Skip to main content
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon. | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 5
So CA legislators are trying to sit on this one, but alas it is leaking out into the mainstream media at an alarming rate.

California's residential solar market could be cut in half by 2024 if state regulators proceed with a proposal that would cut incentives and add fees for rooftop systems, according to a new analysis from Wood Mackenzie.

The proposed changes to California's net energy metering tariffs, released last month, would more than double the payback periods for home solar to more than 10 years, which the Wood Mackenzie report says would make residential customers less likely to invest in solar systems and installers less motivated to sell them.

"Our analysis for the two largest utilities, PG&E (NYSE:PCG) and Southern California Edison (NYSE:EIX), reveals payback periods for typical residential solar projects built this year will increase from 5-6 years under current net metering to 14-15 years, depending on the utility," report co-author Bryan White said.

Oh goodie. Let's see, CA legislature is incentivizing the bageezees out of replacing ICE cars with EVs, increasing the later after noon and evening electric demand while decomissioning a large part of its single Diablo Canyon nuclear facility. Now, let's see if we can reduce incentives to produce rooftop electricity.

I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to people like Gaven-babes. Perfect sense!

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
California utility regulators have quietly tabled a controversial plan made public last month that would drastically reduce the benefits provided to homeowners with rooftop solar panels.

>>> The proposal unveiled Dec. 13 sided heavily with the investor-owned utilities and landed with a thud among solar advocates.

“That draft plan that was recently released…I just had a chance to review and I’ll say this about the plan: We still have some work to do.”
Gov. Newsom
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The imminent problem is they have so much solar now during the day, there aren't users to take it.

They set up a special interstate commission to find the 'cheapest' sources of power - then shut down the rest of the unneeded power line them. And try to find ways to export it to somewhere else.....but 'somewhere else' is also building their own mega solar farms so they don't have to pay for 'imported power'.......

Right now, the PUCs have to buy energy from home high rates.....that run up the rest of the folks bills......and let them buy energy at night at a low price when it costs more to produce at night.

Something has to give.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Per, here are CA sources of power generation the state produces:

Natural Gas: 52.9%
Nuclear: 7.4%
Hydro: 7.3%
Renewables: 32.4%

So if solar panels are producing so much power, why isn't it offsetting LNG and Hydro? Of course, the timing of demand will determine part of this, due to the declining ===> zero solar electricity generation as the sun goes down. But still, why wouldn't the state promote and gather as much housetop electricity as possible to the point little is drawn from LNG and Hydro (irrigation and flood control notwithstanding) during the day, allowing them to kick on late in the day and nite? This way, LNG and hydro would be serving as a kind of battery.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So if solar panels are producing so much power, why isn't it offsetting LNG and Hydro? 

I think you answered your own question: This way, LNG and hydro would be serving as a kind of battery.

The “battery” electric need is far greater after the hours of peak solar production.

As you can see, peak power demand occurs between 6pm and 9pm, and peak solar production occurs between 9am and 3pm.

The real problem presented by solar power, and the reason the utilities are looking to charge solar panel homes higher metering monthly fees has to do with supporting the power grid. Currently, solar panel homes pay $10/month for net metering, the proposal you indicate would increase that to $50/month.

Part of the answer has to be four to eight hours of battery storage for each home with solar panels, and this is currently being reviewed by the commission i.e., incentives for solar customers to purchase battery backup power. Going forward solar panel installation will probably be comparable with inverters for battery system.
Print the post Back To Top