Wyoming cost of living

[manfromnevada]

MacAaron,
Where are you that your rate is $0.02/KWH? I never heard of such a low rate!
Mac
I'm up here in Crook County

[MacAaron]

MacAaron,
Where are you that your rate is $0.02/KWH? I never heard of such a low rate!
Mac
I'm up here in Crook County

Pine Bluffs.  Our town is part of the electric co-op and rates are tiered according to usage.  We're in the lowest tier (least use) so we get the cheapest rate (basically at cost).  It's done this way because commercial enterprises generally use the most (business, farms, etc.) and so they pay the most into it.  Our power comes from the plant just south of Wheatland which is owned by the county and which the incorporated towns have shares in.  The plant makes money selling surplus to Colorado, I believe.

[Dirttime Dude]

 Thanks for the reply MacAaron... We have , for many many years, one bedroom, as a dedicated pantry.
 When the kids were young this always was a big savings.
 And today it still is. And I live only a few blocks from a supermarket, their term, not mine.

 Was just visiting a friend of mine today who is a gunsmith for a large gunstore here.
 We were talking about the obamabots and the other related problems of the fed and of this once great state.
 I am old enough to recall when Ca was a pretty conservative state.  I have been voting since 1959, when I turned 21..
 At any rate this place is not where I want to spend the rest of my life.

 Thanks for the info...

 Dude...always coveryer6
 
 
 

[manfromnevada]

I thought inverted cost structures only existed in California!
Small volume purchasers pay the least per unit and the more you purchase the more you pay per unit!
Crazy!
Kinda like saying 1 doz eggs is $0.69 per dozen but if you buy 5 dozen we'll charge you $0.83 per dozen!

Here with Powder River Energy, a coop, but not gov't owned, we actually get a BREAK for using MORE energy and being a volume user (as it should be in my humble opinion).
There is also a monthly fixed charge for the cost of just maintaining the account and the meter and the service connection.
This is pretty typical since even if you are away for the summer or winter it still costs them to maintain the lines to your house.

As an aside, you know what I always found weird about utiliites? They are the only business that actually tries to get you to use LESS of their product! They advertise, give advice, do audits, and even give rebates and incentives for you to buy LESS. Pretty weird. Can you imagine any other business doing this? It's almost as if they will reluctantly sell you their product and in the case of Pine Bluffs will punish you for buying more than "your fair share".

Mac

[MacAaron]

I thought inverted cost structures only existed in California!
Small volume purchasers pay the least per unit and the more you purchase the more you pay per unit!
Crazy!
Kinda like saying 1 doz eggs is $0.69 per dozen but if you buy 5 dozen we'll charge you $0.83 per dozen!

Here with Powder River Energy, a coop, but not gov't owned, we actually get a BREAK for using MORE energy and being a volume user (as it should be in my humble opinion).
There is also a monthly fixed charge for the cost of just maintaining the account and the meter and the service connection.
This is pretty typical since even if you are away for the summer or winter it still costs them to maintain the lines to your house.

As an aside, you know what I always found weird about utiliites? They are the only business that actually tries to get you to use LESS of their product! They advertise, give advice, do audits, and even give rebates and incentives for you to buy LESS. Pretty weird. Can you imagine any other business doing this? It's almost as if they will reluctantly sell you their product and in the case of Pine Bluffs will punish you for buying more than "your fair share".

Mac

It depends on how you look at the tiers, though.  Commercial use of power has a higher rate (voltage) than residential use.  Also, commercial buildings (by this I don't mean the local bar) have heavier connections and create more drag on the grid.  This is how the tiers are set up.  They measure the tiers by how much you draw per month because it's the easiest (cheapest) solution.  As far as I know, every Wyoming user on the system is basically getting the power at cost.  Our connection is paid through city taxes (part of the garbage/sewer/etc. fees).  The coop makes money through selling surplus to Colorado.  We benefit from that by getting it our electricity for extremely cheap.

Seems to be working.

[manfromnevada]

Not to nit pick, but voltage has nothing to do with energy (watt-hours, or KWH).

