The Glendale City Council will tonight consider a proposal by Glendale Water and Power setting smart-meter opt-out fees.

For electric meters, GWP is proposing a one-time fee of $62 dollars to install a radio-off smart meter, and a billing cycle (bi-monthly) charge of $56. For water meters, the proposal is a one-time fee of $55 to turn the radio off, and a recurring $34 billing cycle charge. The fine print, for those who want to opt out of both, or those who currently have an analog meter, is contained in the report. In Glendale, GWP is asking for a decision now, although the CPUC has not come to a final decision.

Meanwhile, the fight against smart meter installations goes on in other parts of the state and around the country. In neighboring Burbank, the Leader carried this update saying city council postponed an opt-out rate decision pending the CPUC’s ruling in February. That ruling is likely to recommend analog meters for customers opting out of the program.

Santa Cruz County’s public health officer just released a smart meter health impact report commissioned by county supervisors. Excerpts (from EMF Safety Network’s summary: “exposure is additive and consumers may have already increased their exposures to radiofrequency radiation in the home through the voluntary use of wireless devices…It would be impossible to know how close a consumer might be to their limit…There are no current, relevant public safety standards for pulsed RF involving chronic exposure of the public…[and] there is no scientific data to determine if there is a safe RF exposure level regarding its non-thermal effects.”

The ACLU is participating in hearings over Vermont state senate bill S214, which would prohibit installation of smart meters without customers’ written consent and allow no-cost removal of smart meters. The Vermont ACLU’s position on smart meter installations includes these points:

• Utility customers should decide for themselves whether they wish to have a smart meter installed at their home. Consent must be renewed every two years but can be revoked by the customer at any time.

• A utility should not charge extra fees if a customer decides not to opt in and have a smart meter installed at his/her home. The savings the customer forgoes because of his/her decision is already a penalty for non-participation. Additionally, extra fees could, because of the classes of people who might decline to opt in, lead to unintentional, and yet still illegal, discrimination.

Nationally, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has issued a statement against wireless smart meters in a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission.

He and other panelists spoke in-depth on aspects of smart meters, the smart grid, radiofrequency, and the California Public Utility Commission’s smart meter opt-out deliberations.

GWP Director Glenn Steiger and Schoedler made clear they hold the opinion that radiofrequency emissions from smart meters, and the wireless mesh network set up to transmit meters signals back to the utility, pose no threat to public health.

Dr. Rajit Gadh, UCLA, spoke about research into transforming the hierarchical nature of the electricity delivery system, electric vehicle pilot projects, and other research at UCLA. Marzia Zafar, California Public Utilities Commission, reported on the status of the opt-out deliberations at the CPUC and made it clear that municipalities and individuals could not unilaterally opt-out and if they wanted to they would have to appeal to their state legislators.

The forum attracted a crowd of about 100, including demonstrators outside. The meeting was disrupted twice at the beginning, but proceeded smoothly after that though there were several disgruntled people who wanted to voice concerns. Questions were instead collected on cards. Despite concerns that these were edited, the moderator did read confrontational questions on radiofrequency emissions’ proximity and safety, costs of/investment in the smart meter/smart grid project, opting out or replacing new meters with analog meters, cybersecurity, and more.

Stieger stated that the home area network (HAN) capability of GWP’s smart meters, which collects and displays detailed real time information about energy usage and costs, is turned off by default and will only be turned on at customer request.

Sunroom Desk noted previously that GWP had conducted extensive public outreach to pitch smart meters to the community. In his PowerPoint presentation, Steiger enumerated the forums, venues, audiences, and media GWP contacted. The sheer number and variety was impressive. If you wanted to reach everyone in Glendale, those slides would be a good guide. Check them out when the video is posted.

Cameras were rolling, and GWP said it would make a video of the entire presentation available online, along with a stand-alone video staff had planned to show during the forum but didn’t to allow more time to answer questions.

In a letter responding to this invitation, and at city council chambers, I noted that panelists could be described in a different way: all except one have a direct conflict of interest, because their research program, their career, or their sales bottom line includes smart meter technology and programs. It is more than likely that customers attending will get another sales pitch for the grand program.

