HORROR STORY #5

This was posted here: http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/universal-power-c50984.html?sort=datea&page=3

In March of 2009, I started getting a charge on my Hydro One bill for
Universal Energy. These charges were higher than the amount for usage. When I
contacted Hydro One to find out what this charge was, they told me it was
because I had signed with a third party provider. I hadn't signed anything with
any body. So I contacted Universal Energy. They told me they had a contract, and
that I had to honor it for 5 years. So I demanded a copy of the contract. They
did send it to me. The contract is in someone elses name. Different account
number. Different address. I brought this to thier attention, and told them to
stop billing me imediately. They told me I would have to pay a sizable penalty
to cancel the contract. I told them I wasn't paying anything to them. I called
Hydro One and explained what was going on, and was told I would have to take it
up with Universal. They were not going to do anything. So I only paid Hydro
One's portion of the bill which resulted in my hydro being cut in December 2009.
I had to pay the full amount to get it back on. I have since hired a lawyer who
has contacted both Hydro One, and Universal. He explained the situation
threatening court, only to get the same responce as me. So a suite has been
filed against both. I have recieved calls from both. All I tell them now is,
"Talk to my Lawyer, his phone number is..." The last 2 bills I have recieved are
the real kickers. Universal Energy was changed to Universal Power, then to
Direct Energy. If they are different companies...my lawyer will be busy. If they
are not...then they will be scewing them selves cause they are strengthening the
deception claim. I've paid over $6, 000.00 to them just so I can have hydro for
my home. I WILL GET IT BACK! My lawyer says so. lol.

That extra charge is the Provincial Benefit which is a 4.7c/Kwh increase because of bring signed up with a retailer. Good reason to stay away from these sharks, THEY DO NOT SAVE YOU MONEY! How can they?

McGuinty & Co. Ignored warnings

Green Energy Act EBR Submissions

Take a look at the hundreds of warnings to the McGuinty government of how undemocratic, ill-informed and reckless Bill 151, the Green Energy Act, was. Municipalities and public concerns were ignored. Important information about turbine setbacks from problem homes was blacked out.

Searchable_Municipalities

Searchable_Other

Searchable_Industry

Note: Some text looks scrambled as these files were converted to OCR to allow them to be searchable.

Posted in Wind Concerns Ontario

HORROR STORY #4

From a victim:

Hello, I have two horror stories and an incident following that I must share.

1. I installed a heat pump 2 years ago, and about a over a year ago, my heat pump failed , and I ended using my woodstove for heat. My normal energy consumption to that point, measured on a Smart Meter was between 13 ans 16 KWH per day. When I received my bill for that period I was shocked to see and average 177 KWH per day. Hydro blamed me, even suggesting that the unit was using more power even though the compressor never started.

2. I had my electricity disconnected 5 days into my new billing period to lift the house. When I received the bill for that period, it showed an average usage of 19 KWH per day, which actually means I was using 114 KWH per day.

Further to this, because of my inability to pay outrageous bills on time I have now been charged a $1250 security deposit which must be paid in one month's time. I have arranged to pay $800, but I am tired of being harassed and bullied.

SMART METERS = BIG BROTHER

The Smart Grid Trojan Horse

By W. Grant Ellis

Perhaps you've heard of the Smart Grid initiative. Perhaps you understand that the goal of the initiative is to improve and modernize the nation's power transmission and distribution networks. Maybe your electric utility has even installed a Smart Meter at your home or business. What you probably don't know is that the Smart Grid movement is the Trojan Horse of the green agenda, a step toward Cap & Trade.Since the time of grid pioneer Samuel Insull, the goal of utilities everywhere has been to balance generation capacity against electrical demand to ensure system integrity.... (Read Full Article)

----------------------

New electricity grids may be smart, but not so private

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_15106430

A Climate of Belief

I have explicity stayed away from discussing climate science on this blog, but something has come to my attention, and the policies of the Liberal Government for electricity production is based on human caused global warming and the mantra that we need to reduce our CO2 footprint to stave off catastrophic global warming. So say the climate models.

Thus this:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html

A Climate of Belief

The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming
of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are
unreliable

by Patrick Frank

It's technical and long, but the message is clear:

So the bottom line is this: When it comes to future climate, no one knows
what they’re talking about. No one. Not the IPCC nor its scientists, not the US
National Academy of Sciences, not the NRDC or National Geographic, not the US
Congressional House leadership, not me, not you, and certainly not Mr. Albert
Gore. Earth’s climate is warming and no one knows exactly why. But there is no
falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by
human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly
inadequate to establish any cause at all.

YOU ARE PAYING 15.4C/kWh (NEXT MONTH 16.7)

That is correct. All totalled all charges means you are paying 15.4C/kWh, not 5.7, not 6.8 as shown on your bill. But including ALL charges that is what you are actually paying for power.

The graphs here are from my friend's as he has bills back to the beginning of 2004, though he is missing records for 2007 which he is trying to track down those bills. That missing data doesn't affect these rate changes.

