Tag: "sce"

02/17/21

  08:47:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 927 words  
Categories: All About Solar Power, SCE, Residential Solar, Ranting, SDG&E, Net Metering

The Battle to Preserve Net Metering is Underway - Time to Fight!

TL;DR - We need your help to preserve net metering - Sign the Petition!

Run on Sun has been installing grid-tied solar power system since 2007, and one constant in all of that time has been the hostility towards such system evinced by the Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs): SCE, PG&E and SDG&E. Nowhere is that hostility on clearer display than it has been in their efforts to erode, if not eliminate altogether, net metering.  But now, with the IOUs lobbying for the creation of Net Metering 3.0, the battle for the survival of net metering is about to be joined in earnest.  If your right to put solar on your home or business is to be preserved, we are going to need all of you to join the fight.  Here’s our take…

What is Net Metering?

Net Energy Metering (NEM) or just net metering for short, is the basis by which a solar system provides the owner with a significant portion of their financial benefit.  Solar systems on a clear, sunny day produce energy that follows a normal distribution, with the peak energy production occurring around solar noon, and rolling off in a typical “bell curve” on either side.  That energy saves the system owner money twice: first, by directly offsetting the energy usage of the home or business, but secondly, by allowing the excess energy to be exported back to the grid for retail credit.  That retail credit is then applied against energy imported from the grid to power loads at night or on cloudy days.  At the end of the billing cycle, those two values - the amount of energy imported versus the amount of energy exported - are “netted” out, and if the amount imported is greater than what was exported, the difference is charged to the customer.  Conversely, if more energy is exported than imported, the customer has a credit for that period that can be carried forward.

Of course, the energy exported to the grid for which the net metering customer gets credit doesn’t disappear - the utility sells it to another customer for that full retail value.  Moreover, because that energy did not have to be transported from far-off generation facilities, there is less demand to build expensive infrastructure like high-voltage transmission lines - you know, like the lines that have sparked deadly wildfires in the past few years.

So you might think that net metering would be a win-win for everyone - solar clients get a greater financial incentive to foot the bill for installing energy generation systems and the utility gets additional energy without incurring the costs of building or maintaining them.  But you would be wrong.  You see, IOUs don’t make money selling energy.  They make money building things.  In fact, in a stunningly perverse incentive structure, the IOUs get a guaranteed return on investment of 10% for every dollar they spend building stuff: generation plants, transmission lines, etc.  So they see the growth of solar, particularly rooftop solar, as a threat to their antiquated business model, and the best tool at their disposal is to take as big a bite out of net metering as possible.

Where are We Today and Where are the IOUs Trying to Go?

The version of net metering described above actually no longer exists with the IOUs, instead, they transitioned to NEM 2.0 a few years ago.  (Municipal utilities, like PWP, still offer full net metering.)  Under that scheme, a one-time interconnection charge was created, along with what are known as Nonbypassable Charges, which require their customer to pay a relatively small amount for every kilowatt hour of energy imported, even if that energy is actually offset by exported production.  The real kicker was that all solar customers in IOU territory were switched to Time-of-Use rates that made the value of exported solar lower, and energy imported from 4-9 significantly more expensive.

But now, heading into NEM 3.0, the IOUs are going all in!  A recent report by the consulting firm E3 was released by the CPUC and it highlights some options for changing net metering that would seriously impact the value of solar.  In particular, the report proposes fixed monthly charges of between $50 and $70 for all solar customers, combined with a “grid access charge” each month of between $5-$7/kW installed!  That means that under the best case scenario of their proposals, a residential customer with a 4 kW solar system installed would pay an extra $70 per month, every month, just because they have solar - that they paid for - on their home!  That is an $840/year penalty for going green! 

If that doesn’t make you see red, nothing will!

We’re Not Gonna Take It!

To say that the California solar industry is in the fight of its life is an understatement.  But so are all solar customers, who could see the value of their investment greatly eroded by these misguided policy proposals.  And that is where you come in.  We are fighting back and we need you in the fight!  The California Solar and Storage Association (CALSSA - our trade association) and the Solar Rights Alliance are gearing up to organize against the threat.  The first step is in signing a petition to Governor Newsom - we need him as an ally now.  It is super easy to sign on and we are looking to collect 20,000 signatures before April 1.  As of this writing, we are at 923 supporters, so we have a long way to go - and that starts with you!  (We will have more news on ways to fight back in the coming weeks, so watch this space.) 

Please click the big button below and let’s get this done!

Sign the Petition!
 Permalink

12/29/20

  07:14:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 342 words  
Categories: Residential Solar

Going Live in Altadena!

We recently received PTO for a new project in Altadena, and part of what made this interesting was that we decided to modify the project mid-stream so that we would be positioned to add an Enphase Ensemble Storage System down the road.  We wanted to configure the layout so that when the storage was added, we could just “plug-and-play” - so here’s how that turned out…

Oh County, Why do you make EVERYTHING so Hard?

Our approved plans from LA County showed the solar disconnect adjacent to the service panel, but that really wouldn’t work out if we were going to add storage.   Instead, we were going to install a backup subpanel near the main panel and the Enphase Enpower switch next to that.  Then we would run conduit to a gutter box on the wall, above which the storage device(s) would eventually be installed, and then we would have our combiner box and PV disconnect.  So I redrew the site plan showing the location of the revised equipment, and a new single line drawing to show how everything would be interconnected, crossed my fingers and hit “Submit".

Nope.

County would not allow us to revise our existing solar permit to incorporate the Enpower switch.  Instead, we had to revise our solar site plan to just show the new location for the disconnect, and leave off the Enpower switch.  Then, we needed to pull a second permit - a complex electrical permit - that included a site plan with all of the equipment (all solar components designated as Existing!), and the full single line drawing.  And, yeah, pay for it.  Seriously?

Patience Carries the Day!

Ultimately we were able to overcome all of County’s complaints and get the project approved.  Happily, SCE issued PTO almost immediately, so we came back to go live with the system.  Our client, Sean, decided to memorialize the process, so here is an edited version of that footage that let’s you see how we designed for the future, and the process of bringing the system online.  Check it out!

05/12/20

  06:41:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 949 words  
Categories: All About Solar Power, Residential Solar, Energy Storage

New Rule in SCE Territory Makes Solar + Storage More Valuable

We just learned from our friends at Energy Toolbase that Southern California Edison has just changed a rule about how solar PV systems with Energy Storage can operate, and the result - amazingly enough - results in greater savings for our clients!  Imagine that?!?  Here’s our take…

It used to be in SCE territory that when you added a storage system to your PV array, you could not export energy from the storage system to the grid and receive net metering credit.  That meant that when the storage system was discharging, it could not exceed what the home’s loads were demanding.  If your usage in the evening was low, or say you were out of town, your fully charged battery could not discharge at all - a poor utilization of that expensive storage system.

But now SCE - along with the other IOU’s, PG&E and SDG&E - have changed their rules to allow storage systems to discharge back to the grid and receive full net metering credit for that energy, as long as the storage system is solely charged by the PV array.  When you combine that rule change with electricity rates that favor storage, such as SCE’s TOU-D-Prime rate, the change in the rule can account for significant savings.

To get a handle on how big a change this will be, we went back to the data that we have for a client who we will be installing a small PV array and a 10 kWh Ensemble storage system soon.  (All of our data analysis and visualizations you see here were done using Energy Toolbase, simply the best presentation tool on the market.)

Solar PV & Storage - No Net Metering Discharge

Our client with the small, 4.6 kW, PV system and 10 kWh Ensemble storage system has a system payback of 11.4 years.  (Larger systems would have a faster payback.)  For this analysis, we imported his SCE interval usage data (provided by UtilityAPI) into Energy Toolbase.  ET then takes the performance output from the PV system, the charge and discharge parameters of the storage system, and overlays that on the existing usage - doing that calculation over every fifteen minute interval for a year.

The graph below shows one day, July 8th, as a representative sample.  Let’s break this down:

Solar PV + Storage - no net metering discharge

There’s a lot going on in this image (click on it for a larger version).  The dark gray is the historical usage demand based on the SCE data.  The value is shown at the top as “Current Demand” and at the moment we have focused on - July 8 at 4:15 p.m. - the historical demand was 1.94 kW. 

The green curve shows the modeled PV array output, using the specific parameters for this site - azimuth, tilt, shading, historical weather, specific equipment being used - as determined by NREL’s PVWatts tool (version 5).  Right now it is at 1.17 kW. 

The red line shows the percentage state of charge for the storage system, at this moment it is 83%.  Net Demand is what is being imported (positive number) or exported (negative number) to the grid.  Finally, Battery Power is how much power is being pulled from the storage system which at this moment is 1.94 kW.  At the bottom is the cost parameters for this rate schedule.  Under the pre-solar Domestic rate (which is a tiered rate) the cost of energy is 18.7 cents/kWh, whereas under the new rate structure it is more than twice that at 38.3 cents during the peak, 4-9 p.m. period.

 So… earlier in the day, as the output from the PV increases, and energy charges are cheap, the solar charges the battery for use later when the rates are high. As we cross over into the peak rate period at 4:00, the storage system begins to discharge and its output is exactly the same as the demand, meaning that all of the power from the PV system can be exported to the grid. 

But note that the battery power is only 1.94 kW, even though its continuous peak output is roughly twice that, 3.84 kW.  Under the old rules though, the storage system cannot output more than that, since it is barred from exporting to the grid.  As a result, when the peak rate period ends at 9:00 p.m. the storage system shuts off, even though it is still partially charged (nearly 40% capacity remains in this example).

That’s leaving money on the table!

Solar PV & Storage - Net Metering Discharge Allowed

Consider the same day, only now we can export the full output of the storage system as desired to maximize our time-of-use arbitrage.

Solar PV + Storage - no net metering discharge

Everything is essentially the same until we get to 4:00 p.m. and then things get very different!  Look at the difference in the output from the battery system, it is now putting out it’s maximum sustained power of 3.84 kW, resulting in more than 3 kW being exported during the peak price period

More importantly from an arbitrage perspective, the storage system is completely cycled.  Meaning that we have gotten full utilization from our storage system investment.  

What does that mean overall economically?  Payback is reduced from 11.4 to 10.7 years, a 6.1% improvement.  Gee, thanks, SCE!

So why are they doing this?  Simple: grid support. Having storage systems maximizing their output during the peak demand period (remember the Duck Curve?) helps the utility to manage its load, and reduce the need for expensive peaker capacity. Everybody benefits: our client (with faster payback), the utility (with better grid load management), and even non-solar/storage rate payers (as they don’t have to pay for that additional production capacity.  Win, win, win!

Of course, these economic benefits don’t really apply to a tiered rate structure, such as is used for residential rates in PWP territory.  But if you are in SCE territory, adding smart storage, like the Enphase Ensemble system, just became a lot more lucrative.

03/13/19

  07:15:00 pm, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 411 words  
Categories: All About Solar Power, Solar Economics, SCE, Residential Solar, Ranting, CALSSA

Clean Power Alliance -- NEM Fail!

Back in January we wrote about the pending switch over to Clean Power Alliance (CPA) in portions of SCE’s service territory (Clean Power Alliance is Coming - is that a Good Thing?), noting that given the slightly lower rates, the switch was probably a good deal for most SCE customers.  Alas, it turns out that it wasn’t such a good deal for SCE’s solar customers!  Here’s our take and recommendation…

PLEASE NOTE: THIS APPLIES ONLY  TO SCE CUSTOMERS!
SOLAR CUSTOMERS IN PWP, LADWP AND OTHER MUNICIPAL UTILITIES CAN IGNORE THIS COMPLETELY!

Yesterday our trade association, CALSSA sent out this urgent notice under the headline: ALERT: CPA NEM snafu:

ACTION: For existing residential customers, we suggest you advise them to OPT OUT of the Clean Power Alliance (LA area CCA) by March 31st!

To opt out, they should call Clean Power Alliance at 888-585-3788 immediately.

What is going on here?  It seems that in their zeal to initiate the switchover from SCE, CPA fouled up how they are handling the “true-up” accounting.  As a result, solar customers who switched to CPA—and mind you, if you are in one of the affected cities, the default is for you to be switched to CPA—you will actually receive two true-up bills this year - one from SCE and the other from CPA.  CALSSA is sufficiently concerned that this could have an adverse financial impact that presumably exceeds whatever saving you might realize from the switch to CPA’s lower rates.

