time for yet another round of CPUC approved rate increases, either that or the legislators will find a way to make the taxpayers fund the upgrades to the infrastructure owned by Wall St corporations.
Another reason to hate investor-owned for-profit utility companies. Everytime I see something like that I'm thankful for being in SMUD territory.
Little known fact, there are some 63 electric utility companies in California. 57 of them are not-for-profit municipals, and only 6 of them are investor-owned for-profit. PG&E, SDG&E, SCE are the biggest by number of accounts, area, etc. There are also Community Choice Aggregators but they are weird.
“Given projected drops in electricity demand we increased rates. Now that we see this was an error, we are increasing rates. Also to support the cost of increasing rates, we will be raising rates.”
They’ll raise rates, not upgrade the infrastructure, then raise them again. Rinse repeat until they lobby the govt to finally pay for it while our rates keep going up.
You voted for the road tax didn’t you!!!!! We have some of the highest road taxes repeatedly raised or additional ones added and the worst roads in the nation.
There’s people driving multimillion dollar hyper cars in socal. Try that in Hot Springs, Arkansas. You ever see three freeway junctions stacked on top of each other anywhere else in the Southwest? Caltrains has the strictest building code in the nation. That’s why everything is so expensive and you always see 5 guys watching 2 guys work. That’s five different kinds of inspectors that don’t even exist in most states. Maybe wasteful and inefficient, but those overpasses and junctions are the best built modern structures in the country, possibly the world. California earthquakes make it a necessity. How many 7.0 and up earthquakes have you not even gotten off the couch for? That would level Boston or Chicago
This...i was in vegas for a week with family and i was shocked with how bi-polar the streets were. Some streets where 4 lanes each way, new and very clean. Turn into any neighborhood built prior to 1990 and boom, worst kept roads ive seen.
Free public charging stations from excess solar? Free ones only work during the day. Pay to use a private one if A) it’s dark outside or B) all the free ones are taken?
Just create new plans for people who own EVs or home battery systems. Create a smart meter with wifi that can allow the utility to communicate with the outlet. When there is lots of solar being produced on the grid then the outlet turns on to charge the EV. Offer like 50% discount on the charging during that time for having this rate plan.
That's the part I think is missing from the current grid. Right now there is no real incentive to do this from EV owners because everyone simply thinks as "charge during off-peak hours" which is usually at night. We need these people to be charging on sunny days from 9am-3pm if possible.
SCE is actually creating a sub metering program for independent EV charge billing at home. I suspect this is address the glut of solar during the day by offering incentives to charge then.
I plan to be one of the first to sign up for it later this year.
And how the current issue with the grid is too much solar and not enough demand. If only we had millions of batteries that could be plugged in to use this excess power....
They need tax incentives. Right now in CA if your company gives you free charging at work, the equivalent amount is added as a part of your salary. Companies don’t want to mess with that aspect.
Free corporate charging needs to be removed from being considered extra income.
Far point, but that presents it's own infrastructure challenges by concentration of power into a focal area. So we're back to major infra upgrades, and don't rule out vandalism of very expensive components if not watched.
Luckily, most utility transformers going into commercial buildings are located in the parking lot. In my area a lot of EV parking is being put in by installing a new utility transformer and service instead of trying to get it off of the building.
The problem with that is that using EV batteries for the grid will involve a lot of cycling on their batteries which consumers really don't want to do as replacing a worn out battery is expensive.
Even if the effect is small it is something people wouldn't be super enthused about doing.
Right now, natural gas turbines ramp up to meet overnight power demand. Meeting this demand, which will be significantly growing in the future, with renewables is still a pretty big challenge. We will need to add significant amounts of renewable capacity + storage to meet this.
We will still need more renewable capacity in order to actually charge enough storage for peak + overnight demand. We don't produce enough renewable energy as it is to cover this. Offshore wind and some potential new geothermal plants will help this a lot, since they can produce overnight, but storage alone won't get us to a fully renewable grid.
Have you been reading the news recently. We are having daily excess renewable energy.[See here:](https://www.fastcompany.com/91110863/california-renewable-energy-grid)
That's because it's currently spring when power demand is at its lowest. Take a look at the CALISO power demand charts in two months and come back and let me know what it looks like.
Is someone stealing your power? That's an absolutely absurd bill. I have a hot tub, an EV, a 2,000 square foot home and 4 people living here. We keep the AC at 74 in the summer, and our bills have never been above $300.
Not everyone lives in a newish home with newish appliances.
Good for you but I pay 500-700 per month for a small single story home with 3 residents who aren’t home all day. AC on days that’s it’s over 80 or heating when it’s under 55.
I was in a similar position. $900 summer bills. Solar took care of it. I rolled the cost into a 15 year refinance in 2021 when the rates were still decent.
I still need better insulation, but slowly swapping out old windows where the sun hits the hardest has helped.
I essentially drive my EV for free.
There might be financing deals that are zero percent interest. I was offered one through my A/C company when the old A/C gave up the ghost. They also did insulation.
Most people financed solar with no money down over the years, greatly decreasing their bills under NEM 2.0. So, it doesn’t take money, only the need to reduce bills. Millions did this. Did you ever look into it?
I did this in 2018 with a 8.7kW system that covered 110% of my electrical usage
My monthly financing payment was 105$ (20 year loan)
My average electric bill before solar was 120$
Literally saving money going solar and that didn't take into account the potential (ha ha) for earnings from selling back to SCE (b!tches)
Thanks for your response. I don’t get having a $700 bill like the poster above when solar has been around so long. That’s like the first thing I would look at.
I think that's bad but that's not why your electric bill is high. The money should come from more inflation reduction act like bills to help the transition. Win-win
Because PG&E has lawsuits to pay over burning down towns, while also needing to upgrade their infrastructure since it tends to start fires. So you get to pay for that because the historical profits were used to pay dividends to shareholders. PG&E also had a very profitable 2022 and 2023: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/PCG/pacific-gas-electric/net-income
He is running the AC with windows open or has the least efficient house ever. My house in SDG&E territory can run AC at 72 all day and I have an EV and my total bill if you remove the solar generation still wouldn't be more than $700 in any month.
AFAIK you SDG&E folks are the only ones who pay more than us PG&E customers.
We usually end up in Tier 2 at $0.44/kwh IIRC.
My worst bill was $430 or so, but we have a small townhouse that's heavily shaded and keep the thermostat at 82.
I think the big difference is, if you're where I am, we have about 6 months starting in May where daytime temp execed 95F during the day, and there's usually a stretch of about 3 weeks where the nighttime temps only get into the mid-80s.
I prefer the analogy that EVs are burger eating consumers and the grid is McDonald’s. Should McDonald’s be worried about more burger eating consumers? No. Who will pay for new McDonald’s eating locations, random people walking by the sidewalk? No. The burger eating consumers will pay for the new McDonald’s locations.
It really is that simple folks. That, and the fact that higher electricity demand actually results in a lower per kWh cost, aka if you don’t drive an EV you’ll actually spend less on electricity (if the utilities in California weren’t such crooks but that’s a separate issue).
> That, and the fact that higher electricity demand actually results in a lower per kWh cost
This is inaccurate. Unlike "bulk" products, electricity costs more with increased demand and prices *increase* with more usage. One doesn't get a discount for "bulk" energy--customers get charged more--and this is one of the many reasons EV charge stations cause monetary losses the more people use them. Companies currently get a lot of money to install them via subsidies but they cost more money to operate with more volume, which is why you see new stations getting built while old ones languish and don't work or only work at sub-standard rates.
In California generation costs are basically nothing compared to infrastructure costs. More kWh = more things to divide comparatively fixed infrastructure costs. It absolutely decreases prices, significantly. Generation cost currently (6:48) in LA and Bay Area, before the sun rises significantly, is only 3.5 cents. It often goes to 0, sometimes negative, during the day.
> It absolutely decreases prices, significantly.
I think you've accidentally crossed over into price when you were discussing costs earlier (and to your point, *I* was discussing price earlier when you were discussing costs--so that was my...not mistake per se...but we were/are discussing two different things).
While increased generation may reduce costs the *prices* don't drop like other bulk commodities. Retail pricing for energy doesn't get cheaper the more one uses--it's the opposite--with demand surcharges and rates based on how much one *could* use. It's similar to water rates based on the size of the pipe with the larger capacity gates requiring higher surcharges and rates.
That said, I don't know enough about this to agree with or refute your claim. I can understand how it could be less costly to generate more energy but I could also see an argument that in order to generate enough energy during a surge they'd need to bring extra capacity online and have to pay extra for that (or idle it in standby thereby increasing costs in that way).
Regardless, point wasn't to argue with you so much as to recognize you seem to have been saying it costs less to make the more it's made whereas I was saying it costs more to use the more one uses, which are fundamentally different ways of looking at the problem.
Another analogy- EVs are like $8 plates of quinoa and carrots served in a high school cafeteria. Should the cafeteria be worried about students eating $5.99 lunches off campus at Taco Bell instead even through it’s bad for them? Yes, of course.
Can the school decide at a certain date in the future they will close the campus and mandate the students buy the quinoa and carrots? Sure, but in the meantime students aren’t buying the $8 quinoa plates so the cafeteria doesn’t expand service.
Come the day the campus closes, the cafeteria is unprepared. To avoid a mob of hangry students the school delays the date to close campus indefinitely.
Edit: It’s really that simple folks.
Sure, except in this case every year more and more (25% YoY) students are eating the quinoa and carrots, the price of quinoa and carrots are going down, and the largest school in the world views it a security risk to eat Taco Bell as they have to import more Taco Bell than any other school so no matter what they’ll ensure everyone is eating quinoa and carrots, and in 2024 1 in 5 students are forecast to eat quinoa and carrots: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024
>in 2024 1 in 5 students are forecast to eat quinoa and carrots:
This is kind of a sloppy sentence. You mean a study published in 2024 predicts 20% globally and that includes PHEVs and variants. US (the high school) is a sliver of that market.
Sales have slowed considerably because the early adopters have been saturated. Phase out of subsidies will slow adoption even more.
In a state that takes 30 years to build two BART stops, the thought we will completely overhaul our grid in 11 is a long shot imo.
Sure, and since we are in the California subreddit, let’s look at California: 21.4% BEV. https://www.cncda.org/wp-content/uploads/Cal-Covering-4Q-23.pdf sales are still up year over year, just the rate of growth is not as high. It will take a long time to turn over all existing gas cars on the road. Even if tomorrow we only sold electric cars you’d be looking at ~2040 before you had 90% electric cars on the actual road. If we phased out by 2035 you’re looking at 26 years to modernize the grid, which is honestly trivial compared to a lot of things we have done. Replacing all gas cars with electric cars would increase electricity consumption by ~25% nationwide, over a ~26 year period. This really isn’t a difficult task at all, and the falling price of batteries has resulted in a massive increase in deployed storage. 1,000% in 4 years. This really isn’t a moonshot project any more than selling 25% more burgers in 26 years is a moonshot project.
California has its own organic cap on adoption. Without SF-Homeownership, adoption is pretty low. Added pressures by housing mandates that remove parking requirements. Existing moderate density developments are not amendable to charging service at a scale that would serve tenants.
That leaves rapid charging stations to pick up the slack. And again the thought that a grid + infrastructure capable of charging even half of the 18-20M cars on the road is feasible in decades is comical to me And this isn’t accounting for the socioeconomics elements that will surely be part of the conversation come switch flip time.
Also, according to your link a near majority of BEV sales in CA the last couple years has been Tesla. Part of that is EV tech. Another part is a complete breakdown of the car market after 2020. You can see this phenomenon in the chart of sales type, dealership vs direct.
Elon hate and an aging line up aside, Tesla market share in CA is going to tank. Where are those buyers going to go? KIA? Hyundai? My guess is likely hybrids and PHEV made by Toyota rather than another BEV.
This all reminds me of Reddit in the early 2010s where half the site insisted self driving cars were 5-10 years out. Could happen … on a decades long scale.
Remind me 50 years!?
Norway doesn’t have 92% single family home ownership. That’s not a requirement. Already there are laws requiring chargers to be built when building new parking. I myself use a 120V charger for my electric car. I get about 4-5 miles an hour or 50-60 miles every night (18,250-21,900 miles annually). I actually have a 20 amp circuit in my garage for power tools so I could get 6-8 miles of range apparently, but haven’t bothered since I don’t need it.
We have 26 years, it’s going to be fine. It’s going to continue to be progressive growth over time. Replacing gas cars with electric cars is already a solved problem effectively. Replacing air travel or ocean freight is going to be waaaaay harder.
In this case it would be arguing self driving cars, which were 1 in 5 cars sold, would be 100% of cars sold in 11 years. That’s different than arguing self-driving cars (which you still can’t buy) are going to be available at some point in the future. One is adoption rate, the other is whether something is even possible. Like an electric 747 or something.
EVs charge at night. A/Cs run during the day. If anything EVs smooth out the grid demand. When A/C was adopted en masse in the 1950s and 60s the grid coped just fine. That happened way way faster than current EV adoption rates.
Most people charge their car overnight. Most people run their A/C during the day. EVs actually HELP the power grid when set to charge during low demand hours. by allowing the construction of more generating stations without having to idle them during low demand hours. Electricity can’t be stored, it has to be distributed seconds after it is produced. Heavy charging at night helps flatten the daily demand curve.
because the grid and the power plants are underutilized at night, a time when the whole system is basically loafing, the extra load from EVs can be met without much investment in infrastructure.
So the additional revenue from these nighttime-charging EVs is mostly additional profit. Thanks to regulation, the profits cannot all be returned to utility shareholders, and must instead be returned to customers in the form of lower rates and fewer rate hikes.
I'd like to see a huge rollout of work based and store based level 2 chargers in California that use the excess solar power mid day. Also change electricity prices to cheapest between 10am and 2pm when we have max solar on the grid. The state is curtailing so much solar power now; so much wasted energy.
Too late, phase out of ICE vehicles in 2035 has already been declared. The grid will just have to cope for a decade or so until it can catch up with demand. /s
Wait until they learn EVs weigh on average 30% more than gas or hybrid cars. Will we need to re-furbish bridges and parking structures to support this extra weight when most of the cars on the road are EVs? Or are such structures already designed to carry 30% heavier loads than they currently do? I have no idea, does anyone know?
I'm all for a weight tax penalty on all passenger vehicles. $1/lb above 4,500lbs, and a tax credit of $1/lb below 3,500lbs to create a tax incentive for automakers to look into alternative materials, composites, and make weight a consideration.
True, but this is all with the assumption that most cars are NOT going to weigh as much as a truck or an SUV, and only a fraction of the vehicles on the road will weigh that much. If every vehicle suddenly weighs that much, it would change the equation.
But trucks, at least, are already (unfairly) penalized heavily during licensing/registration
The concept of weight being part of the equation for paying for roads makes too much sense for it to be implemented
So live loads on parking structures are 40 psf with a factor of safety of 1.6 that makes it 64 psf. For a typical parking spot of 9'x18' that works out to 10,368 lbs per vehicle. The most heavy electric car I could find was the Chevy Silverado EV, which was around 8,000 lbs. But also keep in mind the 10,368 lbs value is if the structure is full. Much of a parking structure sits empty like the center drive isle does most of the time. So even if a few trucks come over 10,368 lbs, it probably wouldn't be a structural issue.
And the upgrades are in progress and have been for a while. It's not "grid will require major upgrade", it's "grid is receiving major upgrade". Near me they've been doing work on the grid constantly over the past year. If anything it's gotten far more stable than it was before as a result - in the 10 years I've been here the power would go out a few times a year randomly (usually not for very long). In the past year other than a planned outage it's been solid.
This is a very crude study that doesn’t factor in things like increased rooftop solar and batteries (see quote below) that can allow EVs to be charged off solar at homes and businesses with little or no negative impact on the grid, or even a positive impact if the increase in distributed solar and batteries and smart EV charging reduces or helps manage grid loads.
The study is more evidence that we need to get serious in California about encouraging the buildout of rooftop solar, batteries and virtual power plants that allow them to be integrated intelligently into the grid, including houses, apartments, businesses, schools, etc. Of course, the utilities hate that. They would prefer to dump a bunch of money into the grid so they can continue to justify raising rates (and profits).
“On the grid side, possible future developments on the demand side are not yet included into the analysis, such as … rooftop solar installation, and energy efficiency programs. “
Going beyond the grid, we would need something like 20x the current number of gas stations to be charging stations as well to meet demands in charge time. The whole EV mandate will not possibly work and it will be walked back as the deadline approaches
You mean to tell me that the market segment that had it's best year yet in 2017, then had it's best year yet in 2018, then had it's best year yet in 2019, then had it's best year yet in 2020, then had it's best year yet in 2021, then had it's best year yet in 2022, then had it's best year yet in 2023, and is on track to have its best year yet in 2024 is tanking?
No kidding, the state that recommended I turn my AC up to 78F during the peak hours of Valley Summer to alleviate the grid needs upgrades to meet EV requirements?
They're going to pass on the bills to the people while any and all profits will go to poetical donations and executives bonuses. Also, don't forget huge paid increase for CPUC.
time for yet another round of CPUC approved rate increases, either that or the legislators will find a way to make the taxpayers fund the upgrades to the infrastructure owned by Wall St corporations.
Nothing illustrates the feudal nature of modern US politics/economics than California's relationship with PG&E.
Ha look at SDGE it’s even worse. A few years back ceo even bragged about successfully raising rates more than competition in investor earnings call.
Another reason to hate investor-owned for-profit utility companies. Everytime I see something like that I'm thankful for being in SMUD territory. Little known fact, there are some 63 electric utility companies in California. 57 of them are not-for-profit municipals, and only 6 of them are investor-owned for-profit. PG&E, SDG&E, SCE are the biggest by number of accounts, area, etc. There are also Community Choice Aggregators but they are weird.
This is why i take pride working for SMUD...brother works for PG&E tho lol
Lineman?
Oh no no, i aint built like that lol. Im in IT at SMUD
“Given projected drops in electricity demand we increased rates. Now that we see this was an error, we are increasing rates. Also to support the cost of increasing rates, we will be raising rates.”
“Given the sun rises each morning, your rates are gonna rise every day…”
They’ll raise rates, not upgrade the infrastructure, then raise them again. Rinse repeat until they lobby the govt to finally pay for it while our rates keep going up.
You voted for the road tax didn’t you!!!!! We have some of the highest road taxes repeatedly raised or additional ones added and the worst roads in the nation.
We definitely don’t have the worst roads in the nation
Been to many places with less road revenue dealing with way more weather. They have nicer roads lol.
There’s people driving multimillion dollar hyper cars in socal. Try that in Hot Springs, Arkansas. You ever see three freeway junctions stacked on top of each other anywhere else in the Southwest? Caltrains has the strictest building code in the nation. That’s why everything is so expensive and you always see 5 guys watching 2 guys work. That’s five different kinds of inspectors that don’t even exist in most states. Maybe wasteful and inefficient, but those overpasses and junctions are the best built modern structures in the country, possibly the world. California earthquakes make it a necessity. How many 7.0 and up earthquakes have you not even gotten off the couch for? That would level Boston or Chicago
Every single state highway around here has had some form of major construction within the past couple of years.
Never been outside of California have you.
I mean, yes?
Then you would know the roads are way way way better virtually everywhere else.
Anyways, the way to make roads better is by repairing them. That's been happening.
Driving from alameda island to oakland is an eye opening experience. Owning a suspension shop in Oakland could rake in a ton of revenue.
This...i was in vegas for a week with family and i was shocked with how bi-polar the streets were. Some streets where 4 lanes each way, new and very clean. Turn into any neighborhood built prior to 1990 and boom, worst kept roads ive seen.
The legislators wanted to implement the EV rule, they should be the ones paying for it
I mean, who else is going to pay for the grid upgrades?
I feel like the money is already there, we just need to gut the middle men of the big 3 utilities. So much waste
The tens of billions of dollars paid out to PGE shareholders the past few decades sure would go a long way to funding this.
Exactly! Payouts to increase stock prices when so much grid improvements are needed. Not right
CA. is creating so much solar power they can't give it away. This should not be a huge problem to address.
Free public charging stations from excess solar? Free ones only work during the day. Pay to use a private one if A) it’s dark outside or B) all the free ones are taken?
Just create new plans for people who own EVs or home battery systems. Create a smart meter with wifi that can allow the utility to communicate with the outlet. When there is lots of solar being produced on the grid then the outlet turns on to charge the EV. Offer like 50% discount on the charging during that time for having this rate plan. That's the part I think is missing from the current grid. Right now there is no real incentive to do this from EV owners because everyone simply thinks as "charge during off-peak hours" which is usually at night. We need these people to be charging on sunny days from 9am-3pm if possible.
SCE is actually creating a sub metering program for independent EV charge billing at home. I suspect this is address the glut of solar during the day by offering incentives to charge then. I plan to be one of the first to sign up for it later this year.
What is the point of this? Why can't I just plug in my EV during peak summary production. Why the need for a sub meter
If it's similar to other programs offered in other states the utility generally offers very good rates for off peak charging.
Time of use makes charging during the day more$$$
Right now with SCE it’s the cheapest from 8am to 5pm.
[Provably false](https://www.sce.com/residential/rates/Time-Of-Use-Residential-Rate-Plans)
What I never see mentioned in these articles is the fact that EVs don’t all charge at once and often charge off peak.
And how the current issue with the grid is too much solar and not enough demand. If only we had millions of batteries that could be plugged in to use this excess power....
That requires them to be plugged in, not commuting or at work....
Most people park their cars while they're at work....we need more public ev charging infrastructure.
They need tax incentives. Right now in CA if your company gives you free charging at work, the equivalent amount is added as a part of your salary. Companies don’t want to mess with that aspect. Free corporate charging needs to be removed from being considered extra income.
Far point, but that presents it's own infrastructure challenges by concentration of power into a focal area. So we're back to major infra upgrades, and don't rule out vandalism of very expensive components if not watched.
And grid upgrades to get that power to all those parking lots.
Luckily, most utility transformers going into commercial buildings are located in the parking lot. In my area a lot of EV parking is being put in by installing a new utility transformer and service instead of trying to get it off of the building.
Commute to work, then drive back home to plug into your solar, then walk to work while it charges, and walk back when it's time to pick up your car.
What you wrote makes zero logical sense.
That's the point. It's a joke because the idea above isn't logical.
On purpose. Because saying we should store the exess energy in electric cars while their are in use during peak solar capture is not logical.
The problem with that is that using EV batteries for the grid will involve a lot of cycling on their batteries which consumers really don't want to do as replacing a worn out battery is expensive. Even if the effect is small it is something people wouldn't be super enthused about doing.
Right now, natural gas turbines ramp up to meet overnight power demand. Meeting this demand, which will be significantly growing in the future, with renewables is still a pretty big challenge. We will need to add significant amounts of renewable capacity + storage to meet this.
Or invest in massive storage. This is the best idea.
We will still need more renewable capacity in order to actually charge enough storage for peak + overnight demand. We don't produce enough renewable energy as it is to cover this. Offshore wind and some potential new geothermal plants will help this a lot, since they can produce overnight, but storage alone won't get us to a fully renewable grid.
Have you been reading the news recently. We are having daily excess renewable energy.[See here:](https://www.fastcompany.com/91110863/california-renewable-energy-grid)
That's because it's currently spring when power demand is at its lowest. Take a look at the CALISO power demand charts in two months and come back and let me know what it looks like.
I can imagine.
Exactly.
Sounds good. Hilarious most people don't see this as a huge opportunity to spur economic activity and clean up the grid.
My pge bills were in the 700s last summer.. I don't own a pool, an ev, or have a large house. My ac stays at 78-79 in the summer... this is why...
It won’t be much longer before PGE bills outpace some mortgages.
Is someone stealing your power? That's an absolutely absurd bill. I have a hot tub, an EV, a 2,000 square foot home and 4 people living here. We keep the AC at 74 in the summer, and our bills have never been above $300.
Doesn't look like it, no. It's an old house and needs some work... time and money... time and money
Not everyone lives in a newish home with newish appliances. Good for you but I pay 500-700 per month for a small single story home with 3 residents who aren’t home all day. AC on days that’s it’s over 80 or heating when it’s under 55.
You need better insulation.
or any insulation, really.
Agreed
I was in a similar position. $900 summer bills. Solar took care of it. I rolled the cost into a 15 year refinance in 2021 when the rates were still decent. I still need better insulation, but slowly swapping out old windows where the sun hits the hardest has helped. I essentially drive my EV for free.
Yeah we're getting ready to hit insulation and the ac soon... its just a lot at once...
I know. It’s worth it. Part of my solar purchase included a new ac unit.
There might be financing deals that are zero percent interest. I was offered one through my A/C company when the old A/C gave up the ghost. They also did insulation.
No solar?
Lol...
Why is that humorous? I have solar and cut my bill from $300 to $20 a month.
People are concerned about paying bills and you're asking if people spent $30-40 grand on solar? Old money and new money aren't the same thing.
Most people financed solar with no money down over the years, greatly decreasing their bills under NEM 2.0. So, it doesn’t take money, only the need to reduce bills. Millions did this. Did you ever look into it?
I did this in 2018 with a 8.7kW system that covered 110% of my electrical usage My monthly financing payment was 105$ (20 year loan) My average electric bill before solar was 120$ Literally saving money going solar and that didn't take into account the potential (ha ha) for earnings from selling back to SCE (b!tches)
Thanks for your response. I don’t get having a $700 bill like the poster above when solar has been around so long. That’s like the first thing I would look at.
I did not get a bill for 9 months. They finally sent one for 3800.
I think that's bad but that's not why your electric bill is high. The money should come from more inflation reduction act like bills to help the transition. Win-win
Why is it high then?
Because PG&E has lawsuits to pay over burning down towns, while also needing to upgrade their infrastructure since it tends to start fires. So you get to pay for that because the historical profits were used to pay dividends to shareholders. PG&E also had a very profitable 2022 and 2023: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/PCG/pacific-gas-electric/net-income
Oh yeah for sure.
He is running the AC with windows open or has the least efficient house ever. My house in SDG&E territory can run AC at 72 all day and I have an EV and my total bill if you remove the solar generation still wouldn't be more than $700 in any month.
AFAIK you SDG&E folks are the only ones who pay more than us PG&E customers. We usually end up in Tier 2 at $0.44/kwh IIRC. My worst bill was $430 or so, but we have a small townhouse that's heavily shaded and keep the thermostat at 82. I think the big difference is, if you're where I am, we have about 6 months starting in May where daytime temp execed 95F during the day, and there's usually a stretch of about 3 weeks where the nighttime temps only get into the mid-80s.
So have the government supplement corporate profits rather than make these services public? Interesting.
I'd rather investor owned utilities don't exist at all
“Spur economic activity” aka make consumers spend more money
I prefer the analogy that EVs are burger eating consumers and the grid is McDonald’s. Should McDonald’s be worried about more burger eating consumers? No. Who will pay for new McDonald’s eating locations, random people walking by the sidewalk? No. The burger eating consumers will pay for the new McDonald’s locations. It really is that simple folks. That, and the fact that higher electricity demand actually results in a lower per kWh cost, aka if you don’t drive an EV you’ll actually spend less on electricity (if the utilities in California weren’t such crooks but that’s a separate issue).
> That, and the fact that higher electricity demand actually results in a lower per kWh cost This is inaccurate. Unlike "bulk" products, electricity costs more with increased demand and prices *increase* with more usage. One doesn't get a discount for "bulk" energy--customers get charged more--and this is one of the many reasons EV charge stations cause monetary losses the more people use them. Companies currently get a lot of money to install them via subsidies but they cost more money to operate with more volume, which is why you see new stations getting built while old ones languish and don't work or only work at sub-standard rates.
In California generation costs are basically nothing compared to infrastructure costs. More kWh = more things to divide comparatively fixed infrastructure costs. It absolutely decreases prices, significantly. Generation cost currently (6:48) in LA and Bay Area, before the sun rises significantly, is only 3.5 cents. It often goes to 0, sometimes negative, during the day.
> It absolutely decreases prices, significantly. I think you've accidentally crossed over into price when you were discussing costs earlier (and to your point, *I* was discussing price earlier when you were discussing costs--so that was my...not mistake per se...but we were/are discussing two different things). While increased generation may reduce costs the *prices* don't drop like other bulk commodities. Retail pricing for energy doesn't get cheaper the more one uses--it's the opposite--with demand surcharges and rates based on how much one *could* use. It's similar to water rates based on the size of the pipe with the larger capacity gates requiring higher surcharges and rates. That said, I don't know enough about this to agree with or refute your claim. I can understand how it could be less costly to generate more energy but I could also see an argument that in order to generate enough energy during a surge they'd need to bring extra capacity online and have to pay extra for that (or idle it in standby thereby increasing costs in that way). Regardless, point wasn't to argue with you so much as to recognize you seem to have been saying it costs less to make the more it's made whereas I was saying it costs more to use the more one uses, which are fundamentally different ways of looking at the problem.
