Why won't power utility company charge for kVA instead of kW

[kended]

Hello all,

As I understand (and realize when looking at my electricity bill) it seems all power utility company (in residential market) only charge for kW not kVA. But somehow I find it a bit weird when I think about it more deeply.

Wouldn't it make more sense to charge for kVA ? Otherwise, it seems that I could be drawing an "unlimited" amount of VARs (huge inductive currents for example) assuming my power factor to be zero (or close to) and not be charged a single dime? I understand this is very unlikely in households to have say only inductive or capacitive loads, but for the sake of this discussion, what am I missing in my reasoning? Are they statistically assuming that all households have usually great P.F (close to one) and so figure kW ≅ kVA

Are kVA meters only installed in industrial markets?

Thank you in advance for your help.

 

[russ_watters]

You don't get charged for vars because they cost very little to produce - they only affect the equipment/wire sizing. KW/kwh is what determines how big the prime mover needs to be and how much fuel (or wind, sunlight, water) it consumes.

 

[kended]

Thanks russ,

When you say "only affect the equipment/wire size", wouldn't that be enough to justify charging me those huge purely inductive current I'm drawing? In theory, that wire size could be infinitely huge... just a thought :)

My understanding is that they have kVA meters for industrial premises..(TBC) Otherwise what would be the point of correcting the power factor if at the end of the day they only charge me for kwatts I'm using no matter how inefficient my installation is.

 

[russ_watters]

When you say "only affect the equipment/wire size", wouldn't that be enough to justify charging me those huge purely inductive current I'm drawing? In theory, that wire size could be infinitely huge... just a thought :)

I suppose, but they only need to pay for wires once. There is also the resulting resistance loss from the higher current, but that is pretty small.

Thinking about it more, and with your remindet most commercial rates do include a penalty for bad power factor - I believe it is ratiod onto the demand charge. For residential it probably isn't worth the effort to meter.

Thing is, you can't do anything with a var so there is no incentive to try to draw them.

 

[kended]

yep, that was my thought.

If anyone wants to add to this, please feel free.

Thanks for your time.

 

[russ_watters]

You're welcome!

 

[vk6kro]

Power companies would love to charge for reactive current. Customers would object that they get no value from this so why should they pay for it?

Imagine you were buying lobsters and the lobster dealer put them in a heavy wooden box before weighing them.

Lobsters are expensive but wooden boxes are heavy and relatively cheap.
So, you could insist that the weight of the box be subtracted so that you only pay for the lobsters.
The boxes can be returned when they are empty.

Reactive current is like the box. It is necessary to deliver the power you want, but the power company gets it back later in the cycle.

 

[rbelli1]

The boxes can be returned when they are empty.

But the lobster dealer must purchase and maintain the boxes. If your lobsters require particularly robust (thus expensive) boxes then you are generating less profit for the dealer.

BoB

 

[Jason R Carrico]

Large scale industry operates their own substations with capacitor banks to correct the power factor.

 

[jim mcnamara]

@anorlunda - could you comment on some of the content here? Thanks. kVARs are commonly shown on large power bills with demand meters.

FWIW- demand is an ongoing cost of business for distributors, and in New Mexico PNM charges for kVARs. for example. High demand was a deal breaker for San Luis Valley Electric Coop. SLV has a lot of accounts for irrigation and chemigation (potatoes). If every account on a distribution line were to flip the on switch over a small period of time demand costs for the coop would go through the roof. They worked out agreements among users so that there is no overlap in time of use. If demand were a problem everybody on that line would get a huge financial kick in the butt. Works really well.

If you ever go to Alamosa CO, go to one of the potato coop stores. Wonderful potatoes.

 

[anorlunda]

@jim mcnamara , There is merit in what you say.

There are lots of reasons why VAR billing is unusual. @russ_watters gave the primary one, MWH is more directly tied to costs.
But I think the other big reason is purely silly.

If we were to charge the public for imaginary power, then we would become objects of ridicule from every state legislator, every public service commission lawyer, and every pundit, late night comic, and loudmouth on TV. We would be given Golden Fleece awards. Imagine the chaos in the billing department if one of every 1000 ratepayers, sent us a check for imaginary money to pay for his imaginary power. Ha ha LOL.

