Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Podcast

How California Broke Its Electricity Bills

Inside episode 18 of Shift Key.

Installing solar panels.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Rooftop solar is four times more expensive in America than it is in other countries. It’s also good for the climate. Should we even care about its high cost?

Yes, says Severin Borenstein, an economist and the director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. In a recent blog post, he argued that the high cost of rooftop solar will shift nearly $4 billion onto the bills of low- and middle-income Californians who don’t have rooftop solar. Similar forces could soon spread the cost-shift problem across the country.

On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk with Borenstein about who pays for rooftop solar, why power bills are going up everywhere, and about whether the government should take over electric utilities. Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.

Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.

You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.

Here is an excerpt from our conversation:

Severin Borenstein: Let me start by saying, there are two big problems with the way we do this. One is the equity issue, which I’m sure we’ll get back to, which is that it turns out this extra money, when you get it by charging people for kilowatt-hours, takes a disproportionate share of the income from low-income people.

The other is, when you set a price for electricity that is way above the actual cost of providing that electricity, it’s going to discourage people from electrifying things. Now, it’s also going to discourage people from just using more electricity, and people who love conservation say, well, we should have higher rates to encourage conservation. I think that’s misguided beyond some point, and we are way beyond that point in many areas.

But setting that aside for a moment, we need people to electrify. If we’re going to reduce greenhouse gases, the way we’re going to electrify [...] is by people switching to electric transportation instead of burning gasoline, and people switching to electrification for heating, hot-water heating, cooking, clothes drying, all the things where you have a choice of using natural gas. In both of those cases, if you overcharge for electricity, you are discouraging people from doing that sort of electrification.

I will give you the extreme example — again, in California. Right now, even with California’s well known very high gasoline prices, gasoline and electricity are about at parity. That is, you don’t save money fueling your car with electricity. If you compare a Prius to a Tesla Model 3, which are about the same interior size, you don’t save money when you switch to a Tesla Model 3, for fueling. That’s nuts. You should be saving three-quarters of the cost of fueling by switching to electricity.

Likewise, when we start talking about heat pumps, now, there’s one other aspect of this which is often not appreciated. Not only are we overcharging for electricity, we are undercharging for gasoline. So even with all the taxes — and I’ve done a bunch of work on this — if you look at the price of gasoline almost everywhere in the country ... Actually, if you believe the social cost of carbon is over $100 a ton, everywhere in the country, gasoline is underpriced. We’re not charging enough to reflect the full cost.

So it’s even worse than just the overpricing of electricity. We’re really putting our thumb on the scale in the wrong direction when it comes to getting people to electrify transportation. And it’s also true with natural gas, though to a lesser extent. If we’re going to consider the social cost of carbon over $100 a ton, natural gas is also underpriced pretty much everywhere in the country.

So we want people to adopt heat pumps. We want people to put in heat pump water heaters. But we’re really sending economic signals to tell them not to.

This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by…

Watershed’s climate data engine helps companies measure and reduce their emissions, turning the data they already have into an audit-ready carbon footprint backed by the latest climate science. Get the sustainability data you need in weeks, not months. Learn more at watershed.com.

As a global leader in PV and ESS solutions, Sungrow invests heavily in research and development, constantly pushing the boundaries of solar and battery inverter technology. Discover why Sungrow is the essential component of the clean energy transition by visiting sungrowpower.com.

Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.

Yellow

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Daily Briefing

Trump’s War on Gigawatts

A natural gas well in Kansas is not the same as an offshore wind farm in Maine.

Doug Burgum.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It happened again. The Trump administration has struck a deal with an offshore wind developer to cancel another round of projects. My colleague Emily Pontecorvo has the full story: The Chicago-based company Invenergy has accepted $765 million to give up four offshore wind leases off the coast of New York, California, and Maine.

These deals might be legally suspect — Democratic state attorneys general sued to block them a few weeks ago — but the administration says more are coming. “The Department of Justice looks forward to continued cooperation from companies that are reevaluating their energy investments,” the official press release about today’s deal intones. I have to applaud the federal lawyer who chose the phrase “continued cooperation” here; it is suitably menacing while implying that developers who give in to the racket are somehow complicit.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Energy

Trump Pays $765 Million to Kill 4 More Offshore Wind Leases

The deal with developer Invenergy includes a commitment to build geothermal generation in addition to natural gas.

Donald Trump and offshore wind.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

In the third deal of its kind, Trump’s Interior Department has agreed to pay the energy developer Invenergy $765 million to cancel its four offshore wind leases, an amount equal to what Invenergy originally paid the federal government for them.

Like the preceding deals, the administration structured the refund as a legal settlement with Invenergy. That means the government will pay the company out of the Judgment Fund, a reserve of taxpayer dollars overseen by the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department that’s set aside to settle litigation that’s either ongoing or imminent.

Keep reading...Show less
Climate

Anthropic Is Buying Carbon Removal — But Not Clean Power

That may be not be the case for long, though, as the AI company poaches energy talent from Google, Meta, the DOE, and others.

A Claude flower.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

To the extent that any $965 billion artificial intelligence company built on pirated model training material can be “good-coded,” Anthropic has somehow managed to earn that reputation, at least relative to its peers. It’s somewhat surprising, then, that the company has been silent on climate change.

Until today. Sort of.

Keep reading...Show less
Green