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

[wwhitney]

This prevents people from earning excess NEM credits by charging their batteries from Off-Peak and exporting into Peak.

It prevents people from charging their batteries Off-Peak from the grid and exporting into Peak, in an amount in excess of their solar generation. As far as I know, it would be allowed to charge the batteries Off-Peak from solar and export that solar production from the batteries into the grid during Peak. Unfortunately, the Powerwalls do not support solar generation time shifting.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Oyinko]

Does anyone know where I could find the prices that PGE would buy back solar generation based on the rate plans and time of the day?

 

[GenSao]

Does anyone know where I could find the prices that PGE would buy back solar generation based on the rate plans and time of the day?

@Oyinko ,

Through Net Energy Metering (NEM), PG&E will buy back solar generation based on your current Time of Use (TOU) or Electric Vehicle (EV) rate schedule. Surplus solar generation (in excess of 100% of your home use) is paid at the wholesale rate (currently $0.032 / KWH).

 

[Ulmo]

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

Thank you! I couldn't make heads or tails of it. They put the Product category under "Billing".

 

[Ulmo]

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.

Yes, exactly, and this is something I've been shouting about for years on here, and you put my mouth where your action is by actually building out such projects (mostly at work parking lots). Followup is even more buildout of plugs and rate plans, as you say, via the free market (in this case, a government run ISO market), so that the cheaper daytime energy can be used up that way. It is absolutely insane today that we have this huge surplus of energy during the middle of the day that is actually charged at a higher rate than the times that PG&E has a huge deficit of energy available.

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.

If the mandate was upgraded to also require an equal or greater amount of battery, whether fixed or via daytime car charging, then it would make sense. The daytime car charging could be a certified reserved plug for that homeowner with their own owned EV during sunlight hours, and if they're not retired, that would require a form filled in by their boss with their hours they work, and if they don't work 7 days a week, then would also require home charging that charges from sun. That would require software upgrades and CPUC rate plan upgrades, as already discussed by @miimura a few posts above, but that's all software and paperwork, not hardware, at that point.

Since many homes are made by developers and sold later, the devs could either put in fixed batteries, or sell the homes with a requirement that the buyer either also pay for fixed batteries or get the certs for their EVs. Obviously, this would push more daytime charging EV sales greatly.

Why this hasn't already happened is why I point at the one-party Democrat system as totally corrupt on the environment.

 

[Merle]

@Oyinko ,

Through Net Energy Metering (NEM), PG&E will buy back solar generation based on your current Time of Use (TOU) or Electric Vehicle (EV) rate schedule. Surplus solar generation (in excess of 100% of your home use) is paid at the wholesale rate (currently $0.032 / KWH).

Three cents?!?

They charge $0.25 per kWh already!!! And it scales up from there depending on how many tiers you traipse through.

 

[ucmndd]

Three cents?!?

They charge $0.25 per kWh already!!! And it scales up from there depending on how many tiers you traipse through.

Semantics are important here, and lots of people get this wrong. Just so it's clear:

If your solar array produces more power than your house uses over the entire year - i.e. you've generated more than you've consumed at your annual true-up - PGE buys that excess energy from you at 3 cents/kwh.

Real-time overproduction (i.e. you're producing 10kw during peak daylight in the summer but your house is only consuming 7kw) - is credited to you at the current retail rate you'd be paying at that moment.

 

[R1Bill]

Semantics are important here, and lots of people get this wrong. Just so it's clear:

If your solar array produces more power than your house uses over the entire year - i.e. you've generated more than you've consumed at your annual true-up - PGE buys that excess energy from you at 3 cents/kwh.

Real-time overproduction (i.e. you're producing 10kw during peak daylight in the summer but your house is only consuming 7kw) - is credited to you at the current retail rate you'd be paying at that moment.

And you'd need a stupid amount of solar to actually get paid for excess production. Besides, if you do, the panels degrade quickly enough that you won't be selling them back power at true-up for very long!

 

[Shygar]

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?

Hmm, PG&E should only care about a different sized inverter right? In theory couldn't you hook up panels like this to the same inverter, since you won't be going over your peak anyways.

 

[miimura]

Hmm, PG&E should only care about a different sized inverter right? In theory couldn't you hook up panels like this to the same inverter, since you won't be going over your peak anyways.

PG&E cares about the panels too. I was looking into swapping out my panels for ones with higher wattage on the same microinverters as an upgrade. At least for the purpose of NEM 1.0 compliance with repair and upgrade requirements (without being kicked up into NEM 2), the CEC AC Rating of the system is what matters. That calculation is the number of panels times the Panel PTC Rating times the CEC Inverter Efficiency. The size of the inverter relative to the panels doesn't enter into the equation.

If you are already on NEM 2 and just want to fatten up your generation curve on your existing string inverter, I'm sure it can be done as long as you stay within the Voc limits.

 

[Odiemac]

And you'd need a stupid amount of solar to actually get paid for excess production. Besides, if you do, the panels degrade quickly enough that you won't be selling them back power at true-up for very long!

I guess it depends on your power usage. We use 12,000 kwh a year and are guaranteed to generate 20,000 in the first year. After year 25, the panels are guaranteed to have at least 80% of their generation ability, or 16,000 kWh a year.

Not only that, but this “stupid” amount of solar with three Powerwalls is only costing us 26cents a kWh amortizing the full system over just 10 years. That’s less than we’d be paying for regular PG&E service at current rates, let along what they’ll have to jack prices to 10 years from now. Solar capacity cost has gone down since we installed last year, as well.

Easy Bay Community CCA will probably pay us back ~$1,200 this year for power production, which I didn’t figure into the above costs. Not sure that’s sustainable over 10 years.

 

[miimura]

Easy Bay Community CCA will probably pay us back ~$1,200 this year for power production, which I didn’t figure into the above costs. Not sure that’s sustainable over 10 years.

There is an obvious solution to this - PG&E just has to convince the CPUC that generation costs are going down and transmission and distribution costs are going up. The CCA will mirror this and shrink your reimbursement because generation rates are going down.

Of course, by solution, I mean new scam for PG&E.

 

[Odiemac]

There is an obvious solution to this - PG&E just has to convince the CPUC that generation costs are going down and transmission and distribution costs are going up. The CCA will mirror this and shrink your reimbursement because generation rates are going down.

Of course, by solution, I mean new scam for PG&E.

Oh yeah, no way that PG$E and the CPUC will allow individuals to play in the power market as producers for long!

I don’t see that necessarily as an issue unless they start jacking up minimum connection charges, which I’m sure they’ll do. Then just cancel NEM agreement and find fun ways to use power during the day. Heat a hot tub? Pre-cool the house with AC to 64? Grow marijuana indoors? Mine bitcoins? Who knows!

Since PG&E can’t seem to deliver power safely for less than 26 cents a kWh, technology will allow a market based economy into even heavily regulated markets like CA for the first time. Hard to see how they reverse the flow of progress on this over the long haul.

 

[Baxter]

So is it even worth installing Solar now if things are changing???

 

[miimura]

So is it even worth installing Solar now if things are changing???

Yes, absolutely. The whole point of solar is to avoid paying money to PG&E. For that, it is good and it is unlikely to change in a meaningful way.

Honestly, I am just disappointed that my sweetheart deal is becoming less lucrative. I just looked at my solar + Powerwall true-up that happened in April. This was the first year with Powerwalls and my 7th year with solar. I was billed a total of $901.25 for the year and I used 9,214 kWh more than I generated. That is a net cost of $0.0978/kWh billed. That is less than the Off-Peak price in the tariff. With this change, if we assume the year after I am changed to the EV2-A rate is what PG&E has forecast, I will be paying $1,290 / 9,214 = $0.14/kWh. This is barely above the Off-Peak rate. I probably actually consumed 14,300kWh, so if you divide the forecast total cost by that usage, it only comes to $1,290 / 14,300 = $0.0902/kWh.

If you add in all my capital costs for solar and Powerwalls and pay it back fully amortized with a 10 year 5% HELOC, the payment is about $212/mo. So, ($212*12 + $1,290) / 14,300 = $0.268/kWh Compare that to E-1 Baseline cost of $0.22376/kWh and 101%-400% of Baseline at $0.28159. So, I am month to month basically break even and then after 10 years, my equipment is paid for and the generation is basically free.

 

[ChrisJ]

There is an obvious solution to this - PG&E just has to convince the CPUC that generation costs are going down and transmission and distribution costs are going up. The CCA will mirror this and shrink your reimbursement because generation rates are going down.

