There really needs to be a go no-go test for utility fees in response to more DG penetration. I agree that NEM becomes a subsidy at some point and additional revenue needs to be collected from DG owner but increasing base fees or charging for production as Xcel attempted is not the way. Any new fee should address problems of supply-demand created by DG. Does this fee encourage behavior that is beneficial to the grid? Maybe have a mandatory TOU for DG owners that charges $0.50/kWh between 6pm and 9pm to encourage west facing solar and storage. Lots of options but simply increasing the base fee and treating all DG owners the same is just lazy rate making and bad policy.
Most Popular Topics
Collapse
SDG&E Wants To Nearly Quadruple Its Minimum Charge To Customers
Collapse
X
-
-
I appreciate the fact that Jeff is willing to take the time to inform the readers of this forum about these issues. California and Hawaii are facing these issues because of the high percentage of solar. If the rate increase proposed in San Diego becomes a reality with the other two Independently Owned Utilities my hope is that money goes into infrastructure to make the grid more resilient for the future.
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. Greater risk = harder to get loans and more money needed for contingencies, so they need more income. They are also still paying off San Onofre, and they have stated they want to improve investor returns.
That being said, it is likely that grid reliability will continue to improve. Rule 21 will help with grid reliability, and historically grid reliability has improved with time through incremental improvements (i.e. software updates, replacing old SCADA as it fails, new communications systems.)
And if anything out there is going to drive people to install storage, it's the EV-TOU-5 rate. Buying power at 9 cents/kwhr is VERY attractive. And if storage comes down to less than 50 cents/kwhr installed, it will make financial sense for people to get storage to take advantage of that 9 cent rate.
Comment
-
Well APS is barely getting by in my state apparently. The 6% of customers in Arizona with grid tie solar must really be eating into their profits! Let's look at the numbers.
Paraphrased from AZCentral.com investigations;
Arizona Public Service CEO Don Brandt enjoyed $14,536,631 million in adjusted compensation last year.
Among the top compensated CEOs in Arizona, three work for APS (parent company, Pinnacle West Capital Corp).- Don Brandt: $14.5 million in adjusted compensation.
- Mark Schiavoni, division executive vice president: $4.1 million in adjusted compensation.
- James Hatfield, executive vice president/chief financial officer: $3.2 million in adjusted compensation.
- Robert Bement, executive vice president and chief nuclear officer: $2.8 million in adjusted compensation.
- Daniel Froetscher, executive vice president of operations: $1.8 million in adjusted compensation.
- Jeffrey Guldner, APS president: $2.1 million in adjusted compensation.
All this, for executives of a utility that scores bottom of the barrel when it comes to customer satisfaction and as more than a third of APS's residential customers have seen rate increases that averaged 10.8% or more - double and triple the projected 4.5% rate increase that was recently rubber-stamped by the APS-owned Arizona Corporation Commission members that are supposed to protect the public from a company with a monopoly utility business.
Pinnacle West raked in $488 million in profits in 2017, the first year in which APS-endorsed candidates filled all five slots on the Corporation Commission. The company scored $511 million in profit in 2018, the first full year after regulators rubber-stamped a $95 million rate hike.
And the first quarter of 2019 showed more than a four-fold increase in profit over the same period last year.
We need a commission to protect us from the commission that is supposed to protect us from the monopoly.
Dave W. Gilbert AZ
6.63kW grid-tie ownerComment
-
Well, California has to pass on the costs to us taxpayers because somebody has to actually pay the bills after DEMS invite the world to our sanctuary state!
Mod Note: Let's try not to drift off into politics from here!Last edited by inetdog; 08-30-2019, 02:04 AM.Comment
-
Sacramento county floated a trial balloon of changing the fixed $20 grid-tie fee to $10 / DCKW. That would have increased my connection fee to $90 a month. That is at least half what I would be paying if I did not have solar.
They also changed the rate structure to the point that it is hard to justify solar at all.
Summer rates: midnight til noon 11.66 cents, 5 pm to 8 pm 28.35 The rest of the afternoon till midnight is 16.11. Holidays and weekends are 11.66
Winter rates 5 pm to 8 pm 13.38 weekdays and the rest of the time the rate is 9.69
In essence half the year when production is down you get 9.69 because there is almost no production from 5 to 8 pm in winter.
Peak time was moved from 4 - 7 to 5 - 8 PM which really cut into summer peak rate production and all but eliminating winter peak rate production.
My array peak rate production would be decreased by about 50% if I was on the new rates. The rate was also decreased from 37.04 to 28.35cent. 14.81 and 8.53 are the other rates in the old summer rate table. 8.53 is from 9 pm to 9 am. The only real production at 8.53 is on weekends and holidays.
It seems to me they really do not want any more solar. It was hard enough to justify with the older rate structure.
I had a feeling that late afternoon production would be an advantage and installed my ground mount at 215 degrees. I am still under the old time of use rate 4 to 7 pm but I do not know how much longer I can keep it.
California is actual exporting solar energy at times. Rumor has it that they are paying AZ. to take it.
The spot market for day-ahead energy is usually in the 1.6 cent area. It hardly ever gets to 3. Why would a utility want to pay me 37.04 if they did not have to?
Note: I still have not figured out how to start a thread.
Comment
-
It's amazing to me that you can be a consumer, rack up a very minor monthly power bill, and suffer no consequences and no extra fees but if you paid good money for a system that eases your tier pain, somehow the logic passes that you are not paying your fair share.
So logical eh!Comment
-
Mod Note: Amen
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'.
Mod Note: Not quite a personal attack, yet.Last edited by inetdog; 08-30-2019, 02:06 AM.Comment
-
It's amazing to me that you can be a consumer, rack up a very minor monthly power bill, and suffer no consequences and no extra fees but if you paid good money for a system that eases your tier pain, somehow the logic passes that you are not paying your fair share. So logical eh!
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
Comment
-
I already receive $5 per month to let them turn off my EV charger when the grid is stressed. I could pre cool my home in summer or charge my car/heat my warm water with the right signals since all those devices are already connected to the Internet. I don't know how many ratepayers are in a position to do that. The cynic in me speculates that many may not care.
9 kW solar, 42kWh LFP storage. EV owner since 2012Comment
-
I always thought a flat fee of some sort, pretty much regardless of use up to some reasonable demand rate to cover availability and sys. maint. for all users in similar circumstances, and a per kWh charge for the actual cost of the power alone would be one more fair way to charge folks. If SDG & E pulls off the $40/mo. basic charge, that might be a step in that direction. I'd just be skeptical of the true cost and markup of any power the POCO buys from its sources in any such scheme.Comment
-
I always thought a flat fee of some sort, pretty much regardless of use up to some reasonable demand rate to cover availability and sys. maint. for all users in similar circumstances, and a per kWh charge for the actual cost of the power alone would be one more fair way to charge folks. If SDG & E pulls off the $40/mo. basic charge, that might be a step in that direction. I'd just be skeptical of the true cost and markup of any power the POCO buys from its sources in any such scheme.
Comment
-
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.Comment
-
If you have two identical home owners with PV but one self-consumes 90% of their production because they have storage, charge their EV mostly from solar and take care to not import energy in the evenings when the grid is stresses and the other home owner with no storage and they import 10kW in the evenings when they get home turning on the AC, charging their car and making dinner. What sense does it make for them both to pay the same $40 fee?OutBack FP1 w/ CS6P-250P http://bit.ly/1Sg5VNHComment
-
If you have two identical home owners with PV but one self-consumes 90% of their production because they have storage, charge their EV mostly from solar and take care to not import energy in the evenings when the grid is stresses and the other home owner with no storage and they import 10kW in the evenings when they get home turning on the AC, charging their car and making dinner. What sense does it make for them both to pay the same $40 fee?
If I had no PV and no storage, and if I couldn't change the $40 charge, I'd consider ($40/($ rate/kWh)) as a monthly alottment of electricity to spend as my needs/wants dictate. I'd then determine ways, between lifestyle, conservation and alternate energy methods - and probably in that loose order - that gave me the least long term life cycle cost/kWh consistent with my needs, budget and lifestyle.
If I had PV and storage, I'd chalk the $40 up to the idea that there are no guarantees in life and it's not a fair world. Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you. I'd then look at ways to use the PV and storage so as to get the best ROI for those investments in light of new conditions that are perhaps less favorable to using PV and storage. As an astute user, I'd have probably at least thought about what might happen to rates and tariffs that might lead to less favorable outcomes by taking that path before I invested in the PV and storage. While fortune does indeed favor the bold, it also often slaughters the uninformed and impulsively foolish.Comment
-
If you have two identical home owners with PV but one self-consumes 90% of their production because they have storage, charge their EV mostly from solar and take care to not import energy in the evenings when the grid is stresses and the other home owner with no storage and they import 10kW in the evenings when they get home turning on the AC, charging their car and making dinner. What sense does it make for them both to pay the same $40 fee?
their property. That makes no sense, the point of net metering is to generate and use
energy at differet times, while avoiding the inefficiencies and costs of storage. And
only those on the night shift can charge EVs direct from solar.
Better to compare the different plans for net metering. In my case I am helping level
the load by running the air conditioners on my street. I take it back when there is no
such load. They pay me nothing, and any annual surplus KWH (usually are some)
they get to keep for free. Bruce Roe
Comment
Comment