Here is how that has increased, some 44%, since 2004:




This is the delivery rate, up 37%:



Regulatory rate has been constant since its introduction in Oct 2004 at 0.69C/kWh until March of 2009 when it started to go up. It's now up 10% since that time.




Including the four rates together:



This graph shows the change in delivery as a percent of consumption rates. Notice the drop in 2004, then leveled off until this year, where it started back up to 100% of the consumption rate.



This is the percent increase in the delivery rate for each year:

In 2005 that rate dropped 7%, but in the following years it increased 5-6% until this year where it is already up 12%.

Of course this all increases 8% starting July, so your effective rate costs on your bill for what you actually consume is going to 16.7C/kWh.

And as far as the Government and NGOs are concerned this is not high enough. Thanks Ontario Liberals.

Oh, and with all those increases H1 is still losing money. What's not right with this picture?

Britain's Wind Scam Worse Than Thought

Britain's Wind Scam Worse Than Thought
Robert Mendick, The Sunday Telegraph, 20 June 2010

Energy firms will receive thousands of pounds a day per wind farm to turn off their turbines because the National Grid cannot use the power they are producing.

Critics of wind farms have seized on the revelation as evidence of the unsuitability of turbines to meet the UK's energy needs in the future. They claim that the 'intermittent' nature of wind makes such farms unreliable providers of electricity.

The National Grid fears that on breezy summer nights, wind farms could actually cause a surge in the electricity supply which is not met by demand from businesses and households.
The electricity cannot be stored, so one solution – known as the 'balancing mechanism' – is to switch off or reduce the power supplied.

The system is already used to reduce supply from coal and gas-fired power stations when there is low demand. But shutting down wind farms is likely to cost the National grid – and ultimately consumers – far more. When wind turbines are turned off, owners are being deprived not only of money for the electricity they would have generated but also lucrative 'green' subsidies for that electricity.

The first successful test shut down of wind farms took place three weeks ago. Scottish Power received £13,000 for closing down two farms for a little over an hour on 30 May at about five in the morning.

Whereas coal and gas power stations often pay the National Grid £15 to £20 per megawatt hour they do not supply, Scottish Power was paid £180 per megawatt hour during the test to switch off its turbines.

It raises the prospect of hugely profitable electricity suppliers receiving large sums of money from the National Grid just for switching off wind turbines.

Dr Lee Moroney, planning director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a think tank opposed to the widespread introduction of wind farms, said: "As more and more wind farms come on stream this will become more and more of an issue. Wind power is not controllable and does not provide a solid supply to keep the national grid manageable. Paying multinational companies large sums of money not to supply electricity seems wrong."

Earlier this year, The Sunday Telegraph revealed that electricity customers are paying more than £1 billion a year to subsidise wind farms and other forms of renewable energy.

The proceeds of the levy, known as the Renewables Obligation (RO), are divided between the main renewable energy sources, with wind receiving 40 per cent, landfill gas 25 per cent, biomass 20 per cent, hydroelectric 12 per cent and sewage gas 3 per cent.

Professor Michael Laughton, emeritus professor of electrical engineering at the University of London, said: "People will find it very hard to understand that an electricity company is getting paid the market rate plus a subsidy for doing nothing. It is essentially a waste of consumers' money."

Full story

Solar power is unaffordable

Solar power is unaffordable
Handelsblatt, 21 June 2010

Solar energy is getting more and more popular - and therefore unaffordable. Because the subsidies are guaranteed for years, the costs have risen to high double-digit billions. Even the industry recognizes that it cannot go on like this.

German Government support for solar power is leading to significant price increases for large electricity users in industry and for private users. Consumer organisations estimate that electricity prices are likely to rise by ten percent next year alone due to subsidies for green electricity. Industrial electricity prices in Germany are already high; through the promotion of green electricity they will reach peak prices in Europe

The ultimate cost drivers are mainly photovoltaic systems. Year after year their numbers are climbing much faster than predicted. Compared to previous estimates, the increase in capacity has risen tenfold this year. For each system, the Renewable Energy Act guarantees a feed-in tariff for 20 years, which is currently six times higher than the price of conventionally generated electricity. The additional costs are passed on to all electricity consumers. While prices for photovoltaic systems have fallen sharply in recent years, state subsidies have been only reduced moderately. As a result, the facilities have become very lucrative for operators. According to calculations by the Rhine-Westphalian Institute for Economic Research, the net cost to the taxpayer of all photovoltaic systems installed between 2000 and 2010 adds up to € 85.4 billion.
The promotion of renewable energy threatens to get out of control, warns Martin Kneer, chief executive of the Metal Trade Association. Excluded from the levy are only a few hundred companies, including extremely energy-intensive facilities, such as aluminium smelters.
A recent open letter by Johannes Lackmann has alarmed the photovoltaic industry. Lackmann is no enemy of renewable energies. On the contrary: He is firmly rooted in the green energy industry and was for many years president of the Association of Renewable Energies. Lackmann warns that companies in effect are placing themselves on par with outdated industries, which make up the lack of competitiveness by being subsidized. The Renewable Energies Act, which promotes green power, should not be used as a pillow. In his view, the photovoltaic industry threatens to overdo things – at the expense of electricity consumers.

Lackmann describes the consequences of a development that is heading for new highs this year. Because the promotion of green energy is so lucrative, more solar panel systems are now mounted on German rooftops than ever thought possible: The trade magazine "Photon" calculates that solar cells with a capacity of 8,800 Megawatts (MW) are added in 2010: the Rhine-Westphalian Institute for Economic Research (RWI) believes a figure of up to 9000 MW for more realistic. Compared to 2006, the newly installed capacity has increased by a factor of eleven. Even in 2007 it was assumed that a maximum 700 MW will have been added by 2010.
The completely unrestrained run on photovoltaic systems has immense consequences for all electricity consumers. For each installed system the Renewable Energy Act guarantees a fixed feed-in tariffs for 20 years, which exceed the market price of conventional electricity many times over. Facilities which go on line this year receive on average 31 cents per kilowatt-hour. This price is guaranteed by law until 2030. For comparison: at the power exchange EEX one kilowatt hour of conventionally generated electricity can be bought for around five cents. The difference is financed by all electricity consumers. Only for some energy-intensive industries there are exceptions.

According to calculations by the RWI, the net cost for all photovoltaic systems built between 2000 and 2010 over the respective 20-year funding period add up to €85.4 billion in real terms. This value corresponds to more than one quarter of Germany’s federal budget. Regardless, the contribution of solar power to total electricity consumption in Germany is very low despite the large sums of funding. It is around one percent.

According to calculations by the Consumer Federation (VZBV) the newly added photovoltaic systems in 2010 alone will cost German consumers €26 billion for the production life of 20 years. According to VZBV this will cause an increase in the price of electricity by ten percent in 2011. The energy suppliers have already announced price increases. The energy supplier RWE announced on Friday it would raise prices by 7.3 percent from August due to higher costs for green electricity.

The reason for this massive build up is obvious: while costs for the solar panels have fallen sharply in recent years, the feed-in tariffs have declined only slightly. The module manufacturers can still get quite high prices, which bring them high profits. At the same time, the feed-in tariffs guarantee plant operators a good business.

Negotiations about cuts in solar feed-in tariffs have been going on for months. The solar industry is vehemently resisting any downgrading - and is using political support by individual states. The lobby wants to prevent cuts planned by the Federal government by means of the Parliament’s lower chamber. The Conciliation Committee of the Bundesrat and Bundestag has set up a working group which is expected to come up with a compromise by 5 July. The final word, however, lies with the Bundestag.

From the perspective of Johannes Lackmann, the industry’s resistance to cuts is doing it no favours. He considers the proposal by the Federal government to cut the subsidies as overdue. Lackmann wants an automatic mechanism by which the feed-in tariffs are adjusted every six months without a long debate. From the perspective of the RWI, however, the Renewable Energy Act should be completely abolished. It does not even create incentives for investment in research and development: "Leading German solar companies spend less than two percent of sales on research and development. This puts them below the figure of Siemens," says Manuel Frondel, Head of Environment and Resources at the RWI. He thinks that targeted technology promotion is more useful than subsidizing the solar industry.

Copyright 2010, Handelsblatt

ONTARIO LIBERALS PRACTICING POLICE STATE TACTICS

This is so very wrong, and deeply disturbing in a free democracy.

http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/opp-calling-us-resisters-phone-calls-visits-background-checks-on-wco-members/

Collection of Power related Stories

In Ontario:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-takes-green-lead-with-record-8-billion-energy-investment/article1527080/

Current Market Price for Electricity 3.4 ¢/kWh
20-year fixed price for Solar Power 80.2 ¢/kWh
20-year fixed price for Wind Power 13.5 ¢/kWh

In Spain:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-16/spain-may-cut-income-30-for-operating-solar-plants-update1-.html
As you know, the Spanish economy is in trouble. Part of the reason is the subsidy paid to solar-powered electricity producers. Apparently the government has seen the light and will reduce the subsidy paid by 30%, although the prices were guaranteed by law for 25 years. Legal actions to follow.

In the Netherlands, Colorado and Texas: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/subsidizing_co2.pdf
Subsidizing CO2 Emissions via Wind Power: The Ultimate Irony. Read it and weep!

In Denmark:
http://www.centerforinvestigativereporting.org/blogpost/20100615carboncarouseleuropeanmarketahavenfortaxfraud

Come ride the Carbon Carousel!
Denmark encouraged carbon brokerage firms to establish themselves in that country by skipping background checks, requiring only an email address. The Danish paper Ekstra Bladet and Europol report on a fraud known as a "tax carousel" in which Danish-registered companies buy carbon credits from brokers in other European countries, tax free. To avoid paying a Danish VAT of 25% most of the Danish-registered companies shut down and disappeared. The scheme has cost treasuries in Denmark and other European countries €5 billion and thrown into question the veracity of thousands of carbon trades. This scam highlights the vulnerability of s system based on trading an intangible asset, in effect a computer certificate that can be moved from account to account in endless loops.

In Britain:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-16/u-k-to-cut-barriers-to-nuclear-power-minister-says-update1-.html
Here comes the Carbon Tax you’ve all been waiting for.

BIZZAR JUMP IN CONSUMPTION

Here is my friend's daily consumption readings he takes every morning.

Notice the huge jump of 106 on June 13th. Nothing unusual, no laundry done that day, no vacuuming, the pool pump was on starting June 9th, which is on a timer. Even the day he ran his well pump to top up the pool wasn't that high. So what's up with that?

He called H1. "Oh, we don't take daily readings" they said. That is a lie because I'm just around the corner from him and I got my daily readings back to Nov 2009.

I've put my monitor back on at his place, I suspect it will read the same now.

This is why it is important to take daily readings of your meter.

Shocker on the way. My friend's billings go back many years. I'm entering all the data, consumption, transmission, regulatory charges, etc, to give you an over all graph of how these have increased over time.

Energy Act details must be scrutinized

Orangeville Citizen, www.citizen.on.ca

I have been receiving flyers in the mail and seeing ads in this and other papers trying to interest me in installing a solar panel system in order to “make money from the sun”. The Province’s Green Energy Act guarantees that any producer of “green” electricity, no matter how small, can be allowed to connect to the electricity grid, and sell power to the electric company. Sounds very progressive, very “democratic” and fair, right? Perhaps a great concept in the ideal world…. until you look closely at the details and weigh the consequences of such a plan.

The Hydro company will pay me approximately 12 times more for my “green” electricity than I pay that same Hydro company for “their” power (whether it is “green” or not…think about that one!). All secured in a 20 year contract. This works out to be a pretty darn good investment, with payback period of around 6 years, and a yearly return of between 14% and 17%. There are thousands of people and companies lining up to get in on the deal.

The trouble is, to my way of thinking, if I sign up to get my “share”, there will have to be other people who will pay me for the privilege (and for the fact that I have money to invest, and land and a building to install the panels on). Because where does this extra money come from? It comes from other users of electricity and the taxpayer. So my decision to profit from a government’s foolish policy is based in a selfish short-sighted attitude that does not care for my neighbours.

My following this course of action will force other people to pay more for their electricity. These other people are likely to be people who are not as comfortable as I am, and how can I feel good about forcing them to pay more? And this is exactly what is happening in our province today.
I received my Hydro bill last week to see an enclosure that announced that the kilowatthour rate has gone up and the delivery rate has gone up. We have the Green Energy Act and the Province’s (lack of a sound ) Energy Plan to blame for that. It seems far too few people want to make the connection between the rising rates and this push for “green power” (I love the colour green and I love the natural world, but I am SO tired of this expression!)

But what about the laudable concept of doing less harm to the planet by choosing smarter energy sources, like wind and solar, you may ask? And shouldn’t we be willing to pay more for these less harmful approaches? Well, sure, if they worked (without bankrupting the province). The problem is that they don’t work as promised, or not very well at least.

All of the wind and solar capacity that we put into the grid through these taxpayer subsidized programs will have to be (and are being) backed by the traditional power plants (gas peaker plants are being forced on Oakville and the Holland Marsh).

Often the wind does not blow, and every day, predictably, the sun does not shine. Our need for electricity may rise and fall daily, but that need is always there, ‘round the clock.

A friend of mine told me how he was considering a solar power system too. Attracted by the lure of the Province’s plan, he and his wife looked into the idea, and concluded that since, in effect, his neighbours would be paying him, that it was not really an idea that he could support. For him it made more sense to build his own “grid” and to wean his dependence on the industrial production of power. That is how wind and solar power can work. On the small scale, with individuals lessening their dependence on the industrial grid, and cutting their demands on that grid. Congratulations to he and his wife for having the marvelous insight and firm principles to refuse that selfish path. The trouble is that there will be way too many people willing to go for it, and he, and I and all of our neighbours will be paying the price.

Dennis Sanford, Melancthon Township

Privacy czar raises alarm on smart meter data

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/824450--privacy-czar-raises-alarm-on-smart-meter-data?bn=1

Picture this:
You sign up for an energy conservation scheme that lets your local utility shut down your air conditioner temporarily if the power grid is overloaded. Shortly afterward, you get a marketing call from an air conditioning company.

Or this:

You buy an electric car that you charge up every Sunday night, but never on Mondays because you always do an overnight trip. One Monday night, your home is burgled.

In fact, this doesn’t happen right now. Privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian wants to keep it that way.

The electricity system is gearing up to gather more and more information about customers and their habits through smart meters and smart appliances, she says.

Cavoukian wants power system planners to protect private information, right from the start.
On Wednesday, Cavoukian released a paper setting standards for utilities to use in keeping private information from leaking out in unauthorized ways.

“This is all about control: Who gets control over the personal data?” she said in an interview. “It’s your data, it’s not Toronto Hydro’s or Hydro One’s. You should be the person to decide how that data is used.”

Until recently, electric utilities didn’t know that much about most power use in most households. They read the meter every couple of months, which gave an over-all usage, and that was about it.

But smart meters – now installed in just about every household across the province – now provide utilities with power readings every 15 minutes, almost in real time.

As well, consumers can volunteer to have devices that allow the utility to shut down their air conditioner.

And in the next few years, many appliances will grow “smarter”, allowing the electric utilities to peer into households and monitor what appliance are being used, and when, Cavoukian said.
Potential trouble lurks if that happens. In the wrong hands, up-to-the-minute data can tell people when you’re not at home, she said.

And she recently attended a conference in the U.S. where utilities were talking about “monetizing” – they meant selling—the new information they were gleaning from their customers.

That, she says, is “an abomination” because the utilities were planning to use private information in ways the customer had not intended.

“You should care, because you didn’t sign up for unwanted marketing efforts,” she said. “You don’t want more spam, you don’t want more people calling you.”

Cavoukian said Canadian utilities have been far more sensitive about privacy issues. Toronto Hydro and Hydro One both worked with her in preparing the privacy standards.

The best privacy practices ensure that privacy is the “default option”: Customer information is kept private unless the customer specifically authorizes a release, she said.

Or, as one of her neighbours put it, when Cavoukian explained the principle to her:
“You mean, if I do nothing, I get privacy for free.”

RESTRUCTURING OF ONTARIO'S POWER GENERATION AND CONSUMPTION

Power generation in this province is a network the following organizations:

The Ontario Power Authority, Ontario Power Generation and the Ontario Energy Board.

The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) is mandated to

Together with our partners, we ensure that electricity needs are met for the
benefit of Ontario both now and in the future. We plan and procure electricity
supply from diverse resources and facilitate the measures needed to achieve
ambitious conservation targets.

They are a government appointed paid body. That means they do what the government tells them to do.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) job is to produce the power.

Ontario Energy Board (OEB) is another government agency. All board members are appointed by the government and thus do what the government tells them to do. They regulate the price of not only electricity but also natural gas. They are responsible for the implementation of the smart meters. Though they claim to be in the interests of the consumer, they are in fact in conflict of interest because their boss, the Government of Ontario, is also the boss of the other two sectors of the system.

The Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA) is an arms length Non-governmental Organization (NGO). They are crediting themselves with creating and influencing government's Green Energy Act. So if you have a beef about this act, thank them.

See http://tomadamsenergy.com/?p=534 about the OEB funding of OSEA.

Two things stick right out about this network of organizations. The government is the Top Dog. This means that the political bent of the party in power will dictate the direction of power generation in the province. This means that a political party can make long term deals which will straight jacket future governments. This is why the system is a huge mess, and why we are embarking on this "green energy" nonsense of lies and deceit (note the OSEA site on wind turbines use of "capacity". A fictitious number that is never achieved. It's also 3 years out of date.)

This mess needs a major rebuilding from the ground up, with the government removed completely. Power is too important to be left to ideologues. The people of the province need to take control of this essential necessity.

Thus this is what I propose should be done.

The OPA should take over the role of the OEB. It should be funded from the sale of power, not the government, and an arms length organization. They implement and govern the power system of the province. They would be responsible for all billings of electrical use, not H1. They deal with all complains and mandated to fix problems with billings. They would also be responsible for funding of all energy production projects. The President of this organization is appointed by the Ontario Energy Board, and reports only to that board, not the government.

The OEB is to be restructured to be just a board, funded by the Provincial Government, but no one appointed by the government. The board members would consist of the following people in no specific order:

-- Minister of Energy (The minister not someone he/she appoints)
-- Energy Critic of the Opposition
-- Chief Executive of the OPA
-- One appointee from the OPG
-- One appointee from H1
-- One appointee from retailers and municipal distributors

None of those positions can be Chair of the Board.

The rest of the board be one appointee from various associations of consumer stakeholders including from industry, farming, home owners, business and to be fair one from the OSEA. Any organization of consumers would be free to apply for a seat at the board approved by the board. A minimum of 8 people would be required. The Board reports to the Government, but not directed by the Government.

The Chair would be voted from that group only, with a maximum of 2 years in that position.

The Board's duties would be to set the goals and directions of future energy production and transmission in the province. They would set regulations and prices. They would be responsible for approving new production based on facts and evidence, not what is considered politically correct. It would put the production of power in this province into the hands of the consumers of that power. This is what is required when producers of power have a monopoly and the political party in power has an agenda based not on science, but ideology.

Is this proposal workable and has a possibility of implementation? It would mean appending or repealing a few Provincial Acts. Thus it is up to the voters. I'll be doing my part to promote this system.

IS H1 MANIPULATING SMART METERS?

Stay tuned, we have something very interesting coming in the days ahead. Remember my friend who, once the smart meter was tested went back to normal consumption readings? Not any more. His readings over the past 2 months were in the 18-30kWh daily consumption. Last Sunday? 106!!! Yesterday more than 50, and nothing was on that would consume that much. No laundry done, no AC on. I'm putting my monitor back on his place later today and follow for the next few days.

Oh, and he was double billed for one month. I'll be posting on that later too.

REMINDER. I know it takes a few weeks to get the data from H1, but please get your numbers to me ASAP, we cannot proceed without that evidence. I'm still waiting for mine.

Class Action Lawsuit Launched for Ontario

by Peter Jackson Bayshore Broadcasting
A group of farmers in Midwestern Ontario is turning to the courts in an effort to stop wind turbine development in Central Huron.

But the lawsuit could grow to include residents from across the province.

A proposed class-action lawsuit seeks damages from TTD Wind Project, Twenty-Two Degree Energy Corporation and individuals who put up wind turbines on their properties.

Lawyer Patrick Murphy of the Goderich firm Donnelly and Murphy has been hired to launch the proposed action. Murphy admits the lawsuit could take years to get to court.

Murphy says his firm will advertise for anyone affected by wind turbines so a class of individuals can be developed. He says only then can he go to court to apply for certification that his clients are affected by the turbines. Murphy says there is the potential for the action to become widespread around the province of Ontario.

Murphy says once certification by the Court is achieved the action would become province-wide and not restricted to just Central Huron.

Murphy says his clients take issue with the companies and individuals on several fronts. He says health concerns top the list including sleep deprivation from wind turbine vibration which can lead to depression.

Murphy says his clients also cite a drop in property values and the loss of enjoyment of their properties. Last week, the province’s Chief Medical Officer, Doctor Arlene King said that while there are irritants linked to wind turbines, there’s not enough medical evidence to label them a health hazard.

For information on how to join this class action lawsuit, contact Patrick Murphy: pmurphy@dmlaw.ca

http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/class-action-lawsuit-launched-for-ontario/

McGuinty OKs 17% increase in coal-fired electricity generation with no scrubbers in place

The McGuinty Government has issued a shareholder directive giving Ontario Power Generation permission to increase the output of its dirty coal-fired power plants by 17%, in each year from 2011 to 2014 inclusive, relative to its actual level of coal-fired electricity generation in 2009.

See: http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/so-hows-that-wind-power-working-out-for-you-dalton/

Guess those wind turbines are not performing as expected -- DUH!

CONSUMPTION GRAPH #3

This is from a farmer who sent me his data on a spread sheet.

His periods are 4 months between estimates, then after a year he gets an actual reading to catch up. Boy what a mess. Their estimates are way off. I have to cut his final reading by 60% and equally apply to the previous 3 estimates to get a reasonable number for each period.

(Click on the image to get a larger version)

Thus in the column marked A what I did was multiply his actual reading for that period by .6, or 60%. The 2874 in the first one was then added equally to the previous estimates to give the values in B. I then averaged those values from 2005 to 2007 before the smart meter went in so as to get the deviation from that baseline for C.

At least with the smart meters that will be eliminated. But look at the huge jump! (Data from the B column)

This is his deviation from the baseline (data from C)

Yes, there was a 3 time increase in his consumption, and from then on a 100% increase from the baseline. And nothing changed on his farm except the smart meter.

That's not all, there is also something weird with their "daily" consumption. Notice column D. The column to the left of that is the actual consumption divided by the number of days. The one to the left of that column is the number H1 says he consumed per day on average. Prior to the smart meter they match, but not after the smart meter, they are higher by 4kWh per day, one is 8kWh too high. Whats up with that?

CONSUMPTION GRAPH #2

Unfortunately this individual only has 2 years of data, which makes it impossible to get a proper deviation from a base line year. But there is enough data to see the spike in consumption after the smart meter went in.

One of the problems with trying to get a deviation using a previous year is that H1 only took readings every 3 months, estimating the previous 2. This means that the month of the reading has consumption has a proportion from the previous two, or the previous two have a proportion of the next reading. Thus, using an estimate month as a base line is not going to be right unless some rational mathematical method can be used to move some of the consumption off the actual month read. In the case of this individual I experimented with a few possibilities.

The premise is that a percent of the read month should be distributed to the previous estimated months. Judgment is needed to see if that percent makes sense. 15% seemed reasonable, but is still a guess. It may be between 10 and 20% of the read month to be distributed to the previous months. That's assuming the previous month's estimates were low. If high, the game is played in reverse. The question is how does one know if the previous month's estimates were too high or too low? Again it has to be a judgement call.

We are really going to see this with another example once I get all the data as the next person has records back to 2003.

So here is the spreadsheet of the values with the actual read and estimates and the adjusted.


Notice the dramatic difference between Feb 2010 and Feb 2009. 2.14 times higher (up by 114%)

You can clearly see the dramatic jump after the smart meter went in part way through Aug 2009, notice even that month appeared to be too high.

Impoverished SE Europeans turn to wood for heating

Impoverished SE Europeans turn to wood for heating [fr] [de]
Published: 03 June 2010 Updated: 04 June 2010


Rising electricity prices are increasing the use of wood for heating in South Eastern Europe to alarming levels, posing a serious threat to health and the environment, experts warned.

Background
The South Eastern Europe region is dependent on imported energy, primarily oil and natural gas, according to a recent report by the Energy Community, a regional body intended to integrate South East European countries into the EU's internal energy market.
Several of the countries are also heavily dependent on imported electricity, the report said.
In addition, the erratic electricity consumption pattern of poorer parts of the population was singled out as a key reason for concern. Erratic consumption is driven by the fact that fuel wood is used by the poor for heating, but during the heating season electric heaters are often used when fuel wood demand spikes. This exacerbates seasonal and weather-related peaks in electricity demand. Extreme peaks can then cause black-outs or require rationing, the report says.

Experts told EurActiv that only a "miracle" saved South Eastern Europe from a long-lasting regional blackout following the January 2009 gas crisis (EurActiv 19/03/09).



Governments in South East Europe are largely unable to address the problem of energy poverty, understood as the incapacity of people to heat their own homes, warned Stefan Bouzarovski, a lecturer in human geography at the University of Birmingham in the UK.

Speaking on 1 June at a conference hosted by IFRI, the French Institute for International Relations, Bouzarovski said that district heating systems inherited from the communist era were "not the solution" for heating households in the region.

At the same time, as power prices soared and salaries stagnated, the use of wood for heating has increasingly become an alternative to electricity, he said. The situation might worsen as the price per kilowatt/hour is expected to increase across the region, he warned.

Bouzarovski said little had changed since the United Nations published a report entitled 'Stuck in the Past: Energy, Environment and Poverty in Serbia and Montenegro'.

According to this study, nearly half the population has been marginalised by the energy-poverty nexus. More than half the population uses wood and lignite coal as a major source of energy for heating and cooking, creating high levels of indoor air pollution and leading to chronic illnesses, the report says.

Bouzarovski warned not only of the impact of this on the environment in terms of deforestation and carbon dioxide emissions, but also to human health, as most households that rely on wood fuel have no proper ventilation.

He said the most problematic countries were not only the Western Balkan applicants, but also EU members Bulgaria and Romania. He lamented the lack of targeted EU programmes for the "energy poor".

Bouzarovski said that although many people had moved to cities over the last twenty years, the use of fuel wood had not decreased. This, he implied, was an indication that fuel wood was used not only in the countryside, but in the cities as well.

He also warned of violent micro-conflicts between forest authorities and poachers, which he said were already taking place but had received little attention.

See: http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/impoverished-se-europeans-turn-wood-heating-news-494816

H1 Debt up another $1Billion

Ontario’s Power Trip: Big Becky still busted?
By Financial Post Staff May 25, 2010 – 5:11 pm
By Parker Gallant

On May 13th Hydro One issued a news release on their 1st quarter results and OPG followed May 21st with release of their 1st quarter results. The releases went out on the usual news wire services but it appears no one picked them up. Combined revenue at $2.8 Billion was down slightly but combined net income was up by $139 million. On closer examination the increase was from OPG and related to their nuclear funds gaining market value of $147 million and they picked up an extra $44 million from OEFC for the coal generation agreement. In fact H1′s profit was down and OPG would have lost money without those special gains. OPG managed to reduce their operations costs by 2% but H1′s went up 6% so there is no evidence of any productivity gains. H1′s distributed power was down again by 5% (conservation?) and OPG’s generation was down 4%. OPG’s average sale price of electricity was down 10% from 4.8 cents a kWh to 4.3 cents a kWh.

So this begs the question; why did RPP & TOU rates go up if OPG’s power costs declined?
OPG had much more to say about “Big Becky” in their MDA (management discussion & analysis) report. The report is full of bon mots such as “uncertainty with respect to the cost”, “major equipment breakdown is also a risk factor”, “there is risk with respect to the rate of progress”, “there are also uncertainties associated with future project activities, such as the installation of the upper two-thirds of the concrete lining” and “events such as tunnel failure or flood”, etc. It sounds like they are setting up to let us know that they have blown through the “revised budget” of $1.6 Billion. OPG are still in negotiations with OEFC to increase their financing for Big Becky but they did manage to get OEFC to refinance $900 million plus of debt due this year.

Other disturbing pieces of news can be found in H1′s report. Their dividend to the Province declined by $94 million while their debt went up by almost $1 Billion. The decline in dividend payments will slow payout of that old stranded debt as will OPG’s debt extension and H1′s borrowing activities.

http://opinion.financialpost.com:80/2010/05/25/ontarios-power-trip-big-becky-still-busted/

RADIO SIGNALS THE REASON?

I got this email tonight:

Have you heard of this one?A farmer received a bill for $10,000. over Smiths Falls way. Usually they pay $250. and were so upset they are ready to commit suicide. Someone came in and said to wrap the meter in copper wire all the way to the bottom and into the ground. The meter immediately slowed down. Apparently the chip is so sensitive it picks up police radio, cell phones etc. and charges you.

Trying to find out more.

HORROR STORIES #3

A friend cut out the article you wrote regarding "how one man beat Hydro One into submission" and I read it with great interest and of course all my stress has returned. It is so my story as well. We had a Smart Meter installed in November last year...and I have been marking down my daily usage. At the end of January, my installments to date vs my actual billings to date had a very minimal difference on it...but I was concerned by the daily usage so i called in February asking for someone to check my smart meter (not live as of yet, and i was running on estimates only- they stopped reading my meter after living here 6 1/2 years). My meter reading was nowhere near what they were estimating it at.

They refused to check my meter out - saying the estimates were running lower probably- and they have me down at being in around 3,000 mark. My meter was nowhere near that, and was at about 11,000. They wrote that number down and issued me a huge bill in February followed by a reconciliation bill in March. Total owings $1700 . They told me i would be able to do a payment arrangement -dispite my not agreeing with things - and could only do 30 days in advance for an arrangement. Pay what i can and call back at the end of 30 days. They gave me a hard time, and didn't want to do anymore arrangements, but after pleading - i am now extended to June 24th. again, dispite me disputing the meter being callibrated right. They refuse to accept that anything could be wrong with the equipment.

My usage has NEVER been that high and last winter was barely cold enough to warrant anything more being used. I went into the winter with new windows and doors, and barely use my electric baseboard heaters. They kept telling me my usage was on track from previous years, but they were looking at billings up to January i am sure.

I have borrowed from Paul to pay Peter as much as i can here...and have already had a Deposit issued with Hydro One (They are holding $800 of my money) and won't release it to my amounts owing. I have consistantly paid month after month something to them . Last year, i had a reconciliation that was not nearly as high, but with a security deposit , it put me past due with them and have been since. They are now saying that is against me.

But...i still don't believe my usage. My average usage was 30-60kw per day even last December 2008. According to them, this year, it was over 150. I do not have a grow-op either... - and all new appliances. I worked days over those months along with my husband. noone home in the day and only home at night.

ironically, when i called in Feb - my usage seemed to have 'dropped' magically. But then again, we had some mild weather also. I saw it rising a bit again- and then drop again but nowhere near the usage they claimed i used. According to the breakdown, at 11,000 kw usage - read digitally...over Nov, Dec, January, that is saying that this 1500 sqft home with a family of 4 (one level home) - used almost 3,000 kw per month. That is outrageous and NOT the case. They REFUSED to come look at my meter's callibrations. and no way they are wrong .

The reason I am writing you is that maybe you could pass my email on to your contact you wrote about. Maybe he could get in touch with me and help me or guide me in fighting this. Google results show I am clearly not the only one, and with your article going to print, I might have a way to recover these expenses that were possibly not correct. I felt i had nowhere to turn and had to just pay it and accept it even if it was wrong.

There should be a class action suit against Hydro One if it has happened to others.
PLEASE pass my info along or guide me with any contacts that are out there to help me. My hyrdo bill still has $900 owing on it - and i only have until June 24th to pay it - they are refusing to extend it any further. I was layed off work last year for 3 months and have fallen behind in everything...but am making a valid effort to pay what i owe and getting back on track slowly - and this hydro bill did not help my situation in any way.

Thank you for taking the time if you've read this far.


-----------------------


I am intersted in looking into joining this suit! I have been having issues with bills that are 1200 at least a bill! Nothinghas changed in my 1200sq ft home in a few years! When I have contacted Hydro they do nothing. Say pay the bill or to bad! I have requested to have my smart meter which is gen 1 replaced with a gen 2 as I have heard this can bean issue. They refuse to replace it. I have asked them to look into the hydro to see if I am being tapped into in wich they responded. That's my job to do then prove it to them. I have asked them to send out a tech. It has now been three weeks and they have not come! I am on maternity leave so I would know if they have been here!I have now listed my house on the market due to this issue. I can not keep pulling out all this money! I have no problem paying for hydro I actually use but this is insase my bills last year were at least 100kwh. Lower than they are claiming now. I to have been asked when calling in if I have a grow opt! It is disturbing!I'm at my breaking point money wise and mentaly! I'm not getting anywhere and am due to be disconected this week. I don't know what else to do! If you could shead some light or advice would be god sent about now!


-----------------

I am writing to you on behalf of my brother, David Seddon, who is in the midst of a hydro nightmare and I am hoping you can help him. To give you a brief profile, my brother lived with my mother for many years after my father passed away to help her out. About a year ago we finally had to put my mother in a home and began the daunting task of selling her home. At this time my brother was able to by himself mobile home which he new would be perfect for him as it would serve his needs with not a lot of upkeep. This is where his nightmare begins as he started receiving very large bills of over 400 dollars a month which is outragious for a single man with the only source of heat being a wood stove. Not only that he has been receiving bills from 2 different meters. He has called hydro one many times and they keep brushing him off and he is afraid they will cut his power off.

My brother was told about your web site from a friend and since he cannot afford a computer at this time he asked me to write you.

PATHETIC OUTPUT OF WIND TURBINES

Seems during this spring heat wave our great experiment in "green" technology, wind turbines, produced a grand total of 0.3% of the power. That is correct, less than one third of one percent. It was 5% of the name plate capacity of the turbines.

I'm going to download as much of their hourly data as I can and plot percent name plate vs electrical demand. Should be quite revealing.

SIXTEEN TIME INCREASE IN CONSUMPTION

Yep, one of our victims who sent me in his data had a 16 TIMES increase in consumption. Want to guess when his smart meter went in?





His readings were only yearly, but this is what the yearly anomaly looks like using 2005 as the base line.


At this rate his consumption for 2010 will be more than last year.