Official Southern California Edison thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
cwerdna said:
Boomer23 said:
I just found a page on SCE's site that is new to me, that explains how the baseline credit works in TOU-D-A, and I'm kind of floored by something they state:


https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/edc01054-c02e-4295-8d21-30c263b0b4e1/PEV_NEM_FAQs+v3_EP.docx?MOD=AJPERES" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically they ARE going to CHARGE us solar customers the ten cent per kWh baseline credit amount for months in which we net generate power! So if we end a month with a net generation total of 100 kWh, there'll be a CHARGE on our bill for ten cents per kWh = $10 for having sent SCE 100 kWh of power! I still can't quite believe I'm saying that, but it's as plain as day in the example.
I wonder if that's related to/due to the work of ALEC (http://www.autoblog.com/2013/12/23/alec-coming-for-home-solar-power/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). :roll:
ALEC, a group of about 800 people that includes such notables as ex-vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, appears to be going after any and all things related to renewable energy, and that includes people who install their own home solar panels and sell their excess power back to the grid. In fact, ALEC not only is saying these people shouldn't be paid for the energy, but believes they should pay for the privilege of sending energy back to the grid because they don't have to pay for the grid's infrastructure.

It could be, but the CA utilities have been crying for years about how solar customers use the grid as a big battery for free and we ride on the backs of non-solar rate payers. They've been pushing for rate changes like this for years, despite the happy face they put on about green energy.
 
I just rechecked and adjusted my spreadsheet estimates for sample winter and summer months, taking into account the latest rates on SCE's site (they've changed), and also taking into account my new understanding of how SCE will reverse the 10 cent credit and make it a CHARGE in months when we're net generators. Plan TOU-D-A still comes out better for me than Plan T.

I'm now considering the 10 cent credit in Plan A as kind of a wash. It benefits us by lowering our bill in winter, when we're net consumers, and it counterbalances that benefit by charging us during months when we're net generators.

Based on my 2014 full year net usage, the ten cent credit would have saved me about $118 for the year. So even though it's hard to think about an actual charge being billed against us when we net generate for a month, it's balanced by credits in months when we're net consumers, and the balance seems to work in my favor for the year considered as a whole.

Bear in mind that we're not big users of air conditioning during Peak hours. We only used AC during part of 45 days in 2014.
 
I think I am starting to like this new TOU-A rate.

7 days
23 kWh used
$9 credit

May have lost some peak pricing during solar production but it appears the baseline credit getting applied super off peak is making a huge difference.
Must say I was very skeptical but it may turn out OK ;)
 
Boomer23 said:
I just found a page on SCE's site that is new to me, that explains how the baseline credit works in TOU-D-A, and I'm kind of floored by something they state:


https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/edc01054-c02e-4295-8d21-30c263b0b4e1/PEV_NEM_FAQs+v3_EP.docx?MOD=AJPERES" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically they ARE going to CHARGE us solar customers the ten cent per kWh baseline credit amount for months in which we net generate power! So if we end a month with a net generation total of 100 kWh, there'll be a CHARGE on our bill for ten cents per kWh = $10 for having sent SCE 100 kWh of power! I still can't quite believe I'm saying that, but it's as plain as day in the example.
I see why you are upset, but I don't believe this really a change in policy. The reason it works this way is explained in this quote from your reference above:
When you are a net generator for the month (i.e., you export more electricity than you consume from SCE that month), the Baseline Credit will appear as a monthly charge since you are multiplying a negative kWh amount by a negative billing factor. This is necessary to ensure that you receive the same rate for the exported kWh that you would have received if you had consumed that same kWh from SCE.
This means a discount in consumption price must also reflect a discount in how much you are paid for net generation.
This equivalence of price in each direction for a given TOU period is the strict principle at the core of "Net Metering" as it is usually defined, at least in California. The idea is that it works like the old physical rotating dial, that would turn backwards whenever you were net generating, but at the end of the month all the meter reader could see was the NET change in the kWh. My understanding is that the law that was passed fall of 2013 allows for this principle to be broken, so that they will be able to pay us for net generation at a lower price than net consumption, but that part of the law has not yet been implemented by the CPUC.

Remember the Baseline credit is only one component of the price you receive or pay for any one TOU period; the total price still stays positive. In the old tariff I recall that I saw this type of negative price for one level and one TOU somewhere but I can't find it now.

Logging on today, Saturday, I see yesterday was my first day on the new tariff with the later peak price window.
 
tbleakne said:
Boomer23 said:
I just found a page on SCE's site that is new to me, that explains how the baseline credit works in TOU-D-A, and I'm kind of floored by something they state:


https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/edc01054-c02e-4295-8d21-30c263b0b4e1/PEV_NEM_FAQs+v3_EP.docx?MOD=AJPERES" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Basically they ARE going to CHARGE us solar customers the ten cent per kWh baseline credit amount for months in which we net generate power! So if we end a month with a net generation total of 100 kWh, there'll be a CHARGE on our bill for ten cents per kWh = $10 for having sent SCE 100 kWh of power! I still can't quite believe I'm saying that, but it's as plain as day in the example.
I see why you are upset, but I don't believe this really a change in policy. The reason it works this way is explained in this quote from your reference above:
When you are a net generator for the month (i.e., you export more electricity than you consume from SCE that month), the Baseline Credit will appear as a monthly charge since you are multiplying a negative kWh amount by a negative billing factor. This is necessary to ensure that you receive the same rate for the exported kWh that you would have received if you had consumed that same kWh from SCE.
This means a discount in consumption price must also reflect a discount in how much you are paid for net generation.
This equivalence of price in each direction for a given TOU period is the strict principle at the core of "Net Metering" as it is usually defined, at least in California. The idea is that it works like the old physical rotating dial, that would turn backwards whenever you were net generating, but at the end of the month all the meter reader could see was the NET change in the kWh. My understanding is that the law that was passed fall of 2013 allows for this principle to be broken, so that they will be able to pay us for net generation at a lower price than net consumption, but that part of the law has not yet been implemented by the CPUC.

Remember the Baseline credit is only one component of the price you receive or pay for any one TOU period; the total price still stays positive. In the old tariff I recall that I saw this type of negative price for one level and one TOU somewhere but I can't find it now.

Logging on today, Saturday, I see yesterday was my first day on the new tariff with the later peak price window.

I got over my anguish when I did the math for my completed year 2014 usage and generation stats. I found that for only 3 months of the year would I be a net generator and pay any net generation fee. For the year in total, the baseline credit would have given me a net savings of $180.

I spoke with someone at our meeting today, though, who has a large enough system that he thinks that he'll net generate for all or most months of the year. So his generation credit may be reduced each month by this "reverse credit".
 
Boomer23 said:
I got over my anguish when I did the math for my completed year 2014 usage and generation stats. I found that for only 3 months of the year would I be a net generator and pay any net generation fee. For the year in total, the baseline credit would have given me a net savings of $180.

I spoke with someone at our meeting today, though, who has a large enough system that he thinks that he'll net generate for all or most months of the year. So his generation credit may be reduced each month by this "reverse credit".
My suggestion: he or she should drive their EV more to use up the credit. Otherwise the credit is going to be mostly wasted, because the paid credit at the end of the year is basically wholesale.

I wish I had seen your post before today's breakfast so we could have discussed this. Breaking the Net Metering principle would open the door to making subsidies such as the Baseline allocation more fair with net metering. However, breaking the principle also makes it possible for the regulators and utility to set a lower price for generation. Hawaii is facing this right now, where the utility is proposing to pay a generation price about 1/2 the consumption price. While a big drop, 1/2 is still well above wholesale.

What would be possible, but I have not seen discussed, is some kind of hybrid scheme in which you got full "Net" credit at retail price for some length of time, such as one TOU period of 2pm to 8pm, or even 24 hours, but the credit carryover outside of this window would be at the lower net generation price. Some states appear to have this type of system, where the Net window is one full month, but the credit carryover is basically wholesale. This means they can use non-smart meters with physical dials that are read once a month. I would not want to be in such a state, because it seems perfectly fair for us to be able to apply a surplus credit generated in the spring or the fall at the prevailing price for those seasons to higher usage months in the winter or summer.

Another threat that is gaining steam in some states as an alternative to breaking the Net principle is to charge solar customers a flat fee per month per kW of capacity, with proposals as high as $6 per kW per month. This is supposed to pay the utility for the supposed increased infrastructure necessary to "park" your power. At the present time this would seem to be a phony issue, except perhaps in Hawaii where circuits supplying 100 houses or more are experiencing a total net reverse flow in the middle of the day, which apparently causes some voltage and control problems. A recent proposal to charge net metering customers in AZ a punishing $50 per month, regardless of system size, was reduced by the state regulator to a much more reasonable $5 per month.

Much of this pushback is utilities defending their turf in the face of a declining business model, but the technical issues from expanding self generation are important. Hawaii is leading the way in demonstrating that the technical issues can be solved, and solar generation way beyond the 5% cap in CA is technically feasible. Recently, at the request of NREL consultants, Enphase reprogrammed thousands of their micro inverters in Hawaii via an internet broadcast. Traditionally all inverters have been programmed to disconnect from the grid when voltage or frequency fades under grid stress, but the Enphase change directs their inverters to stay connected longer. By so doing the inverters contribute to grid stability rather than subtract from it.

A good new report on the Hawaii utility-Enphase collaboration:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...g-enphase-data-to-open-its-grid-to-more-solar
 
On Thursday Tesla announced a utility battery that will work with some solar inverters to control how much excess solar power is sent to the grid, and how much is stored in the battery. $3.5K for 10 kWh is very steep, and I won't be buying one.

However, the announcement got me to thinking about how one could use a battery with the new TOU-A tariff. On all but the hottest days my A/C usage in the morning is minimal, so I generate a solar surplus in this period, but this goes to the grid at the off-peak price until 2pm on weekdays. I generate about 20 kWh per day, so before 2pm I could store perhaps 8 kWh in the battery instead of sending it to the grid. I could discharge this 8 kWh between 5 pm and 8 pm when my A/C usage is high and I would get the on-peak price. On weekends I would give the battery a rest.

Of course there is the big concern that the battery might not last long enough to make a net profit, but as long as the battery does not die completely it might pay off in the end.
 
My friend just installed solar from Sungevity on her house yesterday. It appears there is quite a backlog at SCE for doing the system "blessing" required for startup. Does anyone on this thread have recent knowledge of how long the backlog can take?

When I installed my system several years ago, there was a delay simply because my meter, while smart, was not bi-directional. I went ahead against the rules and turned my system on so I could at least use solar power directly in my house while I waited for my 2-way meter and official blessing. I figured since the meter was not bi-directional, the grid could not tell I was generating.

Now days I understand that most people's smart meters are bi-directional, so in principle they could detect her generation before the blessing and hassle her. I guess it would be best to wait for the onsite blessing, right ?
 
Tbleakne, my son's new system recently went online after about a month's time after installation was complete. I hope that's a useful benchmark for you.

Regarding turning it on "against the rules", I understand the temptation, but personally I'd wait for permission. I guess I'm a rule follower at heart. You'll always find some people who'll tell you to just turn it on regardless, and some who'll follow the rules.
 
tbleakne said:
My friend just installed solar from Sungevity on her house yesterday. It appears there is quite a backlog at SCE for doing the system "blessing" required for startup. Does anyone on this thread have recent knowledge of how long the backlog can take?
How large? I understand below 3 or 5 kW is just a clerical review and larger systems need more expert review and a field visit. Mine a couple years ago was about 2 weeks for a 3 kW system.
 
Well the new TOU-A billing is far simplified. :D

Received my first bill today and there is no allocation of baseline. Just a flat 267 kWh x .10302 for -$27.51 as a single line credit.

Used net 301 kWh, total bill -$12.32 with $1.80 paid now and -$14.12 toward the annual net charges.
 
smkettner said:
Well the new TOU-A billing is far simplified. :D

Received my first bill today and there is no allocation of baseline. Just a flat 267 kWh x .10302 for -$27.51 as a single line credit.

Used net 301 kWh, total bill -$12.32 with $1.80 paid now and -$14.12 toward the annual net charges.

Mine was a little more complicated than that:

TOU-D-A.jpg
 
Looks same with a single line charge. As a net generator this month it is just a charge vs. credit as I have.

I see now this might act as a tool that in effect you lose your baseline credit as a net generator. May end up with six credits and six charges that net to zero so basically you lose this.

Thanks for the prospective.
 
Thanks for clarification on how the Baseline credit (or debit) works. Since I am always a net consumer in net kWh for the month, it will always be a credit for me. With an solar configuration constrained by tree shade and roof angle, so I generate less than I use, especially with more EV miles, TOU has paid off big time. We will see how I do in the hot summer months under the new tariff. I am still amazed at how few solar reps have even heard of TOU, and even fewer are willing to analyze it as part of a proposal.

My friend's brother, who had his Sungevity installation completed just before her as part of the same deal, has already been given the go ahead to turn on his array without a site visit from SCE, just as you folks predicted. It appears Sungevity had needlessly alarmed them about a possible multi-month delay from SCE.
 
tbleakne said:
Thanks for clarification on how the Baseline credit (or debit) works. Since I am always a net consumer in net kWh for the month, it will always be a credit for me. With an solar configuration constrained by tree shade and roof angle, so I generate less than I use, especially with more EV miles, TOU has paid off big time. We will see how I do in the hot summer months under the new tariff. I am still amazed at how few solar reps have even heard of TOU, and even fewer are willing to analyze it as part of a proposal.

My friend's brother, who had his Sungevity installation completed just before her as part of the same deal, has already been given the go ahead to turn on his array without a site visit from SCE, just as you folks predicted. It appears Sungevity had needlessly alarmed them about a possible multi-month delay from SCE.

My son had his recently (April) system ok to operate within about 5 weeks, I think.
 
If the sign of the Baseline credit/debit is determined by the sign of the net kWh as your evidence suggests, it would seem this Baseline credit/debit as we now are seeing it implemented could create an incentive for the following strategy in months when you are near neutral.

Suppose your net usage in kWh for the month is trending somewhat negative, so you are going to be a net producer for the month, triggering the Baseline as a debit. Near the end of the billing period you shutdown your solar so that you just barely flip to being a net consumer for the month. You do this during off-peak hours to minimize the loss in $. The Baseline is now applied as a credit. For the case of the mawalsh bill shown above, this would result in a 2*$26 = $52 benefit to your accumulated credit. $52 is a lot of kWh.

This is crazy. Am I missing something ?
 
tbleakne said:
If the sign of the Baseline credit/debit is determined by the sign of the net kWh as your evidence suggests, it would seem this Baseline credit/debit as we now are seeing it implemented could create an incentive for the following strategy in months when you are near neutral.

Suppose your net usage in kWh for the month is trending somewhat negative, so you are going to be a net producer for the month, triggering the Baseline as a debit. Near the end of the billing period you shutdown your solar so that you just barely flip to being a net consumer for the month. You do this during off-peak hours to minimize the loss in $. The Baseline is now applied as a credit. For the case of the mawalsh bill shown above, this would result in a 2*$26 = $52 benefit to your accumulated credit. $52 is a lot of kWh.

This is crazy. Am I missing something ?

After fairly careful thought, I think you're incorrect.

At the moment of consideration whether to shut off your solar during Off Peak, you are facing this decision: Will I save money if my solar is off or on for the next kWh of solar production? In all cases, the answer is that I will save money if my solar is turned on, because worst case (if I'm a net generator) I get 30 cents credit in summer for producing that kWh while being charged 10 cents. I'm always ahead by 20 cents by producing solar. Slightly less in winter.
 
I am thinking you may as well use more super off-peak power. Can't imagine turning off solar would ever save money.

Dishwasher, laundry, air conditioning need to be on a timer to use power super off-peak. And by all means you may as well put some extra miles on the EV.
 
Back
Top