LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Not every Lake County resident wants a SmartMeter, but the program was designed with only one thing on the menu – a “mandatory upgrade” from an analog or digital meter to one that both receives and transmits data about energy use wirelessly.

That one option menu, which has sparked resistance around the state, now is up for a redesign.

The opposition to SmartMeters over health, safety, privacy and billing concerns has prompted an administrative law judge on Aug. 3 to order Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric Co., and Southern California Gas Co. to attend a public workshop to discuss final opt-out proposals.

The workshop will be held on Wednesday, Sept. 14, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the CPUC Auditorium in the state office building, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco. Each company will file detailed proposals prior to the forum.

The CPUC invites public attendance at the workshop, which can be done in person, by phone via a listen-only call in number (877-347-9604, participant code #771069) or through a live Webcast at http://www.californiaadmin.com/cpuc.shtml. The meeting also will be archived on the the commission's Web site at www.cpuc.ca.gov.

Also participating in the workshop will be consumer advocacy groups like The Utility Reform Network (TURN), based in San Francisco, and lawyers including Tiburon attorney James Tobin whose protest to CPUC was later joined by Lake and other counties. Tobin will represent several SmartMeter opponent groups.

Earlier this year the Lake County Board of Supervisors formally opposed PG&E’s plan, which includes customer opt-out fees of $135 up front, an additional $20 a month and an “exit fee” upon moving so the next resident can utilize a SmartMeter.

Customers also would have pay to have the device relocated on their property at estimated costs of $2,500 to $4,500 for overhead-meter customers and $6,000 to $11,000 for underground customers.

PG&E received approval to replace analog with wireless meters from the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates utilities, in 2006.

Although the SmartMeter, also called “advanced metering infrastructure” (AMI), is part of a nationwide “smartgrid” rollout, wireless meters are not essential to a green grid, according to AB 37, an opt out bill introduced by assemblyman Jared Huffman in December.

While some opponents say SmartMeters should be offered on an opt-in, rather than opt-out basis, that matter has been decided by the CPUC, according to the Aug. 3 ruling.

The commission already has adopted AMI programs, which include SmartMeters, as the standard for the companies. As a result, customers can only opt out.

Huffman’s bill calls for an affordable hard-wired option that provides equivalent energy-saving benefits to the grid.

In response to the proposed law, PG&E let customers delay installation of a SmartMeter until the CPUC had determined an alternative. The commission then requested that the company draft its proposal, and AB 37 was put on hold.

PG&E’s opt-out proposal, filed March 24, did not include a wired option. The plan, which has the support of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, the branch of the CPUC that is offering a final opt out proposal or proposals for each utility, allows customers to have their SmartMeters' radios disabled.

“Radio off is not going to solve the problems,” said Sue Brinchmann of the San Diego-based Center for Electrosmog Prevention, a group that also works with SmartMeter opponents in Northern California.

The group is submitting their own opt-out proposal, she said, along with science studies on the health effects of radio frequency, which is emitted by SmartMeters. It calls for a “no cost analog meter with full public disclosure of risks and problems.”

PG&E claims there is no health risk from the amount of radio frequency customers will experience, and that the devices meet the guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Opponents hotly dispute that contention, pointing to recent studies and saying the guidelines are outdated.

The FCC’s guidelines “Consumer Facts” Web page, “Wireless Devices and Health Concerns,” confirms that while many federal agencies have addressed the issue, “… there is no federally developed national standard for safe levels of exposure to radiofrequency energy ...”

Alongside PG&E’s disabled radio option, others that will be considered at the workshop include analog meters and digital meters with wired transmission capability like copper wire or fiber optic.

In the case of analog meters, customers who still have one could keep it, while those with a SmartMeter could swap it for an analog one.

The judge’s ruling asks that each proposal identify the option – radio off, analog or wired meter – and answer several other questions.

For example, for multi-unit residences like apartments and condos, will the opt-out decision be made by a majority of residents? What happens if the opt-out range includes a ratepayer who wants a SmartMeter, which proponents say will enable better control of energy use?

For its alternative, PG&E will have to explain if the radio will be disabled remotely or via field visit.

For each option, how will data be transmitted to the utility? For the radio off option, methods may allow wireless transmission (“remote ‘wake up’ of radio-off option”) during a set time each day.

But will customers be satisfied the device is truly disabled?

The companies also will discuss costs. Can each option be implemented the same way for a gas and an electric SmartMeter? Do any of the options result in costs that should be paid by all ratepayers, and not just those who want to opt out?

As some see it, the devil is in the detailed proposals. The group “Stop Smart Meters” supports the development of community choice aggregation (CCA) programs, which would create alternative electricity providers to PG&E.

For those who just want a choice about their meter, Brinchmann said it may take a “public uprising” to ensure real options.

She recommended that customers “go to CPUC’s Web site and file a complaint immediately.”

In addition to attending the workshop, she suggested residents participate in their local governments on the issue.

Customers can delay installation of a SmartMeter until the CPUC reaches a decision on PG&E's opt-out proposal by calling 877-743-7378.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews.