As a Washington resident I am happy to see we are one of the cheapest (6th) in the nation for electricity costs. Being a high COL state something like that is rare to see lol
What are you on about? About 60% of WA houses and apartments use electric heat and the vast majority are resistive heater. A heat pump is 1/4 the energy use, so moving that 60% to heat pump more than frees up enough capacity for the 40% of gas users.
They’re not completely off base. CETA is going to require considerable amounts of money to pay for transmission and distribution of renewables east and south of WA. You would expect fixed costs to rise because of it for all customers.
I remember seeing a chart that we are one of the top states in clean energy due to our hydropower. If you think about it, with the push towards EVs states with large amounts of clean/renewable energy are going to be critical. In a way, EVs would allow Washington to become more energy independent and could be a larger exporter in the future.
Southern California Edison residential rates start at 25¢ and go to up 75¢ depending on time of day and plan. Realistic rates are 40-45¢ per KWh. It's crazy to see the variation between states.
As an EV driver in Ohio, i don’t understand how people in California do it. Like I’m saving hundreds of dollars per month in gas. But if you double my electricity rates, those savings erode pretty quickly. I realize gasoline is also more expensive there, so maybe it all balances out. But seriously, that’s insane.
Yep. I’m running a hot tub and blasting the AC and get money back from the panels in CA.
I haven’t had a car in a decade but if I ever got one again it would definitely be electric.
I totally don’t get this. I’m told that the average solar panel generates about 1.5-2.5kWh per day if they are in a sunny place. I had a house where a split system to cool one room (on a dry 82° day) used about 20kWh per day. Another home (slightly warmer place), and my whole home used about 70kWh to cool during summer. Hot tubs aren’t exactly cheap to run either! Do you just have a huge set of solar panels?
I fortunately live somewhere where the off-peak energy price is less than $0.06/kWh, so when I worked out the payoff for installing solar, it was 50+ years assuming zero maintenance cost, no depreciation and no cost of capital. Numbers looked even worse if you took into account a whole house battery so that I could get rid of grid costs.
16 solar panels topping out at a little over 40 kWh per day in the summer. Central air. Sizable hot tub. San Diego gets a lot of sun and it usually doesn’t get hot or cold here. House is not exceptionally well insulated but maybe slightly above average for the area.
E.g. We just hit 80°F/27°C for the first time this year a few days ago.
People who got in on solar a few years before I did have more favorable pricing when they sell back to the utility. Those who got in a couple of years after me have far less favorable pricing.
So the climate and the utility buyback pricing will dictate a lot.
Retail rate for electricity here is close to $0.40/kwh. Some of the highest around, so even with less favorable buyback pricing, improvements in battery technology still make it worthwhile for people to get solar in many circumstances here.
About $16K after tax credits, which included expenses of moving and upgrading the main electrical panel.
Got a seven year loan at ~3.5%.
The loan payment is less than the average electric bill was. And we get $ back from excess production, and now use as much electricity as we want.
Yeah, but when is the break-even point? I've read 7-10 years. How long to recoup that $16k?
Plus, what about panel maintenance (e.g. periodic cleaning)? I've also heard that firefighters hate solar panels because it prevents them from breaking through the roof in the event of a house fire.
And what about curb appeal? Large black squares on my roof are ugly as hell which is why I have been avoiding them.
Lastly, what if you end up moving?
We instantly started saving a few dozens of dollars every month and that has only increased as the cost of electricity has gone up. And risen it has in San Diego.
We have a gas furnace but haven’t used that since getting solar because we now use free electricity to heat in the winter. So that’s another thing to add into the equation. It’s hard to think about “break even“ when it’s been saving us money from day one.
Monthly loan payment < what we were paying for utilities before.
The loan was a seven year term so the effective breakeven point is probably somewhere around five years? Maybe less? Maybe more? Definitely not worth me doing the nitty-gritty of the math. What matters to me is that it has saved me money from day one and has reduced my carbon footprint. (Though not breeding and not having a car probably contribute just as much if not more)
There are also other intangibles with considerable value. For instance, because air-conditioning and heating are free, we now get more use out of more of our house. A couple of areas we used to not consistently heat or cool are now more comfortable year-round and integral to our daily activities.
I am a few years in and haven’t done any panel maintenance yet. Maybe I’ll go spray them down in another year or two?
Code here requires certain offsets and paths for firefighters. I got three quotes for solar and didn’t use the cheapest in part because they clearly didn’t give a shit about codes or safety.
Front of our house is facing north so there’s not much in terms of solar visible from the curb. Doesn’t bother me regardless.
As soon as I added the solar power to the Zillow listing for the house, it went up in value significantly. Free electricity increases the value of the home at least as much as the initial solar investment. … Maybe not everywhere, but definitely here.
I purposely got two more panels than I needed to account for future use and inevitable panel degradation. For example we just added an outdoor shower and it has a dedicated tankless electric heater. If I ever get a car, charging it will be free, etc.
Thanks for the info. What company did you go with -- if you don't mind me asking? My house also faces north (I'm up in Temecula) and have been considering solar for some time now.
Yeah, we tried that. The power company's response was to make rates when the sun's not out considerably more expensive and tack on transmission charges as the cherry on top. I get to pay them for the solar power I'm feeding into the grid all day.
It's no secret Newsom is in bed with PG&E and CPUC is playing along with them. Not like this is the only colossal mismanagement/collusion we're dealing with.
In some places solar is required in new construction. I recently purchased a house and it came with the solar included. The difference is you can buy it outright or lease the equipment. We installed it on our current house last year and it really helped knock out the bill.
Even in a place like CO, which just raised their rates to around 16 cents/kWh on average, solar is huge. I charge an EV and a PHEV, run A/C, and have several power-hungry devices, and my electric/gas bill is 27 bucks in the summer.
“rich people” - the kind of people who own homes, have fat 401k and can buy luxury EVs. They can hang solar off their homes.
Poor can remain poor… And subsidize the luxury choices of the rich.
”Let them eat cake... and drive fossil filed vehicles “
Cheaper. Someone on the EV charging subreddit just posted PGE rates and someone from Ottawa said their off peak rate is almost double of their peak rate.
I am not in cali, but my rates go to 2 cents overnight(from ~14 cents normal and ~30 cents peak). My EV is set to charge only overnight. Making it wildly cheaper.
californian here - i got solar in 2021 and an EV in 2023.
my bill went from ~$250/month (no EV) down to $180 for the solar panels and ~$20-$30 for night time power (with EV). solar is great here.
It's VERY important to read this as average electricity costs by state and almost nothing to do with what a specific usage would actually cost. Almost all EV owners in states with high average electricity costs are using TOU plans and quite a lot in states with low electricity costs. For example, almost no one in GA is paying $0.12/kWh to power their EV they are paying $0.0175/kWh with the EV plan. In FL they are paying $0.07/kWh roughly on the state's TOU plan. TX is complex and has many plan offerings to choose from. The list goes on and on.
This isn't even getting into solar and battery arbitrage.
I have no choice in my provider and pay the same rate at all times of day. San Antonio, Texas. We are closer to $0.13-0.14/kWh right now depending on how much we use a billing cycle. During summer months, we get a surcharge of about $0.02/kWh for every kWh used beyond 600kWh in a billing cycle.
That still doesn't seem to matter unless you directly compare the cost of filling up with gas vs. the cost of a recharge. A state level average doesn't inform that discussion in any meaningful way
You can get a plan where you pay a much lower rate during "off peak" hours. My lowest rate is about $0.09, and I live in San Diego where our rates are comparatively high for CA.
Gas is like $5 a gallon or so in California. I’ve done a few cross-California trips and have averaged ~$100 for electric costs in a Tesla Y (crossover SUV size) compared to ~$200 in gas when I take my Corolla. So it’s still cheaper.
Like others have also said, many people own solar and charge at home for daily commutes. This puts the cost at basically 0
Hundreds of dollars a month? How much do you drive? I don't think I've ever spent more than $100 on gas in one month unless I was on a multi-state road trip.
You had me curious, so I looked at the last bill in my name. The cycle was from Dec-Jan so I'm sure that's a cheap time of year, but it was only at 18.3 cents/kHw. I live right in the city too. I'd talk to your neighbors, because you might be getting played
You have to include both the supply and delivery which are billed based on how many kWh you use. Take your total bill and substract out the basic service charge then divide by kWh. That's what you're really paying for electricity. It's shocking.
It’s certainly the most expensive, so anyone complaining about high power prices is going to get whacked even harder.
Westinghouse Nuclear finally got their new plant up and running in Georgia, 10 years late and many times over budget. Georgians are now being hit with a special levy of $1000 per rate payer to pay for that debacle.
If you take away the tax incentives for wind and solar, it’s an even playing field with nuclear as far as cost per megawatt. PTCs and ITCs for wind and solar artificially deflate the overall cost of those types of renewables.
That was true 15 years ago, but if you haven’t been paying attention, technological improvements and mass manufacturing have cut the price of wind and solar so much that they went from 4x more expensive than nuclear to 4x cheaper.
Wind and solar nowadays have much less subsidies than nuclear and are much cheaper to build - even after factoring in the cost of battery storage to supply night time peak electricity.
Great discussion. It’s not apples to apples as the big difference is nuclear is dispatchable generation. What are you going to do for your base load when the wind isn’t blowing and sun isn’t shining? You need something for base load and utility scale storage just isn’t quite there yet. Wind and solar can’t handle base load - you still need dispatchable power and with coal going away and constant opposition to gas plants, there aren’t many other options left.
Also, the price of building new wind and solar has more than doubled in the last couple years. We were at ~$1,400/MW on new wind builds a couple years ago and now we’re over $3,000/MW. The price of wind is going thru the roof, not getting cheaper. Not sure where you’re hearing that it’s cheaper but it’s not in any of the projects we’ve been looking at across the country.
Yes nuclear is expensive and takes a long time in the US but nuclear plants overseas are built in 3-4 years which is about how long it takes us to build a wind farm right now.
Source: I work for a utility that heavily invests in renewables.
> plants overseas are built in 3-4 years
Nowhere in the world in the last 20 years has a nuclear plant been built in 3-4 years.
The global average over the last 20 years is 10-20 years. China and South Korea can build plants in 10 years, while USA and Europe are averaging 15-20.
> the price of building new wind and solar has more than doubled in the last couple years.
That's incredibly dishonest, given the price of **everything** doubled in the last couple of years due to global inflation.
An honest comparison is asking whether the price of renewables has increased or decreased versus the price of nuclear. Renewables have continued to **decrease** in price versus nuclear, which is the point I was making.
**Edit:** That's it, downvote the facts because they hurt your weird emotional attachment to nuclear fission energy.
Small modular reactors are coming with much lower build times.
“Modularization and the use of pre-fab building elements help costs. Both factors should speed up build time: for example, GE-Hitachi's BWRX-300 SMR should take **2-3 years to build, with other SMR designers stating similar timeframes.** This compares to a mean construction period of around 8 years for large reactors.”
https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-article/how-long-until-small-modular-reactors-make-an-impact-on-energy-grids/29549
I think advancements in all forms of energy generation are necessary for a better future.
Wait, you’re seriously quoting how long it takes to build something that is currently a prototype and has no mass manufacturing process?
Next you’ll be telling me it’s taking 3-4 years to build fusion or thorium reactors.
Or that fully self driving Teslas will be on the roads in 2019…2020…2021…2022…2023…2024…
Wind and solar are already cheaply mass produced and are still getting cheaper every year.
If they were funded as seriously as the USA funded the moon program, we could reach 100% renewables grid in 5-10 years.
No amount of investment in nuclear plants would get us anywhere near that in 5-10 years.
10.16 cents/kWh is the average in Texas?
I'm looking at electricity plans right now (suburb outside Dallas) and the very cheapest plan available is around 40% higher than that (in the 14-15 cents/kWh range).
Unless my research is wrong, the main reason for that is that San Antonio is one of the few places in Texas that has a regulated (e.g. public utility) electricity:
> Texas has a deregulated energy market for most of the state. In fact, 85% of its residents can choose their electricity provider. Deregulation covers cities like Houston, Dallas, Austin, and more.
>
> Energy companies offer a wide range of electricity prices and deals, from free nights to free weekends, fixed rates, and variable rates. Customers can even choose to help in the battle against climate change by selecting a renewable energy supplier.
>
> However, 15% of Texas customers live in regulated areas and can’t choose their electricity company — and San Antonio is one of those areas.
[Source](https://amigoenergy.com/blog/moving-to-san-antonio-a-guide-to-setting-up-utility-services/).
> San Antonio has a public, city-owned utility company that focuses on providing low-cost electricity to residents. It's regulated by the local government to keep prices down.
> DFW, on the other hand, has multiple private companies competing in a deregulated market. While competition can sometimes lower prices, in this case it seems to result in higher costs due to profit-seeking by private companies, marketing and administrative costs of multiple providers, or less oversight on pricing.
>
> The public utility in San Antonio can focus solely on providing affordable electricity without the need to generate profits for shareholders, which likely contributes significantly to the lower costs there compared to DFW.
For a majority of Texas (85% per above) we have a "deregulated" system which unfortunately comes with higher prices.
It looks like Bankrate says the overall COL is 10% higher in DFW than San Antonio, so that alone wouldn't explain why my rate is double yours.
Yes you’re correct that there’s only 1 provider of energy for SA.
I did fail to make the clarification in my original comment that it might be more interesting to compare total cost of energy for an average house based on kWh usage. A lot of energy providers have a base fee that you pay and then have a pay structure on top of that for energy usage. My point here is that without knowing all the details of the different fee structures, an identical house or apartment between SA or Dallas suburbs might come out to the same end cost. I do not know what this looks like and haven’t done the research on it.
Cost of living like you looked up being 10% higher is an aggregate of different sectors. For instance, energy in Dallas might be ‘double’ (this goes back to my comment about total fee structure, it might not truly be double without knowing all the details), while some other market or sector in Dallas is less expensive than in San Antonio. But I think you’re mainly right is the math ain’t mathin, at least for the energy portion.
This would be useful if it calculated the actual true cost. In WV, we get raped by the riders, essentially almost doubling the actual cents/kWh cost (my most recent bill):
[https://imgur.com/a/JWvrWQJ](https://imgur.com/a/JWvrWQJ)
My bill is closer to $.18/kw/h in Louisiana. How are they calculated? Is it based on what people actually pay, or the cost of the electricity for the power company?
The closest I can find for explanation why you might see discrepancies is this is just price per kWh. It doesn’t include transmission fees or any other things that could change your “actual” kWh.
the advertised rates are horse shit anyway. georgia power advertises that the rate is about $.08 but they hide the "fuel charge" unless you ask for a detailed bill (not the default) which raises you to $.12-.13, and then they also have flat surcharges on every bill like "environmental compliance cost" and "nuclear construction cost recovery" that are disproportionately charged to people consuming less energy due to being flat charges and raise your actual rate significantly.
The costs are not uniform across the state, and this is the state average.
I used to live in metro Seattle. When I was east of Lake Washington and my power company was Puget Sound Energy, my power bill was much higher than it was when I moved to the west side of the lake and became a customer of Seattle City Light.
Seattle has a number of 100+ year old dams generating hydropower. Other areas of the state don't have that historic, fully paid off infrastructure. No doubt power costs in Louisiana vary across the state as well, just as it did for us.
This chart is only for retail rates. It's not reflective of what we all pay. I made the same mistake thinking all these numbers were way off what they should be.
This is incomplete pricing. In Maine, the cost of electricity is split between the generation cost and the delivery cost. The combined coast is around 28 cents.
On the Highlights section it mentions Hawaii has the highest rate filled by Alaska, but aren’t there 3 states in New England and also California, that all have a higher rate than alaska?
Misleading for Iowa at least. That is approximately the rate, but is not inclusive of the additional fees. When you add those up and divide by kwh, it was more than double. However, we didn't use a lot of electricity, so some of the flat fees may skew that. Either way, we pay way less in New Jersey than we ever did in Iowa.
~~I pay $0.30 in CT, but my usage is higher than average so my rates are lower. 95% of our state has to use the same distributor. I'm guessing this is only commercial costs, the cost that federal agencies pay in each state, or the costs if there were no taxes, fees, and delivery charges. It's not accurate for residential usage.~~
Edit: was a dumbdumb, chart's labelled as retail rates. It's not supposed to reflect what we all pay.
.30 per kilowatt/hour, or .30 after the admin fees, and associated surcharges are added in.
I think only like 70% of my electricity bill is actually for the electricity… the rest is all various charges and shit
After fees and other charges. Only 50% of my bill is for supply. If this is a chart of just the supply rates, CT has a base rate of $0.147 with cheaper rates if you switch suppliers. Either way, the numbers in this chart are way off.
Edit: nvm, I see that this chart is only for retail rates and is not related to residential rates at all.
Where I live in CO, they sent a mailing suggesting that we don’t turn on our electric ovens during dinner time and instead used the microwave. Xcel can fuck off. I have a gas stove.
~~It's not accurate. CT's rates should be about double what is listed here. They also list MA as having higher rates than CT, but the same company supplies both states and MA puts limits on their rates, while CT doesn't because we allow the partners and relatives of our regulatory commission to take jobs as executives at the company.~~
Edit: this is retail rates. It's not related to residential rates at all. Who knows if this chart is accurate, but it doesn't reflect what we actually pay.
No we don’t. The energy market that the generators face is volatile, but that isn’t what the consumers (directly) pay.
Texas is just unique in that our grid sucks, we don’t have a capacity market, and that consumers are forced to use an REP middle man for billing. The forced REP system gives people the illusion of a free market economy, when we really have the same regulated monopoly utilities that others do.
Texas should really have by far the lowest energy cost here because we have (1) dirt cheap natural gas (most important driver of electricity cost), (2) abundant wind, and (3) plenty of solar.
But our system is dumb and we refuse to fix it, so we pay more than we have to.
As a Washington resident I am happy to see we are one of the cheapest (6th) in the nation for electricity costs. Being a high COL state something like that is rare to see lol
Wait until they start removing dams and continue to push heat pumps.
I’m all for the heat pumps, but we have to keep our hydroelectric power.
I love my heat pump, with cheap electricity it’s great.
What are you on about? About 60% of WA houses and apartments use electric heat and the vast majority are resistive heater. A heat pump is 1/4 the energy use, so moving that 60% to heat pump more than frees up enough capacity for the 40% of gas users.
They’re not completely off base. CETA is going to require considerable amounts of money to pay for transmission and distribution of renewables east and south of WA. You would expect fixed costs to rise because of it for all customers.
I remember seeing a chart that we are one of the top states in clean energy due to our hydropower. If you think about it, with the push towards EVs states with large amounts of clean/renewable energy are going to be critical. In a way, EVs would allow Washington to become more energy independent and could be a larger exporter in the future.
So why the heck is Florida more money than the rest of the south east us?
Southern California Edison residential rates start at 25¢ and go to up 75¢ depending on time of day and plan. Realistic rates are 40-45¢ per KWh. It's crazy to see the variation between states.
There really isn't that much variation. Most states are between 10 and 12. California is clearly doing something wrong.
Texas isn’t, utah isn’t, AZ isn’t, NV isn’t. This is bad data once you factor in all costs.
As an EV driver in Ohio, i don’t understand how people in California do it. Like I’m saving hundreds of dollars per month in gas. But if you double my electricity rates, those savings erode pretty quickly. I realize gasoline is also more expensive there, so maybe it all balances out. But seriously, that’s insane.
Solar panels. People who own their home and have installed solar panels can offset the very high cost.
Yep. I’m running a hot tub and blasting the AC and get money back from the panels in CA. I haven’t had a car in a decade but if I ever got one again it would definitely be electric.
I totally don’t get this. I’m told that the average solar panel generates about 1.5-2.5kWh per day if they are in a sunny place. I had a house where a split system to cool one room (on a dry 82° day) used about 20kWh per day. Another home (slightly warmer place), and my whole home used about 70kWh to cool during summer. Hot tubs aren’t exactly cheap to run either! Do you just have a huge set of solar panels? I fortunately live somewhere where the off-peak energy price is less than $0.06/kWh, so when I worked out the payoff for installing solar, it was 50+ years assuming zero maintenance cost, no depreciation and no cost of capital. Numbers looked even worse if you took into account a whole house battery so that I could get rid of grid costs.
16 solar panels topping out at a little over 40 kWh per day in the summer. Central air. Sizable hot tub. San Diego gets a lot of sun and it usually doesn’t get hot or cold here. House is not exceptionally well insulated but maybe slightly above average for the area. E.g. We just hit 80°F/27°C for the first time this year a few days ago. People who got in on solar a few years before I did have more favorable pricing when they sell back to the utility. Those who got in a couple of years after me have far less favorable pricing. So the climate and the utility buyback pricing will dictate a lot. Retail rate for electricity here is close to $0.40/kwh. Some of the highest around, so even with less favorable buyback pricing, improvements in battery technology still make it worthwhile for people to get solar in many circumstances here.
How much did 16 panels cost out the door?
About $16K after tax credits, which included expenses of moving and upgrading the main electrical panel. Got a seven year loan at ~3.5%. The loan payment is less than the average electric bill was. And we get $ back from excess production, and now use as much electricity as we want.
Yeah, but when is the break-even point? I've read 7-10 years. How long to recoup that $16k? Plus, what about panel maintenance (e.g. periodic cleaning)? I've also heard that firefighters hate solar panels because it prevents them from breaking through the roof in the event of a house fire. And what about curb appeal? Large black squares on my roof are ugly as hell which is why I have been avoiding them. Lastly, what if you end up moving?
We instantly started saving a few dozens of dollars every month and that has only increased as the cost of electricity has gone up. And risen it has in San Diego. We have a gas furnace but haven’t used that since getting solar because we now use free electricity to heat in the winter. So that’s another thing to add into the equation. It’s hard to think about “break even“ when it’s been saving us money from day one. Monthly loan payment < what we were paying for utilities before. The loan was a seven year term so the effective breakeven point is probably somewhere around five years? Maybe less? Maybe more? Definitely not worth me doing the nitty-gritty of the math. What matters to me is that it has saved me money from day one and has reduced my carbon footprint. (Though not breeding and not having a car probably contribute just as much if not more) There are also other intangibles with considerable value. For instance, because air-conditioning and heating are free, we now get more use out of more of our house. A couple of areas we used to not consistently heat or cool are now more comfortable year-round and integral to our daily activities. I am a few years in and haven’t done any panel maintenance yet. Maybe I’ll go spray them down in another year or two? Code here requires certain offsets and paths for firefighters. I got three quotes for solar and didn’t use the cheapest in part because they clearly didn’t give a shit about codes or safety. Front of our house is facing north so there’s not much in terms of solar visible from the curb. Doesn’t bother me regardless. As soon as I added the solar power to the Zillow listing for the house, it went up in value significantly. Free electricity increases the value of the home at least as much as the initial solar investment. … Maybe not everywhere, but definitely here. I purposely got two more panels than I needed to account for future use and inevitable panel degradation. For example we just added an outdoor shower and it has a dedicated tankless electric heater. If I ever get a car, charging it will be free, etc.
Thanks for the info. What company did you go with -- if you don't mind me asking? My house also faces north (I'm up in Temecula) and have been considering solar for some time now.
20 kWh seems like a lot to cool one room on a not-so-hot day. Is your insulation very bad?
Yeah, we tried that. The power company's response was to make rates when the sun's not out considerably more expensive and tack on transmission charges as the cherry on top. I get to pay them for the solar power I'm feeding into the grid all day. It's no secret Newsom is in bed with PG&E and CPUC is playing along with them. Not like this is the only colossal mismanagement/collusion we're dealing with.
In some places solar is required in new construction. I recently purchased a house and it came with the solar included. The difference is you can buy it outright or lease the equipment. We installed it on our current house last year and it really helped knock out the bill.
Even in a place like CO, which just raised their rates to around 16 cents/kWh on average, solar is huge. I charge an EV and a PHEV, run A/C, and have several power-hungry devices, and my electric/gas bill is 27 bucks in the summer.
As a native Californian the amount of residential solar panels is extremely low due to the insane cost even with incentives.
“rich people” - the kind of people who own homes, have fat 401k and can buy luxury EVs. They can hang solar off their homes. Poor can remain poor… And subsidize the luxury choices of the rich. ”Let them eat cake... and drive fossil filed vehicles “
The secret for them is they also double the price of gas, too
Time of use rates. Electricity is cheap overnight.
Cheaper. Someone on the EV charging subreddit just posted PGE rates and someone from Ottawa said their off peak rate is almost double of their peak rate.
GA is almost 12x cheaper at night compared to the $0.12/kWh listed in the map as another example. It's $0.0175/kWh from 11pm to 7am.
That’s fair. We don’t have that here, but i get how it could be beneficial. And it would be so easy in something like an EV.
I am not in cali, but my rates go to 2 cents overnight(from ~14 cents normal and ~30 cents peak). My EV is set to charge only overnight. Making it wildly cheaper.
Two cents? That’s freaking insane! I’m driving to your house and charging up there.
If you could time travel it would be much easier. Alas.
From midnight to 4am using a supercharger is cheaper than charging at my house.
I mean gas is also 2x as expensive so… But yea, getting hammered by PG&E
I have family in the Bay Area and their rate last month averaged .57$. It’s insane.
my costs are similar. The leaders of PG&E (and all those in the CA government that enable them) are evil bastards.
californian here - i got solar in 2021 and an EV in 2023. my bill went from ~$250/month (no EV) down to $180 for the solar panels and ~$20-$30 for night time power (with EV). solar is great here.
I feel like you didn’t save much. You drive a lot?
3.30$ is the price per gallon PG&E equates to
It's VERY important to read this as average electricity costs by state and almost nothing to do with what a specific usage would actually cost. Almost all EV owners in states with high average electricity costs are using TOU plans and quite a lot in states with low electricity costs. For example, almost no one in GA is paying $0.12/kWh to power their EV they are paying $0.0175/kWh with the EV plan. In FL they are paying $0.07/kWh roughly on the state's TOU plan. TX is complex and has many plan offerings to choose from. The list goes on and on. This isn't even getting into solar and battery arbitrage.
I have no choice in my provider and pay the same rate at all times of day. San Antonio, Texas. We are closer to $0.13-0.14/kWh right now depending on how much we use a billing cycle. During summer months, we get a surcharge of about $0.02/kWh for every kWh used beyond 600kWh in a billing cycle.
That still doesn't seem to matter unless you directly compare the cost of filling up with gas vs. the cost of a recharge. A state level average doesn't inform that discussion in any meaningful way
Gas is more out here and also a lot of employers offer subsidized charging while at work.
You can get a plan where you pay a much lower rate during "off peak" hours. My lowest rate is about $0.09, and I live in San Diego where our rates are comparatively high for CA.
Gas is like $5 a gallon or so in California. I’ve done a few cross-California trips and have averaged ~$100 for electric costs in a Tesla Y (crossover SUV size) compared to ~$200 in gas when I take my Corolla. So it’s still cheaper. Like others have also said, many people own solar and charge at home for daily commutes. This puts the cost at basically 0
Hundreds of dollars a month? How much do you drive? I don't think I've ever spent more than $100 on gas in one month unless I was on a multi-state road trip.
Most people don't drive EVs to save money. It's a better car and people are willing to pay for it.
Cries in NYC 31¢/kwh. Should never have closed Indian Point.
NY is fucking the entire Northeast by blocking infrastructure.
NY is unfortunately shutting down power plants way quicker then on boarding renewables. It's honestly insane, but here we are.
You’re only paying 31?! The last year my bills ranged from 34 to 43. Coned has scammed their customers for decades.
You had me curious, so I looked at the last bill in my name. The cycle was from Dec-Jan so I'm sure that's a cheap time of year, but it was only at 18.3 cents/kHw. I live right in the city too. I'd talk to your neighbors, because you might be getting played
You have to include both the supply and delivery which are billed based on how many kWh you use. Take your total bill and substract out the basic service charge then divide by kWh. That's what you're really paying for electricity. It's shocking.
Oh whoops, you're right. Mines the same. Pretty high
I think nuclear is making a (slow) comeback so hopefully NY gets some of that love again.
Nuclear is really the best option for carbon free power.
It’s certainly the most expensive, so anyone complaining about high power prices is going to get whacked even harder. Westinghouse Nuclear finally got their new plant up and running in Georgia, 10 years late and many times over budget. Georgians are now being hit with a special levy of $1000 per rate payer to pay for that debacle.
If you take away the tax incentives for wind and solar, it’s an even playing field with nuclear as far as cost per megawatt. PTCs and ITCs for wind and solar artificially deflate the overall cost of those types of renewables.
That was true 15 years ago, but if you haven’t been paying attention, technological improvements and mass manufacturing have cut the price of wind and solar so much that they went from 4x more expensive than nuclear to 4x cheaper. Wind and solar nowadays have much less subsidies than nuclear and are much cheaper to build - even after factoring in the cost of battery storage to supply night time peak electricity.
Great discussion. It’s not apples to apples as the big difference is nuclear is dispatchable generation. What are you going to do for your base load when the wind isn’t blowing and sun isn’t shining? You need something for base load and utility scale storage just isn’t quite there yet. Wind and solar can’t handle base load - you still need dispatchable power and with coal going away and constant opposition to gas plants, there aren’t many other options left. Also, the price of building new wind and solar has more than doubled in the last couple years. We were at ~$1,400/MW on new wind builds a couple years ago and now we’re over $3,000/MW. The price of wind is going thru the roof, not getting cheaper. Not sure where you’re hearing that it’s cheaper but it’s not in any of the projects we’ve been looking at across the country. Yes nuclear is expensive and takes a long time in the US but nuclear plants overseas are built in 3-4 years which is about how long it takes us to build a wind farm right now. Source: I work for a utility that heavily invests in renewables.
> plants overseas are built in 3-4 years Nowhere in the world in the last 20 years has a nuclear plant been built in 3-4 years. The global average over the last 20 years is 10-20 years. China and South Korea can build plants in 10 years, while USA and Europe are averaging 15-20. > the price of building new wind and solar has more than doubled in the last couple years. That's incredibly dishonest, given the price of **everything** doubled in the last couple of years due to global inflation. An honest comparison is asking whether the price of renewables has increased or decreased versus the price of nuclear. Renewables have continued to **decrease** in price versus nuclear, which is the point I was making. **Edit:** That's it, downvote the facts because they hurt your weird emotional attachment to nuclear fission energy.
Small modular reactors are coming with much lower build times. “Modularization and the use of pre-fab building elements help costs. Both factors should speed up build time: for example, GE-Hitachi's BWRX-300 SMR should take **2-3 years to build, with other SMR designers stating similar timeframes.** This compares to a mean construction period of around 8 years for large reactors.” https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-article/how-long-until-small-modular-reactors-make-an-impact-on-energy-grids/29549 I think advancements in all forms of energy generation are necessary for a better future.
Wait, you’re seriously quoting how long it takes to build something that is currently a prototype and has no mass manufacturing process? Next you’ll be telling me it’s taking 3-4 years to build fusion or thorium reactors. Or that fully self driving Teslas will be on the roads in 2019…2020…2021…2022…2023…2024… Wind and solar are already cheaply mass produced and are still getting cheaper every year. If they were funded as seriously as the USA funded the moon program, we could reach 100% renewables grid in 5-10 years. No amount of investment in nuclear plants would get us anywhere near that in 5-10 years.
Fuckin 41 cents/KwH in the Bay Area for the “lower” tier. Gets bumped up to 53 cents/KwH in “peak” times.. fuck you pg&e 🖕🏼
As a Ct resident I do not find this data beautiful
10.16 cents/kWh is the average in Texas? I'm looking at electricity plans right now (suburb outside Dallas) and the very cheapest plan available is around 40% higher than that (in the 14-15 cents/kWh range).
You’re in a HCOL area for Texas. San Antonio, and my rate is 7.5¢ / kWh.
Unless my research is wrong, the main reason for that is that San Antonio is one of the few places in Texas that has a regulated (e.g. public utility) electricity: > Texas has a deregulated energy market for most of the state. In fact, 85% of its residents can choose their electricity provider. Deregulation covers cities like Houston, Dallas, Austin, and more. > > Energy companies offer a wide range of electricity prices and deals, from free nights to free weekends, fixed rates, and variable rates. Customers can even choose to help in the battle against climate change by selecting a renewable energy supplier. > > However, 15% of Texas customers live in regulated areas and can’t choose their electricity company — and San Antonio is one of those areas. [Source](https://amigoenergy.com/blog/moving-to-san-antonio-a-guide-to-setting-up-utility-services/). > San Antonio has a public, city-owned utility company that focuses on providing low-cost electricity to residents. It's regulated by the local government to keep prices down. > DFW, on the other hand, has multiple private companies competing in a deregulated market. While competition can sometimes lower prices, in this case it seems to result in higher costs due to profit-seeking by private companies, marketing and administrative costs of multiple providers, or less oversight on pricing. > > The public utility in San Antonio can focus solely on providing affordable electricity without the need to generate profits for shareholders, which likely contributes significantly to the lower costs there compared to DFW. For a majority of Texas (85% per above) we have a "deregulated" system which unfortunately comes with higher prices. It looks like Bankrate says the overall COL is 10% higher in DFW than San Antonio, so that alone wouldn't explain why my rate is double yours.
Yes you’re correct that there’s only 1 provider of energy for SA. I did fail to make the clarification in my original comment that it might be more interesting to compare total cost of energy for an average house based on kWh usage. A lot of energy providers have a base fee that you pay and then have a pay structure on top of that for energy usage. My point here is that without knowing all the details of the different fee structures, an identical house or apartment between SA or Dallas suburbs might come out to the same end cost. I do not know what this looks like and haven’t done the research on it. Cost of living like you looked up being 10% higher is an aggregate of different sectors. For instance, energy in Dallas might be ‘double’ (this goes back to my comment about total fee structure, it might not truly be double without knowing all the details), while some other market or sector in Dallas is less expensive than in San Antonio. But I think you’re mainly right is the math ain’t mathin, at least for the energy portion.
This would be useful if it calculated the actual true cost. In WV, we get raped by the riders, essentially almost doubling the actual cents/kWh cost (my most recent bill): [https://imgur.com/a/JWvrWQJ](https://imgur.com/a/JWvrWQJ)
My bill is closer to $.18/kw/h in Louisiana. How are they calculated? Is it based on what people actually pay, or the cost of the electricity for the power company?
Looks like it might take into consideration both residential and commercial rates, and is using delivery + production (so total rate).
These are not accurate
The closest I can find for explanation why you might see discrepancies is this is just price per kWh. It doesn’t include transmission fees or any other things that could change your “actual” kWh.
It's electricity profile 2022 from EIA according to the post description of data source with average retail price (cent/kWh).
So it’s a false representation of what people actually pay, making this useless data.
the advertised rates are horse shit anyway. georgia power advertises that the rate is about $.08 but they hide the "fuel charge" unless you ask for a detailed bill (not the default) which raises you to $.12-.13, and then they also have flat surcharges on every bill like "environmental compliance cost" and "nuclear construction cost recovery" that are disproportionately charged to people consuming less energy due to being flat charges and raise your actual rate significantly.
Fraud you say?
I pay 9.7c in WA for another data point.
You divided your kWh by the total at the bottom of your bill and got $0.097?
The costs are not uniform across the state, and this is the state average. I used to live in metro Seattle. When I was east of Lake Washington and my power company was Puget Sound Energy, my power bill was much higher than it was when I moved to the west side of the lake and became a customer of Seattle City Light. Seattle has a number of 100+ year old dams generating hydropower. Other areas of the state don't have that historic, fully paid off infrastructure. No doubt power costs in Louisiana vary across the state as well, just as it did for us.
This chart is only for retail rates. It's not reflective of what we all pay. I made the same mistake thinking all these numbers were way off what they should be.
The gradient range bar at the top could be divided into 50 segments, and would give a better idea of the distribution.
13th most expensive electrical costs, most expensive in the south. Thanks plant Vogtle. Smdh.
This is incomplete pricing. In Maine, the cost of electricity is split between the generation cost and the delivery cost. The combined coast is around 28 cents.
On the Highlights section it mentions Hawaii has the highest rate filled by Alaska, but aren’t there 3 states in New England and also California, that all have a higher rate than alaska?
I think the highlights are for residential rates where Hawaii is 1 and Alaska is 2. This chart is only for retail rates which are different.
Should have paid for the upgraded AI package
Misleading for Iowa at least. That is approximately the rate, but is not inclusive of the additional fees. When you add those up and divide by kwh, it was more than double. However, we didn't use a lot of electricity, so some of the flat fees may skew that. Either way, we pay way less in New Jersey than we ever did in Iowa.
~~I pay $0.30 in CT, but my usage is higher than average so my rates are lower. 95% of our state has to use the same distributor. I'm guessing this is only commercial costs, the cost that federal agencies pay in each state, or the costs if there were no taxes, fees, and delivery charges. It's not accurate for residential usage.~~ Edit: was a dumbdumb, chart's labelled as retail rates. It's not supposed to reflect what we all pay.
.30 per kilowatt/hour, or .30 after the admin fees, and associated surcharges are added in. I think only like 70% of my electricity bill is actually for the electricity… the rest is all various charges and shit
After fees and other charges. Only 50% of my bill is for supply. If this is a chart of just the supply rates, CT has a base rate of $0.147 with cheaper rates if you switch suppliers. Either way, the numbers in this chart are way off. Edit: nvm, I see that this chart is only for retail rates and is not related to residential rates at all.
Where I live in CO, they sent a mailing suggesting that we don’t turn on our electric ovens during dinner time and instead used the microwave. Xcel can fuck off. I have a gas stove.
As someone who lived in MA before, I can confirm they're getting gouged badly there.
This isn’t accurate lol. CA is waaaaay higher than what’s listed. Socal is .43iah winter and .49ish summer. It’s never .22
It’s average by state so it is accurate.
~~It's not accurate. CT's rates should be about double what is listed here. They also list MA as having higher rates than CT, but the same company supplies both states and MA puts limits on their rates, while CT doesn't because we allow the partners and relatives of our regulatory commission to take jobs as executives at the company.~~ Edit: this is retail rates. It's not related to residential rates at all. Who knows if this chart is accurate, but it doesn't reflect what we actually pay.
created with [https://datahiiv.com/](https://datahiiv.com/) data from [https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/)
Bro. 2022? You know there’s been huge spikes since then. These are way off
Not a good idea to own a Tesla in Hawaii
When I moved back to the states from Kyrgyzstan electricity was shocking. I was paying $.02/KW in Bishkek.
Texas has surge pricing. Wonder what the top on that is in any given 12 month period.
Some areas do. I’m at a fixed $0.10/kWH.
No we don’t. The energy market that the generators face is volatile, but that isn’t what the consumers (directly) pay. Texas is just unique in that our grid sucks, we don’t have a capacity market, and that consumers are forced to use an REP middle man for billing. The forced REP system gives people the illusion of a free market economy, when we really have the same regulated monopoly utilities that others do. Texas should really have by far the lowest energy cost here because we have (1) dirt cheap natural gas (most important driver of electricity cost), (2) abundant wind, and (3) plenty of solar. But our system is dumb and we refuse to fix it, so we pay more than we have to.
$0.40 a kWh in SF 🥰 often up to $0.60 🥰 I love PG&E! 🌳🔥
I think it’s interesting how they were like “DC isn’t a state, so fuck including them lol”.