Requiring PCTs in new construction is a far cry from mandating program adoption.
The smart meters are being rolled out and are utility-owned. Under the California model, the PCTs are consumer-owned (and can be swapped out).
Consumers will have to opt-in to the program to be impacted by load control/receive the peak time rebate benefits.
A little too much hyperventilation going on here.
The California approach involves use of smart meters and will be a voluntary program, most likely involving a peak time rebate, as opposed to critical peak pricing. The basic idea is to use market forces to encourage conservation during peak periods, which is critical given that 50% of the utility infrastructure investment covers the top 5% of the demand, and investment in the grid and in power generation is politically unpopular (NIMBY anyone?).
And this is not limited to California -- the three large electric utilities there, PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E, are at the vanguard of electric utility investment in more intelligence in both the meters and the grid as a whole. There are many North American utilities following suit, as well as utilities in France, Australia and other countries moving forward with similar programs.
The good news from all of this is that it not only encourages conservation, but also provides the basic infrastructure to permit the selling of power back to the grid as distributed generation (e.g. solar) becomes more of a reality in the foreseeable future, especially as the price/KW drops and incentives such as Schwarzenegger's solar tax credits come online.
The posters concerned with the security of this whole setup are rightly concerned and not alone. The risks and challenges regarding adequate protection of the wireless communications two-way communications between the meters and the utility are acknowledged and are the subject of utility industry/meter vendor consortiums. At this time there certainly are risks, but there is a lot of pressure on the vendors to get this right and to do so soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Requiring PCTs in new construction is a far cry from mandating program adoption. The smart meters are being rolled out and are utility-owned. Under the California model, the PCTs are consumer-owned (and can be swapped out). Consumers will have to opt-in to the program to be impacted by load control/receive the peak time rebate benefits.
A little too much hyperventilation going on here. The California approach involves use of smart meters and will be a voluntary program, most likely involving a peak time rebate, as opposed to critical peak pricing. The basic idea is to use market forces to encourage conservation during peak periods, which is critical given that 50% of the utility infrastructure investment covers the top 5% of the demand, and investment in the grid and in power generation is politically unpopular (NIMBY anyone?). And this is not limited to California -- the three large electric utilities there, PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E, are at the vanguard of electric utility investment in more intelligence in both the meters and the grid as a whole. There are many North American utilities following suit, as well as utilities in France, Australia and other countries moving forward with similar programs. The good news from all of this is that it not only encourages conservation, but also provides the basic infrastructure to permit the selling of power back to the grid as distributed generation (e.g. solar) becomes more of a reality in the foreseeable future, especially as the price/KW drops and incentives such as Schwarzenegger's solar tax credits come online. The posters concerned with the security of this whole setup are rightly concerned and not alone. The risks and challenges regarding adequate protection of the wireless communications two-way communications between the meters and the utility are acknowledged and are the subject of utility industry/meter vendor consortiums. At this time there certainly are risks, but there is a lot of pressure on the vendors to get this right and to do so soon.