California Solar gets a haircut - NEM 3.0

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
58,413
Location
Ontario, Canada

As previous discussed:

The proposed revisions to NEM 3.0 have now been made:
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) unanimously voted to approve Net Energy Metering 3.0 (NEM), slashing payments for excess solar production sent to the grid by 75%.

CPUC voted cut the average export rate in California from $0.30 per kWh to $0.08 per kWh, making the cuts effective on April 15, 2023. Customers who have new systems installed and approved for grid interconnection before the effective date in April will be grandfathered in to NEM 2.0 rates.

During the vote, the Commission said the balancing of costs and benefits continue to be “quite generous” under the decision.

Currently, average net metering rates range from $0.23 per kWh to $0.35 per kWh, and the new proposed decision cuts those rates to an average of $0.05 per kWh to $0.08 per kWh. This is set to be the largest cut of export rates in U.S. history, in a market that represents roughly 50% of the nation’s residential solar market.

The reason for this revision we've discussed previously, that is, ratepayers without solar were subsidizing those that have it:
Payments were cut as a result of a reported cost shift where non-solar owners cross-subsidize solar owners for maintaining the grid. The utility-backed concept suggests poorer Californians are paying higher utility rates to pay for lost profits that utilities endure in order to pay solar owner for delivering clean energy to the grid.

The idea with this change is to push people toward also installing storage. This is to aide in reducing the duck curve effect we've also discussed:
As exported power loses its value, Californians now have their hand forced to adopt batteries with their solar installations if they want a reasonable return on investment. Return on investment periods are estimated to move from an average of about 4.5 years to 6.5 years to 14.5 years, said Centrica Business Solutions.

“We believe this would represent a potential 70-85% drop in economic value for solar-only systems, which would suggest California would effectively become a 100% solar and storage end market, which ultimately makes solar much less accessible and affordable,” wrote Phil Shen, managing director, ROTH Capital Partners.


@JeffKeryk and @UncleDave you are lucky to have gotten in when you did!
 
I'm not surprised. We are similar here in FL. I absolutely am in favor of rooftop solar here, as when the sun is shining, the AC is running. Sized correctly, you can cool your house for free when the sun is shining.

My dual compressor 5 ton AC uses 3600W when running full tilt and about 1800 when the 2.5t compressor is running, which is most of the time. A 5000w solar array provides enough power during daylight hours to run the AC.

But if you expect to backfeed the grid and have no elec bill, you'll need something more than 15,000W worth of solar on a 3br house. There generally is not enough roof area for that.

FPL is well aware that solar requires "Peaker Plants" to combat intermittency. The net result so far has not been good, with an INCREASE in NG use vs no solar!
 

As previous discussed:

The proposed revisions to NEM 3.0 have now been made:


The reason for this revision we've discussed previously, that is, ratepayers without solar were subsidizing those that have it:


The idea with this change is to push people toward also installing storage. This is to aide in reducing the duck curve effect we've also discussed:



@JeffKeryk and @UncleDave you are lucky to have gotten in when you did!
While I feel lucky, and 100% satisfied, with my solar project, I would hope for a more universal energy solution.
3 things in CA:
  1. I hate PG&E.
  2. CA needs to continue to do more with nuclear. I whole heartedly support the Diablo Canyon extension, but it's not enough. I am thrilled about the Lawrence Livermore advancements.
  3. Did I say I hate PG&E? And the CPUC ain't much better.
 
Shouldn't be such a big deal being that current Calif residential building code already "demands"* roof stop solar. It'll be interesting to see if builders start offering the Tesla Powerwall as an option.


*Solar is not required but it's easier for builders to meet code requirements for energy use with solar rather than building a better structure.
 
Shouldn't be such a big deal being that current Calif residential building code already "demands"* roof stop solar. It'll be interesting to see if builders start offering the Tesla Powerwall as an option.


*Solar is not required but it's easier for builders to meet code requirements for energy use with solar rather than building a better structure.
The few new home owners with solar I have spoken with flat out love their solar. There are some newer developments in cheaper areas, like just west of Sac. Lotta retirees. Livin' large and blowing that AC!
 
So what’s the deal here? California can’t handle the duck curve anymore?

38CA655D-420C-4C19-95B5-5FA4C4A53B4B.jpeg
 
Last edited:

As previous discussed:

The proposed revisions to NEM 3.0 have now been made:


The reason for this revision we've discussed previously, that is, ratepayers without solar were subsidizing those that have it:


The idea with this change is to push people toward also installing storage. This is to aide in reducing the duck curve effect we've also discussed:



@JeffKeryk and @UncleDave you are lucky to have gotten in when you did!


NEM 3 is a huge win for the power companies thats for sure.

Going forward instead of their 30% markup on the free energy they will get 80% markup on the free energy while forcing all the cost on new homeowners all the while increasing the rates to everyone. Big Brother made out like the bandit he is here!

You can still get an ROI, but at 10 years vs 5, most will simply choose to invest elsewhere.

If I've got to buy a storage system I don't need the grid anymore.
 
Last edited:
The few new home owners with solar I have spoken with flat out love their solar. There are some newer developments in cheaper areas, like just west of Sac. Lotta retirees. Livin' large and blowing that AC!

Who wouldn’t love enjoying the benefits at someone else’s expense?

From the article:
Payments were cut as a result of a reported cost shiftwhere non-solar owners cross-subsidize solar owners for maintaining the grid. The utility-backed concept suggests poorer Californians are paying higher utility rates to pay for lost profits that utilities endure in order to pay solar owner for delivering clean energy to the grid.
 
