Austin Energy responds, says Texas grid is the problem
Ed Clark:
Austin Energy is likely the only utility-sponsored green power program in America (among 850) that has not spread the cost of its program across its customer base.
That’s because Austin Energy GreenChoice, until this last batch of wind energy, has sold out each of five wind power contracts. They sold out because Austin Energy provided each batch to customer subscribers at a cost that will stay fixed for the life of the respective wind contract (10 years).
To our knowledge, no other utility-sponsored green power program in America has ever offered anything close to such a long-term fixed green power charge.
Now, rising and unpredictable transmission congestion cost on the ERCOT grid (the amount of wind capacity in West Texas doubled in one year to more than 8,000 megawatts), has increased the cost of the latest batch of wind power and also makes it difficult to pinpoint a price that can stay fixed for 10 years, the life of the current wind contract.
However, if Batch six is not fully sold to individual subscribers, it will do little to raise electric rates in Austin. Green power is purchased power and purchased power costs would normally be recovered through the fuel charge to customers. Batch six did not increase the Austin Energy fuel charge this year and will likely increase it very little, if at all, this January during the annual true-up of the fuel charge for the coming year (the fuel charge is about one-third of the average residential electric bill in Austin).
Even if it became necessary to roll Batch six into the fuel charge long term, Austin Energy would simply be joining every other utility-sponsored green power program in America, by spreading (for the first time rather than historically) some of these program costs to all customers.
Austin Energy has enjoyed being the number one green power program in the country for sales seven years in a row. The utility is reviewing pricing options for its latest wind supply with the idea of providing a long-term fixed price that includes all quantifiable costs. Additional transmission congestion would be trued up at year end, and recovered through the utility’s standard fuel charge. This would still have voluntary subscribers paying for the vast majority of the cost of the new wind supply, preserving a formula that has been the most successful in the nation.
- texas wind energy resources and grants
- offshore wind in dumas texas
- windmill farm in vernon texas
- wind farm churns in texas
- wind farms near mason texas
Posted in Uncategorized
Similar articles
- Chicago Wind Energy Company
Click Here to register and get your Free “Squidoo Lens Creation for Newbies”Am I making a mistake by moving from Chicago to Austin? I decided to move from Chicago to Austin for no apparent reason except to avoid the freezing wind in Cold in the wintertime. My company will let me work out of my
... - Off-Grid Systems
Off-Grid Systems will provide all the power you use and store energy in batteries, with no connection to the utility. Ideal for cabins, remote sites, or for those who just do not want to rely on the utility to provide their power. A home solar system typically consists of solar panels, a back-up battery, a
... - 25×25: More info on the Rural Energy Savings Program Act Climate and energy
Food AND fuel – the goal of the national 25×25 coalition: “By 2025, America’s farms, forests and ranches will provide 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States, while continuing to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed and fiber.” Energy efficiency? Sure, that fits in, too. Conservation and eliminating waste fits
... - WSJournal: “US Utilities Target Costs Of Keeping Up With Wind Generation” Climate and energy
Westar v. AWEA, in this one. From the WSJournal, by Mark Peters: NEW YORK (Dow Jones)–Utilities increasingly are looking to pass on new costs they say come from growing amounts of wind power being added to the nation’s electric grid. The on-again, off-again nature of wind farms forces utilities to ramp up and down the
... - Whole Foods Switching To Wind Power
(AP) Natural food grocer Whole Foods Market Inc. said it will rely on wind energy for all of its electricity needs, making it the largest corporate user of renewable energy in the United States. The Austin-based company said it is purchasing 458,000 megawatt-hours of wind energy credits a year, enough
...
Wind generators were told that there would be congestion, that
their output could be limited before the built them.
Your comments don't sound like you've spent much time
researching wind energy in particular or electric power generation
in general. First of all, there is no similarity between hydropower
and wind. One is very reliable (and pretty well maxed out) the
other is very unreliable.
Electric grids require reliable power to meet demand as it
rises. Can't send out a public service announcement: “there will be
no electricity today because the wind isn't blowing.”
why is it that people in programs that allegedly are “good for
Us” seem to always blame other people for their failures?
As I have pointed out on the blog that follows this one, wind
power has a fatal flaw: it is unreliable. For this reason, there
must either be a natural gas turbine power plant ready on standby,
or “hot spinning reserve” from nuclear, coal or natural gas steam
turbine systems to back up the wind farm when the wind suddenly
dies. And it can do that.
“Load following” is the practice of ramping up power when demand
rises. It is difficult enough to do when the power sources are
reliable (coal, nuclear, and gas). Adding an unreliable source like
wind only complicates this requirement – one must keep “hot
spinning reserve” ready to phase in when wind speed drops. Did I
point out that the hot spinning reserve is burning fuel?
New electric power generation should come from nuclear energy.
Nuclear power is reliable, cost effective, and clean.
Mark I don't know where you are getting your numbers, I am using
projections from the U.S. Department of Energy. Nuclear power is
indeed cost effective when compared with coal, natural gas, and
(unreliable) wind.
So… You are upset with private companies that spent private
money building electrical generators and rebuilding rural
economies? You know what, nevermind.
Wind is only a minor problem as long as its contribution remains
very small. Enlarging its share will cause major grid management
problems. Ask Germany and Denmark: both are backing away from their
ambitious wind energy plans because of grid management difficulties
and resulting damage.
Good question donx65. I believe it is because they are so
convinced of the rightness of their view that they can't possibly
imagine that it is wrong.
“A diverse grid with lots of windmills all over the U.S.”
doesn't make sense either. There are specific zones (principally
Great Plains states) where wind energy is effective. Getting areas
where wind is optimum hooked up to areas where power is needed
would require massive investment in infrastructure.
It will be interesting to see how long the wind delusion
continues. Wind isn't free and in fact it is very expensive when
you factor in all the systems needed to make it work.
Wow I would of signed up on that one…Ten years knowing what I
was going to be charged for my power. No wonder they sold out the
first five batches. I have a feeling someone put an end to that. My
power company wouldn't even tell me what they would pay if I
produced more power than I used…if I were to install a wind
turbine in the country.
Wind isn't a single entity. Winds blow in some places and not in
others. It doesn't just die all over the US. So a diverse grid with
lots of windmills take advantage of localized weather and the
movement of air from high to low pressures.
I see the builders of these generators as having a lot of
foresight. These massive props have 50+ year life spans and the
nation's electrical infrastructure will be rebuilt in the next
decade -TXU has been rolling out their plans for nearly two years
now. It's called 'Investment'. Build now, while it is cheep to do
so, and make more money later. That's why so many private companies
are so willing to invest their own money.
Paying the capital cost of a backup generation plant and then
using fuel so it is ready in minutes is a cost that isn't being
factored into the wind energy equation, but it is there.
Electricity is only a carrier of energy and must be used as it is
generated. Energy storage systems such as pumped hydro, compressed
air, flywheels, and flow batteries have been investigated, but
these all represent added capital and operating cost to make the
wind system reliable. Then there is the cost of linking the wind
power into the grid from widespread wind farms.
All new electric power generation should be nuclear. It is cost
effective, reliable and no air pollution. Fuel is cheap and we have
thousands of years supply.
Oh, and conservatives are certainly guilty of spending hundreds
of billion of dollars on certain 'over-seas' projects that they
were certainly “convinced of the rightness of their view that they
can't possibly imagine that it is wrong”.
If you talk confidentially to people who actually build and sell
wind generators, they will confess that the only way wind power
makes sense is to have natural gas turbine power as backup to wind
(when wind speed drops) because it can be fired up quickly. When
asked about the natural gas plant capital cost, or what happens
when natural gas peaks and starts to decline they have no
answer.