PG&E smart meter opt-out: decision by regulators

Phil Carson | Jan 30, 2012

 

Today and tomorrow we'll have a look at a proposed decision by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on Pacific Gas & Electric's proposed solution on the issue of consumers who wish to opt out of wireless smart meter installation on their residence.

It's worth devoting a two-part column to this topic, because the California proceedings generally address most of the current arguments raised against wireless smart meters across the country. Again, keep in mind that the issues and proposed solutions below pertain only to PG&E. 

Although this topic receives extensive coverage, and meter opt-outs around the country don't see the numbers apparently found in pockets of California, I see several embedded issues that cannot be ignored.

First, do customers have the right to opt out of having an RF-transmitting meter installed on their home? Yes, and states have been reaffirming this notion. Second, are regulators going the extra mile to explore all issues raised by opponents? Again, yes, and the California case illustrates this to an extent that calls into question whether facts still play a role in public discourse. Third, and most importantly, does the California case reflect that this issue represents a potential threat to grid modernization and energy policies in general? It appears that the CPUC has had this possibility in mind as it crafted its position.

Note that a vote on the CPUC's proposed decision on PG&E's approach takes place at the CPUC headquarters in San Francisco tomorrow. (Unless a hold is put on the issue today.)

Here's the link to the proposed decision for PG&E and here's a link to remotely watch and listen to the proceedings via a Web link.

Let's begin by reviewing highlights of the CPUC's proposed decision and findings of fact, then delve into some of the details behind the decision.

The CPUC said that a residential customer should be allowed to opt out of having a wireless smart meter "for any reason, or for no reason."

A review of smart meters' radio frequency emissions found that they comply with the Federal Communications Commission's standards.

"The best opt-out option ... must balance the concerns expressed by customers against California's overall energy policy," the CPUC stated, mindful of the potential for groups or individuals to use the opt-out mechanism to derail an entire state's energy goals and policies. Indeed, the CPUC stated: "Allowing residential customers ... to opt out ... should not impede ongoing state energy objectives."

Further, "it is important that the selected opt-out option has the capability to allow customers to take advantage of smart grid benefits."

A wired smart meter option is neither cost effective nor currently technologically feasible compared to other options, the CPUC found.

Although a non-communicating meter is the preferred opt-out option, it is appropriate to adopt an analog meter opt-out option.

Insufficient evidence precludes a ruling on whether to allow entire communities to opt out.

Residential customers opting out must pay an initial charge and a monthly charge to cover the costs of the option.

That's the gist of the proposed decision. The background, however, provides insight into just how far objections have gone and the factual backstops the CPUC has employed to reach a timely decision. This portion of the column, accompanied at some point by my bloviating, will run into tomorrow's column, to create a useful record of how one state commission dealt with these issues.

First up is the issue of cost. While the CPUC found that opt-out customers should pay related costs, it also stated that the issue is far from settled.

"Whether some portion of these costs should also be allocated to all ratepayers or PG&E shareholders will be addressed in a separate phase of this proceeding," the CPUC said. (Will the vast majority step forward and insist it won't pay for others' opt-out costs?)

Here's a list of entities protesting PG&E's proposed solution and who may object to the CPUC's decision in the case:

• Ecological Options Network (EON)
• Lake County
• Mendocino County
• Aglet Consumer Alliance
• EMF Safety Network
• The Utility Reform Network (TURN)
• Fairfax, Calif.
• Alliance for Human and Environmental Health
• Marin County
• Wilner and Associates
• Alameda County Residents Concerned About Smart Meters

 

The Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) also filed a "timely response" to PG&E's proposed solution.

In its application for policies to address the opt-out issue, PG&E proposed two opt-out options, the first was to deactivate the radio in the smart meter, the second was to relocate the meter to a different spot on a residence.

Further, PG&E explained that the "radio-off alternative" was the most feasible and least cost. (Other options considered included a wired meter and a legacy, analog meter.)

PG&E argued that the "radio-off" option had practical benefits because it could rely on smart meters already installed or purchased for deployment. Smart meters with wired connections aren't feasible as they aren't available for gas meters and limited in availability for electricity. A non-communicating smart meter (no radio installed) didn't make sense because that's the same as the "radio-off" option, according to PG&E. Lastly, the utility said, analog meters are no longer being manufactured—and, besides, analog meters could not provide interval data to implement California's policies demanding mandatory time-of-use rates.

The EMF Safety Network, EON and the town of Fairfax all objected to PG&E's proposed solution, arguing that RF transmissions are "a small part" of a smart meter's RF emissions. Only analog meters would meet their approval, these entities said. The Division of Ratepayer Advocates suggested considering "alternative metering systems" to preserve smart meters' functional benefits. Lake County argued that "widespread installation" of smart meters "could" lead to violations of FCC emissions standards. TURN stated that while the "radio-off" option would answer concerns over RF emissions and privacy, meter accuracy remained an issue. The EMF Safety Network added that the "radio-off" option was not acceptable because the customer could not be sure that the radio had, in fact, been turned off.

Do readers get that last part? The group is certain that its members and allies suffer grievously from smart meter RF emissions and want the emissions to stop. Yet the group claims that no one can tell whether the meter has had its RF module turned off. Would not a cessation of symptoms settle that question? 

We'll finish up tomorrow. So far, we have a commission willing to explore whether all customers ought to share the cost of providing opt-out options to a minority of customers that don't accept FCC standards on RF emissions, don't accept factual information on the frequency and intensity of those emissions (all well within FCC standards), don't accept the results of third-party demonstrations of meter accuracy and don't accept anyone's word that an RF module has been turned off. They will not even trust their own line of reasoning to determine whether they are suffering as they claim to be. 

Apart from actual, tangible issues involved here, I think readers will recognize that if someone takes these stances, then facts mean nothing and absolutely nothing will satisfy them. Thus these groups have established untenable, unworkable stances that translate to their way or endless bickering.

That would be a shame for PG&E, for the CPUC, for the state of California and its ambitious and laudable energy goals and - perhaps most importantly—for the vast majority of Californians who have demanded from their regulators a path to control their personal energy usage and to reduce the collective need for additional power plants, to increase the use of renewable energy and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Fortunately, in the face of all this, the CPUC is poised to act.

Tomorrow, we'll look at the factual findings around some of the objections filed in this case. California's findings may help others. 

Meanwhile, here are links to a few other recent columns on the smart meter opt-out issue from our archives.

"Smart Meter Opposition Saga, Continued"

"Smart Meters = Tip of the Iceberg"

Phil Carson
Editor-in-chief
Intelligent Utility Daily
pcarson@energycentral.com
303-228-4757