Future of TOU plans for CA IOU's

[sensij]

I was just catching up on the CPUC filings for Proceeding R1206013, and came across a nice snippet in the CPUC's "alternate proposal" discussing potential changes to TOU plans that had been designed to promote residential PV (starting on page 135).

It looks like TOU-D-T for SCE, TOU-DR for SDG&E, and E-6, E7, E-8, EL-7, and EL-8 for PG&E are the plans most at risk over the next couple years.

Vote Solar appears to be strongly advocating that residential PV customers are ignorant and need to be protected from any future rate or structural plan changes, except for increases based more or less on inflation. The IOU's reject that and maintain that at no time should rate structure ever be assumed fixed and unchanging, and they are losing money on some of these plans. Looks like CPUC is looking for middle ground with transition periods of a couple of years. However, for those who are on a TOU plan that is already closed to new customers, the timelines to transiting could be shorter.

For those of us with EV based TOU plans, it looks like there is a bit more support at CPUC for protecting the benefits of these plans (page 161):

Based on the record in this proceeding, we direct the utilities to adhere to the following TOU opt-in rate design guidelines going forward:
...
(2) Include a baseline credit and/or an excess consumption surcharge in all opt-in TOU rates except those designed to encourage switching to electricity from other more carbon-intensive fuels (e.g., electric vehicle (EV) rates), and in a limited number of pilots.
...

Since I live in San Diego and am most interested in what SDG&E is doing, it is worth noting that they win the prize as the first CA IOU to propose residential demand pricing, similar to what the AZ utilities are about to dump onto their solar customers. CPUC is solidly rejecting it at this time, but leaves the door open for accepting it a some point in the future (maybe 5 years?).

The new TOU periods proposed by SDG&E (non-EV plans) are (page 168):

Summer on-peak:
2 p.m. – 9 p.m. non-holiday weekdays
Winter on-peak:
5 p.m. - 9 p.m. non-holiday weekdays
Super off-peak:
12 a.m. – 6 a.m. daily
Semi-peak:
All other times

All of this is still very unsettled still, but there does seem to be some convergence when looking at the proposals offered by CPUC so far.

[SunEagle]

I was just catching up on the CPUC filings for Proceeding R1206013, and came across a nice snippet in the CPUC's "alternate proposal" discussing potential changes to TOU plans that had been designed to promote residential PV (starting on page 135).

It looks like TOU-D-T for SCE, TOU-DR for SDG&E, and E-6, E7, E-8, EL-7, and EL-8 for PG&E are the plans most at risk over the next couple years.

Vote Solar appears to be strongly advocating that residential PV customers are ignorant and need to be protected from any future rate or structural plan changes, except for increases based more or less on inflation. The IOU's reject that and maintain that at no time should rate structure ever be assumed fixed and unchanging, and they are losing money on some of these plans. Looks like CPUC is looking for middle ground with transition periods of a couple of years. However, for those who are on a TOU plan that is already closed to new customers, the timelines to transiting could be shorter.

For those of us with EV based TOU plans, it looks like there is a bit more support at CPUC for protecting the benefits of these plans (page 161):



Since I live in San Diego and am most interested in what SDG&E is doing, it is worth noting that they win the prize as the first CA IOU to propose residential demand pricing, similar to what the AZ utilities are about to dump onto their solar customers. CPUC is solidly rejecting it at this time, but leaves the door open for accepting it a some point in the future (maybe 5 years?).

The new TOU periods proposed by SDG&E (non-EV plans) are (page 168):



All of this is still very unsettled still, but there does seem to be some convergence when looking at the proposals offered by CPUC so far.

Sounds pretty complicated for most average consumers (like me) to understand. Makes it hard to decide which plan to go to.

[J.P.M.]

Sounds pretty complicated for most average consumers (like me) to understand. Makes it hard to decide which plan to go to.

+1.

As a long(er) range outlook, one of the many things to consider is that while we consumers like predictability in most everything, so does the POCO. Unfortunately for everyone (POCOs included), reality doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately or not, POCOs seem better at long range planning, perhaps leading some less informed consumers to see the game as rigged.

POCO rate policy, in one sense at least, is a road map for them based on prediction.

One thing those of us (who - me ??) who rant and banter about long time frames and cost effectiveness often forget to mention/remember is that long outlooks are usually no more/less likely to happen than something like the probability of the assumptions we use. And, as the well used caveat states, past performance is no guarantee of future results, so the past is of limited help. A future full of chaos or bliss can happen. A future containing some of both may have a higher probability.

I'd bet energy policy on most every level - homeowner, to POCO, to government level will be different in say, 5-10 years in ways unseen today. Probably the best I can do as a user of POCO product is stay informed (example: at this time, I can change POCO rate plans with some restrictions), make plans (take my best shot), keep the plans flexible when the inevitable surprises happen, have situational awareness and expect the unexpected without being so pessimistic that I miss opportunities as they may occur.

Fortune favors the bold and penalizes the foolish.

[SunEagle]

+1.

As a long(er) range outlook, one of the many things to consider is that while we consumers like predictability in most everything, so does the POCO. Unfortunately for everyone (POCOs included), reality doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately or not, POCOs seem better at long range planning, perhaps leading some less informed consumers to see the game as rigged.

POCO rate policy, in one sense at least, is a road map for them based on prediction.

One thing those of us (who - me ??) who rant and banter about long time frames and cost effectiveness often forget to mention/remember is that long outlooks are usually no more/less likely to happen than something like the probability of the assumptions we use. And, as the well used caveat states, past performance is no guarantee of future results, so the past is of limited help. A future full of chaos or bliss can happen. A future containing some of both may have a higher probability.

I'd bet energy policy on most every level - homeowner, to POCO, to government level will be different in say, 5-10 years in ways unseen today. Probably the best I can do as a user of POCO product is stay informed (example: at this time, I can change POCO rate plans with some restrictions), make plans (take my best shot), keep the plans flexible when the inevitable surprises happen, have situational awareness and expect the unexpected without being so pessimistic that I miss opportunities as they may occur.

Fortune favors the bold and penalizes the foolish.

I agree. Staying informed on what changes are being made or envisioned to your POCO tariffs should help you find the best direction to take. Just complaining about what the POCO is doing it is almost as bad as sticking your head in the sand.

The uninformed will just move and flow like the tide for better or worse.

[Cosmacelf]

It isn't only residential the utilities are targeting. My business just got a letter warning us that TOU pricing is coming to commercial accounts.

With these proposed new TOU times:

Summer on-peak: 2 p.m. – 9 p.m. non-holiday weekdays
Winter on-peak: 5 p.m. - 9 p.m. non-holiday weekdays
Super off-peak:12 a.m. – 6 a.m. daily
Semi-peak:All other times

This pretty much makes battery systems cost effective. Depends on the pricing, of course, but I suspect the difference between peak and semi peak will be more than enough to justify batteries...

[SunEagle]

I would agree that using an alternate power source to reduce using the POCO during Peak times might make sense if those Peak rates are higher than what the alternate power source can generate.

Most batteries systems generate power > $0.50/kWh which is much more then the highest Tier that most POCO's charge.

Usually a less costly way to save during Peak times is to find a way to reduce your load or shift it to a lower Tier rate.

[sensij]

Further complicating it, many commercial plans include a demand based component, so costs are not just based on volume, but also peak consumption. If alternate power can help shave that peak demand, the financial justification for it is strengthened.

[J.P.M.]

For SDG & E at least, the plan seems to be to make T.O.U. pricing mandatory at some future point for commercial customers, and opt out required but possible for residential cust.

Demand charges for comm./industrial has been around for a long time. It's now probably going to apply to more users.

For the time being and until storage methods become mainstream, load shifting and conservation may be more cost effective as a temp. expedient.

[SunEagle]

Further complicating it, many commercial plans include a demand based component, so costs are not just based on volume, but also peak consumption. If alternate power can help shave that peak demand, the financial justification for it is strengthened.

I agree "peak demand penalties" can cost a company a lot more then just running at a higher Tier rate and should be the first target in reducing costs.

From my past experience turning off a "non essential" load for 15 minutes to clip the peak demand is very easy to do and very low cost.

Switching to a different power source may not the best way to reduce demand penalties because of the initial equipment cost for that alternate power source and the required maintenance to keep it in working order.

[sensij]

C'mon guys, nothing in my post said a particular course of action is or is not cost effective at this time. I'm just pointing out that market forces are pushing pricing towards TOU with demand and volumetric components, and this direction is consistent with what *could* justify investment in alternate source of energy. It seems like... i don't know, maybe 10-20 years from now?... energy storage will be a real thing, and whether it is occurring upstream at the utility scale or in a more distributed arrangement, starting to build awareness and education now will help people make more informed decisions when the time comes that there are reasonable choices to be made.

[SunEagle]

C'mon guys, nothing in my post said a particular course of action is or is not cost effective at this time. I'm just pointing out that market forces are pushing pricing towards TOU with demand and volumetric components, and this direction is consistent with what *could* justify investment in alternate source of energy. It seems like... i don't know, maybe 10-20 years from now?... energy storage will be a real thing, and whether it is occurring upstream at the utility scale or in a more distributed arrangement, starting to build awareness and education now will help people make more informed decisions when the time comes that there are reasonable choices to be made.

I agree with you. Getting a better understanding of how electric costs can change and affect you is the right step to make.

[DanKegel]

C'mon guys, nothing in my post said a particular course of action is or is not cost effective at this time. I'm just pointing out that market forces are pushing pricing towards TOU with demand and volumetric components,

For the time being and until storage methods become mainstream, load shifting and conservation may be more cost effective as a temp. expedient.

+1

The trend also seems to be towards "smart" meters. A utility that has converted all its residential customers to smart meters has no technical reason not to impose demand charges and TOU pricing.

It occurs to me that in areas open to competition, like zipcode 77024 in Texas (see http://www.powertochoose.org/ ), scrappy little providers might be able to jump in and experiment with different pricing models much more quickly than big utilities (e.g. really low rates for people whose houses have really good demand mangement). I wonder if that's happening.

[J.P.M.]

C'mon guys, nothing in my post said a particular course of action is or is not cost effective at this time. I'm just pointing out that market forces are pushing pricing towards TOU with demand and volumetric components, and this direction is consistent with what *could* justify investment in alternate source of energy. It seems like... i don't know, maybe 10-20 years from now?... energy storage will be a real thing, and whether it is occurring upstream at the utility scale or in a more distributed arrangement, starting to build awareness and education now will help people make more informed decisions when the time comes that there are reasonable choices to be made.

And I don't see what's being written here as challenging that.

Back at post # 5 we sort of got off what started as a post about T.O.U. developments and on to what the future holds in the way of cost effective options relating mostly to storage.

In the opinion of some, T.O.U. along with energy storage at all levels is going to happen. And probably lots more we are clueless about at this time.

Perhaps a couple of takeaways:

Get/stay informed about T.O.U., what it means and what the options/restrictions/opportunities are or might be, both now and for the future.

And, the same with energy storage developments - An idea that looks to be maybe the wave of the future but not quite ready for cost effective or practical implementation and application for a few years.

[insaneoctane]

...
Perhaps a couple of takeaways:

Get/stay informed about T.O.U., what it means and what the options/restrictions/opportunities are or might be, both now and for the future.

Best to understand your consumption & generation estimates, by the hour, so we can continue to model/analyze the new/latest offerings from our POCU and stay on the one that works best for you.
I recently switched to SCE TOU-D-A and it's working very well for me...if new offerings show up, or they change my plan, the best I can do is analyze and move to the least of the evils

[rafbo]

Software to compare plans.

+1 on the difficulty to compare plans.

There is free software that could help - it helped me. You can download the latest version that has the new SCE TOU-D-B vs. Schedule-D. It uses your hourly usage data file (.csv) from SCE. Instructions on the website (link).

---Mod Note: No endorsement by any member or the Forum itself is implied, and the link is approved because it is free software.