LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The day after the Lake County Board of Supervisors instituted a temporary moratorium on Pacific Gas & Electric's SmartMeters, the utility said it won't honor the board's action.

The board on Tuesday instituted the moratorium, approved a letter to the Legislature, governor and local legislators supporting AB 37 – which would require the California Public Utilities Commission to offer an alternative to the devices – and directed County Counsel Anita Grant to initiate legal action to stop the installations.

On Wednesday, PG&E spokesman Paul Moreno said he didn't have any response relating to the board's specific action.

However, he added, “PG&E will not be honoring moratoriums on the SmartMeter program.”

Moreno said only the CPUC has the authority to institute a moratorium, and they've not done so.

Lake County News had spoken to CPUC representatives last week, who maintained the authority for such action rests with the commission, which has no intention of putting a moratorium in place.

Grant said her office was exploring how to move forward.

“We're just beginning now to see what we can do, but we're going to do whatever we can,” she said.

On Wednesday area residents reported that SmartMeter installers – who work for PG&E's contractor, Wellington Energy – were on the job, attempting to carry out installations. When told to leave, they complied.

Moreno said there are about 40,000 analog meters in Lake County that will be replaced with SmartMeters.

So far, 2,500 SmartMeters have been installed, with most of them located in the communities of Clearlake, Lower Lake, Hidden Valley Lake and Clearlake Oaks, Moreno said.

Grant said her office was looking at petitioning the CPUC, which must be done first before appealing to state appellate courts or the California Supreme Court.

The county couldn't take the matter to the local courts because, according to California Public Utility Code, only those higher courts have jurisdiction to review a CPUC decision, Grant explained.

“The CPUC has a great deal of power here,” Grant said. “I think everyone is attempting to get their attention.”

Last December the CPUC turned down a petition from the city and county of San Francisco, which had also been seeking a halt to the installations.

The decision document indicated that the CPUC dismissed the petition because no new information substantiating health or other concerns – issues with the commission considered settled – had been provided.

Yet, Grant said it's worth a try for Lake County to submit its own petition, and that such actions can adjust power. “Sometimes there's just a value to momentum.”

Lake is reported to have been the 10^th local government to pass an ordinance against the meters, and is among 32 governments statewide opposing them in one form or another, according to a report from www.stopsmartmeters.org .

The number of county and city governments across the state taking action against the meters continues to grow.

On Tuesday, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors voted to send a letter to the CPUC asking for the installations to stop, and on Wednesday, the city council of Pacific Grove in Monterey County voted to send a resolution to the CPUC, PG&E and the state Legislature asking for consumers to be able to opt out and for installations to be delayed, according to media reports.

Moreno said PG&E is committed to engaging with communities where the devices are being installed in order to share information about the program.

Mindy Spatt, media director for The Utility Reform Network (TURN), said they continue to see a large number of people statewide who object to the installation of the meters for a variety of reasons.

“Fears just seem to be growing,” as is resistance, she said.

TURN has been fighting the meters since 2005 “and always from a cost effectiveness argument,” said Spatt, explaining the group didn't feel the program's nearly $2 billion price tag was justified.

“You could slap the label 'smart' on anything and get commission approval,” said Spatt, adding, “They are desperate to justify these meters.”

Spatt said PG&E has jumped the gun by putting in the meters before installing the rest of the network needed to work with the meters. In addition, TURN is concerned about the critical use pricing. The bottom line, she said, is consumers will pay more.

Spatt said TURN doesn't have the medical expertise to address the many claims about SmartMeters' impacts on health.

However, TURN believes that customers with medical excuses should be allowed to opt out of the program. That was the concern of a woman who addressed the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, explaining that cell phones and SmartMeters interfere with the kind of medical equipment her elderly husband needs. But Spatt said that option hasn't been offered to consumers yet.

On Wednesday, Lake County News contacted the offices of the county's state legislators, Assemblyman Wes Chesbro and Sen. Noreen Evans, to inquire if they were planning to take any action in support of the county's efforts to implement the SmartMeter moratorium.

Andrew Bird, Chesbro's spokesman, said Chesbro is a co-author of AB 37, and has not been contacted by Lake County about supporting their efforts.

Evans' office did not provide an answer by the end of the day Wednesday.

TURN offers consumers a series of tips for dealing with the pending SmartMeters installations, including contacting PG&E, stating that you don't want a Smart Meter and, at the least, asking to be placed at the end of the installation schedule.

While PG&E has reported stated that it will not turn the power off to customers who boycott the meters, TURN said if a consumer is threatened with a shutoff they should file a CPUC complaint at http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/746/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5370 .

For TURN's SmartMeter update, visit http://www.turn.org/article.php?id=1154 .

Consumers can call the PG&E's SmartMeter line at 866-743-0263 or visit the company online at www.pge.com/smartmeter/ .

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews , on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

The open session of the meeting will begin at 6 p.m. in the council chambers at Clearlake City Hall, 14050 Olympic Drive. TV 8 will broadcast the meeting live.

At 5 p.m. the council will convene for a closed session to discuss the Sierra Club lawsuit against the Clearlake Redevelopment Agency and KK Raphel Properties LLC regarding the city's proposed shopping center at the now-closed Pearce Field airport property on Highway 53

At the Thursday meeting the council will discuss the process for appointing a city treasurer, a position that city staff members have filled since 2006 in lieu of any candidates coming forward.

Another recruitment was held earlier this year and six community members applied, but last month the city council put off making an appointment after Council member Judy Thein raised concerns that the 30-year-old job description was out of date and needed to be reevaluated.

A report to the council from interim City Administrator Steve Albright explains that the city attorney has since researched the issue and determined that the city council cannot change the authority given to the treasurer under the California Government Code if the position continues to exist.

He reported that the vast majority of California's cities have eliminated city treasurer and city clerk positions and delegated them to professionally staffed positions. “The apparent reasons for doing so is to assure that persons who fulfill these responsibilities have certain knowledge, skills, experience, and training in these fields.”

Albright suggests three options in his report.

The first is to eliminate the elected position and make it an appointed spot, which would require a vote of the city's residence in the 2012 general election. The city council could then appoint someone to fill the job or the duties could be transferred to the county treasurer.

Albright's second option is to interview the six applicants and appoint one of them to serve the remainder of the current term, which ends in 2014.

Finally, he suggests the council could not fill the position but instead continue to appoint staff to cover it. While City Clerk Melissa Swanson is covering it on an interim basis, Albright said it's not reasonable to maintain that arrangement long-term, and suggests instead appointing the finance director to cover the position, as the treasurer's and finance director's responsibilities are parallel.

In other council business, council members will consider the South Shore Little League's request to pain the Redbud ballfield buildings, and also will receive reports on the Clearlake Police Department's grants and statistics, as well as a report on the Public Works Department.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews , on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

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 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews , on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKEPORT, Calif. – In a special Tuesday meeting that lasted exactly 10 minutes, the Lakeport City Council and Lakeport Redevelopment Agency acted jointly to protect more than $3 million in bond assets and additional property in the event legislators approve a bill ending redevelopment in California.

Four council members, a handful of staffers and a few community members were present for the afternoon meeting, which moved rapidly to try to move the assets in light of a vote that's expected soon in the Legislature. Councilman Roy Parmentier was absent.

City Manager Margaret Silveira told the council that the city's redevelopment attorney advised them that the funds and property the city now holds under the redevelopment agency would be taken by the state if the legislation passes.

“This is a precautionary step,” said Silveira.

All of the transfers were taking place between the city and agency only, with no third party involved, she said.

Council member Stacey Mattina asked if there were any negatives involved in taking the action.

“I don't think so. A lot of other cities are attempting to do something like this” because of what's happening with redevelopment, said City Attorney Steve Brookes.

He said the effort was to protect the city's assets.

Brookes explained that the law says you can move assets to protect them as long as you don't break the law.

The concern, he said, is if the state legislation is too broad and doesn't allow them to protect their assets, in which case, “This may be for nothing.”

There was no public comment, and the council – sitting jointly as the agency – then swiftly moved through eight votes, all of them unanimous, meant to protect the $3 million in funds and a redevelopment-owned property at 902 Bevins Court.

Relating to the transfer of the Bevins Court property, the council approved two motions, one to adopt a resolution by the redevelopment agency approving the transfer and an identical motion on behalf of the council.

The council and agency members then approved two resolutions authorizing the execution of a funding agreement between the city and agency for phase two of the city's downtown improvement project, with a third resolution that approved the agreement.

The next two votes involved two resolutions authorizing execution of a cooperation and funding agreement between the city and the agency, with the last vote being to approve that agreement.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews , on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKEPORT, Calif. – With concerns rising about the future of redevelopment, the Lakeport City Council and Lakeport Redevelopment Agency will convene a special Tuesday meeting to transfer agency assets to the city in order to protect property and funds.

The meeting will begin at 4 p.m. Tuesday, March 8, in the council chambers at Lakeport City Hall, 225 Park St.

On the agenda is the transfer to the city of redevelopment agency properties, approval and authorization of a cooperation and funding agreement between the redevelopment agency and the city, and execution of a funding agreement between the city and the agency.

Also on the agenda is a closed session to discuss public employee discipline.

A report to the council from Richard Knoll, the city's community development and redevelopment director, explains that California legislators are poised to take action on proposed legislation that would support Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to abolish redevelopment.

If that legislation passes, Knoll said it would effectively shut down the state's hundreds of redevelopment agencies, “and no further action would be allowed by the Lakeport Redevelopment Agency.”

Proposed actions for the Tuesday council meeting include transferring a property on Bevins Court from the agency to the city. They also will transfer bond funds and tax increment funds totaling approximately $3,006,155.07 from the agency to the city for construction of the Downtown Improvement Project's second, phase, Knoll reported.

Knoll is out of town until March 14 and could not be reached Monday for additional comment on the proposals.

Lakeport isn't alone in taking such emergency action.

Among other cities acting this week, on Monday, the Santa Rosa City Council took action to protect $28 million in redevelopment funds and the Long Beach Redevelopment Agency agreed to transfer 200 properties to the city, the Santa Clara City Council is considering moving land and money Tuesday night and the city of Monrovia is looking for ways to protect about $40 million in redevelopment funds, according to media reports.

“Redevelopment agencies around the state are working to sew up projects in the pipeline and protect them” so they can move them forward, said California Redevelopment Association (CRA) spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks.

Such projects are “years in the making,” said Fairbanks. “The agencies rightly want to protect them” in order to ensure jobs and economic opportunities.

Fairbanks said the CRA doesn't have numbers on how many agencies across the state are positioning themselves for the worst.

Fairbanks said she didn't know if a vote on the redevelopment legislation would take place this week as Knoll had indicated it might in his report.

Brown said Monday that he may not make his self-imposed Thursday deadline for a budget document, and media reports indicate he is getting pushback from Republicans in the state Legislature on the budget plan.

The CRA reported that redevelopment creates 304,000 new jobs a year, $40 billion in economic activity statewide and $2 billion in state and local tax revenue, numbers which Knoll recently took to the council in discussing his concerns about the redevelopment proposal.

However, a Monday report issued by State Controller John Chiang's office questions the actual impact of redevelopment and the jobs it creates on California's economy, and faulted several agencies that it audited on issues of accountability and inappropriate uses of funds.

The governor's plan would essentially take all uncommitted redevelopment funds out of communities and use them to plug the state's budget gap, Fairbanks said.

Raiding local funds for the state budget is exactly what Californians voted against last November when they approved Proposition 22, said Fairbanks.

The California Secretary of State's Office reported that Proposition 22 passed by a margin of 60.7 percent to 39.3 percent.

Now, just four months later, Fairbanks said lawmakers are dismissing the will of the voters with the redevelopment take proposal.

That way around Proposition 22 is unconstitutional, Fairbanks suggested.

As a result, on Monday a coalition of local government, business, labor, community groups and other redevelopment supporters launched the “My Vote Counts” effort, which Fairbanks said is an attempt to reach out to voters and remind them of how they voted for Proposition 22.

The group has launched a Web site, www.MyVoteCountsCA.org , as well as radio ads, a Facebook page and a petition effort.

“The voters, our ultimate lawmakers, have spoken loud and clear, and they have every right to expect that the constitutional amendments they enact will not be undermined by illegal schemes like the budget proposal to take local redevelopment funds,” said Chris McKenzie, executive director, League of California Cities, in a statement issued by the group.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews , on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – The Lake County Board of Supervisors may be headed for legal action to stop SmartMeter installations in the county until legislation to give consumers a choice on energy metering is passed.

The Board of Supervisors will hold a discussion at 11 a.m. Tuesday, March 8, to not only discuss a final draft of a letter supporting AB 37, which seeks alternatives to SmartMeters, but also to explore imposing a temporary moratorium or pursuing legal action in order to stop the installations while AB 37 works its way through the state Legislature, as Lake County News has reported.

PG&E spokesperson Brandi Ehlers said the company will have a SmartMeter expert and one of its government representatives at the Tuesday meeting.

AB 37, introduced by Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) would require the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to identify alternative metering options for utility customers who don't want the SmartMeters installed at their homes by Jan. 1, 2012.

The bill also requires disclosure to consumers of information about the devices, including timing, magnitude, frequency and duration of radio frequency emissions so that individual consumers can make informed decisions, according to a statement from Huffman.

PG&E began its SmartMeter rollout in Lake County last month. Before year's end, the utility expects to have installed 40,000 SmartMeters in the county, part of the 2.5 million that it expects to have in place by 2012, PG&E reported.

While the supervisors plan to look at all options, Supervisor Anthony Farrington predicted at the March 1 meeting that the CPUC wouldn't be responsive to a locally implemented moratorium.

Farrington appears to have been correct.

In an e-mail exchange with the CPUC late last week, Lake County News asked if the CPUC would honor a moratorium in Lake County if the Board of Supervisors imposed one.

CPUC spokesperson Terrie Prosper responded, “The CPUC does not have plans to impose a moratorium on Smart Meter installations. Smart Meters are being deployed throughout California, nationally, and internationally.”

In a followup discussion with another CPUC spokesman, Andrew Kotch, he confirmed that the agency wouldn't honor a local moratorium.

“The CPUC is the sole authority who can impose a moratorium,” he said, adding, “We have the authority over the utilities, not the local entities.”

PG&E spokesman Jeff Smith told Lake County News, “Ultimately, SmartMeters are going to be installed for all of our customers.”

However, in light of consumer concerns the company is looking at other options, he said.

“We're in the preliminary stages of reviewing that,” Smith said.

Many local customers are creating their own options.

Last week, in what may be the first action of its kind by a tribal government, the Big Valley Tribal Business Committee banned SmartMeters within tribal boundaries, according to the tribe's environmental director, Sarah Ryan.

Over the past week, Lake County News has received messages from readers regarding their concerns about SmartMeters and their actions to stop the installations which PG&E has directed.

Lower Lake resident Fran Ransley said a SmartMeter installer was in her neighborhood on Saturday morning.

Ransley, who had posted a “No SmartMeter” sign on her meter, told the woman she did not want the device, and the contractor was polite, didn't argue and left.

Another reader, Helen Frankenthal, posted on the Lake County Facebook page that a SmartMeter contractor showed up at the fourplex where she lives on Saturday morning, and all four tenants came out and succeeded in getting the man not to install the meter.

She said they were give a three and a half month stay from the installation.

When asked by Lake County News for figures on consumers who are refusing the installations, company representatives responded that they didn't have such numbers available.

CPUC rulings support SmartMeter installations

Kotch pointed to a decision the CPUC issued in December in which it denied the city and county of San Francisco's petition – made last June – to suspend SmartMeter installations in those jurisdictions “until the Commission concludes its investigation into the significant problems created by PG&E's deployment of its SmartMeters.”

The city and county also has petitioned for expedited treatment of the petition, which was denied last September by an administrative law judge who said, “the information available at this time indicates that the costs associated with a suspension of PG&E’s Smart Meter installation program, in both monetary and human terms, appear to be substantial and exceed the doubtful benefits of an immediate

suspension.”

The CPUC's December findings stated, “There are no facts that show that the SmartMeters are less accurate than current meters or that the billing system is now generating fewer accurate bills.”

The agency dismissed concerns raised about electromagnetic fields, which it said had been settled in a previous ruling.

The 22-page decision also referenced PG&E's general rate case, filed last October, that seeks SmartMeter cost recovery and benefit recognition through consumer rate hikes during the period from 2011 to 2013. That rate case is supposed to provide for an independent audit overseen by CPUC staff of SmartMeter costs.

The commission decision mentions a report conducted by an independent consultant, the Structure Group, on the SmartMeter program. The report included evaluation of 750 Smart Meters and 147 electromechanical meters as well as review of 1,378 electric SmartMeter complaints.

In its arguments against the San Francisco petition PG&E said the Structure report “expressly refutes the allegations of flawed technology” that formed the basis of the petition.

However, the CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) asked for a full investigation of the Structure report, objecting to several of the report's findings regarding SmartMeter software and billing systems being consistent with industry standards, as well as findings that the meters perform accurately.

In documents relating to the petition DRA also stated that it has continued its preliminary review of the Structure report “and in doing so has discovered other anomalies and limitations.”

In responding to Lake County News' questions about a local moratorium, Prosper sent a fact sheet titled, “The Benefits of Smart Meters,” which explains how the CPUC “has authorized the state’s investor owned utilities to replace conventional customer meters with Smart Meters in order to give consumers greater control over their energy use.”

The fact sheet includes similar statements to those PG&E officials have made regarding the devices.

CPUC's document states that SmartMeters will give customers “greater control over their electricity use when coupled with time-based rates,” reduce peak energy demand, provide for faster outage detections, offer online information access for customers and alerts about energy consumption, benefit the environment and aid in creating a “smart grid,” meant to better manage energy demand.

The CPUC fact sheet also quotes an Edison Foundation that states more than 8 million SmartMeters have been deployed by electric utilities in the U.S. and nearly 60 million should be in place by 2020.

The CPUC said it authorized PG&E to install approximately 5 million electric meters and 4.2 million natural gas meters. In addition, it has cleared Southern California Edison to install approximately 5.3 million new SmartMeters, and San Diego Gas and Electric Co. 1.4 million electric SmartMeters and 900,000 natural gas meters.

PG&E didn't communicate program well

Smith said that the Structure report faulted PG&E for not doing a good job of communicating with customers about the SmartMeter program.

He said the company treated the SmartMeter installations on peoples' homes much like the replacement of another piece of infrastructure, “and that was certainly, in retrospect, a mistake,” he said.

“We didn’t realize this was something that was going to be much more personal to our customers,” Smith said.

Now, before they go into an area, PG&E tries to give as much information as possible to customers, Smith said. When they hear of people who don't want the devices, they try to engage them.

If people refuse the meters, PG&E will continue to work with them to understand the program, said Smith.

“That's really what we are continuing to do in situations like that,” he said.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews , on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .