California Once Again Tops the U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index… But Falls a Penny Short of the Highest Electricity Prices in the Lower 48

Guest post by David Middleton

The featured image is a photo of a greenschist from the French Alps.

Roche_verte_Mont-Cenis2
By Gabriel HM (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons / https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ARoche_verte_Mont-Cenis2.jpg
For some reason, the following article from EcoWatch and the NRDC made me think of something that sounds like greenschist:

Top 10 States Leading the Renewable Energy Revolution

 By Ralph Cavanagh

California continues to lead the way on clean energy, but energy efficiency and renewables are gaining major ground across the country, a new ranking of states and cities shows. Six states now get at least a fifth of their power from non-hydro renewable sources such as wind and solar—further confirmation that regardless of the Trump administration’s efforts to promote fossil-fuel interests, clean energy is making undeniable inroads.

The Golden State and Massachusetts lead the eighth annual U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index from the research firm Clean Edge for a fifth year in a row, the latter bolstered by its strong record of energy efficiency and private investment in clean tech. Vermont, Oregon and New York round out the top five.

[…]

EcoWatch

I just couldn’t resist comparing electricity prices to the “Clean Tech Leadership Index” (CTLI) and I was not disappointed.  Six of the ten States with the most expensive electricity are in the CTLI top ten.

 CTLI Rank Residential ¢/kWh Rank
Hawaii     55.5 10 29.04 1
Alaska     17.6 21.58 2
Connecticut     58.7 6 20.06 3
Massachusetts     77.8 2 19.84 4
New Hampshire     44.6 18.98 5
California     92.0 1 18.87 6
Rhode Island     51.3 18.01 7
Vermont     72.2 3 17.39 8
New York     63.6 5 17.02 9
Maine     45.5 15.92 10
New Jersey     44.7 15.57 11
Michigan     50.1 15.38 12
Wisconsin     34.5 14.51 13
Maryland     46.9 14.16 14
Pennsylvania     42.2 14.08 15
Delaware     43.3 13.86 16
Illinois     55.3 13.76 17
Kansas     16.9 13.3 18
Alabama     18.1 12.82 19
New Mexico     48.1 12.76 20
South Carolina     28.6 12.64 21
Minnesota     55.9 9 12.58 22
Ohio     35.0 12.35 23
Nevada     36.9 12.13 24
Indiana     24.6 11.99 25
Colorado     58.4 7 11.89 26
Florida     20.7 11.76 27
Arizona     32.8 11.73 28
Georgia     25.6 11.73 29
Iowa     36.1 11.65 30
Mississippi     12.1 11.53 31
West Virginia     14.5 11.52 32
Virginia     35.9 11.46 33
Texas     40.2 11.31 34
South Dakota     21.7 11.11 35
North Carolina     36.5 11 36
Wyoming     13.6 10.91 37
Utah     38.9 10.74 38
Montana     29.0 10.74 39
Tennessee     25.5 10.63 40
Oklahoma     21.8 10.54 41
Nebraska     17.0 10.52 42
Oregon     69.6 4 10.51 43
Kentucky     22.2 10.48 44
Missouri     28.6 10.43 45
Idaho     36.6 9.92 46
Arkansas     23.5 9.85 47
North Dakota       8.0 9.56 48
Louisiana     14.1 9.46 49
Washington     57.4 8 9.28 50

Oregon and Washington benefit from massive hydroelectric resources, while Hawaii and Alaska have expensive electricity due to their remoteness.  So, I cross-plotted electricity prices vs. CTLI for all 50 States and 46 States (deleting AK, HI, OR & WA).

Elec_CTLI

References

[1] 2017 U.S. Clean Tech Leadership Index

[2] US EIA Table 5.6.A. Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State, March 2017 and 2016 (Cents per Kilowatthour)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

229 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stu
June 7, 2017 4:16 pm

Alaska and Hawaii really shouldn’t be on the list, one way or the other. They are outliers. Hawaii has to import all its fuel. Renewables, if anything, will probably lower the price of their electricity in the long run. Alaska has really high transmission costs due to the size of the state, and low population.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Stu
June 7, 2017 7:32 pm

Alaska should have access to lots of oil, no?

Catcracking
Reply to  PiperPaul
June 7, 2017 7:45 pm

Maybe crude oil but I am not sure about refined which is required to be usable? They may have some topping plants.

