i posted a few days ago regarding my fridaire refrigerator seemed to be
running all the time and one of the replies i got suggested buying a
kill a watt meter so i got one today and the instructions for
calculating costs wants me to input my kilowatt charges so after looking
at my latest electric bill i have 3 different charges...power supply
energy 457 kwh @0.06726, distribution 457 kwh @0.04195 and energy
optimization 457 kwh @0.01081. i am not sure which of these numbers to
input into my kill a watt meter...any suggestions?
thanks, cj

On May 23, 2:38*pm, cj wrote:
i posted a few days ago regarding my fridaire refrigerator seemed to be
running all the time and one of the replies i got suggested buying a
kill a watt meter so i got one today and the instructions for
calculating costs wants me to input my kilowatt charges so after looking
at my latest electric bill i have 3 different charges...power supply
energy 457 kwh @0.06726, distribution 457 kwh @0.04195 and energy
optimization 457 kwh @0.01081. i am not sure which of these numbers to
input into my kill a watt meter...any suggestions?
thanks, cj

Add all three as that is what you are paying!!

"hr(bob) " wrote in message
...
On May 23, 2:38 pm, cj wrote:
i posted a few days ago regarding my fridaire refrigerator seemed to be
running all the time and one of the replies i got suggested buying a
kill a watt meter so i got one today and the instructions for
calculating costs wants me to input my kilowatt charges so after looking
at my latest electric bill i have 3 different charges...power supply
energy 457 kwh @0.06726, distribution 457 kwh @0.04195 and energy
optimization 457 kwh @0.01081. i am not sure which of these numbers to
input into my kill a watt meter...any suggestions?
thanks, cj

Add all three as that is what you are paying!!


I agree. Take the total of the bill divided by KWH used carried to 4 right
of the decimal and that is your true cost.

Anything else is just marketing.


--
Colbyt
Please come visit http://www.househomerepair.com

On 2010-05-23, wrote:

cant just give it to you straight.

The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something
like that. The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job.

nb

On Sun, 23 May 2010 15:38:00 -0400, cj wrote:

i posted a few days ago regarding my fridaire refrigerator seemed to be
running all the time and one of the replies i got suggested buying a
kill a watt meter so i got one today and the instructions for
calculating costs wants me to input my kilowatt charges so after looking
at my latest electric bill i have 3 different charges...power supply
energy 457 kwh @0.06726, distribution 457 kwh @0.04195 and energy
optimization 457 kwh @0.01081. i am not sure which of these numbers to
input into my kill a watt meter...any suggestions?

Add them together. As a check, add them, multiply by your usage, add the
billing fee or basic charge (if any), and compare to the bottom line.

cj wrote:
i posted a few days ago regarding my fridaire refrigerator seemed to be
running all the time and one of the replies i got suggested buying a
kill a watt meter so i got one today and the instructions for
calculating costs wants me to input my kilowatt charges so after looking
at my latest electric bill i have 3 different charges...power supply
energy 457 kwh @0.06726, distribution 457 kwh @0.04195 and energy
optimization 457 kwh @0.01081. i am not sure which of these numbers to
input into my kill a watt meter...any suggestions?
thanks, cj
You want the total cost.
They split it out so they can jack up the rates in a way you won't notice.

If your fridge is running all the time, you already have all the info
you need. You need to fix it.
The kill a watt won't tell you any more than that you need to fix it.

Fridge designs vary considerably.

First thing to do is check that it's defrosted. You can usually see the
coils in the freezer thru a grille somewhere. The motor that runs the
defrost
timer can freeze up (pun intended) so the defrost cycle never runs.
The evaporator coil gets covered with ice and the efficiency heads for
zero. If that's the case, you need to defrost it manually. Even if you
fix the timer, the defrost cycle wasn't intended to melt a solid block
of ice.

I've had chunks of ice get caught in the inside circulation fan and
stop it from turning.

Vacuum the dust off the exterior condenser coils.

wrote:

I called them on this matter, and was told it's for security. I told
them flat out "BULL****". Put a security camera by the entrances and
a sensor light. Or hire a guard, which would likely cost much less
than the amount of power they are wasting, plus give someone a job.


They don't pay for the power.

And even if they did, the cost to generate the power is negligible compared
to the cost to distribute, maintain, and account for the power.

We've got an aluminum plant nearby that uses enough power to serve 10,000
homes. But it only takes one wire (well, three) to get it there. Contrast
that with 7,000 poles, 5,000 transformers, 10,000 meters (and the reading of
them), 10,000 bills sent each month, etc.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I called them on this matter, and was told it's for security. I told
them flat out "BULL****". Put a security camera by the entrances and
a sensor light. Or hire a guard, which would likely cost much less
than the amount of power they are wasting, plus give someone a job.


They don't pay for the power.

And even if they did, the cost to generate the power is negligible
compared to the cost to distribute, maintain, and account for the power.

We've got an aluminum plant nearby that uses enough power to serve 10,000
homes. But it only takes one wire (well, three) to get it there. Contrast
that with 7,000 poles, 5,000 transformers, 10,000 meters (and the reading
of them), 10,000 bills sent each month, etc.




In the state I live an aluminum company took over a river and put up dams to
produce the power to make the aluminum. About 10 years or so ago they quit
making aluminum and just sold the power they were generating. Seems the
power was making more profit than the aluminum product.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
wrote:

And even if they did, the cost to generate the power is negligible
compared to the cost to distribute, maintain, and account for the power.

We've got an aluminum plant nearby that uses enough power to serve 10,000
homes. But it only takes one wire (well, three) to get it there. Contrast
that with 7,000 poles, 5,000 transformers, 10,000 meters (and the reading
of them), 10,000 bills sent each month, etc.




I have a little experience with business rates. They are far different and
in most cases cheaper than residential rates.

Many businesses pay based on a peak demand rate. Off peak is another
factor.

We actually lowered the utility bills for an all electric pizza restaurant
by switching from regular to peak demand pricing. I mean a big savings.

Think about it. Those generators and wires can only make and carry so much
load at one time.


--
Colbyt
Please come visit http://www.househomerepair.com

wrote:
....

If I can ever afford it, I'm going to setup solar panels and wind
generators, and tell the elec co to shove it.

Chuckle...

And there's the bottom line -- you can't do it for less, even for a
minimal amount such as a single dwelling.

--

dpb wrote:
wrote:
...

If I can ever afford it, I'm going to setup solar panels and wind
generators, and tell the elec co to shove it.

Chuckle...

And there's the bottom line -- you can't do it for less, even for a
minimal amount such as a single dwelling.

--
Not if you insist on using electricity as the only way of storing and
moving energy. For people who want to live 'off the grid', the answer is
to minimize how much electricity you need, and do as much as possible
via other means. Passive solar, ground thermal, big south windows and
Sola tubes for as much 'free' lighting as possible, windmill and water
tower to minimize the need for well pump and water heater, etc, etc.
Once you get over the front-end costs and the effort to recreate 1930s
tech, you can get by with very little 110/220.

It does take a lot more work on a daily basis to exist that way. All
that low-tech stuff takes a lot of upkeep. That is the reason
electricity caught on so fast- it is so damn convenient.

--
aem sends...

notbob wrote:

On 2010-05-23, wrote:

cant just give it to you straight.

The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something
like that. The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job.

nb

Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal
billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number
of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference
what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc.,
the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do
the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is
fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees.

On May 23, 5:17*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 20:07:57 GMT, notbob wrote:
On 2010-05-23, wrote:

cant just give it to you straight. *

The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something
like that. *The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job.

nb

Then that's NOT the straight cost. *I dont care if it's taxes or any
other added ****. *You're paying for it. *It's part of the total. *You
might be paying 14 cents / KWH, but if the other crap adds another 5
cents, your paying 19 cents / KWH. *ALL utility companies are CROOKS.
They know we must have their services, so they know they can get away
with it. *Same for gasoline.


And it's not just taxes or a fed/state screw job. Just like the OP,
my bill has a seperation of the cost of the energy itself from the
distribution. At least here in NJ, the PUC has decreed they be
seperate. I could choose to buy my electricity from several
suppliers and still have the same local electric company deliver it.
Both components are substantial. The first pays for the generation of
the electricity and the other for the wires, poles, transformers,
meters, servicing, etc that delivers it.

Still, it's easy to figure out. In the case of the OP I would add all
3 charges and use that for the killawatt meter. I would not just
divide the total bill or add any monthly base fee, ie the $25 or
whatever that you pay in some cases no matter how much you use. You
want the incremental cost attributed to the refrigerator.



My local electric co has spent close to $20 million in the past 2
years, building new office buildings. *Now the old buildings sit
vacant, and there was nothing wrong with those buildings that a coat
of paint could not fix. *On top of that, they bitch and moan that we
are supposed to conserve energy. *Well, if you drive past their office
at night the whole buillding is lit up, as well as the parking lot and
the whole exterior of the building has flood lights on it, so we can
all "admire" their waste of money. *And I should note that there is
not even one car in their parking lot. *No one is there. *

I called them on this matter, and was told it's for security. *I told
them flat out "BULL****". *Put a security camera by the entrances and
a sensor light. *Or hire a guard, which would likely cost much less
than the amount of power they are wasting, plus give someone a job.

If I can ever afford it, I'm going to setup solar panels and wind
generators, and tell the elec co to shove it.

On May 23, 10:05*pm, aemeijers wrote:
dpb wrote:
wrote:
...

If I can ever afford it, I'm going to setup solar panels and wind
generators, and tell the elec co to shove it.

Chuckle...

And there's the bottom line -- you can't do it for less, even for a
minimal amount such as a single dwelling.


You may be able to do it though with fed and state subsidies kicked
in. I'm going to a seminar this week at HD to find out what the
current deal is here in NJ. Of course, the problem with the subsidy
approach is that to get to any significant replacement of the cheaper
conventional energy sources would require a lot of money that even the
govts don't have. And the subsidy is coming out of everyone elses
pocket, including low income families that are paying for guys like
actor Ed Begly to feel good about themselves.





--

Not if you insist on using electricity as the only way of storing and
moving energy. For people who want to live 'off the grid', the answer is
to minimize how much electricity you need, and do as much as possible
via other means. Passive solar, ground thermal, big south windows and
Sola tubes for as much 'free' lighting as possible, windmill and water
tower to minimize the need for well pump and water heater, etc, etc.
Once you get over the front-end costs and the effort to recreate 1930s
tech, you can get by with very little 110/220.

It does take a lot more work on a daily basis to exist that way. All
that low-tech stuff takes a lot of upkeep. That is the reason
electricity caught on so fast- it is so damn convenient.

--
aem sends...

On May 24, 6:33*am, wrote:
On May 23, 5:17*pm, wrote:





On Sun, 23 May 2010 20:07:57 GMT, notbob wrote:
On 2010-05-23, wrote:

cant just give it to you straight. *

The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something
like that. *The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job.

nb

Then that's NOT the straight cost. *I dont care if it's taxes or any
other added ****. *You're paying for it. *It's part of the total. *You
might be paying 14 cents / KWH, but if the other crap adds another 5
cents, your paying 19 cents / KWH. *ALL utility companies are CROOKS.
They know we must have their services, so they know they can get away
with it. *Same for gasoline.

And it's not just taxes or a fed/state screw job. * Just like the OP,
my bill has a seperation of the cost of the energy itself from the
distribution. * At least here in NJ, the PUC has decreed they be
seperate. * I could choose to buy my electricity from several
suppliers and still have the same local electric company deliver it.
Both components are substantial. *The first pays for the generation of
the electricity and the other for the wires, poles, transformers,
meters, servicing, etc that delivers it.

Still, it's easy to figure out. *In the case of the OP I would add all
3 charges and use that for the killawatt meter. * I would not just
divide the total bill or add any monthly base fee, ie the $25 or
whatever that you pay in some cases no matter how much you use. *You
want the incremental cost attributed to the refrigerator.





My local electric co has spent close to $20 million in the past 2
years, building new office buildings. *Now the old buildings sit
vacant, and there was nothing wrong with those buildings that a coat
of paint could not fix. *On top of that, they bitch and moan that we
are supposed to conserve energy. *Well, if you drive past their office
at night the whole buillding is lit up, as well as the parking lot and
the whole exterior of the building has flood lights on it, so we can
all "admire" their waste of money. *And I should note that there is
not even one car in their parking lot. *No one is there. *

I called them on this matter, and was told it's for security. *I told
them flat out "BULL****". *Put a security camera by the entrances and
a sensor light. *Or hire a guard, which would likely cost much less
than the amount of power they are wasting, plus give someone a job.

If I can ever afford it, I'm going to setup solar panels and wind
generators, and tell the elec co to shove it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To find actual kwh cost it is what is owed divided by what is used in
kwh, right.

On May 23, 2:38*pm, cj wrote:
i posted a few days ago regarding my fridaire refrigerator seemed to be
running all the time and one of the replies i got suggested buying a
kill a watt meter so i got one today and the instructions for
calculating costs wants me to input my kilowatt charges so after looking
at my latest electric bill i have 3 different charges...power supply
energy 457 kwh @0.06726, distribution 457 kwh @0.04195 and energy
optimization 457 kwh @0.01081. i am not sure which of these numbers to
input into my kill a watt meter...any suggestions?
thanks, cj

You dont need to know what you pay to use a kill a watt meter, it
stores Watts used over time for at least 100 hours on my old unit, you
then find the Gov energy rating to see if you are near in total Kwh
used. I bought a sears 19,5 cu ft fring years ago because it had the
lowest printed consumption I could find, my testing with a Kill a watt
meter showed my usage a bit higher but still it cost me only about
$4.50- 4.70 a month from the KAW meter vs $4.30 with the Energy Guide
ticket, that I adjusted to my KWH cost. www.energystar.gov has all
friges listed by KWH consumed. If your frige is way over in
consumption of the rating somethiong is probably wrong, unless
everyone keeps the doors open looking for food. The gov rating can be
nearly achieved, but you need minimal door opening, a 70 degree room,
and not settings on coldest to get that consumption rating. What you
KWH cost is is not what they say, it is what you PAY divided by KWH,
that will give you how many cents a Killowatt hour costs.

ransley wrote:

To find actual kwh cost it is what is owed divided by what is used in
kwh, right.

Well, no. You'll still pay $25 or so per month if you used no electricity.
Then there's tax, universal access fee, Spanish American War tax, exise
taxes, sales taxes, 911 fee, sewer charges, mosquito control district, and
other taxes and fees (I may have some mixed in here that don't really
belong, but that's probably just a temporary thing).

On May 23, 11:20*pm, "Pete C." wrote:
notbob wrote:

On 2010-05-23, wrote:

cant just give it to you straight.

The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something
like that. *The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job.

nb

Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal
billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number
of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference
what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc.,
the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do
the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is
fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees.

It does however make a difference if there is a monthly connection fee
of say $25. I don't think most people would include this in
determining the cost of running a fridge, since you're paying it even
if the fridge is turned off and using 0 energy. If you wanted to
apportion that $25, it should be apportioned to everything in the
house that could use electric, including the jig saw that is only used
once a year.

wrote:

You may be able to do it though with fed and state subsidies kicked
in. I'm going to a seminar this week at HD to find out what the
current deal is here in NJ. Of course, the problem with the subsidy
approach is that to get to any significant replacement of the cheaper
conventional energy sources would require a lot of money that even the
govts don't have. And the subsidy is coming out of everyone elses
pocket, including low income families that are paying for guys like
actor Ed Begly to feel good about themselves.


Ohhhh! A seminar at HD. That's sure to get you the best data.

On May 24, 12:06*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
wrote:

You may be able to do it though with fed and state subsidies kicked
in. *I'm going to a seminar this week at HD to find out what the
current deal is here in NJ. * Of course, the problem with the subsidy
approach is that to get to any significant replacement of the cheaper
conventional energy sources would require a lot of money that even the
govts don't have. *And the subsidy is coming out of everyone elses
pocket, including low income families that are paying for guys like
actor Ed Begly to feel good about themselves.

Ohhhh! A seminar at HD. That's sure to get you the best data.


It will get data from at least one company that is actually installing
them here in NJ for HD and can give cost data, incentive program data,
etc. The solar panels are made by a major company that is selling
them around the world.

So, what's your problem and attitude?

On 5/23/2010 11:20 PM, Pete C. wrote:

notbob wrote:

On 2010-05-23, wrote:

cant just give it to you straight.

The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something
like that. The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job.

nb

Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal
billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number
of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference
what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc.,
the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do
the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is
fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees.

Thats exactly as it should be and all taxes/fees should then be
explicitly stated as line items. The provider is informing you what they
are charging to provide service. They are only acting as a tax collector
for the additional charges. This is no different than buying lunch and
declaring that the $5 price listed for your sandwich is fraudulent when
you pay $5.35 at the register. If you dislike the idea (I do) of weasel
politicians applying "taxes we won't notice" on everything then fire
them on election day.

wrote the following:
On May 24, 12:06 pm, "Bob F" wrote:

wrote:


You may be able to do it though with fed and state subsidies kicked
in. I'm going to a seminar this week at HD to find out what the
current deal is here in NJ. Of course, the problem with the subsidy
approach is that to get to any significant replacement of the cheaper
conventional energy sources would require a lot of money that even the
govts don't have. And the subsidy is coming out of everyone elses
pocket, including low income families that are paying for guys like
actor Ed Begly to feel good about themselves.

Ohhhh! A seminar at HD. That's sure to get you the best data.



It will get data from at least one company that is actually installing
them here in NJ for HD and can give cost data, incentive program data,
etc. The solar panels are made by a major company that is selling
them around the world.

So, what's your problem and attitude?


He's waiting for his local mom and pop hardware store to have a seminar.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

In .com, Pete C. wrote:

I snip to here

Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal
billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number
of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference
what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc.,
the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do
the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is
fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees.

I would like to modify this a little:

The total per KWH cost is determined like this:

1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the
likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly
billing charge, or the like.

Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution
cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine
digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on
these. These would be on a per-KWH basis.

(Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that
is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges,
subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do
that, you should not be off by much.)

2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual
per-KWH cost.

(You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1
to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.)

--
- Don Klipstein )

In article , HeyBub wrote:
ransley wrote:

To find actual kwh cost it is what is owed divided by what is used in
kwh, right.

Well, no. You'll still pay $25 or so per month if you used no electricity.
Then there's tax, universal access fee, Spanish American War tax, exise
taxes, sales taxes, 911 fee, sewer charges, mosquito control district, and
other taxes and fees (I may have some mixed in here that don't really
belong, but that's probably just a temporary thing).

My non-KWH-related portion of my monthly electric bill is about $6.
(My electric utility is PECO, due to me living in Pennsylvania near
Philadelphia).

I subtract that from the total bill, and divide what's left to get my
per-KWH cost
(nearly 15 cents per KWH, above the USA average of 11 maybe now or soon
12 cents per KWH).

--
- Don Klipstein )

On May 24, 10:33*am, wrote:
On May 23, 11:20*pm, "Pete C." wrote:





notbob wrote:

On 2010-05-23, wrote:

cant just give it to you straight.

The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something
like that. *The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job.

nb

Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal
billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number
of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference
what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc.,
the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do
the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is
fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees.

It does however make a difference if there is a monthly connection fee
of say $25. *I don't think most people would include this in
determining the cost of running a fridge, since you're paying it even
if the fridge is turned off and using 0 energy. *If you wanted to
apportion that $25, it should be apportioned to everything in the
house that could use electric, including the jig saw that is only used
once a year.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
A connection fee? You mean for the telephone right.

Don Klipstein wrote:

In .com, Pete C. wrote:

I snip to here

Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal
billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number
of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference
what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc.,
the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do
the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is
fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees.

I would like to modify this a little:

The total per KWH cost is determined like this:

1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the
likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly
billing charge, or the like.

Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution
cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine
digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on
these. These would be on a per-KWH basis.

(Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that
is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges,
subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do
that, you should not be off by much.)

2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual
per-KWH cost.

(You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1
to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.)

--
- Don Klipstein )

No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a
component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period.
Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is
not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and
every kWh you used that billing period.

George wrote:

On 5/23/2010 11:20 PM, Pete C. wrote:

notbob wrote:

On 2010-05-23, wrote:

cant just give it to you straight.

The "straight" cost is always given, as in "$.14 KW/hr" or something
like that. The other charges are the fed/state/PUC screw job.

nb

Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal
billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number
of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference
what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc.,
the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do
the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is
fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees.

Thats exactly as it should be and all taxes/fees should then be
explicitly stated as line items. The provider is informing you what they
are charging to provide service. They are only acting as a tax collector
for the additional charges. This is no different than buying lunch and
declaring that the $5 price listed for your sandwich is fraudulent when
you pay $5.35 at the register. If you dislike the idea (I do) of weasel
politicians applying "taxes we won't notice" on everything then fire
them on election day.

I watched one utility change from an accurate cost per kWh (total bill
divided by total kWh used) listing on the bill, to one that excluded
taxes and fees from the calculation. During this change, there was no
notation of the change in the calculation and this was clearly a move to
make the cost of the electric service appear lower to customers who were
not paying attention or not good at math. After some time the notation
that this cost per kWh did not include taxes or fees mysteriously
appeared.

On Mon, 24 May 2010 14:01:26 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote Re kill a watt ez:

No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a
component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period.
Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is
not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and
every kWh you used that billing period.

That is correct.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

On 5/24/2010 3:01 PM, Pete C. wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

er.com, Pete C. wrote:

I snip to here

Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal
billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number
of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference
what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc.,
the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do
the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is
fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees.

I would like to modify this a little:

The total per KWH cost is determined like this:

1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the
likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly
billing charge, or the like.

Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution
cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine
digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on
these. These would be on a per-KWH basis.

(Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that
is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges,
subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do
that, you should not be off by much.)

2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual
per-KWH cost.

(You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1
to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.)

--
- Don Klipstein )

No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a
component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period.
Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is
not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and
every kWh you used that billing period.

But not for the purposes of this discussion. Lets say the fixed charges
on an account are $20 and the total energy rate is $0.10/kwh. Lets say
the current use is 1,000 kwh/mo. That means the bill should be $120 ($20
+ 100) or $0.12/kwh per your method. If use was 100 kwh less (or more)
how much would the bill be? $110 or $130 respectively not $132 or $108

In .com, Pete C. wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

In .com, Pete C. wrote:

I snip to here

Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal
billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number
of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference
what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc.,
the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do
the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is
fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees.

I would like to modify this a little:

The total per KWH cost is determined like this:

1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the
likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly
billing charge, or the like.

Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution
cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine
digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on
these. These would be on a per-KWH basis.

(Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that
is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges,
subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do
that, you should not be off by much.)

2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual
per-KWH cost.

(You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1
to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.)

No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a
component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period.
Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is
not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and
every kWh you used that billing period.

That is a cost that does not get reduced by reducing electricity
consumption.

Going by what you advise, reducing electricity consumption of some loads
increases the cost of unchanged loads.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:

In .com, Pete C. wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

In .com, Pete C. wrote:

I snip to here

Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal
billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number
of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference
what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc.,
the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do
the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is
fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees.

I would like to modify this a little:

The total per KWH cost is determined like this:

1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the
likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly
billing charge, or the like.

Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution
cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine
digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on
these. These would be on a per-KWH basis.

(Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that
is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges,
subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do
that, you should not be off by much.)

2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual
per-KWH cost.

(You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1
to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.)

No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a
component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period.
Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is
not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and
every kWh you used that billing period.

That is a cost that does not get reduced by reducing electricity
consumption.

Going by what you advise, reducing electricity consumption of some loads
increases the cost of unchanged loads.

- Don Klipstein )

I pay lower rates, the *more* electricity I use. My cost per kWh goes
down on months where I use more than 1,000 kWh.

On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:04:27 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote Re kill a watt ez:

I pay lower rates, the *more* electricity I use. My cost per kWh goes
down on months where I use more than 1,000 kWh.

Which is how it is supposed to be.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

On 5/24/2010 5:04 PM, Pete C. wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

er.com, Pete C. wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

er.com, Pete C. wrote:

I snip to here

Presuming no carry over charges from the previous month or "equal
billing" plans, the cost per kWh is the total bill divided by the number
of kWh listed for the billing period. It makes absolutely no difference
what parts are attributable to generation, transmission, taxes, etc.,
the total bill divided by kWh is the amount you paid per kWh. Also, do
the math yourself, as the "cost per kWh" listed on some utility bills is
fraudulently calculated, excluding taxes and fees.