Who wouldn’t love enjoying the benefits at someone else’s expense?

From the article:

So this will lower these poorer customers rates?

NEM 2 paid for transmission charges and maintenance. There was no free ride.
 
Who wouldn’t love enjoying the benefits at someone else’s expense?

From the article:
Look, PG&E made the deal; I accepted it. PG&E has a monopoly on much of CA. Our rates are some of the highest in the nation. The neighboring city of Santa Clara has their own energy company; their rates are a fraction of mine.
My preference is to make energy more cost efficient for everyone.

No one is subsidizing me; that's double talk. Put the blame on the company who is burning down our forrests while giving huge bonuses to themselves while claiming bankruptcy.
 
Look, PG&E made the deal; I accepted it. PG&E has a monopoly on much of CA. Our rates are some of the highest in the nation. The neighboring city of Santa Clara has their own energy company; their rates are a fraction of mine.
My preference is to make energy more cost efficient for everyone.

No one is subsidizing me; that's double talk. Put the blame on the company who is burning down our forrests while giving huge bonuses to themselves while claiming bankruptcy.
Of course you are subsidized, that’s called being in denial. You bought into the solar idea that it would save on energy costs for everyone, but in fact the very opposite is happening. You just choose to blame PG&E for it.

We had these discussions before. Australia, Canada, Germany all have experienced energy cost increases that were proportional to adoptation of renewables. You simply choose to not acknowledge any of this and blame PG&E.
 
Look, PG&E made the deal; I accepted it. PG&E has a monopoly on much of CA. Our rates are some of the highest in the nation. The neighboring city of Santa Clara has their own energy company; their rates are a fraction of mine.
My preference is to make energy more cost efficient for everyone.

No one is subsidizing me; that's double talk. Put the blame on the company who is burning down our forrests while giving huge bonuses to themselves while claiming bankruptcy.
Who Edison or PG&E? They both refuse to invest in upgrading the infrastructure and just pay themselves bonuses instead. If solar made economic sense I would get it. It currently doesn't so I don't have it. I don't want another thing to maintain and give free power to the crooks at the utility company.
 
Of course you are subsidized, that’s called being in denial. You bought into the solar idea that it would save on energy costs for everyone, but in fact the very opposite is happening. You just choose to blame PG&E for it.

We had these discussions before. Australia, Canada, Germany all have experienced energy cost increases that were proportional to adoptation of renewables. You simply choose to not acknowledge any of this and blame PG&E.
No, I made an investment with an expected return. PG&E offered the deal. I considered solar for years. The numbers being offered by solar installers became too compelling, from a long term perspective.

This is no different than buying stock or any other investment. I do so with an expected return. Do the math, as they say.
 
Look, PG&E made the deal; I accepted it. PG&E has a monopoly on much of CA. Our rates are some of the highest in the nation. The neighboring city of Santa Clara has their own energy company; their rates are a fraction of mine.
My preference is to make energy more cost efficient for everyone.

No one is subsidizing me; that's double talk. Put the blame on the company who is burning down our forrests while giving huge bonuses to themselves while claiming bankruptcy.
The very company you bash, over and over on BITOG, has given you an incredible deal that you brag about, over and over on BITOG.

If your deal wasn’t subsidized (it was, let’s be honest, to encourage people to do what you did with solar) - then PG&E could afford to continue offer it to everyone.

But they can’t afford the subsidy for everyone.

So, nobody now can get the deal that you did.
 
So this will lower these poorer customers rates?

NEM 2 paid for transmission charges and maintenance. There was no free ride.
Don’t know if that will lower anything, most likely not. The whole thing was never about lower energy costs to begin with, so why would they do it now?

Nobody said you have a free ride, but the rates at which you’re being paid for your generation are being subsidized in form of higher rates for everyone else. There doesn’t need to be a line on your bill marked as a subsidy for one to exist.
 
Who Edison or PG&E? They both refuse to invest in upgrading the infrastructure and just pay themselves bonuses instead. If solar made economic sense I would get it. It currently doesn't so I don't have it. I don't want another thing to maintain and give free power to the crooks at the utility company.
My electric bill averages less than $9 per month. My solar investment has turned out to be sound. I have posted before that my financial plan was to minimize recurring costs. I now live in beautiful Los Gatos for peanuts. You could not rent the worst apartment for what I pay per month. Basically property taxes and chump change.
 
The very company you bash, over and over on BITOG, has given you an incredible deal that you brag about, over and over on BITOG.

If your deal wasn’t subsidized (it was, let’s be honest, to encourage people to do what you did with solar) - then PG&E could afford to continue offer it to everyone.

But they can’t afford the subsidy for everyone.

So, nobody now can get the deal that you did.
I am not subsidized. The house down the street just went up for sale at $2.75M. If and when it sells, is the new owner subsidizing me as well?
I bash PG&E for thier mismanagement of their own equipment and their company as a whole.

Do I know how much profit PG&E makes from my home? No. Regardless, they made the deal.
 
Last edited:
My electric bill averages less than $9 per month. My solar investment has turned out to be sound. I have posted before that my financial plan was to minimize recurring costs. I now live in beautiful Los Gatos for peanuts. You could not rent the worst apartment for what I pay per month. Basically property taxes and chump change.
At $9 a month plus solar costs of the $150 a month I was given I would be losing money over the span of a year. I'm only interested in saving $$. Nothing else
 
Back
Top