Understanding NEM 2.0 on SDGE

[Ampster]

..........

The issue of gaming/ a TOU rate schedule by time shifting loads and so make it quite possible to actually generate less electricity than is used and still wind up with a minimum bill has been hashed out here at length. You're just late to the party. The strongest and best informed advocate of the idea was a poster w/the handle Sensij. He's been gone for a couple of years now, and IMO, that's the forum's loss but that's off topic. The conversations he, I and others had here are what got me thinking in terms of considering a PV system as an income generator on a TOU system rather than simply a mini power station.

..............

Late to the party? Sorry I missed your party, but I have been load shifting since 2012 and have been talking about it on other forums.
I have also enjoyed reading Senji's posts. I wonder if he is on some of those other forums with another handle.

[J.P.M.]

Late to the party? Sorry I missed your party, but I have been load shifting since 2012 and have been talking about it on other forums.
I have also enjoyed reading Senji's posts. I wonder if he is on some of those other forums with another handle.

Well, I'm sorry for your loss.

Only since 2012 ? And you're a septuagenarian ? Sounds like you've been late to a lot of parties.

I've been load reducing in a serious way since ~ 1975, and aware of load shifting schemes and methods since TOU came on scene. At this time TOU doesn't pay for me. Also, it's always seemed to me that finding ways of not using something like electricity while maintaining a desired lifestyle produces better all around results, including lower bills, than simply gaming the system to save less money vs. not using the power in the first place.

Someday if TOU or some other billing method works out better for me, I'll probably shift to TOU or some other billing method.

I readily admit and endorse the idea that TOU can be a useful adjunct to load reduction as a way to perhaps reduce bills an additional amount, but nothing saves as much as not using the power in the first place. If cost effective bill reduction is the goal, first,reduce your use as much as possible, then load shift. Then, maybe consider battery storage when it becomes cost effective, but do that carefully and with a clear head, because that's a solution that's not ready for prime time just yet.

To me it's also a question of priorities that will vary by person and household. So, for example, is it more of a PITA to load shift to take advantage of lower rates for power, or to find a way/ways to reduce the load. Some loads can't /won't be eliminated. For those loads, time shifting may make more sense than, say, a conservation measure that will never pay for itself, such as $5k on a new AC that will knock, say, $100/yr. off a bill. But 50 bucks worth of caulking sealing on a weekend may produce the same $100/yr.

BTW, to load shift for AC around inland So. CA and other similar warm(er) areas, it's probably necessary to increase the building thermal time constant by ~ 6-10 hours or so. Possible, and not an easy task. Still, doing so is probably less costly than the current cost of a battery system sized to offset ~ 5-6 hours of A/C use on a typical day at peak pricing times.

Question: Is it better to save, say, $0.50-$0.25 per kWh by shifting use from peak to non peak times, or save $0.50/kWh by not using the power at all via conservation/other measures (a solar clothes dryer for example)? Or, perhaps find a conservation solution that might, for example, reduce that task's electrical load by 50% and so save the same $0.25/kWh time shift difference and avoid the PITA of load shifting ? Or, do both - conserve and load shift in that order of priority? BTW, and slightly off topic but related : The conservation measures or use reduction don't even need battery storage.

That I'm not on TOU does not mean I'm unaware of how to make it work, and has no bearing on how long I've been knowledgeable of load shifting and other ways to reduce a bill. It's just that load shifting probably isn't the first thing done if the goal is the most cost effective way to get the most bang for the buck in the electric bill reduction game, but again, it's a matter of priorities - and education of the limitation s of any method to reduce an electric bill.

Sensij may be on some other media/forums. I could be wrong as often happens, but if he is, my guess is they aren't about solar/alternate energy.

You brought up the off topic TOU. I'm just filling in some blanks.

Take what you want of the above. Scrap the rest.

[Ampster]

TOU off topic? Did you read the original post? The Orignal Poster specifically said he was going to charge two EVs on an EV TOU rate.
Load shifting is as easy as setting a timer on your EV. Do it once and forget it.
I am glad you have been load reducing since 1975 but you still lack load shifting experience or you wouldn't be saying it is PITA.