Comments on: California Supreme Court takes up NEM 3.0 case against the CPUC

By: Chito

Chito — Sat, 28 Sep 2024 03:13:26 +0000

In reply to Mr Sonic.

When you have Newsom and other democrats running California. They too have investors why they’re driving our state to the ground.

Example, wineries and all the properties have pass down to family are low in taxes. Add to that Prop 13.

So the state, keeps passing measures and Propositions every other year. On top of that, natural resources being diverted from houses a d farmers such as water going to farmers instead to delta .

By: Adam Smith

Adam Smith — Thu, 18 Apr 2024 19:01:10 +0000

Nem 3.0 more than doubled the equipment cost, and you have to replace the batteries every 10 years. They should have set payback rates similar to what LA does (about 14.5c/kwh) and subsidized battery implementations. They should also encourage more DIY batteries other electrician support as opposed to just supporting solar installation companies which add nearly 100% margins to a 20k installation. Solar equipment costs less than $1/watt now, and can be as low as $.40/watt if you are very good at sourcing. Why are we still paying $3/watt to get it installed?

By: Mary Saunders

Mary Saunders — Thu, 18 Apr 2024 17:41:26 +0000

Micros are suffering from the misbehaviors of bigs. Huge installations taken through horrible crony-eminent-domain allows old-tech to pit down renewables in general. I used to be an activist (put-down eord in US). When I was in US, one could upset the bigs by saying key-words and phrases like de-coupling and green-tea. I have no idea if that still works, but goldwater and friends borrowed total-eclipse-of-the-sun to put down an az utility. It was great fun. Anybody old enough to temember that?

By: Alfred Koerblein

Alfred Koerblein — Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:35:32 +0000

In Germany, solar power fed into the grid is remunerated at approx. 9 ct/kWh. This guarantees amortization in less than 20 years. I don’t understand why it is not possible in California to find a compromise between net metering 2.0 (with a payback period of less than 10 years) and net metering 3.0 (with a payback period of no less than 15 years). Wouldn’t a 50% reduction in the feed-in tariff instead of 80% be a possible middle way?

By: Hamid Tavassoli

Hamid Tavassoli — Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:32:42 +0000

I was promised to be under NEM2.0 since I signed to install my rooftop solar panels before April 15, 2023, however it seems PG&E has placed my installation under NEM3.0. This means for every 1kWh of electricity sent to PG&E, I’ll be credited 3 cents instead of 30 cents. No wonder other folks do not see any advantage in installing rooftop solar panels. I’d like to see this reverted back to 30 cents per 1kwh.

By: Mr Sonic

Mr Sonic — Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:55:28 +0000

Good news to see people with proper skillset are pushing back on the CPUC decisions championed by investor owned utilities.

I do wish it was not focused on disadvantaged communities. I am not in a disadvantaged community. But i am older, on a fixed income that is not keeping up with inflated food, health and energy costs. My roof is south facing with no shade. Would be perfect if not for NEM3 and AB205 changing the ROI timeline to be nonsensical. Regardless of the community status the CPUC is acting in the interest of investor owned utilities and not the state of California.