6 ms·

> we have an overabundance of "green" energy here in California, yet energy prices are through the roof, we are looking at potential, rolling blackouts this sum

> we have an overabundance of "green" energy here in California, yet energy prices are through the roof, we are looking at potential, rolling blackouts this summer, and we have to sell excess power to other states each month. why? You're absolutely right. Here in Marin county, you can opt in to using renewable energy, which my wife and I have. The public renewable utility rate is significantly cheaper than the standard PG&E rate. However, I am forced to pay more than the actual cost that the public renewable utility charges, because -- due to California state law -- my electric bill comes from PG&E, who -- despite not making the electricity -- has responsibility to charge the consumer. Of course, PG&E charges a 'convenience and distribution' fee that eradicates the difference in pricing between the renewable resource and their own electricity. Note that, if I opt in to using PG&E generated electricity, they kindly 'waive' the fee. Thus, despite the renewables being cheaper, I do not get the benefit as the consumer. I have contacted my state senator and representative, and they sent me back a form e-mail about how they are 'standing' up to PG&E. Give me a break.... this is something that is easily legislated.

danans 8y ago
> PG&E, who -- despite not making the electricity -- has responsibility to charge the consumer. Of course, PG&E charges a 'convenience and distribution' fee I understand your frustration that the amount of the fee cancels out the cheaper cost of renewables in your case, but providing local distribution has a cost (maintenance of poles, wires, etc) over and above the actual energy generation cost, so there will always be a fee for this, unless you figure out a way to get the renewables to your house without the local distributor (and assuming that you don't put solar/batteries on your house). Also, there is a cost (for storage, load dispatching, frequency regulation, etc) to turning the variability of renewables into the steady stream of available power that consumers expect. Again, it's possible even including the cost of all of these necessary services, the renewables should still be cheaper than the non-renewables, but it's never going to be zero.
- frakr 8y ago
  Do you work in PR?
  - danans 8y ago
    No, but I did work for a bit on simulating renewable energy integration into the grid. That's where I learned about things like storage, load dispatching, frequency regulation, and local power distribution.
    - npunt 8y ago
      People like you commenting in threads like this are the reason I keep coming back to HN. Thanks for your insights.
  - dang 8y ago
    This crosses into personal attack and also breaks the site rule against insinuating astroturfing without evidence. Could you please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do this again?
    - frakr 8y ago
      Sorry. Won't happen again.
      - dang 8y ago
        Appreciated!
- bdamm 8y ago
  This all makes sense, but why then is the "standard" (coal-fired?) electricity the same price as the "renewable" electricity? Why does the utility "waive" the distribution fee? In fact, passing it on to the consumer as an option doesn't make any sense to me. The utility negotiates bulk price and averages it out for consumers. If anything the conversation with the utility should be entirely about matching behavior to supply and/or dynamic pricing, and not at all about renewable vs non-renewable voltage.
  - danans 8y ago
    I think the post I answered was referring to PGE's Solar Choice program, which I agree is not a good deal for a consumer. But it's marketed specifically as a program where you pay a premium to fund the greening of the grid [1][2]. It actually states that you will pay a premium for this plan. 1. https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/options/solar/solar-choice/solar-choice.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_solarchoice https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/opt... 2. https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/PG-E-s-eco-friendly-offer-Pay-more-and-6805020.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/PG-E-s-eco-friendly-...
    - tathougies 8y ago
      I am not referring to PGE's solar choice program. Marin county runs its own green energy, independent of PG&E. PG&E owns the wires. I get it costs money to run the wires. However, it is wrong to waive the fee for those using PG&E services. It's anti-competitive and bad for the state.
  - azernik 8y ago
    Mostly because of the historical way the business model worked - the portion of your bill that varies based on energy usage is all out of proportion to the portion of the cost to the energy company that comes from varies based on energy usage. Basically, the electric companies' business model is like the cell phone companies' - build infrastructure, charge by usage - which means that low-cost energy sources, especially out of PG&E's control, are disastrous for their business model. It's a serious problem I've heard a lot of talk about in renewable energy policy circles, and the generally accepted idea of a functional market structure in this new world is to have a grid company, which charges only that distribution fee, and a generation company, which charges you for the cost of generation. But we're not there yet, so PG&E needs to find ways to not lose money on the grid hookup for customers who buy cheap forms of energy (or are, godforbid, energy-neutral with relation to the grid).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
casefields 8y ago
That's because solar usage has created a "duck curve" I would imagine it would be even more unfair to make normal energy users pay for that: https://youtu.be/YYLzss58CLs https://youtu.be/YYLzss58CLs
- 49bc 8y ago
  There's really nothing special there. Grid operators balance generation and demand, and need to continually update their models. E.g., generate less during midday and more in the late afternoon. It's a hard job sure. That's why we hire experts to do it. The problem is that utilities want it both ways. They want to charge you peak usage despite the fact that "peak" generation is actually becoming one of the cheapest times for power. If they allowed free-market pricing in that power they could easily find a use for "curtailment" -- people would crank their ACs or charge their cars if the price kWh dropped below a certain point.
- ghouse 8y ago
  And the use of air conditioning is what causes the annual peak (which is what the transmission and distribution systems are built to serve). Is it unfair for people who don't have air conditioning (or live in more temperate areas) to pay a premium so that others can have air conditioning? This is why California is moving to Time of Use rates (TOU) in late 2019/2020 (depending how they push off the date due to IT challenges).
- Retric 8y ago
  Nope, you can smooth that out by moving power east to west. 1000 miles is ~two time zones and has minimal transmission costs. Get their solar in the morning and give them some solar in the evening and you can kill off one bump at each end. Continental US is 4 time zones wide so you only have a morning bump on the east coast and an evening bump on the west coast to deal with. Extra cheap wind capacity in the middle of the US can provide power for either bump. It's really more about corruption than anything else. PG&E still charges vastly increased rates in California despite huge drops in wind and solar prices.
  - opo 8y ago

danans 8y ago

> PG&E, who -- despite not making the electricity -- has responsibility to charge the consumer. Of course, PG&E charges a 'convenience and distribution' fee I understand your frustration that the amount of the fee cancels out the cheaper cost of renewables in your case, but providing local distribution has a cost (maintenance of poles, wires, etc) over and above the actual energy generation cost, so there will always be a fee for this, unless you figure out a way to get the renewables to your house without the local distributor (and assuming that you don't put solar/batteries on your house). Also, there is a cost (for storage, load dispatching, frequency regulation, etc) to turning the variability of renewables into the steady stream of available power that consumers expect. Again, it's possible even including the cost of all of these necessary services, the renewables should still be cheaper than the non-renewables, but it's never going to be zero.

frakr 8y ago
Do you work in PR?
- danans 8y ago
  No, but I did work for a bit on simulating renewable energy integration into the grid. That's where I learned about things like storage, load dispatching, frequency regulation, and local power distribution.
  - npunt 8y ago
    People like you commenting in threads like this are the reason I keep coming back to HN. Thanks for your insights.
- dang 8y ago
  This crosses into personal attack and also breaks the site rule against insinuating astroturfing without evidence. Could you please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do this again?
  - frakr 8y ago
    Sorry. Won't happen again.
    - dang 8y ago
      Appreciated!
bdamm 8y ago
This all makes sense, but why then is the "standard" (coal-fired?) electricity the same price as the "renewable" electricity? Why does the utility "waive" the distribution fee? In fact, passing it on to the consumer as an option doesn't make any sense to me. The utility negotiates bulk price and averages it out for consumers. If anything the conversation with the utility should be entirely about matching behavior to supply and/or dynamic pricing, and not at all about renewable vs non-renewable voltage.
- danans 8y ago
  I think the post I answered was referring to PGE's Solar Choice program, which I agree is not a good deal for a consumer. But it's marketed specifically as a program where you pay a premium to fund the greening of the grid [1][2]. It actually states that you will pay a premium for this plan. 1. https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/options/solar/solar-choice/solar-choice.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_solarchoice https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/opt... 2. https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/PG-E-s-eco-friendly-offer-Pay-more-and-6805020.php https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/PG-E-s-eco-friendly-...
  - tathougies 8y ago
    I am not referring to PGE's solar choice program. Marin county runs its own green energy, independent of PG&E. PG&E owns the wires. I get it costs money to run the wires. However, it is wrong to waive the fee for those using PG&E services. It's anti-competitive and bad for the state.
- azernik 8y ago
  Mostly because of the historical way the business model worked - the portion of your bill that varies based on energy usage is all out of proportion to the portion of the cost to the energy company that comes from varies based on energy usage. Basically, the electric companies' business model is like the cell phone companies' - build infrastructure, charge by usage - which means that low-cost energy sources, especially out of PG&E's control, are disastrous for their business model. It's a serious problem I've heard a lot of talk about in renewable energy policy circles, and the generally accepted idea of a functional market structure in this new world is to have a grid company, which charges only that distribution fee, and a generation company, which charges you for the cost of generation. But we're not there yet, so PG&E needs to find ways to not lose money on the grid hookup for customers who buy cheap forms of energy (or are, godforbid, energy-neutral with relation to the grid).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

casefields 8y ago

That's because solar usage has created a "duck curve" I would imagine it would be even more unfair to make normal energy users pay for that: https://youtu.be/YYLzss58CLs https://youtu.be/YYLzss58CLs

49bc 8y ago
There's really nothing special there. Grid operators balance generation and demand, and need to continually update their models. E.g., generate less during midday and more in the late afternoon. It's a hard job sure. That's why we hire experts to do it. The problem is that utilities want it both ways. They want to charge you peak usage despite the fact that "peak" generation is actually becoming one of the cheapest times for power. If they allowed free-market pricing in that power they could easily find a use for "curtailment" -- people would crank their ACs or charge their cars if the price kWh dropped below a certain point.
ghouse 8y ago
And the use of air conditioning is what causes the annual peak (which is what the transmission and distribution systems are built to serve). Is it unfair for people who don't have air conditioning (or live in more temperate areas) to pay a premium so that others can have air conditioning? This is why California is moving to Time of Use rates (TOU) in late 2019/2020 (depending how they push off the date due to IT challenges).
Retric 8y ago
Nope, you can smooth that out by moving power east to west. 1000 miles is ~two time zones and has minimal transmission costs. Get their solar in the morning and give them some solar in the evening and you can kill off one bump at each end. Continental US is 4 time zones wide so you only have a morning bump on the east coast and an evening bump on the west coast to deal with. Extra cheap wind capacity in the middle of the US can provide power for either bump. It's really more about corruption than anything else. PG&E still charges vastly increased rates in California despite huge drops in wind and solar prices.
- opo 8y ago