# Energy useage



## stinsont

Anyone ever used this to monitor and control energy usage? I ordered mine yesterday and want to know if anyone has had good/bad experiences with the unit.

http://www.theenergydetective.com/store/ted-5000


----------



## Jon202

stinsont said:


> Anyone ever used this to monitor and control energy usage? I ordered mine yesterday and want to know if anyone has had good/bad experiences with the unit.
> 
> http://www.theenergydetective.com/store/ted-5000


I borrowed for free a killawatt meter from my public library to measure most of my plugged in devices over a day or two:

http://www.p3international.com/products/special/P4400/P4400-CE.html


----------



## m3s

stinsont said:


> Anyone ever used this to monitor and control energy usage? I ordered mine yesterday and want to know if anyone has had good/bad experiences with the unit.
> 
> http://www.theenergydetective.com/store/ted-5000



I've left my house empty with most circuit breakers off for months on end and never saw saving in electricity to pay for that.. (during the winter my baseboards were set to 11 I think and even then I saved $100/month I think)

Google never ceases to amaze me though, seems like they're the only company out there with good intentions. This should be standard equipment on every house


----------



## stinsont

The unit cost me ~$250. The unit I really wanted was the emonitor but couldn't bring myself to foot the bill...


----------



## HaroldCrump

I agree with mode3sour.
I have tried many strategies in the past.
Including, but not limited to, exclusively drying clothes on a clothes line, not using A/C during summer, defering heavy duty consumption during off-peak rates, all energy efficient appliances and bulbs, etc.
The difference in bill $$ is minimal at best.
Part of the reason is that consumption is not the biggest component of the bill.
Delivery charges, regulatory charges, debt retirement charges and now the new HST on top of everything dwarfs the consumption charges.

Recently, our electricity rates went up.
With this increase it is pretty much futile to make above and beyond efforts to reduce the bill.
And now that the Canadian (and ONT) govt. are on a maniacal mission to replace all power plants with greener (higher cost) energy options, it is getting kind of pointless to undertake all these comical strategies to save half a Kwh a month.


----------



## stinsont

You all may be right but I'm giving it a shot. The TED 5000 gets good reviews and includes a built in realtime webserver to help monitor usage.

The emonitor will actually monitor all appliances (circuits actually) and show you what each costs...pretty cool...and they claim to save between 5-20% on your bill.


----------



## m3s

I'm with Hydro Quebec, which actually has really nice monthly usage graphs alongside average temperature. A monthly graph is enough for me. It also has a detailed diagnostic tool that uses your inputs of house size and list of electric devices etc

I wondered why they encourage people to spend less on electricity, but I guess they've set up their billing so that usage has a minimal impact on purpose. They probably get a slice of profit from all the $$ light bulbs and programmable thermostats they encourage as well 

That Google powermeter looks cool.. hopefully it catches on. I would like my phone to warn me if my house has no power when I'm travelling, or anything else unusual


----------



## stinsont

mode3sour said:


> That Google powermeter looks cool.. hopefully it catches on. I would like my phone to warn me if my house has no power when I'm travelling, or anything else unusual


Actually the TED5000 supports Google Power Meter. So even though my power company does not support GPM I can still use it - although I am not convinced it has much value...yet.


----------



## Jon202

HaroldCrump said:


> Part of the reason is that consumption is not the biggest component of the bill.
> Delivery charges, regulatory charges, debt retirement charges and now the new HST on top of everything dwarfs the consumption charges.


But all those charges are based on consumption, and not fixed. So lower consumption, lower overall bill. For Ottawa, there's only 1 fixed charge for hte local utility. In fact, the consumption is over 2/3rd of hte cost on consumption, so I'm not sure what numbers you're thinking of:

https://www.hydroottawa.com/residential/index.cfm?lang=e&template_id=118


----------



## HaroldCrump

Jon202 said:


> But all those charges are based on consumption, and not fixed. So lower consumption, lower overall bill.


True that all those charges are based on consumption.
Some components of the charges are fixed though, like part of delivery charges, even with zero consumption.
However, the $ amount of consumption is less than the $ amount of these charges.

I'm all for reducing waste like turning off lights & TV, and grabbing the low-hanging fruits of efficiency like doing laundry on the weekends, etc.
I don't think anyone will disagree with that.

But once you have optimized all that you can, the $ benefits of any further reductions are marginal.


> For Ottawa, there's only 1 fixed charge for hte local utility. In fact, the consumption is over 2/3rd of hte cost on consumption, so I'm not sure what numbers you're thinking of:


My June bill summary (rounded to nearest whole number):
Consumption : $26
Delivery : $25
Regulatory : $4
ONT Debt Retirement : $3
Total : $58
% of Consumption : 26/58 = 44%

Once you add in the newly increased taxes, the % of consumption reduces even further, to more like 40%.

Actually, the % of consumption vis-a-vis other components may depend on the tier that the bulk of your consumption falls into.
The delivery charges are the same, regardless of the tier.
Part of delivery charges as fixed as well, and part is variable.
So if the majority of your consumption is low tier, then consumption reduces but other charges stay the same, skewing the %.
Similarly, on the other end of the tier.


----------



## Jon202

Who your utility? Numbers seem strange... Everything is based on usage, the only 'fixed' charge is the monthly utility charge. Have a look at the Ottawa Hydro link provided.. it's pretty clear..

example of 800KwH during summer threshold on a RPP:

Consumption up to 600 kWh	$39.00
Consumption above the 600 $15.00
Transmission $8.72
Hydro Ottawa Delivery $16.48
Low Voltage Services Charge $0.16
Regulatory $5.50
Debt Retirement $5.55
Hydro Ottawa Fixed Charge $10.20

pre-tax total: $100.61
hst: $13.08
total: $113.69

HST applies equally to the whole bill, so not sure how that would change the ratios, but actually 'electric' is 53.6% of the bill, and 90% of the Ottawa Hydro bill is based on actual metered usage.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Jon202 said:


> Who your utility? Numbers seem strange... Everything is based on usage, the only 'fixed' charge is the monthly utility charge. Have a look at the Ottawa Hydro link provided.. it's pretty clear..
> 
> example of 800KwH during summer threshold on a RPP:
> 
> Consumption up to 600 kWh	$39.00
> Consumption above the 600 $15.00
> Transmission $8.72
> Hydro Ottawa Delivery $16.48
> Low Voltage Services Charge $0.16
> Regulatory $5.50
> Debt Retirement $5.55
> Hydro Ottawa Fixed Charge $10.20
> 
> pre-tax total: $100.61
> hst: $13.08
> total: $113.69


Your bill seems to have more components than mine.
Maybe the Delivery Charge on mine is being further broken down in yours.
Your delivery charges seem very low compared to your usage.
The descriptions in my bill state that part of the delivery charges are fixed and part is variable based on usage.
Maybe in your case they have split that part out as the Fixed Charge.

Also, you appear to be in the RPP, which I am not.
Being in a tiered plan skews the numbers because the same total consumption can yield very different bill $$ depending on the tier.
The peak rate is almost double the discount rate.

Regardless, even if the majority of bill components are based on usage, the $ benefit of reducing your marginal consumption is not that significant.
Once you have eliminated most of the waste, then optimized your usage as best as you can, it gets progressively harder to conserve without compromising your quality of life/comfort.


----------



## Jungle

The common energy savings have been mentioned already but over the last few months I started unplugging things that use phantom power. (standby mode) I noticed our electric bill went down about $3.00 per month because of the changes. So $36 year kept in my pocket, not given to utilities. 

Unplugged powerbar that powers the TV, Robber's box, Wii and PS3. 
Turned the fuse off for the microwave and stove when not in use (stupid clocks)
Unplugged alarm clock during the day. (adaptor is hot)
Unplugged phone charges unless charging
Unplugged electric tooth brush unless charging
Put a CFL in the fridge. (fridge light)
Unplugged other Robber's box and TV in bedroom. 

I also put two CFL's in the bathroom. This has added to the savings. I had regular bulbs before.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Yet another surreptitious attack on the household hydro costs....this time to appease the large corporations.
As an expense for corporations, the cost of electricity (just like any other cost) would have been passed on to the consumers.
I wonder if these corporations named below would now be equally willing to pass on the same savings to the consumers.
Or maybe it would go towards the _McGuinty Re-election Charitable Fund_

Energy conservation is becoming a joke....

http://www.680news.com/news/local/a...to-be-extended-to-big-industrial-users-report



> TORONTO, Ont. - The McGuinty cabinet has reportedly approved a break on electricity rates for huge industrial users.
> 
> The Toronto Star reported that the time-of-use pricing that is in effect for homeowners will be extended to companies such as Ford, Vale Inco and Imperial Oil.
> 
> The time-of-use pricing lets consumers pay less to use electricity at off-peak times, such as nights and weekends.
> 
> The policy shift means that the system will have to make up the difference in what big power users were paying by collecting it from all other customers.
> 
> The paper quotes sources who say the average homeowner will see a hike in hydro bills ranging from $18 to $48 annually.


----------



## Jungle

We receive our electricity bill from Enbridge and they do not participate in time-of-use pricing at all. Before I move here, I had no clue Enbridge billed for electricity.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Jungle said:


> We receive our electricity bill from Enbridge and they do not participate in time-of-use pricing at all.


They will have to...everyone is being moved over gradually.
As per the article above, it will affect all residential customers, not just those on time-of-use plans.


----------



## stinsont

I have fired up my TED5000 to monitor my homes energy usage. I know some here think is is a waste of time but I want to know what I am using for power - my bills are through the roof!

It actually is a pretty cool tool. Check it out here - http://ted.mongoose.ca


----------



## Jungle

stinsont said:


> I have fired up my TED5000 to monitor my homes energy usage. I know some here think is is a waste of time but I want to know what I am using for power - my bills are through the roof!
> 
> It actually is a pretty cool tool. Check it out here - http://ted.mongoose.ca


The link you posted is not loading for me. I do not think your energy investigation is a waste of time, but rather informative and productive. Could you be so kind to post your energy ratings for things like:

Microwave sitting in idle
Stove sitting in idle
Coffee maker in idle
TV, PS3, Wii, Rober's Box sitting in idle
Alarm clock 
Phone chargers (standby and charging)
Electric tooth brush 
Anything else plugged in the wall


----------



## stinsont

ya, something is screwy with my webserver...basically my hydro bill says I am using ~100kwh per day. this device is saying I am using about 45kwh per day. i am trying to figure out who is right.

Once i get the server back in order i will post. it really is a cool tool. the needle actually moves when you turn on a light so you can see in real time what energy is being used.


----------



## hboy43

Hi:

Canadian Tire sells a device that you can plug into any 3 prong 120 volt recepticle. One then plugs into it the device one wishes to learn about. I havn't used it in years, but I believe it reports total energy, total run time, peak power, peak current, perhaps average power too. Oh, and cost if you load in a price per kWh. Device is a EM100 energy meter made by UPM, about $30 retail.

One thing I didn't like is that it chews through the little button cells in a month or two, so I hacked on a double AA cell carrier and run it on NiMh cells now.

As for cost of electricity, I last did the calculations here about 3 years ago. I recall I had to go to the Hydro One Networks website to get sufficient info as some lines on the paper bill embedded both fixed and variable charges. Took about 2 hours putzing with a spreadsheet before I got it right. At the time, the marginal cost delivered was about 11 cents /kWh, the average cost was about 13 cents, the monthly fixed fee was about $35. With the recent increases in ontario, my working estimates are 13 cents marginal cost, and 15cents average based on my daily usage of about 17 kWh.

Regards,

hboy43


----------



## Arcaneind

*Australia & New Zealand*

This spring we went to Australia and New Zealand for two months. Shut everything down. End result: nothing. I have been tracking my energy costs for four years and they always average out the same!!

On the other hand, in Australia and New Zealand they have a switch built into every outlet. NO PHANTOM LOADS! It was great. I looked around here and haven't seen anything even close to it.

Photo


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Australia has a national energy policy intiated around 2000 to reduce standby power consumption. With the proliferation of electronic equipment in homes, they could forecast a steadily increasing portion of power consumption being wasted on standby power. 

Part of this strategy is the "1-watt challenge" to reduce standy power demand in new appliances to 1 watt or less. I heard a presentation from an Australian official a few years ago saying they discovered that most portable elctronic appliances could meet this by simply using a more efficient power transformer, for hardly any difference in cost. 

Sounds like the switched outlets are part of the same strategy. Not sure how my iMac would like it though, since manuals say shutting of the power bar shortens battery life.


----------



## m3s

What's wrong with our light switched outlets? I could use more of those. I'm sure not going to walk around every night turning off every outlet behind furniture.

I'm too lazy to go downstairs to turn off my home server. I am buying a wake-on-lan card so that I can set it to standby or something until it's used. But it doesn't cost anything to leave it on anyways


----------



## Cal

mode3sour - you don't have to pull out furniture to shut off the power, just go to the fuse panel and flip some switches.....

But don't turn off your fridge....


----------



## m3s

Oh but the fuse panel is even further downstairs than my computer!

I flip them all off except the fridge when I travel and it doesn't save much, so doing it daily isn't worth the effort


----------



## crazyjackcsa

One issue when it comes to conservation is the monthly charge. In fact, the more you save, the bigger an issue the monthly charge becomes.

For example, in our house we are pretty careful when it comes to utility usage. 

Our water bill is about 22 dollars a month. A full 14.50 of that is the monthly conection charge plus HST

I once had a hydro bill with 0 usage on it (due to the old "estimating" way of billing) My bill was still more than 20 dollars in monthly charges. At that time my normal bill was 60 dollars.

Even my Natural Gas bill is like that. Nearly 20% of my bill is a fixed cost.

Really, where is the benefit in conservation?


----------



## Seth

Jungle said:


> The common energy savings have been mentioned already but over the last few months I started unplugging things that use phantom power. (standby mode) I noticed our electric bill went down about $3.00 per month because of the changes. So $36 year kept in my pocket, not given to utilities.
> 
> Unplugged powerbar that powers the TV, Robber's box, Wii and PS3.
> Turned the fuse off for the microwave and stove when not in use (stupid clocks)
> Unplugged alarm clock during the day. (adaptor is hot)
> Unplugged phone charges unless charging
> Unplugged electric tooth brush unless charging
> Put a CFL in the fridge. (fridge light)
> Unplugged other Robber's box and TV in bedroom.
> 
> I also put two CFL's in the bathroom. This has added to the savings. I had regular bulbs before.


Seems like such a POA to do all this for just 3 dollars a month?

I spend 36 dollars a year on postage stamps for Gods sake!

I can't imagine having to reprogram my alarm clock EVERY NIGHT

Now _thats _frugal!


----------



## brad

Jungle said:


> Put a CFL in the fridge. (fridge light)


This actually won't save you much over the lifetime of the CFL. Compact fluorescents make most economic sense in places where lights are left on a long time. Closets and refrigerators are places where a regular incandescent is actually more economical, because the bulb is cheaper to begin with; you'd have to wait 10-12 years before a CFL paid for itself in energy savings in those situations. Furthermore, the life of most CFLs tends is reduced if they are left on for only short periods of time. I have a CFL in our kitchen that is typically on for hours at a time; it has lasted me 5 years so far; the same brand CFLs in our basement (which are typically only switched on for quick trips downstairs, turned off after a couple of minutes) burn out every six months or so.


----------



## Arcaneind

brad said:


> This actually won't save you much over the lifetime of the CFL. Compact fluorescents make most economic sense in places where lights are left on a long time. Closets and refrigerators are places where a regular incandescent is actually more economical, because the bulb is cheaper to begin with; you'd have to wait 10-12 years before a CFL paid for itself in energy savings in those situations. Furthermore, the life of most CFLs tends is reduced if they are left on for only short periods of time. I have a CFL in our kitchen that is typically on for hours at a time; it has lasted me 5 years so far; the same brand CFLs in our basement (which are typically only switched on for quick trips downstairs, turned off after a couple of minutes) burn out every six months or so.


I agree!! I have replaced a bunch of CFL bulbs in our bathroom (humidity + short use) and have yet to change any of the CFL bulbs that are on for longer spans on automatic timers.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Our asleep-at-the-wheel premier interrupted his beauty sleep to mull over how the Ontario residents are being screwed over by electricity rates:

_Many Ontarians have been limiting their power usage toward off-peak hours, leaving domestic duties to the evening or late night hours. However, many claim the savings are minimal, seeing increases, not decreases, in their bills. 

Premier Dalton McGuinty said his government will review the rates._

Full story : http://www.680news.com/news/local/article/101527--mcguinty-reviews-power-usage-rates

So with about a year left in his reign, Nero is gonna "review" rates.
He knows he aint getting re-elected, so the rates will probably never get revised and are here to stay.

In the last 1 year, our peak rates have increased from .080 to .095 and the lowest discounted rate has gone from .040 to .055.
Guess what the all-day flat rate used to be prior to all this - yep, .055!


----------



## Jungle

brad said:


> This actually won't save you much over the lifetime of the CFL. Compact fluorescents make most economic sense in places where lights are left on a long time. Closets and refrigerators are places where a regular incandescent is actually more economical, because the bulb is cheaper to begin with; you'd have to wait 10-12 years before a CFL paid for itself in energy savings in those situations. Furthermore, the life of most CFLs tends is reduced if they are left on for only short periods of time. I have a CFL in our kitchen that is typically on for hours at a time; it has lasted me 5 years so far; the same brand CFLs in our basement (which are typically only switched on for quick trips downstairs, turned off after a couple of minutes) burn out every six months or so.


I got the CFL bulbs for free, when Rona had their exchange program. It still uses less energy than incandescent to run.


----------



## groceryalerts

stinsont said:


> Anyone ever used this to monitor and control energy usage? I ordered mine yesterday and want to know if anyone has had good/bad experiences with the unit.
> 
> http://www.theenergydetective.com/store/ted-5000


That is a lot of money. Do those smart power meters reduce your bill enough?


----------



## brad

Jungle said:


> I got the CFL bulbs for free, when Rona had their exchange program. It still uses less energy than incandescent to run.


Then it's all clear profit, for the life of the bulb anyway, so you're right to use them there. But when those bulbs die, don't replace them with CFLs unless you have more free ones -- the CFLs will most likely burn out before you earn back the difference in energy savings.

Years ago I won a dozen CFLs in a contest sponsored by my local utility. They were high-quality CFLs that lasted me more than a dozen years each, and during those 12 years I managed to live in New England, a region with some of the highest electricity prices in North America, without ever paying more than $35/month for electricity.


----------



## Cal

I just got notice that my power had installed a smart meter (I guess they are on the outside of our homes)....will be interesting to see how it shows my energy consumption on future bills. Will be less interested to pay.


----------



## hystat

_There are indications the $2-billion smart meter program, which enables local utilities to charge customers based on time-of-use, is not working as designed.

According to data released Tuesday, 68 per cent of 10,000 tracked Toronto Hydro customers had higher bills in the first year of the new program.

"Time-of-use rates have not had a major impact on the bills, either in savings or extra costs," said Blair Peberdy, a spokesman for Toronto Hydro.

That data prompted calls for an end to the program.


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/techno...cGuinty+says/3522557/story.html#ixzz0zkixqKIF_


----------



## hboy43

hi:

On a slightly different topic ... does anyone have a recommendation for a timer to put on an electric hot water tank? I understand TOU is coming late this year in my area and the water tank is really my only opportunity to shift loads and if not save money, at least lose less.

hboy43


----------



## brad

hboy43 said:


> On a slightly different topic ... does anyone have a recommendation for a timer to put on an electric hot water tank?


Some general info on this here (from US Department of Energy):

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=13110

There are lots of timers available on the market -- the programmable ones are pricey (http://www.asaptimers.com/) but much cheaper models are available: http://www.nextag.com/water-heater-timer/shop-html.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> I agree with mode3sour.
> I have tried many strategies in the past.
> Including, but not limited to, exclusively drying clothes on a clothes line, not using A/C during summer, defering heavy duty consumption during off-peak rates, all energy efficient appliances and bulbs, etc.
> The difference in bill $$ is minimal at best.
> Part of the reason is that consumption is not the biggest component of the bill.
> Delivery charges, regulatory charges, debt retirement charges and now the new HST on top of everything dwarfs the consumption charges.
> 
> Recently, our electricity rates went up.
> With this increase it is pretty much futile to make above and beyond efforts to reduce the bill.
> And now that the Canadian (and ONT) govt. are on a maniacal mission to replace all power plants with greener (higher cost) energy options, it is getting kind of pointless to undertake all these comical strategies to save half a Kwh a month.


Agreed. And when Ontario implements TOU (time of day use rates), it will
go up even more. The non-consumption portion of the electricity bill
is over 50% of the total bill now that the HST is applied. Even if you disconnect
everything in the house for 2 months, you will still get a minimum bill even
if delivery and consumption are not factored in. I tried that with the gas
bill last summer..turned off the pilot lights on the waterheater and still got
a minimum bill of over $20..so the savings are insignificant at this point
unless you can find more energy efficient fridges that run on less electricity.

Now the other thing that we have to consider, is that if everyone saves power
by installing CFLs etc..and the consumption goes down..the generators still
have to run and the electricity suppliers still have to make money..so they
will just raise the perKWH rate again to compensate for any energy saved
by the consumers...it's a no win situation.


----------



## carverman

hboy43 said:


> hi:
> 
> On a slightly different topic ... does anyone have a recommendation for a timer to put on an electric hot water tank? I understand TOU is coming late this year in my area and the water tank is really my only opportunity to shift loads and if not save money, at least lose less.
> 
> hboy43


Hot water tanks run on 220/240v and the top and bottom element are generally
2500 to 3kwatts each..thats 5 or 6kw if both are on, which is rare, so basically depending on the water temperture set in the thermosat (the one behind the cover) that monitors the water temp at the top of the tank, the top element is drawing about 12 amps or so at 220v. Most relays don't have contacts of
carrying that kind of current without burning the relay contacts, but a heavy
duty industrial contactor (2 pole 24v at 25 amps may). The main problem
is that it requires its own metal box and needs to be in line between the
main breaker panel and the tank. 
Being 220v (very lethal),it also needs to be installed by a qualified electrician, so by the time you pay the bill there isn't going to be any savings for quite a while if you consider that the 3kw tank heater on for 1hour, draws 3 kw x 6 cents per kw hour, so that's about 18c + delivery/etc/taxes.. (25c?) for the hour it is on. 

The installation of the contactor relay is going to run probably more than
$100.


----------



## brad

Another option to consider is the on-demand European-style hot water heater rather than a tank. Mixed reviews on these, of course (I've had plenty of cold or lukewarm showers in Europe), but I think the better models will get you hot water reliably and quickly.

If you think about it, running a hot water heater 24/7 in order to have hot water for a shower in the morning, washing the dishes, and washing your hands/face in the evening is like leaving your car running 24/7 so you can use it for an hour a day. Water does have thermal inertia so once the tank reaches the desired temp it doesn't take that much energy to maintain it, but still...


----------



## carverman

hystat said:


> _There are indications the $2-billion smart meter program, which enables local utilities to charge customers based on time-of-use, is not working as designed.
> 
> According to data released Tuesday, 68 per cent of 10,000 tracked Toronto Hydro customers had higher bills in the first year of the new program.
> 
> "Time-of-use rates have not had a major impact on the bills, either in savings or extra costs," said Blair Peberdy, a spokesman for Toronto Hydro.
> 
> That data prompted calls for an end to the program.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/techno...cGuinty+says/3522557/story.html#ixzz0zkixqKIF_


Yes, what the newspaper article is saying may be in fact true..but the report
doesn't take in the full picture or data.

TOU rates for Ottawa Hydro (not implemented yet) were to be set at:
Off Peak /weekends 5.3c per kwh
mid peak 8c per kwh
on peak 9.9c per kwh.

The HST threw a wrench in the works by boosting the hydro bill by another
8% practically. I don't know which specific charges the HST does not apply
but for purposes of this discussion it was 5% gst before July 1 and now
13% added to the hydro bill..that is significant to increase the electricity bill
regardless of what the mcGinty gov't is planning on doing.

The other thing is that it will take time for people to change their electricity
use habits. While there may be people out there that are willing to get up
at 11pm-12am, and turn on the washing machine/dryer, nobody is going to move
making meals (stove-oven kitchen appliances) between 11pm and 7am.

That is ridiculous for the gov't and electricity providers to think that.

There may be some savings in the off peak periods/weekends but
it will be offset by the increase in price Mon-Friday..so the gov't
and electricity providers need to rethink this TOU scheme.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> TOU rates for Ottawa Hydro (not implemented yet) were to be set at:
> Off Peak /weekends 5.3c per kwh
> mid peak 8c per kwh
> on peak 9.9c per kwh.


It is shameful and scandalous what Ontario did with electricity rates in the last 2 years.
Our flat rate used to be $0.053/Kwh before the smart ("dumb") meters were implemented.
Once TOU came into force, for the first year the rates were $0.091, $0.080 and $0.049 - so, spike on the upside but very little discount on the downside.
And then....this year, they changed the rates to $0.099, $0.089 and $0.055 aha!
So the lowest tier is now more expensive than the flat rate from a year ago and the peak rates are through the stratosphere.

This summer we experienced bills over $200 for the first time ever, even though our consumption is unchanged, actually slightly lower than previous years.


----------



## wheel

HaroldCrump said:


> It is shameful and scandalous what Ontario did with electricity rates in the last 2 years.
> Our flat rate used to be $0.053/Kwh before the smart ("dumb") meters were implemented.
> Once TOU came into force, for the first year the rates were $0.091, $0.080 and $0.049 - so, spike on the upside but very little discount on the downside.
> And then....this year, they changed the rates to $0.099, $0.089 and $0.055 aha!
> So the lowest tier is now more expensive than the flat rate from a year ago and the peak rates are through the stratosphere.
> 
> This summer we experienced bills over $200 for the first time ever, even though our consumption is unchanged, actually slightly lower than previous years.


Scandalous? that ain't the half of it.

Our local municipality is part owner of our regional electrical utility. Each year they get a check for PROFIT for their share of the ownership, that scoots in the back door and gets digested into the general revenue.

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that we're forced to pay additional undeclared taxes through our already high electric bills. 

A local paper here did an expose on the stuff the local governments were doing with this hydro money. Stuff like pay down debt on recreation centers, all manner of unrelated things. It's like free money!


----------



## K-133

I understand that this is in the 'Frugal' forum, and I would consider myself more responsible than frugal. But let's be honest here...

My last bill was $112.02. HST increased this by ~$8 over the previous bill or $4 a month (a couple of bags of chips). 

Let's assume that the weekdays are charged at the average of peak rates of $0.09 and weekends at the low rate of $0.053.
i.e. 5 days @ 0.09 and 2 days @ 0.053. 
Let's also assume that my consumption is uniform throughout the week (which is untrue as I use much more power on the weekends). 

My consumption reading was 713.74 kWh and the charge was $46 for this consumption.

Therefore my new bill would be approximately 5/7*713.74*.09 + 2/7*713.74*.053 = $54. A further increase of $8 or $4/month.

So in total, my hydro bill will increase by $8 per month. Is this really backbreaking for anyone's personal finances? I sympathize with the frugal mind, that every little bit counts, but at some point don't you feel that your stress and energy are worth more than $8 a month?

I'm not trying to be ignorant here. I really don't empathize with all the fuss and would like to understand more of the facts. What am I missing?

I've heard of people who've had crazy bills in Toronto recently - like $700. Is this really due to the changes, or are these people simply irresponsible with this finite, shared resource to begin with?

Perhaps the silver lining is improvement of the system from the user's perspective, rather than growth to meet constantly increasing demands.

If this is simply a matter of principle, should we not consider our own accountabilities to responsible use as a principle as well?


----------



## K-133

On a related note....
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/11/09/iea-world-energy-report.html

"...more must be done to increase energy efficiency..."


----------



## brad

K-133 said:


> My consumption reading was 713.74 kWh and the charge was $46 for this consumption.
> 
> Therefore my new bill would be approximately 5/7*713.74*.09 + 2/7*713.74*.053 = $54. A further increase of $8 or $4/month.


As sympathetic as I am to your point, I think this is a place where percentages probably make more sense than actual dollar figures. It is really hard to compare households' electricity consumption because so much depends on variables such as the size of the house, its condition, number of occupants and their ages, the number of appliances and lights, etc. One household that consumes vastly more electricity than another isn't necessarily paying no attention to energy efficiency.

A 17% increase doesn't amount to much if you're paying only $25/month, but if your normal electricity consumption is several times that amount then it could add up to a significant increase over the course of a year.


----------



## andrewf

OPG is government-owned. If the OPG makes more of a profit/less of a loss than they would have under flat pricing, that means taxes don't have to rise as much elsewhere. And TOU pricing means that you're paying closer to what it costs to produce electricity at various times of the day/week/year. Giving people incentive to shift consumption off of peak times means less power imports from Quebec/Michigan/etc. at >$1 kWh or firing up inefficient peaking generators. Maybe the overall rate rose, but that may have been necessary if rates were too low before the change to cover costs.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Folks that got really skewered as a result of the TOU are those who could not significantly change their usage based on tiered electricity rates, esp. during the week, without causing a lot of hardship or discomfort.

Single income families, families with an elderly parent/grandparent to care for, stay-at-home mums/dads, etc.

One could, of course, say something to the effect that it is the free market demand/supply effect, suck it up and shut up, etc. but IMHO pricing of essential commodities like electricity, water, health care, etc. should be regulated and not allowed to run amuck.

I understand the need to increase prices to keep pace with inflation etc. but the increase from 2008 - 2010 in Ontario has been way above any inflation rates or any underlying market changes.

As brad said above, it's the % increase that's significant and not the face value of the increase.
I don't eat 2 bags of chips so yes, the $8/month increase that HST tagged on top of the rate increase is indeed too much, IMO.


----------



## andrewf

If we're concerned about poor people paying more for hydro, give them a means-tested transfer that doesn't scale to how much they use. They can choose to use that money to buy more efficient appliances or just to pay their higher bills. No sense in giving everyone cheap electricity and cause undue amounts of waste.


----------



## wheel

andrewf said:


> If we're concerned about poor people paying more for hydro, give them a means-tested transfer that doesn't scale to how much they use. They can choose to use that money to buy more efficient appliances or just to pay their higher bills. No sense in giving everyone cheap electricity and cause undue amounts of waste.


Or you could just keep the prices low by not charging all the unrelated nonsense like 'debt repayment' and the profit margin I mentioned above. Then people can actually afford it.

I believe my bimonthly bill is in the range of $500-$600. My wife and I work from home. We have a hot tub and my wife cooks quite a bit. But none of that is crazy hydro-burning lifestyle stuff. The bill though, sure seems excessive to me. It's not like we're heating with hydro or something. Regular family, regular lifestyle. My sister in law and at least one of our neighbours have hydro bills in that range as well - I believe it's common here.

I'm fortunate that it's not going to cramp my lifestyle. But I know there are neighbours in my community where these high bills have the ability to leave them in the position of deciding food vs. electricity. It's getting that bad.


----------



## K-133

andrewf said:


> If we're concerned about poor people paying more for hydro, give them a means-tested transfer that doesn't scale to how much they use. They can choose to use that money to buy more efficient appliances or just to pay their higher bills. No sense in giving everyone cheap electricity and cause undue amounts of waste.


That's pretty well put adnrewf.


----------



## andrewf

If your hydro bill is over $200/month without heating, then you likely have some appliances that are operating inefficiently or lots of phantom load from appliances on standby. Televisions, computers, printers, fax machines can really add up. And I'd imagine a hot tub uses a decent amount of energy.

We need higher electricity prices to bring about more energy efficient appliances. It's either that or we have to spend billions more than we'd otherwise need to for new generating capacity. Refurbishing our nuclear fleet could cost upwards of $40 billion. This stuff isn't cheap, and it should be paid for out of hydro rates, not general government revenues.


----------



## the-royal-mail

I disagree with andrewf. I cannot support this opinion which once again sticks it to the average user. Ontario is 20 years behind in generating capacity and no amount of increased hydro rates will change that. Nor do I agree that millions of people need to spend thousands of dollars lining the pockets of big business to replace our appliances. We pay enough, thanks. Glad to see you drinking the Liberal party koolaid as per usual.


----------



## Jungle

I read lots of stuff about saving electricity and one web site I read is saying that if your fridge is over five years old, it's now inefficient to what they have out now a days. 

Anything with an electric motor uses the juice nice and fast. My new savings thing is taking showers with the bathroom door wide open and leaving the bathroom fan off. I know this old motor design sucks power. The bathroom does not steam up as the moisture goes into the rest of the apartment without notice. Wife thinks I'm crazy, except that we got my last hydro bill down to $37 bucks total, that includes HST hike.


----------



## m3s

carverman said:


> Now the other thing that we have to consider, is that if everyone saves power
> by installing CFLs etc..and the consumption goes down..the generators still
> have to run and the electricity suppliers still have to make money..so they
> will just raise the perKWH rate again to compensate for any energy saved
> by the consumers...it's a no win situation.


There really is a lot more to consider than consumers think. How many perfectly good light bulbs were thrown out in the past few years? Probably enough to fill a landfill



> I read lots of stuff about saving electricity and one web site I read is saying that if your fridge is over five years old, it's now inefficient to what they have out now a days.


Does anyone consider how appliances only last a few years now? What is better, saving $5/month on elec or buying new appliances 3 times as often? I've compared the new and old appliances and it seems efficiency is a trade off for reliability. Of course it doesn't have to be if they were build with some dignity like a 90's Japanese car, but I'm not going to pay double for a Korean appliance (haven't seen any Kawasaki appliances for sale yet) Maytags are not even Maytags anymore, in fact go look at an appliance store - 5 different brand names for the exact same thing with different prices and colors.

Anyways it astounds me that people justify buying new appliances because it is "less efficient and out dated" when really they just want the latest trend finish


----------



## andrewf

royal mail, I support HST and TOU pricing because they are good policy. I advocated for these policies before they were adopted by the Ontario Liberals. I generally support McGuinty, but that is because his economic policy largely makes sense. I think the whole green-energy subsidy thing is a huge mistake. I have some distaste for some of the 'Premier Dad' policies like smoking in cars, etc. And of course, like every government, they've wasted money. Show me one government in the free world that's been around for two terms and hasn't wasted money. Nature of the beast.

I know all we ever hear about is that people's bills went up 300%, but the proof is in the pudding. If the government's revenues from electricity sales haven't skyrocketed, then it stands to reason that electricity bills, on average, haven't either. Time will tell, but the principle of shifting demand off-peak is sound. We have a great deal of excess capacity off-peak that could be better utilized, and offering lower rates to use it off-peak makes sense.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> offering lower rates to use it off-peak makes sense.


_But these buggers aren't - that's the whole gripe people have_

In less than 2 years, the off-peak rate is now more than what the flat rate used to be.
Our flat rate was $0.053. The off-preak now is $0.055.
Add in the fact that the mid peak is $0.089 - that's > 60% more than the flat rate.
The peak rate is $0.099 and that is nearly 100% more than the flat rate.
Add in the 8% HST on top of a larger bill now.
Add in the fact that the "Ontario Debt Retirement Charge" is a % of the bill.

The whole thing is a pyramid scheme of a tax on top of a tax on top of a tax, masquerading as a utility bill.

We can argue about whether households are seeing 50%, 100% or 300% increase in hydro bills, but the fact is that there is a substantial increase and it is well into the double digits.
In the same two years:
- have you received a double digit raise at your job?
- have your investments returned double digits?
- has the economic inflation been in the double digits?

If you are advocating passing on the true cost of public services to the retail consumers, I'm all for it.
But let's not stop with hydro.
Let us pass on the true cost of public transit.
Let us pass on the true cost of social health care.
Let us pass on the true cost of environmental damage.

If you wanna take up that cause, I volunteer be your first comrade-in-arms.


----------



## the-royal-mail

I agree with Harold. We are living in a very left-wing socialist society, and andrewf's comments prove it. Stick it to the hard-working majority to pay for all this socialism. We're fed up with high taxes and ever-increasing fees. We're being hammered from all sides. If we keep this up and people keep losing their jobs, the whole system will crumble. We need to be careful. Continually increasing taxes and inventing "fees" to fund various social programs is not sustainable. Too many pigs at the trough.


----------



## andrewf

ROFL. I'm a lefty, now, eh? 

Harold, you're talking about rate increases over a very particular time frame. Cherry-picking a two year time frame to distort the discussion. It's like the minimum wage increase (which I generally oppose, some lefty). It rose from 6.85 to 10.25 over ~4 years, an increase of 50%, or over 10% per annum. Never mind that the minimum wage was 6.85 for over ten years before that. If you look at that increase over a 15 year time frame it drops to 2.7% per year.

Now, let's compare to what the non-TOU prices are right now. According to OEB (http://www.oeb.gov.on.ca/OEB/Consumers/Electricity/Electricity+Prices), they are at 6.4 cents for the first 750 kWh and 7.4 cents thereafter. So, 5.1 cents off-peak (including weekends and holidays!) is not such a bad deal.

Now, hydro prices may have risen significantly recently, but over a longer period, the increase looks more moderate. From 2004 - 2010, for instance, rates have increased by about 5.3% a year. A bit high, but that is probably accounting for a generally rapid rate of increase in energy costs in general (coal/nat gas are about a quarter of our supply in Ontario) as well as moving the price for electricity closer to the market rate.

I think the electricity price should cover the cost to produce and distribute it. Neither of you have provided any evidence that this is not the case. You're railing against socialism, but you're calling for government subsidized electricity for all. If anything, I'm a pragmatic libertarian, not really a socialist.


----------



## wheel

andrewf said:


> I think the electricity price should cover the cost to produce and distribute it. Neither of you have provided any evidence that this is not the case..


Did you read my comments where I pointed out that municipalities are given a large check each year which is the result of *profit* from local hydro companies?


----------



## the-royal-mail

andrewf said:


> I think the electricity price should cover the cost to produce and distribute it. Neither of you have provided any evidence that this is not the case. You're railing against socialism, but you're calling for government subsidized electricity for all. If anything, I'm a pragmatic libertarian, not really a socialist.


OK so that means you are okay with users paying the full cost + profit to operate social services such as public transit and healthcare?


----------



## K-133

wheel said:


> Did you read my comments where I pointed out that municipalities are given a large check each year which is the result of *profit* from local hydro companies?


Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Where is proof of such a transaction? Where is the documented precedent for the transaction.

I think your situation is somewhat unique. You are at a financial advantage working from home, and increases in costs, eat into that advantage.

I consider myself an average user with a bill well below $200. I don't sympathize with people who pay $600. There is obviously an inefficiency somewhere in that monster, and I support the movement pushing for greater efficiency by the user, rather than greater investment into the transmission system. Which highlights the point, that you're going to pay for it, one way or another.

<EDIT> I guess a better way of putting it is to demonstrate that prices have increased the the range of 300% as some are claiming. And do so demonstrating that consumption has remained the same.</edit>

What I am really understanding from this discussion though, is that the main issue is transparency. i.e. Taxing in one area to pay for another.


----------



## andrewf

The may be some positive externalities associated with transit usage or free health or education provision. Like, reduced congestion and pollution from transit or a minimum level of education among the populance, less intergenerational poverty and crime. I'm pretty skeptical that there are positive externalities to electricity consumption.

I think not leaving people to die in the gutter is more of an aspirational goal for a society than cheap hydro so we can leave the lights on or keep our pools a few degrees warmer. But that's just me.


----------



## K-133

andrewf said:


> The may be some positive externalities associated with transit usage or free health or education provision. Like, reduced congestion and pollution from transit or a minimum level of education among the populance, less intergenerational poverty and crime. I'm pretty skeptical that there are positive externalities to electricity consumption.
> 
> I think not leaving people to die in the gutter is more of an aspirational goal for a society than cheap hydro so we can leave the lights on or keep our pools a few degrees warmer. But that's just me.


andrewf - I think their point is simply; if you're going to tax someone for health, tax them for health, don't tax them for hydro. They want more transparency.

With that, I doubt it would stop the whining, and I think the government (i.e. managers) accepts that.

As far as wheel is concerned, I don't sympathize with his situation as he is asking for further benefit for working from home. Essentially, these rates will mostly be absorbed by business. A stance which I think we should applaud.


----------



## andrewf

True. For the people who work from home: cry me a river. You don't have to drive to work every day, which is far more expensive.


----------



## brad

andrewf said:


> True. For the people who work from home: cry me a river. You don't have to drive to work every day, which is far more expensive.


I'm actually surprised that running a home office would be so expensive. I've worked at home since 1994, and when I lived in New England, which has some of the highest electricity prices in the United States, I never paid more than $35/month for electricity. 

Here in Québec, which of course still has very low electricity rates, I am working at home, we have electric heat, and even so our electric bill is still only $120 month averaged across the year for our 3-bedroom home (one bedroom is my office, and I'm running two computers, a printer, peripherals, internet, etc.). Our house was built in 1912 and is not terribly well insulated; if we spent some money tightening it up we could probably bring our monthly bill down below $100.

A laptop or efficient desktop computer consumes little more than a light bulb.


----------



## dilbert789

To those that are against the city getting a cheque from the power company, would you rather the power company be owned by a private company and the profit goes to toward buying someone a new Porsche?

Also wtf are you doing to have a $600 power bill? For me I have all of the appliances that can be gas are, and our gas+water+power bills are still below $150 a month on average... Does your hot tub cost you $5 a day to heat? Maybe you need to turn that down when you aren't using it, or convert to gas if possible. You should get a kilawatt meter and figure out wtf is costing you such a crazy amount!


----------



## HaroldCrump

I think the discussion here has gone a little astray talking about $600 bills.
I don't think any of us here are guilty of that - I certainly am not.

Yes, there was indeed a news report a few months ago that _a very small_ number of people in the city of Toronto got such bills for 1 month.
But those cases were exceptions and were some folks that had been on fixed bill plans for many years and the hydro billing dept. woke up one fine Monday morning and sent them billing adjustments for the last 100 years.
Of course the 2p talk radio shows made a big deal out of it.

My bill is well under $200, but is still significantly higher than 2 years ago.
I do not work from home, don't have hot tubs or any other fancy electricity guzzlers.
Most of the appliances are fairly new (~ 5 years).
I believe my consumption is very modest, and typical of a single family household.
I see no justification for double digit annual price hikes.

At these rates, electricity conservation, efficiency or optimization is a joke.
Barring total abstinence from electricity consumption between the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm, I don't see a way to lower my bills.
What kind of appliance exists today that can enable me to improve efficiency of relatively new appliances by over 50% to offset the higher TOU rates?


----------



## andrewf

Use your clothes washer/drier on weekends or after 9 pm. Same with dishwasher.

Don't leave your stereo/DVD/TV/etc. plugged in when not in use. You can buy a power bar with a remote switch (like a light switch) that allows you to turn off these devices when not in use. You can do the same thing with your home office setup. Unplug cell-phone chargers when not in use. Make sure your fridge coils are clean. Change your furnace filter. Etc.


----------



## brad

andrewf said:


> You can do the same thing with your home office setup. Unplug cell-phone chargers when not in use.


Agreed in general, but these are generally small-ticket items (together they add up, but still not to much). A cell-phone charger will consume about a dollar's worth of electricity per year if left plugged in 24/7, 365 days/year. I do turn off my computers at night, but in sleep mode a laptop or efficient desktop will consume about as much power as a night light. Apple's Mac Mini consumes 10 watts in standby, for example, and it's a powerful enough computer for home office use and even multimedia. We use my laptop as our television; don't need a big screen, 15 inches is plenty big for our purposes.

The biggest electricity consumers are clothes dryers, air conditioners, electric ovens, refrigerators, etc.

During the work day when all my home office gear is running I can walk outside and look at our electric meter; the wheel moves at a snail's pace. Turn on the dryer and it starts spinning fast. That's why we only use our dryer in winter, and even then we dry many of our clothes on racks inside. In summer everything goes out on the line.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Use your clothes washer/drier on weekends or after 9 pm. Same with dishwasher.
> 
> Don't leave your stereo/DVD/TV/etc. plugged in when not in use. You can buy a power bar with a remote switch (like a light switch) that allows you to turn off these devices when not in use. You can do the same thing with your home office setup. Unplug cell-phone chargers when not in use. Make sure your fridge coils are clean. Change your furnace filter. Etc.


I do every single one of those, and plus some more.
Most of those make very small difference to overall bill, as brad said above.

The new TOU rates makes small things like this totally useless from the bill perspective.
The punitive TOU rates are so ridicolously high that none of this makes any significant difference.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> True that all those charges are based on consumption.
> Some components of the charges are fixed though, like part of delivery charges, even with zero consumption.
> However, the $ amount of consumption is less than the $ amount of these charges.
> 
> I'm all for reducing waste like turning off lights & TV, and grabbing the low-hanging fruits of efficiency like doing laundry on the weekends, etc.
> I don't think anyone will disagree with that.
> 
> But once you have optimized all that you can, the $ benefits of any further reductions are marginal.
> 
> My June bill summary (rounded to nearest whole number):
> Consumption : $26
> Delivery : $25
> Regulatory : $4
> ONT Debt Retirement : $3
> Total : $58
> % of Consumption : 26/58 = 44%
> 
> Once you add in the newly increased taxes, the % of consumption reduces even further, to more like 40%.
> 
> Actually, the % of consumption vis-a-vis other components may depend on the tier that the bulk of your consumption falls into.
> The delivery charges are the same, regardless of the tier.
> Part of delivery charges as fixed as well, and part is variable.
> So if the majority of your consumption is low tier, then consumption reduces but other charges stay the same, skewing the %.
> Similarly, on the other end of the tier.



That's about what I roughly figured out. On top of the fixed charges,
the HST seems to apply to items besides the actual energy usuage.
lets face it the Ontario Hydro "debt retirement" is nothing but a tax
placed on us for mismanagement by the former Ontario Hydro, a 
provincially owned corporation that spent money like there was no
tomorrow and paid themselves huge bonuses.

The OHDR part of the bill is a life time tax for most of us, that had no
part in the decision process of a wasteful corporation, and because it
was a publicly owned utility, we are saddled with the debt for many,
many years. The McGinty gov't now adds insult to injury by taxing
energy consumers another 8% which will not be used to improve the
energy situation, but used as general revenue.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> I do every single one of those, and plus some more.
> Most of those make very small difference to overall bill, as brad said above.
> 
> The new TOU rates makes small things like this totally useless from the bill perspective.
> The punitive TOU rates are so ridicolously high that none of this makes any significant difference.


Agreed. If the TOU gets implement in 2011, as they seem to indicate,
the hydro bills will go up even more. The wind farms (green power)
is more expensive than the existing power generation facilities...and
why is Bruce Power being paid NOT to start up the reactor?......
they don't want a glut of electricity on the market, because that
may give consumers a break..time to kick out the current gov't.
Too much "graft" going on here. We need an independent auditor
like the Federal gov't has to keep them on their toes.


----------



## andrewf

"the Ontario Hydro "debt retirement" is nothing but a tax
placed on us for mismanagement by the former Ontario Hydro,"

Bingo. It's a warning about what happens when you sell hydro for cheap and make dumb capital expenditure decisions (usually exacerbated by politicians). Part of that huge debt is Ontario's patented on-again, off-again method of constructing nuclear power. No other technique is so effective in octupling the construction cost of vital infrastructure for short-term partisan advantage.

The HST is a broad tax. If you're going to take it personally every time it's applied to a product, you're going to spend a lot of time offended. The reason we have broad taxes is because it allows the rate to be lower for a given amount of revenue to be collected. So your problem with the HST shouldn't be how broad it is, but the rate. If you want the rate to be lower, you need to get government spending down. Focus your energies there. Attacking the HST is treating the symptom, not the disease.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Agreed. If the TOU gets implement in 2011, as they seem to indicate,
> the hydro bills will go up even more.


We are already on TOU rates since 2009.
It was a classic bait-and-switch.
We were told to optimize the use because off peak rates would be lower than the flat rate and the peak rate would be significantly higher.
The flat rate at that time was $0.055.
In 2009, the TOU rates introduced were $0.044, $0.079, $0.090
So slight discount on the off peak end but punitive on the peak end.
And then this summer, the rates change to $0.055, $0.089 and $0.099.
So tell me, where does a poor brother go now?
You can run but you can't hide.
You can kid yourself all you want about optimizing your usage but we are essentially screwed.

I suppose the city of Toronto hasn't switched to TOU rates yet, but they soon will.


----------



## MoneyGal

City of Toronto is on TOU pricing. We've had it at my household for nearly a year. 

I did run consumption tables and figured out the additional cost for my household if I switched ALL moveable consumption to lowest cost hours or to highest cost hours. 

Adjusting for changes in the cost of electricity, our costs have gone down with TOU because we are able to move a lot of discretionary energy expenditures (laundry, dishwasher) to non-peak hours.


----------



## HaroldCrump

I suppose I am the only stupid one....I have always done laundry on the weekends and always run the dishwasher after 10:00 pm for years and years.
We run the dishwasher only once or twice a week anyway.
So we haven't seen any decrease in our bills...in fact, a substantial increase.

I fail to understand how I'm supposed to reduce my bill even after switching all usage to off peak when the off peak rate is higher than what the flat rate used to be.

My hydro company gives some nice, fancy-smanzy comparison charts of usage.
I am linking to how my bill compares to other households:










So it appears I am among the lowest 10% users of electricity in my region.
Only 1% households use less than I do....pretty darn good, I'd say!
Yet, my bill increase is more than 30% - perhaps closer to 40%.


----------



## MoneyGal

H - I have two kids. I do laundry every day and run the dishwasher at least once a day, sometimes 2x. 

In the past, I was indifferent to the time of day at which electricity was used...I am probably among the households who is most able to benefit from TOU pricing. 

If you are already in the 99th percentile, there are not a lot of gains available for you from shifting consumption to lower-cost times. 

My understanding is that TOU pricing was never intended to reduce user costs _in toto_, but provides a way for the utility to more efficiently manage demand.


----------



## dilbert789

MoneyGal said:


> <snip>
> 
> My understanding is that TOU pricing was never intended to reduce user costs _in toto_, but provides a way for the utility to more efficiently manage demand.


Exactly. Large scale power generation isn't something you can easily ramp up and down as demand changes. Depending on the source you might not be able to scale for day and night usage differences even. If you can drop the demand at the peak time which also costs the most, you can save a big chunk of money. well, the generation company can...


----------



## brad

MoneyGal said:


> My understanding is that TOU pricing was never intended to reduce user costs _in toto_, but provides a way for the utility to more efficiently manage demand.


I think that's right. Electric power is produced by two main categories of power plants: the baseload plants that run all the time, regardless of demand, and the peaking plants that are brought on and offline to meet fluctuating power needs. It costs time and money to fire up the peaking plants, so spreading the load over a 24-hour period instead of concentrating most of the demand during an 8- or 10-hour period during the day ends up being more cost-effective.

In general, improvements in end-use energy efficiency or increases in energy conservation at the residential scale don't affect the baseload power plants; they affect the need for peaking plants to come online.


----------



## HaroldCrump

MoneyGal said:


> My understanding is that TOU pricing was never intended to reduce user costs _in toto_, but provides a way for the utility to more efficiently manage demand.


But why penalize those who are already optimizing usage?
Your bill went down as a result of TOU pricing - good for you, yet my (and many others') went up 40% because of the same reason.


----------



## MoneyGal

No, my bill did not go down. I said that adjusted for changes in pricing, my bill went down. I suspect that adjusted for pricing, your bill stayed the same. 

I consumed more units at a lower relative price, because I shifted some of the total units consumed to a lower per-unit cost. 

It sounds like, from what you've said, you did not / were not able to shift any consumption to lower per-unit cost times. 

There is more than one moving part here. You cannot focus on total cost (the total on your bill) alone. When two variables change, you need to isolate the impact of each variable.


----------



## Dana

MoneyGal said:


> There is more than one moving part here. You cannot focus on total cost (the total on your bill) alone. When two variables change, you need to isolate the impact of each variable.


I agree with you in prinicple, MoneyGal, but in the end, all I care about is my family's bottom line, which in this case is the total amount due on our bill.

I have made inconvenient changes to our household routine and flow in an effort to maximize "off peak" billing hours and our bill is still up slightly. We can't move dinner time to after 9pm, we can't get ready for work and school before 7am, etc.

We have been on TOU for about 6 months and I have found the transition very frustrating.


----------



## MoneyGal

I hear the frustration. You saw that I spent time creating spreadsheets to try and optimize my own family's energy useage. Although I do like creating spreadsheets I don't just do that on a whim. 

However, increased bills as have been described in this thread are not an effect of TOU pricing. Or, at least, I don't see it that way. What happened was there was a general price increase. This is separate from the implementation of TOU pricing. 

Now, to some extent, households can offset the impact of price increases by shifting consumption based on TOU pricing. However, in Harold's case, there's no more optimization available. 

If TOU pricing had been implemented with no general price increases, then those people who are able to shift consumption would presumably see total cost decreases (your bills would go down). The fact that TOU pricing was implemented AND general prices went up means that most bills went up. Mine did. 

And my Facebook status has been, more than once, "Time of use pricing is ruining my life" (only because I will hesitate at performing some mundane household task during peak hours, and I get irritated at that). (And because I like being dramatic, apparently.)


----------



## HaroldCrump

MoneyGal said:


> No, my bill did not go down. I said that adjusted for changes in pricing, my bill went down. I suspect that adjusted for pricing, your bill stayed the same.


On the contrary, my bill increased between 30% to 40% because of TOU pricing + HST.

Leaving the 8% HST aside, the reason for the increase is simple: the off peak rates are slightly higher than what the flat rate used to be, and the peak rates are punitively higher.

_If I were to keep the entire power to my house turned off between the hrs. 7:00 am - 10:00 pm, my bill would be 0.02% higher based on the TOU rates._

It is a mathematical impossibility to have a lower bill under the new TOU rates.
It is mathematically possible, but practically impossible, to have the same bill.

I have done more than my fair share of energy consumption, as proven by my consumption profile pasted earlier.
I am at a loss how to rationalize and justify (to myself) these punitive power rates.


----------



## andrewf

The flat rate is now 7.4 cents /kWh. Electricity prices went up, not necessarily just due to TOU.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> The flat rate is now 7.4 cents /kWh. Electricity prices went up, not necessarily just due to TOU.


Tow-ma-toes vs. tow-may-toes...who cares how you classify the increase.

Net effect is that everyone is paying more...some are paying 10% more, some are paying 40%, and some even more.
While the executives at OPA (and all its offspring hydro companies in each town/city pow) pay themselves nice cushy salaries, bonuses and pensions.
And the Provincial politicians skim the cream right off the top.

Their strategies, excuses and techniques for increasing taxes/prices puts even Cromwell and Henry VIII to shame.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Exactly Harold. But I think your ability to see through BS rhetoric is lost on the Liberal party, who will fight to the death to raise taxes for the majority and call it user-pay. Yet they don't apply the principle equally to things like transit, healthcare and other pet-project social services. So they pick and choose which sectors THEY feel are worthy of subsidization and which are worthy of user-pay. They have rhetoric to answer all of this nonsense, and our taxes and fees just keep on going up.


----------



## brad

andrewf said:


> The flat rate is now 7.4 cents /kWh. Electricity prices went up, not necessarily just due to TOU.


Just be thankful you don't live in Hawaii, where electricity goes for 27.7 cents per kWh. 

In fact, a look at this table for residential electricity prices in the United States, you'll see that electricity in Ontario is still ridiculously cheap:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html

There are only a handful of states where electricity costs less than 8 cents/kWh; the average rate in the US is 11.45 cents/kWh.

A price increase is painful, of course, but it's worth putting into perspective.


----------



## the-royal-mail

And what about all the bogus add-on fees like "debt-retirement" charges and the other dozen or so add-on line items? Include all of those and I think the rates ON charges for poor service and insufficient capacity are certainly higher than the norm.


----------



## m3s

I pay 5.5 cents/kWh and a base price of $12/month. Basically the only thing that affects my bill is whether the heat is on or not

Average summer usage: $.75-$1/day
Winter $3/day at 21 degrees all day. $2 with programmable timed heat


----------



## brad

the-royal-mail said:


> And what about all the bogus add-on fees like "debt-retirement" charges and the other dozen or so add-on line items? Include all of those and I think the rates ON charges for poor service and insufficient capacity are certainly higher than the norm.


Debt retirement charges (used to recover "stranded costs" in utility parlance) are the norm in the US as well. The debt retirement charges in Ontario seem to be on the order of 0.5 to 0.7 cents in most cases:

http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/en/guides/drc/101.html

In the US you also have public benefits charges (used to fund low-income weatherization programs, energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, etc.) and plenty of other charges tacked on to your bill. It's not unique to Ontario.


----------



## andrewf

the-royal-mail said:


> Exactly Harold. But I think your ability to see through BS rhetoric is lost on the Liberal party, who will fight to the death to raise taxes for the majority and call it user-pay. Yet they don't apply the principle equally to things like transit, healthcare and other pet-project social services. So they pick and choose which sectors THEY feel are worthy of subsidization and which are worthy of user-pay. They have rhetoric to answer all of this nonsense, and our taxes and fees just keep on going up.


Hey, I don't have strong opinions about health care or transit--I don't use either except very occasionally. I think there is plenty of room for privatization is both areas. You're throwing up straw men.

You haven't explained what positive externalities are associated with electricity consumption that would justify subsidized prices. I rent and don't pay electricity bills directly. If I did I still wouldn't be bleating about the rising price of eggs. If you don't like the price of government provided electricity, you are free to generate your own or sign a contract with a retailer. Tell me how that works out for you, cost-wise.


----------



## HaroldCrump

brad said:


> Just be thankful you don't live in Hawaii, where electricity goes for 27.7 cents per kWh.
> 
> In fact, a look at this table for residential electricity prices in the United States, you'll see that electricity in Ontario is still ridiculously cheap:
> 
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html
> 
> There are only a handful of states where electricity costs less than 8 cents/kWh; the average rate in the US is 11.45 cents/kWh.
> 
> A price increase is painful, of course, but it's worth putting into perspective.


Let's not start talking about the pricing of utilities south of the border.
They pay lower federal income taxes and lower state taxes (in general), and there are states that have no income tax.
Their retail sales taxes are lower in general, too.
No 13% HST standard across the board taxes.

They pay lower (much, lower) for television, cell phone and landlines.
Their mortgages are tax deductible and so on.

And of course, their national debt is $40Trillion.

But it's not a fair comparison.


----------



## carverman

Jon202 said:


> Who your utility? Numbers seem strange... Everything is based on usage, the only 'fixed' charge is the monthly utility charge. Have a look at the Ottawa Hydro link provided.. it's pretty clear..
> 
> example of 800KwH during summer threshold on a RPP:
> 
> Consumption up to 600 kWh	$39.00
> Consumption above the 600 $15.00
> Transmission $8.72
> Hydro Ottawa Delivery $16.48
> Low Voltage Services Charge $0.16
> Regulatory $5.50
> Debt Retirement $5.55
> Hydro Ottawa Fixed Charge $10.20
> 
> pre-tax total: $100.61
> hst: $13.08
> total: $113.69
> 
> *HST applies equally to the whole bill, so not sure how that would change the ratios*, but actually 'electric' is 53.6% of the bill, and 90% of the Ottawa Hydro bill is based on actual metered usage.


The HST on the Debt Retirement is a tax upon a tax. They are too lazy to
recalculate the tax without the debt retirement, so McGinty is benefitting
from the .72 cents you pay extra for the wasteful and unaccountable
spending of the old Ontario Hydro.


----------



## andrewf

It's a red herring, that tax rates are lower in the US. Many states have higher total tax burdens than Ontario, especially once you factor in the fact they don't get health insurance as part of the package.

Sure, you can point to Texas, but they are the Alberta of the USA. They use their oil and gas bonanza to cross-subsidize other parts of the economy rather than socking it away in a sovereign wealth fund.


----------



## brad

carverman said:


> The HST on the Debt Retirement is a tax upon a tax. They are too lazy to
> recalculate the tax without the debt retirement, so McGinty is benefitting
> from the .72 cents you pay extra for the wasteful and unaccountable
> spending of the old Ontario Hydro.


Debt retirement (aka stranded costs recovery) is a bit different from the way you're painting it here. There's a very clear and concise description here on Wikipedia that describes the problem and the various solutions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranded_costs

I haven't been following the status of electricity deregulation in Ontario; I remember there was a false start back in 2002 but haven't kept up to date since then. But the basic premise of deregulation is that, instead of having the government set electricity prices, the market will set the price and consumers should benefit from lower prices once electricity providers start competing among themselves.

Unfortunately it hasn't quite worked out that way -- certainly not in California, which had electricity shortages and price shocks that dwarf those of Ontario when the electricity market was deregulated back in the late 1990s, and prices also rose in Texas, the largest electricity market in the US, after deregulation. This also happened in Ontario in 2002, and if I remember correctly the market has been in a state of "partial deregulation" since then. 

Why deregulation isn't producing the expected reductions in consumer electricity prices is a separate question, but I think it's worth looking at the real-world examples of electricity deregulation before calling for the government to get out of the business of setting prices.


----------



## Jon202

andrewf said:


> It's a red herring, that tax rates are lower in the US. Many states have higher total tax burdens than Ontario, especially once you factor in the fact they don't get health insurance as part of the package.
> 
> Sure, you can point to Texas, but they are the Alberta of the USA. They use their oil and gas bonanza to cross-subsidize other parts of the economy rather than socking it away in a sovereign wealth fund.


Seriously, have you ever looked at the income tax (fed+state) in the States? With the exception of Arizona, Florida and Texas (big states with now state income tax) taxes are nearly as high or higher than in Canada.

Just look at New York, 6.85% above $20,000 plus the Fed. amount of 25% above $33,950 for a combined marginal rate of 31.85% for someone earning 50K makes Ontario's 31.15% look competitive.


----------



## andrewf

And they don't get health insurance as part of the deal! On the other hand, their mortgage interest is deductible. The tax comparison is pretty complicated, but I think it's pretty clear that the people who rail about how we're the highest taxed jurisdiction in the world are totally out to lunch. We're not even the highest taxed in North America.


----------



## brad

andrewf said:


> The tax comparison is pretty complicated, but I think it's pretty clear that the people who rail about how we're the highest taxed jurisdiction in the world are totally out to lunch.


Also note that states without an income tax find other ways to make enough money to run the government -- New Hampshire, for example, has no income or sales tax (the state motto is Live Free or Die, widely parodied as Live Cheap or Die), but property taxes are through the roof and you have to pay tolls to drive on the highways.


----------



## Dana

andrewf said:


> It's a red herring, that tax rates are lower in the US. Many states have higher total tax burdens than Ontario, especially once you factor in the fact they don't get health insurance as part of the package.
> 
> Sure, you can point to Texas, but they are the Alberta of the USA. They use their oil and gas bonanza to cross-subsidize other parts of the economy rather than socking it away in a sovereign wealth fund.


In 2006 my husband received a job offer that would have resulted in us moving to Texas. It was for considerably more money than he makes here. We have friends who live in the suburbs just outside of Dallas so we sat down with them to do a lifestyle cost comparison. The outcome was that it is cheaper to live here. 

For a comparable sized house in the Dallas suburbs (which is where we would have been living) purchase prices were comparable to here, but property taxes in Dallas were considerably higher. So are water, garbage collection, and electricity. A lot higher. 

Texas is considered an 'extreme climate' in that when it is hot, it is very hot, when it rains it can rain hard and the winds can be damaging. As a result, roofs and windows need replacing more often. Our friend says a roof in Texas has about a 10 year life span. 

At the time, the Dallas school district was one of the worst in terms of results in the country (3rd worst I think) so many people either pay inflated house prices to live near the few reputable public schools or pay to go private. We phoned around and private started at $14k per year.

Children do not start school in Texas until the year in which they turn 6. In Ontario, our kids start in the year they turn 4. That's at least one extra year of pre-school/full-time daycare costs. 

The educational situation was what ultimately decided our fate. Since they would not enroll our kids earlier, had we moved back to Canada after 5 years our kids would have been two grades behind. 

Federal and state taxes may be cheap, but healthcare is not. Our friends are married with 3 kids and their health insurance premium almost as much as their mortgage payment. That's their private health insurance, not the coverage he has through his employer. 

Then there are other user fees like toll highways and 'neighbourhood association fees', etc.


----------



## carverman

brad said:


> Debt retirement (aka stranded costs recovery) is a bit different from the way you're painting it here. There's a very clear and concise description here on Wikipedia that describes the problem and the various solutions:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranded_costs
> 
> I haven't been following the status of electricity deregulation in Ontario; I remember there was a false start back in 2002 but haven't kept up to date since then. But the basic premise of deregulation is that, instead of having the government set electricity prices, the market will set the price and consumers should benefit from lower prices once electricity providers start competing among themselves.


in my example above, I was referring to the HST calculated on the "stranded costs", which also include the old Ontario Hydro debt before de-regulation.
the ".72" example is just the HST calculated on a $5.50 debt retirement charge (DRC)..a cash windfall for
the McGinty gov't and possibly the Feds as well. 

From Wiki...
In some cases, a government may assume a portion of an incumbent utility's debt and assign it to the public debt, thus freeing the utility to compete against new entrants unhindered. 

So basically the way I read it, is that in order for the new "incumbent"
(Ontario Power Generation/ Hydro 1) to operate freely without having to
deal with their own debt..after all the Ontario gov't just broke up the
old monopoly into two entities, they just put the debt load on the public
easy way out..no debt management required on the gov'ts part

...read this link for more on what is really happening with the "debt reduction charge".
original "stranded debt" = 7.8 billion....Ontario has so far collected 36.8 billion in DRC charges..
Like Ross Perot once said.."can you hear that giant sucking sound?..your dollars going down the
drain?" When are we going to see a reduction in hydro rates after the DRC is paid off, I ask.
Now on top of that..another 8% to the McGinty (and future gov'ts)..we are the cash cows. 

http://h1ripoff.blogspot.com/2010/05/mcguinty-bankrupting-ontarios-power.html


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Like Ross Perot once said.."can you hear that giant sucking sound?..your dollars going down the
> drain?" When are we going to see a reduction in hydro rates after the DRC is paid off, I ask.
> Now on top of that..another 8% to the McGinty (and future gov'ts)..we are the cash cows.


Yep the "gravy train" rolls on.
Even if McGuinty is booted out next year, the incoming govt. will not reverse the HST and thus will continue to reap the extra taxes.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Right. Just how Mulroney stuck us with his bloody GST in 1991 and all the provinces added PST at the same time. There was no decrease in prices for consumers as a result of this 15% added tax. The Liberals campaigned in 1993 on a promise to get rid of the GST. They didn't. And now they increased it even further. Tax and spend, no wonder they're in bed with the NDP.


----------



## Jon202

the-royal-mail said:


> Right. Just how Mulroney stuck us with his bloody GST in 1991 and all the provinces added PST at the same time. There was no decrease in prices for consumers as a result of this 15% added tax. The Liberals campaigned in 1993 on a promise to get rid of the GST. They didn't. And now they increased it even further. Tax and spend, no wonder they're in bed with the NDP.


All true.. and as well Canadians saw significant cuts to income tax rates and the capital gains inclusion rate in the last 20 years.


----------



## carverman

Jon202 said:


> All true.. and as well Canadians saw significant cuts to income tax rates and the capital gains inclusion rate in the last 20 years.


Well I don't know much about the changes in capital gains, maybe other forum
members can fill us in..but how exactly did we benefit from these "so called"
cuts to the income tax rates?

I keep my income tax filings for 7 yrs as required and going back to the Ontario
tax forms and being in the lowest income tax rate tier, I see;

Lowest Ontario tax tier (35K income or less)
2002 16% but no health tax "premium"
2003 16% but no health tax
2004 16% plus introduction of the health tax
2005 6.05% plus health tax at 6.05% of net taxable income (12%?)
2006 6.05 + ditto
2007 6.05 + " 
2008 6.05 + "
2009 6.05 + "

So if you add the health tax into the equation, they are only reducing the
personal income tax at the lowest level... (unless you are 65 or older and
get an age discount), ...about 4%..and that's only in the last 7 years
according to the return forms that I have kept in my records. 

Sure, they raise the amount of personal deductible a bit each year, but then
you go through their number crunching scheme/formula and find out that
you haven't really gained that much from the change in the increased personal deductions.

Not to mention that any charity donation is no longer dollar for dollar but subject
to yet another number crunch so that the tax man doesn't give you that much
benefit to contributing to charities..unless you contribute to a federal political
party of course. 

Now with the HST introduction this year, the McGinty gov't is promising some
kind of 'income tax reduction' but no further information has been forthcoming so far,
so we will have to see how much they will reduce on the 2010 returns.

EDIT: 23/02/2011 The big Ontario tax reduction for 2010 return is 1% to those only in
the lowest income tax bracket. All others pay the same rate as before. 

I suppose if you consider the one time $100/$300 "bribes" given out as
3 checks, then that could certainly be applied as an HST reduction, but that
won't continue past july 2011.


----------



## carverman

the-royal-mail said:


> Right. Just how Mulroney stuck us with his bloody GST in 1991 and all the provinces added PST at the same time. There was no decrease in prices for consumers as a result of this 15% added tax. The Liberals campaigned in 1993 on a promise to get rid of the GST. They didn't. And now they increased it even further. Tax and spend, no wonder they're in bed with the NDP.


Whos in bed with the NDP?..you mean the Ontario NDP?..useless. 
The HST is yet another cash cow for the McGinty gov't to try and recoup
bailing out GM/Chrysler and all the infrastructure spending they have
done as well as rising debt..55 billion and counting.

What we need is an independent provincial auditor set up (like the fed gov't
has) to indentify wasteful spending. I don's see the current provincial finance
minister telling us the truth other than the debt. 

The HST may streamline tax reporting from businesses but it's not going
create too many jobs as the current gov't is saying. I would like to see
the actual numbers in one year's time to see how many jobs were actually
created because of the HST..I doubt we will see those numbers.
Everything is being massaged for political purposes, as next year is
a provincial election year and we will see more political rhetoric and blaming
start next year. No matter which party gets in..dealing with the tax and debt
monsters in the cupboard is not an easy task. I expect they will find other
dragons to slay instead.


----------



## andrewf

You people are allergic to google...

Nothing forthcoming about the income tax cuts in Ontario? It was announced at the same time as the HST:

*

* Email
* Print
* Share

Tax Benefits for Families

On July 1, 2010, Ontario implemented a Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) that applies to most purchases and transactions. The 13 per cent HST replaced the federal goods and services tax (GST) and the provincial sales tax (PST).

What's Taxable Under the HST and What's Not?


Cuts to Personal Income Tax

* Many Ontarians received a personal income tax cut on January 1, 2010.
* The tax rate on their first $37,106 of taxable income was reduced by 16.5 per cent, for all Ontarians, from 6.05 per cent to 5.05 per cent – that's the lowest rate of any province in Canada.
* Ontario families and individuals with up to $80,000 of income received an average personal income tax cut of 10 per cent.


The provincial liberals had nothing to do with the GST. It was the federal liberals who promised to abolish the GST. Thankfully they used the money that that would have cost to cut personal and corporate income taxes, which are the real job-killers.

The $55 billion deficit is the federal deficit. The provincial deficit is in the $24 billion range. These are just borrowings for this year, accumulated deficits are in the $600 billion and $140 billion range respectively.

And please demonstrate any way in which NDP and the Liberals are 'in bed'? By all accounts, the two parties loath each other.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> And please demonstrate any way in which NDP and the Liberals are 'in bed'? By all accounts, the two parties loath each other.


The NDP is ideologically closer to the Liberals than the Harper Tories.
Ideologies aside, those two parties will do anything together (in or out of bed) to kick the Tories out.

The NDP is yet to prove (provincially or nationally) that they are anything more than a front for the labor unions.
The Liberals are yet to prove (provincially or nationally) that they are anything more than a perpetual, ever increasing "tax and spend" scheme.


----------



## carverman

_*


andrewf said:



You people are allergic to google...

Nothing forthcoming about the income tax cuts in Ontario? It was announced at the same time as the HST:


Cuts to Personal Income Tax

* Many Ontarians received a personal income tax cut on January 1, 2010.
* The tax rate on their first $37,106 of taxable income was reduced by 16.5 per cent, for all Ontarians, from 6.05 per cent to 5.05 per cent – that's the lowest rate of any province in Canada.
 * Ontario families and individuals with up to $80,000 of income received an average personal income tax cut of 10 per cent.

Click to expand...

*_


andrewf said:


> That remains to be seen when people do the math on their 2010 returns next
> spring. While being in the lowest tax rate tier (6.05%), I welcome any
> reduction (even at 1% to my taxable income...but if I do the math from
> my 2009 return...instead of paying $1865.00 at the 6.05%, I'm only paying
> $1557.00 about $308 dollars less..and guess what, If I total up my projected
> energy usage, gasoline, nat gas, electricity alone..I'm over the $300 tax saving
> in HST payable..but oh yes..McGinty gave me a check for $100 in the summer
> and promises another $100 in December and the last one next July.
> 
> So the way I see it..I may break even on the HST/Tax reduction from July 1
> 2010 to July 1st 2011 (only because of McGinty's generosity), but after that
> the tax reduction isn't going to make any difference to my bottom line and
> if the City of Ottawa starts TOU..it will cost me more.
> 
> Do you hear the giant sucking sound? (quoting Ross Perot)
> 
> _The $55 billion deficit is the federal deficit. The provincial deficit is in the $24 billion range.
> These are just borrowings for this year, accumulated deficits
> are in the $600 billion and $140 billion range respectively._
> 
> And we are expecting the Ont deficit to go down?, like the Ont. Hydro DRC stranded costs
> which should have been paid off by this year?


----------



## carverman

Dana said:


> Federal and state taxes may be cheap, but healthcare is not. Our friends are married with 3 kids and their health insurance premium almost as much as their mortgage payment. That's their private health insurance, not the coverage he has through his employer.
> 
> Then there are other user fees like toll highways and 'neighbourhood association fees', etc.


Besides expensive healthcare, states like Arizona (where my married daughter
lives with 2 preschool kids), has a 5.6% state tax and some metropolitan areas
like Phoenix have an additional 0.7 c city tax. (total 6.3%) but I don't believe
there is a federal tax like the GST here, so goods are cheaper.
Electricity costs are not though..since pretty much most of the power is natural
gas or solar and some residents are paying as much as 0.14c kwh.

The other interesting thing about AZ is the motor vehicle license tag scheme..
a vehicle is assessed a value tax by the motor vehicle bureau besides the
customary tag fees. A 25K vehicle assessed at 60% (15K) will require a
tax of $420 in the first year the tag is issued, which is reduced by 16% every year after.

Compare this to the $74 (southern Ontario sticker fee) and the bi-yearly emissions
test fee $35/2 = $17.50, so the combined yearly cost here is $91.50.


----------



## kcowan

There is no end to the creative ways that politicians will find to fund their spending ways and their gold-plated pensions and benefits.


----------



## carverman

*Another hydro ripoff...*

I got my latest Ottawa Hydro bill and noticed that they tacked on a $19.xx
charge on my hydro bill, even though I assured I was off the reseller's
contract and back onto the RPP. I called Ottawa Hydro and was told
it was an adjustment to the previous bills and they do a 6 month review
(on I guess), those that manage to convert back. 

The annoying thing about this is that I was paying the Provincial Benefit charge
up until 2 billings ago and thought that when I switched back to the RPP,
I thought that was the end of the gouging..obviously not. 

However, the Ottawa Hydro telephone spokesperson
assured me that it was a "one time adjustment" and I shouldn't see
anymore of these on future bills.

The greed just continues...


----------



## HaroldCrump

Stay away from gas and electricity re-marketers as well as fixed payment plans with your hydro company and you can avoid most of these issues.
This whole thing is a rip off scheme being masqueraded as a utility bill.

As I've said before, it puts Cromwell "Sex Enjoyment Tax" to shame.


----------



## Jungle

Duncan was on CTV saying they are doing something to lower electricity bills in the next economic update.

Read more here:

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...ef-coming-101116/20101116/?hub=TorontoNewHome


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Stay away from gas and electricity re-marketers as well as fixed payment plans with your hydro company and you can avoid most of these issues.
> This whole thing is a rip off scheme being masqueraded as a utility bill.
> 
> As I've said before, it puts Cromwell "Sex Enjoyment Tax" to shame.


Yes, this is a blatant additional tax on those that get coerced into signing a contract
from a electricity energy retailer. The OPA or the gov't is guilty in not
producing full disclosure at time of signing. This extra charge creeps into
your bill because the province wants you to subsidize their power generating
schemes and what better way than to tap the electricity user..unlike other
service providers, you really don't have a choice and must pay through the
nose. For october it was around 5.91c kwh extra on top of the rate that the 
reseller is charging you..plus HST of course!

from this website..
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteShared/electricity_bill.asp?sid=bi

_The Provincial Benefit ensures reliability by providing adequate generating capacity for Ontario. It accounts for differences between the spot market price and the rates paid to regulated and contracted generators. As a result, its value may be positive or negative, depending on the fluctuation of prices in the spot market._


----------



## carverman

Jungle said:


> Duncan was on CTV saying they are doing something to lower electricity bills in the next economic update.
> 
> Read more here:
> 
> http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...ef-coming-101116/20101116/?hub=TorontoNewHome


The "wheel" is spinning out of control and the spin doctors are very busy.

"We put in place an energy and property tax credit (of) up to $900 per family and up to $1,025 for seniors," the premier said.
"All told, it will help nearly three million Ontarians when it comes to their electricity and property taxes."

Up to now, I have not been able to take advantage of any energy or property
tax credit. I do the calculations and number crunching anyway on the Ontario
portion of the income tax forms and end up negative..no reduction and my
income is now below 32K a year and although I'm not 65, I am living off
one pension and supporting my household.

It's all smoke and mirrors, yes there will be a slight reduction in the 2010
Ontario income tax to account for the massive HST invasion into household
income, but none of these schemes are dollar for dollar, so all they do is
say..yes, we will give you a "tax credit" and adjust the formulas so by
the time you calculate your tax credits by the formula, 
you may realize a few dollars less of tax payable, but maybe not.

I heard McGinty saying that they need to do something with the TOU rates,
but he had no solutions other than to suggest adjusting the low peak hour
rates to "encourage" people to change their lifestyles by eating meals after
11pm and any heavy use of electricity.

Why not offer grants for heavy electricity use fridges..some of the highest
power users in the ordinary household. 

All this provincial gov't can do is slap on extra taxes and charges where they
can, because they really haven't got a clue.


----------



## Cal

Yeah. Outside of running my dishwasher and clothes washer/dryer at night, there is not much with my lifestyle to change to reduce my energy bill further.

In all honesty I rarely use the dryer, don't have an a/c unit, and keep the thermostat at 20c in the winter, use low wattage lightbulbs etc...

I am not about to change my daily routine much more to reduce my energy costs.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> The NDP is ideologically closer to the Liberals than the Harper Tories.
> Ideologies aside, those two parties will do anything together (in or out of bed) to kick the Tories out.
> 
> The NDP is yet to prove (provincially or nationally) that they are anything more than a front for the labor unions.
> The Liberals are yet to prove (provincially or nationally) that they are anything more than a perpetual, ever increasing "tax and spend" scheme.


Despite the fact that this political discussion is pretty pointless and off-topic, I have to ask what the Liberals would have to do to convince you that they are anything other than what you claim. Evidently, cutting taxes is insufficient to convince you. I'm going to go ahead and gather that you're a partisan Tory. I wonder what you think of our present federal government's policy of borrow and spend, increasing our national debt by 30% in a few years and increasing spending at over 7% per annum since their election. Paragons of virtue no doubt.


----------



## the-royal-mail

The only one who cannot be convinced is you. Everyone here has provided you with ample evidence that taxes keep going up and yet you continue to insist otherwise. I (and most of the posters here) work hard for my money and pay plenty in taxes and do not subscribe to your left-wing tax and spend idealogy. Just give it up already.


----------



## HaroldCrump

the-royal-mail said:


> The only one who cannot be convinced is you. Everyone here has provided you with ample evidence that taxes keep going up and yet you continue to insist otherwise. I (and most of the posters here) work hard for my money and pay plenty in taxes and do not subscribe to your left-wing tax and spend idealogy. Just give it up already.


It is ironical that andrewf doesn't have to pay for electricity.
So he's not subjected to the TOU rates and doesn't have to eat dinner at 11:00 pm and do laundary on the weekends.
Of course, as a conscientious and environment friendly citizen, he does the same regardless.
I don't think his rent has gone up 40% in the last 1 year.


----------



## andrewf

the-royal-mail said:


> The only one who cannot be convinced is you. Everyone here has provided you with ample evidence that taxes keep going up and yet you continue to insist otherwise. I (and most of the posters here) work hard for my money and pay plenty in taxes and do not subscribe to your left-wing tax and spend idealogy. Just give it up already.


I haven't seen any evidence. Just anecdotes about how hydro bills are going up 300% (this is not true in general, as we can see by looking at Hydro One/OPG revenues). 

What tax and spend ideology are you referring to? I support cuts to corporate and personal income taxes. I oppose wasteful spending like subsidies for green power, etc. I think you're ascribing policies to me that I have not necessarily expressed support for. I liked the HST change because it was part of an overall reduction in taxation at the provincial level, and value added taxes like the HST are less economically harmful than sales taxes, income taxes, capital taxes, etc.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> It is ironical that andrewf doesn't have to pay for electricity.
> So he's not subjected to the TOU rates and doesn't have to eat dinner at 11:00 pm and do laundary on the weekends.
> Of course, as a conscientious and environment friendly citizen, he does the same regardless.
> I don't think his rent has gone up 40% in the last 1 year.


Despite the fact that I don't pay for my bill directly, I am still very conscientious of my hydro use. I do laundry after 9 pm or on weekends, I don't use a TV, buy CFLs, etc. 

All I'm hearing is a bunch of crybabies complaining about still-low hydro rates (by north american standards). Hydro rates have had to rise significantly because the previous government foolishly locked the rate at ~4 cents/kWh, far below the market rate for electricity and the cost of production. Prices rising to the cost of production and in line with other jurisdictions is not a sign of tax-and-spend policy. You're the people suggesting that the government use my tax money to subsidize your hydro bill. Sounds like Mr Duncan agrees with you and not me, and will be spending $1 billion to reduce your hydro bill starting Jan 1.


----------



## K-133

HaroldCrump said:


> It is ironical that andrewf doesn't have to pay for electricity.
> So he's not subjected to the TOU rates and doesn't have to eat dinner at 11:00 pm and do laundary on the weekends.
> Of course, as a conscientious and environment friendly citizen, he does the same regardless.
> I don't think his rent has gone up 40% in the last 1 year.


I pay hydro on three properties and have not seen the bill go up by anything more than the $8/month demonstrated on my home property. I've asked for hard evidence from those who claim to have bills gone up by 300% - heck me show me even 50% without increased usage. Needless to say I've received no such evidence.

What am I left to assume?

I too am annoyed by the whining. I'm just going to stop listening. I shouldn't have tried to be reasonable in the first place.

Life changes - get over it.

(Or move to France)


----------



## HaroldCrump

K-133 said:


> I've asked for hard evidence from those who claim to have bills gone up by 300% - heck me show me even 50% without increased usage. Needless to say I've received no such evidence.
> 
> What am I left to assume?


I gave evidence further up thread.
My household energy usage is in the lowest 1% of all households in my area.
I don't think anyone here is complaining about a 300% rise - I'm certainly not.
My bill has increased around 40% as a result of TOU and HST.

I understand that hydro rates required a general increase and that increase is from 0.055c to 0.065 i.e. barely 20%.
Still quite high for 1 year, IMO, but at least not 40%.
Once you add in the HST and the TOU, that's when you start seeing 40+ percentage increases.
And there are people (I gave examples upthread) that cannot change their usage patterns to conform with the punitive TOU rates and have been affected more than 40%.

andrewf - you are not subsidizing my (or anyone else's) hydro bill, no need to worry about that - we are paying through the nose already.
This morning's news about spending $1B to reduce hydro rates is just political speak.
Provincial elections are 10 months away and Mr. McGuinty is in fear of losing his cushy job.
As per the news, this came as a result of a recent survey where 86% of Ontario residents said that their cost of living has increased significantly in the last 3 years.
That has a direct impact on Mr. McGuinty's bottom line (i.e. votes) and hence he's scared sth-less.
As for the decrease, it is great political policy - raise the rates 40%, then give a 10% discount and appear as heroes and collect the votes.


----------



## Jungle

Makes you think, what what the point of putting HST on the hydro bill in the first place? Now we see a reduction. Politicians should have thought about this a little more. Back and forth we go.


----------



## andrewf

The long story is that the HST is supposed to be a broad tax. Exempting dozens of products distorts the effects on the tax on the economy for a given amount of revenue that needs to be raised. As part of the deal between the fed and provincial governments, only a small percentage of consumer spending could be exempted from the HST. Ontario chose things like children's clothes, feminine hygiene, books, restaurant meals under $4 etc. BC chose gasoline, among other things. So, the deal requires utility bills to be taxed.

Furthermore, it is simpler to give consumers a temporary break on electricity rates to smooth the price increase over a longer period time. It's easier to let a price break on electricity expire than it is to modify the items subject to the HST in the future.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> As per the news, this came as a result of a recent survey where 86% of Ontario residents said that their cost of living has increased significantly in the last 3 years.
> That has a direct impact on Mr. McGuinty's bottom line (i.e. votes) and hence he's scared sth-less.
> As for the decrease, it is great political policy - raise the rates 40%, then give _a 10% discount and appear as heroes and collect the votes. _


_

Don't forget the three $100 "bribe" checks (paid to individuals)
that are to be stretched out and paid out over time, last one being around July 2011. 
McGinty is using our HST money collected to bribe us into 
voting for his gov't again the fall elections. Now if that was a political move
there would be an investigation (like the former Ottawa mayor) and a 
subsequent trial on influence peddling....._


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> The long story is that the HST is supposed to be a broad tax. Exempting dozens of products distorts the effects on the tax on the economy for a given amount of revenue that needs to be raised. As part of the deal between the fed and provincial governments, only a small percentage of consumer spending could be exempted from the HST. Ontario chose things like children's clothes, feminine hygiene, books, restaurant meals under $4 etc. BC chose gasoline, among other things. So, the deal requires utility bills to be taxed.


The way the tax was introduced was big money grab and not thought out
properly. Like food, electricity and heat are considered necessities of life.
We can't survive a Canadian winter without all 3. What Ontario should
have done is study models of VATs in other countries and implemented
the best of the schemes and done a reduction on the PST portion of
the HST instead of issuing bribe checks that can be spent in a callous
way and this is only for a short time. The big Provincial deficit and
bailout of GM/Chrysler/infrastructure spending along with a weak economy
contributed to deficit. Jobs have been lost..a weak economy is not the
time to be slapping on a regressive tax like the HST...look what is
happening in BC..taxpayer revolt and political upheaval..the same thing
could happen here as well.




> Furthermore, it is simpler to give consumers a temporary break on electricity rates to smooth the price increase over a longer period time. It's easier to let a price break on electricity expire than it is to modify the items subject to the HST in the future.


Yes, and that is what the Ont Liberals chose to do. Fiddle with it in the
short term..if they get back in, they will no doubt raise it again if they
have a majority..otherwise they will lower it short term and let the incoming
party deal with the mess...who will blame everything on them..and so it continues.


----------



## andrewf

Utilities are subject to GST, so why is it such a crime for them to be subject to HST?


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Utilities are subject to GST, so why is it such a crime for them to be subject to HST?


Well for one thing, the GST was implemented by Mulroney to replace
the manufactured ( items) sales tax, which didn;t provide enough money for
feds, but in replacing one tax with another, it was easier for the public
to swallow, except for the gst on services which didn't have a PST at
the time AFAIK. 

When people protested the GST, Chretien got elected on one of his
promises that he would "kill the GST!"...nothing happened and Harper
came in an reduced it to 6% then 5% later to soften the blow and
gain popularity out west..especially Alberta which has no PST.
and they didn't like having the GST imposed on them either.

While a gst on natural gas/electricity and other energy commodites is
acceptable, because these are manufactured for use of the consumer,
the HST component (PST) is nothing but a tax grab by McGinty to
make up for shortfall in wasteful and unaccountable spending.


----------



## andrewf

I don't think you understand politics. Harper doesn't have to do anything to gain popularity in Alberta. He could eat babies on national TV and still get 50% of the vote in Alta. The GST cut was about suburban Toronto and Vancouver.

"While a gst on natural gas/electricity and other energy commodites is
acceptable, because these are manufactured for use of the consumer,
the HST component (PST) is nothing but a tax grab by McGinty to
make up for shortfall in wasteful and unaccountable spending."

You have to be kidding me. You're just rationalizing at this point. Energy is not a manufactured good, and was not subject to the Manufacturers Tax pre-GST.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Having given us the sweetner first, now the bitter truth pill is shoved down our throats:

_ The McGuinty government admitted Thursday hydro rates in Ontario will soar by 46 per cent over the next five years, which will erase the 10 per cent rebate on electricity bills the government promised._

So no worries about anyone subsidizing electricity now.
Once all the increases are factored in, hydro bills will more than double for even the most conservative of households.
Mr. McGuinty will seek re-election next Oct.
Regardless of whether he retains his position or not, his lifelong MP pension is assured.


----------



## the-royal-mail

But Harold, this is good policy!


----------



## Jungle

Start burning candels, use fire to cook and heat, or go Amish like Weird Al did?


----------



## andrewf

Oh well. I'm not concerned about this file if Hudak is elected. Hudak has already expressed he will continue to support the HST if elected, and I can't imagine he'll meddle much with electricity pricing. I'd support him scrapping the FIT program for renewables, but realistically, a big part of the problem is the need to refurbish and replace large portions of our generation infrastructure. Unfortunately, this stuff is expensive, and bluster doesn't build nuclear reactors.

I know you guys like to dream that turfing McGuinty will turn Ontario into a land of milk and honey, but I guess I'm more of a realist.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> I know you guys like to dream that turfing McGuinty will turn Ontario into a land of milk and honey, but I guess I'm more of a realist.


I know it won't...the damage is already done.
And it's not just the HST or the hydro rates...it's a series of things in the last 8 years.
It takes decades to recover from a bad leader, and sometimes never.

Look at the US....how long do you think it'll take them to recover from the follies of the GW Bush era with its senseless wars and de-regulation.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Having given us the sweetner first, now the bitter truth pill is shoved down our throats:
> 
> _ The McGuinty government admitted Thursday hydro rates in Ontario will soar by 46 per cent over the next five years, which will erase the 10 per cent rebate on electricity bills the government promised._
> 
> So no worries about anyone subsidizing electricity now.
> Once all the increases are factored in, hydro bills will more than double for even the most conservative of households.
> Mr. McGuinty will seek re-election next Oct.
> Regardless of whether he retains his position or not, his lifelong MP pension is assured.


Harold...and I might add..

Not only is OPA going to raise the hydro rates over time, but so are the
local utilities, asking for increases to offset their costs, like salaries etc.
McGinty's desparate bid to juggle hydro rates against his declining popularity
as premier and trying to keep his job after the fall 2011 elections
is hatching schemes to bribe the hydro consumers into voting for his gov't.



Excerpt from the press..
_The Opposition parties weren't buying that, and said the move to cut electricity rates was a "desperate" attempt to help the Liberal government's bid for a third term in office.

"Dalton McGuinty has increased hydro rates by 75 per cent for the average family and now he says -- just before an election -- he's going to give 10 per cent back," said Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak._end of excerpt...

Just for comparison purposes..a 500kwh ( powere useage only) bill at the
current Ottawa Hydro rates (.065kwh) is $32.50 + HST.

If the 10% reduction takes effect next Jan 1, that 500kwh useage bill
will be 500kw x .0585 ((which was the old rate) = $29.25
That's a $3.25 savings and factoring in the HST, a saving of
perhaps $3.67 on a low usage hydro bill and $7.34 on 1000kwh bill
every two months x 6 hydro bills = $44 per year.
Everything else on the bill being the same.

Now for comparison:

before the HST was implemented 500kwh x .065 = $32.50 x 5% GST
= $34.12 
with HST 500kwh x .065= $32.50 (x 13% = $4.23) = $36.73
Difference: +$2.61 (increase)

Reducing the hydro rate by 10% means that they are just rolling back
the kwh rate (temporarily) until after the fall election for fear of a consumer
backlash on the steadily rising rates of electricity.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> You have to be kidding me. You're just rationalizing at this point. Energy is not a manufactured good, and was not subject to the Manufacturers Tax pre-GST.


Well essentially the way, I see it, whether it's oil/gas being pumped out of
the ground or hydro-electric or nuclear electricity, it has to be produced
by a well or generating station..the source. Infrastructure and distribution
is another fixed cost..of course it's hard to understand how the Mulroney
gov't, Chretien and Harper had to do with building this infrastructure, so
how can they justify adding GST, but then if you look at the old Ontario
Hydro which became defunct, replaced by OPG/Hydro One/OPA/OEB and
the Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO)..you don't know
who to complain to anymore!

Instead of simplification, deregulation has led to a even bigge mess as
more entitities are involved with electricity rates. 

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/722494--roseman-provincial-benefit-c


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> I know it won't...the damage is already done.
> And it's not just the HST or the hydro rates...it's a series of things in the last 8 years.
> It takes decades to recover from a bad leader, and sometimes never.


Most of the political decisions are ill informed and not enough thought
is given to long term effects. Political maneuvering, such as the current
Ont gov't is proof that they don't have the situation under control.

I won't even go into the mess that the US have created for themselves,
but dissention seems to be the norm these days..hence the Tea Party
movement, and political instablility in BC, squabbles between politicians
there giving the general population that no one is in control anymore.

All I know is that Ontario recovered eventually from the Rae gov't, who
tried to "spend their way out of the recession at the time"..it's didn't
work and Ontario was saddled with a big debt and deficit for years..
The current gov't is no better..and it's not going to get any better, no
matter who gets in now..because with so many debt skelton's in the
closet, all the next gov't has to do is to blame the mess on the previous
gov't and keep going the same way.


----------



## andrewf

All I know is that you guys are railing about all the wrong policies. Premier Dad has done lots of dumb things. HST, TOU electricity pricing, corporate tax reductions etc. are not among his mistakes. In fact, these are going to be part of his legacy and will make Ontario a better place in the long run.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The saga continues:

_Ontario Power Generation ups Q3 profit to $333 due to higher electricity prices

By The Canadian Press 

TORONTO - Ontario Power Generation reported Friday that its third-quarter profit increased to $333 million, helped by higher electricity prices.

That compares with $259 million for the same quarter ended Sept. 30 last year._

By leeching, swindling and screwing households, the public sector makes increasing profits.
No doubt, the top executives will be patting each other on the backs and giving themselves raises and performance bonuses.

andrewf, are you being sarcastic when you say HST and TOU are amongst McGuinty's "achievements", or do you sincerely believe it?
I suppose the "health tax" is a great crowning achievement as well.
Too bad, the eco fee plan got squashed - that would have been the "Kohinoor" of his legacy.

Enjoy your Kool-aid - you want ice with that?


----------



## andrewf

Deadly serious. But no, the health premium tax was not a very well-designed tax. We may have needed the revenue, but they should have just raised the statutory rate.

The eco-fees in general are a good idea. Charging companies for the waste they sell to consumers makes sense. It gives incentives to create products that are readily disposable/recyclable by reducing the amount of mixed materials (like tetra pack's combination of plastic, aluminum and paper), heavy metals content, etc. I have no comment on the specific implementation that this government took as I didn't do any research on it. All I gathered was that people were upset and they canned it.

You seem to be having a hard time grasping that I am not a partisan supporter of McGuinty. He's implemented a lot of policies I agree with, and many that I oppose. So, just because I like some of his policies does not imply that I like all of them. 

As far as the OPG profit, I'll point out that OPG doesn't set the rate. It is set by OEB. If you don't like the OEB rate, feel free to sign a contract with a retailer like Direct Energy, or generate your own electricity.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> As far as the OPG profit, I'll point out that OPG doesn't set the rate. It is set by OEB. If you don't like the OEB rate, feel free to sign a contract with a retailer like Direct Energy, or generate your own electricity.


Yes, you could sign with an independent retailer..but then they want to
make a profit and you would be paying a lot more for each kwh..and the
OEB/IESO will tack on a provencial benefit surcharge, (because it's a levy
that they can add on outside of the contract, like other levys/taxes,
to make sure you can never benefit or save anything from signing up 
with a independent retailer..

So that is McGinty's legacy for allowing that kind of "smoke and mirrors"
deception to be inflected on the consumer instead of putting a stop to it. 

But at least he stopped the eco-fee nonsense...it was going the same way

as Bob Rae's (NDP gov't) tire tax a few years ago..they collect $5 per
tire in a recycling tax..and all we got was the huge mountain of tires that
burned and polluted the atmosphere for a couple of weeks. Not long after
that they decided to get rid of the tax because it was just going into
general revenues..and was an embarrassement to them..it had nothing to do
with recycling.


----------



## Sustainable PF

HaroldCrump said:


> Stay away from gas and electricity re-marketers as well as fixed payment plans with your hydro company and you can avoid most of these issues.
> This whole thing is a rip off scheme being masqueraded as a utility bill.
> 
> As I've said before, it puts Cromwell "Sex Enjoyment Tax" to shame.


given the 46% increase in electricity bills over the next 5 years, locking in w/ a re-marketer may not be THAT bad of an idea ...

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/11/18/ontario-duncan-economic-update234.html


----------



## HaroldCrump

Sustainable PF said:


> given the 46% increase in electricity bills over the next 5 years, locking in w/ a re-marketer may not be THAT bad of an idea ...


The energy re-marketers have already factored in this increase into their fixed price quotes.
IMHO, you are better off staying with the OPG rates since you may benefit from lower off-season rates or seasonal rate swings.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> The energy re-marketers have already factored in this increase into their fixed price quotes.
> IMHO, you are better off staying with the OPG rates since you may benefit from lower off-season rates or seasonal rate swings.


Yes, not only the fact that you will be paying more for kwh rates with a 
energy marketer..but the OEB/IESO will slap another tax on top of what
every rate you are paying with the independent marketer.

in fact..this Provincial Benefit charge that will appear on your electricity
bill is a separate charge from all the other charges and usage.
Go to this website and see how much the provincial benefit rate has increased
in the last 2 years that they show on the website..

The way it works is if the kwh amount is negative, you get a credit on your bill.
if it's positive, they slap on an extra charge..the last MEANINGFUL negative was in 2006 
(4 years ago). RIGHT NOW IT'S ALMOST 4 CENTS PER KWH THAT YOU USE.

http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/siteShared/electricity_bill.asp?sid=bi

It is steadily rising as well because of the province's commitment to
converting coal fired generating stations (Nanticoke) to nat gas which
is a fluctuating market commodity as well. Green Power (Wind farms)
are even more costlier to setup and so is solar. The fact that they
are willing to sign a 20 year contract for FIT grid solar producers at 80c kwh
indicates how much green power is going to cost.

Now they go to say that if you stay on the RPP (regulated price plan), the "provincial benefit" is
included..and maybe so..but you would be paying 6.5C + 3.99c for about 10.5c kwh on the RPP
and that isn't the case. I think that they are trying to discourage consumers from going to
independent marketers and keeping all the profits for themselves (OPG/Hydro 1) and the OEB
seems to support this. 

Don't be surprised if future electricity bills have an extra charge called
"Infrastructure"..a small amount similar to the DRC (debt reduction)
expressed as a percentage of the kwh consumed. 

Either way you pay more for electricity in the next few years and
if you sign up with a marketer, you will not be able to take advantage
of any temporary politically motivated reductions in the kwh rate.

My short experience is that it cost me a LOT more to sign up with an
energy retailer. 8.5c kwh over 5 years + provincial benefit and of course
McGinty's HST pushing the 6.5c kwh rate up to 14 or 15c per kwh
by signing up witjh a resaler.

People in Nova Scotia are complaining as well...any province where there is more
demand than what the generating stations can produce will see rises over the
next few years. Quebec and maybe BC which seem to have more capacity
for now may still be able to offer cheaper power to their customers, but
everyone else is going to pay through the nose from now on.

You are not going to win or save anything either way.

Got a complaint? Contact the OEB and get their story..
http://www.oeb.gov.on.ca/OEB/Consumers


----------



## HaroldCrump

It's getting funnier by the day:

_More hydro relief proposed by McGuinty Liberals
TORONTO, Ont. - The McGuinty government is expected to make its second hydro rate announcement in two weeks on Tuesday.
The Liberals plan to extend the off-peak price window for hydro rates to 7 p.m. instead of 9 p.m._

And this is because:

_Many do see the hydro rate adjustment as an attempt to stop the slide in political fortunes for the McGuinty Liberals.
The latest Ipsos Reid poll for the National Post and Global TV puts the Conservatives ahead by nine percentage points -- a 13 per cent swing since the summer of 2009_

So the headless chicken McGuinty clucks around from one political disaster to another, not knowing which way to run to save his sorry position.
This is purely an attempt to get re-elected next Oct.
Once, re-elected for another 4 years, no doubt the hydro bills will gradually sneak up again.

If he really meant well and his heart truly bled for Ontario residents, he should simply have scrapped the whole price hike and reduced the punitive rates.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> It's getting funnier by the day:
> 
> If he really meant well and his heart truly bled for Ontario residents, he should simply have scrapped the whole price hike and reduced the punitive rates.


well back paddling is political maneuvering. Harris did that when he
messed up the health care system by reducing number of nurses/beds
etc..duh!..never thought about the wait times involved with those reductions.

But we can't blame McGinty and his current gov't for what is happening
now completely..once you open the door to let in competition/free market
pricing on commodities or energy, these things will happen. 

Although the hydro dam generators run for "free" because of dams, 
other sources are not as cheap.
Replacing coal fired with natural gas/windfarms/solar etc is very expensive
and the ones involved want to recover their costs and make a profit.

Nuclear is probably the most expensive because maintenance and overhaul
required. Replacing the pressure tubes in nuclear hydro reactor costs millions.

The thing I'm curious about is..if the OPG/OEB (or whatever entity is 
responsible for issuing payments) is willing to sign a contract with an
independent supplier (say property owner-microFIT) at 80c kwh..what
is that telling us? Probably that rates will go up over the next 5 years,
regardless of who is in power and the users will be subsidizing these
various generators because it's all blended into the grid.


----------



## the-royal-mail

All of this creates a very unfavourable climate for business. When you consider the lost productivity due to workers sitting in their cars for hours every day and often being late (or late on public transit), the smog and related health problems and the electricity supply and price issues being discussed here, it's a perfect storm for businesses to seek greener pastures. Not to mention the excessive taxes. Perhaps businesses will start to migrate west where things aren't so messed up.


----------



## HaroldCrump

the-royal-mail said:


> All of this creates a very unfavourable climate for business. When you consider the lost productivity due to workers sitting in their cars for hours every day and often being late (or late on public transit), the smog and related health problems and the electricity supply and price issues being discussed here, it's a perfect storm for businesses to seek greener pastures. Not to mention the excessive taxes. Perhaps businesses will start to migrate west where things aren't so messed up.


Given what we are reading about BC on that other thread, I'm not so sure 
That leaves Alberta.
AB has already seen a big boom and is on the decline from that.
I don't see big business and federal govt. going that far deep inland, away from the major US cities, major airports, etc.
I think the Ontario provincial govt. (Liberals or otherwise) have the residents and businesses by the balls - we can run but there's no where to hide.


----------



## the-royal-mail

BC sucks too. Except for the scenery of course.

Don't overlook the prairie provinces. All have roads, electricity (so much in fact that MB supplies ON) and [gasp] running water. 

SK Potash Corp and CP Rail have done just fine and neither are anywhere near any major US cities or airports. CP Rail left Montreal in 1996 and has flourished. Intolerant language laws and oppressive taxation regimes and other corruption give businesses and residents alike lots of reasons to look west. But not TOO far west.


----------



## andrewf

the-royal-mail said:


> All of this creates a very unfavourable climate for business.


The tax changes currently under way are very good for business. HST means businesses no longer pay any sales tax. Beyond that, the marginal effective tax rate on new investment in Ontario will fall in half, from ~50% to ~25%. This is a huge boon to Ontario and will put us among the most competitive tax jurisdictions in North America.

We might lose some electricity-intensive industrial business to jurisdictions that provide subsidized electricity (like Quebec). I don't see that as a big loss. Subsidies are a mugs game. You lose by winning.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> HST means businesses no longer pay any sales tax. Beyond that, the marginal effective tax rate on new investment in Ontario will fall in half, from ~50% to ~25%. This is a huge boon to Ontario and will put us among the most competitive tax jurisdictions in North America.
> 
> _We might lose some electricity-intensive industrial business to jurisdictions that provide subsidized electricity (like Quebec)_. I don't see that as a big loss. Subsidies are a mugs game. You lose by winning.


Ok, I fail to see what this has to do with energy usuage and current rates topic
but..it's not all nicely wrapped up in a nutshell from McGinty's gov't.
Whatever the boon is to Ontario industry remains to be seen, but the
job erosion still continues..

from the cbc news article (aug6/2010)

"Quebec had the biggest losses, at 21,000, with Ontario following with 15,000 British Columbia gained 16,000, while Alberta added 9,000.

The goods-producing sector gained 42,000 jobs, 29,000 of them in manufacturing. The services industry shed 30,000."

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/08/06/canada-job-employment.html#ixzz1632vI4zr

Not all the job losses here are atributed to the cost of electricity or tax
rates on business..job losses can occur for many reasons..
downsizing (because the markets for the company are eroding)
actual loses (company debt/profit margins and cost of employing staff,
manufacturing costs)..and so on..

The cost of electricity to manufacture goods or provide service is a very
small part of the picture of overall operations.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Not all the job losses here are atributed to the cost of electricity or tax
> rates on business..job losses can occur for many reasons..
> downsizing (because the markets for the company are eroding)
> actual loses (company debt/profit margins and cost of employing staff,
> manufacturing costs)..and so on..


Despite the Ontario and Federal Govt. multi-million $ bailout to the auto companies, Toyota recently moved the production of its hybrid Rav4 to the state of California instead of its Woodstock, ON, plant where the non hybrid version was being built.

Granted, Toyota didn't get any bailout from the Canadian govt. and granted that the US govt. wants blood for all the safety recalls, so maybe Toyota is robbing Ontario to pay California.

However, the decision to bailout the auto manufacturers under pressure from the CAWU must be questioned during next year's election campaign.


----------



## K-133

My November hydro bill decreased by 8% - to $103 from the previous bill of $112.

I'm still feeling the pinch.


----------



## Jungle

I got a my electricity bill yesterday ($38 I brag) and I noticed a slip from the energy board, saying they will decrease the rate starting next month. I believe it went down $0.001 or (1/10 of a cent) . I could be off, as I read it quickly. 

I have been playing more video games now and I'm addicted to Natzi Zombies on COD Black Ops (wicked game), so my bill will be going up after playing for like 5 hours a day. TV is 46 LCD, 3 years old. A bit of a power hog, wish I got a 32 or 40 now.


----------



## K-133

lol Jungle - same here, except with a plasma. I noticed a 1/10 cent variance in a portion of my rate as well - strange.


----------



## loggedout

Being in the field of providing nuclear engineering services, I am pleased to hear the news that was released yesterday. It is good news for me, along with hearing that China is planning to build 28 reactors by 2020, I am feeling optimistic for the first time in a while about my industry's potential.


----------



## HaroldCrump

loggedout said:


> I am pleased to hear the news that was released yesterday. It is good news for me, along with hearing that China is planning to build 28 reactors by 2020


LOL...so guess where your tax money is going.


----------



## atrp2biz

loggedout said:


> Being in the field of providing nuclear engineering services, I am pleased to hear the news that was released yesterday. It is good news for me, along with hearing that China is planning to build 28 reactors by 2020, I am feeling optimistic for the first time in a while about my industry's potential.


It won't matter anyways. Once a new government is in office, the plan will be completely overhauled (although the nuclear plans should stay). Even as a developer of renewable energy, I think the FIT has to be one of the first things that go. I don't see the point in trying to clean our air when a good chunk of the pollution comes from the Ohio Valley.


----------



## K-133

atrp2biz said:


> I don't see the point in trying to clean our air when a good chunk of the pollution comes from the Ohio Valley.


I see no reason to pick up my dog's poop when a good chunk of the poop in the city comes from the birds.


----------



## atrp2biz

K-133 said:


> I see no reason to pick up my dog's poop when a good chunk of the poop in the city comes from the birds.


I see you have no problem with paying $800/MWh for PV.

It's cost/reward. Closing a few Nanticoke units is not going to make a significant difference, while ratepayers are stuck with significantly higher bills. 

The analogy should be, "a dog and bird both pooped on your front step. Which one are you going to clean up first?"


----------



## loggedout

HaroldCrump said:


> LOL...so guess where your tax money is going.


Yes, to something that benefits me. If not for this, maybe I wouldn't be paying as much in taxes because I could be unemployed...........and move to a province like Alberta, where big oil is subsidized instead.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> However, the decision to bailout the auto manufacturers under pressure from the CAWU must be questioned during next year's election campaign.


The bailout was a political decision to save whatever auto industry jobs
in southern Ontario (besides Ford who seem to be doing ok). Had they
not followed suit (like the US gov't) and bailout GM/Chrysler, the plants
would have been closed, putting a lot of people out of work...cost of
UI, not to mention underfunding of the Auto Workers generous pension
plan, lost income tax...and economic downturn to cities like Oshawa and
Windsor, which already are in a downturn. 

I don't think there was a right or wrong decision..it was a decision that was
made because of the time factor and fear of plant closings. Once the plants
were closed, it would be highly unlikely that they would re-open again.
So now, of course the HST to cover the multitude of sins in the Ontario
current economy...


----------



## HaroldCrump

Right, ok, if I buy that, then why can't the power generation be similarly "bailed out"?
Let the prov. govt. pay the $87B required out of its own financing by issuing bonds, etc.
Just as all of us residents are collectively paying (and will pay) for the auto sector and UAW bailouts, let's all pay for the hydro generation costs.
After all, all those new power plans and new reactors will create lots of jobs - blue collar as well as white collar.


----------



## carverman

atrp2biz said:


> It won't matter anyways. Once a new government is in office, the plan will be completely overhauled (although the nuclear plans should stay). Even as a developer of renewable energy, I think the FIT has to be one of the first things that go. I don't see the point in trying to clean our air when a good chunk of the pollution comes from the Ohio Valley.


Interesting thing this FIT scheme. They want clean power and power that
comes from micro generators without having to deal with the maintenance
headaches involved with those micro generators in years to come.

A few weeks ago..the OPG was willing to pay a subsidized 80c per kwh,
which has now been reduced signifcantly. Solar in this area of Canada,
in the winter months would need to be supplemented from the grid.

On top of that, the investment necessary to get a solar panel micro generator
going is totally ridiculous to the average homeowner...maybe a business that
owns the buildings might actually break even, but there is a maintenance
cost..the converters (DC/AC) and batteries will only last for 5 years. 

So any profit (taxed btw) will be used in replacing components in the solar
generating scheme.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Right, ok, if I buy that, then why can't the power generation be similarly "bailed out"?
> Let the prov. govt. pay the $87B required out of its own financing by issuing bonds, etc.
> Just as all of us residents are collectively paying (and will pay) for the auto sector and UAW bailouts, let's all pay for the hydro generation costs.
> After all, all those new power plans and new reactors will create lots of jobs - blue collar as well as white collar.


I think that there is more to this than they care to let us know.
Why is Bruce Power (nuclear) paid MILLIONS (quietly) not to generate power?

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...uce-delay-101021/20101021/?hub=TorontoNewHome

So paying for the debt by issuing provincial bonds may only generate some
additional revenue for the province..what needs to be investigated is
what is going on that "surplus" nuclear capacity is not used to decrease the rates.


----------



## K-133

atrp2biz said:


> The analogy should be, "a dog and bird both pooped on your front step. Which one are you going to clean up first?"


Since I have no control over the bird's poop or the tools to clean it up, I'm obviously going to pick up the dog's poop - or in this case prevent it from pooping in the first place. Pointing your finger does not make things happen. In other words, clean up your own backyard before trying to help your neighbour with theirs.

This analogy can similarly be applied to the amount of poop your household flushes. Pointing the finger at rates is hardly an issue - rates are only bringing the real issues to the surface, as the issues now have an increased cost associated to them. I know it is easier to lobby for lower rates than it is to focus internally, but low rates are about as sustainable as an glacier in a lava pool. The glaring message that I see here is that consumption is a major issue and risk to the sustainability of our system.

If you really take the time to think about it, it is business that takes the brunt of this poop reduction strategy. Given that they are the largest producers of poop, its probably going to be effective. 

This is a classic case of the 70/20/10 rule; 
-i- 70% of people are on the fence about change
-ii- 20% of people support change
-iii- 10% strongly oppose change and are the loudest, most visible bunch


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Right, ok, if I buy that, then why can't the power generation be similarly "bailed out"?
> Let the prov. govt. pay the $87B required out of its own financing by issuing bonds, etc.
> Just as all of us residents are collectively paying (and will pay) for the auto sector and UAW bailouts, let's all pay for the hydro generation costs.
> After all, all those new power plans and new reactors will create lots of jobs - blue collar as well as white collar.


Ontario already has savings bonds. I don't know how the money collected
is used, but would expect that some of it is used for general revenues and
some for debt reduction. There is a problem that the Ontario power
resources (OPG/Hydro ONE) is still a provincial monopoly, and if even
such a scheme (issuing "war bonds" to reduce that debt) was possible, there
would be an issue of Ontario having to kick in the interest earned or payable
on a specific issue of bonds for that purpose. 

In order for GM/Chrysler to avoild bankruptcy here, the Ont gov't had to set
up loan guarantees for them (like co-signing on a loan)..and for that the
Ont gov't acquired an equity stake in the automakers. GM is now referred
to a "Government Motors" by some. GM has now issued an IPO in the US
to raise cash to repay the US gov't..not sure what is happening here 
though. But the key here is GM is a private enterprise.

The Ontario hydro/electricity situation is a bit different, since the utility
(even if broken up into 2 or 3 parts) is still owned by the province and
therefore the people/electricity users of the province, even though we
as users have no say in what decisions are made on our behalf by
OPG/Hydro1/OEB).

Until this is staightened out, that would be like...ok " Ill
buy these bonds from my after tax dollars and pay myself the interest
that these bonds will earn from my aftertax dollars.

Besides..the DRC ( hydro debt reduction charge) and Provincial Benefit
charge, as well as the HST on the electricity has to be going somewhere
to reduce the debt. What is needed now is accountabilty on how the
money collected is spent..not more excuses.


----------



## andrewf

Whether hydro is subsidized by taxpayers or ratepayers pay the full cost, you have to pay. The only reason to subsidize hydro is so that we can continue to waste it. I know, I know, I'm a typical commie liberal pinko-bleeding heart who thinks people should pay for their hydro rather than getting freebies from big brother that it will later have to take out of our pockets.


