.
Feedback

Smart Meter Opt-Out Passed -- With a Cost

California Public Utilities Commission approves plan to allow PG&E to charge those customers who choose to opt out of the Smart Meter program.

Over boos and hisses from opponents of PG&E's Smart Meter program, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) voted today to of recieving the controversial wireless digital meters.

In a unanimous decision, the CPUC adopted a set of program modifications, which allow PG&E to recover costs associated with replacing Smart Meters or letting customers keep older analog devices.

The CPUC said that the Smart Meters are meant to help reduce energy consumption by wirelessly monitoring usage and allowing customers to opt-in to energy conservation programs. .

The metering systems are being installed as part of a nationwide "smart grid" in 25 states around the country, CPUC President Michael Peevey said.

Opponents of the meters argue that the meters emit harmful electromagnetic
signals and radiation, and that FCC standards don't go far enough. Critics have also raised concerns about the privacy and data security issues related to the meters, and about .

Peevey quoted studies by the Federal Communications Commission and , which concluded that potential negative health effects from SmartMeters had not been "identified or confirmed."

Customers electing to keep analog meters will be assessed an initial fee of $75 and a monthly charge of $10. Low-income customers can opt out of the Smart Meter program for an initial fee of $10 and an ongoing monthly charge of $5.

Speakers from across Northern California packed the commission CPUC auditorium in San Francisco, some demanding that the CPUC reconsider charging fees for customers who opt-out of the program, others demanding an end to wireless meters altogether.

Residents of Santa Cruz, San Francisco, Marin and San Luis Obispo counties claimed that SmartMeters were responsible for headaches, dizziness, insomnia, and heart palpitations.

Fairfax, along with unincorporated Marin, continue to have a . In Fairfax, however, . In unincorporated Marin, the Sheriff and District Attorney have said they have no intention of enforcing the ordinance, but in Fairfax the moratorium has more backing from the town. It is unclear, though, if PG&E begins installing the meters in Fairfax, what steps the town will take to stop the utility.

The CPUC has said they will consider other concerns in a Phase 2 hearing, including the issue of community-wide opt-outs.

Fairfax Councilman Larry Bragman urged the CPUC to enact a moratorium on installations while considering these issues.

"Given the level of concern in our communities, there will undoubtedly be many thousands of customers who will elect to opt-out based upon individual medical concerns, and they should not, and cannot, be forced to pay a fee to do so," Bragman also stated in a press release.

Peevey said that the CPUC was responding to the concerns raised by the public by offering an avenue to opt out of the SmartMeter program.

"For those of you who want to opt out, you now have the option," Peevey said.

Do you think the paid opt-out goes far enough?

-- Bay City News contributed to this article

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.