Last edited:
Is this real or a hoax? California $0.00 export rate
- Thread starter 1201
- Start date
Nobodybusiness
Collecting the leftovers of the Great Sky Reactor.
Nothing would surprise me anymore.
They are basically saying they don't want any more power from anyone but still charging 0.45/kWh for it? Crazy.
People need to figure out how to sell to their neighbors at a discounted price if they are simply giving it away for free.
Lt.Dan
Solar Wizard
Totally not surprised. And outright ridiculous.
timselectric
If I can do it, you can do it.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2022
- Messages
- 18,752
The power companies don't want residential solar production.
They never have. It's just more problems for them to deal with.
It was just a matter of time before they were going to get their way.
They never have. It's just more problems for them to deal with.
It was just a matter of time before they were going to get their way.
Nobodybusiness
Collecting the leftovers of the Great Sky Reactor.
We have been trying to figure out a way to do that where We live.
Unfortunately too much distance for an extension cord.
nuke
New Member
Isn't that some app where you set the rates and its just displaying what you set?
hwy17
Anti-Solar Enthusiast
1. I was confused by that post. I hadn't heard that the NEM3 ACC can go to 0, but maybe it can.
2. Wholesale prices were literally negative that day. So in a more realistic world, they should have been charged for their exports.
2. Wholesale prices were literally negative that day. So in a more realistic world, they should have been charged for their exports.
Totally expected. California currently has more solar than any other state; there are days when solar plus wind supplies 100% of the power in the state. When that happens they literally can't handle any more solar generation. That's why it goes to zero. They don't want it.
We are still on true net metering, DR rate, under NEM 2.0. That means we do get 100% credit for all the solar we generate. We have been fighting tooth and nail to hang on to that and so far we have been successful. But I'm also getting ready to replace our ancient Fronius inverters with an AIO (hopefully the Midnite) because I know that's not going to last forever, and eventually we will get moved to a time-of-use plan with reduced payback.
We are still on true net metering, DR rate, under NEM 2.0. That means we do get 100% credit for all the solar we generate. We have been fighting tooth and nail to hang on to that and so far we have been successful. But I'm also getting ready to replace our ancient Fronius inverters with an AIO (hopefully the Midnite) because I know that's not going to last forever, and eventually we will get moved to a time-of-use plan with reduced payback.
Many thousands of brand new homes have sprung up on what used to be pastures around Sacramento Ca. I was driving in an area that I haven’t been in for a few years and was shocked to see so many houses topped with the mandated black splotches. All making power predominately when it isn’t needed and not storing it. Now if the power companies would invest in storage, that would be a different story. In the future, I wouldn’t put it past them if they find out that you have a battery that they’d try take some power from the house or car without asking or proper compensation during peak.
wattmatters
Solar Wizard
Much lower feed in credit than import tariff has been the norm in Australia for a decade. Rooftop PV is generating energy when the grid least needs it, often with little or no capacity for the grid management to curtail it, so its value should reflect that.
Here the main issue is network costs (transmission, distribution, metering, market oversight etc) are only levied on energy purchased from the grid, and not on exported energy, hence the price disparity.
Increasingly, grid level management of rooftop PV is becoming a requirement for new systems, so that on days when VRE output is high and demand low (e.g. a mild sunny Spring day) then the market operator can reduce rooftop PV output to aid maintain grid stability. If it is valued at nothing then not exporting excess does not cost anything.
Rooftop PV should always, first and foremost, be about self-consumption. Direct consumption at time of production though load management, e.g. water heating/storage, EVs, thermal loading of the home (pre-cool/heat), home batteries. This is especially the case where import tariffs are high.
Here the main issue is network costs (transmission, distribution, metering, market oversight etc) are only levied on energy purchased from the grid, and not on exported energy, hence the price disparity.
Increasingly, grid level management of rooftop PV is becoming a requirement for new systems, so that on days when VRE output is high and demand low (e.g. a mild sunny Spring day) then the market operator can reduce rooftop PV output to aid maintain grid stability. If it is valued at nothing then not exporting excess does not cost anything.
Rooftop PV should always, first and foremost, be about self-consumption. Direct consumption at time of production though load management, e.g. water heating/storage, EVs, thermal loading of the home (pre-cool/heat), home batteries. This is especially the case where import tariffs are high.
