SDG&E asks for higher rates on customers who go solar

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.
I was looking at the economics of putting a wind farm on some land a few of us own, and in the process looked at some Power Purchase Agreements that PG&E entered into. I don't know for sure, but I am assuming SDG&E's cost structures are similar. On average if a utility purchased power during the peak portion of the day, this power costs them more than twice as much as power purchased off-peak. This directly applies to private solar produces as they produce power during the peak portion of the day. This is power the utilities do not have to purchase. These same private solar producers pull power off the grid at night, which is far cheaper to purchase. If things were fair, the utility should take these relative costs into consideration as well.

I've read one newspaper article where SDG&E refered to residential solar users as freeloaders because they are not paying for transmission cost which are embedded in the kwh charge. But this goes both ways. If they had to purchase the power currently generated by solar users, that power would also have transmission costs associated with it. In addition, I seriously doubt the power generated by solar users would go beyond the local substation. So the utilities don't have to pay for transmission costs associated with power procued from solar users but they want these users to pay transmission costs for power they draw off the grid. This doesn't seem fair to me.

Finally, as a solar owner, I've wondered what happens with the solar renewable energy credits. I know I'm not getting it, and before I got my EV, I was generating considerably more than a MWH of excess power a year. Are the utilities getting them? If so, shouldn't these also be considered in the equation?

When all things are considered in a fair and equatable manner I believe you will find that the utilities get a lot more from their solar users than it costs them.
 
LKK said:
Finally, as a solar owner, I've wondered what happens with the solar renewable energy credits. I know I'm not getting it, and before I got my EV, I was generating considerably more than a MWH of excess power a year. Are the utilities getting them? If so, shouldn't these also be considered in the equation?

Regarding RECs - I just posted something about this yesterday in the solar production thread, for lack of a better place..no responses though. Below is a reprint of that post, From what I've found since, you self-report your REC generation to the aggregator or WREGIS - so the inverter stats are presumably sufficient. Also worth re-stating that RECs are for gross generation, not net or surplus. If the market ends up at $20/REC (a MWH), and the aggregator takes $3, a system like ours would throw off around $100 a year. If nothing else it might reduce the pain of paying SDG&E the usurious fee they are proposing, which if history is any indication they'll somehow get away with.

We just got prompted by our solar installer to consider registering with "www.theleafexchange.com" (no relation to Nissan LEAF), an aggregator of Distributed Generator (ie residential solar) Renewable Energy Credits. It seems like a potentially prudent thing to do. We aren't yet able to sell our credits, but if/when we are, there will apparently be some retroactive window, but only if you've logged the credits in some official way. Anybody else been prompted by their installer or other info/research to pursue something like this? Apparently you can do it yourself (register with wregis.org, the record keeper and perhaps market maker for RECs), but there's an annual fee...the flip side is this aggregator will take a small cut of any REC you end up selling on the not-yet-established market, but they'll take care of the details.

I wonder how this might relate, or not, to the Utilities at some point raising their AB920 rate in order to buy our RECs...that doesn't quite seem plausible though, because according to what I've read, RECs are on gross generation, not net surplus. Even a smart net meter doesn't record gross generation, so presumably the validation of credits would have to come from inverter data, which begs the question of the utility-grade-ness of that data...

Anyway - anybody know anything about this?
 
LKK said:
Finally, as a solar owner, I've wondered what happens with the solar renewable energy credits. I know I'm not getting it, and before I got my EV, I was generating considerably more than a MWH of excess power a year.

You should consider running a line to your neighbor and have him plug his fridge in.. put it on a timer so it only runs during the day. Dont charge him anything, that may be illegal.
 
lonndoggie said:
If you want to put your name on an electronic petition arguing against their proposed rate hike, here's your chance:

http://signon.org/sign/fight-san-diego-gas-electric?source=c.url&r_by=1255831" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suppose I can't sign this petition right?

Anyways, I have passed on this link to some friend at work who live in San Diego.
 
lonndoggie said:
If you want to put your name on an electronic petition arguing against their proposed rate hike, here's your chance:

http://signon.org/sign/fight-san-diego-gas-electric?source=c.url&r_by=1255831" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are we sure that persons who do not reside in the SDG&E service area cannot sign the petition and be counted? If SDG&E is successful, precedent will be set that will make it more likely that other utilities will follow suit. If my signature counts, I'd be happy to sign, even though I live in the SCE service area.
 
Under SDG&E's thinking they think if I trade power produced during the day from my solar array for power drawn off the grid at night, I should pay extra for grid transmission costs. Currently I charge at night, simply because it seemed the right thing to do. But now SDG&E wants to charge me extra for the power I draw at night to charge my car. So why shouldn't I just charge my car during the day (I'm retired, so being home during the day is not an issue), using power off my solar array, and not at night when SDG&E plans to rip me off for off-peak power I draw off the grid? Why should I trade high value, renewable peak power in exchange for off-peak power with bogus transmission fee?

I suggest we should all get together and use social media to call a strike. The next hot day all solar users at exactly 1 PM, should either shut down their arrays or plug in their EV, or both.
 
It looks like SDG&E is planning on changing the billing structure significantly for all customers, not just solar customers. See this latest billing insert:

http://www.sdge.com/documents/billinserts/regulatory/2011_Oct-GRC.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The typical monthly residential electric bill may be further impacted by SDG&E’s proposal to replace the existing 17 cents/day (approximately $5.00) minimum bill with a $3.00 monthly basic service fee and the introduction of a network use
charge that will begin to be phased into rates in January 2014 (at a level reflecting 50% of the distribution costs
that will be allocated to this charge) and which will be fully phased in by January 2015. The charge for network
use recovers the costs of distribution assets based on each customer’s demand on the distribution network.
This network use charge would be applied on an import and export basis
It's hard to say exactly how this will affect your bill without knowing how the network use charge is calculated, but sounds like they will be applying a demand charge similar to what is charged to commercial customers.

Demand charges are completely foreign to most people - I suspect that whole house energy monitoring systems will become much more common as people look for ways to avoid demand charges along with ways to minimize demand.

Note that wasn't the only insert this month notifying customers of potential rate increases, residential rates going up ~4% next year:
http://www.sdge.com/documents/billinserts/misc/2011_Oct-ERRAForecastInsert.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Seems like an SDG&E is attempting an end run around the legislature. SDG&E gets paid for transmitting and distributing power but not for the power itself. Since power that is generated locally doesn't have to be transmitted and the distribution costs are low, SDG&E loves power that comes from wind farms in Montana or solar arrays in Arizona but hates solar generated on rooftops. Why? Cause one has to be transmitted and one doesn't. However, the legislature mandated that they inter-connect to roof top solar systems and use net metering.

The biggest issue for SDG&E is that roof top solar provides a brake on future rate increases. If rates rise dramatically, more people will install roof top solar. This effect will get more pronounced as the panels, wiring, and installation continue to get cheaper. As a monopoly SDG&E hasn't had to deal with competition, and it doesn't like having to do it now. It's response is to make rooftop solar less competitive by changing the economics of the payback, which will allow it more freedom to raise rates. If you believe that SDG&E is worried about ratepayer cross subsidies you're crazy. What it's worried about is roof top solar limiting their future rate increases. IOW roof top solar is a competitive threat, which, while greatly benefiting all ratepayers, threatens SDG&E.

Lots of things can be said about this:

1. A transparent attempt to thwart the law. The legislature told SDG&E that it had to net meter. SDG&E should not be allowed to change the rates so that there is no incentive for users to install solar, allowing it to technically comply with the law but to practically flout it.

2. Unreasonable attempt to strand investment. SDG&E is proposing to change the rates AFTER people have installed solar. This could result in stranded investment. If SDG&E is allowed to do this then the CPUC should be free to strand SDG&E investments.

3. No transmission and little distribution. SDG&E's claim that solar customers are using its transmission and distribution network. Overproduction from rooftop solar production goes to the nearest transformer, which is maybe 100 feet from the house, and gets distributed to the neighborhood. This may require, at most, less than 1% of the distribution network and 0% of the distribution lines. Why should rooftop solar customers pay for distribution and transmission that they are not using? (Or for that matter why should other customers pay for transmission and distribution of rooftop solar when there is no transmission and little distribution?).

4. Attempt to thwart competitive limits on rate increases. As mentioned above, rooftop solar poses a price limiting competitive threat and, as such, provides a huge benefit to all SDG&E customers. No policy reason exists to remove that competitive threat and to open up SDG&E customers to unnecessary price increases.
 
Well composed and convincing argument, SanDust. SDG&E is being greedy and counter-productive on this issue. I signed the petition and I don't even have solar.

TT
 
It's a big step to go completely off-Grid, but, if pressed,
some PV owners might consider doing just that.

Of course the energy storage for nights and
cloudy days is a significant issue.

So, moving much usage to peak hours, so there is no excess generation
(for SDG&E to sell), and arranging to have very little use during evenings
and at night (for SDG&E to charge us for) ...
is an intermediate step that many might consider.
 
garygid said:
It's a big step to go completely off-Grid, but, if pressed,
some PV owners might consider doing just that.

Of course the energy storage for nights and
cloudy days is a significant issue.

So, moving much usage to peak hours, so there is no excess generation
(for SDG&E to sell), and arranging to have very little use during evenings
and at night (for SDG&E to charge us for) ...
is an intermediate step that many might consider.
I think if SDG&E gets this requested increase we'll probably see a lot of batteries added to grid tied houses. Not the huge battery banks that would be needed to go completely off-grid, but just big enough to hold all of your daytime peak PV production to avoid sending a single kW back to SDG&E, and then use that energy at night to avoid drawing from SDG&E. Of course that tactic only works for homeowners who are net electricity consumers rather than net generators - something that owning a LEAF makes a little easier. Net producers would have to calculate whether they'd be better off selling their excess production for a pittance and paying a huge transmission cost to do so, or just dissipate it. I'm going to talk to some solar companies to see whether installing a small battery buffer like that is feasible.

Of course if everyone did that then SDG&E would need a lot of new generating capacity to replace that daytime peak production currently supplied by rooftop PV, plus new transmission capacity to bring it into the county.
 
If you find a reasonable way for equipment to:

1. not send any excess energy back to the grid.
2. store energy for evening/nite use.
3. use the stored energy to avoid drawing from the Grid.
4. throttle back generation when local storage is full, and generation would exceed local usage.
5. optionally allow excess generation to go to the grid.
6. work with an existing SunnyBoy Inverter.

I would be very interested in learning more.
Thanks

We should start a "Grid-Tied Island" thread, I suspect.
 
garygid said:
We should start a "Grid-Tied Island" thread, I suspect.
Yes I think we should! I am very interested to know how this concept relates to having a Leaf.

I have not invested in Solar myself yet for a number of reasons and cost being the main one. If these proposed changes by SDG&E is adopted they would no doubt be adopted by PG&E as well where I am. This would change the return on investment by a huge amount. So the "Grid-Tied Island" concept seems to be a way to better prepare for these kinds of changes when investing in solar. One concept I would like to see further discussed is perhaps running DC form the solar array to near the EVSE or battery storage before it goes though the DC to AC. I suspect this would allow for better charge efficiency and allow charging the Leaf or storage batteries directly from the array and perhaps there are already inverters available that have DC out as an option.

Oh and I just got my latest PG&E bill and a result of the recent lowering of tiers I was in tier 4 for the first time. Of course the proposed changes to the PG&E EV charging rate will easily double my bill if adopted too so I am very interested in the "Grid-Tied Island" concept.
 
Boulder has a fix:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/us/boulder-seeks-to-take-power-from-the-power-company.html?scp=1&sq=colorado%20utility&st=cse" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But as you are in San Diego, there are prolly too many knuckle draggers who think it is a better idea to have SDGE skimming 20% off the top for marketing, profit, bonuses, executive jets, senior management retreats and dividends.
 
walterbays said:
I think if SDG&E gets this requested increase we'll probably see a lot of batteries added to grid tied houses. Not the huge battery banks that would be needed to go completely off-grid, but just big enough to hold all of your daytime peak PV production to avoid sending a single kW back to SDG&E, and then use that energy at night to avoid drawing from SDG&E.
If you're a typical household where you don't consume a whole lot during the day while the sun is shining, you're going to need a much bigger battery pack than you think.

Even with my modest 3.24 kW system, I've exported as much as 17 kWh to the grid in a single day (not typical, around 10-12 kWh is more typical in the sunny months). Over the same time period, I've drawn up to 21 kWh from the grid. That excludes EV usage.

You're probably looking at least $500 / kWh for storage - never mind the efficiency losses involved with storage. I'm probably better off replacing my electric dryer with a gas unit financially at about $1000 if I'm looking to minimize my demand charges - that thing will suck down 3-4 kW for about an hour at a time.

Even if I could buy a 2 kWh household storage unit for $1000 - would it be smart enough to do peak load shaving in the face of highly variable single-household demands without running out of juice before my peak loads are done running?

walterbays said:
Of course that tactic only works for homeowners who are net electricity consumers rather than net generators - something that owning a LEAF makes a little easier. Net producers would have to calculate whether they'd be better off selling their excess production for a pittance and paying a huge transmission cost to do so, or just dissipate it.
Net generators are already paid a pittance - it makes no sense financially to install a home PV system that generates more power than you use in a year.

walterbays said:
Of course if everyone did that then SDG&E would need a lot of new generating capacity to replace that daytime peak production currently supplied by rooftop PV, plus new transmission capacity to bring it into the county.
Currently, not really. There's only about 35 MW of residential PV installed in SDG&E's region and about 37 MW of non-residential PV. SDG&E connects about 1 MW of residential PV a month - has maintained this rate for the past 2 years now.

Lots of data and stats here: http://www.californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Lots of good letters to the editor at SignOnSanDiego:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/oct/31/letters-sdge-and-solar-rates/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
I just signed the petition below. I don't have solar power but it seems a sensible thing to do to encourage adoption of green fuels.

http://signon.org/sign/fight-san-diego-gas-electric?source=c.url&r_by=1255831" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Note that AFAIK this proposal does not effect the EV-TOU2 plan or any other TOU plan. If you're a net generator and have an EV that plan is probably the best deal out there. This proposal doesn't change that.
 
Back
Top