California Utility companies vs solar panels

[widebody911]

I can't say I'm surprised

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/story/2019-12-15/california-high-voltage-battle-utilities-and-rooftop-solar

[john70t]

Promotes going pure solar and then gripes about it.
Bilks entrepreneur's out of fair resale value.
Spends billions for luxury solar factory, and then shuts it down, to be sold for pennies on the dollar.
Complains about lack of customers when excess could be scaled-back or sold out of state.

I don't understand California mentality at all..part of the reason I left.

[Sooner or later]

I said this in the other thread.

The electric companies basically have a fixed overhead cost. They still have the same amount of transmission lines to monitor, repair, and update. Every time a new solar panel is installed the loss of profit from that account is now added to the remaining customers. The more rooftop solar that is installed the more electricty will cost. And Cali electricity costs are already among the highest in the country.

The one positive is that the power companies won't need to build new powerplants moving forward. That includes new solar fields or wind farms for added producfion.

[Mad Max]

Folks out in La La Land are being taken for an EV ride by spending good money on solar (after generous subsidizes of course) and in return are being strong armed by the utility companies wanting ever bigger budgets, bonuses and shareholders dividends.

Commies working overtime to relive you of your money in a culture of corruption.

[Evans, Marv]

I've said it in previous threads every time I've gotten a flyer with my monthly statement, it's announcing SDG&E is applying for a rate increase - I mean every time. That was another thing that inspired me to spring for solar. I've thought for a long time this would happen where the utilities would begin to maneuver to add costs to solar and now it's happening. Sometime in the future (if I live that long), I may investigate the possibility of going off grid. If enough people do that, I'm sure the utilities will eventually try to charge for the fact the power lines pass by your property without generating any revenue for them.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

wanting ever bigger budgets, bonuses and shareholders dividends.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-stock-falls-14-after-Newsom-complicates-14909790.php

Why is a public utility monopoly being steered by private shareholder demands?

[flipper35]

When I lived out that way SDG&E twice spent millions on software that it could not get to work.

[red-beard]

It may not be obvious on your bill, but there are really 3 things you are paying for:

1. The Energy you use ($/kWh)
2. The cost to transport the energy ($/kWh)
3. Your electric hook up ($/mth)

I sell solar and I think that reimbursing #1 for exported solar is fine. Not the "wholesale" rate, but the retail energy rate.

But not number 2. Paying you for the cost to transport your excess electricity is crazy.

And Number 3, definitely not. In many areas, you are REQUIRED to have an electric hookup. You cannot go off-grid.

And the issue is that you should only get #1 for anything you export, not just beyond your bill.

Now, if you use a battery to locally store excess energy, and release it to yourself, you are "net-metering" yourself. The issue, this costs MONEY. The batteries cost money and have a finite life.

When solar was a tiny portion of the generation, it didn't matter. Net-metering was simple. Now in some places, solar can be up to 30% of the generation. BUT you expect to have electricity 24/7 and when it is dark and cloudy. Someone has to pay for this.