SDG&E, Solar, Net Metering, and Time of Use 2 (TOU2)

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.
Randy, thanks for that important clarification on expansion! And I, for one, never meant to suggest that altering the peak period is unfair, only that if it happens I would love to find some vehicle-to-grid solution to both help the grid and minimize my own energy costs.
 
cbiwww said:
But my true up date is next month and, like Philip, I'm discovering that on EV-TOU2, even though I've consumed way more than I've generated, it's only going to end up costing pennies/kwh. So as much as I'd love to add panels (hate consuming more fossil fuels), I think it would take decades to pay off.
This is the problem with TOU net metering as currently implemented: it discourages homeowners like cbiwww from installing even enough PV to replace the energy that they personally used. Instead, homeowners should be paid for additional production, as well.

And while I'm at it, I will also criticize flat-rate net metering like we have here. This plan also discourages production of electricity beyond what we personally use. As we have discussed elsewhere, it would be nice for me to be able to produce more than I consume on my rooftop to compensate for my neighbor across the street who does not have the ability to produce electricity due to being in the woods. And I would say this should be regardless of whether or not he pays or I pay for the system.
Randy said:
Back to Randy: As far as changing the TOU periods, shouldn't those actually reflect what's happening on the power system so that all customers can be billed or credited fairly? When I worked in our control center many years ago, the peak time on the power system was routinely 3 to 4pm (hence the on-peak period of noon to 6pm from all those years ago). But now the power system peak is routinely 7 or 8pm.

Yes, it's unfortunate that all of us solar power producers will get less reimbursement for noon power or 2pm power if a shift in TOU periods goes through, but noon to 6pm is not the peak time any more (we have more residential customers now than before). And if you're a business owner paying extra for power at peak times such as 1pm or 2pm, don't you want the TOU periods to accurately reflect what's going on with the power system. It goes both ways...

The current peak load at 7 or 8pm is larger now in megawatts than the old 3pm peak used to be, and since most solar is winding down at that time even in the summer, the need for utility generation is larger than ever (with an even larger ramp-up as the sun goes down to replace solar generation)...That's one reason why peak times should be pushed out (to help mitigate or manage that ramp)...
Nowhere in these three paragraphs did you acknowledge the PRIMARY reason the peak has moved from 1 or 2PM to 7 or 8PM: the addition of solar-powered electricity generators to the grid. Instead, you have implied by what you wrote that this shift is solely due to having more residential customers. Put another way, your response is extremely utility-centric.

Please allow me to make some suggested changes which are not so focused on the desires of the utility at the expense of the homeowner:

1) PREVENT the utilities from installing (or purchasing power from) utility-scale solar-powered generators (like Ivanpah) since those facilities unnecessarily take away the opportunity for more homeowners to generate their own electricity on their roofs while simultaneously raising the rate of electricity. Simply put, if it weren't for Ivanpah, southern CA ratepayers would be paying less, more homeowners would be bill-free, the duck curve would be less pronounced and less damage would be done to the environment.

2) REQUIRE utilities to purchase PV-generated electricity at a particular rate. This rate should be equal to the rate charged during the hour when it is produced. This rate can be allowed to go down over time as more PV generation is added to the grid. (I think this is how things work today.) There should be a "floor" rate that limits the minimum which can be paid for PV production. This floor rate can drop over time and should be targeted to allow a particular payback time for homeowners to recover their investment (perhaps 10 years).

3) REQUIRE utilities to accept TOU net metering for electric vehicles. Electricity consumed and produced by electric vehicle will be credited or billed TO THE VEHICLE OWNER, not the facility owner. This will further encorage ratepayers to consume and produce electricity at the most appropriate times. It would lead to the rapid installation of BEV charging facilities at most places-of-work and would simultaneously eliminate the problem of BEV charging for most renters.

4) ALLOW utilities to raise the rates for electricity (and implement appropriate TOU rates) to accommodate the shrinking rate-paying base.

These changes should hasten the demise of the traditional utility. With the above changes, the utilities will soon cease to be electricity producers: this role will be taken over by the some ratepayers (but not all). The utilities will instead become the operators of the distribution facilities and the balancers of the production and loads by setting the pricing. In other words, they will become bourses.

The point is that policies do not need to be utility-centric. They can, and should, be rate-payer-centric. That way, one (artificial) person is not benefited to the detriment of many (actual) persons.
 
Lot of comments here, I'll try to give some counter points - not trying to start a flame-war, but being more of a "devils-advocate" so-to-speak and trying to maintain a level perspective to all sides of the meter ;).

RegGuheert said:
1) PREVENT the utilities from installing (or purchasing power from) utility-scale solar-powered generators (like Ivanpah) since those facilities unnecessarily take away the opportunity for more homeowners to generate their own electricity on their roofs while simultaneously raising the rate of electricity. Simply put, if it weren't for Ivanpah, southern CA ratepayers would be paying less, more homeowners would be bill-free, the duck curve would be less pronounced and less damage would be done to the environment.
Shouldn't the utilities have the freedom to build power plants they feel they need? Not sure how it takes away the opportunity (incentive??) for homeowners to generate their own electricity. When rates go up, won't people be MORE likely to install self generation?
RegGuheert said:
2) REQUIRE utilities to purchase PV-generated electricity at a particular rate. This rate should be equal to the rate charged during the hour when it is produced. This rate can be allowed to go down over time as more PV generation is added to the grid. (I think this is how things work today.) There should be a "floor" rate that limits the minimum which can be paid for PV production. This floor rate can drop over time and should be targeted to allow a particular payback time for homeowners to recover their investment (perhaps 10 years).
This is already done in California to an extent, NEM 1.0 credits at the retail rate, and if you over produce beyond that you are paid at the wholesale rate. These rates are adjusted through regulation.
RegGuheert said:
3) REQUIRE utilities to accept TOU net metering for electric vehicles. Electricity consumed and produced by electric vehicle will be credited or billed TO THE VEHICLE OWNER, not the facility owner. This will further encorage ratepayers to consume and produce electricity at the most appropriate times. It would lead to the rapid installation of BEV charging facilities at most places-of-work and would simultaneously eliminate the problem of BEV charging for most renters.
Who pays for the charging equipment installation and maintenance of the charging infrastructure? How would the demand charges work on quick chargers?
RegGuheert said:
4) ALLOW utilities to raise the rates for electricity (and implement appropriate TOU rates) to accommodate the shrinking rate-paying base.
Not sure if the base would like that. Maintaining and operating the grid, base load plant, and peaker plants is expensive and they would be all that is left to pay for it.
RegGuheert said:
These changes should hasten the demise of the traditional utility.
The utility provides a service I enjoy having. I choose to have electric powered lights at night, and feel the cost is worth it, as probably most of us do if you really think about it. Now, I may decide I don't want to pay the utility to keep my house cool in the summer, so I turn off the AC - again it is my choice. We can even go off-grid if we wanted to, but most will find that purchasing power from the utility to be the more cost effective option - but again this is all a choice.
RegGuheert said:
With the above changes, the utilities will soon cease to be electricity producers: this role will be taken over by the some ratepayers (but not all). The utilities will instead become the operators of the distribution facilities and the balancers of the production and loads by setting the pricing. In other words, they will become bourses.
I think you just described the California investor owned utilities. They actually own very few power plants; they were sold off during the deregulation attempt over a decade ago. You may want to look up the owner of Ivanpah.

So in the future, when solar production (on both sides of the meter) exceeds demand minus base load plant power, what gets shut down and how should rates (negative?) be handled in that situation?

Like it or not, without a cheap means of power storage or major changes in the way we consume electricity, solar will become less valuable to the grid. These changes will need to be reflected in how we are compensated for our exports.
 
I came across this cool adapter that SDG&E sells which effectively makes performing a line-side-tap a plug-and-play solution for those who are somewhat challenged in the panel size department and thus limited in the amount of solar they can add directly to their main service panel.

http://www.sdge.com/environment/renewable-meter-adapter

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1LyNexbgbc[/youtube]

This adapter plugs into your existing meter socket and provides up to 60A (48A continuous, or 11.5 kW AC maximum solar system size). It also functions as your utility disconnect switch. It is reasonably priced at $1,326, installed, IMO. It is certainly a lot cheaper than the alternative.

In my case, I have a 100A service panel and thus am limited to a 20A solar breaker or 16A continuous solar power. I currently have 14.4A of Enphase micro inverters, so I am limited in my options in terms of adding more solar unless I opt to upgrade my service panel. Because I also have a underground utility feed, it would cost $5-6k to upgrade my panel based on the rough quotes I got before I installed my solar system.

Pretty cool - now I can much more cost effectively install another 2-3 kW of solar to get back to net-zero.
 
drees said:
Pretty cool - now I can much more cost effectively install another 2-3 kW of solar to get back to net-zero.
That is pretty cool! It interesting that it comes from the utility. I wonder if you could purchase it from the manufacturer for even less.

Now if you could only get the sun the shine in the late evening hours! ;)
 
drees said:
In my case, I have a 100A service panel and thus am limited to a 20A solar breaker or 16A continuous solar power.
100 amps is still a lot of power.
I would be tempted to go down to 80 or even 60 amps if that would boost the solar you need. Not sure if the rules allow that.
Have you ever 'turned everything on' and measured the current?

I doubt I have pulled more than 60 amps through my meter and I have a 200 amp panel. Bit of over kill if you ask me.
 
NEC has two different rules to calculate minimum load capacity, I am right at the limit as is.

It wouldn't be too hard for me to hit 100A with an EV charging at 32A with an electric dryer, range and A/C, but since charging most typically happens at night and all 3 of tgose rarely run and my LEAF can only charge at 16A, it's rare to exceed 30-40A for any length of time.

I'll have to try downloading my meter data to see what my peak load is (averaged over 15 min).
 
RegGuheert said:
Now if you could only get the sun the shine in the late evening hours! ;)
Yes, that would be a neat trick. I will probably get some sort of BSS eventually to shift production later depending on how TOU rates end up, but given BSS storage prices and availability it's still more cost effective to add more solar at this point even if peak rates shift. Also, rooftop solar has the added benefit of shading/insulating the roof which is good in the summer for keeping upstairs a bit cooler and reducing A/C load.

drees said:
I'll have to try downloading my meter data to see what my peak load is (averaged over 15 min).
OK, downloaded the last year's worth of data and the most energy I've consumed in 15 minutes is only 2.1 kWh or 8.4 kW which would be 34A. I wonder what the 1 minute peak rate was, but I suspect it wasn't significantly higher.
 
philip said:
RegGuheert said:
1) PREVENT the utilities from installing (or purchasing power from) utility-scale solar-powered generators (like Ivanpah) since those facilities unnecessarily take away the opportunity for more homeowners to generate their own electricity on their roofs while simultaneously raising the rate of electricity. Simply put, if it weren't for Ivanpah, southern CA ratepayers would be paying less, more homeowners would be bill-free, the duck curve would be less pronounced and less damage would be done to the environment.
Shouldn't the utilities have the freedom to build power plants they feel they need? Not sure how it takes away the opportunity (incentive??) for homeowners to generate their own electricity. When rates go up, won't people be MORE likely to install self generation?
No, utilities should NOT be allowed to generate solar electricity. Utilities have traditionally been regulated as monopolies because the generation and distribution of electricity was considered to be a natural monopoly. This regulation is primarily to protect the interests of consumers as detailed in this article.

