LIPA to test automatic 'smart' electric meters

Clunky electric meters with spinning dials -- and the people who come to read them -- may become a thing of the past as the Long Island Power Authority embarks on a test of new "smart meters" this summer.

[KirkHere]

Our bills aren't high enough some brainiac wants to change a couple hundred thouand meters. Meters with transmitters. Transmitters? LIPA gets more ridiculous each day.

A new plant? Nope! They have decided to go with a "Conservatiion Program" and the "stick" to get you to conserve is another $3.00 surcharge on top of the already illegal service charge. Like customers hit with huge oil bills this past winter haven't already turned off their lights.

Surcharge? Service charge? Doesn't matter what they call it becauise it is an ENERGY TAX! PlAIN AND SIMPLE A NON LEGISLATED TAX!

Now in case the LIPA Board of Directors hasn't noticed Nassau County is already pitch black at night. Long gone are the porch lights and spot lights that once illuminated Nassau County homes after dark.
Maybe the board of Directors should take a ride some night and see just how "DARK" Nassau county is today. No lights on in any home. Makes the place look like it is deserted with nobody living in the houses.

[BryanB]

The "smart-meters" are a much bigger news story than the $3 surcharge, but I don't know if anyone seems to realize it. It potentially has a much bigger impact on LIPA bills than $36 per year.

What the article doesn't say is that the meters will eventually allow for time-of-day charges for electricity. In other words, the electric rate won't be fixed for certain months like it is now. It will change by the hour, from peak to non-peak.

Of course, the peak rate will be much higher than the off-peak rate. So, it will encourage people to run their dishwashers and clothes dryers at night, because to run it at 3pm on a hot July day could cost three times as much.

These meters make more sense than the $3 surcharge. They could energy charges for people who are able to take advantage of it. They will raise LIPA bills for those who can't.

What you'll also see is the integration of the smart meters and new "smart" appliances. The appliances will connected to the smart meters and can be programmed to run when rates are lowest.

It will mean more efficient use of electricity. It won't mean lower rates because there is no free lunch here. I expect it also means a formal review process because it involves changing electric rates.

[LeslieW]

Watch out, New York! You are about to join the rest of the City and all of New York State, as victims of yet another flagrant moneymaking scheme for Con Edison, and all the other investor-owned electric utilities in the State.

In 1992, Con Edison instituted a program of “mandatory” time of use meters for the customers who were using large amounts of electricity during the months of June through September, as did the other six large NYS Utilities.
The usual rate per kilowatt hour was around 13-14 cents in the Summer months, including taxes. The new time of use rate, from the hours of ten in the morning till six at night, was 38.50 cents per kilowatt hour BEFORE taxes. Figure somewhere around 50 cents a kilowatt hour.

Fhave already managed, just last month, to get Senator Maziarz, from Upstate New York, to introduce legislation in the Senate (Bill # 7445) to allow the Public Service Commission, once more, to institute “Time of Use” metering if it feels it is in the “public good”. I have been informed that as I write, the bil is being introduced in the Assembly, as well. If the Utilities were not getting ready to implement Time of Use metering, there would be NO use for this legislation.

This is simply the back door approach to reinstating a program which is a money maker for Con Edison and the other six wealthy investor-owned Utilities. Don’t believe the hype you see in Press Releases.

[screw the taxpayers]

time of use is a great concept and may encourage energy conservation but the whiners will continue to whine

spoiled , living beyond their means Long Island Brats born and bred
LMAO
make the changes LIPA so the conservative users can reap the benefits

[LeslieW]

You'd better check the archives to see how many people who were not "brats" were hurt by this. Elderly people living on fixed incomes, who can not survive without cooling their homes, young mothers at home with small children and infants - in this economy, with only one parent working, and trying to make ends meet - who need to keep their homes cool enough for their small children. Houses of worship, senior centers, and schools, which run programs for those at high risk during very hot weather - young children and the elderly - who can not cut peak usage without harming those they are caring for.

I don't think you understand that this program is NOT about conservation, any more than it was in 1992. It was to line the pockets of the seven investor-owned Utilities in New York State.

Do you think the Legislature voted in 1996 to prevent the Public Service Commission from mandating "Mandatory Time of Use" metering because some people "whined"? They saw the numbers, they saw what was happening to people under the yoke of incredible charges. They also saw that the people who needed to use energy during peak hours, among them some of the most vulnerable in the State, were also those who could NOT afford the price.

The Consumer Protection Board in Albany, the Borough President of Queens, other Consumer groups, and yes, the Legislators who examined the evidence, are the ones who led the drive to eliminate this program. They didn't do it because people were spoiled.

