Official Southern California Edison thread

[Valdemar]

There is a $240 credit on my bill since May. So far so good.

 

[tbleakne]

The LA Times reported several days ago that about 200K SCE customers are experiencing delays in their billing like mine. This is a lot, but only a small fraction of their total customers. I am not sure whether this is a subset of Net Metering customers.

I believe my monthly bill may be large because of the mammoth amount of A/C I have been using, so the delay is frustrating, but I don't believe any data of either consumption or production has been lost.

Today LA Times reported on SCE's Net 2.0 proposal for 3$/kW per month and $.08 credit per exported kWh as we have discussed. SolarCity and the other solar contractors have woken up to the fact that this could really kill their business model.

The story mentions that the 3$/kW is like a demand charge. I understand that the utility believes Net Metering customers need to help pay for the grid, but a charge proportional to export capacity seems excessive unless everyone is Net Metering, so that the power has to flow a long distance before being resold.

I believe one reason the proposals are so grim is that the CPUC is requiring that the Net 2.0 proposals have No Cap on residential solar or other distributed production % participation. Net 1.0 has a 5% participation cap, which has limited the utilities financial exposure. Perhaps if Net 2.0 had a new higher 20% or 25% participation cap, a more modest change could be negotiated. This is about the level that is currently being successfully handled in Hawaii. At this participation level, your exported power would still be resold to your immediate neighbors in most cases, so only a little fraction of the grid would be used in reselling your power. I would argue that crediting our export at perhaps $.05 less than retail would fairly compensate the utility for this redistribution.

 

[Boomer23]

Excellent overview article in the Desert Sun today. It goes into the proposals by various groups, including the Sierra Club and ratepayer advocacy groups, as well as those from utilities and the solar industry.

My favorite paragraph is the one which mentions one independent group being amused at the way the proposals made by the utilities "throw everything at the wall to see what sticks".

Also includes an email address where the public can send input to the CPUC.

http://www.desertsun.com/story/tech/science/energy/2015/09/28/rooftop-solar-one-decision-change-everything/72833084/

 

[Valdemar]

Don’t change the rate solar customers are paid for their electricity, but charge them a monthly fee based on the size of their system. The fee would gradually rise as more people go solar, starting at $2 per kilowatt per month, jumping to $5 and eventually settling at $10.

Ouch, if it comes to that I'll be paying $90 monthly, it will be a tough choice between that and a adding Tesla powerwall and going off-grid completely.

 

[smkettner]

Exactly. If SCE will not pay a decent price to sell AND needs a monthly fee for the privilege it will just have us buying Tesla Powerwall or equivalent systems to maximize return on solar. I can almost see getting paid a lower rate but still rates should reflect peak demand when power is produced. May not go completely off grid but very easy to go off the grid for daytime demand. Transfer switch can just cut grid power except for super-off-peak time. The beginning of the end may have begun for investor owned utilities.

 

[Boomer23]

New email from SCE today saying that they're instituting a minimum of $10 a month delivery charge. This "Balance of Minimum" charge applies from Oct 1, 2015. It brings your monthly minimum charge up to $10 if your rate calculation totals less than $10 for the month.

It's not clear to me yet whether during the winter months when our monthly bills may be in positive territory, whether that will satisfy a portion or all of the $10 minimum. Anyway, I'm expecting to be paying $120 a year minimum from now on.

Bummer!

 

[Valdemar]

New email from SCE today saying that they're instituting a minimum of $10 a month delivery charge. This "Balance of Minimum" charge applies from Oct 1, 2015. It brings your monthly minimum charge up to $10 if your rate calculation totals less than $10 for the month.

It's not clear to me yet whether during the winter months when our monthly bills may be in positive territory, whether that will satisfy a portion or all of the $10 minimum. Anyway, I'm expecting to be paying $120 a year minimum from now on.

Bummer!

California Climate Credit will help to offset this a bit too, but it still sucks. Will probably get worse as they will be trying to squeeze every dollar they can from solar customers going forward.

 

[Boomer23]

Right, I forgot the climate credit. Yes, it should offset some of this $120.

I'm sure that you're right, that at some future time we'll see further increases, but AFAIK, the $10 monthly charge is the highest that is currently approved by the CPUC. Frankly, I'm surprised it took the utilities this long to start charging it. CPUC approved it over a year ago, I think.

 

[smkettner]

May have started this in winter so there would be less effect during the first four months of implementation.
My solar is small so it may have a muted impact on my billing.

 

[abasile]

Today LA Times reported on SCE's Net 2.0 proposal for 3$/kW per month and $.08 credit per exported kWh as we have discussed. SolarCity and the other solar contractors have woken up to the fact that this could really kill their business model.

<snip>

I believe one reason the proposals are so grim is that the CPUC is requiring that the Net 2.0 proposals have No Cap on residential solar or other distributed production % participation. Net 1.0 has a 5% participation cap, which has limited the utilities financial exposure. Perhaps if Net 2.0 had a new higher 20% or 25% participation cap, a more modest change could be negotiated. This is about the level that is currently being successfully handled in Hawaii. At this participation level, your exported power would still be resold to your immediate neighbors in most cases, so only a little fraction of the grid would be used in reselling your power. I would argue that crediting our export at perhaps $.05 less than retail would fairly compensate the utility for this redistribution.

Thanks for the analysis. I agree that, at moderate levels of solar participation, it makes no sense for residential solar owners to be forced to export at $0.08/kWh only to have the utility sell to their immediate neighbors at ~$0.30/kWh or whatever their marginal rates end up being.

Those of use who are at home most days could use, as an alternative to a PowerWall, a "smart" EV charging system that would automatically throttle daytime EV charging so as to zero out electricity imports/exports at any given point in time, whenever possible. Of course, this would work best with either a large-battery EV such as a Tesla, or a regular, daily pattern of LEAF driving.

 

[tbleakne]

I have a suggestion for what I think would be totally fair way to price power for both solar generators and others on the grid without any distributed generation of their own. I call it Virtual Microgrid.

At the bottom of the grid nearest our homes we typically have several houses sharing one local transformer that brings 12K volts down to 240/120. At the next level something like 30 to 50 of these local transformers share a single line pair, called a circuit, that connects to a large transformer at the sub-station.

We who have solar generally agree that our net exported power is usually consumed by our nearest neighbors on the same circuit. The flow of reverse power will not reach beyond the substation until the solar penetration is much higher than 5%. I believe some circuits in HI do reach this condition as they approach and exceed 20% solar participation.

Now that we all have smart meters that monitor the flow of power in both directions, it would be easy to group any subset of the the houses on one circuit into a virtual microgrid, and compute dynamically the net power flowing in or out of this micro gird.

SCE in their current NM 2.0 proposal suggests they are doing us a big favor by allowing us to consume our own generated power behind the meter at full retail credit. To not allow this seems very bad to me, but SD&G's proposal does prohibit this, proposing to buy our power at wholesale and sell it back at retail, even if it never leaves our house. My idea is to extend the SCE behind the meter concept to the virtual microgrid. Solar producers would sell their net export to their fellow micro gird owners who are importing power. The price would be perhaps 5 cents/kWh less than SCE retail, and this would be the incentive for non-solar owners to join the local microgrid, while solar generators would get a much better price than wholesale. The membership of the microgrid could be periodically adjusted to keep the mix of solar and non-solar customers balanced, so a minimum of power would be exported or imported from/to the microgrid.

Since members of the microgrid would be exchanging power among themselves using the local wiring and transformers, and SCE would be making no profit on this exchange, it would be fair for the microgrid members to pay a small monthly lease for their use of this local infrastructure, but this payment would be a flat fee and not proportional to the size of anyone's solar array. The lease would cover maintenance of this infrastructure.

Each member would see on their bill a mixture of power generated within the microgrid and power purchased from SCE, as well as payments made by SCE for net exported power.

I claim this arrangement would be completely fair to SCE owners outside the microgrid, with no hidden subsidies.

 

[Boomer23]

I like it!

Let's do it.

 

[Boomer23]

Very good news, I think, from the CPUC on their long awaited proposed decision on a successor NEM program for customers of the three large utilities.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M156/K501/156501053.doc

The proposal continues the use of NEM, which in my understanding continues the practice of reimbursing residential power generators at the retail rate for power sent to the grid, and it rejects the utilities' proposals to charge a per-kW monthly fee for installed generating capacity nor any grid access charges, demand fees or standby charges.

The proposal adds several provisions for customers who install after the end of the current NEM 1.0 period (July 1, 2017 or when each utility's installed residential solar percentage cap is reached, whichever is sooner).
A) A one-time interconnect fee, currently absorbed by the utility.
B) Adds small (2 to 3 cent/kWh) charges for "non-bypassable" fees that support baseline programs for low income customers, to be charged on all power used from the grid, not just on net power used per year after subtracting power sent to the grid.
C) Requires customers who interconnect new systems under the new program to go immediately on Time of Use rates rather than waiting until all customers go on TOU in 2019.

Final decision on the CPUC proposal will be made in late January after a period allowing comments from stakeholders.

 

[Valdemar]

Good, solar installers are probably celebrating.

 

[tbleakne]

While visiting friends near Tahoe for the holidays, we received news from Reno TV that Nevada PUC has issued a terrible ruling killing Net Metering for Nevada. The price paid for all exported power will be rolled back from retail to wholesale price over next 4 years. This begins Jan 1, 2016.
Nevada, in the top 4 states in terms of total sun exposure, has been playing catchup with 12K rooftop solar installations. The worst part of this decision is that it is rectoactive, with no grandfathering. People with PPA contracts will be losing money with every exported kWh. This will be a bad precedent that will encourage more attacks on Net Metering in other states. SolarCity has announced it is pulling out of NV, effective immediately.

 

[Boomer23]

Sad news indeed, tbleakne. I had read that the head of the Nevada PUC is an enemy of solar and that a decision like this was expected.

Tesla and other providers of residential battery storage systems will likely be staking out states like Nevada as ready markets. It's unfortunate that the battery systems are still expensive per kWh of storage, but that will improve given some time.

 

[tbleakne]

Yes, Boomer23, the decision was unaminous, and all 3 PUC members were appointed by current NV governor. Amazing, considering the solar jobs that will be lost vs the huge incentives given Tesla for the jobs at their Gigafactory.

One of the reports of this mentioned that HI also terminated Net Metering Oct 2015, which was news to me. In the HI decision, the fast track unlimited new option offers zero compensation, not even wholesale price, for exported power. HI wholesale prices are very high, about $.15/kWh, so zero means huge profits for the utility for the exported power.

These decisions will certainly encourage those who can afford it to off grid, even if it is not economic. This will be a powerful boost for the battery business, which will help EVs. However I fear this will enlarge the gap between the solar "haves" and have-nots. My earlier idea of being allowed to sell export power to your non-solar neighbors makes even more sense, vs zero from the utility. It would also allow non-solar folks to participate in savings and lower emissions from solar. I realize the utilities won't allow this without a fight.

Happy Holidays, everyone. A cold white Christmas for us here at Northstar, near Truckee and Tahoe. The full moon may appear later.

 

[Valdemar]

Sad news indeed, tbleakne. I had read that the head of the Nevada PUC is an enemy of solar and that a decision like this was expected.

Tesla and other providers of residential battery storage systems will likely be staking out states like Nevada as ready markets. It's unfortunate that the battery systems are still expensive per kWh of storage, but that will improve given some time.

Smells like conspiracy to create demand for the Tesla Powerwall built at Gigafactory in NV.

 

[tbleakne]

A little more on the HI Net Metering roll-back. Unlike NV, all existing Net Metering for HI is grandfathered, but the new options are interesting for suggesting what the future might bring for the rest of us over time.

HI has the highest solar penetration of any state, so they are the bleeding edge. The high penetration is very understandable, with retail rates of $.30/kWh, and wholesale rates of about $.15/kWh, a consequence of generating most of their power from imported diesel fuel. Apparently the separate grid on each island is too small to justify coal generation, and for the quantities they need, diesel, being more energy dense, is cheaper to transport than coal. The utility publishes maps of the penetration. Here is Oahu DG (Distributed Generation) relative to first minimum load, and then maximum load, for each circuit of a few hundred customers. Notice the high ratios.

The utility is offering a "fast-track" option that will win quick approval, but which offers zero compensation for exported power. They realize this will not be popular without affordable batteries.

More interesting for the immediate future is their other option, which will pay the wholesale rate for each kWh exported to the grid, but this payment is capped at the level of the customer's total imported power for the month. Any additional production for the month is forfeited to the utility. To see how this works, suppose the customer is able to arrange for 1/3 of his or her consumption to occur during the daytime, behind the meter. The remaining 2/3 of his consumption will cost $.30 - $.15 = $.15/kWh, and building more solar won't help because you would just hit the cap sooner. So the best you could achieve is to reduce your retail bill by 2/3. You have the additional limitation that since you can't roll over credits to future months, you can't average out production across the seasons. This is probably more tolerable in HI than in most other states, since their seasons are mild. However, I would think there might well be some seasonal variation in cloud cover.

Of course an EV owner would charge the EV during the day behind the meter as much as possible. If the car is used for commuting, this would be possible only on weekends. In this case one could envision owning two LEAFs, and charging each at home on alternate days.

 

[tbleakne]

CPUC Approves sPilot EV Charging Program for SCE

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...g-program-for-southern-california-edison.html

1500 Level 2 EVSE to be installed at workplaces, campuses, recreational areas, and apartment complexes. Subsidy for purchase and installation of 25, 50, or 100%. Possible later expansion to 30K EV chargers after results of pilot program.

I am skeptical of the effectiveness of this initiative.
1. 1500 is not very many state-wide, but I guess its purpose is to collect data.
2. Most host candidates are extremely reluctant to give away electricity with unmetered EVSE.
3. Hosts would likewise be concerned about Metered EVSE such as Chargepoint, because they leave the host on the hook for the substantial monthly networking fee, which may or may not be covered by usage revenue.
4. EV drivers don't want to remain plugged in for long periods if they are paying by the hour.
5. Various utility customer advocate groups are hostile to spending any rate payer money on EV infrastructure, so they would fight the expansion.