6 ms·

Genuine question: If CA is mostly getting its energy from Solar why is my energy bill so high especially during winters? Or does solar energy while clean does n

Genuine question: If CA is mostly getting its energy from Solar why is my energy bill so high especially during winters? Or does solar energy while clean does not necessarily mean cheap?

_aavaa_ 1y ago
Most of that is not generation, but for transmission, distribution, and grid upgrades. Specifically burying the lines so they survive forest fires.
- amluto 1y ago
  Go pick a few PG&E tariffs, look at the unbundled prices, compare them, and then try saying that it’s legitimate transmission and distribution costs again with a straight face…
  - _aavaa_ 1y ago
    Blame it on the continual rate increases for the sake of money if you’d like. But it isn’t expensive because generation is expensive.
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    I find the explanation that they neglected maintenance and upgrades in favor of dividends and stock pumping for years, and now we're paying off the last couple of decades of maintenance and upgrades in a new, more volatile wildfire climate for which PG&E has been assigned legal and financial liability. I agree that it doesn't necessarily reflect the individual marginal cost of an additional customer, but that makes sense, things rarely do.
ZeroGravitas 1y ago
Last year they got twice as much electricity from gas as they got from solar. They're doing well globally, and solar is generally ramping up quickly everywhere but headlines are more often about hitting 100% renewables for an hour or for a day, not over a year.
- AtlasBarfed 1y ago
  So what you're saying is you need a secondary competitor in the market. Which would be home solar and storage
  - nostrademons 1y ago
    ...which they're trying to kill. Because customers of home solar & storage are generally quite happy to not be paying PG&E.
    - BobaFloutist 1y ago
      If you need the hookup at any point during the year, you have to pay for the hookup for the whole year. That's just fair to everyone else that didn't have $20,000 (or didn't own property) and don't want to subsidize your solar upgrade with their own rates.
      - esoterae 1y ago
        I'm confused; which one is it? The property owner pays 20k, or the ratepayers are subsidizing it? Also, my pge statements now have a line item for transmission that's usually larger than my generation total. If I have 2x solar and I'm feeding my neighbor, are they paying the same "transmission" structure for the power I'm providing them?
        BobaFloutist 1y ago
        It's one or the other. Under NEM 2, ratepayers are subsidizing. Under NEM 3, the property owner is paying (more of) their fair share of transmission costs, and are being subsidized less, which people complain "kills" rooftop solar.
        EnPissant 1y ago
        NEM 3 makes rooftop solar worse than NEM 2, but it's not common to say it kills it. It's the new flat fees they have been trying to implement that would kill rooftop solar. For example, if 50% of an average bill was a flat fee and then energy was half off, that would kill rooftop solar + batteries on NEM 3.
thelastgallon 1y ago
Answered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39487714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39487714 Most things in US are super costly because of monopolies, regulatory capture and perverse incentives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
audunw 1y ago
I don’t think you’ll see the full cost benefits of solar (and wind) until after the transition to 100% renewables (and maybe nuclear) is complete. There’s just too many big investments needed in the transition. That’s expensive. Repowering a solar or wind power plants is dramatically cheaper than building it from scratch.

Genuine question: If CA is mostly getting its energy from Solar why is my energy bill so high especially during winters? Or does solar energy while clean does not necessarily mean cheap?

_aavaa_ 1y ago

Most of that is not generation, but for transmission, distribution, and grid upgrades. Specifically burying the lines so they survive forest fires.

amluto 1y ago
Go pick a few PG&E tariffs, look at the unbundled prices, compare them, and then try saying that it’s legitimate transmission and distribution costs again with a straight face…
- _aavaa_ 1y ago
  Blame it on the continual rate increases for the sake of money if you’d like. But it isn’t expensive because generation is expensive.
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  I find the explanation that they neglected maintenance and upgrades in favor of dividends and stock pumping for years, and now we're paying off the last couple of decades of maintenance and upgrades in a new, more volatile wildfire climate for which PG&E has been assigned legal and financial liability. I agree that it doesn't necessarily reflect the individual marginal cost of an additional customer, but that makes sense, things rarely do.

ZeroGravitas 1y ago

Last year they got twice as much electricity from gas as they got from solar. They're doing well globally, and solar is generally ramping up quickly everywhere but headlines are more often about hitting 100% renewables for an hour or for a day, not over a year.

AtlasBarfed 1y ago
So what you're saying is you need a secondary competitor in the market. Which would be home solar and storage
- nostrademons 1y ago
  ...which they're trying to kill. Because customers of home solar & storage are generally quite happy to not be paying PG&E.
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    If you need the hookup at any point during the year, you have to pay for the hookup for the whole year. That's just fair to everyone else that didn't have $20,000 (or didn't own property) and don't want to subsidize your solar upgrade with their own rates.
    - esoterae 1y ago
      I'm confused; which one is it? The property owner pays 20k, or the ratepayers are subsidizing it? Also, my pge statements now have a line item for transmission that's usually larger than my generation total. If I have 2x solar and I'm feeding my neighbor, are they paying the same "transmission" structure for the power I'm providing them?
      - BobaFloutist 1y ago
        It's one or the other. Under NEM 2, ratepayers are subsidizing. Under NEM 3, the property owner is paying (more of) their fair share of transmission costs, and are being subsidized less, which people complain "kills" rooftop solar.
        EnPissant 1y ago
        NEM 3 makes rooftop solar worse than NEM 2, but it's not common to say it kills it. It's the new flat fees they have been trying to implement that would kill rooftop solar. For example, if 50% of an average bill was a flat fee and then energy was half off, that would kill rooftop solar + batteries on NEM 3.

thelastgallon 1y ago

Answered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39487714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39487714 Most things in US are super costly because of monopolies, regulatory capture and perverse incentives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

audunw 1y ago

I don’t think you’ll see the full cost benefits of solar (and wind) until after the transition to 100% renewables (and maybe nuclear) is complete. There’s just too many big investments needed in the transition. That’s expensive. Repowering a solar or wind power plants is dramatically cheaper than building it from scratch.