[Golden boy Evans]

This disable the practice of flipping the meter upsidedown. Time to tap the mains before the meter.

[LeslieW]

And, BTW.....the people who spearheaded the fight against the mandatory TOU meters were not spoiled "brats" from LI. They were middle class people from Queens who work very hard to make a living. Con Edison does not service LI, and it was Con Edison who was the target of the fight.

[BryanB]

LeslieW wrote:

You'd better check the archives to see how many people who were not "brats" were hurt by this. Elderly people living on fixed incomes, who can not survive without cooling their homes, young mothers at home with small children and infants - in this economy, with only one parent working, and trying to make ends meet - who need to keep their homes cool enough for their small children. Houses of worship, senior centers, and schools, which run programs for those at high risk during very hot weather - young children and the elderly - who can not cut peak usage without harming those they are caring for.
I don't think you understand that this program is NOT about conservation, any more than it was in 1992. It was to line the pockets of the seven investor-owned Utilities in New York State.
Do you think the Legislature voted in 1996 to prevent the Public Service Commission from mandating "Mandatory Time of Use" metering because some people "whined"? They saw the numbers, they saw what was happening to people under the yoke of incredible charges. They also saw that the people who needed to use energy during peak hours, among them some of the most vulnerable in the State, were also those who could NOT afford the price.
The Consumer Protection Board in Albany, the Borough President of Queens, other Consumer groups, and yes, the Legislators who examined the evidence, are the ones who led the drive to eliminate this program. They didn't do it because people were spoiled.

It's less about conservation than it is about demand shifting. Have you seen a typical demand curve? Have you seen the difference in prices for peak demand vs. off-peak demand? Do you realize that you already pay different rates on a seasonal basis for the same reason?

Those are real circumstances, not some scam dreamed up by the utilities. The unfettered increase in demand on LI well beyond the population increase has been a big contributor to current electric bills.

You are paying for capacity contracts that will run another 15 to 20 years, regardless of whether the plants run or not. You can't do anything about those contracts already executed, but you can reduce peak demand to avoid having to build more power plants or execute more PPAs to satisfy the mandatory capacity requirements.

Will it hurt those on fixed incomes? Absolutely, just like increases in taxes and the cost of gasoline, food and housing hurt. It shouldn't mean that we abandon the concept because the more you isolate the behavior from the cost, the less you are able to influence it. The solution should be to provide a reasonable, base amount of peak power to everyone at a reasonable price, but implement the time-of-day charges for energy consumed above the baseline. Perhaps there's even a way to set the base line high enough the if you use less energy than the base line, you get a credit.

It won't eliminate hardships. There will always be the desperately poor and others. But the same mechanisms in place to help them (LIHEAP, WIC **** need to be used viz. electric bills.

[LeslieW]

Obviously, I am aware of the current differential in rates between peak and off peak. What we are talking about here is a whole different ball game. When rates go from 14 cents a kilowatt hour to almost 50 cents, I think you have to realize that this has nothing to do with recouping the cost of generating more electric during peak hours. I can guarantee you that the Utilities will gouge people with unreasonable, approaching the obscene, rates. Don't forget, we have lived through this already, and seen the results. Why do you think Legislation was put through in 1996 to stop the PSC from mandating time of use metering? When the program was halted, Con Edison cried to the PSC about loss of revenue. That's what this is all about. I know it sounds like a very noble program, and the way it's presented has to make you think it's logical and practical, but this is all a ploy. This is simply to generate revenue. This is all "deja vu". They claimed the same reasons for the program in 1992.

[BryanB]

LeslieW wrote:

Obviously, I am aware of the current differential in rates between peak and off peak. What we are talking about here is a whole different ball game. When rates go from 14 cents a kilowatt hour to almost 50 cents, I think you have to realize that this has nothing to do with recouping the cost of generating more electric during peak hours. I can guarantee you that the Utilities will gouge people with unreasonable, approaching the obscene, rates. Don't forget, we have lived through this already, and seen the results. Why do you think Legislation was put through in 1996 to stop the PSC from mandating time of use metering? When the program was halted, Con Edison cried to the PSC about loss of revenue. That's what this is all about. I know it sounds like a very noble program, and the way it's presented has to make you think it's logical and practical, but this is all a ploy. This is simply to generate revenue. This is all "deja vu". They claimed the same reasons for the program in 1992.

The off-peak vs. peak rates aren't picked out of thin air. They represent real-time rates and are available for anyone to see at www.nyiso.com . They reflect the fact that, regionally, we are competing for power at peak hours and for the fuel to run the power plants.

What you haven't said explicitly but what I think you shooting for is subsidized electric rates. While I'm not against subsidizes in limited circumstances, I see a real problem when you further isolate the consumption from it's cost. How would you expect to influence behavior (to reduce and conserve) when there's no signal that it's necessary?

I don't really recall the issue of ToD metering back in 1996. Had I been paying attention back then, I'd like to think I would have supported it because it makes sense. It made sense back then, when oil was less than $30/barrel and it makes even more sense now.

How much oil and natural gas and how fewer power plants would we have built if ToD metering had been enacted back then? I think we wouldn't be in such dire straits now, if it had. I don't see the legislature's actions in 1996 as heroic. I see it as a public-relations victory that ultimately bit us in the a__.

Yes, oil prices could/would still have increased, but we would be in much better shape because it's not the magnitude of the change that's the most hurtful. It's the rate of change, and things are changing rapidly now.

The PSC is a relatively transparent process and relatively apolitical, at least compared to price-setting by legislation. Sen. Clinton's questionable gas-tax holiday proposal is a good example of what you're likely to get if you want to put rates to a popular vote.

[LIer]

We will NOT be better off, unless LIPA intends on drastically reducing or eliminating the surcharges. I am already extremely careful with my usage. My heat is off at night always! I have all energy star rated appliances and my home is usually empty from 8:30-5 5 days per week. We don't own a swimming pool either. My surcharge is higher than my actual usage! It accounts for propably 65-70% of my bill. What some may not realize is LIPA charges you extra for over usage or UNDER usage.

[LeslieW]

BryanB wrote "The off-peak vs. peak rates aren't picked out of thin air." That being the case, explain why a peak rate of 38.50 cents per kwh was charged back in the early 90s, when, as you point out, oil was much cheaper. The rates were picked specifically to give the Utilities a nice profit for the investors.

It would be nice to think that there would be only a small differential, resulting from the actual cost of generating electric during peak hours, but we have already seen that this is not what happens. Once these meters go into your home, and they slap you with the rates, you can do your laundry at four in the morning from here to eternity- you are still going to be behind the eight ball.

Right now, bills to allow the Public Service Commission in New York to mandate Time of Use Metering are being presented in the Senate and in the Assembly. Why on earth would they change the Legislation (which we got changed in 1996 to prevent it), unless they are planning on implementing the program? If you ask LIPA now, they will tell you they are not going to implement Time of Use. This is all being done very quietly. Wait till it hits the fan!

[LeslieW]

Here is just one of the comments on the part of one NYS electric utility which does admit getting ready to put Time of Use into place:

"NYSEG, however, remains confident that time-of-day metering will be a boon to customers and the utility."

A boon to the Utility, definitely. To the customer, far from it.

[BryanB]

LeslieW wrote:

BryanB wrote "The off-peak vs. peak rates aren't picked out of thin air." That being the case, explain why a peak rate of 38.50 cents per kwh was charged back in the early 90s, when, as you point out, oil was much cheaper. The rates were picked specifically to give the Utilities a nice profit for the investors....

Because peak rates involve more than just the price of fuel. You have to have enough power plants (i.e., capacity) to satisfy the highest demand, and then some. That means you need enough power plants to satisfy the demand on a 99F day in August, even though some of the plants might sit idle for the rest of the year.
So ToD metering wasn't implemented, and demand continued to grow unchecked and more power plants needed to be built to handle the peak demand. The builders of those plants got contracts with the utilities to provide capacity AND energy. They get paid for capacity whether the plants run or not, and that cost shows up in your utility bill whether you use the juice or not.
See, you've been paying for the absence of ToD metering all along because the power plants were built and paid for to satisfy the peak demand. Many of those plants are less efficient gas-turbine peakers. So now, you can use less electricity, but you still have to pay the bill for the construction of the power plants.
And it's not just the power plants. The transmission and distribution system needs to be able to satisfy the peak demand. Peak electric demand also incurs a congestion penalty when eveyrone wants their electrons to flow over a limited number of wires at the same time.
ToD metering would smooth out the demand-curve, by shifting demand to off peak hours or by just eliminating peak demand because of its price. It would enable higher-efficiency base load plants to carry the load. It would reduce the load on the T&D system. Secondarily, it will reduce the demand for oil and natural gas to fuel power plants.
Try applying your logic to toll roads or bridges or train tickets and see how it works. Charge the same price to take the LIRR whether it's rush hour or 2am. Then be prepared to buy more trains and build more track if you want to keep the commuters moving and relatlively happy.

[LeslieW]

Do the math at almost 40 cents a kwh, which we have done. Forget the washing machine, dishwasher, and AC. Just chart the rest of it. You will be shocked at what you come up with. I don't think you realize how much energy is being generated 24/7 by the things you don't even think about.

