California Solar gets a haircut - NEM 3.0

You paid up front. Thats money out of pocket I pay monthly to SCE. I'm looking at actual savings as I don't plan to live in CA any longer than I need to..
Your and my scenarios are completely different. I am a long term investor, you are looking to move. Of course investment in solar works for me but not for you.
 
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.

As of Nem 3 thats the net net - you spend the money - they get your power for a song they then mark it up and make a killing on it all the while calling you the problem.

Why would they invest while they can force the solar investors to give them heavily discounted energy?
 
...When the government steps in and changes the regulatory environment so that you get the same service as others at a discounted rate (Prop 13), that is a subsidy...
Ah, here is where I respectfully disagree. The government did not step in and change the regulatory environment in regards to taxes. They kept the mil rate the same as property values skyrocketed, then reaped windfall gains in taxes well above their needs while they taxed their constituents into poverty. Said taxpayers then voted in Prop 13 much to the dismay of the free spending politicians who have tried to subvert it since it was passed. So don't blame the government for Prop 13, blame democracy.

And as to PG&E, anybody who has anything positive to say about them, I curse you to have to live with them providing power to you. They, and the politicians they bribe are awful people.
 
They pay me .3 for what they sell for .4 and up - and charge me for the line that exists to do it. They win both ways.

Going forward they pay .08 for what they charge .4 and up for.

Who is subsidizing who here?
The system cost isn't static with a market, the stack sets the rate, PG&E buys power and then sells that power at either a fixed or tiered (TOU) rate to consumers and that rate is the result of the aggregate of the stack.

If daytime demand is reduced by embedded solar to the point that the stack rate is $0.04/kWh, paying Joe Average $0.35/kWh significantly increases the delivered cost, because that cost has to be borne by the ratepayer.

During the morning/evening ramps, if the stack rate is $2/kWh, Joe Average doesn't pay that, he pays whatever his retail rate is. The utility aggregates these costs to come up with an average system cost which includes average cost of supply, administration, and of course profit.

People have a tendency to look at these systems through the lens of getting screwed by the retailer, which, with PG&E and their history, is somewhat understandable, but you can't run a business buying and selling power at retail. Retail rates are a result of a variety of different factors and wholesale rates are wildly variable. Consumers aren't exposed to wholesale costs pretty much anywhere because high demand events could bankrupt them. This happened in Texas where some people were in agreements to buy based on wholesale and during that storm where wholesale prices went absolutely insane, those people received bills for 10's of thousands of dollars. Folks on regulated plans were not exposed to that madness.
 
Reducing energy costs was never the purpose behind solar or any other renewable. The NEM served as an inducement.
We were told that the GEA would have no impact on rates. That was a lie or incompetence. You cannot pay people $0.80/kWh for solar when retail rates are $0.048/kWh and expect those rates to remain that low. A politician that can get up there and make that statement about that scenario is either disturbingly dishonest or breathtakingly incompetent, take your pick.
 
Yeah. You are. You have told us how you pay $9/month, because under your arrangement, PG&E is required to buy your electricity at a certain rate, whether they need it or not at the time your panels generate it, right?

Why are we being FORCED into a contract to begin with?
The contract we are obliged to take forces us to sell at less than what they charge everyone including us for - while charging us to do it.

Why not allow us to disconnect totally if our generation is such a burden?

On farming, are farmers forced to sell at a price they dont set, or do they have a guaranteed buyer at X price? I dont know how that works honestly.
 
Last edited:
The system cost isn't static with a market, the stack sets the rate, PG&E buys power and then sells that power at either a fixed or tiered (TOU) rate to consumers and that rate is the result of the aggregate of the stack.

If daytime demand is reduced by embedded solar to the point that the stack rate is $0.04/kWh, paying Joe Average $0.35/kWh significantly increases the delivered cost, because that cost has to be borne by the ratepayer.

During the morning/evening ramps, if the stack rate is $2/kWh, Joe Average doesn't pay that, he pays whatever his retail rate is. The utility aggregates these costs to come up with an average system cost which includes average cost of supply, administration, and of course profit.

