Americans Paying Record Electricity Prices

[Into the Night]

Well again I pay all these charges on top of what the power costs.
Electricity Delivery charges
Basic service charges
1) Delivery charge .09783 cents per Kwh.
2 )transition charge .00201799 cents per kwh.
3 ) Revenue decoupling mech.000118 cents per kwh.
4) SBC charge . .006629 cents per kwh
5) Recovery charge .009344 cents per KWH
Then there are the
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CHARGES.
1 ) Supply charge .09515065 cents per KWH
2) Merchant function charge .00334 cents per KWH
then Taxes on delivery charges 2.0408% ( on total bill )
Then sales tax of 3% on total bill
Looks to me to be a bunch of BS charges to pad their bottom line.
And I can't get a decent answer out of the PSC
What is a Revenue DECOUPLING mech?
A charge for decoupling me from my money?
And what is a Recovery charge? what are they recovering? Electric I didn't use?
And we pay some of the highest bills in the country and we have one of the largest hydro power plants less then 100 miles away.

Okay, Tball. I'll go through some of these mystery charges slowly for you:

Key Aspects of Revenue Decoupling:

• Purpose: Aligns utility financial interests with energy efficiency, removing the need to sell more energy to increase profits.
• Mechanism:Periodically compares authorized revenue with actual revenue. If actual revenue falls short (due to efficiency or low usage), customers pay a surcharge. If revenue exceeds the target, customers receive a credit
  .
  • Impact: It reduces the financial risk for utilities from lower sales caused by conservation, weather, or economic conditions.
  • Types: Common approaches include revenue-per-customer mechanisms, full decoupling, or partial, tailored approaches often used in combination with weather normalization.

Decoupling is often considered a critical tool for supporting and energy efficiency programs.

So it's basically a climate tax.

The System Benefits Charge (SBC) is a state-mandated fee on utility bills (primarily electricity) used to fund public policy initiatives, including energy efficiency programs, renewable energy research, and assistance for low-income customers.

So it's basically taxation and communism. Another climate tax.

A recovery charge on an electric bill is a fee allowing utilities to recoup specific, volatile, or unexpected costs not covered in base rates, such as severe storm repairs, fluctuating fuel prices power cost adjustments(PCA). These charges are typically approved by state regulators and are often pass-through costs.

So it basically covers for excess costs from storm damage. Another climate tax.

There is a cost to 'climate taxes', Tball.

 

[Diogenes]

Okay, Tball. I'll go through some of these mystery charges slowly for you:

Key Aspects of Revenue Decoupling:

• Purpose: Aligns utility financial interests with energy efficiency, removing the need to sell more energy to increase profits.
• Mechanism:Periodically compares authorized revenue with actual revenue. If actual revenue falls short (due to efficiency or low usage), customers pay a surcharge. If revenue exceeds the target, customers receive a credit
  .
  • Impact: It reduces the financial risk for utilities from lower sales caused by conservation, weather, or economic conditions.
  • Types: Common approaches include revenue-per-customer mechanisms, full decoupling, or partial, tailored approaches often used in combination with weather normalization.

Decoupling is often considered a critical tool for supporting and energy efficiency programs.

So it's basically a climate tax.

The System Benefits Charge (SBC) is a state-mandated fee on utility bills (primarily electricity) used to fund public policy initiatives, including energy efficiency programs, renewable energy research, and assistance for low-income customers.

So it's basically taxation and communism. Another climate tax.

A recovery charge on an electric bill is a fee allowing utilities to recoup specific, volatile, or unexpected costs not covered in base rates, such as severe storm repairs, fluctuating fuel prices power cost adjustments(PCA). These charges are typically approved by state regulators and are often pass-through costs.

So it basically covers for excess costs from storm damage. Another climate tax.

There is a cost to 'climate taxes', Tball.

Why are prices at records?

No single factor is responsible; it's a combination of structural trends accelerating in 2024–2026.

The dominant drivers, per EIA forecasts and analyses, include:

1. Explosive demand growth, especially from AI/data centers — EIA projects the strongest four-year rise in U.S. electricity use since 2000, with total consumption hitting fresh records in 2025–2027 (driven by commercial/industrial sectors). Data centers alone are a massive new load; utilities and regulators are approving massive grid upgrades and new generation to meet it, with those capital costs recovered through higher retail rates. Residential demand is growing more slowly, but everyone pays for the system-wide investments.
   
   eia.gov +1
2. Grid modernization and reliability investments — Aging infrastructure, plus extreme weather (hurricanes, wildfires, winter storms), requires billions in upgrades for transmission, distribution, and storm hardening. Utilities are passing these costs to customers via approved rate hikes (dozens approved in 2025 affecting tens of millions of households).
   
   cbsnews.com +1
3. Higher wholesale costs and fuel volatility — Natural gas prices rebounded sharply in 2025 (spot prices up ~56% year-over-year in some periods), affecting gas-fired generation. Overall wholesale electricity prices are also rising (EIA forecasts continued increases into 2026).
   
   utilitydive.com
4. Utility rate cases and regulatory approvals — Regulators nationwide have green-lit increases to cover the above plus inflation/supply-chain effects. All four customer sectors saw revenue-per-kWh rises in late 2025 (residential +6%, commercial +7.8%, etc.), with 44+ states seeing hikes.
   
   eia.gov

Prices had already been rising faster than inflation since ~2022; the AI-driven demand surge has supercharged the trend since 2024–2025.

EIA’s Short-Term Energy Outlook expects further modest rises in 2026, though regional differences are huge (West Coast/Northeast seeing the steepest increases; some Midwest/South states milder or even flat after inflation adjustment).

catf.us
In short: Record demand (AI/data centers) is colliding with the need to rebuild and expand an aging grid, and those costs are showing up on bills today. Structural changes in how the U.S. uses and produces power are driving it.

They've already been told; they just didn't like the answers.

 

[QP!]

Nothing. EV's 100 years ago were as reliable or more so than ICE vehicles. ...

So now you are admitting you were lying a few posts up when you said this about EV's not being able to compete 100+ years ago and nothing changing in EV's since then ...

"...EV's can't compete because they simply don't work for people's needs. Battery cars aren't new. They've been around for almost 150 years now. They've never successfully competed..."

Now your new position is EV's were more reliable.

 

[Into the Night]

Geezus you are a painfully stupid person.

Mantra 1a. Lame.

The ICE car and its varients were laughed at in the 1800's and early 1900's and seen as a 'rich persons unreliable toy'. ICE vehicles simply did not work for working people's need and the horse and buggy dominated.

The Model T was the first affordable gasoline car. It became wildly popular.
Gas stations weren't commonplace until the 40's, Kewpie. People simply bought their gasoline in cans or barrels until then. It was close as the general store or even a livery stable.

What CHANGED was the FUELING infrastructure, GAS STATIONS, popping up across communities and on popular travel routes.

The ONLY travel route was Highway 66. It was finally fully paved in 1938. That's why it's called the 'Mother Road', Kewpie.

The exact argument you offer above, as a stupid person you would say the ICE vehicles would never work UNTIL the fueling infrastructure proved you wrong. you, TERRY, being an IDIOT would have been smug in your constant assertion that ICE cannot work, too unreliable and intermittent and often needing a horse and buggy to tow it home.

There was no 'fueling infrastructure' (gas stations until the 40's, AFTER Highway 66 was paved. People simply bought cans or barrels of gasoline at the general store.

And just as ICE became viable when their fuel source was built out across communities

Nope. the Model T was the first practical gasoline car that people could afford, produced in 1906. From 1906 until the 40's, people just bought their gasoline at the general store.

so to is the EXACT SAME dynamic in play with EV's.

EVs already failed in the market, Kewpie.

And yet here is stupid Terry saying 'no, they were not viable in the early 1900's under that infrastructure

They were not viable, either then or now.

so they cannot be viable now', something that then MUST apply to ICE against the horse and buggy.

