Distributors’ broad brush unfair to businesses

networkAs the nation’s distributors continue to announce the pending armageddon with regard to their revenue models, the measures they are taking under the auspices of “cost reflective pricing” are falling way short of the mark and in reality open the doors to future legal challenges and compensation.

If I was to sell you petrol, I must measure the amount of petrol delivered to your vehicle but also, I must measure the temperature of that fuel to ensure I am delivering a uniform volume regardless of the fluctuating temperature of the product, this is the law. Now if you consider electricity in the same way, there are again two main variables to consider at the exact time of delivery, one is the cost of the actual electricity and the other is the cost of delivery.

Both of these items vary in costs minute by minute and significantly, both can be accurately measured instantaneously. Distributors are now universally measuring electricity volume and demand in Kilovolt Amperes instead of Kilowatts, which is a much more accurate measure. Queensland’s Energex has just launched their new regime which actually rewards large customers who’s power factor exceeds 0.92, but punishes those below 0.92.

One of the less justifiable transitions however is the focus of demand charging over volume consumption, this new focus is said to more fairly apportion the costs of building and maintaining network assets, which on the face of it looks quite valid. However, it’s the way they currently measure and charge for demand that smacks of a sloppy, broad brushed regime instead of a highly accurate and targeted scheme that can and should be used instead with most measuring technology in place. As an example, a customer who has installed 100 kilowatts of solar onto his engineering workshop. This business is, and will remain a “Large” customer and therefore will stay on a demand tariff.

Despite the customer’s sizeable investment in solar for his complex, little or no relief is available to his demand charges because he starts up his machines at five o’clock in the morning, when there is no sun. He has minimal air-conditioning and a uniform load all day which drops off sharply at three-thirty in the afternoon. By installing solar, this customer has removed up to one hundred kilowatts of demand from the network when the network needs relief, which is in the noon to mid-afternoon period. For this, the customer receives absolutely no consideration and the peak that is occurring at a low point in the networks demand cycle (at six AM), is charged as if it was in the mid-afternoon.

It is reasonable for the customer to argue that the network can and must properly measure the true cost of supplying electricity to this business and therefore take into account the time of his peak demand, not just the size of it. Now one can appreciated that in a heavy industrial area, the actual peak on the network may in fact occur at Six a.m. in the morning, but it would be a very rare occurrence indeed, and this demand concentration would apply only to a small amount of assets in that area, as we move away diversity diminishes this demand exponentially. Why can we not achieve measurement of electricity under the National Measurement Act, the act that nearly every other business must follow, sure we may have it in place for volume charging, but it can be accurately applied to demand or “capacity” charging, so why isn’t it?

Rob Campbell is Managing Director of Australian Solar Systems.

Comments

4 responses to “Distributors’ broad brush unfair to businesses”

  1. Barri Mundee Avatar
    Barri Mundee

    No doubt the hypothetical engineering workshop could install battery storage to get around this demand charge but it would be a substantial extra cost.

    1. Mike Dill Avatar
      Mike Dill

      the 100kWh Tesla battery is supposed to sell for US$25,000. It will be interesting to see how the math works out for that versus the demand charges. (assuming a constant 5kw draw on the grid for the 100kWh morning peak, storing excess during the sunny part of the day, and tapping the battery for dark days.)

  2. john Avatar
    john

    The second paragraph outlines a volume measurement of a product in an earlier age whale oil was measured by volume for sale at very low temperatures then sold at a higher temperature where there was a difference between the two.
    Fuel in large shipments is measured in weight not volume for the very same reason.
    Getting to the inside of this story if a supply side charge is going to be measured to the clients in 15 to 30 minute maximum demand then the way to reduce this is to use a battery system to lower this demand.
    Putting PV on to charge the backup to mitigate the higher demand for only a short interval may in fact prove economical.
    If the actual cost for the usage of power is being lowered because of PV then this also may be advantageous.
    Trying to work out a way to charge people/business for the actual use in the age of RE is presenting a problem to the retailers who naturally are now looking for any way to get around it.
    A mature retailer would be proactive and make an agreement with the user to supply the client with both PV and battery backup which will both help the retailer and the client.

  3. Chris Fraser Avatar
    Chris Fraser

    True, the cost of delivery may have a lot to do with timing of peak loads. I think it is fairer to separate the costs borne by the generator, and the costs borne by the transmitter. Since the factory has 100 kWp, the factory owner should have a consumer’s fair opportunity to reduce cost of transmission congestion to once a day rather than twice. Retailers could even have a competitive edge if they recognise this. None of the incumbents are qualified to give direction to State pricing tribunals on how they should charge consumers.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.