One area of signifant Transmission expense ties directly to greenhouse gas regulations and high voltage circuit breakers. For decades circuit breakers have been filled with sulfur hexifloride (SF6). SF6 has been declared a major greenhouse gas and the EPA has been exerting massive pressure to remove that equipment from service. First we had to invent something to replace them, now trying to replace millions of SF6 breakers worldwide. $$$$
No they are self contained and pressurized. But like anything mechanical they leak. The older they get the more they leak. Now in the world of leaks they arw small, but to the folks that say the methane vented by the operator on a gas operated valve will end the world .....
Have you looked at Virginia for the impact of huge datacenter growth and the impact of the Virginia Clean Energy Act? Dominion have just issued their 2025 Integrated Resource Plan which is an update to their biennial 2024 IRP, and addresses these questions.
My initial conclusion is
2025 residential cost for 1000kWh/month is $143.
Best case for 2039 is $162 in 2025$: Only ~$19 real increase over 14 years — less than 1% real annual growth. Comes from meeting the full forecast for datacenter growth.
Mid case ($207 in 2025$): ~$64 real increase — ~2.7% real annual growth, driven by fixed VCEA costs hitting fewer kWh. This case constrains datacenter growth, but doesn’t force the withdrawal of legacy fossil fuel generation.
Without inflation, the perceived 2039 increase looks massive ($214 or $274 from $143 today).
But in real terms, the best case is barely above today’s bill.
Henry Hub never declined after the past winter and it has to do with AI servers and crypto mining and LNG exports. Crypto is super dumb and should be banned and LNG exports to non allies can be slow-walked which is what Biden attempted to do but Republicans thwarted him.
In the Northwest, we used to try to talk to folks about 'real' rates because -- adjusted for inflation -- the cost of electricity drifted down not up. We never had much success with this and I'm not surprised utilities aren't trying it now so much (although, exception being the Brattle Group). Residential customers react to their total costs, not just electricity or even energy (anatural gas and vehicle gas), Groceries, housing, other services all count. As long as these stayed reasonable, single digit rate increase wer not a probelm (although double digit would usually get some attention), As the totality of costs of living rise, expect to see more utility rate rebellions.
Back in the summer of 2005 we had a family reunion at the homestead which led to our first 500 dollar electric bill from PG&E. The costs of meeting the states 20% RES were allocated in the residential sector, as defined by the cpuc, to non-care tier 2 and higher usage customers of the big 3 (PG&E, SCE,SDGE). The public utilities were not required to meet the 20%RES. I support evaluating utility costs by separating public utilities out from the private utilities- as done here
We responded to the new rate structure by using some of my consulting income to sign up for a time of use rate schedule and purchasing PV system hardware from a wholesaler in early 2006. Our net metering grid connection occurred on July 24, 2006.
You EEBs have tackled a difficult issue here. Yet one that has to be clarified if we are to counter the falsehoods painted by the renewable enthusaists.
Francis Menton, the Manhattan Contrarian, and fellow Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) members in their suit against EPA and its endangerment finding have relied on a plot of wind/solar penetration versus price of service to illustrate this relationship.
I have been dubious of this approach and I have proposed in some public writing that the clearest demonstration of what renewables do to the price of electric service ought to be found in utility rate cases. The utilities seem to me to be very cagey about this. They insist renewables lower prices for rate payers, yet rates are rising here very fast. My rates in PACE have risen 46% in two years because of three rate cases.
Just as LCOE has almost no relationship to what is important here, i.e. what rate payers have to cover, renewable generation per state is just about immaterial for reason that power crosses state lines. We generate quite a lot of wind power in Wyoming, but our very low price of service, until recently, was the result of cheap coal-fired power instate. The renewables energy is exported west to PACW. Idaho has cheap service because most is hydro-electric which people will call renewable until that definition is inconvenient.
How power is procured matters. Does the utility own the generating assets or is power purchased via a power purchase agreement (PPA) or is it purchased in a market? PPAs have to be competitive, but a utility-owned operation simply has to convince the PSC of its proposed rates.
In our specific rate cases, one was a 5% increase mainly to cover unbudgeted natural gas costs in December 2022 over the Russia-Ukraine war. Case 2 was a 21% increase that the utility stated in its application was the result of new wind plants, transmission assets needed to move wind power west to PACW and IPCO, and net power costs.
When the utility encountered hostility over this rate increase they changed their public story to say it was the result of gas and coal prices. But the gas costs were temporary and were covered in Case 1. The coal issue was more related to trouble at a mine in Utah that was the sole supplier of coal to Huntington.
Case 3 was a 15% increase involving costs related mainly to new generation and transmission assets. New generation is Rock Creek I and II wind plants. New transmission is needed to move wind power west and southwest, and then to bring solar power from LA Dept. of water and power at midday back toward Wyoming, but who knows where this will eventually be consumed?
Net power costs are involved in all these rate cases and these costs can represent almost anything -- a lot of environmental mandates are included. In one instance net power included a special tax in Washington state meant to force closure of a gas-fired plant that was doing a lot of balancing of wind/solar and using fuel inefficiently as a result. Folks in Wyoming were expected to pay this penalty.
Sorry to be so wordy, but have I made my point that one cannot figure out what renewables are doing to rates without a lot of digging into the specifics of cases where rates are actually set?
Thanks for digging into this data…it clearly shows more layers of the onion needs to be peeled back.
I recently moved from a lower electric energy price state to a higher price state. My previous state had an abundance of hydropower but the drumbeat from environmental and Native American groups demanding the removal of dams is getting louder. This creates uncertainty.
I am curious about the significant offshoring of manufacturing to Asia and other countries. How much impact did/does that have on energy costs and consumption in the data for the time period being analyzed?
Finally, we’re hearing that recent immigration policies over the same time period being analyzed have enabled millions of illegal aliens (undocumented) to enter and remain in the country. My previous location was enacting energy taxes for many things, including low income assistance. I keep hearing about funding being allocated for the benefit of helping these illegal aliens/undocumented persons (food, phones, rent, etc.). If they’re receiving energy/utility assistance (from taxes paid by others), how does that fit into the analysis?
The utilities in most states (including Washington State) offer customers the opportunity to pay extra funds for low income assistance efforts. It’s all voluntary through the utilities.
However, the state has enacted taxes and levies (all mandatory) that have increased the cost of fuel so the state has created a slush fund over the last 4 years on the backs of every person who drives a gas vehicle. Currently, the fund is almost $4 billion dollars.
Its purpose is to provide funds for no/low carbon technologies to save the planet and also provide funds for low income and disadvantaged communities so they can afford the increased costs associated with energy.
Did you move to Washington state? People have been after closing the Bureau and Corps dams on the Columbia for years. I don't expect it will happen, although a couple of dams in Washington and Oregon did get removed. Generally, I suspect any subsidies for electric rates anywhere are paid by other ratepayers; governments like utility ratepayers as a source of funding because many such ratepayers don't actually pay any attention to their bills. Try asking someone what eir rate is, as an expdriement! But your prior bill should say if there was a charge for energy bill assistance.
My rates went up this summer and I’m in a red state and my bill makes it very clear why my rates increased—natural gas prices increased because of LNG and crypto and then repairing infrastructure from unprecedented weather events. Biden was correct to slow-walk LNG export permits after making us energy dominant with his leadership on Ukraine….but just like with tariffs Trump thinks higher prices are good for America!?!
