, but you are incorrect. California Assembly Bill 920 requires PG&E to pay your Net Surplus Compensation at a rate that is comparable to what we pay other energy producers for electricity generation in the wholesale market. [pge.com] But don't worry, enough people will take your word for it for you to get plenty of Insightful mods.
In September 2021, California's average electricity price was 19.9 cents per kWh [electricchoice.com],
Re: (Score:2)
For California, unlike Texas, onshore wind is not an easy fix. High density solar farms are not either. Their near term solution will be maximizing the number of residences with solar. And acknowledge the gravy train
Re:Whores, all (Score:5, Insightful)
Their near term solution will be maximizing the number of residences with solar.
This move will directly reduce the number of residential installs which occur. It is literally going to do the opposite of what you just said.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit torn about that. The value of electricity depends very much on the time you deliver it whilst the consumer's tariff is designed to cover even using electricity at the highest peaks of the day. Paying that much for electricity, independent of when it's delivered, even at moments of negative energy pricing seems over the top. OTOH, the California grid is clearly not doing as much as it should to even out prices. There was a discussion here recently that the links from California to other states are
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a bit torn about that. The value of electricity depends very much on the time you deliver it whilst the consumer's tariff is designed to cover even using electricity at the highest peaks of the day.
PG&E forced us all to get smart meters whether we wanted them or not on the basis that they would permit time of use metering, so the hardware is actually present everywhere to do time of use net metering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Whores, all (Score:5, Informative)
PG&E is state run and hasnÃ(TM)t ran a profit ever.
The only significant time PG&E hasn't paid dividends is from 2017 to 2022, and that's only because they skipped contractually obligated maintenance and burned down some cities, and oh yeah, dozens of people. PG&E is not state run, they are only kind of state regulated. In fact, they were mostly deregulated in 1996, which is why they can get away with this crap. Well, that and the useless idiots like yourself telling lies for them.
Re: (Score:2)
PG&E is state run...
You should stick to terms you understand.
Re: (Score:2)
PG&E is state run...
You should stick to terms you understand.
You are right that they are not state-owned. However, they are a utility which means just about every major decision effecting their business is actually made by a regulator and not the management of PG&E. What types of power plants to build, that's the CPUC's decision. How much to charge for power, that's decided by the state too. How much to spend on maintenance vs new power plants, that's the regulators decision too. Even how much to pay the executives is decided by the state. And the CA state
Re: (Score:2)
There's enough differentiating them from state run business' that makes referring to them as such pretty unrealistic. For instance, it certainly wasnt due to state policy that they neglecting maintaining their infrastructure for years. They would later be found guilty of said neglect after their infrastructure caused several of our worst fires from 2017-2020 and had to declare bankrupcy over the fines https://calmatters.org/politic... [calmatters.org] . If they were state run the government would have been liable for the da
The most expensive solar in the world (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The most expensive solar in the world (Score:5, Informative)
Due mostly to massive tariffs
haha no. It's mostly due to supply and demand of labor. Solar panels are not much more expensive here per watt than what they cost anywhere, but installs cost a lot more, because there are not enough installers. We got our REC Twinpeak 2 panels at $0.44/watt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The reality is they cost 30% more to start, and are still sitting at 15%.
The reality is that 15% is a pittance, compared to the fact that people are paying 2-3 times as much for installations here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You said it was the main factor.
It is not even close.
Luckily, the whole thread is there, so everyone can see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. [letsgosolar.com]
Rule of thumb is installation doubles the cost, though I see estimates from several years ago where installation is a little more than half the purchase price of the panels. But that doesn't count costs of design, site development, structural supports, inverters, wiring, and other equipment to tie into the load/utility. Of those, purchase costs of solar panels and inverters have trended down. Costs like labo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're actually a tax credit which is far better than a deduction.
Just fyi. Carry on!
The cost of Labor isn't the problem (Score:3)
For the record I worked briefly as an electrician and decides a few guys that work on the cooling
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're right. It's Big Oil which is so deeply entrenched in California politics.
The reason is right there in TFS. The credits aren't "equitable" enough because they believe poor people who don't have solar are essentially subsidizing the cost of maintaining the electric grid for middle class / rich people with solar panels.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're right. It's Big Oil which is so deeply entrenched in California politics.
Actually, the last two governors of CA (Newsom and Brown) are both from large fossil fuel extracting families. The Browns own more CA wells than any other family. The Getty's (which Gavin married into) are one of the largest fossil fuel extractors on the planet. Surprising huh.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems this is a billing issue.. that doesn't merit ax'ing 75% of the benefit.
It merits separating electric transmission costs from power consumption and fuel costs.
And have the "Net" metering net out the consumption fee only. With the transmission fee only allowed to cover their share of the costs to maintain the shared transmission infrastructure, And the consumption fees only allowed to cover the part of the costs regarding generating/acquiring power and the power generators' local non-shared transmi
Re: (Score:2)
Kills solar dead. (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope PG&E has plans to build more nuclear plants, because if you think you got rolling blackouts now...
No one, and I mean NO ONE short of environments and hardcore grid cutters will invest in a solar system for their home if it doesn't pay for itself within the lifetime of the system. You cut the credits that low, you better have UPS's and Coleman lantern subsidies for low income families since half the time their electric is going to be out.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope PG&E has plans to build more nuclear plants
Yes, of course they do. They don't make money on doing maintenance, so they just don't do it. The "camp" fire (worst name ever, thanks cal fire!) was caused by a 99 year old hook wearing out. Their profits are mostly from new generation projects, and nuclear is the most expensive kind of generation project, so they would absolutely love to build some nuclear plants. Luckily, Californians do not want them, and there is no water for them anyway, so the odds of new ones are relatively low.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Luckily Californians do not want them?
Sounds like you've been drinking the cool-aid a little bit too much.
You do realize Nuclear is the GREENEST form of energy on the planet, even considering the complete lifecycle and all the problems that have happened?
But don't take my word for it. How about listening to Michael Shellenberger, who was once the whitehouse's "green" person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
He ends with:
> Now that we know that renewables can't save the planet, are we going to keep letting
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do realize Nuclear is the GREENEST form of energy on the planet
That is total bollocks [nrel.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize Nuclear is the GREENEST form of energy on the planet
That is total bollocks [nrel.gov].
I don't see how that document supports your position. That document is statement of the harmonization project vs the variability of the literature reviewed.
Here's a document from the same source (nrel.gov) that shows numbers. See the page 3 chart for "Median Published Life Cycle Emissions Factors for Electricity".
The lowest life cycle emissions are ocean wind (8-13) followed by nuclear.(13)
photovoltaic is 43.
Re: (Score:2)
The lowest life cycle emissions are ocean wind (8-13) followed by nuclear.(13) photovoltaic is 43.
So what you're saying is that nuclear isn't the best, right? Which, BTW, you can figure out from the report, the point of harmonized figures is that they are useful figures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, what it is saying is that nuclear is the best provider of baseload power we have.
We need more load-following power, not more baseload.
You can't replace fossil fuels providing baseload with any variable source. So instead we double generate that power using natural gas peaker plants. Those wind and solar numbers don't take that into account.
If you really think that's how things work, then you are even dumber than I thought, and I was already not too impressed with you. We use fossil fuels to handle variable demand because your beloved nuclear power plants can't do that efficiently, and they are already the most expensive form of generation we have. Wind however is excellent at load-following, because you can vary turbine output rapidly by pitching the blades. Even if we were going to keep th
Re: (Score:2)
Green as in >$10 billion to build a single plant.
Re: (Score:2)
was caused by a 99 year old hook wearing out
You do realize that CA regulators set the maintenance and tree trimming budgets for PG&E right? I know it is fun to think all that money went into executive's pockets but the truth is it went to pay for renewables in some form or the other. Part of that is overpaying for residential solar dumped back into the grid. But that isn't very entertaining and doesn't let you blame "the rich" so you don't want to hear it.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that CA regulators set the maintenance and tree trimming budgets for PG&E right? I know it is fun to think all that money went into executive's pockets
You do realize that PG&E has been engaging in a combination of on one hand not cutting trees they're contractually obligated to cut, and on the other hand literally cutting trees they're not supposed to cut and profiting from their removal? Trees were marked and cut on Cobb Mountain after the fires in Lake county that were never supposed to be cut at all.
Re: (Score:2)
and there is no water for them anyway, so the odds of new ones are relatively low.
Don't necessarily need tons of water... the eventual possibility is to start building VHTRs [wikipedia.org] which are Helium-cooled or Molten-salt cooled, instead of by water.
Re: (Score:3)
The end of net metering is just going to sell a lot of battery storage. It won't kill solar - it will just kill the benefits to the grid stability.
Re: Kills solar dead. (Score:2)
They cite estimated monthly savings of $100-136/ month off an average home's electric bill once the compensation is adjusted as they propose... how many monthly $100 savings does it take to pay off the average home solar installation?
Re: (Score:2)
Read one sentence further in the summary and it says 9 years, but the math doesn't seem right on that. Maybe it includes some kind of large subsidy I don't get in my area.
Subsidy, or Benefit? (Score:5, Informative)
The state of NH and Public Utility Commission commissioned a study [nh.gov] to determine the value of these distributed energy resources (the study also included microhydro and small-scale wind). It was released just this past September, so the results are timely (although the scope is limited to NH). Their conclusion: it's a net benefit. On a strict cost basis, the average rate-payer's bills are forecast to increase by only 1% over the coming years due to increasing (net-metered) solar deployment. If one places any monetary value to the environmental benefits (mainly avoided fossil fuel use), it becomes a substantial win. NH does not have strict energy portfolio requirements (X% green by 2030, say), but does participate in a regional greenhouse cap cap-and-trade system. If those efforts tilt more heavily towards green energy (as all of NH's neighbors are doing), the value of that distributed solar to the whole system increases.
Billions of dollars in investment and revenue (Score:3)
Billions of dollars in investment and revenue are potentially at stake
And nobody cares about people, unless they can be used as an excuse. If you really want to make people to act on climate change, make things as simple as they are apparently now in California.
The poors? Inequality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The poors? Inequality? (Score:4, Insightful)
The claim is that the cost of maintenance of the grid will be on the people who buy most of their electricity from the grid. It would be a much stronger argument if they were actually performing any maintenance rather than burning down forests.
Don't Give Them a Choice, Go Off Grid (Score:4, Interesting)
If you use an appropriate transfer panel you can even manually choose whether the circuits on your transfer panel are on grid or on solar, while still not being grid tied.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't give them a choice, take your system off grid. They can't control your compensation when you're offsetting your usage. Look at your system size, choose some household loads, and install batteries that will let you run those loads full time on batteries. Circuits with lights and small appliances are the best targets.
If you use an appropriate transfer panel you can even manually choose whether the circuits on your transfer panel are on grid or on solar, while still not being grid tied.
This makes no sense. If you're off grid you are getting zero compensation. They're proposing lowering the compensation that net metering gives- not inverting it so you suddenly somehow paying the utility so give them your excess electricity. Going totally off grid will make solar even less financially attractive.
In other words, they're saying, "Instead of $1 per watt, we're now going to pay you $.25 per watt". Your response to that is- "Screw you guys! I choose $0 per watt!"
