Average yearly homeowner electric bill increase is $1219
Above: Dale Ross in 2017 when the green dream hadn’t yet turned to a nightmare. From Georgetown View. The following opinion piece is from Chuck DeVore, a friend of WUWT:
Texas town’s environmental narcissism makes Al Gore happy while sticking its citizens with the bill
By Chuck DeVore
Political leaders in a college town in central Texas won wide praise from former Vice President Al Gore and the larger Green Movement when they decided to go “100 percent renewable” seven years ago. Now, however, they are on the defensive over electricity costs that have their residents paying more than $1,000 per household in higher electricity charges over the last four years.
That’s right – $1,219 per household in higher electricity costs for the 71,000 residents of Georgetown, Texas, all thanks to the decision of its Republican mayor, Dale Ross, to launch a bold plan to shift the city’s municipal utility to 100 percent renewable power in 2012.
In short order, Ross was elevated to celebrity status, appearing in scores of articles and videos, both at home and abroad. Al Gore made it a point to feature the Texas Republican mayor at renewable energy conferences as well. Ross was even featured in one of Gore’s documentaries.
But while Ross was being lauded far and wide, the residents of his town were paying a steep price. His decision to bet on renewables resulted in the city budget getting dinged by a total of $29.8 million in the four years from 2015 to 2018. Georgetown’s electric costs were $3.5 million over budget in 2015, ballooning to $6.3 million in 2016, the same year the mayor locked his municipal utility into 20- and 25-year wind and solar energy contracts to make good on his 100 percent renewable pledge.
By 2017, the mayor’s green gamble was undercut by the cheap natural gas prices brought about by the revolution in high-tech fracking. Power that year cost the city’s budget $9.5 million more than expected, rising to $10.5 million last year, according to budget documents reported by The Williamson County Sun.
Whether Mayor Ross and his colleagues on the Georgetown City Council were motivated by good intentions, political machinations, or mere vanity is unknown. What is known is that Georgetown’s municipal utility, an integral part of the city budget, is hemorrhaging red ink thanks to those long term renewable energy contracts.
Here is the best part from the article:
The mayor, who not long ago was approaching ubiquitous status with the media, could not be found by the local press to comment on his city’s budget-busting power deficit, declining to comment by both phone and email.
Full story, much more here.
UPDATE: My headline originally erroneously stated $1200 per month when it should have been per year. Fixed within 10 minutes of publication.
Have you been shortchanged by your major’s vanity? Join us in a class action to recover some of your losses.
Just a suggestion for can enterprising legal eagle in Georgetown.
Shades of Enron.
No mention is made about building out enough wind/solar to supply the town.
Odds are that they signed contracts with a vendor.
No mention is made about ‘what if’ solar and/or wind are not supplying electricity. Meaning, that on those days, the vendor just draws electricity from the grid and sell it to the town as 100% solar/wind based on the assumption that no one can tell the difference.
I love it.
NPR was slobbering all over this guy two years ago.
Do you think NPR is covering the outcome ?
Not on your life !
In 2016 they claimed 90% of their electricity was from wind. They plan to add solar to round out their power needs to get them to 100%. When that comes on line to get them from 90% to 100%, they expect 40% of their power to come from solar and 60% to come from wind.
Residents were told they would get more certainty in the electric rates because they can fix the cost for 20 years, and the costs won’t go up. They can only lock in gas prices for 6 or 7 years. Greenie/snowflake companies would be attracted to a city with 100% renewable power. Say, wouldn’t that cause their power requirements to increase?
I think it’s fine that they’ve made themselves a test case. It’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
Surely Texas has adequate tar supplies and a few chooks (chickens for the non-Aussies) for feathers that could be applied to his person as he leaves town.
In 12 years Georgetown Texas will be the only city left on the Globe … but nobody (not even Soros) will be able to afford to live there.
For documentation, search for AOC, the left’s rising intellectual.
(Glad she hasn’t targeted drug companies yet. Trying to connect her dots gave me a headache!)
The car crash dummy for renewables, i wonder if there is any second thought.
