Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Migrating from NEM 1.0 to NEM 2.0 (NEM-ST) - SDG&e

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

    Sizing a PV system to a load that may and most likely will change in the future is part of the application and a design parameter, but justifying the differential of the sunk cost that was made larger for vague or no reasons by finding uses for excess generation is inside out logic.

    Whether or not (over)sizing for possible increased usage that may (or may not) occur at some time in the future is an application sensitive decision, and one that would seem to be at least partially at the mercy of the one picking up the tab for the PV system. Some would say that a signed contract for an EV is a pretty sure bet. Others might think a keeping up with the Jones' desire for an EV without some definite plans beyond "well, maybe in a couple of years, we'll see " might not qualify for laying out an extra $4K - $5K after tax credit array cost to save, say, maybe $750/yr. in differential fuel cost savings in fuel offset from 12,000 miles/yr. at 50 MPG for a Prius. Fewer people achieve than want. Plans and reality change.
    So if I'm reading this correctly, my idea is the best so far.

    Over the life of his system, it is very likely he will start with one EV, given the financial incentives to do so, and in 5 years it will only make sense, incentives or not, to phase out the gas car(s). By the end of the useful life of his system, it may very well be undersized.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by sensij View Post

      Oh, yeah, super off peak rates are a great deal for EV owners. I think SunEagle was saying that trying to project future electric rates for that TOU period would be more error-prone than other projections, but I'm not sure why that would be so. I haven't seen anything in CPUC proceedings that I follow to suggest the super-off peak pricing is at risk, and at least over a 5 year time horizon or so, would be reasonably confident in projecting the same kind of peak/super off-peak price ratio that we benefit from now.
      And perhaps something else to consider: Super off peak rates do not appear at risk other rates/times, but the per kWh value of PV generation is coming down as the peak generation times shift to later in the day. So even if super off peak/kWh rates and times stay the same, it will probably take more PV generation to offset use at those times.

      Using PVWatts generation model, the ave. value of PV generation for me on the old DR-SES times and most recent prices in effect, was ~ $ 0.282/kWh and, ~ $ 0.209/kWh under the recently approved new DR-SES times and SDG & E proposed prices. Since those are ave. revenue from PV generation values, they do not consider NBC.

      Those prices are approx., but are probably representative of the general direction and magnitude of changes for the other 2 CA I.O.U.'s

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

        And perhaps something else to consider: Super off peak rates do not appear at risk other rates/times, but the per kWh value of PV generation is coming down as the peak generation times shift to later in the day. So even if super off peak/kWh rates and times stay the same, it will probably take more PV generation to offset use at those times.

        Using PVWatts generation model, the ave. value of PV generation for me on the old DR-SES times and most recent prices in effect, was ~ $ 0.282/kWh and, ~ $ 0.209/kWh under the recently approved new DR-SES times and SDG & E proposed prices. Since those are ave. revenue from PV generation values, they do not consider NBC.

        Those prices are approx., but are probably representative of the general direction and magnitude of changes for the other 2 CA I.O.U.'s
        Whew, so it won't be so 'over-sized' after all!

        Until the grandfather period ends for him in four years, however, he can do the lease deal and grab all that cash. Oh, don't forget "as far as we know" the EV-TOU2 plan will remain and the fun never ends!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by bstr View Post

          Whew, so it won't be so 'over-sized' after all!

          Until the grandfather period ends for him in four years, however, he can do the lease deal and grab all that cash. Oh, don't forget "as far as we know" the EV-TOU2 plan will remain and the fun never ends!
          In one sense, no, residential PV arrays will not be as oversized, but if the goal was to reduce an electric bill in the most cost effective ways possible, PV, which, believe it or not was always pretty far down the list of cost effective things to do to lower a bill, just got less cost effective and lower on the list.

          So, if bill reduction is still the goal, rather than simple usage offset, doing so with PV just got more expensive, or a whole lot less cost effective under the new tariff rates and times than the old.

          It's a bit complicated and the dust hasn't settled yet, but while arrays, oversized or not, will be generating as much electricity as ever, the way some/most CA tariffs from I.O.U.'s will be or already are structured and working, that PV generated electricity will carry less value when it offsets a bill. So, existing arrays will be less cost effective, offsetting smaller portions of an annual bill amount, and new PV users will need larger arrays to offset the same $ amount per year as they would under the old tariff rates and times.

          In the meantime, excess generation rates will likely stay in the basement where they are now, and NBC will add a new, but relatively small - for now anyway - increment to the bill.

          Overall, the result for PV users is that PV will be a less cost effective choice than it ever was, and it was always far from the most cost effective choice to begin with.

          Use reduction however, will be as, or more cost effective than ever.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

            In one sense, no, residential PV arrays will not be as oversized, but if the goal was to reduce an electric bill in the most cost effective ways possible, PV, which, believe it or not was always pretty far down the list of cost effective things to do to lower a bill, just got less cost effective and lower on the list.

            So, if bill reduction is still the goal, rather than simple usage offset, doing so with PV just got more expensive, or a whole lot less cost effective under the new tariff rates and times than the old.

            It's a bit complicated and the dust hasn't settled yet, but while arrays, oversized or not, will be generating as much electricity as ever, the way some/most CA tariffs from I.O.U.'s will be or already are structured and working, that PV generated electricity will carry less value when it offsets a bill. So, existing arrays will be less cost effective, offsetting smaller portions of an annual bill amount, and new PV users will need larger arrays to offset the same $ amount per year as they would under the old tariff rates and times.

            In the meantime, excess generation rates will likely stay in the basement where they are now, and NBC will add a new, but relatively small - for now anyway - increment to the bill.

            Overall, the result for PV users is that PV will be a less cost effective choice than it ever was, and it was always far from the most cost effective choice to begin with.

            Use reduction however, will be as, or more cost effective than ever.
            Yes, but the price of arrays and inverters has been declining and efficiency increasing for how long? And now we see utilities make a move to get their share. We may not like it, but it's how a free market operates. Yes, you can argue a monopoly only disrupts a free market. That aside, solar PV prices will continue to fall along with storage prices. I believe this is what will limit the grip that utilities have. The off-grid threat will straighten things out and we'll see utilities get 'real' efficient.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by bstr View Post

              Yes, but the price of arrays and inverters has been declining and efficiency increasing for how long? And now we see utilities make a move to get their share. We may not like it, but it's how a free market operates. Yes, you can argue a monopoly only disrupts a free market. That aside, solar PV prices will continue to fall along with storage prices. I believe this is what will limit the grip that utilities have. The off-grid threat will straighten things out and we'll see utilities get 'real' efficient.
              System equipment prices, mostly panel prices, have been declining for some time and have been in a leveling out trend for some time now. Labor has seemed to have stayed about the same, and if the vendors are to be taken at their word, margins have declined a bit. Those historic rates of price decreases are pretty much over, at least until a quantum improvement in technology or mfg. techniques, or both occur.

              That utilities are attempting to correct what they seem to see as unfair (to them anyway) net metering practices is probably overdue.

              Few are bigger fans of a free market than I for most any product or situation, R.E in particular. Free market competition makes for better product at the lowest attainable prices. When I was a peddler, I loved competition. It made me a better, sharper competitor and helped ensure a better chance the cust. got a fair deal. I always wanted to be the benchmark competitor that everyone else had to meet.

              Storage on all scales from residential to utility can be a game changer if done correctly. If the POCOs thought ahead, they'd get in the storage business now and control it. If they'd done the same 15-20 years ago with PV technology, things would be a lot different today, and probably better in terms of quality and system design.

              Subsidies have, IMO only and attempting objectivity, done at least as much harm as good as is common with such things, by hurting or slowing product quality advancements and also by allowing or enabling otherwise unqualified vendors to survive by subsidizing or masking poor/shoddy vendors that would have been eaten alive in a non subsidy environment. Time for R.E. to grow up, get a job, and stop living in the government's basement so to speak.,

              Besides, subsidies were never about lowering prices for end users in the first place. For those who believe that, I've got bridges for sale. They are/were mostly about establishing an easier time for those wanting to help a fledgling industry (PV in this case) get going, and along the way sell a save story to consumers. No way to prove it, but I'd bet if the 30 % tax credit had vever existed, prices toady would be ~ 30 % lower, and quality and service would be better. Once the fed. tax credits end, watch residential system prices drop - maybe not 30 % but substantially. Much the same will happen, and for much the same reason(s) when the full effects and impacts of the recent utility tariff realignments becomes common knowledge.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

                System equipment prices, mostly panel prices, have been declining for some time and have been in a leveling out trend for some time now. Labor has seemed to have stayed about the same, and if the vendors are to be taken at their word, margins have declined a bit. Those historic rates of price decreases are pretty much over, at least until a quantum improvement in technology or mfg. techniques, or both occur.

                That utilities are attempting to correct what they seem to see as unfair (to them anyway) net metering practices is probably overdue.

                Few are bigger fans of a free market than I for most any product or situation, R.E in particular. Free market competition makes for better product at the lowest attainable prices. When I was a peddler, I loved competition. It made me a better, sharper competitor and helped ensure a better chance the cust. got a fair deal. I always wanted to be the benchmark competitor that everyone else had to meet.

                Storage on all scales from residential to utility can be a game changer if done correctly. If the POCOs thought ahead, they'd get in the storage business now and control it. If they'd done the same 15-20 years ago with PV technology, things would be a lot different today, and probably better in terms of quality and system design.

                Subsidies have, IMO only and attempting objectivity, done at least as much harm as good as is common with such things, by hurting or slowing product quality advancements and also by allowing or enabling otherwise unqualified vendors to survive by subsidizing or masking poor/shoddy vendors that would have been eaten alive in a non subsidy environment. Time for R.E. to grow up, get a job, and stop living in the government's basement so to speak.,

                Besides, subsidies were never about lowering prices for end users in the first place. For those who believe that, I've got bridges for sale. They are/were mostly about establishing an easier time for those wanting to help a fledgling industry (PV in this case) get going, and along the way sell a save story to consumers. No way to prove it, but I'd bet if the 30 % tax credit had vever existed, prices toady would be ~ 30 % lower, and quality and service would be better. Once the fed. tax credits end, watch residential system prices drop - maybe not 30 % but substantially. Much the same will happen, and for much the same reason(s) when the full effects and impacts of the recent utility tariff realignments becomes common knowledge.
                If power companies had gotten into utility-scale PV 15 years ago, what effect would it have had on consumers? Same electricity rate increases, I suspect. Either way, I see there being the same advancements and efficiencies. It appears very soon utility-scale storage will be the smart choice for power companies and I see some (CPUC) embracing it with customer incentives for residential storage. The writing is on the wall. They will need to partner and share costs with customers to allow for a more robust, resilient and fault-tolerant grid rather than encouraging them to go off and do their own thing.

                Back to the 'PV 15 years ago' topic: imagine if power companies were truly a public utility serving the people. If that were the case and there was proper representation, we might have had utility scale solar farms in which customers would invest in a portion of the panels or output resulting in a much lower cost per person for the same output. Perhaps it would be 30% less.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by bstr View Post
                  Back to the 'PV 15 years ago' topic: imagine if power companies were truly a public utility serving the people. If that were the case and there was proper representation, we might have had utility scale solar farms in which customers would invest in a portion of the panels or output resulting in a much lower cost per person for the same output. Perhaps it would be 30% less.
                  Well, if the percentage of residences in the U.S. that are hooked up to the grid is any indication, I'd suggest they are serving the public. That's how they make money. Still, it's a business, not a pro bono societal entitlement. People can always disconnect and make their own power or do without in most areas.

                  Capitalism being about the bottom line, and this being a capitalist society, if power generation technology using PV had been as cost effective and as reliable as other methods available 15 or however many years ago, the POCO's would have used it more. That they didn't see the writing on the wall and lost an opportunity to control the implementation is too bad for them, but it's their bad, if bad is a valid term to use for it.

                  But given that it's 15 years and water over the dam, all kind of a moot point now, huh ?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post

                    Well, if the percentage of residences in the U.S. that are hooked up to the grid is any indication, I'd suggest they are serving the public. That's how they make money. Still, it's a business, not a pro bono societal entitlement. People can always disconnect and make their own power or do without in most areas.

                    Capitalism being about the bottom line, and this being a capitalist society, if power generation technology using PV had been as cost effective and as reliable as other methods available 15 or however many years ago, the POCO's would have used it more. That they didn't see the writing on the wall and lost an opportunity to control the implementation is too bad for them, but it's their bad, if bad is a valid term to use for it.

                    But given that it's 15 years and water over the dam, all kind of a moot point now, huh ?
                    Yes, they serve the public, but not in the same way as municipal water and sewer or police and fire protection where residents/customers have some degree of influence. Kind of like a bank vs credit union. The bank is really serving its board and shareholders, whereas the credit union serves the members/owners and they can effect change. Because the utility has a monopoly position, there isn't any capitalism to speak of. They may buy power from competing companies, but when selling the power, there is no market force to keep the price low and the utility commission is influenced/lobbied by (you name it)...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by bstr View Post

                      Yes, they serve the public, but not in the same way as municipal water and sewer or police and fire protection where residents/customers have some degree of influence. Kind of like a bank vs credit union. The bank is really serving its board and shareholders, whereas the credit union serves the members/owners and they can effect change. Because the utility has a monopoly position, there isn't any capitalism to speak of. They may buy power from competing companies, but when selling the power, there is no market force to keep the price low and the utility commission is influenced/lobbied by (you name it)...
                      Damn those bad Health Insurance companies. Oh Wait. You were complaining about the POCO's.

                      Hmmm. Since I pay about $200/month for my electric and about $600/month for my medical insurance I guess I should be more pissed off at them bad POCO's.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by SunEagle View Post

                        Damn those bad Health Insurance companies. Oh Wait. You were complaining about the POCO's.

                        Hmmm. Since I pay about $200/month for my electric and about $600/month for my medical insurance I guess I should be more pissed off at them bad POCO's.
                        Yea, about 3X as much. Or spend 3X as much effort at staying healthy and away from the medical system.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by bstr View Post

                          Yes, they serve the public, but not in the same way as municipal water and sewer or police and fire protection where residents/customers have some degree of influence. Kind of like a bank vs credit union. The bank is really serving its board and shareholders, whereas the credit union serves the members/owners and they can effect change. Because the utility has a monopoly position, there isn't any capitalism to speak of. They may buy power from competing companies, but when selling the power, there is no market force to keep the price low and the utility commission is influenced/lobbied by (you name it)...
                          A lot of Coop utilities do a fair job of keeping costs down. If all POCOs were coops, rates and prices would be a lot lower to the point PV would have a hard time competing or maybe not even have a chance. Sound like a good option for developing a viable PV industry ? Maybe PV prices would be lower.

                          I once had a very wise R.E. guru tell me, in the late '70's, that the biggest and only real competition to R.E. was not the oil or power companies, but conservation. I'd add that coop power companies might also qualify as worthy competitors.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X