Smart Energy – Page 6 – Creative Connectivity

Smart Metering is FCUKED

Having delayed the Fiendishly Complicated United Kingdom Enduring Deployment** of smart meters earlier this year because of technical delays, you might expect that the British Government would have spent some time reviewing the technology they had mandated. If they had done so, it would have become clear that the program was out of control. Under the surface, too many cooks have ratcheted up the technical complexity to the point where it is no longer fit for purpose. However, it appears that no-one wants to point out that the Smart Metering Emperor is stark naked. That’s largely because those overseeing the programme don’t have the depth of technical knowledge to understand the implications of what is going on.

As always with big Government driven IT programs, whilst there’s money to be made by the metering industry and consultants, momentum rules. It seems perfectly justifiable to carry on and saddle consumers with a £12 billion white elephant which will further inflate domestic energy bills. As a result of this lack of due diligence, smart metering is firmly on course to be the next big UK Government IT disaster.

It’s not that there’s a fundamental problem with smart metering, but there are massive mistakes in the way that the UK has decided to do it. When the programme started, it was seen as world-leading. It should have set a global standard for smart metering, giving UK plc a commanding lead in exporting expertise to the rest of the world and creating long term employment opportunities. Instead it has resulted in an out-dated, over-complicated system which will be incompatible with any other solution in the world, cost more than any other, fail to deliver the promised customer benefits, add risk to our energy security, threaten jobs, further alienate customers and make the UK energy industry a laughing stock.

If we look at the issues, the GB smart metering program appears to have a unique capacity not just to duplicate major errors from previous Government disasters, but to combine many of them into one overarching Government- destroying fiasco.

The Siren Call of the Negawatt. Justifying Ratepayer Funded Energy Efficiency Schemes

The energy industry has got a new religion – that of the Negawatt. Over the past decade it’s gone from a small following to becoming the new Messiah of capacity planning. It’s one of the few things where utilities and regulators come to worship at the same shrine. In fact they like it so much, they’re happy for an increasing number of consumers to pay for it. The only problem is that like other faith based beliefs, no-one really knows whether it exists or if it delivers what it promises.

If the negawatt is new to you, it’s a very neat scheme. The theory goes that if you can persuade consumers to use less energy, then you need to build fewer new power stations. Each kWh of energy saved is a negawatt (suggesting its name was coined by a marketing person, rather than someone who understood the difference between power and energy). Hence each negawatt achieved means less generating capacity is required to support demand. As power stations are expensive to build and operate, lots of negawatts are an attractive prospect as they represent an effective reduction in the need for new power stations, or the opportunity to put off building them. In other words negawatts mean utilities save money, which should be reflected in lower energy bills for consumers.

As it appears that this is so obviously a win-win concept, regulators have increasingly been willing to support what are called Ratepayer Funded Energy Efficiency Schemes. These allow energy suppliers to increase the cost a user pays for a unit of energy on the condition that the suppliers use this extra revenue to promote energy efficiency schemes which reduce consumption. If that sounds a bit Ponzi-like, it is. But in the short term, if it works, everyone should win. Consumers pay more per unit of electricity, but use less, so save overall. Utilities need to invest less, so future energy price rises should be contained, but the rate increase keeps their profits up. And as less energy is used, CO₂ emissions are reduced, keeping the regulator and Mother Earth happy.

But does it work? In areas where these schemes operate, consumption has gone down, so negawatt proponents claim it’s effective. But energy usage has also gone down elsewhere. Which begs the question of whether we are measuring a real effect or not? Has the siren song of the negawatt befuddled both utilities and regulators, removing their ability to make rational judgements? In the US, billions of dollars are being spent on these schemes, whilst in the UK, DECC has built its justification for smart metering on the same unproven promise of jam tomorrow. So how do we separate belief from reality?

The Green Approach to Energy Theft

I’ve spent the last few days at the Utility Analytics Week conference in Atlanta, where energy companies come together to discuss what they can do with the data they’re beginning to collect from smart meters. Despite the range of interesting and useful things that are possible, the majority of speakers converged on one application – reducing the level of energy theft. Specifically that seemed to mean stopping people stealing electricity to grow marijuana. A speaker from the Canadian supplier BC Hydro even went as far as saying that detecting marijuana growers was the main reason they’d decided to install smart meters.