I would like to modify this a little:

The total per KWH cost is determined like this:

1. Subtract from the total bill the amount not related to KWH, in the
likely event you have that. This would be a monthly line charge, monthly
billing charge, or the like.

Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost, distribution
cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost, male fertile bovine
digestive product cost, and the taxes that should at least mostly be on
these. These would be on a per-KWH basis.

(Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion thereof that
is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH related charges,
subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But if you fail to do
that, you should not be off by much.)

2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual
per-KWH cost.

(You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in Step 1
to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.)

No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a
component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period.
Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used is
not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and
every kWh you used that billing period.

That is a cost that does not get reduced by reducing electricity
consumption.

Going by what you advise, reducing electricity consumption of some loads
increases the cost of unchanged loads.

- Don Klipstein )

I pay lower rates, the *more* electricity I use. My cost per kWh goes
down on months where I use more than 1,000 kWh.

Sure, tiered rates were neglected for simplicity but would need to be
considered if. But fixed costs need to be neglected for the purposes of
this thread.

Pete C. wrote:

I pay lower rates, the *more* electricity I use. My cost per kWh goes
down on months where I use more than 1,000 kWh.

Where do you live, and how is the power generated? Where I live (Seattle, hydro)
the rates go up for any over a certain amount.

Pete C. wrote:
Doing this leaves the generation cost, transmission cost,
distribution cost, fuel cost adjustment, energy optimization cost,
male fertile bovine digestive product cost, and the taxes that
should at least mostly be on these. These would be on a per-KWH
basis.

(Should you find or determine a tax or surcharge or portion
thereof that is on the monthly flat fee as opposed to the per-KWH
related charges, subtract that along with the monthly flat fee. But
if you fail to do that, you should not be off by much.)

2. Divide the result of Step 1 by KWH consumed. That is your actual
per-KWH cost.

(You will be off, very likely only very slightly, if you fail in
Step 1 to account for any surcharges/taxes on non-per-KWH charges.)

--
- Don Klipstein )

No, you have to include every single charge on the bill as it is a
component of the cost you paid per kWh during that billing period.
Whether some portions are fixed charges that don't vary with kWh used
is not relevant, they are still part of the cost you paid for each and
every kWh you used that billing period.

If you are concerned with the cost/savings for changing any particular
appliance, you need to be concerned with the cost of that particular power usage
change, which is not affected by the base charge. So no, you don't want to
include the base charge.

On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:07:54 -0700, mike wrote:
If your fridge is running all the time, you already have all the info
you need. You need to fix it.

This is not correct. Modern refrigerators are designed to run nearly all
the time. Turns out it uses less energy to use a small motor and run it
constantly than to use a large motor and turn it on and off. If running all
the time is the only problem, get used to it. But using the Kill a Watt is
a good idea.

Edward
--
Art Works by Melynda Reid: http://paleo.org

In ,
Edward Reid typed:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:07:54 -0700, mike wrote:
If your fridge is running all the time, you already have
all the info you need. You need to fix it.

This is not correct. Modern refrigerators are designed to
run nearly all the time. Turns out it uses less energy to
use a small motor and run it constantly than to use a large
motor and turn it on and off. If running all the time is
the only problem, get used to it. But using the Kill a Watt
is a good idea.

I challenge you to offer up a citation for that; it makes no sense. Running
all the time is one sign of a coolant leak.

Edward

In article ,
Twayne wrote:
In ,
Edward Reid typed:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:07:54 -0700, mike wrote:
If your fridge is running all the time, you already have
all the info you need. You need to fix it.

This is not correct. Modern refrigerators are designed to
run nearly all the time. Turns out it uses less energy to
use a small motor and run it constantly than to use a large
motor and turn it on and off. If running all the time is
the only problem, get used to it. But using the Kill a Watt
is a good idea.

I challenge you to offer up a citation for that; it makes no sense. Running
all the time is one sign of a coolant leak.

Edward




Well, it would sure keep the food at a more constant temperature.