[Watchdogs] Rewarding Conservation
Mark Williams
skyewill at gvtc.com
Tue May 19 18:23:43 CDT 2009
Comparing a utility that is in short supply or has an unpredictable supply
(weather) to a utility that can be produced is not comparing apples to
apples.
Mark
_____
From: watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org [mailto:watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org] On
Behalf Of alfred stlouis
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:40 PM
To: watchdogs at pec4u.org
Subject: [Watchdogs] Rewarding Conservation
I reviewed the rate structure of the City of Austin water utility: it is an
inverted rate structure, and the big residential user, the water hogs, pay
about 7 times more per gallon than the most conservative user of water,
users who use 2000 gallons or less per month. This type of rate structure
rewards conservation with cheaper rates and it penalizes the heavy user with
higher costs. Al
> From: watchdogs-request at pec4u.org
> Subject: Watchdogs Digest, Vol 13, Issue 14
> To: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 12:00:11 -0500
>
> Send Watchdogs mailing list submissions to
> watchdogs at pec4u.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> watchdogs-request at pec4u.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> watchdogs-owner at pec4u.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Watchdogs digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. As President Reagan would say "There you go again" (Mark Williams)
> 2. Re: increasing the (effective) rate as we cut our power usage
> (Mike M)
> 3. Sufficiently Schooled! (Mark Williams)
> 4. Re: Sufficiently Schooled! (Bill Christensen)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 19:53:08 -0500
> From: "Mark Williams" <skyewill at gvtc.com>
> Subject: [Watchdogs] As President Reagan would say "There you go
> again"
> To: "'Paul Langston'" <langston at zeecon.com>, <joesummy at moment.net>,
> "'Racis, Michael'" <michael.racis at peci.com>, "'Paul Hilgers'"
> <paul.hilgers at peci.com>
> Cc: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Message-ID: <E6B51C1B8DD748A29455DDDA3E787733 at FAMILYDESKTOP>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> As President Reagan would say, "There you go again". The rate does not
> change when you conserve power. Every one pays the same rate for
> electricity and the same meter fee for the same class of customer.
>
>
>
> Why is this so hard for you to figure out?
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org [mailto:watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul Langston
> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 11:19 AM
> To: joesummy at moment.net; Racis, Michael; Paul Hilgers
> Cc: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] "PEC partners with TexasIsHot campaign"
> pressrelease
>
>
>
> Dear Joe: Thanks for fowarding the Press Release of May 15, 2009.
>
>
>
> I assume that your new partners, TexasIsHot, are aware that under the
> present rate schedules, PEC shows its appreciation for conserving power by
> increasing the rate as we cut our power usage.
>
> Regards, Paul Langston
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: joesummy at moment.net
>
> Cc: watchdogs at pec4u.org
>
> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:39 AM
>
> Subject: [Watchdogs] "PEC partners with TexasIsHot campaign" press release
>
>
>
>
> Please consider the attached PEC press release. The release highlights
> PEC's new conservation partnership with TexasIsHot. readers.
>
>
>
> The press release has been formatted as MS Word document.
>
>
> _____
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
<http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20090517/1918b402/attachme
nt-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 18:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mike M <mikemcgmail-bucks at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] increasing the (effective) rate as we cut our
> power usage
> To: 'Paul Langston' <langston at zeecon.com>, watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Message-ID: <918721.78845.qm at web82608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Paul,
> I see Mark, the new apologist for the PEC old guard, is insufficiently
schooled in the impact, ?on the ratepayer, of fixed costs and variable
costs.? Of course, the rate for electricity is the variable cost, i.e., use
more, pay more.? But what he denies is the impact of the fixed cost, the
meter fee.? The fee bears an inversely proportional impact on the
ratepayer.? The conserver of energy feels a greater burden from the fee than
does the heavy user.
> That's why there has been so much interest here in the proposed change to
the fee.
> Mike
>
> --- On Sun, 5/17/09, Mark Williams <skyewill at gvtc.com> wrote:
>
> From: Mark Williams <skyewill at gvtc.com>
> Subject: [Watchdogs] As President Reagan would say "There you go again"
> To: "'Paul Langston'" <langston at zeecon.com>, joesummy at moment.net, "'Racis,
Michael'" <michael.racis at peci.com>, "'Paul Hilgers'" <paul.hilgers at peci.com>
> Cc: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Date: Sunday, May 17, 2009, 7:53 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul
> ?
> As President Reagan would say, ?There you go again?.? The rate does not
change when you conserve power.? Every one pays the same rate for
electricity and the same meter fee for the same class of customer.
> ?
> Why is this so hard for you to figure out?
> ?
> Mark
> ?
>
>
>
>
> From: watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org [mailto:watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org] On
Behalf Of Paul Langston
> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 11:19 AM
> To: joesummy at moment.net; Racis, Michael; Paul Hilgers
> Cc: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] "PEC partners with TexasIsHot campaign"
pressrelease
> ?
>
> Dear Joe:? Thanks for fowarding the Press Release of May 15, 2009.
>
> ?
>
> I assume that your new partners, TexasIsHot, are aware that under the
present rate schedules, PEC shows its appreciation for conserving power by
increasing the rate as we cut our?power usage.
>
> Regards, Paul Langston
>
> ?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: joesummy at moment.net
>
> Cc: watchdogs at pec4u.org
>
> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:39 AM
>
> Subject: [Watchdogs] "PEC partners with TexasIsHot campaign" press release
>
> ?
>
> Please consider the attached PEC press release. The release highlights
> PEC's new conservation partnership with TexasIsHot.? readers.
>
>
>
> The press release has been formatted as MS Word document.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> ?_______________________________________________
> Watchdogs mailing list
> Watchdogs at pec4u.org
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
> NEW INSTRUCTIONS: To remove yourself from this list, please send an email
to
> watchdogs-request at pec4u.org with UNSUBSCRIBE in the SUBJECT line. Or go to
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
> and follow the instructions at the bottom of the page.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
<http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20090517/bc1ea608/attachme
nt-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 20:41:55 -0500
> From: "Mark Williams" <skyewill at gvtc.com>
> Subject: [Watchdogs] Sufficiently Schooled!
> To: <mikemcgmail-bucks at yahoo.com>
> Cc: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Message-ID: <95B79C6353EF48A085711D493001363F at FAMILYDESKTOP>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> >From far me supporting the old guard. I can wait until all of them are
> gone.
>
>
>
> If you want the true economic impact to the customer, you would support
the
> $39.90 monthly meter fee and the lower per KWH power cost. Anything else
is
> sending the wrong economic signal.
>
>
>
> Support the $39.90 per month meter fee and the operating costs of PEC
would
> drop more quickly because everyone would be on the board of directors for
> cost control now!
>
>
>
> The conserver of energy needs to feel the correct cost, not some
subsidized
> cost.
>
>
>
> I am more than sufficiently schooled in the impact as I used to run the
> economic and planning department of a very large company. Now I run part
of
> the marketing department for the company and in 2008, I managed over $3.8
> billion in sales. Yes that is right BILLION.
>
>
>
> I think the interest here is for the heavy consumer to subsidize the low
> consumer. Nothing more.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org [mailto:watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike M
> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 8:24 PM
> To: 'Paul Langston'; watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] increasing the (effective) rate as we cut our
> powerusage
>
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
> I see Mark, the new apologist for the PEC old guard, is insufficiently
> schooled in the impact, on the ratepayer, of fixed costs and variable
> costs. Of course, the rate for electricity is the variable cost, i.e., use
> more, pay more. But what he denies is the impact of the fixed cost, the
> meter fee. The fee bears an inversely proportional impact on the
ratepayer.
> The conserver of energy feels a greater burden from the fee than does the
> heavy user.
>
> That's why there has been so much interest here in the proposed change to
> the fee.
>
> Mike
>
> --- On Sun, 5/17/09, Mark Williams <skyewill at gvtc.com> wrote:
>
> From: Mark Williams <skyewill at gvtc.com>
> Subject: [Watchdogs] As President Reagan would say "There you go again"
> To: "'Paul Langston'" <langston at zeecon.com>, joesummy at moment.net, "'Racis,
> Michael'" <michael.racis at peci.com>, "'Paul Hilgers'"
<paul.hilgers at peci.com>
> Cc: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Date: Sunday, May 17, 2009, 7:53 PM
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> As President Reagan would say, "There you go again". The rate does not
> change when you conserve power. Every one pays the same rate for
> electricity and the same meter fee for the same class of customer.
>
>
>
> Why is this so hard for you to figure out?
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org [mailto:watchdogs-bounces at pec4u.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul Langston
> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 11:19 AM
> To: joesummy at moment.net; Racis, Michael; Paul Hilgers
> Cc: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] "PEC partners with TexasIsHot campaign"
> pressrelease
>
>
>
> Dear Joe: Thanks for fowarding the Press Release of May 15, 2009.
>
>
>
> I assume that your new partners, TexasIsHot, are aware that under the
> present rate schedules, PEC shows its appreciation for conserving power by
> increasing the rate as we cut our power usage.
>
> Regards, Paul Langston
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: <mailto:joesummy at moment.net> joesummy at moment.net
>
> Cc: <mailto:watchdogs at pec4u.org> watchdogs at pec4u.org
>
> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:39 AM
>
> Subject: [Watchdogs] "PEC partners with TexasIsHot campaign" press release
>
>
>
>
> Please consider the attached PEC press release. The release highlights
> PEC's new conservation partnership with TexasIsHot. readers.
>
>
>
> The press release has been formatted as MS Word document.
>
> _____
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> _____
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Watchdogs mailing list
> Watchdogs at pec4u.org
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
> NEW INSTRUCTIONS: To remove yourself from this list, please send an email
to
> watchdogs-request at pec4u.org with UNSUBSCRIBE in the SUBJECT line. Or go to
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
> and follow the instructions at the bottom of the page.
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
<http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20090517/20f0d68c/attachme
nt-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 23:49:59 -0500
> From: Bill Christensen <billc_lists at greenbuilder.com>
> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] Sufficiently Schooled!
> To: watchdogs at pec4u.org
> Message-ID: <a06230922c6369400a16f@[192.168.50.3]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> At 8:41 PM -0500 5/17/09, Mark Williams wrote:
> >From far me supporting the old guard. I can wait until all of them are
gone.
> >
> >If you want the true economic impact to the customer, you would
> >support the $39.90 monthly meter fee and the lower per KWH power
> >cost. Anything else is sending the wrong economic signal.
>
> Actually, the *best* economic signal - and one that many here have
> been trying to drive home - is to push to reduce the high expense
> load which accounts for that high monthly per-meter cost, not to roll
> over and accept $39.90/month as what it *should* cost.
>
> The real meat of the question is to find out why it's so high
> compared to other coops. Is it because of the size or density of the
> service area? Is it because upper management is paid too much? Is
> it because the operation is running inefficiently or wasting
> resources?
>
> >
> >Support the $39.90 per month meter fee and the operating costs of
> >PEC would drop more quickly because everyone would be on the board
> >of directors for cost control now!
>
> Though true, I don't think that would be a wise approach. The
> pitchforks are, like, all pointy and the torches pollute the air ;-)
>
> >
> >The conserver of energy needs to feel the correct cost, not some
> >subsidized cost.
>
> However, there's nothing wrong in my book with penalizing the
> flagrant non-conserver with stepped-up rates.
>
> Hand in hand with that, there should be a weatherization/energy
> conservation team who can help those with extremely inefficient homes
> identify and fix the worst problems for a reasonable fee. Those fees
> could be spread out over the projected payback period in cases of
> true economic hardship, so that the consumer wouldn't actually pay
> any more than they would have without the conservation measures, but
> would require less energy (especially important during peak) and once
> paid back would be paying reduced bills.
>
> >
> >I think the interest here is for the heavy consumer to subsidize the
> >low consumer. Nothing more.
> >
>
> Perhaps. Or perhaps it's in making PEC look at where the big leaks
> are and plugging them, saving all of us money and making for a more
> efficient company overall.
>
>
> --
> Bill Christensen
> <http://greenbuilder.com/contact/>
>
> Green Building Professionals Directory:
<http://directory.greenbuilder.com>
> Sustainable Building Calendar: <http://www.greenbuilder.com/calendar/>
> Green Real Estate: <http://www.greenbuilder.com/realestate/>
> Straw Bale Registry: <http://sbregistry.greenbuilder.com/>
> Books/videos/software: <http://bookstore.greenbuilder.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Watchdogs mailing list
> Watchdogs at pec4u.org
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
>
>
> End of Watchdogs Digest, Vol 13, Issue 14
> *****************************************
_____
HotmailR has ever-growing storage! Don't worry about storage limits. Check
it out.
<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutori
al_Storage1_052009>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://103.greenbuilder.com/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20090519/821bb7fc/attachment.html>
More information about the Watchdogs
mailing list