One mW saved is closer to 3.6 mW (equivalent) not burned, based on the national average efficiency of the US electric primary energy supply/generation/transmission/distribution system. Since half of the primary energy not burned is coal and ~25% is gas, there is a substantial CO2 emissions reduction as well.

On peak, the savings are actually greater, because the average efficiency of the generation fleet is reduced on peak; and, because the losses in transmission and distribution can roughly double.

However, demand management programs don't primarily reduce consumption; rather, they defer it to off-peak periods. End use efficiency improvements and conservation reduce consumption.

Ed Reid
President
Fire to Ice, Inc.

I have two cautionary comments on "The Informed Consumer," which discusses smart metering.

First of all, giving the consumer information is not sufficient to get the peak energy savings that the article discusses. Not only must the consumer be charged real time prices and informed of them in real time, he must also have in place a decision system that enables him to react to them in real time. This is actually the hard part of the problem. Real time metering is standard and communicating real time prices is relatively standard, but each customer will have his own issues and priorities, and so customized solutions will be necessary. For most consumers, electricity costs are a small part of total costs, so this will not normally be a priority.

Secondly, the statement that real time pricing and metering "means that the stresses on power plants would be diminished" is misleading. In the long run, if real time pricing works, the reverse is true. The peaks in demand will be flattened out. To get the savings that this allows, there will be less capacity. However, because the peaks have been reduced, the demand will be near its (relatively lower) maximum level a larger fraction of the time. Thus, power plants will be operating near their (relatively lower) capacity a larger fraction of the time and thus "stressed" more frequently.

Michael Rothkopf
Rutgers University

Customers need instant access to energy use, price to determine their cost. Benchmarking, price/use alarms, bill verification and budgeting are key elements to an effective energy strategy. Information from the utility bill, which arrives 2 months after energy is consumed, or from a 'dial' up monitoring system can provide, at best, a rear view of what has already happened. For example, Ontario's deregulated electricity market price for interval meter customers is in `real time' and intended to allow customers to respond. For this to work, interval metered customers need to have the right tools: access to real time energy use and price data. Energy savings exist, but only with the right tools that react to real time electricity prices. Hourly price, consumption and demand data can achieve economic benefits when the `right' information is delivered to the `right' person at the `right' time.

Energy plans can then take advantage of electricity price movements so demand management and internal energy management programs become cost effective. "We manage what we measure" and today, this requires real time.

Scott Rouse
Energy@Work

Thanks for mentioning Manitoba Hydro in your August 21 article, The Informed Consumer. I'd like to provide a clarification for your readers.

In September 2006, Manitoba Hydro will begin an advanced metering pilot for about 5 000 electricity meters. This pilot will give Manitoba Hydro the opportunity to assess the operation and benefits of advanced metering for making energy usage and other decisions. If the pilot yields positive results, Manitoba Hydro will look to expanding advanced metering to over 750 000 electricity and natural gas services.

Ted Cotton
Manitoba Hydro

I would like to point out something that appears to be a flaw in the logic of your editorial, which is the "Field of Dreams" posit in paragraph 3: "If utilities are able to give customers information as to how much electricity will cost, then they will get their customers to reduce load during peak." In my opinion, price response takes far more effort to implement than firing a magic bullet at the problem. Commercial/Industrial/Institutional customers are not close to being prepared to handle RTP. Their energy consultants may be able to design around the latest hardware, but if even 1% has an operations consulting practice I would be amazed. As for residential RTP, don't ask me to pony up dollars to manage peak power production for an answer tantamount to asking my wife to sweat it out at home while my office was cool and comfortable.

If you want to make me a believer in RTP, then the industry needs to develop a series of Commercial/Industrial/Institutional demonstration projects, carefully documenting everything that was done to prepare for RTP, the steps taken to respond to an event, all costs associated with implementation and the measured effects on comfort and cost. Until I can see the facts, I prefer Hollywood to deliver my "fantasies". This RTP pipe dream reads like a disaster movie.

Gregory Cmar
CTO & Co-Founder
Interval Data Systems

Out here in California, the CPUC is having the IOUs develop proposed DR programs that promise to avoid a lot of peak demand, but the Independent System Operator (ISO) which runs the transmission grid, isn't allowing the IOUs to count those peak demand savings when planning and developing new power infrastructure, like new power plants and transmission facilities. That's going to turn into a big turf war -- with the IOUs stuck in the middle.

Also, going to smart meters and mandatory TOU rates seems to work for all customers except 1) the elderly poor and 2) customers with heath problems that might be impacted by changes in temperature, such as MS and heart disease. We've already had a lot of cases where we've found elderly poor customers dead in their homes because they were afraid to run their AC systems during heat storms, because they couldn't pay the higher bills. If we forced those customers onto TOU rates and charged them 60 cents/kWh during the hottest days of summer, we'd find a lot more dead bodies, and the political heat would drive the regulators and politicians to change things again.

So TOU rates should remain optional for this small subgroup of residential customers.

Don Wood

The fundamental reason that Load Management is a non-solution for dealing with peak power issues is that, no matter the degree of sophistication of a utility's load management system, or of its marketing-delivery plan; all Load Management Programs can never get around an unpleasant fact of physics, which is; that Load Control means delivering poorer service to customers at the exact time when they need good service the most.

All Load Management variants deliver the exact-same end result: Load Control works to make a customer less and less comfortable the more they need electrical energy for cooling comfort.

In regards to sending to customers price signals, where they can either pre-select or select via a real-time option or both, consider the analogy of ice and water prices and their availability in the aftermath of a hurricane.

We all think that merchants who have the ability to sell ice and water to their customers when customers need these commodities the most, and who significantly raise the price of these goods during such a time are acting unethically. In fact, we tend to get righteously indignant. Such selling behavior makes the news shows, and politicians rail against unbridled greed during a time of need.

Why should we think any better of electric utilities that either turn off their customer's air conditioners or that significantly increases the price of avoiding discomfort during a heat wave?

Any engineering system that is designed to fall down when you really need it to work at its best is a poorly conceived design containing fundamental design flaws.

Should we encourage electric utilities to pressure elderly citizens on a fixed income to suffer and put themselves at risk of heat stroke because their electricity provider is not capable of delivering to them the cooling power they need when they need it at a price they can afford?

Maybe it is time to re-think what the mission of a power company is supposed to be.

But right now, it is my strongly-held conviction that ANY entity given monopoly powers (which we certainly have given to electric utilities) must pay the price for the many cost-advantages they receive for exercising such monopoly rights, and that means making good on their promise to deliver power where and when it is needed. Period.

Maybe there are more innovative technological means, which can be fielded by electric utilities by which to manage peak loads other than turning off power to the people.

Roy Johannesen
Professional Engineer
Master of Science

For far more extensive news on the energy/power visit:  http://www.energycentral.com .

Copyright © 1996-2005 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.