With the recent news about the net-metering cap and the republishing to the front page of Lynne’s post “Going Solar: A Massachusetts Journey“, interest in solar power has been high around these parts, so I thought I would keep it going with some news that escaped my attention when it first came out in January.
Some background: there are two pieces to your electric bill, energy delivery and energy supply. When energy choice was mandated by the state in 1998, National Grid had to get out of the energy supply business and they became an energy delivery company. They still maintained contracts with energy suppliers, and they continued to offer consumers what is known as their “standard offer”, and most consumers have stayed with that and have not chosen a competitive supplier.
Last fall, National Grid raised the rate they charge for the standard offer, almost doubling it from $0.08227 per kWh to $0.16273 per kWh. At the time they announced that the average electricity customer would see a 37% increase in their electricity bill. The old adage that “statistics never lie, but liars use statistics” applies here – while they were effectively doubling their electricity supply rates, they were not increasing their delivery rates, so they were able to call it a 37% increase instead of the 97.7% increase it actually was.
Recently National Grid announced their summer supply rates, which have dropped from $0.16273 to $0.0925 per kWh. While it’s better than the exorbitant winter rate, it still represents a 12.4% increase over last year’s rate from the same time period (6.7% when you factor in the delivery costs). But get ready for this coming winter, when the supply rate is forecast to go to $0.24 per kWh, effectively doubling your bill! Here’s a segment from WCVB’s Chronicle program, which I messed when it originally aired in January (can’t embed, sorry):
http://www.wcvb.com/chronicle/the-electric-bill-blues/30872214
The video shows that the high cost of electricity in MA is due to our reliance on natural gas for power production – don’t listen to the right wingers who will tell you that solar power is leading to increased costs. About 3 minutes in, they discuss the future of supply rates, where they announce that this coming winter the supply rate will be near $0.24 – with delivery included, expect to be paying over $0.31 per kWh!
So, what to do? Go solar – if you’ve ever considered it, the time is now, and the 30% federal tax credit expires next year, so don’t miss the bus! Contact me in the comments below, or email me at jtehan@nuwattenergy.com.
but first I need to find out if my house in Wakefield with east/west roofing is feasible. Can a get a free evaluation ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Email me your phone number and I’ll call when I’m at my computer, we can get a preliminary look on Google Earth, ok?
But might be more accurate to say a reliance on matural gas for energy, with a lack of delivery mechanisms, such as a pipeline, to deliver a sufficient supply.
The fact is that our existing natural gas infrastructure is old and very, very leaky. If we fixed the leaks, we wouldn’t need more pipelines!
New Hampshire and Maine.
They lag the region in energy efficiency, using more natural gas than they need and driving up the costs for everyone.
I’m not saying if we plug these leaks we’ll have solved the problem. I suspect that alone won’t be enough.
But it’s the lowest hanging fruit and we ought to say no to new pipelines until these states sit up and fly right. There’s no excuse for it.
In rural area, a lot of the gas heat is propane. Not sure how that is counted in statistics – as regular residential gas, or a subset?
When you are the only house in a 53 acre parcel (as my next-door neighbor there is), building a pipe down the street just for you makes little sense. That may be why statistics for rural states seem to show that they are using too much natural gas when in reality it is not a place feasible for more urban delivery systems.
not propane, and the issue increasingly has been NG used to fire electrical generation.
Propane ought to be included in a well-designed energy-efficiency plan, though I suppose one could argue that failure to do so might not have meaningful short-term effects on pipeline NG.
Maine and NH lag the region in this area because of institutional hostility to energy efficiency. It’s costing everyone a lot of money because it contributes to higher gas prices on the spot market.
Before we spend more money of gas-transmission infrastructure we should insist that Maine and NH put modern programs in place and stop wasting gas and money.
Like what?
Maine has become one of the largest producers of wind power in New England. Entire potato fields have been given over to turbines up north. Solar is routine – in fact, a lot of traffic signals and lights are solar because of distance making wires less efficient and harder to maintain.
What institutional opposition do you refer to?
Mind you in Massachusetts, energy efficiency is a profit center. Because regulators did and the utilities learned how.
Porky, you might want to parse this thing a little closer. Energy efficiency is not the same thing as building wind farms. I mean, yay wind farms, but not the same thing.
AN ACT RELATIVE TO NATURAL GAS LEAKS MA GL 149.