🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Torek wrote:
> >Perhaps you should either allow the utilities (or PG&E) either to recoup the
> >cost of 'green' power in their rates, or else permit them to reduce their
> >payments to the green producers, including the payments they have
> >been unable to make for November and December, to the amount they are
> >allowed to charge for this same green power.
> 
> Actually, the utilities are, in a sense, lucky that they have been
> tied into long-term contracts with these "alternative" providers
> at rates like $160/MWh, because it is the non-utility, non-"alternative"
> providers who have been charging rates like $300/MWh.  In other
> words, while the alternative providers were in effect being subsidized
> during the good times, now that times are bad, the alternative
> providers are the ones doing the subsidizing -- they *could* get
> figures like $500/MWh on the open market, but they are locked into
> contracts.

It isn't quite fair to compare the "alternative" power contracts to open
market sales, because many of the alternative generators can't promise
to deliver at a specific time and place, while open market sales do work
that way.  For example, wind power is only available when the wind
blows.  So a wind generator can't promise to sell wind power, say,
tomorrow at 4pm for $500.  

The alternative power contracts allow the producers to pump their power
into the grid whenever they can, at a prearranged price.  Sometimes that
power isn't needed at all, but they get to sell it anyway.