<More on the Units of EnergyThe Oil DrumWeather update>
<Green Buildings, Green Queens? Green LA?The Oil Drum: LocalThe State of the (Energy) Union (and a SOTU open thread)>

21 comments on Can New York Replicate Water Success with Energy

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SeaCliff on January 18, 2007 - 2:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

I can see where you got your data from (NYCDEP) but there seems to be some fuzziness in their numbers. If you back-calculate the population from the total and per capita consumption, you get a population that varies from 7.1 million in the early 80's to 8.0 million today. NYC's annual drinking water reports indicate that DEP provides water to the 8 million folks in NYC as well as 1 million in Westchester, so really there are 9 million people using the water. It doesn't change the trend but it could reduce the per-capita consumption data. What I can't reconcile is the language in the drinking water report that says the average single-family household uses 100,000gal of water per year. This language appears in the drinking water reports going back to 1997. Maybe DEP is to lazy to recalculate it and change the text?

As for changing the way electricity is billed, I agree with your suggestions for reducing demand and consumption. I live in the burbs and would like to see electrical demand included in zoning. For example, X Watts per square foot of house, where X is a reasonably low amount. I think it would help for planning purposes by pre-establishing the maximum demand that new development would add to the grid. I don't have any data on typical household consumption, other than generalizations, but I'm assuming that a reasonable X factor could be determined. Although it could turn out that there's too much variability to determine what X should be

As for charging a sliding price for electric, I would think it through very carefully. The current system with the separate charge for demand component (at least for non-residential use) has its drawbacks, but it's also seems to be an effective way to maintain system reliability. Instead of or perhaps in conjunction with your sliding scale based on consumption, time-of-day pricing needs to be established.

Through the demand charge, we're paying for all the power plants already built and we'll continue to pay for them until they're retired. The trick is to reduce or eliminate the need for additional power plants that would increase the demand charge.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on January 21, 2007 - 8:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I am (somewhat) sceptical of the notion that we can control energy use by pricing alone. At least not any pricing that is politically in any way acceptable.

The reason being, when it is 90 degrees and humid in NYC, (which it is for 2 1/2 months of the year?), the air con goes on. The extra cost to *most* consumers is not enough to dissuade them.

Big industrial users have the control and incentive to pay attention to electricity bills. I can't see a department store shutting off its air con, nor Citicorp, nor the average affluent Manhattanite.

What one could do is make sure that the poorest consumers (old people, and low income) have the most modern air conditioners and appliances-- simply a better fridge will reduce cooling bills (a modern fridge uses 1/4 of the electricity of a 1970s fridge), let alone a better air conditioner (at least 40% more efficient). The same would go for programmes to encourage better insulation in apartment buildings.

Another scheme I like (a lot) is one which gives the utility the ability to shut off energy consuming appliances for specified periods. eg turn air conditioners and washing machines off at 5pm on a summer weekday for 30 minutes. This has huge benefits: the utility can shift demand into periods when it is not using 'peaking power', thus saving the grid from meltdown, and potentially at a significant savings in CO2 (NY has nuclear baseload power). Indeed with its 'rolling blackouts' I think California was more or less doing that.

The best approach seems to combine:

- a low electricity price for a 'minimum' amount of power, say enough for a 1 bedroom apartment over a normal year, heating and cooling. This to protect the retired, the low income etc. A much higher price for incremental power after that.

- possibly time of day metring, but Ontario Hydro is estimating over $400/ household to install that, so I don't think it is a matter of hurrying. Making sure each individual apartment unit has a metre might be a worthy task.

- active power management by the utility (as described above)

- new building codes which drive up overall energy efficiency. Similar building codes to major renovations. New York might simply announce, that except for historically listed buildings, *all* windows in, say, 2025, must meet a minimum standard of efficiency. This is within the replacement cycle of most buildings (I am guessing windows get replaced on average, every 35 years or so).

- programme to retire and replace old appliances (especially fridges and air con)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
SeaCliff on January 22, 2007 - 4:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I agree. Your bullet items #2, 3 and 4 are no-brainers. My concern with bullet #1 is unintended consequences. I'm not dismissing the sliding scale out of hand, but there are other issues to be considered. As long as the tariff considers reliability, and provides incentive (i.e., reasonable profit) for the installation of new generation when/where necessary (including old CO2-belching generation) and ensures that the fuel-purchasing practices of the utilities promote the lowest reasonable price, I'd be in favor of it.

With fuel prices changing rapidly and demand and consumption changing, how often would prices have to be changed? Monthly? Annually?

I think parts of TX have only an energy charge and no capacity charge. Any Texans want to comment?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.