Energy Politics at My Local Level

I wonder what the subsidy is for coal?

Does part of the high per unit cost for very low consumption include any sort of 'standby' charge? I know for our local natural gas, as an example, there are several fixed charges that apply even if consumption is zero.

 

Exactly. Even my electric has a charge everyday, even if I use 0 watts, I would still get a bill. My average cost per kwh would be infinity.

And this is sort of like driving an extra 10 miles to gain 1mpg on the display. Lower average fuel usage per mile, higher absolute fuel usage.

 

While it may seem counter-intuitive, especially from the consumer's point of view, there is some logic to that. There's a fixed cost incurred in making the electricity available for use, whether or not you actually use any. At least, that's how I rationalise it.

 

Agreed. That's why I pay it every month

 

Well judging from the curvature of the graphs, it looks like the fixed costs increased as well. Do you have a graph of the old dynamic prices vs the new dynamic prices with old fixed costs for both and/or the old dynamic prices vs the new dynamic prices with new fixed costs?

That might make it easier for others not knowing the historical fixed charges in your area to see what you are seeing.

 

Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch

It costs money to have availability, but various state and local regulations decide how this is allocated and charged.

 

My utility, SDG&E has a $0.17 / day minimum charge - about $5/month.

Rates vary depending on how much you use from $0.14 / kWh to $0.31 / kWh. So if you use less than 37 kWh / month, your rates start going up. That's about 1/10th
the average household usage around here.

Here's what a typical rate charge would look like based on usage:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Given that your peak rates are the same as our base rates - I would not complain.

I would happily pay more to source all of my electricity from renewables - as it is, my PV system offsets about 90% of my annual household usage.

 

I don't see why you should care about what solar hot water does to average cost/kwh. That is like complaining about Prius MPG falling when one's commute distance is cut in half, even though the total fuel bill is being cut substantially.

More important is what is does to your total cost. How much will solar hot water push down your total electric bill under both the old and new rate plans?

 

That's called your automobile registration fee.

 

Does this rate structure apply to all residential customers, or just the low-usage customers? In the former case, the analogy fails.

Again, how much savings will the solar water heater produce on both old and new rate plans? For these sorts of comparisons, I understand marginal rate charts better than average price curves.

Your electric rate structure is nowhere near as bad as my water rate structure, where about 85% of my bill is the fixed cost of having the connection, without consuming a drop. Even though my house uses barely half the water of an average residence, the (rare for my community) residential fire sprinklers force a larger meter at double the monthly price. The theory is that I'm being charged for capacity availability. Ignored is the actual difference in fire flow demand: 1500 gpm from the hydrants for neighboring non-sprinklered houses, 1540 gpm for my house for the hydrants and sprinklers combined, less than 3% extra. In reality, my house should draw much less due to friction losses in the very long hose path to the nearest hydrant.

This fire sprinkler penalty was minimal when the house was built, but was drastically raised about a decade later. The neighboring water district went the opposite direction, reducing its 'sprinkler penalty' to under $1 per month.