No magic bullet for lowering PG&E rates

easygerd - PG&E is buying the energy from various sources. But, they cannot make a profit from it. The only exception is the output of Diablo Canyon, the only generation source that they own. Please note that in the latest 'green' definition by the CEC, any source of energy that fills the gap between supply and demand can now be considered "green" if the preponderance of the supply is carbon free energy. That blows a big hole in that honest definition. And, using high rises as water falls, one would have to pump up the water first, which is also not very efficient. PG&E's Helms Creek uses 'pumped storage' but that was based on cheap Diablo Canyon energy which is no longer inexpensive. Local distribution of electricity supplies is a nightmare as it cannot be scheduled or regulated. All can be done, but at what cost to the consumer? As in Germany, get ready to pay more than $1 per kWh. You are using talking points provided by folks who have pitiful knowledge of the electrical energy industry.

Dirk, what's your solution then? And don't embarrass yourself by saying nuclear or fossil fuel - as both are too expensive in general, are still even more subsidized than green energy, and their "side effects" make them unusable and really unsustainable. With those energy prices must go up more and not down. And coal died because the previous and future administration didn't want to subsidize the miners despite promising to do so.

Even red states like South Dakota, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas have switched to renewable wind energy, not because it's greener but because it's cheaper and helps local farmers.

Prices in Europe are also artificially high, because companies actually do have to pay taxes there and because of their philosophy of high prices would also reduce demand and make people conserve more. The success of that philosophy is questionable as people get used to high prices pretty quickly.

Hey eGerd, TBot here – we’ve previously discussed nuclear energy and taxpayer subsidies. We can’t forget that solar and wind energy is already heavily subsidized and I’d imagine total subsidies, if they’re needed at all, would be lower with nuclear power plants. As for nuclear waste, other nations making use of nuclear power manage their nuclear waste efficiently. The following link makes a case for nuclear power (https://californiaglobe.com/fr/ringside-view-the-case-for-nuclear-power/) and addresses some of the concerns you’ve listed. If “greenies” aren’t interested in nuclear power as an alternative, are they really “greenies”? Or are they looking for some of the man-made climate change industrial complex funding?

Dear easygerd - "Prices in Europe are also artificially high, because companies actually do have to pay taxes there and because of their philosophy of high prices would also reduce demand and make people conserve more. The success of that philosophy is questionable as people get used to high prices pretty quickly." Please educate yourself. You make it sound as if only residential customers pay for energy. In the Netherlands, older folk on fixed incomes often have to choose between food and warmth in their cramped apartments. Even yesterday in Germany, VW, Bosch and their dependent supply chains announced major layoffs, tens of thousands of workers, due to the uneconomic operations of their factories. The main culprit? Energy - Green energy cost! Nobody is getting used to these prices. You are living in a Kamala world that has already been rejected by the majority. And contrary to your belief, PG&E and other corporations pay taxes here, whether through their employees or directly. You still have a lot to learn, that is clear. I am not sure what your information sources are but you may need to to start exploring more credible ones, not those written by hearsay types wearing rose-colored glasses.

Hi TedBot, I agree, if carbon emissions were the main culprit nuclear should be part of the solution, but it's power companies that don't want to do old-style Nuclear anymore. The US spent billions on managing nuclear waste in Nevada, but in the end Nevada blocked everything, since they don't want it either. Now it's a security nightmare to keep nuclear waste around and avoid it being used nefarious purposes.

So building nuclear is expensive, sourcing nuclear material is very expensive, getting rid of it is very expensive, keeping everything safe is very expensive. The industry doesn't want to do it. The industry wants to do cheap and that's solar and wind and to make that more viable solutions they now build battery storage, which makes those less green again.

All power plants have initially high expenditure to be build, but then with coal, gas, oil, fossil fuel, nuclear you are still paying for source material for every single KW of power you want to produce. With wind, solar, geothermal and other renewables you don't. So once you have the initial financing down, these farms make them much more money than fossil fuels, which prices are based on world wide markets.

Hey eGGerd, we’ve previously discussed the ramifications of solar and wind. The wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. To generate enough electricity using any/both of those methods would likely require wind turbines to be seen outside every window and solar panels across much of the land. Nuclear power plants generate electricity virtually non-stop, day or night, wind or no wind.

You complain about nuclear waste but you’ve failed to account for waste from solar panels after they’ve lived their useful life. You call for battery storage yet you’ve failed to account for mining of raw materials as well as hazardous waste disposal of used batteries. BTW, there are plenty of countries which have nuclear power plants and they’ve done an admirable job with their nuclear “waste.” Based on energy requirements, just in California, if nuclear is a no-go, then fossil fuels will continue to be the most economical means of electricity generation. They’re currently what, 50% of all electricity generation in the state? Better start finding ways to generate $trillions to build solar and wind farms. Oh yes, and figure out where to dispose of used solar panels and batteries. The Salton Sea?

easygerd - I am a former PG&E mid levelmanager who was down sized in early 19990. PG&E wanted to refocus on shareholder value instead of on reliable and viable energy sources. Some results of that switch were evidenced by the natural gas blast in San Bruno and myriad wild fires caused by poorly maintained transmission lines. PG&E made that switch and has been a greedy outfit ever since. I am no fan of that corporation but I do understand their innerworkings. My successive careers were in the energy efficiency and procurement segments. I spent much time with Sacramento legislators, the CPUC and the CEC so I know their mindsets as well. Believe me, ratepayers or efficiency come last in their book. You are partially right about the price of natural gas in Europe but our focus should be on California. Our gasoline, natural gas and electricity costs are higher than any other state because of regulation and taxes. I may leave you with the impression that I am against green energy but that is not the case. All I do is point out that there are costs associated with newer forms of energy and electrification. For the time being most folk are not sufficiently informed about the downsides of these changes in our energy supply and options. The Governor and many legislators are in the pockets of our energy utilities which is evidenced by the appointments they make to our so-called regulators. The ratepayers are not their priority and even lame protests by organizations such as TURN are a joke. The solutions are the drastic reduction of regulation, the elimination of cross-subsidization among rate classes, and the grossly abused subsidization of self-reported low income customers. Furthermore, the elimination of utility financing the various energy efficiency programs and the mandatory cap-and-trade program, the most egregious rip off foisted upon California residents. All utility proposals for infrastructure enhancements should pass a cost-benefit test and subsequent reporting on performance. None of that is happening. As you can tell, there are plenty of opportunities that would require a DOGE approach and that would be one way to bring our energy future under control. Others are free to voice their opinions and offer other solutions.

Dirk, you make a lot of sense, but in the end you just can't put one and one together. You are trying to make the same nonsense argument greedy corporate lobbyists are trying to make for years.

You are saying yourself that CPUC and CA Democrats are in the pocket of PG&E, which means there is currently NO regulation.

The prices of gasoline and energy are NOT higher in California because of taxes and regulations, they are higher because California politicians do NOT use the power of regulation. California is famously under-regulating BECAUSE these Democrats are in the pocket of the tech and energy companies and PROTECT them from regulatory harm. Tech companies are only regulated because of the European Union (ask Apple and their lightning charger), Data Protection only exists because of the EU, consumer rights and right-to-repair only exist because of the EU and now US Fed Law. California has been very quiet on that front despite or BECUASE all major tech companies are located here.

The only way PG&E can make record profits is because they are getting a cut from cheaper, renewable energy (things must have changed since the 1990s) and because California regulators aren't forcing them to invest those profits in infrastructure upgrade and wildfire prevention.