SDG&E, Solar, Net Metering, and Time of Use 2 (TOU2)

Is the switch from Net Metering to TOU2 a one-way street? It's great today buying and selling electricity at the same retail TOU rates. But what if 3 months or 3 years from now SDG&E levies an additional $50 a month connection fee, or drops the rate paid for generation to $0.02/kWh? Can we then switch back to Net Metering or will it be closed to us?

Click to expand...

SEMPRA/SDG&E already has a request in to the PUC to charge a flat rate of around $60 to everyone saying that it will eliminate the tiered rate schedule. So, as usual, they are one step ahead to insure their record profits continue. The only way out is to go off grid with solar and battery back up, which fortunately looks like it will be reasonably priced in a few years.

Concerning charges on a separate EV meter, BLINK member rates are now $.49 per kWh L2 (instead of the fixed per hour rate) and the same for L1 fast chargers plus about a $6 charge.

SDG&E's recent rate increase brings them to on peak $.39 per kWh. So if you need to top up during the day there is not much difference to do it at the shopping mall than at home.

SDG&E is getting ahead of this threat as well - they are preparing to buy the Blink network to protect their profits.

electricfuture said:

SDG&E is getting ahead of this threat as well - they are preparing to buy the Blink network to protect their profits.

Click to expand...

They'd need a reversal of the CPUC ruling keeping electric utilities out of the car charging business would they not?

I'd actually welcome SDG&E buying Blink. Maybe I'm just the kind of guy who would prefer a benevolent dictator to anarchy but I'd prefer a competent monopoly to an incompetent competition. Blink, Ecotality and then CCG, hasn't shown much interest in maintaining their equipment let alone expanding it, and I have to think SDG&E would do better.

Moreover, Blink's abdication has led to a near monopoly by eVgo, which does attend to maintenance. SDG&E could give eVgo some real competition which could keep prices and service levels reasonable.

I agree that there could be better maintenance if SDG&E buys Blink - but I believe the charge price would definitely increase as a result. evGo on the other hand is owned by Nissan! So they can negotiate reasonable rates from SDG&E. Considering Nissan's vested interest in EV's I would prefer the evGo monopoly (subject of course to SDG&E messing with their rate structure) to an SDG&E monopoly on charge stations AND your home charger rates.

Many of you know that I work for the local utility. I have two EVs and just became a solar customer a couple of months ago. So I'm in this with everybody and trying to walk the talk. I don't represent the utility communications department, so this is just me talking. I think I understand the issues pretty well.

There is one point that I think many solar customers are missing when it comes to the discussion of a implementing a modest monthly fee...

Let's say that under current rates, your bill at the annual true up period is pretty close to zero. So you're creating an abundance of kwh during the day via your solar system, and exporting to the grid, and then you're consuming back from the grid at night and you're charging your car, cooking, etc.

At the end of the year, with your bill near zero under the current rates, you are using the grid as your personal storage battery but you're not paying anything for what goes into bringing that grid connection to your house. It has a value, no question about that. If you think it has no value, then your option would be to purchase batteries to store your excess energy in during the day and then draw energy out of them at night. Not cheap...So there is a value for that grid connection. On rainy or cloudy days, that grid connection will serve your house at full power and is always waiting to do that.

So there is talk of implementing a modest $5 or $10 monthly fee to all customers and then reducing kwh rates slightly so that total revenue from all customers stays about the same. Part of this monthly fee for a solar customer would then pay for having and maintaining that grid connection, and other parts of the fee would cover customer costs for billing, phone center, low income subsidies, etc.

I have no problem with this concept and think it is fair. I can't buy a battery system and go off-grid for $5 or $10 per month, and it allows the utility to recover costs of serving solar customers. I can expand on it more, but I think you get the concept.

The current kwh pricing mechanism was designed in a different era where the utilitiy's costs were recovered simply by selling kwhs. but we're moving out of that era and the pricing mechanism needs to change...

Thanks....

Randy said:

So there is talk of implementing a modest $5 or $10 monthly fee to all customers and then reducing kwh rates slightly so that total revenue from all customers stays about the same. Part of this monthly fee for a solar customer would then pay for having and maintaining that grid connection, and other parts of the fee would cover customer costs for billing, phone center, low income subsidies, etc.

Click to expand...

This is precisely the arrangement I have with our power company today. Like all of the rate-payers, I pay $10/month (plus taxes) for the connection to the grid and I then net-meter the usage of electricty from the grid. This is a recent increase from the previous fee of $5.40/month.

Randy said:

I have no problem with this concept and think it is fair. I can't buy a battery system and go off-grid for $5 or $10 per month, and it allows the utility to recover costs of serving solar customers. I can expand on it more, but I think you get the concept.

Click to expand...

IMO, it is extremely fair. Not only does the "battery" that I get swallow excess generation of over 50kWh some days, but it also stores an excess generation of over 3MWh in the summertime until wintertime when I really need it. This capability allows my PV system to produce at maximum capacity whenever the sunlight hits it rather than having to throttle its production to meet the constraints of a tiny battery bank. And it does all of this with very little loss since the power flows directly to my nearby neighbors where it is consumed.

So, no, there will not be any battery technology in the near-to-medium future which can approach what the grid offers me today.

A couple months ago, posted elsewhere on the forum, was this information that may interest some of you to know . . .

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=17318

electricfuture said:

SEMPRA/SDG&E already has a request in to the PUC to charge a flat rate of around $60 to everyone saying that it will eliminate the tiered rate schedule.

Click to expand...

$60 can't be right - that's more than my average electricity bill before I even got solar! Even including natural gas my cost was only slightly more.

A $5-10 fee I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to. But I want to see that the value of solar PV exports on the grid is appropriately valued and so far I haven't seen any utilities appear to make anything significant attempt to truly value distributed PV exports.

The utilities need to be careful - it's not going to be long before grid-storage is affordable and customers will be able to do their own demand shifting to minimize their exports/imports from the grid if not going off-grid completely.

My current SDG&E EV TOU meter bill breaks down delivery and generation costs.

As PV generated power is not stored on the grid (unless you can show me the storage caps or batteries) it is distributed (delivery) and not generated. Moreover, distribution from home PV is extremely efficient, as it travels short distances to supply your neighbor power and as a direct result does not add stress to the grid - in fact it reduces it. Think about it - where does your excess PV power really go when it leaves your house? Does it travel to a special PV power distribution substation - no. Does it have it's own distribution lines and switches - no. Do they have to increase the line capacity - no.

All that happens is the grid notices it has more power and backs off the gas turbine generators accordingly. That is it.

My current bill for delivery On-peak -$.01229 (yes that is right); Off-peak $.11985 (that's right - lower than "Super-Off Peak); Super-Off peak $.12857

Note that the Delivery charges which are for the Grid operation are highest at the "Super-Off" peak hours. Interesting.

But how about the Generation charges?
On-Peak $.37281 (yes that is right); Off-peak $.09857; Super-Off Peak $.0439

So when I install solar, day time distribution "Delivery" rates should apply at about $.11 per kWh - not generation charges (unless I charge SDG&E for my "PV generator".) And during the night if I use power it should be at the generation rate $.09857 - $.0439.

So believe that the rates structure for PV and powering EV at night is exactly backwards lined up against SDG&E's own rate structure on my bill.

Any word on when/if sdge's proposed changes will be approved?

Randy said:

We always encourage people with the 2nd ev meter who are migrating to the whole house rate to leave it in place if possible and we will make it a load research meter. Nothing will ever get billed from it, but it will still gather valuable charging data. You also have the choice of removing it if you'd like...

Click to expand...

I wasn't given that option. They just removed it, which meant I had to buy my own meter from Hialeah Meter to keep my EV circuit alive.

Randy said:

Many of you know that I work for the local utility. I have two EVs and just became a solar customer a couple of months ago. So I'm in this with everybody and trying to walk the talk. I don't represent the utility communications department, so this is just me talking. I think I understand the issues pretty well.

There is one point that I think many solar customers are missing when it comes to the discussion of a implementing a modest monthly fee...

Let's say that under current rates, your bill at the annual true up period is pretty close to zero. So you're creating an abundance of kwh during the day via your solar system, and exporting to the grid, and then you're consuming back from the grid at night and you're charging your car, cooking, etc.

At the end of the year, with your bill near zero under the current rates, you are using the grid as your personal storage battery but you're not paying anything for what goes into bringing that grid connection to your house. It has a value, no question about that. If you think it has no value, then your option would be to purchase batteries to store your excess energy in during the day and then draw energy out of them at night. Not cheap...So there is a value for that grid connection. On rainy or cloudy days, that grid connection will serve your house at full power and is always waiting to do that.

So there is talk of implementing a modest $5 or $10 monthly fee to all customers and then reducing kwh rates slightly so that total revenue from all customers stays about the same. Part of this monthly fee for a solar customer would then pay for having and maintaining that grid connection, and other parts of the fee would cover customer costs for billing, phone center, low income subsidies, etc.

I have no problem with this concept and think it is fair. I can't buy a battery system and go off-grid for $5 or $10 per month, and it allows the utility to recover costs of serving solar customers. I can expand on it more, but I think you get the concept.

The current kwh pricing mechanism was designed in a different era where the utilitiy's costs were recovered simply by selling kwhs. but we're moving out of that era and the pricing mechanism needs to change...

Thanks....

Click to expand...

The interconnection minimum fee is probably inevitable. However the utilities seem to forget that ALL solar is contributed to the grid on-peak and has more value than the power pulled back out overnight. Home solar producers are feeding in dollar coins and extracting pennies but at the end of the year they are counted as the same. Only those on a TOU rate get some of the daytime value out of the solar produced. To be fair the minimum connection fee should apply to all users solar or not IMO.

Actually the minimum fee should probably be based upon the rating of the main feed as originally built.
100 amp service 5$/month, 200 amp service $10/month, 1500 amp service (business) $75/month and on through the scale.
If the grid was built at that level, that is what should be paid.

California ISO imports up to 200 GWHr of electricity per day which is about 30 percent of the total demand. Last year I used 10 MWHr of electricity and generated 9MWHr. Since the pricing is 32 cents during the day and 4 cents during the night the ratio allowed the accumulation $375 of electrical energy credits. Another way to look at this is I provided $375 dollars of electricity to PG&E which they sold to my neighbors without having to expand the grid, without adding stress to the electrical grid, nor did they have to provide any capital resources other than a smartmeter.

In addition to providing PG&E with this electricity, I use electrical energy mostly at night which increases their night time capital capacity loading and provide electricity during the day when PG&E needs the most electrical power. So not only does PG&E get a return on my solar investment but the additional use during the night raises their capacity factor and reduces the demand peaking during the day. So I don't agree that we PV solar producers are free loading on the system and need to pay for the privilege of our connection to the grid. Our production contributes to increasing PG&E night time demand and reducing the peaking power needed during the afternoon hours, both of these lowers the cost of electricity for PG&E some which goes to the share holder and some which goes to the rater payer.

In addition to providing PG&E with this electricity, I use electrical energy mostly at night which increases their night time capital capacity loading and provide electricity during the day when PG&E needs the most electrical power. So not only does PG&E get a return on my solar investment but the additional use during the night raises their capacity factor and reduces the demand peaking during the day.

Click to expand...

Yes this is exactly my point - PG&E, So. Cal Ed. and SDG&E rate structures are exactly backwards for home generated PV power delivered to the grid.

Concerning SEPRA's proposed connection fee of around $60 under review by the CPUC versus the real connection fee - in my case around $15, this is not based on the actual costs. It is based on SEMPR's/SDG&E's revenue model to insure that their profits will not go down as the number of home PV systems increase over the years. They need to get this in place while PV users are still a small minority and while many non-PV consumers will still welcome the break from their current astronomical rates. It would also discourage many consumers from installing PV. Either way SEMPR/SDG&E advantage.

But it gets worse. SDG&E is the most profitable utility in the U.S. 5 years running and usually the highest rate structure in the entire U.S.. There is a loop hole in the CPUC restrictions on utility profits in that they can take tax credits for infrastructure development - thus the $1 billion unneeded Sunrise Powerlink was built and our rates increased to pay for it while increasing their bottom line. Next 20% of SDG&E's power was from San Onofre Nuclear plant - shut down forever in less than 50 days. According to their own documents it would have cost $198 million to replace the steam generators. We already know that over $4 billion and counting will be paid by the consumer to dismantle them and an unknown sum to remove radioactive materials - and we and LA loose 1100 megawatts of non-green house gas electrical production. These are being replaced by SDG&E gas turbines and a what they say is the required associated new electrical distribution network. There is their write off against their profits for many years to come!

AND SDG&E has touted that they have beat the CPUC mandate of 20% renewables 5 years early. How did they do it? Well the new power line ties to SEMPRA owned wind farm in Mexico, they buy cheap hydro power from Bonneville Power in the northwest, plus purchase power agreements with other wind/solar/geothermal plants in east of San Diego. They also buy power from gas fired power plants in other states brought over by the new transmission line - the gas is supplied by - you guessed it - SEMPRA. So they have not invested any of their own money for renewable capital projects. Why would they - those projects don't burn gas.

I got my first bill under EV-TOU2 the other day - the last bit of summer billing rates along with a week or so of winter rates.

Had plenty of on-peak generation on the lowest "summer" month of October, so it appears that this billing plan will easily be cheaper than using DR and EV-TOU.

Minor issue with the bill - the negative amounts on the bill for the on-peak wasn't correctly noted in the appropriate section, but does appear correct under the summarized applied generation credits.

Now in the winter billing rates there is basically no incentive to shift usage to off-peak (less than $0.005 between on/off peak - about 2%) and a small incentive to shift usage to super-off-peak which is about 15% cheaper than peak rates. The rate structures could actually mean that my winter bills go up slightly since the base DR rate ($0.165 / kWh) is less than even the super-off-peak EV-TOU2 rates ($0.175 / kWh). So perhaps not the best time to switch to EV-TOU, but oh well. It should really pay off next summer.

Planning on having my solar installed in a few months. Being home most of the day it seemed to make sense to stay on the tiered rate as TOU benefits usage other than during the day. My EV-TOU meter will be changed to TOU at year end with the plan being to switch everything over to tiered rate after the solar PV is installed. I figured tired rates with net metering would be better choice than TOU if you are primarily a day time user.

I know the payback for "over generation" is minuscule" but at least I will only have to be concerned with the "connection" costs at least until home battery back-up prices are reasonable.

Am I missing something that would make TOU a better choice even if most power is used during the day?

electricfuture said:

Am I missing something that would make TOU a better choice even if most power is used during the day?

Click to expand...

I think you're going to have to be more specific regarding which YOU plan you are specifically considering - I found your post a bit confusing.

I think you're going to have to be more specific regarding which YOU plan you are specifically considering - I found your post a bit confusing.

Click to expand...

I currently have 2 meters - EV-TOU and House -Tiered rate. The majority of my electricity use is during the daylight hours. The only exception is charging the Leaf between 12-5 AM. I plan to be net zero over a 12 month period with maybe a small contribution to the grid over that time. I thought that I would continue to charge the car at night, which is convenient and would be "made up" by excess power generation to the grid during daylight hours. So once the solar is in I thought the best way to go was one tiered-rate meter for the whole house including the Leaf.

My confusion comes from the comments concerning the SDG&E different buy-back rates for TOU versus tiered. Is there a substantial difference for people with similar usage times? Or does TOU only really make a difference for people not using much power during the day?

I would appreciate it if those who have already installed net zero PV and seen their electric bills after the 1st year reconciliation could comment on TOU versus Tiered for someone who's usage is comparable to mine - 9300 KWh per year

Are you planning on keeping the dual-meter setup once your go solar?

Or are you planning on going single meter?

In most of southern California, you'll need around 1000 DC watts of solar to generate 1500 kWh / year.

If your car and house use 9300 kWh / year, you'll need around 6 kW of solar to offset your bill entirely.

How much solar are you planning? Enough to offset your house and car? Or just your house? Your solar PV system will probably generate over half it's energy between 12pm-6pm.

So unless half or more of your energy is currently consumed from that period of time, it will be financially beneficial to go whole house TOU (either DR-SES or EV-TOU2).

Hi, I see that we have discussed TOU2 (as the thread is titled). I was wondering what folks think about DR-TOU2 vs DR-SES? It seems like SES gives off peak pricing over all the weekends and holidays and off-peak (summer) goes from 10p-6p (vs Midnight to 5a for TOU2). In the winter, the differences seem negligible.

http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/ELEC_ELEC-SCHEDS_DR-SES.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why choose TOU2 over SES?

So unless half or more of your energy is currently consumed from that period of time, it will be financially beneficial to go whole house TOU (either DR-SES or EV-TOU2).

Click to expand...

I plan on producing 5320 KW off 19 280 W panels facing directly south on a 20 degree angle. I thought I would go with only one meter on the tiered rate. I am surprised several have been inclined to go with "time of use". This makes sense if you are not home during the day. Being that that is not the case for me I believe that net metering sizing for a net zero would be a better way to go.

I have learned that apparently lease companies have agreements with SDG&E for higher grid feed payment during peak hours. That is why they will tell you it is no problem if the panels are facing southwest as they collect the higher rate at that time. But if the panels are your own south facing is the best way to maximize your production.