Nevada PUC decision on solar

[rolosrevenge]

When you say 'fixed' do you mean $X/kWp or you're connected... you pay $Y regardless of how much, little, how or when you use the grid...

In other news... I was very excited to see that EarthJustice is sending counsel to join the fight in NM...

You should pay a fixed fee based on the size of your connection, regardless of how much or little you use it. Anyone who's connected to the grid, supports it proportionally the same. If you have a poor power factor, you should pay more. Generators also pay the connection. If you have a generator that has the ability to feed into the grid, you'd pay for it's connection as well as your taking connection. Generators should receive real-time market price for firm power. They should pay wheeling fees to the grid based on their distance from the closest market hub. Depending on how robust the markets, each distribution substation should be a hub. Non-firm power should pay balancing fees based on the current market price. If you have your own battery, you could self balance to provide firm power.

 

[nwdiver]

You should pay a fixed fee based on the size of your connection, regardless of how much or little you use it.

If there are no demand fees and everyone with a 200 amp connection pays the same rate where would the incentive be to not overtax the grid with high demand? Wouldn't a peak demand fee be better?

I'm having a hard time seeing the logic in a home with a 20kW peak demand and a home with a 2kW peak demand paying the same grid fees even if they both have the same size wires going to the house.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

If there are no demand fees and everyone with a 200 amp connection pays the same rate where would the incentive be to not overtax the grid with high demand? Wouldn't a peak demand fee be better?

I'm having a hard time seeing the logic in a home with a 20kW peak demand and a home with a 2kW peak demand paying the same grid fees even if they both have the same size wires going to the house.

You should be able to reduce the rating of your connection, and then combine that with a demand charge to encourage a reduction in peak use.

 

[FlasherZ]

If there are no demand fees and everyone with a 200 amp connection pays the same rate where would the incentive be to not overtax the grid with high demand? Wouldn't a peak demand fee be better?

I'm having a hard time seeing the logic in a home with a 20kW peak demand and a home with a 2kW peak demand paying the same grid fees even if they both have the same size wires going to the house.

There are varied costs in managing demand down to that level. At that low level of service (individual residencce), the difference in equipment is minimal. The distribution wire size is the same, the meter is the same, the service entrance is the same. The only difference may be the transformer, and as many transformers are multi-user and can be oversubscribed, you can make the argument that complicated demand billing (and the hassle that goes with it) isn't necessary until you begin to exceed a certain threshold (50 kW or more)...

Finally, demand charges for residences would increase variability in billing, something that generates higher costs and complaints. Is the trade-off there? Perhaps. There is some demand for reduced rate structures when snowbirds go to Florida for the winter and power nearly everything else down in their homes - but will it offset the costs & hassles? For now, it seems that the answer is "no" and power companies are leaving demand charges only for large commercial connections - where a factory might do a big production run at 10x average, then revert to the lower usage.

 

[dhanson865]

There are varied costs in managing demand down to that level. At that low level of service (individual residencce), the difference in equipment is minimal. The distribution wire size is the same, the meter is the same, the service entrance is the same. The only difference may be the transformer, and as many transformers are multi-user and can be oversubscribed, you can make the argument that complicated demand billing (and the hassle that goes with it) isn't necessary until you begin to exceed a certain threshold (50 kW or more)...

Finally, demand charges for residences would increase variability in billing, something that generates higher costs and complaints. Is the trade-off there? Perhaps. There is some demand for reduced rate structures when snowbirds go to Florida for the winter and power nearly everything else down in their homes - but will it offset the costs & hassles? For now, it seems that the answer is "no" and power companies are leaving demand charges only for large commercial connections - where a factory might do a big production run at 10x average, then revert to the lower usage.

California utilities have 2 or 3 or 4 rate tiers. It isn't a demand charge per se but the per kw rate is higher if your demand is higher.

While I don't want my rate to go up for personal reasons I'd be find if they changed it to something like

0-999 kWh - tier1
1000-19999 kWh - tier 2
2000 and up - tier 3

scale cost per kwh vs the tiers based on the overall cost of the utilities. So long as tier 2 costs more than tier 1 and tier 3 costs more than tier 2 my cost per kWh would go down and the obnoxious wasting leave all the lights on all the time guy will pay more.

To me that is a plus for me, a plus for the utility company, a plus for the environment, a plus for stable pricing long term and so on.

 

[cpa]

A good friend of mine installed an 8.2kW PV system at his home in rural Stanislaus County about a year go. His electric provider is Turlock Irrigation District. Part of his contract with TID is that he is now billed a demand charge each month, so the fact that residential users of electricity won't be paying demand charges seems to have been thwarted by the mighty TID.

 

[FlasherZ]

To me that is a plus for me, a plus for the utility company, a plus for the environment, a plus for stable pricing long term and so on.

My tiers are the opposite... I get a $.006/kWh discount for using more than 2,000 kWh, although I expect that to change over time as the co-op finishes up its redistribution of fixed costs to the meter charge.