PG&E Rate Schedule Change
A good friend in California just installed a photovoltaic system on his garage. Before he could send pics, though, he got a disturbing rate change:
(T)he change to E6 is infinitely more complicated in an overzealous attempt to appear optimized for solar installers. In the summer . . . (c)ustomers may actually eek out a little extra credits in summer with E6 over E7. But take a look at Winter. The peak period disappears. Now instead of making 4X times your money every workday noon-6, instead you get a "partial peak" that pays like 1.5X and it’s when the sun isn’t even shining. . . .
I haven't looked at his spreadsheet yet since he posted it in Excel format. Still, his reasoning is sound: "PG&E is a utility. A business. I don’t have a problem with them trying to stay profitable, but don’t outright lie about how the new “solar friendly” E6 schedule is better for solar customers than the E7 schedule you’re dropping."
Here's the real problem. As a utility, PG&E only makes money when they buy power at a low rate and sell power for more. The E7 schedule (Time of Use metering) quadruples the rate for peak times. Those that use TOU must offset their power use during the expensive times in order to save money on their bill. This offset helps PG&E avoid purchasing additional power supply during peak, a time when the wholesale suppliers get to charge as much as they can. The savings for a typical E7 rate payer becomes a zero-sum game, trying to shift consumption to the lesser rate.
Combining solar and TOU metering, though, works just a bit too well. TOU was designed to limit consumption, not encourage premium-priced production. While they do need the extra power when the sun shines and all those AC units chug along, I doubt the utility can afford paying $.29/KwHr for power delivered to consumers paying regular rate.
Folks, situations like this will continue to upset those who wish to go solar but cannot afford the uncertainty of the payback period. We need to abolish the Balkanized incentive system and replace it with a national renewable energy premium, one paid for not by utilities (who may opt out), but by national money intended to jump-start our renewable energy infrastructure. Such a program would have a better long-term effect on our national economy than three hundred bones of spending money.
(T)he change to E6 is infinitely more complicated in an overzealous attempt to appear optimized for solar installers. In the summer . . . (c)ustomers may actually eek out a little extra credits in summer with E6 over E7. But take a look at Winter. The peak period disappears. Now instead of making 4X times your money every workday noon-6, instead you get a "partial peak" that pays like 1.5X and it’s when the sun isn’t even shining. . . .
I haven't looked at his spreadsheet yet since he posted it in Excel format. Still, his reasoning is sound: "PG&E is a utility. A business. I don’t have a problem with them trying to stay profitable, but don’t outright lie about how the new “solar friendly” E6 schedule is better for solar customers than the E7 schedule you’re dropping."
Here's the real problem. As a utility, PG&E only makes money when they buy power at a low rate and sell power for more. The E7 schedule (Time of Use metering) quadruples the rate for peak times. Those that use TOU must offset their power use during the expensive times in order to save money on their bill. This offset helps PG&E avoid purchasing additional power supply during peak, a time when the wholesale suppliers get to charge as much as they can. The savings for a typical E7 rate payer becomes a zero-sum game, trying to shift consumption to the lesser rate.
Combining solar and TOU metering, though, works just a bit too well. TOU was designed to limit consumption, not encourage premium-priced production. While they do need the extra power when the sun shines and all those AC units chug along, I doubt the utility can afford paying $.29/KwHr for power delivered to consumers paying regular rate.
Folks, situations like this will continue to upset those who wish to go solar but cannot afford the uncertainty of the payback period. We need to abolish the Balkanized incentive system and replace it with a national renewable energy premium, one paid for not by utilities (who may opt out), but by national money intended to jump-start our renewable energy infrastructure. Such a program would have a better long-term effect on our national economy than three hundred bones of spending money.