a problem with electric meters?

[micky]

One of my friends sends me an email about a local state rep who is
preseinting to the Md. Public Service Commission a "case" to allow
people to reject smart meters. Nowhere does it say what kind of
meter, and I'm thinking it might means taximeter or galvanometer, but
I guess it means electric meters. Or gas meters?

Is there any reason to reject one?


BTW, the state rep also has a 2-hour show each week on the local wacko
radio station.

[harry]

"Smart meter" can cover a variety of things.

They may vary the price of electricity at different times.

They might be able to cut you off for non-payment.

They enable the meter to be remotely read (by many technologies not
just by RF) If it is RF they may use the mobile phone network.

They may be able to "load shed" you if there is a electricity supply
shortage problem

They may also function as an export meter if you have a PV array.

It's likely the function will be easily changeable too, so it may mean
something completely different in the future.

[tange...@toyotamail.com]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:35:39 -0400, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

I suppose the electric company would charge you some extra fee because
someone would have to come and read it.

[Jim Elbrecht]

gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:35:39 -0400, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
>wrote:
>

>There are at least three schools of thought
>
>1. they are a radiation hazard since they RF the data back to the host
>2. they are a privacy problem because they can send usage data in real
>time
>3. they do not read low like a 40 year old, worn out mechanical meter
>so you bill will go up.
>
>#3 is probably driving the other two.

Agree-- but you missed
#4 - they are new so they must be evil.

I was surprised that I didn't notice when they replaced my 30yr old
electric meter that I didn't notice a spike.

My water went up a bit when they replaced that 40+ yr old one-- but
not enough to worry about.

Jim

[George]

One of the features of smart meters is they are remotely read.

[George]

On 5/15/2012 7:21 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

>> 1. they are a radiation hazard since they RF the data back to the host
>> 2. they are a privacy problem because they can send usage data in real
>> time
>> 3. they do not read low like a 40 year old, worn out mechanical meter
>> so you bill will go up.
>>
>> #3 is probably driving the other two.
>
> Agree-- but you missed
> #4 - they are new so they must be evil.

My thoughts too.

>
> I was surprised that I didn't notice when they replaced my 30yr old
> electric meter that I didn't notice a spike.

Same here, our old meter was around 30 years old when they replaced it
with a smart meter maybe two years ago. There was no difference in the bill.

[bob haller]

actually its a spying thing, they can pick up conversations in the
home, and send it back over the power line. thank terrorists:)

[Home Guy]

micky wrote:

> One of my friends sends me an email about a local state rep who is
> preseinting to the Md. Public Service Commission a "case" to allow
> people to reject smart meters.
>

> Is there any reason to reject one?

The often-stated case for smart meters (for electricity) is that they
allow for time-of-use billing.

In other words, the cost of electricity changes during the course of a
day, and smart meters allow utility companies to more equitably charge
individual home owers for the electricity they use.

But this represents a false economy when applied on such a small scale
as the individual home.

The REAL unspoken reason for smart meters is that they save manpower
costs (meter-reading costs) for electric utilities.

The main problem is this:

Over the life of the meter, the meter will save the utility company
maybe $100 in meter-reading and other costs (remote turn on/off, etc).
However, this is offset by the up-front cost of buying the meter,
installing the network, billing software, etc. This cost (say, $500
over the life of the meter) will be borne by the home owner through
additional monthly fees.

The real savings (manpower mostly) will be enjoyed by the utility (say,
$100) at the expense of the home owner - a much larger expense (say,
$500) than the utility will gain.

Ordinarily, such a bargain in the commercial / retail marketplace is
more equitable.

For example, a consumer might pay a higher annual cost for one
credit-card over another, where the benefits of the card are perceived
to be worth the extra cost.

Utility companies want smart meters because they reduce their
meter-reading costs, plus they can do more with the meters (remote
disconnect/reconnect, offer pre-paid electicity service, etc).

The time-of-use aspect of billing for residential electricity is bogus.

Electric utilities that supply a given residential customer base always
recoup what they spend to buy electricity by charging the customer base
accordingly. There is no need to figure out, on a house-by-house basis,
who used how many kwh during 9-am to 5-pm (or what-ever). A total kwh
reading per month is sufficient. The differences in use patterns
between houses do not amount to anything worthy of spending $500 to
$1000 for a new meter and related billing infrastructure.

Again, time-of-use electricity billing for residential customers
represents a false economy, when the cost of the metering systems and
software are taken into account.

If those costs are borne mainly or exclusively by the home owner, then
only the utility company wins - and the home owner can never
realistically change their life-style to the point where they time-shift
enough of their electricity use to recoup the extra new costs of paying
for the meter that is imposed on them by the utility.

[Stormin Mormon]

Maybe reprogram your TV remote, too?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e16f6ba3-a1aa-4add...@s5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

[Jon Danniken]

micky wrote:
> One of my friends sends me an email about a local state rep who is
> preseinting to the Md. Public Service Commission a "case" to allow
> people to reject smart meters. Nowhere does it say what kind of
> meter, and I'm thinking it might means taximeter or galvanometer, but
> I guess it means electric meters. Or gas meters?
>
> Is there any reason to reject one?

Among other concerns, they will be used to implement "time of day" and
"demand" price structuring, increasing the cost of residential electicity.
A lot of "greens" are solidly behind this technology as a way to jack up
prices in an effort to reduce electricity usage (and reduce what they see as
the cause of global warming/climate change).

We actually have a fellow in the current election for electric board
commisioner who is running on that exact platform.

Jon

[chaniarts]

again, you're mostly wrong

in the case where the home is generating power during the day, it is
critical to know which way power is going when.

in the case where you have a very new energy efficient home, it is
critical to know the difference in power being used between other nearby
homes when.

[Home Guy]

chaniarts wrote:

> >> Is there any reason to reject one?

> > The REAL unspoken reason for smart meters is that they save
> > manpower costs (meter-reading costs) for electric utilities.
> >

> > The real savings (manpower mostly) will be enjoyed by the utility
> > (say, $100) at the expense of the home owner - a much larger
> > expense (say, $500) than the utility will gain.
> >

> > Utility companies want smart meters because they reduce their
> > meter-reading costs, plus they can do more with the meters
> > (remote disconnect/reconnect, offer pre-paid electicity service,
> > etc).
> >
> > The time-of-use aspect of billing for residential electricity is
> > bogus.
> >

> > Time-of-use electricity billing for residential customers represents

> > a false economy, when the cost of the metering systems and software
> > are taken into account.
> >

> > The home owner can never realistically change their life-style to

> > the point where they time-shift enough of their electricity use to
> > recoup the extra new costs of paying for the meter that is imposed
> > on them by the utility.
>
> again, you're mostly wrong

But you won't speak to these facts will you:

- Utilities are installing meters at the customer's expense that
will cost customers 4 to 8 times what the utility will save
in reduced operating costs (meter-reading mostly).

- home owners are unlikely to shift electricity usage or change
lifestyle to compensate for extra charges designed to cover
the cost of the meter, billing systems, etc.

- Utilities want smart meters to reduce manpower costs (meter
reading, automated connect / disconnect, new services such as
pay-as-you-go, pre-paid use, etc). The utilities are not willing
to pay the full up-front cost of new meters out of their operating
profit, and so they use politics to force new meters on residential
customers AND get new / additional tarrifs or fees imposed on monthly
bills so that customers bankroll the new meters, billing systems, etc.

Now I will address you extremely weak counter-arguments:

> in the case where the home is generating power during the day, it
> is critical to know which way power is going when.

A very big piece of horse-shit. Why?

Because any customer co-gen system will by law have it's own meter and
will feed any power generated by the system back into the grid through
that meter. What-ever meter the customer has for his existing
residential load would remain in-place.

And a second reason why your example is horse-shit is simply the
numbers. The numbers of residential co-gen systems (solar or wind) is
EXTREMELY small, and hardly a factor when considering why TOU meters are
being deployed for residential use.

> in the case where you have a very new energy efficient home, it
> is critical to know the difference in power being used between
> other nearby homes when.

Again, here's where you don't understand what's going on.

If I have an energy-efficient home, I'm already going to use fewer KWH
compared to my neighbor. So if we were both billed only on total
monthly KWH, I would use less electricity, and my bill would be lower
than my neighbor.

Now, if I and my neighbor both have TOU meters and we are billed based
on TOU rates, then if the percentage break-down of our usage is the
same, then there is no advantage to TOU measurements and billing. If we
both consume 25% of our total KWH during prime-time, and 75% of the rest
at "cheap-time", then it makes no difference if we are billed based on
TOU or by flat-rate.

Now if I shift any percentage of my prime-time use to cheap-time, then I
would theoretically benefit if I'm billed under TOU vs flat-rate. The
more I shift, the more I benefit. -> The more my house is energy
efficient, the LESS I benefit. !!

Now, do the math.

Regardless if your house is energy efficient or not.

Unless you are willing to consume NO electricity during prime time, you
will not save enough under TOU metering to compensate for the additional
charges the utility is saddling you with to pay for the fucking meter in
the first place.

That is why it's a false economy.

Same for hybrid or electric cars. An electric car *might* cost you less
to operate on a per-mile basis, but the up-front cost of the batteries
will far exceed the operational savings. It's a false economy.

[HeyBub]

I know maths is hard, but let's see if we can figure this out:

Let's assume a manual meter-read can read, oh, one meter every three
minutes.

At $20/hr, all things considered, it costs the power company about $1/month
to read your meter.

A "smart" meter costs about $200 and about $40 worth of labor to install it.

So, then, for all that, the power company will recoup the expense for buying
and installing the meter in 240 months, about 20 years.

Obviously the power company can't make economic sense with this scenario. I
guess that's why they're charging me a few bucks per month for this shiny
new meter.

Aside:
The power distribution company DID come out and test the pole in my backyard
recently. They dug an access hole about 18" deep around it and bored out a
1/2" plug of wood. I don't know what they did with the plug - maybe sent it
to a lab for testing - but they did nail an aluminum plate about the size of
a fifty-cent piece to the pole with the test date on it.

