The electric company here in Nashville, TN had the program. They
installed their control on A/Cs. During peak load some of my customers
would call because their home was too hot. I found after checking the
systems that all that was wrong was the electricity saving device was
keeping the AC from running, and when the unit came back on it
couldn't catch up. Removed device and customer was happy, and I was
happy. $$

On 1/26/2013 5:10 AM, wrote:
On Jan 25, 8:34 pm, wrote:
On 1/25/2013 2:42 PM, wrote:





On Jan 25, 5:06 pm, wrote:
On 1/25/2013 6:18 AM, wrote:

On Jan 24, 11:19 pm, wrote:
On 1/24/2013 4:55 PM, Dimitrios Paskoudniakis wrote:

"Wes wrote in message
...
Electric company wants me to install a device that lets them remotely
alter the duty cycle of my AC compressor.

Is this truly harmless?

Can it make the thing less efficient, or wear out / burn out sooner?

--
Wes Groleau

I live in Maryland near DC. I have A/C on the first floor and basement
and a heat pump for the upper level. I get $50/month discount for the
four months of May - August by allowing the utility to be able to shut
off the A/C.

Two years ago during a heat wave, they shut it off from 11:30 AM - 7:00
PM. By that time, my upstairs thermostat read 91 F. That's not a typo.
It got back to a sleepable temp by about 1:00 AM.

You just need to decide what's more important, saving a few bucks or
having ensured comfort.

Yep, that's the issue. To do any good, they have to turn it off when
you most need it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But they are not supposed to turn it off for eight hours straight.
The idea is to turn them off in groups for maybe 20 mins
at a time, if necessary. Either something exceptional was happening
or something screwed up. As I said before, I had one on mine
here in NJ for over 10 years and never noticed any difference.
It's going to depend a lot on the shape of the electric system
in the area. But still, turning it off for 8 hours doesn't seem
right. Wonder if he complained to the utility and what they
said? You would think if they did that to people, most of them
would say come take this thing off, end of story....

Do the math. If the power isn't off longer than the thermal time-constant
of your house, it does zero good.

That's not true. There are a lot of AC's that during peak
demand days, ie when it's 100F out, could be running almost
constantly for hours. Take folks that have setback thermostats
for example. They have it set to come on at say 3 or 4PM so
that the house will be cooled down by the time they come home.
If the utility cycles say 1/3 or half of them to be off at a time,
they
have reduced their load. It clearly doesn't require turning off
the AC for 8 hours straight to be effective.

There's a very strong
correlation between how much you suffer and the goodness
of decreasing peak load for the utility. And that happens
at the peak load time when you most want the air conditioning.

The point is that I think it's very unusual for a utility to
shut off your AC for 8 hours straight.

If you turned mine off for 20minutes, I'd never notice, because it
doesn't run that often. And the utility would have gained nothing
because mine wouldn't have run anyway.

That's true if it doesn't run that often. But I'd say there
are enough AC's running a lot so that cutting them back
so they can only run say 20 mins or half the time will indeed
make a difference. There's a big difference between that
and cutting you off for 8 hours, which is nuts.

spoiler alert...math below.





Take the energy saved while it's off. Subtract the energy used
when it comes back on to bring the temperature back to where you
want it.
Unless the number is positive, or the recovery time is outside
the peak load window, the utility gained nothing.

The way to solve the problem is to store heat (cold) locally.
Cool a tank of water during off peak and use it to reduce
the peak load. That trades efficiency loss for load leveling.

How practical is that?

So, did you call them up to find out if they actually intended to
cut your AC off for 8 hours? Or if something went wrong?
I had the same kind of system for over 10 years and never
had any experience like that. Never had a single occasion
where I could tell it was even activated. And if I did, and
they told me that's how it's supposed to work, I'd call them
up and tell them to remove it. Did you?

I don't think they even offer the option in Oregon.
About the only choice we have is to pay a monthly fee
so that we can pay slightly less for off-peak and more for peak
consumption.
If I signed up and moved 80% of my consumption to the 3AM time frame,
I'd save just about enough to pay the fee.

There seems to be a math aversion in this thread.

Here's a simple calculation with numbers pulled out of my ass.
You can publish the results with your assumptions...

If the utility has a peak capacity of 1000.
And if the demand is 1100
And if air conditioning represents 500 of that load,
you need to shed 20% of the air conditioning load.
If 20% of the air conditioning load signed up for the shutoff option
You need to turn ALL of them off for the duration.

That makes a bunch of assumptions designed to prove
that it doesn't work. For example, just change the peak capacity
overage from 1100 to 1050. Then the utility no longer
needs to turn off all the AC's for the duration. What basis
do you have that those numbers to run your "math"
reflect reality?

