Thank you for this new information which would add much more state pressure to push electric, and, now water users, to go off-grid.

Solar activists, SCE, and the CPUC have gang-raped residential electric rate payers for many years, and, just recently rolled-off the victim after finally inseminating and creating a bastard – – fully illegitimate marginal electric costs for residential customers. SCE, with the CPUC’s blessings, has finally replaced highly reliable, hugely available, natural gas fired turbine generation with problematic, unreliable, unproven solar generation projects…don’t they remember the extremely costly failure of their LUZ project of the 1980’s and 1990’s? The new $3 billon Bright Source project is identical to the failed LUZ project….WTF?

Southern California Edison’s summer, weekday (10 AM-6 PM), Time-of-Use electricity costs homes (Tariff TOU-D-1, eff. 12-23-10) an unreal $0.552 per kWh while summer evening and weekend electricity costs $0.245 per kWh.

SCE’s delivery costs are $0.0936 per kWh while energy costs add over $0.45 per kWh during week days.

If the CPUC properly required SCE to use natural gas fired electrical generation as the proxy for marginal generation costs, rather than solar and wind, residential marginal electric rates for air conditioning would necessarily drop from $0.55 per kWh to about $0.19 per kWh.

Even $0.19 is very expensive when compared to other large utility tariffs across the USA, but it would at least be based on “best professional practices”. CPUC possibly approved these extremely expensive TOU rates to help venture capitalist friends who have spotted an opportunity popular with aging alternative energy political activists still intent on over-throwing “the Man”.

Let’s hope that natural gas fuel cells become economic and available … SOON!

Keep on Truckin’

2. As pointed out by David Powell, the White Paper does not seem to factor in that hydropower provides a portion of the pumping cost for the SWP and the Colorado River Aqueduct (Hoover Dam). Even if AB 32 does not consider hydropower a “clean” source of energy, shouldn’t any real world water surcharge have to be offset for clean hydropower? If not, this would seem something that may be won by adjudication?

3. The White Paper obviously seems a contradiction. If AB 32 is mandating electric providers switch to 20% clean green power by 2012 and ramping up to 33% thereafter, then why isn’t that 20% to 33% factored into the CPUC/DWR surcharge as another offset? (Are we already up to 40% in tax offsets?). Any conservation credits for previous environmental and conservation projects and programs would mean more offsets to the water-energy tax. Again, if DWR wants to impose a surcharge without considering prior conservation credits or offsets I would guess that this could be subject to litigation (are we now up to say 50%+++ in offsets?).

4. Recently, I noticed some data that shows electric usage (and thus pollution) way down due to the economic recession. I assume a similar pattern with respect to water usage. It would seem the economic effect of cutting back utility expenses might entirely offset any need to conserve as proposed by CPUC Public Goods Charge (what are we up to in tax offsets now? 150%?? Maybe the CPUC now owes us the ratepayers instead of the other way around?).