The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently published its 2018 inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, according to which the state achieved its goal of cutting GHG emissions below 1990 levels in 2016, four years in advance of the 2020 target date*. Gov. Jerry Brown claims that this proves that the state’s anti-carbon laws and regulations are “succeeding”, but are they really? Here we take a brief look at CARB’s data, concluding a) that success has not yet been achieved and b) that California’s long-term emissions targets remain as elusive as ever.
* There is no certainty that California’s 2016 emissions (429 million tons) were in fact lower than its 1990 emissions. (431 million tons). With estimation errors in the 2-5% range a 0.5% difference is not diagnostic.
A few points to note before proceeding:
The graphics and data used in this post are from CARB’s 2018 inventory report unless otherwise specified.
CARB’s emissions include all greenhouse gases from all sources, not just CO2 from fossil-fuel burning. Gases such as methane, Nox, fluorocarbons etc. are converted into CO2 equivalents on the basis of their “global warming potential”.
CARB’s electricity sector emissions cover the entire state. Previous posts on California have used only data from the three major utilities that make up the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which between them account for about 75% of California’s electricity transmission.
First a brief history of California’s GHG emissions-reduction legislation. The bill that established the 1990-by-2020 GHG target (AB 32) was passed in 2006. Then in 2017 AB 398 set a new target of a GHG reduction of at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and in April of this year an executive order established a longer-term target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. (California is now considering another bill – SB100 – that reportedly calls for 100% renewable electricity by 2045, but more about this later).
California’s progress in cutting its GHG emissions is summarized in Figure 1. The graphic is reproduced from a US Energy Information Administration report:
Figure 1: Annual California GHG emissions by sector and future targets, 1990-2050. The 2016 value is from CARB
This graphic does not look much like a “success”. California has been able to do no more than hold the line on emissions since 1990. Other jurisdictions have made far more progress (the UK’s GHG emissions fell by 41% between 1990 and 2016).
How much impact California’s emissions-reduction policies have had is also an open question. Figure 1, for example, suggests that most of the post-2006 emissions decrease was a result of the 2008-9 global recession. What would California’s emissions now be if this recession had never happened? The CARB report does not address this question. It merely notes that “California’s GHG emissions continue to decrease, a trend observed since 2007”.
CARB is, however, more forthcoming when addressing the reasons for the 12-million-ton decrease between 2015 and 2016:
The largest reductions came from the electricity sector which continues to see decreases as a result of the state’s climate policies, which led to growth in wind generation and solar power, including growth in both rooftop and large solar array generation.
As shown in Figure 2 growth in wind and solar generation has indeed added about 35TWh/year to California’s total in-state generation since 2006, although about half of this increase was nullified by the shutdown of the San Onofre nuclear plant in 2012:
Figure 2: California’s in-state renewables generation, 2000-2016. Note that this includes generation from hydro plants with capacities >50MW, which are not classified as renewable sources unded current California guidelines
It is, however, interesting to note that the increase in California’s in-state wind and solar generation has not resulted in any significant decrease in California’s in-state electricity sector emissions since 2002 (Figure 3). Effectively all of the decrease, which begins in 2009 (the global recession again) has come from imported electricity. I have not looked into the reasons for this, but it suggests that factors other than California’s climate policies were involved.
California also can’t rely on ever-increasing amounts of imported wind and solar from neighboring states. Oregon already has a target of 50% renewable energy by 2040, the same as California, and Arizona and Nevada are now considering initiatives that would mandate 50% renewables by 2030 – targets even more aggressive than California’s. If these targets are adopted and met the entire Southwest US will be dependent on wind and solar, and no state will have any surplus power to export to its neighbors when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
Figure 3: GHG emissions from California’s electricity sector, 2000-2016. Note that effectively all of the decrease since 2002 has come from imported electricity
CARB also acknowledges the positive impact of increased rainfall:
The abundant precipitation in 2016 provided higher hydropower to the state.
The impact of increased hydro generation in 2016 is evident in Figures 1 and 3, although California’s climate policies had nothing to do with it. The increase was entirely a result of the end of a drought allegedly caused by climate change. However, climate change receives no credit for the abundant precipitation in 2016.
Earlier I mentioned that California is considering adopting legislation (SB100) that supposedly calls for zero emissions from the state’s electricity sector by 2045. This legislation is widely regarded as being a major leap forward for green energy. The National Resources Defense Council is particularly enthusiastic:
California’s legislature is moving yet again to create an historic clean energy precedent for its residents and the world.
As is the League of Women Voters :
Take Action & Move Us Toward Zero Carbon! Tell your Assembly Member to vote YES on #SB100!
But as I read the bill – and if I have misinterpreted its meaning please let me know – SB100 won’t move the world, or even California, significantly closer to zero carbon. Why not? First because according to the bill’s text the 100% zero carbon constraint applies only to electricity used by households and state agencies:
….. it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to serve California end-use customers and electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045.
Second because according to CARB electricity consumption accounted for only 16% of California’s GHG emissions in 2016 (Figure 4, second graphic). So even if all California’s electricity sector emissions were cut to zero the state’s total GHG emissions would fall by only 16%.
And third because residences and state agencies consume only a fraction of California’s electricity (according to this source residences consumed only 34% of it in 2016.) So California’s GHG emissions could decrease by as little as 5% below current levels even if SB100’s target was met.
Figure 4: California’s GHG emissions by sector, 2000-2016. Note that the electicity sector contributes only 16% of total emissions
SB100 is in fact little more than virtue signaling. I doubt whether any California legislator, or even the bill’s authors, understand how little will be gained from it even if its targets are met. California residents, 70% of whom reportedly support it, certainly don’t.
Also left unaddressed is the key question of how California is going to cut emissions from the non-electric sectors that contributed 84% of its total GHG emissions in 2016 (Figure 4, left graphic). In 2008 California launched a laundry list of programs designed to lower emissions from these sectors, including Advanced Clean Cars, Regional Transportation Targets, Vehicle Efficiency Measures, Low Carbon Fuel Standards, High Speed Rail, Sustainable Forests, Recycling/Waste Measures, a Cap-and-Trade program and rebates of up to $7,000 for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. It was estimated that these programs would lower the state’s GHG emissions by at least 60 million tons/year by 2020, but clearly they are not going to. And there is no “Plan B”.
California’s only potentially-viable Plan B is of course to go nuclear – an option that SB100 does not exclude because it specifies “zero-carbon” and not “renewable” generation. But no one in their right mind is going to propose a new nuclear plant in a state that is known to be anti-nuclear and which is shutting down its existing nuclear capacity (Diablo Canyon, California’s last remaining nuclear plant, will go off-line in 2025). Besides, as PV Magazine notes it is unlikely that new nuclear plants will get built anyway because “the nuclear technologies which are currently commercialized are much more expensive than wind and solar”.
California appears to be the home of virtue signalling combined with large scale consumption. My fathers sister settled in LA and I remember visiting her son, my Californian cousin. He thought that I worked for Satan (the oil industry) despite driving a Lexus SUV and living in a suburban house near San Diego. What struck me was the conspicuous waste particularly of energy compared to my experiences in Europe, Africa and Asia, despite having right on attitudes. There is also a fair amount of ignorance amongst the general population, even educated people , my cousin went to USC, about what energy involves. They seem to think that it just comes out of a socket.
I am not surprised that Californians would vote for such a proposition, That state is unusual in that many ideas supported by a dedicated minority can be voted in by an apathetic majority.
Sadly California is not unusual in that regard. Here in New Zealand our Minister of Climate Change is the leader of an outlier ‘Green’ party whose grass roots supporters promote an alarmist view of climate change that is not supported by the science. Sadly, it matters not as he presses on with zero carbon plans with a supporting consultation paper repeating the alarmist narrative that at places is in direct conflict with the most recent scientific evidence and even some of AR5’s ‘low-confidence’ conclusions. Neither the media or political opponents seem prepared to publicise this.
“the nuclear technologies which are currently commercialized are much more expensive than wind and solar”
Actually, this is Urban Legend at its best.
Even at 10k$/kWe, once intermittency and seasonality are taken into account, nuclear is still cheaper than wind and solar.
As I already mentioned here some time ago, NREL did some calculations recently proving that solar above 30% (or something like that) penetration hits a hard wall, and any additional installerons Neville useless and very expensive (in terms of cost of the electricity they generate).
Anyway… mother nature abhorrs the ignorant… and will take care of any stupid policy set in place, in spite of the propaganda announcements being made.
The PV Solar is cheaper than nuclear quote did come from PV Magazine – I believe that they may be a little biased
The total cost of wind and solar must include storage. The question is, how much ?
I would say, enough to maintain the supply for a week. Others might say, for ten seconds.
Enough to cover seasonal variations.
All generations needs to go into a giant reservoir all hours of the year.
All demand draws from that reservoir all hours of the year.
Just add the hourly generated quantities, subtract the hourly demand for a year and you see storage quality during the year.
To cover multi-day wind and solar lulls, the stored quantity must never be less than 5% of annual consumption, which means some gas turbine capacity and gas supply needs to be on standby (ready to go, fueled and staffed) to ensure the minimum is maintained..
“All generations” means mostly wind and solar
storage quality should read storage quantity.
5% of annual consumption is about two weeks. How much energy needs to be stored to keep London going, without power cuts, for a fortnight ? What will the storage cost ?
Dear Roger,
Thanks for this interesting article. In my view, California is indeed succeeding in cutting down GHG emissions, and to a large degree thanks to its public policies to encourage the diffusion of wind and solar.
As you point out, 2016 saw a large increase in hydropower generation (about 3 times that of 2015 and twice that of 2014). In 2011, California also enjoyed abundant hydropower electricity. In both years, we can observe in-state emissions from power generation dropping sharply. I agree, Californians should thank abundant rainfall for that.
But the key question is, if in the years between 2011 and 2016 hydropower generation fell from 40 TWh to about 10 TWh, and one nuclear plant was shut down, how is it possible that in-state emissions from electricity generation stayed flat? Well, thanks to the success of public policies promoting wind and solar.
The growth of solar and wind electricity prevented an increase in emissions caused by the scarcity of hydropower electricity. In other words, booming renewables effectively lowered emissions from where they would have otherwise climbed to.
Similarly, if Californians (or their policymakers) would have closed nuclear power plants anyway, substituting their electricity with wind and solar avoids an increase in emissions (though contributes nothing to decreasing them further, and it is a pretty bad deal in my opinion).
Should hydropower return to the generation values observed in the early 2000s (between 30 and 40 TWh/yr), California can expect important reductions in in-state emissions from electricity generation because hydro electricty will not encounter 5 TWh/yr but at least 40 TWh/yr from wind and solar.
Regarding your arguments about the 2009 decrease in emissions, it is clear that hydropower, renewwables and natural gas were important elements (besides global recession). In 2009, zero emissions generation in California increases by about 17% since 2008 was a bad year for hydropower. At the same time, emission intensity from imports fall about 20% due to an increase in imports from natural gas fueled power plants. These two factors together explain the roughly 20% drop in emissions from electricity consumption – plus whatever effect the recession had.
From that view, it seems that California would have seen a decrease in emissions even without the recession as long as hydropower recovered, solar and wind kept growing and imports shift to natural gas had also occurred.
Thanks again and best regards,
Alejandro
Thanks Alejandro:
But answer me one simple question. Why do you fixate on electricity? As I pointed out in the post California’s GHG emissions would fall by only 16% if electricity sector emissions were cut to zero. What California needs to do is concentrate on decarbonizing the sectors that account for the remaining 84% of its emissions, in particular transportation. But no one seems to want to do this, maybe because no one can think of a way of doing it. I can’t.
Roger,
Yes, you can!
Just build out wind and solar and batteries all over the state for $several trillion.
Make sure to have very robust connections to nearby grids in case of no wind and/or no solar to ensure the great reliability we all have become used to.
Change ALL vehicles and other transportation, including ships, planes, trains, etc., to electrical or hydrogen.
Change all other activities, industrial, commercial, cement, building energy to what ever.
LADWP is looking into a rather large hydro effort-
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/24/business/energy-environment/hoover-dam-renewable-energy.html
“The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, an original operator of the dam when it was erected in the 1930s, wants to equip it with a $3 billion pipeline and a pump station powered by solar and wind energy. The pump station, downstream, would help regulate the water flow through the dam’s generators, sending water back to the top to help manage electricity at times of peak demand.”
Thanks Mark:
Do you have any numbers on system capacity? GW, GWh etc?
Mark,
The Hoover Dam has a chronic shortage of water because it is producing to much electricity.
Using wind and solar at about 10c/kWh, plus pumping station with lower reservoir, plus transmission to all the new wind and solar systems to pump water back into the reservoir, would be an expensive set up.
Las Vegas, which gets much of the Hoover electricity, would have to pay a lot more per kWh, unless major subsidies are provided to spread the cost to all US ratepayers.
Morning Roger,
I haven’t found any details on the project….. One could always pump up with night time nuclear for use during the afternoon and early evening ramps……….
It looks like this years heat wave may match the intensity of the 2006 one. In 2009 the residential rates were changed at the same time as a heat wave hit leading to a rather large number of complaints to the puc and legislatures. This years bill are going to be pretty bad for folks as prices and demand have been high for much of the month-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/07/26/as-heatwave-tests-the-limits-of-renewables-anti-nuclear-governments-return-to-nuclear/#635bdb47132b
Elon Musk can – dig tunnels all over, and run your car through them on ‘skateboards’. Or zap yourself through a pneumatic tube. Or rocket off to Mars and leave the whole sorry mess behind.
Roger,
I only commented on electricity simply because it is where I could not agree with your analysis. I tend to share your view regarding the remaining 84% of GHG emissions.
Still, it may be sensible, from a policy perspective, to focus first on electricity generation as it likely is the lowest hanging fruit to cut emissions (perhaps competing with some energy efficiency measures). There are available technologies, strong public support, creates thousands of jobs destroying only a few, and it is relatively low cost compared to other measures to cut emissions. In addition, a low or zero emissions grid could legitimize the electrification of energy uses currently based on fossil fuels (e.g., mobility, heating). Finally, changing electricity generation does not require a change of (consumption) habits, which probably makes it much easier than other ways to reduce emissions.
Best,
Alejandro
Alejandro,
The plan to minimize system wide costs associated with moving to a 33%,RES, than a 40% target, and now 50% RES in CA has always included demand response efforts.
SEE the documents filed under the “Understand How time of use periods help” tab at the CEC web site: http://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/ReportsBulletins/RenewablesReporting.aspx
SDG&E and SMUD have implemented default TOU rates in their service territories recently I can provide links to some details if you would like them.
Back in 2012 evaluations of PG&E’s demand response programs indicated some success in reducing demand when flex alerts were called. I have the report in the very hot attic, but my recollection is that folks who live in temperature zone P (hot summers, cold winters) reduced demand on average approximately 1000 watts when called to reduce demand.
Back then most of the demand response was targeted to reduce load in the middle of the afternoon. Way back than rates were designed to encourage residential customers to reduce demand between noon and 6, or 1 to 7.
@ Alejandro
If I accept that
“The growth of solar and wind electricity prevented an increase in emissions caused by the scarcity of hydropower electricity. In other words, booming renewables effectively lowered emissions from where they would have otherwise climbed to.”
then that means I accept policies that have failed to reduce emissions. In industry parlance, that is the same as working very hard to stay still. That is a bad thing, not something to be championed.
@donoughshanahan
Had the years between 2011 and 2016 been wetter in California and, thus, hydropower contributed as much as it did in 2011 or 2016, the exact same policies that “have failed” would “have succeeded,” if I understand your logic correctly. The rising generation from wind and solar would have likely displaced natural gas power generation and/or imports, reducing GHG emissions.
Still I agree with you to a certain extent. A more successful energy policy would have not only substituted the lack of hydropower but also displaced fossil fuel based generation, not only containing emissions but reducing them. For instance, retaining nuclear generation could have helped to move forward instead of just staying still.
“Had the years between 2011 and 2016 been wetter in California and, thus, hydropower contributed as much as it did in 2011 or 2016, the exact same policies that “have failed” would “have succeeded,””
Erm that is evidence of the policies failing as they did not account for a likely situation. That just shows how poor the policies are and that they are not robust, which adds more credence to the running hard to stay still.
“The rising generation from wind and solar would have likely displaced natural gas power generation and/or imports, reducing GHG emissions.”
That is an assumption, based on clearly very weak policies. But even so the additions on those technologies, just as in Germany, have been quite large in comparison to the size of the existing grid. Such large changes having zero impact smacks of cluelessness.
