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.
Roger Sowell says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:38 am
“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 believe you are a decent caring guy but you would appear to take as given (settled) the “science” behind all the stupid things being done in its name. I believe the law and not engineering is your forte and your choice, but you can still opt for critical thinking – you are, after all, also an engineer. A large part of the “high cost” of everything that green-fronted ideologues are opposed to has been “caused” by policies created to prevent their implementation.
Yes, nuclear can be high cost if you require a million hoops to jump through, decades of environmental studies, litigation, unproductive, activist-orchestrated “public” consultation meetings designed to kill the project, overly engineered construction, post commissioning dealing with activists … In France, which is about 85% nuclear electricity costs are among the lowest at ~Euro 0.14 (<20c a kWh – not bad – there will be a lot socialist taxes hidden in that too). The French have a lot of protesters but the authorities ultimately go ahead and do what has to be done.
Now the "many reasons" you mention. The truth is despite the 50year old engineering of the bulk of nuclear plants ~450 power generators and 250 research reactors there have only been….. wait for it… 33 accidents since 1952. Accidents are rated 1-7 and there has only been one "7" that of Chernobyl, built by the Soviets with no particular attention to safety and no public scrutiny. Here is an article by the UK socialist anti-nuclear, anti-hydro, pro wind and solar, newspaper (Guardian) so you can trust that they didn't miss any!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank
Also regarding fatalities:
~45 died at Chernobyl the world's worst and perhaps a dozen more in others. 4000 a year die in China in coal mines; 171,000 people died in two dam failures in China in 1975. Anyway you get the picture – nuclear is the safest and among the cheapest, of sensible energy generating capacity we have, even though we have not had the benefit of a computerized technological revolution since the last one was designed. I'm assuming the danger of them was one of your "many reasons". You see at WUWT you don't get away with just tired mass-inculcated rhetoric that I'm sure doesn't attract criticism on your blog. You have your feet put to the fire, generally in a firm, informative, but often friendly way. Does this make any difference to your thinking?
John Anthony’s film can be accessed if you put john anthony agenda 21 into youtube.
& the word motivation should have followed survival previously. Ajolopies 🙂
Didn’t we just celebrate Independence Day?
It appears Roger Sowell sees nothing wrong with the supply of cheap electricity being artificially limited through government regulation using the guise of saving some mythical future world. After all nothing demonstrates the extent the government cares better than taking the crumbs off the table of the poor and making them increasingly dependent on government. Is this what this country is really about? No doubt, at some point in the future we will instead be celebrating Day and Roger will also see nothing wrong with that.
Frankly, I think Willis did a good job decribing the situation.
One other thing. It appears Roger was so eager to besmirch Willis he fumbled putting his website link under his name in his first few comments.
@EternalOptimist on July 5, 2013 at 2:55 am
“Rogers notion of getting the old and infirm together in a nice cool building instead of giving them cheap aircon could have some some value. It would be a great opportunity to learn new social skills or hobbies, like line dancing or communal singing. Roger could go along and speak publicly telling them his rags to riches story and explaining that they have never had it so good.”
Are you nuts? Do you realize that many homes in California have no air conditioning at all? What would you have us do, let those people die in the heat waves? Where is your compassion?
Yes, we have cooled buildings for anyone to go to in heat waves. We are not callous, cold-hearted people.
Doh!
Missing /. Sentence should read. No doubt, at some point in the future we will instead be celebrating Day and Roger will also see nothing wrong with that.
@ur momisugly Eric Worrall re nuclear power
Yes, even the power industry recognizes that nuclear power is dead.
http://www.powermag.com/gas/gas_power_direct/Is-Cheap-Gas-Killing-Nuclear-Power_5743.html
A 12 Kw/h power generator from Briggs&Stratton consumes 2.12 gallons of propane. The price of propane at this moment is around $ 1.50 per gallon. So it would produce 12 Kw/h for a little more than $ 3.-. Of course you also need to calculate the price and the maintenance costs of the generator and the costs of the propane tank. There are propane tanks in the market with a pump that allows you to fuel up your propane converted car.
http://www.bsapowersolutions.com/pages/EM12-Generator.php
The combined use for propane to heat/cool your home, generate electricity and fuel your car(s) could be highly profitable but also provides you with the advantage of having your own fuel stack that could last a few months and it provides you with the opportunity to get completely independent from the grid.
Ahhhg. I did it again. I hope this comes out right.
No doubt, at some point in the future we will instead be celebrating Day and Roger will also see nothing wrong with that.
Roger Sowell
Of course cheap gas has displaced nuclear – as long as the cheap gas holds out, there will be no need to do anything else.
I was referring to your comment that in the long term you think it will be necessary to make renewables affordable. I call BS – there are other options such as Thorium which would make expensive renewables utterly redundant forever.
Capacity to consume costs ratepayers big money. Reducing demand with peak charges is good for everyone. Yes, 93 cents per kilowatt hour seems excessive, but it does have the value of being able to capture the ratepayers’ attention.
Utilities carry massive fixed cost to have standby power. They could have high rates to pay for it (past practice), or they could have demand based rates to pay for it. Demand based rates make a lot more sense, as people are paying directly for what they are getting. Industrial customers have been paying direct demand charges for decades.
Big hydro doesn’t exist in California because they don’t have big rivers. Even if they did, they’d suck all the water out for metro water supplies.
Roger Sowell says:
This is a science blog. State your position clearly and defend it with facts and cogent arguments.
Being lawyerly, and weaving and dodging will win you no converts.
Frankly, all I see from you is evasion of the issues.
Mod. Please delete my previous screwed up comments. Hopefully I have this one formated properly.
Didn’t we just celebrate Independence Day?
It appears Roger Sowell sees nothing wrong with the supply of cheap electricity being artificially limited through government regulation using the guise of saving some mythical future world. After all nothing demonstrates the extent the government cares better than taking the crumbs off the table of the poor and making them increasingly dependent on government. Is this what this country is really about? No doubt, at some point in the future we will instead be celebrating Dependence Day and Roger will also see nothing wrong with that.
Frankly, I think Willis did a very good job describing the situation.
One other thing. It appears Roger was so eager to besmirch Willis he fumbled putting his website link under his name in his first few comments.
@ur momisugly Eric Worrall
You ask why I oppose nuclear power. I refer you to my article on this:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/reconsider-nuclear-power-is-it-ever.html?m=0
And no, your arguments are not persuasive. Nuclear is deadly, dangerous, creates Millenial-long toxic wastes, and is too costly.
Power companies (and water utiliities, BTW) have been enthusiastic supporters of the CAGW campaign, because it gets them off the hook for their real responsibilities – which are to provide a reliable and affordable supply of the necessities of life. It has been a win-win for them. They no longer have to worry about the hassle and expense of building new power stations or dams – instead, we are being pressed to conserve their products and pay more for them to boot.
This notion of wholesome frugality has been bought lock, stock and barrel by affluent greenies. It is particularly galling that people like Roger Sowell seem to think that rounding up the poor and herding them into shopping malls for a few days is an acceptable way to deal with heatwaves, in a society which can quite easily generate electricity cheaply enough for them to remain at home in relative comfort and dignity. Alternatively, taxpayers are supposed to bail out the suppliers with welfare payments to cover their needlessly high bills. As others have pointed out, the situation is even more critical in cold climates. There simply aren’t enough shopping malls, nor is it viable, to keep people warm for periods of weeks or months.
There is nothing new about the notion of off-peak rates for electricity at low demand times – many countries have had this for years. Nor is it a bad thing. But what we are seeing now is a deliberate strategy to save on capital expenditure by penalising people at times which have always been peak loads – such as between 5pm and 8pm, and to a lesser extent between 7am and 9am. Families with kids, and people with jobs, can’t avoid cooking, bathing, or using lights and household appliances during those times. But we are steadily being softened up for the notion that peaks are inherently bad and we must be punished for them with higher rates to discourage extravagant use.
It is like a restauranteur complaining that most people have lunch between 12 and 2pm, and dinner between 7 and 10pm. That’s the nature of the business. But at least with restaurants we get plenty of choice of prices and service, even though their business model is inconvenient in some respects. With power and water, price competition is negligible or non-existent for most people, so public policy needs to exert pressure on them to keep prices down and supply up, not the reverse, as currently seems to be the case.
The US rate you quote, Willis, is higher than I thought it would be. Here in England I’m on a fixed-rate until 2014 and pay 12p (18 cents) per kWh. We’re all-electric and pay £2,280 ($3415) a year for a rather modest-sized home. Five years ago it was half this!
Roger Sowell
And no, your arguments are not persuasive. Nuclear is deadly, dangerous, creates Millenial-long toxic wastes, and is too costly.
If you knew anything about nuclear power, you would know this is incorrect. Thorium cycle reactors produce low grade wastes which take decades rather than millennia to reach safe levels. And Thorium reactors can’t melt down – so they wont require the expensive safety precautions of Uranium and Plutonium reactors.
And of course, nuclear power produces energy on demand – something renewables will never be able to do.
Of course, opposition to nuclear power in the West is irrelevant. China and India are investing in Thorium nuclear technology in a big way. Its only a matter of time before they commercialise this technology, and start undercutting the cost base of economies too stupid to follow their lead.
Yet another reason to get the world’s population down to a billion or less.
[Reply: You first. Show us the way. ~mod.]
johanna says:
July 5, 2013 at 4:45 am
Power companies (and water utiliities, BTW) have been enthusiastic supporters of the CAGW campaign, because it gets them off the hook for their real responsibilities – which are to provide a reliable and affordable supply of the necessities of life.
===========================================================
Responsible to provide affordable electricity? Ridiculous. They provide it at their cost plus their regulatory approved profit margin. “Affordable” has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Any chance a “small government” party will get elected anytime soon in California? And please don’t mention Ah-nuld.
“Eric Worrall says:
July 5, 2013 at 4:52 am
China and India are investing in Thorium nuclear technology in a big way.”
While you are correct, the word “nuclear” is the scare word of the of the last few decades, especially in Australia (sigh!). Thorium needs a neutron to become U233 and then a usable fissile fuel. Even though there is, almost, no serious potential weapons grade fissile material that can be recovered in the process, Thorium power won’t happen in the “west”, primarily because of that one (Hijacked by the likes of Fonda and Lemon) word, sadly!
Roger Sowell says: ……….
Mr. Eschenbach normally censors my comments, so let’s just see if he censors this.
====================================
Ahhhhhh …… rules for radicals ……… accuse the other side of your own sides bad behavior.
no Roger, I am not nuts , and if aircon cost me one dollar a kwh, I wouldn’t get it installed either
Eric Worrall says:
July 5, 2013 at 4:52 am
China and India are investing in Thorium nuclear technology in a big way. Its only a matter of time before they commercialise this technology, and start undercutting the cost base of economies too stupid to follow their lead.
==================================================================
Jeeeeze . . . not the thorium hoax again.
“Its only a matter of time” is not the same as “they have gotten it to work.”
In the real world, nuclear fuel created by thorium alchemy must compete with other sources of nuclear fuel. We are hundreds of years from that happening.
Sandor Ferenczi
Yet another reason to get the world’s population down to a billion or less.
Whats your preferred method of culling the population? Late term abortions of families which try to have kids without a license? “Euthanasia” of “undesirables”? Raising the price of energy and food (through biofuel initiatives) until the poorest people can’t afford to eat?
Or maybe you’re a traditionalist – perhaps your preferred tool is plague, created through stuffing up the health system to the point it can’t treat sick people, or by giving nature a helping hand through genetic engineering?
The cost of delivering electricity is likely to be more proportional to the peak rather than average power consumed. An idling transmission line is almost as expensive in terms of capital and maintenance as a fully loaded one. Similar story with power stations. Best solution is to charge more for power delivered or sourced at peak of demand, and allow market forces to decide.
If AGW/CO2 usage was the only consideration, then pricing would be purely based on the average.