Net Metering to Distributed Generation Program.

[J.P.M.]

I think I would contact the PUC and see where the are in all of this. I was of the opinion that in California all POC's were required to offer net metering under the State mandated Law. I think this is an end around to try and circumvent the law and some local politicians trying to act like they are in control.

Maybe, maybe not. AB 327 was aimed primarily at the big 3 investor owned utilities SCE, PG & E and SDG & E. The PUC, oversees those and the smaller ones, but municipal and other smaller utilites are treated differently in more than a few respects. Eventually, they all follow PUC mandates, but those mandates do not apply equally or to all necessarily.

[wanabefree]

In California doesnt the PUC have jurisdiction over all Utilities

I think I would contact the PUC and see where the are in all of this. I was of the opinion that in California all POC's were required to offer net metering under the State mandated Law. I think this is an end around to try and circumvent the law and some local politicians trying to act like they are in control.

[raydias]

The more he produces the more he loses.

From what I saw the more he produces the more it will offset the consumption

From the example provided in the City meeting link

City Power 300 KW x Tier 1 rate 0.1404 = $42.12 + service charge of $13.50 and Public benefit $1.59 (2.85) = 57.21
Self produced 500 KW x 0.0865 = 45.85

City $57.21 - Self $45.85 = $11.36 to the city

Now if he produced more
City Power 300 KW x Tier 1 rate 0.1404 = $42.12 + service charge of $13.50 and Public benefit $1.59 (2.85) = 57.21
Self produced 700 KW x 0.0865 = $60.55

City $57.21 - Self $60.55 = $3.34 credit

So he would not be loosing? and if he can reduce the city consumption more the better the numbers.

This is from the example provided on page 17 that compares the old structure to the new. i wouldn't be surprised if they charged a service fee for the new meter as well.... But in the end adding more solar would reduce or eliminate the city bill based on the example provided.

[russ]

Looks like you have a few options

- add more solar to reduce what you get from the utility overall

The more he produces the more he loses.

[raydias]

Looks like you have a few options

- add more solar to reduce what you get from the utility overall
- run the numbers and see when you use city power and see if you can reduce that by either improving efficiency or shifty loads to times when you produce excess
- add a battery system to minimize power sent to the utility as well as power from the utility

very short sited since they save in transmission upgrades and in purchasing power by getting your excess and sending it to the neighbor(s)

You might also want to see if the PUC has anything to say about this. Finally you can complain to your Representative at the state capital see. i can see more utilities (Government run) trying to go down this route to discourage solar.

[jschner]

Yes, small town of about 10,000. And yep getting screwed big time!

[silversaver]

The city is paying you $0.0865 per kWh. I'm not sure how much money you spent on your 5.72kW solar and how much incentive you received from city, I don't think you can benefit anything from your solar system since your cost to generate each kWh might be higher. That means is the end of net metering at your location. When city owns the utilities, that's really bad....

PS. You forgot about your basic meter fee and public benefit 2.85%...... russ is right, they play nice wording sounds like they credit you more than net metering...

"Net Compensation Rate of $0.0341 vs. Distributed Generation Rate of $0.0865"
"No value for Renewable Energy Credits vs. Rewards for Renewable Energy Credits"
"Degrades Public Benefit Revenues vs. Preserves Public Benefit Revenues"
"Promotes rate subsidies vs. Preserves Cost of Service"

Only thirteen (13) existing customer-owned generators? must be a small town where city own utilities......

[russ]

It is page 30 by the way - I almost didn't bother to go through the whole thing.

They screwed you nicely and played with words to make it sound fair. As the utility is city owned they want the profit of your pre solar bill. The less you use the more they lose.

Totally unfair and dreamed up by some real dunces. Grid tied users should pay for distribution system use but that should be a nominal amount.

Next election you need to remember that these clowns are not your friends- they are stealing from you.

[jschner]

Currently I'm on a net metering plan with my city and if I generate more than I use each month I do not pay anything for electricity except the service fee. Any surplus is credited as the city only watches for forward movement on the meter. At the systems anniversary turn on date, the local utility can cut a check for surplus power if any. I have not had any surplus so I have not received a check.

So now my city has adopted the Distributed Generation Program with the Distributed Generation Rate. Here is a link to the program as given to the City Council. http://www.cityofshastalake.org/Arch...wFile/Item/235 Scroll down to page 30 of the document.

So if I am reading that correctly. My solar now only produces $0.0865 per kW instead of the full rate of $.1404? In other words they reduced my solar benefit by nearly 38%

Last year I used 10426kW and generated 9937kW(production meter) with my 5.72kW system. Paid roughly $68 for electricity.

If I do the same this year, under this DG program it will be 10426*.14 - 9937*.0865 = $600

Unless I'm reading this wrong, it looks like I will be back to paying $50 a month on average for electricity.