The recent increase in electricity rates saw our bills increase by as much as 80% with some households and small businesses paying the cost equivalent of a small second-hand generator. Despite information campaigns and a policy of transparency in electricity pricing the sudden increases have led to wild speculations on its rationale going from the plausible to the absurd.
Noting consumption remained constant, at least from the perspective of consumers, some saw it as a prelude to the elections. Others said political families were gearing up for a return to oligarchy. Others still, blamed the bill collector, a guttural predisposition albeit as pointless as blaming a waiter for dishes not cooked to our liking.
It is cliché that we set guard dogs on bill collectors. Never mind that the aggravating factors were far removed from the collecting entities we come in contact with.
Part of the problem is technical jargon. The definitions of power generation, transmission and distribution remain unclear.
Part can also be blamed on misconceptions. For too long, as common as Colgate is used to define toothpaste, Xerox for photocopiers and Frigidaire for refrigerators, the Manila Electric Company or Meralco personified the whole electricity industry.
For the business niche for which we write, momentarily indulge us if you will. From this paragraph forward we will attempt to demystify the rate increases using language understandable to consumers with a 1,000-word English vocabulary in the hopes they will have a better appreciation of their power bills.
To understand the recent rate increases, one needs to understand that piece of paper drawn up by Meralco that shows the different costs that make up the bill.
The bill is divided into three parts just as the industry has three separate sectors. The first are from the companies that produce electricity. We call them generators.
The second sector is a company that takes the electricity from the generators and transmits these along power lines and cables. This is the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP).
The last sector is made up of companies that receive the electricity from the NGCP and distributes these to consumers.
Because distributors deal directly with consumers, like waiters, they collect payments for all three sectors. Most payments reimburse payments to generators or NGCP. Distributors only charge for their end.
Laws regulate the prices NGCP and distributors can charge. This means that they cannot price without our permission and only after approvals granted by the Energy Regulatory Commission.
Our laws do not regulate the prices generators charge. When they buy the electricity from generators, transmit and then distribute electricity, respectively, NGCP and then the distributors pay whatever generators charge. In effect, distributors like Meralco pay in advance and shoulder for us all prior charges.
The recent increases were mostly from increases in costs in the generation sector where power plants produce electricity by burning coal or oil-based products. Some plants produce electricity from the flow of water from dams and rivers, or from turbines that turn from windmills or the force of steam from under the earth.
Because of the dry spell brought about by the El Nino phenomenon, river and dam water levels were low. Electricity produced by plants that use those as fuel could not operate at maximum. Because water is not imported and paid with dollars, had those plants operated at maximum then electricity prices would have been lower.
Instead, the power plants that burn imported petroleum fuels operated longer than usual. More so, when two huge plants experienced coal supply shortages. Typically, petroleum-burning plants are used mainly during hours when more people use electricity between 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Recently they had to run the whole day.
These plants are more expensive. They burn imported fuels bought with dollars. Moreover, these fuel prices are dictated by foreign oil producers, suppliers and regional oil traders in Singapore where the prices of oil products we import (called the Mean of Platts) are determined.
Fortunately power rates will fall when enough rain fills our dams and rivers, and the plants that produce electricity from these add to the more expensive coal and petroleum-burning plants that now supply us power.
In any case, consumption notwithstanding, the recent increase in power rates was due to the kind of fuels employed where, coincidentally, the world price of those increased in recent months. Neither politics nor the NGCP and distributors like Meralco had anything to do with it.
Popularity: 1% [?]
what will it take to build more generation capacity, so that unscheduled maintenance issues dont spike the price?
Nuclear now!
u mean.. nuke them now?! :)
Nuclear now, Mike H? Triple or quadruple the price and maybe those vehemently against nuclear plant would surrender.
The opposition to nuclear plant to my mind is inspired more by pride than anything else. You go nuclear now, you also call attention to a plant sitting there in Bataan since the 80′s paid for in billions of dollars and not a watt produced because they successfully opposed it. The idea na papayag din pala sila after all these years… then, you have to acknowledge a huge huge opportunity lost, businesses which went elsewhere because our power rate make us uncompetitive, jobs that should have been there…
Dean: Didn’t mean to drag the discussion into another direction nor to suggest that I didn’t read your blogpost.
What I read was that there was a “disturbance” to the load-levelling problem (because of water supply at the low-cost provider, i.e. hydro) and the transmission companies had to instead use higher-cost providers (coal, oil) as energy-source.
You also say that the regulatory remains effective (e.g. against collusion over pricing). This part — regulatory remains effective — is very good news.
You are probably one of the very few with that message (regulatory remains effective) among a paranoid citizenry that would be more inclined to fall onto sloganeering of “Corruption!! Cheating!!! Damn those rich people!!!” when faced with lack of information.
Now I wait for Abe Margallo to post the mantra — if only these rent-seeking moneyed population use their profits to invest in high-risk high-reward enterprises like building a made-in-Pilipinas car plant or building deep-sea diving robots or faster cell-phone computer chips, wouldn’t that be loverly? he he he
The nominal profit margin for high-risk venture — Pilipinas money-lending — is 70% a year, isn’t it?
What’s the nominal yrly rate-of-return for Power generation – 8% (dollar-based)? What’s the nominal yearly rate/return for transmission- 11% (dollar-based)?
The opposition to nuclear power is more due to ideology than pride or anything else. More people have died in fossil fuel related incidents in conventional power plants than in nuclear ones.
….if you find uranium within philippine territory, by all means.
ricelander: “they” couldn’t convince French and Japanese ctizens to vote against nuclear plants, so instead their consuelo-de-bobo was stopping nuclear plants in Pilipinas and other countries.
Nash: uranium in Pilipinas is not an issue. All needed is to include “fuel supply management, including waste disposal” as part of the contract.
Reminder: antiPinoy-dot com had blogged weeks ago about this. Be vigilant about an obsolete NukePlant (South Korea had thought to “donate” it to NoKorea) which a Cojuangco group is volunteering the Pilipinas Treasury to buy and then to be put on Pilipinas soil.
Nuke plants provide low-cost clean power, but the next Pilipinas version of the project may become smelly and corrupted.
Sourcing uranium IS an issue.
Where are you going to get it? And how EASY can you get it? Once you get it, will we process it to fuel-grade ourselves? Will someone do it for us?
I’m all for nuclear, but I’m not so convinced it’s going to be cheap for us.
Nuclear Energy is not an option. Technology is complicated. Price of the facility is too high to build. Maintenance cost is too high. Waste disposal cost is high. You need Nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians to run it. Even if you find Uranium ore in your backyard. You have to refine this into Uranium fuel Rods(Uranium 235) to make it work.
Manong I am thinking transmission inefficiencies resulting in we pay for a grid losses and that EPIRA proviso allowing cross ownership, heightening price-setting control by NPC and the IPPs who continue to periodically withold capacity from WESM.
Transmission power lost is just about a maximum of 5% of the power supplied. It is an assumed figure created by Power Companies to pick your pocket as painlessly, as they can. They can assume it for 15%, 20%, or higher. You will never have any arguments for rebutals. Because, you don’t know anything about Energy Technology. It is a win-win situation for them. Loss-loss situation for you.
Dear Mario,
Am in the generation sector and not transmission or distribution. The latter two are heavily regulated. The formula for line losses includes dissipation, heat generated and lost, and impedance dependent on the length and type of conductors used, whether copper for the lower hanging lines or aluminum for the higher strung lines. Historical data also is inputed and then there is the question of line-theft and pilferage.
You will see the rather complex formula in the ERC website under the performance based pricing mechanism that they adopted recently.
Am certain that the engineers at FV would be a million times more qualified than I on this matter.
Dean
Dear Ding,
Ahhh WESM…That other can of worms where the slithering, slimy and slippery serpents are as big as anacondas.
Dean
The Oligarchs who controlled the lands, powers, media and the basic necessities of our lives won. They spent money. As good business people, they will take back from us, what they had spent in the election. Suckers that we are, we deserve what we got. Power prices will surely increase, whether you like it, or not.
Dear Mike H,
At Ogden Energy our hurdle rate for feasibilities is a minimum of 25% IRR. Below that New Jersey does not approve our proposals. For most of the projects we entered we got at least 30% ++ IRR. That’s for generation. Our plants are both diesels and coal-fired. The banks that provide project financing have a minimum of about 18% IRR. 18% is also the guess-rate we use when we iterate in computing the IRR.
