and it ain't pretty.

A March survey from GOBankingRates found that three-quarters of Americans claim their utility bills have increased by a minimum of 25% within the last year alone. Of the respondents, 22% said they'd seen a 50% increase in their bill, while 10% said their
utilities bills have more than doubled over the previous year.

Connecticut has seen a near doubling in electricity costs, according to EverSource, which reports that the price of kilowatts per hour in the state has jumped from 12 cents to 23 cents within the last six months.

God...I wish I could get back to 23 cents.
We've all been lied to when they claim renewables are cheaper.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/16/23 12:00 AM, ScottW wrote:

and it ain't pretty.

We've all been lied to when they claim renewables are cheaper.

Your bill can go up even if renewables, or, more precisely, electricity generated by renewables, are cheaper. For instance, your bill is going
up because of natural gas spot prices as well as infrastructure costs.

That fixed charge solution you brought up elsewhere is interesting,
leaving aside the politics of making it progressive by income. A flat
fee can more equitably pay for fixed costs and solve the free-rider
problem for homes with solar or other generating capability. Tying
revenue to consumption is problematic if you're trying to reduce usage.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 12:00 AM, ScottW wrote:

and it ain't pretty.
We've all been lied to when they claim renewables are cheaper.

Your bill can go up even if renewables, or, more precisely, electricity generated by renewables, are cheaper. For instance, your bill is going
up because of natural gas spot prices as well as infrastructure costs.

For one....the infrastructure costs spiraling are almost 100% due to conversion to renewables.

and Two...the natural gas spot price spike was almost exclusively a Ca. thing. The vast majority of the country has seen gas prices drop while electrical utility rates spike.

That fixed charge solution you brought up elsewhere is interesting,
leaving aside the politics of making it progressive by income.

It's moronic. I predict rich people will create their own local utilities in response.
They have the means to unplug while you and I are at the utilities mercy
and absent the rich people screw, you better really lube up.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/16/23 5:48 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 12:00 AM, ScottW wrote:

and it ain't pretty.
We've all been lied to when they claim renewables are cheaper.

Your bill can go up even if renewables, or, more precisely, electricity
generated by renewables, are cheaper. For instance, your bill is going
up because of natural gas spot prices as well as infrastructure costs.

For one....the infrastructure costs spiraling are almost 100% due to conversion to renewables.

That would be true for any infrastructure. Would you prefer an
unreliable grid without new construction?

and Two...the natural gas spot price spike was almost exclusively a Ca. thing.
The vast majority of the country has seen gas prices drop while electrical utility rates spike.

You were talking about your bill, so it's a reasonable point that your
natural gas was expensive. BTW, in Texas we're paying an additional
$15/mo for the next ten years to pay for 2021's price spike.

That fixed charge solution you brought up elsewhere is interesting,
leaving aside the politics of making it progressive by income.

It's moronic. I predict rich people will create their own local utilities in response.
They have the means to unplug while you and I are at the utilities mercy

Commercial users get discounts for high energy use. They keep the power
plants working.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:17:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 5:48 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 12:00 AM, ScottW wrote:

and it ain't pretty.
We've all been lied to when they claim renewables are cheaper.

Your bill can go up even if renewables, or, more precisely, electricity >> generated by renewables, are cheaper. For instance, your bill is going
up because of natural gas spot prices as well as infrastructure costs.

For one....the infrastructure costs spiraling are almost 100% due to conversion to renewables.

That would be true for any infrastructure. Would you prefer an
unreliable grid without new construction?

The grid was reliable...until they f'd it up.

and Two...the natural gas spot price spike was almost exclusively a Ca. thing.
The vast majority of the country has seen gas prices drop while electrical utility rates spike.

You were talking about your bill, so it's a reasonable point that your natural gas was expensive.

I keep telling you but you're too stupid to remember, I don't have natural gas service in my homes.
It's my off the chart electricity bills I keep warning you about.
They're coming to you too.

BTW, in Texas we're paying an additional
$15/mo for the next ten years to pay for 2021's price spike.

That fixed charge solution you brought up elsewhere is interesting,
leaving aside the politics of making it progressive by income.

It's moronic. I predict rich people will create their own local utilities in response.
They have the means to unplug while you and I are at the utilities mercy

Commercial users get discounts for high energy use. They keep the power plants working.

and the obfuscation keeps coming. But in reality, even with discounts, commercial energy
users are siting energy costs for moving even office facilities.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/companies-flee-california-due-to-high-energy-prices/

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/17/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:17:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 5:48 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 12:00 AM, ScottW wrote:

and it ain't pretty. We've all been lied to when they claim
renewables are cheaper.

Your bill can go up even if renewables, or, more precisely,
electricity generated by renewables, are cheaper. For instance,
your bill is going up because of natural gas spot prices as
well as infrastructure costs.

For one....the infrastructure costs spiraling are almost 100% due
to conversion to renewables.

That would be true for any infrastructure. Would you prefer an
unreliable grid without new construction?

The grid was reliable...until they f'd it up.

Would have worn out eventually. Look for grid reliability led here:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/sdge-if-youre-not-prepared-for-the-change-its-too-late/366979/

"After the California energy crisis in the early 2000s, the state
legislature enacted a four-tiered rate system to protect ratepayers. The
law froze rates for the lowest two tiers and it remained that way until
last year, when the legislature passed a rate reform bill. The frozen
tiers created severe disparities between higher-use and lower-use
customers — the top two tiers were paying 50% more than the cost to
serve them, according to the utility.

The rates are not aligned with the true costs of running the system,
according to SDG&E. The fixed costs of operating the grid don’t
change... but only about 15% of the utility’s costs are variable."

There's that discrepancy between fixed costs and usage. Looks like your
bill was artificially low for years so here's where you thank the state
for what you previously saved from the early 2000s to 2015.

and Two...the natural gas spot price spike was almost exclusively
a Ca. thing. The vast majority of the country has seen gas prices
drop while electrical utility rates spike.

You were talking about your bill, so it's a reasonable point that
your natural gas was expensive.

I keep telling you but you're too stupid to remember, I don't have
natural gas service in my homes. It's my off the chart electricity
bills I keep warning you about.

You don't remember that SDGE generates electricity from natural gas? I
cited and everything.

They're coming to you too.

My bill in unaffected by SDGE.

BTW, in Texas we're paying an additional $15/mo for the next ten
years to pay for 2021's price spike.

That fixed charge solution you brought up elsewhere is
interesting, leaving aside the politics of making it
progressive by income.

It's moronic. I predict rich people will create their own local
utilities in response. They have the means to unplug while you
and I are at the utilities mercy

Commercial users get discounts for high energy use. They keep the
power plants working.

and the obfuscation keeps coming.

No obfuscation. Power companies need customers to keep power plants
operating.

But in reality, even with discounts, commercial energy users are
siting energy costs for moving even office facilities.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/companies-flee-california-due-to-high-energy-prices/

Hence the practice of offering discounts to big users to keep them
signed on.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:49 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/17/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:17:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 5:48 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 12:00 AM, ScottW wrote:

and it ain't pretty. We've all been lied to when they claim
renewables are cheaper.

Your bill can go up even if renewables, or, more precisely,
electricity generated by renewables, are cheaper. For instance,
your bill is going up because of natural gas spot prices as
well as infrastructure costs.

For one....the infrastructure costs spiraling are almost 100% due
to conversion to renewables.

That would be true for any infrastructure. Would you prefer an
unreliable grid without new construction?

The grid was reliable...until they f'd it up.

Would have worn out eventually. Look for grid reliability led here:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/sdge-if-youre-not-prepared-for-the-change-its-too-late/366979/

Worn out? I can't get past the headline before seeing you're own site tramples your argument.

"Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place for solar, but solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

See that? Let me repeat.."solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

Read it again...."Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place for solar, but solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

"After the California energy crisis in the early 2000s, the state legislature enacted a four-tiered rate system to protect ratepayers. The
law froze rates for the lowest two tiers and it remained that way until
last year, when the legislature passed a rate reform bill. The frozen
tiers created severe disparities between higher-use and lower-use
customers — the top two tiers were paying 50% more than the cost to
serve them, according to the utility.

this has nothing to do with grid reliability. It's the state using utilities as a welfare system.

The rates are not aligned with the true costs of running the system, according to SDG&E. The fixed costs of operating the grid don’t
change... but only about 15% of the utility’s costs are variable."

There's that discrepancy between fixed costs and usage. Looks like your
bill was artificially low for years

BS...you couldn't stay in Tier 1 and 2 without living in a studio apartment. You dredge up shit on the internet and you have no clue WTF you're talking about.
I'm not going to keep debating with you as you're simply too ignorant and uninformed to
have an opinion worthy of consideration.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/18/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:49 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/17/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:17:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 5:48 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 12:00 AM, ScottW wrote:

and it ain't pretty. We've all been lied to when they claim
renewables are cheaper.

Your bill can go up even if renewables, or, more precisely,
electricity generated by renewables, are cheaper. For instance,
your bill is going up because of natural gas spot prices as
well as infrastructure costs.

For one....the infrastructure costs spiraling are almost 100% due
to conversion to renewables.

That would be true for any infrastructure. Would you prefer an
unreliable grid without new construction?

The grid was reliable...until they f'd it up.

Would have worn out eventually. Look for grid reliability led here:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/sdge-if-youre-not-prepared-for-the-change-its-too-late/366979/

Worn out? I can't get past the headline before seeing you're own site tramples your argument.

"Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place for solar, but solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

See that? Let me repeat.."solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

Read it again...."Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place for solar, but solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

The context is home solar and net metering, not power plants.

"After the California energy crisis in the early 2000s, the state
legislature enacted a four-tiered rate system to protect ratepayers. The
law froze rates for the lowest two tiers and it remained that way until
last year, when the legislature passed a rate reform bill. The frozen
tiers created severe disparities between higher-use and lower-use
customers — the top two tiers were paying 50% more than the cost to
serve them, according to the utility.

this has nothing to do with grid reliability. It's the state using utilities as a welfare system.

For you.

The rates are not aligned with the true costs of running the system,
according to SDG&E. The fixed costs of operating the grid don’t
change... but only about 15% of the utility’s costs are variable."

There's that discrepancy between fixed costs and usage. Looks like your
bill was artificially low for years

BS...you couldn't stay in Tier 1 and 2 without living in a studio apartment.

I'll take your word for that, but they've changed to Time Of Use since
then anyway.

You dredge up shit on the internet and you have no clue WTF you're talking about.
I'm not going to keep debating with you as you're simply too ignorant and uninformed to
have an opinion worthy of consideration.

Like whether SDGE uses natural gas for electricity production? If you
won't respond to facts and you can't comprehend ideas, I guess it's back
to word games and insults for you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:32:07 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/18/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:49 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/17/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:17:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 5:48 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 4/16/23 12:00 AM, ScottW wrote:

and it ain't pretty. We've all been lied to when they claim
renewables are cheaper.

Your bill can go up even if renewables, or, more precisely,
electricity generated by renewables, are cheaper. For instance, >>>>>> your bill is going up because of natural gas spot prices as
well as infrastructure costs.

For one....the infrastructure costs spiraling are almost 100% due >>>>> to conversion to renewables.

That would be true for any infrastructure. Would you prefer an
unreliable grid without new construction?

The grid was reliable...until they f'd it up.

Would have worn out eventually. Look for grid reliability led here:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/sdge-if-youre-not-prepared-for-the-change-its-too-late/366979/

Worn out? I can't get past the headline before seeing you're own site tramples your argument.

"Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place for solar, but solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

See that? Let me repeat.."solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

Read it again...."Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place for solar, but solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

The context is home solar and net metering, not power plants.

BS...Home solar does not impact grid reliability.
Power plants taken off line replaced by solar fields does.
And net metering is because of solar adoption, not some independent development.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/19/23 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:32:07 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/18/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:49 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/17/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:17:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 5:48 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/16/23 12:00 AM, ScottW wrote:

and it ain't pretty. We've all been lied to when they claim
renewables are cheaper.

Your bill can go up even if renewables, or, more precisely,
electricity generated by renewables, are cheaper. For instance, >>>>>>>> your bill is going up because of natural gas spot prices as
well as infrastructure costs.

For one....the infrastructure costs spiraling are almost 100% due >>>>>>> to conversion to renewables.

That would be true for any infrastructure. Would you prefer an
unreliable grid without new construction?

The grid was reliable...until they f'd it up.

Would have worn out eventually. Look for grid reliability led here:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/sdge-if-youre-not-prepared-for-the-change-its-too-late/366979/

Worn out? I can't get past the headline before seeing you're own site tramples your argument.

"Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place for solar, but solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

See that? Let me repeat.."solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

Read it again...."Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place for solar, but solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

The context is home solar and net metering, not power plants.

BS...Home solar does not impact grid reliability.

Didn't say that. I said that looking for info on grid reliability led to
the utilitydive post.

Maybe you could have read the first four sentences before throwing up
your hands:

"It’s always sunny in San Diego, California, or at least it seems that way.

The vast majority of U.S. electric utilities have very little solar on
their grids — less than 1% penetration. But that’s not the case for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E).

The utility has about 45,000 rooftop solar customers today — and that
figure is growing fast."

This shows home solar is the topic.

The greater topic here is that you think carbon plants don't wear out
and require replacement.

Here's The Street:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/natural-gas-power-plants-begin-their-inevitable-decline/ar-AA13Cv4E

"[N]atural gas has peaked in the American power sector-and there's no
turning back."

Power plants taken off line replaced by solar fields does.

And net metering is because of solar adoption, not some independent development.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/19/23 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:32:07 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/18/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:49 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/17/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:17:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 5:48 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/16/23 12:00 AM, ScottW wrote:

and it ain't pretty. We've all been lied to when they claim >>>>>>>>> renewables are cheaper.

Your bill can go up even if renewables, or, more precisely, >>>>>>>> electricity generated by renewables, are cheaper. For instance, >>>>>>>> your bill is going up because of natural gas spot prices as >>>>>>>> well as infrastructure costs.

For one....the infrastructure costs spiraling are almost 100% due >>>>>>> to conversion to renewables.

That would be true for any infrastructure. Would you prefer an
unreliable grid without new construction?

The grid was reliable...until they f'd it up.

Would have worn out eventually. Look for grid reliability led here: >>>>
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/sdge-if-youre-not-prepared-for-the-change-its-too-late/366979/

Worn out? I can't get past the headline before seeing you're own site tramples your argument.

"Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place for solar, but solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

See that? Let me repeat.."solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

Read it again...."Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place for solar, but solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

The context is home solar and net metering, not power plants.

BS...Home solar does not impact grid reliability.

Didn't say that. I said that looking for info on grid reliability led to
the utilitydive post.

Maybe you could have read the first four sentences before throwing up
your hands:

"It’s always sunny in San Diego, California, or at least it seems that way.

The vast majority of U.S. electric utilities have very little solar on
their grids — less than 1% penetration. But that’s not the case for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E).

The utility has about 45,000 rooftop solar customers today — and that figure is growing fast."

Since it's a state mandate for any new construction and many remodels as well.

This shows home solar is the topic.

I don't even know what you think the topic is anymore.
Grid reliability is not degraded by home solar systems....period.

The greater topic here is that you think carbon plants don't wear out
and require replacement.

Everything wears out and requires maintenance and sometimes major replacement. But I doubt a "carbon plant" will need virtually 100% replacement in 20 years as
a PV solar farm will. Add lithium backup that lasts maybe 8 years and you've got some
serious maintenance costs ahead.

Here's The Street:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/natural-gas-power-plants-begin-their-inevitable-decline/ar-AA13Cv4E

"[N]atural gas has peaked in the American power sector-and there's no turning back."

Tell it to Germany. You'll believe anything that sounds good to your narrative.
That BS has zero to do with overall plant operating and maintenance costs.

But I'll tell you that these spiraling utility costs are not going to go unnoticed by the
public. And they will eventually vote the dickheads out and elect someone who says
they can do better.

Power plants taken off line replaced by solar fields does.

And net metering is because of solar adoption, not some independent development.

I see you had nothing for the real crux of the issue. Typical.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/19/23 9:41 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/19/23 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:32:07 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/18/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:49 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

On 4/17/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:17:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

On 4/16/23 5:48 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC-7,
mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 12:00 AM, ScottW wrote:

and it ain't pretty. We've all been lied to when
they claim renewables are cheaper.

Your bill can go up even if renewables, or, more
precisely, electricity generated by renewables, are
cheaper. For instance, your bill is going up
because of natural gas spot prices as well as
infrastructure costs.

