waco

I'd like to know what regulates the voltage supplied by utility providers. Seems like it was once a "nominal" 115 volts, but then it became 120 volts and now, more often than not, I measure 123 to 124 volts.

Point is, consumers can control their consumption to some extent, but they have no choice as to the voltage and a slightly higher voltage amounts to huge usage across a couple of million customers.

Does anybody know what standard applies and is it backed up by law?

dowmace

how do you propose that a higher voltae amounts to a higher usage? I would have to argue the point that the higher the voltage the lower the amperage and thus the wattage thus the killowatthour that you pay for.

brian john

The utility has transformers with auto tap changers as part of the transformer operation the voltage sensing relays sense voltage and adjust the taps accordingly. But as far as voltage goes high/low as long as the utility is with in the agreement standards set by the state regulating body, no foul no harm. And watts is watts.

waco

In resistive loads, the higher the voltage, the higher the amperage and the higher the watts. Reactive loads are more complex, but I doubt the average consumer has many reactive loads

Current equals voltage divided by resistance. If resistance remains constant, then the result of the division (amps) will be a higher number.

waco

So, you are saying the state regulating body has control over the voltage supplied by the utility?

Oh and, "watts aren't watts" where loads are resistive.

nap

I am not sure if the regulation is state or federal but currently nominal voltage is 120 +/- 10% so that means from 108 to 132 volts is acceptable.

RUSSIAN

P=IxE
If I am using the same wattage, then more voltage will require less amperage.
A consumer service will have inductance(reactive load), therefore it cannot be a purely restive load.

brian john

As far as I know, for the states and District of Columbia, where I work there is a regulatory body that sets standards for the utility to maintain voltages within certain parameters. Now these standards may have been written in conjunction with the utility. But they are what the utility abides by.

In the case you sited you are right, kinda because.

Wattts are watts, just as apples are apples. Unless we are talking apples and oranges and then that is a horse of a different color.

waco

I hate to beat dead horses, but wattage is the product of volts and amps and resistance determines how many of the latter flow for so much of the former, so as voltage varies, so does wattage.

I suspect the utilities use capacitors and inductors to ensure voltage and current stay pretty much in phase, so I suspect the typical residence "looks" like a resistive load.

I suspect 120 is the new "nominal" and I also suspect utilities run their voltages on the high side to improve their bottom line.

nap

actually they do not do it to improve their bottom line. They do it to avoid some areas from experiencing sags.


In the case of a residence, there is a mix of loads but incandescent lights, electric heaters,, the heating element on an electric dryer, an electric oven/range, and electric water heaters are the major resistive loads. Most of the rest of a resi load is reactive loads.

In the case of all the heaters or heat producing appliance, the increased wattage would cause the appliance to run less (things would equal out) so the POCO would not benefit from such an action. The rest are generally such a small portion of the entire electric usage that to suggest the POCO is intentionally raising the voltage to increase profit is just silly.

amigi968

I'm new at this, but I terminate a lot of transformers for OUC here in Cen FL. It always seems that when we first hook up a new XFR, the voltage is around 127. Then a few weeks will go by and it will be 123-4, then with drop, around 121-0 in the building. Is this normal?

waco

Interesting. My first assumption would be that a new transformer is involved in new users and as they come on line, the voltage could drop, but there are also some physics involved in transformer design which could be a factor. Specifically, "core aging" which involves the core settling into a hysteresis pattern.

I don't know. I've never worked for any utility.

As for increased voltage creating higher revenues "being silly," a three percent increase in voltage results in a three percent increase in consumption which translates to a lot of revenue when a few million users are involved.

nap

as I stated; a 3% increase in voltage does not equate to a 3% increase in wattage used. As I tried to explain, most of the resistivre loads in a residence are heating units. Since an increase in voltage results in an increase of wattage, the heating unit would need to be "on" for less time which negates the increased wattage. There would not be more watt-hours recorded because of the increase of voltage. The increased voltage is not neccessarily going to cause increased usage in the reactive loads so where is the "forced" increase in watt-hours?

to your statement of:

let's see:

clothes washer
air condtioner
water pump
blower for heating or cooling air handler
bath fan
whole house fan
any HID lighting
motor on the dryer
vcacuum cleaner
motor for the pool pump
kitchen ex fan
any flourescent lighting
dishwasher
garbage disposal
food processor
blender



Do I really need to go on? I can.


So, please explain to me how you can claim a 3% increase in voltage will result in a 3% increase in consumption.


Gee, if it were as simply as that, I am quite sure that the POCO would simply run the voltage as high as they can (132 volts) all the time. Maybe you should start working for one of them. You will make them all millionaires overnight.

dowmace

it seems we are beating a dead horse here. Put it simply heres an example and this is the best one I can come up with seeing as we are talking about say blower motors for heat and such.

If I am running a motor at 480V will the amperage not be less than if I ran it tapped at 240V? I have never seen or installed an electrical part that used more amperage and as I said thus wattage at a higher voltage. But then again I guess all my knowledge could be wrong.............

waco

I'm a little amazed at the lack of basic electricity knowledge argued here.

A motor running on 480 volts is nothing even similar to a heater or the assumption that a heater running on 123 volts isn't also drawing more amperage and thus producing more wattage than on e running on 120 volts. My question didn't imply more voltage doesn't result in higher consumption. My assertion is that the utility makes more money at the expense of consumers who have no control over the voltage they are served.

That said, whatever voltage is supplied effects consumption which effects the provider's bottom line. I see no argument in that.

nap

Nobody said it did.

.We know. You unequivocally said that it does. I showed you where you were wrong.

I showed you where that is not true and you have yet to step up and support your argument that it does.

I guess that means that not only do you not understand basic electricity, it also shows you appear to have a reading comprehension problem. I gave you an argument that refutes your position. When are you going to provide an argument other than "it costs the customer more"? Provide proof.

waco

Well, no, actually you didn't. The wattage produced by 120 volts versus 123 volts is neglible compared to the gross wattage used by the overall heater. The motor is not a resistive load although it has a purely resistive component.

When did you start measuring motor consumption in watts and why would you?

nap

watts are directly translatable to Btu/h which is how you measure how much heat something produces. The more heat a heater produces, the less time it wil run. Now you want to make the arguement that the 3% is negligable but increasing the voltage by 3% will increase the wattage but an exponential factor and produce more than 3% more heat. That mean your water heater and any other pure heat producing appliance will need to run that much less time to produce the same amount of heat therefore, you do not use more watts.

You are going to have to take a point to stand by and stick with it. Either the 3% is something you want to consider or it isn't. It doesn;t work both ways.

In Euro countries, that is how a motor is rated. Regardless, that is what is consumed so that is what you would measure to calculate the cost to run the darn thing.

and what is the "purely resistive" part of a motor? The resistance in the winding is so minimal that the costs attributed to the resistive load, as well as any difference it makes in calculating the impedance is nil.

dowmace

last time I checked the poco checked motor consumption in watts.

I've come to 2 conclusions
1. that you think you are right
(there is no flaw in that I think I'm right all the time too)

2. everyone else is wrong
(this is the problem)

I don't know why you arguing this point so much. Your point has been proven incorrect but you still stand by it please let the horse die!

I'm not trying to be a jerk but I just hate to see a huge argument over something that has been mathematically proven wrong.

MechanicalDVR

Yeah well maybe his bill doesnt come with kilowatt hours as the billing standard.