48 @ 1000+ kWh/M Pay your bill ***WIN WIN WIN WIN*** FREE Broadband for a year! Complete our short survey find out more Tuvalu 36.55 [55] To contact the editor responsible for this story: Sports TG Power plants Texas Got 18 Percent of Its Energy from Wind and Solar Last Year The Sciences Turn On/Off Power Got Science? Paul Solman Reclaim Lost Loyalty Points Wholesale Activities Champion Energy Services | PUCT 10098 Economic Development Get a cheaper power plan Many scholars,[specify] such as Paul Joskow, have described limits to the "levelized cost of electricity" metric for comparing new generating sources. In particular, LCOE ignores time effects associated with matching production to demand. This happens at two levels: OH Consultants “ StarTex has moved with me 2 times since I started with them and they have been easy to communicate with. Professional staff. ” See all Entrust Energy plans Online Grocery Shopping One bitcoin trader said a rig of 100 GPUs can earn 2,700 euros a month based on the current value of bitcoin, assuming a monthly electricity bill of around 900 euros ($1,040). Internationally Home Services AEP Ohio AEP Texas Appalachian Power Indiana Michigan Power Kentucky Power PSO SWEPCO National Customers China 25.6-30.8 37.2-47.6 48.8-64.4Source: OECD/IEA-NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2015 Edition, Table 3.11, assuming 85% capacity factorOvernight capital costs for nuclear technologies in OECD countries ranged from $2,021/kWe of capacity (in South Korea) to $6,215/kWe per kWe (in Hungary) in the 2015 report.The 2010 edition of the report had noted a significant increase in costs of building base-load plants over the previous five years. The 2015 report shows that this increase has stopped, and that this is particularly significant for nuclear technologies, "undermining the growing narrative that nuclear costs continue to increase globally".Rosatom claimed in November 2015 that due to its integrated structure, the LCOE of new VVERs exported is no more than $50-$60/MWh in most countries.It is important to distinguish between the economics of nuclear plants already in operation and those at the planning stage. Once capital investment costs are effectively “sunk”, existing plants operate at very low costs and are effectively “cash machines”. Their operations and maintenance (O&M) and fuel costs (including used fuel management) are, along with hydropower plants, at the low end of the spectrum and make them very suitable as base-load power suppliers. This is irrespective of whether the investment costs are amortized or depreciated in corporate financial accounts – assuming the forward or marginal costs of operation are below the power price, the plant will operate.The impact of varying the uranium price in isolation is shown below in a worked example of a typical US plant, assuming no alteration in the tails assay at the enrichment plant.Effect of uranium price on fuel costDoubling the uranium price (say from $25 to $50 per lb U3O8) takes the fuel cost up from 0.50 to 0.62 US c/kWh, an increase of one quarter, and the expected cost of generation of the best US plants from 1.3 c/kWh to 1.42 c/kWh (an increase of almost 10%). So while there is some impact, it is minor, especially by comparison with the impact of gas prices on the economics of gas generating plants. In these, 90% of the marginal costs can be fuel. Only if uranium prices rise to above $100 per lb U3O8 ($260 /kgU), and stay there for a prolonged period (which seems very unlikely), will the impact on nuclear generating costs be considerable.Nevertheless, for nuclear power plants operating in competitive power markets where it is impossible to pass on any fuel price increases (i.e. the utility is a price-taker), higher uranium prices will cut corporate profitability. Yet fuel costs have been relatively stable over time – the rise in the world uranium price between 2003 and 2007 added to generation costs, but conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication costs did not follow the same trend.For prospective new nuclear plants, the fuel component is even less significant (see below). The typical front end nuclear fuel cost is typically only 15-20% of the total, as opposed to 30-40% for operating nuclear plants.Competitiveness in the context of increasing use of power from renewable sources, which are often given preference and support by governments, is a major issue today. The most important renewable sources are intermittent by nature, which means that their supply to the electricity system does not necessarily match demand from customers. In power grids where renewable sources of generation make a significant contribution, intermittency forces other generating sources to ramp up or power down their supply at short notice. This volatility can have a large impact on non-intermittent generators’ profitability. A variety of responses to the challenge of intermittent generation are possible. Two options currently being implemented are increased conventional plant flexibility and increased grid capacity and coverage. Flexibility is seen as most applicable to gas- and coal-fired generators, but nuclear reactors, normally regarded as base-load producers, also have the ability to load-follow (e.g. by the use of ‘grey rods’ to modulate the reaction speed).As the scale of intermittent generating capacity increases however, more significant measures will be required. The establishment and extension of capacity mechanisms, which offer payments to generators prepared to guarantee supply for defined periods, are now under serious consideration within the EU. Capacity mechanisms can in theory provide security of supply to desired levels but at a price which might be high. For example, Morgan Stanley has estimated that investors in a 800 MWe gas plant providing for intermittent generation would require payments of €80 million per year whilst Ecofys reports that a 4 GWe reserve in Germany would cost €140-240 million/year. Almost by definition, investors in conventional plants designed to operate intermittently will face low and uncertain load factors and will therefore demand significant capacity payments in return for the investment decision. In practice, until the capacity mechanism has been reliably implemented, investors are likely to withhold investment. Challenges for EU power market integration are expected to result from differences between member state capacity mechanisms.The 2014 Ecofys report for the European Commission on subsidies and costs of EU energy purported to present a complete and consistent set of data on electricity generation and system costs, as well external costs and interventions by governments to reduce costs to consumers. The report attributed €6.96 billion to nuclear power in the EU in 2012, including €4.33 billion decommissioning costs (shortfall from those already internalised). Geographically the total broke down to include EU support of €3.26 billion, and UK €2.77 billion, which was acknowledged as including military legacy clean-up. Consequently there are serious questions about the credibility of such figures.Economic implications of particular plantsApart from considerations of cost of electricity and the perspective of an investor or operator, there are studies on the economics of particular generating plants in their local context.Early in 2015 a study, Economic Impacts of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, was prepared by the US Nuclear Energy Institute. It analyzes the impact of the 580 MWe PWR plant’s operations through the end of its 60-year operating licence in 2029. It generates an average annual economic output of over $350 million in western New York State and an impact on the U.S. economy of about $450 million per year. Ginna employs about 700 people directly, adding another 800 to 1,000 periodic jobs during reactor refueling and maintenance outages every 18 months. Annual payroll is about $100 million. Secondary employment involves another 800 jobs. Ginna is the largest taxpayer in the county. Operating at more than 95% capacity factor, it is a very reliable source of low-cost electricity. Its premature closure would be extremely costly to both state and country – far in excess of the above figures.In June 2015 a study, Economic Impacts of the Indian Point Energy Center, was published by the US Nuclear Energy Institute, analyzing the economic benefits of Entergy’s Indian Point 2&3 reactors in New York state (1020 and 1041 MWe net). It showed that they annually generate an estimated $1.6 billion in the state and $2.5 billion across the nation as a whole. This includes about $1.3 billion per year in the local counties around the plant. The facility contributes about $30 million in state and local property taxes and has an annual payroll of about $140 million for the plant’s nearly 1,000 employees. The total tax benefit to the local, state and federal governments from the plant is about $340 million per year, and the plant’s direct employees support another 5,400 indirect jobs in New York state and 5,300 outside it. It also makes a major contribution to grid reliability and prevents the release of 8.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year.In September 2015 a Brattle Group report said that the five nuclear facilities in Pennsylvania contribute $2.36 billion annually to the state's gross domestic product and account for 15,600 direct and secondary full-time jobs.Future cost competitivenessUnderstanding the cost of new generating capacity and its output requires careful analysis of what is in any set of figures. There are three broad components: capital, finance, and operating costs. Capital and financing costs make up the project cost.Calculations of relative generating costs are made using estimates of the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for each proposed project. The LCOE represents the price that the electricity must fetch if the project is to break even (after taking account of all lifetime costs, inflation and the opportunity cost of capital through the application of a discount