You should read more carefully. I said they were pulled out of my ass.
Telling me they're wrong is not helpful. Publish better numbers.


More fundamentally, there is going to be a distribution of AC
duty cycles out there. On peak days which are typicallly VERY
hot days, a significant number are probably going to be
running constantly, or close to constantly. If they throttle
all AC's back to 50% duty cycle, the power usage by those
units that were running 100% has been cut 50%.
The AC's that were running 75% of the time are
now running 50%, saving 33% there. The ones that were
running 66% of the time are now running 50%, saving 24%
there. If your AC was only running 50% of the time or less,
then there is no power saving there. Taken together it
all adds up enough to make a difference, without shutting
everyone down for long periods or making them suffer.
I'll bet there are plenty of houses out there with the AC
running 66% to 100% of the time with it 72F inside.
So, they wind up drifting up to 76F and the utility sheds
some load. That is how it typically works, not by
cutting folks off with no AC for 8 hours straight.
And cumulatively it works, is significant enough,
which is why utilities do it.

You've demonstrated your ability to examine part of the problem.
Back off and look at the big picture.
Air conditioning load has so many contributors that the utility
can view it as a load that varies very slowly over the day.
There's a load that is the sum of the averages of all the A/C units
over some time period. Exactly which unit is on for how long affects
the average not at all.

There probably is some step increase in the
afternoon when all the home units turn on before the owners get home
and run at 100% for the rest of the day.
It would be interesting to see what the numbers would look like
if people just let their A/C run all day to eliminate that step.

When capacity is exceeded, the utility has to shed load.
If everybody has the shutoff option, everybody suffers equally and not much.
If only a few people representing a small portion of that average
load have signed up, they bear the brunt of the load shedding.


They are willing to take the money, but bitch when the utility cuts them
off.
We're a greedy, bitchy bunch.

If you've got better numbers than mine, publish them.
There has to be an analysis online somewhere.



Note, I said 20% of the A/C load, not customers. Altruistic customers
are disproportionately punished...and paid handsomely for the privilege.
The utility paid you an insurance premium. It's time to pay the claim.

The person who quoted the 8 hour duration got exactly what
he contracted to get.


And from my experience, that is an exceptional case and
*not* how the system is typically implemented. It's *not* how
the system here in NJ worked for the 10 plus years I had it.
It's just plain dumb, because very few customers are going
to tolerate it. I would bet 99% of them don't understand that
their AC will be off for 8 hours. And once they have it happen
once, they are gonna call the utility up to come remove it.
No benefit to the utility for the cost of install, removal, etc
and getting a black eye. Just because ONE utility is dumb,
doesn't mean that's how it works everywhere.

Have you ever had actual experience with such a system
yourself?



Bottom line is that the grid can't support peak load in some areas.
We either get more efficient and reduce the peak, or we suffer loss of
power, incrementally or catastrophically.

If I weatherize to reduce my load, I'd still get hit with blackouts.

No you wouldn't, unless you had an extreme nut case utility.
Per my example above, if you're running your AC only 30%
and the utility throttles everyone on the plan back to 30% to
50% duty cycle, you would see no effect. And again, that is
how it typically works, not cutting folks off for 8 hours straight.
Why do you insist on using the most pathological case?

I'm not insisting on anything.
The specific case quoted here (not by me) was
a rare incident where the utility used the insurance
they had bought from the customer and turned off his A/C 100%
per their contract.




If my tiny load signs up for a shutoff option, it provides
proportionately less help for the utility. Ironically, the most frugal
can help the least.

There is no free lunch!!!

Apparently there is, because in the case you just cited
you would be getting paid for participating in the program
the same amount as everyone else. But if you you're frugal
with AC usage, it doesn't impact you.




This problem is more political than technical.
If the anti-nuke people
and the anti-wind farm people
and the no power lines in my back yard people
and the no hydro dams people would just get out of the way
the situation would improve.

We need to have a vote on issues like nukes, wind, transmission lines,
hydro, etc. Every time you vote no on one of them, your "number"
gets incremented.
You get to share in the shortfall proportional to your "number".
That'd fix it real quick!
My mom used to call it, "put your money where your mouth is."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jan 26, 8:19*pm, mike wrote:
On 1/26/2013 5:10 AM, wrote:





On Jan 25, 8:34 pm, *wrote:
On 1/25/2013 2:42 PM, wrote:

On Jan 25, 5:06 pm, * *wrote:
On 1/25/2013 6:18 AM, wrote:

On Jan 24, 11:19 pm, * * *wrote:
On 1/24/2013 4:55 PM, Dimitrios Paskoudniakis wrote:

"Wes * * *wrote in message
...
Electric company wants me to install a device that lets them remotely
alter the duty cycle of my AC compressor.

Is this truly harmless?

Can it make the thing less efficient, or wear out / burn out sooner?

--
Wes Groleau

I live in Maryland near DC. I have A/C on the first floor and basement
and a heat pump for the upper level. I get $50/month discount for the
four months of May - August by allowing the utility to be able to shut
off the A/C.

Two years ago during a heat wave, they shut it off from 11:30 AM - 7:00
PM. By that time, my upstairs thermostat read 91 F. That's not a typo.
It got back to a sleepable temp by about 1:00 AM.

You just need to decide what's more important, saving a few bucks or
having ensured comfort.

Yep, that's the issue. *To do any good, they have to turn it off when
you most need it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But they are not supposed to turn it off for eight hours straight.
The idea is to turn them off in groups for maybe 20 mins
at a time, if necessary. *Either something exceptional was happening
or something screwed up. * As I said before, I had one on mine
here in NJ for over 10 years and never noticed any difference.
It's going to depend a lot on the shape of the electric system
in the area. * But still, turning it off for 8 hours doesn't seem
right. *Wonder if he complained to the utility and what they
said? * You would think if they did that to people, most of them
would say come take this thing off, end of story....

Do the math. *If the power isn't off longer than the thermal time-constant
of your house, it does zero good.

That's not true. *There are a lot of AC's that during peak
demand days, ie when it's 100F out, could be running almost
constantly for hours. * Take folks that have setback thermostats
for example. *They have it set to come on at say 3 or 4PM so
that the house will be cooled down by the time they come home.
If the utility cycles say 1/3 or half of them to be off at a time,
they
have reduced their load. *It clearly doesn't require turning off
the AC for 8 hours straight to be effective.

There's a very strong
correlation between how much you suffer and the goodness
of decreasing peak load for the utility. *And that happens
at the peak load time when you most want the air conditioning.

The point is that I think it's very unusual for a utility to
shut off your AC for 8 hours straight.

If you turned mine off for 20minutes, I'd never notice, because it
doesn't run that often. *And the utility would have gained nothing
because mine wouldn't have run anyway.

That's true if it doesn't run that often. *But I'd say there
are enough AC's running a lot so that cutting them back
so they can only run say 20 mins or half the time will indeed
make a difference. * There's a big difference between that
and cutting you off for 8 hours, which is nuts.

spoiler alert...math *below.

Take the energy saved while it's off. *Subtract the energy used
when it comes back on to bring the temperature back to where you
want it.
Unless the number is positive, or the recovery time is outside
the peak load window, the utility gained nothing.

The way to solve the problem is to store heat (cold) locally.
Cool a tank of water during off peak and use it to reduce
the peak load. *That trades efficiency loss for load leveling.

How practical is that?

So, did you call them up to find out if they actually intended to
cut your AC off for 8 hours? *Or if something went wrong?
I had the same kind of system for over 10 years and never
had any experience like that. *Never had a single occasion
where I could tell it was even activated. *And if I did, *and
they told me that's how it's supposed to work, I'd call them
up and tell them to remove it. * Did you?

I don't think they even offer the option in Oregon.
About the only choice we have is to pay a monthly fee
so that we can pay slightly less for off-peak and more for peak
consumption.
If I signed up and moved 80% of my consumption to the 3AM time frame,
I'd save just about enough to pay the fee.

There seems to be a math aversion in this thread.

Here's a simple calculation with numbers pulled out of my ass.
You can publish the results with your assumptions...

If the utility has a peak capacity of 1000.
And if the demand is 1100
And if air conditioning represents 500 of that load,
you need to shed 20% of the air conditioning load.
If 20% of the air conditioning load signed up for the shutoff option
You need to turn ALL of them off for the duration.

That makes a bunch of assumptions designed to prove
that it doesn't work. *For example, just change the peak capacity
overage from 1100 to 1050. *Then the utility no longer
needs to turn off all the AC's for the duration. *What basis
do you have that those numbers to run your "math"
reflect reality?

You should read more carefully. *I said they were pulled out of my ass.

You said:

"There seems to be a math aversion in this thread. "
"Do the math", as if we all just can't do the simple math
required to analyze the problem. Then you came up with
a set of numbers that as you say were pulled out of
your ass. So, what exactly is your point? If you don't
have realistic numbers, then what good is "doing the math"?
1 + 1 = 2. That math is as relevant to the issue at hand
as anything you've posted.


Telling me they're wrong is not helpful. *Publish better numbers.


Yes it is helpful, because it shows that contrary to your
claim of "do the math", you're basicly clueless because doing
math with garbage proves nothing. Yet it apparently gives
you comfort. Go figure.











