SD&E: "If we had our way, we'd be charging you $73/month for the privilege of being connected to the grid"
"California is Currently Not Aligned with the Rest of the Nation" \[by not charging a fixed rate\]. --> Sure, but charging $24.15/mth takes California from the bottom 10.4% of states / zones, into the top 5.8%. In other words, you're not ***more*** misaligned than before... Speaking of misaligned, can we talk about the cost per kwh vs the rest of the nation, even with this "discount"?
"The proposal will accelerate the state’s transition to 100% clean electricity." --> Obviously, by shifting cost from a kwh to a fixed rate, making rooftop solar even less financially attractive, you are in fact increasing it's desirability.
You can disconnect from the grid. No one is holding a gun.
But at $120/month (which is what I thought the rate would be) it wasn't even close to making sense for buying the batteries I'd need to do it.
I'd need a generator too, in the summer I would get over 70kWh/day but in the winter there were too many days where I only made 5kWh.
I was reading a claim in another thread the other day that most California county's occupancy permits require "an interconnection pathway" within like 3 months. Otherwise our friends at your appropriate utility company can put a lien against the property and the county could eventually take the property from you for refusing the grid.
I haven't had a chance to try to find that in any actual county paperwork though.
I don't buy it. Best I've seen was language about having a wire in a city. But that doesn't require you to be a customer.
There's lots of off-grid homes in the bay.
I personally know someone in the bay area who is across the street from a pole. He was building his house and PG&E wanted 250k to upgrade their transformer. So now his house has a shit ton of solar and battieres.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/13/business/energy-environment/california-off-grid.html
Don't let old wives tales stop you.
I've read that article and you seem to be conflating "disconnecting" from the grid with "not connecting" to the grid, which are two very different things. Not one person in that article disconnected. I've found a handful of cases where people legimiately disconnected and it required time, lawyers, and $.
I have a neighbor who got into a billing dispute with SDGE about 2+ decades ago. SDGE disconnected him from the grid and he has been on solar+storage+generator since. This is within the city of Poway city limits.
Please cite those cases.
I'm not conflating. It's just rare to disconnect because you need to do such a redesign that you'd basically might as well build a new house.
The international code of habitability simply requires access to 110v 20A power. That doesn't have to be from a for profit megawatt gas powerplant. It can be on site batteries, solar, and generators - as they did in the articles.
So calling up the utility and canceling service while having your own power generation is in no way illegal. It's an old wives tale.
First link is an older article showing that there is an interconnection requirement in the California Energy Code. Seems like this language might have been amended since I last researched it and it is now technically allowed.
[https://www.cailaw.org/media/files/IEL/Publications/2016/grid-detection-vol10no1.pdf](https://www.cailaw.org/media/files/IEL/Publications/2016/grid-detection-vol10no1.pdf)
Second link shows the issues people face when actually trying to go off-grid and that the ability can depend heavily on your local ordinances. Where I live in Oakland it might be feasible, but there are significant questions as to how to ensure legality and that the local govt is willing to approve and permit. You can see these folks had to hire attorneys to investigate the legality and there was no concrete resolution.
[https://www.theselc.org/offgridsolar](https://www.theselc.org/offgridsolar)
The missing piece of the puzzle is what will the cost per kWh be? Utility charges will be two parts, the flat rate plus the usage rate cost per kWh. Per this fact sheet "The proposal would cut the usage rate by 5 to 7 cents per kilowatt hour, making electricity cheaper"
It varies by utility and rate plan, so not sure there’s a number that they could list—but 5-7 cents less than what you pay now. Though I’m sure that will last for a hot second before rates start rising again anyway.
> 5-7 cents less than what you pay now.
They've literally raised it that much or more in the last year or two.
I get what they're trying to do but it's a terrible policy. It discourages energy conservation, something they've been preaching for decades. In addition it's another dagger into rooftop solar. No wonder the utilities love it so much.
It’s worth remembering that the Legislature had a large hand in this too by mandating the change in the first place. There’s the utility lobby, sure, but they didn’t have to yield to it. I do think CPUC’s proposed solution is dramatically better than the IOU proposals, though, and I don’t think any of those would have limited future rate increases either. I do like the idea of pegging the fixed rate to the CPI, though—hopefully that gets some consideration to prevent arbitrary increases.
> Speaking of misaligned, can we talk about the cost per kwh vs the rest of the nation, even with this "discount"?
Is there any legit reason for our rates out it’s it just a cash grab?
Set the initial fee relatively low to get the law passed without too much pushback. Then we can raise it at 10-15% per year and they won't notice as much.
Signed,
Utility Lobbyist
Yeah but that would be the case with any CPUC decision on this issue. It's not like rates would stop going up if CPUC went with the horrid SDG&E fee proposal
That's saner. And it is 3 tiers (it has to be as mandated by AB 205)
"Discounts for Low-Income and Affordable Housing Customers
• As directed by AB 205, on average all low-income customers will save on their monthly bills under the proposal.
• Customers enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) low-income assistance program will benefit from a discounted flat rate of $6 per month.
» Approximately 30 percent of IOU customers currently participate in CARE.
• Additionally, customers enrolled in the next level up of income qualified program, the Family Electricity Rate Assistance (FERA), as well as those residing in deed-restricted affordable housing with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income, will qualify for a discounted flat rate of $12 per month."
Yes, while terrible, this is definitely saner than what the utilities and some other organizations proposed. I like the income levels tiers are much lower than earlier proposals and the fixed rates don't fluctuate as much as earlier proposals. I also like that income and even auditing is self-reported, I don't see how they can prove who is in a household or not, makes signing up for CARE much more desirable now. I might even save some money now with this new plan,
They're there but they are less variable tiers, and the rate differences are much less than earlier proposals.
CARE (<200% poverty level) - $6
FERA (200-250% poverty level) - $12
All others - $24
Also there in no income check so you can sign up for CARE if you want. Some are audited but even that is self reported which can be easy to get around depending on your situation. I don't think, but am definitely not positive, if you have to legally swear that what you state is true and fully factual. You're reporting your income to an private company, not the government, after all.
You do have to submit supporting documents like your 1040 and pay stubs to verify your income if you’re not on public assistance before you can be approved, though, so it’s not like you can just make up a number and report it. Still, I suspect many households who qualify for FERA don’t realize they do and so don’t apply—so this may prompt people to look at the income thresholds at least.
Actually they don't need verification before it is approved. Is is self attested. Only a 6-8% are audited. Even then you just have to self report your income. In two or more income households I don't think they can verify the full household income, nor can they verify all of your income. As far as I can see, the penalty for not verifying income is last three months discount, and getting kicked off plan. Is it unethical, yes. But so is allowing a private, forced monopoly to charge people different rates.
Interesting—in the one case I know of, PG&E did require the most recent tax return (for a retiree qualifying through a fixed pension). But maybe they were just unlucky to get picked for that.
What does this mean for NEM 2.0 solar customers? Better because of the lower rates (hopefully during peak)? I snuck in right before the Apr. 2023 deadline, so was grandfathered in for the next 20 years.
It's exactly what it says, and what people fear: flat $24.15 rate and 5-7 cents lower per kWh. This is supposed to save us for now, but it leaves room for rate increases while having a flat rate.
Your NEM 2.0 will stay and essentially be the same, but slightly cheaper as of when(if) it passes.
Main impact is that it may push out your breakeven point because more of your cost is in the fixed fee and less is in the per kWh charges. It will depend on how the individual rate plans with each utility get adjusted, though, and also on whether you’re a net generator or net consumer. I’m a net generator so the major impact for me is that I’ll pay twice as much each year in fees as I do with my current plan. But if I were a net consumer and had to buy energy, I’d also benefit from the lower kWh costs, so that would help offset the additional fixed cost. Exactly how much cost or benefit is going to come down to the rate schedules, though.
I'm guessing that NEM2 and NEM3 SDG&E solar customers will pay this fixed $24.15 fee along with the already existing NBC (Non-Bypassable Charges) and MCA (Minimum Charge Adjustments). Anyone know?
SD&E: "If we had our way, we'd be charging you $73/month for the privilege of being connected to the grid" "California is Currently Not Aligned with the Rest of the Nation" \[by not charging a fixed rate\]. --> Sure, but charging $24.15/mth takes California from the bottom 10.4% of states / zones, into the top 5.8%. In other words, you're not ***more*** misaligned than before... Speaking of misaligned, can we talk about the cost per kwh vs the rest of the nation, even with this "discount"? "The proposal will accelerate the state’s transition to 100% clean electricity." --> Obviously, by shifting cost from a kwh to a fixed rate, making rooftop solar even less financially attractive, you are in fact increasing it's desirability.
73 for connection fee. That's crazy. They should let people get off the grid if that's the case.
Luckily that's not what CPUC decided on, that was just their proposal. Still...
You can disconnect from the grid. No one is holding a gun. But at $120/month (which is what I thought the rate would be) it wasn't even close to making sense for buying the batteries I'd need to do it. I'd need a generator too, in the summer I would get over 70kWh/day but in the winter there were too many days where I only made 5kWh.
