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.
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