Millions of Smart Meters May Over-Inflate Readings by up to 600% (bleepingcomputer.com)

"Lab tests carried out by Dutch scientists have shown that some of today's 'smart' electrical meters may give out false readings that in some cases can be 582% higher than actual energy consumption," reports BleepingComputer. An anonymous reader quotes their report: The study involved several tests conducted on nine different brands of "smart" meters, also referred to in the industry as "static energy meters." Researchers also used one electromechanical meter for reference... Experiments went on for six months, with individual tests lasting at least one week, and sometimes several weeks. Test results varied wildly, with some meters reporting errors way above their disclosed range, going from -32% to +582%...

The results of the study also matched numbers posted on an online forum by a disgruntled Dutchman complaining about high energy bills... Researchers blamed all the issues on the design of some smart meters, and, ironically, electrical devices with energy-saving features. The latter devices, researchers say, introduced a large amount of noise in electrical current waveforms, which disrupt the smart meter sensors tasked with recording power consumption...
Long-time Slashdot reader ClarkMills points out the researchers estimate that "potentially inaccurate meters have been installed in the meter cabinets of at least 750,000 Dutch households," while the article suggests that worldwide, "the numbers of possibly faulty smart meters could be in the millions,especially after some governments, especially in the EU, have pushed for smart meters to replace classic electromechanical (rotating disk) meters."

Comments

That's pretty smart

[ColdWetDog]

Trust the computer. The computer is your friend.

Re:That's pretty smart

[HornWumpus]

Bad case of 'Paranoia' you've got there.

Re:That's pretty smart

[JaredOfEuropa]

That's what they told one woman who complained about a 5 fold increase of her electric bill after the smart meter was installed: "Your smart meter is working fine. Possibly your old meter was faulty and we have been under-charging you all these years". Which might even be true, sadly the reporter didn't mention what the woman was paying (which should have made it instantly clear whether or not something was out of whack). But it does point out that they make it very hard to dispute these bills. The company told her she could have an electrician check out all of the wiring and appliances for any problems that would cause an increased power draw, or she could have the meter recalibrated, but she would have to bear the cost of around €900 (which seems unnecessarily high by the way).

I think we're seeing deplorable but wholly expected behaviour in a typical case where there could well be a problem with a company's equipment, which could turn out very embarrassing and expensive for them if they admitted it. So instead they deny everything and chalk any complaints up to isolated defects or fraud.

Re:That's pretty smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at it from the electricity company's point of view:

All they've got is meter readings. That's all. They don't know (and in most markets, they can't control even if they want to) what kind of meter is fitted to each house. There's a separate metering company that does that. To ensure fair play, there's a certification and testing requirement - but if that test is flawed (which is what the Dutch study suggests), then there's no real fallback.

So now consider a small energy retailer with 10,000 customers... Of those 10,000, maybe 100 are complaining about their readings. It's possible some of them may have defective meters (those based on Rogowski coils) - but how would they know? (Go do a Google search now, and tell me if an Elster single-phase GRexD AMI meter has a Rogowski coil. I'll wait.) But frankly, the most likely scenario is that they're just whinging because they're deadbeats who hate to pay their bills.

So let's say the retailer does some investigation (and if you did the Google search suggested above, you'll know by now this is not something quick and trivial to do), and discovers that one specific type of meter they use has this defect. There are, let's say, 200 of those among their customer base, and 20 of the complaining customers (and 180 uncomplaining ones) have them fitted. What now?

Well, now they have to (urgently): notify the local Reconciliation Authority, get the meters changed (with all the hoopla that involves), and try to work out (a) how much electricity they've overbilled their current customers, (b) how much they've overbilled their past customers, (c) how much they've overpaid for their electricity (because those same meter reads are also used to determine how much power your supplier needs to buy), and (d) who should be footing the bill for this entire colossal fuckup. All the while, fending off calls from hundreds of customers whose meters are perfectly fine, but who have read some half-assed account of this research and think they might be able to cash in.

You would have to be clinically insane to think this is a happy scenario for the electricity retailer.

Re:That's pretty smart

[DonaId Trump]

More lies! My artificial tanning center, on the 9th floor of my building, runs on the biggest amount of bootleg electricity in the world. It takes tremendous watts to run all those lights and sprayers, believe me. Failing Con Ed can't find the 9th floor because I started my floor numbers at 10 instead of 1. SMART!

Re:That's pretty smart

[ShanghaiBill]

she would have to bear the cost of around €900

A fair policy would be that she only bears the cost if the meter is accurate.

Also, it is not that hard to test your own meter. Turn everything off. Make sure the meter is reading zero watts. Then turn on one device at a time, and measure the power bump. Use a Kill-o-Watt or other plug-in meter to measure what the device is using at the wall socket. If there is really a 5 fold discrepancy, that should be really easy to verify.

Re:That's pretty smart

[whoever57]

Also, it is not that hard to test your own meter. Turn everything off. Make sure the meter is reading zero watts. Then turn on one device at a time, and measure the power bump.

And what if the error is not in the instantaneous reading, but the figures that get accumulated and sent to the power company?

Re:That's pretty smart

[ColaMan]

You would have to be clinically insane to think this is a happy scenario for the electricity retailer.

Of course not. But it's the correct thing to do.

And if there *is* a bit of sweeping under the rug, it goes from being a "simple" error in the metering mechanisms to good old fraud, which applies just as much to companies as is does to customers trying to cheat on their power bills. And fraud tends to attract the attention of government authorities and the press - and that's a big old shitstorm nobody wants.

So your legal counsel will always suggest the path of due diligence once things come to a certain level of attention. That "certain level" is debatable, but if there's an increase in billing complaints and ANY investigations suggest that there's a systemic metering error going on, then you're on very thin ice if you choose to ignore it.

Re: That's pretty smart

[whit3]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an ammeter need to be put directly in series in the wiring?

Yes. There are inductive ammeters that clamp onto the outside of the wire's insulation, which would be a safer option, but they aren't terribly accurate, and wouldn't be suitable for checking your smart meter's calibration.

One name for an inductive ammeter of that sort, is Rogowski coil (which, according to the article, is a suspect).

The whole problem here is that the bandpass of the Rogowski coil is very high, but maybe the voltmeter isn't. The digital data capture and calculation are flawed. Some electronic power uses (like all the LED lights, and microwave ovens) are as high frequency as the meters can handle, and some are higher.

The study's main point, is that 'smart' meters were inadequately tested, and have flaws that got past the weights and measures inspectors. Those inspectors need better test methods; fortunately, the researchers just published some of those.

Re:That's pretty smart

[nehumanuscrede]

There are other methods to verify if the meter is performing as expected.

A third party device that allows you to monitor your own electrical usage is available and dead simple to install. Ammeters clamp around your mains and track / log how much power you're using in real time. Will store said information locally as well as allow for export into something like Excel for long term analysis.

They can tell you how much power you're using as well as what the current and projected costs will be.

If the monitor and your meter are off by X margin, it would be a good time to get someone to check it out.

One such device ( and the one I've utilized for over a decade now ) is call T.E.D. ( The Energy Detective ) Google it.

Re:That's pretty smart

[ChumpusRex2003]

You may doubt that there is an "extra metering" company, but that is exactly what happens in multiple countries with deregulated energy supply.

While I don't know in detail how the Dutch system works, the UK system seems to work in a similar way, and I describe that here:

An end user can choose their electricity supplier, who provides the retail service (i.e. billing, sourcing of bulk energy, customer service, etc.). The supplier sources the energy from generators via the wholesale market (ante hoc) and balancing market (post hoc). The electricity is delivered by a combination of the transmission operator, and the local distribution operator, who own and operate the transmission grid and distribution network respectively. Metering is provided by an independent metering operator.

The metering operator is responsible for collating meter readings and verifying the correct operation of the meters, as well as periodic recalibration. In the event that consumption data is unavailable or inaccurate, and the supplier and customer cannot agree on a reading (or if a customer is transferring to a new supplier, but the two suppliers disagree about the meter reading at changeover; it is, after all, common for customers to "adjust" readings when suppliers publish new tariffs or a customer changes to a cheaper supplier), the meter operator provides independent arbitration.

The independence of the meter operator is important, because the same meter readings that are used by the supplier to compute bills for customers, are the same readings that are used by the balancing market operators to reconcile bulk electricity accounts (including the post hoc accounting between generators and suppliers). Part of the job of the meter operator is to provide independent mathematical modelling of consumption patterns, to correct for incorrect or missing data, and which are legally binding on balancing market paticipants.

Another poster has mentioned an issue of energy theft elsewhere in the discussion, and the above system has an impact on the detection and prevention of energy theft. Because the same meter reading which the supplier uses to bill a customer, also determines the energy purchased by the supplier from the wholesale/balancing markets, there is little incentive for suppliers to investigate energy theft. If a meter reading is lower than it should be, then the supplier pays less to the generator. The discrepancy appears in the energy accounting of the distribution network operator, who must absorb the cost. However, if the energy theft is discovered, then the independent meter operator will compute a consumption measure which is legally binding on the supplier and customer. The supplier therefore has to pay for the stolen energy in the wholesale market. The customer, who is likely a deadbeat if they've been tampering with the meter, has no money with which to pay, and either disappears or goes bankrupt. Thus, having discovered an energy theft, the likely outcome for the supplier is that they take a loss equal to the value of the stolen energy.

I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

[steak]

The one thing people were afraid of when they were forced to switch over the smart meters happened.

Re:I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

[fnj]

There's no law against selling shitty products

An electric meter is not a "product" anybody buys. An electric meter is an asset belonging to the electric utility company which they use to determine how much actual product (electricity) you buy. For most things you buy, the quantity is obvious at the point/time of sale. The closest thing I can think of to an electric meter is the flow measurement device in a motor fuel pump. You better believe those are regulated. The state calibrates and checks them periodically. They have stickers attesting to their accuracy as certified by the state authority. The weight scales at your grocer are regulated and certified as to accuracy.

