Seen on reddit and other sources:
https://old.reddit.com/r/fresno/comments/1hxqlx7/the_more_i_try_to_save_energy_the_higher_the/
Its already 50c or more per kilowatt hour… https://www.pge.com/assets/pge/docs/account/rate-plans/residential-electric-rate-plan-pricing.pdf
On top of the “The Electric Home Rate Plan includes a $15-per-month Base Services Charge”… because people were starting to get 100% of their power from solar and it was “unfair”.
You must log in or register to comment.
“In order to continue to make the same profit (or more year over year) we charge more per unit when demand goes down… We also charge more when demand goes up… Suck it peasants”
And public utilities commissions just exist so people can think they have a voice while their meetings are just a big circlejerk.
Municipal power is so the way to go, much like everything else, especially because home town service will be run by home town people that care. You think PG&E or Verizon or Comcast cares about your town? Nope.
It’s so absurd to me that the Energy Star stickers on appliances at the store say “Estimated based on $.13 per kW/h” and we have to pay around 5x that much.
Yep. And they are talking about more increases this year.
Gee it seems like they could come up with a simple algorithm to protect low income people who are conserving.
Aaaand why aren’t costs going down as usage goes down?
Plenty of costs don’t depend on how much usage there is. If a tree falls and takes out a power line it cosrs the same whether that line was being used at 1% capacity or 100%
We took profit for decades from letting our infrastructure decay. Now we still want that same amount of profit, so you have to pay more for us to fix all the problems that should have been fixed with that profit money in the past.
And then eventually we’ll stop fixing it for that amount of money, pocket the difference and go “tough, pay more” if you want it fixed again.
My utility company spams me with warnings to reduce consumption to save them money in surge events while also shaming people for being in the top 40th percentile of consumption because they’ve got all these empty houses not using power to compare to.
Privately owned publicly enforced monopolies are rife with conflicts of interest. PG&E should be taken over by the state yesterday.
It’s ridiculous that due to some old unique contract the city of San Mateo? Mountain View? (I forget) which is right in the heart of PG$E turf gets to set their own rates and they are less than a quarter of the price, for the same electricity from the same generators and wires. PG$E is such a horrible scam.
There are public utilities in the US. And yes, they offer better service and lower costs than the competing private utilities.
I didn’t know about the benefits until I moved somewhere served by them. I think we would have more of them if people could see the benefits, but unfortunately the utilities you have access to are limited by where you live.
Which is worse, PG&E or SDG&E? Thankfully my house is all electric and solar powered so I get a refund from SDG&E every quarter for the excess energy I’m producing, so I don’t have much experience with them.
Very yesterday.
Electrical service should have a fixed connection fee.
The reason this happens is because electrical companies have two different kind of costs:
-
Those related to obtaining the electrical power from generation companies.
-
Those related to maintaining the grid and providing a connection.
In the past, normally what they did was to simply reduce this to a single price, and for that to be per unit of electricity used. That is, the consumer pays $N. That was at least not an entirely unreasonable approximation when people were pulling electricity off the grid.
The thing is, if a user mostly generates power locally, they still want to have that electrical connection and providing that connection still costs money. But now they’re also not paying for their share of the grid connectivity – it’s getting offloaded to the people who aren’t generating electricity locally.
Hence, the split that many utility companies are shifting to. There’s a fixed charge to have a connection to the grid, which covers the cost of grid maintenance. And there’s a separate cost per kWh of energy used.
If someone doesn’t care about the grid connection – like, they’re confident that they can handle their power needs locally, don’t care about having a grid connection, they do have the option to just drop service. But most people want to have the access to draw more power if they aren’t generating enough, so they want to retain their grid connection. With the grid connection fee being broken out, they cover their share of the costs.
Now, I’ve no disagreement that California electricity rates are pretty bonkers. They’re some of the highest in the US:
https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/
But the issue isn’t having a separate grid connection fee from an electricity used fee.
At least in Illinois, there is no option to go off grid. You’re legally required to maintain a grid connection even if you are generating all power locally.
The way we do it in New York city is that the power bill has two columns. Delivery charges to pay for the lines and maintenance, and supply charges for the power generation. Both are per kW, like 3cents delivery plus 15cents supply. Plus a couple of fees and sales tax.
This is roughly what we have in the UK.
For electricity, the standing charge is 61.6p/day, then 23.3p/kWh.
And gas is 29.6p/day, then 6.1p/kWh. (The numbers vary, and you can choose to lock rates for the duration of a contract).There has been some discussion of it in recent years (after it doubled, thanks Putin).
Whether it is fair for people using less energy…But in reality, everyone has similar 100 or 60A connections to the grid.
There are tarrifs for very low users, where the standing charge is combined with the first kWh.Once I’m off the gas boiler, and on a heat pump, I may get my gas disconnected to save the standing charge.
On a tangent, as you may be interested, we now have the option of flexible electricity pricing that tracks the wholesale rates for the day. Usually, it’s cheaper, sometimes even negative. Link.
However, this week there has been a lot of expensive energy, so it’s been butting up against the £1/kWh limit!70с/kWh is insane lolol
You do have to be careful here, because some localities actually require a grid connection to maintain a certificate of occupancy. Title 24 changed in recent years (here in CA), but you may still end up fighting your municipality and the POCO.
There’s certainly some reasonability to that. However, if the person decides to terminate service, maintaining the grid doesn’t become any cheaper for the power company. The lines are already installed, the connections made, and the company will continue to upkeep your connection all the way up to your home, even if it is terminated locally. They’ll do that just in case you or future homeowners no longer generate power and wish to continue service, and your neighbors will likely still be using it anyway. So by that same reasoning, maintaining a just-in-case service connection that you don’t typically need because you generate your own power also doesn’t result in increased maintenance costs to the power company. So there is also an argument to be made that that cost shouldn’t be pushed to them, but to the power drawers that the power company actually wants to serve anyway, the ones motivating them to build more grid in the first place.
Well, I suppose they could just take out the stretch of power line between me and my neighbors who use their service and cut down those maintenance costs altogether!
This isn’t like a driveway, it’s more like a road. It’s used by more people than the people whose property it’s in front of. And where I live, the property owner is considered to be the owner of the lines that extend from the grid to the home, so guess who already pays the maintenance costs on that?
Are you saying that someone who uses 10kWh of grid power per month should pay the same “connection fee” as someone who uses 990kWh per month?
Assuming they have the same type of connection, yeah, why wouldn’t they?
Is the person’s connection to the grid using less energy a smaller connection, or is it the same? If they’re the same, why should someone using less be charges less of a connection fee? Why would usage impact a fixed on/off fee, especially with per-unit usage rates?
You would have a point if it were possible to downgrade a connection to closely match your consumption. But that is not the case. You can’t buy a 20A service when everyone in your neighborhood has 200A. It’s a matter of safety: service lines need to be sized based on the upstream current limited, but the current limiter for your service (the main breaker in your panel) is downstream of that service line. If you put an undersized service line to your house and it develops a fault, it will burn up before tripping the neighborhood “breaker”.
It is more reasonable to charge you for the generation and distribution of 2A than for your 2A service to be charged the same “connection fee” as your cryptobro neighbor.
You absolutely could pay for a lower rating if you chose to also pay for the equipment to step down the supply to your intake values. That what a transformer substation is for, and why the factory and residential lines can share the same upstream but get different local outputs. It’s just going to be so much more expensive that you’re never going to go that route unless you’ve got a lot of people that want to do the same.
It is more reasonable to charge you for the generation and distribution of 2A than for your 2A service to be charged the same “connection fee” as your cryptobro neighbor.
Is that not what your consumption fee is for? You’re paying for generation/distribution for the power you use, and the power company also tacks on a base fee to account for other maintenance costs that had been bundled but were being lost due to net metering.
From a collective perspective, it makes sense to pay to connect, and also pay per usage when you have the potential to have distributes generation, but centralized maintenance of the shared infrastructure.
Is that not what your consumption fee is for? You’re paying for generation/distribution for the power you use,
Based on that comment, I think I understand the issue.
In my state, I can purchase power from literally any of a hundred generators. I pay them to put power on the grid, for me to take off.
I also pay a single grid provider to (ostensibly) transfer that power from where it generated to me.
What I am talking about here is the fact that both the generator and the grid operator have costs that depend on “consumption”. The more power I use, the greater the load on the grid, and the more infrastructure they need. They might be able to use a single transformer to adequately serve 20 low-use households; they might need 5 transformers to adequately serve 10 high-use households.
