The dialogue about California’s grid, rooftop photo voltaic vitality, and web metering goes on. Following up on the feedback beneath this text after which this text in addition to years of debate, analysis studies, lobbying, photo voltaic trade pushback, and a web metering replace that appears to be in full limbo, under is a remark from CleanTechnica reader “rawlsio” summarizing some key adjustments to the electrical energy fee system and subsidies in California that would clear up a collection of issues.
One of many core enhancements that might be made to California’s electrical energy charges can be to “unbundle” them. Proper now, the three greatest utilities cost a really excessive per kWh fee (shockingly excessive in comparison with the nationwide common fee of 12 cents/kWh).
These charges are supposed to get well the total value of working the utility, which incorporates not solely the price of producing or buying energy/vitality, however the mounted prices of working the general grid and supply system. This has the impact of constructing electrical energy very costly, which promotes conservation of electrical energy, but additionally inhibits electrification. It will increase the prices of working an EV, working a warmth pump as an alternative of a fuel furnace, induction stoves, and so forth. — all of which slows adoption of this tech within the transport and buildings sectors, each of that are “dirtier” than the present California electrical grid.
A greater approach to decarbonize can be to drop electrical energy right down to its true marginal value + social value of carbon (estimated to be one thing like a median of 9 cents per kWh, however clearly greater at peak demand), then accumulate the majority of utility revenues from mounted month-to-month grid connection charges. These might be primarily based on connection dimension, and even earnings degree to advertise fairness, however they’d be decoupled from the per-kWh expenses. This might positively promote electrical energy consumption, however it will do it by shifting vitality consumption away from our most polluting sources — gasoline and diesel for vehicles and vans and pure fuel for house heating and water heating.
What would this do to rooftop photo voltaic? Effectively, since a lot of the compensation for rooftop photo voltaic beneath NEM 3.0 comes from avoiding (netting out) the present excessive per kWh electrical energy expenses, it will dramatically lower complete compensation. The grid connection charge would additionally shift again the prices of grid upkeep that these clients are principally capable of keep away from beneath NEM 2.0.
As I mentioned above (in a unique thread), I don’t assume it will be truthful to dump this on present photo voltaic clients (who made funding calculations beneath present guidelines) with out providing some sort of “glide-path” funds that also permit them to get an honest return on their investments.
It’s going to additionally power the “pitch” for rooftop photo voltaic to adapt to the true economics of avoiding grid-delivered electrical energy, somewhat than the inflated economics of NEM funds and stuck value avoidance. These economics will nonetheless be “ok” for loads of future clients, particularly these in locations which are more durable to serve and liable to resiliency issues. In truth, California already presents excessive rebates on house batteries for individuals who dwell in fire-prone areas topic to emergency energy cutoffs ($150–$1,000/kWh of storage relying on location and earnings degree).
In the long run, having to make the pitch for rooftop photo voltaic primarily based on higher financial evaluation (and I’d completely embody the “locational” worth of rooftop photo voltaic in locations the place it actually does assist relieve grid congestion economically) goes to power installers and localities to scale back the prices of rooftop photo voltaic, as they’ve managed to do in different jurisdictions.
The purpose shouldn’t be (shouldn’t be) to eradicate rooftop photo voltaic — I don’t need prime photo voltaic producing actual property to go to waste both. The purpose ought to be to maximise renewable vitality technology with the {dollars} out there. To the extent we have to subsidize renewable vitality, it ought to be finished with {dollars} which are collected (or taxes which are averted) beneath a progressive earnings tax on the federal or state degree, not shifted to different ratepayers, and positively not shifted to decrease earnings ratepayers. The present utility billing methodology in California shouldn’t be structured to advertise both of these targets.
Featured picture by Kyle Area | CleanTechnica
Admire CleanTechnica’s originality and cleantech information protection? Take into account turning into a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.
Do not wish to miss a cleantech story? Join every day information updates from CleanTechnica on electronic mail. Or comply with us on Google Information!
Have a tip for CleanTechnica, wish to promote, or wish to recommend a visitor for our CleanTech Discuss podcast? Contact us right here.
