tbleakne
Gold Member
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:05 pm
Delivery Date: 03 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 2400
Location: Claremont, CA

Re: Official Southern California Edison thread

Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:05 pm

I called the SCE net metering number to inquire about the fluctuating "delivery charge" and "balance of minimum" charge on page 3 of my bill. Last month the delivery charge was $6.84. The previous month there was nothing at this point in the bill.

I was told that the delivery charge has and will constantly fluctuate. It is not just changes in policy. He gave me some BS about costs of processing the bill, etc. He also said there is a threshold of 168 kWh per month of power drawn from the grid. If you draw more than 168, this minimum charge goes away. I am not sure how to calculate the 168, whether it is net or total.

I also asked about whether I might lose my grandfathering status if I added more solar panels soon, well before SCE is predicted to exceed their cap for Net Metering 1.0. He would not answer that question, only referring me to to call the CPUC at 1.800.649.7570. I have not done that, figuring I would just get a recording.
LEAF Ocean Blue SL, "100 % Electric" decals, Delivered June 3, 2011
Sold June 2014 27K miles, 18% capacity loss, 1 bar, 5.0 mi/kWh.
Solar 4.6 KW DC with both string and micro-inverters.

tbleakne
Gold Member
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:05 pm
Delivery Date: 03 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 2400
Location: Claremont, CA

Re: Official Southern California Edison thread

Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:20 pm

More thoughts on Net Metering and the price for exported power

While the January CPUC decision settles things for the moment, I keep asking myelf, as solar penetration gradually increases over the next few years, what is the fair price to pay us for exporting power to the grid?

Solar power varies throughout the day and season, so being able to "park" our excess instantaneous power in the grid is effectively making a deposit in the grid like making a deposit in the bank. Getting fair value for this deposit is essential for development of solar power.

The economics of the grid depend upon both the peak power the grid must handle and the volume of kWhs being transmitted. When solar penetration was low, the peak in utility power usage was usually in the daytime, so we could claim that our rooftop generation was reducing the peak usage. However, solar penetration in California, especially from grid-scale solar projects in the desert, now often follows a "Duck Curve" usage pattern, where the net natural gas generation peaks just before the sun rises, and several hours after the sun sets. For more on the Duck Curve, see the separate thread
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=19398

This means that further solar penetration will not contribute to further reduction in the peak power that the grid must be sized to deliver.
At the same time power consumed behind the meter will continue to reduce the total kWh flowing through the grid. Commercial scale solar projects will replace a lot of power behind the meter that is consumed in malls, warehouses, etc throughout the day.

If the grid is supported primarily by usage and not demand charges, the cost of supporting the same size maximum power grid with fewer billable kWh in front of the meter will result in an increase in distribution charges per kWh. Everyone, with or without solar, will pay these higher distribution prices for the power they need from the grid. This increase will be modest, but I don't see anyway around it. In my opinion it would be unfair to burden just the solar customer with the cost of this decrease in net grid utilization.

However, the more subtle and controversial question is how to price exported power, which is an especially important question for the residential customer whose usage during the day may be low while the family is at work, school, shopping, etc.

Right now in California, with penetration levels at the utility level approaching the 5% cap, most exported power is consumed close to home. At best your exported power is consumed by your immediate neighbors sharing the same neighborhood backyard transformer with negligible loss. At higher penetration the net power through your local transformer may be reversed, so your exported power has to go through that transformer onto the medium voltage distribution circuit, and back through another nearby transformer whose power is not reversed. The loss for this case is typically 2 to 4 %.

Your exported power delivered to your neighbor is billed to them at full retail price, but this power did not require the full grid hierarchy to get to its destination. In addition, the portion of the grid that is used is used in a negative fashion that reduces the day time load of both your backyard transformer and the transformer that feeds it at the substation. This seems to be the two key reasons we as distributed generators should be credited much closer to retail than wholesale for our exported generation.

In an earlier post I discussed the idea of selling your exported power to your neighbors at a discount price from retail, as part of a "virtual micro gird." Your neighbor would be happy to get that discount, proving its value above wholesale price. They would benefit from increased solar penetration without investment of their own. However, non-solar folks living in an upscale neighborhood with lots of solar would benefit more than folks on a different circuit in a different part of town with little distributed solar to share.

Penetration would have to be very high before power would reverse at the substation level. A few circuits in Hawaii have apparently reached this status. The efficiency of such power drops because it has to go through two more levels of transformer to reach a consumer.
LEAF Ocean Blue SL, "100 % Electric" decals, Delivered June 3, 2011
Sold June 2014 27K miles, 18% capacity loss, 1 bar, 5.0 mi/kWh.
Solar 4.6 KW DC with both string and micro-inverters.

tbleakne
Gold Member
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:05 pm
Delivery Date: 03 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 2400
Location: Claremont, CA

Re: Official Southern California Edison thread

Thu Mar 31, 2016 7:11 pm

Brief return to an old subject: marginal rate for charging car under SCE TOU.
I know many of you have been over this many times, but it still gets to me how crazy it is.

Lately I have been telling folks that I charge my car during SuperOffPk for $.11/kWh, but now I see that that has been true only for Aug and Sept of 2015.

The actual rate depends upon your net usage, NU, relative to your Max Baseline Credit, MBC.

NU = net usage (pos or neg) summed over all 3 TOU periods. For Aug and Sept, with large A/C usage, I have a positive NU (consumption) that exceeded my MBC, which caps my BC, and my SOP rate went to $.11/kWh.

However, for the rest of the year, it looks like my NU is going to be positive but less than BC, so the BC is scaled, subtracting $.10 from each additional SOP kWh, leaving me with a marginal rate for charging my car of $.01.

For March my net OnPk was -60 kWh, and my net OffPk was -250 kWh, and their sum -310 kWh.
I believe my MBC for my area is about 450 kWh. Therefore I could have consumed 310+450 = 760 kWh in SOP before my BC would be capped.
760 kWh * 3mi/kWh = 2280 miles a month at only $.01/3 per mile.

When we last discussed this many moons ago, I believe that Boomer23 was in a different situation with negative NU, and he was "rewarded" for that by having his baseline credit reverse sign. All very crazy.

<Edit>
I was planning on adding more solar to especially cover the shortfalls in Aug and Sept. Now I see that unless I also scale up my consumption other months of the year, my NU will turn negative (net production), and my Baseline Credit will flip sign just like Boomer.

Having NU barely positive seems to be the "sweet spot" yielding most of the Baseline Credit with the normal price reduction. A negative NU with its higher prices is the penalty for over producing, irrespective of the different TOU prices or the month-to-month credit/debits in $.
Very clever disincentive from SCE.
LEAF Ocean Blue SL, "100 % Electric" decals, Delivered June 3, 2011
Sold June 2014 27K miles, 18% capacity loss, 1 bar, 5.0 mi/kWh.
Solar 4.6 KW DC with both string and micro-inverters.


Valdemar
Posts: 2331
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:32 pm
Delivery Date: 09 Sep 2011
Location: Oak Park, CA

Re: Official Southern California Edison thread

Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:28 am

Despite being a net-consumer I'm ending my first 12 month period with a $400+ credit, so there's a big enough cushion to absorb this the overall rate increase. It's interesting the baseline credit was bumped up a bit as well. One has to wonder what drives these small changes.
'11 SL, totaled
-1CB@33k/21mo, -2CB@53k/33mo, -3CB@68k/41mo, -4CB(41.5AHr)@79k/49mo, -5CB(38.85AHr)@87.5k/54mo
-0CB(66.14AHr)@87.5k/54mo (BBB)
60.5AHr, SOH 94%, 105k miles
9kW Solar

smkettner
Posts: 6975
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Official Southern California Edison thread

Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:48 pm

I have no issues with TOU-A rate increase. Seems to work well for me. Better than expected.

After 10 months net usage 5,281 kWh costing $70 or 1.3 cents per kWh. :D
1 bar lost at 21,451 miles, 16 months.
2 bar lost at 35,339 miles, 25 months.
LEAF traded at 45,400 miles for a RAV4-EV

tbleakne
Gold Member
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:05 pm
Delivery Date: 03 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 2400
Location: Claremont, CA

Re: Official Southern California Edison thread

Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:34 am

Yes, I also seem to be doing much better than I expected with the change in TOU times made last year, so the recent rise in TOU rates may not hurt me.
My latest SCE statement includes -$38. CA Climate Credit, which we have been getting once in spring and sometimes once in fall. This, together with a sunny month gave me an Energy Charge Total for the month of -$94.80, my largest ever monthly credit.

I keep forgetting that in the winter months OnPeak and OffPeak prices are virtually the same, so no need to sweat weekday afternoon and early evening usage. That will change on June 1 with start of summer rates.
LEAF Ocean Blue SL, "100 % Electric" decals, Delivered June 3, 2011
Sold June 2014 27K miles, 18% capacity loss, 1 bar, 5.0 mi/kWh.
Solar 4.6 KW DC with both string and micro-inverters.

xtremeflyer
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:13 pm
Delivery Date: 03 Aug 2012
Location: Orange, CA

Re: Official Southern California Edison thread

Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:02 am

tbleakne wrote:SCE Time of Use (TOU) prices are going up a little for 2016: (sorry for long link).

On Peak summer 2016 -> $.48,
SuperOffPeak summer -> $.12


Updated rates AGAIN for TOU-D-A, starting to flatten the rates some:

On Peak Summer -> Down to $.44
SuperOffPeak -> Up to $.14
Baseline credit drops from $.11 to $.10

smkettner
Posts: 6975
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Official Southern California Edison thread

Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:46 am

Image
1 bar lost at 21,451 miles, 16 months.
2 bar lost at 35,339 miles, 25 months.
LEAF traded at 45,400 miles for a RAV4-EV

smkettner
Posts: 6975
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Official Southern California Edison thread

Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:47 am

Image
1 bar lost at 21,451 miles, 16 months.
2 bar lost at 35,339 miles, 25 months.
LEAF traded at 45,400 miles for a RAV4-EV

Return to “Utilities”