Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Dan Bernath at MPP talks about marijuana reform
Monday, July 6, 2009
Cindy Pollard, PG&E spokesperson, clarifies views on net-metering and FITs
1. How much have net metering costs raised consumer prices under the 2.5% cap?
And 2. What does PG&E project would be the cost increase under a 10% cap?
That is the information that the CPUC was required to determine before the cap was raised. The cost benefit analysis has not been conducted, and we would still like to see just how much it will cost our customers. We believe it’s very important to look at the data before decisions on cap increases are made. The CPUC report on the costs and benefits of solar is due early next year.
3. What specifically does PG&E want for "performance standards"?
We want to make sure that if we’re going to head down the path of a solar program that we get what we think we’re going to get. We need have some reasonable assurances that the program is going to work. We would like to have firm deadlines for the projects to come online; performance assurance to protect against system operation and reliability costs associated with procurement planning should a program fail to materialize and commission authorization to establish other terms and conditions that are reasonable to ensure that the FIT program results in reliable renewable energy delivery.
4. Doesn't the logic of avoiding increases to customer prices under net metering also apply under feed-in tariffs?
Yes it does if you're overpaying for power as we are with the full retail credit we currently pay NEM customers. It is important to make sure the price is fair and that we get the renewable energy attributes, meaning that this power counts towards our renewable portfolio standards requirements.
Friday, July 3, 2009
PG&E's main objection to AB 1106 concerns "performance standards"
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Ted Ko at FIT Coalition talks about REESA and AB 1106
Claudia Eyzaguirre at Vote Solar on AB 560, net-metering cap raiser
Monday, June 29, 2009
AB 560--Net Metering Cap--hearing rescheduled for Thursday
PG&E, one of California's three big investor-owned utilities (IOUs), is rapidly approaching the 2.5% level of net-metering, a system under which utility customers are able to reduce their energy bills by feeding green electricity generated on their premises back into the electrical grid from which they otherwise receive it. PG&E opposes AB 560.
Net-metering differs from "feed-in tariffs" (FITs) in that FITs require utilities to pay for all the electricity they receive from user-producers, while net-metering involves driving the electric meter backwards, up to the point where the customer has a zero bill, after which time any additional electricity provided by the customer to the utility is being given for free to the power company.
Statewide net-metering exists on account of provisions of the California Solar Initiative, SB1. As generally understood, that law stipulates that when a utility derives 2.5% of its sold power from net-metering, the net-metering provision will expire and the utility will no longer be required to offer the program to its customers. Accordingly, unless the net-metering limit is raised from its current level, the success of this program will mean its imminent demise, which some observers believe would deal a crushing blow to California's solar industry.
Accordingly, Assemblymember Skinner has authored AB560, which would raise the net-metering program cap to 10%, in order to maintain the existence of the program and the health of the state's solar industry.