Objections to smart meters and the smart grid include: unknown health effects of constant exposure to wireless, pulsed, digital radiation the devices emit; and violations of privacy because meters collect energy use information several times a day and transmit it back to the utility.

A forum focusing on the significant downsides of smart meters took place last week in Glendale and drew concerned citizens from around Southern California. Ron Kaye wrote about The Arrogance of Power in Sunday’s Glendale News-Press (taking a line from one irate GWP customer), concluding “Listening to members of the audience comment at the end of the program, I came away convinced that there are legitimate questions to be answered and we need a much more robust — and honest — conversation about smart meters and just about everything else that people in authority are imposing on us.” The November 10 forum was also covered in LA Weekly’s Smart Meter Resistance Spreads to SoCal, which advised LADWP customers to “join the zealots at your city’s next council meeting and urge local politicians to do like many NorCal jurisdictions have done already: Pass a moratorium on Smart Meters. At least until they’re proven safe, effective and a little less creepy.”

Selling this project in the face of growing opposition in Glendale, around the state, and around the country continues to be the focus for GWP: two years of community outreach meetings, this year’s weekend “Coffees in the Park”, and now a forum with several heavy hitters in the project, including a representative from the California Public Utilities Commission who claimed in an email to a Burbank resident that “the CPUC has zero authority over municipal utilities.” That claim is actually not true: the CPUC does have authority over municipal utilities when it comes to public safety issues, and those concerned about the long-term impacts of constant exposure to EMFs would certainly classify their worries as a public safety issue.

The CPUC is now sorting out proposals to allow opt-outs for the thousands of customers throughout California who don’t want smart meters. Many opposed to smart meters are asking: “Why should those who don’t want smart meters have to pay extra to opt out?” At the September 14 hearing on opt-outs, an official told the audience that since the CPUC authorized the project, either ratepayers or taxpayers are on the hook for opt-out costs. One member of the audience asked, “Why shouldn’t shareholders bear the cost?” That’s a question that PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E customers can sort out. Where does that leave citizens served by a municipal utility?

The fact is that utilities didn’t have the right to install these meters on people’s residences without their consent.

Sage is a featured speaker at the November 10 Southern California Smart Meter Community Forum in Glendale.

In talks with general audiences, Sage has said:

“Some smart meters will produce RF as high as living directly in the zone 200′ to 600′ away from a major cell tower.”

“Installing millions of RF transmitters in peoples’ homes when we already have substantial scientific evidence about the risks of chronic, low-level RF is a risk not worth taking. Especially without any discussion, or disclosure to the public about trade-offs made without their knowledge or consent.”

“Comparing wireless meters to other wireless devices that are voluntary, and which many people choose not to use is not a fair comparison to government-mandated meters that expose people in their homes 24 hours a day.”

“The costs for having guessed wrong is likely to have enormous economic and public health consequences for Californians for decades to come.”

Sage’s comprehensive computer modeling report on smart meters was released in January of this year. Excerpts are below:

“The installation of wireless ‘smart meters’ in California can produce significantly high levels of radiofrequency radiation (RF) depending on many factors (location of meter(s) in relation to occupied or usable space, duty cycle or frequency of RF transmissions, reflection and re-radiation of RF, multiple meters at one location, collector meters, etc).

Power transmitters that will relay information from appliances inside buildings with wireless smart meters produce high, localized RF pulses. Any appliance that contains a power transmitter (for example, dishwashers, washers, dryers, ranges and ovens, convection ovens, microwave ovens, flash water heaters, refrigerators, etc) will create another ‘layer of RF signals’ that may cumulatively increase RF exposures from the smart meter(s).

It should be emphasized that no single assertion of compliance can adequately cover the vast number of site-specific conditions in which smart meters are installed. These site-specific conditions determine public exposures and thus whether they meet FCC compliance criteria.

