TLDR: Even though renewables are free, the transition is more costly in the short term both from climate change (california wildfires) and from the new investments required to ensure the transition.
This was a major misstep in the promotion of RE, i.e. not clearly pointing out that even though operating costs are near zero (free wind and sun), the investments to accomodate the transition are not.
Also, unlike in Europe, alot of Americans are not accustomed to high energy bills. Couple that with the low enthusiasm of the right/republicans to save the planet, and there is a real risk of RE investments stalling in the states that have made the most progress.
Source: NewUserND
1 Comment
“The biggest driver of California utility bills stems from adapting to climate change, not preventing it.”
This is the key sentence in the article. Deployment of renewables and the energy transition are not the culprit here. The utilities being allowed to rate-base fire safety upgrades, with the CPUC’s approval, is mostly to blame.
Renewables and energy transition will prevent the escalation of these costs associated with adaptation to climate change.
OP’s TLDR is misleading. Perhaps intentionally so.