SCE Minimum Bill Charge from $2 to $10

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.
Frankly, it seems like a reasonable change...

freeewilly said:
Starting October 2015, SCE is changing the minimum delivery charge from previous minimum of $2 per month to $10, this hurt Net Energy Metering customers (people with Solar).
 
TomT said:
Frankly, it seems like a reasonable change...

freeewilly said:
Starting October 2015, SCE is changing the minimum delivery charge from previous minimum of $2 per month to $10, this hurt Net Energy Metering customers (people with Solar).

Reasonable as in it's more reasonable than $20 a month? Did they have to pick the CPUC's maximum and not say $5/mo? Are you with SCE, Tom?
 
Reasonable in that a solar costumer is using the grid as a battery and there needs to be a cost associated with this to support that infrastructure. $10 seems fair... I'm a LADWP customer.

Valdemar said:
Reasonable as in it's more reasonable than $20 a month? Did they have to pick the CPUC's maximum and not say $5/mo? Are you with SCE, Tom?
 
TomT said:
Frankly, it seems like a reasonable change...
Agreed.

My utility has a $10.00/month connection charge that all ratepayers pay, regardless of how they use the network. I have to believe I'm getting a great deal since I have been able to "store" 3 MWh in the grid this summer that I will be able to use 100% of this winter. There is no technology available which can offer that much storage for such a nominal fee. Existing solutions likely cost 100x as much and cannot return more than about 90% of the energy that was originally produced.
 
$10 doesn't seem a lot, but it's 500% increase of my monthly electricity bill. Instead of paying $240 for next 10 years, I have to pay $1200.

Is it fair to pay $10 to maintain the grid? Yes, it's fair. But I still want to bitch about it. :x
 
freeewilly said:
$10 doesn't seem a lot, but it's 500% increase of my monthly electricity bill. Instead of paying $240 for next 10 years, I have to pay $1200.

Oh no, you'll pay much more, they will surely find ways to screw solar customers further over the next 10 years.
 
Valdemar said:
freeewilly said:
$10 doesn't seem a lot, but it's 500% increase of my monthly electricity bill. Instead of paying $240 for next 10 years, I have to pay $1200.

Oh no, you'll pay much more, they will surely find ways to screw solar customers further over the next 10 years.

Here's what the real issue is as I see it: Future PV Subsidies

In California, the current Net Energy Metering scheme was approved by the CPUC many years ago to help subsidize and grow solar in the state, up to a specified cap for each utility. We are nearing those limits, probably mid next year (approximately).

The early group of solar PV adopters received state incentives, federal tax credits, full retail price for overgeneration, and free use of the grid as a battery. So other federal taxpayers and utility ratepayers have contributed to the solar PV systems that we have in the State, and it has been successful (lots of systems installed).

Now the State, the utilities, and interested parties are now working together to try and figure out what the next steps will be for "NEM 2.0". In general terms, the solar providers seem to want to have the "NEM 1.0" benefits continue, because that makes it easier to sell their systems and show higher cost benefits to potential customers. The utilities are claiming that it costs additional money to serve solar customers and since they aren't currently paying most of this cost, other ratepayers are subsidizing it...And, of course, solar PV systems are getting cheaper and have come down in price considerably from when NEM 1.0 was started...

It's all about subsidies and whether they should continue or be cut back a little bit....
 
I don't see how solar can exist if the NEM 2.0 is accepted as it is being proposed by the utility companies today and the fed tax credit reduced/removed. I don't think there will be many takers on new solar installs with 15-20 year payback period. And after the rate reform is implemented solar leases will be a difficult sell as well.
 
I still think the minimum fee should be based on the size of the main breaker.
200 amp house should pay more than a 60 amp apartment. $10 vs $3?
It is all about installed infrastructure right?

What if you could downgrade to a 20 amp main with any surge coming from a Power Wall etc.
This should allow the utility to stop upgrading.

Of course a business with 1,000 amps and 600 volt service would have a huge minimum to carry the cost to guaranty power at that level.
 
The claim that solar homes cost the utilities more is utility company propaganda.

The grid isn't a 'battery' being provided for free. Solar customers provide extra power to the grid when the grid gets hit with the heaviest load from air conditioning. This reduces the total production the utility needs to fire up. Any utility will first use the cheap stuff and only bring online the more expensive sources when forced to. Further, these homes buy back at night when the utility has the lowest cost operations because demand is lower. And these customers use their own funds to build what amounts to a large collective power plant that the utilities buy from at low rates during peak demand when they would otherwise have to use more expensive resources or build additional plants themselves at considerable financial cost. The result = lower costs for the utility not their claimed 'burden' that isn't being appropriately shared by the solar homes.

Technically, yes, $10/month isn't a large amount. But so many burdensome taxes/fees are put in place using the argument that it is just a small amount and justified by x and y. Not many stay small over time.

Note: I acknowledge that the installation of this power plant is subsidized by the Federal and various state tax incentives/rebates. If these are no longer considered good public policy, that is a different discussion. Encouraging people to install through incentives and then charging them extra for doing so afterwards is not appropriate. The different public policy arms (Federal/state/CPUC) should to be in sync and sending the same message. Is solar good or bad public policy?
 
Back
Top