Look at your usage. Please Sign In and use this article's on page print button to print this article. Market Commentary May - July 2017 One meter is used for your home energy use and another meter is used for charging your EV, measuring each usage separately. Better Budgeting Compare Energy Rates for your Business Join the chamber ANDROID Read the EFL. Information in this guide is general in nature and is intended for informational purposes only; it is not legal, health, investment or tax advice. ConsumerAffairs.com makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from its use. Partner Stations All quotes delayed a minimum of 15 minutes. See here for a complete list of exchanges and delays. Choose a U.S. State or Territory Gallery Jump up ^ http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-200-2014-003/CEC-200-2014-003-SF.pdf 2.13 Idaho Locks & Ironmongery 500 1,000 2,000 32 children's medicines being recalled for potential microbial contamination For many households, the cost of energy will be the most important factor when signing up to a new plan. However, other considerations, particularly customer service, are also worth giving some thought. Everyone wants low prices, but at what cost? This is why Canstar Blue annually surveys electricity bill-payers across NSW to find out how they rate their provider based on a number of variables, including customer service, bill clarity and value for money. In 2018, Red Energy is the highest rated provider in NSW for overall customer satisfaction. Issue Archives Texas New Mexico Power POLITICS Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) In some states, utilities can also generate and sell electricity, but customers aren’t forced to buy the electricity from the utility company. They may choose from either the utility or available electricity providers. Before signing up for electricity service, we recommend checking the local utility’s electricity supply rate by checking their rates online or contacting them directly. 12.5¢ Our Companies Turn off the heated dry on your dishwasher State Maryland HEART. Lost Password? Lost User Name? First time user? Create an Account Weather Prep Update: Loveland man accused of killing teen posts $125,000 bail Stuff Fibre These communities face a double threat from Hurricane Florence and property rights Lawmakers deregulated electricity in Texas in 2002 but allowed cities such as San Antonio, Austin, San Marcos and El Paso — as well as areas served by electric cooperatives — to remain regulated markets with a single provider. Turning off the television isn't enough -- unplug appliances when you are not using them to lower your energy use. 3G and 4G Mobile Internet Explained Note: employed technologies and LCOE differ by country and change over time. 8 Vermont 18.50 Contract Timing IPhone (26) Light Saver 24+ Economic and Community Vitality Boylston Electric Light Department month term Simply create an account using our easy and quick online form or by contacting one of our friendly, bilingual customer service representatives. News and press Commercial customers have the power to choose Texas electric rates too Understanding Rate PlansFinding Your Best Plan It's amazing how Uber and Lyft can con millions of drivers to drive people around for pennies. Oh yes, in case you didn't know, UBER and LYFT take up to 50% of the fare you pay from the drivers. Yet, drivers RARELY get tipped By Vikram Mansharamani Page information Send us a confidential tip Environmental activists promoting the use of solar and wind energy engage with locals on a Durban, South Africa, beach last November during a UN conference on climate change. Little by little Africans are finding alternative ways to meet urgent demands for electricity. Texas began deregulation of its energy markets starting in 1999, giving residents the power to select an energy provider. In response, a number of companies sprang up to compete for business. Now, Texans have a wide variety of options in selecting an energy provider. So why choose Spark Energy? Energy Articles Customer rating North Korea Is that dream opportunity really a nightmare? Car Tyre Retailers The Beacon The Weekly Metering Breakingviews Staff • Check out real-time energy rates in these locations Visit digital hub HelpContact PG&EConnect With PG&E VIEW TOP PGE.COM SEARCHES Smart Prepaid Electric is an electricity service provider that can offer you cheap electricity without any strings attached. You can easily activate an account with just your name, address, a text ready cell and a phone number or email address. There is no credit check or deposits. You do not have to sign any contracts and there are no late fees; just affordable, dependable electricity. It is a pay-as-you-go service and paying is easy with Smart Prepaid Electric. You can pay in person, by phone, online, by mail or with a Smart Card. For cheap, prepaid electricity in Texas, call us today at 877-773-8099. Types of Texas electricity companies MyAccount Debt and Deficit District of Columbia[edit] Income Inequality "Texas Electric Broker saved our facilities over $1.1 million over a 5 year contract. I recommend you call them now!" No Deposit? Poor Credit? Energy pricing resources are available below to help you choose the best product for your home. Shop By Tom Thornton Energy Savings Brownsville, Texas Fixed-Rate plan: With a fixed-rate plan, you’ll lock in an electricity rate for the term of your contract. The most common term lengths are six ,12, and 24 months. Most fixed-rate plans charge customers an early termination fee if they switch providers before their contract expires, but your electricity rate will stay stable through the seasons. On the other hand, you may miss out on lower bills from a downturn in energy prices. If the price stability of a fixed-rate plan seems like the best option for you, lock in your electricity rate with Direct Energy’sFree Weekends  plan, which provides free electricity on weekends from 6 p.m. on Friday to 11:59 p.m. on Sunday. Jobs Good Afternoon! Town of Thurmont Municipal Light Company With thousands of electricity and gas plans across NZ, we've got you covered. ‘HODLers Be HODLing’: 55% Of Bitcoin Sits in Multimillion... The new device relies on natural biological processes of so-called electric bacteria, essentially living cells that eat and breathe electricity. Bitcoin mining became the subject of an unexpected... ONCOR Our Truest Companions Sign up and receive up to $360 in Visa prepaid cards Plus a low-fixed rate for 36 months Washington, DC 20585 74760 no sign-up fees,  For many households, the cost of energy will be the most important factor when signing up to a new plan. However, other considerations, particularly customer service, are also worth giving some thought. Everyone wants low prices, but at what cost? This is why Canstar Blue annually surveys electricity bill-payers across NSW to find out how they rate their provider based on a number of variables, including customer service, bill clarity and value for money. In 2018, Red Energy is the highest rated provider in NSW for overall customer satisfaction. Submit For Rates Help Me Choose Rappahannock Electric Cooperative Or Genderqueer folk Customized energy plans tailored to your large business. Our service is quick, easy, and free. Reduce your energy costs today or we’ll donate $1,000 to your charity of choice. Generation and thermal output Berlin Electric Utility Department Power to Save Jump up ^ "The Australian Energy Technology Assessment (AETA) 2012". Office of the Chief Economist. Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE). Retrieved 28 October 2016. Finally, remember that when you work with SaveOnEnergy.com, you're working with energy experts who will listen to your wants and craft a plan that's right. Give us a call and we'll help find what YOU need for your situation. tags: ISORTOTexascapacitycoalconsumption/demand+electric generationelectric power gridelectricity generating fuel mixforecasts/projectionsgenerating capacitygenerationnatural gaspower plantspricesreservesresourcesretirementsstatesweatherwholesale powerwholesale prices Due to the increased usage of natural gas immediately after deregulation, new-era energy tools such as wind power and smart-grid technology were greatly aided. Texas' first "renewable portfolio standard" — or requirement that the state's utilities get a certain amount of their power from renewable energy like wind — was signed into law in 1999, as part of the same legislation that deregulated the electric market. To see the rates and plans we offer in your area, begin by entering your zip code below: Already in a Contract? Issue Purchase - Online Checkout El Paso Electric (EPE) first began serving its customers on August 30, 1901.  It was then known as the El Paso Electric Railway Company.  Initially its primary business consisted of providing transportation via mule-drawn streetcars, which were replaced in 1902 with electric streetcars.  Smartphones August 23rd 2018 That will result in “tight operating reserves” — numbers released Thursday show ERCOT expects to have barely enough power to meet demand from June through September, which will result in sky-high power prices at certain times. 4 Change Energy When your new electric service begins you will see the rate you selected on your monthly electricity bill. About 14 years ago, Texas deregulation laws initiated competition for electric companies. In Fort Worth, people in the community can pick a retail electric provider (REP), but not all renters, business owners and homeowners in Texas have this option. If consumers own a business, live or rent in the city, they can decide amongst Fort Worth electric rates in their ZIP code. Photograph: Panos / Crispin Hughes Cheap Vacuums Service Areas What alternatives to oil in Africa? At 45,000 MWd/t burn-up this gives 360,000 kWh electrical per kg, hence fuel cost = 0.39 ¢/kWh.Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain the cost of nuclear electricity was reduced by 29% over the period 1995-2001. Cost reductions of 40% were achieved by boosting enrichment levels and burn-up. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-up will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradeable commodity.The contribution of fuel to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect (see below). Uranium is abundant and widely available.There are other possible savings. For example, if used fuel is reprocessed and the recovered plutonium and uranium is used in mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, more energy can be extracted. The costs of achieving this are large, but are offset by MOX fuel not needing enrichment and particularly by the smaller amount of high-level wastes produced at the end. Seven UO2 fuel assemblies give rise to one MOX assembly plus some vitrified high-level waste, resulting in only about 35% of the volume, mass and cost of disposal.This 'back-end' of the fuel cycle, including used fuel storage or disposal in a waste repository, contributes up to 10% of the overall costs per kWh, or less if there is direct disposal of used fuel rather than reprocessing. The $26 billion US used fuel program is funded by a 0.1 cent/kWh levy.Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs account for about 66% of the total operating cost. O&M may be divided into ‘fixed costs’, which are incurred whether or not the plant is generating electricity, and ‘variable costs’, which vary in relation to the output. Normally these costs are expressed relative to a unit of electricity (for example, cents per kilowatt hour) to allow a consistent comparison with other energy technologies.Decommissioning costs are about 9-15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant. But when discounted over the lifetime of the plant, they contribute only a few percent to the investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the USA they account for 0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is no more than 5% of the cost of the electricity produced.External costsExternal costs are not included in the building and operation of any power plant, and are not paid by the electricity consumer, but by the community generally. The external costs are defined as those actually incurred in relation to health and the environment, and which are quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity.The European Commission launched a project, ExternE, in 1991 in collaboration with the US Department of Energy – the first research project of its kind "to put plausible financial figures against damage resulting from different forms of electricity production for the entire EU". The methodology considers emissions, dispersion and ultimate impact. With nuclear energy, the risk of accidents is factored in along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (waste management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer). Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro; coal is over 4.0 c/kWh (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 c/kWh and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 c/kWh average. NB these are the external costs only. If these costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity from coal would double and that from gas would increase 30%. These are without attempting to include the external costs of global warming.A further study commissioned by the European Commission in 2014, and carried out by the Ecofys consultancy, calculated external costs for nuclear as €18-22/MWh, including about €5/MWh for health impacts, €4/MWh for accidents and €12/MWh for so-called ‘resource depletion’, relating to the “costs to society of consumption of finite fuel resources now, rather than in the future”. Although Ecofys acknowledges that the resource depletion cost is difficult to calculate since the scarcity of a finite natural resource is already reflected in its market price, and could therefore just as well be zero, a high estimate was asserted using a questionable methodology and without taking account of the potential for recycling nuclear fuel.Another report for the European Commission made by Professor William D’haeseleer, University of Leuven, in November 2013, estimated the cost of a potential nuclear accident to be in the range of €0.3-3/MWh.Pricing of external benefits is limited at present. As fossil fuel generators begin to incur real costs associated with their impact on the climate, through carbon taxes or emissions trading regimes, the competitiveness of new nuclear plants will improve. This is particularly so where the comparison is being made with coal-fired plants, but it also applies, to a lesser extent, to gas-fired equivalents.The likely extent of charges for carbon emissions has become an important factor in the economic evaluation of new nuclear plants, particularly in the EU where an emissions trading regime has been introduced but which is yet to reflect the true costs of carbon emissions. Prices have stayed relatively low within the national and sub-national jurisdictions that currently put a price on carbon emissions. In Europe, since 2013, the European Union Allowance price is stagnating around €5-9/tCO2. The European Union is considering a reform to the Emissions Trading System to ensure more stable and higher permit prices needed to support the delivery of its 1990-2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 40%.An analysis by the Brattle Group in 2016 showed that zero-emission credits for nuclear power could secure the economic viability of nuclear plants in competition with subsidised renewables and low-cost gas-fired plants. It said: "A typical revenue deficit for a vulnerable nuclear power plant is around $10/MWh," which is equivalent to costing "the avoided CO2 emissions... between $12 and $20 per ton of CO2, varying with the regional fossil fuel mix that would substitute for the plant." It said: "This cost compares favorably with other carbon abatement options such as state policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector, as well as with many estimates of the social cost of carbon."“These findings demonstrate that the retention of existing nuclear generating plants, even at a modest operating cost recovery premium for a limited period, represents a cost-effective method to avoid CO2 emissions in the near term and would enable compliance with any future climate policy at a reasonable cost. Sustaining nuclear viability in the interim is a reasonable and cost-effective insurance policy in the longer term.”Under New York's Clean Energy Standard (CES), zero-emission credits (ZEC) will be implemented in six tranches over a period of 12 years starting April 2017. For the first two-year period nuclear generators will receive ZECs of $17.54/MWh, paid by the distribution utilities (and hence eventually ratepayers) but otherwise similar to the federal production tax credits applying to renewables since 1993 on an inflation-adjusted basis, though at a lower rate than its $23/MWh for wind. ZECs would escalate to $29.15/MWh over subsequent years.The NY Public Service Commission on 1 August 2016 approved the Clean Energy Standard. The majority vote was reported to be on three main criteria: grid reliability, reducing carbon emissions, and maintaining jobs. The governor’s announcement stated: “A growing number of climate scientists have warned that if these nuclear plants were to abruptly close, carbon emissions in New York will increase by more than 31 million metric tons during the next two years, resulting in public health and other societal costs of at least $1.4 billion.”In Illinois, in December 2016 the Future Energy Jobs Bill was passed, with a core feature being the establishment of the Zero Emission Standard (ZES) to preserve the state’s at-risk nuclear plants, saving 4,200 jobs, retaining $1.2 billion of economic activity annually and avoiding increases in energy costs. The bill provided ZECs similar to those in New York – "a tradable credit that represents the environmental attributes of one megawatt hour of energy produced from a zero emission facility" (such as the nuclear power plants which supply about 90% of the state’s zero-carbon electricity). It will provide up to $235 million annually to support two plants – 2,884 MWe net capacity – for ten years.Other costsIn order to provide reliable electricity supply, provision must be made for backup generation at times when the generating plant is not operating. Provision must also be made to transmit the electricity from where it is generated to where it is needed. The costs incurred in providing backup and transmission/distribution facilities are known as system costs.System costs are external to the building and operation of any power plant, but must be paid by the electricity consumer, usually as part of the transmission and distribution cost. From a government policy point of view they are just as significant as the actual generation cost, but are seldom factored into comparisons of different supply options, especially comparing base-load with dispersed variable renewables. In fact the total system cost should be analysed when introducing new power generating capacity on the grid. Any new power plant likely requires changes to the grid, and hence incurs a significant cost for power supply that must be accounted for. But this cost for large base-load plants is usually small compared with integrating variable renewables to the grid.For nuclear and fossil fuel generators, system costs relate mainly to the need for reserve capacity to cover periodic outages, whether planned or unplanned. The system costs associated with renewable generation relate to their inability to generate electricity without the required weather conditions and their generally dispersed locations distant from centres of demand.The integration of intermittent renewable supply on a preferential basis despite higher unit cost creates significant diseconomies for dispatchable supply, as is now becoming evident in Germany, Austria and Spain, compromising security of supply and escalating costs. At 40% share of electricity being from renewables, the capital cost component of power from conventional thermal generation sources increases substantially as their capacity factor decreases – the utilisation effect. This has devastated the economics of some gas-fired plants in Germany, for instance.In some countries, market design results in a market failure wherby reliable (and low carbon), but capital-intensive technologies (such as large hydro and nuclear) cannot be financed because long-term power purchase contracts are not available, meaning there is no certainty that investments can be recouped. Long-term electricity storage solutions (when/if the technology becomes available) face the same financing problem because these will also be capital-intensive.The overall cost competitiveness of nuclear, as measured on a levelised basis (see figure below on Comparative LCOEs and System Costs in Four Countries), is much enhanced by its modest system costs. However, the impact of intermittent electricity supply on wholesale markets has a profound effect on the economics of base-load generators, including nuclear, that is not captured in the levelised cost comparisons given by the International Energy Agency (IEA) - Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) reports. The negligible marginal operating costs of wind and solar mean that, when climatic conditions allow generation from these sources, they undercut all other electricity producers. At high levels of renewable generation, for example as implied by the EU’s 30% renewable penetration target, the nuclear capacity factor is reduced and the volatility of wholesale prices greatly increases whilst the average wholesale price level falls. The increased penetration of intermittent renewables thereby greatly reduces the financial viability of nuclear generation in wholesale markets where intermittent renewable energy capacity is significant. See also Electricity markets section below.An OECD study (OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (2012), Nuclear Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems) found that the integration of large shares of intermittent renewable electricity is a major challenge for the electricity systems of OECD countries and for dispatchable generators such as nuclear. Grid-level system costs for variable renewables are large ($15-80/MWh) but depend on country, context and technology (onshore wind < offshore wind < solar PV). Nuclear system costs are $1-3/MWh.See also paper on Electricity Transmission Grids.Nuclear-specific taxes are levied in several EU countries. In 2014 Belgium raised some €479 million from a €0.005/kWh tax. In July 2015, Electrabel agreed to pay €130 million tax for the year 2016, alongside a fee for life extension of Doel 1&2 (€20 million/yr). From 2017 onwards, a formula will apply for calculating tax contributions, with a minimum of €150 million per year.In 2000 Sweden introduced a nuclear-specific tax on installed capacity, which gradually increased over time; in 2015, the tax raised about €435 million. In June 2016 the Swedish government, amid growing concerns over the continued viability of existing plants, agreed to phase out the tax on nuclear power from 2017 onwards.In Germany, a tax was levied on nuclear fuel that required companies to pay per gram of fuel used over six years to 2016. After various court rulings, in June 2017 the Federal Constitutional Court finally ruled that the nuclear fuel tax was “formally unconstitutional and void,” which meant that the three major utilities could be reimbursed some €6.3 billion paid between 2011 and 2016 – €2.8 billion by E.On, €1.7 billion by RWE and €1.44 billion by EnBW, plus interest.The UK exercises a Climate Change Levy, which continues to 2023. It is a downstream tax on energy delivered to non-domestic users in the UK introduced in 2001. Initially levied against fossil fuels and nuclear, the government removed renewables' exemption in its July 2015 Budget. In 2011 the government introduced a carbon floor price – a mechanism that has long been seen as fundamental to the economics of new UK nuclear power. The government set a minimum of £16 per tonne CO2 from 2013, rising steadily to £30 per tonne in 2020, and £70 per tonne in 2030.See also paper on Energy subsidies and external costs.Electricity marketsThe economics of any power generation depends primarily on what each unit (kWh, MWh) costs to produce and get to the consumer who creates the demand for that power. This is the LCOE as outlined above. But secondly it depends on the market into which the power is sold, where the producer and grid operator run into a raft of government policies often coupled with subsidies for other sources. Such policies raise the question of what public good is served by each, and whether overall the public good is optimised. Where the outcome is not maximising public good effectively, there is market failure.** This section draws heavily on the Nuclear Economics Consulting Group webpage on Market Failure.A market can work well to achieve its stated objectives, but still result in market failure. This is often explained by externalities – negative or positive impacts of an industry – that are not reflected in the market. With electricity, the direct (private) costs of generating power do not usually include the external costs (e.g. emissions, system costs due to intermittent operation, land use, noise) nor do they account for the benefits of positive externalities (e.g. knock-on economic activity from jobs, system reliability, fuel diversity).Electricity markets rely on direct or private costs to dispatch (i.e. turn on and turn off) generators to meet varying real-time demand for power. Those costs determine merit order of dispatch. Meeting real-time electricity demand is a difficult and challenging process. The electricity markets do this, but do not reflect the externalities of the generators participating in the market and may result in market failure. An electricity market with efficient short-term spot prices should not be expected to achieve other objectives such as lower emissions, long-term system reliability, or implementation of national policy.Merchant generating plants rely on selling power into a commodity market which is shaped by policies including those which may favour particular sources of power regardless of their immediate and longer-term deficiencies in relation to the public good. (Generating plants in a regulated or government-owned electricity industry can deliver power essentially on a cost-plus basis, with regulators or governments able to reflect externalities in decisions.) Nuclear power plants provide a range of benefits to society that are not compensated in the commodity electricity market revenue stream. These public benefits include emission-free electricity, long-term reliable operation, system stability, system fuel diversity and fuel price hedging, as well as economic benefits from employment.Generic approaches to fix market failure include imposing costs on negative externalities such as CO2 emissions, providing compensation to support positive externalities, and government ownership of sectors likely to experience market failure. Some US states make zero emission credit (ZEC) payments to nuclear generation to reward the positive externalities. ZECs are similar to the production tax credits applying to wind power, though lower, but are based directly on estimated emission benefits. They mean that the value of nuclear electricity can be greater than the LCOE cost of producing it in markets strongly influenced by low gas prices and subsidies on variable wind generation which has market priority. Without the ZEC payments, nuclear operation may not be viable in this situation.Comparing the economics of different forms of electricity generationIn 2017 the US EIA published figures for the average levelised costs per unit of output (LCOE) for generating technologies to be brought online in 2022, as modelled for its Annual Energy Outlook. These show: advanced nuclear, 9.9 c/kWh; natural gas, 5.7-10.9 c/kWh (depending on technology); and coal with 90% carbon sequestration, 12.3 c/kWh (rising to 14 c/kWh at 30%). Among the non-dispatchable technologies, LCOE estimates vary widely: wind onshore, 5.2 c/kWh; solar PV, 6.7 c/kWh; offshore wind, 14.6 c/kWh; and solar thermal, 18.4 c/kWh.The 2015 edition of the OECD study on Projected Costs of Generating Electricity showed that the range for the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) varied much more for nuclear than coal or CCGT with different discount rates, due to it being capital-intensive. The nuclear LCOE is largely driven by capital costs. At 3% discount rate, nuclear was substantially cheaper than the alternatives in all countries, at 7% it was comparable with coal and still cheaper than CCGT, at 10% it was comparable with both. At low discount rates it was much cheaper than wind and PV. Based on a 0% discount rate, LCOE for nuclear soared to three times as much as the 10% discount rate, while that for coal was 1.4 times and for CCGT it changed very little. Solar PV increased 2.25 times and onshore wind nearly twice at 10% discount rate, albeit with very different capacity factors to the 85% for the three base-load options. For all technologies, a $30 per tonne carbon price was included. LCOE figures omit system costs.Comparative LCOEs and system costs in four countries (2014 and 2012)** LCOE plant costs have been taken from Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2015 Edition. System costs have been taken from Nuclear Energy and Renewables (NEA, 2012). A 30% generation penetration level for onshore wind, offshore wind and solar PV has been assumed in the NEA estimates of system costs, which include back-up costs, balancing costs, grid connection, extension and reinforcement costs. A discount rate of 7% is used throughout, which is therefore consistent with the plant level LCOE estimates given in the 2015 edition of Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. The 2015 study applies a $30/t CO2 price on fossil fuel use and uses 2013 US$ values and exchange rates.Projected nuclear LCOE costs for plants built 2015-2020, $/MWh Best Electricity Rates In Aspermont Texas | New Service Today Best Electricity Rates In Aspermont Texas | Change Electricity Company Today Best Electricity Rates In Aspermont Texas | Change Electricity Provider
Legal | Sitemap