SDG&E Wants To Nearly Quadruple Its Minimum Charge To Customers

[nwdiver]

The one without the battery will actually be more efficient not having chemical conversion losses.

That's kind of my point. West facing panels and storage are both better for the grid but worse for the DG owner because they reduce the total kWh but shift kWh to where they're needed most. Before we start jacking up base fees we need to end NEM. If SDG&E needs to collect ~$40/DG owner find a way to collect it from behavior that adds stress to the grid to encourage more DR, storage and west facing panels.

The most cost effective load profile is a flat line. If a rate payer is making load look more like a duck they should pay more. If they're helping to make the duck flatter they should pay less. $40/mo for everyone is just lazy.

[ButchDeal]

That's kind of my point. West facing panels and storage are both better for the grid but worse for the DG owner because they reduce the total kWh but shift kWh to where they're needed most. Before we start jacking up base fees we need to end NEM. If SDG&E needs to collect ~$40/DG owner find a way to collect it from behavior that adds stress to the grid to encourage more DR, storage and west facing panels.

The most cost effective load profile is a flat line. If a rate payer is making load look more like a duck they should pay more. If they're helping to make the duck flatter they should pay less. $40/mo for everyone is just lazy.

With TOU like in CA West facing is better for the owner as well without high flat fee and WITH NEM.
Storage is nice and CA and MD have incentives for storage already.

don't be so stuck on the simplified media duck curve BS.

Hawaii has working on a very high solar adoption and has much much more grid problems than other states as HI grid no only can't connect to other states grid or national grid but they can't even connect each county grid to each other. Rule 21 and rule 14H and UL1741A with their ride through and Frequency/Volt - watt output all help the grid

There should be some compensation for the Frequency/Volt - watt output options though as the solar owner will be cutting production to help the grid or ramping up feed in to help the grid.

"Adjusting VArs keeps grid voltage from oscillating; acts like a shock absorber Intended result is automatic stabilization of grid voltage"
Most already do this by pushing the reactive power, some are actively adjusting reactive power now.

Here is a good overview: http://media3.ev-tv.me/UL-1741-Supplement-A_Webinar.pdf

[nwdiver]

Or maybe provide an alternative; $40/mo OR $1/kWh imported between 6pm and 10pm M-F. Something like that....

[jflorey2]

That's kind of my point. West facing panels and storage are both better for the grid but worse for the DG owner because they reduce the total kWh but shift kWh to where they're needed most. Before we start jacking up base fees we need to end NEM.

So go to real time pricing with NEM, or a percentage of net. That incentivizes good behavior AND gives homeowners more ways to save.

[nwdiver]

So go to real time pricing with NEM, or a percentage of net.

Would that really still be NEM? I wrote a blog about 5 years ago why I think NEM needs to go away. Xcel in NM was charging $0.036/kWh PRODUCED so it was effectively a base fee dependent on your system size.

It's a simple structure for a system that is not simple. It had it's place in the early days of solar but we need something more advanced to value solar closer to market rates and encourage more solar when it's needed and less when it's not.

[SunEagle]

I don't know if that number is reasonable but it makes sense if you assume that it covers maintenance of the grid, which the solar guy needs as much as the non-solar guy. I always liken the POCO to a gas station that's mandated by law to store gas for you that you've trucked in from some other source. You use the pumps to fill your car, so even if you're not paying for the gas, you should pay something to maintain the pumps. Therefore it makes sense to charge everybody a maintenance fee, and on top of that a per-gallon fee. The danger is that they'll try to jack up the maintenance fee as much as possible, and make it hard to tell if it's reasonable or excessive.

I remember the cost of gas was higher if you had one of their pump jockies fill your tank as opposed to your doing the pumping. That extra cost was to help pay for the pump jockies wage.

[Elemental101]

So, far, most posters have done a pretty good job of keeping politics off this forum. I'd respectfully suggest and request you consider not sharing your political opinions around here. Such opinions have little to do with the sign over the door that says "Solar Panel Talk".

Also, as a suggestion or two, which are also off topic: Get more involved to make the system more to your liking or leave the state. Just sayin'.

Fair enough, just making a point about the utilities making the responsible people..well..more responsible.

[Elemental101]

Yes most praise my past ability to manage on 10KWH a day for much of the year, though the
PoCo dares not say how they really feel about that. But get it to zero (with net metering) and
you enter a lot of controversy. Bruce Roe

Yes, good point.
Paying nothing does seem to change things.

[Elemental101]

A few notes there:

The money's not primarily for infrastructure improvement. The top reason cited is greater risk from wildfires, and that's just going to get worse as it gets warmer.

Maybe they should instead try and catch the idiots throwing cigarette butts out the car window while on the freeway.
I see it every day.

[jflorey2]

Would that really still be NEM?

Well, it would be a form of NEM, but not truly "net." NEM was, in part, started because simple mechanical meters could only measure net, and you needed either two meters or a ratcheting meter to measure production. Nowadays all new meters have no problem measuring (and billing) both demand and production at varying rates based on time.

[jflorey2]

Maybe they should instead try and catch the idiots throwing cigarette butts out the car window while on the freeway.
I see it every day.

No doubt. And a very fast spreading brush fire was started near me by a guy whose catalytic converter ruptured and sent red-hot ceramic beads into the shrubs by the side of the road. (It grew to a few acres before they dumped a whole tanker load on it. which put it out in seconds. Was impressive to watch.)

But given that the worst fire in California history was started by arcing PG+E power lines - and given that about 8% of all California wildfires get started that way every year - they're going to have to do something about that as well. (Smoking is less than 2%.)

[Elemental101]

No doubt. And a very fast spreading brush fire was started near me by a guy whose catalytic converter ruptured and sent red-hot ceramic beads into the shrubs by the side of the road. (It grew to a few acres before they dumped a whole tanker load on it. which put it out in seconds. Was impressive to watch.)

But given that the worst fire in California history was started by arcing PG+E power lines - and given that about 8% of all California wildfires get started that way every year - they're going to have to do something about that as well. (Smoking is less than 2%.)

Interesting.
I had thought smoking to be way up on the list but yeah, this state and its lack of doing ANY maintenance on just about every part of infrastructure is abysmal.

[nwdiver]

Interesting.
I had thought smoking to be way up on the list but yeah, this state and its lack of doing ANY maintenance on just about every part of infrastructure is abysmal.

It's not that simple. I think it was 'The Energy Gang' I was listening to where they discussed the fire issue which is getting exponentially worse as hot/dry events get worse and more common. PG&E does a good job maintaining their easement but that's not sufficient anymore. The wind can send debris from trees outside their easement and conditions are now favorable to that causing a problem. Not only does that vastly increase the amount of area they need to maintain but they often don't have the legal right to do anything. A crew can't simply go onto private property to trim trees they think could pose a threat.

[inetdog]

It's not that simple. I think it was 'The Energy Gang' I was listening to where they discussed the fire issue which is getting exponentially worse as hot/dry events get worse and more common. PG&E does a good job maintaining their easement but that's not sufficient anymore. The wind can send debris from trees outside their easement and conditions are now favorable to that causing a problem. Not only does that vastly increase the amount of area they need to maintain but they often don't have the legal right to do anything. A crew can't simply go onto private property to trim trees they think could pose a threat.

Actually, if the trees are within the utility easement they have a legal right to do just that, They try to get agreement first though.

[nwdiver]

Actually, if the trees are within the utility easement they have a legal right to do just that, They try to get agreement first though.

That's apparently the problem... many of the problem trees are now OUTSIDE their easement.