PG&E proposes another rate hike in 2023 - 18% - to boost wildfire safety

[SageBrush]

These graphs really make my point.

Giving preference to the VRE providers means that the other providers have to be unnaturally variable in order to balance them out - which then makes them appear "expensive" relative to VRE.

Your ass-umptions and conclusions are wrong, but you see what you want to see.

VRE is curtailed in CA, and as the graphs show it is not due to VRE > demand. It happens even though VRE is cheaper than the energy being bought. Even though the CAISO utilities nominally buy the cheapest available, that only holds true for spot purchasing. The long term fossil contracts take precedence over the VRE PPAs. This is ass backwards, and reflects simple economics: it is cheaper for the utilities to curtail VRE than it is to curtail fossil production.

 

[cwerdna]

I figured I'd add to this thread about yet another PG&E rate hike.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/pge-monthly-electric-bills-going-up/

Mark Toney is the executive director of The Utility Reform Network also known as “TURN.”

The organization seeks lower power bills while using cleaner energy.

Toney says the Public Utilities Commission should have delayed this rate increase because of recent inflation and the financial impact of the pandemic.

“We’re kinda disappointed that the PUC did not look at this a little bit more long term from the standpoint of what can be done to help customers,” Toney said.

PG&E spokesman Paul Doherty says their estimates show the average residential customer would see an increase of $14 a month for electricity.

Their calculations are that this is a 9.2% increase.

Toney argues PG&E’s numbers do not take into account the jump in utility costs that went into effect on the first of this year.

PG&E customers are actually looking at a 20% rate increase, according to Toney.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/state-regulators-approve-pge-rate-hike/2812166/

FWIW, PG&E screws with their residential rates all the time: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/electric.shtml.

 

[HerdingElectrons]

Grrrr...The CPUC must be on PG&E's payroll...

 

[danrjones]

Just wait to see what PG&E ad SCE are shoving through the PUC in regards to solar fees. I know a meeting what supposed to already have happened but I haven't had the heart to see what the PUC did.

 

[paulgipe]

Just wait to see what PG&E ad SCE are shoving through the PUC in regards to solar fees. I know a meeting what supposed to already have happened but I haven't had the heart to see what the PUC did.

Dan,
At the request of the Governor they postponed their decision another month. I suspect they are frantically trying to find a way to save face and still do what they'd planned.

Paul

 

[danrjones]

Has anyone heard anything more on what the PUC plans to do in CA for solar?

On one hand, I actually do understand where SCE and PGE are coming from - when I produce power during the day, and put it into the system, I'm essentially being paid the full rate for that TOU period. Which is not what SCE would pay from a grid scale solar facility, which, are now the cheapest power source on the planet. So i can see why SCE is upset - they are essentially paying me say 33 cents during the day per kWh I put in, and 52 cents if I produce past 4pm during the summer. True, I don't actually get PAID, but I'm allowed to put "IN" at those rates and exchange for later. So why would one expect SCE/PGE to be happy about paying me 33 or 52 cents per kWh when during the day they can buy grid scale solar for 4 cents per kWh. So I do see the issue...

HOWEVER, CA has mandated all new houses come with Solar, and strongly encouraged all of us to go solar. So punishing us is quite the opposite of the reward we were promised. Moreover, if it is a problem with the exchange rate, then that would be the only thing on the table - encouraging people to use (or self store) their solar rather than trading for later. But the "flat" per kW connection fees proposed have nothing to do with offsetting the exchange rate, and sure appear to be a penalty. Leave it to the Gov to require something, and then penalize you for it! :?

In the long run we need to start storing this energy. Whether CA encourages / rewards consumers for storing it, or rewards SCE/PGE for storing it, I don't know. Maybe some decrease in the 1:1 exchange rate is warranted, after all, PGE and SCE do need to make money, and do need to pay for fire damages. Or maybe CA needs to go to a regulated, not for profit power structure, with locally run micro grids that store and share power with each other in a node system. I don't know, and I'm curious to see where they go with this. Clearly the backlash was high and they were forced to halt their plans. I can say, if they proceed with a flat fee as proposed, I'll find any way I can to go off grid. I'm not paying SCE for MY solar system. So where are we going?

 

[johnlocke]

Has anyone heard anything more on what the PUC plans to do in CA for solar?

On one hand, I actually do understand where SCE and PGE are coming from - when I produce power during the day, and put it into the system, I'm essentially being paid the full rate for that TOU period. Which is not what SCE would pay from a grid scale solar facility, which, are now the cheapest power source on the planet. So i can see why SCE is upset - they are essentially paying me say 33 cents during the day per kWh I put in, and 52 cents if I produce past 4pm during the summer. True, I don't actually get PAID, but I'm allowed to put "IN" at those rates and exchange for later. So why would one expect SCE/PGE to be happy about paying me 33 or 52 cents per kWh when during the day they can buy grid scale solar for 4 cents per kWh. So I do see the issue...

HOWEVER, CA has mandated all new houses come with Solar, and strongly encouraged all of us to go solar. So punishing us is quite the opposite of the reward we were promised. Moreover, if it is a problem with the exchange rate, then that would be the only thing on the table - encouraging people to use (or self store) their solar rather than trading for later. But the "flat" per kW connection fees proposed have nothing to do with offsetting the exchange rate, and sure appear to be a penalty. Leave it to the Gov to require something, and then penalize you for it! :?

In the long run we need to start storing this energy. Whether CA encourages / rewards consumers for storing it, or rewards SCE/PGE for storing it, I don't know. Maybe some decrease in the 1:1 exchange rate is warranted, after all, PGE and SCE do need to make money, and do need to pay for fire damages. Or maybe CA needs to go to a regulated, not for profit power structure, with locally run micro grids that store and share power with each other in a node system. I don't know, and I'm curious to see where they go with this. Clearly the backlash was high and they were forced to halt their plans. I can say, if they proceed with a flat fee as proposed, I'll find any way I can to go off grid. I'm not paying SCE for MY solar system. So where are we going?

Did it occur to you that the power you're putting into the grid during the day is sold to your neighbors at full rate? TOU rates are designed to increase profits for the Utility company. If they replace your power with cheaper power at night, there's a net profit for the utility. Utility companies are all for Solar just as long as they own the panels. If I install battery storage and drop off the grid entirely, that's a net loss for them. It's better for them if they charge a minimum connection fee and keep me as a customer. Charging $75-$100/mo for "solar connectivity" is ridiculous. I would be better off going to standard rates and not selling any power to them or buying batteries and disconnecting entirely.

Even with a small battery system you could avoid the peak usage period and buy power from the utility at night. Of course the Utility would cry foul and try to change the rate structure to prevent that. You actually don't even need PV for that to work, just cheap batteries. Private solar panels already operate as a distributed generation system. Private storage acts as a backup for homeowner but could act as distributed grid storage. Of course the utilities would rather own the storage directly and charge you for it (for a small profit, of course). Keep in mind that battery storage could eliminate peaker plants entirely and the capital costs associated that utility rates a based on.

 

[danrjones]

Yes, it did occur to me but I think you are missing the point. SCE TOU is currently (winter rate) is 32 cents per kWh from 8am to 4pm, 46 cents from 4 to 9pm, and 35 cents 9pm to 8am.

So if I put "IN" at 32 cents, and my neighbors pulls out at 32 cents, SCE isn't making money. They are loosing money. As far as I know CA (SCE, PGE) don't yet have any massive grid scale storage, so any power I export at 32 cents has to immediately be consumed elsewhere on the grid. They can't store it and re-sell it for 46 cents later in the day. This is exactly what they NEED to be doing, but right now as far as I'm aware, they are not. Now in terms of charging me a higher rate at night even though demand is lower, yes, I agree they are making profit. Probably all of these rates are making too high of a profit. But what I meant is that fundamentality I do see the issue with a 1:1 exchange of electricity, as it doesn't leave room for profit. And like it or not (not!) PGE and SCE are for-profit companies. I agree that the connection fee is outrageous and I agree that its better to go off grid. In my case I'd need a large battery though, my heat pump pulls around 5.5 kW max but that's sustained; I think it pulls far more at startup and a battery solution would have to cover startup peak power. Plus during the summer I can switch to a swamp cooler over the A/C, but even then its a sustained 1 kW load 24/7. That's about 10 kWh just to get through the night every night for AC, not including anything else. And backup batteries are being hit by supply issues like everything else.

So I don't know what the right answer is, but clearly what the PUC had proposed was crazy.

 

[johnlocke]

Yes, it did occur to me but I think you are missing the point. SCE TOU is currently (winter rate) is 32 cents per kWh from 8am to 4pm, 46 cents from 4 to 9pm, and 35 cents 9pm to 8am.

So if I put "IN" at 32 cents, and my neighbors pulls out at 32 cents, SCE isn't making money. They are loosing money. As far as I know CA (SCE, PGE) don't yet have any massive grid scale storage, so any power I export at 32 cents has to immediately be consumed elsewhere on the grid. They can't store it and re-sell it for 46 cents later in the day. This is exactly what they NEED to be doing, but right now as far as I'm aware, they are not. Now in terms of charging me a higher rate at night even though demand is lower, yes, I agree they are making profit. Probably all of these rates are making too high of a profit. But what I meant is that fundamentality I do see the issue with a 1:1 exchange of electricity, as it doesn't leave room for profit. And like it or not (not!) PGE and SCE are for-profit companies. I agree that the connection fee is outrageous and I agree that its better to go off grid. In my case I'd need a large battery though, my heat pump pulls around 5.5 kW max but that's sustained; I think it pulls far more at startup and a battery solution would have to cover startup peak power. Plus during the summer I can switch to a swamp cooler over the A/C, but even then its a sustained 1 kW load 24/7. That's about 10 kWh just to get through the night every night for AC, not including anything else. And backup batteries are being hit by supply issues like everything else.

So I don't know what the right answer is, but clearly what the PUC had proposed was crazy.

You put in at $.32/KWH, your neighbor takes out at $.32/KWH. The Utility doesn't lose anything. They're selling power to your neighbor that they purchased from you. Later in the day you go to withdraw the banked power only now the utility charges you $.46/KWH. peak rate. They make 14 cents/KWH from you. Even after peak hours, they are repaying you with cheaper power they purchased under contract. They still charge you $.32/KWH even though their cost is much lower for nighttime generation. TOU is solely designed to increase profits for the utility. Discouraging use during peak periods means that they don't have to run insanely expensive peaker plants as much or as often. It actually increases usage while their costs are lowest for a higher net profit.

Just so you know, All three southern CA utilities have large scale battery banks either under construction or operational. Moss Landing is one and SDG&E has several under construction as well. Current estimate is 2,2 GWH for CA with 300 MWH scheduled to go online later this year.

 

[WetEV]

You put in at $.32/KWH, your neighbor takes out at $.32/KWH. The Utility doesn't lose anything. They're selling power to your neighbor that they purchased from you.

Ignoring losses and the cost of maintaining the network, of course. Along with the costs of billing and accounting.

 

[danrjones]

Just as WetEV says, no, they aren't even breaking even, so net metering is a loss for the utility.

Again, if SCE buys grid scale solar (which costs 2-4 cents per kWh), then surely SCE would pay that plant less than the 32 cents they are paying me to trade. If SCE owns the solar plant, they literally are paying 4 cents per kWh. There are a bunch of grid scale plants not to far from me, but I think they are owned either by or for LADWP. But even if SCE buys power from that plant, I would expect the cost to be about double - lets just guess 8 cents per kWh, leaving profit for the owner.

So what is SCE loosing by giving me 32 cents? Either 24 cents per kWh, or possibly 28 cents per kWh. That loss isn't just profit of course, SCE has likely built in all kids of offsetting to line charges and maintenance to the grid into that 32 cents. If you were SCE would you rather trade a kWh from one customer to another, essentially making zero from both at that moment, or would you sell 2 kWh you bought for 1/6 that price? The second option, of course.

The point is, that 32 cents they charge normally covers substantially more than just the cost of power. Now do they over charge at night to make some of that up? Obviously. But I can still understand why they want to buy grid scale rather than trade residential solar - it makes them a crap ton more money, and they are in business to MAKE money.


That's good to hear about storage, but we need a lot more. Then putting in and taking out will make a lot more sense. I'll still probably get my own storage eventually though.

 

[johnlocke]

Just as WetEV says, no, they aren't even breaking even, so net metering is a loss for the utility.

Again, if SCE buys grid scale solar (which costs 2-4 cents per kWh), then surely SCE would pay that plant less than the 32 cents they are paying me to trade. If SCE owns the solar plant, they literally are paying 4 cents per kWh. There are a bunch of grid scale plants not to far from me, but I think they are owned either by or for LADWP. But even if SCE buys power from that plant, I would expect the cost to be about double - lets just guess 8 cents per kWh, leaving profit for the owner.

So what is SCE loosing by giving me 32 cents? Either 24 cents per kWh, or possibly 28 cents per kWh. That loss isn't just profit of course, SCE has likely built in all kids of offsetting to line charges and maintenance to the grid into that 32 cents. If you were SCE would you rather trade a kWh from one customer to another, essentially making zero from both at that moment, or would you sell 2 kWh you bought for 1/6 that price? The second option, of course.

The point is, that 32 cents they charge normally covers substantially more than just the cost of power. Now do they over charge at night to make some of that up? Obviously. But I can still understand why they want to buy grid scale rather than trade residential solar - it makes them a crap ton more money, and they are in business to MAKE money.


That's good to hear about storage, but we need a lot more. Then putting in and taking out will make a lot more sense. I'll still probably get my own storage eventually though.

SCE isn't losing anything. They aren't making as large a profit as they could if they could sell their cheapest power to your neighbor instead of yours but they still end up ahead when they use cheaper power to repay you. The accounting costs and line losses are built into the rate structure and are the same whether your neighbors use your power or SCE's. There's no net loss to SCE. Only if you consider missed additional profit a loss does SCE lose anything. What SCE doesn't mention is their avoided costs when they don't need to run peakers in the afternoon or that they don't need to build another peaker plant to service midday loads anymore.

Nobody is building Peaker plants anymore anyway because it's cheaper and more efficient to install grid scale storage. Thank Elon Musk and Australia for that. The Australian grid storage project proved the feasibly of grid storage and showed that there were major benefits in addition to storage. Grid stabilization and fast response for instance. Eventually grid scale batteries will trickle down to even local substations. That will enable microgrids and eliminate large scale outages. Private backup systems could be combined into Virtual Battery Systems for grid protection as well. Of course SCE won't like that either.

 

[danrjones]

I think you are misunderstanding me - I'm not arguing on behalf of SCE, in fact, I think the idea of power for profit might be part of the mistake. Or at least the whole way we do power. I'm just saying I understand WHY SCE and PGE don't like net metering. You just said it,

Only if you consider missed additional profit a loss

If I was a for profit company, I *ABSOLUTELY* would consider missed additional profit a loss. It is profit SCE or PGE wants, and they are loosing it. So you can't blame them for hating net metering customers as opposed to buying grid scale solar low and selling high.

I mean, if you were selling muffins, and you were forced by Government to allow one customer to put a muffin into the system that another of your customers took out (or said customer gets to take back later), versus you being able to buy a muffin for 4 cents and then sell both customers a muffin for 32 cents every time, how would you like it? Of course you wouldn't.

I think the fundamental way we deal with power is part of the issue here, not to mention the fact CA mandated solar and rewarded everyone for solar, and then the utilities and PUC turned around and tried to slap us with fees for doing what was suppose to have been a good deed. But it is a fundamental issue - if everyone in the whole state had net metering, the companies would have to raise nighttime power rates over and over again in order to build in enough cost to store said power and make a profit. Is that really the best way? Maybe not, but I'm saying I understand why they are doing it.

 

[johnlocke]

I think you are misunderstanding me - I'm not arguing on behalf of SCE, in fact, I think the idea of power for profit might be part of the mistake. Or at least the whole way we do power. I'm just saying I understand WHY SCE and PGE don't like net metering. You just said it,

Only if you consider missed additional profit a loss

If I was a for profit company, I *ABSOLUTELY* would consider missed additional profit a loss. It is profit SCE or PGE wants, and they are loosing it. So you can't blame them for hating net metering customers as opposed to buying grid scale solar low and selling high.

I mean, if you were selling muffins, and you were forced by Government to allow one customer to put a muffin into the system that another of your customers took out (or said customer gets to take back later), versus you being able to buy a muffin for 4 cents and then sell both customers a muffin for 32 cents every time, how would you like it? Of course you wouldn't.