But things have changed. As I have discussed, consumers are BEST served if they are allowed to generate electricity from their roofs using photovoltaics. This reduces cost to the consumers and cost to the environment. I am proposing that they be gradually regulated OUT of production during this period and only allowed to continue to operate in the areas where there may still be benefits of having a monopoly.

As it stands today, the government has been promoting the solution which is practically the worst one imaginable for the taxpayers, the electricity consumers and the environment.
philip said:
RegGuheert said:
2) REQUIRE utilities to purchase PV-generated electricity at a particular rate. This rate should be equal to the rate charged during the hour when it is produced. This rate can be allowed to go down over time as more PV generation is added to the grid. (I think this is how things work today.) There should be a "floor" rate that limits the minimum which can be paid for PV production. This floor rate can drop over time and should be targeted to allow a particular payback time for homeowners to recover their investment (perhaps 10 years).
This is already done in California to an extent, NEM 1.0 credits at the retail rate, and if you over produce beyond that you are paid at the wholesale rate. These rates are adjusted through regulation.
Agreed. But the current rules do not create a *simultaneous* demand, as detailed in 3) below.
philip said:
RegGuheert said:
3) REQUIRE utilities to accept TOU net metering for electric vehicles. Electricity consumed and produced by electric vehicle will be credited or billed TO THE VEHICLE OWNER, not the facility owner. This will further encourage ratepayers to consume and produce electricity at the most appropriate times. It would lead to the rapid installation of BEV charging facilities at most places-of-work and would simultaneously eliminate the problem of BEV charging for most renters.
Who pays for the charging equipment installation and maintenance of the charging infrastructure?
TBD. Since the benefit is for the ratepayer, they should probably pay for the infrastructure. Since the ratepayer is approximately the same as the taxpayer, this might be a good use for taxation.
philip said:
How would the demand charges work on quick chargers?
This is a good example of a case when demand charges make very little sense. In fact there are real benefits to the society as a whole if we can make this work. The utility should be allowed to charge a surcharge for the installation of charging infrastructure to the extent that it might cause them to invest in existing structure to prevent overloading the system. Almost certainly this would NOT apply to home installations (if capped at a certain power level). But it might apply to places of business. If things are done smartly, however, we *should* be able to taper the charging to match the excess solar production while still balancing across the grid.
philip said:
RegGuheert said:
4) ALLOW utilities to raise the rates for electricity (and implement appropriate TOU rates) to accommodate the shrinking rate-paying base.
Not sure if the base would like that. Maintaining and operating the grid, base load plant, and peaker plants is expensive and they would be all that is left to pay for it.
Perhaps, but note that during the daylight hours, prices should be steadily coming down. With the advent of consumer-accessible battery solutions and battery-electric vehicles, there will be a firm cap placed on the price which it would be reasonable to charge at nighttime. Currently, the difference between consumption and production will be capped at about $0.15, but that number should drop rapidly.
philip said:
RegGuheert said:
These changes should hasten the demise of the traditional utility.
The utility provides a service I enjoy having. I choose to have electric powered lights at night, and feel the cost is worth it, as probably most of us do if you really think about it. Now, I may decide I don't want to pay the utility to keep my house cool in the summer, so I turn off the AC - again it is my choice. We can even go off-grid if we wanted to, but most will find that purchasing power from the utility to be the more cost effective option - but again this is all a choice.
So do I. But, as you say below, I do not propose that they disappear. Rather, I propose that we modify the regulations to recognize that a natural monopoly no longer exists for generation. The utilities should be preserved as a bourse to su
philip said:
RegGuheert said:
With the above changes, the utilities will soon cease to be electricity producers: this role will be taken over by the some ratepayers (but not all). The utilities will instead become the operators of the distribution facilities and the balancers of the production and loads by setting the pricing. In other words, they will become bourses.
I think you just described the California investor owned utilities. They actually own very few power plants; they were sold off during the deregulation attempt over a decade ago.
I'm glad you recognize that fact.
philip said:
You may want to look up the owner of Ivanpah.
I'm familiar with the owners of Ivanpah. The government has created a situation where rooftop solar is being pushed out at great detriment to the consumer, the taxpayer and the environment. This type of nonsense needs to stop.
philip said:
So in the future, when solar production (on both sides of the meter) exceeds demand minus base load plant power, what gets shut down and how should rates (negative?) be handled in that situation?
See item 3) above. The proper operation of the electricity bourse will allow for the value of electricity to remain positive under all conditions by creating an appropriate signals to influence both consumption and production. But we need to avoid the mistake that Germany has made of moving renewable production too far ahead of storage.
philip said:
Like it or not, without a cheap means of power storage or major changes in the way we consume electricity, solar will become less valuable to the grid. These changes will need to be reflected in how we are compensated for our exports.
Those are precisely the dynamics which my proposal addresses. Using inventive policy initiatives to simultaneously drive BEV growth and charging behavior while we continue to build out PV roofs will address all of the issues you have raised.
 