Re: (Score:2)
No, the compensation Swervin was advocating for was using all the electricity the solar panels generate, by using batteries to store excess and use it later. If you use it all, you're saving the full retail rate no matter what the price they set for buyback.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Don't Give Them a Choice, Go Off Grid (Score:4, Informative)
Where the argument for the change falls apart is the claim that the current system is somehow inequitous to households without solar-generation systems. If you have a solar-generation system, all you're getting back is a credit for the excess power you put into the grid -- you're still paying the line charges and the other fixed costs that all households pay, and the non-generating households aren't paying anything extra because of the power you put into the grid. The only way that it could be considered inequitous is if you argue that the non-generating households have a 'right' to have solar-generation systems, and that you are elevating yourself above them because of their inability to acquire one for themselves -- ignoring the fact that poor and low-income households will overwhelmingly live in rental properties, often multi-family structures, where it is the landlord, not the residents, who would get any benefit from solar generation on the property.
Re: (Score:3)
Where the argument for the change falls apart is the claim that the current system is somehow inequitous to households without solar-generation systems.
Correct. PG&E wants us to believe that rooftop solar is unfair to residents who don't have it, but they want us to believe that somehow buying power from them instead of from your neighbors through them is going to be fairer. The same corporation that's been polluting California and setting it on fire for over a century, that has been regulated repeatedly explicitly because they unfairly charged customers, wants us to believe they're the fair guys.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit more like: "Instead of paying you $1 per watt and if you need more than you have to sell, we'll sell a watt to you for that same $1; now we're only going to pay you $0.25 per watt but go on selling watts to you for the full $1." Now, you might argue that PG&E should get some margin for that $1 watt... though given their general malfeasance I'd say the only thing we owe anyone from PG&E is a swift kick to the head, but whatever... so maybe it's justified to give them a 5-10%-ish (But no m
Do what Pennsylvania does (Score:2, Informative)
Pennsylvania breaks an electric bill into three parts: generation, transition, and transmission.
Generation charges cover the cost of generation. Transition charges pay for maintenance of voltage-modifying facilities (substations), and transmission charges pay for the cost of maintaining transmission lines.
When you generate with solar in PA, you only get paid the generation rate for your production. It is also, by some magical coincidence, the lowest part of your electric bill. So, you're basically selling y
Re: (Score:2)
This is the most rational and correct method.
Net metering detail (Score:2)
I haven't looked into net metering - but were the utilities foolish enough to net out the distribution charge?
I would have expected that net metering is paying for the energy, not the transport - that is if you providing energy then you still have to pay for use of wires, but you do get paid for the energy produced.
Or is that what this new rule does - it only applies net metering to energy usage, not transit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wholesale (Score:5, Interesting)
>"Utilities argue that rooftop solar homes that greatly reduce or zero out their monthly electric bills are effectively forcing households without panels to bear more of the cost of maintaining the electric grid"
This is true, to an extent.
When selling back electricity to the grid, it should pay at "wholesale" rates, which will be lower than what you pay to get electricity. This is fair- you are using their infrastructure to push your electricity out to other customers. Coupled with a small monthly connection fee, it should make it work out for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Buy at retail, sell at wholesale.
I don't know how it works in CA, but where I live the electric bill has two parts, the connection fee, a flat rate per day, and the power usage, the usual $/kw-h.
As a side note, the connection fee for three phase is higher than for single phase.
Of course, now that utilities are going all in (Score:2)
I've been driving I-10 through Desert Center for nearly 30 years and there's never been anything going on in the desert until now. Now, there's one massive solar field up and running with two more in the process of construction. Joe Schmo with his rooftop solar is effectively competition because with net metering, he won't be paying for those massive solar fields. So, the utilities with way more political pull in Sacramento are going to pull the rug out from under Joe Schmo now that he's gotten a second
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rooftop solar has the problem that a lot of installers literally die. But looking into that reveals that most of those deaths could be avoided by installing and correctly using a roof anchor and a harness, and in some cases that was actually required and didn't happen. You could also probably avoid some of those deaths with air bags, yep, bouncy castle technology could save the day. But that requires really making sure that people are actually using safety equipment, and also using it correctly.
