Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Sometimes you can’t help but marvel at how much we’re all willing to pay for the illusion of “green progress.” New Jersey decided—like half the country—that climate purity would be achieved by wind turbines, solar panels, and endless press conferences declaring victory against bad old fossil fuels. But someone forgot to run the numbers, and now the bill arrives, with a little note attached: “Due immediately. No refunds. See: your monthly utility statement.”
Let’s start with the latest funhouse mirror: PJM’s capacity auction. You’ll see the acronym “PJM” all over any story about electricity markets, grid drama, and ratepayer headaches up and down the Eastern seaboard. So what actually is PJM—besides an endless font of regulatory press releases and auction results?
PJM, when it’s at home, stands for Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection. Despite the name, it’s not just those three states anymore. It’s now the largest regional transmission organization (RTO) in the United States, covering all or part of 13 states (think New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Illinois, etc.) plus Washington, D.C., stretching from the rust belt to the edge of the South. Its territory spans 65 million people—nearly one fifth of the country—so what happens in PJM’s control room often decides whether your air conditioner hums or whimpers in August.
But PJM isn’t a power company. It owns no transmission lines, no power plants, no substations. It’s the air traffic controller of the grid—coordinating the flow of electricity across 88,000 miles of high-voltage transmission, managing more than 1,400 power generators, and pulling the levers of gigantic energy marketplaces where utilities buy the electrons they deliver to your living room. When you hear about capacity auctions, day-ahead markets, or “grid reliability events,” PJM’s the referee moving pieces around the giant chessboard of supply and demand.
PJM works around the clock—like a cross between NASA’s control room and the pit bosses in Vegas who used to give me the hairy eyeball—tracking generation, monitoring demand in real-time, and dispatching power plants to keep everything balanced minute to minute. They’re charged (pun intended) with making sure the lights stay on for hospitals, factories, schools, and your midnight TikTok habit. Their holy grail? Reliability and low cost, achieved by—ideally—always calling on the cheapest available source of power and preventing rolling blackouts when the weather or a misbehaving power plant throws a wrench in the works.
Importantly, PJM doesn’t serve customers directly or send you a bill. Your utility—PSEG, JCP&L, Atlantic City Electric, and the like—buys power at these massive auctions and passes the costs through to consumers. When PJM’s auctions spike, your rates spike. When the grid creaks due to “renewable integration,” “data center demand,” or “retiring nuclear plants,” PJM rings the alarm bell and shuffles the mix, often asking utilities (and by extension, you) to pay more for reliability.
So next time you see “PJM” in the news, remember: it’s not a company, it’s not a government agency, and it’s not run by mad scientists or Wall Street quants. It’s the big, complicated, nonprofit grid manager whose job is to juggle electrons, forecast tomorrow’s peaks, referee the markets, and—hopefully—keep your dinner out of the dark. If they cough or sneeze, everyone from New Jersey to Ohio checks their fuse box—just to be safe.
Now for years, the PJM auction price for “guaranteed” power—the kind that keeps your lights on after sunset—hovered around $29.92 per megawatt-day. That number just jackknifed straight through sanity’s guardrails and into $329.17/MW-day for 2026. That is a tenfold hike.
(Note that the unit of $ per megawatt-day reflects the market’s annual capacity payment to generators for guaranteeing their availability, regardless of actual energy delivered. The figure is not meant to be directly converted into an energy unit ($/kWh) for retail bills, as it covers standby and reliability commitment, not dispatched energy.)
Utilities don’t swallow those costs; they pass them through like hot potatoes, and suddenly, one fifth of your bill is just “capacity”—meaning “back-up for things that don’t work when it’s cloudy, calm, or 5 p.m.”
Why the spike? The grid’s been forced into a juggling act worthy of Cirque du Soleil. New Jersey, like every other “green leader,” retires gas plants and nuclear units as a matter of policy, then pins its hopes on renewables that need transmission lines and grid storage which aren’t built yet. There’s a 143 gigawatt backlog—yes, gigawatts, yes, backlog—in PJM’s project queue, most of it wind and solar waiting for bureaucrats, lawsuits, regulatory “streamlining.”, and continued consumer stupidity. In theory, the state could bathe in zero-carbon glory, but most of these projects are frozen in the interconnection swamp, with offshore wind delayed at least two years and solar farms bottled up behind transmission shortages.
Now toss in the wildcard: the AI/data center gold rush. What used to be a footnote on the demand page now accounts for 4% of total load in the PJM region—with a straight trajectory to 12% before 2030. Nearly 70% of this year’s price hike? Blame the server farms, chewing through terawatts so your robot butler can hallucinate about cat videos. PJM’s own models now admit overall demand growth has tripled, and may hit 5%/year soon—while new “clean” supply trickles in, stuck on the rails.
