http://www.progress-energy.com/custservice/flares/energymgmt/index.asp

Anybody do this? I'm going to sign up tomorrow. I learned a lot about this at my last job, but I didn't know they did it in this area. They basically put a box in your house so they can curb your power usage by cutting off your AC or water heater or etc for a few hours a few times a year. Participants barely (if at all) notice the difference and power companies save on the cost of not being able to meet spikes in power demands. Of course, progress might be doing it for a different reason, since I'm not aware NC has any power supply issues at all, but it's a huge deal in places like California.

8/11/2009 9:37:45 PM

Quote :

"progress might be doing it for a different reason"

PR, mostly. there's nothing PE would rather do than sell you more electricity.

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 9:44 PM. Reason : it's not worth it imo]

8/11/2009 9:41:03 PM

like this?

http://www.wlwt.com/money/20200998/detail.html

Quote :

"Duke Energy Accidently Shuts Down A/C At 18,000 Homes Wrong Signal Shuts Down Cooling Systems For Three Hours"

8/11/2009 9:41:29 PM

it's worth $12/month to run my shit when i want to

8/11/2009 9:44:58 PM

yeah you said that already.

if they turn off my a/c for a couple of hours while I'm at work a few times a year AND give me $12 a month, the only difference to me is an extra $12 a month.

Quote :

"PR, mostly. there's nothing PE would rather do than sell you more electricity."

I guarantee they'd rather NOT sell you electricity if they thought they didn't or wouldn't have the ability to produce it. From their own press release last year ( http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutus/news/article.asp?id=18462 )

Quote :

"The programs are a key part of the company's strategy to double its energy efficiency portfolio to 2,000 megawatts (MW) and delay the need to build power plants."

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 10:11 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2009 9:55:28 PM

Progress Energy already can't produce all the energy it sells. The difference between production and sales is made up by buying energy from the wholesale market. The wholesale market can get very expensive, particularly during high demands such as the past few days.

I'm enrolled in this program. I haven't noticed whether or not they've cycled the AC.

(I'm enrolled in EnergyWise, but have different financial incentives that what's listed now--I receive $25 annually)

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 10:25 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2009 10:20:04 PM

^^that's simply more PR bullshit full of buzzwords. i guarantee you that PE isn't seeing a noticeable effect from programs like these.

^PE hopes for hot days like today and yesterday. matter of fact, PE isn't where they should be for the year due to the relatively mild summer we've had this year.

but i just work there. what would i know?

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 10:31 PM. Reason : but all that matters is if it's worth it to you, you should do it. GG]

8/11/2009 10:27:37 PM

Quote :

"i guarantee you that PE isn't seeing a noticeable effect from programs like these."

I disagree. Progress is buying regulatory compliance.

Quote :

"PE hopes for hot days like today and yesterday. matter of fact, PE isn't where they should be for the year due to the relatively mild summer we've had this year."

Progress would like temperatures to be warmer than they have been, but not 100 F warm. At some point increased sales are offset by increased wholesale costs.

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 10:37 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2009 10:33:31 PM

do you think the reduction in load is significant? i've never seen any estimates, but i doubt it is.

i've always been told that, truly, PE wants to build more plants on the consumer's dime so they can sell excess to other utilities

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 10:39 PM. Reason : adsf]

8/11/2009 10:37:13 PM

I have no idea how many EnergyWise subscribers Progress has; since the program is relatively new, I would agree that load reduction is likely minimal. Peak shaving is the goal, though. Lower peaks mean fewer costs firing up the peakers and fewer wholesale purchases.

Progress makes its money off of capital expenditures. I don't think the PSC (in a regulated market) would allow Progress to build excessive capacity. Progress actually sold its non-regulated businesses off over the past 2-3 years.

Most likely EnergyWise is about regulatory compliance with the added bonus of being able to show an attempt at improving consumer efficiency. Both will come in handy when it comes to time ask for rate increases to build new plants.

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 10:54 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2009 10:45:22 PM

but they're gonna work the numbers in their favor and build every megawatt of capacity they can

Quote :

"Most likely EnergyWise is about regulatory compliance with the added bonus of being able to show an attempt at improving consumer efficiency. Both will come in handy when it comes to time ask for rate increases to build new plants."

exactly what i'm getting at it has nothing to do with "energy efficiency" and "preventing the need for new plants". those are just things that give folks a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 10:57 PM. Reason : afds]

8/11/2009 10:55:39 PM

They seem more interested in building clean megawatts (especially nuclear) to offset the dirt burners.

I think reducing exposure to carbon taxes is a bigger concern to Progress than increasing overall capacity.

8/11/2009 10:58:45 PM

SOx is the biggest issue we're facing in fossil

nuke takes too long and costs too much. everything is going the natural gas combined cycle route.

you heard about the plans for Lee/Wayne County?

8/11/2009 11:00:15 PM

Quote :

"i've always been told that, truly, PE wants to build more plants on the consumer's dime so they can sell excess to other utilities"

you're correct. demand-based power is a seller's market - utilities that need it are willing to pay whatever it takes for the increased capacity to serve that spike. it's much more profitable than selling to consumers.

my dad once told me roughly how much it costs them per minute when they take harris offline for the outage - i don't remember exactly how much, but it was a fucking ridiculous number. you wouldn't believe how much money brunswick saves by having 2 units and alternating outages.

the whole thing is a bit ridiculous though... especially given the fact that they are guaranteed profits no matter what thanks to regulation. it's even funnier to see how they justify executive bonuses - they quite literally create problems to solve so it looks like they're doing something useful.

(by the way: i, for one, am a huge proponent of nuclear.)

8/11/2009 11:04:07 PM

tanzarian is right about the regulated market, though. however, like i said, PE is gonna try their damnedest to build all the MWs they can.

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 11:14 PM. Reason : nuke is great, imo, but we can't move as quick with it as we can w/ natural gas]

8/11/2009 11:05:27 PM

rocky mount has been doing that for a long time, except you get $15-20 for a/c and $30 for heat.

but when your bill is $223890472387 it doesn't make a difference

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 9:47 AM. Reason : ]

8/12/2009 9:47:19 AM

Quote :

"nuke takes too long and costs too much. everything is going the natural gas combined cycle route."

Current nuc plants (AP 1000, EPR, ESBWR, etc.) are all modular. They will take half the time to build as the previous generation plants. They also cost no more than a fossil plant. Robinson took 21 years to pay off for Progress. Harris will be about the same. This is because all the cost is up front. Meanwhile, a new fossil plant will take the exact same amount of time (21 years) to pay off because of the exponentially higher fuel cost. Once a nuc plant is paid off it is pure profit. A coal plant will always have extremely high fuel costs.

Quote :

"i've always been told that, truly, PE wants to build more plants on the consumer's dime so they can sell excess to other utilities"

While this is partially true it is not the whole story. The next project (nuclear plant wise) is the Levy County project in Florida. Currently, that area has a hugh power demand with a large portion being served buy natrual gas. Progress Energy charges ~0.10/kWh. Nuclear power production costs ~0.05/kWh, coal ~0.08/kWh, and natural gas ~0.13/kWh. The Levy county plant needs to be built to lower operating costs for the company.



[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 10:33 AM. Reason : gh]

8/12/2009 10:28:03 AM

900 MW 3-on-1 combined cycle natural gas plant is about to go in at wayne county to replace Lee. Lee will be shut down in 2013

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 10:30 AM. Reason : i'm not talking about construction time. i'm talking about approval time.]

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 10:31 AM. Reason : there were even rumors of saying "fuck it" with levy county and doing gas there as well]

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM. Reason : and we're not talking about coal. coal is out except the big shit like roxboro, mayo, crystal river]

8/12/2009 10:30:10 AM

I believe the rumors you are talking about is more with the Harris expansion. Florida laws are much more favorable for new construction that North Carolina laws. In Florida, Progress can begin charging customers immediately once that shovel has hit dirt for the first time. This enables the company to begin paying back investors from the beginning. In North Carolina, repayment to the investors will not begin until the units are up and synched with the grid. This is a pretty big turn off for lenders. Especially when you are talking $18 bil for the two units.

8/12/2009 10:38:01 AM

the bottom line is the company will have to use gas and nuc to meet demand while maintaining environmental compliance

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 10:41 AM. Reason : they can't meet obama's 2013 emissions regulations w/ nuc. takes too long.]

8/12/2009 10:40:01 AM

.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM. Reason : thought this was shit shat]

8/12/2009 11:00:06 AM

I thought what you said was lounge-worthy. It's not like the other sections are humor-free zones.

8/12/2009 11:07:28 AM

I'd be a hypocrite if I let fly an unprovoked chit chat-esque comment in The Lounge.

8/12/2009 11:14:41 AM

Quote :

"Current nuc plants (AP 1000, EPR, ESBWR, etc.) are all modular. They will take half the time to build as the previous generation plants."

off the top of my head, i don't know how long, on average, it took to build the current generation of nuclear plants. but the EPRs they're building in finland and france are both over-budget and behind schedule. i'm suspicious of this claim.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html

and aside from that, there's going to be a huge bottleneck on the big steel forgings (reactor vessel, at the very least). as i recall, only one company in japan is set up for it.

8/12/2009 7:03:08 PM

The solutions and lessons learned in Finland will have direct applicability to all other EPRs. Construction of subsequent EPRs should be able to avoid the problems of Olkiluoto and finish quicker and cheaper (in theory).

You're definitely right, though--supply chain, skilled labor, and project management shortages are all going to be big (and likely expensive) problems.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM. Reason : ]

8/12/2009 7:45:38 PM

^^ doesn't matter. Areva can have a price that competes with the other units or they can risk loosing market share. UAE is looking to pay cash for 3 to put near Dubai. I'm pretty sure that will alleviate some of that 'engineering cost' you are worried about.

[Edited on August 17, 2009 at 10:39 PM. Reason : df]

8/17/2009 10:38:27 PM

1 hour each month makes up the half of the electric bill for municipalities. The peak power charge is in excess of $15/kWh for that one hour.

PE would like to sell excess to Dominion if they could for that hour.

8/17/2009 10:55:42 PM

from what most of the utilities have been saying at seminars, the only reason anyone is pushing for demand side load management is so that they can go to lawmakers and argue that the reduced demand should be counted towards their green energy requirements. it will be a lot easier to make green energy look economically viable if you can get credit for the fossil fuels you would be burning otherwise in addition to the green energy you are generating. since green energy is a big problem in the southeast, demand side management would be a good alternative for us.

Some areas are wanting to push towards demand side management to reduce our need to implement underfrequency load shedding when our grid becomes more heavily dependent on unreliable green energy, but that's not the case around here. only California and a few European countries that are heavily reliant on windmills are currently dealing with this. it's a lot easier to tell people that you needed to turn out their AC unit than it is to tell them you had to turn off their substation.


[Edited on August 17, 2009 at 11:13 PM. Reason : Tanzanian is right though; no one wants to build more peakers]

8/17/2009 11:06:30 PM

^that's how i understood things to be

8/17/2009 11:12:01 PM

no utilities have hit anywhere close to the peak loads they were seeing in 2007. not only is it not as hot, but people don't have the money to run their businesses and homes as heavily as they were. the stupid high cost of natural gas wasn't helping matters either. gas peakers were getting up around $250-300/MWh back then, and they're not even selling for half of that this year.

still, people were screaming about $60/MWh for peakers when I first got into this industry, so it's still a lot of money to be paying. 20 years ago people were pushing for demand side management, yet it eventually died off. hopefully it's around to stay this time.

8/17/2009 11:21:59 PM

Quote :

"Once a nuc plant is paid off it is pure profit"

Nuke plants cost a lot of money to maintain, I wouldn't exactly call it "pure profit".

The problems Areva are having with OL3 aren't going to be exclusive to Areva. The industry can't just pick up where they left off 30 years ago and expect everything to be running like a well-oiled machine.

[Edited on August 18, 2009 at 8:53 AM. Reason : d]

8/18/2009 8:49:45 AM

i normally turn off my ac at the fuse box and since most of my things are are on power strips i flip the strips off when i know i'm not going to use them i.e. my bedroom tv hasn't been on in 3 days. one month i went super anal on it and my bill went from 111$ to 43$

8/18/2009 3:10:22 PM

The peak cost is outrageous. There are 5 represented energy players in NC and I work for one of them. Demand-Side Management does comply with SB3 (2007), making compliance a part of this. The impact of these measures is very noticeable, especially when you get near the peak. Load management switches on AC/H20 have been in play for a while now and help power companies meet the cost cap for REPS requirements.

[Edited on August 21, 2009 at 11:23 PM. Reason : a]

8/21/2009 11:18:35 PM

Enjoying this discussion so far. Any insights on whether/when NC's electric utilities might become decoupled?

8/22/2009 4:17:11 AM

hopefully never.

8/22/2009 2:42:19 PM

why "hopefully never"?

8/23/2009 5:47:39 AM

You would never get to 59 hertz before your lights went out.

8/23/2009 6:50:32 AM

decoupling will have absolutely no effect on giving companies incentive to save electricity, as they will see even less reimbursement on their energy saving measures than they do now. Currently, the cost of infrastructure is built into the kWh rate, and you pay less for that infrastructure when you use less kWh's. With decoupling, you could use no kWh's at all after installing solar panels and using high efficiency appliances, yet your bill would get readjusted after a couple of months and you'd get hit with a bill for infrastructure that would be similar to what you were paying before.

Everyone likes to point at California as an example of decoupling working, yet they refuse to mention how the reduced per capita energy consumption in California was caused by retarded energy rates that were charged in years prior during deregulation. Also, California has extremely mild weather compared to the rest of the country, so their heating and cooling loads are significantly lower than the rest of the country. You also find more incentive to not use as much power after you've been subjected to rolling blackouts a few times.

The only people who benefit from decoupling are politicians, as it gives them more power over the utility industry. Decoupling will require the state government to be ultimately responsible for the profit margin a utility can make, since they will no longer be allowed to determine profit from energy sales. This will just require utilities to make huge donations to the campaigns of all the running politicians so they don't get royally fucked over when their margins are set. Duke saw the writing on the wall and pushed for their save-a-watt program as a fair middle ground to keep rates coupled while still encouraging people to conserve.

8/23/2009 12:16:05 PM