PG&E proposes another rate hike in 2023 - 18% - to boost wildfire safety

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

cwerdna

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,674
Location
SF Bay Area, CA
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-proposes-another-rate-hike-in-2023-to-boost-16285643.php
https://www.ktvu.com/news/pge-seeks-3-6-billion-in-rate-hikes-for-wildfire-safety

Was on local news earlier tonight. KTVU also characterized it as 18%.
 
Don't forget that both PGE and my SCE are also pushing (last i heard) huge fees for Solar customers. As much as $50 a month because .... well because basically they hate us. We are ruining their business model.

Which is stupid, because instead of trying to punish solar customers, they should be looking toward the future. Where power companies learn to store that cheap power and then resell it as needed. Buying power from me at pennies on the dollar is a deal. Use me, don't punish me.
 
It's a crooked world when corruption, malfeasance and propaganda is rewarded with rate hikes.
 
I'm sure PG&E will tell you that storing power is a tough problem. And it is - electrical power moves at almost the speed of light and the only way to 'store' it is to use it do some work that can then be reversed to generate power when it is needed. Eg, pumping water up a hill or moving ions in batteries or powering a flywheel. And since storing power is a hard problem PG&E probably doesn't want to even think about. Like Ma Bell used to say, 'We're the phone company. We don't care and we don't have to'.
 
goldbrick said:
I'm sure PG&E will tell you that storing power is a tough problem. And it is - electrical power moves at almost the speed of light and the only way to 'store' it is to use it do some work that can then be reversed to generate power when it is needed. Eg, pumping water up a hill or moving ions in batteries or powering a flywheel. And since storing power is a hard problem PG&E probably doesn't want to even think about. Like Ma Bell used to say, 'We're the phone company. We don't care and we don't have to'.

True enough, but what does that "Fee" for solar do besides go to their bottom line?

So a high level summary, as I understand it, is that there is becoming a glut of solar during the day. And remember, CA is requiring all new homes to have solar. So power companies have to turn off Peaker plants during those hours to not over voltage the grid. No big deal, that's what Peaker plants are for. But at some point they may have to also shut down base load plants, which is a bigger problem, as they are not meant to go on and off like that each day.

So the question is, how does that "FEE" help stabilize the grid? It certainly doesn't solve the issue of base load power plants going on and off. I'm not going to turn off my solar, or somehow reduce it. So does it help SCE and PGE in any way except pad their bottom line? Are they investing the "FEE" into some type of grid storage to actually solve the problem? The answer sadly is probably no. And since that fee doesn't actually deal with the problem of too much solar, the real answer is that its punishment from the power companies because they don't like solar, rather than dealing with the realities of the issue

-> That being, they are going to be forced to generate basically no power during the day, and either have to run essentially all Peaker plants evening and night with base load plants going extinct. Or better, find ways to store that cheap power. Like any other business, adapt or die. Smells a bit like certain car companies not thinking about the future, trying to fight EVs rather than adapting.
 
danrjones said:
So a high level summary, as I understand it, is that there is becoming a glut of solar during the day.

Sure, so long as "glut" is defined as the utility not wanting the power.
Look past the propaganda and look at a CAISO graph of VRE and demand. I think the closest VRE has ever gotten to supplying grid demand is a gap of 10 GW.



https://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/Pages/index.html
 
danrjones said:
goldbrick said:
I'm sure PG&E will tell you that storing power is a tough problem. And it is - electrical power moves at almost the speed of light and the only way to 'store' it is to use it do some work that can then be reversed to generate power when it is needed. Eg, pumping water up a hill or moving ions in batteries or powering a flywheel. And since storing power is a hard problem PG&E probably doesn't want to even think about. Like Ma Bell used to say, 'We're the phone company. We don't care and we don't have to'.

And since that fee doesn't actually deal with the problem of too much solar, the real answer is that its punishment from the power companies because they don't like solar, rather than dealing with the realities of the issue
I don't blame PG&E for not wanting to tackle the storage problem. Why should they? The problem was created and dumped in their lap by politicians with no understanding of engineering realities.

None of the storage technologies which goldbrick mentioned are currently capable of operating at the required scale. Power-to-gas would enable grid-scale storage, but with tremendous round-trip losses - which would also highlight the fact that intermittent energy sources really aren't worth much.
 
oxothuk said:
danrjones said:
goldbrick said:
I'm sure PG&E will tell you that storing power is a tough problem. And it is - electrical power moves at almost the speed of light and the only way to 'store' it is to use it do some work that can then be reversed to generate power when it is needed. Eg, pumping water up a hill or moving ions in batteries or powering a flywheel. And since storing power is a hard problem PG&E probably doesn't want to even think about. Like Ma Bell used to say, 'We're the phone company. We don't care and we don't have to'.

And since that fee doesn't actually deal with the problem of too much solar, the real answer is that its punishment from the power companies because they don't like solar, rather than dealing with the realities of the issue
I don't blame PG&E for not wanting to tackle the storage problem. Why should they? The problem was created and dumped in their lap by politicians with no understanding of engineering realities.

None of the storage technologies which goldbrick mentioned are currently capable of operating at the required scale. Power-to-gas would enable grid-scale storage, but with tremendous round-trip losses - which would also highlight the fact that intermittent energy sources really aren't worth much.

Sorry but I'm going to disagree. All to often in my life I've seen that companies won't change unless they are forced to. Sure, they will innovate when they see $$$ on the low hanging fruit, but when they have a system they already like (aka $$$), they will not change. Being forced to change by regulation is often the only way to get anywhere on large issues, especially environmental issues. Plus as Sage posted, and anyone can look, we are no where close to have "too much solar". Solar and other renewables only covered about half CA power needs yesterday at peak, plus they can still reduce imports and reduce peaker plants such as NG further if needed during the daytime. There is still a lot of time and room for energy storage to come online.

Part of the problem with capitalism isn't that it doesn't work, it is that we don't properly force companies to deal (price in) with the full scope of their product. The extremities or externalities, so to speak. This is forcing the power industry to do just that. The real problem is not forcing all other companies to also do this, aka, forcing plastic bottle companies to be responsible for the end location and disposal / recycling of their bottles, etc etc etc
 
danrjones said:
oxothuk said:
danrjones said:
And since that fee doesn't actually deal with the problem of too much solar, the real answer is that its punishment from the power companies because they don't like solar, rather than dealing with the realities of the issue
I don't blame PG&E for not wanting to tackle the storage problem. Why should they? The problem was created and dumped in their lap by politicians with no understanding of engineering realities.

None of the storage technologies which goldbrick mentioned are currently capable of operating at the required scale. Power-to-gas would enable grid-scale storage, but with tremendous round-trip losses - which would also highlight the fact that intermittent energy sources really aren't worth much.

Sorry but I'm going to disagree. All to often in my life I've seen that companies won't change unless they are forced to. Sure, they will innovate when they see $$$ on the low hanging fruit, but when they have a system they already like (aka $$$), they will not change. Being forced to change by regulation is often the only way to get anywhere on large issues, especially environmental issues. Plus as Sage posted, and anyone can look, we are no where close to have "too much solar". Solar and other renewables only covered about half CA power needs yesterday at peak, plus they can still reduce imports and reduce peaker plants such as NG further if needed during the daytime. There is still a lot of time and room for energy storage to come online.

Part of the problem with capitalism isn't that it doesn't work, it is that we don't properly force companies to deal (price in) with the full scope of their product. The extremities or externalities, so to speak. This is forcing the power industry to do just that. The real problem is not forcing all other companies to also do this, aka, forcing plastic bottle companies to be responsible for the end location and disposal / recycling of their bottles, etc etc etc

I still see no reason why this problem needs to be dumped on the grid operator. The intermittent providers are the ones who need to solve this problem, since it's their attributes which create the problem. Let them partner with peak providers and storage providers to provide a combined offering of dependable power. Then we can fairly evaluate the cost and CO2 footprint of that offering versus alternatives.

It's completely within our power to price-in externalities if we choose too (e.g., a carbon tax). But that is politically difficult, and instead we mandate the impossible and blame the utility when it doesn't work.
 
Sorry still cannot agree with you. And the idea I am "blaming" SCE or PGE for trying to throw outrageous fees onto customers is ridiculous. Fees which almost certainly are only going to their pockets and NOT being invested in grid storage of any kind.

This argument is a bit like expecting auto makers to do the right thing for the environment. That just doesn't work.
 
oxothuk said:
I still see no reason why this problem needs to be dumped on the grid operator.
It is "dumped" on the grid operator because the grid operator is a monopoly. I'm sure variable generators would gladly participate in a free market since they have been asking for it for years. Guess who lobbies against it ?
 
SageBrush said:
oxothuk said:
I still see no reason why this problem needs to be dumped on the grid operator.
It is "dumped" on the grid operator because the grid operator is a monopoly. I'm sure variable generators would gladly participate in a free market since they have been asking for it for years. Guess who lobbies against it ?
What I am suggesting is a free market where the utility solicits bids for long-term guaranteed power - not a spot market. Have the variable providers been lobbying for this? Please cite examples.
 
oxothuk said:
SageBrush said:
oxothuk said:
I still see no reason why this problem needs to be dumped on the grid operator.
It is "dumped" on the grid operator because the grid operator is a monopoly. I'm sure variable generators would gladly participate in a free market since they have been asking for it for years. Guess who lobbies against it ?
What I am suggesting is a free market where the utility solicits bids for long-term guaranteed power - not a spot market. Have the variable providers been lobbying for this? Please cite examples.

I'm only aware of the variable generators being blocked from participating in the spot market. But I think you will agree that a monopoly buyer is hardly a free market.
 
SageBrush said:
danrjones said:
So a high level summary, as I understand it, is that there is becoming a glut of solar during the day.

Sure, so long as "glut" is defined as the utility not wanting the power.
Look past the propaganda and look at a CAISO graph of VRE and demand. I think the closest VRE has ever gotten to supplying grid demand is a gap of 10 GW.



https://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/Pages/index.html

is that the bottom of the trough? If so I see a "net demand" bottom at 8977 on July 4th around 10:10 am.

also
* 8,787 at 10 am on June 20, 2021
* 6,637 at 10 am on June 13, 2021
* 2,940 at 12:35 on May 01, 2021
* 2,863 at 13:10 on Apr 17, 2021
* 2,505 at 13:05 on Apr 18, 2021
* 1,913 at 14:20 on Apr 24, 2021

Just wanting to make sure I'm looking at the right chart and the right part of that chart.
 
dhanson865 said:
Just wanting to make sure I'm looking at the right chart and the right part of that chart.
Yes, you are.
And you are right that in the spring VRE comes with 2- 3 GW of supplying demand during the peak PV hours on sunny days.
Spring and Fall are fairly similar so I'll look again come October.
 
SageBrush said:
danrjones said:
So a high level summary, as I understand it, is that there is becoming a glut of solar during the day.

Sure, so long as "glut" is defined as the utility not wanting the power.
Look past the propaganda and look at a CAISO graph of VRE and demand. I think the closest VRE has ever gotten to supplying grid demand is a gap of 10 GW.


https://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/Pages/index.html
These graphs really make my point.

Giving preference to the VRE providers means that the other providers have to be unnaturally variable in order to balance them out - which then makes them appear "expensive" relative to VRE.

Take the data for April 24 as an example. Without VRE, the peak in gross demand is 141% of the minimum. With VRE, the other providers have to vary their output by over 10x.

Until we have scalable storage technology, VRE is just an expensive ornament on a a mostly natural-gas based generation system.
 
Back
Top