And what does all this cutting-edge renewable ambition actually mean for you? By August 2025, residential rates have spiked to 19.74¢ per kWh. The average bill is now $129/month—20% over the national average, with low-income families choosing between groceries and the privilege of running the water heater. Business owners are seeing $2,800 monthly charges for midsize operations.
The utility companies will offer you energy-saving tips, maybe a rebate on a smart thermostat, but explain—very quietly—that they’re just forwarding the PJM costs from upstream. Auction results, demand modeling, global fuel instability, renewable delays: all rolled into your statement, no line-item for “wishes.”
Grid modernization? Sure. The Board of Public Utilities rewrites some rules, pushes for “streamlined” solar connections, and promises to bring everyone into the clean energy fold. But each improvement needs billions for transmission upgrades, “enhanced reliability standards,” and, inevitably, more interconnection paperwork, which brings you… more delays and higher costs.
All the while, billions in clean energy projects (offshore wind, storage farms, hydrogen pilots) are being canceled nationwide—$14 to $22 billion in 2025 alone—due to political uncertainty, people looking hard at the real costs of “renewables”, vanished tax credits, and the occasional leadership shuffle. Meanwhile, moratoriums, regulatory drama, and lawsuits ensure that, for every “transformative” wind project launched, two more are killed or delayed.
And here’s the kicker: while the advocates chant that “solar and wind are the cheapest forms of energy,” the real world keeps offering up rate hikes, capacity crises, and bills that read like a ransom note.
What we’re buying isn’t reliability or affordability—it’s a perpetual promise of future savings, forever in the next quarter, if we’re lucky. So New Jersey residents get stuck paying for capacity the grid can no longer guarantee, backups for power sources that quit at sunset, and transmission lines waiting for someday.
The folly? Instead of getting affordable “clean” energy, ratepayers are underwriting a circus of subsidies and speculative projects whose delays and failures are a matter of public record. When your rates spike, remember: it’s the cost of betting the farm on renewables dependent on fickle weather, bureaucratic magic, and a market that values wishful thinking over working electrons.
And when politicians tout the beauty of renewables as prices climb and climb, just ask—how much does hope cost, per kilowatt-hour?
Because in New Jersey, you’ll find out on your next power bill, whether you asked for it or not.
My best to everyone,
w.
PS: When you comment please quote the exact words you are discussing. It avoids all kinds of unnecessary problems.
Texas at least has some political accountability. Betting too heavily on wind was expensive.
Especially in February!
The description of PJM sounds a lot like Enron.
No, they’re the good guys who are just trying to make the system work. The bad guys are the public utility commissions of the blue states within PJM, all of which have swallowed the alarmist narrative hook, line and sinker.
Maybe that hook will give them severe indigestion and they’ll puke it back up! We can hope. 🙂
“143 gigawatt backlog—yes, gigawatts”
To mix metaphors…Holy Flux Capacitors Batman!!!
That’s enough to power a Time Traveling DeLorean for 118 trips
I want one of those trips- to go back and see the dinosaurs!
Yes. But thats max instantaneous capacity . Partly reliable output maybe 10% of that. Thats what wind is delivering in my area right now , while gas is around 50% of its capacity
This piece is a masterclass in blaming the wrong culprit. PJM’s capacity spike wasn’t caused by “green fantasies” so much as three realities: surging demand from data centers, years of underinvestment in transmission, and fossil/nuclear retirements driven by economics, not just policy.
Wind and solar are the cheapest new generation sources on the grid; what’s costly is our failure to build the infrastructure to integrate them. Retail bills reflect transmission, capacity, and fuel volatility as much as generation. Pretending they’re a referendum on renewables is either ignorant or dishonest.
And lest we forget: fossil fuels have given PJM some of its worst reliability failures (see Winter Storm Elliott) when gas plants couldn’t deliver. The grid’s problem isn’t that renewables are “wishful thinking,” it’s that planning, permitting, and market rules are stuck in the past while demand and technology race ahead.
The real question isn’t “how much does hope cost?” It’s: how much longer will we let lazy scapegoating delay the upgrades actually needed?
LoL, this is going to be fun to watch.
You’ve been out of the loop if you think fossil/nuclear retirements were for economics, not policy. If economics were the issue, they wouldn’t be subsidizing solar and wind, they’d have built replacement fossil/nuclear before the old ones had to be retired for economics reasons.
Bzt 1!
You greenies are the ones pretending the public is clamoring for renewables.
Bzzt 2!
What makes you think solar and wind can produce power during the cold stormy weather that you say natural gas can’t survive?
Bzzzt 3!
The problem is that “planning, permitting, and market rules” for renewables ran into the brick wall of reality. All the existing fossil/nuclear plants survived the old “planning, permitting, and market rules” just fine. It was you greenies ignoring reality with your new rules which stopped “planning, permitting, and market rules”.
Bzzzzt 4!
Simply untrue. Coal plants have been closing because they’ve been outcompeted by gas plants and by increasingly cheap renewables. Nuclear retirements have followed the same beat, struggling in markets where gas and renewables set the marginal price. The primary driver has unquestionably been economics. In the US, the Trump admin is actively trying to undermine these processes to keep coal on life support through questionable policy initiatives.
The market is clamoring for renewables, because they’re now the most economical form of new generation.
I didn’t say natural gas “couldn’t survive” extreme weather. I said natural gas has been responsible for significant weather related failures. The point is to drive home that gas is not perfect either. We need a diversified energy mix and a modern, resilient grid to ensure reliability. We don’t need to cling to one generation source as though it’s a magic solution. Willis wants to pretend like blackouts are imminent and directly attributable to renewables while minimizing other factors.
Your last point is backwards. Fossil plants didn’t “survive” planning, permitting, and market rules, those frameworks were designed around them. Of course they fit smoothly into a system purpose-built for them.
£225 per MWhr strike price for offshore wind? You have to be a fool not to understand that! That would be 50p /kWhr to the consumer! Your bill will surely rise a lot!
A strike price isn’t your retail rate, it’s a benchmark against wholesale prices, not your per-kWh tariff.
Half truths = lies.
Yes, coal plants were getting replaced by gas plants because of low gas prices – well, that does not apply for the area covered by PJM due to lack of pipelines.
But the other reason was politics – translated into permitting, carbon taxes and what not.
As for “cheap renewables” – what a load of nonsense. NOT ONE SINGLE AREA WHICH HAS LARGE RENEWABLES HAS SEEN PRICES LAG INFLATION.
Not Germany. Not Denmark. Not the UK. Not Texas. Not California. Nowhere.
Please stop the bullshit.
The only thing cheaper than Wind and Solar is…EVERYTHING ELSE.
Wind and Solar MIGHT have a cheap fuel source but you can’t store their fuel until it’s needed, it’s either available for demand or (more than 60% of the time) isn’t available when needed.
Wind and Solar are simply…
Part time
Low quality
Acreage Extensive
Mineral intensive
Short lived
Subsidy Dependent
Unresilient
Energy sources that can’t power a modern industrial society and must be forced into existence by government fiat
Wind and solar are free fuel. Everything else is an engineering challenge to solve so we can tap into the abundant free energy. Wind and solar aren’t driving rapid and adverse global climate change, either, so the engineering challenges are ones we must solve (and they’re being solved as we speak).
Luckily, we are at a point where the market is taking over and making the transition anyway. The efforts by the Trump admin to prop up coal are mostly death rattles, but the flailing policy does risk wounding the country as the FF industry succumbs to technological progress.
Chuckle. Coal, uranium, and natural gas are “free fuel”, just sitting there to be collected.
If the market were in fact making the transition, all the subsidies, incentives, and threat of force would not be necessary, and the imaginary boogeyman of climate crisis would not be propped up like Bernie for the weekend.
Your “engineering challenges” are brick walls that no amount of chanting will overcome. Intermittency, land requirements, materials demands, and integration are fixed barriers and are the reasons this “cheap” energy will always be the most expensive.
Extracted, transported, burned. So, exactly the opposite of free fuel by any sane definition.
They aren’t necessary, they just help. Renewables are the cheapest form of new generation even without subsidies.
Anthropogenic climate change is very real and will continue to have increasingly adverse consequences. The “boogeyman” is very real.
Yes, and the automobile will never replace horse drawn carriages. Your whining and protestations are as old as time. When we are lucky, the people acting to hold back progress lose out in the long run. Globally, that seems to be happening with the energy transition. In the US, we’ve decided to take a few steps back and drive ourselves toward irrelevancy, but that’s to our own disadvantage.
I would remove all the subsidies, supply limitation payments and the rest. Coal generation costs about 5p per unit today, using imported coal. That is less than any other source including gas! Then we would see who build which plant. A few modern 10GW coal plants would do nicely!
No one had to legislate or intimidate people to adopt the automobile. It was eagerly accepted and was an obvious advantage over animal transport.
Not only must the equipment for your “free” energy be mined, refined, transported, assembled, and maintained, but it also requires much more of each for a given unit of product, and none of the materials for sunbeams and breezes can be acquired or produced using sunbeams and breezes. It is an entirely dependent modality.
The claim that it is cheaper is pure Enron-style accounting and deception, just as the climate crisis remains. Your fantasy is unsupported by any evidence, and evidence to the contrary is monumental.
I cannot tell if you are intentionally obtuse or simply delusional. In either case, it is an ideology of faith without substance.
How is it that you able to post a nonsensical screed with so many errors in it that it gives me a headache trying to fathom it all.
What YOU and others of the mandatory ruinables construction club fail to understand is the market that normally runs well when it isn’t encumbered with stupid governmental mandates of low mass power production, using the over-the-top subsidies and absurd tax breaks by that greatly messes up the entire market structure of power production and economics thus future planning becomes unstable and gets shut down as Willis points out.
Recall that Warren Buffet went into the Wind power game because he can make money over the use of the subsidies and tax breaks that were profitable to investors who then walks away when the easy money flow stops which is why they stop maintaining them as they are often NOT profitable on their own.
The article below showed how the tax breaks over Windpower gave him $6 BILLION of free money from the IRS covering the years 2019-2022, here is a quote from 2014, the article below from 2024.
Windpower is a government created racket that needs to be shut down.
Wind Power Doesn’t Make Sense: Berkshire Hathaway
LINK
Oh, they understand it, they purposely ignore it. Closing down reliable power, skyrocketing electric bills and blackouts are the goal, not an unintended consequence.
The tax credited wind farm is built , but they expect someone else to build the HVAC like to connect to the markets.
Then the usage of the circuit is a fraction of the maximum supply -10-30% because the maximum output maybe only 10% of the time .
As well know any grid , local or HV has to have capacity for peak load- if it cant then its blackout part of your supply area, or pay larger users to switch off for a period.
Well done dredging up a quote from 2014. Here in 2025, wind and solar are the cheapest forms of new generation, even without subsidies. The fact that you need to keep your feet firmly planted in the past to defend your antiquated position is almost poetic.
Buffet is still reaping the tax windfall today, a fact you ignored in the article where he makes clear wind power isn’t economical, you also failed to understand that if it was so cheap why all the long term overly generous tax breaks and subsidies that continues for years.
No, you have no understanding of how markets run.
He made the quoted remark in 2014. So again, your smoking gun is an old throwaway line that reveals how antiquated and out of touch your thinking is. Keep hammering a point that undermines your position, I don’t mind at all.
As stated, wind and solar are the cheapest forms of new generation without any subsidies at all; that’s why adoption is booming in regions without tax credits. Incentives speed up adoption of desirable technologies, that’s literally how markets work.
Alanj, you say:
Hogwash. Totally untrue.
Funny how almost everywhere that has shifted strongly to wind and solar has seen rates go through the roof. They’ve caused rates to TRIPLE in California, so I’m forced to pay the piper with real money while you are free to babble falsehoods and it doesn’t cost you a dime.
So how about you stop with the lies and read my previous post, Why Is Cheap Electricity So D@mn Expensive.
w.
Willis, I read the article and you’ll see my comments in the thread. Retail rates don’t reflect just the cost of generation. In California, they also include wildfire liability costs, transmission and grid upgrades, and legacy contracts. You’re invoking a causative fallacy. Those factors push bills up regardless of how cheap new renewables are.
And here comes Alan, with his patented lies about how cheap solar and wind are. Despite the fact that a full accounting of the costs shows just the opposite.
Combined with the fact that every place wind and solar have been applied, electricity prices have risen. The greater the penetration of wind and solar, the more the prices have risen.
And of course, he continues to spout the green nonsense about how it was the fault of fossil fuel plants, that there weren’t enough of them, as well as enough natural gas in the system, to take over for when wind and solar failed completely.
Oh agreed. It would be fun to dox Alan, find out who he works for and who pays him. Or if he’s even a person at all rather than just another bot.
You’re not making any sense. Wind and solar are the cheapest if we would only add cost somewhere else?
“what’s costly is our failure to build the infrastructure to integrate them”
Wrong..
It is the infrastructure to integrate erratic, unreliable supply from wind and solar into the grid, and still keep the grid balanced, that cause the horrendous cost increases.
Every country that has a large erratic input from wind and solar, has massive electricity prices.
Alan has proclaimed a number of times that it is not fair to charge the cost of beefed up infrastructure that is made necessary by wind and solar to the cost of wind and solar.
Why? He has never been able to explain that, he just wants us to take his word for it.
“Wind and solar are the cheapest”? Wanna buy some stock in voodoo acupuncture?
“what’s costly is our failure to build the infrastructure to integrate them.”
Nope thats part of the price.
Plenty of fossil fuel power stations in their hey day werent in right location either and didnt go ahead for many reasons
Why should a grid line builder pay big money for the new transmission lines when instead of it being a baseload generator paying to use the circuits 24/7, its a intermittent generator in normal use only 10% of the peak capacity of the HVAC circuit.
You have been hoist on your own petard
See my response to AlanJ here. I don’t think AlanJ is a bot. I hear similar arguments on a regular basis from real live wind & solar advocates who believe the transition can be greatly accelerated if only we can gain the political will to do it.
Once again, a Renewable Apologist blames the ‘Grid’ for not being able to cope with energy produced when it’s not needed, and where it’s not needed. Truly a masterclass in blaming the wrong culprit.
Yeah, right. Because some Renewable Apologist decided that electric pumps had to be used for pumping gas, instead of all that available energy from, you know, gas that was right there.
Again, energy wasn’t produced where it was needed, when it was needed. Truly a masterclass in blaming the wrong culprit
To paraphrase Mr Churchill.
“Wind and Solar are the cheapest forms of producing energy, apart from all the others that we’ve tried!”
I’m arguing that we’ve underinvested in the grid for decades, long before renewables surged. Blaming failures of our antiquated infrastructure on renewables is simply dishonest. The grid needs modernization no matter what, whether you build it around coal plants, gas, or solar and wind. Willis does nod to other pressures like data centers and plant retirements, but he still frames renewables as the central culprit. That exaggeration lets him pin 100% of the cost of repairing our flagging infrastructure on renewables, when in reality the grid was overdue for investment regardless of the energy mix.
The white board you are writing on board is actually a big white elephant.
Upgrading and extending to distant wind and solar farms are NOT the same thing.
AlanJ, you say:
Then explain to us why we haven’t had a problem until we started prematurely axing perfectly good power plants next to cities and instead getting our juice from renewables that are FAR from the populations they’re supposed to serve.
w.
The main driver isn’t simply “renewables being far away.” For decades we relied on large, centralized plants for coal, gas, nuclear, and we built transmission around them. As older plants have retired (often because they’re uneconomic or too costly to maintain), demand for long-distance transmission has increased, not only for renewables but also for moving gas and hydro.
California’s current challenges are really about grid planning and transmission capacity, not renewables per se. In fact, renewables near cities (like rooftop solar and community solar) have reduced strain on the grid. The difficulty is that we didn’t upgrade transmission fast enough to match the pace of change in generation, so the grid sometimes feels the pinch.
So the issue isn’t that renewables are “far away,” it’s that our transmission build-out hasn’t kept pace with shifts in the generation mix. This reflects a planning and infrastructure failure, not a fundamental flaw in renewables.
You have made an assertion here with nothing to support it.
Tell everyone exactly what equipment is antiquated and should have been upgraded already.
Is it transformers, switches, sensors, cable size, poles and towers, etc.? Maybe converting coal to gas? Or converting nuclear to something else?
It’s not just that the US grid is aging, though much of it is. Large portions of the high-voltage transmission system date back to the 1950s-70s, many bulk transformers are 40+ years old (well past their ~25-year design life), and substations, relays, and distribution gear haven’t kept pace with modern reliability standards. Poles, towers, and local distribution lines are overdue for replacement in many regions, which is why we already see storm and wildfire-driven outages even without heavy renewable penetration.
But the other issue is capacity: the existing grid simply isn’t robust enough to handle coming demand from data centers, AI workloads, electrification, and population growth. So we’d need massive upgrades whether we stuck with coal and gas or shifted to wind and solar. The transition is really an inflection point: do we rebuild to prop up aging conventional plants, or modernize for electrification?
Really? Closed due to being non economical? Let me tell you a story of our local coal plant (not in PJM). They spent millions updating the plant with the expectation it would run another 20 years. At license times state would only license it for another 10 years then forced it closed after only 5 years with “policy” changes, political pressure and environmental pressures. Yep, perfectly viable plant was forced closed and torn down. And yes, our electrical rates have done nothing but go up quite quickly. Some of those rate hikes were to pay for the millions in upgrades that were taken out of service years early and had to be replaced.
Hard to evaluate that story without specifics; utilities make retirement decisions based on a whole mix of factors: including fuel costs, maintenance, market competition, and yes, sometimes regulatory pressure. A single anecdote does nothing to combat national trends though, which show coal being consistently outcompeted by cheaper fuels like gas and, increasingly, renewables.
The specious argument concerning the basic economics of wind and solar continues — i.e., that wind and solar are inherently cheaper than coal, gas, and nuclear .
Forget about wind and solar subsidies for a moment and focus on systemic operational issues as these affect electricity economics.
When politicians give wind and solar priority access to the grid, and when wind and solar are not being expected to supply electricity 24/7/365 in that same way that coal, gas, and nuclear are expected to do — then the economic playing field is tilted in favor of wind and solar.
These politically-driven energy policy decisions have the added effect of shifting all-of-system operational and maintenance costs away from wind and solar and onto their economic competitors; i.e., coal, gas and nuclear.
The argument concerning the basic economics of wind and solar that these are cheaper than coal, gas, and nuclear is a total lie from beginning to end.
Wow, you are hard core!
Is that the same as thick-skulled?
Or Brain-washed.
None of the Green garbage is “needed”. It is inherently flawed, requiring vastly more infrastructure per unit of power supplied. It is a pipe dream and a scam. Your reply is basically “Throw more money at it and the Rube Goldberg device will work!”
If wind and solar are low cost why do they need subsidies. Why are the highest rates found where wind and solar are most prevalent
They are far from the cheapest supply, Coal is! The capital cost of a new coal plant is a fraction of wind and solar (plus the gas backup of course!) . This common lie or as I prefer deliberate deception arrived one day and has been repeated ever since. It is obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge that a plant which will last at least 60 or 70 years must be cheaper than wind and 3 cycles of replacement or solar panels and 6 cycles of replacement!. There is also the very important consideration of rotating mass (momentum) to stabilise the frequency with load jumps, and the biggest problem is that without this huge energy store a fault could shut the whole grid down. Oh dear, never mind!
I wonder how this “National Average” is calculated because there need to be a LOT of people paying in single digits.
Meanwhile, in the green haven of California:
Here’s my current 12-month running electricity bills.
Sep 201.927 0.59089, 0.48789
26.778 0.59342, 0.49042
Oct 150.690 0.59342, 0.49042
25.174 0.49378, 0.46378
Nov 189.697 0.49378, 0.46378
Dec 256.763 0.49378, 0.46378
Jan 249.962 0.49378, 0.46378
50.436 0.49312, 0.46312
Feb 245.869 0.49312, 0.46312
Mar 239.978 0.49312, 0.46312
50.741 0.50086, 0.47086
Apr 294.235 0.50086, 0.47086
May 220.084 0.50086, 0.47086
Jun 177.059 0.50086, 0.47086
21.197 0.62569, 0.50269
Jul 196.761 0.62569, 0.50269
Aug 177.432 0.62569, 0.50269
The values are kWh, peak $, off-peak $. Sometimes the rate switch was in the middle of a billing cycle.
TILT: I originally had a line apologizing for the bad formatting because the figures were copied from a text file which has tabs. But I also put the figures in a code block. When I saw the published comment, the figures were nicely lined up, presumably because of the tabs in a code block. So I edited it and removed the unnecessary apology. Apparently that removed the code block or transmogrified the tabs, because now it does have bad formatting.
So pardon me, I’m going to experiment with some short code blocks.
Sep 201.927 0.59089, 0.48789
26.778 0.59342, 0.49042
Oct 150.690 0.59342, 0.49042
25.174 0.49378, 0.46378
xyzzy plugh
Those are two separate code blocks and they looked fine. I edited it, cleared the second code block style, restored the code block style, saved it … and it looked fine. However, looking at the HTML source shows both blocks lost the “pre class=ql-syntax” tags. So I added this comment, and I bet they won’t look fine.
Yep, look like crap. Now to restore the code block again.
Well, sort of worked. Lost some of the nbsp spacers.
Minor correction: the original DOES NOT HAVE TABS, just spaces. There was no conversion mishap. Losing the “pre” tags during edit is what did it.
don’t sweat it. All’s good.
Just documenting it correctly, so no one wastes time tracking down a bad bug report.
Those EV rates indicate that, If you homecharge your EV, you better stay up till midnight to Plug In and hope enough trickles in before you unplug to commute
Large dams on the Columbia River provide power. A map here:
counties.png (600×396)
Douglas County 2.33¢/kWh
Chelan County 2.7¢/kWh
Grant County 5.9¢/kWh
Kittitas County 10.21¢/kWh [I’m here]
Some also pay a fixed facility charge per month. Mine is about $26.
yeah, I’m gonna be sick. Those look like our wholesale rates, lol. Assuming those are baseline charges? But still danged nice!
I’m south and east of you in Oregon right next to McNary dam on the Columbia. My base rate in Umatilla County is 7.56c/kW.
Nice piece, Willis. Notwithstanding all the ‘late night tv’ jokes about NJ, it actually has many attractive suburban and rural areas that have been tragically being paved over to meet the Left’s demand for solar energy.
I grew up in Hunterdon County, and worked on a dairy farm and a water-powered feed mill as a teenager. It’s been a few years since I’ve visited. It’s only about 3 hours from where I reside now in rural NY state, so this serves as a reminder to myself to make plans to go back and at least drive by the places I lived.
Hunterdon Co. — from the river to Clinton & Annandale. Gorgeous country.
I went to high school in Annandale.
As my ranching California grandpa used to say, the chickens are coming home to roost.
As some would say, “Amen, Brother!” It never fails to amaze me how otherwise (I think) intelligent folks can look at the cost of electrical power around the world and conclude that wind + solar + batteries + stuff that hasn’t been invented yet will be cheaper than the basic fossil system. Everything else aside, since solar and wind are not dispatchable or on line full time, they require full back-up. Two systems can never be cheaper than one.
Not “Will Be Cheaper” … “Is Cheaper”
They ALWAYS claim that it IS cheaper than FF but the Utility Bill doesn’t lie
“Under my plan… electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” – Barrack Obama
That weasel should be excised from the body public…what he’s done to the US is a crime-at kinds of levels!.
But he is a Nobel Peace Prize recipient . . .
Just for existing.
Haven’t seen a $129 utility bill in YEARS!
My low usage months have been north of $300 and my August Bills have been north of $700.
Dang, how do I get those $129 monthly average bills??
Here in Fort Lauderdale, FPL has replaced an old 1970s resid fired 2000me steam station with a new 2400 MW CCGT. July/August are the peak demand months because of AC. Just paid the bill due 8/22. It was $181. No ‘green’ wind or solar in south Florida because of what hurricanes would certainly do to them—soonish.
Bryan — holy schist!
You need to say where you live and what part is electric.
In central WA State, I live at 2,240 feet elevation that cools at night. I’ve got a 3-bedroom wood-frame house. I did not need to run AC in July. So, lights, refrigerator/freezers, and water pump, dishwasher, etc.
My rate: $/kwh = $0.1089. My July bill in two parts: Energy $25.70; basic facility charge $28.37 for a Total = $54.07 + $5 for a Helping Hands donation.
I live in central coastal Cali. I have propane for water heat, cooking stove, and dryer. I also use a wood stove for heat in the winter. My house is very well insulated, and we get about a 40deg diurnal temp swing in the summer.That means I can use a whole house attic fan overnight to get the house down to about 60 in the morning, then button up around 9AM. Even when it’s 104 in the afternoon, I don’t have to start the AC til after 3PM to keep my house around78.
With that said, I use about 25KWh/day (a little less in spring and late fall). That would put my expected bill around 300 a month PLUS the delivery fees and taxes. (not counting my irrigation).
Since I am pretty rural, and given PGE’s inability to keep our lights, on I installed solar with battery backup. Even at the current pricing I am looking at 13+ year payback assuming no maintenance is needed. This is AFTER the 30% tax credit. So much for ‘cheap renewables’.
And Today we only hit 90 so I haven’t had to turn the AC on. Thank God it’s been a cool summer this year.
AlanJ said here: ‘ … The real question isn’t “how much does hope cost?” It’s: how much longer will we let lazy scapegoating delay the upgrades actually needed?’
As a corequisite to a massive investment in a renewable energy power grid — for wind turbines, for solar panels, for batteries, for transmission upgrades, and for pumped hydro systems — Professor Mark Jacobson’s vision for a Net Zero future also requires a massive increase in energy efficiency so that per-capita energy consumption in the US is reduced to 60% or less of what it is today.
The average Joe and Jane on Main Street USA will not pursue these efficiency upgrades out of the goodness of their hearts. Steeply rising prices for all forms of energy is the only incentive which can reduce per-capita energy consumption by the 40% or more needed to achieve the corequisite energy efficiency goal.
Here is what can be done to greatly accelerate the transition of the power grid into a wind & solar future while at the same time greatly reducing per-capita energy consumption by 40% or more through steep increases in the price of energy, including the price of electricity:
— Nationalize the power grid in an arrangement where all privately-owned and publicly owned utilities, all privately-owned and publicly-owned power generators, and all regional RTOs are hired as contractors to a centralized federal power generation and transmission authority.
— Allow the price of electricity to all energy consumers to float in direct response to energy market price/demand signals.
— Guarantee a 10% annual rate of return on all new monies invested in wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, transmission upgrades, and pumped hydro systems.
— Consolidate all power planning activities into a single centralized federal organization. Charter that organization with direct management authority over all energy transition projects.
— Consolidate all regulatory approval authority into a single centralized organization which works in close cooperation with the centralized project planning & control organization.
— Greatly restrict the charter of the centralized regulatory approval organization as to what kinds of environmental questions it can address.
OK … This approach has an obvious flaw if we assume that wind and solar backed by batteries and pumped hydro is in fact the cheapest electricity we could buy in the future — even assuming we allow the price of electricity to float — if we just had some way of getting quickly from here to there in managing the transition. (The assumption isn’t actually rational, but bear with me.)
The obvious flaw goes like this: What about the corequisite need to reduce per-capita energy consumption by 40% or more, without which the transition into wind & solar cannot be successfully achieved? What kind of incentives do we give to energy consumers to reduce their electricity consumption 40% or more if the price they pay for electricity is the same or even cheaper than it is today? (Free tickets to a Bruce Springsteen concert, maybe?)
I believe we’ve seen this movie before, and it had a horror-story ending. The Dot-Com Crash was precipitated, in this interpretation, when the sunk investment into server farms (now archaic, but used above) was lost because the electric-grid couldn’t be built out sufficiently to power them. [See also the California Electricity Crisis, when Enron et al. took advantage of the shortfall.]
For customers in Maryland where I live, the Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013 introduced a monthly surcharge on our household energy bills ($1.50) and a 1.5% increase for non residential consumers to fund the development of an offshore wind farm. No offshore wind yet but at least we get dinged $18 a year for the promise of offshore wind.
So to balance out our lack of offshore wind the legislature has blocked natural gas pipelines that could bring more of this low cost fuel to the state. As a result we import more of our electricity than any other state (40%) in PJM. Virginia actually imports more electricity but only 36% of the total. Luckily both states are close to Pennsylvania which is the largest power exporter in the region. And speaking of AI, Virginia has more data centers than any other state. No wonder power prices are projected to rise sharply in the next few years.
How can this be, someone told me wind and solar are free.
“Now for years, the PJM auction price for “guaranteed” power—the kind that keeps your lights on after sunset—hovered around $29.92 per megawatt-day. That number just jackknifed straight through sanity’s guardrails and into $329.17/MW-day for 2026. That is a tenfold hike.
(Note that the unit of $ per megawatt-day reflects the market’s annual capacity payment to generators for guaranteeing their availability, regardless of actual energy delivered. The figure is not meant to be directly converted into an energy unit ($/kWh) for retail bills, as it covers standby and reliability commitment, not dispatched energy.)
Utilities don’t swallow those costs; they pass them through like hot potatoes, and suddenly, one fifth of your bill is just “capacity”—meaning “back-up for things that don’t work when it’s cloudy, calm, or 5 p.m.”
They have auctions for guaranteed power? So we get to pay more money (lots more money) so non renewables will run inefficiently because renewables can not support the grid in the manner that is needed. This is BS of the highest order. If renewables can’t do what they promised it is they who should pay for guaranteed power.
We need to get wind and solar off the grid now. They suck.
Willis,
Love your work, but per the Department of Energy:
“Utilities do not deliver electrons in the traditional sense. … Electricity in power grids is often described as alternating current (AC), where electrons are merely wiggling back and forth without actually moving.”
It would be more accurate to write that “electricity” or “electric power” is delivered rather than “electrons”.
Thanks for your kind words, AW.
Regarding your question and statement about buying and delivering electrons, what I said was that PJM was “pulling the levers of gigantic energy marketplaces where utilities buy the electrons they deliver to your living room.”
Now, you are 100% correct. The AC versus DC question was decided a century ago. They’re not “delivering electrons” or “buying electrons”.
Here’s the thing. I use allusions, references to literature, hyperbole, poems, bad puns, and metaphors of all kinds in my writing.
So in addition to the electron question, you are also right that there are no “giant marketplaces” full of “levers” that control them … it’s all a metaphor to let people get an intuitive grasp of an unfamiliar situation.
I write for people to understand and enjoy.
Best to you and yours,
w.
Before windmills and solar were added to the grid, there were no warnings of blackouts from system grid operators.
After windmills and solar were added to the grid, there are constant warnings of blackouts from system grid operators.
The Traitor, Barack Obama, said electric prices would necessarily rise under his policies. He should have mentioned that the danger of blackouts would increase, too.
The US Middle Atlantic and Southeast states experienced five days in a heat dome from June 23-27, 2025. This extensive heat dome stressed the electric generation, transmission and distribution resources of the region, including those of the Pennsylvania / New Jersey / Maryland (PJM) Regional Transmission Operator (RTO), the largest ISO in the US. PJM issued an emergency declaration in anticipation of the effects of this heat dome on demand and consumption, requiring all generation resources to be available for full capacity operation throughout the period, as displayed on the PJM Live Dashboard.
https://www.therightinsight.org/5-Days-in-a-Heat-Dome
The Governors of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware have recently complained about high electric prices in the area served by the PJM ISO. They asserted that these high rates were caused by PJM’s failure to add renewables to the grid more rapidly, rather than more expensive natural gas generators.
https://www.therightinsight.org/Governors-Renewables-and-PJM
It’s time to “run the numbers” as Willis suggests.
I think high electric rates are going to become an issue in the New Jersey governor’s race coming up.
I would conclude that much increased rates are caused by “green” but do not even subsidize “green”. And the only solution is to increase subsidies to “green” Forever.
Or give up “green” like an alcoholic gives up alcohol.
A most excellent summary!
I detect the presence of one of our more notorious Flame Warriors.
He is not here to discuss or debate.
He is only here to inflame and cause emotional responses, purely for his ego and entertainment.
Of course, anyone who does not genuflect to his “wisdom: is an obvious “denier.”
I refuse to waste my time commenting on his ideological rantings.