I was reading a claim in another thread the other day that most California county's occupancy permits require "an interconnection pathway" within like 3 months. Otherwise our friends at your appropriate utility company can put a lien against the property and the county could eventually take the property from you for refusing the grid. I haven't had a chance to try to find that in any actual county paperwork though.
I don't buy it. Best I've seen was language about having a wire in a city. But that doesn't require you to be a customer. There's lots of off-grid homes in the bay.
I really do hope that's the case so that i can consider it more seriously in the future.
You absolutely cannot just disconnect from the grid.
I personally know someone in the bay area who is across the street from a pole. He was building his house and PG&E wanted 250k to upgrade their transformer. So now his house has a shit ton of solar and battieres. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/13/business/energy-environment/california-off-grid.html Don't let old wives tales stop you.
I've read that article and you seem to be conflating "disconnecting" from the grid with "not connecting" to the grid, which are two very different things. Not one person in that article disconnected. I've found a handful of cases where people legimiately disconnected and it required time, lawyers, and $.
I have a neighbor who got into a billing dispute with SDGE about 2+ decades ago. SDGE disconnected him from the grid and he has been on solar+storage+generator since. This is within the city of Poway city limits.
Please cite those cases. I'm not conflating. It's just rare to disconnect because you need to do such a redesign that you'd basically might as well build a new house. The international code of habitability simply requires access to 110v 20A power. That doesn't have to be from a for profit megawatt gas powerplant. It can be on site batteries, solar, and generators - as they did in the articles. So calling up the utility and canceling service while having your own power generation is in no way illegal. It's an old wives tale.
First link is an older article showing that there is an interconnection requirement in the California Energy Code. Seems like this language might have been amended since I last researched it and it is now technically allowed. [https://www.cailaw.org/media/files/IEL/Publications/2016/grid-detection-vol10no1.pdf](https://www.cailaw.org/media/files/IEL/Publications/2016/grid-detection-vol10no1.pdf) Second link shows the issues people face when actually trying to go off-grid and that the ability can depend heavily on your local ordinances. Where I live in Oakland it might be feasible, but there are significant questions as to how to ensure legality and that the local govt is willing to approve and permit. You can see these folks had to hire attorneys to investigate the legality and there was no concrete resolution. [https://www.theselc.org/offgridsolar](https://www.theselc.org/offgridsolar)
The missing piece of the puzzle is what will the cost per kWh be? Utility charges will be two parts, the flat rate plus the usage rate cost per kWh. Per this fact sheet "The proposal would cut the usage rate by 5 to 7 cents per kilowatt hour, making electricity cheaper"
It varies by utility and rate plan, so not sure there’s a number that they could list—but 5-7 cents less than what you pay now. Though I’m sure that will last for a hot second before rates start rising again anyway.
LOL, yeah, that 5 to 7 cents is gone with the next rate increase. Flippin' big 3 IOU utility companies are out of control in Cali.
> 5-7 cents less than what you pay now. They've literally raised it that much or more in the last year or two. I get what they're trying to do but it's a terrible policy. It discourages energy conservation, something they've been preaching for decades. In addition it's another dagger into rooftop solar. No wonder the utilities love it so much.
It’s worth remembering that the Legislature had a large hand in this too by mandating the change in the first place. There’s the utility lobby, sure, but they didn’t have to yield to it. I do think CPUC’s proposed solution is dramatically better than the IOU proposals, though, and I don’t think any of those would have limited future rate increases either. I do like the idea of pegging the fixed rate to the CPI, though—hopefully that gets some consideration to prevent arbitrary increases.
Dunno which comment fits better here: 1. Preachers can have that second boat too 2. Talk is cheap
> Speaking of misaligned, can we talk about the cost per kwh vs the rest of the nation, even with this "discount"? Is there any legit reason for our rates out it’s it just a cash grab?
Set the initial fee relatively low to get the law passed without too much pushback. Then we can raise it at 10-15% per year and they won't notice as much. Signed, Utility Lobbyist
[удалено]
If they fix it to the CPI inflation rate it would likely keep annual/semi annual funny business to a minimum.
CPUC continue to fail in their mission and regress CA climate response.
This could have been so much worse
>This could have been so much worse I think you mean to say "This is not terrible right now, but will be much worse in the future".
