in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.

Way Back Jack wrote:

in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most
importantly, health ramifications. Thank You.

The only purpose of smart meters for residential customers is to reduce
the meter-reading costs of electric utilities.

The exhorbitant up-front cost of the meters themselves, the
communications network and billing software will be paid for by
customers in the form of additional surcharges.

All other aspects of smart meters represents a false economy, because
residential customers don't use enough electricity (individually) to
warrant the use of time-of-day billing, as opposed to large commercial,
retail or industrial customers.

Residential customers don't consume enough electricity on an individual
level such that any decision they make in changing (or time-shifting)
their electricity usage will only affect their monthly bill by pennies
or at most a few dollars. That level of expenditure is on par with
other forms of discretionary spending (daily coffee, snack, etc) and
people will not sacrifice their home comfort (using their
air-conditioner less) if the savings are on par with
pocket-change-per-day.

As for heath and safety issues related to smart meters - totally
bull****.

Your own cell phone, cordless phone, iSlave device
(pad/phone/pod/tablet), laptop or home wifi network will easily emit far
more EM radiation (and will also be closer to you) than your
outside-mounted smart meter.

You should focus your efforts on the measurement accuracy of these
meters, and the rights (or lack thereof) that consumers have to dispute
bills generated by these meters.

On Apr 15, 12:16*pm, Home Guy wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most
importantly, health ramifications. *Thank You.

The only purpose of smart meters for residential customers is to reduce
the meter-reading costs of electric utilities.

The exhorbitant up-front cost of the meters themselves, the
communications network and billing software will be paid for by
customers in the form of additional surcharges.

All other aspects of smart meters represents a false economy, because
residential customers don't use enough electricity (individually) to
warrant the use of time-of-day billing, as opposed to large commercial,
retail or industrial customers.

They may not warrant doing it, but utilities are doing
it and offering different rates at different times of the
day to residential customers. That is nothing new.
Here in NJ the utility was doing that 50 years ago.
The offered a substantially lower rate at night for water heaters.



Residential customers don't consume enough electricity on an individual
level such that any decision they make in changing (or time-shifting)
their electricity usage will only affect their monthly bill by pennies
or at most a few dollars.

And how would you know what rates all the utilities
in the country are charging?


*That level of expenditure is on par with
other forms of discretionary spending (daily coffee, snack, etc) and
people will not sacrifice their home comfort (using their
air-conditioner less) if the savings are on par with
pocket-change-per-day.

Maybe they won't, but then those that are using electricity
at peak rates, will be paying for it. And those that can
and will switch some of their demand to other hours
will pay less.



As for heath and safety issues related to smart meters - totally
bull****.

Now that I agreee with.

On Apr 15, 8:33*am, Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. *Thank You.

It is my understanding that there were a substantial number of
'accuracy' complaints in California.

On Apr 15, 9:16*am, Home Guy wrote:
...snip...
All other aspects of smart meters represents a false economy, because
residential customers don't use enough electricity (individually) to
warrant the use of time-of-day billing, as opposed to large commercial,
retail or industrial customers.

After we switched from normal meter to Time of Day meter where the
rate OFF peak hours was half the cost of ON peak hours, our monthly
electric bill dropped $60. To me, that was NOT false economy.

I have NO idea where all the power went either. We live frugally, one
fridge, [gas heating & hot water], no freezer, electric dryer [rarely
used]. only lights and TV and a few computers. Can't believe the
cooking was THAT expensive. But perhaps it was, because we did tend
to cook more outside peak hours after switching.

" wrote:

All other aspects of smart meters represents a false economy,

They may not warrant doing it, but utilities are doing
it and offering different rates at different times of the
day to residential customers.

I'm not saying anything to the contrary of what you just said.

Yes, it's not warranted, yes they are doing it (anyways) and yes - they
are charging different rates at different times of the day (if they
didn't, they wouldn't have any basis or reason for implimenting smart
meters now would they?).

That is nothing new.

Smart meters are new (in terms of the historical time-line of equipment
and schemes used to measure residential electricity use which goes back
decades).

Here in NJ the utility was doing that 50 years ago.
The offered a substantially lower rate at night for
water heaters.

I wasn't aware that NJ had time-of-use billing for residential customers
50 years ago.

Those meters must have had mechanical clocks back then (any time-of-use
metering system needs to know the current time-of-day, and even date if
week-end rates are in effect). How accurate were those clocks 50 years
ago?

Residential customers don't consume enough electricity on an
individual level such that any decision they make in changing
(or time-shifting) their electricity usage will only affect
their monthly bill by pennies or at most a few dollars.

And how would you know what rates all the utilities
in the country are charging?

I would venture a guess that the difference in rates is minimal - in
terms of the percentage of load that consumers can realistically be
expected to time-shift.

The biggest factor that is under EASY control of home owners is always
going to be their air conditioning temperature setting, and that is also
going to be the last usage they are willing to sacrifice because it
involves their own comfort level (how hot and sticky are you willing to
be in your own home - if it means you'll save a measely $1 or $2 today,
and again tommorrow, and again the next day, etc).

Every day, that $1 or $2 bargain they make with themselves is worth it.
The fact that it might (or will) end up being $30 at the end of the
month is irrelavent. That's if they even know that setting the temp. to
77f vs 74f is going to cost them an extra $1.24 today.

That level of expenditure is on par with other forms of
discretionary spending (daily coffee, snack, etc) and people
will not sacrifice their home comfort (using their air-conditioner
less) if the savings are on par with pocket-change-per-day.

Maybe they won't, but then those that are using electricity
at peak rates, will be paying for it.

Just like everyone is still paying $4 a gallon for gas. People are not
going to cheap-out on their thermostat setting and feel like **** in
their own house to save a measely buck a day.

Maybe they won't, but then those that are using electricity
at peak rates, will be paying for it.

And the crock of the whole situation is that the meters cost anywhere
from $500 to $1500 each, and over the lifespan of the meter it will
probably not result in home-owner cutback in electricity usage to
justify the cost of the meter in the first place.

Robert Macy wrote:

All other aspects of smart meters represents a false economy,
because residential customers don't use enough electricity
(individually) to warrant the use of time-of-day billing,

After we switched from normal meter to Time of Day meter where
the rate OFF peak hours was half the cost of ON peak hours, our
monthly electric bill dropped $60. To me, that was NOT false
economy.

Have you had it long enough for the meter to bill your air-conditioner
use yet?

I understand it can get hot in Arizona in the summer...

electric dryer [rarely used].

People with young families are (I'm told) constantly using their
washer/dryer.

Having an electric (vs gas) dryer can be a real drag given the price
difference for electricity vs nat-gas.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 09:28:19 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



Residential customers don't consume enough electricity on an individual
level such that any decision they make in changing (or time-shifting)
their electricity usage will only affect their monthly bill by pennies
or at most a few dollars.

And how would you know what rates all the utilities
in the country are charging?


I'd start here or a place similar
http://www.electricchoice.com/electr...s-by-state.php
If you want more detail, it is a matter of public record and easily
found.

Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.

Do the math... some customers can get a smart thermostat that
evidently works with the smart meter and bumps the temp setting up a few
degrees. Future smart appliances coming, maybe the fridge will shut
down and the door locks during peak hours. Who knows?
http://www.ogepet.com/programs/smarthours.aspx

Me? I put duct tape around the outer 18 inches of the screen on my
big screen TV. The smaller picture size ought to save a bunch.

On 4/15/2012 11:16 AM, Home Guy wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote:

in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most
importantly, health ramifications. Thank You.

The only purpose of smart meters for residential customers is to reduce
the meter-reading costs of electric utilities.

The exhorbitant up-front cost of the meters themselves, the
communications network and billing software will be paid for by
customers in the form of additional surcharges.

All other aspects of smart meters represents a false economy, because
residential customers don't use enough electricity (individually) to
warrant the use of time-of-day billing, as opposed to large commercial,
retail or industrial customers.

Residential customers don't consume enough electricity on an individual
level such that any decision they make in changing (or time-shifting)
their electricity usage will only affect their monthly bill by pennies
or at most a few dollars....

Overall, just nonsense.

If there weren't a payback, they certainly wouldn't be doing it just for
the funsies of having something to do.

Shifting usage of a _single_ residence slightly from peak to off-peak
hours won't make an impact, sure, but when 10s or 100s of thousands do a
little it can (and will) add up to a lot. That will translate back into
not having to expand/upgrade transmission lines, substations, etc.,
etc., etc., and perhaps even over time at least delaying addition of
generation.

All that will add up to significant savings that eventually will impact
the consumer by at least limiting rate increases over what they would
otherwise be (and unless there's a change in administration and rollback
of recent EPA directives "you ain't see'ed nuttin' yet" on what's going
to happen to rates.

If the current CSAPR rule that were to go into effect Jan 1 but was
stayed by a Federal Court at the last minute (almost literally) in
December ends up being implemented, there _will_ be rolling blackouts as
there simply won't be enough generation to satisfy demand and your
hypothetical folks will be turning the thermostat A/C off (not by
choice) intermittently, not up.

--

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:32:39 -0500, "Mr. Austerity" "PrintMo.Money "
wrote:

Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.

Do the math... some customers can get a smart thermostat that
evidently works with the smart meter and bumps the temp setting up a few
degrees. Future smart appliances coming, maybe the fridge will shut
down and the door locks during peak hours. Who knows?
http://www.ogepet.com/programs/smarthours.aspx

Me? I put duct tape around the outer 18 inches of the screen on my
big screen TV. The smaller picture size ought to save a bunch.

I've been doing that for years but I've used this tape instead. I
think it works better.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/15140648?a...0&wl4=&wl5=pla

"Way Back Jack" wrote in message
...
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.

Smart meters is a term that covers a multitude of sins.
At the moment they are being portayed as fairly innocuous and helpful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_meter

However, this is a thin edge of the wedge scenario.
In the future,they will be able to cut you off and increase charges
remotely.
They will be used for "load shedding" ie if ther eis a power shortage, they
can cut selective people off.
They are the precursor to the the "Smart Grid"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid

On 4/15/2012 9:16 AM, Home Guy wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote:

in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most
importantly, health ramifications. Thank You.

The only purpose of smart meters for residential customers is to reduce
the meter-reading costs of electric utilities.

I disagree. The camel's nose is in the tent.
The door is open to charging you MORE for electricity.
We won't be paying LESS for off-peak usage.
We'll be paying MORE for peak usage.

Every month, my utility sends me an invitation to sign up
for time-of-use metering. There's a surcharge for the privilege.
If I switched ALL my use to the minimum-rate hours, I still wouldn't
break even. It's gonna get worse.


The exhorbitant up-front cost of the meters themselves, the
communications network and billing software will be paid for by
customers in the form of additional surcharges.

Yep. There can be benefits as the smart grid evolves. Everything
I've read suggests that the current crop of meters can't support
what's needed. So, we'll be paying for yet another upgrade in the
future.

The biggest factor that is under EASY control of home owners is always
going to be their air conditioning temperature setting, and that is also
going to be the last usage they are willing to sacrifice because it
involves their own comfort level (how hot and sticky are you willing to
be in your own home - if it means you'll save a measely $1 or $2 today,
and again tommorrow, and again the next day, etc).

Every day, that $1 or $2 bargain they make with themselves is worth it.
The fact that it might (or will) end up being $30 at the end of the
month is irrelavent. That's if they even know that setting the temp. to
77f vs 74f is going to cost them an extra $1.24 today.


$1 a day invested for 5 years at 7% compounded interest is $2 148.

$1 a day invested for 25 years a 7% compounded interest is $23 624.

Hopefully somebody will doublecheck my math.

Invest that dollar a day in a tax shelter of course to maximize returns.

Some people don't care about $365 a year in simple savings and others
do. Some people try to sacrifice and decide it's not worth it and others
stick with it.

Your point about the air conditioning is what we do at home. We like
our house cool at night and are willing to pay for it.

On 4/15/2012 2:28 PM, Home Guy wrote:
Robert Macy wrote:

All other aspects of smart meters represents a false economy,
because residential customers don't use enough electricity
(individually) to warrant the use of time-of-day billing,

After we switched from normal meter to Time of Day meter where
the rate OFF peak hours was half the cost of ON peak hours, our
monthly electric bill dropped $60. To me, that was NOT false
economy.

Have you had it long enough for the meter to bill your air-conditioner
use yet?

I understand it can get hot in Arizona in the summer...

electric dryer [rarely used].

People with young families are (I'm told) constantly using their
washer/dryer.

Having an electric (vs gas) dryer can be a real drag given the price
difference for electricity vs nat-gas.


I have a 5 month old baby at home and we have an Energy star 4 cubic
foot front load washing machine.

I was stunned at how little electricity the machine used. And we use
cold water strictly.

Average load takes 58 to 104 minutes. Average electrical use as
measured by a Kill-a-watt device was .16 kwhr to .19kwhr. Average
electrical cost (before all hidden fees) was 1.7 cents a load peak time
and 1.1 cents per cheapest time.

We have a gas dryer that averages about 40 minutes per 4 cubic foot load
of laundry. That thing uses between .21 kwhr and .4 kwhr per load
DEPENDING on the type of laundry. Work jeans requiring more drying,
fleece requiring less. We leave it to the sensors.

I get drying loads between 1.4 cents to 5 cents of electrical use (dunno
about gas use but I can measure in summer when furnace and water heater
off) a load measured by the kill-a-watt. Remember it's a gas dryer.

I'm thinking since I'm the stay at home parent, of disregarding the time
of use for laundry because of the seemingly low cost and very marginal
savings of waiting till 7 at night for cheap rates.

I'm still going to measure electrical use of those appliances to make
sure those numbers are legit.

On 4/15/2012 3:34 PM, mike wrote:
On 4/15/2012 9:16 AM, Home Guy wrote:
Way Back Jack wrote:

in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most
importantly, health ramifications. Thank You.

The only purpose of smart meters for residential customers is to reduce
the meter-reading costs of electric utilities.

I disagree. The camel's nose is in the tent.
The door is open to charging you MORE for electricity.
We won't be paying LESS for off-peak usage.
We'll be paying MORE for peak usage.

Every month, my utility sends me an invitation to sign up
for time-of-use metering. There's a surcharge for the privilege.
If I switched ALL my use to the minimum-rate hours, I still wouldn't
break even. It's gonna get worse.


The exhorbitant up-front cost of the meters themselves, the
communications network and billing software will be paid for by
customers in the form of additional surcharges.

Yep. There can be benefits as the smart grid evolves. Everything
I've read suggests that the current crop of meters can't support
what's needed. So, we'll be paying for yet another upgrade in the
future.

Cheap energy has caused some negative issues int he past. There may (or
may not) be benefits to charging more to customers and FORCING
conservation on customers.

Those who do not wish to conserve can simply pay more. I think that's fair.

On 4/15/2012 11:33 AM, Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.


I do enjoy the chance to log on to the interent and monitor my
electrical usage per hour. I do not know if it's worth having these
meters, but that's one feature I use and approve of.

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
" wrote:

All other aspects of smart meters represents a false economy,

They may not warrant doing it, but utilities are doing
it and offering different rates at different times of the
day to residential customers.

I'm not saying anything to the contrary of what you just said.

Yes, it's not warranted, yes they are doing it (anyways) and yes - they
are charging different rates at different times of the day (if they
didn't, they wouldn't have any basis or reason for implimenting smart
meters now would they?).

That is nothing new.

Smart meters are new (in terms of the historical time-line of equipment
and schemes used to measure residential electricity use which goes back
decades).

Here in NJ the utility was doing that 50 years ago.
The offered a substantially lower rate at night for
water heaters.

I wasn't aware that NJ had time-of-use billing for residential customers
50 years ago.

Those meters must have had mechanical clocks back then (any time-of-use
metering system needs to know the current time-of-day, and even date if
week-end rates are in effect). How accurate were those clocks 50 years
ago?

Residential customers don't consume enough electricity on an
individual level such that any decision they make in changing
(or time-shifting) their electricity usage will only affect
their monthly bill by pennies or at most a few dollars.

And how would you know what rates all the utilities
in the country are charging?

I would venture a guess that the difference in rates is minimal - in
terms of the percentage of load that consumers can realistically be
expected to time-shift.

The biggest factor that is under EASY control of home owners is always
going to be their air conditioning temperature setting, and that is also
going to be the last usage they are willing to sacrifice because it
involves their own comfort level (how hot and sticky are you willing to
be in your own home - if it means you'll save a measely $1 or $2 today,
and again tommorrow, and again the next day, etc).

Every day, that $1 or $2 bargain they make with themselves is worth it.
The fact that it might (or will) end up being $30 at the end of the
month is irrelavent. That's if they even know that setting the temp. to
77f vs 74f is going to cost them an extra $1.24 today.

That level of expenditure is on par with other forms of
discretionary spending (daily coffee, snack, etc) and people
will not sacrifice their home comfort (using their air-conditioner
less) if the savings are on par with pocket-change-per-day.

Maybe they won't, but then those that are using electricity
at peak rates, will be paying for it.

Just like everyone is still paying $4 a gallon for gas. People are not
going to cheap-out on their thermostat setting and feel like **** in
their own house to save a measely buck a day.

Maybe they won't, but then those that are using electricity
at peak rates, will be paying for it.

And the crock of the whole situation is that the meters cost anywhere
from $500 to $1500 each, and over the lifespan of the meter it will
probably not result in home-owner cutback in electricity usage to
justify the cost of the meter in the first place.

The electric utilities are not the only ones driving the installation of
smart meters. Energy advocates like them too. The smart meters offer a way
to reduce electric utility peak loads and that means building fewer power
plants. Saving money with time-of-day metering is one thing, but the
utility's ability to shed load when they're at capacity is something that
they will pay for -- and already do -- too.

Tomsic

Someone posted

"They may not warrant doing it, but utilities are doing
it and offering different rates at different times of the
day to residential customers. That is nothing new.
Here in NJ the utility was doing that 50 years ago.
The offered a substantially lower rate at night for water heaters."


We lived in NJ 50 years ago, and had a clocked water heater meter.
Only trouble was, we had so many power outages that the clock was
rarely set to the correct time and so we always had to go outside and
look at the meter to see when we could heat hot water. We didn't
complain to the power company because there was nothing they could do
except set it right and pray fopr no more power failures.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:03:07 -0400, Duesenberg wrote:



The biggest factor that is under EASY control of home owners is always
going to be their air conditioning temperature setting, and that is also
going to be the last usage they are willing to sacrifice because it
involves their own comfort level (how hot and sticky are you willing to
be in your own home - if it means you'll save a measely $1 or $2 today,
and again tommorrow, and again the next day, etc).

Every day, that $1 or $2 bargain they make with themselves is worth it.
The fact that it might (or will) end up being $30 at the end of the
month is irrelavent. That's if they even know that setting the temp. to
77f vs 74f is going to cost them an extra $1.24 today.


$1 a day invested for 5 years at 7% compounded interest is $2 148.

$1 a day invested for 25 years a 7% compounded interest is $23 624.

Hopefully somebody will doublecheck my math.

Invest that dollar a day in a tax shelter of course to maximize returns.

Some people don't care about $365 a year in simple savings and others
do. Some people try to sacrifice and decide it's not worth it and others
stick with it.

Your point about the air conditioning is what we do at home. We like
our house cool at night and are willing to pay for it.
But WHERE do you get 7% today??? 0.7% is more realistic.

dpb wrote:

Residential customers don't consume enough electricity on an
individual level such that any decision they make in changing
(or time-shifting) their electricity usage will only affect
their monthly bill by pennies or at most a few dollars....

Overall, just nonsense.

It's a fact.

Industry experts and consumer advocates have said exactly the same
thing.

If there weren't a payback, they certainly wouldn't be doing it
just for the funsies of having something to do.

It's political.

Many utilities got grants to do it.

Like I said - they wanted to reduce their cost to read residential
meters. In the vast majority of situations, analog wheel-meters were
replaced by electronic time-of-use meters with telemetry capability.
This gave them the automation they were looking for (no more meter
readers) under the cover of the green / ecological movement (be good to
the environment and use energy responsibly and all that jazz).

Shifting usage of a _single_ residence slightly from peak to
off-peak hours won't make an impact, sure, but when 10s or 100s
of thousands do a little it can (and will) add up to a lot.

I'm telling you that if it means the difference between being
uncomfortable in your home by setting your thermostat higher in the
summer (and suffering when it's 76 degrees and 55 percent humidity) vs
setting it so you're comfortable (74 degrees and 40 percent humidity) -
guess what people are gonna do. Even if it costs them a buck extra a
day.

People won't opt to save chump change when it means they'll be
comfortable in their homes.

All that will add up to significant savings that eventually will
impact the consumer

The whole point of time-of-use billing was to go hand-in-hand with a
competitive marketplace for electricity, but someone forgot that we
don't really have a competitive marketplace in electrical generation or
distribution.

You and I can decide whether to buy gasoline at one station or another,
on one day or another, at one price or another. Gasoline has a flexible
distribution system in that the gas refined at one plant doesn't have to
be retailed by a specific gas station nor consumed by a specific
end-customer. We don't have that when it comes to electricity, and
hence the idea that time-of-use billing completes the picture of a true
competitive marketplace for electricity is a farce.

"Robert Macy" wrote in message
...
On Apr 15, 9:16 am, Home Guy wrote:
...snip...
All other aspects of smart meters represents a false economy, because
residential customers don't use enough electricity (individually) to
warrant the use of time-of-day billing, as opposed to large commercial,
retail or industrial customers.

After we switched from normal meter to Time of Day meter where the
rate OFF peak hours was half the cost of ON peak hours, our monthly
electric bill dropped $60. To me, that was NOT false economy.

I have NO idea where all the power went either. We live frugally, one
fridge, [gas heating & hot water], no freezer, electric dryer [rarely
used]. only lights and TV and a few computers. Can't believe the
cooking was THAT expensive. But perhaps it was, because we did tend
to cook more outside peak hours after switching.


