3 ms·

> With the agency expecting approximately $6 million annually in energy credits from the California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program the f

> With the agency expecting approximately $6 million annually in energy credits from the California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program the first year of electric service will have lower fuel costs than the previous diesel service Thats the key. Without the subsidy its more expensive and less efficient than carbon based fuel. In the long run we are worse off, because the subsidy can't last forever.

kibwen 2y ago
> Without the subsidy its more expensive and less efficient than carbon based fuel. If markets actually worked for long-term decisionmaking and were therefore capable of pricing in negative externalities, then factoring in the cost of causing Earth to asymptotically approach Venus would change this calculus.
renhanxue 2y ago
They've significantly increased the timetable frequency though, so they're running more trains, and those trains are accelerating and running much faster than the old diesel-electrics. I don't think you're comparing like for like.
hamandcheese 2y ago
> Currently, Caltrain is providing that power to the grid free of charge as there is no legal requirement for the agency to be reimbursed for the energy generated. With further investment in energy storage it sounds like they could nearly cover a lost subsidy. Moreover, the improved service from electric (faster acceleration and better air quality) seem very worthwhile.
ghouse 2y ago
This is because PG&E retail is about 2.5x the national average. Also, worth noting in the event the conclusions are extrapolated to diesel over the road transportation: train diesel is much less expensive as it's exempt from fuel (state and federal) taxes.
djaychela 2y ago
>In the long run we are worse off, because the subsidy can't last forever. You're making the classic error here of not factoring the externalities involved - the pollution and other issues from fossil fuels. If they were actually being paid for then electricity would be much cheaper. Fossil fuels get a defacto subsidy by being able to pollute the environment without any cost.
HolySE 2y ago
> Without the subsidy its more expensive and less efficient than carbon based fuel. In the long run we are worse off, because the subsidy can't last forever. That doesn't seem to be the full picture. 1) The most recent FY 2025 budget (https://www.caltrain.com/media/30699/ https://www.caltrain.com/media/30699/) has fuel and lubricant expenditures expected to be $5 million. With electricity expenditure estimates dropping to $16.5 million, that puts total expenditures at $21.5 million. The diesel expenditures remain because the long San Jose <> Gilroy corridor isn't electrified and requires diesel locomotive service. Contrast this against FY 2023 expenditures of $17.5 million. That's almost a 25% increase in movement power expenditures. 2) There is increased service now. About ~120 trains run on the latest weekday service timetable (https://www.caltrain.com/media/34716 https://www.caltrain.com/media/34716), and 8 of them are diesel service between San Jose and Gilroy. Compare this to ~90 trains for weekday service in 2023 (https://www.caltrain.com/media/30027/download?inline https://www.caltrain.com/media/30027/download?inline), of which 6 are diesel service between San Jose and Gilroy. Conservatively, we have a 25% increase in service. 3) The new trains are faster. Hitting every stop between San Jose and San Francisco is 101 minutes on diesel and 83 minutes on electric. So we get an increase in movement power costs proportional to the increase in service, all while having faster trains. I think it's a fair trade. The subsidies are just gravy on top for a job well done. EDIT: fixed 2023 weekday service link

kibwen 2y ago

> Without the subsidy its more expensive and less efficient than carbon based fuel. If markets actually worked for long-term decisionmaking and were therefore capable of pricing in negative externalities, then factoring in the cost of causing Earth to asymptotically approach Venus would change this calculus.

renhanxue 2y ago

They've significantly increased the timetable frequency though, so they're running more trains, and those trains are accelerating and running much faster than the old diesel-electrics. I don't think you're comparing like for like.

hamandcheese 2y ago

> Currently, Caltrain is providing that power to the grid free of charge as there is no legal requirement for the agency to be reimbursed for the energy generated. With further investment in energy storage it sounds like they could nearly cover a lost subsidy. Moreover, the improved service from electric (faster acceleration and better air quality) seem very worthwhile.

ghouse 2y ago

This is because PG&E retail is about 2.5x the national average. Also, worth noting in the event the conclusions are extrapolated to diesel over the road transportation: train diesel is much less expensive as it's exempt from fuel (state and federal) taxes.

djaychela 2y ago

>In the long run we are worse off, because the subsidy can't last forever. You're making the classic error here of not factoring the externalities involved - the pollution and other issues from fossil fuels. If they were actually being paid for then electricity would be much cheaper. Fossil fuels get a defacto subsidy by being able to pollute the environment without any cost.

HolySE 2y ago

> Without the subsidy its more expensive and less efficient than carbon based fuel. In the long run we are worse off, because the subsidy can't last forever. That doesn't seem to be the full picture. 1) The most recent FY 2025 budget (https://www.caltrain.com/media/30699/ https://www.caltrain.com/media/30699/) has fuel and lubricant expenditures expected to be $5 million. With electricity expenditure estimates dropping to $16.5 million, that puts total expenditures at $21.5 million. The diesel expenditures remain because the long San Jose <> Gilroy corridor isn't electrified and requires diesel locomotive service. Contrast this against FY 2023 expenditures of $17.5 million. That's almost a 25% increase in movement power expenditures. 2) There is increased service now. About ~120 trains run on the latest weekday service timetable (https://www.caltrain.com/media/34716 https://www.caltrain.com/media/34716), and 8 of them are diesel service between San Jose and Gilroy. Compare this to ~90 trains for weekday service in 2023 (https://www.caltrain.com/media/30027/download?inline https://www.caltrain.com/media/30027/download?inline), of which 6 are diesel service between San Jose and Gilroy. Conservatively, we have a 25% increase in service. 3) The new trains are faster. Hitting every stop between San Jose and San Francisco is 101 minutes on diesel and 83 minutes on electric. So we get an increase in movement power costs proportional to the increase in service, all while having faster trains. I think it's a fair trade. The subsidies are just gravy on top for a job well done. EDIT: fixed 2023 weekday service link