UK: Cost of charging an electric car surges by 42% - with prices nearing the same as petrol

[UncleDave]

eventually they wont let you freeload off the grid as you currently do, but for now congratulations.
I expect stiff grid connection fees and buying your solar at wholesale rates eventually, possibly even a distribution charge for all KWH sent to your house or bought. (not net as it currently is)
Either that or the government taxpayers or other consumers will subsidize you.. then welcome to energy bill welfare

He isn't getting squat for free, and pays the transmission and connection fee.

He makes and banks at min price.

I don't understand what you mean by " all the KWH sent to his house" and not the net?
He has to pay for all imported energy at a variety of exorbitant rates like everyone else.

The only thing he "gets" is what he makes in realtime and banks/nets at wholesale (which he totally paid for)

PGE gets to mark up his energy and make a premium on it while simultanously charging him a transmission fee for it in both directions.

 

[OVERKILL]

He isn't getting squat for free, and pays the transmission and connection fee.

He makes and banks at min price.

I don't understand what you mean by " all the KWH sent to his house" and not the net?
He has to pay for all imported energy at a variety of exorbitant rates like everyone else.

The only thing he "gets" is what he makes in realtime and banks at wholesale (which he totally paid for) - where PGE gets to mark up his energy and make a premium on it.

Jeff and I have discussed the details of his bill in the past. He took advantage of the deal that PG&E offered him, and there is nothing wrong with that but some of your points are inaccurate.

1. He's on net metering, which means he gets credited full retail for the kWh that he exports to the grid. This is far more than the value of that electricity when it is produced (wholesale).
2. He pays a very small delivery charge that isn't based on the number of kWh exported to the grid + imported (the total use of the infrastructure) but rather, appears to be a small fixed charge.

That's why these programs are lucrative. Nobody would sign up for them if they had to pay full delivery and only received wholesale (which doesn't pay well).

Per the EIA (sorry, this is old):

These are wholesale prices. So, if he's exporting between say 8AM and 6PM, the value of that electricity is as low as 0.015/kWh and as high as $0.040/kWh (based on these 2017 costs). This will have changed a bit, but the effect will be even bigger, as the duck curve has grown since then. The huge amount of solar capacity installed drives down daytime wholesale values, which then ramp up considerably during the morning and evening, where solar isn't available, so you are paying for fast-ramp gas, which has a much higher cost.

This is the perversion of the market system through incentives, which force adoption of certain technologies, while distorting how the system would naturally operate.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Would it make you feel better if I said PG&E was doing those things on your behalf through these deals?

The takeaway is not that you made a conscious decision to drive-up other ratepayers bills (though that is the result of these schemes) or not pay your fair share on delivery (though that is also the result of these schemes) simply that this is the result of these policies, policies that utilities like PG&E or the agencies/politicians driving them, cooked up to spur adoption of specific technologies that otherwise wouldn't have the uptake rate they wanted, mostly for the optics/virtue signalling value it provides.

We had similar schemes here in Ontario with MicroFIT and similar that people hopped all over because at $0.80/kWh, they were a guaranteed money maker. They didn't set out to screw other Ontario ratepayers, but that was ultimately the result.

@OVERKILL I am asking you to do anything. I am saying he called me a freeloader. I agreed to the deal that was presented to me. Would I say others are freeloaders because I pay more income tax than most people make? No, I wouldn't. I would say I am adhering to the deal as presented to me.

Now you suggest "you made a conscious decision to drive-up other ratepayers bills". I did no such thing. This was never presented to me. I first heard of deal ramifications much later (perhaps 2 years?) in the SJ Mercury News and then other sources. And here on BITOG.

My feelings about PG&E are well documented. But saying I am a freeloader or consciously driving up other's bills is simply wrong. I agreed to a deal as presented and pay on time every month. I was never told I was getting anything for free. I was never told I would negatively affect others in our state. In fact, it was presented that solar generation is beneficial to others because of less energy import requirements.

