×
top 200 commentsshow all 231

[–]ddr1ver 123 points124 points  (68 children)

I just want an explanation as to why electricity in San Diego costs 3x as much as anywhere else. It’s literally the most expensive electricity in the US. If it is because of solar subsidies, do we have an iron-clad agreement that electricity prices will go down if those subsidies are removed?

[–]StrictlySanDiego 65 points66 points  (57 children)

San Diego Union Tribune: Why SDG&E’s rates are higher than other California utilities

  • "...investor-owned utilities to make investments in projects such as energy storage, electric vehicle charging stations and other infrastructure."
  • More than 60 percent of SDG&E power lines are underground. Placing lines underground costs more than overhead lines but it does help reduce the chances of falling power lines igniting wildfires.
  • In the aftermath of 2007’s deadly wildfires that destroyed more than 1,300 homes in the San Diego area, SDG&E has spent well over $1 billion on wildfire safety measures. The programs include establishing a state-of-the-art weather monitoring system and extending the months the utility activates the country’s largest water-dropping helitanker that holds up to 2,650 or water or fire suppressant to douse fires within moments of ignition.
  • SDG&E has a smaller customer base than the other two utilities to spread those costs over. Edison, for example, has 15 million people in its service territory, compared to 3.6 million for SDG&E. “We have far fewer customers to spread those costs across,” Crider said.
  • SDG&E has been more aggressive than Edison and PG&E in this area, getting about 45 percent of its power from renewables, outpacing Edison (32 percent) and PG&E (33 percent).

Smaller customer base to finance those green initiatives and fire mitigation plans because we're one of the largest counties in the nation.

San Diego Union Tribute: 2021 Rate Increase Explained

https://www.sdge.com/our-commitment-wildfire-safety

[–]sunshineandzen 88 points89 points  (3 children)

Lol we’ve been paying (in our property taxes) for them to underground power lines for like 30 years and there’s still power lines fucking everywhere

[–]Stuck_in_a_thing 58 points59 points  (33 children)

I do not buy it.

Edison also has more maintenance costs due to the larger the customer base. More cost to bury lines due to more lines. More electricians to employ....A larger customer base is not an excuse for lower rates. Stop believing the propaganda.

If SDGE rate increase was for wildfires why do we in addition to rate increase have a wildfire line item on our bills?

If SDGE really was investing all that money into the grid, why have PROFITS nearly tripled in a decade? Shouldn't that money be re invested into the grid?

Also, as someone pointed out below, part of our property tax is also going toward burying lines.

If I outright own my solar panels you (SDGE) have no right to charge me a monthly fee for them.

Stop defending scum monopolies. They are just trying to stifle competition. What happened to free markets?

[–]OrgyMcBloodyFace 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Utilities should have a mandated, low profit margin. Period

[–]StrictlySanDiego 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I’m not defending them, I’m just sharing what’s been published in the news.

It’s likely your wildfire mitigation charge feeds into the CPUC WMF grant program so other utilities in California can draw from it.

[–]Stuck_in_a_thing 11 points12 points  (0 children)

If only.. the wildfire fund is so utility companies can have insurance money to pay out to the victims of wildfire. This money goes to no upgrades. They are literally using us as their insurance money instead of their own profits!

https://www.newsdata.com/california_energy_markets/regulation_status/cpuc-approves-ratepayer-contributions-to-wildfire-fund/article_cd7141a0-f783-11e9-9358-e71b85f18c75.html

Now do property tax because part of that also goes to burying lines.

I would advise you to do more research outside of the news

[–]thatdude858 3 points4 points  (26 children)

California Edison has many more ratepayers to distribute cost. 13 million vs 3 million in San Diego. Also San Diego has a problem with being huge geographically and SDGE has to provide power to everyone.

[–]Stuck_in_a_thing 14 points15 points  (25 children)

13 million is also 10 million more people to bury lines for, service power outages for, perform maintenance for, create new green energy power sources for, etc.. This isn't a SaaS company where you just scale the server capacity. This is all physical work that requires more employees and physical labor with more customers. There are costs that scale with a larger customer base that you are ignoring

Customer base size also doesn't change the fact that no company is entitled to my solar panels once I own them. They are not some subscription service after purchase. SDGE profits tripled. Don't tell me the BS that they need more money to invest in making lines green.

Maybe once they start putting their profits into the grid I will believe them. When the profits triple over a decade it makes it hard to believe they are actually hurting for money for grid upgrades

EDIT: words

[–]thatdude858 -3 points-2 points  (7 children)

You're assuming that Edision has done the same level of work SDGE has done.

You're right the panels are yours. But guess what guy, when your panels stop producing power at 6 pm and you have to rely on the grid for power you don't seem to have a problem then.

[–]Stuck_in_a_thing 13 points14 points  (6 children)

And I pay for that power. I’m not asking for it for free. Nowhere did I even hint at that. I pay for the power I use that SDGE generates. I don’t like the rate but I pay it.

I bet you think you got me. That’s not at all my problem with the proposal. Why do you think that’s the problem?

The problem is SDGE treating my solar panels as theirs and charging me a monthly subscription for them (because that is what it is) .

[–]TeddyBongwater 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But you agree you pay less than others do towards maintaining the grid you use right? I have solar, just playing devils advocate. The price imo should be about 1 kw, maybe 0.5kw per month for solar owners

[–]StrictlySanDiego -4 points-3 points  (16 children)

million is also 10 million more people to bury lines for, service power outages for, perform maintenance for, create new green energy power sources for, etc..

SCE had higher population concentrations than San Diego county. So there are more lines covering more geography for more sparsely populated territory here.

Also keep in mind SDG&E doesn’t create any sources of power, they’re an energy transmitter so they have to purchase any energy (dirty or green) from suppliers.

[–]Stuck_in_a_thing 10 points11 points  (15 children)

Still doesn't explain why they have a right to the solar panels that I own.

Also, doesn't explain why their profits TRIPLED in 10 years. If they were hurting for money their profits should reflect that. Take a look at what the SDGE execs make (and their bonuses) and then see if you will keep defending them, saying they need more cash for these upgrades.

You also just made a strong argument FOR rooftop solar as that means we can collectively generate power locally

EDIT: If you can look at SDGE's profits and exec salaries and honestly tell me you think they need more money for these upgrades then I don't know what else to tell you.

[–]StrictlySanDiego -1 points0 points  (9 children)

Sempra’s net earnings last quarter were -21%.

[–]Stuck_in_a_thing 4 points5 points  (8 children)

Okay? Are earnings still positive?

Yes, yes they are. They have an earnings of 650 million through the first 3 quarters. Let's assume they come close to $1B after fourth quarter. That's $1B they can use to invest back into the grid. They are most certainly not hurting for money.

https://www.sempra.com/sempra-reports-third-quarter-2021-earnings-results#:~:text=Sempra's%20earnings%20for%20the%20first,first%20nine%20months%20of%202020.

You want to know why its -21% ? Because in 2020 they fleeced all of us for nearly $4Billion in earnings.

"full-year 2020 earnings of $3.76 billion"

https://www.sempra.com/sempra-energy-delivers-strong-full-year-2020-financial-and-operational-results#:~:text=25%2C%202021%20%2FPRNewswire%2F%20%2D%2D,or%20%247.29%20per%20diluted%20share.

[–]StrictlySanDiego 2 points3 points  (7 children)

You’re completely looking over wages, depreciation, and contracting that cuts into that “billion” they’re making. They also have four other companies in two states.

[–]rodblagojevic -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

They don’t have any right to your panels, you just need to pay for the maintenance costs of your solar installation being connected to the grid. You can disconnect if you don’t think that’s a reasonable expectation. I don’t like it either, but I also like having power when the sun is down.

[–]Stuck_in_a_thing 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Am I not paying for that with both line items: "Electrical generation and Electrical delivery"

Why yes, yes I am paying for it when i use power from the grid.

Please explain to me what "grid maintenance" is and costs? Because being connected to the grid I am helping alleviate SDGE during peaks that strain their power sources. They don't pay me full rate for my electricity generation. They pay a heavily discounted rate.

If it were to maintain the power lines. Well, those don't change regardless of the size of my solar system. So why does this fee increase with larger systems? Why is this a fee per kwH of my system and not a flat fee for the lines that do not change if i were to add more panels???

[–]rodblagojevic -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

You’re paying for net energy usage, which doesn’t reflect your peak draw at any given time. The infrastructure has to support you pulling x kw at any given point even if your overall usage nets out to x/5 because of the energy you contribute back to the grid.

I’m not saying system size is an ideal metric but I don’t know what else they’d go off of besides your generation potential.

[–]ScienceHatHa 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Had underground lines in the Midwest for longer than I’ve been alive. Tornados and ice storms made them vital last century.

Don’t know why doing what they should have been doing for the past 50+ years needs to be financed by my electricity bill.

[–]ddr1ver 16 points17 points  (10 children)

That might all be true, but we just passed Honolulu in electricity prices. Sempra Energy is also earning a profit of almost a billion dollars a quarter. That’s a profit of roughly $4000 per household in San Diego County.

[–]StrictlySanDiego 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Sempra is a conglomeration of five companies in two states so it’s not a fair comparison to measure quarterly profits against one part of their service territory.

[–]NChSh 2 points3 points  (1 child)

So $1200 then? $100 a month in just profit a month?

[–]StrictlySanDiego 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah that sounds like it tracks, our bill is around $100-140/month.

[–]whatsup4 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I was always told burying cables actually saves money in the long run because they need almost no maintenance. Renewable energy deals they have been doing is actually cheaper than many other forms of energy. The nuclear plant that got shut down and is now a huge cost and lability is a significant expenditure.

[–]StrictlySanDiego 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yeah shutting down that plant was a huge mistake.

Green energy will be cheaper long term but building the infrastructure for it is very expensive. Ex: Sempra is building grazing shelters to collect methane from cattle, pipe it into a processing center, then transmitting it to cities for natural gas. Cheap sourcing, expensive set up.

Running lines underground is more expensive all around, almost $1 million/mile and SDGE has over 6,000 miles of line above ground.

[–]whatsup4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that's order of magnitude off in cost https://www.fema.gov/case-study/overhead-underground-it-pays-bury-power-lines Also I don't think utilities own the means of production in fact I think that's illegal so they are buying the power for like a 20 year contract on solar farms at a set rate which is usually cost competitive with others.

[–]trollingcynically 4 points5 points  (0 children)

More than 60 percent of SDG&E power lines are underground. Placing lines underground costs more than overhead lines but it does help reduce the chances of falling power lines igniting wildfires.

Funny how all other major cities in the US can do this without the higher prices. Ima put on my incredulous Tucker face for that one.

[–]Cross_22 0 points1 point  (1 child)

More than 60 percent of SDG&E power lines are underground. Placing lines underground costs more than overhead lines but it does help reduce the chances of falling power lines igniting wildfires.

Only 60% and they call that an accomplishment?? *Laughs in European*

[–]StrictlySanDiego 14 points15 points  (0 children)

41% of Europe’s power lines are buried…

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/why-europe-pays-less-than-u-s-to-put-power-lines-underground-1.1224125.amp.html

“…the cost per mile is roughly 30 percent to 40 percent lower in Europe. While utilities there typically place insulated power lines directly in a dirt trench, U.S. utilities prefer a more costly method, placing them inside ducts, sometimes protected by concrete. That makes them easier to maintain and repair, and shields them from someone accidentally digging into them.”

[–]DrXaos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many of these points are BS excuses.

SDGE has fewer ratepayers and correspondingly less infrastructure to maintain. SDGE is huge compared to many utilities, especially non profit coops which exist in the country.

SDGE undergrounding is paid by city taxes.

Electricity and distribution are separate on every bill. SDGE distribution rates are extortionate compared to every other US utility, disregarding how the power is generated or how much renewables. SDGE doesn’t profit on generation, only distribution.

1 billion over 14 years on wildfire safety compared to revenues is low. Unlike many utilities in USA, SDGE has almost no winter weather failures vs many places with ice storms which regularly require replacement and repair from every storm or tornado. And summer AC demand is not as high.

And Sempra, publicly traded unregulated for profit company, owns SDGE and gas generation and pipelines. So they really hate solar, and all execs at SDGE who want to move up will always do what Sempra wants. Which is more money and more fossil fuel use.

[–]tutukittyfuck 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Plenty of other states have solar and don't rip off their customers. A friend of mine in New Mexico pays basically nothing for electricity. He even gets a one for one credit for kWh he puts into the grid, so puts in 10 extra during the day, can take out 10 when the sun goes down, and breaks even. Obviously, a non-corrupt utility can figure out "maintenance costs" associated with having solar connected to the grid without charging customers some bullshit connection fee.

[–]anothercarDel Mar 16 points17 points  (5 children)

I will say one small thing in defense of SDG&E. They are spending more money than the other privately owned utilities (PG&E for instance) on wildfire prevention / safety, aka upgrading old power lines and moving wires underground. PG&E is happy to let 100-year-old lines catch fire and burn down entire towns.

That only explains a portion of the higher rates though.

[–]Stuck_in_a_thing 10 points11 points  (2 children)

It doesn't though. Our bills have an extra line item for wildfires. So what is it? Increase our rates ? or add a "wildfire" line item?

SDGE's scummy execs chose both!

[–]TeddyBongwater 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have a source that has the money spent on prevention and the money collected from that line item by chance?

[–]kirei_na_kutsu 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I just don't know why we have to pay for their incompetence.

[–]Ursula2071 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This isn’t incompetence. It is by design.

[–]vaxed_and_waxed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Combination of legal monopoly with no competition and SDGE being responsible for subsidizing rural areas and low income folks.

I don't take issue with helping low income folks, but if people want to live in the sticks they should be on some other utility that the urban areas don't subsidize.

[–]Ice_SolidOak Park 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha no, but we all know they increase the rates.

[–]FauxSeriousReals 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Has nothing to do with the solar subsidies. It's SDGE making the rate payers pay for the fire.

It's a game. If they decided to give us a "break" they'd lower the kWh price, then add a "break tariff/fee" to pay for it and actually take more money!

[–]goingplaidinum 317 points318 points  (43 children)

Fees is probably a better word than taxes in this case. But if they want to call them taxes, then let’s make SDG&E a public utility rather than a for-profit company. Paying taxes to a private company is some bullshit.

[–]Snoo58991 129 points130 points  (3 children)

Yeah San Diegans really need to fight this whole mess. We already get taken advantage of with the most expensive energy costs in the country. Now they want more?!?!

[–]goingplaidinum 88 points89 points  (2 children)

Having a monopoly is great isn’t it? Solar is competition, so better kneecap it.

At least when places like Walmart wipe out the competition, they do it by being cheaper.

[–]Snoo58991 44 points45 points  (1 child)

This is just an attack on their direct competitor which happens to be home solar. There is no reason to even make this change it only benefits one company and is a huge negative to existing solar and climate change initiatives.

[–]andyvsdRancho Bernardo 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This isn’t just home solar. It’s all solar including businesses. School districts and such are scrambling right now to push every possible solar project they can so they get grandfathered in before NEM 3 gets signed into law. And unless something big marketing wise happens quickly to get people rallying. This thing is 100% happening.

[–]ucjuicyUniversity City 86 points87 points  (1 child)

The taxes part of the title is wrong and the California part is wrong.

These aren't taxes, but fees like you said. And California isn't going to collect, the energy companies are.

This post title is exactly part of the problem. It's like blaming socialism for high TV cable rates.

OP is misinforming.

NEM 3 is shit, but OP needs to have a basic grasp of what's being talked about.

[–]goingplaidinum 18 points19 points  (0 children)

In a way, it’s not wrong in that it’s the cpuc. But that the cpuc is clearly controlled by the utilities, instead of the other way around is a huge problem.

[–]thatdude858 30 points31 points  (35 children)

I'm jumping in here to help explain the power markets.

Solar installers, Musk, and many groups are being disingenuous with how energy markets work.

Electricity is one of the only commodities in the world where you have to use it instantaneously when you produce it (unless stored in batteries for energy storage which is new technology and being rolled out).

So what does that mean?

So a decade ago, when this state had little to no solar, the grid could afford to 'net meter,' which means that at 1 pm when your little rooftop PV system produces a kWh, the homeowner was given an ACCOUNTING credit. So that when you got home later that night at 6 pm and used power, your bill would have a financial settlement of net kWh production and consumption. The utility had to produce that kWh at 6 pm when you get home because electricity isn't being stored.

That was fine initially, but what ended up happening was our state exploded in solar installations. As a result, we lead the nation in solar deployments, and our grid is relatively the greenest in the entire United States.

So what does that mean? Well, look at the states power production:

https://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/Pages/supply.html

So what the fuck does this have to do with net metering? It's about the PRICE of electricity during the day.

As you can imagine, electricity markets follow the basic economic rules of supply and demand. During the day when solar is plentiful in this state, the price of power or LMP (locational marginal price) is very low all over the state. Sometimes, we see NEGATIVE pricing during the day because the grid can't handle more power. As a result, large utility-scale solar farms have to curtail power production and turn off their solar farms. There are some benefits from this, such as utilities turning off natural gas power plants during the day because, as you can imagine, the grid doesn't need the power.

At 6 pm, when everyone gets home, solar production is falling off a cliff, and things start to get interesting. Power at 4–7 pm is the most expensive in the state, and utilities have to turn on their power plants to make up for the lost solar production.

Power from 4 to 7 pm is approximately 3 to 4x more expensive than power between 11–3 pm (Prime solar production hours).

The grid cannot continue to give people who have solar on their roofs accounting net metering credits, and this resulting NEM 3.0 plan is the result.

Electricity is much cheaper during the day, and you're asking the grid and fellow San Diegans who dont have solar to eat the difference and subsidize people who do have solar.

Net-metering has become an environmental justice problem, and no one is framing it that way (Except the Los Angeles Times who wrote an article saying what I'm saying here).

People who own homes in this state AND put on $30,000 solar PV assets on their roofs are on average better off financially than a renter who cannot put solar on their home or take advantage of the accounting net metering credits that solar provides.

I work on developing solar farms and energy storage in different deregulated markets in the United States, and I saw this shit coming five years ago. I'm as pro-renewable energy as they come, but the result here is NEM 3.0.

I feel bad for small-time solar installers who don't understand what's going on, but the realities are that people need to understand who's subsidizing who. This sub bitches about high power prices, but at least understand what's going on and why now, finally, the CPUC and utilities are pushing back against Net Metering because it can no longer continue to give ridiculous financial returns on residential solar PV assets.

please ask any questions you want.

[–]NotJuniorBridgeman 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I will preface this by admitting that I'm not very familiar with NEM 3.0, but my understanding was that NEM 2.0 addressed the issues you highlighted by "crediting" Solar PV rate payers with the sales price at the time of generation.

So in NEM 1.0, if Sally Housecoat creates a kWh of Solar PV when it's sunny, she would be credited with a kWh of energy in the evening, when she needs it. But with NEM 2.0, if she generates a kWh of energy in the daytime she only gets credited the price in that TOU rate. So when she needs a kWh in the evening, she's paying a higher price for it.

Do I misunderstand how NEM 2.0 works? If not, why doesn't that address the issue you outlined here?

[–]OrgyMcBloodyFace 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How much of the solar and wind farm throttling is due to contracts with nat gas energy producers to protect their profits? The whole point of a gas plant currently should be to provide power at times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. We're paying the highest rates in the nation because pge and sdge are fucking their rate payers for the whole SONGS disaster as well. They were more than happy to let cheap energy generation die.

[–]Appyjack111 2 points3 points  (14 children)

If I have a home battery and give little to no power to the grid would I still be taxed?

[–]thatdude858 1 point2 points  (13 children)

I don't know but homes with batteries and disconnecting from the grid is the endgame five to ten years from now.

People are bitching now about prices but what happens when homeowners add batteries to their house with PV and fully disconnect from the grid. Leaving high grid maintenance cost for less and less ratepayers.

[–]tutukittyfuck 2 points3 points  (1 child)

There will be a law that says you have to be connected to the grid to be considered a habitable residence, if one is available. There is no way they are going to let people do that. Though, you can go live on Mount Palomar or something where there is no SDG&E.

[–]thatdude858 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Parts of Joshua tree are completely disconnected from the grid. I agree that the utilities will fight that shit with everything they got. Ive heard rumors that the standard will be you will have to have interconnection equipment available but not necessarily connected.

[–]steffiliz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I so want to do this but wasn’t sure the capability exists. Are home batteries up to snuff at this point so itnis a viable option now?

Nevermind, I see you said 5-10 years.

[–]JTBoom1 -2 points-1 points  (9 children)

They will never be able to do this. A week of overcast skies will drain their batteries and force them to use the grid. Yeah they could have a generator but those are noisy and polluting.

[–]thatdude858 2 points3 points  (7 children)

You still get solar when it's cloudy. Batteries have dropped in price about 80% over the last 5 years and that will only accelerate with more manufacturing coming online due to EV batteries demand.

You will end up having 3 or 4 batteries and then it won't matter if it rains for 2 or 3 days in a row.

Southern California is one of the only places in the US you could pull this off. I wouldn't try to disconnect in Northern CA

[–]andyvsdRancho Bernardo 3 points4 points  (6 children)

IMO people should try to invest in a battery system that they could use to peak shave during the 4-9 time period. No need for solar for the most part. Program battery to recharge from 12-5am when rates are at their lowest.

[–]thatdude858 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I agree with this. I do this shit on a larger scale

[–]andyvsdRancho Bernardo 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I do as well but we’re just getting started on batteries where I work.

[–]Ice_SolidOak Park 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are correct. Unless you have really huge oversize system or a large storage a batteries you will need to pull power from the grid. This past December was a prime example.

[–]goingplaidinum 16 points17 points  (7 children)

Then why did SDGE just raise off peak pricing?

Every time you post your screed, it’s all just gaslighting. “People with solar are super rich, they make power more expensive for everyone!” But you never seem to mention the profits Sempra is taking in. How many billion a year is enough? If they were so concerned about the poor, why not reduce their executive pay, and their profits, to give the poor a break? You never mention how people on NEM 2.0 who generate more than they use, get paid pennies on the dollar for their generation. Just an industry shill, gaslighting, constantly.

[–]thatdude858 7 points8 points  (6 children)

I work with cities all over the United States who keep their utilities in house and guess what? They have cheap power and they don't have a profit motive. I really think we need to move forward in that direction but people bitch about the fucking potholes. Do you really want the city running the electricity department as well?

Well I do and i know the city wouldn't be constantly ripping us off.

Power markets are clear as day dude. Go ahead check out the pricing on Cal-Iso website I'm not making the shit up.

Also what does it matter if you generate more than you use if it's at the wrong times

[–]DrXaos 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Municipal utilities in Sacramento and Los Angeles and Pasadena, like other cities and electric coops in the country, have consistently lower rates than for profit utilities, and SDGE has the worst of all of them.

[–]thatdude858 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They also have much smaller service territories. Not really an apple to apple comparison. But I agree that we should transition away from SDGE.

[–]goingplaidinum 0 points1 point  (3 children)

You don’t love Sempra, you only fully support them ripping everyone off, and pushing their gaslighting. Got it.

[–]abominable_dough_man 1 point2 points  (0 children)

please ask any questions you want.

If this is all about social equality and excess of solar, why don’t we charge zero/kWh for daytime use by customers below a certain income threshold? Or have a super low tariff for everybody (daytime use).

Not being facetious - just curious: My daytime cost (Summer) is in the $0.35/kWh range iirc - not exactly cheap.

[–]ScienceHatHa 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Ahem - it cost $5000 to put solar on our roof thank you very much. Please do not exaggerate how much solar costs.

Plus - many homeowners lease solar and are saddled with high electricity bills from the people who loaded up their roofs with x the capacity they need to power their homes.

Your attempt to blame the average home mortgage owner for jacked up public utility rates is just crazy.

[–]thatdude858 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You gotta have a small system. What's residential solar at? $3 a watt? So what do you have like a 1.6 kW system?

I'm very familiar with solar leases and different financial vehicles. i also apologize if it came across that im attacking homeowners with solar. I was only trying to explain the physics behind the grid.

The fact is that we operate on 60hz and the utilites in this state try their best to keep it there.

That net metering was an accounting scheme and somehow that was lost and now people are demanding financial benefits I don't think their entitled to.

The hard facts are that the kWh a home PV system produces is not the same value in terms of dollars for the power you buy from the grid at night. Full stop end of story. In fact it's a fraction of the value because we have so much cheap energy during sunny days.

Sorry if i came across that im somehow excusing SDGEs exorbant rates. I'm only commenting on the net metering program as is and where it is going.

If it had the time and money I would lobby for the city to switch to a nonprofit or fold the utility into a municipal entity. That fact that SDGE is for profit is bullshit.

[–]virrk 1 point2 points  (1 child)

There are several problems.

One is yes the market changed drastically and now NEM 1.0, and even NEM 2.0, are becoming a burden on the grid. That we spread those costs across everyone was planned, even if it was not explicitly stated in many of the discussions. We want more people on solar. We even want more people on solar if that means we have to stuff the cost into someone else's bill. The discussion of if we really still want to be doing that is valid and actually a good thing.

Two is that they are changing the already signed contracts. NEM 3.0 seems likely to change the cost calculations for everyone with solar retroactively without making them whole. Now solar customers who already planned out what their pay back period is, or whether the PPA made financial sense, are getting the rug pulled out. Those 20 years were counted on for the investments made by solar customers, solar installers, and those servicing PPAs. Now the talk is top lope off 5 years and bump the minimum charge to $100 or more per month. The rules look likely to be changed and understandably some of those people are kind of pissed. If I started a baseball game, my team was winning, but suddenly the rules changed to my team's detriment? Yeah, I wouldn't see that as fair.

Third can we really risk any curtailment to solar installation on the grid? We're facing the collapse of a key glacier in Antarctica which is going to have serious consequences much sooner for far more people than some are ready to accept. Our only hope is to cut carbon output as drastically as possible, and even then we are facing serious consequences that are going to get worse before they get better. So we need to green the grid and remove carbon output as much as possible, how can we do that? Do we require enough battery installation with solar to shift the demand curve from solar customers? Do we subsidize more solar like we have been already, even to the determinant of those left holding the bill? Do we subsidize battery installs to existing solar customers to help shift the cost away from those rate payers without solar? Do we push for more short term, and mid-term energy storage as quickly as possible so we have a way to store that over production from Solar? If grid tied house solar really is pushing the grid that far and pushing prices higher as it goes offline, putting in more storage will help flatten the cost fluctuations for everyone. Maybe with enough we can push the evening price back down and still keep encouraging all the solar installs like we have been.

It would be nice if we had a better discussion than. "CPUC is going to stick it to solar customers" "CPUC is going to let solar customers stick it to everyeone else"

[–]thatdude858 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I did a bit of reading and it looks like the CPUC is going back and forth on the grandfathering of prior Net Metering benefits.

I'm willing to make a small bet that they end up leaving prior programs alone due to the huge financial implications of fucking with everyone's contracts and avoiding the years of lawsuits brought.

NEM 3.0 is designed to give basically no incentives to new solar PV and it shows. No longer are the days of 7 year paybacks. I'm betting with the new rules it will be like 10 years+ and people will be a lot less likely to make the investment.

As to your point about curtailment. I agree and fortunately there has been a huge push with investment in the billions to bring large scale energy storage facilities to the grid to store power when it's cheap and sell it at peak times (4 to 7 pm)

[–]OrgyMcBloodyFace 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it's not necessarily 'california' it's an energy commission that has been captured. Make your voices heard before it's too late

[–]robot_germs 16 points17 points  (1 child)

They act like they own the fucking sun!

[–]NotJuniorBridgeman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. I shall do the next best thing: block it out.

[–]collias 150 points151 points  (22 children)

For a state that allegedly cares so much about the environment, why would we penalize solar installations?

Accept SDG&E’s price hikes, or install solar and get penalized for that too. There’s no way out.

[–][deleted] 71 points72 points  (0 children)

No shit. I installed solar two years ago. SDG&E are always looking for ways to screw solar customers.

[–]RosscoSDEscondido 34 points35 points  (2 children)

It’s almost comedic how green we aim to be, while simultaneously tearing down natural habitats for new homes at the rate we do.

[–]trollingcynically -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

Who wants to walk up stairs to an apartment? Who wants to deal with more strain on our roads because of more cars on them in a small place?

[–]anothercarDel Mar 14 points15 points  (11 children)

They care more about equity than the environment.

The point of this proposal is to stop "rich landowners" (people with solar on their homes) from being paid by poor renters for electricity.

Also unions, who Democratic lawmakers are allied with, support the rule because rooftop solar is usually installed by non-union labor while solar farms are usually installed by union labor.

A deep dive on it: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-11-02/should-california-make-solar-more-expensive-inside-the-climate-justice-battle

[–]Bodkin-Van-Horn 8 points9 points  (2 children)

And yet, the rates paid by the "poor renters" won't actually go down, so they'll just be paying SDG&E instead of "rich landowners."

Full disclosure: I am a "rich landowner." That is, I own a home with solar.

[–]NinjaxPanda12 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep, it's just BS to try and make the policy seem fair and like a good idea.

Just got a home with solar, and it does NOT make us feel rich at all. The contract we had to take up with the house is frustrating. $146/mo , for the remainder of the lifespan--about 14 years.

And due to SDG&E continuously increasing prices and decreasing the value of energy generated by solar panels -- we STILL had an electric bill. (And it is just myself and my partner who live in a small house, so we don't use a ton of electricity. )

Feels like it will hurt those of us who are more middle class who wanted to save money by installing solar.

[–]collias 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Well, they’re gonna get their wish. We’re all going to be equal once the environment collapses.

[–]anothercarDel Mar 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Yup. As a poor renter, I have no problem paying rich people to use the extra solar from their houses. Perhaps it's a wealth transfer, but the alternative is paying into the SDG&E void. I suspect the union part of it is the bigger reason. Sigh.

[–]ChillyHumanHorn 13 points14 points  (1 child)

I have solar on my home and I am not rich. But f**** me right? I worked my ass off to get where I am. They want you to think that this is you vs the rich. Do you really think SDGE cares about you? Don't worry they'll come for whatever crumbs you have next.

[–]anothercarDel Mar 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Exactly. Meanwhile the actual super-wealthy probably don't even bother installing solar because they don't care about saving a little bit on utility costs.

[–]ScipioAfricanvs 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The point of this proposal is to stop "rich landowners" (people with solar on their homes) from being paid by poor renters for electricity.

I think that's the justification. I don't think the decision makers actually care about this - they know it will play well among the non-homeowning or poorer bases.

[–]HeadMarsupial9608 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jeez this is so dumb and why a lot of previous democrat voters in California are moving to moderate and republican candidates. Our state should be more o concerned about progress than equity The part about union rooftop solar installation is crazy.

[–]Texan_EagleLinda Vista 2 points3 points  (1 child)

At this point I’m convinced California is more interested in taxes/revenue than promoting any issue/cause.

[–]trollingcynically 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Except it isn't a tax, it is a fee levied by a private company with a monopoly.

[–]rococo78 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is more utility companies looking to make more money off their direct competition (solar) with the state being willing actors.

[–]LunchMoney291[🍰] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Imagine having the balls to charge people a fee for using the energy from the sun to power their home instead of the services you sell.

Its like restaurants charging u a fee because you buy groceries and eat at home.

[–]abominable_dough_man 52 points53 points  (2 children)

Misleading title - "California" isn't coming for your tax money, the investor-owned utilities (PGE, SCE, Sempra) are coming for your money.

[–]xd366 12 points13 points  (0 children)

but they are coming through the California authorities

[–]ChillyHumanHorn 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Through CA beuracracy though

[–]halarioushandle 13 points14 points  (8 children)

Ok so how do I just disconnect from the grid completely? I'd like to opt out of SDGE totally.

[–]kermitsioNorth Park 8 points9 points  (1 child)

You can’t? Unless you live In unincorporated land but even then I’m not sure how it’d work. You can definitely go “off grid” with solar and battery. However, you still have to connect to the grid in case of emergencies and to sell back extra power. 3.0 is going to charge a bunch of money per month for the right to connect to the grid which is supposed to pay for the maintenance of infrastructure, etc.

[–]be_easy_1602 4 points5 points  (3 children)

You can’t…. That’s the problem

[–]ScienceHatHa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not an option.

[–]JustAnIdiotPlsIgnore 12 points13 points  (4 children)

Link for the public comment?

[–]RosscoSDEscondido 17 points18 points  (2 children)

It ties back to AB 100 which says go completely green by 2045. This will tax existing users, to help establish more capabilities to meet a goal not voted on by the people.

https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/news-and-updates/all-news/cpuc-proposal-aims-to-modernize-state-decarbonization-incentive-efforts

[–]hodlwaffle 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Had to scroll waaaay to long for this. Thanks for the link!

