The numbers are not looking right if you consider the tables that NV Energy submitted to the PUC as Class Average:
So I entered in the information into the calculator of the delivered amount, excess and the amount generated and our results are different from NV Energy’s that they submitted to the PUC.
I did not add the other fees and credits to give a more clear and easier break down to compare and contrast the Class Average. In the first year the Class Average was saving 56.64% and the next year you are looking at a savings of 51.83%, yielding a difference of 4.81% of savings loss between years 2015 and 2016 while the latest PUC filing stated that the Class Average savings is 52%(2015) to 51%(2016). This means NV Energy never calculated the correct savings in the first place.
My addition and subtraction of columns C + D – E = 18045 and not 18,117 as they have on the table. (10,989 / 18,045 = 60.9%)
Perhaps the discrepancy or error in our assumption is that the Class Average is carrying over banked credits from 2015 into 2016. To give NV Energy the benefit of the doubt, I looked into excess energy credits being a possibility, but that gets thrown out the window as shown below.
As you can see above that no excess energy will be applied to 2016’s energy bills because under the old way of debiting and crediting excess credit from ones account all of the credits would have been consumed earlier in the year when the summer time usage demanded all cumulative credits for use in the home and the system never made enough energy in the fall/winter to carry over excess energy credits into the 2016 year.
In Conclusion of these findings
The math just does not make sense on what was provided to the PUCN by NV Energy. The savings go from 56% down to 51% in 1 year as opposed to the change of 52% to 51% as stated above in the Compliance Average Bill Comparison. The change in savings over 5 years is projected to go down to 25%, but the Compliance Average Bill comparison is lacking in those projections.
The difference in cost to the Class Average is greater in the first year of $105.36 in my findings and not the $20.15 quoted in the latest filing for Stay by the PUC as seen in the second line of 69 below.
This system is also a Hypothetical one since almost every customer I have installed solar for has a system that is closer to 90-100% electric offset. It is very hard to determine a customer’s energy load and they may not consume 60% of the electricity produced instantly as NV Energy stipulates in the example they provided to the PUCN.
In Fact if you were to play around with This Spreadsheet you will see no mater what you will still have at minimum of 22% increase by the 5th year if you generated 100 percent of your needed energy and consumed it at the same time.
As shown in my more expanded case study, which a smaller system with a 40% instant solar electric consumption, the cost to the customer is greatly increased because the savings is diminished at a higher percentage.
If you see that I am right please share this with other people to get the word out. firstname.lastname@example.org