It has already been solved in EU. These are grid-tie inverters so they shutoff in blackouts. The units are EU code compliant and safe. For the US. either reduce inverter power limit for 120V sockets or require 240V sockets (single 240V or 2 120V sockets from different phases). It's not rocket science. CPUC and similar agencies spend years to come up with laughable policies like NEM3 that supposedly make solar more equitable by pushing batteries!? While doing little to make solar for accessible.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion
- Thread starter jjrandorin
- Start date
This thread is getting close to getting merged into the stickied thread about NEM 3.0, because its falling back into what I was hoping it wouldnt, which is basically discussion of NEM 3.0 hot button discussion points.
Lol yeah energy policy sucks.
I wonder how the sales/relationship folks that @Vines works with pitch PV+ESS under NEM 3.0. I feel like there are basically 3 general options for a value proposition to pitch PV+ESS to Californian homeowners today.
1) Focus on the resiliency and microgrid benefits with the ever-weakening grid. Take for example the area near @bmah 's hood. I was hoping @bmah would appear in this video (unfortunately no Asians were interviewed hehe). The video highlights how the recent safety measures PG&E has put in cause a ton of unpredictable power losses in the neighborhoods surrounding CA-24 and 580/680. And we know @jboy210 's hood has the most garbage grid with like a paperclip holding it together.
2) Extol the environmental benefits of clean energy and EV charging with rooftop solar; but ignoring any ROI conversations. Basically spending money for the benefit of future generations and ignoring Joe Rogan's anti-EV rants.
3) Basically lie to people by painting massive savings (like what my Neighbor received in his bids). Where installers basically tell folks that NEM 3.0 and NEM 2.0 are only marginally different.
In 14 years when electricity in California is $3.00 per kWh... I'm picturing @h2ofun standing out on his boat looking back at his house with the solar panels on it. And he'll be holding in one hand a cold beer and the other hand his PG&E bill with a NEM 2.0 net cost of like $13 in NBCs. Then he'll laugh and set the electricity bill down and smoke a victory cigar or something.
But then in 18 years when his NEM 2.0 expires he'll have to move to Nevada.
Edit: Can you imagine having basically a $0 NEM 2.0 electricity bill, then suddenly the next hear having to accommodate like a $10,000 annual electricity bill after NEM Grandfathering expires? I'm surprised there aren't more irate NEM 1.0 people complaining about this stuff when their super-old systems switch over to NEM 3.0.
Last edited:
bradtem
Robocar consultant
No, based on current trends, solar panels will drop even more in price, and so the cost of adding extra solar to take his extra load won't be that bad. Or perhaps the cost of storage will plummet.
Perversely, if you change your system you need a new permit and must switch to NEM 3 so nobody will change their system.
Truth is, NEM 3 is a lot more fair to the utility than NEM 2 which is a boon to us homeowners. It's a subsidy, designed to encourage solar. And it's a subsidy at the expense of the utility, and the other customers who don't have NEM 2. That is how subsidies are. It's a bit less desired that NEM 3 customers will in effect subsidize those with NEM 2.
Now, if things were more ideal you could sell your spare power to your immediate neighbours, even if you have NEM 3. But a free battery that lets you feed in spare solar at 3pm and get it back at 7pm isn't entirely fair, as much as we might like it.
Lol ... so true ... to be fair to installers, they didn't create the lies all by themselves ... they have lots of help from the vendors ... example:
From p.13 "Financial Analysis"
How many lies can you spot?
First of all, it shows supposed "PG&E" cost analysis for "Santa Clara, CA 95050". Last time I checked, that's not in PG&E territory.
The numbers are even crazier than the quote your neighbor got.
How many people ever realized 3.5 year payback under NEM2? I have NEM1 and it took me 6 years.
$1,400/kWH battery cost and break-even < 6 years! Pure fiction.
Last edited:
Yeah Enphase seems to have a ROI calculator that is more effed up than the one the CPUC used in the NEM 3.0 proceeding haha. How the hell is a NEM 3.0 system (with battery) supposed to provide a 81.22% bill offset?????
In the previous 12 months, my piddley 6.7 kWp-AC solar system generated about 14 MWh. 50% of that went to the grid (and was net consumed from the grid with my ~100% offset). And I have 3x Powerwalls at like 39 kWh which is way oversized for such a small solar system. Enphase's BS 10.1 kWh ESS is not offsetting 81.2% of any friggin utility bill under NEM 3.0 since the difference between export and import value is so huge over time under NEM 3.0
I feel like nobody's model (with the exception of @Redhill_qik 's of course) considered the glide path export value credits over time. It feels like they took the 2023 ACC credit value and just held it flat over the next decade instead of gliding it down.
Hopefully in 18 years our BEVs will support V2H so we can accomplish more of that shifting stuff.
bradtem
Robocar consultant
It's true. Right now V2G is not nearly as useful as people think, but with NEM 3, it does increase in value. V2H has value (though for most of us, power is out so rarely in the year that the value is minimized.) V2Load is useful for people who go camping or want power at work sites etc.
Except adding batteries won't bump you to NEM 3 as far as I know. Adding more panels than 1k will bump you to NEM 3.
skepticcyclist
Member
I already decided that I am going to add about 4 more panels myself and not let my utility know. Max continuous output for each IQ7 microinverter is 240. So the most additional power that will be going back to the grid will be 960 watts, and this will only be for a short period of time. If I change my pool pump to run during the peak solar time, instead of at night, that will more than offset any additional power going back to the grid.
It seems to me it may not matter adding more panels. From what I have seen with me, the worse that happened is I did not get credit for the extra amount of energy I sent back compared to the amount I was "approved" at. Now with my EV, etc., I send back a lot less than I am approved for, so if I added a lot more panels, without permission, I will would not lose anything I sent back. With 30kw already, and close to a full roof, and full inverters, I am just fine.
I have actually added more than that, but with some controls, overhead and other loads I make sure I do not exceed the AC rating of my NEM agreement plus the 1kW extra allowed. I also faced the new panels West so they peak later than my main system.
I never thought solar leasing made sense under NEM 2.0. With The lower compensation for exports my guess would be the economics of leasing would be worse under NEM 3.0
.
.
I just don't know how leasing works. Do you pay the solar company for all your power and they deal with PG&E? or do you only pay for the solar and any PG&E power you pay to PG&E?
Yes, the credits are from PG&E. However under NEM 3.0 they are insignificant and that is why batteries can improve the return on investment by reducing the amount paid to PG&E. As I mentioned I have never seen a lease that makes sense. I did a self install and it cost me $2.50 a Watt, Over the expected life of that system I calculated that the lifetime kWhs produced would cost me $0.06 per kWh. If I paid an installer $3.50 per Watt to install a system that cost would still not exceed $0.10 per kWh. Obviously cost of funds has to be factored into it and I am retired and on a fixed income but have a low cost of funds. All of my calculations are after the 30 percent Investment Tax Credit which one does not get with a lease.
Similar threads
- Locked
