How does PGE determine what my Baseline is?

How does PGE determine that my baseline is 302.4 Kwh? Does this change depending on my usage? Here's my charges from last month. I'm currently in tier 2 territory and I assume tier 3 starts at 131% of baseline?

Electric Charges $39.77
Baseline Quantity 302.40000 Kwh
Baseline Usage 302.40000 Kwh @ $0.12233
101-130% of Baseline 20.00000 Kwh @ $0.13907

trentr said:

How does PGE determine that my baseline is 302.4 Kwh?

Click to expand...

The baseline is done on a per day basis, so the amount per billing period depends on the billing period length. As I recall, users are divided into geographic areas based on climate, and baselines are also different during the winter and summer seasons. For a given geographic area and season, the baseline is set to a particular percentile observed usage, e.g. 15% (but I don't remember the figure). That is, within that geographic area and during that season, 15% (or whatever the number is) of households use the baseline amount or less, and 85% (or whatever) use more. I don't know if this was done once, based on a particular time period, or whether the baselines get recalibrated over time. Also, users with electric heat get a higher baseline amount.

Cheers, Wayne

http://www.pge.com/myhome/customerservice/financialassistance/medicalbaseline/understand/
http://www.pge.com/myhome/customerservice/financialassistance/medicalbaseline/understand/pophelp.shtml

As Wayne suggests, PG&E has divided its service area into "baseline territories" depending on climate. You can see your territory listed on your bill as a letter from P through Z. I found a map here on a page which is specifically discussing medical baselines. The medical numbers are different, but I think the geographies are the same. This spreadsheet shows the (non-medical) daily baseline numbers that correspond with each of the territory letters. They don't change very often, but there are separate sets for summer and winter as well as for all-electric homes and gas/electric homes.

Ray

Edit: I see Spies beat me to the map pointer.

wwhitney said:

trentr said:

How does PGE determine that my baseline is 302.4 Kwh?

Click to expand...

For a given geographic area and season, the baseline is set to a particular percentile observed usage, e.g. 15% (but I don't remember the figure). That is, within that geographic area and during that season, 15% (or whatever the number is) of households use the baseline amount or less, and 85% (or whatever) use more. I don't know if this was done once, based on a particular time period, or whether the baselines get recalibrated over time. Also, users with electric heat get a higher baseline amount.

Cheers, Wayne

Click to expand...

The baseline rate is mandated by state law to be 55% - 65% of total residential consumption within each specific climate zone and/or usage type (electric heat or gas heat). The CPUC is considering changing PG&E's baseline allocation from 60% to 55% of total residential consumption:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/AGENDA_DECISION/135956.htm

This would have the effect of raising bills for customers who use their full Tier 1 and 2 allocations (but no more) today; but reduce bills for customers in Tiers 4 and 5.

EricH said:

The CPUC is considering changing PG&E's baseline allocation from 60% to 55% of total residential consumption:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/AGENDA_DECISION/135956.htm

This would have the effect of raising bills for customers who use their full Tier 1 and 2 allocations (but no more) today; but reduce bills for customers in Tiers 4 and 5.

Click to expand...

Huh? Can you explain how that could be true? It seems to me the change would raise bills for all customers unless their usage is below the new baseline.

Just as an example with no basis in fact, if my old baseline was 10 kWh/day and the new one 9.5 kWh/day, my month's baseline usage for a 30 day month would be 285 kWh vs. the old 300 kWh.

If I use 320 kWh I would now have to pay tier 2 rates for 35 kWh rather than for 20 kWh as in the past.
If I use 700 kWh I would now pay tier 4 rates for 140 kWh rather than for 100 kWh as in the past.
If I use 900 kWh I would now pay tier 5 rates for 45 kWh rather than paying no tier 5 rates in the past.

(I'm assuming that the tier definitions remain as they have always been, tier 1 is up to 100% of baseline, tier 2 up to 130%, tier 3 up to 200%, tier 4 up to 300%.)

Ray

planet4ever said:

Huh? Can you explain how that could be true? It seems to me the change would raise bills for all customers unless their usage is below the new baseline.

Click to expand...

The trick is that the CPUC doesn't change the total amount of money that PG&E will collect from residential ratepayers, nor does it change the Tiers (100%, 130%, 200%, etc.). The state legislature capped Tier 1-2 rates back in the Energy Crisis (the one that led to Gray Davis' recall, the Governator, etc). So all the cost increases for the past decade have been sloshed onto the Tier 3-4-5 rates, which together comprise only about 40% of total residential kWh sales.

If the amount of electricity 'given' away at Tier 1 rates is reduced (say, Tier 1 would cover 300 kWh/month instead of 350 kWh/month), then the amount of power billed at giveaway rates is reduced, which allows PG&E to reduce Tier 3-4-5 rates (relative to where they'd have to set them if 60% of all the residential energy went out the door at Tier 1 rates). If you are a Tier 1-2 customer today, this is modestly bad news, as you would hit Tier 3 and pay higher rates for a small portion of your usage. But if you are a Tier 4-5 customer today, the discount on that higher-tiered consumption more than offsets your slightly smaller baseline allocation.

IMHO, the California residential rates are whacko... basically the more you use, the more you pay (as in: 14 cents for the first kWh and 40 cents for the last one), with little or no fixed monthly customer charge. It's viewed by the policy wonks in San Francisco as a "conservation incentive", but the magnitude of fixed costs (wires, plants, transmission, metering, billing) isn't reflected in the rate structures. It results in a significant subsidy of coastal apartment dwellers by inland homeowners who use A/C. It also makes rooftop solar look artificially attractive, because a homeowner can better rationalize an expensive capital installation when s/he's facing a whopping Tier 4 or 5 electricity rate.

In reality, there are few commodities where using more drives the marginal price up. Smart metering may help solve this, as the policy wonks can use TOU pricing to drive down on-peak consumption, which does drive overall utility costs, and let off-peak usage go where true "market" rates make sense. Night-time energy is cheap in California, as all the plants built for summer afternoons have nothing to do but recharge EV batteries :lol:

Thanks for the explanation. I should have thought of that, as they keep fiddling with the rates within the tiers every few months.

EricH said:

It also makes rooftop solar look artificially attractive, because a homeowner can better rationalize an expensive capital installation when s/he's facing a whopping Tier 4 or 5 electricity rate.

Click to expand...

I guess we can agree to disagree a bit on that one. Your "artificially attractive" is my "crucially important conservation incentive".

Ray

For the few poor souls like me that qualify, try looking into PG&E's "ALL-Electric" baseline rate.

In researching TOU rates in preparation for the leaf I notice that PG&E offers an elevated "ALL Electric" baseline rate for customers that have no gas heating and a permanently installed electric heater to heat their home (a gas water heater, stove or dryer don't matter). I also read somewhere that someone had received the baseline change and then fought PG&E to credit them retroactively for overcharging. Hmm, sounded good to me!
So, I called PG&E about 4 months ago to request the all-electric rate, guy acted dumb on the phone but finally figured out what I was talking about. They scheduled a tech out and confirm that there was no gas furnace and a permanently installed electric heater (we have one baseboard heater) and that was all I heard about it.

A month later I went online to confirm they had indeed increased my baseline usage and "wait for it"... $1,200+ credit to my account! They had increased the baseline and credited us back to when we bought the home (I never even asked for the retro).

I guess this credit has made our Leaf sitting in Long Beach for the last two months a little more bearable, NOT!

(Come on Brendan, make it happen!)

ByeByePump said:

In researching TOU rates in preparation for the leaf I notice that PG&E offers an elevated "ALL Electric" baseline rate for customers that have no gas heating and a permanently installed electric heater to heat their home (a gas water heater, stove or dryer don't matter).

Click to expand...

A gas water heater, stove or dryer does not matter? Really? Only if you have an electric furnace or other type of electric heat? Really? Wow! Looks like I am going to be looking into an electric furnace. Does this sound like something that could be abused or is it just me? I always thought the all electric rate was for those that had no gas heating at all not just the furnace. Silly me.

IMHO, the California residential rates are whacko... basically the more you use, the more you pay (as in: 14 cents for the first kWh and 40 cents for the last one), with little or no fixed monthly customer charge. It's viewed by the policy wonks in San Francisco as a "conservation incentive", but the magnitude of fixed costs (wires, plants, transmission, metering, billing) isn't reflected in the rate structures. It results in a significant subsidy of coastal apartment dwellers by inland homeowners who use A/C. It also makes rooftop solar look artificially attractive, because a homeowner can better rationalize an expensive capital installation when s/he's facing a whopping Tier 4 or 5 electricity rate.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, since AC is almost exclusively used during peak demand periods, and so drives up the average kWh cost for ALL customers, you could also argue that it is the non-AC customers who are subsidizing the heavy AC users.

The greatest irrationality, and IMO, the greatest "subsidy" in residential rate designs is in charging the same price to the consumer per KWH, even though providing peak demand electricity costs many times more to the utility, than does off-peak.

Time-of-use rates not only benefit EV's, they also work to improve overall grid efficiency and reduce average kWh costs for all consumers.

