Smartmeter: Anyone knows how to get detailed info on them?
in [Design]
|
From: Charlie E. on 28 Apr 2010 15:03 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:30:59 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: >Hi Charlie, > >Charlie E. wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:52:23 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> sj wrote: >>>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:56:34 +1000, "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I wonder what happens if the new gadget completely fails for, err, some >>>>> mysterious reason... Do you get your electrons for free until they can >>>>> replace it? >>>> >>>> From bits of information I have heard in the media about California PG&E >>>> complaints, some of the meters have failed to record and the PG&E >>>> solution is to estimate the bill from previous history. I don't have any >>>> confirmation link to cite. >>> >>> But there were people who claimed the bill was 3x the previous year's or >>> more. That can't be an estimate. Also, on the bill it should clearly say >>> "estimated". >> >> Even with mechanical meters they can get away with 'estimating' your >> usage! >> >> Back in Irvine, it apparently was the practice to actually read the >> meters only every other month. We could tell, because every other >> month we would get hit by large 'overuse' charges, as they 'estimated' >> that we would have used a lot more electricity, and gone into the high >> tariff rates, and then the next month we would be barely out of >> baseline. A couple of times I got the bill, looked at what they said >> the meter read, went out and LOOKED at my meter, and realized that I >> wasn't there yet a week after they had supposedly read the meter. >> >> And no, they never put on there 'ESTIMATED'... > >In every service area that I've lived, the bill announced >"estimate" if it indeed was an estimate. And, in every such >area, the utility couldn't *regularly* resort to estimates >as it *is* unfair to the consumer (since most utilities >don't have flat tariffs) > >Note there is a subtle but hugely significant difference, here: > >If a meter reader couldn't read your (mechanical) meter >(because he was lazy, work stoppage, bad weather, etc.) >the utility *could* estimate and then, in the *next* billing >cycle, an actual reading would come up with a correction. >Granted, you couldn't tell how far off the estimate was >FOR SURE, *but*, at the end of that billing period, you >once again have a record of the *total* power consumed >in the two periods. > >This isn't true of an estimate brought about by a meter >*failure*. I just figured it was another way to bilk an extra dollar or two from the customer. Estimate high, based on general usage and not actual usage, and you get to hit the customer with higher rate levels. The next month, when you actually read the meter, you are 'crediting' him with low rate levels, so you make out like a bandit. I just figured they had decided to reduce costs by only reading every other month. The meter was on the street side of my house, literally 3 feet from the cul-de-sac driveway, so they would have no trouble reading it. Charlie
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on 28 Apr 2010 16:09 Jim Thompson wrote: > [snip] > > At GenRad, I was required to take a course in sexual harassment. When > I opined that I'd never been sexually harassed and would like to > experience some... the instructor was not amused, particularly when, > at each new type, I'd mutter plaintively, "Please!" :-) > Long before such training became stylish, I worked at a construction company along with a lady who was the local chairperson of a group called "Women In Construction". One of our draftsman was a talented cartoonist. He took the WIC logo and deleted the silhouetted female figure (holding a hammer and T-square) from the center. He drew in the nymphet character from the joke page of Playboy with a giant pencil and pencil sharpener. Our (female) co-worker thought it was hilarious. -- Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul(a)Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ 668: The Neighbor of the Beast
From: D Yuniskis on 28 Apr 2010 16:21 Hi Charlie, Charlie E. wrote: > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:30:59 -0700, D Yuniskis > <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: > >> Hi Charlie, >> >> Charlie E. wrote: >>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:52:23 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> sj wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:56:34 +1000, "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I wonder what happens if the new gadget completely fails for, err, some >>>>>> mysterious reason... Do you get your electrons for free until they can >>>>>> replace it? >>>>> From bits of information I have heard in the media about California PG&E >>>>> complaints, some of the meters have failed to record and the PG&E >>>>> solution is to estimate the bill from previous history. I don't have any >>>>> confirmation link to cite. >>>> But there were people who claimed the bill was 3x the previous year's or >>>> more. That can't be an estimate. Also, on the bill it should clearly say >>>> "estimated". >>> Even with mechanical meters they can get away with 'estimating' your >>> usage! >>> >>> Back in Irvine, it apparently was the practice to actually read the >>> meters only every other month. We could tell, because every other >>> month we would get hit by large 'overuse' charges, as they 'estimated' >>> that we would have used a lot more electricity, and gone into the high >>> tariff rates, and then the next month we would be barely out of >>> baseline. A couple of times I got the bill, looked at what they said >>> the meter read, went out and LOOKED at my meter, and realized that I >>> wasn't there yet a week after they had supposedly read the meter. >>> >>> And no, they never put on there 'ESTIMATED'... >> In every service area that I've lived, the bill announced >> "estimate" if it indeed was an estimate. And, in every such >> area, the utility couldn't *regularly* resort to estimates >> as it *is* unfair to the consumer (since most utilities >> don't have flat tariffs) >> >> Note there is a subtle but hugely significant difference, here: >> >> If a meter reader couldn't read your (mechanical) meter >> (because he was lazy, work stoppage, bad weather, etc.) >> the utility *could* estimate and then, in the *next* billing >> cycle, an actual reading would come up with a correction. >> Granted, you couldn't tell how far off the estimate was >> FOR SURE, *but*, at the end of that billing period, you >> once again have a record of the *total* power consumed >> in the two periods. >> >> This isn't true of an estimate brought about by a meter >> *failure*. > > I just figured it was another way to bilk an extra dollar or two from > the customer. Estimate high, based on general usage and not actual > usage, and you get to hit the customer with higher rate levels. The > next month, when you actually read the meter, you are 'crediting' him > with low rate levels, so you make out like a bandit. Yup. The "fair" way is to average usage over N (2 in this case) billing periods and assume the user used exactly half the power in each. Otherwise, you charge the user more than he *might* have used (hey, *you* are the guys who elected to estimate the meter reading so *I* should get the benefit of the doubt) > I just figured they had decided to reduce costs by only reading every Of course! :> But, I think your PUC will find that practice frowned upon -- for the reasons we've discussed. Why not read it once a *year*? Estimate ALL of the consumption during the summer months (highest rates, typically) and bilk the user accordingly?! :< > other month. The meter was on the street side of my house, literally > 3 feet from the cul-de-sac driveway, so they would have no trouble > reading it. Yup.
From: miso on 28 Apr 2010 17:55 On Apr 28, 1:04 am, Robert Baer <robertb...(a)localnet.com> wrote: > Joerg wrote: > > Hello, > > > Many of you will soon be in the same boat. Our utility has informed us > > that we and the whole town will get the dreaded smartmeters. Whether we > > want that or not. Obviously they have serious issues and as usual the > > utility is stone-walling: > > >http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14963541 > > > Having seen all the grief caused by, ahem, sub-optimal electronics > > design in cars I am not all that surprised. Does anyone know where to > > find some serious data on this problem? Or maybe even schematics & board > > layouts of those things? > > > BTW, we used to have a meter with LCD readout and all until years ago. > > It eventually failed, maybe because it gets hit by the full morning sun.. > > The utility replaced it with, tada, a classic mechanical meter. Probably > > because those simply work ... > > Q concerning those old meters; they have been around for like ages.. > Are they so reliable that they never show up in surplus shops or does > Piggie sledgehammer them? I've seen what looks like brand new meters at different electronics flea markets. I just never really knew what I would do with one. Not expensive, maybe $25. I do have a Killawatt. Damn handy toy.
From: Jan Panteltje on 28 Apr 2010 18:00
On a sunny day (Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:21:49 -0700) it happened D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote in <hra52o$pc0$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>: That is what they do here, once a year. And you can internet the number to them yourself if they find you not home, the meters are in the house here (do not get wet tha tway I suppose). |