More fundamentally, there is going to be a distribution of AC
duty cycles out there. *On peak days which are typicallly VERY
hot days, a significant number are probably going to be
running constantly, or close to constantly. *If they throttle
all AC's back to 50% duty cycle, the *power usage by those
units that were running 100% has been cut 50%.
The AC's that were running 75% of the time are
now running 50%, saving 33% there. *The ones that were
running 66% of the time are now running 50%, saving 24%
there. * If your AC was only running 50% of the time or less,
then there is no power saving there. *Taken together it
all adds up enough to make a difference, without shutting
everyone down for long periods or making them suffer.
I'll bet there are plenty of houses out there with the AC
running 66% to 100% of the time with it 72F inside.
So, they wind up drifting up to 76F and the utility sheds
some load. *That is how it typically works, not by
cutting folks off with no AC for 8 hours straight.
And cumulatively it works, is significant enough,
which is why utilities do it.

You've demonstrated your ability to examine part of the problem.

Which is more than I can say for you....




Back off and look at the big picture.
Air conditioning load has so many contributors that the utility
can view it as a load that varies very slowly over the day.
There's a load that is the sum of the averages of all the A/C units
over some time period. *Exactly which unit is on for how long affects
the average not at all.

It doesn't matter which unit is on for how long. But it
does matter how many of them are on at the same time.
The example I just gave you shows how the utility can
shed load. And it's not an unrealistic model. There is
going to be a distribution of cycle times on hot, peak
demand days. Everything from some AC's running
100% of the time to some that are not on at all. If
the utility can lower the duty cycle, they can lower
demand.





There probably is some step increase in the
afternoon when all the home units turn on before the owners get home
and run at 100% for the rest of the day.
It would be interesting to see what the numbers would look like
if people just let their A/C run all day to eliminate that step.



When capacity is exceeded, the utility has to shed load.
If everybody has the shutoff option, everybody suffers equally and not much.

Again, per the clear example I gave you, that isn't true.
The person who has his AC setback and it's not running at
all, doesn't "suffer" at all. The person who has his AC
running less than the duty cycle the utility is going to allow
them, doesn't "suffer". If you system was running 15 mins an
hour and the utility throttles all the AC they have control over
back to 15 mins an hour, you don't see any difference.
If you system was running 20 mins an hour and they throttle
it back to 15, then you will see some temp rise. Is that really
suffering? And if it was running constantly and they throttle
it back to 20 mins, then yeah, the temp is going to rise
somewhat. Is that "suffering" if the temp goes from 72 to
76?



If only a few people representing a small portion of that average
load have signed up, they bear the brunt of the load shedding.

Well, duh.... The utility can only shed load of those that
have signed up.



They are willing to take the money, but bitch when the utility cuts them
off.
We're a greedy, bitchy bunch.

So, I ask again. Do you have any actual experience with
these load management systems? I had it for over 10 years.
And there is no bitching here. The only bitching I've seen
is from one poster where they cut him off for 8 hours straight.
That has never happened here and I don't believe it's
representative of how most of these systems are used.




If you've got better numbers than mine, publish them.
There has to be an analysis online somewhere.

Maybe you should find that before telling us all to
"do the math...."








Note, I said 20% of the A/C load, not customers. *Altruistic customers
are disproportionately punished...and paid handsomely for the privilege.
The utility paid you an insurance premium. *It's time to pay the claim.

The person who quoted the 8 hour duration got exactly what
he contracted to get.

And from my experience, that is an exceptional case and
*not* how the system is typically implemented. *It's *not* how
the system here in NJ worked for the 10 plus years I had it.
It's just plain dumb, because very few customers are going
to tolerate it. *I would bet 99% of them don't understand that
their AC will be off for 8 hours. *And once they have it happen
once, they are gonna call the utility up to come remove it.
No benefit to the utility for the cost of install, removal, etc
and getting a black eye. * Just because ONE utility is dumb,
doesn't mean that's how it works everywhere.

Have you ever had actual experience with such a system
yourself?


Non answer to perhaps the most relevant question noted.

On 01-25-2013 09:12, wrote:
wrote:
For $50, a quarter of my highest month's bill, I'd probably do it. For
eight bucks, not a chance.

Where do you live? I want to make sure I don't move there. I pay
around $500 a year.

Two years ago during a heat wave, they shut it off from 11:30 AM - 7:00
PM. By that time, my upstairs thermostat read 91 F. That's not a typo.
It got back to a sleepable temp by about 1:00 AM.

You just need to decide what's more important, saving a few bucks or
having ensured comfort.

I'm not worried about the comfort. I'm a hardy soul. I was concerned
about whether the eight bucks a month would result in an eight hundred
dollar repair bill in less than a hundred months.

I got one answer of NO, a couple more of "the things don't work" and a
whole heap of programmable thermostats.

