February, 2001
With California's misdirected efforts at achieving stable power rates through deregulation affecting not only that State, but many of its neighbors, we knew it would be but a matter of time before RV park rates would be impacted. For some in California the rate side of things has been business as usual, as politicians scramble to avoid the fallout from residential and business rate increases on the clear horizon. Neighboring States, forced to sell scarce power to the California market, have in many cases bitten the bullet and dramatically increased consumer rates. They've had no option, unless they're willing to stand by as their major power utilities go out of business -- a status California's major utilties now face daily.
But even in recalcitrant California there are pockets of consumers who are not in a "protected class", and who have seen their rates double, triple, even quadruple or more. And as the chaotic California power mess looks for solutions, one can safely assume that inevitably all rate payers in California will be paying substantially increased power bills -- despite the political fallout. But there are some who are already feeling the pinch.
We found our first RV park that has seen its rates spike several fold to $0.29 per kilowatt hour (KWH). It happened to be the Chula Vista RV Resort and Marina, which we've long counted among our most favorite RV destinations. Faced with power costs which were spiraling out of control, they considered options for dealing with recovering the startling increased costs they'd begun experiencing from their power company. While they no doubt hoped this would be a temporary condition, and they'd likely see power costs go down again in the future, the time table was completely unknown.
Rather than simply make a permanent increase in daily and weekly rates (the monthly rate was already based on actual power consumed), they opted to impose a temporary "surcharge". Recognizing that power consumption varies in part according to RV size, they came up with a formula that added $2/day for rigs to 20 feet; $3/day for rigs to 30 feet; and $4/day for RVs longer than 30 feet. This surcharge was collected at the time of check-in for those staying on a daily basis. Initially it was also collected as a fixed sum from those staying on a weekly rate. However, many RVers complained that the rate being charged was higher than they would pay if their surcharge was based on a meter reading. In response to that concern, the weekly rate was amended so as to collect the full amount of the surcharge at check-in; but at the end of the week a meter reading would be used to determine whether an additional amount would be collected, or whether a refund would be due.
A nicely worded notice placed on the registration desk explained the reason for the surcharge; the fact that it was temporary; and promised that if and when the extraordinary power costs being experienced presently would decline, so too would the surcharge. Most RVers, being well aware of the power crisis in California, seemed to accept the surcharge without complaint.
As we were staying for a full week, we were on the "read the meter" plan. As our coach is 36 feet in length, we paid the $4/day surcharge rate for six days in advance -- the seventh day is "free" on a weekly rate. Thus we paid an extra $24. At the time we checked in, they noted the meter reading on our account record. On the sixth day they dutifully read our meter again. They found we had used 64 KWH during the previous six days. That usage, at the rate of $0.29 per KWH, resulted in a power cost of $18.56 -- or $3.09 per day on average. As a consequence, we came out winners (of sorts) in the "Kilowatt Hour Lottery", and were entitled to a refund of $5.44. I should confess I did a daily meter reading of my own, which I found highly instructive. I'd already calculated the amount of the refund before we checked out.
However, in discussions with the staff we learned that most RVs actually consume more than the estimated amount they pay on the basis of the length of their rig. Most RVers who are on the weekly rate are surprised to learn that they actually owe more -- sometimes considerably more -- for their electric bill when they check out. I did not find this surprising, based on the fact we'd made at least a reasonable effort to conserve energy during our week's stay. We didn't become "power misers" for the week. But we rarely used the microwave; we were careful not to use more night lighting than we actually needed; we opted for a bit of propane heating on those mornings when the temps started off in the upper 30s (rather than the heat pumps or electric space heater); we used hot water with full consciousness of the fact it would trip on an energy guzzling electric heating element; and we experimented with cutting the "power sharing" back from a maximum of the 50 amps at the post, down to 30, 15, and even 5 amps to the coach. Our largest single appliance use was very likely the morning coffee pot.
However, from monitoring our previous RVs to find out how we could stretch a bit of solar power, we're aware that even when we're careful with the "big" appliances", the most significant "drains" on power are really the cumulative effect of all the smaller items. The DSS system uses around 35 watts when it's on. And it uses exactly the same when it is "off"! The two TVs draw power even when they're "off", because they're in a standby mode for instant startup. I can recall how surprised we were to find the microwave keeps on drawing power -- presumably for the clock and memory functions -- even when it's not being used. And of course those alarms and some computerized controls are staying awake too.
The cumulative effect of all these small "drains" may not seem like a lot at first. But when you consider the collective size of these many small loads, and realize the hourly consumption is multiplied by 24 hours each day, this begins to really add up -- even if none of the "major" appliances sees much use. I should mention that purely as an experiment, I shut down the power breaker at the post for a few hours one morning to test a theory. My theory was that since small DC drains would total maybe 3-5 amps even with everything "off", we would begin to discharge the battery bank. And when we turned the shore power back on, the rig's charging system would go to work big time, and start re-charging the battery bank at its full rated capacity of 100 amps. Even though it did so for only a relatively short time, for a short period at least we were consuming a huge amount of power to get the batteries "caught up". Unless we would have also turned off the house current, thus rendering the water pump, refrigerator, DC lighting, and other things entirely inoperable, simply switching off the shore power would seem to be counter productive -- at least as our rig is configured.
For our part, we didn't go the extreme measures of unplugging appliances, avoiding the use of our DSS system, or reducing the night lighting to eye-straining levels. But we were otherwise fairly conservative in our electric appetite for the week. The temporary surcharge had been, for us, an added incentive. We were able, through reasonable conservation efforts, to impact our own costs for the week.
Our purpose in writing this short piece is simply to highlight the fact that the growing power crunch has important implications that impact RV park operating costs. We found this park is taking steps to reduce its own power consumption. Lighting in the main office and store is slightly curtailed; certain vending equipment is likely to be discontinued; and interior street lighting is being swapped out for flourescent fixtures. But this alone won't protect the park from huge increases in power costs attributable to RVs plugging in at the site. We think the approach taken here, where power costs have escalated at an astonishing rate, is reasonable. And to the extent power surcharges are based on individual RV usage, as in the weekly rate we've paid, we think it encourages RVers to take reasonable steps to conserve this increasingly precious resource.
How other parks deal with this problem will be interesting to watch. Some may seize upon a relatively minor increase in power rates to make substantial and permanent rate increases. Others may conclude that their rates are presently maxed out, and choose to absorb some cost increases rather than risk a significant decrease in occupancy rates. Somewhere in between lies a more desirable solution. Park owners surely realize the significance of this issue, and we hope they will deal creatively in fashioning fair solutions. For their part, we think RVers too need to realize that the days of cheap power are likely behind us; and that they will need to become more knowledgeable in managing their rig's power consumption efficiently. The rates they'll be paying in the future will reflect their ability to use reasonable energy conservation measures. None of this suggests we should be enjoying the RV lifestyle less. We simply need to be RVing "smarter"...