>Ok. Freeze or starve. A choice.
It's unclear what they mean by "a few lights and small appliances", but a crock pot apparently only consumes 240W (according to an amazon listing). That's probably within the limit. The food won't be great, but you're also not going to starve to death.
edit: Another commenter[1] has mentioned the limit is 15A, which works out to be 1800W. That seems plenty enough to operate a furnace, refrigerator, some lights, and some basic cooking appliances (eg. crock pot) all at the same time.
The only times my house's energy draw exceeds 1800W is when the clothes dryer is running or when all the kitchen appliances are going at once.
Furthermore, the kind of person who would struggle to pay their electric bills likely rents a place that has poor insulation and resistive heating, with limited options to improve their energy efficiency.
It's more fair, let the family go right up to the edge of what they can pay, and when everything is 'solved' deactivation costs next to nothing compared to removal.
But I just realized, that since I have gas heat (but an electric stove), the heating isn't included in this report. Not sure what the averages would look like if I had a heat pump, but I'm assuming it would be similar to the A/C peak in the summer which adds about .5 to 1 kWh.
HN already determined washer/dryers are out. Assuming you cook for 20 to 30 minutes, how much instantaneous load does this add?
* furnace blower: 400W
* fridge: 300W
* microwave: 1000W
* toaster oven: 1200W
* slow cooker: "70-150 watts on LOW and 150-250 on HIGH"
* hot plate: 1500W
With these in mind, it's not hard to imagine how you can hit the 1800W limit when you're cooking. If you get unlucky and the furnace and fridge both decide to turn on at the same time, you only have 1100W available for other stuff. It's definitely very limiting, but at the same time it's also not something that would prevent you from cooking a healthy/cheap meal (eg. running a rice cooker + slow cooker)
My 1970s Kenwood slow cooker (still in use, last used yesterday) is only a little more than half that on the high setting!
> The food won't be great,
What makes you think that? A stew done in the slow cooker tastes great.
I also get constant positive feedback from news like this regarding my reminders to my parents (they live in the Romanian countryside) that they should never install gas-heating in their house, that they should continue relying on wood-based stoves.
Once you start relying on a third party (like the gas company) for your basic needs in this age and time then things risk getting real nasty real quick, especially if you don't have any potential counterbalancing measures (like protesting in the street, for example).
These limiters aren't being installed by an oppressive government/utility willy-nilly. They got installed because the customer couldn't pay the bills. I'm not sure how using a wood stove fixes this. If you don't have any money what are you going to do? Steal some firewood? Head to the local park at night and cut down some trees? At least with electricity, the utility is willing to give you some small amount even if you can't pay.
Didn't say anything about the government, directly. But here in Europe the increased gas prices are the result of government actions. Increased gas prices mean increased chances of not paying one's bills.
> I'm not sure how using a wood stove fixes this
It gives you more independence, a stove it's much more liberal with what it can accept as inputs. Compared to gas-heating, for example.
What people are saying is that it seems reasonable to ensure residents of a cold place like Calgary have access to heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry.
It seems reasonable for the limit to be put there, but not lower? I think the article makes it pretty clear it's too low, or there's no credit system, or whatever.
My comment explicitly acknowledges that a sentence later.
>What people are saying is that it seems reasonable to ensure residents of a cold place like Calgary have access to heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry.
>It seems reasonable for the limit to be put there, but not lower? I think the article makes it pretty clear it's too low, or there's no credit system, or whatever.
The limit of 1800W seems enough to get basic levels of "heating, lighting, cooked food, and laundry" done. The appliances that don't work at all (from the article: "dishwasher, dryer, oven or stove") don't seem essential. You can still wash dishes by hand, hang your clothes, and use a crock pot. It sucks not having access to those appliances, but those don't seem like unreasonable punishments for not paying your bills.
> Okay, let's make it so you get a certain amount of electricity for free, and if you exceed that you get cut off unless you pay. Oh wait...
But, to maybe return to good faith land, you write:
> ...but those don't seem like unreasonable punishments for not paying your bills
I'm not sure what "punishment" is supposed to do here. I'm skeptical that there's a significant cohort who have the means to pay their electric bill, but are holding out anyway. I think it's way more likely that these are families who've fallen on hard times, and these "punishments" are making their lives even more difficult.
You can also see this kind of policy spiraling right? Like it becomes a contest as to who can punish the debtor the most. Will it be the electric company? Public transit? Hospitals? Water/Sewage/Trash? Internet? If a family has $100 and their bills are $200, the entity with the sharpest punishment probably wins?
This is the kind of stuff that leads to people deciding between medicine or food, which is all in all I think bad for society. If the problem were insufficient punishment/consequences, I guess I wouldn't know how to explain the even worse outcomes in more punitive systems, say in poorer countries. For example, you would think people would see that their health outcomes decrease without medicine, so they would stop being lazy and get medicine. But a lot of people try to stop being lazy and die anyway, suggesting that the problem is more systemic than a widespread individual lack of ambition.
The punishment here is for the 95% (or whatever) of people who can afford it, to pay up. If not paying your electricity bill is not punishable by anything, I doubt many would bother paying, even if it's within their means. The fact that there isn't a "significant cohort who have the means to pay their electric bill, but are holding out anyway" is precisely because the threat of punishment is enough into get them to pay. I can't imagine the opposite to be true (ie. the electricity company operates on a "suggested donation" model and most people paying what they're asked to pay).
>I think it's way more likely that these are families who've fallen on hard times, and these "punishments" are making their lives even more difficult.
Right, the threat of electricity getting cut off/limited is enough that people would rather pay the bill than to hold out and save $50/month or whatever in their bank account. I agree it's a tragedy that "families who've fallen on hard times" are being punished even though they lack the means to pay, but unfortunately it's also non-trivial to discriminate between "people who have the means to pay but don't want to pay" and "people who don't have the means to pay but can't pay". That's also what's preventing a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" economy from working properly, and why we have a market based economy instead.
>You can also see this kind of policy spiraling right? Like it becomes a contest as to who can punish the debtor the most. Will it be the electric company? Public transit? Hospitals? Water/Sewage/Trash? Internet? If a family has $100 and their bills are $200, the entity with the sharpest punishment probably wins?
1. But in this case the policy seems to be specifically designed to be not "sharp"? There's enough electricity to run the furnace. You can't run the stove, but that doesn't really stop you from making a healthy meal with affordable ingredients with a slow cooker.
2. maybe the entity with the sharpest punishment wins, maybe it forces the person to tighten their belts and drop the least essential services
I'm willing to accept quite a lot of inefficiency and misuse of a system like this if it means that everyone has a warm home.
Someone has to pay the bill, what's your suggestion for these utility companies instead?
We're not talking about real (in the economic sense) limits here. The vast majority of people pay their electric bills fully and on time. The majority of people who fall behind are genuinely in dire straights. I seriously couldn't care less if a few "undeserving" people get subsidized heat.
If you really feel that way, why not offer to pay their electric bills personally?
For the voluntary vs involuntary part of taxes and charity, that's a moral/ethical philosophical argument that people have been debating for thousands of years. I don't expect to convince anyone here, but I think my view is pretty clear.
Don't get angry at the power company, get angry at the government.
The actual logistics would change if it weren't, I agree.
But the power company (be it government owned or private) is at a "commanding height". It is almost impossible to exist without their service so they have very large social responsibilities. Far larger than the responsibility to their shareholders.
This is about social policy and poverty.
You will live a lot longer without food than you will without heat in a northern winter
I really don't think it's a bad idea to have people lower their heat in energy crunch situations, and I'm not so sure many know how to do it.
(the limiter installation/removal fee is 100% BS though)
To do the whole house means you have air vents to the entire house, with a central electric heat source? I guess maybe that makes sense if you anyway have central A/C? I don't think that's common in Canada though.
But in many areas an electric heat pump is common. This is a forced-air system, and controlled by zoned thermostats just like traditional gas or oil heat.
That said, such heat pumps actually have multiple states:
* Cooling
* Off
* Heating
* Emergency heat (aka Aux heat)
That last one happens when the ambient temperature is so low that the heat pump can't scavenge enough heat, and needs to augment with resistive heat (which happens through the same forced air delivery). Thus, in extreme cold you may be using even more electricity than you normally would.
I live near Austin. The only time I've seen the Aux Heat in use was during last year's February freeze, which at 6F was the lowest temperature ever recorded here. Even at the occasional 13F-15F temperatures, the heat pump still operates normally (albeit it at very long cycles).
Also central heat pumps (for heating) aren't so common, most are mini-split types with each room separate, or at least a highly variable central compressor than can run on low.
The one I own stops being useful at 3 degrees of frost, struggles before then
Ok. Freeze or starve. A choice.
There is no place in Hell bad enough for these utility companies.