Of course, by solution, I mean new scam for PG&E.

If you look at the current/new rate plans that's exactly what they've done for almost every data point.

For example,

EV-A Summer rates:
Peak - Generation = $0.27893, Distribution = $0.20216
Partial - G = $0.13442, D = $0.10108
Off-Peak - G = $0.06755, D = $0.01456

EV2-A Summer rates:
Peak - Generation = $0.18605 , Distribution = $0.23512
Partial - G = $0.14134, D = 0.16934
Off-Peak - G = $0.10020, D = $0.00847

 

[ChrisJ]

We’re finalizing our solar plans and need to decide this weekend where we’re installing the panels (South vs. West). We can do either as the roof is symmetrical / squished pyramid with equal sides, and the house is almost perfectly aligned NESW.

Our installer is adamant that West is best, and I still see this as the consensus in a lot of threads even with the pending forced rate changes (We will be grandfathered in on EV-A for a few more years.)

I wasn’t convinced about installing on the West side and wanted real data to base our decision on. I decided to model a few scenarios using our historical yearly hourly usage and forecast production values from pvwatts.com for both directions.

Our installation will not be that big, just 5.23kW system. South facing it should produce in excess of 8100 kWh and West 7500 kWh.

Applying the rates to usage/production - Across all rates and orientation there wasn’t a big difference between South vs. West on any of the rate plans. I think it’s probably due to our usage pattern being at home most of the day.

No surprise that our current EV-A rate won in dollars by a big margin. EV-2A was useless (40% less return) and I can’t see any reason to stay on it, unless maybe batteries and more solar would make a difference. The only redeeming thing was that if we didn’t go solar our bill would probably stay about the same if we switched to EV2-A (factoring in new rates increases on EV-A).

After EV-A the next best was E-TOU-A, and this is probably what we’ll eventually move to unless there’s more shenanigans from PG&E.

My main goal of the experiment was to decide between South or West, and I have my answer. South creates almost 680 kWh more per year. Just on the carbon footprint reduction and helping the planet, this option makes sense, and on the financial side it’s a break even on dollars banked.

I was a little surprised by the results and curious if others have either done similar calculations or seen it in real life? I’m reviewing my calculations now in case I’m missing something, but I think it may be because we’re at home during the day and not benefiting from banking dollars on EV-A solar production during the afternoon.

 

[wwhitney]

Does your cost modeling take into account NBCs under NEM2? Because unless you consider NEM2 NBCs, or you have Powerwalls for time-shifting, then under NEM your usage pattern is immaterial to the economically optimal generation choice. The two are decoupled.

In the long run, adding West facing solar is likely to be better for society in terms of balancing the grid. It's not clear to me that the extra 680 kWh/year the South facing option would generate will displace CO2 generating production.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[mblakele]

We’re finalizing our solar plans and need to decide this weekend where we’re installing the panels (South vs. West). We can do either as the roof is symmetrical / squished pyramid with equal sides, and the house is almost perfectly aligned NESW.

Our installer is adamant that West is best, and I still see this as the consensus in a lot of threads even with the pending forced rate changes (We will be grandfathered in on EV-A for a few more years.)

I wasn’t convinced about installing on the West side and wanted real data to base our decision on. I decided to model a few scenarios using our historical yearly hourly usage and forecast production values from pvwatts.com for both directions.

Our installation will not be that big, just 5.23kW system. South facing it should produce in excess of 8100 kWh and West 7500 kWh.

Applying the rates to usage/production - Across all rates and orientation there wasn’t a big difference between South vs. West on any of the rate plans. I think it’s probably due to our usage pattern being at home most of the day.

Being at home most of the day is atypical. I suppose you use a fair amount of A/C, especially in summer? Do you keep running your A/C after sunset?

One risk of any modeling exercise is that rate plans will change. The duck curve's belly keeps fattening toward zero net demand at solar noon, and the net demand ramp-up around sunset keeps getting steeper. Expect PG&E and other utilities to keep adjusting rates to reflect that, making south-facing panels look worse and west-facing panels look better.

 

[ChrisJ]

Right now we're very frugal on A/C and very rarely use it during the day, and use it maybe 3 or 4 times a year when it's unbearable at night. We plan on using it more with the extra capacity built into our solar.