Kenz5, I made the jump from a Speed Queen top load to a Speed Queen front load 8 years ago. My demographics: -I have four kids -did NOT change factory default water level on TLW -water is cheap where I live (Great Lakes region) -waste water is cheap to dispose of ($180 yearly flat fee regardless of usage) -natural gas is very low cost here and I have a gas water heater -I wash 95% - 98% of my loads warm wash and cold rinse I could not notice a change in utilities before vs after. It's probably $3 to $5 a month at most. Laundryvet

"Bad" power factor does NOT increase the REAL actual power consumed, "REAL" or actual power is measured in kW, that's all you use and that's what you're charged for. If device(CFL) uses 80% of the power going into it, the power factor is 80%. Power factor is the Real Power divided by the Apparent Power. For example, 98 kW (Real Power) ÷ 100 kVA (Apparent Power) = 98%. Again, residential customers are charged only for the REAL Power actually used, not the Apparent Power sent, That's not our problem, it is for the utility, believe me if it was a significant amount we would be billed a fee for power factor. Factories are billed for power factor,power factor does require the utility to compensate a little bit, it's at a far, far lower level than would be the case if they had to make up the total difference between the actual power factor and a power factor of 1.We can and do ignore the power factor issues in residential, there would be no way to diagnose anything if no rules applied or reality unable to be qualified. To prove this point, I set up an experiment with CFLs vs. incandescent lights (resistive loads with a power factor of 1.0), and measured watts and volt-amperes delivered by my inverter. Then I measured the amps from my power source, a bank of L-16 batteries, which are DC sources wise to the tricks of reactive power....The low power factor did not require the batteries (or the utility) to produce any extra energy.

OK, back to the subject at hand. I'm assuming that you all agree with sticking to the #6 copper for this long of a run? Yes? No, I think the consensus was that #8 copper would suffice. The reason that's somewhat tentative has to do with the power demands of HVAC motors (i.e., a heat pump--and trust me, we do understand how a heat pump works). Had this been a simple requirement for a 50-amp general purpose circuit, then I think #6 wire would have been the straight-up choice. However, HVAC equipment behaves a bit differently than a general purpose circuit in that it has both a minimum and maximum circuit ampacity rating and special code sections apply. Cutting to the chase (and at the risk of oversimplifying), the minimum circuit ampacity is what the equipment needs to run after it has overcome the starting surge of its major component--the compressor motor. The maximum circuit is to allow for the starting surge, which can be several times the running load, lasts only briefly and does not pose a significant threat of overheating the conductors. Thus, a heat pump is a specific situation where it is appropriate to use a larger OCPD (circuit breaker) than might ordinarily be used with a specific wire guage. But this isn't done by "guess and by golly"; it's based on the known faceplate ratings of the dedicated equipment. In the thread discussion above, you'll note that there was some variance of opinion. Because I couldn't locate info on the minimum circuit rating, I initially took the conservative tack of recommending #6. (Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think jmvd20 took a similarly "safe" route too.) At the very least, the OP would have a safe result that would be uncontroversial in the view of any inspector. Ron, on the other hand, being more familiar with the particular type of equipment, was certain enough that the MCA was low enough to be fed by #8CU under these environmental circumstances. After some discussion about that, I'm inclined to agree with him although, as someone who doesn't deal with this equipment frequently, I'd tend verify the manufacturer's specs (which were not available online) before opting in that direction. But I'd add that Ron's interpretation also satisfied my "common sense" test based on a rough guestimate of the approximate wattage consumed by a 5hp motor. Thus, it isn't at all certain that #6CU is required. I believe the consensus is that #8AWG/CU is adequate. "To allow for both voltage drop and terminal size problems that the larger diameter #2 aluminum would cause, per my bad experience!? With the entier distance in conduit as you all are "by the bookers", Right? In making our recommendations, both Ron and I (and perhaps others) considered voltage drop at the 200' distance. Using 35 amps as the estimated running load, here are my calculations: A 200' run of #8CU in conduit, delivering 35A at 240V yields a voltage drop of 4.9%, which is under the usual target of 5% (i.e., it's borderline, as I said, but acceptable). At 50A, the drop is about 6.5%--a drop that most motors can tolerate quite readily. Under the same assumptions, if we use aluminum wire instead of copper, it will need to be upsized to #6 in order to meet ampacity requirements. Again at 200', the voltage drop calculations for #6 aluminum are very close to those for #8 copper (4.7% @ 35A and 6.8% @ 50A). Any way you look at it, #2AL is way, way overkill for the OP's application. And that's why I called you on the statement that you used a chart that equated #2AL with #6CU due to the distance. That doesn't make sense to me and I'd love to see that chart. Now, if it was the only underground-rated AL wire that happened to be available from your supplier, then fine, just say so. Now here's what strikes me as particularly ironic: While you take issue with "going by the book" because, you contend, the book is mostly overkill, it was going by the book--strictly--that led the cost-saving recommendation to use a smaller and less expensive wire guage! OK, sorry, enough of that. 1. As I have stated in both previous thread entries. "I would NOT have attempted the project if I thought it was dangerous to anyone's safety"! So you all are saying that you "always" complete your "own" projects per the "letter" of the law and not the "spirit" of it. Meaning, on your own land when you know that if you where to deviate from the law/code, the chances of the "risk" taken is a billion to one shot of going wrong that you would still ALWAYS go by the letter of the law? In my opinion, The code is an "overkill" guide so that people that have very little common sense will not get themselves or others injured or killed. Agreed? No, not agreed. In fact, the less you know, the less capable you are of assessing the risks and, therefore, there's all the more reason to adhere to code strictly. Personally, I'll admit to doing some pretty half-a$$ed things in the past but, honestly, the older I get (I'm 62 now), and the more I learn, the more I do, in fact, "complete [my] 'own' projects per the 'letter' of the law." As for the code being "an 'overkill' guide so that people that have very little common sense will not get themselves or others injured or killed", I agree only to the extent that there are certain safety margins built in, much like there is a over-design requirement when engineering a bridge. And I'd also agree that a few of the requirements seem like unnecessary nuisance and expense--child proofing all the receptacles in an adult-only home comes to mind. But even there, standard requirements contemplate not only your personal requirements and tolerance for risk, but those who may occupy the premises at a later time. As the code evolves, with new editions coming out every three years, a great many of the new requirements are based on actual documented experience. That is, there is statistical evidence of a problem that caused actual fires, actual injuries and actual deaths. Since there are only about 300 million people in the U.S., these problems are not in the order of one in a billion or they would not have statistical support. 3. The thick plastic around the wire & plastic conduit for that matter becomes very brittle and is degraded very quickly from the sun / UV rays, due to the 100 plus degree temps in summer and 320 days of sun a year. SO the best place for the wire IS underground. And metal conduit would just melt any plastic sheathing on wire from the suns heat. No one here disputes that the OP's proposal to run the conduit underground is a good idea and I certainly didn't hear anyone suggest metal conduit. Interestingly, if you familiarize yourself with the code, you'll discover that all these factors are well-accounted for. Ambient temperature, for example, is a definite factor in selecting cables and wires. So, too, is sun exposure. Where conditions fall outside normal expected ranges, there are wire types and methods specifically designed for such conditions. BTW, if you post for advice here, make sure to mention that your project is in the desert where the temperatures and light exposure are very high and you'll get competent advice for those conditions. In sum, there is no real reason to "choose the 'illegal' way." Jes my 2c and a "good day" to you too, sir.

For the electricity it seems you are buying the electricity from another provider. There is delivery charge from National grid for $61.49, and a service charge of $75.71 from another supplier. The average cost for 701 kWh is $0.196 per kWh. That is is expensive. You probably would get a better rate if you bought your electricity from National Grid. National grid also offers other types of billing. You should call them and ask about all the available options. The gas chart is showing a price of $0.22 per therm. That is very low so I suspect that is only the delivery charge. Are there more details on your bill showing the service charge?