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

[oakwcj]

I was one of the first on E9a and I have yet been notified. How did you get the notice, phone, email, snail mail?

No notice, even after I called PG&E, and was told "its in the mail".

Has ANYONE received notice?

If you read the PG&E advice letter carefully, you will see that they have only promised to notify us before the new rates take effect. They say nothing about notification before the rates are approved by the CPUC. They want a fait accompli so that they can sadly tell us that we'd be better off on E-1. Just another of PG&E's deceptive practices.

Also note that the proposal would institute peak periods for the winter months where none exist now. PG&E attempts to sell this as simplifying a complex rate structure. I'll take a lower bill over false simplicity any time. When PG&E talks about the effects of the proposed rate change, it only compares the new rates with the existing E-9 rates. Those results are bad enough, but the important comparison would be to E-1. If the E-9 rates, using whatever secret assumptions PG&E claims to have made, are no lower than the E-1 rates, then the incentives for TOU charging disappear. I think this is precisely what PG&E wants, because its ultimate aim is to prove to the CPUC that TOU rates are a failure and make another effort to use the Smart Meter technology to impose demand pricing.

 

[Spies]

If the E-9 rates, using whatever secret assumptions PG&E claims to have made, are no lower than the E-1 rates, then the incentives for TOU charging disappear.

Exactly! PG&E has absolutely no idea how much of my energy use I have shifted to off peak as a result of being on E9. With the new proposed E9 rates I will no longer be able to shift my high energy using tasks such as running the electric clothes washer and dryer to off peak on the weekends since off peak during normal hours will be eliminated. Adding in the fact that peak will run 365 days a year I can easily see that my bill will double or more.

From the PG&E document:

Those customers in the most severely impacted quartile would all have increases of 50 percent or more if they continued to take service under Schedule E-9, and the average annual bill increase for the customers in this quartile would be nearly 80 percent (an average increase of $37 per month).

The key phrase here is "if they continued to take service under Schedule E-9" telling me that even PG&E knows even using their secret assumptions that another rate schedule will cost less for a large number of customers that are on E9 now.

 

[Nekota]

So how does one attend the CPUC meetings?

 

[matth]

Only a few more days....PLEASE get those cards and letters (and emails) in to the PUC!

 

[mxp]

Only a few more days....PLEASE get those cards and letters (and emails) in to the PUC!

Who here has the courage to raise this on TV? CBS5 or KRON-4 etc?

Which TV channel did Gudy show up on? We should raise this awareness since the news correspondent that interviewed Gudy mentioned she would follow-up in future....

This would be the perfect avenue to put PG&E on the stand.

I'm afraid I'm shy and embarrassed to be on TV or else, I'd certainly do it!

 

[oakwcj]

Here's my protest letter:


CPUC Energy Division
Tariff Files, Room 4005
DMS Branch
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102

Re: PG&E AL 3910-E

Dear CPUC:

I own a Nissan LEAF electric vehicle and have been on the E-9A rate since May 2011. Before I bought my car I researched my electric rate options and took them into account in my purchase decision. I was aware that a TOU rate could provide me with substantial savings over the E-1 rate if I charged my car only during off-peak hours. I am writing to protest PG&E's proposal, in the above referenced Advice Letter, to radically change the E-9 rate structure to virtually eliminate the economic incentives to shift electricity use from peak to off-peak periods. As PG&E admits, its proposals, if approved, would result in increased electricity bills for three-quarters of the customers currently on the E-9A rate, and for at least 95% of its customers on the E-9B rate. The proposal seems designed to sabotage the public policy principles underlying TOU rates. I believe that EV owners are being used as pawns by the regulated utilities in their dispute with the CPUC over what kind of time-variant rates will be used in conjunction with Smart Meter technology. The utilities would like to go to some form of demand pricing, while the CPUC has wisely preferred to emphasize TOU principles.


It is difficult to provide a complete analysis of PG&E's proposal, because it has withheld necessary data. PG&E claims that its “proposed changes to Schedule E-9 are designed to be revenue neutral for electric vehicle customers, relative to service under Schedule E-1 and subject to specific usage assumptions about the Schedule E-9 customers’ household and electric vehicle charging loads.” Unfortunately, PG&E does not disclose what these “specific usage assumptions” might be. Even worse, it only provides limited comparisons between bills under the existing E-9 rates and the proposals. It provides no information on the relevant comparison between the E-1 rate and the proposals. Because PG&E certainly has this data, I can only conclude that the anecdotal information I've received from other LEAF owners is accurate, and that there would no longer be any economic incentive to stay on the E-9 rate. In my case, the E-1 rate would result in slightly lower bills, once the absurd $8 per month “customer charge” is factored in. PG&E's curious use of the term “revenue neutral” would tend to confirm this suspicion. If the proposed rates result in revenue equal to revenues from E-1, which has no TOU benefits, then there is obviously no incentive to charge during off-peak hours. I can understand a cost neutral plan, because PG&E's costs are lower during off-peak periods. But if the proposal is really revenue neutral, then it defeats the entire purpose of a TOU rate. In the five months since I have been on the E-9 rate, I have paid obsessive attention to the timing of my electricity usage. TOU rates do work, but only if there is some economic payoff.


Turning to the specifics of the proposal, PG&E wants to slap a $100 per year “customer charge” on EV owners. There is no justification for this charge. Nearly all PG&E customers now have Smart Meters. There is no additional expense for EV users. In the supposed interest of “simplicity” PG&E would like to implement a year-round peak period. Currently, there are only partial-peak and off-peak periods during the winter. I had anticipated greater savings from the E-9 rate during the winter months, because there would be no peak period. PG&E doesn't experience peaks in the winter, because air conditioning isn't being used. There is no justification for this proposed change. I would gladly trade away a little “simplicity” for lower electricity bills. While the CPUC did direct PG&E to eliminate tiers for the EV portion of the E-9B rate, it did not issue a similar order with respect to the “whole house” E-9A rate. PG&E has taken it upon itself to include the elimination of tiers for the E-9A rate as well. This would result in a system under which customers with separate meters would still have the advantage of baseline and tiered rates for their homes, while those on the E-9A rate would be saddled with a flat rate of $.38 per kWh during the summer months. Again, there is no justification for this enormous price increase. EV owners don't charge their cars during peak periods. There is no reason to eliminate baselines and tiers for peak and partial-peak periods. The existing prices are sufficient to discourage charging during those hours. It would make sense to elimate the tiers for the E-9A rate only for off-peak periods. The overwhelming majority of electrical usage during the off-peak periods is for EV charging. Such a change would put EV owners on the E-9A rate on basically the same footing as those on the E-9B rate.


The CPUC should reject PG&E's proposal. It should require PG&E to develop a new plan which maintains reasonable economic incentives for off-peak EV charging, without an $8 per month “customer charge.” PG&E should be required to disclose all of the assumptions and data underlying any new proposals and should specifically be required to compare the new proposals with the E-1 rate under a variety of assumptions. Finally, PG&E should be required to inform all current E-9 customers of its proposals and their right to protest to the Commission. While PG&E talks about notification in its AL, it only intends to provide notice after it receives CPUC approval. It would then be able to present the new reality as a fait accompli. Most EV owners would then realize that there would no longer be any point to staying on the E-9 rate and PG&E could report that TOU rates have failed. I fear that this is the underlying rationale for this pernicious proposal.


Thank you for your consideration of this protest.

 

[rclams]

Here's my protest letter:

... The CPUC should reject PG&E's proposal...

Thank you for your consideration of this protest.

Well done, thank you for giving us some things to consider in our own letter.

 

[BryanM]

Here is our letter to the CPUC:

October 17, 2011

CPUC Energy Division
Tariff Files, Room 4005
DMS Branch
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102


Dear Commissioners,

Re: Advice 3910-E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company ID U 39 E)
Modifications to Electric Rate Schedule E-9 for
Residential Time-of-Use Service for Low Emission Vehicle Customers

We protest Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) application to change Electric Rate Schedule E-9A and E-9B (the E-9 Rates) and request the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (the Commission) to reject PG&E’s application dated September 26, 2011.

In rejecting the application as submitted, we ask the Commission to direct PG&E to:

- File a separate application to change the E-9A rate;
- Analyze the differences between proposed time-of-use rates and a single rate;
- Make available supporting data in their rate change applications; and
- Design electricity rate structures that reduce the consumption of electricity, especially in peak periods, and encourage investment in renewable energy generation.

The rationale relating to each of the items noted above is included in this letter.

As background, we own a 2011 Nissan LEAF and have a solar photovoltaic system on our roof with a nameplate rating of 10.32 kW. Prior to submitting this protest, we reviewed the Commission’s orders dated July 14, 2011 and were delighted to see Finding of Fact 15, which states, “A metering policy that encourages off-peak charging could reduce overall costs associated with Electric Vehicle adoption.” We are participating in The EV Project and have applied for an E-9A rate.

In addition to the items described in this letter, we believe that the Commission should encourage PG&E to consider demand response for electric vehicle charging systems and we would be pleased to participate in such a program. Relating to rates, we believe that innovation and technology will result in feasible submetering solutions for electric vehicles in the near future, which may address many of the problems associated with the E-9 Rates.

We believe that California should use its resources wisely and in a sustainable manner for subsequent generations. The Commission should promote electricity rate structures that discourage high consumption and encourage investment in renewable energy generation. As submitted, PG&E’s application to change the E-9 Rates encourages consumption in peak periods and discourages investment in renewable energy generation.

Based on PG&E’s application dated September 26, 2011, we believe that the proposed changes to the E-9 Rates are not in the best interests of the customers that PG&E has the privilege to serve. In addition, we object to the change in the E-9A rate and ask that the Commission request that PG&E to make the data referred to in their application available to the public.

Direct PG&E to File a Separate Application to Change the E-9A Rate

The Commission requested PG&E to change the E-9B rate and PG&E is changing both the E-9A and E-9B rates. We believe that PG&E is confusing the issue by applying to change both rates in the same application and request that the Commission reject the combined application by PG&E.

We ask the Commission to require PG&E to apply to change E-9A rate in a separate application.

Request PG&E to Analyze the Differences between Time-of-Use Rates and a Single Rate

PG&E’s application did not provide any information relating to time-of-use (TOU) rates and single rates (e.g., E-1). With the proposed E-9 Rates, customers may find it to their advantage to use an E-1 rate, which does not provide any incentive to reduce demand during peak periods.

The Commission should request PG&E to analyze the differences between the proposed TOU rates and a single rate, such as E-1.

Require PG&E to Make Available Supporting Data in their Rate Change Application

PG&E makes certain claims regarding the impact of the changes in the E-9 Rates. In an e-mail to PG&E dated October 14, 2011, we requested that PG&E provide the data that supports their statements in the application and received confirmation that PG&E had received our request. To date, we have not received the data requested.

We requested the following data relating to statements made by PG&E in their letter dated September 26, 2011 (identified with quotes):

3. “Using these customers’ most recent recorded usage, PG&E has determined that the average bill increase resulting from the revised Schedule E-9 rates would be just 1.5 percent. However, using this figure by itself would mask a much greater disparity in the range of individual customer bill impacts. Approximately one-quarter of this group of customers would pay reduced bills, with bill reductions averaging approximately 15 percent. Customers in the middle two quartiles of this group would all pay increased bills, with an average increase of approximately 19 percent. Those customers in the most severely impacted quartile would all have increases of 50 percent or more if they continued to take service under Schedule E-9, and the average annual bill increase for the customers in this quartile would be nearly 80 percent (an average increase of $37 per month).” Please provide the data and analysis supporting these statements.

4. “Using these customers’ most recent recorded usage, PG&E projects that all but 1 of these customers would have bill increases resulting from the revised Schedule E-9 rates, and the average increase for the electricity billed under Schedule E-9 to this group of customers would be approximately 60 percent. PG&E notes that all of the customers in this group also have household usage that is billed under Schedule E-1, so the average increase in these customers’ total electric bills would be significantly less than 60 percent.” Please provide the data and analysis supporting these statements.

We ask that the Commission reject PG&E’s application until PG&E has provided the public with the data supporting their statements in the application.

Reducing the Consumption of Electricity

The Commission should promote electricity rates that reduce the consumption of electricity. PG&E’s application to change the E-9 Rates lowers the cost of electricity for the highest consumers of electricity. By definition, the higher the tier, the more electricity is being consumed.

In its application, PG&E states that eliminating the tiers in the E-9A rate will lower the cost of electricity for almost 25% of its customers that are using the E-9A rate. ‘Approximately one-quarter of this group of customers would pay reduced bills, with bill reductions averaging approximately 15 percent.’
Reducing the cost of electricity for the highest consumers of electricity will encourage additional consumption of electricity by those consumers and provide them with the cash flow to do so. The rate structure should provide a financial incentive to reduce consumption, not increase consumption.

The Commission should reject PG&E’s application to change the E-9A rate and require PG&E to design rate structures that reduce the consumption of electricity.

Encouraging Investment in Renewable Energy Generation

The Commission should promote electricity rates that encourage investment in renewable energy generation. To encourage investment in renewable energy generation, there should be a financial return associated with that investment. Electric vehicles can help to encourage investment in renewable energy generation through solar photovoltaic power (PV). Specifically, by owning an electric vehicle (EV) and by investing in PV systems, people may generate electricity during the day when demand is at its peak, and charge their EV batteries at night, when demand is at its lowest. The batteries in EVs allow the storage of electricity at no incremental investment and almost all new EVs and most EV chargers have the capability and functionality to schedule charging at night, with separate schedules for weekdays and weekends.

