totoop t1_jamqx9h wrote
Reply to comment by relbatnrut in City to introduce Providence Community Electricity Program, offer electricity at lower rates than Rhode Island Energy by relbatnrut
If the rates are fixed for the 6 months of May-November.....what happens after November?
degggendorf t1_jamtrpq wrote
They will be adjusted according to market pricing and projections.
Cutting out one profit-making link in the chain is a good step forward, but it still doesn't affect the global energy market that we're all stuck in.
Real change will come from us surging toward our renewable energy goals...don't have to worry about what a war in Eastern Europe (and corporations using it as an excuse to make record profits) will do to global natural gas pricing when our wind turbines will keep spinning regardless.
totoop t1_jamvav3 wrote
I'm not skeptical of this specifically due to renewables.
I'm skeptical that this is being spun as a way to bring down people's electric bills for 6 months (and you're automatically opted in to it? Is that correct, the wording in article makes it seem that way) and then prices revert to the market rate AND the electric option you've been opted into has a higher % of energy produced by renewables compared to RI Energy then couldn't you assume your bill after November will actually end up being higher then what you paid previously to RI Energy?
degggendorf t1_jan4v0z wrote
> (and you're automatically opted in to it? Is that correct, the wording in article makes it seem that way)
Yes, that's how the "supplier of last resort" works; that's who supplies power to anyone who hasn't specifically chosen a provider.
> and then prices revert to the market rate
To be clear, it will be adjusted according to the energy market (like happens now with RIE), not set to equal the market rate or any other supplier.
> the electric option you've been opted into has a higher % of energy produced by renewables compared to RI Energy
The default supply is the state minimum % renewable; that can't be higher than RIE % renewable. edit: I misread, this is incorrect
> then couldn't you assume your bill after November will actually end up being higher then what you paid previously to RI Energy?
No, you can assume it will be cheaper, since a non-profit-taking entity (PVD Community Electricity) is replacing a profit-taking entity (RIE) in the process.
totoop t1_jan6gpz wrote
Gotcha, thanks for the explanation I do now see your point about PVD Community vs RIE. I'm still hung up on this sentence though I suppose;
"The contract awarded to NextEra Energy Services sets the default supply and pricing provided to participating customers to include 10% more renewable energy than the state minimum."
That just seems at odds with;
"...and an option with only the minimum amount of renewable energy...."
What am I missing here? It seems like the default plan option, with the lowest % of renewables, is described as having the state minimum in one place and then described as having 10% more than the state minimum - do I just need another coffee?
degggendorf t1_jan7jkd wrote
No, you're right, I misread. I thought it was saying it's 10% renewable, which is the state minimum, but that's clearly incorrect.
Renewables should theoretically have lower generation costs which would enable lower pricing, but then that doesn't square with the higher % renewable options being more expensive.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_janqgou wrote
>Real change will come from us surging toward our renewable energy goals.
Or the people who hold back nuclear just shutting the fuck up. Cause we already have a pretty good stopgap solution that we just refuse to use to its full potential.
YogiBarr t1_jc84atx wrote
I just finished the book "Atoms and Ashes: A Global History of Nuclear Accidents" by Sergii Plokhy" (published May 17, 2022). Plokhy is an historian at Harvard. The track record for the use, management and safety record of nuclear materials is abysmal.
Wind and solar are five times cheaper right now than nuclear. The nuclear industry never quite calculates the cost for long term storage of its nuclear waste when promoting itself, either, so the cost is undoubtedly even higher than that.
We have stopgap with fossil fuels and longterms solutions available in renewables, especially if we make use of other technologies like tapping deep geo-thermal, tidal etc.
But of course, as you so elegantly point out, people should just 'shut the fuck up' and allow the nuclear industry to poison the earth and foist its con job on future generations .
wenestvedt t1_jamscjz wrote
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
StonksGuy3000 t1_jan1jbt wrote
That was my first question too, and it’s a fair one, but obviously the rate will never be guaranteed indefinitely. Only time will tell whether it’s a great deal or not
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments