Calgarians detail life with an electricity load limiter(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Calgarians detail life with an electricity load limiter
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/utility-bills-electricity-limiters-calgary-1.6388949
136 comments
I'm in Canada, and have electric heat. We've added a heat pump, being in a more temperate climate, but originally all the primary heat was electric baseboards with simple resistance heating. The baseboards still supplement the heat pump for rooms that we want warmer for example. Our stove is propane, but still needs electricity to run the oven's panel and glow plug igniter.
We're in an area (island) without a gas pipeline, so the choices are electric, propane (portable tanks or delivered), or wood stoves. Space heating and hot water are definitely the largest hits to the hydro bill, but we'd be in a tough spot if the power tripped off completely for every transient load over the average.
We're in an area (island) without a gas pipeline, so the choices are electric, propane (portable tanks or delivered), or wood stoves. Space heating and hot water are definitely the largest hits to the hydro bill, but we'd be in a tough spot if the power tripped off completely for every transient load over the average.
I'll assume you use natural gas for cooking and hot water. They're not too common in Canada. Maybe a big more common in Alberta (lots of fossil fuel extraction), but still, less common than Europe.
Possibly with what's going on in Russia, Europe will move away from being gas-first.
Electric space heating is exceedingly rare, unless you're really in the middle of nowhere off the natural gas network. and somehow can't/don't want to deal with propane or heating oil.
Possibly with what's going on in Russia, Europe will move away from being gas-first.
Electric space heating is exceedingly rare, unless you're really in the middle of nowhere off the natural gas network. and somehow can't/don't want to deal with propane or heating oil.
Please forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason that this limiter acts like a circuit breaker, cutting the power until reset, instead of not being able to deliver over the given threshold? Say, having the lights dim when adding that one extra appliance, instead of the world suddenly going dark.
It could damage some appliances - motors for example could stop turning and just start heating up if they don’t get the full voltage.
Why doesn’t it just reset automatically (at least a couple times before tripping permanently) would be my question?
Why doesn’t it just reset automatically (at least a couple times before tripping permanently) would be my question?
> Rising utility bills have community advocates worried
Instead of being worried, why don't they pay the utility bills of the people they're so concerned about?
Public utilities are a common good, and it is important that they be paid for so that they continue to be a common good.
Instead of being worried, why don't they pay the utility bills of the people they're so concerned about?
Public utilities are a common good, and it is important that they be paid for so that they continue to be a common good.
The people with the least money are getting the most expensive power
I do not think this should be called a "utility". The electricity itself is. But the system of paying for it is not.
Surely we can build better societies than this?
I do not think this should be called a "utility". The electricity itself is. But the system of paying for it is not.
Surely we can build better societies than this?
Societies are descriptive, not prescriptive.
That is, what people do constitutes society.
If you want a better society, then act better. Do what you can.
Do you care about the people affected by this? Can you do something about it? Then do so.
Is there something preventing these advocates from paying the bills for the people they are concerned about?
That is, what people do constitutes society.
If you want a better society, then act better. Do what you can.
Do you care about the people affected by this? Can you do something about it? Then do so.
Is there something preventing these advocates from paying the bills for the people they are concerned about?
> If you want a better society, then act better. Do what you can.
That is a cop out. The commanding heights of the economy are being controlled in this case by people who prioritise their own greed over a families welfare.
What does: "act better" mean in this context?
That is a cop out. The commanding heights of the economy are being controlled in this case by people who prioritise their own greed over a families welfare.
What does: "act better" mean in this context?
> Do you care about the people affected by this? Can you do something about it? Then do so.
That's what people are doing by advocating for a change in the system.
> Is there something preventing these advocates from paying the bills for the people they are concerned about?
Well yes, it would require an enormous amount of coordination to match up all individuals with money to match up with individuals with the need. It also isn't very fair to shoulder the burden of these payments on only those who go out of their way to make this effort. Hence why it is better to have the state step in and manage all this.
That's what people are doing by advocating for a change in the system.
> Is there something preventing these advocates from paying the bills for the people they are concerned about?
Well yes, it would require an enormous amount of coordination to match up all individuals with money to match up with individuals with the need. It also isn't very fair to shoulder the burden of these payments on only those who go out of their way to make this effort. Hence why it is better to have the state step in and manage all this.
How so? The Bill of Rights is aspirational, not normative. (Am not familiar with Canada's system. So cannot compare.)
Unless you're thinking of societies without any regard for personal rights?
Unless you're thinking of societies without any regard for personal rights?
the public utility could just pass the costs onto the other customers.
Which they likely do anyway, if the regulating commission allows it.
How is it fair to require involuntary servitude on the part of paying customers to pay for what they did not use?
Those who are actually concerned should pay the bill if it is important to them. Pushing the bill onto others while expressing concern is not real concern. Forcing one person to pay for what another person needs is involuntary servitude (slavery).
How is it fair to require involuntary servitude on the part of paying customers to pay for what they did not use?
Those who are actually concerned should pay the bill if it is important to them. Pushing the bill onto others while expressing concern is not real concern. Forcing one person to pay for what another person needs is involuntary servitude (slavery).
It is not slavery. That is a silly exaggeration.
People who have more should pay more so those who barely scrape by (and are looking after the next generation - this is a family) can survive and thrive.
That is not slavery.
I am a little bemused to be writing this.
People who have more should pay more so those who barely scrape by (and are looking after the next generation - this is a family) can survive and thrive.
That is not slavery.
I am a little bemused to be writing this.
So, it is OK to take money and other goods from people who have it and bestow it on other people who don't?
If you're so concerned, then take the money out of your own pocket and use it to alleviate this problem. Dipping into someone else's pocket because you feel bad is not good behavior. It's theft.
And, its involuntary servitude because the person you are taking this money from worked for it. Do you think they worked for it to benefit you? To benefit this person you are so concerned about? No.
To the extent you are forcing them to work for your whims, to the direct benefit of someone else, to that extent they are made a slave.
If you're so concerned, then take the money out of your own pocket and use it to alleviate this problem. Dipping into someone else's pocket because you feel bad is not good behavior. It's theft.
And, its involuntary servitude because the person you are taking this money from worked for it. Do you think they worked for it to benefit you? To benefit this person you are so concerned about? No.
To the extent you are forcing them to work for your whims, to the direct benefit of someone else, to that extent they are made a slave.
Its just business. Companies pass losses onto other customers. Who do you think pays the medical bills for all those can't pay? Who pays for the public transportation, certainly not the riders. I would love to only pay for stuff I benefit from but I'm not naive. World doesn't work that way.
> So, it is OK to take money and other goods from people who have it and bestow it on other people who don't?
Yes
Yes
> It is not slavery. That is a silly exaggeration.
I blame the gradual watering down of the word "slavery" from "actual slavery" to "any economic arrangement that is unfair".
I blame the gradual watering down of the word "slavery" from "actual slavery" to "any economic arrangement that is unfair".
You are begging the question. If you start with the assumption that distribution must be organised solely by monetary exchange then of course any kind of collectivisation is going to appear as “theft” or “slavery”. However, there is no a priori reason to make that assumption, it is just a convenient one for certain interest groups.
Your assertion that distributing costs among many customers is a form of slavery seems really disconnected from actual slavery.
Many times, businesses pass costs onto customers for things they don’t use. My college charged me a “sports fee” for games I never went to. My health insurance will charge me my premiums when I don’t get sick. I will share the cost of peaker plants even if I don’t use electricity during peak hours.
If the utility covered some of these costs, people who didn’t like the resulting rate hike could buy solar panels or a generator.
In contrast, the word “slavery” refers to a practice where someone is kidnapped and forced to perform actions (labor, sex acts, etc.), often under the threat of having “the shit beat out of them,” to use a colloquialism.
Many times, businesses pass costs onto customers for things they don’t use. My college charged me a “sports fee” for games I never went to. My health insurance will charge me my premiums when I don’t get sick. I will share the cost of peaker plants even if I don’t use electricity during peak hours.
If the utility covered some of these costs, people who didn’t like the resulting rate hike could buy solar panels or a generator.
In contrast, the word “slavery” refers to a practice where someone is kidnapped and forced to perform actions (labor, sex acts, etc.), often under the threat of having “the shit beat out of them,” to use a colloquialism.
This is not passing along a cost. It is taking money out of one person's pocket and directly benefiting another person who has not paid.
This is a lot different than paying the amortized/allocated cost of utility and all that is needed to run the utility. Paying people's bills for them when they do not pay is not necessary to run the utility. It generates no utility (in this case, electricity). A peaker plant generates utility, and it has associated costs.
Businesses often pass on the costs of dealing with people who don't pay because it is efficient, not because it is right.
This is a lot different than paying the amortized/allocated cost of utility and all that is needed to run the utility. Paying people's bills for them when they do not pay is not necessary to run the utility. It generates no utility (in this case, electricity). A peaker plant generates utility, and it has associated costs.
Businesses often pass on the costs of dealing with people who don't pay because it is efficient, not because it is right.
Didn’t quite understand why this is news. The limiter idea is actually pretty novel. Twice in my life I fell behind on the electric bill, and it was shut off entirely.
Maybe I’m reading between the lines, but to write this news article focusing on the plight of a mother and her children - there’s clearly some agenda here. More subsidies or free electricity for certain people? I’m not arguing in favor or against this, but there’s clearly some intent.
Maybe I’m reading between the lines, but to write this news article focusing on the plight of a mother and her children - there’s clearly some agenda here. More subsidies or free electricity for certain people? I’m not arguing in favor or against this, but there’s clearly some intent.
> there’s clearly some agenda here
I have to agree a little bit.
Moreover, I'm also going to be a bit insensitive here as this particular person, as shown in the photo supposedly has 2 kids already, and is now on a maternity leave (as mentioned in the article) for the 3rd kid (assuming no twins), while she is unable to pay for utility.
Should she be really having another kid while hoping for the state to help/bailout via subsidies? Where does personal responsibility fall into all of this?
I have to agree a little bit.
Moreover, I'm also going to be a bit insensitive here as this particular person, as shown in the photo supposedly has 2 kids already, and is now on a maternity leave (as mentioned in the article) for the 3rd kid (assuming no twins), while she is unable to pay for utility.
Should she be really having another kid while hoping for the state to help/bailout via subsidies? Where does personal responsibility fall into all of this?
Typically I find that people who argue for these very harsh penalties for being poor also argue against easy access to contraception / abortion.
So not sure. But it is a valid argument, if you can barely afford to live, why make it even more expensive to live?
So not sure. But it is a valid argument, if you can barely afford to live, why make it even more expensive to live?
It falls directly onto the necks of those children where it was always intended to go.
considering everybody is talking about the decline of births, shouldn't we be paying her more?
I don't know if that's a serious question or not, but somebody's gotta square the difference.
I don't know if that's a serious question or not, but somebody's gotta square the difference.
> Didn’t quite understand why this is news.
Because in Alberta the cost of electricity has essentially doubled in the past 4-6 months (my own cost of electricity went from about $70 a month to $130), and folks who were previously living on the edge are now being pushed over, hence the article noting that "community advocates [are] worried the number of Calgarians facing this scenario will increase, and many don't know what a load limiter is."
Local news stories require understanding the local context.
Because in Alberta the cost of electricity has essentially doubled in the past 4-6 months (my own cost of electricity went from about $70 a month to $130), and folks who were previously living on the edge are now being pushed over, hence the article noting that "community advocates [are] worried the number of Calgarians facing this scenario will increase, and many don't know what a load limiter is."
Local news stories require understanding the local context.
The agenda is that families should not be left to starve and freeze because of flawed economic arrangements.
I share that agenda. I expect everyone to share that agenda
I share that agenda. I expect everyone to share that agenda
While I understand the sentiment the previous default that still applies to most of the world is that when you fall behind your electricity payments it gets shut off. The limiter is a humanitarian middle ground, acknowledging that electricity is now a basic need.
I think the point of this article is that this "humanitarian middle ground" is not really that humanitarian in practice.
The idea that people can't pay their bills because of "flawed economic arrangements" is pure dogma.
I don't think we should let people starve or freeze but people have to be acculturated to pay for what they use. A load limiter seems like a reasonable middle ground.
I don't think we should let people starve or freeze but people have to be acculturated to pay for what they use. A load limiter seems like a reasonable middle ground.
What if they can't afford to pay for what they need to stay alive? Poverty is a social issue and must be fixed by social means. In the meantime, the more fortunate can protect the lives and human rights of the poor by redistributing their surplus.
> In the meantime, the more fortunate can protect the lives and human rights of the poor by redistributing their surplus.
Seems like that's exactly what's happening here...
> "The Utilities Consumer Advocate works with any customers who do experience shut offs in the spring and summer to ensure that they do not go into the winter season without electricity or natural gas services," said the minister of natural gas and electricity's press secretary, Taylor Hides, in a statement.
Seems like that's exactly what's happening here...
> "The Utilities Consumer Advocate works with any customers who do experience shut offs in the spring and summer to ensure that they do not go into the winter season without electricity or natural gas services," said the minister of natural gas and electricity's press secretary, Taylor Hides, in a statement.
So people not being able to pay for heat is the economic arrangement working as intended? You don't think that's worse?
People being unable to pay their bills may be due to "flawed economic arrangements," it may be due to an act of God, or it may be up to their own irresponsible behavior.
Assuming it is only due to the first is dogmatic.
Assuming it is only due to the first is dogmatic.
> Load limiters allow for continued operation of a furnace, a few lights and small appliances (but only one at a time). If too much electricity is used at once, the limiter will trip — turning off the power all together, until the meter is reset physically by the client or remotely by the distribution company.
Ok. Freeze or starve. A choice.
There is no place in Hell bad enough for these utility companies.
Ok. Freeze or starve. A choice.
There is no place in Hell bad enough for these utility companies.
>> Load limiters allow for continued operation of a furnace, a few lights and small appliances (but only one at a time). If too much electricity is used at once, the limiter will trip — turning off the power all together, until the meter is reset physically by the client or remotely by the distribution company.
>Ok. Freeze or starve. A choice.
It's unclear what they mean by "a few lights and small appliances", but a crock pot apparently only consumes 240W (according to an amazon listing). That's probably within the limit. The food won't be great, but you're also not going to starve to death.
edit: Another commenter[1] has mentioned the limit is 15A, which works out to be 1800W. That seems plenty enough to operate a furnace, refrigerator, some lights, and some basic cooking appliances (eg. crock pot) all at the same time.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30758429
>Ok. Freeze or starve. A choice.
It's unclear what they mean by "a few lights and small appliances", but a crock pot apparently only consumes 240W (according to an amazon listing). That's probably within the limit. The food won't be great, but you're also not going to starve to death.
edit: Another commenter[1] has mentioned the limit is 15A, which works out to be 1800W. That seems plenty enough to operate a furnace, refrigerator, some lights, and some basic cooking appliances (eg. crock pot) all at the same time.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30758429
1800W isn't bad at all. Electric kettle is 1kW, toaster oven is 1-1.5kW, microwaves are usually 600-1200W, fridge or deep freezer is about 200W when the compressor's going, gas furnace is about 500W, washing machine is 300-500W. About the only things you can't run on 1800W are clothes dryers, electric heaters, full-size electric ovens, and electric ranges. You do have to make sure you're not turning everything on at once, but with some care 1800W is enough for the vast majority of household tasks.
The only times my house's energy draw exceeds 1800W is when the clothes dryer is running or when all the kitchen appliances are going at once.
The only times my house's energy draw exceeds 1800W is when the clothes dryer is running or when all the kitchen appliances are going at once.
Keep in mind that this is Canada and that many dwellings only have electric heating. This is likely the reason as to why electricity is not allowed to be cut during the winter months.
Furthermore, the kind of person who would struggle to pay their electric bills likely rents a place that has poor insulation and resistive heating, with limited options to improve their energy efficiency.
Furthermore, the kind of person who would struggle to pay their electric bills likely rents a place that has poor insulation and resistive heating, with limited options to improve their energy efficiency.
1800W is (grabs calculator) 43.2 KWH per day. Just checked my usage and it is less than 30 KWH per day. So that's not bad at all.
Humanity can accurately measure electrical consumption, right? Instead of limiting peak loads, why not limit daily use? Hell, you can have prepaid electricity. Charge up a card and put it in the limiter. I know there's a deactivated one in my basement, its more than a decade old.
It's more fair, let the family go right up to the edge of what they can pay, and when everything is 'solved' deactivation costs next to nothing compared to removal.
It's more fair, let the family go right up to the edge of what they can pay, and when everything is 'solved' deactivation costs next to nothing compared to removal.
Maybe this is because the utility has installed smart meters that can measure usage but not do remote cut-offs? Making every smart meter cut-off capable will increase costs in a hard to politically justify way (ie. "I pay my bills on time. why am I paying for this just so some delinquent can have an easier time?"), as well as massively expose attack surface (imagine if attackers can remotely shut down all electricity to households).
[deleted]
But the limiter works on an instantaneous or 1 minute basis, not a 24 hour basis. Your comparison doesn't take into account how spiky electricity demand is, especially during meal prep times when there might be multiple appliances on at the same time. Even though your 24 hour usage might comfortably fit within 43.2 KWH, it's very easy to run against the 1800W limit at any instant in time, especially during cooking.
I was thinking of that, so I just signed into my ComEd account and brought up the last several days readings from the smart meter. This reports usage hourly, and most of the days didn't have any hour exceeding 1.5 - 1.6 kWh. I did see 2 separate hourly samples over the past 2 weeks that got to 1.9 kWh and another that hit 2.3 kWh for those two samples, but the rest of the days had a peak hour of less than 1.6.
But I just realized, that since I have gas heat (but an electric stove), the heating isn't included in this report. Not sure what the averages would look like if I had a heat pump, but I'm assuming it would be similar to the A/C peak in the summer which adds about .5 to 1 kWh.
But I just realized, that since I have gas heat (but an electric stove), the heating isn't included in this report. Not sure what the averages would look like if I had a heat pump, but I'm assuming it would be similar to the A/C peak in the summer which adds about .5 to 1 kWh.
Out of curiosity: what is the base load, and what is the load when cooking dinner?
HN already determined washer/dryers are out. Assuming you cook for 20 to 30 minutes, how much instantaneous load does this add?
HN already determined washer/dryers are out. Assuming you cook for 20 to 30 minutes, how much instantaneous load does this add?
Presumably top peak load is during dinner time. I think the story and/or other commenters have mentioned that 240V service isn't working either, so that excludes stoves. With that in mind the biggest load sources would probably be:
* furnace blower: 400W
* fridge: 300W
* microwave: 1000W
* toaster oven: 1200W
* slow cooker: "70-150 watts on LOW and 150-250 on HIGH"
* hot plate: 1500W
With these in mind, it's not hard to imagine how you can hit the 1800W limit when you're cooking. If you get unlucky and the furnace and fridge both decide to turn on at the same time, you only have 1100W available for other stuff. It's definitely very limiting, but at the same time it's also not something that would prevent you from cooking a healthy/cheap meal (eg. running a rice cooker + slow cooker)
* furnace blower: 400W
* fridge: 300W
* microwave: 1000W
* toaster oven: 1200W
* slow cooker: "70-150 watts on LOW and 150-250 on HIGH"
* hot plate: 1500W
With these in mind, it's not hard to imagine how you can hit the 1800W limit when you're cooking. If you get unlucky and the furnace and fridge both decide to turn on at the same time, you only have 1100W available for other stuff. It's definitely very limiting, but at the same time it's also not something that would prevent you from cooking a healthy/cheap meal (eg. running a rice cooker + slow cooker)
> a crock pot apparently only consumes 240W
My 1970s Kenwood slow cooker (still in use, last used yesterday) is only a little more than half that on the high setting!
> The food won't be great,
What makes you think that? A stew done in the slow cooker tastes great.
My 1970s Kenwood slow cooker (still in use, last used yesterday) is only a little more than half that on the high setting!
> The food won't be great,
What makes you think that? A stew done in the slow cooker tastes great.
At that point I would just move.
I also get constant positive feedback from news like this regarding my reminders to my parents (they live in the Romanian countryside) that they should never install gas-heating in their house, that they should continue relying on wood-based stoves.
Once you start relying on a third party (like the gas company) for your basic needs in this age and time then things risk getting real nasty real quick, especially if you don't have any potential counterbalancing measures (like protesting in the street, for example).
I also get constant positive feedback from news like this regarding my reminders to my parents (they live in the Romanian countryside) that they should never install gas-heating in their house, that they should continue relying on wood-based stoves.
Once you start relying on a third party (like the gas company) for your basic needs in this age and time then things risk getting real nasty real quick, especially if you don't have any potential counterbalancing measures (like protesting in the street, for example).
>I also get constant positive feedback from news like this regarding my reminders to my parents (they live in the Romanian countryside) that they should never install gas-heating in their house, that they should continue relying on wood-based stoves.
These limiters aren't being installed by an oppressive government/utility willy-nilly. They got installed because the customer couldn't pay the bills. I'm not sure how using a wood stove fixes this. If you don't have any money what are you going to do? Steal some firewood? Head to the local park at night and cut down some trees? At least with electricity, the utility is willing to give you some small amount even if you can't pay.
These limiters aren't being installed by an oppressive government/utility willy-nilly. They got installed because the customer couldn't pay the bills. I'm not sure how using a wood stove fixes this. If you don't have any money what are you going to do? Steal some firewood? Head to the local park at night and cut down some trees? At least with electricity, the utility is willing to give you some small amount even if you can't pay.
> These limiters aren't being installed by an oppressive government/utility willy-nilly.
Didn't say anything about the government, directly. But here in Europe the increased gas prices are the result of government actions. Increased gas prices mean increased chances of not paying one's bills.
> I'm not sure how using a wood stove fixes this
It gives you more independence, a stove it's much more liberal with what it can accept as inputs. Compared to gas-heating, for example.
Didn't say anything about the government, directly. But here in Europe the increased gas prices are the result of government actions. Increased gas prices mean increased chances of not paying one's bills.
> I'm not sure how using a wood stove fixes this
It gives you more independence, a stove it's much more liberal with what it can accept as inputs. Compared to gas-heating, for example.
These folks don't have the money to pay their electricity bills. What makes you think they have the money to move?
I don't see how that's the choice. You are not going to freeze to death if you turn off your heat for an hour or two to cook.
Let's make her spin plates and juggle while she's cooking too, as punishment for failing to pay her utilities as a single mother of two.
Yeah let's make electricity free for everyone then! What's that, you don't want taxpayers to be subsidizing the electricity bills of people who can afford it and/or people who are wasting it? Okay, let's make it so you get a certain amount of electricity for free, and if you exceed that you get cut off unless you pay. Oh wait...
I wonder how long these people would be happy to pay some bitcoin or crypto miners bills... After they have hidden their earnings...
No one's arguing for making unlimited electricity free for everyone; this is a straw man.
What people are saying is that it seems reasonable to ensure residents of a cold place like Calgary have access to heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry.
It seems reasonable for the limit to be put there, but not lower? I think the article makes it pretty clear it's too low, or there's no credit system, or whatever.
What people are saying is that it seems reasonable to ensure residents of a cold place like Calgary have access to heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry.
It seems reasonable for the limit to be put there, but not lower? I think the article makes it pretty clear it's too low, or there's no credit system, or whatever.
> No one's arguing for making unlimited electricity free for everyone; this is a straw man.
My comment explicitly acknowledges that a sentence later.
>What people are saying is that it seems reasonable to ensure residents of a cold place like Calgary have access to heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry.
>It seems reasonable for the limit to be put there, but not lower? I think the article makes it pretty clear it's too low, or there's no credit system, or whatever.
The limit of 1800W seems enough to get basic levels of "heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry" done. The appliances that don't work at all (from the article: "dishwasher, dryer, oven or stove") don't seem essential. You can still wash dishes by hand, hang your clothes, and use a crock pot. It sucks not having access to those appliances, but those don't seem like unreasonable punishments for not paying your bills.
My comment explicitly acknowledges that a sentence later.
>What people are saying is that it seems reasonable to ensure residents of a cold place like Calgary have access to heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry.
>It seems reasonable for the limit to be put there, but not lower? I think the article makes it pretty clear it's too low, or there's no credit system, or whatever.
The limit of 1800W seems enough to get basic levels of "heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry" done. The appliances that don't work at all (from the article: "dishwasher, dryer, oven or stove") don't seem essential. You can still wash dishes by hand, hang your clothes, and use a crock pot. It sucks not having access to those appliances, but those don't seem like unreasonable punishments for not paying your bills.
In fairness, you acknowledge it sarcastically in an attempt to belittle op:
> Okay, let's make it so you get a certain amount of electricity for free, and if you exceed that you get cut off unless you pay. Oh wait...
But, to maybe return to good faith land, you write:
> ...but those don't seem like unreasonable punishments for not paying your bills
I'm not sure what "punishment" is supposed to do here. I'm skeptical that there's a significant cohort who have the means to pay their electric bill, but are holding out anyway. I think it's way more likely that these are families who've fallen on hard times, and these "punishments" are making their lives even more difficult.
You can also see this kind of policy spiraling right? Like it becomes a contest as to who can punish the debtor the most. Will it be the electric company? Public transit? Hospitals? Water/Sewage/Trash? Internet? If a family has $100 and their bills are $200, the entity with the sharpest punishment probably wins?
This is the kind of stuff that leads to people deciding between medicine or food, which is all in all I think bad for society. If the problem were insufficient punishment/consequences, I guess I wouldn't know how to explain the even worse outcomes in more punitive systems, say in poorer countries. For example, you would think people would see that their health outcomes decrease without medicine, so they would stop being lazy and get medicine. But a lot of people try to stop being lazy and die anyway, suggesting that the problem is more systemic than a widespread individual lack of ambition.
> Okay, let's make it so you get a certain amount of electricity for free, and if you exceed that you get cut off unless you pay. Oh wait...
But, to maybe return to good faith land, you write:
> ...but those don't seem like unreasonable punishments for not paying your bills
I'm not sure what "punishment" is supposed to do here. I'm skeptical that there's a significant cohort who have the means to pay their electric bill, but are holding out anyway. I think it's way more likely that these are families who've fallen on hard times, and these "punishments" are making their lives even more difficult.
You can also see this kind of policy spiraling right? Like it becomes a contest as to who can punish the debtor the most. Will it be the electric company? Public transit? Hospitals? Water/Sewage/Trash? Internet? If a family has $100 and their bills are $200, the entity with the sharpest punishment probably wins?
This is the kind of stuff that leads to people deciding between medicine or food, which is all in all I think bad for society. If the problem were insufficient punishment/consequences, I guess I wouldn't know how to explain the even worse outcomes in more punitive systems, say in poorer countries. For example, you would think people would see that their health outcomes decrease without medicine, so they would stop being lazy and get medicine. But a lot of people try to stop being lazy and die anyway, suggesting that the problem is more systemic than a widespread individual lack of ambition.
>I'm not sure what "punishment" is supposed to do here. I'm skeptical that there's a significant cohort who have the means to pay their electric bill, but are holding out anyway.
The punishment here is for the 95% (or whatever) of people who can afford it, to pay up. If not paying your electricity bill is not punishable by anything, I doubt many would bother paying, even if it's within their means. The fact that there isn't a "significant cohort who have the means to pay their electric bill, but are holding out anyway" is precisely because the threat of punishment is enough into get them to pay. I can't imagine the opposite to be true (ie. the electricity company operates on a "suggested donation" model and most people paying what they're asked to pay).
>I think it's way more likely that these are families who've fallen on hard times, and these "punishments" are making their lives even more difficult.
Right, the threat of electricity getting cut off/limited is enough that people would rather pay the bill than to hold out and save $50/month or whatever in their bank account. I agree it's a tragedy that "families who've fallen on hard times" are being punished even though they lack the means to pay, but unfortunately it's also non-trivial to discriminate between "people who have the means to pay but don't want to pay" and "people who don't have the means to pay but can't pay". That's also what's preventing a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" economy from working properly, and why we have a market based economy instead.
>You can also see this kind of policy spiraling right? Like it becomes a contest as to who can punish the debtor the most. Will it be the electric company? Public transit? Hospitals? Water/Sewage/Trash? Internet? If a family has $100 and their bills are $200, the entity with the sharpest punishment probably wins?
1. But in this case the policy seems to be specifically designed to be not "sharp"? There's enough electricity to run the furnace. You can't run the stove, but that doesn't really stop you from making a healthy meal with affordable ingredients with a slow cooker.
2. maybe the entity with the sharpest punishment wins, maybe it forces the person to tighten their belts and drop the least essential services
The punishment here is for the 95% (or whatever) of people who can afford it, to pay up. If not paying your electricity bill is not punishable by anything, I doubt many would bother paying, even if it's within their means. The fact that there isn't a "significant cohort who have the means to pay their electric bill, but are holding out anyway" is precisely because the threat of punishment is enough into get them to pay. I can't imagine the opposite to be true (ie. the electricity company operates on a "suggested donation" model and most people paying what they're asked to pay).
>I think it's way more likely that these are families who've fallen on hard times, and these "punishments" are making their lives even more difficult.
Right, the threat of electricity getting cut off/limited is enough that people would rather pay the bill than to hold out and save $50/month or whatever in their bank account. I agree it's a tragedy that "families who've fallen on hard times" are being punished even though they lack the means to pay, but unfortunately it's also non-trivial to discriminate between "people who have the means to pay but don't want to pay" and "people who don't have the means to pay but can't pay". That's also what's preventing a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" economy from working properly, and why we have a market based economy instead.
>You can also see this kind of policy spiraling right? Like it becomes a contest as to who can punish the debtor the most. Will it be the electric company? Public transit? Hospitals? Water/Sewage/Trash? Internet? If a family has $100 and their bills are $200, the entity with the sharpest punishment probably wins?
1. But in this case the policy seems to be specifically designed to be not "sharp"? There's enough electricity to run the furnace. You can't run the stove, but that doesn't really stop you from making a healthy meal with affordable ingredients with a slow cooker.
2. maybe the entity with the sharpest punishment wins, maybe it forces the person to tighten their belts and drop the least essential services
The idea that someone getting something they don't need is a much worse outcome than someone going without something they do need is a specific idealogy, you can't just assume everyone subscribes to it.
I'm willing to accept quite a lot of inefficiency and misuse of a system like this if it means that everyone has a warm home.
I'm willing to accept quite a lot of inefficiency and misuse of a system like this if it means that everyone has a warm home.
There's a difference between free for struggling families and free for commercial uses.
You're talking about the same company that just paid off her outstanding balance out of their own pockets, right?
> There is no place in Hell bad enough for these utility companies.
Someone has to pay the bill, what's your suggestion for these utility companies instead?
Someone has to pay the bill, what's your suggestion for these utility companies instead?
What are my tax dollars for if not ensuring my neighbors don't freeze to death?
We're not talking about real (in the economic sense) limits here. The vast majority of people pay their electric bills fully and on time. The majority of people who fall behind are genuinely in dire straights. I seriously couldn't care less if a few "undeserving" people get subsidized heat.
We're not talking about real (in the economic sense) limits here. The vast majority of people pay their electric bills fully and on time. The majority of people who fall behind are genuinely in dire straights. I seriously couldn't care less if a few "undeserving" people get subsidized heat.
> What are my tax dollars for if not ensuring my neighbors don't freeze to death?
If you really feel that way, why not offer to pay their electric bills personally?
If you really feel that way, why not offer to pay their electric bills personally?
Because that would be a tax on empathy. We shouldn't be taxing socially positive traits like empathy, but instead taxing negative traits like greed. In lieu of a moral balance for weighing souls, I'll accept a tax on accumulated wealth instead.
I agree with the sibling comment, but there's also a practical reason: I don't want to have to track down everyone that needs assistance and make a personal decision about who needs what. It's much more efficient to have a tax collector and bureaucracy.
For the voluntary vs involuntary part of taxes and charity, that's a moral/ethical philosophical argument that people have been debating for thousands of years. I don't expect to convince anyone here, but I think my view is pretty clear.
For the voluntary vs involuntary part of taxes and charity, that's a moral/ethical philosophical argument that people have been debating for thousands of years. I don't expect to convince anyone here, but I think my view is pretty clear.
But that sounds like a problem with the welfare system. People should have enough money to pay for power and gas. I don't see the use in mixing up utilities and welfare.
Don't get angry at the power company, get angry at the government.
Don't get angry at the power company, get angry at the government.
The company in this case is owned by the government so it's all the same thing.
The actual logistics would change if it weren't, I agree.
The actual logistics would change if it weren't, I agree.
Yes.
But the power company (be it government owned or private) is at a "commanding height". It is almost impossible to exist without their service so they have very large social responsibilities. Far larger than the responsibility to their shareholders.
But the power company (be it government owned or private) is at a "commanding height". It is almost impossible to exist without their service so they have very large social responsibilities. Far larger than the responsibility to their shareholders.
Enmax is a municipally owned corporation which means that this discussion is bigger than what you're talking about.
This is about social policy and poverty.
This is about social policy and poverty.
[deleted]
It's better than freeze AND starve.
You will live a lot longer without food than you will without heat in a northern winter
You will live a lot longer without food than you will without heat in a northern winter
I agree. But how much would they be able to lower the heat and still be comfortable? (I don't mean wearing summer clothes inside)
I really don't think it's a bad idea to have people lower their heat in energy crunch situations, and I'm not so sure many know how to do it.
(the limiter installation/removal fee is 100% BS though)
I really don't think it's a bad idea to have people lower their heat in energy crunch situations, and I'm not so sure many know how to do it.
(the limiter installation/removal fee is 100% BS though)
My electric house heat is on or off. A thermostat runs it. I can't turn it to "half"; I can only make it run at full power less often.
You have electric heat for the entire house? That's an unusual setup - most places with electric heat have a separate thermostat in each room.
To do the whole house means you have air vents to the entire house, with a central electric heat source? I guess maybe that makes sense if you anyway have central A/C? I don't think that's common in Canada though.
To do the whole house means you have air vents to the entire house, with a central electric heat source? I guess maybe that makes sense if you anyway have central A/C? I don't think that's common in Canada though.
You're thinking of resistive electric heat, a baseboard-style system.
But in many areas an electric heat pump is common. This is a forced-air system, and controlled by zoned thermostats just like traditional gas or oil heat.
That said, such heat pumps actually have multiple states:
* Cooling
* Off
* Heating
* Emergency heat (aka Aux heat)
That last one happens when the ambient temperature is so low that the heat pump can't scavenge enough heat, and needs to augment with resistive heat (which happens through the same forced air delivery). Thus, in extreme cold you may be using even more electricity than you normally would.
I live near Austin. The only time I've seen the Aux Heat in use was during last year's February freeze, which at 6F was the lowest temperature ever recorded here. Even at the occasional 13F-15F temperatures, the heat pump still operates normally (albeit it at very long cycles).
But in many areas an electric heat pump is common. This is a forced-air system, and controlled by zoned thermostats just like traditional gas or oil heat.
That said, such heat pumps actually have multiple states:
* Cooling
* Off
* Heating
* Emergency heat (aka Aux heat)
That last one happens when the ambient temperature is so low that the heat pump can't scavenge enough heat, and needs to augment with resistive heat (which happens through the same forced air delivery). Thus, in extreme cold you may be using even more electricity than you normally would.
I live near Austin. The only time I've seen the Aux Heat in use was during last year's February freeze, which at 6F was the lowest temperature ever recorded here. Even at the occasional 13F-15F temperatures, the heat pump still operates normally (albeit it at very long cycles).
Most heating heat pumps I've seen can ramp up/down as demand changes.
Also central heat pumps (for heating) aren't so common, most are mini-split types with each room separate, or at least a highly variable central compressor than can run on low.
Also central heat pumps (for heating) aren't so common, most are mini-split types with each room separate, or at least a highly variable central compressor than can run on low.
I don't have any factual citations, but I suspect they're a lot more common than you think. At the very least, they're completely ubiquitous in central Texas. I'd imagine that's a combination of temperate conditions (as opposed to Minnesota, it never gets to the 6F temperature here), and newer construction (older houses are probably less likely to have a heat pump anyway, but with the insane growth in real estate around here, there's not very many old houses).
Most heat pumps these days are mini-splits, not ducted. And they have a separate unit in each room. Either with multiple compressors outside, or a single one that can ramp up/down.
Heat pumps are useless in hard frost.
The one I own stops being useful at 3 degrees of frost, struggles before then
The one I own stops being useful at 3 degrees of frost, struggles before then
As I wrote above, the only time I've seen mine falter was at 6F (last year's mega freeze in Austin). It occasionally gets to 13F-15F in the winter, and the heat pump works in this environment without having to resort to "aux heat". I'm sure it's become rather inefficient, but it does work.
If you don't have money to pay, you can handle some compromises.
- Have the family in a bedroom + space heater (I still do this, and did it for A/C during the heat wave). - Cook on a hot plate/induction or use a microwave. - Electric blankets
- Have the family in a bedroom + space heater (I still do this, and did it for A/C during the heat wave). - Cook on a hot plate/induction or use a microwave. - Electric blankets
I wish the article would have mentioned how many W or kW the electrical draw was limited to.
Appears to be two types: 15A and just 120V ( I guess they bridge together the two phases?) that is manually resettable.
The other is 240V and 15A and auto resets, which I guess limits you to 15A on each side of your home (have fun figuring out what’s on what side):
https://ucahelps.alberta.ca/utilities-disconnection-and-load...
The other is 240V and 15A and auto resets, which I guess limits you to 15A on each side of your home (have fun figuring out what’s on what side):
https://ucahelps.alberta.ca/utilities-disconnection-and-load...
1800W seems more than enough to run household appliances like an electric stove. It won't be comfortable, but it's not the "starving to death" situation the article claims.
I can see the value in these limiters, because without them people will quickly sink into debt not paying their power bills.
Of course, the underlying problem (poverty, sky-high energy prices) needs to be dealt with, but that can only be done with aid of the government and a social safety net. Lacking that, limiters can at least keep costs down.
That said, the $104 bill you get for having this stuff installed is bullshit. Limiters can be a tool for preventing poverty, but sending a large bill to the poor is a clear sign that these things aren't installed to help anyone.
I can see the value in these limiters, because without them people will quickly sink into debt not paying their power bills.
Of course, the underlying problem (poverty, sky-high energy prices) needs to be dealt with, but that can only be done with aid of the government and a social safety net. Lacking that, limiters can at least keep costs down.
That said, the $104 bill you get for having this stuff installed is bullshit. Limiters can be a tool for preventing poverty, but sending a large bill to the poor is a clear sign that these things aren't installed to help anyone.
In North America, if they bridge together the two phases to give you 120V only service, your electric stove, the big one, (and electric water heater if not gas) won't work at all. I don't mean work poorly. I mean zero heat output whatsoever.
Of course, a toaster oven or a single-plug-in burner will still work, but you'll have to coordinate.
Of course, a toaster oven or a single-plug-in burner will still work, but you'll have to coordinate.
> $52 for the notice, $52 to remove the limiter
The very rich come up with novel and creative ways to take money off the very poor.
The very rich come up with novel and creative ways to take money off the very poor.
Just another way that it's incredibly expensive to be poor. Can't get cheap credit to pay for your leaking roof? That's fine, here's a usurious loan. Can't afford a new car? Okay, buy a cheap (well, not anymore...) used one that'll constantly break down and require repairs or replacement. Forget a bill was coming out and accidentally use your overdraft? That's fine, we'll just charge you a hefty fee for that. The list goes on and on...
The alternative is for the company to eat the cost of payment enforcement, and raise the price of everyone's service a little bit. Which doesn't seem exactly fair, since many of the service users may be in similar financial circumstances as the lady in the article, but just make better decisions regarding their money.
> The alternative is for the company to eat the cost of payment enforcement, and raise the price of everyone's service a little bit
Seems moral to me. As a community member, I'm happy to play a bit to ensure those unable to pay don't freeze in the winter
Signed,
-Texan who was without power during a major cold snap and wonders why the "independent" electric grid isn't an active priority
Seems moral to me. As a community member, I'm happy to play a bit to ensure those unable to pay don't freeze in the winter
Signed,
-Texan who was without power during a major cold snap and wonders why the "independent" electric grid isn't an active priority
No one's stopping you from emptying your savings account and giving all your money to people who would derive orders of magnitude more utility from it than you.
"We have a necessary resource in sufficient quantity to allocate it to everyone who needs it, how can we do that with the current allocate-to-almost-everyone system that already exists?"
"HA TRICK QUESTION! that's unnecessary because individuals can simply choose to partially and temporarily alleviate this issue in a very limited way!"
??? This is how you think?
"HA TRICK QUESTION! that's unnecessary because individuals can simply choose to partially and temporarily alleviate this issue in a very limited way!"
??? This is how you think?
A lot of people think that way. Try a conversation about taxes, specifically what one might consider a "fair share". Inevitably some jackass waltzes in with "well, nothing is stopping you from paying extra", and sometimes even handily posts a link to the IRS site, as if that's a clever argument.
"Nothing stopping you..." is all-too-often another way of saying, "I will make no attempt at making a good-faith argument".
"Nothing stopping you..." is all-too-often another way of saying, "I will make no attempt at making a good-faith argument".
Aye. Its this type of folks that also suggest leaving a community when they hear another's complaints.
In short, trolls.
In short, trolls.
[deleted]
> No one's stopping you from emptying your savings account and giving all your money to people who would derive orders of magnitude more utility from it than you.
That is an unhelpful comment and an antisocial position. (And as another commentator put it "a tax on empathy")
Humans are social creatures, we cannot survive on our own.
We are also monkeys with enormous brains, we can do better
That is an unhelpful comment and an antisocial position. (And as another commentator put it "a tax on empathy")
Humans are social creatures, we cannot survive on our own.
We are also monkeys with enormous brains, we can do better
Right, and my point was that the system should charge you and I, as consumers, to also cover the safety net need for utilities.
I'd be happy to reiterate my point if it was unclear and you thought I was suggesting we run a voluntary social safety net.
I'd be happy to reiterate my point if it was unclear and you thought I was suggesting we run a voluntary social safety net.
That's nice of you. Presumably you aren't living hand to mouth.
How much extra per billing cycle should someone in exactly the same financial situation as the lady in the article pay?
How much extra per billing cycle should someone in exactly the same financial situation as the lady in the article pay?
> That's nice of you
Nah, that's being a human. We put clawbacks and riders in utility rates all the time, even breaks to operating companies. This isn't out-there policy and charitable help programs for utilities are common. Were I still living hand to mouth I'd continue supporting social safety net policies.
Nah, that's being a human. We put clawbacks and riders in utility rates all the time, even breaks to operating companies. This isn't out-there policy and charitable help programs for utilities are common. Were I still living hand to mouth I'd continue supporting social safety net policies.
No, that's not being human, unless your argument is that poor people who can't afford to pay into social safety nets are not human.
> This isn't out-there policy and charitable help programs for utilities are common.
Yes, in fact, that is what the first lady in the article utilized - an assistance program provided by the utility itself where they zeroed out her outstanding balance.
> This isn't out-there policy and charitable help programs for utilities are common.
Yes, in fact, that is what the first lady in the article utilized - an assistance program provided by the utility itself where they zeroed out her outstanding balance.
> Which doesn't seem exactly fair
There is so much injustice perpetrated in the name of fairness
There is so much injustice perpetrated in the name of fairness
I guess it is a difference of opinion about injustice.
I see it as an injustice to take money out of a poor person's pocket now to pay for the failures of a different, unrelated poor person.
I see it as an injustice to take money out of a poor person's pocket now to pay for the failures of a different, unrelated poor person.
In my country electricity rates increase in slabs as you consume more. The highest consumption users (usually the rich and fortunate) subsidize all low consumption users. So poor people are not affected by the choices of their own class. But we as a society show benevolence to the poor and the unfortunate in this way
In many situations unfairness is a form of injustice.
i don't think raising rates for other customers is what "eating the cost" means. it's also possible to profit less.
Enmax doesn't make a profit, because it is wholly owned by the City of Calgary and returns all remaining funds as a dividend to the city. Which amounts to about $50M/year, or about $40 per citizen.
i'll correct myself: maintaining the $40/citizen city funding by raising costs for other customers is not what "eating the cost" means
The payments to the city are variable. There is no fixed "$40/citizen" payment being made. The utility company not charging individuals responsible for increased costs those increased costs leads to the utility returning less money to the city, which would ultimately lead to cost increases if the excess funds went negative.
I find it interesting that you're latching onto the "eat the cost" phrase(which may have been incorrectly used) but you aren't too interested in rectifying your gross ignorance of the actual details of the system you're making claims about.
I find it interesting that you're latching onto the "eat the cost" phrase(which may have been incorrectly used) but you aren't too interested in rectifying your gross ignorance of the actual details of the system you're making claims about.
I searched for "meter ring load limiter", and found this product: http://www.brooksutility.com/products/75
So the utility installs a 10-30 amp circuit breaker outside the customer's house. Should be enough to power a gas furnace, but if they draw more than 1200-7200 watts (120V*10A to 240V*30A), the breaker pops and they have to go outside and reset it.
So the utility installs a 10-30 amp circuit breaker outside the customer's house. Should be enough to power a gas furnace, but if they draw more than 1200-7200 watts (120V*10A to 240V*30A), the breaker pops and they have to go outside and reset it.
In a Calgary winter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary#Climate
Evil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary#Climate
Evil
I was going to say that those temperatures sounded not a lot colder than my native Iowa, but apparently Iowa’s coldest month averages 55 degrees F (absurd) according to: https://en.climate-data.org/north-america/united-states-of-a...
I think that's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa,_Louisiana based on the URL :)
Climate data is usually by city, since (say) Sioux City and Cedar Rapids may have totally different climates.
Climate data is usually by city, since (say) Sioux City and Cedar Rapids may have totally different climates.
Hah, that’s funny. I spent a good 5 minutes trying to make sense of that page.
This data is not accurate.
Averages from Des Moines (middle of Iowa) https://weatherspark.com/y/10312/Average-Weather-in-Des-Moin...
Jan high of 33° F
Edit: looks like the original link was climate data for a town called Iowa in the state of Louisiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa,_Louisiana
Averages from Des Moines (middle of Iowa) https://weatherspark.com/y/10312/Average-Weather-in-Des-Moin...
Jan high of 33° F
Edit: looks like the original link was climate data for a town called Iowa in the state of Louisiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa,_Louisiana
20 years ago when I was going to school in Winneshiek county, the average winter temperature was considered to be 19F. Lots of -50F nights. About every other year there was at least one story of someone freezing to death when their car broke down, etc.
When I was a few years old, my neighbor and his wife were driving home from town just a few miles away. They got in an argument and the wife demanded to walk home. She died of hypothermia.
Unless there was a third person in the car besides your neighbour and his wife, I'd take the statement of the wife "demanding" to walk home with a grain of salt. Especially an adult who would have heard about others freezing to death and hopefully knew better.
Yeah, I'm sure the police looked into it. I'm probably not recounting the story with perfect accuracy either.
[deleted]
It’s almost certainly gas heat, but you need electricity to run the blower. If they’re not providing enough power for that, there’s no point in even bothering to limit.
I thought they were remarking on braving the weather to reset the switch.
This is relevant.
https://moneywise.com/managing-money/budgeting/boots-theory-...
https://moneywise.com/managing-money/budgeting/boots-theory-...
Also relevant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed
Yes and: Their punitive electricity rate limiting is just short of debtor's prison, with cost saving measure of using the victim's domicile as their holding cell.
Those used to be common in the UK, along with "pay as you go" meters, where, when your prepay runs out, the power cuts off. That still exists.[1] It's now "cloud-based", so you can pay from your smartphone and turn the power back on.
The limiter is less restrictive. You still get some power.
[1] https://sse.co.uk/help/energy/meters/pay-as-you-go/topping-u...
The limiter is less restrictive. You still get some power.
[1] https://sse.co.uk/help/energy/meters/pay-as-you-go/topping-u...
This is disgusting. I didn't even realize this was a thing.
We as a society should not be withdrawing basic rights from people (including heating, shelter and just keeping a fridge running) in the name of capitalism. And if we're that worried that people will take advantage of it, let the government decide eligibility to rebating the entire bill and/or you pay it back interest-free when your income gets high enough and its garnished from your wages.
We as a society should not be withdrawing basic rights from people (including heating, shelter and just keeping a fridge running) in the name of capitalism. And if we're that worried that people will take advantage of it, let the government decide eligibility to rebating the entire bill and/or you pay it back interest-free when your income gets high enough and its garnished from your wages.
>We as a society should not be withdrawing basic rights from people (including heating, [...] and just keeping a fridge running)
But the installation of a load limiter (rather than cutting off power entirely) seems specifically designed as to not cause "withdrawing basic rights"?
But the installation of a load limiter (rather than cutting off power entirely) seems specifically designed as to not cause "withdrawing basic rights"?
Per-household limiting is not necessarily a bad technology. Especially
if everyone gets one, they can create fairness. But beware misuse.
And it's nothing new. I saw them out in Portugal. I stayed in a small town up in the southern mountains and everyone had 10kW cap. The reason was the limited pylon capacity. If everyone decided to use their oven and washing machine at the same time the lines would fry and the whole town would go out.
This emotionally charged article about the plight of a Canadian mother with kids raises many hostile responses about the power company because it's being used in an economically punitive way, which is wrong. Overall this sits well with American commentators who say "Fair play. You don't pay, you don't get". But that same attitude usually runs to "If you can pay you should be allowed more than your fair share".
Is that fair? So now I see similar logic playing out in California over water. Why should some commercial consumers get to use the lions share of the water while others have to watch every drop? In traditional language it's "rationing". But if we add some smart-metering technology, and some progressive marketing, then now additional factors than economic power can be used to set limits.
Where will this end up? I think that's what the article is really asking. There is an uneasy relation between technologies that ostensibly "save energy" and them being used to squeeze out more profit and enact more social control.
And it's nothing new. I saw them out in Portugal. I stayed in a small town up in the southern mountains and everyone had 10kW cap. The reason was the limited pylon capacity. If everyone decided to use their oven and washing machine at the same time the lines would fry and the whole town would go out.
This emotionally charged article about the plight of a Canadian mother with kids raises many hostile responses about the power company because it's being used in an economically punitive way, which is wrong. Overall this sits well with American commentators who say "Fair play. You don't pay, you don't get". But that same attitude usually runs to "If you can pay you should be allowed more than your fair share".
Is that fair? So now I see similar logic playing out in California over water. Why should some commercial consumers get to use the lions share of the water while others have to watch every drop? In traditional language it's "rationing". But if we add some smart-metering technology, and some progressive marketing, then now additional factors than economic power can be used to set limits.
Where will this end up? I think that's what the article is really asking. There is an uneasy relation between technologies that ostensibly "save energy" and them being used to squeeze out more profit and enact more social control.
There's a typo in the post title: it should be “don't”.
Every house has a load limiter to 3KW. Anyone can ask an upgrade to 4.5KW, does not cost much and the price per kWh remains the same. I know exactly one person who has the upgrade (and does not even use it anymore).
The limiter will let you go over limit for about a minute, then will stop, and you just have to go and flip the switch up again.
That's how it has always been here. No big deal. You have to pay attention if you want quick heating on the furnace and kettle or laundry, yes. No big deal, almost everyone runs the laundry at night, the furnace and kettle can run together if you don't use the quick heating feature. Some microwaves at full power can get close to the limit by themselves.
We don't really use electric heating though (which is a big difference), and if you leave in apartments, each apartment must have its own counter. We all have 240v only.
The counter automatically reports the usage to the company, the new counters can be used as entry point for fiber optic internet (still largely unused though), I think it's difficult to find new contracts with activation costs.
The big question is what is the limit, and the article says nothing on that.
I am unsure but I think that here there can not be different contracts other than 3, 4.5kw (or more, but only for business).
I think it's also very illegal to give different contracts depending on past paying history(which can not even be made available to any company), and our market has opened completely (used to have a single company) and you can not be limited to a single company (because they put down the cables for example).
You can get disconnected for not paying, but I don't know the details and I don't think it's that easy either.
All in all, we seem to pay more, but without hidden costs, and a lot more safeguards.