Al Gore's Electric Bill - $2400 a Month!!

[misskitty100]

I know I am not the only one to find it interesting that Al Gore's electric bill is $2400 a month. The house he has is close to 10,000 sq feet but what I do find interesting is that they have to power the house so MUCH!!! Couldn't they close off a few bedrooms and close the heat registars or SOMETHING else to lessen the amount of energy they use? I am not sure if they live in this house full time and how many total people live with them? Aren't most of their kids adults now? Is this house something they built or is it a passed down house from his family?

Apparently he justifys the power usage because he does so many other things in the interest of conserving energy.....seems like double speak to me.

Maybe it is time they moved into house that is a bit more "responsible".

[DmOrtega]

This is one of several homes and he is a millionare who chooses to spend his money on heat, and such. It's not much different then people who choose to spend their money on vehicles that require lots of gas.

[slknight]

I'm not sure it was $2400. I think it was closer to $1400:

"The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005."

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=nation_world&id=5073354

If the main house is 10,000 square feet and the bill is only $640, that's pretty darn good. My power bill is around $150 a month and my house is only 1,000 square feet.

[misskitty100]

This is one of several homes and he is a millionare who chooses to spend his money on heat, and such. It's not much different then people who choose to spend their money on vehicles that require lots of gas.


You are right, not much difference in those that spends and consume lots of heat/electricity and gas but there is difference as I am presuming, the average millionare is not publicly promoting energy conservation and then going home to pay his several thousand dollare electric bill on just ONE of the homes he owns.

[misskitty100]

I'm not sure it was $2400. I think it was closer to $1400:

"The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005."

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=nation_world&id=5073354

If the main house is 10,000 square feet and the bill is only $640, that's pretty darn good. My power bill is around $150 a month and my house is only 1,000 square feet.

Ooops...You are right it was about a $1000 dollars less:o . Sorry....Al!!

[KristiB]

Charges, countercharges flying over Gore's electric bill

As we noted Monday, it wasn't long before Al Gore's moment of triumph at the Oscars sparked a political shouting match.

The bickering continues this morning because a group called the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has issued a report that says the former vice president's "mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

Drudge is playing the news big on his homepage. Conservative bloggers at Townhall.com and elsewhere are saying this shoots a big hole in Gore's claims to be an environmental advocate. Wizbang grabs the obvious headline, calling this Gore's "inconvenient truth."

Missing from much of the coverage is a response from the Gore camp. The liberal blog Think Progress, though, has a statement from the former veep's office. Among the points they make:

• "Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100% green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology."

• "Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint -- a concept the right-wing fails to understand."

ABC News adds that Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says both the former vice president and his wife Tipper work out of the mansion -- activity that presumably pushes up electricity use there.

Missing from much of the coverage is information on what the Tennessee Center is and who's behind it. Liberal bloggers at Seeing the Forest say it claims "to be non-partisan but only link(s) to far-right and conservative groups so regardless of what their status is with the IRS, this is a conservative, strongly-leaning Republican organization."

Indeed, among the links at the center's website are ones to the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute.

Memeorandum has other links to what's being said about all this.


http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/charges_counter.htm l

[misskitty100]

Missing from much of the coverage is information on what the Tennessee Center is and who's behind it. Liberal bloggers at Seeing the Forest say it claims "to be non-partisan but only link(s) to far-right and conservative groups so regardless of what their status is with the IRS, this is a conservative, strongly-leaning Republican organization."


http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/02/charges_counter.htm l


Kristi - Definitely not aiming this at you so please don't take it that way!:)

Just curious thogh, what does the above paragraph have to do with the fact (and I believe I am correct in using the term fact) that the Gore's private residence uses more power per month than the average American household uses in a whole year. Ahhhh...politics!

[KristiB]

I didn't write that paragraph, it was part of the article I cited.

My feeling is that you need to consider the source. These groups that publish these reports are biased and leave out information. Liberal and conservative are both guilty.

In the age of the blog and all these so called think tanks it's hard to get the whole story and the truth.

I imagine Gore conserves energy and recycles where he can and it's not very likely he'll downsize his home. He and Tipper both work from home so their costs are going to be higher.

The message of An Inconvenient Truth is an important one and maybe we should concentrate on scientific fact instead of trying to shoot the messenger.

[juliew]

I applaud his efforts to offset his home energy carbon consumption with other things, but it still doesn't seem quite right either. I guess you can rationalize it saying that the other things they do give them a net of 0 carbon emissions so they are doing their share. Why do they have to be negative?

Of course I have no intention of doing EVERYTHING that I am "supposed" to do to save the Earth either. I pick and choose. But I'm not winning Oscars telling people what to do to save the environment either. Maybe if he got new energy efficient windows, it would help. Plus he could get a $200 tax credit. :p

[Meganator]

I applaud his efforts to offset his home energy carbon consumption with other things, but it still doesn't seem quite right either. I guess you can rationalize it saying that the other things they do give them a net of 0 carbon emissions so they are doing their share. Why do they have to be negative?

Of course I have no intention of doing EVERYTHING that I am "supposed" to do to save the Earth either. I pick and choose. But I'm not winning Oscars telling people what to do to save the environment either. Maybe if he got new energy efficient windows, it would help. Plus he could get a $200 tax credit. :p

I don't think we can expect them to actually incur NO electricity expenses. From the details in a previous post, the bill for the main house sounds pretty low to me, given the size of the house - $500 - $600/month. I know people with much smaller houses that pay that, at least in the summer when they run the ac all the time, and I believe Nashville is a climate where one would need some ac as well as heat, depending on the season. I don't know, but would guess, that the pool house bill includes costs for heating the pool. We can argue that they shouldn't be heating the pool, I suppose. But a 10,000 sq. foot house for someone of their public stature isn't unreasonable - and by that, I mean that I assume they both need adequate home offices, space for some staff, space for entertaining, etc. So in my mind, it is a non-issue, which is why the source of the information is important - it is conservatives trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, or out of a pancake. I AM a conservative, FWIW, and I still think it is stupid.

[blazedog]

Not that it matters but it's only about $1400 a month. My electric bill for a relatively small condo apartment can run $150 or so and a lot of my power is supplied by the building itself and subsumed in my maintenance.

I guess they could move into a smaller house with fewer amenities -- on the other hand, they both work out of the home so I would assume office space away from home and commutes would also eat up power.

I think the source of the revelation is significant because it is coming from people who are refuting the whole idea of global warming as being a threat.

I think most of us are hypocrites to some degree or another unless we are Ed Begley Jr. -- and I don't think I personally could go as green as he does.

My experience with close friends who are extremely wealthy and aren't complete pigs is that they walk a constant moral tightrope in terms of enjoying what money can buy and also giving back to society.

[juliew]

I don't think we can expect them to actually incur NO electricity expenses. From the details in a previous post, the bill for the main house sounds pretty low to me, given the size of the house - $500 - $600/month. I know people with much smaller houses that pay that, at least in the summer when they run the ac all the time, and I believe Nashville is a climate where one would need some ac as well as heat, depending on the season. I don't know, but would guess, that the pool house bill includes costs for heating the pool. We can argue that they shouldn't be heating the pool, I suppose. But a 10,000 sq. foot house for someone of their public stature isn't unreasonable - and by that, I mean that I assume they both need adequate home offices, space for some staff, space for entertaining, etc. So in my mind, it is a non-issue, which is why the source of the information is important - it is conservatives trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, or out of a pancake. I AM a conservative, FWIW, and I still think it is stupid.


Oh, I didn't mean NO electricity expenses. I meant a net zero carbon emission. For example I planted a bunch of trees in exchange for having such a big house so that makes up for all the electricity I use. I could have a smaller house and plant fewer trees. Or I could live in a smaller house and still plant a bunch of trees and that would put me at a negative number. Zero (or whatever amount was determined that was OK per capita to emit without causing climate change) would seem to be a fair number for everyone. Maybe he's already there, I dunno. Obviously an oversimplification of all the variables as well.

It seems like someone who is crusading against global warming would want to do more than his share (not that he is obliged to, but seems like he would want to be a good example). Not having a big house would make it easier to reduce that side of the equation. And there are so many other valid factors to consider that aren't metioned in these articles. We're definitely only seeing one half of the story so without more information it is hard to judge. Which is what everyone is saying ;)

[DmOrtega]

...
It seems like someone who is crusading against global warming would want to do more than his share (not that he is obliged to, but seems like he would want to be a good example). Not having a big house would make it easier to reduce that side of the equation. And there are so many other valid factors to consider that aren't metioned in these articles. We're definitely only seeing one half of the story so without more information it is hard to judge. Which is what everyone is saying ;)

It's all relative to our lifestyle. Bigger seems to be the norm these days. I see everyday the explosion of mini mansons and huge vehicles, as well as huge food portions. And how about all those throw away cell phones and computers that become extinct after a couple of years?

[honeygirl1971]

I don't think we can expect them to actually incur NO electricity expenses. From the details in a previous post, the bill for the main house sounds pretty low to me, given the size of the house - $500 - $600/month. I know people with much smaller houses that pay that, at least in the summer when they run the ac all the time, and I believe Nashville is a climate where one would need some ac as well as heat, depending on the season. I don't know, but would guess, that the pool house bill includes costs for heating the pool. We can argue that they shouldn't be heating the pool, I suppose. But a 10,000 sq. foot house for someone of their public stature isn't unreasonable - and by that, I mean that I assume they both need adequate home offices, space for some staff, space for entertaining, etc. So in my mind, it is a non-issue, which is why the source of the information is important - it is conservatives trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, or out of a pancake. I AM a conservative, FWIW, and I still think it is stupid.


Well said, Meganator, and I agree totally. Except for the last line, as I am not a conservative. ;) :D

To me the bill seems low considering the size of the house, AND the house seems reasonable considering it contains offices for both Al and Tipper.

And Kristi, I agree that we should concentrate on the message of the film instead of shooting the messenger. But of course, there are way too many people out there who would MUCH rather shoot the messenger. :rolleyes:

[zwieback]

I don't think $1400 for a 10,000 sq. ft. house is all that outrageous. I live in a 2800 sq. ft. house and my power bill this past month was $330 and I don't crank up the heat whatsoever. If anything, it's a bit on the chilly side for the most part in my house.

[sneezles]

I don't think $1400 for a 10,000 sq. ft. house is all that outrageous. I live in a 2800 sq. ft. house and my power bill this past month was $330 and I don't crank up the heat whatsoever. If anything, it's a bit on the chilly side for the most part in my house.


I agree. I live in a 4,000 sq ft home and DH works out it though his office isn't any bigger than our dining room (and smaller than the bedrooms). I can't give you a figure on our heating bills on a monthly basis (because we use propane) but I can say that the thermostat is set for 68 during the day and 60 at night. We use propane to heat the water and for the cooktop. I may just have to go look at the books and see what our annual usage is.

In the summer the thermostat is set on 78 (I'd prefer it on 74 but I know better :o ). Our average electric bill in the summer months(about April thru November) is about $450 and in the "winter" months about $160.

We don't have a pool house and have never heated the pool but do use the hot tub a few times in the winter but that again is propane.

It's unfortunate that some feel the need to make this a political issue. While I may not care for most of Mr Gore's ideas this one I feel is most important. I would hope that most intelligent people would see it as a life-style issue and not a political issue.

[Grace]

$1400 a month or $140 a month, it's irrelevant. His message through his movie wasn't "if you only pay X dollars a month per square foot of house for your electricity, then you don't need to do anything - this message is only for people who are wasteful". His message was, we need to, as whole, cut back as much as we can. Perhaps all someone can do is recycle their cans and paper and plastic and use CFC bulbs, due to their financial situation that would keep them from doing bigger things. But for a guy that has as much as he does, and as much influence as he does, I believe he could do better. He could probably even get companies who manufacture energy saving or producing systems to donate to him in return for Al going around and promoting their products. That would raise great awareness and perhaps inspire other people (of means) to do the same thing. The more those companies make, the more they can bring down the prices of such systems to allow for more average people to start using them. It has to start somewhere.

I mean, why doesn't he have solar panels? Why not some kind of windmill that produces electricity? He likely could have a zero electricity bill, or something close to it anyway, with the connections and money he has to invest in such things. Of course, just him not using electricity wouldn't change anything in terms of global electricity usage, but I think the gist of the article is that he just doesn't truly practice what he preaches.

[sneezles]

I dunno, Grace, I don't hold much regard for paid spokes people (giving him the items is the same as paying him), JMHO.

There is a post above that says his household is going more green:

"Gore's family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100% green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology."

[Grace]

That's fine, but by calling attention to the possibilities, it's still better than doing nothing, IMO. And just because a celebrity endorses something, doesn't automatically make it bad.

Perhaps my specific ideas aren't good, but my point being he is a person of influence and he can talk about WHY things are a good idea or bad idea until he's blue, but if there are options out there that he can afford, I have to wonder why he wouldn't choose to take those options. Just wondering out loud, that's all.

[sneezles]

That's fine, but by calling attention to the possibilities, it's still better than doing nothing, IMO. And just because a celebrity endorses something, doesn't automatically make it bad.

Perhaps my specific ideas aren't good, but my point being he is a person of influence and he can talk about WHY things are a good idea or bad idea until he's blue, but if there are options out there that he can afford, I have to wonder why he wouldn't choose to take those options. Just wondering out loud, that's all.


I agree with you 100%.

[Kristilyn1]

I guess I could have missed it, but does that bill include his actual heating bill? I know other areas of the country rely on much more electric heating than we do in the Northeast, but is that what he has?

I don't care about his politics, but I think you automatically open yourself up to criticism if you can afford to do much more and don't---yet tell other people that they need to do more. Can I do more? Oh, absolutely, but I'm not on stage telling the guy who lives in a trailer park that he needs to do more to save the environment. In the grand scheme of things---it's not like it's awful, but c'mon. If I'm going to lecture people on their morality, say--I guess I'd clean all the skeletons out of my closet first......

I think it's a good thing that we have all these people out there acting as the Hypocrisy Police---whatever their motives for doing it--it's certainly making it a lot harder for people to SAY one thing and DO another.

Kristi

[DmOrtega]

Just saw this on MSNBC.com

Gore defends his carbon credentials (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17382210/?GT1=9033)

[sneezles]

Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.

Sorry but that just doesn't seem to me to be the best that he can do and it would be like me going green for electricity but still driving my SUV. If the issue of global warming is as dire as Mr Gore would lead us to believe (and FWIT: I do believe in global warming) then he should be striving for a negative impact not just off-setting his footprint.

[charley]

This is so ironic. How close did Gore come to winning in 2000? Remember chads? :D

Now the man holds an Oscar for a major victory and the Conservative Right can't handle it. Could he be doing more to live the "green" life? Sure; we all could. Is his message worth listening to? You better believe it! Has Bush done anything to help the environment or even acknowledge global warming exists? Only kicking and screaming and we all know he still doesn't get it. :rolleyes:

[sneezles]

Could he be doing more to live the "green" life? Sure; we all could. Is his message worth listening to? You better believe it!

I still think his message would have more impact if he wasn't justifying his carbon footprint, JMHO!