Here in Ontario, Canada, the politicians were selling Smart Meters by
harping on the basis of saving money, all BS. First there is a surcharge on
power bills to cover the costs of the smart meter and attending equipment.
Plus, rates did not go down, instead the normal all day rate became the
night rate, and the daytime rate went up. So you do not save money, but you
could try to not pay more by only using power at night (plus the surcharge).

On 4/15/2012 5:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:03:07 -0400, wrote:



The biggest factor that is under EASY control of home owners is always
going to be their air conditioning temperature setting, and that is also
going to be the last usage they are willing to sacrifice because it
involves their own comfort level (how hot and sticky are you willing to
be in your own home - if it means you'll save a measely $1 or $2 today,
and again tommorrow, and again the next day, etc).

Every day, that $1 or $2 bargain they make with themselves is worth it.
The fact that it might (or will) end up being $30 at the end of the
month is irrelavent. That's if they even know that setting the temp. to
77f vs 74f is going to cost them an extra $1.24 today.


$1 a day invested for 5 years at 7% compounded interest is $2 148.

$1 a day invested for 25 years a 7% compounded interest is $23 624.

Hopefully somebody will doublecheck my math.

Invest that dollar a day in a tax shelter of course to maximize returns.

Some people don't care about $365 a year in simple savings and others
do. Some people try to sacrifice and decide it's not worth it and others
stick with it.

Your point about the air conditioning is what we do at home. We like
our house cool at night and are willing to pay for it.
But WHERE do you get 7% today??? 0.7% is more realistic.

Good point: yes 7% is tought to find however:

Index funds and ETFs. Myself I only invest in index and dividend funds,
even bond indexs funds instead of bonds themselves. TD has a CDN bond
index fund that has average 6% a year for me and only .33% MER. Ishares
Canada has a couple that do 7%. Minimum purchase is $25 if on a
prepayment plan, otherwise $100.

You'd have a easier time getting 7%, if you just invest and forget for
20 years, in a broad market index. Now the 7% return per year factors in
over time, best to strive for it over 10 years.

Otherwise pick a basket of well known dividend paying stocks and just do
DRIPS. Get 4% yields and find the remaining 3% on share price
increases, however this is really tough to do with $1 a day.

But your point is not lost on me. Yes 7% compounded return is tough to
find these days. However if you pay that $1 per day against your
outstanding mortgage principal then you get savings. If you have 250
000 mortgage principal amortized over 25 year, interest was 2.9% and
paid an additional $7 a week from the first weekly payment you'd save
$610.00 in interest over the life of the mortgage.

Again. I hope my math is right.

On Apr 15, 11:28*am, Home Guy wrote:
Robert Macy wrote:
All other aspects of smart meters represents a false economy,
because residential customers don't use enough electricity
(individually) to warrant the use of time-of-day billing,

After we switched from normal meter to Time of Day meter where
the rate OFF peak hours was half the cost of ON peak hours, our
monthly electric bill dropped $60. To me, that was NOT false
economy.

Have you had it long enough for the meter to bill your air-conditioner
use yet?

I understand it can get hot in Arizona in the summer...

electric dryer [rarely used].

People with young families are (I'm told) constantly using their
washer/dryer.

Having an electric (vs gas) dryer can be a real drag given the price
difference for electricity vs nat-gas.

over 25 year period living in San Jose, CA - no air conditioner

On 4/15/2012 6:48 PM, EXT wrote:

"Robert Macy" wrote in message
...
On Apr 15, 9:16 am, Home Guy wrote:
...snip...
All other aspects of smart meters represents a false economy, because
residential customers don't use enough electricity (individually) to
warrant the use of time-of-day billing, as opposed to large commercial,
retail or industrial customers.

After we switched from normal meter to Time of Day meter where the
rate OFF peak hours was half the cost of ON peak hours, our monthly
electric bill dropped $60. To me, that was NOT false economy.

I have NO idea where all the power went either. We live frugally, one
fridge, [gas heating & hot water], no freezer, electric dryer [rarely
used]. only lights and TV and a few computers. Can't believe the
cooking was THAT expensive. But perhaps it was, because we did tend
to cook more outside peak hours after switching.


Here in Ontario, Canada, the politicians were selling Smart Meters by
harping on the basis of saving money, all BS. First there is a surcharge
on power bills to cover the costs of the smart meter and attending
equipment. Plus, rates did not go down, instead the normal all day rate
became the night rate, and the daytime rate went up. So you do not save
money, but you could try to not pay more by only using power at night
(plus the surcharge).



What you say is not true for everyone. I did save money when my
electrical company switched from tiered to time of use. I was paying
8.2 cents a KWhr under tiered and now I pay 6.2 cents a KWhr for the
cheapest time slot of 7 pm to 7 am and all day weekends. I have a 240
volt swimming pool pump that draws 7.5 amps. It is 2 cents a KWhr
cheaper to run those 12 hours a night plus saturday and sunday than it
was under the old system. Since i turn off the pump during the more
expensive times, I am saving under the new system.

And yes the water is still clear and chemically balanced even though the
pump is only on during cheap rates. That may not apply to other
people's pools.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:34:31 -0400, Duesenberg wrote:

On 4/15/2012 5:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:03:07 -0400, wrote:



The biggest factor that is under EASY control of home owners is always
going to be their air conditioning temperature setting, and that is also
going to be the last usage they are willing to sacrifice because it
involves their own comfort level (how hot and sticky are you willing to
be in your own home - if it means you'll save a measely $1 or $2 today,
and again tommorrow, and again the next day, etc).

Every day, that $1 or $2 bargain they make with themselves is worth it.
The fact that it might (or will) end up being $30 at the end of the
month is irrelavent. That's if they even know that setting the temp. to
77f vs 74f is going to cost them an extra $1.24 today.


$1 a day invested for 5 years at 7% compounded interest is $2 148.

$1 a day invested for 25 years a 7% compounded interest is $23 624.

Hopefully somebody will doublecheck my math.

Invest that dollar a day in a tax shelter of course to maximize returns.

Some people don't care about $365 a year in simple savings and others
do. Some people try to sacrifice and decide it's not worth it and others
stick with it.

Your point about the air conditioning is what we do at home. We like
our house cool at night and are willing to pay for it.
But WHERE do you get 7% today??? 0.7% is more realistic.

Good point: yes 7% is tought to find however:

Index funds and ETFs. Myself I only invest in index and dividend funds,
even bond indexs funds instead of bonds themselves. TD has a CDN bond
index fund that has average 6% a year for me and only .33% MER. Ishares
Canada has a couple that do 7%. Minimum purchase is $25 if on a
prepayment plan, otherwise $100.

Last year my 5 yearTD "index" fund of $5000 didn't make me a cent.
The good part is it didn't loose me any either

You'd have a easier time getting 7%, if you just invest and forget for
20 years, in a broad market index. Now the 7% return per year factors in
over time, best to strive for it over 10 years.

3.35% is doable over 5 years with a guarantee, today, if you have
10,000 invested and are over 60. Whoopee!!!

Otherwise pick a basket of well known dividend paying stocks and just do
DRIPS. Get 4% yields and find the remaining 3% on share price
increases, however this is really tough to do with $1 a day.

It's almost impossible with $10,000 as one lump sum.

But your point is not lost on me. Yes 7% compounded return is tough to
find these days. However if you pay that $1 per day against your
outstanding mortgage principal then you get savings. If you have 250
000 mortgage principal amortized over 25 year, interest was 2.9% and
paid an additional $7 a week from the first weekly payment you'd save
$610.00 in interest over the life of the mortgage.

Mortgage? What's that??? I bought this house 30 years ago and have
been mortgage free for about 15 years.

Again. I hope my math is right.

On 4/15/2012 5:28 PM, Home Guy wrote:
dpb wrote:
....

Industry experts and consumer advocates have said exactly the same
thing.

Cite(s)? (Particularly from the "experts"; certainly the "consumer
advocates" are sure to complain about anything; it's their sole function
in life).

If there weren't a payback, they certainly wouldn't be doing it
just for the funsies of having something to do.

It's political.

Many utilities got grants to do it.

Like I said - they wanted to reduce their cost to read residential
meters. ...

And, if that were all they were able to save (which I don't believe is
true for a second being in heavily involved in our local retail electric
co-op where we're doing it for that reason as well as those others
outlined previously (and no "grant" money in sight). We figure the
payback period on labor and billing errors alone will be 3 yr w/o any
other longer-term savings.

You and I can decide whether to buy gasoline at one station or another,
on one day or another, at one price or another. Gasoline has a flexible
distribution system in that the gas refined at one plant doesn't have to
be retailed by a specific gas station nor consumed by a specific
end-customer. We don't have that when it comes to electricity, and
hence the idea that time-of-use billing completes the picture of a true
competitive marketplace for electricity is a farce.

_YOU_ may not, but many areas do have that flexibility. The end-user
can call up and change his supplier at will in those areas.

And, the gasoline retail distribution market isn't as wide open as you
seem to think either; there are pretty-limited wholesale arrangements
for virtually all stations that preclude them from just buying
willy-nilly (altho if they did, it would have to be mostly spot-market
and would be higher than their longterm contracts would be).

While you can certainly pick any one of a multitude of stations in which
to fill up on any given day, it's highly unlikely you'll find any
significant price differential in any one locality--a penny or two at
most, perhaps; generally all the majors are priced together and the
independents at another level 3 or so cents under. If there's a nickel,
that's generally enough to start a short-term "run".

--

Last year my 5 yearTD "index" fund of $5000 didn't make me a cent.
The good part is it didn't loose me any either


Which TD fund? Most of my TFSA's RRSPS and my daughter's RESP are in
TD e series funds. I usually get about 4 to 5% on the e-series CDN bond
funds and I keep the Bond fund at about 15 to 20 percent of portfolios.
The CDN Index e-series fund has been about 6.5% a year average for
me since I started in 2004.

And I usually contribute $150 each a month to these accounts.

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:03:07 -0400, Duesenberg wrote:






Your point about the air conditioning is what we do at home. We like
our house cool at night and are willing to pay for it.
But WHERE do you get 7% today??? 0.7% is more realistic.


You can get around 6-7% dividend return on quite a few companies, many
even 4 or 5 stars on S&P. Go down to 5% or so and picks up even more
and that is with just a simple screen. 0.7% is hardly realistic either
outside of a money market.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:10:32 -0400, Duesenberg wrote:



Last year my 5 yearTD "index" fund of $5000 didn't make me a cent.
The good part is it didn't loose me any either


Which TD fund? Most of my TFSA's RRSPS and my daughter's RESP are in
TD e series funds. I usually get about 4 to 5% on the e-series CDN bond
funds and I keep the Bond fund at about 15 to 20 percent of portfolios.
The CDN Index e-series fund has been about 6.5% a year average for
me since I started in 2004.

And I usually contribute $150 each a month to these accounts.
Mine was a 5 year RSP index fund with a 0%minimum and 25% maximum
yield limit. It is back in for a minimum 2% and maximum 20% for
another 5 years.

If I had started with zero and put in money every week I would likely
have done better due to averaging, but I put mine in just before the
big drop. The guarantee only guarantees I cannot loose any of my
principal over the term of the deposit. If the fund looses , say 50%
and then gains 7% per year I'm still sitting at a net zero position

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:44:02 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 16:03:07 -0400, Duesenberg wrote:






Your point about the air conditioning is what we do at home. We like
our house cool at night and are willing to pay for it.
But WHERE do you get 7% today??? 0.7% is more realistic.


You can get around 6-7% dividend return on quite a few companies, many
even 4 or 5 stars on S&P. Go down to 5% or so and picks up even more
and that is with just a simple screen. 0.7% is hardly realistic either
outside of a money market.

I've been getting that in the (conservative) bond funds I have in my 401K. The
money in the bank has been doing about .5%, though.

In article ,
" wrote:




You can get around 6-7% dividend return on quite a few companies, many
even 4 or 5 stars on S&P. Go down to 5% or so and picks up even more
and that is with just a simple screen. 0.7% is hardly realistic either
outside of a money market.

I've been getting that in the (conservative) bond funds I have in my 401K. The
money in the bank has been doing about .5%, though.

Which is largely why only my emergency money is in the bank. The stuff I
can not lose.
BTW: that 5% is dividend only in my illustration. By the time you
add in the increase in price, the total return is much better.



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Apr 15, 7:46*pm, Duesenberg wrote:
On 4/15/2012 6:48 PM, EXT wrote:







"Robert Macy" wrote in message
...
On Apr 15, 9:16 am, Home Guy wrote:
...snip...
All other aspects of smart meters represents a false economy, because
residential customers don't use enough electricity (individually) to
warrant the use of time-of-day billing, as opposed to large commercial,
retail or industrial customers.

After we switched from normal meter to Time of Day meter where the
rate OFF peak hours was half the cost of ON peak hours, our monthly
electric bill dropped $60. To me, that was NOT false economy.

I have NO idea where all the power went either. We live frugally, one
fridge, [gas heating & hot water], no freezer, electric dryer [rarely
used]. only lights and TV and a few computers. Can't believe the
cooking was THAT expensive. But perhaps it was, because we did tend
to cook more outside peak hours after switching.

Here in Ontario, Canada, the politicians were selling Smart Meters by
harping on the basis of saving money, all BS. First there is a surcharge
on power bills to cover the costs of the smart meter and attending
equipment. Plus, rates did not go down, instead the normal all day rate
became the night rate, and the daytime rate went up. So you do not save
money, but you could try to not pay more by only using power at night
(plus the surcharge).

What you say is not true for everyone. *I did save money when my
electrical company switched from tiered to time of use. *I was paying
8.2 cents a KWhr under tiered and now I pay 6.2 cents a KWhr for the
cheapest time slot of 7 pm to 7 am and all day weekends. * *I have a 240
volt swimming pool pump that draws 7.5 amps. *It is 2 cents a KWhr
cheaper to run those 12 hours a night plus saturday and sunday than it
was under the old system. *Since i turn off the pump during the more
expensive times, I am saving under the new system.

And yes the water is still clear and chemically balanced even though the
pump is only on during cheap rates. * *That may not apply to other
people's pools.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The pool filter pump is an excellent example of a significant
residential load that can take advantage of lower rates
available with smart metering. Another would be a well pump
for lawn irrigation. There are smaller loads like the
dishwasher, washer, dryer, basement dehumidifier,
that can often be time shifted too.

All in all, I have no problem with varying rates being
offered that reflect the different costs of electricity
to the utility. That way you pay for what you actually
use and when you use it.

" used improper usenet message composition style
by unnecessarily full-quoting:

The pool filter pump is an excellent example of a significant
residential load that can take advantage of lower rates
available with smart metering.

Not everyone has a pool - but I have to wonder what people did before
time-of-use (TOU) metering with their pool pump. Did they run them
24/7? And with TOU they're running them 12/5 + 2/24? Are these pumps
or pump-controllers able to be programmable like this? If you're
cutting back (by about 50%) on running a pool pump, then of course
you're going to be buying less electricity. You would also be saving
that money if you weren't on TOU and you reduced the pump use.

Another would be a well pump for lawn irrigation.

And fewer yet have a well. And lawn irrigation usually happens at night
anyways (no TOU-motivated time-shifting going on there).

There are smaller loads like the dishwasher, washer, dryer,
basement dehumidifier, that can often be time shifted too.

Many people say that laundry really can't be time-shifted without
impacting lifestyle.

Basement dehumidifiers are very inefficient and probably not used during
the summer when the home's AC unit is doing the job of reducing the
home's humitidy anyways. Are their dehumidifiers that can be programmed
to only come on in the evening (when TOU rates are low)? If not, again
we have a lifestyle-ergonomics issue.

All in all, I have no problem with varying rates being offered
that reflect the different costs of electricity to the utility.
That way you pay for what you actually use and when you use it.

The problem is:

1) the cost-per-home and the networking / software cost is HUGE
compared to the change in usage behavior for the average home.

2) there have been lots of problems with measurements and people
getting huge bills when TOU billing kicked in. There haven't
been enough procedural mechanisms and consumer rights and
protection when it comes to arbitrating TOU billing disputes.

There really wasn't a problem with the way it worked before TOU billing.

You have an electricity utility provider and a residential customer
base. The utility purchases electricity at various rates that change
during the day, and it can easily divide up it's total purchase
expenditure across it's customer base without knowing exactly which
customer used more or less "prime-time" or expensive electricity than
the average customer.

In order to know how your customer base used the prime-time expensive
electricity on an individual level and bill them accordingly, the smart
meter is a very expensive way to do that when you're talking about
residential customers vs industrial or commercial customers when you
look at the actual numbers.

If every residential customer used EXACTLY the same number of
"expensive" or prime-time KWH per month, then smart meters wouldn't be
needed since the utility can spread it's cost for that expensive
electricity equally and equitably (fairly) across it's customer base.

Without TOU billing, a utility can spread it's cost for expensive
electricity equally (but not equitably) across it's customer base.

So now you've got to consider the amount of inequality-of-use of
expensive or prime-time electricity across the customer base, and make
the case that the DIFFERENCE in use of prime-time electricity between
the best energy-saving and worst energy-using households is worth
measuring compared to the cost of implimenting the measurement system.

I say that difference is not worth the cost.

The way it worked in my jurisdiction before TOU was that the first X kwh
I used per month was billed at X1 cents per kwh, and the next N kwh used
was billed at N1 cents. The utility didn't know how much of the X or N
kwh I used was used during prime-time, but I was still penalized by
paying more for anything I used above X kwh so I was still motivated (or
rewarded) to cut back on electricity usage regardless.

On 4/15/2012 11:33 AM, Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.

No matter how hard the utilities try to convince the consumer that it is
for their advantage, the bottom line is that the power companies
wouldn't be doing it if it did not result in higher profits for them.
At this time in our history, when social and economic issues require
many families to work more hours/week out of the home, their
discretionary timing for the use of power is much lower than it was 20+
years ago. If no one is home, no one is going to run the high wattage
stuff unattended. You need to cook, wash, etc. when you have the
available time. Also, lots of folks are willing to spend hundreds of
$$/month on cable/wireless services and/or convenience food and may not
be worried about the inconvenience they might have to endure to save
$20-50/mo on their electric bill. I'm very skeptical that anyone other
than the executives and primary shareholders of the utilities will
obtain tangible benefits after the changeover.

dpb wrote:

Industry experts and consumer advocates have said exactly the same
thing.

Cite(s)?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124050416142448555.html

Note that federal stimulus grants are mentioned (as helping to bankrole
these smartmeter deployments). Note also there is mention of a smart
gas-meter (what a crock that is!). The content of the above link is
reproduced below for your reading pleasure.

That link came from he

http://sites.google.com/site/nocellt...eter-concerns/
going-deep-understanding-the-big-picture-and-real-costs-and-concerns

I highly suggest you have a look at that page and follow some of it's
links.


====================
April 27, 2009
Smart Meter, Dumb Idea?

Not everyone thinks smart meters are such a smart use of money.

Utilities are spending billions of dollars outfitting homes and
businesses with the devices, which wirelessly send information about
electricity use to utility billing departments and could help consumers
control energy use.
The Journal Report

Proponents of smart meters say that when these meters are teamed up with
an in-home display that shows current energy usage, as well as a
communicating thermostat and software that harvest and analyze that
information, consumers can see how much consumption drives cost -- and
will consume less as a result.

Such knowledge, however, doesn't come cheap. Meters are expensive, often
costing $250 to $500 each when all the bells and whistles are included,
such as the expense of installing new utility billing systems. And
utilities typically pass these costs directly on to consumers.
CenterPoint Energy Inc. in Houston, for instance, recently began
charging its customers an extra $3.24 a month for smart meters, sparking
howls of protest since the charges will continue for a decade and
eventually approach $1 billion.

Consumer advocates fear the costs could be greater than the savings for
many households. They also worry that the meters will make it easier for
utilities to terminate service -- so easy that they will disconnect
power for small arrearages that wouldn't have caused a termination in
the past.

What's more, the cost to consumers could go beyond the extra charges
imposed by utilities. That's because consumers usually are left to their
own devices (literally) when it comes to adding the in-home displays and
home-area networks that use data from the meters to control appliances
and other pieces of equipment.

"What we're most concerned about is that consumers realize real benefits
from the meters" from the start, says Michelle Furmanski, general
counsel for the Texas House Committee on State Affairs, which is
considering legislation that could establish more protections against
disconnections.

Ms. Furmanski says that her committee is also looking into the lack of
information on meter deployments that is available to the public. The
utilities have claimed "trade secret" protections for important
financial details about their meter programs, including contract terms
with vendors. Such secrecy makes it impossible for consumers to analyze
why costs for what appear to be similar services vary so much among
utilities.

Texas law requires rapid smart-meter deployments, leaving consumer
advocates little room to negotiate. But Don Ballard, the Texas consumer
counsel, was able to negotiate an agreement with utilities in which
CenterPoint and Oncor Electric Delivery, a unit of closely held Energy
Future Holdings Corp., agreed to spend $20.6 million on consumer
education and $17.5 million to purchase display units for low-income
families.

Legislation is also pending in the state legislature that would force
utilities to seek federal stimulus funds to partly pay for their meter
programs and could limit the ability to levy surcharges. Instead,
utilities would be required to undergo full rate reviews so that
offsetting savings might be identified as a way to minimize the impact
on bills.

Jack Oliphint, a retiree who lives 20 miles north of Houston in Spring,
Texas, thinks the $444 he will pay CenterPoint in coming years for a
smart meter is too much, considering what he sees as rather elusive
benefits. "There's no mystery about how you save energy," says the
71-year-old retired furniture salesman. "You turn down the air
conditioner and shut off some lights. I don't need an expensive meter to
do that."

In other states, such concerns have led to the scaling back of
smart-meter deployments.