----------



## Sustainable PF

On a lighter note, I wrote a piece on why it makes sense from a sustainable and financial perspective to use CFL bulbs in your home:

http://sustainablepersonalfinance.com/dont-lighten-your-wallet-with-inefficient-bulbs/


----------



## MoneyGal

Not to be overly contrarian but I have never totally appreciated the argument that conventional lightbulbs are "inefficient" because they produce heat as well as light. 

Hey: it's Canada. I heat my house. Heat from lights in most months of the year is not "wasted;" it's just an epiphenomenon of lighting with incandescents.

(Don't worry; I have CFLs in every fixture that makes sense. I've retained a few incandescents for mood here and there.)


----------



## brad

Sustainable PF said:


> On a lighter note, I wrote a piece on why it makes sense from a sustainable and financial perspective to use CFL bulbs in your home:


That's a good piece, but there are a few caveats I would add:

1. The lifetime of good-quality CFL lamps can be 10 years or more, but there are many bad-quality CFL lamps on the market that will burn out in a year or less. I won a dozen or so CFL lamps back in 1992 in a contest sponsored by my electric utility; after 12 years all but three of those lights were still working. In contrast, half of the CFLs that I bought for the basement of the house we bought three years ago burned out before a year was up. I would avoid most of the cheap brands that you can find in your pharmacy or corner store and go with established brands like Philips or GE to get longer life.

2. There are still a few situations where an incandescent makes more sense than a CFL: closets are the main one. Unless you're the kind of person who often forgets to turn off your closet lights, it can take 20 years or more for a CFL to pay for itself compared with an incandescent in these types of situations where a bulb is only turned on for a few minutes per day. The economic and environmental arguments in favour of CFL bulbs are strongest when you're looking at bulbs that are left on for hours a day.

3. A lot of people dislike CFLs because they feel the light is too cold, they flicker (which hasn't been an issue since electronic ballasts were introduced in the early 1990s), or they can't be used with dimmers. All of these issues have been resolved; just go to Home Depot or another large hardware store and you'll find CFLs that work with dimmers, CFLs that give off warmer light (if you want to avoid cold, harsh light be sure to especially avoid the "natural light" CFLs that supposedly mimic the spectrum of daylight -- their light is very cold). Flickering should only be a problem with CFLs that have magnetic ballasts, and I don't think those have been available for more than a decade.


----------



## MoneyGal

No worries; I live in a 100-year-old house that has NO closets. None.


----------



## Sustainable PF

MoneyGal said:


> Not to be overly contrarian but I have never totally appreciated the argument that conventional lightbulbs are "inefficient" because they produce heat as well as light.
> 
> Hey: it's Canada. I heat my house. Heat from lights in most months of the year is not "wasted;" it's just an epiphenomenon of lighting with incandescents.
> 
> (Don't worry; I have CFLs in every fixture that makes sense. I've retained a few incandescents for mood here and there.)


Thanks for the feedback MoneyGal. The thing is, those incandescents also heat your house from May-Oct when your not wanting the heat. If you us A/C to cool you are using more power than you need to. We all know that heating with electricity is pretty much the least cost efficient way to heat a home so those bulbs are akin to using baseboards instead of oil or gas to get that much desired heat from now until May!


----------



## Sustainable PF

MoneyGal said:


> No worries; I live in a 100-year-old house that has NO closets. None.


We have 3 - 100 year house as well!

I also wrote some pieces on the ecoEnergy Retrofit Program and what we decided to get done (with a full financial break down of course!)


----------



## MoneyGal

Nah; I know. I just personally think the argument that "the heat is wasted" by definition ignores the Canadian climate in many months of the year. I'm not that serious - I just like to be difficult. 

I actually routinely create break-even spreadsheets to calculate the cost of moving in a different path - I *just* created one because we replaced our furnace this month and now I'm working on a break-even spreadsheet for replacing our hot water heater.


----------



## brad

MoneyGal said:


> Not to be overly contrarian but I have never totally appreciated the argument that conventional lightbulbs are "inefficient" because they produce heat as well as light.


This is one of the problems with exporting arguments from south of the border. In approximately the souther two-thirds of the United States, people spend more on air conditioning than they do on heating, so the heat-reducing benefits of CFLs are a selling point down there.

The more sophisticated energy savings calculators out there factor the effect of CFLs on both heating and cooling into the equation. In super-efficient buildings, designers even factor in the effect of body heat given off by the occupants: when designing the headquarters for the Rocky Mountain Institute, Amory Lovins even accounted for the heat generated by pets (a dog and a couple of cats, if I remember correctly).


----------



## Sustainable PF

Thanks for the feedback brad.



brad said:


> That's a good piece, but there are a few caveats I would add:
> 
> 1. The lifetime of good-quality CFL lamps can be 10 years or more, but there are many bad-quality CFL lamps on the market that will burn out in a year or less. I won a dozen or so CFL lamps back in 1992 in a contest sponsored by my electric utility; after 12 years all but three of those lights were still working. In contrast, half of the CFLs that I bought for the basement of the house we bought three years ago burned out before a year was up. I would avoid most of the cheap brands that you can find in your pharmacy or corner store and go with established brands like Philips or GE to get longer life.


Agreed. Buy the good brands!



brad said:


> 2. There are still a few situations where an incandescent makes more sense than a CFL: closets are the main one. Unless you're the kind of person who often forgets to turn off your closet lights, it can take 20 years or more for a CFL to pay for itself compared with an incandescent in these types of situations where a bulb is only turned on for a few minutes per day. The economic and environmental arguments in favour of CFL bulbs are strongest when you're looking at bulbs that are left on for hours a day.


We don't have lighting in our closets (all 3 of them). But a good point. For us, in the one main floor closet, we're probably smartest to just use our LED Xmas lights instead of any bulb/fixture for the 11 months of the year those lights aren't hung out on the front porch.



brad said:


> 3. A lot of people dislike CFLs because they feel the light is too cold, they flicker (which hasn't been an issue since electronic ballasts were introduced in the early 1990s), or they can't be used with dimmers. All of these issues have been resolved; just go to Home Depot or another large hardware store and you'll find CFLs that work with dimmers, CFLs that give off warmer light (if you want to avoid cold, harsh light be sure to especially avoid the "natural light" CFLs that supposedly mimic the spectrum of daylight -- their light is very cold). Flickering should only be a problem with CFLs that have magnetic ballasts, and I don't think those have been available for more than a decade.


Exactly. One other point of contention people bring up is that CFLs use mercury (a very small amount). Thing is, many people (living in older homes) have thermostats that use magnesium too - much more than in these bulbs. Basically, don't smash your light bulbs and dispose of the bulbs properly and this is a non-issue.


----------



## MoneyGal

Well, this is a nice little Sunday morning conversation. 

We did an energy audit when we first moved into this house 10 years ago and then did another one this month in prep for the furnace replacement (to get whatever grant funds are still available). I read your post with interest; this is the second 100-year house I've owned in the last 20 years. (The first was a farmhouse on wellwater and septic; a city house is a breeze in comparison.)


----------



## brad

Sustainable PF said:


> For us, in the one main floor closet, we're probably smartest to just use our LED Xmas lights instead of any bulb/fixture for the 11 months of the year those lights aren't hung out on the front porch.


That is a brilliant idea!


----------



## Sustainable PF

MoneyGal said:


> Well, this is a nice little Sunday morning conversation.
> 
> We did an energy audit when we first moved into this house 10 years ago and then did another one this month in prep for the furnace replacement (to get whatever grant funds are still available). I read your post with interest; this is the second 100-year house I've owned in the last 20 years. (The first was a farmhouse on wellwater and septic; a city house is a breeze in comparison.)


Yea, our new-to-us 100 yr old home is our 2nd as well.

If you like what you've read, feel free to subscribe to my RSS  We plan to continue to publish articles regarding sustainable personal finance!


----------



## Sustainable PF

brad said:


> That is a brilliant idea!


Thanks! Just thought of it as I finished my morning coffee. 

Glad to see this thread get a bit lighter and more constructive. Whether you like power subsidy or not there is a lot of opportunity for financially savvy people on this forum to save money and lessen their carbon foot print at the same time. Win win.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse and any more disgusting:

http://www.680news.com/news/local/a...-again-as-opg-seeks-6-2-per-cent-hike-march-1

_Electricity ratepayers in Ontario, already reeling from soaring prices, should brace for more increases.

The Ontario Energy Board agreed Tuesday to let utilities raise rates to recover $18 million they paid in fines and legal costs after charging consumers excessive interest on late payments.

"To deny the utilities recovery would be to impose on their shareholders, typically the municipalities in which they operate, costs which they were compelled to incur" the energy board wrote in its decision.

"In the board's view, no fair-minded person, cognizant of the facts of this case could come to a different conclusion."

The energy board is also expected to rule shortly on a request from Ontario Power Generation for a 6.2 per cent increase in its electricity rates effective March 1._

This is clearly an insane public sector and a rogue govt. running amuck, cheating, deceiving and ripping off consumers at will, with no fear of consequences or retaliation.


----------



## carverman

the-royal-mail said:


> The only one who cannot be convinced is you. Everyone here has provided you with ample evidence that taxes keep going up and yet you continue to insist otherwise. I (and most of the posters here) work hard for my money and pay plenty in taxes and do not subscribe to your left-wing tax and spend idealogy. Just give it up already.


Yes. Taxes and energy are on the increase, so inspite of all sorts of
smoke and mirror schemes/propaganda by the gov'ts in control, the
"havenots" will haveless. I don't see it getting any better no matter
who gets into power this year.
Provincial NDP..they really don't have a mandate, so they aren't going
to help us should they get in. Last year, I made a very rare (and first time)
political contributrion of $20 to the provincial NDP when they asked for
support and donations to fight the HST..well that was $20 of my reduced
pension wasted!..Never again! The provincial conservatives..John Tory..
how is he going to change things..again nothing..just a lot of yakking in
Queens Park.

Gov't waste, overspending, inaccountability, and general mismanagement...
tell me who is going to do a better job in the next 4 years?


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> The energy board is also expected to rule shortly on a request from Ontario Power Generation for a 6.2 per cent increase in its electricity rates effective March 1.[/i]
> 
> This is clearly an insane public sector and a rogue govt. running amuck, cheating, deceiving and ripping off consumers at will, with no fear of consequences or retaliation.


The OEB is just a puppet, set up by the powers that be to allow them to
gouge consumers. Everything is profit driven now..and the "electricity
marketer" sets rates to satisfy "return on investment"..since there
is no competition, they can do as they please and the consumer who
can't go anywhere else, except get off the grid, has to pay through the nose.

As far as the independent retailers of electricity..that is a joke in itself.
There is NO Savings realized by signing up with them..because the OEB
and the electricity marketer can make MORE from the consumer when
they sign a contract with an independent marketer...because they can
also "stick it to you" with excessive charges of 3 to 5 cents per kwh
on top of what you are already paying..and the Provincial/Feds get more
because of the HST. This provincial benefit (aka Global adjustment)
is a subsidy that the electricity consumer has to pay to those that
already have money to invest in infrastructure or generating capacity.
Green Power? Those windmills that are charging up to 80c a kwh contracted
for many years? Where does that money come from? The electricity
consumers! 

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/722494--roseman-provincial-benefit-c

Now as I have been quoting all along.."can you hear that giant sucking sound?
That's more of your money going down the drain..or in the pockets of those
that are profit driven.


----------



## carverman

Sustainable PF said:


> given the 46% increase in electricity bills over the next 5 years, locking in w/ a re-marketer may not be THAT bad of an idea ...


Well, I would have to question that reasoning. 

I "locked in" with a electricity marketer back about 3 years ago..because to the TOU scare back
then and hydro rates increasing. The short of it is that I saved
absolutely NOTHING! In fact, it cost me more with the marketer than
staying on the RPP (regulated price plan). Not only did they lock
me in a 8cents a kwh for 5 years (when it was around 5c kwh on the RPP),
but then the OESB tacked on the PROVINCIAL BENEFIT charge on top
of my enery useage..my hydro bills went up around 33 to 40%!

When I complained to the marketer that they had not disclosed this
to me at time of signing..they informed me that they have nothing to
do with the PROVINCIAL BENEFIT charge...the province tacks that on.

I would have cost me about $600 to get out of the contract at the time,
so I continued until last spring, when I contacted the OESB and the
marketer that I couldn't afford staying in the contract as my private
company pension was cut 25% and further cuts are coming this year.
They finally agreed to get me "off the hook" without having to pay their
penalty. 

I'm signed up with a natural gas marketer..and that is ok..so far there is
no "provincial benefit" tacked on to my gas bill..because it comes all the
way from Alberta.

Apparently as of this year, phamphlets issued in my electricity bill
indicate that the door to door electricity market has to disclose the
"provincial benefit" charge to prospective applicants..at least that
"wrong" has been addressed, but the fact remains that there is NO
Savings with going independent, as the province will tack on a 
variable charge 3 to 5cents a kwh additional to your energy consumption,
so in fact with TOU,,you will be paying...15c kwh (loaded cost)..add another
5cents TOU (daytime) and then another 3-5cents GLOBAL ADJUSTMENT...
as they want to call the "provincial benefit" these days.

15c(current loaded rate with all taxes) + 5c extra( daytime use rate) + 5 cents Global Adjustment = (approx) 25cent per kwh !


----------



## andrewf

Not sure where you are getting your figures from, carver. 

The current peak rate is 9.9 cents/kWh. 
The debt retirement charge is 0.7 cents/kWh (at most, and less in some places).
Delivery is in the range of 5.5 cents/kWh.

That makes a grand total of 16.1 cents/kWh, plus HST of 13% gets you to 18.2 cents/kWh for peak usage. Not sure where you're getting 25 cents from.

And typically, less than 20 per cent of your consumption is at this peak rate.


----------



## HaroldCrump

This is only the begining...the end is nigh.
The govt. is predicting a minimum 7% increase in rates _every year_ for the next 5 years.

In the long run, I believe these policies are being very effective in reducing the population density of Ontario by driving away businesses.
With more and more professional and skilled folks moving westwards to provinces like SK and AB, Ontario (esp. southern Ontario) will end up being a ghetto town for immigrants and lower skilled workers employed in moribund industries like auto and manufacturing.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> This is only the begining...the end is nigh.
> The govt. is predicting a minimum 7% increase in rates _every year_ for the next 5 years.
> 
> In the long run, I believe these policies are being very effective in reducing the population density of Ontario by driving away businesses.
> With more and more professional and skilled folks moving westwards to provinces like SK and AB, Ontario (esp. southern Ontario) will end up being a ghetto town for immigrants and lower skilled workers employed in moribund industries like auto and manufacturing.


Doomsday prediction? 2012? The great bust ahead? 
http://www.thegreatbustahead.com/

Who knows? I wish we had a crystal ball that could direct us out of this mess
we seem to be heading for!
One thing we probably all agree on..the economies of most countries runs
on oil and affordable energy..as soon as the scale is tilted, the potential
for serious fallouts is there. Whether we can believe that the current
crop of politicians can steer us clear of the potential mess ahead is
anybody's guess.

Crude oil and electricity drive the economy. As soon as these start to
go out of control due to unforseen world events or mismanagement etc,
everybody is going to be affected, whether you live in highly populated
urban environment or in the sparsely populated rural areas of Ontario
(and maybe other places as well).

Here is some facts..crude oil is on the rise (due to unstable middle east
oil producing nations) and oil futures..as soon as oil hits triple digits
a barrel (ie: over $100) it affects everyone. Same with electricity
and any other types of energy. Sure, we will learn to conserve with
rising prices forcing us to do so, but that isn't going to be enough.
Rising energy means higher production costs = higher costs of goods
and services. The end user pays more and at what point does he say
enough is enough...I don't have enough income to sustain everything
that I need.

I forget what the official number for the current debt of most Canadian
households is but *collectively we owe more now *than we have
ever owed in our lives.
http://www.canadareic.com/component...News/883-canadian-household-debt-surges-.html

Household spending on energy (gasoline, electricity, gas or oil heat) is
rising steadily. Are the rising prices enough to stem the tide of
plant downsizing or closing. Just look at what has happened to the auto
industry since the last recession. 

I read Jeff Rubin's book about "Your world is about to get smaller"
and in it he focuses on what is happening to oil prices and the effects
on everyone. Whether it is a harbinger of things to come, is hard
to determine at this time..but if it does, it "ain't gonna be pretty".

Our forefathers survived without electricity and gasoline and credit cards.
We are so dependent on these that it runs our lives and controls our
income.

The demand for electricity and oil products keeps increasing..and as we
know..the law of supply and demand governs everything and everyone.


----------



## hboy43

carverman said:


> The provincial conservatives..John Tory..
> how is he going to change things..again nothing..just a lot of yakking in
> Queens Park.


How indeed. Tim Hudak runs that ship.

hboy43


----------



## carverman

hboy43 said:


> How indeed. Tim Hudak runs that ship.
> 
> hboy43


Thanks..that is how much I'm up to date on the provincial tories.
John Tory WAS the leader from 2004 to 2009 when he had to resign
after losing his seat in a byelection.

Now..back to squacking and mud slinging...what was the original subject line?

Oh yes..energy usage and how much more it's going to cost us this year
and in the coming years.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> Thanks..that is how much I'm up to date on the provincial tories.
> John Tory WAS the leader from 2004 to 2009 when he had to resign
> after losing his seat in a byelection.


It was the issue of religious school funding that destroyed John Tory's chances in the previous provincial elections.
Lest for that issue, I believe he had a great chance of toppling the McGuinty monopoly.

He also had a chance to run for Toronto mayor this past elections, but passed but I think Rob Ford is a good mayor and has a chance of making a difference.

So far I have been uninspired with Tim Hudak.
He's unknown to most people and it's now the first week of March and he hasn't made any attempts to begin campaigning for the fall elections.
I mean other than the offer of $1 beer 

Apologies for straying off topic, but so much of energy pricing is involved with politics.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> So far I have been uninspired with Tim Hudak.
> He's unknown to most people and it's now the first week of March and he hasn't made any attempts to begin campaigning for the fall elections.
> I mean other than the offer of $1 beer
> 
> Apologies for straying off topic, but so much of energy pricing is involved with politics.


No problem with me. I'm in a quandry as to what to do for the fall election.
There doesn't appear to be any serious contenders for the premier's seat,
so the Fiberal juggernaut may just keep on rolling, taxing and raisng energy\
prices. I hate to sound so negative about provincial politics, but we appear
to be kneedeep in do-do and there is nobody available (at least not yet)
to take the bull by the horns and say "enough is enough!"

I'm glad that at least Rob Ford is trying to make some sense and improve
things in Toronto now..it was a long time needing some overhaul..so does
the province. 

So far not impressed with either NDP or the Tories, they both strike me as
being very weak in the face of the powers that be.


----------



## carverman

Politics aside....I wuz reading yesterday in Jeff Rubin's book, that 4 out of
5 of the last recessions were tied to rising oil prices. The only one that
wasn't was the one in Japan.

As far as electrical and "green power", shutting down coal fired generators
and turning them into bio-gas or natural gas, that a lot more expensive
than atomic or hydro electric.

Most of the developing world still uses coal fired generators and smoke stack
industry, and pollution is a price they pay for their emerging economies, like
China. So we are forced to pay higher rates for electricity, yet the Chinese
factories enjoy cheap (although polluting) subsidized electricity produced 
mainly from coal.

Global warming and reducing our carbon footprint? Well about the only good
thing about shutting down the coal fired generators is improving the air quality
around the populated areas living nearby.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Agreed, the so-called "green energy" has not delivered on its promise for decades now.
It's not like it's a new, nascent industry that needs mothering and fathering from the govt. in the form of grants, subsidies, etc.
It's been around for at least 2 decades.
They've had ample time to get efficient and profitable.
Fact is that they have become entitled to the economic out-patient care by federal and provincial governments.
Which is exactly why the Ontario provincial govt. is stupid to rip citizens off to keep paying these money losing industries.

Just because it takes 10 years to get a nuclear plant up and running is no excuse for not trying.
They should have started 10 years ago.

The subsidies that is unhesitantly given away to the alternative energy industry is much better spent trying to reduce the need for energy in the first place, rather than try to increase production in unprofitable and unviable ways.
Those same grants and subsidies can be given to industries and organizations to encourage less use of electricity, such as encouraging telecommuting workforce, smaller offices, smaller footprints, etc.
Give a tax break to organizations that adopt telecommuting technologies such as offsite data centres, video conferencing, etc.
It reduces stress levels, traffic, air travel and overall better quality of life for everyone involved.

Isn't there a middle road for sources of power generation?
Why does it have to be either coal on one extreme or solar/wind on the other?
Isn't natural gas a middle path?
I know the OPG has approved a few new NatGas power plants, but then why this big rush for alternative sources that's raising our prices so much.


----------



## the-royal-mail

HaroldCrump said:


> ...encouraging telecommuting workforce, smaller offices, smaller footprints, etc.
> Give a tax break to organizations that adopt telecommuting technologies such as offsite data centres, video conferencing, etc.
> It reduces stress levels, traffic, air travel and overall better quality of life for everyone involved.


I completely agree. For a while it looked like this was going to happen, but then the pendulum swung to the extreme opposite and companies started locating themselves in congested, filthy downtown areas and killed the quality of life for millions. They don't like people to work from home because they can't stick us in fishbowls (ie. cubicles) and watch us all day. It takes away their rank when the higher ups all get nice offices while the rest of the worker bees are stuck in open fishbowls with outward-facing computers. They like this, they can watch us.

For the record, I 100% agree with you.


----------



## andrewf

I agree that subsidizing 'green' projects isn't very effective. It's like pushing on a string. You'd need to spend vast amounts to move the needle. 

If we want to promote sources of energy that are 'green' (low carbon, presumably), then tax carbon and let the market figure it out. Use the revenues from the carbon tax to cut personal income taxes and provide income supports for those on low incomes.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> I agree that subsidizing 'green' projects isn't very effective. It's like pushing on a string. You'd need to spend vast amounts to move the needle.
> 
> If we want to promote sources of energy that are 'green' (low carbon, presumably), then tax carbon and let the market figure it out. Use the revenues from the carbon tax to cut personal income taxes and provide income supports for those on low incomes.


In theory I agree...it's like a consumption tax to discourage consumption of certain items.
In practice, however, I seriously doubt whether it works.
On the contrary, I think these kinds of taxes simply end up penalizing the general consumers and do nothing to change large corporate/industrial behavior.
Look at the taxes of cigarettes - hasn't stopped people from smoking.
In fact, smoking rates are at all time highs.
Price of booze - isn't stopping people from drinking.

At the market level, what ends up happening is that corporations simply pass on these taxes to the consumers instead of changing behavior.
Look at the electronics disposal fee, or the now-defunct eco fee.
All of those were simply passed on to the consumer.
The HST got applied on top of that, creating a double whammy for the consumer.
It may decrease the consumption of some luxury goods marginally, such as luxury cars, but there are so many other core, essential items that will go up substantially in price.
Companies that have monopolies like the telecoms and the banks will simply pass on the costs to the users.

Then the whole proposed carbon trading will create another parallel racket within the large corporations.

I like direct, measurable benefits.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Agreed - I am opposed to any new tax, period. To suggest that sin taxes discourage the sin, is rather naive. There are red light and speed cameras in intersections and they mail you a ticket if you break either condition. They have reduced the light cycle for yellow lights. They have done NOTHING to prevent drivers from speeding, they merely tax you when you break one of the rules. It discourages nothing, people still commit the sins and the gov't is rolling in dough. It's a tax, by any other name.

Like I said in the other thread, there is too much wealth at the top and I do not support any further taxes. We pay too much as it is. More fees for using libraries and community centers, higher public transit fares, more red light cameras being erected every day, GST, PST, HST, environmental fees being added to drink containers, on and on. All of this is too much. It needs to be reduced, not increased.


----------



## HaroldCrump

the-royal-mail said:


> Like I said in the other thread, there is too much wealth at the top and I do not support any further taxes. We pay too much as it is. More fees for using libraries and community centers, higher public transit fares, more red light cameras being erected every day, GST, PST, HST, environmental fees being added to drink containers, on and on. All of this is too much. It needs to be reduced, not increased.


In some ways, these non stop increases in taxes are a manifestation of bloating budget deficits. A carbon tax would simply be a continuation of that theme.
Running large budget deficits create inflationary pressures in the economy.

And when there is political pressure to keep interest rates low, there is no other lever available to the govt. (other than increased taxes) to maintain any sanity in their balance sheets.

We discussed France and other European countries in another thread.
That's the situation they are in - budget deficits running amuck, public won't let them raise any taxes, won't give up any comforts they are used to, and they can't raise interest rates because that will terminate whatever economic activity is stirring there.

I think what we are seeing with all this tax pressure is a manifestation of Keynesian macro-economics.
Inflation that results from large budget deficits can be rectified in three main ways - increase taxes, cut spending, or increase interest rates.

In Europe, the population is not letting the govt. do the first two, and they can't do the 3rd without shutting down their economy.

Here, the govt. is not doing the last 2, so the only option left is the first, which is what we are seeing.
And because the govt. can't openly admit it, they are coming up with sneaky, surreptitious ways of doing so by using euphemisms like eco fee, carbon tax, and by making other excuses like HST rebate, hydro costs, etc.

To close out the equation, the US is perhaps in the tightest spot because they aren't able to do any of the three, at least not under current administration.
If the "tea partists" or the Libertarians come to power in 2012, we may see the 2nd approach adopted with a vengeance (because they won't/can't do the 1st and the 3rd).
If none of the 3 approaches are adopted, there is only one result : inflation and devaluation of currency, which is exactly what we are seeing.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> On the contrary, I think these kinds of taxes simply end up penalizing the general consumers and do nothing to change large corporate/industrial behavior.


That's nuts. Corporations are obsessed with cost control. And a carbon tax is something they can certainly do something about in terms of investing in more efficient transportation, HVAC, industrial processes, etc.



> Look at the taxes of cigarettes - hasn't stopped people from smoking.
> In fact, smoking rates are at all time highs.


That's patently false in Canada. Besides, cigarette taxes aren't avoidable at the producer level, by design. Cigarette taxes are intended to influence consumer behaviour, not that of producers. A carbon tax is avoidable and intended to influence producer behaviour. 

Cigarette taxes do have a demonstrated effect on smoking rates as well. 



> At the market level, what ends up happening is that corporations simply pass on these taxes to the consumers instead of changing behavior.


What happens when one corporation does change their behaviour, lowers cost and out-competes? The others have to respond or lose market share and profitability. 



> Look at the electronics disposal fee, or the now-defunct eco fee.
> All of those were simply passed on to the consumer.
> The HST got applied on top of that, creating a double whammy for the consumer.


None of these were designed to modify behaviour. They were revenue collection mechanisms to fund programs. I generally don't agree with ear-marked taxes dedicated to fund particular programs. It might have worked if the tax varied depending on behaviour (ie, less toxic or more easily recycled electronics faced a lower tax).



> It may decrease the consumption of some luxury goods marginally, such as luxury cars, but there are so many other core, essential items that will go up substantially in price.


Don't forget the tax cut that goes along with it. It's not like they take the revenues from the tax and burn it. And let's keep things in perspective. A $40 a tonne carbon tax is equivalent to the current federal excise tax on gasoline of ~15 cents/L. That isn't going to result in massive price increases for most goods.



> Companies that have monopolies like the telecoms and the banks will simply pass on the costs to the users.


That's a problem with the monopoly, not the tax.



> Then the whole proposed carbon trading will create another parallel racket within the large corporations.


There's no trading of emissions with a carbon tax. No racket.


----------



## andrewf

I think you guys are conflating things here. We're talking about two separate issues:

-how much revenue should the government collect?

-how should the government collect its revenue?

A carbon tax deals with the second issue. If you want the amount of revenue the government collects to stay the same, you have to cut other taxes. That's what I would support, myself--especially personal income taxes. I'd be happy enough with a big personal income tax cut--would you?


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> That's what I would support, myself--especially personal income taxes. I'd be happy enough with a big personal income tax cut--would you?


Who wouldn't? Absolutely, I would.
And yes, you are right - they are separate issues.
The reason "how much" and "how" get joint at the hip is because the govt. keeps dreaming up newer and newer ways and means of collecting taxes.
And the reason they have to do that is because the "how much" just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
They can't increase any of the direct taxes substantially without incurring a public backlash, so they keep dreaming up these tricks.

Think of an incurable alcoholic - he needs alcohol constantly.
Now there are two issue - how much he needs to drink (2L/day), and what he needs to drink (wine, beer, whiskey, etc.).
Also assume that the liquor store will only sell him a max. quantity of a given drink a day, say 1 bottle of wine, 1 bottle of whiskey, etc.
Now, if "how much" he needs to drink keeps increasing, he has to keep coming up with more and more sources for it.
After all the regular sources have been used up, he starts looking for country brewed liquor, then moonshine.
Finally, he resorts to brewing his own stuff in his backyard using apple juice, honey or whatever sugar source he can lay his hands on.

