Electric Rates Soar in New England

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
9-30-2014

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/29/electric-rates-soar-in-stranded-new-england

Electric Rates Soar in New England


The GOP warns that a price spike in New England is a result of federal regulation. The experts, however, sharply disagree.



Bargain-basement natural gas prices are sending New England's electricity bills through the roof


"There's not an incentive to purchase [pipeline] capacity," says Greg Crisp, a general manager at Spectra Energy, which owns one of the two major pipelines serving New England.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
And why are coal-fired power plants being shut down? EPA regulations. Horrible article!

Power-Plant-Closures-6.7.12.600.jpg


So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…” - Barack Obama
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
And why are coal-fired power plants being shut down? EPA regulations. Horrible article!

Power-Plant-Closures-6.7.12.600.jpg


So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…” - Barack Obama

It's only horrible because it doesn't toe the Repub Party line.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I somehow don't think you will find investors willing to build additional pipelines

There are other disincentives, too. Companies that buy the electricity that power companies generate will, of course, prefer the lowest price. That should keep costs low, but it also means that if a company takes the risk of investing in a new pipeline, it might not be able to include that cost in the price of its gas – it could be too expensive.
 

dfuze

Lifer
Feb 15, 2006
11,953
0
71
Sadly, nothing new here.
CL&P here has been trying to push through another rate increase link but hopefully it doesn't go past PURA (public utilities reg authority). Too bad they never took care of the power systems before those last major storms instead of enjoying their profits.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,627
54,579
136
And why are coal-fired power plants being shut down? EPA regulations. Horrible article!

Power-Plant-Closures-6.7.12.600.jpg


So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…” - Barack Obama

Hey, thanks for a link from an ultra right wing think tank! I'm sure they are giving us an accurate and honest assessment of the situation!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Energy_Research

I can't help but notice that very few of those closed plants are in New England. Do you have any impartial analysis that says EPA regulations are resulting in higher prices in New England and/or that avoiding coal plant closures in other areas of the country would have allowed efficient electricity transmission to places many hundreds of miles away? The only info we have from nonpartisan sources indicates the opposite, so I'm hoping you can help out.

EDIT: I didn't even notice the fine print where that's not even just actual closures, but ones where the IER has made their own model and is "predicting" future closures as well. (ie: bullshit)

I am consistently baffled at how otherwise smart people can be so consistently duped by dishonest people.
 
Last edited:

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
The environmentalists would do their very best to delay for as many years as possible if not completely quash any additional pipeline capacity. Factor in the leftist fear of running out of natural resources, in this case natural gas and the consumer is once again between a rock and a hard place. Increasing consumption of NG does not dovetail with the leftist vision for the nation so electricity prices will continue to soar in this area of the country.

The enemy in this instance is the people themselves. They want to heat and power their homes through magical ways that do not harm the environment or consume natural resources. In 2014 that's impossible because those magical means don't exist. Wishing won't help.

In the meantime, let's keep importing people through illegal methods from other nations that increase our consumption of natural resources. Leftists - too confused to even know they're confused.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…” - Barack Obama

Take your pick:

1 - Cheap power today.

2 - Leaving a liveable plant for the next generation.

The more coal we burn, the less fish we can eat. For tens of thousands of years mankind has been able to catch and eat all the fish we wanted. In less than a couple of hundred years all of that has changed.

mercury-warning-dam-b-jasper-texas-640x480.jpg
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Solar Power will become more popular. Then the electric utilities will fight against solar. Just keep in mind that the Farmer's Almanac is predicting another cold year. Get your fire place working, buy a generator, get a space heater. Get thermal superior windows, Insulate your house. Think of alternative heating. Live in a smaller house. Heat fewer rooms.

Fujitsu has a heating and cooling system that uses zone heating and cooling with no ducts. You can only heat certain areas of the house to higher temperatures.

Example:
http://momprepares.com/pot-candle-heater/
 
Last edited:
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Hey, thanks for a link from an ultra right wing think tank! I'm sure they are giving us an accurate and honest assessment of the situation!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Energy_Research

I can't help but notice that very few of those closed plants are in New England. Do you have any impartial analysis that says EPA regulations are resulting in higher prices in New England and/or that avoiding coal plant closures in other areas of the country would have allowed efficient electricity transmission to places many hundreds of miles away? The only info we have from nonpartisan sources indicates the opposite, so I'm hoping you can help out.
The closure of nuclear and coal plants in New England has created much higher natural gas demand that's stressing pipeline capacity servicing New England. Are you saying this isn't happening?