drees said:
philip said:
drees said:
But even at 90% overall, you still get stuck with the minimum charge in the months you overproduce, which is about half the year.
Are you sure about that? If you consumed $120 over the course of a year, any minimum charges that accrued should be wiped out at true up. I'm not 100% sure on this, as i am only going off what I have read over at solarpaneltalk. My true up is in May, waiting to see what happens there.
100% sure, I'm looking at my SDG&E NEM Summary right now - I also true-up in May. There is a "Minimum Charge Adjustment" line which covers the months where my system generated enough energy that I had a net credit (thank to TOU rates, I generated a credit despite being a net consumer of electricity. Those periods are billed at the minimum rate of $0.17/day. My Minimum Charge Adjustment for the year will be about $31.

Now, you can have your minimum bill offset if your system generates more energy annually than you use. That energy is credited regardless at a rate of something like $0.04 / kWh. If you generate enough to offset your minimum bill, you can ask for a check.

Just FYI, the minimum charge is annual, not monthly. On my true up statement I have a Minimum Charge Adjustment credit for all the months I had a minimum charge.
 
philip said:
drees said:
philip said:
Are you sure about that? If you consumed $120 over the course of a year, any minimum charges that accrued should be wiped out at true up. I'm not 100% sure on this, as i am only going off what I have read over at solarpaneltalk. My true up is in May, waiting to see what happens there.
100% sure, I'm looking at my SDG&E NEM Summary right now - I also true-up in May. There is a "Minimum Charge Adjustment" line which covers the months where my system generated enough energy that I had a net credit (thank to TOU rates, I generated a credit despite being a net consumer of electricity. Those periods are billed at the minimum rate of $0.17/day. My Minimum Charge Adjustment for the year will be about $31.

Now, you can have your minimum bill offset if your system generates more energy annually than you use. That energy is credited regardless at a rate of something like $0.04 / kWh. If you generate enough to offset your minimum bill, you can ask for a check.

Just FYI, the minimum charge is annual, not monthly. On my true up statement I have a Minimum Charge Adjustment credit for all the months I had a minimum charge.
Phillip,
OK, I am new to this net metering stuff and won't have my first true-up bill until May, 2017, but my understanding is the same as what drees stated. From everything I've read, the daily minimum charge is just that--DAILY, not monthly or annual. It is calculated monthly based on the number of days that you do not pull any net power from the grid @ $.17/day, and is shown on your bill as a "Minimum charge adjustment." It is compounded monthly and shows as a running balance on your bill, but is only actually charged annually, at your true-up date, which I suppose could make it an "annual charge" semantically, but I don't understand how you can call it a "credit"??? Any credit would come from your excess net production from the year, which might offset the minimum daily charge if you produced enough excess kWh for the year. In the 4 months my system has been operating, I have been charged ~$10 each month, which is carried forward to the next month, and at the end of the year, I expect to owe them ~$120. The way I figure it, I will need to have overproduced 3,000 kWh for the 12-month period credited @ $0.04/kWh to not owe them anything. Am I misunderstanding this net-metering true-up deal?

TT
 
ttweed said:
Phillip,
OK, I am new to this net metering stuff and won't have my first true-up bill until May, 2017, but my understanding is the same as what drees stated. From everything I've read, the daily minimum charge is just that--DAILY, not monthly or annual. It is calculated monthly based on the number of days that you do not pull any net power from the grid @ $.17/day, and is shown on your bill as a "Minimum charge adjustment." It is compounded monthly and shows as a running balance on your bill, but is only actually charged annually, at your true-up date, which I suppose could make it an "annual charge" semantically, but I don't understand how you can call it a "credit"??? Any credit would come from your excess net production from the year, which might offset the minimum daily charge if you produced enough excess kWh for the year. In the 4 months my system has been operating, I have been charged ~$10 each month, which is carried forward to the next month, and at the end of the year, I expect to owe them ~$120. The way I figure it, I will need to have overproduced 3,000 kWh for the 12-month period credited @ $0.04/kWh to not owe them anything. Am I misunderstanding this net-metering true-up deal?

TT

I'll explain how it all looks on my true up statement and that should clear up how it works.

In April, my statement showed $50.19 under "Minimum Charge Adjustment" on the Net Energy Metering Summary. My true up month was the next month. On this statement under the electric energy charges (it is not in the net energy section) there is a line also called "Minimum Charge Adjustment" and it shows -$50.19. All the minimum charge adjustments were credited back on the true up statement. It wasn't a credit against usage, it was a credit against accumulated minimum charges. I don't come anywhere close to getting a credit for excess production, as I only produce about 75% of my usage from PV, however the EV-TOU2 time of use tariff allows me to build up NEM credits in the summer.

According to the true up statement, I had a total $114 in electricity use for the 12 month period, which was above the minimum charge for the period which was $105 (For 3 months of the period the min charge was only $5/mo, it was raised to $10 in September 2015).

Not sure why the tariff calls it a daily charge, but it does get charged to your account balance monthly when your total electric charges are below the minimum charge for the month.
 
ttweed said:
The way I figure it, I will need to have overproduced 3,000 kWh for the 12-month period credited @ $0.04/kWh to not owe them anything. Am I misunderstanding this net-metering true-up deal?
Yes, that's about right. But don't forget to take into account the California Climate Credits which are applied to your account twice a year, too. That will deduct about $35-40 from the $120 of minimum charges, so you'll only need to overproduce by about 2,000 kWh to get a $0 bill at your true up period.
 
philip said:
In April, my statement showed $50.19 under "Minimum Charge Adjustment" on the Net Energy Metering Summary. My true up month was the next month. On this statement under the electric energy charges (it is not in the net energy section) there is a line also called "Minimum Charge Adjustment" and it shows -$50.19. All the minimum charge adjustments were credited back on the true up statement. It wasn't a credit against usage, it was a credit against accumulated minimum charges. I don't come anywhere close to getting a credit for excess production, as I only produce about 75% of my usage from PV, however the EV-TOU2 time of use tariff allows me to build up NEM credits in the summer.

According to the true up statement, I had a total $114 in electricity use for the 12 month period, which was above the minimum charge for the period which was $105 (For 3 months of the period the min charge was only $5/mo, it was raised to $10 in September 2015).

Not sure why the tariff calls it a daily charge, but it does get charged to your account balance monthly when your total electric charges are below the minimum charge for the month.
OK, thanks. I think I'm beginning to understand this better. What you're saying is that if you end up being a net user at the end of the year instead of a net producer, that minimum charge adjustment gets applied as a credit towards your net usage charge? That kind of makes sense, but I don't think it will apply in my case. My system was designed to offset 102% of my historical usage, and so far, it seems to be exceeding that goal. It's only been online for 4 months, but has been producing beyond our usage each month so far. And May/June/July here at the beach are probably the worst months for overcast skies (May grey, June gloom, and July junk are popular descriptions that have been coined for a reason around here). Unless we increase our usage in the future, I think we'll end up as net overproducers for the year, but we'll see. If we have no net usage for the year, there will be nothing to offset the minimum charge, no?

And thanks for reminding me about the climate change credits, drees. That will help ease the minimum charges.

TT
 
ttweed said:
OK, thanks. I think I'm beginning to understand this better. What you're saying is that if you end up being a net user at the end of the year instead of a net producer, that minimum charge adjustment gets applied as a credit towards your net usage charge? That kind of makes sense, but I don't think it will apply in my case. My system was designed to offset 102% of my historical usage, and so far, it seems to be exceeding that goal. It's only been online for 4 months, but has been producing beyond our usage each month so far. And May/June/July here at the beach are probably the worst months for overcast skies (May grey, June gloom, and July junk are popular descriptions that have been coined for a reason around here). Unless we increase our usage in the future, I think we'll end up as net overproducers for the year, but we'll see. If we have no net usage for the year, there will be nothing to offset the minimum charge, no?

TT

It sounds like with your over-production, you will owe the minimum charges, as you would need to purchase at least $120/year in energy to have them all refunded. If you overproduce (energy not dollars), then the approximate $.04/kWh production credit would offset minimum charges, however this isn't a cost effective use of an expensive PV system.
 
philip said:
It sounds like with your over-production, you will owe the minimum charges, as you would need to purchase at least $120/year in energy to have them all refunded. If you overproduce (energy not dollars), then the approximate $.04/kWh production credit would offset minimum charges, however this isn't a cost effective use of an expensive PV system.
I have to admit that "cost effectiveness" was not a big consideration. SWSBO wanted solar, so she got solar. It's the same situation as with the Leaf. She sets her mind on something and it's going to happen, one way or another. As it ended up, we got into a group buy from Sunrun for UCSD affiliates and went with a PPA for a 5.5kW system for $13K that I figure was basically pre-paying our electricity bill for the next 20 years @ $.10/kWh. As long as the company doesn't go belly-up and/or we don't both die before 2024, it's a bargain. If we over-produce, we get $.04/kWh back for each one beyond what we use. If we die before 2024, our heirs take the hit. If there's some breakthrough in energy production that makes electricity dirt cheap before then, we lose money, maybe. I was willing to go for that and she's happy. Happy wife, happy life, as they say...

TT
 
philip said:
...however this isn't a cost effective use of an expensive PV system.
Definitely not, but it's definitely satisfying. :D

I'm currently short about 2 kW of PV to get close to that point, myself.
 
philip said:
It sounds like with your over-production, you will owe the minimum charges, as you would need to purchase at least $120/year in energy to have them all refunded. If you overproduce (energy not dollars), then the approximate $.04/kWh production credit would offset minimum charges, however this isn't a cost effective use of an expensive PV system.
Well, this month was my 1-year account true-up with SDG&E. I ended up with an $8.80 credit. Net generation credits and CA Climate Credit completely cancelled out the $120 minimum charge adjustment, and gave me a net negative bill for the year. I'm a happy camper. I would have paid probably $1500-2000 for the year without solar, and my amortized cost of the system was $650 (plus maybe $250 in lost opportunity cost from paying $13K up front). It looks like free money from the sky to me.

TT
 
ttweed said:
Well, this month was my 1-year account true-up with SDG&E. I ended up with an $8.80 credit. Net generation credits and CA Climate Credit completely cancelled out the $120 minimum charge adjustment, and gave me a net negative bill for the year. I'm a happy camper.

TT

I'm not from California, but I am impressed!

I was wondering if you could itemize how you ended up with the $8.80 credit for the year? Also, you must be doing serious energy saving measures to have a 5.5kw system covering your usage. I'm thinking the stove/oven and water heater are gas?

Once again, very impressive!
 
Back
Top