Essentially, they are willing to burn all sorts of rules and regulations in order to beat a neighboring state to attract businesses and individuals. They then make up for this loss by drawing federal dollars that are usually paid for by people and companies in those same states they drew people and businesses away from.
But they are absolutely willing to regulate where it helps them individually even if it is against purported principles.
And then, of course, there’s the annual hypocrisy where red state senators will decry any funding towards blue states (for example, emergency funding to California for fire disasters) but jump right into demanding as much money as they can get when there are disasters in their states.
Texas’s energy supply bounties hides this there but it’s evident all over the remaining red states.
Anyhow, the legal effect may be irrelevant if the gas producers wouldn't bother trying to export. I would imagine that producers are having trouble just delivering on their long-term, fixed-price contracts in Texas. The short-term prices might be so jacked up precisely because there's little to no surplus to export, period.
When there's a sustained negative-degree-weather event for over a week, many people start plugging in extra space heaters or run their electric central heater longer, which places a huge amount of strain on the grid.
Luckily there are many in the midwest who use gas for heating, since it's way more efficient in the long winter months.
There are other factors too, like some plants not being maintained to a level where they can operate at full capacity in freezing weather for weeks at a time (many can, but some are not maintained to that standard—see TX), so those plants can't just pop online like they normally would during the summer.
According to the utility, shortages are not anticipated in Arizona, but conservation will help maintain the interstate pipeline system.
https://www.kgun9.com/news/local-news/southwest-gas-asks-cus...
Parents got ~10" of snow yesterday night. But it's just business as usual.
Someone else speculated that this is due to a rise in Natural Gas costs. This would make some sense given that the rise is uniform across the region.
Disclaimer: I work in the energy space. I know nothing about what is happening here and these are personal opinions.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/
16.89 ¢/kW in 2019. Where did you get 30-40 ¢/kW?
I love my municipal utility.
The cheapest possible PG&E (Silicon Valley) rate is off-peak (after midnight) winter rate. Looking at my January bill here right in front of me, that rate is $0.16675 for transmission + $0.05525 for generation. So that's 22.2c/kWh. That's the cheapest it ever gets.
The most expensive tier is peak (afternoon to midnight) in the summer, 62c/kWh.
"Northern California is the home of the first successful opposition to the promotion and development of commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. In the 1950's northern and central California's privately owned utility company, PG&E, was planning to be one of the giants in the new field of nuclear energy."
I suppose Mexico might be cheaper as Nevada lacks water, particularly in remote regions where there'd be the least local resistance. Baja California has the Pacific and the Gulf of California; Sonora has the Gulf of California.
California's unique history of opposition to nuclear is unfortunate, but there are larger dynamics that are also suffocating nuclear in California; dynamics that at most are only marginally stronger in California as compared to elsewhere in the United States. Oregon or Washington could also build more nuclear plants. They already export a significant amount of electricity to California, especially to Southern California. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie) Nuclear is disfavored everywhere, and even where it's allowed and nominally profitable the RoI still sucks, so it doesn't take much friction to shift investment elsewhere. We need change at the national level to make nuclear practical again.
Though, now I'm genuinely curious why Mexico doesn't have more than its current two nuclear plants. PEMEX? (Note: Not that I think that Mexico is some third-world country bereft of regulations and organized opposition. I'm sure many of the reasons are similar as elsewhere. Still, I bet therein lie some interesting and informative stories.)
Nuclear compete with energy generated from fossil fuel, either locally or bought from neighbours, and future battery technology. The waste problem of nuclear is a problem, but not as big as the waste problem of fossil fuels.
On the TOU plan in NV, weekdays in June thru Sept, from 1PM to 7PM, it's ~0.45/kWh -- but rest of the time it's under 6c/kWh -- comparable [or less] than your rate.
Hard to believe we haven't figured out efficient, reliable, & redundant long-distance electricity transmission at this point.
I generated almost 100kWh today & have used ~half that; it sure seems like transmission is almost as big of an issue as storage.
> It didn't have to be this way :(
And, it's not! The claimed price is in the ballpark of double the actual price.
Lowest rate is $0.25/kWh and most usage will land at $0.32/kWh. Or so you'd think reading that PDF.
I divided my total electric bill by my total usage and got $0.44/kWh. There was a lot of usage in tier 2 because I don't live in the cold and dark. I use a computer and refrigerator. The various confusing surcharges and credits make knowing what any given kWh will cost very difficult.
We're getting fleeced.
No, the federal Energy Information Agency and Bureau of Labor Statistics are not wrong.
> Please take a look at an actual PG&E bill.
Looking at an actual bill will tell you what you pay, not what is typical in the state. And if it's a PG&E bill, it will tell you a significantly higher number than is paid in non-PG&E areas (which make up a majority of the state, and which include significant territories throughout Northern and Central California, including parts of the Bay Area, as well as pretty much all of Southern California.)
[0] https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-ra...
To add, Santa Clara city is served by Silicon Valley Power which I believe has substantially lower rates than PG&E.. there may be other such local providers..
The parent provided a figure: 16 cents.
Forget “the rest of California”, that's extremely high for the Bay Area. Last year, SF Area average retail electricity prices by month ranged between 22.9 ¢/kW and 24.0 ¢/kW.
https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/averageenergyp...
Most of my usage is in tier 2 at $0.31443/kWh. In practice the actual bill comes out to $0.44/kWh because of all the random other complicated cruft.
Check out slide 28: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/Ne...