Spreadsheet of KWH versus Gasoline Cost for 22 Electric and Plug-In Hybrid Cars

Page 3 of 3  


thank you for proving my point. the CPUC doesn't set rates, it just determines what crap PGE is trying to get money for...PGE did such a good job with the money it had been charging for pipeline maintenance that I'm sure the CPUC will gladly allow them to raise the rates for more of the same

and all those mandates have not caused any blackouts. in fact the last time there were blackouts in California it was due to the efforts of utilities to get the gov't to deregulate rates and voila we had Enron

California uses 50% less energy per capita than the national average, in fact it uses approximately 25% of the energy of the biggest user Wyoming. I guess it pays to be a conservative
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/us_per_capita_electricity-2010.ht ml

damn, I'm paying between 8 and 11 cents depending on time of year, those damn jacked down conservative rates sound sooooooooooooo appealing
just out of curiosity how may KWH's do you use? my bill this month was $25 and that includes a $14 fixed infrastructure charge...and I wasn't hurting for any conveniences
https://www.smud.org/en/residential/customer-service/rate-information/you r-rates.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, December 12, 2014 2:13:39 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:

Of course the CPUC sets the rates. Without their approval, the rate increase cannot go into effect. And in the end, either you have very stupid regulators that are allowing CA electric companies to rake in extraordinary profits that are many times those in other states, or else all the mandates, restrictions, etc that your lib nut govt has put on those utilities is the reason for the high prices.
Let's see what the LA Times, a lib paper, has to say:
"One recent study predicts the cost of electricity in California alone could jump 47% over the next 16 years, in part because of the state's shift toward more expensive renewable energy."
There you have it. EXACTLY what I told you.
Here, from the Desert Sun:
"Organizations like The Utility Reform Network, though, have criticized efforts to create a two-tier system. Reducing electricity rates for above-average energy use, Hawiger said, limits the incentive for excessive energy consumers to conserve."
"The solar energy industry has also criticized utilities' rate-restructuring efforts, arguing that lower rates for above-average energy users would reduce the incentive for those users to install rooftop solar panels."
http://calwatchdog.com/2013/09/05/enviro-policies-spike-ca-electricity-prices-70-percent/
"Californians are starting to pay for the cost of the state's Draconian environmental laws. Wholesale electricity market prices spiked about 70 percent over last year. So reports the Independent System Operator that manages California's electric transmission and distribution line grids. "
See, they want you to pay MORE, to save the whales. You don't shove cap and trade and solar down people's throats without consequence. So, if you enjoy that, fine. But don't lie and say it's the utilities that are to blame. Everyone knows that utilities are regulated, that the regulators approve the rates, the rate structure is set by law, so even if the utilities were screwing you, which they aren't, then it would still be the govts fault for letting in happen. Capiche?

I thought we were talking about the extreme high cost of electric in CA, not blackouts. You must be thinking back to CA's last massive failure, when they managed to royally screw things up. That was when there were blackouts.

I'm not surprised. CA has driven most industry that uses a lot of energy out of the state. They also have 10 illegal aliens living in one house. So, it's not surprising that when you take the total electric used and divide by the number of people, you get a lower number than Wyoming. And they are still paying more for their energy used than Wyoming.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

sad that you don't see how well deregulation, which is what you posit would lower the high cost of electricity in CA allowed enron to game the system and cause the blackouts

no, I was thinking when enron gamed the system after the electric companies were deregulated. I especially enjoyed how they shut down power plants for "maintenance" during the peak usage periods, wheeled electricity out of state only to wheel it back into CA at a higher price

wow, when you are wrong, you are WRONG:
California is the nation's leading industrial state, ranking 1st in almost every general manufacturing category: number of establishments, number of employees, total payroll, value added by manufacture, value of shipments, and new capital spending. Specifically, California ranks among the leaders in machinery, fabricated metals, agricultural products, food processing, computers, aerospace technology, and many other industries.
http://www.city-data.com/states/California-Industry.html
They also have 10 illegal aliens living in one house. So,

and here I thought per capita meant per person, whether they live in groups of ten or one. perhaps you've tried to conflate per household with per capita
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 2:21:10 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:

What you fail to see is that CA didn't deregulate the electric system. They only claimed to *partially* deregulate it and in fact what they created was their own unique universe, with typical bizarre rules. They forced utilities to sell off their generating capacity, then required them to buy the power back on a newly created *exchange* system. It was not even close to a free market system.

It wasn't deregulated. You libs pretended to partially deregulate it, while creating a unique and bizarre environment that the utilities had to operate in. For example, they were prohibited from contracting long term for power and had to buy power essentially day to day on some bizarre energy exchange that was created. That is not deregulation, it's not free markets. So, no wonder you got screwed.

It's also the largest state by far, so if you just look at total numbers, sure it doesn't look so bad. What do you expect? And many of the companies that are there, have nice office facilities, headquarters, but they sure don't build much there. When's the last time Intel built a fab in California, for example? Not since the 70's. Apple build much there? They fled, moved jobs to places like Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico and Ireland to run away from the nightmare you libs created.

You put the lights and AC on in a house with 3 people and a house with 10 illegal aliens packed in, which has a lower energy usage per capita? You libs just aren't good at math. Or much else.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, was a situation in which the United States state of California had a shortage of electricity supply caused by market manipulations, illegal[5] shutdowns of pipelines by the Texas energy consortium Enron, and capped retail electricity prices.[6] The state suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts, one of the state's largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly harmed Governor Gray Davis's standing. Drought, delays in approval of new power plants,[7] and market manipulation decreased supply. This caused an 800% increase in wholesale prices from April 2000 to December 2000.[8] In addition, rolling blackouts adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail consumers. California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW. At the time of the blackouts, demand was 28GW. A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage. Energy traders took power plants offline for maintenance in days of peak demand to increase the price.[9][10] Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times its normal value. Because the state government had a cap on retail electricity charges, this market manipulation squeezed the industry's revenue margins, causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001.[11] The financial crisis was possible because of partial deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by the California Legislature (AB 1890) and Governor Pete Wilson. Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California's spot markets.[12]
so it was a policy of a republican governor

which means it should also be number 1 in per capita electric usage, but sadly it isn't
so if you just look at total numbers,

If I was to expect anything it would be for you to admit that since California is apparently the nations leading industrial state, your statement that CA has driven most industry that uses a lot of energy out of the state to be a lie, but I never expect conservatives to admit when they are wrong
And many of the

nice try, but it doesn't change the fact that CA is nations leading industrial state

it takes much more energy to cool a house of 10 people with AC than it does to cool a house of 3 people

and you'd still be wrong: CA electrical usage by household is about 30% lower than Wyoming, but there are states that have lower household consumption than CA, but they also don't have as much industrial usage as CA
http://www.pointclickswitch.com/household-energy-consumption/
it must hurt to be as wrong as frequently as you are
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, December 13, 2014 7:28:47 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:

Thanks for confirming what I just told you. It was not deregulation. Wiki calls it partial deregulation. Even that is probably not correct. They substituted one regulated system with another poorly conceived one. The utilities had to buy their power from exchanges. The utilities could not contract long term for energy, lock in cheap rates. That isn't deregulation.
And nice try in the attempt to pin it on Pete Wilson. Yeah, the stupid thing was passed when he was governor. So, he has some responsibility. But the Democrats controlled the legislature, they crafted the bill, they voted for it. And Wilson was long gone before any crisis resulted. I guess Democrat Grey Davis, the still heavily Democrat legislature and all the state regulators were just too dumb to see what was happening and do something to correct it? I bet you blame Bush too.

You really need to take a course in basic math.

How many fabs or any manufacturing facilities does Intel have in CA today? Apple? I suspect those "industrial" numbers include companies like Intel, Apple, Google, that actually don't manufacture a damn thing in CA. They have their headquarters there, they have their engineering there, but manufacturing has long since fled. Intel closed all it's fabs in CA and fled to Oregon, NM, Arizona, Ireland... AMD did too. I'll bet they are still on your list of "industry". Industry <> manufacturing.

More typical lib loon nonsense. Does it take as much energy as it would if those 10 people were living in 3 separate houses? That's the obvious point. Good grief.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

so now we ask how did deregulation occur and the answer is: business asked for alternatives to power monopolies, the CPUC listening to its constituency declared its intent to deregulate, republican Jim Brulte introduces AB 1890 and all the republicans are now happy. so if you want to blame the mess, blame it on the gov't responding to (republican) businessmen

do you not understand the fact that California is apparently the nations leading industrial state?

and of course there must be no manufacturing because being the nations leading industrial state means there must be less manufacturing than elsewhere

typical conservative nonsense: it was you that said 10 people in ONE house.
That's

yes, you will keep weaseling what you think you mean in order to promote your conservative nonsense
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, December 14, 2014 2:51:35 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:

The Democrats that controlled the state legislature at the time it was passed were on holiday? MIA? or just stupid? Of course they deserve a good part of the blame. And again, it was years from the time that CA substituted a new byzantine regulated system for what was already regulated. And then for years, Pete Wilson was gone, but the Dems couldn't change it, see what was happening. You had Dems in control of the legislature, a Dem governor. I suppose it's Bush's fault too.

Industrial <> manufacturing jobs. Do you not understand that CA is also the largest state, so comparing it to FL or DE is meaningless?

Simple questions. What does Intel, $28Bil in revenue build in CA? Apple? If it's such a swell environment for manufacturing, why did they flee?

That's right and it was you who couldn't do the simple math to understand the energy used by a house, when divided by 10 instead of 3, results in lower per capita energy usage. A house with 10 occupants will use somewhat more energy than one with 3, but anyone with a brain knows that per capita it's going to be less in the house with 10. Capiche?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually Alaska is the largest state so you are also geographically challenged
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1008.pdf
California has about 11% of the total american population and about 14% of the american manufacturing establishments and about 11% of the total manufacturing jobs...so you desire to compare it by area is not only foolish, but wrong as usual 11% population ~ 11% total manufacturing jobs

who cares who builds what in CA? CA is the leading industrial state. what does Intel build in Wyoming? what does anyone build in Wyoming? hell even Texas which is basically #2 only has about 50% of the manufacturing jobs that CA has
but since you don't know how to research, here's a link to most of the manufacturing companies in CA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Manufacturing_companies_based_in_Ca lifornia

do you understand that per capita means per person? it doesn't matter how many people live in a house, what matters is that CA in total has the lowest per capita energy usage of any state in the US and that despite having the largest industrial base
A house with 10 occupants

anyone with a brain knows that you wouldn't compare per capita to per household, but just to make it fun, 3 houses would actually use more electricity than 1 house
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, December 15, 2014 3:08:59 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:

You're confused again. Who measures manufacturing "establishments"? Like, what the hell is that? Let's look at maunfacturing jobs as a percent of non-farm employment. California is at 8.2% Indiana is 17%, Wisconsin 16%, Iowa 14%, Michigan 14%..... There are 31 states ahead of California. How about manufacturing as a percent of state gross product? California is 11%. Indiana is 30%. There are 29 states ranked higher.
And no, I'm not geographically challenged. We're not talking about geographic size, we're talking about manufacturing relative to total state economic output or population size. That's clearly what I meant when I said CA is the largest state. The above fairly reflects where CA ranks in manufacturing when you look at it in terms of percent of jobs or percent of economic output.

I guess you don't because you want to count manufacturing "establishments". Noboby really gives a rat's ass about that, because you could have 100 small manufacturing "establishments" and then you could have a Ford.
CA is the leading industrial state.

It's not an issue of what Intel builds in CA. The issue is Intel is a prime example of a company that was founded in CA, that had multiple fabs in CA employing tens of thousands. They fled and today they dont build a damn thing in CA. Same with AMD and most other semiconductor compannies. Does Apple build anything in CA anymore? Why do you think Intel fled to AZ, OR, NM, Ireland, if CA is such a great place for manufacturing? You libs killed the golden goose.

