Rates set to jump for Pacific Power, PGE customers in January.
Published: Friday, December 17, 2010, 9:24 PM Updated: Friday, December 17, 2010, 9:24 PM
By Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian Come New Year’s, better strip the lights off the house and the Christmas tree ASAP.
Customers of Pacific Power will see their electric rates spike 14.5 percent in January. The increase comes in a one-two punch: an 8.4 percent general rate increase state utility regulators approved Friday, and a 6.1 percent increase for increased power costs they are expected to approve Dec. 28. Both take effect Jan. 1.
Meanwhile, customers of the state’s largest electric utility, Portland General Electric Co., will see a lesser, but still significant, rate increase of about 3.9 percent. A few mandatory cost adjustments in the works will bump that overall increase to 4.2 percent, effective Jan. 1.
The biggest factor driving the increases: renewable power.
Oregon’s public policy choices during the past few years are coming home to roost in rates, a trend that will continue and likely be exacerbated in coming years by environmental edicts dealing with global warming and haze reduction.
For the time being, state mandates requiring utilities to meet 25 percent of customer demand with renewable power by 2025 — with interim targets before then — are jump-starting utility investments in wind farms, hydroelectric projects and the transmission lines to access remote, windy areas. Those projects have a long life span and low fuel costs. But the upfront capital costs are steep, and the resource is intermittent.
The largest part of Pacific Power’s general rate case was driven by a new transmission line and the two new Wyoming wind farms it connects to the utility’s customers. The company also installed pollution controls at a coal plant in Wyoming and needs to replace cheap electricity it has been buying under long-term contracts that are expiring.
“It’s a big increase,” said Pat Egan, a spokesman for Pacific Power. “We know this is not a great time for this.”
But in the end, he said, the utility has little choice. It has been told to invest in renewables.
Full story here
h/t to WUWT reader Steve in Oregon
================================================================
It’s easy to see why Pacific Power put wind farms in Wyoming and then built transmission lines to it:
I wonder how Portland General will meet their mission if they get too much reliance on wind, and not enough backup? The “reasonable price” directive seems to be out the window already:
According to their current figures filed with the SEC, hydro and wind combined makes up 29%. That sure is a lot of power uncertainty to connect to the vagaries of wind and weather.
Pamela Gray says:
December 19, 2010 at 11:07 am
“Oh. You mean the wind farms along the Columbia Gorge, outside of LaGrande, and near Milten-Freewater? The ones that are standing still from ice cycles or the few that are still turning?”
Most of windmills in Washington and Oregon belong to the NIMBY’s in California.
The renewable energy insanity is only part of the reason electricity prices are on their way up. The Sierra Club brags about their ability to lawsuit new coal plants to death: http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/ Any new energy producer that does not meet the “green” criteria is virtually a non-starter because of the cost to fight environmentalists’ lawsuits and harassment. A group of electric co-ops in my state tried to build a coal-fired generation plant since we have lots of low-sulfur coal here in Montana. Bad idea. The original cost estimate was around $200 million, but, by the time all the dust had settled, the plant agreed upon was North of $800 million, and it will be gas-fired with a wind element to shut up the enviros: http://www.gpace.org/news/highwood-coal-plant-dropped-for-natural-gaswind/ The power this thing produces will of course cost the consumer more, and bills have gone way up already to pay all the lawyers. Electricity for our rural areas that used to be the cheapest around is now almost unaffordable.
The nutty switch to high-cost electricity is now government policy: http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20080309/NEWS01/803090301/Coal-fired-power-plant-projects-feel-heat-from-rising-costs-environmental-concerns
The ‘English Disease’ was once the term that defined rampant and illogical trade union activism – the new English Disease is ‘Renewable Energy’, as formulated and preached by Loony Hunes, the English minister for the environment.
If burning coal creates warmth which creates movement in the air which creates wind, WTF does wind mill create, other than a global deficit, that it can actually be called “renewable”? It doesn’t renew the wind after all. The coal that goes to smelting and shaping and working the ores do though, but only once per.
One could make hydrogen by electrolysis using electricity generated by wind farms, then burn it in gas turbines to make electricity when needed. But about 30% to 50% of the energy is lost in making the hydrogen, then another 40% is lost in converting it back to electricity with a gas turbine. The processes wastes about half of the wind power. There are other way to store wind energy, such as pumping water to a high reservoir then making electricity from hydro generators, but I suspect the efficiency is about the same.
I think most wind power facilities currently being installed have gas turbines as “standby” power to be used when the wind isn’t blowing. General Electric makes both wind turbines and gas turbines. They’ll make a lot of money if current trends continue.
Southern California already has about 20% renewable energy. I pay 25 cents (U.S. $0.25) per kWh, which is about five times more than the cost of power in Kentucky where they mostly burn coal. It’s a trivial cost for me but it’s a significant cost for a family living on $30,000 a year. I’ve noticed that poor people don’t seem to spend a lot of time worrying about global warming.
dT
Do breeder reactors count as renewable energy? (tongue only slightly in cheek)
[ryanm: nice, lol]
So, the taxpayers pay on the front-end with subsidies, and on the back-end with rate increases.
Utilities and equipment manufacturers are guaranteed a profit, at taxpayer expense,
and even have a CYA:
“But in the end, he said, the utility has little choice. It has been told to invest in renewables.”
What ever happened to accountability.
My electrical rate is going up 3.9% next month. We have the privilege of paying more for wind generated power if we want, though I don’t know how they can be sure only wind power gets to my house. Now I understand that all of the bird mashers (windmills) are generating power so that California gets carbon offsets to cover their irresponsible environmental laws. It is not a good time to be an Oregon taxpayer.
Ken
Studies on Texas and Colorado wind-driven renewables find the following:
1. Costs rise,
2. Smog-inducing NOx rises, and,
3. GHGs rise.
Seems amazing, but these are not model results, they are observations of reality, and they are easy to explain. Wind varies minute by minute, and gas (and believe it or not, sometimes coal) must be used to balance the wind generation, causing the gas and coal facilities to operate well outside their norms, using more fuel to ramp up and causing more pollution when ramping up and ramping down, as well as causing their pollution control devices to “follow” the ramping, causing higher costs and lower pollution control.
You can expect some serious policy and legal action on all this soon. Promise.
David.
@Francois GM
You ask what might happen when the 25% reduction in CO2 emissions is not reached by 2025. My guess is the government will fine the power companies, who will put their prices up in order to pay the fines, so the consumer will pay even more, as usual.
I cannot remember if I have mentioned this on previous WUWT threads – but what bothers me about wind power, is that wind energy being ‘taken’ from the circulation systems (i.e. in big wind farms) – must logically reduce the energy available for local climate! Ergo, there may well be some local issues: – I really don’t know – perhaps stalling wind ?- causing increased rainfall; or differential convection rates/cloud formation as a result of slower speed ‘near ground’ wind? Has anyone actually looked into such effects? I am pro-green energy where possible, but not at ‘any cost’ and without proper scientific appraisal.
Mkelley on December 19, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Here is a possible method to shut down law suits filed by the enviros. The defendents should request the the judge determine that at least 50.1% of the members of the organization approve of the law suit being filed by its officers and legal staff.
He should further stipulate that the officers of the organization should present to him in a timely fashion a notarized statement from each member of the organization which states that the member approves of the law suit.
It is quite possible the vast majority of the members don’t want their dues and donations spent on these nuisance law suits. Perhaps they would like to see their money spent on improving hiking trails or purchase of land for constuction of campsites. Perhaps the bird watchers of the orgainization would want remediation of some sites for enhancement of local and migratory bird populations.
Maybe some members would want the organization to arrange for more guided field trips and tours to exotic locations like volcanoes.
There is so much land set aside for parks and for recreational and wilderness areas in the world that these folks could only explore a small fractions of these in a lifetime.
