.
Feedback

PG&E Submits Smart Meter Opt-Out, But Wants to Charge for It

In an effort to appease critics of the wireless devices, utility giant serves up proposal that would force those who don't want to use them to pay for it.

PG&E has submitted a proposal that would charge customers an upfront fee, plus monthly fees and an exit fee, for those who want to opt out of the utility's .

The company submitted its proposal on Thursday to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in response to a  requiring PG&E to provide options for residents with concerns about the SmartMeters.

Opponents of the wireless devices, which are meant to reduce energy consumption by monitoring utility use and transmitting the information in real time, argue the radio frequency waves emitted by the meters are detrimental to their health.

PG&E's proposal would give customers the option of having PG&E turn off or disable the radios inside their SmartMeters, which would eliminate the radio frequency, according to company.

The utility proposed charging $135 to $270 upfront to have an employee turn off the meters, plus a $14 to $20 monthly fee to keep it off. Customers could choose to pay a per-kilowatt-hour fee instead of the fixed monthly fee.

PG&E would also charge customers an exit fee when they terminate service so future customers could use the SmartMeters.

The utility estimated that about 145,800 customers could choose to have the meters turned off over the next two years, causing an estimated $84.4 million in capital costs and expenses.

The costs include sending personnel to turn off the meters, sending meter readers to manually check the modified meters every month, and upgrading the rest of the SmartMeter radio frequency network to compensate for any network degradation caused by the turned-off radios.

In San Anselmo and Fairfax, less than half of the SmartMeters have been installed. According to PG&E meter installation data through March 4, PG&E has installed 2,079 gas SmartMeters, or 32.8 percent of the 6,336 total gas meters at residences and businesses in the city. For electric meters, PG&E has installed 2,297 SmartMeters, or 33.4 percent of the 6,886 total electric meters in the city.

In Fairfax, where recently won the Local Government Ordinance of the Year award from PublicCEO, fewer of the meters have been installed. According to the same PG&E data as of March 4, 217 gas SmartMeters, or 5.5 percent of the 3,886 of the total gas meters in the city. For electric meters, PG&E has installed just 67, or 1.6 percent of the 4,178 total electric meters in Fairfax.

According to the proposal presented by PG&E, customers can also ask to have their SmartMeters moved to different locations on their property at estimated costs of $2,500 to $4,500 for overhead-meter customers and $6,000 to $11,000 for underground customers.

PG&E's net income in 2010 was $1.1 billion.

As of March 1, the utility had installed 7.7 million gas and electric SmartMeters in the state, which it says only transmit radio waves for milliseconds at a time and for very short durations. In Fairfax, it has said the meters are not yet transmitting.

The company estimates exposure to the low-frequency waves total about 45 seconds every 24 hours - much less than cell phones and microwave ovens. Read about how the meters work .

Some residents remain skeptical of PG&E's estimates, though, and say a more thorough independent review should be done before the SmartMeters are thrust upon them.

Speakers packed a CPUC meeting in San Francisco on Thursday and described health conditions they and their loved ones had suffered since the SmartMeters were installed. Many called the proposed charges a form of extortion.

"I shouldn't have to pay more for the right to opt out of irradiation," Petaluma resident Dana Davis said before details of the proposed fee structure had been released.

Davis said she didn't have a SmartMeter and didn't want one, while other residents described experiencing migraines, heart palpitations, and sleep problems after receiving the devices.

Some speakers questioned the effectiveness of the proposed opt-out program in reducing radiation given that other meters would be modified to compensate for those that had been disabled.

--Bay City News Service

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Anselmo-Fairfax Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jessica Mullins (Editor) May 15, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Thanks for the feedback, John. To my knowledge, we don't have a comments stream anywhere. DefinitelyRead More submit your comments here (it's the most efficient way to get your thoughts heard at the higher level): http://ow.ly/l4cyg
M. Kathryn Thompson May 21, 2013 at 09:54 am
Dr. Gullion is also lovely with men who get breast cancer as my husband did, he's the best!
Bren April 22, 2013 at 04:13 pm
Is anybody else here getting multiple e-mail notifications of new comments by Jo Tog, and thenRead More clicking the link, only to find that they are actually old comments from Jo Tog, but with today's date on them? What's the deal? Did all his comments get flagged and deleted, and now he's re-posting them? Most curious.
Sierra Salin April 22, 2013 at 02:02 pm
Jo Trog, we live in a Corporatocracy, not a republic. We abdicated the Republic after 9/11, if notRead More before. Know the difference.
Hiba April 21, 2013 at 06:52 pm
Banning the sale in a free market economy is too strong. I believe people should be able to chooseRead More so long as the product is labeled correctly, and even placed in a section with a big sign that says "GM Food products". Would I buy it if I pass the section at the grocery store: NO.
A May 4, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Many people in Marin are already at 50% or more of their entire income to pay for housing. And weRead More have no rent control here in Marin which is the only way I've seen that most seniors have been able to stay in San Francisco for several decades. Regarding your statement: "Market rate housing generates tax revenues, which in turn pay for schools, parks, emergency services, etc." Low income people pay a lot of sales tax in Marin (which is really high) and that also supports these causes. If they don't have the money to pay property taxes to own property, then the fact is, they just can't pay it. Be thankful that a large group of the population in Marin makes enough money to own property and pay it (and turn around and sell their houses for a handsome profit as well, don't forget about that.) Some folks here are just SPOILED rotten. Perhaps you should lobby that Marin employers just pay people living wages so they can afford to become buyers here and pay property taxes instead of trying to lobby against housing for the poor. Goodness knows how many taxes child-free low income people have paid to support wealthy folks kids and schools here. We don't get any of that, either, but we still have to pay for it...
A May 4, 2013 at 12:53 pm
I've heard that Marin is already in violation (either state or federal, or both) of not havingRead More enough low income housing in the county for its population. I think the county is under pressure to come into compliance which it has been out of in this area for a long time. This can only serve to better the lives of low income and elderly people in our county and perhaps reduce homelessness as well which is something we sorely need to do. However, what is amazing to me is that what we are calling "low income" housing in Marin still costs $1K+ a month per person from what I can tell. That's not "low income". Someone paying that much needs to be earning about $4K a month to keep housing costs in the 25-30% range that every financial planner recommends for a basic budget. I see a lot of low income people working HARD full-time to earn $1,600 a month here in restaurants, grocery stores, retail, hair salons, gyms, even clinics. They can't afford to live in Marin so many of them commute in from the east bay and further north to work in Marin. That is what is not sustainable. Think about the gas and pollution and the quality of life in the community due to turnover because there is no personal interaction with the staff of a lot of these places anymore because they don't stick around for very long.