Despite a wet winter that recharged Palo Alto's hydroelectric supplies, the city's electric customers could be in for a shock in July, when rates are expected to go up by 12 percent or more.
The new estimate from the city's Utilities Department shows electricity rates rising for the second time in two years on July 1 after seven straight years of stability. And residents may be in for another rate bump next year, when another rate hike could kick in.
The series of rate increases may strike some as surprising, given the recent rains and the plummeting costs of renewable energy, which is taking on an ever growing role in the city's electric portfolio. But with capital costs rising, cash reserves drying up, electric sales dipping and costs outpacing revenues, city officials say the adjustment is necessary.
The forecast, which the City Council Finance Committee reviewed on Tuesday night, shows electricity rates going up by 12 to 14 percent this year and then by another 9 percent in July 2018.
A major culprit is the recent drought – a severe disruption for a city that gets nearly half of its electricity from hydroelectric sources. With hydroelectric power unavailable, City of Palo Alto Utilities had to go to the market for energy purchases, which has raised costs, Rates Manager Eric Keniston told the committee Tuesday.
"Hydro is by far the cheapest resource," Keniston said. "Those rains are relatively recent and we did not see those savings in costs until well down the line."
There are other drivers as well. Capital costs have gone up, with bids coming in more than 30 percent above estimates, staff said. Sales have gone down, with people conserving more and thus paying less. And the electric utility's reserves are exhausted (partly because the city used these reserves to keep rates flat over prior years) and in need of replenishing, according to staff.
Another driver is the city's recent switch to solar power. With solar rates hitting new lows last year, the city added two new long-term solar contracts to its renewable portfolio. Altogether, the city's solar commitments now total more than 150 megawatts, enough to provide for about a third of the city's electricity needs.
Catherine Elvert, the Utility Department's communications manager, said these agreements require the city to make some upfront investments. These costs will taper off, she said.
"There are upfront capital costs to get those up to commercial operational status," Elvert said. "Then the costs for electric commodities themselves are going to drop."
The projections are still preliminary and the numbers may still change. But staff suggested Tuesday that the increase, if anything, may end up being even higher than the 12 percent in the current forecast.
"The goal is to bring rates to a case where you have revenues matching expenses," Keniston said. "That's what this proposal gets us to."
It's not all bad news for the Palo Alto ratepayer, however. Other utility rates are expected to remain relatively steady, with gas and wastewater rates showing no increase. Water rates, however, are expected to go up by 4 percent thanks to the rising costs of wholesale purchases from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the city's supplier.
Altogether, the rate changes are expected to add 4 percent -- or about $11.92 -- to Palo Alto's median residential bill, which last year was $282.78. Next year's projected rate bumps -- 9 percent for electricity; 2 percent for gas; 7 percent for wastewater; 6 percent for water; and 3 percent for refuse -- would add another $15.97 to the bill.
The council won't officially set the new rates until June, when it approves the budget for Fiscal Year 2018. Councilman Greg Tanaka, who sits on the Finance Committee, expressed some concerns Tuesday about the rising bills. Tanaka said that while he was campaigning, he spoke to people who are financially strapped and "hanging in by the skin of their teeth."
He observed that the proposed increase in the electricity rate is more than three times the rate of inflation. He also suggested that Utilities consider hedging its bets in the fluctuating energy market by getting into the futures market and purchasing derivatives.
"(Residents) are not going to like seeing 10 percent on top of 12 percent increase," Tanaka said. "To me, it would be behoove of us to look at instruments that are available to moderate fluctuation."
Comments
Fairmeadow
on Mar 21, 2017 at 10:46 pm
on Mar 21, 2017 at 10:46 pm
Thank you Tanaka for looking out for us small folks! 12% is outrageous!
Registered user
Downtown North
on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:03 pm
Registered user
on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:03 pm
We had 7 years of flat utility rates, in part supported by burning down reserves, and now that it's time to pay the piper, Greg Tanaka wants more 'instruments available to moderate fluctuation.' But I wonder if rates would need to go up 12% this year if prices hadn't been flat for 7 years. I'm pretty sure inflation wasn't 0% during that time.
