PG&E Rate Schedules: "Home Charging" (EV2-A) Goes Live vs. Others

[zanary]

I just got the notice to move to EV2-A from EVA too.

"It seem as if PG&E programmed (via careful analysis) the solar benefits out of existing rate schedules after the advent of EV-A"

I have been on solar since 2010. I remember when I did my installation, PG&E would not let you install more than a certain amount of solar generation, leading you to a system that was slightly better than netzero.

PG&E is effectively now stealing almost all our produced Solar KWHs by forcing us into EV2-A from EVA.

Many of us were sold on SOLAR by the state of California to achieve Net-zero in our homes while helping the environment and getting into EVs, and are now providing almost all our solar KWHs to PG&E for nothing, for PGE to resell at a huge markup back to you, and we took on huge bank loans to install this equipment in our homes and now we are being ripped off and stuck with the monthly loan bill and a huge PGE true-up bill. Someone should sue.

It feels like PG&E is now encouraging self creation, self storage and self consumption.

It feels like they are encouraging a different behavior because there is way too much solar now. Someone said (I can’t remember who or when) but we have so much solar that it’s greater than the demand some days.

 

[miimura]

It feels like PG&E is now encouraging self creation, self storage and self consumption.

It feels like they are encouraging a different behavior because there is way too much solar now. Someone said (I can’t remember who or when) but we have so much solar that it’s greater than the demand some days.

If you look at the ISO charts, it's nowhere near true. I think the fundamental problem is that we are not "allowed" to use all our solar and we have to export it to places like Arizona where they either get it for free or we pay them to take it. The Arizona utility is not deregulated and they own their own generation. Therefore, faced with receiving payments to take solar, they are willing to shut down their own fossil generation.

I believe the perverted problem with the California grid is that the energy crisis created long term contracts for fossil generation and those generators are going to run no matter what so they can collect their contracted payments. If California was to fundamentally restructure the way we pay for generation so that it was carbon free first and any curtailment HAD TO come from fossil generators, the percentage renewable would be very different.

When I heard that renewable generators were afraid that their contracts would be cancelled in the PG&E bankruptcy, I was furious. If any contracts are going to be cancelled, they should ALL be cancelled. That would really leave people shaking in their boots and we would see a whole lot more bankruptcies, from many of those fossil generators that got the long term contracts in the energy deregulation crisis.

 

[Ulmo]

I just got the notice to move to EV2-A from EVA too.

"It seem as if PG&E programmed (via careful analysis) the solar benefits out of existing rate schedules after the advent of EV-A"

I have been on solar since 2010. I remember when I did my installation, PG&E would not let you install more than a certain amount of solar generation, leading you to a system that was slightly better than netzero.

PG&E is effectively now stealing almost all our produced Solar KWHs by forcing us into EV2-A from EVA.

Many of us were sold on SOLAR by the state of California to achieve Net-zero in our homes while helping the environment and getting into EVs, and are now providing almost all our solar KWHs to PG&E for nothing, for PGE to resell at a huge markup back to you, and we took on huge bank loans to install this equipment in our homes and now we are being ripped off and stuck with the monthly loan bill and a huge PGE true-up bill. Someone should sue.

Talking about what they should have done (but didn't do), existing solar panels should have been grandfathered in the plans they were installed in. The rerating for existing solar systems when changes are made (adding more, etc.) should not be done; they should be prorated for the applicable PG&E rate plan at the time of building permit application for the solar systems. If the rate plan at the time of permit application was a market-based trading plan where everyone participates in a free market and the person bought the solar panels for that marketplace, then that would be no different than a fixed-cost rate plan grandfathered in. But PG&E is acting as if none of that really makes sense, in an effort to fool us.

Anyway, they're doing it as wrong as possible as much as they can get away with. The idea that I have to put in 300 variables to know what electricity costs at my utility and it's still not free market rate cost driven is just insane.

 

[Janus]

For those with CCAs, how much less-bad is the math? As I understand it, most of the CCAs will buy-back solar power at a much higher rate than PGE, so would that help here?

 

[miimura]

For those with CCAs, how much less-bad is the math? As I understand it, most of the CCAs will buy-back solar power at a much higher rate than PGE, so would that help here?

It does help, but changing the schedule changes the math so drastically, that the CCA can't make up for it. The main way that the CCA will benefit someone is if you are a net kWh consumer, but you still have TOU differential credits. The CCA will pay those out. The bad part is that EV2-A is taking away the TOU solar credits to begin with.

 

[Ulmo]

For those with CCAs, how much less-bad is the math? As I understand it, most of the CCAs will buy-back solar power at a much higher rate than PGE, so would that help here?

I'd like to know, too. This is the utility we supposedly have now, but I can't find any information on their web site: Home - MBCP

They must be in the coal age. Nothing online.

When I telephoned (!) them, they claimed that their rates mirror PG&E rates. They gave some subjective fuzz about them being "different". Who the hell knows what that means?

 

[Janus]

It feels like PG&E is now encouraging self creation, self storage and self consumption.

It feels like they are encouraging a different behavior because there is way too much solar now. Someone said (I can’t remember who or when) but we have so much solar that it’s greater than the demand some days.

I was wondering the same thing. Presuming someone had enough solar and battery to run fully independently, then they'd just be selling back to the grid. In that scenario, a rate plan which gives you more money back in the afternoon, would be advantageous. I.e. On a standard day, the morning is spent recharging the battery, and the afternoon is spent selling to the grid.

 

[miimura]

I'd like to know, too. This is the utility we supposedly have now, but I can't find any information on their web site: Home - MBCP

They must be in the coal age. Nothing online.

When I telephoned (!) them, they claimed that their rates mirror PG&E rates. They gave some subjective fuzz about them being "different". Who the hell knows what that means?

Their web site is not that bad. Their full rates are shown. I looked at the rate table for EV-A and the rate is exactly the same as PG&E after Franchise Fee and PCIA Fee, down to 5 digits. They also claim they will have a 5% rebate in 2019. I don't know when that is given out, but it should appear as a bill credit.

https://www.mbcommunitypower.org/billing/
https://www.mbcommunitypower.org/wp...19_MBCP_Residential_Rate_Sheet_v8.0_FINAL.pdf

 

[Odiemac]

If you look at the ISO charts, it's nowhere near true. I think the fundamental problem is that we are not "allowed" to use all our solar and we have to export it to places like Arizona where they either get it for free or we pay them to take it. The Arizona utility is not deregulated and they own their own generation. Therefore, faced with receiving payments to take solar, they are willing to shut down their own fossil generation.

I believe the perverted problem with the California grid is that the energy crisis created long term contracts for fossil generation and those generators are going to run no matter what so they can collect their contracted payments. If California was to fundamentally restructure the way we pay for generation so that it was carbon free first and any curtailment HAD TO come from fossil generators, the percentage renewable would be very different.

When I heard that renewable generators were afraid that their contracts would be cancelled in the PG&E bankruptcy, I was furious. If any contracts are going to be cancelled, they should ALL be cancelled. That would really leave people shaking in their boots and we would see a whole lot more bankruptcies, from many of those fossil generators that got the long term contracts in the energy deregulation crisis.

It seems like the CAISO could take about 20% more solar in the grid mix if all other sources were curtailed during the day, although naturally it’s hard to curtail Nuke and Hydro (streams need to keep some flow for wildlife).

Since the Utility-scale producers are already being asked to curtail output, I guess we should be thankful that would be hard to pull off curtailment with residential. But some sort of monkeying with NEM is probably inevitable. I can see why the utilities want some of its richest customers to pay into the system.

However, I think they’re eventually going to find their leverage over these customers is limited. As someone else mentioned, solar customers could always self-consume and cancel their NEM agreement and just pay the $10 minimum.

 

[miimura]

As we get more renewables online, it actually makes more sense to have people charge their cars during the day than during the overnight hours. Demand management that is coordinated by the ISO will be key to integrating more renewables. Of course, grid scale batteries help too, but the increasing EV population is a good sink for daytime solar and it will reduce fossil generation during overnight hours. We just need more plugs for all the EVs where they normally park during the day.

 

[GenSao]

It seems like the CAISO could take about 20% more solar in the grid mix if all other sources were curtailed during the day, although naturally it’s hard to curtail Nuke and Hydro (streams need to keep some flow for wildlife).

Since the Utility-scale producers are already being asked to curtail output, I guess we should be thankful that would be hard to pull off curtailment with residential. But some sort of monkeying with NEM is probably inevitable. I can see why the utilities want some of its richest customers to pay into the system.

However, I think they’re eventually going to find their leverage over these customers is limited. As someone else mentioned, solar customers could always self-consume and cancel their NEM agreement and just pay the $10 minimum. View attachment 452519View attachment 452519

Large hydro is already (partially) curtailed during the peak solar production. On 9/8/19 hydro power was approximately 1 GW during solar production (min environmental flows?) and peaked to approximately 4.2 GW to help offset net demand in the afternoon.

Below is a graph of net demand on a hotter day in California.

 

[miimura]

Please notice the scale on the left hand side of the chart above. The bottom of the dip in the purple line still represents 20GW of net demand. Until we get Net Demand dropping below 5GW, we still have no challenges integrating renewables. This is what I meant by "there's way too much solar" "...is nowhere near true".

 

[Odiemac]

Please notice the scale on the left hand side of the chart above. The bottom of the dip in the purple line still represents 20GW of net demand. Until we get Net Demand dropping below 5GW, we still have no challenges integrating renewables. This is what I meant by "there's way too much solar" "...is nowhere near true".

I guess I don’t know how to reconcile CAISO Supply and Demand charts. Their supply shows big curtailment for non-renewable sources, but the demand doesn’t. Nor do their totals seem to add up

 

[miimura]

I guess I don’t know how to reconcile CAISO Supply and Demand charts. Their supply shows big curtailment for non-renewable sources, but the demand doesn’t. Nor do their totals seem to add up

I don't know how to reconcile that difference either. Imports and exports certainly play into it somewhere.

 

[Shygar]

Would it be worth it to put up some west facing vertical panels now?

 

[flamaest]

Would it be worth it to put up some west facing vertical panels now?

Only if you were going to also install BIG batteries. It is not worth it to install solar anymore.

 

[flamaest]

[QUOTE=" As someone else mentioned, solar customers could always self-consume and cancel their NEM agreement and just pay the $10 minimum. View attachment 452519View attachment 452519[/QUOTE]

Apparently PG&E is now monitoring people that have very large battery packs (40kwh+). They would force you to get on a different rate plan that would not be advantageous to you, if they learned that you have a huge battery.

And so, I would just not stay on NEM at all. Just give me a certified-used Tesla 85kwh Model S carpack + a 10kw solar array and I would just go off grid. Screw PGE.

 

[GenSao]

Would it be worth it to put up some west facing vertical panels now?

I am looking into that possibility. Especially if the (Solar system cost) / (Expected lifetime warrantied production) < (PG&E EV2A Off Peak Rate) * (0.90% Margin).

I wonder if adding more solar panels would kick me off EV-A into EV2-A?

 

[FlatSix911]

Given the surplus solar/renewable energy and poor ROI, does this really make sense...
Why California's new solar mandate could cost new homeowners up to an extra $10,000

Key Points

• California became the first state in the nation to make solar mandatory for new houses.
• Beginning in 2020, newly constructed homes must have solar panels, which could be costly for homeowners.
• The state estimates that the cost will be offset by savings on utility bills.
• Yet the added costs could hit “the affordable side of the market,” an expert told CNBC.

 

[miimura]

Apparently PG&E is now monitoring people that have very large battery packs (40kwh+). They would force you to get on a different rate plan that would not be advantageous to you, if they learned that you have a huge battery.

And so, I would just not stay on NEM at all. Just give me a certified-used Tesla 85kwh Model S carpack + a 10kw solar array and I would just go off grid. Screw PGE.

PG&E has implemented solar production monitoring in their billing system. All Paired Storage NEM customers will have their solar production estimated based on the information provided in their interconnection documents. Any exports in excess of their estimated solar production are disallowed and do not earn NEM credits. This prevents people from earning excess NEM credits by charging their batteries from Off-Peak and exporting into Peak.

This is merely enforcing the conditions that were stipulated in the interconnection agreement.