Does anyone have experience with changing their utility providers (Gas
and Electric) to save money? Other than the charge (per ccf for gas,
or per kwh for electric), are there any other considerations (fees) to
be aware of when you change?

It appears that if I change electric, I can reduce my bill by $.05/kwh,
but I would still need to pay for transport charges to my original
provider. That small reduction is enough to be attractive to me, but I
don't fully understand how changing the supplier for the same current
can be so much less expensive (40% in this case).

For gas, I'm looking at variable rates vs. fixed rate contracts, with
ceilings, fees, etc.

Thank you,
Dave

wrote:
Does anyone have experience with changing their utility providers (Gas
and Electric) to save money? Other than the charge (per ccf for gas,
or per kwh for electric), are there any other considerations (fees) to
be aware of when you change?

It appears that if I change electric, I can reduce my bill by $.05/kwh,
but I would still need to pay for transport charges to my original
provider. That small reduction is enough to be attractive to me, but I
don't fully understand how changing the supplier for the same current
can be so much less expensive (40% in this case).

For gas, I'm looking at variable rates vs. fixed rate contracts, with
ceilings, fees, etc.

Thank you,
Dave

The way it works in my area is that the local monopoly still owns the
power lines, and you pay them a fixed monthly fee plus delivery
charges. You pay the alternative energy provider for the energy that
you use. In my case, that is a small part of the total bill. So even
if you are saving 40% on the energy cost, that is 40% of maybe 40% of
the total electric bill, for a savings of 16% (in this example).

I don't know much about it, but in some cases, electric companies can
buy electricity on the open market for less than what it costs them to
generate their own power with their own power plants. The local
utility here used to own a nuclear plant that provided electricity at a
higher than market rates. Somehow it worked out that they sold the
plant and are more competitive now, although I don't understand how
someone else can run the plant profitably.

Ken

wrote in message
oups.com...
Does anyone have experience with changing their utility providers (Gas
and Electric) to save money? Other than the charge (per ccf for gas,
or per kwh for electric), are there any other considerations (fees) to
be aware of when you change?

It appears that if I change electric, I can reduce my bill by $.05/kwh,
but I would still need to pay for transport charges to my original
provider. That small reduction is enough to be attractive to me, but I
don't fully understand how changing the supplier for the same current
can be so much less expensive (40% in this case).

For gas, I'm looking at variable rates vs. fixed rate contracts, with
ceilings, fees, etc.

IMO, the whole thing is a scam. Check that .05 figure again. Is that the
reduction? In my case the saving is about $2 a month because the savings is
..005 kW when you factor in all the real costs and add the distribution
charges.

\We also have hte option of using "green" power from hydro plants and wind
farms, but that increases the rate if you want to be green.

The $.05 is the cost per KWh. So, if I use 1000KWh/mo., then it saves
me $20 (all other things being equal).

I guess that is part of my question...are all the other distribution
costs, etc., really equal or would we have added fees, etc. for the
difference supply/dist.

As for the green power, it surprises me in the sense that you would
think that they would want you to move to green power rather than make
you pay more for it. If the equipment or conversion is so expensive
that it would cost your customers more to move to it...why put it in
place as an option in the first place?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Does anyone have experience with changing their utility providers (Gas
and Electric) to save money? Other than the charge (per ccf for gas,
or per kwh for electric), are there any other considerations (fees) to
be aware of when you change?

It appears that if I change electric, I can reduce my bill by $.05/kwh,
but I would still need to pay for transport charges to my original
provider. That small reduction is enough to be attractive to me, but I
don't fully understand how changing the supplier for the same current
can be so much less expensive (40% in this case).

For gas, I'm looking at variable rates vs. fixed rate contracts, with
ceilings, fees, etc.

Thank you,
Dave

With out knowing your areas rules and laws there is no way to answer you.

Arizona toyed with this for couple of years. The utility commission said
that they had to allow customers to change. The utilities sued the
commission cause every proposal that they provided was denied. When the dust
had settled the law became mute. NOT one utility wanted a single customer
less than 100kw of load. So that meant a person could not change but an area
could. Several tried and there was always a hold out and they could not
force the change on the hold outs (state law).

Call the utility commission/regulators in your area.

Me thinks it will COST you to change.

Remember when the deregulation of the phones happened? My phone bill has
doubled since the deregulation.

If your phone bill has doubled since deregulation you must not have
made a lot of long-distance calls in 1984 (and by the way, the price of
an average item has almost doubled since 1984 according to the Consumer
Price Index). Here in NY there are phone companies that offer
UNLIMITED long-distance (U.S. only) for a pretty low flat fee. And
back then they were charging extra for touch-tone service, call-waiting
didn't yet exist, and you were probably still paying extra for extra
phones...

I doubt that moving from Con Ed to Econnergy for electricity would save
much, but I'd think that any savings is worthwhile.

The green power option is there probably by law, but in any case if it
costs them more to buy solar/hydro/wind then they're passing along the
extra cost.

Shaun Eli
http://www.BrainChampagne.com
Brain Champagne: Clever Comedy for the Smarter Audience (sm)

wrote in message
ups.com...
The $.05 is the cost per KWh. So, if I use 1000KWh/mo., then it saves
me $20 (all other things being equal).

I guess that is part of my question...are all the other distribution
costs, etc., really equal or would we have added fees, etc. for the
difference supply/dist.

As for the green power, it surprises me in the sense that you would
think that they would want you to move to green power rather than make
you pay more for it. If the equipment or conversion is so expensive
that it would cost your customers more to move to it...why put it in
place as an option in the first place?


Because maybe the customer would like to put their money towards renewable,
and clean power. Also, it's a US product, not from the mid east.

"Shaun Eli" wrote in message

The green power option is there probably by law, but in any case if it
costs them more to buy solar/hydro/wind then they're passing along the
extra cost.

Actually, I heard today that with the expected increase in oil and gas prices expected this winter, wind and other
alternative power would become as cheap as the current sources.

Bob

Follow up -

Ed,
I relooked at the numbers and saw what you meant. The actual "supply"
savings would have been on the order of $.01/kwh, not $.05. So, it
comes to about $10/mo or so, if there are no service fees or other
charges.

It's wonderful when regulation steps in and makes things as difficult
as possible for the consumer to figure out. Since my last post, I've
read countless articles on how confusing this process is and how you
have to dig into the details to see whether or not it makes sense.
(sic)

Thanks,
Dave

Bob wrote
Shaun Eli wrote

The green power option is there probably by law, but in
any case if it costs them more to buy solar/hydro/wind
then they're passing along the extra cost.

Actually, I heard today that with the expected increase in oil and
gas prices expected this winter, wind and other alternative power
would become as cheap as the current sources.

Its complete pig ignorant drivel.

And wind and other alternative power wont be providing
base load heating any time soon, you watch.

Rod Speed wrote:
Bob wrote
Shaun Eli wrote

The green power option is there probably by law, but in
any case if it costs them more to buy solar/hydro/wind
then they're passing along the extra cost.

Actually, I heard today that with the expected increase in oil and
gas prices expected this winter, wind and other alternative power
would become as cheap as the current sources.

Its complete pig ignorant drivel.

Oh yes, look into your crystal ball, that is if you haven't sold it to
buy some more meth.

wrote:
Follow up -

Ed,
I relooked at the numbers and saw what you meant. The actual "supply"
savings would have been on the order of $.01/kwh, not $.05. So, it
comes to about $10/mo or so, if there are no service fees or other
charges.

It's wonderful when regulation steps in and makes things as difficult
as possible for the consumer to figure out. Since my last post, I've
read countless articles on how confusing this process is and how you
have to dig into the details to see whether or not it makes sense.
(sic)

Thanks,
Dave

In Texas, we have state standardized "rate cards", that were
correct for the previous quarter.

Several years ago, I changed my electricity supplier. For
two months, the minimum period before I could switch back
;-) After the added meter reading, delivery and higher mrc
charges, I was paying $9 more than the original provider, I
did save $1 on energy cost though. But I use less than
1,000 KWH /mo. This is the frugal group, right? The retail
providers, "competitors" are just understaffed billing
companies.

It's just another government game, making you think they
gave you something. (Well, our PUC commision did get dragged
to DC with our former gov, he got paid)

Unless you use megaWH, your benefit will be the $25 DIY card
they give you for switching. good luck,

-larry / dallas

sorry, didn't catch the poster posted across several groups,
hate that.

larry wrote:


than 1,000 KWH /mo. This is the frugal group, right? The retail
providers, "competitors" are just understaffed billing companies.

wrote:

Does anyone have experience with changing their utility providers (Gas
and Electric) to save money? Other than the charge (per ccf for gas,
or per kwh for electric), are there any other considerations (fees) to
be aware of when you change?

You didn't mention where you live. That makes a huge difference in the
answer to your question. If you are in USA, what state do you live in?

Spod Reed wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
Bob wrote
Shaun Eli wrote

The green power option is there probably by law, but in
any case if it costs them more to buy solar/hydro/wind
then they're passing along the extra cost.

Actually, I heard today that with the expected increase in oil and
gas prices expected this winter, wind and other alternative power
would become as cheap as the current sources.

Its complete pig ignorant drivel.

Oh yes, look into your crystal ball, that is if you haven't sold it to
buy some more meth.

Alternative power will not get cheap; oil will get expensive. But, even at
$3/gallon, gasoline is still a bargain. Not only is it cheaper than designer
water, gasoline is about 1/6th as "expensive" (as a percentage of take-home
pay) as it was in the '70s.

It's not a crystal ball - it's math. The sunlight that falls on the earth is
745 watts/meter^2. At noon. On the equator. With no clouds. The only way to
increase that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Assuming 50% efficiency, and accounting for latitude and weather, it would
take a solar collector the size of the Los Angeles basin to provide
California with the power the state now consumes (~50Gw). This would pretty
much render Los Angeles uninhabitable.

Which, when you think on it, might not be so bad.

Otherwise, there are areas of the country where there's only enough wind to
power one windmill, so that idea's out.

HeyBub wrote:
It's not a crystal ball - it's math. The sunlight that falls on the earth is
745 watts/meter^2. At noon. On the equator. With no clouds. The only way to
increase that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

Assuming 50% efficiency, and accounting for latitude and weather, it would
take a solar collector the size of the Los Angeles basin to provide
California with the power the state now consumes (~50Gw). This would pretty
much render Los Angeles uninhabitable.

I'm not really sure why, just because it would need to be the size of
the Los Angeles Basin why it would need to actually be located there.

If you've ever drive along I-40 out of California towards Arizona (through
Needles, CA), you know that there's a whole lot of land out there which
is not being used for much and quite frankly doesn't look like it would
be good *for* much. And it's quite cheap too -- you can tell because
the billboards along that section of highway say so.

If we start with 745 watts/meter^2 and assume 98% of the energy is lost
due to weather, inefficiency of photovoltaics, transmission losses, etc.,
then that's still only about 1300 square miles of land area that would
be needed to meet California's power requirements. And California has
about 156,000 square miles of land, so that's less than 1% of the land.
It might seem crazy to cover 1% of the state's land area with solar
collectors, but my guess is that 1% of the state's land area is already
covered with asphalt or other road surface.

- Logan

HeyBub wrote:
....
It's not a crystal ball - it's math. The sunlight that falls on the earth is
745 watts/meter^2. At noon. On the equator. With no clouds. The only way to
increase that number is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.

I wonder where you get the number 745 watts/meter^2. Most solar panel
makers use standard test conditions which specify 1 sun=1000 watts/m^2.
Then again, it doesn't really matter much because it's not just how
intense the sunlight is but how long it shines. Most solar resource
maps show this as 'kwh/m^2/day'. Most places in the United States
average around 4.5 kwh/m^2/day (more summer, less winter).

Assuming 50% efficiency, and accounting for latitude and weather, it would
take a solar collector the size of the Los Angeles basin to provide
California with the power the state now consumes (~50Gw). This would pretty
much render Los Angeles uninhabitable.

Where does 50% efficiency come from? Solar electric panels are only
around 10-12% efficient, solar water heating around 50% and solar
air heating around 80%.

Did you ever hear about people putting solar panels on their roofs?
On the roofs of parking lots, department stores, warehouses, condos?
The city of Los Angeles is pretty much already covered with structures.
Adding panels on top of these structures wouldn't make it any less
habitable than it is already.

Besides, as has been already stated, there are huge areas which are
generally uninhabitable but which are excellent places for solar
energy collectors.

Otherwise, there are areas of the country where there's only enough wind to
power one windmill, so that idea's out.

Just because some place are unsuitable for wind power does not mean
that all places are. There are plenty of areas of the country where
there IS enough wind to power hundreds, even thousands, of wind
turbines.

Anthony

HeyBub wrote:
Alternative power will not get cheap; oil will get expensive. But, even at
$3/gallon, gasoline is still a bargain. Not only is it cheaper than designer
water,

Thank you very much, I'm drinking Nestle Pure Life, obtained at $1.183
per gallon. And I don't *NEED* 20 gallons a week.

gasoline is about 1/6th as "expensive" (as a percentage of take-home
pay) as it was in the '70s.

Even if that's true, and the graph at http://zfacts.com/p/35.html shows
that it's not, it's over twice as expensive now as it was eighteen months
ago. This alone tells me that someone's zoomin' us.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

John Smith wrote:
You didn't mention where you live. That makes a huge difference in the
answer to your question. If you are in USA, what state do you live in?

Sorry about leaving that out, we're in Western New York (Buffalo area)

HeyBub wrote:

Otherwise, there are areas of the country where there's only enough wind to
power one windmill, so that idea's out.

:-)

I gather you haven't checked into various federal/state capitols and city
halls, where there is an overabundance.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =
Red ship crashes into blue ship - sailors marooned.

The answer no doubt varies from state to state.

I've switched a few times, without cost, but I have been careful to
switch only after completing the terms of my contract, as most have a
premature switching penalty. In fact, I just switched my natural gas,
as my old supplier advised they were upping their rate from about $8.90
to about $14.50, and I found an alternative source offering a fixed rate
of about $12.50. Its true that this only applies to the provider
portion of your bill, but still it is some savings. It would be nice to
have some alternative sources for electricity, but most of them are
largely theoretical, and I need something today, not twenty years hence.

Even if you only save a few dollars a month, you still save something.
The confusion in evaluating suppliers in my area is trying to compare
variable rate deals with fixed rate deals. I avoid the variable rate
deals, as it seems to me the provider has no incentive to hold costs
down when they can simply pass them through.

wrote:

Does anyone have experience with changing their utility providers (Gas
and Electric) to save money? Other than the charge (per ccf for gas,
or per kwh for electric), are there any other considerations (fees) to
be aware of when you change?

It appears that if I change electric, I can reduce my bill by $.05/kwh,
but I would still need to pay for transport charges to my original
provider. That small reduction is enough to be attractive to me, but I
don't fully understand how changing the supplier for the same current
can be so much less expensive (40% in this case).

For gas, I'm looking at variable rates vs. fixed rate contracts, with
ceilings, fees, etc.

Thank you,
Dave