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.

" 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 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 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.

"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 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.

How do they read "Smart Meters"?

I've heard two different stories on this.

1. They can read my usage anytime, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and
do so right at the power company. Supposedly the signal is sent via the
power lines to their office.

2. They can only read these meters by driving past the residence or
business where the meter is located, the signal is sent by a radio wave
and is limited to a certain number of feet from the meter, which they
read once a month by driving past homes with their meters. The vehicles
they drive have a receiver to read them.

Which of these is true?

---

This brings up another thought.....
What would happen if I removed my "Smart meter"? Would an alarm go off
in their office? In the old days, when I had to work on the mains or
service entrance (beyond the meter) in a home, I'd just pull the meter,
do the work, and put the meter back. Then I'd notify the power company
to tell them that I cut the band on the meter, and why I had to do so. I
never got any complains since I had legitimate reasons to do it.
I'd hesitate to do that these days.... even with a legitimate reason....

In article ,
wrote:

How do they read "Smart Meters"?

I've heard two different stories on this.

1. They can read my usage anytime, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and
do so right at the power company. Supposedly the signal is sent via the
power lines to their office.

2. They can only read these meters by driving past the residence or
business where the meter is located, the signal is sent by a radio wave
and is limited to a certain number of feet from the meter, which they
read once a month by driving past homes with their meters. The vehicles
they drive have a receiver to read them.

Which of these is true?

---

This brings up another thought.....
What would happen if I removed my "Smart meter"? Would an alarm go off
in their office? In the old days, when I had to work on the mains or
service entrance (beyond the meter) in a home, I'd just pull the meter,
do the work, and put the meter back. Then I'd notify the power company
to tell them that I cut the band on the meter, and why I had to do so. I
never got any complains since I had legitimate reasons to do it.
I'd hesitate to do that these days.... even with a legitimate reason....

I've had a 'remote reading' electric and gas meter here in W Los Angeles
for some years now.

They drive by to read them... every 2 months for the electric, and once
a month for the gas.

The guy that installed the electric meter said they might want to
inspect it from time to time, but so far haven't. I have never cut the
seals and removed it, but have turned the power off a time or two to do
maintenance. It has a small visible antenna within it's glass enclosure.

I googled and found out that the electric meter will remember and 'blow
the whistle' next time it's read should it 'think' it's been tampered
with. There wasn't a lot of detail, but being subjected to a strong
magnetic field was disclosed to be at least one trigger parameter.

Far as the gas goes, all the installer clown knew was that it generates
it's own battery charge current somehow from the actual gas flow, and
that it's read via street drive by.

I've seen both the electric and gas reader trucks driving by.

The water meter is still read manually.

Here's mo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Meter_Reading

Erik

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 04:30:18 -0700, Erik wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

How do they read "Smart Meters"?

I've heard two different stories on this.

1. They can read my usage anytime, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and
do so right at the power company. Supposedly the signal is sent via the
power lines to their office.

2. They can only read these meters by driving past the residence or
business where the meter is located, the signal is sent by a radio wave
and is limited to a certain number of feet from the meter, which they
read once a month by driving past homes with their meters. The vehicles
they drive have a receiver to read them.

Which of these is true?

---

This brings up another thought.....
What would happen if I removed my "Smart meter"? Would an alarm go off
in their office? In the old days, when I had to work on the mains or
service entrance (beyond the meter) in a home, I'd just pull the meter,
do the work, and put the meter back. Then I'd notify the power company
to tell them that I cut the band on the meter, and why I had to do so. I
never got any complains since I had legitimate reasons to do it.
I'd hesitate to do that these days.... even with a legitimate reason....

I've had a 'remote reading' electric and gas meter here in W Los Angeles
for some years now.

They drive by to read them... every 2 months for the electric, and once
a month for the gas.

The guy that installed the electric meter said they might want to
inspect it from time to time, but so far haven't. I have never cut the
seals and removed it, but have turned the power off a time or two to do
maintenance. It has a small visible antenna within it's glass enclosure.

I googled and found out that the electric meter will remember and 'blow
the whistle' next time it's read should it 'think' it's been tampered
with. There wasn't a lot of detail, but being subjected to a strong
magnetic field was disclosed to be at least one trigger parameter.

Far as the gas goes, all the installer clown knew was that it generates
it's own battery charge current somehow from the actual gas flow, and
that it's read via street drive by.

I've seen both the electric and gas reader trucks driving by.

The water meter is still read manually.