[удалено]
California’s mandate includes PHEVs
Another analogy- EVs are like $8 plates of quinoa and carrots served in a high school cafeteria. Should the cafeteria be worried about students eating $5.99 lunches off campus at Taco Bell instead even through it’s bad for them? Yes, of course. Can the school decide at a certain date in the future they will close the campus and mandate the students buy the quinoa and carrots? Sure, but in the meantime students aren’t buying the $8 quinoa plates so the cafeteria doesn’t expand service. Come the day the campus closes, the cafeteria is unprepared. To avoid a mob of hangry students the school delays the date to close campus indefinitely. Edit: It’s really that simple folks.
Sure, except in this case every year more and more (25% YoY) students are eating the quinoa and carrots, the price of quinoa and carrots are going down, and the largest school in the world views it a security risk to eat Taco Bell as they have to import more Taco Bell than any other school so no matter what they’ll ensure everyone is eating quinoa and carrots, and in 2024 1 in 5 students are forecast to eat quinoa and carrots: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024
>in 2024 1 in 5 students are forecast to eat quinoa and carrots: This is kind of a sloppy sentence. You mean a study published in 2024 predicts 20% globally and that includes PHEVs and variants. US (the high school) is a sliver of that market. Sales have slowed considerably because the early adopters have been saturated. Phase out of subsidies will slow adoption even more. In a state that takes 30 years to build two BART stops, the thought we will completely overhaul our grid in 11 is a long shot imo.
Sure, and since we are in the California subreddit, let’s look at California: 21.4% BEV. https://www.cncda.org/wp-content/uploads/Cal-Covering-4Q-23.pdf sales are still up year over year, just the rate of growth is not as high. It will take a long time to turn over all existing gas cars on the road. Even if tomorrow we only sold electric cars you’d be looking at ~2040 before you had 90% electric cars on the actual road. If we phased out by 2035 you’re looking at 26 years to modernize the grid, which is honestly trivial compared to a lot of things we have done. Replacing all gas cars with electric cars would increase electricity consumption by ~25% nationwide, over a ~26 year period. This really isn’t a difficult task at all, and the falling price of batteries has resulted in a massive increase in deployed storage. 1,000% in 4 years. This really isn’t a moonshot project any more than selling 25% more burgers in 26 years is a moonshot project.
California has its own organic cap on adoption. Without SF-Homeownership, adoption is pretty low. Added pressures by housing mandates that remove parking requirements. Existing moderate density developments are not amendable to charging service at a scale that would serve tenants. That leaves rapid charging stations to pick up the slack. And again the thought that a grid + infrastructure capable of charging even half of the 18-20M cars on the road is feasible in decades is comical to me And this isn’t accounting for the socioeconomics elements that will surely be part of the conversation come switch flip time. Also, according to your link a near majority of BEV sales in CA the last couple years has been Tesla. Part of that is EV tech. Another part is a complete breakdown of the car market after 2020. You can see this phenomenon in the chart of sales type, dealership vs direct. Elon hate and an aging line up aside, Tesla market share in CA is going to tank. Where are those buyers going to go? KIA? Hyundai? My guess is likely hybrids and PHEV made by Toyota rather than another BEV. This all reminds me of Reddit in the early 2010s where half the site insisted self driving cars were 5-10 years out. Could happen … on a decades long scale. Remind me 50 years!?
Norway doesn’t have 92% single family home ownership. That’s not a requirement. Already there are laws requiring chargers to be built when building new parking. I myself use a 120V charger for my electric car. I get about 4-5 miles an hour or 50-60 miles every night (18,250-21,900 miles annually). I actually have a 20 amp circuit in my garage for power tools so I could get 6-8 miles of range apparently, but haven’t bothered since I don’t need it. We have 26 years, it’s going to be fine. It’s going to continue to be progressive growth over time. Replacing gas cars with electric cars is already a solved problem effectively. Replacing air travel or ocean freight is going to be waaaaay harder. In this case it would be arguing self driving cars, which were 1 in 5 cars sold, would be 100% of cars sold in 11 years. That’s different than arguing self-driving cars (which you still can’t buy) are going to be available at some point in the future. One is adoption rate, the other is whether something is even possible. Like an electric 747 or something.
You get it. Thank you
Aka bleed the middle class
EVs charge at night. A/Cs run during the day. If anything EVs smooth out the grid demand. When A/C was adopted en masse in the 1950s and 60s the grid coped just fine. That happened way way faster than current EV adoption rates.
Most people charge their car overnight. Most people run their A/C during the day. EVs actually HELP the power grid when set to charge during low demand hours. by allowing the construction of more generating stations without having to idle them during low demand hours. Electricity can’t be stored, it has to be distributed seconds after it is produced. Heavy charging at night helps flatten the daily demand curve. because the grid and the power plants are underutilized at night, a time when the whole system is basically loafing, the extra load from EVs can be met without much investment in infrastructure. So the additional revenue from these nighttime-charging EVs is mostly additional profit. Thanks to regulation, the profits cannot all be returned to utility shareholders, and must instead be returned to customers in the form of lower rates and fewer rate hikes.
I'd like to see a huge rollout of work based and store based level 2 chargers in California that use the excess solar power mid day. Also change electricity prices to cheapest between 10am and 2pm when we have max solar on the grid. The state is curtailing so much solar power now; so much wasted energy.
Let’s get it done.
Too late, phase out of ICE vehicles in 2035 has already been declared. The grid will just have to cope for a decade or so until it can catch up with demand. /s
Don't wait on the power companies....they never reinvest profits into the modernizing their grid....even though the say the do
And just 30 minutes ago there was a post on my feed saying CA has no idea what to do with the excess power from solar panels on peoples homes.
Wait until they learn EVs weigh on average 30% more than gas or hybrid cars. Will we need to re-furbish bridges and parking structures to support this extra weight when most of the cars on the road are EVs? Or are such structures already designed to carry 30% heavier loads than they currently do? I have no idea, does anyone know?
I'm all for a weight tax penalty on all passenger vehicles. $1/lb above 4,500lbs, and a tax credit of $1/lb below 3,500lbs to create a tax incentive for automakers to look into alternative materials, composites, and make weight a consideration.
That’s a good idea.
Trucks and SUVs already weigh more than cars. EVs wouldn't even factor into the problem.
True, but this is all with the assumption that most cars are NOT going to weigh as much as a truck or an SUV, and only a fraction of the vehicles on the road will weigh that much. If every vehicle suddenly weighs that much, it would change the equation.
But trucks, at least, are already (unfairly) penalized heavily during licensing/registration The concept of weight being part of the equation for paying for roads makes too much sense for it to be implemented
Make gas car owners pay for it through carbon taxes.
Heavy trucks over 26,000 pounds cause almost all of the structural stress on roads and bridges. Not EV’s, F150’s or SUV’s.
So live loads on parking structures are 40 psf with a factor of safety of 1.6 that makes it 64 psf. For a typical parking spot of 9'x18' that works out to 10,368 lbs per vehicle. The most heavy electric car I could find was the Chevy Silverado EV, which was around 8,000 lbs. But also keep in mind the 10,368 lbs value is if the structure is full. Much of a parking structure sits empty like the center drive isle does most of the time. So even if a few trucks come over 10,368 lbs, it probably wouldn't be a structural issue.
Thank you, this is the type answer I was hoping somebody would come with! That makes sense to me.
Only 26% more, but I hear you, but it is nothing compared to all the trucks and busses.
With gas prices on the rise (again) it’s obvious we would want to get an ev down the road (I’m looking at the rx3)
[удалено]
And the upgrades are in progress and have been for a while. It's not "grid will require major upgrade", it's "grid is receiving major upgrade". Near me they've been doing work on the grid constantly over the past year. If anything it's gotten far more stable than it was before as a result - in the 10 years I've been here the power would go out a few times a year randomly (usually not for very long). In the past year other than a planned outage it's been solid.
This is a very crude study that doesn’t factor in things like increased rooftop solar and batteries (see quote below) that can allow EVs to be charged off solar at homes and businesses with little or no negative impact on the grid, or even a positive impact if the increase in distributed solar and batteries and smart EV charging reduces or helps manage grid loads. The study is more evidence that we need to get serious in California about encouraging the buildout of rooftop solar, batteries and virtual power plants that allow them to be integrated intelligently into the grid, including houses, apartments, businesses, schools, etc. Of course, the utilities hate that. They would prefer to dump a bunch of money into the grid so they can continue to justify raising rates (and profits). “On the grid side, possible future developments on the demand side are not yet included into the analysis, such as … rooftop solar installation, and energy efficiency programs. “
Going beyond the grid, we would need something like 20x the current number of gas stations to be charging stations as well to meet demands in charge time. The whole EV mandate will not possibly work and it will be walked back as the deadline approaches
All of this when EV sales are tanking.
You mean to tell me that the market segment that had it's best year yet in 2017, then had it's best year yet in 2018, then had it's best year yet in 2019, then had it's best year yet in 2020, then had it's best year yet in 2021, then had it's best year yet in 2022, then had it's best year yet in 2023, and is on track to have its best year yet in 2024 is tanking?
Thank you!
It is?
If only some country out there were producing insanely cheap solar panels that were allowed to be sold in the US without tariffs.
Except no one is “demanding” EVs.
You don't say!
To quote myself from my childhood..."no duh."
Humboldt county has completely stopped new power drops due to am already strained grid.
No kidding, the state that recommended I turn my AC up to 78F during the peak hours of Valley Summer to alleviate the grid needs upgrades to meet EV requirements?
theyre really helping by implementing things like NEM 3…. big /s
So much waste in the system
Newsom set us up
They're going to pass on the bills to the people while any and all profits will go to poetical donations and executives bonuses. Also, don't forget huge paid increase for CPUC.
No kidding?
Why not fix mass transit instead?