SanDust wrote:Any new or additional demand charge, standby charge, customer charge, minimum monthly charge, interconnection charge, or any other charge that would increase an eligible customer-generator’s costs beyond those of other customers who are not eligible customer-generators in the rate class to which the eligible customer-generator would otherwise be assigned if the customer did not own, lease, rent, or otherwise operate an eligible solar or wind electrical generating facility is contrary to the intent of this section, and shall not form a part of net energy metering contracts or tariffs.
Seems pretty clear that the proposed distribution fee is contrary to state law. No idea why SDG&E thinks this is OK.
This is the provision cited as most relevant by the Commissioner when denying SDG&E the right to proceed with its rate request based on the NUC. The Commissioner also cited the preceding sentence of section (g) which states that all chargers must be based on net kWh. That works but it would seem that the more determinative section would be section (b), which lays out that every kWh generated must be valued the same as every kWh consumed, precluding SDG&E's proposal that a kWh consumed should be valued by adding an interconnection fee and that an an exported kWh be valued by subtracting an interconnection fee. IOW (5+1) would not equal (5-1).
Note that SDG&E can appeal, presumably to the whole commission. That would be a good thing since its argument is so weak and the question would be answered once and for all. But I suspect that SDG&E, along with the other utilities, will decide to fight this fight some other time when perhaps the commission is more receptive. My guess is that it hoped to get into a rate case and then just confuse things so that this issue didn't rise to the forefront. With that hope gone all it's left with is a very stinko legal argument.