SDG&E asks for higher rates on customers who go solar

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.

ENIAC

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
656
Location
Sun Diego, CA USA
Homeowners with solar power may have to dig a little deeper to pay off their green investment if regulators approve San Diego Gas & Electric Co.'s request to change the way electricity is billed.

Under its proposal, SDG&E would unbundle the charges for electricity and for transporting electricity.
http://www.nctimes.com/blogsnew/business/energy/article_49671e51-02b5-58a4-9384-10752bb50fa1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Hmm. My gut reaction is "no fair, greedy bastards"... But, upon reflection is does make a certain amount of sense. As they say "the grid is acting as your battery" - how much would adding a battery backup to your solar system cost you? As long as their fee is less than that, I'd be fine with it. If it's not, I'd opt for the battery and decouple from the grid completely.

Of course, I don't live in SDG&E's service area, but others may follow suit if they succeed.
 
Maybe the on peak charges are too high if SDGE does not like to pay that much :roll:

I look forward to the day when there is so much solar power the overnight charges are higher and daytime electric is abundent ;)
 
From the article:
According to SDG&E, that means each solar customer receives a subsidy of $1,100 a year from traditional customers
Complete BS. Year in my house without solar: $640. So now that I've gone solar I cost the utility twice as much? :roll:

My bill after solar was about $110 for the year. So now I'm supposed to pay another $11-30/month? That will cut the incentive to install solar by a huge amount. My break-even period was already around 10 years because I don't use much electricity - with this change it could be pushed out to 20-30 years. Why install solar at that point? You might as well go completely off-grid. The cost will be similar!

I really feel bad for all the people doing solar leasing - they'll end up paying more on their bill instead of less.

If they get this rate increase approved, it will kill the San Diego residential and commercial PV industry over night.
 
Since the utility isn't interested in generating electricity they have to find new revenue sources which brings me to the conclusion why do we need the utility? Maybe the controlling power entity shouldn't be the utility but the ISO and cut out the middleman.
 
So presumably they'll implement this via the TOU meter, charging the non-electricity portion on all kWh consumed downstream through it, regardless of the ultimate net, ie not reimbursing for it when you are generating back in the other direction. Isn't that the inverse of what they should really want - that is, won't it create an incentive for me to charge when my panels are generating, whenever possible, to minimize the gross consumption at the expense of favorable timing of the net consumption? What happened to the desire (need?) to shift the EV load to nighttime leaving daytime kWh available for air conditioners? Or more accurately, to make PV output available to bolster the grid for daytime use, in exchange for deferring the EV load to off-peak. I'm not sure which is the more egregious aspect of this, the greed or the stupidity.

They're already getting compensated for providing me with a 'battery' by me providing them with gobs of clean power exactly when they need it most. Granted that doesn't scale infinitely (won't work if every single house had raw net-zero solar), but it seems to me we're DECADES away from it actually becoming a burden rather than a benefit to them.
 
I won't argue that it is far cheaper to use the grid as a battery than to invest in actual physical batteries. I'm inclined to believe it is more efficient as well. But I would also suggest that the benefit SDG&E gets from receiving power at peak times and avoiding the need to buy power from other sources at a premium would diminish this unintended subsidy they speak of. This would benefit all customers in the form of lower rates in the summer so isn't it the solar customer that are subsidizing the non-solar customers?

For net metering customers we already have to pay for a base fee regardless of usage.

Who here believes that if this is passed, SDG&E will pass the $$ to the customers?
 
Wow! First PG&E proposing changes to the E9 electric vehicle rate that are so bad I might as well go back to a non TOU rate and charge the car and use electricity whenever I want and now this SDG&E proposal for solar customers that will no doubt be adopted by PG&E if approved. What the heck is going on? The conspiracy theorist in me feels that the power companies feel stronger than ever that solar and electric vehicles are a real threat to their existence and will slow down their adoption as best they can! Boy does that sound odd. Time to investigate off grid systems.
 
I just don't understand how the PUC could possibly support SDG&E on this, given SDG&E missed the Clean Energy Mandate for 2010. The state mandated goal was to produce 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and SDG&E achieved only 11.9%. That's a rather large miss.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/mar/08/sdge-misses-2010-clean-energy-mandate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
ENIAC said:
I just don't understand how the PUC could possibly support SDG&E on this, given SDG&E missed the Clean Energy Mandate for 2010. The state mandated goal was to produce 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and SDG&E achieved only 11.9%. That's a rather large miss.
Yes, even the Los Angeles DWP got to 19.6%.
 
ENIAC said:
I just don't understand how the PUC could possibly support SDG&E on this, given SDG&E missed the Clean Energy Mandate for 2010. The state mandated goal was to produce 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and SDG&E achieved only 11.9%. That's a rather large miss.

PUC rules don't allow the utilities to count residential solar (it isn't separately metered so the 'gross' output can't be measured, for most small installations) in meeting its Renewable Portfolio Standard. The RPS goal is a separate policy initiative from Net Energy Metering - which seems to be the solar PV subsidy that SDG&E is looking to reduce by splitting its charges.

There is an argument that "buying" back solar power at retail rates, rather than wholesale rates, is a large subsidy for solar PV owners that comes at the expense of non-participating ratepayers; also, the arguments elsewhere in this thread that use of the grid for 'storage' isn't free, as a zero net energy bill would suggest.
 
EricH said:
There is an argument that "buying" back solar power at retail rates, rather than wholesale rates, is a large subsidy for solar PV owners that comes at the expense of non-participating ratepayers...
That would certainly be true. However, is SDG&E paying for over generation yet? I don't generate enough to be net negative, so it's not an issue for me...but for years, they never paid you for your surplus generation, and the end of each year it was a donation you made to the grid. They were supposed to settle on a rate that they'd pay, but I've never heard what that would be. Rumor was that it would be near wholesale.
...also, the arguments elsewhere in this thread that use of the grid for 'storage' isn't free, as a zero net energy bill would suggest.
Then don't consider it as storage, but rather generation.

If your net usage is positive, you pay retail. If it's negative, you get paid wholesale--or you don't get paid. Plus, as pointed out elsewhere, all that local generation during peak usage times might help stave off the occasional peaker fire-up or rolling blackout.
 
lonndoggie said:
EricH said:
There is an argument that "buying" back solar power at retail rates, rather than wholesale rates, is a large subsidy for solar PV owners that comes at the expense of non-participating ratepayers...
That would certainly be true. However, is SDG&E paying for over generation yet? I don't generate enough to be net negative, so it's not an issue for me...but for years, they never paid you for your surplus generation, and the end of each year it was a donation you made to the grid. They were supposed to settle on a rate that they'd pay, but I've never heard what that would be. Rumor was that it would be near wholesale.
They've agreed to pay day-ahead prices for over production. Not sure if it's quite finalized yet, though.
lonndoggie said:
...also, the arguments elsewhere in this thread that use of the grid for 'storage' isn't free, as a zero net energy bill would suggest.
Then don't consider it as storage, but rather generation.

If your net usage is positive, you pay retail. If it's negative, you get paid wholesale--or you don't get paid. Plus, as pointed out elsewhere, all that local generation during peak usage times might help stave off the occasional peaker fire-up or rolling blackout.
Right - SDG&E's argument doesn't seem to take into account the benefits of distributed generation and when it's generating. Reading the article again, it seems that they want to charge solar customers some sort of demand fee - probably similar to what large commercial customers are charged.

Also what's missing from the article is whether this will affect solar customers on the DR plan or TOU plan - or both?
 
drees said:
They've agreed to pay day-ahead prices for over production. Not sure if it's quite finalized yet, though.
"Day-ahead"? A term I'm not familiar with, but I'm sure once you explain it, it'll be one of those "Duh" moments. ;)
drees said:
Also what's missing from the article is whether this will affect solar customers on the DR plan or TOU plan - or both?
Good point. The two result in wildly different bills for the same usage. If they're really concerned about the wear and tear on their wires due to the travel of electrons, I'd assume it'd be both.

I wonder how much they charge the wholesale generators for their use of the transmission and distribution lines? I doubt they charge them at all. Seems like they should develop a consistent model as for how use of the lines is paid for, e.g., you don't pay when you are a producer, you do when you are a consumer.

Then again, I better watch what I wish for--under such a model, I'd pay for the wires for every incoming electron, which would likely still lead to an increase in my bill! If you carry this thought exercise further, you'd also suggest that I pay at the going rate for all energy consumed from the grid, and get credited at TOU wholesale rates for everything I put back in (and no delivery charges--those are paid for by the folks using the power I create). While arguably the "fair" thing to do--basically bifurcating my blll into the consumer part and the generator part--I'm guessing that overall I'd be paying considerably more. And this may be the crux of their argument. Damn it.
 
lonndoggie said:
"Day-ahead"? A term I'm not familiar with, but I'm sure once you explain it, it'll be one of those "Duh" moments. ;)
It's basically an electricity market - the utility says "I need X GW of power at 1pm tomorrow" and generators say I'll sell you power at that time for $100 / MWh.

lonndoggie said:
drees said:
Also what's missing from the article is whether this will affect solar customers on the DR plan or TOU plan - or both?
Good point. The two result in wildly different bills for the same usage. If they're really concerned about the wear and tear on their wires due to the travel of electrons, I'd assume it'd be both.

I wonder how much they charge the wholesale generators for their use of the transmission and distribution lines? I doubt they charge them at all. Seems like they should develop a consistent model as for how use of the lines is paid for, e.g., you don't pay when you are a producer, you do when you are a consumer.
In general, I don't think that generators are charged for transmission/distribution costs. Generators may be responsible for extending the grid from the existing grid to the generator.

lonndoggie said:
Then again, I better watch what I wish for--under such a model, I'd pay for the wires for every incoming electron, which would likely still lead to an increase in my bill! If you carry this thought exercise further, you'd also suggest that I pay at the going rate for all energy consumed from the grid, and get credited at TOU wholesale rates for everything I put back in (and no delivery charges--those are paid for by the folks using the power I create). While arguably the "fair" thing to do--basically bifurcating my blll into the consumer part and the generator part--I'm guessing that overall I'd be paying considerably more. And this may be the crux of their argument. Damn it.
Yes, let's look at an extreme example.

Let's say your house uses 1000 kWh / month, but only use electricity when the sun isn't shining.
Let's say your PV system generates 1000 kWh / month - naturally only when the sun is shining.
Let's say that the retail rate of electricity is $0.18 / kWh and it's split 50-50 for distribution and generation.

So the PV generation is worth $90 / month, but your consumption costs you $180 / month. So now even though you generate all the electricity you use, you still owe the utility $90 / month. And now you've doubled your break-even point on your PV system or worse if you borrowed money to buy it.

Anyway - it remains to be seen exactly what they are proposing...
 
EricH said:
PUC rules don't allow the utilities to count residential solar (it isn't separately metered so the 'gross' output can't be measured, for most small installations) in meeting its Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Yes, so if SDG&E builds a 200 MW solar plant in the desert and builds transmission lines to connect it, they get credit. But if they spend less money enticing homeowners and business owners to install 200 MW distributed across rooftops not needing transmission lines, they get no credit.

We collectively (and indirectly) set these rules, and we decided that electric utilities would be investor owned, and we decided that people who run corporations have a fiduciary duty to produce a return on investment for their stockholders. So why blame SDG&E when they act according to the rules we set up? If we want a different outcome we need to set different rules.

There is an argument that "buying" back solar power at retail rates, rather than wholesale rates, is a large subsidy for solar PV owners that comes at the expense of non-participating ratepayers; also, the arguments elsewhere in this thread that use of the grid for 'storage' isn't free, as a zero net energy bill would suggest.
True, using the grid for storage has substantial value, and it competes economically with going off grid and buying rather expensive storage batteries. But we produce the most valuable energy, allowing the utility to avoid building more generating capacity and transmission lines and to avoid running the least efficient plants. And we consume less valuable energy. The separate generation and transmission charges SDG&E proposes would be fair if we bought energy at retail TOU rates, and sold energy at wholesale TOU rates - not wholesale daily average rates.
 
walterbays said:
There is an argument that "buying" back solar power at retail rates, rather than wholesale rates, is a large subsidy for solar PV owners that comes at the expense of non-participating ratepayers; also, the arguments elsewhere in this thread that use of the grid for 'storage' isn't free, as a zero net energy bill would suggest.
True, using the grid for storage has substantial value, and it competes economically with going off grid and buying rather expensive storage batteries. But we produce the most valuable energy, allowing the utility to avoid building more generating capacity and transmission lines and to avoid running the least efficient plants. And we consume less valuable energy. The separate generation and transmission charges SDG&E proposes would be fair if we bought energy at retail TOU rates, and sold energy at wholesale TOU rates - not wholesale daily average rates.
The other "rap" against solar and, especially, wind power is that they are "intermittent" resources, that suddenly cut their output when their energy sources wane (clouds or loss of breezes). This requires utilities, under current rules/standards, to ensure backup generating sources (almost always fossil-fired, because those are available at-will) are available "just in case". In essence, this means building 2MW of plant (1MW of wind, plus 1MW of gas-fired backup) to meet 1MW of demand.
So yes, solar PV is more valuable in some respects; but it hits its peak around noon (California utilities peak closer to 4-5pm, when solar PV is waning). And every single kWh is a unit of oil/gas that never needs to be mined, refined, piped, and burned.
 
Here's a follow up, but nothing you don't already know, basically people are angry.

http://www.nctimes.com/article_8cd57b36-f4d3-58c7-bae7-09c3a31bdef1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I feel they came up with the $30 figure in the original story, so that when it was changed to $11 we would say "Oh, that's not too bad", like when we tank up an ICE car and the price has dropped to only $3.80. What a deal!

My impression was that this is in addition to the current $5 monthly fee. Am I wrong?
 
If you want to put your name on an electronic petition arguing against their proposed rate hike, here's your chance:

http://signon.org/sign/fight-san-diego-gas-electric?source=c.url&r_by=1255831" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Back
Top