PG&E / CPUC - Non-Tiered Time Of Use Rates

[Nekota]

Nekota, you should move a few feet to Silicon Valley Power's service area and pay 10c/kWH all day, night and year.

The baseline amounts aren't "fair", they're just one component of the PG&E rate game enabled by the CPUC monopoly sponsor.

I agree on moving and recommended that to someone who rents in another thread. I wish I could get SVP to expand their service area.

[Phoenix]

Nekota, you should move a few feet to Silicon Valley Power's service area and pay 10c/kWH all day, night and year.

The baseline amounts aren't "fair", they're just one component of the PG&E rate game enabled by the CPUC monopoly sponsor.

The all-you-can-eat single rate encourages energy wasters. Tiered rates make sense to discourage energy guzzlers. I guess evening energy use is still so low that tiers are not considered necessary until we reach a critical mass of EV night charging. SVP would do well to adopt policies that promote conscientious energy use.

[Nekota]

Nekota, you should move a few feet to Silicon Valley Power's service area and pay 10c/kWH all day, night and year.

The baseline amounts aren't "fair", they're just one component of the PG&E rate game enabled by the CPUC monopoly sponsor.

The all-you-can-eat single rate encourages energy wasters. Tiered rates make sense to discourage energy guzzlers. I guess evening energy use is still so low that tiers are not considered necessary until we reach a critical mass of EV night charging. SVP would do well to adopt policies that promote conscientious energy use.

The one size plan to fit all doesn't account for moving energy use from petrol to the power grid, or how many people are using energy in one household or the energy needs of the building. A single bedroom apartment gets the same energy allocation as a single family detached home. Also energy is the power to add value to products and drives the economy and many energy intensive technology users have left the PG&E service area for other states or countries because of this price difference.

The idea that it is an all you can eat energy waste should be balanced with the meager ration provided is starvation. Some even say it's PG&E greed and corruption? For a technology based state that prides itself on being at the forefront of change, I find it appalling we have to import 30% of our electrical energy and haven't done anything in the past 100 years to prepare for a 100 year drought. If we put more effort into being energy self sufficient, then the vast water resources on the coast could be tapped where most of the population is.

And clearly you didn't even look at SVP page on what the do to promote green power and solar energy. How is it that SVP can provide energy inside the PG&E territory for 1/3 to 1/5 what PG&E charges ?

[edatoakrun]

I called PG&E yesterday and was told I would stay on E9a until ~3/31/15 unless I requested a rate plan change prior to that date.

Anyone else know if that is correct?

Since I did not get my smart meter until last May (and had to pay the extra ~$7 per month for over two years to have my driveway abused by the meter reader) I still cannot use the rate comparison tool.

So, the comparison I posted over three years ago (p 2) is still my best estimate.

I estimated my PG&E bill, using the week of info from my "dumb" TOU meter, since it was installed last Tuesday.

I have used:

9 kWh peak, 18 kWh part peak, and 60 kWh off-peak.

Multiplying these totals by 4.3 to approximate a monthly bill:

My E1 rate would have given me about $48 total bill for the month, for 374 kWh. This about my monthly average use.

E1 = $576 (estimated annual bill)

The E9a rate should give me a bill of about $34 this month-$41 with the temporary meter charge.
My Winter bill for the same 374 kWh, with same TOU distribution would be about $27

E9a = $366 (estimated annual bill)

The "new and improved" E9 rate proposal (assuming a 10 kWh shift to weekend, now peak, use) would bill me about $77 in the summer, and $47 in Winter-including the new permanent $8 service charge.

So, this proposal would increase my expected annual E 9 bill over 100%, from $366 (not including the temporary service charge) to $744.

E9 revised = $744 (estimated annual bill)

E6 would give me a Summer bill of about $55. I expect the E6 option would be more expensive than E1, for almost all AC using non-PV EV owners in the summer, but some could save a few bucks a month on E-6 in the winter. Looks like my winter bill would be about $46, for the same 374 kWh. So E6 is still higher for the year, for me, than E1.

E6 = $606 (estimated annual bill)

I guess PG&E wants me on E1.

I guess they won't mind me charging during peak hours...

But I will probably add the SmartRate option to E1, which should save me ~$30 per year off the E1 estimate above.

It will seem strange, I'm sure, to have to go back to the a dumb tariff that values kWh irrespective of actual cost.

BTW, my last six months (June though November- I can't find the bills from previous months on the "my usage" tool) of bills total $198.69, and since that includes most of the Summer Peak rate period, and my seasonally higher energy use (home air conditioning, and more miles driven) My E9a = $366 (estimated annual bill) was fairly accurate.

http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC ... RSMART.pdf

[matth]

I called PG&E yesterday and was told I would stay on E9a until ~3/31/15 unless I requested a rate plan change prior to that date.

Anyone else know if that is correct?

Just got an email from PG&E that said, in essence, they are terminating E-9 as of the end of March. So their phone representation was correct.

I am able to use their tool. The EV rate would cost me about 60% more than what I have been paying, while going back to E-1 would cost me 55% more. So I'm not going to knock myself out shifting load to off peak so that I can pay even more. At least in my case, the new plan is a lose-lose-lose.

[kevini]

I have PV so I'm going to have to re-do the sums between E6 and EV. We have been spoilt by E9 for sure.

The 10c per Kwh(EV) vs 12c(E6) per Kwh off peak is the biggest difference. The part peak and peak are a lot more since there are no tiers.

I did not even know that E1 was up to 15c per Kwh now!

[srl99]

Enjoy your PG&E pension.

Nekota, you should move a few feet to Silicon Valley Power's service area and pay 10c/kWH all day, night and year.

The baseline amounts aren't "fair", they're just one component of the PG&E rate game enabled by the CPUC monopoly sponsor.

The all-you-can-eat single rate encourages energy wasters. Tiered rates make sense to discourage energy guzzlers. I guess evening energy use is still so low that tiers are not considered necessary until we reach a critical mass of EV night charging. SVP would do well to adopt policies that promote conscientious energy use.

[edatoakrun]

Just got an email from PG&E that said, in essence, they are terminating E-9 as of the end of March. So their phone representation was correct...

I got ~the same Email today.

At the bottom it says:

...As of August 1, 2013, the experimental electric vehicle rate plans (E9-A and E9-B) are no longer available for customers. However, existing customers may remain on these rate plans until they are eliminated after the final decision in PG&E's 2014 GRC Phase II proceeding. We anticipate that this will occur toward the end of March 2015. At the time of transition, all existing customers on our experimental rate plans will automatically shift to a new rate plan based on an analysis conducted by PG&E that indicates the lowest annual bill compared to all rate options available...

So, I guess I can let PG&E switch me back to E1...

[matth]

So, I guess I can let PG&E switch me back to E1...

Interesting point--I missed that. Unless things change, that will be the outcome for me as well.

I plan to contact the ratepayer advocate at the PUC. I'd like to at least gauge their reaction to the steep increases for those of us who were mostly in tier 1 and partly 2. I suspect the size of our group is not very large (early EV users + low electricity users/high conservers), but nonetheless there are, IMO some important policy questions that should be addressed.

[edatoakrun]

So, I guess I can let PG&E switch me back to E1...

Interesting point--I missed that. Unless things change, that will be the outcome for me as well.

I plan to contact the ratepayer advocate at the PUC. I'd like to at least gauge their reaction to the steep increases for those of us who were mostly in tier 1 and partly 2. I suspect the size of our group is not very large (early EV users + low electricity users/high conservers), but nonetheless there are, IMO some important policy questions that should be addressed.

PG&E/PUC will never know how many EV drivers they have on E1, since those drivers will never change their rate plan, nor report their EV use.

Nor will we ever know how many BEV sales the PUC aborted by not giving these EV drivers a TOU option.

My protest letter, from page six of this thread:

...This rate proposal removes rate incentives for both EV use, and off peak charging, not only for me, but for large numbers of potential EV drivers. The incremental kWh charge for EV charging for a PG&E ratepayer, with my home and EV annual electricity usage, switching from E1 to the proposed E9, would be about 23 cents per kWh, for 100% off peak use.

If the CPUC accepts this proposal, it will discourage EV adoption, and the E9 rate option, by pricing the off-peak electricity used to charge EVs far higher than the PG&E marginal cost, as well as the E1 rate, for a large percentage of PG&E customers. How will the CPUC and PG&E make reasonable decisions regarding EV integration into the grid, if these EV owners are priced out of the E9 option, and therefore do not even notify PG&E that they drive an EV?

The current E1 tiered rate system encourages home energy efficiency, and the E9a rate also provides incentive for off-peak use. Any cost based TOU would likely raise rates for low use, low tier PG&E customers. But PG&E's E9 proposal would effectively remove the home conservation incentives of tiered rates only for EV owners, while leaving them for ratepayers driving non-EVs. In doing so, it would greatly harm the current efforts to integrate EVs into the California vehicle fleet, and the CPUC goals of promoting residential energy conservation, and of lowering the economic and environmental costs of electricity generation by decreasing the variation between peak and off peak use...