Having a large difference between peak and non-peak (night) rates increases the financial return of investing in both EVs and PV. Essentially, a larger difference in rates for peak and night creates a rate arbitrage opportunity that is in everyone’s best interest as more renewable power is generated during the peak period in the day (not consumed) and more power is consumed at night.

PG&E’s application raises electricity rates at night and lowers the rates during the peak periods, which reduces the financial incentives to invest in EVs and PV. In addition, PG&E’s application raises rates during the winter, when PV generation is the lowest and decreases rates in the summer, when PV generation is highest.

The Commission should reject PG&E’s application as submitted and require PG&E to design electricity rate structures that encourage investment in renewable energy generation.

* * * * *

To summarize, we ask the Commission to reject PG&E’s application as submitted and require PG&E to:

- File a separate application to change the E-9A rate;
- Analyze the differences between proposed time-of-use rates and a single rate;
- Make available supporting data in their rate change applications; and
- Design electricity rate structures that reduce the consumption of electricity, especially in peak periods, and encourage investment in renewable energy generation.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this protest, please call Bryan at 408.655.0400.

Respectfully submitted,



cc Director, Energy Division, Room 4004
Brian K. Cherry, Pacific Gas and Electric Company

 

[Spies]

Just a heads up that today, October 17, 2011, is supposedly the last day to get your protest letter in on this rate change. So if you were planning on sending in a letter please do it today! Thank you.

 

[oakwcj]

The PUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates [DRA] will be filing a protest today. When I get a copy I'll post it or a link in this thread. Advice Letters are generally used for noncontroversial matters. DRA will be requesting that PG&E's proposal be handled in a more formal matter, which would require a resolution and vote by the CPUC. It looks as if nothing is going to be decided anytime soon.

DRA has published a white paper on time-variant electric pricing, which puts our issue in a larger context. It's quite technical, but if you're interested:

http://www.dra.ca.gov/DRA/energy/Customer+Rates/Rate+Design/tou_paper.htm

 

[EVDRIVER]

I spoke face to face with a PUC person that works on renewables. This person told me that writing letters and attending meetings is pointless. These decisions are decided by a judge and any consideration in the decision must be made by an organization that is filing a complaint to be on record. In this case the judge must consider all complaints as part of the decision process. An individual can make be an organization and file to be on record.

 

[oakwcj]

That's simply not true with respect to Advice Letters. They are typically handled by the CPUC's Industry Division without any kind of hearing, either before an Administrative Law Judge or the Commission. PG&E is trying to do an end run by using the Advce Letter Process for a radical change in the E-9 rate. If there is enough opposition, the case will be transferred to a different track which requires a resolution and Commission vote. If you're interested, the process is described in CPUC General Order 96-B:

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/REPORT/91328.htm#P282_23084

 

[mxp]

I spoke face to face with a PUC person that works on renewables. This person told me that writing letters and attending meetings is pointless. These decisions are decided by a judge and any consideration in the decision must be made by an organization that is filing a complaint to be on record. In this case the judge must consider all complaints as part of the decision process. An individual can make be an organization and file to be on record.

SIGH! This is definitely bad news.....

Would a class action voice from a legal standpoint be of any effective, directed at PG&E even at this early stages of the PUC process?

I don't have any knowledge about class actions, but IN THEORY: Suppose some folks on the forum pooled some money together to start a class action suit, how much minimum $ do we have to raise in order even hire a lawyer specializing in these sort of class action?

 

[oakwcj]

I spoke face to face with a PUC person that works on renewables. This person told me that writing letters and attending meetings is pointless. These decisions are decided by a judge and any consideration in the decision must be made by an organization that is filing a complaint to be on record. In this case the judge must consider all complaints as part of the decision process. An individual can make be an organization and file to be on record.

SIGH! This is definitely bad news.....

Would a class action voice from a legal standpoint be of any effective, directed at PG&E even at this early stages of the PUC process?

I don't have any knowledge about class actions, but IN THEORY: Suppose some folks on the forum pooled some money together to start a class action suit, how much minimum $ do we have to raise in order even hire a lawyer specializing in these sort of class action?

It would be bad news if it were true. See my post above. As to your question, the PUC has exclusive jurisdiction over utility regulation. Judicial reviews of PUC decisions go directly to the California Supreme Court, which rarely accepts such cases. No class actions, even in theory. The PUC's first action in this case will probably be to suspend the Advice Letter, pending further review.

