True cost of electricity

[JohnOver]

I just got my PG&E bill today. I used 807 kWh & generated 233 kWh for a net consumption of 574 kWh. For that PG&E is charging me $6.86 to distribute & $36.35 for the energy. So the blended cost for each kWh I consumed is (6.86+37.35)/574 = $.0753 per kWh.

My EVSE meter here at home says that I consumed 206 kWh of energy during the billing period. During the same period I traveled 1,349 miles. So my cost for charging the car is $15.51, and my cost per mile is 1.15 cents/mile. In my case, I don't have to also include the cost of charging elsewhere since I charge for free at work.

Note: I'm on E7, and I'm having second thoughts about installing an E9B meter. I expect that it will save me about $30/month due to having a second baseline and paying $.052/kWh, but that makes the payback more than 5 years!

 

[shay]

Please forgive my ignorance. What is the baseline that gets revered to?

 

[planet4ever]

Please forgive my ignorance. What is the baseline that gets revered to?

California has a Public Utilities Commission that regulates prices charged by electric utilities in the state. In order to conserve electricity, the PUC requires that utilities have rates which go up, rather than down, with increased usage. Someone, perhaps the PUC itself, has created a table of the amount of electricity they believe a residence should need to use per day. The table has multiple rates depending on climate, and also two categories, for an all-electric residence vs. one where something other than electricity is used for heating. (Actually, there are two other categories for people with certain required medical devices.) The number out of this table that applies to you is your baseline. If you don't exceed this amount, averaged over a month, you pay the minimum price, called the "tier 1 price", per kWh. The more you use, the higher the tier you go into, and the more you have to pay per kWh.

I live in a warm Mediterranean climate (a few summer days over 100 degrees, a few winter nights below freezing). We use natural gas for heating, and our electric baseline is 11.0 kWh/day summer, 11.7 kWh/day winter, where "summer" and "winter" are each six months long. (Incidentally, we also have a natural gas baseline.) For our utility, at least, non-electric heated homes have baselines varying from 7.5 kWh/day to 18.5 kWh/day in summer, 9.5 kWh/day to 13.6 kWh/day in winter.

Ray

 

[SanDust]

Great resource! I can definitely use this when my in-laws (Texans) start in on me about buying a coal-powered car... :lol:

You can get it by zipcode from the EPA. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html

 

[SanDust]

not here. we have a HUGE network of hydro Dam courtesy of two Mountain Systems; the Olympics and the Cascades. so our base load is 100% hydro.

Though better than other forms of renewable energy, hydro is best suited for peak demand and ill suited for baseload. The flow of water isn't constant so you have to store it. (Year over year you'll see a difference in generation depending on the snow pack). Coal plants are best suited for baseload and ill suited for peak demand. It takes a very long time to shut down and bring up these plants. Solar and wind aren't well suited for either.

I'm not a huge fan of hydro. The dams do significant damage to the environment which is why there is such a push to tear them down. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/water/2294301

 

[Herm]

Someone, perhaps the PUC itself, has created a table of the amount of electricity they believe a residence should need to use per day.

Very progressive, do they still allow coal burning plants in California?

 

[shay]

Thank you Ray.

 

[PhatBoyG]

Very progressive, do they still allow coal burning plants in California?

From what I read yesterday (a report from Coal producers that was posted here) there are no coal power plants in CA.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Very progressive, do they still allow coal burning plants in California?

From what I read yesterday (a report from Coal producers that was posted here) there are no coal power plants in CA.

With grids interconnected it becomes difficult to say where "your" power comes from. As a group we all have to assume that when we use electricity about half of it was generated from coal.

 

[DarkStar]

Great resource! I can definitely use this when my in-laws (Texans) start in on me about buying a coal-powered car... :lol:

You can get it by zipcode from the EPA. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html

Unfortunately this info is extremely old and outdated. The difference from the production in 2011 and as reported in 2007 (possibly with 2006 data) could be night and day.

 

[abasile]

Very progressive, do they still allow coal burning plants in California?

From what I read yesterday (a report from Coal producers that was posted here) there are no coal power plants in CA.

With grids interconnected it becomes difficult to say where "your" power comes from. As a group we all have to assume that when we use electricity about half of it was generated from coal.

There isn't much interconnection between the West and the East, where more coal burning takes place. Due to imports from other Western states, however, California does get a modest percentage of its electricity from coal. It is fair to say that electricity in California is much cleaner than in most of the eastern states.

Also, we've been averaging about 1000 miles per month in our LEAF so far, and haven't noticed an increase in our electric bill any more than $20 or $25. We are in Southern California Edison territory, are on the standard residential plan, have a relatively efficient home with gas heating, and do not require air conditioning due to our high elevation. Last month's electric bill was $64.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

If you're a fish, coal is greener than hydro.

 

[kevin672]

If you're a fish, coal is greener than hydro.

Only if you're a salmon in the pacific northwest. If you're a trout you probably don't have a home if the damn hadn't been built. I'm sure marlin much prefer damns to coal. :mrgreen:

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

If you're a fish, coal is greener than hydro.

Actually, with Seattle City Light's "Green Up Program", our electricity is offset by sources considered sustainable and micro hydro is included since it does not effect salmon. sustainable low impact hydro is doable and is becoming more popular. Evan mass hydro is probably better for fish overall than coal, as ocean warming is devastating entire ocean ecosystems globally.
g

 

[LEAFfan]

Very progressive, do they still allow coal burning plants in California?

According to the 2009 data, CA uses only .8 percent coal for its energy use.

 

[smkettner]

If gasoline is soooo much better than coal..... why don't we have gasoline powered generating plants?
Just a rhetorical question. No reply needed.