Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Doing the math on Duke's rate hike

Duke Energy Carolinas filed 5,012 pages of written testimony, data analyses and appendices Monday in support of its request for an overall 9.7 percent North Carolina rate hike.

Buried in all those numbers is one that's most relevant to most customers: 14 percent. That's the increase the majority of residential customers are being asked to pay.

Duke's news release said the hike, if approved by the N.C. Utilities Commission, would raise residential rates 11.8 percent. That's actually a weighted average of the five rate schedules available to residential customers, including cheaper Energy Star and time-of-use rates.

But most customers are billed under Schedule RS. According to Duke's example of the impact residential customers could expect, the typical monthly bill of $102.72 would grow by $14.27 -- a 14 percent increase.

Remember, too, that customer groups and the state's consumer advocates will pressure Duke to lower the rates it's willing to accept before the Utilities Commission votes.
 


11 comments:

Skippy said...

January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in which Barack Obama promised to bankrupt anyone foolish enough to build coal-burning power plants, he also made an interesting admission about his entire energy plan. Obama told the editors that his policies would make energy prices “skyrocket” as the energy industry passed along the exorbitant costs of his policies from the big fat liberal lie that is global warming...

You whiberals voted for this now sit back and enjoy the rewards and for that I thank you, we all thank you.

Low information voters indeed and it is only going to get worse.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to the wonders of Quantitative Easing.

Thanks for flooding the world with worthless money, Mr. Bernanke.

Nameless said...

5 years ago we changed 99% of our light bulbs to high efficiency types. We added insulation, Installed a high efficiency heat pump, wrapped the water heater, updated our inefficient appliances,started washing all clothes in cold water, etc. Yet my monthly bill is already $50 more per month that it was 5 years ago. The Duke rate increases remind me of the summer the city said conserver water and we all did...then got a water rate increase because they didn't have enough revenue.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Obama say something like "under my plan, energy rates will necessarily skyrocket"? I believe he did. It was one of the few times a liberal actually was honest about what their true intentions were. Skippy is right. America is going to pay a price for what "low-information" voters have elected. With a smiling face, Obama continues to dismantle the US economy and greatly limit any economic upward mobility for those he claims to advocate for. The media will continue to tell everyone everything's okay, as the middle class' standard of living and disposable income slowly erode.

Seamus S said...

Mandate "alternative" sources and shut down coal plants and this is the direct result.

Anonymous said...

Here is a solution that make sense, therefore it has a 0% chance of being implemented: Cut out ALL so-called "green" tax breaks, investment, and other capital invested in wind, solar, and ethanol. Take that money and build newer, more efficient, and now tsunami proof nuclear reactors. Tell all the emotional and fact-less environs who hate hate people (source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/) to pound sand and then show them that you will get more radiation from eating 1 banana than you will living near a nuclear reactor for a year. (source: http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/)

The irrational fear of nuclear power has to go. Electric cars won't run on hopes and dreams. Wind power is only good when the wind is not too slow or too fast. Solar is too inefficient to satisfy the needs of the entire grid. Corn ethanol takes more energy to produce than you get out of it and it takes up massive farmland that could be used to grow food for animals or humans. Natural gas makes sense, but the fact-less environs are working hard to stop fracking, see the first link above as to why. While coal isn't as dirty as the fact-less environs claim, it isn't as efficient as natural gas.

Nuclear is very cheap and proven.

Anonymous said...

Seamus S, you fit right in with Obama's brainwashing/plan. Do a little research, if you know how, get a little knowledge, and you will come to a drastically different conclusion. Unless you are one of those that wants us all to return to living in caves and killing wildlife for food everyday.

Anonymous said...

The anonymous that said nuclear is the answer...is correct! It can be done extremely safely, is cheap and works. Anyone who thinks there is an alternative that is cheaper and better is just wasting time and money....and we are out of money. The countries that go nuclear are the countries that will have spare cash in their pockets, and their people will not be out fighting in the street for food and fuel.

Anonymous said...

Nuclear has a stimatism of being dangerous from incidents such as 3 mile and Chernoble. Those plants were all designed in the 70s when Nuclear was misunderstood.

Nuclear is the safest, cleanest and has the least environmental impact of all energy generation.

It's is just very expensive to build plants. Subsidies that and we will not have this constant price war.

Anonymous said...

They need to get back the guaranteed $10 million for the DNC.

Anonymous said...

So when Duke asks for rate hikes to cover the $11 billion in construction and licensing costs for new nuclear you'll all log back in here and tell everyone to smile and pay up? That's the estimate for the new Lee plant.