Has anyone experienced a hike in electricity bills after upgrading to a Smart Meter?

[Frankenscript]

When my region went "smart meter," OMG the conversations on NextDoor (social media platform for neighborhoods).

People were convinced these things were going to overcharge us, zap us with massive radiation, spy on us and our electrical use, and all sorts of other evils.

1. My bills didn't change appreciably; they went down a bit but that's because I switched over to LED bulbs for pretty much all lighting over a period of time overlapping with the change.
2. It's neat to see details of usage; I played with it as a novelty in the first month or two then haven't logged on in a couple years.
3. They haven't detected my marijuana grove yet (just kidding)
4. The BS about the smart meters putting out dangerous radiation is BS, similiar to other tinfoil hat conspiracies ("windmills cause cancer" ; 5G is a government conspiracy, and so on)
5. The two times my power went out, while I was at home, since the installation, they already knew about it when I called to report within minutes. Their monitoring system works.
6. I haven't opted into time of use billing here, so it doesn't apply to me (I can also opt in to let them turn off my AC for 15 minutes every hour. HELL NO).
7. "OK, Google. Does anybody spy on me using information from the smart meter, like what type of equipment I have and when I use it?" Google: "Don't be stupid. We have much better ways to spy on you."

 

[sebastiantombs]

Oh yeah, another thing about a "smart meter" is that it is powered by your dime and not the utility. So you're paying to have a monitor system that can raise your electric bill to begin with, plus the electricity to run that monitor system. I call that a lose-lose situation. It is "smart" though, smart for the utility.

@Frankenscript I have to differ with you on one point. Your bill did go up. First you spent the money to buy LED bulbs. Next your bill didn't go up, which means it stayed the same even with reduced consumption from the LED bulb conversion. That, effectively, means your bill went up.

 

[Frankenscript]

Oh yeah, another thing about a "smart meter" is that it is powered by your dime and not the utility. So you're paying to have a monitor system that can raise your electric bill to begin with, plus the electricity to run that monitor system. I call that a lose-lose situation. It is "smart" though, smart for the utility.

@Frankenscript I have to differ with you on one point. Your bill did go up. First you spent the money to buy LED bulbs. Next your bill didn't go up, which means it stayed the same even with reduced consumption from the LED bulb conversion. That, effectively, means your bill went up.

I like your point about powering the smart meter on my dime. I figured it was powered "pre meter" like the spinning wheels presumably were on the old one. But the amount of power is probably less than a single camera and I can't get too worked up over it.

And like I say, my bill dropped a bit because of the LED bulbs, some of which were added after the switch to new meter (about a third of my lighting after the switch, two thirds before the switch). It dropped a bit, but lights are not my main power use. AC, fridge, lots of cams and computers, laundry machines, children, my 60" plasma TV.... Those are my power draws!



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

 

[DsineR]

Smart meters do not charge the consumer more per kilowatt than analog meters. Any change you see after the conversion will be based on a more accurate measure of your consumption, not a scam run by your power company.

Smart meters allow you to monitor your usage hourly. And with that info, you can best choose your electric plan (Tier Rated, Time-of-Use, etc) based on your habits. Or change your habits to work in your favor aka Time-Of-Use plans. The opposite also holds true, the power company can also see your hourly use, and will charge extra for the same kilowatt during peak hours.

Again, the smart meter is not charging you more. A KW is measured the same, just charged differently based on your chosen plan.

 

[sebastiantombs]

The meter certainly doesn't charge more, the utility does and I never said the meter charged anything. Only that you pay for the "privilege" of having one by paying for the power it needs to operate. The increase comes from the accounting tricks the utility plays with TOD useage metering, "tier metering" and all kinds of other little, nuanced, ways to raise the cost per KWH. As I said, it costs the same to generate that power, no matter what time of day it is. This is just another way into your pocket disguised as "being green" and as Kermit said "It isn't easy being green."

 

[Arjun]

Wait, are you implying that if I am used to running the AC during peak hours, I should expect my bill to go up now due to using a specific utility during a specific time of day (in this case, peak hours)? There wasn't any disclaimer (TOS) when the replacement was done earlier today.

The meter certainly doesn't charge more, the utility does and I never said the meter charged anything. Only that you pay for the "privilege" of having one by paying for the power it needs to operate. The increase comes from the accounting tricks the utility plays with TOD useage metering, "tier metering" and all kinds of other little, nuanced, ways to raise the cost per KWH. As I said, it costs the same to generate that power, no matter what time of day it is. This is just another way into your pocket disguised as "being green" and as Kermit said "It isn't easy being green."

 

[sebastiantombs]

If you picked the TOD usage plan, yes, but the same is probably true no matter which plan you pick.

 

[Arjun]

They didn't give me any option and there wasn't any disclaimer. Therefore, I'm assuming that everything stays the same. Its just the added luxury of monitoring overall use now.

If you picked the TOD usage plan, yes, but the same is probably true no matter which plan you pick.

 

[sebastiantombs]

You know what happens when you "assume". Another thought is that now your electricity consumption is "up in the cloud", under the watchful(?) eyes of the power company. I hope you have lots of confidence in the security of their network.

One more thought. The meter that was/is on your house was bought and paid for in dollars from, probably at least ten years ago which translates into very little in today's dollars. Now, they're coming around with a "smart" meter with 900Mhz WiFi, an onboard computer and a nifty display all integrated to a whizz bang web site customized for you. Who do you think is paying for all this crap? The cost is in your electric bill and I'll bet it gets recovered in very short order. Then, we've got all those obsolete meters to contend with as well, another cost to be absorbed.

I have a friend who works for the local utility in the communications department. There's a "hi line" behind the house I used to live in. He told me that when he checks the substation for that line, which supplies a few towns around there, he has to tap the meters to get a reading. Keep in mind this is a 250KV hi line capable of supplying a few megawatts. The meters start reading at 100KW. To the power company this isn't even worth monitoring.

 

[Frankenscript]

A couple additional thoughts:

Yes, the new Meters are expensive and I dare say more likely to break down faster than the old ones. Not good.

But the electric company doesn't have to send meter readers every month. This is a huge labor savings for the equation and offsets the cost of meters many times over, over the course of the meter's life. That's good. The meter readers are out of a job, though. That's bad.

Plan options vary by location. I had choice of tiered service which is the default for me (first X kilowatt hours at some cost, additional Y ones over that at some other cost). Also an option for them to throttle my AC during summer for a discount. No thanks. Also an option for differential cost per kilowatt based on time of day I think was offered.

Daytime hours are high use times; higher price for power then discourages use, reduces consumption, and reduces need for peak power generation which is less efficient and more costly than baseline generation.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

 

[sebastiantombs]

I'm trying to understand how generating more is more expensive. I used to work for a major builder of power generation stations. We built the first 1 megawatt cogen plant in the world. The plants were designed to be efficient at their peak capacity as well as at 50% capacity, and everywhere in between. Any other way and we wouldn't have won the contracts to build them. The whole concept of charging "x" for the first, say, 20KW and "y" for the next 10KW is just a marketing ploy to increase their income, to comply with the "green" movement and make you feel guilty for using power in the first place.

Spending, literally, millions up front to buy these "smart" meters with the goal of eliminating a meter reader is also something that may, or may not, save money in the long term. It will result in more expensive electricity to cover that cost and that increase will never be removed from the cost of electricity. And, any money saved will never be reflected in your bill. That saved money will remain with the power company, trust me on that.

 

[Frankenscript]

I'm trying to understand how generating more is more expensive. I used to work for a major builder of power generation stations. We built the first 1 megawatt cogen plant in the world. The plants were designed to be efficient at their peak capacity as well as at 50% capacity, and everywhere in between. Any other way and we wouldn't have won the contracts to build them. The whole concept of charging "x" for the first, say, 20KW and "y" for the next 10KW is just a marketing ploy to increase their income, to comply with the "green" movement and make you feel guilty for using power in the first place.

Spending, literally, millions up front to buy these "smart" meters with the goal of eliminating a meter reader is also something that may, or may not, save money in the long term. It will result in more expensive electricity to cover that cost and that increase will never be removed from the cost of electricity. And, any money saved will never be reflected in your bill. That saved money will remain with the power company, trust me on that.

Here in Indiana, there are some generating plants that are putting out power essentially constantly, scaling up and down as needed to feed the grid. There are also feeds coming in from several big wind farms and solar stations to help offset daytime usage spikes. But when that is insufficient additional plants come online. Invoking this capacity comes with a somewhat incremental cost to generate those extra megawatts. There was a good radio show discussion about it a few years ago. I find it very interesting though I'm not in that business and only know what I read/hear.

