California Public Utilities Commission looking to change rates

[tvolt]

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/03/30/50660/electricity-rates-could-be-changing-those-who-use/

Looks like sce wants to institute a base rate for everyone, while lowering top tiers and raising lower tier rates.

[J.P.M.]

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/03/30/...those-who-use/

Looks like sce wants to institute a base rate for everyone, while lowering top tiers and raising lower tier rates.

Correct. we've been tearing this one apart for some time now. Ref. AB 327 on the net and have a good read.

[tvolt]

Ah ok, I tried looking for old threads and didn't see any. But then, I'm not very good at using search.

[DanKegel]

Here's an update:

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M151/K305/151305677.PDF

via

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/californias-major-residentia-rate-reform-a-mixed-bag-for-solar-economics

[sensij]

Nice. Big news in CPUC fighting off the push for a fixed month charge, and instead keeping it as minimum bill. All you out there who are targeting 100% offset... think about it carefully. If you don't leave yourself at least a $10 bill each month (say, 50 kWh), you are leaving money on the table.

[J.P.M.]

Note:

This is a PROPOSAL - NOT THE FINAL VERSION. Some or most of this PROPOSAL will become part of the final ruling, but I'd suggest not rushing off and changing course or making commitments based on what you take away from reading the bill, or, more likely someone else's version of what they read/take away. Study the proposal but remember, it ain't over yet.

[silversaver]

Nice. Big news in CPUC fighting off the push for a fixed month charge, and instead keeping it as minimum bill. All you out there who are targeting 100% offset... think about it carefully. If you don't leave yourself at least a $10 bill each month (say, 50 kWh), you are leaving money on the table.

Unless you are super low users. BTW, if your bill is so low every month, than solar aren't doing you any good. Solar actually benefit those use more kWh.

Now, consider you are paying $0.17+ per kWh on low tier and the rate will continue go up. Would it be wise to go little larger and lowing the down the cost at same time?

The method of keep your monthly usage in low tier with smaller system will not work when POCO bring up the price on low tier. For you, it might make sense, but for high users $10 is really nothing comparing to their monthly bill. Why? if your bill is $70 per month, $10 might be a big deal to you. For those paying $200 per month, $10 is really nothing. It will only take 5 to 6 yrs ROI on high users, but it will be like 10+ yrs for low users.

[inetdog]

Ah ok, I tried looking for old threads and didn't see any. But then, I'm not very good at using search.

The built in search in the forum software is next to useless.
A far better method is to use Google search and include site:solarpaneltalk.com as an additional search term.

[sensij]

The next iteration of the CPUC proposal has been released. It still looks like minimum bills (not fixed charges) for the next few years, and tier consolidation with baseline allocation reduction is on deck for SDG&E. Lots of good discussion about TOU plans and how they may be changing in the future. The only major new item I see in this revision is a Super-User Electric Surcharge (SUE Surcharge) that will apply to customers whose usage exceed 400% of the baseline allocation. This has already existed in some form for CARE customers, but will now be rolled out for all residential.

To subscribe to updates to these proceedings, go here.

http://delaps1.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCProceedingLookup/

R1206013 - Rate Reform
A1401027 - SDG&E Time of Use Rate Periods

Since the updates may not show up on CPUC's site for another day or two, here are drop box links to a clean copy and a redlined version showing changes from rev 1 to rev 2.

Also, here is the alternate decision.
And here is Rev 1 of the alternate decision, also, a redlined copy.

[J.P.M.]

The next iteration of the CPUC proposal has been released. It still looks like minimum bills (not fixed charges) for the next few years, and tier consolidation with baseline allocation reduction is on deck for SDG&E. Lots of good discussion about TOU plans and how they may be changing in the future. The only major new item I see in this revision is a Super-User Electric Surcharge (SUE Surcharge) that will apply to customers whose usage exceed 400% of the baseline allocation. This has already existed in some form for CARE customers, but will now be rolled out for all residential.

To subscribe to updates to these proceedings, go here.

http://delaps1.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCProceedingLookup/

R1206013 - Rate Reform
A1401027 - SDG&E Time of Use Rate Periods

Since the updates may not show up on CPUC's site for another day or two, here are drop box links to a clean copy and a redlined version showing changes from rev 1 to rev 2.

My understanding on this is that it's politics as usual. The CPUC vote is scheduled for 07/03 - tomorrow. Until yesterday, things were such that two proposals would be up for a vote. One by Comm. Pres. Picker, generally supported by the POCOs, and one by Commissioner Florio, generally favored by ratepayer advocates (the other side).

Yesterday, Pres. Picker submitted a revised proposal. The rate payer advocates are claiming dirty politics and dirty deals as they scramble and root around in the revision to understand and ferret out changes, land mines and dog pies in the 372 page document submitted at the 11th hr. I wonder if the rules allow a postponement in the vote.

Pres. Picker's revised proposal does add a super tier at +400% of baseline, maybe as sort of a bone thrown to ratepayer advocates, but there may be other stuff added whose possible effects and impacts may take more than 36 hrs. for due consideration once ferreted out.

[donald]

and one by Commissioner Florio, generally favored by ratepayer advocates (the other side).

80% of residential electricity users will probably never pay a minimum charge. The issue of fairness is difficult.

[J.P.M.]

80% of residential electricity users will probably never pay a minimum charge. The issue of fairness is difficult.

My latest read through both proposals up for a vote tomorrow leads be to be less sure than you about min. charges. Looks like they will happen in some form, but maybe not right away, and probably not uniform.

On the fairness issue: IMO, utility rates are like life in the sense that both have little if anything to do with fairness.

[sensij]

My understanding on this is that it's politics as usual. The CPUC vote is scheduled for 07/03 - tomorrow. Until yesterday, things were such that two proposals would be up for a vote. One by Comm. Pres. Picker, generally supported by the POCOs, and one by Commissioner Florio, generally favored by ratepayer advocates (the other side).

Yesterday, Pres. Picker submitted a revised proposal. The rate payer advocates are claiming dirty politics and dirty deals as they scramble and root around in the revision to understand and ferret out changes, land mines and dog pies in the 372 page document submitted at the 11th hr. I wonder if the rules allow a postponement in the vote.

Pres. Picker's revised proposal does add a super tier at +400% of baseline, maybe as sort of a bone thrown to ratepayer advocates, but there may be other stuff added whose possible effects and impacts may take more than 36 hrs. for due consideration once ferreted out.

Ah, that adds some color to it. I've added a link to the alternate decision in my post above for others who want to follow along, but have trouble navigating CPUC's site.

SDG&E's response to the alternate decision was scathing. In even the PD, which they support, some of the discussion of minimum vs fixed charges is a fun read.

[my paraphrasing]
We think a fixed charge is reasonable, and we'd like to approve it. Heck, we approved it once before, remember? The public wanted to lynch us, and we repealed it. We aren't ready to go there again. When you can convince your customers that a fixed charge is not a bill increase, let's talk... until then, minimum charges are as far as we'll go. Oh, and by the way, it is ok to calculate the minimum as a daily rate, but you can still only apply it on a monthly basis.
[/paraphrase]

If the alternate decision is approved, SDG&E will have some spinning to do to explain the rate reform stuff they've been putting in their bill inserts. Or maybe not... does anyone read that stuff?

[J.P.M.]

Ah, that adds some color to it. I've added a link to the alternate decision in my post above for others who want to follow along, but have trouble navigating CPUC's site.

SDG&E's response to the alternate decision was scathing. In even the PD, which they support, some of the discussion of minimum vs fixed charges is a fun read.

[my paraphrasing]
We think a fixed charge is reasonable, and we'd like to approve it. Heck, we approved it once before, remember? The public wanted to lynch us, and we repealed it. We aren't ready to go there again. When you can convince your customers that a fixed charge is not a bill increase, let's talk... until then, minimum charges are as far as we'll go. Oh, and by the way, it is ok to calculate the minimum as a daily rate, but you can still only apply it on a monthly basis.
[/paraphrase]

If the alternate decision is approved, SDG&E will have some spinning to do to explain the rate reform stuff they've been putting in their bill inserts. Or maybe not... does anyone read that stuff?

About all my crystal ball says @ this time is that things will change. FWIW: I see my best reaction to all this is to simply minimize the impact by keeping my absolute usage - not billing per se, as low as possible. The less I use, the lower the impact. By doing so, in the unrealistic limit of zero usage, rate reform would have no affect on me. A man's reach should exceed his grasp.

Back to my T.O.U. vs. optimum array calcs. for now and a pox on this whole rate reform charade. IMO, it's all B.S. smoke/mirrors to obfuscate the truth and make decision making by users more difficult. Things simply don't need to be this complicated. Business as usual I suppose.

[sensij]

Not to be outdone, the alternate decision has also been revised. I've added it to the links above. On a quick skim, it seems to have even fewer changes of substance than the revision to the proposed decision. The differences between the proposed and the alternate are something... for SDG&E in particular, two tiers vs three, baseline reduction vs keeping the baseline allocation alone. Also, I thought I saw the PD allowed tier 1 increases of RaR + 5%, while the alternate only allows +3% for the first two years (and then +5% after that)