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

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Man this sucks! And just looking it over and doing some quick math in my head my current E9A bill will be double or perhaps close to triple when computed over the year under this proposal and this is basing it on the new higher rates that we just got as a result of lowering the tiers.

And someone please explain what the hell the following means:
Peak: 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday AND 3:00 p.m. to 7 p.m. Saturday, Sunday and holidays
Last time I checked Monday through Sunday is all seven days of the week. Perhaps a typo?

I am just so glad that PG&E is going to raise my rates in order to make them easier to understand and provide me with reasonable incentives :roll:
Accordingly, PG&E herein proposes modifications to Schedule E-9 in compliance with D.11-07-029 to revise the rate to make it easier for customers to understand, while continuing to provide reasonable incentives to encourage off peak electric vehicle charging based on cost of service principles.
By the way I provided PG&E months of my EV usage data way back in 1998 so its not like they did not have this sort of usage data to work with since then. From my PG&E study paperwork:
This study will provide PG&E with information about how its EV customers are responding to the experimental E-9 rate schedule.
 
oakwcj said:
Replying to my own post, I recalculated my last two bills using the E-1 rate. My bills would be extremely close to the new proposal, which means that there would be NO incentive to charge off-peak. Because that's the stated purpose of a TOU rate, this proposal gets an "F."
This is why this proposal makes no sense to me. Why would those customers that are going to be screwed by this change, and it seems to be the majority, stay on E9 rate at all? I would think they would just go back to E1 and not even worry about TOU. Time to get out the spreadsheet again.
 
I agree, this sucks. I would miss the off-peak rates of $0.05 to $0.06 per kWh.

Looks like if this plan is approved, I would switch to E6 instead.
 
greenleaf said:
Looks like if this plan is approved, I would switch to E6 instead.
At least those with a solar system have that option to avoid this rate proposal until PG&E proposes changes to those rates too. It was just recently that PG&E even allowed those that had an EV to even choose a different rate. In the end off grid or moving out of PG&E territory might be the only option to avoid this kind of thing.
 
Wow...the proposed change in rates really is utter crap. Unless, you are a consumer that regularly hits Tier 4 and 5 of your electricity rate, this proposed change will effectively cost you much more. Those who conserve on electricity usage are extremely short-changed by this proposal.

How well does the CPUC respond to letters challenging these proposals? I'm definitely sending one in today.
 
oakwcj said:
First, the PG&E Advice Letter [page 3] talks about an $8 per month "customer charge." I couldn't find this anywhere in the proposed rate schedule, but that's a big chunk of change.
Oh its in the rate schedule under total rates as:
Total Customer Charge Rate ($ per meter per day) $0.26283
and comes out to, surprise, about $8 a month.
 
Spies said:
oakwcj said:
First, the PG&E Advice Letter [page 3] talks about an $8 per month "customer charge." I couldn't find this anywhere in the proposed rate schedule, but that's a big chunk of change.
Oh its in the rate schedule under total rates as:
Total Customer Charge Rate ($ per meter per day) $0.26283
and comes out to, surprise, about $8 a month.

Yes, I see that. [It's on "Sheet 2."] It appears that it's just added on top of the bill, which makes it that much worse.
 
I estimated my PG&E bill, using the week of info from my "dumb" TOU meter, since it was installed last Tuesday.

I have used:

9 kWh peak, 18 kWh part peak, and 60 kWh off-peak.

Multiplying these totals by 4.3 to approximate a monthly bill:

My E1 rate would have given me about $48 total bill for the month, for 374 kWh. This about my monthly average use.

E1 = $576 (estimated annual bill)

The E9a rate should give me a bill of about $34 this month-$41 with the temporary meter charge.
My Winter bill for the same 374 kWh, with same TOU distribution would be about $27

E9a = $366 (estimated annual bill)

The "new and improved" E9 rate proposal (assuming a 10 kWh shift to weekend, now peak, use) would bill me about $77 in the summer, and $47 in Winter-including the new permanent $8 service charge.

So, this proposal would increase my expected annual E 9 bill over 100%, from $366 (not including the temporary service charge) to $744.

E9 revised = $744 (estimated annual bill)

E6 would give me a Summer bill of about $55. I expect the E6 option would be more expensive than E1, for almost all AC using non-PV EV owners in the summer, but some could save a few bucks a month on E-6 in the winter. Looks like my winter bill would be about $46, for the same 374 kWh. So E6 is still higher for the year, for me, than E1.

E6 = $606 (estimated annual bill)

I guess PG&E wants me on E1.

I guess they won't mind me charging during peak hours...
 
If you wish to oppose this rate change, you may want to refer to CPUC guidelines:

Rate Design Guidance

The third question that the strategic work plan needs to address is "how should the dynamic pricing tariffs be designed and integrated into PG&E's overall rate design?" In other words, when PG&E proposes rates pursuant to the timetable, what should the dynamic rates look like? This section answers these questions and provides rate design guidance for PG&E to apply when developing rates. This rate design guidance will also be applied by the Commission when considering PG&E's specific rate design proposals.

The following sections address different aspects of rate design, take into consideration comments from parties, and establish rate design guidance. The rate design guidance also appears in summary form as Attachment A to this decision.

5.1. All Dynamic Pricing Rates5.1.1. The Objectives of Rate Design

The August 22, 2007 Ruling identified three objectives of rate design:

(1) to reflect the marginal cost of providing electric service so that consumers make economically efficient decisions,

(2) to flatten the load curve in order to reduce capital costs over time, and

(3) to reduce load in the face of short-term electricity supply shortfalls....

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/final_decision/85984-04.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't see how having a large percentage of EV owners, choosing E1 as their cheapest rate option, and conveniently charging their cars on hot summer afternoons, meets these 3 primary goals...
 
edatoakrun said:
I don't see how having a large percentage of EV owners, choosing E1 as their cheapest rate option, and conveniently charging their cars on hot summer afternoons, meets these 3 primary goals...
At the end of the day PG&E and the CPUC will set the rates and I will change rates accordingly as a result. If it turns out that there is minimal savings for me to still be on E9A compared to E1 I am going back to E1 and as a result charge the Leaf, do laundry, run the dish washer and any other electricity using activity I can think of whenever I want. In fact it sounds liberating after being on E9A since 1998 and I may end up thanking PG&E and the CPUC for their decision to impose this change. Perhaps I will even install a whole house air conditioner I can run anytime I want and not be concerned with TOU. I am actually starting to look forward to it! :roll:
 
Spies said:
edatoakrun said:
I don't see how having a large percentage of EV owners, choosing E1 as their cheapest rate option, and conveniently charging their cars on hot summer afternoons, meets these 3 primary goals...
At the end of the day PG&E and the CPUC will set the rates and I will change rates accordingly as a result. If it turns out that there is minimal savings for me to still be on E9A compared to E1 I am going back to E1 and as a result charge the Leaf, do laundry, run the dish washer and any other electricity using activity I can think of whenever I want. In fact it sounds liberating after being on E9A since 1998 and I may end up thanking PG&E and the CPUC for their decision to impose this change. Perhaps I will even install a whole house air conditioner I can run anytime I want and not be concerned with TOU. I am actually starting to look forward to it! :roll:

Just be sure to get the cheapest, lowest-efficiency AC system you can find.

Once you're on E1, the other PG&E ratepayers will be subsidizing it's use...
 
I can only see E1 + the new E9B being an economically feasible option for me if PG&E was to allow meters in series.

Solar is also not really a feasible option for me for various reasons either at the moment. Perhaps in the future? Of course if all the Federal solar incentives are eliminated along with PG&E possibly hitting the Net Energy Metering cap and it not being raised solar will still not be feasible for me in the future either.

By the way I just got last months E9A electric bill which came to $80.25 and would have been closer to $60 before the recent tier changes. On E1 the bill would be about $108 and on the new E9A at a minimum it would $105 but I know it would be much more since I will no longer have access to off peak during the weekend when I do laundry with my electric dryer and there will be peak on the weekend as well. Now add the fact that peak will also run through winter while at the moment winter has no peak and it is easy to see that this new rate will about double my annual E9A bill if not more. So why would I bother with the TOU hassle when E1 will cost me about the same and possibly less than the new E9A?
 
planet4ever said:
I agree this really sounds bad, but couldn't it change the balance so that E1 + E9B might become a winner, despite the upfront cost?

Or <grin> strongly encourage more people to join us solar folks?

Ray

Dual meters would be very a sure loser for me, and every other PG&E ratepayer who has a grid-minimum, energy efficient home. The solar option is more attractive, though the cost per kWh may be pretty high for those who only need a 2-3 kW system to supply both their home and EV.

The current E1 tiered rate system encourages home energy efficiency.

Arguably, TOU more closely mirrors economic and environmental costs than tiers.

But PG&E's "new and improved" E9 proposal essentially removes the tiered rate home efficiency incentives, for EV owners, while leaving them for non-EV owners.

Many EV owners-and prospective EV owners- will see the same doubling of their E9a bills that I have, due to this proposal, pushing them back into E1.

Great publicity for both PG&E and the EV rollout in California!

6 months ago I would have given PG&E a D+ grade for public EV infrastructure, and a B+ for home infrastructure.

With the (NO) DC charger fiasco, and this half-baked proposal, I have a hard time justifying higher than an F for PG&E, for both efforts.
 
edatoakrun said:
The current E1 tiered rate system encourages home energy efficiency.

Arguably, TOU more closely mirrors economic and environmental costs than tiers.

But PG&E's "new and improved" E9 proposal essentially removes the tiered rate home efficiency incentives, for EV owners, while leaving them for non-EV owners.

Many EV owners-and prospective EV owners- will see the same doubling of their E9a bills that I have, due to this proposal, pushing them back into E1.

Great publicity for both PG&E and the EV rollout in California!

6 months ago I would have given PG&E a D+ grade for public EV infrastructure, and a B+ for home infrastructure.

With the (NO) DC charger fiasco, and this half-baked proposal, I have a hard time justifying higher than an F for PG&E, for both efforts.

Would definitely agree that this "new and improved" E9 proposal is everything but an improvement. Really it ultimately comes down to PG&E footing the bill to its customers while attempting to look like it's obeying CPUC decision 11-07-029, which was established to promote electric vehicle adoption and off-peak charging. Raising the rates to 75% of current E-9a users to basically subsidize the 25% of heavy electricity users should not be what occurs (which I believe was proposed so that PG&E would not lose a dime by converting to non-tier TOU). E-9b users are fully screwed by this proposal as well.

In any case, I have sent in my protest letter electronically to the e-mail addresses found in Advice 3910-E and would urge other E-9 customers to send in protest letters as well. Heck if enough letters go in, perhaps the CPUC will actually pay attention to what PG&E is actually doing rather than blindly allow it to pass through.
 
waitingforaleaf said:
edatoakrun said:
The current E1 tiered rate system encourages home energy efficiency.

Arguably, TOU more closely mirrors economic and environmental costs than tiers.

But PG&E's "new and improved" E9 proposal essentially removes the tiered rate home efficiency incentives, for EV owners, while leaving them for non-EV owners.

Many EV owners-and prospective EV owners- will see the same doubling of their E9a bills that I have, due to this proposal, pushing them back into E1.

Great publicity for both PG&E and the EV rollout in California!

6 months ago I would have given PG&E a D+ grade for public EV infrastructure, and a B+ for home infrastructure.

With the (NO) DC charger fiasco, and this half-baked proposal, I have a hard time justifying higher than an F for PG&E, for both efforts.

Would definitely agree that this "new and improved" E9 proposal is everything but an improvement. Really it ultimately comes down to PG&E footing the bill to its customers while attempting to look like it's obeying CPUC decision 11-07-029, which was established to promote electric vehicle adoption and off-peak charging. Raising the rates to 75% of current E-9a users to basically subsidize the 25% of heavy electricity users should not be what occurs (which I believe was proposed so that PG&E would not lose a dime by converting to non-tier TOU). E-9b users are fully screwed by this proposal as well.

In any case, I have sent in my protest letter electronically to the e-mail addresses found in Advice 3910-E and would urge other E-9 customers to send in protest letters as well. Heck if enough letters go in, perhaps the CPUC will actually pay attention to what PG&E is actually doing rather than blindly allow it to pass through.

Thanks for the heads up on this issue. I too, will be sending in a letter soon.

http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_3910-E.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would like to know if the CPUC would hold a public meeting to gather public opinion on this matter? Or will the decision be decided behind closed doors?
 
Could someone on the forum be kind enough to DRAFT a template combining all the great and wonderful suggestions/opinions opposing the matter?

This would allow quick and easy access to the content that others on the forum can re-purpose.

It would be easier to encourage friends/family or fellow members to send in a letter of protest if we could simply copy/cut-n-paste a sample DRAFT, sign it and mail it in. (or email).

Thanks in advance.
 
mxp said:
[quote
Thanks for the heads up on this issue. I too, will be sending in a letter soon.

http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_3910-E.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would like to know if the CPUC would hold a public meeting to gather public opinion on this matter? Or will the decision be decided behind closed doors?

It looks like PG&E is trying to use an "interim" rate adjustment procedure to bypass meaningful public input. Note that the PG&E letter states that E9 rates are scheduled to be reviewed as part of the 2013 rate case.

By notifying only the few hundred current EV owners on E9 (anyone get their notification letter yet?) not the tens of thousands who will be on E9 by 2013, PG&E can avoid the spectacle of hundreds or thousands of EV owners showing up at the public hearings, and protesting their 60%-100% E9 rate increases.

It also looks, from the letter, that the CPUC ONLY directed PG&E to revise E9b rates, but PG&E has seized the opportunity to expand the revision, to include E9a.

Anyone familiar with CPUC procedures, who can suggest any action we can take beyond writing protest letters?
 
I wonder if PG&E would allow a rate schedule change if this were to take effect in a few months? Normally, as far as I know, a customer has to stick to the same rate schedule for a minimum of one year before PG&E allow a change.

I would be very unhappy if I were to be stuck to the new unfavorable rate until the 12-month period is over.
 
greenleaf said:
I wonder if PG&E would allow a rate schedule change if this were to take effect in a few months?
They certainly better as this is no simple "rate adjustment" but a completely new rate structure all together. For example my current E9A meter will have to be changed out or completely reprogrammed for this new rate structure.
 
Back
Top