<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">The official name is no longer NEM3.0. That's the unofficial term.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">It is no longer "Net Energy Metering", and is officially "Solar Billing Tariff" (SBT).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">The problem isn't TOU so much as no longer compensating at retail rates for exports. As related above, the compensation is supposed to be at something like $0.05/kWh. A battery is required in order to self-consume the solar, but even that won't allow using summer production to offset winter use. The economics are compromised. A simple solar system covers primarily use when the system is producing. To cover everything else requires adding a battery, which doubles or triples the cost of the system.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">But more than the economics are affected. The sale becomes much more complicated - it is harder to understand and explain, and unless one knows the details of the client's pattern of use, one cannot confidently predict savings. If the client has provided interval data showing the use hour-by-hour for a year it is possible to model performance (with the right software). To optimize a system you need to run multiple simulations varying the number of modules and battery capacity.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">According to CalSSA (California Solar and Storage Association), our state's solar lobbying group, 17,000 workers have lost their jobs in the California solar industry, and publishes tracking of solar permits. See attached. There have been a number of bankruptcies of installers, which also impacts the distributors who don't get paid.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">CalSSA initiated a study with an energy economist to refute the claim that solar has shifted costs onto non-solar utility customers. It is being used in educating legislators, and perhaps will be used in litigation against the Public Utility Commission. Discussion of the study is available at</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><a href="https://mcubedecon.com/2024/11/14/how-californias-rooftop-solar-customers-benefit-other-ratepayers-financially-to-the-tune-of-2-3-billion/#comments">https://mcubedecon.com/2024/11/14/how-californias-rooftop-solar-customers-benefit-other-ratepayers-financially-to-the-tune-of-2-3-billion/#comments</a></div><br clear="all"></div><div><br></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Antony Tersol<br><br></div></div></div>
</div>