[blazedog]

Just saw this on MSNBC.com

Gore defends his carbon credentials (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17382210/?GT1=9033)

This is from the above article

The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued a statement saying Gore was not doing enough to reduce his own electricity consumption, and hence emissions of carbon dioxide. The group disputes that global warming is a serious problem.


This is the equivalent of having members of the Flat Earth society denounce Newton or Galileo -- the neanderthal right strikes again -- If you don't have facts on your side, discredit and obfuscate and hope that the American public will continue to be stupid enough to buy into the smear.:rolleyes:

[Melman]

Here's something else to think about:

"It's nice to see the conservative media taking the message of conservation and energy efficiency seriously. Hopefully they will hold their own leaders and readers to the same high standards.

The Tennessee Tax Dept. does not consider the "Tennessee Center for Policy Research," which roughly no one had heard of before this, a legitimate group. It's run by a long-time right-wing attack hack, and its only registered address is a P.O. box. Why is everyone in the media taking what it says about Gore's electricity use at face value?

Gore's electricity company has no record of being contacted about his bills. The "average" home electricity use quoted by TCPR is a national average that includes apartments and mobile homes. In Gore's climatic zone, the East South Central (Dept. of Energy PDF), the average is much higher, thanks to hot, humid summers and cold winters. Within that zone, Gore's usage is three (not 20) times average, and his per-square-foot usage is squarely average.

The Gores are not an average family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff. All that would be tough to cram in an average size house.

Gore buys the maximum allowable green electricity from the program offered by his utility.

Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway.

The larger point, which probably won't work well as a cable-show soundbite but is nonetheless true, is that Gore has done heroic work making global warming a top issue for governments the world over. He has prompted more individual and collective action on this issue than anyone else alive. The changes he has wrought outweigh his personal carbon emissions by many orders of magnitude."

Between a questionable "Tennessee Center for Policy Excellence" and the fact the power company has no record of giving out the information regarding his power bill (would the power bills of ANY one be available for public consumption????), I'm filing this whole "scandal" under the category of "consider the source". I know Rush and Hannity have both made a big deal about what appears to be no news. Oh well...there's nothing else going on in the world, so why not. I think Brittney and Anna Nicole only had about 3 headlines today. We have to keep people interested in something! :rolleyes:

[blazedog]

Couldn't resist adding this from this week's New Yorker -- the full article is at

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/070305ta_talk_remnick

“Saturday Night Live” is erratic in middle age but rarely cruel. An exception came late last spring, when, at the stroke of eleven-thirty, an NBC announcer gravely told the American people to stand by for a “message from the President of the United States,” and Al Gore, surrounded by Oval Office knickknacks, came into focus to deliver what could best be described as an interim report from a parallel, and happier, galaxy. President Gore reviewed some of his actions and their unintended consequences.

In the last six years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack. As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine. But I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.

Nor was this the only problem. Although Social Security had been repaired, the cost had been high: the budget surplus was “down to a perilously low eleven trillion dollars.” The price of gas had dropped to nineteen cents a gallon, and the oil companies were hurting. (“I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.”) After winning the plaudits of a grateful world—and turning Afghanistan into a premier “spring-break destination”—Americans could no longer risk travelling abroad, for fear of “getting hugged.” Even the national pastime was in danger. “But,” Gore added hopefully, “I have faith in baseball commissioner George W. Bush when he says, ‘We will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America!’ ”

The cruelty here was not to Gore, who probably requires no prompting to brood now and then about what might have been, but to the audience. It is worse than painful to reflect on how much better off the United States and the world would be today if the outcome of the 2000 election had been permitted to correspond with the wishes of the electorate. The attacks of September 11, 2001, would likely not have been avoided, though there is ample evidence, in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, that Gore and his circle were far more alert to the threat of Islamist terrorism than Bush and his. But can anyone seriously doubt that a Gore Administration would have meant, well, an alternate universe, in which, say, American troops were sent on a necessary mission in Afghanistan but not on a mistaken and misbegotten one in Iraq; the fate of the earth, not the fate of oil-company executives, was the priority of the Environmental Protection Agency; civil liberties and diplomacy were subjects of attention rather than of derision; torture found no place or rationale?

In increasing numbers, poll results imply, Americans are disheartened by the real and existing Presidency, and no small number also feel regret that Gore—the winner in 2000 of the popular vote by more than half a million ballots, the almost certain winner of any reasonable or consistent count in the state of Florida—ended up the target of what it is not an exaggeration to call a judicial coup d’état. Justice Antonin Scalia routinely instructs those who question his vote in Bush v. Gore to stop their ceaseless whinging. “It’s water over the deck,” he told an audience at Iona College last month. “Get over it.” But it is neither possible nor wise to “get over it.” The historical damage is too profound.

And yet, despite the burden of injury and injustice, Gore, more than any other major Democratic Party figure, including the many candidates assembled for next year’s Presidential nomination, has demonstrated in opposition precisely the quality of judgment that Bush has lacked in office. Gore’s critiques of the Administration’s rush to war in Iraq and of the deceptions used to justify it were early, brave, and correct. On the issue of climate change, of course, he has exercised visionary leadership. With humor and intelligence, and negligible self-pity, he dispensed with the temptations of political martyrdom and became a global Jeremiah. Beginning in the nineteen-eighties, he waged what was at first a fairly lonely campaign to draw attention to the problem; now, as a popularizing propagandist, he has succeeded in registering it as a crisis with nearly everyone, from field-tripping schoolchildren to reality-dubious members of the Administration. With his documentary film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore made the undeniability of the crisis a matter of consensus; thanks largely to him, an environmental issue will be an electoral issue. His secular evangelism has earned him an honored night at the Academy Awards and—almost as glittering—a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[greek salad]

I don't know the details about his Electric bill etc. and I haven't read the specifics.

However, I will say I think global warming is a huge issue and a big hat's off to Al Gore for making this important issue known to so many, through his lectures, movie, speaking engagements etc.

Gobal warming is discussed more and many individuals are making changes etc ---Al Gore has done more than if evey inch of his house is solar paneled.

But things have to change and we really need large scope changes. Need involvement of gov't, big industry, cities, the public etc.

[TKay]

However, I will say I think global warming is a huge issue and a big hat's off to Al Gore for making this important issue known to so many, through his lectures, movie, speaking engagements etc.


Yeah, I'm with you on this one, greek salad. We can pick apart anyone and say they are not doing enough (I don't feel like I have enough facts to do that about Gore). But whether he's doing EVERY single thing he can on his part or not is somewhat beside the point for me. I'm just grateful he's made this a topic of discussion for so many people who would never have otherwise been aware of it.
Funny about the SNL thing.

[honeygirl1971]

OT as far as Gore's electric bill goes, but on the topic of SNL...

Do you all remember the skits they did before the 2000 election? One night they did one that had two "visions" of the future. The first was Gore as president, interrupting prime time "again" to read a long, ultra-boring report on the economy. The second was Bush in the Oval Office, which was apparently on fire, saying, "Heh heh, sorry about starting that war, heh heh..." Not quite as funny in retrospect...:cool:

[kwormann]

Not to defend either position, but to add a bit of Nashville information...

When you use Green Power in Nashville, it isnt a different power company like in other states. Instead, you pay extra each month to have a portion of your energy be "green"


From the NES website...
How much does it cost? You can buy green power in 150-kilowatt-hour blocks (about 12 percent of a typical household's monthly energy use). Each block will add $4 to your monthly power bill. Green power cost more because the technology used to capture these renewable resources is more expensive than traditional power generation methods.

I dont know how many units he would have to buy to heat his entire home this way, but it would take the current base cost then add 4.00 for each unit. That could add up fast...the reason I dont use it!

I miss the choice I had in Texas - use the local electric co, OR use the Green power co, not a combo of the two!