rate).It is important to note that capital cost figures quoted by reactor vendors, or which are general and not site-specific, will usually just be for EPC costs. This is because owners’ costs will vary hugely, most of all according to whether a plant is greenfield or at an established site, perhaps replacing an old plant.There are several possible sources of variation which preclude confident comparison of overnight or EPC capital costs – e.g. whether initial core load of fuel is included. Much more obvious is whether the price is for the nuclear island alone (nuclear steam supply system) or the whole plant including turbines and generators. Further differences relate to site works such as cooling towers as well as land and permitting – usually they are all owners’ costs as outlined earlier in this section. Financing costs are additional, adding typically around 30%, dependent on construction time and interest rate. Finally there is the question of whether cost figures are in current (or specified year) dollar values or in those of the year in which spending occurs.Major studies on future cost competitivenessThere have been many studies carried out examining the economics of future generation options, and the following are merely the most important and also focus on the nuclear element.The 2015 edition of the OECD study on Projected Costs of Generating Electricity considered the cost and deployment perspectives for small modular reactors (SMRs) and Generation IV reactor designs – including very high temperature reactors and fast reactors – that could start being deployed by 2030. Although it found that the specific per-kWe costs of SMRs are likely to be 50% to 100% higher than those for large Generation III reactors, these could be offset by potential economies of volume from the manufacture of a large number of identical SMRs, plus lower overall investment costs and shorter construction times that would lower the capital costs of such plants. "SMRs are expected at best to be on a par with large nuclear if all the competitive advantages … are realised," the report noted.A May 2016 draft declaration related to the European Commission Strategic Energy Technology plan lists target LCOE figures for the latest generation of light-water reactors (LWRs) 'first-of-a-kind' new-build twin reactor project on a brownfield site: EUR(2012) €48/MWh to €84/MWh, falling to €43/MWh to €75/MWh for a series build (5% and 10% discount rate). The LCOE figures for existing Gen-II nuclear power plants integrating post-Fukushima stress tests safety upgrades following refurbishment for extended operation (10-20 years on average): EUR (2012) €23/MWh to €26/MWh (5% and 10% discount rate).Nuclear overnight capital costs in OECD ranged from US$ 1,556/kW for APR-1400 in South Korea through $3,009/kW for ABWR in Japan, $3,382/kW for Gen III+ in USA, $3,860/kW for EPR at Flamanville in France to $5,863/kW for EPR in Switzerland, with a world median of $4,100/kW. Belgium, Netherlands, Czech Republic and Hungary were all over $5,000/kW. In China overnight costs were $1,748/kW for CPR-1000 and $2,302/kW for AP1000, and in Russia $2,933/kW for VVER-1150. EPRI (USA) gave $2,970/kW for APWR or ABWR, Eurelectric gave $4,724/kW for EPR. OECD black coal plants were costed at $807-2,719/kW, those with carbon capture and compression (tabulated as CCS, but the cost not including storage) at $3,223-5,811/kW, brown coal $1,802-3,485, gas plants $635-1,747/kW and onshore wind capacity $1,821-3,716/kW. (Overnight costs were defined here as EPC, owners' costs and contingency, but excluding interest during construction).OECD electricity generating cost projections for year 2015 on – 5% discount rate, c/kWh Projects Use of this site constitutes acceptance of the AEP Terms and Conditions. © 1996-2018 American Electric Power. All Rights Reserved. Satellite TV Providers 401W - 500W PSUs (15) 1-866-222-7100 2.3 Arizona Puget Sound Energy More about Dallas News The Americas Jump up ^ "Current ZESCO Tariffs". Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation (ZESCO). 16 August 2017. “There continues to be a structural problem … with how City Light sets its rates,” Sawant said. For the "PBS NewsHour," this is economics correspondent Paul Solman in Plattsburgh, New York. $34.00 Conder said a credit rating was far from conclusive. 