Guest essay by Eric Worrall
WUWT recently reported how California had abandoned rooftop solar, by excluding them from generous renewable credit schemes. California has now intensified its attack on renewable energy consumers, by increasing fees for customers who switch to renewable energy schemes.
Customers of clean energy programs hit with fee increase
The California Public Utilities Commission voted Thursday to allow a nearly 100 percent price increase on exit fees for customers leaving Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for green energy programs like CleanPowerSF and Marin Clean Energy, which will make those and similar programs more expensive.
Many of the programs — where local governments buy green electricity for their residents, while private utilities own and operate the electrical grid — will be undermined financially by the uptick in the charge, called the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment, their officials say.
“We are not surprised that the increase was approved,” said Marin Clean Energy spokeswoman Alexandra McCroskey. “We are disappointed. Our primary frustrations come from the fact that we are becoming almost liable for the market fluctuations for both ourselves and PG&E. If PG&E isn’t planning appropriately for people leaving for community choice aggregation programs, the PCIA will continue to increase. It’s poor planning.”
Under the increase, which is effective Jan. 1, customers making the switch to local green energy programs will face a heftier exit fee. Marin Clean Energy customers are projected to pay more than $36 million, up from $19.3 million in 2015. The cost for each residential customer would nearly double from about $6.70 each month to $13.
Hundreds of protesters came from as far as San Diego to oppose the fee increase at Thursday’s meeting in San Francisco. They carried homemade signs reading “Stand Up to Natural Gas!” and “CPUC: Consumers Pay Again?!” Public comment on the change stretched for more than two hours.
CPUC has defended the fee increase;
“We’ve achieved a great deal, but there is this overhang of costs that were necessary to kick-start the industry,” said CPUC Commissioner Mike Florio. “The reason the PCIA is so high is because of high-cost renewable contracts that PG&E was required by law to enter into, and that this commission approved. I don’t think it’s fair to let one group of customers escape from paying those historic costs and simply load those on the remaining customers. That’s what the PCIA is all about.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Customers-of-clean-energy-programs-hit-with-fee-6705978.php
California continues to talk the talk on “green” energy – but as the true cost of their green adventure hits home, the Californian government appears to be slowly ratcheting up the costs, and slashing the benefits, for ordinary consumers who join Governor Jerry Brown’s environmental crusade.
Reshiftable energy is great until they won’t allow you to shift the costs to you neighbours anymore.
Why wasn’t I told?
Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
We build a house to take advantage of renewables and solar energy. But, after 30 years, we did not install the planned solar as we could never get the benefits to pencil out when all the maintenance and replacment costs were figured into the calculations. While the initial costs are low, the long-term costs grow in magnitude over time. It is hard for innumerate people to understand the cost of ownership math.
Exactly correct. The people are used to the great government lie – free this free that free free – free energy from the sun and wind.
They always leave out the part of costs that must be installed so when the sun does not shine and wind does not blow the 24/7/365 grid can be powered. That is we must have 100% demand supply on stand by and have very costly switching gear to go back and forth. They also ignore that the areas of solar and wind farms are far from the big cities that use most of the energy.
You have shown on a single house level it does not make economic sense then multiply that times a few million homes.
As I use to say, the question is how efficient and green are the new alternatives of energy? Are they really as green as their supporters say, or would it be better to do more research in these fields? I’m talking about solar panels, wind farms and offshore wind farms. For example, offshore wind farms may have an impact in the process of faster warming of the Norther Europe, as presented here: http://oceansgovernclimate.com/baltic-2-another-climate-change-factor/.
This is not a surprise at all. The real issues are only being touched on by most commenters.
Sorry I don’t have time right now to look up source info for the following, but you can find it in the IEEE professional journal, Spectrum.
Here’s the issue:
– Renewables require near-*instantaneous* availability of grid power.
– Traditional power can’t spool up at a rate fast enough to match instantaneous demand changes.
– Therefore, traditional power must remain spooled up to cover the potential use of solar/wind/etc users.
– The only way to solve this is either much faster spool-up speed for traditional power, and/or massive power storage for renewables. Neither is available today nor the near future.
The result:
– Alternative energy users (solar etc) are hugely subsidized, In reality, most of them are making the same use of the grid infrastructure as any normal user… but they don’t pay for it.
– Thus, a shrinking population (of typically less-wealthy users) must pay the cost of the entire infrastructure.
– The result: lower quality grid power, and rapid price increases.
This is already the case in Hawaii, where electricity can exceed $1 per kWh. A year or two ago, IEEE predicted the same result within 5-10 years in major urban areas: LA, Detroit, New York City.
Really, the only way to solve it in the short run is to charge a share of all grid costs to all who directly OR indirectly connect to the grid.
Sorry but I have no issues here about increased costs to watermelon customers. You want expensive renewables in your fervent desire to save the planet from your Birkenstock version of hell, fire, and brimstone? Fine. But not at my expense. I happen to think you should pay the full cost.
People who were relying on the govt to continue to siphon a fraction of the money it has stolen from others, are disappointed because the gravy train has ended.
For some reason, I fail to weep for these people.
ISO hired a consultant to study solar economics. The result– solar costs 40 cents/kwh for residential rooftop and 33-35 cents/kWh for commercial. You could buy the same power from the wholesale market for 7.6 cents/kWh. or about 1/5 the cost. See http://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2015/02/icf_economic_drivers_of_pv_report_for_iso_ne_2_27_15.pdf for one of the best studies on all the solar subsidies. Page 36-42 lists them for all the New England state.