[shadowflit]

For reference, my PG&E bill splits out transmission/delivery and generation very conveniently, since SF provides its own power generation utility service. It appears to be closer to 60/40. At PG&E generation rates (a little higher), perhaps up to 55/45.

Incidentally, $0.13748/kWh in generation costs, with an increase of only $0.01/kWh for exclusive wind/solar sourcing.

[epistasis]

That generation cost is also far far higher than the cost of new solar. New floating offshore wind, a new technology that is "expensive," is about at that generation cost.

Even the $6B here amounts to roughly $0.08/kWh, which is far higher than the alternative uses of the money.

Electricity is expensive in California not because we use renewables, but because we have not switched to them, and because PG&E has astronomical costs for its grid. We need CPUC to start pushing back harder here.

[s1artibartfast]

That's not what PG&E says. They say they are paying more than $0.08/kWh for solar producers, and that's not even with storage.

[epistasis]

That must be an average including lots of old, expensive installations.

Even five years ago, PG&E estimated for new solar was less than $0.06/kWh, and they tend to overestimate these things, and underestimate the rate of cost decreases with solar.

In evaluating the difference between maintaining an existing nuclear site, or building new solar, the new cost is the more accurate estimate.

If you look at new solar deployments in California, nearly all include storage, because it increases profitability to be able to deliver during the evening. Storage is profitable today, meaning that it necessarily costs less than market rates.

[vlovich123]

Yeah people keep claiming that solar is cheaper in these threads but when asked for proof they point solely at panel prices like that’s anything. The data I’ve been about to find puts hydro, fossil fuels, nuclear, and wind on par with each other with solar about ~2-3x the production cost (not including batteries) if I recall correctly.