Is PG&E a horrible company? Do I hate PG&E? Yes on both counts. The PUC is not much better. We have some of the highest rates in the nation and some of the worse service.
I have exactly 2 home electricity choices where I live: PG&E or go off-grid with a battery. Perhaps you know there is a proposal to alter the NEM plan. If approved (and legal) current NEM customers can keep their plan for 15 years after their interconnect date. In my case, that's March 2018.

Personally, I think the fat cats at PG&E should be held responsible for their company mismanagement. That's my opinion.

 

[Astro14]

Grid quality is dependent on your location, to a large degree. Remote areas are more problematic. PG&E is now being investigated for criminal charges surrounding the Mosquito fire.
Actually, the charging network around here is really good and continues growing. The condos that are working on chargers tend to be $1M up; they will do it right. Demand is strong; perspective employees, for example, often ask about charging in the interview process; likewise employeers advertise it.

That’s the charging network. The number of well connected chargers.

That wasn’t my point at all.

When all those chargers are connected to the same grid that can’t sustain current demand, those chargers are as good as useless. You could have dozens of new, sweet top of the line chargers installed in every condo, but there is not enough electric current to power them.

California hasn’t built the generators. They haven’t managed demand. Demand far outstrips supply right now, so, adding more demand isn’t a solution, and investigating PG&E over fire prevention will not add a single megawatt to power those new chargers, particularly since those chargers are residential, so they will be more likely used at night, when PG&E has to generate every watt.

It’s like bragging about all the new plumbing in your neighborhood, while the reservoir is dry.

Which is also true in California, but that’s another topic.

 

[OVERKILL]

@OVERKILL I am asking you to do anything. I am saying he called me a freeloader. I agreed to the deal that was presented to me. Would I say others are freeloaders because I pay more income tax than most people make? No, I wouldn't. I would say I am adhering to the deal as presented to me.

This isn't really comparable to income tax, this is an incentive scheme to spur adoption.

Now you suggest "you made a conscious decision to drive-up other ratepayers bills". I did no such thing. This was never presented to me. I first heard of deal ramifications much later (perhaps 2 years?) in the SJ Mercury News and then other sources. And here on BITOG.

No, I did NOT suggest that, please re-read that section of my post, I specifically stated: "The takeaway is NOT that you made a conscious decision to drive-up other ratepayers bills", because clearly, that's not something that most people who sign up for these programs are thinking about, they are just thinking they are being presented with an opportunity to get in on a good deal, which I'm sure you figured was the case for you.

My feelings about PG&E are well documented. But saying I am a freeloader or consciously driving up other's bills is simply wrong. I agreed to a deal as presented and pay on time every month. I was never told I would negatively affect others in our state. In fact, it was presented that solar generation is beneficial to others because of less energy import requirements.

Again, that's NOT what I said.

I'm also not calling you a freeloader. But, what I am saying is that the results of these schemes is that the people who take advantage of them do end up essentially freeloading to some extent, on the system, because they don't pay their fair share of the transmission costs, and they are paid full retail for electricity whose wholesale value is a small fraction of that. This is in no way a condemnation of the people that took advantage of the programs, rather, it's a criticism of the programs themselves and those who cooked them up.

Is PG&E a horrible company? Do I hate PG&E? Yes on both counts. The PUC is not much better. We have some of the highest rates in the nation and some of the worse service.

Yes, and unfortunately, these schemes are one of the reasons your rates are so high. We went through the same thing in Ontario. You can't pay generators insane amounts and expect it not to have an impact on rates.

I have exactly 2 home electricity choices where I live: PG&E or go off-grid with a battery. Perhaps you know there is a proposal to alter the NEM plan. If approved (and legal) current NEM customers can keep their plan for 15 years after their interconnect date. In my case, that's March 2018.

Personally, I think the fat cats at PG&E should be held responsible for their company mismanagement. That's my opinion.

I agree, this all lies at the feet of PG&E and the politicians and policy wonks that control it.

 

[UncleDave]

Jeff and I have discussed the details of his bill in the past. He took advantage of the deal that PG&E offered him, and there is nothing wrong with that but some of your points are inaccurate.

1. He's on net metering, which means he gets credited full retail for the kWh that he exports to the grid. This is far more than the value of that electricity when it is produced (wholesale).
2. He pays a very small delivery charge that isn't based on the number of kWh exported to the grid + imported (the total use of the infrastructure) but rather, appears to be a small fixed charge.

That's why these programs are lucrative. Nobody would sign up for them if they had to pay full delivery and only received wholesale (which doesn't pay well).

Per the EIA (sorry, this is old):
View attachment 118796

These are wholesale prices. So, if he's exporting between say 8AM and 6PM, the value of that electricity is as low as 0.015/kWh and as high as $0.040/kWh (based on these 2017 costs). This will have changed a bit, but the effect will be even bigger, as the duck curve has grown since then. The huge amount of solar capacity installed drives down daytime wholesale values, which then ramp up considerably during the morning and evening, where solar isn't available, so you are paying for fast-ramp gas, which has a much higher cost.

This is the perversion of the market system through incentives, which force adoption of certain technologies, while distorting how the system would naturally operate

Net metering doenst really describe it accurately anymore as that assumes you buy and sell at the same rate - you dont.

I don't, and Im pretty sure he doenst get anywhere near "retail" for what he exports.
His production "bank" is the lowest rate on the schedule.

You don't get paid well to export here - but they make bank on selling your cheap energy at a markup.

He also then pays a higher off peak time than anyone else 49c KWH from 4-9 - paying the penalty you so crave him to.

I pay (and Im pretty sure he does) the same trans fee up or down its KWH based.

Not sure what more penalty he can be assigned for trying to take control of his bill.

 

[JeffKeryk]

@OVERKILL I reread your post and I was wrong; you did not suggest I made a conscious decision; my apologies.
You did say the other poster was correct. He called me a freeloader.

My income tax analgy is not a perfect one, but my point stands. I did not make the terms of either agreement; I am fulfilling my side of the deal. IMO, these deals do not make me or anyone else a freeloader.

 

[OVERKILL]

I don't, and Im pretty sure he doenst get anywhere near "retail" for what he exports.
His production "bank" is the lowest rate on the schedule.

Nope. I've got a copy of his bill, which, I'm not going to share here, because he shared it with me in confidence, but he does very well on his Net Metering arrangement, it's very true to the definition of it, or what you'd expect that definition to be.

He also then pays a higher off peak time than anyone else 49c KWH from 4-9 - paying the penalty you so crave him to.

I don't see that on his bill, FWIW.

I pay (and Im pretty sure he does) the same trans fee up or down its KWH based.

Not sure what more penalty he can be assigned for trying to take control of his bill.

His delivery charge is about $10.00. If he wants to share more details than that, I'll let him, but no, he's not charged for total transmission utilization.

He got a VERY good deal, in terms of NEM deals. And I do NOT fault him for that one bit, but I do criticize the concept of those deals, and I believe rightly so, because they shift the cost of maintaining infrastructure and generation costs to other ratepayers. That's how FIT worked up here too, so this isn't exclusive to Cali or anything.

My understanding is that more recently, the NEM system in Cali is getting less generous, so perhaps that's what you are experiencing?

 

[UncleDave]

Nope. I've got a copy of his bill, which, I'm not going to share here, because he shared it with me in confidence, but he does very well on his Net Metering arrangement, it's very true to the definition of it, or what you'd expect that definition to be.

I don't see that on his bill, FWIW.

His delivery charge is about $10.00. If he wants to share more details than that, I'll let him, but no, he's not charged for total transmission utilization.

He got a VERY good deal, in terms of NEM deals. And I do NOT fault him for that one bit, but I do criticize the concept of those deals, and I believe rightly so, because they shift the cost of maintaining infrastructure and generation costs to other ratepayers. That's how FIT worked up here too, so this isn't exclusive to Cali or anything.

My understanding is that more recently, the NEM system in Cali is getting less generous, so perhaps that's what you are experiencing?

I dont have the same deal. My deal is way thinner.

When I get my first bill Ill post it up and show you. (like I did the last one)

I'd be happy just having a base and over regular plan, and just have my solar offset in real time - but they want my energy and found a way not to pay me much if anything for it, while charging me for everything else.

 

[OVERKILL]

@OVERKILL I reread your post and I was wrong; you did not suggest I made a conscious decision; my apologies.
You did say the other poster was correct. He called me a freeloader.

I said he was "technically" correct, as, in terms of the concept, what PG&E cooked up and set you up with, ultimately results in the scenario that I've delved into in a bit more detail. Perhaps "freeloading" is a bit overly crass in terms of the label, but it's a decent description of the RESULT of these policies, follow?

Clearly, I do not go out of my way to offend you, and you and I have had many good chats on energy policy in the past, so keep that in mind when you read my comments here.

My income tax analgy is not a perfect one, but my point stands. I did not make the terms of either agreement; I am fulfilling my side of the deal. IMO, these deals do not make me or anyone else a freeloader.

Note that I specifically said that you, and anybody else who took advantage of these programs did NOT set out to negatively impact other people. I understand why you would find the label for these sorts of programs as "freeloading" repulsive, but there is an aspect to them that, does well-match that description. Again, that's none of your doing and I'm absolutely not saying you should feel bad for signing up, I'm just discussing the technical aspects of how these programs work and why it may be appropriate to label them in that manner.

 

[OVERKILL]

I dont have the same deal.

Yes, I was getting the sense that this was the case, based on your replies here, lol.

 

[UncleDave]

Yes, I was getting the sense that this was the case, based on your replies here, lol.

My buddy in Santa Clarita Ca is on an identical plan from so cal edison vs pge thats 2 years old - so I think the groups have gotten together to kill the incentives- or Jeff is a deal maker " extrodinare"

I still have a 5.9 year roi even as thin as it is.

 

[OVERKILL]

My buddy in Santa Clarita Ca is on an identical plan from so cal edison vs pge thats 2 years old - so I think the groups have gotten together to kill the incentives- or Jeff is a deal maker " extrodinare"

I still have a 5.9 year roi even as thin as it is.

Yes, in Australia, they are already starting to curtail people's solar when there is too much. That, and wholesale rates paid to embedded generators, is the way things are headed.

 

[UncleDave]

Yes, in Australia, they are already starting to curtail people's solar when there is too much. That, and wholesale rates paid to embedded generators, is the way things are headed.

The power companies are enjoying this tremendously.

They get to say " your extra power is costing the system" - at the same time they force you to sell it to them for less than they make you pay to get it.

I dont need that deal - they do.

Lets just kill the export part of it altogether and make them invest as they would otherwise.

 

[JeffKeryk]

My electricity program (and this may be an oversimplification) is, I pay $15 per month to be connected to the PG&E grid, but due to offsets I usually pay $9 or less. Sometimes zero.
I have a yearly true up, which is in March. If I have used more kWH than I generated, my March bill will will reflect that "over use". When I purchased the solar, I asked that the generation level be upsized over the recommended size. I figured I might buy an EV one day and I wanted to use the house AC, which I only used when guests were over. I am a cheapskate. So far I have not had a true up charge.

I am aware of the pressure on others the PG&E solar programs have resulted in, due to the SJ Mercury News and other sources, including @OVERKILL as I asked him to take his time to explain my bill. Of course he generously did so.
I do not disagree with the results as those are the numbers. I hold PG&E and the PUC responsible for their management decisions which continue to harm our state.

Again, I would like to apologize to @OVERKILL because I mis-read his post regarding a conscious decision. I had been called a freeloader and a future welfare recipiant in an earlier post. That clouded my reading comprehension but is no reason for my comment.

 

[alarmguy]

I'd be happy just having a base and over regular plan, and just have my solar offset in real time - but they want my energy and found a way not to pay me much if anything for it, while charging me for everything else.

They are in business to make money and they do pay you something for your power, however little, they sell you a service as your home can not run without their service and infrastructure and everyone does need to pay their fair share for the transmission and generation system that your home relies on to have power.
Meaning it is the people with the solar panels that want electric utilities to be forced to buy electricity that is not worth it to them without the customer paying his fair share of the transmission and generating system to keep that solar home running.
(not sure if anyone will think what I wrote makes sense but does to me)

 

[UncleDave]

My electricity program (and this may be an oversimplification) is, I pay $15 per month to be connected to the PG&E grid, but due to offsets I usually pay $9 or less. Sometimes zero.
I have a yearly true up, which is in March. If I have used more kWH than I generated, my March bill will will reflect that "over use". When I purchased the solar, I asked that the generation level be upsized over the recommended size. I figured I might buy an EV one day and I wanted to use the house AC, which I only used when guests were over. I am a cheapskate. So far I have not had a true up charge.

I am aware of the pressure on others the PG&E solar programs have resulted in, due to the SJ Mercury News and other sources, including @OVERKILL as I asked him to take his time to explain my bill. Of course he generously did so.
I do not disagree with the results as those are the numbers. I hold PG&E and the PUC responsible for their management decisions which continue to harm our state.

Again, I would like to apologize to @OVERKILL because I mis-read his post regarding a conscious decision. I had been called a freeloader and a future welfare recipiant in an earlier post. That clouded my reading comprehension but is no reason for my comment.

Enjoy being grandfathered into the deal you got. The games changed.

I always appreciate OK's posts.

 

[UncleDave]

They are in business to make money and they do pay you something for your power, however little, they sell you a service as your home can not run without their service and infrastructure and everyone does need to pay their fair share for the transmission and generation system that your home relies on to have power.
Meaning it is the people with the solar panels that want electric utilities to be forced to buy electricity that is not worth it to them without the customer paying his fair share of the transmission and generating system to keep that solar home running.
(not sure if anyone will think what I wrote makes sense but does to me)

I'm fine paying the transmission fee both ways.

Should they be able to charge me a fee to move juice from my own roof into my own box?
They didnt do that I did, they don't repair it maintain it or keep it up or pay the improvment tax on it - I do.

I should be able to opt out of selling if I dont like the deal.

 

[JeffKeryk]

If I understand my bill, my off peak rate is $0.426 and my peak rate is $0.489.
The calc is (net consumption * rate). If I generate an excess, I am credited at $0.09 per kWh.
I have a minimum delivery charge of $0.35 per day. Net net I love my solar.
Maybe I should back off the AC? Actually, I try and keep to recommendations because I do not want to kick in a rolling blackout, causing others to suffer.

 

[OVERKILL]

If I understand my bill, my off peak rate is $0.426 and my peak rate is $0.489.
The calc is (net consumption * rate). If I generate an excess, I am credited at $0.09 per kWh.
I have a minimum delivery charge of $0.35 per day. Net net I love my solar.
Maybe I should back off the AC? Actually, I try and keep to recommendations because I do not want to kick in a rolling blackout, causing others to suffer.

View attachment 118803

You imported, on-peak,193kWh @ $0.48902/kWh
You exported, off-peak, 244kWh @ $0.42558/kWh (this is you exporting this electricity, at full retail)

Your baseline allowance is -309kWh. Your baseline credit appears to be based on the difference between your imports and exports. This is consistent with the bills you sent me previously. One period, the difference was 17kWh, which netted you a savings of $1.35 off your bill. The next period the difference was 137.9kWh, which netted you a savings of $10.00 off your bill.

So:
- if you import more power than you export, this gives us a net positive number, which appears as a credit on your bill.
- if you export more power than you import, this gives us a net negative number, which appears as a charge on your bill.

If you look at your snippet again you will see that your Baseline Credit, on this bill, is in fact a charge of $4.61. However, this basically gets wiped-out by the Generation credit and Power Charge indifference adjustment.

Does that help?