LAKEPORT, Calif. – Before an audience of concerned citizens, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted unanimously to take a three-pronged approach to challenging Pacific Gas & Electric's installation of SmartMeters in the county.
The three prongs include approving a letter to be sent to legislators, the governor and a variety of organizations that lobby for local governments in favor of AB 37, which requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) determine SmartMeter alternatives by January 2012 for customers who want to opt out.
The board also passed an urgency ordinance instituting a moratorium on the installations locally, which PG&E officials said began in late February. County Counsel Anita Grant said the moratorium she drafted was “substantially the same” as ordinances approved in Santa Cruz and Marin counties.
But perhaps the sharpest prong of all was the board's direction to county staff to move forward with legal action to seek an injunction against PG&E to give AB 37 time to get through the Legislature.
PG&E has told Lake County News that a total of 40,000 meters were to be installed throughout Lake County.
Supervisor Denise Rushing, who originally brought matter to board a month and a half ago, recused herself – as she did at a discussion on the AB 37 support letter last week – because she is involved in a small engineering consortium that bid on a small PG&E contract for which they have been short-listed.
PG&E representatives were on hand to address the board and answer questions. They included Justin Real, the PG&E government relations consultant for Lake and Napa counties, who said the company provided six SmartMeter answers centers in Lake County last month and were making available more brochures and explanatory materials at drop-off centers.
He said the SmartMeters already in place in the county helped PG&E in its response and communications with regard to storms late last month that knocked out power to thousands of residents around the county.
SmartMeters report outages automatically, while the old analog meters require a customer to call in and report an outage, Real said.
Supervisor Jim Comstock asked Real how the SmartMeters could report outages with no power, repeating the question several times in order to get a complete explanation. “Bottom line, the power is not out on the meter,” Real said.
“That doesn't make any sense,” said Comstock. “If the power's out, the power's out.”
Another PG&E representative, Austin Sharp, said the meters have power and can continue to operate during outages, reporting when a meter drops off due to loss of power.
He said before PG&E goes into an area, they set up equipment that helps facilitate the meters' communication. The devices send out messages over the Verizon cell phone network.
“We had to go a long way around to get that answer,” said Comstock.
Real said PG&E – which had given the board a presentation in January – could make more experts available but they needed more time to prepare than they had for Tuesday's meeting.
“But in the interim, the troops are marching,” said Comstock, noting that he arrived home one day recently to find a new SmartMeter on his house and one in his field.
“We are mandated to finish the program by 2012,” said Real. “We're just trying to keep ahead of schedule.”
Supervisor Rob Brown replied, “This is part of the reason why we're here right now.”
While PG&E can provide experts and information, “It's kind of a patronizing effort when the meters are going in prior to those questions being answered,” said Brown, who received thunderous applause from the audience.
“I don't know who's mandating this, none of us are mandating it,” he said, adding he can find no information about the meters needed to be out prior to the information being shared with residents.
Brown said the SmartMeters are being installed on short notice, which he suggested was a scramble to get ahead of the possible passage of AB 37. He said PG&E should hold off on pushing the installations, adding that he didn't like how quickly PG&E was proceeding.
“PG&E is worse than the government,” because at least the government can be voted out, Brown said.
He said the company should have backed off on its own in response to consumer concerns, but that's not happened.
“I realize also that you're the sacrificial lamb sent up here,” he told Real. “We need somebody to back off a little bit.”
Real said he understood the concerns. Initially, many customers got information about the program through e-mail and other means, and that wasn't sufficient.
Brown wanted to know how many meters were installed while the answer centers were being held. Sharp said they conduct outreach, starting with letters sent out about a month before going into an area.
He said letters were sent out in Lake County around the start of February, and installations started the last week of that month.
Brown asked if they were installing meters now. Sharp said yes. They've so far installed eight million of the nine and a half million they must have in place by June 2012, based on a CPUC mandate passed in 2003. Sharp said they began SmartMeter installations in Kern County in 2006.
Comstock wanted to know what would happen if they didn't meet the mandate. Sharp suggested the CPUC could institute fines or other measures. “Every utility in the state has to go to a SmartMeter program,” he said, with the goal being that utilities need to better understand usage.
He added that the SmartMeter program is optional but that everyone has to have a meter, which Comstock said didn't make sense. Sharp said consumers didn't have to sign up to take part in the online usage monitoring or purchase new appliances.
Sharp said residential customers could choose to take part in peak day pricing in order to see savings, but that businesses didn't have a choice. Peak day pricing only applies eight to 12 days a year.
Comstock said he didn’t understand a word Sharp said. “Why are we doing this program?”
Sharp said the only way to incentivize customers to use energy better is through their wallets.
Supervisor Anthony Farrington, who said he found himself confused by PG&E's explanations, asked if they could implement the new pricing structure without SmartMeters. Sharp said no.
Sharp criticisms of SmartMeters
Farrington shared his research, explaining that on July 6, 2006, the CPUC approved a SmartMeter deployment plan. On Feb. 25, 2010, the CPUC then adopted new rate structures.
“The problem is, there's a disconnect,” with the county not receiving that information, said Farrington.
He said it was not made available either by PG&E or the CPUC, the latter having “total disregard for local government,” said Farrington, who hinted at conflicts of interest by noting that CPUC Chair Michael Peevey had formerly worked for Southern California Edison.
As a result, Farrington said the county finds itself in a reactive mode, ratepayers getting caught off guard. He said he realized PG&E would continue installing SmartMeters, “and there's a risk with that.”
Farrington said he felt the legal option was the only one that would work, and it might get both PG&E's and the CPUC's attention. Lake County might be rural, but “we can make as much problems for the organization as anyone in the state of California.”
In California ratepayers are paying the $1.7 billion for the SmartMeter program, said Farrington, with no environmental impact report or cumulative impact analysis required.
Farrington referenced efforts by Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, who asked regulators and utilities to put the brakes on SmartMeter installations. Jepsen referenced a pilot study of 10,000 SmartMeters, which was released on Feb. 25, 2010, which found no beneficial impact on usage. The small savings realized were absorbed by installation costs.
“To add more insult to injury, the SmartMeters only have a lifespan of about 20 years,” which Farrington said would require they go through the process again in a relatively short period.
During public comment, the board heard from community members concerned about health impacts, interference with medical devices, pricing, privacy and their distrust of PG&E.
Comstock asked for a show of hands from those in the full chamber about who wanted them to take action. The majority raised their hands.
Community resident Mary Perkins asked them to take the most aggressive action possible, including having those meters already installed removed.
Clearlake resident Leslie Sheridan, who hosted a community meeting last Friday that explored health, privacy and other concerns related to SmartMeters, encouraged people to educate themselves on SmartMeters and their potential health impacts. She said there are ways to get them off your house.
Sheridan added that a former PG&E employee living in Lake County told her that rates would go up and privacy issues would result from the meters' use.
Farrington asked if SmartMeters were certified by Underwriters Laboratories. Sharp said no, because UL only certifies appliances for inside the home. Instead, the meters are American National Standards Institute-certified.
Clearlake City Council woman Jeri Spittler recounted growing up in an area outside of Lake County that was overshadowed by power transmission lines, noting that her parents and the parents of her childhood friends have all died of cancer.
“I am completely against these SmartMeters,” she said. “They terrify me. I think there's bully tactics here. Why rush to the rural areas when the cities have already pushed them out?”
Lower Lake attorney Ron Green urged the board to take PG&E to court, pointing out that the company has ignored other counties that have tried to stop the installations. “The only way to get to 'em really is an injunctive action.”
Kelseyville resident Lonnie Caldwell said a group of citizens are prepared to form blockages to prevent the installations.
Brown moved to send the newest draft of the letter supporting AB 37, which the board approved 4-0.
He then moved the adoption of the urgency ordinance implementing the temporary moratorium on SmartMeter installations, also approved 4-0.
Farrington moved to direct Grant and her staff to begin the process or pursuing injunctive relief to stop the installations. He said they will petition the CPUC and then prepare to petition the courts.
Brown said he wanted PG&E to report on how many SmartMeters are installed in spite of the action.
The motion to proceed with legal action was approved 4-0 as well.
“We'll move forward and see what we can do here,” Comstock told the audience, which gave the board a round of applause for the actions.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