The electric utilities are getting a pass on these meters because it would be very difficult and expensive to test each one individually at its point of installation. And it stinks. Random testing should be done, and huge penalties should be assessed where it mismeasurement found.

P.S. - there ARE laws against overbilling where wrongdoing or gross negligence can be shown.

Re:I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

[djinn6]

The problem isn't just some 0.X% being over charged, it's being over charged and being unable to do anything about it. The power company's response is always "you used more this month", and there's literally nothing you can do about it. It's in the same problem category as cops shooting black people. Nobody is saying we can avoid all the accidents, but everyone wants justice system to stop shielding the cops from any and all liability.

Re:I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

[djinn6]

Way to miss the point.

The smart meter freaks out for no reason and charges you $500 extra. You complain to the utility, they say it's your fault. You complain to PUC, they ask you for proof. You have none. Congrats, you're now out $500.

Re:I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

[marcansoft]

56% measured power usage much greater than what was actually being used in a ridiculous corner case scenario involving a parallel string of identical low-quality LED lights with an absolutely dismal power factor, connected to a dimmer to make the power factor even more extreme. Read the actual article with the current waveforms. They looks like something a 2 year old scribbled on a piece of paper, not a sine wave.

Yes, there's a certification failure here (meters are not tested with non-sinusoidal current loads), but no, nobody's meter is actually measuring 6 times real power usage in reality. The moment you have any reasonable loads in parallel the current waveform will start being something more reasonably approximating a sine wave and the meter will read more accurately.

This is the actual list of tests from the article:

• Resistive load 1800W: <3%
• 20 LED + 30 CFL <3%
• 20 LED + 30 CFL + Cx <3%
• Dimmer 90deg, LED+CFL -28%, +64%
• Dimmer 90deg, LED+CFL + line choke <3%
• Dimmer 135deg, LED+CFL -32%, +575%

So no, unless your whole house consists of crappy LED and CFL lights behind a huge shared dimmer at a 135 degrees setting, and no other appliances, your meter isn't going to read 600% of real energy consumption. To even get 164% readings you still need everything behind a dimmer at 90 degrees.

Re:I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

[inasity_rules]

QA was probably done on linear loads which is where the meters would be accurate. On noisy switch mode loads (VSDs, computer power supplies, etc) there was probably minimal QA. Quite likely because regulation has not caught up with the prevalence of these loads. It is a case of meter manufacturers not keeping up with the time. And yes, I have seen this on a large scale; I ran into one power meter with a 200kW difference from the 1MW VSD it was down-stream of. And that was with some harmonic filters installed on the drive, yet the meter still read less than the drive. I'm inclined to suspect the meter here.

Re:I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

[Askmum]

Does it measure the incorrect amount of energy? If yes: it's defective.

Does an analog meter measure the amount of energy correctly? If yes: it's criminal to impose a mandatory change to the new meter.

Re:I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

[Bongo]

Spot on.

After supplying 1KW the company claims they gave you 5KW. Same issue in: Taxi meters; scales in the cheese shop; the calendar in the hotel calculating how many nights you stayed; your decorator painting by the hour; etc. And some professions' whole purpose for existing is to count, eg. quantity surveying.

It's the government's job (usually is) to regulate and settle these sorts of disputes quickly so that they are not a drag on society.

Re:I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

[marcansoft]

Does it measure the incorrect amount of energy? Yes. Is it defective? Yes. Are the testing standard broken? Yes. Are people actually being charged 6 times their power usage in practice? No.

As I said, there is a certification failure here, but the headline and the statistic that all of these news sites are parrotting is pure clickbait.

Re:A cure for which there is no disease

[skids]

You're underestimating the value of predictive data in stabilizing the grid... and throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Getting smart meters up to snuff on privacy, accuracy, and useful features is a worthy endeavor. Saying "hulk hate smart meters, hulk smash!" is not.

Re: A cure for which there is no disease

[Type44Q]

I'd rather reap the benefits of lower priced electricity.

"Sir, we apologize if you somehow received the impression that that was an option... but it is not. Is there anything else we can help you with?"

Re:A cure for which there is no disease

[jemmyw]

A few years ago I was working for a power retailer who were the first to start pushing smart meters in my country. The first meters were still read by human meter readers, and the data was downloaded. We were also collecting meter readings from customers who wanted to track their usage on a more regular basis than the meter readers would come round.

Anyway, what we discovered from these various collection mechanisms was that the human meter readers were making up an awful lot of readings and not actually visiting the meters at all in many cases. If they're not going to bother going it'd have been better for our customers if they just didn't report rather than making up a number, we could model a more accurate number .

Re:A cure for which there is no disease

[wbr1]

The amount one person draws, and hence the predictive power of any one smart meter is minuscule and nearly useless. For grid scale predictions you need aggregate data that is more efficiently and inexpensively acquired at aggregation points -- transformers, substations, etc.

Re:A cure for which there is no disease

[sjames]

If the majority of the meters are giving us bad data, their predictive data may well have a negative value.