yes, I have looked at that. However, I thought PG&E was locked into some long term contracts at much higher costs.
-
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
Merrill
Merrill
Yeah, PG&E (and probably the other IOUs) enter into PPAs to source electricity at certain rates. This provides a known revenue stream to energy generators so they can put a business case together.
For example, I posted a few days ago that the CPUC is currently asking for requests for proposal (RFP) for 11,500 MW of renewables generation in the next few years. The CPUC believes there is a deficit of renewables generation and wants for-profit companies to submit their plans. To make these plans a reality, the CPUC will authorize PG&E to enter into purchase contracts so the generators have a guaranteed customer for that future utility-scale generator.
Without these types of contracts, the generators would struggle to put a good business case together since their risk factor for their ROI calcs would be obscene. And also without these guaranteed revenue streams the generators probably wouldn't find any way to raise the debt necessary to finance the endeavor. Yes, these generators will "pay" transmission charges to move their energy. But of course they'll just pass these fees into the rates they require PG&E to pay for the generation. It's a cost borne by rate payers either way.
These contracts are unhedged on the PG&E side (like for real, who is dumb enough to take the other side of these?). So PG&E's contracts can can easily go the wrong way and pay way more than market rates for energy.
That is why on the one hand PG&E blames the fact that residential solar is "killing" the spot price of solar kWh at noon. But on the other hand PG&E is paying upwards of $0.25 per kWh for that same energy because they're locked into contracts.
Regardless, rate payers are the ones who get screwed, so it's not like PG&E cares to fix this problem. Rather, they are just asking solar customers to foot the bill because they're rich jerks. The CPUC would rather vilify a set of consumers than vilify PG&E's abhorrent efficiency and business practices.
I would expect that a new generation facility would pay for the necessary equipment to connect to a high power/voltage line in the grid, but after that why would they pay any transmission charges assuming that they are responsible for the continued operation of the equipment and lines from the facility to the grid.
Ok, I get it.
As many have pointed out, let me say this: just because IOUs have purchase contracts at brutal pricing is no reason to argue that rooftop solar customers aren't paying enough.
It can't be stated any more simply -- those two concepts are entirely separate. The only connection between NEM policy and unfavorable purchase contracts are the need for utilities to make a profit, and I don't think that's the connection being spun by the IOUS.
Right now the 48 panels on my house produce at about 4.7 cents a kw. I am sure that an industrial scale project can come in at the 3 cent market rate.
Zabe actually discussed this like a dozen pages ago. He says the generators have to pay for a lot of upgrades, substations, transmission costs, and other fixed costs. But of course these generators are for-profit entities. So they amortize these costs in the per MWh (or kWh) they are charging from whoever is buying their energy. So, the implicit assumption from Zabe is that if a solar customer isn't paying enough import-$ to purchase this expensive energy from the generators, they are not paying their "fair share of fixed costs".
Which goes round and round and round. Volumetric pricing is always going to shift the fixed cost burden. The real solution is to reduce the overhead and fluff costs. It is not in the rate payers interest to have red herring arguments over who needs to pay more. If you want lower costs, someone has to lower the damn costs.
I think all rate payers would benefit if PG&E got smarter about how they operate since that would save everybody money instead of just shifting the turd around. But all the generators and IOU shills want to see more investment dollars go their way since they profit billions off of the utility cash-money-grab.
It was easier for the IOUs to convince someone in Placerville that some rich person in Riverside was screwing them rather than have the IOU's reduce their operating overhead.
Last edited:
And some semblance of transparency would also help customers understand what they're paying for, and why. I can't tell you how many times I've had people discuss their electric bill with me and when I start asking about rate plans, they just go blank.
For real, I like to think I'm at least average smartness. And I cannot figure out my goddamn black and white PG&E NEM2-PS bill. Like holy smokes, wtf. Need that TED talk from @miimura or @Redhill_qik.
That mostly fits with my expectations/mental model for a new generation facility where they pay for upgrades and substations and that would be part of their initial investment, but I don't see how they would also be contributing to transmission or fixed costs of PG&E or why they should.
I think, but I'm not sure of, that residential customers are also on the hook for pay for connections to the grid or at the very least I have seen posts here with people that have been asked to pay out significant money to upgrade their service and in some cases the transformers on the street that can't handle the extra power. I also think that new construction is paying for these costs to connect to the grid which means that the last mile (100 feet) costs have already been paid by the residential solar. Then we get to the long term maintenance and replacement for those units, which I think is the crux of the IOU argument
On a related note, I switched from a gas water heater to a hybrid a couple of months ago which really dropped my gas usage before the gas furnace started to be used. I noticed an extra charge on my gas portion of the blue bill to the tune for a minimum daily transportation cost of $0.13151/day.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I was going to mention the same thing. I have researched what to do with my own system (as I want to add storage while having backup capabilities) and one configuration is having an ATS that lets the grid serve as a backup power source. This means the solar system is completely off-grid, but you still have the loads be able to be served by the grid when your battery runs low.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
No, non-export simply means your system is designed that as a net it doesn't export to the grid, except for very short transients (the length allowed will be defined by your local utility). However, your inverter can still be grid tied (and thus still have a grid connection).
PG&E has an explanation as an example:
Non-Export
Off-grid means the solar system is never connected to the grid at any point in time. That means even if you use a grid-tie inverter (that you can keep "awake" by using a compatible battery inverter), it must be isolated from the grid, such that at no point in time is there ever a connection to the grid. There are multiple ways to achieve this:
1) The solar system powers loads (which can be a subset of your total loads) that are disconnected from the grid completely. This is the typical definition of off grid and what off-grid inverters are for.
2) Have a manual transfer switch (like the ones you use for generators) to switch to grid power manually when your solar/battery system stops generating power.
3) Have an automatic transfer switch (ATS) that automatically switches the loads to the grid when your solar/battery system stops generating power.
4) Have a hybrid inverter that has a built in ATS that can achieve this function.
The goal is simply to move your solar off-grid (making NEM completely irrelevant), you don't need to move your whole house off-grid.
I have a Fronius Primo grid-tie inverter myself, and it's compatible with Victron Quattro or MultiPlus inverters, such that I can not only add low voltage energy storage to my system, it also has a built in ATS that allows it to function as a "microgrid" which is backed up by either the grid or a generator.
MicroGrid & backup systems for grid independence
In this configuration, at no point is the grid tie inverter connected to the grid, the grid only functions as a backup when the batteries are low.
Last edited:
yes. PG&E costs are out of control as I indicated in their financials. Someone needs to do an audit of where all that money goes. We certainly know that it did not historically go to grid maintenance as evidenced from the fires.
charlesj
Active Member
Yes, you'd need a good bit of storage to get you through the winter, period. Or, backup generator.
Not sure 200% is enough to charge all those batteries in the winter.
just for kicks, I downloaded my July 2021 data and ran the numbers comparing NEM 2 and NEM 3.
My NEM bill under NEM2 (current plan) was $17. (not including NBCs). If I was under NEM3, it would have been $489. (not including the $8/kW). I have an 11.7kW array, so the $8 would add another $90.
My NEM bill under NEM2 (current plan) was $17. (not including NBCs). If I was under NEM3, it would have been $489. (not including the $8/kW). I have an 11.7kW array, so the $8 would add another $90.
Merrill
Merrill
That is the other thing that is upsetting, due to years of neglect on their infrastructure we have to pay for their law suite settlement. Billions in wildfire damage because they took the money that should have gone to repairs to the poles and wiring and put it in their pockets. Not sure how or why they were allowed to due that, then they also continue to raise rates.
The tariff breakdown of the Minimum Daily Charge absolutely includes components that are related to transmission, so yes it does pay for the grid.
Great news! Sorry if it was posted before.
It looks like the decision that was proposed for a vote on January 27 is not on the published schedule for the CPUC. This is a good sign that the pressure is working, and our voices are being heard!
Those of you who protested called the governor, and wrote public comments thank you so much! Please keep it up!
From what I hear this pushes back the drop dead date of NEM 2.0 a bit, assuming my information is correct.
It looks like the decision that was proposed for a vote on January 27 is not on the published schedule for the CPUC. This is a good sign that the pressure is working, and our voices are being heard!
Those of you who protested called the governor, and wrote public comments thank you so much! Please keep it up!
From what I hear this pushes back the drop dead date of NEM 2.0 a bit, assuming my information is correct.
A ton of people have audited PG&E's financials. They know where the money goes. The problem is the CPUC is totally fine with where the money goes. They are totally fine with PG&E needing more money so it goes to the same places with rate growth factors in the double-digits per year. That is why more people should be appalled when the CPUC authorizes PG&E to increase natural gas rates charged to customers by ~12%. Yes, natural gas prices have gone up 12%, but the costs PG&E needs to service natural gas have also inexplicably gone up ~12%.
Of course it's not just NG that is going up, if PG&E is allowed to remain bloated, everything has to go up a ton to guarantee the profits.
Many months ago, I posted about the July 1, 2021 General Rate Increase that PG&E submitted. You can see their own pro-forma income statement by the four profit streams they projected.
1. Electricity Distribution
2. Electricity Generation
3. Gas Distribution
4. Gas Transmission and Storage
Go to G-1 to G-4 (pages 102 to 105 of the PDF).
PG&E's stakeholders are guaranteed a 10.25% return on equity (ROE) except for the interpretation around AB 1054 where the particular returns on that segment go to the Wildfire fund.
So even though it's obvious to everybody that PG&E has some of the most broken cost structures of any IOU in the USA, PG&E is asking for permission to raise rates to offset a 6 to 7% per annum cost increase. If your costs go up 7%, but you still need to get a 10.25% ROE after tax, then your revenue has to go up around the double-digits to keep up with the broken cost structure. The CPUC doesn't have the ability to ask PG&E to cut costs or produce economies of scale.
But of course the IOU advocates just want you to think the problem is some rich jerk with solar in OC not paying enough for "the grid". All the IOU advocates just keep parroting "fixed cost shift bad" over and over and over and over because there's nothing else they can really bring up.
Similar threads
- Locked