Thanks. Our electric grid design and operation seems to be a “tangled web”, thanks to government meddling. For example in the early 1990s government “wisdom” gave us the wind energy production tax credit - to jumpstart wind energy. And how did that go - we still have it, 2.75 cents per kilowatt hour I understand. Incredible!
you probably already know that EEI is a big user of the Brasttle Group. I tend not to trust the Brattle Group's work or conclusions. What occurred to me is that it ought to be possible to calculate, for 1 or 2 utilities, what rates might have been without any plant retirements or new 'renewable' generating resources. I think one or two because one would have to create a baseline. I also think it would be interesting to overlay a map of utility service territories under RPS and of utilities that are seeking/have sought rate increases. If one could also overlay population/load change in those service territories (or maybe percentage reserve margin in, say, the year 1999?), that would be really great! Having 'high reserve margins' (and thus no need to add generation or transmission) and little to no load growth (that doesn't pay for itself!) can lead to stable, if not real declining rates, assuming that the utility is not investing heavily in T&D or really exposed to material and supply inflation. I am also suspicious of Brattle group's decision to lump all rate classes together for their study. Industrial rates took a big dive down in the 1990's and probably are still pulling down the average. And residential rates are just one piece of a household budget puzzle that includes the cost of all other goods/swervices the household purchases as well as the stability of income. Anyway, be suspicious of the Brattle Group! They are working to satisfy a client, not generally enlighten people for their own good.
It is surprising that states with high wind production are reported to provide low energy prices. Wind has high construction costs, low capacity factor, is non-dispatchable, needs large standby dispatchable sources, and needs extensive transmission lines. And yet these states have low energy prices?? Hard to understand. High wind energy states must surely export lots of energy. Is the price of this exported energy the same as that reported for the state? I look forward to EBB's investigation in this matter.
Low is relative. I agree with you completely regarding what wind-powered electricity generation requires but the cost is highly dependent on circumstances. Export value can depend on the time of day one is trying to export, as well as on the type of energy market into which one is exporting and the overall generating situation in the export area.
One area of signifant Transmission expense ties directly to greenhouse gas regulations and high voltage circuit breakers. For decades circuit breakers have been filled with sulfur hexifloride (SF6). SF6 has been declared a major greenhouse gas and the EPA has been exerting massive pressure to remove that equipment from service. First we had to invent something to replace them, now trying to replace millions of SF6 breakers worldwide. $$$$
The SF6 is not normally released to the atmosphere, as is CO2. I'd think even during a "break" action the SF6 insulating gas would remain contained.
No they are self contained and pressurized. But like anything mechanical they leak. The older they get the more they leak. Now in the world of leaks they arw small, but to the folks that say the methane vented by the operator on a gas operated valve will end the world .....
Didn't know this but it's not surprising.
sf6_partnership_moving_toward_sf6-free_high_voltage_circuit_breakers.pdf https://share.google/ymgFjTYA1q0ZjaKr8
Have you looked at Virginia for the impact of huge datacenter growth and the impact of the Virginia Clean Energy Act? Dominion have just issued their 2025 Integrated Resource Plan which is an update to their biennial 2024 IRP, and addresses these questions.
My initial conclusion is
2025 residential cost for 1000kWh/month is $143.
Best case for 2039 is $162 in 2025$: Only ~$19 real increase over 14 years — less than 1% real annual growth. Comes from meeting the full forecast for datacenter growth.
Mid case ($207 in 2025$): ~$64 real increase — ~2.7% real annual growth, driven by fixed VCEA costs hitting fewer kWh. This case constrains datacenter growth, but doesn’t force the withdrawal of legacy fossil fuel generation.
Without inflation, the perceived 2039 increase looks massive ($214 or $274 from $143 today).
But in real terms, the best case is barely above today’s bill.
Hi Gerard. I hadn't looked at the IRP so thanks for sharing.
Henry Hub never declined after the past winter and it has to do with AI servers and crypto mining and LNG exports. Crypto is super dumb and should be banned and LNG exports to non allies can be slow-walked which is what Biden attempted to do but Republicans thwarted him.
In the Northwest, we used to try to talk to folks about 'real' rates because -- adjusted for inflation -- the cost of electricity drifted down not up. We never had much success with this and I'm not surprised utilities aren't trying it now so much (although, exception being the Brattle Group). Residential customers react to their total costs, not just electricity or even energy (anatural gas and vehicle gas), Groceries, housing, other services all count. As long as these stayed reasonable, single digit rate increase wer not a probelm (although double digit would usually get some attention), As the totality of costs of living rise, expect to see more utility rate rebellions.
Back in the summer of 2005 we had a family reunion at the homestead which led to our first 500 dollar electric bill from PG&E. The costs of meeting the states 20% RES were allocated in the residential sector, as defined by the cpuc, to non-care tier 2 and higher usage customers of the big 3 (PG&E, SCE,SDGE). The public utilities were not required to meet the 20%RES. I support evaluating utility costs by separating public utilities out from the private utilities- as done here
https://mcubedecon.com/2025/10/21/discerning-what-drives-rate-increases-is-more-complex-than-shown-in-lbnl-study/
We responded to the new rate structure by using some of my consulting income to sign up for a time of use rate schedule and purchasing PV system hardware from a wholesaler in early 2006. Our net metering grid connection occurred on July 24, 2006.
Thanks for digging into the report.
You EEBs have tackled a difficult issue here. Yet one that has to be clarified if we are to counter the falsehoods painted by the renewable enthusaists.
Francis Menton, the Manhattan Contrarian, and fellow Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) members in their suit against EPA and its endangerment finding have relied on a plot of wind/solar penetration versus price of service to illustrate this relationship.
I have been dubious of this approach and I have proposed in some public writing that the clearest demonstration of what renewables do to the price of electric service ought to be found in utility rate cases. The utilities seem to me to be very cagey about this. They insist renewables lower prices for rate payers, yet rates are rising here very fast. My rates in PACE have risen 46% in two years because of three rate cases.
Just as LCOE has almost no relationship to what is important here, i.e. what rate payers have to cover, renewable generation per state is just about immaterial for reason that power crosses state lines. We generate quite a lot of wind power in Wyoming, but our very low price of service, until recently, was the result of cheap coal-fired power instate. The renewables energy is exported west to PACW. Idaho has cheap service because most is hydro-electric which people will call renewable until that definition is inconvenient.
How power is procured matters. Does the utility own the generating assets or is power purchased via a power purchase agreement (PPA) or is it purchased in a market? PPAs have to be competitive, but a utility-owned operation simply has to convince the PSC of its proposed rates.
In our specific rate cases, one was a 5% increase mainly to cover unbudgeted natural gas costs in December 2022 over the Russia-Ukraine war. Case 2 was a 21% increase that the utility stated in its application was the result of new wind plants, transmission assets needed to move wind power west to PACW and IPCO, and net power costs.
When the utility encountered hostility over this rate increase they changed their public story to say it was the result of gas and coal prices. But the gas costs were temporary and were covered in Case 1. The coal issue was more related to trouble at a mine in Utah that was the sole supplier of coal to Huntington.
Case 3 was a 15% increase involving costs related mainly to new generation and transmission assets. New generation is Rock Creek I and II wind plants. New transmission is needed to move wind power west and southwest, and then to bring solar power from LA Dept. of water and power at midday back toward Wyoming, but who knows where this will eventually be consumed?
Net power costs are involved in all these rate cases and these costs can represent almost anything -- a lot of environmental mandates are included. In one instance net power included a special tax in Washington state meant to force closure of a gas-fired plant that was doing a lot of balancing of wind/solar and using fuel inefficiently as a result. Folks in Wyoming were expected to pay this penalty.
Sorry to be so wordy, but have I made my point that one cannot figure out what renewables are doing to rates without a lot of digging into the specifics of cases where rates are actually set?
You are exactly right! It is very complicated and one needs to know that specifics.
Thanks for digging into this data…it clearly shows more layers of the onion needs to be peeled back.
I recently moved from a lower electric energy price state to a higher price state. My previous state had an abundance of hydropower but the drumbeat from environmental and Native American groups demanding the removal of dams is getting louder. This creates uncertainty.
I am curious about the significant offshoring of manufacturing to Asia and other countries. How much impact did/does that have on energy costs and consumption in the data for the time period being analyzed?
Finally, we’re hearing that recent immigration policies over the same time period being analyzed have enabled millions of illegal aliens (undocumented) to enter and remain in the country. My previous location was enacting energy taxes for many things, including low income assistance. I keep hearing about funding being allocated for the benefit of helping these illegal aliens/undocumented persons (food, phones, rent, etc.). If they’re receiving energy/utility assistance (from taxes paid by others), how does that fit into the analysis?
The utilities in most states (including Washington State) offer customers the opportunity to pay extra funds for low income assistance efforts. It’s all voluntary through the utilities.
However, the state has enacted taxes and levies (all mandatory) that have increased the cost of fuel so the state has created a slush fund over the last 4 years on the backs of every person who drives a gas vehicle. Currently, the fund is almost $4 billion dollars.
Its purpose is to provide funds for no/low carbon technologies to save the planet and also provide funds for low income and disadvantaged communities so they can afford the increased costs associated with energy.
Basically, the system is a scam.
Did you move to Washington state? People have been after closing the Bureau and Corps dams on the Columbia for years. I don't expect it will happen, although a couple of dams in Washington and Oregon did get removed. Generally, I suspect any subsidies for electric rates anywhere are paid by other ratepayers; governments like utility ratepayers as a source of funding because many such ratepayers don't actually pay any attention to their bills. Try asking someone what eir rate is, as an expdriement! But your prior bill should say if there was a charge for energy bill assistance.
My rates went up this summer and I’m in a red state and my bill makes it very clear why my rates increased—natural gas prices increased because of LNG and crypto and then repairing infrastructure from unprecedented weather events. Biden was correct to slow-walk LNG export permits after making us energy dominant with his leadership on Ukraine….but just like with tariffs Trump thinks higher prices are good for America!?!
Thanks. Our electric grid design and operation seems to be a “tangled web”, thanks to government meddling. For example in the early 1990s government “wisdom” gave us the wind energy production tax credit - to jumpstart wind energy. And how did that go - we still have it, 2.75 cents per kilowatt hour I understand. Incredible!
you probably already know that EEI is a big user of the Brasttle Group. I tend not to trust the Brattle Group's work or conclusions. What occurred to me is that it ought to be possible to calculate, for 1 or 2 utilities, what rates might have been without any plant retirements or new 'renewable' generating resources. I think one or two because one would have to create a baseline. I also think it would be interesting to overlay a map of utility service territories under RPS and of utilities that are seeking/have sought rate increases. If one could also overlay population/load change in those service territories (or maybe percentage reserve margin in, say, the year 1999?), that would be really great! Having 'high reserve margins' (and thus no need to add generation or transmission) and little to no load growth (that doesn't pay for itself!) can lead to stable, if not real declining rates, assuming that the utility is not investing heavily in T&D or really exposed to material and supply inflation. I am also suspicious of Brattle group's decision to lump all rate classes together for their study. Industrial rates took a big dive down in the 1990's and probably are still pulling down the average. And residential rates are just one piece of a household budget puzzle that includes the cost of all other goods/swervices the household purchases as well as the stability of income. Anyway, be suspicious of the Brattle Group! They are working to satisfy a client, not generally enlighten people for their own good.
It is surprising that states with high wind production are reported to provide low energy prices. Wind has high construction costs, low capacity factor, is non-dispatchable, needs large standby dispatchable sources, and needs extensive transmission lines. And yet these states have low energy prices?? Hard to understand. High wind energy states must surely export lots of energy. Is the price of this exported energy the same as that reported for the state? I look forward to EBB's investigation in this matter.
Low is relative. I agree with you completely regarding what wind-powered electricity generation requires but the cost is highly dependent on circumstances. Export value can depend on the time of day one is trying to export, as well as on the type of energy market into which one is exporting and the overall generating situation in the export area.
This is great work you all are doing. Consumer prices for energy have been increasing since 'green' became the irony in the 2000s.
Also, be aware of the NatGas turbine producers are prioritizing for AI rather than general consumers; see https://gettr.com/user/davewalshenergy