On Apr 16, 1:20*pm, Home Guy wrote:
Duesenberg wrote:
Do you beleive that consumers for the last 30 or 40 years have been
paying a fair price for energy costs?

The issue is the manner in which they're measuring and billing you, and
whether that method is needed and is cost effective (and for whom is it
needed and cost-effective).

Look.

If you had a choice between 2 credit cards:

Card A costs you $25 a year, and it has a conventional magnetic strip.

Card B costs you $200 a year, and it has a strip and chip. *The chip
allows for new and different ways to carry out transactions that card A
doesn't. *It costs more for Card B because of the additional cost of the
chip, upgrades to the data network and new readers at point-of-sale FOR
WHICH OWNERS OF CARD B AND ONLY THEY WILL END UP PAYING FOR.

Now, in this case individuals can decide which card they want to own.
The free market at work. *I'm betting that many people would balk at
Card B and it's economics.

But in the case of TOU electricity measurement and billing, there is no
choice. *Option B is being forced down our throats with no regard to the
economics.

Prove that there was no regard to the economics. Utilities,
ie water, gas and electric have been switching to meters that
do not require someone driving around in a vehicle and
walking up to each house 12 times a year. Those employees,
supervisors, health insurance, vehicles, gas, etc have a cost.
Those costs are drastically reduced with a meter that
no longer requires someone to come out and read it.

I'd like to see a reference that shows real numbers of what
it cost and what it saves from a real utility.



Again, I state that there was nothing wrong with the "old" way of paying
for electricity - which is that the residential customer base pays, in
aggregate, for all the electricity they use that the utility must buy
and distribute for them.

Nothing wrong except it:

Doesn't encourage people to shift some loads to time periods
when the cost of electricity to the utility is less. The net effect
of that is that everyone pays more.

Doesn't encourage people to shift some loads so that the utility
doesn't have to build another plant to meet peak demand. The
net effect of that is that everyone pays more.

Doesn't allow the utility to shed load if necessary to keep the
system from overloading on high peak demand days. That
would require loads like AC, water heater, etc also be smart
to respond to the smart meter.


And there are such loads that can be shifted:

pool pumps, well pumps for irrigation, basement de-humidifier,
timing of heat/ac recovery when setback, dishwasher,
washer/dryer, hot tubs, etc.

How much all that adds up to and how much impact
the smart meters would actually have is debatable.
That's why I said a pilot program like CT is doing sounds
like the right approach. Or there must be data already
from utilities that have rolled out smart meters. When
you have some actual numbers, as opposed to pure
speculation and assumption, let us know.

As proof that these can make sense is the fact that
other utilities are also switching to meters that don't
require someone to go to the house to read them.
As I pointed out previously, my water company
switched to a meter that can be read by their vehicle
just driving down the street without stopping.
They did that over a decade ago. Obviously they
saw a cost reduction in just the number of homes
that the employee/vehicle can do in a day that
justified the new system.

And with regard to load shedding, my electric
utility installed a radio controlled device on my AC
20 years ago. If they need to reduce load during
high peak days, they can temporarily turn off my
AC with a radio signal. I think they paid me
around $20 a year back then, it was a voluntary
program. Since then they switched
to paying $3 every time they activate it, which has
only been 2 or 3 times a year. But obviously they
think this is worth it and the install cost of this
gizmo must be similar to the smart meter.




And further, that a 2 (or more) tier rate structure can be imposed based
on the quantity of KWH that an individual customer uses per month -
without the utility needing to know the TOU of that electricity.

Yes, they can and some are. But personally, I'd much rather
have the meter that bills me for what I actually use and how it
interacts with their system instead of some socialist share
the pain scheme.