Power bills ... (feel free to rant with me)

[Deleted]

I looked at my history of usage. From August of 2009 til now, I've only been under 700kwh once. It spikes during summer months, but even during winter when my gas usage goes up (natural gas for heating), it's still not as low as some of the numbers I'm seeing here.

It's an all brick home with all double pane windows and it seems to hold the temp pretty well. I have turbines on the roof and supposedly more attic vents than required. I don't know how much any of that helps. Last week it stormed and my power was out from one evening until mid-afternoon the next day. The house hadn't gotten uncomfortably hot before the power came back on.

I guess it is my old appliances using all this energy, even though when I log into my power company's website, it says that my home uses less energy than most other homes the same size. lol

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Jun 19, 2011 12:34:34 GMT -5 kent said:

Interesting that our "baseline" usage (lowest rate, Tier 1) is 353 KWH and your "baseline" allowance is 543 KWH. Why is my "allowance" lower than yours?

You can never get a clear answer as to why "baseline" rates are different for different homes/locations.

In setting baseline amounts, PGE say that they factor in weather differentials. We average 40+ days over 100 degrees every summer, and our average summertime high in July is 97 degrees and in August is 95 degrees. In comparison, San Francisco's average high in July is 68 degrees and in August it's 69 degrees.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

This website has an interesting chart showing how much 1000 KwHs of electricity costs in various locations. While it doesn't show my location, it does show San Diego's rates (which are on par with ours) ... and that's the second highest after Anchorage.

The lowest? St. Louis pays $74.74 for 1,000 KwHs.
One of the highest? San Diego pays $187.30 for 1,000 KwHs.

LINK: www.jea.com/services/electric/rates_quarterly.asp

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

We just figured out that our swimming pool pump is using 8.8 KwHs per day or 264 KwHs for a 30-day month.... which is 29.3% of our average monthly electricity usage of 900 KwHs.

At Tier Three rates (which we hit every month) ... that's $79.24 for just the swimming pool (if it were charged at just Tier 3 rates, but it's actually a mixture of Tier 2 and Tier 3 rates.... so it's really costing us closer to $60 per month.)

[Tiny]

1.) for anyone who comes back to re-read this....
Do you know HOW your electricity is generated? I suspect that plays a part in how much it costs.
Here in ChicagoLand Illinois 97% of our electricity is nuclear powered. That's a population of about 6 million people...

And then:
Conservation of energy is a catch 22. The less people use, the more the utility has to charge just to provide service or has to raise the per unit cost.
No, that's a fallacy. As populations grow (and businesses too!) energy use goes up even if everyone is as efficient as possible. As energy use goes up the Electric company needs to ADD electric generating equipment (more coal powered generators or nuclear power plants or natural gas powered generators). The electric generating equipment has limits on how much it can generate - so even if today the existing homes/offices could freeze their usage - the Electric company would still need to plan and provide MORE energy as more homes/businesses/uses for electricity are added to the area it supplies. That means the cost of electricity goes up (to finance the additional equipment/people). Don't forget the Electric company has to maintain it's equipment and it's employees.

I suspect that the ONLY way an Electric supplier ever sees demand for it's product (electricity) drop is when a city/town/large area 'dies' - businesses shut down, people move away.
Having as energy efficient house/products as possible is a smart thing to do... electricity is an expensive to create resource....

FWIW: I left out Hydropower - I know there's a bunch of US areas that get their energy from hydroelectric dams - not sure how those are keeping up current demand for electricity... I'm more familiar with my area (nuclear with coal and natural gas back up systems).

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2011 16:13:43 GMT -5 Tiny said:

1.)
No, that's a fallacy. As populations grow (and businesses too!) energy use goes up even if everyone is as efficient as possible. As energy use goes up the Electric company needs to ADD electric generating equipment (more coal powered generators or nuclear power plants or natural gas powered generators). The electric generating equipment has limits on how much it can generate - so even if today the existing homes/offices could freeze their usage - the Electric company would still need to plan and provide MORE energy as more homes/businesses/uses for electricity are added to the area it supplies. That means the cost of electricity goes up (to finance the additional equipment/people). Don't forget the Electric company has to maintain it's equipment and it's employees.

True, but the costs are not linear in time. When the new plant is needed cost will jump significantly.

Additionally, you are forgetting about the cost to maintain the existing infrastructure and lines. So if 1 cent/KWh was the going rate to do this maintenance, and everyone cuts usage by 10%, then the maintenance budget will be 10% short, thus the electric company will have to raise rates (and in your case they added 10% more lines to now maintain). That is why 30% of my bill is just the connection cost with zero delivery of any energy.

Put another way, the power company has an expense of X% of the total budget to purchase fuel (say 40%), the rest of the budget is all fixed (cost to operate the plant, maintain lines, bill accounts, etc). So if everyone reduces their usage by 10% rates will have to increase the next year to cover fixed costs. That is why you see such varying rates on the board. Basically, everyone has to pay about $40-50/month just to keep power connected to the house. That is the fixed operating cost of the utility, so in San Diego, they end up paying up to 30-40 cents/KWh while here in the Midwest we pay 8 cents/KWh.

[phil5185]

Conservation of energy is a catch 22. The less people use, the more the utility has to charge just to provide service or has to raise the per unit cost.
No, that's a fallacy. As populations grow (and businesses too!) energy use goes up even if everyone is as efficient as possible.

It happened here in about 1975 - the Power Company put out a message via the media pleading for the populous to cut back - raise the AC t-stats by about 5 degrees, shut off the AC when you went to work, use the pool pumps less, cut back on lights/TV, etc. And the people pitched in, did their best for the greater good. (A far better response than was expected?). Anyway, in just a month or two the Power Company had to hit us with a substantial rate hike just to make Payroll and keep the company solvent.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Where PG&E gets its power:

PG&E's utility-owned generation portfolio consists an extensive hydroelectric system, one operating nuclear power plant, one operating natural gas-fired power plant, and another gas-fired plant under construction. Two other plants owned by the company have been permanently removed from commercial operation: Humboldt Bay Unit 3 (nuclear) and Hunters Point (fossil).

PG&E's hydroelectric portfolio is the largest under private ownership in the United States. Drawing water from approximately 100 reservoirs along 16 river basins, its maximum electric output is 3,896 MW.

The Diablo Canyon Power Plant, located in Avila Beach, California, is the only operating nuclear asset owned by PG&E.

On April 1, 2008, PG&E announced contracts to buy three new solar power plants in the Mojave Desert. With an output of 500 MW and options for another 400 MW, the three installations will initially generate enough electricity to power more than 375,000 residences.

[Deleted]

Both my local utility company and the company that generates (supplies, whatever the proper terminology is) our power are public owned. Since neither company is for-profit, I'm sure that helps keep our (customers') costs down.

It seems the source is a mixture of coal powered, nuclear and *something else I can't remember* energy, with a mission to move towards more nuclear. I didn't see any percentages, and my eyes glazed over at all those other numbers.

[resolution]

I am in the same boat as Pink Cashmere, we are way above the YM average. We are using about 950 KwH's for a 1200sf house. I think part of my issue is that I work from home, so I have the computer running pretty much 24/7 and I keep the house comfortable during the day. We just got a notice that our power company has been bought by another power company, and the rates are dropping from 8.2 cents down to 6.8 cents per KwH.

[tiredturkey]

Latest bill, May 5-June 6, was $126.75 for 1122 KWH. My nominal rate is $0.11034/KWH and the rest is various state and local fees and taxes. I did choose a 100% renewable plan which is somewhat higher. During the months we drop under 1000 KWH they tack on another $6.95.

[Tiny]

Basically, everyone has to pay about $40-50/month just to keep power connected to the house. That is the fixed operating cost of the utility, so in San Diego, they end up paying up to 30-40 cents/KWh while here in the Midwest we pay 8 cents/KWh.

Isn't that two parts of the equation - the 'delivery charge' and then the cost of the electricity?
The cost per KwH hasn't varied much from between .07 and .09 over the last 5 years (maybe longer - I don't have bills back that far). I use approximately the same amount of electricity over the course of a year. My total expense is far from static though, because of the changes in the delivery fees, taxes, and whatever else they manage to attach to the bill.

I wonder if the electric rates jumped not so much because they weren't selling enough electricity but if even with the drop in consumption the Electric company had to use a higher priced resource to generate the electricity it was using -- had to burn more natural gas or coal to make up for the shortfall in electrical supply. The cost of coal of natural gas can dramatically effect the cost of production when either of those two resources are used.

Too bad there's no good way to store electricity...

[gooddecisions]

My guess is...the increases have nothing to do with consumption. They need to increase their profits in a tough economy and if they increased the rates to cover overhead of additional plants, etc, the sh@t would hit the fan. Thus, similiar to the airline industry, they've created a more complicated fee structure to get the net profits needed to sustain the business. Pure speculation, though.

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2011 21:11:46 GMT -5 gooddecisions said:

My guess is...the increases have nothing to do with consumption. They need to increase their profits in a tough economy and if they increased the rates to cover overhead of additional plants, etc, the sh@t would hit the fan. Thus, similiar to the airline industry, they've created a more complicated fee structure to get the net profits needed to sustain the business. Pure speculation, though.

What we see for rates in California is THE FUTURE for the entire country if Obama could have his way on cap and trade. Of course that is dead in the water through the next election. Nothing will raise rates faster than government requirements to either reduce emissions for a utility or buy credits. California has aggressive renewable targets and we pay the price for it.

[schildi]

Jun 19, 2011 21:42:19 GMT -5 @mmc said:

Jun 19, 2011 21:11:46 GMT -5 gooddecisions said:

My guess is...the increases have nothing to do with consumption. They need to increase their profits in a tough economy and if they increased the rates to cover overhead of additional plants, etc, the sh@t would hit the fan. Thus, similiar to the airline industry, they've created a more complicated fee structure to get the net profits needed to sustain the business. Pure speculation, though.

What we see for rates in California is THE FUTURE for the entire country if Obama could have his way on cap and trade. Of course that is dead in the water through the next election. Nothing will raise rates faster than government requirements to either reduce emissions for a utility or buy credits. California has aggressive renewable targets and we pay the price for it.

I'd be willing to pay some price for it, instead of leaving everything to generations down the road.

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2011 21:54:23 GMT -5 schildi said:

Jun 19, 2011 21:42:19 GMT -5 @mmc said:

What we see for rates in California is THE FUTURE for the entire country if Obama could have his way on cap and trade. Of course that is dead in the water through the next election. Nothing will raise rates faster than government requirements to either reduce emissions for a utility or buy credits. California has aggressive renewable targets and we pay the price for it.

I'd be willing to pay some price for it, instead of leaving everything to generations down the road.

You could get almost everyone to agree with you, until you put an actual price tag on it. That is the difference between concept and reality.

[seriousthistime]

I'm in the Midwest and I'm looking at my May bill right now. May was a weird month, when it would go from hot and humid to cold and rainy, so I know that I had my heat on at least twice during the month, had the A/C on for much of the month, and there were actually a few lucky days when neither one was on. The heat is gas. Total electric bill was about $70. Subtract out $18 for the "customer charge" and the "meter charge", and another $4 in various taxes, and my rate per kwh is about 8.5 cents. But this is the rate for "non-summer months." Looks like the rate is valid up to 800 kwh. I hope my usage will go down because I got rid of my energy-inefficient refrigerator in the garage.

[calgal]

I know my costs are low.

One person...1600 sq. ft. condo with three bedrooms...four levels...Southern California Edison.

I rarely use the furnace (which is gas) or AC. I use each about 5-8 days per year.

My bill averages about $20 per month. The highest was $22.58 in the last year. It looks like I use about 150 KWH per month.

In April, 2009, I got an new Energy Star refrigerator. It's a big one with French doors...much larger than my old one. My bill went down about 120 KWH per month and about $12-15.

[schildi]

Jun 19, 2011 22:09:07 GMT -5 @mmc said:

Jun 19, 2011 21:54:23 GMT -5 schildi said:

I'd be willing to pay some price for it, instead of leaving everything to generations down the road.

You could get almost everyone to agree with you, until you put an actual price tag on it. That is the difference between concept and reality.

No, I don't think so. What do you think the price tag then will be for our kids, or their kids, if we don't start today? It's short sighted to only think about and avoid the cost today. It's unfortunately done a lot, though.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Jun 19, 2011 23:27:27 GMT -5 @patstab said:

I'm not complaining. But if it were $.30 or $.40 a kwh, we would probably move or take drastic measures of some type.

We do.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

My plan isn't to live here forever ~ but my wonderful DH is stationed here, so here we stay.

[resolution]

Jun 19, 2011 21:42:19 GMT -5 @mmc said:

Jun 19, 2011 21:11:46 GMT -5 gooddecisions said:

My guess is...the increases have nothing to do with consumption. They need to increase their profits in a tough economy and if they increased the rates to cover overhead of additional plants, etc, the sh@t would hit the fan. Thus, similiar to the airline industry, they've created a more complicated fee structure to get the net profits needed to sustain the business. Pure speculation, though.

What we see for rates in California is THE FUTURE for the entire country if Obama could have his way on cap and trade. Of course that is dead in the water through the next election. Nothing will raise rates faster than government requirements to either reduce emissions for a utility or buy credits. California has aggressive renewable targets and we pay the price for it.

