#Netmetering has brought over 8GW of solar to California, along w/ tens of thousands of jobs. NEM is a success, but it is time to evolve to something new. The recent #californiapoweroutage highlights the need for change. We can bring some #VDERlove to the Golden State (1/)
The first challenge of making NEM work for resliency is that it only works for a relatively small number of customers in California. California companies and great non-profits like @GRID have done much to expand net metering and solar employment to low income households. (2/)
But landlord-tenant issues, lack of unshaded and structurally sound roofs..we all know the limitations. The way to get solar generators (and batteries) on to more properties is to seperate where the generator is from what customers get the bill credits generated. (3/)
NEM can evolve to bring access to all Californians. This dude with my name wrote a piece about this:
greentechmedia.com/articles/read/…
(4/)
greentechmedia.com/articles/read/…
(4/)
Second problem: BTM storage doesn't have scaleable use cases right now. BTM storage depends on the SGIP program. As the Itron study highlighed a few years ago, demand charge management can actually raise GHGs and NC demand charge arbitrage is of questionable value to grid.(5/)
As @tedko, Polly Shaw and @JimBaak noted a couple years back, the problem is not with SGIP or the batteries, it is with the tariffs (or lack therefore) greentechmedia.com/articles/read/… (6/)
TOU arbitrage w/ NEM is not getting us to a BTM solar-plus storage market. It's definitely a start, but the challenge is that rates are primarily about revenue recovery, not about sending a price signal; therefore they average on and off peaks greentechmedia.com/articles/read/… (7/)
So: 1) NEM only works for homeowners & non-residential entities that own their buildings; 2) BTM storage needs new tariffs to be scaleable, and particularly to get greater differentiation between prices to make charging and discharing worth it. Let's turn to resliency (8/)
With the power outages in the state there has been lots of talk about how batteries and solar can help us ride through the outages. Couple problems: getting enough batteries and sizing them correctly. Not as pedestrian as it sounds!(9/)
First: how do we deploy enough batteries? By all means, the @CPUC was wise to use its SGIP funds to get battries out to the most vulnerable. But if we really want to get scale we need to bring other revenues in to support the batteries. (psst: It's The Tariffs, Stupid). (10/)
This need for additional revenues through value stacking was well articulated by @ebce_ceo (11/)
The second (and actually related!) issue is how to size the system. NEM systems are sized to annual load- you overgenerate in the summer and use the credits the rest of the year when your system doesn't generate enough. (12/)
If you need some power for critical needs for a relatively short stin, a solar system sized to offset your needs and an associated battery may make sense. Check out @emmafmerchant @RaviManghani and @michelle_schmo's article: greentechmedia.com/articles/read/…
However, lets talk about a critical facility. What about a school that needs to provide a cool place, hot meals, and other services to community members during extended outages? A solar+ system sized to that school's normal usage is never going to meet these extreme demands. (14/
Even if money was no issue for the storage, an oversized solar+storage system is going to generate way more electricity each year than the school can typically use as it will have to be oversized. Without an ability to share those credits that is money lost (15/)
So let's envision another way: What if that school had a large solar plus storage system so that it could act as a shelter for multi-day disasters, using the solar+storage system.... (16/)
During normal times the system would create excess credits that could be allocated to community solar subscribers, allowing all that excess generation to be monetized. The batteries could be cycled to maximize those credits by maximizing several values... (17/)
The batteries could cycle for LMPs (help with our friend the duck) and offsetting peak generation and capacity needs for generation, transmission and distribution in summer evenings- this helps monetize the battery beyond its resilency value. When the power goes out, it islands.
In theory this could be done w/ TOU rates, but: 1) there is insufficient on-peak/off-peak differentiation; 2) b/c the retail rates don't directly correspond to avoided costs, the CPUC is never going to let those credits be tranferred to other customers. (*gasp* cost shift!) (18/)
So what is a tariff that is based on value (avoided costs), has very strong differentiation between on and off peak rates, and (because it is cost based) allows for credit sharing a-la community solar? This is #VDER, folks. (19/)
With a California VDER in place, instead of using $700M in SGIP to buy batteries, CPUC could take a @nyserda retail storage incentive approach and "top up" what isn't provided by the tariff- way more resiliency for your buck... (20/)
The more than half of customers in California that have no option to adopt solar would have access to community solar.. (21/)
and facilities that are potential shelters or other critical facilities could size a solar+storage system to meet the needs of those emergencies without curtailing (literally or figuratively) the excess generation the rest of the time (22/)
The @californiapuc has already kicked off the process of hiring a consultant to evaluate the current NEM 2.0 and provide suggestions on a new tariff. The solar industry can try to cling to something that represents the old model of pay-by-reversable-meter and settle for haircuts
OR industry can seize this moment to create a truely scaleable model that is not only more accessible to all Californians, but is better situated to meet natural disasters. We have a model in NY that is finally reaching something workable. Find your #VDERlove, folks.
