My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

General Talk

Moderators: OutBack, OutBack Moderator Team

pss
Forum Emperor
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:40 am
My RE system: 8330 watts in three strings, Flexmax 60 x 3, Radian 8048A, GSLC load center, Mate 3S, Hub 10.3, FN-DC and 900 Amp, 48V Trojan T105-RE battery bank.

My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by pss »

PLEASE READ MY COMMENTS BELOW. IF YOU AGREE, LET ME KNOW ON THIS FORUM. IF YOU DON'T, THAT'S IMPORTANT TOO. AND IF YOU HAVE OTHER IDEAS, THE TIME TO SPEAK IS NOW. WHERE CALIFORNIA GOES, THE REST OF THE STATES WILL FOLLOW.

After reading through the committee proposal to adopt a new NEM 3.0 I have come to the following opinions:


1. Not enough thanks and appreciation was given to the California homeowners and businesses who adopted this technology which was a risk to them. Without their participation, the State would have had to mandate the construction of clean energy power plants by the grid owners. I believe the result would have been much higher rates for all Californians than is paid now.
2. I believe paying residential and business owners the retail rate for energy exported to the grid is too high. But I also believe paying a rate that would be as low as $0.05 per kW does not truly reflect the cost of the installation, operation, maintenance, repair and re-investment of the exporting system. The rate paid should reflect a real-world value to the consumers who rely on this exported energy. The amount has to be higher.
3. I believe that adopting a time of use pricing system is reasonable, but should be a choice along with a tiered system. In either case, the rates charged for the highest tier and the most expensive time of day are already prohibitively costly to the consumer and should not be allowed to rise further. Consumers connected to SDG&E pay a price of $0.61 per kWh on the summer pricing plan from the 4 PM to 9 PM hour. They are faced with rising climate temperatures and no guarantee of electricity from the grid operator during the hottest events of the year. Even with raising the temperature settings in the home, refrigerators must work harder and food must be cooked. An average family oven will consume 3000 watts per hour at 375 degrees. Cooking a main course for 2 -3 hours costs the homeowner as much as $5.49 already. Doing this twice weekly adds to almost $41 monthly! This cost is just a hardship on families and the CPUC should be bringing it down, not steering people into expensive battery options.
4. It is reasonable for people to store electricity they generate for use on their own property rather than exporting it to the grid operator. In fact, the entire technology industry has been progressing in just this direction over the past five years. But the costs remain very high and so the CPUC should not be directing NEM ratepayers down this path. Rather, science, technology and competition in the marketplace which spur innovation should be the motivation to the PV ratepayer to adopt new technologies. Hybrid inverters that can perform these functions range from $4000 to $8,000 dollars and often more than one unit is needed in a residence. And the storage medium is generally a lithium iron phosphate battery. These batteries are expensive because of the research and development, technical support, warranty and environments they must operate in to meet the intended purpose. And if they are to be in use in the 4 PM to 9 PM time period, they must be sized to support meal time preparation a well as central air conditioning motor start up loads, otherwise they fail at doing their jobs. Most homes with solar installations have a 175 ampere grid supply. This is 42,000 watts. A common battery designed and built in California is by Simpliphi. Their most common model supplies 3800 watts of power. To start a 4 ton central AC unit, a reasonable estimate is 14,000 watts to start it up. Add to this let’s say another 1500 watts is being used for other homeowner activities meaning the home would need to install 5 Simpliphi batteries. They are now priced about $2,800 per battery. This does not include installation, enclosures or mounting and wiring or permitting and electrician labor. Those costs will range from $2,500 to over $6,000 depending on the installation at the property. So a hybrid inverter, batteries and installation can add up to $30,000. The homeowner gets 19,000 watts of battery capacity. If the average draw from the home without cooking or using the air conditioner is 1500 watts per hour, then the homeowner can count on slightly less than 13 hours of electricity from their batteries. Clearly this means that without perfect conditions that fully charge the batteries every day and long days of sunshine, the battery bank must be smaller, the grid or a generator must be used to charge the batteries or the PV system installed at the site must be expanded. Just without cooking or using any air conditioning, the system would need to generate 28,000 watts of electricity to supply 1,500 watts per hour average for 24 hours in a day. That’s 5,600 watts in full sun for 5 hours a day. This means the PV system size will need to be 8,000 to 10,000 watts. And for all of this, the homeowner or business can’t cook, can’t run their AC and can’t withstand even a cloudy day without reliance on a generator or the grid operator or a bigger system at more cost. Hardly a simple concept to sell to any homeowner.
5. NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0 promised a 20 year connection period for those installations. Simply put, the state should not renege on the agreement for these systems to keep the 20 years they were promised. If a system owner agrees to a 5 year reduction to 15 years as proposed, they should be compensated financially by the state at an amount to be determined.
6. Establishing a tax fund of $600,000,000 to lower the energy bills of lower income persons and those on tribal lands is certainly laudable. But I disagree with the concept. If the entire idea is to pursue clean energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to help combat climate change, then this amount of money should be spent to provide PV systems to tribal communities and low income families with the benefit lasting up to 25 years rather than completely spent in just 4 years.
7. Creating a tax of $8/kW of installed PV for systems on NEM 3.0 is an oppressive tax that WILL result in homeowners and small business removing solar systems from their property. For example, my system calculations for 8400 watts reveal an average production of $315 monthly for my locale at $0.28 per kWh. A tax of $8/kw would equal amount to $69.20 or 22 percent of the revenue value of my system. And each year the PV production from the system decreases while the tax remains the same! I am not aware of any tax by the state of California that is this high. People are smarter than you think. They will not install new systems, they will not connect them to the grid and they will remove them if necessary. The last bills people want to pay are for doctors, hospitals and grid operators. Their natural behavior is to keep costs down. And when they find out where this money being taken from them is going, they will not tolerate paying it for long. So this assessment must be scrubbed from the NEM 3.0 proposal.
The CPUC adoption document is filled with comments and proposals from many kinds of stakeholders, each with their own self interests in mind. There were no comments presented by individual PV ratepayers. It would have been easy for the CPUC to survey the PV ratepayers in California over the past year asking for input. They did not because their intent all along was to diminish the value of residential PV systems in the state. If they adopt their NEM 3.0 proposal as written, they will be successful. But they will harm the middle-class homeowner with a PV system. They will never harm the wealthy homeowner who will find a way to evade the costs imposed.
In conclusion my comments are directed against a tax fund creation for lower income and tribal communities and instead in support of providing those ratepayers with PV systems. I am against reducing the NEM 1.0 and 2.0 agreements down to 15 years. I am against pushing PV ratepayers into battery systems rather than letting the private sector marketplace create the benefit. Lastly, the imposition of an $8/kW tax on PV systems will lead to a cessation of new residential solar systems in the state of California because the payoff period is too long for any investor and the money is being paid to grid operators which is fundamentally wrong.
User avatar
Mike Curran
Forum Emperor
Posts: 2777
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:28 pm
My RE system: Outback - Garage roof:
- 8 (2x4) Evergreen 180's into one FM80 (2007/2020 - replaced MX60)
- 6 (2×3) ALEO S79-300's into one FM80 (2017)
- 2 grid-tied VFXR3524A-01's series stacked, replaced GVFX's (2020)
- 12 Surrette/Rolls 2V x 1766Ah (2007)
- Hub10.3, Mate3s, FNDC, RTS. Tigo ES maximizers on each PV module.

Westinghouse Solar - Barn roof: (2012)
- 30 (2x15) 235W panels with Enphase M215 microinverters, grid-tied

Outback Skybox - Barn roof: (2019)
- 14 Talesun 275W in series (DC array input to SB inverter/charger)
- 3 SimpliPhi 3.8 batteries, 48V, 225Ah total
- AC coupled input from 14 Talesun 275W, Enphase M215 microinverters

Battery systems operate in grid-tied, net metering w/backup mode
All self-designed and self-installed
Location: Chagrin Falls, Ohio

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by Mike Curran »

Not much there for a net metering with backup battery system owner to disagree with. I agree!
https://ei.tigoenergy.com/p/pZXn7SZQyO45
https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/public/systems/Hctc107221
santafedave
Forum Virtuoso
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2020 8:05 pm
My RE system: GS8048-A-300AFCI 8 KW 48V Mate3s with 2 FM100 charge controllers pre wired.
21 Canadian Solar 320 Watt PERC MC4 CS3K-320MS panels.
3 Canadian Solar 325W Module Mono Perc 1000VDC panels.
8 FullRiver AGM DC400-6 Sealed Batteries 415AH 6V L16 size.
Fireraptor quick disconnect.

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by santafedave »

Very well written PSS! Please forward this to the CPUC with my endorsement. My system's startup was last year in Dec so I would only have 14 mores years to recoup my costs. I do have the battery backup installed and that saved me a lot of cost during my level-up that I just received. I run on the batteries during the peak pricing schedule established by PGE. Your calculations are dead on when it comes to hot summer nights in California! PGE and other utility companies are trying to kept their monopoly alive with NEM3. Thanks for you summary of this situation!
pss
Forum Emperor
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:40 am
My RE system: 8330 watts in three strings, Flexmax 60 x 3, Radian 8048A, GSLC load center, Mate 3S, Hub 10.3, FN-DC and 900 Amp, 48V Trojan T105-RE battery bank.

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by pss »

Thanks and will do.
pss
Forum Emperor
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:40 am
My RE system: 8330 watts in three strings, Flexmax 60 x 3, Radian 8048A, GSLC load center, Mate 3S, Hub 10.3, FN-DC and 900 Amp, 48V Trojan T105-RE battery bank.

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by pss »

These are some of the public comments on the proposed CA NEM 3.0. If you live in California and have solar you must make your feeling known by a public comment.

Just Google search California Public Utilities Commission and R2008020 - Public Comments



Jennifer ThompsonReseda, CA91335
The claim that fairness requires that solar not be subsidized is silly. There are undoubtedly other ways to reduce costs for people who don't have solar besides passing those costs back to people who do have solar. It's also laughable to expect ratepayers to take the word of for-profit power companies that fairness is at stake. These companies have caused forest fires and untold destruction in our state because of their refusal to perform proper maintenance. They are not concerned about fairness; they are concerned about protecting their own profits and making sure that consumers are the ones paying for the companies' mistakes. Solar power is a crucial part of our transition away from fossil fuels. Don't discourage Californians from investing in their own energy independence.

Selman BartonForest Knolls, CA94933
I live in a fire zone. Based upon my NEM 2 "guarantee" from PGE that I will send send my excess summer kwh to PGE and PGE will supply those kwh I earned back to me in the winter, I have invested in $100,000 of solar & battery capital equipment to guarantee I have continued power during PGE shutdowns, especially in case of a major grid failure. After all my capital investment, PGE is reneging on their deal. All the battery buyers have helped PGE delay or avoid building new gas power plants.

William WatkinsCorona, CA92883
I think the PUC and the electric companies are in cahoots. The change that they made a couple of years ago already increases the amount we pay at the end of the year. The electric companies are milking the public and the PUC is letting them get away with it.

Eduardo Pelegri-LlopartMenlo Park, CA94025
Two additional comments. (1) NEM 3.0 changes too many variables at the same time, changing the compensation formula (OK) and adding the fixed connection fee (very risky - it killed the Solar Industry in Spain). And (2) the current proposals seem to be ignoring the impact of lower cost batteries, and seem to be ignoring the resilience benefits of distributed generation and distributed storage. The argument for fixed connection fee is based on "grid benefit", but there is no equivalent compensation for "resilience benefit".

Stephen SerembeSan Bernardino, CA92405
This is absolutely true: “The whole point is, we’re outputting energy to the grid, and that is coming from something we paid for,” said Pandey of Irvine. “We’re supplying energy to people based on what we did ourselves. The more that happens everywhere, the better off we’ll be. The solution is to, perhaps, charge people less for energy they get from solar users verses charging more to solar users.” This should be the way to go.

Ronald GreeneFontana, CA92336
Let’s be frank, your increase for solar home energy home owners are not going to “help the poor people subsidizing solar ownners”, it is to increase revenue to the energy companies and their shareholders. Since they are finally being held accountable for the property destruction from fires, their revenue has taken a hit. The poor people will not see a penny and in fact will see their energy bills increase as will the home owners with solar. I can understand a ten percent reduction in energy costs from home solar but to take the cuts you are seeking is criminal! Since the PUC seems to vote for the energy companies 90% of the time it make me and other California energy users wonder where the funding for your salaries come from. What you’re proposing is the dismantling of the home solar industry for big energies gain. This is just another display of government reaching into their constituents pockets for political or financial gain for yourselves and big industries. This is why so many are leaving this state!

Carl BoeOakland, CA94602
I am writing to protest the way in which this rulemaking has come about, namely, treating as fact an inside consultant report which is not transparent (and cannot be verified by 3rd parties), is constructed with dubious assumptions (using commercial rates as inputs, fixing the huge fixed costs that account for the high cost of power in California), ignoring possible gains from reduced build out of the grid and possible gains and robustness from distributed production (cf. VCE study for California). By fixing capital costs and effectively only allowing two factors (billed costs to those with solar installations and those without) in the zero-sum "avoidable cost" calculations, the chosen model forces gains to one group to result in losses to the other. The proposal is based on the marginal substitution between two factors at a point which is very much not an optimum and not an equilibrium. In short, this proposed rule seems to me to be very much cherry-picking of a result by industry insiders. Rather than address failures to regulate total costs in California which have resulted in embarrassingly high power rates, blame is shifted to a powerless group of home owners. At the very least, any proposed ruling should be based on a fully transparent and public model and rules adopted should be dynamic, subject to change as increasing evidence arrives or as models prove false.
User avatar
Mike Curran
Forum Emperor
Posts: 2777
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:28 pm
My RE system: Outback - Garage roof:
- 8 (2x4) Evergreen 180's into one FM80 (2007/2020 - replaced MX60)
- 6 (2×3) ALEO S79-300's into one FM80 (2017)
- 2 grid-tied VFXR3524A-01's series stacked, replaced GVFX's (2020)
- 12 Surrette/Rolls 2V x 1766Ah (2007)
- Hub10.3, Mate3s, FNDC, RTS. Tigo ES maximizers on each PV module.

Westinghouse Solar - Barn roof: (2012)
- 30 (2x15) 235W panels with Enphase M215 microinverters, grid-tied

Outback Skybox - Barn roof: (2019)
- 14 Talesun 275W in series (DC array input to SB inverter/charger)
- 3 SimpliPhi 3.8 batteries, 48V, 225Ah total
- AC coupled input from 14 Talesun 275W, Enphase M215 microinverters

Battery systems operate in grid-tied, net metering w/backup mode
All self-designed and self-installed
Location: Chagrin Falls, Ohio

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by Mike Curran »

Elon & Bill Walton (ex-NBA) are also against this https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ne ... e-changes/
https://ei.tigoenergy.com/p/pZXn7SZQyO45
https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/public/systems/Hctc107221
raysun
Forum Emperor
Posts: 7812
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:57 am
My RE system: Flexpower Two: (2) FXR3048A-01, (2) FM80, MATE3s, FlexNetDC
6 SimpliPhi 3.8-48 (48v @ 75AH. 450AH total)
Outback IBR3 battery enclosure
REC Alpha 440W panels - 2 arrays: each of 4 strings of 2 in series
Honda EU7000is gas fuel generator

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by raysun »

Keep it simple.

"... opt to leave the grid entirely."
pss
Forum Emperor
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:40 am
My RE system: 8330 watts in three strings, Flexmax 60 x 3, Radian 8048A, GSLC load center, Mate 3S, Hub 10.3, FN-DC and 900 Amp, 48V Trojan T105-RE battery bank.

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by pss »

California law requires any residence served by the grid to be connected and pay non bypass able charges.

The vote on NEM 3.0 is January 27.

The CPUC website is filled with thousands of public comments against this plan and I found ZERO comments in support of this plan.

Who will step forward to put in solar and sell a kW to the grid for $0.05 when they will ship it over to your neighbor and charge $0.30 to 0.61?

Who will pay a MONTHLY $8/kW tax on your installed solar.

Who will install solar when in addition to the tax your pay several other fixed charges that are new?

I have pending this vote halted EV purchase in favor of a gas car and propane generator rather than a hybrid EV charger , more solar and lithium batteries. The solar pathway is about 75k expansion for us, the generator is 24k for a 39kW liquid cooled propane beast that will last a long time.
User avatar
Mike Curran
Forum Emperor
Posts: 2777
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:28 pm
My RE system: Outback - Garage roof:
- 8 (2x4) Evergreen 180's into one FM80 (2007/2020 - replaced MX60)
- 6 (2×3) ALEO S79-300's into one FM80 (2017)
- 2 grid-tied VFXR3524A-01's series stacked, replaced GVFX's (2020)
- 12 Surrette/Rolls 2V x 1766Ah (2007)
- Hub10.3, Mate3s, FNDC, RTS. Tigo ES maximizers on each PV module.

Westinghouse Solar - Barn roof: (2012)
- 30 (2x15) 235W panels with Enphase M215 microinverters, grid-tied

Outback Skybox - Barn roof: (2019)
- 14 Talesun 275W in series (DC array input to SB inverter/charger)
- 3 SimpliPhi 3.8 batteries, 48V, 225Ah total
- AC coupled input from 14 Talesun 275W, Enphase M215 microinverters

Battery systems operate in grid-tied, net metering w/backup mode
All self-designed and self-installed
Location: Chagrin Falls, Ohio

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by Mike Curran »

Had to look that up https://freedomforever.com/blog/non-bypassable-charges/

A better comment to your PUC: "I have pending this vote halted EV purchase in favor of a gas car and propane generator rather than a hybrid EV charger , more solar and lithium batteries. The solar pathway is about 75k expansion for us, the generator is 24k for a 39kW liquid cooled propane beast that will last a long time."
https://ei.tigoenergy.com/p/pZXn7SZQyO45
https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/public/systems/Hctc107221
pss
Forum Emperor
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:40 am
My RE system: 8330 watts in three strings, Flexmax 60 x 3, Radian 8048A, GSLC load center, Mate 3S, Hub 10.3, FN-DC and 900 Amp, 48V Trojan T105-RE battery bank.

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by pss »

Mike, the CPUC are all long term government bureaucrats appointed to commission by governor. They are heavily lobbied by the state's 3 utilities to raise rates and fees annually and to kill solar. They want to burn natural gas and coal, collect billions from consumers for wildfire damage payouts and to bury their lines. All the while telling people they are getting shut off service because of too much demand. Well F Y is what I have to say.

My property is on a sloped grade. I will use my solar to pump thousands of gallons of liquid in a closed circuit to a high point storage tank and let it turn a hydro generator at night for electric production.

Let them outlaw gravity.
User avatar
Mike Curran
Forum Emperor
Posts: 2777
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:28 pm
My RE system: Outback - Garage roof:
- 8 (2x4) Evergreen 180's into one FM80 (2007/2020 - replaced MX60)
- 6 (2×3) ALEO S79-300's into one FM80 (2017)
- 2 grid-tied VFXR3524A-01's series stacked, replaced GVFX's (2020)
- 12 Surrette/Rolls 2V x 1766Ah (2007)
- Hub10.3, Mate3s, FNDC, RTS. Tigo ES maximizers on each PV module.

Westinghouse Solar - Barn roof: (2012)
- 30 (2x15) 235W panels with Enphase M215 microinverters, grid-tied

Outback Skybox - Barn roof: (2019)
- 14 Talesun 275W in series (DC array input to SB inverter/charger)
- 3 SimpliPhi 3.8 batteries, 48V, 225Ah total
- AC coupled input from 14 Talesun 275W, Enphase M215 microinverters

Battery systems operate in grid-tied, net metering w/backup mode
All self-designed and self-installed
Location: Chagrin Falls, Ohio

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by Mike Curran »

the CPUC are all long term government bureaucrats appointed to commission by governor. They are heavily lobbied by the state's 3 utilities to raise rates and fees annually and to kill solar. 
Same here in Ohio. In 2019 the legislature passed a law to subsidize 2 FirstEnergy nuke plants, plus 2 joint-owned coal plants (one in Indiana). The act also repealed Ohio's RE portfolio standard. A subsequent initiative to repeal it failed after FE paid $60 million to lobbiers to defeat it. They also paid $4.3 million to the future head of Ohio's PUC, described in the link below like this:

"Nov. 20, 2020
FirstEnergy discloses to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it fired Jones (CEO) and others in part because of a $4.3 million payment to end a consulting agreement in January 2019 with someone who was subsequently appointed as an Ohio regulator over utilities. Randazzo’s name isn’t specifically mentioned."

Randazzo was appointed PUC head by Ohio's governor shortly after that payment.

https://www.cincinnati.com/in-depth/new ... 248218001/
https://ei.tigoenergy.com/p/pZXn7SZQyO45
https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/public/systems/Hctc107221
pss
Forum Emperor
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:40 am
My RE system: 8330 watts in three strings, Flexmax 60 x 3, Radian 8048A, GSLC load center, Mate 3S, Hub 10.3, FN-DC and 900 Amp, 48V Trojan T105-RE battery bank.

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by pss »

Mike,

The bigger problem is this: everyone expect a state like Ohio to do crazy bad stuff. But California is supposed to be a liberal leader, a leader in technology. That's where your Simpliphi batteries come from. A leader in climate change, in cleaning the air and water, in wild fire prevention technology, in clean energy. Over 1 million homes in California have solar installations. Solar is required by law in any newly built home.

And now this: Solar essentially killed by powerful people looking out for their own interests instead of for society's interest. So the only pathway left is for large wealthy American's to purchase controlling interest in California's public utilities and operate them for the public's good. Nobody needs solar if the utility was efficiently priced, utilized clean energy and didn't pollute. But they do pollute, they are poorly managed, have low reliability and squander millions of dollars. And now they own a big share of government too. Just awful and the end for private solar in the USA and for slowing climate change.
raysun
Forum Emperor
Posts: 7812
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:57 am
My RE system: Flexpower Two: (2) FXR3048A-01, (2) FM80, MATE3s, FlexNetDC
6 SimpliPhi 3.8-48 (48v @ 75AH. 450AH total)
Outback IBR3 battery enclosure
REC Alpha 440W panels - 2 arrays: each of 4 strings of 2 in series
Honda EU7000is gas fuel generator

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by raysun »

California needs to take utilities out of the hands of for-profit corporations.
pss
Forum Emperor
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:40 am
My RE system: 8330 watts in three strings, Flexmax 60 x 3, Radian 8048A, GSLC load center, Mate 3S, Hub 10.3, FN-DC and 900 Amp, 48V Trojan T105-RE battery bank.

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by pss »

Article on CNN.com today detailing how FPL has donated millions of dollars to mainly Republicans, but some Democrats too and Gov. Desantis to kill rooftop solar in Florida. Proposal is to pay almost nothing for kW sent to the grid and to limit existing NEM customers to 10 years before put into new NEM plan with more charges.
According to the article, FPL lobbyist wrote the bill, given to a Republican member of the Florida legislature and introduced. Has passed first committee by 6-2 vote. Solar businesses in Florida already in panic mode and getting ready for mass layoffs. According to FPL, it's not fair that the utility has to supply electricity to everyone and harden for storms while private individuals and businesses can just pay for clean energy to supply their needs, add batteries and even sell clean electricity to FPL so they don't have to invest their own money in new generation plants, maintenance and management. Not to mention less air pollution and climate benefits.

THE REAL PROBLEM HERE FOLKS IS MISMANAGEMENT BY THE UTILITY COMPANIES ON A NATIONAL LEVEL HAS SENT THEM INTO PANIC MODE. THEY HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO KNOCK ON YOR DOOR, CALL YOU ON THE PHONE, ADVERTISE ON RADIO AND TV, SEND YOU A LETTER AND MAIL OUT FLYERS TOUTING THE BENEFITS OF SOLAR. THEY COULD HAVE BEEN THE CONTRACTOR, FINANCER, SALESPEOPLE, INSTALLERS AND MAINTENANCE COMPANIES ALL IN ONE. BUT NO! THEY HAVE CONTINUOUSLY OPPOSED SOLAR AND WIND UNLESS IT IS ON THEIR TERMS AND THEIR PRICES. NOW THEY ARE FIGHTING A WAR AND THE SOLAR INDUSTRY AND PEOPLE NEED TO FIGHT BACK HARD AND NOW!
JRHill
Forum Emperor
Posts: 2391
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:12 am
My RE system: 48v OB inverter and charge controller, hub and mate3s.
Location: PNW
Contact:

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by JRHill »

How many times have we seen technically illiterate politicians passing legislation on something way above their heads.

So this: I have noted some stupid people who tried to commit suicide by running their new, environmentally efficient vehicle in a confined space. And it didn't work. They probably did some personal damage bit not enough to kill themselves. The darned vehicle just ran too efficient and minimized the evil pollutants.

Not all small engines smell like an engine from 40 years ago - unburned fuel exhaust that gags you. There are newer small engines with injection and catalytic converters that run very clean. But again here is illiteracy in action. One fell swoop of a stupid law should cover it, right?
raysun
Forum Emperor
Posts: 7812
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 5:57 am
My RE system: Flexpower Two: (2) FXR3048A-01, (2) FM80, MATE3s, FlexNetDC
6 SimpliPhi 3.8-48 (48v @ 75AH. 450AH total)
Outback IBR3 battery enclosure
REC Alpha 440W panels - 2 arrays: each of 4 strings of 2 in series
Honda EU7000is gas fuel generator

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by raysun »

How many times have we seen technically illiterate politicians passing legislation on something way above their heads.
They may not understand graphs, but those pols understand graft.
User avatar
Mike Curran
Forum Emperor
Posts: 2777
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:28 pm
My RE system: Outback - Garage roof:
- 8 (2x4) Evergreen 180's into one FM80 (2007/2020 - replaced MX60)
- 6 (2×3) ALEO S79-300's into one FM80 (2017)
- 2 grid-tied VFXR3524A-01's series stacked, replaced GVFX's (2020)
- 12 Surrette/Rolls 2V x 1766Ah (2007)
- Hub10.3, Mate3s, FNDC, RTS. Tigo ES maximizers on each PV module.

Westinghouse Solar - Barn roof: (2012)
- 30 (2x15) 235W panels with Enphase M215 microinverters, grid-tied

Outback Skybox - Barn roof: (2019)
- 14 Talesun 275W in series (DC array input to SB inverter/charger)
- 3 SimpliPhi 3.8 batteries, 48V, 225Ah total
- AC coupled input from 14 Talesun 275W, Enphase M215 microinverters

Battery systems operate in grid-tied, net metering w/backup mode
All self-designed and self-installed
Location: Chagrin Falls, Ohio

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by Mike Curran »

pss wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:48 am Article on CNN.com today detailing how FPL has donated millions of dollars to mainly Republicans, but some Democrats too and Gov. Desantis to kill rooftop solar in Florida.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/23/politics ... index.html
https://ei.tigoenergy.com/p/pZXn7SZQyO45
https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/public/systems/Hctc107221
jbakker
Forum Guru
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:47 am
My RE system: 2 VFX3648 Inverters 2 FM60 150VDC Charge Controllers Mate3 5 KW of panels 15kw JC Onan NG Generator made in 1975.
1 Midnite Classic 150, FNDC. I have the Volt battery but it's not being used.
Now using 48 volt 800 AH Narada Lithium cells and QUCC 300 AMP 48 VDC relay BMS
Location: Goderich Ontario Canada

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by jbakker »

FPL recently pushed out a survey that makes it very clear its intentions toward net metering. Here is a sample message included on the survey:

“No one should be forced to pay for part of their neighbor’s electric bill. But, that’s exactly what’s happening each month for 99.5% of FPL customers, who pay to fund the rooftop solar panels found on homes throughout the state. Contrary to what you may have read, we’ve long supported customers who have the financial means and choose to buy solar panels for their roof. We’ve just simply believed it’s wrong for 99.5% of our customers – including low-income customers and customers who don’t even own a roof – to be burdened with higher electric bills simply to support customers who have the ability and desire to make such a major purchase. That’s why we support legislation that aims to create an equitable playing field for everyone, because left unchecked, current rooftop solar rules in Florida will cost FPL customers even more in the coming years.”

Can we just say, “Liar!” This misinformation campaign hits all of the top-line points in FPL’s strategy to turn Floridians against solar. If you really believe that FPL is supportive of distributed solar, we’ve got a bridge to sell you …

I believe the same is going on up here in Ontario. I am pretty sure that any new install on a house roof is now limited to a voltage below 40 volts. I think this may be for off-grid systems only not sure on that. The rule does not apply to a ground mount system.
My system is half of the shed roof and half off the shed roof. Now with a day's work and some creative engineering, I can make it so that the panels are over the shed roof but not supported by the shed roof. I may do that yet. It seems that they are making it much harder up here as well to install solar systems.
pss
Forum Emperor
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:40 am
My RE system: 8330 watts in three strings, Flexmax 60 x 3, Radian 8048A, GSLC load center, Mate 3S, Hub 10.3, FN-DC and 900 Amp, 48V Trojan T105-RE battery bank.

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by pss »

Yes, solar is under attack and the narrative being told has been carefully crafted to be the same everywhere.

I added additional public comments to the California Public Utility Commission. In a nutshell I wrote if they are concerned with the high cost of energy on tribal lands, then why don't they mandate that the 3 California utilities work with the tribes, if the tribes are willing, to build large scale wind solar and wind projects on the tribal land, provide the tribes with low cost energy produced from those projects and a profit too and then use the surplus to beef up their grid? A lot of the tribal land in California is dry and not really prime real estate for development.
Next, if the commission is concerned about renters and low income people affording energy, then why don't they instruct the utilities to work with landlords and multiunit rentals and dwellings to add solar to where ever it can be added to lower energy bills of low income families and renters?

And if the utilities don't want to purchase back roof top solar from a residence or business and just simply deliver their own generated or purchased content, I have no problems with that as long as the business or residence is granted financial relief for installing smart grid tie inverters and batteries to keep all of their own generated content to themselves.

Let the utilities focus on those who want their product and leave those of us who do not alone.

Along what the CPUC is doing would be to ask well owners to also provide water to the local reservoir for a fraction of the value and also pay a monthly tax to the local water board for use of their well.

And, as an economist reviewing the proposal said, it's like asking someone who grows carrots at home to pay an additional tax on their carrot purchases at the grocery store because they grow some at home. Makes no sense.
jbakker
Forum Guru
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:47 am
My RE system: 2 VFX3648 Inverters 2 FM60 150VDC Charge Controllers Mate3 5 KW of panels 15kw JC Onan NG Generator made in 1975.
1 Midnite Classic 150, FNDC. I have the Volt battery but it's not being used.
Now using 48 volt 800 AH Narada Lithium cells and QUCC 300 AMP 48 VDC relay BMS
Location: Goderich Ontario Canada

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by jbakker »

This quote from So I Married an Ax Murderer will add a bit of humor to the conversation.

Stuart Mackenzie: Well, it's a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as the Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.
Tony Giardino: So who's in this Pentavirate?
Stuart Mackenzie: The Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tets-up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee beady eyes! And that smug look on his face, "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"
Charlie Mackenzie: Dad, how can you hate the Colonel?
Stuart Mackenzie: Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartarse!
User avatar
Mike Curran
Forum Emperor
Posts: 2777
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:28 pm
My RE system: Outback - Garage roof:
- 8 (2x4) Evergreen 180's into one FM80 (2007/2020 - replaced MX60)
- 6 (2×3) ALEO S79-300's into one FM80 (2017)
- 2 grid-tied VFXR3524A-01's series stacked, replaced GVFX's (2020)
- 12 Surrette/Rolls 2V x 1766Ah (2007)
- Hub10.3, Mate3s, FNDC, RTS. Tigo ES maximizers on each PV module.

Westinghouse Solar - Barn roof: (2012)
- 30 (2x15) 235W panels with Enphase M215 microinverters, grid-tied

Outback Skybox - Barn roof: (2019)
- 14 Talesun 275W in series (DC array input to SB inverter/charger)
- 3 SimpliPhi 3.8 batteries, 48V, 225Ah total
- AC coupled input from 14 Talesun 275W, Enphase M215 microinverters

Battery systems operate in grid-tied, net metering w/backup mode
All self-designed and self-installed
Location: Chagrin Falls, Ohio

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by Mike Curran »

More details from NYT here: A Fight Over Rooftop Solar Threatens California’s Climate Goals https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/busi ... osymnRKZSA
https://ei.tigoenergy.com/p/pZXn7SZQyO45
https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/public/systems/Hctc107221
User avatar
Megunticook
Forum Guru
Posts: 356
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:08 am
My RE system: 6.4 kW solar array (21 QCell 305 panels in strings of 3)
GS8048A FLEXpower Radian (Radian 8048A, 2 FlexMax 80 cc's, Mate 3s, FlexNet DC, Hub)
8x6v Rolls-Surette 550 FLA batteries, 428AH
Location: Maine
Contact:

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by Megunticook »

Can you say "regulatory capture" boys and girls?

Here in Maine the PUC is basically run at the service of Central Maine Power (Avangrid). What CMP wants CMP gets when all's said and done.

Now the ratepayers are rebelling--we pushed the legislature to pass a bill last summer that would've bought out CMP and replaced them with a locally-owned consumer-owned utilty (CMP/Avangrid is foreign-owned). CMP is absolutely hated here--lowest rated utility the country, horrible service and reliability, high rates, don't even pretend to care about customers. But the Governor stepped in and vetoed the bill (she is in CMP's pocket). Now we're collecting signatures for a referendum. If it passes it will cause a cascade of similar movements around the country I predict.

Don't know if that's possible in California but it's time for the citizens there to rally together and demand smart and responsible energy policy from the State. What's happening in CA is part of a coordinated national pushback against solar and renewables by a handful of dinosaur corporations that are too stupid and clumsy to adapt to a changing world and want to cling to the 20th century model. Unfortunately their tentacles reach wide and deep into State governments.

BTW I do think it's worth looking at better ways to configure net metering and making sure low-income folks aren't paying extra (in fact they should be getting subsidized to install their own rooftop solar). But this California proposal is just a scheme dreamed up in the boardrooms of PG&E and other corps.
https://sunnypower.org
pss
Forum Emperor
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:40 am
My RE system: 8330 watts in three strings, Flexmax 60 x 3, Radian 8048A, GSLC load center, Mate 3S, Hub 10.3, FN-DC and 900 Amp, 48V Trojan T105-RE battery bank.

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by pss »

CPUC meeting yesterday was packed with people speaking by telephone from all over the state protesting the new rules. This went on for at least 6 hours or more in 1 minute comments.

The problem for poor people is not that they pay for rooftop solar customers. the problem is that here in SDG&E territory, the rates are the highest in the nation, period. Natural gas up over 25%, electric over 8 percent, in 5 years electric up almost 140%. The rates keep skyrocketing and nobody can afford them unless in top 1 percent of income. They product very little electric in CA when they could be producing tons. Instead they import a lot from out of state and charge giant transport fees on your bills to deliver it to your meter. They buy it dirt cheap refusing to build their own clean plants. And they are constantly fighting for higher rates and to avoid liability for their wildfires. Now if the wind is 30 mph they threaten to cut off your power. Every rooftop in California is a PV goldmine. Problem is SDGE doesn't own your roof or the sun, so they are doing the next best thing, trying to extort tax dollars from people who make their own electricity and convincing the state that they better go along with the plan or else.

There is even talk in california about eliminating gas ovens, cooktops, water heaters, etc in favor of clean electric while the utilities want to control the source and distribution and burn fossil fuel to meet demands.

Frankly, I'm just about ready to build my coal fired outdoor oven and have at it. If its war they want, then coal burning ovens are coming. No law yet about cooking outside with wood or coal.
JRHill
Forum Emperor
Posts: 2391
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:12 am
My RE system: 48v OB inverter and charge controller, hub and mate3s.
Location: PNW
Contact:

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by JRHill »

pss wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:43 pmNo law yet about cooking outside with wood or coal.
Oh, yuk. Don't use coal.
Oven.jpg
provo
Forum Emperor
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:34 pm
My RE system: 16 Evergreen EC-120 (4 strings, total 1920W)
2 SimpliPhi 3.8-m-24V (150Ah each)
One FM80
One VFXR3524A
Hub 10
Mate3s
FNDC
Honda EU3000is generator
Location: Sierra foothills

Re: My Comments to California Public Utilities Commission

Post by provo »

Good news from Arizona:

"...a federal court has said utilities can be liable under antitrust laws if they attack rooftop solar."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/ ... ean-energy
Post Reply