Hi! We have frequent blackouts! Fuck us! (Score:2)
We're gonna yank subsidies on one of the ways we have of compensating.
That'll make it ALL BETTER!
Hey...why have the lights been out for a week?
It's the law (Score:4, Insightful)
This is awesome. Mandate solar panels by law and then kneecap the homeowner.
Ridiculous... (Score:2)
The electricity should be credited at retail up to $0 on the monthly bill and excess beyond that should be wholesale. Really the excess should be metered and sold at the market rate but they don't have that sort of utility market in CA like they do in TX.
It all seems to depend... (Score:3)
On what part of the elephant you've grabbed onto.
PG&E seems to be like most utilities in the US, seeking profit and avoiding unwelcome regulation. Huh, imagine that. But I read here and elsewhere:
- PG&E avoids maintenance, as a cost, and prefers to rebuild at stakeholder expense.
- PG&E is prevented from performing maintenance by onerous state regulations.
- PG&E gouges its customers by every means available.
- PG&E is stuck in a regulatory purgatory, unable to satisfy any stakeholder.
- California residents that can install solar generation are being cheated, and have been, by PG&E be (fill in any of myriad complaints).
- California residential solar generators are cheated by not getting fair compensation.
- California residential solar generators don't pay their fair share of transmission costs, and cheat everyone else.
I dunno, I live in Arizona and get solar panel come-ons at my doorstep every other week. Some still tell me of the AZ rebate program the Legislature passed a while ago. Full disclosure, the Legislature actually defeated that measure. They lie. And they really wanna sit with me and show me how much money I will make or save. And I've sat through one such presentation. Cannot they please use 5th grade math to prove their point? Nope, the equations don't balance. And one of my neighbors admits their solar install has neither paid off nor met expectations, and it is aging enough to start failing. They have an ideal install. Mine would be less than ideal, poor orientation.
But residential solar is going to be important, and storage systems equally. Already the utilities are aware of the grid failure awaiting us if electric vehicle charging expands as expected... There are no free lunches.
And from my vantage point I see California regulation causing more trouble than it is solving. But that's a simplistic view of the problem. California politics are toxic. Add in the predictable corporate greed and self-interests of everyone that wants to be righteous and grand, and you've got trouble.
And electricity is not even the most important problem. Water is. Arizona cuts consumption. California both increases and demands others cut. The Federal government is threatening to act to save the Colorado River from real devastation. And when water use in California is merely leveled off, then no more houses are built, no new business created, agriculture will reduce affecting the entire world, and the real fight begins.
In all of this, sane and practical policy decisions are no longer sought, rather we seen divisive and harmful conflicts aimed to cause us real harm, a strategy designed, I believe, to ultimately permit domination by forces we will regret not seeing and defeating sooner.
There is no room in the current debate for fair and reasonable resolution. Why doesn't matter much, right now, because it will end in disaster no matter why.
Is there a logical case for rooftop solar? (Score:2)
If you care about the environment wind, CSP, nuclear and even utility PV are better choices all having lower carbon footprints. If you care about cost utility scale PV is half the cost of residential systems.
If you care about public safety, solar itself (panels, inverters) add additional fire risk, more importantly should fire break out for other reasons panels limit firefighter roof access because they won't go near them. More people on roofs for installation and ongoing maintenance of high current MLPE
Re: (Score:2)
The case for rooftop solar is that it reduces infrastructure costs for the utility, reduces heating and cooling costs for the homeowner, and typically produces power faithfully for decades without any additional pollution beyond production and install so long as that install is performed responsibly.
The deaths are a real problem, solar installer is one of the most dangerous jobs in America in fact, but most of the deaths are preventable through the use of the correct equipment [ca.gov]. Roof anchors can be installed
Re: (Score:2)
The case for rooftop solar is that it reduces infrastructure costs for the utility
The rate payer bankrolls utilities. The objective function is how much the customer has to dish out in exchange for reliable energy. There is no case for rooftop solar being more cost effective than utility scale PV in CA.
reduces heating and cooling costs for the homeowner
How does PV reduce heating costs? There is at least a foot between the panels and (now) shaded roof plus 20% of the energy is converted to electricity.
and typically produces power faithfully for decades without any additional pollution beyond production and install so long as that install is performed responsibly.
So does utility scale PV only better and more cost effectively. Also the chance of rooftop MLPE lasting for decades without replacemen
Home, grid-connected solar problematic (Score:3)
Solar is awesome and I'd like to see more of it. But the way solar is currently sold to home owners is a bit of scam. In my opinion the compensation needs to be cut. Also what always astounds me about home, roof-top solar is that home owners expect, and currently have been able, to get paid for selling electricity back to the grid at retail rates. That's insane and unsustainable. why on earth should home solar owners expect to get paid retail rates for generated electricity? A power company buys power from the generators at wholesale rates, and then sells it at retail, covering the costs of transmission and line maintenance. Yet somehow we've managed to get masses of people that expect a power company to pay full retail rates for buying back power. How does that make sense? Furthermore micro solar is really hard to balance on the grid. Even worse peak solar does not correspond with peak demand in most jurisdictions. The problem is significant enough that in Australia power companies are starting to charge fees to to home solar generators. It's only a matter of time before we see that in North America. The only way to solve these problems is with storage and batteries are quite expensive, and will have to be borne by the home owner ultimately.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, an argument not based on religion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not fair for the homeowner to get paid the same price they pay. But it's also not fair to pay them only the same wholesale price that a bulk generation facility would pay, because they are actually reducing the utility's costs.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. It will end up being some kind of middle rate determined (hopefully) but some kind of free-ish market.
Need more competition (Score:3, Informative)
Pure protectionism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just protectionism, plain and simple.
For a utility? So just so you know, a utility is a company granted a monopoly in exchange for giving up much of their own decision making. We do this in industries (like power) whose products are both natural monopolies (like an electric grid) and allows multiple other industries to exist.
PG&E has gone bankrupt several times recently (3x in the last 20 years). Has that helped? I feel like you don't really understand how any of this works. So let me just give you one fact, the tree trimming budge
I like this (Score:2)
Let's do this instead: you get a dollar-for-dollar bill credit for any electrical upgrades that you do including getting more efficient appliances, adding solar cells etc.
No more of that "based on what you provide" crap. After all, consumers shouldn't be on the same model of kickbacks that providers get for doing nothing.
Solar should be paid the wholesale price (Score:2)
You should not receive fuul retail for your solar power. That's just stupid. Building and maintaining the distribution net is - very roughly - half the cost that a utility has. They also have to consider storage, grid balancing, etc..
Wholesale prices should becaround 1/4 to 1/3 of retail. Anything more is a subsidy on the backs of other customers.
Re:Not just Cali (Score:5, Informative)
It never was for the power companies, they just want your money. PG&E in particular has murdered between dozens and hundreds of people for profit between their dumping of hexavalent chromium, dumping of PCBs, and of course just not doing maintenance of any kind leading to gas line explosions and forest fires. PG&E's equipment killed over 100 people in the last decade alone [abc10.com] and the ecological damage will take decades to repair [ktvu.com].
PG&E is a criminal conspiracy to kill Californians for profit.
Re: (Score:2)
...Power companies don't like solar. So they simply said "lol, no pay us more now!" They suddenly decided that you need to pay them to use solar hookups.
Y'know, perhaps there's a more free market approach? This is what California tried back in 2000 (and massively screwed up, TBH). We separate PG&E into two roles: producing electricity and delivering it. They'd get some fixed amount for moving a Joule of power from point A to point B (and we'd want some open access rule so everyone has the same right to buy transmission services). Then you, I, and Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station all become producers selling power to willing buyers. I could offer my
Re: (Score:3)