Do the members realize how much money could be saved if they got rid of all the wiseguy lawyers who are running enviromental protection and shakedown rackets?
To the medieval nobility it was obvious that the peasants had a duty to pay compulsory tithes, in order to subsidize institutions like monasteries and cathedrals that advertised far and wide the virtue and righteousness of their divinely enlightened rulers.
Today, instead, the money goes to windmills and light rail, etc., but the principle, the objectives and the ingrained, self-serving certainty are just the same.
Would you burn more than 3 barrels of oil to find 1 barrel? Of course not.
So, why would you support wind power with an EROEI of 0.29?
Pay the price Oregon.
Perhaps this is a good place to again bring up my proposal for NEWTAP, a trans-continental water canal that would use wind-power in the Great Plains to push excess water from the Missouri River into California.
The water would be lifted into the canals by wind-powered pumps, then flow into the headwaters of the Colorado River in New Mexico at the Continental Divide. Gravity takes over from there, as the water flows into the Colorado River. Existing hydroelectric dams create electric power from the water, thus recovering a portion of the power from the wind-turbines. The water itself is used in drought-stricken California, Arizona, and Nevada under the existing water-sharing agreement.
http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/02/wind-water-farms-and-power-generation.html
No, Oregon does not consider hydro renewable.
And we’ll be greating the New Year with a 7 cent gas tax incease on Jan 1 too.
condor cuisinarts
Whatever we do the greenie weenies will fight it. Electric in AC can’t be stored. Electric loses power over distance. I suggest sequestering greenie weenies in dark and cold dungeons until they confess light and heat are good.
[quote]Mkelley says:
December 19, 2010 at 12:30 pm
The renewable energy insanity is only part of the reason electricity prices are on their way up. The Sierra Club brags about their ability to lawsuit new coal plants to death: http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/ Any new energy producer that does not meet the “green” criteria is virtually a non-starter because of the cost to fight environmentalists’ lawsuits and harassment. …[/quote]
I wonder if it’s possible to have a class action lawsuit against the Sierra Club? After all, their legal attacks have resulted in increased cost for consumers.
I’m just glad all this nonsense is being tried out somewhere other than Florida. When the results are tabulated we will have a good record of what not to do.
Speaking of Renewables, I was just at my local Shell Station,(this is La Grande, Or.
a little West and a bit lower than Pamela Gray’s ranch in xxxxx Co. ) there is
a note on the Diesel pump: “Due to the State of Oregon’s requirement for Biodiesel,we cannot guarantee that the Fuel will not freeze up below 0F despite double treatments
in the fuel to prevent freezing.” Ok….
Ah we got down to -3F back a couple of weeks ago.
January and February are comin’ at us like a freight train.
and it ain’t runnin’ on biodiesel….
And just what would those line losses be?
.
What are they anyway? The losses that is, what are they? Considering new methods of transmitting DC, what would those be, in toto?
.
OMG one of the areas with the highest wind potential is the Yellowsone Park. It’s a perfect place to start. That is after Cape Power.
Los Angeles (California) Department of Water and Power (DWP) is set to increase power prices 25 percent to pay for renewable power production. The Los Angeles Mayor mandated 40 percent renewables in the DWP area. This will replace coal-fired power imported from Utah.
http://www.lapowerplan.org/
I’ve heard that BC Hydro is/has fraudulently jacking/jacked up energy prices in a similar manner. It has something to do with the small hydro energy producers and how much they can charge BC hydro above the retail energy prices and BC Hydro using that as an excuse to jack up the prices rather than just averaging together the vast low cost energy (which is the vast majority of the energy in BC) and smaller higher cost sources.
It seems to be a pattern, using the very high cost of smaller “green energy” (wind, solar, geothermal, small hydro “run of the river”) projects to justify the raising of very lost cost BULK base load power (nuclear, hydro, coal, natural gas, …).
Does anyone have more details?