I was under the impression that the high rates in California were caused by that failed deregulation back in 2000 when they deregulated the wholesale market and left price caps on the retail prices. It became more profitable for producers like Enron to manipulate production to create artificial shortages and price spikes or to sell the power out of state to other states without price caps. Did the market there ever recover and then become damaged by environmentalism? My best guess would be that you are still paying for some of the settlements that the electric wholesalers had to make for their market manipulations, and then have some extra environmental costs piled on top of that. www.mresearch.com/reports.html

[Elderkind]

I just looked mine up... I'm in central Texas and it is .062 per KWH and my usage for 04/08-05/10 was 814. It was cooler during that period so I wasn't running the A/C as much.

However, I am in the middle of a dispute with the city about my sewage bill. I had a water leak in the little house I rent which was finally fixed in January. My water bills since then have been consistently in the $21 dollar range but my sewage is $70! Your sewage should never be over your water bill....I went to the city office last week with a letter from my landlady stating that there was a leak and that it has been fixed and told them I want a refund... Of course I have heard nothing back about this... So, I will be calling them again today...

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2011 23:26:27 GMT -5 schildi said:

Jun 19, 2011 22:09:07 GMT -5 @mmc said:

You could get almost everyone to agree with you, until you put an actual price tag on it. That is the difference between concept and reality.

No, I don't think so. What do you think the price tag then will be for our kids, or their kids, if we don't start today? It's short sighted to only think about and avoid the cost today. It's unfortunately done a lot, though.

Anytime someone pulls out "do it for the kids", I'm immediately skeptical. That is an emotional argument.

If I am going to pay more now, give me some scientific proof that it will actually help people in the future. Would a 5% reduction in emissions from power plants actually have any benefit or is it like battling rising sea levels by bailing with a 5 gallon bucket?

[midjd]

Elderkind, good luck. My mom had a very similar experience last summer (her utility company is managed by her next-door neighbors, which made it especially fun). Her sewer bill was somehow higher with just her living there than it had been when she was living there with 3 kids and my sister's friend. They finally came out and admitted they were "estimating" usage based on past years, and only actually read the meters 1x per year. If you raise enough of a ruckus, they should at the VERY least ensure your bills are accurate from here on out. Again, good luck... I know it's frustrating!

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2011 6:23:12 GMT -5 resolution said:

Jun 19, 2011 21:42:19 GMT -5 @mmc said:

What we see for rates in California is THE FUTURE for the entire country if Obama could have his way on cap and trade. Of course that is dead in the water through the next election. Nothing will raise rates faster than government requirements to either reduce emissions for a utility or buy credits. California has aggressive renewable targets and we pay the price for it.

I was under the impression that the high rates in California were caused by that failed deregulation back in 2000 when they deregulated the wholesale market and left price caps on the retail prices. It became more profitable for producers like Enron to manipulate production to create artificial shortages and price spikes or to sell the power out of state to other states without price caps. Did the market there ever recover and then become damaged by environmentalism? My best guess would be that you are still paying for some of the settlements that the electric wholesalers had to make for their market manipulations, and then have some extra environmental costs piled on top of that. www.mresearch.com/reports.html

If that is still part of the equation 11 years later, it is only a small part of the difference between here and other states. The main difference comes down to:

1. The price to build anything here is more expensive. The land is more and the cost and time to get any new plant or power line approved is rediculous. See the sunrise power link as a reference.

2. California generates 56% of its power from natural gas. Many of the low cost midwest states generate that percentage from much cheaper coal. There is almost no "dirty" power generation in the state.

3. The mandate to move to expensive renewable drive up costs versus using more natural gas plants

[midjd]

I live in the Midwest, most of our power (at 11c per KwH) is nuclear.

[happyscooter]

810 total KWH=$74.00

[schildi]

Jun 20, 2011 7:50:52 GMT -5 @mmc said:

Jun 19, 2011 23:26:27 GMT -5 schildi said:

No, I don't think so. What do you think the price tag then will be for our kids, or their kids, if we don't start today? It's short sighted to only think about and avoid the cost today. It's unfortunately done a lot, though.

Anytime someone pulls out "do it for the kids", I'm immediately skeptical. That is an emotional argument.

If I am going to pay more now, give me some scientific proof that it will actually help people in the future. Would a 5% reduction in emissions from power plants actually have any benefit or is it like battling rising sea levels by bailing with a 5 gallon bucket?

This is just an excuse for not wanting to take the responsibility. Let's talk about a 50% reduction .... over time.
Any proof either way will be shut down with a "counter proof" by the other side, it's ridiculous. I do believe that if we continue on the same path we are on right now we'll destroy our own living space. Even if there is no proof either way (there is proof - again both sides claim to be able to proof the opposite, LOL I think we'll have to do the best we reasonably can.

[midjd]

Agree with Schildi. There is no way some of the things we're doing to the planet are sustainable, even for just another few generations.