The reason marijuana growers bypass their meters is that it traditionally takes quite a lot of power to run the growing lights for a loft-full of cannabis plants. Apparently 1,000W agricultural lights are needed for a set of fifteen to twenty plants. And now that the Canadian utilities are cracking down on energy thieves, the illicit trade is moving to the US. Which really got the US utility representatives hot under the collar. There’s nothing that riles a Southern utility manager as much as the knowledge that those pesky Canadians are turning his kids into reefer smoking zombies.

Hence the amount of effort being poured into revenue protection data analytics in an attempt to differentiate a closet pot grower from a faulty transformer. However, I think that by concentrating on theft, the utilities are missing an opportunity.

Mobile Operators, Utilities and Customer Segmentation

For many years the best way to insult a mobile operator was to suggest to them that they were just a pipe for voice and data. They’d foam at the mouth and point out that they were a brand, not a utility. They’d justify this by pointing out that they had marketing people and that they offered differentiated products. It took a far more expert brand in the guise of Apple to make the commercial point with the iPhone, which was offered to mobile operators on the “stick it up your pipe and smoke it” principle, giving the consumers to Apple and ultimately forcing the operators into a price war in supplying a largely undifferentiated consumer data pipe.

At the same time, utilities were beginning to think that they might be more than a pipe. Particularly in areas where the market is deregulated, allowing consumers to switch energy supplier, they’ve been toying with ways to attract customers through segmentation and selling other services.

On the same day this week, in the UK, we’ve seen two interesting examples of this playing out. O2, which had been chasing the health market with their Help at Hand and Health at Home products, unexpectedly pulled out. At the same time, British Gas launched an initiative to become the energy supplier of choice to young renters. It’s useful to consider what these say about the potential to gild your pipe and rise above the status of utility. As we enter the era of the Internet of Things, the market will need service providers who can aggregate services and who have trusted relationships with consumers. These moves suggest that although utilities and network operators ought to be well placed to extend their relationships, they may lack the skills to do so.

UK Smart Metering Plan Delayed

Today in Parliament, the UK Secretary for State for Energy and Climate Change – Ed Davey, announced that there would be a one year delay in the GB deployment of smart meters. That’s not a great surprise to anyone. Rather than copy what has been deployed in other countries, the UK industry has been developing specifications to make our smart metering system the most complex (and expensive) of any deployment anywhere in the world, and complexity takes time.

However, the timing is not great. Anyone following smart meter deployment will have noticed a distinct slowdown over the past few years. Some of the larger US utilities have already rolled out smart meters, helped by $83 billion of stimulus funding. A significant chunk of Australia has them as well. But as stimulus funds have dried up, so have the bulk of smart meter deployments.

The one remaining gung-ho project was the UK one, where previous ministers had been keen to pull it forward. A lot of the rest of the world, particularly other countries within Europe, who are working out how to address the EC directive on smart metering, have been waiting and watching to see how we’re doing. On the surface it’s looked good. Underneath there are conflicting interests which have been building up delays. Unfortunately the timing of today’s announcement plays to quite a lot of those underlying politics, which could further derail the future of the program.

Green Button – The Damp Squib of Smart Energy

If Google can’t make it work, call in a US Senator. That seems to be the approach to consumer energy engagement in the US, where shortly after the demise of Google PowerMeter, US Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra challenged the energy industry to come up with an analogue of the Blue Button, called the Green Button.

The Blue Button is a good idea. It’s a scheme, pioneered by the VHA, to let patients download their medical records in a standard format, so that they can be shared with doctors, hospitals, emergency responders and other caregivers. It lets patients add personal and insurance information and supports a host of detailed medical data. When it was launched it was with the expectation that it would “improve the quality of patient-clinician interactions”. Over one million members of the VHA now use it, and it’s being adopted by other healthcare organisations in the US because of its success in improving that interaction.

The rather naive hope was that Green Button would do the same for energy, but the analogy quickly breaks down. Whereas most healthcare workers see helping patients as an integral part of their contract, most utilities don’t. Trying to claim any analogy between the Blue Button and the Green Button is really just a bit of sly marketing to try and disguise the fact that most utilities only want to work with their customers if it’s for their own benefit. Utilities don’t sign a Hippocratic oath. The only oaths they utter are those against regulators, the fuel poor, late payers and air conditioning users who don’t sign up to demand response programs.