 

[mxp]

It would be bad news if it were true. See my post above. As to your question, the PUC has exclusive jurisdiction over utility regulation. Judicial reviews of PUC decisions go directly to the California Supreme Court, which rarely accepts such cases. No class actions, even in theory. The PUC's first action in this case will probably be to suspend the Advice Letter, pending further review.

Thanks for your clarification.

I have followed the protest action here, emailed and post mailed in my complaints. Surely there must be something else that current EV drivers can do? Can just about anyone (non-EV owners, etc) send in these complaints?

If you have any other suggestions for action that you can share, pls do so... Truth to be told, I was so angry when I first knew about this that now, I am prepared to just about do anything to stop it.

 

[oakwcj]

It would be bad news if it were true. See my post above. As to your question, the PUC has exclusive jurisdiction over utility regulation. Judicial reviews of PUC decisions go directly to the California Supreme Court, which rarely accepts such cases. No class actions, even in theory. The PUC's first action in this case will probably be to suspend the Advice Letter, pending further review.

Thanks for your clarification.

I have followed the protest action here, emailed and post mailed in my complaints. Surely there must be something else that current EV drivers can do? Can just about anyone (non-EV owners, etc) send in these complaints?

If you have any other suggestions for action that you can share, pls do so... Truth to be told, I was so angry when I first knew about this that now, I am prepared to just about do anything to stop it.

You're not the only angry person. If you look at the PUC daily calendar:

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/DAILY_CALENDAR/145483.htm

you will see a list of all the individuals and organizations that have filed protests on a particular day. Nine protests were filed today. You can search last week's calendars and see that many others have been filed. In tomorrow's calendar, I hope that there will be still more protests that were received today, among them one from the Division of Ratepayer Advocates. There isn't anything further to be done at the moment. Once the PUC acts on the Advice Letter, there will be an opportunity to challenge the decision if it is unfavorable. I think there is some reason for optimism. The PUC is now controlled by Jerry Brown's appointees. It is much more consumer oriented than it was under Arnold and much less likely to act as a rubber stamp for utilities. PG&E went far beyond what the PUC asked it to do in its decision. All we can do right now is wait for the PUC to respond.

 

[oakwcj]

The Advice Letter has already been suspended by the CPUC, as of October 7:

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/adviceletters/al_suspend_e.htm

It's the last Advice Letter on the page. Judging from the few immediately above it, this appears to be routine. The grounds for the suspension are: "Advice letter requries staff review." The grounds may be changed to "Protested" or "A Commission resolution is required to address the advice letter." The suspension is in effect until February 3, 2012, with a projected disposition in June 2012.

 

[BryanM]

Yes, it looks like the Advice Letter was suspended. It is interesting that the CPUC continued to accept Protests as there were more than 15 filed in October.

 

[oakwcj]

Yes, it looks like the Advice Letter was suspended. It is interesting that the CPUC continued to accept Protests as there were more than 15 filed in October.

The Commission continued to accept Protest letters because a suspension is not a rejection or a cancellation of the Advice Letter. It appears that any Advice Letter that is in the least bit controversial is suspended to allow sufficient time for evaluation.

 

[Nekota]

I spoke face to face with a PUC person that works on renewables. This person told me that writing letters and attending meetings is pointless. These decisions are decided by a judge and any consideration in the decision must be made by an organization that is filing a complaint to be on record. In this case the judge must consider all complaints as part of the decision process. An individual can make be an organization and file to be on record.

In the Advice Letter from PG&E it states that anyone can file a protest to CPUC

http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_3910-E.pdf

Protests
Anyone wishing to protest this filing may do so by letter sent via U.S. mail, by
facsimile or electronically, any of which must be received no later than October
17, 2011, which is 21 days after the date of this filing.4 Protests should be mailed
to:
CPUC Energy Division
Tariff Files, Room 4005
DMS Branch
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
Facsimile: (415) 703-2200
E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]
Copies of protests also should be mailed to the attention of the Director, Energy
Division, Room 4004, at the address shown above.
The protest also should be sent via U.S. mail (and by facsimile and electronically,
if possible) to PG&E at the address shown below on the same date it is mailed or
delivered to the Commission:
Brian K. Cherry
Vice President, Regulations and Rates
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
77 Beale Street, Mail Code B10C
P.O. Box 770000
San Francisco, California 94177
Facsimile: (415) 973-6520
E-mail: [email protected]