Future of TOU plans for CA IOU's

[J.P.M.]

Do these TOU plans (SDGE specifically) have any impact on which azimuth folks are putting panels on? I have both south and west options on my house. If the afternoon and early evening sun is crediting me at double the rate that I'm getting out of the morning sun, that would seem to argue for a western orientation.

In my particular case, I don't have an EV yet, but was thinking of getting one next year. I'm not incorporating it into my system sizing because I'm not married to it yet. Since it isn't incorporated into the system sizing, I am starting to think about how the energy for it will be generated and at what rate, which led me to the TOU discussion, and then back to my panel orientation . . . Thanks.

On tiered rates, the optimum azimuth is the one that maximizes production. On T.O.U, the optimum azimuth is the one that maximizes revenue. The two orientations are probably not the same. In/around San Diego, the op. if on tiered rates is about 30 deg. tilt and 5-10 deg. west of south or so. On T.O.U. it's a bit more complicated.

For T.O.U., west facing is probably better than east facing, but true south is probably still better than either of those extremes. The optimum is probably at a tilt slightly less than latitude, and an azimuth of about 20-30 deg. west of south.

As a practical matter, one possible compromise for fixed roofs not set/designed with solar orientation in mind is to have some (most ?) panels face south and the remainder west (2/3 -1/3 ?). PVWatts can be a big help. Run both orientations and vary the South/west # mix. That however will take some knowledge of the T.O.U. payment schedule to optimize revenue and a spreadsheet.

[mungosocal]

Do these TOU plans (SDGE specifically) have any impact on which azimuth folks are putting panels on? I have both south and west options on my house. If the afternoon and early evening sun is crediting me at double the rate that I'm getting out of the morning sun, that would seem to argue for a western orientation.

In my particular case, I don't have an EV yet, but was thinking of getting one next year. I'm not incorporating it into my system sizing because I'm not married to it yet. Since it isn't incorporated into the system sizing, I am starting to think about how the energy for it will be generated and at what rate, which led me to the TOU discussion, and then back to my panel orientation . . . Thanks.

[rafbo]

Software to compare plans.

+1 on the difficulty to compare plans.

There is free software that could help - it helped me. You can download the latest version that has the new SCE TOU-D-B vs. Schedule-D. It uses your hourly usage data file (.csv) from SCE. Instructions on the website (link).

---Mod Note: No endorsement by any member or the Forum itself is implied, and the link is approved because it is free software.

[insaneoctane]

...
Perhaps a couple of takeaways:

Get/stay informed about T.O.U., what it means and what the options/restrictions/opportunities are or might be, both now and for the future.

Best to understand your consumption & generation estimates, by the hour, so we can continue to model/analyze the new/latest offerings from our POCU and stay on the one that works best for you.
I recently switched to SCE TOU-D-A and it's working very well for me...if new offerings show up, or they change my plan, the best I can do is analyze and move to the least of the evils

[J.P.M.]

C'mon guys, nothing in my post said a particular course of action is or is not cost effective at this time. I'm just pointing out that market forces are pushing pricing towards TOU with demand and volumetric components, and this direction is consistent with what *could* justify investment in alternate source of energy. It seems like... i don't know, maybe 10-20 years from now?... energy storage will be a real thing, and whether it is occurring upstream at the utility scale or in a more distributed arrangement, starting to build awareness and education now will help people make more informed decisions when the time comes that there are reasonable choices to be made.

And I don't see what's being written here as challenging that.

Back at post # 5 we sort of got off what started as a post about T.O.U. developments and on to what the future holds in the way of cost effective options relating mostly to storage.

In the opinion of some, T.O.U. along with energy storage at all levels is going to happen. And probably lots more we are clueless about at this time.

Perhaps a couple of takeaways:

Get/stay informed about T.O.U., what it means and what the options/restrictions/opportunities are or might be, both now and for the future.

And, the same with energy storage developments - An idea that looks to be maybe the wave of the future but not quite ready for cost effective or practical implementation and application for a few years.

[DanKegel]

C'mon guys, nothing in my post said a particular course of action is or is not cost effective at this time. I'm just pointing out that market forces are pushing pricing towards TOU with demand and volumetric components,

For the time being and until storage methods become mainstream, load shifting and conservation may be more cost effective as a temp. expedient.

+1

The trend also seems to be towards "smart" meters. A utility that has converted all its residential customers to smart meters has no technical reason not to impose demand charges and TOU pricing.

It occurs to me that in areas open to competition, like zipcode 77024 in Texas (see http://www.powertochoose.org/ ), scrappy little providers might be able to jump in and experiment with different pricing models much more quickly than big utilities (e.g. really low rates for people whose houses have really good demand mangement). I wonder if that's happening.

[SunEagle]

C'mon guys, nothing in my post said a particular course of action is or is not cost effective at this time. I'm just pointing out that market forces are pushing pricing towards TOU with demand and volumetric components, and this direction is consistent with what *could* justify investment in alternate source of energy. It seems like... i don't know, maybe 10-20 years from now?... energy storage will be a real thing, and whether it is occurring upstream at the utility scale or in a more distributed arrangement, starting to build awareness and education now will help people make more informed decisions when the time comes that there are reasonable choices to be made.

