PG&E just screwed over my client by switching them from NEM 2.0 to NEM 3.0 without proper notice. They had a 8.5kW system installed in October 2022 under NEM 2.0 rules but PG&E claims the interconnection wasn't complete until April 2023, putting them under NEM 3.0. The export rate dropped from retail to about 8 cents per kWh plus they added a $15/month grid participation charge. Client's bill went from $25/month to $145/month. This can't be legal.
PG&E NEM 2.0 vs NEM 3.0 - client got switched without notice
Pete, I'm dealing with similar NEM transition issues in New Mexico. The key date is when the system received Permission to Operate (PTO), not when it was installed. If PG&E issued PTO before April 15, 2023, your client should be grandfathered under NEM 2.0 for 20 years. Get copies of all interconnection documents including the initial application, PG&E's acceptance letter, and the final PTO approval.
Marcus is right about the PTO date being critical. I've handled dozens of these NEM 2.0/3.0 disputes with SDG&E here in San Diego. PG&E has been playing games with PTO dates to force customers onto the less favorable NEM 3.0 rates. Check the system's monitoring data - if it shows production before April 15, 2023, that's evidence the system was operational and should qualify for NEM 2.0 grandfathering.
Grace, great point about the monitoring data. The Enphase system shows first production on March 28, 2023, but PG&E didn't issue PTO until April 18th. They claim there was a paperwork issue that delayed approval but the system was clearly operational before the NEM 3.0 deadline. The installer swears they submitted everything on time. This feels like PG&E is deliberately slow-walking approvals to force customers onto worse rates.
Pete, that's exactly what they're doing. Utilities across the country have been using administrative delays to screw solar customers. File a complaint with the CPUC immediately and request expedited review. Include the monitoring data showing March 28th production start date as evidence the system qualified for NEM 2.0. Also request damages for the rate difference since the billing started.
Randy's advice is solid. I won a similar case against PNM by proving system operation before the NEM deadline despite delayed PTO approval. The PUC ruled that operational systems shouldn't be penalized for utility administrative delays. Document everything about the timeline - installation completion, first production, all correspondence with PG&E, and any installer communications about paperwork submissions.
Filed the CPUC complaint this morning. The installer found emails showing they submitted final paperwork to PG&E on March 15th but PG&E claimed they never received it. Conveniently, this happened to dozens of solar customers right before the NEM 3.0 deadline. The monitoring data is solid evidence - 425 kWh production in the last 3 days of March 2023. Thanks everyone for the guidance on building this case.
Pete, this thread is a goldmine for anyone dealing with NEM transition disputes. Idaho Power tried similar tactics here but on a smaller scale. The documentation strategy you're using - installer records, monitoring data, email trails - that's the recipe for winning these cases. Keep us posted on how the CPUC responds. This could set important precedent for other customers getting screwed by PG&E.
Warren's right about this being precedent-setting. I have three similar cases pending with SDG&E using the same administrative delay tactic. If Pete wins at CPUC, it strengthens the argument for all of us. The utilities can't be allowed to manipulate their own approval processes to disadvantage customers. Solar customers followed all the rules - the utilities shouldn't be able to change the game retroactively through bureaucratic stonewalling.
Update: CPUC assigned the case for expedited review and PG&E's legal team called yesterday wanting to discuss settlement. They're obviously worried about the precedent this could set. Their initial offer was to grandfather the system under NEM 2.0 but no damages for past overbilling. I'm pushing for full restitution - about $1,200 difference over the past 9 months plus interest.
Don't settle for just prospective relief, Pete. PG&E owes your client for every month they were illegally billed under NEM 3.0 rates. They caused the delay, they should pay for the consequences. I'd also push for attorney fees if you're using legal counsel. Make them pay enough that they think twice before pulling this stunt on other customers.
Randy's absolutely right about full restitution. In my PNM case, the settlement included $2,400 in back credits plus switching to the correct rate schedule. Don't let PG&E off easy - they've been systematically screwing solar customers with these delay tactics. Make the settlement painful enough that their executives think twice about approving these schemes in the future.
Final update: Settled with PG&E for NEM 2.0 grandfathering plus $1,650 credit for past overbilling. They also agreed to review all other customers with similar timeline issues - potentially hundreds of cases. Sometimes you have to fight the utilities to make them follow their own rules. Thanks to everyone here for the strategy advice. This forum is invaluable for building winning cases against utility BS.
Excellent result Pete! That $1,650 credit plus the systematic review requirement is a huge win. You just helped potentially hundreds of other PG&E customers who got screwed by the same delay tactic. This is exactly why we do this work - holding utilities accountable when they try to cheat customers. Great job fighting this one through to the end.