already a subscriber? Register me
Subscribe now See my options

Green-power, low-energy users get brunt of utility rate increase

The sting of the We Energies rate increase that just went into effect will hurt most for those who use less energy and those who buy green power. »Read Full Article

© 2014, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved.

  • We reserve the right to close commenting on specific stories.

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Limit of 2000 characters, 2000 characters remaining

Sort by
Comment threads per page: 10 | 20 | 50
  1. Thomas, great reporting, thanks to you and your editors.

    "Conserve," is the root of "conservative."
  2. I wonder if the rate increase for Green energy folks ( the ones who pay a litle more for Green Energy_)will slow down the amount of People who are willing to pay a little more for it?
    Also,it has to bring up the obvious question,Is Green Energy more expensive? The Green energy supporters claim its not,in fact,some say its cheaper,well, this says other wise.
    Hide replies
    • No - it doesn't say that at all. But with a slow world economy & unusually low gas prices, it might be true right now. But what the gov't sanctioned monopoly chooses to charge (and gets rubber stamped by the PSC) has only marginal relation to cost.
    • It's more expensive because the coal dominated utility has a vested interest in keeping it expensive.
    • No it is more expensive because the power is difuse and inconsistent.
    • Welcome to the Carbon Con, it's just beginning. PJM Interconnection, the company that operates the electric grid for 13 states held its 2015 capacity auction. The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt!!


      Internal Cult memo:
      "And since auction of carbon emission rights is not marketed as a tax increase, it is extremely attractive to policymakers. Nevertheless, the cost of electric power to consumers could significantly increase. ..."

      Wake up people!!
    • It is much more expensive to produce "green" energy. One of the reasons is that green energy will not produce power on demand, like coal and natural gas. Therefore, you need the coal and natural gas systems as backup.....good luck with that green energy.
    • Cheaper doesn't mean it's right.

      Also, new technology is always more expensive until it ramps up volume.

      Did you buy a $6000 plasma TV?
    • You can't be that ignorant. Wind power is NOT a "new technology", try about 500 years ago with the Dutch, perhaps older in other cultures. Speaking of the Dutch:

      Even the Dutch fall out of love with windmills
      (Reuters) - When the Netherlands built its first sea-based wind turbines in 2006, they were seen as symbols of a greener future.... But five years later the green future looks a long way off. Faced with the need to cut its budget deficit, the Dutch government says offshore wind power is too expensive and that it cannot afford to subsidize the entire cost. The government now plans to transfer the financial burden to households and industrial consumers in order to secure the funds for wind power and try to attract private sector investment. It will start billing consumers and companies in January 2013"

      "Alternative energy, let us never forget, is just that: an alternative to energy."

      England 2010 with their "Green Dream". A climate similar to ours:

      In the recent frigid snap in Britain at the end 2010, when power demand was at a record high, the average power generation from Britain’s wind developments – the majority of which are in Scotland – was just about 11% of the total possible of 2,430 MW. On 30 Dec 2010 UK's 3,000 operational wind turbines produced only 0.04% of the country’s power. There were days when the contribution from Scotland's forests of wind turbines was precisely nothing.

      At times it was even worse than that.

      As the temperature fell to record lows, the wind turbines had to be heated to prevent them seizing up. So, at a time when all Britain needed every bit of power, the wind industry was using more electricity than it generated.

      Britons kept warm because of the old reliables - coal, gas and French nuclear power.

      Fact: Even the best sited wind farms rarely produce peak output during peak demand

      BTW, no one force me to buy a plasma TV regardless of price.
    • Farmers have wind mills on their farms for a reason.Look at almost all the old farms out there and you will find a windmill
    • Of course the did and do. I spent several years inventorying windmills as water sources in the West. Nearly all of them were used to pump water to storage troughs for their cattle. If the wind didn't blow for several days it was no big deal, there was usually a weeks worth of water in the trough.

      They weren't trying to power a 21st century economy!
    • Maybe this whole thing is to jack up the cost of energy,force you to use less,but pay the same price,enviros can claim victory as we use less and they can push their Global Warming claim,the companies can make the same money and produce less and we can feel good for using less energy but pay the same,so the consumer gets it in the end unless you dont mind paying the same or more for less.
  3. This is one Green energy proponent who will opt out as soon as possible. Ludicrous.......
    Hide replies
  4. How does this affect the CEOs? Do they get to keep their multi-million dollar salaries, stock options, and perks? Or does all of this get dumped on the customers (who will pay more) and the lower-level employees (who will get paid less)?
    Hide replies
  5. "Meanwhile, the premium paid by We Energies' green-power customers went up 74%"

    Maybe the hippies will finally realize the truth -- this green energy fad is not economically viable, and probably won't be for decades to come. They need to embrace natural gas, which is cheaper, abundant, and cleaner than coal.
    Hide replies
  6. You haven't seen anything yet on the price of energy. Obama's second term includes an anti-carbon push to further push us away from fossil fuel use, regardless of lack of viable options. Why has he not yet approved the XL pipeline project, a way to substantially increase employment? He does not care that much about unemployment, but instead continues to push his agenda instead.
    Hide replies
  7. Yes, alternative energy sources and technologies are more expensive than mature energy sources. Alternative energy sources are less efficient than traditional energy sources that can produce power nearly constantly; the Sun shines approximately half the time and the wind blows usefully about a third of the time.

    The ultimate source of alternative energy is the Sun light reaching the ground, about 5 kWh·m^-2·day^-1.

    Those who fail to do arithmetic are doomed, not least to nonsense. Have you ever seen a windmill touted as anything but an investment? There are no advertisements of power-moguls having bought a windmill, "And you can too! But wait. Call in the next 30 minutes ..."
  8. You might just start pushing people off the grid. Technology is improving and the need for a central power producer is diminishing over time.

    WE Energies should hire a better CEO, one who has a long-term business plan.
    Hide replies
  9. There are at least two components to an individual's electric bill, the cost of the electricity and the cost of delivering the electricity. A low volume user still must pay the shared cost of the delivery infrastructure, making that fixed cost a larger fraction of the total bill.

    The Sun delivers energy worth about 10¢ per square meter. Fossil-fuel has banked this same value rate over eons.

    Who fails to do arithmetic is doomed.
  10. Makes perfect sense to me, green energy is more expensive and less efficient to produce so it costs more for those who want it. I will stick to clean coal and natural gas, thank you...
    Hide replies
    • Are you also for people customers being charged more, even if they are using less energy?
    • No one is saying that you or anyone else cannot continue to use as much energy as you wish, however, if I buy energy efficient appliances, turn off unused lights, keep my house cooler in winter and warmer in summer, replace windows, siding and roofing in an effort to save money, I should not be punished by paying a higher rate. Then when we are told what the company profits are and how much the CEO earns, it is truly a slap in the face to lower income customers, who struggle just to pay their bills. In addition, people in poverty are eligible for eneergy assistance, which is really taxpayer funded welfare for the energy companies, so we get hit from several angles.
    • I agree with you.but ill play devils advocate..If we all use a ton of energy,they they will charge an arm and a leg for having to produce it and we may get to the point where we need a foreign source ( if they are running oil for energy)
      I agree wit Buckskin as i prefer clean coal ( if theres such thing) and Natural Gas ( if fracking is proven to not pollute which with technology today can easily be done) ( its just depends on the honesty of the reports/ research and who is doing them,as most have an angle)
      Personally i prefer Nuclear,No green house emmisions that cause " Global Warming" and with some time and reserch we can produce Nuclear with little waste and the waste being much less toxic and we wont have to store it nearly as long and after a while, we can use the waste as well..
      Like at Nuclear Subs,the Navy has used them for 60 or more years,with no accidents ect. but thats just my opinion,i just think its terrible how Nuclear,clean coal tech,and Diesel has been demonized with false info and how much HELP they can be toward energy independence but they dont fit the agenda of a certain side
    • @10granny. For the most part, I agree with your post, but I don't think of heating assistance to the poor, a federally funded program, as corporate welfare. Yes, the program is funded by taxpayers. However, the funding level is a pittance. Even for the very poor, it covers only a small fraction of their winter heating costs. WE's increase in fixed costs and rates will not result in the poor receiving more federal heating assistance. It will result in more being unable to pay their utility bils and facing shut-offs. In particular, low income households will be disproportionately affected by the increase in fixed rate. WE's greed is shameful.
    • Perhaps we all need to buy a single share in the company and then attend the meetings en masse to protest...
BusinessWatch Delivered

E-mail Newsletter


Get the Newsletter!

Login or Register to manage all your newsletter preferences.
National Business Video

From the AP

National business coverage from the Associated Press