Tags: pwp

Pages: 1 2 3 4 >>

06/23/14

  10:44:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 565 words  
Categories: PWP, Electric Cars that Run on Sun, Residential Solar

Pasadena's Electric Rates Spark Concern

Pasadena Water and Power (PWP) is set to roll out an entirely redesigned Residential rate structure that could spark serious concerns if you are a big user of energy. Here’s our analysis.

PWP customers have been pretty smug (something we are apparently famous for) as we sit back and watch our neighbors in SCE territory suffer through significant rate increases.  Well, no more.  Now you too, fellow PWP customers, are about to feel the bite of a double digit rate increase.  And here’s the thing—the more you use, the bigger that rate increase will be!

PWP has a somewhat hybrid rate structure, meaning that while the pure energy charges are the same no matter  how much energy you use (in contrast with SCE’s four-tier rate structure), other components, most notably the customer and distribution charges, are actually tiered.  In the newly revised rate structure the customer charge is now split out and is a flat fee of $7.76/month.  The distribution charge, however, remains tiered under the new structure, albeit in an odd fashion.  The first 350 kWh of energy per month see a low distribution charge of just 1.5¢/kWh.   The next 400 are really jacked up: to 11.65¢/kWh before subsiding to 8.5¢/kWh for every kWh thereafter.  Which raises the question: if you want to incentivize people to reduce their usage, why is the third tier lower than the second?

As a result of the change in structure as well as the rate components, the impact on your bill varies a lot depending on your usage, as you can see from the following chart:

 PWP Rate Increase by Daily Energy UsageThe gray bars are the old rates, the red bars are the new rates and the red line tracks the percentage annual increase over the range of 15 to 100 kWh of energy usage per day.

As you can see, two bars (at 15 and 25 kWh) actually show rate decreases and the percentage increase continues to swing back and forth until you get to 35 kWh per day when the increase is monotonically upward.

Indeed, if you are sucking down 100 kWh/day, your rates will go up by nearly 50%!

Fortunately, very few customers are in such rarefied air as that; but a homeowner who had an average usage of about 25 kWh/day who then goes out and purchases an EV that she drives a lot, could bump into the 50 kWh range and she would see a 19% rate increase.  Have a big house with a pool and a jacuzzi and a couple of EVs? If that gets you to 80 kWh/day your rate increase will be 40%!

In fact, it is actually worse than what we are showing here since this is only looking at the energy services part of your bill.  On the left-hand-side of your bill you will find the Public Benefit Charge (tied to how much energy you use) and it is going up by 19%.  On top of that are taxes that you pay on those energy services amounts and you can see that PWP customers, except on the lowest end of the scale, are in for some serious rate hikes starting July 1.

Of course, solar is the perfect hedge against these rate increases (and others sure to come in the future) and PWP still is offering the highest rebates around: $0.85/Watt.  But in all likelihood we will see those rebates step down soon so now is the time to act!  Give us a call at 626-793-6025 and let’s get started.

04/09/14

  10:09:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 834 words  
Categories: PWP, GWP, Feed-in Tariff, Ranting

Feed-in Tariff Wrap-up: Also Rans and a New Entry

In our first two posts this week recapping the state of solar feed-in tariffs in the Run on Sun service area, we focused on what is happening with the biggest FiT around, that run by LADWP.  But that isn’t, nominally at least, the only game in town so this post will summarize the progress, or lack of same, at the other FiT programs around: Glendale, Anaheim and Riverside.

Glendale

We have written at great length about the problems with the FiT program that Glendale Water & Power designed to meet their state mandate.  We noted that the prices being offerred—which were actually even 10% lower than what was presented to the Glendale City Council when they approved the program—were way too low to pencil out for a project, and that other uncertainties made it highly unlikely that anyone would participate.  In other words, as we told the Glendale City Council, they were approving a program that was designed to fail.

Nine months into the experiment, where do things stand today?  Let’s take a quick look at the FiT queue as of today:

 GWP FiT queue - Q214Ouch. 

All that empty space is just hard on the eyes.

In nine months, GWP has not received a single application for their FiT program—and contrary to how GWP officials refer to their defunct commercial solar incentive program as a “victim of its own success,” this program is a victim of GWP’s design.

