CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[Redhill_qik]

That's just stupid, and can also be solved with dynamic pricing. Announce that electricity is either extremely cheap or free and watch as people turn or shift usage of pool pumps, HVAC systems, and start charging their cars.

It sounds simple, but I don't think that it really is. To be able to respond to dynamic pricing you need both a way to communicate that pricing machine-to-machine (SmartHome++++) and the customer/machine needs to have a reason to want to consume that power. If the weather is fine there is no reason to run a HVAC, if the car is already charged it won't take more charge. Right now, I don't have anything that I would want to turn on in my house even if I knew that electricity pricing was negative.

In the article, the South Australian grid turned of residential solar panels for 12,000 customers that dropped exports to the grid and increased imports to the grid. I could see that happening in the future in the same way as a reverse PG&E SmartAC program. A partial solution might be for customers with solar+ESS to take them off-grid, which would drop the exports to the grid so they can continue to use free energy without the benefit of keeping the load the same. The article mentioned no compensation and that it might have cost AU$1/hour, to which I would counter the imports should have been free for those solar customers.

BTW, I'm sure that there are a few Gilfoyle's, but even his system was manual

 

[STS-134]

It sounds simple, but I don't think that it really is. To be able to respond to dynamic pricing you need both a way to communicate that pricing machine-to-machine (SmartHome++++) and the customer/machine needs to have a reason to want to consume that power. If the weather is fine there is no reason to run a HVAC, if the car is already charged it won't take more charge. Right now, I don't have anything that I would want to turn on in my house even if I knew that electricity pricing was negative.

My car sits at 50% SoC most of the time. It charges up in the morning. If energy was cheap enough, I'd bump it up to 60%. If it's even cheaper, I'd go to 70%. If it's almost free, I'd go all the way to 80-90%. That's at least 20-30 kWh worth of energy I could pull from the grid, if energy got cheap enough. assuming it was already at 50%. If not, then I could pull even more.

 

[Redhill_qik]

My car sits at 50% SoC most of the time. It charges up in the morning. If energy was cheap enough, I'd bump it up to 60%. If it's even cheaper, I'd go to 70%. If it's almost free, I'd go all the way to 80-90%. That's at least 20-30 kWh worth of energy I could pull from the grid, if energy got cheap enough. assuming it was already at 50%. If not, then I could pull even more.

So that helps a bit the first day and then the second day?

 

[Zabe]

So that helps a bit the first day and then the second day?

And when the realtime price goes to $2000 are you going to open your disconnects and sit in the dark when it is 110 outside or 20 outside . Not to mention the grid is checked to be in balance every 4 seconds, yet pricing by CAISO is published every 5 minutes. This is published after the fact so basically you are chasing prices that have already changed. We do not have the infrustructure for the fantasy land average joe/jane customer turning there power on and off to chase real-time pricing.

Is it even worth it? All this effort to save a few bucks for a few plugged in end users who want to know every aspect of their system and chase real-time prices. Go buy and sell stocks the pricing is more transparent, the systems are already designed and can be easily aquired.

 

[Southpasfan]

And when the realtime price goes to $2000 are you going to open your disconnects and sit in the dark when it is 110 outside or 20 outside . Not to mention the grid is checked to be in balance every 4 seconds, yet pricing by CAISO is published every 5 minutes. This is published after the fact so basically you are chasing prices that have already changed. We do not have the infrustructure for the fantasy land average joe/jane customer turning there power on and off to chase real-time pricing.

Is it even worth it? All this effort to save a few bucks for a few plugged in end users who want to know every aspect of their system and chase real-time prices. Go buy and sell stocks the pricing is more transparent, the systems are already designed and can be easily aquired.

I used to think that there must be a connection between the cost of electricity and the per kwh I paid. Now that I know that’s all BS - I mean it’s 2022, rather than argue about how much make up to put on this volumetric pricing pig we should be figuring out another way. Peak pricing is already a total con. How much can people conserve anyway? Moreover, we now know that the only way the cost of electricity rises during peak is if you allocate the cost of plants to just that time period!!!!

It’s like allocating all the cost of freeways to rush hour and then attempting to pin it all on the people who drive then!

 

[STS-134]

And when the realtime price goes to $2000 are you going to open your disconnects and sit in the dark when it is 110 outside or 20 outside . Not to mention the grid is checked to be in balance every 4 seconds, yet pricing by CAISO is published every 5 minutes. This is published after the fact so basically you are chasing prices that have already changed. We do not have the infrustructure for the fantasy land average joe/jane customer turning there power on and off to chase real-time pricing.

Well they're already paying people $2/kWh if they can cut back when events are called. At that price, I'll flip off the main breaker and either leave the house or sit in the Tesla with camp mode active. The stuff in the fridge should be fine for 5 hours if you don't open it. If it's a real emergency and I need to open the fridge, I'll run some extension cords and switch it over to the generator.

 

[Redhill_qik]

And when the realtime price goes to $2000 are you going to open your disconnects and sit in the dark when it is 110 outside or 20 outside . Not to mention the grid is checked to be in balance every 4 seconds, yet pricing by CAISO is published every 5 minutes. This is published after the fact so basically you are chasing prices that have already changed. We do not have the infrustructure for the fantasy land average joe/jane customer turning there power on and off to chase real-time pricing.

I have solar+ESS, so I wouldn't be sitting in the dark under these conditions.

 

[Zabe]

I have solar+ESS, so I wouldn't be sitting in the dark under these conditions.

Most people do not

 

[yblaser]

Well they're already paying people $2/kWh if they can cut back when events are called. At that price, I'll flip off the main breaker and either leave the house or sit in the Tesla with camp mode active. The stuff in the fridge should be fine for 5 hours if you don't open it. If it's a real emergency and I need to open the fridge, I'll run some extension cords and switch it over to the generator.

You'd do all that for 5 hours for what ~$10 per event? Wow I'd pay $10 just so I wouldn't have to do all that.

 

[Redhill_qik]

You'd do all that for 5 hours for what ~$10 per event? Wow I'd pay $10 just so I wouldn't have to do all that.

Based on the 2021 Texas freeze debacle it could be a lot more than $10.

Texas woman who received $9,300 electricity bill files class-action lawsuit against wholesale electricity provider Griddy

A Chambers County resident filed a class-action lawsuit against electricity retailer Griddy on Monday, accusing the provider of price gouging customers during last week’s freeze. She is seeking $1 billion in relief for affected customers.

www.texastribune.org

 

[yblaser]

Based on the 2021 Texas freeze debacle it could be a lot more than $10.

Texas woman who received $9,300 electricity bill files class-action lawsuit against wholesale electricity provider Griddy

A Chambers County resident filed a class-action lawsuit against electricity retailer Griddy on Monday, accusing the provider of price gouging customers during last week’s freeze. She is seeking $1 billion in relief for affected customers.

www.texastribune.org

Yes but I was replying to the statement that he would do all that for the the $2/kWh incentive to cut back on usage during a flex alert.

 

[Redhill_qik]

Yes but I was replying to the statement that he would do all that for the the $2/kWh incentive to cut back on usage during a flex alert.

I believe that @STS-134 was referring to the $2000/kWh charge scenario in the post they were replying to and an incentive to export more or cut back on consumption.

 

[Zabe]

I believe that @STS-134 was referring to the $2000/kWh charge scenario in the post they were replying to and an incentive to export more or cut back on consumption.

CAISO posts prices in $/MWH so it is the $2/kWh question not $2000/kWh.

 

[Redhill_qik]

CAISO posts prices in $/MWH so it is the $2/kWh question not $2000/kWh.

Hyperbole, but it is what the post still said. During that Texas freeze debacle ERCOT raised the spot cost to $9000/MW or $9/kWh for multiple days this translated into bills up to $9,300 for the month for some customers.

 

[STS-134]

CAISO posts prices in $/MWH so it is the $2/kWh question not $2000/kWh.

But it looks like they're using your usage during the same times on non event days as the baseline.

Want to game this system? Put yourself on E-TOU-D and program your Tesla to charge between 4-5pm and 8-9pm every day. With my 48A WC, this will draw almost 12kW from the grid on those days as long as the car needs to charge, but because you're on E-TOU-D, 4-5 pm and 8-9pm are off peak hours for you. Then on event days, don't plug in the car or shift that charging to other times, and get compensated for simply not charging the car for those 2 hours of the day. If you're putting 9kWh into the car, on average, during those hours, then you'd get compensated $18 per event, just for the non usage for car charging. Add to that maybe 2-4 kWh more for what you would have used in the house during those hours and you're being compensated $22-26 per event.

 

[holeydonut]

But it looks like they're using your usage during the same times on non event days as the baseline.

Want to game this system? Put yourself on E-TOU-D and program your Tesla to charge between 4-5pm and 8-9pm every day. With my 48A WC, this will draw almost 12kW from the grid on those days as long as the car needs to charge, but because you're on E-TOU-D, 4-5 pm and 8-9pm are off peak hours for you. Then on event days, don't plug in the car or shift that charging to other times, and get compensated for simply not charging the car for those 2 hours of the day. If you're putting 9kWh into the car, on average, during those hours, then you'd get compensated $18 per event, just for the non usage for car charging. Add to that maybe 2-4 kWh more for what you would have used in the house during those hours and you're being compensated $22-26 per event.

Lol, PG&E hasn’t blocked this?

 

[STS-134]

Lol, PG&E hasn’t blocked this?

How would they? Their problem is that (1) they base the compensation on difference between your average usage during the same hours on non event days and (2) there is a mismatch between the peak hours of one of their rate plans (namely E-TOU-D) and the event hours, with the rate plan having shorter peak hours than the hours for the event.

This is similar to the concept of deliberately wasting water during non drought years so that you can easily cut back and have the water company tell you you're doing such a great job. Except if you have an EV, you would have had to charge it anyway, so you're just shifting the usage around rather than actually using more than you would otherwise (like in the case of trying to protect yourself against surcharges for not rationing water).

They probably think they're going to not have to pay people a lot of money because they assume that usage on event days will be higher than during non event days. A quick fix would be to simply make the event hours the same as the peak hours on your rate plan. Then any usage during those hours on non event days carries with it the risk that not enough event days will be called to make back the amount you've lost by shifting this usage into peak hours. But because there is a mismatch between the peak hours of the E-TOU-D plan and the event hours, it is possible to game the system with zero risk. I actually already do this to some textent, but not 100% intentionally. My thermostat is set to energy management recovery mode (makes turn on early such that it reaches the set point at the desired time) with the time set to 5 pm, which is when peak hours start, so all of the energy used to initially cool the house should be used between 4pm and 5pm. This isn't to game the system, but this is just me responding to the economic incentive I have to shift usage outside of my peak hours. Also, I have the Tesla set to Scheduled Departure mode with the departure time in the morning, but I also told it that peak hours start at 5 pm. If I plug the Tesla in before 5 pm, it will actually charge up to the set charge level just before peak hours start -- right before 5 pm.

 

[RKCRLR]

Lol, PG&E hasn’t blocked this?

This is the problem with artificial rate structures. If rates were structured to reflect the actual costs then any "gaming" wouldn't actually impact the power provider.

 

[sunwarriors]

I have solar+ESS, so I wouldn't be sitting in the dark under these conditions.

I keep saying my main reasons for ESS is stuff like that (crazy prices from IOUs).

AC will still be a problem, but we also have a smaller portable if its deathly hot. If it's high noon and 100+, solar has no problem keeping up with 1 AC running. Cool down to 70 during earlier hours, turn off at 4pm...use portable if needed in 1 room, turn back on at 9pm.

 

[sunwarriors]

How would they? Their problem is that (1) they base the compensation on difference between your average usage during the same hours on non event days and (2) there is a mismatch between the peak hours of one of their rate plans (namely E-TOU-D) and the event hours, with the rate plan having shorter peak hours than the hours for the event.

This is similar to the concept of deliberately wasting water during non drought years so that you can easily cut back and have the water company tell you you're doing such a great job. Except if you have an EV, you would have had to charge it anyway, so you're just shifting the usage around rather than actually using more than you would otherwise (like in the case of trying to protect yourself against surcharges for not rationing water).

They probably think they're going to not have to pay people a lot of money because they assume that usage on event days will be higher than during non event days. A quick fix would be to simply make the event hours the same as the peak hours on your rate plan. Then any usage during those hours on non event days carries with it the risk that not enough event days will be called to make back the amount you've lost by shifting this usage into peak hours. But because there is a mismatch between the peak hours of the E-TOU-D plan and the event hours, it is possible to game the system with zero risk. I actually already do this to some textent, but not 100% intentionally. My thermostat is set to energy management recovery mode (makes turn on early such that it reaches the set point at the desired time) with the time set to 5 pm, which is when peak hours start, so all of the energy used to initially cool the house should be used between 4pm and 5pm. This isn't to game the system, but this is just me responding to the economic incentive I have to shift usage outside of my peak hours. Also, I have the Tesla set to Scheduled Departure mode with the departure time in the morning, but I also told it that peak hours start at 5 pm. If I plug the Tesla in before 5 pm, it will actually charge up to the set charge level just before peak hours start -- right before 5 pm.

This is why I don't sign up for any cut back things since it's pointless if you can't/won't change much use. The $$ is so little to not worth the hassle.