Tweet
As I wrote, I was told both formally and informally that tiered tares would be retired, but no one knew or would say when. As long as I'm an overgenerator (and will be until an EV comes along) and tiered rates are available to me as an NEM 1.0 user, I'm holding pat on tiered rates. I'll reconsider jumping ship to T.O.U. if/after an EV addition.
-
-
FWIW, after reading this helpful discussion, trying to wade through all the CPUC documents about NEM (without much success), and running various scenarios with my usage data, I signed up for DR-SES yesterday, and we'll see how that goes.
The blog post at http://blog.aurorasolar.com/an-impen...lar-customers/ suggests that this was clearly the right thing to do, but I think that's based on a major simplification of what's going to happen. For one thing, they compared DR and DR-SES to the experimental TOU-DR-E1, which is a crazy quilt of tiered/baseline allowance and TOU rates that was too complex for me to even try to model. I have no idea what will actually happen, nor, I suspect, does anyone else (except maybe SDGE and CPUC, and if they're saying I don't understand.)Comment
-
The sheet I last used, from miimura in the Tesla forum, already uses a binning logic for the tou with tiers which PG&E has used for a bit. Their latest TOU schedules eliminated the combo, but they kept it on the grandfathered E6 schedule even though its down to 2 tiers. He still has yet to figure out NBCs also as PG&Es bills have the least amount of explanation of NBCs charge (they just show a dollar amount, not a kwh they were applied to) and all my searcjng of their online docs yield onky generic nem details or still show nem1. Like you folks, we need more sample bills and are at the mercy of 1st tier phone reps who are not helpful when you arent on an Nem2 account (nor have one in front of you).Comment
-
Wow, i thought my sce rates are high, cant believe the rate for SD. The new tou rates is bs, 3-9pm, which mean 85%-95% of the power generated only have a credit of 16 cents which is less than half of the rate for peak hrs. I dont think solar will be a good option now at least not for people in sd.Comment
-
5 years is not enough since a new system can last at least 20 years and possibly 30 years. After 5 years, those power that generated from solar can only offset half of its value. No wonder JPM keep telling people solar is the most expensive way to reduce electricity bill since it does look like a 100% coverage system can offset a lot less now unless the majority of the electricity is used on those time that solar generated.Comment
-
The hit is more like 20-25%, depending on usage patterns, pushing cost effectiveness back to 2013ish levels if prices stay where they are.CS6P-260P/SE3000 - http://tiny.cc/ed5ozxComment
-
And it always was the most expensive way for most everyone. I'm about the biggest fan solar has, as well as one of the oldest, but I was never under any illusions that there are a lot more cost effective ways to reduce an electric bill.
The new tariff and rate time world we've entered will only reduce that cost effectiveness even more. Whether it's a 20-25 % reduction in offset revenue now under a particular tariff as I've estimated , or a 30-40% reduction in the NPV of possible system revenue over 10-20-30 ?? year span, fact is not only will residential PV become less cost effective under new rules, lengthening payback times, but the PITA hoops now needed to even figure out a bill under the new systems will only get worse.
It'll be interesting to see what kinds of convoluted gyrations in logic solar vendors and/or the rose colored glasses wearing, tree hugger crowd will conjure up to convince potential PV customers that the POCO's efforts at corrective measures with respect to plugging the leaks in their revenue streams from net metering will have no effect on residential PV cost effectiveness.
For both sides, it's just business. People who manage to use less electricity - and not simply replacing use with PV generation - will minimize the ability of either side to play them for fools and make money off their energy ignorance.Last edited by J.P.M.; 07-30-2017, 03:16 PM.Comment
-
I think we are going to have to see where things settle out in terms of installed prices in the San Diego area. If the lengthening of the break even changes purchasing demand, the sellers can choose to live with less sales, or they can forgo some of their margins to maintain sales / lessen loss of sales.
There still is an economic case to be made for installing solar. For example, here's my 8.04 kWh system @ $0.20 per kWh, which even after the TOU gyrations is the least I see a kWh likely to be valued: SDGE New.JPG
It's not going to be as fast to break even, but you will earn your money back and more.Last edited by CharlieEscCA; 07-30-2017, 07:05 PM.8.6 kWp roof (SE 7600 and 28 panels)Comment
-
First I want to ask your after tax credit cost of $15,913, does it include a 220A panel upgrade and or other stuffs? Is it just the solar panels itself and what brand is it? The best quote I am getting is a 5.94 Canadian Solar system with 18 panels (330W), A 220A panel upgrade, and 800 sq ft of my roof for $20,988 cash price before tax credit or $21,988 with a 8 year (5% financing). Also have another quote from the same company for 21 Panasonic panels with 220A panel upgrade and 800 sq ft of roof for $25,350 before tax credit or $26,350 with the same financing options. Do you guys think it is a good deal?
Going back to the cost effective of Solar panels, the main problem with solar right now is electricity company only make T.O.U. mandatory for solar customers, well at least at the SCE region and at this moment. So by going solar, people have to determine whether the money that invest in solar with T.O.U rate is still worth it. I do think electricity can only be more expensive in the future, and everyone will be on T.O.U structure, just do not know when. For my situation, my house doesn't have any attic and not much insulation, The costs of having an attic and insulation is more than the costs of the 18 cs panels, so I probably will still go with solar and get a few of the mini-split A/C to lower my electricity consumption rather down having the central A/C turn on for 10 hours a day.Comment
-
Panels / system is in my "tag line", but it is SolarEdge 7600A invertor, SolarEdge P400 optimizers, and 24 Hanwha Q.PLUS L-G4.2 335W 72 cell panels ground mount system. No panel upgrade.
System priced out just below $2.84 per DC watt installed, which was an excellent price for a professionally installed ground mount system in San Diego county.
I have a separate installation thread that I believe shows a proper professional installation (i.e. it wasn't a case of cut corners because of the price).
The system has been in for three months now and as best as I can tell is meeting the estimated monthly production estimates (May was under a little, June was over -- but this is all weather dependent). When I look at the efficiency figures at PVoutput, I'm at about 103% of a nearby neighbor 8 kW DC system, and I am pretty much right there with sensj's new installation -- though we have different weather so we will vary some (sometimes I might be a bit higher, and sometimes lower).
To me, the point is how long do you think you will own your system, and what the financing is costing you or what could you earn on the money if you are a cash buyer. JPM might differ, but ignoring present value discounting being applied to the lifetime per kWh calculation, in CA the $0.051 per kWh isn't going to be seen from any of the big three providers.
Everyone has to figure out for themselves if solar makes sense. I did not do it to be green. I did it for the green -- green $ that is.
Now of course, I may have spent my money foolishly, as my house will be put on the market sometime between April and June of next year. Based on the spreadsheet I'm keeping on use since the system went in, and the last two years of bills for the remainder of time until true up, I'm going to save roughly 4K in my one year of ownership, and a little bit more each month longer I'm in this house. I'll never know what extra if any my house will sell for because of solar, but I will have two years of before solar + one year of solar to show potential buyers, and I'm confident this will be a plus for the sale and not a negative.8.6 kWp roof (SE 7600 and 28 panels)Comment
-
It's called SDGE rates. Summer use of A/C, set to 78 degrees, turned off and windows opened once it cools down. Large house, all vaulted ceilings.
SDGE DR Rates.JPG
SDGE Baseline kWh.JPG
When you take you kWh used each month, and use these baseline allowances with these rates, it's easy to get to 4K in annual bills.
I was at 3K last year on 10000 kWh used before solar, when we only used A/C as a last resort and there was an unhappy spouse. And that 3K last year is with SDGE rates that were roughly 10% lower than the current rates (they raised rates and made the baseline allowances lower). Now, with solar, I set the A/C to 78, and have a happy wife. I'm tracking in a spreadsheet where I stand solar production wise and electric use -- so I know how much more I'm using now that A/C is allowed to run.
Under the tier rate structure (which I am not on because of grandfathered TOU favorability to solar production) my bill would have easily been 4K for this first year of solar, and probably even more than that (13900 kWh revenue wise under tier rates likely computes higher than 4K).
8.6 kWp roof (SE 7600 and 28 panels)Comment
-
Mike: I've got to mostly (but not entirely) agree with Charlie's numbers as to first year savings. Every situation is different. Looks like Charlie's example uses an 8.04 kW system's revenue against initial system cost. You can do the same if you will be working with a true T.O.U. tariff rate schedule, although your annual system revenue will be different because you will have a different system size and orientation and you'll be paying bills to a different POCO. If the tariff you choose is one that has the rates (per kWh) linked to the quantity of electricity you use in any billing period, estimating system revenue as Charlie has done ill not work as well for you.
The idea behind threating a PV system as a revenue generator works most easily and most universally when the tariff the customer uses is a true T.O.U. tariff and does not have any tier structure laid over it. I believe Charlie's tariff rate schedule is either DR-SES or EV-TOU. Those are, at this time anyway, true T.O.U. tariff structures. So, system hourly estimated output, whatever that may be, can be multiplied by whatever the tariff rate/kWh is for that hour, and voila', that's the value of the system's output to offset a bill, independent of what the residence uses for that hour. Repeating that for all 8,760 hours in a year gives an estimate of the value of a system's output.
Getting back to a comment to your question, usually, all costs of system acquisition, maintenance, tax considerations, cost of any financing and anything else affecting the economics are assigned a net present value. That sum is then compared to the net present value of the estimated bill reductions (savings) over however long you chose for a life cycle for the equipment. If those lifecycle costs are greater than the lifecycle savings, then the enterprise will not be cost effective under the conditions used. In such cases, the idea/project is either abandoned, or the conditions and assumptions examined with the idea of changing those conditions so that the net present value (NPV) of the project costs are equal to the NPV of the projected savings. For example, changing the estimated life of a system from, say, 12 years to 20 years usually has a significant (positive) impact on the savings but a much smaller impact on the NPV of the system (operating) costs. It also usually also lowers the NPV of the per kWh system costs because there will be something close to 20/12 times more kWh to spread those system costs over.
Bottom line: Every situation is different. You gotta' run your own numbers. Start with your load, what you pay per for that load, understanding how you pay for electricity, how that is changing, and balance the long term costs of any PV system against any estimated long term reductions in your electric bills that a system will produce. All this is mostly a matter of self education.
BTW, at some point, and probably soon, T.O.U. rates and tariffs will most likely be mandatory for all customers of I.O.U. POCOs in CA, not just those customers with PV systems.
Take what you want of the above. Scrap the rest.Last edited by J.P.M.; 07-31-2017, 11:13 AM.Comment
Comment