Peninsula Clean Energy CCE (San Mateo County)

[miimura]

About a month ago I signed up for PCE's 100% renewable option. It's supposed to cost an extra penny per kWh. Now that I have the first bill, I can see how they calculate that charge. I thought perhaps they might add it to all my PCE rates. Then excess solar would be worth a penny more, and night-time charging would cost a penny more, and they'd tend to cancel each other out. But there's no free lunch.

Instead there's a separate line-item for ECO100. Apparently they apply a 1-cent rate to the net kWh consumed in each rate period. Like so:

I had net generation in the peak and part-peak periods, and net consumption in off-peak. Because of that, the ECO100 charge only seems to apply to off-peak consumption. It could be better: net all periods was only about 155-kWh. But it could also be worse, because total consumption was 654-kWh.

That is disappointing. Silicon Valley Clean Energy appears to do it the "right" way. If you are net surplus generator in a given month, you will the the extra credit from your GreenPrime enrollment.

You can see above that my GreenPrime surcharge is applied to my total net kWh, unlike @mblakele above.

 

[mblakele]

That is disappointing. Silicon Valley Clean Energy appears to do it the "right" way. If you are net surplus generator in a given month, you will the the extra credit from your GreenPrime enrollment.

View attachment 344002

You can see above that my GreenPrime surcharge is applied to my total net kWh, unlike @mblakele above.

Did you notice the $3.73 "net generation bonus" on mine? That doesn't depend on the ECO100 opt-in, but I don't see it in your SVCE table. Anyway I think it more or less offsets the difference.

Either way I'm not too disappointed, maybe because I don't have a strong opinion on what's "right" in this situation. We'll probably see both agencies adjust their policies over time.

 

[miimura]

Did you notice the $3.73 "net generation bonus" on mine? That doesn't depend on the ECO100 opt-in, but I don't see it in your SVCE table. Anyway I think it more or less offsets the difference.

Either way I'm not too disappointed, maybe because I don't have a strong opinion on what's "right" in this situation. We'll probably see both agencies adjust their policies over time.

No, I didn't notice the Generation Bonus. Now that I see it, the net result is the same as what SVCE does. PCE should label it more clearly to show that you're getting that because of the ECO100. Either that or just calculate one ECO100 amount off the net kWh figure.

 

[mblakele]

No, I didn't notice the Generation Bonus. Now that I see it, the net result is the same as what SVCE does. PCE should label it more clearly to show that you're getting that because of the ECO100. Either that or just calculate one ECO100 amount off the net kWh figure.

It isn't related to ECO100. It just happens to offset, roughly, the difference between your bill and mine.

To show that, here's my prior period PCE, pre-ECO100. There's no ECO100 line item, only the net generation bonus.

 

[miimura]

It isn't related to ECO100. It just happens to offset, roughly, the difference between your bill and mine.

To show that, here's my prior period PCE, pre-ECO100. There's no ECO100 line item, only the net generation bonus.

Well, then that's excellent, they're giving all solar customers the $0.01/kWh bonus for their generation independent of whether they elect to pay more for their grid power to be 100% renewable. SVCE only gives the generation bonus if you elect to pay as well because they calculate it on your net kWh for the period.

 

[ken830]

With three small kids and a crazy-busy work schedule, I normally don't have time to review my bills. Today, I decided to take a look at my latest PG&E bill and am shocked at how expensive it is. With PCE generation, the winter off-peak is more expensive than partial-peak ($0.02479 vs $0.02072). That's crazy!

Also, PG&E delivery charges are the exact same as the regular PG&E combined rate (generation + delivery + everything else) that is listed on their E1 and EV-A/B schedule. So, why am I even paying PCE?

I totally don't understand and something seems really wrong with the rates.

You guys seeing the same thing!?

 

[miimura]

With three small kids and a crazy-busy work schedule, I normally don't have time to review my bills. Today, I decided to take a look at my latest PG&E bill and am shocked at how expensive it is. With PCE generation, the winter off-peak is more expensive than partial-peak ($0.02479 vs $0.02072). That's crazy!

Also, PG&E delivery charges are the exact same as the regular PG&E combined rate (generation + delivery + everything else) that is listed on their E1 and EV-A/B schedule. So, why am I even paying PCE?

I totally don't understand and something seems really wrong with the rates.

You guys seeing the same thing!?

You should see a negative line item in the PG&E section of the bill for generation. It should be larger than the amount that PCE is billing you on their page of the bill.

What rate schedule are you on?

 

[ken830]

You should see a negative line item in the PG&E section of the bill for generation. It should be larger than the amount that PCE is billing you on their page of the bill.

What rate schedule are you on?

Okay, I see the generation credit now. I guess I didn't notice it because the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment pretty much ate the whole thing.

I'm on E-1 for the house and EV-B for the cars.

 

[miimura]

I was reading about the hearings on the PCIA fees and it made me so mad I had to stop before I even got to the end of the article.

 

[mblakele]

This Thursday PCE could approve a three-year $400k pilot program to install L1 charging in MUDs (multi-unit dwellings, i.e. apartments, condos, etc.). The agenda packet explains:

Charging access in MUDs remains a major barrier to EV use: roughly half the county population lives in some form of MUD. Given that nearly 80% of MUDs in the County are more than 50 years old, many have very limited excess power for EV charging stations. Similar challenges can also be found in workplace sites. Addressing this barrier is critical for both low-income residents and nearly half of county residents generally.​

I don't live in a MUD myself, but I like this idea as a TSLA investor and a resident of San Mateo County. It's too bad they're focused on L1, but they address that.

[...] most EV charging technologies have historically focused on 220/240 volt solutions, typically called “Level 2”. These options provide higher charging rates but consume more power, limiting the number of vehicles that can be served in a capacity-constrained scenario. The average mileage for San Mateo County is 25-30 miles daily. Given this daily mileage, most driving requirements can therefore be easily served by Level 1 low power 110/120 volt charging which can provide 35 to 40 miles over 7 to 8 hours.​

Overlooking the technical errors, that's a reasonable case for L1: it's something, which is better than nothing. Also this is just a pilot program, but it's a step in the right direction. If it leads to more charging options for apartment-dwelling EV owners, I'd call that a good use of PCE time and funds.

 

[miimura]

That's kind of a shame. They should either be looking into pilot programs with vendors like PowerFlex that do advanced load management, or lower current 240V EVSEs, like 240V 16A.

 

[jjgunn]

I already charge from my Apt using 240v @16 Amps
20 Ampere, 4400 watts outlet 220 Volts, NEMA 6-20

It won't work for everyone but it works for me

 

[mblakele]

California Community Choice Aggregators Bid For Partial PG&E Takeover | CleanTechnica

 

[mblakele]

PCE has been working on this for about a year:

200-MW CCA solar project comes online in California

Peninsula Clean Energy this month began providing more solar power to California’s San Mateo County from the 200-MW utility-scale Wright Solar Project located in the nearby Central Valley.

[...]

The project adds to an escalating trend of new development spearheaded by CCAs that is advancing clean energy, economic development and green jobs throughout California and elsewhere. California’s 19 CCAs have on average added roughly 1,000 MW annually in long-term renewable energy purchase agreements, and are expected to make long-term investments in more than 10,000 MW of new clean energy resources and energy storage by 2030.

That includes a joint solicitation in November from Peninsula Clean Energy and three other Bay Area CCAs for the installation of more than 30 MW of battery storage to 6,000 homes and hundreds of businesses, adding a clean and resilient backstop to areas hit by PG&E power shutoffs.​

 

[mblakele]

Our path to 24/7 renewable power by 2025

In 2017, Peninsula Clean Energy set a goal to deliver 100% renewable energy to match demand on an hour-by-hour basis by 2025.

www.peninsulacleanenergy.com

PCE has published a white paper detailing their plans for 100% renewable power on an hourly basis. News to me that existing “100% renewable” is on an annual basis, apparently per state rules.

 

[Ampster]

I do not see an inconsistency. Most power is sold on long term contracts but the pricing may be on an hourly basis. Or the statement may be referring to stored energy for times when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. In the case of my CCA they purchase renewable power from the Geysers which is available 24/7.