Your scenario of grid crashes, due to consumers switching on at the beginning of off-peak periods, is (IMHO) highly unlikely. First off, some of the tech that would make the grid “smart”, would help prevent crashes. Second, and most important, the differential in peak vs. off-peak pricing would be just great enough to cause just enough load time-shifting to level off the consumption. It just won't be that drastic a change.
If it isn’t that much a dramatic price difference, then it is of no use, because everyone will ignore it.
From what they saw in California, the price difference was significant because they raised the peak rates to pay for this SMART GRID.
In other words, zero savings to the consumer, the only way to keep your rates the same was to throttle your usage.
The only reason for the smart grid was to support variable sources of energy and not to make the grid more robust, that was a advertised side benefit.
A “smart grid” actually makes a lot of sense. IMHO, there is no reason for conservatives to oppose it on principle. As it now stands, with the “dumb” grid, consumers are paying too much for the off-peak periods, and not enough for the peak-load periods. In effect, the off-peak consumers are cross-subsidizing the peak-load consumers. Cross subsidies are decidedly against conservative principles, such as “user pay”.
_______________________
Yeah, that is why the power company put a smart meter on my house, so they could work the grid and charge me more for power...and oddly enough...be able to monitor my power use much more effectively. Who’s home?
Twenty years ago telephone companies started charging per call and monitoring use and built up databases of calls to bill.
No one saw a problem with it. Now it is normalized in this country that all calls are tracked and monitored
Put your collars and leashes on folks, you are owned!
Until the black swan event.