CPUC NEM 3.0 discussion

[holeydonut]

Indeed.

The technology for distributed solar and ESS is so good, basically, it can only be slowed down at this point. The state is going to have to figure out another way to pay for "the grid" since we need it. And by "another way" I mean a way other than charges per kwh used, especially peak v. non peak, since I have seen no data that peak rates actually, over the entire population, decrease peak usage in a material way.

That's because the utilities cannot survive if usage decreases, since usage pays for the grid, and the cost of the grid only can go up.

Tangental to this NEM 3.0; but related to what you just said... I encountered the same mindset when speaking with a rep from with my local water utility.

As you're aware, California is in a severe drought; and we are exiting one of the driest rain-seasons ever recorded. So, I was asking them why the water district felt necessary to declare emergency measures under a Phase 2 Drought; all while still presenting a mindset that having a lush green lawn was "manageable with tips". The water utility speaks to lawn conservation efforts such as watering at dawn/dusk and fixing leaks. So they basically present a mindset that having a lush green lawn is "ok" and can be reasonably achieved with minimal effort or change.

The water district does try to push an agenda to motivate homeowners to go with landscaping using drought-tolerant-plants/mulch/porous-hardscape. This would significantly reduce water consumption. But homeowners want their kids to play on their lawns, and they have been ingrained through decades of marketing to want a curb appeal of "green" instead of "desert." So, many homeowners resist going with these specialized hardscapes; and continue to water their lawns even in serious drought conditions. Just looking around my neighborhood, everyone's still watering and dumping water down stormdrains. As long as watering lawns is "ok" they'll expect someone else to reduce so they can keep their green grass. I stopped watering my lawn all together and got hit with an HOA violation.

My question to the water district was to ask why they simply don't come out and openly steer homeowners towards artificial lawns/turf. This way homeowners can keep that precious huge swath of green without using any water at all. I didn't want the utility to offer incentives. I simply wanted the utility to present messaging that could advocate smart ways to go with an artificial turf lawn; instead of their messaging that green grass was "ok with effort." Effectively taking lawns "off grid" could save some homes over 1/3 of their summertime water bill. That should be good right?

The water district came back to me with a response that basically listed dozens of reasons why artificial turf was bad (which I won't bore you with here). Their arguments stem from the older turf lawns installed in the 90s and early 2000's. They cited all sorts of studies and things that once were true, but the artificial turf industry has resolved many of those issues. Ultimately, the water utility was going to die on the hill that artificial turf may permanently reduce water consumption, but such turf was unnatural.

So, the Utility would never provide tips to homeowners on how to install turf lawns that avoid their dozens of pitfalls. Instead, the utility would simply continue to tell homeowners how evil turf lawns are, and find ways to convince homeowners how to use less water to keep their "real grass lawns" green.

Anyway, related to what you just said... the reason the utility needs real grass lawns to persist is that the utility needs people to still have green grass lawns after the drought is over (assuming it ever ends).

As Californians Save Water, Districts Lose Money | KQED

Some water districts are using maintenance funds to keep operating, but there is a better way.

www.kqed.org

The water districts faced a huge shortfall of revenue in the past as conservation efforts resulted in a curtailment of water consumption. A lawn that is replaced with artificial turf effectively cannot be converted back to real grass in a reasonable way. But a lawn that is simply covered with some desert shrubs and mulch could be reversed. Once this drought ends, the utility needs people to go back to sourcing a ton of water... because the utility needs people to pay the fixed costs. The utilities need lawns to stay "on the grid" in the long run.

 

[Redhill_qik]

Tangental to this NEM 3.0; but related to what you just said... I encountered the same mindset when speaking with a rep from with my local water utility.

As you're aware, California is in a severe drought; and we are exiting one of the driest rain-seasons ever recorded. So, I was asking them why the water district felt necessary to declare emergency measures under a Phase 2 Drought; all while still presenting a mindset that having a lush green lawn was "manageable with tips". The water utility speaks to lawn conservation efforts such as watering at dawn/dusk and fixing leaks. So they basically present a mindset that having a lush green lawn is "ok" and can be reasonably achieved with minimal effort or change.

The water district does try to push an agenda to motivate homeowners to go with landscaping using drought-tolerant-plants/mulch/porous-hardscape. This would significantly reduce water consumption. But homeowners want their kids to play on their lawns, and they have been ingrained through decades of marketing to want a curb appeal of "green" instead of "desert." So, many homeowners resist going with these specialized hardscapes; and continue to water their lawns even in serious drought conditions. Just looking around my neighborhood, everyone's still watering and dumping water down stormdrains. As long as watering lawns is "ok" they'll expect someone else to reduce so they can keep their green grass. I stopped watering my lawn all together and got hit with an HOA violation.

My question to the water district was to ask why they simply don't come out and openly steer homeowners towards artificial lawns/turf. This way homeowners can keep that precious huge swath of green without using any water at all. I didn't want the utility to offer incentives. I simply wanted the utility to present messaging that could advocate smart ways to go with an artificial turf lawn; instead of their messaging that green grass was "ok with effort." Effectively taking lawns "off grid" could save some homes over 1/3 of their summertime water bill. That should be good right?

The water district came back to me with a response that basically listed dozens of reasons why artificial turf was bad (which I won't bore you with here). Their arguments stem from the older turf lawns installed in the 90s and early 2000's. They cited all sorts of studies and things that once were true, but the artificial turf industry has resolved many of those issues. Ultimately, the water utility was going to die on the hill that artificial turf may permanently reduce water consumption, but such turf was unnatural.

So, the Utility would never provide tips to homeowners on how to install turf lawns that avoid their dozens of pitfalls. Instead, the utility would simply continue to tell homeowners how evil turf lawns are, and find ways to convince homeowners how to use less water to keep their "real grass lawns" green.

Anyway, related to what you just said... the reason the utility needs real grass lawns to persist is that the utility needs people to still have green grass lawns after the drought is over (assuming it ever ends).

As Californians Save Water, Districts Lose Money | KQED

Some water districts are using maintenance funds to keep operating, but there is a better way.

www.kqed.org

The water districts faced a huge shortfall of revenue in the past as conservation efforts resulted in a curtailment of water consumption. A lawn that is replaced with artificial turf effectively cannot be converted back to real grass in a reasonable way. But a lawn that is simply covered with some desert shrubs and mulch could be reversed. Once this drought ends, the utility needs people to go back to sourcing a ton of water... because the utility needs people to pay the fixed costs. The utilities need lawns to stay "on the grid" in the long run.

My water and sewer bill is mostly fixed fees. I have a $46.56 monthly water connection fee, a $50.54 monthly sewer fee and then a per unit (768 gallons) cost of $2.71. I used 6 units on my last bill which cost me $16.26, I will probably get up to 12 units in July/August, but that will still only cost $32.52 which is less than the fixed fee. I'm adhering to the recommendations of limited water and only twice a week, but I don't have a lot of incentive to reduce my water consumption and the water/sewer district has the funds they need to pay for maintenance.

The only real incentive that I have to conserve water is during the winter as it sets my sewer rates for the next year. They take the average of the 3 lowest consecutive winter months (Nov-Mar) and use that plus a fixed cost to set monthly sewer costs as there should be very little outside usage (not going down the sewer).

The electrical grid costs should be like this.

 

[BGbreeder]

Part of the water utilities lawn watering dilemma may be that in California at least, e.g. LA, 80% of lawn (&tree) watering gets returned to the local aquifer, so if the utility has local wells, the utility benefits from the ground water recharge of watering lawns and trees. (NWRI study)

All the best,

BG

 

[I’mWhat’sUp]

do you debate that their revenue is directly corresponding to your bill? Look at their income statement. They have Revenue and Cost of Revenue, the Operating Costs and then Net Profit. You use more Electricity, their Revenue goes up. They pay more fore Electricity generation, their gross profit goes down.

you are arguing against yourself. You said energy costs are a pass thru.

Again, revenue does not equal profit. Since power generation relies on natural gas power plants, I imagine every utilities revenue will see an increase this year due to high natural gas prices, but those higher costs are just pass throughs to customers and doesn’t mean higher profit. I don’t know why your argument revolves around revenue unless you want to paint a picture based on incorrect information.

 

[I’mWhat’sUp]

I think utilities are actually guaranteed a profit so yes, they always have profits since it's in their terms with the state I believe to have profits.

The whole IOI model is flawed I feel. Use no energy, they now have to raise everyone's rates to support all their costs. There is no benefit in conservation or use less, etc...Similar to healthcare, if everyone is healthy, hospitals goes belly up with no $$.

I think they should just tack on fixed grid support costs for all customers or better yet, city/municipalities should just take over the IOUs. We already know the CPUC aren't consumer focused at all and just rubber stamp everything. PG&E should have went under and broken up and bond holders/investors should have gotten pennies and those long term energy contracts torn up/failed.

I really hope this 20 year doesn't end up being a 15 year thing grandfathering thing. People talk about IOUs making capital investments for a grid and they need to recoup their investments. How about homeowners making capital investments on solar and the IOUs expect you to now pay even more and change the rules?

Solar has taken off so much due to a cash grab by utilities. If the IOU energy rates weren't so much more expensive that other utilities right next to them (Santa Clara Power, that place in Sacramento, etc), people wouldn't be trying to avoid the IOUs so much and installing solar/batteries or cut them off completely by going off grid.

Utilities aren’t guaranteed a profit but they are guaranteed a certain rate of return on based on PUC approved return on assets. If utilities removed all their fixed costs from their variable energy rates, then a decrease in energy usage wouldn’t require an increase in rates. I’m all for fixed costs just being a line item in your bill but it mostly likely would mean everyone would have a minimum monthly bill of $150 or so even if they didn’t use any electricity. Having fixed costs in their energy rates mostly benefits low usage customers and folks with solar behind their meters.

I completely agree the utility model does not incentivize efficiency but heavy government oversight rarely does, which is what the PUCs are.

 

[getakey]

Again, revenue does not equal profit. Since power generation relies on natural gas power plants, I imagine every utilities revenue will see an increase this year due to high natural gas prices, but those higher costs are just pass throughs to customers and doesn’t mean higher profit. I don’t know why your argument revolves around revenue unless you want to paint a picture based on incorrect information.

They don't make a profit from their assets. Gross Profit = Revenue minus Cost of Revenue. Net Profit = Gross Profit minus Cost of Operations. The cost of NG and the cost of Electrical generation is in the Cost of Revenue.
They could in fact make less Gross Profit from Increase in NG prices if not allowed a Rate Increase, but it seems the CPUC grants them rate increases all the time when NG prices goes up. How is that "decoupling"? The cost of maintaining the Grid and all other operations (including capitalized expenses) is in Cost of Operations. I don't see where the Cost of Revenue is just a pass through to Customers.

 

[I’mWhat’sUp]

I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but What'sUp is saying what the IOUs tell customers when they inquire about their bills.

PG&E and SCE both have said over the last few months that commodity and energy prices soared... driving up bills. The IOUs claim to simply charge the customer more that is exactly equal to the increased commodity price. In essence... yes PG&E will recognize more revenue due to the higher rate, but their profit is identical since they did not make margin on the more expensive energy charged due to commodity price changes.

PG&E simply makes a 10%-ish ROE on fixed investment and operating expenses. So if they can convince the CPUC to authorize $1Bn more of absolute trash investment (which is also funded by ratepayers), then they pocket a cool $100m to pay out as dividends to their shareholders.

So yeah, PG&E gets to talk out both sides of their mouth. Sometimes PG&E rates go up to support their rubbish inefficient operations. And Sometimes PG&E rates go up because the cost of natural gas and the CAISO energy market go up. Where PG&E gaslights people is by blaming commodity prices for almost all rate increases.

They always claim their revenue is set by the CPUC and they never take "excess profit". I posted about this in the past, but their simply saying "excess profit" is misleading. Most people consider profit to be an amount (or sum). But when PG&E says "excess profit" they mean profit margin or their ROE. While PG&E makes more absolute dollars when the CPUC authorizes PG&E to make scam/schill investments, the PG&E ROE is fixed. PG&E points to the fixed ROE and ignores the massive spike in total dollars they pay to shareholders.

