Changes in CA to encourage west facing arrays?

[inetdog]

Bruce Roe (bcroe) has long been advocating a mix of east and west facing panels in addition to or in place of purely south facing arrays.
Looks like his strategy of adding east and/or west facing panels to an array is getting some official recognition, at least in California.

The structure of the Time Of Day (TOD) rates from CA POCOs already favors west facing panels where there is a clear sky in that direction, since prime rate period extends into the early evening, but now there is recognition in the form of an increase the rebates percentage for west facing panels.
See http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...nels?cmpid=rss

The original press release or whatever from the energy authority (http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/...-panels-091114) appears to be down at the moment.
And of course no rebate percentage change or other rebate structure is going to have any effect when the money has run out.

[Bikerscum]

I must be missing something...

Sounds like for my south facing panels they'll give me nothing, and for my west facing panels they'll bump that by 15%.

Awesome.

[inetdog]

I must be missing something...

Sounds like for my south facing panels they'll give me nothing, and for my west facing panels they'll bump that by 15%.

Awesome.

Yeah, there is the rub. It will, however, take effect automatically if the legislature makes more rebate money available.

[J.P.M.]

Bruce Roe (bcroe) has long been advocating a mix of east and west facing panels in addition to or in place of purely south facing arrays.
Looks like his strategy of adding east and/or west facing panels to an array is getting some official recognition, at least in California.

The structure of the Time Of Day (TOD) rates from CA POCOs already favors west facing panels where there is a clear sky in that direction, since prime rate period extends into the early evening, but now there is recognition in the form of an increase the rebates percentage for west facing panels.
See http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...nels?cmpid=rss

The original press release or whatever from the energy authority (http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/...-panels-091114) appears to be down at the moment.
And of course no rebate percentage change or other rebate structure is going to have any effect when the money has run out.

I just looked at both references in the post and IMO, there's a lot of incomplete information there and, IMO, in the original.

1.) The guidelines are for the New Home Partnership, not existing residential. It covers new construction not existing. Also, to reiterate, they are guidelines, not mandates.

2.) The "Renewable Energy Authority" is not an authority in the governmental, or any other sense except maybe their own minds. It's a marketing arm of an outfit called Loanbright and run by a bunch of loan slugs.

3.) The "Clean Energy Authority" is no authority at all - just another trade group for alternate energy.

4.) All of the above use slick wording to imply that west facing arrays will save you money. That may be possible but probably not.

- Each solar location has a theoretically optimum orientation, tilt and azimuth. In most cases - probably close to 80% or more this orientation is within a few degrees of true south and tilted something like the local latitude. Exceptions and modifications abound, but most of those, such as they exist are relatively small.
- The "guidelines" are likely more as a result of the attempts to deal with the peak load shifting going on in most of CA to later hours, partly brought on by solar offsetting more of the midday load, and thus late afternoon loads being a greater percentage of the remaining load that POCO's still supply. It's more about leveling overall demand for the POCOs than saying west facing solar is more efficient than south facing - it is not.
- All referenced pieces acknowledge that south facing arrays produce more electricity on a yearly basis.
- What the pieces seem to imply is that consumers will save more money with west facing panels than an equal capacity of south facing panels. First off, for the 80% or more of residential users who are not on T.O.U. rates, this is patently B.S. Those 80% are on tiered rates. They likely pay the same for a kWh at 1 P.M. as 7 P.M., and that depends on how far they are into the billing period and what their use has been month to date. Second, those on T.O.U. rates will be paying and receiving prime time rates much later than before as peak hours are shifting to later times of day. This means, among other things that FOR T.O.U. USERS, it may make some sense to avoid east facing as that will pay less. That is not to say however, less east is the same as more west. South facing is still almost always most bang for the buck for those users, particularly since the price of a kWh is the same at 1 P.M. as it is at 7 P.M.
- If the yearly average solar availability is 20% less at 4 P.M. for a south facing panel than for a west facing panel, but 30% higher at 1 P.M. and T.O.U rates don't drop until 8 P.M., the south facing panel not only comes out ahead in production, but $ revenue as well. And in this case again, most of the 80% not on T.O.U. are better off with the south facing arrays.
- Every situation is different. It may be for example that in the coastal areas where marine layer fog is present until 10 - 11 A.M., SOME realignment to sat 10-20 deg. west of south may be beneficial. However, a full 270 deg. az. will probably produce quite a bit less energy and less revenue or bill offset. One way to check this out is with estimating programs like PVWatts, running several cases at varying azimuths and tilts.
- What my cynical outlook wants me to think is that west facing arrays will need to be larger and thus more expensive. Peddlers will probably not hate that. Also, giving credibility to what may have been looked on as perhaps a poor, or at least less than optimal orientation will get some new respectability and generate more sales more easily. Finally, POCO's, while not solar fans, are probably not above using solar to shave demand load if possible.