I agree with you. Getting a better understanding of how electric costs can change and affect you is the right step to make.

[sensij]

C'mon guys, nothing in my post said a particular course of action is or is not cost effective at this time. I'm just pointing out that market forces are pushing pricing towards TOU with demand and volumetric components, and this direction is consistent with what *could* justify investment in alternate source of energy. It seems like... i don't know, maybe 10-20 years from now?... energy storage will be a real thing, and whether it is occurring upstream at the utility scale or in a more distributed arrangement, starting to build awareness and education now will help people make more informed decisions when the time comes that there are reasonable choices to be made.

[SunEagle]

Further complicating it, many commercial plans include a demand based component, so costs are not just based on volume, but also peak consumption. If alternate power can help shave that peak demand, the financial justification for it is strengthened.

I agree "peak demand penalties" can cost a company a lot more then just running at a higher Tier rate and should be the first target in reducing costs.

From my past experience turning off a "non essential" load for 15 minutes to clip the peak demand is very easy to do and very low cost.

Switching to a different power source may not the best way to reduce demand penalties because of the initial equipment cost for that alternate power source and the required maintenance to keep it in working order.

[J.P.M.]

For SDG & E at least, the plan seems to be to make T.O.U. pricing mandatory at some future point for commercial customers, and opt out required but possible for residential cust.

Demand charges for comm./industrial has been around for a long time. It's now probably going to apply to more users.

For the time being and until storage methods become mainstream, load shifting and conservation may be more cost effective as a temp. expedient.

[sensij]

Further complicating it, many commercial plans include a demand based component, so costs are not just based on volume, but also peak consumption. If alternate power can help shave that peak demand, the financial justification for it is strengthened.

[SunEagle]

I would agree that using an alternate power source to reduce using the POCO during Peak times might make sense if those Peak rates are higher than what the alternate power source can generate.

Most batteries systems generate power > $0.50/kWh which is much more then the highest Tier that most POCO's charge.

Usually a less costly way to save during Peak times is to find a way to reduce your load or shift it to a lower Tier rate.

[Cosmacelf]

It isn't only residential the utilities are targeting. My business just got a letter warning us that TOU pricing is coming to commercial accounts.

With these proposed new TOU times:

Summer on-peak: 2 p.m. – 9 p.m. non-holiday weekdays
Winter on-peak: 5 p.m. - 9 p.m. non-holiday weekdays
Super off-peak:12 a.m. – 6 a.m. daily
Semi-peak:All other times

This pretty much makes battery systems cost effective. Depends on the pricing, of course, but I suspect the difference between peak and semi peak will be more than enough to justify batteries...

[SunEagle]

+1.

As a long(er) range outlook, one of the many things to consider is that while we consumers like predictability in most everything, so does the POCO. Unfortunately for everyone (POCOs included), reality doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately or not, POCOs seem better at long range planning, perhaps leading some less informed consumers to see the game as rigged.

POCO rate policy, in one sense at least, is a road map for them based on prediction.

One thing those of us (who - me ??) who rant and banter about long time frames and cost effectiveness often forget to mention/remember is that long outlooks are usually no more/less likely to happen than something like the probability of the assumptions we use. And, as the well used caveat states, past performance is no guarantee of future results, so the past is of limited help. A future full of chaos or bliss can happen. A future containing some of both may have a higher probability.

I'd bet energy policy on most every level - homeowner, to POCO, to government level will be different in say, 5-10 years in ways unseen today. Probably the best I can do as a user of POCO product is stay informed (example: at this time, I can change POCO rate plans with some restrictions), make plans (take my best shot), keep the plans flexible when the inevitable surprises happen, have situational awareness and expect the unexpected without being so pessimistic that I miss opportunities as they may occur.

Fortune favors the bold and penalizes the foolish.

I agree. Staying informed on what changes are being made or envisioned to your POCO tariffs should help you find the best direction to take. Just complaining about what the POCO is doing it is almost as bad as sticking your head in the sand.

The uninformed will just move and flow like the tide for better or worse.

[J.P.M.]

Sounds pretty complicated for most average consumers (like me) to understand. Makes it hard to decide which plan to go to.

+1.

As a long(er) range outlook, one of the many things to consider is that while we consumers like predictability in most everything, so does the POCO. Unfortunately for everyone (POCOs included), reality doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately or not, POCOs seem better at long range planning, perhaps leading some less informed consumers to see the game as rigged.

POCO rate policy, in one sense at least, is a road map for them based on prediction.

One thing those of us (who - me ??) who rant and banter about long time frames and cost effectiveness often forget to mention/remember is that long outlooks are usually no more/less likely to happen than something like the probability of the assumptions we use. And, as the well used caveat states, past performance is no guarantee of future results, so the past is of limited help. A future full of chaos or bliss can happen. A future containing some of both may have a higher probability.

I'd bet energy policy on most every level - homeowner, to POCO, to government level will be different in say, 5-10 years in ways unseen today. Probably the best I can do as a user of POCO product is stay informed (example: at this time, I can change POCO rate plans with some restrictions), make plans (take my best shot), keep the plans flexible when the inevitable surprises happen, have situational awareness and expect the unexpected without being so pessimistic that I miss opportunities as they may occur.

Fortune favors the bold and penalizes the foolish.