It also suggests that the CO2 reduction ability touted by supporters of these technologies, is not quite up to their claims.That is clearly down to the designers not considering the entire process and the changes to other generators.
I keep asking myself how can hydropower be calculated into any future power generation needs for states like California that so strongly believe in the dire effects of increasing CO2? We’ve been told often enough that as a result of climate change (global warming), the rains are going to cease.
To suggest that the rains are going to return implies that climate change is a fraudulent theory. Nothing more than an excuse to socialize the populace.
Roger,
California’s electricity rates increased 5.7 times faster than the rest of the US during the 2011 – 2017 period, due to the rapid build-outs of wind and solar and storage. The data in the table is from the EIA. See URL.
http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/2/12/electricity-prices-rose-three-times-more-in-california-than-in-rest-of-us-in-2017
Table 2/Year California US Times faster
c/kWh c/kWh
2011 13.1 9.7
2012 13.5 9.6
2013 14.3 9.8
2014 15.2 10.1
2015 15.4 10.0
2016 15.3 9.9
2017 16.2 10.1
Increase; % 23.7 4.1 5.7
Sorry about the garbled table, but to get the idea. The same rate increases happened in Germany, Denmark, Spain, Ireland.
The claim that would not happen in New England is beyond rational.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-conditions-in-new-england
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/conservative-law-foundation-dubious-claim-ne-electricity-from
Roger,
You may be interested in the update of this spreadsheet.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_sum_2000-16.pdf
W,
Yesterday the EiA updated :Table 5.6.A. Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector,
by State, May 2018 and 2017 (Cents per Kilowatthour)”-
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
The Average statewide residential cost for a kWh is up to 18.92 cents/kWh, the commercial rate is up to 15.6 cents/kWh and the industrial sector comes in at 12.64 cents/kWh.
The original RES (20 %) in CA excluded the public utilities. Gov Brown and the legislature put an end to the free loading of the public utilities when the 33% RES was put into place.
In general renewables drive down carbon emissions simply because they raise the price of electricity, thus reducing demand.
Germany, renewable capital of Europe, has the highest carbon emissions of any country in Europe, whether in total, per capita or per MWh.
Despite having more nuclear power than the UK.
Trying to balance unreliables with lignite power stations and Russian gas is proving tricky.
‘Germany, renewable capital of Europe, has the highest carbon emissions of any country in Europe, whether in total, per capita or per MWh.’
That’s a bit of an exaggeration – Estonia, for example, gets 90% of its power from burning oil shale, and currently has emissions from power nearly three times worse than Germany’s. Poland’s electricity is dirtier than Germany’s, too – unlike most of the former eastern bloc, they never built any reactors. Russia manages to put out more CO2 than Germany both per capita and in total.
Compared to its peers, though, Germany is the dirty one, with output per head about fifty percent higher than the UK or Italy, and double France.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=DE&remote=true
Emissions data that don’t account for consumption (in essence, exported emissions) are not that useful a measure. Consumption accounting usually tends to reverse the decline that states/countries like to imagine they are achieving.
For those interested, DUKES 2018 was released today on the gov.uk website. Wind+ solar did well due to RO deadline-beating and strong winds; and 31/3/17 was the first UK day ever when “visible” demand during the day was less than at night, due to strong solar conditions that day. Renewables total was virtually 100 TWh.
By comparison the last 30 days have been an absolute disaster for Wind Generation, averaging below 2GW per day from a total of 19GW,
ie about 10% of face plate, quite a few days it was below 1GW.
Roger, you wrote you’d not looked into the reasons most emission reductions came from out-of-state. I have, so I thought I’d offer some commentary.
The cap and trade systems allowed utilities to gain credit for selling their ownership stakes in out-of-state generators; of particular relevance were coal-fired units. If the generation that had been connected to the ownership was imported on the market, it was treated as if it came from a gas-fired generator.
It appears another route was contracting low/zero emissions sources from out-of-state, and there’s some indication a lot of that was done. There is no indication, that I’ve found, that the contracting accomplished anything significant. California claims 40 TWh of additional “zero-ghg” imports since 2006 legislation, but “zero-ghg” generation total generation in neighbor states (AZ, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA and WY) went up only 30 TWh over that time.
more detail in this twitter thread: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1011650716438548481.html?refreshed=1532694973
I’ve been doing a little looking into this question.
