NEM Sucessor Tariff *Proposed* Decision relased by the CPUC

[sensij]

The proposed NEM 2.0 tariff has been released today. I haven't read it yet, linking it here first:

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M156/K443/156443378.PDF

Tenative schedule calls for a final vote on Jan 28th. The written comment exchange is scheduled to wrap up by Jan 15th, with final oral arguments presented on Jan 12th. The oral arguments are being grouped into panels of groups who have made a common case together.
1. Maintain current NEM (CALSEIA; Federal Executive Agencies;Sierra Club; SEIA; Vote Solar; TASC)
2. Maintain full retail rate NEM with demand or installed capacity charge (Natural Resources Defense Council; Office of Ratepayer Advocates)
3. Use generation to serve onsite usage, provide reducedcompensating for exports, and institute a demand or installedcapacity charge (PG&E; Southern California Edison Company;SDG&E)
4. Create a “value of renewables” tariff at avoided cost (Californians for Renewable Energy; The Utility Reform Network; SDG&E alternative proposal)

[sensij]

Wow... the solar industry is going to be thrilled by this. CPUC is basically saying, we don't know enough at this time to make any significant changes, so let's punt until 2019. There are other proceedings that have been kicked off to more explicitly answer questions related to the costs and benefits of distribution generation, and they don't want this NEM successor to front run the results of those proceedings.

The small changes they are proposing include:
1) An interconnect fee of ~$100 may be collected by the utility to process the net metering application fir systems < 1MW
2) Total energy imported from the grid (not the net of imports and exports) will be subject to some non-bypassable charges, something less than $0.05/kWh, if I understand correctly.
3) A warranty of at least 10 years is required on all systems approved for NEM, and the equipment must be on the CEC approved list.
4) Anyone taking service under this NEM 2.0 (or maybe it is more like 1.5) tariff continues to be grandfathered for 20 years from the data of initial interconnect.
5) Any system interconnected in 2018 or later will be required to be on a TOU plan

No fixed charges of any kind (demand, capacity, etc) are allowed until the CPUC also approves them for non-solar customers, probably 2019 at the earliest.

[sensij]

And here is a more professional summary than anything I can produce:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rooftop-solar-subsidy-20151215-story.html

[J.P.M.]

Adding to what sensij writes, it may be worth noting (P.79 ) of the CPUC report that the IOU's got a head slap for what the CPUC seems to view as their not knowing what they want, or how to get there in a way sufficient for the CPUC to go along with.

However, a lot can happen between now and the 01/28/2016 decision rendering date. We'll need to keep an ear to the ground and wait & see.

[Yaryman]

And here is a more professional summary than anything I can produce:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rooftop-solar-subsidy-20151215-story.html

I'll summarize the LA Times story for you,
Our ( the utilities ) happy talk commercials say we love solar, but in reality we want to steal the energy you generate at a much below market rate.

The Utilities seems to forget they are allowed monopolies which are regulated.

[sensij]

I think it is worth noting that by the tool developed by the Energy Division for comparing proposals on an apples-to-apples basis, none of the net metering proposals (including those by the utilities) were able to pass a test that indicated no costs would be shifted onto non-solar rate payers (under a two tier volumetric rate tariff). Although the commission sounds willing to accept at this time that perhaps the model is structurally undervaluing DG's contribution to reducing overall costs of operating the grid (and providing benefits to all ratepayers), it suggests that net metering will still have a fight ahead of it.

With the news of the ITC extension to 2019, it is setting up another confluence of events in that year. How that announcement affects this proceeding over the next month will be interesting to watch.

[skipro3]

If private utilities get away with restructuring the rooftop solar fees to where it fails to become cost effective any more, I would expect a lot of customers will look into restructuring their utility into a municipality. Now, THAT ought to put fear into the hearts of the private utilities. Go talk to your representatives and ask them what it takes to establish a municipal utility district. I worked for one and they literally keep rates so much lower than PG&E that solar isn't really cost effective for the time being. The muni runs lots of ads to contact them for a detailed explanation of solar and they offer to come evaluate to see if it's right for your situation. Most times, due to their lower energy rates, solar just isn't cost effective.

For those who are unfamiliar with MUD's (municipal utility districts) it's like a co-op of sorts; where a given area decides to buy power wholesale and then take on the distribution themselves, passing along the wholesale cost of power to their ratepayer/owners. Eventually, the MUD is successful enough to start purchasing it's own generation sources and supplements the wholesale purchases with self-generated electricity, further reducing the costs to it's customer owners.

PG&E hates municipal utility districts. It shows much to easily how much they mark up their product compared to a non-profit municipal.

[thejq]

In the LA Times's article, it says "In addition, rooftop solar customers would pay a fee of 2 cents to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity used from the utility companies, no matter how much power their solar systems generate." I wonder if it's in addition to the minimum charge that's already in place. If so, that would certainly complicate the rate plan, system sizing and orientation selection even more.

[cebury]

With the news of the ITC extension to 2019, it is setting up another confluence of events in that year. How that announcement affects this proceeding over the next month will be interesting to watch.

Wow two major updates in one thread.

[sensij]

In the LA Times's article, it says "In addition, rooftop solar customers would pay a fee of 2 cents to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity used from the utility companies, no matter how much power their solar systems generate." I wonder if it's in addition to the minimum charge that's already in place. If so, that would certainly complicate the rate plan, system sizing and orientation selection even more.

Not to much to go on yet, but those are the "non bypassable charges" mentioned above, and I believe that paying them will contribute to covering the minimum charge. This might not be one was can understand fully until some forum members take service under the new tariffs and reverse engineer their statements.

[TimeOrMoney]

Interesting - NVEnergy has a similar, hard to follow proposal that is in temporarily in place until the Nevada PUC rules (by December 31?). Have you ever tried to edit something poorly written and overly complex? It makes it fairly impossible to do a good job editing without starting over. If they don't start over, it won't bode well for the solar industry, I fear.

[J.P.M.]

I'm going to wait for the ruling and then look at everything. Beyond net metering looking fairly safe, it seems speculative to go by what we think may flush out. Same for the ITC, and looks like we'll know about that much sooner.

[Willaby]

I'll summarize the LA Times story for you,
Our ( the utilities ) happy talk commercials say we love solar, but in reality we want to steal the energy you generate at a much below market rate.

The Utilities seems to forget they are allowed monopolies which are regulated.

I always like the part about how "unfair solar customers are to the non-solar customers" and other similar wording vilifying those of us with solar. I mean I thought we were the good guys, by not burning those terrible fossil fuels & all.

[J.P.M.]

I always like the part about how "unfair solar customers are to the non-solar customers" and other similar wording vilifying those of us with solar. I mean I thought we were the good guys, by not burning those terrible fossil fuels & all.

FWIW, maybe I'm missing some information here, but I've always wondered how those who claim solar users are having such a high financial impact on non solar users can, in almost the next breath, and probably as least partly correctly, claim that solar doesn't amount to fly crap in terms of solar's total contribution to the electric generation mix.

So the question becomes: How can such a miniscule contribution have such a horrendous impact ? Just seems inconsistent and illogical to me.

[Yaryman]

So the question becomes: How can such a miniscule contribution have such a horrendous impact ? Just seems inconsistent and illogical to me.

How can you apply logic and reason to anything said by a Utility company?
The CEO wants a bigger bonus that goes along with bigger profits and doesn't care if he/she screws a million people to get it.
It really is that simple.