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 quote above concludes a 4-page California Division of Ratepayer Advocates critique of the California Council of Science and Technology’s report Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters. The DRA, a state agency whose mission is to advocate for utility customers and environmental protection, cites problems with the report, including the CCST’s inattention to evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radio frequencies in the range of those emitted by smart meters and other devices.

Consultant Jonathan Kramer recommended an approach Glendale has already taken:

He recommended cities have a very strong application process so that applicants must meet all the requirements at the start of the application process in order to avoid incomplete applications that would slow the discretionary review process.

Council members also discussed Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS), proliferation, aesthetics, and RF compliance.

Flynn said that communities throughout the state have “an intensively emotional response to these cell sites, mainly focused on the issue of radio frequency emissions, which is legally irrelevant.” Interpretation: with the law on their side, corporations can disregard widespread public concern about cell towers and label it “irrelevant.”

Flynn referred to a property value appraisal commissioned by T-Mobile and submitted as part of the application. He neglected to mention that the appraisal referenced properties far outside the neighborhood where the cell site was planned, making it completely “irrelevant” to residents. He also said the service provider targeted this site to fill a need for service. But residents who studied the application’s coverage maps found they were outdated and didn’t reference other nearby facilities.

He asked the supervisors to approve the installation “because of the law,” apparently referring to the limited jurisdiction state and federal law gives to municipalities to regulate wireless facilities. The message in that phrase appears to be “the rules are on our side and we have the right to force our way into communities whether they like it or not.”

As I wrote in an earlier post, the wireless industry public relations playbook needs a serious upgrade. The wireless industry needs to work with communities to find appropriate sites for wireless facilities.

John Flynn’s comments from the meeting transcript/video below:

There are a couple of so-called big picture or perspective items that I’d like to focus on in my very brief comments this morning. I’ve been all over the state representing T-Mobile and other wireless service providers on matters very, very similar to this one and I know that the task you face this morning is not an easy one. When a service provider has a need that has got to be filled, as we do in this case, and we’ve chosen the least intrusive means to do it, you’re still going to get, because there’s no such thing as a perfect solution, you will still get an intensely emotional response to these cell sites, mainly focused on the issue of radio frequency emissions, which is legally irrelevant. Putting aside the fact that there really isn’t a solid scientific basis for believing that it’s going to cause anybody any harm, but it does elicit an emotional response..and we can’t deny that. But these companies, T-Mobile included, of course, try very, very hard to find the least intrusive means to take care of their customers’ needs. And they have done so in this case. There’s no perfect solution. There is no solution that’s going to make everybody happy. But in this case, we have identified the least intrusive means. We do have a significant gap that’s got to be filled. And we are asking you to approve this facility because of that need, because of the law, because of the facts. And as I said, I will be available to answer any questions the board might have. The members of the Board might have on the related legal issues. Two things I want to add, however, before I terminate my remarks. One is that property values have been raised in this case. We’ve submitted an appraisal. We believe it’s an adequate appraisal. And I believe we’re going to be submitting a letter responding to one of the appraisal issues raised by one of the planning commissioners at the last meeting. Property values would not even be an issue in this case if not for the concern expressed about radio frequency emissions. You’ve got a tough choice in this case today. You’ve got some voters on the one hand. You’ve got a corporation on the other hand. But it’s not just a corporation. We’ve got customers who have coverage needs. We’ve got to satisfy those. And we have identified the least intrusive means for doing so. Thank you for your attention.

The school district resolution mentions concerns about “radio-frequency emissions as they relate to multiple-transmitter sites and complex environments whereby all significant contributions to environmental exposures are cumulatively considered”.

It also calls for “responsible deployment of fiber optic broadband technology, which is superior to wireless technology in speed, reliability, security, durability and protections it affords people and the environment from the potential hazards of exposure to radio-frequency radiation”.

Check page 5 of the agenda, Item 26 for the full text of the resolution.