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.

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.

Passarella highlighted questions about health, privacy, security, and need for the meters. He spoke at 1 hour, 30 minutes into the meeting; his comments can be viewed on the City of Glendale September 27, 2011 meeting video.

At the September Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council meeting, the vote was 8-2 to hold a community forum on this subject. GWP sent two representatives to that meeting, and although they weren’t on the schedule, they spoke about smart meter benefits. While a small minority supported them, the majority at the meeting were upset about the program.

Comments from homeowners to the GWP representatives included:
“I don’t need something with bells and whistles.”
“You let the horse out of the barn and now you’re trying to lock up the barn.”
“We’re already savvy.”
“The vast majority of residents are not even aware they have smart meters.”
“I think the [GWP smart meter] program is very punitive. I have a family of 7 — my dad has Alzheimer’s, and I work out of my home. I opted out. My grandkids play in the back yard. This program is being shoved down my throat and [with the GWP opt out program that may involve fees] I will have to pay for my grandchildren not to have cancer. It is very punitive and I’m very unhappy.”

When the fact emerged that GWP had set up a “do not install” list, and only those who happened to write or call in and ask about it had learned this was an option, people were again upset. Several then wanted to know if they now had a right to opt out, and why they were never told that they could opt out.

According to Martin Powers, GWP is waiting to hear what the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will decide for PG&E customers who don’t want smart meters. This is a heated issue: PG&E customers have been relentless in criticizing the universal roll-out of smart meters in Northern California. GWP is not bound by the CPUC’s decision but Powers indicated that it would be easier to adopt a similar policy.

The financial aspect of GWP’s smart grid investment was also touched on at the Glendale homeowners meeting – more on that in an upcoming post.

Glendale residents should be aware that this is a state-wide and nation-wide issue. Citizens everywhere are upset about this roll-out, the technology, and its implications, and their sustained activism is the only reason the CPUC now has this issue on its docket.

A CPUC administrative law judge has been holding regular hearings on proposals for smart meter opt-outs. Just last week, CPUC ruled that SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E are required to offer delay lists to customers until a smart meter opt-out proposal is approved.

The CPUC is holding a rare Southern California meeting in Los Angeles on October 6; residents here opposed to smart meters can speak up against them during Public Comment (Location, time, and background information here: http://burbankaction.wordpress.com/calendar/).

Smart meters aren’t worth the money we’ve spent and will spend on them, they may pose long-term public health risks we don’t know about yet, their wireless transmissions are more vulnerable to hacking than a wired network, and their roll-out is premature.

A total of 43 city and county governments in California have taken action to oppose smart meters in their communities, while 13 have adopted ordinances or moratoriums making installations illegal. Residents in some communities have formed barricades and risked arrest to prevent installations. (Here is a report of a San Diego protest just last week.) Other states are considering opt-out provisions as is the California Public Utilities Commission, due to sustained citizen outcry. Two weeks ago, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to send a letter to the CPUC requesting a free opt-out option (the list of city and county governments linked to above does not include Santa Barbara County). Last week, the Buellton City Council voted to do the same.

Glendale Water and Power says that it will consider an opt-out program, but that customers who opt out will likely pay extra fees each month. Why? Citizens have many valid objections to smart meters that have not been fully addressed. Those who opt out of smart meter installations shouldn’t be charged a penny extra if they refuse a product that isn’t proven to be safe and secure, or truly effective in its stated purpose of conserving energy.

Selected smart meter programs around the country have been subsidized by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Yes, the installation jobs “trickle down” and yes, technicians in Glendale are being trained and employed to do this work, but those reaping the greatest benefits are the businesses who developed and manufacture the devices and technology and the utilities who install them. Glendale taxpayers have footed their share of approximately $4 billion to subsidize installation of smart meters and their networks around the country; $20 million of that was awarded to GWP in a federal grant. The program will cost Glendale an estimated $71 million (see page 66 of the GWP budget report), leaving a $50 million balance GWP will have to recover, most of it likely from ratepayers. That is a great deal of money for a technology that primarily benefits the utility organization, which will use it to balance demand and set tiered pricing in the years ahead as more people drive electric cars and recharge them at night.

While the smart grid is something we need to build, smart meters are an exercise in micromanagement. The whole pitch to customers falls short. I don’t need or want another electronic device or software giving me this information. If I want to save on my electric bill, I’ll turn off the lights or unplug some appliances. Smart meters don’t conserve energy directly and their touted energy conservation incentives are unproven. Smart meters do send radiowaves inside buildings day and night to collect detailed electricity usage information from appliances. Older appliances that lack meter communication radios installed won’t provide that data. Property owners who want to keep additional sources of radio frequency energy out of their homes will not be able to switch off the incoming signals. Smart meters also transmit detailed usage data on each customer to the utility via a dedicated wireless “mesh” network.

As a private citizen focused on cell tower issues when the smart meter proposal surfaced two years ago, I wondered why the city was pursuing this initiative when residents had expressed concerns about the proliferation of wireless technology transmissions, and Glendale City Council had sent a comment to the FCC, stating that local jurisdictions were concerned about the reliability of federal standards for long-term exposure to radiofrequency emissions.

Such concerns are often dismissed by industry and utility interests. Glenn Steiger’s letter to the Glendale News-Press last week states that “these concerns are based on unfounded reports and claims found on the Internet that have no scientific support.” Here’s a video found on the Internet, of Harvard-trained M.D. and Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Albany David Carpenter commenting on smart meters. Excerpt – “The question to ask them is: ‘What is the evidence that smart meters are safe?’ And the answer to that question is: ‘There is none.’”

Also found on the Internet is the GWP website smart meter FAQ page, which states: “the amount of RF energy emitted by smart meters is not harmful.” That is not a known fact, just an assertion based on lack of evidence to date. The webpage contains links to more studies found on the Internet, including a commissioned report from the California Council on Science and Technology, which GWP says backs claims that smart meters pose no harm. There are detailed rebuttals to these studies not listed on GWP’s website. In fact, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, a California state agency, criticized the CCST’s report for not considering findings from a set of studies known as the Bioinitiative Report. Here are excerpts from several other critiques of the CCST smart meter report. [Reader alert: the rest of the sources linked to in this paragraph are difficult to follow unless you have an electrical engineering background.] GWP links to two Electric Power Research Institute documents which discuss estimates of radio frequency exposures from smart meters; the later document responds to criticism of EPRI’s methodology and findings. GWP doesn’t provide the link to that criticism (here it is: Assessment of Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Emissions from Smart Meters) or to the response Sage Associates drafted to EPRI’s response (here it is: Sage Associates Response).

The technical details are challenging. Here are two points the general public can easily understand:
1. Smart meters are controlled by the utility and operate 24/7, while other transmitting devices like cell phones and wi-fi can be switched off if users have concerns;
2. It is industry professionals who are trying to persuade us that the blanketing of our home, business, school, commercial and community environments with wireless transmissions is harmless.

There are significant privacy concerns with smart meters. Proposed CPUC Rules to Protect the Privacy and Security of Electricity Usage Data were just released July 1. Network security is another concern. Smart meter networks are being deployed before these issues have been worked out.

If the smart grid – a separate national project to transmit electricity efficiently where it is needed – requires detailed information on every customer’s appliance and energy usage, that information should be transmitted securely over fiber optic wires, but a more secure wired network is far too expensive at this time.

Our nation’s utilities should be investing in a higher-priority goal: developing sustainable, secure sources of energy and the means to efficiently transmit electricity wherever it is needed. Instead, taxpayers are on the hook for an expensive micromanagement project that doesn’t address this priority. Just because smart meters were “shovel ready” doesn’t mean they were a good investment. If they were, wouldn’t the utilities have been able to sell these devices to their customers? GWP’s push to install smart meters isn’t in the best interests of its customers, the taxpayers and ratepayers of Glendale.

Other resources:
Burbank ACTION (Against Cell Towers in our Neighborhood) Wireless Smart Meter Concerns

Think Twice About Smart Meters – letter to the Editor, July 1, 2011, Portland Daily Sun (Maine)

The website shows it is a refrigerator-sized device that converts natural gas to electrical energy.

I followed up with an email query to Glendale Water and Power, and Public Benefits Coordinator Atineh Haroutounian explained how the utility would deal with such a device installed on a Glendale property:

“GWP does not have any contacts or agreements with vendors or cooperative programs for the installation of Fuel Cell Systems. GWP’s policy is that our customers are allowed to put a fuel cell on their property, but customers have to go through an extensive permit process including signing an interconnection agreement with the utility. An interconnection agreement states that any excess power the customer generates they have to sell back to GWP. Also customers would have to have their electrical rate changed to a Time of Use rate, which means they would pay higher rates during the peak period of the day (8am – 9pm). GWP will balance their bills annually, at the end of the year, which means if the customer generates more power than they use, then GWP would give them a credit for the excess power generated at the current fuel adjustment rate.”

Now we know.

Note that this exemption is only for individual PG&E customers. The CPUC has not addressed the official opposition of many local governments in Northern and Central California to smart meter installations within their jurisdictions. Pressure’s On the CPUC as 32 CA Cities and Counties Say NO, reports on the issues and protest actions up north.

The CPUC claims there are no concerns or complaints in other parts of California. According to this report on the controversy in Smart Grid Electronics Forum, CPUC Chair Michael Peevey said:

“We have not had complaints about radio frequency emissions or other concerns about smart meters from customers of other utilities in California.”

Peevey is misinformed. Burbank residents have asked detailed questions about its smart meter rollout, created this smart meter concerns page, and sent comments to the CPUC. San Diego utility customers have sent in complaints as well. This editor has posed a number of detailed questions to Glendale Water and Power, and received two responses, posted here and here. Sunroom Desk is still awaiting a response to its third set of questions posed to GWP.

Activists in the Bay Area believe the CPUC’s belated concession is inadequate, and contend that utilities should never have undertaken these installations. They continue to call for a complete moratorium on installations, and independent studies on the privacy, health, and other impacts of wireless smart meters.

Residents in Southern California who believe CPUC opt-out provisions should be offered state-wide (i.e., to Edison, Glendale Water and Power, and other customers), can send a comment before March 24 to the CPUC at Public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov.

Determined citizens insist that the federal government, California Public Utilities Commission, and industry leaders haven’t studied the health, security, and other issues surrounding the mass roll-out of smart meter wireless technology. The CPUC has dismissed citizen petitions, even as the California Division of Ratepayer Advocates has called for a substantive review. Stop Smart Meters published this review of one citizen’s campaign after Monterey’s decision.

Glendale Water and Power continues its smart meter rollout, and announced “Coffee with GWP” meetings at city parks to discuss the smart meter installations and energy efficiency programs. The first is this Saturday, March 5, at Maple Park. This GWP webpage has the complete schedule.

Citizens in more than 27 California communities have asserted that the wireless meters (which emit pulsed microwaves) pose potential health and security risks, and local governments have responded with resolutions or moratoriums. San Francisco residents are mobilizing against upcoming PG&E installations in their community.

Why are people in California and across the country opposed to these meters? Click on that link above for a comprehensive list of reasons and resources. Also, check out several posts on Sunroom Desk tagged Smart Meters.

California Assembly member Jared Huffman has proposed state legislation (AB 37) requiring a wired smart meter option for utility customers.

Glendale Water and Power recently announced that newly installed water smart meters identified two big water leaks: “one at a multi-family apartment complex which was losing about 250 gallons of water per hour, and the second one at a commercial property that was losing about 450 gallons per hour.”

I still haven’t gotten the latest GWP bill covering however long my household water heater was leaking (I only noticed when I could get no hot water at all). There are some consumer benefits to “smart meters” in an era of water and energy insecurity, but are wireless smart meters and a rushed nationwide roll-out worth the cost (with GWP’s project funded only in part by a federal stimulus grant)?