Bottom line: IMO, Most or all of the benefit of shifting to west facing when not necessary from an engineering or design standpoint goes to the POCO at the expense of the solar system user. This is a cynical trick and smells of B.S.

[Sunking]

Panels facing West benefit the POCO, not the customer. If you could be at the POCO control center watching power usage you quickly realize after watching a few days peak power usage occurs in the afternoon hours. Because CA energy policy forces them to be energy importers and dependent on other states to generate their power, CA cannot generate or meet power demands especially in the afternoon when power usage is at its peak. By facing the panels West forces the panels to generate peak power in the afternoon hours. Great for the POCO, bad for the customer.

Sure facing the panels West helps shave peak load on the generators, but as a customer you could care less about that. The main purpose of using solar is to generate as much power as possible in a given day, and not just during the afternoon hours. A 5 Kw system in say LA are with proper orientation to the South will generate roughly 25 Kwh in a day. Take that same 5 Kw system and face it west cuts production down to 15 Kwh per day screwing the customer out of 10 Kwh of production. It shifts peak production to the afternoon to benefit the POCO, but daily production falls off the cliff.

Guess who is happy and who is screwed? POCO is happy as they get you to invest your money to generate power so they do not have to build. They also shift all the maintenance making it your problem. They get more money from the customer, and have to import less in the afternoon. POCO wins, you loose.

It is a great strategy.

[inetdog]

.... By facing the panels West forces the panels to generate peak power in the afternoon hours. Great for the POCO, bad for the customer.

Sure facing the panels West helps shave peak load on the generators, but as a customer you could care less about that. The main purpose of using solar is to generate as much power as possible in a given day, and not just during the afternoon hours. A 5 Kw system in say LA are with proper orientation to the South will generate roughly 25 Kwh in a day. Take that same 5 Kw system and face it west cuts production down to 15 Kwh per day screwing the customer out of 10 Kwh of production. It shifts peak production to the afternoon to benefit the POCO, but daily production falls off the cliff.
...

Actually, as a customer your goal is to minimize your power bill, not to maximize your total production. As the article points out, for those who have a TOU rate structure, minimizing total POCO bill already favors a west facing array. The prime time high rate hours extend into the evening out here.
All that the change in rebate structure does is align the maximum rebate benefit with the maximum bill reduction benefit (at least for those who are on TOU) instead of sending a mixed message. Without the change, some customers with shading issues might even be actively discouraged from facing west because the required production goals would not be met to qualify for a rebate.

[J.P.M.]

Actually, as a customer your goal is to minimize your power bill, not to maximize your total production. As the article points out, for those who have a TOU rate structure, minimizing total POCO bill already favors a west facing array. The prime time high rate hours extend into the evening out here.
All that the change in rebate structure does is align the maximum rebate benefit with the maximum bill reduction benefit (at least for those who are on TOU) instead of sending a mixed message. Without the change, some customers with shading issues might even be actively discouraged from facing west because the required production goals would not be met to qualify for a rebate.

Sunking knows more about the power business than I but I've been around it some as an equipment supplier and we said about the same things, or at least share some of the same opinions about reasons for the west facing B.S.

In most, or almost all cases, If a CA user maximizes their output in the most cost effective way, they will, by definition get the most bang for their buck. Every sit. is different. However, south, or mostly south facing arrays will accomplish that most bang for the buck goal (BTW, not lowest bill as a sole goal either) in almost every case better than other orientations. To make a blanket statement that west facing is better simply because of T.O.U, or increased late afternoon production is simplistic, not accurate, a bit of a swindle and B.S. as I said in a prior post on this thread. It's better for the POCO - not the consumer.

One other thing : To reiterate, that 15% "rebate" mentioned is a 15% premium west facing panels over existing rebate amounts for south or other orientations, and that rebate only applies to new homes built under the New Solar Homes Partnership. It has nothing to do with the old CSI rebate program.

[Sunking]

Actually, as a customer your goal is to minimize your power bill, not to maximize your total production. As the article points out, for those who have a TOU rate structure, minimizing total POCO bill already favors a west facing array. The prime time high rate hours extend into the evening out here.
All that the change in rebate structure does is align the maximum rebate benefit with the maximum bill reduction benefit (at least for those who are on TOU) instead of sending a mixed message. Without the change, some customers with shading issues might even be actively discouraged from facing west because the required production goals would not be met to qualify for a rebate.

Like I said it is BS that favors the POCO and California failed energy policies. If you face your panels West, you have sacrificed daily watt hour production. A solar south oriented system of equal size will always generate more power than a like West facing system. That is just a physical fact. TOU rates are a conn game made up by crooks covering up for failed energy policy. If CA had generation capacity, there would be no TOU structure which favors the POCO. The state energy policy makers are morons.

Sorry to be so blunt and it is clear what they are doing and I certainly understand why. They want to shift peak solar production from solar noon to three hours later when demand is the highest. Great for the POCO but bad for the state as a whole because that house that would normally produce say 25 Kwh is now only producing 15 Kwh in a day. The state can set the rates high on payback to the customer to offset lost production, but in return the public gets stuck with higher rates who are on TOU not getting a kickback.

CA cannot keep kicking the can down the road. Each year CA imports more and more of their power from neighboring states. CA is going to have to build conventional generation or else surrounding states are going to be tapped out. Or just build huge coal plants in Baja, send US coal and jobs down there, and they ship back power at whatever rate they think is good Stupid Gringo's.

[silversaver]

You generate less kWh annually but increase the output during later afternoon to offset POCO power demand for ACs from their clients. The new program which is design for POCOs.

[nomadh]

This would certainly help the poco and if they give us a taste then maybe something could be worked out. I have a pretty good south facing roof but with new fire codes may not make quite enough power. I also have a south facing but basically flat grannyflat add on that was probably never permitted. So thats a main reason no one wants to build on it. So for a few installers now their 2nd choice is my east facing roof.??? I've mentioned the west and thought about our personal use where the air is on more in the late afternoon to evening. All installers have said they prefer the east as company policy and assume it is more efficient at generating. Is there something to this? Is west facing going to be the new close second choice to south facing?

[J.P.M.]

This would certainly help the poco and if they give us a taste then maybe something could be worked out. I have a pretty good south facing roof but with new fire codes may not make quite enough power. I also have a south facing but basically flat grannyflat add on that was probably never permitted. So thats a main reason no one wants to build on it. So for a few installers now their 2nd choice is my east facing roof.??? I've mentioned the west and thought about our personal use where the air is on more in the late afternoon to evening. All installers have said they prefer the east as company policy and assume it is more efficient at generating. Is there something to this? Is west facing going to be the new close second choice to south facing?

On a yearly average basis, depending on were you are inland, a slight west orientation MAY get you a bit more output depending on A.M. marine layer. However, for a cloudless day, a south orientation is best, PERHAPS a few degrees west of south to make up for increased P.M. temps. To maximize output face as close to south as possible. If on T.O.U., a SLIGHT west bias MAY garner a buck or two more, but a 270 deg. az. will produce less output and probably less offset revenue.

Also, to reiterate, any talk of extra incentive for west facing arrays only applies to the "New Home Partnership", and in any case is still in the talking stages as far as I know. It does not apply to existing dwellings. Nor does it have anything to do with the fed. tax credit or the CSI rebates which are now fully subscribed.

[nomadh]

Yes, I would not want to skip using my south facing roof. But if the south is used up or for someone who has no south roof it seems west would be the best 2nd choice. There is a lot of buzz about how west facing may only be around 10% less efficient than south but I suspect that may be a lot of POCO shill work going on. I thought it had been established it was about 25% less. But still if all other options are out then.....
I had 2 companies wanting to use my east roof as added power to my south. I'm thinking east and west give similar power amounts but I'm much more likely to want some of that power for my AC in the early evening. Its also when power is still the most expensive on peak until 7pm. Is it just a coincidence both wanted the south or is there some industry reasoning to go that way?

[wwu123]

On a yearly average basis, depending on were you are inland, a slight west orientation MAY get you a bit more output depending on A.M. marine layer. However, for a cloudless day, a south orientation is best, PERHAPS a few degrees west of south to make up for increased P.M. temps. To maximize output face as close to south as possible. If on T.O.U., a SLIGHT west bias MAY garner a buck or two more, but a 270 deg. az. will produce less output and probably less offset revenue.

Also, to reiterate, any talk of extra incentive for west facing arrays only applies to the "New Home Partnership", and in any case is still in the talking stages as far as I know. It does not apply to existing dwellings. Nor does it have anything to do with the fed. tax credit or the CSI rebates which are now fully subscribed.

I can definitely see in my first year of solar that morning cloudiness affects AM production on many days all year round, so it's not something to be overlooked for many parts of the Bay area. I'm not sure if it's a marine layer per se as we're 11 miles inland, but definitely cloudiness that hugs the coastal ranges and foothills and seems to burn off by late morning. I agree that south is still best, but if choosing between east and west definitely something to consider.

[russ]

From PV Watts for zip code 97741 - Central Oregon 1 kW DC system - same conditions for each run

South 180° azimuth = 1451 kWh AC per year
SW 225° azimuth = 1389 kWh AC per year
West 270° azimuth = 1241 kWh AC per year

[sensij]

From PV Watts for zip code 97741 - Central Oregon 1 kW DC system - same conditions for each run

South 180° azimuth = 1451 kWh AC per year
SW 225° azimuth = 1389 kWh AC per year
West 270° azimuth = 1241 kWh AC per year

Just to add to that,
East 90° azimuth = 1274 kWh AC per year

I'd guess East slightly outperforms West if all else is equal because the modules are somewhat cooler on average in the morning than they are in the afternoon.