Showing posts with label W.A.C. Bennett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label W.A.C. Bennett. Show all posts

Thursday, March 6, 2014

More Destruction by Smart Meters


Of the wallet anyway...

Just received the Hydro bill for the clubhouse.
Heating is kept low, just to keep pipes from freezing, and cool-winter patio plants barely alive.
Goes with this story here.

A forty-three per cent increase over the same period last year!
For basically similar temperatures, inside and out.

Last year's bill:  $337.
This year's bill:  $482.


"Gonna have to grow Ice Plants next year," suggests Kia.

No comment.
Or at least, none that can be printed here.

Thanks a pantload, B.C. Hydro.

W.A.C. Bennett rolls over in his grave...again.

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Smart Meters Will Destroy Your Wallet...


I have to admit I paid little attention to the Hydro smart meter furor prior to their installation here.

There were submissions to councils and provincial governments by groups opposed because of health concerns caused by radio frequency transmission, others warned of burgeoning electricity invoices.  B.C. Hydro pooh-poohed both as I recall.

In both Canada and the USA, many cities have had smart meters for some time.  Early on, there were reports that electrical invoices had almost doubled.
In retrospect, I wish they had only doubled.

As hydro bills arrived for our two meters, it was high time to compare pre-and post-smart meter invoices and usage.

The property has two meters:  one for the clubhouse (whose meter had two-way capability for the wind turbine production to access the hydro grid, both pre-and post-smart meters, but the pre smart meter was the old, mechanical meter), and one for the residence.  For ease of comparison, only electrical inflow is referenced.


Clubhouse:  (note that Step 2 thresholds do not apply to Commercial rates).

Mechanical meter Oct.21/11-Dec.19/11 (60 days):
1,975 kWh @ $.08810/kWh = $174.00

Mechanical meter Oct. 29/12-Dec.19/12 (62 days):
1,559 kWh @ $.09150/kWh = $142.65

Smart meter Oct.22/13-Dec.19/13 (59 days):
3,000 kWh @ $.09280/kWh = $278.40 = 95 per cent increase.
Note that the kiloWatt usage* is almost doubled, too, despite no usage of the building (explained later...hint...heating?)



Another example:    

Residence:

Mechanical meter Oct.21/11-Dec.19/11 (60 days):
Step 1:  1,332 kWh @ $.06670/kWh = $88.84
Step 2:     118 kWh @ $.09620/kWh = $11.35     Grand total $100.19

Mechanical meter Oct.19/12-Dec.19/12 (62 days):
Step 1:  1,137 kWh @ $.068/kWh = $77.32
Step 2:  zero kW

Smart meter Oct.22/13-Dec.19/13 (59 days):
Step 1:  3,000 kWh @ $.09280/kWh = $90.32
Step 2:     343 kWh @ $.10340/kWh =  $35.47   Grand total $125.79
Note that the kiloWatt usage* is only 505 kWh more (explained later...hint...lighting/cooking).

The 2013 rate per kiloWatt hour increased by 27 per cent over 2012.
The $125.79 was an increase of 62.7 per cent over 2012, despite the rate increasing by "only" 27%.

So what's responsible for the disparity (other than the hints provided?)

It's called magnetic principles and it definitely leads to higher invoices.
Sure there were magnets in the old mechanical meters but their aluminum "disc" didn't magnetize...
It's all about "start-up", the high energy "surge" needed to get a motor or incandescent bulb to start from a dead/cold stop.

Simply stated:  "...high starting current motors often draw very high currents only for a fraction of a second. Due to inertia, older mechanical disk electric meters cannot respond quick enough to register large motor starting current. But smart meters have no problem registering the brief, high power consumption from electric motors as these meters have no moving parts."

A more detailed explanation from the same source:

 "it's related to what appliances you have...has to do with electric motors. With furnace fans and compressors used in refrigeration, there is a very high starting current. With a small window or table top electric fan, starting current is relatively insignificant. For refrigeration appliances, window air conditioners, furnace blowers or central air conditioning starting current is quite high, ­ often several times higher than the running current listed on the nameplate or label.
What can be the reason for higher starting current than running current? In refrigeration appliances, motors must overcome the refrigerant already in the compressor to start rotation. In the case of a forced-air furnace fan or central air-conditioning fan, blower wheels act like large flywheels which must be brought up to speed.
 
In washing machines, starting current is highest when the spin cycle starts after the wash cycle. It takes many seconds to get the heavy basket with about 30 gallons of water and heavy laundry up to full speed before current consumption drops down to what machine's nameplate shows. A fully loaded basket with water and clothes weighs in well excess of 100lbs. The washer motor is stalled whenever the washer's timer starts it, causing the motor to draw almost 20 amps of power.
 
Only after any motor reaches full speed will current consumption reduce to the values listed on the nameplate or label.
 
National electrical codes require high starting-current appliances like washing machines, dryers, furnaces etc... to be connected to their own circuit breaker. This is to insure full power is available for high starting currents. In engineering terms this is called "in-rush current."
 
Heating elements in electric ranges, water heaters, clothes dryers and baseboard electric heaters all draw heavy current when first turned on."  (T.Twietmeyer)
 
"Holy moly," says Kia, "time to dry clothes on the line again, just like the old days." 
 
We already do that, Kia!
 
On this section of Buchanan Road, no natural gas is available.
So for 36 years, everything's been electric.
That's why we heat our home with wood.
 
Another thought:  Anyone holding off on replacing old appliances should take the plunge.  Newer appliances with "Energy Star" ratings have lower start up wattages, making them more efficient.  Natural Resources Canada even tells you which appliances are the best to purchase.
 
A little-seen comprehensive list of energy savers all over your home is here.
 
Even after you've done all you can to purchase Energy Star appliances, unplug phantom power items, etc., rates will continue to increase.
 
And then we British Columbians will be subjected to Time-of-Use billing, already in use in Ontario.
 
"We can hang our laundry on the line at 7 a.m., versus turning into Night Owls like folks in Ontario," suggests Kia.


Then-and-now Bennetts:
"The goal of the 10-year-plan is to keep rates predictable," B.C. Energy Minister, Bill Bennett said recently.

"There'll be cheap power for the residents of British Columbia," B.C. Premier (the late) W.A.C. Bennett said, too long ago.

The promise sure has changed over the years...

ADDENDUM:  Many, many links on smart meters here, some of which may keep one up at night!

Friday, February 8, 2013

"American Greed" and the Enron Story


Last night's CNBC show, "American Greed", detailed the unravelling of Enron

Enron's obvious (but to me, puzzling) hatred for anything California got me thinking back to when California owed B.C. Hydro money for electricity. 

I didn't know anything about Enron back in 1985.  Apart from its very public collapse in 2001, I was frankly amazed at the sheer depth of fraud and corruption--orchestrated by its principals--brought to light since then. Fortunately, my family didn't own Enron stock.  But you can bet YOUR bank did!

Take the quiz and see what you knew.
Very little, I bet, just like me.
Proof of duplicity in lurid and fraudulent corporate machinations even led to the dissolution of the previously highly-respected accounting firm of Arthur Andersen.

Wikipedia sums it all up, if not nicely.

The TV show reminded me that I had been interested in whether California had ever repaid B.C. Hydro, especially since B.C. residents were facing a 7.23 increase in rates, the first of many.

At the time, it was reported in the media that up to $400 million was owed.
So I questioned B.C. Hydro.

The following is the reply I received from B.C. Hydro rep Elisha Moreno, dated March 18th, 2004:

"Thanks for writing to us about where this proceeding is at - Powerex is still owed approximately US$280 million by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the California Power Exchange (CalPX). However, at the same time, FERC has ordered an across-the-board recalculation of California market prices for the period of October 2, 2000 to June 19, 2001. This recalculation will result in refunds to California by some market participants, including Powerex. Any refunds ordered are not in relation to any alleged market manipulation, but in recognition of the fact that the California market was "broken", resulting in extremely high power costs for California during the state's energy crisis.

The exact amount of refunds Powerex will be ordered to pay is currently unknown. At FERC's direction, the CAISO is now recalculating prices, which in turn will determine the amounts owed to and by each market participant based on a certain pricing methodology. These amounts are expected to be issued by the CAISO in the next 6 months, with refunds being offset against outstanding receivables.


Regardless of the amount Powerex has to refund, there will be no negative impact on BC Hydro's bottom line. We have already accounted for the vast majority of the money that's owed us, so any money we get back is a positive for our bottom line. It is also important to remember that we generated significant revenues from energy sales during the energy crisis, therefore this outstanding amount is unrelated to the coming rate increase.



I'd like to remind you that we have not had a rate increase in more than 10 years, since 1993. The reason we are seeking a rate increase is two fold, the need for energy is growing and new sources of electricity will cost more than our existing Hydro resources, and our infrastructure to make sure that energy is reliably delivered to you, is aging and in need of upgrades or replacement. As BC Hydro has absorbed all the costs incurred since 1993, in order to assure secure reliable power into the future we do need the rate increase.



An interim increase has been granted us by the Utilities Commission for April 1, 2004. However this is not the firm rate increase, as there will be a public hearing starting May 17 by the BC Utilities Commission for the public to come and voice their concerns and I would encourage you to do so.

They will make a final decision in the fall this year as to what the increase should be and if it is less than the interim rate customers will be refunded with interest on their bills.



I hope this answers your question somewhat, thank you again for writing."    Elisha Moreno Elisha.Moreno@bchydro.bc.ca

"Seems rear vision is clear vision, 20/20," offers Kia.
 Wonder what we'll discover in another nine years...  

One thing I'm certain of:  W.A.C. Bennett would be turning over in his grave if he knew.

FEB. 22/13 UPDATE:  Lawsuit:  California vs. B.C. Hydro 

AUG.17/13 UPDATE:  Powerex "settles" for $750 million payment to California

"Proof that U.S. lawyers are better than Canadian lawyers," sniffs Kia.