People have a tendency to look at these systems through the lens of getting screwed by the retailer, which, with PG&E and their history, is somewhat understandable, but you can't run a business buying and selling power at retail. Retail rates are a result of a variety of different factors and wholesale rates are wildly variable. Consumers aren't exposed to wholesale costs pretty much anywhere because high demand events could bankrupt them. This happened in Texas where some people were in agreements to buy based on wholesale and during that storm where wholesale prices went absolutely insane, those people received bills for 10's of thousands of dollars. Folks on regulated plans were not exposed to that madness.
Texas was a #$%^show......

So let me take the power I make and pay for off the market - and let me have it all to myself.
 
As of Nem 3 thats the net net - you spend the money - they get your power for a song they then mark it up and make a killing on it all the while calling you the problem.

Why would they invest while they can force the solar investors to give them heavily discounted energy?
It's just bringing the consumer that wants to be a generator closer to being a market participant, by paying them closer to market rate; paying them closer to the VALUE for that power produced when it is.

If the privately owned gas plant gets $0.04/kWh, why should Joe Solar Panel get $0.35/kWh? What makes his power more valuable than the gas plant? Short answer: it isn't. Now, if Joe wants to install a battery bank that he can sell power from into the grid when the market price is $1/kWh; when his power is worth more, he'll receive more money, just like the gas plant that's also making more money at that time.

From what I recall, your main criticism is that you are forced to engage with PG&E on this scheme, you can't just say screw it and do your own thing, and I agree with you on that. Though it really doesn't make your situation much different from cogen facilities which are also grid tied but will consume their own power during periods where prices are high.
 
It's just bringing the consumer that wants to be a generator closer to being a market participant, by paying them closer to market rate; paying them closer to the VALUE for that power produced when it is.

If the privately owned gas plant gets $0.04/kWh, why should Joe Solar Panel get $0.35/kWh? What makes his power more valuable than the gas plant? Short answer: it isn't. Now, if Joe wants to install a battery bank that he can sell power from into the grid when the market price is $1/kWh; when his power is worth more, he'll receive more money, just like the gas plant that's also making more money at that time.

From what I recall, your main criticism is that you are forced to engage with PG&E on this scheme, you can't just say screw it and do your own thing, and I agree with you on that. Though it really doesn't make your situation much different from cogen facilities which are also grid tied but will consume their own power during periods where prices are high.

Nothing makes my electricity inherently more valuable - If I'm selling at 30 and you dont want to buy then dont - but you cant just take what you wish and decide what its worth.

Correct - Im being FORCED into a scheme thats better than nem 3 but still not of my choice.

Canadians have a far better relationship with their mostly beneficial and friendly and efficient power companies than Californians do.
We get caught up paying everyone else's bill for incompetence and then arent allowed to bail even when we can.
 
Nothing makes my electricity inherently more valuable - If I'm selling at 30 and you dont want to buy then dont - but you cant just take what you wish and decide what its worth.
I agree, as a market participant, you should be able to not sell your power to the grid and either curtail it or dump it into storage for personal use. If a peaker bids into the system at $2/kWh and the market demand never clears that point to require their power, they don't deliver.

But, on what determines the value, this varies by when the power is produced. That's how the market works. The value of the power is determined by a bid-in system that gets updated at regular intervals and this determines the wholesale rate of the power being fed into the system at that time.

In Ontario, when it's really windy and demand is low, wind sometimes drives the market price negative. If wind wasn't insanely subsidized and was instead paid market, those companies that own the wind turbines wouldn't make any money. They are producing power nobody needs when it is being delivered and that's reflected in that market value.

In the middle of the day, because Cali is so over-supplied with solar, it drives the market value down in a similar manner. That's what sets the value of those kWh. This gets perverted in the same way our market is perverted here in Ontario, by paying some of those generators WAY more than that power is worth, which then gets passed on to ratepayers in the form of higher average rates, because it drives up the average overall cost of supply.
Correct - Im being FORCED into a scheme thats better than nem 3 but still not of my choice.

