Net Metering (California Style)

Status
Not open for further replies.
mtnelect

mtnelect

HVAC & Electrical Contractor
Location
Southern California
Occupation
Contractor, C10 & C20 - Semi Retired
Joint Utilities also support this finding, asserting the Lookback Study concludes that NEM 2.0 participating customers receive “significant financial benefits” at the “expense of non-participating customers.” Recognizing the Lookback Study cost shift estimate of $1 billion only looks at NEM 2.0 customers prior to 2020, Joint Utilities claim that, by looking at all customers who have adopted NEM 2.0 through 2020, NEM 2.0 installations will increase bills paid by non-participant customers by $13 billion over 20 years.41 Supporting this disparity, IEPA points to the Lookback Study finding that residential net energy metering customers’ bills are lower than the utility’s cost to serve them while nonparticipant ratepayers see increased rates.42
 

Attachments

  • NEM.pdf
    1.4 MB · Views: 8
There are all kinds of cost shifts in the existing rate schedules. High consumers subsidize low consumers. High income consumers subsidize low income consumers. Consumers in different climate zones subsidize each other in various ways.

I'm deeply opposed to any change that targets solar owners for a special tax. Raise minimum bills on everyone if you need to cover distribution costs. Let the market decide the rest. The joint utilities' proposal singles out solar owners because they threaten utilities' generation market share. It's anticompetitive.
 
What makes this even more fun is almost all new homes in California must have solar panels.
 
jaggedben said:
There are all kinds of cost shifts in the existing rate schedules. High consumers subsidize low consumers. High income consumers subsidize low income consumers. Consumers in different climate zones subsidize each other in various ways.

I'm deeply opposed to any change that targets solar owners for a special tax. Raise minimum bills on everyone if you need to cover distribution costs. Let the market decide the rest. The joint utilities' proposal singles out solar owners because they threaten utilities' generation market share. It's anticompetitive.
Click to expand...
One reason we target solar for things like demand charges is simple. Solar offsets for a while then when it’s needed most is useless. Say 6AM on a 10 degree day… we are still required to keep that demand available, yet it’s hardly ever used.
As far as higher facilities charges, we try to cover them by energy sales. Why should those that use energy steady (without solar) subsidize those that rarely use (with solar) yet still want available demand?
And with the net metering ”storage” of excess kWh, that’s plain silly and stupid. kWh can’t be stored. The utilities are required to make demand and energy available When it’s needed

Hey, here’s a thought… have the homeowners with solar “store” their own kWh if it’s so simple…
 
Last edited:
Hv&Lv said:
One reason we target solar for things like demand charges is simple. Solar offsets for a while then when it’s needed most is useless. Say 6AM on a 10 degree day… we are still required to keep that demand available, yet it’s hardly ever used.
As far as higher facilities charges, we try to cover them by energy sales. Why should those that use energy steady (without solar) subsidize those that rarely use (with solar) yet still want available demand?
And with the net metering ”storage” of excess kWh, that’s plain silly and stupid. kWh can’t be stored. The utilities are required to make demand and energy available When it’s needed

Hey, here’s a thought… have the homeowners with solar “store” their own kWh if it’s so simple…
Click to expand...
A couple of things...

In the summertime the highest demand on the grid is in the afternoon when PV systems are producing, so during that time having a lot of solar on the grid is a good thing.

In areas like California where there are significant time of use changes to the kWh rate charged by utilities, private energy storage by homeowners is done a lot, even by people who have no PV at all.
 
Hv&Lv said:
As far as higher facilities charges, we try to cover them by energy sales. Why should those that use energy steady (without solar) subsidize those that rarely use (with solar) yet still want available demand?
Click to expand...
Why should facilities charges be different for solar and non-solar customers? If anything, solar customers use the facilities less.

Hv&Lv said:
And with the net metering ”storage” of excess kWh, that’s plain silly and stupid. kWh can’t be stored.
Click to expand...
Huh? What's utility storage for?
 
You pay up to $50,000 for a solar system and storage, then turn on your A/C for a couple of hours and it's gone !
 
analog8484 said:
Why should facilities charges be different for solar and non-solar customers? If anything, solar customers use the facilities less.
Click to expand...
No they don't unless they are stand alone systems. If anything solar cause more work for the utilities, not less.
analog8484 said:
Huh? What's utility storage for?
Click to expand...
What utility storage?
 
analog8484 said:
Why should facilities charges be different for solar and non-solar customers? If anything, solar customers use the facilities less.


Huh? What's utility storage for?
Click to expand...
Let’s think about this a minute…
so everyone in cali puts solar on their house, lowering their bills and selling excess to the utility to the point of energy saturation.
no one has a power bill as they are solar and battery.
a power line falls and starts a fire. Who you gonna sue now?
SOMEONE has to pay for the infrastructure and the associated costs. Selling energy is the way utilities make revenue to keep up their facilities. Those that choose to install solar and sell back have to help bear the cost of the infrastructure they are dumping excess to…
😉
 
ggunn said:
A couple of things...

In the summertime the highest demand on the grid is in the afternoon when PV systems are producing, so during that time having a lot of solar on the grid is a good thing.

In areas like California where there are significant time of use changes to the kWh rate charged by utilities, private energy storage by homeowners is done a lot, even by people who have no PV at all.
Click to expand...
Not when it’s hotter than hades and a mostly cloudy day..
partly cloudy days wreak havoc with us on peak times..
our regulators don’t know what to do with ebb and flow of energy..
 
Hv&Lv said:
SOMEONE has to pay for the infrastructure and the associated costs. Selling energy is the way utilities make revenue to keep up their facilities. Those that choose to install solar and sell back have to help bear the cost of the infrastructure they are dumping excess to…
😉
Click to expand...
Solar owners already pay to maintain the infrastructure like non-solar rate payers. The compensation for generation is a separate matter.
 
analog8484 said:
Solar owners already pay to maintain the infrastructure like non-solar rate payers. The compensation for generation is a separate matter.
Click to expand...
No, they don’t. If their usage nets out their export with net metering, facilities charges are all thats left, and I have yet to see a utility that charges TRUE facilities charges on their base rate.
again, facility and infrastructure monies are generated through sales of energy.
 
Hv&Lv said:
That’s not what I’m talking about.
Some net metering language in bills state that excess can be netted out when exported to the grid and “stored” until needed.
Even if it’s not needed the utility is treated like a clearing house for excess energy.
Click to expand...
It's actually related because as you mentioned utilities need to maintain capacity for peak demand. If utilities store excess energy then it could be used to meet peak demand at lower cost vs NG peaker plants. The exact cost saving and net metering rates are certainly subject to the situation in each region.
 
Hv&Lv said:
No, they don’t. If their usage nets out their export with net metering, facilities charges are all thats left, and I have yet to see a utility that charges TRUE facilities charges on their base rate.
again, facility and infrastructure monies are generated through sales of energy.
Click to expand...
Then you are saying no rate payer is actually paying for the true facilities charges. If so then utilities should raise the same fee for EVERYONE to reflect the true cost.
 
analog8484 said:
Then you are saying no rate payer is actually paying for the true facilities charges. If so then utilities should raise the same fee for EVERYONE to reflect the true cost.
Click to expand...
No, not what I’m saying at all, your twisting words…
energy sales pay a large part of facilities charges.
example. True facility charges per customer before energy charges should be around $60-70.
They aren’t, simply because the energy sales make up the difference.
 
Hv&Lv said:
One reason we target solar for things like demand charges is simple. Solar offsets for a while then when it’s needed most is useless. Say 6AM on a 10 degree day… we are still required to keep that demand available, yet it’s hardly ever used.
As far as higher facilities charges, we try to cover them by energy sales. Why should those that use energy steady (without solar) subsidize those that rarely use (with solar) yet still want available demand?
And with the net metering ”storage” of excess kWh, that’s plain silly and stupid. kWh can’t be stored. The utilities are required to make demand and energy available When it’s needed
Click to expand...

Many customers' demand has large fluctuations both in the short term and on an annual basis, all without solar. Nothing to single out solar here.

Hv&Lv said:
Hey, here’s a thought… have the homeowners with solar “store” their own kWh if it’s so simple…
Click to expand...
Yes, that's becoming a pretty big thing. Here's a thought; don't tax solar+battery owners for doing it. Structure the rate schedules for everyone to send a fair market signal.
 
It's true that customer sited solar and solar+storage upend the reasoning behind existing rate structures in California, particular residential. In those rate structures customers pay for 'transmission, distribution, and generation' on a kWh basis, even though the first two (unlike the last one) have basically no cost or value that is in any way proportional to kWh consumption. So yeah, restructure the rates for everyone because they don't make sense anymore. The problem is that utilities want to use this situation to kill competition, rather than allow rate restructuring that would send fair price signals to customers who want to generate and store their own energy.
 
jaggedben said:
Many customers' demand has large fluctuations both in the short term and on an annual basis, all without solar. Nothing to single out solar here.
Click to expand...
load factors on solar averages <.4
No kWh sales to offset demand.
most residences without solar averages >.7
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top