[Steve IA[_2_]]

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

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


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

Further thoughts and notions appreciated.

Steve
Southiowa

[Ralph Mowery]

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

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


The frequency (HZ) is very closely controlled. It may vary slightly during
heavy loads or periods of light loads. Over a months time, it will average
almost exectally the same. If it did not , the clocks would all be off by
some large ammount.

It is doubtful they could raise the voltage enough to make that much
differance without causing lots of problems such as burnt out light bulbs.

[CJT]

Steve IA wrote:

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

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

The Hz should be very closely regulated. Otherwise many clocks wouldn't
tell time correctly. So although an aberration in Hz could affect the
efficiency of some devices (if you're interested, Google "hysteresis
losses"), I doubt that's your problem.

Whether the voltage makes a difference depends on the load. Electric
heating (at least from the perspective of the consumer) is 100%
efficient, so if higher voltage led to a higher rate of consumption,
as long as the total heat called for were the same, the time the heater
was running would adjust downward so that the total power consumption
would be unchanged. However, there are loads that essentially "waste"
some of their power during the course of their operation (typically via
heat sinks on regulators). Those might be less efficient at higher
voltage. I doubt it's 20%.

Make sure the billing cycles were the same length. They vary from
month to month and year to year.

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

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



My plan now is to gather more anecdotal evidence (oxymoron?) and
question the REC on Monday.
1. Did they estimate Dec's reading. (or other months)?

That's another definite possibility.

2. What could have caused this average monthly (31 day)usage when we
were all without power at 20% of the time?


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

Further thoughts and notions appreciated.

Steve
Southiowa


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

[CJT]

Ralph Mowery wrote:

"Steve IA" wrote in message
...

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

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



The frequency (HZ) is very closely controlled. It may vary slightly during
heavy loads or periods of light loads. Over a months time, it will average
almost exectally the same. If it did not , the clocks would all be off by
some large ammount.

Oops! I see you beat me to it...


It is doubtful they could raise the voltage enough to make that much
differance without causing lots of problems such as burnt out light bulbs.





--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

[Steve IA[_2_]]

CJT wrote

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

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

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


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

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

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

Thanks

Further thoughts and notions appreciated.

Steve
Southiowa

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Jan 19, 3:45*pm, Steve IA wrote:
Thanks to all who have thought on this and offered your opinions.
What I've concluded so far is that this is not just my problem. At least
10 neighbors experienced the same thing. *This tells me that it isn't
just a leaky extension cord.
A 20% reduction in the # of days with electricity means that on the days
I did have power I would have had to use 20% more each and every day to
maintain the monthly average of the previous 5 years. I was indeed 10%
colder for the month of DEC 07 than average, but heating is a small part
of our (collective) electric usage. the neighbors heat with LP, Oil ,
wood, or corn none use electric heat or heat pumps.

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

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

Further thoughts and notions appreciated.

Steve
Southiowa

Ask to personally talk to the meter reader...and see if someone shows
up.

TMT

[HeyBub[_2_]]

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


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

Further thoughts and notions appreciated.

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

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

[Neon John]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:41:29 -0600, Steve IA wrote:

CJT wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com -- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Why the US is losing its competitivve edge:"It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."-James Niccol

[Steve IA[_2_]]

daestrom wrote:


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

daestrom


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

Which strengthens my argument.

Steve
southiowa

[Steve IA[_2_]]

HeyBub wrote:


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

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



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

:-)

Steve

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

-Pete Seeger

[Steve IA[_2_]]

Neon John wrote:


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again.

Steve

[Ann]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:35:53 -0600, Steve IA wrote:
Neon John wrote:
...
It's most likely a combination of all the above. It is effectively
impossible to determine the exact cause after the fact. The co-op
person that you talk to will tell you that same thing, couched in
consumer-friendly verbiage.

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

Thanks again.

Steve

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

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

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

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

[Terry]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:55:22 -0500, Neon John wrote:

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


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

[Steve IA[_2_]]

Ann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:35:53 -0600, Steve IA wrote:
Neon John wrote:
...
It's most likely a combination of all the above. It is effectively
impossible to determine the exact cause after the fact. The co-op
person that you talk to will tell you that same thing, couched in
consumer-friendly verbiage.
Well, maybe a combination, but we still feel there's something we're not
being told. Maybe I better get my tin-foil hat out.

Thanks again.

Steve

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve

--
"When it all comes down,
I hope it doesn't land on you."
- Hoyt Axton

[Steve IA[_2_]]

wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Steve
--
--
...But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait.
- John Lennon

[Ann]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:24:43 -0600, Steve IA wrote:

Ann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:35:53 -0600, Steve IA wrote:
Neon John wrote:
...
It's most likely a combination of all the above. It is effectively
impossible to determine the exact cause after the fact. The co-op
person that you talk to will tell you that same thing, couched in
consumer-friendly verbiage.
Well, maybe a combination, but we still feel there's something we're not
being told. Maybe I better get my tin-foil hat out.

Thanks again.

Steve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[danny burstein]

In Ann writes:

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

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

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

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

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


--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key

[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[Ann]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:01:48 +0000, danny burstein wrote:

In Ann writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dpb]

Ann wrote:
....

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

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

--

[Ann]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:14:39 -0600, dpb wrote:

Ann wrote:
...

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

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

Duration of input.

[dpb]

Ann wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:14:39 -0600, dpb wrote:

Ann wrote:
...

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

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

Duration of input.

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

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

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

--

[S. Barker]

YES, do tell how this works.


s

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

[S. Barker]

then you go PAST the 'target' temp.

s

"Ann" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:14:39 -0600, dpb wrote:

Ann wrote:
...

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

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

Duration of input.

[Neon John]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:45:49 -0600, Steve IA wrote:

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

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

Frequency? No. The frequency of all utilities is controlled to the national time
standard and is essentially atomic clock accurate over the long term. This is
necessary for utility intertie and power wheeling.

Voltage higher? Simple. Many causes. Your distribution spur could have been
overloaded and in the process of storm damage rebuilding, that overload was remedied.
Ther is now less voltage drop from the substation to you and thus your voltage is
higher. They could have upgraded the substation transformer feeding your spur. The
voltage regulator (looks like a transformer but normally with only two power cables
attached) could have clicked to another tap automatically, have been reset manually
to boost voltage or have had its control box calibrated. The storm could have caused
the power transmission company to re-route power around other storm damage which
resulted in slightly higher voltage.


My plan now is to gather more anecdotal evidence (oxymoron?) and
question the REC on Monday.

Without hard data, you'll be ignored or patted on the head and told to go away. If
you want any attention from the utility then you'll have hard data at hand. Reading
your meter every day for awhile and comparing it to your calculated "before storm"
daily value would be one form of hard data.

1. Did they estimate Dec's reading. (or other months)?
2. What could have caused this average monthly (31 day)usage when we
were all without power at 20% of the time?

Let's analyze the situation as I understand it.

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

You stated that you're on separate transformers so you don't have that in common. You
ARE on the same primary spur. You all obviously have separate meters. You probably
DO have the same meter reader. And you obviously have the same utility company. You
all suffered the same storm and were without power for the same time period.

To restate the commonalities,

primary spur
meter reader
utility company
same storm outage
same storm.

Not a lot in common.

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

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

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

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

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

An estimated reading error and storm recovery usage are mutually exclusive. If the
reading was estimated then they could not know to bill for any storm recovery usage.
If the extra usage IS from storm recovery activity then they had to have read the
meter.

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

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on an estimated reading. I'm intentionally
discounting what your non-power-losing neighbors said since memory for such things is
notoriously inaccurate. Perhaps even an estimated reading that was boosted to match
the storm-induced extra consumption seen across the system. IOW, if the system
demand went up 10% because of the storm then perhaps they boosted your estimated
reading 10%. In any case, it'll all equal out upon the next reading.

The utility is in a no-win situation forced on them by customer ignorance and
"consumerism" (that putrid combination of entitlement and something for nothing.) On
one hand if they estimate low then the "consumer" is going to deluge them with calls
complaining about the subsequent "high" bill the next time the meter is read. if
they factor the estimation up based on system demand in an attempt to make the
estimate more nearly reflect reality then they get deluged with calls from customers
like you complaining about a "too high" bill.

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

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

In the meantime you can busy yourself by reading your meter daily. Maybe even keep a
diary of what electrical-related activities goes on in your house each day. Number
of loads of laundry, amount of cooking, etc.

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

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

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com -- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
What do you call 4 Blondes in an Abrams? Air Tank.

[Ann]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:22:46 -0600, S. Barker wrote:

then you go PAST the 'target' temp.

Correct. I didn't say it was the most efficient way to do it. g

s

"Ann" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:14:39 -0600, dpb wrote:

Ann wrote:
...

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

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

Duration of input.

[boden]

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

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


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

Further thoughts and notions appreciated.

Steve
Southiowa
I'd find out if your usage was under estimated in the prior month, or
over estimated in the current month before I'd expend any effort on
other hypotheses.

Boden

[Terry]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:57:22 -0500, Neon John wrote:

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

Great post.

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

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

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

[CJT]

S. Barker wrote:

then you go PAST the 'target' temp.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Overshoot a bit and then let the
system relax. You might reach a stable point quicker that way than
approaching it asymptotically from below, which is what he said.

Google "critically damped."



s

"Ann" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:14:39 -0600, dpb wrote:


Ann wrote:
...


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

...

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

Duration of input.






--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

[CJT]

Terry wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:57:22 -0500, Neon John wrote:


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


Great post.

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

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

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

It wouldn't, but if you divide by only the days the power was on, the
average usage would increase.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

[danny burstein]

In Terry writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key

[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[Steve IA[_2_]]

Neon John wrote:

Let's analyze the situation as I understand it.

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

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


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

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

It is vanishingly unlikely that the meter reader made near-identical reading mistakes
on all your meters. It is also unlikely that the meters were even read at all. A
power outage that long tells me the utility was assholes'n'elbows during the
recovery. The meter readers, unless they are contractors, were likely working on the
recovery as ground and support crew. That's the way it works with my client
utilities.
Meter readers are contract, usually retired farmers that drive around
and wife gets out to read while farmer pats the dog on the head.
I would suspect that the reader is the same as all I've spoken to are in
the same township. But identical mistakes?? Doubt it.
I can question the REC about other reader's districts.

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

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


"I'm so confused!"


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

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

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

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

Now, where's that next windmill, Pancho?


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

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


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

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

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

Thanks, john

Steve
--
"When it all comes down,
I hope it doesn't land on you."
- Hoyt Axton

[S. Barker]

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

s


"Ann" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:22:46 -0600, S. Barker wrote:

then you go PAST the 'target' temp.

Correct. I didn't say it was the most efficient way to do it. g

[Ann]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:51:01 -0600, S. Barker wrote:

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

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


"Ann" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:22:46 -0600, S. Barker wrote:

then you go PAST the 'target' temp.

Correct. I didn't say it was the most efficient way to do it. g

[Charles Bishop[_2_]]

In article , danny burstein
wrote:

In Ann writes:

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

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

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

I don't think that's what she said. If you want the temp to be 70, then
set the t-stat to 80. It will cycle once or twice, then set it to 70. This
is from a "cold" start where the temp is way below the setting. It takes
time to bring the furnishings, &c up to temp, so having the t-stat set at
80 helps with this. Yes?


[snip]

--
charles

[Doug Miller]

In article , (Charles Bishop) wrote:

I don't think that's what she said. If you want the temp to be 70, then
set the t-stat to 80. It will cycle once or twice, then set it to 70. This
is from a "cold" start where the temp is way below the setting. It takes
time to bring the furnishings, &c up to temp, so having the t-stat set at
80 helps with this. Yes?

No. A thermostat is an on-off switch. As long as the room temperature is lower
than the thermostat's setpoint, it's on. When the room temperature reaches the
setpoint, it turns off. That's all.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

[Mark Lloyd]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:27:05 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , (Charles Bishop) wrote:

I don't think that's what she said. If you want the temp to be 70, then
set the t-stat to 80. It will cycle once or twice, then set it to 70. This
is from a "cold" start where the temp is way below the setting. It takes
time to bring the furnishings, &c up to temp, so having the t-stat set at
80 helps with this. Yes?

No. A thermostat is an on-off switch. As long as the room temperature is lower
than the thermostat's setpoint, it's on. When the room temperature reaches the
setpoint, it turns off. That's all.

I've found that it does help, even if it shouldn't. At least I've seen
this with a particular gas furnace. When expected to raise the
temperature 20 degrees of so, the furnace would cut off well before
reaching the set temperature.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"All your western theologies, the whole mythology of them,
are based on the concept of God as a senile delinquent."
-- Tennessee Williams

[dpb]

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:27:05 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , (Charles Bishop) wrote:

I don't think that's what she said. If you want the temp to be 70, then
set the t-stat to 80. It will cycle once or twice, then set it to 70. This
is from a "cold" start where the temp is way below the setting. It takes
time to bring the furnishings, &c up to temp, so having the t-stat set at
80 helps with this. Yes?
No. A thermostat is an on-off switch. As long as the room temperature is lower
than the thermostat's setpoint, it's on. When the room temperature reaches the
setpoint, it turns off. That's all.

