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

[sd_tom]

Yeah, San Diego (Clairemont). We are already switched to TOU as we have everything geared around night time use. Nobody is home during day, plug in hybrid EV at night. Though, what I didn't realize was the plan I chose allowed for 400% rates for reduce your use days (hot days).. that pretty much negated everything.

Given our usage patterns, the only thing we can move more during the day is the pool pump.

So, yeah.. the dark blue would become the purplish band roughly

rates.png

[J.P.M.]

Not to bring this up again, but felt like this is better than making a new thread about it. We are now in the window of current installations being after Dec 1 2017. I'm still trying to grasp the consequences of the NEM-2.0 + TOU 4-9pm change. So, 'net' metering I assumed to be in terms of kwH.. you make a surplus KWH during day, you use at night, you pay the net of all that. Facing a estimate right now that says it might install post Dec 5th and wondering if I should just wait till solar walls are more economical.

Is it safe to summarize these changes as it not being a net of KwH but now a net of $$ .. you generate x KwH converted to $ at the time of use rate. So, it is much harder to break even if daytime surplus hours are discounted (when converted to $) over nighttime drawn hours (more expensive). Is that the easiest way to think about how these changes impact things?

Mostly, but not entirely, you will be charged for the net # of kWh the POCO sends you, probably in 15 minute increments at the rate in effect for that 15 minute increment. You will be credited for the net electricity you send back to the grid in the same way you pay for it. Credits will offset charges. (But, not always. Some tariffs keep kWh's in separate buckets, peak offsetting peak kWh for example. Check w/ your tariff and understand how it works.) If you are an SDG & E cust, $ mostly offset $. In addition, you will be billed an additional ~~ $0.017/kWh or so for every kWh the POCO sends you, irrespective of what you generate. That is, for example, if in any 24 hr. period, you send, say, 40 kWh to the grid during the day, and you consume, say, 20 kWh over the 24 hr. period, with 10 of those 20 kWh of consumption happening when it's dark, you will have a net surplus for that day of (40 - 20) kWh, but you will still be billed for the (20-10) = 10 kWh of NBC, at say, = $0.017/kWh * 10 kWh (the 10 kWh you used when it was dark and thus supplied by the POCO, The 20 kWh surplus you generated that day having no bearing on the NBC.

At trueup, 1X/yr., you will either pay the accrued (use - generation) charges + NBC or, if a net generator over the prior 12 months, you will get ~ $0.027/klWr. for the net excess generation over the prior 12 months and you will still pay the NBC rate for all kWh that the POCO sends you (that is net of nothing) regardless of any surplus.

Under the tariff you'll be billed under, without an EV, as a NEM 2.0 cust. (Schedule DR - SES) the average worth of a kWh of electricity under the new times will be ~ $0.235/kWh. Under the old DR - SES times, the average worth of a kWh of electricity was (and is until the new times take effect in Nov./Dec.??) ~ $0.309/kWh., with those rates independent of the quantity of use under that tariff.

As for your breaking even question, the answer is yes, it'll be a longer time to "payback" or a smaller ROI under the new times. I suspect most all vendors will either soft peddle that or spin it to their own ends.But fact is, PV in San Diego is ~ (.309-.235)/(.309) ~ 23% - 24 % less cost effective because of the change in times.

Do as you wish, but I'd not wait around for battery storage for a bunch of reasons that have little or nothing to do with rates or tariffs.

[sensij]

Is it safe to summarize these changes as it not being a net of KwH but now a net of $$ .. you generate x KwH converted to $ at the time of use rate. So, it is much harder to break even if daytime surplus hours are discounted (when converted to $) over nighttime drawn hours (more expensive). Is that the easiest way to think about how these changes impact things?

Sort of. Most daytime hours are worth more than most nighttime hours, so for most consumption patterns, TOU $$$ can still work out to be better than a straight 1:1 kWh, even if it isn't as good as it once was. However, with the new hours, consumption patterns that end up worse off than they would be on tiered plans are more likely / realistic. Even after Dec 1, you still have until 3/30/18 to get onto a tiered plan if it looks like that will be better for you.

[sd_tom]

Not to bring this up again, but felt like this is better than making a new thread about it. We are now in the window of current installations being after Dec 1 2017. I'm still trying to grasp the consequences of the NEM-2.0 + TOU 4-9pm change. So, 'net' metering I assumed to be in terms of kwH.. you make a surplus KWH during day, you use at night, you pay the net of all that. Facing a estimate right now that says it might install post Dec 5th and wondering if I should just wait till solar walls are more economical.

Is it safe to summarize these changes as it not being a net of KwH but now a net of $$ .. you generate x KwH converted to $ at the time of use rate. So, it is much harder to break even if daytime surplus hours are discounted (when converted to $) over nighttime drawn hours (more expensive). Is that the easiest way to think about how these changes impact things?

[J.P.M.]

I see from the thread that you folks are pretty technical but I have a basic question.

Background: I bought a Fusion Energi plug-in hybrid last week and gave SDG&E a call about what rate plans are best for me. The rep starts by telling me that we just missed out on a 25 day window that we were notified by mail of that would have allowed us to lock in the TOU DR-SES rate for 4 more years. My wife who gets all the bills said we never got any such thing.

Do I understand it correctly that once the PUC approves it that we will only be credited for energy my panels produce from 3-9 pm vs the current 11-6 pm?

