# 9,500 kWh of production in first year - Page 13

Posted by Bob on May 10, 2008, 5:44 pm

On May 10, 9:49 am, d...@02.usenet.us.com wrote:

on.http://www.rahul.net/dold/clarence/History-e1-e7.gif

One of us is reading the PG&E chart wrong.  You think that schedule
E-1 tier 3 was \$.051 in 0106 (1/06)?
Tier 3 now 0.226, agreed.

4/03:  tier 1, 0.12589;  tier 2, 0.14321; tier 3, 0.19445.
The next earlier period on the PG&E chart is 7/1/01, and the wording
is different.
7/01:  baseline, 0.11589; excess quantity, 0.13321; energy surcharge
0.01000; tier 3 energy surcharge, 0.05124.
6/01 same as 7/01

So to get tier 3 in 7/01, I added the last three figures for a total
of  0.19445, exactly the same price as in 4/03.

Bob

Posted by dold on May 12, 2008, 1:46 am

I do agree that I was reading it wrong.  I still think you are.

You'd have to go the tariffs to find the explanation of how to apply the
billing.

I think the tier 3 must be the "excess" (corresponding to T2), plus an
additional penalty described as T3 to reach T3, and t4...
Baseline == T1 .11589
Excess   == T2 .13321
T3 = Excess .13321 + T3 .05124 = .18445
This "method" leaves us with a .01 bump in 4/03.

This has no impact on the chart I posted beyond 04/03.
The trends are clear, starting with a 50% bump in t5 from '05 to 06.
The base rate remains stable, the upper tiers climb at a higher rate,
leaving an "average" that climbs slowly.
http://cdold.home.mchsi.com/History-e1.gif

Period     t1    t2    t3    t4    t5    average
0501    \$.114    \$.130    \$.178    \$.220    \$.220    \$.137
0601    \$.114    \$.130    \$.213    \$.290    \$.330    \$.154
0701    \$.114    \$.130    \$.229    \$.321    \$.370    \$.164
0801    \$.116    \$.131    \$.222    \$.305    \$.349    \$.164
0805    \$.116    \$.131    \$.226    \$.313    \$.359    \$.165

Period       t1    t2    t3    t4    t5    average
2001-may2008    0%    -1%    22%    37%    45%    16%
2005-may2008    1%    1%    27%    43%    63%    20%

the math on your own bills?  Do you have any T3 usage or higher?

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA  GPS: 38.8,-122.5
http://cdold.home.mchsi.com/Solar-generation.htm  \$705 avoided in 2007.

Posted by Bob on May 12, 2008, 7:43 am
On May 11, 6:46 pm, d...@02.usenet.us.com wrote:

------  dashes should be put here to indicate that lines were left out
of my original post at this point, particularly as the next two lines
depend on the preceding lines.

That is what I did in my chart -- except I also added the 1/4/01
energy surcharge of \$.01000.  Footnote 3 says that surcharge "applies
to all electric service customers" except those in the CARE program.
This is a matter of one penny, but it does make a difference when you
are calculating percent change between two dates.

slowly.http://cdold.home.mchsi.com/History-e1.gif

What dates are periods 1 and 2 of the graph, where tier 3 is above 20
cents?   I agree with the next two parts of the graph, where tier 3 is
below 20 cents and more recently comes back above 20 cents.

0106  \$.126  \$.143  \$.194  \$.238 \$.258  \$.142
0304  \$.126  \$.143  \$.194  \$.238 \$.258  \$.142

For comparison, here are the figures for 6/01 (where I have added the
0.01 energy surcharge to each category except the last, the average
rate, which already includes the surcharges) and 4/03, which gives a
five year period for comparison.  Exactly the same in all categories.
The APR, the percent change per year, is more meaningful to me than
the total percent change, but I won't do the calculations again, as
they depend on your starting and ending dates.  Particularly for tiers
4 and 5, using the earlier starting dates will give lower APR's than
using 0501, so take your pick.

We have been within our baseline for many years.   We live in a house
with modern appliances and computers, but don't need air conditioning
on the west side of San Francisco.

Bob

Posted by dold on May 20, 2008, 11:39 pm

I wasn't sure if the "04/01" surcharge was supplanted by the "06/01" rates
or not.

While I was off expanding my carbon footprint last week, I wondered if some
of those dates were in the period where PG&E was forbidden to raise their
retail rates while Enron was jerking the wholesale supply all over the
place.  The rate of change in the more recent years in the upper tiers is
of interest to me.

Nor will I.  This thread is long beyond worn out.

Then the effect of PV against the higher tiers is of no interest to you.
It is of great value to me.

--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA  GPS: 38.8,-122.5

Posted by Robert on May 21, 2008, 4:53 pm
On May 20, 4:39 pm, d...@02.usenet.us.com wrote:

The 6/1/01 energy surcharge was in addition to the 1/4/01 energy
surcharge, which is why the PG&E charts from the later periods show
both surcharges.  Also, I have a spreadsheet showing my energy use and
charges since 2000, which confirms my last statement (to my
satisfaction, anyway).

cents in 6/1/01, and there was no tier 3 before then.

It is of interest to me, although it doesn't affect me directly.

Bob

•
• Subject
• Author
• Date
 Re: 9,500 kWh of production in first year Paul M. Eldridg... 03-11-2008
 Re: 9,500 kWh of production in first year old dirtbeard 03-12-2008
 Re: Inverter performance nicksanspam 05-12-2008