You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Utilities don’t make profit from energy sales. Utilities want people on certain rate plans to help levelize energy usage over the course of the day.I am grandfathered on Domestic (tiered usage). A couple of years ago I tried TOU under their guaranteed 'Bill Protection' plan. At the end of the year True Up, under TOU we owed about $850 but once they applied bill protection/tiered rates, the bill dropped to about $80.
There is a reason why SCE defaulted all their customers to TOU rates and they now make you opt out if you want to change. Also, why do they force all new solar customers to TOU if it wasn't more profitable for them?
They only sell energy and PG&E made a heck of a profit in Q1.Utilities don’t make profit from energy sales. Utilities want people on certain rate plans to help levelize energy usage over the course of the day.
Energy costs are pass throughs for utilities. Whatever the cost of energy / fuels are, they don’t make a dime on it. Utilities make their money through capital investments (return on assets).They only sell energy and PG&E made a heck of a profit in Q1.
I don't see where this would replace the per kW fixed fee, this may be a new way to charge NBCs?2) Changing NBCs on gross consumption instead of the per kW fixed cost fee
The rates are decoupled, but that is a bit of a misnomer. Their top line revenue is all revenue pulled in from rates charged to Customers. Their "investment" in assets is used to determine rates as we cannot let them lose money - can we?Energy costs are pass throughs for utilities. Whatever the cost of energy / fuels are, they don’t make a dime on it. Utilities make their money through capital investments (return on assets).
Yeah, I don't see where it say it replaces the Grid Access Fee explicitly. However, in the footnotes page six it says: "3 Sierra Club Opening Comments on Proposed Decision Revising Net Energy Metering Tariff and Subtariffs at 12-13."I don't see where this would replace the per kW fixed fee, this may be a new way to charge NBCs?
Yeah, it seems they want comments on some alternatives, without saying what they might replace or if they are new additions.Yeah, I don't see where it say it replaces the Grid Access Fee explicitly. However, in the footnotes page six it says: "3 Sierra Club Opening Comments on Proposed Decision Revising Net Energy Metering Tariff and Subtariffs at 12-13."
Page 10 of their opening comments says:
"B. The Commission Should Eliminate the Discriminatory and Illegal Grid Participation Charge and Replace it with Non-Bypassable Charges on Total Energy Use and Enrollment in Electrification Rates with a Fixed Charge Component Approximately Equal to Marginal Customer Costs."
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M436/K665/436665095.PDF
I'm not entire sure however it's really that good a proposal. It essentially is a tax on total consumption (including what happens behind the meter), so there would need to be new meter that measures all consumption behind the utility meter. It is done this way to avoid violating federal law on discriminatory fees on producers.
For some case it may still end up as a per kW fixed fee, given the Sierra Club proposal says the following:
"While determining gross consumption could involve a separate meter, the Commission should ensure successor tariff customers have the option of using methodologies that avoid the added cost of separate metering and minimize administrative complexity, such as a per-kW charge based on average system performance."
Sierra club may suggest average system performance, but it may end up to still be based on system rating.
Yeah, it seems they want comments on some alternatives, without saying what they might replace or if they are new additions.
One difference from the per kW fixed cost fee is that any generation exported wouldn't be subject to these new NBCs. I wonder if charging a battery would be considered gross consumption, even if it is later exported? Without direct metering, determining the NBCs will be difficult. And in some topologies with multiple inverters going to different panels, metering could be complex.
I agree. The charge should be based on how much energy you use and when you use it, and a fixed connection fee based on your peak consumption; and that should be the same for everyone regardless if they have solar or storage. If someone feeds power back to the grid the compensation should be based on the value of that power at the time it was produced. If it has no value, so be it.This fetish the CPUC has with charging for behind the meter consumption is idiotic. That's just going to encourage non-connected off-grid systems that can't import or export then everyone loses. They need to just find the right arbitrage and be happy buying for $0.05 and selling for $0.50. Heck.... charge a fee for exports if they want... electric rates do sometimes go negative.
lets describe it this way. How does PG&E get Revenue? Thru your bill. How does you bill go up or down? Usage and Rates. That's it.Energy costs are pass throughs for utilities. Whatever the cost of energy / fuels are, they don’t make a dime on it. Utilities make their money through capital investments (return on assets).
Revenue does not equal profit so I don’t know what you are trying to say. If I pull in $200 of revenue and my costs are $200, I have $0 in profit. The rates are increased so they can recover all the costs they incur. Although rates are setup as variable rates, the costs they are trying to recover are also fixed costs for things such as T&D Infrastructure. So if someone puts solar panels on their roof, the utility doesn’t recover all the fixed costs they need to cover since energy sales decreased, so they need to increase the rates in the future to make themselves whole. I’m just stating facts and not playing the blame game against large utilities that we all need.lets describe it this way. How does PG&E get Revenue? Thru your bill. How does you bill go up or down? Usage and Rates. That's it.
Use more electricity, your bill goes up. They raise their rates, your bill goes up. Your bill goes up, they make more revenue. Anything else is propaganda
do you debate that their revenue is directly corresponding to your bill? Look at their income statement. They have Revenue and Cost of Revenue, the Operating Costs and then Net Profit. You use more Electricity, their Revenue goes up. They pay more fore Electricity generation, their gross profit goes down.Revenue does not equal profit so I don’t know what you are trying to say. If I pull in $200 of revenue and my costs are $200, I have $0 in profit. The rates are increased so they can recover all the costs they incur. Although rates are setup as variable rates, the costs they are trying to recover are also fixed costs for things such as T&D Infrastructure. So if someone puts solar panels on their roof, the utility doesn’t recover all the fixed costs they need to cover since energy sales decreased, so they need to increase the rates in the future to make themselves whole. I’m just stating facts and not playing the blame game against large utilities that we all need.
Revenue does not equal profit so I don’t know what you are trying to say. If I pull in $200 of revenue and my costs are $200, I have $0 in profit. The rates are increased so they can recover all the costs they incur. Although rates are setup as variable rates, the costs they are trying to recover are also fixed costs for things such as T&D Infrastructure. So if someone puts solar panels on their roof, the utility doesn’t recover all the fixed costs they need to cover since energy sales decreased, so they need to increase the rates in the future to make themselves whole. I’m just stating facts and not playing the blame game against large utilities that we all need.
agreeI think utilities are actually guaranteed a profit so yes, they always have profits since it's in their terms with the state I believe to have profits.
The whole IOI model is flawed I feel. Use no energy, they now have to raise everyone's rates to support all their costs. There is no benefit in conservation or use less, etc...Similar to healthcare, if everyone is healthy, hospitals goes belly up with no $$.
I think they should just tack on fixed grid support costs for all customers or better yet, city/municipalities should just take over the IOUs. We already know the CPUC aren't consumer focused at all and just rubber stamp everything. PG&E should have went under and broken up and bond holders/investors should have gotten pennies and those long term energy contracts torn up/failed.
I really hope this 20 year doesn't end up being a 15 year thing grandfathering thing. People talk about IOUs making capital investments for a grid and they need to recoup their investments. How about homeowners making capital investments on solar and the IOUs expect you to now pay even more and change the rules?
Solar has taken off so much due to a cash grab by utilities. If the IOU energy rates weren't so much more expensive that other utilities right next to them (Santa Clara Power, that place in Sacramento, etc), people wouldn't be trying to avoid the IOUs so much and installing solar/batteries or cut them off completely by going off grid.
do you debate that their revenue is directly corresponding to your bill? Look at their income statement. They have Revenue and Cost of Revenue, the Operating Costs and then Net Profit. You use more Electricity, their Revenue goes up. They pay more fore Electricity generation, their gross profit goes down.
you are arguing against yourself. You said energy costs are a pass thru.
Indeed.I think utilities are actually guaranteed a profit so yes, they always have profits since it's in their terms with the state I believe to have profits.
The whole IOI model is flawed I feel. Use no energy, they now have to raise everyone's rates to support all their costs. There is no benefit in conservation or use less, etc...Similar to healthcare, if everyone is healthy, hospitals goes belly up with no $$.
I think they should just tack on fixed grid support costs for all customers or better yet, city/municipalities should just take over the IOUs. We already know the CPUC aren't consumer focused at all and just rubber stamp everything. PG&E should have went under and broken up and bond holders/investors should have gotten pennies and those long term energy contracts torn up/failed.
I really hope this 20 year doesn't end up being a 15 year thing grandfathering thing. People talk about IOUs making capital investments for a grid and they need to recoup their investments. How about homeowners making capital investments on solar and the IOUs expect you to now pay even more and change the rules?
Solar has taken off so much due to a cash grab by utilities. If the IOU energy rates weren't so much more expensive that other utilities right next to them (Santa Clara Power, that place in Sacramento, etc), people wouldn't be trying to avoid the IOUs so much and installing solar/batteries or cut them off completely by going off grid.