3.2 Driving factors Prepare Your Business The real takeaway: Right now, renewable energy is more expensive than other forms of energy, but not really by much. Tesco Bank: EVGA 650w B3 PSU 80+ Bronze Fully Modular Power Supply TV & Internet Scratch & Dent Hand Tools Total 100%Capital cost escalationWith relatively few nuclear plants constructed in North America and Western Europe over the past two decades, the amount of information on the costs of building modern nuclear plants is somewhat limited. The shift to Generation III reactors has added further uncertainty. Other non-nuclear generation technologies also show variation, as do major infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges, depending upon where they are built. However, the variation is particularly crucial for electricity generation as its economics depend so much on minimising capital investment cost, which must be passed onto consumers, in contrast to roads, bridges and dams which are usually less complex. Large infrastructure projects of all kinds tend to be over budget and late in most parts of the world, according to research by the University of Lincoln (UK) and the European Union's Megaproject.The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency’s (NEA's) calculation of the overnight cost for a nuclear power plant built in the OECD rose from about $1900/kWe at the end of the 1990s to $3850/kWe in 2009. In the 2015 report Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, the overnight costs ranged from $2021/kWe in South Korea to $6215/kWe in Hungary. For China, two comparable figures were $1807/kWe and $2615/kWe. LCOE figures at a 3% discount rate range from $29/MWh in Korea to $64/MWh in the UK, at a 7% discount rate from $40/MWh (Korea) to $101/MWh (UK), and at a 10% rate $51/MWh (Korea) to $136/MWh (UK).The 2015 NEA report makes the important point regarding LCOE: “At a 3% discount rate, nuclear is the lowest cost option for all countries. However, consistent with the fact that nuclear technologies are capital intensive relative to natural gas or coal, the cost of nuclear rises relatively quickly as the discount rate is raised. As a result, at a 7% discount rate the median value of nuclear is close to the median value for coal [but lower than the gas in CCGTs], and at a 10% discount rate the median value for nuclear is higher than that of either CCGTs or coal. These results include a carbon cost of $30/tonne, as well as regional variations in assumed fuel costs.”The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) calculated that, in constant 2002 values, the realized overnight cost of a nuclear power plant built in the USA grew from $1500/kWe in the early 1960s to $4000/kWe in the mid-1970s. The EIA cited increased regulatory requirements (including design changes that required plants to be backfitted with modified equipment), licensing problems, project management problems and mis-estimation of costs and demand as the factors contributing to the increase during the 1970s. Its November 2016 report, Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generation Plants, gave an estimate for a new nuclear plant of $5945/kW (overnight cost).There are also significant variations in capital costs by country, particularly between the emerging industrial economies of East Asia and the mature markets of Europe and North America. Variations have a variety of explanations, including: differential labour costs; more experience in the recent building of reactors; economies of scale from building multiple units; and streamlined licensing and project management within large civil engineering projects.The French national audit body, the Cour des Comptes, said in 2012 that the overnight capital costs of building nuclear power plants increased over time from €1070/kWe (at 2010 prices) when the first of the 58 currently operating PWRs was built at Fessenheim (commissioned in 1978) to €2060/kWe when Chooz 1&2 were built in 2000, and to a projected €3700/kWe for the Flamanville EPR. It can be argued that much of this escalation relates to the smaller magnitude of the programme by 2000 (compared with when the French were commissioning 4-6 new PWRs per year in the 1980s) and the resultant failure to achieve series economies. The French programme also arguably shows that industrial organization and standardization of a series of reactors allowed construction costs, construction time and operating and maintenance costs to be brought under control. The total overnight investment cost of the French PWR programme amounted to less than €85 billion at 2010 prices. When divided by the total installed capacity (63 GW), the average overnight cost is €1335/kW. This is much in line with the costs that were then provided by the manufacturers.In several countries, notably the UK, there is a trend towards greater vendor involvement in financing projects, but with an intention to relinquish equity once the plant is running.A presentation by Dr N.Barkatullah, UAE Regulation & Supervision, at the World Nuclear Association’s 2014 Symposium showed the risk in construction costs (per kilowatt of capacity), much of it due to financing cost incurred as a result of delays:The same presentation showed the following ranges of figures for overnight capital cost in different parts of the world:The IEA-NEA Nuclear Energy Roadmap 2015 estimates China’s average overnight costs of approximately $3,500/kW are more than a third less than that in the EU of $5,500/kW. Costs in the US are about 10% lower than the EU, but still 30% higher than in China and India, and 25% above South Korea. In its main scenario, 2050 assumptions for overnight costs of nuclear in the United States and European Union are estimated to decline somewhat, reaching levels closer to those in the Republic of Korea, while costs in Asia are assumed to remain flat.In China it is estimated that building two identical 1000 MWe reactors on a site can result in a 15% reduction in the cost per kW compared with that of a single reactor.A 2016 study by The Breakthrough Institute on Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors presented new data for overnight nuclear construction costs across seven countries. Some conclusions emerged that are in contrast to past literature. While several countries, notably the USA, show increasing costs over time, other countries show more stable costs in the longer term, and cost declines over specific periods in their technological history. One country, South Korea, experiences sustained construction cost reductions throughout its nuclear power experience. The variations in trends show that the pioneering experiences of the USA or even France are not necessarily the best or most relevant examples of nuclear cost history. These results showed that there is no single or intrinsic learning rate expected for nuclear power technology, nor any expected cost trend. How costs evolve appears to be dependent on several different factors. The large variation in cost trends and across different countries – even with similar nuclear reactor technologies – suggests that cost drivers other than learning-by-doing have dominated the experience of nuclear power construction and its costs. Factors such as utility structure, reactor size, regulatory regime, and international collaboration may have a larger effect. Therefore, drawing any strong conclusions about future nuclear power costs based on one country's experience – especially the US experience in the 1970s and 1980s – would be ill-advised.Plant operating costsOperating costs include the cost of fuel and of operation and maintenance (O&M). Fuel cost figures include used fuel management and final waste disposal.Low fuel costs have from the outset given nuclear energy an advantage compared with coal and gas-fired plants. Uranium, however, has to be processed, enriched and fabricated into fuel elements, accounting for about half of the total fuel cost. In the assessment of the economics of nuclear power, allowances must also be made for the management of radioactive used fuel and the ultimate disposal of this used fuel or the wastes separated from it. But even with these included, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typically about one-third to one-half of those for a coal-fired plant and between one-quarter and one-fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle plant. The US Nuclear Energy Institute suggests that the cost of fuel for a coal-fired plant is 78% of total costs, for a gas-fired plant the figure is 87%, and for nuclear the uranium is about 14% (or 34% if all front end and waste management costs are included).Front end fuel cycle costs of 1 kg of uranium as UO2 fuel Wrinkle Cream New York Power Authority (NYPA) 1.4% AER, min £1 0 - 400W PSUs (10) Consolidated Edison (Consolidated Edison Company, Orange & Rockland Utilities) If it's with the same provider or if you've missed the cooling-off period, call the supplier you're due to move to and ask it to switch you to its cheapest fixed tariff (use a comparison to check). Otherwise you'll have to wait until the supply is live before switching again. No. QEnergy will contact you within seven days to go through the details. You don’t have to go ahead if you don’t want to. Copyright © 2018 Bounce Energy, Inc. All rights reserved. PUCT #10162. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use. Sitemap The December 2017 forecast projected a 9.3% reserve margin for the summer of 2018, indicating that there is 9.3% more electricity available than the anticipated demand. While it may seem like this represents an adequate supply of electricity, the margin forecast was significantly down from the May 2017 CDR report of 18.9%, and represents a drop of approximately 50% of the electricity reserve. For reference, the NERC reference reserve margin is 13.75%. South Carolina 12.91¢ / kWh 13.07¢ / kWh DOWN -1.224 % Geoffrey, Waikato Income Tax Checker See what the tax man (and more!) will take You can find your yearly energy usage on your annual electricity statement . However if you can’t currently locate this, then we can estimate using information on the size of your home and the number of occupants. News Archive POKEMON (1) 2.20 Maine Smart Electricity Shopping Sections 1% Cool Partners Number to report outages or downed lines: 570-524-2231 FirstEnergy (Jersey Central Power and Light Company) JCP&L 19.26 (above 15 kWh in a month for domestic consumers) Amazon Prime Video Review & Guide Green Living Tips Product details Billing & Payment Eurostat[edit] 한국어 Single +12V Rail UCLA Kalandra H. in McKinney Transmission System Sodium 396 1079 Next 50% off sale rumour Some providers will automatically enroll you into a month-to-month contract if your original contract expires and you don't re-up or cancel service — and those rates tend to be much higher. Investing to improve service for customers and advance new energy technologies About the Foundation Contact Spark Energy West Penn Power - FirstEnergy Company   Woot! Our Principles & Pillars 9.5¢ Understand Your Bill Jump up ^ "Dubai Electricity & Water Authority - tariff". Retrieved June 18, 2017. Electricity Rates by State What’s Ahead for Texas Summer Electricity Rates: Supply, Demand, and Reserve Margins High levels of renewable energy penetration make electricity expensive around the world, not just in California. As Germany deployed high levels of renewables over the last 10 years it saw its electricity prices rise 34 percent. Today, German electricity costs twice as much as that in neighboring France. Jump up ^ Bird, Winifred, "Powering Japan's future", Japan Times, 24 July 2011, p. 7. This shopping feature will continue to load items. In order to navigate out of this carousel please use your heading shortcut key to navigate to the next or previous heading. Cost vs benefit Go to full section If we go over the quota, we can all of a sudden see a huge spike in our electric rates in the winter. It very rarely happened, but it's happening on a regular basis since the Bitcoin operators came to town. Wireless Internet Front Loader Washing Machines Get power today.1 Call 1-855-833-6595 GET POWER TODAY1 State Pension: how it works Check all 132 providers United States of Energy Construction Photos - July 2018 Simply send us one recent electric bill from your current provider (all pages please). You can upload a .PDF, send a fax and even text a picture of it to (713) 582-6787. Energy Education For Your Business NEED HELP? Travel SIMs & Roaming Packs Plus, instant access to our exclusive guide: “Make the Right Choice: A 10-Minute Guide to Not Messing Up Your Next Purchase”. Email:Password:Forgot password?Login Food Processor StarTex PowerStarTex Power is a standout in customer satisfaction, especially when it comes to billing, price, and corporate citizenship. Energy Savings Programs Overview Bloomberg Opinion 2.30 New Hampshire 1,722 Nights Free Mobile phones Orcon Amazon Try Prime Profile: Judith Kitinga, Tanzanian gender activist: Your Business Designer Men's Champion Energy Champ Saver-6 6 months $0.094693 / kWh Mommy Merits 18 >700 kWh/M Travel Money Tips Enrichment 7.3 SWU x $52 $380 27% Small Business Gas FORUM "I found the glimp team great, have switched to fast fibre and everything seems to be working well. Thanks again for the ease in doing that." United Kingdom[edit] New Mexico 12.14¢ / kWh 12.83¢ / kWh DOWN -5.378 % Show comments Smartphone camera lens (4) Who & Where You Are £44.95 GOP warns time running out for Kavanaugh’s accuser to talk The average price a residential customer in the United States pays for electricity is 13.15 cents per kWh. Seahawks Jump up ^ "Salt, silicon or graphite: energy storage goes beyond lithium ion batteries". Retrieved 1 September 2017. Using More Energy Will Often Get You a Better Deal North Dakota 12.07¢ / kWh 12.34¢ / kWh DOWN -2.188 % Breadcrumb Window Fitting On the flip side, Texas’ robust population growth has also contributed to the issue. Texas gained over 400,000 people in 2017, bringing the state’s total population to approximately 28.3 million. The Texas economy remained very strong in 2017 and will likely continue throughout 2018 and beyond as areas such as the Permian Basin continue to ramp up production and use electricity to run everything from gas compressors to fracking operations. You both get a low electricity rate Jump up ^ "Vietnam electricity prices to rise 5 pct from Dec 20 - Agricultural Commodities". Thomson Reuters. December 19, 2011. Retrieved June 18, 2017. Gyms & Fitness Clubs 0-500 kwh Moving Barron's $1,329.99 16 August 2017 [102] •eFiling customercare@sparkenergy.com Also remember that energy discounts are conditional, which means that if you fail to meet the conditions of your plan, the discount will be removed and you will go back to paying the full rate. You may even incur a fee, too. Residential Lead-Acid 1160 1239 Did You Know? Delaware 12.05¢ / kWh 12.59¢ / kWh DOWN -4.289 % Digital Marketing Recent  |  Highlighted Reports Headphones STAY SAFE A Military Friendly Employer 3.9 out of 5 stars 4 customer reviews My Perfect Hous(e)ton The Disruption Dilemma (The MIT Press) Prepare Your Business 77015 NEPAD Billing Options It doesn’t matter if you have your own meter or you’re a landlord shopping for your entire complex, Amigo Energy specializes in custom residential electricity that’ll save you time and energy. By subscribing you agree to the Canstar Privacy Policy. 4.4 out of 5 stars 133 Cabinets & Safes CONSUMERINFO Tennessee 10.79¢ / kWh 10.93¢ / kWh DOWN -1.280 % Other Editions Community Electric Cooperative Contributor © 2018 Young Energy, LLC DBA Payless Power REP#10110 Petroleum Compare NBN Plans Electricity Providers Buffalo TX | Switch Electricity Company Today Electricity Providers Buffalo TX | Great Electric Rates Electricity Providers Buffalo TX | Cheap Power
Legal | Sitemap