Electric Bill Happiness

[Yodrak]

Yes. In today's electric energy world many public utility commissions require the utilities to un-bundle their charges. Delivery Service charges typically cover the utility's fixed costs for connecting the customer to the grid, independent of what the customer's energy usage is.

In some utilities' rate schedules that delivery service change may be superimposed on the sliding scale of variable charges per unit of energy consumed (or produced, as the case may be) creating a positive offset. So even if one goes negative on the variable charges due to producing more than is consumed, there is still the positive charge to be collected to pay for being connected.

It's actually very simple and makes perfect sense.. This portion of the bill is "Delivery Service".. so even though you Generated the electricity, it still costs SCE money to Deliver that energy and is passing that small cost on to you. At the end of the day the generation costs/savings are so much higher that doesn't really matter in the long run.

 

[CJF]

I got a $469.11 electric bill, and a shut off notice for 5pm on 9 Sept 11.

I called and they're "looking into" the 1.4 MWh that I provided them during the month.

Tony,

We will be waiting for the rest of the story.....

I guess they called my bluff, and shut the power off for all of southern California (ya, I know LA thinks they are "it", but I'm referring to the real southern California) and some of Arizona.

They were about an hour early though !!!

They showed you!

 

[xtremeflyer]

If your rationale is correct for the less than .01% of SCE customers that are net producers of electricity, then the reverse must also be true for those that only consume electricity. So that would mean the majority of consumers that operate under this pricing tariff are actually being paid for the delivery of their electrical service. Does that pass the sniff test?

Actually, yes, it does still pass.. Tier 1 is considered a "discount tier" in the sense that they are rewarding you for only using that portion of the electricity. At the same time, this is when they deliver the most electricity, so their delivery costs are the cheapest, because delivery is really a fixed cost. It's the generation at this time that is the most expensive. The problem is, they've only decided to tier the delivery, but keep generation a fixed cost (to me this is the thing that doesn't make sense, delivery should be constant, generation should be tiered, and thats the way the tariffs were a few years ago), so to offset the generation cost in Tier 1, they've made it negative.

Is this the most optimal way to do it? Hell no.. Was there a little hyperbole in my "makes perfect sense" yea, a little, but it does make sense when you look at the tariff as a whole and not just on an individual charge? I think so.

What I argued with way back when was the part about how your net generation is considered a positive amount when determining which Tier you are in for the month. Ideally, because SCE is willing to have a second meter option, the BEST thing to do would be to not include Super-Off Peak in your allocation at all OR allow more allocation for those on a EV rate. Those are much bigger issues to me than the little bit of negative on the delivery charge.

I think we are all going to get a little kick in the face when we see our electric bills in December. I know I will since my solar doesn't produce everything I need in the winter, even without the Leaf.

 

[CJF]

If your rationale is correct for the less than .01% of SCE customers that are net producers of electricity, then the reverse must also be true for those that only consume electricity. So that would mean the majority of consumers that operate under this pricing tariff are actually being paid for the delivery of their electrical service. Does that pass the sniff test?

Actually, yes, it does still pass.. Tier 1 is considered a "discount tier" in the sense that they are rewarding you for only using that portion of the electricity. At the same time, this is when they deliver the most electricity, so their delivery costs are the cheapest, because delivery is really a fixed cost. It's the generation at this time that is the most expensive. The problem is, they've only decided to tier the delivery, but keep generation a fixed cost (to me this is the thing that doesn't make sense, delivery should be constant, generation should be tiered, and thats the way the tariffs were a few years ago), so to offset the generation cost in Tier 1, they've made it negative.

Is this the most optimal way to do it? Hell no.. Was there a little hyperbole in my "makes perfect sense" yea, a little, but it does make sense when you look at the tariff as a whole and not just on an individual charge? I think so.

What I argued with way back when was the part about how your net generation is considered a positive amount when determining which Tier you are in for the month. Ideally, because SCE is willing to have a second meter option, the BEST thing to do would be to not include Super-Off Peak in your allocation at all OR allow more allocation for those on a EV rate. Those are much bigger issues to me than the little bit of negative on the delivery charge.

I think we are all going to get a little kick in the face when we see our electric bills in December. I know I will since my solar doesn't produce everything I need in the winter, even without the Leaf.

Thanks so much for your explanation of how you view the rate structure. I do see your point and I appreciate it.

I will have to say though we have different sensitivity sniffers.... I fully appreciate that this portion of the bill is very small and in the grand scheme of things could be considered insignificant by many. But I am still floored by the fact that SCE has a rate plan that actually pays customers to consume and charges those of us that produce. Am I really the only one that finds this unusual?

I know...there are lot of things that I don't understand and will just have to accept.... and obviously this is one of them.