That's why they want the $10Bn to go bury some powerlines in the next general rate case. They get an extra Billion profit if that proposal is approved. PG&E will continue to say they didn't get "excess profit" ... even though they just got an extra billion of pre tax profit dollars.

Yes, you got it. I believe PUC hearings are public so you can weigh in on specific investments before the PUC approves them.

The under-grounding work in NorCal is very expensive but there doesn’t appear to be any other solution that will eliminate power equipment from igniting a fire. So they are in a tough position, continue to pay out billions in legal damages or fix the problem permanently. NorCal is very unique where you have massive forests where it doesn’t rain for months. I’m not aware of any place else in the U.S. where forests exist and it doesn’t rain for months at a time and has triple digit heat.

 

[I’mWhat’sUp]

They don't make a profit from their assets. Gross Profit = Revenue minus Cost of Revenue. Net Profit = Gross Profit minus Cost of Operations. The cost of NG and the cost of Electrical generation is in the Cost of Revenue.
They could in fact make less Gross Profit from Increase in NG prices if not allowed a Rate Increase, but it seems the CPUC grants them rate increases all the time when NG prices goes up. How is that "decoupling"? The cost of maintaining the Grid and all other operations (including capitalized expenses) is in Cost of Operations. I don't see where the Cost of Revenue is just a pass through to Customers.

We can go round and round on this but the PUC utility model is what drives what utility is allowed to receive profit on and what they have to take losses on.

 

[getakey]

We can go round and round on this but the PUC utility model is what drives what utility is allowed to receive profit on and what they have to take losses on.

ok
But explain how their Profit would be the same (assuming other costs constant) if Revenue goes up due to higher NG prices, but their margin goes down. In order for Profit to be the same, their margin has to go up too.

 

[Redhill_qik]

ok
But explain how their Profit would be the same (assuming other costs constant) if Revenue goes up due to higher NG prices, but their margin goes down. In order for Profit to be the same, their margin has to go up too.

The Profit would be the same in $$, but not in %. Higher generation $ cost due to higher NG $ costs are offset by higher generation revenue $ of an equal amount. This does not translate in to higher profit $ (revenue - cost = 0) and becomes a lower gross margin %.

 

[getakey]

The Profit would be the same in $$, but not in %. Higher generation $ cost due to higher NG $ costs are offset by higher generation revenue $ of an equal amount. This does not translate in to higher profit $ (revenue - cost = 0) and becomes a lower gross margin %.

but this is only if NG rates charged to Consumer go up by same amount.

 

[holeydonut]

ok
But explain how their Profit would be the same (assuming other costs constant) if Revenue goes up due to higher NG prices, but their margin goes down. In order for Profit to be the same, their margin has to go up too.

I'm kind of confused what you're arguing. I feel like you'll say one thing but then seem to twist it and ask others to explain the issue.

Let's use a ultra simple example. Let's pretend on a variable basis that PG&E has 1 customer and it costs PG&E $50 to generate/distribute 1 kWh of power. And assume PG&E has a requirement to spit off a 10% pre-tax ROE of it's operating costs of $100.


Baseline:
Revenue = $X
Cost of Revenue = $50
Operating Costs = $100
Required pre-tax profit = $10
If you solve for $X it has to be $160 on the one kWh for the math to work.


Scenario A Now let's say energy costs go up 20% from that Baseline.
Revenue = $A
Cost of Revenue = $60
Operating Costs = $100
Required pre-tax profit = $10
If you solve for A, it has to be $170 on the one kWh for the math to work.


Scenario B Now let's say energy costs go up 20% and PG&E's operating costs go up 20% from that Baseline.
Revenue = $B
Cost of Revenue = $60
Operating Costs = $120
Required pre-tax profit = $12
If you solve for B, it has to be $192 on the one kWh for the math to work.


The IOUs tend to gaslight homeowners into thinking the only reason their bill went up is because commodity prices go up. They always say "look we're making the same ROE or margin on our operating costs! They pretend like Scenario A is the only thing happening.

But what really happens is Scenario B is going on and everything is going up on an absolute dollar basis. And homeowners get screwed as PG&E's costs go out of control but PG&E tricks people into thinking it's the fault of the energy market and the CPUC.

 

[charlesj]

Part of the water utilities lawn watering dilemma may be that in California at least, e.g. LA, 80% of lawn (&tree) watering gets returned to the local aquifer, so if the utility has local wells, the utility benefits from the ground water recharge of watering lawns and trees. (NWRI study)

All the best,

BG

I wonder how long it takes to return that water to the aquifer.

 

[Southpasfan]

I'm kind of confused what you're arguing. I feel like you'll say one thing but then seem to twist it and ask others to explain the issue.

Let's use a ultra simple example. Let's pretend on a variable basis that PG&E has 1 customer and it costs PG&E $50 to generate/distribute 1 kWh of power. And assume PG&E has a requirement to spit off a 10% pre-tax ROE of it's operating costs of $100.


Baseline:
Revenue = $X
Cost of Revenue = $50
Operating Costs = $100
Required pre-tax profit = $10
If you solve for $X it has to be $160 on the one kWh for the math to work.


Scenario A Now let's say energy costs go up 20% from that Baseline.
Revenue = $A
Cost of Revenue = $60
Operating Costs = $100
Required pre-tax profit = $10
If you solve for A, it has to be $170 on the one kWh for the math to work.


Scenario B Now let's say energy costs go up 20% and PG&E's operating costs go up 20% from that Baseline.
Revenue = $B
Cost of Revenue = $60
Operating Costs = $120
Required pre-tax profit = $12
If you solve for B, it has to be $192 on the one kWh for the math to work.


The IOUs tend to gaslight homeowners into thinking the only reason their bill went up is because commodity prices go up. They always say "look we're making the same ROE or margin on our operating costs! They pretend like Scenario A is the only thing happening.

But what really happens is Scenario B is going on and everything is going up on an absolute dollar basis. And homeowners get screwed as PG&E's costs go out of control but PG&E tricks people into thinking it's the fault of the energy market and the CPUC.

Since you pointed this out, the real problem is:

Baseline:

Revenue = $X
Cost of Electricity per 1MWH = $3
Cost of delivering the electricity, billing, service etc, per 1MWH = $17
So, let's just say that Utility needs to charge $21 per MWH.

The problem is that solar, and especially ESS reduces revenue. Any conservation reduces revenue, but solar and ESS reduce it drastically.

Since over 80% of the bill is cost items which are not reduced, in any way, by conservation, distributed solar and ESS is an existential threat to the entire business model, and all of this arguing over NEM 3.0 is really kicking a can down a road, and for not that long.

The technology is too good for what it promises to do: produce clean energy at a fair price.

The biggest BS is most people think the vast majority (at least) of their bill is for the actual electricity. If only a small portion of the bill was for the cost of delivery, you could just have a low monthly fixed charge paid by everyone and this discussion would be pretty much over.

But the cost of delivery divided by the number of rate payers is going to be just too large of a number I think.

 

[getakey]

I'm kind of confused what you're arguing. I feel like you'll say one thing but then seem to twist it and ask others to explain the issue.

Let's use a ultra simple example. Let's pretend on a variable basis that PG&E has 1 customer and it costs PG&E $50 to generate/distribute 1 kWh of power. And assume PG&E has a requirement to spit off a 10% pre-tax ROE of it's operating costs of $100.


Baseline:
Revenue = $X
Cost of Revenue = $50
Operating Costs = $100
Required pre-tax profit = $10
If you solve for $X it has to be $160 on the one kWh for the math to work.


Scenario A Now let's say energy costs go up 20% from that Baseline.
Revenue = $A
Cost of Revenue = $60
Operating Costs = $100
Required pre-tax profit = $10
If you solve for A, it has to be $170 on the one kWh for the math to work.


Scenario B Now let's say energy costs go up 20% and PG&E's operating costs go up 20% from that Baseline.
Revenue = $B
Cost of Revenue = $60
Operating Costs = $120
Required pre-tax profit = $12
If you solve for B, it has to be $192 on the one kWh for the math to work.


The IOUs tend to gaslight homeowners into thinking the only reason their bill went up is because commodity prices go up. They always say "look we're making the same ROE or margin on our operating costs! They pretend like Scenario A is the only thing happening.

But what really happens is Scenario B is going on and everything is going up on an absolute dollar basis. And homeowners get screwed as PG&E's costs go out of control but PG&E tricks people into thinking it's the fault of the energy market and the CPUC.

ok, thanks for that. Where I think I'm not completely connecting the dots is that the Energy Costs go up in real time, but the rate change happens later?

 

[holeydonut]

ok, thanks for that. Where I think I'm not completely connecting the dots is that the Energy Costs go up in real time, but the rate change happens later?

Yes, the general rate case (GRC) that PG&E submitted recently basically assumes a nominal change to the cost of the commodities. Then from there, they "size" the investment, expenses, etc so they determine their fixed costs. So in that case, when they do +18% to +45% rate increases vs 2022 rates in the GRC; that increase is almost entirely due to the increase in costs and investment. This rate case would affect their "not-related-to-commodity-price" rates from 2023 to like 2026.

More about the latest GRC:

PG&E proposes 18% to 45% rate hikes (electric and gas) beginning 2023 ending 2026 to address wildfire risk

Looks like PG&E believes it needs a few billion dollars to make their grid safe (edit, and improve infrastructure and better fund its pension), And since they can't make their operations more lean and intelligent, that just means it's time for rate payers to pony up...

teslamotorsclub.com

However, PG&E is allowed to adjust their rates on people's bills almost real-time as they operate during 2023 to 2026. So you could easily have rates go up 100% vs today (half of the increase being from PG&E's costs and half of the increase from increase in commodities).

But in 2026, PG&E will blame all of the rate increase on commodity prices.

 

[I’mWhat’sUp]

As long as people want the ability to use energy from the grid or put energy on the grid, even if it’s an hour in ten years, all the infrastructure (transmission lines, distribution lines, substations, switching centers, power plants, control rooms, and all the people and materials to maintain them) needs to be paid for. Also, In an energy market , the last MWH needed sets the price per hour, even if all the other MWHs are solar or wind. Your utility can make zero energy because they buy all their power from markets nowadays, and that sets the energy cost you see on your bill, which is an independent organization (e.g. CAISO, SPP, ERCOT, PJM, etc). Answer is pretty simple, if you don’t think the pricing is fair, disconnect from the grid. People are wanting to buy a Cadillac Escalade but are arguing with the manufacturer their costs aren’t right yet they buy it anyway and just continue to say Cadillac is ripping people off.

 

[sunwarriors]

As long as people want the ability to use energy from the grid or put energy on the grid, even if it’s an hour in ten years, all the infrastructure (transmission lines, distribution lines, substations, switching centers, power plants, control rooms, and all the people and materials to maintain them) needs to be paid for. Also, In an energy market , the last MWH needed sets the price per hour, even if all the other MWHs are solar or wind. Your utility can make zero energy because they buy all their power from markets nowadays, and that sets the energy cost you see on your bill, which is an independent organization (e.g. CAISO, SPP, ERCOT, PJM, etc). Answer is pretty simple, if you don’t think the pricing is fair, disconnect from the grid. People are wanting to buy a Cadillac Escalade but are arguing with the manufacturer their costs aren’t right yet they buy it anyway and just continue to say Cadillac is ripping people off.

Your Cadillac example is a really bad one. No one needs a fancy car (a cheap one works), but power/gas is a pretty basic need.

People can go and skip the Cadillac and can also choose a Lincoln, but with power, the IOUs own the power lines to the neighborhood and you really can't pick another power provider. Even if you do those co-op things, the power lines and everything is still owned by the IOU I believe.

Even with cable/internet, some areas have multiple companies servicing it and you can choose another option (or just use your phone). Almost impossible for power. We certainly don't have any other option other than SDG&E.

Power is a government allowed monopoly with little/no consumer choice that's rubber stamped by the CPUC. Also, why should someone in Sacramento determine power rates in San Diego (we pay the highest rates in the nation currently)? Power is also considered a life need where without it, life could be in danger due to medical needs, excess heat/cold/etc.

I'd like to see cities actually start kicking the IOUs to the curb and go it alone. Start finding some land they own, build massive solar/storage themselves and kick PG&E/IOUs to the curb for their own neighborhoods. Generate power where it is used and minimize transmission lines/issues and cut the tie to the IOU master.

I'd really like to see more tech to allow folks to seriously go off-grid. The problem I have is still gas, but being in So Ca, even during winter, it was not too bad as long as a sunny day pops up.

I never understood why folks even defend utilities here. It's obvious the IOUs made this mess themselves (PG&E killing people, not maintaining their stuff), jacking up rates so high to the point where more and more people have gone solar/storage and will consider cutting the cord (like landlines) once more tech/solutions pop up. Especially wealthy people like that guy in Palo Alto where they have the means, it'll be funny to see how they deal then when the customer is not there anymore and don't have to care how the IOUs plans to rob them next.

 

[holeydonut]

I never understood why folks even defend utilities here. It's obvious the IOUs made this mess themselves (PG&E killing people, not maintaining their stuff), jacking up rates so high to the point where more and more people have gone solar/storage and will consider cutting the cord (like landlines) once more tech/solutions pop up. Especially wealthy people like that guy in Palo Alto where they have the means, it'll be funny to see how they deal then when the customer is not there anymore and don't have to care how the IOUs plans to rob them next.

Energy companies and the IOUs themselves spend billions lobbying, advertising, and influencing policymakers, elected officials, and voters. They've effectively bought the support of key influencers and the public. When you have experts crafting narratives, they will get through to many people because they hit them with numerous attempts to garner empathy and respect.

For example, the oil and natural gas industry convinced the Obama administration that the procurement and use of natural gas is "clean". Simply because they're comparing themselves to coal. This is the equivalent of someone ordering a diet soda to go with their 20 piece nugget and big mac combo meal. Yeah, the diet soda is better than pounding a gallon of Coke, but overall it's not a good thing. To this day, you can see the byproduct of this where many people still think Natural gas is a way to avert climate change and doesn't harm the environment.

The end of natural gas has to start with its name

The oil and gas industry didn’t invent the name. But it invented the myth of a clean fuel.

www.vox.com

Another key facet of the industry messaging is that they purport to "know how to do energy safer/better". They want us to leave things to the "experts" and just give them money so they can keep your lights on. The push for solar/renewables is viewed as the evil cash-grab. They blame the renewables initiative as the reason why their energy bills are so high. You don't have to go far to find someone who says "look at Texas, they are only 20% renewables so their energy costs stay low! Solar is why we're paying so much!"

And of course, individual homeowners with solar are often the worst enemy. You can see how many politicians bought into the "cost shift" argument on NEM 3.0. AB 1139 (Gonzalez) would have handed the IOUs their NEM 3.0 proposal, but was narrowly defeated. There are a lot folks out there that truly believe individual homeowners are a bigger problem than the mega-huge and outrageously expensive IOUs. The IOU's have also cleverly presented the argument that IOUs are an all or nothing proposition. "go off grid" or "pay the utility" are the only presented options. The IOU's have established that IOU reform and slowly making them better/efficient is out of the question.

TLDR: Some blame immigrants for "taking jobs" instead of blaming employers for hiring immigrants. It's easy to manipulate where people play the blame game.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Your Cadillac example is a really bad one. No one needs a fancy car (a cheap one works), but power/gas is a pretty basic need.

People can go and skip the Cadillac and can also choose a Lincoln, but with power, the IOUs own the power lines to the neighborhood and you really can't pick another power provider. Even if you do those co-op things, the power lines and everything is still owned by the IOU I believe.

Even with cable/internet, some areas have multiple companies servicing it and you can choose another option (or just use your phone). Almost impossible for power. We certainly don't have any other option other than SDG&E.

Was going to mention the same thing. Even with cable/internet there are plenty of monopoly horror stories, but for power it's probably 10x worse. I'm in counties where you can pick other providers, but the powerlines and everything are very much still owned by PG&E (so billing is also handled by them). There is no escaping them unless you go offgrid completely, which is easier said than done (especially if you consider heating loads also and cutting off natural gas too).

The Cadillac example is ridiculously off given there are so many alternatives to buying a Cadillac (including used ones or even riding public transit or ridesharing) in comparison.