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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Seeing that there is a global price for coal, oil, gas etc, why do the poor in the UK have to pay as much for a bucket of coal as the global price in tonnes (rhetorical)?
Seeing that there is a global price for building electrical capacity, as near as matters, USD one million per megawatt.
Seeing that there is a global price for generating electricity around US cents 4 per KW/Hr.
Why in the hell should anybody pay silly prices. The major and immediate effect of that is to disadvantage and penalize the poor, the weak, the infirm.
They do not want “assistance”, they want self sufficiency, dignity and freedom of choice.
Similarly, Wind power needs land, That comes free, its not subject to the laws of supply and demand, Landlords will just sit back and give their land away!
Solar panels, wind turbine generators and electric vehicles and such like won’t be all that useful when the cold and snow arrive. Food transport? (if any grows) Population reduction? Nah! Nobody could think of something like that. Could they?
Rather than engage in an endless, and apparently fruitless, round of comments and answers, I have prepared a Guest Post on this matter. I hope that Anthony will post it.
Great post Willis, I love this site. 🙂
Please, intelligent minds on this site, check out the following site for a possible reason for the “Renewables Madness”.
I’ll do a fuller reply later.
Thanks Willis.
🙂
Willis’ eagle soars again. At the end of this comment I am going to repeat a comment I have made on one of Willis’ excellent posts. I, perhaps fatuously, suspect he noticed my comment and that led to this post. After all Willis notices everything.
This is for you Roger Sowell: There is no circle in Dante’s Inferno COLD enough for these warmists and energy poverty instigators.
Logy brained with a cold & hay fever at the moment, sorry, the site is:
http://www.thrivemovement.com
Cheers,
JD.
🙂
I also wonder why nukes are not counted among the non-CO2 emissions power generators. The US is about 19% nuke and that is never counted. Or maybe it’s not actually about CO2?
Re J Martin says:
July 4, 2013 at 10:21 pm
What’s happening there, is the utility company needs a certain amount of money to cover its fixed costs, so the options are a daily Standing Charge, then a Unit Rate, or a higher initial Unit Rate for the first X-kWh then a lower one for the subsequent units used.
The real madness in the UK’s system was revealed by the idea of paying larger users not to use as much at peak times (eg 4pm-8pm)!
[I’ll understand if you “snip” this: it is related to an underlying principle, not to the main theme of your fine essay, Mr. Eschenbach.]
Not surprising to hear Grandma’s power needs are neglected given the attitude of the current administration in Washington, D.C. which matter-of-factly devalues Grandma’s life to allocate government-run medicine:
“… we [includes Ezekiel Emmanuel, Obama Admin. healthcare advisor] propose an alternative: the complete lives system. .. it prioritises younger people … [but, not the youngest] prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants … Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without
a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. …individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated (figure). *** Even if 25-year-olds
receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not. *** Ultimately, the complete lives system … empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.”
Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions, “The Lancet” Vol. 373 at 423 – 431 (January 31, 2009).
(http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf)
Comment:
The inefficiencies of government-run healthcare create artificial “scarcity.”* Thus, their “ethics” rest on a lie, i.e., the “scarcity” they say they must allocate is not “genuine.”
[Note: The economics term “scarcity” is misused, likely due to the authors’ ignorance of basic macroeconomic theory — ALL resources are “scarce,” i.e., there is only so much of them. It is simply a superfluous stating of the obvious. The more useful term is supply, i.e., what is available in the market, at a given time. Short supply of a given resource can be genuine, e.g., crop failures, or contrived, e.g., payroll taxes so high that production cost per unit exceeds price per unit.]
**************************
If you allowed my comment to stand, Mr. Eschenbach, thank you. To me, while the fact of callousness toward the elderly v. a v. healthcare is not directly on topic, it is of VITAL importance and cries out to be told.
Dear mr Willis Eschenbach
You have done it Again !. This is great. As your comments usually are. ( some of them are a bit difficult for an old woman with no qualifications like myself, to grasp ).
The same kind of policy is being put in place here in Spain. When I grew up, during Franco’s rule, Spain was isolated, and we had problems with energy, so Franco built dams, and dams, and dams. And with help from America ( Thank You , President Eisenhower ) we got out of the hole, and took place among modern countries.
Now, no new dams are being built, nuclear power plants are being closed, in spite of working satisfactorily, and of the people around them not wanting them to close, and we are paying taxes through our noses for subsidies to go to wind and solar plants we know do not fill our needs.
This idea you explain they probably have , of frying grandmothers is quite clever . But then : Why do governments forbid assisted suicide at the same time ? Would it not be more humane to let old people who need to keep cool in the summer, and warm in winter ( admittedly, our internal thermostat does not work properly any more, and we are expensive to keep comfortable ),and to let us instead die as we chose, and with help, legal help, from our doctors and our families ?
What I mean to say to our western governments is : Ok, hitch energy prices as high as you want, forbid dams , subsidize wind farms, etc etc but then , Please, legalize assisted suicide of old people, and even give them / us a rebate on their / our death duties, so that they / we will know they /we will be helping, their / our grandchildren to survive , instead of being a drag for them.
I hope I´ll send this properly, as of late, my posts get lost in limbo.
Thank you very much
Your old admirer from Spain ( one of many )
Roger Sowell says:
July 4, 2013 at 11:52 pm
I just don’t get it then, Roger. I’ve put forwards several possibilities for why it seems like you think expensive energy doesn’t hurt the poor. None of them have been correct. You’ve been poor, you know Grandma …
So why are you so strong a supporter of expensive energy? I truly don’t get it.
I also notice that a) you are a lawyer, and b) all you’ve accused me of is only supported by your memory, you have not presented a scrap of evidence. I’ve asked for evidence and been ignored, viz:
I also asked a more important question:
You ignored that as well … yeah, you’re a lawyer all right … how does the old saying go? If you can’t argue the facts argue the law, if you can’t argue the law argue the facts, and if you can’t argue either, attack Willis’s ethics and wave your hands? Is that it?
LevelGaze says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:11 am
I went to his site and found out he’s a lawyer, which explains a lot. LevelGaze, go back to his first post. He walked in here accusing me of censoring him. I think his accusation is a load of crap, so I challenged him to provide facts and citations. He has done neither.
So no, it’s not his “legal hums and haws” I object to. I don’t like some slimy lawyer making ungrounded and untrue accusations about my ethics, and then providing nothing to back it up. That’s just lowlife character assassination.
I also don’t like a man who won’t reply to a straight question with a straight answer … and Roger hasn’t answered at all, just waffled about a host of other things, and made new and equally untrue allegations.
So while I agree with much of his writings on his blog, he’s come in here with an axe to grind.
w.
@roger Sowell
Read your comments with interest.
You make some good points but then you duck and dive.
You haven’t answered the most important question yet.
OK, you’re a lawyer, comes naturally.
The main question is:
Why would you want to artificially raise energy prices, why is that good in any way?
@ur momisugly jdseanjd — Get well soon! Take care of yourself.
**************************************************************
@ur momisuglyViejecita, dear “little old lady,” you are young at heart! How many viejecitas go online and comment on a science site like this one? You are una persona valiosa. Highly valued! (don’t you DARE think of taking YOUR life not ever, dear lady)
Re: “… we are paying taxes through our noses for subsidies to go to wind and solar plants we know do not fill our needs.” — Y que lo digas!
I hope you comment here una y otra vez!
Vaya con Dios.
Roger Sowell says:
July 4, 2013 at 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:”
Roger; please explain the logic behind that.
First the state allows a monopoly provider to jack up prices to unaffordable levels to reduce demand (and “unaffordable” is the explicit goal).
Next the state gives tax money to the customers who can’t afford the inflated prices.
My interpretation is this:
the real goal of Jerry Brown is to turn California into Cuba (except for the cronies of the party).
The real effect of Brown’s policies is that the working population will flee the state as long as the border is open (happens every time the Cuban economic system is introduced anywhere).
Everything is priced according to supply and demand. Even cars. Definitely vacations — you pay more in school holidays. Why shouldn’t electricity be the same?
It’s cheaper and less risky for electricity companies to charge more for what they *can* provide, than to build more power stations so they can charge the same for higher volume. Why go to all that effort building more power stations if they can make just as much profit simply by charging you more?
But a previous commenter was right, there should be the option for users to shop around at the point of consumption. Without that, the market is not free and suppliers have us over a barrel. It’s a good job regulation is there to protect us :).
@ur momisugly Eschenbach, re your
” I don’t like some slimy lawyer making ungrounded and untrue accusations about my ethics, and then providing nothing to back it up. That’s just lowlife character assassination.”
Your statement above shows your character. Have we ever met? Do you know me? The answer to both is No. Yet, you call me a “slimy lawyer.” Somehow, I don’t think my clients would agree with you. I fight for the good guys. I fight for the little guys. And by the way, Anthony Watts retained my services for a couple of matters. Perhaps you could ask him if I’m slimy. If you would actually read the posts on my blog that I linked to above, you might just see that I advocate for the little guys. But, you are so blinded by your rage that I’m sure you will not.
You say I made an untrue accusation about your ethics. If you had any sense, you would dredge back through your countless postings on WUWT and find the post where you snipped my comment.
Now that you have made the above character assassination of me, for the whole world to read, it will be somewhat fun (if exhausting) for me to go back through WUWT archives and show where my comment was snipped. It may take me several days to find.
If anybody knows a quick way to find a WUWT post written by Eschenbach, with a comment or comments by Sowell, I’d be grateful to know how. It tried it using Google search with no success.
Guten morgen, Dirk!
I agree. That rotter, “The Grinch,” [nope, not a nickname, I just dubbed him that — Ta… DAH!] Brown is dragging California down The Road to Serfdom (Hayek) with all his might. Hopefully, the voters can be educated to realize that [TAXES KILL JOBS — repeat] and he won’t turn “The Golden State” into the Rotten Banana Peel State where electric Christmas lights are ancient history.
Roger Sowell’s post on there being only one death from the recent heatwave is interesting. One of the warmists’ mantras is that higher temps in summer will kill people (implicitly, more people than do freezing temps in winter). But if only — and I mean no disrespect to the person or his family — one person died in this massive heatwave, where’s the evidence that AGW will kill more people? Or should I be looking at models instead of facts?
Folks, it was years ago but IIRC Roger Sowell is an anti nuke kook. We could end all this energy poverty nonsense but people like him will do everything to prevent this.
DirkH says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:06 am
“My interpretation is this:
the real goal of Jerry Brown is to turn California into Cuba (except for the cronies of the party).”
…by which I mean; while some people propose that a free market would work best to provide affordable energy to everyone, Sowell proposes that energy be provided by a monopoly provider at unaffordable prices, followed by tax money gifts to those who now can’t afford the product anymore but need it – which in the end does nothing to curb demand. Instead of buying your electricity on the market you now beg the government for a voucher and buy it with that.
One “advantage” of this new scheme is that Jerry Brown (in this example) can control people by granting or not granting the vouchers. Like the IRS can decide to destroy this group or that group.
Reducing the demand of electricity is obviously not the goal – because the vouchers re-establish the demand.
Ergo, Cuba : income redistribution and political control of the peasants by the state.
@ur momisugly Other_Andy says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:49 am
“@ur momisuglyRoger Sowell
Read your comments with interest.
You make some good points but then you duck and dive.
You haven’t answered the most important question yet.
OK, you’re a lawyer, comes naturally.
The main question is:
Why would you want to artificially raise energy prices, why is that good in any way?”
I don’t want energy prices high. That is an assumption by Eschenbach, and others. If you read just one of my blog posts linked above in a comment, you would see that I’m against high power prices. That’s one of many reasons that nuclear power is wrong: it raises power prices. That’s why I’m against the present form of wind and solar power, they raise power prices. I’m on record stating that wind and solar will be economical only when cheap, reliable energy storage is discovered.
