PG&E meters accurate, 'best practices' needed
Yesterday, the California Public Utilities Commission received the "Structure Report," an analysis of the accuracy of smart meters and related systems deployed by Pacific Gas & Electric.
Just before the CPUC proceedings, I spoke with Chris King, chief regulatory officer for eMeter about related issues.
First, the news on the California matter. In my next column, we'll look at King's observations about the larger issues involved.
For background on the California case and what led the CPUC to order third-party testing of meters, we've done quite a bit of coverage. Last month, I noted that "Smart Grid is Local, Too," after a visit to Marin County, which has taken a health-scare tack on smart meters, unlike the concerns over inflated bills coming out of Bakersfield and Fresno, Calif. Then there was my colleague Kate Rowland's strong opinion piece on Marin's purportedly health-related tactics, "Smart Meter Backlash Plays the Health Card," that PG&E CEO Peter Darbee quoted to the CPUC, and a follow-up, "Smart Meter Reflux Continues." "Texas Smart Meters Are Accurate," described a roughly analogous situation in the Lone Star State.
The "Structure Report" on PG&E's meters is available on the CPUC website. I have not yet read it, only listened to its presentation at the webcasted hearing yesterday. But the gist is now known.
First, it may be significant to note that the vast majority of complaints about smart meters' functionality have been allegations that the meters or systems related to data management and/or billing have been inaccurate. In California itself, as noted, the complaints of this nature from Bakersfield and Fresno focused on high bills. Those complaints gave rise to the CPUC's contracting with Structure Group to provide an arms-length analysis of the technology.
Last month, residents of towns in Marin County presented their grievances: that the electromagnetic radiation from radio frequency bursts from the meter has seriously adverse health effects on humans. A moratorium on meter installation should begin immediately, until definitive proof of their safety is established, residents said.
Yesterday's CPUC hearing on the "Structure Report" began with public testimony and a parade of witnesses testified that smart meters made them sick, hastened the death of loved ones and imposed unbearable horrors on innocent homeowners. Witnesses mentioned cancer, leukemia, insomnia, the Nuremberg trials and PG&E's "massive experiment of unprecedented proportions." One witness accused the CPUC members of "high treason." Another mentioned the use of aluminum foil in mitigating the dangerous output of smart meters. Yet another said in rising tones of dismay that she'd been driven from her home by her smart meter.
Unfortunately, this testimony did not relate directly to the "Structure Report," other than to attempt to establish that the report's results were "dubious," as they did not recognize the new demands for a moratorium. CPUC President Michael Peevey stated clearly, however, that complaints about radio frequency health effects or safety standards should be addressed to the Federal Communications Commission.
Finally, the "Structure Report" findings. The company tested meters in the lab and in the field, it tested end-to-end systems, it analyzed smart meter-related high bills, it reviewed best practices and it assessed the system's security framework.
In short, Structure Group found that meters accurately recorded electricity consumption, PG&E's systems correctly processed data and billing and "no systemic issues were found." Most complaints on high bills could be traced to a heat wave, a concurrent rate increase or personal load changes that coincided with the meters' installation. Some legitimate discrepancies related to instances in which an accurate smart meter replaced an aging, slower electromechanical meter.
Structure Group attributed part of the resulting uproar, however, to PG&E's lack of customer outreach and to clumsy handling of complaints. The CPUC staff announced that it is forming a Smart Meter Task Force to ensure that avoidable mistakes would not be repeated.
Asked for utilities that had done exemplary smart meter rollouts, Structure Group Principal Stacey Wood named San Diego Gas & Electric, Oklahoma Gas & Electric and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
As more than 16.5 million smart meters have been deployed and another 34 million are being installed as you read this, one must wonder how it is that alleged health effects have only been noticed in Marin County and adjacent areas.
Meanwhile, for many readers, it will be far more instructive to consider more mundane aspects of smart meter deployment and the very important question of whether a gap between deployment and tangible consumer benefits could doom the entire effort. King, at eMeter, called that gap the industry's "Achilles heel." More on that issue after the weekend.
Phil Carson
Editor-in-chief
Intelligent Utility Daily
pcarson@energycentral.com
303-228-4757
Comments
There are Systemic Issues Indeed
I disagree with the broad statement that "no systemic issues were found." That the Structure Group did not found systemic issues in the technology means very liltle, as "... technology is the easy part to change. The difficult aspects are social, organizational, and cultural." Donald Norman, "The Invisible Computer," Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press 1988."
To see that there are indeed real systemic issues, please take a look at the EWPC article Should the Smart Grid be a Technological Project to Address a Challenge Faced by Utility Executives?, where you can find that:
As a result of the discussion about the meaning highly important concept “shifting the whole,” the book authors discovered the new systems axiom “What is most systemic is most local.” After that discovery, they wrote that "The deepest systems we enact are woven into the fabric of everyday life, down to the most minute detail... This is so important for us to understand. We, every one of us, may be able to change the world, but only as we experience more and more of the whole in the present..."
...
When Phil Carson writes 'today's utilities often carry a legacy of mistrust derived from being the only game in town accustomed to dictating interactions with 'ratepayers'... ," in his article Smart Grid Is Local, Too, Phil has placed that mistrust at the center of the systemic crisis and the great local instance of the axiom."
To face the systemic issues, I suggest taking a close look to the EWPC post The Huge Positive Side of SmartGridCity for the Global Market.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. - LinkedIn
Smart Meter Aftermath
Structure's findings should be no surprise. The reactions of certain Marin County residents should likewise be no surprise.
Perhaps the most important lesson from PG&E's Smart Meter rollout is the need to communicate with and educate customers. A second, less obvious lesson, is that utilities cannot assume customers will allow devices to be installed in their homes and businesses that give utilities any control over what happens on the customer side of the meter. If consumer-facing elements of any Smart Grid implementation are deemed public policy imperatives, customers have to be encouraged to demand them. Claims that in-home gateways are "good for you and good for the grid" not only won't resonate, they could create an even bigger backlash than PG&E's minor dustup over interval meters.