Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Lottoking888 t1_jedajwh wrote

Pretty sure they could eat that $200M cost for breakfast. Why do we have to pay for their burdens??? Makes no sense. When big corporations mess up, we take on the burden… banks, electric companies, oil companies, whatever. Like the train that crashed and made the environment toxic all around it… who suffers?

But if a small business fails or if a hardworking man falls behind on his bills they lose everything. Makes a lot of sense. F THE SYSTEM.

52

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jeevm7j wrote

>Why do we have to pay for their burdens??? Makes no sense.

The next business that doesn't pass on their costs to their consumers will be the first. They'll also be the last since everyone else will see how quickly they fail after and not repeat the same mistake.

1

degggendorf t1_jeelejs wrote

> Why do we have to pay for their burdens??? Makes no sense.

You're not sure why a business should charge enough to cover the costs of delivering their product?

Are you over at Wickford Appliance insisting that they sell appliances at a loss and remodel their stores with imaginary money from somewhere other than their customers?

−15

Familiar_Ad1485 t1_jeetp7b wrote

There it is! Always a devils advocate troll in every thread

0

LilPoutinePat t1_jeey7nj wrote

Look at their comment history or this post, looks like they work for RIE

4

degggendorf t1_jeeyk5c wrote

So what is your opinion, businesses should charge less than it takes to provide their service, and the extra money comes from...?

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jeevr9r wrote

It's not devil's advocacy to point out that we live in a capitalist society and a company passing on their costs is how literally fucking every company ever has operated.

−1

degggendorf t1_jeez1k9 wrote

> how literally fucking every company ever has operated.

Not only companies, every organization. Even if electricity were provided by a non-profiting municipal department (as it should be), they would still need to pay for their costs somehow. That money is either coming from customers paying a charge proportional to their usage, or it's coming from a broader tax that will make efficient users subsidize heavy consumers. I'm sure you can guess which I would vote for.

1

OldBlueBalls t1_jecxprq wrote

What’s the benefit to me?

37

FezzikSPrestonEsq t1_jed3po8 wrote

Long sweaty days when they turn your power off in summer to prevent strain on the grid.

41

sethwm2 t1_jeeavgh wrote

Lol I love all the idiots telling you that’s not going to happen and it’s not a possibility. It happens in California and in other states.

12

degggendorf t1_jeekmzv wrote

California shuts down entire meters in the summer?

The two-way communication in these new meters will help eliminate emergency blackouts by matching demand more quickly.

3

azknight t1_jee8y74 wrote

The comfort in knowing that you’ll help the RI Energy executives afford a 3rd summer house.

27

degggendorf t1_jee60vm wrote

> “The Advanced Metering Functionality (AMF) Business Case … we submitted to the (RI PUC) is an important step in modernizing the state’s energy infrastructure for the benefit of all Rhode Islanders. Approximately 60% of our existing meters are nearing the end of their design life and need to be replaced.”

>The power provider insists the new technologies included in the AMF proposal will provide their “customers with greater control, choice, and convenience in managing their energy consumption.”

More info here: https://www.eaton.com/us/en-us/products/utility-grid-solutions/advanced-metering-infrastructure/fundamentals-of-ami.html

edit: or here is a more objective source with more academic results: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/AMI%20Summary%20Report_09-26-16.pdf

> Major Findings

> SGIG projects demonstrated that AMI and customer systems can achieve substantial grid impacts and benefits for customers and utilities, including:

> - Reduced costs for metering and billing from fewer truck rolls, labor savings, more accurate and timely billing, fewer customer disputes, and improvements in operational efficiencies.

> - More customer control over electricity consumption, costs, and bills from greater use of new customer tools (e.g., web portals and smart thermostats) and techniques (e.g., shifting demand to off-peak periods).

> - Lower utility capital expenditures and customer bill savings resulting from reduced peak demand and improvements in asset utilization and maintenance.

> - Lower outage costs and fewer inconveniences for customers from faster outage restoration and more precise dispatching of repair crews to the locations where they are needed.

7

whatnodeaddogwilleat t1_jeeilkp wrote

I can't think of a single meter-based choice I've made.

What, would it send me an app message when I hit a threshold? I already get a lovely e-mail telling me how much higher my electric usage is vs. my neighbors because I have electric appliances (shocked pikachu face).

10

degggendorf t1_jeekere wrote

> I can't think of a single meter-based choice I've made.

So if you're unconcerned with monitoring or reducing your energy usage, the smart meter might be of limited use to you.

But for other people, it would be like an energy metering smart plug, but for the whole house. Could help monitor (and reduce) your energy consumption in real time, rather than being surprised at the end of the month by some erratic usage.

Unless someone is out there with a stopwatch timing their meter spinning, in which case this wouldn't add any functionality.

−2

iandavid t1_jefwtgl wrote

This is correct. As someone who currently monitors my meter in real-time using rtlamr2mqtt, I can vouch for the benefits of knowing your energy usage in real-time. I had a rooftop solar array installed recently, and I use real-time monitoring to see whether I’m generating excess energy, which helps me know when the best time is to run my clothes dryer or charge my car. It absolutely helps people make better choices around their energy usage, and I think it’s something everyone would benefit from if it was more easily accessible.

2

Professional-Ask-630 t1_jeg90p7 wrote

why does anyone need a meter app to understand how to reduce their energy usage? "oh golly gee, you wouldn't believe it but having a Samsung Smart fridge, TV's on , and a million devices plugged into my outlets at all time made my electric bill go up. " it should be pretty common sense on how to lower your energy consumption. maybe deal with the heat a little bit instead of running constant ac, dress a little more cozy inside in for the winter, take a shorter shower that's not scalding hot.

−2

keevisgoat t1_jegedr5 wrote

It maybe we make some nuclear plants in the middle of nowhere and forget about this

1

degggendorf t1_jeh09t6 wrote

Those are perfect examples. How much does your TV cost to run? How much more (or less) are you spending with a "smart" fridge over a "dumb" one? What is the value of that vampire current when everything is "off"? Literally, tell me. Dollars and cents. How much is it for you? How much less will you spend if you set the AC to 76 instead of 74? How much does a shower cost per minute? How much do you save taking a "hot" shower instead of a "scalding hot" shower?

1

OldBlueBalls t1_jef2mwq wrote

I read the article but I appreciate the additional info

2

degggendorf t1_jef3bzr wrote

Yeah on paper it sounds like this initial investment will/should pay for itself in the long term and benefit everyone involved.

But in reality, I'm sure we will get some of those tech benefits, but never see that hypothetical cost savings.

4

monkiesandtool t1_jefpttn wrote

In theory, having the AMR would be able to determine theft of service cases, lowering the overall cost.

From a prior job responsibility (verifying potential address for gas work), on any given list, there would a decent number of locations (based upon AMR data) that theft of services was occurring

3

degggendorf t1_jefqrdo wrote

Oh neat, I didn't realize that theft was anything more than a drop in the bucket. Thanks for the info!

3

HairyEyeballz t1_jeeu9sg wrote

If you're the kind of person who wants a web-connected refrigerator with a TV in the door, you're gonna love this. Otherwise, it just seems to add bells and whistles no one is asking for, other than the salesman who's all over this thread advocating for it.

1

Yelling_Jellyfish t1_jee5e0e wrote

I'm so excited to have my electrical meter experience enhanced.

26

Comet_Empire t1_jeeiy7l wrote

Don't our monthly bills with 9 different upcharges cover this cost. Pretty sure if you were to ask why they charge what they do they would say infrastructure and equipment maintenance, upkeep and replacement.

16

Megs0226 t1_jeed7fs wrote

>“If approved, (the $188 million) will be collected from RI customers with an average bill impact over the first 5 years of $1.27 a month for a residential customer using 500 kWh of electricity.”

I have a feeling it won't stay this low...

13

Hashishiniado t1_jeeiupe wrote

Remember when they told us they wouldn't raise rates? That was funny.

16

glennjersey t1_jefripw wrote

Remember when all the assholes in here said it would never happen? That was also funny.

3

brickwars19 t1_jefk8u6 wrote

The electric company didn't raise the rates, why do people comment on things they nothing about you just sound ignorant

1

Familiar_Ad1485 t1_jeetglk wrote

I never thought in a million years I’d ever say this… but I want National Grid back!!!! This PPL “RI Energy” are the biggest bunch of blood thirsty scam artists intent on sucking every last dime from the state’s residents.

9

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jef1s4v wrote

MA still has national grid. Their rate hikes were higher this winter there than they were in Rhode Island

6

degggendorf t1_jef0dhp wrote

Yeah how dare they consider upgrading our grid to prepare for the future. We want to be like Texas and just ignore shit until it breaks then spend twice as much fixing it!

4

brickwars19 t1_jefkqfa wrote

Hate to tell you but national grid started the smart metering program well before ri energy bought them out, these meters are going to be in every state soon enough doesn't matter what the company name is and trust me when I tell you ri energy is much better then ng

1

dollrussian t1_jeenpjb wrote

We have no choice in it at all it seems

3

degggendorf t1_jef70uy wrote

Only via public comment hearings (which as the article notes were canceled for this topic), which the PUC is not obligated to heed anyway. Or I guess by voting for the governor who appoints the commission members, but that's never going to be a headline platform of any ticket.

2

realbusabusa t1_jefcu12 wrote

Off peak rates are coming to encourage demand shifting. As are heat pumps.

3

iandavid t1_jefv8ji wrote

I know we’re a cynical bunch, but sheesh. Our current electric meter tech is very outdated. Right now they literally have to drive a truck past every customer once a month to read everyone’s meter, which is expensive and wasteful. Real-time energy monitoring is objectively better technology and it’s the right direction to be going in.

We have every right to push back on who should pay for it, but calling the technology itself unnecessary is Luddism.

2

BossCrabMeat t1_jeefras wrote

Murphy's law... If it ain't broken don't fix it!

−9

mkmck t1_jef3qqf wrote

You really should Google Murphy's Law, because you clearly haven't got a clue what it is.

4

degggendorf t1_jeelo0p wrote

That's....not Murphy's law.

Besides, waiting for stuff to break then scrambling a crew for one-off emergency repairs is going to end up being way more expensive than methodically sending crews through each neighborhood to swap out meters.

edit: doing some math, this will amount to a cost of $380/meter to replace. There's no way an emergency break fix visit will be remotely that cheap. You'd be hard pressed to source parts that cheap, let alone the labor of getting an electrician to install them, and ignoring the cost and hassle of losing power when the old meter unexpectedly fails. Beyond that, the smart meters will be cheaper to read since it requires no time on site, not even a drive-by wireless read like ~50% of the meters have now.

2

BossCrabMeat t1_jefp9c6 wrote

My name is Murphy, and that is my law.

So they'll add $380 to my bill, to make their lives easier and fire couple meter readers to save costs ?

0

degggendorf t1_jefqi72 wrote

>My name is Murphy, and that is my law.

Hah, fair enough. I'm sorry to deny your identity like that. It was unfair, and I am sorry.

> So they'll add $380 to my bill, to make their lives easier and fire couple meter readers to save costs ?

Well yeah, basically. With a few extra notes that the owner will have a couple additional tools too, early replacement will reduce surprise failures, it will allow them to track and fix outages faster, and the cost savings will hypothetically pay for the upfront cost.

Then it doesn't seem to be part of the proposal, but these meters will also unlock the ability to have different rates at different times of the day, which can save everyone money by reducing peak loads, and help attentive consumers spend even less money on energy.

1

BossCrabMeat t1_jefu81g wrote

Remember the "Federal telephone excise tax" that was imply to pay for the Spanish-American war, but somehow we keep paying for?

My fear is this is going to be something like that, "new meter charge", that will stay on your bill till 2354(that is the date a huge astroid will hit earth and end all life), because why not, we can .

1