The Great CPUC Dog and Pony Show (aka Smart Meter Opt-Out Workshop)

Today in San Francisco, a valiant group of activists, scientists, experts and attorneys faced off with saintly-looking utility company executives, their industry suppliers, and the CPUC in a mandatory day-long meeting on the topic of Smart Meter opt-outs.

The potentially contentious meeting was complete with new security features in the form of metal detectors and armed guards. The stage was further set with the opening remarks of Administrative Law Judge Amy Yip-Kikugawa, who informed the attendees of the ground rules, which expanded as the meeting got under way to include prohibiting the mention of health and safety as "outside the scope" of the meeting.

In fact, everything the CPUC or utilities disagreed with seemed to be outside the scope, but as the day wore on, the judge allowed more leeway and a number of cogent issues were discussed.

To look at the participating utility execs, you might have thought the sky had opened and the angels themselves landed in their seats, for all the wide-eyed sweetness and innocence that exuded from their pores.

Judge Yip-Kikugawa explained that the purpose of the meeting was to establish which options might be used in an opt-out scenario—the technologies (wired meters, radio-off meters and/or analog meters). The second factor to be established was the cost and viability of these options. There would be no discussion of the reasons for choosing any of these. As it turned out, this was not followed to the letter, leading to an interesting day, with much brought to light.

The four major utilities—SDG&E, Southern CA Gas, Southern CA Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric—and their suppliers presented information about their proposed or potential opt-out plans, including costs for those opting out, with justifications. For instance, they described charging ratepayers up to $600 to opt-out and $40 monthly.

These executives, including Ted Reguly of SDG&E, then answered questions from the audience and webcast/phone participants, who submitted theirs by email to Marzia Zafar, the CPUC gatekeeper. These included the following (paraphrased):

Q: "Why should ratepayers pay more for something they've had all along, such as (keeping) analog meters?" (asked in different ways by about five individuals, including me)

A: "It is an incremental cost, due to the changes in the way we are doing business. Now, we use smart meters. We no longer use meter readers." (Long justifications for gouging ratepayers with high fees for opting out were given by each utility. SDG&E said it had deployed 98% of its smart meters and there were only about 100 people who didn't want one. SCE said it had deployed 60%, PG&E reported 86%, and Southern CA Gas reported it had not yet started, would start deployment in about a year. The number of deployments were used as a reason for charging people to opt-out of the "new normal.")

Q: "Why do the measurement of these meters by independent parties show them to be nearly always emitting radiation bursts (every four seconds), when the utilties claim it is only 4-6 times daily and for a few seconds a day?"

A: "The transmission of data is made 4-6 times a day to the utility and THAT is what is reported to the public in the statistics. But the rest of the time, all the meters are "chattering" or "talking" to each other, and that is what is measured (as radiation is also emitted then)."

Q: "What is the measurement of the peak pulse?"

A: "That is outside the scope; we are not discussing that. We will discuss that sometime. ... I don't know when, at some meeting, maybe." (ALJ Judge)

Q: "It is relevant ... what is the peak pulse? We need to know how much radiation is coming out of the meters to make an informed decision on whether to opt-out."

A: ALJ: "If you don't stop being disruptive, I will ask that you leave and we'll stop the meeting and reconvene at some other time."

Q: "Are analog meters available?"

A: "We don't know, we don't think so. We are now focused on smart meters, no one is making analogs, we didn't save them, they were recycled."

Q: "How much is an analog meter"

A: $20 or less.

Q: "How much is a smart meter?"

A: $100

Q: "Do all four utilities have an installation delay list now in place?"

A: "Yes, we do." (Each suit nodded vigorously and confirmed this, though SDG&E explained that only a fraction had requested a delay, as they were ahead of the game and nearly 100% installed. SCE said they had one, as did PG&E and Southern CA Gas was noting those who didn't want a meter in their customer accounts).

Q: "How is it that I (customer) called SCE's office during lunch and they said they know nothing about a delay list?"

A: SCE: "We are working on it, in a week or week and a half it should be fully operational."

Q: "How many opt-outs do you expect?"

A: "We expect very few, just a fraction of our customers, maybe 1.5%."

Q: "Wouldn't a lot more opt-out if they knew about the radiation being emitted?"

A: (mumble mumble)

Q: "The municipalities that don't want meters constitute 25% of the PG&E ratepayers. What will you do if most people, maybe 80-90% in some areas, want to opt-out?"

A: "We have no numbers like those. None." (nervous)

Q: "What about solar netmeters? They are analog. We don't have a smart meter because we have solar." (speaker)

A: "We have a solar smart meter being developed and ready to roll out in November. After November, solar customers will have smart meters." (PG&E customer registers shock on his face.)

Q: "Are smart meters essential to the smart grid?"

A: "No." "Yes." (varied)

An argument ensued several times about the number of watts transmitted and whether it broke FCC guidelines (2 vs. 1). The questioner, David Wilner, an environmental consultant, persisted in stating his point of view, even while overtalked by the ALJ, who then ordered the webcast cameras to be turned off and shut down the meeting for five minutes.

Later the industry supplier admitted under certain circumstances that 2 watts could be measured, which is higher than FCC regulations. The same argument broke out about the radiation levels. Industry execs and their suppliers insisted that the smart meters, even in large banks (groups), met FCC guidelines for radiation levels.

Sandi Maurer of EMF Safety Network, Sebastopol, CA, said she had a letter from FCC that stated smart meters are "categorically excluded" from FCC oversight. One member of the audience said he had personally measured many smart meters which emitted high pulses of radiation often and thought that the PG&E information was "completely bogus."

The utility representatives obviously favored radio-off smart meters, that is, using smart meters and just turning off the transmitters (not the receivers, necessarily), or digital meters with no radios inside, as opposed to analogs, which all deplored as old-school.

The activists and customers preferred analogs as safer, even though overtalked due to that being "outside the scope" by the ALJ. As the day wore on, even the ALJ seemed to have issues with the safety of smart meters, though, and asked her own questions of the industry panelists.

None of the panelists favored wired options such as fiber-optics or phone lines, and gave examples of how cost-prohibitive these would be. However, people in the audience challenged those assertions, noting that Idaho Power and Light and Kansas City, as well as Tennessee were successfully using fiber-optic.

One person suggested having another meeting with fiber-optic or telecom people present who might more fairly represent that technology as an option, noting that this panel represented people who were wireless enthusiasts.

One member of the audience, Steve Martinot, observed that the entire discussion was based on the premise that it was legitimate to have installed these smart meters. Zafar, the CPUC's energy representative, grabbed the mike and shouted "NO!" at one point, as this was being discussed.

She insisted that the legitimacy of the program was looked at and approved many times starting from 2003 — forgetting, apparently, that the issue was wireless and that had not been proposed or approved till just a few years ago.

Mr. Martinot further suggested that the costs be borne by the shareholders for the utility companies as they had engaged in the risk of this new program, that the ratepayers who opt-out should pay nothing. This was met with major amounts of grumbling and vehement responses from the CPUC and utilities.

There was a suggestion by David Wilner that we follow a plan like Maine has, which gave a credit to the customers who opted out so they weren't charged for their smart meters, and charged them a minimal amount.

One audience suggestion was to charge those with opt-outs $2 a month, though many others thought it should be free, as the people had not asked for these meters nor to be irradiated. Another person noted that if the CPUC allows utilities to charge extra for having health issues, that under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), this would trigger lawsuits.

Still another, Steve Martinot, added that given the reason for being at the meeting was due to complaints about health effects and safety, that it was tantamount to extortion to say, "we are going to put something on your house that harms you but if you pay us money, we won't."

Of course, this led to another round of grumbles and rumbling.

Sandi Maurer once more reiterated, "Why should people have to pay more to have the same thing?"(analogs)

Cindy Sage, Santa Barbara environmental consultant and longtime expert on wireless and RF radiation, commented numerous times from the audience. She emphasized the measurements she'd taken and how these did not confirm the lower levels of radiation that the utiities were reporting to the public, that there were major discrepancies.

Ms. Sage said that EMF's included low level ELF's and radiofrequency radiation, per the decision of a governor-appointed panel that she participated on in 1993. Zafar (CPUC staff and defender of the smart grid) loudly jumped into the fray once more. Ms. Sage noted that even the industry expert, Rick Tell, admitted that the meters were not all emitting in the same manner, that in the field conditions could vary.

The CPUC Division of Ratepayer Advocates weighed in often and, to their credit, did a good job, though health and safety is not their issue. They posed the question, hypothetically, "How do we be fair to everyone who did not get to delay (or opt-out) and those who did?"

There was a discussion about how often the data must be sent, that it was sent 4-6 times daily and could it be sent less, like once a month (to reduce radiation exposures that come with each signal in a high burst). CPUC's Zafar, never to be silenced, added that the data packets being sent were there to help the ratepayers (customers) to be able to change their behavior and save money.

That the signals being sent to the utility were being sent so often so the customers could look up their usage often and see how they could save (like doing their laundry late at night or in the middle of the night, I think she meant).

There was a lot of talk about whether the meters, once again, were on most of the time emitting radiation, or off. The utilities lost this round, as they finally admitted the amount of "chatter" necessary for the mesh network to operate was nearly constant.

One person in the audience said that it is like claiming a strobe light is not constantly on—but you wouldn't want to sleep with it in your room.

Overall, the utility suits were fixated on costs and losses of their smart meter program, with no mention nor concern about health and safety, while it was the opposite for all the participants who attended in person and virtually.

Out of a possible hundred people present, there was not one person present who defended nor wanted the smart meters on their home or business who did not work for the utilities or supply them.

By the time 4:30 rolled around, Judge Amy Yip-Kikugawa looked like she was anxious to leave, after functioning more as a circus master and less-than-impartial referee. She said that the staff and Commissioners would meet and review all that was discussed, would develop a CPUC Opt-Out Proposal that people could respond to, formally.

Then, Judge Y. said, it was likely that additional meetings would ensue.

For those suffering, it was not good news. They'll be subjected to more bureaucratic tangles that could go on for many more months, meanwhile allowing the utilities to continue their rate of 6,000 radiation-emitting installation of smart meters a day.

By the time the decisions are made for opt-outs, all of them might be fully deployed, using that as a reason not to rock the boat. Perhaps that is the point? Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regulators mustn't do that — and these have their fingers fully in the pie.