That those in the education system gets the boot may well be poetic justice, considering where larky environmental policies are taught. Too many people involved in the electrical grid have remained silent in the face of watching a 'Rube Goldberg' scheme milk the electrical energy customers. When the silliness of supporting green energy turns everyone cold, maybe sanity will return to a world gone mas.
> The company has requested a 25% increase in the revenue it collects from educational customers in its Kansas central region and a roughly 2% net increase among all customers in its Kansas metro region.
Why did the utility increase rates for schools (25%) so much more than for the average customer (2%)?
The big claim for that,DC line is to move "cheap" Midwest wind energy to the Eastern market. Right now their isn't capacity to move that energy. Apparently cheap is a relatively term. The greens are using the courts to try to change the way PJM does business to make it less open. They are also trying to force PJM to build transmission capacity to import their energy.
It depends on which companies you look at. Alliant energy has been raising rates for years to pay for more wind. MidAmerican sells more of its wind to Illinois so it doesn’t affect Iowa rates as much.
I genuinely don't know where to start. You start by saying that Evergy Energy has requested a 25 % increase to its electricity rates -- and that this increase in electricity prices will be problematic for school districts.
You then get into a discussion around regulatory structure and the cost-of-service model, including a line stating that 'when these expenses (fuel and labor) increase for the company, they will increase for the customer'. Despite acknowledging in this section that the cost-of-service formula includes multiple line items -- you then proceed to attribute seemingly 100% of Evergy's rate increases to the utility's investment in new generation capacity (more on this later), entirely ignoring all other capex like Transmission+Distribution investment. The whole article is intended to dive into the Evergy rate case, yet you never once site the actual rate filing and how the utility is attempting to justify its investments... It's not a mystery -- it was publicly filed with the KCC...
The chart you include plotting Installed Wind Capacity vs. Kansas Cost of Electricity is honestly a bit entertaining. To start, the chart is plotting installed wind capacity across the ENTIRE state of Kansas. If you are attributing Evergy's rate increases to the development of wind, I think at VERY LEAST you should plot the investments of the utility you are discussing. Not to mention, the plot and the article exclude any single mention inflation OR interest rates -- without these included, this plot is about as meaningful as a chart plotting Electricity Rates in Kansas vs. Purchases of Goldendoodles across the U.S..
So I like a few of your points. Linking to the rate case would've helped, but we are hardly the only authors to reference other articles when discussing a rate case. However, you missed the intention of the article, and it's actually perfect for readers like you. The article was intended to drive awareness to the fact that wind energy investments are a major driver of increasing electricity prices and the impact on education - something that needs to be highlighted because of how it is ignored by renewable advocates and consultants even when the rate case says as much. Because, frankly, I'm surprised we get this criticism about what the rate case does and doesn't say, because the rate case itself refers to new infrastructure builds, which as least partly went to "continue to transition the Company’s generation fleet to cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy" (from the rate case), as the main driver for the rate increase. Additionally, the next largest driver - depreciation expense changes - was also driven by the company's commitment to the energy transition, as the company notes in the filing about the changes: "This is a recognition that the transition to cleaner generating resources is advancing and that fossil plant retirements are anticipated to occur earlier than projected in the depreciation rates currently in effect." I understand that these are often buried in testimonies, but it's important to dig through to get to the bottom of what's happening - especially when company's use language like "sustainable" almost exclusively to refer to their clean energy investments. But let's not forget that new trans. and distr. investments are at least partially due to this commitment, and that interest rate hikes will have a larger impact on a grid more dependent on fixed, capital costs - which is what wind and solar lead to. So, while I appreciate your input, we would never argue that renewables are the only reason wind and solar go up (as you assumed) - only that they are a major contributor (which many people ignore).
That those in the education system gets the boot may well be poetic justice, considering where larky environmental policies are taught. Too many people involved in the electrical grid have remained silent in the face of watching a 'Rube Goldberg' scheme milk the electrical energy customers. When the silliness of supporting green energy turns everyone cold, maybe sanity will return to a world gone mas.
From the Kansas City Star article you linked:
> The company has requested a 25% increase in the revenue it collects from educational customers in its Kansas central region and a roughly 2% net increase among all customers in its Kansas metro region.
Why did the utility increase rates for schools (25%) so much more than for the average customer (2%)?
No more education for people to learn how to think. Just receive the correct answers directly and everything will work out fine.
Issac which utilities will benefit from the Grain Belt Express and how will it affect rates, assuming it gets built?
That’s a great question that I don’t know the answer to right now but I can look into it.
The big claim for that,DC line is to move "cheap" Midwest wind energy to the Eastern market. Right now their isn't capacity to move that energy. Apparently cheap is a relatively term. The greens are using the courts to try to change the way PJM does business to make it less open. They are also trying to force PJM to build transmission capacity to import their energy.
There, not their, #$#% auto correct
Why is wind energy in Iowa less expensive?
It depends on which companies you look at. Alliant energy has been raising rates for years to pay for more wind. MidAmerican sells more of its wind to Illinois so it doesn’t affect Iowa rates as much.
Before I say anything more, I’d like to give you the opportunity to answer this -- do you actually find this article to be sound analysis?
Absolutely. Looking forward to a spirited debate where we dress down your arguments. 🙂
I genuinely don't know where to start. You start by saying that Evergy Energy has requested a 25 % increase to its electricity rates -- and that this increase in electricity prices will be problematic for school districts.
You then get into a discussion around regulatory structure and the cost-of-service model, including a line stating that 'when these expenses (fuel and labor) increase for the company, they will increase for the customer'. Despite acknowledging in this section that the cost-of-service formula includes multiple line items -- you then proceed to attribute seemingly 100% of Evergy's rate increases to the utility's investment in new generation capacity (more on this later), entirely ignoring all other capex like Transmission+Distribution investment. The whole article is intended to dive into the Evergy rate case, yet you never once site the actual rate filing and how the utility is attempting to justify its investments... It's not a mystery -- it was publicly filed with the KCC...
The chart you include plotting Installed Wind Capacity vs. Kansas Cost of Electricity is honestly a bit entertaining. To start, the chart is plotting installed wind capacity across the ENTIRE state of Kansas. If you are attributing Evergy's rate increases to the development of wind, I think at VERY LEAST you should plot the investments of the utility you are discussing. Not to mention, the plot and the article exclude any single mention inflation OR interest rates -- without these included, this plot is about as meaningful as a chart plotting Electricity Rates in Kansas vs. Purchases of Goldendoodles across the U.S..
So I like a few of your points. Linking to the rate case would've helped, but we are hardly the only authors to reference other articles when discussing a rate case. However, you missed the intention of the article, and it's actually perfect for readers like you. The article was intended to drive awareness to the fact that wind energy investments are a major driver of increasing electricity prices and the impact on education - something that needs to be highlighted because of how it is ignored by renewable advocates and consultants even when the rate case says as much. Because, frankly, I'm surprised we get this criticism about what the rate case does and doesn't say, because the rate case itself refers to new infrastructure builds, which as least partly went to "continue to transition the Company’s generation fleet to cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy" (from the rate case), as the main driver for the rate increase. Additionally, the next largest driver - depreciation expense changes - was also driven by the company's commitment to the energy transition, as the company notes in the filing about the changes: "This is a recognition that the transition to cleaner generating resources is advancing and that fossil plant retirements are anticipated to occur earlier than projected in the depreciation rates currently in effect." I understand that these are often buried in testimonies, but it's important to dig through to get to the bottom of what's happening - especially when company's use language like "sustainable" almost exclusively to refer to their clean energy investments. But let's not forget that new trans. and distr. investments are at least partially due to this commitment, and that interest rate hikes will have a larger impact on a grid more dependent on fixed, capital costs - which is what wind and solar lead to. So, while I appreciate your input, we would never argue that renewables are the only reason wind and solar go up (as you assumed) - only that they are a major contributor (which many people ignore).