LETTERS OF THE DAY:Failing efforts to decrease my.....

[Exile]

LETTERS OF THE DAY: Failing efforts to decrease my electricity consumption

Published: Saturday | August 6, 2011 4 Comments



THE EDITOR, Sir:
ONE OF the current 'hot topics' is the high cost of electricity.
The stock response is: conservation.
I have conserved:
1) All my bulbs (at considerable expense) are fluorescent. Except for the lamp that I read with the bulbs are very low wattage. Did you know that there are five-watt bulbs? Just enough luminescence so that you do not 'buck your toe' or trip over the dog. Many nights it's only one light is on, the one in the current room I am using.
2) I no longer use the photocell feature as the lights come on too early, increasing my security risk if I get in later than I planned.
3) I no longer leave the outside lights on all night; again increasing my security risk.
4) I refuse to own a microwave; use of the toaster restricted to toasting old bread.
5) Use of the water heater is very restricted to a maximum of half an hour every three to four days.
6) If an item of clothing appears as if I can get away with not ironing them, I don't (Do not like ironing anyway). The now-infrequent purchases of clothing are made with how much ironing is required in mind.
7) Plugging out any lamp, radio, etc, when not in use.
Despite my best efforts my consumption has not gone down. Please note I did not say the electricity bill. Maybe I, along with the rest of Jamaica, have not 'gotten it'. The technocrats who have been advising conservation need to explain what I am doing wrong. Or is 'conservation' the byword to move the 'responsibility' to the consumer, just as bill collection has become our responsibility.
What has the Jamaica Public Service done recently to minimise the cost of production so that the consumers may benefit?
I am, etc.,
Desrine Russell
dezidar@yahoo.com

[Exile]

Misguided by JPS

Published: Saturday | August 6, 2011 1 Comment



THE EDITOR, Sir:
This has been written in response to an article, 'JPS ebills are optional', that appeared in your edition of August 5.

1 The JPS says consumers only pay for 17.5 per cent of electricity losses, as of June 2011, and the rest is absorbed by the JPS. It is wrong to even suggest this, as this 17.5 per cent only affects the fuel and IPP charge. The fuel and IPP charge is also dependent on the heat rate which the JPS is able to use to offset the electricity losses by keeping the actual heat rate lower than the target set by the OUR (check the issue surrounding the Bogue Plant); the implication of this is that the JPS is able to increase the fuel and IPP charge through the heat rate component.
2 The consumer pays for every single per cent of electricity losses based on the difference between JPS's projected sales and what is produced. This is reflected in the energy charge on your bill which is increased annually. The energy charge is set at the start of the tariff period which began in June 2009. Consumers were paying for about 23 per cent of electricity losses then. It should be noted that the current efforts of the JPS at reducing electricity losses have no direct impact on the energy charge during this tariff period.
3 It is also important that the JPS doesn't give the impression that all of the losses are due to electricity theft or consumers are the only ones responsible for all of these losses. This might be misinterpreted in the response it provided to the consumer in the article 'JPS ebills are optional'.
I am, etc.,
Informed Consumer