diy solar

diy solar

Sunny Boy frequency-shift regulation of power output - which models work per spec?

If you were grandfathered in "NEM 1.0" would that not mean you stay in 1.0 "forever"
None of the California NEM agreements were in perpetuity. It is common to use the term grandfathered for those agreements. They very carefully word the language in the form of a tariff so that it does not become a contract and they can get the CPUC to adopt a newer tariff. A lot of people were also confused and thought that the rates were grandfathered. The rates changed all the time but certain rate plans were only available for a fixed period, like my old EV tariff.
 
Last edited:
None of the California NEM agreements were in perpetuity. It is common to use the term grandfathered for those agreements.
This is what I was trying to figure out. Our PGE papers don't say anythgin about how long it is in effect. Trying to see what we need to do, if anything.
 
Grandfathered, but only for a while.

With NEM 2.0, there were changes to terms and a connect fee. Those of us with original NEM were supposed to get to keep if for 20 years from original date, then be switched to 2.0 (without the fee.)
I did pay a $300 fee for time of use meter (or maybe that was net metering meter), which was obsoleted and replaced at no charge with smart meter.

Something like grandfathered with original equipment requirement (I get to swap old inverters with other old or less old models, don't have to put in the latest standards.) And we were supposed to keep original terms for 20 years. The planned 3.0 was going to cut our time short. Not sure in the event we were already moved to 2.0, if that would immediately bump to 3.0 anyway.

Of course, $/kWh changed along the way, time of use vs. rate changed, and whatever tariff we were on was eliminated. They said we would automatically switch to a new one, or could choose an "even better" plan. Then San Jose was going to swallow up all customers, consumers first and PV producers second by default. They offered pricing just a smidgen better. I opted out, remained with PG&E. There was a form to check off, including "Why?", which included "Because I don't like being automatically switched."
In the event a customer turned out to be a deadbeat, they would be transferred back to PG&E. San Jose gets the profit of good customers, PG&E takes the loss of the bad? How can they do that?
We also paid $275 for a time-of-use meter even though we already had one. The PGE papers never mentioned any time limit. One of our neighbors has had "NEM" for 22 now and while the rates changed, times changed, they don't have to pay the 2cent/kwh (or whatever) fee. All else is same as before from what I can tell looking at their bill. It still says "NEM" not "NEM 2.0" or similar.

We also got switched to another energy company and I still have no idea of what that is all about. Just trying to see what, if anything, we need to plan for if things change. Will we have to pay the $8/kw fee or will be exempt? In the worst case scenario, what would be good to do? Go completely off grid with battery? I.e. Just turn the main breaker off and do your own thing on you side? I guess you would have to cancel your power service otherwise you'd still have to pay the $8 fee whether you use any power or not.

With many new systems at 10-15 or more KW, $8 is a lot. = $80- 120/ month or $960 -$1440/year in extra costs. Plus get next to nothing for what you feed in and pay full retail for what you use. We already have some of the highest rates in the country.

What are people in a similar boat planning?
 
I really don't see how they can bill us (home owners with solar) just for having solar panels. It makes no sense at all. If they really try to push that, I see a huge number of people taking it to court. I can see not paying anything for back feed. Even charging for back feed current could be justified. But charging just because you have the panels? How is that legal? How are they justifying that charge?

Would they base it on the STC rating of the panels, or the output rating of inverters? Could there be a clause to avoid it with an approved zero export system?

I get why they want it. Every kilowatt hour we produce is a kilowatt hour they are not selling to us. But how is that any different than someone turning off their air conditioner and opening windows, or when changing all the light bulbs over to LEDs. If we use less power, we should pay less. There should not a penalty for being more efficient.

The water company here pulled a similar thing a few years back. They ordered us to cut water use. Many people put in lower flow shower heads and added "smart" lawn sprinkler controls. Water use in the city dropped by 20%. So the following year, they raised the cost of the water we use by 20%. So now we all use less water but pay just as much. Now the electric company is trying to do the same thing. We use less electricity, but they still want to make as much money off of us.

Maybe they can offer a rate plan for zero export. IF the meter sees export, then charge a penalty. I would be fine with that.
 
This is what I was trying to figure out. Our PGE papers don't say anythgin about how long it is in effect. Trying to see what we need to do, if anything.

Stay quiet, keep your head down, and maybe no programmer's software will flag your account for changes.
But charging just because you have the panels? How is that legal? How are they justifying that charge?

Same way they might charge for using a clothesline? Receiving TV broadcast over the air? (I think U.K. does that.)
Would they base it on the STC rating of the panels, or the output rating of inverters? Could there be a clause to avoid it with an approved zero export system?

It's not export they want to charge for, it is supposedly your reliance on the grid. Those without PV use all power they need from the grid, and pay for its maintenance that way. A PV user might only draw significant power occasionally, possibly when it is most strained. They get the existing of the grid as backup without paying except for the power they do draw. A "Demand Charge" could address that. But, people might go 100% off-grid, shifting 100% of burden to poor people. Utility would then have to raise rates to maintain power lines. Don't be surprised if the government taxes people for using the sun.

In California, the consumer and the tenant represent a large voting block. Soak the rich.
 
I am trying to get my head around it also. Just some wild thinking (I many be wrong on any or all of it):

When we put power in the grid during peak times it helped PGE because #1, we were not putting any extra strain on the grid by running big loads during peak times and #2 we were putting back power into the grid which helped them to maybe not have to run peak plants at 10x or whatever cost. We got "rewarded" for that by being able to take out 3 1/2KWH off peak for every 1kwh we put in at peak time. KWH was (and still is) 1:1 credit.

Would the utility pay solar users to say off the grid? Then solar people will not add to any extra loads the utility has. How about the utility pay solar people $8/kwh/mo NOT to feed anything in?

It seems to me that solar is a benift. How did it become (or will become) a liability? If you just shift to use as much power as you produce when you produce it, how can that be bad? Having peak and off-peak rates almost the same makes that the sensible thing for solar people to do.

Pay for maintenance- we are in a rural area and the people here paid the utility for the connection. That was not cheap. Two owners had 1-2 miles of utility line added way back when. Last time I checked a few years ago, adding a transformer 100' from utility pole would have cost more than $20,000. For that money you can buy a complete PV+battery system and be better off. Why does the utility not give you the connection and transformer for free and you pay for the power you use? The grid was paid for by users when the houses were built. They did not get any of it for free.

The world is different than it was in when this NEM 3.0 thing was to be decided early this year. There should be a better solution.

Yes, keeping the head well down, but it shouldn't be a matter of luck.

Food for thought: PGE will turn the power off in case of wild fire. We have electric pumps that run an external ember dousig system. W/o power, the house will burn down. With power we can run the electric pumps and save the house. Now some will say, get a gas pump - well CA will ban those also at some point. So you have to have a solar backup system if you want to save your house when a fire comes. Are you just supposed to sit there w/o power and watch your house burn down? I know that PGE lines can cause fires, but leaving them energized can also prevent fires. Places users between a rock and a hard place. Should the utility not pay for backup systems? Exactly when people need power the most, they have told you in advance that it will not be there. It is really better to run a big diesel generator for a few weeks while utility power is out and smoke from fires is all around you? Does not seem like a great idea.

Just random thoughts. Probably a lot that I did not consider.
 
"Shifting the burden to poor people"
False argument.
If I use 10kw, I pay for 10kw, if someone else, rich or poor uses more or less they pay for their use.
This argument may have had some merit for 1:1 net metering, but those days are looong goone.
 
Are you just supposed to sit there w/o power and watch your house burn down?
Yes!
In government think, the rebuilding of your home will provide a much needed stimulus to the economy. Suck it up and do your part.
/s
 
If they change the rate structure for all user to a fixed grid maintenance charge, and then a lower cost per KWH, then I am okay with it. And sure, maybe greatly reduce or eliminate paying us for back fed power, and even charging solar owner more for any KWH we do end up using. That is all fair. But charging just for the solar panel being there is a load of BS.
 
Yes!
In government think, the rebuilding of your home will provide a much needed stimulus to the economy. Suck it up and do your part.
/s
Fireproof housing is probably needed. But even in Spain and Greece and other places where they build with stone places burn.
 
Our PV generation reduces fossil fuel use, good for the environment.
It reduces PG&E's operation of fossil fuel plants, which generate power to be sold at a profit. Bad for PG&E.

What would be fair is power pricing based on time of use (costs more depending on generation source and requirement for additional distribution infrastructure), and for usage patterns (infrequent use of grid as backup, vs. steady use.)
But the pricing structure should allow consumers including PV users to become better citizens, responding to Flex Alerts or whatever to reduce the demand they place on the grid, switching to more efficient appliances, and reducing bills that way. Not a perpetual bill for what they did once upon a time.
 
We also got switched to another energy company and I still have no idea of what that is all about.
That is probably a CCA? Community Choice Aggregation is a part of deregulation that allows the generation to be provided by others. Do you know the name of your CCA?
 
It reduces PG&E's operation of fossil fuel plants, which generate power to be sold at a profit.
PG&E has not owned any generation since deregulation in the late nineties. They still own a piece of nuclear and some hydro. They purchase generation in the open market and are not allowed to make a profit but they do add their overhead which is significant given that the average rate is over $0.20 per kWh and the wholesale cost is $0.05 per kWh. That is a lot of overhead.
 
That is probably a CCA? Community Choice Aggregation is a part of deregulation that allows the generation to be provided by others. Do you know the name of your CCA?
Yes. Could be Pioneer. Have not looked into why it would be good or bad.
$0.15 ($0.20 - $0.05) is a lot of overhead. Our rates are close to $0.50/KWH now. Nevada next door looks to be about $0.13/KWH.
Why does the utility not add batteries that can store the excess solar and feed in back in during peak times?Way back when peak was 12pm to 6pm, solar could produce it. Now 4pm-9pm peak solar can only produce it til maybe 7pm. Then from 7-9 you'd need battery storage that was charged during the previous 12 hrs of sun or pumped hydro. If solar users could feed in during peak times, they battery they would need could be pretty small. I heard that Tesla Powerwall owners could do that. Won't work for DYI batteries here though, at least not yet.
 
Why does the utility not add batteries that can store the excess solar and feed in back in during peak times?
Some have done that at the urging of the CEC and with some subsidies. My belief is they spend more effort lobbying for rate hikes and less effort on long term planning and strategy. The exception seems to be the long term strategy is to convince the CPUC to give them what they want.
 
A quick search came up with: "Politicians and campaigns took a total of $2.1 million from PG&E, according to ABC10's analysis of state campaign finance data, both during the company's bankruptcy and after it pleaded guilty to 85 more felonies."
Seems pretty cheap for what they get out of it.

I'd get a battery and feed the grid during peak hrs at night, just don't what to have to buy a Tesla Power Wall to do it. From what I've seen, they get some really great rates for doing it.
Hope that whatever happens it is fair.
 
Mechanical clock in an electronic stove?
Or is that an electronic clock that uses line frequency for timing?
Could be a poorly trimmed crystal based clock.
Hello, my first post to the forum, but I've learned a lot lurking!

We also just bought a Frigidaire Galaxy induction stove and the clock is running slow. I don't know if it's crystal-controlled or line-frequency controlled. Using software that I've written to summarize all the data the SI6048 stores to the SD card it looks like the SI does a good job of using either high or low frequency shift to control the SBs, to keep clocks accurate. The whole system is working well, except for this clock issue. Haven't gotten an effective answer from Frigidaire yet. The stove also throws F022 errors, which may be unrelated or maybe the stove is defective. (Great stove otherwise!)

We use Intermatic DT101 digital timers for pumps etc but their clocks run perfectly -- they are definitely crystal-controlled.
 
Back
Top