California contracts to buy electricity from an out-of state solar or wind farm and takes credit for all the emissions savings, with the implicit assumption being that all of the wind/solar electricity is imported to, and consumed in, California. But this isn’t what happens in practice. Once electricity enters the grid it can’t be labeled and segregated out, so the electricity California imports from adjacent states like Arizona and Nevada will reflect the generation mix in those states. In 2016, and ignoring transfers to California from non-contiguous states such as Utah, these were as follows according to EIA data:
Arizona: 31% gas, 30% nuclear, 28% coal, 11% renewables
Nevada: 73% gas, 5% coal, 22% renewables
The bottom line is that the imported “renewable” electricity California consumed in 2016 was actually generated dominantly by fossil fuels. California counts it as zero-carbon because of creative accounting practices similar to those used by Apple and the Dutch Railways to claim that they run on 100% renewable electricity and to those used by Austria to claim that the country is “nuclear free”, as discussed in these earlier posts:
http://euanmearns.com/apple-google-and-how-not-to-go-100-renewable/
http://euanmearns.com/do-the-netherlands-trains-really-run-on-100-wind-power/
http://euanmearns.com/the-myth-of-a-nuclear-free-austria/
There’s 1.9GW of intertie capacity to Utah, which was 72% coal, 16% Nat Gas in 2017. I also note that Four Corners, although formally in New Mexico, connects straight into the Arizona grid, and can be considered a supply source to Southern California. It is of course coal fired.
California is a long way behind a number of other states if we consider the proportion of wind, solar and biomass generation, with just 19.6% in total. Leading the pack in 2017 was Maine on 44.5% (of which 24.6% biomass), followed by Vermont (40.6%; 20.9%), Iowa (36.9% – all wind), Kansas (36.0% all wind), Oklahoma (32.2%; 0.3%), South Dakota (32.2%, all wind), North Dakota (26.9% all wind), Montana (21.7%; 2.3%) and Idaho (20.7%; 2.2%). Perhaps the solution for California is to be off to see the Wizard: it’s windy in Kansas.
wind and solar replaced the missing hydro during a strong drought episode of multiple years.
California did a very god job and will profit from these investments.
California’s Growing Imported Electricity Problem
Jude Clemente
2016 Apr 03
Forbes
points out that about 1/3rd of California’s power comes from elsewhere. The stated 35% of that coming down the Pacific Intertie from the Pacific Northwest . We are happy to be rid of it in the spring and summer months. The concern is the California duck curve is going to impact that flow at the same time that BPA, the Bonneville Power Administration, is not generating enough income to pay for upkeep.
Note to the CA Legislature and CARB: the HIGHER you keep jacking up my PG&E rates via expensive “renewables” and multi-tier PUNISHMENT for consuming energy … the more I will turn to WOOD BURNING to defray these regressive taxes on my household. And I will burn at night … when all the CARB spotters and sniffers are fast asleep, with pictures of public UNION pensions dancing in their heads. And watch your charts and graphs crumble.
K,
It appears that the powers that be in the state have come up with a new rate design to take into account the mismatch of supply and demand by offering up an experimental rate that looks like this for one class of residential customers.
” Residential CARE Time-of-Use
Pilot Project
Rate Schedule EL-TOUPP
Rate 3″ CARE Time-of-Use Winter and Summer Peak and Off-Peak and Spring Peak, Off-Peak and Super-Off-Peak
Summer (Jun-Sept) Peak $0.25122 ($0.04547)
Off-Peak $0.12561 ($0.04547)
Winter (Oct-May) Peak $0.11983 ($0.04547)
Off-Peak $0.10919 ($0.04547)
Spring (Mar-May) Peak $0.14304 ($0.04547)
Off-Peak $0.10728 ($0.04547)
Super-Off-Peak $0.07152 ($0.04547)
Sorry about the formatting…………
It looks like one could fill up a EV rather cheaply in the Spring- as we flooding the marketplace with too much PV from all the utility scale solar (and csp). And your winter time heating costs would be a lot less than the more traditional rates.