It is true that large users require larger transformers and infrastructure to supply them with the power they require. Sometimes there's a monthly charge for the use of this equipment. Other times it comes out in the wash because of the energy they use and pay for. The thing that utility companies don't want is a user that demands ocassional huge power amounts. The utility has to supply large equipment, but gets little in revenue month after month.

Our local coop, Powder River Energy, makes no profit, but they have to buy the energy from a supplier somewhere. Some company that actually produces the energy with coal, gas, oil, or whatever. Those companies certainly make a profit or they wouldn't be in business. I guess some cities, such as Colorado Springs, actually run their own power stations as a city-run business. Takes all kinds I guess.

[HardwareHank]

Unless you're a full on commie, gun-hating, liberal Obamabot, you'll love Wyoming. 

The enemy of my enemy is my friend....

Let's not paint all the Obama supporters with a broad brush...

There are some bills in Congress that are forcing Democratic leaders to face the serious problem the party has when it comes to guns. At the heart of the matter is the question of packing heat in Yellowstone. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to attach an amendment to unrelated credit card legislation allowing people to carry guns in National Parks, something more liberal House Democratic leaders are determined to yank out of the bill.

A similar thing happened with the DC Voting Rights Bill passed earlier this year by the House and Senate. The measure, a priority of Democratic leaders and President Obama, would give voters in the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress for the first time since the federal district was created more than 200 years ago.

The Senate attached a provision to the bill wiping out virtually all local gun laws in the District. Outraged leaders in a city long plagued by violent crime were put in the position of having to give up the right to pass their own gun laws in exchange for voting rights in Congress.

The bill is now on hold because House leaders can’t figure out a way to get it passed without the gun provision. That is the crux of the Democrats' gun problem – those who oppose strict gun laws now have a clear majority in both the House and Senate.

Though battles over guns are often seen as a fight between liberals and conservatives, they actually break along geographic lines. People in cities and close-in suburbs, where guns are more likely to be used to rob a house then kill a wayward coyote, want more regulation. Those who live in rural areas and small towns oppose anything that might limit their right to carry a gun.

As Democrats have dramatically expanded their majority in the last two elections, they have been successful in areas where people like to hunt - which means that many new Democrats oppose strict gun laws. The trade-off for winning elections in places like Colorado, Idaho and Alaska is a party that cannot muster a majority against the positions of the National Rifle Association.

[manfromnevada]

Quote:
. . . which means that many new Democrats oppose strict gun laws.

Of course they do! They just want "reasonable" gun laws! You know, just registration, limits on how many, limits on the type, limits on ammo, etc. Nothing that in any way would violate the Second Amendment. After all, they all "support" the Second Amendment. They just want to be reasonable. Surely nobody "needs" an assault weapon with larg capacity magazines! So what's the problem? And no honest citizen would object to registering a gun if his intentions were honest, would he? Of course not!

Let's see, Obama has voted for more gun laws at every opportunity in his limited career. So has Holder. So has Pelosi. And Feinstein. And Chucky Cheese Schumer. And Kennedy. But these are all reasonable people and they all suppport the Second Amendment. Just ask them. They'll tell you so.

Mac

[Paul Bonneau]

I thought inverted cost structures only existed in California!

No, it is a fairly popular concept. Besides the point that it is often government-imposed, it actually makes some sense. For example, energy companies are infamous for "externalizing" some costs; so, the less energy they use, the better (fewer external costs). There are other justifications for inverted rate structures that I have long ago forgotten...

The point of companies is to make money, by the way, not sell the most product. It's not all that weird that utilities want you to use less electricity. In most cases, energy consumption ramps up slowly over time, while to bring resources online is one huge expense (e.g. a new power plant that won't need to run at max output for many years). The best case for energy companies is for them to get a lot of money for supplying a little electricity - if they can get away with it.

This picture is also complicated in that utilities are usually far from free market entities.

One other thing. Large energy consumers pay both a per-kwh charge like the rest of us do, and a peak demand charge. For Bill Cody Ranch, if all the electric water heaters come on at once, even for just 5 minutes, our demand charge for the whole month is based on that 5 minutes. It is a significant portion of our bill; about half IIRC.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like the current structure of utilities. I wish the whole area was free market, not quasi-fascist as it is now.