The power company employee did say he thought the pole in my yard was okay -
it was one of the older ones pressure treated with creosote. It should last
sixty years he opined. He further said the newer poles, those treated with
eco-friendly materials (like extract of arugula), rot out in about a week.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

I think $100/mo is fair.

[Home Guy]

HeyBub wrote:

> At $20/hr, all things considered, it costs the power company about
> $1/month to read your meter.
>
> A "smart" meter costs about $200 and about $40 worth of labor to
> install it.

I don't buy your estimated price of $200.

> So, then, for all that, the power company will recoup the expense
> for buying and installing the meter in 240 months, about 20 years.
>
> Obviously the power company can't make economic sense with this
> scenario.

No - that's why they have added either completely new line-items on your
bill, or have increased existing ones.

> I guess that's why they're charging me a few bucks per month for
> this shiny new meter.

And now tell me how that's working out for the customer.

> Aside:

(stuff about a pole)

What's that got to do with this discussion?

[micky]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:35:39 -0400, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>One of my friends sends me an email about a local state rep who is
>preseinting to the Md. Public Service Commission a "case" to allow
>people to reject smart meters. Nowhere does it say what kind of
>meter, and I'm thinking it might means taximeter or galvanometer, but
>I guess it means electric meters. Or gas meters?
>
>Is there any reason to reject one?

Well, thanks all. Although money is a problem for her -- iirc she
told me they raised her health insurance premium a lot while cutting
benefits -- I didn 't think her objection was just to the money. I
don't know if they have said how much money they'll be charging, if
any.

>
>
>BTW, the state rep also has a 2-hour show each week on the local wacko
>radio station.

I think it's on Saturday night, and when I'm not doing anything else,
there is certainly nothing else on tv or the radio, so maybe I'll
isten to see if he's a wacko too.

Late at night the station has George Nuri (sp?) for 3 or 4 hours, who
often doesn't say much, but his callers are sure wackos.

[bob haller]

On May 16, 1:29 am, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:

> On Tue, 15 May 2012 20:37:20 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >A "smart" meter costs about $200 and about $40 worth of labor to install it.
>

> How is that going to be $40?
> If it took 3 minutes to read the meter, it was about a minute longer
> to replace it. The guy had the power off for about 10 seconds and it
> took another 10 seconds to wrap the ring around it and clip on the
> seal. He was doing them 4 at a time (each trip from the truck)
> I bet they do 16-20 an hour.
>
> I was in the garage at the time and I tripped the main for him but he
> said he does them hot all of the time, usually without even telling
> the homeowner he was there.

utility companies are required by law in many areas to replace meters
every X years....

i they have to replace them anyway a smart meter is likely a good
choice.

i know a retired meter manager from duquesne light and will ask him
some questions the next time i see him.

he has a retirement business building meter testers

[Jim Elbrecht]

"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

-snip-

>
>I know maths is hard, but let's see if we can figure this out:
>
>Let's assume a manual meter-read can read, oh, one meter every three
>minutes.

Not in my neck of the woods he can't-- and I'm just in the burbs. In
rural areas he might drive 5 minutes between meters.

>
>At $20/hr, all things considered, it costs the power company about $1/month
>to read your meter.

$20/hr? I'll bet it is closer to $100 "all things considered" --
oh, and don't forget the other $100 for the truck he's driving.

>
>A "smart" meter costs about $200 and about $40 worth of labor to install it.
>
>So, then, for all that, the power company will recoup the expense for buying
>and installing the meter in 240 months, about 20 years.
>
>Obviously the power company can't make economic sense with this scenario. I
>guess that's why they're charging me a few bucks per month for this shiny
>new meter.

There are a ton of 'hidden costs' buried in my electric bill-- but the
meter isn't one of them.

>
>Aside:
>The power distribution company DID come out and test the pole in my backyard
>recently. They dug an access hole about 18" deep around it and bored out a
>1/2" plug of wood. I don't know what they did with the plug - maybe sent it
>to a lab for testing - but they did nail an aluminum plate about the size of
>a fifty-cent piece to the pole with the test date on it.

-snip-
Never heard of that one. I'll bet in NY, some guy would come out and
eyeball it from the street and tell you to replace it.

Jim

[HeyBub]

Home Guy wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>> At $20/hr, all things considered, it costs the power company about
>> $1/month to read your meter.
>>
>> A "smart" meter costs about $200 and about $40 worth of labor to
>> install it.
>
> I don't buy your estimated price of $200.
>

So, how much do YOU think they cost?

"Various kinds of smart meters are available and in use around the country.
Depending on its capabilities, a smart meter - at a cost of about $200 per
home - also can play a role in how much information about energy use is made
available to customers and how much money can be saved."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24459145/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/smart-power-meters-track-electricity-use/

>
>> Aside:
>
> (stuff about a pole)
>
> What's that got to do with this discussion?

My apologies. Nothing if all we're discussing are meters; that's why I
prefaced the observation with "Aside". Next time I'll use "OT" instead of
"Aside" so you won't nearly twitch to death.

[HeyBub]

gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 20:37:20 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>

>> A "smart" meter costs about $200 and about $40 worth of labor to
>> install it.
>

> How is that going to be $40?
> If it took 3 minutes to read the meter, it was about a minute longer
> to replace it. The guy had the power off for about 10 seconds and it
> took another 10 seconds to wrap the ring around it and clip on the
> seal. He was doing them 4 at a time (each trip from the truck)
> I bet they do 16-20 an hour.
>

I asked the meter replacement man how many a day he does. He said "about
40." If the company absorbs about $30/hr for his labor ($240/day), that's
six bucks. Then there is the cost for the truck, paperwork, disposing of the
old meter, and other incidentals. My guess of $40 may be high, but not
unreasonably so.

Besides, $40 in the original computation made the numbers come out more
easily than if I had used $7.53.

[HeyBub]

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
>>
>> Aside:
>> The power distribution company DID come out and test the pole in my
>> backyard recently. They dug an access hole about 18" deep around it
>> and bored out a 1/2" plug of wood. I don't know what they did with
>> the plug - maybe sent it to a lab for testing - but they did nail an
>> aluminum plate about the size of a fifty-cent piece to the pole with
>> the test date on it.
> -snip-
> Never heard of that one. I'll bet in NY, some guy would come out and
> eyeball it from the street and tell you to replace it.
>

Sounds like your power company uses the "Necessary Pole Management" system.
When the pole falls over, they replace it.

In my neighborhood, Houston, we had a hurricane four years ago (Hurricane
Yikes). The electrical distribution system was so dilapidated that four
million people were without power for up to ten days! Since then, the local
power distribution company has been beavering away to upgrade and rigorously
maintain the system. It seems like once a month, some tree-trimming truck
comes by whacks the bejesus out of everthing taller than a rose bush.

[micky]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 07:42:10 -0400, Jim Elbrecht <elbr...@email.com>
wrote:

>"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>-snip-
>>
>>I know maths is hard, but let's see if we can figure this out:
>>
>>Let's assume a manual meter-read can read, oh, one meter every three
>>minutes.

Maybe in an apartment building basement he can do that.

>
>Not in my neck of the woods he can't-- and I'm just in the burbs. In
>rural areas he might drive 5 minutes between meters.

I live in a townhouse, and even here I think 3 minutes is unlikely,
even wiithout goofing off. At my house he'd have to move things out
of his way, garbage cans, etc, then squeeze past the motorcycle (1 or
2 minutes) then remove the old one (1 minute) and put in the new one
(1 minute) , then go back to the truck to get another meter (2
minutes, 3 if has to unlock/lock the truck) then go to the next house
1 minute. And he will probably relax for 30 seconds between meters.

So I think we're talking 6 to 9 minutes/meter. Not much more for
single family houses in small to modertate sized lots, except he has
longer to walk to the truck and has to move it more often.

[chaniarts]

i live in a town of 32 square miles with about 2600 residences of all
kinds (houses, ranches, apartments, businesses). it used to take about 8
days by a few people to read all the water meters manually. the town
replaced them all with remote read meters (radio based), and it can be
done in about 1 day by 1 person just by driving down the street.

most of the remote read electric meters being discussed here are
readable without ANY labor costs, as they can be polled from the utility
computers directly.

[Home Guy]

chaniarts wrote:

> most of the remote read electric meters being discussed here are
> readable without ANY labor costs, as they can be polled from the
> utility computers directly.

And if the utility gets home owners to foot the entire bill for the
meters, computers and software, then in this equation we have customers
forking over $500 over the lifespan of the meter just so the utility can
save $100 in meter-reading costs over the same period.

Brilliant economics there.

[Bob F]

I don't know where you live, but there is no "Extra" charge after they changed
the meter to add this feature here in Seattle.

[bob haller]

On May 17, 12:29 pm, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:23:21 -0400, micky <NONONOmis...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 16 May 2012 07:42:10 -0400, Jim Elbrecht <elbre...@email.com>

> >wrote:
>
> >>"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>-snip-
>
> >>>I know maths is hard, but let's see if we can figure this out:
>
> >>>Let's assume a manual meter-read can read, oh, one meter every three
> >>>minutes.
>
> >Maybe in an apartment building basement he can do that.
>
> >>Not in my neck of the woods he can't--  and I'm just in the burbs. In
> >>rural areas he might drive 5 minutes between meters.
>
> >I live in a townhouse, and even here I think 3 minutes is unlikely,
> >even wiithout goofing off.  At my house he'd have to move things out
> >of his way, garbage cans, etc, then squeeze past the motorcycle (1 or
> >2 minutes)  then remove the old one (1 minute) and put in the new one
> >(1 minute) , then go back to the truck to get another meter (2
> >minutes, 3 if has to unlock/lock the truck) then go to the next house
> >1 minute.  And he will probably relax for 30 seconds between meters.
>
> >So I think we're talking 6 to 9 minutes/meter.   Not much more for
> >single family houses in small to modertate sized lots, except he has
> >longer to walk to the truck and has to move it more often.
>

> If you obstruct a meter here you get a nasty note on your door,
> threatening to disconnect the power. Meter readers are usually college
> kids and I think they get paid by the route so they move right along.
> The meter swappers were contractors too so they were not screwing
> around either.
>
> It is probably different in a mobbed up northern union state but the
> meter reader union probably stops the remote readers anyway.

think of the cost per year to read meters. employee, vehicle expense,
workmens comp, social security, retirement etc etc...

the smart meters must save money over their lifetime, and the ability
to disconnect no pay customers saves bucks too

[Ceesar Milan]

"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message news:f3a2ad89-6ea8-4ce7...@w13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

>the smart meters must save money over their lifetime, and the ability
>to disconnect no pay customers saves bucks too

Bingo!

Nothing like a disconnect to motivate even the lasiest of welfare queens up off the couch to go pay their bill.

[Home Guy]

Bob F wrote:

> > And if the utility gets home owners to foot the entire bill for
> > the meters, computers and software, then in this equation we have
> > customers forking over $500 over the lifespan of the meter just
> > so the utility can save $100 in meter-reading costs over the same
> > period.
> >
> > Brilliant economics there.
>
> I don't know where you live, but there is no "Extra" charge after
> they changed the meter to add this feature here in Seattle.

Here are some numbers for my jurisdiction (Ontario, Canada):

http://www.eda-on.ca/eda/edaweb.nsf/0/C132012C8366C33085256F4A0072C976

The startup costs for TOU meters are pegged at $240 / $250 per customer,
and:

"In addition to these considerations, it is estimated that it will
cost about $3.00 per customer per month for the incremental costs
of the billing. Province wide this would be about $12.9M."

If you are not seeing any additional line-item charges on your
electricity bill, and if any of your existing line-item charges
(delivery, infrastructure, etc) haven't been increased, then you can be
sure that the TOU rates you're paying were juggled so that the utility
is recouping an additional few dollars per month for all costs
associated with the TOU meter (cost of meter, installation, cost of
installing / operating communications network, cost of billing
software).

"The EDA believes that distributors should be properly compensated
for the premature retirement of existing meters."

In other words, someone is going to pay for the "loss-of-value" when an
existing (but working) analog meter is replaced by a TOU meter.

"The EDA opposes the creation of additional variance accounts
to implement this initiative."

They don't want customers to see exactly what the smart meter is costing
them?

"The EDA believes that the capital cost of the smart meters and
associated systems should be allowed to be fully recovered within
a timeframe that recognizes the rapid change in technology and in
accordance with proper business principles and be placed in the
rate base."

But they still want utility companies to fully recover the costs of
smart-meter implimentation, and naturally this will have to come from
customers - and in a timely (rapid) manner.

This document:

http://marylandsmartmeterawareness.org/docs/MarylandPSCcomments.pdf

claims that analog meters have a lifespan of 30 to 40 years, while smart
TOU meters have a lifespan of 10 to 20 years.

This industry PR document:

http://ci.ojai.ca.us/vertical/sites/%7B6CAA84A0-9B68-4637-964F-ED4B5D8E7542%7D/uploads/2012_SmartMeter_Ventura_District_Briefing_Packet_FINAL_.pdf

specifies a 20-year lifespan for the "Edison SmartConnect" meter.

This appears to be a professional study of smart-meter implimentation in
5 areas around the world:

http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/ee_case_study__smart_meters.pdf

============
Smart Meters do not necessarily bring environmental benefits. Like many
new technologies, their rollout requires replacing an entire, fully
functional, existing system. Their lifespan is expected to be short, at
only 15 to 20 years (rather than over 30 years for traditional meters)
and they use electricity to run – which requires extra generation to
supply.

The overreaching conclusion of the study is that the policies governing
smart meters, are decisive in limiting or maximizing the positive
impacts of this technology. Smart Meters (AMI) are measuring devices
which send consumption information to the utility using communication
technology at pre-programmed intervals. They will also include more
advanced features such as outage information, two-way communication
capabilities, a remote on/off switch etc.

A fully functional AMI meter, such as those being rolled out in
Australia and California, will have approximately 30 separate
functionalities. Most of these functionalities will primarily benefit
the utility unless expressly employed toward end-consumer programmes
with the support of regulation and supportive market structures.

Main Conclusions of the Report

1) As a technology, (without appropriate regulation) smart meters
provide more benefits to the utilities than to the end consumers.

2) Smart Meters do not benefit the environment without proper
regulation.

3) Smart Meter enabled programmes can provide substantial, long term
societal and environmental benefits if they are placed in their correct
position; namely as a platform for efficiency programmes supported
through appropriate regulation and market structures.

4) There are basic conflicts of interest caused when a utility which
earns off of electricity sales, is asked to lower those sales through
helping consumers lower consumption. Regulation and polity can overcome
this barrier if it takes it into consideration.

5) If the correct structures are in place, and efficiency measures are
rewarded, utilities and private companies tend to exceed the minimal
requirements set by regulators in their drive to maximize the benefits
of the new market structures.

6) Smart Meters and the communication technology required for energy
efficiency programmes are expensive – at least €200 per household. They
are therefore not necessarily appropriate tools for developing nations,
or those were household consumption is low.

7) Regulators should calculate the impact of smart meter rollout,
dynamic pricing structures and new tariffs on vulnerable consumers.

8) Regulators and utilities should take into account that an increase in
costs for consumers should be included only with a method for
controlling those costs, through easily accessible feedback information.
Accurate monthly billing has not been found satisfactory enough by
residential consumers or consumer interest groups.
==================

[micky]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:43:09 -0400, "Ceesar Milan" <ceesar@comcast>
wrote:

Well, I'm not a welfare queen, or a queen of any sort, or even
femaile, but I've neglected to pay my bill. Once the power was
disconnected in the afternoon and I had paid the billl soon after. By
5:30 I became convinced that the work day was over and I wouldn't be
reconnected until the next day. So I cut the seal on meter, took out
the meter, and removed the plastic covers on the 2 or 3 big prongs in
the back of the meter, and recconnected myself.

I was surprised when the Electric Co. guy showed up an hour or two
later. I told him someone else had come and reconnected it, and he
left.

That sounded perfectly reasonable when I said it, but I eventually
concluded that he his job was disconnecting and reconnecting, and for
any location on a given day, only one person had that job. One guy
per region. The fact that he was working to 7:30 or so is what
convinced me. So he knew he was the only one who would come and no
one else had come, but he didn't let on. He also knew I had paid what
I owed.

I knew it would be easy to reconnect, because the first time I was
disconnected, I found the plactic prong covers on the ground weeks
afterwards, and figured out what they were.

When I get a smart meter, I won't be able to do that anymore. ;-(


;(

[Sjouke Burry]

George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:jotiul$usd$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 5/15/2012 6:54 AM, tange...@toyotamail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:35:39 -0400, micky<NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One of my friends sends me an email about a local state rep who is
>>> preseinting to the Md. Public Service Commission a "case" to allow
>>> people to reject smart meters. Nowhere does it say what kind of
>>> meter, and I'm thinking it might means taximeter or galvanometer, but
>>> I guess it means electric meters. Or gas meters?
>>>
>>> Is there any reason to reject one?
>>>
>>>

>>> BTW, the state rep also has a 2-hour show each week on the local
wacko
>>> radio station.
>>

>> I suppose the electric company would charge you some extra fee because
>> someone would have to come and read it.
>>
>

> One of the features of smart meters is they are remotely read.
>
Yes, now a criminal working at a power company can check whether
you are at home, so they can "visit" your home safely......

[willshak]

How would he/she know you are home or away?
Does the meter stop running when you leave the house?
I would think it would be easier for them to check the present occupancy
of the home when they are standing at the meter.

--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

[Sjouke Burry]

willshak <will...@00hvc.rr.com> wrote in news:mvOdnYnHuM5
_aSvSnZ2dnU...@supernews.com:

> Sjouke Burry wrote the following on 5/18/2012 8:19 PM (ET):

>> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:jotiul$usd$1@dont-

When you are out, consumption of power kind of drops off.
when you are sleeping, the same.
When you are on vacation, it drops off for several days.
With some nice plotting software it will make the change in
load pattern obvious, the units proposed in the Netherlands
have a 15 minute sample rate.
Talk about big brother watching you.

[AJL]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 21:18:25 -0400, willshak <will...@00hvc.rr.com>
wrote:

>How would he/she know you are home or away?
>Does the meter stop running when you leave the house?
>I would think it would be easier for them to check the present occupancy
>of the home when they are standing at the meter.

Burglars usually just ring the doorbell to see if anyone's home.
Perhaps a bit low tech, but still, it works just fine...

[HeyBub]

micky wrote:
>
> I knew it would be easy to reconnect, because the first time I was
> disconnected, I found the plactic prong covers on the ground weeks
> afterwards, and figured out what they were.
>
> When I get a smart meter, I won't be able to do that anymore. ;-(
>

Hmm. I've got smart meters. When I requested a temporary disconnect, a guy
came out and installed those plastic prong covers.

Wonder what's up with that...

[Jim Yanik]

Sjouke Burry <s@b> wrote in
news:XnsA05817B9EF72Bsj...@213.75.12.10:

to answer the original question,"smart meters" are electric meters for
homes that monitor your power usage continuously and keep record of how
much power is used at what times of the day and night,periodically read
remotely by the power company.

So they have a detailed record of YOUR lifestyle,when you do things that
use power. you may not like that data being accumulated and available to
gov't officials.(and maybe private companies too. It's data that is worth
something,thus salable.)

they may also have the capability to remotely CONTROL(shut off) some of
your home's appliances to aid the power company in load managment.

You may not like the power company turning off your AC,water heater,or
washer-dryer at peak demand times.

I'm not sure if these will also turn off electric car chargers.

and you won't KNOW when these items are off....there will not be any
announcement when it occurs.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[micky]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 21:18:28 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

Very good question. Maybe they don't trust the electronics.

I just got an email today from BGE and it says the smart meterrs will
be installed within 3 years. Maybe when that happens I should write
down whatever is on the metal seal, so I can tell if they've removed
it again. I dont think I'll need the disconnect you wanted,
however.

[micky]

At night I leave a light on when I go out. If I'm home, I play the
radio, maybe 10 watts. Sometimes the TV -- isn't that 50 watts for a
12" color tv.

>when you are sleeping, the same.

If I'm sleeping at home, I'm home.

>When you are on vacation, it drops off for several days.
>With some nice plotting software it will make the change in
>load pattern obvious, the units proposed in the Netherlands
>have a 15 minute sample rate.
>Talk about big brother watching you.

That assumes anyone would want to do that for me. A burglar would be
better off going to a fancier n'hood. And I'll have my own burglar
alarm up and running again soon. That only uses about 10 watts iirc,
so he won't know until he sets it off.

[Tomsic]

"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:qJOdnXn9IpNqnyrS...@earthlink.com...

I've never seen anything in widespread use that couldn't be hacked. It just
means you'll have to know something about smart meters and how they work
rather than how to use a pair of pliers.

Tomsic

[Stormin Mormon]

Maybe the people who run Mom's Gas and snacks
can figure out how to get the program code for
Pop's Fuel and Munchies, and shut down their
meter, to put em out of business?

Middle of the summer, Rachel, who works for
Progressive Gas and Electric shuts down the meter
of her ex boyfriend, Martin, right in the middle of
Martin's football game?

Right at the peak of the election, Progressive Gas
and Electric shuts down the meters, at the Republican
and the Tea party offices?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Tomsic" <N...@no.net> wrote in message news:jp82ik$2kt$1...@dont-email.me...

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On 19 May 2012 01:31:50 GMT, Sjouke Burry <s@b> wrote:

My power use varies more from day to day when I'm home than it does
between home and away.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 22:19:45 -0500, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov>
wrote:

A smart METER cannot load shed - it cannot selectively control loads.
A "smart center" can. We don't have them yet in Ontario, and I can't
see them coming for quite some time as they will rquire TOTAL RETROFIT
of EVERY service panel to make them work. The electrical utility won't
pay for it - and no provinvial government that mandates the homeowner
pays for it will EVER be re-elected.

[Hell Toupee]

On 5/21/2012 11:45 PM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

> On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:15:02 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>
>>
>> A smart METER cannot load shed - it cannot selectively control loads.
>> A "smart center" can. We don't have them yet in Ontario, and I can't
>> see them coming for quite some time as they will rquire TOTAL RETROFIT
>> of EVERY service panel to make them work. The electrical utility won't
>> pay for it - and no provinvial government that mandates the homeowner
>> pays for it will EVER be re-elected.
>

> You are right, the meter has nothing to do with load sheading. I had
> that in my condo for a while and it involves a sealed control box that
> intercepts your feeds to the selected equipment.
> They installed for free but when they stopped the program they
> abandoned the equipment in place and I would have had to pay to have
> it removed.
> The HVAC guys ripped it out when I replaced the A/C unit.

Our local utility has offered that as an option for decades. If you
join the program, they install the switch on your a/c unit. It cycles
the a/c off and on at 15-20 minute intervals. In return, you get a 15%
discount on your electric bill from June through September. During
peak demand (10-15 days a year), they remotely activate the switches

As for all the fearmongering about smart meters and their mythical
health effects, it's hard to take that seriously when the very people
screeching about it don't. The majority of them think nothing about
using their cellphones and other radio frequency-employing convenience
devices. As for the supposed privacy issues, public and private
organizations already have access to so much household and personal
data, it wouldn't make much difference. Your local utility can provide
you with a spreadsheet showing energy consumption by household so you
can compare your usage to your neighbors. Smart meters would only
fine-tune the data by plotting usage against time.

[Gordon Burditt]

> The often-stated case for smart meters (for electricity) is that they
> allow for time-of-use billing.

I thought one of the cases for smart meters was that they allowed
the utility to avoid having to build more generating capacity for
peak loads and replace it with "greenouts": shutting off heavy loads
in a house such as heating/air conditioning, water heaters, clothes
washers/ dryers, etc. without shutting off the whole house. It's
also one of the reasons for "smart appliances". This probably saves
the utility a lot of money. It still amounts to Unreliable Service(tm)
but they get to call it something else.

What they don't tell you is that the time they will shut off the air
conditioning is when it's 87 inside (with the thermostat set something
lower, it doesn't really matter how much lower because the A/C can't
keep up) and 108 outside (yes, this is in Texas).

> In other words, the cost of electricity changes during the course of a
> day, and smart meters allow utility companies to more equitably charge
> individual home owers for the electricity they use.

TXU is now advertising a plan you can switch to "nights are free".
I think it's more of a gimmick to get people to switch electric
providers than anything else. But anyone taking that plan will
want to switch optional use (like clothes washers/dryers) to whatever
hours are considered "night".


> But this represents a false economy when applied on such a small scale
> as the individual home.
>
> The REAL unspoken reason for smart meters is that they save manpower
> costs (meter-reading costs) for electric utilities.

I think removing the need to build generating capacity saves them more.

[Jim Yanik]

gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote in news:apKdnW-
o0YZWb13SnZ2...@posted.internetamerica:

>> The often-stated case for smart meters (for electricity) is that they
>> allow for time-of-use billing.

And more....

>
> I thought one of the cases for smart meters was that they allowed
> the utility to avoid having to build more generating capacity for
> peak loads and replace it with "greenouts": shutting off heavy loads
> in a house such as heating/air conditioning, water heaters, clothes
> washers/ dryers, etc. without shutting off the whole house. It's
> also one of the reasons for "smart appliances". This probably saves
> the utility a lot of money. It still amounts to Unreliable Service(tm)
> but they get to call it something else.
>
> What they don't tell you is that the time they will shut off the air
> conditioning is when it's 87 inside (with the thermostat set something
> lower, it doesn't really matter how much lower because the A/C can't
> keep up) and 108 outside (yes, this is in Texas).
>
>> In other words, the cost of electricity changes during the course of a
>> day, and smart meters allow utility companies to more equitably charge
>> individual home owers for the electricity they use.

"more EQUITABLY"? how is that "more equal",charging different rates for
different times of the day?
IMO,that is just a revenue scam. Generates more money and discourages
people from running AC or heavy appliances at certain times.

>
> TXU is now advertising a plan you can switch to "nights are free".
> I think it's more of a gimmick to get people to switch electric
> providers than anything else. But anyone taking that plan will
> want to switch optional use (like clothes washers/dryers) to whatever
> hours are considered "night".
>
>
>> But this represents a false economy when applied on such a small scale
>> as the individual home.
>>
>> The REAL unspoken reason for smart meters is that they save manpower
>> costs (meter-reading costs) for electric utilities.
>

I already have a meter that is remotely read.
but it's only read once a month,and doesn't keep track of WHEN I'm using
power.

> I think removing the need to build generating capacity saves them more.
>
>

it's not that many utilities need to build more capacity,it's that Comrade
Obama is forcing many coal plants to shut down. It's part of his attack on
the US economy,punishing the "evil wealthy America" by lowering our
standard of living.

Just look at the big picture. connect the dots.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:35:34 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>Smart meters have nothing to do with selectively shedding loads.
>You need equipment in each of those branch circuits to do that.
>They can do metering by time of day.

What the smart meter does do, is give the PC a data link into your home, which
*can* be used for load shedding.

>I also doubt they allow the PoCo to shut off the power remotely. That
>would require a pair of triacs inside the meter that could handle
>200a. The I2R losses of those triacs would melt the meter base.

AIUI, some do it. It's not likely using triacs, though. 250W, or so, would
make the meter a tad warm. ;-)

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:16:26 -0500, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:

>gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote in news:apKdnW-
>o0YZWb13SnZ2...@posted.internetamerica:
>
>>> The often-stated case for smart meters (for electricity) is that they
>>> allow for time-of-use billing.
>
>And more....
>>
>> I thought one of the cases for smart meters was that they allowed
>> the utility to avoid having to build more generating capacity for
>> peak loads and replace it with "greenouts": shutting off heavy loads
>> in a house such as heating/air conditioning, water heaters, clothes
>> washers/ dryers, etc. without shutting off the whole house. It's
>> also one of the reasons for "smart appliances". This probably saves
>> the utility a lot of money. It still amounts to Unreliable Service(tm)
>> but they get to call it something else.
>>
>> What they don't tell you is that the time they will shut off the air
>> conditioning is when it's 87 inside (with the thermostat set something
>> lower, it doesn't really matter how much lower because the A/C can't
>> keep up) and 108 outside (yes, this is in Texas).
>>
>>> In other words, the cost of electricity changes during the course of a
>>> day, and smart meters allow utility companies to more equitably charge
>>> individual home owers for the electricity they use.
>
>"more EQUITABLY"? how is that "more equal",charging different rates for
>different times of the day?

Because incremental kWh cost more than those already on line. If the peaks
can be clipped, less capacity is necessary.

>IMO,that is just a revenue scam. Generates more money and discourages
>people from running AC or heavy appliances at certain times.

...and why would those "certain times" be important?

>>
>> TXU is now advertising a plan you can switch to "nights are free".
>> I think it's more of a gimmick to get people to switch electric
>> providers than anything else. But anyone taking that plan will
>> want to switch optional use (like clothes washers/dryers) to whatever
>> hours are considered "night".
>>
>>
>>> But this represents a false economy when applied on such a small scale
>>> as the individual home.
>>>
>>> The REAL unspoken reason for smart meters is that they save manpower
>>> costs (meter-reading costs) for electric utilities.
>>
>
>I already have a meter that is remotely read.
>but it's only read once a month,and doesn't keep track of WHEN I'm using
>power.

Yet. ;-)

>> I think removing the need to build generating capacity saves them more.
>>
>>
>it's not that many utilities need to build more capacity,it's that Comrade
>Obama is forcing many coal plants to shut down. It's part of his attack on
>the US economy,punishing the "evil wealthy America" by lowering our
>standard of living.
>
>Just look at the big picture. connect the dots.

I thought he was. ;-)

[Gordon Burditt]

>>> In other words, the cost of electricity changes during the course of a
>>> day, and smart meters allow utility companies to more equitably charge
>>> individual home owers for the electricity they use.

I've heard the same argument about "equitable distribution of costs" to
argue for everyone having a toll booth at the end of their driveway.

> "more EQUITABLY"? how is that "more equal",charging different rates for
> different times of the day?
> IMO,that is just a revenue scam. Generates more money and discourages
> people from running AC or heavy appliances at certain times.

That's exactly what they want to do: spread out the peak load.
Although it's hard to convince people to run A/C only at night, it
might be possible to move uses like clothes washing and drying, hot
water, and perhaps some cooking.

>> I think removing the need to build generating capacity saves them more.
>>
>>
> it's not that many utilities need to build more capacity,it's that Comrade

If you had rolling blackouts in your area at any time during the
past few years not caused by catastrophic problems like tornadoes,
floods, and hurricanes (these don't usually cause *rolling* blackouts
unless one hit some generators), you need more generating capacity
in your area. That seems to happen fairly often during really hot days
in summer and occasionally during really cold evenings in winter.

> Obama is forcing many coal plants to shut down.

It doesn't matter WHY they need more generating capacity, they still
need it. And smart meters were being planned long before Obama was
elected. Rolling blackouts are not new with Obama, either.

[dpb]

...
> ... Rolling blackouts are not new with Obama, either.

But if the EPA reg's put into place on his watch actually go into effect
the number and duration will skyrocket like nothing ever seen in the US
before. :(

--

[HeyBub]

gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Smart meters have nothing to do with selectively shedding loads.
> You need equipment in each of those branch circuits to do that.
> They can do metering by time of day.
>

> I also doubt they allow the PoCo to shut off the power remotely. That
> would require a pair of triacs inside the meter that could handle
> 200a. The I2R losses of those triacs would melt the meter base.

Oh, they can do it.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Sure, but a triac has about a 1.4V "ON" voltage, probably higher at these
currents. At 200A, that's 280W. Number one, that's wasted power, and two,
it's a *lot* of heat to get out of the meter. Can, but does?

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:12:11 -0500, gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon
Burditt) wrote:

>> The often-stated case for smart meters (for electricity) is that they
>> allow for time-of-use billing.
>
>I thought one of the cases for smart meters was that they allowed
>the utility to avoid having to build more generating capacity for
>peak loads and replace it with "greenouts": shutting off heavy loads
>in a house such as heating/air conditioning, water heaters, clothes
>washers/ dryers, etc. without shutting off the whole house. It's
>also one of the reasons for "smart appliances". This probably saves
>the utility a lot of money. It still amounts to Unreliable Service(tm)
>but they get to call it something else.
>

No, smart METERS cannot do that.

>What they don't tell you is that the time they will shut off the air
>conditioning is when it's 87 inside (with the thermostat set something
>lower, it doesn't really matter how much lower because the A/C can't
>keep up) and 108 outside (yes, this is in Texas).

A smart METER cannot selectively shut off, or shed, loads. A smart
"center" can (load center - or service panel)

>
>> In other words, the cost of electricity changes during the course of a
>> day, and smart meters allow utility companies to more equitably charge
>> individual home owers for the electricity they use.
>
>TXU is now advertising a plan you can switch to "nights are free".
>I think it's more of a gimmick to get people to switch electric
>providers than anything else. But anyone taking that plan will
>want to switch optional use (like clothes washers/dryers) to whatever
>hours are considered "night".
>

As we now do with the 3 level charging - run the heavy, optional stuff
in the low charge "night" period.

>
>> But this represents a false economy when applied on such a small scale
>> as the individual home.
>>

Not if every home does the same thing. It can ammount to several large
power stations not needing to be built.

>> The REAL unspoken reason for smart meters is that they save manpower
>> costs (meter-reading costs) for electric utilities.
>

At the cost of significant investment in technology - so no, I have
to disagree that it is "the REAL" reason. Remote reading could be
added to a standard meter, or "customer read" with quarterly or
by-annual "agent read" to verify honesty can also be used - and have
been in several areas.

>I think removing the need to build generating capacity saves them more.

Most definitely.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 11:16:26 -0500, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov>
wrote:

>gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote in news:apKdnW-
>o0YZWb13SnZ2...@posted.internetamerica:
>
>>> The often-stated case for smart meters (for electricity) is that they
>>> allow for time-of-use billing.
>
>And more....
>>
>> I thought one of the cases for smart meters was that they allowed
>> the utility to avoid having to build more generating capacity for
>> peak loads and replace it with "greenouts": shutting off heavy loads
>> in a house such as heating/air conditioning, water heaters, clothes
>> washers/ dryers, etc. without shutting off the whole house. It's
>> also one of the reasons for "smart appliances". This probably saves
>> the utility a lot of money. It still amounts to Unreliable Service(tm)
>> but they get to call it something else.
>>
>> What they don't tell you is that the time they will shut off the air
>> conditioning is when it's 87 inside (with the thermostat set something
>> lower, it doesn't really matter how much lower because the A/C can't
>> keep up) and 108 outside (yes, this is in Texas).
>>
>>> In other words, the cost of electricity changes during the course of a
>>> day, and smart meters allow utility companies to more equitably charge
>>> individual home owers for the electricity they use.
>
>"more EQUITABLY"? how is that "more equal",charging different rates for
>different times of the day?
>IMO,that is just a revenue scam. Generates more money and discourages
>people from running AC or heavy appliances at certain times.
>>

No- it is strictly supply and demand pricing. By charging more when
more power is used, and less when less is used, the actual cost of
generating capacity is more equally spread across the units of power
consumed. To have the CAPACITY to supply more power at peak times
means building more CAPACITY, which is wasted when the demand is low.
Much more sensible to equalize demand so unused capacity is used, and
no extra capacity needs to be built.
Remember, AC power cannot be stored for later use, andfiring up and
shutting off generator capacity is NOT simple, or cheap.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 15:21:25 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

SOME can do it. There ARE smart meters in use, world-wide, that only
supply power when you have a credit balance. When your credit runs
out, the power goes off - and you go to the meter with your credit or
debit card, and "recharge" the meter to turn the lights back on.

That is NOT the kind of "smart meter" being installed by MOST local
power authorities in Canada and the USA

[bob haller]

> SOME can do it. There ARE smart meters in use, world-wide, that only
> supply power when you have a credit balance. When your credit runs
> out, the power goes off - and you go to the meter with your credit or
> debit card, and "recharge" the meter to turn the lights back on.
>
>  That is NOT the kind of "smart meter" being installed by MOST local
> power authorities in Canada and the USA

my dad lives in phoenix, there are controls on their AC and water
heater to shed loads at peak times.

another phoenix realtive has and likes the pre paid card for electric.
she is fiancially challenged and it works for her......

powering off a entire home, like the credit challenged, is pretty
simple using a contactor, a high capacity relay. they are pretty cheap

[Jim Yanik]

gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote in

news:7c2dneEYD-Mqu1zS...@posted.internetamerica:

>>>> In other words, the cost of electricity changes during the course
>>>> of a day, and smart meters allow utility companies to more
>>>> equitably charge individual home owers for the electricity they
>>>> use.
>
> I've heard the same argument about "equitable distribution of costs"
> to argue for everyone having a toll booth at the end of their
> driveway.
>
>> "more EQUITABLY"? how is that "more equal",charging different rates
>> for different times of the day?
>> IMO,that is just a revenue scam. Generates more money and discourages
>> people from running AC or heavy appliances at certain times.
>
> That's exactly what they want to do: spread out the peak load.
> Although it's hard to convince people to run A/C only at night, it
> might be possible to move uses like clothes washing and drying, hot
> water, and perhaps some cooking.

that STILL doesn't make it "equitable",or "more equal".that's just
Newspeak. a SNOW JOB for the naive and gullible.

>
>
>>> I think removing the need to build generating capacity saves them
>>> more.
>>>
>>>
>> it's not that many utilities need to build more capacity,it's that
>> Comrade
>
> If you had rolling blackouts in your area at any time during the
> past few years not caused by catastrophic problems like tornadoes,
> floods, and hurricanes (these don't usually cause *rolling* blackouts
> unless one hit some generators), you need more generating capacity
> in your area. That seems to happen fairly often during really hot
> days in summer and occasionally during really cold evenings in winter.

that is due more to bad planning and local opposition to electric plants
than anything else.(the "green movemnt,the ecocommunists)
BUT,it's -fact- that Comrade Obama's EPA rules are shuttng down coal fired
plants and reducing capacity.He has a goal.

"once is accidental,twice is coincidence,three times is enemy action."
Comrade Obama blocked nuclear power by closing Yucca Mountain,is going
after coal via EPA,has blocked Gulf and ANWR oil drilling,and is now going
after fracking,doing everything possible to block US oil production. He
killed the Keystone XL pipeline. Coal,oil,and nuclear is over 70% of US
energy sources.
See a pattern here? there's a concerted effort by Comrade Obama to reduce
US energy supplies,which DIRECTLY diminishes the US economy.
It's all part of his efforts to weaken the US economically,politically,and
militarily.

>
>> Obama is forcing many coal plants to shut down.
>
> It doesn't matter WHY they need more generating capacity, they still
> need it. And smart meters were being planned long before Obama was
> elected. Rolling blackouts are not new with Obama, either.
>
>

if we didn't have a FEDGOV intent on blocking US energy sources,we would
not need "smart meters".
ISTR that the energy Dept. was created to IMPROVE US energy supplies,not
stifle them.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 14:55:34 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>> SOME can do it. There ARE smart meters in use, world-wide, that only
>> supply power when you have a credit balance. When your credit runs
>> out, the power goes off - and you go to the meter with your credit or
>> debit card, and "recharge" the meter to turn the lights back on.
>>
>>  That is NOT the kind of "smart meter" being installed by MOST local
>> power authorities in Canada and the USA
>
>my dad lives in phoenix, there are controls on their AC and water

>heater to shed loads at peak times. -
smart center

[Stormin Mormon]

C'mon, quit with the racist crap. Remember, women and Democrats read this
list.

They are rolling diversitouts, now.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message news:jpra44$mme$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 20:29:33 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61***spam...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>C'mon, quit with the racist crap. Remember, women and Democrats read this
>list.
>
>They are rolling diversitouts, now.

I liked the term "rolling greenouts". Perfect!

[Gordon Burditt]

>>I thought one of the cases for smart meters was that they allowed
>>the utility to avoid having to build more generating capacity for
>>peak loads and replace it with "greenouts": shutting off heavy loads
>>in a house such as heating/air conditioning, water heaters, clothes
>>washers/ dryers, etc. without shutting off the whole house. It's
>>also one of the reasons for "smart appliances". This probably saves
>>the utility a lot of money. It still amounts to Unreliable Service(tm)
>>but they get to call it something else.
>>
> No, smart METERS cannot do that.

TXU (in Texas) claims that a smart thermostat they sell communicates
with the smart meter and allows you (via their web page) or them
to shut off your A/C for what they claim will be 15 to 45 minutes
during peak load periods. It's been available for at least a year.
I don't have one so I haven't seen it work, or know how often the
turnoff is used. But customers can (have to?) use the web page to
program the thermostat, so the remote setting ability has to work
even if it's not used against the wishes of the customer (yet).

I have seen working the web page that shows you readings of consumption
every 15 minutes, with the latest reading 24-48 hours old. (In other
words, on day X at 12:01AM, the readings for day X-2 appear).

>>What they don't tell you is that the time they will shut off the air
>>conditioning is when it's 87 inside (with the thermostat set something
>>lower, it doesn't really matter how much lower because the A/C can't
>>keep up) and 108 outside (yes, this is in Texas).
>
> A smart METER cannot selectively shut off, or shed, loads. A smart
> "center" can (load center - or service panel)

The load center is inside each smart appliance. If it's got some
sort of electronic timer or thermostat it has to have a way for a
low-power signal to switch the heavy-power-consumption part on and
off anyway. Or, in the case of heating/air conditioning, inside
the smart web-enabled thermostat. The smart meter here is being
used as a communication interface.

A smart METER can also act as a communications conduit between your
electric company and your appliances (many of these meters in the
USA use Zigbee radio for the last hop) and therefore let the electric
company tell your appliances to shut off. The same applies to the
smart thermostat that they are selling, but it can also not only
turn it on or off, but change the temperature setting.

TXU also has a portion on its smart meter web page where you can
register up to 5 "HAN" (Home Area Network) devices associated with
your meter. I'd love to see a sample of what people with these
devices can get on the web page.

I'm *hoping* that there is a little security in this, so the electric
company won't talk (via smart meter) to any devices on your meter
besides the ones with the MAC addresses you have registered. It
also lets you claim your devices and the guy in the apartment next
door (with the meter 1 foot from yours on the outside wall) claim
his. That's no protection against something that passively listens,
though. I'm also pretty sure that there's something in the design
that allows the electric company to see any HAN device broadcasting
data close to the meter, registered or not.

Apparently by registering the device, you can get statistics from
that device - run times, perhaps even power used, integrated into
the web page. Of course, the electric company gets these also.
You get to give the device a "friendly" name like "clothes washer",
"bedroom AC window unit" or whatever. I suspect that the HAN
interface includes something that allows asking "what are you?" and
getting back device type, manufacturer, model, version, and other
info. That's been available for USB, PCI, and lots of other computer
peripherals for years.

>>> In other words, the cost of electricity changes during the course of a
>>> day, and smart meters allow utility companies to more equitably charge
>>> individual home owers for the electricity they use.

It doesn't really do that much good unless the individual home
owners *KNOW* about the changing prices and *REACT* to it. If you
make it too confusing, they won't. Certain proposals for
traffic-load-sensitive tolls on toll roads have this problem. I
haven't heard anything definite (there should be signs at the
entrance to the toll road) indicating that the per-mile toll charge
is less than the value of the pink slip on my car.

>>TXU is now advertising a plan you can switch to "nights are free".
>>I think it's more of a gimmick to get people to switch electric
>>providers than anything else. But anyone taking that plan will
>>want to switch optional use (like clothes washers/dryers) to whatever
>>hours are considered "night".

I wonder what TXU would do if someone, or a few people, started
abusing the hell out of this: they spend 8 hours of "night" charging
batteries (free), and disconnect after that, then spend 16 hours
of "day" using no grid power and discharging the batteries. (There's
still a customer charge of something like $5, so the monthly bill
won't quite be zero). Would they object, or encourage them?

> As we now do with the 3 level charging - run the heavy, optional stuff
> in the low charge "night" period.
>>
>>> But this represents a false economy when applied on such a small scale
>>> as the individual home.
>>>
> Not if every home does the same thing. It can ammount to several large
> power stations not needing to be built.
>>> The REAL unspoken reason for smart meters is that they save manpower
>>> costs (meter-reading costs) for electric utilities.
>>
> At the cost of significant investment in technology - so no, I have
> to disagree that it is "the REAL" reason. Remote reading could be
> added to a standard meter,

I believe the local *water* utility has done this. They may still have
to drive down the street once a month.

[NotMe]

<cl...@snyder.on.ca>

<snip>

>>>
> Not if every home does the same thing. It can ammount to several large
> power stations not needing to be built.
>>> The REAL unspoken reason for smart meters is that they save manpower
>>> costs (meter-reading costs) for electric utilities.
>>
> At the cost of significant investment in technology - so no, I have
> to disagree that it is "the REAL" reason. Remote reading could be
> added to a standard meter, or "customer read" with quarterly or
> by-annual "agent read" to verify honesty can also be used - and have
> been in several areas.

Cost of smart meters in this area are an add on, monthly, line item fee to
the customer bill.

No real savings because the other meters (gas and water) are still read
manually.

I also expect the fee to remain long after the cost of the meter is
recoverd.

[NotMe]

"Gordon Burditt" <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote in message
news:1tKdnRlmX8J3G1zS...@posted.internetamerica...

>>>I thought one of the cases for smart meters was that they allowed
>>>the utility to avoid having to build more generating capacity for
>>>peak loads and replace it with "greenouts": shutting off heavy loads
>>>in a house such as heating/air conditioning, water heaters, clothes
>>>washers/ dryers, etc. without shutting off the whole house. It's
>>>also one of the reasons for "smart appliances". This probably saves
>>>the utility a lot of money. It still amounts to Unreliable Service(tm)
>>>but they get to call it something else.
>>>
>> No, smart METERS cannot do that.
>
> TXU (in Texas) claims that a smart thermostat they sell communicates
> with the smart meter and allows you (via their web page) or them
> to shut off your A/C for what they claim will be 15 to 45 minutes
> during peak load periods. It's been available for at least a year.
> I don't have one so I haven't seen it work, or know how often the
> turnoff is used. But customers can (have to?) use the web page to
> program the thermostat, so the remote setting ability has to work
> even if it's not used against the wishes of the customer (yet).

In our part of Texas the service also has a monthly fee unrelated to the
cost of providing the service.

[Home Guy]

NotMe wrote:

> Cost of smart meters in this area are an add on, monthly, line item
> fee to the customer bill.

See?

I told you so.

I told you people that these new smart-meters are costing home-owners an
extra $250 - $500 over the course of the life of the meter, while
conveying a $100 benefit in manpower cost-reduction to the utilities.
That's why it's a false economy.

If given the choice, I'd gladly make a one-time $100 payment to my
utility to pay for meter-reading for the next 10 years if it meant that
they didn't tack on an extra $5 a month for the "privledge" or "benefit"
of a smart meter.

> No real savings because the other meters (gas and water) are still
> read manually.

It's coming.

Mark my words - smart gas meters are coming. And they'll spin some
crock-of-shit argument for the need for time-of-use metering for natural
gas as the reason why it's needed for the residential market, when they
(just like the electric utilities) just want to reduce their
meter-reading costs - and not much else.

> I also expect the fee to remain long after the cost of the meter
> is recoverd.

Smart meters are more expensive - and have about half the life of
conventional analog wheel meters.

But those pesky software companies will charge utilites a fortune for
"needed" updates for the billing software for these smart meters. It's
a cash-cow for them too.

[George]

On 5/27/2012 1:37 AM, NotMe wrote:
> <cl...@snyder.on.ca>
>
> <snip>
>>>>
>> Not if every home does the same thing. It can ammount to several large
>> power stations not needing to be built.
>>>> The REAL unspoken reason for smart meters is that they save manpower
>>>> costs (meter-reading costs) for electric utilities.
>>>
>> At the cost of significant investment in technology - so no, I have
>> to disagree that it is "the REAL" reason. Remote reading could be
>> added to a standard meter, or "customer read" with quarterly or
>> by-annual "agent read" to verify honesty can also be used - and have
>> been in several areas.
>
> Cost of smart meters in this area are an add on, monthly, line item fee to
> the customer bill.

No additional charge here.

>
> No real savings because the other meters (gas and water) are still read
> manually.
>

Our gas supplier previously fitted remote readers on the registers of
inside meters. Then maybe 4 years ago they retrofitted all of them.
There is no additional charge. The water utility put remote readers on
meters maybe 5 years ago. No additional charge for that either.

[George]

On 5/15/2012 10:52 AM, Jon Danniken wrote:
> micky wrote:
>> One of my friends sends me an email about a local state rep who is
>> preseinting to the Md. Public Service Commission a "case" to allow
>> people to reject smart meters. Nowhere does it say what kind of
>> meter, and I'm thinking it might means taximeter or galvanometer, but
>> I guess it means electric meters. Or gas meters?
>>
>> Is there any reason to reject one?
>
> Among other concerns, they will be used to implement "time of day" and
> "demand" price structuring, increasing the cost of residential electicity.
> A lot of "greens" are solidly behind this technology as a way to jack up
> prices in an effort to reduce electricity usage (and reduce what they see as
> the cause of global warming/climate change).


You mean just like commercial users who have had those options for a
really long time? For example I sometimes work at a facility that has
induction heaters. They can run them during the day for the regular
electric rate or run them off peak at a very reduced rate. So they run
those lines in the evening.

That way it is a win-win. They get cheaper power and the electric
utility doesn't have to increase capacity for peak load that occurs for
a short time since for all practical purposes you can't store electricity.

>
> We actually have a fellow in the current election for electric board
> commisioner who is running on that exact platform.
>
> Jon
>
>
>

[Home Guy]

"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

> >>> In other words, the cost of electricity changes during the course
> >>> of a day, and smart meters allow utility companies to more
> >>> equitably charge individual home owers for the electricity they
> >>> use.
> >
> > "more EQUITABLY"? how is that "more equal",charging different rates
> > for different times of the day?
>
> Because incremental kWh cost more than those already on line. If the
> peaks can be clipped, less capacity is necessary.

Not quite. Consider this:

Household A and Household B both use 1000 Kwh per month. 45% of house
A's usage happens during peak hours (when electricity is more expensive
for the utility to purchase). But 35% of house B's usage happens during
peak hours. But the utility doesn't know this -> because both houses
have conventional "dumb" meters that only record total use.

The utility has to come up with a blended (and equal) rate to charge
these customers. Because the meters recorded the same usage, both A and
B will get the same bill at the end of the month. But because house B
shifted some of their usage to lower-cost hours, house A benefits from
this by seeing a slightly lower bill because of the conservation or
life-style efforts performed by household B.

House B can't *fully* realize or *exclusively benefit* from their own
efforts to time-shift their energy usage. Only a smart-meter on both
houses can make that happen. This is how smart meters make electricity
billing more "equitable" between customers.

It's a similar situation in retail commerce. Credit-card use costs
merchants money. So merchants increase prices to cover this cost. When
a customer pays for something in cash, he's unknowingly subsidizing the
merchant's credit-card operating expenses - and credit-card users
realize a small benefit because of this.

Now, all that said, the real question is -> what is the possible
magnitude of this imbalance or inequity between house A and house B, and
does it warrant the huge outlay on the part of the utility for new,
expensive meters, network infrastructure and billing systems?

Remember, it's not a question about whether or not house B would benefit
if they used less TOTAL electricity per month compared to house A ->
because even using old dumb metering B would see a reduction in their
bill compared to A in that situation.

The real issue is -> how large a difference _can_there_be_ in the
peak-use between A and B as expressed as a PERCENTAGE of their total
monthly use, and what does that difference work out to be in terms of
actual dollars and cents.

It turns out that these differences are SMALL when we are talking about
individual residential customers, and do not warrant the huge
infrastructure costs associated with measuring / billing them.

And also consider this: Over time, as more and more customers change
their usage habbits and time-shift their usage, then you have a
situation where the gap narrows and the usage patterns are more equal
between homes, rendering the usefulness of time-of-use metering
practically zero.

[Home Guy]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> > The often-stated case for smart meters (for electricity) is that
> > they allow for time-of-use billing.
>
> I thought one of the cases for smart meters was that they allowed
> the utility to avoid having to build more generating capacity for
> peak loads and replace it with "greenouts":

The answer to that depends on how your electricity infrastructure is
constructed on a corporate level.

Some (or many, or most?) utilities just maintain a local distribution
grid and don't actually generate any power themselves - they just
purchase power for re-distribution to their customers.

The north-american power grid is large enough, and diverse enough, to be
about to (a) always have spare capacity somewhere on the grid, and (b)
be able to move that spare capacity around so it gets to those that need
it, when they need it.

The free market (such as it is) has resulted in new,
privately-owned/operated plants (mostly powered by natural gas) to be
built and connected to the grid to supply "peak" demand power when and
where needed. And the owners are compensated accordingly by charging
very high rates.

I've never bought into the idea that there wasn't (or wouldn't be)
enough electricity supply to meet demand. At least not in eastern part
of north-america.

Now, perhaps there have been issues with there not being enough wire (or
big-enough wire) to carry this demand, but that's a different story.

> I think removing the need to build generating capacity saves them
> more.

Regardless who builds new plants: If the premis is that these costs ARE
ALWAYS FULLY RECOUPED during operation (and then result in a profit for
the owner/operator) - then what you just said doesn't make any sense.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Don't know about where you are, but here in Waterloo the 3 meters were
read by 3 meter readers before the smart hydro and remote water meters
were installed. Waterloo North Hydro, Union Gas, and City of Waterloo
for Water.

I believe Kitchener had only one or 2 - as water and gas were both
Kitchener Utilities, while electric was Kitchener Wilmot Hydro

[Home Guy]

George wrote:

> > A lot of "greens" are solidly behind this technology as a way to
> > jack up prices in an effort to reduce electricity usage

You don't need to impliment smart-meters or time-of-use metering to
reduce electricity use.

You just need to increase the cost per kwh (or add a new tax or increase
any existing tax).

> You mean just like commercial users who have had those options for a
> really long time?

The commercial / industrial electricity market is FAR different in terms
of metering individual customers compared to the residential market.
The scale of use in terms of kwh per month is vastly different.

Individual residental customers do not use enough electricity on a
monthly basis to warrant the costs of new electronic time-of-use smart
meters, nor the associated costs of setting up and running the
communications network nor the new billing systems.

(example of how one company time-shifted their useage)

You're asking for lifestyle changes on the house-hold level to achieve
the same results as in your example.

Do you really think it's realistic to expect that to happen - when the
benefits (in terms of $$$ savings) are measured in pennies-per-day?

[Home Guy]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> Don't know about where you are, but here in Waterloo the 3 meters
> were read by 3 meter readers before the smart hydro and remote
> water meters were installed.

Where I am (a relatively large city near you) we have (or - had) 2 meter
readers.

One for electicity and water, and one for gas. Our electicity and water
are billed on the same bill.

Our water meters were changed last year and now they are read via some
sort of RF/wireless radio link (not quite sure how that works). So now,
nobody comes by to read either the electricity or the water.

I think it was a dumb/stupid idea to do that for water, since we still
have union gas doing manual meter-reading so why not simply combine that
(ie - have the same person read both the gas and water meters).

Now, here's another twist on this issue of remote meter reading:

It's been said that "facility monitoring" is (or was) a BIG part of
having someone come by to read the meters.

In other words, when a human is coming by to read a meter every month,
what they're also accomplishing is making sure that nobody has tampered
with the meter or the hook-up.

So utilities that have switched to smart-meters to reduce manpower costs
still have to deploy people to check on the equipment and hookups from
time to time.

Again, smart meters = false economy.

[dpb]

On 5/27/2012 8:59 AM, Home Guy wrote:
...

> I've never bought into the idea that there wasn't (or wouldn't be)
> enough electricity supply to meet demand. At least not in eastern part
> of north-america.

...

Well, if you force enough large-scale generation (coal-fired baseload
plants) offline at one time owing to onerous regulation it's quite
possible there won't be sufficient time to have alternative generation
online to provide the necessary margins for peak loading.

So much of the recent additions to the grid is non-reliable sourced
(wind/solar) so there's a pretty large risk.

IMO the use of natural gas, while currently plentiful, for
central-station generation is an egregious error in judgment for the
longer term.

--

[dpb]

On 5/27/2012 9:13 AM, Home Guy wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>>> A lot of "greens" are solidly behind this technology as a way to
>>> jack up prices in an effort to reduce electricity usage
>
> You don't need to impliment smart-meters or time-of-use metering to
> reduce electricity use.
>
> You just need to increase the cost per kwh (or add a new tax or increase
> any existing tax).

...

Sure, and make the US even less competitive. That's a sure-fire winner.

> The commercial / industrial electricity market is FAR different in terms
> of metering individual customers compared to the residential market.
> The scale of use in terms of kwh per month is vastly different.
>

Made up for in large part by the relative numbers of residential
customers as opposed to commercial.

> Individual residental customers do not use enough electricity on a
> monthly basis to warrant the costs of new electronic time-of-use smart
> meters, nor the associated costs of setting up and running the
> communications network nor the new billing systems.

...

Simply nonsense. They're not doing it for the fun of it.

--

[Home Guy]

dpb wrote:

> IMO the use of natural gas, while currently plentiful, for
> central-station generation is an egregious error in judgment
> for the longer term.

I agree, because natural gas should be used for residential / commercial
heating in the winter - not to generate electricity to run air
conditioners in the summer.

Because when the natural gas runs low (10 years, 50 years from now)
there's going to be a calamity to try to figure out how to keep people
warm in the winter...

[Home Guy]

dpb wrote:

> > You don't need to impliment smart-meters or time-of-use metering
> > to reduce electricity use.
> >
> > You just need to increase the cost per kwh (or add a new tax or
> > increase any existing tax).
>

> Sure, and make the US even less competitive. That's a sure-fire
> winner.

I didn't say that I agree with any sort of hyper-green agenda to force
people into energy conservation.

What I meant was that if you're hell-bend on doing it (forcing people to
use less) then simply making it more expensive in an up-front manner
(with a tax of some sort) is more logical than incurring the costs
associated with implimenting crazy and expensive new ways to measure
it's time-of-use.

> > The commercial / industrial electricity market is FAR different in
> > terms of metering individual customers compared to the residential
> > market. The scale of use in terms of kwh per month is vastly
> > different.

> Made up for in large part by the relative numbers of residential
> customers as opposed to commercial.

No, that does not make up for it.

If I manage a plant, and if I can save $10,000 a month by altering some
aspect of when I use electricity (and it doesn't add other costs
somewhere else) then yes, I say give me a smart meter, and let me
impliment the change and save money - even if the smart meter is going
to cost me an extra $20 a month in some new fee invented by the utility.

If I'm a home owner, and if I time-shift 10% of the 1000 kwh I use per
month to save 5 cents for those 100 kwh, then I'm going to be rewarded
with a savings of $5. After you add the $5 a month extra new fees for
the smart-meter, there's no savings - no reward for time-shifting my use
(or setting my A/C to a higher temperature).

So do the math, and tell me if an individual home-owner is going to turn
off (or turn down) their A/C during the hottest months of the summer ->
just to save a lousy $5 a month (the cost of a latte at Starbucks).

Collectively - yes. Residential electricity use is huge. But
residential usage decisions are made on an individual level, and that's
where your reasoning breaks down.

> > Individual residental customers do not use enough electricity on
> > a monthly basis to warrant the costs of new electronic time-of-use
> > smart meters, nor the associated costs of setting up and running
> > the communications network nor the new billing systems.

> Simply nonsense. They're not doing it for the fun of it.

They're doing it because (a) customers will end up paying the entire
cost (meters, network, billing) and (b) the utilities will save on
meter-reading costs.

Customers will end up paying $500 in new costs over the life-span of the
new meter, while the utilities will save $100 in manpower costs.

Why?

Because local utilites are in a monopoly position. There is no
competition when it comes to metering. Home owners can't choose Company
A vs Company B when it comes to the DELIVERY of their electricity.
There is only 1 set of wires going to your home - not 2 or 3.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Right, and oil should be used for transportation. Everyone knows that coal is
a better fuel for electricity!

[dpb]

On 5/27/2012 12:12 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
...

> ... Everyone knows that coal is

> a better fuel for electricity!

And if the C-sequestration people are intent on actually accomplishing
something, nuclear is even better (just to light the fuse :) ).

Besides heating, NG is extremely valuable as a chemical/fertilizer
feedstock as well.

--

[dpb]

On 5/27/2012 11:56 AM, Home Guy wrote:
...

> Customers will end up paying $500 in new costs over the life-span of the
> new meter, while the utilities will save $100 in manpower costs.

...

You have the data to prove that contention?

We (local rural electric co-op) are switching and like many others that
have posted here, are _not_ charging a dime to the end user for the
remote-reading meters (even if some have).

Collectively, it will save money for the end user because the collective
demand leveling will show up on the overall grid.

Your focus on an individual doesn't address the larger issue that the
utility has to provide for the peak demand and the peak is controlled by
a very large number of little loads. Getting those spread out by
modifying habits of a sizable fraction of those numbers (and yes, while
you may be one of the intransigent and refuse to change any habits
simply out of obstinacy if for no other reason, many will look to save
that small monthly amount) will wind up allowing for far larger savings
than simply the meter readers by minimizing upgrading of substations,
transmission lines and even generation. If it doesn't eliminate growth
demand, it can at least slow the rate.

--

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

One word: "plastics"

[Gordon Burditt]

>> > The often-stated case for smart meters (for electricity) is that
>> > they allow for time-of-use billing.
>>
>> I thought one of the cases for smart meters was that they allowed
>> the utility to avoid having to build more generating capacity for
>> peak loads and replace it with "greenouts":
>
> The answer to that depends on how your electricity infrastructure is
> constructed on a corporate level.
>
> Some (or many, or most?) utilities just maintain a local distribution
> grid and don't actually generate any power themselves - they just
> purchase power for re-distribution to their customers.
>
> The north-american power grid is large enough, and diverse enough, to be
> about to (a) always have spare capacity somewhere on the grid, and (b)
> be able to move that spare capacity around so it gets to those that need
> it, when they need it.

Please explain the existence of "rolling blackouts", then. It happened
in Texas during both peak load times in the summer, and in the winter when
the excuse was that some of the plants on standby had some equipment freeze
or fail when they were needed.

[Stormin Mormon]

If you get a chance, please read the book "1984" by George Orwell. It
explains a bit about the constant shortages, and why the system can't meet
everyone's needs.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Gordon Burditt" <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote in message

news:Jd2dnc8yvYMLnV7S...@posted.internetamerica...

[Home Guy]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> > The north-american power grid is large enough, and diverse enough

> > to be about to (a) always have spare capacity somewhere on the
> > grid, and (b) be able to move that spare capacity around so it
> > gets to those that need it, when they need it.
>
> Please explain the existence of "rolling blackouts", then.

You did not quote the following paragraph which was part of the same
post:

--------

Now, perhaps there have been issues with there not being enough wire (or
big-enough wire) to carry this demand, but that's a different story.

--------

> It happened in Texas during both peak load times in the summer,
> and in the winter

Texas is doing strange things when it comes to power.

There's a town in Texas that has a huge battery building (molten sodium
battery). The battery is charged during off-peak time, and then feeds
power into the town's grid during peak demand. The single power line
supplying power to the town is not large enough to supply the power the
town needs during peak demand, and instead of beefing up the line or
adding a second line, they built this battery at about half the cost.

Where else in the US besides Texas is having rolling blackouts during
the past year or two?

[dpb]

CA? I believe I recall.

TX is also not very well connected to the rest of the US grid so if they
do have a problem they don't have much in the way of interconnects to
make up the difference.

There are always the occasional "gotcha's" -- during the cold streak
spoken of earlier, it was an unusual event and did cause some plants to
either go offline or not be available owing to freezing of lines that
simply weren't designed for the issue as it is such a rare event wasn't
accounted for as a design feature.

Also, sometimes a few plants will be off for either scheduled or
unscheduled outages and so not available and if the external event
happens during one of these times there just may not be enough standby.

One interesting event in TX panhandle about four(?) years ago had to do
w/ the new wind generation becoming a significant fraction of the
mix--the particular utility was taking about 20% from wind during a very
hot period when an unforecasted small wind shift line moved across the
area of the wind farm and winds went from 15-20mph to near zero in a
couple of minutes. The resulting drop in generation was so rapid it
nearly brought the entire region down before they could ramp up enough
generation and shed enough load. They managed to save it, but it was
close...I'll see if I can find the post-mortem report again--I posted it
once but it was shortly after so has been at least a couple of years
since...

--

[Jim Yanik]

gordon...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote in
news:Jd2dnc8yvYMLnV7S...@posted.internetamerica:

not all electric utility area grids are connected to the "national grid",if
there is such a thing.
It's probably more like several areas have their own local grids.
trying to transfer power across the entire US would be wasteful and
inefficient.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[George]

Actually pretty efficient if HV DC lines are used. But there is no
national grid. Our supplier was one of the founders of and belongs to
the PJM (originally PA-NJ-MD) interconnect:

http://www.pjm.com/

It now covers 13 states and DC. According to Wikipedia it serves 51
million customers and has 167 GW (GigaWatts) of generating capacity.

[dpb]

On 5/28/2012 10:29 AM, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
...

> I think I heard on he history channel that Texas is not on the
> national grid at all. They are totally self sufficient. (as well as
> that works for them)

That may have been accurate for the time (it was history, right? :) )
but not entirely free of interconnects now.

Just posting from Wikipedia summary for lack of ambition to actually get
the precise time frame...but it's basically correct.

"In 1962, when the Eastern Interconnection was established in its
current form, The Interconnected Systems Group (composed of Southern and
Midwestern utility companies), the PJM Interconnection, and the
Canada-United States Eastern Interconnection (CANUSE) formed the
Interconnection Coordination Committee to recommend an informal
operations structure, which led to the formation of the North American
Power Systems Interconnection Committee (NAPSIC). NAPSIC eventually grew
to also include the Texas Interconnection and most of the companies in
what is today the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC),
operating within the Western Interconnection."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NERC-map-en.svg>

--

[NotMe]

"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:jpt8a3$o21$1...@dont-email.me...

dig deeper it's there but perhaps not as a line item.

Recall phone company charged and still do for touch tone service when it was
actually cheaper for them to use touch tone than dial pulse.

[dpb]

On 5/28/2012 12:10 PM, NotMe wrote:
...

> Recall phone company charged and still do for touch tone service when it was
> actually cheaper for them to use touch tone than dial pulse.

Not what I recall--we were still on pulse until SW Bell finally
converted the tie-in to the switches in town (within the last 15 years)
and afaicr the base rate didn't change.

--

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

In what universe do you live?

[dpb]

On 5/28/2012 10:11 AM, dpb wrote:
...

> One interesting event in TX panhandle about four(?) years ago had to do
> w/ the new wind generation becoming a significant fraction of the
> mix--the particular utility was taking about 20% from wind during a very
> hot period when an unforecasted small wind shift line moved across the
> area of the wind farm and winds went from 15-20mph to near zero in a
> couple of minutes. The resulting drop in generation was so rapid it
> nearly brought the entire region down before they could ramp up enough
> generation and shed enough load. They managed to save it, but it was
> close...I'll see if I can find the post-mortem report again--I posted it
> once but it was shortly after so has been at least a couple of years
> since...

Here's one of the winter 2011 incident reports; I've not found my link
to the above incident again at the moment...

<http://www.nerc.com/files/RISA%20Cold%20Snap%20report%20September%202011.pdf>

--

[NotMe]

<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:7fh7s79gesiiit6ld...@4ax.com...

One where they paid me to track/follow various phone company tariffs and
assorted applications including the real world back story of the process.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Up here on Bell Canada we still had a pulse line until last year when
we replaced our last rotary phone. Charge went up when we got touch
tone. They had been a bit miffed for years that we had not changed
up.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Two decades ago, perhaps. I want to know which one you live in now.