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

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.
srl99 said:
Request - lobby the CPUC to get PG&E's rates in line with other similar California providers
I really don't think I want to do that. There are only two large regional utility companies in the state; Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) in the north and Southern California Edison (SCE) in the south. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) is much smaller, but could perhaps be added to the list. Utilities like SMUD in Sacramento and LADWP in Los Angeles are "publicly owned", i.e. run by local governments and not beholden to investers, so are not "similar" in any economic sense.

I'm not personally familiar with SCE or SDG&E rate structures, but my understanding from things I've read on this board is that they both split out cost of generation from cost of transmission. When you buy power from them you naturally have to pay for generation plus transmission. But apparently they also charge you for transmission when you sell power to them, so the net is that they pay you for generation minus transmission.

PG&E does split out cost components in their rate tariffs, but from my experience they lump everything together in their billing. In effect, when I feed excess power onto the grid they pay me for generation plus transmission. So, no, I definitely don't want to lobby them to do it like SCE and SDG&E do.

srl99 said:
A home, partial year (~2 kW solar)- ended up with a surplus of electricity to the grid. E-1 rate plan, which would have resulted in a "check" from PG&E. PG&E paid 3c/kWH. They explained this as their "cost of acquiring electricity". Apparently in years prior, they would not have paid for a net excess.
You use less electricity than your 2kW solar generates? Wow! I'm impressed. You must not be using any air conditioning, or an electric dryer. You are either charging your LEAF away from home, or not driving it many miles at all per day.

You really threw me by saying E-1. I would think anyone who is charging an EV at night would want a time-of-use plan, not a flat rate like E-1. Even more so if you aren't using air conditioning during peak periods. Frankly, the "cost of acquiring electricity" sounds like a generation vs. transmission split, so perhaps for E1 PG&E is already playing the same nasty game that SCE and SDG&E do.

Ray
 
planet4ever said:
srl99 said:
If you are a net generator, PG&E pays you 3c/kWH for your excess electricity - which they claim is their cost to acquire.
I suppose it is possible that if I were a net generator on an annual basis they would have some fine-print rule that would reduce that to $0.03/kWh. If so, I have certainly not found it. Here is what I see in the PG&E NEMS tariff:
If the eligible customer-generator is a net generator, the net kWh generated shall be valued at the rate for the kWh up to the baseline quantity, with any excess kWh generated, valued at the rate for the appropriate tier level in which the equivalent kWh of usage would fall.

What is the basis for your assertion, srl99, that they really pay a small fraction of that amount?

Note: I am assuming home-scale solar or wind generation, not exceeding 30kW. I believe most home installations are significantly below that, typically closer to 5kW. Are you perhaps talking about large commercial installations? I haven't looked at the rates for those.

Ray

It is true that if you are a net generator, PG&E only pays you 3 or 4 cents per kwh. I made the wrong assumption (when my year end bill showed a net credit of $300) in thinking I would get that $300 credit on my future bills. But no, you only get a credit if you are a net generator (which I was not--I was a net consumer). But in talking to PG&E then, I was told that had I been a net generator, I would only get 3 or 4 cents per kwh. Hence, not much incentive to be a net generator.

So with E-7 & E-6, we do benefit from the peak rates of Net Energy Metering, which is something we want to RETAIN. But, for an energy efficient home that is a net generator, no incentive there.
 
Given that it's a "regulated" monopoly, the structure of the company is not relevant (whether it's investor-owned (for profit) or mutual benefit). The regulator's job is to ensure fair pricing in the absence of a competitive market. The investor's job is to decide whether owning a regulated utility is the best use of their capital.

The regulators aren't doing their job - they aren't ensuring that the rates are fair and equitable for all customers. There's an argument the rates for a regulated monopoly should be lower as they don't suffer the cost of competition, have a captive (predictable) market and have a greater economy of scale.

It makes economic sense to acquire solar panels to avoid the upper tiers of PG&Es rates, but my argument is that the residential rate structure is out of whack. You want solar panels, buy them - but not (primarily) to void PG&E tiers 3+ which are some of the highest in the country. A large scale generator should have economies of scale you can't duplicate on a small "plant".

Given it's economy of scale, and documented "cost to acquire" (3-4c/kWH), the mark-up on a kWH is stunning. Is SMUD's cost basis signficiantly different?

Yes, charging an EV on E-1 is expensive because of the residential "tiering", but it wouldn't be so bad if you paid 10 or 12c for all the kWH. [Which is ultimately what you're trying to achieve with TOU and shifting use to off-peak.]

Conserving energy is an accepted "value", but the implementation is badly broken. Your baseline is the average use of residences in your zip-code, and meant to cover some of your usage?? This bizantine teaser for a few cheap kWH isn't even the same number of kWH that PG&E uses to show you whether or not you are being "efficient".

The greatest potential efficiencies must be at the commercial level (greatest use), where they don't suffer this off "inverse-economic" penalty for higher use.

"Who killed the Electric Car?" Partly - PG&E with help from the CPUC.
 
planet4ever said:
I'm not personally familiar with SCE or SDG&E rate structures, but my understanding from things I've read on this board is that they both split out cost of generation from cost of transmission. When you buy power from them you naturally have to pay for generation plus transmission. But apparently they also charge you for transmission when you sell power to them, so the net is that they pay you for generation minus transmission.

Ray
Not quite true, at least for SCE. I am in SCE territory, operating under tariff TOU-DT-EV (single meter) with Net Metering for almost 2 years. Yes, generation and transmission are broken out separately, but whenever you are a net generator for a particular TOU, the signs for the billing of both generation and transmission are reversed. My understanding is that this is a consequence of a state law that requires all private utilities in the state to pay the same total rate for net generation as they bill for net consumption.
 
For those interested, the submetering pilot
crosspostmnl
has been approved by the CPUC, and the three largest IOUs. If you wanted to help test submetering for EVs, you can sign up through any of the MDMAs listed in alphabetical order below.

Electric Motor Werks, Inc.
(650) 400-3591
[email protected]
http://emotorwerks.com/free-juicebox" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

KnGrid (SDG&E only)
[email protected]
http://kngrid.com/signup" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NRG EV Services LLC
(310) 954-2930
[email protected]

OhmConnect
(404) 881-8659
https://login.ohmconnect.com/register/pev" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[email protected]
 
PG&E updated their billing system for the new (higher!) rates, but is unable to update the Daylight Savings Time dates that have been in force since 2007. PG&E residential customers "enjoy" some of the highest rates in the country.
 
surfingslovak said:
For those interested, the submetering pilot
crosspostmnl
has been approved by the CPUC, and the three largest IOUs. If you wanted to help test submetering for EVs, you can sign up through any of the MDMAs listed in alphabetical order below...


I tried to get more info via email re this study but was unsuccessful.
Might anyone have any thoughts to share?

Some of the questions I had were:

What expenses should we expect as a participant at the beginning, during and after the testing?
How would currently being on solar, E6, and having a balance due to PG&E during true-up be affected?

Thanks in advance!
 
surfingslovak said:
For those interested, the submetering pilot
crosspostmnl
has been approved by the CPUC, and the three largest IOUs. If you wanted to help test submetering for EVs, you can sign up through any of the MDMAs listed in alphabetical order below...

This program of submetering allows one to participate in the EV-B program or what used to be E9-B which was a 2nd electrical service for the purpose of electric car charging. The electric providers in California have electric pricing that uses time of use rates and consumption rates. The consumption tries to be fair by providing different baseline amounts depending on your climate zone and if you heat your home electrically or have a medical need for electricity. The xx-B accounts provide a second baseline account but require a separate electrical connection. I wanted to make use of an extra baseline quantity for the EV but having a second electrical service installed required underground trenching to the utility transformer and upgrading the existing buried cables to conduit for both services, all which were cost prohibitive. My baseline in zone X for PG&E was 330 kwhr up until August and now has been decreased to 300 kwhr. So my LEAF typically uses 350 kwhr in a month so the baseline would be consumed by charging the EV and the normal electrical demand for the rest of the household would be added as higher tier electricity. What submetering does is attach a 2nd meter to your electrical service typically downstream from the current meter. This meter would be used to measure the electrical energy provided to the EV and subtracted from the total measured by the upstream meter. The advantage is the 2nd meter energy does not contribute to the household baseline since it has it's own baseline account. There are other advantages with a 2nd meter that include knowing your actual electrical input energy to the EV and enabling an equivalent 'road use tax' that appears as a gas tax on gasoline fuel.

Two things have changed which reduce the need for submetering. First the new EV rate plans that replace the E9 experimental plans do not have tiers so being on a two meter system doesn't make more low priced electricity available. The submetering with a PV system may help if the PV system is small in size or the addition of an EV would increase the electric consumption into higher priced tiers. The submetering is a major step in the right direction but wasn't available when I needed the choice. I'm not sure if there are any advantages of using submetering for an EV when on the EV rate plan or on the pv solar E6 plan.
 
Thanks Nekota for your help!

Another baseline amount would be great. But it seems like that benefit might not be enough to offset the additional monthly fee for having a sub-meter. Probably with the costs of installation, or maybe even at the end of the pilot- reversal of the sub-meter, participating in this program would be costly to the utility customer.
 
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.
 
srl99 said:
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.
 
srl99 said:
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.
 
Phoenix said:
srl99 said:
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 ?
 
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.

edatoakrun said:
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_SCHEDS_E-RSMART.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
edatoakrun said:
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.
 
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!
 
Enjoy your PG&E pension.
Phoenix said:
srl99 said:
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.
 
matth said:
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...
 
edatoakrun said:
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.
 
matth said:
edatoakrun said:
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...
 
Back
Top