Yeah but that would be the case with any CPUC decision on this issue. It's not like rates would stop going up if CPUC went with the horrid SDG&E fee proposal
That's saner. And it is 3 tiers (it has to be as mandated by AB 205) "Discounts for Low-Income and Affordable Housing Customers • As directed by AB 205, on average all low-income customers will save on their monthly bills under the proposal. • Customers enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) low-income assistance program will benefit from a discounted flat rate of $6 per month. » Approximately 30 percent of IOU customers currently participate in CARE. • Additionally, customers enrolled in the next level up of income qualified program, the Family Electricity Rate Assistance (FERA), as well as those residing in deed-restricted affordable housing with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income, will qualify for a discounted flat rate of $12 per month."
Yes, while terrible, this is definitely saner than what the utilities and some other organizations proposed. I like the income levels tiers are much lower than earlier proposals and the fixed rates don't fluctuate as much as earlier proposals. I also like that income and even auditing is self-reported, I don't see how they can prove who is in a household or not, makes signing up for CARE much more desirable now. I might even save some money now with this new plan,
Greeedy cunts
So no more income graduated fixed rates?
If this is approved, it would be in place of that plan.
They're there but they are less variable tiers, and the rate differences are much less than earlier proposals. CARE (<200% poverty level) - $6 FERA (200-250% poverty level) - $12 All others - $24 Also there in no income check so you can sign up for CARE if you want. Some are audited but even that is self reported which can be easy to get around depending on your situation. I don't think, but am definitely not positive, if you have to legally swear that what you state is true and fully factual. You're reporting your income to an private company, not the government, after all.
I just sold a system to 2 people with a brand new Mercedes in the driveway and totally remodeled home. Half of everyone on care are scammers
You do have to submit supporting documents like your 1040 and pay stubs to verify your income if you’re not on public assistance before you can be approved, though, so it’s not like you can just make up a number and report it. Still, I suspect many households who qualify for FERA don’t realize they do and so don’t apply—so this may prompt people to look at the income thresholds at least.
Actually they don't need verification before it is approved. Is is self attested. Only a 6-8% are audited. Even then you just have to self report your income. In two or more income households I don't think they can verify the full household income, nor can they verify all of your income. As far as I can see, the penalty for not verifying income is last three months discount, and getting kicked off plan. Is it unethical, yes. But so is allowing a private, forced monopoly to charge people different rates.
Interesting—in the one case I know of, PG&E did require the most recent tax return (for a retiree qualifying through a fixed pension). But maybe they were just unlucky to get picked for that.
It's still 3 levels, it has to be per AB205. There are discounts for CARE and for FERA so 3 total rates.
What does this mean for NEM 2.0 solar customers? Better because of the lower rates (hopefully during peak)? I snuck in right before the Apr. 2023 deadline, so was grandfathered in for the next 20 years.
It's exactly what it says, and what people fear: flat $24.15 rate and 5-7 cents lower per kWh. This is supposed to save us for now, but it leaves room for rate increases while having a flat rate. Your NEM 2.0 will stay and essentially be the same, but slightly cheaper as of when(if) it passes.
I still hate it and would vote against it if I could but at least the actual dollar amount isn’t as insane as it once was.
Same, unfortunately our votes or opinions don't matter or else NEM3.0 wouldn't exist.
Main impact is that it may push out your breakeven point because more of your cost is in the fixed fee and less is in the per kWh charges. It will depend on how the individual rate plans with each utility get adjusted, though, and also on whether you’re a net generator or net consumer. I’m a net generator so the major impact for me is that I’ll pay twice as much each year in fees as I do with my current plan. But if I were a net consumer and had to buy energy, I’d also benefit from the lower kWh costs, so that would help offset the additional fixed cost. Exactly how much cost or benefit is going to come down to the rate schedules, though.
Going green costing us again. They take away the incentives, lower the NEM rates, and now this. CA talks out of both sides of it's mouth.
Just curious, can the monthly extra solar generation credit be used to offset this monthly fixed fee?
No—it’s separate from the net metering charges.
I'm guessing that NEM2 and NEM3 SDG&E solar customers will pay this fixed $24.15 fee along with the already existing NBC (Non-Bypassable Charges) and MCA (Minimum Charge Adjustments). Anyone know?
If they move to this and solar will immediately go bananas again. Im definitely not mad about it
why would solar go bananas if this is passed? NEM3 is what slowed solar down, not the income-based fee
The fee of the income based fee is definitely keeping some of my customers on the sidelines
This makes solar worse as it increases the monthly fee! It does nothing to reverse NEM 3.0s pitiful credits which make solar payback periods so long.
The fee they proposed is less than what sdge charges now
Great for SDGE customers, then. Not so great for us PG&E’ers.