[Greenbuilding] Hydro-Québec TOU Rates (was Low powered (wattage) water heaters available through Hydro Quebec)

[Paul Eldridge]

Hi Nick,

Hydro-Québec launched a TOU pilot project back in 2008 (see: 
http://www.hydroquebec.com/rates/heurejuste/pop-heure-juste.html) and as 
I understand it the Régie de l’énergie determined that TOU rates would 
be of limited benefit to the utility (the average reduction in demand 
during the peak period was a modest 0.3 kW per participant) and that 
they would unfairly burden ratepayers. The biggest hurdle is that the 
vast majority of homes in this province are heated electrically, and 
typically with baseboard strips that cannot be shut-off/dialed-back for 
an extended period of time without negatively impacting personal 
comfort. The only practical way to shift this load off-peak would be 
through the installation of ETS heaters and that's a prohibitively 
costly proposition for most home owners.

By 2017, H-Q will have converted all residential account holders to 
"smart" meters, so it's conceivable that TOU rates could follow at some 
future date, but the likelihood of that happening any time soon is remote.

For additional background, see: 
http://www.regie-energie.qc.ca/audiences/decisions/D-2011-028.pdf

Given the province's heavy dependence on electric heatand the 
temperature sensitivity of this load, Hydro-Québec's dual-energy rate 
seems like a better fit.

See: http://www.hydroquebec.com/residential/tarif-residentiel.html

As at October, 2008, some 120,000 Hydro-Québec customers subscribe to 
this rate, although I expect that number has grown significantly over 
the past three years.

Source: 
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=17bb1a83-f804-48cd-bc92-de65617a932a

Regards,
Paul

>   A TOU tariff is only an incentive.  To the extent it is successful, and
>success may just mean fewer distribution system failures, it is a benefit to
>the utility, but it does not actually change a utility's liability for a
>peak that is still possible, when people can sip their $4 latte, er, still
>use "peak" hot water.
>
>   God, am I reading this on a green building forum?
>   It's not just a benefit to the utility, it's a benefit to the consumer.
>Further, that sort of tariff was always a benefit to the national
>infrastructure and is now clearly a benefit to the entire planet.  That is
>why I can't understand why those slack-arsed laggards who didn't have it
>seventy years ago, still don't have it now. And, while it doesn't change a
>utility's liabilities, it makes a hell of a difference to the utility's
>ability to meet them.
>
>   Utility controlled load shedding (intentional), turning off customers' hot
>water tanks for example, is an alternative utility strategy.
>
>   I suppose it could be just an alternative, but I have never heard of that
>and it sounds like possible grounds for insurrection. The usual deal is that
>the supplier's control of the consumer's tank is an integral part of the
>off-peak rates deal. And I guess that is why, in Australia at least, small
>tanks were excluded.
>
>
>   Nick Pyner
>
>   Dee Why   NSW