X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by CharlieEscCA View Post

    We are just going to have to disagree

    My read is the $13.23 account balance is the $9.87 plus $3.36 taxes shown on page 3 of 5. And the $3.36 comes franchise fees and taxes that are charged on the electrical use (the kWh delivered off peak) -- the $ for the electrical use get taken out by your applied credits as shown on page 4 in the net energy metering summary table.

    So, in summary, I still contend that there were still yet to be understood very low NBC kWh, and the NBC $ (small that they were) were absorbed into the minimum daily charges, i.e. you actually paid no NBC $.
    Charlie: I'm not taking sides here. We're all looking for answers. But Sensij's reasoning seems to me to have the logic and the smoking gun of finding where the $4.87 in calc'ed NBC showed up, with the other 3 kW worth of NBC charges still a mystery to me however. Perhaps others on DR-SES or EV-TOU2 can offer some perspective.

    Once the NBC business gets sorted out, either here, elsewhere, or by some workshop, and without denigrating its importance, NBC seems a somewhat minor matter in $$ terms at this point in time.

    I'm somewhat more impressed with the idea that true T.O.U. tariff schedules, because the rates of such schedules are not a function of how much electricity is used but rather when it is used, thus separating the value of the power a system on NEM generates to offset a bill from the consumption that produces that bill. That means (NBC aside for a moment) that for design purposes a model's (PVWatts) estimate of hourly output coupled to an hourly rate schedule can be used to calculate how much revenue a system will produce that can be used to offset a bill for use, regardless of what that use may be - provided the generation is <100 % of use.

    Doing so will also allow some interesting information. A couple that might be interesting or perhaps useful might be calculating the average revenue value per kWh of electricity generated by a system. Another is to be able to see the value of the electricity generated at various orientations, say per STC kW, and so compare whether or not for example, a 225 deg. azimuth, 20 deg. tilt will produce more revenue offset than a 270 deg. azimuth, 20 deg. tilt in inland San Diego using the new DR-SES times and proposed rates. (It will, BTW, by ~ $403-$375 ~ = $28/yr. less for the 270 deg. azimuth per STC kW using new DR-SES times and proposed rates, PVWatts and Miramar TMY3 data).

    Once the value of generated power is separated from use, it opens up lots of possibilities. One example: If a 5 kW, south facing 20 deg. tilt system will produce $402 X 5.0 = 2010/yr. in revenue to offset a bill, it will do so regardless of how much, or when during a year that bill is accumulated, provided the system generates less than 100% of use. So, if a 5 kW system nets out at a cost of, say $17.5 K*.7 = $12,250, and generates $2,010/yr. worth of bill offset revenue, pretty much regardless of how much that bill may be (provided it's < $2.020/yr.), that may be useful information. NBC, such as it may be, can then be added to the bill, but the revenue to offset a bill will stay the same for the same system and model used to estimate system generation.

    Comment


    • #62
      No worries. I'm not trying to appear to be argumentative, though I may be failing and it may come across that way.

      Agree with your comments on computing and understanding the revenue side of TOU. But it can't be done in a vacuum from the consumption side.Key is knowing if you have a summer peak deficit -- if you do, that would not be a good situation..
      8.6 kWp roof (SE 7600 and 28 panels)

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

        ...
        I'm somewhat more impressed with the idea that true T.O.U. tariff schedules, because the rates of such schedules are not a function of how much electricity is used but rather when it is used, thus separating the value of the power a system on NEM generates to offset a bill from the consumption that produces that bill. That means (NBC aside for a moment) that for design purposes a model's (PVWatts) estimate of hourly output coupled to an hourly rate schedule can be used to calculate how much revenue a system will produce that can be used to offset a bill for use, regardless of what that use may be - provided the generation is <100 % of use.
        ...
        It looks to me TOU would require now knowing house load distribution during a day (24 hr period) as the same total kWh would cost differently depending what time they were consumed. For example, I can run pool pump during day or during night. This makes essentially impossible for PvWatts to produce any reasonable estimate without taking at least few 'points' of the particular house load distribution during a day. If one wants to build reasonable estimation model he'd need to take into account not only generation pattern during a day but also house load distribution too.

        Comment


        • #64
          Understanding the consumption side is necessary to predict the electric bill, but shift to TOU does level the playing field for PV system cost effectiveness.

          ​​Under the tiered plan, each kW of PV is not equal.... The PV that offsets tier 4 consumption was more cost effective than PV that offsets tier 1. If a solar sales guy wanted to say how much a system would save, it couldn't be done without knowing consumption.

          Under pure tou, the amount a system can save is almost completely independent from consumption... That same sales guy can confidently state that savings available from a certain size system is $X, so as long as the customer's bill is over that amount, the cost effectiveness is the same regardless of what the actual consumption level is.


          ​I agree with J.P.M. that this makes tools like PVwatts even more useful, since the full revenue value of the potential system can be determined regardless of the usage patterns (or how those usage patterns may change).

          CS6P-260P/SE3000 - http://tiny.cc/ed5ozx

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by sensij View Post
            Understanding the consumption side is necessary to predict the electric bill, but shift to TOU does level the playing field for PV system cost effectiveness.

            ​​Under the tiered plan, each kW of PV is not equal.... The PV that offsets tier 4 consumption was more cost effective than PV that offsets tier 1. If a solar sales guy wanted to say how much a system would save, it couldn't be done without knowing consumption.

            Under pure tou, the amount a system can save is almost completely independent from consumption... That same sales guy can confidently state that savings available from a certain size system is $X, so as long as the customer's bill is over that amount, the cost effectiveness is the same regardless of what the actual consumption level is.


            ​I agree with J.P.M. that this makes tools like PVwatts even more useful, since the full revenue value of the potential system can be determined regardless of the usage patterns (or how those usage patterns may change).
            I see what you mean. From that point of view consumption doesn't matter indeed but PVWatts still needs to take into account particular TOU schedule to come up with correct revenue number. Currently it just takes single 'average' cost of electricity.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by CharlieEscCA View Post
              No worries. I'm not trying to appear to be argumentative, though I may be failing and it may come across that way.

              Agree with your comments on computing and understanding the revenue side of TOU. But it can't be done in a vacuum from the consumption side.Key is knowing if you have a summer peak deficit -- if you do, that would not be a good situation..
              Thank you. I'm not trying to be argumentative either, just trying to figure stuff out and get at some ways to maybe enlighten myself and perhaps some others and save a few bucks along the way as the best way to maybe help save the planet.

              To those ends, I believe if a system is working to a T.O.U. tariff that bills (or credits) electricity purely as f(time), as does the tariff you and most everyone with PV that is a customer of SDG &amp; E and has a PV system gets billed under and, as it looks at this time, (DR-SES) will have the following characteristics that matter to what I'm writing:

              1.) It charges (or credits) a fixed rate for everything that crosses the meter in either direction at one fixed rate per time period - an hour for example - regardless of the amount of electricity for that time period.
              2.) It does so without a tier structure. Such a tier structure would change that hourly rate as f(consumption).
              3.) Generation is credited at the same value as consumption for any time interval (say an hour). While acknowledging NBC will need to be considered, I'm leaving it out for right now - one concept at a time.

              A PV system will, for modeling purposes, generate a certain amount of electricity over the course of a time period, usually calculated by the model over an hour and summed for appropriate periods - a day/week/month/yr/...For modeling purposes, that amount of generation, and that pattern of generation can be considered constants.

              Whatever electricity the system does generate for a residence, that amount will be independent of the amount of electricity a residence uses. A system that generates 10,000 kWh/yr. will do so whether the residence uses 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 kWh/yr.

              Now, because the type of T.O.U. tariff I'm writing about here (with DR-SES being one example) charges or credits electricity at a $ rate per kWh that depends only on the time interval (an hour, say), and not variant by how much is delivered or received over a billing period (say, 30 days) above or below, say, 130 % of a monthly baseline allowance, that pattern is also constant over 8,760 hours, or one year.

