Texas internet connectivity declining due to blackouts

Tue Feb 23 22:18:58 UTC 2021

>
> Do you see that? My solar panels produced more power than I used, and I'm
> *still* paying PG&E.

PG&E owns and must maintain the infrastructure to deliver you power. They
also had to install a different (and more expensive) type of meter on your
home to accommodate you feeding your excess energy back to the grid.
Shouldn't they be compensated for that?

> This (admittedly anecdotal) evidence clearly proves that the Dept of
> Energy's table is cherry-picked bollocks. My rate is 163% of their
> "average".

Well since the value quoted is an average, it stands to reason that people
will be both above and below the stated value. You happen to be living in
an area that's on the expensive side.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 7:00 PM Sabri Berisha <sabri at cluecentral.net> wrote:

> ----- On Feb 17, 2021, at 8:07 AM, Sean Donelan <sean at donelan.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2021, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
>
> Not sure where you’re finding those numbers but I believe they are not
> accurate.
>
>
>
>  U.S. Energy Information Administration (part of the Department of Energy)
>
>
> https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
>
>
> According to their table, CA residential prices are 22.26 cent/kwh. Right.
>
> It's easy to get to low numbers if you don't take into account the number
> of subsidized customers,
> and all of the other fees that crooks at PG&E add to their pricing. Here
> is a more accurate picture,
> taken directly from my energy bill. I have solar, so I picked a month that
> had little "return" traffic.
>
> With apologies to those on the list who still use mutt/pine etc.
>
> But wait, there's more! This does not include the Silicon Valley Clean
> Energy Electric Generation Charges.
>
> So I am paying a grand total of $239.14 for 656.928 KwH of electricity.
>
> That makes 36.4 cents per KwH.
>
> It gets even better. For a month in the summer:
>
>
> Do you see that? My solar panels produced more power than I used, and I'm
> *still* paying PG&E.
>
> This (admittedly anecdotal) evidence clearly proves that the Dept of
> Energy's table is cherry-picked bollocks. My rate is 163% of their
> "average".
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sabri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210223/22461c72/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 61354473.64500002
Type: image/png
Size: 35808 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210223/22461c72/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 61456981.239999995
Type: image/png
Size: 80234 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210223/22461c72/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 61636534.74500001
Type: image/png
Size: 22003 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210223/22461c72/attachment-0002.png>