"Some customers remain concerned about SmartMeter technology and want alternatives,” Helen Burt, PG&E’s senior vice president and chief customer officer, said in a statement released by the company Monday afternoon. “Through comments to us and the CPUC, they are clear that an analog meter is the option they prefer to address their unease with wireless technology.”
PG&E is installing digital, wireless SmartMeters throughout its service area in Northern and Central California as part of a statewide program to implement a “smart grid.”
The company said that, to date, it has installed nearly nine million gas and electric SmartMeters.
While PG&E maintained that independent studies repeatedly have affirmed the safety and accuracy of SmartMeters, “Personal choice is important to our customers. In response to their requests, we are asking the Commission to approve an option for customers to receive analog meters,” Burt said.
PG&E’s request of the CPUC regarding the analog meters would be in addition to its opt-out proposal submitted in March, formulated at the request of CPUC Chairman Michael Peevey for customers who were averse to the wireless technology.
That initial opt-out proposal allows customers to turn off SmartMeters’ radios in exchange for upfront and recurring fees totaling several hundred dollars, which the company said are to cover the costs of turning off the radio, manually reading the meters every month, modifying IT systems and providing information to customers on the program through call centers and other channels.
The Lake County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake all imposed temporary moratoriums on the installation of SmartMeters earlier this year, although the CPUC said such moratoriums was up to it to impose and that it didn’t plan to do so. PG&E also said it didn't plan to honor the moratoriums, as Lake County News has reported.
However, those PG&E customers who requested delayed installation were to be allowed to avoid having a SmartMeter until after the CPUC made its final decision on the PG&E opt-out.
The county of Lake was among those filing protests to the March PG&E opt-out proposal, alleging that SmartMeters adversely affect the environment and overburden utility easements, and arguing that SmartMeter installations should be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
On Nov. 22 the CPUC issued a proposed decision on PG&E’s opt-out proposal that identified two potential SmartMeter alternatives – a “radio-off” option in which the radio transmitter is turned off, as PG&E previously proposed, and a “radio-out” option that would involve a noncommunicating meter.
The CPUC decision noted that analog meters do not emit radiofrequency radiation, which forms the basis of the main health concerns lodged by opponents.
In its proposed decision, the CPUC noted, “PG&E’s proposed radio off option is one of four possibilities that could be offered to residential customers who do not wish to have a wireless SmartMeter. While PG&E has argued that this option is the most feasible, we cannot ignore parties’ comments questioning whether this option best addresses the concerns raised by customers.”
Customers have raised concerns that turning the radios off in SmartMeters would not reduce the level of radio frequency emissions, the CPUC decision noted.
The county of Lake also has weighed in on the CPUC's proposed decision.
In a 16-page document submitted on Dec. 12, County Counsel Anita Grant and her deputy, Lloyd Guintivano, commented on the CPUC’s proposed decision, noting that the county “disagrees with the Commission’s decision as to the health, privacy, security, and environmental impacts of SmartMeters, and the fees imposed by the selected opt-out option.”
Pointing to a January 2011 study by Sage & Associates, the County Counsel’s Office said the study concluded that Federal Communications Commission compliance requirement violations are likely to occur under widespread conditions of installation and operation in the state.
The report stated that people “who are afforded special protection under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act are not sufficiently acknowledged nor protected in the installation of Smart Meters. People who have medical and/or metal implants or other conditions rendering them vulnerable to health risks at lower levels than FCC RF [i.e. radiofrequency radiation] limits may be particularly at risk. This is also likely to hold true for other subgroups, like children and people who are ill or taking medications, or are elderly, for they have different reactions to pulsed RF.”
Likewise, the county said the Division of Ratepayer Advocates had urged the CPUC to address health risk factors raised by the Sage & Associates study as well as health risk factors not addressed by the California Council on Science and Technology.
The county said that the Sage & Associates study found that SmartMeter radiofrequency emissions are in violation of FCC regulations.
“While the commission should be credited for allowing an opt-out option for ratepayers who have health issues against, imposing the costs to these ratepayers effectively sends the message that a ratepayer needs to have the financial capability to address a health issue created by PG&E,” Grant and Guintivano argued.
They continued, “These health concerns, along with the lack of environmental impact recognition by PG&E in any of its SmartMeter applications and the pending unresolved privacy and security issues discussed in the Commission’s June 24, 2010 Decision 100-60-47, all show the inadequacy of PG&E’s installation of Smart Meters and its associated fee structures.”
The county also argued against the CPUC’s proposal to have a portion of the opt-out costs paid for by all residential ratepayers, stating, “PG&E should be responsible for the portion of the costs not covered by the opt-out ratepayers’ fees.”
PG&E reported that Lake County’s 40,000 meter installations were expected to be continued by year’s end. Information was not available late Monday on how many residents were attempting to opt out of the installations.
The CPUC’s proposed decision on PG&E’s March opt-out decision is not scheduled to be on the commission’s agenda before Jan. 12, according to a statement from Chief Administrative Law Judge Karen Clopton.
PG&E expects the CPUC’s final decision will ask customers who opt-out of the program to pay an initial fee and some reasonable monthly charge to cover the costs of manual meter reading and other associated operational and billing issues.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
112211 CPUC Proposed Decision - Smart Meter Opt-out
121211 Lake County Comments on CPUC Smart Meter Proposed Decision
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
