California tries to promote Tesla Powerwall (and the like)

[Hedges]

More attacks on grid-tie PV.

Of course PG&E is entitled to be paid for the services they do provide. But if this would be $75/month flat rate for a net metering customer, that would be excessive if customer's electric consumption had averaged only $75. Maybe wouldn't have been quite that, looks like a boost from $10 to $24/month fixed and maybe $10/month per kW peak of PV. Still quite a bite.

Remains to be seen how (if implemented) this would apply to behind-the-meter systems that don't export power. Zero-export system with clamp-on current sensors plus peak-load shaving batteries would be a desirable work-around, but I'm sure they're one step ahead of us already. That $900/year (for the mentioned 5kW system) could pay for a decent size battery to handle daily power consumption in the summer. Winter, need to draw from grid if using electric heat.

Solar Stocks Sink on Proposed California Rule Changes. Why Utilities in Other States May Wage Similar Battles.

The tough line being taken by California utilities may foreshadow similar fights from other utilities across the country

www.marketwatch.com

 

[JoeHam]

Yet another reason to avoid grid tie IMHO.

The utility companies make the rules and I suspect they may put there interests first!

Not to mention they can unilaterally change the rules while you are in the middle of the game, very hard for them to lose that way!! ?

 

[wholybee]

PG&E need to be taken over by the government and/or shut down given to someone else. The past decade of problems, from the explosion in San Bruno that leveled an entire city block, to years of power outages due to poor maintenance, and losses due to fires they helped cause. The company is grossly negligent and has been for decades without showing any intent to change.

5 years ago or so when I lived in California there was a proposition that I think that article is tied to, that PG&E wanted the right to charge people who had solar and did not use PG&E at all, because PG&E spent money on the infrastructure and needed reimbursed for it even if a home didn't use it. Amazingly, It passed. Its like if you cancel Comcast for Dish network, and Comcast still gets to charge you because they ran a wire to your house you don't use. Total BS.

At that time I had a surcharge on my PG&E bill, because PG&E was charging people who used solar. What made that even more messed up, was that I didn't have solar on my home, but power for Sonoma County is generated by a solar plant. So, in addition to the cost of the power generation, I got to pay even more money for the privilege to use a cost effective renewable source.

 

[fafrd]

More attacks on grid-tie PV.

Of course PG&E is entitled to be paid for the services they do provide. But if this would be $75/month flat rate for a net metering customer, that would be excessive if customer's electric consumption had averaged only $75. Maybe wouldn't have been quite that, looks like a boost from $10 to $24/month fixed and maybe $10/month per kW peak of PV. Still quite a bite.

Remains to be seen how (if implemented) this would apply to behind-the-meter systems that don't export power. Zero-export system with clamp-on current sensors plus peak-load shaving batteries would be a desirable work-around, but I'm sure they're one step ahead of us already. That $900/year (for the mentioned 5kW system) could pay for a decent size battery to handle daily power consumption in the summer. Winter, need to draw from grid if using electric heat.

Solar Stocks Sink on Proposed California Rule Changes. Why Utilities in Other States May Wage Similar Battles.

The tough line being taken by California utilities may foreshadow similar fights from other utilities across the country

www.marketwatch.com

It hasn’t been approved yet, but it is very concerning (and absolutely outrageous).

I wonder how long it will be until us PG&E grandfathered solar customers enter into a class-action lawsuit against them (perhaps the final nail in PG&Es coffin).

I have no issue with the rules changing for new solar customers.

I have no issue with the rules for us grandfathered solar customers changing after our 20-year agreements have expired.

But changing the rules in terms adding greater and greater ‘access fees’ that were not part of our original NEM1 agreements is just criminal.

 

[JoeHam]

PG&E need to be taken over by the government and/or shut down given to someone else.

Yuk, yuk, yuk - like that’ll fix it.

Case in point: In Ohio the power company bribed the politicians with a mere $100 million to get the taxpayers on the hook to pay $1.1 Billion to shut down a nuclear plant at its end of life.

After the bribery was proven the power company still wanted their $1.1 Billion. Most politicians don’t cost $100 million but that’s still a great return on investment. ?

 

[fafrd]

A good overview: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sa...er-updating-californias-solar-rules?_amp=true

“ The group blasted a pair of other items in the utilities’ proposal. The first is a proposed Distributed Generation Successor Tariff that would work out to about $24 a month for an SDG&E customer. Plus, a proposed Residential Grid Benefits Charge that would charge an SDG&E customer about $11 per kilowatt on a solar system.”

This will kill grid-tied solar. Cheaper to just stay on the grid and build a small off-grid system to power constant/24h loads like refrigerators...

I built my 4kW grid-tied system in 2016 to offset a monthly bill averaging $70/month.

With this new proposal, I’d spend all that money on a solar system, generate all that energy, and my monthly bill would only drop from $70/month to $68/month...

 

[Ampster]

At that time I had a surcharge on my PG&E bill, because PG&E was charging people who used solar. What made that even more messed up, was that I didn't have solar on my home, but power for Sonoma County is generated by a solar plant. So, in addition to the cost of the power generation, I got to pay even more money for the privilege to use a cost effective renewable source.

Perhaps you are referring to the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment when you were automatically enrolled in Sonoma Clean Power. If you do the math, the PCIA when added to the charges for generation from SCP are still less that what PG&E would charge for the same kWhrs. SCP does have two solar farms but they also buy energy from the Geysers.

 

[MurphyGuy]

Send in Julia Roberts to kick their rear ends again.... (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Ampster]

The only thing I agree with about the proposed regulation is the incentives for batteries plus solar. We saw this trend in solar farm construction due to the better return on investment.
While I agree with the concept of batteries coupled with solar we are still a long way from economical systems that the average person can purchase. The many DIYers on this forum should not have a problem integrating batteries and solar, but the average Joe who the proposal is supposed to benefit will be screwed.