I think the fundamental way we deal with power is part of the issue here, not to mention the fact CA mandated solar and rewarded everyone for solar, and then the utilities and PUC turned around and tried to slap us with fees for doing what was suppose to have been a good deed. But it is a fundamental issue - if everyone in the whole state had net metering, the companies would have to raise nighttime power rates over and over again in order to build in enough cost to store said power and make a profit. Is that really the best way? Maybe not, but I'm saying I understand why they are doing it.

The problem is utility monopiles and profits based on fixed capital costs. It may happen that utilities get out of selling power directly and simply charge for transport and maybe storage as well. You buy from XYZ and the utility charges for transport of that power. If they opt to provide storage then you pay for the storage and transport both ways. Basing profit on their capital costs doesn't encourage innovation and actually encourages them to spend more on capital "improvements". SDG&E just spent 3.8 Billion dollars to bury lines and install steel poles in the east county area which serves 30,000 customers. That works out to $126,000 per customer served. For a 1/10 of that they could have given each of those customers a PV system or a battery backup system. They didn't though because the 3.8 Billion goes down as a capital cost on which their profits are based if they upgrade the lines. If they had spent $400 million on backup systems for customers it's just an expense which they could pass on to customers but wouldn't add to their capital costs.

 

[danrjones]

I agree, I think we may need to fundamentally re-think how we do power.

 

[johnlocke]

I agree, I think we may need to fundamentally re-think how we do power.

We need to implement micro-grids. Right now we have 3 separate grids and a single major failure could black out either coast or Texas.. There need to be cutouts and backup systems in place. The current system dates back to rural electicification efforts. We need to break the current grids into smaller regional grids with cutouts at a minimum. Better still would be dozens of mini-grids with utility scale backup and storage. One look at what happened to Texas a couple of years ago ought to be enough to convince anyone that this needs to happen and quickly.

I'm not sure what to do about private utilities. In California the PUC has become a rubber stamp for the utilities. I don't know how to fix the problem. My personal solution is to install PV, a backup generator, and battery storage. If necessary, I can and will disconnect from the grid. I hope it doesn't come to that but I'm prepared to do just that if SDG&E attempts to implement a solar surcharge of more than a few dollars/mo. I've spent thousands of dollars based on promises the PUC made and thousands more because SDG&E's power was unreliable and now the PUC wants to charge me more because I reduced my power usage.

 

[LeftieBiker]

We need to implement micro-grids. Right now we have 3 separate grids and a single major failure could black out either coast or Texas.. There need to be cutouts and backup systems in place. The current system dates back to rural electicification efforts. We need to break the current grids into smaller regional grids with cutouts at a minimum. Better still would be dozens of mini-grids with utility scale backup and storage. One look at what happened to Texas a couple of years ago ought to be enough to convince anyone that this needs to happen and quickly.

Yes, indeed. I tell this to anyone who will listen. We can't do solar because of a slate roof and narrow yard. We do have hydro, but the local grid itself isn't all that reliable. And everybody in power is pushing the wrong way - towards a mega-grid that runs from coast to coast. The bigger they come...

 

[danrjones]

This is pretty much the idea I have had, micro grids where the local grid can collect power in whatever means suits that area best - in my area, that's solar and wind. In other others it might be hydro or soylent green. You can then develop storage technologies that best suit that local grid. Then the states and feds can maintain the large interconnections such that the microgrids can share power with each other, forming a node structure. I think that's pretty similar to what you guys are suggesting.

But don't worry ,fusion power is just 20 years away!

 

[LeftieBiker]

Five years. Fusion power is perpetually just five years away, at least as a pilot project.

 

[danrjones]

Five years. Fusion power is perpetually just five years away, at least as a pilot project.

I thought the joke was 20. I've actually seen some of the newest results, and they are encouraging. They have a pellet version that drops a fuel pellet, it gets blasted by lasers in the center of a chamber, and the reaction appears to be energy positive (I think they said).

BUT, they have yet to develop a continuous feed system for MORE pellets, or find a way to absorb / harness the energy released from the pellet; so while as a model it works great, they have a long way to engineer an actual power plant. If ever, with that design.