"Meter readers" have their day
Forum comments on the opt-out option
I'll turn the floor over to our readers today as we close a week in which the California Public Utilities Commission approved a smart meter opt-out plan for Pacific Gas & Electric. The rather surprising choice of analog meters as the single opt-out option was the choice demanded by PG&E's opponents, who claim that RF emissions from smart meters harm their health—contrary to all evidence, including no health effects reported for millions of other meters elsewhere in the country.
Folks, forgive me, but one more point here. No sooner had the CPUC ruled in the complainants' favor and adopted their preferred solution, when the complainants began agitating for all ratepayers to cover the cost of their selfish demands, which cannot be established by facts. The CPUC has yet to rule on that issue as well as whether entire communities can opt out. Suppose these folks "win" on both points.
Suppose that Fairfax, Calif., population 7,000, estimated median household income $89,000—which is 50 percent higher than their fellow Californians—wins and the rest of PG&E's ratepayers pick up the tab. Say that the opt-out cost ends up at $135 up front and $20 per month (these convenient numbers are the least-cost estimates). If there are three people to each meter, that would add $2.6 million to fellow citizens' bills the first year.
Suppose that Marin, Lake and Mendocino counties—officially part of the CPUC/PG&E case—were to "win." That's 400,000 people, or, say, 133,000 meters at $375 a pop in the first year. That's $50 million in costs the first year alone. All paid by fellow ratepayers. This back-of-napkin math does not include costs from a system with 133,000 holes in it.
Hey, if you want to "live in the dark," as one reader has painted it, be our guest. When you cannot produce bona fide evidence of harm, do not ask me to pay for your shenanigans. This clearly is where the train wreck begins. I can't wait to see how the CPUC handles these two issues.
I made too many points this week to recap here, but you can revisit the three columns that ran this week: "California: A Future With . Analog Meters," "PG&E Smart Meter Opt-out: Decision By Regulators" and "California: Mob Rule on Analog Opt-out Solution?"
Below, a selection of choice reader commentary, as the week developed, leading to the CPUC's Wednesday decision. On Tuesday, we received these (edited) comments:
"I'd love to see a survey of the members of the various groups opposed to smart meters (based on RF concerns) and see what percentage of them own cell phones and/or have wireless routers in their house," one reader wrote.
"The debate and bickering and mis-representation of data will never end if PUCs don't end it," wrote another. "Those with health effects, real or imagined, have access to opt-out programs that have been vetted by the PUCs. Your example of not trusting that radios have been turned off [on opt-out premises] is a perfect example of the irrationality that has infected the dialogue."
"Personally I don't fear smart meters," another reader wrote. "But it is obvious some things in our modern society are killing us versus less developed societies. The statistics show that. What are they? Some argue low level RF, some food preservatives, some our pollution. Be careful what you mock."
On Wednesday, as the CPUC held a regular meeting to consider its decision on PG&E's opt-out proposal, we got another earful. (Okay, I did use the term "mob rule" in my headline.)
"I believe that were the powers that be to step back and reconsider the roles of consumers, communities, cities and utilities, they could open a dialogue that would shift the conversation from how to make the utility grid more efficient to how to open up the energy system to an entirely new cast of characters," one reader said. "We all could contemplate ... the addition of new energy technologies that provide more energy independence [for households], not merely superior metering and billing and grid operations that continue utility (monopoly) predominance."
Another reader reiterated the fear that meters will lead to coercive social experiments.
"The concern I have with the push to smart meters is that once there is sufficient penetration of the meters into the electrical consumer base, one or more of the federal agencies will promulgate a regulation mandating time-of-use billing," wrote another reader. "While on its face, this seems like the logical and fair thing to do, it will drastically impact retirees or households where there is a stay-at-home family member, perhaps due to illness or disability. It will also drastically impact small businesses and commercial enterprises that do business primarily during the day and early evening."
Another reader saw stalemate and failure to capitalize on consumer benefits from smart meters in all this discussion.
"I'm not as confident as you are that widespread adoption of interval meters in California will do much more than inflate utility rate base," wrote one reader. "There's been a lot of stalling and a lot of equivocation by the utilities when it comes to providing consumers with usage and price data. Even if consumers are provided with the data, I'm not seeing the same kind of effort Oklahoma Gas & Electric has put forth to make sure consumers get some benefit from more sensible pricing plans that might actually defer the need for new infrastructure. I fear California is a lost cause."
On that optimistic note, we'll close out the week. Thanks to all contributors for reading and writing, whether or not we cited your comments.
Phil Carson
Editor-in-chief
Intelligent Utility Daily
pcarson@energycentral.com
303-228-4757
