 |
Smart MetersDuke to customer: If you don't want a smart meter you can live in the dark
|
Oct 16, 2012
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Quick take: I think of Duke Energy as one of the real pathfinders when it comes to all things smart grid. But they certainly got it wrong in the case of one Ohio customer who didn't want a smart meter on her home for health reasons, as you will read below. They turned off her power... resulting in precisely the kind of negative publicity the industry doesn't need.
We think the best solution to health concerns is to have an opt-out policy in return for an | |
|
.
additional charge to the customer. We're unclear whether Duke is against opt out, or favors it but can't get PUC permission for its plan. Either way, it should do it and its customers both a favor by coming up with something less draconian that "take it or we'll shut you off. – Jesse Berst
.
Sharon Kinder-Geiger didn't want a smart meter on the house she shares with her daughter, having read about health concerns from the meters' RF radio waves. With Duke Energy rolling out smart meters in the Cincinnati area, Kinder-Geiger made her objections known. Duke's response? According to a WCPO TV report, a utility worker drove up and turned off her power, disconnecting her house from the grid.
Unlike a growing number of states that have instituted opt-out policies that allow electric customers to pay a monthly fee to keep their analog meters, there is no such provision in Ohio.
So now Kinder-Geiger is using a gas generator, her fireplace and candles and looking into solar panels. She told WCPO: "Losing my freedom is a bummer. That would be a bummer for me. Losing my power, that's an inconvenience. I will not stand down on this."
Duke spokeswoman Sally Thelen suggested the health concerns are unfounded.
"There's really not that sort of issue. Think of it as if you are going into a Starbucks, or going into somewhere with WiFi, like an airport, or a baby monitor, or garage door opener," Thelen told WCPO. "Wireless technology is all around us, it is not unique to just the power industry."
Thelen also said if the company allowed people to opt out, it would have to run two separate meter systems and costs would soar -- costs that might have to be passed on to other ratepayers.
.
More on this topic…
Federal judge to Naperville smart meter opponents: Show me more
Smart meter showdowns: PUCs step it up on fire safety, health effects
Jesse Berst is the founder and chief analyst of Smart Grid News.com, the industry's oldest and largest smart grid site. A frequent keynoter at industry events in the U.S. and abroad, he also serves on advisory committees for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the Institute for Electric Efficiency. He often provides strategic consulting to large corporations and venture-backed startups. He is a member of the advisory boards of GridGlo and Calico Energy Services.
| Meter Opt-Out: A new market opportunity? |
| The back office cost is huge for smart grid change-outs, so it is not surprising that Duke cannot support both methods. Smart Grid is not just about new technology, but also about opportunities for new energy delivery options. If a sufficient number of customers object to communicating digital meters, perhaps a new service offering can spring up in the market. Aggregators could meter them with spinning disk meters, dispatch meter readers, and perform the conventional utility metering functions. It would cost the customer more, but only at her own option. But not as much as a gasoline generator and PV energy in Ohio. |
| Ray Hayes - 10/16/2012 - 07:35 |
| Not wanting a Smart Meter on home |
| For a reasonable cost (appox. $1000) you could have the meter relocated to the source pole or a meter pole or pedestal. That will solve the problem for everyone. |
| Jim See - 10/16/2012 - 07:35 |
| Energy Purchaser Elects not to buy using Smart Meter |
| Any consumer does not have to purchase energy from the local utility. The reason(s) for refusing service are incredibly varied. This instance represents one reason that might be considered more misguided than others but it is the buyer's right to refuse delivery for any reason. Sellers make offers to sell a product or service with conditions for sale. Use of the smart meter is such a condition of sale. It should not be an obligation on the seller to meet any demand made by the purchaser. As the purchaser is finding, other alternatives may be available that mitigate her health related concerns. However in my opinion her solutions listed most certainly have more negative health effects than the unimaginably small RF emissions from the smart meter. The "opt-out" plan in place seems perfectly adequate to me. |
| Scott Hamilton - 10/16/2012 - 07:59 |
| Meter Opt out |