For one....the infrastructure costs spiraling are
almost 100% due to conversion to renewables.

That would be true for any infrastructure. Would you
prefer an unreliable grid without new construction?

The grid was reliable...until they f'd it up.

Would have worn out eventually. Look for grid reliability
led here:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/sdge-if-youre-not-prepared-for-the-change-its-too-late/366979/

Worn out? I can't get past the headline before seeing you're own site tramples your argument.

"Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place for solar, but
solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

See that? Let me repeat.."solar adoption is causing serious
problems on the grid."

Read it again...."Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place
for solar, but solar adoption is causing serious problems on
the grid."

The context is home solar and net metering, not power plants.

BS...Home solar does not impact grid reliability.

Didn't say that. I said that looking for info on grid reliability
led to the utilitydive post.

Maybe you could have read the first four sentences before throwing
up your hands:

"It’s always sunny in San Diego, California, or at least it seems
that way.

The vast majority of U.S. electric utilities have very little solar
on their grids — less than 1% penetration. But that’s not the case
for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E).

The utility has about 45,000 rooftop solar customers today — and
that figure is growing fast."

Since it's a state mandate for any new construction and many remodels
as well.

That article is also from 2015, so the number is likely higher.

This shows home solar is the topic.

I don't even know what you think the topic is anymore. Grid
reliability is not degraded by home solar systems....period.

Never claimed.

The greater topic here is that you think carbon plants don't wear
out and require replacement.

Everything wears out and requires maintenance and sometimes major replacement. But I doubt a "carbon plant" will need virtually 100% replacement in 20 years as a PV solar farm will. Add lithium backup
that lasts maybe 8 years and you've got some serious maintenance
costs ahead.

Here's The Street:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/natural-gas-power-plants-begin-their-inevitable-decline/ar-AA13Cv4E


"[N]atural gas has peaked in the American power sector-and there's no turning back."

Tell it to Germany.

Hey, Germany! You can't count on cheap Russian natural gas anymore!

You'll believe anything that sounds good to your narrative. That BS has zero to do with overall plant
operating and maintenance costs.

There's a big advantage to renewable for fuel costs.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/519144/power-plant-operation-and-maintenance-costs-in-the-us-by-technology/

But I'll tell you that these spiraling utility costs are not going to
go unnoticed by the public. And they will eventually vote the
dickheads out and elect someone who says they can do better.

Prop 13 for power, got it.

Power plants taken off line replaced by solar fields does.

And net metering is because of solar adoption, not some
independent development.

I see you had nothing for the real crux of the issue. Typical.

Net metering is not the crux of the issue: "We've all been lied to when
they claim renewables are cheaper." You're assuming cheaper renewables
means a lower utility bill. What if your bill would be even higher if renewables were not pursued?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 7:19:45 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/19/23 9:41 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 4:30:15 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/19/23 12:26 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:32:07 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/18/23 5:33 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 7:50:49 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

On 4/17/23 9:03 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 7:17:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

On 4/16/23 5:48 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:56:35 AM UTC-7,
mINE109 wrote:

On 4/16/23 12:00 AM, ScottW wrote:

and it ain't pretty. We've all been lied to when
they claim renewables are cheaper.

Your bill can go up even if renewables, or, more
precisely, electricity generated by renewables, are
cheaper. For instance, your bill is going up
because of natural gas spot prices as well as
infrastructure costs.

For one....the infrastructure costs spiraling are
almost 100% due to conversion to renewables.

That would be true for any infrastructure. Would you
prefer an unreliable grid without new construction?

The grid was reliable...until they f'd it up.

Would have worn out eventually. Look for grid reliability
led here:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/sdge-if-youre-not-prepared-for-the-change-its-too-late/366979/

Worn out? I can't get past the headline before seeing you're own site tramples your argument.

"Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place for solar, but
solar adoption is causing serious problems on the grid."

See that? Let me repeat.."solar adoption is causing serious
problems on the grid."

Read it again...."Sunny San Diego may be the perfect place
for solar, but solar adoption is causing serious problems on
the grid."

The context is home solar and net metering, not power plants.

BS...Home solar does not impact grid reliability.

Didn't say that. I said that looking for info on grid reliability
led to the utilitydive post.

Maybe you could have read the first four sentences before throwing
up your hands:

"It’s always sunny in San Diego, California, or at least it seems
that way.

The vast majority of U.S. electric utilities have very little solar
on their grids — less than 1% penetration. But that’s not the case
for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E).

The utility has about 45,000 rooftop solar customers today — and
that figure is growing fast."

Since it's a state mandate for any new construction and many remodels
as well.

That article is also from 2015, so the number is likely higher.

This shows home solar is the topic.

I don't even know what you think the topic is anymore. Grid
reliability is not degraded by home solar systems....period.

Never claimed.

The greater topic here is that you think carbon plants don't wear
out and require replacement.

Everything wears out and requires maintenance and sometimes major replacement. But I doubt a "carbon plant" will need virtually 100% replacement in 20 years as a PV solar farm will. Add lithium backup
that lasts maybe 8 years and you've got some serious maintenance
costs ahead.

Here's The Street:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/natural-gas-power-plants-begin-their-inevitable-decline/ar-AA13Cv4E


"[N]atural gas has peaked in the American power sector-and there's no turning back."

Tell it to Germany.

Hey, Germany! You can't count on cheap Russian natural gas anymore!

You'll believe anything that sounds good to your narrative. That BS has zero to do with overall plant
operating and maintenance costs.

There's a big advantage to renewable for fuel costs.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/519144/power-plant-operation-and-maintenance-costs-in-the-us-by-technology/

You keep spouting the same shit and my utility bill with the highest percent renewable power in the nation
keeps on skyrocketing.

But I'll tell you that these spiraling utility costs are not going to
go unnoticed by the public. And they will eventually vote the
dickheads out and elect someone who says they can do better.

Prop 13 for power, got it.

And like your Chili article....those elcheapo solar producers will face banruptcy.

Power plants taken off line replaced by solar fields does.

And net metering is because of solar adoption, not some
independent development.

I see you had nothing for the real crux of the issue. Typical.

Net metering is not the crux of the issue: "We've all been lied to when
they claim renewables are cheaper." You're assuming cheaper renewables
means a lower utility bill. What if your bill would be even higher if renewables were not pursued?

What if? GMAFB. I'm arguing what is.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/20/23 11:03 AM, ScottW wrote:

You keep spouting the same shit and my utility bill with the highest
percent renewable power in the nation keeps on skyrocketing.

Which of these do you not want?

SDG&E is requesting this increase to:

Continue to invest in its gas and electric systems to enhance safety and reliability, and to manage risks that could impact its employees,
customers, and/or system;

Invest in its electricity and gas systems and technologies that advance
clean energy for customers and the environment;

Fund support services and to provide SDG&E’s customers with safe,
reliable and responsive customer service;

Meet regulatory and compliance requirements driven by system safety and reliability and environmental compliance; and

Invest in efforts and programs to maintain a highly trained, qualified,
and diverse workforce.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 9:37:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/20/23 11:03 AM, ScottW wrote:

You keep spouting the same shit and my utility bill with the highest percent renewable power in the nation keeps on skyrocketing.

Which of these do you not want?

SDG&E is requesting this increase to:

Continue to invest in its gas

Why would they be investing in gas "systems" when the Sacturds are about to outlaw gas appliances and are on the verge of outlawing nat gas service to
any new construction? They're blowing smoke up your ass and you
billow it out your head like chimney.

and electric systems to enhance safety and
reliability,

After PG&E exec's were almost jailed for starting fires
they all shut down service if the wind is just forecast to blow a little.
Even in areas that have no real forest. They cut service last year to San Clemente.
They did that in Texas you'd be off more than on.

and to manage risks that could impact its employees,
customers, and/or system;

Sounds like KJP...blah blah blah...

Invest in its electricity and gas systems and technologies that advance clean energy for customers and the environment;

And ka-boom.... there it is. The cost of clean energy is the real driver here.
The thing they all lied about and said would be cheaper.
It's not.

Fund support services and to provide SDG&E’s customers with safe,
reliable and responsive customer service;

We used to have that....reliability....until they jumped into wind and solar without consideration of the consequences.

Meet regulatory and compliance requirements driven by system safety and reliability and environmental compliance; and

Thank-you Sacramento.....fucktards. Can I send my bill to them?

Invest in efforts and programs to maintain a highly trained, qualified,
and diverse workforce.

more blah-blah. They've been doing that forever, why does it cost more now?

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/20/23 5:23 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 9:37:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/20/23 11:03 AM, ScottW wrote:

You keep spouting the same shit and my utility bill with the
highest percent renewable power in the nation keeps on
skyrocketing.

Which of these do you not want?

SDG&E is requesting this increase to:

Continue to invest in its gas

Why would they be investing in gas "systems" when the Sacturds are
about to outlaw gas appliances and are on the verge of outlawing nat
gas service to any new construction? They're blowing smoke up your
ass and you billow it out your head like chimney.

Good lord. Are you making it a game to see how often you can miss the point?

http://newsroom.sdge.com/clean-reliable/how-natural-gas-fuels-san-diego’s-power-plants
And if "systems" only refers to consumers, it still needs to be safe and reliable.

and electric systems to enhance safety and reliability,

After PG&E exec's were almost jailed for starting fires they all shut
down service if the wind is just forecast to blow a little. Even in
areas that have no real forest. They cut service last year to San
Clemente. They did that in Texas you'd be off more than on.

You're okay with preventable fires and jailed executives?

and to manage risks that could impact its employees, customers,
and/or system;

Sounds like KJP...blah blah blah...

Yes, corporate speak.

Invest in its electricity and gas systems and technologies that
advance clean energy for customers and the environment;

And ka-boom.... there it is. The cost of clean energy is the real
driver here. The thing they all lied about and said would be
cheaper. It's not.

You haven't shown that. You've only shown your bill has gone up, which
includes the cost of construction, maintenance, etc, as well as still
including high and volatile natural gas costs for power generation.

Fund support services and to provide SDG&E’s customers with safe,
reliable and responsive customer service;

We used to have that....reliability....until they jumped into wind
and solar without consideration of the consequences.

You blame renewable for fire-prevention shutdowns? Isn't the problem
sagging transmission lines from distant power sources? Or wind gusts?

Was it really that reliable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Southwest_blackout

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000–01_California_electricity_crisis

https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/power-restored-to-over-2000-sdge-customers-in-mid-city/509-e9dcf21e-ba5a-4c04-bb16-b545bce584a1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_California_power_shutoffs

Meet regulatory and compliance requirements driven by system safety
and reliability and environmental compliance; and

Thank-you Sacramento.....fucktards. Can I send my bill to them?

Thank-you notes will suffice.

Invest in efforts and programs to maintain a highly trained,
qualified, and diverse workforce.

more blah-blah. They've been doing that forever, why does it cost
more now?

Just showing where you where the money goes. Wages have gone up.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/20/23 5:23 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 9:37:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/20/23 11:03 AM, ScottW wrote:

You keep spouting the same shit and my utility bill with the
highest percent renewable power in the nation keeps on
skyrocketing.

Which of these do you not want?

SDG&E is requesting this increase to:

Continue to invest in its gas

Why would they be investing in gas "systems" when the Sacturds are
about to outlaw gas appliances and are on the verge of outlawing nat
gas service to any new construction? They're blowing smoke up your
ass and you billow it out your head like chimney.

Good lord. Are you making it a game to see how often you can miss the point?

Why do you post shit that isn't germane to your point?

http://newsroom.sdge.com/clean-reliable/how-natural-gas-fuels-san-diego’s-power-plants
And if "systems" only refers to consumers, it still needs to be safe and reliable.

Yes existing systems require maintenance for safe operation.
No reason for those costs to be spiking.

and electric systems to enhance safety and reliability,

After PG&E exec's were almost jailed for starting fires they all shut
down service if the wind is just forecast to blow a little. Even in
areas that have no real forest. They cut service last year to San Clemente. They did that in Texas you'd be off more than on.

You're okay with preventable fires and jailed executives?

and? GMAFB.
Sacramento is just as responsible for "unmanageable" forest fires.
And now they have a hand in an "unreliable" grid as well.

and to manage risks that could impact its employees, customers,
and/or system;

Sounds like KJP...blah blah blah...

Yes, corporate speak.

Invest in its electricity and gas systems and technologies that
advance clean energy for customers and the environment;

And ka-boom.... there it is. The cost of clean energy is the real
driver here. The thing they all lied about and said would be
cheaper. It's not.

You haven't shown that.

I have the bills and you have access to the rate schedules to prove it.

You just keep spouting the leftwing lying propaganda.

Costs of this have gotten so badly out of control they can't even charge customers
enough so they're turning to a "tax the rich" dem playbook.
Wake the Fuck up.

Here's a study without the BS. Germany vs France.

https://aicgs.org/2021/09/germany-has-a-math-problem-and-its-about-to-get-worse/

By 2025, Germany will have spent $580 billion in renewables investment. But despite that, its electricity production is 10 times more carbon emissions intensive and twice as expensive as France, which has decided to keep nuclear energy.

California is America's Germany soon to go nationwide.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/21/23 11:41 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/20/23 5:23 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 9:37:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/20/23 11:03 AM, ScottW wrote:

You keep spouting the same shit and my utility bill with the
highest percent renewable power in the nation keeps on
skyrocketing.

Which of these do you not want?

SDG&E is requesting this increase to:

Continue to invest in its gas

Why would they be investing in gas "systems" when the Sacturds
are about to outlaw gas appliances and are on the verge of
outlawing nat gas service to any new construction? They're
blowing smoke up your ass and you billow it out your head like
chimney.

Good lord. Are you making it a game to see how often you can miss
the point?

Why do you post shit that isn't germane to your point?

You keep going on about your utility bill without admitting what goes
into it.

http://newsroom.sdge.com/clean-reliable/how-natural-gas-fuels-san-diego’s-power-plants

And if "systems" only refers to consumers, it still needs to be safe and

reliable.

Yes existing systems require maintenance for safe operation. No
reason for those costs to be spiking.

Except inflation, supplies, worker wages.

and electric systems to enhance safety and reliability,

After PG&E exec's were almost jailed for starting fires they all
shut down service if the wind is just forecast to blow a little.
Even in areas that have no real forest. They cut service last
year to San Clemente. They did that in Texas you'd be off more
than on.

You're okay with preventable fires and jailed executives?

and? GMAFB.

So, bonus?

Sacramento is just as responsible for "unmanageable" forest fires.
And now they have a hand in an "unreliable" grid as well.

Sacramento is just as stuck with California's public utility system as
you are.

and to manage risks that could impact its employees,
customers, and/or system;

Sounds like KJP...blah blah blah...

Yes, corporate speak.

Invest in its electricity and gas systems and technologies
that advance clean energy for customers and the environment;

And ka-boom.... there it is. The cost of clean energy is the
real driver here. The thing they all lied about and said would
be cheaper. It's not.

You haven't shown that.

I have the bills and you have access to the rate schedules to prove
it.

You haven't shown renewables made your bill go up more than your bill
would have gone up without them.

https://voiceofsandiego.org/2022/03/15/why-your-energy-bill-spiked-this-year/

You just keep spouting the leftwing lying propaganda.

I make observations you haven't shown you can address.

https://www.sdgenews.com/article/sdge-adopts-new-rates-impacted-historically-high-natural-gas-prices-affecting-customers


"Natural gas market conditions also affect electric rates because
natural gas is used to generate electricity. A typical SDG&E residential customer who receives both electric delivery and electric generation
(bundled service) from SDG&E may see their average monthly electric bill increase by about $25 from ~$160 to ~$185 starting January. Customers
who are enrolled in the CARE bill discount program could see their
monthly electric bills increase from ~$105 to ~$120."

Costs of this have gotten so badly out of control they can't even
charge customers enough so they're turning to a "tax the rich" dem
playbook. Wake the Fuck up.

No, it's also a way of dealing with the fixed cost dilemma and with the necessity of providing service to all income levels.

There's the problem that high costs must be paid for by a declining
electricity use market. SDGE says, "SDG&E has the lowest average monthly electric use in the entire country and lower than average bills, but
among the highest rates."

Here's a study without the BS. Germany vs France.

Wrong thread. This should be in "Coal over nukes in Germany"

https://aicgs.org/2021/09/germany-has-a-math-problem-and-its-about-to-get-worse/

By 2025, Germany will have spent $580 billion in renewables
investment. But despite that, its electricity production is 10 times
more carbon emissions intensive and twice as expensive as France,
which has decided to keep nuclear energy.

California is America's Germany soon to go nationwide.

Wow. I had no idea California "pays 43 percent more than the average
paid on power bills in 27 other countries in the European Union, thanks
to taxes and fees that make up 50 percent of the tab, and that are
supposed to pay for the transition to renewables."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/21/23 11:41 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/20/23 5:23 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 9:37:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/20/23 11:03 AM, ScottW wrote:

You keep spouting the same shit and my utility bill with the
highest percent renewable power in the nation keeps on
skyrocketing.

Which of these do you not want?

SDG&E is requesting this increase to:

Continue to invest in its gas

Why would they be investing in gas "systems" when the Sacturds
are about to outlaw gas appliances and are on the verge of
outlawing nat gas service to any new construction? They're
blowing smoke up your ass and you billow it out your head like
chimney.

Good lord. Are you making it a game to see how often you can miss
the point?

Why do you post shit that isn't germane to your point?

You keep going on about your utility bill without admitting what goes
into it.

It's the no BS cost of utilities is the bottom line of my utility.
It includes fees...taxes...maintenance...infrastructure....all of it.

And it's skyrocketing....largely due to the massive investment expense of underperforming and unreliable solar and wind.

http://newsroom.sdge.com/clean-reliable/how-natural-gas-fuels-san-diego’s-power-plants

And if "systems" only refers to consumers, it still needs to be safe and

reliable.

Yes existing systems require maintenance for safe operation. No
reason for those costs to be spiking.

Except inflation, supplies, worker wages.

And that's making my bill 10x the national average? You are fucking lying stone brained moron if you believe that.

and electric systems to enhance safety and reliability,

After PG&E exec's were almost jailed for starting fires they all
shut down service if the wind is just forecast to blow a little.
Even in areas that have no real forest. They cut service last
year to San Clemente. They did that in Texas you'd be off more
than on.

You're okay with preventable fires and jailed executives?

and? GMAFB.

So, bonus?

Sacramento is just as responsible for "unmanageable" forest fires.
And now they have a hand in an "unreliable" grid as well.

Sacramento is just as stuck with California's public utility system as
you are.

and to manage risks that could impact its employees,
customers, and/or system;

Sounds like KJP...blah blah blah...

Yes, corporate speak.

Invest in its electricity and gas systems and technologies
that advance clean energy for customers and the environment;

And ka-boom.... there it is. The cost of clean energy is the
real driver here. The thing they all lied about and said would
be cheaper. It's not.

You haven't shown that.

I have the bills and you have access to the rate schedules to prove
it.

You haven't shown renewables made your bill go up more than your bill
would have gone up without them.

https://voiceofsandiego.org/2022/03/15/why-your-energy-bill-spiked-this-year/

You just keep spouting the leftwing lying propaganda.

I make observations you haven't shown you can address.

https://www.sdgenews.com/article/sdge-adopts-new-rates-impacted-historically-high-natural-gas-prices-affecting-customers

"Natural gas market conditions also affect electric rates because
natural gas is used to generate electricity. A typical SDG&E residential customer who receives both electric delivery and electric generation (bundled service) from SDG&E may see their average monthly electric bill increase by about $25 from ~$160 to ~$185 starting January.

Starting in Jan. My bill is already at 50c a kilowatt.
And the spike in Nat Gas is because of a state mandate on limiting storage
at a major storage site without thinking if the system could reliably function without it. Idiots in sacktown.....but that issue yet to hit my bill.

Customers

who are enrolled in the CARE bill discount program could see their
monthly electric bills increase from ~$105 to ~$120."

Costs of this have gotten so badly out of control they can't even
charge customers enough so they're turning to a "tax the rich" dem playbook. Wake the Fuck up.

No, it's also a way of dealing with the fixed cost dilemma and with the necessity of providing service to all income levels.

There's the problem that high costs must be paid for by a declining electricity use market. SDGE says, "SDG&E has the lowest average monthly electric use in the entire country and lower than average bills, but
among the highest rates."

I'm stunned. You drive the price up to astronomic levels and people cut consumption. So now we pay more for less.
Isn't that wonderful.

The issue I'm informing you of is NOT going to be a Ca. only issue.
In fact it will be even worse for the NE where solar efficiency and reliability is
far less and lack of open land for wind farms is forcing them offshore where the
costs are absolutely insane.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The issue I'm informing you of is NOT going to be a Ca. only issue.
In fact it will be even worse for the NE where solar efficiency and reliability is
far less and lack of open land for wind farms is forcing them offshore where the
costs are absolutely insane.

ScottW

Can we import cheap Chinese electricity from their coal plants?
Has anyone looked into this?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Deja vu alert!

Can we import cheap Chinese electricity from their coal plants?
Has anyone looked into this?

Interesting idea. Try forwarding it Trump. He has a list of "stable genius" ideas he could add it to. There was the one about attacking COVID with
bleach, and the one about using "light inside the body". Not to mention
horse paste. You're definitely onto something Trumpworthy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/21/23 4:34 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/21/23 11:41 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/20/23 5:23 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 9:37:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/20/23 11:03 AM, ScottW wrote:

You keep spouting the same shit and my utility bill with the
highest percent renewable power in the nation keeps on
skyrocketing.

Which of these do you not want?

SDG&E is requesting this increase to:

Continue to invest in its gas

Why would they be investing in gas "systems" when the Sacturds
are about to outlaw gas appliances and are on the verge of
outlawing nat gas service to any new construction? They're
blowing smoke up your ass and you billow it out your head like
chimney.

Good lord. Are you making it a game to see how often you can miss
the point?

Why do you post shit that isn't germane to your point?

You keep going on about your utility bill without admitting what goes
into it.

It's the no BS cost of utilities is the bottom line of my utility.
It includes fees...taxes...maintenance...infrastructure....all of it.

And it's skyrocketing....largely due to the massive investment expense of underperforming and unreliable solar and wind.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Yes, new construction is expensive and raises your
rates. That's how utilities make money.

The electricity from those new plants is likely to be cheaper to produce
than electricity from natural gas with its price volatility.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220329006070/en/SDGE-Adds-Second-Energy-Storage-Facility-in-San-Diego-to-Strengthen-Grid-Reliability-and-Advance-Clean-Energy-Goals

Quite the conundrum: building new storage increases reliability but adds construction costs.

And if you need more power to avoid brownouts, it might as well be carbon-neutral because global warming is still a thing and why build
something you'll wish you hadn't?

Too bad the nuke renovation didn't go well.

http://newsroom.sdge.com/clean-reliable/how-natural-gas-fuels-san-diego’s-power-plants

And if "systems" only refers to consumers, it still needs to be safe and >>>> reliable.

Yes existing systems require maintenance for safe operation. No
reason for those costs to be spiking.

Except inflation, supplies, worker wages.

And that's making my bill 10x the national average? You are fucking lying stone brained moron if you believe that.

Fortunately I don't believe most of what you say. In this case, those
things apply only to the maintenance portion of your bill.

<snip>

https://www.sdgenews.com/article/sdge-adopts-new-rates-impacted-historically-high-natural-gas-prices-affecting-customers

"Natural gas market conditions also affect electric rates because
natural gas is used to generate electricity. A typical SDG&E residential
customer who receives both electric delivery and electric generation
(bundled service) from SDG&E may see their average monthly electric bill
increase by about $25 from ~$160 to ~$185 starting January.

Starting in Jan. My bill is already at 50c a kilowatt.
And the spike in Nat Gas is because of a state mandate on limiting storage
at a major storage site without thinking if the system could reliably function
without it. Idiots in sacktown.....but that issue yet to hit my bill.

Natural gas prices are volatile all over.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/consumer/california-natural-gas-prices/3165124/

No mention of state mandates. Causes that are possible: "market
manipulation, anticompetitive behavior, or other anomalous activities"

Are you referring to the limits at Aliso Canyon which had a major leak
that required mass evacuation?

Customers who are enrolled in the CARE bill discount program could see their
monthly electric bills increase from ~$105 to ~$120."

Costs of this have gotten so badly out of control they can't even
charge customers enough so they're turning to a "tax the rich" dem
playbook. Wake the Fuck up.

No, it's also a way of dealing with the fixed cost dilemma and with the
necessity of providing service to all income levels.

There's the problem that high costs must be paid for by a declining
electricity use market. SDGE says, "SDG&E has the lowest average monthly
electric use in the entire country and lower than average bills, but
among the highest rates."

I'm stunned. You drive the price up to astronomic levels and people cut consumption.

People were consuming less anyway due to improved standards for new construction, appliances, etc.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/5/31/18646906/climate-change-california-energy-efficiency

So now we pay more for less. Isn't that wonderful.

https://www.energysage.com/local-data/electricity-cost/ca/san-diego-county/san-diego/

This says the average SD electric bill is 24% higher than the national
average.

The issue I'm informing you of is NOT going to be a Ca. only issue.
In fact it will be even worse for the NE where solar efficiency and reliability is
far less and lack of open land for wind farms is forcing them offshore where the
costs are absolutely insane.

There's a place with a now unhealthy reliance on natural gas.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 4:52:16 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/21/23 4:34 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/21/23 11:41 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/20/23 5:23 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 9:37:13 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 4/20/23 11:03 AM, ScottW wrote:

You keep spouting the same shit and my utility bill with the
highest percent renewable power in the nation keeps on
skyrocketing.

Which of these do you not want?

SDG&E is requesting this increase to:

Continue to invest in its gas

Why would they be investing in gas "systems" when the Sacturds
are about to outlaw gas appliances and are on the verge of
outlawing nat gas service to any new construction? They're
blowing smoke up your ass and you billow it out your head like
chimney.

Good lord. Are you making it a game to see how often you can miss
the point?

Why do you post shit that isn't germane to your point?

You keep going on about your utility bill without admitting what goes
into it.

It's the no BS cost of utilities is the bottom line of my utility.
It includes fees...taxes...maintenance...infrastructure....all of it.

And it's skyrocketing....largely due to the massive investment expense of underperforming and unreliable solar and wind.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Yes, new construction is expensive and raises your
rates. That's how utilities make money.

The electricity from those new plants is likely to be cheaper to produce than electricity from natural gas with its price volatility.

Not after the cost of the new plants are amortized in. Therein is the great lie.
And they haven't even begun to include the even greater cost of storage
to compensate for the unreliable output of renewables.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220329006070/en/SDGE-Adds-Second-Energy-Storage-Facility-in-San-Diego-to-Strengthen-Grid-Reliability-and-Advance-Clean-Energy-Goals

"The new 20MW/80MWh facility can meet the energy needs of about 13,000 homes for up to four hours."

How many of these things will they need to service all of San Diego?

And it's in the city. Imagine when one of these suckers catches fire.

Quite the conundrum: building new storage increases reliability but adds construction costs.

Massive construction costs and being battery based....they need to be
nearly 100% replaced every 10 years.

And if you need more power to avoid brownouts, it might as well be carbon-neutral because global warming is still a thing and why build something you'll wish you hadn't?

You haven't been listening. I'm not arguing that with the exception of nuclear whose historical costs have been inflated hugely by environmentalist lawsuits and regulation.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to cost effective Co2 reduction.

What I've been arguing is the way they're managing this transition. They lied about the costs
and deferred it for a few years with grants and other BS while they forced the issue with regulations.
But the piper is coming to be paid
and it's going to be catastrophic for consumers and economy in general.

I told you what we really needed is a bunch of Hoover Dam style projects on Federal Lands.
The gov't could amortize costs over 100 years and just break even on selling the power.
Instead they just mandated it to utilities and producers and hoped it wouldn't be a
major buttfuck to consumers. Well it is.
And we're already seeing the result. Power consumption is down. Industry is fleeing.
You haven't begun to feel the pain.

https://www.energysage.com/local-data/electricity-cost/ca/san-diego-county/san-diego/

This says the average SD electric bill is 24% higher than the national average.

and our moderate climate makes consumption less than the national average.

Again...don't let them BS you. I take my total bill (not just the "electricity", that number is the scam)
and it's running about 50c/kWh. Go look up the national average per kWh.

And now they're going to charge you a big fat buttload just to be connected to the grid.
And if people start disconnecting as they surely will, they'll mandate you can't live here
without paying the fee. And socialism will have taken over.

What's next? You have to pay for cockroach based protein even if you refuse to eat it.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/22/23 10:46 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 4:52:16 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/21/23 4:34 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/21/23 11:41 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

You keep going on about your utility bill without admitting
what goes into it.

It's the no BS cost of utilities is the bottom line of my
utility. It includes
fees...taxes...maintenance...infrastructure....all of it.

And it's skyrocketing....largely due to the massive investment
expense of underperforming and unreliable solar and wind.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Yes, new construction is expensive and raises
your rates. That's how utilities make money.

The electricity from those new plants is likely to be cheaper to
produce than electricity from natural gas with its price
volatility.

Not after the cost of the new plants are amortized in. Therein is
the great lie. And they haven't even begun to include the even
greater cost of storage to compensate for the unreliable output of renewables.

I'm referring to the cost of production, not the cost of construction.
Of course, natural gas plants have to be amortized too and they're more expensive to build.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220329006070/en/SDGE-Adds-Second-Energy-Storage-Facility-in-San-Diego-to-Strengthen-Grid-Reliability-and-Advance-Clean-Energy-Goals

"The new 20MW/80MWh facility can meet the energy needs of about
13,000 homes for up to four hours."

How many of these things will they need to service all of San Diego?

The plan is for 145 MW by year's end. I doubt the goal is to run all of
San Diego on battery power.

And it's in the city. Imagine when one of these suckers catches
fire.

Good thing natural gas facilities never catch fire.

Quite the conundrum: building new storage increases reliability but
adds construction costs.

Massive construction costs and being battery based....they need to
be nearly 100% replaced every 10 years.

Those are lithium-ion phosphate so not the same as an EV battery.

And if you need more power to avoid brownouts, it might as well be
carbon-neutral because global warming is still a thing and why
build something you'll wish you hadn't?

You haven't been listening. I'm not arguing that with the exception
of nuclear whose historical costs have been inflated hugely by environmentalist lawsuits and regulation. Talk about shooting
yourself in the foot when it comes to cost effective Co2 reduction.

If only California reactors weren't crippled by bad designs, seismically sensitive locations and botched renovations.

What I've been arguing is the way they're managing this transition.
They lied about the costs and deferred it for a few years with grants
and other BS while they forced the issue with regulations. But the
piper is coming to be paid and it's going to be catastrophic for
consumers and economy in general.

I'm curious about what you mean by "they lied." Do you have a cite or is
it something everyone knows?

I told you what we really needed is a bunch of Hoover Dam style
projects on Federal Lands. The gov't could amortize costs over 100
years and just break even on selling the power. Instead they just
mandated it to utilities and producers and hoped it wouldn't be a
major buttfuck to consumers. Well it is. And we're already seeing
the result. Power consumption is down. Industry is fleeing. You
haven't begun to feel the pain.

I do sympathize with your acceptance that the feds can finance stuff in
a way others can't. Too bad about the political environment. This is the
best we can do at the moment:

https://www.powermag.com/iras-impact-on-power-generation-clock-is-ticking-to-maximize-new-tax-credits/

https://www.energysage.com/local-data/electricity-cost/ca/san-diego-county/san-diego/

This says the average SD electric bill is 24% higher than the national average.

and our moderate climate makes consumption less than the national
average.

Yes, so only slightly higher bills despite much higher rates.

Again...don't let them BS you. I take my total bill (not just the "electricity", that number is the scam) and it's running about
50c/kWh. Go look up the national average per kWh.

You're comparing your total bill to the national average for electricity?

And now they're going to charge you a big fat buttload just to be
connected to the grid. And if people start disconnecting as they
surely will, they'll mandate you can't live here without paying the
fee. And socialism will have taken over.

Since the cost is recouped by consumption, the rate will go up when use declines. A lot of people will see a lower total bill when fixed costs
are decoupled from usage. There's already an "exit fee" and by
"socialism" you mean "state-licensed monopsony."

What's next? You have to pay for cockroach based protein even if you
refuse to eat it.

You Fox viewers have the darnedest fantasies.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:57:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/22/23 10:46 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 4:52:16 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/21/23 4:34 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/21/23 11:41 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

You keep going on about your utility bill without admitting
what goes into it.

It's the no BS cost of utilities is the bottom line of my
utility. It includes
fees...taxes...maintenance...infrastructure....all of it.

And it's skyrocketing....largely due to the massive investment
expense of underperforming and unreliable solar and wind.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Yes, new construction is expensive and raises
your rates. That's how utilities make money.

The electricity from those new plants is likely to be cheaper to
produce than electricity from natural gas with its price
volatility.

Not after the cost of the new plants are amortized in. Therein is
the great lie. And they haven't even begun to include the even
greater cost of storage to compensate for the unreliable output of renewables.

I'm referring to the cost of production, not the cost of construction.

Which is stupid and misleading. Like telling a new car buyer all they have to pay
for is the electricity to charge it.

Of course, natural gas plants have to be amortized too and they're more expensive to build.

BS. And they're f'ing lying in the data. Show me one cost comparison
(or even LCOE or even nuttier...the LACE) that isn't corrupted by including tax credits and other subsidies in their cost.
They go further to show how the whole cost system is skewed by mandates and subsidies that makes direct cost comparison practically impossible.

Here's one example. Enjoy the caveats because it's 90% of what you get.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph240/patapati2/docs/eia-21.pdf

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220329006070/en/SDGE-Adds-Second-Energy-Storage-Facility-in-San-Diego-to-Strengthen-Grid-Reliability-and-Advance-Clean-Energy-Goals

"The new 20MW/80MWh facility can meet the energy needs of about
13,000 homes for up to four hours."

How many of these things will they need to service all of San Diego?

The plan is for 145 MW by year's end.

and as usual our technically illiterate teacher uses meaningless units.
The above system can probably deliver 145MW...but not for long.

I doubt the goal is to run all of
San Diego on battery power.

Sure can't run it all on solar overnight.

And it's in the city. Imagine when one of these suckers catches
fire.

Good thing natural gas facilities never catch fire.

Easily put out and the byproduct of nat gas burning is nothing compared to lithium battery.
And don't try using water on it.
I suspect our current Fire Dept. has nothing that could put it out. They'd have to let it burn
off. Call us West Palestine.

Quite the conundrum: building new storage increases reliability but
adds construction costs.

Massive construction costs and being battery based....they need to
be nearly 100% replaced every 10 years.

Those are lithium-ion phosphate so not the same as an EV battery.

~ 4000 cycles or 10 years of daily cycling per the manufacturer...best case.

And if you need more power to avoid brownouts, it might as well be
carbon-neutral because global warming is still a thing and why
build something you'll wish you hadn't?

You haven't been listening. I'm not arguing that with the exception
of nuclear whose historical costs have been inflated hugely by environmentalist lawsuits and regulation. Talk about shooting
yourself in the foot when it comes to cost effective Co2 reduction.

If only California reactors weren't crippled by bad designs, seismically sensitive locations and botched renovations.

They weren't "bad designs". And all of Ca. is "seismically sensitive".
I'll give you the "botched renovation" at San Onofre.
You'd have thunk that Mitsu refusing to accept full liability for an untested design change would have been a red flag. But not to Edison.
They wanted the performance improvement and did everything they could
to prevent a full NRA review and/or a license amendment.
One might question why would they want to take that risk?
Simple...it's slow, it's costly, and they're prone to reopening a shitshow of leftwing
lawsuits and delays. So they put avoiding that a number 1 requirement.

You can read about it here. A good summary of the many sides of this debacle.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-san-onofre-anniversary-2016jan30-htmlstory.html

What I've been arguing is the way they're managing this transition.
They lied about the costs and deferred it for a few years with grants
and other BS while they forced the issue with regulations. But the
piper is coming to be paid and it's going to be catastrophic for
consumers and economy in general.

I'm curious about what you mean by "they lied." Do you have a cite or is
it something everyone knows?

I told you what we really needed is a bunch of Hoover Dam style
projects on Federal Lands. The gov't could amortize costs over 100
years and just break even on selling the power. Instead they just
mandated it to utilities and producers and hoped it wouldn't be a
major buttfuck to consumers. Well it is. And we're already seeing
the result. Power consumption is down. Industry is fleeing. You
haven't begun to feel the pain.

I do sympathize with your acceptance that the feds can finance stuff in
a way others can't. Too bad about the political environment. This is the best we can do at the moment:

Oh BS. A real leader would not accept that. And according to IPCC...a moment is more than we have.

https://www.powermag.com/iras-impact-on-power-generation-clock-is-ticking-to-maximize-new-tax-credits/

https://www.energysage.com/local-data/electricity-cost/ca/san-diego-county/san-diego/

This says the average SD electric bill is 24% higher than the national average.

and our moderate climate makes consumption less than the national
average.

Yes, so only slightly higher bills despite much higher rates.

Again...don't let them BS you. I take my total bill (not just the "electricity", that number is the scam) and it's running about
50c/kWh. Go look up the national average per kWh.

You're comparing your total bill to the national average for electricity?

As I said....I only have electricity service. So yeah...my total bill is just
for electricity.

And now they're going to charge you a big fat buttload just to be connected to the grid. And if people start disconnecting as they
surely will, they'll mandate you can't live here without paying the
fee. And socialism will have taken over.

Since the cost is recouped by consumption,

Hey dumbass....it's the same f'ing thing they did to water.
You pointed it out. SDCWA has highest in the state rates.
Cuz they did what the state advised being on the end of the water
line and diversified supply (added a big RO plant as part of that),
and increased reservoir capacity a lot. As a result they told the state
we had no shortage of water during the drought and didn't need to implement mandatory restrictions.
State said....we think the pain of restrictions should be equitable.
SD...but if you cut consumption we can't afford to pay off these projects you encouraged us to do.
State....ok, raise your rates. Make 'em pay more for less.

the rate will go up when use
declines. A lot of people will see a lower total bill when fixed costs
are decoupled from usage.

We already have a grid connection fee in our bill.
But it's not enough to cover the lower consumption in spite of the crazy rates. So now they're going to make that fee even fatter and income based fee
to lower rates a little to 24c/kWh or about double the nat average.

GMAFB.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/22/23 8:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:57:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/22/23 10:46 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 4:52:16 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/21/23 4:34 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/21/23 11:41 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

You keep going on about your utility bill without admitting
what goes into it.

It's the no BS cost of utilities is the bottom line of my
utility. It includes
fees...taxes...maintenance...infrastructure....all of it.

And it's skyrocketing....largely due to the massive investment
expense of underperforming and unreliable solar and wind.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Yes, new construction is expensive and raises
your rates. That's how utilities make money.

The electricity from those new plants is likely to be cheaper to
produce than electricity from natural gas with its price
volatility.

Not after the cost of the new plants are amortized in. Therein is
the great lie. And they haven't even begun to include the even
greater cost of storage to compensate for the unreliable output of
renewables.

I'm referring to the cost of production, not the cost of construction.

Which is stupid and misleading.

You're claiming renewables aren't cheaper to build and cheaper to run
than carbon because your utility bill went up.

Like telling a new car buyer all they have to pay for is the electricity to charge it.

They put how much it might cost to fuel it on the sticker.

Of course, natural gas plants have to be amortized too and they're more
expensive to build.

BS. And they're f'ing lying in the data. Show me one cost comparison
(or even LCOE or even nuttier...the LACE) that isn't corrupted by including tax credits and other subsidies in their cost.

Well done! You've introduced a metric that can answer these questions,
albeit while using only initials and not otherwise explaining it.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/

They go further to show how the whole cost system is skewed by mandates and subsidies that makes direct cost comparison practically impossible.

Here's one example. Enjoy the caveats because it's 90% of what you get.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph240/patapati2/docs/eia-21.pdf

Yes, I found that (see above). Since mandates and subsidies exist,
shouldn't they be considered? The tables show the system LCOE/LCOS with
and without tax credits so maybe not completely impossible to compare.

Not seeing a big cost advantage to carbon in there.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220329006070/en/SDGE-Adds-Second-Energy-Storage-Facility-in-San-Diego-to-Strengthen-Grid-Reliability-and-Advance-Clean-Energy-Goals

"The new 20MW/80MWh facility can meet the energy needs of about
13,000 homes for up to four hours."

How many of these things will they need to service all of San Diego?

The plan is for 145 MW by year's end.

and as usual our technically illiterate teacher uses meaningless units.
The above system can probably deliver 145MW...but not for long.

It's not meant to deliver for long, it's equivalent to a gas peaker plant.

And the technically literate should be able to do the calculation
20MW/80MWh = 145MW/X MWh

I doubt the goal is to run all of San Diego on battery power.

Sure can't run it all on solar overnight.

Energy storage will enjoy innovation: better batteries, thermal storage,
etc.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-energy-and-the-grid-debunked

Myth No. 1: A grid that increasingly relies on renewable energy is an unreliable grid.

tl/dr: SAIDI

Myth No. 2: Countries like Germany must continue to rely on fossil fuels
to stabilize the grid and back up variable wind and solar power.

tl/dr: no

Myth No. 3: Because solar and wind energy can be generated only when the
sun is shining or the wind is blowing, they cannot be the basis of a
grid that has to provide electricity 24/7, year-round.

tl/dr: batteries will be cheaper; alternatives possible.

And it's in the city. Imagine when one of these suckers catches
fire.

Good thing natural gas facilities never catch fire.

Easily put out and the byproduct of nat gas burning is nothing compared to lithium battery.
And don't try using water on it.
I suspect our current Fire Dept. has nothing that could put it out. They'd have to let it burn
off. Call us West Palestine.

Quite the conundrum: building new storage increases reliability but
adds construction costs.

Massive construction costs and being battery based....they need to
be nearly 100% replaced every 10 years.

Those are lithium-ion phosphate so not the same as an EV battery.

~ 4000 cycles or 10 years of daily cycling per the manufacturer...best case.

How does that compare to lithium ion for longevity, expense and safety?

And if you need more power to avoid brownouts, it might as well be
carbon-neutral because global warming is still a thing and why
build something you'll wish you hadn't?

You haven't been listening. I'm not arguing that with the exception
of nuclear whose historical costs have been inflated hugely by
environmentalist lawsuits and regulation. Talk about shooting
yourself in the foot when it comes to cost effective Co2 reduction.

If only California reactors weren't crippled by bad designs, seismically
sensitive locations and botched renovations.

They weren't "bad designs".

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-02-26-mn-30-story.html

Hed: Rancho Seco Leak Linked to Design Flaw, Staff Training

And all of Ca. is "seismically sensitive".

So that's okay?

I'll give you the "botched renovation" at San Onofre.
You'd have thunk that Mitsu refusing to accept full liability for an untested design change would have been a red flag. But not to Edison.
They wanted the performance improvement and did everything they could
to prevent a full NRA review and/or a license amendment.
One might question why would they want to take that risk?
Simple...it's slow, it's costly, and they're prone to reopening a shitshow of leftwing
lawsuits and delays. So they put avoiding that a number 1 requirement.

You can read about it here. A good summary of the many sides of this debacle.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-san-onofre-anniversary-2016jan30-htmlstory.html

Thanks. I believe I've read similar reports.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Sad-Saga-of-San-Onofre-Nuclear-is-Good-News-for-Renewables

This one adds: "When SCE parent Edison International (EI) reported its
Q2 2012 financials, the reason it wanted a quick restart became clear.
Its stock price had dropped 43 percent, reported EI CEO Theodore F.
Craver, and Edison Mission Energy (EME), its other major subsidiary, was
in financial trouble."

What I've been arguing is the way they're managing this transition.
They lied about the costs and deferred it for a few years with grants
and other BS while they forced the issue with regulations. But the
piper is coming to be paid and it's going to be catastrophic for
consumers and economy in general.

I'm curious about what you mean by "they lied." Do you have a cite or is
it something everyone knows?

I told you what we really needed is a bunch of Hoover Dam style
projects on Federal Lands. The gov't could amortize costs over 100
years and just break even on selling the power. Instead they just
mandated it to utilities and producers and hoped it wouldn't be a
major buttfuck to consumers. Well it is. And we're already seeing
the result. Power consumption is down. Industry is fleeing. You
haven't begun to feel the pain.

I do sympathize with your acceptance that the feds can finance stuff in
a way others can't. Too bad about the political environment. This is the
best we can do at the moment:

Oh BS. A real leader would not accept that. And according to IPCC...a moment is more than we have.

Biden's was a political miracle. And, if things are dire, get on the Republicans to agree to stronger efforts.

https://www.powermag.com/iras-impact-on-power-generation-clock-is-ticking-to-maximize-new-tax-credits/

https://www.energysage.com/local-data/electricity-cost/ca/san-diego-county/san-diego/

This says the average SD electric bill is 24% higher than the national average.

and our moderate climate makes consumption less than the national
average.

Yes, so only slightly higher bills despite much higher rates.

Again...don't let them BS you. I take my total bill (not just the
"electricity", that number is the scam) and it's running about
50c/kWh. Go look up the national average per kWh.

You're comparing your total bill to the national average for electricity?

As I said....I only have electricity service. So yeah...my total bill is just
for electricity.

Fortunately for you, I assume you're deliberately obtuse, not genuinely incapable of understanding your error.

I'll re-cite the article with a breakdown of your "electric bill":

https://voiceofsandiego.org/2022/03/15/why-your-energy-bill-spiked-this-year/

Bunch of stuff other than "electricity" on there.

Didn't you just claim above it's "stupid and misleading" to only look at
one aspect of a larger system?

And now they're going to charge you a big fat buttload just to be
connected to the grid. And if people start disconnecting as they
surely will, they'll mandate you can't live here without paying the
fee. And socialism will have taken over.

Since the cost is recouped by consumption,

Hey dumbass....it's the same f'ing thing they did to water.

So, I'm correct.

You pointed it out. SDCWA has highest in the state rates.
Cuz they did what the state advised being on the end of the water
line and diversified supply (added a big RO plant as part of that),
and increased reservoir capacity a lot. As a result they told the state
we had no shortage of water during the drought and didn't need to implement mandatory restrictions.
State said....we think the pain of restrictions should be equitable.
SD...but if you cut consumption we can't afford to pay off these projects you encouraged us to do.
State....ok, raise your rates. Make 'em pay more for less.

Doing big projects increase your capacity but still have to be paid for.
You would be paying the same amount but at a lower rate if SDCWA had
been allowed it's I've got mine, Jack policies. Imagine if they'd tried
cutting consumption first. You could have avoided those capital costs.

the rate will go up when use
declines. A lot of people will see a lower total bill when fixed costs
are decoupled from usage.

We already have a grid connection fee in our bill.
But it's not enough to cover the lower consumption in spite of the crazy rates.
So now they're going to make that fee even fatter and income based fee
to lower rates a little to 24c/kWh or about double the nat average.

It helps the system to avoid relying on consumption to earn revenue, eliminating a perverse counter incentive to reducing electrical use.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 1:00:16 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/22/23 8:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:57:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/22/23 10:46 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 4:52:16 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/21/23 4:34 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 4/21/23 11:41 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 7:36:50 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:

You keep going on about your utility bill without admitting
what goes into it.

It's the no BS cost of utilities is the bottom line of my
utility. It includes
fees...taxes...maintenance...infrastructure....all of it.

And it's skyrocketing....largely due to the massive investment
expense of underperforming and unreliable solar and wind.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Yes, new construction is expensive and raises
your rates. That's how utilities make money.

The electricity from those new plants is likely to be cheaper to
produce than electricity from natural gas with its price
volatility.

Not after the cost of the new plants are amortized in. Therein is
the great lie. And they haven't even begun to include the even
greater cost of storage to compensate for the unreliable output of
renewables.

I'm referring to the cost of production, not the cost of construction.

Which is stupid and misleading.

You're claiming renewables aren't cheaper to build and cheaper to run
than carbon because your utility bill went up.

I'm going to call it the double whammy. I'm paying for all the fossil fuel plants
and nukes that weren't given their full operating life
and got prematurely replaced by expensive and unreliable renewables that
also require storage.

And yes...the proof is in the bill. It doesn't lie.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/24/23 4:08 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 1:00:16 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/22/23 8:19 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 11:57:01 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/22/23 10:46 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 4:52:16 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 4/21/23 4:34 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 11:48:10 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

I'm referring to the cost of production, not the cost of construction.

Which is stupid and misleading.

You're claiming renewables aren't cheaper to build and cheaper to run
than carbon because your utility bill went up.

I'm going to call it the double whammy. I'm paying for all the fossil fuel plants
and nukes that weren't given their full operating life
and got prematurely replaced by expensive and unreliable renewables that
also require storage.

The nuke was botched. Those new renewables are less expensive than new
carbon would be. It's also possible those old plants will convert to
hydrogen.

Which gas plants were retired prematurely?

And yes...the proof is in the bill. It doesn't lie.

No one doubts your bill went up.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)