Cheers,

Corey

 

[thankyouOB]

in our public municipal utility there are three rates in TOU in the summer for ev users-- 8, 14 and 22 cents, including 8 all weekend and from 8 pm to 10 am weeknights

and two rates in the 8 other months, around 9 and 13, with 13 for weekdays from 10 am to 8 p.m., and all the rest 9 cents.

It works for LADWP.
Too bad that a private utility cant get it as clear. but that is the profit-motive for you and paying all those dividends to the coupon clippers.

 

[hill]

Thanks so much for your explanation of how you view the rate structure. I do see your point and I appreciate it.

I will have to say though we have different sensitivity sniffers.... . . . . . . . . . snip
I know...there are lot of things that I don't understand and will just have to accept.... and obviously this is one of them. . . . . . . . . snip

Cheers,

Corey

Hi Corey- yes good ol' tou. Now THAT's 3 months (of surplus we lost) that I'll never get back. I posted on another thread all the various meter readings - screens 71, 04, 02, 01, a little "TOU" check box, with NO check in it ... just a check in the "recorder" box ... the little circular black dial ... numbered 1-4 and divided into 4 quarters, that flashed back and forth between either 1 or 2, but never 3 or 4 ... never between times of day or seasons ... no discernible pattern.

Unlike you, we had a couple years of history on our 7.1 AC kWh rated system - so we knew exactly what to expect each month in regards to surplus. So, when we suddenly began LOOSING a minimum of 25% of our surplus each month, we called to complain (nicely). That's when we found out that NO one at SCE could tell us what any of our reading meant. And ... NO one could even tell us who to contact to discern the various readings. We gave SCE the benefit of the doubt that our meter simply wasn't calibrated properly - but darn if we could get a single person out to replace it. But - eventually, with Hurculean effort, we had it removed. There can be only one reason the billing formulas resemble calculus functions - and it's NOT because they want you to be able to call them on errors. We filed a complaint with the PUC - and with our complaint, we sent a L.A. Times story of how poor calibration happens to some ... and we asked the PUC to see for their self how SCE folks are clueless on how the meters are programed and/or what the different readouts mean. That's NO WAY to bill. Now ... with our mechanical kWh meter re-installed - if we generate into tier 2 ... or 3 ... our surplus builds on that higher tiered dollar amount.

But yea, notice how NO amount per kWh has been published yet? That's because SCE is fighting hard to grind the PUC down to a VERY VERY bare bones number that will have NO bearing on what you or I would have to pay - and from what I'm being told, it'll most likely reflect little on what SCE has to pay - even for wholesale power. Such a deal!


I think I'll PM ya

 

[EricH]

My inability to comprehend this line item in my bill is based on the fact that SCE is PAYING customers to CONSUME power under this rate plan. It is this very simple fact that apparently, at least to me, defies logic (but I know must have a rational explanation) that I just don't get and I'm hoping that someone out there will help me understand.

Thanks again.... :?

Corey

Corey - if you are seeking economic or engineering logic in the CPUCs implementation of Net Energy Metering, you will be searching for a long, long time. The idea that somebody who is constantly generating energy from the grid, or pumping it back on the grid, can wind up with a zero bill for the year still boggles my mind. Basically, your neighbors wind up paying your share of the grid, transformers, and whatever 'extra' metering/billing your fancy rate requires - the fixed costs of having infrastructure ready to supply whatever you need at night (or daytime, in excess of the solar panels) don't disappear because policy wonks decided to provide economic incentives through the utility rate structure, instead of the old-fashioned way (tax policy and state rebates).

I have nothing against solar power - just opposed to the complicated/hidden political tactic of using utility rates to confuse people and implement social policies.

 

[hill]

. . . . . . . . snip
Basically, your neighbors wind up paying your share of the grid, transformers, and whatever 'extra' metering/billing your fancy rate requires - the fixed costs of having infrastructure ready to supply whatever you need at night (or daytime, in excess of the solar panels) don't disappear because policy wonks decided to provide economic incentives through the utility rate structure, instead of the old-fashioned way (tax policy and state rebates).

I have nothing against solar power - just opposed to the complicated/hidden political tactic of using utility rates to confuse people and implement social policies.

Eric, I'm not sure I understand, but it sounds like you don't approve of solar subsidies. Since oil subsidies won't go away, in essence doing away with solar subsidies would be a double negative. More importantly though, do you realize how many billions it costs to bring a nuke generation station on line? Or the billions of a hydro plant? Or the toxins and deaths related to coal mining? Conversly, solar provides power when it's most needed ... when the grid is taxed its hardest. Conversly, with continuing numbers of PV providers coming on line (providing the most costly time of power generation) the utility companies are able to put off building that next multi-billion dollar power generation plant. The cost to subsidize PV is a drop in the bucket comparred to the even more costly alternatives. Plus, the power is (mostly) used right at the delivery point ... compare THAT with line loss from hundreds of miles away (in some instances)? Like I said, maybe I'm missing your point of view.

.