SRP (Arizona POCO) hits solar customers with $50/month fee. APS next?

[DanKegel]

Yup, one of these days, all those appliances will essentially have
load controllers built in. It's going to be like Frankenstein's monster
at first, involving internet connections to faraway lands. Such is progress.

FWIW, my favorite LEDs these days are Sylvania / Osram's. They buzz a
little less than Cree's, and the light's great.

[Ian S]

It'll be interesting to see what happens as demand charges are
instituted, and something (e.g. the inverter, or a smart meter, or the utility's cloud, or some combination)
starts tweaking appliance set points to reduce demand when
power is scarce or expensive. That might increase how much solar
can help without requiring storage... and could make a little bit of
storage more effective.

Just gotta wait for demand charges to arrive, and for Adam Smith's invisible hand to start moving in response.

Here in Arizona, we've had demand rates since the early 90's if not before. But they've been an option not mandatory. Prior to installing solar, I'd been on a combination of TOU and demand as that saved me a little over the other rates available. It does require some appliance juggling and many opt to install a load controller to make it easier. God help you if you screw up and have a bunch of major appliances on at the same peak time! I got so sick and tired of having to deal with scheduling the electric dryer that I replaced it with a gas one. I already had a gas water heater. I still have an electric stove so when that dies I'll see about getting a gas one. No swimming pool so no pump to consider. In the process of replacing all incandescent lighting with LED. Still have some old fashioned fluorescent fixtures and wondering if it makes sense to switch them too.

[DanKegel]

It'll be interesting to see what happens as demand charges are
instituted, and something (e.g. the inverter, or a smart meter, or the utility's cloud, or some combination)
starts tweaking appliance set points to reduce demand when
power is scarce or expensive. That might increase how much solar
can help without requiring storage... and could make a little bit of
storage more effective.

Just gotta wait for demand charges to arrive, and for Adam Smith's invisible hand to start moving in response.

[J.P.M.]

What you are misinterpreting is that people installing solar WILL NOT reduce the need of power plants and will not save Utilities $$. The entire concept is false and misleading.

Sure solar (which I fully support) needs to be added to the portfolio of power generation. But RE can't provide our needs 24/7.

Until a low cost "energy storage" system is found and deployed we will always need fossil fuel or nuclear power generation plants because they can run 24/7.

+1. Reality bites huh ?

[SunEagle]

Sunking: Care to elaborate here? Maybe I am mistaken, but tell the neighbors to buy solar rather lease that BMW. Solar customers save utilities $$ by not having to build bigger power plants, that is huge and often overlooked. Maybe I am misinterpreting your post?

-KC

What you are misinterpreting is that people installing solar WILL NOT reduce the need of power plants and will not save Utilities $$. The entire concept is false and misleading.

Sure solar (which I fully support) needs to be added to the portfolio of power generation. But RE can't provide our needs 24/7.

Until a low cost "energy storage" system is found and deployed we will always need fossil fuel or nuclear power generation plants because they can run 24/7.

[AZHIGH]

The only people getting screwed are your neighbors paying artificially higher electric rates to pay for your luxury and comfort. Time for you to start paying up and carry your own weight. You can afford to pay your own way without your neighbors help.

Sunking: Care to elaborate here? Maybe I am mistaken, but tell the neighbors to buy solar rather lease that BMW. Solar customers save utilities $$ by not having to build bigger power plants, that is huge and often overlooked. Maybe I am misinterpreting your post?

-KC

[HX_Guy]

Went out and took a look at both my APS meters, kind of interesting...

The solar meter shows a total of 467kWh produced with a demand total of 10.544kW (I assume this was the max it recorded in a 1 hour period?).

The service panel meter shows 156kWh delivered by APS, 10 of it being on-peak and a Demand of 2.91kW. Also shows a total of 337kWh received by APS with 140kWh of those being on-peak, with a received Demand of 8.63kW.

So if I'm understanding this right, I should have a credit of 181kWh at this point (337 produced, 156 used)? Total produced was 467kWh this month so far, so the "missing" 130kWh were used by the house and never made it to APS's grid?

Also a couple strange things...why is it showing me on-peak figures if I'm on the standard plan? Or maybe it keeps track regardless of plan?
And then why don't the Demand numbers (produced vs received) match up?

