Opting out of a smart meter should be a choice — at a cost March 22, 2011

Evidence-based marketing is not working for the anti-smart meter crowd in northern California and Maine. And that’s why the utilities serving those areas should – and are, in some cases – let those customers opt out of receiving smart meters. Add the cost of manually reading the meters (“truck rolls”) and maintaining the old meters to the bill, sure, but let them opt out.

The sentiment that smart meters cause health problems is, quite clearly, not going away. People who are strident about “dangerous” radio frequency emitted from smart meters are not changing their minds, no matter how many tests (evidence) are conducted. Evidence-based convincing isn’t working. What would you say to someone who insisted Elvis was still alive, despite all the proof to the contrary? There’s not much you could say at all. In the case of smart meters, fact-based discussions and tests are futile and need to stop, no matter how much frustration it causes sentient people. (I guess the people in Marin County, Calif., claiming electro-magnetic frequency illness don’t have cell phones, don’t use Wi-Fi and will never visit the home of someone with a smart meter.)

The solution is complicated. From a marketing standpoint, utilities need testimonial-based evidence. They need a crowd expressing the significant cash they saved thanks to a smart meter, they’re helping the environment and, oh yeah, that they are not experiencing any health or privacy issues. Change won’t be easy or very fast and not everyone will change. But some people will. The first step in increasing the adoption of smart meters and ending the fight is to cease giving customers a reason to backlash by letting them opt out although, admittedly, it is not good policy.

Central Maine Power studied opt-out options and found that the cost ranged from $457-$2,655, with monthly operating costs of around $6 per customer. PG&E says it will follow suit after CPUC president Michael Peevey asked the utility to find alternatives to wireless smart meters. A spokesperson for the company said it’s been “examining alternatives for a while” and is “outlining the proposal for the CPUC.” (Even Peevey sounds perplexed at some of the backlash, saying in a statement earlier this month, “We have not had complaints about radio frequency emissions or other concerns about smart meters from customers of other utilities in California.”)

The short-term consequences, of course, could understandably persuade utilities not to pursue this option. The biggest issue, obviously, is losing the stimulus grant from the Department of Energy if it feels the program isn’t being implemented appropriately. A significant number of customers opting out also could negatively impact system performance, such as managing load. And then, depending on the utility and how robust its customer information system is, there may be complexities in billing any additional costs incurred to the opt-out customers. Chartwell’s Smart Grid Education Summit, April 28-29 in Phoenix, will focus on these pressing issues that utilities face along with the questions customers are asking about this technology.

So far, the backlash is coming from a very vocal, but very small, number of people. The percentage of CMP customers requesting opt outs is currently a paltry 1.5%. That means a majority believe in smart meters. And that’s who will sell this new idea to the skeptics.