NV Energy proposes solar project that is laughably too similar to the one already rejected

Is this what passes for horse trading at the power company?

Just more than a month ago the Public Utilities Commission denied NV Energy’s proposal to build a 200-megawatt, $438 million photovoltaic solar power plant on the Moapa Indian reservation, saying the amount of power was nearly four times more than necessary and the cost more than five times higher than necessary.

The PUC said NV Energy did not need 200 megawatts, but only 54 megawatts to satisfy customer needs, and even that could be delayed a few years. Additionally, that 54 megawatts could be provided by spending $85 million on standard combustion turbine technology, not $438 million.

So, having seen the error of its ways, the company has come back to the PUC with a proposal to build 175 megawatts of solar power in the same location, a reduction of 12.5 percent, at a cost of merely $383.3 million, a reduction of 12.5 percent.

What a deal!

The Bureau of Consumer Protection immediately filed with the PUC recommending the modest changes being proposed also be denied. It points out that the original proposal included an economic benefit of $65 million, but this was “far outweighed by the negative impact of $223 million in incremental revenue requirement cost” — or nearly $3.50 in cost to every $1 of benefit.

“Further, the cost of such a plant would cost each residential ratepayer approximately $3.4(0) a month or $40 a year,” the bureau says. “The Moapa Solar plant as proposed would come at a very high price to the consumer in Nevada and be a drag on the economy for years in the future.”

The bureau noted the amended proposal probably would not show a vast improvement in cost versus benefits.

Maybe 12.5 percent less cost?

It is easy to understand the motive behind the power company’s horse trading. The PUC currently allows a return on equity of a little more than 10 percent, though the power company has asked for 15 percent for some recent project. The more equity, the more profits. Do the math: 10 percent of $383.3 million for a solar plant versus 10 percent of $85 million for standard combustion turbine technology. That’s not how NV Energy’s current owner Warren Buffett got to be a billionaire.

The PUC is expected to discuss the proposal on Wednesday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

39 comments on “NV Energy proposes solar project that is laughably too similar to the one already rejected

  1. gintuition says:

    Wow! Nevadans still have an active Consumer Protections Bureau? That’s fantastic news! I thought Sandoval cut the funding to those agencies in order to ‘fix’ the budget….Do they (PUC) know Warren Buffet bought it?

  2. gintuition says:

    yes…I see you mentioned that

  3. Winston Smith says:

    I see Buffet can use MS Excel also. GIGO.

  4. nyp says:

    Remember how President Obama’s fiscal policies were going to create runious, horrible inflation and turn the United States into Greece?

    “The consumer-price index dropped 0.3 percent, the most since December 2008, after being little changed the prior month, a Labor Department report showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 84 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 0.1 percent fall. Costs rose 1.3 percent over the past year, the least since February. Excluding volatile food and fuel, the so-called core measure rose at a slower pace than in October.”
    http://tinyurl.com/pynxtz6

  5. Athos says:

    “Excluding volatile food and fuel, the so-called core measure rose at a slower pace than in October.”

    Good thing nobody uses food and fuel!

    Another great example of believing the lies put forth by our Cherished Leaders. Thanks, petey, for making my point!

  6. nyp says:

    Ah, I forgot, In addition to being a racist who believes that black people are genetically inferior, you are also an inflation truther.

  7. Athos says:

    OOOOhhh! Score one for petey! (Admit it, petey. You miss the old Soviet Union, don’t you?)

  8. Steve says:

    Remember when national heaklth insurance was going to reduce premiums by $2500.00???

    Ahhh memories of Obamacare!

  9. nyp says:

    The Affordable Care Act was never projected to reduce premiums.
    Never.
    Nevertheless, it has resulted in an unprecedented reduction in the rate of healthcare inflation. Premiums in both the individual and group markets are growing more slowly than they have any any time in recent years.
    http://tinyurl.com/ntzp92s

  10. Steve says:

    Except when it WAS! Nyp lies!
    “Cut the cost of a typical family’s health insurance premium by up to $2,500 a year”
    Barrack Obama

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/521/cut-cost-typical-familys-health-insurance-premium-/

  11. Nyp says:

    The healthcare plan that was proposed by Senator Obama in 2007 was considerably different from the legislation that was passed by Congress three years later. You cannot find a quote from anyone stating that the ACA would reduce average premiums by $2500. Not one quote.

    On the other hand, the CBO and coverage projections have proven to be remarkably accurate.

  12. Steve says:

    So WHAT?
    THAT is what was promised and it was VERY different from what was shoved sown the country’s “collective” throat.

    Do it all the way or don’t do it at all.

  13. Rincon says:

    Our backs were against the wall. Because Congress went more than fifty years without significant medical reform, it was either Obamacare or continuing our ridiculous socialized medical system which made hospitals pay for those that could not. The choice was easy, but not pleasant.

  14. Athos says:

    That was not the only choices available to us (USA). You don’t destroy millions of people’s current insurance plans to “fix” 11million uninsured. It’s like the “light bulb fix” when there was nothing wrong with our old light bulbs. Or the toilet fix when there was nothing wrong with our old toilets.

    Government overreach to achieve more power. That’s the Socialist Way, Rinny.

    Enough, already!

  15. Rincon says:

    So there was nothing wrong with the old health care system? Get back to me when the hallucinations end, OK?

  16. Steve says:

    Obamacare hasn’t fixed anything…yet.

    So far, all its done is enrich insurance companies.

  17. For 90 percent of people the old system was better.

  18. Athos says:

    And now my insurance is worse under Pinocchiocare.

  19. Rincon says:

    Since the rise in the cost of medical care slowed dramatically during the introduction of Obamacare, it is difficult to be sure that the other 90% didn’t benefit. Without the threat of Obamacare, it is possible that medical costs would have risen more rapidly. BTW, you may be including me in the 90% because I had a preexisting policy. My rates went down dramatically with Obamacare, so I definitely benefited.

  20. Steve says:

    Economists maintain it is still too early to make any claims of Obamacare’s effect on overall medical costs “slowing their rate of rise” due to the depression from which the country is still climbing its way out.

  21. Athos says:

    Rin, you’re one of the lucky ones. Please tell me you haven’t read of the countless people who’s insurance has risen dramatically? Deductions have soared, family doctors are vanishing, and we haven’t seen the affect of Employee Cadillac plans exploding yet, have we?

    But of course, as long as you benefit, Pinocchio is boss, huh? That’s the American Spirit you were raised with. Sure isn’t mine!

  22. Rincon says:

    I agree with you Steve. For Athos, deductibles (or their counterpart, costs), have been rising and family doctors have been disappearing for decades, so you blame Obamacare? Any system that costs 40% more than anywhere in the world, leaves its patients ranked 25th-35th for longevity and infant mortality, and completely fails to insure a substantial part of its citizenry is a catastrophic failure. Obamacare is not much better or worse than what came before it. It needs fixing, but the American people are too immature to get the job done.

  23. Steve says:

    More government involvement has made the situation worse….while making more people pay for coverage that supplies less than before.

  24. Athos says:

    Yes, Rin. I blame PinocchioCare for rising costs, and inferior service. It’s what is was designed to do. It’s called simple math. Cover 30 million more people that haven’t been paying for health insurance, and give it to them for free. The insurance companies are not going to eat the cost, and for Washington to pay, that falls on us, the wage earners.

    Ever hear of a chap named Gruber? He spelled it all out for you (if you’re not too stupid to understand it. HIS WORDS, not mine!)

    Of course, as long as it’s better for YOU, it’s worth it, right?

  25. Rincon says:

    “Cover 30 million more people that haven’t been paying for health insurance, and give it to them for free.” First of all, how is it free if there is a fine for failing to be insured? Second, are you claiming that these people weren’t covered before? Weren’t you cared for when you didn’t have insurance?

    “More government involvement has made the situation worse….while making more people pay for coverage that supplies less than before.” Any proof or is this mere opinion?

  26. Steve says:

    “Bronze” is the plan most chosen…..people are finding they have to pay the deductible in full before any insurance payment kicks in.

    This has the effect of making people pay for something that does not have a lot of services which they cannot afford to use.

  27. Rincon says:

    If they can’t afford a deductible, what do they do if the transmission falls out of their car? Do we need federal auto repair insurance too? Besides, they chose it.

    The WSJ Web page wouldn’t let me in, but it probably wouldn’t change much, since I’ve seen a few of their editorials on global warming. Opinions are fine, but they have printed information that is demonstrably false. I’m not sure how they can call themselves journalists.

  28. Demonstrably false? Ha!

  29. No, it ain’t cheap.

  30. Steve says:

    They chose it…..

    More accurately would be to say they were forced into choosing something…so they chose what cost them the least.
    Only to find out they were going to have to come up with the deductible FIRST before any insurance money would kick in.
    Since obmamcare those transmissions have been sitting idle….health insurance premiums prevent spending money for gas!
    Perhaps we should all tax vets and subsidize the poor for their fuel needs….after all vets only provide health care for wealthy peoples animals….not really a necessary service if you think about it. More of a luxury than anything else.

