4 ms·

> $6B for a mere five years is highway robbery The average price of electricity in California is 27 cents/kWh, or $270/MWh [1]. Some of this go to middlemen, b

> $6B for a mere five years is highway robbery The average price of electricity in California is 27 cents/kWh, or $270/MWh [1]. Some of this go to middlemen, but some to producers. I don't know the split, but let's say it's half and half. Diablo produces about 16000 GWh of electricity per year [2]. At $135 per MWh it comes to $2.2 BN/year, or $11 BN for 5 years. So $6 BN is not quite highway robbery. [1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Wholesale electricity prices are usually around 10% of retail.
- amluto 3y ago
  Which makes one wonder why PG&E is permitted to charge so much for “generation”.
  - undersuit 3y ago
    You can move to Texas and sign up for retail rates from one of their lesser regulated providers, and when the temperatures drop and your energy markets spike in value you too can pay market rates to heat your home.
    - matthewdgreen 3y ago
      In fairness, there are many other states with lower generation prices than CA and that don’t have weird grid failures like TX. Those two states both seem nuts to me, especially given how many natural energy resources they’ve been gifted with.
      - undersuit 3y ago
        In fairness I was answering the question of where you can get market rates. Very little of TX's grid failures in February 2021 directly affected the infrastructure to the homes, many Texas providers cut power because they could not afford the wholesale rates while offering the customers a protected monthly rate. There was a very good chance that if your provider was one of the TX providers that allowed you access to Texas's energy market, you maintained power during the freeze and paid massively for that.
        amluto 3y ago
        PG&E's generation rates are listed as though PG&E is paying that amount on average. So I don't think this is a spot-vs-guaranteed price issue -- I think it's more like wholesale vs retail.
        undersuit 3y ago
        California doesn't have an energy market like Texas. Correct me if I'm wrong but if the price of energy spikes during a billing cycle you don't pay any extra that month as a residential customer, PG&E has to change the rates later.
shadowflit 3y ago
For reference, my PG&E bill splits out transmission/delivery and generation very conveniently, since SF provides its own power generation utility service. It appears to be closer to 60/40. At PG&E generation rates (a little higher), perhaps up to 55/45. Incidentally, $0.13748/kWh in generation costs, with an increase of only $0.01/kWh for exclusive wind/solar sourcing.
- epistasis 3y ago
  That generation cost is also far far higher than the cost of new solar. New floating offshore wind, a new technology that is "expensive," is about at that generation cost. Even the $6B here amounts to roughly $0.08/kWh, which is far higher than the alternative uses of the money. Electricity is expensive in California not because we use renewables, but because we have not switched to them, and because PG&E has astronomical costs for its grid. We need CPUC to start pushing back harder here.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    That's not what PG&E says. They say they are paying more than $0.08/kWh for solar producers, and that's not even with storage.
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      Yeah people keep claiming that solar is cheaper in these threads but when asked for proof they point solely at panel prices like that’s anything. The data I’ve been about to find puts hydro, fossil fuels, nuclear, and wind on par with each other with solar about ~2-3x the production cost (not including batteries) if I recall correctly.
    - epistasis 3y ago
      That must be an average including lots of old, expensive installations. Even five years ago, PG&E estimated for new solar was less than $0.06/kWh, and they tend to overestimate these things, and underestimate the rate of cost decreases with solar. In evaluating the difference between maintaining an existing nuclear site, or building new solar, the new cost is the more accurate estimate. If you look at new solar deployments in California, nearly all include storage, because it increases profitability to be able to deliver during the evening. Storage is profitable today, meaning that it necessarily costs less than market rates.
robsh 3y ago
Price right now is $65/MWh. There’s an app called ISO Today https://apps.apple.com/us/app/iso-today/id596881268 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/iso-today/id596881268 Price in the middle of a sunny or windy day can be way less.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Wholesale electricity prices are usually around 10% of retail.

amluto 3y ago
Which makes one wonder why PG&E is permitted to charge so much for “generation”.
- undersuit 3y ago
  You can move to Texas and sign up for retail rates from one of their lesser regulated providers, and when the temperatures drop and your energy markets spike in value you too can pay market rates to heat your home.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    In fairness, there are many other states with lower generation prices than CA and that don’t have weird grid failures like TX. Those two states both seem nuts to me, especially given how many natural energy resources they’ve been gifted with.
    - undersuit 3y ago
      In fairness I was answering the question of where you can get market rates. Very little of TX's grid failures in February 2021 directly affected the infrastructure to the homes, many Texas providers cut power because they could not afford the wholesale rates while offering the customers a protected monthly rate. There was a very good chance that if your provider was one of the TX providers that allowed you access to Texas's energy market, you maintained power during the freeze and paid massively for that.
      - amluto 3y ago
        PG&E's generation rates are listed as though PG&E is paying that amount on average. So I don't think this is a spot-vs-guaranteed price issue -- I think it's more like wholesale vs retail.
        undersuit 3y ago
        California doesn't have an energy market like Texas. Correct me if I'm wrong but if the price of energy spikes during a billing cycle you don't pay any extra that month as a residential customer, PG&E has to change the rates later.

shadowflit 3y ago

For reference, my PG&E bill splits out transmission/delivery and generation very conveniently, since SF provides its own power generation utility service. It appears to be closer to 60/40. At PG&E generation rates (a little higher), perhaps up to 55/45. Incidentally, $0.13748/kWh in generation costs, with an increase of only $0.01/kWh for exclusive wind/solar sourcing.

epistasis 3y ago
That generation cost is also far far higher than the cost of new solar. New floating offshore wind, a new technology that is "expensive," is about at that generation cost. Even the $6B here amounts to roughly $0.08/kWh, which is far higher than the alternative uses of the money. Electricity is expensive in California not because we use renewables, but because we have not switched to them, and because PG&E has astronomical costs for its grid. We need CPUC to start pushing back harder here.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  That's not what PG&E says. They say they are paying more than $0.08/kWh for solar producers, and that's not even with storage.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Yeah people keep claiming that solar is cheaper in these threads but when asked for proof they point solely at panel prices like that’s anything. The data I’ve been about to find puts hydro, fossil fuels, nuclear, and wind on par with each other with solar about ~2-3x the production cost (not including batteries) if I recall correctly.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    That must be an average including lots of old, expensive installations. Even five years ago, PG&E estimated for new solar was less than $0.06/kWh, and they tend to overestimate these things, and underestimate the rate of cost decreases with solar. In evaluating the difference between maintaining an existing nuclear site, or building new solar, the new cost is the more accurate estimate. If you look at new solar deployments in California, nearly all include storage, because it increases profitability to be able to deliver during the evening. Storage is profitable today, meaning that it necessarily costs less than market rates.

robsh 3y ago

Price right now is $65/MWh. There’s an app called ISO Today https://apps.apple.com/us/app/iso-today/id596881268 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/iso-today/id596881268 Price in the middle of a sunny or windy day can be way less.