Huh? The above doesn't parse.

Sorry if I abbreviated too much. I asked a question about a power
control device on the compressor and the first zillion responses were
about programmable thermostats. Finally someone answered my question
with "no, it won't hurt your compressor" and then a few others went off
on how the device doesn't work.

Saving money is nice, but they already owe me over a hundred, so it's
certainly not a matter of need.

Owe you?

I get paid every two weeks and send them twenty bucks each payday.
I don't worry about the excess because I'm sure I'll use it eventually.
If and when it gets too high, I'll adjust my amount downward.

--
Wes Groleau

€œIsn't embarrassing to quote something you didn't read
and then attack what it didn't say?€�

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:48:56 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 01-25-2013 09:12, wrote:
wrote:
For $50, a quarter of my highest month's bill, I'd probably do it. For
eight bucks, not a chance.

Where do you live? I want to make sure I don't move there. I pay
around $500 a year.

I heat with electricity. My highest bills (February and August) are
around $200. The total is probably around $2200 per year. Do you pay
less for heat and electricity (including AC). Where?

Actually, those numbers are for the old house. I haven't lived here a
year yet but it's probably more (40% larger and more of a ranch than a
two-story).

Two years ago during a heat wave, they shut it off from 11:30 AM - 7:00
PM. By that time, my upstairs thermostat read 91 F. That's not a typo.
It got back to a sleepable temp by about 1:00 AM.

You just need to decide what's more important, saving a few bucks or
having ensured comfort.

I'm not worried about the comfort. I'm a hardy soul. I was concerned
about whether the eight bucks a month would result in an eight hundred
dollar repair bill in less than a hundred months.

I got one answer of NO, a couple more of "the things don't work" and a
whole heap of programmable thermostats.

Huh? The above doesn't parse.

Sorry if I abbreviated too much. I asked a question about a power
control device on the compressor and the first zillion responses were
about programmable thermostats. Finally someone answered my question
with "no, it won't hurt your compressor" and then a few others went off
on how the device doesn't work.

Saving money is nice, but they already owe me over a hundred, so it's
certainly not a matter of need.

Owe you?

I get paid every two weeks and send them twenty bucks each payday.
I don't worry about the excess because I'm sure I'll use it eventually.
If and when it gets too high, I'll adjust my amount downward.

That's an odd way to run a budget but whatever floats your boat. I
don't let anyone have my money longer than necessary. Though I
screwed up with the government this year, I'm sure.

Doug wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:26:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:05:24 AM UTC-5, Doug wrote:
Wouldn't it be cheaper and just as cost effective to install a
programmable thermostat ?

Sure it would, but then you're depending on the good will of the people
to program their thermostats so that their ACs don't run at peak times
of the day. People aren't going to do it out of the kindness in their hearts.

Of course, that will never happen. Most people are going to say, "I want
to be comfortable," and leave their ACs cranked 24/7. Then they will cry
and complain about brownouts and rolling blackouts.

The only effective way to make this work is cash bribes.


Ok but if they could save money does that matter? I use one and of
course there is part of the day my home is slightly less comfortable
if I'm home but later it kicks in and all is well then. I know I've
saved money and prefer one.

My home seems to start to require more air conditioning around 4:00 PM and
after. Peak is around 6:00 PM.
The brick on the house stays hot on the southwest side until dark. It's
also where the condenser is. Daytime temp around 73-74 degrees, unless I'm
doing labor inside. Around bedtime I often turn temp on 68 or 67 degrees.
Becoming rare, are comfort nights where outside temp is below 70 at
bedtime, where I could use fans. From unique monthly electric bills, I
don't seem to use much more electricity in the summer. $15 at most. My
basement stays cool without air, and I have less than 1000 sq feet ranch.

Greg

For $50, a quarter of my highest month's bill, I'd probably do it. For
eight bucks, not a chance.

Where do you live? I want to make sure I don't move there. I pay
around $500 a year.

I heat with electricity. My highest bills (February and August) are
around $200. The total is probably around $2200 per year. Do you pay
less for heat and electricity (including AC). Where?

Indiana. Temperature range 10°F to 90°F (occasionally even wider)

I get paid every two weeks and send them twenty bucks each payday.
I don't worry about the excess because I'm sure I'll use it eventually.
If and when it gets too high, I'll adjust my amount downward.

That's an odd way to run a budget but whatever floats your boat. I
don't let anyone have my money longer than necessary. Though I
screwed up with the government this year, I'm sure.

The simplicity more than compensates for the minimal loss of interest.

I used to "not let anyone have my money longer than necessary" and at
least once a year I'd hang onto it a day too long and the late fee was
far more than the pittance of interest it brought me.

--
Wes Groleau

€œThinking I'm dumb gives people something to
feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?€�
€” Charles Wallace
(in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_)

In article ,
Wes Groleau wrote:

I heat with electricity. My highest bills (February and August) are
around $200. The total is probably around $2200 per year. Do you pay
less for heat and electricity (including AC). Where?

Indiana. Temperature range 10°F to 90°F (occasionally even wider)

In a single day (sigh).
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:33:38 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:


For $50, a quarter of my highest month's bill, I'd probably do it. For
eight bucks, not a chance.

Where do you live? I want to make sure I don't move there. I pay
around $500 a year.

I heat with electricity. My highest bills (February and August) are
around $200. The total is probably around $2200 per year. Do you pay
less for heat and electricity (including AC). Where?

Indiana. Temperature range 10°F to 90°F (occasionally even wider)

You didn't answer the question.

I get paid every two weeks and send them twenty bucks each payday.
I don't worry about the excess because I'm sure I'll use it eventually.
If and when it gets too high, I'll adjust my amount downward.

That's an odd way to run a budget but whatever floats your boat. I
don't let anyone have my money longer than necessary. Though I
screwed up with the government this year, I'm sure.

The simplicity more than compensates for the minimal loss of interest.

I used to "not let anyone have my money longer than necessary" and at
least once a year I'd hang onto it a day too long and the late fee was
far more than the pittance of interest it brought me.

I haven't paid a late fee in decades. The Internet has made it even
easier to control these things.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:33:38 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:


For $50, a quarter of my highest month's bill, I'd probably do it. For
eight bucks, not a chance.

Where do you live? I want to make sure I don't move there. I pay
around $500 a year.

I heat with electricity. My highest bills (February and August) are
around $200. The total is probably around $2200 per year. Do you pay
less for heat and electricity (including AC). Where?

Indiana. Temperature range 10°F to 90°F (occasionally even wider)

I get paid every two weeks and send them twenty bucks each payday.
I don't worry about the excess because I'm sure I'll use it eventually.
If and when it gets too high, I'll adjust my amount downward.

That's an odd way to run a budget but whatever floats your boat. I
don't let anyone have my money longer than necessary. Though I
screwed up with the government this year, I'm sure.

The simplicity more than compensates for the minimal loss of interest.

I used to "not let anyone have my money longer than necessary" and at
least once a year I'd hang onto it a day too long and the late fee was
far more than the pittance of interest it brought me.
There's a way around that. Pre-authourized withdrawals - we do it on
the credit card - and pay only what is owed that month - not a "budget
plan" Works good. Just pay the credit card once a month - no billing
dates to worry about - and no interest as long as you pay the card off
every month. And 3% bonus on the card to boot.

I heat with electricity. My highest bills (February and August) are
around $200. The total is probably around $2200 per year. Do you pay
less for heat and electricity (including AC). Where?

Indiana. Temperature range 10°F to 90°F (occasionally even wider)

You didn't answer the question.

You didn't use a question mark. I answered the one that was an obvious
question. As for the other, 26 times $38 is close to my annual gas and
electricity.

I haven't paid a late fee in decades. The Internet has made it even
easier to control these things.

Been about three years for me since I adopted the every payday method.
I do use online control, with the emphasis on the control. If I have to
constantly monitor to ensure an automatic payment doesn't bounce, I
might as well just trigger the payment myself.

Internet is nice, but can't stop the postman from delivering the bill to
the wrong house. But I've had too much trouble with online statements
to completely give up paper.

(I get a kick out of the ones that beg me to save a tree by going
electronic. If they really wanted to save a tree, I wouldn't have to
discard (without reading) several advertisements from every one of their
envelopes.

--
Wes Groleau

After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father asked him
three times what was wrong. Finally, the boy replied, €œThat preacher
said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
stay with you guys."

I think you can try it and see if it can really reduce your consumption. Otherwise, you can always have them remove the device right? Are they giving it out for free? Because if not, it may just be another scheme to earn money from you through the device. It's just not normal for an energy company to give away something that would make one's consumption cheaper. It's like saying I will give out a discount to your bill because I am generous. - ana

On Feb 5, 5:37*am, anastacia.b
wrote:
Wes Groleau;3002045 Wrote:

Electric company wants me to install a device that lets them remotely
alter the duty cycle of my AC compressor.

Is this truly harmless?

Can it make the thing less efficient, or wear out / burn out sooner?

--
Wes Groleau

“Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity.
But I'm not so sure about the universe.”
— Albert Einstein

I think you can try it and see if it can really reduce your consumption.
Otherwise, you can always have them remove the device right? Are they
giving it out for free? Because if not, it may just be another scheme to
earn *money from you through the device. It's just not normal for an
energy company to give away something that would make one's consumption
cheaper. It's like saying I will give out a discount to your bill
because I am generous.

--
anastacia.b


The electric companies install them for free and offer
some kind of payment. The reason is not to reduce your
electric usage, but to temporarily decrease demand for
electricity during PEAK periods. I've had it and they only
activate it a few times a year. It saves the utility from having
to build another power plant, or buy electricity at very high
rates during peak periods. Yes, you probably will use a
little less electricity, but it's not marketed as a device to
save you energy costs.

For $50, a quarter of my highest month's bill, I'd probably do it. For
eight bucks, not a chance.

Where do you live? I want to make sure I don't move there. I pay
around $500 a year.

I heat with electricity. My highest bills (February and August) are
around $200. The total is probably around $2200 per year. Do you pay
less for heat and electricity (including AC). Where?

Indiana. Temperature range 10°F to 90°F (occasionally even wider)

I get paid every two weeks and send them twenty bucks each payday.
I don't worry about the excess because I'm sure I'll use it eventually.
If and when it gets too high, I'll adjust my amount downward.

That's an odd way to run a budget but whatever floats your boat. I
don't let anyone have my money longer than necessary. Though I
screwed up with the government this year, I'm sure.

The simplicity more than compensates for the minimal loss of interest.

I used to "not let anyone have my money longer than necessary" and at
least once a year I'd hang onto it a day too long and the late fee was
far more than the pittance of interest it brought me.



--
Wes Groleau

€œThinking I'm dumb gives people something to
feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?€�
€” Charles Wallace
(in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_)

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:14:39 -0400, Wes Groleau
wrote:


For $50, a quarter of my highest month's bill, I'd probably do it. For
eight bucks, not a chance.

Where do you live? I want to make sure I don't move there. I pay
around $500 a year.

I heat with electricity. My highest bills (February and August) are
around $200. The total is probably around $2200 per year. Do you pay
less for heat and electricity (including AC). Where?

Indiana. Temperature range 10°F to 90°F (occasionally even wider)

I get paid every two weeks and send them twenty bucks each payday.
I don't worry about the excess because I'm sure I'll use it eventually.
If and when it gets too high, I'll adjust my amount downward.

That's an odd way to run a budget but whatever floats your boat. I
don't let anyone have my money longer than necessary. Though I
screwed up with the government this year, I'm sure.

The simplicity more than compensates for the minimal loss of interest.

In the case of the government, it's a matter or principle, for me.
They don't get their money until the last instant. The check never
goes out until 4/15. Ever.

I used to "not let anyone have my money longer than necessary" and at
least once a year I'd hang onto it a day too long and the late fee was
far more than the pittance of interest it brought me.

Sure, but I'd rather have the flexibility of moving the money around,
if necessary. My wife pays most of the bills automatically but the
couple of CCs I pay are paid a couple of days before they're due. It's
easy enough to do online. I think we only pay one or two bills by
mail, anymore. Those, she can't figure out how to do automatically.

On 11-03-2013, 11:53, wrote:
On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:14:39 -0400, Wes Groleau
The simplicity more than compensates for the minimal loss of interest.

In the case of the government, it's a matter or principle, for me.
They don't get their money until the last instant. The check never
goes out until 4/15. Ever.

If you have withholding, they're getting a lot of it sooner.
But there are ways to reduce that.

I used to "not let anyone have my money longer than necessary" and at
least once a year I'd hang onto it a day too long and the late fee was
far more than the pittance of interest it brought me.

Sure, but I'd rather have the flexibility of moving the money around,

To each his own. I have more discretion now than ever. And the
bill-paying style is the main reason. Before, every month we managed to
miscalculate and arrive at a due date without money. Now everything in
the bank the day after we know is fair game.


--
Wes Groleau

€œIn the field of language teaching, Method A is the logical
contradiction of Method B: if the assumptions from which
A claims to be derived are correct, then B cannot work,
and vice versa. Yet one colleague is getting excellent
results with A and another is getting comparable results
with B. How is this possible?€�
€” Earl W. Stevick

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:08:58 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 11-03-2013, 11:53, wrote:
On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 00:14:39 -0400, Wes Groleau
The simplicity more than compensates for the minimal loss of interest.

In the case of the government, it's a matter or principle, for me.
They don't get their money until the last instant. The check never
goes out until 4/15. Ever.

If you have withholding, they're getting a lot of it sooner.
But there are ways to reduce that.

....and pay more later. I've paid the penalty in the past. It's not
trivial.

I used to "not let anyone have my money longer than necessary" and at
least once a year I'd hang onto it a day too long and the late fee was
far more than the pittance of interest it brought me.

Sure, but I'd rather have the flexibility of moving the money around,

To each his own. I have more discretion now than ever. And the
bill-paying style is the main reason. Before, every month we managed to
miscalculate and arrive at a due date without money. Now everything in
the bank the day after we know is fair game.

