Question about PG&E miminum monthly charge & true-up

[sensij]

So here is my latest bill. I'll be honest, I haven't analyzed these yet to verify the billing accuracy/method. I've confirmed the kwh consumption/import totals against my estimates. My initial glance is "damn, that's a lot of numbers"... gotta dig through it now to verify they tie-out.

Sheesh! E-6 was already hard enough to figure with the baseline allocation to the TOU's. Maybe it will be more intuitive when the whole bill is under the same calculation.

[J.P.M.]

I have no shade and used the advanced settings which totaled to losses of 10.2% (close to the 10% I was advised to use). This was with 'Premium' panels and my actual roof slope of 18 degrees.

I only need about 2.5kW to cover my usage and am putting in 3kW because the trouble of adding to the system when we get an EV in a year or two seems to be more trouble than it is worth, so I should be fine to cover usage under E-6 in any case and will be interested to see how closely my actual 3kW system matches PV Watts...

Lot's of morning fog here in the Berkeley Hills, so that is the one wildcard in all of these models... (Don't imagine you need to worry much about fog n Fresno ).

As others have written, don't expect any model, PVWatts or other, to hit any short period of time with any accuracy. Read the PVWatts help/info screens and see the TMY manual for further information.

[wwu123]

Thanks. That response on the last point 4 tells me what I was looking for - if you deliver $120 less power over the course of the year than you cinsume (based on TOU pricing), you end up paying as little as possible for NEM, right? Inotherwords, you will pay $120 whether your net metering true up totals to $0 or to $120? Do I have that right?

Very sneaky, PGE. Did anyone notice that not only did the minimum charge change to be a minimum DELIVERY charge, but also in the past few months, they've not only raised rates but shifted the E-6 bundle mix heavily towards DISTRIBUTION instead of GENERATION? If I understand DISTRIBUTION to be same ad DELIVERY, then as recently as October, that was only about a third of total bundled price per kwh, but it's basically now about half (or even more during summer rates).

Before March 1, if your NEMS balance was $0-120, think of half as generation and half as delivery, but didn't matter because min charge was based on total energy, so you owe $120. So $120 was a good target to shoot for. But after March 1, if your NEMS balance is $120 at true up, only $60 is delivery, so for the year you'll owe $120 min for delivery and $60 for generation = $180.

In other words, you could previously use summer peak credits to offset off-peak usage at a 1hr to 3hr ratio, which is why you could zero or $120 out your annual bill. Now those credits are only offsetting the generation half of off-peak usage. So I think basically those who were close to zero'ing out a year ago are generally going to be paying closer to $240 rather than $120 with the latest development. Only once you start paying more than $240/year are you truly using all that you paid for.

[cebury]

Very sneaky, PGE. Did anyone notice that not only did the minimum charge change to be a minimum DELIVERY charge, but also in the past few months, they've not only raised rates but shifted the E-6 bundle mix heavily towards DISTRIBUTION instead of GENERATION? If I understand DISTRIBUTION to be same ad DELIVERY, then as recently as October, that was only about a third of total bundled price per kwh, but it's basically now about half (or even more during summer rates).

Before March 1, if your NEMS balance was $0-120, think of half as generation and half as delivery, but didn't matter because min charge was based on total energy, so you owe $120. So $120 was a good target to shoot for. But after March 1, if your NEMS balance is $120 at true up, only $60 is delivery, so for the year you'll owe $120 min for delivery and $60 for generation = $180.

In other words, you could previously use summer peak credits to offset off-peak usage at a 1hr to 3hr ratio, which is why you could zero or $120 out your annual bill. Now those credits are only offsetting the generation half of off-peak usage. So I think basically those who were close to zero'ing out a year ago are generally going to be paying closer to $240 rather than $120 with the latest development. Only once you start paying more than $240/year are you truly using all that you paid for.

Where did you get the info on the breakdown of the energy charge ratio? It looked more favorably than that on my bill, see the first attachment of my post a couple back. It showed my 8.54 energy breakdown as 1.52 in generation most of the rest was distribution, which I thought was being used interchangeably with "delivery".

[wwu123]

Where did you get the info on the breakdown of the energy charge ratio? It looked more favorably than that on my bill, see the first attachment of my post a couple back. It showed my 8.54 energy breakdown as 1.52 in generation most of the rest was distribution, which I thought was being used interchangeably with "delivery".

You go to the Regulation link of the About PG&E section of theri site, and under Tarffs and Rates you can download the detailed schedules for E-6 or other, which include a breakdown of the bundled rate. You can also find spreadsheets in that section of historic E-6 rates; however, they don't show the unbundling. AFAIK you can't get the historic versions of those PDF's rom their site, but I happened to have a version of the E-6 raffic from last fall that I'd downloaded as well.

I believe because only about 25% of your bill period was after March 1st, that basically you've got for the period after March 1st and distribution portion of about $2.00 and generation portion of about $1.52. We'll see in coming months, but I think we'll those both accrue at equal rates starting with the next bill, which willl have the whole bill period after March 1st.

[Fafrd]

Very sneaky, PGE. Did anyone notice that not only did the minimum charge change to be a minimum DELIVERY charge, but also in the past few months, they've not only raised rates but shifted the E-6 bundle mix heavily towards DISTRIBUTION instead of GENERATION? If I understand DISTRIBUTION to be same ad DELIVERY, then as recently as October, that was only about a third of total bundled price per kwh, but it's basically now about half (or even more during summer rates).

Before March 1, if your NEMS balance was $0-120, think of half as generation and half as delivery, but didn't matter because min charge was based on total energy, so you owe $120. So $120 was a good target to shoot for. But after March 1, if your NEMS balance is $120 at true up, only $60 is delivery, so for the year you'll owe $120 min for delivery and $60 for generation = $180.

In other words, you could previously use summer peak credits to offset off-peak usage at a 1hr to 3hr ratio, which is why you could zero or $120 out your annual bill. Now those credits are only offsetting the generation half of off-peak usage. So I think basically those who were close to zero'ing out a year ago are generally going to be paying closer to $240 rather than $120 with the latest development. Only once you start paying more than $240/year are you truly using all that you paid for.

Wow, this sounds like a major change in the rules - does it also apply to older customers that installed solar under more favorable terms?

I used the '1-hour-peak-for-3-hours-off-peak' of E-6 ratio to size my system, but if I understand what you have written correctly, that is now changed and the ratio is now halved because only half of the peak power rate is for power and the other half is for distribution (for which you pay PG&E when you consume, but they don't pay you when you generate to the grid).

To see if I understand what all of this means correctly, would appreciate clarification of the following scenarios:

1/ if you generate exactly what you consume, equal peak-to-peak, non-peak-to-non-peak (impossible, I know ), you will end up paying $120/year, right?

2/ if you generate 1/3 of full daily consumption during peak but only consume that power during off-peak, under the old rules you would have been at $0, but under the new rules you will only cut you energy bill by half (or $120, whichever is greater), is that about right?

3/ if you generate 2/3 of your daily consumption during peak and only consume off peak, you will offset your consumption charge and will owe PG&E the $120 minimum, correct?

4/ if you generate your full daily consumption during peak and only consume off-peak, you will offset your consumption charge with 2/3 of your generation, will owe the $120 minimum, but PG&E will pay you wholsale for the remaining 1/3 of your generation, slightly offsetting the $120 minimum, right?

Aside from wanting to be sure I understand the impact f this March 1 change, I am concerned that if they can change this once, they can change it again. I thought part of the rules of engagement on this entire solar thing was being able to count on stable rates for 25 or at least 10 years.

[sensij]

No no no. The change only applies to the minimum bill calculation. Full retail credit (generation and delivery) is given for all generated energy in excess of the minimum delivery charge each month.

[Fafrd]

No no no. The change only applies to the minimum bill calculation. Full retail credit (generation and delivery) is given for all generated energy in excess of the minimum delivery charge each month.

Glad I asked. So you get the full '3-hours-peak-credit-for-3-hours-off-peak-consumption' (whew!) and if that offsets perfectly, you will have an annual bill of $120, is that correct?

And if you over-produce, you will be compensated at wholesale which will slightly reduce this $120 minimum, right?

And so it is only the underproduction scenario that has changed. If you are under by $120, your annual bill will not be just the minimum of $120, but more than that ($180?).

According to PV Watts, my system should be sufficient to more than cover my total annual usage, so aside from the $120 annual minimum, it doesn't look like this change will have much impact on me (just possibly reduces incentive to ever add to the system).

[cebury]

Where did you get the info on the breakdown of the energy charge ratio? It looked more favorably than that on my bill, see the first attachment of my post a couple back. It showed my 8.54 energy breakdown as 1.52 in generation most of the rest was distribution, which I thought was being used interchangeably with "delivery".

You might be right about that, since you noticed correctly it's only 8 days worth in March. I'll check it out next month for sure.

[cebury]

1. And if you over-produce, you will be compensated at wholesale which will slightly reduce this $120 minimum, right?

2. And so it is only the underproduction scenario that has changed. If you are under by $120, your annual bill will not be just the minimum of $120, but more than that ($180?).
.

1. This is incorrect. Any net generation credits at TrueUp are zero'do out, not paid back to you at wholesale rate. 120 minimum always applies, that's why they charge you monthly for that amount regardless if you overgenerated that month.

2. It may be over 120 or may be more, but not less. The real question here is: how much more will it really be since it's based on delivery charges before tax, not total minimum bill.

[wwu123]

Glad I asked. So you get the full '3-hours-peak-credit-for-3-hours-off-peak-consumption' (whew!) and if that offsets perfectly, you will have an annual bill of $120, is that correct?

And if you over-produce, you will be compensated at wholesale which will slightly reduce this $120 minimum, right?

And so it is only the underproduction scenario that has changed. If you are under by $120, your annual bill will not be just the minimum of $120, but more than that ($180?).

According to PV Watts, my system should be sufficient to more than cover my total annual usage, so aside from the $120 annual minimum, it doesn't look like this change will have much impact on me (just possibly reduces incentive to ever add to the system).

Yes, my interpretation is it's mainly the slight underproduction scenarios that are affected. If you're overproducing in excess of actual usage, it's always going to be just the min charge, which is $120. If you're underproducing such that you're buying more than $240 a year, about half of that is $120 in delivery charges, so also not affected.

But if you're like me where you're buying around $120 a year, you'll be paying closer to $180 instead of $120. If you were buying about $60/year, which was where the old minimums were, you'll be paying more like $150. If you were buying $180, you'll be paying around $210. That's my interpretation.

[cebury]

Yes, my interpretation is it's mainly the slight underproduction scenarios that are affected. If you're overproducing in excess of actual usage, it's always going to be just the min charge, which is $120. If you're underproducing such that you're buying more than $240 a year, about half of that is $120 in delivery charges, so also not affected.

But if you're like me where you're buying around $120 a year, you'll be paying closer to $180 instead of $120. If you were buying about $60/year, which was where the old minimums were, you'll be paying more like $150. If you were buying $180, you'll be paying around $210. That's my interpretation.

These numbers sound right if the assumptions were making are true (basing the minimum off delivery charge of ~50% energy rates).

If that assumption holds, In essence the new "effective" minimum can be interpreted as between 120 and 240. It's $120 if you were exactly net equal/zero production, no minimum applies if you paid TrueUp $240 worth of kWh.

[wwu123]

These numbers sound right if the assumptions were making are true (basing the minimum off delivery charge of ~50% energy rates).

If that assumption holds, In essence the new "effective" minimum can be interpreted as between 120 and 240. It's $120 if you were exactly net equal/zero production, no minimum applies if you paid TrueUp $240 worth of kWh.

50% is a working approximation, in some TOU periods it's more, in some it's less. During winter it's pretty evenly split though. Here's the actual unbundling for each TOU period, for baseline tier:

Energy Rates by Component ($ per kWh) PEAK PART-PEAK OFF-PEAK
Generation:
Summer $0.21338 (R) $0.11209 (R) $0.07075 (R)
Winter – $0.09370 (R) $0.08233 (R)
Distribution**: (T)
Summer $0.24992 (I) $0.09997 (I) $0.04998 (I)
Winter – $0.09605 (I) $0.06403 (I)

Oh wait, thats a lot more than the total bundled rate, they've also broken out another modifier

Conservation Incentive Adjustment:
Summer
Baseline Usage ($0.16898) (R) ($0.03301) (R) ($0.01846) (R)
Winter
Baseline Usage – ($0.06631) (R) ($0.03975) (R)

and then add about $0.04 in misc fees, which includes Transmission. So what portions are really part of Delivery Charges, and how does the negative adjustments for Conservation affect it? I have no idea now...

EDIT: OK, read further and minimum delivery charge seems to be everything except Generation and Conservation.

[cebury]

I pulled up the corresponding tariffs and you were correct and my most recent bill calculation was correct per the minimum rules and E6.

Though we still need to confirm someone's TrueUp for overproduction, aka net generator, to verify the credit handling (or lack thereof).

[philips]

Yes, I'll be interested in your observations as the new calculation kicks in. I'll have my SDG&E true up later this week, but based on how things seem to go, it would not surprise me if SDG&E's calculation changes and follows what PG&E's has become.

Sensij, please let us know how the minimum charge works out for SDG&E when you get your true up statement if you don't mind. I'm still not 100% sure how that works.

Philip (from the Opto mixer)

[ltbighorn]

Maybe. You can track the cap here:

http://www.pge.com/en/mybusiness/sav...ing/index.page

Simple math says 492 / 50 = 10 months left (as of the end of Feb), so waiting until the end of the year could be too late if there is any increase in installation rate as the deadline approaches.

Some of the historical NEM allocation rates are below, although I haven't updated in a few months. SDG&E's deadline is close enough that there isn't much mystery left to when it will be hit, and NEM 1.1 does not look like it is going to be so awful that rash decisions should be made. For PG&E, the last four months showed (682-492) = 190 MW cap allocation / 4 mo = 48 MW/mo rate.

https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum...-sdg-e-nem-cap

sensij,

Thanks for the info. Can you help me understand how the "Total NEM Requests Pending" on the PG&E tracking page relates to the remaining MW to cap? As of 4/24, the tracking page says 396.04 MW remaining to cap (NEM CAP minus (Cumulative MW installed under NEM + NEW MW In Queue)).

But further down on the page, it lists "Total NEW Requests Pending as of 4/24" as 432.15 MW. This is described as "Total Submitted requests pending customer action such as providing final building permit to PG&E", and "Remaining MWs to NEM Cap Assuming All Pending Requests on the Line Immediately Complete their Projects...." 0.0 MW. I thought people couldn't submit until they had been inspected already? What is the relevance of this number?

Basically I was hoping to get solar installed concurrent with the reroofing of my home, but it looks like my roofer wouldn't be able to start until about June 22nd. From reading the discussions here, it sounds like at 50 MW/month there'd be a little under 8 months remaining -- or roughly Dec 2016. At 80 MW/m it'd still be ~5 months (September0. Basically wondering if I signed for roof & solar install for late June, whether I'm likely to miss NEM 1.0 or have some breathing room. I don't plan to wait any longer, but if July turn-on is too late then my options may be limited.

NEM 2.0 doesn't look that bad, but I'm worried that without the 20 year grandfathering into NEM 1.0, I'll be exposed to more extreme tweaking of some sort that I haven't anticipated, which might turn things upside-down. I'm in SF proper, for what it's worth.

Edit: also, I've seen a 7/1/2016 deadline tossed around. I thought it was 7/1/2017 -- are there any date-based deadlines this year that matter?

Thanks!