mi/$ not that great in CA for EVs?

[Ughwhy]

I'm not sure who in CA is paying 19.4 cents per kWh. I'm paying an average of about 50 cents.

I'm not sure what that website uses as data. Its probably an average by geography rather than population.

 

[Haggy]

Hm, considering switching to E-ELEC now. With solar and batteries, that may make the most sense, since I'd get paid retail rate for any solar I send back during peak, and I wouldn't use the grid during peak.

I'm on EV-A. I also have solar and battery. What kills me are not the rates per kWh, but the mandated non-bypassable charges. There's nothing I can do about those and they went from negligible to high. PG&E doesn't "pay" me anything for energy sent to the grid. They credit me the retail rate. But at true up time, I could have a balance of -$400 and I'm not getting a penny. The actual amount they give me has nothing to do with those rates. Those are for accounting only, and even if they are negative, the non-bypassable charges don't go away. At the end of the year, they look at the total amount that I got from the grid, minus the total mount I sent, and if it's negative, they pay me the wholesale rate, which is somewhere around a penny. But it won't wipe out anything. I also get about $100 per year for energy that I sell from my Powerwall, which happens on only days when there's a potential shortage of energy and it's cheaper for PGE to buy power from home batteries.

The rate plan was built around peak usage, which used to coincide with peak generation needs. Now with so much solar, peak generation needs happen when usage is lower but the sun has gone down. They say that I'm already on the lowest plan. My wife retired a few months ago, so we won't use close to the amount generated by solar. The only way to lower the bill would be to get more batteries and disconnect from the grid completely, which wouldn't be cost effective.

Also, at some point in the future I'll really get screwed for having solar, because eventually they will have a surcharge based on the size of my solar and my generation capacity. So even though the excess is being given away to them, it would be cheaper to disconnect some panels to cut down to what I actually use than to have extra panels and pay them to give electricity away to them.

For now, it won't matter whether I drive a little or a lot because I'm not likely to ever get to the point where my actual usage exceeds the non-bypassable charges.

 

[PetevB]

Also, at some point in the future I'll really get screwed for having solar, because eventually they will have a surcharge based on the size of my solar and my generation capacity.

Link? Where are you reading that?

Are you on gas for home/ water heating or drier? If so you could flip those to electric to bump consumption. Or put your Air on Turo .

 

[Ughwhy]

I'm on EV-A. I also have solar and battery. What kills me are not the rates per kWh, but the mandated non-bypassable charges. There's nothing I can do about those and they went from negligible to high. PG&E doesn't "pay" me anything for energy sent to the grid. They credit me the retail rate. But at true up time, I could have a balance of -$400 and I'm not getting a penny. The actual amount they give me has nothing to do with those rates. Those are for accounting only, and even if they are negative, the non-bypassable charges don't go away. At the end of the year, they look at the total amount that I got from the grid, minus the total mount I sent, and if it's negative, they pay me the wholesale rate, which is somewhere around a penny. But it won't wipe out anything. I also get about $100 per year for energy that I sell from my Powerwall, which happens on only days when there's a potential shortage of energy and it's cheaper for PGE to buy power from home batteries.

The rate plan was built around peak usage, which used to coincide with peak generation needs. Now with so much solar, peak generation needs happen when usage is lower but the sun has gone down. They say that I'm already on the lowest plan. My wife retired a few months ago, so we won't use close to the amount generated by solar. The only way to lower the bill would be to get more batteries and disconnect from the grid completely, which wouldn't be cost effective.

Also, at some point in the future I'll really get screwed for having solar, because eventually they will have a surcharge based on the size of my solar and my generation capacity. So even though the excess is being given away to them, it would be cheaper to disconnect some panels to cut down to what I actually use than to have extra panels and pay them to give electricity away to them.

For now, it won't matter whether I drive a little or a lot because I'm not likely to ever get to the point where my actual usage exceeds the non-bypassable charges.

What's absolutely absurd is that if it weren't for all the people who invested their own money into home solar, the California power grid would be unable to meet demand at peak hours in the summer. So those people helped finance California's "kicking the can down the road" approach to maintaining and updating the State's electrical infrastructure. What do they get as thanks? They get hit with grid connect fees and raped when they sell back to the grid.

 

[Haggy]

Link? Where are you reading that?

It hasn't gone through yet, and I think it was voted down the last time it came up, but it keeps coming up. I think it's a matter of time, and some of the rules for people who are grandfathered in have a limit to how long they will be grandfathered in.

Are you on gas for home/ water heating or drier? If so you could flip those to electric to bump consumption. Or put your Air on Turo .

For now, I'm on gas for home/water heating. I'll have to look into how cost effective it will be to change. I had my windows replaced with more efficient ones and it will take a while to get a handle on what I expect my needs to be, but it's unlikely that I'd replace the gas heaters with gas when they need replacing.

 

[PetevB]

For now, I'm on gas for home/water heating. I'll have to look into how cost effective it will be to change. I had my windows replaced with more efficient ones and it will take a while to get a handle on what I expect my needs to be, but it's unlikely that I'd replace the gas heaters with gas when they need replacing.

You can get electric radiant oil filled space heaters for near $50 a pop. We put a few in the bedrooms- silent, puts heat exactly where you need it, easy to keep balanced. Not as efficient as a heat pump in theory (we have that too) but way easier and cheaper, plus no need to figure out your needs. Next, if you still have significant excess, is the water heater, either heat pump (rebates) or plain old resistance. PG&E gas isn’t cheap either, run the numbers and I think you’ll see good payback. You can always do the whole home with a heat pump later.

