# Smart Meters - BC



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

anyone notice a difference in their bills since having a smart meter installed?

Our bills have decreased, makes you wonder if they were ripping us off before?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Depends on who you ask.
They are ripping us off _now_.
We had a long running debate on this in a thread called _Energy Usage_ about 2 years ago when the "smart" meters were shoved upon us here in Ontario.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

We noticed a huge decrease in our bill. We did suspect that our billing was wrong before, (see Kaes water bill thread). 

Ours went down by 75% for our cabin.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

seems to be a big benefit now, they are actually getting the billing correct. our bill has decreased significantly as well.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

But PA, the "smart" meters are not for water usage - they are for electricity.
If your total bill has gone down, it is because of lower electricity component, not water.

The effect of "smart" meters are simple:
- If you were using energy inefficiently before, and change your usage as a result of "smart" meters, your bill will go down.
- If you were already optimizing your usage (like max. off peak usage), your bills will go up.

Therefore, the "smart" meters are a way to force inefficient users to modify their behavior.

However, compared to pre "smart" meter rates, in Ontario *everyone's* bill went up about year and half after the province introduced the "smart" meters.
This is because the off peak rate was raised higher than what the flat rate used to be earlier.
Then they added HST on hydro bills starting in mid 2009.

While at the same time, "selling" excess hydro to neighboring provinces as throw-away rates.

This whole thing has been one large tax grab scheme.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

HaroldCrump said:


> The effect of "smart" meters are simple:
> - If you were using energy inefficiently before, and change your usage as a result of "smart" meters, your bill will go down.
> - If you were already optimizing your usage (like max. off peak usage), your bills will go up.


this not what we are experiencing. We are already optimizing our usage and our bill has gone down.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I don't like them because they could be hacked and I don't like the use of wireless monitoring. My electric bill hasn't changed all that much but that doesn't mean I trust them at all.

http://stopsmartmeters.net/smartElectricityMeters.htm


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

I love how the that write up goes off on how "non green" the meters are, but if it causes people to be more efficient with their electricity use - you can't get much greener.
My dogs sure miss the meter reader dude though  no one bark at now

Personally I think Hydro should double rates. People waste way to much energy.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Yeah I sort of skipped over the green part because I wasn't so sure about that either.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> - If you were already optimizing your usage (like max. off peak usage), your bills will go up.
> 
> Therefore, the "smart" meters are a way to force inefficient users to modify their behavior.



This is impossible. The off-peak rate is less than the blended (ie, not time of use) price. If you had 100% off peak use, and went from the blended rate to the TOU rate, you saved money.

I think you're confusing the TOU pricing with the fact that the blended rate has been increasing. Electricity prices were being kept artificially low for political reasons during the late 1990s/early 00s. Maybe going to TOU pricing provided some cover for the rate increases, but the rate increases were going to happen smart meters or not.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

HaroldCrump said:


> But PA, the "smart" meters are not for water usage - they are for electricity.
> If your total bill has gone down, it is because of lower electricity component, not water.
> 
> The effect of "smart" meters are simple:
> ...



Sorry I wasn't very clear. I was using the example of my bc hydro meter which is for my electricity. 

We didn't change a thing, as our consumption is only when we are at our cabin. In fact, our bills were much higher when the cabin was left empty and most of the things nplugges and turned off priory to the smart meter. Now, we have left more things turned on, and our bill is still $75 lower than before. Hence, why I think prior to the smart meters there was something wrong, but we couldn't figure it our. Hope that makes more sense.

We have become much more inefficient in our electricity consumption yet pay a lot less since the smart meters.

I know my case is anecdotal.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> This is impossible. The off-peak rate is less than the blended (ie, not time of use) price.
> I think you're confusing the TOU pricing with the fact that the blended rate has been increasing.


I am not confusing it, that is exactly what I was referring to.
The post TOU off peak rate is higher than the pre TOU flat rate, in fact quite a bit higher.
Add in the fact that around the same time (mid 2009), they slammed HST on hydro bills.

The combined effect has been a substantial increase in hydro bills, with same and even lower consumption, and even with maximum time optimization of usage.

I hear your comment about electricity pricing and political reasons around it, etc. but same and greater subsidies exist for many other goods and services.
I'm ok with market pricing of electricity, but let's market price other things too, say transit, education, infrastructure construction, gasoline, etc.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The flat rate went up--had nothing to do with TOU.

There are much better cases to be made for subsidizing education, infrastructure, etc. than to subsidize electricity consumption. And charging higher rates for electricity also served to moderate consumption growth, which reduced the need for (very) costly new generating and transmission capacity.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Sure, the user should pay right? When cyclists start paying for their road usage, bike lane contruction, transit users start paying the full cost of their ride and downtown "development" projects etc are paid for by the end user with no taxpayer involvement, sure, I'll go along with user pay.

Anything less amounts to selective socialism and guided by the ideology of whatever politician is in power that day.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

So selective socialism is a bad thing, and we should go for a fully socialized economy? I'm sorry, I can't support that. There is a happy medium between a fully planned communist economy and totally unfettered laissez faire capitalist one.

There are goods that provide net social benefit and are difficult to charge for the use of, and exclude from those who do not pay. Sidewalks are a classic example. Electricity is not. It is very easy to charge users, and to exclude those who do not pay.

Education is another example of a good that is reasonably worthwhile subsidizing. Society benefits from education through higher incomes, taxes, more productive workers, lower crime and social assistance costs. Of course, the recipients of education also benefit, and it is possible to charge students and exclude those who don't pay, but because of the large positive externalities, some division of the cost of education between society and the individual is reasonable. The benefits are so great in fact, that education is mandatory until grade 12 in some jurisdictions.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The problem with selective socialism is that it depends on the flavor of the month i.e. the politician in office.
Everyone has their pet lobby groups and pet causes.
It never ends.

That aside, what they did in Ontario with hydro rates had nothing to do with socialism or capitalism (selective or absolute).
Adding HST on top of hydro bills and gasoline was simply a tax grab.
There is no corresponding or offsetting benefits for the vast majority of tax payers.

And hasn't Ontario been selling its excess hydro to neighboring provinces (and even some US states) for a fraction of the cost?

As for increasing hydro rates, that has a lot to do with asinine govt. programs like FIT and investments in windfarms, solar panels and other useless technologies.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

There were offsetting benefits to introduction of HST on energy: other taxes were lowered, including personal and corporate income tax rates. There's no real reason to tax cars and not the energy you put in them (or lightbulbs and not the electricity). They broadened the base of HST and used the proceeds to lower other taxes. The net effect of all the tax changes introduced was a reduction in revenue. Some taxes went up, but others went down more.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

the-royal-mail said:


> Sure, the user should pay right? When cyclists start paying for their road usage, bike lane contruction, transit users start paying the full cost of their ride and downtown "development" projects etc are paid for by the end user with no taxpayer involvement, sure, I'll go along with user pay.
> 
> Anything less amounts to selective socialism and guided by the ideology of whatever politician is in power that day.


yes the user should pay, especially water and hydro.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Hawkdog said:


> yes the user should pay, especially water and hydro.


yes the user should pay, especially transit and gasoline.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

HaroldCrump said:


> yes the user should pay, especially transit and gasoline.


yes especially transit and gasoline.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't particularly object to raising the cost of transit. But, user should also pay when it comes to highway access. Transit is necessary in part because our highways operate way over capacity due to underpricing.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I would think transit and trucking access should be the cornerstone to every city and the priorities should be put there. The worst thing in the world is trying to build another LA, that place is a complete disaster with all its choked enormous freeways. Calgary in my opinion is trying to build LA and Vancouver has gone the other way with its skytrain system. Vancouver has many geographical challenges but it didn't become one of the more desirable cities to live in the world by building freeways.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I don't particularly object to raising the cost of transit. But, user should also pay when it comes to highway access. Transit is necessary in part because our highways operate way over capacity due to underpricing.


Right, so now we are getting somewhere.
Highways, bridges, and other infrastructure pricing should be increased to offset the deep subsidies (i.e. free).

That will rationalize the true cost of commuting for work.
If gasoline and transit were priced appropriately as well, then we will start experiencing the true social costs of commute, esp. for average or below average wages.

Over time, wages have to go up to account for the true costs of urban culture and/or the social landscape and work culture will undergo transformation.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

On the other hand, I am also generally in favour of greater cash transfers to low income individuals. Raising the cost of transit will disproportionately impact those with lower incomes.


Keep in mind, too, that in terms of operating costs, Toronto's transit systems are quite efficient. GO and TTC have high farebox recovery rates. The big money sink is capital spending for new lines. The TTC is grotesquely wasteful on this count--Toronto has some of the highest per km construction costs for subway and LRT in the world, largely due to overspec'ed requirements.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Costs of car ownership are high enough as it is. We already pay for road usage through the fuel taxes, insurance, traffic fines, speed cameras, sales tax on all the costs of purchasing and maintaining cars and numerous other scams. I would only support additional costs for cars if cyclists, transit, education, child care, health care and all other such govt expenditures went to a user pay model as well.

Otherwise it's meaningless because politicians will just continue to socialize whatever suits their particular ideology.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Are roads really the pinnacle of our social welfare system? The one good above all others that we should subsidize through taxes? I think you're just being stubborn.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> I would only support additional costs for cars if cyclists, transit, education, child care


Yep, each and every one of those must pay for the corresponding services.
The items you list above are amongst the most highly subsidized services - the pinnacles of social welfare system, as andrewf wrote above, it's not just the roads.
Roads and related infrastructure are indeed highly subsidized, but among the portion that is paid for, car drivers and other vehicle owners are paying far more than their proportionate share.



andrewf said:


> On the other hand, I am also generally in favour of greater cash transfers to low income individuals. Raising the cost of transit will disproportionately impact those with lower incomes.


If income re-distribution is what you want, there are far better ways by reducing the tax breaks for the "rich".
By "rich", I mean, what we define as rich vs. the US where that definition starts at a much higher level (apparently, $450K household income).
This side of the border, if you have a job, a car, and maybe a (mortgaged) home, that's enough to be labeled "rich".
The socialist mercenaries are already after you for income re-distribution.

Anyhow, just as a couple of examples, let's get rid of the tax deductions for transit for those above a certain income level.
Let's also put a cap on the frequency of capital gains exemption on the sale of primary residence (say, once every 5 years or even more).
Let us simplify the deductions and exemptions and just do one single wealth transfer from the "rich" to the "poor".

BTW, what do you mean by Toronto's transit system is highly efficient?
Both TTC and GO are among the most subsidized transit systems in the country (possibly including the US as well) on a per ride basis.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

dogcom said:


> Vancouver has many geographical challenges but it didn't become one of the more desirable cities to live in the world by building freeways.


No but it did by ignoring the needs of businesses. These surveys never acknowledge the needs of businesses. Fortunately for me, that is a part of the past. After all the people get jobs with banks and government downtown, everyone else must commute to the suburbs to get to work! In Burnaby, Richmond and points east and south.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> BTW, what do you mean by Toronto's transit system is highly efficient?
> Both TTC and GO are among the most subsidized transit systems in the country (possibly including the US as well) on a per ride basis.


TTC recovers 71.3% of its operating costs from fare revenue, while GO Transit recovers 82.2%. This is very high by NA standards. Ottawa's OcTranspo recovers 52%, New York's MTA recovers 55.5%, Montreal's STM recovers 57.1%. And those are the goods ones. Some cities like Miami, Austin and Atlanta recover as little as 9%.

See wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

In fact, TTC/GO are some of the best outside of Asia. Based on this, I'd need to see some evidence to support your claim that TTC/GO are the most subsidized per ride. Maybe in absolute subsidy $ they are the most subsidized, but they move a lot of people and recover a high % of costs from fares.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> In fact, TTC/GO are some of the best outside of Asia. Based on this, I'd need to see some evidence to support your claim that TTC/GO are the most subsidized per ride. Maybe in absolute subsidy $ they are the most subsidized, but they move a lot of people and recover a high % of costs from fares.


But their operating costs are amongst the highest in North America as well.
So the higher farebox collection, and the higher per ride nominal subsidy amount, is all masking the fact that they are an expensive transit system.

I don't have the data for GO, but here is a study for the TTC:
http://www.blogto.com/city/2011/12/is_the_ttc_the_priciest_transit_system_in_north_america/

Keep in mind that having the highest rate of farebox collection also implies the burden on the poor sections of the riders, which you want to avoid.
So higher farebox collection = higher burden on poorer riders
OTOH, higher subsidy = higher burden on municipal and provincial tax payers

What I don't know (haven't researched yet), is how critical are TTC's notoriously high labor costs in its overall operating costs vis-a-vis other transit systems.
Are its labor costs the primary reason that they are so inefficient and expensive?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Labour is a very large % of TTC's operating cost. If I recall correctly, it's over 65%.

I have no love for unions, least of all public sector unions. I would be fully in favour of tendering out the operations of the TTC. Letting different operating companies bid with set service level expectations could improve performance and reduce costs. It can be transparent to the customer, too, as the fare and routing system would remain under TTC control.

The high fares and monthly pass rates you refer to are a direct result of low operating subsidy. I see no evidence to support a claim that Toronto's transit operators receive high per-ride or per-passenger-km subsidies. If anything, they are lower that average.


----------

