Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Statewide data is less interesting to me, too many variables in aggregate to be useful as an individual. So I started looking at their list of the 379 largest US cities (starting page 19 of the report) and... it's not at all what I expected!
I always thought cold or hot places would have the highest utility bills, but that's not true in 2023. The numbers are all over the place.
Curiosity got the best of me and so I spent time time massaging their formatting to get the data into a spreadsheet that could be ranked based on household cost. See bellow for the full ranking.
Households spend monthly from $176 (Bowling Green, KY) up to the unfortunate folks in Hyattsville, MD spending $646. Would love to hear from someone in that area about what's going on there. Wondering if there's an error in there data, because that seems outrageous.
Boise (where I live), with cold winters and hot summers, is in the top quintile for lowest cost ($266). Whereas San Francisco, with a mild year-round climate, is the bottom quintile ($417).
So it can't just be about climate. How electric and gas companies charge, things like fixed rates (connection fees) and usage tiers must be a big factor.
But there must be something else going on here as well. San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland all have high monthly utility bills, and yet nearby Sunnyvale is in the ten lowest cost at just $205. My hunch is that there's very high variability
in city specific utilities (water, sewer, garbage).
I think a lot of the variables absolutely has to do with what services are municipally owned by the city and what is contracted through a private company.
The city I live in isn't big enough (25K) to be on this list, but if it was, I'm guessing would be at the top. Our electric, water, sewer and trash collection is all municipally owned. On top of that, the city has its own cable/internet company. I don't have cable but do have the highest tier residential internet service ($40ish a month) and the monthly bill is usually anywhere between $190 and $220. That includes internet ... when I had the cable package 10 years ago, it was another $75 or so for the standard package.
The only outside utility that isn't included on the city bill is gas, which is usually around $80 a month doing the 12-month average payment ... though had some under $20 and some up to $250 before going the payment plan where it's based on average usage throughout the year.
I wonder if there is a correlation between cities that provide more municipally owned services being able to offer residents lower bills? I did a quick search at Bowling Green and it looks like they offer all the same utilities as were I live outside of trash (and maybe cable/internet, though it looks like they do have their own fiberoptics).
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57744
I've spent about 32 years in the utility business, and there is no way to compare as is done here based on just climate. There are just far too many variables. Look at the high end where it shows Bellevue, WA $604.00 (a few miles from my home) and Oakland, CA (where I lived a few years) $638.00. Oakland has a very mild climate, rarely below 40F in winter, barely any need for AC in summer. Bellevue likewise has minimal need for AC but in winter has 4 months in the 30s, averaging 5" of snow. How then do they tend to come out with the same high averages per this report? Oakland PG&E gas/electric rates are far higher than Bellevue PSE gas/Electric rates. EBMUD water and sewer rates in Oakland are also a lot higher than the City of Bellevue water and sewer rates. In Bellevue they can use a lot more at less cost. What keeps them close to the same though is that Bellevue uses a lot more. Not only due to the colder winters but because Bellevue is generally more upscale, with larger yards, more bathrooms per house, and people that are more able to keep their house "comfortable". Bellevue median household income is $140,252 per year, Oakland $85,628.
I think a lot of the variables absolutely has to do with what services are municipally owned by the city and what is contracted through a private company.
The city I live in isn't big enough (25K) to be on this list, but if it was, I'm guessing would be at the top. Our electric, water, sewer and trash collection is all municipally owned. On top of that, the city has its own cable/internet company. I don't have cable but do have the highest tier residential internet service ($40ish a month) and the monthly bill is usually anywhere between $190 and $220. That includes internet ... when I had the cable package 10 years ago, it was another $75 or so for the standard package.
The only outside utility that isn't included on the city bill is gas, which is usually around $80 a month doing the 12-month average payment ... though had some under $20 and some up to $250 before going the payment plan where it's based on average usage throughout the year.
I wonder if there is a correlation between cities that provide more municipally owned services being able to offer residents lower bills? I did a quick search at Bowling Green and it looks like they offer all the same utilities as were I live outside of trash (and maybe cable/internet, though it looks like they do have their own fiberoptics).
That's interesting. I wonder in what direction the correlation goes. To your point, I can see municipalities providing cheaper utilities as this would be popular with voters, but only if things are well managed. On the other hand, this could instead tempt politicians to offer generous pay and retirement packages to win the support of unions, which would make for much higher utilities.
Anecdotally, the many city owned utilities at our previous city in California were very expensive, whereas utility services from private companies here in Boise are more reasonable.
That's interesting. I wonder in what direction the correlation goes. To your point, I can see municipalities providing cheaper utilities as this would be popular with voters, but only if things are well managed. On the other hand, this could instead tempt politicians to offer generous pay and retirement packages to win the support of unions, which would make for much higher utilities.
Anecdotally, the many city owned utilities at our previous city in California were very expensive, whereas utility services from private companies here in Boise are more reasonable.
Yeah, a lot of that probably boils down to how well it's managed along with how long the infrastructure has been in place and how overburdened the city is.
I'm guessing the reason my city is low is because it is well ran; everything has been in place for over 30 years (think muny cable, if that counts as a utility, was the last and was in place by the 90s ... long before we moved there); and the city never experienced a massive annexation/population boom, instead it annexes here or there (mainly commercial) and has been content with modest growth (anywhere from 1-3k people per census since the late 1800s).
Wichita Kansas is listed twice. The first time I think it’s in the top 10 of the cheapest and then much lower in the list at a high cost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