PiperPaul
Reply to  PiperPaul
June 7, 2017 8:01 pm

Alaska does appear to have three refineries.

PiperPaul
Reply to  PiperPaul
June 7, 2017 8:02 pm

And they probably do some cat cracking up there, too!

Catcracking
Reply to  PiperPaul
June 8, 2017 5:42 am

Correcting my previous error, Alaska does have a few refineries, they are topping plants which means they are basic fractionators, maybe a desulfurization capability. Some are very small at 5000 bbl/day.
One has closed recently .
Ha, Would not expect any cat-cracking units because they probably don’t need to convert heavier oils to lighter products.
http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/flint-hills-quiet-transition-closed-refinery-prepares-for-next-phase/article_6c252186-002c-11e4-83f1-0017a43b2370.html

Griff
Reply to  Stu
June 8, 2017 12:53 am

Which is why Hawaii plans to transition to 100% renewable electricity by 2040: massive cost saving in importing fuel

Catcracking
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 5:44 am

So the airlines and cruze ships will run on electricity?
NOT

michael hart
June 7, 2017 4:47 pm

I bet the Danes and the Germans wish their electricity was as cheap as Hawaii.
As the philosopher Dylan once noted, the answer is Blowin’ in the Wind.
lol

Griff
Reply to  michael hart
June 8, 2017 12:55 am

Germans, as you know, use far less electricity than a US household and are much more likely to have solar panels and/or a share in a community renewable project. Their bills are not higher, even if the cost of a unit of electricity is…

MRW
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 2:36 am

Not according to my German relatives.

michael hart
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 2:39 am

In isolation that is a fairly useless statistic Griff, because they have a different climate. You also need to know things such as the fraction of heating costs that are met by electricity vs other fuels etc…
The bottom line is that wind power is routinely shown to be more expensive where it is deployed in significant amounts, and it only does so with interventionist help from government (subsidies, feed in tariffs, penalties against ‘traditional’ fuels) distorting the electricity market in favor of wind.

Stu Miller
June 7, 2017 4:56 pm

Actually, Washington State enviros have managed to force the teardown of two dams on the Elwha river near Port Angeles. This was a save our fish exercise. The first major effect of tearing down the upper Elwha dam was degradation in the Port Angeles water supply. It turns out that the lake behind the dam not only provided power, but also supplied the aquifer which Port Angeles taps for its drinking water. The second major effect was that the now uncontrolled runoff is undermining a major bridge on Highway 101. This will result in either replacement of the bridge at great cost or rerouting of highway 101 to bypass the trouble spot.

June 7, 2017 5:58 pm

“Texas 40.2 11.31 34”
Texas at 11..3 ?
Don’t let them BULLSH!T you !!!!!!
I’m paying 18.5 cents per kWH **ALL IN** which includes the Oncor delivery charge and taxes and other misc. fees.
That “11.3” figure is ONLY the electricity price per kWH and EXCLUDES the DELIVERY charge and taxes.
Delivery adds about 30 percents (give or take) more. We USED TO have NO delivery charge, but the PUC of Texas approved the “Delivery Charge” 5 or so years back.
PART of the extra delivery charges PAY FOR transmission lines to WIND FARMS in west Texas.

Rob
June 7, 2017 6:35 pm

In Alberta, I just got my latest power bill today for part of April and part of May, and it was 2.744 KWH for May portion, and 2.985 for the April portion. With taxes and all the delivery charges it came to 13.9789 KWH. So far we can’t complain, but I don’t expect it last.

hunter
June 7, 2017 7:24 pm

The claim by the faux green group is a lie.
Not one state is getting anything closer to 20% of its power on a day-to-day measure from so-called “renewable non-hydro power”.
The actual numbers day in and day out are in the low single digits of % of power.
It is long past time to effectively call green shit for the bullshit it is.

Griff
Reply to  hunter
June 8, 2017 12:56 am

UK just got over 30% from non-hydro/nuclear for the working day yesterday….

hunter
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 4:07 am

Yes congrats on s new 1 day high. Day in and day out….the reality is it is much lower and is frequently 0 or close to it. Do you lie deliberately or just out of ignorance?

Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 8:51 am

So what? There were record highs when electricity was deployed, when gas power was deployed, when nuclear was deployed. Meaningless really except for cheerleaders like yourself. And the fact is, percentage of these green tech vs. all power sources is still small in global scheme of things.

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 10:09 pm

And going from 1% to 2% is a 100% increase

Amber
June 7, 2017 8:57 pm

California excels at spending other peoples money on credit . But hey they keep electing Brown
… well except for those that have moved out and over 4 million illegals that are happy to be out of an even worse place .
Pop taxes , a cow fart tax , . What’s next a tax on those with the audacity to vote Republican . Call it the
Berkeley Tax after the place where free speech was encouraged then died .
Why don’t they just have a “renewable ‘ electric rate that people of the scary global warming faith can
pay for and truly be self righteous . People promoting carbon taxes like to talk about sending the right price “signal ” . How about sending a buying signal to all the hypocrites or would that be a little too much reality for the eco -pretenders .
Brown will leave 5 minutes before California debt goes junk .

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Amber
June 8, 2017 9:34 am

One of the many things that convinced me to move myself and my company from CA was when I went to the local hardware store and bought a quart of paint. The invoice included a $.32/quart California Paint Steward Fee.

South River Independent
June 7, 2017 10:51 pm

Electric prices are going to increase in Maryland because the Democrat-controlled legislature just passed a law requiring suppliers to provide 25 percent from renewable sources and the Public Service (SIC) Commission just approved subsidies for two off-the-coast wind farms.

Go Home
June 7, 2017 11:12 pm

In Mesa AZ, the past 12 months i used 20208 KWH which cost $2293.31 all in. That is 11.35 cents/KWH which is pretty close to the 11.73 cents/KWH from the chart above. My home is all electric, two A/C units, a pool and two folks recently retired using a time of use plan.

Coeur de Lion
June 7, 2017 11:32 pm

Author and commentator Matt Ridley had an article in the U.K. Spectator magazine showing that to THE NEARE6 WHOLE NUMBER wind produced zero per cent of global energy demand in 2014. Actually 0.46%. That’s the number to shove down the throats of the warmists. He reckoned to produce the globe’s annual increase of 2% wd take 350,000 windmills. It’s on line.

Griff
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 8, 2017 12:58 am

yes, but he is taking the whole energy demand, not electricity demand…
Germany gets 12.4% of all energy from renewables, 32% of electricity.

MRW
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 3:03 am

I don’t know where you’re getting your figures, Griff, but you’re way off base. You appear (consistently) to get your info from climate activists, not first sources, or source docs.
Germany’s Energiewende Finds the Sour Spot – The American Interest
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/06/30/germanys-energiewende-finds-the-sour-spot/
Need Google translate to read this.
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2014/04/26/energiewende-wirkt-eingestaendnis-gabrielfuer-die-meisten-anderen-laender-in-europa-sind-wir-sowieso-bekloppte/
GERMANY: Renewable Energy Policy “Complete Failure”… Bring On The Dirty Coal Monsters
http://www.silverdoctors.com/?s=GERMANY%3A+RENEWABLE+ENERGY+POLICY+“COMPLETE+FAILURE”…+BRING+ON+THE+DIRTY+COAL+MONSTERS
More Headaches Than Power: Germany’s Wind Energy Fails To Deliver! “Energiewende Finished?”
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/18/more-headaches-than-power-germanys-wind-energy-fails-to-deliver-energiewende-finished/

MRW
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 3:07 am

You got that 32% of electricity from some climate activist writing in a British publication. We’ve been thru this with you before. And disproved it.

MRW
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 5:02 am

Here’s another one: “Angela Merkel’s Vice Chancellor Stuns, Declares Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ To Be On ‘The Verge Of Failure’!
http://notrickszone.com/2014/04/27/angela-merkels-vice-chancellor-stuns-declares-germanys-energiewende-to-be-on-the-verge-of-failure/

In a stunning admission by Germany’s Economics Minister and Vice Chancellor to Angela Merkel, Sigmar Gabriel announced in a recent speech that the country’s once highly ballyhooed transformation to renewable energy, the so called Energiewende, a model that has been adopted by a number of countries worldwide, is “on the verge of failure“.
[…]
Gabriel is not only the national economics minister and vice chancellor to Angela Merkel, he is also head of Germany’s socialist SPD party, which is now the coalition partner in Angela Merkel’s CDU/SPD grand coalition government. Moreover Gabriel was once the country’s environment minister and a devout believer in global warming and in Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.

Griff
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 7:39 am

https://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/20161220-pi-renewables-account-for-around-32-percent-in-2016-en
32% in 2016 according to the German Association of energy and Water Industries just before end of year…
https://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/EN_Home
Looks like new records in renewables pushing that towards 35% for 2017
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-08/german-renewables-record-probably-won-t-last-long-in-green-push
Notrickszone is not a reliable source on this.

Griff
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 10:33 am

And with reference to Notrickszone’s nonsense from last September ‘More Headaches Than Power: Germany’s Wind Energy Fails To Deliver! “Energiewende Finished?”’
Here are a set of stories about continued German wind expansion, on and offshore – with new lower unsubsidised costs for offshore projects…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/germany-denmark-and-belgium-pledge-to-fivefold-the-worlds-offshore-wind-capacity-in-a-decade-a7775681.html
The governments of Germany, Denmark and Belgium backed a pledge to install 60 gigawatts of new offshore wind power next decade, more than five times the world’s existing capacity.
http://dailynewsegypt.com/2017/05/19/germany-approves-onshore-wind-farms-expansion/
German authorities have approved hundreds of megawatts in additional capacity at onshore wind farms. The price at which it awarded the projects was below expectations, pointing to stronger competition.The German Economy Ministry announced Friday it had approved 807 megawatts of capacity at onshore wind parks.
https://thinkprogress.org/offshore-wind-is-competitive-with-nuclear-c4218113f6fe
Last month, Denmark’s Dong Energy, the world’s largest provider of offshore wind farms, won a German power auction without needing any subsidies.
http://wind.energy-business-review.com/news/construction-completes-on-402mw-veja-mate-offshore-wind-farm-010617-5831090
Construction completes on 402MW Veja Mate offshore wind farm
The last of the wind farm’s 67 Siemens SWT-6.0-154 turbines has been installed. Construction on the project started in April 2016.
http://wind.cleantechnology-business-review.com/news/siemens-gamesa-to-supply-50mw-turbines-for-four-onshore-wind-projects-in-germany-5823971
Siemens Gamesa has agreed to supply 16 of its onshore wind turbines for four projects in Germany with a combined capacity of 50.6MW.
The projects will be located in Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 12:14 pm

Lots of political future “programs” of what is “promised” from “promised” future projects.
NONE of these have delivered MegaWatts yet. NONE are reliable power sources. Only political programs.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 4:34 pm

@Griff
Regarding Veja Mate, the construction costs were 2.1 billion $US for a nameplate of 402 MW. The expected capacity factor is 45%, where a fossil or nuclear plant is expected to be 85% or so. The benchmark for capital costs is $1/W, based on a capacity factor of 85%, but Veja Mate is running at about half that, so its nameplate needs adjusting to about 212 MW. So the capital cost is $9.91/MW. Someone’s getting money somewhere to cover that spread. Oh, here we go: expected generation of 1.6 TW-hr of electricity per year, and €1,000,000 per day of revenue. Move the units around a bit and that’s $0.25/kW-hr for the electricity alone. My bill is about 40% for infrastructure and fees/taxes, so customers can expect a bill of $0.42 or so per kW-hr, all in. Nice money, if you can print it.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 4:35 pm

Whoops, made a goof, that’s $9.91/W

Griff
Reply to  Griff
June 9, 2017 1:09 am

RACOOK:
Germany had 51 GW of wind capacity installed in 2016 – 4.6 GW was installed during 2016.
There are 6.1 GW of approved plans entering the building stage…
Expected 4to 5 GW new in 2017, plus 3 to 4 in 2018
looks to me they have them up and working and more definitely being built???

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Griff
June 9, 2017 3:04 am

Nameplate ratings. Not reliably produced power.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Griff
June 9, 2017 10:08 am

I see that Griff was very careful to avoid responding to my hard numbers. In fact, he never seems to have a rebuttal for any direct contradiction; he just moves on the the next talking point.

wayne Job
June 8, 2017 1:53 am

In OZ being an island continent it is not unusual to have a huge high pressure system over the whole of OZ, when this happens the green crucifixes stop rotating and almost zero power comes from the entire lot.
We now refer to what the green mob call renewable power as intermittent power sources.
Intermittent power this year has caused some serious problems and blackouts on some grids, aluminium smelters are the worst effected and are packing their bags to leave OZ. Pity we have the largest bauxite deposits in the world.

Griff
Reply to  wayne Job
June 8, 2017 7:34 am

I believe a huge high pressure system means days of strong sunlight over OZ
Add a few grid scale batteries, pumped storage in old mines and some solar CSP to that…

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Griff
June 8, 2017 4:38 pm

Grid scale batteries…yeah, $60 billion later. See discussions on South Australia below
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/03/battery-powered-sa-could-be-100-renewable-for-just-60-90-billion/

HocusLocus
June 8, 2017 2:16 am

Dear editor,
I wish to share my condolences for the bad news… that California has just barely missed the opportunity to have the most expensive electricity in the continental U.S., it is difficult to endure the embarrassment of losing the title to “off shore wind” Massachusetts. The California State Legislature must call an emergency session and impose a state-wide surcharge to put you in the lead once again. Please be sure to give it a good touchy-feely name.
Sincerely yours,
Governor of Austin, TX

GPHanner
June 8, 2017 6:58 am

“Hawaii and Alaska have expensive electricity due to their remoteness.”
Now. If only Hawaii and Alaska could harness the energy produced by vulcanism.

June 8, 2017 7:49 am

Actually, the average California rates are more than 0.19 per kwh. This is the price for the ‘lifeline’ tier 1 kwh which is limited to about 10 kwh per day and nobody I know doesn’t exceed this. Anything over this is 0.27 per kwh and if you use more than 40 kwh per day, there’s an additional surcharge. To put this in perspective, a continuous load of only 400 W will consume all of the tier 1 kwh. An air conditioner. electric car or a couple of 24/7 computers can easily push you above the surcharge limit.

markl
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 8, 2017 9:00 am

Cost varies by location and provider. I average less than 10 kWh/day. No AC (beach), LEDs, efficient appliances, gas heating (little use), gas hot water and clothes drying, 2250 sq. ft. home two people.

Reply to  markl
June 8, 2017 9:03 pm

At 10 kwh per day, you are at the edge of tier 1 rate. Anything more is into tier 2 which is 40% more expensive. This includes AC, pools and spas, computer servers, electric dryers, electric cars, shop equipment and all these are mostly high power loads. My average varies between about 16 and 30 kwh per day depending on how much I’m home and the time of year.
My point is that California at 0.19 per kwh is second from most expensive only for tier 1 rates which is about 10 kwh per day or less and as you pointed out, this is easy even when there are not a lot of higher power loads.
The average cost across all residential customers is easily several cents more per kwh and surely the most expensive in the contiguous 48.

markl
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 9, 2017 8:47 am

“….Anything more is into tier 2 which is 40% more expensive …” Actually my tier 2 is 56% more ($.16 vs. $.25) and I usually dip into it a bit for the two months of winter. Usually the “other” charges are more than the usage/kWh charge for me and that’s the point I’ve been trying to make. Using kWh is not a good relative cost measurement.

Darrin
June 8, 2017 9:55 am

My rates in Oregon have been going up, I wasn’t sure how much so I did a quick search and rates are up 43% since 2003. Why? Well we have to fund building those wind farms somehow… Costs are going to go up more, our one and only coal fired plant is scheduled to be closed in 2020. The date was 2030 after pouring millions into upgrading the plant but they then caved to green pressure and agreed to 2020. So we are still paying off that upgrade and will now have to also pay for a coal to gas conversion at the same time. That is, if the greens agree to allow that to happen (fat chance) without a fight.
Anyway, according to the Oregon legislature hydro is not part of our renewable mix. This decision was made when they came up with their 25 by 2025 plan where 25% of our power is suppose to come from renewables by 2025. Hydro currently produces ~45% of our power so of course it can’t be renewable, if it was renewable they couldn’t shovel millions in taxpayer funds to their friends.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Darrin
June 9, 2017 12:52 pm

They also seem hellbound on tearing out every dam they can.

Amber
June 8, 2017 3:32 pm

Brown in California supports sustainability as long as its not financial .
What ever happened to Berkeley ? Flower power turned to black mask cowards
who won’t tolerate a different point of view .
Considering the $100 grand plus of a college education why would anyone
waste it on Berkeley . Take the courses on line and socialize with people that share your values .
Never saw a better advertisement of the down fall in a “university ” education. Holding pen rip off .
Energy Rates
——————-
Electric rates designed to punish consumers are not sustainable in the utility rate of return model
whereby reduced consumption causes higher rates . The utility is guaranteed a rate of return on equity and capital . The portion varies between utilities but that is why utilities have moved more and more of their charges into the fix portion of bills . So much for sending a price signal .
Why isn’t the whole energy tariff based on variable consumption if sending a price signal was so important ?
Fuel poverty is guaranteed when the nut job eco – evangelists bully utility commissions . Hello California .
If your business is portable why would you have it in California ?

June 8, 2017 10:06 pm
E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 9, 2017 3:47 am

You keep posting that map as though it means something other than hot southern places with high A C needs have higher bills. It is a stupid thing to do.
My 1000 sq ft home with no AC in California does use less AC than the same priced 5000 sq ft mansion in Florida. BTW, moving there in a year or two … for obvious reasons. Won’t mind at all that I will finally be able to power a pool and be cool in summer. And that I can bake bread without the electricity costing more than the flour…

Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 9, 2017 9:49 am

the point is simple.
your rate is only part of the issue.
My electricity bill in California has trended down since 1995.
choices; make some.

Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 9, 2017 9:53 am

“My 1000 sq ft home with no AC in California does use less AC than the same priced 5000 sq ft mansion in Florida. BTW, moving there in a year or two … for obvious reasons. Won’t mind at all that I will finally be able to power a pool and be cool in summer. And that I can bake bread without the electricity costing more than the flour…”
Personally I choose to live where I dont need heating or cooling. simple.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 9, 2017 10:14 am

No doubt Mosh will wonder out loud how come NJ pays more than CA if they have similar summer temps. The secret is in the dew point temperature. You’re wringing a lot more moisture out of the air in NJ than in CA at similar temps.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2016/8/supplemental/page-6

Joel Snider
Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 9, 2017 12:51 pm

‘Personally I choose to live where I dont need heating or cooling. simple.’
Wow. Just wow.
Guess that pretty much limits where human beings are allowed to live, doesn’t it?
And this ‘choice’ is apparently the moral high ground.

Paul Milenkovic
Reply to  E.M.Smith
June 11, 2017 9:52 am

This choice (coastal CA?) is some of the highest priced real estate, at least in the Continental U.S.
I am told this state of affairs results in high levels of “smug”?

Griff
Reply to  David Middleton
June 9, 2017 6:04 am
Griff
Reply to  Griff
June 10, 2017 2:33 am

That a 16 year old plant is being replaced with a battery system is a sign of that the power market and the technology has changed forever….
and that renewable energy can supply California.
There is no advantage or point in supplying California via fossil fuel plant any more… California will only move toward renewables and it will successfully supply its power that way.

novaks47
June 9, 2017 5:29 am

18 cents/kwh?! Where in California is it that cheap? I know it’s an average, but I didn’t think anywhere in this state had electricity that cheap. Must be areas outside of the Bay Area. Depending on the tier, where I’m at on the Peninsula, it’s 22-44 cents kw/h. It was about the same 9 years ago when I was still living in San Jose.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  novaks47
June 9, 2017 10:21 am

The average ought to include subsidy farmers of car charging stations and industrial bulk buyers with tariffs that give them discounts for disconnection (local backup generators). That is not the average for home retail, as 19¢ is the lifeline lower bound in San Jose. Just another “Lie by using averages”.

Ashby
June 10, 2017 12:42 pm

Looking at my latest bill from PG&E, I’m actually paying 23¢ per kilowatt hour once you add on all their incentives and taxes. Ugh…and that’s before peak summer AC demand hits. Damned expensive. (Tier 2 is 25¢ kwh even before all the taxes.)

Eric
June 16, 2017 7:45 pm

The table in the article actually shows the LOWEST electric rate that I pay in CA. I’m assigned a “quota” and when I exceed it (inevitably) I get Hawaii prices. Livin’ the dream. This more than anything else makes residential solar make sense in CA. I don’t know about people in other states, but not getting penalized and guilted with every utility bill is a sweet sweet luxury.