The man who runs it is a former television meteorologist. The Wikipedia page on him says he attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.
Many power bills give you a cost breakdown. Where I live delivery charge is more than the cost of the electricity itself, which is not terribly surprising given the massive capital cost of the power grid.
This is also probably amplified by the fact that California (where I live) imports a ton of power from states as far away as Oregon, Washington, and Utah. That's not because of solar and wind but because California does not have adequate storage and/or other forms of generation capability to service its demand. More solar and wind or anything else for that matter would probably help the situation by reducing the amount of imported power.
This is also not horribly surprising though. It's the most populous state and is surrounded by lots of much less populous states with abundant natural resources. So it's not surprising that California would import a lot of energy. Electricity is nearly always more expensive in places with higher population density due to the mismatch between supply and demand in those places, requiring more energy to be imported over longer distances. Whether it's moved as electricity over wires or as fuel there's always a transport cost. So some of Cali's costs are bad policy but some is just physics and economics.
The cheapest power tends to be in places with loads of local energy resources and lower population density (matched supply and demand). Examples are the Pacific Northwest with tons of local hydro or Appalachia with loads of coal and gas right there.
Given the overt bias of this site I'm guessing their solution would be to burn coal in California, but that coal would have to be transported thousands of miles because Cali doesn't have coal.