CPUC Guts Solar Power in name of “equity,” adds $8/kW monthly charge paid to PGE [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

CPUC Guts Solar Power in name of “equity,” adds $8/kW monthly charge paid to PGE [pdf]

docs.cpuc.ca.gov

38 pointsmalchow32 comments

SF Chronicle Editorial Board:

https://archive.md/fFG2l#selection-3261.0-3269.271

"While some modest rate adjustments may be appropriate, gouging rooftop solar users at the behest of private utilities, absent massive systemic changes to the way electricity rates are set in California, would be a terrible mistake. Making solar more expensive to operate will only entrench current inequities. If California is serious about lowering rates for customers, it should look for ways to expand solar roofs to renters and others who can’t currently afford to benefit from these installations.

It should also do something to bring its outdated utility model into the solar age.

PG&E is a menace, responsible for some of the worst and most deadly wildfires in state history. And yet California’s energy policy guarantees the company and other private utilities set revenues, regardless of energy demand or competence in delivering that energy safely."

Pge also burned down a row of houses in San Bruno. That sometimes seems to get forgotten while everyone is looking at the colossal screwups on the electric side of the company.

The word equity is repeated 108 times in this 204 pages document

On average once every two pages

AFAICT it's not referring to "equity" in the diversity officer sense, but rather equity among income distributions. In that way it feels like it comes from a place of wealth redistribution rather than the diversity push efforts we've come to associate with the term equity.

Now, PGE will pay you unreasonably low prices when you sell power back to them. So much so that installing solar may not make sense. You will still buy from them at $0.30/kw, or even more during peak.

Additionally you will pay to PG&E $8 per kW of solar you've installed (and personally financed) PER MONTH, and get nothing in return. That's just a transfer of money from you to PG&E, to punish you for getting solar. ("But no, PG&E has to maintain transmission lines!" Yes, that's why they buy energy at wholesale rates are are allowed by law to sell them at retail at a huge spread. That's where they make the money to maintain lines.)

Could a battery solve this problem? Is it a possible solution?

Sure if you can get the battery cheap enough and amortize the cost over many years. Currently the economics don't really work for most households, but there reliability benefits that can make it worth doing.

Oh yeah this is absolutely fucking stupid, my dad put solar on his roof recently and if this shit goes through he may end up with a bigger monthly energy bill than pre-solar. Make that make sense to me. Where's the fucking equity when you're trying to be sustainable and efficient in your electricity use and you get punished for it. Talk about perverse incentives.

At least it'll be fun to help him build a fully off grid system.

As far as I know existing owners and even near-term ones are grandfathered into the old rules so your dad won't have to pay extra until something like 20 years from now?

Why do the affected California middle-class voters keep supporting government officials that do this to them? Where is the instinct of self-preservation here?

Administrative law judges aren’t elected. The state legislature is free to write a law nullifying this decision.

CA is a single-party state. Everything is owned/appointed by the same party/group of people. In effect, middle-class is supporting all of that. The question is why?

Do you have any solid candidates that are making this a primary or general election issue?

How could there be any candidates like that when the uni-party essentially chooses who has a chance of winning a primary?

First, many races are non-partisan primaries — the top two vote getters square off. And usually these are moderate Dem vs. a progressive.

The Republicans that run usually wind up being cranks. They generally won’t dial down the culture war stuff enough to win over votes on a “good government” argument. And the ones that do like Kevin Faulconer, aren’t very popular with state-wide Republicans.

On issues like this, the Democratic Party in California isn't unified at all, there are pro-consumer and corporate factions. Furthermore we have top-two primaries, and it isn't that rare for a primary challenge to expel a legislator.

Many are not lawyers at all, as is the case here.

What gets me is that amazing innovation was taking place, and privately financed. CA households were themselves paying out of their own pockets to build the huge additional capacity needed for EVs, for instance. All that rooftop solar really adds up. It also makes PGE's job much easier. They barely have to lift a finger these days when it's sunny and not too hot.

But PG&E and its uniparty allies like the NRDC just couldn't have it. They want control. They can't support distributed, renewable energy, because it cuts their (very badly maintained and undeserving of support) monopoly on distribution.

Classic CA decision that only serves PG&E and insiders, not the people.

Needs to be reversed by the State Legislature.

I don't particularly like PG&E but you're misrepresenting the situation. They have to lift a lot of "fingers" when it's sunny in order to keep their portion of the grid stable. Unlike base load power plants, the power supplied by household solar panels constantly fluctuates. Some sort of grid scale storage might eventually solve the problem but for today that doesn't exist.

Honestly, no. PV does fluctuate, but at PG&E scale, the fluctuation is (a) smooth and (b) predictable. Demand for energy is going up, but demand for PG&E's brand of energy is going down. But state law guarantees PG&E revenues. That's the reason for these anti-consumer moves.

In any event, surely you agree that state granted monopoly utilities are public services. They're endowed with a monopoly to serve what the people need. PG&E seems to believe it has a right to live perpetually in... I don't know... 1988? But it doesn't.

Because there's no real political competition. In other "republics" bad moves like this cause people to drift to other parties, but in California the only other choice is the Republican party and the chasm between the two party is too large for people to move in large numbers.

"promote equity, inclusion, electrification,"

EIE is not enough; we demand DIE: " deuterium, inclusion, electrification"!

Page 153 "Step 4: No later than 120 days after the adoption of this decision, the Commission will implement a tariff sunset on NEM 2.0, after which time no additional customers will be permitted to take service under the NEM 2.0 tariff."

So 1/27 + 120 days = 5/27 is the earliest deadline for residential customers to lock in NEM 2.0.

* Purports to conduct analysis of alleged underpayment of pro rata distribution costs by people who have solar systems (and do of course pay PG&E when they draw energy) *

* Conducts no corresponding analysis of PG&E cost structure, assumes company is well run *

I don't know if their numbers are accurate but the basic idea actually is fair. A fair part of the retail cost of power is the cost of getting it to the consumer.

It's the dirty secret of solar power--the numbers only make sense if you can sell back power at near retail rather than at wholesale.

I don't understand the charge for simply having panels, though.

Ok, how do we start to immediately fight this?

That's California for ya.

The headline is editorialized.

Why is it downvoted. He is right. I don't think editorialized are bad only when I disagree with them.

I think you should suggest an improved one.

I think it was editorialized because the document link and the document title do not convey the intent of the material.

What headline could the submitter have used? "DECISION REVISING NET ENERGY METERING TARIFF AND SUBTARIFFS"?

cleanup the capitalization, otherwise yes.

A bunch of articles about specific aspects have been written (and some even submitted to HN already), so if you want to point to a specific aspect you can do it that way. Or just leave a comment highlighting the thing you want to highlight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com