4 ms·

60%+ of cost on my bill in northern CA is delivery, not generation. Which is dumb, cause it's a fixed cost charged as variable, but that's a separate discussion

60%+ of cost on my bill in northern CA is delivery, not generation. Which is dumb, cause it's a fixed cost charged as variable, but that's a separate discussion.

pstrateman 2y ago
The 0.08/kWh includes delivery, it's more like 0.04/kWh without delivery.
- fyrn_ 2y ago
  Well, that's just not what you are actually charged for delivery in California.
caf 2y ago
It's done like that to try and approximately apportion the cost based on each user's use of the infrastructure. The cost is almost entirely driven by peak use though, so what would actually be "fairer" (or at least more cost-reflective) is to charge the transmission cost based on your individual contribution to peak demand on the infrastructure. People kind of hate that though because it's difficult for most consumers to predict or control their contribution to peak demand, and for the same reason it doesn't drive behaviour change / more efficient use of the infrastructure as much as you'd like. In the end it'd probably still be about 60% of your bill anyway.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Some industrial users are charged in this way, and that's another driver for battery adoption as you can avoid the peak spikes with batteries locally in the same way the larger grid does.
  - andoma 2y ago
    FWIW where I live in Sweden the delivery is charged based on peak usage also for residential customers. Based on average of top three peak kWh/h in a month.
hackerlight 2y ago
Iowa has more renewables as a proportion than CA yet has lower electricity prices than the national average. There are a few examples like this. Raw retail prices are not an accurate reflection of anything. You actually have to do your homework properly.
- AdamN 2y ago
  Exactly. The price of Coke is based on where you're buying it not on the production cost.
- pstrateman 2y ago
  Iowa and California are on the same grid. They're both the exact same resource mix because it's the exact same grid. Here's the resource mix https://feature.wecc.org/soti/topic-sections/resources/index.html https://feature.wecc.org/soti/topic-sections/resources/index... The difference in cost is entirely contracting and last mile transmission.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    A quick glance at this next map will show that Iowa is not in WECC (although Idaho is): https://www.wecc.org/_catalogs/masterpage/wecc/Images/WI-Map-260.png https://www.wecc.org/_catalogs/masterpage/wecc/Images/WI-Map... Also, just because 2 states are interconnected doesn't mean that the interconnects have enough capacity for electricity sources to be fungible.
    - pstrateman 2y ago
      You're right they're on the eastern interconnect, which is even larger and harder to reason about. Edit: After the 2003 blackouts the Eastern interconnect got much more... connected https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/UnitedStatesPowerGrid.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/UnitedSt...

60%+ of cost on my bill in northern CA is delivery, not generation. Which is dumb, cause it's a fixed cost charged as variable, but that's a separate discussion.

pstrateman 2y ago

The 0.08/kWh includes delivery, it's more like 0.04/kWh without delivery.

fyrn_ 2y ago
Well, that's just not what you are actually charged for delivery in California.

caf 2y ago

It's done like that to try and approximately apportion the cost based on each user's use of the infrastructure. The cost is almost entirely driven by peak use though, so what would actually be "fairer" (or at least more cost-reflective) is to charge the transmission cost based on your individual contribution to peak demand on the infrastructure. People kind of hate that though because it's difficult for most consumers to predict or control their contribution to peak demand, and for the same reason it doesn't drive behaviour change / more efficient use of the infrastructure as much as you'd like. In the end it'd probably still be about 60% of your bill anyway.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Some industrial users are charged in this way, and that's another driver for battery adoption as you can avoid the peak spikes with batteries locally in the same way the larger grid does.
- andoma 2y ago
  FWIW where I live in Sweden the delivery is charged based on peak usage also for residential customers. Based on average of top three peak kWh/h in a month.

hackerlight 2y ago

Iowa has more renewables as a proportion than CA yet has lower electricity prices than the national average. There are a few examples like this. Raw retail prices are not an accurate reflection of anything. You actually have to do your homework properly.

AdamN 2y ago
Exactly. The price of Coke is based on where you're buying it not on the production cost.
pstrateman 2y ago
Iowa and California are on the same grid. They're both the exact same resource mix because it's the exact same grid. Here's the resource mix https://feature.wecc.org/soti/topic-sections/resources/index.html https://feature.wecc.org/soti/topic-sections/resources/index... The difference in cost is entirely contracting and last mile transmission.
- hollerith 2y ago
  A quick glance at this next map will show that Iowa is not in WECC (although Idaho is): https://www.wecc.org/_catalogs/masterpage/wecc/Images/WI-Map-260.png https://www.wecc.org/_catalogs/masterpage/wecc/Images/WI-Map... Also, just because 2 states are interconnected doesn't mean that the interconnects have enough capacity for electricity sources to be fungible.
  - pstrateman 2y ago
    You're right they're on the eastern interconnect, which is even larger and harder to reason about. Edit: After the 2003 blackouts the Eastern interconnect got much more... connected https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/UnitedStatesPowerGrid.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/UnitedSt...