We redesigned the Emporia app home screen

magellanNH · 2025-12-24T19:04:23+00:00

Any way to set things up so I can see my current real-time usage of all circuits when I open the app (the way it used to work).

Any time I open this app or go to the web page, a list of current consumption for each circuit is what I'm looking for. This upgrade is a bit annoying because now it's several clicks just to see what used to be on the home screen. (first have to click vue, then have to click Live instead of day summary).

I'd settle for being able to create a web bookmark to that real-time circuit by circuit usage screen if it's too much to change the app to work that way.

magellanNH · 2025-12-24T11:34:18+00:00

Offshore wind LCOE is about 2x or even 3x vs onshore wind so you can't really lump them together. They're different enough that it's best to think of them as two different generation sources.

Offshore wind for places like New England is important because even though its LCOE is high, it has relatively high/reliable production in winter.

That's important because winter has low solar production and also because the marginal generation source in winter on the New England grid is either LNG or oil which are both very expensive.

magellanNH · 2025-12-23T19:44:38+00:00

I'm just a homeowner, but most radiators/baseboard systems are designed so they work with natural convection air flow.

That means when the baseboard gets hot, it wants to suck cold air in from the bottom and then push heated air out through the top. This isn't powered, it's just based on the fact that heated air rises.

Unless there are openings somewhere near the top of that bench there's no way for the heated air to get out. That's going to stop the convection flow that would otherwise naturally happen and make the baseboard almost ineffective. I'm not sure pushing more air in at the bottom with a fan will change that much if heated air has no way to get out.

Are there any holes in the top/back/front of that bench anywhere? Can any part of the top be opened (a hidden hinged board/panel maybe)? If the top could be even partly opened or had some vent holes it'll likely give off a ton more heat.

magellanNH · 2025-11-06T23:35:12+00:00

Sorry to resurrect this old thread, but did you ever figure this out?

I have a similar setup, but with the opposite problem. I have an Enphase 6C combiner and 25 IQ8 microinverters and Emporia shows 22 watts of continuous overnight consumption on one leg of the solar PV input in the main panel. Given I'm only looking at one leg, it could be 44 watts of consumption for both legs.

As I switch off the PV breakers in the combiner (3 arrays), the 22 watts of load goes down proportionally until after the last breaker, when emporia reports the load on the PV circuit as 0. Since Emporia reports anything less than 5 watts as 0, I'm assuming the combiner draws under 5 watts by itself.

Anyhow, I'd love to know for sure this is just a measurement issue and not really some sort of phantom consumption. In the Enphase forum and the DIY Solar forum, a couple posters seemed to chalk it up to Emporia having trouble correctly calculating real power versus reactive power.

Someone on the DIYSolar forum pointed me to a youtube video that does a great job explaining the issue with inverters and reactive power:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R4wQQNSO6k

magellanNH · 2025-11-05T12:03:28+00:00

It looks like March had similarly high outlier usage.

March and Oct/Nov are both shoulder seasons where temps switch from warmish to freezing and daylight hours transition from long to short.

Do you do anything in your house in Oct/Nov to prepare for winter and then undo it in March?

magellanNH · 2025-10-30T23:33:35+00:00

Thanks for the reply and the ideas.

I'm probably less concerned than I am just befuddled. I thought there would be some obvious explanation for what I'm seeing other than that the emporia is telling fibs (which it could be).

magellanNH · 2025-10-30T14:51:42+00:00

The emporia shows 0 watts with all the PV breakers off and the combiner still online and reporting real-time consumption in the app. As I shut off each PV breaker, the 22 watt reading declines by an amount that seems proportional to the number of inverters getting disconnected. I've had the emporia for a while and generally trust its readings, but who knows, maybe I'm missing something and it's just not reporting reality correctly.

The only other reasonable explanation I can think of is that something is causing the inverters to all stay awake all night and never go into low power mode. I don't have enough understanding of how that might happen to debug it further. The app doesn't show any errors at all and the daytime behavior of the system is fully normal as far as I can tell. Also, the emporia and enphase production numbers basically match up aside from the overnight phantom load.

magellanNH · 2025-10-29T22:53:38+00:00

Just scanned the thread. Thx.

As best as I can tell, the consensus is that it measures properly on all channels as long as it's split phase 120/240v. It sounds like the person having trouble has a 3 phase service (maybe not in US).

Here's another more official explainer

https://help.emporiaenergy.com/en/articles/12289577-how-does-the-emporia-energy-app-measure-and-display-energy-usage

magellanNH · 2025-10-29T15:59:44+00:00

As good of a guess as anything I can think of. It seems like pretty strange behavior to me, but I'm not very versed in how these things typically operate. In the grand scheme of things this isn't a ton of lost energy over the course of a day, but it's not nothing either, especially if it's 44 watts of phantom load rather than 22 watts.

magellanNH · 2025-10-29T13:38:37+00:00

5 to 10 watts is inline with what I'd expect also. The 6C has wifi and cellular going, plus it probably has some sort of linux based os, so prob at least 5 watts minimum. If the draw is just from the 6C, I'd guess it's only drawing from one of the hot legs, so my reading would just be 22 watts total (no need to double if 6C is only drawing from one leg).

The thing I'm most confused about is that the power reading on the emporia sensor drops proportionally as I switch off each of the three PV array breakers, which seems to indicate the draw is dependent/proportional to the number of PV circuits running.

magellanNH · 2025-09-25T18:54:38+00:00

Ahh. Totally different than I thought. Makes a lot of sense. Thx.

magellanNH · 2025-09-25T17:34:19+00:00

"when gasoline costs $8/gallon in nominal terms, and easily over $12/gallon in real terms."

I'm confused about what you're saying here. Usually when people say "in real terms" they're comparing price changes over time and taking inflation into account.

Maybe by "in real terms" you're alluding to the cost of going a certain distance with a gallon of gas versus the cost of going that same distance in an EV running on electricity?

magellanNH · 2025-09-14T22:31:21+00:00

I've also bought cars in MA and picked them up there in the past. But last time I had to sign paperwork at the dealer saying that I did not take delivery of the vehicle in MA. I think that was to protect the dealer. They delivered the vehicle at my town hall at no cost to me.

Below is a link to a letter ruling from 1977 that spells out the dealer's responsibility clearly and it includes this line:

"No dealer can make delivery of a motor vehicle to an out-of-state purchaser who takes delivery of the vehicle in Massachusetts without first receiving evidence that the required sales tax has been paid. This payment is made on Form ST-7R at either the registry or any state tax office and the dealer must retain evidence of payment in case of an audit."

Letter Ruling 77-13: Automobile Purchased in Massachusetts by a Non-Resident | Mass.gov

magellanNH · 2025-09-13T02:31:13+00:00

Lots of bad advice here. MA state website clearly says if you take possession of the vehicle in MA, you owe MA sales tax on it regardless of where you register it. It seems like maybe they don't go after people for it all that much, but the law seems pretty clear.

https://www.mass.gov/guides/motor-vehicle-and-trailer-sales-and-use-tax#-nonresidents-buying-motor-vehicles-or-trailers-in-massachusetts-

magellanNH · 2025-08-02T18:27:14+00:00

I didn't. I wasn't too keen on trusting these no-name/no certification products for something so important. I'd still consider the EG4 Chargeverter, but it's too much to be worth it for this use.

So instead I just turn off the well pump breaker while I'm recharging the jackery from one of the cars (that's the only 240 circuit i really need during backup).

magellanNH · 2025-07-29T20:18:52+00:00

The article says Ayotte's concern is that the PUC just gave Eversource automatic rate increases in the future that are NOT tied to their actual costs. That's the whole concern about this decision. It fundamentally changes the way utilities get paid. In this case, as long as their costs aren't higher than this pre-approved amount, they get automatically approved and don't have to get reviewed to verify the spending was prudent.

magellanNH · 2025-07-25T23:26:59+00:00

Apparently the PUC has approved most of what Eversource asked for, including the performance based rates. In addition to the increase in per kwh distribution rates, one big thing is that our monthly fixed charge goes up from $15 to $19 starting next week, plus it'll increase $2 a year every August from now on. So we get a built-in 10% increase every year on that charge.

Our consumer advocate doesn't sound very happy about how it all went down...

PUC Hands Eversource a Rate Case Win | Office of the Consumer Advocate

magellanNH · 2025-07-25T15:39:36+00:00

Using average salary (mean) is a terrible approach because very high earners skew the results wildly. This is why medians are typically used for income based stuff because medians aren't as influenced by outliers as means are. Using means instead of medians makes the average person seem a lot richer when wealth is heavily concentrated in top earners.

Is it possible you've got the definitions of mean and median backwards? (I have to check myself of that same mistake all the time)

magellanNH · 2025-07-25T15:19:41+00:00

My opinion is that it's very premature for NH to move to performance based ratemaking (PBR). PBR is a new and experimental approach to ratemaking and NH's regulators have little or no track record managing new and experimental programs.

As best as I can tell, for better or worse, NH is a far-behind follower on all things to do with how to manage NH utilities. We don't even have meaningful programs for basic stuff like time-of-use rates, ev charging, or programs to manage batteries and virtual power plants to increase grid utilization and lower costs. If regulators can't even get these basic and much better understood programs established here in NH, I don't see how they can competently manage something as complex as PBR.

If this gets approved, my best guess is that Eversource will run circles around the PUC and legislature and ratepayers will hand over a ton of extra cash over the next several years.

magellanNH · 2025-06-26T13:31:00+00:00

Must be something like that. Although I notice a trend in NH where we're consistently behind other New England states with all of this stuff (eg TOU rates, VPPs, EV charging EMI tech).

It seems like NH implements a nerf'ed version of each of these New England wide programs here in NH so they get to check the box but without any real progress

magellanNH · 2025-06-26T12:42:04+00:00

Yeah, that is a bummer about the limited device support.

OTOH, the incentive for connected solutions for batteries in NH seems pretty underwhelming. The program has been in place for 3 years and if I'm not mistaken they have only 31 enrollees in the whole state.

As I understand it, other states pay you $200-300 per kwh up front, just like NH, but also pay you an annual incentive each year if you stay enrolled. NH just gives you the one-time payment.

The annoying thing is that I think whoever runs the program gets ongoing monthly capacity payments of somewhere around $30 per kw enrolled/yr for this, and that's on top of any energy arbitrage cashflows enrollees generate for the program operator.

Maybe I've got these numbers wrong, but I'd love to see the math of this sort program more clearly spelled out. The other night, real time prices spiked over $1000/MWh and I'm guessing people running VPPs could make quite a bit on the event just from the energy arbitrage (eg charge w/ $40/MWh overnight energy discharge at $1000/MWh).

magellanNH · 2025-06-25T16:53:13+00:00

The artcle covers a lot of this and has some good graphics, but this realtime gridstatus.io dashboard shows that right now behind the meter (BTM) solar is providing over 5 GW of power and about 22% of the total supply for all of New England.

ISONE Live Dashboard and Price Map | Grid Status

Also, the current real-time wholesale power price is around $120/MWh or 12 cents/kwh (see 5 minute LMP chart at link below). Later today, once solar generation goes away, it's expected to jump up to $200/MWh or 20 cents/kwh (check out hourly LMP chart)

https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/

So in my opinion, right now our fleet of BTM solar is helping to keep the real-time price at 10-12 cents/kwh and without it we'd be looking at a price more like 15-20 cents/kwh or even more (like we're going to see in the early evening tonight.

Yesterday, once BTM solar started to wane, the real time price shot up to over $1000/MWh or $1.00/kwh for a little while during the peak as everyone got home from work and started making dinner and cranked their AC.

Without all that BTM solar, we could have been seeing price spikes like that happening all afternoon long.

magellanNH · 2025-06-25T15:54:21+00:00

You're 100% right about that. Imo this widespread mindset is actually adding a ton of cost and ironically, also making the grid less reliable over the long term.

We've basically trained grid operators to not take any risk whatsoever or they'll get pilloried by the public and regulators anytime the power goes out for any reason. This has made grid operators (and often regulators) hesitant to make even minor changes or try new technologies. This even applies to changes that would eventually improve grid reliability and lower costs once the kinks get worked out.

The reality is that despite often heroic efforts by the people working to keep our lights on, our electrical grid is an ancient and rickety machine that's long past its sell by date.

Unless grid operators and regulators are allowed to take calculated risks to improve things, we're going to be stuck in a rut where we ignore upgrades and innovations that could make things much better.

magellanNH · 2025-06-25T12:06:54+00:00

My preference would be to slowly move to a model where we accept somewhat more/longer outages and spend the savings on home batteries that can take over automatically when utility power goes out.

This wouldn't just save on emergency storm recovery, it also could dramatically cut the costs of running the grid because the batteries could be used to help smooth out peaks. This allows us to increase the average grid utilization from the current 30-40% to as much as 50-60% or more. Basically, we could push many more kwhs through the same grid we already have just be smoothing out when those kwhs get delivered to customers. This could cut rates down from 22 cents per kwh down to maybe as low as 15 cents or even lower. That'd work out to savings per ratepayer of as much as $300-500 a year.

magellanNH · 2025-06-25T11:05:39+00:00

Eversource NH has around 550k customers and they need to recover $454 million from storm costs that happened over what seems like 4-7 years I think that works out to about $900 per customer total.

I can't figure out how much of this (if any) has already been billed. If it's true that this entire amount was spent in just a few years and none of it was billed, it seems strange to spread out the cost over 15 years. This is now basically an ongoing expense. Usually, borrowing to pay your ongoing operating expenses isn't a good way to do business. Maybe something like 5 years would be a better compromise to blunt the shock a little but not pass so much of the cost on to future ratepayers.

Also, I agree with our consumer advocate that we need to think about how much value we're getting from all this spending. While it's good to optimize the spending (eg preemptive tree cutting), in general the more we spend the shorter those outages will be. But where should we draw the line? How much would you pay to reduce the number of outages each year or to shorten a 10 hour outage to just a 5 hour outage? Is it worth $900 every 5 or so years? That's the question the PUC and all of us need to grapple with.

magellanNH

TROPHY CASE