Blog

Since I last wrote to you, much has happened in my solar world. The outlook for solar was quite gloomy at the beginning of 2015. We (Californians) expected net energy metering (NEM) to sunset in 2016/2017 – see current and projected levels here; we expected it to be...

California's net energy metering (NEM) program will end when a utility reaches its 5% cap or on July 1, 2017, whichever occurs first. The 5% cap translates into 2,409 MW of NEM-interconnected systems for PG&E, 2,240 MW for SCE, and 607 MW for SDG&E. Here is a...

In my last email/blog, I described how net energy metering, meter aggregation, and virtual net metering have allowed us, as utility customers / generators, to produce and move electricity more intelligently than we could before. This email describes how Community...

Remember this sentence from my last blog? "Current NEM customers and those who will have interconnected their systems before the earlier of their utility reaching its 5% NEM cap and July 1, 2017 are called NEM Transition customers. " The utilities aren't required to...

I hope you are well. Eight months have elapsed since I last wrote about meter aggregation, and there has been forward and backward movement, so here is an update: Meter aggregation tariffs – NEMA, NEM-AG, and NEM Aggregation – are now available in PG&E, SDG&E,...

The CPUC approved PG&E’s advice and supplemental advice letters yesterday, making PG&E’s NEMA tariff effective immediately. This is great news, but it didn’t excite me as much as it should have, because a few hours before sending out this news, the CPUC issued...

I’ve good news to report. PG&E filed a supplemental advice letter yesterday in response to a request from the CPUC to address various parties’ protests of its advice letter. The supplemental advice letter addressed my concerns related to adjacent/contiguous...

I spoke with Gabe Petlin of the CPUC on the 19th about PG&E’s meter aggregation tariff. I believe – no promises are made on these phone calls – that the CPUC will ask PG&E in early January to submit a supplemental advice filing in response to our protests. This filing...

I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. PG&E and the other investor owned utilities submitted their responses to the various parties’ protests on the 19th of November. Their responses – here is PG&E’s – essentially asked the CPUC to disregard our protests. On the...

On October 21, 2013, PG&E submitted, as required by the CPUC, an advice letter (4305-E) proposing a tariff for meter aggregation projects. The issuance of the advice letter was a step in the right direction, but the tariff itself is problematic. As proposed, it...

The CPUC’s Energy Division reviewed the opening and reply comments submitted in response to the original Draft Resolution (DR) that was published on August 16, 2013. The Final Resolution had a couple of minor revisions. Here is an excerpt from the Comments section: …...

Last Thursday, the California Farm Bureau submitted Opening Comments in support of Draft Resolution E-4610. Récolte Energy and a few other organizations signed on the Farm Bureau’s letter. PG&E submitted their Opening Comments in opposition. I just filed Reply...

It has been almost a year since I wrote about SB 594, the bill to allow utility customers to offset the combined loads of their electricity meters with a single renewable energy system. The bill was signed into law last September, but required the CPUC to find, by...

Governor Brown signed SB 594 today! The next step is for the CPUC to establish that the bill won’t result in any incremental cost shifting. They have been given until September 30, 2013 to complete this study. Since the CPUC already believes this to be true – which is...

SB 594 was sent to Governor Brown for his signature on September 11, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. Many organizations have sent the Governor their letters of support. Here is my letter of support. I was told today that there are additional opposition letters from the California...

I had more nail biting moments yesterday. SB 594 was sent back to the Senate on the 30th for the Senate’s concurrence. Because it got modified substantially in the Assembly, it had to be reexamined in the Senate. It went from the Senate Rules Committee (passed 4-0) to...

Good news! A short while ago, SB 594 passed the Assembly floor (ayes: 45, noes: 5). Please see the screenshot below. Many assembly members who weren’t on the floor will add their names later on today. Although the numbers of ayes and noes will go up, the result won’t...

I visited 17 assembly members’ offices yesterday. Other organizations, including the Solar Electric Industries Association, School Energy Coalition, and Environment California, circulated or emailed floor alerts in support of SB 594. The Investor Owned Utilities...