Given the failure to attract a single project application, you might think that GWP would take steps to address their failure by increasing the offer price for energy, but you would be wrong.  This table summarizes the progression on GWP’s FiT offer price for energy:

GWP Offer Price for Energy FiT

The “City Council” price is what GWP suggested to the City Council the offer price might be when the program went live and that is the price the Council had before it when they approved the program.  The “Program Start” price is what was actually offered to potential project developers when the program went live last July. 

The “Q214″ price is what is being offered today—a reduction of 5.5% for Peak and 4.8% for Off-Peak deliveries.  That’s right, in response to offering a price that was already so low that no one was willing to put forward an application, GWP has responded by cutting its offer price by 5%.  Genius.

GWP will no doubt say that they have no choice, that the formula approved by the City Council for setting the offer price mandates this result, but that’s merely self-referential nonsense.  GWP designed the formula and the City Council confessed that they had no way to assess the technical merit of what was before them.  The formula is supposed to be based, in part, on avoided costs—but guess what?  So is the offer price for the LADWP FiT and yet it is twice what GWP is offering.  Are we to believe, therefore, that GWP’s costs are half of those incurred by LADWP?  If so, we suspect the customers of GWP would be surprised then that there rates are as high as they are.

It is high time that the Glendale City Council call GWP to task and insist that they re-create this FiT program so as to achieve what the state law intended—the actual installation of solar power in the City of Glendale.

Anaheim

The representative from Anaheim Water & Power had told us last year that their program to date, despite being started in 2010, had yet to attract a single application.  Checking in on Anaheim’s FiT website confirms that unbroken string of failure continues to this day with no projects in the queue.

Anaheim’s offer price tells us why: it ranges from 3.883¢/kWh for Off-Peak to 6.472¢/kWh for Mid-Peak to a summer On-Peak price of 9.708¢/kWh.

Riverside

Last year Riverside’s representative told us that they knew that their price was so low no one would bite and that was fine because they didn’t want solar installed in Riverside anyway.  Today, Riverside’s “we don’t want anybody to participate” price for energy is 6.2¢/kWh—exactly the same as GWP’s off-peak price.  Looks like GWP is playing follow the (non)leader.

Pasadena?

Which brings us to our friends at Pasadena Water & Power.  At a meeting yesterday we learned that PWP is considering a Feed-in Tariff program of its own.  Now we are fans of PWP, indeed, we think they are the easiest and best utility around to work with (and for, for that matter).  So that begs the question: What sort of FiT will PWP create?  They could base their program on what has been done at LADWP (with necessary tweaks to make small projects viable) and thereby insure a successful program that reduces pollution, creates local jobs and helps to green PWP’s energy mix.  Or they could follow the misguided path of GWP and its ilk, creating a program in name only, that guarantees that not a single kWh of clean energy will ever be generated.

Needless to say, we will follow FiT development at PWP closely.  Watch this space.

09/13/13

  07:09:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 262 words  
Categories: PWP Rebates, Residential Solar

Pasadena Slashing Residential Rebates 40%

Pasadena to slash residential solar rebates 40% on October 16 - act nowPasadena Water & Power (PWP) has just made their long anticipated rebate reduction announcement.  Effective October 16, 2013, residential rebates for solar power systems will plunge from today’s $1.40/Watt to just 85¢/Watt - a 40% reduction.  Other rebate rates were not changed.

This means that for a typical residential system installation of a 6 kW system - say 20 LG 300 modules with Enphase Energy M250 microinverters - your rebate will decline by more than $3,000! That is a lot of money to leave on the table so the time to act is NOW!

Once the rebate is reserved, homeowners have a full year to install the system - so even if you aren’t ready to go forward with a project for another six to nine months, you still want to get your rebate reserved now to take advantage of rates that we will never see again.

Please keep in mind that PWP has also moved over to PowerClerk - an online tool that your solar contractor must use to submit your rebate application.  Your contractor has to be pre-approved by PWP to access PowerClerk.  You will want to make sure that your contractor is familiar with PowerClerk so that there aren’t any problems with your rebate application that could cause it to be rejected, forcing you to have it resubmitted at the lower rates.

Run on Sun is already approved on PowerClerk with PWP so you can be confident that your rebate will be processed properly the first time.

