Saving electricity with CFL, LED

[Ferrocyanide]

That depends on how the retail power rates are set.    In a regulated monopoly system investor owned electric utilities must share their books with a public regulating agency, typically some sort of public utility commission.   In the US, regulated utilities are not permitted to make a single dime of the power they supply to their rate payers.   However much it cost them to generate or procure the power they supply to their rate base customers,   that’s exactly how much they can recover through the rates they charge the end user.

So if the total cost of generating power went down 30% because every one is using less power, the electric cost component of your electric bill will go down exactly 30%.

However, your total electric bill not go down by exactly 30%, because with typical utility, the actual cost of generating or procuring the power to deliver to the customer constitute less than half of electric bill.   The rest of consist of cost recovery on capital investment, transmission and distribution cost, and corporate overhead.

often, the only place a regulated utilities is allowed to make a profit rather than simply pass true cost to the end user is in capital investment on plant and equipment, and in transmission and distribution infrastructure.   But the permissible rate of profit is also regulated.    So a utility can’t just double the profit margin on its capital investment to make up for reduced electric demand.

Reducing total power demand will not reduce the cost recovery on existing utility infrastructure, unless the utility operate under some special rules applicable to some jurisdictions.   However, it will reduce need for future infrastructure investment.  So it will reduce long term capital investment recovery component if your utility bill.

Government owned utilities operate under somewhat different rules that are often specific to each large government owned utility, but the concept id usually similar.

I’m not sure if I understand how your system works.
If a company has X amount of employees and X amount of equipment and maybe X amount of coal and if we all use 50% less power, how does this effect the electricity producer?
It sounds like the electricity producer won’t have enough money and they will have to cut something.

capital investment on plant and equipment + transmission and distribution infrastructure

In other words, they want me to pay for the equipment so that part of the bill doesn’t change. No problem.

So what is left? Maybe the electricity producer could buy less coal and shut down a generator and fire some people.
Because if an electricity producer has a reduced input of money, they have to cut something.

If I have a store where I sell bottles of vinegar and maybe I need to sell 500 bottles per month and I have 5 employees and I sell each bottle ofr X$ since that establishes a certain balance (I can pay my rent, I can pay my other bills and I can pay for the employees).
If people buy less vinegar, that disturbs the balance. I would either have to raise the prices on each bottle or lay off some employees or maybe a combination of the 2.

---

Hydro québéc sell much of their excess hydroelectric generation to New England and New York, particular New York metro area, through dedicated transmission corridors.   Hydro Quebec gets paid higher New York and New England wholesale prices rather than lower Quebec prices when they do this.  The excess revenue it generates through those these sells are partly used to reduce rates for its own retail customers.

So the less power people of Quebec uses, the more that can be made available for sell at a profit to the US.  THe more profit there will be to reduce rates for its retail customers.

If that is true, then that would be bc the CEO of Hydro-Quebec wants to show that she is doing a good job.
Recently, they signed a contract with New York to sell them more power. It was on the news. The CEO did not give any numbers.

This attitude doesn’t match with the other attitude to be eco-friendly.
If they want to be eco-friendly, they should sell it cheap to everyone, in the province and outside the province of Quebec.
This would perhaps convert coal and natural gas users to hydropower. Use the profit to build more plants.

Source:
https://cultmtl.com/2021/12/hydro-quebec...s-legault/
http://news.hydroquebec.com/en/press-rel...ransition/

Hydro-Québec just signed a $20-billion deal with New York State
by Lorraine Carpenter
Dec 01, 2021


UPDATED DEC. 1: On Tuesday Hydro-Québec signed a $20-billion deal to supply electricity to New York State for 25 years. When the arrangement between Hydro and New York State Public Service Commission was first announced on Sept. 20, Quebec Premier François Legault said that the deal, which was in the works for three years, is part of “making Quebec the green battery of northeastern America.”

Legault also highlighted the work of Hydro-Québec CEO Sophie Brochu and Quebec delegate in New York Catherine Loubier, stating that the announcement is “huge news for the environment” as renewable energy will replace fossil fuels.