Tag Archives: ComEd

Electrical grids working efficiently

Posted on by

Infrastructure may work but not do so efficiently. One firm says this is the case for ComEd’s electrical grid:

Photo by Pok Rie on Pexels.com

The ComEd territory essentially has the least efficient electrical grid in the country, with 40% of homes experiencing power distortion at 8% or greater, according to Whisker Labs. That means roughly 1.7 million ComEd customers are paying upward of $500 per year in energy waste, according to Bob Marshall, CEO and co-founder of Whisker Labs.

“ComEd in particular shows that they by far have the highest percentage of homes that have harmonics that are outside of industry acceptable limits,” Marshall told the Tribune. “It causes a reduction in the energy efficiency of everything that uses electricity in the home.”

The electricity provider did not agree with the assessment:

ComEd questioned the methodology behind the Whisker Labs data, and said it has one of the most reliable electric grids in the nation. At the same time, the utility acknowledged that the increased cost of the electricity is impacting many of its Chicago-area customers this summer, with low-income customers being hit the hardest.

It is one thing to have infrastructure in place. Is there electricity, water, the Internet, and more available? Are the roads driveable?

It is another question to ask whether that infrastructure is working as it could or should. If this claim is correct, what would life be like if the electrical grid worked more efficiently? Of if the water didn’t just come but the pipes were free of lead? Or if the transportation options were not just there but were ones that residents felt good about choosing? And so on.

Optimizing infrastructure can be tricky. How many people want to pay money now to improve things for benefits down the road? Is a 10% (or whatever the percentage is) improvement in efficiency worth it? These can be more difficult judgment calls that depend on current conditions and resources.

But I cannot imagine too many companies or places want to be last in rankings of infrastructure.

Available electricity helping to make the Chicago region a desirable place for data centers

Posted on by

As data centers emerge in the Chicago suburbs and the Chicago region, here are some reasons why these are attractive locations:

Photo by Miguel u00c1. Padriu00f1u00e1n on Pexels.com

Illinois’ attractiveness for data centers stems from economic incentives, an already improved power infrastructure and its being a net exporter of electricity, he said.

Furthermore, the use of clean-energy sources, including nuclear power plants and solar, is a draw for public companies with an environmental awareness that lead the data center industry, Sitar added.

This reminds me of the book Urban Fortunes where sociologists John Logan and Harvey Molotch discuss some of the actors involved in and benefiting from growth machines. They include utilities. Growth means more potential customers. In this particular case, data centers need a lot of electricity. ComEd, the primary electricity provider in the Chicago area, can make that happen:

A number of factors contribute to the suitability of a property like the former Sears campus in Hoffman Estates for the development of data centers, but access to an extraordinary amount of electricity is one that’s a make-or-break element.

And while the developer and municipality must rely on ComEd for that side of the project, the electric company’s expertise doesn’t make such a task easy or routine.

The article suggests a new data center will require its own substation.

Of course, one could ask about the impact of using all of that electricity. At the same time, the utility likely has a big customer who will be there for a while.

McMansion owners in the Chicago suburbs get cheaper ComEd rates than city-dwellers

Posted on by

Crain’s Chicago Business highlights an interesting part of the regulations for ComEd: a suburban homeowner pays a more advantageous rater than a city resident.

The reason: The price to reserve “capacity”—the right to buy electricity during peak-demand periods—will soar next June. That rising cost, which is embedded in the energy price on customers’ electric bills, will hit households consuming small amounts of power far harder than owners of large homes using a lot of electricity. Residents of wealthy suburbs with larger, high-consumption homes could well pay 1 to 2 cents per kilowatt-hour less for electricity than city residents.

Why? ComEd allocates the capacity charge evenly among all residential customers regardless of their usage. So the owner of a city bungalow consuming 500 kilowatt-hours per month pays the same dollar amount for capacity as the owner of a McMansion in the suburbs using three times as much. The McMansion owner’s total electric bill will be higher than the bungalow owner’s, but the McMansion owner will pay less per kilowatt-hour because the added capacity charge makes up a much smaller percentage of the total.

This disparity hasn’t been an issue to date because capacity costs have been unusually low over the past two years. But the price for capacity in PJM Interconnection—the 13-state power grid that includes northern Illinois—will rise 350 percent for the year beginning in June 2014. That will have a bigger impact on towns and cities with lots of small-usage households such as Chicago than it will on suburbs featuring larger homes…

Evidence of “have” and “have-not” municipalities already is starting to appear. Two wealthy north suburbs with many large homes, Bannockburn and Kildeer, last month locked in an energy price for their residents of just below 5 cents per kilowatt-hour for the next two years beginning in September. By contrast, under the Integrys contract, Chicago residents pay 5.42 cents, or 8 percent more. And next May, when the city must reprice the deal, it’s expected to struggle to beat a ComEd price that will approach 7 cents.

The article doesn’t answer the most basic question: how did this disparity end up in the regulations in the first place?

The article suggests that people in the city or suburbs should be paying the same electricity rate. It is only fair to pay equally. But, I wonder if some wouldn’t argue that the suburbanites who are more spread out, require more infrastructure to reach this larger area, and tend to live in bigger houses should actually be paying higher rates. Couldn’t that be written into the regulations? This may not be politically popular but I imagine the argument could be made. Indeed, using the term McMansion in comparison to the humble Chicago bungalow leans in this direction by referring to unnecessarily large homes.