Wyoming Wind Update: Wyoming Wind Farms To Save Average California $2.50 Annually In Utility Bills

Updates

Later, January 25, 2014: see first comment below --

Let me backstop your (accurate) calculations:

• $750M savings / 38M people = $19.73/year
• $600M / 38M = $15.79
• $100M / 38M = $2.63

More story lines:

The outfit delivering the highest estimate is a federally funded research group whose goal is to push solar and wind. They were hired by the state agency wanting to sell the electricity. Imagine the reaction if a research company exclusively funded by Mobil and BP published a report claimed this wind project would increase electricity rates instead of reducing them.

Also, that non-existent, not-even-permitted transmission line will cost a mere $3 billion. Payback term in years to recover the cost of the line would be either 4, 5, or 30 years, depending on which study is accurate.

From the comments:

“It never ceases to amaze me that folks who become hysterical at the thought of an oil or gas drilling rig being visible for a few months are thrilled with the idea of miles of those huge windmills standing there forever.”

Incredible, isn't it?

If the Casper Star and Tribune wants to maintain any semblance of integrity in reporting, it may want to follow up with "the rest of the story." I am quite disappointed, to say the least, the CST would print this story without critical analysis. The Casper Star and Tribune risks morphing into the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Original Post

I love these stories. So many story lines. The Casper Star and Tribune is reporting that Wyoming wind could save $750 million annually for California ratepayers.

One story line: the math.

Let's quickly do the math, with round numbers:

• California population: 40 million
• 750/40 = $20/year
• Let's assume there are four persons/household = savings of $80/year.

So, Wyoming gets to put all those unsightly windmills in their state all to save a single Californian $20/year, about the price of a pack of cigarettes (? -- see comments), or a day of parking at LAX; or a meal for two at Applebee's, or a few hours of daycare.

Second story line: the understatement.

"We’re a little delayed from what we originally set out; however, we are within the market time frame for California.”

The project was first proposed in 2005 and bought by Anschutz in 2008.

Third story line: those little needling inconvenient truths.

The would-be wind companies face two hurdles in sending their electricity to California and its 38 million people. The first challenge is one of transmitting the electricity.

Currently, no transmission lines exist between Wyoming and California. The second is convincing California policymakers to choose Wyoming renewables over similar projects in the Golden State. 

The fourth story line: the internal inconsistencies in the story, or as Don points out -- progressive (modern) math.

Opening line of the article: A preliminary report suggests Wyoming wind power could save California ratepayers $750 million annually.

The last paragraph of the article: The preliminary conclusions of the report, which will be finalized and officially published in February, are in line with previous studies finding that Wyoming wind is a cost-effective means of providing renewable energy, said Greg Brinkman, an energy analysis engineer at the laboratory. A University of Wyoming study found wind projects in the state would save Golden State ratepayers $100 million annually. A 2011 Western Electricity Coordinating Council found such projects would save California customers $600 million annually. 

In line with previous studies? $750 million in this study vs $100 million in an earlier study? At least the $600 million is a bit closer to $750 million but it certainly reeks of creative bookkeeping, more smoke and mirrors.

But can you imagine? If this saves California rate payers $100 million annually, we're talking a whopping $2.50 will be saved by each Californian each year. I can't make this stuff up, unless my arithmetic is wrong, which is very well may be. Readers will correct me. Please.