Those of you who live in Northern California and are served electricity by PG&E should read the following information.
PG&E has filed Advice 3910-E with the California Public Utilities Commission in accordance with CPUC Decision D.11-07-029 proposing to revise the E-9 rate schedule that is optional for customers who charge an EV. This proposal eliminates surcharge tiers so that customers who already use a lot of electricity and then add an EV won't be hit hard by going into the high tiers as a consequence of using more electricity than before. That might seem like a good thing, and it would be for some people
However, this single-tier rate is set at a level that is roughly double the part-peak and off-peak rates from the lowest tier of the current E-9 rate schedule (going from 5.5 cents to 11 cents per kWh for the off-peak when we do all our EV charging) . For those of us who have invested in solar power and/or who are very conservative in their power use to keep their consumption in the lowest tier, this is a big increase. They have also instituted year-round 3pm - 9pm peak rates, rather than only in the summer.
PG&E is also proposing to translate the current $8.00 per month meter fee (that we are currently paying and that was to be eliminated with the installation of SmartMeters) into a fixed "customer charge". That seems unfair given that the average E-1 customer does not pay such a charge.
PG&E's advice letter states that 3/4 of the customers currently taking service on the E-9A rate schedule will be negatively impacted, with the worst quartile seeing an average increase of 80%. I can only assume that they expect us to switch to some other rate schedule. But the only choices are non-TOU E-1 at 12 cents or the E-6 TOU rate schedule with 9.3/16/27 cents per kWh for off/part/peak periods. To me, the proposed change clearly decreases the incentive to charge between midnight and 7am that the current E-9 rate schedule favors.
Here is a link to the Advice 3910-E letter (PDF document): http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariff...LEC_3910-E.pdf
The CPUC Decision D.11-07-29 document (PDF) is here: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/FIN...ION/139969.pdf
There is an opportunity to file protests by October 17. I have found out the hard way that protesting a PG&E Advice letter is pointless if that letter is simply implementing what PG&E was directed to do by the CPUC. There is some wiggle-room in this case because the CPUC only ordered that the E-9B separate-meter rate be changed. The CPUC did not order that the E-9A single-meter (whole house) rate be changed, but they did support doing so. The main counter-argument that PG&E will wage is that the E-9 rate for tiers 1 and 2 is below the true cost. This is stated in their Advice Letter. However, that is as it should be: if tier 1 was the true cost, then the full increment for tiers above that would be extra profit.
The CPUC decision was issued in July. Such decisions follow hearings in which the stakeholders can make comments, but it is very hard for individuals to play in that game. I have not investigated yet whether there have been any positions stated by TURN or proponents of EV and/or solar technologies. However, the list of stakewholders did not include the main solar players, and I think that is part of the problem.