Any inquiry to consumers about the so called "costs" of a green improvements or initiative MUST be conditioned with comparisons to the real costs of alternatives (if available) and the real costs of doing nothing which are in some cases immesurable. I think such questions should also be accompanied by real data so that for example people understand how much the "costs" of producing electrons have fallen, while the (direct and indirect) costs of the traditional sources (O&G) only continue to rise! THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK !
No, renewable energy and more efficient energy are not more expensive than continuing to burn fossil fuels. First, Cal PUC has sold us out to PG&E by allowing rates to a convicted felon reconstituted out of bankruptcy to make profit. Punitive rates for solar PV generation/use in the pretense of needing a more robust grid, collapsing 4 tiers to 2 on residential bills distort the market. The sooner most buildings in our state have point of use rooftop or similar PV/wind the smaller the volume of KW needing to travel on the GRID because most buildings can be self powered.
As anyone who was alive when incandescent lamps reigned, knows they now have more electric light ar vastly fewer KW as LEDs have taken over and last longer. Smarter appliances can be timed to run when there is excess solar available--think the electric dryer, the dishwasher er al running early afternoon. The electricity never leaves the building.
most auto travel is either commuting, shopping, medical etc near home. All of that can be EV w/o fear of "running out of gas". Yes, replacement battteries are expensive, but think back to radiators, mufflers, engine repair nor needed ever again.
So, why are the fossil fuel based industries still with us? We know they, like the tobacco merchants have lied to us (and likely bribed more than a few government officials) for years. A criminal on the Federal; level hates windmills so he arbitrarily blocks them from expansion.
In the 80s Mobil bought up a company that manufactured solar hot water panels and within a year or so shut it down
The cost to the final energy consumer isn’t all the costs. There’s also the externalities, which mostly occur with combustion byproducts.
From the Substack, Bright Spots, by Jan Rosenow:
“Coal tops the table at a median external cost of about 8.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. Oil comes in around 6.6, natural gas at 2.9. After that the numbers collapse. Everything else sits below a cent: biomass at 0.8, solar PV at 0.7, nuclear at 0.4, solar thermal and wind at 0.2, hydro and geothermal at 0.1, which is to say next to nothing. Coal’s external costs run to roughly 12 times those of solar PV, 41 times those of wind, and 87 times those of geothermal.”
“We spend a lot of energy arguing about whether clean power is cheap enough to compete on its own. That argument leaves externalities out entirely. Put them back in, price coal and gas at their true cost to society, and it stops being a close contest.”
One of the fundamental questions is temporal—are people willing to invest now for a future return. So maybe there’s a question about whether you would support paying more for clean energy today if you knew it would reduce your household costs by a multiple of that amount in X years.
Exactly. We converted our home to solar and batteries at the earliest opportunities to do so. We have attained ROI and our electrical cost per year is almost nothing. We messed up on delaying our purchase of an EV. But with our gasoline cars paid-off, we can probably do it now and gain the benefits in the not too distant future. We also converted our landscape to California friendly in '07, and our outdoor water use is very low compared to neighbors too.
Aside from distinguishing time frames (short, medium and long) for positioning costs, the issue is how to build in information about the reduction of climate adaptation costs if we can (or do not) mitigate quickly enough. I think citizens are sophisticated enough to deal with these distinctions but they have to be posed explicitly.
Paul-- I think you have a good point when you say that you can't compare the cost of clean energy vs dirty energy because you never know the true cost of dirty energy: the health cost of living in hot termparatures, incrased cancer, increased respiratory faiure, increased strokes and heart attacks, the endocrine damange of microplastics, mental health damage (lack of sleep in high termperatures), and kidney damage. Therefore I think the survey question has to say something about an estimated health damage cost along with the cost of dirty energy. And that's not even mentioning the cost of change in life style, which is eventually, that you cannot go outside without a gas mask!
What percentage of Californians’ utility bills currently support renewable energy infrastructure? And, how much of the current increase in our utility bills stems from renewable energy build out, if it’s even a factor? I would guess most people don’t know the answer to those questions. Also, how much more would a household have to pay would be an important qualifier. That was my first thought while reading the second question. Are we talking $5? $20$ $100? Because utility bills vary across the state, any question regarding an increase would of course have to be posed as a percentage. Without giving people more information, like, how much of our utility bills currently go to paying for infrastructure repairs from climate-driven wildfires, the question puts renewable energy at a disadvantage. But if the overall objective is to lower utility bills, why are the questions focusing solely on the connection between climate policy and perceived renewable energy costs when other factors are at play?
Mark Baldassare needs to add a question(s) that clarifies that the cost of clean energy is cheaper than fossil energy and it reduces the cost we pay for the damage caused by climate change (fire, flood, landslide, etc) We are currently paying for damages with higher energy rates. We need to put an end to that and support the 'Make Polluters Pay Super Fund'
Bottom line, his survey needs to account for the external costs we all pay one way or another.
The CPUC just approved $1 billion dollar rate hike to cover damages caused by SCE for the Altadena fire. Newsom is about to let the utilities off the hook again.
I agree. The reporting on this survey seems to underscore an obsolete dichotomy between "protecting the environment" and "controlling costs." The climate crisis is an affordability crisis, but people are not considering all household costs beyond direct energy rates (food, home insurance, health care, water rates, public transportation, on and on...) not to mention more systemic externalities like the stress to public health and safety systems. The cost of renewables has gone down drastically in 10 years and innovation has spiked, so I can understand the phrasing of the original question, but in today's context I don't think the data means very much. I'd be much more interested to understand how people are connecting the dots on affordability. I'd ask a question such as: "which of the following household costs do you consider to be most affected by climate change" with a multiple choice selection from the options above, and maybe ask a follow up question about which of those options have gotten noticeably more expensive for the survey taker over the last survey period.
Why should consumers have to pay more to get cheaper energy?
Burning NG costs ~4c/KWh No Capex, no maintenance costs
Solar + Storage ~1.5c/KWh Capex, maintenance
Wind (big) ~1.3c/KWh Capex, maintenance
Additional costs (s/b Capex) for grid connections not included ...
It is difficult to resolve the variable daily energy costs on the CASIO site with the 30c/KWh I am paying in SF ...
I guess we all have to pay for "unburning" of Paradise and Altadena - fires attributed to PGE shortcomings, and failure to maintain the distribution grid! (+ healthy dividend returns allowed for utilities) ... perhaps less Capex and more maintenance/upgrading will significantly help to reduce the price we pay...
Sammy, you and the 4 commentators so far are arguing that renewables are not as expensive as fossil PLUS environmental costs. That will only convince one segment of the population AND is about eight years out of date. Utility-scale solar and land-based wind are significantly cheaper than all legacy sources (except hydro in some places). Full documentation is in Lazard's annual Levelized Cost of Energy. Many many utilities recently find that their overall cost to consumers drop with large scale renewables added. Home solar is usually more expensive if unsubsidized (much due to permitting delay and hassle) and offshore wind may be above or below market depending on the region. Only for the latter two do you need to consider coming cost reductions, fossil subsidies and/or environmental benefit, to make the "lower cost" argument. (As wind and solar exceed 50% of generation, storage need starts increasing steeply, so storage cost will need to correspondingly decrease--but that's probably too complex for public questions.)
EVs are an a more subtle case. They have been expensive first cost but cheaper on life-cycle basis, but 2027 and 2028 a few US models will be coming with lower first cost and still all the life-cycle benefits. The question you discuss implies power production, doesn't really address tradeoffs of EVs.
First cut at added two questions. (Yes, I know the second will be controversial, but it's a real policy question).
Statement:. Unlike 10 years ago, utilities and independent studies find that large solar and wind facilities now provide electricity at lower cost and usually lower our electric bills. On the other hand, some types of renewables are more expensive but can become less costly with experience and innovations, and meanwhile they reduce health and environmental costs.
Question: Would you prefer to have utilities build only renewable that lower electric bills as soon as they start running? Or also build some of the more expensive ones if they both reduce pollution now and are expected to lead to innovations with lower costs in the future? Or would you rather have no more renewables built because you are skeptical about them?
Question: For home solar, the homeowner pays part of most of the cost. They may receive benefits from tax credits or favorable electric rates, reducing the cost or paying off over time. Would you rather keep these payments to households buying solar because they pay part of the cost and the environmental benefits help everyone? Or would you rather that utility or state payments for solar are limited to only as much as that solar lowers everyone's electric bills?
Hi Willett, thank you for reading, and for the thoughtful ideas! Just one point: I may have brushed over this a little bit quickly, but I did point out in the article that solar and wind are the cheapest sources of new power, linking to a Utility Dive article about the latest Lazard LCOE report, which came out a few weeks ago. Just wanted to make sure you saw that!
Over 60% of all energy in the US is wasted. Most of that is due to inefficiencies in power production and transmission, and our transportation relies way too much on internal combustion. Americans buy vehicles that are much too big for their needs, and they compound that problem by driving as though efficiency wasn't a thing. Americans also waste 30%-40% of their food which increases the already high cost since you're literally throwing out food you could have eaten.
It bothers me that Californians will whine like babies when told they need to switch to renewable energy, but they'll completely ignore simple advise to hypermile their vehicle or switch to a more efficient car, or one that doesn't use gasoline.
Clean energy doesn't cost more than dirty energy. You've just never had to pay the full cost of that dirty energy. People breathing polluted air who get sick or die pay with their health or lives. Soldiers who die in wars over oil pay with their lives as do the half million Iraqi civilians who died in our war over their oil. The Iran war is being fought because they have oil. Putin could not fight his war in Ukraine without oil revenues. Climate change is costing us hundreds of billions in damage every year and those who use dirty energy pay nothing for that.
Face it, Americans are pretty crappy people. A true leader wouldn't poll those people for their attitudes over energy. A true leader would tell them we need to stop hurting people and just force the change through taxing of dirty energy.
Do you favor or oppose a law that would make polluting industries pay for the climate damages they have caused, to replace the current system where community members pay for these damages?
I'm glad you pushed back on the PICC's Baldassare. Here's what I'd like to see him add to next one -
NEW SURVEY QUESTIONS:
1. The price of renewable energy has dropped below the price for oil, coal and gas. Batteries now allow for reliable 24/7 renewable power and their cost has dropped to record lows. Do you support the switch to lower cost renewable power?
2. Do any of your neighbors have solar? An electric car? A whole house battery? Do they have a positive or negative opinion about their experiences?
3. How expensive would gasoline/diesel have to be before you would want to switch to an electric car? How many miles per charge would an electric car have to get for you to consider getting one?
4. How much more likely would you be to get an electric car if the battery in the car could power your home's electricity during power outages and when rates are most expensive.
5. Are you aware that the added costs of burning fossil fuels to produce electricity not included in the price of oil, coal and gas are the health costs of air pollution and cleanup costs of contamination of oceans, rivers and seas? Do you support continued government subsidies to the oil, coal and gas industry while consumers pay increasingly inflated electricity rates and additional costs?
The Administration is spewing malinformation to convince people that renewables are not working. Politico reports that in last month’s heat wave, “grids in the mid-Atlantic, Great Plains, and Texas all saw power demand reach near records. But only one managed the surge without raising prices or taking emergency actions: the ElectricReliabilityCouncilofTexas.”
“Wind, solar and batteries account for 50 percent of ERCOT’s installed capacity, and their low operating cost means that power can stay cheap even in the heat.”
Peak prices per MWh:
o ERCOT $364
o Southwest Power Pool ~$700
o PJM >$2,000
Politico reports that the Energy Department “mocked PJM’s solar fleet on social media,” and in a separate post, they wrote that “coal, natural gas and nuclear power kept the lights and air conditioners on.”
Their point is that the Energy Department buried the huge story of ERCOT’s smooth operation. The story that needs to be understood is two-fold: 1. that renewables can deliver electricity cheaper than fossil fuels, and 2. the Administration will not tell the full story.
Any inquiry to consumers about the so called "costs" of a green improvements or initiative MUST be conditioned with comparisons to the real costs of alternatives (if available) and the real costs of doing nothing which are in some cases immesurable. I think such questions should also be accompanied by real data so that for example people understand how much the "costs" of producing electrons have fallen, while the (direct and indirect) costs of the traditional sources (O&G) only continue to rise! THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK !
Thank you for reading, and for these comments!
No, renewable energy and more efficient energy are not more expensive than continuing to burn fossil fuels. First, Cal PUC has sold us out to PG&E by allowing rates to a convicted felon reconstituted out of bankruptcy to make profit. Punitive rates for solar PV generation/use in the pretense of needing a more robust grid, collapsing 4 tiers to 2 on residential bills distort the market. The sooner most buildings in our state have point of use rooftop or similar PV/wind the smaller the volume of KW needing to travel on the GRID because most buildings can be self powered.
As anyone who was alive when incandescent lamps reigned, knows they now have more electric light ar vastly fewer KW as LEDs have taken over and last longer. Smarter appliances can be timed to run when there is excess solar available--think the electric dryer, the dishwasher er al running early afternoon. The electricity never leaves the building.
most auto travel is either commuting, shopping, medical etc near home. All of that can be EV w/o fear of "running out of gas". Yes, replacement battteries are expensive, but think back to radiators, mufflers, engine repair nor needed ever again.
So, why are the fossil fuel based industries still with us? We know they, like the tobacco merchants have lied to us (and likely bribed more than a few government officials) for years. A criminal on the Federal; level hates windmills so he arbitrarily blocks them from expansion.
In the 80s Mobil bought up a company that manufactured solar hot water panels and within a year or so shut it down
The cost to the final energy consumer isn’t all the costs. There’s also the externalities, which mostly occur with combustion byproducts.
From the Substack, Bright Spots, by Jan Rosenow:
“Coal tops the table at a median external cost of about 8.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. Oil comes in around 6.6, natural gas at 2.9. After that the numbers collapse. Everything else sits below a cent: biomass at 0.8, solar PV at 0.7, nuclear at 0.4, solar thermal and wind at 0.2, hydro and geothermal at 0.1, which is to say next to nothing. Coal’s external costs run to roughly 12 times those of solar PV, 41 times those of wind, and 87 times those of geothermal.”
“We spend a lot of energy arguing about whether clean power is cheap enough to compete on its own. That argument leaves externalities out entirely. Put them back in, price coal and gas at their true cost to society, and it stops being a close contest.”
One of the fundamental questions is temporal—are people willing to invest now for a future return. So maybe there’s a question about whether you would support paying more for clean energy today if you knew it would reduce your household costs by a multiple of that amount in X years.
I like this!
Exactly. We converted our home to solar and batteries at the earliest opportunities to do so. We have attained ROI and our electrical cost per year is almost nothing. We messed up on delaying our purchase of an EV. But with our gasoline cars paid-off, we can probably do it now and gain the benefits in the not too distant future. We also converted our landscape to California friendly in '07, and our outdoor water use is very low compared to neighbors too.
Aside from distinguishing time frames (short, medium and long) for positioning costs, the issue is how to build in information about the reduction of climate adaptation costs if we can (or do not) mitigate quickly enough. I think citizens are sophisticated enough to deal with these distinctions but they have to be posed explicitly.
Definitely agree that more explicit detail is better.
Paul-- I think you have a good point when you say that you can't compare the cost of clean energy vs dirty energy because you never know the true cost of dirty energy: the health cost of living in hot termparatures, incrased cancer, increased respiratory faiure, increased strokes and heart attacks, the endocrine damange of microplastics, mental health damage (lack of sleep in high termperatures), and kidney damage. Therefore I think the survey question has to say something about an estimated health damage cost along with the cost of dirty energy. And that's not even mentioning the cost of change in life style, which is eventually, that you cannot go outside without a gas mask!
What percentage of Californians’ utility bills currently support renewable energy infrastructure? And, how much of the current increase in our utility bills stems from renewable energy build out, if it’s even a factor? I would guess most people don’t know the answer to those questions. Also, how much more would a household have to pay would be an important qualifier. That was my first thought while reading the second question. Are we talking $5? $20$ $100? Because utility bills vary across the state, any question regarding an increase would of course have to be posed as a percentage. Without giving people more information, like, how much of our utility bills currently go to paying for infrastructure repairs from climate-driven wildfires, the question puts renewable energy at a disadvantage. But if the overall objective is to lower utility bills, why are the questions focusing solely on the connection between climate policy and perceived renewable energy costs when other factors are at play?
Hey Laura, these are fantastic points and questions, thank you! I'm making a notes file...