              Here's the change in thinking: Consider generation separate from consumption as can be done if system generation is independent of how much of a load it offsets. If, (one more time - for modeling purposes) the amount and pattern of system generation has a constant pattern, and the hourly pattern of billing /crediting is constant, then, the value of what the system will generate over any one of those 8,760 hrs. will be the same one year to the next, and the sum of the portion of the 8,760 hours/yr. that have generation will also be constant.

              An example.

              Say on 06/21/model year, between the hours of 1300 and 1400, standard time, a 5.232 kW system in zip 92026 manages to generate 4.3 kWh. that 4.3 kWh of generation will either be used behind the meter or set back to the grid. Either way, the value of the energy is the same. If, say, 10 kWh are consumed during that hour, the 4.3 kWh of generation will be used behind the meter and billing will be for 10 - 4.3 kWh = 5.7 kWh. The 4.3 kWh will reduce the bill. If the house consumes, say, 2.0 kWh during that period, nothing will be delivered from SDG &amp; E and 4.3 - 2.0 = 2.3 kWh will be sent to SDG &amp; E and credited at that same hourly rate. Either way, reducing what's drawn from SDG&amp; E or getting credit from SDG &amp; E, the value of each of those 4.3 kWh generated is the same, that is, independent of consumption.

              Now, SDG &amp; E may have separate pots for on/off/semi peak kWhs. that get $ amounts for each respective kWh generation with consumption credited only to the extent electricity is available in that bucket, but that does not appear to be the case from what I think I've seen and read. Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

              But if I'm correct, that would mean that, for modeling purposes, a system's cost can be measured against a known (current) value of the electricity it produces - provided the system is sized to produce less than a 100 % annual offset and net metering is applied using a T.O.U. tariff that only uses times of use to as a measure of rate.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by max2k View Post

                I see what you mean. From that point of view consumption doesn't matter indeed but PVWatts still needs to take into account particular TOU schedule to come up with correct revenue number. Currently it just takes single 'average' cost of electricity.
                Max, PVWatts cost /kWh are B.S. for a lot of reasons. I ignore them.

                The whole idea of this exercise is to demonstrate that for a T.O.U. tariff that has rates that are is independent of the amount of consumption, the $ value of the generation per time interval is (aside from NBC) a function of mostly two things: The amount of generation in that time interval, and the tariff rate/kWh for that time interval. Any electric BILL is most certainly dependent on consumption. But under some tariffs, the value of system generation is independent of consumption, provided the system offset is < 100 %.

                Lots of possibilities.

                Get estimates of T.O.U. bills for the DR-SES tariff and divide by system revenue per STC kW for a 100 % bill offset, or whatever offset you want.

                Get average revenue /kWh generated for different orientations and find the optimum orientation - Charlie - this is something directly applicable to your situation. Just don't oversize.

                Using the average per kWh revenue value, see the rather disastrous effect on that value per kWh as that oversizing will take.

                The list goes on.

                Comment


                • #68
                  My first post...though I've been looking this website over for a couple of years. This appeared to be the closest post to address my issue.

                  I'm with SCE. Am two months, and thus two bills, past PTO...and yes, NEM 2.0. I've had three calls into SCE. The first one I was put on hold and then dumped to their "customer survey"...and no, did not yack at them...but also not a good experience.

                  My question is can someone point me to a thread or an SCE site that covers the following: in that I went PTO in the summer and in that I overproduced those two first months (and thus only subject to minimum charge) I believe that I'm being miss-billed. In particular, I think my bill should be $10.53...this being 32 days @ $0.329/day. I think the "bal of minimum charge" is incorrect as I believe it should be $10.53 minus the sum of the two NBC line items and the basic charge. Or: $10.53 - (NBCs + basic charge). Instead my bill is $12.54.

                  The second call rep said she'd get back to me and in fact left me a voice message indicating that I was right. So I called yesterday to inquire if I'd be receiving a credit and that rep put me on hold for 27 minutes and then he, too, said he'd have to get back to me. Today he called and left a message and said the bill was calculated correctly.

                  I can not find a NEM 2.0 version document on the web that indicates how this should be calculated. Based on the NEM 1.0 ~$10 min charge SCE document I found it seems my math is good...and no SCE rep has told me how it is calculated. While a buck or two isn't going to make much of a difference to me I want it done correctly.

                  Any one have a similar situation?

                  Thanks

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Is the 12.54 what you get if the NBC's are not counted as part of the minimum bill? SDG&E's NEM-ST math is screwy... I haven't figured it out yet myself, but it seems that taxes are getting double charged in the only set of calculations I can come up with that match the numbers on the bill.

                    I'm more or less resigned at this point to the idea that the bills will eventually be restated, or corrected at the annual true up. I haven't had much time in the last month or two to pursue it.
                    CS6P-260P/SE3000 - http://tiny.cc/ed5ozx

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Sensij-thanks for the quick reply (and Happy Thanksgiving!).

                      https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/...MOD=AJPERES&am p;attachment=false&amp;id=1447702669699

                      So for reference the above URL is what I believe was the SCE minimum charge FAQ implemented Oct 1, 2015...and I think I've seen this referenced on this forum.

                      https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/...df?MOD=AJPERES

                      Above URL is FAQ NEM 1.0 vs. NEM 2.0...3 pages, but does not go into billing details.

                      https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/...df?MOD=AJPERES

                      Above URL is 24 page NEM FAQ dated July 1, 2017...and thus would have NEM 2.0 details. But conspicuously absent is the "bal of minimum charge" calculation. When speaking to the 2nd rep (the one who stated in a answering machine method that I was correct) I counseled her to have this document modified to add this detail...of which she agreed that this is where it should be.

                      So, to your questions...here are my numbers. Maybe in the future I'll figure out how to post a picture (I see the attachment button up there, btw).

                      Delivery Charges
                      Basic Charge ....................32 days x $0.03100................ $0.99 .............. Your Delivery Charges include
                      Bal of minimum charge............................................ ......... $3.87 .............. $4.86 distribution charges

                      Nonbypassable charges (NBCs)
                      CTC, NDC, PPPC ...........387 kWh x $0.01431 ................$5.54 ................ Your overall energy charges include:
                      DWR bond charge...........387 kWh x $0.00549......... ........$2.12 ............... $0.11 franchise fee

                      Subtotal of your new charges........................................... $12.52
                      State tax ..........................66 kWh x $0.00029.................. $ 0.02

                      Your New Charges........................................... ................. $12.54


                      So you'll note that $4.86 distribution charge on the right. If/when you subtract the basic charge you will get $3.87. If that's the real calculation (as in authorized by the governing tariff) no one at SCE has been able to tell me how that is calculated.

                      BTW, I've seen a lot of questions on NBC calculations. If I'm not mistaken SCE's smartmeter records two items: how many kWh I take from the grid and how much I send to the grid. I think any "taking" incurs the NBC charges. No need to worry about 15 min/hourly netting or other wise...
                      Last edited by oldguy; 11-23-2017, 04:28 PM. Reason: Added dots to align columns...neither tab key nor adding spaces via the space bar seems to work.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Well, the sum of these components adds up to the right minimum bill.

                        5.54 NBC
                        0.99 Basic charge
                        0.11 Franchise Fee
                        0.02 State tax
                        3.87 Balance of minimum bill

                        I'm not sure that explains much though. It would help to also see how the NEM credits and charges are presented, because sometimes the same information can show up in different places on the bill as the rate components are sliced and diced.

                        The windows snipping tool is a good way to capture images at a resolution the forum likes, if you use the inline image button.
                        CS6P-260P/SE3000 - http://tiny.cc/ed5ozx

                        Comment


                        • #72




                          Ok...based on my previous post (two up from this one) I think I've detected the error...and I believe still fault lies with SCE. My last bill was for 32 days and thus I think my bill should have been for 32 x $0.329 or $10.53. I believe that SCE did not subtract the DWR Bond charge (listed under NBC and so when that is subtracted from $12.54 you will get $10.42 and for some reason adding that "franchise fee" of $0.11 you get exactly $10.53. Note, too, that this calculation method works exactly the same for my previous month's bill: 22 days at 0.329 = 7.24 (which I believe should have been my bill amount)...but my bill was $8.48, my DWR bond charge $1.32 and my franchise fee $0.08...thus $8.48 + 0.08 -- 1.32 = $7.24.

                          I believe either inept billing, corrupt billing, or somehow the DWR isn't part of the determination.... though clearly listed everywhere as an NBC. I'm going to continue to ride SCE until they put something in writing somewhere. Suspect everyone on NEM 2.0 is afflicted but haven't gone through the math yet. Again, though, only for those who are carrying a energy credit and thus subject to the minimum fee.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            You haven't shared information yet about the NEM charges and credits. Without that, it is hard to say whether total accounting is "correct" or not. Again, slicing and dicing the bill can yield counter intuitive results that might turn out to be right.
                            CS6P-260P/SE3000 - http://tiny.cc/ed5ozx

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by oldguy View Post



                              Ok...based on my previous post (two up from this one) I think I've detected the error...and I believe still fault lies with SCE. My last bill was for 32 days and thus I think my bill should have been for 32 x $0.329 or $10.53. I believe that SCE did not subtract the DWR Bond charge (listed under NBC and so when that is subtracted from $12.54 you will get $10.42 and for some reason adding that "franchise fee" of $0.11 you get exactly $10.53. Note, too, that this calculation method works exactly the same for my previous month's bill: 22 days at 0.329 = 7.24 (which I believe should have been my bill amount)...but my bill was $8.48, my DWR bond charge $1.32 and my franchise fee $0.08...thus $8.48 + 0.08 -- 1.32 = $7.24.

                              I believe either inept billing, corrupt billing, or somehow the DWR isn't part of the determination.... though clearly listed everywhere as an NBC. I'm going to continue to ride SCE until they put something in writing somewhere. Suspect everyone on NEM 2.0 is afflicted but haven't gone through the math yet. Again, though, only for those who are carrying a energy credit and thus subject to the minimum fee.
                              Between the POCO's cryptic and non ways of explaining things, and what seems like errors, and also their seeming non concern about both is why I'm keeping my mouth mostly shut about trying to explain just what's going on with tariffs and schedules beyond the very simple stuff until things get clearer, whenever that may be.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                To Sensij's comment: I spent 3 years really working hard to reduce my electric consumption after retiring (the first time) and taking over a $250 average electric bill from my wife (who'd been covering that bill all those years) to ~100/month. I have a swimming pool and at the time did not have variable speed. The first obvious step after a little research was going on to TOU so I've been squeezing out electric bill primarily on that. I've done all sorts of non-WAF (wife acceptance factor) things such as using my electric coffee pot and then putting glass pot on a gas microflame (like what some big boiler burners do when turned all the way down). Believe it or not it (and proved with use of Kill-O-Watt meter) my coffee habit was 45kwH/month but now less than 30...and the gas usage I believe is about 1/5 the BTU equivalent. I've also put my garage freezer on a timer and have blocks of ice in containers on the top shelf. Stays cold for 12+ hours.

                                Was a little miffed and at first didn't even see the SCE rate change for super off peak as when I first went on it and because I hovered just above my baseline here in zone 6 (~350 kWh/mo) my original super off peak was right around ~0.01/kWh...now at 5 cents/kWh. Long and short of this paragraph is I've done lots of "things"!! At some point I will share details for others as I presume there's a "what I did to shave my electric consumption" thread or two on this forum.

                                Back to the point though, my first two months I've incurred $ credits. The first month I produced 59 kWh more than used, the 2nd month used 66 more than produced. Both were positive $ credits due to TOU crediting. I'm $94 positive after two months. Thus I should be ONLY looking at minimum charge calculation.

                                As to JPM...I'm not afraid to do battle with SCE on this. I've had one hangup (by them), one answer confirming the days x $0.329, and one answer just flatly stating the bill was calculated correctly (the last two answering machine messages after 1/2 hour+ phone calls). I worked as an Electrical Engineer for Hughes Aircraft Company and then Boeing (bought what was left of Hughes in 2000) for 31 years and am now on my 4th year of teaching middle school math and thus on my 5th year of Algebra when one includes the one I had 45 years ago! I can do the math!

                                Will post again after my next telcon with SCE. There's absolutely no justification for non-transparency on billing issues.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X