Moronomics

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Reading my Sunday paper today, I find the following:

Customers Can Sell Back Solar Power.

The Los Angeles District of Water and Power will allow customers to sell back excess solar energy created on their own equipment.

Described as the largest urban rooftop solar program of its kind in the nation, the so-called feed-in-tariff program would pay customers 17 cents per kilowatt hour for energy produced on their own equipment. The DWP has already accepted more than a dozen applicants and will be taking dozens more as it accepts contracts for up to 100 megawatts of solar power through 2016.

My prediction is that this whole thing is going to turn into what we used to call a “righteous goat-rope” when I worked in Alaska. The problems with the proposal were spelled out before the vote by the Ratepayers Advocate, Fred Pickel. According to reports, he “told commissioners that 17 cents per kilowatt hour was above market rates and could force significant rate increases on DWP customers. Higher DWP bills could drive jobs away.”

Well yeah, duh. The Commissioners knew that, so they were careful to give Fred a fair trial before they executed him and voted for their proposal instead. This shows that it’s good for the LA DWP to have a “ratepayers advocate”, it gives the Commissioners someone to ignore, which is always fun, and that way they can say that they considered all sides of the question.

us average residential electric ratesFigure 1. Retail electricity rates, in US cents, for 2010. SOURCE 

What is wrong with the moronomic math of the Commissioners of the Los Angeles District of Water and Power? Figure 1 suggests some of the answers.

The problem is that in order to break even, the Los Angeles District of Water and Power (DWP) has to sell the power at more than it cost the DWP to buy it, transport it, buffer it with adequate backup, and deliver it to the eventual customer. As a result, their sale price will be more than seventeen cents per hour.

How much more? Well, that’s kind of difficult to calculate. But we can look at some of the issues and make some first-cut estimates.

First, getting the power from the rooftops. Certainly for some installations the DWP will have to install interconnects to their main backbones. And even for residential installations, a sunny day can put a huge load on a local distribution network. Remember, that network was never designed to handle excessive amounts of power, particularly heading upstream. In addition, DWP will have to install a variety of wireless reporting instrumentation for the control of the intelligent network, to keep it from going off the rails. I’d guess the cost to upgrade local networks and provide intelligent interconnects and controls would be on the order of a cent per kWh.

Then we have to look at the question of backup. Solar is notoriously variable. When the clouds come over, output drops massively and pretty instantaneously. That power needs to be replaced, immediately, from some other source. That means that you will have to both purchase and install peaking power that is equivalent to the amount of solar that you are adding to your system. This need for immediate response is often met these days by huge diesels, which can respond much faster than gas turbines to power variations. But whether the backup is gas or diesel, it is going to be two things—inefficient and expensive. It has to be inefficient because you have to keep it running, at minimum load and in an inefficient range for the engine/turbine, all the time. Engines are designed to run at maximum efficiency under full load conditions, and elsewhere in the range they are much less efficient. You can’t shut the backup off, and to make it worse, most of the time you’re running at maybe 10% of the nameplate capacity. No bueno.

I discuss the levelized cost of various generation systems in “The Dark Future of Solar Electricity“. I’ll use the costs of conventional combined cycle gas as an example for the backup of the solar. The capital costs for CCG are about two cents per kWh, and the running costs are given as five cents per kWh. It won’t be running all the time, though, so we’ll take running costs at two cents per kWh. That’s a combined cost of four cents per kWh for the backup.

Finally, the electricity has to be delivered to the ultimate customer. The price of operating this transmission network is usually referred to as a “wheeling cost”. I would expect the wheeling cost to be on the order of a cent or two per kWh.

So we have seventeen cents for the power purchase. We have a penny for the intelligent network upgrade to handle the power, about four cents capital plus running costs for the backup generator, and we’ll call it another penny for wheeling costs to be conservative, although if their network is old the wheeling cost may be higher.

That gives a total out-of-pocket power cost to the DWP of about twenty-three cents per kWh of power delivered to the ultimate customer … but wait, it gets worse. The DWP still needs to both cover their administration costs, and to have funds to re-invest in upgrading plant and equipment as the years go by. So they’ll need maybe 20% above the raw costs to cover overheads and investments, which puts the sale price for the power on the order of twenty-seven, twenty-eight cents per kilowatt hour … might be a bit more, might be a bit less, this is an estimate, but that’s the range.

Of course, they likely won’t ask any single customer to pay that much. Instead, they’ll quietly spread the expense over all of their customers near and far, and it will be reflected in a price increase across the board.

Unfortunately, as you can see by the colors in Figure 1, California already has the most expensive electric power with the exception of the New England states, and this will only make it worse. Power in CA is far more costly than in any of its western neighbors. This is a result of California’s colossally foolish policy of requiring a certain percentage of renewables … plus an even more idiotic policy of not counting hydroelectric power as a renewable.

But wait, it gets worse. We used to have the “20% renewable by 2020” goal for our electricity, which is why the California power cost is already up to fourteen cents per kWh as shown in Fig. 1, and part of why people were fleeing the state even then.

But when Jerry Brown assumed the imperial governorship, he decided by fiat that the new policy should be:

20% renewable by December 31, 2013

25% renewable by December 31, 2016

33% renewable by December 31, 2020

And that, dear friends, that means that you can stick a fork in California, we’re done. By the time that the 33% renewable policy is implemented statewide, all Californians will be paying the twenty-five cent per kilowatt-hour price that the LA folks are test-marketing right now. And meanwhile, the neighboring states are ending up with the businesses that are fleeing California like cockroaches from the light, in part because electricity and fuel costs are so high that a business can no longer afford to run a factory in California.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, expensive energy is always a bad idea. It turns out that in California, it’s a lethal idea, it will both kill businesses dead and be very hard on the poor.

w.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

154 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MACK1
January 14, 2013 11:23 pm

This been done in various Australian states for a number of years, and due to cost, the schemes are being wound down as fast as possible. They are also causing instability in the grids:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax/rooftop-solar-panels-overloading-electricity-grid/story-fn99tjf2-1226165360822
“In Western Australia, Horizon Power has set limits on how much renewable energy can be installed in a system without affecting the power supply. Horizon is rejecting applications for new renewables installations in Exmouth and Carnarvon, and accepting them only from households, schools and not-for-profit organisations in Broome and Leonora.”

draverobber
January 14, 2013 11:29 pm

Electricity rates in Europe
I pay slightly above 20 U.S. cents/kWh and, well, it’s one of the lowest rates around here.

businesses that are fleeing California like cockroaches from the light

This allegory will soon become obsolete due to the light being switched off.

January 14, 2013 11:42 pm

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

anarchist hate machine
January 15, 2013 12:06 am

Trying to explain economics, no matter how basic, to enviro-slag is like trying to housebreak a pet rock.

Dr. Paul Mackey
January 15, 2013 12:27 am

Ed Milliband introduced a feed in tariff in the UK a while back. It was reported this week in the paper that its costs have risen to 900% of what was originally forecast. And guess who foots the bill?

eo
January 15, 2013 1:27 am

Electricity is a fungible commodity. It is impossible to differentiate electricity generated from coal, nuclear, gas, hydroelectric, wind, etc. Consumers should have an option of choosing for renewable energy. In fact, they could be charged a fixed rate equal to the cost of the renewable source nominated with a bonus that they will have electricity supply even if the renewable source is not operating. I was discussing this option with a person who is very vocal proponent on renewable energy and he objected to this option as nobody will pay for electricity from renewable source including himself as it is too expensive.

nickleaton
January 15, 2013 1:32 am

UK is proposing smart meters.
Costs over 11 bn
Savings 7

DirkH
January 15, 2013 1:45 am

anarchist hate machine says:
January 15, 2013 at 12:06 am
“Trying to explain economics, no matter how basic, to enviro-slag is like trying to housebreak a pet rock.”
Assuming that the greens WANT the economy to flourish is a WRONG assumption. They want exactly the opposite. Again and again they candidly stated that they are against economic growth. So they needed to find ways to absorb all surplus that an economy creates and reward failure enough to turn the economies of the West into failures; ideally like the USSR or North Korea.
So we are now running enormous economic activities to do pointless things – like producing huge amounts of concrete to build foundations for wind turbines.
And building all those small Diesels to serve as spinning reserve.
This is all like Keynesian building of pyramids. The state wants pyramids? Well buy a pyramid maker and get rich.

A. Scott
January 15, 2013 2:03 am

Willis – I agree with you on the basic premise that selling power to the grid at an inflated cost is a significant issue. And I agree with many of the other comments such as about back up power etc.
That said – some comments.
First, as Kum Dollison asked, I believe I recently read that a big part of solar’s benefit is it is most available at peak times. So customers would be paying higher rates – and the price paid for selling to the grid would I suspect be much closer in price to peak prices.
Re: backup generation – I agree its a significant cost factor and issue – something I’ve railed against re: wind generation as well. But I don’t think its quite as bad as you note. The grid is fed from many points and sources, and this solar would be just one of them. And while you certainly can have massive systems come in the cause cloud banks over a wide area its more typical the clouds go to scattered first and gradually fill in – but even then – other areas may well be in daylite.
And while there is certainly growth in electric use my understanding is the goal is in large part to supplement existing capacity – so the main generation sources would still be available. Also, as noted, I suspect they probably don’t “idle” any generation but rather run a larger number of facilities at reduced, partial power. This way it seems they aren’t really spending much if anything for “idle” generation as multiple plants are simply running at lower.
It would appear you may be overlooking the capital cost of the generation – the cost of the solar panels and the like. Buying from consumers means no capital costs for the generation itself – may well be other costs – but not for the panels.
Last – keep in mind that while your base per KwH electricity rate might be say .09 cents – that is not what it actually costs you. By the time they add in the basic service fee ($7.11 for me) and all the other crap charges and fees including things like Cost of Gas surcharge and the like, the overall cost is more than double the base rate per Kwh
In my case the base winter rate per KwH is $ 0.07. When I’m done, after taxes, surcharges, and fees, I pay nearly $ 0.13 per KwH effective rate.
In Los Angeles according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics the average rate is $ 0.211 per KwH – 66.1% more than the 2012 US average of $ 0.127. A PGE Rate sheet shows depending on area rates can be as high as $0.209 summer peak and $0.334 winter peak. Add base costs, fees and taxes and these can easily be in the $0.35 to $0.55 per kwh effective total range.

Dale
January 15, 2013 2:05 am

Willis,
I’m in Melbourne Australia, and I got solar panels during a certain Green promotion. Here’s the deal I’m on:
– 3 KW solar system, grid connected (install price was $5,000)
– 66c / KWh feed from my solar panels
– 17c / KWh feed from the grid
– Perpetual
Basically, I jumped on board during an insane Greens sponsored deal which is perpetual (in reality, until I change retail providers) and at insane pricing.
I used to pay $500 a quarter for electricity (note at today’s prices that’d be close to $750) and under this deal I haven’t had to pay electricity for three years now.
I believe that trumps all of you. 😀
PS: If you want, I can scan a bill and send it to you showing the rates etc.

Scute
January 15, 2013 2:06 am

Same in UK
Feed in was £0.43. This was promised for 20 years and still is for those clever early-adopters who grabbed it. This caused installation to rocket along with prices (£12k per fix). In one road near me 6 out of 20 houses were kitted out in 2010-11. Two installers would earn £6k in two days if they bought their panels in bulk (which they did because they were swamped with work). The early adopters saw it as a no-brainer 10% interest on capital invested in a time of near zero interest rates. They weren’t just paid for what they exported to the grid but were paid £0.23 for what they used themselves. Seems crazy but that was the only way to get payback on £12K in 10-12 years. A friend of mine who showed me his installation had a smart meter that showed him what he had made through the feed in: between May 2011 (installation date) and October 2011 it stood at £720. I told him that was coming out of my pocket and it was a shame I couldn’t gouge people the same way because I had a little flat with a tiny communal roof.
When the government panicked, realising the feed in was way to high and people were creaming it they halved the rate- but guaranteed the old rate to people like my friend because it was a signed contract. He will be making money hand over fist for 20 years- all on the backs of city dwellers who, incidentally, by virtue of the small area of their dwellings, use far less energy than those large houses with sufficient roof area for solar panels. Irony heaped on irony.
When the feed in was halved, so miraculously did the installation cost (remember the installers made £6K which meant they paid 6K for panels. Under the new feed in their wages were wiped out but because there was now a glut of panels and fewer punters (due to the feed in drop) the price of panels plummeted so as to allow the installers a measly few hundred quid a day labour.
Governments refuse to heed the law of unintended consequences. But why should they care when it’s not their money funding their pet schemes?

BrianJay
January 15, 2013 2:08 am

The best bit is in Spain, where the grid was buying a large amount of Solar power at night. Some people worked out how to connect a diesel/generator set up to the mains – and make a profit. I suggest the good people of LA do the same.

A. Scott
January 15, 2013 2:15 am

There appears to also be a tiered rate structure in CA as well – going from baseline to Tier 2 (of 5 total tiers) appears to double the per KwH costs.
Willis – this link appears to”unbundle” and break down costs by line item detail.
http://www.bls.gov/ro9/cpisanf_energy.pdf
While some of these numbers are from PGE … a quick review would seem to show that purchasing from consumers at $0.17 per KwH, at least in LA and other highest price areas, MIGHT not be as terrible a price considering there is no capital cost for the “generation” capacity – the panels etc.

A. Scott
January 15, 2013 2:26 am

Looks like LADWP currently maintains a generating capacity of 7,200 megawatts vs. peak demand of 6,165 megawatts by the city of Los Angeles. Coming up with 100 megawatts of standby backup power wouldn’t seem to be much problem with existing excess capacity?
.

January 15, 2013 2:43 am

LADWP: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power – not ‘District’

anticlimactic
January 15, 2013 2:49 am

While ‘renewables’ are being pushed by those regarded as being on the left, the gains are for the richer members of society.
It is only really the middle class who have the space and money to install solar panels. These feed energy in to the grid when they have no use for it, but then they expect energy on demand from fossil and nuclear. In many cases their energy bills can be almost zero.
Here in the UK large wind turbines can generate profits of 20% per year. To maximise profit you take a wind turbine capable of generating up to 900 kilowatts, and then degrade it so it can not produce more than 500 kw. The subsidy almost doubles for turbines rated at less than 500 kw. Manufacturers in Europe create special degraded turbines for the UK market. Ample proof that turbines are for generating profit, not energy! While the returns may not be as great in the rest of Europe it is certainly not a ‘not for profit’ industry.
So with renewables supporting the middle and upper classes who pays the bill? The poor of course.
Those people supporting renewables have to realise they are supporting the robbing of the poor to enrich the middle and upper classes.

Rhys Jaggar
January 15, 2013 2:56 am

I would say that the place for solar is in domestic homes: that way, the needs of families for externally purchased electricity goes down quite a lot. You’re not telling me that Southern California doesn’t have pretty reliable sunshine for 8-10 months of the year are you?
The most obvious complementary resource to solar for domestic needs in SoCal would be hydro: if you assume that solar is at its most unreliable around Christmas/January time, it’s also the time when rainfall is at its highest so the hydroelectric possibilities should be most reliable for SoCal at that time. There might be a bit of a lag period whilst the rain falls a bit, so you need a third back up, feeding in from somewhere else. Hoover dam??
The most reliable source you guys have is the ocean. Waves coming in every minute of every day on the California coastline.
Might take a few decades to really harness it, but until the moon disappears, you’ll always have the Pacific Ocean’s tides. And unless we have the ice age to end all ice ages, it ain’t gonna freeze up any time soon in your neck of the woods……..

Michael Oxenham
January 15, 2013 2:57 am

F.I.T is called robbing the poor to pay the rich here in the UK. One big scam.

Nigel S
January 15, 2013 3:06 am

BrianJay says: January 15, 2013 at 2:08 am
…Spain…Solar power at night.
Bio diesel in the generators I hope!

Bloke down the pub
January 15, 2013 3:15 am

Scute says:
January 15, 2013 at 2:06 am
Same in UK
Feed in was £0.43. This was promised for 20 years and still is for those clever early-adopters who grabbed it.
People like me. Except it’s worse than you think. The contract is for 25 years and it’s index linked to the price of electricity. I’m currently getting 45.5p per Kwh for what I generate, plus 3.2p per Kwh for what I am deemed to have exported. Meanwhile the charge for electricity used is 12.45p per Kwh. I was (and still am) against this scheme for all the reasons mentioned above, but in the end I couldn’t afford not to sign up.
Willis, If you think California’s economy is screwed, try living in the UK.

michaelox
January 15, 2013 3:17 am

Here in the UK Feed in Tariff is called robbing the poor to pay the rich. One big scam.

Ben D.
January 15, 2013 3:42 am

These posts show that this madness is ubiquitous, the PTB are using the AGW fear campaign to destroy the economic viability of the western society. This conservationist driven madness is the left’s BAU economic approach to displace the fossil fuel BAU economy…

anticlimactic
January 15, 2013 3:47 am

If you don’t believe ‘renewables’ is all about how much money you can make – here is an amusing story from ZeroHedge :
Question ‘Why Did A Train Carrying Biofuel Cross The Border 24 Times And Never Unload?’
Answer : It gained credits every time is passed in to the USA, over 6 million dollars at the time of the story!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-02/why-did-train-carrying-biofuel-cross-border-24-times-and-never-unload

Vince Causey
January 15, 2013 3:47 am

In the UK, now that the feed in tariff has been halved (as mentioned by posters above), I started to see ads appearing claiming free solar panels installed AND you can reduce your electricity bills by the power you generate.
What manner of scam is this? How can such a miracle happen? What I learned is that you would enter into a legal contract whereby you lease your roof for 25 years to the energy installer, who claim all the feed in tariffs. I also discovered that you would have quite a legal problem when you come to sell the house, since you no longer own your own roof.
The scams just keep coming.

eco-geek
January 15, 2013 3:53 am

My charges for using electricity were £0.37p / kWh recently or about fifty cents. That was with a particularly unpleasant outfit called “Spark Energy” that runs extortion rackets – they are currently pursuing me for electricity both they and I know I have not used amounting to an additional 60% per annum rate or 59p per kWh. I guess that’s about 85 cents(?) /kWh.
I will beat them and their debt collecting heavies.