To acheive those returns, our contracts have those notorious minimum economic offtakes (MEOT) that reach as much as 85% guaranteed take-or-pay. Ginagaya namin ang financial model ng Enron (Phils).
BTW, the target audience of that post was originally GMANews TV where the market is comprsoed of Jologs.
Dean
Dear Mario,
The company that you speak of is the Korean Electric Power Corp. or KEPCO, a Korean state-owned company with plants in Panay and Cebu. They “educated” former DOE Sec. Angie Reyes on nukes and turned him into an advocate for nuke plants.
Another advocate is the current governor of Pangasinan, another former military man.
Madali punuin ang kalan na walang laman.
Dean
Is that the same governor who wanted to shut down the dams?
So, Dean, any bright idea on how to lower power rate in the Philippines? Being one of the most basic inputs in any business, from a simple karinderia or sarisari store to a multibillion peso manufacturing plant, expensive power rate threatens not just our comforts at home but the very viability of businesses generating livelihood or job opportunities. Foreign investors they say are now skipping the Philippines precisely because our power rates are so high they nullify any more positive gains, and we are running out of them, we could offer.
What would these people know about Nuclear Energy generation? You cannot be educated on Nuclear Energy by seminars. You go to good universities and get a degree or postgraduate education. To know much about Nuclear Energy. It’s both theoretical and practical. Atoms from the Fuel Rod Uranium are behaving theoretically, as you believe. You cannot see them. However, they give results. So, to claim that a former military man can grasp it in a few weeks of education. Borders to the ridiculous! It’s a specialist field.
I don’t think these people know about Nuclear Reactor Technology. They are business people, who want to make fast bucks. At the expense of Filipino people. The Technology of Nuclear Energy is hard to understand, unless you went to get your degree in good universities. It is a Specialist Field. The Fuel Rods cost a lot. It cost more to dispose it. Old Nuclear Reactors are obsolete, in design. Like an old car. It is almost a junk. This is the reason they are selling it!
We have to wait for Nuclear Energy to develop better. Too large the Nuclear Reactor facilities for power generation. Many problems in waste disposals. The spent Uranium Rods take centuries to disintigrate, and remain harmless. Like the IBM computers in the old models. Someday, someone can miniaturize the Nuclear Energy facilities. And, we can make the spent fuel rods harmless in their radioactivity.
If you believe in Aliens from outer space. Their Spaceships have miniaturized nuclear reactors. For space travels. We may be thousands of years, behind in their technology; compared with our technologies.
National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms
No. 10, Bayside Court Compound, 680 Quirino Avenue Tambo
Parañaque City 1700 Philippines
Phone No.: +63.2.8530731
TeleFax No.: +63.2.8530732
http://www.nasecore.org
eMail: nasecore2003@yahoo.com
May 11, 2010
ZENAIDA G. CRUZ-DUCUT
Chairperson
Energy Regulatory Commission
Pacific Center Building
San Miguel Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Dear Chairperson Ducut,
This is a follow-up to our letter of April 26, 2010 where we requested for the recall of the increase in the generation charge of MERALCO for the months of March and April 2010 pending conclusion of the ERC’s alleged investigation of the same and to peg the generation charge at P3.3243/kWh based on our computation of the least cost supply provision of the law.
From the generation charge of P3.91/kWh in January 2010, it rose to P4.93/kWh in February with an increase by P1.02/kWh. This went to P5.84/kWh in March with an increase of P0.91/kWh, and further rose to P6.77/kWh with an increase of P0.93/kWh. All in all, the increase from the January 2010 level was P2.85/kWh.
Please allow us to show the monthly additional collections of MERALCO from its generation charge from February to May 2010, as follows:
Generation Charge
Increase/kWh Increase in Pesos
February 2010 (P1.02 x 2.25B kWh/mo.sales ) = P2.295 B
March (P0.91+1.02 = P1.93 x 2.25B = 4.3425B
April (0.93 + P1.93 = P2.86 x 2.25 = 6.435 B
TOTAL P13.0725B
ADD: May (P2.86 – P1.26 =P1.60 x 2.25 = P3.6 B
TOTAL Increase in the Generation Charge (Feb.-May2010) P16.677Billion
These increases are not simply outrageous but are also illegal. These increases have the effect of robbing Meralcos captive customers’ of their hard earned money computed at P13 Billion for the period February to April 2010. If this is not robbery, could this be plunder?
Even the announcement of a MERALCO reduction of P1.26/kWh for the month of May is deceptive since Meralco will still unduly profit P3.6 Billion for the month of May, which is still undue and unreasonable.
The inaction of ERC on our request to recall the generation charge increases of MERALCO, pending results of its investigation, compels us to believe that ERC has practically surrendered its regulatory powers to MERALCO as it allows MERALCO to freely set its own generation charge, thus effectively giving undue advantage to MERALCO and depriving consumers of their right without due process.
The aforesaid announcement by MERALCO of a reduction of P1.26/kWh for the month of May 2010 does not release it the from its unreasonable increases from February to April 2010. Thus, we reiterate our request of April 26, 2010 to have the generation charge of MERALCO pegged at P3.3243/kWh or a reduction by P3.4456 from its current rate, as this is the price that conforms to the least cost supply provision of the law, to provide consumers immediate relief from the illegal and unreasonable rate increases.
Should ERC continue to ignore our urgent request, we will be constrained to seek other remedies.
In closing, may we be furnished the complete monthly reportorial submissions of MERALCO to ERC from February to April 2010, please?
We look forward to the favorable and immediate response of the Commission.
Thank you and God bless.
Very truly yours,
PETE L. ILAGAN
President
Cc: Hon. Leandro R. Mendoza, Executive Secretary
Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, Senate President
Hon. Prospero Nograles, Speaker- House of Representatives
Hon. Gregorio B. Honasan, Chair, Senate Committee on Energy
Hon. Ma.Merceditas N. Gutierrez, Ombudsman
Hon. Jose C. Ibazeta, DOE Secretary
Hon. Mikey M. Arroyo, Chair House Committee on Energy
Ms. Elzadia Washington, Mission Director-USAID
Mr. Bert Hofman, Country Director-World Bank
Mr. Neeraj Jain, Country Director- Asian Development Bank
Mr. Francis C. Chua, Philippine Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Austen Chamberlain, American Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Hubert D’ Aboville, European Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms
No. 10, Bayside Court Compound, 680 Quirino Avenue Tambo
Parañaque City 1700 Philippines
Phone No.: +63.2.8530731
TeleFax No.: +63.2.8530732
http://www.nasecore.org
eMail: nasecore@gmail.com
May 18, 2010
ZENAIDA G. CRUZ-DUCUT
Chairperson
Energy Regulatory Commission
Pacific Center Building
San Miguel Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Dear Chairperson Ducut,
Greetings!
This refers to the Performance-Based Regulation rate-setting methodology (PBR), which the Honorable Commission adopted in 2005 and subsequently availed of by several Private Distribution Utilities (DUs) and the National Transmission Company (TransCo) now operated by its concessionaire, the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP).
In several decisions rendered by this Honorable Commission on applications under the PBR scheme, it has relied on Section 43(f) of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) as basis of its authority to adopt PBR supposedly as an internationally accepted rate-setting methodology.
It is undeniable that consumers have been suffering from the increasing transmission and distribution rates on a yearly basis, since the adoption of the PBR in 2005. Proof is the ERC-granted revenues of TransCo for years 2005-2009 under the PBR scheme:
Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Case No. ERC Case No. 2006-047RC
(25April2006) ERC Case No. 2006-061RC
(18Dec2006) ERC Case No. 2007-151RC
(5Aug2008) ERC Case No. 2008-056RC
(15Dec2008) ERC Case No. 2009-160RC
(19Jan2010)
Maximum Allowable Revenue PhpMillion P29,472.97 P33,547.70 P36,113.54 P39,510.98 P44,991.45
The 2005 annual revenue alone of P24.463Billion shows an increase of P5.009 Billion in the 2006 ERC-approved Maximum Allowable Revenue. In fact, in 2005, TransCo made a net income of P16.17 Billion.
Under the PBR scheme, the rates of DUs also periodically increased to the prejudice of consumers. ERC-approved rates for MERALCO for years 2007-2010 will show the yearly increases:
Regulatory Year 2008 2009 2010 2011
Smoothed Maximum Average Price (SMAP)
Php/kWh P1.167 P1.260 P1.361 P1.471
However, in the May 29, 2008 Order of this Honorable Commission, the 2008 and 2009 SMAP were consolidated and a new MAP was approved in the amount of P1.2280/kWH.
Similarly, Dagupan Electric Corporation (DECORP) and Cagayan Power and Light Company (CEPALCO) have their share of rate increases under the PBR.
What is perplexing is that ERC formulated and promulgated separate Rules for the determination of (a) transmission wheeling rates and (b) distribution wheeling rates (the “RULES”), each of which would undergo several revisions after the same had been implemented for earlier applicants or “entrants.”
Thus, for transmission wheeling rates, the Transmission Wheeling Rates Guidelines (TWRG) of May 2003 would become the Rules for Setting Transmission Wheeling Rates (RTWR) of September 2009.
For distribution wheeling rates, on the other hand, the Guidelines on the Methodology for Setting Distribution Wheeling Rates: Privately Owned Distribution Utilities (DWRG) of December 2004 would later be revised to become the Rules for Setting Distribution Wheeling Rates for Privately Owned Distribution Utilities Entering Performance Based Regulation: Second and Later Entry Points (RDWR) of December 2006, which itself has been the subject of revision via the ERC’s Position Paper on the Regulatory Reset for the July 2010 to June 2014 Regulatory Period for the Third Entry Group of Privately Owned Distribution Utilities subject to Performance Based Regulation of December 2008.
The complexity of the RULES is aggravated by the fact that the same allow the inclusion of budget forecasts (part of which are capital needed for expansion of services and corporate taxes), which are not expenses incurred in the operation of the utility. Yet these budget forecasts are charged to the consumers’ rate payments as if they were just and reasonable costs incurred in the operation of the utility thus, rates are forcibly and unreasonably increased.
The RTWR for one requires the Transmission Utility to file an application for the approval of its proposed Annual Revenue Requirement for five (5) consecutive years, which Revenue Requirement becomes the subject of ERC determination/approval. We find this contrary to the mandate of ERC, which is RATE setting not REVENUE setting. Section 43 (f) of the EPIRA provides that “rates must be such as to allow the recovery of just and reasonable costs and a reasonable return on rate base (RORB) to enable the entity to operate viably”. [emphasis supplied].
The cited provision is clear that rates are meant to allow RECOVERY of just and reasonable costs and a reasonable return. Only just and reasonable costs incurred in the operations of the utility are subject to recovery through the rate determined by ERC.
Therefore, the approval of annual revenues for five (5) consecutive years instead of rates can only be inconsistent with the EPIRA and patently illegal. We can only find that the adoption of PBR gives undue and clear advantage to the utilities to the prejudice of the consumers, who are the captive market and whom the ERC is mandated to protect.
Similarly, the DWRG/RDWR requires the Distribution Utilities (DUs) to file an application for the approval of its proposed Annual Revenue Requirement for four (4) consecutive years, upon which the Maximum Average Price (MAP) is derived. This serves as the RATE which is translated or allocated by the DUs in setting the rate schedule for its distribution, supply and metering charges for each customer class or segment and becomes the subject of ERC determination/approval. Thus, we also find this contrary to the mandate of ERC, which is RATE setting not REVENUE setting.
In order for us to understand and perhaps appreciate such decision by ERC to shift from the Return On Rate Base (RORB) Rate Setting Methodology, may we ask the Honorable Commission the following questions?
1. Is the RORB rate setting methodology unable to meet its objective of fixing the rates such that it will allow recovery of just and reasonable costs and a reasonable return on rate base to enable the entity to operate viably?
2. Is it the position of the ERC that the criteria provided under the EPIRA and recognized by jurisprudence that “rates must be such as to allow the recovery of just and reasonable costs and a reasonable return on rate base (RORB) to enable the entity to operate viably” are no longer applicable under PBR?
