I would hope that an opportunity to persuade the public that the benefits of smart meters merit a customer expenditure of a minimum of 15 million dollars would have inspired a slightly more articulate response from city and LP&L officials than we’ re behind and archaic. I am more easily persuaded by research and common sense. Has LP&L done a cost benefit analysis so we can see that it is financially feasible or not? Is it too archaic a notion to determine feasibility before it’s put in the budget? I suppose it could be done after it’s in the budget, but then we’re behind again and it does rather reduce incentive. However, we are paying a half million dollar plus service agreement to Black and Veatch for a feasibility study.
I can see though how cost benefit analysis is a little tricky for the implementation of smart meters. A number of cities, states-through their offices of attorney general and even countries have done them and declared the smart meter technology to be unfeasible financially. And now even utilities are speaking up.
The Northeast Utilities, in legal correspondence to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utility states that the proposal for grid modernization for the state ” is a mandate for the Companies to initiate the accelerated implementation of a particular technology choice; Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI). The Department’s decision to mandate AMI comes without due consideration of key issues such as the immense cost attached to the technology choice; whether customers are willing and able to pay the price of this technology choice; whether the functionally provided by the technology choice will be utilized by customers or is even sought by customers; …. given the relatively small incremental benefit afforded by AMI; and whether other issues such as market alternatives, time-varying rates, and cyber-security should be resolved before there can be any rational determination that this technology is a good choice for customers. The technology choice is made although there is no evidence that this is a good choice for customers. Conversely, there is ample evidence that this technology choice will be unduly costly for customers and that the objectives of grid modernization are achievable with technology and strategies that rank substantially higher in terms of cost-effectiveness. For customers who will pay the price of this system, there is no rational basis for this technology choice.
Rather than furthering grid-modernization objectives, the Department’s mandate to implement AMI creates an intractable obstacle to grid modernization.”
Research. Common sense. Good observations. Raise a few questions? Maybe we should ask them.
Carol
Pratt responds:
Carol,
I love your opening sentence and have been wondering much the same: Why have we not been given a clear ROI or cost/benefit number set?
I think this is an example of how bad our “leadership” is at several levels.
Cost vs. benefit numbers should be relatively simple to work up and provide. Certainly a governing board should not vote to do something without such numbers. And as it’s a citizen-owned utility, it seems obvious that the financial case should be made openly to the citizens of Lubbock.
Pratt
There are many benefits of smart meters, if there is a problem at any location they can send someone to correct the problem whether or not the customer is aware of the problem. They can pinpoint outages and the cause rather than several trucks being sent to trace the line and find the problem. It also enhances customer service and accuracy for billing purposes and reduces the need for the large number of employees reading meters every month.
All of those things are correct but, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the cost/benefit is positive in a densely clustered population. The writer is making the very clear point that before we spend $15 million (which will go on your bill as a fee) why have we not been given clear numbers showing the expected financial benefit? It is true that some utilities have found them not to be as significantly beneficial as they first thought in dense, urban deployments – very different than a rural electric co-op for example.
As to accuracy, there have continued to be big billing failures in areas with the smart meters too. Failure rates and other issues seem to have resulted in far lower staffing reductions than some utilities expected as well.