Energy Central Topic of Focus: Let's Talk About the California Net Metering Debate

Obviously this is a complex issue.  You have the politicians and their counterparts; the utilities and their largely unionized supporters, a good portion of CA utility customers both solar and non-solar, the solar/renewables industry and their supporters.  And then of course the utility company lobbyists and supporting consultants that worked, and continue to work, very hard at crafting an image of the solar industry and actually of California in general that if you look at the REAL data, is simply false.  Certainly opinions count.  But when you get to the bottom of this debate, as is the case in may other important debates, the truth lies within the data.  And of course, the Environment and our Air and Life quality are part of the data.  As with many negotiations, sometime starting with what you can agree on works better than arguing about differences.  I think many would agree that the following has some credence: 1) Californians are overpaying for power and have some of the highest rates in the nation 2) Solar customers (myself included) do get a benefit from connecting to the grid and should pay a reasonable fee for that privilege 3) Low-income families should get a discounted rate for utility power (many already qualify for this) 4) Given California's goal of reaching 100% renewable energy by 2045 it does not make sense to actually DECREASE the amount of solar being installed in CA.  This destabilizes a thriving renewable energy jobs market, and increases GHG emissions in the Golden State.  Lastly I would say I do feel for the workers in any legacy industry, and that includes the coal, oil, gas and utility industries.  Like I did when I switched industries 15 years ago, the solution is to get retrained for occupations that offer both reasonable pay and a bright future--like renewable energy.  It's not easy--I get it.  But it can be done.  Wow-what if the utility industry and unions took some of their lobbying budget and dedicated toward retraining workers for good paying jobs in renewables and infrastructure?  What if the renewables energy provided funding and support as well?  California and Californian's deserve better that what the current NEM 3.0 proposal outlines.  Let's fix this proposal so it's fair and keep California a leader in Renewables, Jobs and Clean Air.  We can do it.  We have to.

If we are going to subsidize renewables with ratepayer funds -- and I think we should -- we must apply cost-benefit tests that we would to other utility investments and calculate the net amounts. The greatest bang bang for the buck may be larger scale than rooftop solar and may require optimal siting for system benefit. It would not be the same for all utilities and all locations and the utilities would not need to be the providers. But it would require ongoing distribution planning, undertaken transparently with stakeholder input for each utility. In the meantime, there should be cost-based payments for grid connection and services provided to solar owners, taking into account the system and enviro value of their production and the costs of service. These calculations should be time and location based but if that is not possible, averages could suffice for residentials. But we should get beyond the romantic notions about how wonderful it makes us feel to have solar on the rooftop and base public policy on public benefits. 

This is a very interesting and valuable discussion Matt!

The concept of being able to sell excess energy via the grid is super from the rooftop prospective.

But one should take into account that the power supply chain (generation, transmission and distribution) is compensated by kWh sales. Rooftops reduce the sales of the power supply chain with net metering. This is a fact. 

It means that "all others" will end up paying for the extra cost (CAPEX - capital expenditure - now amortized by less energy sales for the same installed capacity) because sooner or later, the regulator will acknowledge this fact and to set up a balanced situation for the supply side, will have to increase power rates.

Or the supply side will pay for it if there are no rate increases. And that's bad in the long run.

It is high time to each party pay for its own costs. Subsidies like this are not justifiable in the long run!

If someone wants to install solar panels to generate power for their own use, great, knock yourself out. However, disconnect yourself from the grid when your system is on. Easy to do from a technical standpoint. You can always install batteries to store your energy when the sun goes down. Yes, your energy costs will likely be higher than using the local grid like the average citizen. 

There is no question that the solar panel owners are reducing their costs at the expense of the bulk of utility users.