Anthony
Worth a post on its own
Channel 9 news site Australia 2 hours ago
“energy bill from last week’s heatwave has been revealed with Victoria and South Australia spending $1.1 billion during 48 hours of scorching weather.
Tremendous pressure was placed on power supplies at the height of the heat as temperatures reached the mid to high 40s.
The Australian Energy Market was forced to order rolling power cuts across both states to prevent widespread blackouts.
The power bills for Victoria and South Australia have topped $1.1 billion.
The power bills for Victoria and South Australia have topped $1.1 billion. (Getty)
In Victoria alone, that meant 200,000 homes and businesses were left without power in the middle of the heatwave.
Three generators in Victoria, two at Yallourn and one at Loy Yang, failed in the lead up to the extreme heat.
Despite the inconvenience to many thousands, compensation is not currently being offered.”
I cannot believe the figure of 1.1 billion.
Puts this little town in the shade.
Perhaps JoNova’s husband could write it up properly.
1.1 billion!!
There was a film where someone says something like that
Shades of Enron during the California blackouts!
“I cannot believe the figure of 1.1 billion.”
A properly sceptical attitude. Ask yourself, who got the money? And who paid?
JoNova has already been writing on this:
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/01/warning-money-on-fire-in-vic-and-sa-electricity-prices-at-14000-per-mw/
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/01/nearly-a-billion-dollars-for-electricity-for-just-one-day-500-per-family/
The data is readily available from the AEMO web site:
https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#price-demand
This has a rolling period of almost two days. However there are history files with all the settlement prices. The NEM covers all states apart from WA and NT.
JoNova site has a good record of the event:
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/01/warning-money-on-fire-in-vic-and-sa-electricity-prices-at-14000-per-mw/#comments
The price is capped at $14,500/MWh. Demand on a warm day is around 33,000MWh. The VIC and SA combined are around 11,000MWh. So if prices stay at the limit for 6 hours then the total is close to AUD1bn.
I doubt any retailer buying in the wholesale market would leave themselves exposed to this price. They would have a hedge contract. Thew biggest retailers are also generators so they just adjust the accounting entries.
No surprises about this to anyone who is energy numerate. Smithsonian Magazine had an article about this about a year ago that I thought was extremely biased so I wrote to them to complain. No response. My blog post (http://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2018/03/28/smithsonian-capture-the-sun-harness-the-wind/) about that episode covers the points I made in my letter to Smithsonian.
So, doesn’t this mean that the “more than $1,000 per household” is dividided by four = $250 per year more?
And if the actual figure is “$1,219 per household in higher electricity costs”, then isn’t the PER YEAR increase $1,219/4 = $304.75 per year MORE per household?
And this is over the last four years, right? — 2014 to 2018 ?
$304.75 is still significant, and, as I’m reading, it looks like the price will continue to climb:
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190124/monthly-electric-bill-to-go-up-by-more-than-12-for-georgetown-customers
“Electric bills for city of Georgetown customers will increase by an average of $12.82 per month starting Feb. 1 to help the city recover the cost of purchasing energy, according to a city news release.”
Let’s see now: $12.82 per month, for a year, is ANOTHER $153.84 MORE per year, on top of the previous $304.75 per year increase from the previous four years. Now we’re up to $304.74 + $153.84 = $463.58 per year MORE over the past five years, at the end of January of 2020.
Do I hear $500 per year more? .. $600 ? … $700 ?
Doesn’t the trend seem clearly up and up and up ?
” $1,219 per household in higher electricity costs”
Can someone tell me the cost per kWh they are paying ?
Also the daily supply fee.
They are just giving a figure for an average household, whatever that is.
I just used a compare plans website for a Georgetown, Texas zipcode (78626).
It has plans starting around 7 to 8¢ per kWh.
https://comparepower.com/enrollments/#/compare/78626/3/1000/0/0/00///0/0
That can’t be right, can it ?
Competition might not be available for Georgetown, in which case the rates you’re seeing wouldn’t be valid:
https://www.puc.texas.gov/consumer/facts/faq/Muni.aspx
Hmmm, their advertised rates as of 01/07/19 are below and don’t really look all that bad for Texas. I live a couple hours north of Georgetown.
https://gus.georgetown.org/customercare/rates/
“Hmmm, their advertised rates as of 01/07/19 are below and don’t really look all that bad for Texas.”
Exactly. That is what this Fox news article isn’t telling you. They wave figures around about how the budget savings figures might have been off, but don’t tell you what people are actually paying.
. . . but don’t tell you what people are actually paying.
I suspect the advertised rates are what people are paying, but I’m still confused about the following:
Municipal Service
Base $132.00 @ur momisugly $0.0700 per kWh with $0.004 “Power Cost Adjustment”
What’s a municipal service? Is that for service from the muni??? If so, that’s much more expensive than what I would pay for residential rates. What’s the difference between muni and residential/commercial? What’s a “PCA?”
Many questions . . .
Thanks for that.
9.58c is still pretty good compared to Australia
“Power Cost Adjustment – The Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) charge will continue for the foreseeable future. This is the charge which allows the City to recover costs associated with purchasing power. The PCA is an adjustment to rates to compensate for fluctuations in purchased power cost caused by market prices as we are currently experiencing. It is a means to pass through the impact of short-term market factors without constantly changing the energy rate.”
https://gus.georgetown.org/faq-georgetown-energy-contracts/
Thanks for the PCA definition.
Frontier Utilities PUCT # 10169
100% Green Energy
NOTE: Electricity pricing in Texas has two parts to it: Provider Charges (Frontier Utilities) and Utility Delivery Charges (Oncor). These combine to become Total Charges.
Provider Charges (Frontier Utilities)
Base Charge
$5.95 per month
Energy Charge
6.1¢ per kWh
That’s not what Georgetown is charging:
https://gus.georgetown.org/customercare/rates/
Monthly Base:
Residential: $24.80 @ur momisugly $0.0958 per kWh
Small General: $50.00 @ur momisugly $0.0902 per kWh
Schools: $200.00 @ur momisugly $0.1150 per kWh
How does this Georgetown setup work when it clouds over and the wind stops blowing?
Do they have storage batteries or hydro pumped storage? Compressed air in salt caverns?
Do they just black out their customers? Or do they mooch off their fossil-powered neighboring towns?
FAQ
Where does Georgetown purchase its power?
Georgetown is under contract to purchase power from four different providers. Our two largest energy providers are Spinning Spur 3, a windmill farm and Buckthorn, a solar farm, both located in West Texas. The wind power covers the bulk of the city’s energy needs. The solar farm provides energy needed during peak times of the day and year (primarily summer during the daylight hours).
The third source of energy is a smaller wind farm operated by American Electric Power (AEP) which primarily covers Southwestern University’s energy needs.
Our final energy contract is with Mercuria for natural gas-based energy. This contract was initiated in 2013 with the former JP Morgan following our termination of our relationship with LCRA. It was intended as a short-term power supply and is set to expire in 2021.
My thinking is that this story is twice overblown.
The first way this is overblown is the supposed severe economic penalty to their rate payers. What they are paying is certainly more than the very low price their Texas neighbors are paying, but it is less than what I am paying in the Upper Great Lakes (the connect charge is lower at 18.74 for 30 days, but the kWHr rate is running about 13 cents, which is somewhat higher, and this is for not-particularly-green service).
The second way this is overblown is the claim that Georgetown is getting green power. They are hooked up to the Texas Grid, and they are paying money under contract to green providers.
This doesn’t seem to be like Biosphere 2 in Arizona where they have closed the doors and are dependent on the green plants within city limits to provide their breathing oxygen. It is more like how oxygen comes and goes into their city, only they are under some kind of contract to pay a greenhouse somewhere else to grow enough plants generating the equivalent of the oxygen they use up?
Claims of being 100 percent green under these arrangements bother me because I claim they don’t take into account that without some breakthrough in storage, wind and solar power can never amount to more than about 20-30 percent of electric use. Even that number is optimistic because it doesn’t take into account that fossil plants relegated to the backup role generate the power they do supply at lower efficiency because these plants are no longer operated at steady conditions.
Paul, you’re correct, the Texas electrical grid is all interconnected. The power on the line comes from any number of sources. Purchasing “green” energy can’t be anything more than a paper transaction.
“Residential: $24.80 @ur momisugly $0.0958 per kWh”
Here is the Wayback of that same site for September 2015.
Residential Service $20.00 @ur momisugly $0.0939
Negligible change in cost per kWH in 3.5 years. So much for those $1200 over 4 years in charges.
In fact, although the Wayback capture is Sep 2015, the doc says those rates were as at Jan 2013.
Georgetown seemed to have a scheme were them they would buy a surplus of renewable to guarantee their 100% supply and on days where they had a surplus sell it on the grid.
From the article .
“The deficits were triggered by the drop in natural gas prices—now the mainstay of the U.S. electric grid, having displaced coal—which caused the city to sell its surplus wind and solar power at a steep discount into Texas’ wholesale energy market. City leaders had to lock in a large excess of wind and solar power to be able to lend credibility to their 100 percent renewable claim, since wind and solar power can’t be relied on to keep the lights on 24/7/365. And, even with that surplus, there are times when Georgetown draws traditional fossil fuel power from the Texas grid, making the city’s “100 percent renewable” claim nothing more than spurious sloganeering.”
Fools.
michael
tsk tsk. you climate deniers
The bills may have gone up by $350 per year but its a price worth paying, because the economic discount vis a vis the social cost of carbon , bearing in mind the mitigation savings by invoking the precautionary principle and Peter Gleik means that each household is actually 500 dollars better off.
500 dollars minus 350 means that each person in Texas is in a much more renewable canary in a cage.
Quote EO:
tsk tsk. you climate deniers…
It seems to me that climate has been changing since the beginning of the Earth and all the other planets and always will. It seems to me it is the AGW/CC crowd that are the anti-climate change believers and believe they are GOD with engineering blueprints.
LOL. . . Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha…
My advice. . . switch back to good old natural gas, coal, or whatever was used before this mess started.
(and get rid of that mayor).
JPP
NOTE: I’m assuming that the headline is correct.
Headlines still wrong
Where is it wrong?
“Where is it wrong?”
The article doesn’t say anywhere that power bills will rise by $1200 per year. It lists a number of budget shortfalls over four years which could be added to $1219 per household in total, over four years. But a budget shortfall doesn’t mean rates will rise by that amount. It just means that they got their budgetting wrong. In fact, it seems to mainly relate to anticipated sales to the grid not earning as much. There is an announcement of an increase amounting to $12.82 per month. Not $100.
The article doesn’t say anywhere that power bills will rise by $1200 per year.
You’re right, thanks for pointing that out. The article says their rates have risen over the past four years by that amount, rather than what’s going to happen going forward:
The additional $12.82 you mention is being added to the last 4 years of increase, hence, whatever present budget shortfalls you’ve identified would seem to indicate the potential for even more in future costs added to the $1200 already passed on to Georgetown’s customers.
“The additional $12.82 you mention is being added to the last 4 years of increase”
No, there is no basis for that at all. In fact, it says that the new PCA will be $0.0175 $/kWH, after the $0.0135 increase. They say:
“In 2016, 2017, and 2018, the City addressed these ongoing challenges with one-time solutions, including adjusting how the City financed electric infrastructure projects, such as cash versus debt financing, adjusting the timing of projects, increasing the PCA on electric bills, and completing a rate study. All these efforts were intended to resolve what was previously perceived as one-time problems.”
So the only extra charge mentioned is PCA, and the total after increase was $0.004 /kWH.
No, there is no basis for that at all.
Actually, it can’t but necessarily follow that such is true. If the last four years have seen the +/-$1200 increase, and the $12.82 isn’t being implemented until February, then it necessarily follows that the $12.82 will be added to the amount of increase already implemented over the last 4 years.
” If the last four years have seen the +/-$1200 increase…”
If. But there is no evidence of that. There is nothing in the report that spells out an increase. The PCA is currently virtually zero, and as you’ve noted, current charges seem fairly typical for the region. This $1200 is spun out of data from the budget. There is a gap between what they expected and what turned up, basically because prices elsewhere dropped. They described, in the section I quoted, their past efforts to solve this, which involved juggling the finances, not charging their customers.
“If the last four years have seen the +/-$1200 increase”
As I showed upthread, cost in Sept 2015 was $0.0939 per kWH. Now it is $0.0958. The claim of $1200 rise in 4 years is absolute nonsense.
Seems like there is evidence.
Agreed, I don’t see too much worrisome change at the residential level, which could make sense, since that’s where the voters are and this Mayoral Moron is certainly smart enough to see that. But I do see what appears to be a soaking at the business level. Given businesses don’t pay their own bills, rather their customers do, there might still be an argument here, albeit people who don’t think rationally would likely ignore it:
Old Rates (from your wayback link)
Large General $20.00 $8.45* $0.0713 $0.0001 $442.50
Industrial $250.00 $10.00** $0.0644 $0.0001 $5,250.00
Large Industrial $350.00 $7.50*** $0.0661 $0.0001 $15,350.00
New Rates
Large General $175.00 $11.00* $0.06543 $0.0175 $0.00 $725.00
Industrial $350.00 $16.00**$0.05648 $0.0175 $0.00 $8,350.00
Large Industrial $510.00 $19.25**$0.05317 $0.0175 $0.00 $39,010.00
I don’t have a clue if the table formatting will hold here, but you should be able to see the soaking this muni is giving to it’s business clients. Look at Large General Service alone. The Base Charge has risen 775% in only 6 years! The minimum charge has increased 64.03%. Large industrial service has seen a 50% increase in the *minimum* charge since 2013.
Extortion. And all for a failure to plan.
“The Base Charge has risen 775% in only 6 years!”
Those are their charges for infrastructure – poles and wires, and admin. Same for any power source. I’ve no idea whether it is justified. I don’t think Large Industrial should be too fazed at paying $510 per month. But their charge per kWH has actually gone down, from $0.0661 to 0.05317.
I’ve no idea whether it is justified.
I can think of at least one scenario where the muni would argue it is.
I don’t think Large Industrial should be too fazed at paying $510 per month.
I wonder if they should be fazed at paying close to 50% more for the minimum charge since 2013, i.e., an additional $23,660 per month?
“fazed at paying close to 50% more for the minimum charge”
No, they wouldn’t be paying more. It isn’t a separate charge. If the minimum rises past what you are paying, you just lose the slight discount for Large – IOW pay $0.05648 instead of $0.05317 per kWH.
But the thing that stands out here is that there was no major past increase in Georgetown rates, and a future change of $12.32 per month for residual. Not $1200 per year, past or future.
No, they wouldn’t be paying more. It isn’t a separate charge.
That’s true, it isn’t a separate charge. It’s a minimum charge as I said. I called them to ask them to define “minimum charge.” That’s what the customer pays regardless of usage for any given month.
Hence, yes, they are paying more. A total of 154% more than in 2013.
The minimum charge (“Minimum Bill”) for Large Industrial (e.g., a hospital) is $39,010.00, regardless of actual usage:
https://gus.georgetown.org/customercare/rates/
The minimum charge for Large Industrial (e.g., a hospital) in 2013 was $15,350.00, regardless of actual usage.
Hence, the increase in the minimum charge for hospitals alone In Georgetown has been about 154% over 5 years.
But the thing that stands out here is that there was no major past increase in Georgetown rates . . .
Doesn’t appear to stand out to me. In fact, were I an hospital administrator, a lack of “major past increase” in rates wouldn’t mean much to me at all given how they’re just blowing up the minimum charge for my facility. Kept my rates down? Gee thanks for your “kindness.”
I suspect I might be somewhat fazed. But then maybe it’s all just what you have to do when you deal with Mayoral Morons who fail to plan. In the end, the hospital will just raise their rates to their customers – the sick people.
” That’s what the customer pays regardless of usage”
Yes. So if you are over the minimum, it isn’t a cost. If you are consistently under, you need to be reclassified.
But there was an intriguing page at your link, called “Rumor Control” in which the city refutes much of what is said here:
”
The City lost $26 million.
The loss of $26 million reported by the media is inaccurate. It is true that between 2016 and 2018, the City incorrectly projected the cost of energy by a total $26 million. However, the City compensated for these missed projections with one-time solutions, including adjusting how the City financed electric infrastructure projects (i.e. cash vs. debt financing), adjusting the timing of projects, increasing the PCA on electric bills, and completing a rate study. All these efforts were intended to resolve what was previously perceived as one-time problems.
The City does not want to shortchange the severity of the current challenge. A more accurate characterization of the current position is to reference the change in fund balance. The electric fund is expected to end the year with a fund balance of $1.97 million, which is $6.84 million short of the projected balance for fiscal year 2018.
This problem occurred because the City contracted for renewable energy.
The crux of the current challenge hinges on the large amount of energy the City must sell on the market that is not currently consumed in Georgetown. Like most city-owned utilities, Georgetown contracted for more energy than it currently needs. Any energy that is not consumed by Georgetown customers must be sold into the energy market.
Over the past few years, the energy market in Texas experienced a fundamental change. Forecasts provided by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the State’s energy grid operator, have proven to be unreliable. What were perceived as anomalies in 2016 and 2017, such as reduced consumption, unpredictable pricing, and unusually cold weather, masked the true impact of a depressed global energy market. The effect of depressed energy prices became abundantly obvious in 2018.
At the same time, the utility is seeing a drop in consumer demand which is largely driven by conservation efforts, energy-saving technologies, and more energy-efficient new construction. Due to these two factors, the City ended the 2018 fiscal year with a $6.84 million shortfall in the electric fund, leaving a fund balance of $1.97 million.
It is not possible for the City to be 100 percent renewable.
The City has never claimed that the electrons produced in West Texas are the same electrons consumed in Georgetown. In fact, a commentary published by the Austin American Statesman on Aug. 11 states, “[t]he city did not set-out to influence other energy providers or shakeup the state grid. We know that Texas is reliant on traditional sources of energy. We know it is impossible to track an electron produced in West Texas all the way to Georgetown. However, we also know that state attributes all of wind farm and solar farm production with Georgetown.”
Texas operates an interconnected electric grid. Georgetown is credited with the energy it pays to put into the grid, regardless of where it is located. The City is credited with putting more renewable energy into the grid than it consumed. According to the state, Georgetown’s customers have been using and paying for all-renewable energy since April 2017.”
The figures bandied about here are not charges to customers. As I have said elsewhere, they are differences between budget projection and actual. Something has to be done about that, and the latest is indeed a charge to customers (PCA) of $12.32 per month average. But it isn’t because renewables are failing. It is because the city contracted for electricity excess to its anticipated needs, which it says in normal, with surplus to be sold on the market. But the market price went down. This would be the same issue whether the surplus was renewable or not.
But it isn’t because renewables are failing.
As I mentioned here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/29/epic-fail-of-renewables-causes-texas-town-to-have-1200-per-month-higher-power-bills/#comment-2609039
I don’t make any claims regarding sources.
“I don’t make any claims regarding sources.”
But this article does
“Epic fail of renewables causes Texas town to have $1200 per year higher power bills”
How much of that is now true?
Yes. So if you are over the minimum, it isn’t a cost.
Well that depends on how far you were over the minimum it seems.
If you were billed for $17K of power usage in 2015, and then maintained that usage consistently until 2019, it looks like you’re pretty screwed in 2019 at $39K for the same amount of power.
Heck, you might even faze out your business and go elsewhere. Who could blame you?
How much of that is now true?
Still can’t tell you, renewables weren’t my concern. Recall I mentioned the article’s lack of specifics on that matter:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/29/epic-fail-of-renewables-causes-texas-town-to-have-1200-per-month-higher-power-bills/#comment-2608939
As our politicians today are driven by polls, I have a suggestion. Lets go back to the electricity bill which used to have a box saying “Tick if you wish to have (And pay) for Green electricity.
If the customer ” was n allowed to actually choose then we the none believers in Green things would benefit, and this instant poll would tell the politicians the truth.
Of course what if the politicians don’t want to know. Remember the three monkeys.
MJE
Politicians are always willing to put Other People’s Money where the politicians’ mouths are…
I don’t know what kind of “Republican” would fall for the green scam. Not any different from a Democrat, it seems. Anyone who puts ideology first over the workings of the free market (or as free as it is allowed to get nowadays) will always eventually lose – or in this case, other innocent people will lose.
I suppose if I lived in that town I would get a natural gas generator (or two) and power my own home.
Perhaps the good townsfolk of Georgetown might be mollified were their Mayor to explain to them to what extent their extra $1,200 a year on their electricity bills has modified the climate.
Oops! Sorry, I forgot. No government or authority of any kind ever explains as to what extent the climate might have been modified by massive investment in intermittent and unreliable sources of energy.
I’ll agree with Nick Stokes a bit on this one. It’s not clear to me exactly how much was being payed before and how much more is being paid now, and by who, and for how long. Maybe all that information is revealed, but I just couldn’t see it.
Is it because of the extra money payed in taxes/subsidies is not figured in? Why can’t a definite figure be arrived at? – As to the extra cost of electricity because of this renewable energy policy mandated compared to the conventional way of getting energy/electricity before this mandate???
I wish that Chuck DeVore, the author, would weigh in on this.
He’s a friend of WUWT, so I’m sure we’ll be hearing from him directly.
It all drills down to the price of icecream.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-issues-in-a-nutshell-energiewende/a-38869543
But wind and sunshine are free. Therefore using 100% renewables means everyone’s power bill should be zero.
Clearly the city councillors have made a big mistake and need to be handing out refund checks to all the ratepayers. No doubt the check is in the mail.
Confusing little article.
Tried to do the maths but…
“Details on pricing were withheld citing business confidential, but the contracts are for 144 MW of wind and 150 MW of solar for a combined annual quantity of nearly 900,000 MWh.[“
The solar is per hour during the day and the wind is per hour during the night.
The price is fairly fixed for the next 20 years.
So the town/electric fund contracts a fixed price from the provider who uses fossil fuel energy to provide a reliable energy source and allows the renewable companies to put that energy into the grid, when available.
Plus it gets money back when the unused energy is sold.
The council makes a profit by overcharging for the energy used by its consumers as it claims to make a profit of several million a year.
Seems to be a chance for smart operators, like brokers on the stock market, to make sure that any of the spare energy they sell conveniently happpens to be on the Georgetown time.
Easily confirmed by looking at the price per MW hour they give back to the council. Instead of some high and some low prices it will all be listed as the cheapest rate. We know this because the council has not made any substantial profit that they had budgeted for.
There was vague mention of hedging strategies to conntrol prices, not sure why when oversupply guaranteed but there must be a hidden little clause for blackout days.
Wind was said to be cheap and solar at fossil fuel cost when signed.
Only flaws I can see are the reliability of the renewable companies, reliability of govt support of renewable wind and solar companies and cheaper fossil fuel.
Pull the subsidies out and there may be a shock in the contracts.
Like putting subsidised solar panels on the roof with other people’s money it is a scam but good for those who got it at the time.
To achieve 100% renewables, Georgetown negotiated two long-term (20+ year), fixed-price power contracts, one with EDF Renewables’ 194 MW Spinning Spur 3 wind plant beginning January 2016 and the second with NRG’s 154 MW Buckthorn solar site, effective July 2018. Details on pricing were withheld citing business confidential, but the contracts are for 144 MW of wind and 150 MW of solar for a combined annual quantity of nearly 900,000 MWh.[1]
This is against Georgetown’s average annual consumption of about 575,000 MWh with a peak of 145 MW.
Looks like these folks in Texas are as spineless and stupid as the rest of the population.