Cooking Grandma

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I got to thinking about the way that California prices its electricity, which is never a good thing for a man’s blood pressure.

When I was a kid, the goal of the Public Utilities Commission and Pacific Gas and Electric was to provide cheap electricity. The Bonneville Dam and the Shasta Dam were lauded for bringing cheap, renewable electric power to the farms, just like the renewable electricity the Tennessee Valley Authority had supplied earlier. This cheap electricity was seen as liberating housewives from domestic slavery, and supporting business and manufacturing. It was hailed as the wave of the future and the path to success, and rightly so—cheap energy is the reason the developed world was able to lift itself out of poverty. And since we generated our own electric power when I was a kid, and had to live with the results when it went out, I know all about the ability of electricity to lessen even a kid’s load around a cattle ranch.

So … when did expensive energy become the new goal? When did raising the price of energy become a good thing? That’s topsy-turvy thinking.

I started this train of thought when I had occasion to revisit Anthony Watts’ outrageous electricity bill, which he discusses here.

Figure 1. Why California is circling the drain …

Ninety-two cents a freakin’ kilowatt-hour? The utility companies have a monopoly, and they are allowed to charge ninety-two cents a kilowatt-hour? How can that be? Isn’t the California Public Utilities Commission supposed to stop that kind of thing?

The most aggravating part of all of this to me is that so many people see this kind of pricing as being a good thing. Not the ninety-two cents part, most folks find that outrageous.

But lots of folks apparently approve of the part where the higher the demand for the electricity, the more the utilities charge for it. This is called “Time Of Use” pricing, and a lot of well-meaning people think it’s a good idea … not me. I figure that’s because they just never thought it through all the way, they never saw what’s at the other end of the spoon.

Now, the utilities claim that Time Of Use pricing is a good thing because it spreads the load more evenly over the 24 hours … but why should I care? That’s their business, to provide enough power for all conditions when and as needed … but I digress. Hang on, I can likely find an example of their justification style … OK, they say the reason for Time Of Use Pricing is:

“To ensure greater power reliability and a better energy future”.

Impressive, who wouldn’t want a better future. Can I translate that for you?

“Greater power reliability” means so they won’t run out of power. If they were honest they’d say that they have Time Of Use Pricing “to avoid brownouts because we don’t have adequate generation capacity”. And ensuring a “better energy future” means “we hope we can provide future power but only if we raise prices on you today.” I’ll return to this issue in a moment.

But in any case, what kind of heartless bastards charge you more for something when you really need it? Because with “Time Of Use” pricing, when Anthony’s wife and kids are suffering in the scorching heat in Chico and really need the aircon, Pacific Gas And Electric (PG&E) and the California Public Utilities Commission say “Fine, you folks can turn on your air conditioners … but it will cost you almost a dollar a kilowatt to cool down.”

I never in my life thought I’d see electricity pricing used as a weapon against the poor and the old folks like that. That is criminal. What a plan. The seniors can afford to air condition their apartments or their rooms whenever they don’t need to … but when it’s hot, when they really need to air condition them, they can’t afford to. Catch-22, thy name is legion.

Now, don’t get me wrong here. I’m sure the Public Utilities Commission didn’t intend that outcome. I’m not accusing them of deliberately trying to cook Grandma. To do that you’d need some smarts, and anyone implementing a plan like that clearly has no smarts to spare on Grandma. Sadly, it’s just another case of Noble Cause Corruption, where the noble cause of saving the world from Thermageddon™ has overwhelmed native common sense and compassion.

Seriously, folks, this kind of pricing is madness, it’s unacceptable. If we had a water utility, and they charged 5¢ a glass when you weren’t thirsty, and $5.00 a glass when you came in dying of thirst, everyone would scream bloody murder that as a public utility you can’t screw the customers like that. Pick a dang price for a glass of water and stick with it, you can’t be jacking the price through the roof on someone just because they’re thirsty, that’s not on.

But that’s exactly what’s happening with electricity. Air conditioning in Chico is becoming the province of the wealthy, due to the “Time Of Use” pricing policies of the PUC.

However, the PUC are not the villains here. They are caught in the middle because of the stupidity of the voters and of Governor Brown. The voters put in a very destructive “20% by 2020” plan requiring 20% of the electricity supply to come from renewables by 2020 … then Governor Moonbeam had a Brilliant Idea™, so he unilaterally raised it to 33% by 2020. I don’t know how he jacked it by himself, but his daddy was the Governor and he grew up in the state house, so he knows which side of the bread the bodies are buttered on … these things are mysteries to the uninitiated like you and I.

And of course, it’s nearly impossible to build a fossil-fired plant of any kind anywhere in California anyhow. I hear these days when you apply for a license in California to generate electricity from fossil fuels, the State Government just issues you a couple of lawsuits along with the permits, in order to save time …

So you can’t build fossil plants, and renewable plants are few and far between … and as a result the system operators, a company called CAISO, are always balancing on the edge of a “brownout”, when the power doesn’t go out, but you only get 90% of the voltage, or on the verge of rolling blackouts, the next step after brownouts … and we’ve seen both.

And to put the icing on the cake, somewhere along the line, some congenital idiot ruled that hydroelectric power doesn’t count as a renewable energy source. I hope that person roasts in the place of eternal barbecue and HE doesn’t have the money to run the air conditioner. Truly don’t think I’ve heard a more expensive and destructive ruling than that one, especially after the TVA and Bonneville Dam and Shasta Dam have shown that yes, idiots,  hydropower is indeed renewable. Yeah, dams have problems and there’s lots of issues, but last I looked the rain is still working both reliably and renewably …

So by 2020 we’re suppose to get a third of our power from solar, and rainbows, and wind, and hydrogen, and biomass, and methane from the digestive apparati of unicorns, and fuel cells, anything expensive and out of reach will do. The suppliers of these nostrums have the state over a barrel, of course, and demand outrageous prices.

And as you would predict, this unbelievable idiocy has left the state woefully short of power. And as a result, the whole program has gone into reverse.

So now, rather than increasing the amount of cheap electric power available to the consumer like a utility should, we’re going the other way. The PUC and PGE aren’t encouraging people to utilize cheap power in order to better their lives. They aren’t doing their job of ensuring an adequate supply of inexpensive power. Far from it.

Instead, they’re doing whatever they can to push people back into the dark ages, because they are UNABLE TO GENERATE ENOUGH LIGHT OUT OF UNICORN ERUCTATIONS TO FILL THE DEMAND …

So that’s why, when they say the pricing is to “assure greater power reliability”, that’s a lie. They are using that pricing to discourage demand. Have you ever heard a dumber thing than a business working to discourage demand? Who anywhere tells their customers to buy less? Why jack your prices to force them to buy less?

Well, because they don’t have the power generating capacity. And this in turn is because for every two fossil-fueled or hydroelectric power plants you build, you need one unicorn-fueled plant, and those damn unicorns are proving much harder to catch than Governor Moonbeam figured …

But even given that that is the case, and given that the PUC is caught in the middle, there has to be a better plan than cooking Grandma to deal with that problem.

The people pushing these rattle-trap schemes, like “Death Train” Jim Hansen, always talk about the grandchildren … meanwhile, every one of their damn plans, of carbon taxes, and cap-and-trade, and subsidies, and requirements for “renewables”, and regulations, and all the rest, every one of them does nothing but screw Grandma and the rest of the poor.

Those plans do nothing but raise the cost of energy with almost no benefit to the environment.

They don’t reduce CO2. They don’t save the planet. They don’t help the environment. At best, with a following wind they might make a difference of a couple hundredths of a degree in a century. And indeed, because they further impoverish Grandma and the poor, they are actively harming the environment.

And meanwhile in the present, far from the ivory towers where they entertain their century-long fantasies, on the other side of the tracks, out of sight from the houses of the wealthy, the reality of these destructive, ugly policies hit Grandma and the poor of California the hardest. The head of the PUC doesn’t have to worry whether he can afford to air condition his sick child’s room … the CEO of PG&E isn’t losing sleep over his electric bill.

I fear I have no magic bullet to solve this. It will be a slow slog back to sanity. All I can do is to highlight the issues, and trust that at some point people will come to their senses.

So all of you folks that think that fighting CO2 will make a difference decades from now, remember the difference that this pseudo-green insanity is making today. Your actions are cooking Grandma, impoverishing the poor, and harming the environment today, and history will not find your part in inflicting pain and deprivation on society’s weakest members to be funny in the slightest. I truly don’t care if you think the poor in 2050 desperately need help from some imagined tragedy. You are screwing the poor today.

My best Independence Day wishes to you all, and remember, the beauty of America is that you’re all free to air condition your houses … but only when it’s not hot.

w.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

320 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 4, 2013 10:24 pm

Grandma rarely gets “cooked” in California, despite Mr. Eschenbach’s claims.
In fact, California has assistance programs for low-income customers. Some of those programs are described here:
http://www.liheap.ncat.org/profiles/California.htm
Also, the highest power prices only apply to those who consume substantial amounts of power. Most of the elderly that I know never come close to the top tier of power usage. Most of them stay within the first tier of usage, the cheapest price. California also has a larger first tier for low income customers.
Finally, almost every California town and certainly the cities have cool buildings available for anyone during heat waves.
[Reply: “…the highest power prices only apply to those who consume substantial amounts of power.” ‘Only’? Does that include Anthony Watts? ~mod.]

July 4, 2013 10:27 pm

Some good thinking there, the whole concept of a ‘Just Price’ is an old one. Listen to this podcast, it has a short but great discussion on ‘Just Pricing’
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/11/munger_on_john.html

July 4, 2013 10:28 pm

Cooking Grandma is probably preferable to her freezing in the dark, as in the bright, satanic windmill-riven UK of today. But she should be afforded the opportunity to chose.

vivendi
July 4, 2013 10:29 pm

Sowell: “Renewable” redefined depending on the size of the power plant? This is done to encourage building more hydroelectric plants? I admire the logic ….

martha durham
July 4, 2013 10:37 pm

Why is it beneficial to encourage small hydro? Capitalization costs vs capacity? I am not in favor of big vs small, but I need to understand the logic. Further, they are the same type of energy. Why exclude large producers? Aren’t there ways to encourage the small plants while still including the large plants in the count?

Warren in New Zealand
July 4, 2013 10:38 pm

Roger Sowell says:
July 4, 2013 at 10:24 pm
Finally, almost every California town and certainly the cities have cool buildings available for anyone during heat waves.
Just they aren’t able to have their own homes cooled? To quote one of Willis’s favourite words, I get “angrified” to read green tripe postulated as gospel.
Cheap efficient readily supplied power has got what some call the civilised world where it is today, the greens want us to return to the dark ages when life was short, brutal and not very nice.
Mr. Sowell, as much as I appreciate reading your comments, and thinking about them, you and I sir, will never be bosum friends as long as you continue to promote the needless waste of human resources and life.

July 4, 2013 10:40 pm

W. Eschenbach, re censoring comments.
“Roger, As far as I know, I’ve never censored a comment of yours, but perhaps I’ve forgotten. Certainly it is not something I “normally” do, I rarely censor anything. I’ve occasionally snipped some stuff that was way off-topic, but I’ve never censored a scientific comment.”
I believe the post was a year ago or more, and the topic was some legal issue, perhaps the Freedom of Information laws and various exceptions that apply. I posted a comment that contained some statutory language, and you snipped it, then you added a sarcastic comment.
I don’t accept being told to shut up, or be censored, unless it’s from a judge in a courtroom. On WUWT, Anthony’s site policies govern and I don’t believe I’ve violated the policies.
You sometimes have a valid point in your long-winded posts, but you do not have on this one.

July 4, 2013 10:42 pm

:
Rounding up the often isolated old to gather them into cool havens doesn’t work well in practice. Think of all the old people who have died in Eastern & Midwestern US cities in prior heat waves because even their neighbors didn’t know them, & their families weren’t near or even in touch. Soaking in bath tubs could have saved them, had they tubs in which to do so or radios or TVs to tell them to do so. Or paid up water bills.

John F. Hultquist
July 4, 2013 10:42 pm

One explanation of the hydro-not-renewable statements in some places [link below]:
One reason renewable policies place qualifications on hydroelectric facilities is that most of them were already built when states started discussing the policies. Counting all available hydro would significantly water down the impact in some places.
“The whole point of a [renewable standard] is to increase the amount of renewable energy in a state,” says Kyle Aarons, a solutions fellow with the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. “Since hydropower has been around for over 100 years in some areas, if they counted all hydro their targets would have to be unrealistically high or they wouldn’t actually be encouraging any new renewables from coming online.”

http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012/01/13/renewable-or-not-how-states-count-hydropowe/
Note there is a distinction between renewable and alternative – but apparently both terms apply to wind despite wind having been used as a source of power since waaay back.

July 4, 2013 10:47 pm

I mentioned Back East because of the prevalence there of brick buildings which become ovens radiating heat all night long.
The hydro as non-renewable issue frosts me. Environazis just can’t accept big, concrete structures whose construction released so much CO2 as green, yet they are in fact the greenest of the green & produce electric power at the cheapest rates possible in today’s economy. But they don’t jibe well with wind or solar, so are denigrated. Also, the Green Shirts don’t like their effect on fish, yet the slaughter of innocent birds & bats by windmills of death don’t stir their sympathies at all.

July 4, 2013 10:56 pm

W. Eschenbach re illiterate elderly persons.
“What Roger means is that he can’t see Grandma from his house.”
You, sir, are not allowed to put words in my mouth. You have no idea what I can see or not see from my residence. But just for the record, I spend quite a bit of time with the poor and elderly, with some of them clients who need my help. I have great compassion for the poor, because I come from a crushingly poor start in life. I know first hand what it is like to be the poorest person for miles around.
“Because if he could see her, he’d know that she’s illiterate, doesn’t have a computer, and won’t be following his link any time soon …”
False again. That is not “my link”, as i have nothing to do with it. I posted the link so WUWT readers (who are literate and do have computers) could verify my assertion.
The utilities still send out paper bills with all sorts of brochures in them, including ones in several languages describing the various assistance programs. Senior centers also spread the word. I certainly spread the word. Senior organizations such as AARP also spread the word. The seniors that I know also go to great lengths to help each other and share tips on cutting expenses.

u.k.(us)
July 4, 2013 10:56 pm

Per Wiki:
An engineer is a professional practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics, and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical problems.
===========
Who knew ?
Can this knowledge be built upon , freely, or do we need an FOI ?

July 4, 2013 10:59 pm

The idea that you would cap the size of dams permitted to “encourage building more hydroelectric plants” makes no sense. Why not allow the building of any size? Why would building a big dam up north discourage building a small dam down south? Doesn’t compute.

It is absolutely insane. While on one hand they want to encourage the building of small hydro, on the other hand they are encouraging REMOVING of small hydro to restore fish migration,. California has two competing projects going. One to build dams, the other to tear them out. Dig a hole — fill it in.

Steve (Paris)
July 4, 2013 10:59 pm

Another Californian’s view:
“The elite mostly lead a reactionary existence of talking one way and living another.”
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=6164
Very perceptive.

hrf
July 4, 2013 10:59 pm

I think you have it all wrong Willis. They’re very smart and using their heads. If you can cook all the grandmas, you up the statistics showing more deaths due to global warming. What better way than raising the price when it’s the hottest?

July 4, 2013 11:01 pm

If you consider the regulatory hoops one must jump through just to remove a tree that has fallen across a stream, imagine what would be required to dam it. And no sooner would you have it dammed, then your dam would be a candidate for consideration for removal.

July 4, 2013 11:02 pm

Hey Willis
There is a saying, “Don’t get angry, get even.” You should send this piece to all the MSM Opinion writers and see if they will print it in one of the papers.

J Martin
July 4, 2013 11:02 pm

I’m surprised that California hasn’t yet legislated against people trying to bypass the consequences of their watermelon legislation by using their own generators or burning coal in an open fire to stay warm. No doubt in the fullness of time…

Claude Harvey
July 4, 2013 11:03 pm

I built three small hydro plants in the 1980’s (none in California). I abandoned the rights to a dozen or so more in 1992 because it was becoming virtually impossible to get them permitted. The environmental community considers “hydro” possibly the most evil of all the power generating technologies and there are almost no limits to the means they will apply to prevent their construction. With the added barrier that any hydro plant requires a FERC (federal) permit to construct and operate, development simply became economically unfeasible.
It’s a real shame, because that old technology is nearly perfect from an engineering perspective and nothing on the planet can “chase load” (change it’s output) as fast as hydro.

July 4, 2013 11:11 pm

Warren in New Zealand
“Just they aren’t able to have their own homes cooled? To quote one of Willis’s favourite words, I get “angrified” to read green tripe postulated as gospel.”
Many homes and apartments in California have no air conditioning because the climate is normally pleasant. It makes little sense to spend thousands of dollars on an air conditioner that might be used four or five days per year. People here know this. It’s one of the big draws of California living.
For those with air conditioners, the assistance programs I described above are available.