Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Seeking Help from PG&E Customers to Understand True-Up

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Seeking Help from PG&E Customers to Understand True-Up

    If you've been a California PG&E solar customer through at least one true-up, and specifically if you had a net credit going into the true-up. I'm hoping you might share your true-up bill's calculations with me.

    I'm trying to verify what my current provider, Marin Clean Energy told me about what would happen if I switch back to PG&E.

    They said that PG&E keeps track separately of accumulated generation and transmission cost or credit going into true-up. Specifically, if you had a credit in one and a balance owing in the other, the credit would not be applied to the balance owing. But I called PG&E and they said the credit would be applied.

    Tariffs and true-up calculations are tricky, and the only way I can be sure how this works is to look at some bills.

    Any help would be most appreciated.

  • #2
    I am interesting in following that up too as I will be in the same situation.

    Assuming EVA time of use agreement:
    For production, my understanding of the MCE NEM (https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/solar-customers/ ) is that if you sent more than you used they will issue a credit for the generation true up at a a price that is twice what PG&E normally does (Wholesale price like 0.03 to 0.04, still much lower than resale price).
    https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pd...m_79-1151A.pdf

    What I am not 100% sure is if there is a true up on the distribution side with PG&E, and if so what kind.
    On the distribution side, are they using the kWh you sent to offset the distribution cost of the one you used, is it one for one or based on the Peak/part peak, off peak rate?

    Comment


    • #3
      Rereading the MCE agreement, I think I am getting confused again.

      It looks like there is a $ balance calculated monthly and a kWh balanced calculated annually both separate from each other.

      On one side it seems it computes a $ credit on a monthly basis which is based on retail TOU rates (not kWh surplus or deficit). It just computes the COST (not kWh) difference between what you sent and what you bought.
      Whether you used more or less kWh than you sent does not matter, what matters is if the cost of the kWh you used is higher or lower than the cost of the kWh you sent. This mean you could have a $ credit even if you used more kWh than you sent (if you send during peak price and use during off peak for example), and you could have a $ debit even if you sent more kWh than you use (if You sent during off peak, and used during peak for example).

      Then it looks like regardless of that monthly calculated $ credit / debit, they do a kWh true up once a year based on kWh. If you sent more kWh than you used they also pay you a small $/kWh for them.

      Am I understanding that right, are these two separate credit system?

      What is unclear at true up, is what happens to the accumulated debit / credit COST dollars that were computed monthly.
      If you are running a deficit, do you pay it then, and if you are running a credit, do they pay it to you then?


      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by toolworker View Post
        If you've been a California PG&E solar customer through at least one true-up, and specifically if you had a net credit going into the true-up. I'm hoping you might share your true-up bill's calculations with me.

        I'm trying to verify what my current provider, Marin Clean Energy told me about what would happen if I switch back to PG&E.

        They said that PG&E keeps track separately of accumulated generation and transmission cost or credit going into true-up. Specifically, if you had a credit in one and a balance owing in the other, the credit would not be applied to the balance owing. But I called PG&E and they said the credit would be applied.

        Tariffs and true-up calculations are tricky, and the only way I can be sure how this works is to look at some bills.

        Any help would be most appreciated.
        I am with PG&E and have Sonoma Clean Power which is similar to MCE. I just got a $280 dividend from SCP which covered all my fixed charges and my NBCs. i don't expect to get that next year because SCP is reducing their payback rate. I had a credit with PG&E going into my true up and it evaporated. I think MCE and SCP use the same company to answer inquiries and I would trust what they tell me about how the billing works than I would trust PG&E. I have gone to SCP board meetings which are a 15 minute drive from my home. I have found staff to be quite approachable. I would be happy to share my bills, but not on a public forum. I am sure we can figure something out. No PMs here but I use the same handle on several other forums such as teslamotorsclub.com, There are a number of good threads there about various PG&E rates and Community Choice Aggregators like SCP and MCE. No one I have seen has gone back to just PG&E because of all the benefits of a CCA.
        Last edited by Ampster; 05-25-2020, 08:37 PM.
        9 kW solar, 42kWh LFP storage. EV owner since 2012

        Comment


        • #5
          I did respond but it was flagged because I posted a link the the Tesla Motors Club forum. Hang in there my post will probably show up sometime, In the mean time you can find me at that forum with the same handle and send me a PM and I can share my true up bill offline.
          9 kW solar, 42kWh LFP storage. EV owner since 2012

          Comment


          • #6
            @Ampster, can you at least confirm or correct my assumptions about the principle I describe above?
            Thanks

            Comment


            • #7
              I hope I can get some help with my specific question, which is whether PG&E combines generation and distribution when calculating what may be owed at true-up. Information from CCA customers won't help, only from people who use PG&E for both generation and distribution.

              But since people have raised the issue, I'll try to clarify the impact on true-up bills of Marin Clean Energy's changes effective this month. This will apply to any other net metering (NEM) customers in PG&E's area whose CCAs make the same move.

              In the NEM beginning, 14 or 15 years ago, there was PG&E. When we drew energy from the grid, they charged us in pennies per kWh. When we put energy back into the grid, they credited us in pennies per kWh. At the annual true-up, if we owed them money, we paid it. If they owed us money, they kept it. Not fair!

              Then in 2009 came AB 920, requiring the utility to pay customers for excess generation at true-up. So did this solve the fairness problem? Not hardly - it just made it look fair.

              The two catches: (1) "Excess generation" is defined not in pennies but in kWh. Generally, we put more peak-period kWh into the grid and take out more off-peak kWh. Then usually at true-up we have a credit measured in pennies. But because of time-of-use rates, we almost certainly built our credit while generating fewer - but higher-priced - kWh than we used. So the magic of AB 920 has turned our dollars and cents credit into zero excess generation. So PG&E keeps the credit and still pays us nothing.

              This makes catch #2 almost irrelevant, but if someone has such an oversized system that they have excess generation even measured in kWh, they only get paid at the tiny wholesale rate.

              Around the same time came Community Choice Aggregators, starting with Marin Clean Energy (MCE) in 2008. These local agencies sell power (generation) and have historically been solar-friendly. PG&E still does distribution and bills for it. Both agencies appear on your PG&E bill but each keeps a separate running total. PG&E still does an annual true-up.

              (I won't go into everything PG&E did and tried to do to undercut CCA's, but despite that, CCA's have been successful in supporting solar and creating more local renewable generation. It helps that they don't have to go through the utility-friendly California Public Utilities Commission.)

              As an MCE customer, MCE kept a running total of my generation, always measured in pennies. If I had a deficit, I paid them on true-up. More commonly, I had a credit, which I could let accumulate or ask them to send me a check. In my and a lot of other cases, MCE's payments more or less offset what we had to pay PG&E for distribution. So the CCAs were better for solar customers than PG&E.

              But that was then. Starting this month, MCE has gone to the dark side and adopted PG&E's method. They claim other CCAs are doing the same thing, and some probably soon will.

              Now MCE does what PG&E used to do. At the end of 12 months, they do a true-up. If we owe them for generation, measured in pennies, we pay them. If we have a credit for generation, measured in pennies, they keep it. Of course if we have excess generation, measured in kWh, they pay us - and oh, boy - at twice PG&E's wholesale rate. Big whoop - we'll never have excess generation, and even if we did, they'd pay about 6 cents per kWh.

              What I'm trying to figure out is, if I went back to PG&E, would any generation credit be combined with a distribution deficit at true-up? Or would generation and distribution be calculated independently, as it will if I stay with MCE? So that's the question I hope to answer by looking at true-up bills of PG&E-only, non-CCA customers.

              Originally posted by Ampster View Post
              I think MCE and SCP use the same company to answer inquiries and I would trust what they tell me about how the billing works than I would trust PG&E.
              I have been watching MCE since its creation and generally agree. However, I read the MCE staff report that was the basis for the MCE Technical Committee approving this change, and it minimized the negative impact to an extent I thought was misleading. I've discussed this specific question with MCE staff and PG&E agents, but tariffs and billing are quite complex and the only evidence I'll believe is to look at actual true-up computations. That's why I posted here.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by scrambler View Post
                @Ampster, can you at least confirm or correct my assumptions about the principle I describe above?
                Thanks
                Yes, I am working on it. Your second post helped me understand your question better.
                9 kW solar, 42kWh LFP storage. EV owner since 2012

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by scrambler View Post
                  Rereading the MCE agreement, I think I am getting confused again.

                  It looks like there is a $ balance calculated monthly and a kWh balanced calculated annually both separate from each other.

                  On one side it seems it computes a $ credit on a monthly basis which is based on retail TOU rates (not kWh surplus or deficit). It just computes the COST (not kWh) difference between what you sent and what you bought.
                  Whether you used more or less kWh than you sent does not matter, what matters is if the cost of the kWh you used is higher or lower than the cost of the kWh you sent. This mean you could have a $ credit even if you used more kWh than you sent (if you send during peak price and use during off peak for example), and you could have a $ debit even if you sent more kWh than you use (if You sent during off peak, and used during peak for example).

                  Then it looks like regardless of that monthly calculated $ credit / debit, they do a kWh true up once a year based on kWh. If you sent more kWh than you used they also pay you a small $/kWh for them.

                  Am I understanding that right, are these two separate credit system?

                  What is unclear at true up, is what happens to the accumulated debit / credit COST dollars that were computed monthly.
                  If you are running a deficit, do you pay it then, and if you are running a credit, do they pay it to you then?
                  It is confusing, and you understand it perfectly.

                  They do a true-up once a year.

                  If you have a dollars deficit at true-up, you pay it to them.

                  If you have a dollars credit at true-up, they wipe it out.

                  And yes, if you have a kWh surplus, they pay you, but this is unlikely and if it happens the price per kWh is small.

                  This is true for "they" PG&E for distribution, and "they" MCE for generation, each calculated separately.

                  It was always true for PG&E, as I explained at length above, but is only true of MCE starting this month. They used to be more solar-friendly.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The bottom line is with PGE if you have excess production at True Up you will be paid at the bundled wholesale rate for the excess kWhs that you produced
                    With MCE selected as your provider if you have excess production then your kWhs will be credited at the distribution wholesale rate for excess and and at twice the generation wholesale rate for excess. The sum of those wholesale rates has to be greater than the bundled wholesale rate that PGE gives you. So you are still better off than if you went back to PGE. If that credit amount for the MCE portion is less than $50 then it gets rolled over.

                    My SCP credit did not reflect that because last year my dividend was calculated on the retail rate. Now SCP has changed that to be the same as MCE.

                    The last few paragraphs of the prior posts is confusing because it is not clear to whom the pronoun they refers to.
                    9 kW solar, 42kWh LFP storage. EV owner since 2012

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well that is a bummer, I had calculated that by using the battery, I would be generating a small credit on the accumulated Monthly cost balance that would end up covering PG&E fixed charge.
                      I guess that wont be the case.

                      I also though I had read somewhere that when you sign a NEM agreement it cant be changed for 20 years, I guess I must have read that wrong as it seems people here have seen terms being changed on them ...

                      So now we have nothing to offset the fixed PG&E cost except the kWh balance at the end of year, in My case I sized the system to be about 10% oversized to account for future degradation, so that probably wont be generating enough to cover PG&E fixed cost.

                      @ampster, can you tell us what is the fixed PG&E cost for the year?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by scrambler View Post
                        ........

                        I also though I had read somewhere that when you sign a NEM agreement it cant be changed for 20 years, I guess I must have read that wrong as it seems people here have seen terms being changed on them ...
                        You didn't read that wrong, you didn't read the fine print that says NEM is a concept that won't change. They reserved the right to change the rates and the time periods for those rates. If you are on NEM 1.0 you still have a reasonably good deal. I still have two systems on NEM 1.0. I installed a third system and it is NEM 2.0 in PG&E and it has Non Bypassable Charges that were not in the NEM 1.0 concept.
                        So now we have nothing to offset the fixed PG&E cost except the kWh balance at the end of year, in My case I sized the system to be about 10% oversized to account for future degradation, so that probably wont be generating enough to cover PG&E fixed cost.

                        @ampster, can you tell us what is the fixed PG&E cost for the year?
                        On my bill it is based on a daily rate of $0.32854 per day or $120 per year. YMMV
                        Last edited by Ampster; 05-26-2020, 02:40 PM.
                        9 kW solar, 42kWh LFP storage. EV owner since 2012

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thanks!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ampster View Post
                            The bottom line is with PGE if you have excess production at True Up you will be paid at the bundled wholesale rate for the excess kWhs that you produced
                            With MCE selected as your provider if you have excess production then your kWhs will be credited at the distribution wholesale rate for excess and and at twice the generation wholesale rate for excess. The sum of those wholesale rates has to be greater than the bundled wholesale rate that PGE gives you. So you are still better off than if you went back to PGE.
                            But being paid for excess kWh production is a mirage.

                            Most people size their system based on the dollar amount of their usage, usually to bring that near zero. A system would have to be way oversized to bring their kWh usage to zero or negative. Even if they did, there would be a "dead zone" where they would be generating a bunch of unpaid kWh to get from zero dollars to zero kWh.

                            The only realistic way there's a benefit is if, measured in dollars, there's a generation credit that could be applied against a distribution deficit, or vice versa. If different entities are billing for generation and for distribution, that can't happen.

                            The point of my original post is to find out if it does with PG&E supplying both generation and distribution. Still trying.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by toolworker View Post
                              But being paid for excess kWh production is a mirage.
                              Yes that was the concession that the CPUC made to the IOUs when they forced NEM on them. That is why year end True up compensation has been paid at wholesale. The CCAs came along and they are not regulated as far as rates and they wanted to encourage solar so they began to pay diviends based on retail for the first few years. They are still paying double what the IOUs pay because they want to show their customers a benefit but they are putting that money into other incentive programs like DERs, EVSEs and in a few cases subsidies on purchase of an EV.

                              Most people size their system based on the dollar amount of their usage, usually to bring that near zero. A system would have to be way oversized to bring their kWh usage to zero or negative. Even if they did, there would be a "dead zone" where they would be generating a bunch of unpaid kWh to get from zero dollars to zero kWh.
                              Yes I am not like most people I guess. I oversize my systems and charge my EVs at night and I have ended up with megaWatts of net usage and dollar credits as you saw on my True Up bill.

                              The only realistic way there's a benefit is if, measured in dollars, there's a generation credit that could be applied against a distribution deficit, or vice versa. If different entities are billing for generation and for distribution, that can't happen.

                              The point of my original post is to find out if it does with PG&E supplying both generation and distribution. Still trying.
                              I think the confusion may be with the term generation. For the purposes of this discussion when I say generation rate I mean the unbundled rate for generation that was applied to the kWhs sent by the utility to you. When deregulation came along and the IOUs had to sell off their generation capacity, they were only allowed to add overhead to the generation that they purchased and sold to the consumer. At the same time there was a precursor to CCAs where some people who opted into the program could purchase generation in the open market so the tarriffs had to be broken down into a generation component and a distribution component. That is when the concept of unbundled rates came about. For those customers who purchased power from third parties they had a bill with two sections, one for the generation rate times their kWh usage and the other for the distribution rate times the same kWhs usage. Generally that was less expensive than the bundled rate from the IOU. There was no net metering then.


                              So, I hope with this long winded post you and others see that the concept of net metering is that the common denominator is the net kWhs. That does not change whether you are in a CCA with unbundled rates or all in with PGE with bundled rates. There is no way that there could be generation credit and a distribution deficit because the common element is the net kWhs that the meter recorded and which shows on your bill.

                              Did that make it more clear or clear up some faulty assumptions about there being a separate rate for your production.
                              Last edited by Ampster; 05-26-2020, 06:22 PM.
                              9 kW solar, 42kWh LFP storage. EV owner since 2012

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X