In The Guelph Mercury on Thursday, 4 August 2011, an article appeared entitled ‘Guelph Hydro Residents Must Call for Time-of-Use Rate Start Dates’. The quotation to consider is the one from one of the city’s residents, who notes that, by moving on to time-of-use rates: ‘…not changing his consumption habits could cost him “between $25 and $30” every bimonthly bill.’
Going to the OEB website, one can pull up a cost tool for Guelph Hydro. Assuming that this customer is an average consumer (800 kWh), with that consumption ‘spread across time’ in a typical way (64:18:18 between off-:mid-:on-peak periods), then the move from ‘two-tiered rates’ (conventional rates) to ‘time-of-use rates’ would change the monthly bill from $109.08 to $110.74 – a change of $3.32 over two months. Now, consider a ‘large’ user – perhaps 1,600 kWh a month, with consumption more concentrated in peak periods (50:25:25 between the aforementioned times). Their monthly bill would go from $209.56 to $215.42 – a change of $11.72 over two months. To get a change of $25 over two months, I put in a ‘very large user’ (1,800 kWh), and then made the ratio 40:32:28 (that is, a disproportionate share of use during peak periods).
Of course, many are comparing present bills (on time-of-use) with past bills (on the tiered system) – rather than present bills (on the tiered system). As an exercise, I took out some past bills (I am in the Waterloo North Hydro service territory), and put them into the same OEB bill calculator. (Note that I assumed a 60:20:20 distribution of consumption across the different time periods.) The results are as follows:
Year | Consumption (two months, in kWh) | Bill (at the time of consumption, for two months) | Hypothetical bill (under present time-of-use rules, for two months) | Total percentage increase | Average annual percentage increase |
2010 | 1,637 | 218.82 | 226.98 | 3.73 | 3.7 |
2009 | 1,850 | 214.34 | 252.28 | 17.7 | 8.9 |
2008 | 2,067 | 218.16 | 278.06 | 27.5 | 9.2 |
2007 | 2,046 | 226.30 | 275.56 | 21.8 | 5.4 |
2006 | 2,170 | 249.73 | 290.30 | 16.2 | 3.2 |
2005 | 2,250 | 241.02 | 299.80 | 24.4 | 4.1 |
2004 | 1,980 | 207.76 | 267.72 | 28.9 | 4.1 |
2003 | 910 | 108.69 | 140.64 | 29.4 | 3.7 |
2002 | 1,368 | 192.04 | 195.04 | 1.56 | 0.17 |
2001 | 1,047 | 119.95 | 156.90 | 30.8 | 3.1 |
2000 | 1,113 | 111.25 | 164.74 | 48.1 | 4.4 |
1999 | 806 | 87.93 | 128.28 | 45.9 | 3.8 |
Notes to the table:
1) The period investigated is July to September in each year, with the period either being the middle of the month to the middle of the month (1999-2000, 2005-2010) or towards the end of the month to towards the end of the month (2001-2004).
2) Calculations were completed as follows: Half of the bimonthly was inserted into the bill calculator, and the resultant value was doubled.
And two final observations about these data:
1) If we did not have the ‘Clean Energy Benefit’, the difference would be higher. Nevertheless, for me, I could say that my electricity bill has gone up by just under 4% from last year.
2) I calculated the 2002 value repeatedly. I then recalled that that was the period in which the market was open (May to November 2002), and when prices rose dramatically for Premier Eves. I found it striking that prices now are similar to what they were nine years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment