California should not yet be cut off from the solar network power meter

Last month, we published an article in California, which argues that it was time to cut off the solar energy meter (NM). We quickly received some significant response. I have seen this argument before in this debate and I was about to write this article, but I never got it. In reader feedback, it seemed like the time was now.

To begin with, let us briefly define what a solar network power meter is. If you have solar panels on your California roof, those solar panels can generate more or less electricity for your home needs. If you generate more electricity than your home uses in a month, the policy requires utilities to pay you for more electricity sent to the grid.

There are two issues with solar energy flowing into the grid and net energy charges. They are the subject of controversy because of the NEM 3.0 version of the policy, which should be completed this year. The first concern is that at midday the high electricity flow is starting to exceed consumer demand, so 1) utilities should find a way to use it for later use, and 2) Value When there is a surplus, the supply of electricity is lower than the cost of electricity. The second concern is that money will not come down from the sky and any policy that requires utilities to pay more for electricity to cover relatively rich customers should be covered by increasing consumer electricity rates. – Backward and increases the electricity bill for the rich.

The proposed changes include a reduction of NEM levels to roof solar owners by up to 75%. Utilities want to reduce fees on an average of about $ 100 a month for solar panel owners. The goal is to encourage people to put solar on their roof by paying for it but by encouraging people to put sun on their roof? Wait, what?…

Currently, the average California solar homeowner is said to have a return period of 6-8 years. If the above suggestions are implemented, that is expected to change in 10-15 years. There is no doubt about it, this will greatly reduce solar growth.

However, note California law Asks Utilities have policies rather than promoting solar energy “sustainably”. Now we are getting into a very complicated noodle soup.

Side note: Before anyone who has roof solar panels in California or installs them this year * worries, anyone who already has solar panels seems to be the ancestor of the benefits and policies. NM 3.0. (If you plan to go to the sun and are ready to jump, feel free to use my Tesla referral code for $ 100.)

Natural, waterlogged or weakened NM incentives do not encourage people to consume more solar energy, which in theory delays fossil fuels and exacerbates global warming and climate change – and in California, this means more destructive fires. Destroying homes and businesses in the state. If half of the state burned to the ground in the next two decades, it would undoubtedly cost more California residents. So, what to do?

Also, while people who want to delay the growth of roof solar energy are focusing on the two concerns I mentioned above, there are many benefits to roof solar energy – large grid safety, less pollution (harming the poor more than the rich)), more resilient grids (e.g. black), And the need for transmission infrastructure (costly). This is a really complex mathematical problem and the calculations can vary greatly with different levels of solar energy market share, different energy storage capacity levels, other renewable levels on the grid, and so on.

It doesn’t make sense for me to cripple the solar industry when we urgently need to retire fossil fuels. I want to see the costs independent, high quality analysis And Roof Solar Benefits for Different Classes and Geographers. It seems reasonable to me that any additional expenditures that I encounter from NMS, given by the state or a limited amount of money raised for that purpose. Perhaps the NMM policy may include a system of investing in community solar power installations (even installed on large roofs) that allow homeowners to benefit in the same way as NMs.

California, the United States and the world as a whole need one Accelerate Renewable energy adoption, not reduction. Installations required Increase, Do not delay.

In particular, the policies currently under discussion are not expected to be implemented until January 2022, possibly in the spring of 2022. Know what is on the table and know that it may take months for the roof solar system to be installed and connected. Grid (especially in such a stressful time), I would say to anyone if you are planning to go to the sun now or later, it certainly seems to be the best option for you financially. (Not advice, but good, read above.)

Also, energy is a good point for us outside of California, which is a big part of American solar energy. California is the first domino of everything for the sun, and anything we see here will undoubtedly affect net measurement policies across the state.

Undoubtedly, if California’s solar policy finds more opposition to roof solar, other states will follow – perhaps with more aggression and less advertising than California.

Now is not the time to delay the transfer of pure energy. On the contrary, we are in a global warming and climate change competition, and every information or report I have seen in this article indicates that clean energy is losing its competitiveness and the gap may be widening. We have to find ways Accelerate Pure energy adoption, does not diminish. Come on, people!

A few days ago, Jeff Parr, founder and CEO of Santa Cruz Solar Technologies, wrote: For the planet, for working-class families, for businesses, for everyone – all because utilities are designed to stop roof solar growth in California.

Indeed. Come on, California!

Jeff also has strong arguments that, as planned, NM 3.0 will do more harm than good to democratization and a larger population. He writes:

“NM is a consumer-oriented policy that has made roofs more affordable and accessible in the Golden State. But the state’s largest utilities are working hard to reduce the benefits of solar panels, which are making changes that make consumer sunshine twice as expensive today. Their idea is that low- and middle-income families will not be able to see a fair return on their investment.

The utilities say solar panels can only be purchased by the rich, making low-income California pay more for traditional power on the back of the rich. I can tell you from the experience of this industry that this is not true.

“About half of the homeowners we work with today are working families. Other clients include schools, places of worship, nonprofits, multi-family homes, affordable housing, and more. Over the past five years, my company has installed solar panels on 19 schools, 15 places of worship, and 20 nonprofits: places to help our community instead of supporting high energy bills.

Does NEM 3.0 care about utilities? Or is NEM 3.0 about utilities delaying the adoption of roof solar energy to make more money by simply installing larger power plants, slowly switching and making more profit?

Also, consider all the blue-collar solar installation work that NEM 3.0 would pay for if the roof solar industry stumbled and fell. Who is hurting that?

Do you appreciate the original CleanTechnica? Consider being a member of CleanTechnica, a supporter, technician, or ambassador – or a supporter of Patrin.


Do you have any tips for CleanTechnica, would you like to advertise, or would you like to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Leave a Comment