That's what's going on here.
Govt. spending is like an alcoholic.


----------



## andrewf

Point taken. Problem is we didn't start with the most benign taxes. Value-added taxes (like GST/HST) are less harmful than payroll/personal income taxes, which in turn are less harmful than corporate income taxes and capital taxes. Harmful, economically-speaking.

We are starting from drinking bathtub moonshine. There's a nice bottle of single-malt scotch we could be drinking instead. I'm saying we could switch and stop with the moonshine, you're saying we'd just drink both. 

Frankly, the long-term trend of government revenues and spending as a % of GDP has been on the decline since the 1960's. I'm fine with the size of government where it is. I wish we had smarter government--smarter taxes and smarter spending. That's why I support things like HST, user-pay electricity, corporate tax cuts, etc.


----------



## HaroldCrump

I don't fundamentally disagree with those tenets, either.
I like the HST - a single, simplified tax.
I like useage based billing as well.
And amen to corporate (and personal) tax cuts.

What I have an issue with is the *size* of those above items, and particularly with the rate at which all 'them are creeping up.
For example, I'd be ok with a 2% HST cut i.e. at 11% and not at 13% (to compensate me for the more number of items being taxed at higher rates now).
I'd be ok with off peak electricity at $0.048, where it was a year ago.
I'd be ok with peak electricity at say $0.060 for example (which is still higher than what the flat rate used to be).

Further on usage based fees, why just electricity - why can't all users of other goods and services pay the rightful fee, such as public transit.
Why should the rest of the tax payers continue to subsidize public transit year after year?
I can understand lower-income folks being given subsidized transit passes, but why everybody?

So essentially my stated issue is that not only are the number of _types_ of taxes increasing, but their _magnitudes_ are increasing as well.
If I was paying $2,000 as total sales taxes in 2009, now I'm paying $3,000.
_And_ paying eco fee, _and_ paying recycling fee, _and_ paying health premium, and so on and on.

If we cut down on the magnitude of spending, we can reduce the number and rates of taxes across the board.
It's like if our drunken friend were to reduce his overall consumption, he could only drink single malt and not the other garbage.
Or, if he still likes the crooked stuff - a little of that too.

But reducing his overall consumption will make a bigger difference to his health compared to switching from poor quality booze to higher quality booze.


----------



## el oro

HaroldCrump said:


> And amen to corporate (and personal) tax cuts.


Agreed! Keep the money in the hands of entities that are allowed to go bankrupt when they fail and out of the hands of government. The unemployment rate would shrink bigtime. Of course this would require the government to allow companies to go out of business.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Agreed, the so-called "green energy" has not delivered on its promise for decades now.
> .
> Which is exactly why the Ontario provincial govt. is stupid to rip citizens off to keep paying these money losing industries.
> 
> Just because it takes 10 years to get a nuclear plant up and running is no excuse for not trying.
> They should have started 10 years ago.


Agreed. Nuclear is the cheapest way for electric, although the startup
costs to build a reactor is much higher than setting up a windfarm
on Lake Ontario. France is one country that generates 90% of it's
electric power from nuclear. We had a good mix in Ontario a couple of
decades ago and the authorities that should have been planning for 
future increased capacity to satisfy future demand just ignored
any planning and enjoyed big fat salaries at Ontario Hydro. 
One CEO of OPG even sued the Ontario gov't for a big fat pension after she was
dismissed..and won!

The Lennox generating station (runs on bunker oil) was probably one
of the major boondoggles of previous Ontario Hydro (mis)management.
Not sure when it was planned..maybe back in the 60s? It was mothballed
for years and never achieved full capacity production AFAIK,
but now it only runs sporadically to supplement peak demand,
the rest of the time, it sits idle, because bunker oil is not cheap 
anymore. 
Decades of mismanagement..and now we are all part of this "green power" bandwagon.




> The subsidies that is unhesitantly given away to the alternative energy industry is *much better spent trying to reduce the need for energy in the first place, rather than try to increase production in unprofitable and unviable ways*.
> Those same grants and subsidies can be given to industries and organizations to encourage less use of electricity, such as encouraging telecommuting workforce, smaller offices, smaller footprints, etc.
> Give a tax break to organizations that adopt telecommuting technologies such as offsite data centres, video conferencing, etc.
> It reduces stress levels, traffic, air travel and overall better quality of life for everyone involved.


Yes, the energy crunch (or soon to be energy crunch) needs some serious thinking for the future.
Depending on the cost of oil and if it continues to esculate due to political
instability and other factors, the price at the pumps will force consumers
to start changing their driving habits...and working habits.

At 1.20 a litre, ($4.80 per gallon), it will start to impact most working
peoples pocket book, at $1.50 to $2.00 a litre, it will force pretty much anyone with serious commuting to rethink 
their life style...and that's only ONE portion of energy consumption that consumers will be paying through
the nose. Once TOU kicks in...people will be trading in fridges and freezes
and looking for energy efficient appliances/heating appliances as well to reduce those big bi-monthly bills. 
Cost of goods, services and commodities drives change. 



> Isn't there a middle road for sources of power generation?
> Why does it have to be either coal on one extreme or solar/wind on the other?
> Isn't natural gas a middle path?


Some US states use natural gas, but it is not as cheap as coal and vulnerable
to supply and demand. Nobody burns coal in their homes, so coal is the cheapest form of energy to generate electricity,
but the emissions/carbon footprint is very unpopular these days with "green movement".

Unfortunately, green power will never be enough to take up the demand
for power from existing generating capacity. Maybe they will try to add a "green tax" to the existing taxes upon taxes? 



> I know the OPG has approved a few new NatGas power plants, but then why this big rush for alternative sources that's raising our prices so much.


Cuz it seems to be the right thing to do politically these days..solar power
and wind power..it's free ..right??


----------



## atrp2biz

Natural gas is the present and future. It's quick and easy (relatively) to build, relatively clean, and input costs will remain low for quite a while. Unconventional sources of gas have changed the landscape of the industry. Nuclear is an option, but there are problems when nuclear makes up too much of a supply mix as nuclear requires load support to sustain operations during off-peak hours.

This leads me to this. Why is Earth Day (hour) on a weekend? It should be on a Wednesday at 1pm in the middle of August!


----------



## andrewf

Well, then you need to focus on the spending side, and not so much the revenue side. So, let's have that carbon tax shift and worry about spending control as well. I'd start by canning the FIT program in Ontario, which does not and will never make sense.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Well, then you need to focus on the spending side, and not so much the revenue side. So, let's have that carbon tax shift and worry about spending control as well. I'd start by canning the FIT program in Ontario, which does not and will never make sense.


I agree, the FIT program is delusional.
It is just another dream of a misdirected govt. that thinks they can solve the energy crisis by installing solar panels on everyone's home.

Regarding the spending vs. revenue sides, I believe even though they are different, they are related.
There's not much point targeting one without the other.
Reducing spending will have a positive impact on all types of taxes.
It may be possible to completely eliminate the silliest ones first and work upwards.

I'm totally not in favour of introducing yet another tax (carbon, or whatever) unless there is clear, direct and measurable evidence that the provincial govt. is taking steps to reduce spending.
If not, then it is just another tax that will stress individual household budgets and the revenues will disappear into the black hole of spending frenzy by the govt.

Of course, there is a point beyond which taxes cannot be cut without significantly reducing services and/or the quality of services.
At that point, or rather before that stage, the revenue side has to be revaluated to weed out the nonsensical and asinine taxes, and taxes on top of taxes.
The taxes have to make sense i.e. the purpose and rate has to make sense.
Simplified taxes make more sense such as the HST - assuming that the single simplified tax is lower and not implemented simply to jack up the rates as the case right now.

Which taxes to cut is a _good_ problem to have.
But unless we can find ways to cut the spending first, which taxes and what rates are moot points.

The drunk has to reduce drinking first, before he can even choose whether to drink scotch or moonshine.
That's where our provincial govt. behaves like a drunkard waste.


----------



## andrewf

"But unless we can find ways to cut the spending first, which taxes and what rates are moot points."

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Whatever you think of current spending levels, it's always the right time to make your tax system more sensible. It's what the Ontario government is presently implementing. They implemented the HST (a slight increase in overall sales taxes), and cut corporate income taxes, personal income taxes and the capital tax. How can you say we shouldn't have done this until everybody is perfectly satisfied with the level of spending?


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> "But unless we can find ways to cut the spending first, which taxes and what rates are moot points."
> 
> I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Whatever you think of current spending levels, it's always the right time to make your tax system more sensible. It's what the Ontario government is presently implementing.
> How can you say we shouldn't have done this until everybody is perfectly satisfied with the level of spending?


You took that statement out of context, or perhaps I should have phrased it better.

I intended to say that spending optimization and cuts should be higher priority that creative ways of income re-distribution (which is essentially what the HST, health premium, and some of the other programs are).
I'm not willing to agree for any other tax or any other rate increase until the govt. demonstrates clear evidence that they have the motivation, desire and willingness to reduce the spending.

Right now there is complete lack of accountability for the provincial govt.

They are able to introduce new taxes, tweak existing taxes, etc. to surreptitiously (1) increase revenue, (2) achieve income distribution for specific target groups and (3) serve political interests.

A rational and sensible structuring of the revenue sources can only be done in conjunction with a rational and sensible cut in spending.
If not, we are on an ever increasing taxation spiral.

Several notable groups have been advocating this for years, at least in Ontario.
The C.D. Howe institute has done a lot of work in this regard, and so has the tax payers association.
Unfortunately, they don't make political contributions or have separate voting rights and can't shut down schools, garbage pick-up, or transit systems by striking


----------



## andrewf

Agree to disagree... it's just never the wrong time to fix dumb tax policy. I'm happy the provincial and federal governments are of the same opinion and didn't decide to keep our 50% marginal rate on new business investment.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Here's my latest hydro bill:
it's down slightly from a couple of months ago, but still way higher than what it used to be.










I'm still in the 2% percentile users in my city.
This tier includes only 12 users.
There is only one household in the tier below.
They are the only ones with a bill less than $50.
It's quite likely they are on vacation or that house is unoccupied.

Before these rip-off rates and TOU pricing madness, my bill used to be consistently well below $50.
I recall paying around $35 most months just a couple of years ago.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Well there you go. Harold has demonstrated nicely that his bill is indeed a tax masquerading as a hydro bill. Remember that OPG remains under gov't control.

Anyway andrewf, I think you give the gov't way too much credit. They're not interested in an intelligent tax system of give and take. They just want more money and when they're trying to balance their books, or when they want a raise, they'll just invent a new tax, but wrap it up in some sort of rhetoric. 

My advice is not to fall for this rhetoric but to simply see each new tax for what it is: a new tax. Whether it's GST, PST, HST, health care tax, convenience fee, container levy or a "hydro bill."


----------



## K-133

the-royal-mail said:


> Well there you go. Harold has demonstrated nicely that his bill is indeed a tax masquerading as a hydro bill. Remember that OPG remains under gov't control.
> 
> Anyway andrewf, I think you give the gov't way too much credit. They're not interested in an intelligent tax system of give and take. They just want more money and when they're trying to balance their books, or when they want a raise, they'll just invent a new tax, but wrap it up in some sort of rhetoric.
> 
> My advice is not to fall for this rhetoric but to simply see each new tax for what it is: a new tax. Whether it's GST, PST, HST, health care tax, convenience fee, container levy or a "hydro bill."


I won't be fooled by the rhetoric which you preach either.

As far as I'm concerned its the lesser of two evils. A constraint which can be managed. I'm sure each person alone has fantastic ideals, but as a group, we have to agree on a common system to achieve our objectives and maintain a certain quality of life for the whole. It isn't about me and you, its about us. Because we is greater than the sum of you and I.

My hydro bill increased by whopping $8 per month so far. That's a couple of boxes of soda a family can do without. 

See what I did there? I managed it.

This fight is pound poor in my opinion.


----------



## HaroldCrump

K-133 said:


> My hydro bill increased by whopping $8 per month so far. That's a couple of boxes of soda a family can do without.
> 
> See what I did there? I managed it.


In other words, you "sucked it up".
Good for you - if that works for you financially and emotionally, great.

I'm personally tired of "managing" it (IOW, "sucking it up") for so much for so long.
We "managed" health premium.
We "managed" HST.
We "managed" eco fee.

Where/when does it end?

Every time the govt. want to go on a spending binge, or surreptitiously increase its budget, they invent some new tax/levy and ask us to "manage" it.

All the while the corrupt administration squanders away on expense accounts (recent scandal), fat pensions, generous "golden handshakes", etc.

All the while unionized workers hold the city and its people to ransom by striking and shutting down all activity and commerce and bring disgrace to the city, and manage to win for themselves ever increasing pay raises, pensions, sick leave and vacation benefits, etc.

All we are asked to do is "manage".


----------



## andrewf

Harold/TRM, the net effect of the tax changes announced in the 2009 budget (which brought in the HST, and the personal, corporate and capital tax _*cuts*_) was to reduce the provincial government's revenue. That means those changes are unequivocally not a tax grab. It was a tax *shift* to more economically benign taxes, as they stated in the budget.

As for the TOU prices, I have not seen any evidence that the total amount collected has exceeded the cost of providing the electricity (including depreciation, etc.). I'll agree with you that it's a tax when anyone demonstrates that the fees collected surpass the costs of provision and there is a net cash flow to the provincial treasury. I have not seen any evidence of this. Indeed, we'll be spending $40 billion on the electricity generation infrastructure in the coming decades. That money has to come from somewhere, and I'd rather it be built into the cost of electricity than paid out of my personal income taxes or my employer's corporate tax. Maybe the higher electricity prices will decrease consumption growth and reduce the need for new infrastructure.

Properly pricing these services helps to ensure their efficient use. Anything artificially cheap and plentiful is wasted.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> As for the TOU prices, I have not seen any evidence that the total amount collected has exceeded the cost of providing the electricity (including depreciation, etc.). I'll agree with you that it's a tax when anyone demonstrates that the fees collected surpass the costs of provision and there is a net cash flow to the provincial treasury.


That's true. And that's because of the provincial govt's own misdirection.
I'd be ok if the govt. were making money.
Then they could cut some taxes.
But the trouble is the govt. is losing money (our money) hand over fist.

The reason _total amount collected hasn't exceeded the cost of providing the electricity (including depreciation, etc.)_ is because the modes of production are economically unviable.
It is just another failed experiment.
But instead of giving up and changing course like a rational investor, they just keep digging themselves into a bigger hole.

If they really wanna do that, that's fine - then cut something else.
Don't impose new taxes and levies.
If they need to renew the infrastructure or invest in (economically unviable) green energy, cut something else.

Trouble is, at some point, they'll realize that the spending is unsustainable and then they _will_ cut something, and usually some essential services that have a bigger impact on people such as health care or infrastructure.



> Properly pricing these services helps to ensure their efficient use. Anything artificially cheap and plentiful is wasted.


Like, um, public transit (TTC).


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> I agree that subsidizing 'green' projects isn't very effective. It's like pushing on a string. You'd need to spend vast amounts to move the needle.
> 
> If we want to promote sources of energy that are 'green' (low carbon, presumably), then tax carbon and let the market figure it out. Use the revenues from the carbon tax to cut personal income taxes and provide income supports for those on low incomes.


A carbon tax heaped upon oil/nat gas energy isn't going to make things
any easier to come up with viable solutions for the upcoming electrical/
oil fuels energy crunch. It's just another repressive tax heaped upon
a working stiff struggling to make ends meet and not doing a very good
job at it. BC installed a carbon tax and other than subsidizing the provincial
coffers, it doesn't seem to be doing much, even reducing consumption.

Here's something to put in one's pipe ..the electric car. Is it a solution for
Ontario in the future in high density urban areas? If millions start plugging
their electric cars into the grid to recharge on those hot summer days when
A/C is running at capacity..are we going to experience brownouts and maybe
even blackouts due to transformer stations blowing up?


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> I agree, the FIT program is delusional.
> It is just another dream of a misdirected govt. that thinks they can solve the energy crisis by installing solar panels on everyone's home.


Here's the thing on the Green Power solution for the homeowner (micro power
plant with some capacity to put it back onto the grid). 

I looked into that just to see how economical it would be to the average
homeowner..never mind having to modify ones roof and the higher maintenance
cost of replacing the deep cycle lead acid marine batteries (which have to
be in a special ventilated room because of hydrogen gas).

What's the average home consume in a day? 10kwh or more?
A 10kw solar panel array would cost over $80,000 + HST.

Yes the gov't want to get their tax revenue up front! Now even though
they may want you to sign a contract to connect this energy to the grid
at (what was it 80c per kwh?), your own consumption will use up a lot of
that, and any surplus can then be exhanged with grid. You will need
more than a smart meter to ensure that whatever you "export" from your
own solar generator is being accurately recorded. After all, the utilities
charge extra for any losses they encounter and that is tacked onto your
hydro bill.

Ok, so now you have $80K + $10,400 (hst) + $5k to 10K installation
costs to finance..(unless you've recently come across some money, more than likely you will need to finance that at..8%. 

So even if you manage to generate an average 2-3kw per day above your 
own consumption, the revenue you get (taxed again at 20%) isn't about to
be near enough for the monthly loan payment on that 10kw solar power plant. 

On top of that replacing the battery string every 5 years or so will be expensive, 
not to mention any inverter failures or calling in service personal to fix it. 

And here's another thing to consider..you want to sell your house, but the new
owner isn't keen on taking over the green power solar generator and
demands that you remove it off the roof before the sale goes through..
so now what are you going to do with it? 

Not really a good green power money making scheme for the average homeowner. 

How about a tower and a wind mill generator in your back yard? 



> I'm totally not in favour of introducing yet another tax (carbon, or whatever) unless there is clear, direct and measurable evidence that the provincial govt. is taking steps to reduce spending.
> If not, then it is just another tax that will stress individual household budgets and the revenues will disappear into the black hole of spending frenzy by the govt.


It will become yet another tax grab without any accountability.
How many of us still remember the NDP gov't tire tax? They were collecting
$5 per tire ..for recycling purposes..yet pretty much all the tires ended up
at a tire dump in Hagersville in southern Ontario, where someone set fire
to them..as a final solution to the recycling issue. The huge mountain of
tires burned for weeks, polluting the atmosphere and the ground with the
oil that the tires were made from. Now the current gov't has re-introduced
a $5 tire tax + HST on the tax. 

Perhaps another tire fire coming up?..while the current gov't lines their coffers with yet another tax?


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> Like, um, public transit (TTC).


There's room for efficiency in the TTC. I don't think you want to fight this battle. Insist on cost recovery for the TTC, and maybe people will also insist on cost recovery on roads. Last I checked, people here were generally opposed to tolls.

TTC provides some positive externalities in terms of reductions in congestion. If everyone who rides the TTC were to drive instead, Toronto would be totally gridlocked. It also has a strong positive impact on property values. So, as part of that cost recovery, we could see special taxes on properties along subway lines that get substantial increases in value due to the infrastructure investment. It's actually a good way to help pay for the infrastructure.

TTC recovers ~75% of its operating cost. The 401 recovers $0.00.


----------



## andrewf

carverman said:


> A carbon tax heaped upon oil/nat gas energy isn't going to make things
> any easier to come up with viable solutions for the upcoming electrical/
> oil fuels energy crunch. It's just another repressive tax heaped upon
> a working stiff struggling to make ends meet and not doing a very good
> job at it. BC installed a carbon tax and other than subsidizing the provincial
> coffers, it doesn't seem to be doing much, even reducing consumption.


You're forgetting the other side of the coin. All of the revenues of the BC carbon tax were used to reduce personal and corporate income tax. There was no net increase in tax burden.




> Here's something to put in one's pipe ..the electric car. Is it a solution for
> Ontario in the future in high density urban areas? If millions start plugging
> their electric cars into the grid to recharge on those hot summer days when
> A/C is running at capacity..are we going to experience brownouts and maybe
> even blackouts due to transformer stations blowing up?


That's why we're putting in a smart grid. TOU pricing helps to ensure that people don't all try to charge their cars when electricity is scarcest. Just like you try to buy your gas when it's cheaper. This argument is pure bunk.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> You're forgetting the other side of the coin. All of the revenues of the BC carbon tax were used to reduce personal and corporate income tax. *There was no net increase in tax burden*.


That's what the public is led to believe. Certainly adding on the HST was the
last straw, and the premier had to resign. I'm not saying that the HST was
the only reason, I'm sure there were other underlying issues that were not
disclosed that led Campbell to make his decision. 





> That's why we're putting in a smart grid. TOU pricing helps to ensure that people don't all try to charge their cars when electricity is scarcest. Just like you try to buy your gas when it's cheaper. *This argument is pure bunk*.


Well "you da man" as they say, Andrew. How can one argue with a PHD
in ???. People are not going to change their energy usage that quickly to
save..they will do most things the same way as they have done for years..
ok, maybe that dishwasher that's on a programmable timer or any other
appliance on a timer (washer/dryer) may see more uage in the 10pm to
7am lowest rate tier, but the rest of the household appliances are going to
be used the same as they are now..because normal day people do things in
the day..including shopping.

Now if the local utilities issue programmable 220v relays that will allow the
charge time to be set for the lowest tier..maybe. Already, my local utility
has given me a free programmable thermostat for my furnace A/C so they
can manage the peak consumption during the daytime on the hottest days.

It is controlled by the utility (Wi-FI ) to change the A/C temperature (set
it higher) and on 15 minute duty cycles..15 min on/15 min off during peak
hydro usage. If this is the "smart grid" you are referring to, maybe it can
be applied to other high energy usage appliances..all the better for reducing consumption
and the bi-monthly hydro bill.


----------



## andrewf

I think you answered your own question, carver. People set the parameters under which their their appliances use electricity, including your car. 


And for the final word on Mr. Campbell. Compare taxes from when he was elected and when he left office. Case closed.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> There's room for efficiency in the TTC. I don't think you want to fight this battle. Insist on cost recovery for the TTC, and maybe people will also insist on cost recovery on roads. Last I checked, people here were generally opposed to tolls.
> 
> TTC provides some positive externalities in terms of reductions in congestion. If everyone who rides the TTC were to drive instead, Toronto would be totally gridlocked. It also has a strong positive impact on property values. So, as part of that cost recovery, we could see special taxes on properties along subway lines that get substantial increases in value due to the infrastructure investment. It's actually a good way to help pay for the infrastructure.
> 
> TTC recovers ~75% of its operating cost. The 401 recovers $0.00.


Not that it matters, but I'm in favor of toll roads (similar to the US) _provided_ it leads to better quality of roads and lower taxes overall.
The fact that the 401 recovers $0.00 is evident from its state of potholes, etc.
I'd favor strategically placed road tolls that can measurably lead to better condition of the roads and lower other taxes.
In practice, however, I'm more likely to vote against it because I know that revenue from such tolls would simply disappear into the black hole of govt. spending.
It'll just become a line item or their revenue sheet and will get allocated and usurped by some dept./division even before it starts coming in.
They will set up a new dept. a new committee, a new director (making several hundred grand a year) lease a whole new building in downtown Toronto hire 50,000 public servants to man the various sub departments and sub committees.

And residents of Ontario will simply (what was the term?) "manage" it, just like everything else.

Therefore, back to the idea that without controlling overall spending, the discussion around sources of revenue will always be contentious.


----------



## the-royal-mail

HaroldCrump said:


> ... revenue from such tolls would simply disappear into the black hole of govt. spending.


Agreed. Nice to see someone who lives in a world of reality.


----------



## the-royal-mail

I think andrewf lies awake at night dreaming up new taxes and ways of liberating us from our hard-earned money. lol


----------



## HaroldCrump

the-royal-mail said:


> I think andrewf lies awake at night dreaming up new taxes and ways of liberating us from our hard-earned money. lol


LOL! The Ontario Govt. has a job waiting for him.
He can be the Cromwell to McGuinty's Henry VIII


----------



## andrewf

I've said it previously. I don't want higher taxes. I want better taxes. I'm not a comment board crank that whines when prices rise and recalls wistfully how the paper used to cost a nickel.


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

It seems that this is likely because everyone has an opinion and most people don't have much need for facts when an appeal to emotion will do.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> Not that it matters, but I'm in favor of toll roads (similar to the US) _provided_ it leads to better quality of roads and lower taxes overall.
> The fact that the 401 recovers $0.00 is evident from its state of potholes, etc.
> I'd favor strategically placed road tolls that can measurably lead to better condition of the roads and lower other taxes.
> In practice, however, I'm more likely to vote against it because I know that revenue from such tolls would simply disappear into the black hole of govt. spending.
> It'll just become a line item or their revenue sheet and will get allocated and usurped by some dept./division even before it starts coming in.
> They will set up a new dept. a new committee, a new director (making several hundred grand a year) lease a whole new building in downtown Toronto hire 50,000 public servants to man the various sub departments and sub committees.
> 
> And residents of Ontario will simply (what was the term?) "manage" it, just like everything else.
> 
> Therefore, back to the idea that without controlling overall spending, the discussion around sources of revenue will always be contentious.


We already have an infrastructure in place. Outsource the collection to 407 ETR folks. That's how I would do it, at least.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean that you should. We pay too much tax as it is. GST, PST, HST, health care tax and numerous other fees and levies that have been piled on. The gov't has no desire for a "better" tax unless it means more revenue for them. Period.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The whole reason we are having this conversation is the fact that the number and % of taxes is progressively getting more and more.
To the point that ordinary, day-to-day goods and services (that you'd normally not consider a tax) is being used for purposes of tax collection.
Ergo, the discussion around hydro rates.

When govt. spending far outstrips the rate of GDP growth, then you know that the govt. is taking an ever increasing share of the GDP by way of taxes.
Which indicates that they are trying to get more and more involved in the economy, trying to do more, and (usually) failing miserably at each venture, rather than doing a small number of things and doing them well.

And that's when they have to conjure up more and more creative and surreptitious ways of increasing taxation, such as health premium, HST, eco fee, disposal fee, etc.


----------



## andrewf

> The whole reason we are having this conversation is the fact that the number and % of taxes is progressively getting more and more.


Do we have any evidence of this, or are we taking it as given?

Here's a chart of federal revenues and spending over the past 15 years. It doesn't fit your story:


----------



## the-royal-mail

What is the source for that chart?

Also, we are in a recession so it's not fair to count this period. Of COURSE the expenditures are high. Bailout, UIC money etc.

There is plenty of evidence that our taxes are too high. I just don't have all day to sit here googling. I see what leaves my pocket every time I buy something and every time I get paid, run a red light etc. Enough already. Though since you like taxes so much, Harold and I will allow you to pay the taxes we pay. Then we don't need to be in your gutter anymore.


----------



## andrewf

Stephen Gordon (from WCI blog and an econ professor) made the chart from Ministry of Finance reports.


Whether taxes are too high is not what we were talking about. I was disagreeing that taxes have risen significantly in the last ten or twenty years. I have not seen any evidence to support that assertion other than grumpy anecdotes on web forums. In fact, that chart supports the opposite position, at least for the federal government. If I find some time, I can try to dig up some similar info for the province.


----------



## HaroldCrump

I was thinking specifically about Ontario, not the federal taxes/spending.
I think in the last 5 years we have seen a net _increase_ in provincial taxes (health premium, HST, eco fee, etc. etc.) vis-a-vis a net _decrease_ in federal taxes (2% GST cut, UCCB, home improvement credit, increased child care credit, etc.)
So it is no surprise that the federal budget deficit has been increasing.

However if, inspite of the increased taxes, the provincial budget deficit is also increasing then it can only mean (a) spending is increasing, and increasing at an accelerating rate and/or ( b ) the revenue from new taxes is disappearing into a black hole (such as outright corruption/scandals, sloppy/creative accounting, etc).

I believe it is a little bit of everything.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> I've said it previously. I don't want higher taxes. I want better taxes. I'm not a comment board crank that whines when prices rise and recalls wistfully how the *paper used to cost a nickel*.
> 
> Whine with cheese..always seems to taste better..why is that?
> 
> Speaking of the good ole days..I remember Ontario before the PST,
> when those small bottles of Coke used to cost a nickel..and you could
> buy a stamp to send a letter for a nickel..and those delicious "melo-rolls"
> (ice cream cylinders wrapped in a removable paper )...and electricity was
> so cheap, that it was hardly worth putting a meter up....and the Avro Arrow..
> and politicians that actually did what they said they would..yada..yada..yada
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
> 
> 
> 
> What does the average voter know..they are only influenced by the spin doctors and the media polls...
> if the PCs are up 10% over the Libs..I might as well (uawn!!!) vote for them?...NOT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that this is likely because everyone has an opinion and *most people don't have much need for facts when an appeal to emotion will do*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be a politician then?
Click to expand...