I would rather not move money from/to savings to cover bills (it comes
out easier than it goes in). If I can leave everything in the
checking account until closer to its due date, it makes smoothing out
the cash flow easier. We're never in the situation (anymore) where
we're worried about spending what we don't have. Discretion? Perhaps,
in both senses of the word.

On 11-03-2013, 17:44, wrote:
wrote:
If you have withholding, they're getting a lot of it sooner.
But there are ways to reduce that.

...and pay more later. I've paid the penalty in the past. It's not
trivial.

There is indeed a penalty for "underwithholding" -- unless you do
quarterly estimated tax.

I've got my withholding pretty close to right on, but if I had trouble
doing that, I'd go with the estimations.

--
Wes Groleau

Armchair Activism: http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 00:54:26 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 11-03-2013, 17:44, wrote:
wrote:
If you have withholding, they're getting a lot of it sooner.
But there are ways to reduce that.

...and pay more later. I've paid the penalty in the past. It's not
trivial.

There is indeed a penalty for "underwithholding" -- unless you do
quarterly estimated tax.

Yeah, I *really* want to file taxes four times a year.

I've got my withholding pretty close to right on, but if I had trouble
doing that, I'd go with the estimations.

I used to have it nailed pretty well but since I "retired" I've had
some really strange years. A lot of unexpected stuff. I'll have more
for at least the next two years (rental and house sale). I want to
err on the underwitheld side, no matter what the penalty.

I am *NOT* going to go through that crap four times a year. Once is
obscene enough.

writes:
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 00:54:26 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 11-03-2013, 17:44, wrote:
wrote:
If you have withholding, they're getting a lot of it sooner.
But there are ways to reduce that.

...and pay more later. I've paid the penalty in the past. It's not
trivial.

There is indeed a penalty for "underwithholding" -- unless you do
quarterly estimated tax.

Yeah, I *really* want to file taxes four times a year.

You do understand how the estimated tax works, don't you? It doesn't
mean you must "file taxes four times a year" by any stretch of the
imagination; when filing for tax year Y, you estimate what your tax burden
will be for year Y+1 and pay that in four installments quarterly during
year Y+1. You then file Y+1 normally at the start of Y+2 and either get a
refund (you estimated too high) or pay additional taxes (plus a penalty if
your estimation was significantly low). Fundmentally little difference from
payroll withholding.

On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:32:37 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 00:54:26 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 11-03-2013, 17:44, wrote:
wrote:
If you have withholding, they're getting a lot of it sooner.
But there are ways to reduce that.

...and pay more later. I've paid the penalty in the past. It's not
trivial.

There is indeed a penalty for "underwithholding" -- unless you do
quarterly estimated tax.

Yeah, I *really* want to file taxes four times a year.

You do understand how the estimated tax works, don't you?

Of course. It depends on your predictions, though. Not always
possible.

It doesn't
mean you must "file taxes four times a year" by any stretch of the
imagination; when filing for tax year Y, you estimate what your tax burden
will be for year Y+1 and pay that in four installments quarterly during
year Y+1.

I have *ZERO* interest in doing *ANY* government paperwork four times
a year. Not going to happen. It's obscene that we have to go through
it once (didn't I already say that?).

You then file Y+1 normally at the start of Y+2 and either get a
refund (you estimated too high) or pay additional taxes (plus a penalty if
your estimation was significantly low).

What a dumb statement!

Fundmentally little difference from payroll withholding.

You're wrong, of course (I thought you said you knew all about this
stuff). Withholding is assumed to have been paid throughout the year,
even if it was all paid on the last day of the calendar year. Not so
with estimated tax or YE payments.

On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:32:37 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 00:54:26 -0500, Wes Groleau

wrote:



On 11-03-2013, 17:44, wrote:

wrote:

If you have withholding, they're getting a lot of it sooner.

But there are ways to reduce that.



...and pay more later. I've paid the penalty in the past. It's not

trivial.



There is indeed a penalty for "underwithholding" -- unless you do

quarterly estimated tax.



Yeah, I *really* want to file taxes four times a year.



You do understand how the estimated tax works, don't you?

Yes, it so the govt can get it's hands on your money
to spend it down a rat hole, instead of waiting for it
until April 15.

On 11-07-2013, 07:25, wrote:
On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:32:37 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
You do understand how the estimated tax works, don't you?

Yes, it so the govt can get it's hands on your money
to spend it down a rat hole, instead of waiting for it
until April 15.

That's from their point of view. From my point of view,
it's so they don't get a bi-weekly interest-free loan from me.


--
Wes Groleau

Pat's Polemics
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett