How to SUBSTANTIALLY reduce electricity use?

[pondguy]

My bill was $91.00 dollars and I have a 30 gallon hot water heater that runs 1 hour a day. So that's 50 cents a day for a hot shower and hot water for dishes. Maybe a smaller hot water heater would work for you?

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by pondguy

My bill was $91.00 dollars and I have a 30 gallon hot water heater that runs 1 hour a day. So that's 50 cents a day for a hot shower and hot water for dishes. Maybe a smaller hot water heater would work for you?

My bill was $103, and I've got a 50-gallon water heater that runs whenever and four of us in the household.

Unless actually using a lot of hot water, I don't think the water heater is much of a draw.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Back to the topic at hand--as Sailin and John have pointed out--it's easy to reduce your utility bill without too much pain, and the implications of doing so are great all around.

Yes, that was my message, although there will be a period with some pain while you study different options and put changes in place. The "pain" will especially be in the fall and winter around heat and hot water. It takes time to do all this, but you can make a few changes at a time, starting with the ones that would result in the biggest savings and/or can be done immediately.

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by pondguy

My bill was $91.00 dollars and I have a 30 gallon hot water heater that runs 1 hour a day. So that's 50 cents a day for a hot shower and hot water for dishes. Maybe a smaller hot water heater would work for you?

Yes, this is one of the options I'm considering, as well as an on-demand heater. Just have not had time to research these thoroughly due to having to prepare wood for the winter. I would certainly pay 50 cents for a hot shower right about now . . .

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

My bill was $103, and I've got a 50-gallon water heater that runs whenever and four of us in the household. Unless actually using a lot of hot water, I don't think the water heater is much of a draw

It's hard to tell how much electricity the water heater is using unless you have it on a timer. Mine is 4000 watts, which is a lot. What were your August and September kWh uses?

[John Mercier]

While it is hard to determine from the bill rather than a smart meter that would give you a fairly reliable reading of the appliance usage... I think once the low hanging fruit is taken... it is all going to be about the small trickles.

[LikeLakes]

Sailin, what you listed is quite an accomplishment! It took not only a lot of research but also a willingness to alter habits and environment to achieve the goals you were looking for. Nicely done!

I think one of the problems is that the savings of energy and dollars that you are achieving took a lot of work on your part. This shouldn't be so hard. I worry about families that are already overwhelmed with the daily struggles of work and kids and finances that maybe don't have the bandwidth to find these kind of savings. I'd like to see families understanding that it is within reach to save on energy expense.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

It's hard to tell how much electricity the water heater is using unless you have it on a timer. Mine is 4000 watts, which is a lot. What were your August and September kWh uses?

The $103 was my August/September bill (read date of 9/18). Summer months aren't a fair gauge of power for us because we're up at camp most of the time.

The biggest electric cost for me is electric baseboard heating. We haven't changed that for a myriad of reasons, but are beginning to look at options again. I haven't ever paid for wood—and I just scored 2.5 cords or so of free 3-year-seasoned hardwood, for a total of about 5 year's worth in my rack—so that helps a lot.

What I did and what I think of the outcome:
* Water heater to vacation mode when away. I think this is negligible as when we'd return home after a week, the water would still be warm enough to shower and the elements wouldn't run very long to catch up.

* Dehumidifier setting. A dehumidifier is essentially a refrigerator, so turning this up 5% certainly had it running less. I couldn't go any higher, though, as it would begin to smell musty.

* New refrigerator. We had replaced our 20+ year-old refrigerator in spring with an Energy Saver model, and it definitely runs much less than the old one. I'm sure I'm saving here.

* Increasing AC from 72 to 75 when home and to 85 when away. I think this is the absolute biggest saver. I'm actually weirded out to think we'd only raise it a couple degrees when we were away and that we'd use blankets at 72.

* Washer/Dryer: I began setting my Speed Queen washer to heavy duty. This doesn't use any more water, which we run cold anyway, but has a much more powerful spin dry to where the clothes are almost dry. This runs the dryer for a much shorter period of time, which I'm sure helps.

* Dishwasher: I noticed that my dishes tended to be dry as soon as the cycle was done, so we shut off the heating element option. I gotta think this saves a few bucks as we run it two to three times a week.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

Moving your AC up... that actually should have helped with the water heater not losing its temperature as fast.

When you cooled the house down to 72... the heat loss would be greater from the warmer water to the cooler ambient air... and the water heater would need to run to compensate for that.

It is why we must think in broader terms of usage to get those smaller, but generally less capital intensive, savings.

I know they want to upgrade the grid... but the backlash at transmission projects is pretty intense in the areas that it is going to happen.

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by LikeLakes

I think one of the problems is that the savings of energy and dollars that you are achieving took a lot of work on your part. This shouldn't be so hard. I worry about families that are already overwhelmed with the daily struggles of work and kids and finances that maybe don't have the bandwidth to find these kind of savings. I'd like to see families understanding that it is within reach to save on energy expense.

I entirely agree with you! The utility companies go out of their way to obfuscate how much you're paying, for what, and what another plan or company would charge. It used to be the case that Fairpoint would outright lie about plan charges to get you to sign up. That appears to have improved. Not everyone has the ability to research all of this and to be assertive with these companies to get better rates. The phone industry has become impossibly complicated.

There should also be more support for helping people reduce their energy usage and downscale their needs for other things. When recycling was still possible (before China rejected our garbage), my town provided recycling bins. That shows that strategies can be implemented town-wide to reduce waste. If a town can buy and deliver recycling bins, it could also buy and deliver rain barrels. If Eversource wants to double its supply charge, the logical response is to teach people to cut their electric usage in half, as I've done. People's smartphone addiction has led to wasteful consumerism for both the phone itself and phone service. We need to move in the opposite direction, toward basic phones and basic phone service. We're aware of severe environmental problems around things like water and we're acutely aware of inflation right now, but we lack imagination in how we counter these problems. Solutions need to be enacted at the national, state, and local level so that everyone, regardless of their education or access to technology, can take simple steps to reduce their usage.

[pondguy]

I buy a tracfone card every three months for my phone service works out to about $7.48 per month but I don't talk on the phone I just text.

[LikeLakes]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

I entirely agree with you! The utility companies go out of their way to obfuscate how much you're paying, for what, and what another plan or company would charge. It used to be the case that Fairpoint would outright lie about plan charges to get you to sign up. That appears to have improved. Not everyone has the ability to research all of this and to be assertive with these companies to get better rates. The phone industry has become impossibly complicated.

There should also be more support for helping people reduce their energy usage and downscale their needs for other things. When recycling was still possible (before China rejected our garbage), my town provided recycling bins. That shows that strategies can be implemented town-wide to reduce waste. If a town can buy and deliver recycling bins, it could also buy and deliver rain barrels. If Eversource wants to double its supply charge, the logical response is to teach people to cut their electric usage in half, as I've done. People's smartphone addiction has led to wasteful consumerism for both the phone itself and phone service. We need to move in the opposite direction, toward basic phones and basic phone service. We're aware of severe environmental problems around things like water and we're acutely aware of inflation right now, but we lack imagination in how we counter these problems. Solutions need to be enacted at the national, state, and local level so that everyone, regardless of their education or access to technology, can take simple steps to reduce their usage.

Smart phones are here to stay, only to increase in use, that one is a complete dead end for most people, myself included. From an energy use standpoint it's not a huge user, I think the larger problem is the huge expense to a family to keep say 5 phones and the cell plan, that expense didn't exist 30 years ago.

Imagine if we could say "gee, my expense for eggs and milk and beef and rice have gone way up, so hey Eversource, I'm going to pay you less for energy this month, just deal with it". To me that's what they do to us in reverse, there is no scenario where Eversource can lose money, they just ask for rate hikes and NH PUC rubber stamps them. They were allowed to shut down and write off losses on plants that ratepayers paid hundreds of millions to upgrade just a few years ago, then they tell us that rates have to rise due to demand. It's madness. I agree totally with you that we need to, in return, reduce their revenue by conserving where we can.

[John Mercier]

The Eversource rate hikes are mostly to upgrade the lines.
Can't build all these new homes and not upgrade the lines that supply the electricity.

The actual power hike is due to the increase in natural gas prices.
We used to have to sell to the US... because pipelines don't extend to Europe from here. But with the LNG option, and federal changes to open those markets, we have been building facilities to export.

Eversource gave us plenty of options to curtail this... we just didn't avail ourselves of them.

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by LikeLakes

Imagine if we could say "gee, my expense for eggs and milk and beef and rice have gone way up, so hey Eversource, I'm going to pay you less for energy this month, just deal with it". To me that's what they do to us in reverse, there is no scenario where Eversource can lose money, they just ask for rate hikes and NH PUC rubber stamps them. They were allowed to shut down and write off losses on plants that ratepayers paid hundreds of millions to upgrade just a few years ago, then they tell us that rates have to rise due to demand. It's madness. I agree totally with you that we need to, in return, reduce their revenue by conserving where we can.

That's a really important point, LikeLakes. I think it's the same with Consolidated---replacing their aging infrastructure and raising rates to pay for it, with no loss of revenue for them.

I think the most important long-term change that needs to happen is to make environmentally sound energy, water, etc. affordable for everyone. We would all jump at that opportunity. For me personally, the new federal subsidies won't bring solar electric within my financial reach,much as I would love to go solar.

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

The $103 was my August/September bill (read date of 9/18). Summer months aren't a fair gauge of power for us because we're up at camp most of the time.

The biggest electric cost for me is electric baseboard heating. We haven't changed that for a myriad of reasons, but are beginning to look at options again. I haven't ever paid for wood—and I just scored 2.5 cords or so of free 3-year-seasoned hardwood, for a total of about 5 year's worth in my rack—so that helps a lot.

What I did and what I think of the outcome:
* Water heater to vacation mode when away. I think this is negligible as when we'd return home after a week, the water would still be warm enough to shower and the elements wouldn't run very long to catch up.

* Dehumidifier setting. A dehumidifier is essentially a refrigerator, so turning this up 5% certainly had it running less. I couldn't go any higher, though, as it would begin to smell musty.

* New refrigerator. We had replaced our 20+ year-old refrigerator in spring with an Energy Saver model, and it definitely runs much less than the old one. I'm sure I'm saving here.

* Increasing AC from 72 to 75 when home and to 85 when away. I think this is the absolute biggest saver. I'm actually weirded out to think we'd only raise it a couple degrees when we were away and that we'd use blankets at 72.

* Washer/Dryer: I began setting my Speed Queen washer to heavy duty. This doesn't use any more water, which we run cold anyway, but has a much more powerful spin dry to where the clothes are almost dry. This runs the dryer for a much shorter period of time, which I'm sure helps.

* Dishwasher: I noticed that my dishes tended to be dry as soon as the cycle was done, so we shut off the heating element option. I gotta think this saves a few bucks as we run it two to three times a week.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

Thanks for sharing your results, Think! Fun, eh? Some questions and comments:

Wood: How did you "score 2.5 cords of free wood"?

Dehumidifier: I have one in the basement and one upstairs. For the one upstairs I noticed that if it smells musty, turning on the dehumidifier for one hour gets rid of that, so I've been able to run it one hour a couple of times a week. Dehumidifying the basement down to 50% takes several hours. Again, it only needs to be done once or twice a week. Also, I think it was John Mercier who said that if you dehumidify the basement that will lower the humidity in the house so I've been mindful of that. The ridge vents I installed with the roof replacement last year seem to have improved the humidity problem, which was previously severe.

Washing machine: What determines the capacity to remove water from the clothes? Is it the "power" of the spin dry or the length of the spinning? I tried spinning it twice today and it did seem drier. By the way, if you hang "wetter" clothes in the house in the winter you will appreciate the increased humidity. Perhaps not something you want to do with a family.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

Thanks for sharing your results, Think! Fun, eh? Some questions and comments:

Wood: How did you "score 2.5 cords of free wood"?

Dehumidifier: I have one in the basement and one upstairs. For the one upstairs I noticed that if it smells musty, turning on the dehumidifier for one hour gets rid of that, so I've been able to run it one hour a couple of times a week. Dehumidifying the basement down to 50% takes several hours. Again, it only needs to be done once or twice a week. Also, I think it was John Mercier who said that if you dehumidify the basement that will lower the humidity in the house so I've been mindful of that. The ridge vents I installed with the roof replacement last year seem to have improved the humidity problem, which was previously severe.

Washing machine: What determines the capacity to remove water from the clothes? Is it the "power" of the spin dry or the length of the spinning? I tried spinning it twice today and it did seem drier. By the way, if you hang "wetter" clothes in the house in the winter you will appreciate the increased humidity. Perhaps not something you want to do with a family.

Wood: I posted on my community forum a few years ago asking if anyone had down trees I could have. Because I took pine, I got a reputation as the "go-to guy" and people now connect with me first. This most recent offer is a bunch of wood that's been in a lean-to since the people moved in—they can't burn wood because their son has allergies.

Dehumidifier: 60 was too high, 50 is good. I have it on auto to just run. I could probably save a couple bucks just running it for an hour or two a day, but there's some things that just aren't worth dealing with.

Washer: I'm not sure if it spins longer or harder, but the clothes are definitely drier and I have nowhere to hang them—with 4 people, it's a LOT of laundry and, again, some things aren't worth jumping through hoops for. That being said, my drier has a sensor that ends up with the clothes just dry—I'm fairly confident it doesn't run longer than it needs to.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

You wouldn't save much on the dehumidifier for the difference that a problem of higher humidity might cause.

Whether it spins at a higher rate for a shorter period of time or a lower rate for a longer period of time is a rather interesting question. The higher speed would mean more centrifugal action removing the water... but the longer period may allow for more water to ''migrate'' through a ''clump'' of clothes.

I believe the manufacturers are using the higher RPM option, but I wonder if anyone studied the value of the longer in relation to energy use?

[LikeLakes]

Washer/dryers are another interesting subject. Our switch to high quality front load ones maybe 10 years ago was one of my favorite appliance upgrades ever. They use significantly less water, less energy, less detergent, and clothes are dryer after the spin cycle. The only downside is they are quite a bit more expensive than top load.

In the case of front load the spin is definitely rpm-specific, meaning the spin/dry cycle you choose spins faster if you want clothes dryer, I think you can choose extra spin on ours as well. Not that I'm calculating it, but my guess is the energy used for faster spin or extra spin is way less than the 10 minutes or more of extra drying time for wetter clothes.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by LikeLakes

Not that I'm calculating it, but my guess is the energy used for faster spin or extra spin is way less than the 10 minutes or more of extra drying time for wetter clothes.

Agree, especially since the drum will already be moving and maintenance takes much less power than acceleration.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

You wouldn't save much on the dehumidifier for the difference that a problem of higher humidity might cause.

Whether it spins at a higher rate for a shorter period of time or a lower rate for a longer period of time is a rather interesting question. The higher speed would mean more centrifugal action removing the water... but the longer period may allow for more water to ''migrate'' through a ''clump'' of clothes.

I believe the manufacturers are using the higher RPM option, but I wonder if anyone studied the value of the longer in relation to energy use?

John, I always enjoy how your analytical mind works. I'm watching my clothes dry outdoors right now. No perceptible drying after 4 hours on this cloudy, cool day with 60% humidity. It still feels good to be cheating Eversource.

[John Mercier]

Eversource is regulated.
They really can't be ''cheated''.

They get paid basically to make the investment to deliver the power that others generate.

If you put in solar tied to the grid... you might think you are selling to Eversource as they do the billing and transmission, but really you would be selling the excess power to your neighbor.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

John, I always enjoy how your analytical mind works. I'm watching my clothes dry outdoors right now. No perceptible drying after 4 hours on this cloudy, cool day with 60% humidity. It still feels good to be cheating Eversource.

When I use the "solar dryer", I pick a windy day.

Clothes--but especially sheets--get that nice "outdoors-clean" smell.

(Clothes will dry even if frozen).

[TiltonBB]

Helpful hint: I knew someone years ago who would take his electric meter out, turn it upside down, and plug it back in. The four prongs on the back make that easy to do.

His claim was that he would let his meter run backwards for a week and doing that would take two weeks off of his electric bill. Interesting theory.

My uncle happened to manage the General Electric Meter Division in Dover, NH. Several years later I told him the story. He was very excited to tell me that they had fixed that flaw and if you inverted your meter now it would run twice as fast forward.

A large restaurant owner in Saugus, MA paid someone to take his meter apart and change the internal gears so that it ran at about 1/3 the correct speed. That went on for many years until he was caught and convicted.

Posted for informational purposes only. Don't try this at home!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Helpful hint: I knew someone years ago who would take his electric meter out, turn it upside down, and plug it back in. The four prongs on the back make that easy to do.

His claim was that he would let his meter run backwards for a week and doing that would take two weeks off of his electric bill. Interesting theory.

My uncle happened to manage the General Electric Meter Division in Dover, NH. Several years later I told him the story. He was very excited to tell me that they had fixed that flaw and if you inverted your meter now it would run twice as fast forward.

A large restaurant owner in Saugus, MA paid someone to take his meter apart and change the internal gears so that it ran at about 1/3 the correct speed. That went on for many years until he was caught and convicted.

Posted for informational purposes only. Don't try this at home!

A long time ago I had a neighbor who was an electrician and decided it was a good idea to bypass his electric meter. He got caught, had to go to court, paid thousands in fines and all the electricity he stole plus interest. He was a nice guy, but a crook is still a crook at the end of the day.

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Eversource is regulated.
They really can't be ''cheated''.

Translation of "cheat Eversource": foil Eversource's plan of increasing their profits at consumers' expense by using as little electricity as possible.

[John Mercier]

It doesn't work that way.

Eversource is guaranteed a return on investment.
They no longer generate electricity.

So they get paid for billing, and a guaranteed return on investment for transmission.

[LikeLakes]

While paying their CEO 14 million a year, and quite a few others mid 6 figures and higher. They are guaranteed to make money, guaranteed to be able to set rates that are profitable, allowed to write down assets for tax advantages regardless of whether the taxpayers paid for them or not. Truly awful company IMO, as was PSNH before them.

[jbolty]

Originally Posted by ITD

A long time ago I had a neighbor who was an electrician and decided it was a good idea to bypass his electric meter. He got caught, had to go to court, paid thousands in fines and all the electricity he stole plus interest. He was a nice guy, but a crook is still a crook at the end of the day.

Meters are locked and sealed with a lead disk which has a code pressed into to reveal tampering but in the world of today many places have smart meters that no humans read so tampering might not be discovered but I would guess for those, unplugging it would be detected by the system.

My dad worked for NH co-op for many years and caught a few meter shenanigans

[tis]

We have an empty house and I saw the electric dept there one day so walked over. She said we haven't used any electricity and was wondering why. So I think after a while if you don't use any power they check. Of course you still pay the customer fee and service fee and all that but no KW charge.

[TheProfessor]

The tank type electric heater has 2 elements.
Which should be changed on a scheduled basis.

[jbolty]

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

The tank type electric heater has 2 elements.
Which should be changed on a scheduled basis.

This is much overlooked, along with draining tank sediment. I helped a friend change his water heater a while ago and we were shocked how heavy it was. cut it open and it was 1/3 or more full of basically cement in the bottom.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by LikeLakes

While paying their CEO 14 million a year, and quite a few others mid 6 figures and higher. They are guaranteed to make money, guaranteed to be able to set rates that are profitable, allowed to write down assets for tax advantages regardless of whether the taxpayers paid for them or not. Truly awful company IMO, as was PSNH before them.

They don't set rates. That would be the PUC; based on investment and government required operating costs.

If they could set rates, free of that authority, they would be much higher.
The money paid to the CEO, et al, is ROI that is lost by the investors.

If they paid the CEO a $1M, then the investors would get another $13M.
The loss is not to the consumer.

The consumer cost increase due to the demand of increased infrastructure costs... basically building new capacity in areas that didn't need it in the past and building that capacity in such a manner as to have lower impact as publicly desired.

Thus we, as a collective, increase the cost.

It is like when people do not realize that the increase in traffic congestion in Meredith is partially the result of increased home building in Moultonborough.

I93 is a main trunk... like the big transmission lines... but each of the smaller branch roads have to be redeveloped to handle the increase in usage.

Eversource is having the same issue. It must increase its infrastructure even for the part that runs from the generators to NHEC or other smaller regional grids. That cost a lot with the shortage of supplies and labor we currently have.

If we cut back on the use... the need to increase the infrastructure is offset.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by jbolty

Meters are locked and sealed with a lead disk which has a code pressed into to reveal tampering but in the world of today many places have smart meters that no humans read so tampering might not be discovered but I would guess for those, unplugging it would be detected by the system.

My dad worked for NH co-op for many years and caught a few meter shenanigans

The system would quickly detect no load and trigger a response as if your power had gone out.

[LikeLakes]

John, you are very knowledgeable in this area and I very much respect that. Maybe I'm wrong about some of what I'm saying, but in my opinion, defending Eversource is not a great position to be in.

The NH PUC, hardworking and trying their best to do what is right for NH residents, have been steamrolled over the years by PSNH/Eversource. Northern pass, thank goodness it was stopped at least for now, was a blatant attempt at a money grab by a public corporation, with massive spending on a PR campaign and legal wrangling.

I do understand the way a public company's finances work, including salary to upper management. It doesn't make it right for the leader to make 280 times the salary of the workers on the lower rungs.

Again in my opinion, when a company has a revenue stream that is set by the PUC in a manner that insures they can't lose money, insures they recoup all investment in infrastructure, there should be some limits to profitability at the expense of ratepayers. Don't we all wish we could run a company that can't lose money, can simply request more revenue and in nearly every case get it?

[John Mercier]

Stopping Northern Pass made you more dependent on the price of natural gas.

That would be a market line... and not a government required upgrade that could be recouped by transmission rates.

Quebec, and Eversource - since they were the only ones large enough to handle the build out of the transmission line all the way to a point in the grid that could handle that level of generation - gave you an out to at least a partial offset of the current increase in the actual cost of electricity that is based on market fundamentals. You chose no. Now you get to live with the choice you made. It was a collective choice... but one we may live to regret.
It also meant that we now have to pay more for the transmission upgrade to the Coos loop. That will allow the biomass plant in Berlin to run at full output even when other generation sources (wind/solar/smaller hydro) are seeing high output.

Everything except conservation and downsizing has offsets.
Also the arguments made by the opposition are going to have increased costs in the infrastructure going forward that will be significant. No neighborhood near an existing generator now feels that when transmission lines are to be replaced that they should be above ground in large overhead towers.
But it could go even further down... Laconia has a tower on the Eversource public launch site that runs to a tower at Opechee Point, and then to a tower on the North Main street side. What if Eversource had to place that one under the lake and charge it to all the customers... even those not next to Lake Opechee? Instances like this happen all around the State. So we could be looking at a much more costly line charge as we go forward over the next several years.

What a company pays its workers is up to a mix of the market demand/labor supply and what the investors/board are willing to forgo in return on their investment for that labor.

Whenever you invest in something, there are costs... you determine if those costs are valid in relation to your ROI.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by 8gv

If you have window a/c units replace them with mini splits.

If you have the type of a/c units that roll on the floor and have a large diameter hose going out the window, replace them with regular window units or better yet, mini splits.

Why are the floor units bad you ask?

The hose that blows all the hot air out the window is the reason why.

I have the floor combination a/c heater with two large-diameter hoses going out the window. This eliminates hot air sucking into the home. They are great but hard to find. Common in Europe.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by LikeLakes

I do understand the way a public company's finances work, including salary to upper management. It doesn't make it right for the leader to make 280 times the salary of the workers on the lower rungs.

Again in my opinion, when a company has a revenue stream that is set by the PUC in a manner that insures they can't lose money, insures they recoup all investment in infrastructure, there should be some limits to profitability at the expense of ratepayers. Don't we all wish we could run a company that can't lose money, can simply request more revenue and in nearly every case get it?

Exactly. Whatever the specifics, the whole thing is so obviously corrupt to enrich a few who take virtually no risk with a guaranteed revenue stream and ROI. The head of Eversource should make a few hundred grand as a "public" employee.

[John Mercier]

Why?
My bond fund manager takes a percentage of my return and isn't subject to me considering him a ''public'' employee.

I have the option to divest... so the investors at Eversource feel that the CEO is worth what is being paid... or have the option to divest.

[LikeLakes]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Why?
My bond fund manager takes a percentage of my return and isn't subject to me considering him a ''public'' employee.

I have the option to divest... so the investors at Eversource feel that the CEO is worth what is being paid... or have the option to divest.

Does your bond fund manager go to the SEC and say "please make sure the market conditions dictate that our investment choices for our clients can't lose?"

John, you are completely missing the point. Of course a company can choose to pay people what they want to pay them, and in the case of a public company the board/shareholders can make those choices. Of course the board/shareholders of Eversource love their CEO and want to compensate him/her for pillaging the ratepayers through bullying, high powered legal methods, lobbying, and thus virtually guaranteeing profitability.

It's not that Eversource can't choose their own path, own CEO, own compensation levels, it's that Eversource isn't John Deere Tractor, making a product and competing in the marketplace. The rules should be different for these entities IMO.

[LikeLakes]

BTW John on your comments about Northern Pass, interesting take and would enjoy discussing at some point but that subject seems to need a thread of it's own. So I decided to stick with my "Eversource sucks" comments and leave NP out of it for now. But I did note your insightful take on it.

[John Mercier]

You can't lose with a bond.

And as I stated... the CEO pay is not tied to rates.
The CEO pay is directly paid from the return that the investors would get.
The more they choose to pay the employees and management, the less they get on their return.

Same as a bond fund manager.

And the rules are different... John Deere does not need to ask permission to set the price of their product.
If they were the same... Eversource would charge so much more.

[LikeLakes]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

You can't lose with a bond.

And as I stated... the CEO pay is not tied to rates.
The CEO pay is directly paid from the return that the investors would get.
The more they choose to pay the employees and management, the less they get on their return.

Same as a bond fund manager.

And the rules are different... John Deere does not need to ask permission to set the price of their product.
If they were the same... Eversource would charge so much more.

You can absolutely lose (relatively speaking) with a bond strategy, and managers advise on strategy and quality and timing as well as simply selling the bond.

So you are saying that higher rates which pad the profitability of Eversource are not what makes the company more profitable, encouraging higher pay for their CEO? And lower rates, reducing profitability, would not suggest to the board a lower pay rate?

Respectfully, you need to not simply argue semantics at the cost of missing the concept.

[John Mercier]

No. You can't.
Once the bond is purchased it will pay the dividend for the life of the bond.

You lose with a ''trading strategy''. You pay the manager for the trading strategy. Sort of like the Eversource investors lost with the ''trading strategy'' of the Northern Pass.

They cannot get regulated returns on items that are not part of the required regulatory process.

Higher rates are due to higher rates of investment. The higher rate of investment is because they are building out new infrastructure, and replacing infrastructure that has reached its capacity limit.

The same happens at an individual level when you change the amperage in you home from a 60 to a 100, and then to a 200 or more.
You pay the panel upgrade.
It also occurs when the panel fails and needs replacement.

If I want to ''bond'' it, I can... but I just pay.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...rce-energy/roi

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

No. You can't.
Once the bond is purchased it will pay the dividend for the life of the bond.

[/url]

Every bond has an expected rate of return at the time of purchase. If you buy a long term bond when inflation is expected to be 2%, and then inflation jumps to 10%, your return is destroyed and you lose--the money you get back in coupons is less than the rate of inflation. The only way to get out of this trap is to sell the bond...at a loss.

But staying on topic--it's one thing to argue for the free market to set compensation in a competitive situation, but it's silly to assert free market capitalism is fair/appropriate when we're talking about a government controlled entity.

[ITD]

There are bonds and there are bonds. You can lose your shirt buying the wrong bonds.


Government policy has a huge effect on fossil fuel and electricity prices. It's not a free market. We have an administration that has consistently said they want to limit and eliminate fossil fuel usage. We are seeing the fruits of those policies and efforts.

When people send money to green causes, this is what those causes want to happen. The slogan is always "alternative energy", but "alternative energy" is not even remotely ready to assume the load.

The result of these drastic energy price increases is going to be people without means being very cold, or dead this winter. And the problems these strategies are supposed to improve won't budge.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by ITD

We have an administration that has consistently said they want to limit and eliminate fossil fuel usage. We are seeing the fruits of those policies and efforts.

Wow. What a stretch.

" Combined, the oil and gas industry holds leases to more than 25 million acres of publicly-owned minerals, roughly half of which sit unused. Companies now hold more than 9,000 approved, but unused, drilling permits on national public lands, all of which could be put to use today." LINK

It is all greedy oil companies and greedy stockholders that cause the current issue.

Never mind the shutdowns caused by Covid-19 and a disastrous response by the previous administration.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

It’s generally unwise to argue with the professor, but I must point out that when we were energy independent during the last administration, we were not faced with exorbitant energy prices. Now perhaps that’s a coincidence, but I think not. We need to revert back to what was working for all of us.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

It’s generally unwise to argue with the professor, but I must point out that when we were energy independent during the last administration, we were not faced with exorbitant energy prices. Now perhaps that’s a coincidence, but I think not. We need to revert back to what was working for all of us.

Ummm...you know, like, Covid happened and totally changed the landscape of production, travel, etc. and that there's, like, a war in Ukraine involving one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world, right?

Like, for real?

Plane tickets were also $27 when Trump was president—didja think that was gonna stay the norm?!

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[Sue Doe-Nym]

I repeat…..ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, once reversed, played a huge part in this mess! That is all I have to say on the subject….period.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

I repeat…..ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, once reversed, played a huge part in this mess! That is all I have to say on the subject….period.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01053-2

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Every bond has an expected rate of return at the time of purchase. If you buy a long term bond when inflation is expected to be 2%, and then inflation jumps to 10%, your return is destroyed and you lose--the money you get back in coupons is less than the rate of inflation. The only way to get out of this trap is to sell the bond...at a loss.

But staying on topic--it's one thing to argue for the free market to set compensation in a competitive situation, but it's silly to assert free market capitalism is fair/appropriate when we're talking about a government controlled entity.

Actually in an I-bond, that doesn't happen.

Since the investors are free to divest, the mechanism still works on compensation. After all, it is their ROI that is reduced with each dollar spent on operations... including compensation at any level.

The ''hatred'' of Eversource is a projection of the individual. They have the option of going off grid, but are trapped with the desire for electricity at the lowest possible cost.

They even complain about the programs designed to lower usage so that the infrastructure would not need to be expanded.
The UL printed a study on how PV generation, because it was lower power distributed over a larger area of the grid created less need for infrastructure upgrade. The Facebook comments really didn't seem to understand that if you demand more centralized generation the requirement would soon be an upgrade of the entire transmission line from the generating station to the end user. They think you just put more and more homes on the end of the branch line and that line never needs an upgrade.

Massachusetts even adopted Mass Saves to manage the usage so their infrastructure wouldn't need as much upgrade.

Sooner, more likely than later, they are going to need to seek out new generation... and other than small localized solar/etc sourcing... it will mean a new very large primary line upgrade. We just keep building farther and farther away from generation with higher and higher load factors.
That isn't going to be a freebie.
The chart I posted a link to shows the amount after depreciation of Eversource investment into the grid, and the rate of return before expenses. The rate fluctuates with the various depreciation and price sets... but is relative to bond levels. It is the investment that is skyrocketing as the grid ages out, and the demand for electricity in regions that previously had less demand are developed.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by ITD

There are bonds and there are bonds. You can lose your shirt buying the wrong bonds.


Government policy has a huge effect on fossil fuel and electricity prices. It's not a free market. We have an administration that has consistently said they want to limit and eliminate fossil fuel usage. We are seeing the fruits of those policies and efforts.

When people send money to green causes, this is what those causes want to happen. The slogan is always "alternative energy", but "alternative energy" is not even remotely ready to assume the load.

The result of these drastic energy price increases is going to be people without means being very cold, or dead this winter. And the problems these strategies are supposed to improve won't budge.

We had 13M b/d of refining capacity in 2016. We had 12M b/d of refining capacity in 2020. The policy to expand without limits LNG sales offshore was enacted in 2018 - that is what effects the cost of generating electricity from fossil fuels. Biden was in his basement during that period. So what Administration are you talking about?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

I repeat…..ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, once reversed, played a huge part in this mess! That is all I have to say on the subject….period.

That would be personal behavior... anyone can go off grid.
If you are talking nationally... the US is ENERGY INDEPENDENT.
We ship more LNG and petroleum distillates overseas than we have any other time in history in the last six months.

Since we will be losing more refining capacity in the future... the Houston refinery will shutdown at the end of 2023 because the price of gasoline and other distillates are too low to attain the needed ROI. The option is to cut usage.

Electric vehicles grid tied, will overwhelm the grid. Changing to higher CAFE standards will not have an immediate effect... so removing recreational usage of gasoline would be the broadest solution.
The federal government doesn't have that power... so it would be a State government decision. They will forgo it, simply by seeking to blame the federal government.

For electricity, the federal government could vote to repeal the Jones Act and change the 2018 policy. It would mean the EU would fall to Russia, and we may have to send troops in the future... but the US would see better prices as market demand would be sequestered when exports are removed creating a large glut in the US.
It probably would not have the huge effect on NH as might be hoped... in that we never build the KM pipeline expansion to bring more natural gas to our State. That limits infrastructure build out in natural gas and results in higher prices in winter months due to heating demand.