| Seems to me that there are two options: 1. We'll put a standard meter on there but the cost of reading it will be passed along to those customers who opt out. Won't be cheap. 2. Jim's idea - relocate the meter far enough away, pole or pad mount, that the customer's concerns are addressed. I'm in Texas so we're just going through this mess but I'm stunned that a progressive company like Duke would that the "My way or else" attitude. |
| Eddy E. Hernandez - 10/16/2012 - 08:57 |
| Good way to connect with customers on a personal level |
| I am sympathetic to the cost issue but really now. I hope that there was a bit more effort between the NO and the disconnnect than what was implied here. |
| Ralph Mackiewicz - 10/16/2012 - 09:14 |
| where's the puco on this? |
| This is absurd! Smart or nothing? The health concerns may be a topic beyond the scope of this article, but the reaction of Duke to simply cut off the customer is beyond common sense. I see a lawsuit spinning out of this policy. |
| Gary Sorkin - 10/16/2012 - 09:29 |
| Scientists cite legitimate health concerns |
| From Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley "Health Experts Caution About Smart Meters" http://www.prlog.org/11978228-health-experts-caution-about-smart-meters.html |
| John Corley - 10/16/2012 - 09:32 |
| Disconnecting non- Smart Meter Customers |
| I think the poll should have an expanded selection of answers. Basically, there should not be a situation of " No opt out programm" from the utility provider. asmentioned, have a monetary "penanlty", if needed. I don't accept the premise that there is or should be any situation where there is not an opt out choice. |
| Gil Atkinson - 10/16/2012 - 10:08 |
| Obligation to serve? |
| I thought investor owned utilities have an obligation to serve each person requesting service? I think it is this way in my state and it seems like it is a common requirement for being granted exclusive service areas and a guaranteed rate of return. Duke has definitely changed the game with this attitude and an action that likely won't sit well wit the PUC. Bad move by a utility which has lost any semblence of customer service. |
| Richard Damiano - 10/16/2012 - 10:39 |
| Duke Energy's Grid Modernization Program |
| Duke Energy’s legal responsibility is to provide reliable, affordable and increasingly clean energy to customers. That requires us to balance the needs of all customers as we consistently maintain and upgrade the power grid. Every investment we make to keep the lights on -- whether it is equipment, vehicles, computers, paper, processes or even people – has costs associated with it. These costs are shared by all Duke Energy customers under state utility regulations. Because the costs are shared by everyone, it is imperative that we make prudent business decisions to keep our costs as low as possible. Managing two separate metering programs would require Duke Energy to maintain multiple processes / staffs to do the same work, and this would increase costs for all of our Ohio customers, even if just a few “opted out” but were willing to pay a fee. Duke Energy has received few requests from customers who want to keep using the century-old technology, so we believe it would be unfair to penalize our nearly 700,000 Ohio customers with higher costs for work and equipment that's outdated and unnecessary. Additionally, some of the requests we have received from customers (i.e., to remove meters or not allow us to install them in the first place) are being prompted by misinformation spreading through social media channels. Here are the facts about Duke Energy’s program: Most all of Duke Energy’s residential smart electric meters in Ohio transmit data over the power lines, so there is very low to no radio frequency associated with their operation. Duke Energy’s gas meters and some of the electric meters installed for larger residential & small business customers send information wirelessly, but the RF levels are very low and well within limits established by the Federal Communications Commission; Duke Energy considers customer information confidential and does not share or sell it to other companies. The information coming from our meters is encrypted, and the meters themselves are protected with security passwords and security keys; Our customers maintain control of their energy usage. The meters do not collect usage data for appliances inside the homes, and we cannot turn off appliances to reduce energy. Wireless technology has been around for years, and it’s used everywhere. The energy industry is just one of the last major industries to make the transition. |
| Paige Layne, Duke Energy - 10/16/2012 - 13:09 |
| Doing it wrong |
| It seems like a rather hamhanded way of dealing with it, and also very bad PR. What if she really had a health reason for refusing? (idk how that's possible, but it shouldn't be ignored off hand, complaints should be listened to and facts explained correctly, with facts and specs). And what kind of message does that send to other customers -and the market as a whole? This will not quell any fears surrounding these new meters, and rather stoke them. If all esle fails, meter relocation and reading fees are a viable and reasonable option. Duke shouldn't act like it owns the customers, that is the best way to forget to do your marketing and lose market share. |
| Philippe Lyon - 10/17/2012 - 02:15 |
| Irrational Objections Should Not be Accommodated |
| So how does a smart meter’s power output compare to other ordinary devices in the same power range? Well, first of all, a smart meter is almost never transmitting anything at all. Ours transmit for a total of about one minute a day, about .07% of the time. During those brief pulses, standing two feet away from the smart meter while it’s transmitting exposes you to: About half of what you’d get in a Starbuck’s with Wi-Fi About half of using laptop computer Less than 2% of what you’d get using the most powerful walkie-talkie Less than 1/3 of what you’d get holding the most powerful cell phone to your head Or about . 002 of what you’d get putting your face 2 inches from a running microwave oven. |
| Jeff - 10/17/2012 - 07:13 |
| Duke's response |
| If indeed Duke's legal obligation is to spread the costs evenly regardless of the actual cost to service each individual(socialising the costs - that's an interesting term in the US). Taken to extreme, how about a flat amount for electricity consumption regardless of how much you use - that's what happened before metering I imagine, and then people complained when meters were installed. That's the implication of the Duke response and on that basis I have to say I agree with them. I want my electricity supplier to be as safe and efficient as possible and if that upsets a couple of flat-earthers, that's unfortunate. |
| Paul - 10/17/2012 - 08:40 |
| Duke Energy's Customer Communications |
| Comments: Disconnecting a customer’s service is the very last step in Duke Energy’s communication process. To date, we’ve installed more than 500,000 meters throughout the Cincinnati area, with very few complaints, and we’ve handled each complaint individually. Before, during and after the meters are installed, we proactively send information to customers to let them know what we’re doing, what to expect and who to call for more information. We call and meet in-person all customers who have concerns about the technology. These conversations sometimes take a few minutes, other times longer. In some cases, we have worked with customers over several months to help them better understand the technology before we install their meters. We invite customers to our Envision Center, which is a smart grid demonstration center in Kentucky, where we show them the technology and the benefits it’s providing now and will provide in the future. As a very last resort, if we are unable to establish a workable solution we will disconnect the service because we have automated our meter reading process – which is helping keep costs down for all of our customers. We are truly sensitive to ALL customers’ needs – the ones who have expressed concerns and the others who’ve embraced the technology. We are balancing everyone’s interests and moving forward with a solution that best meets our legal obligation to deliver reliable, affordable and increasingly clean energy. |
| Paige Layne, Duke Energy - 10/17/2012 - 09:28 |
| Alright |
| Thank you Paige for clearing that up. I'm glad to hear that you go (and went) to such lengths to communicate with customers. So in regards to my previous post: You're doing it right. (the customer basically refused the service, as you put it). I would also like to change my vote on the poll from "no" to "yes", given the context (that poll was misleading, thanks for the extra detail). |
| Philippe Lyon, Powerhouse - 10/18/2012 - 01:48 |
| RE:Duke Energy disconnect |
| What isn't clear from the article is if Duke's installed base prior to their smart meter rollout - were all MANUAL read meters or if they had previously implemented some "one-way" automated meter reading (AMR)cellnet meters, AND they are now in the process of switching to full smart meter deployment. If they had AMR already installed (and still in use for the time being) and are now upgrading to smart meters then the action of Duke Energy is inexcusable!! Also not covered is what the state utility regulators have said - and if there is a franchise agreement with the city for the powerlines access -- whether or not they have violated the terms of the local and state agreements. If there were rules and laws before - action like that taken by Duke is certainly motivation by regulators to re-examine the process. Now that being said (and questions noted above) - unless this customer was among a list of smart meter holdouts, Duke perhaps should have put the customer on a hold list. Bypass them and continue with the deployment. When they hit the 97% point and the hold outs are almost all that is left - they go back with them and explain the process thus far and review the process and success of the program. That would be done with both the city, state and regulators as well as articles in the paper - make it well known - that the risks are nil and the benefits are significant. Odds are that if you are transparent and the public has seen good results -- very few would fight it. And for them -- get an equivalent of a court order to disconnect -- some kind of notice from city and regulators that the house is no longer compliant with electrical network requirements. Disconnect 30 days later. I am sure in any case -- this disconnection will be one that is seen in the news after lawsuits are filed. |