I've found that it does help, even if it shouldn't. At least I've seen
this with a particular gas furnace. When expected to raise the
temperature 20 degrees of so, the furnace would cut off well before
reaching the set temperature.

Again, unless there are different heating rates available dependent on
the difference between measured and setpoint, it's thermodynamically
impossible. If it turned off, it simply either reached the demand point
_at the location of the thermostat_ or there was/is another interlock on
the system coming into play.

The thermostat turns the unit on; it runs until demand is satisfied.
Heat input is fixed while the unit is on; off when it isn't. Loss to
fixtures, etc., is dependent on the surface temperature differential and
the local heat transfer characteristics and has nothing whatsoever to do
w/ the setpoint.

It is true that if one overshoots an end temperature significantly (say
80F instead of 70F) and lets that reach an equilibrium there will be
more retained heat in fixtures, etc., than there is at 70F which, some
of which will gradually be re-radiated and convected back into the room,
but the overall heat input required will be greater than if simply set
to the desired end setpoint.

The only way the setpoint matters on rate is if there is a variable
input source that is dependent on the temperature differential between
setpoint and actual.

--

[Elmo[_5_]]

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:27:05 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , (Charles Bishop) wrote:

I don't think that's what she said. If you want the temp to be 70, then
set the t-stat to 80. It will cycle once or twice, then set it to 70. This
is from a "cold" start where the temp is way below the setting. It takes
time to bring the furnishings, &c up to temp, so having the t-stat set at
80 helps with this. Yes?
No. A thermostat is an on-off switch. As long as the room temperature is lower
than the thermostat's setpoint, it's on. When the room temperature reaches the
setpoint, it turns off. That's all.

I've found that it does help, even if it shouldn't. At least I've seen
this with a particular gas furnace. When expected to raise the
temperature 20 degrees of so, the furnace would cut off well before
reaching the set temperature.

Most thermostats also have an "anticipator" setting. They will stop calling for heat when the room temperature gets close to the set point. The objective is to prevent the room temperature from oscillating above the set point due to residual heat being released into the room by radiators. It's not usually an issue with hot air systems because they warm the air directly. But hot water, steam, and radiant electric systems usually need it. If you have a hot air system and the anticipator is engaging as if it were a hot water system, that could account for having it cut off too soon.





--
This is an election year. By common law,
the truth is legally suspended.

[Ann]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:28:13 -0600, dpb wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:27:05 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , (Charles Bishop) wrote:

I don't think that's what she said. If you want the temp to be 70, then
set the t-stat to 80. It will cycle once or twice, then set it to 70. This
is from a "cold" start where the temp is way below the setting. It takes
time to bring the furnishings, &c up to temp, so having the t-stat set at
80 helps with this. Yes?
No. A thermostat is an on-off switch. As long as the room temperature is lower
than the thermostat's setpoint, it's on. When the room temperature reaches the
setpoint, it turns off. That's all.

I've found that it does help, even if it shouldn't. At least I've seen
this with a particular gas furnace. When expected to raise the
temperature 20 degrees of so, the furnace would cut off well before
reaching the set temperature.

Again, unless there are different heating rates available dependent on
the difference between measured and setpoint, it's thermodynamically
impossible. If it turned off, it simply either reached the demand point
_at the location of the thermostat_ or there was/is another interlock on
the system coming into play.

The thermostat turns the unit on; it runs until demand is satisfied.
Heat input is fixed while the unit is on; off when it isn't. Loss to
fixtures, etc., is dependent on the surface temperature differential and
the local heat transfer characteristics and has nothing whatsoever to do
w/ the setpoint.

It is true that if one overshoots an end temperature significantly (say
80F instead of 70F) and lets that reach an equilibrium there will be
more retained heat in fixtures, etc., than there is at 70F which, some
of which will gradually be re-radiated and convected back into the room,
but the overall heat input required will be greater than if simply set
to the desired end setpoint.

The only way the setpoint matters on rate is if there is a variable
input source that is dependent on the temperature differential between
setpoint and actual.

No post (at least that I saw) claimed that setting the thermostat up
increased the rating of a standard residential hot air furnace.