Yawn.....

Of course I understand it. If you divide the energy usage of the same kind of house by 3 people and then instead cram 10 illegal aliens in it, which gives you the lower per capita energy usage? Does it mean the house is suddenly using less energy? That some miracle has been achieved? Of course not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

once again, who cares? but since I gave you a link from the census bureau, it only makes sense to beleive that the census bureau did the measuring. but then again, since you don't challenge the jobs, CA with the largest chunk of total population having approx the same percentage of jobs speaks loudly to size

so now CA has the largest state economic output. thank you

and you'd still have 11% of total manufacturing jobs

libs killed the golden goose while creating the largest goose farm.

right, facts don't matter to conservatives, only your anger

per capita isn't being used to measure energy use per house but energy use of the entire state, but you knew that, didn't you?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, December 15, 2014 8:07:20 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:

Apparently you do, because *you* brought up the number of "manufacturing establishments". Which of course is a joke. You could have 100 local sheet metal shops instead of one Ford. Of course no economists care about that. So, you're right about the who cares part, but it was you who brought it up, not me.
but since I gave you a link from the census

You're failing math again. California has 8% of non-farm employment in manufacturing. Indiana has 17%. 17% is not "approximately the same percentage". Counting down the list, 31 states are ahead of CA. That's why you're reduced to counting "manufacturing establishments". Companies like Intel, AMD, Apple who once had large manufacturing head counts in CA, now have none.

Which means what? I never denied that, or said otherwise. I could redraw some state lines, make big states out of small ones, and they'd have a big economic output too. And big economic output <> being a good place for manufacturing.

California is a huge state. Told you before. As a percentage of non-farm employment, CA is 31 in manufacturing jobs.

Yes and that's why I told you that in CA, where you have 10 illegal aliens crammed into a house that normally 3 people would live in, it lowers the per capita energy consumption. When you have people living in a 500 ft studio, because all the taxes, regulation and kook lib ideas have jacked housing costs to the roof, you're going to use less energy than people living in a 3 bedroom house in OH. Does that make it a good thing, that per capita energy consumpiton is lower in CA, like you're achieved some revolutionary thing?
PS: If you libs could learn to trim, it would be a good thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I brought it up because you don't believe that CA is the largest Manufacturing state, apparently because Intel doesn't make chips there. Of course to you 100 sheet metal shops employing 100's of people is less important than one Ford

I also counted manufacturing jobs

once again, who cares. CA has Douglas, Hughes, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Rocketdyne, Tesla, Aerojet and many more

it was you who brought up manufacturing

cherry picking anyone

only for that house
When you have people

but according to you Libs ARE revolutionary

that would be to revolutionary for me
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 2:06:58 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:

I never said CA isn't the largest manufacturing state. If a state is large, it can still be a less favorable environment for manufacturing, but because of it's shear size, still be #1. That's why we look at manufacturing jobs as percentage of employment, manufacturing output as a percentage of gross product. When you go to put a plant somewhere, do you look at what state has the most manufacturing output? Or do you look for which state has the lowest taxes, less regulation, less looney lib laws, necessary skilled workforce at reasonable wages, etc? And factor in cost of energy too. That's where this started.
And yes, one Ford is better than 100 sheet metal shops, employing 100. 100 x 100 = 10,000 Ford employs 250,000
And it's not just Intel that fled the state. CA was the birthplace of the semiconductor industry. All the semi manufacturers had all their fabs there. Today, IDK of any that still do. There might be some small boutique ones, but the majors all fled. And in many cases it was not internationally, it was within the USA. That's why Intel is a good example. Do you think they went to OR, AZ, NM because they liked the weather?

Now try normalizing it for the size of the state.

Most of which are living off the largess of the US taxpayer in the form of defense contracts. The high costs of your lib state just get passed on to Joe taxpayer. That's why they survive. Other industry has fled. Just imagine if you had a more favorable business climate there, what might be.
I see Douglas is on your list. Must be a real old list. Douglas became McDonald Douglas. It *was* a major aircraft manufacturer. McDonnel Douglas was bought out by Boeing. Which brings us to a relevant news item from just this year:
Boeing shutting down C-17 military transport production early
By John Gillie
Staff writerApril 7, 2014
Boeing will shut down production of the last major aircraft built in California in mid-2015, three months earlier than it had predicted, the company said Monday.
The closure of production at Boeing's 1.1 million-square-foot assembly plant in Long Beach will mark the end of production of large aircraft in California, once the center of the aircraft industry in the United States.
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/04/07/3137516/boeing-shutting-down-c-17-military.html#storylink=cpy

Again, you really are math challenged. If I put 10 people into a house instead of 3, it lowers per capita energy consumption for both the house and the entire state.

I never said any such thing.

Apparently so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

so it take 250000 employees to build one Ford? no wonder American auto manufacturers relocate overseas

You don?t hear many people talking about how great California?s manufacturing industry is doing. In fact, it?s regularly called out as an industry in demise in the state. How then do we account for the data ? which shows that over the past decade, California?s manufacturing industry has been one of the state?s primary engines of economic growth? According to the latest numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the California economy has grown by 16.6% over the last ten years, and 2.6 percentage points of that growth can be attributed directly to California manufacturing. Looked at another way, nearly one-fifth of the state?s economic growth in the past decade has been due to this one industry. It doesn?t seem to make sense ? given the constant barrage of stories about manufacturing operations being shipped overseas and the industry being in decline nationwide. The big misconception has to do with employment vs. output. While manufacturing employment in California and throughout the United States has indeed declined over the years, manufacturing output has followed a completely different trend. Even after adjusting for inflation, the value of California?s manufactured goods increased by 26.8% from 2003 to 2013 (the most recent data available). This has far outpaced the industry?s performance in the rest of the nation. After netting out California, manufacturing output in the remainder of the United States grew by 17.1%, much less than the growth seen in California.
https://beaconecon.com/blog/myth_buster_manufacturing_primary_driver_grow th_california

nah, you can do it for me

and those defense contractors don't get that largesse in the other states where they add manufacturing jobs?

which must make all those conservatives who hate government largesse to defense companies very happy

if it does, it must mean that the people in the house are very efficient

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:18:55 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote :

te:

wrote:

nts"?

uring

cal

e

you

e.

ess

g,

,

l


as


ring

wth?

2.6 out of 16.6? And this you are bragging?
Looked at another way, nearly

due

I keep telling you, you're math challenged. 2.6/16.6 = .156 That's not "nearly a fifth".

I already did.

what

Of course they do. It's just that companies that can stick it to the govt to recoop the high costs are much better able to survive in CA. Those that can't, ie those that aren't living off govt contracts, most of them have to flee.

nnel


plant

es.

-17-mil


Irrelevant. It's a good example, along with semiconductors of another manu facturing industry where CA was dominant, that's gone. Even Detroit ain't that bad. They still actually manufacture cars there.

nergy

No, it's basic math.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/smartinez/missing_the_big_picture_about .html
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/state_briefs/pdf/ CA.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 8:29:18 PM UTC-5, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote :

rote:


lds

0

care

was


there.

is

uring,

t

here,

s

tc?

00.

o

of

ir

small

ot

he

?s

out as

ta

manufacturing

growth?


been due

l

et

has

ere,


ws

n

the

bly



wn-c-17

to


t

ut

egal

n,

ouse

ent

Which proves what, exactly? The second reference say that CA uses 31% less energy than the US average. A bullet point later, they say it's due to the mild CA climate. Then they say that CA still pays about the same amount for electricity as the rest of the USA, because the rates are so much higher. Less usage due to climate, higher rates due to CA moonbeam policie s.
The first link is totally dishonest, ignoring the major fact that CA mild climate leads to lower energy usage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it also makes statements about the higher usage in the northern part of CA. the first link shows that CA have lower electric bills even with higher rates
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.