National Grid (Salem, Merrimac: 2014, condo, co-ops)

[Louisville Slugger]

So I don't know if anyone realized, but I was looking at the delivery rates through National Grid when I first moved into my condo back in 2013 to 2014 and I was averaging around $0.0772/kWh. So far in 2021 I am averaging $0.1385/kWh. The delivery rate was $0.1513 in my most recent bill.

A pretty significant increase (over a period of over 5 years). I am locked into my supply rate through the Power Choice town aggregation program.

My supply rate from 2013 to 2014 averaged $0.0911/kWh.
In 2021 I am locked in to $0.0971/kWh until November 2023.

So not much of an increase.

10/18/13 through 10/14/14 I used 11,538 kWh totaling $1,972.
10/14/19 through 10/14/20 I used 8,190 kWh totaling $1,851.

I decreased my electricity usage by 29% yet it's only a $121 difference.

National Grid always tells me ways to reduce my usage. What are they doing to decrease rates and miscellaneous charges for its customers? I know they only have so much control.

I lock my supply rate in, but then the delivery rates pretty much double. Not right away, but over time. Can't win.

[wolfgang239]

You'll find similar increases across all investor owned utilities in MA, CT, RI, NY etc. There are many factors at play including labor costs, congestion pricing, customer volume, shifting of peak demand and so on. States like MA are legislating cheaper sources of electricity out of existence while simultaneously denying infrastructure projects after public outcry and NIMBY backlash.

Utilities/generators make big bucks on capital projects and cost plus. Small town owned electric co-ops have much better pricing but aren't basically giant investment/jobs programs like a major utility.

[Louisville Slugger]

Originally Posted by wolfgang239

You'll find similar increases across all investor owned utilities in MA, CT, RI, NY etc. There are many factors at play including labor costs, congestion pricing, customer volume, shifting of peak demand and so on. States like MA are legislating cheaper sources of electricity out of existence while simultaneously denying infrastructure projects after public outcry and NIMBY backlash.

Utilities/generators make big bucks on capital projects and cost plus. Small town owned electric co-ops have much better pricing but aren't basically giant investment/jobs programs like a major utility.

It must suck for people who are on fixed incomes. I mean I don't know why we have to have such high utility costs in this state compared to the rest of the country. I guess it could be worse like paying whatever Hawaii charges.

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by wolfgang239

States like MA are legislating cheaper sources of electricity out of existence

MA makes something like 70-80% it's electricity from NG. Currently one of the cheapest electricity besides maybe hydro.
I believe wind is already on par with NG, and likely will soon be cheaper.

[scorpio516]

If there is only one silver lining, we aren't getting screwed by Texas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...rpoint-energy/

Minnesota customers have to cover a $800M bill because Texas utilities weren't ready for cold temperatures.

[wolfgang239]

Originally Posted by Lampert

MA makes something like 70-80% it's electricity from NG. Currently one of the cheapest electricity besides maybe hydro.
I believe wind is already on par with NG, and likely will soon be cheaper.

No more Brayton Point or Salem Harbor (coal, not a bad thing) which was around 2300MW nameplate. People were marching to shut down Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim (1400MW combined nameplate) for years on environmental concerns only to have that energy hole replaced with nat gas .

Natural gas can be cheap, but when NIMBYS want to block ANY compressor stations and pipelines on a partisan basis instead of a logical one we get MA electricity prices. Wholesale natural gas prices go through the roof during the winter due to major capacity deficiencies so generators are stuck paying. That cost inevitably trickles down to the consumer. Just look at any rate case filing in the past decade. Having 70-80% of our electricity NG fired will do that though.

[OutdoorLover]

Natural gas is cheaper than coal. That's the major reason that coal power plants have declined over the past decade or more. Of course, natural gas also burns cleaner. It's not perfect, but there's less pollution - both from toxic combustion byproducts and greenhouse gases.

[wolfgang239]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

Natural gas is cheaper than coal. That's the major reason that coal power plants have declined over the past decade or more. Of course, natural gas also burns cleaner. It's not perfect, but there's less pollution - both from toxic combustion byproducts and greenhouse gases.

Coal is still very cheap. Not as cheap as the average daily price for gas but it is definitely cheap. While the fuel is cheap the government mandated scrubbers and other retrofits are not. Coal is also not subject to the whims of the spot market during wintertime cold snaps. I've seen typical ISO-NE LMP prices per MW that are 2 digit numbers jump to 4 digit numbers when there are gas constraints during winter months and a deficit of several thousand MWs from plant closures is partially to blame. To be clear coal should have no place in the future of power generation. But someone dropped the ball when it came to planning the transition in New England and not allowing Northern Pass, allowing Nuke closures, etc. to happen without a good plan to make up the difference quickly.

ISO-NE is required to dispatch electricity in the most economically advantageous way possible while also considering things like system security and reliability (including fuel supply disruptions). Winter events cause significantly dirtier and much more expensive units to be fired up and make up the deficit. 2018 (.pdf warning) was a good example of what can happen and a contributor to supplier cost increases.

Unlike Texas we have a forward capacity market that helps prevent events like they experienced recently. We pay for that as well.

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by wolfgang239

Coal is still very cheap..

No is not.

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

[wolfgang239]

Originally Posted by Lampert

No is not.

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

LCOE ≠ the cost of the fuel. Coal as a product is cheap. I pointed out in my last post that the scrubbers and other pollution controls caused the cost of electricity generated by coal to not be as cheap.

LCOE isn't the end all be all. Strip away the subsidies and the numbers change. It doesn't do a good job of comparing the value of base load to intermittent. Scroll down to the LACE numbers, why do you think they are so different? And per your source, “LCOE does not capture all of the factors that contribute to actual investment decisions, making the direct comparison of LCOE across technologies problematic and misleading as a method to assess the economic competitiveness of various generation alternatives.” so it isn't exactly as clear as you are making it out to be.