At the residential level however, the story is simply quite bleak. To put it simply, it reads "dear customer, we would like to install a smart meter which you will pay for .......". So where is the benefit to the residential consumer.
I am believe in the smart grid, which smart meters are a component off. The problem is that we have not taken the time to do it right. Smart meters are an essential component of the smart grid but unless consumers get a benefit out if it, they will be hard pressed to support it especially if they are forced to foot the bill.
- It is not something which a consumer could opt in for ~ as a consumer this would be a red flag. It suggests "they cannot convince me of the benefits so they impose it"
- What is the use of more information about usage patterns unless it gives the consumer some benefit ~ this one is the real sting in the tail. The primary benefit here is that utility companies would be able to apply different prices for electricity at different times of the day which is a very compelling benefit. This is called Time of Use (TOU) pricing. But the introduction of this pricing has been suspended. Without this pricing the rationale for introducing smart meter quickly falls apart and all a consumer is left with is a charge for a new metering system which does little for them
- The great promise of the smart grid is more efficient use of energy. Imagine a time when all appliances in your home uses energy intelligently. Washing machines and dishwashers switch on when electricity rates are lowest. Your big TVs turn off when it detects no one in the room and the list goes on. The smart grid together with smart meters provides the underlying platform and foundation to do this. The problem is that until our appliances can deal with this it is actually actually pointless. It is called applications ~ it is like having a computer without any programs to run on it.
The smart grid is just too important for the major players to stuff it up with silly plays and isolated initiatives. Just what considerations were given to the views and needs of residential consumers is unclear. What alternative deployment plans were considered and what applications were investigated? What did any discussions with appliance manufacturers reveal?
A quick read of the websites of the major power utilities talk about making easier to read meters more efficiently leading to cost savings which is a good thing for the utility companies. Let's consider that for a moment. The energy companies get to reduce the cost of meter readings by reducing the number of meter readers and they want the consumers to pay for meters that allow them to do this. Lets do the sums. If the number of meter readers is reduced by just 10, the annual cost savings for the energy company would be in the region of at least $800,000 a year. One could be forgiven if you came to the conclusion that the reason for compulsory replacement of meters (instead of a voluntary opt in) was due in large part to the fact that a hybrid situation was to allow utility companies to reduce costs of metering. Whatever you may think, consumers are still left with the question of why they are paying so much for something which does not deliver any benefits to them.
The saddest part of this whole episode is that the Victorian people now have a sour taste for smart grids and smart meters and it will take a lot of persuasion to convince them of its merits going forward. Let us hope that Victorians do see beyond the failings of our leaders and insist on accountability from them. Energy and its use is far too important an issue for us to just accept poor performance by the government on. We need smart grids and we need to find a better way of getting widespread support for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment