Bacon's Rebellion

Dominion Energy Prices Spike 11% By Sept 1, Mostly Due to VCEA

—

by

Steve Haner
in , , ,

By Steve Haner

Dominion Energy Virginia electricity bills rose August 1 and will rise again September 1, with many of the increases due to various aspects of the Virginia Clean Economy Act, especially ongoing construction of the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project.

Photo credit: Richmond Times-Dispatch

The net change is just over $14 more on that prototypical residential bill of 1,000 kilowatt hours per month. That is almost an 11% increase over the July 2024 charge of $129.31 for that amount of energy. As of September 1, that will be $143.36.

The numbers come from a presentation made by the State Corporation Commission staff to the Virginia Manufacturers Association energy summit on July 19. The SCC pointed to other possible increases and decreases from pending Dominion applications and projected the bill would drop back to $141.75 come spring.

That said, what Virginians pay the dominant utility is a revolving door of additions and subtractions impossible for the average citizen to track. For example, in recent weeks Dominion has announced the acquisition of a wind lease area off North Carolina, plans to build a liquified natural gas storage facility, and is moving forward on a planned Chesterfield natural gas plant. No money for those is being collected yet.

Remember, those totals would have been about $4 per month higher if Virginia were still part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative carbon tax compact, and advocates are seeking to get us back in either through court order or through Democratic victories in 2025 elections. Democrats love RGGI.

Pages: 1 2

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

38 responses to “Dominion Energy Prices Spike 11% By Sept 1, Mostly Due to VCEA”

  1. Clarity77 Avatar
    Clarity77

    Any step away from the Green New Scam promoted by leftist climate alarmists is a step in the right direction as to best serving the citizens.

  2. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Should have posted this two weeks ago. At some point I may report on my past two weeks. But in the meantime, this info was sitting in the slide deck from the SCC presentation. No other reporter even attended the conference, except to hear the governor. No one else sat through the presentations. RTD these days just prints Dom handouts…

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      YIKES. Correction. The change in the nuclear charge was 85 cents. Not $85. Decimal points are pesky. Corrected above…

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        That would be a real number if we really did do NUKE!

        I keep asking folks if they would support Nukes if they cost more than fossil fuels and it's amazing, the equivocation.

        I thought it would be an easy answer. If nukes cost more, then fossil fuels it is.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Dominion has its nuclear RFP underway. We may get some info. If the cost difference is not ridiculous (and be sure to consider capacity factors, likely lifetime of the plant), then it could go either way. I do think we need both in baseload. In his speech two weeks ago Senator Warner made the point that nobody wants to go first on SMRs, everybody wants to build plant #4 or 5…The first few will be very expensive with the learning curve, as was the case with the two new plants in GA.

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Dominion has its nuclear RFP underway. We may get some info. If the cost difference is not ridiculous (and be sure to consider capacity factors, likely lifetime of the plant), then it could go either way. I do think we need both in baseload. In his speech two weeks ago Senator Warner made the point that nobody wants to go first on SMRs, everybody wants to build plant #4 or 5…The first few will be very expensive with the learning curve, as was the case with the two new plants in GA.

        3. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Dominion has its nuclear RFP underway. We may get some info. If the cost difference is not ridiculous (and be sure to consider capacity factors, likely lifetime of the plant), then it could go either way. I do think we need both in baseload. In his speech two weeks ago Senator Warner made the point that nobody wants to go first on SMRs, everybody wants to build plant #4 or 5…The first few will be very expensive with the learning curve, as was the case with the two new plants in GA.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well, I thought the appeal/central premise of SMRs was that they would be cheaper than big nukes because they could be factory mass produced like widgets and sited anywhere, instead on more or less unique big plants on limited dedicated sites.

            I think some climate folks are “ok” if nukes are more expensive, it will drive conservation.

            But if the fossil-fuel/carbon folks are primarily focused on lowest cost fuel, then will they still support nukes?

          2. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Of course the answer is going to be maybe, because its an open ended question. No context of what the cost difference is, you need to know how much to be clear yes or no, as well as other factors.

            I remember you asking and my answer is yes, I support Nukes, but I also support fossil fuels (both coal and gas), and renewables. There will be cost differences on all 3, but we need all 3 in my opinion. Fossil fuels have a finite life and are needed for other uses too (like heat), renewables cannot cut it alone, and have a lot of issues despite the glowing reports from supporters. No equivocation in general terms, but of course the exact answer on a specific installation has to be driven on on the exact circumstances and that requires a lot of engineering and number crunching.

          3. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Of course the answer is going to be maybe, because its an open ended question. No context of what the cost difference is, you need to know how much to be clear yes or no, as well as other factors.

            I remember you asking and my answer is yes, I support Nukes, but I also support fossil fuels (both coal and gas), and renewables. There will be cost differences on all 3, but we need all 3 in my opinion. Fossil fuels have a finite life and are needed for other uses too (like heat), renewables cannot cut it alone, and have a lot of issues despite the glowing reports from supporters. No equivocation in general terms, but of course the exact answer on a specific installation has to be driven on on the exact circumstances and that requires a lot of engineering and number crunching.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            We do have some idea of the costs for what is already installed and operating , right? We know what the big nukes cost to operate and we know what they cost to build since Vogel just came online.

            We know generally what solar and on shore wind cost to operate.
            What we don’t know with more exactitude is what SMRs will cost or offshore wind.

            But what I was asking was a “What if we do know” question.

            what if we DO KNOW with much more analysis that nukes will cost more?

            Would we rule them out and instead go with the lowest cost fuels?

            Not an idle question because people could pay substantially higher electric bills and if
            they’re not on board with it, elected officials will hear about it at elections.

            People who DO believe that Climate is a big issue, might consider it worth it.

            But people who do not believe that and consider it more or less a hoax are probably not and
            that’s not even considering the NIMBY thing with nukes. In Virginia, they’d have to be built
            at North Anna or Surry or possibly down state in rural Va.

            So that’s why I asked that question of conservatives who seem to be more open to nukes
            but at the same time less open to more expensive energy.

          5. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Fair thought process. My answer is the same, I believe in all of the above. Certain people might argue nukes are more expensive and should not be built, but then have no problem making the argument that for solar/battery storage (and related to it, EV), prices will come down as more of them are built. Same for nukes. But I believe we need to keep gas and coal plants running and helps bring down the cost curve. We should not get ahead of ourselves, and keep competitive with other countries like China/India who are eating our lunch on manufacturing and other jobs, partially due to lax environmental rules.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            “all of the above” is to accept the price differential? And the “mix” should be? by cheapest fuel first?

            The thing with nukes is that are not like coal/gas/renewables where you can build it then take it down
            if you find cheaper fuels. That’s the issue right now in Va. They simply cannot build a new nuke at
            the costs they now cost because it’s simply uneconomic , not for a year but decades.

            If you do not believe climate is threatened, then lowest cost is not unreasonable and maybe better
            than “all of the above” is that ends up be way more costly because you added nukes.

            If you DO believe climate is at issue, then the nukes and higher costs are fine and acceptable.

            So folks have to make up their minds on the climate issue and what they are willing to pay (or not).

            Our electricity in Va is less costly than every single inhabited island where they have to import diesel
            and the killowatt hour costs are about 3 times what we pay AND it’s not so good for climate either!

            Here’s a simple idea. If you COULD pay 1/2 what you pay now AND not harm the climate, would you?

          7. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            Because you have to plan many decades out, and coal plants are being shut down and nothing will bring them back (maybe we can hold on to more than in current plans, because its not going to matter for climate change), you need all of the above in this country. Forget about what I would do about cost, look at China and India, they have been building coal plants because for them its the cheapest. For me, we need nukes to survive because time will prove renewables will not cut it, and eventually, gas will hit a plateau.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Hey – you do realize:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3c93b71305853ceed7f7df455bdeafdf69ecfe8bcc11ca5b3a1b040fa1fc3de3.png

            but here's the thing about wind/solar.

            No, they will never be dispatchable but that's not really the point. Whenever they ARE available, you don't have to burn coal or gas so less pollution and less cost. wind/solar are cheaper that coal and gas and nukes.

            The more we have, the more we can reduce coal and gas to those times when they have to be used.

            So use them when you can – that's what China is doing and we should also.

            And utility scale batteries are coming on that will allow us to "bank" wind/solar for use later on.

          9. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            That's fine, but China is still building coal plants, as is India.

            https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/twenty-coal-mines-likely-to-become-operational-by-end-of-this-year-124040901072_1.html

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            They are but they use much less per capita than we do. And again, if you have wind/solar, use it instead of more expensive fuels and only use them when you have to – not unlike Hydro. But China and India do burn more coal than other countries. They are like this country was 50 years ago. As they continue to also modernize, they will also move away from coal. Again, there is this perspective. Does one think the climate issue is a hoax or way overemphasized, or does one believe climate is real and we must transition?

            Is one is a climate skeptic, China/India use of coal is not a concern. If one does believe climate IS an
            issue then what China/India do right now should not be used as an excuse for us not doing what we can.

          11. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            I am no scientist, but my belief is climate change is real, but way overblown on significance. Fossil fuels have a finite life, so one way or another over decades a transition needs to be made. “Do what we can” sounds nice, but you need to be realistic. Youngkin and most Republican’s (and some Democrats) are realistic, far left Democrats are not.

          12. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            We don’t disagree too much except on the right – there are deniers who don’t believe we need to do anything and oppose wind/solar which enables a transition.

            On the left, we’re not shutting down fossil fuels anytime soon.. that’s just not an option for folks dealing
            with reality.

            That “left” and that “right” are out of touch with reality in my view.

            But I don’t see how a transition can begin if it’s now wind/solar. What would it be if not wind/solar? How
            would you use less coal/gas?

        4. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          You asked me and I did not equivocate. Let's go nukes!

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            even if they cost more? why? are you a climate skeptic or do you think we need cleaner electricity or what?

  3. Chip Gibson Avatar
    Chip Gibson

    Yes, thank you, Governor Glenn Youngkin, and thank you, Stephen Haner, for another fine, informative article, Sir!

  4. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Thanks for your "report" and for including APCO.

    How in the world is APCO so much more expensive than DOm?

    One would think APCO would have great access to gas and coal and not be "burdened" by renewables. And they serve geography in Va where most
    folks can least afford those rates.

    So what gives?

    And as bad as all of this sounds, if you pay $150 month for electricity, you probably pay less than you do for cable,internet and cell phones AND you pay not much more than 20 cents an hour to heat/cool your house, keep your food cold and cook it plus run you cable TV and internet!

    Compare that to many other places in the world where you'd several hundred dollars a month for the same amt of electricity you pay $140 for here in Va.

    but.. WHY is APCO so expensive compared to Dom and where is the "outrage" for that when there is no RGGI and VCEA to blame?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I keep meaning to dig into that filing on the rate case for insights. Hey, the legacy coal brings a lot of enviro costs for one thing. I also think some reverse economies of scale, given the thinner population and smaller percentage of the load to big users.

      1. Irene Leech Avatar
        Irene Leech

        Correct. And it's also why the smallest electric cooperative in the state has comparatively high rates that it cannot do anything about under the current system. The wholesale price of electricity we buy is higher than the retail price paid by big users in AEP and Dominion territory. We have the fewest customers per mile of line and very mountainous geography. After all, we were originally formed from the territory the IOU's didn't want to have to serve.

        It's obvious on the farm we bought in Montgomery county where the 1797 house is carved out on cooperative service but almost all of the rest of the property is AEP and we have a long AEP line right of way across the property.

        Can we please stop painting this as a partisan issue? As long as we make everything black/white with no nuance and assign opposite perspectives to political parties, disagreement will prevail. This is a complex issue that affects everyone.

        1. Clarity77 Avatar
          Clarity77

          Looking at issues through rose colored glasses is akin to choosing not to learn from history for the sake of "getting along." Then a crisis happens and those exposed as fools realize after the fact that their rose colored glasses blinded them to the truth.

          Or more succinctly, when it comes to reality choosing feelings over truth never ends well.

          So if it quacks like a duck, walks…….you know the rest. Good luck in your path forward, but never lament that you were not thus warned.

      2. William Chambliss Avatar
        William Chambliss

        Unlike DOM, Apco ate all its fuel increases at once, instead of securitizing them. That's part of it.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          what fuel increases?

          1. William Chambliss Avatar
            William Chambliss

            When fuel prices shot up after the Ukraine invasion

  5. Cyrus Kump Avatar
    Cyrus Kump

    We all need to fight against the fake climate change agenda of the left that is costing all of us more in taxes and fees that are also taxes. These burden all of us but especially the poor and middle class. I’m all for Dominion using all sources of energy but maybe Dominion can’t do it all at once. Windmills are not efficient use of funds for the cost of set up, maintenance and damage to the oceans.
    Letting an outside group, RGGI, control Virginia’s energy and charge us for it, is ridiculous. Governor Youngkin pulling us out was right. The democrats are clearly not for the poor and middle class if they support us in RGGI or anything like it.
    If the state has a surplus of taxpayer money like it does, maybe supplementing Virginians energy bills is a good use.
    Of course, democrats won’t like any of this because they like power and can’t keep their hands off the people’s money because that is how they maintain power. So we all must vote republican to get our taxes lowered like Gov. Youngkin did. The democrats blocked a lot of his tax cuts and now the state has a surplus. Go figure..

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Youngkin endorsed Trump. That's all I need to know about Youngkin! 😉

  6. Paul Sweet Avatar
    Paul Sweet

    The APCO cost seems high. The Bedford Electric Dept. buys wholesale power from APCO and my electric bill is under $0.17 per KWH unless my usage drops below 500 KWH per month.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      The folks over that way in places like Lynchburg are hollering bloody murder… talking about $300 monthly bills …

  7. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    What about shareholders of Dominion Energy? Don't they get it? If the Big D delivers more energy, faster, and cheaper the stock will go up? Right? Why are shareholders not lighting a fire under management to unleash some energy? Everybody is going to win!

    1. Paul Sweet Avatar
      Paul Sweet

      I'm glad to see that Dominion's stock is creeping up, but it's still well below what it was up until a couple years ago.

  8. Haig48 Avatar
    Haig48

    Rggi is a slush fund for friends of politicians

  9. Randy Huffman Avatar
    Randy Huffman

    This is like putting a frog in a pot of cool water and turning on the heat. The frog has no idea its going to boil to death until too late.

  10. kls Avatar
    kls

    remember fossil fuel burning is causing the ocean levels to rise…. they just found a mastodon in the way of the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel construction zone….. i guess those dead dinos started the whole process….

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT