California Public Utilities Commission looking to change rates

[J.P.M.]

Does anyone know if existing solar customers will be "GRAND-FATHERED IN" to their current rate structure? or is the $10.00 a month charge across the board?
Once upon a time I though that I read that we would be grand-fathered in for 20 years. I am with SCE if that matters.

Thanks Erich

Short answer: Everyone gets hit the same way, whatever that is.

The rest: In CA, for the cust. of I.O.U's affected by the recent CPUC ruling and AB 327, net metering is grandfathered for 20 yrs. for the installation, provided it slipped in under the 5% cap. Users and owners of any such system, including original and subsequent owners, will be allowed net metering for the account that system feeds.

However, that's a different matter than tariff structure(s) and billing.

All users, solar or not, are and will continue to be subject to all rates and changes that affect all users. Whether tiered, T.O.U. or other rate tariffs, all customers on any particular tariff in the same location are billed the same way, solar users and non solar users alike.

Net metering and how customers are billed for what they use are two different matters. All customers, solar and non solar are, and will continue to be subject to the same rate tariffs in the same ways. The diff. is that current and future solar array owners (for 20 yrs. from array PTO anyway) will have the current sweetheart net metering to reduce the amount of electricity they are billed for using whatever tariff they're on, either now or in the future.

If that were not the case, solar array owners would not only have a great deal, but their rates would be frozen for 20 years. That would really be a sweetheart deal. I suppose you could say that a 100% offset array accomplishes close to the same thing, but probably in a non cost effective way.

[sensij]

The net metering grandfathering offers two basic protections:

1) Solar customers will have access to the same rate plans as non-solar customers.
2) The credit you receive for exporting energy back to the grid will be equal to the price you would have paid had you bought that energy and consumed it.

It will not protect you against changes in the rate design, and if a $10 minimum bill is incorporated into the tariff you are on, you will have to pay it. There are lobbying groups (CALSEIA, schools, etc) who are pushing for some kind of transition period when TOU plans change, and my loose reading of the CPUC decisions suggests that 5 years may become the typical transition time. SCE's TOU-D-A and TOU-D-B were just launched this year, and should have some time before major changes occur. However, the current TOU plans out there are mostly experimental or pilot in nature, and will probably be replaced by something else as customers become more aware of TOU and utilities learn more about how to price them, and as they comply with the guidelines CPUC has laid out.

[FUN4ME]

Does anyone know if existing solar customers will be "GRAND-FATHERED IN" to their current rate structure? or is the $10.00 a month charge across the board?
Once upon a time I though that I read that we would be grand-fathered in for 20 years. I am with SCE if that matters.

Thanks Erich

[sensij]

Picker's revised proposal passed unanimously. Some discussion in this link.

I see the $10 minimum charge as an incentive to *not* overproduce. If you are going to be paying anyway, you might as well get some energy for it. The minimum bill can not get wiped out by net metering credits... it is a real charge, not a paper charge. I think overproducing at $0.04 / kWh for no reason except to pay the minimums would be an awful financial decision for most. Making it somewhat less painful, the CA Climate credit largely offsets SDG&E's current 0.17 / day charge (~5.00 / mo), although the minimum is likely to go up to $10/mo this year (SDG&E suggests November).

As Friday’s decision states: “At least one opt-in TOU rate should include the default TOU attributes set in this decision: (i) a baseline credit, (ii) no super user electric surcharge, and (iii) a minimum bill rather than a fixed monthly charge. Alternative opt-in TOU rates can be offered with different features (i.e., no baseline credit, added super user electric surcharge, fixed monthly charge).”

Section 11.2.4 of the decision (pages 289-296) is most directly focused on SDG&E. The approved glidepath is as follows:

Glidepath.GIF

Putting that in perspective...

If tier 1 is fixed at $0.18 / kWh

2015 - up to 100% / up to 130% / >130% = $0.18 / $0.203 / $0.392
2016 - up to 130% / >130% = $0.18 / $0.299
2017 - up to 130% / up to 400% / >400% = $0.18 / $0.253
2018 - up to 130% / up to 400% / >400% = $0.18 / $0.243 / $0.342
2019 - up to 130% / up to 400% / >400% = $0.18 / $0.225 / $0.394

Tier 1 will not be held constant at 0.18, of course... it will increase as needed to keep the overall revenue constant as the higher tier price decreases, with up to 5% increase allowed on top of that. I would guess at least $0.24 by 2018, maybe higher. The other piece of bad news is that since tiers 1 and 2 will be combined next year, the baseline allocation will also be reduced by a few percent... so really, the 130% of the new baseline might be more like 120%-125% of today's.

Looking ahead, TOU plan design and rates should be where most of the interesting stuff is happening. By 2019, tiered plans will no longer be the default rate, although at least one will still be available to opt-in. The uncertainly of the TOU design makes projecting the cost effectiveness of a PV installation even more difficult, since the tiered plan may turn out not to be the best choice as new options are introduced.

[J.P.M.]

I'm going to wait a few days until the dust settles before I start pricing revisions to my stuff. I'd rather not do that too many times because those people keep farting around.

[Riverside Solar]

How many months of the year will you

Seems like sizing a system just got a bit more difficult. That $10 minimum charge will eat up a lot of the credits banked during the low usage, high production Spring months. We now have to ask, how many months of the year will you pay the minimum charge even though you don't use any power? Better to pay the minimum charge for a few months rather than year round though. I'm guessing most 80% coverage systems will pay $10 at least three months of the year. Would there ever be a scenario where you over produce on purpose in an attempt to offset the $10? Likely not since the roi on the larger system would probably never happen. But I suppose one never knows when it comes to electric rates.

Did I see 21 cents as the new tier 1 price? Ouch in Riverside we pay about 10 cents for tier one and it expands to about 500 kWhrs in the summer. We do however pay $10 or $20 a month as a fixed charge depending on the main panel size. $10 for 100amp $20 between 100 and 200 amp and more for 400 amp service panels.

[sensij]

Not to be outdone, the alternate decision has also been revised. I've added it to the links above. On a quick skim, it seems to have even fewer changes of substance than the revision to the proposed decision. The differences between the proposed and the alternate are something... for SDG&E in particular, two tiers vs three, baseline reduction vs keeping the baseline allocation alone. Also, I thought I saw the PD allowed tier 1 increases of RaR + 5%, while the alternate only allows +3% for the first two years (and then +5% after that)

[J.P.M.]

Ah, that adds some color to it. I've added a link to the alternate decision in my post above for others who want to follow along, but have trouble navigating CPUC's site.

SDG&E's response to the alternate decision was scathing. In even the PD, which they support, some of the discussion of minimum vs fixed charges is a fun read.

[my paraphrasing]
We think a fixed charge is reasonable, and we'd like to approve it. Heck, we approved it once before, remember? The public wanted to lynch us, and we repealed it. We aren't ready to go there again. When you can convince your customers that a fixed charge is not a bill increase, let's talk... until then, minimum charges are as far as we'll go. Oh, and by the way, it is ok to calculate the minimum as a daily rate, but you can still only apply it on a monthly basis.
[/paraphrase]

If the alternate decision is approved, SDG&E will have some spinning to do to explain the rate reform stuff they've been putting in their bill inserts. Or maybe not... does anyone read that stuff?

About all my crystal ball says @ this time is that things will change. FWIW: I see my best reaction to all this is to simply minimize the impact by keeping my absolute usage - not billing per se, as low as possible. The less I use, the lower the impact. By doing so, in the unrealistic limit of zero usage, rate reform would have no affect on me. A man's reach should exceed his grasp.

Back to my T.O.U. vs. optimum array calcs. for now and a pox on this whole rate reform charade. IMO, it's all B.S. smoke/mirrors to obfuscate the truth and make decision making by users more difficult. Things simply don't need to be this complicated. Business as usual I suppose.

[sensij]

My understanding on this is that it's politics as usual. The CPUC vote is scheduled for 07/03 - tomorrow. Until yesterday, things were such that two proposals would be up for a vote. One by Comm. Pres. Picker, generally supported by the POCOs, and one by Commissioner Florio, generally favored by ratepayer advocates (the other side).

Yesterday, Pres. Picker submitted a revised proposal. The rate payer advocates are claiming dirty politics and dirty deals as they scramble and root around in the revision to understand and ferret out changes, land mines and dog pies in the 372 page document submitted at the 11th hr. I wonder if the rules allow a postponement in the vote.

Pres. Picker's revised proposal does add a super tier at +400% of baseline, maybe as sort of a bone thrown to ratepayer advocates, but there may be other stuff added whose possible effects and impacts may take more than 36 hrs. for due consideration once ferreted out.

Ah, that adds some color to it. I've added a link to the alternate decision in my post above for others who want to follow along, but have trouble navigating CPUC's site.

SDG&E's response to the alternate decision was scathing. In even the PD, which they support, some of the discussion of minimum vs fixed charges is a fun read.

[my paraphrasing]
We think a fixed charge is reasonable, and we'd like to approve it. Heck, we approved it once before, remember? The public wanted to lynch us, and we repealed it. We aren't ready to go there again. When you can convince your customers that a fixed charge is not a bill increase, let's talk... until then, minimum charges are as far as we'll go. Oh, and by the way, it is ok to calculate the minimum as a daily rate, but you can still only apply it on a monthly basis.
[/paraphrase]

If the alternate decision is approved, SDG&E will have some spinning to do to explain the rate reform stuff they've been putting in their bill inserts. Or maybe not... does anyone read that stuff?

[J.P.M.]

80% of residential electricity users will probably never pay a minimum charge. The issue of fairness is difficult.

My latest read through both proposals up for a vote tomorrow leads be to be less sure than you about min. charges. Looks like they will happen in some form, but maybe not right away, and probably not uniform.

On the fairness issue: IMO, utility rates are like life in the sense that both have little if anything to do with fairness.

[donald]

and one by Commissioner Florio, generally favored by ratepayer advocates (the other side).

80% of residential electricity users will probably never pay a minimum charge. The issue of fairness is difficult.

[J.P.M.]

The next iteration of the CPUC proposal has been released. It still looks like minimum bills (not fixed charges) for the next few years, and tier consolidation with baseline allocation reduction is on deck for SDG&E. Lots of good discussion about TOU plans and how they may be changing in the future. The only major new item I see in this revision is a Super-User Electric Surcharge (SUE Surcharge) that will apply to customers whose usage exceed 400% of the baseline allocation. This has already existed in some form for CARE customers, but will now be rolled out for all residential.

To subscribe to updates to these proceedings, go here.

http://delaps1.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCProceedingLookup/

R1206013 - Rate Reform
A1401027 - SDG&E Time of Use Rate Periods

Since the updates may not show up on CPUC's site for another day or two, here are drop box links to a clean copy and a redlined version showing changes from rev 1 to rev 2.

My understanding on this is that it's politics as usual. The CPUC vote is scheduled for 07/03 - tomorrow. Until yesterday, things were such that two proposals would be up for a vote. One by Comm. Pres. Picker, generally supported by the POCOs, and one by Commissioner Florio, generally favored by ratepayer advocates (the other side).

Yesterday, Pres. Picker submitted a revised proposal. The rate payer advocates are claiming dirty politics and dirty deals as they scramble and root around in the revision to understand and ferret out changes, land mines and dog pies in the 372 page document submitted at the 11th hr. I wonder if the rules allow a postponement in the vote.

Pres. Picker's revised proposal does add a super tier at +400% of baseline, maybe as sort of a bone thrown to ratepayer advocates, but there may be other stuff added whose possible effects and impacts may take more than 36 hrs. for due consideration once ferreted out.

[sensij]

The next iteration of the CPUC proposal has been released. It still looks like minimum bills (not fixed charges) for the next few years, and tier consolidation with baseline allocation reduction is on deck for SDG&E. Lots of good discussion about TOU plans and how they may be changing in the future. The only major new item I see in this revision is a Super-User Electric Surcharge (SUE Surcharge) that will apply to customers whose usage exceed 400% of the baseline allocation. This has already existed in some form for CARE customers, but will now be rolled out for all residential.

To subscribe to updates to these proceedings, go here.

http://delaps1.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCProceedingLookup/

R1206013 - Rate Reform
A1401027 - SDG&E Time of Use Rate Periods

Since the updates may not show up on CPUC's site for another day or two, here are drop box links to a clean copy and a redlined version showing changes from rev 1 to rev 2.

Also, here is the alternate decision.
And here is Rev 1 of the alternate decision, also, a redlined copy.

[inetdog]

Ah ok, I tried looking for old threads and didn't see any. But then, I'm not very good at using search.

The built in search in the forum software is next to useless.
A far better method is to use Google search and include site:solarpaneltalk.com as an additional search term.

[silversaver]

Nice. Big news in CPUC fighting off the push for a fixed month charge, and instead keeping it as minimum bill. All you out there who are targeting 100% offset... think about it carefully. If you don't leave yourself at least a $10 bill each month (say, 50 kWh), you are leaving money on the table.

Unless you are super low users. BTW, if your bill is so low every month, than solar aren't doing you any good. Solar actually benefit those use more kWh.

Now, consider you are paying $0.17+ per kWh on low tier and the rate will continue go up. Would it be wise to go little larger and lowing the down the cost at same time?

The method of keep your monthly usage in low tier with smaller system will not work when POCO bring up the price on low tier. For you, it might make sense, but for high users $10 is really nothing comparing to their monthly bill. Why? if your bill is $70 per month, $10 might be a big deal to you. For those paying $200 per month, $10 is really nothing. It will only take 5 to 6 yrs ROI on high users, but it will be like 10+ yrs for low users.