Skip to content

Smart Meters and Efficiency

May 15, 2012

Smart meters are being promoted as a key part of a strategy for improving energy efficiency. Some utilities, such as Commonwealth Edison, have sold state legislatures a bill of goods so that utilities can charge customers for installing smart meters.

Whether smart meters can improve energy efficiency is questionable, but they do save utilities money.

In Illinois, Commonwealth Edison wins both ways, charging customers higher rates while cutting costs.

The main savings come from eliminating meter readers. Advanced meters can be read at the utility’s office so there is no need to send a person to people’s homes to read the meter.

Smart meters also make it easier for utilities to identify the location of faults, such as downed power lines. This results in quicker fixes and shorter outages for customers, but it doesn’t improve energy efficiency.

Some magazines, such as energybiz, persist on touting smart meters as a way to improve energy efficiency.

A recent article described how smart meters could help utilities maintain required voltage levels more precisely. Voltage is usually maintained between 114 and 126 volts at the home, office or factory. (Appliance motors are designed to operate at no less than 110 volts and a 4 volt line drop in the home would lower a 114 volt input to 110 volts.)

Utilities use voltage regulators, essentially a type of transformer, to maintain voltages within this band. Because it’s currently difficult to know precisely the voltage level at homes, etc., utilities err on the high side and keep the voltage level above 120. (See note.)

The energybiz article claimed that smart meters could identify precise voltage levels at homes, etc., thereby allowing utilities to maintain voltage levels closer to 114 volts which would reduce the power consumed, and result in improved energy efficiency. (Power equals volts times current, with an adjustment for power factor.)

But why not maintain the voltage at closer to 120 volts? This would allow motors to run closer to their rated horsepower and light bulbs or lamps to shine brighter.

In other words, the claim of improved energy efficiency is a shell game that benefits the utility rather than the consumer.

The other claim made by advocates for smart meters is that they would allow homeowners to reduce the amount of electricity they use and save money. This assumes customers would be charged more per kilowatt-hour during peak hours and less during off-peak hours (typically at night).

The claim is spurious since there are very few ways people can change their use of electricity. Customers could use less air conditioning by raising the thermostat and keeping the house warmer in the summer, while lowering the thermostat in the winter and keeping the house cooler.

It also assumes people can shift usage from peak to off-peak hours, but food needs to be cooked at meal time, refrigerators need to run during the day and lights are needed on cloudy days. Theoretically dishes could be washed at night, as could laundry and cloths driers, but this isn’t convenient for most people.

In short, there aren’t very many ways for homeowners to shift their use of electricity from peak to off-peak hours, certainly not enough to justify charging customers for installing smart meters.

A respondent in Florida said, “He couldn’t save anymore unless he switched to candle light”.

There was also a proposal in California to require utilities to use smart meters to control the thermostat in people’s homes, which would facilitate controlling air conditioning and heating loads, especially when there was a need to shave load during periods of peak usage.  Thus far, this bad idea hasn’t been adopted. If the utility can control the thermostat in people’s homes, it’s conceivable government could mandate the high and low temperatures in people’s homes.

Some individuals have claimed that radio waves (electromagnetic fields) emanating from smart meters could affect people’s health, but this is not true, and is no reason to prevent the installation of smart meters.

There are problems with the way in which smart meters are being promoted, but fear of health affects shouldn’t deter their installation.

Advanced meter installations aren’t going to result in large improvements in energy efficiency, though they may lower costs for utilities and improve reliability for customers.


For those who are interested, there is a 2005 report issued by Global Energy Partners entitled, “Evaluation of the Utility Distribution System Efficiency Initiative.”

*  *  *  *  *  *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.


*  *  *  *  *  *

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.


5 Comments leave one →
  1. kakatoa permalink
    May 15, 2012 10:16 am


    I have been reading PG&E’s Rate Design Window 2012 and in Vol 2 Section 1.4 Residential Smart AC Ex Post Load Impact Summary (on page 9) this is noted- “Residential customer enrollment on Smart AC on September 10th was roughly 107,000 accounts.” The actual load reduction was pretty small as this was noted “The average estimated load reduction for residential SmartAC was 0.19 kw, which constitutes about 10% of the total household load for this group of customers.”

    As far as programs (demand response) go it looks like PG&E’s Smart Rate program is a bit more effective in actually reducing load for Non-care participants (0.49 kw) vs Care participants (0.15 kw) during high event load days that trigger the smart rate pricing structure. I did notice that the folks in the Sierra (Non-Care billing group) had the greatest “Percent Load Reduction.” = 27.3%.

    My little PV system has eliminated our load from the grid during peak hours in the summer. Yesterday we sent 15 kwh to the grid during the noon to 6 peak time period. It was one of those really nice spring days in my neck of the woods which meant we didn’t need AC. My wife did a bunch of laundry though so our AVG daily kwh usage was about normal 28 to 30 kwh.

  2. kakatoa permalink
    May 15, 2012 10:38 am


    I forgot to note a reference on energy efficiency and what the public utility district of Palo Alto had to say about the low hanging fruit being used up- the law of diminishing returns has been hit for their customers.
    “Comments on the Draft Staff Report “Achieving Cost-Effective Energy

    Efficiency for California 2011-2020” (Docket number 11-IEP-1F).”-


    “At the August 11 workshop, NRDC repeatedly quoted the cost of EE at 2¢/kWh. This is a misleading number. Based on the SB 1037 reports submitted by CPAU in the past three years, the levelized cost of EE, as expressed by the total utility cost divided by present value of net lifecycle EE savings, has increased steadily, from 2.9¢/kWh in 2008 to 6.4¢/kWh in 2010.”

  3. May 15, 2012 10:54 am

    Thanks. I appreciate the information. As you know from my earlier articles, LCOE is suspect, because of the choice of data for variables, especially when comparing different methods for generating electricity.


  1. Religio-Political Talk (RPT) Catching Up With Three `Concepts` After Vacationing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s