 

[Haggy]

You can get electric radiant oil filled space heaters for near $50 a pop. We put a few in the bedrooms- silent, puts heat exactly where you need it, easy to keep balanced. Not as efficient as a heat pump in theory (we have that too) but way easier and cheaper, plus no need to figure out your needs. Next, if you still have significant excess, is the water heater, either heat pump (rebates) or plain old resistance. PG&E gas isn’t cheap either, run the numbers and I think you’ll see good payback. You can always do the whole home with a heat pump later.

I haven't looked into what it would take to switch to heat pumps but I have a furnace in the attic and another for the lower level. The one downstairs is in an enclosure with the water heater, and there's an unused breaker panel right outside of it, so it shouldn't be too bad. I haven't been tracking how much usage comes from each one to try to figure out the operating costs of each one, and I'd have to do some digging to see if I even have that sort of data from the thermostats. For now, each thermostat is a different brand with a different online connection so it would tale me a while to figure it out.

 

[jvflyer]

Price per kWh with PGE is around $0.38. That means that if you're doing ~3 mi/kWh, you're getting about 7.9mi/$. Gas prices are ~$4.25, which means that you're getting ~33mpg equivalent. In reality, with vampire drain and such, I'm doing closer to 2.5mi/kWh which is ~27mpg equivalent. Feels like with CA's combination of gas and electricity prices, it's not super worth it?

I have solar so it definitely makes sense for me, but I was surprised when I did the math

1) I get 4.7 mi/kWh with my Touring and I live at 5000 feet elevation. It gets pretty cold here in winter which should make my powertrain less efficient. I'm not sure how you get only 3 mi/kWh
2) I live in the San Diego Gas & Electric region. SDGE has the highest electricity rates in the country. I charge my car between 12 am and 6 am when electric rates are $0.15/kWh.
3) Gas prices in San Diego are closer to $5/gallon.
4) Following your logic, I get 31 mi/$ or 155 mpge

 

[PetevB]

I haven't looked into what it would take to switch to heat pumps but I have a furnace in the attic and another for the lower level. The one downstairs is in an enclosure with the water heater, and there's an unused breaker panel right outside of it, so it shouldn't be too bad. I haven't been tracking how much usage comes from each one to try to figure out the operating costs of each one, and I'd have to do some digging to see if I even have that sort of data from the thermostats. For now, each thermostat is a different brand with a different online connection so it would tale me a while to figure it out.

If I were you I'd probably get 2-3 of something like this upstairs now: https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Basics-Protection-Oil-Filled-ETL-certified/dp/B07HGFB3FQ/?th=1
You can then consider downstairs later, either with more of the above or with a heat pump. That's where we are in fact, we cut a a substantial amount of our gas bill by not running the gas (in floor, radiant) heater in the winter. We're waiting to switch heat, the water heater and drier to electric as they die (we also have an excess of solar).

 

[scal_air]

What's absolutely absurd is that if it weren't for all the people who invested their own money into home solar, the California power grid would be unable to meet demand at peak hours in the summer. So those people helped finance California's "kicking the can down the road" approach to maintaining and updating the State's electrical infrastructure. What do they get as thanks? They get hit with grid connect fees and raped when they sell back to the grid.

I agree. The current NEM 3 agreement is geared towards minimizing payments for excess solar energy funneled back to the grid and rewarding battery back ups. An expensive proposition for people thinking about installing solar, but beneficial to the electric utilities who can put off modernization of the power grid. And what does the utility do to maximize profit? More fees and schemes to increase the costs to the solar power generator...That's why V2H is so important to those who have solar without batteries and those thinking about installing solar. And honestly, grid infrastructure improvement needs to get started now. It only gets more costly as time goes by.

 

[DeaneG]

1) I get 4.7 mi/kWh with my Touring and I live at 5000 feet elevation. It gets pretty cold here in winter which should make my powertrain less efficient. I'm not sure how you get only 3 mi/kWh
2) I live in the San Diego Gas & Electric region. SDGE has the highest electricity rates in the country. I charge my car between 12 am and 6 am when electric rates are $0.15/kWh.
3) Gas prices in San Diego are closer to $5/gallon.
4) Following your logic, I get 31 mi/$ or 155 mpge

SDG&E may have the highest average rates in the country, but my minimum rate from PG&E is $0.35/kWh, more than double your great-sounding minimum.

 

[scal_air]

SDG&E may have the highest average rates in the country, but my minimum rate from PG&E is $0.35/kWh, more than double your great-sounding minimum.

Agree but to be fair, there are many different plans that people may qualify for that have different rates. Looking at their website, there seems to be an EV plan that has a minimum rate of 0.113/kWh. (Winter, super off peak) No idea of the criteria for qualification or if im reading it correctly...

 

[DeaneG]

Agree but to be fair, there are many different plans that people may qualify for that have different rates. Looking at their website, there seems to be an EV plan that has a minimum rate of 0.113/kWh. (Winter, super off peak) No idea of the criteria for qualification or if im reading it correctly...

PG&E (northern CA) doesn't offer EV-TOU-5. Its lowest rate plan is EV2-A at about $0.31/kWh off peak in winter. Solar PV customers are forced onto E-ELEC at $0.35/kWh off peak in winter. Both are about $0.65/kWh peak summer.

I suppose any comparison between rates must be by region, rather than by state.