[Ian S]

I opted to be on the demand plan before solar because I had looked at the alternatives and as long as I was careful, it saved me money - maybe $100 a year. It also prodded me to ditch the electric dryer for a gas one and I'd heartily recommend that to anyone who can. But during those peak hours, my only major unavoidable source of consumption was the AC. Although, with SRP's plan extending to 8 PM, it would be a bit tricky avoiding using the oven: maybe lots of takeout, microwave and BBQ in the summer?!!

[HX_Guy]

Haha great point Ian.

Funny thing, I used to be on a Demand plan with APS at our old house and it happens I actually have a spreadsheet of all my APS bills going back to June 2011. It's a little hard to compare because we're now in a different house and it's years apart but our bills were actually better on the Demand plan??

For example, October 2012 at the old house, we used a total of 1,945kWh (497 on peak, 1,448 off peak) with a Demand of 7.3kWH and our total bill was $239.43. This past October, in the new house, we used 1,995kWh (405 on peak, 1,590 off peak) and our bill was $270.48! And that was with quite a bit less on-peak usage. Interesting.

Another example, Nov 2012 old house, used 1,478kWH, 5.2kWH Demand bill as $156.43. Nov 2014 new house, used 1,338kWH (140kWh less) and bill was $173.78.

I do know that we were conscious of the fact that we were on the Demand plan and watched as best we could that we didn't use high usage appliances at the same time during on-peak hours, many people may not be that conscious about it and it could cost them.

If APS changes to the same model, we're going to have to watch our usage again. Looking back at the spreadsheet, I had Demand as high as 11.3kWh in Sept 2011! If APS adopted the same rates at SPR, that would equal $149 in just the Demand charge of the bill! Though that 11.3kWh could have happened during the day when the solar would offset a lot of that demand.

I just hope APS doesn't change the TOU times at least, if they keep it till 7pm it could be pretty manageable. I assume in the summer the solar will still be producing pretty decent even at 5pm, so it'll just be a 2 hour window between 5-7 that we need to be careful with our use.

[Ian S]

Excess generation used to be credited to the account to be used at a later time. But I do see they are giving retail prices, not wholesale, so it may not be so bad.

Yeah but those retail prices are only 4-5 cents a kWh because of the demand rate structure! The demand number is where they screw you. As I've said before, I've been on a demand plan in the past and this is exactly how they work: they have low per kWh rates but that is made up for by the demand charge.

SRP has been making a big production of how this demand plan is so fair. Well, if that's truly the case, all of their customers should be on it. So why aren't they?

[HX_Guy]

Leaning more about this new SPR rate plan...interesting that they've drastically slashed the prices of power you use from the grid compared to people who don't have solar. Summer on-peak is 4.86¢/kWh, off-peak is 3.71¢...winter is 4.3¢ on peak and 3.9¢ off peak. People without solar are paying summer on-peak 19.57¢/kWh, off-peak is 7.8¢...winter is 10.2¢ on peak and 7.11¢ off peak.

Also, I just now learned by reading up on the rates again is that apparently they are taking away net metering? That's some BS!
According to Part G of the document...

G. The kWh delivered to SRP shall be subtracted from the kWh delivered from SRP for each billing cycle. If the kWh calculation is net positive for the billing cycle, SRP will bill the net kWh to the customer under this price plan. If the kWh calculation is net negative for the billing cycle, SRP will credit customer for the net kWh at the retail per-kWh price under this price plan. For the purposes of this calculation, excess generation will be tracked by time-of-use period.

Excess generation used to be credited to the account to be used at a later time. But I do see they are giving retail prices, not wholesale, so it may not be so bad.

[HX_Guy]

That's pretty crazy. Here, even if your solar covers 100% of your use, you're still going to pay at least $15 - $20 per month for misc items...and now with some of these new fees they are putting in, it'll be more like $65 - $70 per month even if your solar covers all your usage.

[silversaver]

CA is true net metering. You pay your final bill at tureup once per year. Unless your solar were small and you choose monthly offset (which is a NO NO) My bill were $128.60, but I only need to pay the base fee of $1.17

[Ian S]

This is an APS bill for last April (with solar) showing negative net usage i.e. banked energy for both on and off peak:

ScreenHunter_01 Mar. 03 18.57.jpg

[HX_Guy]

Is the bill in California different than this?

Like I mentioned earlier, the make it as if the generation portion is actually separate with their own line items, but the prices just seem a bit to cheap leading me to believe that all the other line items are inflated and "subsidizing" the true cost of the generation.

Her is a spreadsheet of my February bill...