Canadians have a far better relationship with their mostly beneficial and friendly and efficient power companies than Californians do.
We get caught up paying everyone else's bill for incompetence and then arent allowed to bail even when we can.
Yes, that's because most of it is publicly owned up here.
 
I agree, as a market participant, you should be able to not sell your power to the grid and either curtail it or dump it into storage for personal use. If a peaker bids into the system at $2/kWh and the market demand never clears that point to require their power, they don't deliver.

But, on what determines the value, this varies by when the power is produced. That's how the market works. The value of the power is determined by a bid-in system that gets updated at regular intervals and this determines the wholesale rate of the power being fed into the system at that time.

In Ontario, when it's really windy and demand is low, wind sometimes drives the market price negative. If wind wasn't insanely subsidized and was instead paid market, those companies that own the wind turbines wouldn't make any money. They are producing power nobody needs when it is being delivered and that's reflected in that market value.

In the middle of the day, because Cali is so over-supplied with solar, it drives the market value down in a similar manner. That's what sets the value of those kWh. This gets perverted in the same way our market is perverted here in Ontario, by paying some of those generators WAY more than that power is worth, which then gets passed on to ratepayers in the form of higher average rates, because it drives up the average overall cost of supply.

Yes, that's because most of it is publicly owned up here.

I have no problem with getting only what something is worth on the open market, as long as Im not forced to sell anything.

A question you can best answer far more than anyone else here - What would it cost to actually cover solars output in terms of nuke plants? for those hours solar is productive ?

You guys do a great job in particular with Nukes and hydro. Ive lived in canada and married two of them I seen how it works there.
 
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.

Maybe instead of crying “no masks” - they should of found out who grabbed the $30k French Laundry check 👀
 
I have no problem with getting only what something is worth on the open market, as long as Im not forced to sell anything.

A question you can best answer far more than anyone else here - What would it cost to actually cover solars output in terms of nuke plants? for those hours solar is productive ?

You guys do a great job in particular with Nukes and hydro. Ive lived in canada and married two of them I seen how it works there.
Would depend on what you are trying to cover.
- Are you thinking just daytime peaking?
- Are you thinking just summer output?
- Are you thinking just winter output?
- Are you thinking overall average?

Rooftop solar in Ontario has an average CF of ~10%. How solar is viewed by our grid operator graphs like this:
Screen Shot 2020-04-13 at 12.50.16 AM.jpg


So, the answer for winter would be significantly different than for summer, which would in turn be different if we were talking annual.

If we are just going by average CF, if we had 2,500MW of solar, it would be matched by 250MW of nuclear or a bit less than one GE BWRX-300 reactor. However, that doesn't capture the gas displacement that solar is doing during a summer day. However that in turn doesn't capture the fast ramp gas capacity needed above and beyond that solar capacity to cover the morning/evening ramps. So solar isn't eliminating gas capacity, it's just displacing use of it.

If we were to pair that nuclear capacity with some pumped storage, say 2.5GW of PHES, we would run the reactor steady state and use the PHES to cover the peaks and ramps, so you'd have a more complete gas displacement scenario and you are less likely to have to curtail the nuclear capacity. Of course PHES viability is geographically limited, so that is another discussion.

Is that along the lines of what you are looking for?
 
Would depend on what you are trying to cover.
- Are you thinking just daytime peaking?
- Are you thinking just summer output?
- Are you thinking just winter output?
- Are you thinking overall average?

Rooftop solar in Ontario has an average CF of ~10%. How solar is viewed by our grid operator graphs like this:
View attachment 131030

So, the answer for winter would be significantly different than for summer, which would in turn be different if we were talking annual.

If we are just going by average CF, if we had 2,500MW of solar, it would be matched by 250MW of nuclear or a bit less than one GE BWRX-300 reactor. However, that doesn't capture the gas displacement that solar is doing during a summer day. However that in turn doesn't capture the fast ramp gas capacity needed above and beyond that solar capacity to cover the morning/evening ramps. So solar isn't eliminating gas capacity, it's just displacing use of it.

If we were to pair that nuclear capacity with some pumped storage, say 2.5GW of PHES, we would run the reactor steady state and use the PHES to cover the peaks and ramps, so you'd have a more complete gas displacement scenario and you are less likely to have to curtail the nuclear capacity. Of course PHES viability is geographically limited, so that is another discussion.

Is that along the lines of what you are looking for?

lets just say if solar 100% is gone tomorrow whats the bill to replace it? How many nukes in total and how big
 
We were told that the GEA would have no impact on rates. That was a lie or incompetence. You cannot pay people $0.80/kWh for solar when retail rates are $0.048/kWh and expect those rates to remain that low. A politician that can get up there and make that statement about that scenario is either disturbingly dishonest or breathtakingly incompetent, take your pick.
Politicians like many in leadership positions typically operate on altruistic or utilitarian grounds. The populace usually goes along out of faith.
 
lets just say if solar 100% is gone tomorrow whats the bill to replace it? How many nukes in total and how big
If we are talking California and were just trying to fill the centre of that duck curve, where solar is displacing gas (most realistic scenario) then we'd be looking at ~7GW. But keep in mind, that would MASSIVELY reduce the carbon intensity of the Cali grid, because that 7GW is available all the time, so it isn't a 1 for 1 swap. You are replacing a few hours of emissions reduction with 24hrs of emissions reduction.

With that out of the way, the BWRX-300 is supposed to be $2,250/kW; $2.25 million per MW, so $675 million per unit (300MWe gross, ~270MWe NET):
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/BWRX-300_2020.pdf

With the first unit being $1 billion.

You'd need 26 of them for 7GW, so 25x $675 million + 1 billion for the first unit, that's $17.9 billion. Let's call it $18 billion.
 
On farming, are farmers forced to sell at a price they dont set, or do they have a guaranteed buyer at X price? I dont know how that works honestly.
Grain farmers in western Canada only were forced to sell their grain to the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) for decades. Farmers were arrested for selling grain privately.
 
Politicians like many in leadership positions typically operate on altruistic or utilitarian grounds. The populace usually goes along out of faith.
And then gets enraged and kicks them out of office, lol.

With voters growing tired of years of Liberal rule, an enduring gas plant scandal and soaring hydro bills, Wynne and her party were reduced to the “minivan” party, losing official party status in 2018.
 
If we are talking California and were just trying to fill the centre of that duck curve, where solar is displacing gas (most realistic scenario) then we'd be looking at ~7GW. But keep in mind, that would MASSIVELY reduce the carbon intensity of the Cali grid, because that 7GW is available all the time, so it isn't a 1 for 1 swap. You are replacing a few hours of emissions reduction with 24hrs of emissions reduction.

With that out of the way, the BWRX-300 is supposed to be $2,250/kW; $2.25 million per MW, so $675 million per unit (300MWe gross, ~270MWe NET):
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/BWRX-300_2020.pdf

With the first unit being $1 billion.

You'd need 26 of them for 7GW, so 25x $675 million + 1 billion for the first unit, that's $17.9 billion. Let's call it $18 billion.

Happy to let some one else spend 18B plus running and end of life and all other costs - the people that need it and use it get to pay.

I'll withdraw from that system and do my own thing, with my own property that I paid for. It's actually dead nuts on and easy to do now.

Cant get fairer deal than you do you- and- I do me right ?

Thing is in Canda they could do it and do it right. Here they've proven over and over they cant so I want out.


.....but they wont let me out.
 
Last edited:
Grain farmers in western Canada only were forced to sell their grain to the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) for decades. Farmers were arrested for selling grain privately.
Forced to sell at any price? Or just forced to sell?
Were they allowed to opt out?
Or did the government force them to sign contracts ?

I know canadian farming is diff than our but since our family farm was in the end a land rental business vs farming I dont know how these deals work.
 
Back
Top