The council also voted to send a letter to state legislators supporting AB 37, which would require the California Public Utilities Commission to create an opt-out proposal for consumers; agreed to pass a resolution demanding a halt to the installations for those who don't want the meters; and, at the request of Supervisor Anthony Farrington, to write a letter to the CPUC against PG&E's own opt-out proposal, that would cost those who want the radio turned off in the meter more money.
The ordinance, resolution and letters aren't drafted but must be brought back for a reading at an upcoming meeting.
At the start of the discussion, Councilman Bob Rumfelt questioned why the devices were necessary.
Austin Sharp – a PG&E staffer who, along with colleague Justin Real – was there to answer questions, said the meters came out of the energy crisis about a decade ago. They're supposed to make the power system more reliable and cost effective, and offer consumers the change to get more information about how to drop their rates.
Councilman Roy Parmentier said the meters were meant to allow PG&E to charge more based on energy usage at certain times. Sharp said consumers would be able to choose how their rates are assessed through a variety of structures.
“How do I find all of this out?” asked Rumfelt.
Sharp said that, after the meters are installed, consumers can go online. Rumfelt replied that not everyone has a computer or other “nice expensive little gadgets” to access the information. In that case, Sharp said the consumers could call PG&E to get the information.
“Everything's going to an online phase and the SmartMeter's no different than that,” said Sharp.
Councilman Tom Engstrom noted during the discussion, “So it sounds like everyone's getting a SmartMeter, whether you want one or not,” to which Sharp said yes.
Engstrom asked about the PG&E's opt-out proposal. Sharp said there would be low-income options and options for other consumers involving higher or lower upfront fees to disable the radio devices.
The options would include $270 up front with a $14 ongoing monthly charge or $135 up front with a $20 month charge. There also are options for customers to pay a special rate per kilowatt hour rather than the flat monthly fee, which is supposed to go toward meter readers and other costs associated with the opt-out program.
“Wow, that's a lot of money” said Mayor Suzanne Lyons.
Engstrom told PG&E, “There are a lot of people here tonight who are concerned about health risks.”
Sharp said said they had a doctor there who would address those questions.
Engstrom recalled a case of a local woman who was diagnosed with a brain tumor, which she attributed to cell phone usage. He asked Sharp how they could guarantee down the road that the SmartMeters wouldn't have the same impacts.
Sharp said cell phones were different from SmartMeters, to which Engstrom said it's like going to court, with the two sides buying witnesses.
“You guys are betting our lives on saving money,” said Engstrom, who added, “You've already got a big problem down in the Bay Area with the gas line,” referring to last year's San Bruno gas explosion.
Rumfelt asked about Underwriters Laboratories certification for the devices. Sharp said UL certification is for commercial products, not industrial, which is how the SmartMeters are classified. As such, the devices undergo the more rigorous American National Standards Institute certification.
Dr. Jerry Bushberg, Ph.D., program director and clinical professor of radiology, and director of health physics programs at University of California Davis – who also is a member of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement's main scientific council – spoke at the meeting. He's been was retained by PG&E to address concerns about radio frequencies.
He said a very large study was completed about four months ago on the long-term use of cell phones, and showed a Food and Drug Administration fact sheet that found there was no evidence linking cell phone use and brain tumors, which he said was a “pretty dramatic statement” coming from a public health organization.
Lyons asked how long term of a study it was. Bushberg said it covered 10 to 15 years of exposure.
Quoting the California Council on Science and Technology's final report on SmartMeters, released March 31, Bushberg said SmartMeters are a small part of the emissions people are exposed to every day. “It does help, I think, put the issue in perspective.”
Supervisor Tony Farrington spoke to the council, telling its members, “This is a very interesting issue.”
When the Board of Supervisors held its first hearing in January, Farrington said he wasn't sure what all the fuss was about. Since then, however, he's looked into the issue more, and doesn't see a benefit for residents.
He raised issues of privacy, and how the data is stored and transmitted. Farrington referenced the environmental and cultural work the county has had to do to try to pave 1.3 miles along S. Main Street, yet said to install millions of meters in California PG&E wasn't required to do any environmental study, with the rules of the California Environmental Quality Act waived.
PG&E also is spending $2.2 billion, garnered from rate hikes – to install the meters, he said. “This is driven by money,” he said. “That's the motive.”
Farrington said the smart grid is possible without SmartMeters, and stated there have been no studies on possible cumulative health impacts.
“It's about big brother government and about choice,” he said, pointing out consumers don't have a choice, adding that PG&E's opt-out proposal was an “extortion plan.”
He said AB 37 is moving slowly through the Legislature while budget and redevelopment issues were being worked out.
While it may be symbolic to pass the ordinance, Farrington asked the council to join the Board of Supervisors in pursing legal action.
Martha Rose, who said she spoke with Engstrom and asked to have the SmartMeter issue put on the agenda, said she agreed with Farrington's point of view. “There's too many ifs, there's too many unanswered questions,” she said.
Carol Hays said she received a notice about the installations, and called and told PG&E she wanted more information and didn't want the device installed on her home. She was then put on a waiting list.
While the moratorium makes a statement, Hays said it's important for people to know they can call the SmartMeter hotline, 866-743-0263, and ask to be put on the delayed installation list.
After hearing Farrington mention the $2.2 billion for installations, Rumfelt asked Sharp if that was true. Sharp said yes, that the expense had been factored into rates in about 2003.
He said there were misconceptions about how PG&E makes money, and it isn't on how people use energy – that was taken out of the equation years ago.
“So we've already paid for those meters?” asked Rumfelt, to which Sharp said yes.
“We want our money back,” quipped one man in the audience.
Public Works Director Doug Grider asked Sharp if the meters were receivers as well as transmitters. Sharpe said yes, and that they can help relay information. The meters broadcast information for about 45 seconds for a 24-hour period.
Grider asked if it was a repeater system, and Sharp again said yes. If someone didn't pay their bill, could the meters be used to shut off their power? Grider asked. Yes, Sharp said.
Engstrom concluded of PG&E, “The bottom line is they're going to walk out this door and do what they've been doing. It's not going to matter.”
He said he wanted to go on record that city residents don't like how they're being treated, and suggested taking action like that of the county, moving to take the three actions suggested in the staff report.
Farrington asked that they add opposition to the current PG&E opt-out proposal, which he said the Board of Supervisors is going to take up next week.
Engstrom modified his motion accordingly, and it was approved 5-0, action the audience of about 30 people welcomed with applause.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
