‘Smart’ meters allow for easy monitoring of energy use. (Carolyn Kaster/AP/File)
For a spiffier electric grid: $11 billion
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ January 27, 2009 edition
The economic stimulus package as crafted by the House of Representatives includes $11 billion to modernize America’s electric grid.
About $10 billion of that money would go for upgrading the transmission system so that it’s more reliable, efficient, and redundant. The program, part of the stimulus plan’s green initiatives, would also make the grid more interconnected so that traditional and renewable power plants in, say, the Midwest could send their surplus electricity to the East Coast.
But the package also reserves $1 billion for “smart grid” and “smart metering” pilot projects, which would begin to energize, even revolutionize, what some call the world’s largest machine.
If the Obama administration were to expand the “smart grid” effort to a five-year $50 billion program, the result could be curbed growth in energy demand, a curtailed need for new power plants, and a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. That would also create about 238,000 new jobs, according to a recent study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
At least a dozen prestimulus pilot projects are already up and running, allowing homeowners like Dennis Arfmann to monitor their electricity use and carbon dioxide “footprint.”
“Everyone has different drivers,” says Mr. Arfmann, a lawyer in Boulder, Colo., who has had solar panels installed on his roof and joined Xcel Energy’s pilot program, Smart Grid City. “For me it’s CO2 reduction and climate change. But for someone else in Houston or California, it may be peak pricing and saving money,” he says. “That’s why these portals [monitors] are so critical. They help you see what’s happening.”
So far, Arfmann has cut the energy use of his 4,500-square-foot home by 40 percent by, among other things, hanging up laundry rather than using the dryer.
In the future, a smart-grid system would let homeowners decide whether to pay a hefty premium to run their “smart” washers or air conditioners during peak power periods or allow their power companies to shut off those appliances automatically.
( More stories )
Comments
3. Patrick Mazza | 01.28.09
Thank you for giving the proportions goinng to long-distance transmission and local distribution. These are overall great investments, with two caveats. First, better transmission can empower new coal plants as well as new wind farms, and we better make sure there is a green priority on these new lines. Second, ultimately we want to make the local distribution grid a system capable of handling two-way power flows to handle local solar panels, wind and plug-in vehicles. Smart meters are a key to this. I would have been happier to see the package more balanced than 10-1 in terms of dollars, since I think the local investments are ultimately more important for making as clean grid.
4. Steve L. | 01.30.09
Smart meters would permit time-of-day pricing. If peak use is at 3:00 - 4:00 pm, then by charging (much) more for using electricity during this time of day, people will start washing and drying their clothes, and doing their ironing and dishes, at less pricey times of day. Without smart meters and incentive pricing those meter allow, there can be no economic incentive. Yet electricity generating capacity and power transmission lines all must be sized for peak demand. That highest use kilowatt hour costs lots to deliver; charges for it should reflect that. Electricity would be much more efficiently used if we replace dumb meters with smart meters.
5. Daniel | 01.30.09
If I were Obama,I’d spend at least a tiny part of that stimulus on more R&D for such things as superconducting transmission & the concept of ‘grid networking’,an internet like concept for electrical transmission of electricity.
6. viper | 01.30.09
Boulder is using BPL (Broadband over Power Line) technology which though cool, has proven too expensive to be really viable. Most utilities tried it, and discontinued that direction some time ago. Radio Frequency is the better, and less expensive alternative. IP Based Radio Frequency is even better yet. This could spawn an industry of products and applications that can work on and interact with the SmartGrid.
7. David | 01.31.09
Response to comment #1 above:
A big part of the reason we have the high utility bills we do, is to cover the wide range of prices for electricity generation. At the very times of highest use, say a hot summer day, the prices for power generation is highest. Utilities dispatch the units with the highest marginal cost last, but at those times, it’s all hands on deck. The high cost for that peak time is typically spread across your bill, and you see it at the end of the month.
But if you had the ability to choose whether to use a portion electricity then or move that portion to a non-peak time (think dishwasher run at night), then both you and the utility could see lower bills. You could choose to do that today, but without the smart meter, you wouldn’t see any of the benefit.
8. Chris | 02.06.09
I for one am really weary of this whole “smart grid” thing that so many environmentalists have be getting warm fuzzys over. I consider myself an environmentalist too by the way. It just seems to me that the “smart grid” has much more to do with monetizing electricity, which is still regulated to some degree, then energy conservation. Of course the tech companies and their hordes are all in support as lots of other interests of all sorts that desire a future in which everything(including the kitchen sink) is connected to the internet in some fashion. I don’t think adding an IP address to something and connecting it to the web necessarily makes it smart, however people seem to always take it as a given. Anyway I think people should look at this whole “smart grid” and “smart (whatever)” thing more closely. I think industry publications on these subjects can be revealing. Just my 2 Cents.
9. alte mensch | 02.07.09
Once again the electric utility industry is trying to go to demand pricing to increase profits — and have the consumer pay for their change. The carrot is the lower rates for off-peak usage. Sure turn off you A/C from 2 PM to 8 PM and don’t cook in those hours either.
You can be sure that there studies have detailed just how much their profits would increase under this sort of pricing.
10. Deb | 02.17.09
When I lived in Montgomery County, Maryland Washington, DC area where you could get a deduction on your energy bill, and then the would attach a radio control to your air conditioner only. The control allowed the company to shut off your air conditioner remotely for a certain number of hours per week, with a limited number of hours per day. It really seemed to work well, and helped them to reduce the number of “rolling blackouts” they had been implementing. It seems that expanding this concept would be a great idea.
Does anyone else live in an area that uses a system like this?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
2. ECO-BUSINESSWIRE.COM › ‘Green’ energy a tiny share of stimulus plan: Supporters see the plan’s $24 billion on renewables as a first step toward a new energy economy. | 01.28.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. jobo | 01.27.09
I also live in Boulder. $100 million for smart grid. That’s a lot of money what seems to mostly consist of real time energy use monitoring. $100 million would buy a lot of new windows, insulation, and solar panels for those of us that can’t afford to upgrade our old houses. All I see are more ways to charge me for energy use without helping me afford the pricier aspects of reducing usage. I’m still paying for the new high efficiency furnace I installed 3 years ago. I can’t afford new appliances. So I get to pay an energy premium because I’m not wealthy enough to afford all the smart upgrades? I’m not anti energy use reduction. I am against penalizing those with the least money to afford the most efficient and latest upgrades. There needs to be more recognition and assistance. I hang wash in the summer. But my 1400 s.f. house needs $$$$ thousands in improvements to be energy efficient. Which I don’t, and for the foreseeable future in this economy -won’t have.