From the OP's article:

New England suffers a unique set of circumstances leading to the its rate increases. Already, aging coal and nuclear power plants in the region are being shut down, replaced with natural gas plants that are cheaper and easier to build.

Here's a couple sources that you may find more acceptable.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/08/2751681/largest-coal-plant-new-england-retiring/

The Largest Coal-Fired Power Plant In New England Is Shutting Down

The second-biggest carbon dioxide emitter in the state of Massachusetts will retire and no longer provide power as of May 2017. The Brayton Point Power Station near the town of Somerset — the largest of six coal-fired facilities in New England — is owned by Dominion, which filed the retirement paperwork on Monday.

Dominion actually only bought the plant a few months before, and spent $1.1 billion attempting to modernize its operations, which also include burning oil and natural gas.

But despite those efforts, a report last year by an investment research firm projected the Brayton Point plant would lose $3 million in 2014. The natural gas boom has flooded the power market with low electricity prices and coal-fired generation is finding it difficult to compete. The plant’s owners were also concerned about the further investments that would be needed to comply with the carbon dioxide emission rules the Environmental Protection Agency will release for existing power plants next year.

The plant’s retirement will leave its approximately 240 workers looking for new employment, though the company said it will try to ease the impact on them and the local community.

Despite its physical size, the Brayton Point station is only the second dirtiest plant in Massachusetts in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, at 3.26 million tons in 2011. The honor of dirtiest plant in the state went to the Mystic Generating Station, at 3.64 million tons. And neither plant even made it on to the list of the United States’ 100 dirtiest plants, compiled by a recent Environment America Report. According to the paper, those one hundred plants (98 of which are coal-fired) accounted for half of the U.S. power sector’s carbon emissions. The 50 dirtiest plants — a mere one percent of all electricity generating facilities in the U.S. — accounted for 30 percent of the power sector’s emissions, and 12 percent of the country’s.

As of 2011, ten of those top 100 plants had been scheduled for retirement. So more have probably been scheduled since, and the Brayton Point announcement actually marks the 150th plant shutdown since the Sierra Club began a campaign to shutter the nation’s coal plants.

That so many dirty plants remain in operation means there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of cutting the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions. We don’t yet know what the EPA’s rules for existing plants will look like. But if they include flexibility — either through the rate-averaging scheme proposed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, or a cap-and-trade system similar to what was used to cut acid rain — then states and utilities could get a good way toward their targets simply by running these plants less, while scaling up use of cleaner sources.

Aged and dated technology is also a big factor. The designed age limit for most coal-fired plants is 30 years. But the newest of the Brayton Point plant’s four units has been in operation 39 years, and the oldest unit has been pumping for 50 years. Approximately half the nation’s coal-fired plants range from 40 to 60 years old.

High-efficiency, low-emissions technologies already in operation get more electricity generation from less coal, but due to their age these plants haven’t taken advantage of it. The rules already established by the EPA for new plants will force much more widespread use of these technologies, as well as other methods for cutting emissions such as carbon capture and sequestration. As those technologies scale up, the rest of the country’s coal-fired fleet will have to take them on to meet the EPA rules for existing plants coming in 2014.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...t-shut-down/O7YN3tbgFvxVEdxBgM8siM/story.html

In a statement, however, Brayton Point Energy LLC said it does not make financial sense to do so. Rising competition from cheap natural gas, the cost of complying with increasing environmental regulation, and the plant’s age factored into the decision, the company said.

Brayton’s shutdown could lead to higher electric bills for households and businesses as the costs of building new plants and transmission facilities to replace the old plant are passed along to customers.

ISO is planning for the retirement of several plants in the region, including the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in Vernon, Vt., and Salem Harbor Power Station, another coal-fired plant. The Salem plant, which will shut down this summer, is scheduled to be replaced by a natural gas-fired plant in 2016.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/29/electric-rates-soar-in-stranded-new-england

Heat suppliers – as well as factories and other industrial companies – get their gas under long-term contracts, locking in low rates for years at a time, experts say. They also buy plenty of it: Come winter, much of the gas that flows through the region’s two pipelines is used for heating. The scant amount that's left over goes to the electric generating companies, which bid against one another for the fuel.

"If there are 100 units of gas [in a pipeline], and on any given day they need 95 of those to serve the gas [heating] market, there’s only 5 units left to serve the highest bidder," says Peter Abt, managing director of oil and gas planning at Black and Veatch, an engineering, construction and industry consulting firm.

And ahead of what experts fear could be another unusually cold winter, those auction prices have shot skyward – prices that the generating companies can then pass down the line, to the wholesalers, the distributors, and the local utilities, until they finally reach consumers. Which means that for the companies that actually do the bidding in the first place, there's little reason to stake money on a major new pipeline if they're not on the hook in the first place.

"There's not an incentive to purchase [pipeline] capacity," says Greg Crisp, a general manager at Spectra Energy, which owns one of the two major pipelines serving New England.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,627
54,579
136

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Of course like the poor fools down in Louisiana, you can sit around and wait for the Government to help you. It did not work very well, did it?

Or you could move south.

Almanac said it would be real cold last year and it was.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,627
54,579
136
Of course like the poor fools down in Louisiana, you can sit around and wait for the Government to help you. It did not work very well, did it?

Or you could move south.

Almanac said it would be real cold last year and it was.

I flipped a coin and called heads.

It turned up heads.

I must have the ability to predict coin flips.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
There is also the issue, that power is purchased from around the country during peak usage. CA was buying power from FL during the power issues from Enron. So closing down a plant out side of NE can cause prices to rise in NE.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I think the next big thing will be super critical CO2 power generation.

https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/brayton-cycle-turbines/#.VCrK0D2HfFY

Sandia National Laboratories researchers are moving into the demonstration phase of a novel gas turbine system for power generation, with the promise that thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency will be increased to as much as 50 percent — an improvement of 50 percent for nuclear power stations equipped with steam turbines, or a 40 percent improvement for simple gas turbines. The system is also very compact, meaning that capital costs would be relatively low.

Research focuses on supercritical carbon dioxide (S-CO2) Brayton-cycle turbines, which typically would be used for bulk thermal and nuclear generation of electricity, including next-generation power reactors. The goal is eventually to replace steam-driven Rankine cycle turbines, which have lower efficiency, are corrosive at high temperature and occupy 30 times as much space because of the need for very large turbines and condensers to dispose of excess steam. The Brayton cycle could yield 20 megawatts of electricity from a package with a volume as small as four cubic meters.

The Brayton cycle, named after George Brayton, originally functioned by heating air in a confined space and then releasing it in a particular direction. The same principle is used to power jet engines today.

“This machine is basically a jet engine running on a hot liquid,” said principal investigator Steve Wright of Sandia’s Advanced Nuclear Concepts group. “There is a tremendous amount of industrial and scientific interest in supercritical CO2 systems for power generation using all potential heat sources including solar, geothermal, fossil fuel, biofuel and nuclear.”

Sandia currently has two supercritical CO2 test loops. (The term “loop” derives from the shape taken by the working fluid as it completes each circuit.) A power production loop is located at the Arvada, Colo., site of contractor Barber Nichols Inc., where it has been running and producing electricity during the developmental phase. It is now being upgraded and is expected to be shipped to Sandia this summer. The loop has the design capabilities to produce 240 kilowatts.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
198
106
It's also good to keep in mind that the Farmer's Almanac's predictions are no more accurate than flipping a coin:

I flipped a coin and called heads.

It turned up heads.

I must have the ability to predict coin flips.

Are you arguing that computer models are not more accurate than the farmer's almanac?

How about you stop acting like a troll and get back on topic?

You have completely ignored the facts being presented.

The natural gas pipelines have reached capacity. What do you think is going to happen as populations continue to grow?

Coal is not the answer.

This is just like enron throttling back supply to drive up prices.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,627
54,579
136
The closure of nuclear and coal plants in New England has created much higher natural gas demand that's stressing pipeline capacity servicing New England. Are you saying this isn't happening?

From the OP's article:



Here's a couple sources that you may find more acceptable.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/08/2751681/largest-coal-plant-new-england-retiring/



http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...t-shut-down/O7YN3tbgFvxVEdxBgM8siM/story.html





http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/29/electric-rates-soar-in-stranded-new-england

Interesting that plants shutting down in 2017 are causing capacity problems in 2014. Can you explain?
 

Jaepheth

Platinum Member
Apr 29, 2006
2,572
25
91
Interesting that plants shutting down in 2017 are causing capacity problems in 2014. Can you explain?

The information of future supply effects the current price because if it didn't there would be an arbitrage opportunity in buying the energy now (future option contract) and then selling it later when the price is nearly certain to be higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-neutral_measure

EDIT: Oops, read your question as being about price, not supply.