Lower Bills? Green Energy Keeps Them Climbing.

by Steve Haner

Customer cost projections for compliance with the Virginia Clean Economy Act have increased again from the first such estimates made in 2020.  The bill for 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity from Dominion Energy Virginia to power a home for a month may rise almost $100, or 83%, by 2035.

Dominion residential customers were already paying $288 (21%) more per year for 1,000 kilowatt hours per month by December 2022, compared to May 2020, just before VCEA became law.  That will cost another $547 annually by 2030 and $878 more by 2035.  Cost projections are even higher for commercial and industrial customers.

After all the hyped discussion coming out of the 2023 General Assembly that regulatory changes it made will “lower electricity bills,” it is important to face reality.  Ignore claims from any incumbents who say they voted to “lower bills.”  VCEA compliance is still going to be very expensive, and nothing just passed changes any of that.

The most recent figures are very similar and slightly higher than those reported in 2020.  They were filed last year by the utility as part of the annual VCEA compliance plan, outlining its planned conversion from fossil fuel generation to massive amounts of wind and solar power over the next two decades.

The baseline comparison is $116.18 per 1,000 kwh for May 2020.  The predictions above use a calculation method preferred by the State Corporation Commission staff, which projected that bill would be $185.81 monthly at the end of 2030 and $213.36 by the end of 2035. Not all of that is directly tied to VCEA compliance, but most of it is.

Dominion prefers another calculation method with some more favorable assumptions, but even the company sees those bills rising to $165.64 by 2030 and $177.48 by 2035.  That is still $61 a month ($736 per year, 53%) more than the pre-VCEA electricity cost.

The figures were included in the filing Dominion made for additional solar and storage facilities needed to comply with VCEA. That case is about to wrap up.  They are also contained in the integrated resource plan it filed with the SCC in 2022, which is summarized on the company’s webpage.

 Dominion Remains Worried About Reliability

This is also all based on the future development plan preferred by the company, designated “Plan B” in both documents, which complies with the VCEA but does not retire the company’s natural gas generation as rapidly as many environmental advocates are demanding.  Other alternatives mapped out retire them more rapidly.  In the application the company repeats a warning mantra that one day will turn into an “I told you so”:

 … if other states pursue the same clean energy future as the Company resulting in significant volumes of intermittent resources with the same operational profiles as the Company’s, the Company may not be able to fill any deficits in specific hours with market purchases.

In other words, soon it won’t be possible to import power from other states which have coal and natural gas power to share when our solar or wind are offline:  they will have closed their fossil plants too.   Such imports have soared in Virginia since passage of the VCEA and since Virginia began imposing a carbon tax on its own native fossil fuel generators.

One additional caveat is that the financial impact of the recent federal changes in renewable energy incentives is still unclear.  Federal subsidies or tax preferences could lower the future bills, but it is important to remember that those costs are ultimately paid instead by taxpayers rather than ratepayers (and Virginians are both).  Quite a bit of key guidance on the new legislation is still pending at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.  Things should be clearer for the next update.

The various cost projections are found in Attachment 11, starting on page 51 of this document.  This report focuses on Dominion’s Plan B, with its residential costs compiled on page 67.  That is the VCEA-compliant plan that keeps natural gas in play as long as possible.

That page is where you see, for example, that the total bill for that 1,000 kwh residential user had already climbed to $140.21 by December of 2022, a 21% increase since May 2020.

 Another Offshore Wind Farm is Included

The new generation assets in that Plan B include the second phase of offshore wind, with the utility expecting the additional turbines off Virginia Beach to be operational by about 2033 (six years after the first project.)  The net cost of offshore wind to that consumer is projected to rise from $3.42 per month this coming December to $22.87 by December 2035.

Since all this was published in late 2022, other proposed wind projects off the east coast of the United States have complained of major price pressures on their construction plans, with similar projects in Europe also claiming they need more money to operate.  Whether Dominion has adjusted its estimate for the cost of Phase 2 is not discussed.

Rider CE, the rate adjustment clause covering the solar farms at the heart of the current application for additional solar resources, is projected to rise from $2.97 per month this coming December to $20.65 by December 2035.  A new rate adjustment clause is expected to be created to cover the various power purchase agreements, again mainly for solar, needed to meet VCEA.

A key thing to remember is that both the wind and solar cost projections are “net” and include assumed values of “benefits” to customers for avoided fuel costs and the avoided need to purchase renewable energy certificates or to make capacity payments. You can see them on the spreadsheet as negative numbers, reducing the bottom line cost.  If those assumptions do not pan out, the monthly cost to consumers will rise.

Dominion’s Plan B adds a cost projection line for small modular nuclear reactors but enters zeros across the board indicating there is no real plan to go that route soon; at least not in Plan B.

Projections like these not only can change but will change.  This is a planning tool at best.  Costs could be lower, but that is not what you should plan for.

First published today by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

28 responses to “Lower Bills? Green Energy Keeps Them Climbing.”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I’m not disagreeing per se but pointing out the cost increases for electricity are ongoing right now, long before 2035 and the reality is that natural gas prices are likely to continue to be far more costly than even Dominion-built renewables.

    And the obvious question is why would anyone opposed renewables if they are a cheaper fuel that can be used instead of more expensive gas when they are available even if not available 24/7?

    It’s like we’ve gone stupid on this issue.

    This is a Georgia news but we have it ongoing in Virginia right now as the price of natural gas is pretty much the same no matter the state.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/497a9f043f95cb4505db7545fd498a9e3eacd4289cf3f40f3f874e2a07deecfa.jpg
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4500d4fbb84df48340d13bf4c6492b3813203616196db1becc2b510277936e24.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3684630ce8bd9be5b1c54d65587ce413acb6fa2dd7bd61adf8c8058f56055775.jpg

    https://martinsvillebulletin.com/news/local/power-bills-skyrocket/article_6a62b8c0-9bf7-11ed-aef2-6b2d6cf950f3.html

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Interesting. So the increased electricity prices attributed to higher natural gas prices is a lie and even the regulators are believing it?

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Depends on when you are looking. Futures contracts were high in March when Larry’s article was written… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f6f74f28ade2c6cde9c26c6b83bf9b1d9cbba4df7080ed7ce427eacee2e8c415.jpg

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Natural gas is going to vary in price over time but banking on it to remain a cheap fuel for decades ahead is probably not a reasonable strategy.

          Renwables, OTOH, ought to not increase in costs more than ordinary infaltion.

          It’s not like we won’t need gas for reliability, reasonable folks on both sides don’t dispute that.

          The question is how much of it do we want to burn for electricity when it costs more than renewables?

          That’s the thing that does not make sense from the opponents.

        2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          If fuel prices are a pass-through charge, that charge should be lowered now. If it’s a built-in cost, a complaint could be filed alleging that, because of lowered natural gas prices, the current rates are no longer just and reasonable. As I recall, from my old Dominion bills in Virginia, fuel was a pass-through charge.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I think it has to do with long-term contract pricing. They really should not fluctuate wildly.

          2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            It all depends on what the long-term agreement is based on. What are the assumptions about the price of natural gas. But I’d argue that should be considered only as a part the charge for electricity and not as a rider. A rider should be based on current costs, which can be expected to fluctuate up and down.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It’s likely both. A power company could “lock in” some amount of gas for the season but if they did not lock in enough, they would then have to pay full market rates and they are allowed to pass both on to ratepayers.

            The point about natural gas is that it does fluctuate in price – both the “futures” which effect buying a “contract” of quantity at a given price as well as paying the spot market rate for gas beyond what you locked in.

            I don’t see anything particularly nefarious about it.

            The longer term thing is, should we view future costs of natural gas to be “stable” and similar to costs today – as a reason – to oppose building more renewables that are said to be more costly than currently claimed?

            Between the two , which is likely to skyrocket in cost in the future? Renewables? Probably fossil fuels.

            What’s the “PLan B” for the future if fossil fuels keep increasing in price? What should be our strategy?

            Nukes are not going to do it. They cost way more now and in the future. SMRs are said to cost as much per kilowatt as big nukes cost right now and SMRs are not even close to being deployed commercially for years to come.

            Finally, I just calculated how much I average per hour for electricity on a 24/7 basis for the month,

            It’s 20 cents an hour.

            What is it we’re upset about?

            Can you name anything else that is that cheap?

      3. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I think you might be looking at declining prices as winter starts to wind down but the prices won’t stay low when demand increases again either through imports or the need for more gas for summer demands for air conditioning and then winter again.

        Bottom line. No one is “lying”. The price of natural gas varies quite a bit according to demand and when it is in strong demand, like in winter, the price increases dramatically which, in turn, is reflected in fuel factors for electricity.

        No conspiracies… just plain old-fashioned market dynamics that will continue to affect commodity prices for fossil fuels.

        1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          Of course, we’ve been lied to over and over again. We’ve been told that the cost for renewable energy sources per unit was below that for fossil fuel sources. Ergo, electric rates for the former, be they stand-alone or as a cost input, should be lower that the stand-alone costs or costs inputs for the latter.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Lied to by who?

            Right now, the increases in electric bills is not due to renewables, it’s due to increased cost of Natural Gas especially in very cold or very hot weather when demand for it is high.

            It works similar to gasoline prices that can and do change on a weekly, even a daily basis in high demand periods.

            The thing to keep in mind is that banking on fossil fuels not increasing in price for decades is not a reasonable expectation.

            Is it also not reasonable for renewables?

            the “lying” part would have to be all parties to be true – the industry as a whole as well as regulators, and others… that’s essentially a conspiracy argument that reasonable people don’t get sucked into IMO and I’ll admit there are no shortage of folks these days that are all in on conspiracy theories about a lot of things.

      4. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Oil and gas prices are low right now

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I don’t disagree with you and I note that you did state that not all the projected cost increases were related to VCEA. However, your tone and frequent references to “pre-VCEA” costs could lead a reader to associate all the cost increases with VCEA. There are some other significant increased costs. For example, I think the RAC for cleaning up the coal ash pits kicked in around 2020. And then there is the recovery of higher fuel costs experienced in this past year, which will be spread out, thanks to the GA, over many years and end up costing us more.

    As a general question, what assumptions are built into the projections regarding the base rate? After all, there will be costs to deliver electricity, regardless of the source of the power, and those costs will be subject to inflationary pressures. Also, what assumption is built into the projections regarding Dominion’s ROE rate? That, of course, is related to the base rate. I am not asking for details, but just general trends–no change, increases, decreases?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The spreadsheets seem to show the base rate quite stable, which indeed could prove too optimistic. And it is based on the 9.35% ROE which was in force when these were done, but which will go to 9.7% in July if Youngkin signs that bill. In the out years, hard to predict ROE. Again, this is why models are just…models. Another assumption: RGGI goes away, which is still hardly a done deal. That’s another $5 a month for many starting in September if Dominion gets to put it back on the bill.

  3. Virginia’s energy policy is so FUBAR that I actually find myself reassured to see that Dominion is still concerned about ensuring the long-term reliability of the electric grid. Needless to say, Dominion wants to ensure reliability on its terms, and pursuing an energy mix that results in widespread blackouts and brownouts is not a model for sustained profitability, so it’s in Dominion’s self interest to ensure reliability. As for the environmentalists, I see no corresponding concerns. From what I can tell, it’s Zero Carbon or Bust.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Yes, in the rhetoric on the various alternatives Dominion raises reliability concerns over too much reliance on third party solar PPAs. That’s a bit of an obvious bias. 🙂

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Can’t say what I’ve done differently this year over last, but my Dominion bill is less than last year and my VNG has skyrocketed.

    I have one rule on the boat; don’t spit to windward. Only it’s not spit.

  5. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    I would encourage those who will disagree with me to dive into the data in the Dominion document I linked, the 2022 update to its Integrated Resources Plan. The more solar-and-wind centered alternatives that the company modeled showed about the same customer cost by 2035. It’s all models, and as I like to note, all models are wrong but some models are useful. These are useful. Dominion’s rationale for preferring Plan B and keeping much of the fossil fuel plants open all the way to and past 2045 is system reliability. In the more “green” plans Dominion then pushes up the reliance on some future nuclear developments.

    Even the supposedly “lower cost” alternative Plan A is still largely a reflection of the VCEA. It has the first wave of wind, and other elements that might not have been the company’s choice without the CO2 reduction demands.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Supporters of higher taxes and higher utilities bills have no problem. They believe proper running of society requires much more taxpayer funding than we currently have.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Can’t say what I’ve done differently this year over last, but my Dominion bill is less than last year and my VNG has skyrocketed.

    I have one rule on the boat; don’t spit to windward. Only it’s not spit.

  7. William Chambliss Avatar
    William Chambliss

    I agree with Steve that compliance with the VCEA is driving and will continue to drive costs upward, but the lion’s share of the difference between May 2020 and the end of 2023 is the price of fuel, which increases from $17.36 to $49.09 over that time frame. See, p. 67 of the linked document. The total bill rises from about $116 to (I believe) $153 over this period. Thus, fuel appears to account for about $31.50 of the total $37 increase. (The numbers are very hard to read, so my math may be wrong.)

  8. William Chambliss Avatar
    William Chambliss

    I agree with Steve that compliance with the VCEA is driving and will continue to drive costs upward, but the lion’s share of the difference between May 2020 and the end of 2023 is the price of fuel, which increases from $17.36 to $49.09 over that time frame. See, p. 67 of the linked document. The total bill rises from about $116 to (I believe) $153 over this period. Thus, fuel appears to account for about $31.50 of the total $37 increase. (The numbers are very hard to read, so my math may be wrong.)

  9. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Scotty is selling dilithium crystals for 4 bucks a box on ebay. What is Dominion waiting for?
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/da57b4d539d631796e08e388ca2f022c44f4d71ae7ac341ecccf8d4dd7be124b.jpg

  10. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Was just seeing that Massachusetts electricity cost has skyrocketed to 37 cents/KwHr. Home solar makes sense because net-metering gives you high price for your extra power back to the grid. Anyways this is where we are heading, directionally.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      that’s as high as Hawaii and other islands that mostly burn diesel.. no?

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        I do not know about Hawaii, believe New England is somewhat dependent on LNG which may be high cost.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          most islands don’t have native fossil fuels and have to import it and it’s usually diesel and the
          cost per kilowatt hour is around 30 cents. I cannot imagine that domestic supplied NG costs any
          where near that unless it’s some sort of spot pricing during a high demand period.

Leave a Reply