This has
caused electricity consumers to look for energy efficiencies at a time when things like compact fluorescent and LED light bulbs became financially viable.
Not exact matches
«In just the last decade, we've had a technology bubble, an oil bubble and a housing bubble, not to mention the Enron fiasco and California's
electricity crisis, each of which was least partially
caused by speculators and manipulators trying to make a buck at the expense of
consumers,» English said.
«Maybe we can have the best of both worlds: a price on carbon to create an innovative environment for clean technology in California and keep businesses within state lines and not
cause an adverse impact on
consumers through radically higher prices for transportation fuels or
electricity.»
There was some bad news for Drax recently as the UK government decided that biomass subsidies would not keep climbing as the «carbon price floor» — levied on fossil fuel production (and due to rise further)-- on
electricity consumption has
caused a backlash from manufacturers,
consumer groups and energy suppliers who are concerned that the «tax will push up prices, make the UK uncompetitive and force the premature closure of coal - fired power plants, increasing the risk of blackouts.»
In the UK both the politicians and power utilities have bumped into resistance towards higher
electricity prices and they all know that it is green levies
causing them but they are pretending to the
consumers that that is not the case.
It is expected that
consumers will be able to choose
electricity from renewable sources instead of fossil fuel - powered thermal (along with its problems in terms of climate change) or nuclear power generation (whose great risks again became evident with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster,
caused by the tsunami after the Great East Japan Earthquake in March 2011).
This tax shift has
caused household energy costs to increase, which has resulted in a 15 - percent reduction in
consumer electricity use and a 5 - to 10 - percent decrease in fuel usage.
Vast sums spent, little actual usable power, and rapidly increasing
electricity bills for
consumers, all due to (in my view, unfounded) fears of carbon -
caused global warming.
We've already seen, for example, how reducing
electricity consumption can sometimes
cause fixed - cost burdens to become worse on the remaining
consumers.
Based on these Energy Economic findings, the CPP should not be replaced with anything because increasing the fraction of
electricity generation from Intermittent Renewables will
cause (1) enormous
consumer electricity price increases, (2) the Grid to become even less reliable and less resilient, and (3) even more serious negative micro and macroeconomic impacts — but would have zero impact on the climate.
The idea is that increasing the supply of «cheap»
electricity causes market prices to decrease so that
consumers benefit.