Seems like they need to do a lot more maintenance on their grid. During the big storm about 2 weeks ago the vast majority of South Lake Tahoe lost power and for a good part of the city, it was out all day.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
California Utilities Plan All Out War On Solar, Please Read And Help
- Thread starter gene
- Start date
mspohr
Well-Known Member
We lost power on the North Shore for a few hours also.
Usually very reliable.
They have a very active tree trimming program. We pay a "vegetation management charge" monthly. They've removed a few dead trees from my property which would have cost me several thousand dollars so I'm happy with $1.52/month.
In general, it's not the public utilities that are a problem, it's the investor owned utilities who's reason for being is to derive a profit for the owners.
The public utilities don't care about profit, they only care about providing the best service for the lowest cost.
We all expect for-profit entities like Investor Owned Utilities to act in their shareholders' interest to maximize profits. However, it is (or should be) the PUC's job to act in the public interest and make sure that what the IOUs propose is actually in the public interest and not padded schemes to pump up the utility's profits. The problem in California is that there is little evidence that the CPUC actually does its due diligence to thoroughly push back against the utilities' profit motives. There are only a few examples of the CPUC disallowing capital projects that generate utility profits that were deemed unnecessary.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Utilities bribe politicians (Newsom) who appoints industry lackeys to the CPUC to ensure they grow their profits.
I really hope eventually, the IOUs are just broken up and made into municipal non-profits. I suppose government is not the greatest neither, but I don't see how a shareholder, for profit corporation that makes profits purely from infrastructure spending projects can ever align with energy conservation, solar, etc. It'll never work.
I think nearly every energy company in CA not the IOUs have lower rates and they seem fine right?
At one point, I was vehemently opposed to any government operating health insurance plans because government can't do very many things efficiently. But after seeing how companies with fiduciary duties to their shareholders don't act in the best interests of the general public (and they're not supposed to anyway), I'm of the opinion that the government can't really be worse than having investor-owned companies do it. And the same applies to public utilities too.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
PGE almost went bankrupt a few years ago (due to negligence, etc.) and that would have been a good opportunity to break it up and sell parts to government. I believe that San Francisco did make a bid for their part of PGE.
Of course, the bribes PGE paid to politicians paid off and they were bailed out and can continue to make obscene profits.
Yep, but we can't have PG&E going bankrupt, its shareholders wiped out, and it being broken up, because Newsom's "friend" lobbies for them. Apparently this is the same "friend" behind the infamous French Laundry dinner that made the news and led to the recall election.
Why I keep going back to very local governments (like where you live). If you screw over your neighbors, you'll have to see those guys every day chewing you out everywhere. Now, we get folks in Sacramento telling us how to run things.
You see how much does CPUC members make?!?@#$
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Greg Abbott faces Texas grid "emergency" as power plants fail
The U.S. Department of Energy on Friday declared that an emergency exists in the state "due to a shortage of electric energy."
www.newsweek.com
I think we collectively do. I suppose if we're ok with just seeing people die in the streets because you know, no healthcare...is that what folks really want? I'd say the lax laws and desperate/mental health issues is probably why we have the stuff going on nowadays (smash and grabs, road rage, you name it).
No power, PG&E decides to charge whatever (like those Texas $5000/kWh or whatever it was), is that ok?
I'm just saying, maybe there should be a floor for stuff like basic clean water, energy, healthcare. You can even cap things like you can only have this much energy or this much water or something and have no lawsuits against doctors or whatever else, but letting the capitalistic business decide (how healthcare is mostly now I feel) isn't the best way.
As we see with the IOUs, corporations are in it to make $$ for shareholders and that's understandable, but that might not be what's best for overall society. In energy nor healthcare.
look at folks making 100K off of welfare. Just take, never give anything back. I am all for the few who are really in trouble, but, .....
Just in case anyone here has not already seen this excellent video: Watch Jonathan Scott's Power Trip | Prime Video
Tomorrow is the last day for us grandfathered into the E-6 rate plan with PG&E, finishing the 3 year sunset transition period.
We’re being moved into E-TOU-C which will likely be the most cost effective of the options left available. The tiny differential between peak and off-peak shows how much PG&E/CPUC are not interested in incentivizing consumers to help balance and green the grid. Suspect they drawing prices to near parity so on NEM 3 they can give small fractional credits for solar PV exports but charge inappropriately high for imports off-peak, doing little to incentivize consumption off peak with nearly equal peak pricing.
Of course on the few summer critical grid demand evenings everyone will still be asked to help conserve electricity.
Heads they win, tails we lose…
We’re being moved into E-TOU-C which will likely be the most cost effective of the options left available. The tiny differential between peak and off-peak shows how much PG&E/CPUC are not interested in incentivizing consumers to help balance and green the grid. Suspect they drawing prices to near parity so on NEM 3 they can give small fractional credits for solar PV exports but charge inappropriately high for imports off-peak, doing little to incentivize consumption off peak with nearly equal peak pricing.
Of course on the few summer critical grid demand evenings everyone will still be asked to help conserve electricity.
Heads they win, tails we lose…
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
This is what most people with PV want -- close to 1:1 net metering. I'm sure more details to follow, but nothing in that table is consistent with an anti-residential PV agenda that I can see.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I think that table is USE, not credit for solar PV fed into the grid. Those rates are much lower. Not 1:1
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
When I looked over NEM 3.0, my impression was (for the most part, anyway) that export rates are market, less non-bypassable charges. Excluding NBC, the import/export hourly differences were probably (maybe ?) explained by demand charges.
I admit, it does seem fair to credit PV exporters with demand savings that accrue from distributed energy but that is way beyond me to talk about in any detail.
Similar threads