As to fixed cost charges, this is an interesting theory, but it is rarely used in markets today. You do not pay a "access fee" at the gas pump (unless you fill-up at Costco). Would it make sense for the gas station owner to charge a "pump fee" for infrastructure costs with each purchase, and a per-gallon charge in addition? This would result in a ICE with a bigger tank paying a lower total price per gallon than the customer (often in a smaller more fuel efficient vehicle) who bought a lesser amount,.

Is it any more reasonable, or socially desirable, to increase the effective kWh cost to electricity customers who use less, by adding a "service" fee, to cover infrastructure costs?

Spies said:

ByeByePump said:

In researching TOU rates in preparation for the leaf I notice that PG&E offers an elevated "ALL Electric" baseline rate for customers that have no gas heating and a permanently installed electric heater to heat their home (a gas water heater, stove or dryer don't matter).

Click to expand...

A gas water heater, stove or dryer does not matter? Really? Only if you have an electric furnace or other type of electric heat? Really? Wow! Looks like I am going to be looking into an electric furnace. Does this sound like something that could be abused or is it just me? I always thought the all electric rate was for those that had no gas heating at all not just the furnace. Silly me.

Click to expand...

Yes, really.
In qualifying for PG&E's "all-electric" baseline rate, they were only concerned with how I heated my home (I was very clear with them that I have a gas water heater & stove). I'm not saying I agree with the policy and that it can't be abused, only that if I qualify under their criteria, I'm sure enough going to get it.

Don't get me wrong, as soon as I can afford it I'll be installing gas heating and plan on replacing our electric dryer when the Leaf comes. The all-electric baseline is not so much higher as to let me ignore efficiency.

With the Leaf eventually coming and no PV, every bit helps.

ByeByePump said:

Don't get me wrong, as soon as I can afford it I'll be installing gas heating and plan on replacing our electric dryer when the Leaf comes. The all-electric baseline is not so much higher as to let me ignore efficiency.

Click to expand...

I am certainly not going to ignore efficiency but I am not going to make assumptions about efficiency either. My gas fired furnace is getting a little long in the tooth and my gas fired water heater is no spring chicken either. As I look into the latest heating technology out there today I will certainly give electric its fair share because of this option however. For where I am in baseline "X" I would go from 12.6 kWh to 22.9 kWh in winter. That is almost double. And since I am on the E9A rate I pay the same low rate for both tier 1 and 2 I would go from an allowance of 16.38 kWh to 29.77 kWh a day average in the winter at those rates. Even with electric heating and charging the Leaf I don't think I would go above 29.77 kWh a day.

Spies said:

ByeByePump said:

In researching TOU rates in preparation for the leaf I notice that PG&E offers an elevated "ALL Electric" baseline rate for customers that have no gas heating and a permanently installed electric heater to heat their home (a gas water heater, stove or dryer don't matter).

Click to expand...

A gas water heater, stove or dryer does not matter? Really? Only if you have an electric furnace or other type of electric heat? Really? Wow! Looks like I am going to be looking into an electric furnace. Does this sound like something that could be abused or is it just me? I always thought the all electric rate was for those that had no gas heating at all not just the furnace. Silly me.

Click to expand...

The consumption of an electric space heater is way more than the consumption of an electric water heater, thus for the sake of (some) simplicity, all electricity customers are split into "Electric Heat" and "other" for purposes of determining baseline allocations. Electric water heating might be the best 'second' criterion, but they only use one.

edatoakrun said:

On the other hand, since AC is almost exclusively used during peak demand periods, and so drives up the average kWh cost for ALL customers, you could also argue that it is the non-AC customers who are subsidizing the heavy AC users.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

As to fixed cost charges, this is an interesting theory, but it is rarely used in markets today. You do not pay a "access fee" at the gas pump (unless you fill-up at Costco). Would it make sense for the gas station owner to charge a "pump fee" for infrastructure costs with each purchase, and a per-gallon charge in addition? This would result in a ICE with a bigger tank paying a lower total price per gallon than the customer (often in a smaller more fuel efficient vehicle) who bought a lesser amount,.

Is it any more reasonable, or socially desirable, to increase the effective kWh cost to electricity customers who use less, by adding a "service" fee, to cover infrastructure costs?

Click to expand...

It is, because you don't have a dedicated gasoline hose to your home, and a meter that needs to be maintained and read at regular intervals. Utility companies have costs each month for (in the case of electricity) the poles/wires, the final transformer (that might serve 2-3 other customers, on average), for the meter, and each month's meter read, bill, and payment processing. That's all fixed cost, even if you were away on vacation and used 25 kWh for a super-efficient refrigerator. So a cost-based rate design might have a $10/month customer charge, instead of recovering all those costs through the kWh charge (which is what's mainly done today in California residential rates).