# Dollars paid per kWh saved.

San DiegoMember, Moderator Posts: 1,625

I'm in ZIP 92101 and over 30+ OhmHours the payout per kWh for me is averaging close to \$1.90.

A friend in ZIP 92010 is seeing a payout in the order of 25 cents per kWh.

Why is there such a big difference?

What is the experience of others?
@That Son Of A Bitz
@WaterGuy
@stevee
@snetphilie
@SaveTheWorld

• San DiegoMember, Moderator Posts: 1,625

This was the answer provided by @Matt D

"You have been placed into a CEC Carlsbad grant experiment. Unfortunately, that means your #OhmHours over the next couple of months will remain pretty low (on the order of 35 points per kwh). After that experiment is over, you will be earning similar amounts - on the order of 2000 points per event. This is an experiment run by UC Berkeley and the assignment is completely random. Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do at this point until that experiment runs its course. I apologize about this and hope that you will stick with us over the next few months"

• ConcordMember, Moderator Posts: 139

Base points, I'm looking at:
Min: \$1.28
Avg: \$1.87
Max: \$3.26
I'm in 94521

• San DiegoMember, Moderator Posts: 1,625
edited June 2017

@WaterGuy said:
@UkiwiS, assuming you're only talking about base points, I've averaged \$1.85/kWh over the past 20 OhmHours, with a min of \$1.28 and a max of \$2.38. I'm located in 92111. \$0.25/kWh seems crazy low--any chance they're calculating incorrectly?

No, the calculations are correct. He sent me his CSV file and I checked it.

He has a total of 14 OhmHours and is on a streak of 10 so 50% Bonus. No Multiplier...needs another 6 and will be Platinum as he's saving on average 89%.
For his most recent OhmHour on 6/13 he saved 2.8685 kWh and earned 108 points including 36 bonus points. Base points were 72 and that equates to 25 cents. Over the 14 OhmHours the range has been from .037 to .502

I added columns H thru M (M shows what he would have earned if Platinum)

• Member, Moderator Posts: 39
edited June 2017

My average is also around 1.5\$ per kWh. With min somewhere around 1.2\$. At 90623

• Member Posts: 9

I just logged on to my OC and I'm noticing a big difference in my payout for July 17th. I think the payout was pretty low compared to the other dates where I didn't save as much energy. Is this something that I should email and request a review on or am I overlooking something? This specific payout had a 65% bonus and platinum at 4x. This was also the first payout made after all those issues with the negative awards...not sure if that makes a difference and it's seems like that was fixed. I was given 11 points before the July 17th ohm hour. Any advice is appreciated.

• San DiegoMember, Moderator Posts: 1,625
You earned 333 points for saving 2.76 kWh or about \$1.21 per kWh.

Although that's fairly low it's still in the ballpark IMO.
• Member Posts: 9

Thank you for your response! I'm still trying to figure this all out.

• San DiegoMember, Moderator Posts: 1,625

@Jenvel said:
Thank you for your response! I'm still trying to figure this all out.

Sorry, I see now what you are referring too.Those 11 points were the result of "Administrative Action" on the 18th so I would have to assume that you contacted OC and they fixed something for you. There's no date associated with that action other than the date showing when it was credited so I have no idea why.

• Member Posts: 9

@UkiwiS

The 11 was due to the negative points issue that we had there for a bit. Everyday they were taking a point. I was down to -6 points. I'm assuming the +11 points was to even out the issue and to take care of any possible negative points that might be taken. After that adjustment though I wasn't affected by the negative points issue anymore. It really was just the payout for the 17th that was odd. It was the lowest even though I had a higher bonus and saved more energy than in the past.

• San DiegoMember, Moderator Posts: 1,625

This is my personal experience over 2017
MIN 129.34
MAX 236.64
AVG 181.35

AVG(10) 169.24
The last reading is the AVG over the last 10 and you can see it's trending lower.

• ConcordMember, Moderator Posts: 139

Mine look like this:
MIN 118
MAX 399
AVG 185

Over the past 9 it's been 171 for me, so I'd agree that it's trending a bit lower.

• San DiegoMember, Moderator Posts: 1,625

@snetphilie Did the Max 399 occur on 6/21? That's the day that the whole state of CA was under a Flex Alert and they gave us the 3X multiplier. The base rate without that was 133 and for my calculation that's what I used. How much difference does that make to your numbers?

• ConcordMember, Moderator Posts: 139

Without that, it'd be Min 118, Max 252, AVG 181

Actually, I just added in my last 3 OhmHours, and they'd change those numbers a bit. Still using the 133 I would have a new Min of 94 and a new AVG of 178.

That 94 was this past Sunday. I got 10 base points for the hour. My guess is they have a lot more people participating and/or they are fine tuning their cost/price calculations. I think double digits may become the norm.

• Member Posts: 39
My most recent payout (7/31) I received 80.41 per KWh saved. I don't think it's ever been that low. 7/31 was a VERY hot day and especially hot for that time of day (3-4) where I'd expect the payout to be higher than others. Wonder why point payouts are decreasing so drastically.
• San DiegoMember, Moderator Posts: 1,625
> @Hunhoff1319 said:
> My most recent payout (7/31) I received 80.41 per KWh saved. I don't think it's ever been that low. 7/31 was a VERY hot day and especially hot for that time of day (3-4) where I'd expect the payout to be higher than others. Wonder why point payouts are decreasing so drastically.

Yes agree, that's lower than I've witnessed. Unless someone from OC chimes in I don't think you'll get an answer here. Reach out to [email protected] then please report back your findings.
• Member, Moderator Posts: 414
edited August 2017

@UkiwiS and @Hunhoff1319, I had two-hour OhmHours during the same time slot (6-8PM) on both Tuesday and Wednesday this week, which gave an interesting opportunity to compare results. The temperature was about the same on the two evenings, and my forecast was (surprisingly?) the exact same for the two events, down to the 0.0001 kWh. The only major difference I noticed between the two events was the timing of the notifications--I received about 24 hours' notice for Tuesday's event, which is typical for me, and only about 20 minutes' warning for Wednesday's event, which is the shortest yet. I hoped that would result in more points/kWh for the Wednesday event. My usage was very close for the two events, and my reductions were 1.2535 and 1.2085 kWh. I was surprised to see, when the results were posted, that I earned about 2.5x more base points for Tuesday's event than for Wednesday's. Tuesday's was a bit above average, at 195.45 points/kWh, while Wednesday's was only 82.75 points/kWh--the lowest I've seen yet.

I saw in the today's weekly snapshot something I hadn't noticed previously: statistics of the number of participants for the last 5 OhmHours. I didn't have time to go digging through past emails and see whether this checks out for a larger dataset, but I noticed that there seems to be a possible correlation between the number of participants and the points/kWh I earned, albeit with some other factors also clearly at play. Check it out:

This seems to support @snetphilie's guess about the relationship between participants and price. It isn't totally clear to me how the two are related in a mechanistic sense, though: while fewer participants could reflect less interest from OC users (fewer signed up for the program, more opting out, etc.), which I would think would reduce supply and inflate the points/kWh, the statistic could also represent a smaller need for reductions by the utilities and fewer people asked to participate--a reduction in demand which would tend to deflate the price.

• San DiegoMember, Moderator Posts: 1,625

@WaterGuy with regard to the forecasts. Remember the last 10 weekdays that didn't have an event are used in the calculation of the forecast. Given both events are on consecutive days the exact same days are used, therefore no surprise. I'd be suspicious if they weren't the same.

@snetphilie Interesting observation about the participation. I'll have to do some research on that. Cool graph!

• Member, Moderator Posts: 414

@UkiwiS, ah, you're right--I forgot that OhmHours aren't included in the forecast. Rookie mistake. Thanks!

• Member, Moderator Posts: 414
edited August 2017

@UkiwiS, I dug back to the past 20 events, and while it still appears there's some significant correlation, it's much weaker than it appeared with the past 5 events alone. I'd be really curious to better understand all of the factors that goes into this!

• Member, Moderator Posts: 414

@UkiwiS, actually, it looks like date alone is a better predictor than # participants...

• Lake Forest - Hikers and Bikers TeamMember Posts: 585

As more and more people increase their streak and status bonuses, it is inevitable that the base reward per kWh saved MUST drop. They can't keep paying out more and more for the same total reduction by all members. Also, I suspect as members learn to avoid penalties, there are fewer points to redistribute from that source.

• Member, Moderator Posts: 414

@John K, you're probably right, but OhmConnect also likely benefits financially from increased reliability of their user base. Recall that they lose money if they aren't able to provide the utilities with the reduction they commit to, so the increasing streaks and status bonuses are likely tied to increased earnings on their part, too. I don't think we have enough information to make strong statements about what must or must not happen.

• ConcordMember, Moderator Posts: 139

In the end, though, it's a market. Regardless of what the exact factors are, it's going to shift based on supply and demand. There is certainly competition for energy production, and plenty of demand for energy, and the uneven daily demand has created the market we are participating in. OhmConnect has competitors which forces them to bid lower, but pressure from users for rewards pushes them to bid higher. OhmConnect will only provide this service if they can remain profitable and many users will only participate if they are sufficiently rewarded. This is such a complex web that I don't think anyone really has a good grasp on where and how prices should be set, so they currently guess and then do a post-mortem to see how it ends up. So in that respect, everything that everyone has said makes sense, but certainly not until recently would anyone know what is really happening. My guess was simply that OhmConnect has a much better understanding now which is the reason for their changes. I also know they can't predict the whole market perfectly so there may be some changes yet to come.

This discussion has been closed.