Mark Baldassare needs to add a question(s) that clarifies that the cost of clean energy is cheaper than fossil energy and it reduces the cost we pay for the damage caused by climate change (fire, flood, landslide, etc) We are currently paying for damages with higher energy rates. We need to put an end to that and support the 'Make Polluters Pay Super Fund'
Bottom line, his survey needs to account for the external costs we all pay one way or another.
The CPUC just approved $1 billion dollar rate hike to cover damages caused by SCE for the Altadena fire. Newsom is about to let the utilities off the hook again.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/07/california-rewarding-utilities-after-wildfires/
I agree. The reporting on this survey seems to underscore an obsolete dichotomy between "protecting the environment" and "controlling costs." The climate crisis is an affordability crisis, but people are not considering all household costs beyond direct energy rates (food, home insurance, health care, water rates, public transportation, on and on...) not to mention more systemic externalities like the stress to public health and safety systems. The cost of renewables has gone down drastically in 10 years and innovation has spiked, so I can understand the phrasing of the original question, but in today's context I don't think the data means very much. I'd be much more interested to understand how people are connecting the dots on affordability. I'd ask a question such as: "which of the following household costs do you consider to be most affected by climate change" with a multiple choice selection from the options above, and maybe ask a follow up question about which of those options have gotten noticeably more expensive for the survey taker over the last survey period.
I like that idea!
Why should consumers have to pay more to get cheaper energy?
Burning NG costs ~4c/KWh No Capex, no maintenance costs
Solar + Storage ~1.5c/KWh Capex, maintenance
Wind (big) ~1.3c/KWh Capex, maintenance
Additional costs (s/b Capex) for grid connections not included ...
It is difficult to resolve the variable daily energy costs on the CASIO site with the 30c/KWh I am paying in SF ...
I guess we all have to pay for "unburning" of Paradise and Altadena - fires attributed to PGE shortcomings, and failure to maintain the distribution grid! (+ healthy dividend returns allowed for utilities) ... perhaps less Capex and more maintenance/upgrading will significantly help to reduce the price we pay...
Sammy, you and the 4 commentators so far are arguing that renewables are not as expensive as fossil PLUS environmental costs. That will only convince one segment of the population AND is about eight years out of date. Utility-scale solar and land-based wind are significantly cheaper than all legacy sources (except hydro in some places). Full documentation is in Lazard's annual Levelized Cost of Energy. Many many utilities recently find that their overall cost to consumers drop with large scale renewables added. Home solar is usually more expensive if unsubsidized (much due to permitting delay and hassle) and offshore wind may be above or below market depending on the region. Only for the latter two do you need to consider coming cost reductions, fossil subsidies and/or environmental benefit, to make the "lower cost" argument. (As wind and solar exceed 50% of generation, storage need starts increasing steeply, so storage cost will need to correspondingly decrease--but that's probably too complex for public questions.)
EVs are an a more subtle case. They have been expensive first cost but cheaper on life-cycle basis, but 2027 and 2028 a few US models will be coming with lower first cost and still all the life-cycle benefits. The question you discuss implies power production, doesn't really address tradeoffs of EVs.
First cut at added two questions. (Yes, I know the second will be controversial, but it's a real policy question).
Statement:. Unlike 10 years ago, utilities and independent studies find that large solar and wind facilities now provide electricity at lower cost and usually lower our electric bills. On the other hand, some types of renewables are more expensive but can become less costly with experience and innovations, and meanwhile they reduce health and environmental costs.
Question: Would you prefer to have utilities build only renewable that lower electric bills as soon as they start running? Or also build some of the more expensive ones if they both reduce pollution now and are expected to lead to innovations with lower costs in the future? Or would you rather have no more renewables built because you are skeptical about them?
Question: For home solar, the homeowner pays part of most of the cost. They may receive benefits from tax credits or favorable electric rates, reducing the cost or paying off over time. Would you rather keep these payments to households buying solar because they pay part of the cost and the environmental benefits help everyone? Or would you rather that utility or state payments for solar are limited to only as much as that solar lowers everyone's electric bills?
Willett Kempton
University of Delaware
Hi Willett, thank you for reading, and for the thoughtful ideas! Just one point: I may have brushed over this a little bit quickly, but I did point out in the article that solar and wind are the cheapest sources of new power, linking to a Utility Dive article about the latest Lazard LCOE report, which came out a few weeks ago. Just wanted to make sure you saw that!
Tell PPIC to take your advice. Even if it makes their survey questions longer. Your advice makes one’s understanding of the questions fuller.
Over 60% of all energy in the US is wasted. Most of that is due to inefficiencies in power production and transmission, and our transportation relies way too much on internal combustion. Americans buy vehicles that are much too big for their needs, and they compound that problem by driving as though efficiency wasn't a thing. Americans also waste 30%-40% of their food which increases the already high cost since you're literally throwing out food you could have eaten.
It bothers me that Californians will whine like babies when told they need to switch to renewable energy, but they'll completely ignore simple advise to hypermile their vehicle or switch to a more efficient car, or one that doesn't use gasoline.
Clean energy doesn't cost more than dirty energy. You've just never had to pay the full cost of that dirty energy. People breathing polluted air who get sick or die pay with their health or lives. Soldiers who die in wars over oil pay with their lives as do the half million Iraqi civilians who died in our war over their oil. The Iran war is being fought because they have oil. Putin could not fight his war in Ukraine without oil revenues. Climate change is costing us hundreds of billions in damage every year and those who use dirty energy pay nothing for that.
Face it, Americans are pretty crappy people. A true leader wouldn't poll those people for their attitudes over energy. A true leader would tell them we need to stop hurting people and just force the change through taxing of dirty energy.
I'd love to see this question:
Do you favor or oppose a law that would make polluting industries pay for the climate damages they have caused, to replace the current system where community members pay for these damages?
I'm glad you pushed back on the PICC's Baldassare. Here's what I'd like to see him add to next one -
NEW SURVEY QUESTIONS:
1. The price of renewable energy has dropped below the price for oil, coal and gas. Batteries now allow for reliable 24/7 renewable power and their cost has dropped to record lows. Do you support the switch to lower cost renewable power?
2. Do any of your neighbors have solar? An electric car? A whole house battery? Do they have a positive or negative opinion about their experiences?
3. How expensive would gasoline/diesel have to be before you would want to switch to an electric car? How many miles per charge would an electric car have to get for you to consider getting one?
4. How much more likely would you be to get an electric car if the battery in the car could power your home's electricity during power outages and when rates are most expensive.
5. Are you aware that the added costs of burning fossil fuels to produce electricity not included in the price of oil, coal and gas are the health costs of air pollution and cleanup costs of contamination of oceans, rivers and seas? Do you support continued government subsidies to the oil, coal and gas industry while consumers pay increasingly inflated electricity rates and additional costs?
The Administration is spewing malinformation to convince people that renewables are not working. Politico reports that in last month’s heat wave, “grids in the mid-Atlantic, Great Plains, and Texas all saw power demand reach near records. But only one managed the surge without raising prices or taking emergency actions: the ElectricReliabilityCouncilofTexas.”
“Wind, solar and batteries account for 50 percent of ERCOT’s installed capacity, and their low operating cost means that power can stay cheap even in the heat.”
Peak prices per MWh:
o ERCOT $364
o Southwest Power Pool ~$700
o PJM >$2,000
Politico reports that the Energy Department “mocked PJM’s solar fleet on social media,” and in a separate post, they wrote that “coal, natural gas and nuclear power kept the lights and air conditioners on.”
Their point is that the Energy Department buried the huge story of ERCOT’s smooth operation. The story that needs to be understood is two-fold: 1. that renewables can deliver electricity cheaper than fossil fuels, and 2. the Administration will not tell the full story.
Source: https://url4027.email.politico.com/ss/c/u001.6g0Zd3AyneOViJYBXgbV65ZWHEH5gWGSDKLrcKzwr39-GpqLLEhl3yUWlhdOSFu73xpYarNP5aFvOnxi_IDny5wYcvm7EY71mu9_IJv3YARQnkWgzkOUvLIa60oVnLHMZhOK9F5lN19-yRofMeBEgezm-ZVwIiafMI6g8oDQ1YY/4sw/oD5Vxe4KSVy0aFj495-hZw/h1/h001.7NNOR58kxX0tHrzmNqcNrjbU-Wz8NeyxsoCNjzDkjAc