Understanding and Connecting Smart Meters, Smart Grids, and Smart Markets.
- Lynne Kiesling
December 22nd, 2009
Via Venture Chronicles and The Energy Collective, two further musings on the deployment of smart meters in California and reasons why these early initiatives have not gone well. While most of the observations revolve around lack of communication or transparency, we find a nugget buried in one of the pieces, namely: “…the data they are providing is certainly not extensive and more significantly there is little I can do to take action on it.” Sound familiar? Allowing people to act upon the useful information the meters may (ultimately) provide – i.e. a tranactive grid – is a critical attribute of a truly smart grid (we believe) . As the articles note:
“…There are a number of problems here – all to do with transparency and communication.
If, as PG&E say, this is because of “customers not shifting demand to off-peak times when rates are lower”, then it follows that PG&E have either failed to communicate the value of shifting demand or the time when rates are lower.
One of the advantages of a smart grid is that the two way flow of information will allow utilities to alert customers to real-time electricity pricing via an in-home display. PG&E have not rolled out in-home displays with their smart meters, presumably for cost reasons. If they lose the class-action law suit, that may turn out to have been an unwise decision.
Even worse though, in a further post on Twitter, Jeff said:
I’m waited for PG&E to put up the daily usage numbers, I won’t get those until next month for some unexplained reason
This defies belief, frankly.
It seems that PG&E’s smart grid rollout is woefully under-resourced at the back-end. What PG&E should have is a system where customers can see their electrical consumption in real-time (on their phone, on their computer, on their in-home display, etc.) but also, in the same way that credit card companies contact me if purchasing goes out of my normal pattern, PG&E should have a system in place to contact customers whose bills are going seriously out of kilter. Preferably a system which alerts people in realtime if they are consuming too much electricity when the price is high, through their in-home display, via sms, whatever.
Jeff himself likened this situation to the e-voting debacle where the lack of transparency around the e-voting machines meant the whole process collapsed. In the same way, a lack of open standards around smart meters means we can only trust the smart meter manufacturers and utilities when they tell us that they are operating honestly. That is unlikely to fly.
This debacle has massive implications, not just for PG&E’s $2.2 billion smart meter rollout, but for smart meter projects the world over.
Transparency and communications failures can lead to utilities being sued by their customers, as we have seen with the PG&E example. Not a desirable situation for any company. The PR fallout from the Bakersfield rollout means PG&E will have a much harder time convincing other customers to sign up for smart meters and may potentially set back smart grid projects in California for years.”
————-
“…I am reserving judgement on the reported usage because the meter was installed in November (if I recall correctly) and this is the time of the year, November and December, that our utility and gas usage is considerably higher than in other months due to the holidays. At first glance the electricity seems rather high and from the limited information that is available through their online reports, unexplained drops and spikes are evident without any significant changes in our household patterns.
I will be tracking this data for a few months and comparing to historical monthly reports to look for anomalies, but right now my concerns are growing.
The promise of utility smart meters, at least what utility companies are promoting, is that customers would be able to have access to a wealth of data about their utility consumption as well as opt-in to more granular rate programs that allow you to modify your consumption behavior in exchange for preferential rates.
As you can see from the graphic I included a screenshot of, the data they are providing is certainly not extensive and more significantly there is little I can do to take action on it. There are no notifications or alerts I can set, and quite candidly I don’t have confidence in the reported data. For a reason that PG&E does not explain, there is no hourly data available either, despite having the smart meters for two billing cycles. This is the first component in PG&E’s #fail.
There is a program that PG&E offers called SmartRate whereby customers can opt-in to a voluntary program where they agree to cut back usage on up to 15 days, when PG&E broadcasts an alert, over a 5 month period in the summer months and in exchange PG&E offers these program participants a discounted rate. The problem with SmartRate is that the notification system is suspect, in fact this has been a frequent criticism of the SmartRate program, that customers are not getting the notifications on the selected days and end up paying more, as a penalty, for power as a result.
The entire notion of communicating consumption data is of tantamount importance to smart meter programs across the country. However, this is yet another example of how when utility companies talk about communicating it is not the same as when customers use the word. The focus insofar as utility companies have been concerned is the protocol used for the meter to communicate to the billing infrastructure.
There has been a controversial provision in the Stimulus bill passed this year that requires utility companies using stimulus dollars – taxpayer money – to build out their smart meter networks using standard IP. PG&E, to their credit, is using Silver Springs Networks for their meters, which is an IP based system. However, this is only one component in a much more complex system.
The data streams that these meters are producing should be available to anyone who I, as the utility customer, authorize. Access to this data would allow a network of third party application and service providers to offer products that are of great service to customers. As it stands today, I can only access a limited snapshot of data in a simplistic online display or as a downloadable CSV file.
The Utility Standards Board, which PG&E is not a member of, is promoting exactly this level of interoperability and data access.
It is the entire notion of open and transparent standards that most troubles me with these projects. There is something comforting about a mechanical meter (which the natural gas meter still is, the retrofit procedure only replaces the front panel) because it’s simplicity promotes reliability and consistency. The all digital meters, which the electrical meters are, represent a black box with no ability for third parties to access and verify.
For several years the conversion of our voting system from paper ballots and mechanical voting machines to an all digital system has been plagued by controversy because Diebold, renamed Premier Election Systems and sold to Election Systems & Software, refused to allow third parties to access the system code. This controversy only grew and ultimately Diebold sold off the division because it was tarnishing the firms image.
Utilities today have a similar set of conditions developing. Questions are growing about the accuracy of the electricity meters in particular and it won’t take long for this brushfire to grow into a firestorm that consumes the entire industry. PG&E should address these concerns not by blaming customers but by allowing third party verification of these smart meter systems, access to the code and mechanical details, and data interoperability.”
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009 at 7:59 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Based on decades of experience and interest in conservation, Monty Simus believes that a truly “smart” grid must be a “transactive” grid, unshackled from its current status as a so-called “natural monopoly.”
In short, an unlocked grid must adopt and harness the power of markets to incentivize individual users, linked to each other on a large scale, who change consumptive behavior in creative ways that drive efficiency and bring equity to use of the planet's finite and increasingly scarce resources.