I just got my first bill since going to a community choice power provider. Here in California, the investor owned utilities (commercial companies, not the publicly-owned utilities) act as retailers of energy. They buy power on the open market from generators, then sell it to their customers. They bill both for the cost to generate the power, and also for power delivery (which includes maintaining the grid). An option that recently became available is for a city government to join a community choice power provider, which then buys power from generators on our behalf. The utility still delivers it, so it’s not real competition, but partway there. The community choice provider then bills the utility, who passes that bill along to individual customers.

So, the generation cost went down by about 30% for power used during the day, and a few percent for power delivered at night (three different time-of-use categories). Our community choice provider has an option for 100% renewable power, which I chose, so this is a pretty tangible demonstration that renewable power really is cheaper than fossil fuels.

  • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    this is a pretty tangible demonstration that renewable power really is cheaper than fossil fuels.

    I’m not sure that the complex tariff web in CA allows for this conclusion. There are tons of market inequities baked into the rate structures, and the convoluted RECS schemes that allow for “100% renewable” are far from transparent at the system level. This option is just a regulatory construct, not anything that represents the broader market. As long as the IOUs are still allowed to earn the same profits courtesy of the CPUC, this just changes who’s left holding the bag, which is why equity is such a huge focus for them now. That being said, you’re still right but the TX free-for-all model illustrates this most simply.

    • marine_mustang@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah, I was afraid that they were meeting their 100% renewable claim through credits, I’m going to have to look into that. I do have solar, but not enough for 100% self-generation, even if I had a battery system.

      • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Ultimately we must do the best with what’s available to us, just like you’re doing. Electrify everything, get the most efficient stuff you can, and vote and trust your regulators are decarbonizing the grid. I’m in CO and although I am on track to overproduce on an annual basis with my 8 kW system, I’m not even close to matching my usage daily and especially not seasonally (good luck in January when my heat pump is cranking and I have a foot of snow on the panels). I’m able to retire my own RECS for my production so at least Xcel doesn’t get to use my solar to meet their targets, but I’m clearly very heavily dependent on their grid.

        We’re maybe a decade behind CA in solar adoption and although I’m aggressively compensated by our current rate structure, that will surely change when the duck grows a belly here and solar is worth jack shit at high noon. It’s a fascinating industry.

    • solarvector@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I generally agree. However the fossil fuel alternatives have an equally labyrinthine network of subsidies. Half the national defense budget could arguably be allocated to that bucket.