They are adding 1.5 gigawatts of storage capacity a year.
They do something like that with me. An aggregator - OhmConnect - pays me $$$ to feed power back to the grid during power shortages. I've made about $1800 in the past four years.
Lawrence_SoCal
New Member
I take it you are on an older NEM 2.0 tariff/schedule...
"Effective April 1, 2018, all new NEM customers are required to be billed under a Time of Use(TOU) pricing plan" (at least for SDG&E), meaning was there a short period of time with NEM 2.0 and not TOU rates [or maybe other PoCo mandated TOU rates at different times]?
Those of us who are old enough, remember pre-solar when mid-day electricity costs were highest during non-weekend/holidays was highest (air conditioners, businesses, etc). Mar & April CA super-off peak rates for M-F 10a-2p is direct result of recent (last 10-20 years) residential solar. Going negative on rates (too much power on grid) during solar max is consequence of not prioritizing battery installations soon enough (residential or grid)
I'm not for tin-foil hat thinking. The issue in CA is that NEM 3.0 makes sense (due to too much mid-day solar at the moment) BUT the only reason that is true is the CPUC and ISO knew this was coming and failed miserably in getting ahead of solar energy storage (like the inefficient, but if only other option is wasting it... limited ability to use electricity to pump water back up into reservoir for later hydro generation). Also a real problem, inadequate high-voltage transmission lines...
So whole green plan to move towards electrification, without adequate infrastructure in place, and all these years later (almost 30 ... https://veckta.com/2022/12/07/the-history-of-net-metering-and-how-to-combat-nem3-policies/ but notice exponential (hockey stick) of system installs) . the part that makes me chuckles... one political party making as much noise about environment, etc, the same party that has been in complete control of CPUC for over a decade. Standard 'create a problem, blame others for one's own screw-up'.. ugh
Anyway... Part of me wonders if the hope 10 years ago had been that battery storage tech would have advanced further by now, and that is why CA now lacking sufficient energy storage capacity today (current grid scale battery tech has its place, but with short (for utilities) lifecycles, not really a good fit, only ok at best).
Or, maybe the simpler explanation of natural reluctance on part of PoCo to give away profit by 'helping' (subsidizing) residential solar [which is exactly what NEM 1.0 & 2.0 did] combined with Net Metering incentives so much more successful (systems installed) than anticipated, and given time to confirm trend is real (not a blip) and then analysis and planning to advance schedule energy storage system, then time to get through rate planning/permission process, yea... that all takes MANY years... could possibly explain large Calpine grid battery system just recently going online. summed up as PoCo doing what they are supposed to, homeowners following incentives and CPUC/legislators dropping the ball
hwy17
Anti-Solar Enthusiast
If I read this correctly, I agree: You export into negative rates, you should actually pay for it.
wattmatters
Solar Wizard
I note in recent days California's grid batteries have been discharging at 6+GW during the peak period and covering 25% or more of the power demand for 60-90 minutes. In those peak periods they were the single largest source of grid electrical energy, that light green blob on the right is battery discharge right through peak period:
CA grid battery capacity is expected to nearly double in the next 12 months.
You can view the live and historical data here:
www.gridstatus.io
CA grid battery capacity is expected to nearly double in the next 12 months.
You can view the live and historical data here:
Grid Status - Energy data in sync with the grid
Stay informed on the real-time status of the US Electric Grid with comprehensive monitoring and data.
www.gridstatus.io
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 20,795
The last kWh exported may have negative value, but the vast majority were put to use, avoiding combustion of fossil fuel.
The total savings in power generation plus the total amount paid to Arizona to accept our surplus (they curtailed their own production to take PG&E's money) should be aggregated. The net dollar amount divided by the power delivered could be allocated across all rooftop producers.
The total savings in power generation plus the total amount paid to Arizona to accept our surplus (they curtailed their own production to take PG&E's money) should be aggregated. The net dollar amount divided by the power delivered could be allocated across all rooftop producers.
How was Arizona able to curtail production but California unable to?
Last edited:
Lawrence_SoCal
New Member
Correct, though IF under NEM then that doesn't happen per that tariff. But once 20 years is up, and just another generator, yes, either load shed, or pay to produce with negative rates
Similar threads
