Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SDGE - Time Of Use (TOU) Rates. Good or bad for Net Metering?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by sensij View Post
    Ok, I updated the table above with the DR-SES calculations, providing the breakdown in billed usage between the TOU periods. I just used the current tariff (3/1/17) for all months. This has not been verified against an actual DR-SES bill, but I used the same spreadsheet template that I had used for EV-TOU-2, which I did validate, and just redefined the TOU periods per the DR-SES definition.

    Even setting aside the unusual July, the DR-SES bill would come out well under the minimum bill of ~$120, in agreement with what SDG&E's rate comparison tool shows. I really didn't expect that.... in fact, I had moved them to the DR tariff when we moved out, because with what I guessed their consumption pattern would be with the home daycare, I didn't think the TOU tariff would be good.

    Next update I'll take another look at this, except with the new DR-SES hours, with the peak shifted later.
    So it looks like the DR numbers matched, but the DRSES differed between -62 and 117 because of the tariff differences it was run under, is that right? Did you find any discrepencies yet that would cause you to question the estimated annual costs for the My Pricing Plan (rate comparison) report?
    EDIT: i see you answered my question while i posted. Thanks.

    I believe SDGE can be misleading in their descriptors but if you cant trust their bill estimating tools, IMHO thats indefensible because that system should be fairly accurate programmatically.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by cebury View Post

      So it looks like the DR numbers matched, but the DRSES differed between -62 and 117 because of the tariff differences it was run under, is that right? Did you find any discrepencies yet that would cause you to question the estimated annual costs for the My Pricing Plan (rate comparison) report?
      EDIT: i see you answered my question while i posted. Thanks.

      I believe SDGE can be misleading in their descriptors but if you cant trust their bill estimating tools, IMHO thats indefensible because that system should be fairly accurate programmatically.
      Yeah, the 117 it shows is because of the minimum bill... the -62 is what it would be without that. As far as I can tell, their estimating tool is accurate, for rates as they exist today. They do a lousy job of explaining *why* one plan differs from another, and for anyone missing the July 28th deadline for TOU grandfathering, getting on DR-SES could be a disaster.
      CS6P-260P/SE3000 - http://tiny.cc/ed5ozx

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by sensij View Post

        Yeah, the 117 it shows is because of the minimum bill... the -62 is what it would be without that. As far as I can tell, their estimating tool is accurate, for rates as they exist today. They do a lousy job of explaining *why* one plan differs from another, and for anyone missing the July 28th deadline for TOU grandfathering, getting on DR-SES could be a disaster.
        If things with T.O.U. timing go as they seem to be, it'll kill residential solar development in San Diego and reverse my negative feelings about what an existing (particularly an NEM 1.0) PV system will do to the price of a house around here. Maybe the pricing will flatten out a bit and remove some of the difference.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by sensij View Post

          Anyway, if DR-SES kept the same rates but just adopted the new periods in summer, the results are dire. The -62 annual NEM charge I posted above becomes a +238 bill. Ignoring July, the bill jumps $250, from 63 to 318. New NEM-ST customers are about to get screwed.
          I should run this, too for ST folks as I still get family and friends asking if solar is still worth it in our area.

          Even for NEM1, unless it changes, in PGE territory the wall hits in 3.5 years on Dec 31, 2020 for folks on the "generally most PV favorable" TOU rate E6. The combo pain of peak window shift to outside solar production, shrinking Summer to 4 months and flattening the top peak rate all to minimize peak "banking" was an effective way to slow the death spiral of retail feedin net metering. PV cost/watt will have to drop a lot to match current payback. But who knows, CA could shoot for 100% renewable energy ? and raise base rates so much retail net merering wont be needed for a 5 year simple payback.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by cebury View Post
            I should run this, too for ST folks as I still get family and friends asking if solar is still worth it in our area.

            Even for NEM1, unless it changes, in PGE territory the wall hits in 3.5 years on Dec 31, 2020 for folks on the "generally most PV favorable" TOU rate E6. The combo pain of peak window shift to outside solar production, shrinking Summer to 4 months and flattening the top peak rate all to minimize peak "banking" was an effective way to slow the death spiral of retail feedin net metering. PV cost/watt will have to drop a lot to match current payback. But who knows, CA could shoot for 100% renewable energy ? and raise base rates so much retail net merering wont be needed for a 5 year simple payback.
            If the effective death of net metering advantages under evolving T.O.U. doesn't kill residential PV, I bet it'll sure make residential PV a lot cheaper as the principle of selling to the market takes hold once the floor of net metering cost advantages drop out from under the CA PV industry. Might even hasten or aid battery development as well.

            (Side note to POCOs: Think about getting out in front of battery tech. Own, embrace and facilitate the tech instead of making it your competition. If you'd have done that w/ PV, things would be a lot different today.)

            I suspect the goal of the POCO's is to use solar and any other technologies to the extent they are viable and most cost effective. If that means 100% from renewables, so be it. But, NEM is not in the POCO's best interests. So, I'd expect them to do all they can to minimize it's impact on their operation and bottom line, as they are doing, but not with some vindictive goal of getting even or screwing their customers - that would be a childish and counterproductive way for them to look at it. And they don't. It's all about business and the bottom line for them, as it should be.

            As for PV being worth it, you simply gotta' run the numbers, and that takes understanding how the tariffs work as well as how much and in what ways electricity is used on an individual basis. Like I wrote, not rocket science, just involved. Every situation is different. At this time, thinking it can be made a one liner will lead to a classic case of GIGO. Unfortunately, running the numbers under T.O.U. is just not as simple as on a tiered tariff, and with multiple tariff plans to compare. it's more involved still.

            Shameless plug: Still the bottom line easiest path to the real goal of a lower electric bill (and not solar for its own sake it might be good to remember) is to simply use less electricity, first by turning stuff off and then time shift loads and so game the tariff, and then taking conservation measures to use less of that lowered and time shifted usage. Do all that, then see if some PV can be made cost effective for the remainder of the load.

            Along the way, folks will have the opportunity (or need, as may become apparent) to make choices between money and comfort or other priorities.

            Not as a value judgment, but as examples only: How much more $$ in electric bills is my comfort worth if I keep the house cooler ? Or, I've got a limited budget, so, do I want a bigger car payment or a cooler house ?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

              If the effective death of net metering advantages under evolving T.O.U. doesn't kill residential PV, I bet it'll sure make residential PV a lot cheaper as the principle of selling to the market takes hold once the floor of net metering cost advantages drop out from under the CA PV industry. Might even hasten or aid battery development as well.

              (Side note to POCOs: Think about getting out in front of battery tech. Own, embrace and facilitate the tech instead of making it your competition. If you'd have done that w/ PV, things would be a lot different today.)

              I suspect the goal of the POCO's is to use solar and any other technologies to the extent they are viable and most cost effective. If that means 100% from renewables, so be it. But, NEM is not in the POCO's best interests. So, I'd expect them to do all they can to minimize it's impact on their operation and bottom line, as they are doing, but not with some vindictive goal of getting even or screwing their customers - that would be a childish and counterproductive way for them to look at it. And they don't. It's all about business and the bottom line for them, as it should be.

              As for PV being worth it, you simply gotta' run the numbers, and that takes understanding how the tariffs work as well as how much and in what ways electricity is used on an individual basis. Like I wrote, not rocket science, just involved. Every situation is different. At this time, thinking it can be made a one liner will lead to a classic case of GIGO. Unfortunately, running the numbers under T.O.U. is just not as simple as on a tiered tariff, and with multiple tariff plans to compare. it's more involved still.

              Shameless plug: Still the bottom line easiest path to the real goal of a lower electric bill (and not solar for its own sake it might be good to remember) is to simply use less electricity, first by turning stuff off and then time shift loads and so game the tariff, and then taking conservation measures to use less of that lowered and time shifted usage. Do all that, then see if some PV can be made cost effective for the remainder of the load.

              Along the way, folks will have the opportunity (or need, as may become apparent) to make choices between money and comfort or other priorities.

              Not as a value judgment, but as examples only: How much more $$ in electric bills is my comfort worth if I keep the house cooler ? Or, I've got a limited budget, so, do I want a bigger car payment or a cooler house ?
              I read an article about Tesla installing a 100MW battery system in South Australia to help capture RE power as well as stabilize the grid in that area. The cost is estimated at 420 million. This is much bigger than the ones in S CA but it looks like a lot of POCO's are looking into energy storage.

              My fear is the POCO passing on the high cost of these systems to their customers which just raises the price for a standard kWh.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by SunEagle View Post

                I read an article about Tesla installing a 100MW battery system in South Australia to help capture RE power as well as stabilize the grid in that area. The cost is estimated at 420 million. This is much bigger than the ones in S CA but it looks like a lot of POCO's are looking into energy storage.

                My fear is the POCO passing on the high cost of these systems to their customers which just raises the price for a standard kWh.
                A$ 4.20/Watt-hr. for storage.

                Among other things and facilities, SDG & E has a 20 MW storage facility. Other CA POCO's have similar and/or plans. Right now, they are more experimental/toe in the water/ramp up than any serious contribution to the system capacity or flexibility. While I'm unsure of the current costs associated with such things, I'd be pretty secure in the knowledge that such costs, just like the costs of wages/benefits and other costs of doing business get passed on to customers.

                Comment


                • #23
                  After several weeks of on/off looking/scouring CPUC & SDG & E docs/proceeding/etc. trying to confirm what's the future of tiered rates and finding no definitive guidance - just a lot of inferential stuff pushing innuendo about T.O.U. grandfathering, but no specific mention of tiered rates, I just got off the phone w/SDG & E looking for some further guidance and a direction where I might find such written information about when and/or if tiered residential rates (specifically schedule DR) will be retired (scrapped), or closed to new customers. Bottom line: According to SDG & E, there is no definitive, public written information about the future of schedule DR. They claim more research on their part will be needed before they can give a better answer than that, and promise me a call back (note - but with no promise of a different, or any, answer) within "a couple of days". Unofficially, the persons I spoke (as in "We were given this to tell customers...") suggest DR will be either gone or closed by 2018 or 2019.

                  FWIW, if anyone in SDG & E's service territory on DR under NEM 1.0 thinks they're locked in to tiered rates for 20 yrs., they may be in for a surprise, in spite of what the POCO may have implied or they (the users) may have inferred. It's just business.

                  Film at 11 or bulletins as they break.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by sensij View Post

                    Anyway, if DR-SES kept the same rates but just adopted the new periods in summer, the results are dire. The -62 annual NEM charge I posted above becomes a +238 bill. Ignoring July, the bill jumps $250, from 63 to 318. New NEM-ST customers are about to get screwed.

                    Here is a link to the spreadsheet, for anyone who wants to take a look:

                    https://www.dropbox.com/s/kr963t35z8...king.xlsx?dl=0
                    Adding some perspective back to the conversation, if I reverse out the energy that the PV generated and estimate the annual bill under the 3/1/17 DR tariff, the 11 mo bill (ignoring July) is something around $1605. So, even under the new TOU plan (and assuming the NBC's are as inconsequential as they have appeared to be on the few bills we've looked at so far), the PV system saved 1605 - 318 = $1287, probably around $1450 annually. If the 3.1 kW PV system cost $3 / W, that is $6510 after the federal tax credit, and still a simple payback of 4.5 years. So, probably premature to declare the death of PV around here, even if the deal isn't quite as sweet as it used to be.
                    CS6P-260P/SE3000 - http://tiny.cc/ed5ozx

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

                      A$ 4.20/Watt-hr. for storage.

                      Among other things and facilities, SDG & E has a 20 MW storage facility. Other CA POCO's have similar and/or plans. Right now, they are more experimental/toe in the water/ramp up than any serious contribution to the system capacity or flexibility. While I'm unsure of the current costs associated with such things, I'd be pretty secure in the knowledge that such costs, just like the costs of wages/benefits and other costs of doing business get passed on to customers.
                      Yep. Energy storage is still very expensive. Which is why I feel it should not be done because the POCO's will justify the price tag and convince an PUC to pass on the cost to the customers.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by sensij View Post

                        Adding some perspective back to the conversation, if I reverse out the energy that the PV generated and estimate the annual bill under the 3/1/17 DR tariff, the 11 mo bill (ignoring July) is something around $1605. So, even under the new TOU plan (and assuming the NBC's are as inconsequential as they have appeared to be on the few bills we've looked at so far), the PV system saved 1605 - 318 = $1287, probably around $1450 annually. If the 3.1 kW PV system cost $3 / W, that is $6510 after the federal tax credit, and still a simple payback of 4.5 years. So, probably premature to declare the death of PV around here, even if the deal isn't quite as sweet as it used to be.
                        Understood. Where did you get the actual or estimated per kWh costs for the revised T.O.U. times ? I've got the proposed (and likely) times, but haven't found $$/kWh rate info yet.

                        Before I get that info, I'll plug the new DR-SES times into the spreadsheet that calcs system T.O.U. revenue and compare new DR-SES revenue against old DR-SES revenue. Once I get or estimate new rate info, I'm pretty sure that info will not tell me the difference in my actual bills from the changes one version to the next, but rather and probably, an upper limit of the $$ cost changes incurred by the time changes and the rate changes.

                        To get the actual bill estimates under the new DR-SES, I'll need to do as you've done/described, and add prior time incremental generation to time incremental SDG & E meter usage/billing to get actual total consumption. I've currently got that as 24 hr. total daily consumption since move in 9+ yrs. ago, but, even though I've got all the necessary data to do it, I've not needed to get as granular in the time increments until now - sort of been putting it off actually as it's a real PITA.

                        At this time, unless things change or I lean stuff that would change my mind, I intend to stay on tiered rates for now. Got to call SDG & E and confirm or reaffirm my choice to opt out of SDG & E's most generous offer to put me on T.O.U. unless I take action(s) to notify them of my desire and intent to stay on schedule DR, and thus proactively stop their presumptive action of putting me on T.O.U.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

                          Understood. Where did you get the actual or estimated per kWh costs for the revised T.O.U. times ? I've got the proposed (and likely) times, but haven't found $$/kWh rate info yet.

                          Before I get that info, I'll plug the new DR-SES times into the spreadsheet that calcs system T.O.U. revenue and compare new DR-SES revenue against old DR-SES revenue. Once I get or estimate new rate info, I'm pretty sure that info will not tell me the difference in my actual bills from the changes one version to the next, but rather and probably, an upper limit of the $$ cost changes incurred by the time changes and the rate changes.

                          To get the actual bill estimates under the new DR-SES, I'll need to do as you've done/described, and add prior time incremental generation to time incremental SDG & E meter usage/billing to get actual total consumption. I've currently got that as 24 hr. total daily consumption since move in 9+ yrs. ago, but, even though I've got all the necessary data to do it, I've not needed to get as granular in the time increments until now - sort of been putting it off actually as it's a real PITA.

                          At this time, unless things change or I lean stuff that would change my mind, I intend to stay on tiered rates for now. Got to call SDG & E and confirm or reaffirm my choice to opt out of SDG & E's most generous offer to put me on T.O.U. unless I take action(s) to notify them of my desire and intent to stay on schedule DR, and thus proactively stop their presumptive action of putting me on T.O.U.
                          You can find illustrative $$/kWh info in this thread, filed by SDG&E in conjuction with the GRC phase 2 proceeding. Although the rates illustrated are based on the 8/1/16 tariff, and some small increases have occurred since then, the relative price of energy in each of the TOU periods is consistent with what we see in the tariff today.

                          What I modeled in my previous post was taking today's DR-SES prices and overlaying the new summer hours to define the periods. I left winter untouched because it will move from two TOU periods to three and I wasn't ready to add that in my spreadsheet yet. However, the illustrative prices linked here show what the price relationships are likely to be in those new periods, and I'll incorporate that into my next iteration of the spreadsheet, using the relationship between the 8/1/16 prices and the 3/1/17 actual summer prices to adjust the illustrated winter prices as well.

                          It sounds like you were one of the selected subset of customers to get moved to TOU in the next wave of pilot plan development? It is interesting to see in the statistics how many of the customers who get moved choose not to opt-out, and at least in the filing provided by SDG&E, declare how much they love the new plan and how easy it is to understand. LMFAO.
                          Last edited by sensij; 07-18-2017, 01:20 PM.
                          CS6P-260P/SE3000 - http://tiny.cc/ed5ozx

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by sensij View Post

                            You can find illustrative $$/kWh info in this thread, filed by SDG& E in conjuction with the GRC phase 2 proceeding. Although the rates illustrated are based on the 8/1/16 tariff, and some small increases have occurred since then, the relative price of energy in each of the TOU periods is consistent with what we see in the tariff today.

                            What I modeled in my previous post was taking today's DR-SES prices and overlaying the new summer hours to define the periods. I left winter untouched because it will move from two TOU periods to three and I wasn't ready to add that in my spreadsheet yet. However, the illustrative prices linked here show what the price relationships are likely to be in those new periods, and I'll incorporate that into my next iteration of the spreadsheet, using the relationship between the 8/1/16 prices and the 3/1/17 actual summer prices to adjust the illustrated winter prices as well.

                            It sounds like you were one of the selected subset of customers to get moved to TOU in the next wave of pilot plan development? It is interesting to see in the statistics how many of the customers who get moved choose not to opt-out, and at least in the filing provided by SDG& E, declare how much they love the new plan and how easy it is to understand. LMFAO.
                            More later, but thinking about this more, for any year's 8,760 hrs. of net usage == consumption - generation, if those two numbers do not change, the cost difference/penalty/gain from tiered to T.O.U., or any other tariff scheme(s) will be the difference in the revenue generation from one tariff to the next, regardless of consumption. Lots of implications maybe a few tricks to pull from that.

                            I just got off the phone w/ SDG & E about staying on tiered rates and maybe being forced to T.O.U. (or not). Not much I didn't know, but a minor surprise or two. Got to go to the quack just now.

                            Like I wrote, more later.

                            Later:

                            According to the folks at SDG & E, the plan is for tiered rates to go away at some point in the future. They were adamant that the date is unknown, which surprises me not at all, but my guess is they probably have a good idea, but not firm, and I get that it does them absolutely no good to fuel speculation.

                            So, because I'm on NEM 1.0, I, and others in the same boat (NEM 1.0) can stay on tiered rates if we want until that schedule is retired/scrapped. Once tiered rates are scrapped, NEM 1.0 users will be forced to T.O.U. because there will (probably) be nothing else. AB 327 does not mandate that tiered tariffs/schedules be maintained, but, among other things, that NEM 1.0 be good for 20 yrs. (with no NBC's).

                            However, I, or any tiered NEM 1.0 user can opt out of tiered rates, schedule (DR), and over to T.O.U. (of any sort) at any time. If I jump now, or before 07/28/2017, I'll still avoid NBC's with the 20 yr. grandfathering on NEM, but the more favorable T.O.U. times of the current schedule will only cover me for 5 years from PTO date, which P.T.O. For me was 10/17/2013. I believe that's the same as for NEM 2.0 users as far as for grandfathering dates for T.O.U. times.

                            Also, SDG & E must notify all NEM 1.0 tiered tariff users when the tiered rates are going away. Also, I must proactively opt to remain on tiered rates when the time comes for tiered to T.O.U. transition, just like everyone else.

                            On the rate info, thank you. Missed that entirely. That info is as good as any and probably representative of what's likely, at ;least for Dec, 1017. Although I'll note that a lot of the total rates shown are lower than current rates, but that's not unheard of to my experience. I'll be plugging and chugging on the revenue spreadsheets for a bit with that data.

                            My logic will be to use the same spreadsheet as I use for the current DR-SES times and rates that calculates system revenue and add the revised DR-SES times and rates in adjacent columns. The $$ difference will be how much more my (or I suppose anyone else's on DR-SES) annual bill might be simply because of the time changes. The consumption will be the same, and the system generation will be the same. The only difference will be the revenue change from the schedule change. BTW, NBC's are included, or not, as optional to the spreadsheet.

                            Then, I'll begin the task of getting my actual hourly total consumption by backing out the 5 minute interval consumption data from my system monitor from the SDG & E 15 minute data and see what kind of revenue that generates using both the old and new DR-SES. I've got net consumption on a daily basis but, haven't needed more time granularity than that until now.

                            Part of what I might be able to get is some sort of levelized revenue income of energy for the various T.O.U. times, similar to LCOE numbers for energy costs, and thus some measure of financial impact by seeing the difference. Doing so may be helpful in answering questions about the impact of the time changes on PV cost effectiveness. If the time changes lower the levelized revenue to below the LCOE of the old schedule, it'll change the financial picture, maybe to the point that PV prices will need to come down to make up the difference. If PV becomes less cost effective because of less favorable POCO pricing, prices will need to come down. Sell to the market.
                            Last edited by J.P.M.; 07-18-2017, 10:23 PM.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X