Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

California Utilities Plan All Out War On Solar, Please Read And Help

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Like the rest of you, I have made big investments in solar, batteries and Teslas....exactly as the State of California asked me to do. Also like you, I am now labeled as a horrible, almost racist person for having made these investments. So, I am very interested in what this state does next.
For those who have invested similarly to me in Tesla equipment, don't miss that the "Charge on Solar" capability of your system aims to minimize the amount of my solar power that "round-trips", meaning I send it to the utility during the day and buy it back at night. There is a penalty for that. So, I recommend that those who can should give it a try.
Every time I see what FPL is up to in terms of their latest attempts to unravel net metering, I am grateful that I don't live in california. Where it's a lot worse . Although it's small consolation when you're dealing with a large amount of b*******, it is an indication of just how threatened (the almost entirely white plutocracy) private power industry is that they label solar adopters racist and elitist. Since they can't compete technologically with the cost of rooftop solar and can't even get close to it, making it hard to attack the technology itself, they have to discredit and devalue the adopters. We have seen this down here in FL by a number of politicians who like to suggest that solar is only affordable by rich people. This is a well-worn strategy in other contexts, but it's starting to backfire. Let's hope Gavin gets exposed for his role in this blatant conflict of interest story. California should have the cheapest power in the country instead of the most expensive. It takes some serious grifting to go from where it should be to where it is. That gap is impossible to explain without the corruption of monopolistic greed and its usual handmaidens - bought and paid for politicians.
 
Last edited:
Kind of surprised Poppe didn’t blame solar…

Yes, he's replaced obfuscation, his original strategy on this point, with soap bubble platitudes and drivel: “I think the company is on a path to rebuild trust with the people that we serve,” Poppe said. “And in fact, our theme for this year is ‘trustworthy.’ We know that we need to earn the trust of our families, our friends, our neighbors that we serve as our customers. We have to earn that trust every day.”

What a load of total horse crap. Only people trying to cover up greed and blatant grift and wrongdoing talk like that. Or politicians. Wait a minute that's covered by the first parameter!
 
Vote scheduled for next week for customers of PG&E, Edison, and SD

The California Public Utilities Commission will soon vote on one of the most contentious pieces of legislation that recently passed through the state legislature — Assembly Bill 205, which lowers rates but also establishes a monthly fee on residential electricity bills paid by customers of the state’s investor-owned utilities.

Under a proposed decision issued last month by one of the commission’s administrative law judges, electricity rates would be reduced by roughly 15 percent, but most customers would pay a monthly flat charge of $24.15.

 
Vote scheduled for next week for customers of PG&E, Edison, and SD

The California Public Utilities Commission will soon vote on one of the most contentious pieces of legislation that recently passed through the state legislature — Assembly Bill 205, which lowers rates but also establishes a monthly fee on residential electricity bills paid by customers of the state’s investor-owned utilities.

Under a proposed decision issued last month by one of the commission’s administrative law judges, electricity rates would be reduced by roughly 15 percent, but most customers would pay a monthly flat charge of $24.15.

IOUs will try to maximize profits in any scenario, but this is more encouraging than almost everything to date (if rates are really substantially reduced and not just for a few months to year).

Seeing a monthly flat charge in this ballpark is more in line with what municipal utilities do, seeing it more as an infrastructure charge. Non-solar customers "use" infrastructure as much as solar ones, so makes more sense for everyone to share that burden. Solar customers have long been paying such as with PG&E's monthly "minimum delivery" charges.
 
Cutting rates by 15% is lower than the earlier plan of 33%.

I'd rather they simply not cut rates at all and just tack on a monthly for any connection service, but at a lower monthly. You use no power, you pay less except the minimum (~$10 max). This is $10 they didn't get so there will still be a desire for conservation still.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave EV
IOUs will try to maximize profits in any scenario, but this is more encouraging than almost everything to date (if rates are really substantially reduced and not just for a few months to year).

Seeing a monthly flat charge in this ballpark is more in line with what municipal utilities do, seeing it more as an infrastructure charge. Non-solar customers "use" infrastructure as much as solar ones, so makes more sense for everyone to share that burden. Solar customers have long been paying such as with PG&E's monthly "minimum delivery" charges.
It's a shell game. They will immediately propose rate increases as they have been but at slightly larger increments so they're back to where they would have been PLUS a $25 fixed charge. That fixed charge will double low income apartment dwellers bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave EV and mspohr
It's a shell game. They will immediately propose rate increases as they have been but at slightly larger increments so they're back to where they would have been PLUS a $25 fixed charge. That fixed charge will double low income apartment dwellers bill.
Agree the IOUs will never stop pushing up any and all rates as fast as they can get away with.

But the article addresses low incomes:

"Under CPUC’s proposed decision, residential customers would pay $24.15 per month. Customers enrolled in CARE would pay $6 each month while FERA customers would pay $12.08."
 
Since this is a solar thread, we should consider this fixed fee in that context.

1. The current monthly charge is a Minimum Distribution Charge. If you have surplus generation credits, it does not offset MDCs. If this new monthly charge is a fixed fee and not a minimum, it could be offset by surplus solar generation.

2. We should also consider whether this is a fee that is added to the PG&E Blue Bill or added to the true-up.

I don't know the answers to these questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iPlug
Vote scheduled for next week for customers of PG&E, Edison, and SD

The California Public Utilities Commission will soon vote on one of the most contentious pieces of legislation that recently passed through the state legislature — Assembly Bill 205, which lowers rates but also establishes a monthly fee on residential electricity bills paid by customers of the state’s investor-owned utilities.

Under a proposed decision issued last month by one of the commission’s administrative law judges, electricity rates would be reduced by roughly 15 percent, but most customers would pay a monthly flat charge of $24.15.

Not great but better than Florida's $28. Also what does this mean in terms of net metering? Do the net metering rules force everybody to buy batteries? If so that's unfortunate but at these rates, even with batteries if you can avoid the punitive prime time rate charge and there is a cheap rate at night, solar systems could still save you a s*** ton of money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
California is not doing all this work to reduce electricity costs, but to blunt the savings Solar customers get by investing in Solar.

California purchases much of their electricity from neighboring state that burn coal for generation. They turn a blind eye to this pollution, while praising themselves by not doing so themselves.
California gets very little electricity from coal. (Today it is zero)
Most from natural gas.
 
Unclepaul may be suspecting that it is buried/hidden in imports. There is some but only 2 percent imported that is directly reported. Up to ~2.5% more in the worst case assumption could be hidden in the "Unspecified" category below, but that would be only from Southwest Imports.

Unfortunately we wont have 2023 data for another 1-3 month, but as of 2022:

Fuel TypeCalifornia In-State Generation (GWh)Percent of California In-State GenerationNorthwest Imports (GWh)Southwest Imports (GWh)Total Imports (GWh)Total California Energy Mix (GWh)Total California Power Mix
Coal2730.13%1815,7165,8976,1702.15%
Natural Gas96,45747.46%447,9948,038104,49536.38%
Oil650.03%---650.02%
Other (Waste Heat/Petroleum Coke)3150.15%---3150.11%
Unspecified-0.0%12,4857,94320,42820,4287.11%
Total Thermal and Unspecified97,11047.78%12,71021,65334,363121,47345.77%
Nuclear17,6278.67%3978,3428,73926,3669.18%
Large Hydro14,6077.19%10,8031,11811,92126,5289.24%
Biomass5,3662.64%771257976,1622.15%
Geothermal11,1105.47%2532,0482,30113,4124.67%
Small Hydro3,0051.48%211132253,2301.12%
Solar40,49419.92%2318,2258,45648,95017.04%
Wind13,9386.86%8,8048,35717,16131,09910.83%
Total Non-GHG and Renewables106,14752.22%21,47128,12949,599155,74754.23%
Total Energy203,257100.0%34,18049,78283,962287,220100.0%


2022 Total System Electric Generation
 
California gets very little electricity from coal. (Today it is zero)
Most from natural gas.

In terms of AGW, NG is about par with coal.
I'm not knocking CA -- they are clearly way ahead of the rest of the country in leaving fossils behind.

Btw, so far as I know the lion's share of SW import to CA are from nuclear. The Zia transmission project is another 2 - 3 GW of wind energy from NM. I expect it to replace nuclear (and more) as those plants are decommissioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave EV and iPlug
Particulates and other air quality nasties that accumulate (due to inversion layers related to our geography in California) have been a big part of the reason not to burn coal or anything that releases such things.

Nuclear/Wind Southwest imports are captured, such as the above CEC reporting in 2022: 8,342 GWh/ 8,357 GWh respectively.

The tricky category is the "unspecified" imports one. Seems if one could account in any way for "green" energy one would want to get that into the reported categories. Could see hidden coal possibly buried in that category, but "unspecified" only represents 7% total and most of that is imported from the Northwest, so probably safe to assume little if any coal from that region.
 
Vote scheduled for next week for customers of PG&E, Edison, and SD

The California Public Utilities Commission will soon vote on one of the most contentious pieces of legislation that recently passed through the state legislature — Assembly Bill 205, which lowers rates but also establishes a monthly fee on residential electricity bills paid by customers of the state’s investor-owned utilities.

Under a proposed decision issued last month by one of the commission’s administrative law judges, electricity rates would be reduced by roughly 15 percent, but most customers would pay a monthly flat charge of $24.15.

I trust the CPUC as far as I can spit. Thank you again Governor Newsom
 
I have a fairly positive feeling about this bill - for one thing, there are 18 Assembly authors or co-authors of this bill. And that's just the Democrats. I'm sure all the 19 Republican's would vote for this, even if they wouldn't be authors (or weren't invited to be), unless this gets ensnarled as a bargaining chip for some other political issue.

I'm not an expert on our state politics, but there are only 80 Assembly members, so that's almost a majority right off the bat....
I was wondering why AB1999 was not a slam dunk, to cap or repeal the fixed monthly charge proposal. Apparently it was "tabled" by the CA House Speaker in a procedural maneuver, so never had a chance to come up for a vote. So basically crony politics between the House Speaker and Newsom....
 
Pretty upsetting the $24/month is there. I'd much rather a rate increase with a lower monthly. Of course, this would help all solar users more, but also encourage less energy use. AB1999 had this blurb which I'd be very behind (my bolds/color):


"This bill would repeal the provisions described in the preceding paragraph. The bill would instead permit the commission to authorize fixed charges that, as of January 1, 2015, do not exceed $5 per residential customer account per month for low-income customers enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program and that do not exceed $10 per residential customer account per month for customers not enrolled in the CARE program. The bill would authorize these maximum allowable fixed charges to be adjusted by no more than the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the prior calendar year, beginning January 1, 2016."
 
Pretty upsetting the $24/month is there. I'd much rather a rate increase with a lower monthly. Of course, this would help all solar users more, but also encourage less energy use. AB1999 had this blurb which I'd be very behind (my bolds/color):


"This bill would repeal the provisions described in the preceding paragraph. The bill would instead permit the commission to authorize fixed charges that, as of January 1, 2015, do not exceed $5 per residential customer account per month for low-income customers enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program and that do not exceed $10 per residential customer account per month for customers not enrolled in the CARE program. The bill would authorize these maximum allowable fixed charges to be adjusted by no more than the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the prior calendar year, beginning January 1, 2016."
Does anyone know how much it actually costs utilities to maintain the connection to a house?
I know that "utility math" is obfuscated but there must be some independent analysis of costs.