Official Southern California Edison thread

[HighDesertDriver]

Received our check today for the period ending March 2011. It has been so long that I don't recall our exact surplus, but the amount was $44.28 for around 1200kWh. The check stub does not state how it was calculated, only "This is it.". Better than a sharp in the eye, but certainly now more valuable to us in the battery of our Leaf.

 

[tbleakne]

For your net surplus of 292 kWh, you should be paid at the low rate that SCE and the CPUC agreed on. I thought that it was going to be about 4 cents/kWh, but if you are correct and your credit balance is the amount that they'll pay you, it only works out to 3.8 cents/kWh. Still, better than zero, but it's about the amount that they pay DWP for their cheap energy, right?

I believe the "credit balance" is kept separately because it tracks taxes and the meter charge. I have a credit balance because SCE deducted too much real money from my checking account last February when my NM first got going. I expect to be paid for the 292 kWh at the price you quote, but the credit balance will NOT be zeroed out. It should cover the $1.02/month for some months. If you have no credit balance, are you billed for the meter charge and taxes each month ?

 

[Boomer23]

For your net surplus of 292 kWh, you should be paid at the low rate that SCE and the CPUC agreed on. I thought that it was going to be about 4 cents/kWh, but if you are correct and your credit balance is the amount that they'll pay you, it only works out to 3.8 cents/kWh. Still, better than zero, but it's about the amount that they pay DWP for their cheap energy, right?

I believe the "credit balance" is kept separately because it tracks taxes and the meter charge. I have a credit balance because SCE deducted too much real money from my checking account last February when my NM first got going. I expect to be paid for the 292 kWh at the price you quote, but the credit balance will NOT be zeroed out. It should cover the $1.02/month for some months. If you have no credit balance, are you billed for the meter charge and taxes each month ?

I see what you mean, Tom. We also carry a credit balance to make paying the small monthly bills easier. My service charge for November was $1.15, and it was deducted from the $5 or so that we had on account at the time, so I still have a credit balance of around $3. You're right, your credit balance won't be zeroed out.

 

[tbleakne]

A friend of mine who works for SCE (he was in the same building but a different floor as the shooter in Irwindale) told me they are actively watching SDG&E's petition to the CUC to change Net Metering policy. You can read SCE's official response here:

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/RESP/147241.pdf

I suggest those of us in SCE-land should be keeping track of this debate. Here is a link to my comment on the thread devoted to this topic:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=6058&p=162243#p162243

 

[Boomer23]

I suggest those of us in SCE-land should be keeping track of this debate. Here is a link to my comment on the thread devoted to this topic:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=6058&p=162243#p162243

I agree, Tom, we should all be very interested in the outcome of the SDG&E rate case proposal. But beyond remaining aware, what is the most effective method of public feedback to the CPUC? I have signed and commented on the SignOn.org petitions, but I don't have any feedback on whether those petitions have attained "critical mass" enough to even be read by the CPUC.

After reading your well considered comments on the main thread, I do agree that we as solar PV customers are well served by being connected to the grid. However, I am more persuaded that the benefit provided by most of my Peak solar power production going directly into the grid is a large enough benefit provided to SCE and my neighbors to pay for my use of the grid for storage and re-use of my power. Add to this the fact that I'm charging my EV after midnight, which is the most efficient time for SCE to experience power usage from their plants that need to be run at some minimum power output.

As others have said, if the economics of the rate structures swing in favor of EV charging during Peak hours to reduce our exposure to fees for sending power TO the grid, you can bet that many solar PV customers will do just that. These proposed rate policies are not only detrimental to the growth of solar power adoption, they will encourage PEAK usage to climb significantly, which can't be good for the customer base or for the utility.

 

[HighDesertDriver]

. . . I do agree that we as solar PV customers are well served by being connected to the grid. However, I am more persuaded that the benefit provided by most of my Peak solar power production going directly into the grid is a large enough benefit provided to SCE and my neighbors to pay for my use of the grid for storage and re-use of my power. Add to this the fact that I'm charging my EV after midnight, which is the most efficient time for SCE to experience power usage from their plants that need to be run at some minimum power output. . . . These proposed rate policies are not only detrimental to the growth of solar power adoption, they will encourage PEAK usage to climb significantly, which can't be good for the customer base or for the utility.

+1 Spot-on! After years of augmenting the system to provide overall capacity -- especially peaking power -- for high-demand times, incentives to reduce peak power demands, and incentives to purchase energy-efficient appliances, it seems backward that they would propose a financial structure to push in the opposite direction.

 

[tbleakne]

I am more persuaded that the benefit provided by most of my Peak solar power production going directly into the grid is a large enough benefit provided to SCE and my neighbors to pay for my use of the grid for storage and re-use of my power. Add to this the fact that I'm charging my EV after midnight, which is the most efficient time for SCE to experience power usage from their plants that need to be run at some minimum power output.

As others have said, if the economics of the rate structures swing in favor of EV charging during Peak hours to reduce our exposure to fees for sending power TO the grid, you can bet that many solar PV customers will do just that. These proposed rate policies are not only detrimental to the growth of solar power adoption, they will encourage PEAK usage to climb significantly, which can't be good for the customer base or for the utility.

I strongly agree that grid-tied solar should be a win-win for both the utility and the consumer, but I submit that the current terms are sometimes too generous to the solar-generating residential customer, to the point that they won't be sustainable as the percentage of solar households continues to rise. Although it is not going to happen any time soon, we can't all be paid $.50/kwh to spin our meters backward. I could live with a policy shift that required most solar producers to generate a little more before they hit break-even for the year.

I also agree there must continue to be a substantial net incentive to charge our Leafs at night and send as much solar power as possible back to the grid during the day. Encouraging charging during the day to save power from going through the meter would be totally counter-productive. It all depends upon the details in the tariff prices. In personal conversation with SCE personnel at the CTAC event last Summer I expressed my opinion that both the super-off-peak rate for charging our cars, and the Level-2 on-peak rates were too high. SCE has stated they want to move toward putting everyone on a TOU tariff, and I felt the price swings between peak and off-peak in the Summer were just too extreme. They told me the current TOU tariff prices were an unfortunate consequence of the CPUC's policy of freezing the Baseline rates.

Despite some research, I have been unable to verify that SDG&E's proposal would constitute not just a reduction, but a complete reversal of the incentive to charge our cars at night. It the latter is actually true, their specific proposal needs to be opposed by all of us. However, SCE's comments suggest that Leafers in all 3 areas (PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E) should consider what modifications of current policy they would accept.

A modest demand charge, such as I described, adjusted for time of day, would give us an additional incentive to avoid temporary peak demands on the grid, and it would be a fair way to compensate the utility for the coming increases in grid loading fluctuation. Please understand I see EV charging as potentially helping reduce grid loading fluctuation by charging at night, possibly adjusted by current wind generation data.

Right now I would think almost all Leaf households would experience a peak grid load during the early evening substantially higher than the 3.8kW rate our cars draw late at night, so I don't understand why a demand charge would necessarily discourage nighttime charging. However, with the arrival of the 2X charger in 2013, it is possible EV charging could become the peak consuming item for some Leaf households. If this becomes true, we could modify our EVSEs to supply only 3.8kW and save 2X charging for when we are on the road. A demand charge is assessed only once a month, based upon the peak for that month, so there would always be a price at which it would still pay to charge at night.

 

[tbleakne]

Report on SCE EV presentation given Jan 21 at SCAQMD in Diamond Bar.

Speaker: Chris Vournakis, Senior Project Manager

In 2011, ~ 1600 electric vehicles were delivered to customers in SCE's territory.

SCE is confident that they have ample generating capacity, transmission capacity, and distribution capacity to handle any amount of EV, any % of vehicles [I personally find that difficult to believe]. They are concerned, however, at the local level of your neighborhood transformer. It costs much more to do a rush replacement of a local transformer after it blows than to upgrade the transformer. They are worried about the cluster effect, when your neighbor buys an EV after you do, thereby exceeding the capacity of your common meter. They want to hear from customers before they buy so they can evaluate your local load before you bring your EV home from the dealer.

They have some new web site of EV BS at:
http://www.sce.com/electricvehicle

Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) is currently not allowed by statute anywhere in CA, except for a couple of experiments. It could take a couple of years for that to change. I commented that anyone with TOU Net Metering could make a tidy profit in the summer with V2G without SCE knowing (until a neighbor turns me in). I realize that could be hard on my battery, so I would probably only sell them a few kWh/day in the middle of the battery capacity, and only if they offered a special "emergency" incentive price.

A few areas in SCE territory have gone live with downloadable daily usage from smart meters. No info on whether they will ever offer what PG&E has, which is hourly usage data (24x365).

Since the electrical rate debacle, the CPUC regulation of the 3 private electric utilities is based upon the utilities' return on capital invested. The utility is not allowed to make a profit based upon kWh sold. The intent is to encourage conservation. The tariffs are adjusted to recover generation and distribution and administraive costs.

Paul Scott and I asked about demand charges and how they might impede roll-out of L3 QC. Chris just said SCE is willing to discuss demand charges with each commercial customer. No current plans to instigate residential demand charges.

Today I found following SCE tariff, TOU-EV charging - Demand Metered.
It applies to commercial charging on a dedicated meter with peak demand at least 20kW but less than 500kW, which should be more than adequate for L3 QC.

http://www.sce.com/NR/sc3/tm2/pdf/ce141-12.pdf

On pg 2 I see a demand charge of $12.18/kW of Billing Demand per meter per month. 30kW of peak demand would cost $365.40, or $ 12/day. 40kW would cost $ 16/day. This does not seem excessive to me.

 

[DaveEV]

They are concerned, however, at the local level of your neighborhood transformer. It costs much more to do a rush replacement of a local transformer after it blows than to upgrade the transformer. They are worried about the cluster effect, when your neighbor buys an EV after you do, thereby exceeding the capacity of your common meter. They want to hear from customers before they buy so they can evaluate your local load before you bring your EV home from the dealer.

Certainly they should be able to detect surges in energy usage based on billing and smart meter data, no? With smart meters reporting daily it seems that it shouldn't take long to notice before it becomes a problem.

On pg 2 I see a demand charge of $12.18/kW of Billing Demand per meter per month. 30kW of peak demand would cost $365.40, or $ 12/day. 40kW would cost $ 16/day. This does not seem excessive to me.

Not bad, but at least in summer charging on-peak you still have to pay $0.26 / kWh on top of that.

 

[Boomer23]

Report on SCE EV presentation given Jan 21 at SCAQMD in Diamond Bar.

Speaker: Chris Vournakis, Senior Project Manager

Thanks, Tom.

Did the speaker speak to the changes that SCE intends for our TOU rates?

 

[tbleakne]

Report on SCE EV presentation given Jan 21 at SCAQMD in Diamond Bar.

Speaker: Chris Vournakis, Senior Project Manager

Did the speaker speak to the changes that SCE intends for our TOU rates?

Phil, he showed the TOU price chart with which we are all familiar. He did not mention any coming changes. If I had known of any proposed changes, I would have surely asked him. What advance info do you have ?

 

[Boomer23]

Report on SCE EV presentation given Jan 21 at SCAQMD in Diamond Bar.

Speaker: Chris Vournakis, Senior Project Manager

Did the speaker speak to the changes that SCE intends for our TOU rates?

Phil, he showed the TOU price chart with which we are all familiar. He did not mention any coming changes. If I had known of any proposed changes, I would have surely asked him. What advance info do you have ?

I'd heard that SCE hopes to put everyone on a TOU plan and to reduce or eliminate tiers.

 

[Boomer23]

I got my SCE net metering year end statement for the period ended March 6, 2012. My total bill for the year was $6.51. Yes, only $6.51 for the whole year! We basically charged our LEAF for zero cost!

This was my first net metering year on single meter rate schedule TOU-D-TEV with solar and EV charging. Here are some details:

Total power usage: 11,408 kWh (from my records, using a TED and SCE's meter, we have no air conditioning in the home, but cooking is electric and the furnace blower runs at about 800 W)
LEAF charging usage: 3,025 kWh (from TED)
LEAF miles driven: 10,236
Solar PV power generation: 8,568 kWh (from my solar inverter, PV array of 5.16 kW on a 20 degree south facing roof)
Net cumulative power usage reported by SCE: 2,949 kWh (slightly different from the calculated value from above totals due to slight date variation of billing dates versus month totals)
Net cumulative energy charge from SCE: $6.51

So for a net usage of almost 3,000 kWh, I'm paying less than $7 for the entire year to run my entire household and charge a LEAF for 10,236 miles! Gotta love that single meter TOU EV charging rate schedule!

Disclaimer: I'm not counting the monthly service charge of about $1 that is required just to be an SCE customer.

Also: For eight months of the year, we had three additional family members living with us. By comparing with the same month of the prior year, I calculate that the additional residents caused us to use 2,262 kWh of extra power due to extra cooking, heating, lighting, computers and entertainment power used.

So my conclusion is that charging the LEAF cost us nothing at all in fuel costs. The $6.51 that we owe for the year is all due to the extra family staying with us, since that is a temporary cost that will go away in a few months, when they move out. Next year, with 12 full months of LEAF charging, I'm projecting that I'll have a net usage of less than 2,000 kWh and a net bill of zero.

 

[hill]

I am more persuaded that the benefit provided by most of my Peak solar power production going directly into the grid is a large enough benefit provided to SCE and my neighbors to pay for my use of the grid for storage and re-use of my power. Add to this the fact that I'm charging my EV after midnight, which is the most efficient time for SCE to experience power usage from their plants that need to be run at some minimum power output.

As others have said, if the economics of the rate structures swing in favor of EV charging during Peak hours to reduce our exposure to fees for sending power TO the grid, you can bet that many solar PV customers will do just that. These proposed rate policies are not only detrimental to the growth of solar power adoption, they will encourage PEAK usage to climb significantly, which can't be good for the customer base or for the utility.

I strongly agree that grid-tied solar should be a win-win for both the utility and the consumer, but I submit that the current terms are sometimes too generous to the solar-generating residential customer, to the point that they won't be sustainable as the percentage of solar households continues to rise. ...... snip

Don't know how I missed this thread earlier. IMO, PV households will NOT continue to rise, or become more common. At least PV will not get more common within the next several years. The reason I feel this way is because the lion's share of folks are NOT becoming more wealthy. In fact many of the middle class are approaching the poverty level. Sadly, PV is not going to be something for the middle / middle-lower class folks. As our economy sinks more and more, the middle class is what tends to goes away . . . just like it was for thousands of years prior to the last 80 years. I hope I'm wrong, but things over the last decade definitely don't point to a wealthier middle class.

Now changing the sub ject abruptly, I got our letter from SCE regarding what SCE will pay for surplus. On the one hand - ANYTHING is better than what we got before ... which was ZIP - SQUAT - ZERO. A residence could backfeed a megawatt per year, and SCE wouldn't even bother to say 'Thanks ... suckers!". Now? Hooo boy! We'll get (about) a whopping 3.75¢

That's right . . . regardless of the fact that YOU and I generated our surplus during peak power demand .... and that time under TOU goes for the highest rates. Doesn't matter either, under other forumulas ... where if you USE a ton of poer, you go up to tier 3, or 4, or 5 ... paying high rates. In theory, if you're generating into the tier 3, 4, or 5 rates, you'd get PAID BACk at those rates. Think so? SUCKERS ! ! Nopp You can generate 1,000kWh's a month at what ought to be tier 4 ... and you get less than 4¢ per kWh.

Aaahhhh - you gotta love big business . . . at leat if you're on the 'big-business' end of big business. Like I said above - at least we get something. If it weren't for arnold, prior to leaving office - SCE would still be asking us to grab our ankles. So ... our 1,600kwh surplus will get us a whopping $60 ish return. Better than a hot stick in the eye.

:?
Similarly, many of us were looking to get some kick back monies for (REC's) Renewable energy Credits. In short - this was supposed to be a money credit/payment that would allow companies (gross polluters) to pay us a fee (per kilowatt) for being green. The gross polluter would pay money to PV producer's for (in essence) their green-ness, and the gross polluter wouldn't get fined so heavily. It was supposed to be a win - win for both sides. We just got a letter stating (in short) that the fee to be paid to PV producers is so teeny, that the company that was trying to be (sort of) an intermediary decided to just throw in the towel. Thus, PV folks will get Zip under the renewable energy credit plan. Merry christmas.

.

 

[Boomer23]

That's right . . . regardless of the fact that YOU and I generated our surplus during peak power demand .... and that time under TOU goes for the highest rates. Doesn't matter either, under other forumulas ... where if you USE a ton of poer, you go up to tier 3, or 4, or 5 ... paying high rates. In theory, if you're generating into the tier 3, 4, or 5 rates, you'd get PAID BACk at those rates. Think so? SUCKERS ! ! Nopp You can generate 1,000kWh's a month at what ought to be tier 4 ... and you get less than 4¢ per kWh.

I can't really agree, hill. If you have TOU rates and solar with SCE, you do get FULL retail credit for the power that you generate, and that credit is subtracted, dollar for dollar, against the cost of the power that you use. So in the summer months, when you generate solar power during Peak hours, you get a credit of like 54 cents/kWh that is used to offset the power that you use off Peak or late at night to cook or charge your car. That's how my full year's bill came in under $7 for the whole year, despite the fact that I used almost 3,000 kWh MORE than I generated. That's a bonanza for us solar guys.

And as for how little we get paid if we over-generate and end the year with a surplus, I'd like us to get more than that paltry 3 cents, maybe about 10 cents. But it's really not fair on my neighbor, who's a regular customer, to have SCE pay us retail rates when they pay all their other suppliers wholesale rates. We are just another power plant, after all. That would raise our neighbor's rates, which isn't right.

 

[EricH]

But it's really not fair on my neighbor, who's a regular customer, to have SCE pay us retail rates when they pay all their other suppliers wholesale rates. We are just another power plant, after all. That would raise our neighbor's rates, which isn't right.

Much appreciated!

Your Neighbor

 

[hill]

Many articles now show that PV is less expensive than Nuke (even without costs for clean up, or spent fuel rod storage, which to this day has never even been addressed, in part because of the COSTS, which are avoided by the utility companies, only because the utility companies burying their heads in the sand) electricity. That being the case, why is is so bad to have our neighbors pay high tiers, while PV system operators pay less. After all, weren't we the one who had to lay out $10k ... $20K ... $30K or more? Isn't the reason that utility companies can put forth a reasonable argument to the PUC as to why they need to continually increase their rates because huge sums of capitol have to be laid out?
How does the expression go? . . . "Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander" ?

.

 

[Boomer23]

Many articles now show that PV is less expensive than Nuke (even without costs for clean up, or spent fuel rod storage, which to this day has never even been addressed, in part because of the COSTS, which are avoided by the utility companies, only because the utility companies burying their heads in the sand) electricity. That being the case, why is is so bad to have our neighbors pay high tiers, while PV system operators pay less. After all, weren't we the one who had to lay out $10k ... $20K ... $30K or more? Isn't the reason that utility companies can put forth a reasonable argument to the PUC as to why they need to continually increase their rates because huge sums of capitol have to be laid out?
How does the expression go? . . . "Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander" ?

.

Interesting. So we should get paid back more than the wholesale rate for our over generation because we produce clean solar power. Okay, I can get behind that. But if the utility has to raise the average Joe's rates each year because there are more and more solar houses each year, we're going to get some serious anti-solar political pressure eventually. Heck, we've already got a bunch of that pressure already.

 

[DaveEV]

IMO, PV households will NOT continue to rise, or become more common. At least PV will not get more common within the next several years. The reason I feel this way is because the lion's share of folks are NOT becoming more wealthy. In fact many of the middle class are approaching the poverty level. Sadly, PV is not going to be something for the middle / middle-lower class folks.

Actually, the highest growth market these days is in the middle class thanks to attractive solar leases which require minimal to no financial outlay - just reduced utility bills.

But if the utility has to raise the average Joe's rates each year because there are more and more solar houses each year, we're going to get some serious anti-solar political pressure eventually. Heck, we've already got a bunch of that pressure already.

Hill's point is that the utility does not incur increased costs because of solar homes. In fact, most independent studies show that any increase in cost due to PV net metering is negligible.

 

[hill]

That's right . . . regardless of the fact that YOU and I generated our surplus during peak power demand .... and that time under TOU goes for the highest rates. Doesn't matter either, under other forumulas ... where if you USE a ton of poer, you go up to tier 3, or 4, or 5 ... paying high rates. In theory, if you're generating into the tier 3, 4, or 5 rates, you'd get PAID BACk at those rates. Think so? SUCKERS ! ! Nopp You can generate 1,000kWh's a month at what ought to be tier 4 ... and you get less than 4¢ per kWh.

I can't really agree, hill. If you have TOU rates and solar with SCE, you do get FULL retail credit for the power that you generate, and that credit is subtracted, dollar for dollar, against the cost of the power that you use. So in the summer months, when you generate solar power during Peak hours, you get a credit of like 54 cents/kWh that is used to offset the power that you use off Peak or late at night to cook or charge your car. . . . . . . snip

I don't mind being disagreed with. I'm just reading the notifications sent out by the utility. It mirrors the info on their web sites. Credit for PV generation that offsets cheaper night time kWh costs, is not the same as actual surplus compensation. With TOU, you can end up with $1,000 yearly 'credit' based on higher rates that you're credited for PV generated electricity. If you deplete your daytime surplus by using the same amount of juice at night your actual kWh usage is ZERO, but your 'credit' shows positive, because your PV generation gets a higher dollar value than night time usage. TOU PV generation simply gives you a higher "credit" that's only good for offsetting night time use. But actual compensation is ONLY based off actual-real surplus kWh's.

From the PUC, vis a vis SCE's Website:

http://www.sce.com/customergeneration/nem-ab920.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"... Q12. What payment will I receive? How is it determined?

SCE will use a simple rolling average of day ahead “default load aggregation point” electricity prices from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. corresponding to each customer’s 12-month Relevant Period, as the value of electricity portion of each customer’s individual NSCR. The NSC may fluctuate monthly, as it is based on a rolling 12 month average of spot market prices and will be posted electronically on a monthly basis. Based on current market prices, the rate would be approximately 4 cents per kWh. ..."

Example; ALL of your kWh "surplus" can be thought of as using less utility electricity than what your PV system generates. But with a TOU contract, let's say your utility is giving you $1.01 per kWh credit for your daytime PV generation, and they could only charge you 1¢ for night time kWh's. If each year you used 5,000kWh's at night, and generated 5,000kWh's during the day, you'd get $5,000 "credit". But your actual kWh usage is the same ... you zero out ... it's a wash. NO actual surplus

Now under TOU - if you generated 2,000kWh MORE than night time hours, at $1.01 per kwh - it would mean you'd be 'credited' with over $2,000 ... but it's only credit. You won't ... you can't actually get money for your credit. In real money, you get less than 4¢/kWh for each of your 2,000kWh's of surplus (see the rate chart here: http://www.sce.com/AboutSCE/Regulatory/tariffbooks/ratespricing/nscr.htm this shows compensatoin will average about 3 ¾¢ per kWh ... don't spend it all in one place )
... and in real compensation dollars, that's less then $79 for your 2,000kWh's of surplus. If someone thinks otherwise, based off PUC documentation, I'd sure like to see the link.