My argument on this post is the very one-sided version posted by Mr. Eschenbach, who clearly did not present a balanced review of electric power prices and their consequences in California. He also did not know, or chose not to state, that small hydroelectric power is considered renewable in California.
And in the eu they are planning to install microchips in household appliances so they can turn them off from the generating company if you are using too much electricity. Oh and they call it demand regulation. I call it rationing.
Eat your heart out George Orwell.
If something is in limited supply and demand rises then so does the price.
Limit supply of anything enough and it becomes a luxury.
Always so. Shakespeare gave us, “The farmer who hung himself on expectation of plenty”.
But if California stopped burning coal to make electricity, you should expect hundreds of smoky choky power stations to spring up just past it’s borders and supply expensive electricity to an unreal market.
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 4, 2013 at 10:35 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////
Willis
This is a scenaario that one commonly sees with socialist policy. But it is self spiraling, forcing ever greater dependency upon the state.
In the UK, 25% of the elctricty bill goes to subsidising the fitting of insulation on properties owned by people who cannot afford to do this without help, and to help those in fuel poverty. This means that the bill is approximately a third higher than it would otherwise be, if this form of assistance/subsidy did not exist. The fact that the bill is about a third higher than it would otherwise be puts increasingly more peole in fuel poverty, and in fuel poverty by an increasing amount. This means that the assistance/subsidy element needs to be further increased to help those who cannot afford matters. This in turn places more people into fuel poverty and by greater amounts, so the cycle continues.
In the UK we see this in council tax (annual charge paid on property to the local community). About a quarter of one’s council tax goes to provide assistance for those whio cannot afford to pay council tax. this increases the bill total by about a third (ie., it would be about a third lower put for this portion of the bill). The net effect is that more and more people can no longer afford to pay their council tax, or at least not in full. Thus council gives out ever more subsidies forcing an ever increasing amount on to the bill total for those who can afford to pay.
Far more people would be able to pay their bills if only they eneded this circular subsidy assistance point.
turning to energy pricing, I see no reason why electrical companies should not be entitled to sell surplus energy at a cheap price. Eg night time energy wjhen there is surplus energy production and the energy would simply be wasted (not used0 since for the main part there is no energy storage system which would allow the night time generated surplus to be available the next day (i know that there are some water/hydro plants that can store this surplus).
If a customer can use cheap night time surplus energy (eg., for a swimming pool pump), then if the customer can get this surplus energy cheap good luck on them, and it is good for the energy company since they get a sale that would not otherwise have taken place.
But any pricing structure that leads to such a high price (which I would set at above 45 cents per kWh) is obscene, and whilst I do not like government intervention, it should be rendered unlawful since energy is not a luxury, but a necessity. In the necessity market (which is largely not a free market and there are usually just a few dominant players), the government should have rules/regulations that enable competition within the market but which ensures that energy is available for all citizens at a proce that is reasonably afffordable by all.
Roger (and Willis). Only talking about heat and expensive AC affecting the poor is just a small problem compared to heating prices and cold.
In the UK alone, there are 20,000 to 35,000 excessive deaths, every year, from the cold Most of the deaths are the elderly, and many are in fuel poverty. Its literally “eat or heat” for many here in the UK.
And yes, there are subsidy programs, and warm buildings for the people to go to, but still 20,000 to 35,000 people die every year.
Related to this, is the excess mortality in cold and heat events. In cold events, the mortality rate increases during and after the event, eventually falling to the norm.
In heat events, the mortality goes up during the event, and falls after the event. Over the period, the mortality rate is essentially unchanged. The mortality rate is “displaced”, not increased. In coarser terms, people that were likely to die anyway, did so a little early. There is rarely “excess” deaths. Even in the famous European heat wave of 2003, the fall in mortality rates after the event nearly matched the increase during the event.