…FCC compliance violations are likely to occur under widespread conditions of installation and operation of smart meters and collector meters in California. Violations of FCC safety limits for uncontrolled public access are identified at distances within 6” of the meter. Exposure to the face is possible at this distance, in violation of the time-weighted average safety limits (Tables 10-11). FCC violations are predicted to occur at 60% reflection and 100% reflection factors*, both used in FCC OET 65 formulas for such calculations for time-weighted average limits. Peak power limits are not violated at the 6” distance (looking at the meter) but can be at 3” from the meter, if it is touched.

This report has also assessed the potential for FCC violations based on two examples of RF exposures in a typical residence. RF levels have been calculated at distances of 11” (to represent a nursery or bedroom with a crib or bed against a wall opposite one or more meters); and at 28” (to represent a kitchen work space with one or more meters installed on the kitchen wall).

FCC compliance violations are identified at 11” in a nursery or bedroom setting using Equation 10* of the FCC OET 65 regulations (Tables 12-13). These violations are predicted to occur where there are multiple smart meters, or one collector meter, or one collector meter mounted together with several smart meters.

FCC compliance violations are not predicted at 28” in the kitchen work space for 60% or for 100% reflection calculations. Violations of FCC public safety limits are predicted for higher reflection factors of 1000% and 2000%, which are not a part of FCC OET 65 formulas, but are included here to allow for situations where site-specific conditions (highly reflective environments, for example, galley-type kitchens with many highly reflective stainless steel or other metallic surfaces) may be warranted (see Methodology Section).

In addition to exceeding FCC public safety limits under some conditions of installation and operation, smart meters can produce excessively elevated RF exposures, depending on where they are installed. With respect to absolute RF exposure levels predicted for occupied space within dwellings, or outside areas like patios, gardens and walk-ways, RF levels are predicted to be substantially elevated within a few feet to within a few tens of feet from the meter(s).

For example, one smart meter at 11” from occupied space produces somewhere between 1.4 and 140 microwatts per centimeter squared (uW/cm2) depending on the duty cycle modeled (Table 12). Since FCC OET 65 specifies that continuous exposure be assumed where the public cannot be excluded (such as is applicable to one’s home), this calculation produces an RF level of 140 uW/cm2 at 11” using the FCCs lowest reflection factor of 60%. Using the FCC’s reflection factor of 100%, the figures rise to 2.2 uW/cm2 – 218 uW/cm2, where the continuous exposure calculation is 218 uW/cm2 (Table 12). These are very significantly elevated RF exposures in comparison to typical individual exposures in daily life.

Multiple smart meters in the nursery/bedroom example at 11” are predicted to generate RF levels from about 5 to 481 uW/cm2 at the lowest (60%) reflection factor; and 7.5 to 751 uW/cm2 using the FCCs 100% reflection factor (Table 13). Such levels are far above typical public exposures.

RF levels at 28” in the kitchen work space are also predicted to be significantly elevated with one or more smart meters (or a collector meter alone or in combination with multiple smart meters). At 28” distance, RF levels are predicted in the kitchen example to be as high as 21 uW/cm2 from a single meter and as high as 54.5 uW/cm2 with multiple smart meters using the lower of the FCCs reflection factor of 60% (Table 14).

Using the FCCs higher reflection factor of 100%, the RF levels are predicted to be as high as 33.8 uW/cm2 for a single meter and as high as 85.8 uW/cm2 for multiple smart meters (Table 14). For a single collector meter, the range is 60.9 to 95.2 uW/cm2 (at 60% and 100% reflection factors, respectively) (from Table 15).

Table 16 illustrates predicted violations of peak power limit (4000 uW/cm2) at 3” from the surface of a meter. FCC violations of peak power limit are predicted to occur for a single collector meter at both 60% and 100% reflection factors. This situation might occur if someone touches a smart meter or stands directly in front.

Uncertainty About Actual RF Levels

Consumers may also have already increased their exposures to radiofrequency radiation in the home through the voluntary use of wireless devices (cell and cordless phones), PDAs like BlackBerry and iPhones, wireless routers for wireless internet access, wireless home security systems, wireless baby surveillance (baby monitors), and other emerging wireless applications.

Neither the FCC, the CPUC, the utility nor the consumer know what portion of the allowable public safety limit is already being used up or pre-empted by RF from other sources already present in the particular location a smart meter may be installed and operated.

Consumers, for whatever personal reason, choice or necessity who have already eliminated all possible wireless exposures from their property and lives, may now face excessively high RF exposures in their homes from smart meters.

Adding up all these millisecond bursts of pulsed, digital signals amounts, apparently, to about 45 seconds. But the fact is, these signals are almost continuous.

Says the San Francisco Chronicle report: “…the sheer volume of transmissions will likely anger people who consider the radiation from cell phones, Wi-Fi computers and Smart Meters to be a health hazard. PG&E has often countered their criticism by noting that the digital meters don’t transmit continuously.The company, which has installed 8.7 million of the meters, maintains that their signals pose no threat. And of course the entire notion that wireless signals can be dangerous remains fiercely contested.”

The EMF Safety Network adds: “How about peak power figures? The PG&E electric meter transmits at 900MHz with 1 watt of transmit power. It has an antennae gain 4.0 dBi for a peak level power of 2.5 watts. That’s two and a half times more than their safety data stated.”

The EMF Safety Network post concludes that PG&E’s own numbers now confirm Sage Associates’ estimates of smart meter emissions. Sage Associates’ analysis was apparently so credible that the Electric Power Research Institute was compelled to try and refute it. GWP has posted that rebuttal on its Smart Meter Radio Frequency FAQ page. They have not posted Sage’s response to the EPRI paper.

Cindy Sage, principal of Sage Associates, is a presenter at the November 10 Smart Meter Community Forum to be held here in Glendale. Sunroom Desk will have more on her research in an upcoming post.

Utility customers had public health and privacy concerns. The workshop also focused on cybersecurity, since the wireless meters introduce new risks to the grid.

Were consumers citizens ever asked if we wanted appliances that would track each household’s real-time usage and send reports about it back to the utility company?

The link above says this decision was made at high levels without consulting we the people. It is written by Cindy Sage, principal of an environmental consulting firm that specializes in the effects of electro-magnetic fields. Sage will be speaking at the November 10 Southern California Smart Meter community forum here in Glendale.

1. What is an average duration (in seconds) that a residential
smart meter transmits in a 24 hour period?
a. How is this average computed or measured?
2. How many times in total (average and maximum) is a
smart meter scheduled to transmit during a 24-hour
period?
a. How many of those times (average and maximum) are
to transmit electric usage information?
b. How many of those times (average and maximum) are
for other purposes? What are those other purposes?
Please specify number of times (average and maximum)
by type/category of transmission.
3. Under what scenarios does a meter transmit outside of the
daily schedule, i.e., unscheduled transmission such as
on-demand read, tamper/theft alert, last gasp, firmware
upgrade etc.?
4. Typically, how much of the communication between the
customer’s meter and the utility is unscheduled vs.
scheduled?
5. Are there any other factors that go into determining
duration and/or frequency of meter transmissions (e.g., if a
meter can’t access the network when it’s trying to send
data, type of a meter etc.)? If yes, please identify these
factors.
6. What is the amount of RF emission at the source when a
meter is transmitting data (instantaneous maximum peak
level, averaged over 30 minutes)?
7. Does the amount of RF emission vary depending on
duration of transmission/volume of data being sent? For
example, are RF emissions higher when there is a larger
volume of data to be transmitted?
8. Are there any other factors that impact the amount of RF
emissions? If so, please identify the factor(s) and its impact
on RF emissions.
9. Is there RF emission when the meter is not transmitting? If
yes, what is the amount of RF emission?
10. Is there a difference in the amount of RF emissions for a
wireless smart meter with the radio off and a smart meter
with the radio out? If yes, what is that difference and how
is it calculated?
11. Is there a difference in the amount of RF emissions for a
wireless smart meter with the radio off and an analog
meter? If yes, what is that difference and how is it
calculated?

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

More Thoughts on Wednesday’s CPUC “Opt Out” Workshop