I'm a fan of conservation... I don't feel guilty for using power but I make conscious choices to minimize the power I use when it doesn't impact my lifestyle. I'm not a green nut by any means (I use AC like a madman: I like it cold enough to hang meat in my house!). So, I get that they charge more during peak usage times to discourage use. That reduces overall consumption and reduces carbon emissions. As an example, I let the house get 3 degrees warmer during the day than at night; when I started doing this I noticed a significant drop in KWH usage. The cost of cooling the house back down at night (when it is cool outside) was small compared to maintaining those extra few degrees all day long in the baking Indiana sun. Similarly, switching to LEDs was in part to reduce power use, and in part to minimize maintenance. I get 3-5+ years to a bulb in some difficult to access fixtures, and I don't mind not being on a ladder as often. Now that normal LED bulbs are cheap, they make bake their cost quickly. I wasn't a fan of the idea of retiring incandescent bulbs at first, but I'm on board the train now, from a cost and maintenance perspective. On the other hand, I love my big plasma TV and won't replace it with a lower power TV until either it dies and I have to replace it, or until they make an OLED or whatever that looks as good. It sucks power like a fiend, but the picture is amazing and I ain't giving her up!

I totally agree with you that any cost savings from losing the meter readers will never be seen by the consumer. But also keep in mind we benefit by better grid management due to smart meters and the fact that they can respond faster to outages. My power is pretty steady but when it goes down now, they know about it immediately.

 

[Arjun]

The irony is that we are giving power back to the energy companies through all these changes coming our way (i.e. Solar Power, Smart Meters, Energy Efficient bulbs). Like most conservatives would say, more long term study is needed to see if the pros outweigh the cons on the customer's end

Here in Indiana, there are some generating plants that are putting out power essentially constantly, scaling up and down as needed to feed the grid. There are also feeds coming in from several big wind farms and solar stations to help offset daytime usage spikes. But when that is insufficient additional plants come online. Invoking this capacity comes with a somewhat incremental cost to generate those extra megawatts. There was a good radio show discussion about it a few years ago. I find it very interesting though I'm not in that business and only know what I read/hear.

I'm a fan of conservation... I don't feel guilty for using power but I make conscious choices to minimize the power I use when it doesn't impact my lifestyle. I'm not a green nut by any means (I use AC like a madman: I like it cold enough to hang meat in my house!). So, I get that they charge more during peak usage times to discourage use. That reduces overall consumption and reduces carbon emissions. As an example, I let the house get 3 degrees warmer during the day than at night; when I started doing this I noticed a significant drop in KWH usage. The cost of cooling the house back down at night (when it is cool outside) was small compared to maintaining those extra few degrees all day long in the baking Indiana sun. Similarly, switching to LEDs was in part to reduce power use, and in part to minimize maintenance. I get 3-5+ years to a bulb in some difficult to access fixtures, and I don't mind not being on a ladder as often. Now that normal LED bulbs are cheap, they make bake their cost quickly. I wasn't a fan of the idea of retiring incandescent bulbs at first, but I'm on board the train now, from a cost and maintenance perspective. On the other hand, I love my big plasma TV and won't replace it with a lower power TV until either it dies and I have to replace it, or until they make an OLED or whatever that looks as good. It sucks power like a fiend, but the picture is amazing and I ain't giving her up!

I totally agree with you that any cost savings from losing the meter readers will never be seen by the consumer. But also keep in mind we benefit by better grid management due to smart meters and the fact that they can respond faster to outages. My power is pretty steady but when it goes down now, they know about it immediately.

 

[sebastiantombs]

I totally agree with you that any cost savings from losing the meter readers will never be seen by the consumer. But also keep in mind we benefit by better grid management due to smart meters and the fact that they can respond faster to outages. My power is pretty steady but when it goes down now, they know about it immediately.

Better grid management is another false narrative. Power companies don't even consider a 100KW load to be anything to worry about on a transmission line and don't really monitor it. Even if they did, the granularity available, actually lack of granularity, makes it pointless in the first place. Our local utility manages their grid "so well" that if we don't report an outage, as in the whole area of 500 or so homes and multiple business is out they aren't even aware of it.

"Smart meters" can serve a purpose without a doubt. But they're starting to manage the grid from the micro level when they should be starting at the macro level. The reason for that is they can charge more and BS everyone into thinking they are actually improving things to justify constantly hiking prices. Wind and solar are fine, in specific areas of the country and world, to provide some peak capacity but in most of the country they are another pointless, feel good, we're being "green" exercise in wasting money.

Here in NJ they had a major project to put up about a megawatt of solar panels on existing telephone poles, 200 watts per panel. They only spent about 100 times the cost of a megawatt generator to do that and are providing, probably, less than half of the projected megawatt as well as sticking the disposal of those panels at the end of their lifecycle on the electric bills. Anyone ever think about the toxic waste produced when manufacturing or disposing of solar panels or the energy that all takes? I doubt it, it's a "green" thing, AKA bull crap.

Think about it, all these power saving bulbs, appliances, consciously cutting your own energy usage, and your bill still keeps going up almost exponentially. Someone, somewhere, is putting that money in their pockets, be it the State, State Regulators or power companies. I vote for all three.

 

[DsineR]

Simple solution for those that can - go solar. Guaranteed ROI and can greatly diminish or even eliminate power bills.
I live in SF Bay area, $$ utilities. Over 4 years, and average power bill annually is $20.00. Recoup total costs of system in under 7 years.
Like taxes, design your solar system so you break even.

 

[sebastiantombs]

I agree with that, but are you storing your excess generation, IE batteries and inverter, or "selling" it to your utility? There's still the problem of manufacturing and disposing of those toxic solar panels, and perhaps batteries as well, in an "environmentally friendly", AKA costly, way.

 

[DsineR]

I agree with that, but are you storing your excess generation, IE batteries and inverter, or "selling" it to your utility? There's still the problem of manufacturing and disposing of those toxic solar panels, and perhaps batteries as well, in an "environmentally friendly", AKA costly, way.

Have not installed batteries yet, possibly a future upgrade. There are options now which allow you to use a smaller battery to store power daily, then use that power as needed when you are using excessive power or nightly when there is no production. This is a different solution vs. using batteries for brown or blackout periods.

The power bill for solar users are sent once per year, and is based off of consumption vs. production. For the summer months, we produce more then consume and then it flips over winter months due to available sunlight hours. I don't consider the excess production as 'selling' back to the power company, more like a deposit for the winter months. As previously mentioned, goal over the year is to break even.

Like all electronics, there are some toxic materials used in production. But when installed, solar panels are a 100% renewable energy source. Not even a close comparison to the coal or natural gas greenhouse emissions.
Lifetime of solar panels is 25-30 years, and even then they still produce 80% of there original rating - not a quick turnover rate. Depending on the panel type, 85-95% can be recycled. This number is improving annually.

 

[sebastiantombs]

Heavy metals are heavy metals. Recycling them takes a lot of energy. I have yet to see an analysis of that aspect. The 100% renewable claim is a little bogus as well considering the manufacturing and recycling energy costs. Getting enough of them to replace, even one, 1000 megawatt cogen, coal, gas or nuc plant takes many, many acres of solar panels and many hundreds of tons of batteries to provide power when the sun isn't shining at full force. Over here on the East side, rated outputs are optimistic numbers based on unrealistic sunlight expectations. Several neighbors have installed solar and all are disappointed with the performance and savings they are not getting. I know, marketing is responsible, but again, local and regional conditions effect performance dramatically.

 

[TechBill]

During 2008-2009 when smart meter was being introduced into main stream, many of it was factory defective and giving inaccurate readings but that supposedly is long over with and all the smart meter replaced and regulated now to make sure it give accurate reading.

My house have a smart meter installed and I am happy with it because the electric company now allow me to build a fence toward more closer to the front of the house and I don't need to give the meter reader the right of the way anymore. Only time they would need to call me or email me if they need access to the power pole in the backyard but they been using my neighbor's yard to access it anyway.

They also just recently replaced the water and gas meter with a smart meter too. I dislike the new smart gas meter because they did not replace the gas regulator on the side of house instead they took off the analog meter and replace it with a smart meter. The new smart meter stick out about good 5-6 inches further away from the gas regulator and I have a very small side yard which make it challenging to back up my trailer into the backyard with that meter sticking out further more.

With the old flat analog meter,I would have a good 7-8 inches of spaces between the trailer and meter and now with new smart meter sticking out more which give me like 2-3 inches of space in between to work with when backing up trailer into the backyard

 

[DsineR]

Heavy metals are heavy metals. Recycling them takes a lot of energy. I have yet to see an analysis of that aspect. The 100% renewable claim is a little bogus as well considering the manufacturing and recycling energy costs. Getting enough of them to replace, even one, 1000 megawatt cogen, coal, gas or nuc plant takes many, many acres of solar panels and many hundreds of tons of batteries to provide power when the sun isn't shining at full force. Over here on the East side, rated outputs are optimistic numbers based on unrealistic sunlight expectations. Several neighbors have installed solar and all are disappointed with the performance and savings they are not getting. I know, marketing is responsible, but again, local and regional conditions effect performance dramatically.

Not buying this, there are plenty of Solar Panel Calculators available. Enter your power use and zip code results in how much solar your need.
It's not a guessing game, very easy to determine. Too bad your neighbors were mislead.