Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Renewable Energy Adoption and the Increasing Cost of Electricity in the U.S.

By Brennan Louw, ClearSky Advisors
December 15, 2011   |   18 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

18 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 18
December 16, 2011
ClearSky Advisors pumps out vast amounts of PR dressed up as "analysis", but this one is particularly silly. The time period cherry picked for this "analysis" is a period of plunging natural gas costs. States with high gas penetration in their electricity fuel mix experienced declining prices during this period. Several states with high gas dependency also have solar and wind subsidies large enough to bring non-hydro renewables on line. However, had states like California and Texas not subsidized wind and solar, they would have had faster rate declines. ClearSky Advisors are confusing correlation with causation.
Comment
2 of 18
December 16, 2011
The comparison and conclusions are invalid. It essentially compares the Quantity of solar and wind generation which represents only about 3.5% to a Cost per kWh. A more apt comparison would be Cost to Cost on a kWh basis.
Comment
3 of 18
December 16, 2011
Dear Tom,
Aside from your slight against our company - you raise an important point, one that we took pains to make clear in the article, that further analysis would be necessary to make significant conclusions from this data. But the questions raised by the data are important regardless.
In the words of American statistician Edward Tufte, "Correlation is not causation - but it sure is a hint." Correlation raises further questions. In this case, it challenges the simplistic assumption that renewables must equal a higher electricity bill.
So if, as the article above demonstrates, those states that deployed the most renewables over the past 5 years (a period that was chosen for our analyses because nearly 80% of US grid tied solar PV and wind capacity was added during that time) experienced less onerous price increases than those that did not, we need to ask "why?"
- Could it be because natural gas prices decreased? There may be a correlation there as well. However, as a percentage of their overall electricity system, the bottom 5 states used almost as much natural gas in 2010 as the top 5 states (average of 25% vs 27%). This begs the question, why didn't renewable energy cause an increase?
- Could it be that states with both natural gas and renewables are able to best realize cost savings? Possibly.
- Could it be that renewables (combined with natural gas, perhaps) provide advantages to an electricity system that allow for cost savings that are not visible if you simply consider the upfront generation costs?
- Could there be another reason (such as subsidies not borne by ratepayers)?
All of these possibilities are well worth considering and deserving of further research. But what is clear is that some states have been able to integrate renewables into their mix at high levels (up to 15% in some cases) without experiencing exorbitant electricity rate hikes.
Tim Wohlgemut
Co-Founder, ClearSky Advisors
No image available
Comment
4 of 18
Anonymous
December 16, 2011
I agree with Tom. As data analysis goes this is about as slipshod as it gets. The authors claim this is a first-brush attempt at analyzing the effect of wind and solar expansion on electricity prices. Well, solar contributes a negligible percentage of generation in almost all of the US so you would never detect a price effect from such a crude analysis. Wind now contributes about 3% of total US generation and even this is too small to expect to see a significant effect on overall prices. In particular wind receives a generous subsidy from the production tax credit and after this subsidy is factored in wind generation--at least when it is a modest portion of total generation--is relatively affordable.

Natural gas prices have fluctuated significantly in recent years and these prices DO have a significant effect on electricity prices in certain states. 2005 is an especially poor year to choose for a baseline if one is concerned about the affects of natural gas price fluctuation because hurricane Katrina struct in that year causing a big spike in gas prices. Natural gas prices also had a big spike up in 2008 and have declined markedly since then. (In 2005 and 2008 natural gas prices had peaks of about $12 per thousand cubic feet whereas prices in 2009 and 2010 were in the ballpark of $5 per thousand cubic feet.) If we use EIA figures for the "total electric industry" and consider the total price (i.e., including all demand sectors) the TX prices for the years 2004 to 2010 where (in cents/kWh): 7.95 (2004), 9.14 (2005), 10.35 (2006), 10.11 (2007), 10.99 (2008), 9.86 (2009),9.34 (2010). Major upticks in 2005 and 2008 correlate well with spikes in natural gas prices as expected. Note that TX electricity prices in 2010 were 15% lower than those in 2008; this is obviously too large an effect to be due to the introduction of a modest percentage of wind (even if wind generation was free it would not have led to a 15% average price reduction).
Steven
Comment
5 of 18
December 17, 2011
For decades, the Canadian Nuclear Association has been issuing studies that purport to show vast economic benefits from nuclear power. The CNA's methodology confuses costs with benefits -- the higher the costs, the greater the benefits. The CNA studies have ignored all the negative externalities, particularly the financial risk burden transferred to the federal and provincial governments through third party liability limits for operators and suppliers, and also loan guarantees.

