document_title: Chemical weapons in World War I

question_text: when was the first time poison gas was used in ww1

question_tokens: when was the first time poison gas was used in ww1

text: Chemical weapons in World War I

text: History of poison gas in World War I[edit]

text: 1914: Tear gas[edit]

text: The earliest military uses of chemicals were tear-inducing irritants rather than fatal or disabling poisons. During World War I, the French army was the first to employ gas, using 26 mm grenades filled with tear gas (ethyl bromoacetate) in August 1914. The small quantities of gas delivered, roughly 19 cm³ per cartridge, were not even detected by the Germans. The stocks were rapidly consumed and by November a new order was placed by the French military. As bromine was scarce among the Entente allies, the active ingredient was changed to chloroacetone.[7]

text: In October 1914, German troops fired fragmentation shells filled with a chemical irritant against British positions at Neuve Chapelle, though the concentration achieved was so small that it too was barely noticed.[8] None of the combatants considered the use of tear gas to be in conflict with the Hague Treaty of 1899, which prohibited the launching of projectiles containing asphyxiating or poisonous gas.[9]

text: 1915: Large-scale use and lethal gases[edit]

text: The first instance of large-scale use of gas as a weapon was on 31 January 1915, when Germany fired 18,000 artillery shells containing liquid xylyl bromide tear gas on Russian positions on the Rawka River, west of Warsaw during the Battle of Bolimov. However, instead of vaporizing, the chemical froze and failed to have the desired effect.[8]

text: The first killing agent used by the German military was chlorine. Chlorine is a powerful irritant that can inflict damage to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs. At high concentrations and prolonged exposure it can cause death by asphyxiation.[10] German chemical companies BASF, Hoechst and Bayer (which formed the IG Farben conglomerate in 1925) had been producing chlorine as a by-product of their dye manufacturing.[11] In cooperation with Fritz Haber of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry in Berlin, they began developing methods of discharging chlorine gas against enemy trenches.[12][13]

text: According to the fieldpost letter of Major Karl von Zingler, the first chlorine gas attack by German forces took place before 2 January 1915: "In other war theaters it does not go better and it has been said that our Chlorine is very effective. 140 English officers have been killed. This is a horrible weapon ...".[14]

text: By 22 April 1915, the German Army had 168 tons of chlorine deployed in 5,730 cylinders from Langemark–Poelkapelle, north of Ypres. At 17:30, in a slight easterly breeze, the gas was released, forming a gray-green cloud that drifted across positions held by French Colonial troops from Martinique who broke ranks, abandoning their trenches and creating an 8,000-yard (7 km) gap in the Allied line. However, the German infantry were also wary of the gas and, lacking reinforcements, failed to exploit the break before the 1st Canadian Division and assorted French troops reformed the line in scattered, hastily prepared positions 1,000–3,000 yards (910–2,740 m) apart.[8] The Entente governments quickly claimed the attack was a flagrant violation of international law but Germany argued that the Hague treaty had only banned chemical shells, rather than the use of gas projectors.[15]

text: In what became the Second Battle of Ypres, the Germans used gas on three more occasions; on 24 April against the 1st Canadian Division,[16] on 2 May near Mouse Trap Farm and on 5 May against the British at Hill 60.[17] The British Official History stated that at Hill 60, "90 men died from gas poisoning in the trenches or before they could be got to a dressing station; of the 207 brought to the nearest dressing stations, 46 died almost immediately and 12 after long suffering."[18]

text: On August 6, German troops used chlorine gas against Russian troops defending the Fortress of Osowiec. Surviving defenders drove back the attack and successfully retained the fortress.

text: Germany used chemical weapons on the eastern front in an attack at Rawka, south of Warsaw. The Russian army took 9,000 casualties, with more than 1,000 fatalities. In response, the artillery branch of the Russian army organized a commission to study the delivery of poison gas in shells.[19]

text: Effectiveness and countermeasures[edit]

text: It quickly became evident that the men who stayed in their places suffered less than those who ran away, as any movement worsened the effects of the gas, and that those who stood up on the fire step suffered less—indeed they often escaped any serious effects—than those who lay down or sat at the bottom of a trench. Men who stood on the parapet suffered least, as the gas was denser near the ground. The worst sufferers were the wounded lying on the ground, or on stretchers, and the men who moved back with the cloud.[20] Chlorine was less effective as a weapon than the Germans had hoped, particularly as soon as simple countermeasures were introduced. The gas produced a visible greenish cloud and strong odour, making it easy to detect. It was water-soluble, so the simple expedient of covering the mouth and nose with a damp cloth was somewhat effective at reducing the effect of the gas. It was thought to be even more effective to use urine rather than water, as it was known at the time that chlorine reacted readily with urea (present in urine) to form dichloro urea.[21]

text: Chlorine required a concentration of 1,000 parts per million to be fatal, destroying tissue in the lungs, likely through the formation of hydrochloric acid when dissolved in the water in the lungs (2Cl2 + 2H2O → 4HCl + O2).[22] Despite its limitations, however, chlorine was an effective psychological weapon—the sight of an oncoming cloud of the gas was a continual source of dread for the infantry.[23]

text: Countermeasures were quickly introduced in response to the use of chlorine. The Germans issued their troops with small gauze pads filled with cotton waste, and bottles of a bicarbonate solution with which to dampen the pads. Immediately following the use of chlorine gas by the Germans, instructions were sent to British and French troops to hold wet handkerchiefs or cloths over their mouths. Simple pad respirators similar to those issued to German troops were soon proposed by Lieutenant-Colonel N. C. Ferguson, the A.D.M.S. of the 28th Division. These pads were intended to be used damp, preferably dipped into a solution of bicarbonate kept in buckets for that purpose, though other liquids were also used. Because such pads could not be expected to arrive at the front for several days, army divisions set about making them for themselves. Locally available muslin, flannel and gauze were used, officers were sent to Paris to buy more and local French women were employed making up rudimentary pads with string ties. Other units used lint bandages manufactured in the convent at Poperinge. Pad respirators were sent up with rations to British troops in the line as early as the evening of 24 April.[24]

text: In Britain the Daily Mail newspaper encouraged women to manufacture cotton pads, and within one month a variety of pad respirators were available to British and French troops, along with motoring goggles to protect the eyes. The response was enormous and a million gas masks were produced in a day. Unfortunately, the Mail's design was useless when dry and caused suffocation when wet—the respirator was responsible for the deaths of scores of men. By 6 July 1915, the entire British army was equipped with the far more effective "smoke helmet" designed by Major Cluny MacPherson, Newfoundland Regiment, which was a flannel bag with a celluloid window, which entirely covered the head. The race was then on between the introduction of new and more effective poison gases and the production of effective countermeasures, which marked gas warfare until the armistice in November 1918.[24]

text: British gas attacks[edit]

text: The British expressed outrage at Germany's use of poison gas at Ypres but responded by developing their own gas warfare capability. The commander of II Corps, Lieutenant General Sir Charles Ferguson, said of gas:

text: It is a cowardly form of warfare which does not commend itself to me or other English soldiers ... We cannot win this war unless we kill or incapacitate more of our enemies than they do of us, and if this can only be done by our copying the enemy in his choice of weapons, we must not refuse to do so.[25]

text: The first use of gas by the British was at the Battle of Loos, 25 September 1915, but the attempt was a disaster. Chlorine, codenamed Red Star, was the agent to be used (140 tons arrayed in 5,100 cylinders), and the attack was dependent on a favorable wind. However, on this occasion the wind proved fickle, and the gas either lingered in no man's land or, in places, blew back on the British trenches.[8] This debacle was compounded when the gas could not be released from all the British canisters because the wrong turning keys were sent with them. Subsequent retaliatory German shelling hit some of those unused full cylinders, releasing more gas among the British troops.[26] Exacerbating the situation were the primitive flannel gas masks distributed to the British. The masks got hot, and the small eye-pieces misted over, reducing visibility. Some of the troops lifted the masks to get some fresh air, causing them to be gassed.[27]

text: 1915: More deadly gases[edit]

text: The deficiencies of chlorine were overcome with the introduction of phosgene, which was prepared by a group of French chemists led by Victor Grignard and first used by France in 1915.[28] Colourless and having an odor likened to "mouldy hay," phosgene was difficult to detect, making it a more effective weapon. Although phosgene was sometimes used on its own, it was more often used mixed with an equal volume of chlorine, with the chlorine helping to spread the denser phosgene.[29] The Allies called this combination White Star after the marking painted on shells containing the mixture.[30]

text: Phosgene was a potent killing agent, deadlier than chlorine. It had a potential drawback in that some of the symptoms of exposure took 24 hours or more to manifest. This meant that the victims were initially still capable of putting up a fight; although this could also mean that apparently fit troops would be incapacitated by the effects of the gas on the following day.[31]

text: In the first combined chlorine–phosgene attack by Germany, against British troops at Wieltje near Ypres, Belgium on 19 December 1915, 88 tons of the gas were released from cylinders causing 1069 casualties and 69 deaths.[29] The British P gas helmet, issued at the time, was impregnated with sodium phenolate and partially effective against phosgene. The modified PH Gas Helmet, which was impregnated with phenate hexamine and hexamethylene tetramine (urotropine) to improve the protection against phosgene, was issued in January 1916.[29][32][33]

text: Around 36,600 tons of phosgene were manufactured during the war, out of a total of 190,000 tons for all chemical weapons, making it second only to chlorine (93,800 tons) in the quantity manufactured:[34]

text:
Germany 18,100 tons
France 15,700 tons
United Kingdom 1,400 tons (although they also used French stocks)
United States 1,400 tons (although they also used French stocks)

text: Although phosgene was never as notorious in public consciousness as mustard gas, it killed far more people, about 85% of the 100,000 deaths caused by chemical weapons during World War I.

text: 1916: Austrian use[edit]

text: On 29 June 1916, Austrian forces attacked the Italian lines on Monte San Michele with a mix of phosgene and chlorine gas.[35] Thousands of Italian soldiers died in this first chemical weapons attack on the Italian Front.

text: 1917: Mustard gas[edit]

text: The most widely reported and, perhaps, the most effective gas of the First World War was mustard gas. It was a vesicant that was introduced by Germany in July 1917 prior to the Third Battle of Ypres.[8] The Germans marked their shells yellow for mustard gas and green for chlorine and phosgene; hence they called the new gas Yellow Cross. It was known to the British as HS (Hun Stuff), while the French called it Yperite (named after Ypres).[36]

text: Mustard gas is not a particularly effective killing agent (though in high enough doses it is fatal) but can be used to harass and disable the enemy and pollute the battlefield. Delivered in artillery shells, mustard gas was heavier than air, and it settled to the ground as an oily liquid resembling sherry. Once in the soil, mustard gas remained active for several days, weeks, or even months, depending on the weather conditions.[37]

text: The skin of victims of mustard gas blistered, their eyes became very sore and they began to vomit. Mustard gas caused internal and external bleeding and attacked the bronchial tubes, stripping off the mucous membrane. This was extremely painful. Fatally injured victims sometimes took four or five weeks to die of mustard gas exposure.[38]

text: One nurse, Vera Brittain, wrote: "I wish those people who talk about going on with this war whatever it costs could see the soldiers suffering from mustard gas poisoning. Great mustard-coloured blisters, blind eyes, all sticky and stuck together, always fighting for breath, with voices a mere whisper, saying that their throats are closing and they know they will choke."[39]

text: The polluting nature of mustard gas meant that it was not always suitable for supporting an attack as the assaulting infantry would be exposed to the gas when they advanced. When Germany launched Operation Michael on 21 March 1918, they saturated the Flesquières salient with mustard gas instead of attacking it directly, believing that the harassing effect of the gas, coupled with threats to the salient's flanks, would make the British position untenable.[citation needed]

text: Gas never reproduced the dramatic success of 22 April 1915; however, it became a standard weapon which, combined with conventional artillery, was used to support most attacks in the later stages of the war. Gas was employed primarily on the Western Front—the static, confined trench system was ideal for achieving an effective concentration. Germany also made use of gas against Russia on the Eastern Front, where the lack of effective countermeasures resulted in deaths of over 56,000 Russians,[40] while Britain experimented with gas in Palestine during the Second Battle of Gaza.[41] Russia began manufacturing chlorine gas in 1916, with phosgene being produced later in the year. However, most of the manufactured gas was never used.[19]

text: The British Army believed that the use of gas was needed, but did not use mustard gas until November 1917 at Cambrai, after their armies had captured a stockpile of German mustard-gas shells. It took the British more than a year to develop their own mustard gas weapon, with production of the chemicals centred on Avonmouth Docks.[42][43] (The only option available to the British was the Despretz–Niemann–Guthrie process). This was used first in September 1918 during the breaking of the Hindenburg Line with the Hundred Days' Offensive.

text: The Allies mounted more gas attacks than the Germans in 1917 and 1918 because of a marked increase in production of gas from the Allied nations. Germany was unable to keep up with this pace despite creating various new gases for use in battle, mostly as a result of very costly methods of production. Entry into the war by the United States allowed the Allies to increase mustard gas production far more than Germany.[44][45] Also the prevailing wind on the Western Front was blowing from west to east,[46] which meant the British more frequently had favorable conditions for a gas release than did the Germans.

text: When the United States entered the war, it was already mobilizing resources from academic, industry and military sectors for research and development into poison gas. A Subcommittee on Noxious Gases was created by the National Research Committee, a major research center was established at Camp American University, and the 1st Gas Regiment was recruited.[45] The 1st Gas Regiment eventually served in France, where it used phosgene gas in a number of attacks.[47][45] The Artillery used Mustard gas with significant effect during the Meuse Argonne Offensive on at least three occasions.[48] The United States began large-scale production of an improved vesicant gas known as Lewisite, for use in an offensive planned for early 1919. By the time of the armistice on 11 November, a plant near Willoughby, Ohio was producing 10 tons per day of the substance, for a total of about 150 tons. It is uncertain what effect this new chemical would have had on the battlefield, however, as it degrades in moist conditions.[49][50]

text: Post-war[edit]

text: By the end of the war, chemical weapons had lost much of their effectiveness against well trained and equipped troops. At that time, chemical weapon agents inflicted an estimated 1.3 million casualties.[51]

text: Nevertheless, in the following years, chemical weapons were used in several, mainly colonial, wars where one side had an advantage in equipment over the other. The British used poison gas, possibly adamsite, against Russian revolutionary troops beginning on August 27, 1919[52] and contemplated using chemical weapons against Iraqi insurgents in the 1920s; Bolshevik troops used poison gas to suppress the Tambov Rebellion in 1920, Spain used chemical weapons in Morocco against Rif tribesmen throughout the 1920s[53] and Italy used mustard gas in Libya in 1930 and again during its invasion of Ethiopia in 1936.[54] In 1925, a Chinese warlord, Zhang Zuolin, contracted a German company to build him a mustard gas plant in Shenyang,[53] which was completed in 1927.

text: Public opinion had by then turned against the use of such weapons which led to the Geneva Protocol, an updated and extensive prohibition of poison weapons. The Protocol, which was signed by most First World War combatants in 1925, bans the use (but not the stockpiling) of lethal gas and bacteriological weapons. Most countries that signed ratified it within around five years, although a few took much longer – Brazil, Japan, Uruguay, and the United States did not do so until the 1970s, and Nicaragua ratified it only in 1990.[55] The signatory nations agreed not to use poison gas in the future, stating "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world."[56]

text: Although chemical weapons have been used in at least a dozen wars since the end of the First World War,[54] they were not used in combat on a large scale until mustard gas and the more deadly nerve agents were used by Iraq during the 8-year Iran–Iraq War. It killed around 20,000 Iranian troops (and injured another 80,000), which is around a quarter of the number of deaths caused by chemical weapons during the First World War.[57]

text: Effect on World War II[edit]

text: Although all major combatants stockpiled chemical weapons during the Second World War, the only reports of its use in the conflict were the Japanese use of relatively small amounts of mustard gas and lewisite in China,[58][59] and very rare occurrences in Europe (for example some sulfur mustard bombs were dropped on Warsaw on 3 September 1939, which Germany acknowledged in 1942 but indicated had been accidental).[53] Mustard gas was the agent of choice, with the British stockpiling 40,719 tons, the Soviets 77,400 tons, the Americans over 87,000 tons and the Germans 27,597 tons.[53] The destruction of an American cargo ship containing mustard gas led to many casualties in Bari, Italy, in December 1943.

text: In both Axis and Allied nations, children in school were taught to wear gas masks in case of gas attack. Germany developed the poison gases tabun, sarin, and soman during the war, and used Zyklon B in their extermination camps. Neither Germany nor the Allied nations used any of their war gases in combat, despite maintaining large stockpiles and occasional calls for their use.[nb 1] Poison gas played an important role in the Holocaust.

text: Britain made plans to use mustard gas on the landing beaches in the event of an invasion of the United Kingdom in 1940.[60][61] The United States considered using gas to support their planned invasion of Japan.[62]

text: Casualties[edit]

text: The contribution of gas weapons to the total casualty figures was relatively minor. British figures, which were accurately maintained from 1916, recorded that only 3% of gas casualties were fatal, 2% were permanently invalid and 70% were fit for duty again within six weeks.[citation needed]

text: It was remarked as a joke that if someone yelled 'Gas', everyone in France would put on a mask. ... Gas shock was as frequent as shell shock.

text:
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! — An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime ...
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

text: Death by gas was often slow and painful. According to Denis Winter (Death's Men, 1978), a fatal dose of phosgene eventually led to "shallow breathing and retching, pulse up to 120, an ashen face and the discharge of four pints (2 litres) of yellow liquid from the lungs each hour for the 48 of the drowning spasms."

text: A common fate of those exposed to gas was blindness, chlorine gas or mustard gas being the main causes. One of the most famous First World War paintings, Gassed by John Singer Sargent, captures such a scene of mustard gas casualties which he witnessed at a dressing station at Le Bac-du-Sud near Arras in July 1918. (The gases used during that battle (tear gas) caused temporary blindness and/or a painful stinging in the eyes. These bandages were normally water-soaked to provide a rudimentary form of pain relief to the eyes of casualties before they reached more organized medical help.)

text: The proportion of mustard gas fatalities to total casualties was low; only 2% of mustard gas casualties died and many of these succumbed to secondary infections rather than the gas itself. Once it was introduced at the third battle of Ypres, mustard gas produced 90% of all British gas casualties and 14% of battle casualties of any type.

text:
Estimated gas casualties[40]

Nation
Fatal
Total
(Fatal & Non-fatal)

Russia
56,000
419,340

Germany
9,000
200,000

France
8,000
190,000

British Empire
(includes Canada)
8,109
188,706

Austria-Hungary
3,000
100,000

United States
1,462
72,807

Italy
4,627
60,000

Total
90,198
1,230,853

text: Mustard gas was a source of extreme dread. In The Anatomy of Courage (1945), Lord Moran, who had been a medical officer during the war, wrote:

text: After July 1917 gas partly usurped the role of high explosive in bringing to head a natural unfitness for war. The gassed men were an expression of trench fatigue, a menace when the manhood of the nation had been picked over.[63]

text: Mustard gas did not need to be inhaled to be effective — any contact with skin was sufficient. Exposure to 0.1 ppm was enough to cause massive blisters. Higher concentrations could burn flesh to the bone. It was particularly effective against the soft skin of the eyes, nose, armpits and groin, since it dissolved in the natural moisture of those areas. Typical exposure would result in swelling of the conjunctiva and eyelids, forcing them closed and rendering the victim temporarily blind. Where it contacted the skin, moist red patches would immediately appear which after 24 hours would have formed into blisters. Other symptoms included severe headache, elevated pulse and temperature (fever), and pneumonia (from blistering in the lungs).

text: Many of those who survived a gas attack were scarred for life. Respiratory disease and failing eyesight were common post-war afflictions. Of the Canadians who, without any effective protection, had withstood the first chlorine attacks during 2nd Ypres, 60% of the casualties had to be repatriated and half of these were still unfit by the end of the war, over three years later.

text: In reading the statistics of the time, one should bear the longer term in mind. Many of those who were fairly soon recorded as fit for service were left with scar tissue in their lungs. This tissue was susceptible to tuberculosis attack. It was from this that many of the 1918 casualties died, around the time of the Second World War, shortly before sulfa drugs became widely available for its treatment.

text: British casualties[edit]

text:
British forces gas casualties on the Western Front[citation needed]

Date
Agent
Casualties (official)

Fatal
Non-fatal

April –
May 1915
Chlorine
350
7,000

May 1915 –
June 1916
Lachrymants
0
0

December 1915 –
August 1916
Chlorine
1,013
4,207

July 1916 –
July 1917
Various
532
8,806

July 1917 –
November 1918
Mustard gas
4,086
160,526

April 1915 –
November 1918
Total
5,981
180,539

text: A British nurse treating mustard gas cases recorded:

text: They cannot be bandaged or touched. We cover them with a tent of propped-up sheets. Gas burns must be agonizing because usually the other cases do not complain even with the worst wounds but gas cases are invariably beyond endurance and they cannot help crying out.[64]

text: A postmortem account from the British official medical history records one of the British casualties:

text: Civilian casualties[edit]

text: The distribution of gas cloud casualties was not only limited to the front. Nearby towns were at risk from winds blowing the poison gases through. Civilians rarely had a warning system put into place to alert their neighbours of the danger. In addition to poor warning systems, civilians often did not have access to effective gas masks. Also, when the gas came to the towns over the wind, it could easily get into houses through open windows and doors. An estimated 100,000-260,000 civilian casualties were caused by chemical weapons during the conflict and tens of thousands (along with military personnel) died from scarring of the lungs, skin damage, and cerebral damage in the years after the conflict ended. Many commanders on both sides knew that such weapon would cause major harm to civilians as wind would blow poison gases into nearby civilian towns but nonetheless continued to use them throughout the war. British Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig wrote in his diary: "My officers and I were aware that such weapon would cause harm to women and children living in nearby towns, as strong winds were common on the battlefront. However, because the weapon was to be directed against the enemy, none of us were overly concerned at all."[66][67][68][69]

text: Countermeasures[edit]

text: None of the First World War's combatants were prepared for the introduction of poison gas as a weapon. Once gas was introduced, development of gas protection began and the process continued for much of the war producing a series of increasingly effective gas masks.[45]

text: Even at Second Ypres, Germany, still unsure of the weapon's effectiveness, only issued breathing masks to the engineers handling the gas. At Ypres a Canadian medical officer, who was also a chemist, quickly identified the gas as chlorine and recommended that the troops urinate on a cloth and hold it over their mouth and nose. The first official equipment issued was similarly crude; a pad of material, usually impregnated with a chemical, tied over the lower face. To protect the eyes from tear gas, soldiers were issued with gas goggles.

text: The next advance was the introduction of the gas helmet — basically a bag placed over the head. The fabric of the bag was impregnated with a chemical to neutralize the gas — however, the chemical would wash out into the soldier's eyes whenever it rained. Eye-pieces, which were prone to fog up, were initially made from talc. When going into combat, gas helmets were typically worn rolled up on top of the head, to be pulled down and secured about the neck when the gas alarm was given. The first British version was the Hypo helmet, the fabric of which was soaked in sodium hyposulfite (commonly known as "hypo"). The British P gas helmet, partially effective against phosgene and with which all infantry were equipped with at Loos, was impregnated with sodium phenolate. A mouthpiece was added through which the wearer would breathe out to prevent carbon dioxide build-up. The adjutant of the 1/23rd Battalion, The London Regiment, recalled his experience of the P helmet at Loos:

text: The goggles rapidly dimmed over, and the air came through in such suffocatingly small quantities as to demand a continuous exercise of will-power on the part of the wearers.[70]

text: A modified version of the P Helmet, called the PH Helmet, was issued in January 1916, and was additionally impregnated with hexamethylenetetramine to improve the protection against phosgene.[29]

text: Self-contained box respirators represented the culmination of gas mask development during the First World War. Box respirators used a two-piece design; a mouthpiece connected via a hose to a box filter. The box filter contained granules of chemicals that neutralised the gas, delivering clean air to the wearer. Separating the filter from the mask enabled a bulky but efficient filter to be supplied. Nevertheless, the first version, known as the Large Box Respirator (LBR) or "Harrison's Tower", was deemed too bulky — the box canister needed to be carried on the back. The LBR had no mask, just a mouthpiece and nose clip; separate gas goggles had to be worn. It continued to be issued to the artillery gun crews but the infantry were supplied with the "Small Box Respirator" (SBR).

text: The Small Box Respirator featured a single-piece, close-fitting rubberized mask with eye-pieces. The box filter was compact and could be worn around the neck. The SBR could be readily upgraded as more effective filter technology was developed. The British-designed SBR was also adopted for use by the American Expeditionary Force. The SBR was the prized possession of the ordinary infantryman; when the British were forced to retreat during the German Spring Offensive of 1918, it was found that while some troops had discarded their rifles, hardly any had left behind their respirators.

text: Humans were not the only ones that needed protection from gas clouds. Horses and mules were important methods of transportation that could be endangered if they came into close contact with gas. This was not so much of a problem until it became common to launch gas great distances. This caused many researchers to develop masks that could be used on animals such as dogs, horses, mules, and even carrier pigeons.[71]

text: The following are some examples of improvised animal gas masks that were implemented:

text:
A dog wearing a gas mask in WWI.
A WWI pigeon loft equipped with gas protection.

text: For mustard gas, which could cause severe damage by simply making contact with skin, no effective countermeasure was found during the war. The kilt-wearing Scottish regiments were especially vulnerable to mustard gas injuries due to their bare legs. At Nieuwpoort in Flanders some Scottish battalions took to wearing women's tights beneath the kilt as a form of protection.

text: Gas alert procedure became a routine for the front-line soldier. To warn of a gas attack, a bell would be rung, often made from a spent artillery shell. At the noisy batteries of the siege guns, a compressed air strombus horn was used, which could be heard nine miles (14 km) away. Notices would be posted on all approaches to an affected area, warning people to take precautions.

text: Other British attempts at countermeasures were not so effective. An early plan was to use 100,000 fans to disperse the gas. Burning coal or carborundum dust was tried. A proposal was made to equip front-line sentries with diving helmets, air being pumped to them through a 100 ft (30 m) hose.

text: However, the effectiveness of all countermeasures is apparent. In 1915, when poison gas was relatively new, less than 3% of British gas casualties died. In 1916, the proportion of fatalities jumped to 17%. By 1918, the figure was back below 3%, though the total number of British gas casualties was now nine times the 1915 levels.

text: Delivery systems[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The first system employed for the mass delivery of gas involved releasing the gas cylinders in a favourable wind such that it was carried over the enemy's trenches. The Hague Convention of 1899 prohibited the use of poisons gasses delivered by projectiles. The main advantage of this method was that it was relatively simple and, in suitable atmospheric conditions, produced a concentrated cloud capable of overwhelming the gas mask defences. The disadvantages of cylinder releases were numerous. First and foremost, delivery was at the mercy of the wind. If the wind was fickle, as was the case at Loos, the gas could backfire, causing friendly casualties. Gas clouds gave plenty of warning, allowing the enemy time to protect themselves, though many soldiers found the sight of a creeping gas cloud unnerving. Also gas clouds had limited penetration, only capable of affecting the front-line trenches before dissipating.

text: Finally, the cylinders had to be emplaced at the very front of the trench system so that the gas was released directly over no man's land. This meant that the cylinders had to be manhandled through communication trenches, often clogged and sodden, and stored at the front where there was always the risk that cylinders would be prematurely breached during a bombardment. A leaking cylinder could issue a telltale wisp of gas that, if spotted, would be sure to attract shellfire.

text: A British chlorine cylinder, known as an "oojah", weighed 190 lb (86 kg), of which only 60 lb (27 kg) was chlorine gas, and required two men to carry. Phosgene gas was introduced later in a cylinder, known as a "mouse", that only weighed 50 lb (23 kg).

text: Delivering gas via artillery shell overcame many of the risks of dealing with gas in cylinders. The Germans, for example, used 5.9-inch (150 mm) artillery shells ("five-nines"). Gas shells were independent of the wind and increased the effective range of gas, making anywhere within reach of the guns vulnerable. Gas shells could be delivered without warning, especially the clear, nearly odorless phosgene — there are numerous accounts of gas shells, landing with a "plop" rather than exploding, being initially dismissed as dud HE or shrapnel shells, giving the gas time to work before the soldiers were alerted and took precautions.

text: The main flaw associated with delivering gas via artillery was the difficulty of achieving a killing concentration. Each shell had a small gas payload and an area would have to be subjected to a saturation bombardment to produce a cloud to match cylinder delivery. Mustard gas, however, did not need to form a concentrated cloud and hence artillery was the ideal vehicle for delivery of this battlefield pollutant.

text: The solution to achieving a lethal concentration without releasing from cylinders was the "gas projector", essentially a large-bore mortar that fired the entire cylinder as a missile. The British Livens projector (invented by Captain W.H. Livens in 1917) was a simple device; an 8-inch (200 mm) diameter tube sunk into the ground at an angle, a propellant was ignited by an electrical signal, firing the cylinder containing 30 or 40 lb (14 or 18 kg) of gas up to 1,900 meters. By arranging a battery of these projectors and firing them simultaneously, a dense concentration of gas could be achieved. The Livens was first used at Arras on 4 April 1917. On 31 March 1918 the British conducted their largest ever "gas shoot", firing 3,728 cylinders at Lens.

text: Unexploded weapons[edit]

text: Over 16,000,000 acres (65,000 km2) of France had to be cordoned off at the end of the war because of unexploded ordnance. About 20% of the chemical shells were duds, and approximately 13 million of these munitions were left in place. This has been a serious problem in former battle areas from immediately after the end of the War until the present. Shells may be, for instance, uncovered when farmers plough their fields (termed the 'iron harvest'), and are also regularly discovered when public works or construction work is done.[72]

text: An additional difficulty is the current stringency of environmental legislation. In the past, a common method of getting rid of unexploded chemical ammunition was to detonate or dump it at sea; this is currently prohibited in most countries.[73][nb 2]

text: The problems are especially acute in some northern regions of France. The French government no longer disposes of chemical weapons at sea. For this reason, piles of untreated chemical weapons accumulated. In 2001, it became evident that the pile stored at a depot in Vimy was unsafe; the inhabitants of the neighboring town were evacuated, and the pile moved, using refrigerated trucks and under heavy guard, to a military camp in Suippes.[74] The capacity of the plant is meant to be 25 tons per year (extensible to 80 tons at the beginning), for a lifetime of 30 years.[75]

text: Germany has to deal with unexploded ammunition and polluted lands resulting from the explosion of an ammunition train in 1919.[75]

text: Aside from unexploded shells, there have been claims that poison residues have remained in the local environment for an extended period, though this is unconfirmed; well known but unverified anecdotes claim that as late as the 1960s trees in the area retained enough mustard gas residue to injure farmers or construction workers who were clearing them.[76]

text: Gases used[edit]

text:
Name
First use
Type
Used by

Xylyl bromide[77]
1914
Lachrymatory, toxic
Both

Chlorine[78]
1915
Corrosive. Lung Irritant
Both

Phosgene[78]
1915
Irritant - Skin and mucous membranes. Corrosive, toxic
Both

Benzyl bromide[77]
1915
Lachrymatory
Central Powers

Chloromethyl chloroformate[77]
1915
Irritant - Eyes, skin, lungs
Both

Trichloromethyl chloroformate[77]
1916
Severe irritant, causes burns
Both

Chloropicrin[78]
1916
Irritant, lachrymatory, toxic
Both

Stannic chloride[77]
1916
Severe irritant, causes asphyxiating
Allies

Ethyl iodoacetate[77]
1916
Lachrymatory, toxic
Allies

Bromoacetone[77]
1916
Lachrymatory, irritant
Both

Monobromomethyl ethyl ketone[77]
1916
Lachrymatory, irritant
Central Powers

Acrolein[77]
1916
Lachrymatory, toxic
Central Powers

Hydrogen cyanide[77] (Prussic acid)
1916
Toxic, Chemical Asphyxiant
Allies

Hydrogen sulfide[77] (Sulphuretted hydrogen)
1916
Irritant, toxic
Allies

Diphenylchloroarsine[78] (Diphenyl chlorasine)
1917
Irritant/Sternutatory (causes sneezing)
Central Powers

α-chlorotoluene (Benzyl chloride)
1917
Irritant, lachrymatory
Central Powers

Mustard gas[78] (Bis(2-chloroethyl) sulfide)
1917
Vesicant (blistering agent), lung irritant
Both

Bis(chloromethyl) ether (Dichloromethyl ether)
1918
Irritant, can blur vision
Central Powers

Ethyldichloroarsine[78]
1918
Vesicant
Central Powers

N-Ethylcarbazole 679
1918
Irritant
Central Powers

text: Long-term health effects[edit]

text: Soldiers who claimed to have been exposed to chemical warfare have often presented with unusual medical conditions which has led to much controversy. The lack of information has left doctors, patients, and their families in the dark in terms of prognosis and treatment. Nerve agents such as sarin, tabun, and soman are believed to have the most significant long-term health effects.[79] Chronic fatigue and memory loss have been reported to last up to three years after exposure. In the years following World War One, there were many conferences held in attempts to abolish the use of chemical weapons all together, such as The Washington Conference (1921–22), Geneva Conference (1923–25) and the World Disarmament Conference (1933). Although the United States was an original signatory of the Geneva Protocol in 1925, the US Senate did not formally ratify it until 1975.

text: Although the health effects are generally chronic in nature, the exposures were generally acute. A positive correlation has been proven between exposure to mustard agents and skin cancers, other respiratory and skin conditions, leukemia, several eye conditions, bone marrow depression and subsequent immunosuppression, psychological disorders and sexual dysfunction.[80] Chemicals used in the production of chemical weapons have also left residues in the soil where the weapons were used. The chemicals that have been detected can cause cancer and can affect the brain, blood, liver, kidneys and skin.[81]

text: Despite the evidence in support of long-term health effects, there are studies that show just the opposite. Some US veterans who were closely affected by chemical weapons showed no neurological evidence in the following years. These same studies showed that one single contact with chemical weapons would be enough to cause long-term health effects.[82]

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ The U.S. reportedly had about 135,000 tons of chemical warfare agents during WW II; Germany had 70,000 tons, Britain 40,000 and Japan 7,500 tons. The German nerve gases were deadlier than the old-style suffocants (chlorine, phosgene) and blistering agents (mustard gas) in Allied stockpiles. Churchill, and several American Generals reportedly called for their use against Germany and Japan, respectively (Weber, 1985).
Jump up ^ See the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft and the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.

tag: ol


document_title: Smart meter

question_text: when were smart meters introduced in the uk

question_tokens: when were smart meters introduced in the uk

root

text: Smart meter

text: Overview[edit]

text: The term Smart Meter often refers to an electricity meter, but it also may mean a device measuring natural gas or water consumption.

tag: p

text: Similar meters, usually referred to as interval or time-of-use meters, have existed for years, but "Smart Meters" usually involve real-time or near real-time sensors, power outage notification, and power quality monitoring. These additional features are more than simple automated meter reading (AMR). They are similar in many respects to Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) meters. Interval and time-of-use meters historically have been installed to measure commercial and industrial customers, but may not have automatic reading.

text: Research by Which?, the UK consumer group, showed that as many as one in three confuse smart meters with energy monitors, also known as in-home display monitors.[8] The roll-out of smart meters is one strategy for energy savings. While energy suppliers in the UK could save around £300 million a year from their introduction, consumer benefits will depend on people actively changing their energy use. For example, time of use tariffs offering lower rates at off-peak times, and selling electricity back to the grid with net metering, may also benefit consumers.

text: The installed base of smart meters in Europe at the end of 2008 was about 39 million units, according to analyst firm Berg Insight.[9] Globally, Pike Research found that smart meter shipments were 17.4 million units for the first quarter of 2011.[10] Visiongain determined that the value of the global smart meter market would reach $7 billion in 2012.[11]

text: Smart meters may be part of a smart grid, but alone, they do not constitute a smart grid.[12]

text: Brief history[edit]

text: In 1972, Theodore Paraskevakos, while working with Boeing in Huntsville, Alabama, developed a sensor monitoring system that used digital transmission for security, fire, and medical alarm systems as well as meter reading capabilities. This technology was a spin-off from the automatic telephone line identification system, now known as Caller ID.

text: In 1974, Paraskevakos was awarded a U.S. patent for this technology.[13] In 1977, he launched Metretek, Inc.[7], which developed and produced the first fully automated, commercially available remote meter reading and load management system. Since this system was developed pre-Internet, Metretek utilized the IBM series 1 mini-computer. For this approach, Paraskevakos and Metretek were awarded multiple patents.[14]

text: Purpose[edit]

text: Since the inception of electricity deregulation and market-driven pricing throughout the world, utilities have been looking for a means to match consumption with generation. Traditional electrical and gas meters only measure total consumption, and so provide no information of when the energy was consumed at each metered site.[15] Smart meters provide a way of measuring this site-specific information, allowing utility companies to introduce different prices for consumption based on the time of day and the season.[16]

text: Utility companies propose that from a consumer perspective, smart metering offers potential benefits to householders. These include, a) an end to estimated bills, which are a major source of complaints for many customers b) a tool to help consumers better manage their energy purchases - stating that smart meters with a display outside their homes could provide up-to-date information on gas and electricity consumption and in doing so help people to manage their energy use and reduce their energy bills. Electricity pricing usually peaks at certain predictable times of the day and the season. In particular, if generation is constrained, prices can rise if power from other jurisdictions or more costly generation is brought online. Proponents assert that billing customers at a higher rate for peak times will encourage consumers to adjust their consumption habits to be more responsive to market prices and assert further, that regulatory and market design agencies hope these "price signals" could delay the construction of additional generation or at least the purchase of energy from higher priced sources, thereby controlling the steady and rapid increase of electricity prices.[citation needed] There are some concerns, however, that low income and vulnerable consumers may not benefit from intraday time-of-use tariffs.

text: An academic study based on existing trials showed that homeowners' electricity consumption on average is reduced by approximately 3-5%.[17]

text: The ability to connect/disconnect service and read meter consumption remotely are major labor savings for the utility and can result in large layoffs of meter readers.[18]

text: Implementation examples[edit]

text: The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) reviewed more than 36 different residential smart metering and feedback programmes internationally. This is the most extensive study of its kind (as of January 2011). Their conclusion was: “To realise potential feedback-induced savings, advanced meters [smart meters] must be used in conjunction with in-home (or on-line) displays and well-designed programmes that successfully inform, engage, empower and motivate people."[19] There are near-universal calls from both the energy industry and consumer groups for a national social marketing campaign to help raise awareness of smart metering and to give customers the information and support they need to become more energy efficient, and what changes they must make to realize the potential of proposed smart meters.

text: Australia[edit]

text: In 2004, the Essential Services Commission of Victoria, Australia (ESC) released its changes to the Electricity Customer Metering Code and Procedure to implement its decision to mandate interval meters for 2.6 million Victorian electricity customers.

text: The ESC's Final Paper titled "Mandatory Rollout of Interval Meters for Electricity Customers" foreshadowed the changes to be implemented and contained the rollout timetable requiring interval meters to be installed for all small businesses and residences. The rollout commenced in mid-2009 and was completed at the end of 2013.[20]

text: The Commonwealth issued a Joint Communiqué at the Council of Australian Governments meeting in Canberra on 10 February 2006 committing all governments to the progressive rollout of smart metering technology from 2007.[21]

text: In 2009 the Victorian Auditor General undertook a review of the program and found that there were "significant inadequacies" in advice to government and that project governance "has not been appropriate".[22]

text: Meters installed in Victoria have been deployed with limited smart functionality that is being increased over time. 30-minute interval data is available, remote cut-off and start-up energization is available, and the Home Area Network will be available for households in 2012.

text: In May 2010 it was reported that the program was expected to cost $500 million more than originally estimated by proponents, with a total cost of $1.6 billion.[23]

text: In November 2010 the Victorian Labor Party was voted out of state government. The incoming coalition stated that the meter program would be reviewed and the Auditor General's recommendations implemented, specifically commenting on program governance, customer data protection, and cost recovery.[24] In January 2011 the Energy Minister, Michael O'Brien, said he was not ruling out a suspension of the program.[25] This review, delivered in December 2012 endorsed the continuation of the roll out, with minor changes.[26]

text: The Victorian Government after initially halting the planned implementation of Time-of-Use tariffs[27] for general consumers has now allowed their introduction from mid-2013.[28]

text: As shown in the chart below, Victorian metering charges increased by approximately $60 per meter per year after the introduction of AMI cost recovery from customers in 2010 and a projected increase to 125.73 by 2016-2017.[29]

text: By mid-July 2013, the first Smart Meter In-Home Displays were being made available to Victorian consumers.[30] At the beginning of 2014 there were three approved Smart Meter In-Home Displays directly available to consumers.[31]

text: Annual meter charge increases with smart meter costs in 2010 and projections to 2017 ($)

text:
Distributor
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2015
2016 2017

SP AusNet
17.49
17.49
17.49
17.49
17.49
86.1
93.83
101.02
108.75
117.08
126.04

United Energy Distribution
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
6.60
69.21
89.18
99.57
107.62
116.33
125.73

Jemena Electricity Networks
12.87
12.87
12.87
12.87
12.87
134.63
136.7
155.84
159.86
162.34
164.88

Citipower
15.20
15.20
15.20
15.20
15.20
104.79
108.4
93.38
95.26
97.17
99.13

Powercor
17.20
17.20
17.20
17.20
17.20
96.67
105.35
92.72
93.91
95.12
96.34

tag: table

text: Canada[edit]

text: The Ontario Energy Board in Ontario, Canada has worked to define the technology[32] and develop the regulatory framework for its implementation. The Government of Ontario set a target of deploying smart meters to 800,000 homes and small businesses (i.e. small "general service" customers under 50 kW demand) by the end of 2007, which was surpassed, and throughout the province by the end of 2010.[33] Notably, the addition of smart meters to the grid in Ontario has been financed, in part, by the Green Energy Act 2009 and the resulting tariff known as the Global Adjustment. This fee has played a major role in financing additional investments in the grid, such as smart meters and new high capacity transmission lines.[34]

text: BC Hydro in British Columbia, Canada has implemented Itron smart meters to most of its customers by the end of 2012.[35]

text: Smart meter installations have been associated with several fires in Canada but these were probably caused by preexisting problems unrelated to the meters.[36] BC Hydro maintains that "the risk of a smart meter installation causing an electrical problem is extremely low" and will assist homeowners if repairs are necessary for a safe installation.

text: In November 2011, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities voted in favour of a moratorium to temporarily suspend smart meter installations.[37] The provincial government insists that installations will proceed, based on global standards.[37] As of May 2012, 39 municipalities in British Columbia have passed motions opposing the installation of smart meters. The utility company, BC Hydro, is not legally obliged to abide by these city decisions.[38] In September 2013 BC Hydro announced the "Meter Choices Program" which allows customers to keep their old meter or have a smart meter with the radio off. Both options have an additional monthly negative option fee in the range of $20–$33 per month, depending on specifics.[39]

text: Marijuana grow-ops are a major illicit industry in British Columbia. The installation of smart meters is part of BC Hydro's electricity theft reduction program.[40]

text: Italy[edit]

text: The world's largest smart meter deployment was undertaken by Enel SpA, the dominant utility in Italy with more than 30 million customers. Between 2000 and 2005 Enel deployed smart meters to its entire customer base.

text: These meters are fully electronic and smart, with integrated bi-directional communications, advanced power measurement and management capabilities, an integrated, software-controllable disconnect switch, and an all solid-state design. They communicate over low voltage power line using standards-based power line technology from Echelon Corporation to Echelon data concentrators at which point they communicate via IP to Enel's enterprise servers. Demonstrating that with power line communication, smart meters don't require WiFi radios.[41]

text: The system provides a wide range of advanced features, including the ability to remotely turn power on or off to a customer, read usage information from a meter, detect a service outage, change the maximum amount of electricity that a customer may demand at any time, detect "unauthorized" use of electricity and remotely shut it off, and remotely change the meter's billing plan from credit to prepay, as well as, from flat-rate to multi-tariff.

text: Japan[edit]

text: The Energy Conservation Center [42] in Japan promotes energy efficiency including smart metering. Public utilities have started to test metering with integrated communication devices. Private entities have already implemented efficient energy systems with integrated feedback methods such as alerts or triggers.

text: Netherlands[edit]

text: The company Oxxio introduced the first smart meter for both electricity and gas in the Netherlands in 2005. In 2007, the Dutch government proposed that all seven million households of the country should have a smart meter by 2013, as part of a national energy reduction plan.

text: In August 2008 the roll out of these seven million meters was delayed for several reasons. Main reasons for the delay were that there was limited possibility foreseen to register small scale local energy production (e.g. by solar panels), and that there was uncertainty in parliament on future developments in smart meters.

text: On April 7, 2009 the Dutch government had to back down after consumer groups raised privacy concerns. Instead of a mandatory roll-out smart meters will be voluntary.[43]

text: By the end of 2016 there were 3 million households (39%) with smart meters installed. The Dutch government aims for a minimum of 80%, but preferably 100%, of households with smart meters installed in 2020. [44]

text: New Zealand[edit]

text: In November 2005, energy supplier Meridian Energy introduced the usage of smart meters in the Central Hawkes Bay area with more than 1000 households participating. By late 2006, over 6,300 smart meters had been installed as part of the initial trial. On June 28, 2007, the first roll-out began for households in Christchurch [45] and there were plans to install more than 112,000 smart meters by January 2009.[46] These smart meters are made by a Christchurch-based company, Arc Innovations,[47] which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Meridian Energy.

text: In June 2009, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment released a report,[48] which was critical of the "lack of smartness" in the 150,000 smart meters installed in New Zealand thus far. Dr Jan Wright called for government leadership for this "infrastructure of national importance." Wright emphasised that the meters were capable of being smart, but that the failure to include the HAN chips at the initial installation meant that currently only the power retailers benefited, not consumers, nor the environment.

text: In 2015 the New Zealand office of the Privacy Commissioner raised concerns that smart meters recorded personal information including the time that homeowners were home or not, the office said "the [smart meter] readings undoubtedly contained private information, and power companies needed to be more upfront about their handling of the torrent of personal information gathered by smart meters".[49]

text: Nordic countries[edit]

text: Northern Europe became the hotspot for AMM (Advanced Metering Management) in Europe in 2003 when Sweden announced the decision to require monthly readings of all electricity meters by 2009. Soon activities spread to the other Nordic countries. Vattenfall, Fortum, and E.ON decided to deploy AMM in Finland as well as in Sweden, as the leading industry players in both countries at the time.

text: Developments in Denmark took off in 2004 with several ambitious projects being announced by the country’s largest utilities. Norway has taken a more cautious stance, but in June 2007 the Norwegian energy authority, NVE, declared that it would recommend new legislation requiring smart meters to take effect in 2013. As of August 2007, almost all of the DSOs in Sweden had signed contracts for AMM solutions. Norway was lagging behind with just 6 percent. Altogether contracts for nearly 8 million smart meters are still open in the Nordic region.

text: Spain[edit]

text: Information gathered from "SmartRegions" program.[50][51]

text: Spain is a country with 46 million inhabitants and approximately 26 million electricity customers. Three major energy players act in the country, Endesa, Iberdrola, and Gas Natural/Unión Fenosa, with a market share of almost 95%. ESMA (2010, 26-28) provides a good overview of the situation in Spain. By 2013, Endesa has replaced about 30% of meters (based on the Meters and More technology), of about 3.5 million customers.

text: Regulations existing in Spain related to implementation of smart meters:

text:
RD 1634/2006: Order to the Regulator (Comisión Nacional de Energía, CNE) about a substitution plan including the substitution plan for all Spanish residential meters, criteria for the substitution and number of meters to install every year: percentage of the total equipment
ORDEN ITC/3860/2007: Publication of the criteria for the Substitution Plan, including that every distributor has to present its own plan and AMM system design
Based on the Royal Decrees a meter substitution plan was established with an obligation to install smart meters for all consumers under 15 kW by 2018; by 31 December 2010, 30% of the contracts from each distribution company below 15 kW should have the smart meter installed; distribution companies are responsible for the installation of the meters.

tag: ul

text: The Smart Metering obligations were established in December 2007 with the national meter substitution plan for end-users up to 15 kW. The aim is to support remote energy management systems. The plan is managed by the Ministry of Industry, with a deadline for the completion of the plan by 31 December 2018. All DSOs had to submit their substitution plans to the regional governments. A binding target of 30% of all customers was set for 2010. This initial target could not be reached by any of the DSOs, however, due to a late approval of the substitution plan (in May 2009), technological uncertainties in terms of system communication, alleged supply problems of certified meters that were available only in June 2010 and ongoing negotiations with the regulators about the level of cost acceptance.

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: In August 2007, the UK Government held a consultation on improving metering and information about power consumption. The consultation attached the necessary draft regulations and proposed that, from 2008, domestic customers should provide comparative historical consumption data and electricity suppliers should provide a real-time display unit within time limits. For business customers, it was proposed that gas and electricity suppliers should install smart meters in those parts of the SME sector, where it had been shown to be cost-effective to do so and where such a meter was not already installed.[52]

text: In December 2009, the United Kingdom's Department of Energy and Climate Change announced its intention to have smart meters in all homes in Great Britain by 2020.[53] The model is a competitive, supplier-led roll-out with a central communications body, called the Data and Communications Company (DCC), which was established in September 2013. As well as the DCC, the government established Smart Energy GB to lead the nationwide publicity for the roll-out programme.[54]

text: In order to decide whether or not to mandate the roll-out of smart meters, impact assessments were devised by government to ascertain whether there was a positive business case for Britain to roll out smart metering; these looked at the potential costs and benefits of rolling out smart meters to suppliers, network operators, customers, and Britain as a whole. DECC’s Impact Assessment, updated in January 2014, concluded that there was a positive business case overall for a smart meter roll-out of £6.2 billion of net benefits.[55]

text: After testing the time needed for the design, build and test phases of industry’s programmes, the Government reviewed the programme timetable in 2013. The consistent message was that more time was needed if the roll-out of smart meters was to get off to the best possible start and customers were to be sure of a quality service. The Government therefore now expects that the smart meter roll-outs will be completed by the end of 2020.[56]

text: Consumer groups such as Consumer Focus [57] and the Consumers Association raised concerns about the extent to which consumer interests will be protected during the roll-out, e.g. protection from pressure-selling while energy representatives are in their homes fitting meters.[58] The Government banned sales activities during meter installation visits [56] and put in place a number of consumer protection measures, including ensuring that consumers will have choice and control over how their energy consumption data is used, apart from where it is required for billing purposes.[59]

text: The 2015 manifesto of the Conservative government implied a requirement for all consumers to have a smart meter by the end of 2020. The wording of the 2017 election manifesto had been changed to promise only to "offer" one. After the Conservative Party gained the most seats of any party in 2017, it was explained that nothing had changed, the intention being to impose an obligation on suppliers but not on users, and that the government intended to "try and ensure there is a meter in every home" by 2020.[60]

text: The HAN is implemented using ZigBee[citation needed].

text: Scale and progress[edit]

text: The United Kingdom roll-out is considered to be the largest programme ever undertaken, involving visits to 30 million homes and 2 million small businesses to replace meters for both gas and electricity. Most households will have smart meters installed by their energy company before 2020.[61] At the end of 2013 there were 295,700 smart meters installed in domestic properties in Great Britain.[62] In March 2016, figures released by the Department for Energy and Climate Change,[63] showed that only 2.3 million smart meters had been installed in UK homes. This was well behind schedule to hit the government’s target to have 50 million in place by 2020.

text: United States[edit]

text: This section needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2013)

text: California[edit]

text: On July 20, 2006, California's energy regulators approved a program to roll out conventional meters retrofit with communications co-processor electronics to 9 million gas and electric household customers in the Northern California territory of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). These meters report electricity consumption on an hourly basis. This enables PG&E to set pricing that varies by season and time-of-the day, rewarding customers who shift energy use to off-peak periods. The peak pricing program will start out on a voluntary basis and the full rollout is expected to take five years.[64] The smart grid allows PG&E to give customers timing and pricing options for upload to the grid.

text: The largest municipal utility in the U.S., the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), has chosen to expand its advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) serving its commercial and industrial (C&I) customers. LADWP has already[when?] purchased 9,000. The utility's commercial and industrial customers may tailor their daily energy consumption around the data provided by the smart meters, thus creating potential for reducing their monthly electricity bill and, at a broader level, contributing to global energy conservation.

text: California's utilities had nearly completed the rollout of tens of millions of smart meters in 2012.[65]. In January of that year they met strong opposition, including a moratorium in Santa Cruz[66][67] based on health and privacy concerns.

text: Maryland[edit]

text: This section needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (January 2018)

text: In spring 2012, Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) of Maryland began installing or upgrading approximately two million electric and gas meters in every home and small business in their service area. This process was to take about three years to complete.[68] BGE smart meters will help customers manage their energy and save money. Some features, such as energy budgeting and tracking and personalized energy efficiency tips will be available by 2012. Additional features will follow in 2013.

text: Texas[edit]

text: Austin Energy, the nation's ninth-largest community-owned electric utility, with nearly 400,000 electricity customers in and around Austin, Texas, began deploying a two-way RF mesh network and approximately 260,000 residential smart meters in 2008. More than 165,000 two-way meters have been installed by spring 2009, and integration with AE's meter data management system is underway. A previous project in 2002 exchanged approximately 140,000 mechanical meters for smart meters at residential apartments, condominiums, and other high-meter-density locations.[69]

text: Centerpoint Energy in Houston, Texas, deployed smart meters to more than 2 million electricity customers in the Houston-Metro and Galveston service locations. Estimated completion of CenterPoint Energy's smart meter deployment was 2012.[70] In October 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded a $200 million grant for use in deployment of Centerpoint Energy's smart meter network.[71]

text: Oncor Electric Delivery, based in Dallas, Texas, is deploying smart meters to more than three million customers in North Texas. Oncor’s full deployment was scheduled to be complete by the end of 2012. The Oncor Advanced Metering System (AMS) supports 15-minute-interval data, remote disconnects, and a Home Area Network (HAN) using ZigBee Smart Energy Protocol 1.0. The AMS supports text messages, pricing signals, and load control to home users through the Smart Meter Texas Portal which is a joint project by Oncor, CenterPoint, and AEP Texas under the direction of the Texas Public Utility Commission.[72][73] [74] This requires customers to register telephone numbers and computer addresses.

text: San Antonio, Texas-based CPS Energy has launched a pilot program with 40,000 smart meters deployed as of the summer of 2011.[75] CPS plans to complete installation of smart meters (electricity and gas) for all customers by the end of 2016.[76] Each meter reports data to CPS every 15 minutes over a wireless network, making the data available to the customer through the CPS website.[77]

text: El Paso Electric does not have any plans to implement Smart Grid meters as of April 2014.

text: A long-awaited application of smart meters in the Texas deregulated electricity market is time-of-use rates. Several retail electric providers including TXU Energy and Direct Energy have introduced rate plans that leverage smart meters to incentivize customers who shift load to off-peak hours. Excluding TNMP (PNM Resources), smart meter conversion rates for commercial and residential customers in utilities open to retail electric competition were in excess of 99% as of January 2015.[78] Some utilities offer free electricity at night.[79]

text: Florida[edit]

text: Florida-based Florida Power & Light began installing smart meters in 2009 in the Miami-Dade area for residential customers. All customers were expected to be completed by 2013.[80] Individual counties are considering "opt-out" options, however, and to date,[when?] customers are being allowed to register on an "opt-out" registry in counties that have not begun.

text: Oklahoma and Arkansas[edit]

text: Six thousand end users in parts of Oklahoma and Arkansas are part of a program with in-home devices and automation systems conducted by the Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OG&E) company. The project costs $357 million, $130 million of which was funded by the federal government. The dynamic pricing program is opt-in and the data are also used to study consumer behavior.[81]

text: The city of Duncan, Oklahoma, conducted a smart grid implementation to automatically collect electricity and water usage data from 9,000 electric meters and 12,000 water meters. Duncan’s project was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and a 15-year, $14.2 million energy savings performance contract. Honeywell installed the smart meter network as part of a broader program mostly unrelated to smart meters. The program was purchased as part of an unusual $1.7 million savings guarantee.[82]

text: Imminent implementation[edit]

text: European Union[edit]

text: The European Union has certain directives on smart meters which each member state is required to implement in its own legislation. According to Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council "Member States are required to ensure the implementation of smart metering systems that assist the active participation of consumers in the electricity supply and gas supply markets".[83] There is a European Commission Web site, SmartRegions, promoting smart metering.[84]

text: France[edit]

text: A smart metering pilot project, called "Linky", is being conducted by Electricité Réseau Distribution France (ERDF) involving 300,000 clients supplied by 7,000 low-voltage transformers. In June 2008 ERDF awarded the AMM pilot project to a consortium managed by Atos Origin, including Actaris, Landis+Gyr, and Iskraemeco. The aim of the trial is to deploy 300,000 meters and 6k concentrators in two distinct geographic areas, the Indre-et-Loire (37) department and the Lyon urban region (69). This project affecting 1% of LV customers is a precursor to national deployment for 35 million clients in France. The experimentation phase started in March 2010. A key determining factor will be the interoperability of the equipment of various suppliers. The general deployment phase, involving replacement of 35 million meters, started in December 2015 and continue through 2021.

text: From 2010, various cities as Paris, Lyon, and Grasse decided to install smart individual sub meters (using AMR technology) in each apartment belonging to the city. This project has to purpose to improve the efficiency of the water management. Regarding Paris's area, it represents around 150.000 smart sub meter that been installed. These installations are being conducted by C3E (Conseils en Environnement, Energie et EAU). Indeed, C3E is a unique consulting firm specialized in water system applications related to savings and management efficiency. Established in 2001, C3E is a pioneer in this sector and single reference in this field for nearly 10 years. C3E's customers include the largest communities in France, social landlords, trustees. C3E is also find as water engineering consultant in various international projects.

text: Germany[edit]

text: On 8 July 2016, the new “Digitisation of the Energy Turnaround Act” cleared the final legislative hurdle in the German Federal Council Bundesrat of Germany. The new law initiates the roll-out of smart meters and connected infrastructures in Germany and defines roles and tasks for market participants.

text: The new Act is based on the Third Energy Package introduced by the EU in 2009. The Directives of this Package require EU member states to equip at least 80% of consumers with intelligent metering systems by 2020, subject to a positive national commercial assessment of the roll-out.

text: The key objective of the new law is to facilitate the implementation of Smart meter and Smart Meter Gateway devices. In that respect, Germany implements the EU Directives 2009/72/EG and 2009/73/EG into German law. The Act introduces specific and detailed requirements for the design of the smart meter devices and for the transmission of data. The goal is to open up the energy market to digitalisation, while ensuring a high standard of data protection and ICT security.

text: The Smart Meters Operation Act (Messstellenbetriebsgesetz) sets out, in 77 sections, rules on the marketing and use of Smart Meters and Smart Meter Gateways.

text: The Act introduced new regulated market roles, particularly the role of the Meter Operator, responsible the implementation, operation and maintenance of Smart Meters, with specific legal obligations in that role. The responsibility connected with the roll out of the Meter Operator rests on the energy supply grid operator (Versorgungsnetzbetreiber). Using a special public procurement procedure, they can transfer this position to a third party service provider. Another role is Smart Meter Gateway Administrator, responsible for the correct allocation and security of the data collected and delivered by the Smart Meter Gateway.

text: The Act defines technical requirements, particularly the reliability and security of energy measurement and the transmission of data. Compliance with the new rules is controlled and supervised by both the Federal Office for Information Security (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik) and the Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur).

text: The Act determines a roll-out plan regarding the installation of Smart Meters. The roll-out will begin in 2017 and continue until 2032. The process comprises different roll-out periods for different types of end consumers and plant operators, depending on the amount of energy consumption that they use and respectively input feed in. For some types of consumers and operators, the roll-out must be completed before the end of 2024.

text: The Act requires operators to equip consumers with more than 6,000 kWh yearly consumption, and plant operators with an installed capacity of more than 7 kW, with Smart Meters. Below these consumption levels, equipment is optional.

text: Manufacturers must supply the devices according to certification by the Federal Office for Information Security. The Federal Office for Information Security provides an overview of its current technical requirements on its website.

text: Ireland[edit]

text: Upon getting into the coalition government in 2007, Eamon Ryan, the Green Party Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, pledged to introduce smart meters for every home in the Republic of Ireland within a five-year period. In an interview the minister said he envisages a situation where smart meters would use plug-in hybrid cars as storage for micro-generated renewable energy by intelligently diverting the energy into the car.[85] A leading energy expert has expressed concerns that whatever system of smart metering arises in Ireland must give homeowners the possibility of automatically responding to fluctuating electricity prices by, for instance, buying electricity when at its cheapest, and selling micro-generated electricity from wind turbines or solar photovoltaic panels into the grid when the best price is available.[86]

text: Italy[edit]

text: As stated above, Italy has already deployed smart electrical meters. Legislation has recently been released, forcing gas utilities to deploy smart gas meters from large industrial consumers down to almost every residential customer by the end of 2016.[87]

text: It is expected and desired that remote reading and management of smart gas meters will be fully independent of the existing system of smart electrical meters. The technology intended to be used will mainly be radio-based. More information can be found on the webpage published by the authority.[88]

text: Iran[edit]

text: In Iran, like many other developed countries, Smart Grid implementation is regarded as a unique way for encountering many serious environmental and economic challenges that mankind is faced with today. FAHAM is the National Smart Metering Program in Iran. The functional, technical, security, economic, and general requirements of this project were published as a document after a longtime workgroup of various stakeholders including representative of grid operators, meter manufactures, communication providers, business layer software providers, domestic and international consultants. The procedure of producing this document was base on EPRI Methodology (IEC 62559). In these technical documents all of the business and functional use cases, the conceptual architecture, mandatory international standards for electric, water and gas metering systems(for all types of consumers), telecommunication requirements, system interfaces and security mandates are defined. The ministry of energy decided to perform a pilot project called FAHAM-phase1, in order to experiment the technical and executional challenges for implementing smart metering for all of the consumers (about thirty million consumers).

text: Malta[edit]

text: Malta is in the process of implementing smart meters in all commercial and private households. Enemalta, a governmental company responsible for electricity is responsible for the introduction of the smart meters. This will occur in phases and it was projected that every meter in Malta would be 'smart' by 2012. This will cost approximately 40 million euros, being paid by the Ministry of Infrastructure, Technology, and Communication. The 'smart meters' being used in Malta are manufactured by IBM. A pilot project is currently underway and more than 5,000 are being installed.[89] The cost of the installation will be totally absorbed by the government, i.e. the taxpayers.

text: Technology[edit]

text: Connectivity[edit]

text: Communication is a critical technological requirement for smart meters. Each meter must be able to reliably and securely communicate the information collected to some central location. Considering the varying environments and locations where meters are found, that problem can be daunting. Among the solutions proposed are: the use of cell and pager networks, satellite, licensed radio, combination licensed and unlicensed radio, and power line communication. Not only the medium used for communication purposes, but also the type of network used, is critical. As such, one would find: fixed wireless, wireless mesh network and wireless ad hoc networks, or a combination of the two. There are several other potential network configurations possible, including the use of Wi-Fi and other internet related networks. To date no one solution seems to be optimal for all applications. Rural utilities have very different communication problems from urban utilities or utilities located in difficult locations such as mountainous regions or areas ill-served by wireless and internet companies.

text: In addition to communication with the head-end network, smart meters may need to be part of a home area network which can include an in-premises display and a hub to interface one or more meters with the head end. Technologies for this network will vary from country to country but include power line communication, wireless ad hoc network, and ZigBee.

text: Protocols[edit]

text: ANSI C12.18 is an ANSI standard that describes a protocol used for two-way communications with a meter, mostly used in North American markets. The C12.18 standard is written specifically for meter communications via an ANSI Type 2 Optical Port, and specifies lower-level protocol details. ANSI C12.19 specifies the data tables that will be used. ANSI C12.21 is an extension of C12.18 written for modem instead of optical communications, so it is better suited to automatic meter reading.

text: IEC 61107 is a communication protocol for smart meters published by the IEC that is widely used for utility meters in the European Union. It is superseded by IEC 62056, but remains in wide use because it is simple and well-accepted. It sends ASCII data using a serial port. The physical media are either modulated light, sent with an LED and received with a photodiode, or a pair of wires, usually modulated by EIA-485. The protocol is half-duplex. IEC 61107 is related to, and sometimes wrongly confused with, the FLAG protocol. Ferranti and Landis+Gyr were early proponents of an interface standard that eventually became a sub-set of IEC1107.

text: The Open Smart Grid Protocol (OSGP) is a family of specifications published by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) used in conjunction with the ISO/IEC 14908 control networking standard for smart metering and smart grid applications. Millions of smart meters based on OSGP are deployed worldwide.[90] Numerous major security flaws in the OSGP protocol have been identified.[91][92]

text: There is a growing trend toward the use of TCP/IP technology as a common communication platform for Smart Meter applications, so that utilities can deploy multiple communication systems, while using IP technology as a common management platform.[93][94] A universal metering interface would allow for development and mass production of smart meters and smart grid devices prior to the communication standards being set, and then for the relevant communication modules to be easily added or switched when they are. This would lower the risk of investing in the wrong standard as well as permit a single product to be used globally even if regional communication standards vary.[95]

text: Some smart meters may use a test IR LED to transmit non-encrypted usage data that bypasses meter security by transmitting lower level data in real time.[96]

text: Data management[edit]

text: The other critical technology for smart meter systems is the information technology at the utility that integrates the Smart Meter networks with the utility applications, such as billing and CIS. This includes the Meter Data Management system.

text: It also is important for smart grid implementations that power line communication (PLC) technologies used within the home over a Home Area Network (HAN), are standardized and compatible. The HAN allows HVAC systems and other household appliances to communicate with the smart meter, and from there to the utility. Currently there are several broadband or narrowband standards in place, or being developed, that are not yet compatible. In order to address this issue, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) established the PAP15 group, which will study and recommend coexistence mechanisms with a focus on the harmonization of PLC standards for the HAN. The objective of the group is to ensure that all PLC technologies selected for the HAN will coexist as a minimum. The two main broadband PLC technologies selected are the HomePlug AV / IEEE 1901 and ITU-T G.hn technologies.[97] Technical working groups within these organizations are working to develop appropriate coexistence mechanisms. The HomePlug Powerline Alliance has developed a new standard for smart grid HAN communications called the HomePlug Green PHY specification. It is interoperable and coexistent with the widely deployed HomePlug AV technology and with the new IEEE 1901 global standard and is based on Broadband OFDM technology. ITU-T commissioned in 2010 a new project called G.hnem, to address the home networking aspects of energy management, built upon existing Low Frequency Narrowband OFDM technologies.

text: Google.org's PowerMeter, until its demise in 2011, was able to use a smart meter for tracking electricity usage,[98] as can eMeter's Energy Engage as in, for example, the PowerCentsDC(TM) demand response program.[citation needed] Google PowerMeter was retired in September 2011.[99]

text: Advanced metering infrastructure[edit]

text: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) refers to systems that measure, collect, and analyze energy usage, and communicate with metering devices such as electricity meters, gas meters, heat meters, and water meters, either on request or on a schedule. These systems include hardware, software, communications, consumer energy displays and controllers, customer associated systems, meter data management software, and supplier business systems.

text: Government agencies and utilities are turning toward advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) systems as part of larger “smart grid” initiatives. AMI extends automatic meter reading (AMR) technology by providing two way meter communications, allowing commands to be sent toward the home for multiple purposes, including time-based pricing information, demand-response actions, or remote service disconnects. Wireless technologies are critical elements of the neighborhood network, aggregating a mesh configuration of up to thousands of meters for back haul to the utility’s IT headquarters.

text: The network between the measurement devices and business systems allows collection and distribution of information to customers, suppliers, utility companies, and service providers. This enables these businesses to participate in demand response services. Consumers can use information provided by the system to change their normal consumption patterns to take advantage of lower prices. Pricing can be used to curb growth of peak demand consumption. AMI differs from traditional automatic meter reading (AMR) in that it enables two-way communications with the meter. Systems only capable of meter readings do not qualify as AMI systems.[100]

text: Opposition and concerns[edit]

text: Some groups have expressed concerns regarding the cost, health, fire risk,[36] security and privacy effects of smart meters[101] and the remote controllable "kill switch" that is included with most of them. Many of these concerns regard wireless-only smart meters with no home energy monitoring or control or safety features. Metering-only solutions, while popular with utilities because they fit existing business models and have cheap up-front capital costs, often result in such "backlash". Often the entire smart grid and smart building concept is discredited in part by confusion about the difference between home control and home area network technology and AMI. The attorneys general of both Illinois and Connecticut have stated that they do not believe smart meters provide any financial benefit to consumers,[102] however, the cost of the installation of the new system will be absorbed by those customers.

text: Security[edit]

text: Smart meters expose the power supply to cyberattacks that could lead to power outages.[103] However many cyber security experts state that smart meters of UK and Germany have a relatively high cybersecurity and that any such attack there would thus require extraordinarily high efforts or financial resources.[104][105][106]

text: Implementing security protocols that will protect these devices from malicious attacks and new exploits has been a problematic task due to their limited computational resources and long operational life spans.[107]

text: The current version of IEC 62056 includes the possibility to encrypt, authenticate, or sign the meter data.

text: One proposed smart meter data verification method involves analyzing the network traffic in real time to detect anomalies using an Intrusion Detection System (IDS) By identifying exploits as they are being leveraged by attackers, an intrusion detection system (IDS) will mitigate the suppliers' risks of energy theft by consumers and denial-of-service attacks by hackers.[108] Energy utilities will have to choose between a centralized IDS, embedded IDS, or dedicated IDS depending on the individual needs of the utility. Researchers have found that for a typical advanced metering infrastructure, the centralized IDS architecture is superior in terms of cost efficiency and security gains.[107]

text: In the United Kingdom, the Data Communication Company, which transports the commands from the supplier to the smart meter, performs an additional anomality check on commands issued (and signed) by the energy supplier.

text: According to a report by Brian Krebs, in 2009 a Puerto Rico electricity supplier asked the FBI to investigate large-scale thefts of electricity related to its smart meters. The FBI found that former employees of the power company and the company that made the meters were being paid by consumers to reprogram the devices to show incorrect results, as well as teaching people how to do it themselves.[109]

text: Health and safety[edit]

text: Most health concerns about the meters arise from the pulsed radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by wireless smart meters.[110]

text: Members of the California State Assembly asked the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) to study the issue of potential health impacts from smart meters. The CCST report in April 2011 found no health impacts, based both on lack of scientific evidence of harmful effects from radio frequency (RF) waves and that the RF exposure of people in their homes to smart meters is likely to be minuscule compared to RF exposure to cell phones and microwave ovens.[111]

text: Issues surrounding smart meters causing fires have also been reported, particularly involving the manufacturer Sensus. In 2012. PECO Energy Company replaced the Sensus meters it had deployed in the Philadelphia region after reports that a number of the units had overheated and caused fires. In July 2014, SaskPower, the province-run utility company of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, halted its roll-out of Sensus meters after similar, isolated incidents were discovered. Shortly afterward, Portland General Electric announced that it would replace 70,000 smart meters that had been deployed in the state of Oregon after similar reports. The company noted that it had been aware of the issues since at least 2013, and that they were limited to certain models it had installed between 2010 and 2012.[112] On July 30, 2014, after a total of eight recent fire incidents involving the meters, SaskPower was ordered by the Government of Saskatchewan to immediately end its smart meter program, and remove the 105,000 smart meters it had installed.[113]

text: Privacy concerns[edit]

text: One technical reason for privacy concerns is that these meters send detailed information about how much electricity is being used each time. More frequent reports provide more detailed information. Infrequent reports may be of little benefit for the provider, as it doesn't allow as good demand management in the response of changing needs for electricity. On the other hand, very frequent reports would allow the utility company to infer behavioral patterns for the occupants of a house, such as when the members of the household are probably asleep or absent.[114] Current trends are to increase the frequency of reports. A solution which benefits both the provider and the user's privacy, would be to adapt the interval dynamically.[115] Another solution involves an energy storage installed at the household used to reshape the energy consumption profile.[116][117] In BC Canada the electric utility is government-owned and as such must comply with privacy laws that prevent the sale of data collected by smart meters; many parts of the world are serviced by private companies that are able to sell their data.[118] In Australia debt collectors can make use of the data to know when people are at home.[119] Used as evidence in a court case in Austin, Texas, police agencies secretly collected smart meter power usage data from thousands of residences to determine which ones were using more power than "typical" in order to find targets to pursue in marijuana growing operations.[120]

text: Smart meter power data usage patterns can reveal much more than how much power is being used. Research has been done which has demonstrated that smart meters sampling power levels at two-second intervals can reliably identify when different electrical devices are in use.[121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128]

text: Opt-out options[edit]

text: Reviews of smart meter programs, moratoriums, delays, and "opt-out" programs are some responses to the concerns of customers and government officials. In response to residents who did not want a smart meter, in June 2012 a utility in Hawaii changed their smart meter program to "opt out".[129] The utility said that once the smart grid installation project is nearing completion, KIUC may convert the deferral policy to an opt-out policy or program and may charge a fee to those members to cover the costs of servicing the traditional meters. Any fee would require approval from the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission.

text: After receiving numerous complaints about health, hacking, and privacy concerns with the wireless digital devices, the Public Utility Commission of the US state of Maine voted to allow customers to opt out of the meter change at a cost of $12 a month.[130] In Connecticut, another US state to consider smart metering, regulators declined a request by the state's largest utility, Connecticut Light & Power, to install 1.2 million of the devices, arguing that the potential savings in electric bills do not justify the cost. CL&P already offers its customers time-based rates. The state's Attorney General George Jepsen was quoted as saying the proposal would cause customers to spend upwards of $500 million on meters and get few benefits in return, a claim that Connecticut Light & Power disputed.[131]

text: Lack of savings in results[edit]

text: There are questions whether electricity is or should be primarily a "when you need it" service where the inconvenience/cost-benefit ratio of time shifting of loads is poor. In the Chicago area, Commonwealth Edison ran a test installing smart meters on 8,000 randomly selected households together with variable rates and rebates to encourage cutting back during peak usage.[132] In the Crain's Chicago Business article "Smart grid test underwhelms. In pilot, few power down to save money.", it was reported that fewer than 9% exhibited any amount of peak usage reduction and that the overall amount of reduction was "statistically insignificant".[132] This was from a report by the Electric Power Research Institute, a utility industry think tank who conducted the study and prepared the report. Susan Satter, senior assistant Illinois attorney general for public utilities said "It's devastating to their plan......The report shows zero statistically different result compared to business as usual." [132]

text: By 2016, the 7 million smart meters in Texas had not gotten many people to actually check their energy data as the process was too difficult.[133]

text: In the media[edit]

text: In 2013, Take Back Your Power, an independent Canadian documentary directed by Josh del Sol was released describing "dirty electricity" and the aforementioned issues with smart meters.[134] The film explores the various contexts of the health, legal, and economic concerns, and features narration from mayor of Peterborough, Ontario, Daryl Bennett, as well as American researcher De-Kun Li, journalist Blake Levitt,[135] and Dr. Sam Milham. It won a Leo Award for best feature-length documentary and the Annual Humanitarian Award from Indie Fest the following year.