And BTW, long term contracts ARE futures (so we're already doing it), and derivatives have costs and risks. How about we stop manipulating prices with parlor tricks?
Downtown North
on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:05 pm
on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:05 pm
Our electric bill last month was $17 (no Tesla here). A 12% increase will bring it up to $19/month. How much does PG&E charge for electricity? Last time I checked, my friends with PG&E were paying 2 or 3 times as much as us. Thank you Palo Alto.
Palo Verde
on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:50 pm
on Mar 21, 2017 at 11:50 pm
Check your fire insurance before reverting to candles.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 22, 2017 at 5:53 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 5:53 am
Again?? And how much of that is being siphoned into the General Fund? How much are we paying for all those programs / mailings telling us to conserve more so we can pay more because we're not using enough? And this is why I oppose the storm drain rate hike.
Well, Tanaka did say he planned to find ways to double the city's revenues. Nice start.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 22, 2017 at 6:12 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 6:12 am
"A major culprit is the recent drought – a severe disruption for a city that gets nearly half of its electricity from hydroelectric sources. With hydroelectric power unavailable, City of Palo Alto Utilities had to go to the market for energy purchases, raising costs, Rates Manager Eric Keniston told the committee Tuesday.
"Hydro is by far the cheapest resource," Keniston said. "Those rains are relatively recent and we did not see those savings in costs until well down the line.""
So well down the line we'll see the savings from the recent rains and get a rate reduction???
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 22, 2017 at 6:51 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 6:51 am
[Post removed.]
Palo Alto Hills
on Mar 22, 2017 at 8:21 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 8:21 am
I have lived here for 36 years. I cannot understand why residents who have been here as long as myself should have to pay anything for electricity. We payed in for decades, make newer residents foot the bill. They can afford it.
-Jason
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2017 at 8:35 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 8:35 am
All our power comes in from one source. We have no choice between solar or HEP or anything else. We get what we get. Somehow I think we are having the wool pulled over our eyes.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2017 at 8:37 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 8:37 am
At least that's what we were told when a plane took down a power pylon and we were out of power for a day.
Barron Park
on Mar 22, 2017 at 8:38 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 8:38 am
It is comical to hear residents of our great city moan about rate hikes for things. Expectations of low utility bills has been set by the city and the entitled masses can't be bothered to pay their fair share. Go live in any other city who has PG&E then complain about the utility rates in Palo Alto.
In reality, the rate hikes affect businesses the most, so business owners should be the ones throwing a fit. And this is what residents of Palo Alto actually like - to punish business owners and developers. Well, the bulk of the increased revenue will come from businesses, not us tiny peons in the residential community, who certainly do not contribute anywhere near what local businesses contribute to the City budget.
[Portion removed.]
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:07 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:07 am
Let's not forget that only recently the PAU was talking about phasing out natural gas as an energy source here in Palo Alto--wanting all residents and businesses to use electricity instead. In addition to the huge costs to convert home heating/cooking from natural gas to electricity, the never-ending increases in the cost of electricity would drive the utility bills of Palo Altos sky-high!
Menlo Park
on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:44 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:44 am
How I wish I got Palo Alto's utility services! I'm stuck in PG&E territory where the latest increases are astounding. Palo Altans should look around before complaining.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:59 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:59 am
PG&E isn't an appropriate reference. PG&E is raising its rates to cover:
i) keeping its stock in demand/price high by keeping its stock dividend high relative to other income-generating investments. The Federal Reserve is raising interest rates. Low interest rate policy by the Federal Reserve has made utility stocks very attractive as investors hunt for investment yield. Also, new executives don't want a stock fall on their watch (compensation dinged)
ii) massive liabilities due to their negligence/malfeasance in regard to harmful accidents, for example gas line explosions.
PA utility customers shouldn't be draged-along by these factors, which do not apply to CPAU.
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:04 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:04 am
There is no resolution here. This comment section only serves to let us minions vent so that we can them go about out day and give in to increase after increase after increase. The reasons given are the standard blah blah blah examples that are in the " local government how to keep increasing revenue 101" handbook. The problem really is the more you save the more they need. You compose more, recycle more, need less trash and ... your rates go up because THEY are getting less. You buy more energy efficient appliances, switch to led bulbs, use less electricity... and guess what, you buy less so THEY need to charge you more.. So on and so on..
So, like I said, there is no resolution here. Just smile and say " Thank you very much for the rate increase, can I have another."
Downtown North
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:04 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:04 am
Even if everything the above commenter says is true, complainers are gonna complain.
Was anybody wondering why there was no rate hike for 7 years and complaining about that? The second a service increases its price for anything, even if modestly, people are up in arms.
So they want to maintain their "quality of life" in Palo Alto, and not necessarily have to pay for increases. Would you stay in a job that didn't pay you any increase for 7 years as the cost of almost everything else went up around you? I didn't think so.
Homeowners are an entitled bunch. The impact of this hike will be disproportionately felt by and is skewed towards businesses. They may have a legitimate gripe.
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:21 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:21 am
[Post removed.]
Registered user
College Terrace
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:36 am
Registered user
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:36 am
@Jason - I do not understand your comment. Do you not expect to pay for what you use? What am I missing here?
Crescent Park
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:36 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:36 am
How much does taking about 20% of California's electrical generation capacity offline by decommissioning the nuclear reactors? No one wants a Fukushima but those plants were a big part of Calfornia's power generating capability. The oil and coal producers must just love that.
Fairmeadow
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:44 am
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:44 am
I am really sick of this Bay area's GREED! Sick prices of everything and increasing ...
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 22, 2017 at 12:06 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 12:06 pm
Perhaps residents should be questioning why utility fees are diverted into the general fund. Maybe the spike is to pay the ever increasing senior management salaries of City Manager Keene's staff and Keene's salary + benefit package.
Those posting comments comparing PG&E rates to Palo Alto utilities fees are sadly misinformed. Palo Alto simply uses the Utilities Dept. profits to fund other city services and city staff salaries non-related with utilities activities or costs. Maybe Keene can finally reveal the complete list of reserve fund dollars the City of Palo Alto has squirreled away without providing any infrastructure improvements. Oh well....what a pity!
Palo Verde
on Mar 22, 2017 at 12:09 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 12:09 pm
I agree with Joe. Do CPAU and council still want us to kick the Natural Gas habit, as they seemed to say last year? This sends a different signal. Some comment would be appreciated.
When my gas-powered water heater goes out, should I get a gas tankless, electric tankless, or an electric heat pump tank, as was suggested last year? I enjoy canopy, so can not put up my own solar generation.
I am surprised the strategic investment direction was not mentioned in this article.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 22, 2017 at 12:30 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 12:30 pm
Shocking news!
Crescent Park
on Mar 22, 2017 at 12:42 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 12:42 pm
Going Electric -
I have a gas tankless, which I like ... BUT, one thing I notice is that turning
on any hot water starts it up, and it still has to do the same thing a regular
water heater must - i.e. heat up the pipes and purge the cold water out of
the pipes before it gets to when and where it is needed to deliver hot water.
Often by the time I get a little bit of hot water that I need to rinse dishes or
wash hands it feels like there is a lot of gas and heat being used just to
heat pipes.
This is off-topic of the electric rates, and I apologize, but it is relevant, and
that is:
- I always thought that electric hot water was more expensive and slower
than gas hot water ( just out of the water heater device). That would
seem to give an advantage to gas water heaters.
- There are on-demand electric units that can be put under cabinets and
nearby showers/tubs that do not have to heat pipes and leak heat to the
environment.
Can anyone speak factually and authoritatively about the cost comparison
of the costs of:
- cost & installation of electric on-demand water heaters.
- efficiencies of electric on-demand water heaters.
- performance of electric on-demand water heaters ... do they get water hot enough for a shower?
These might be a good, and energy-saving option as future water and power
prices rise.
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 22, 2017 at 1:08 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 1:08 pm
[Post removed.]
Downtown North
on Mar 22, 2017 at 1:23 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 1:23 pm
I can't decide what's worst - Jason's comment above or the fact that 18 people like it. Amazing!
I know people think the general fund is all used for people's salaries, etc, but please, everyone who objects, just give it a rest.
It's such an ugly look on the community when people whine as much as some of our residents do. You know what...I loved the Thrifty's 25 cent ice cream scoops too...except the world passed it by and now, god forbid, a scoop now costs $3.
Downtown North
on Mar 22, 2017 at 1:27 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 1:27 pm
Typo - I can't decide what's *worse.
Crescent Park
on Mar 22, 2017 at 1:34 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 1:34 pm
I just assumed that comment was suppsoed to be witty sarcasm. That's why all the clever, complicated little things people say and do on talk forums they should just forego and post a fact or opinion clearly, efficiently and to the point - the rest is a waste of time and just bothers people.
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 22, 2017 at 1:48 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 1:48 pm
"I know people think the general fund is all used for people's salaries, etc, but please, everyone who objects, just give it a rest."
In our system, we're not supposed to just trust what the government does and sit quietly - assuming they're doing the right thing. We're supposed to keep an eye on them and to object loudly when we think they're getting out of line.
This applies to the city run Palo Alto Utilities Department as much as it does to the presidency of Donald Trump.
A few years ago, City employees at the Utility Department perpetrated a massive fraud by using City equipment on City time to run a private plumbing business out of the Utilities department yard. (They got caught when a Menlo Park Police officer wondered what a Palo Alto city truck was doing in front of a MP house under construction.)
If someone had objected to the lax management and waste going on then, the city ratepayers wouldn't have been out the cost these miscreants caused. One wonders whether PAU has tightened up its management in the interim.
Don't give it a rest: object!
Professorville
on Mar 22, 2017 at 2:25 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 2:25 pm
At the March 1st UAC meeting, the topic of changing the building codes in order to force people to switch to heat pump water heaters and heat pump space heating was discussed at length. The staff people from the building department said it does not make sense to change the building code now and recommended that the topic be put off for at least 5 years. Regarding the use of heat pump water heaters, there some issues to consider. A user can operate in the "Economy" setting and then the monthly heating cost is close to the same as a natural gas water heater. But you are cutting down on Green House Gases and this could be important to you. In this operation mode, the energy available to your water heater is only about 1/4 to 1/3 that of your natural gas water heater. When the home needs more hot water for washing clothes, dish washing, etc. then one needs to switch to the "Hybrid" mode. Now resistance coils are used to help heat the water. Now the heat pump water heater gets more expensive since electricity costs 5 to 6 times more than natural gas on an energy basis. The end result is that a heat pump water heater could double the monthly heater bill, it all depends on how much hot water your family needs. See Web Link for more details.
College Terrace
on Mar 22, 2017 at 4:40 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 4:40 pm
Can somebody please explain to me how all power comes from one source when the many solar driven homes are feeling energy into the grid, right? I thought their bills were tiny because of the offset to their power going to something central. I know too that I paid extra for years for "green energy" but then came to find out what I was really doing was subsidizing people who could afford to outfit solar. I do not mind my real utility bill . it's low .. I REALLY mind the garbage bill and I REALLY mind what they call wastewater and what I call sewage. Few people in Palo Alto know that it's a flat rate and a tiny home with one bathroom and one person pays the same flat rate as a 10,000 sq foot home with 10 people living there. Hey, PA Weekly, why don't you write about this. It is sooooo unfair.
Downtown North
on Mar 22, 2017 at 5:09 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 5:09 pm
"Go live in any other city who has PG&E then complain about the utility rates in Palo Alto."
That gives me an idea. Maybe CPAU could offer the option of billing at PG&E rates.
Downtown North
on Mar 22, 2017 at 5:15 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 5:15 pm
I agree with those who feel we need to keep a vigilant eye on City Hall and the Utilities department.
A few years back, I was renting an apartment, and noticed that a new fee, I believe about $5.00, had been added to the monthly bill for reading the water meter.
Now, we did not have individual water meters for our apartments and we did not get charged individually for water. So, my bill had a water meter reading fee but no charge for the water itself.
In other words, the city was taking money for a task they did not perform.
I thought it was a mistake, but when I contacted the city, they told me every Utilities customer was being charged this fee, regardless of whether or not there was an actual meter to read.
Mayfield
on Mar 22, 2017 at 8:49 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 8:49 pm
No way in hell are you taking my gas stove from me.
Barron Park
on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:16 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:16 pm
[Post removed.]
Midtown
on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:21 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:21 pm
Dang! I just bought an electric car! So, economically speaking, what is the point of helping the clean air if the electricity prices are going up faster than gas prices. This will push more people to keep and drive their combustion engine cars.
Community Center
on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:37 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:37 pm
None of us like to see rates go up, but with these increase our residential rates are around one third less than PG&E's.
Palo Verde
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:33 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:33 pm
@Plug, you'll soon pay a penny a mile for road-tax on the gasoline you are not buying.
CO, WY, VA, NC, MO, ID, GA, MI, WA, NE have already joined the bandwagon.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:34 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:34 pm
[Post removed.]
College Terrace
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:44 pm
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:44 pm
The $5.00 charge that showed up on my bill a few years ago was for reading the gas meter, not the water meter. When I turn my heater/gas off in the summer, I used to be charge $0 for gas, but now there's no way out of that stupid bill. I don't have anything on bill for water.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 23, 2017 at 8:41 am
on Mar 23, 2017 at 8:41 am
Having lived with PG&E bills, electricity rates in Palo Alto seem quite affordable. It's all the other parcel taxes which are ridiculous.
Downtown North
on Mar 23, 2017 at 8:44 am
on Mar 23, 2017 at 8:44 am
Chris --
Perhaps I was mistaken in remembering it was the water bill when it really was the gas bill. Sorry.
In any event, we did not have individual gas meters or get charged individually for gas, either, so the point is still valid.
There were no meters to read so we were being charged a fee for a task that was never actually performed.
Professorville
on Mar 23, 2017 at 9:22 am
on Mar 23, 2017 at 9:22 am
I wonder if all of you know there was a massive gas usage overcharge in February by the PA utilities. I noticed a disproportion in my gas usage/charges, went to discuss it directly with the utilities. It turned out, there was an error made that affected ALL customers. Surprisingly, no letter went out acknowledging the fact of the overcharge as well as assuring customers the mess-up would be fixed promptly. I spoke with the utilities in February, and ... the March bill came reflecting no corrections/adjustment. I spoke with them again, and they sounded like they were not even sure when they would fix their own mistake.
With this type of "transparency" from the Palo Alto utilities, be prepared for other surprises.
Midtown
on Mar 23, 2017 at 9:26 am
on Mar 23, 2017 at 9:26 am
I don't understand how, years ago, we used to pay very little in utilities because we had "our own utilities" and now, although we still have "our own utilities," we are paying sooooo much more. And both are/were in comparison to higher PG&E rates ....
Can someone explain IN SIMPLE TERMS why our rates suddenly jumped several years ago?
Professorville
on Mar 23, 2017 at 10:43 am
on Mar 23, 2017 at 10:43 am
cooking mom,
No the city will not take away your gas stove. At one time, this was the plan. They wanted houses to be "all electric". There seems to be no discussion at city hall these days regarding pushing electric induction cooking and away from gas stoves/ranges. In the April 18, 2016 report "Sustainability/ Climate Action Plan and Annual Earth day Report" on pages 31 to 35 it discusses the plans and steps to move to electricity and away from natural gas. One of the ideas was to hold a workshop for restaurant chefs on how to switch to induction cook-tops for food preparation. I had to laugh at this one. You can review this report at Web Link
And so "cooking mom" your gas stove is very safe.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 23, 2017 at 11:01 am
on Mar 23, 2017 at 11:01 am
The fact that the city even considered taking away gas stoves absurd and doesn't mean they won't bring it up again in a few years.
Remember, this is the same city that also considered hiring people to inspect your trash in case you put it in the wrong bin so they could raise more money through fines/penalties and hiring people to check all your plantings in case they consumed too much water. They were only stopped by a massive outcry.
They still spend a fortune on ads, mailings, etc. to teach us how to compost, how to divide up our trash, how to conserve, etc. etc. and then tell us they had to raise rates because we didn't use enough.
Raising utility rates lets them siphon off even more money to subsidize the general fund for the studying and/or implementing their pet projects like buying $3,142 bikes for commuters and putting giant Botts Dots at intersections to slow down traffic even more.
And of course all the new residences and offices won't consumer a drop of water or other energy.
Crescent Park
on Mar 23, 2017 at 11:30 am
on Mar 23, 2017 at 11:30 am
[Portion removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]
It takes little time or thought to throw out some mindless political slur
and when we see so many of them here in Palo Alto, California it is not
hard to understand why much of the rest of the country mindlessly voted
for Trump. It takes a lot of time that I would really rather not have to take
to remind PAO about this over and over again.
Can Palo Alto Online please delete nonsensical political attacks or comments
like this. I should not even have to point this out, but this kind of attack on
Liberalism is so common people do not even see it or think about it.
And please PAO , if or when you edit or delete the comment, please leave this
here so other will know what happened and be incentivized not to keep
peppering their comments with political attacks - at least where it is not
relevant or accurate.
Crescent Park
on Mar 23, 2017 at 12:05 pm
on Mar 23, 2017 at 12:05 pm
@GrandmaKK
Simply put, in the past PA was run to benefit residents...people who live here. Under this point-of-view, residents benefit by owning the utility company, CPAU; better/excellent infrastructure at lower than PG&E rates.
More recently, PA is run much moreso as a money machine for people who, for the most part, do not live in PA: for example, public employees, non-resident commercial real estate landlords and business owners. Under this point-of-view, it's "You live in PA, you can afford <enter money stream item here>". Residents are a financial chicken to be plucked.
Look around to see the truth of what's above. After many years of a tax bonanza due to the tech economy, the infrastructure is still not in good shape, utility rates constantly rising (will drought surcharges disappear this year now that the drought is over?), etc etc. But the relevant non-residents have all been paid and pensioned.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 23, 2017 at 4:05 pm
on Mar 23, 2017 at 4:05 pm
@Pat-Burt:
Please prove your claim about the difference in electricity and gas prices charged by PG&E and the PAU.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 23, 2017 at 5:18 pm
on Mar 23, 2017 at 5:18 pm
It's interesting that PG&E has been able to install smart meters that reduce the cost of meter reading throughout their service area, yet PAU can not do the same thing. It's clear that the salaries and benefits of all the meter readers and support staff would be reduced, even though there would be some initial costs associated with replacing the older mechanical meters.
[Portion removed.]
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 23, 2017 at 5:27 pm
on Mar 23, 2017 at 5:27 pm
Here are the rate schedules ...
for CPAU:
Web Link
for PG&E:
Web Link
Not 100% comparable, as the tiers and usage are a little different. But basically Residential (E-1) in $/kWh
CPAU Tier 1 / Tier 2 is:
0.11029 / 0.16901
PG&E Baseline / 100-400% is:
0.19979 / 0.27612
CPAU Tier 2 starts at 11 kWh / day on average per bill.
PG&E Region X (where we would be on their map) baseline is 10.1 kWh Summer - 10.9 kWh Winter / day on average per bill
So yes, as much as I think CPAU is being mismanaged and wasting too much money on junk in our envelopes, CPAU is still cheaper than PG&E.
But that's like being the tallest midget.
Crescent Park
on Mar 23, 2017 at 6:03 pm
on Mar 23, 2017 at 6:03 pm
Joe, I think it's NetFlix there is a documentary on the SmartMeters.
I watched it with quite a bit of skepticism, and yet at the end I was
convinced that I would not want a SmartMeters. They are essentially
a packet router onto your property that allows or will allow with the
right programming people outside your property to communicate with
your electronic devices, and at this point, who knows what else.
They are also not certified at safe for one's health. One person they
reported on lived in an apartment build where hundreds of meters were
on the wall just on the other side of her bedroom. I'm very skeptical of
EM toxicity, but I would not want to be in that situation, and I don't think
it is fair to force it on others who may not want it either.
I might be nice if we had privacy regulations in place before we do stuff
like this and remove all choice from people. I believe currently they do
not like the tell people but they have the right to refuse the SmartMeter,
and yet in some cases they have broken into people's houses and installed
the meters without their permission.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 23, 2017 at 7:21 pm
on Mar 23, 2017 at 7:21 pm
> They are essentially a packet router onto your property that allows
> or will allow with the right programming people outside your property
> to communicate with your electronic devices and at this point,
> who knows what else.
This is the typical anti-technology hysteria that pops up when new technologies are introduced. Let's thinks about this for a moment:
1) What is "right programming"?
2) Smart Meters have been installed all over the country and there has been no evidence that any of these claims have proven true.
3) Some people have complained about incorrect readings by Smart Meters, but these complaints have generally proven to be correct, but higher than the older, less accurate mechanical meters.
4) What is "EM toxicity"?
Let's return to (1) above. The PAU would make the decision as to the vendor of the Smart Meters. It stands to reason that they would want to review the code in the devices and to ensure that it would be very difficult to remotely change the code and that it would be easy to detect any attempt to rewrite the code from the PAU central command and control location of the network.
Smart Meters have many kinds of network interfaces: POTS, Internet, Optical Cable, WiFi and proprietary radio. To what extent they can talk to "smart devices" in the home is more speculation than not, given that there are so few such devices at the moment in the home. While the IoT (Internet of Things) is rapidly being developed, this issue of hacking becomes obviously an important issue. It remains to be seen how developers handling this much bigger issue.
It's my opinion that people who make the kinds of videos you cite have an agenda, are generally not very technically correct, and only tell one side of the story. As I pointed out above, it is hard to find any evidence that Smart Meters have been hijacked, at least as of yet.
As to your concern of (4) "EM toxicity"--do you have an Internet Router/AP (Access Point) in your home? If so, have you measured the "toxicity" of this device? If not, why are you so concerned about any addition EM fields associated with Smart Meters?
Sorry, but I don't find your concerns of much value to a discussion as to why Palo Alto has not upgraded to Smart Meters to reduce the costs of our electricity.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 23, 2017 at 8:31 pm
on Mar 23, 2017 at 8:31 pm
@Me-2:
You need to add a $5/month meter reading charge and a 7% UUT to any PAU electricity bill before you can compare with another vendor.
Crescent Park
on Mar 23, 2017 at 10:15 pm
on Mar 23, 2017 at 10:15 pm
Joe- use the term "right programming" is hardly hysterical. When you begin
like that and the rest of what you have to say is more "flubber", why bother
to reply?
As to "right programming", It's wasting time to explain to someone with a
closed mind, but with the current state of insecurity of our electronic devices,
and the makers of hardware pushing the envelope towards less privacy and
less consumer choice, and lawyers who create fine print contracts that no
one ever has the time or expertise to read, I think your comments are bizarre,
dull and cavalier to the proper concern of people's privacy rights. On the point
you are sound like a PG&E smart meter sales representative. Packet switching
protocols, and computer hardware and software are full of bugs and security
holes and after 20 years are even worse than they used to be. Reference
Wikileaks.
There was no evidence that smoking causes cancer, and even after having
scientific papers uncovered Exxon's Rex Tillerson is backing Trump's anti-
Global Warming agenda. The standard must be positive proof that these
devices are safe, not irresponsible statements that they have not yet been
proven to be dangerous. This is not settled fact by far ... and the entire
European Union is not hysterical since they have limits of exposure to
EMF and we should all just follow your claims of internet authority.
The rest of your comment is just as much handwaving as the first part and I
am not going to give it the credence to respond since it's clear you are making
it up based on your own opinion. Give me a dumb meter any day.
Palo Verde
on Mar 23, 2017 at 11:03 pm
on Mar 23, 2017 at 11:03 pm
... and I'll bet no schools will be named after Smart Meter reps in a hundred years.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 24, 2017 at 12:54 am
on Mar 24, 2017 at 12:54 am
@CrescentParkAnon:
Given your dismissive comments, and your obvious lack of technical knowledge of the technology I've outlined--there is no reason to continue this discussion. Let me point out again, however, that there are Smart Meters installed all over the country, and nothing that you have mention has happened.
Your comments about cancer, and Tillerson, crammed together in one jumble of a thought is almost laughable. By the way, doctors notice lung cancer in men who had been given cigarettes during WWI as early as 1929. While this evidence did not stop people from smoking, it's pretty clear that the linkage between lung cancer and tobacco products was established a long time ago. As to Tillerson, I see no reason to engage with conspiracy nuts about things that have nothing to do with Smart Meters, cost savings, and "right programming".
Have a nice day.
Crescent Park
on Mar 24, 2017 at 3:22 am
on Mar 24, 2017 at 3:22 am
Your motive is to dismiss every problem with smart meters by waving your hand,
yet you call me dismissive when explained why I am dismissing your last comment
after you grow more rude and insulting.
There are arguments against smart meters, privacy and health. I'm fine with
whatever opinion you have on smart meters, but not everyone agrees with you
and they are not hysterical or illogical or uninformed. I sleep with my cell phone
so I discount claims of EM health hazard, but I do not rule them out. I also do
not think that because "perhaps" someone has a psychosomatic reaction to being
forced to have a smart meter their experiences should be "dismissed".
There is a fairly balanced list of arguments at http://stopsmartmeters.org here: Web Link
Here is a quick summary of reasons from that site:
Decide for yourself:
- Utility customers have noticed huge increases in their bill after a ‘smart’ meter is installed
- Thousands of people have complained of tinnitus, headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, heart arrhythmia, and other symptoms after a ‘smart’ meter was installed.
- Smart meters can violate already high FCC limits on human exposure to microwave radiation, and are being installed even as people are developing “electro-sensitivity”. There are also reports of ‘smart’ meter interference with pacemakers and other implants.
- With a smart meter your utility has access to a treasure trove of information about your electricity usage, compromising your privacy. Utilities will be able to sell this information to a series of corporations and the government. The Electronic Frontier Foundation talks about how ‘smart’ meters violate privacy. The ACLU in Vermont and the ACLU in Hawaii have both condemned the lack of consumer privacy protection.
- Smart meters do not result in energy savings, according to Reuters. They may even increase energy consumption.
- PG&E claims that they are retaining 80% of their meter readers. What they don’t tell you is that several years back, they transitioned their meter readers from full time to temporary so the job loss would not appear so drastic. Utilities look upon smart meters as an easy way to boost profits by cutting jobs.
- At least hundreds of electrical fires, explosions, and other electrical hazards have been caused by ‘smart’ meters. Like most other smart meters, PG&E’s meters are not UL certified, as is required by electrical code for all electric appliances within the home. Smart meters are potential ignition sources and remove utility personnel from neighborhoods.
- If meter readers had been present in San Bruno, would the gas leak have been detected in time to prevent the destruction of the neighborhood?
- The conversion to smart meters is one of the largest technology rollouts in history, and yet virtually no public consultation with ratepayers or local governments was carried out in advance. The CA Public Utilities Commission, an appointed (not elected) body who are charged with regulating utility companies, ignored popular local opposition for years–though finally and belatedly producing an opt-out in early 2012 that costs PG&E customers hundreds of dollars just to avoid a recognized possible carcinogen. Around the world utility companies continue to install smart meters, often without public awareness or consent.
Face up to reality Joe, the reason electricity prices are going up has little do to with meter readers.
Crescent Park
on Mar 24, 2017 at 3:23 am
on Mar 24, 2017 at 3:23 am
WebLink above was - stopsmartmeters dot org
College Terrace
on Mar 31, 2017 at 9:38 am
on Mar 31, 2017 at 9:38 am
Yet again we're getting this rate increase in part because we don't use enough electricity. What nonsense. And then we get to pay for all those mailings and events urging us to conserve.
Read Diana Diamond today in today's Palo Alto Daily News who says much the same thing.