mspohr
Well-Known Member
The text to urge people to conserve was part of the plan. It worked. It's not luck, it's planing
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
California Renewable Energy Legislation / Progress
- Thread starter RubberToe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
I responded to the hail Mary by turning my A/C up to 84 degrees within 60 seconds, obviously others did too. Next year, there will be so much more battery storage online there will be no required hail Mary passes.
RT
Being down to your last option, such that if it doesn't work, you have to order rolling blackouts, is planning, but it's not good planning.
There will also be more air conditioners, especially after the last heat wave. It used to be that houses only had AC in the consistently hot inland areas. Most people in places like the SF Bay Area did without it, because it was expensive and in some of the microclimates, you only need AC 1-4 weeks a year. As the coastal areas have become more wealthy and the cost of AC units adjusted for inflation has come down, even people in places like Redwood City, Belmont, and Millbrae are installing AC units. Some are replacing their gas furnaces with heat pumps too, which gives them a cooling system by default. And all of those new AC units in places like San Francisco, Belmont, Millbrae, Hillsborough, etc., will basically be running only when there's a really nasty heat wave. Whenever an AC unit gets installed in a hot inland location, it's typically a newer one replacing an older, less efficient one, which helps reduce peak demand. But whenever an AC unit gets installed in the coastal areas, particularly San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin counties, it's typically going into a house that had no cooling system at all, and probably offsets between 2 and 5 more efficient AC units in the inland locations. Also, people in coastal regions generally aren't going to install anything except the least efficient single stage AC units because they use them so infrequently, and there are a lot more people who live in the coastal regions than in the hot inland areas. So it's a race between how quickly we can install batteries vs. how quickly people can install air conditioning. And if the Pacific Northwest ever has a devastating heatwave at the same time as all of California, we're still screwed, because we're not making up a 7 gigawatt shortfall in one year.
Here is a shocking statistic (this guy is a CAISO board member):
Apparently, ~20 gigawatts of the increase in load on the grid on hot days over regular days, a whopping > 60% increase, is all due to air conditioning.
Last edited:
My strategy during the heat wave was to run my AC/mini split system at 71 most of the morning while outside temperatures were reasonable (for efficiency) and while I was overproducing solar and the grid wasn't strapped. Then, at 3pm, I turned the thermostats up to 78 and set myself to run off of battery power entirely for the rest of the day (10% PW reserve for backup for freezers, mostly). That allowed me to export all of my production to the strapped grid. My old 70s ranch house didn't take terribly long to get up to 78 where the heat pump had to run, around 2.5-3 hours depending, but the core of the house - the furniture and walls and all of the thermal mass - was cool enough that I was only drawing around 1200-1800 watts while it was running. I would check the battery levels before bed and if they were comfortably high, I'd drop the bedroom area temperature down to 74 for sleeping. I dipped as low as 33% on my 2 PW system on the worst day, and overall the house was plenty comfortable.
NEM 3.0 is going to throw a monkey wrench into scaling up homes that can take this approach.
NEM 3.0 is going to throw a monkey wrench into scaling up homes that can take this approach.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Absolutely. And some of the citizenry had enough sense to not act like fools. As distributed storage increases, California's resilience will improve.
By the way, I'm at an EV convention in San Diego. I think the most interesting (new to me) exhibit was the Quasar2 V2G device. The potential to turn the state's EV fleet into energy storage on demand has enormous promise.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
NEM 3.0 (proposed, not approved) would allow the utilities to tack on a solar "usage" fee (i.e. a tax directed just to them) of ~$10 per kw of installed capacity, per month.
For myself, with a 16kw system, that would mean a $160/mo fee just to connect to the grid.
They call it an "equity" payment by the rich that have solar panels to subsidize everyone else (not my words - those are the words of those pushing for it).
In reality, it's a push to squash rooptop solar in CA, and make even previous installation unprofitable (as they want to expand it to even those grandfathered in to older NEM).
I wish they'd get better at pushing this message. They're saying "set your thermostat to 78 or higher" but not "set your thermostat way below your comfort point during the day, let everything in your house cold soak, and then set it back up at 5 pm and let the heat capacity of everything in your house reduce AC run time".
But then again, they'd do better if they actually incentivized it by lowering the electricity rates between 10 am and 4 pm. I generally won't do this except for a short period between 3 and 5 pm (which allows insufficient time for everything in the house to cold soak), because it consumes more electricity overall and would raise my bill, because the difference between my peak and off-peak rates is probably not enough to make up for the increased usage earlier in the day.
At a minimum, do this incentive on capacity constrained days and push out the message widely. Dropping rates to 10c/kWh would likely be enough to get people to pay attention. Making it free would be even more effective.
A fan of releasing serious demand response plans here.
In exchange for near wholesale rates off-peak, one would get charged near real-time spot market rates for grid consumption on the most demanding days/evenings (and credited with same for instead supplying the grid then).
Conscious consumers and/or those with appropriately calibrated home battery backup win and the grid wins.
In exchange for near wholesale rates off-peak, one would get charged near real-time spot market rates for grid consumption on the most demanding days/evenings (and credited with same for instead supplying the grid then).
Conscious consumers and/or those with appropriately calibrated home battery backup win and the grid wins.
I'm assuming (when you say you're only taking 1.2-1.8 kW) that you have a variable speed compressor? Not too many people in our area (I'm referring to the SF Bay Area generally) have those. I've never installed anything except the most basic single stage units, because we don't use them enough to ever see the savings from variable speed units. Although in my case, letting the house cold soak would show up as a lower duty cycle through the 5-8 pm time frame, which basically accomplishes the same thing.
I do. It's my primary heat source as well, which makes it valuable especially in shoulder seasons.
CrazyRabbit
Active Member
I hope that doesn’t ever get passed. What does NEM 1 & 2 do?
Will NEM3 kill virtual power plants (batteries backfeed ing grid)?
This summer in Texas, I was backfeeding the grid with solar on some days when the wholesale rate was 2000 bucks per Mwh, so sometimes my electric provider benefits. I get net metered per month, and never get paid for over producing.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
NEM 1.0 = kw for kw exchange, no minimum connectivity charge, closed for new customers, only grandfathered installations
NEM 2.0 = $ for $ exchange (so you add up credits in your account, and they moved "peak" hours with the highest $$$ value to 4-9PM), and there is an ~$10/mo connectivity to the grid PLUS "non-bypassable charges" (NPBs) for every kwh you pull from the grid (~3c/kwh).
The only way to "game" NEM 2.0 is to be as self-sufficient as possible with on-site storage and self-utilization (to keep NBPs to a minimum), and export in the 4-9PM window if you want the most credit, but that's really hard as the sun is setting / down.
NEM 3.0 is the utilities pulling the nuclear option and charging everyone with solar a massive connectivity fee. It's being pushed under the "woke agenda" guise as being fair because lower-income households can't as easily afford to go solar (they completely ignore the myriad of tax breaks, local credits, and assistance programs for this group to install solar). Not my political slant - this is literally how they publicly describe this push.
I like to think of NEM 1.0 + E-1 tiered plan as the ability to use the grid as a 100% efficient battery. One that has a limitless capacity, costs you nothing, never degrades, and can supply back as much energy as your main service line can provide at any given time. Of course, PG&E could yank that rug out from underneath people by simply discontinuing the tiered plan and only offering time of use plans. I'm actually surprised that they haven't done this already. The terms say there aren't any NBCs and that you can be a tiered, non time of use rate plan, but don't require them to offer a tiered, non time of use rate plan in the first place. NEM 1.0 + E-1 is really a too good to be true deal and I wonder how much longer this will last.
Last edited:
As someone who doesn't live in CA, I probably shouldn't comment on these things. So I am prepared to have eggs thrown on me.
$10 an installed kw is not that unreasonable. I suspect an average system is more like 5 kw. $50 a month is about right in a low COLA for the maintenance of a grid connection. Low COLA and low fire risk. CA is probably closer to $100 for a SFH. The average house with solar is probably a higher cost also - because it will tend to be bigger and on a bigger lot.
I understand zero is better. And early solar was easy to absorb. But with commercial solar and residential solar in larger quantities, the benefit to the system decreases. So logically, the rules should change.
And at some point, rich people have solar. Most people aren't rich. So calling it a transfer is politically a good idea. The conservatives that hate giving money to poor people still probably hate woke people more. Either way it balances it for them. So politically overall a winner.
I pay $15 a month to grid tie and have all my credits zeroed out in May. I also pay $130 a year per EV. All reasonable and I know my grid tie fee is a bargain. I will tell you that the $130 fee is about 8 years old and it was too high then. But now, it is less than average state gas tax. $10 a kw might be too high today but it will be possibly quite reasonable over the average life. Now if it is $11 next year, maybe not.
If rooftop solar doesn't help the system in the most efficient way, then maybe it should be discouraged. You wouldn't convince me to exempt the people who installed 10 years ago and have well covered the system financially already. But I would certainly feel for someone who installed 2 years ago with a certain expectation and now losses it. They could certainly factor in that if they wanted to.
As time passes, rates increase, and solar still pencils out. But it probably isn't fair to subsidize systems to have rich people get completely paid back in 5 years. Not in 2022. My payback was somewhere around 13 years - or basically even with financing costs/inflation.
$10 an installed kw is not that unreasonable. I suspect an average system is more like 5 kw. $50 a month is about right in a low COLA for the maintenance of a grid connection. Low COLA and low fire risk. CA is probably closer to $100 for a SFH. The average house with solar is probably a higher cost also - because it will tend to be bigger and on a bigger lot.
I understand zero is better. And early solar was easy to absorb. But with commercial solar and residential solar in larger quantities, the benefit to the system decreases. So logically, the rules should change.
And at some point, rich people have solar. Most people aren't rich. So calling it a transfer is politically a good idea. The conservatives that hate giving money to poor people still probably hate woke people more. Either way it balances it for them. So politically overall a winner.
I pay $15 a month to grid tie and have all my credits zeroed out in May. I also pay $130 a year per EV. All reasonable and I know my grid tie fee is a bargain. I will tell you that the $130 fee is about 8 years old and it was too high then. But now, it is less than average state gas tax. $10 a kw might be too high today but it will be possibly quite reasonable over the average life. Now if it is $11 next year, maybe not.
If rooftop solar doesn't help the system in the most efficient way, then maybe it should be discouraged. You wouldn't convince me to exempt the people who installed 10 years ago and have well covered the system financially already. But I would certainly feel for someone who installed 2 years ago with a certain expectation and now losses it. They could certainly factor in that if they wanted to.
As time passes, rates increase, and solar still pencils out. But it probably isn't fair to subsidize systems to have rich people get completely paid back in 5 years. Not in 2022. My payback was somewhere around 13 years - or basically even with financing costs/inflation.
CrazyRabbit
Active Member
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Your logic is horribly horribly flawed, and here is why:
1) The "connectivity" charge of $10 per kw is so high that it would push the pay-back period for solar, for ALL SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS, to 15-20 years, from the current 5-7 years. That is clearly a money grab by the utilities.
2) It takes ZERO consideration for those that are nearly self-sufficient for batteries (like myself). We are NOT using the "grid as a battery", we only pull power from the grid when we can no longer be self sufficient. In my example, that was LESS THAN 2% of total usage last year. I touched the grid less than a "micro home".
Simple question - if I am BARELY using the grid, why should I subsidize everyone else? That's not a selfish question, it's a legitimate "I don't use this resource, why do I need to pay for it?" I don't appreciate the comments and assumptions that the "rich" don't want to help those that are less well off. Living in California, between Federal and State taxes, AND my charitable contributions, over 60% of my income goes . . . NOT to me. Can you say that? Are you literally seeing less than half of every dollar that you make?
You brush this off as an "equity" push, but it is not. Not when viewed objectively. It's a money grab by the utilities. It goes to their bottom line, it doesn't go to helping anyone pay for cheaper power.
The natural evolution of this game of chicken with the power company is the following:
IF the utilities pass this, many MANY customers like myself with large solar arrays and batteries will disconnect from the grid. I will add another 50% batteries and an emergency NG generator, and I will disconnect from the grid. There will be no "fee" that I will pay in that situation. That is a LOT of solar and a LOT of grid-tied batteries that just went POOF and instead of the grid becoming more resilient, it became a lot LESS resilient. I'll take my ball and leave the game, end of that. And NO ONE can force me to reconnect to the grid.
The costs to maintain a grid are not nearly as high as the utilities want you to believe. Other grids separate out the "polls and wires" fees from the "electrical generation" fees. In most areas, the cost to actually maintain the "grid" itself, not the power generation facilities, is 3-5c/kwh. In some states, they are actually different companies. One company maintains the polls and wires, and other companies plug into them to provide power.
No, the "fair" thing would be to charge solar users a non-bypassable charge for our feed-in and any power we pull from the grid. 3c/kwh or so would be more than reasonable, considering that the utility takes our power and then marks it up and sells it to our neighbors down the street for 3-5X as much (and it doesn't cost much to transmit that power down the street, it never goes over HVDC lines). If you use more or feed in more to the grid, you pay a proportional fee. If you don't, you don't.
Last edited:
We do have another thread discussing this NEM 3.0 thing directly, so conversation should probably migrate there. Sorry for mentioning it, mea culpa. I'd just summarize by saying if the goal is to really lower the energy/grid costs for the less fortunate, expanding/tweaking the existing programs is probably a more accurate and honest way to do so than to just assume everyone with solar is rich and that it makes sense to create some flat fee structure not rooted in actual grid use.
The likelihood is that many "rich" people will just go to a non-export setup, add batteries, and basically bypass these fees while starving the grid of distributed renewable energy. Again, apologies for the diversion.
The likelihood is that many "rich" people will just go to a non-export setup, add batteries, and basically bypass these fees while starving the grid of distributed renewable energy. Again, apologies for the diversion.
The original NEM 3.0 proposal was $8 per AC kw rated (not PV, but your inverter), not sure why everyone is saying $10 now.
I think that you are an outlier with only 2% of your imports which means if your total usage last year was 10,000 kWh you only imported 200 kWh. I am a net generator yet during the last 12 months I imported 3,109 kWh, exported 6,781 and my house consumed 6,195. I could have reduced the amount of imports by going to self-consumption, but I don't think that I would get down to the 2% number that you have. Right now there is no incentive to really do that as with the current Minimum Daily Charge and Non-Bypassable Charge rates I can import 10.3 kWh/day or 3,760 kWh/year and not pay anything more than the annual MDCs.
A lot of residential solar is net consumer and people owe when their annual true-up(s) come around. I think that there are two reasons for this, the first is solar installer pushing for lower number of panels so the project cost is lower and more people will install with them and the second is a push from PG&E to keep installs at 100% (was 110%) and as we move to EVs and electric HVAC this will be even worse.
Even if you are net generator, then most are treating the grid as a battery for night versus day (this is my mode) or for winter versus summer.
These view is being pushed by multiple groups and economic professors. They may be fronts with grants form the IOU that influence their advocacy.
The current NBC is $0.02666/kWh, so very close to 3c that you find reasonable, but it isn't enough since the NBC amounts are going to mostly non-grid programs. IMHO, all IOU customers need to move to a fixed connection charge that applies to both solar and non-solar customers to cover the "grid". This is a revenue structure that is used by many utilities to cover the fixed costs uniformly along with a reduction in the current rates to make it a neutral price change for most customers.
That seems unlikely to occur, so the next best option is to raise the cost to import. If NEM3.0 import transmission and distribution costs (which include the NBCs) were no longer offsettable with export that would raised revenue to pay for the grid (and the CPUC programs) this would in turn modify the behavior of customers with ESS to switch to self-powered and encourage more adoption of ESS for future installations.
Similar threads
