The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) decided to indefinitely delay its decision on net-metering changes, according to SEIA.
“The proposed decision never made sense for a host of reasons. It would have compromised the reliability of California’s electricity delivery system, harmed California’s effort to tackle climate change and cut jobs and economic opportunities for all Californians. The increased costs and loss of demand for solar also would have made solar less accessible to moderate- and low-income families. We look forward to continuing to work with the California Public Utilities Commission as it considers any changes to net metering,” said Sean Gallagher, VP of state and regulatory affairs at SEIA, in a statement.
Reuters reported the new commission president Alice Reynolds asked for more time to analyze the record and consider revisions to the proposed decision on NEM 3.0. That proposed decision would have added new grid-use charges and shifted to a net billing structure, which combined would have resulted in lower incentives for rooftop solar customers. Wood Mackenzie predicted the proposed decision would cut the California residential solar market in half by 2024 because the economics would not make sense for many homeowners.
“Our analysis for the two largest utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison – reveals payback periods for typical residential solar projects built this year will increase from five to six years under current net metering to 14-15 years, depending on the utility,” said Bryan White, research analyst and co-author of the report.
The solar industry lobbied in force against the proposed decision, organizing rallies in Los Angeles and San Francisco and filling the phone lines during the CPUC’s Jan. 27 meeting to tell commissioners about the harm the proposed decision could inflict.
“We are glad to hear that the commission is working to get this proposal right,” said Environment California’s state director Laura Deehan. “I’ve walked alongside thousands of concerned citizens who want our state to catch more solar energy from our rooftops. Governor Newsom heard us, and made clear that changes had to be made to the proposal. Now, the commission needs to make sure that California continues its solar leadership.”
How does someone actually figure out how much their solar system at a $8/kw grid connection fee, will cost them per month/year? Sam
Your system capacity * $8 * 12 months. If you have an 8 kW system, $960/year, whether or not a watt of your solar electricity touches the grid.
The lingering threat of NEM3.0 offers the solar industry prescient guidance for its future direction. With the more recent availability of home storage systems, existing solar customers should be approached to rewire their existing systems to disconnect them from feeding back into the power company lines, and instead reserve their extra power for their own needs when the sun is down. This would insulate these homeowners and businesses from power outages, firestorm-related power shutdowns, solar taxes, and the inevitable rise in power company electric rates as the companies recover their damages from wildfires. In short, converting excess home production into home storage would effectively overTURN NEM3.0 or its progeny and leave its proponents powerless.
The problem is that NEM pushed most people to install undersized, overpriced grid connected systems with AC inverters on each solar panel. The only clean way to install battery storage for anything besides power outages on those systems is to tear them out and start over. NEM was a fiasco from Day 1.
It’s heartening to see that enough pressure was applied to the CPUC and the Governor’s office to force an overhaul of the disastrous NEM 3.0 proposal. Little is said of other harmful provisions like the instant nullification of NEM and NEM 2.0 contracts for those who accepted rebates for storage batteries offered by the state’s Self Generation Initiative Program, aka SGIP. Or the NEM and NEM 2.0 contract terms being retroactively reduced by 25% to just 15-years. The 1.3 million of us who made the sacrifice to do the right thing and invest in solar production will not take this laying down. Expect massive class-action lawsuits for breach of contract, among other grievances to occur. Expected organized power shutdowns from private businesses and homeowners with much needed energy denying the grid the use of our excess production. The CPUC’s proposal, no doubt engineered by the shareholder beholden power providers, disenfranchises current solar owners while disincentivizing new solar construction by wiping out its benefits (only to the consumer investing in this clean energy, not the utility companies).
Before installing solar last year, I would receive frequent nag notices from SCE in the mail, admonishing me for using more electricity than my neighbors. Now, they want me to sign an agreement that I intend to consumer MORE than I did before, so they don’t have to buy back as much of the power than I am producing in excess of what I am using. They not only want their cake, they want my cake and eat both of them.
It is public record that Gavin Newsom accepted over $150,000 in campaign donations from PG&E alone. He keeps touting California’s “leadership in green technology”. Well, he can’t have it both ways. He must either stand with the people who are trying to do the right thing for their families, their state and the world, or stand aside for a new Governor who will.
“The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) decided to indefinitely delay its decision on net-metering changes, according to SEIA.”
On a cursory search, I couldn’t find the docket for NEM 3.0 and the public comments that should be attached to it. (IF) enough outraged people post their ire in the docket public comments section, this shows the utilities and the CPUC that ratepayers are watching them. IF there’s enough public outrage, then these comments can be used as evidence of duplicity between businesses (utilities) and agencies (CPUC). That is the very thing that carries weight, with the CPUC as well as the utility. Trying to make a case against a class action lawsuit is a non-starter. Better to let it “cool off” try some more new legislation like the failed AB1139 that was proposing the “same thing” died in committee, bring these onerous charges up another day.
Dear Kelsey,
I am a senior homeowner living in Bishop CA, and I have placed solar panels on my homeSEC, proposal to charge $8 per KW, is a joke! My panels produce 10kW per dayThey must have their heads in the clouds!
It does appear they want to charge you that $8/kW, so what, your system is around 2.5kWp, so your pound of flesh will be $20/month “grid connection fee”. Personally, I believe the way developers are required to install all utilities on developed properties then turn the utilities over to the “responsible agency”, then you buy the property and pay for these utility installation costs when you buy the developed land, then the utility is trying to “double dip” what you paid up front for. As a business, I believe the utilities are allowed to use depreciation of assets as a write off on their taxes, so where is all of this cost savings going when a utility takes over the system in a development? It is fairly easy to predict that many solar PV adopters will find a class action lawsuit to join if this does finally get pushed through next year or in another bill sometime in the future.
Walter their heads are not “in the clouds” though, they are somewhat lower and are inserted.