I can't work it out exactly without doing more research than is worth. As I said, the schedules are complex, maybe someone more versed in this can chime in.
Hopefully SF will finally manage to force PG&E to sell it the city's grid. I doubt it will lead to rates as low as Santa Clara's, though.
> I can't work it out exactly without doing more research than is worth. As I said, the schedules are complex, maybe someone more versed in this can chime in.
The $0.26/kWh is for the CARE program, which heavily discounts energy (30-35%) for low income people and families. It's not a rate available to most people.
Whereas the rates paid by those who have a municipally-owned utility (MOU) in CA (i.e. LADWP, SMUD, SVP) are actually 60% lower than those paid to investor-owned utilities (IOU) [1].
The municipal utility rates are lower because:
a) being owned by their municipalities, their primary incentive structure is to lower costs of reliable electricity for ratepayers, not to return a profit to shareholders.
b) IOUs generate profits for shareholders, and this profit is only generated - per regulation - as a percentage of capital expenditures.
c) PG&E and other IOUs must reduce the wildfire risk of their huge transmission and distribution networks, which operate in much more wildfire-prone parts of California than the municipal utilities (which are mostly urban). To achieve this, they tend to choose very expensive solutions (i.e. under-grounding transmission lines) since (b).
This results in all ratepayers in IOU territories paying much higher electricity rates, regardless of whether they are in a high fire-risk zone. If electricity rates were set based on highly localized wildfire risk, the rates would be even more divergent, sometimes in areas just a few miles apart (due to California's micro-climates). There would probably be tremendous outcry and anger, as nobody wants to pay for the risks associated with where they have chosen (or can afford to) live.
I agree with everything you posted. In SF's case, the city is hoping to turn CPSF into a full MOU.
For the time being, the lowest per-kWh rate in SF is based upon the CPSF discount, time-of-usage discount, below-baseline discount, winter discount, income discount, EV adjustment, and exact schedule chosen, plus the overhead effect of fixed fees and minus the special twice-yearly climate credits. Did I miss anything? :)
I have no idea what it is, but it's somewhere between my initial figure ($0.15) and yours ($0.35.)