  31. Rincon says:

    The one time I remember well was back in 1996. The WSJ printed an editorial with a world temperature graph taken from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. At the time, it was a one man operation in Cave Creek, Oregon with one employee – the founder. They also sold printed matter about socialism in public schools and how to survive a nuclear attack. The graph disagreed with every source I had ever seen. After an extensive search, I was unable to find anything even remotely resembling the data shown. In light of their track record – I have found several other very doubtful pieces of information from their editorial pages – this is as close to demonstrably false as one can get. Any more would require a signed confession.

  32. Rincon says:

    “More accurately would be to say they were forced into choosing something…so they chose what cost them the least.” That did not change. People chose their deductible under the previous system as well.

    “Only to find out they were going to have to come up with the deductible FIRST before any insurance money would kick in”. That’s the definition of a deductible all right.

    “Since obmamcare those transmissions have been sitting idle….health insurance premiums prevent spending money for gas!” Once again, I see no evidence presented. Besides, you weren’t at all concerned before when our health care system cost 40% more than that of any country on Earth and now you suddenly got religion?

    “Perhaps we should all tax vets and subsidize the poor for their fuel needs….after all vets only provide health care for wealthy peoples animals….not really a necessary service if you think about it. More of a luxury than anything else.” Veterinary care is indeed a luxury. I leave it to the voters to determine if that particular luxury should be taxed.

  33. Steve says:

    Under the old system people could choose NOT to buy, with NO “fine” disguised as a tax! THAT CHANGED!

    My deductible is stretched out over the course of the year and supplemented with the 80/20 plan. Copays count towards it.
    Obamacare does not work it that way. Must use up the deductible first, then the insurance begins paying. Got to decide what to use the money for,,,food or the office visit.

    Thankfully, we are not in that position. Under obamacare or the old system. Both suck for people stuck in that place.

    No, those transmissions at idle are in places where the people have to decide what to spend their money on. Food and shelter or insurance they may not need or cannot afford to use and still afford to eat.

    Perhaps we should enact pet insurance obamacare? (At least in this I have the option of remaining self insured and even still have the option of compassionate termination of life.)

    We treat our pets better than we treat ourselves.

  34. Rincon says:

    “Under the old system people could choose NOT to buy, with NO “fine” disguised as a tax! THAT CHANGED” You’re right, of course. People could choose not to pay, but when those people needed care, the rest of us were forced to pay for them. We then became the ones with no choice.

    I guess I’m unfamiliar with your kind of insurance. In my lifetime, the deductible always had to be paid, then came the 80/20 copay. Finally, there was 100% coverage after the copay was satisfied. I don’t know what to tell you about yours. Sounds like you’re an Obamacare loser and I’m an Obamacare winner, if you’ll pardon the expression. Had Obamacare been the original, then you would have been happy and I would have been complaining.

    “We treat our pets better than we treat ourselves.” We sure do when it comes to euthanasia – and I like to think that our pets have better doctors too 🙂 In truth, I put multiple pets to sleep every week because their owners draw the line on costs. Some limits would be worthwhile on humans too, but the Republicans have scuttled that idea. Oregon had the right idea years ago with a graduated list of medical procedures, asking the legislature to draw a line, but we humans were too emotional to accept it.

  35. Steve says:

    My “kind” of insurance?

    I have employer sponsored insurance. With Kodak it was self insured..managed by a company but paid by Kodak. I never had to satisfy a deductible to get the insurance to kick in. The copay’s were applied to the deductible but the insurance took on its share right from the start.
    Same with my new employer. The insurer is Cigna and Met Life for dental.

    Being self employed, you are able to “benefit” from all the added required coverage and you are able to pay the costs associated with it.
    Trouble is, the intended audience of obamacare is not people like you who carried their own insurance. It is for people who decided they needed to eat more than they needed health insurance.

    We STILL pay for these people…its simply more like we have made it easier to force them out of the emergency rooms and into urgent cares or back out on the street, since they cannot afford to pay the deductible.
    To me it appears the system has been even more stacked against the poor while the old one was at least humane towards those with out the means to pay.
    Now they get subsidized, unusable health insurance.

    yay, obamacares.

  36. Steve says:

    And its not just the poor….
    From the New York Times. (that bastion of conservative extremism)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/unable-to-meet-the-deductible-or-the-doctor.html?_r=0

  37. Rincon says:

    It seems that a capitalist, of all people should believe that a person who elects a large deductible should suffer the consequences of his choice. The woman in the Times article worked part time and elected a $6,000 deductible. Do you really think she would have had a $1,000 deductible under the old system? I seriously doubt that she would have been insured at all. ! The article didn’t say, but it seems likely that she was one who received a subsidy under Obamacare. The Times is complaining that she isn’t being subsidized enough.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s