3. Was TransCo not operating viably when it availed of the PBR?
4. Were the private distribution utilities not operating viably when they availed of the PBR?
5. What were the inadequacies of RORB vis-à-vis the provision that “rates must be such as to allow the recovery of just and reasonable costs and a reasonable return on rate base (RORB) to enable the entity to operate viably”?
6. Where did ERC first hear or learn of this PBR ?
7. What agency/agencies introduced PBR to the Honorable Commission?
8. What alternative rate setting methodologies did the ERC consider other than the PBR?
9. In what cities/countries is this PBR used? Did the rates in these cities/countries increase when they adopted the PBR?
10. What were the rates before and after PBR?
11. What specific seminar/workshops on PBR did ERC Commissioners and/or Directors attend? Where, when, and how many?
12. Specifically, who were the ERC Commissioners and Directors who attended these seminars/workshops abroad?
13. Who funded the travel and attendance of the Commissioners/ Directors to these seminars/workshops abroad?
14. Who were/are the Foreign Consultants on PBR assigned to assist ERC? Who provided these Consultants?
Relative to the above questions, may we be furnished the following?
1. Copies of all materials secured by the Commissioner/Director from these seminars/workshops on PBR which they attended;
2. Copies of all ERC rules, promulgations, and specific provisions of laws pertaining to the adoption and implementation of this PBR;
3. Copies of the Travel Orders and Vouchers of Travel Allowances of the ERC Commissioners and/or Directors who attended the seminars/ workshops on PBR abroad;
4. Copies of the Airline Tickets and Hotel Official Receipts relative to the attendance of these seminars/workshops on PBR;
5. Copies of communications with Energy Regulators in other countries that have adopted this alternative form of rate-setting methodology;
6. Copies of the transcripts of the Commission’s deliberations on the pros and cons of this alternative form of rate-setting methodology, and the ERC Resolution adopting the same before its adoption by the Commission; and
7. Copy of the ERC Resolution allocating and defining the budget for the adoption of this alternative form of rate-setting methodology.
This request is anchored on our desire to have a deeper understanding of PBR which has caused unprecedented and unbridled rise in the cost of our electricity. With ERC’s cooperation and help, we hope that we may able to participate more intelligently in public hearings on applications under PBR and to determine whether PBR addresses the mandate of ERC to determine, to fix or set just and reasonable rates.
We realize that our current request may require some time from this Commission, but we hope that the Commission will also realize that this PBR is inhumanly making the lives of millions of electricity consumers more miserable due to the atrociously high rate of electricity.
We look forward to the Commission’s immediate and favorable response.
Thank you and God bless.
Very truly yours,
PETE L. ILAGAN
President
Cc: Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, Senate President
Hon. Prospero Nograles, Speaker- House of Representatives
Hon. Leandro R. Mendoza, Executive Secretary
Hon. Gregorio B. Honasan, Chair, Senate Committee on Energy
Hon. Ma.Merceditas N. Gutierrez, Ombudsman
Hon. Jose C. Ibazeta, DOE Secretary
Hon. Mikey M. Arroyo, Chair House Committee on Energy
Ms. Elzadia Washington, Mission Director-USAID
Mr. Bert Hofman, Country Director-World Bank
Mr. Neeraj Jain, Country Director- Asian Development Bank
Mr. Francis C. Chua, Philippine Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Austen Chamberlain, American Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Hubert D’ Aboville, European Chamber of Commerce
How did they get those figures, using it as data to calcvulate the Power Loss formula? Are they: assumed, as is, or taken from operations of the Grids? This is a good question…
magkano po ba ang minimum now ng kuryente kong ang gamit mo ay ilaw lng at electric fan?
ilang Kilowats po ba ang minimum?
aside from the issue of power rates, we also need to move forward to get energy sustainabiliy and increase our supplies since Black outs and rotated brown outs is annoying and bad for not only local businessman but BPOs as well..
Dean, for us here in Northern Mindanao our situation had an added wrinkle. Though collectively we consumed less power because of the regular brownouts, most of us saw our actual monthly bills almost double in amount.
Though I had figured it out on my own, your explanation was most lucid and straight to the point. And our distributors offered no credible explanation for the puzzling increases.
A number offered lame excuses, like consumers would consume more than usual power after brownouts because items like refrigerators would require more to get back to their usual coldness settings.
Do we see deliverance in the near future?