Who's going to win today?

[Scott17]

$0.154/kWh in USD is 0.21 CAD. March 2017 california residential from your link was $0.1887/kWh, which is $0.25CAD.

Yes, but we are talking about total overall cost of all sectors, not simple residential users. And the discussion is about affordability compared to National prices, not cost parity across different currencies.

[Rwede]

$0.154/kWh in USD is 0.21 CAD. March 2017 california residential from your link was $0.1887/kWh, which is $0.25CAD.

Yes, but we are talking about total overall cost of all sectors, not simple residential users. And the discussion is about affordability compared to National prices, not cost parity across different currencies.

He proved you to be incorrect, dude.

Take your lumps and move on.

[hobbyguy]

The way that electricity is priced in California is all over the map.

It has variations according to :

1. Time of year
2. Time of day
3. Where you live.
4. How much you use - tier pricing.
5. Power access charges by tier are added.

https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/wcnav_externalId/a-fr-elecrate-schel?_adf.ctrl-state=yrzjb5v7t_4&_afrLoop=62512916660906

I chose to look at Los Angeles as the largest city in California. Therefore rates that affect the most people.

If you look at Zone 1 Los Angeles and assume 700 kWh per month for average usage, then it becomes somewhat clearer.

Their tier 1 is 350 kWh and tier 2 is up to 1050 kWh.

So you would be paying (.15092+.18621)/2 = .17151/.74 = .2317 plus the PAC. However, for June, July, August, and into September you most likely (as a homeowner) be unable to stay under 1,050 kWh. You are probably going to be paying for at least another 200 kWh per month at .2419/.74 = .32689/kWh plus an additional $6.00 tier access charge.

But even that isn't the whole story. The city of Los Angeles is investing big chunks of money in battery storage facilities because the windy-solar generation can't keep up to peak demand, and the cost of those battery storage facilities/transmission facilities plus upkeep (considerable) are added into property taxes - hiding some of the costs of electricity. That issue is getting worse as the variations in demand after sundown are growing, because the state is subsidizing homeowner solar panels massively (about 50% of the installation) and they all "wink out" at sundown.

As of 2018 California is moving to mandatory TOU billing, which will make it even muddier.

At any rate, my estimate with the additional charges June-Sept plus the property tax extras is $.27/kWh actually paid on average.

Regardless, California is importing a LOT of electricity because their solar-windy generation just doesn't cut it.

No matter how you slice it, California does NOT have abundant, reliable, affordable electricity that is not subsidized. And whether you want to split hairs over what the real rates are, they are paying more than double what we pay. I make it 2.7 times, without accounting for the cost of the state subsidies for residential solar panel installation, nor accounting for the inherent subsidy of crediting solar panel residential production at full retail.

[Scott17]

I chose to look at Los Angeles as the largest city in California. Therefore rates that affect the most people.

At any rate, my estimate with the additional charges June-Sept plus the property tax extras is $.27/kWh actually paid on average.

No matter how you slice it, California does NOT have abundant, reliable, affordable electricity that is not subsidized. And whether you want to split hairs over what the real rates are, they are paying more than double what we pay. I make it 2.7 times, without accounting for the cost of the state subsidies for residential solar panel installation, nor accounting for the inherent subsidy of crediting solar panel residential production at full retail.

And yet why not look at the total average rate for all of California? Cherry picking from one part that represents a third of the population seems illogical. And factor in that prices are higher in major American cities anyways (New York as well).

You continue to only consider user electrical costs as a factor for affordability but no matter how much you want to say otherwise subsidizing the costs contributes to a lower end-use cost for customers. If you take the $0.154/kWh USD ($0.208/kWh CAD) overall average California cost, about double what we pay, and then factor in that the average California household income is $94,000 CAD, then you realize it is more affordable for them. When considering income the cost to users is about exactly the same as the rate per income paid in Ontario. Not great but by no means out of the range of affordability. Is your only metric of affordability being as cheap as electricity in BC?

Remember how much the tax payers here in BC are going to be paying with site C not being paid off for 70 years.

[hobbyguy]

No. BC Hydro will be paying for site C out of revenue generated from electricity sales.

And it matters not as I said about hair splitting on rates in California. Apples to apples the NDP ONLY win urban votes, therefore use urban rates for apples to apples comparison.

*removed*... can't see the forest for the trees.

[George+]

Can't see the farms, native culture for the dam.

[hobbyguy]

Those issues have been resolved, the supreme court cases are done.

Time to move on from trumped up grievances.

[hobbyguy]

The cost of generation of electricity knows no international boundaries. Nor does it respond to income levels. The Median California family income? $64,500. That means half of the people earn less than that - I'm sure they would be much happier paying BC Hydro what would be about $.074/kWh USD than ANY of numbers you want to hair split.

[Scott17]

The cost of generation of electricity knows no international boundaries. Nor does it respond to income levels. The Median California family income? $64,500. That means half of the people earn less than that - I'm sure they would be much happier paying BC Hydro what would be about $.074/kWh USD than ANY of numbers you want to hair split.

Of course they would. Our rates are better for sure, I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm only saying that aren't unbelievably unreasonable and are on par with Ontario. Regardless, are you ever going to comment on the other forms of energy production I put forward?

[maryjane48]

Those issues have been resolved, the supreme court cases are done.

Time to move on from trumped up grievances.

nope the scoc isnt done . the 2 first nation bands still have a case that are directly affected hobby seems to want to walk all over first nation rights . like the old cowboy menatality hasnt left some folks. maybe the mmiw hearings will do some good for not just victims and familys but also the in difference that is still alive and well

[Glacier]

All it will take is one NDPer with diarrhea to bring down a new government (unless they're wearing depends).

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... -get-in-bc

[Urban Cowboy]

All it will take is one NDPer with diarrhea to bring down a new government (unless they're wearing depends).

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... -get-in-bc

Hopefully with odor guard.

[Hurtlander]

All it will take is one NDPer with diarrhea to bring down a new government (unless they're wearing depends).

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... -get-in-bc

True that, but only if every Liberal actually showed up for work that day. Christy's attendance record isn't stellar.

Regardless, the NP article is just plain silly. Three days after the government was brought down because of diarrhea, a member or two of the new government could have a bout of the same diarrhea, and they'd find themselves brought down by the opposition......Nobody wants to play that game, nor would the Lt Governor allow it to happen.

However, the suggestion that the thrown speech could contain certain promises that totally mirror everything in the NDP/ Green's platform, is a very real dirty trick possibility...

[Glacier]

*removed*

[Hurtlander]

*removed*