Gas bill - WHOA

looking4deals1 wrote: ↑ As someone mentioned above, make sure it was an actual reading and not an estimate.
This happened to my last bill which was almost double my previous month and much higher than last year's same month bill. I called Enbridge with my actual reading which was much lower than the estimate and they lowered my bill by $80. My readings had been estimated for 3 months in a row due to "lack of personnel to do the scheduled reading".

Yeah Enbridge is absolute trash. Never had that problem with Union gas (Enbridge bought them out a year or two ago). Enbridge has never sent someone to check. Not a single time. And sometimes, they won't even allow your submissions, if your submission is lower than the previous month's estimate (which has happened multiple times to me). I feel blackmailed that I'm forced to deal with Enbridge. I would boycott them if I had the choice to ...you know, stay alive, without them....

CouponBaron wrote: ↑ Yeah.... I am that lower class person, and I am only able to barely weather the storm because I all but own my home (like I think it's sub-$20k now) and broke the remaining mortgage into an extended term so I'm paying almost nothing. But even with that huge advantage, I had to drop my internet and go cell-data-only. They have extremely underexagerrated inflation. They use convoluted means to smokescreen what's actually happened. If you take things like gasoline out of the mix and look at essentials (like the nat gas mentioned), most increases were north of 10%, some as high as 30%-50%, especially on food. And as someone allergic to basically everything, I can tell you, it's absolutely crushing....

Lots struggling it seems:

60% more Canadians per month expected to use food banks, other programs in 2023, survey finds
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ ... -1.6711094

looking4deals1 wrote: ↑ As someone mentioned above, make sure it was an actual reading and not an estimate.
This happened to my last bill which was almost double my previous month and much higher than last year's same month bill. I called Enbridge with my actual reading which was much lower than the estimate and they lowered my bill by $80. My readings had been estimated for 3 months in a row due to "lack of personnel to do the scheduled reading".

Same here.
Enbridge fracked up my Sept.-Oct/2022 bill by "over-estimating" it. or there was an input error.
I checked my meter and called them out on it by submitting an "Actual" reading, which was 100 cubic meters LOWER compared to my bill.
Of course this fracked up their computer system. For 2 months I didn't receive a statement. I inquired about it and they said they had to verify the Meter Readings by sending someone out to look at my meter.
Finally, last week I started receiving regular statments with the correct meter readings.

I continue to manually submit Actual monthly readings as I don't trust Enbridge anymore.

Webhead wrote: ↑ I continue to manually submit Actual monthly readings as I don't trust Enbridge anymore.

They are low key over-estimating everyone so people do this and they don't need as many meter readers.

Super_Chicken wrote: ↑ They are low key over-estimating everyone so people do this and they don't need as many meter readers.

My meter is read automatically over the air.
No need to phone in number.

My Enbridge bill alternates with 1 month estimate and 1 month actual reading. Yes the estimate is almost always higher than it should be. It doesn't bother me too much (I guess they got some money from me 1 month earlier, so I lose a little bit of interest). What irks me more is the $22+ customer charge each month (especially in the summer months when we hardly use any natural gas).

ADenariusSaved wrote: ↑ I thought electric was more expensive? I remember the East Coasters getting eviscerated by heating because all they have there is electric (despite a massive refinery in Saint John). I read about Germans converting to heat pumps because of the gas disruptions. Never heard of that tech, must be more efficient.

Heatpumps use 1/2, 1/3 or less of the power of resistive baseboard so they can be cost effective to run. They are less effective at lower temperatures, with the minimum rating depending on the unit. Mine is good till -15.

On the East coast there is little natural gas, but lots of fuel oil (basically diesel) heating systems, as well as electric, and a hand full of propane. Oil has always been a lot more than gas in most markets, but oil shot up a lot this year. The temperate climate makes heat pumps usable through most of the winter, and most homes don't have central air conditioning, so it's a bonus in the summer as well.

Our electric rates in NS are relatively high at 17 cents per kWh taxes included, but with fuel oil above about $1.47, it is cheaper to run baseboard electric than it is oil.

I have one 12,000 BTU mini split, an oil furnace, and a couple electric baseboards in the basement. So I do everything I can to keep from running the furnace. Heatpump runs flat out, and I supplement with the baseboards, and a space heater if needed.

I actually have gas running in front of my house, but I don't see it ever paying for itself. Long term plan would be to install another minisplit, add required backup baseboards upstairs, and remove the oil (insurance companies hate oil heat).

FarmerHarv wrote: ↑ SaskEnergy sent the...

1000m3 of gas is approx 35.3 million BTU

i dont have natural gas at my house. my propane currently costs 0.797$/L + 0.077$/L carbon tax

if i used as much heat energy as you did, it would cost me 1217.85$ in fuel, and 27.18$ in carbon taxes

cheapskatescooner wrote: ↑ Heatpumps use 1/2, 1/3 or less of the power of resistive baseboard so they can be cost effective to run. They are less effective at lower temperatures, with the minimum rating depending on the unit. Mine is good till -15.

On the East coast there is little natural gas, but lots of fuel oil (basically diesel) heating systems, as well as electric, and a hand full of propane. Oil has always been a lot more than gas in most markets, but oil shot up a lot this year. The temperate climate makes heat pumps usable through most of the winter, and most homes don't have central air conditioning, so it's a bonus in the summer as well.

Our electric rates in NS are relatively high at 17 cents per kWh taxes included, but with fuel oil above about $1.47, it is cheaper to run baseboard electric than it is oil.

assuming you have a 95% AFE oil heater (this may be generous, oil heaters are seldom this efficient) it would be cheaper for you to use oil heat instead of your baseboards:
Electric:
Electric rate (per kilowatt-hour) = 0.170
Cost of heat (per 100,000 BTU) = 4.98


Fuel:
Heating oil cost per liter = 1.47
Burner efficiency factor = 95.5%
Cost of heat (per 100,000 BTU) = 4.20



if anyone wants to do their own math, great calculator here:

http://www.maxmcarter.com/fuels/fuelscalc.html

TrueToy wrote: ↑ assuming you have a 95% AFE oil heater (this may be generous, oil heaters are seldom this efficient) it would be cheaper for you to use oil heat instead of your baseboards:
Electric:
Electric rate (per kilowatt-hour) = 0.170
Cost of heat (per 100,000 BTU) = 4.98


Fuel:
Heating oil cost per liter = 1.47
Burner efficiency factor = 95.5%
Cost of heat (per 100,000 BTU) = 4.20

Great discussion!

95% efficient oil burners are very rare. Gas / Propane have condensing burners that can achieve this. The problem with oil is the sulfur content of the fuel makes it very corrosive, thus they aren't common.

My 5 year old furnace has an Energuide rating of 83.1%, which is typical of newer furnaces

Also on the rates, the electric had GST included, the oil did not (as that's how the oil prices are advertised.
So plugging in my numbers to your calculator:
Electric:

Electric rate (per kilowatt-hour) = 0.170
Cost of heat (per 100,000 BTU) = 4.98

Fuel:
Heating oil cost per liter = 1.54
Burner efficiency factor = 83.1%
Cost of heat (per 100,000 BTU) = 5.07

Other factors:
-A combustion appliance will need makeup air for the burner, that will ultimately drawn in from outside. I don't know how this influences the overall efficiency.

-By not using the furnace, I skip the cost of a burner service.

As a comparison for gas,
Eastward Energy (formally Heritage) is the gas utility in NS. Monthly fixed charge of $21.87 per month. So including GST, that's $275/year before you've even turned the furnace on.

Energy rate Grand total is $29.239/GJ

On 95% efficient gas furnace, I think that's $2.93/100,000BTU

Here's my furnace's rating:

cheapskatescooner wrote: ↑ Great discussion!

95% efficient oil burners are very rare. Gas / Propane have condensing burners that can achieve this.

im glad to find someone else who cares! my neighbors still look at me like im insane when i tell them i use resistive electricity as my primary source of heat (offpeak power in ontario 7.4c/kWh) and have to explain to them how much cheaper it is than propane.

my propane tank costs me 139$ a year to rent, which is way more than it should be, but im too lazy to do anything about it.

my propane furnace is 95.5% AFE. even given this, i dont use it except:
-during a power outage
-when TOU rates are on high and the temp drops below 18.5C


does your fuel oil calculation include your carbon taxes?
also, combution air intake doesn't actually have to come from outside. my laundry room isn't in my basement, so my furnace just draws air in from where its located.

ADenariusSaved wrote: ↑ People always say 'oh global issues' but some things are uniquely Canadian - money printing:

That chart shows an increase in the Bank of Canada's assets. Money printing is a liability on the bank's books. The chart is showing a totally different thing from what you claim it to be showing.

Kiraly wrote: ↑ That chart shows an increase in the Bank of Canada's assets. Money printing is a liability on the bank's books. The chart is showing a totally different thing from what you claim it to be showing.

Edit: Checked with a CPA,CA, they said that graph is also liabilities because an entity that can print money like a Central Bank would not have Owner's Equity. You may play around with the data yourself, you will not be able to separate Equity from (Liabilities + Equity), Liability + Equity = Assets, if Equity = 0, then Liabilities = Assets. This was my assumption but I could not confirm as a Central Bank is not a normal accounting entity:

Bank of Canada assets and liabilities: Weekly (formerly B2)
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/banki ... rmerly-b2/

Think it's the reverse. The assets are the bonds that are purchased, not really the money that is dished out (this would be their liability).

Here's a conclusive article.
Who Decides to Print Money in Canada?
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer ... canada.asp

KEY TAKEAWAYS
The Bank of Canada creates new money through asset purchases of corporate and government bonds or securities.

Understanding the Federal Reserve Balance Sheet
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/e ... -sheet.asp

They buy Federal bonds, that shows up as assets on their balance sheet. The result is that money is created an pushed into the system. That graph comes from this article, worrying about inflation, because of the money printing:

The Fed's assets consist primarily of U.S. Treasury notes and bonds and agency mortgage-backed securities. Its liabilities are mostly U.S. currency in circulation, bank reserves held in Fed accounts, and reverse repurchase agreements collateralized by Treasury securities.

The Fed's Assets
Anything the Federal Reserve buys is an asset. Since the Federal Reserve has an unlimited supply of currency for asset purchases, the size of its balance sheet is constrained primarily by the availability of eligible assets as well as practical considerations of politics and policy.

Be vigilant, not alarmist about BoC balance sheet: economist
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/be-vi ... 06331.html

ADenariusSaved wrote: ↑ Think it's the reverse. I think you're justifiably thinking that the money is a liability to the bank (makes sense from an English/language standpoint), but the money is created through an open market operation where they buy government bonds (created by a deficit in our case). The assets are the bonds that are purchased, not really the money that is dished out.

Money printed by the bank is a liability. Here's the breakdown of physical cash in circulation as of December 31 2021, which is unfortunately a year out of date: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/banki ... rmerly-k1/ The Bank of Canada clearly calls this a liability.

Bonds acquired by the bank are an asset, like you say.

The chart you posted shows the latter: the assets in bonds owned; not the former, the liabilities in money printed. The Bank may well have increased its liabilities by printing money, but that's not what the chart you posted shows. If that's what you want to show, then find a chart about that.

Kiraly wrote: ↑ Money printed by the bank is a liability. Here's the breakdown of physical cash in circulation as of December 31 2021, which is unfortunately a year out of date: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/banki ... rmerly-k1/ The Bank of Canada clearly calls this a liability.

Bonds acquired by the bank are an asset, like you say.

The chart you posted shows the latter: the assets in bonds owned; not the former, the liabilities in money printed. The Bank may well have increased its liabilities by printing money, but that's not what the chart you posted shows. If that's what you want to show, then find a chart about that.

https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/fed-balance-sheet/

The Fed balance sheet is unique as it expands by buying treasury from the money it prints electronically. Unlike the traditional balance sheets, the central bank updates this balance sheet weekly. The balance sheet changes in the wake of employment generation, inflation control, price stability, or handling interest rates in the long term.

Edit: Added M3, Edit 2: Added this note

Kiraly wrote: ↑ Money printed by the bank is a liability. Here's the breakdown of physical cash in circulation as of December 31 2021, which is unfortunately a year out of date: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/banki ... rmerly-k1/ The Bank of Canada clearly calls this a liability.

Bonds acquired by the bank are an asset, like you say.

The chart you posted shows the latter: the assets in bonds owned; not the former, the liabilities in money printed. The Bank may well have increased its liabilities by printing money, but that's not what the chart you posted shows. If that's what you want to show, then find a chart about that.

https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/fed-balance-sheet/

The Fed balance sheet is unique as it expands by buying treasury from the money it prints electronically. Unlike the traditional balance sheets, the central bank updates this balance sheet weekly. The balance sheet changes in the wake of employment generation, inflation control, price stability, or handling interest rates in the long term.

The chart you showed me shows physical cash in circulation. By semantics, sure, BoC literally didn't print the physically money, that's the job of the Mint. However, they expanded the money supply in the economy M3. It would be infeasible for them to print out those billions in cash and stack them in the government/bank coffers. M3 are the numbers you should look at when determining inflation, most of the money in our system is electronic. They created electronic money, but not printing/paper money...But the electronic money has a far greater impact on inflation.

I posted M2 below, the Y-Axis is in millions. It coincides with the graph above.

The BoC was disingenuously saying they weren't 'printing money'. That's the job of the Royal Canadian Mint =D.

TrueToy wrote: ↑ 1000m3 of gas is approx 35.3 million BTU

i dont have natural gas at my house. my propane currently costs 0.797$/L + 0.077$/L carbon tax

if i used as much heat energy as you did, it would cost me 1217.85$ in fuel, and 27.18$ in carbon taxes

Interesting! I've never thought about the BTU production, a million per day seems like a lot but considering we're heating a combined 75,000 cubic feet (house, garage, shop) with 3 furnaces in the middle of the frozen wasteland it's probably not that bad.

ADenariusSaved wrote: ↑ https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/fed-balance-sheet/


The chart you showed me shows physical cash in circulation. Ok, I mean if you want to go by semantics, sure, they literally didn't print the physically money. They expanded the monetary base M2/M3. Those are the numbers you should look at when determining inflation, most of the money in our system is electronic. They created electronic money, but not printing/paper money...But the electronic money has a far greater impact on inflation.

I posted M2 below, the Y-Axis is in millions.

The BoC was disingenuously saying they were 'printing money'. That's the job of the Royal Canadian Mint =D.

Enough with the digression. Back to the relevant topic. I usually take a seat before opening my Gas or Hydro bills.

ob2011 wrote: ↑ Enough with the digression. Back to the relevant topic. I usually take a seat before opening my Gas or Hydro bills.

It's not a digression at all. When you devalue the value of the currency, the cost of goods go up when our salaries don't go up commensurately...It's all inter-related. I mean with gas the Russia-Ukraine war has a huge part to play, but the cost of everything is going up. I think this should be taught in school so that voters have a chance at preventing monetary folly, we are all grievously impacted by this. I didn't learn this until I went through university economics and the CFA curriculum...I only got a 91 average in my Waterloo economics courses, so I have an 9% margin of error when arguing lol. Apologies for that.

ADenariusSaved wrote: ↑ By semantics, sure, BoC literally didn't print the physically money, that's the job of the Mint.

You've got that totally wrong. The mint only makes coins, it has nothing to do with bank notes, which are indeed printed and issued by the Bank of Canada and are a liability on its books. More specifically, the Bank of Canada contracts out the physical printing to a private security printing company. None of this has anything whatsoever to so with the mint.

Kiraly wrote: ↑ You've got that totally wrong. The mint only makes coins, it has nothing to do with bank notes, which are indeed printed and issued by the Bank of Canada and are a liability on its books. More specifically, the Bank of Canada contracts out the physical printing to a private security printing company. None of this has anything whatsoever to so with the mint.

Edit: M1 is what drives inflation, not M2 and M3. M1 includes notes in circulation, deposits in chequing, and deposits in savings among other things - coins/notes in circulation only make up 20% of M1.
https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/money-supply-m0
https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/money-supply-m1
The former is a small portion of M1, so notes in circulation are irrelevant. M1 expanded just as central bank assets have. There was an approximate 60% expansion in M1 during this period vs. ~450% in Central Bank assets/liabilities (bonds)

Oh you're right on that. I'll admit I'm wrong there lol. Thanks for pointing that out. Never looked at my dollar bills, I just store stuff in bullion lol.

But check out M3...And what an open market operation is. You're looking at a component of M1. M2 and M3 are more representative of the money supply in the country, that's what drives inflation. The graphs of the central bank balance sheet (asset growth) coincides with M2 and M3 expansion.

I will leave it there...Thanks Kiraly for pointing out some important points. I still contend that we expanded M2/M3 which is driving our inflation, but yes, we didn't literally print the notes and coins. And that I should pay attention to what it says on my bank notes.