Friday, November 30, 2012

California Electric Rates Already Twice That Of North Dakota -- California Rates To Increase Significantly This Year; Even More Next Two Years; One State With Renewable Energy Mandate; One State With Higher Population Density

Link to LA Times.
Almost 5 million Southern California Edison Co. customers in hundreds of cities and communities across the southern, central and coastal parts of the state will be hit with higher electric bills early next year and bigger hikes in each of the following two years.
The decision, which Edison says will add an average of $7 a month to residential bills for the first year, covers Edison's costs to provide service, which amounts to about half a ratepayer's bill. Other costs for buying fuel and contracting for power deliveries fluctuate and are passed directly to consumers.
The article does not mention the cost of mandated renewable energy which is two- to four-times the average cost of conventional energy (coal, natural gas), so I don't know if that makes a difference.

And then:
Business groups also complained that the jump in Edison's already steep electric rates could make it harder for them to keep operating profitably.
"California manufacturers already pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average," said Gino Di Caro, a spokesman for the California Manufacturers & Technology Assn.
Is that accurate? Are California rates 50% higher than elsewhere? You can see for yourself at this link (this is before the newest rate increase).  This map might be easier.

Either map:
  • North Dakota: about 7 cents/kwh (no renewable energy mandate); 
  • California: about 14 cents/kwh (renewable energy mandate).
One would think that with a greater population density, i.e., more rate payers/square mile, the price/kwh should go down.

Population density:
  • California, #11 in the US at 240 people/square mile (in SCE area, I would assume even more dense)
  • North Dakota, #47 in the US at 10 people/square mile
But Californians, in the main, are content/satisfied: they just voted to raise taxes on themselves to pay for a bullet train to nowhere.  

Cue Connie Francis.

2 comments:

  1. ND does have a wind goal, and lots of windmills. It is almost a soft mandate. It is a fiasco, but few notice.

    Anon 1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think most of the North Dakota wind energy is a) for tax credits; b) for outside states/utilities to meet mandates. It certainly isn't for less expensive energy.

      But I agree: whatever it is in North Dakota, it is not good (with regard to wind) but I've pretty much quit posting stories on new wind farms in North Dakota. For some reason, I've lost interest in wind energy in North Dakota; who knows? I may be get interested in it again some day. I guess I lost interest when all that work to save migratory birds over the years was no longer a priority. Sad.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.