Solar hypocrisy is expensive

Watching the gyrations of the intertwined energy and transportation sectors of our economy is frustrating at best.  Anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills has to wonder what our politicians and bureaucrats are thinking?  Last week the CPUC kneecapped the rooftop solar market.  The Comicle writes

For new customers, reduce the amount utilities’ pay them for excess power by at least 75% compared with current rates. The change would not apply to residents with existing solar systems.

Because residents and businesses with solar panels generally have smaller energy bills, they contribute less to a utility company’s fixed costs, such as transmission and distribution networks, which are passed on to ratepayers. As a result, non-solar residents, including low-income residents and renters, carry more of the cost burden.

The solar rules increased bills for customers who do not have rooftop solar by $3.37 billion in 2021, growing to $4.5 billion so far this year, according to the CPUC’s Public Advocates Office.

See what they did there?  People with panels "contribute less to transmission and distribution" costs.  But what about generation costs?  They pour private capital--lots of it-- into helping the utilities avoid those costs.  Another case of lies, damned lies and statistics.  The other push is to get people to add batteries when they put in the panels, so the load is spread better throughout the day and night.  Good idea for a lot of reasons, but crazy expensive and getting more so as the metals that go into batteries get more expensive.  I'll bet the CPUC Public Advocates Office isn't spending any time on looking at where those metals come from (hint:  Russia, China, the Congo with little environmental protections and some slave labor).

Speaking of grid stability, how does the all-out push to force people to buy EVs (by 2035 in California) fit?  The president of Toyota had this to say this week

President Akio Toyoda said he is among the auto industry’s silent majority in questioning whether electric vehicles should be pursued exclusively, comments that reflect a growing uneasiness about how quickly car companies can transition.  “That silent majority is wondering whether EVs are really OK to have as a single option. But they think it’s the trend so they can’t speak out loudly.”

Toyota is still pursuing plug-in hybrids and hydrogen and they have their eye on the cost of all of this

Sticker prices for electric vehicles have also jumped this year because of the rising cost of battery materials, limiting the pool of buyers who can afford one.

In a debate between the "silent majority" that designs, builds and has to sell cars at a profit and the CPUC and Newsom, I'm more comfortable with people who look at all angles of the question--it's good that they aren't staying totally silent.  Newsom in particular has his focus elsewhere, but his ex-wife weighed in on him this week.

Kimberly Guilfoyle made a rare public comment about her ex-husband, California Governor Gavin Newsom, on Sunday.  “In California, they have vowed to get rid of gas-powered cars. A bunch of winners over there. Ask me how I know. I got news for him. He ain’t making it to the White House!”

In the meantime, rooftop solar got more expensive, EVs got more expensive, and electricity got more expensive.  But at least there is more "equity".

Comments

[Paloma Ave]

Utility companies should have never been forced to buy excess power in the first place.

That was another bad law passed in California.

[resident]

Newsom killing green jobs. That will not play well with the BernieBros.

[JP]

They just can't help themselves. The do one thing not realizing that the reaction is counter to what they really want. Take rent control for instance. Enact rent control and landlords always raise the rent the max allowed. Or they leave the unit empty as a low maintenance saving account that pays better than the bank. Then it inhibits developers from building more housing.

When it comes to roof solar and batteries, we will see Reagan's quip come true: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

[JP]

Wanna bet whether more "American" people will die this weekend from cold than will die all year from global warming?

[Peter Garrison]

Oops. They call it climate change now.

An even hazier definition so that you can’t fix the problem and just have to keep throwing money at it.

Also, climate change is what we used to call weather back in the good old days.

[Spurinna]

(The State of) Maine notes in a plan sub­mit­ted to the Fed­eral High­way Ad­min­is­tra­tion this sum­mer that “cold tem­per­a­tures will re­main a top chal-lenge” for adop­tion, since “cold weather re­duces EV range and in­creases charg­ing times.” When tem­per-a­tures drop to 5 de-grees Fahren­heit, the cars achieve only 54% of their quoted range. A ve­hi­cle that’s sup-posed to be able to go 250 miles be­tween charges will make it only 135 miles on av­er­age. At 32 de-grees—a typ­i­cal win­ter day in much of the coun­try—a Tesla Model 3 that in ideal con­di­tions can go 282 miles be­tween charges will make it only 173 miles. WSJ 12/27/22

Imagine people stranded in the blizzard this week…

Head of Toyota knows this EV thing is only a virtue-trend that is not only silly, but potentially lethal.

Vote for folks who are careful with our lives and money.

[Joe]

The solar deadline approaches. The Law of Unintended Consequences is about to kick in:

The financial incentives that helped spur more than 1.6 million Californians to put solar panels on their homes will end this week.

A rush to go solar leading up to the April 14 deadline has sent installation companies and utilities into overdrive. But many in the industry expect this boom will be followed by a more sluggish era for rooftop solar in California.

The new rules, called net energy billing, only apply to new solar customers served by the state’s three major investor-owned utilities — including PG&E. They still offer savings but at lower rates. They are meant to encourage property owners to also install battery systems so that excess energy can be stored even after the sun goes down, when demand for electricity continues to be high.

The California Solar and Storage Association estimates customers will be credited at a rate of about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour for the energy their arrays send back to the grid, compared to about $0.30 per kilowatt hour under the previous system.
-----------------------
Ouch. Cut the rate by 83%. What could go wrong?
----------------------
Under net metering, solar customers on average saw bill reductions of about $216 per month. After Friday, average solar customers are expected to save $100 each month on their electric bills, whereas those with batteries will save at least $136 per month, according to the commission.
---------------------
And the math smells a bit. Cut the rate by 83% but the reduction only drops the "savings" by 46%. By the way, when you sell someone something you made (or generated) that is not called "savings".
---------------------
Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the California Solar and Storage Association called the commission's policy “reckless” because it opted against phasing in the changes and instead installed an abrupt shift.

“It’s created a boom-bust dynamic,” she said.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/solar-panel-incentive-california-17883031.php

That's us---boom and bust.

[Phinancier]

It's like they really want to kill residential rooftop solar. If you up the breakeven point from 6 years to 10 years there will be much less investment. That is like an intended consequence!