Don’t delay - give us a call at 626-793-6025 or click on the sunny Go Solar Now! button to lock-in your rebate before it’s too late!

05/13/12

  04:59:00 pm, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 294 words  
Categories: PWP, Electric Cars that Run on Sun

Pasadena Rolls Out EV Rates - UPDATED!

UPDATE - Citing technical issues, PWP has informed us that for now, these rates are NOT available for solar customers.  Apparently the Meter group does not yet have a TOU meter that will properly account for energy generation as well as energy consumption.  We will report back when PWP has this resolved - hopefully in a couple of months.


Pasadena Water & Power (PWP) is rolling out on a temporary, experimental basis, new Time-of-Use (TOU) based rates for customers with electric vehicles.  The new rate structures, designated EXP-TOU-EV-1 and -2 are available to existing residential customers (either single family or multi-family service) who can demonstrate proof of ownership of a plug-in electric vehicle.

The two TOU rates differ from the existing R1 residential rate structure in that they provide discounts for energy consumed during mid- or off-peak hours.  (Mid peak runs from 8 a.m. to Noon and from 9 p.m. to midnight.  Off peak runs from midnight to 8 a.m.) 
Here is how the two rates compare:

TOU Period Rate 1 Rate 2
On Peak
(Noon - 9 p.m.)
No Change
+$0.040/kWh
Mid Peak
(8a.m. - Noon; 9 p.m.- Midnight)
-$0.010/kWh -$0.025/kWh

Off Peak
(Midnight - 8 a.m.)

-$0.020/kWh -$0.045/kWh

The second rate has much greater discounts for energy use outside of the On Peak window, but it is combined with a significant penalty for energy use during the On Peak window.

Of course, this is where a solar power system comes in.  Since a solar power system produces the bulk of  its energy during the On Peak window, it could prove highly beneficial to EV owners who add solar to their homes.  We will do a more complete analysis of how these two rates could work for a solar powered home in a future post.

To learn more about the program, check out PWP’s webpage devoted to these new rates.

05/04/12

  08:14:00 am, by Jim Jenal - Founder & CEO   , 1194 words  
Categories: PWP Rebates, PWP, Commercial Solar, Non-profit solar, Westridge PAC Project

Installing Solar at Westridge - Part 1

In November of 2011, Run on Sun was hired by Westridge School for Girls to install a 54 kW solar system on the roof of the school’s Fran Norris Scoble Performing Arts Center (the “PAC” as it is known on campus), and that project was just recently completed.  This multi-part series will document the process by which we went from a signed contract to a signed-off solar power system.  Not surprisingly, there were a few twists and turns along the way that had to be resolved before we could deliver a successful project, and this series will showcase those developments in the following five parts:

Part 1 - The Rebate Application (this post)

Part 2 - The Permit Process

Part 3 - On the Ground

Part 4 - On the Roof

Part 5 - Putting it All Together

The Rebate Application

The rebates being offered from Pasadena Water & Power (PWP) for this non-profit project were scheduled to step-down on December 1, 2011.  Indeed, this was a substantial rebate reduction - 26% - such that failure to secure the existing rebate rates would have amounted to a hit of tens of thousands of dollars for our client.  And PWP had made it very clear - unless applications were 100% complete and correct, they would be rejected and when resubmitted would be subject to the reduced rebate rates.  Clearly the pressure was on to get this right the first time!

The application package consisted of eight parts - most of which were straight-forward, but a couple required substantial work to guarantee that the application as submitted would be acceptable the first time.  Here are the parts that went into the rebate application: 1) Signed Rebate Application (PWP’s form, signed by client and Run on Sun under penalty of perjury!); 2) Single Line Diagram for the electrical components of the system (more on this below); 3) Site Plan; 4) CSI Report (as produced by the California Solar Initiative’s rebate calculator); 5) Shading Analysis (i.e., a Solar Pathfinder report to support the shading values used to create the CSI Report); 6) PWP’s Net Metering Agreement (executed by the client); PWP’s Net Metering Surplus Compensation form (for AB 920 compliance); and 8) Installation Contract between the client and Run on Sun.  Also, since this was a non-profit client, proof of non-profit status was also required.

Shading Analysis & CSI Report

Westridge pathfinder reportPWP wisely requires the submission of a shading analysis in addition to the output from the CSI rebate calculator.  Since the amount of shading at the site directly impacts the performance of the system - and hence the CSI AC Watts of the system (or the predicted annual energy output in the case of a PBI rebate) - it really doesn’t make sense for a utility to simply trust that the installer is telling the truth about shading.

The output from the Solar Pathfinder proves that the shading numbers claimed are the shading values present at the site.

Site Plan

The site plan needed for the rebate application is a much simpler plan than what will ultimately be required for the permit, really only requiring an indication of where the various components of the system will be relative to the overall site.   However, our system occupies three different areas of the PAC: the roof where the array itself is located, a ground-level storage area where our step-up transformer will be, and the utility switchgear, located on the far north end of the building.  Thus our site plan included drawings for each location.

Array layoutThe array drawing showed the three sub-arrays and the clear space allocated for fire department access.  Each sub-array consisted of three branch circuits, each of which was “center-tapped” to reduce the voltage drop in the associated branch circuits.  Each branch circuit landed at a sub-array service panel which then fed a master “solar-only” sub-panel in the transformer area.

Westridge transformerThe transformer area drawing detailed the conduits coming down off the roof (one each from each sub-array sub-panel), the master sub-panel which feeds our step-up transformer (to change the 208 VAC three-phase power coming from the roof to 480 VAC three-phase supplied by the utility service) and then a safety disconnect switch located adjacent to the transformer.  From the safety switch a fourth conduit carries the required conductors back across the roof to our service switchgear area.

Service switchgear drawingThe service panel area drawing showed the placement of our lockable PV AC Disconnect, the associated performance meter, and our circuit breaker for the system located in the existing service switchgear.

Single Line Diagram

Our most significant deliverable in the rebate application packet was the single line diagram (SLD) for the electrical circuits.   Since this diagram shows how all of the electrical components of the power generating system interconnect - including the tie into the utility’s grid - we knew that this would be the most closely scrutinized piece of the submission.  To be sure, PWP has a generic SLD that installers can use (in fact, we helped develop it!) but that drawing does not cover the use of Enphase Micro-inverters which we were featuring on this job, nor does it allow for a step-up transformer.

Single line drawing for Westridge projectFortunately, we had developed a very flexible SLD format from prior jobs that we could readily adapt for this project.  However, before we submitted it to PWP, we forwarded it to the application engineers at Enphase Energy to make sure that they were comfortable with what we had designed.  Enphase was more than accomodating - given our tight time frame they bumped us to the front of their engineering review queue and came back promplty with the good news - the design was good as we had drawn it and no revisions were needed.  Of course, that was no guarantee that the utility would agree, but it is always nice to have a P.E. on your side!

Included in the SLD preparation was a complete set of voltage drop calculations.  This was complicated by the fact that we had 9 different branch circuits, three different sub-panels and two different operating voltages!  Good design calls for limiting total voltage drop to less than 3%.  To keep our worst case scenario within that limitation (covering the branch circuit farthest from the main “solar-only” sub-panel) we ended up with 4 different gauge sizes of conductors at different legs of the run: #12 in the branch circuit cables (supplied by Enphase), #8 from branch circuit jbox to sub-array sub-panel, #2 from sub-panel to main “solar-only” sub-panel, #3/0 from that sub-panel to the transformer and then #2 from the transformer back to the service equipment area.  (One change that occurred during the install process increased the length of some of these runs - and that necessitated some wire size changes to insure that we stayed comfortably below our 3% limit.  Those will be discussed in future episodes.)

One Big Present

All of those documents, plus pages and pages of cut sheets describing all of the key products being used, were then submitted to PWP - one day before the deadline!  With no margin for error, our submission had to be perfect.  Thankfully, it was - PWP gave us their official blessing to proceed three weeks later, just three days before Christmas.  One big present, indeed.

Our first hurdle successfully surmounted, it was time to prepare for the most nerve wracking part of the process - pulling the permits!  That’s the subject of our next installment - stay tuned!

1 2 3 4 >>

Jim Jenal is the Founder & CEO of Run on Sun, Pasadena's premier installer and integrator of top-of-the-line solar power installations.
In addition, Run on Sun 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

Search

Run on Sun helps fight Climate Change
blog software