[LeslieW]

Looking over some of the figures - water heater uses over $22 a month at only 6 cents a kwh. Some of the other items which are heavy on usage - refrigerator, freezer, furnace, forced air systems (whether to cool or heat). So many items which can not have usage shifted to speak hours. A lot of lighting can't be shifted, either, especially in Winter when it gets dark earlier and stays dark later in the morning.

If you tally the smaller, usually unnoticed items, which either constantly have "some" power, or very little at a time- it adds up. Portable phones, answering machines, electric can openers, doorbells, burglar alarm systems, items with electronic ignition, computers (even in sleep mode), the printers in standby mode, copy machines, fax machines, vacuum cleaners, lawn sprinklers, air cleaners ( for those with allergies), surge protectors ( often a must in rural areas or areas with a penchant for power outages), clock radios, vcrs, dvd players, tvs, thermostats, coffee makers, toasters, food processors, blenders, hair dryers, electric shavers, garage door openers. Perish the thought that you might own an aquarium which requires heat and light.

With families who have small children, those kids are using the tv, the video games. the computer, during peak hours. Heck - they're sleeping during off-peak hours.

What about people who work out of the home? Even if they turn off, or at least down, the AC, they are still using that computer, and printer, etc.

I turned off everything in the house this morning, including my computer, and went outside to watch the meter. LOTS of activity. So...while there are no lights, computers, tvs on, and I am not doing laundry, dishes, and there is no heat or AC running (haven't been running at all for almost three weeks), my meter is still showing usage. At the current 17 cents a kwh, that is probably bad enough. Imagine the numbers when the cost reaches 40 cents or more a kwh.

If you can do your laundry and dishes at night, great. Vacuum after 10 P.M. when you're dog tired from chasing kids all day and you want to go to sleep yourself?

[BryanB]

Leslie,
I hear you loud and clear. I won't argue that any increase in electric rates will hurt people more than they're already hurting. I am aware of how much electricity a household consumes, just as yhou've described. I have a device called a Kill-a-Watt that I've used on my appliances, PC, etc. to see what they use when they're working and when they're "off." It does add up.

The problem for LI is that a portion of your LIPA bill is for things that were done in the past: Shoreham, capacity charges for expensive peaking plants, cables to connect to other grids, giveaways to municipalities to smooth the way for new power plants.

On top of those, you have the cost of fuel. On top of that, you have the work that will have to be done to continue to increase efficiency, such as repowering some plants.

Low and fixed-income LIers would make a good case for rate relief. It will come at the expense of the wealthier. I like the idea of providing a base amount of electricity to every househould for peak and off-peak kWh, at a reasonable rate. Although, I haven't thought it through completely.

Peak and off-peak charges would start once you exceed the base amount. The base amount should be set high enough to cover the basics in a typical, 1800SF house (to pick an example). If you happen to live in a 7000SF house, you better expect to pay at a much higher rate for power consumed over the base amount, particularly peak power.

It will still allow for ToD metering, which, I believe, still has a role to play.

[Out of date]

These studies are out of date in the respect that telecommuting was not a factor in the mid-1990s. Since then, jobs have moved from offices that require commuting (often by car) to in-home during daytime/office hours.

For every at-home telecommuter, you would be jacking up daytime rates, despite that same individual having made the decision to opt out of wasting energy by commuting to a remote office.

[LeslieW]

I looked at my meter today (the 15th). With the weather being as mild as it has been, we have had no heat or AC for three weeks. Yes, we have a big house, and yes, I work out of it, but there are certainly no lights on during the day, no tv going. Computer, yes. Things which work silently ( or not so silently) in the background, such as freezer or refrigerator, etc, yes. We have motion detector lights on the house, which are not activated often. Yes, we have a sprinkler system. but it has only been on once or twice so far.

LIPA had "estimated" my bill, which was done on May 7. I figured the estimate had to be much higher than the actual reading, but I was wrong. With very little going on in this house, only one week after the estimated reading, we were at about 1200 kwh for the month, which is pretty close to the estimate. Believe me, I can think of NOTHING to cut back on during peak hours. I do not know how many kwh were used in the week between the estimated reading and now, but I am going to track it for the next week, since I doubt we will have AC during the week to come, as well.

I wouldn't even protest if the cost of peak usage went from the current 17 cents or so where it is right now, to twenty, or twenty one. But I know from past experience, that this is NOT what is going to happen. When Con Edison was able to raise the 12 cent figure to 40 cents, just imagine what is going to happen now.

There are only two of us in the house, and while it is a big house, the second floor is not used at all - no lights, no "nuthin". The basement is used when laundry is done, and yes, I do the laundry at night - always did. I do the dishes at night as well. I don't even use major appliances at all during the day.

So, do you have an answer for that one???