ClearSky Advisors, like many renewable advocates, have followed in these ignoble footsteps. Here is an example of a ClearSky study purporting to assess the economic impacts of wind energy in Ontario, published during the recent election campaign, using a methodology that confuses costs with benefits and which ignored all the negative externalities associated with wind development, particularly the loss of value to residential and recreational property surrounding wind farms.

http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/economic_impacts_wind_energy_ontario2011-2018.pdf
Comment
6 of 18
December 17, 2011
The post above says:

"1.35¢/kWh over five years (or 3.2 percent annually)

1.39¢/kWh over five years (or 4.0 percent annually)

1.8¢/kWh over five years (or 4.1 percent annually)"

What am I missing here? I mean, how is it possible that there is a 0.8 percent gap between 1.35 and 1.39, but only a 0.1 percent gap between 1.39 and 1.8?
Comment
7 of 18
December 18, 2011
More advocacy pretending to be science from ClearSky Advisors:

http://www.tonykeller.net/2011/03/ontarios-misguided-green-energy-policy.html#comment-form

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-23-ontario-feed-in-tariffs-creating-solar-jobs
Comment
8 of 18
December 18, 2011
Tom,
Your critique of the analysis is hampered by your apparent misunderstanding of the first point. We are not discussing rate decreases, but a rising cost of electricity. Will you please begin again, this time not mis-stating the facts?
Also, if your criticism is that the analysis doesn't prove causation, well, the article states that already. It is simply an statement that adopting renewables or not adopting them doesn't seem to accelerate, but rather may decrease, rate increases. This kind of big-picture view can be helpful, and in fact is exactly the same kind of association needed to prove complicated things, like if mammography decreases the rate of death from all causes.
Incoherently, you seem to demand of the authors a proof of causality, which is not what the research itself says is the intent. Then you make a wild, unsupported assertion
-"However, had states like California and Texas not subsidized wind and solar, they would have had faster rate declines. ClearSky Advisors are confusing correlation with causation."
Finally, the hypothesis you offer for the observed differences in rate INCREASES (again, it would help you if you got the first point correctly) appears to be invalid, regarding the use of natural gas.
I have to therefore critique your critique as far less convincing than the article.
Comment
9 of 18
December 18, 2011
I have to agree with Thanes, it seems relatively straight forward to me. Tom A, are you sure you were reading the same article? Not to muddy the waters but according to EIA figures natural gas consumption for power production actually decreased over the same period for two of the top five states which were Iowa and Texas.
No image available
Comment
10 of 18
Anonymous
December 18, 2011
Karl:
Regarding your question in comment #6, the annual rate increases are calculated by ( (2010_price)/(2005_price) ) **(1/5)-1, where "**" denotes exponentiation. Note that the rate increase is determined both by the price increase and the initial price, so you would not expect to see a correlation only with the rate increase variable.
Steven
No image available
Comment
11 of 18
Anonymous
December 18, 2011
EIA estimates US electricity prices to be 60% due to generation, 32% due to distribution, and 8% due to transmission. The average price in 2010 was 9.83 cents/kWh, so the average price of generation is roughly 5.9 cents/kWh. A very rough ballpark figure for new wind generation is ~7 cents/kWh, which is very close to the average generation cost (and not very different from natural gas costs, which is the generation wind is most likely to displace), so you would not expect a few percent uptake of wind power to correlate with overall prices. This should be clear long before one attempts such an analysis. (And certainly an amateurish analysis that only picks the 5 top and 5 bottom states, and uses unweighted averages of large and small states, etc., would not be a credible way to explore such a correlation.)

Natural gas prices DO have a clear effect on average electricity prices--the spikes in natural gas prices in 2005 and 2008 are clearly reflected in electricity prices in several states. Of course, many other factors have significant affects on electricity prices (the recent economic downturn, for example) and any serious analysis of overall prices would have to consider many such factors. If one wanted to get at the costs imposed from adopting renewables, there are easier ways to do this than to look at overall prices. The discussion in the main article does not merit the term "analysis" and is bordering on propaganda.
Steven
Comment
12 of 18
December 18, 2011
Anonymous, you seem to be missing the point. Yes, you can take "ballpark figures" "EIA estimates" and all the like and try to model what renewables would do to rates and increases or decreases. You use alot of space and words sounding like you'd have an idea of where you'd want to begin that analysis, and in fact it's been done all over. But as with climate change models, it is often good to also compare your models with observations and historical records to see if your model is accurate.
This research is about that reality-checking.
Your post is not a full analysis, and is, by using alot of talk pretending it is analysis, rather more like propaganda.
Comment
13 of 18
December 18, 2011
Steven @ 10

Thank you, now I understand how that could be true.

For this to happen, the initial price in the 1.39 group needs to be lower than in the 1.35 group. And most of the difference in the percentages is explained from that fact.

That in turn would seem to contradict the basic message that the 1.35 States are the cheaper ones.

The difference of 0.04 cents doesn't seem significant enough to base any conclusions on anyway.
Comment
14 of 18
December 18, 2011
Maybe I am missing something, but I can't find the ClearSky Advisors analysis referred to in the article. Can someone please provide the link? Thanks.

www.tomadamsenergy.com
Comment
15 of 18
December 20, 2011
I live in CA. In PG&E's territory. I installed a 6.12kw PV system at our homestead in June of 2006 not to address my average kwh charges from PG&E, but to address my marginal kwh charges. On Jan, 1, 2005 PG&E's average kwh retail price (e-1 rate schedule) was $.1377 with a marginal cost for me (Tier 4 usage) of $.22. The costs had changed rather dramatically for E-1 rate payers in PG&E's territory by June, 2010. The average kwh price had incresed to $.189 kwh and the Tier 4 marginal costs were up to $.425 a kwh. These cost increases equate to an average increase of 37% over the 5 years (7.6% per year- AVERAGE user).

PG&E has a tiered rate structure for residential customers (E-1 rate) based on a baseline allotment of kwh per month. My Tier 1 allotment was 20.1 kwh a day in 2005. It gets rather warm in my location in the summer- our average monthly usage is 1500 kwh per month (50 kwh per day). My monthly cost in 2004 for 1500 kwh of electricity was $189, my bill would of been $341 in June of 2010- an 80% increase over 6 years).

PG&E has been adding a lot of RE generation in the last few years. Many investors have been purchasing the 20 to 25 year Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/07/us-firstsolar-midamerican-idUSTRE7B60N020111207 and http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/12/4049143/firms-gobble-green-subsidies.html
which have rather good terms for the investors- "PG&E, and ultimately its electricity customers, will pay NRG $150 to $180 a megawatt-hour, according to a person familiar with the project, who asked not to be identified because the price information was confidential. At the time the contract was awarded, that was about 50 percent more than the expected market cost of electricity from a newly built gas-powered plant, state officials said."

PG&E's actual costs to provide services to it's residential customers (e-1 rate schedule) over time does not support the conclusion of the article.
Comment
16 of 18
December 29, 2011
In your possible causes you are missing a key one - deregulation. Several of those states (Texas and California especially) are pioneers in reforming utility governance. As our country proves, good ole fashioned competition is a powerful force. While others may not have argued effectively, it is hard for me to believe such a small portion of renewables could affect prices either way except maybe in Iowa because it has the highest penetration. To prove this one way or another you would need to do a regression that accounts for differences in competition, varying sources of generation, etc. like economists and credible researchers do in peer review environments. This isn't to say there aren't positive benefits to renewables (I believe there are) but this is not the proper method to show it. Analysis like this sets back the industry.
Comment
17 of 18
January 6, 2012
These ten states have highly variant energy markets. A key clue to the sleight of hand: "this analysis typically requires dozens of spreadsheets and produces complex findings that are challenging to communicate to those outside the industry". Ouch. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

I am a devoted fan of renewable energy, but this kind of dilettantism does not help the cause. Tragically, it is grabbed as a mash-up piece and jammed into every unsuspecting blog and news site.

If the author is so convinced of the validity of this study, I invite him to present method and conclusion at the US Association of Energy Economists meeting. We have bi-monthly lunch meetings. It would save me the effort of proving this not only erroneous, but hurting the cause.
Comment
18 of 18
February 4, 2012
If you are interested in the energy deregulation (no more monopoly by the local utility companies) happening in the United States, you can visit my blog&nbsp;--> usenergynews.blogspot.com <-- This blog's goal is to share the energy related news in the United States. I hope everyone can save money on their energy utility (electricity and natural gas) bills.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability Richardson RFPD, Inc. Solaire Generation SCHOTT Solar PV, Inc. Michael Best & Friedrich LLP Unirac, Inc. Schletter Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters