My home electric bill has basically doubled in the past 4 months! WTF is going on?

[NW Ontario Ford Lightning]

my over night residential rate is 2.8 cents per kWh (in Canadian Dollars) so about 2-cents USD. They add a delivery and few regulatory charges to this. Typical monthly bill in summer - $34/month. in Winter $100/month. My monthly consumption (including the Lightning) is about 1500kWh per month, all year around.
I run three heat pumps several deep freezers and use a regular electric hot water tank.

I built out a solar-battery system to protect me from utility outages (ie Winter !) and future increases in utilty rates - the solar works perfectly from April to October supplying all the electric power we need, then switches for winter to being a big battery that can charge from the low overnight rate to make up the missing solar input part each day, and allow my inverters to just run like normal during day and night at low cost.

It is surprising to hear how expensive electricity is just a short distance south of here.

Sponsored

 

[Ricks Lightning]

As a plumber and plumbing contractor for 50 years, i know the ins and outs of utility bills. including the mysterious sewer surcharge that we use in Los Angeles.

What I see here on this forum is that we understand, ask and provide all the information to the original question of why has my bill doubled.

I wish it was this informative and knowledgeable on the Nextdoor website. Every month Nextdoor is flooded with people posting the same question about their utility bill. But it never fails thet all they look at is the dollar amount they write a check for. I can ask a dozen times to post their consumption. post and compare the bar graph from prior months. But they never ever do. All they do is say their bill doubled.

You Forum members nailed it. asked and Provided all the right questions and numbers. Too bad Nextdoor members don't do the same and just complain.

BY the way, here in Los Angeles with our utility provider LADWP, our rates are much lower than Edison who supplies our neighboring cities. Ladwp is billed every 2 months. we are allowed 700 kwh for tier 1 and then bump into Tier 2, 3 or 4. doesn't matter if you have a 5000' or a 1.5 acre lot. we all get the first 700 kwh for 23 cents.tier 1. Tier 2 from 700-2100 kwh is .29 . Tier 3 and Tier 4 are higher. If you live over the hill in the San Fernando Valley, Tier 1 is the first 1100kwh as it's typically more extreme weather.

My 1118 kwh for the last 58 days 6/10-8/7 summer was 337.04 inc. taxes. average of .30 per kwh
Still much cheaper than fuel for my other vans that average 12 mpg and 6 mpg. especially with gas prices of regular at lowest of 4.30 to premium high of 5.80 and diesel at 4.70-5.70.
Who thinks is cheap to live and work in Los Angeles?

Rick

 

[Firn]

There is a complex cost relationship between utility provided intermittent renewable energy generation and the need for utility natural gas (generally) equivalent dispatch-able power generation for when the renewable sources fail to shine or blow. Many states are running the basically flawed argument that certain renewable energy generation sources (solar and wind) are cheaper than other forms of generation, on a total cost basis, they are generally NOT. I exclude nuclear and hydro from this list because aren't typically forms of quickly "dispatch-able" forms of generation.

Individual US states electricity costs are beginning to get out of control as the penetration of wind and solar become more prevalent on their grids. You can look at the situation in the UK and California as good examples of where their choices are already at the heart of these rapidly rising prices. States like New Jersey are about to experience this in spades. It actually is a major issue going forward in the current governors race in NJ, their failed investments in offshore wind specifically are going to cost rate payers billions of dollars. Other states like North Dakota and Florida are examples of where this trend has been mostly avoided. I am not trying to make an ecological argument here, merely a financial one. I have a 20 KW solar system and 27KWh battery storage system on my house so I get the issues here and own 3 electric vehicles. What works well on an individual small scale basis to control long term costs is not necessarily a good idea on a utility scale basis. Solar incentives (rebates, net metering, etc.) on a national and a state level have lead us to this place. We now need to pay for those choices.

Economics 101, making choices always involves repercussions about costs.

Fwiw modern nuclear can relatively quickly modulate capacity, much better than most forms of energy as a matter of fact.

If you look at all the states, not just 4 convinent ones, it shows there is no corelation between the cost of electricity and the use of renewable energy.

Scatter plot of cost vs renewable. Corelation is very very weak.