With "large bills", we deal with engineers and plant managers, who won't treat it like a big joke. We can negotiate VARs as part of the interconnection agreement. The politicians and TV comics don't read or understand these contracts, so it doesn't get silly.

But with my engineer's hat on, and silliness aside, if I charge money for KVAR, then customers feel entitled to use what they want as long as they pay. I would rather put in a relay with a hair trigger to trip loads using excessive KVAR than to send a big bill. In fact to invent a different kind of silliness, it would be nice to shift the burden and expense of voltage control to customers. In the past, that could never happen, but in tomorrow's world with aggregation of homeowner/community owned distributed generation (I'm thinking of NY's REV) , it could become a part of the interconnection agreement.

 

[jim hardy]

My opinion? It's just tradition.

Utilities grew out of the depression when "square dealing" was the norm.
Florida Power and Light started as an Ice company selling a little bit of their internally generated electricity to folks who lived close to the ice plants.
.
Most of a tiny 1930-ish utility's revenue stemmed from conversion of energy from coal or oil or even sawdust into kilowatt-hours and that's what they sold. It would have been deemed unconscionable to charge one's neighbors for something that cost nothing to produce.

I had the good fortune to know some of those "old timers" . Think "Old fashioned value system"...

old jim

 

[Windadct]

In general Residential customers can only be billed for Power, not VARS by law. Large industrial customers can and do get billed a VAR surecharge, ether for VAR demand or KVARH - or both.

If you has very high VAR demand at you home that does not help you in any way, any useful purpose would result in real power, Watts. If for example you had a large inductor on the line, you are just creating and collapsing a magnetic field, as soon as you try to use that field you have real power used. Also - the efficiency, or heat losses from the current in the conductor you will be billed for, since this also is REAL power. So there is some motivation to use more efficient appliances.

 

[NTL2009]

When you say "only affect the equipment/wire size", wouldn't that be enough to justify charging me those huge purely inductive current I'm drawing? In theory, that wire size could be infinitely huge... just a thought :)

I suppose, but they only need to pay for wires once. There is also the resulting resistance loss from the higher current, but that is pretty small.

Thinking about it more, and with your remindet most commercial rates do include a penalty for bad power factor - I believe it is ratiod onto the demand charge. For residential it probably isn't worth the effort to meter.

Thing is, you can't do anything with a var so there is no incentive to try to draw them.

Can we put an estimate to those increased system losses?

I recall discussing this with people about how not all of the residential $ savings (based on watts) in a CFL translated to lower fossil fuel usage at the power plant, because of the power factor.

I've heard an estimate of ~ 8% average losses in the national grid (North America). I'm not sure how much of that is IR losses, I guess some is transformer conversion losses, but I don't know how much. But if a CFL has a PF of 0.5, it will draw 1.414 x the current, and losses are I^2 x R, so 2 times the loss (of some of that 8%). But I also wonder about the generation side. I don't know the efficiency of large alternators, but I'd assume mid-high 90's? How much of that loss is from current? So those losses might be nearly doubled as well?

I'd also heard the argument that CFLs are a capacitive PF, while our homes are full of inductive PF (motors), so the CFLs were actually helping to normalize the grid. But I reasoned if that were true, there would be no motivation to design CFLs with PF closer to one, and I recall a push for this. The same applies to LEDs, I assume their switching circuits are capacitive as well to store energy between full-wave rectified peaks to reduce flicker.

 

[russ_watters]

Can we put an estimate to those increased system losses?

Maybe when I can put some more thought into it, but I do have a short answer:

I recall discussing this with people about how not all of the residential $ savings (based on watts) in a CFL translated to lower fossil fuel usage at the power plant, because of the power factor.

I've heard an estimate of ~ 8% average losses in the national grid (North America). I'm not sure how much of that is IR losses, I guess some is transformer conversion losses, but I don't know how much. But if a CFL has a PF of 0.5, it will draw 1.414 x the current, and losses are I^2 x R, so 2 times the loss (of some of that 8%).

I've never heard of anyone considering the impact on grid power loss when doing the change-over from inc to cfl, so before you add back in the loss due to the reactive current, you first have to subtract the savings due to the lower active current!

Suffice to say, once you include both, you'll find the net savings has gone up, not down.

I'd also heard the argument that CFLs are a capacitive PF, while our homes are full of inductive PF (motors), so the CFLs were actually helping to normalize the grid. But I reasoned if that were true, there would be no motivation to design CFLs with PF closer to one, and I recall a push for this.

No, they are inductive.

 

[NTL2009]

Maybe when I can put some more thought into it, but I do have a short answer:

I've never heard of anyone considering the impact on grid power loss when doing the change-over from inc to cfl, so before you add back in the loss due to the reactive current, you first have to subtract the savings due to the lower active current!

Suffice to say, once you include both, you'll find the net savings has gone up, not down.

No, they are inductive.

Sure, they save overall, I was just saying they don't save as much as the residential $ savings would indicate. Due to these losses,

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, they save overall, I was just saying they don't save as much as the residential $ savings would indicate. Due to these losses,

Let me try again: if a CFL uses 20% as much active power as the incandescent it replaced, the savings at the power plant is greater, not less, once the power line loss is included.

 

[NTL2009]

Let me try again: if a CFL uses 20% as much active power as the incandescent it replaced, the savings at the power plant is greater, not less, once the power line loss is included.

Of course.

My point is that if someone buys a CFL/LED that uses 20% the watts of a comparable incandescent (but has a PF ~ 0.5), they may assume that the fossil fuel plant uses 20% of the fuel to power that CFL/LED versus a filament bulb. I'm trying to estimate the additional losses, to say that maybe it takes 25%, 30% or ? Sure, it still makes good sense to make the change, but just how much, from a supply viewpoint?

 

[russ_watters]

Of course.

My point is that if someone buys a CFL/LED that uses 20% the watts of a comparable incandescent (but has a PF ~ 0.5), they may assume that the fossil fuel plant uses 20% of the fuel to power that CFL/LED versus a filament bulb. I'm trying to estimate the additional losses, to say that maybe it takes 25%, 30% or ? Sure, it still makes good sense to make the change, but just how much, from a supply viewpoint?

Still not getting it. If the CFL draws 20% (btw, bad estimate on my part; it is more like 25%...), the power plant sees it drawing less than 20% as much, not more than 20% as much. It's because:
1. The line loss is on top: the 100W Inc draws 108W from the power plant.
2. The loss is a square function, not a linear proportion.

 

[anorlunda]

you first have to subtract the savings due to the lower active current!

Suffice to say, once you include both, you'll find the net savings has gone up, not down.

Spot on. You hit the nail on the head Russ. And it goes double when switching to LEDs. Some utility engineers wrung their hands about harmonics because LED controllers are non-linear. But when it was pointed out how much they reduce the real power, the harmonics worries dissapeared.

@NTL2009 you're trying too hard. The kinds of losses you're talking about are small potatoes; too small to worry about.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, some numbers:
A 26W CFL replaces 100W incandescent. 120V each and let's assume a bad 50% power factor for the CFL and 8% line loss in the power company's transmission system pre-retrofit. Let's also assume the system is a nuclear plant with a half million volt transmission line, 1000 MW generated and 920 delivered (exact numbers), or 1062.3244953 amps delivered.

So when you install the CFL you get 26W delivered, or 1062.3244098 amps in the transmission line. Because of I^2R, you actually save an additional 12.87 Watts. Why is that more than 8 Watts? Because you aren't just saving the 8 W lost to serve the light; you are saving some loss on the power that is left in the line as well.

But what if the power factor is 0.5? That increases the CFL's amperage by 100%, which makes your amperage delivered now 1062.3244398 amps. Now the additional savings is "only" 8.36 W.

So, when switching from a 100W Inc to a 26W CFL, you save 74W but the power company saves:
87W if you include the line loss.
82W if you include the line loss and power factor's contribution to it.

Btw, here's an example of what you were referring to (I hadn't seen the argument before, but it popped up when I googled "cfl power factor):

Unlike commercial customers, residential energy users currently aren't charged extra to compensate for loads with low power factors. “The end-users don't fully realize that these low power factor compact fluorescents are not using the small amount of energy that they think,” [Doreen LeMay Madden, founder and principal designer for Lux Lighting Design, Belmont, Mass., and chairman of the Residence Lighting Design & Application for the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), New York] says. “They're using twice the amount of energy, plus they're causing distortion in the sine wave. The lower the power factor, the more distortion you get.”

Just awful.

http://ecmweb.com/lighting-amp-control/hidden-costs-c

 

[russ_watters]

So, when switching from a 100W Inc to a 26W CFL, you save 74W but the power company saves:
87W if you include the line loss.
82W if you include the line loss and power factor's contribution to it.

Btw, if that was too much complexity you can assume your light bulb is the only thing on the line and calculate it that way. Then it is:
81.5 W if you include the line loss.
78W if you include the line loss and power factor's contribution to it.

 

[anorlunda]

Russ, that source you quoted confused power factor with harmonic distortion.

Here's a wiki discussion of both PF and harmonics in the same paragraph.

The input stage of a CFL is a rectifier, which presents a non-linear load to the power supply and introduces harmonic distortion on the current drawn from the supply.[52][53] The use of CFLs in homes has no appreciable effect on power quality, but significant quantities of them in a large facility can have an impact. The power factor of CFLs does not significantly affect their energy-saving benefits for individual consumers, but their use in large numbers—such as in commercial applications or across millions of homes in a distribution system—could require infrastructure upgrades.

Once again, the same goes for LED lights. They too are non-linear, but they too reduce the real power even more.

 

[jim hardy]

Some utility engineers wrung their hands about harmonics because LED controllers are non-linear. But when it was pointed out how much they reduce the real power, the harmonics worries dissapeared.

Nowadays electronic gizmos like consumer appliance power supplies include "power factor correction" circuitry that makes even a capacitor input switching power supply appear resistive, greatly reducing pesky harmonics.

https://www.mag-inc.com/Products/Powder-Cores/Power-Factor-Correction

http://www.powerelectronics.com/content/simplifying-power-factor-correction-smps

https://us.tdk-lambda.com/ftp/other/pfc_switchmode_powersupplies.pdf

https://www.fairchildsemi.com/application-notes/AN/AN-42047.pdf

 

[dlgoff]

Nowadays electronic gizmos like consumer appliance power supplies include "power factor correction" circuitry that makes even a capacitor input switching power supply appear resistive, greatly reducing pesky harmonics.

https://www.mag-inc.com/Products/Powder-Cores/Power-Factor-Correction

http://www.powerelectronics.com/content/simplifying-power-factor-correction-smps

https://us.tdk-lambda.com/ftp/other/pfc_switchmode_powersupplies.pdf

https://www.fairchildsemi.com/application-notes/AN/AN-42047.pdf

Nice references Jim. Thanks. The conclusion in the fairchild application notes is very relevant.

Power companies do not get excited over low power factor driven devices, plus the extra cost of unused or wasted power can be quite large.

 

[NTL2009]

Btw, if that was too much complexity you can assume your light bulb is the only thing on the line and calculate it that way. Then it is:
81.5 W if you include the line loss.
78W if you include the line loss and power factor's contribution to it.

OK, thanks, I see now where I was getting off in my thinking, and got similar numbers in a spreadsheet.

I'm correct that the PF causes some additional loss not captured in the residential $ savings label. So a CFL/LED with a PF 0.5 will cause the power plant to produce a few more watts than the same wattage CFL/LED with a PF of 1.0.

But due to the even higher IR grid losses with the 100 W filament bulb, the savings in fuel at the plant is even greater than the labeled watt delta would indicate. I didn't take my comparison far enough. And thinking in terms of 8% average grid loss threw me off, I needed to think in terms of each current's effect. There is some relatively fixed R in the lines, so less current means less % loss as well, the grid R is a smaller R relative to the CFL/LED.

I'll check out the other links that were provided along the way a bit later.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, that source you quoted confused power factor with harmonic distortion.

I know (sorry if I wasn't clear) - I purposely quoted a bad source as an example of the problem we've been discussing and brought up in post #14. Apparently the idea that reactive power has a significant impact on true CFL efficiency is a bit of a prominent anti-CFL myth. I didn't know it was so prominent until I googled for "cfl power factor" and that was a top hit. The article has multiple issues.

 

[dlgoff]

Apparently the idea that reactive power has a significant impact on true CFL efficiency is a bit of a prominent anti-CFL myth.

Just had to reply;
[Off topic]
I looked for CFLs at a large grocery while food shopping yesterday. No CFLs or even a spot for them. Go figure.
[/End Off topic]

 

[DrClaude]

Just had to reply;
[Off topic]
I looked for CFLs at a large grocery while food shopping yesterday. No CFLs or even a spot for them. Go figure.
[/End Off topic]

In my part of the world, CFLs have basically disappeared to the profit of LEDs. I don't think this is due to CFL myths, but rather to consumer economics.

 

[NTL2009]

In my part of the world, CFLs have basically disappeared to the profit of LEDs. I don't think this is due to CFL myths, but rather to consumer economics.

Agreed. LEDs have a lot of advantages over CFLs, and now that the cost has come down on LEDs, the market is speaking.

 

[russ_watters]

In my part of the world, CFLs have basically disappeared to the profit of LEDs. I don't think this is due to CFL myths, but rather to consumer economics.

Agreed. My perception was the CFL myths (and a few legitimte concerns) slowed their replacement of Incs.

Agreed. LEDs have a lot of advantages over CFLs, and now that the cost has come down on LEDs, the market is speaking.

Er...could you tell me what they are, because they have been a problem for me. In particular, the economic benefit of CFLs over Incs was huge, but the economic benefit of LEDs over CFLs is essentially nonexistent.

 

[NTL2009]

...
Er...could you tell me what they are, because they have been a problem for me. In particular, the economic benefit of CFLs over Incs was huge, but the economic benefit of LEDs over CFLs is essentially nonexistent.

Well, prices are all over the map for LEDs, I've got some on sale pretty cheap, no burn out yet, just a few bucks for dimmable, IIRC. I don't plan on buying another CFL in my lifetime, and I just bought some LED tubes to replace the flickering, buzzing tubes in my workshop. Probably no economic justification, the lights aren't on all that much, and the tubes are $17, but I get great light, and no buzz/flicker.

But I do feel LED often have advantages in quality of light, and no glass to break, no mercury fumes to worry about (and before anyone goes off on this, even though CFLs have small amounts of mercury, the form in CFLs, a kind of dust, is far more hazardous than liquid mercury), no start up issues. I like LED far more than CFL, and will pay a little extra for it. For most places where the light isn't on much, I stick with cheap filament bulbs if they provide the kind of light I need.

 

[jim hardy]

For most places where the light isn't on much, I stick with cheap filament bulbs if they provide the kind of light I need.

I really dislike unnecessary complexity.
To replace simple filament lamp with one that requires
a pre-regulator for power factor correction and a switchmode power supply with active current regulation ,
both mounted in the base where they get heat-soaked in most ceiling fixtures so give a short service life
and exhibit aggravating time delay between getting switched on and illuminating the room
and catch fire if you use them with a dimmer
is irrational
especially in moderate climates where you need heat so much of the year.

I did find the dimmable warm white LED bulbs quite suitable for reading lamps . Whenever i find one in a thrift shop for less than a buck i buy it.

Can't beat my 200 watt Incandescent for the carport, though

old jim

 

[dlgoff]

In my part of the world, CFLs have basically disappeared to the profit of LEDs. I don't think this is due to CFL myths, but rather to consumer economics.

That's got to be right. All the "bulbs" that were available were the LED ones. I've yet to purchase one though. Guess I will now.

 

[dlgoff]

To replace simple filament lamp with one that requires
a pre-regulator for power factor correction and a switchmode power supply with active current regulation ,
both mounted in the base where they get heat-soaked in most ceiling fixtures so give a short service life
and exhibit aggravating time delay between getting switched on and illuminating the room
and catch fire if you use them with a dimmer
is irrational

When the CFLs first came out, I wondered about all the rare Earth's that would be used. I just now did a Google search on "rare Earth's in cfl" and this consumer report was at the top of the list. Hell, I need to get out more. That report was from 2011.