In the aftermath of last summer’s blackout in northwest Queens, the one question many New Yorkers seemed to be asking was: How come nobody knew how many households were without power?
But a few weeks later, a similar situation was averted in Kips Bay in Manhattan, when Con Edison, the city’s leading utility, used its access to real-time information of energy use to go door-to-door to area businesses and encourage them to use their electricity sparingly.
If knowledge is power, knowledge of power is essential for Con Ed to maintain the city’s power supply. But now some public officials both nationwide and in New York City are asking a different question: What if residents of every apartment also had access to real-time information about their own electric consumption? Would it change their behavior – and benefit the city as a whole? This is the promise of what are being called smart meters.
The price of electric power is based on the price in effect at the time of peak demand. The typical bill from Con Ed contains a graph that shows how these prices fluctuated throughout the month. Standard meters closely track how many kilowatt-hours each consumer uses, and the peak points of use per day, but are not designed to convey this information to consumers. Smart meters -- “communication systems that can capture and transmit energy use information as it happens”, according to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority -- allow consumers to keep much better track of their power usage. For example, if you discover that the peak period of energy use on a Tuesday usually comes around 3:30 PM, you can run the dishwasher Tuesday evening and save money. Some smart meters can even inform consumers when their energy bill is approaching a pre-selected amount.
Given these more robust functions, it is not surprising that smart meters cost more than standard meters. A standard meter retails for around $30, while smart meters can cost anywhere from $100 to $600. However, this greater initial investment should pay for itself in energy savings over time. Advocates of smart meters estimate that consumers will reduce energy consumption by 10 percent, thereby lowering their bills.
It is hard to argue with the benefits of reducing strain on the energy grid, while simultaneously reducing electric bills. But it is worth keeping in mind that smart meters are not a panacea for our energy challenges. After all, smart meters do not encourage reduction in energy usage so much as redistribution of energy usage. If every city apartment made use of the information available on smart meters, it is theoretically possible that the peak loads we experience today would come to be evenly distributed throughout the course of a 24 hour period. This would soften the peaks and save consumers money, but not reduce overall electric consumption very much.
This is a philosophical quibble; it is much more likely that peak load times will always exist, so that any shift away from usage during those times is positive. My larger concern is about the heavy focus on private apartments, given that the city’s largest consumers of energy are major corporations. Most office buildings leave their lights on after hours, and Times Square is not Times Square without the wasteful use of electricity.
While it is good to encourage individual conservation, a truly comprehensive conservation strategy would focus more heavily on the private sector. For a city expecting to add 1,000,000 residents over the next 20 years, smart meters will not solve our energy challenges.
On Nov. 14, 2006 the City Council’s Committee on Consumer Affairs considered a resolution sponsored by Councilmember Gale A. Brewer, which calls upon the New York State Public Services Commission “to allow individual apartments to access real-time energy pricing through the use of smart meters”.
In August 2006 the Public Services Commission issued an order directing all state utilities to “develop and deploy, to the extent feasible and cost effective, advanced metering systems for the benefit of all customers”. The state’s move followed passage of the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established strong national incentives for the installation of smart meters .
Given this history, the City Council’s recent actions are an attempt to expedite the inevitable installation of smart meters. Thirty-one states have already experimented with smart meters, and some analysts expect a 20 percent increase in smart meter usage each year for the next decade .
Smart meters are not a bad way to encourage conservation. But we must be smart enough to recognize that installing a better meter is no substitute for developing a comprehensive conservation policy.
Â
At each of the City Council's stated meetings, council members introduce bills, most of which will never become laws (for the process by which bills become laws, click here). As a regular feature, Gotham Gazette discusses some of the legislation proposed at each meeting.
At its most recent stated meeting on November 15, members of the City Council introduced more bills that would put more regulations on nightlife, tighten oversight of city agencies, and require disclosure from businesses who profited from slavery.
Members of the city council introduced two more bills in their three-month campaign to improve nightlife safety and curb underage drinking.
Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr., who authored another nightlife bill last month, submitted Intro 479, which punishes those who knowingly allow minors to drink in their homes. Also, Councilmember Melinda Katz put forth Intro 475 to tighten restrictions against clubs that admit minors without their parents.
"Considering how everything has been going in the city of New York, it will make the nightclub establishment a better place," Katz said of her bill.
Councilmembers James Sanders, Jr. and Annabel Palma lashed out against the makers of the "Cocaine" energy drink, who market the product by comparing it to the drug. Resolution 610 calls on local stores to discontinue sales of the drink. The resolution is a request, not an actual ban on the product.
"The founder [of the drink] needs to be reminded that this plague has caused violence, death, and imprisonment in our community," Sanders said, referring the actual drug. "Is there nothing that we won't do for a dollar bill?"
Two councilmembers introduced bills aimed at increasing oversight of city agencies.
City council officials said there is a need for continued, long-term information about the health of first responders at the World Trade Center. Councilmember Joseph Addabbo proposed Intro 468, which would require the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to issue an annual report on the World Trade Center Health Registry, detailing the health status and treatment of those who are registered.
In response to several high profile child deaths in the city this year, Councilmember Bill deBlasio proposed Intro 471, a bill that would create a seven-member commission to conduct a review the city's child welfare system. The commission's duties would include examining the Administration for Children's Services' policies and procedures, case files, and ability to conduct investigations and coordinate with other agencies. Within a year of the passage of the bill, the commission would submit a report to the mayor and the speaker of the council. DeBlasio said there ultimately needs to "be greater confidence in ACS and more reason for people to report [incidents of child abuse]."
Councilmember Charles Barron submitted a bill that would require city contractors to disclose if they had ever engaged in or profited from slavery. Citing action by several major companies and similar legislation in other U.S. cities, Intro 469 calls for potential contractors "to search their past" and reveal the information as the country continues to revisit the history of slavery.
Every two weeks the New York City Council holds its "Stated Meeting" to introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Gotham Gazette covers these meetings.
Quote of the Day: "I am proud to be a member of the City Council, and if I could and I had to, I would do it for nothing. But I can't get Ithaca College to give my son room and board for nothing, I can't get Sunoco to give me free gas, and I can't get my mortgage company to waive my mortgage." – Lew Fiddler
The City Council approved a bill that would give its members a raise at its meeting on November 15. The legislation was based on recommendations recently made by a mayoral commission that considers pay raises for public officials every four years. It would also grant raises to the mayor, public advocate, city comptroller, district attorneys and borough presidents.
Mayor Bloomberg must still approve the measure; if he does, the raises will be retroactive to November 1, 2006.
The council chambers were spirited as many members argued that a pay increase was overdue.
"I am proud to be a member of the City Council, and if I could and I had to, I would do it for nothing," said Councilmember Lew Fiddler. "But I can't get Ithaca College to give my son room and board for nothing, I can't get Sunoco to give me free gas, and I can't get my mortgage company to waive my mortgage."
Public officials have not gotten a raise in seven years. The mayor did not convene a commission to recommend adjustments in pay in 2003, when he was last required to, citing of the weak financial state the city was in at that time. The council's base pay will rise 25 percent from $90,000 to $112,000. (Click here for an article giving details on the specific raises for various public officials).
Many agree that public officials should get a raise. Others think that public officials should not be able to give themselves raises without the explicit approval of the voters, and good government groups (including Citizens Union, whose sister organization publishes Gotham Gazette) wanted to tie pay raises to reform measures.
The Daily News argued that "serious legislatures respect the principle that lawmakers should hike salaries for future officeholders, not their own salaries."
The idea also had its opponents within the council itself.
Councilmember Tony Avella took the rare step of proposing an amendment for the entire council to consider, proposing the attachment of what he described as reform measures.
First off, Avella proposed eliminating so-called lulus, stipends given to members of the council who serve as chairs of committees. Avella says these stipends are a mechanism through which the council leadership can control the individual members, and already refuses to accept extra payment for his role as head of the subcommittee on zoning and franchises.
Avella also wanted to restrict council members from holding outside jobs, arguing that serving on the council is a full time position. At least 17 members of the council earn outside income, some of them making hundreds of thousands of dollars in addition to their $90,000 council salary.
To a certain extent, these proposals mirrored recommendations by the mayor's commission calling for council jobs to be officially designated as full-time, and describing committee stipends as an area that is "ripe for reform."
Avella's amendment also called for a measure not mentioned in the commission's report: moving the effective date of the legislation to 2010, so that the council would not be voting on its own raises.
"I firmly believe that it is unethical for this body to vote itself a raise, and no excuse, no reasoning can make it so," he said. "The only legitimate way to do this is to vote it for the next class of council members."
Avella's amendment was voted down, with 43 no votes, two yes votes (himself and Councilmember Diane Mealy), and one abstention (Councilmember Hiram Monserrate). The council then approved the original bill by a vote of 41 to 5, with Councilmembers Avella, Andrew Lanza, Michael McMahon, Mealy, and Monserrate voting no. Councilmembers Maria Baez, Annabel Palma, Yvette Clarke, Inez Dickens and Kendall Stewart were absent and did not vote.
Quinn said the issues raised by the mayor's commission and Councilmember Avella would be considered in the future, although she said she supported stipends for committee chairs and did not think it was unethical for the council to give itself a raise.
Quinn plans to spend some, but not all, of her newfound income on charity. Decisions about changes to her spending, she added, will come only after "complete and full consultation with [her] domestic partner."
The council also passed two bills intended to toughen the city's response to illegal demolition work. Speaker Quinn argued that such action was needed to protect worker safety, especially after several high profile deaths at construction sites. The new bills will also protect the city from "willy nilly development" that destroys historic neighborhoods, she said. During the meeting, the bills' sponsors stressed their utility as enforcement measures to prevent illegal overdevelopment.
Councilmember Dominec Recchia of Brooklyn, who sponsored one of the bills, believes that the Buildings Department currently does not have the power to stop demolition companies from acting illegally. The fines the city can levy are far smaller than the profit to be had by ignoring the laws and proceeding without the proper permits, he said. Because of this, Recchia complained, he had no good course of action even in cases when he could show that demolition companies were taking down buildings illegally.
"The demolition companies were laughing in my face," said Recchia. "They just have a total disregard for the citizens of this city."
Recchia's bill would make it a misdemeanor to demolish a house with a proper permit; currently it is only a violation. If convicted, violators would face a fine of $5,000 to $10,000, six months in jail, or both. The current fine is $250.
The other bill, sponsored by Vincent Gentile, would take similar action against contractors who violate stop work orders. Both have to be signed by the mayor.
During the meeting, Councilmember James Vacca said that action should also be taken to tighten restrictions on people who improperly use alteration permits, claiming that developers in his Bronx district are filing for such permits and then illegally demolishing entire buildings.
"They often file for alterations when they can't meet new zoning [regulations]…. in order to be grandfathered in under old zoning that we successfully altered to change," he said.
Â