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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I give you … the Pacific DC Intertie.
Extending 846 miles from the Pacific Northwest to the Los Angeles area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie – Map
.
I have one final point on this. I believe, in 1900 that average life expectancy in the US was 45 years. I don’t know what it is today but I believe it is around 75-80 years. People assume this was due to medical advances and some of it was but most of it was due to improvements in the water supply, conquering insect born deseases, and, most importantly, sanitation along with food safety. Dare I say that some of it was also due to Air Conditioning? My mother is 91 & I do not believe she would still be alive today without AC. Moreover, I have a lung desease that virtually requires AC. So, Mr. Obama, let’s have those electrical bills ‘skyrocket’. I say, ground Air Force 1.
PaulH says: 11:15 am
I notice that hydroelectric is often included under the renewables banner. But any half-decent hydroelectric power installation can operate 24/7/365. I suspect that the enviros like to include hydroelectric operation figures in their totals for unreliable wind and solar, to make it appear that the flashy wind and solar work just fine.
Hydro electric is renewable in the sense that once built it use almost further resources to run. The fact that it can run 24/7/365 has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is renewable. Note though that it can not run 24/7/365 at full output, or else the design engineers need firing. Most Hydro plants have load factor of around 50 – 60%. This allows them the flexibility to ramp up to full load quickly and provide reserve to the rest of the system, to take advantage of seasonal flows and still maintain a high efficiency during times of low flows.
Roger Sowell says:
December 19, 2010 at 3:00 pm
“Perhaps this is a good place to again bring up my proposal for NEWTAP”
Nice idea, personally I think raising Lake Ontario one foot will be cheaper.
http://rethink-technologies.com/static/Niagara_Pumped_Storage_Project_ESA_008c.pdf
Doubting Thomas says:
December 19, 2010 at 12:47 pm
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.
This is a sensible use for wind. This system is known as Pumped Storage. The pumping efficiencies are around 75 – 80% and water to wire generating efficiencies are 90 – 92%. Total loss is only 25 – 30%. I am currently involved in investigating a pumped storage scheme in New Zealand and we are looking at an overall efficiency of 74%.
_Jim says:
December 19, 2010 at 3:42 pm
As near as I can tell you lose about 2% of your power for every 100 miles of transmission. But that is with very good infrastructure.
http://www.aep.com/about/transmission/docs/EnablerforCleanEnergy.pdf
_Jim says:
December 19, 2010 at 3:42 pm
“And just what would those line losses be?”
=======================
“Nobody” cares, the taxpayers pay for it.
It’s a win/win for all, that made/accepted political contributions.
Clean (i.e. renewable) energy is not cheaper than fossil-fuel-based energy. If that were the case, electric utilities would be requesting a rate decrease from the Public Utility Commission as each renewable power plant is installed. Clearly, the utilities ask instead for higher rates.
As above, recently, the Los Angeles municipal power agency, Department of Water and Power, produced a detailed study on replacing coal-based power with wind and solar power. They concluded that a 25 percent increase in power prices is required to pay for this, or 3 cents increase out of a base rate of 12 cents per kWh. The DWP estimate of 25 percent increase is approximately double what California’s Air Resources Board’s Scoping Plan stated would be the increase in power prices when ARB stated 13 percent.
@harrywr2 on December 19, 2010 at 4:48 pm
“Nice idea, personally I think raising Lake Ontario one foot will be cheaper.”
Another proposal is to use the natural bays to our advantage. One proposal I have is to build a dam across the Gulf of California (Baja California) connecting Mexico with Isla Tiburon, Isla Turon, Isla San Lorenzo, and the Baja peninsula. Concentrated solar evaporation would used to remove water from the northern basin, then power could be generated as water from the Gulf of California flows through the dam, turbines, and into the northern basin. Approximately 20 miles of dam would be constructed.
A smaller project could be built solely between Isla Tiburon and the Mexican mainland. This would require two dams, each about one mile long at the northern end and central portion of the island.
François GM – you asked on December 19, 2010 at 11:30 am
So, what happens if the 25% target isn’t reached by 2025 ?
The answer – that’s no problem –
Just aim for 50% by 2050
OR 9999% by 2222
That will fix the denyers,
Or are you a student of mathematics perhaps and just cannot or will not understand?
Roger Stowell,
I think there’s on problem you haven’t considered.
The effeciecy of the system will be less than 100%.
Now you need more than 100% percent effeciency to get anything out of the system.
Otherewise you would be better off just using the sun power to generate electricity directly or even to just heat water for domestic or industrial use.
Or better still, forget all this madness and just use the most efficient, cheapest source of power available.
By now it has become quite clear that there is no compelling scientific arguement that human emissions of CO2 effect the climate in any noticable manner.
The arguemnt is now a purely politican one.
The issue is how to galvanise the growing number of private sceptics,
so that the MSM begins to take notice,
Which will presure the politicans and then even the beaurocrats to take notice.
The politicans are our leaders.
They need to be given a lead from the people.
Otherwise how on earth can they be expected to know where to lead us?
At present, they are leading us right over the cliff.
Where I live, 100% of our energy comes from hydroelectricity and it’s cheap cheap cheap.
We sell the excess surplus energy to various areas in the Canadian provinces on either side of us and to a couple of the states south of border in the USA. Currently, our province has 2 or 3 new multi-million dollar hydro projects in the works… not because our province needs more power (as I said we have a surplus of it), but because other provinces and US states are wanting to buy it.
Our hydro power is a hot commodity here.
