Smud rate increase for 2013 - 2017

[Malloric]

I just glanced at it. What stuck out to me was time of use, which makes a lot of sense.

If you look at what's going on right now, hydro power is predominantly what takes up the slack in unanticipated demand electricity needs such as you get especially during the summer months when everyone kicks their AC on. All operators are required to have reserve requirements as a result of the 2006-7 shortages and face steep penalties if they don't. With what's going on with the water supply, we're losing a lot of generating ability during the summer months. To meet the spring and fall flow requirements, there's just less water to go around. They aren't only going to be able to release water during peak hours to generate electricity as is pretty much what is done right now (with a small trickle at other times). So yeah, you've got to decrease peak consumption somehow to reduce demand to maintain the smaller reserve capacity.

Might be a good time to start at looking at firing up Rancho Seco again, but that'll take years. There's just no way SMUD is going to be able to generate as much hydro out of the infrastructure they have as they were under the FERC license.

[SacramentoBound]

Just wait until battery electric vehicles start hitting the grid in a big way. Then we'll see rate increases worth complaining about.

[Hemlock140]

It amazes me that people with energy bills under $100 complain about an increase. Ours is over $300 most of the winter.

Municipal Utility Districts are required by law to collect enough revenue to cover their costs, and they do not make a profit. When people conserve (water or electric) and consumption goes down, they lose revenue, while the fixed costs to deliver the commodity go up (labor, benefits, materials, fuel, vehicles and equipment). Then add to that aging infrastructure that needs to be replaced. Seattle did a similar thing, with rate increase of about 6% every year for 5 years to cover the cost of new substations and transmission lines. At about
6 cents/kilowatt hour and $5/CCf for water it's still reasonable. The pain for us is sewer, at more than double the cost of water.

[ryuns]

Originally Posted by SacramentoBound

Just wait until battery electric vehicles start hitting the grid in a big way. Then we'll see rate increases worth complaining about.

That's speculative. SMUD's pilot program is to measure and bill EV charging completely separately. To the extent that the grid can handle significant amounts of off-peak charging, there's no reason to think it will affect your bill. If it was adding to load in a way that meant that SMUD had to build more infrastructure, add additional power plants, or buy on-peak power from the market, then that could affect rates. But even then, SMUD could charge the EV users more to make up for the short-fall.

[ryuns]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

That citizen's response appears as if he/she/it thinks SMUD is a revenue-generating company.

I don't like price increases, but the fact of the matter is there are numerous people who don't use $20 in electricity (you can do that in a small apartment). The issue here is providing service to these customers has a fixed cost for maintaining infrastructure. SMUD is trying to maintain a balance wherein the cost is distributed equally among all customers to cover infrastructure costs.

It doesn't look like it will affect me too much. My SMUD charges run between $30 and up to $90 if I use the central air. I use the evaporative cooler most of the time, which brings the bill down to around $50.

I really wish they would move toward pricing tiers based on peak and non-peak hours.

I agree. My average bill went up from about $25 to $30 when they implemented that change last year (that includes the Greenergy charge I signed up for). I totally understand the changes though--their model as a public utility is and should be to charge something close to what it actually costs to provide everyone with the electricity they want. And if the people who don't use much aren't carrying their weight, it makes sense to change the billing around a bit.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

It amazes me that people with energy bills under $100 complain about an increase. Ours is over $300 most of the winter.

Municipal Utility Districts are required by law to collect enough revenue to cover their costs, and they do not make a profit. When people conserve (water or electric) and consumption goes down, they lose revenue, while the fixed costs to deliver the commodity go up (labor, benefits, materials, fuel, vehicles and equipment). Then add to that aging infrastructure that needs to be replaced. Seattle did a similar thing, with rate increase of about 6% every year for 5 years to cover the cost of new substations and transmission lines. At about
6 cents/kilowatt hour and $5/CCf for water it's still reasonable. The pain for us is sewer, at more than double the cost of water.

If your energy bills are $300 a month you are using too much.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

It amazes me that people with energy bills under $100 complain about an increase. Ours is over $300 most of the winter.

Municipal Utility Districts are required by law to collect enough revenue to cover their costs, and they do not make a profit. When people conserve (water or electric) and consumption goes down, they lose revenue, while the fixed costs to deliver the commodity go up (labor, benefits, materials, fuel, vehicles and equipment). Then add to that aging infrastructure that needs to be replaced. Seattle did a similar thing, with rate increase of about 6% every year for 5 years to cover the cost of new substations and transmission lines. At about
6 cents/kilowatt hour and $5/CCf for water it's still reasonable. The pain for us is sewer, at more than double the cost of water.

Yeah, if you're using $300/month at 6 cents, I'd hate to see what your summer bills would be in California when they're nearing 20 cents per kWh.