Smart Meters and the Margin for Error
We've taken a break lately from smart meter news for sanity's sake. But now we return to our regularly scheduled controversy.
Yesterday, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) issued a white paper titled "Accuracy of Digital Electricity Meters." And news came Monday that Pacific Gas & Electric, with one of the most aggressive smart meter rollouts in the nation, acknowledged that a sliver of its new meters had technical flaws and it had not adequately prepared its customers for smart meters.
First, I think most readers will agree that smart meter controversies do not reflect an intentional effort by utilities to over-charge their customers - though many consumers are convinced otherwise. Second, as the EPRI white paper explained, there are nearly a dozen reasons that smart meters or their installation could lead to errors in fact or perception.
The paper provided useful background on the electromechanical meter and its success. It identified the driver of smart meters as more advanced functionality. It noted that most major manufacturers have, in fact, discontinued the production of electromechanical meters. Thus, the paper concluded, "when advanced metering functions are needed, reverting to electromechanical meters is not a viable option."
The EPRI paper also concluded that most Americans will have a smart meter in the next five to ten years.
"During such a transition, there will likely be both real and perceived issues. Care must be taken to consider each case thoroughly and to use sound diagnostic practices to trace each issue to its root cause. Temptations to either blame or exonerate the solid-state meter must be resisted."
Consumers have leapt to finger-pointing, with reasoning that runs the gamut from paranoia to understandable anger over jumps in their electric bills. Meanwhile, some utilities have blindly defended their smart meter programs before actually diving into the case-by-case reasons for complaints.
EPRI pointed out that the new, solid-state meters are built to more exacting standards of accuracy than the old, electromechanical meters and, thus, "the factors that may lead to these observations and perceptions [of smart meter problems] are important to understand."
The paper lists 11 factors that may cause post-smart meter jumps in bills, the crux point for consumers' trust in their utility. That list includes variation in billing period lengths, early life device failure, extreme weather, new rate structures and inaccurate readings by electromechanical meters, among other reasons.
Any of these factors, when linked to the installation of a new, solid-state meter, can lead to wholesale indictment of the technology and the utility deploying it, especially in a media crucible that thrives on controversy.
Indeed, PG&E said that its 99 percent success rate still left "1 percent of meters with issues," equal to about 50,000 customers with potentially valid complaints. That means, in effect, that utilities need to rollout smart meters with a similar reliability rate to their delivery of electricity itself - the proverbial "five 9s" - 99.999 percent.
The most obvious upshot to me is that utilities may have to calculate higher costs for smart meter rollouts to fund a more thorough educational process prior to installation, knowledgeable customer service responses to reported problems, case-by-case analysis of those problems and transparency in communicating all of this.
To its credit, PG&E now is doing most of this, but unfortunately no one can turn back the clock for a do-over. Obviously, PG&E is not the only utility facing this issue, or other, related issues.
We've only touched upon the fundamental issue of reliable billing. Some utilities have solid financial reasons to go with advanced metering infrastructure, but most utilities have not yet made the case that consumers do as well. That's the next big headline, in my view. It behooves the industry to get out ahead of that debate with credible arguments.
Another news item popped up yesterday. The town of Wallingford, Conn. has rejected smart meters, at least for now. Although the Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative of Norwich obtained a $9.2 million federal grant for an $18.4 million smart meter rollout, Wallingford's public utilities commission rejected participation.
The reason? Mainly, its cost-share of $1 million to $1.5 million. But Wallingford PUC Commissioner David Gessert added that "somebody has to prove our customers would actually be interested in this."
Phil Carson
Editor-in-chief
Intelligent Utility Daily
pcarson@energycentral.com
303-228-4757
Comments
Smart Meters .. and rising electric bills
Having managed the metering organization for a large IOU, I am not surprised that there are a host of reasons for increased electric bills after smart meter rollouts. Most utility commissions require that different meter types and populations are routinely sampled for accuracy, and any meter populations that chronically exceed registration (i., e., register higher than they should) be replaced. However, commissions typically do not require "slow" meters to be replaced; rather the utility tracks these meter types and populations and replaces them when the payback warrants. Thus, the utility is allowed to leave money on the table if they wish, but can not gouge customers with inaccurate meters on the high side. When a full scale new meter deployment is conducted, whether the new meters are smart meters or not, the slower registering meters are replaced, bills increase, and customers complain. In my experience, it was not unusual to find older electro-mechanical meters that were only registering 60% of the proper kwhrs, so clearly the customers were benefiting, whether they realized it or not. Try explaining to a customer that they have been given a benefit for years, since their bills were very low due to an old electro-mechanical meter, but the new smart meter will be a benefit to them! I am sure many of these customers would gladly take back their old meter.
C Nobles
AMI accuracy goes beyond the meter
My company is working with consumer groups and regulators in California, Texas and Illinois to address the issue of public perception and confidence in the sizeable investments made in AMI infrastructure.
Our experience also has shown that a meter accuracy rate of 99% still leaves room for widespread public misperception and regulatory uncertainty as legislators become involved with helping their constituents.
Our advice to all parties: stop touting the meter. It is only one part of a new and complex ‘system of systems,’ and is not the likeliest point of failure, in any case. As complaints in PG&E attest, the smart meter read may be accurate, but the resulting bill or online display may not.
A comprehensive check of the entire AMI system is the most effective way to identify root causes of error and restore needed confidence.
Focusing on and spending a lot of money on meter testing before customer complaints are categorized and adequately understood isn’t a prudent approach, if the goals are to find and fix problems in new and complex proprietary IT systems.
We have seen reported problems, including usage reported during intervals when a power outage was in effect, and disagreements between usage amounts printed on a bill and the same customer’s usage for the same billing period as reported through a web portal, that may be better explained by software issues than meter error. Any investigation ignoring such issues will ultimately be received with skepticism.
Meter and AMI projects will be iterative in nature and feature increasingly short time-to-obsolescence lives (in my opinion) as new capabilities and opportunities emerge. There is potentially a lot to be gained through AMIT, and it would disadvantage both the industry and consumers, long term, if the initial deployments remain tainted in the public’s, regulators’ and legislators’ minds by unresolved complaints.
The consumers we deal with have long memories and regulatory approval for future rounds of expense and cost recovery may not be obtained as easily as this first, if the current complaints are not addressed thoroughly and transparently.
An article could be written on the emergence of the ‘expert utility customer,’ similar to the ‘expert patient’ phenomenon, brought on by the Internet, that is changing the way that medical services are presented and treatments selected. Some of the most vocal advocates we meet seem as well informed as the regulators on some specific issues and are firmly insistent on accurate and complete information.
Looking forward to more coverage of the issue.