Did you know that horses and carriages are still used today, Kewpie? See notations about the Amish, for example.

From Horses to Horsepower: Why EV Skeptics Sound Like 19th-Century Farriers​

Did you know that Farriers still exist today, Kewpie? They still do the same job they always did.

....Then came the automobile. It was noisy, unreliable, and - according to many - never going to replace the noble horse. The skeptics were loud...

The Model T was created in 1908, and the era of gasoline cars began. 12239 cars were sold in the first full year of production. The next year Ford sold 19291 gasoline cars. The next year after that Ford sold 40400 gasoline cars. By 1919, Ford had sold 3,487,455 of them total.
Source: Ford Motor Company

That's a lot of cars on the road where there were no gas stations, Kewpie. By 1910's, the electric car was dead in the market. It was killed by the popularity of the Model T and the invention of the electric starter in 1912. No more hand cranking your car!

 

[Into the Night]

Nothing. EV's 100 years ago were as reliable or more so than ICE vehicles. What hasn't changed, and what the problem with EV's is, is that they aren't practical for many people because their power supply is fixed and not portable. Sure, in urban areas EV's are practical so long as you have access to a personal charger. Public charging puts EV's in a worse spot to ICE vehicles.

They are practical if you are only driving limited distances. I'm going to drive to San Antonio TX later this year. An EV doing that from Phoenix AZ is totally absurd and impractical. Yes, you probably could but it would require more planning and careful range management to do it. It isn't practical.

Driving to this bar... Which I've done is something you shouldn't attempt in an EV.

He says that road is a "little bumpy." I drove like 60 mph up it in my truck. Bumpy my ass...

EVs can't go off road like gasoline cars can.
EVs can't go long distances without spending a long time recharging, effectively ending the day for travel. Gasoline cars have effectively unlimited range, since it only takes a few minutes to refuel, and you can carry extra gasoline with you.

EVs are wasteful of energy as well, about half the efficiency of a gasoline car. The EV wastes energy due to waste heat generated by the dynamo, transformers, lines, switching equipment, more transformers, and finally in waste heat generated by the battery when charging. While driving, MORE waste heat is generated during discharge of the same battery (why they are liquid cooled!), and of course, the motor itself (why it's liquid cooled!).

It's just more efficient to burn the fuel right in the car. The cost of preparing that fuel and getting it to market is far less, therm for therm.

Most EVs can't even tow. Not even an empty utility trailer. The Cybertruck towing capacity is quite limited.

Braking and handling sucks on EVs, due to their higher weight. It also prevents EVs from safely fitting in older multistory parking lots. They overload the structure. This is why they are prevented from using such parking spaces. Heavier weight also means more expensive tires and brakes and greater stopping distances.

There is no practical electric aircraft. They are too heavy to carry a practical payload. They use gasoline or kerosene instead.

There is no practical semi-truck that is an EV. Such trucks have limited range (very bad for over the road trucking!), and must carry heavy batteries, reducing their payload capacity, and revenue per mile with it.

Amazon currently uses a fleet of electric delivery vans, which require twice the vans than if they were gasoline or diesel. One set is charging while the other set is out on the road delivering. This is primarily done for virtue signaling and in some cases local climate laws (like in Seattle). Whadda waste.

EVs are also a fire hazard. Lithium ion batteries have a very low internal resistance, which makes 'em great for today's EVs, but also carry the risk of fire. They burn like a firework. A single damaged cell sets the whole thing off as a class C fire (electrical), until ALL the cells are involved. At that point, it reverts to a class A fire and can be put out with water. By that time, of course, the car is destroyed, and maybe the home with it.

That damaged cell can happen due to road debris, a very minor accident, or simply manufacturing defect.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So now you are admitting you were lying a few posts up when you said this about EV's not being able to compete 100+ years ago and nothing changing in EV's since then ...

They were only competitive in a limited market, that being urban areas. The same is true today for the most part.

"...EV's can't compete because they simply don't work for people's needs. Battery cars aren't new. They've been around for almost 150 years now. They've never successfully competed..."

Now your new position is EV's were more reliable.

In early automotive history, yes, EV's were more reliable. They aren't today.

 

[QP!]

They were only competitive in a limited market, that being urban areas. The same is true today for the most part.


In early automotive history, yes, EV's were more reliable. They aren't today.

So your position remains that when you look at the competition for most utility in a mode of travel from the 1800's to 1900's to now, from the first EVs made, as compared to the horse and buggy that dominated the market, that having access to networks of charging of stations across many States and countries has ZERO impact in increasing the EV's utility and over all value to users.

That the analysis of how those two compare then for utility is the same exact now as it was in the 1800 and 1900's.

Do you agree that is your position?

 

[Into the Night]

If you mean horses and horse drawn wagons, sure. But the second they could buy a tractor to plow with, buy a truck to haul their produce with, buy a combine to harvest their wheat with, they did it. Why? Because those gasoline powered machines were massively more efficient than horses.

How the Tractor has Saved Humanity

No invention has had a greater impact on farming than the tractor.

yohta-blog.yokohama-oht.com

In the 1920's tractors changed American farms into the most productive in the world by far. By losing horses and using tractors, farmers became incredibly more productive. By eliminating horses and reducing the horse population they reclaimed almost a third of their farmed acreage for crops that could be sold versus producing feed for their horses.

Indeed they did. Compared to the rest of the world, we were practically giving bread away. It also saw the use of combine harvesters during the same period.

Plowing an acre of land with horses took two hours. Plowing it with a tractor--in 1920--took 30 minutes. The choice was obvious. Gasoline and internal combustion were the way to go.

By far. I would much rather run my ranch with modern equipment than use horses and plows! Electric tractors are not practical. They can't finish the job, and they can't be refueled in the field like gasoline and diesel tractors can.

Wrong! ICE vehicles blew horses and buggies away in efficiency.

Well, in terms of speed, yes. In terms of efficiency? No. Horses eat grass, available pretty much anywhere, and drink the same water sources you do. They are just not fast. Also, a horses 'exhaust' became a problem in cities.

Portability was the key. Gas stations were just more efficient.

From 1908, when the Model T was created, to 1935, when new models came along, Ford sold 3,487,455 gasoline cars. No gas stations were widely available. People bought their gasoline at the general store or stable in cans or barrels.

ICE vehicles out competed the horse regardless. That's why they were adopted and horses dropped.

Horses are still used today for recreational purposes.

EV's were roughly as efficient as ICE vehicles even back in the 1910's.

They never were. Not even close.

The problem was the fuel wasn't portable.

It as portable as the battery. Recharging that sucker was a lengthy process though. Just like today.

If you're a farmer with a ICE tractor and an ICE truck, you can go to town and buy 20 to 50 gallons of gasoline and return to your farm. You can't recharge your EV vehicle's batteries when your farm has no electricity on it.

Even if your farm DOES have electricity (most do these days, thanks to the rural electrification project), you can't refuel an EV out in the field. You can easily refuel a gasoline or diesel tractor though. EVs have to come back to the 'barn' and waste the rest of your day recharging.

During harvest or planting time, that's a real nuisance.

EV charging stations are fixed.

Just like filling stations. The difference is that you can put gasoline in a tank you can carry away with you. EVs have to be towed by flatbed truck to a charging station if they run out of power away from one.

If there isn't one where you need it, you are screwed. ICE vehicles can carry extra fuel with them when necessary.

Very true. It is also part of the factor that effectively gives the ICE vehicle unlimited range.

I already stated EV's are more efficient than horses and wagons, and in an urban setting, even in 1910, they were workable.

Very workable! Ford was selling 'em like hotcakes!

The problem is they aren't more efficient than ICE vehicles and ICE vehicles are more flexible in their use than EV's. ICE vehicles were the better choice for the 90% of the nation in 1910 that didn't have electricity. That's still the case today for rural areas even if basic electricity is available there.

'Basic' electricity? My ranch has 400A service (two 200A services split across phases).

 

[Into the Night]

Not true.

There were versions of the ICE engine in production since the early 1800's and you could carry around fuel if you wanted.

And yet automobiles were widely mocked as impractical toys of rich people often needing a horse and buggy to tow them home when they ran out gas or broke down.

There are all sorts of periodicals in that day speaking to that. So your points are wrong and stupid.

If you got rid of every gas station today and simply said to people 'you can carry around your own gas in containers' the utility of ICE vehicles would shrink immensely. IT is gas stations that make the work horse they are.

Nope. 3,487,455 Model T's says you are wrong.

But again, that does not speak to why EV's have surpassed the horse and buggy for utility Terry and i want you to answer that specifically? What is that has changed in the same time frame where you say it was PROVEN ICE was better than EV and no more data is needed that has made EV's so much better, CURRENTLY than the horse and buggy?

ICE cars are more modern. They have the latest and greatest technology for cars. EVs are based on 1980's technology. The only thing that's changed in them is body styles and software.

All ICE cars today are FADEC, very clean running, very efficient (often achieving greater than 50% efficiency!). EVs only get about half that. They are wasteful of energy, expensive, have poor handling, are fire hazards, low or no towing capacity, no or very limited off road capability, and are inconvenient.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So your position remains that when you look at the competition for most utility in a mode of travel from the 1800's to 1900's to now, from the first EVs made, as compared to the horse and buggy that dominated the market, that having access to networks of charging of stations across many States and countries has ZERO impact in increasing the EV's utility and over all value to users.

That the analysis of how those two compare then for utility is the same exact now as it was in the 1800 and 1900's.

Do you agree that is your position?

No. My position is that EV's from the start had an advantage over horses just as ICE vehicles did. The drawback that EV's have always had is that their utility is limited to specific urban areas and locations where there is dense infrastructure to support them and their range limitations are not an issue.

EV's have never dominated the market when faced with ICE vehicle competition. In fact, quite the contrary. Even today, that remains true. Thus the utility of EV's is greater than horse drawn transport but far inferior to ICE vehicles on the whole.

 

[QP!]

No. My position is that EV's from the start had an advantage over horses just as ICE vehicles did. The drawback that EV's have always had is that their utility is limited to specific urban areas and locations where there is dense infrastructure to support them and their range limitations are not an issue.

EV's have never dominated the market when faced with ICE vehicle competition. In fact, quite the contrary. Even today, that remains true. Thus the utility of EV's is greater than horse drawn transport but far inferior to ICE vehicles on the whole.

So why did the horse and buggy dominate the markets for over 100 years when the first EVs and ICE vehicles came on the market?


Why were there so many journal articles mocking those vehicles as impractical toys of the rich that often needed to be towed home by a reliable horse and buggy?

 

[QP!]

No. My position is that EV's from the start had an advantage over horses just as ICE vehicles did. The drawback that EV's have always had is that their utility is limited to specific urban areas and locations where there is dense infrastructure to support them and their range limitations are not an issue.

...

And now you have switched to my point you have denying all along.

My point always was that the introduction of networks of charging stations has changed their utility. Your position PRIOR was that did no such thing and the charging stations add nothing to the considerations from the first introduction of EV's which is why you said the they did not have to be considered and the analysis could be limited to the 1800-1900 and the debate settled there.

So you have changed your view again.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So why did the horse and buggy dominate the markets for over 100 years when the first EVs and ICE vehicles came on the market?

Institutional inertia. It takes time for a new technology to take over a market. In the US, horses were pretty much on the out by 1940. That's roughly 20 years. In that same period, EV's disappeared from the market. The Fordson tractor dominated in agriculture. The US Army pretty much did away with horses entirely. The thing that made the conversion slower was the availability of cash to persons in the marketplace.