Lost Electricity -2

[Steve IA]

Thanks to all who have thought on this and offered your opinions.
What I've concluded so far is that this is not just my problem. At least
10 neighbors experienced the same thing. This tells me that it isn't
just a leaky extension cord.
A 20% reduction in the # of days with electricity means that on the days
I did have power I would have had to use 20% more each and every day to
maintain the monthly average of the previous 5 years. I was indeed 10%
colder for the month of DEC 07 than average, but heating is a small part
of our (collective) electric usage. the neighbors heat with LP, Oil ,
wood, or corn none use electric heat or heat pumps.

Someone mentioned higher voltage being pumped through the lines. Does
this make sense to you who are not electrically challenged? How about
more Hz?


My plan now is to gather more anecdotal evidence (oxymoron?) and
question the REC on Monday.
1. Did they estimate Dec's reading. (or other months)?
2. What could have caused this average monthly (31 day)usage when we
were all without power at 20% of the time?

Further thoughts and notions appreciated.

Steve
Southiowa

 

[Steve IA]

CJT wrote

I agree with the other contributors to the thread who suggest a
difference in weather is the most likely candidate.

It wasn't that great, and , again, electricity is not a great factor in
heating our home. i.e. 1/3hp (246 watts) furnace blower which runs only
a brief time as the wood burner (even with it's tiny blower fan)
supplies the lion's share of our heat.

If it was cold enough to keep you indoors watching TV, I'd check
the power consumption of the TV.

No more than normal. We're pretty set in our routine. Even around the
'holidays'.

+/- 30% isn't all that unusual under normal circumstances -- you could
look at your bills for several years if you have them.

Re read the original post. I've tracked Usage for the past 6 years by
month. That's how I calculated the average and spread.

Thanks

 

[Steve IA]

Well, this won't explain your bill or anything, but if you have a 20%
reduction in the number of days with electricity, to get the monthly total
to come out the same you would need to use 25% more (not 20% more) each day
you do have electricity. Just a quirk of the math. (80% * 125% = 100%)

daestrom

Yeah, my math seemed to simple and reasonable. Thanks for the
correction. I knew if I was wrong some faithful usenetter would set me
straight. ;-)

Which strengthens my argument.

Steve
southiowa

 

[Steve IA]

I think your meter is the wind-up kind. Every month when the meter "reader"
comes by, he sticks in a special key, winds up the meter, and it runs, like
an old-fashioned mantle clock.

The meter doesn't know that the power's off.

That's as good an explanation as I've gotten from the REC.



Steve

--
"But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on.
We're waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on."

-Pete Seeger

 

[Steve IA]

Well, here's the bottom line. Excluding the almost infinitesimal possibility of mass
meter error (essentially impossible if mechanical meters are involved), you and your
neighbors used more power. What we (at least those of us who know the utility
business) are trying to do is suggest where that extra usage came from.

Yeahbut, 25% more each and every day we were on line? Including the 10
billing days <i>prior</i> to the outage? There were only 14 days left of
the billing period after the power was restored. Ooh, Ooh, let's
calculate that:

Day 1-10 average use (based on 6 years of dec.data) = 22 kwh/day = 222kw
Day 11-17 0 usage
day 18-31 682kw- 222kw used the 1st 10 days = 460 kw. / 14 days = 32.9
kw/day.
150% usage for each of 14 days between the restoration and the end of
the cycle? Huh-uh; didn't happen.
There's more than cold weather and 'recovery' to this equation. I just
haven't figgered it out yet.

It is a known fact that power usage tracks degree-days even with homes that don't
primarily heat with electricity. Why? Got me. Just how it is. It is also a known
fact that people use more electricity after an outage, what your co-op called
recovery usage. Why? Got me. I can speculate but since that's not my specialty I
don't have any details. I just know that it is true. It probably is a combination
of catching up on activities such as washing clothes combined with the disruption of
your normal habits.

Not 150% more for 14 days. Remember I said that when I got the bill I
immediately checked the meter and found it to be in normal usage from
the date of reading to the day I got the bill for ~21. kwh/day usage.
Thankfully I'm not still using at the 150% rate. Whatever it was went away.

Another factor very well may be slightly higher voltage. For practical purposes,
your use will scale with voltage. A 5% increase in voltage might not be unusual if,
in the process of rebuilding what the storm damaged, the co-op installed up-rated
equipment.

That's an interesting thought. My K-A-W meter only shows 120-121 vac on
all my tests so far. I've tested line voltage occasionally over the
years with a multitester and as I recall it was always close to 120.

It's most likely a combination of all the above. It is effectively impossible to
determine the exact cause after the fact. The co-op person that you talk to will
tell you that same thing, couched in consumer-friendly verbiage.

Well, maybe a combination, but we still feel there's something we're not
being told. Maybe I better get my tin-foil hat out.

Thanks again.

Steve

 

[Ann]

Neon John wrote:

Well, maybe a combination, but we still feel there's something we're not
being told. Maybe I better get my tin-foil hat out.

Thanks again.

Steve

Did you have your main breaker(s) off all during the outage? Soon after
I moved here, there a super-brownout (incandescent light bulbs just barely
glowed) that went on for hours. After that, I'm careful to disconnect
anything that might be damaged by low voltage whenever the power gets
squirrely.

There is some validity to the "recovery" thing. A common example is the
household water heater. The savings achieved by shutting off a modern,
well insulated heater set at 120F - say, while occupants are away
during the day - are disappointing. It doesn't take that much energy
to maintain the standby temperature. Your wood stove maintained the
temperature in some of your house, but not all of it. Assuming you ran
your furnace after the power came on and before the meter was read, a
house is a lot of mass to warm back up to its standby temperature in the
winter.

 

[Terry]

It is a known fact that power usage tracks degree-days even with homes that don't
primarily heat with electricity. Why? Got me. Just how it is. It is also a known
fact that people use more electricity after an outage, what your co-op called
recovery usage. Why? Got me. I can speculate but since that's not my specialty I
don't have any details. I just know that it is true. It probably is a combination
of catching up on activities such as washing clothes combined with the disruption of
your normal habits.

This recovery usage was an interesting topic. I tried Googling for it
and lost interest before I found anything. It doesn't seem too
common.

 

[Steve IA]

Did you have your main breaker(s) off all during the outage? Soon after
I moved here, there a super-brownout (incandescent light bulbs just barely
glowed) that went on for hours. After that, I'm careful to disconnect
anything that might be damaged by low voltage whenever the power gets
squirrely.

No, didn't think of it. I'd probably be running out to the pole every
few minutes to 'see if it's on'. ;-)

There is some validity to the "recovery" thing. A common example is the
household water heater. The savings achieved by shutting off a modern,
well insulated heater set at 120F - say, while occupants are away
during the day - are disappointing. It doesn't take that much energy
to maintain the standby temperature. Your wood stove maintained the
temperature in some of your house, but not all of it.

With a fairly open floor plan and a lofted master bedroom it kept all
but the den (closed the door) and the spare bedroom (always closed)as
warm or warmer than we normally keep the house. The outside temps during
the outage were normal 20-40s, not like it is now, -5F. In fact, we had
to curtain off the loft as a lot of heat was going up there making it
+75F which is too darn hot for sleeping.

Assuming you ran

your furnace after the power came on and before the meter was read, a
house is a lot of mass to warm back up to its standby temperature in the
winter.

It's the old question of night-time furnace setback. Only longer. It
does save energy.

Steve

 

[Steve IA]

Along the way here, someone asked if the previous month had been
estimated. That is just as important as if the current month were
estimated, because if they estimated Nov on the low side, then it gets
added on when they do the next actual reading. If they added it to
Dec, then the usage is going to be higher. Also, along the same lines
of reasoning, what was the usage shown for Nov compared to the avg for
Nov? If it was below avg, that lends credence that somehow some Nov
demand is showing up in Dec.

Actually, Nov was higher than the 6 year average which kinda futzes the
estimate theory.

Also, have you read the meter yourself to see how much you've used now
in Jan? I know they said they didn't estimate it in Dec, but if they
did estimate and it was higher than actual, that would show up now by
the current reading being lower than expected.

Yes, immediately after getting the bill I checked the meter. It was in
line with 21 kwh/day usage which is January 6-year average.

Another possibility might be that due to storms the meter readers were
unable to make their usual schedule. Perhaps they came a week later
than they should have and the date of the Dec reading wasn't correctly
reflected on the bill.

All I can go by is the reading dates on the bill. Another customer had
a different reading date than I did. .

In any case, these bills are undoubtedly attributable to some
combination of estimate vs actual, meters being read for a diff number
of days this cycle, much colder weather, etc, not some strange
electrical phenomenon. I'd be very interested to hear the current
reading results.

"Current reading results". HA, I get it. I'll let you all know what the
'charge' is for Jan. when the bill comes on 'line'.


Steve

 

[Ann]

No, didn't think of it. I'd probably be running out to the pole every
few minutes to 'see if it's on'. ;-)

With a fairly open floor plan and a lofted master bedroom it kept all
but the den (closed the door) and the spare bedroom (always closed)as
warm or warmer than we normally keep the house. The outside temps during
the outage were normal 20-40s, not like it is now, -5F. In fact, we had
to curtain off the loft as a lot of heat was going up there making it
+75F which is too darn hot for sleeping.

Assuming you ran

It's the old question of night-time furnace setback. Only longer. It
does save energy.

Yes, it does. And turning it off entirely at night would save even more.
I tried that for a while this Fall and the colder it got, the longer it
took to get the house warmed up to where it was approaching comfortable.
And there was a strong temptation to set the thermostat higher than normal
to get it to stay warm sooner.

But it does look like in your case there wasn't much to warm up.

 

[danny burstein]

Yes, it does. And turning it off entirely at night would save even more.
I tried that for a while this Fall and the colder it got, the longer it
took to get the house warmed up to where it was approaching comfortable.
And there was a strong temptation to set the thermostat higher than normal
to get it to stay warm sooner.

Ummmmmmm...... except in a very few cases with specialized
heating systems [a], moving the thermostat to a higher temperature
isn't going to speed things up.

[a] multi stage furnaces/boilers, and heat pumps with
additional resistance or fossil fuel input.

 

[Ann]

Ummmmmmm...... except in a very few cases with specialized
heating systems [a], moving the thermostat to a higher temperature
isn't going to speed things up.

Yes, but ... there is more to heat than the air for the temp in a room to
be relatively stable. (Which is why I used "stay warm".) Setting the
thermostat higher than the target temperature does expedite the process.

[a] multi stage furnaces/boilers, and heat pumps with additional
resistance or fossil fuel input.

But it does look like in your case there wasn't much to warm up.

 

[dpb]

Ann wrote:
....

Yes, but ... there is more to heat than the air for the temp in a room to
be relatively stable. (Which is why I used "stay warm".) Setting the
thermostat higher than the target temperature does expedite the process.

....

How, precisely, in the absence of the higher input rate previous poster
mentioned do you propose this piece of magic happens???

--

 

[Ann]

Ann wrote:
...

...

How, precisely, in the absence of the higher input rate previous poster
mentioned do you propose this piece of magic happens???

Duration of input.

 

[dpb]

Duration of input.

??? Longer on at constant input --> higher input, certainly, but that
comes at essentially higher setpoint. Has nothing whatsoever to do w/
the rate of recover (or loss).

From a given starting temperature, at 'cold soak' the rate of transfer
from the heated air to the structure is identical at a given temperature
irregardless of the thermostat setting as long as it is above the
setpoint (again, w/o a source of 'aux' heat). The heat transfer rate
from the air to the structure is simply a function of the temperature
differential and the operational characteristics of the heat source are
no different.

You can turn it on in the morning after the setback at 72F or 90F and
the recovery is identical (again, w/o a source of 'aux' heat). Anything
else is simply perception.

--

 

[Ann]

then you go PAST the 'target' temp.

 

[Terry]

That pretty much leaves the storm itself and post-storm activities. We're back to
the storm recovery usage that you're fighting so hard not to acknowledge.

Great post.

I have not been able to get a Google hit on a good explanation of
"storm recovery usage." Maybe you could enlighten me.

One example of how your usage can go up after a storm would be backed
up dirty clothes. Another would be to have to reheat your house and
hot water. < I guess you do need to heat hot water.

I can't see how any of this would cause your monthly bill to be any
larger.

 

[danny burstein]

I have not been able to get a Google hit on a good explanation of
"storm recovery usage." Maybe you could enlighten me.

One example of how your usage can go up after a storm would be backed
up dirty clothes. Another would be to have to reheat your house and
hot water. < I guess you do need to heat hot water.

There are, indeed, a couple of cases where "recovery" will cause
an increase in electrical cost.

a: if you've got an electrical heat pump that keeps
your place warm, it usually runs as a "reverse air
conditioner" and is reasonably efficient.

However, many also have a straight "resistance heater"
strip in them that gets called on for extreme conditions.

This costs a _lot_ more per BTU, so you generally don't
want it to kick in.

(most, not all, thermostats have a "lock out the strips"
button on them so they won't come on unless you really,
really, want them).

After a day or two of no heat, your home might be
down to 40 degrees, so when power comes back the
heat pump assembly _will_ turn on the strips.

b: if you're a larger customer (business, etc.) you're
generally paying a "peak usage charge" that gets pegged
at the highest demand you pull - even if it's only
for an hour one afternoon.

So if you've been powerless fo a day, all the refrigerators
will kick on at the same time, and all the air compressors
and pumps and lights and everything else... will _all_ turn
on for the first couple of hours after power is restored.

(Generally these things cycle a bit so they _won't_ all
be on. There is, in fact, a pretty well developed science
of "load management" to spread them out. For example, if
you've got a car garage, you might lock out that 25 kw
air compressor from 3 pm to 4 pm and instead let the
air tank drop pressure a bit).

 

[Steve IA]

Let's analyze the situation as I understand it.

You and a few neighbors live on a dead end primary (term refers to the high voltage
distribution coming to your transformer) spur. Your power was cut by the storm and
was off several days. Based on mostly anecdotal evidence, you all claim to have
higher bills. You have asked neighbors who did not lose power and their anecdotal
responses were that their bills didn't go up. Presuming I got all that correct,
let's see what all you power losers have in common.

There are several more power losers than the 4. I just mentioned the 4
on this line when questioning the one line vs. 2 line scenario. Folks on
completely separate lines are complaining of higher bills also.

Being on the same primary spur leads me to consider higher voltage after the power
restoration. Since you have no measurements, no way to know. A good clue would be
if your voltage NOW is higher than 120.

All measurements since have been ~ 120.

That leaves the meter reader, the company and the storm itself.

It is vanishingly unlikely that the meter reader made near-identical reading mistakes
on all your meters. It is also unlikely that the meters were even read at all. A
power outage that long tells me the utility was assholes'n'elbows during the
recovery. The meter readers, unless they are contractors, were likely working on the
recovery as ground and support crew. That's the way it works with my client
utilities.

Meter readers are contract, usually retired farmers that drive around
and wife gets out to read while farmer pats the dog on the head.
I would suspect that the reader is the same as all I've spoken to are in
the same township. But identical mistakes?? Doubt it.
I can question the REC about other reader's districts.

That leaves the company itself and the storm. Specifically for the company, a
probability of an estimated meter reading even if they don't normally do estimating.
Arguing against that is that your non-power-loss neighbors say their bills were only
a little higher.

If all were estimated at previous years levels this would make sense,
excepting the fact that when I read the meter it was still in line with
average daily usage based on 6 years data. The November bill was higher
than average which negates the estimate theory , I think.


"I'm so confused!"

In my mind it boils down to two potential but mutually exclusive causes, militated by
the possibility of high voltage being a contributory factor. These are the only two
possibilities that could roughly equally affect the power losers but not affect
others.

If there was higher voltage, it's gone now.

I'm getting the feeling that you're not going to be satisfied in this thread until
someone tells you "Yeah, those dirty bastards are stealing STEALING from you."

That's not quite so. If I can come away from this discussion or a
discussion with the REC understanding how with 20% fewer days usage, the
total kwh went up by 5% over the 6 year average, I'll be tickled. If
they estimated: OK, I'll accept that It will all come out next bill. If
higher voltage 'spun' the meter, OK, just tell me. I just feel I need to
know. As I said before, I may be thick as a brick when it comes to
electricity, but I'm fairly methodical and can see through a wall if
given enough time. I appreciate those who are continuing to put up with
my plebeian thought process on this.

Now, where's that next windmill, Pancho?

Here's what I suggest you do. Don't bother the utility until you get your next
month's bill. THEN do your math. If everything approximately evens out, you're
done. If you're not satisfied, first thing to do is call the utility and talk to
someone more senior than the receptionist and find out for sure whether they estimate
or not, and whether the bill you just got was estimated.

I've been reading the meter nearly daily since I got the bill. Usage is
in line with 6 year data averages. (21 kwh/day)>

Here's what will happen if you make a big enough stink. The utility will come out
and pull your meter, replacing it with a new one. Your old meter will be sent to the
meter shop for a calibration determination. In the very very very unlikely event the
meter is in error then your bill will be corrected. From experience with meter
shops, I can say that the occurrence of this is so rare that it usually generates a
little chatter among the techs.

The overwhelming likelihood is that the meter will be in calibration. At that point
you'll get a call or perhaps just a form letter stating that your meter was checked
and was in calibration and therefore your bill stands. This is all that they're
legally and IMO, morally obligated to do.

Yeahbut, it's not just me and my meter.

Thanks, john

Steve

 

[Ann]

Well i thought the original conversation was about saving energy. So if
you're not concerned with efficiency, then why not just leave it turned up
to begin with?

My post was about "recovery" and the furnace was turned off, not down.
My intended point was that people sometimes don't warm a cold house up in
the most fuel efficient way ... and end up "giving back" some of their
savings. (No, I don't think this explains Steve's situation because of
the length of the outage and the fact that he kept most of his house warm
with the wood stove.)