You’re right that hydro-dominated ID, WA, and OR have low electricity prices, at 5.07, 6.4, and 7.02 cents per kWh, respectively. But people who oppose a standard that 25% of electricity come from renewables are focused on the low price of electricity in coal-dominated states like WY and WV, 5.29 and 5.34 cents per kWh, respectively (coal produces 80+% of those states’ electricity mix and their low costs are also because they are the two largest producers of coal – as a non-producing coal state, NC has higher coal prices). But part of the reason the price of coal electricity is so low is because some of the costs (such as carbon dioxide and mercury pollution-induced public health effects) are externalized to society (=not taken into account). So coal electricity looks cheaper on the accounting sheet than it really is to society.

Is it possible WY and WV have slightly higher electricity prices in the future? Yes, but since WY has vast wind potential their prices are destined to stay very low. WV won’t rival NY’s 15 cents per kWh but may have slightly higher electricity prices.

The exciting thing is that as wind, solar and other renewables take electricity market share, they lower the demand for fossil fuels. This lower demand for fossil fuels means lower prices for the fuels and a longer-lasting supply for generations to come. As I wrote last week, it may make sense for some states like Kansas to export renewable electricity to other states with less potential (similar to the way coal is delivered today) within their grid to help keep costs down.

Here’s hoping solar and wind continue to fall in price so that the cost argument loses its luster as an excuse for status quo-lovers-

Dennis