I get it that PG&E-territory annual net metering needed to end. But it had its place... it was an effective policy for dramatic PV-system cost reduction. Now, PV systems are a lot more affordable for working-class families.

PG&E net metering is gone forever. We now have "net billing". Under net billing, exported power gets an "avoided-cost" rate. I calculated this for my first net-billing customer: 7.5 cents per kwh on average. This includes a credit from their community-choice aggregator. It also includes a 2.2 cent bonus, that will ramp down to 0 in January 2028. That extra PV power will serve the neighbor's site. PG&E will get the retail rate for it (around 50 cents). 666% markup. (An exception: PG&E is currently crediting August + September evening exports at around 1.5 times the retail rate.)

PG&E argues that all this distributed PV power doesn't merit higher credit because it's variable | volatile. ...grid managers can't rely on it, so need to have firm power available anyway (justifying new rate-based infrastructure). That's true to an extent. But with a distributed network of irradiance + temperature monitors (conveniently mounted on PG&E power poles) + historical net-usage data for PV customers... I assume that near-term distributed power production could be predicted pretty accurately. (Then again, grid optimization thru relatively-low-cost monitoring and data analysis wouldn't please PG&E shareholders.)

To get this avoided-cost credit, net-billing customers need to be on the E-ELEC rate plan. Other PG&E residential rate plans have no fixed charge (just a minimum energy charge), but E-ELEC does. It's about $15 per month now, but has no cap. Apparently it'll go to ~$25 per month in early 2026, scaled based on income level (CPUC document). E-ELEC also has a much bigger difference between the daytime off-peak rate and the evening peak rate... strongly motivating a daily-cycled battery.

To be connected to the PG&E grid, new PV-system inverters must be UL 1741-SB listed (the California variation is "Rule 21"). That listing is about supporting a more stable grid. Inject or absorb reactive power, to support stable grid voltage. Reduce or increase active power, to support stable grid frequency. "Ride through" the grid fluctuations, while grid managers get their shit together. These services reduce the inverter's utility-bill offset (by around 2%?). Here's a kicker... this also gives the utility the ability to remotely shut off grid-following PV systems at any time for any reason (ostensibly to reduce grid voltage in critical situations). PG&E hasn't implemented this last one. But given their long-standing antagonism towards rooftop PV... by golly I don't like this. With CPUC consent, they could permanently island hybrid PV systems if deemed necessary.

This distributed network of Rule 21 inverters helps PG&E maintain a more reliable electric grid at lower cost. Not a peep from PG&E about this in their cost-shift-from-wealthy-solar-homes-to-poor-people smear campaigns.

So PG&E (with CPUC collusion) is positioned to ramp up the fixed charge over time (a lobster in heating water), and eventually implement the option to disconnect hybrid systems.

The message is that new PV systems aren't valuable to the electric grid. They're parasitic, motivated by selfishness | greed. They threaten low-cost reliable "community" electricity.

In the face of this, a new PV owner might consider PG&E's "zero-export" option. All on-site power must be used on site directly, stored locally for later use, or vaporized (so to speak). With zero export, choose between the normal time-of-use rate plans (with no service charge, and flatter off-peak vs. peak rates). Not so fast... these zero-export systems are subject to "departing-load charges" (i.e. "non-bypassable charges"). For a typical six kilowatt PV system, pay PG&E $35+ per month (to use your PV power at your site). Like the E-ELEC fixed charge, who knows how high this "PV tax" will get.

With an increasingly-aggressive squeeze, the only significant benefits of PV + battery could become the backup capability and environmental impact reduction — not a significant electric-bill offset.

I'm planning to turn on my first off-grid Victron system tomorrow (with a Discover Helios battery + MidNite battery combiner) (related blog post forthcoming). Victron equipment is amazing. Warhorse, built to last. Super programmable. Victron inverters aren't 1741-SB listed, and can't be connected to the PG&E grid. But they can be installed behind an appropriate transfer switch (I've been trying to get the City of Oakland's confirmation that they'll accept this). Skip the PG&E application, and avoid the zero-export-system tax.

Oakland requires grid connection. But design the off-grid system to meet the site's power needs year around (probably with a small relatively-quiet propane inverter generator in a sound-insulated enclosure, or with bi-directional car charging, or power sharing thru neigborhood microgrid). The goal is zero grid imports. ...At a lower cost than PG&E service (the highest electric rates in the continental U.S.). If successful for the first year, advocate for jurisdiction approval to disconnect from the grid altogether (and stop the monthly minimum energy charges).

...If extra righteous, establish the site as a community emergency hub. At least for a few nearby families.

The electric grid is one or our greatest technological achievements. But it's stuck in a 20th-century regulated-monopoly business model. The viability of self-reliant off-grid systems (i.e. competition) will add pressure for much needed electric-grid administration reform.