Hacker News Reader

Comment by eliben | Hacker News Reader

California is a great example; highest electricity prices in the US (not counting Hawaii, which makes sense) despite significant hydro and fantastic solar capacity. In the last few years California runs 100% renewable on many days (and growing) every year.

Economics 101: prices are not set by what goods cost to create + markup. Prices are set by how much people are willing to pay.

View on HN

Why is it "people are willing to pay" and not "corporations are brazen enough to charge"? These utilities are necessities and relatively few people have access to cheaper alternatives to them.

Because, under usual circumstances, self-interested corporations compete against each other to get as close to what people are willing to pay for energy as possible.

> compete against each other

Citation needed.

https://lmgt.org/?q=econ+101

There’s a reason most universities don’t hand you a bachelors degree in economics as soon as you complete EC101. You should look into EC102 and the rest of the curriculum.

The regulations mandate that the market operates that way. It's the government that should be held to account.

Because PG&E is a for-profit company. They are supposed to charge what the market will bear.

Unfortunately since PG&E is a regulated utility it's not that simple.

When you compare PG&E's electricity rates to the rest of the nation (and neighbors like SMUD), you can see that the CPUC isn't doing much.

I know nothing about California so please correct me if I'm wrong.

You mention significant hydro and solar capacity in California. So minimal carbon externality: lung disease and climate change. If you consider that externalised cost into the cost of electricity elsewhere, does not California and other renewable-rich electric grids fare more competitive on price?

E.g. the problem is not the expensive renewables in California, rather, the problem is that the cost of declining human and animal health and climate change is externalised for the fossil fuel.

PG&E's prices are not a function of what people will pay though, it's a function of what people expect.

CA wants green energy now (aggressive targets), needs to have fire hardened infrastructure (expensive upgrades), and wants full service to sprawling remote areas using modern infrastructure.

The combination of these is incredibly expensive.

If you don't believe me, buy PGE stock and get your dividend from their "greed". But honestly, the stock is an awful performer, because the actual problems facing them are real.

> In the last few years California runs 100% renewable on many days (and growing) every year.

How many is "many days"? Gas is still used for at least one fifth of electricity. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/5y/mont...

According to the official tracker (https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/clean-energy-serving-... and elsewhere) there were 279 days in 2025 where California was on 100% renewable for _some_ time during the day (could be hours, could be minutes at mid-day).

In total hours equivalent of 77.3 full days over 2025.

California has high volumetric rates, but mostly that is because it has much more distributed generation than any other state, uses far less grid power, so the grid rates are dominated by fixed grid costs. Actual monthly electric bills in California are not remarkable at all. According to the EIA the typical residential electric bill in California is almost exactly the same as Texas: $174.59 vs. $173.94.

Meaning it's supply. Overall dupply low because fossil fuels discouraged and penalized, demand high, price high.

You could solve that with a stroke of a pen, by re-nationalizing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com