Two years ago, Connecticut Light & Power Co. proposed to provide smart
meters for all of its 1.2 million customers. "But then we heard from the
Connecticut attorney general asking us, why don't you walk before you
run?" says Mitch Gross, a spokesman for the utility. "He was concerned
about the cost."

As a result, the utility will do a pilot program this summer to test
customer acceptance of smart meters and variable pricing. Some 3,000
customers have volunteered, and the utility intends to see whether
people cut energy use during times that prices rise. Some consumers will
have "energy orbs" in their homes that change color, a visible
indication of how prices are changing, as a way to stimulate behavior
changes.

Instead of the estimated $255 million cost of a full meter deployment,
the test will run $13 million.

Concerns have arisen in California, too, where the state's three big
investor-owned utilities are expected to spend at least $4.3 billion for
millions of new meters by 2012. Utilities already are looking at
variable-pricing programs designed to discourage heavy use of
electricity during peak periods like hot summer days. The meters, they
hope, will make variable pricing more effective by giving people clear
incentives to decrease energy use when wholesale energy prices are
highest.

But consumer advocates in California also complain about the cost.
"There are cheaper ways to meet the goal of reducing energy use," says
Marcel Hawiger, an attorney for The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, in
San Francisco, a consumer advocacy organization.

For instance, Mr. Hawiger favors expanding existing air
conditioner-cycling programs, where utilities have the ability to
control air conditioners so they take turns coming on and off, reducing
the drag on the electric system. He says the air-conditioner controllers
can provide much of the benefit at a fraction the cost of installing
millions of smart meters. These programs control temperature settings
and compressors to reduce overall energy use.

PG&E Corp., a San Francisco utility, estimated the cost of its meter
program at $1.74 billion in July 2006, but recently got permission to
spend an additional $467 million, pushing the cost to $2.2 billion for
5.4 million electric meters. It has installed 557,000 meters so far with
the capability of letting consumers go online and read energy data. So
far, however, only 12,000 consumers have taken advantage of it. PG&E
says it hasn't yet marketed the program and it hasn't activated the
home-area-network capability, which will allow people to take
information and put it to work by setting up networks to control
appliances, furnaces, air conditioners and other devices.

PG&E has 124,000 customers enrolled in an air-conditioning-cycling
program and hopes to raise that number to 400,000 customers by the
summer of 2011, but that will add $178 million in program expense. Each
thermostat costs about $300.

It sees the two programs as complementary since the air-conditioning
program reduces peak use but it requires meters to measure and time-date
the reductions. Without both devices, air-conditioning use might drop,
but a utility wouldn't know whether it happened in a peak pricing period
or not. Smart meters "allow us to quantify peak reductions due to smart
AC devices," says utility spokesman Paul Moreno, adding that both
programs were "well examined" by the state Public Utilities Commission.

PG&E intends to educate customers about equipment that can be installed
to form home networks, too, but won't sell the products or support the
devices for at least a year or two. Mr. Hawiger says this means that
there will be millions of smart meters bolted to homes but full
functionality won't happen anytime soon, reducing the bang for the buck.

Southern California Gas Co. now is trying to get $1 billion for smart
gas meters. TURN says the expenditure would be a waste of money because
natural-gas pricing isn't subject to the volatility of electricity
pricing, since gas can be stored but electricity can't. TURN is asking
regulators at the Public Utilities Commission to turn down the request
for funds.

The gas company says savings from reduced labor (1,000 meter-reader jobs
would be eliminated) and transportation costs, among other things, would
cover 80% of the estimated capital cost by 2015. Meter costs would push
up monthly gas-service rates for residential customers by $2.50 a month,
or 3%, in the initial years, but would be followed by reductions after
2017, once capital costs were recovered.

"There won't be rate shock," says Anne Shen Smith, senior vice president
of customer service for Southern California Gas Co., a unit of Sempra
Energy, San Diego.

Meanwhile, Pepco Holdings Inc. announced last month that it will buy
more than 430,000 electric and gas meters for one utility unit, Delmarva
Power, in what could be the first leg of a two million-meter rollout by
2013 for utilities it owns in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and the
District of Columbia. The Delaware portion will cost about $100 million,
or $235 per metered location, according to the company.

Pepco is starting with Delaware because "we offered more regulatory
receptivity than other states," says Michael Sheehy, deputy director of
the Division of the Public Advocate for the state. "The others were less
convinced of the benefits."

Pepco says it hopes regulators in all states will want the meters once
they see how useful they are.
================

On Apr 16, 9:58*am, Home Guy wrote:
" used improper usenet message composition style
by unnecessarily full-quoting:

The pool filter pump is an excellent example of a significant
residential load that can take advantage of lower rates
available with smart metering.

Not everyone has a pool - but I have to wonder what people did before
time-of-use (TOU) metering with their pool pump. *Did they run them
24/7? *And with TOU they're running them 12/5 + 2/24? *Are these pumps
or pump-controllers able to be programmable like this?

Every one I've seen has a programmable timer, usually
just a simple mechanical one, so you can set the
periods when you want it to run. It has to run enough
to circulate the water to keep the pool clean. That
might be 8 hours a day.



If you're
cutting back (by about 50%) on running a pool pump, then of course
you're going to be buying less electricity.

The idea with different rates is that you aren't cutting
back, your SHIFTING your demand to periods when
the utility charges less.



You would also be saving
that money if you weren't on TOU and you reduced the pump use.

Which of course has nothing to do with time of use.




Another would be a well pump for lawn irrigation.

And fewer yet have a well. *And lawn irrigation usually happens at night
anyways (no TOU-motivated time-shifting going on there).

There are smaller loads like the dishwasher, washer, dryer,
basement dehumidifier, that can often be time shifted too.

Many people say that laundry really can't be time-shifted without
impacting lifestyle.

Basement dehumidifiers are very inefficient and probably not used during
the summer when the home's AC unit is doing the job of reducing the
home's humitidy anyways. *Are their dehumidifiers that can be programmed
to only come on in the evening (when TOU rates are low)?

Yes and even if you have one that isn't a simple plug-in timer will do
it.



If not, again
we have a lifestyle-ergonomics issue.

All in all, I have no problem with varying rates being offered
that reflect the different costs of electricity to the utility.
That way you pay for what you actually use and when you use it.

The problem is:

1) the cost-per-home and the networking / software cost is HUGE
* *compared to the change in usage behavior for the average home.

The cost if offset by not having meter readers driving
to each customer to read the meter. My water company, for example,
changed over a decade ago to meters that are read by a guy
driving by in a truck without even stopping.
It obviously saves them enough money that it makes sense,
which is why they did it.
Let's say you wanted to make that a smart water meter,
similar to the electric ones. To make it smart,
all that the meter needs to do additionally is
keep track of how much was used by the hour. That
is a trivial addition of hardware/software to the meter.





2) there have been lots of problems with measurements and people
* *getting huge bills when TOU billing kicked in. *There haven't
* *been enough procedural mechanisms and consumer rights and
* *protection when it comes to arbitrating TOU billing disputes.

There really wasn't a problem with the way it worked before TOU billing.

It's 2012. We've put a man on the moon, a computer
in your oven,car, and cell phone, yet you think we can't make an
electric meter that records properly? There might be
some problems in some cases, but this isn't some
high technology thing that is hard to make work right. An
electric meter is trivial compared to a cell phone.



You have an electricity utility provider and a residential customer
base. *The utility purchases electricity at various rates that change
during the day, and it can easily divide up it's total purchase
expenditure across it's customer base without knowing exactly which
customer used more or less "prime-time" or expensive electricity than
the average customer.





In order to know how your customer base used the prime-time expensive
electricity on an individual level and bill them accordingly, the smart
meter is a very expensive way to do that when you're talking about
residential customers vs industrial or commercial customers when you
look at the actual numbers.

Again, lots of utilities have switched to some type of
remote reading system to eliminae the labor of going
up to each meter and reading it. Once you change the
metering to support that, keeping track of how much is
used per hour is trivial.

dpb wrote:

Industry experts and consumer advocates have said exactly the same
thing.

Cite(s)?

==============
Public Citizen: "Energy Investment Forum, Building Green: Consumer
Viewpoints on the Smart Grid," January 20, 2011, by Tyson Slocum,
Director, Public Citizen’s Energy Program:

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Ene...tForumPres.pdf

See page 3, Overview of Problems:

- Mandatory installation of smart meters into homes is premature –
smart meters are being used in profoundly dumb ways

- Optimizing smart meters requires seamless and automatic communication
with “smart” appliances and heating/cooling systems - but working
families (and renters) have little incentive or opportunity to afford
such appliances

- As a result, households are using the $200-$500 meters to respond
to price signals manually – and the tiny loads used by most families
won’t allow them to recover in energy savings the cost of the meter

- Smart meter installations have thus far prioritized utility budget
efficiency – not household budget efficiency.

- Poring through utility dockets, utilities make it clear that the vast
majority of projected savings from smart meters is from laying off
utility workers – and not from consumers’ lowering their energy use
and bills

- Utilities highlight savings from remote disconnection – mainly for
nonpayment. This raises serious consumer safety and health issues.
(cutting off electricial service in the winter)
==============

Something I didn't think about with the smartmeter is the ability to
remotely turn on and off electrical service to a residence without
needing a technical employee to perform the task manually. That goes
hand-in-hand with the elimination of the meter-reader job.

And the ability for a utility to offer (or impose) pre-paid electrical
service.

==============
AARP, National Consumer Law Center, and Public Citizen Comments to:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Smart Grid RFI:
Addressing Policy and Logistical Challenges, November 1, 2010," written
by David Certner Legislative Counsel and Legislative Policy Director,
AARP Government Relations and Advocacy; Olivia Wein, Staff Attorney,
National Consumer Law Center; Tyson Slocum, Director Public Citizen's
Energy Program:

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/o...ntsDOE1101.pdf

A recent investigative news report from Texas (where deregulated
electricity commodity vendors can offer service on a pre-paid only
basis) tells of vulnerable pre-payment electricity customers being cut
off without notice. Families with children have had to abandon their
homes. A paraplegic who requires air conditioning to maintain a safe
body temperature lost his electricity on days when the temperature
exceeded 100 degrees.

A heart failure patient who needed power for an oxygen machine was cut
off twice by her pre-payment meter in one summer.

The risks of disconnection by remote control or by automatic action of a
pre-payment meter or service limiter are also shown in the case of a
90-year old Michigan man who froze to death in his own kitchen last
winter. When he was found, there were funds to pay for his bill on the
table. But he had missed a payment and the utility had installed a
service limiter. When the service limiter tripped, the gentleman could
not or did not know how to reset the limiter.

Customers whose utilities are disconnected have died from hypothermia,
from fires set by candles used for lighting in the absence of
electricity, and from other consequences of loss of power. The concern
of consumer advocates over the dangers of involuntary remote controls on
household usage cannot be overstated.
============



=============
Also read Barbara Alexander's July 15, 2010, presentation "SMART
REGULATORY APPROACH FOR SMART GRID INVESTMENTS," for the 2010 National
Energy and Utility Affordability Conference (NEUC):

http://www.energyandutilityconferenc..._Alexander.pdf.
Among her points:

- Almost 50% of residential customers have very low price elasticities
(less than -0.10); half will make very little usage changes

- YET all must pay for program; TURN found that 60% of customers who use
less than 6,000 kWh annually would have to shift more than half their
peak load to see bill savings when costs of AMI taken into account

- TURN concluded that only a relatively small group of high usage
residential customers can realistically shift sufficient peak load
to find bill savings.

- PUGET SOUND ENERGY: Mandatory TOU prices for all residential customers
abandoned in 2002 when analysis showed negative cost benefit and
higher,
not lower, customer bills

- Elderly customers in newly built multi-unit condos and senior and
low income housing complexes most adversely affected and without
alternative options

- Utilities typically couple smart metering with the functionality of
remote connection and disconnection of the meter

- These new meters may give rise to a host of degraded service options,
e.g., prepayment (pay in advance and automatically disconnect when
meter is not fed); service limiters

- Dynamic pricing does not “empower” customers; it presents a Hobson’s
Choice to many low use, low income, and elderly customers who must
use electricity during peak hours for health and safety reasons
(Chicago heat wave; over 700 deaths, mostly seniors living alone)

- A voluntary approach to dynamic pricing or relying on Peak Time
Rebates is preferred approach; PTR has been successfully
demonstrated to result is peak load reduction without TOU or CPP
=================

On 4/16/2012 10:11 AM, Peter wrote:
On 4/15/2012 11:33 AM, Way Back Jack wrote:
in terms of energy savings, privacy, fire risk, and, most importantly,
health ramifications. Thank You.

No matter how hard the utilities try to convince the consumer that it is
for their advantage, the bottom line is that the power companies
wouldn't be doing it if it did not result in higher profits for them. At
this time in our history, when social and economic issues require many
families to work more hours/week out of the home, their discretionary
timing for the use of power is much lower than it was 20+ years ago. If
no one is home, no one is going to run the high wattage stuff
unattended. You need to cook, wash, etc. when you have the available
time. Also, lots of folks are willing to spend hundreds of $$/month on
cable/wireless services and/or convenience food and may not be worried
about the inconvenience they might have to endure to save $20-50/mo on
their electric bill. I'm very skeptical that anyone other than the
executives and primary shareholders of the utilities will obtain
tangible benefits after the changeover.


Do you beleive that consumers for the last 30 or 40 years have been
paying a fair price for energy costs? I tend to think it's been too low
for too long.

On Apr 16, 11:11*am, Home Guy wrote:

One thing I agree makes no sense to me is the idea
that these smart meters are going to communicate with
appliances, thermostats, etc. I can see billing at different
rates during different time periods to encourage consumers
to shift what demand then can. And I can see substantial
savings from not having employees driving cars around to
go read meters each month, which helps pay for the
deployment. As I pointed out before, my water company
did that a decade ago to save on meter reading.

But, I'm have a hard time figuring out why the electric
meter needs to talk to the thermostat or the AC. As
a consumer, knowing that the rates are cheaper at
night, etc, I can just set the thermostat myself. About
all you could really do would be some slight manipulation
anyway. Like if you wanted the AC to go down to 72,
you might set the thermosat to do it after 6pm, if the
rate went down at that point. But it would seem I need
to make that decision, not the meter.

I guess it could communicate with maybe the electric
water heater, to make sure that goes on mostly at
night. The pilot program idea, like CT is doing sounds
like the right approach. That way they can find out
how much energy shift is possible, how much it saves
or doesn't save consumers, etc. The idea of a
display inside that shows how much energy is being
used and a colored light for the rate changes, etc
is interesting. If people actually had something like
that visually to look at it would be interesting to see
if it did impact energy usage.