Use less electricity and get charged more for it

[Plow]

So programs that support the continued usage of extremely ungreen coal power generation is a good thing?

Appealing to sympathetic individuals so they assuage the usage of gluttonous corporations is all fine and good?

Do you really not grasp the concept that the entire purpose is *less* usage of said unclean power?

[Tomk]

I agree and power plant evolution wasn't what I was trying to discuss. I just really don't agree with the argument that we can keep using coal by over-billing the innocent mindlessly simply because they are more emotionally sensitive to the cause.

[Tomk]

Do you really not grasp the concept that the entire purpose is *less* usage of said unclean power?

Nowhere have I said that homes should not be concerned with energy usage. I am merely stating that I am against them absorbing the cost of corporate indiscretions. I have said this in every way that I know how and I'm sorry if that hasn't been communicated properly.

[Plow]

Oh, so you didn't read the article and don't even know what's going on here, I see.

[Kiro]

Simply wearing sweaters and shit in the winter doesn't work for everyone, when it drops to like -20 one night you let me know how those sweatshirts are keeping you warm

Good point. Glad I don't live where it gets that cold.

[Plow]

Here's an example, literally from the article in the op nobody is reading:

For example, the commission last week approved a program in which St. Louis-based AmerenUE can offer credits to businesses that voluntarily shut down or scale back their electricity use during peak demand. AmerenUE will be able to recoup the cost for the program that starts Thursday by increasing the rates it charges business customers.

Bolded because business charges are specifically relegated to business customers.



Just in case some people did read, and somehow didn't get, lemme explain what that means (arbitrarily using the numbers provided in the article):

You are a business. You volunteer to limit electricity use. You gain 2 benefits. You reduce the price of your energy bills themselves, by literally using less electricity. You *also* get credits to your business for doing so during prime usage times, where the demand is reaching the limits of where new power plants will be required.

Altogether, your bill is reduced by 10-20%.

Now, in most places, the power company not only takes the hit in revenue from lower energy usage, it's also required to take the cut from the credit provisions itself. With this bill, part of that second loss will be relegated back to *all* businesses, not just those benefiting from it.

So, in the end, your bill goes up 3% period, and down 10-20% if you join in the energy efficiency. If you're a company unwilling to adapt, your bill is up 3%. If you're a company willing to try to be more efficient, your bill is down 7-17%.


This is a beautiful example of exactly the kind of bi-partisan progress we need, allowing businesses to operate freely, and offering major benefits to those that make choices that are good for everyone.

I can completely see why he would refer to it as his proudest accomplishment, if only we could get people to work together and understand that both sides have some good ideas, we could advance a lot faster.

[guartz]

It would be nice if there was some competition, but the company with a lobby pays no or very little taxes, gobbles up smaller companies who pay taxes, and scams customers.

I think FPL pays 1.5% annual tax.

I mean, fuck. I think they spent more on lobby then taxes.

[Tomk]

Here's an example, literally from the article in the op nobody is reading:



Bolded because business charges are specifically relegated to business customers.



Just in case some people did read, and somehow didn't get, lemme explain what that means (arbitrarily using the numbers provided in the article):

You are a business. You volunteer to limit electricity use. You gain 2 benefits. You reduce the price of your energy bills themselves, by literally using less electricity. You *also* get credits to your business for doing so during prime usage times, where the demand is reaching the limits of where new power plants will be required.

Altogether, your bill is reduced by 10-20%.

Now, in most places, the power company not only takes the hit in revenue from lower energy usage, it's also required to take the cut from the credit provisions itself. With this bill, part of that second loss will be relegated back to *all* businesses, not just those benefiting from it.

So, in the end, your bill goes up 3% period, and down 10-20% if you join in the energy efficiency. If you're a company unwilling to adapt, your bill is up 3%. If you're a company willing to try to be more efficient, your bill is down 7-17%.


This is a beautiful example of exactly the kind of bi-partisan progress we need, allowing businesses to operate freely, and offering major benefits to those that make choices that are good for everyone.

I can completely see why he would refer to it as his proudest accomplishment, if only we could get people to work together and understand that both sides have some good ideas, we could advance a lot faster.

Bolded because you haven't been reading what I have written.

They cannot charge you extra for a rebate. That is illegal. So the %10-%20 reduction in usage DOES NOT APPLY HERE. It is bullshit. Programs that address peak demand DO NOT address overall energy usage. So again the %10-%20 reduction does not apply.

Example: Businesses can get different utility rates. Peak and off-peak. Off-peak rates are understandably cheaper than peak, but nobody works in your company at night so how do you utilize this? One way is through your buildings AC system by using thermal storage. Basically your AC is designed to run all night making tons and tons of cheap ice. You use this ice during the day to cool the building. Yes it saves you money, yes it helps power plants peak demand, but it does not reduce the overall amount of energy that your company uses.

You can also argue that since ice generation requires the chiller to operate at a higher delta between the evaporator and condenser, coupled with the fact that glycol is a less efficient heat transfer medium, that they will actually use more energy in some cases.

So there is a difference between peak demand shedding and actual energy usage reductions since that seems to be a sticking point here.

It's kind of like saying that since taking proper care of your car helps it get better gas mileage and getting regular brake inspections and replacing the brake pads are a part of taking proper care of your car, therefor replacing your brake pads will help you get better gas mileage.

Now let's say that the brake pad manufacturer is getting legislation to help them fund brake pad inspection programs under the claim that it will save people %10-%20 in gas mileage.

To someone that doesn't know anything about cars this can sound great, but if you know anything at all about them it can bother you.

I'm fine with the increase but use the money on something better and don't lie to me.

[Bingbong]

I was definitely thinking "what's the point of having an A/C if they were just going to turn it off when it was needed the most.

The article didn't mention that the thermostat was an opt-in kind of a thing. Yeah, if you're dumb enough to allow someone else to control what your power needs are, then sure opt-in.

Didn't myth-busters or someone do a study on the programmable thermostat?
There's some that think that moving the temp as needed (lower temp at night, and when everyone is at school/work) versus just keeping a steady temp isn't that much of an energy swing.

Taken to another extreme, if lowering house temp while unoccupied saves energy, why are we not dropping our water heaters to 70 degrees when we're not home?

[Plow]

Bolded because you haven't been reading what I have written.

They cannot charge you extra for a rebate. That is illegal. So the %10-%20 reduction in usage DOES NOT APPLY HERE. It is bullshit. Programs that address peak demand DO NOT address overall energy usage. So again the %10-%20 reduction does not apply.

Example: Businesses can get different utility rates. Peak and off-peak. Off-peak rates are understandably cheaper than peak, but nobody works in your company at night so how do you utilize this? One way is through your buildings AC system by using thermal storage. Basically your AC is designed to run all night making tons and tons of cheap ice. You use this ice during the day to cool the building. Yes it saves you money, yes it helps power plants peak demand, but it does not reduce the overall amount of energy that your company uses.

You can also argue that since ice generation requires the chiller to operate at a higher delta between the evaporator and condenser, coupled with the fact that glycol is a less efficient heat transfer medium, that they will actually use more energy in some cases.

So there is a difference between peak demand shedding and actual energy usage reductions since that seems to be a sticking point here.

It's kind of like saying that since taking proper care of your car helps it get better gas mileage and getting regular brake inspections and replacing the brake pads are a part of taking proper care of your car, therefor replacing your brake pads will help you get better gas mileage.

Now let's say that the brake pad manufacturer is getting legislation to help them fund brake pad inspection programs under the claim that it will save people %10-%20 in gas mileage.

To someone that doesn't know anything about cars this can sound great, but if you know anything at all about them it can bother you.

I'm fine with the increase but use the money on something better and don't lie to me.

You're missing the entire point-- if usage during prime times isn't cut down, they'll have to build more power plants to handle it.


Not to mention, a much, much more accurate comparison is that you're basically saying using your car less won't result in less gas usage.


And, on top of all that, you're ignoring the fact that the personal part of it involves handing out programmable thermostats etc., which would be like handing out clean fuel filters, air filters, etc.


I really don't think you're paying any attention whatsoever to what's actually going on here.

I was definitely thinking "what's the point of having an A/C if they were just going to turn it off when it was needed the most.

The article didn't mention that the thermostat was an opt-in kind of a thing. Yeah, if you're dumb enough to allow someone else to control what your power needs are, then sure opt-in.

Because, technically, air conditioning is not a "requirement" for anyone. You can live in the intense heat pretty much anywhere in the U.S. without air conditioning, you're just not going to be comfortable.

Not to mention, they're not even doing anything remotely that drastic-- more like when the demand gets too intense, they turn everyone's thermostats up to 78-80 or whatever, instead of the 70--72 a lot of people will sit it at.

Didn't myth-busters or someone do a study on the programmable thermostat?
There's some that think that moving the temp as needed (lower temp at night, and when everyone is at school/work) versus just keeping a steady temp isn't that much of an energy swing.

It's a bit of a point of contention-- it's somewhat like the argument on when you should or shouldn't turn off your car. If you shut off your car at every red light, you're going to waste gas starting it up every time. Turning it off when you're waiting 10 minutes for your kid after school, well, duh. If you drop your heater to 50 degrees when you're not home in the winter, you're going to have a significant usage increase from trying to raise it 20 degrees every day after work. If you're keeping your house at 68 in the winter, and let it drop to 62-64 while you're gone or sleeping, it's going to be beneficial.

Taken to another extreme, if lowering house temp while unoccupied saves energy, why are we not dropping our water heaters to 70 degrees when we're not home?

Absolutely, positively, 100%, without a doubt, pure, plain and simple laziness.

[Tomk]

Not to mention, a much, much more accurate comparison is that you're basically saying using your car less won't result in less gas usage.

No

Not to mention, they're not even doing anything remotely that drastic-- more like when the demand gets too intense, they turn everyone's thermostats up to 78-80 or whatever, instead of the 70--72 a lot of people will sit it at.

I really don't think you're paying any attention whatsoever to what's actually going on here.


but I'm done , you win.

[archibaldcrane]

The whole point here is about peak usage - that's what these consumer incentives are about, that's what the companies do with their A/C ice storing thing you're talking about - it's all about reducing peak load to delay having to build new power plants (which would jack up electricity rates also).

If you encourage these plans, overall rates will go up a bit to pay for them. If you don't encourage these plans, overall rates will go up to pay for new power plants. I still don't get the outrage.

Also, re: water heaters - I think it's mainly because natural gas is much cheaper than electricity (to do the same job of heating), so the expected savings from having thermostat timers on the natural gas water heater is much less significant. If you have another method of water heater though, yeah it would probably be a good thing.

[Tomk]

No outrage, I'm just trying to point out that this bill is not all that it is advertised. I think that it is off the mark and will not deliver.


For water heaters, just have a timeclock installed on the main power to the heater and have it kill the power when you don't need hot water. Just make sure to have it turn back on at least an hour before you need the hot water to give it time to heat up.

[Kuni]

lolenergytax