Sol-Ark 15K Rejected by PG&E in California

[400bird]

Just completed 2 Grid tied installs in California in the PG&E utility area with the Sol-Ark 15k.... and PG&E denied us

Greg, any update from PGE or Sol Ark?

I'm curious, what batteries are these installs using? Were you required to use batteries from the approved list?

 

[Greg-G]

Greg, any update from PGE or Sol Ark?

I'm curious, what batteries are these installs using? Were you required to use batteries from the approved list?

Sol-Ark reply to me was they were checking bonds updates with the CEC today and PG&E either Wednesday or Thursday. It's sounds like the unit meets all the requirements and that the ball got dropped somewhere between the certifying agency and the CEC. These customers have not picked batteries yet, so the installs are battery ready.

 

[Goboatingnow]

Yes I am also fine with anyone that has a grid connection paying their same share of fees regardless of how much power they import, they should pay the same fees as anyone else. Excluding commercial which should pay more fees.



Away from highly populated areas there can be offgrid setups. Which would lighten the load on the grid. Then there still would be fewer customers. Which would unfortunately cause the rates to rise for the fewer remaining customers in the highly populated areas that can’t self generate/micro grid. As I said the fees could come down from not needing to power the rural areas because those areas can now self generate due to the much lower costs of a solar installation these days.. Doubt the grid would do that. They would probably just charge the fewer customers more which isn’t the fault of the self generators. That’s the greed of the grid companies. Some people would look at no longer supplying rural areas with grid power as a step back, or not an advancement. I would look at it like costs of solar/self generation/micro grids have come down enough to make it a more viable option for future advancement. I’m sure the grid doesn’t like that idea at all, as it would hit their pocket books. They couldn’t continue to charge the now fewer customers in the highly populated areas more and more. The people hopefully wouldn’t let that happen. The grid supplying less and less customers due to micro generation should make rates for individuals come down not up..

The grid will remain under typically legal responsibility to supply electricity to where people want it.

If micro generation removes a significant customer base then the economics of the grid suffers. With higher operating costs then being passed back to all consumers.

I think the future will be non grid tied solar or no solar. Certainly the grid is not going to stimulate micro generation and it’s own demise

 

[chopper]

The rational argument is that fewer paying customers translates into the same overhead to maintain a grid being paid for through higher and higher rates for the fewer and fewer remaining customers.

I’m OK with that argument. Anyone having a grid connection that can be used to supply power under any circumstances should be required to pay their fair share of grid maintainance whether they actually used that grid connection or not.

This ‘issue’ has only arisen because of the utilities decision to ‘hide’ grid upkeep costs within ‘simple’ per/kWh billing structures.

The rate structures to support Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) are a good first step towards addressing this structural defect, with separate charges for energy and distribution (NBCs).

This means you will pay your fair share for grid maintenance on every kWh you import, regardless of how much you export.

But while this will motivate solar customers to minimize / eliminate import by adding storage, it will not guarantee they pay anything for grid maintenance if they manage to avoid any import.

Hence the ‘Minimum Distribution Charge’ which impacted all (solar and non-solar) customers equally and guaranteed they pitched in a minimum monthly amount towards grid maintainance cost (if no actual energy was purchased).

But apparently that was not enough and so now solar customers only are going to be hit with a per-kW-of-solar-per-month solar tax.

My biggest issue with that is the fact that it is not being applied to all customers equally. And my second biggest issue is that two customers who have built solar systems that totally avoid any import annually will be ‘taxed’ at different levels if the potential power of their solar installs is different even though their demands on and use of the grid is identical. This is the ‘being taxed on the value of carrots you grow in your backyard’ argument.

Basing a monthly minimum distribution charge on the maximum Watts of grid power that can be imported would be more sensible (with a sensible minimum so solar customers don’t have an incentive to reduce their mainbreakers below average levels).

This would impact solar and non-solar customers equally, would assure that all hookups pay the same minimum monthly fee towards grid maintenance except those requiring high-than-average grid-power availability.

But on another level, I don’t have a problem with whatever new rules they decide to institute for new solar customers.

If the costs are too high and adding solar becomes a clear money-losing proposition, the residential solar industry will collapse and so be it.

The argument that the same subsidies being given to promote rooftop residential solar installations would be much more efficiently spent subsidizing solar farms is rational and economic.

But my biggest issue is the CPUC’s decision that 20-years of grandfathering was ‘too generous’ and will be summarily reduced to 15 years.

People took out loans being payed back over 20 years as a cost-adder to their property taxes to ‘prepurchase’ the next 20-years-worth of electricity. The savings on annual electricity bills offsets the annual cost adder on property taxes and after 20 years, the loan has been paid off and the solar customer is back to break-even with a paid-for 20-year-old solar system that still may have some life left in it.

Over one million California NEM1.0 and NEM2.0 customers bought into that fairy tale and put solar systems on their roofs when it was outrageously expensive to do so.

And now they are only going to get 3/4 of those loans paid off and they will be left paying higher property taxes for the last 5 years without enough electrical energy savings to offset that cost adder.

That’s bait and switch, pure and simple.

This also sounds to me some may think and expect all residents too pay for public water and sewage whether they are connected or not, which I strongly disagree with

 

[Lt.Dan]

This also sounds to me some may think and expect all residents too pay for public water and sewage whether they are connected or not, which I strongly disagree with

It could be in my previous case where i would get charged whether you use it, or not too ?

 

[timselectric]

In my area there's a charge for rain water run off from our property. It's usually added to the sewer bill. Because the same provider handles all drainage.
But, I'm not on sewers. So recently, it was added to my water bill.
Not sure what they will do, when I install my well. lol

 

[Cheap 4-life]

In my area there's a charge for rain water run off from our property. It's usually added to the sewer bill. Because the same provider handles all drainage.
But, I'm not on sewers. So recently, it was added to my water bill.
Not sure what they will do, when I install my well. lol

You get charged for the rain,,, because it runs... off your property...???!!
What in the world is going on these days..

 

[timselectric]

You get charged for the rain,,, because it runs... off your property...???!!
What is the world is going on these days..

That was exactly what I said, when I seen it on the bill.

 

[Redflyer]

Sounds like offgrid is the only logical option these days.

This. ^^^

 

[Cheap 4-life]

The grid will remain under typically legal responsibility to supply electricity to where people want it.

If micro generation removes a significant customer base then the economics of the grid suffers. With higher operating costs then being passed back to all consumers.

I think the future will be non grid tied solar or no solar. Certainly the grid is not going to stimulate micro generation and it’s own demise

Which is ass backwards. Usually a lower demand for something lowers its cost..
In my area there’s no net metering , however they gladly allow you to backfeed all your excess power into the grid for free so they can sell it to the neighbors.. I let them inspect and then thru up zero export limiting grid tie inverters.

 

[Balthazar-B]

In my area there's a charge for rain water run off from our property. It's usually added to the sewer bill. Because the same provider handles all drainage.
But, I'm not on sewers. So recently, it was added to my water bill.
Not sure what they will do, when I install my well. lol

This turn in the discussion brings to mind a famous song...

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

 

[Goboatingnow]

Which is ass backwards. Usually a lower demand for something lowers its cost..
In my area there’s no net metering , however they gladly allow you to backfeed all your excess power into the grid for free so they can sell it to the neighbors.. I let them inspect and then thru up zero export limiting grid tie inverters.

Well the issue is how to recover thd hige capital cost in maintaining a grid in are where it’s under-utilised due to widespread micro generation yet must be present for those where PV is not an option. The grid operator has tremendous fixed costs in people and infrastructure so these costs must be covered.

The solution of course is no feed in tarriffs at all. Why should the grid be forced to buy your electricity.

 

[Ampster]

Why should the grid be forced to buy your electricity.

A couple of reasons. First, it supports the growth of solar. Secondly, distributed generation reduces transmission losses.

 

[Goboatingnow]

A couple of reasons. First, it supports the growth of solar. Secondly, distributed generation reduces transmission losses.

But a grid is a business. The state might support solar but a business shouldn’t.

 

[Ampster]

But a grid is a business. The state might support solar but a business shouldn’t.

They are a monopoly and are regulated. In California generation is deregulated and the Investor Owned Utilities had to spin off their generation They do receive compensation for distribution. Whether they have properly maintained and upgraded that network is up for debate. Because every state has different policies there is no simple answer, but this is a thread about a California Investor Owned Utility and California Renewable Portfolio Standards are relevant.

 

[Kornbread]

In my area there's a charge for rain water run off from our property. It's usually added to the sewer bill. Because the same provider handles all drainage.
But, I'm not on sewers. So recently, it was added to my water bill.
Not sure what they will do, when I install my well. lol

Do you own the mineral or water rights to you property?

 

[Ampster]

On my property tax bill I pay for storm sewers even though I retain some of the rainwater on my property. It seems like a fair tax to not have flooding.

 

[Kornbread]

Well the issue is how to recover thd hige capital cost in maintaining a grid in are where it’s under-utilised due to widespread micro generation yet must be present for those where PV is not an option. The grid operator has tremendous fixed costs in people and infrastructure so these costs must be covered.

The solution of course is no feed in tarriffs at all. Why should the grid be forced to buy your electricity.

Not to be playing devil's advocate, but ... many infrastructure projects were paid for by our tax dollars, electrifying the countryside was one of them. It was nearly impossible for one company, without taxpayer assistance, to absorb the huge cost of stringing miles of $ wire, or rail, in order to turn this country into a first world nation. It was seen as a national importance.

So yeah, I get it. Get everyone on board to spread out the costs.

Also, electrical needs are almost instantaneous, it's hard to store vast amounts of electricity that can be released when needed, which can also make member generators a liability. Too much input to the grid when the sun shines is an issue, just like not enough power to go around. And who generates electricity with solar at night? The vast majority still require 'base load' generated electricity.

The vast majority still need the grid, but by now, haven't we already paid for all the initial infrastructure?

YMMV

 

[houseofancients]

But a grid is a business. The state might support solar but a business shouldn’t.

hence : the grid should not be a business.
the grid is, just like highways a public service

 

[timselectric]

Do you own the mineral or water rights to you property?

I used to think so. But am believing it less these days.

 

[timselectric]

On my property tax bill I pay for storm sewers even though I retain some of the rainwater on my property. It seems like a fair tax to not have flooding.

I'm on a hillside. No problem with flooding for me.
But the properties at the bottom are the ones who need the storm drains. I don't think that I should pay for their bad location choices.

 

[fromport]

Do you own the mineral or water rights to you property?

50% of the mineral rights, not for water

 

[Goboatingnow]

hence : the grid should not be a business.
the grid is, just like highways a public service

Try telling that EU that , grids must be run as completely unsupported businesses. That used me the way now all electricity supply is privatised

 

[Goboatingnow]

They are a monopoly and are regulated. In California generation is deregulated and the Investor Owned Utilities had to spin off their generation They do receive compensation for distribution. Whether they have properly maintained and upgraded that network is up for debate. Because every state has different policies there is no simple answer, but this is a thread about a California Investor Owned Utility and California Renewable Portfolio Standards are relevant.

Of course particular case is a particular case

 

[houseofancients]

Try telling that EU that , grids must be run as completely unsupported businesses. That used me the way now all electricity supply is privatised

ha..
energy companies were privaticed in the 2000, only they werent..
they are owned here by german and swedish government.
electricty price is set by the highest cost producer : gas
orriginally instated to support going greener, now that 89% of electricity here is wind generated its just to shift wealth.

there is serious talk here to once again deprivatise the grid , as it should be

same for natural gas..
we're sitting on the biggest gas bubble in the western hemisphere here, but because of eu we cannot sell that to our own for less than market price, and are obligated to sell 90% to the eu at prices set in the 90's...

screw the eu, and the local politicians