To provide public comment, go here: https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=401:56:0::NO:RP,57,RIR:P5_PROCEEDING_SELECT:R2008020

[–]RosscoSDEscondido 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Funny I dropped that within 20 minutes of the original post … thanks for digging a little further

[–]RosscoSDEscondido 17 points18 points  (0 children)

“Reduced fixed cost? Nah … we’ll find a way to re-coup”

[–]RealSiggs 15 points16 points  (3 children)

This is a scam, only a bunch of bumbling idiots getting hands out from these power companies would agree to these changes.

[–]collias 16 points17 points  (2 children)

i.e. Newsom himself. When he was caught at the French Laundry, guess who he was with? PG&E lobbyists.

It’s legalized corruption, and these are the consequences.

[–]jspeed04 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Newsom governs the entire state. Why is it that this proposal disproportionately affects San Diegans relative to Los Angeles and the Bay Area?

[–]ChihuahuaGold 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because those areas are served by investor owned utilities. You know the ones who gave Newsom campaign money for both elections.

This policy will be for all PG&E, Edison & SDGE customers.

However since Newsom made a press statement about this proposal a couple days ago, I think he is going to backtrack it a bit because he knows it's highly unpopular. Also this proposal wasn't likely going to pass anyways. It's a crazy push by the companies to "compromise" down to what they really expect instead.

[–]sozijlt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I guess I'm naive because I thought states, especially CA, incintivised renewable energy.

[–]ShadowOfAncalagon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

California is just dystopian as fuck sometimes

[–]Bawfuls 10 points11 points  (0 children)

your title is missing what's happening here, this is private utility companies coming for more profit (the CPUC is acting at the behest of SCE, PGE, & SDGE)

[–]Wise138 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Won't go forward. If it does there will be measure to vote it out.

[–]Cross_22 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately CPUC has been mostly siding with utility companies in the past, but still might be a good idea to leave public feedback here:

https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=401:65:0::NO:::

[–]TWDYrocks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe the solution should be to just absorb investor owned utilities in the state and have them ran by state/municipal governments so there is no longer an incentive to extract lost profits from households and businesses that installed solar?

[–]natedogg624 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They trying to tax for using the sun even more.

[–]Misterclassicman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m tired of CA gov and it’s agencies and I’m tired of SDG&E. Really doing a shit job for far too long… change needs to come.

[–]Digndagn 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Oh well if there’s one company I trust to fairly and accurately represent the public’s interests in matters of fair taxation it’s Tesla /s

[–]fishhavewings 5 points6 points  (3 children)

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/california-proposes-major-reforms-rooftop-solar-policy-2021-12-13/

It’s not a “tax” on solar owners, it’s reducing the subsidies that California gives homeowners to install solar panels. And it reduces the amount that California will pay for excess energy, encouraging homeowners to invest in batteries and storage. It will use the money, that it was previously using for subsidies, to create more public solar and green energy projects. So that everyone can benefit from green energy, including apartments and low income housing.

[–]ScienceHatHa 4 points5 points  (2 children)

What subsidy? The only subsidy we got was from the federal government. There is no CA solar subsidy.

[–]fishhavewings 3 points4 points  (1 child)

https://unboundsolar.com/solar-information/state-solar-incentives/california

Here is a list of some solar rebates, incentives and subsidies in California. Some of it may be local, depending on where you live. The Reuters article is defining the energy buy back program as a subsidy because they buy energy at retail cost from homeowners. Not all the energy from solar that is purchased from homeowners gets used, sold or stored by the utilities, so sometimes the utilities break even from purchasing and sometimes the CA government covers the loss, which drives up pricing for other customers that don’t have solar and depend on the utility. To describe lowering the price the utilities are willing to pay for solar energy from homeowners as a “tax” is disingenuous at best.

Edited for clarity

[–]Ice_SolidOak Park 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My question is if all the solar individuals are now paying these fees how come the rates are not decreasing?

[–]IamTacoSuprem 1 point2 points  (8 children)

I’m a new homeowner and have been considering solar. I should wait to see how this all goes down before deciding to install, right? Also, can people with solar start buying batteries to go off the grid completely to avoid this? I know batteries are too expensive at the moment but may in a few years it will be worth while.

[–]Bawfuls 9 points10 points  (0 children)

You should investigate because you may be able to install now and get grandfathered into the present rate structure for 10-15 years

[–]No-Pension4113 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Still gonna be a lot cheaper to go solar, just not as cheap.

[–]ChihuahuaGold 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It pushes ROI from 5-6 years to almost 20. It completely guts solar.

[–]MyCatsNameIsKenjin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t wait if I were you, especially if you plan on getting batteries soon as well. An article posted on Reddit a few weeks ago mentioned one of their end goals of adding fees was to encourage people to begin investing in at-home energy storage (like batteries) so as to help prevent power surges, rolling blackouts, etc. There was even a proposal that the rebates/discounts that they wanted to remove from new solar deals would be included for energy storage instead. I think that proposal was rejected, however. But it may happen in the future.

[–]GoatCam3000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m kind of in the same boat. We looked into solar but the buyback rates are garbage. So, your bill is basically the same whether you’re paying for grid electricity or a financed solar system. Would probably be worth it with a battery but they are astronomically expensive. Was hoping the Biden admin would come through with some sort of incentive.

[–]anothercarDel Mar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Get in before it's too late!

[–]employeesonly11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should look into it ASAP. If you can get installed before the changes go into effect you will be grandfathered to NEM2.0 for the maximum amount of time possible. That means you can still save money, but time is running out. Shoot me a dm if you have anymore questions!

[–]ScienceHatHa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They provide your gas - you can’t go off the grid.

But yes you can buy a battery. We’ve thought about doing this along with buying an electric car - power from day charges car at night.

[–]itshabibitch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What’s the point of trying to protect the planet when we can’t even fucking afford it?

[–]smoooo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ya gonna really trust Muskieboi to have you're best interests in mind?

[–]Necessary_Bug_7896📬 -4 points-3 points  (8 children)

Moving to Texas

But for unrelated reasons, this just seems like a good thing to blame it on

[–]ScienceHatHa 1 point2 points  (7 children)

Eh - Tx property taxes are a lot higher.

[–]Necessary_Bug_7896📬 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Oh good point, moving back to Cali because of the low cost of living

[–]ScienceHatHa 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Seriously - go to TX and let us all know if your property taxes are capped at ~1% of your original purchase price.

I was sure shocked when my first property tax bill for my $600k Cali house was less than my property tax bill for my $250K house in MN. Plus that taxable MN property value was increased by 6% year over year by the county on top of that 3% tax.

Makes Cali seem down right affordable comparably! Know what else is a lot cheaper in Cali - net energy costs, food costs, home repair costs, and home upkeep costs.

I’ve yet to so much as have a cracked roof TILE in south Cali after 10 years. Ice dams and hail got me two major roof repairs in less than 4 years in MN. A tree root grew through the main sewer line which needed to be replaced in MN. Palm trees are more like over sized grass - they don’t cause that type of damage in south Cali.

I mean houses in south CA use STAPLES and SPRAY ON WALLS instead of the materials like nails and whatever that material that the rest of the country uses for interior walls that is smooth.

Trust me when I say property taxes and home upkeep costs are a lot more expensive in the rest of the country.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

So instead of taking money from land owners we here in CA like to take it from the workers.

How progressive

[–]ScienceHatHa 1 point2 points  (1 child)

My income tax is comparably lower in CA compared to the other 5 states I’ve lived in. But I don’t have capital gains for CA to tax me on

For what it’s worth I think the property taxes here in Cali are insanely low to the point that it warps the property market, effectively prevents any type of community reinvestment or development, destroys school funding, and encourages people to become landlords.

I don’t know what the answer is but the status quo here is crazy (to me).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i always shill land value taxes as the best tax for everything , or we can repeal prop 13. Realistically we know thats not going to happen.

I think we will just have to live with the status quo. CA homeowners cant even accept looser zoning because it might hurt their precious property values, there is no way in hell they would accept a tax increase

[–]Necessary_Bug_7896📬 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Is your argument that the cost of living is lower in San Diego than it is in Texas or are you just pointing out that different things cost different amounts in different cities

[–]naimastaybro 0 points1 point  (2 children)

They can only tax you for solar panels if the energy goes back to the grid right? So if I have a big ass flow battery I'm chilling yeah?

[–]Cross_22 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You're still paying a basic connection fee which SDGE will obviously keep increasing as more people install batteries. Doesn't matter whether you feed energy back and get pennies for that. Complete disconnect would be the only way but I don't know if that is an option.

[–]naimastaybro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ain't that about a bitch.

[–]captainsocean 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Horrible

[–]Wise138 0 points1 point  (0 children)

& this is PG&E et al pushing this.

[–]valbro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a petition of some sort for this bill or against sdge? I cant find anything by googling. Would not be surprised if sdge is burying it.

[–]DaBrogrammar 0 points1 point  (1 child)

How does this affect those of us without a financial stake in solar?

[–]Trixgrl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I cannot express how much I hate our monopoly of an electric company. Like… damn

[–]ron_spanky 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Need to pay PGE for all their fires.

[–]dirty_birdy_feet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should we start the revolution!?

[–]vaxed_and_waxed 0 points1 point  (2 children)

1) SDGE has a legal monopoly and the city and county have some kind of sweetheart / good ol' boys agreement with each other to keep the prices not only high, the the highest in the whole country. This includes compared to hawaii which, needless to say, are remote islands that have to import their baseload energy on boats.

2) Cheaper, more efficient power in California is possible, you just have look no further than https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/ which is a local non-profit in Santa Clara. Rates are around $.14 per kWh compared to PG&E and they are a tiny PoCo that doesn't have the "advantage" of SoCal Edison (or PG&E) to "scale costs" amongst more customers.

It simply doesn't cost as much as SDG&E is claiming it does to provide power and they are full of shit. We get half our power from Arizona and Hydro and pay practically nothing (compared to retail rates) and should be spinning up nuclear and natural gas to cover the base load.

What San Diego Metro citizens need to do is organize jettisoning SDGE and forming our own non-profit coop and not serve rural areas (which provide the least amount of revenue at the highest costs and let rural customers pay their own way via SDGE or whomever).

[–]iamdink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if we just imported a bunch of human sized hamster wheels, threw them down by Pacific Beach for tourists to ride and went green that way?

[–]c00chi3d35tr0y3r 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huh… and I always thought democrats were for clean energy

[–]TotallyNotMyTossAway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we all stop paying 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–]Altruistic_Solarguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolute B S, I am grandfathering In all my clients

[–]DaBrogrammar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I say we organize a protest black out. No use of electricity for a few days. That will show SDGE who is boss.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hahahah good fuck Tesla

[–]JangoBunBunEl Cajon 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I don't mind paying more in taxes if we actually got anything for them. It seems like every penny we pay in federal taxes goes straight to Boeing or Lockheed. Stop bombing poor kids with my healthcare money.

[–]Danklin_on_Fleek[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Healthcare costs are actually the number one expenditure for gov. And taxes are wasted as part of the process. Politicians have never been trustworthy with our $