Looking at it another way we can plot cost and renewable percentage compared to each other and then sort by either factor. If there is a relation you will see matching trends (which are not seen)

 

[kf59]

Fwiw modern nuclear can relatively quickly modulate capacity, much better than most forms of energy as a matter of fact.

If you look at all the states, not just 4 convinent ones, it shows there is no corelation between the cost of electricity and the use of renewable energy.

Scatter plot of cost vs renewable. Corelation is very very weak.

Looking at it another way we can plot cost and renewable percentage compared to each other and then sort by either factor. If there is a relation you will see matching trends (which are not seen)

State boundaries do not apply to energy markets. At a minimum, one would need to conduct an analysis of this sort at the grid operator level. Even then because different states within a grid operator territory have different green energy incentives there is substantial “trading” of electricity across boundaries. For example, west central Indiana has substantial wind generation but that energy is almost entirely “traded” to generators in Illinois to meet their green energy requirements. Where energy is generated is where it is used but not always where it impacts price due to the complexity of virtual transactions.

 

[Firn]

State boundaries do not apply to energy markets. At a minimum, one would need to conduct an analysis of this sort at the grid operator level. Even then because different states within a grid operator territory have different green energy incentives there is substantial “trading” of electricity across boundaries. For example, west central Indiana has substantial wind generation but that energy is almost entirely “traded” to generators in Illinois to meet their green energy requirements. Where energy is generated is where it is used but not always where it impacts price due to the complexity of virtual transactions.

They DO apply, however they do not have the exact same boundaries. Maine is not buying power from Kansas for example, and Florida may buy some power from Georgia, they are not buying it from New York. It is correct to say it doesnt have the exact same boundaries, it is incorrect however to imply there are none.

And yes, I agree with the premis, that its not completely fungible. Howver local generation is still locally distributed. As a result high or low costs in generation would still have an effect on local prices. Again, agree its not defined by an exact state line but there is still a local influence. As such the plots are still relevant

 

[kf59]

They DO apply, however they do not have the exact same boundaries. Maine is not buying power from Kansas for example, and Florida may buy some power from Georgia, they are not buying it from New York. It is correct to say it doesnt have the exact same boundaries, it is incorrect however to imply there are none.

And yes, I agree with the premis, that its not completely fungible. Howver local generation is still locally distributed. As a result high or low costs in generation would still have an effect on local prices. Again, agree its not defined by an exact state line but there is still a local influence. As such the plots are still relevant

Electricity is not transmitted over long distances but it is “traded” nationally and internationally including Canada. Some of my former students make 6 to 7 figure salaries doing this all day long with their counterparts across the country. It’s a combination of risk management and offsetting local regulations and costs of production. They don’t care where the energy is generated (could be the other end of the country) as long as they can turn a profitable trade or offset a local green energy requirement. The benefits accrue to their customers not the people who live next to the green generation they trade for. Illinois customers benefit from west central Indiana wind generation because Illinois generators aren’t building wind turbines in a less windy place. There’s a reason why a tongue of the great prairie extends into west central Indiana where the dominant eco-system would be forest. The wind blew fires from the prairie in that area for thousands of years beating back the forests. It’s just windier there.

 

[Jseis]

When wind power appeared in central & eastern Washington, there’s was an initial period of “how to integrate into the grid”. The result was a grid balancing act that took advantage of the hydro dams ability to “store” water and the windmills vagaries with daily & seasonal wind cycles. Turned out that hydro dams let water over for flood control and fish (salmon), thus wind offers the power adder offsetting water flow for other reasons.

One other odd factoid. Power futures are constantly in play on the grid (West Coast Grid) and an energy provider can by futures in wind, nuke, coal, solar, natural gas, oil, etc. We are in the Western Interconnection Grid. My colleagues dealing with data centers talk about immense power demands…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interconnection

 

[Firn]

Electricity is not transmitted over long distances but it is “traded” nationally and internationally including Canada. Some of my former students make 6 to 7 figure salaries doing this all day long with their counterparts across the country. It’s a combination of risk management and offsetting local regulations and costs of production. They don’t care where the energy is generated (could be the other end of the country) as long as they can turn a profitable trade or offset a local green energy requirement. The benefits accrue to their customers not the people who live next to the green generation they trade for. Illinois customers benefit from west central Indiana wind generation because Illinois generators aren’t building wind turbines in a less windy place. There’s a reason why a tongue of the great prairie extends into west central Indiana where the dominant eco-system would be forest. The wind blew fires from the prairie in that area for thousands of years beating back the forests. It’s just windier there.

Sure, I dont disagree with the statement. But to be clear, the argument is that cheap or expensive energy affects the local area. Are you claiming that if an extremely low cost form of electricity was implemented in some geographical area then the area around that would NOT see a reduction in electricity cost, more or less than geographically separated areas? Conversely, in an area with very expensive generation costs, that area would NOT have higher costs than geographically separated areas.

I recognize there are nuances to the discussion, but above is the premis being discussed.

 

[hb.sagen]

We have prices change every hour, all year around. They are set at 1 pm for the next day. They fluctuate with expected demand, weather forecast in Europe and a lot of other factors. It’s run like a stock exchange.

It can change from 0 to $1 for the kWh.

People are fed up, and now we get to choose between this and a fixed price of $0.05 for the kWh.

Absolutely all energy in Norway is from hydro or renewable. Not a single coal plant or nuclear. But we sell cheap energy to Europe in exchange for expensive coal/nuclear power.

No AC in summer and wood for warmth in winter. $2000 to $3000 yearly cost in power.

 

[Athrun88]

We have prices change every hour, all year around. They are set at 1 pm for the next day. They fluctuate with expected demand, weather forecast in Europe and a lot of other factors. It’s run like a stock exchange.

It can change from 0 to $8 for the kWh.

People are fed up, and now we get to choose between this and a fixed price of $0.5 for the kWh.

Absolutely all energy in Norway is from hydro or renewable. Not a single coal plant or nuclear. But we sell cheap energy to Europe in exchange for expensive coal/nuclear power.

That's nuts, I thought my prices were high!

I'm on the worst possible plan with my electric company due to not being able to adhere to any TOU plan. First 1000Kwh is charged at 9.3c/Kwh with anything exceeding that 11.0c/Kwh. If I can ever get my wife on board with sticking with TOU, I'd probably save a few bucks.

 

[hb.sagen]

That's nuts, I thought my prices were high!

I'm on the worst possible plan with my electric company due to not being able to adhere to any TOU plan. First 1000Kwh is charged at 9.3c/Kwh with anything exceeding that 11.0c/Kwh. If I can ever get my wife on board with sticking with TOU, I'd probably save a few bucks.

Sorry, a typo snuck in. Max price is around $1.

 

[Newton]

Just to put the numbers in perspective - The average two car household drives 60 miles per day (about 22,000 miles per year). Even a very inefficient truck like my Lightning achieves a yearly average of over 2 mi/kWh.

So assuming 22,000 miles per year and 2 mi/kWh, you are using 11,000 kWh to charge the truck. Assume 88% efficiency grid-to battery so total grid energy is about 12,500 kWh for a years charge.

At .10/kWh you are paying $1250 per year to power your truck. At the worst case .50/kWh) you are paying $6,250 per year.

This is not much compared to the depreciation that you face buying any $60-$100K vehicle, let alone the insurance, interest rate, and opportunity costs. If cost is at all of an issue, one should buy a less expensive and (much) more efficient EV such as my other EV - the EV6 which is almost twice as efficient and much less expensive. It doesn’t haul dirt, though.

 

[hb.sagen]

This hour the price is $0.15. Attached is the hourly prices and when my car is scheduled to charge. The power utility app automatically calculates how to cheapest charge my car to the set % and time.

Any company can sell power in the grid, they just buy it on the exchange. The prices are given, and they just add a monthly fee. The company with most customers earns the most. To get customers they need the best functionality. So they excel at reducing the power use and optimize timing of needed use.

The prices in this graph is without tax and grid fees.

 

[kf59]

Sure, I dont disagree with the statement. But to be clear, the argument is that cheap or expensive energy affects the local area. Are you claiming that if an extremely low cost form of electricity was implemented in some geographical area then the area around that would NOT see a reduction in electricity cost, more or less than geographically separated areas? Conversely, in an area with very expensive generation costs, that area would NOT have higher costs than geographically separated areas.

I recognize there are nuances to the discussion, but above is the premis being discussed.

Not if someone elsewhere can bid the value away from local users which often happens in the case of wind and solar in states with less green initiatives Indiana.

 

[Lightning Rod]

Sponsored