According to CPA, customers who OPT OUT by March 31, will only have one true-up bill this year “as if nothing had ever happened.”

For solar system owners who are part of the Solar Rights Alliance, they have already received notice directly regarding this situation.  (Not yet a member of the SRA?  Sign-up here.)

Here’s a list of cities participating in the CPA switch:

Unincorporated area of Los Angeles (e.g., Altadena) and Ventura Counties and the following cities: Agoura Hills, Alhambra, Arcadia, Beverly Hills, Calabasas, Camarillo, Carson, Claremont, Culver City, Downey, Hawaiian Gardens, Hawthorne, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, Paramount, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills Estates, Santa Monica, Sierra Madre, Simi Valley, South Pasadena, Temple City, Thousand Oaks, Ventura, West Hollywood and Whittier.

Once things get sorted out, if you want to switch to CPA, you will be able to do so, and we will write about it once we know more.  But for now, the prudent choice appears to be to make that call and opt-out.  If you have any issues in doing so, please let us know.

01/08/19

  07:24:00 pm, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 455 words  
Categories: All About Solar Power, Solar Economics, SCE, Residential Solar

Clean Power Alliance is Coming - is that a Good Thing?

Clean Power AllianceThe Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) for LA County, Clean Power Alliance (CPA), is set to begin service to SCE customers in 31 cities starting February 1.  As this has just sort of been announced as a fiat accompli with very little information to consumers, we wanted to set the stage for an analysis that we will be publishing that should answer the question - is this a good thing or not?

Let’s start with the basics, what is a CCA? Here’s a definition from an EPA website:

Community choice aggregation (CCA), also known as municipal aggregation, are programs that allow local governments to procure power on behalf of their residents, businesses, and municipal accounts from an alternative supplier while still receiving transmission and distribution service from their existing utility provider. CCAs are an attractive option for communities that want more local control over their electricity sources, more green power than is offered by the default utility, and/or lower electricity prices. By aggregating demand, communities gain leverage to negotiate better rates with competitive suppliers and choose greener power sources.

That means that current SCE customers would still receive their service via SCE (including billing) but the energy is actually provided by the CCA, in this case CPA, at one of three rates: “Lean” (which is 36% renewables and lower than SCE), “Clean” (which is 50% renewables and comparable to SCE), and “Green” (which is 100% renewables and higher than SCE).  Different cities can choose for their residents the “default” rate - for example, Arcadia chose Lean, Alhambra chose Clean, and South Pasadena chose Green - but individual consumers can override that default and pick the rate they prefer.  (You can find the present list of cities switching to CPA and their default rates here.)

However, the only portion of the bill affected is the energy charge, which is generally a smaller component than is delivery.  For example, here is a comparison for SCE customers on the Domestic rate for what they pay now compared to under the “Lean” option from CPA:

SCE Domestic vs CPA Rate

So your savings is about 10% on the first 300 or so kWh (or about $5), but if you make it into the highest tier, your savings drops to just 4.5% on the largest usage.   (Interestingly, SCE’s delivery rates changed a lot more than what is seen in this shift to CPA’s Lean rate.  In particular, the delivery charge for the lowest tier went up by 5.8% as of January 1st, and by 22% for Tier 3 - ouch!)

You can find the complete list of CPA’s rates as of this writing, here.

This Domestic rate is the easiest to review - in a subsequent post we will talk about Time-of-Use rates (relevant to recent and future solar owners) and how to make the right choice to maximize your savings.

Watch this space.

1 2 3 4 5 ...6 ...7 8 9 10 >>

Help Save Rooftop Solar!

California Utilities are trying to kill rooftop solar on your home by gutting net metering - but you can stop them!
Join the fight by signing the petition today!

Sign the Petition!

Search

Jim Jenal is the Founder & CEO of Run on Sun, Pasadena's premier installer and integrator of top-of-the-line solar power installations.
Run on Sun also offers solar consulting services, working with consumers, utilities, and municipalities to help them make solar power affordable and reliable.

Ready to Save?

Let’s Get Started!

We're Social!



Follow Run on Sun on Twitter Like Run on Sun on Facebook
Run on Sun helps fight Climate Change
Responsive CMS