----------



## carverman

the-royal-mail said:


> Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean that you should. We pay too much tax as it is. GST, PST, HST, health care tax and numerous other fees and levies that have been piled on. The gov't has no desire for a "better" tax unless it means more revenue for them. Period.


You forgot the "eco fee/tax"..it's back on. $5.20 for a tire + HST..why HST
on the eco fee..er tax? Oh I suppose you can consider it a "disposal service"
and all goods and services should be taxed. 

Where and when is the next "Mount Tire" fire?..maybe we can get our
Preimer a fiddle, so he can play us a tune while Ontario burns?


----------



## the-royal-mail

carverman said:


> ...maybe we can get our
> Preimer a fiddle, so he can play us a tune while Ontario burns?


Careful. You'll have to pay a fee for that.

Then HST on the fee.

andrewf will be wringing his hands in glee.


----------



## andrewf

Maybe this argument is just going in circles. I can provide more evidence, but I don't think I'd be changing any minds. I'm guessing the general sense here is that Ontarians are the most oppressively taxed people in the world. Evidence to the contrary is an evil communist plot.


----------



## andrewf

the-royal-mail said:


> Careful. You'll have to pay a fee for that.
> 
> Then HST on the fee.
> 
> andrewf will be wringing his hands in glee.


Yeah--this comment doesn't contribute anything other than a gibe, and not even an accurate one. Sounds like trolling to me.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Not sure if I posted this before, but just another incident in this whole situation that is getting more and more pathetic by the day :

http://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/article/490868--hydro-rates-rising-to-cover-overcharging-fines

_Hydro rates rising to cover overcharging fines 
Ontario Energy Board poised to rule on 6.2% hike 
Electricity ratepayers in Ontario, already reeling from soaring prices, should brace for yet another increase.

The Ontario Energy Board is expected to rule shortly on a request from Ontario Power Generation for a 6.2 per cent increase in electricity rates effective March 1.

The Ontario Energy Board says utilities can raise rates to cover $18 million dollars in fines and court costs they had to pay after the courts ruled they were charging too high an interest rate on late payments._

So essentially the courts ruled against OEB asking them to pay a fine for over-charging customers.
The OEB turns around and raises hydro rates to pay for the fines 

And : _but Premier Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday he wouldn’t be directing the OEB on the rate request.

“The OPG request is the kind of thing that will have to be considered by the Ontario Energy Board,” said McGuinty._

But of course....why would the province interfere with the independent operation of the OPG/OEB.
Especially since this will mean a few extra millions in the pockets of the provincial govt. by way of more HST added on the bills.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Not sure if I posted this before, but just another incident in this whole situation that is getting more and more pathetic by the day :
> 
> But of course....why would the province interfere with the independent operation of the OPG/OEB.
> Especially since this will mean a few extra millions in the pockets of the provincial govt. by way of more HST added on the bills.





> OPG is seeking 3.7 cents a kilowatt hour for power generated by its large hydro-electric stations, and 5.3 cents a kwh for its nuclear output. By comparison, Bruce Power was paid a reported 6.3 cents a kwh last year for output from the nuclear reactors it leases from OPG.
> 
> The province is paying some solar power generators up to 80 cents a kwh under its controversial Green Energy Act.
> 
> *Ontario homeowners and small businesses pay between five and 10 cents per kilowatt hour, depending on time and amount of use.* [endquote}
> 
> What we have folks is a can of worms that nobody, no matter who gets into
> power in the fall , can untangle. Never mind the "5.3" and "6.3" cents per kwh they are quoting...
> ....the real "loaded rate" per kwh is now closer to 15c, with surcharges
> and HST. My last bill (700kwh) was $104.00 so that's 14.8c a kwh.
> 
> My area is going TOU in May, so it will go up somewhat because i'm
> not going to stop cooking my food or stop running power tools or my fridge during the day.
> 
> So the little bit they raise to cover "their fines ".and other wasteful activities
> will only raise it up a bit from 15c. It's the TOU daytime rates that we have
> to concern ourselves about..Hydro Ottawa will be 10c + other loaded costs
> or about 19c per kwh by then.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Ah, so you are not even under TOU rates yet, and you're already complaining? 
Wait until the summer....
My _winter_ bills went up between 30% and 40% as a result of the higher rates, TOU pricing and the HST.
Increase in _summer_ bills are even higher.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> Ah, so you are not even under TOU rates yet, and you're already complaining?
> Wait until the summer....
> My _winter_ bills went up between 30% and 40% as a result of the higher rates, TOU pricing and the HST.
> Increase in _summer_ bills are even higher.


Yes, be afraid..be very afraid of TOU and any further surcharges in the future. 

The "global adjustment" formerly known as "Provincial benefit", was the first of the additional subsidies that the electricity consumer must pay...but wait!...there's more...at 80cents a kwh..more and more "wind farmers" will want to get on the 
"green energy bandwagon"..and do you think that the difference in price between 6.3to 10c a kwh will be enough for the
OEB?,,,not on your sweet bippy!...look for a "infrastructure" or "green energy" surcharge coming up in the next 5 years!

BTW..I am "Mr. Frugal" when it comes to saving energy and water.

I had Hydro Ottawa install a new electronic "roll back" thermostat for my A/C in the summer (Ottawa hydro can turn it off/on by Wi-Fi) I use A/C very sparingly anyway..preferring to use fans. 
I just bought an energy efficient fridge (energy star) that uses 33% less power , and I may even
put it on a timer ....or use my old thermostat (cooling) hooked up to a door bell
transformer and 24 volt relay to control the floor fan , so it can cool the
outside of the fridge ....(when the house heats up on the super hot days)...,while I'm away at the campground.

On the second thought, I may just empty out the fridge and freezer over the
next 3 months and turn the fridge down low....leaving on just a CFL on
a timer...but..then I would still get a minimum bill..right?...darn!

Now, I can escape the rising oil prices and get water injection to work on my V8 truck to reduce fuel consumption...


----------



## K-133

carverman said:


> BTW..I am "Mr. Frugal" when it comes to saving energy and water.





carverman said:


> my V8 truck


lol


----------



## HaroldCrump

Frugality in energy usage will not save you from being ripped off.
Look at my usage data posted for last few months up-thread.
My usage is in the bottom 2% of households in my city, and it is not a small city by any measure.
There is only one household that is in a lower tier of usage and I'm certain that either those folks were away on vacation last month or that house is unoccupied.
Inspite of that, my bills are 30% higher than the same period last year _for the same tier of consumption_.
There is no escape...the end is nigh.


----------



## K-133

HaroldCrump said:


> Frugality in energy usage will not save you from being ripped off.
> Look at my usage data posted for last few months up-thread.
> My usage is in the bottom 2% of households in my city, and it is not a small city by any measure.
> There is only one household that is in a lower tier of usage and I'm certain that either those folks were away on vacation last month or that house is unoccupied.
> Inspite of that, my bills are 30% higher than the same period last year _for the same tier of consumption_.
> There is no escape...the end is nigh.


My bills are 10% higher. I've paid an extra $5-6/month since all of the complaining started.


----------



## HaroldCrump

The reason my bills (and thousands of other households') have shot up so much is because of frugality in the first place.
My usage was already optimized for time-of-use.
And has been for many years - it is just common sense to use more during off-peak times and less during peak times.

By instituting TOU pricing, the optimizers have been punished.
The HST, debt retirement charge and the base rate increase has added triple and quadruple whammies.

A 10% increase in your case is probably tolerable but my question still is why even that.
10% is higher than our reported rate of inflation (which the govt. still claims is under 2%), it is higher than the GDP growth rate, higher than wage growth rate, higher than typical investments returns, etc.
As a result, energy usage is eating up a bigger share of household budgets as a result of these regulatory changes.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> *10% is higher than our reported rate of inflation (which the govt. still claims is under 2%)*, it is higher than the GDP growth rate, higher than wage growth rate, higher than typical investments returns, etc.
> As a result, energy usage is eating up a bigger share of household budgets as a result of these regulatory changes.


If you believe that our current "official" rate of inflation is 2%...you may be
interested in a gold mine for sale in the Florida swamp land.

Oil prices and gov't taxes are pushing up the real rate of inflation to closer
to 5% per year. If you don't believe that, think of what a house would have cost to buy 10 years ago...
or your hydro bill back then...or gas at the pumps (around 60c a litre)...
..now fast forward to what is going to happen in the next 5-10 years with the financial mess all levels of gov't have created 
on our behalf. 

Gasoline? $1.50 + a liter (by the fall?) , and it isn't going to go down that much even if the Libyan crisis is resolved eventually. 
The current price at the pump (per litre) has at least 30.1cents in taxes. 
As the world oil price per barrel of oil goes up, so does the price per liter and so do the taxes collected by various gov'ts. The HST is an inflationary tax.

But it seems it is never enough!


----------



## andrewf

So, the inflation rate that the Bank of Canada uses is called Core CPI. It excludes energy and food because these are very volatile in price. If the BoC tried to use these other prices in their inflation targeting, you'd see much more volatile interest rates, lower economic growth and higher interest rates over all. Is that desirable? 

You guys have to decide what you want.


----------



## the-royal-mail

We want the truth. Inflation is very, very high. You cannot exclude energy and food for the simple reason these are things that everyone needs and the price of these pushes everything up high. Gas is $1.15 this morning. Hydro going up dramatically. Housing prices and property taxes going up with each passing month/year. Crazy. There is no economic strength to support this type of inflation. Published inflation stats are meaningless.


----------



## HaroldCrump

^ correct, TRM. The govt. has many motivations for understating inflation numbers, none of which is good for the public.
Many social benefits like OAS, GIS, CPP, RRSP limits, etc. are indexed to inflation.
Also, reporting a higher rate of inflation will force them to increase interest rates and thus run the risk of a housing market correction, something they don't want at all.
The housing market is a cash cow for the govt. esp since the HST.
Higher home prices bring in increased revenues for the govt. all round.
It is totally nuts to exclude food and energy but include garbage consumer goods like new cars.


----------



## andrewf

But, do you people realise the implication of what you propose? You probably wouldn't like the result. We'd get wild swings in interest rates, and the Bank would frequently miss its inflation target by wide margins. It's simply not practical or desirable to try to keep broad inflation at 2% a year. When oil prices fall, like they did in 2009, would you have wanted the Bank to flood the Canadian economy with hundreds of billions, maybe a trillion plus in quantitative easing to try and get a 2% broad inflation number for that year? In 2008, when oil prices spiked, would you have wanted the Bank to crank interest rates up to 10, 15, 20% the ensure the Canadian economy cratered enough so that other price falls offset the rise in oil price to deliver 2%? That roller coaster ride would have left us far worse off than we are now targeting core inflation.

Starting to see why this might not be desirable?


In the long run, food and energy prices tend to track core CPI with a lot of noise along the way. If it didn't, the food/fuel basket would eat a larger and larger share of our incomes (but, for instance, we spend less on food now, as a % of income, than we did 50 years ago). 

It drives me crazy that you're accusing the government and the Bank of Canada of malice and conspiracy when you don't have all the facts or even understand why they chose the CPI basket they did for inflation targeting.


----------



## K-133

I have to be honest Harold, overall I perceive you to be a bit looney. You seem very pre-occupied with things which you claim have affected thousands, while ignoring the millions of other voices.

And though I don't really expect you to care about how I perceive you, you must recognize that if you wish to impact change, you will need to create a more constructive perception of your goals. If your only goal is to complain, then all power to you. I ask you to be forthcoming if this is true.

What concerns you about inflation? Would you prefer 0% inflation?
What solutions do you propose to better manage your concerns with inflation? 



> The housing market is a cash cow for the govt. esp since the HST.


Please explain.




> Higher home prices bring in increased revenues for the govt. all round.


Generally this hard to disagree with - but your representation of it is so vague that there is no point from which to begin. With respect to the HST, it applies only to new construction homes, and only to the amount over $400,000.




> It is totally nuts to exclude food and energy but include garbage consumer goods like new cars.


I agree with this.

There should more relatable inflation categories, one for necessary items such as food, certain energies, etc...

Another for discretionary items.

I also agree with Andrewf as I like to look at the big picture, and have faith in the law of averages.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf, have you taken a look at the M3 numbers anytime recently?
Check it out.
It's grown over 35% in the last 3 years, I believe.
And I'm sure you know what the implications of a massive M3 expansion are.

I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy theory - the numbers are all there for anyone to see.
Is the BoC aware of these numbers? Absolutely.
I'm not suggesting either that the BoC keep changing rates every Monday morning.
However, I believe that all indicators are pointing that a rate increase is long overdue.

K-133, you are of course entitled to your opinion.
This issue is close to me and impacts me.
You have already stated on a previous post that the subject of this thread (although we have deviated from it) does not impact you and in fact has impacted you positively by slightly lowering your bills.
So clearly this is not a matter of focus for you.


----------



## andrewf

M3 is not a measure of price inflation. Yes, it's grown--that's a function of credit easing. BoC shouldn't be setting interest rates based solely on M3 anyway. Inflation is firmly anchored at its target, and I'm skeptical we'll see large upside surprised as your theory would suggest. Time will tell.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> So, the inflation rate that the Bank of Canada uses is called Core CPI. It excludes energy and food because these are very volatile in price. If the BoC tried to use these other prices in their inflation targeting, you'd see much more volatile interest rates, lower economic growth and higher interest rates over all. Is that desirable?
> 
> You guys have to decide what you want.


Yes, Andrew, I understand that BoC/StatsCan don't include volatile commodities, such as energy
.... (and the price of beer...which is going up as well as food)and other staples..like insurance etc.
(Ahem...the "claimed "beer barley shortage is a good excuse, I suppose.) Crop failures due to
bad weather etc. 

But food/energy (gasoline/heating/electricity) form a major component of
the average household budget...which is eroding at a much faster rate because
of additional gov't taxes on energy. 

So yes, one can say, inflation is kept under control (but not wrestled to the
ground as Pierre Trudeau was going to do in his tenure as PM), but the
average family can't go by what the gov't is telling us officially. There
are many factors that push up the cost of goods and commodities..and
gov't taxes are just one of these.


----------



## carverman

the-royal-mail said:


> We want the truth. Inflation is very, very high. You cannot exclude energy and food for the simple reason these are things that everyone needs and the price of these pushes everything up high. Gas is $1.15 this morning. Hydro going up dramatically. Housing prices and property taxes going up with each passing month/year. Crazy. There is no economic strength to support this type of inflation. Published inflation stats are meaningless.


It was announced this morning that the OEB just approved OPG's rate
increase of 1%....now who thinks that will probably be transformed into
another 1 cent increase per kwh?


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> ^ correct, TRM. The govt. has many motivations for understating inflation numbers, none of which is good for the public.
> Many social benefits like OAS, GIS, CPP, RRSP limits, etc. are indexed to inflation.


Yes, they are indexed to the "official CPi" , but in essence the real inflation
is running much higher, so anybody on pension (like myself) is seeing
their pension income steadily eroding year after year with respect to
buying power. 



> Also, reporting a higher rate of inflation will force them to increase interest rates and thus run the risk of a housing market correction, something they don't want at all.


So instead, they are adjusting the downpayment requirements from 
(5% to 15%?) to make up for that. This way, they figure if someone
has 30K saved up for a downpayment on a $200k house (and there
isn't too many of those around..but I'm using it as an example), that
will allow the housing market to look after itself without adjusting interest
rates..if you have an existing mortage, you just renew the term and continue
paying..if your shopping for a house, you better have some savings put aside
or buy some lottery tickets..and hope you get lucky.



> The housing market is a cash cow for the govt. esp since the HST.


And we mustn't forget the nice chunk of equity they are extracting from
resale homes...13% HST on the real estate commission.

$300K home = 6% =$18,000 commission and $2340 Hst on the commission. 



> Higher home prices bring in increased revenues for the govt. all round.
> It is totally nuts to exclude food and energy but include garbage consumer goods like new cars.


The gov'ts like to play a numbers game to dupe consumers and taxpayers
into thinking that things are better than they really are. They are not and
getting worse every year..as far as disposable income to the average family.

Years ago, a family of 4 could live off the father's wages..now it takes two
(father and mother) to earn enough to pay for all the families needs.
So if the family has preschool kids, daycare costs decrease the net family
income even more. You will note that any tax benefits are "tax credits"
these days and not really a true representation of what it costs to raise
kids today.


----------



## andrewf

If you pay 6% commission, you're a sucker who's asking to be separated from his money.

The CPI used for benefits calculations does include food and energy, as well as direct taxes like HST.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> If you pay 6% commission, you're a sucker who's asking to be separated from his money.
> 
> The CPI used for benefits calculations does include food and energy, as well as direct taxes like HST.


Well, I was using the max real estate commission as an example.
Most real estate brokers will charge less than that...and if you are
not in a rush and willing to show the house yourself, there are the
FSBO (for sale by owner) outfits that will provide you with advertising
and some real estate assistance, but they won't show the house or
do any running around for you.

I agree that these days, anybody that pays 6% would be considered a fool
considering there are so many other options available....of course closing
costs are another matter..there you still need a lawyer (at least I think)
to close the deal and ensure you get your money. But even if you
DIY, you still can't escape the hst on the legal fees..and maybe other
services, associated with selling and closing and buying.

Thanks for the update on the CPi, I didn't think that they applied energy
increases to the CPi, but if they do as you mentioned, there is still some
number crunching done with all the things they use as input to arrive at
a weighted number that represents the CPi.


----------



## HaroldCrump

One of the unfortunate side effects of this unfolding tragedy in Japan is that worldwide there is a loss of confidence in nuclear based energy.
It will further egg on "green" energy zealots who will be screaming for decommissioning all nuclear plants.
Works great for our current administration.
The Darlington plants are supposed to be renewed soon and this raises doubt about the whole thing.
We might see an even bigger "investment" in "green" energy.
And guess where all those extra green dollars will be coming from...yep, our pockets.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Agreed, Harold.

It might shock people if they knew how important to Ontario nuclear power really is. If they had of been building more generating capacity over the past 30 years to meet their demands, they wouldn't be in the current situation.

The zealots you mention are given way too much rope by politicians.


----------



## crazyjackcsa

the-royal-mail said:


> Agreed, Harold.
> 
> It might shock people if they knew how important to Ontario nuclear power really is. If they had of been building more generating capacity over the past 30 years to meet their demands, they wouldn't be in the current situation.
> 
> The zealots you mention are given way too much rope by politicians.


53% of all power in Ontario is Nuclear actually. Spoke to Mr. Hudak this morning on his stop in Chatham. He says the Conservatives want to see more investment into Hydro electricity and Nuclear.


----------



## brad

HaroldCrump said:


> It will further egg on "green" energy zealots who will be screaming for decommissioning all nuclear plants.


I suppose you'd prefer that we switch to coal instead, which kills more people every year (combined totals from extraction and combustion) than all of the lives lost in the history of the nuclear power industry. 

Personally I think nuclear power could have a future if the issue of disposal could be resolved. The newest generation of power plants are supposed to be meltdown-proof, but there's still the problem of safe disposal of nuclear waste. Until/unless that's resolved, nuclear power will remain a risky proposition.

While (with a few notable exceptions of course) the dangers of nuclear power have been largely theoretical, the dangers of coal are clear and present -- apart from lives lost in coal extraction there are the many more lives lost and illnesses due to air pollution, including mercury emissions, particulates, etc. -- you don't even have to believe in global warming to see that coal is bad news for human health and the environment.

That leaves natural gas and oil as alternatives; natural gas is a good source for electric power, but is subject to fuel price shocks and supply shortages. Fuel oil is used in a number of power plants in New England and faces the same vulnerability to price shocks.

For "green energy" the cheapest options are hydro and wind. Wind is actually cost-competitive with natural gas at this point; Texas jumped past California a few years back as the jurisdiction with the largest amount of wind-produced electricity in North America. Yes there are NIMBY issues but that's true for any power plant. Biomass is also an option; the U.S. state of Maine produces about 40% of its electricity with biomass (mostly wood waste from their pulp and paper operations).


----------



## HaroldCrump

brad said:


> I suppose you'd prefer that we switch to coal instead, which kills more people every year (combined totals from extraction and combustion) than all of the lives lost in the history of the nuclear power industry.


Brad, you totally misunderstood my post.
What made you think that I'm in favor of decaying old technology like coal?

I'm all for nuclear and of course we need to spend the $$ required to make it safe, disaster proof and sustainable.
The new GenIV reactors that everyone is talking about are expensive.
Really, really expensive.

However, for Ontario, which is nowhere near the disaster threat level like Japan or even California, GenIII will probably suffice.

Green energy has a place, sure, but a small, marginal, experimental place, just enough to placate the environmental zealots and keep them out of public office.


----------



## LondonHomes

crazyjackcsa said:


> 53% of all power in Ontario is Nuclear actually. Spoke to Mr. Hudak this morning on his stop in Chatham. He says the Conservatives want to see more investment into Hydro electricity and Nuclear.


I'm curious to know where he is going to find another site in Ontario to place a new Hydro dam? And did they not just attack the current expansion of hydro electricity generation at Niagara Falls?


----------



## HaroldCrump

I'd personally not take that assertion by Hudak seriously.
It was probably just a political campaign statement more than a concrete action plan.
IMHO, he is as yet too "green" and clueless for this political landscape.
I am yet to see any serious, credible campaigning from him.
I hope that changes over the next few months because Oct. isn't that far away.


----------



## andrewf

I'm not convinced that Gen IV reactor designs are inherently more expensive. Expensive to develop and prove, yes. But once built at scale, especially if it can be done as a cookie-cutter/assembly-line scale with most work done in a factory and shipping to the site, the costs are likely to be lower.

For instance, China is building dozens of reactors, and they are likely to be the least expensive reactors built in a long, long time, and probably ever when adjusted for quality/inflation.

Nuclear is such a fantastic energy source that we'd be remiss to abandon it. Indeed, we'd be condemning hundreds of millions to grinding poverty and environmental destruction. A new generation of breeder reactors will be able to deal with the waste problem, not to mention get orders of magnitude more energy out of a given amount of uranium. With breeder reactors, our conceivably recoverable uranium supplies will last many centuries.


----------



## andrewf

HaroldCrump said:


> I'd personally not take [...]Hudak seriously.


Agreed. 

It's really easy to armchair quarterback. All I've heard from him is that he wants cheap electricity for all, spending increases, tax cuts and a balanced budget. I'm guessing the rest of his platform consists on inventing a perpetual motion machine.

I'm not writing him off yet, but he's clearly hoping to cruise to victory on anti-McGuinty sentiment then continue McGuinty's policies once elected.


----------



## LondonHomes

andrewf said:


> Agreed.
> 
> It's really easy to armchair quarterback. All I've heard from him is that he wants cheap electricity for all, spending increases, tax cuts and a balanced budget. I'm guessing the rest of his platform consists on inventing a perpetual motion machine.
> 
> I'm not writing him off yet, but he's clearly hoping to cruise to victory on anti-McGuinty sentiment then continue McGuinty's policies once elected.


Everything I've seen about McGuinty's energy policies is that they are responsible and address the power supply issue with a long term solution. For Hudack to attack these policies claiming there is anther way to long term cheap power is irresponsible on Hudacks part.

The problem that Ontario faces is that all of the cheap sources of power have already been developed and since our population continues to grow and demand more power, we need to develop more expensive options. The only way to achieve cheaper electricity rates will be subsidize it from other tax revenue or not invest in our power supply which would mean the lights may not turn on when we need them too.

Responsible government isn't about making things cheaper it's about making sure things work.


----------



## HaroldCrump

andrewf said:


> Agreed.
> 
> It's really easy to armchair quarterback. All I've heard from him is that he wants cheap electricity for all, spending increases, tax cuts and a balanced budget. I'm guessing the rest of his platform consists on inventing a perpetual motion machine.
> 
> I'm not writing him off yet, but he's clearly hoping to cruise to victory on anti-McGuinty sentiment then continue McGuinty's policies once elected.


LOL, you cleverly trimmed out the key words and quoted me as if I'm dismissing Hudak entirely 
But yes, if he continues this way I doubt he'll be able to oust McGuinty.
He hasn't been much in the thick of hardcore political things, having held only one marginal cabinet position (Ontario tourism).
IMO, he needs to crank up his campaign if he's to have even a remote chance of ousting McGuinty.
I don't think the anti McGuinty perception is strong enough yet.
After all, the liberals have huge "vote banks" in Ontario and those are the true classical "yellow dog" liberal vote banks.


----------



## ChrisR

The problem with nuclear power is that it is a rather expensive energy source that cannot be easily scaled to meet energy demands over the short term. You can't turn a nuclear reactor up during the day to supply energy for industry and then turn it down at night when energy usage drops.

This means that nuclear is only an option to supply the base (constant) energy demands in highly populated areas. And the variable energy demands need to be supplied from sources that can be turned up and down based on energy usage (ie. fossil fuels, or hydro).

The other option is to build enough nuclear to satisfy the daytime energy needs, and then sell the excess energy produced at night at a massive loss to our Southern neighbor!


----------



## HaroldCrump

Ontario has indeed been building up several natural gas power plants.
It is much cleaner burning than coal and much less cost/overhead than nuclear.
Given how cheap natural gas is these days, and the future potential of shale sources, I don't see why the province needs to mess with economically unviable "green" sources, and make us pay for it.
Wind will always be marginal at best.
Only solar may have some potential in the future.
But until then, it needs to be relegated to science labs and the ivory towers of universities.


----------



## brad

HaroldCrump said:


> Wind will always be marginal at best.
> Only solar may have some potential in the future.


Last year electricity generation by wind in the US increased by 30% and a total of 8.8 million megawatt-hours of electricity were generated by wind power -- this is about 232 times the amount of electricity generated by solar power in the United States.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html.


----------



## humble_pie

what about the issue of disposal of spent fuel rods that brad raises.

i remember seeing them at pickering. The pool was not on the rooftop, it was at a lower level like ground level. Also unlike fukushima, it was not open to the sky, but inside a large covered chamber.

seen through a large thick plastic window, the pool looked pale turquoise blue, rather like an extra-large regular swimming pool w weird occupants on its floor.

i've lost track of what happens to the rods after they've spent years cooling down in the pool. They are still radioactive, i believe. Once upon a time there was talk about entombing them in concrete in deep caverns in canada's far north. I guess the first nations have put a stop to that idea.

what does the US do with its spent nuclear fuel rods, or are they all still lying in pools ?


----------



## andrewf

Wind and even solar will likely become cheaper than coal eventually. Cost per unit of energy generated has been falling like a rock. Grid-stabilization and energy storage technologies have been improving significantly as well. It may take twenty or thirty years, but I expect these sources to be significant in the future, even without subsidies.


----------



## ddkay

Spent fuel from the reactor spends another 10 to 20 years in pools before moving on to reprocessing or permanent dry cask storage that can be kept above or below ground. Europe keeps all of their waste above ground because they haven't been able to decide on a site for underground storage. Originally it was kept in a German salt mine called Asse II but they discovered leakage. OPG was underway start construction on the Kincardine Deep Geological Repository in 2012. I don't know if the Japan crisis will affect their timeline.


----------



## K-133

andrewf said:


> Wind and even solar will likely become cheaper than coal eventually. Cost per unit of energy generated has been falling like a rock. Grid-stabilization and energy storage technologies have been improving significantly as well. It may take twenty or thirty years, but I expect these sources to be significant in the future, even without subsidies.


I think you're right.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of the backlash is that people don't want to invest so far down the road.

It is sad how quickly the jolt of reality from the 2003 blackout has faded. Energy is extremely important to our well being, and it is in limited supply. We may be fine today, but without change and investment into alternatives, we will likely find ourselves in trouble tomorrow.

I find it somewhat ironic that such investments are so harshly criticized on a financial forum, as this is simple diversification.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> *Wind and even solar will likely become cheaper than coal eventually.* Cost per unit of energy generated has been falling like a rock. Grid-stabilization and energy storage technologies have been improving significantly as well. It may take twenty or thirty years, but I expect these sources to be significant in the future, even without subsidies.


Hmm? Are you sure about that Andrew? Coal is becoming the cheapest
carbon based fuel source because nobody wants to use it in these days
of green awareness and the whole carbon footprint/global warming thing.

Solar is clean, but in Canada with our long winters, solar is not going to
be significant or cost effective enough to amount to anything other than
a token green power source. The maintenance/replacement cost of the batteries,
(solar is DC converted to AC through power invertors with substantial losses
in the conversion process), will not make it really cost effective in this climate
even if OPG and the powers that be, pay the private generator 80c a kw hour.

Wind generators (wind farms) have some merit in Ontario, especially along
lake shores where one can depend on some kind of breeze, even on the
dog days of summer (no perceptible breeze)....however the infrastructure
costs and environmental impact (bird strikes and other) have a negative
effect on those as well.

Nuclear is the way to go now and in the future. The Canadian CANDU reactor
is a technological leap over the nuclear generation technology used at
3 mile island (US) or Chernobyl (manual decision lead to loss of cooling and
meltdown) or what is happening at the Japan site now.

If Ontario wants to keep the costs of electrical energy down to meet future
demand and there is no more lakes or rivers to dam up for cheaper production
of hydro electric, then nuclear is really the only choice we have.

The other technologies (green as they may be) are only a drop in the bucket
when it comes to meeting future demands.


----------



## andrewf

CSP in desert areas has a high probability of eventually being cheaper than coal, especially when you factor in health effects of burning coal. I'm guessing the climate change skeptics don't deny the effects of fine particulate emissions, emissions of mercury and other metals, etc. (or is the science still out on that?). 

As far as the fit program goes (and I don't support it, myself), I think we should restrict ourselves to the realm of facts and not fantasy.

Here are the rates at present:
* 80.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for rooftop solar.
* 19 cents for offshore wind of any size (first jurisdiction in N.A. to set price)
* 13.5 cents for onshore wind of any size
* 14.7 for biogas under 5 MW.
* 44.3 cents for 10-MW-plus solar, sliding to 71.3 cents as projects scale down to 10 kilowatts.

Since people are living up around the block to get contracts for large solar installations at 44.3 cents/kWh, we can safely assume that the actual cost is a fair bit less than that. Wind probably costs under 10 cents. Neither of these technologies are mature. Coal creates about a kg of CO2/kWh generated. A carbon tax of $40/tonne CO2 (which is equivalent to our current federal excise tax on gasoline--ie, not astronomical) puts wind on par with coal in cost per kWh.


----------



## brad

andrewf said:


> Wind probably costs under 10 cents. Neither of these technologies are mature. Coal creates about a kg of CO2/kWh generated. A carbon tax of $40/tonne CO2 (which is equivalent to our current federal excise tax on gasoline--ie, not astronomical) puts wind on par with coal in cost per kWh.


The latest batch of wind generators being installed in Québec are supposed to produce electricity at a little over 10 cents/kWh. 

The other thing about coal is that while the fuel is cheap, the power plants are not, in part because of all the required pollution controls. There are new cleaner designs and gasification technologies for coal-fired power plants, but they are not cheap either; you have to factor in both the cost of the power plant and the cost of the fuel to determine total cost.

The other option that interests me in all this is "distributed power," in which very small local power plants generate power for neighbourhoods or even individual households. This should appeal to the Harold Crumps of the world because they'll never be beholden to the electric utility or provincial rate-setting. I saw a demonstration about 12 years ago of a shoebox-size natural gas generator, effectively a miniature super-efficient jet engine, that could generate all of the electricity, heat, and hot water for a 4-bedroom house. And there's a demo house in New York State that generates all its electricity, heat, and hot water with fuel cells that convert chemical energy directly to electricity with no combustion. There are also people who live near rivers who get their power from mini-hydro -- small run-of-river generators that don't require a dam. There are all kinds of options.


----------



## carverman

brad said:


> The latest batch of wind generators being installed in Québec are supposed to produce electricity at a little over 10 cents/kWh.


 Wind costs nothing as far as an energy source, but the infrastructure to required for distribution to the grid is still expensive, but not as expensive as nuclear or NatGas. Wind power and hydro electric are the most cost effective way to go for the future, however, in Ontario, finding good locations for wind farms is still a challenge (similar to new dump sites ..ie: "not in my back yard") but gaining acceptance as time goes on and people start to realize how expensive electric power is going to be over the next few years.



> The other thing about coal is that while the fuel is cheap, the power plants are not, in part because of all the required pollution controls. There are new cleaner designs and gasification technologies for coal-fired power plants, but they are not cheap either;
> you have to factor in both the cost of the power plant and the cost of the fuel to determine total cost.


Well, whether you generate from natgas or coal or bunker oil, it's still carbon based, although natgas is accepted as clean burning with no perceptible pollution, so the old coal fired plants like the Toronto Lakeshore and Nanticoke are getting converted. 



> The other option that interests me in all this is "distributed power," in which very small local power plants generate power for neighbourhoods or even individual households. I saw a demonstration about 12 years ago of a shoebox-size natural gas generator, effectively a miniature super-efficient jet engine, that could generate all of the electricity, heat, and hot water for a 4-bedroom house.


I saw one of those at RONA recently. Around $8K +taxes for a 5kw unit. (Also available in smaller capacities). 

But it also depends on how much natgas the power plant would consume to generate 1 kwh of electricity at say 15c per kwh 
(loaded costs) from the grid. About 40% of the natgas monthly bill now is fixed costs and hst on top of that, so that cu meter
of gas could cost..say 28c + 12c fixed cost = 40c a kwh. Of course, I don't know how much it would consume in an hour..b
but comparing to a 100K btu gas furnace running for an hour..it's going to cost more than 15c to generate that 1kwh on
fuel consumption alone. No matter how you slice it..if you have to depend on a utility supply of fuel/energy through an infrasture
chain..it's going to cost you more to generate that power than just buying it outright. 

Of course, if you are heating water and house with it already, then the fixed costs are not that significant when it comes to the actual electric generator consumption...BUT...

The big thing would be cost/ approval/installation for the average household.

The Rona sales dude explained that it takes (about) another $10K or so to have it installed and set up so that it is safe and inspected/approved by the local utility. 
It would also have to have a disconnect around the breaker panel so you don't have power factor "clashes" with the utility hydro transformer. In other words some kind of automatic disconnect... and a connect... when the natgas generator is not running. 

By the time you factor in the cost of buying/installation and sales taxes,
($16K to 20k), it becomes an expensive option for anybody that has access to the grid right now. 

Even though it's a demand type generator, (driving engine requires more fuel combustion to turn the generator, like any gasoline operated generator) there is also the noise factor. Even with mufflers (similiar to high tech gas furnace muffllers), it can still be
heard at night, so it may have to be outside in an approved shelter. That is why the installation costs are so high. 




> There are also people who live near rivers who get their power from mini-hydro -- small run-of-river generators that don't require a dam. There are all kinds of options.


Micro- power plants. A small generator that can be placed in a fast running stream on your property..*provided the stream doesn't freeze *during the cold winter or *dry up in the summer*. 
However, most properoies with a small stream do not necessarily have the ideal conditions to operate those 12 months of the year. Winter freezeup and drying up in the hot summers affect most small streams..but for 6 months out of a year....yes, it could *supplement* the electricity needs of an average house, provided you don't run too many heavy appliances or A/C.


----------



## webber22

There's an article in the Star about power firms being paid NOT to generate 

http://www.moneyville.ca/article/956001--power-firms-were-paid-millions-not-to-generate-power?bn=1


----------



## carverman

webber22 said:


> There's an article in the Star about power firms being paid NOT to generate
> 
> http://www.moneyville.ca/article/956001--power-firms-were-paid-millions-not-to-generate-power?bn=1


This is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the shenanigans going on ,,

that are NOT controlled and allowing the independent operators to do pretty
much as they please. In Ontario we are faced with the double whammy of rising electricity rates and the HST. 

Bruce Power (nuclear generation in the Bruce County, near Kincardine) could have enough capacity to accomodate our current needs and keep costs down..but oh no, they have to *shut down two generators at the SAME TIME*, for "refurbishment".

So, is this just poor planning on their part?.. or just a convenient excuse to get paid and not have to produce as much as they could.
..after all, electricity is a commodity that *everyone needs *and you can't just shop around for a better rate,
and even if you do and go with an independent marketer..they hit you with additional charges on your bill called GLOBAL ADJUSTMENT (Provincial Benefit). 

Because, if there is actually an excess of power /more supply than demand, then they'd have to drop their prices,
and give us a rebate...and thanks to the OEB they don't have to do that!
Green Power @80c /kwh paid to producers..who's subsidizing that? .the McGinty gov't? 
It used to be provincial utility, now it's open to anyone to make a buck off the backs of consumers..and the provincial
gov't is jumping on the bandwagon with their HST as well. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Power

and quotes from the above article by webber22..
_
"The panel gives the example of a generator that shuts down for two hours, then restarts. By staying online, the generator would have collected $10,000 in revenue. But by shutting off, then back on, a qualifying generator gets about $50,000 in revenue, which all ultimately comes from the pockets of consumers. "_

So in essence this constitutes another scam on electricity consumers, just like
the DRC (old Ontario Hydro debt retirement charge on your hydro bill) that
has NO ACCOUNTABILITY, and should have been paid off by now..but they
have discovered that it's just another "cash cow", like the HST on electricity
or home heating... MOo!..time to milk those consumers again!


----------



## canabiz

Just wondering if you guys recommend wrapping the electric water heater with an insulation blanket to prevent possible heat loss?

Ours is a rental with Direct Energy and it is about 4 years old. It doesn't feel hot when I touch the outside but I got a coupon here from Hydro Ottawa for $4 off the purchase of an insulation blanket. If it does produce some savings then I may as well go for it. Such blanket currently retails for about $40 at Canadian Tire but I have seen it on sale in the past for about half that price.


----------



## m3s

Might be worth putting it on in the summer if you spend a lot on AC. Here I can use the "wasted" heat most of the year


----------



## carverman

canabiz said:


> Just wondering if you guys recommend wrapping the electric water heater with an insulation blanket to prevent possible heat loss?


Are you talking about electric or gas HWT,,,if it's Ottawa Hydro, then I would assume it's electric with two energy hungry 2500 watt elements. (5kwh! if both on on for an hour..thats at least 16c x 5kwh = $.80c loaded hydro rate. 
Usually only one element comes on, unless you draw a LOT of hot water at once, ...*then watch the TOU meter spin when both elements come on.*

If its gas hwt, it may only save about 5 to 10% on gas onsumption..depending on how cold your basement is normally. If you have heat outlets and your furnace is running normally and the basement is almost 70 degrees, it's not going to save a lot. as the gas burner only comes on occasionally, when the water temperature drops, because cold water is coming in or just below
the thermostat threshold. You can turn down the temp thermostat and achieve similar results.



> Ours is a rental with Direct Energy and it is about 4 years old. It doesn't feel hot when I touch the outside but I got a coupon here from Hydro Ottawa for $4 off the purchase of an insulation blanket. If it does produce some savings then I may as well go for it. Such blanket currently retails for about $40 at Canadian Tire but I have seen it on sale in the past for about half that price.


No it won't feel hot to the touch, as there is already a special foam insulation between the outer metal liner and the actual tank which is a pressure vessel hence the pressure relief valve.

However, heat loss is very gradual over time...just like in the copper lines which exude heat very quickly. Notice that the first few seconds when you turn on the hot water tap is still cold water? _That was hot water _that has sat there
for a period of time. Wrap the hot water lines with pipe insulation..it will help somewhat, but it still won't prevent gradual heat loss through convection cooling. 

Go for it. $36 with the coupon spread over 12 months times X years makes it definitely worthwhile..it's not going to be a lot of saving, but these days with rising energy costs, any electric HWT insulation + hot water pipe insulation will help.


----------



## canabiz

carver, sorry that is a gas water heater with Direct Energy. You are right better some saving than nothing.

On the subject of differing opinions, do you guys keep the porch light on overnight? There seems to be 2 different camps for this: 1 will leave it on dusk to dawn (this is what we have) for safety and aesthetic (sp?) reasons while the other doesn't have it on because they don't want to waste any hydro, if they can avoid it.


----------



## hystat

I wouldn't wrap anything around a gas or oil fired water heater.
Blankets are for electric only, imo.


----------



## hystat

canabiz said:


> do you guys keep the porch light on overnight? There seems to be 2 different camps for this: 1 will leave it on dusk to dawn (this is what we have) for safety and aesthetic (sp?) reasons while the other doesn't have it on because they don't want to waste any hydro, if they can avoid it.


13W CFL bulb uses approx 2 cents per night if on for 8 hours.

"not a lot of money, unless you have none" -something my mom told me they said a lot during the great depression...


----------



## carverman

canabiz said:


> carver, sorry that is a gas water heater with Direct Energy. You are right better some saving than nothing.
> 
> On the subject of differing opinions, do you guys keep the porch light on overnight? There seems to be 2 different camps for this: 1 will leave it on dusk to dawn (this is what we have) for safety and aesthetic (sp?) reasons while the other doesn't have it on because they don't want to waste any hydro, if they can avoid it.


Well, if we are talking about a 13watt or 15 watt CFL, then the penny or two, (15w x 1hr = .015kwh x 8 hrs = .12kwh x 30 days = 3.6 kwh used per month x 16c/kwh (loaded costs) = 57cents per month (approx). Especially if it has a sensor on it that turns it off at dawn and on at dusk..*not a big expense as far as hydro consumption goes these days VS estetics and security. *

Even it you don't have one of those cheap spotlight security lights, (where you can actually install an outdoor version of the CFL, and decide to leave it on permanently, you are still only talking about $1.72 per month for that 15watt CFL...BUT!.. don't use those 150w floodlights, as they are expensive to operate.

I have a 13w CFL inside my outdoor lamp post ( NOTE:CFLs cannot be exposed to the elements and need either a glass housing or those new versions that have a glass bulb around them..and even then the bases of the CFL cannot be exposed to water.) 
I also have a photocell on the lamp post and that takes care of the on-off automatically. 
For me , after having my vehicle (almost) broken into one night, damaging the door locks ($300 cost to me) by some teenage hoodlums, (or "pros" trying to steal the vehicle..or maybe the airbag), I think it is money well spent!

Your biggest energy user will be an older fridge with the old style compressors.

Those use around 6.5 amps and as you know fridges run a LOT, especially in the warm summer months when you may not to decide to use the A/C or use it sparingly. Kitchen heat whereever the source is..will cause the fridge to run more often because heat gets into the fridge, the same way that heat escapes slowly from your HWT.

Old style fridges use about 6.5amps which is roughly 800watts. Convert that to a kwh that is 0.8kwh consumption per HOUR of
running the compressor. If you extrapolate the cost at 16c/kwh loaded costs... (or even more with TOU)..that fridge
will cost you 25c or more to run for 1 hr of running.

Now if it runs 25 to 30% of the 24hr day..that is very significant energy consumption! 
Lets say..25% during the hot summer months, when the inside kitchen room temp is around 75 to 80F,
AND the fridge thermostat is set to medium or high cool......

4 to 6 hrs is roughly 4 to 6 kwh of electricity consumption..that translates to 64c to 96c (your loaded electricity costs, which included energy + delivery + debt reduction charge + other fixed costs + HST....
AND if you are unlucky to have signed up with an electricity marketer..the Provincial Benefit cost will tack on
ANOTHER..4 to 5 cents for the provincial generators on top of the already loaded electricity costs..so that old fridge
is subsidizing McGinty and the OEB and all the green power farms that are raking in 80c per kwh!
"er..can you hear that "giant sucking sound?" 

That old 10 -15 year old fridge is costing you plenty!

Of course you have to balance the cost of replacing it with the energy saved (by the newer style more efficient/low consumption compressors used in the Energy Smart appliances.(Typically around 4.5 amps vs 6.5 amps or 30 to 33% less consumption
when running)..and you are not going to save money right away.. BUT.....as electricity costs go up over the years due to
cost of production, political bungaling and green power generators at the public trough..somebody has to subsidize these
entrepreneurs of green energy..so guess what?...it's you and you and me....

So if that new energy effiicent fridge runs 1--15 years..the payback will be ....what you paid for the
fridge initially (including the HST) AND then quite a bit more..and the best part...McGinty won't be able to squeeze your
head some more for more and more HST on the higher energy consumption of the old fridge!

Leave your CFL light on...try to save on where it will keep money in your pocket...the high electricity usage appliances.


----------



## carverman

hystat said:


> I wouldn't wrap anything around a gas or oil fired water heater.
> Blankets are for electric only, imo.


Well there are a two schools of thought on this..gas fired HWT needs air for combustion AND the top of the tank has a vent that takes in room air for the exhaust flue convection "purging"..I forget what the technical term for it is.

But if you have the conventional gas HWT (without the venter fan on the exhaust
port) , you need natural air convection to keep those unburned and smelly exhaust gases from creeping into your basement.
so yes, *you cannot wrap even a non combustible blanket around those areas of the tank*.
Having said this....

you still should be able to wrap a blanket around the outside of a gas hwt, BUT *the top must be free of any insulation material *for the vent air flow *and the bottom area around the gas valve has to be free of any coverings, and so does the pressure relief valve that can open if the thermostat* ever gets stuck..
causing the pressure relief valve to open... to prevent the tank from exploding.

So considering that you can only safely cover about 50% or so of the tank's heat radiating surface..(and most unfortunately,
the highest heat radiating surface will be at the top, where the hotwater and the hot water pipe sits...you are not going to save a lot in heat...but 50% is still better than nothing. Just be cautious when doing this.


----------



## brad

andrewf said:


> Wind and even solar will likely become cheaper than coal eventually. Cost per unit of energy generated has been falling like a rock. Grid-stabilization and energy storage technologies have been improving significantly as well. It may take twenty or thirty years, but I expect these sources to be significant in the future, even without subsidies.


Wind power is really taking off in the United States -- total capacity there now is 41,400 MW, enough to power 10 million homes, according to US Department of Energy. The amount of new wind capacity under construction in the first quarter of 2011 is twice as high as it was in the first quarter of 2010, which in turn was twice as high as in the first quarter of 2009. 

Solar power generation in the US grew 343% between the first quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011.


----------



## donaldhumiston

Anything that would work and is possible to acquire is always the best bet. The energy saving has been with us for ages and it is always the same story.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

carverman said:


> Are you talking about electric or gas HWT,,,if it's Ottawa Hydro, then I would assume it's electric with two energy hungry 2500 watt elements. (5kwh! if both on on for an hour..thats at least 16c x 5kwh = $.80c loaded hydro rate.
> Usually only one element comes on, unless you draw a LOT of hot water at once, ...*then watch the TOU meter spin when both elements come on.*


Actually, dual-element electric hot water heaters are nearly all designed so that only one element can come on at a time. The wiring rules for them are designed on that assumption. The total kwh used would depend on how much water you had to heat, plus heat losses from radiation into the house, regardless of the wattage of the heating elements. Higher wattage elements just allow you to heat the water faster (shorter recovery time )


----------



## OhGreatGuru

andrewf said:


> Wind and even solar will likely become cheaper than coal eventually. Cost per unit of energy generated has been falling like a rock. Grid-stabilization and energy storage technologies have been improving significantly as well. It may take twenty or thirty years, but I expect these sources to be significant in the future, even without subsidies.


They said the same thing about nuclear power when the plants were first being built. And look how well that turned out.


----------



## brad

OhGreatGuru said:


> They said the same thing about nuclear power when the plants were first being built. And look how well that turned out.


The difference is that wind power is already economical even without subsidies; solar still has a long way to go before it's cost-competitive but new technologies are being developed all the time that are bringing the cost down. Wind turbines and solar electric technologies aren't new untested technologies; they've been in use for a few decades now so the costs of construction and interconnection to the grid are known. Plus you have to remember that the "fuel" is free. These are both intermittent sources of power (solar only works during the day, wind only works when it's windy), but energy generated by these technologies can be stored for later use -- as anyone who uses these technologies currently knows.


----------



## OhGreatGuru

LondonHomes said:


> I'm curious to know where he is going to find another site in Ontario to place a new Hydro dam? And did they not just attack the current expansion of hydro electricity generation at Niagara Falls?


Ontario Hydro/OPG abandoned new hydro generation because they weren't interested in anything smaller than a mega-project. Many people believe there is still a lot of potential left in Ontario for small-scale hydro generation.


----------



## andrewf

OhGreatGuru said:


> They said the same thing about nuclear power when the plants were first being built. And look how well that turned out.


Nuclear power is great. It hasn't and won't live up to the 'too cheap to meter' nonsense.

The problem with nuclear is excessive government involvement. Costs spiral when every plant is lovingly hand-crafted to be a unique little butterfly. They should be cookie-cutter, assembly-line affairs (this is how China is doing it). Nuclear is also incredibly safe. An upcoming technologies like pebble-bed reactors or molten-salt reactors are even safer. Fossil fuel use and extraction kills tens of thousands per year.


----------



## carverman

OhGreatGuru said:


> Actually, dual-element electric hot water heaters are nearly all designed so that only one element can come on at a time. . Higher wattage elements just allow you to heat the water faster (shorter recovery time )


Yes, I know that. But if you suck out all the water on a 40gal US tank,
BOTH the top and bottom elements are going to come on because there
is only cold water in the tank at that point and each thermostat senses
that. At least it's 220V, but P= I xE..so the wattage consumed to reheat
the water is still the same..watch that Smart meter "spin"!


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Nuclear power is great. It hasn't and won't live up to the 'too cheap to meter' nonsense.


Funny you should say that Andrew..many years ago when I was but a wee
lad..I read in Popular Science, that electricity generated from nuclear energy in the future, would be so cheap, that it would be almost pointless to meter it...
..a futuristic promise no doubt...like the flying car. 



> The problem with nuclear is excessive government involvement. Costs spiral when every plant is lovingly hand-crafted to be a unique little butterfly. They should be cookie-cutter, assembly-line affairs (this is how China is doing it).


Well if you have bought any chinese made goods recently, you may want
to change that thought...however China is smart..rather than risk future
disasters with "cookie cutter" reactor technology like Chernobyl for example..
China IS installing Canadian designed nuclear power plants. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor 

One of the best things we as a nation ever did was design the CANDU reactor with its safeguards. 
It IS expensive technology, but frankly I'm glad, because the last thing you want is an environmental disaster like at the Fukisima? Japan/Chernobyl Russia and Three mile Island (US) generating reactor meltdowns. That reaction goes on
an on and the only thing they can do is encase it in a cement sarcophagus.


----------



## andrewf

I don't think you understand what I meant by cookie cutter. It's not a statement about quality of design. It's a matter of banging out 100 standard reactors. They can be very well-designed, have interchangeable parts, can have many components pre-fabricated and delivered to site from a production line, common training and expertise, and have the development cost amortized over many copies. Traditionally, each reactor was adapted to each individual site. Some times they were mirror images, had different levels of redundancy, different subsystems, etc. This increases the chances of mistakes. 

Fukushima, if anything, demonstrates how safe nuclear power is. The reactor sustained an earthquake much stronger than it was rated for, and could have shut down gracefully if power had been mantained to the reactors' coolant systems. The design failure was in power backup that was susceptible to tsunami damage. And even despite this failure, there are unlikely to be lasting ill-effects.

Chernobyl, on the other hand, didn't have a containment system. It was an appallingly poorly designed reactor.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> I don't think you understand what I meant by cookie cutter. It's not a statement about quality of design. *It's a matter of banging out 100 standard reactors.* They can be very well-designed, have interchangeable parts, can have many components pre-fabricated and delivered to site from a production line, common training and expertise, and have the development cost amortized over many copies.


Well in theory, maybe..but nuclear reactors can't really roll of the production
line like fridges or cars. They are complex beasts and a lot of it has to
be custom fitted on site and the testing and signoff is enormous. Failure
to torque one bolt to EXACT specs could jeopardize the operation once
it starts up. Fortunately with the CANDU system and good design principles,
there are several built in backup systems to safeguard the reactor core and prevent a meltdown. It should never happen with a properly installed and
commissioned reactor. 

Nuclear reactors are built on a cost plus basis and according to the country's
requirements..and in Canada's CANDU case..in accordance with Atomic Energy of Canada..so we will never see the "cookie cutter" theory applied to the CANDU,
and the next gen of CANDUs, which are being redesigned and
tested and tested. These should realize,at least in theory..somewhat of a cost 
reduction..but that remains to be seen. 



> *Traditionally, each reactor was adapted to each individual site*. Some times they were mirror images, had different levels of redundancy, different subsystems, etc. This increases the chances of mistakes.


They still are. Site selection and preparation is a huge cost on top of the
cost of the reactor and management of it.


----------



## andrewf

carver, that's the way it has typically been done in the West due to our legacy regulations. China is taking a different approach.

Nuclear plants have to be built to high, exacting specifications but that doesn't preclude assembly line construction, with major components being produced in controlled production lines and being shipped to site for final assembly or installation. The old norm would be to ship all the parts to the site, each one engineered for that reactor site to different specs and assembled on site, usually in quite isolated areas, and at great cost in time and money. Nuclear reactors may not be refrigerators, but they are akin to say, the Airbus A380. Subsystems and components are built off-site and assembled in one location. It doesn't mean it is not built to a high standard. Aerospace is not very forgiving from an engineering perspective.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> China is taking a different approach.


Yes, they are buying CANDU reactors, even though they already
have their own nuclear program for possible weapons, they realize
that because of their trade advantage, it is probably "cheaper" for
them to just buy our CANDU technology. 



> Nuclear plants have to be built to high, exacting specifications but that doesn't preclude assembly line construction, with major components being produced in controlled production lines and being shipped to site for final
> assembly or installation.


Well ok, I'm not saying that it isn't possible for many sub assembles to be
cast or machined in factories approved for nuclear component manufacture,
but the final assembly, testing, activating with heavy water/low grade
fuel pellets HAS to be done on site...so it's not like bolting it together
and throwing a switch on to start the fission process. It takes months/years
to commission a nuclear generator. 



> Nuclear reactors may not be refrigerators, but they are akin to say, the Airbus A380. Subsystems and components are built off-site and assembled in one location. It doesn't mean it is not built to a high standard. Aerospace is not very forgiving from an engineering perspective.


I'm not disputing that someday with technological advances, nuclear
electricity generators can't be built as you say..but there is a huge
difference between a consortium that builds the A380 and one country
that could build it's own nuclear reactors with "economical" methods
of construction (ie: cheaper but not necessarily better) 
assembly line technique.
These are not consumer grade electronics,where if a fault develops,
you just toss out the old one and buy another.

1. The A380 subassemblies are built in specific European airbus contractors
and these have good technology, equipment, a SKILLED labour force,
and responsible for their subassemblies to the prime contractor, AIRBUS. 

2. Aircraft components under NUMEROUS QUALIFICATION testing, as well as
final testing, according to meticulous specifications provided.

3. These components/subassemblies are combined in a specific place 
in France, where a SKILLED workforce exists to assemble, test and
certify that the aircraft is airworthy. 

4. A commercial aircraft developing a fault usually has some backup
systems that will still allow some kind of recovery..but in the event
that the aircraft cannot be recovered from a catastrophic fault,
the impact (in a literal sense here) only affects, the victims, the
families of the victims, the airline, the insurance companies and
the area of the crash scene. 

Thousands of people of the general public are generally not affected,
or displaced as would be the case of a nuclear reactor malfunction or
worse case scenario..core meltdown. 



3.


----------



## andrewf

There's generally no good reason for individual reactors to be unique. That is mostly an artifact of the planning and approval process where reactors are not part of a large overarching program of nuclear power development.

It's not true that China is building primarily CANDUs. They have bought a few in the past. It looks like Areva and Westinghouse are the leading suppliers of reactors at the moment. A very interesting wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> It's not true that China is building primarily CANDUs. They have bought a few in the past. It looks like Areva and Westinghouse are the leading suppliers of reactors at the moment.


Well that remains to be seen Andrew. After the Fukisima power plant incident,
it looks like China is reconsidering nuclear..or at least put any more nuclear
power plant development on hold.

here's a link to the various reactor theoritical designs..some are just concepts
and will take many years before they become a reality to generate power...
If ever...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Very-high-temperature_reactor_.28VHTR.29

Some of the advantages of the CANDU
1 Proven track and safety 
2. Does not require the use of enriched uranium
3. Several backup safety systems
4. Designed and approved through Atomic Energy of Canada
5. Operational personnel training is one of the best in the world

There are probably other advantages but cost of installing a CANDU is
not one of them.


----------



## andrewf

I'm not knocking CANDU. I also am not the one who needs to be sold on what reactor technology the Chinese will use.

As far as them putting pause on their nuclear program: this is just politics. Fukushima changes nothing. The main lesson learned is to ensure that redundant safety systems are truly redundant, and not likely to be damaged/rendered inoperable by the same event that disables the primary system. The Fukushima plant is old, and much better designs are available today. China needs vast amounts of energy. There's no way nuclear can't play a large role in providing it.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> I'm not knocking CANDU. I also am not the one who needs to be sold on what reactor technology the Chinese will use.


Andrew; both you and I are NOT nuclear experts, so we shouldn't even
attempt to second guess what the Chinese will decide to use when 
they do.



> As far as them putting pause on their nuclear program: this is just politics. Fukushima changes nothing. The main lesson learned is to ensure that redundant safety systems are truly redundant, and not likely to be damaged/rendered inoperable by the same event that disables the primary system. The Fukushima plant is old, and much better designs are available today. *China needs vast amounts of energy*. *There's no way nuclear can't play a large role in providing it.*


And I'm sure the Chinese gov't knows that. They have a lot of coal burning
generators and coal is still the cheapest alternative to them..but I believe
somehow that even they know that they can't continue burning coal, just
like oil, because of pollution to their cities/environment, and the huge
carbon footprint their industrialized economy produces.

Perhaps, just like the west, they will start to discover "green power"..but
when they do..watch the price rise of Chinese produced goods, shipped to
the west.

You have some good arguments/points, though.


----------