Again I'm not too technical; but that sounds like we are getting shafted: SDG&E gets all the power produced by our (expensive) new panels during peak production hours but only gives me credit for offpeak (and zero) production times.

I'm hoping that I am misunderstanding this. Am I?

You have some of it right, but sounds like you're ill/un informed and don't have the whole story.

First off, POCO's (POwer COmpanies), SDG & E among them, are not out to screw, shaft get even with or otherwise make money off PV users. It may seem that way to current and future PV users, but to the POCO's it's simply business, nothing personal. They don't care what PV users think, nor do they give as much as a wet fart about stuff that non PV users are subsidizing mostly affluent PV users. It's all just business, with net metering in its old iteration(s) being no more than an unsustainable business model. A business can't make money paying as much for a product as they sell it for.

The 07/28/17 deadline for 5 yr. grandfathering is a matter of public record, albeit not well disseminated. For current PV users on NEM, the old times for the DR-SES tariff and others such as the EV-TOU rates will be available for a period of 5 years from PTO (Permisssion to Operate) the PV system, PROVIDED THOSE USERS SIGNED UP BY 07/28/2017. After that date, users not making the grandfathering election cut can be under that tariff, but with the new times in force. Note : The 5 yr. period starts from PTO, not from 07/28/2017.

The new times/etc. were going to be voted on by the CPUC on 08/10/2017. That vote got rescheduled and is now to take place on 08/24, unless it's changed again. There may be a few changes yet, but they seem to be pretty well set.

NEM (Net Energy Metering) will still be around, but the new times and the hourly energy rates associated with those times are less favorable to PV users in primarily three ways:
1.) Peak hours, that is, times when electricity is the most expensive, are changing, going from 11 A.M. to 6 P.M weekdays , to 4 P.M. to 9 P.M. 7 days/week.
2.) The summer season, the one with the horrendous (or great if you're a PV user) rates is going from 6 months down to 5 months.
3.) Under NEM 2.0, there will be a charge for every kWh delivered by the utility (not simply the net difference between what's used and what's customer generated per billing period of ~ $0.01745/kWh.

All that will in general make Net Energy Metering "NEM" (which will still be around), and thus residential PV, less cost effective than in the past, probably something like 22 - 25% less cost effective or, to a first approximation, about that much longer in payback time.

PV users will still get to feed all the power they generate via PV to the grid regardless of when it's generated. In that respect, it's just like the old NEM. It just won't be worth as much because the peak summer billing hours will no longer conform as well to peak generating hours.

It may well be you did not receive notification via mail. Others have said much the same. I don't know if written or other notification matters or not.

One advantage for new NEM users, the new DR-SES tariff and some others (BUT NOTE: NOT ALL NEW TARIFFS), is constructed in such a way, that what a user pays per kWh is independent of how much a customer uses. That means, that for modeling and estimating purposes, a system's annual estimated output can be used to estimate annual system revenue to offset a bill.

So, if a user has their green button data, and a DR-SES or other time only rate, they can run PVWatts, get the hourly output option and estimate annual revenue for their proposed system on a per installed STC kW basis and get a better, or at least easier estimate of how much of a system will produce how much revenue to offset a bill. Provided the annual bill offset is <100 %, for a specific system in a fixed orientation, the modeled revenue for that system to offset a bill will be the same, regardless of the annual usage it offsets.

Tariffs that calculate rates independent of usage such as DR-SES also make finding optimum orientation or orientation revenue comparisons a lot easier, again and at least for modeling/estimating purposes. They also make it easier to see the effects on a bill as a result of time shifting of tasks.

The new NEM tariffs and times will make things a lot more difficult for vendors to prosper. They will also have the effect of lowering PV prices some, as vendors will need to sell into a lower market. Contrary to how I suspect the vendors will spin this, bills for non PV users may stay about the same, but with the new rate structures, PV will offset less of the bill.

It'll be interesting to see how the vendors handle the spin.

[cebury]

Be prepared for their answer, so sorry in advance. I take it you are already nem2.0 (ST) so aware of the hit of NBCs also?
I believe it was to stay on the tiered rate that you missed, the non tou. What plan on you on right now? If TOU yeah they are changing thoae periods CA wide. Well see what SensiJ and JPM say. I kknow PGE rates better.

[dc4all]

I see from the thread that you folks are pretty technical but I have a basic question.

Background: I bought a Fusion Energi plug-in hybrid last week and gave SDG&E a call about what rate plans are best for me. The rep starts by telling me that we just missed out on a 25 day window that we were notified by mail of that would have allowed us to lock in the TOU DR-SES rate for 4 more years. My wife who gets all the bills said we never got any such thing.

Do I understand it correctly that once the PUC approves it that we will only be credited for energy my panels produce from 3-9 pm vs the current 11-6 pm?

Again I'm not too technical; but that sounds like we are getting shafted: SDG&E gets all the power produced by our (expensive) new panels during peak production hours but only gives me credit for offpeak (and zero) production times.

I'm hoping that I am misunderstanding this. Am I?

[J.P.M.]

You can find illustrative $$/kWh info in this thread, filed by SDG&amp;amp; 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&amp;amp; 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 &amp;amp; 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.

[sensij]

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.

[J.P.M.]

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.

[SunEagle]

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.

[sensij]

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.

[J.P.M.]

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.

[J.P.M.]

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.

[SunEagle]

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.