Even though all 30 of these households have 200A service, It does not make sense that the cost of these 6 transformers should be evenly assessed. It does make sense that two high-use households (who use a full transformer) pay the same total fee as the 20 low-use households (who also use a full transformer).
Generally you pay a grid connection based on the type of connection you have. A giant factory has a much beefier grid connection than single family residence, so the big factory has a higher connection charge.
No, they’re arguing that the price of power should be split:
- A fee for grid maintenance (equal for all)
- A fee per unit of consumed power (scales linearly with consumption)
This makes sense, because regardless of you much power someone uses, the costs associated with maintaining the infrastructure that allows them to draw any power at all remain the same. This also happens to be the model used in Norway, so it’s not an untested concept.
Another option, relevant when the cost of building the power plant is large and the cost of energy production is negligible, is that everyone connected to the grid pays a near-flat fee in total, which is distributed among consumers depending on how much power they use. I’ve never heard of that option being used before.
The way it works here (the Netherlands) the monthly cost for the connection to the grid depends on the maximum current and number of phases.
Some examples: a 1 phase 1A connection costs €11,12 per month, 3x 25A costs €168,99 , 3x 80A is €408,94 (there are other capacities available with different rates).
To me this seems like a fair way of doing it, someone who draws more power (or higher peak power) needs a beefier hookup and that requires beefier and more expensive equipment and cables.
Assuming both of those people use exactly the same infrastructure (which they do), yes.
The person with the higher usage will still pay more in total because the connection fee is just a base price, you’re still paying per kWh (which is forwarded to the companies running the power stations)
Ok, so, you’re in a neighborhood. You and 100 neighbors are each using 10kWh. 1000kWh total.
Now a heavy industrial user comes in adjacent to your neighborhood. They are going to need 990,000kWh. The distribution infrastructure is going to need to be upgraded to meet the new need. It is going to need to be upgrade a lot. Those upgrades are going to be extraordinarily expensive to meet the extraordinary needs of that new user.
Should you and your 100 neighbors each have their recurring connection fee jacked up next month and that charge made equal to the 101st “neighbor”?
Of course not. That’s just absurd.
The whole “local generation” issue you were raising is a red herring.
The “connection fee” would probably be flat by service size. Most homes have 200A connections so that would be one flat rate for everyone with a 200A ingress. If a business uses 400A, they’d get a different price but all 400A would be the same.
Get it now? That has nothing to do with amount used, but rather the size of your “pipe”
Cryptominer maxes out the same connection that you rarely draw 1/10th of. Why are you subsidizing cryptobro?
I’m not. They would be paying for their usage, I would be paying for my usage. Hence the flat fee for connection plus the cost of usage. It works the same way with sewer and gas (at least where I’m at) everyone pays a flat connection fee based on max size available to you and then you pay for your usage.
My state separates generation from distribution. I literally have a hundred options for generation. I pay a generator to put power on the grid.
I only have one option for distribution. I pay that distributor to convey power (ostensibly) from my generator to my house.
The generator is not the only one with consumption-based costs. The distributor/grid provider also has costs that vary depending on how much power they are moving. They need to upgrade transformers and substations and install additional transmission lines as demand increases. Those have associated costs.
I could understand a flat fee for administrative costs: the power company does have certain per-user costs. But grid maintenance is not one of them: grid maintenance costs depend almost entirely on the total amount of power being moved, not the number of users served. Those maintenance costs are already rolled into consumption. Making them a fixed cost just forces low-use households to subsidize high-use households.
An industrial facility to the scale you are refering to will likely have its own electrical substation. Either maintained by the facility itself or contracted out to the power supplier.
Of course. I used that exaggerated example to demonstrate the nature of the problem, not to quantify it.
Cryptominers can use the same connection that you do; they just max it out 24/7, while you rarely use more than 1/10th of your connection.
Why should you be forced to subsidize your cryptoneighbor?
Connecting infrastructure costs roughly the same to maintain regardless if 10 amps or 1000 amps is running through it. The crypto miner pays the same fee for their standard service connection then pays per Kwh just like everybody else. Other customers are not subsidizing their connection nor their power.
By your logic, you are subsidizing anyone who uses more power than you and you are being subsidized by anyone using less power than you.
Connecting infrastructure costs roughly the same to maintain regardless if 10 amps or 1000 amps is running through it.
That’s simply false. A 1000A transformer costs considerably more than a 10A transformer, both to purchase and to service.
By your logic, you are subsidizing anyone who uses more power than you and you are being subsidized by anyone using less power than you.
That is only true if the “connection fee” (distribution charges) are the same for both the 10A user and the 1000A user. When the charge is divided up on the basis of a user’s actual consumption, it is not.
Wow. Talk about moving the goal posts. You’re not even taking about the same thing anymore.
If you just wanna bitch about something, uh, then go in with your bad self. Or something. But rather than even attempt a rebuttal to any of the points raised in this thread, you’ve literally completely changed the scenario being discussed.
Like, why even bother replying? Your whole tirade doesn’t even make sense in the context of the thread…
I love when folks introduce hypotheticals, then pile on hypotheticals and nonsensicals, and believe they’ve championed their cleverness.
I propose a new term: feather man. For when even a straw man looks like a steel man compared to your argument.
B-B-But what if you fell into a volcano before you could make that proposal?
What then, featherman?
Checkmate!
I used exaggerated examples to clearly demonstrate the nature of the problem, not to quantify it.
The problem is still present even within the neighborhood. Residential consumers rarely draw more than 1/10th of their rated service. Crypto-bro comes into the neighborhood and his miners continuously max out his service.
The power company normally installs and maintains a single service transformer per block; but he alone uses as much power as the rest of the block combined. They have to install and maintain a second transformer just for him, but they spread those extra costs among the entire block.
Why is it reasonable for the power company to demand you subsidize his electrical connection than for him to pay for what he is using?
Why are the industrial factory and normal residences using the same electrical hookup? Seems fair if they use the same hookup.
Oh, they’re not? So then the factory likely pays one rate for their industrial connection that needs to pull more power than standard residential usage, and normal consumers pay a lower rate for their lower connection provided.
Exaggerated to clearly demonstrate the problem.
With residential housing, consider the cryptobro continuously drawing 180+ amps of his 200A service, while the rest of the community averages 10A, and one unit is down around 1.5A.
Why is Mr. Ampandahalf paying the same connection fee as Mr. Wunetty?
Why is Mr. Ampandahalf paying the same connection fee as Mr. Wunetty?
Because the connection fee is a fee for the connection, which is the same (200A) in both cases. This isn’t difficult.
Why is Mr. Ampandahalf paying the same connection fee as Mr. Wunetty?
… because consumption and service connectivity aren’t the same? Consumption and connectivity are two different line items on the bill representing different costs associated with the service.The high consumer will pay more on the quantity used, and possibly at a higher a per unit basis if it exceeds expected values.
From your hypothetical, no one is noted as having a different service hookup, so they’re paying for the same service hookup. What part of that are you struggling to grok?
E: removed unnecessary phrase
You would charge based on the kind of connection. A house isn’t going to draw the kind of power that a factory will, but you’re going to need the same equipment your house as you would as your neighbor’s house.
Residential crypto miners can easily draw more power than small factories. I reject the premise of your argument.
You specified energy in your example, not me. And I hinted that a hookup fee would likely be dependent on the rated power capacity of the user.
It is likely that a residential crypto miner would likely need to upgrade what they can draw from the grid.
In Norway we pay a different fixed fee based on the maximum hourly use (average of three highest hours) during a month, so that consumers that need a lot of effect from the grid pays the most.
-
I’m all for eating the rich, but I’m still going to point out why exactly this can make sense.
Let’s say you have an energy company that owns a solar farm, you’re not looking to turn a profit, just provide clean energy to the world: You produce electricity at effectively zero cost.
However, your solar farm needs to be paid down within its lifetime of ≈30 years, which is independent of energy consumption. So you decide to charge a rate that ensures 1/30th of your production costs are paid back each year, so that you can replace the solar farm after 30 years.
This effectively means you are charging a constant rate for access to energy supply, independent of consumption. This again means that the rate per kWh goes up if average consumption goes down.
Individual customers can still save money by reducing consumption relative to the other customers, but nobody saves money if everyone reduces consumption. This makes complete sense when your “marginal cost” (i.e. the cost of producing energy) is negligible compared to the initial investment of building the power plant, and also applies more or less to nuclear, hydropower, and wind power as well.
Given that this is not an ideal organisation though, I wouldn’t put it past them to increase the rate such that it more than offsets the decrease in consumption, thereby increasing their profit. In that case: Fuck them.
I just think we should be aware that our current understanding of energy prices as linked to day-to-day consumption (because the primary expense for a thermal power plant is the cost of fuel), will become outdated as we move to clean energy sources. At some point, we should be paying a near-flat rate for “access to power”, rather than a rate for each unit of power consumed.
But the size of the array, and therefore the cost of the array, are intimately tied to the production of said array. So there can’t be flat rate unless consumption never surpasses production, which is of course will when you have zero marginal cost.
That example breaks down with electricity sources with a fuel cost. But it makes more sense as the grid moves to more energy sources without fuel.
But also, if energy supply is higher than demand on a large grid, they can decrease investments into new solar plants so they fall below the replacement rate from facilities aging out. In your example there’s only one solar farm, but in reality there’s many being built on a grid at any time.
I’d say their example is just an oversimplification to keep it understandable. Ultimately fuel based energy has a lot of the same concerns. That natural gas facility costs money to keep viable even if, hypothetically, zero fuel were being burned in some given week. The power lines need repairs, maintenance, upgrades, and expansion over the potential capacity, not actual usage. You have fixed costs alongside the marginal costs. The marginal costs certainly make sense to map directly to usage based rate, but fixed costs are significantly covered by those usage rates as well rather than bumping up the “basic charge” sort of line item on a power bill.
Seems like in such a case, it should be a different mix of base fixed monthly bill versus usage based rates, to more accurately reflect the cost structure in play.
For example, in my area it’s about $15 a month even if you use absolutely no electricity, that’s just the base charge ostensibly for the infrastructure required to deliver power, should you want it. It might make sense for this number to be increased rather than raising $/kwh rates.
Suppose the counter would be that at least with the rate increase, folks in more dire circumstances can cut back to avoid the increasing costs (which might be a bit of a feedback loop…)
I thought energy in the U.S. was laughably cheap, but those prices are surprisingly expensive compared to my feel-good-all-hydro-and-wind plan at 0,35€/kWh
Chiming in, Michigan has variables rates depending on time of day, and range from $0.12-$0.18 per kWh
That’s California though, where everything is expensive. In the east coast I paid around $0.20 this summer which includes peak hours. Although it has steadily gone up in the last few years. It used to be $0.12-$0.14.
They are outrageously expensive compared to my hydro Quebec rate of USD $0.05/kWh, or even my previous rate in Ontario of (varying by the the time of day) USD $0.06-0.12/kWh.
96% of Quebec electricity is generated by hydro power, which of course doesn’t require any fuel. The other thing, though, is that power generation and transmission is done through a public corporation, not a private one. The profits go into general government revenue.
California has historically high electricity rates.
Both California and Texas have struggles with energy costs. California with their constantly high rates, and Texas with their spot pricing occasionally royally screwing people.
My UK rates are about £0.26/kWh for the day rate, £0.07/kWh for the night rate which is when things like car charging is done. Excess solar generation makes me £0.15/kWh I send back to the grid although not much of that going on in the winter ;-)
We also pay a daily standing charge for the grid connection.
That’s not really what it’s saying.
It’s saying if they sell less power then the cost per unit of power goes up. This is how all businesses work due to economies of scale. If you sell a lot of stuff then you can sell the stuff for less money and still make more money.
If you personally use less power then that won’t increase your price per unit enough to offset the savings you made by using less power.
It’s not how all businesses work. Many businesses lower prices when there is a surplus. Consider filling up at the gas station for example.
It’s ridiculous that energy prices would go up when they are spending less on natural gas, coal, or whatever they are using to create the power.
Honestly crap like this is just going to encourage those that can afford it to install solar panels and backup batteries to load up on cheap electricity. Then the power company is really going to throw a hissy.
The power generation facility itself still has massive overhead costs regardless of how much fuel they are using at any given time.
And? That cost is constant. It shouldn’t cause fluctuations in price.
There are fixed costs and proportional costs. Property taxes aren’t put on hold just because you aren’t running. A certain amount of maintenance will be needed whether or not you produce a watt of power. Some maintenance costs will increase the more power you produce, including fuel costs. All of these factors need to be taken into cosideration when determining how much any given watt costs to produce.
The gas station example still has this issue. The gas station’s fixed overhead costs are passed on to the customer. Divide those overhead costs by the number of gallons sold. Reduce the number of gallons sold, and the “overhead fee” per gallon increases.
i think the title has the “you” meant in the “you all” sense, if the customers as a whole save energy, the price per unit goes up.