@Ken in Beaverton, OR (December 19, 2010 at 1:38 pm) said, “My electrical rate is going up 3.9% next month. … It is not a good time to be an Oregon taxpayer.”
It is, however, a good time to jump on the green bandwagon. My 9.6 KW photovoltaic system just went on line in Aloha (a few miles west of Beaverton). Annually, it will generate about 2/3 of our total usage.
I’ll be paid 58.5 cents/KWH generated (whether it goes out through the meter to power other households or we use it at home) for the next 15 years. All the power I use costs me the going rate, which at the moment is about 10 cents/KWH (that will go to about 10.4 cents/KWH on January 1st — I’m in PGE’s territory). Payback is expected to be about 7 years, after which I’ll benefit from 8 years of societally-approved windfall profits.
Why do it, when without the subsidies it would be an economic joke? Because it’s a hedge against the kind of idiotic power rates that one of Anthony’s postings showed — about 40 cents/KWH after a few hundred KWH/month at more reasonable rates. My wife and I will retire soon, and don’t want to be forced to choose between keeping the lights on or eating.
Isn’t socialism wonderful? If I were to steal a penny a month from the bank accounts of 40,000 of my nearest neighbors, I would be sent to prison. Yet when the mechanisms of the state are co-opted to do the same thing, I and the others that jump on the bandwagon are cultural heroes. Oh, and I get to look down my nose at you, because I’m Greener Than Thou.
@AusieDan December 19, 2010 at 8:22 pm
“I think there’s on problem you haven’t considered.
The effeciecy of the system will be less than 100%.”
With reference to the Baja California hydroelectric system, the efficiency of the system will be very close to 100 percent. Hydroelectric turbines can be operated at more than 90 percent efficiency. There is no energy required to lift water, because the water in the Gulf of California will flow through the dam into the lower level of the reservoir between the two dams. There will be no loss in efficiency from the solar energy that is used to evaporate the water between the dams. In fact, something as simple as Fresnel lenses could be used to focus the sun’s rays and evaporate the surface water more quickly. The evaporated water would presumably be carried by the wind over the Mexican desert where it might or might not rain and run back into the Gulf of California. The best part about this system is that power production can be scheduled and dispatched as needed, without any regard to sunny or cloudy days, even at night.
As to the NEWTAP system, there will certainly be some loss in efficiency. Wind turbines to power, and power to pumps, and pumps’ inefficiency at lifting water, all will contribute losses. However, the hydroelectric systems at Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam will recover approximately 90 percent of the energy. The big benefit is having fresh water flowing into the desert Southwest.
Without plain old winter diesel, I can’t snowplow my mailbox area, which means my mail won’t be delivered. Without winter diesel, many farmers and ranchers won’t be able to work on their equipment, feed their stock, or break through ice to get to water. We need the good stuff. Plus our taxes are going up. What the hell!!! This is all not going to end well I’m afraid.
Canada’s province of Ontario is also getting rate hikes due to subsidies to renewable energy like solar panels.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/12/17/lawrence-solomon-ontario’s-odious-obligations/
John M Reynolds
@jmrSudbury
‘Canada’s province of Ontario is also getting rate hikes due to subsidies to renewable energy like solar panels.’
But that makes sense, what with Canada being ever so famous for its 365 days of sun above them clouds.
Click on my name to see Ontario’s foray into wind energy. It’s expensive and unreliable.
A summary with sources here.
http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/chapter-3-1-powering-ontario/
See Powering Ontario.
Wind Turbines are a colossal waste of money that will see our power bills triple to what they were say five years ago — this will happen shortly — probably with a year to two years.
Pendleton, situated in a bowl, initiated a policy a few years back that outlawed wood burning for heat unless it was the primary source of heat. If this weather keeps up, jobs continue to slide, and heating bills keep going up, wonder how long the citizens will tolerate this green policy.
“The downside is that wind isn’t 24/7/365, and you still need nuclear, hydro, and coal to back up wind power when the wind doesn’t blow.”
In fact, you will still need backup when the wind is blowing. Because intermittencies in an intermittent system cannot be predicted and there is a significant time lag in spinning up and synching “backup” power that power must be up and spinning even when the wind is blowing. Where is the advantage in funding these expensive boondoggles?
And, I wonder how long the federal government can keep local citizens out of forests ill-managed by said federal government. We are surrounded by forests filled up to the hoo ha with fallen timber. But we can’t go in there and pick it up to heat our homes. If the current administration really cared about these things, they would PAY us to go in and pick up dead and dying trees for heating fuel. And would provide mass-produced cheap stoves with chimney liners equipped to filter out/double burn, carbon gas before it heads up the chimney to those federal forest cleaning folks to sell to their wood burning customers. But no, no, no. The administration can’t do anything with common sense. Idiots. Every one of them.
Those da** wind farms are an eyesore and a danger to all kinds of birds. I can’t wait till this fad goes by the wayside.
15% increase? They are lucky. Here in Ontario Canada, the Green Energy Act, which pays wind and solar producers a premium, we have seen our bills DOUBLE in 7 years, and a projected DOUBLE again in as many years. Unless the Liberals here are tossed out next Oct, which they will, and the Conservatives will put an end to this nonsense.
Can you imagine how much it’s going to cost to remove all the bird Cuisinarts and solar panels once it’s proved that it was all a big waste of your money? The blight, the destruction of the pristine scenery, as the eco-nuts once called it, now silent, is horrific.
Can you imagine, Gov Crist was even talking about solar panels in Florida. Hurricane proof solar panels, instead of hurricane proof windmills, another waste of taxpayers money.