Here's mo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Meter_Reading

Erik

What gets me is that my electric meter pole is located at the middle of
my farm, which is 3/4 mile from the road. Yet I never see anyone from
the power company come down here, except once a year when they check the
wires and look for fallen or damaged trees near the wires. Unless there
is a storm and wire problems. I dont think the meter signal can go that
distance, but I could be wrong.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 05:04:14 -0500, wrote:

How do they read "Smart Meters"?

I've heard two different stories on this.

1. They can read my usage anytime, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and
do so right at the power company. Supposedly the signal is sent via the
power lines to their office.

2. They can only read these meters by driving past the residence or
business where the meter is located, the signal is sent by a radio wave
and is limited to a certain number of feet from the meter, which they
read once a month by driving past homes with their meters. The vehicles
they drive have a receiver to read them.

Which of these is true?

Both.

---

This brings up another thought.....
What would happen if I removed my "Smart meter"? Would an alarm go off
in their office? In the old days, when I had to work on the mains or
service entrance (beyond the meter) in a home, I'd just pull the meter,
do the work, and put the meter back. Then I'd notify the power company
to tell them that I cut the band on the meter, and why I had to do so. I
never got any complains since I had legitimate reasons to do it.
I'd hesitate to do that these days.... even with a legitimate reason....

Call your power company and ask. Do you think there is one answer?

On Apr 19, 9:23*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 05:04:14 -0500, wrote:
How do they read "Smart Meters"?

I've heard two different stories on this.

1. They can read my usage anytime, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and
do so right at the power company. *Supposedly the signal is sent via the
power lines to their office.

2. They can only read these meters by driving past the residence or
business where the meter is located, the signal is sent by a radio wave
and is limited to a certain number of feet from the meter, which they
read once a month by driving past homes with their meters. *The vehicles
they drive have a receiver to read them.

Which of these is true?

Both.

---

This brings up another thought.....
What would happen if I removed my "Smart meter"? *Would an alarm go off
in their office? *In the old days, when I had to work on the mains or
service entrance (beyond the meter) in a home, I'd just pull the meter,
do the work, and put the meter back. *Then I'd notify the power company
to tell them that I cut the band on the meter, and why I had to do so. I
never got any complains since I had legitimate reasons to do it.
I'd hesitate to do that these days.... even with a legitimate reason....

Call your power company and ask. *Do you think there is one answer?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm trying to imagine the legitmate reasons to cut the seal
on the meter before calling the electric company..... I
saw it done once. The house was on fire and the fire company
did it

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.

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 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 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

"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 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 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.

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.

--

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.

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".

--

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.
================

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 4/15/2012 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.

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 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.

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 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

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 just unplug the refrigerator and freezer on all odd numbered days of
the month. That way my fridge & freezer are only using half as much
electricity. I was thinking about just shutting off the main breaker
for the whole house on all odd numbered days, but I just cant live
without reading all the spam that comes in my email box on a daily
basis.

wrote:
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 just unplug the refrigerator and freezer on all odd numbered days of
the month. That way my fridge & freezer are only using half as much
electricity. I was thinking about just shutting off the main breaker
for the whole house on all odd numbered days, but I just cant live
without reading all the spam that comes in my email box on a daily
basis.

What did you do this past February 29th? Your fridge would be off two days
in a row!

How did you plan for this situation? What problems did you encounter? Did
you have to buy ice at Walmart?

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:30:06 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:
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 just unplug the refrigerator and freezer on all odd numbered days of
the month. That way my fridge & freezer are only using half as much
electricity. I was thinking about just shutting off the main breaker
for the whole house on all odd numbered days, but I just cant live
without reading all the spam that comes in my email box on a daily
basis.

What did you do this past February 29th? Your fridge would be off two days
in a row!

How did you plan for this situation? What problems did you encounter? Did
you have to buy ice at Walmart?


Um, do the same thing that you do the other eight other days of *every* year
that have the same issue? ;-)

"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 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.

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.

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, 12:19*pm, Duesenberg wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why would you think it's too low? The utilities and suppliers are
making a profit and staying in business. That is what is determining
the cost to the consumer.

On 4/16/2012 12:27 PM, wrote:
On Apr 16, 12:19 pm, wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why would you think it's too low? The utilities and suppliers are
making a profit and staying in business. That is what is determining
the cost to the consumer.

Ontario has about 40 Billion in debt from energy legacy costs,
particularity from building nuclear power plants, and that's not gonna
pay for itself.

I don't think energy costs are low now, I think they were years ago.

However I was thinking more in line with the wide availability of large
SUVS, luxury V8 automobiles with 400 HP, and households that buy a flat
panel tv every 3 years, disposing of the old one.

Was also thinking of pollution and water cleanup costs, air quality,
people's health etc.

There is a price for cheap energy that can't be measured on a monthly bill.