Quote:
Originally Posted by s.p.hansen
Because Utah has much lower wages and cost of living than LA. If we included this massive wind project or a nuclear power plant into our local energy portfolio (both of which are about the same to build in expenses), it would skyrocket local power bills.
California wants to get something like 25 percent to 33 percent of its energy from renewables. If this project was just for Utah it would mean powering half our state with renewables. And we don't have the economy to digest that.
If we replace every coal power plant in Utah with natural gas we will hit our carbon reduction goals as outlined by the EPA. Energy will stay cheap and we will continue to remain a light industrial manufacturing powerhouse. With lower power bills, the purchasing power of every resident here will go further.
|
Which only works due to the higher-priced power that is exported to other markets, namely California. Utah's lower rates are subsidized by the higher rates that generators get outside of the state. Which is pretty advantageous for Utah as new emission standards in California drive the refit of coal plants in Utah. Even a nuclear plant in Utah would be constructed to provide power to California in a non-utility generator model with LT contracts to California utilities while avoiding the social costs of operating such a facility in granola land.
Utah won't have utility-scale renewables providing power until the state mandates that x % of generation comes from renewables and allow the utilities to pass the cost of such generation onto their customers.