| Dennis Heidner - 10/21/2012 - 08:01 |
| Smart meters are dangerous to health |
| I agree that opt-outs should be offered by all utility companies, at the very least. But these smart meters are dangerous and must be banned. All Readers should visit "Correcting the Gross Misinformation About Smart Meters" http://maisonsaine.ca/smart-meters-correcting-the-gross-misinformation, a position statement signed by 54+ well-respected, international RF (radiofrequency) experts who have published peer-reviewed papers on the topic. They give hard evidence of why smart meters are dangerous. Well-respected by all but the Industry, that is. As the victim of two smart meters that were forced onto my property for two years, till we obtained a hard-won opt-out, I can attest that the horrific devices are defective, dangerous, and ruined my health, irrevocably. My story is here http://lamesa.patch.com/blog_posts/living-nightmare-how-sdge-smart-meters-led-to-my-headaches-sleeping-ills-hearing-loss and I urge you to read it also. I started a nonprofit to alert the public - www.electrosmogprevention.org. Smart meters are no laughing matter. They are a huge threat to the public health and to our liberties, like no other. |
| Susan Brinchman - 10/22/2012 - 10:19 |
| Minimizing the RF radiation is shameful |
| The emissions are not JUST from transmissions. There are 120,000 pulses a day just to maintain the mesh network, according to one CA utility. Read http://lamesa.patch.com/blog_posts/revealed-sdge-smart-meter-technical-data-and-bio-effects-of-microwave-radiation. Averaging the bursts over time is not applicable, nor is ignoring the pinging to maintain the mesh network. Quoting a paid industry report that has been debunked as minimizing the amount of radiation one is exposed to by smart meters is shameful. See www.smartmeterdangers.org for Daniel Hirsh's analysis of the report you cite. Also, a number of peer-reviewed NON-INDUSTRY studies show that bioeffects are not necessarily dose-related. This is a massive, deplorable, unprecedented experiment on the public, conducted by non-scientists who ignored the independent science and did as they pleased. For shame, all of you. smart meters should be banned. |
| Susan Brinchman - 10/22/2012 - 10:30 |
| smart meters + health concerns |
| Place a couple of aluminum foil sheets behind the meter on an inside wall shiny side toward the meter and run a grounding line from the corner of the double sheet to the ground. You can do the same on the outide of the meter. This will stop about 95% of thr rf. |
| Norm Hutton - 10/22/2012 - 12:10 |
| You can't prove a negative; how about opt in to PLC? |
| In my experience, the industry has it's head in the sand over wireless as much as consumers. In the end the burden of proof on wireless safety rightly belongs to the industry. The big problem for them is you can't prove a negative. As an alternative, how about Duke supplying a smart meter with power-line carrier. That will work with the new backend. There's this continent called Europe that's doing it, so it's not like it doesn't exist already. |
| Guy AlLee - 10/26/2012 - 12:29 |
| energy harvesting |
| Is each opt-out less money for the utility? One less customer's data to sell? One less source of customer paid for rf to harvest and convert back to electricity for the utility? Why do we need 134 mW/m² (milliWatts per square meter) and up 50,000 times per day? why exactly? What about the condo and apartment units with banks of meters on them. At what point are FCC guidelines being exceeded. Who gave these utilities the right to irradiate everybody in their own home? Who gave these utilities the right to pull meters under load. None of this is normal behavior. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/rca_airnergy_charges_gadgets_using_energy_harvested_wifi_hotspots http://bcfreedom.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/smart-meters-energy-harvesting-data-sales-goldmine-spy-machines/ |
| Chris Turner, Esq. - 10/26/2012 - 21:49 |
| Smart meters are Fire starters |
| "In states with no opt-out policy, should utilities disconnect customers who don't want smart meters? |
| George Karadimas - 10/27/2012 - 04:52 |
| Smart meters are fire starters |
| Jesse, I am surprised and appalled, that you would put up such a question up for a vote! America is heading in the direction, but is not a FASCIST nation, NOT JUST yet! The OPT-OUT Hold outs will not affect the performance of the STUPID Smart GRID, and after implementation, it will become obvious who is right or wrong, and they can voluntarily join the pack, should the be proven wrong! Mean while self reading and reporting negates the flimsy reason the Utilities put up, regarding meter readers and truck roll outs. How are the smart meters gonna mitigate the current devastation in the works by SUPER STORM SANDY? |
| George Karadimas - 10/27/2012 - 05:04 |
| You can't prove a negative; how about opt in to PLC? |
| @Guy AlLee PLC turns your entire home into an RF Radiation ZONE, through the house wiring, by sending pulsed RF to the mother ship every second and for an eternity, and it is worse than the wireless mesh(MESS). Now that it is implemented in EUROPE is no Consolation! Pay attention to the scrambled and incoherent decisions, made by Europe's leaders and Elite as to what is needed to right up Europe economically. No rational person would act that way! Speculate that PLC has gotten everybody's brains scrambled. It is the LEAD lined Food Containers that Brought ROME's destruction by driving MAD every body, but More so it's Leaders and Emperors. BUT THEY ALL THOUGHT THAT LEAD IN THE WINE WAS A GREAT INVENTION, BECAUSE IT GAVE IT A SPECIAL AND SMOOTH TASTE! |
| George Karadimas - 10/27/2012 - 05:29 |
| smart meters vs. off the grid |
| How can it possibly cost exhorbitant amounts to operate two meter systems when we have done so for a year or more as the change out is forced upon us. I am investigating solar with battery back up and a gasoline generator for emergencies as my response. Beware because battery charging can create its own type of electronic pollution because batteries are charged with pulsed systems and the noise introduced needs to be dealt with. |
| judy k, washington dc - 10/27/2012 - 11:27 |
| way too fast! |
| Smart meter roll out is going way too fast. I hope the M2M Magazine individuals attending the Smart Grid conference in London later this month will ask lots of questions about the studies on health human and other, such as the bees). We need to hear more on both sides of the issue. |
| Cathy A - 11/12/2012 - 15:14 |
| Smart Meters vs. Not-So-Smart Customers |
| I won't even get into the oft-repeated science that has shown SMs are NOT a health issue via numerous detailed independent (reputable) reports. But that doesn't - and won't - keep the hysterical naysayers from spreading their irrational naysaying. Regardless of which side of the SM issue you're on, the real question is this: Where do we draw the line on opt outs and the increased costs they perpetuate? Should we start letting customers opt out of having power poles in front of their houses b/c they fear they will draw termites into their homes, or opt out of having transformer vaults b/c they've decided having power 'trapped' inside such enclosures will lead to serial explosions? At what point does science and rational thinking override altered realities in the minds of people simply looking to stir the pot of controversy? Before we write off Duke's actions as inappropriate, keep in mind the sage words of Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does." |
| M.A. Marullo - 12/05/2012 - 08:18 |
| Duke Smart Meter Cincinnati Area |
| Few months ago I had a smart meter installed. It's causing interference in my home on a Home Lighting Automation systam know as the X10. Lights come on a radem and some do longer work. Duke came out and found nothing wrong with meter. All I want is them to filter there RF signal from coming into the house and allow my system to work properly. |
| Larry Krause - 12/30/2012 - 12:51 |
| Smart Meter X10 Interference |
| Larry, I have the same problem with my X10 system after the Smart Meter was installed. I am going to try this: http://www.idobartana.com/hakb/ Fixing module that randomly turns on Credit: Steve Bloom - newsgroup post The WS467 wall switch (and I suspect it's variations, as well) does indeed "randomly" turn on. Specifically, under the correct conditions, a WS467 can "glitch" on due to a power spike from a large bank of magnetic ballast fluorescents on the same circuit, large motor, etc. And filter caps across the 78566 chip, resistor change in the "button" line nor MOVs do not help. The solution is actually quite simple, once it is figured out. The 78566 chip in the WS467 contains 2 unused pins (pin #8 and pin #9) who's function is unknown to me. However, manipulation of pin #9 can cause the WS467 to turn on the light. After discovering this, I have since tied pin #9 to -v and the "random" light turn ons have stopped. My personal preference is to install a 10K 1/8-1/4w resistor across the top of the ic between pin #9 and pin #18. A hard wire will probably be ok, but not acceptable standard practice when dealing with bidirectional I/O pins. |
| Rob Emery - 05/03/2013 - 19:48 |
|
|
|
|
Talk Back
