California delays decision on smart meter opt-out, may include analog option January 17, 2012

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) postponed its vote on a smart meter opt-out plan for Pacific Gas & Electric – originally planned for last Thursday – to Feb. 1.

California may add analog to opt-out plan

The delay leaves customers on PG&E’s smart meter installation “delay list” in a prolonged holding pattern. But the nearly month-long stay may result in an opt-out plan that is more effective in the long run. The standard analog meter – regarded by most die-hard opponents as the only valid alternative to smart meters – now appears to be on the table as an option.

Analog meters were not part of the opt-out program originally proposed in March by PG&E. Nor were they included in the CPUC’s proposed decision issued in November.

Then, in a filing made with the commission Dec. 19, PG&E announced that it now “supports approval of an analog meter option, in addition to the non-communicating radio-off option, in response to customers’ and parties’ continued requests for an analog meter alternative.”

The apparent general consensus among California utilities is that whatever opt-out program the PUC ultimately approves for PG&E will provide a model for other utilities, including San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE). At different times last year, the Commission ordered both utilities to submit proposals to the commission outlining the costs and other requirements of initiating opt-out programs including payment plans for four options: analog meter, digital meter with no radio installed, smart meter with radio transmission turned off and a wired smart meter.

Attorneys for SDG&E have expressed the utility’s opposition to the analog option. In fact, on the same day the PG&E filed its comments in favor of an analog option, SDG&E made its own filing in the case opposing an analog meter offering.

“Multiple parties recommend that the Commission authorize an analog meter opt-out option to alleviate concerns about health impacts. This recommendation is inappropriate because the commission has already ruled that health issues are not within the scope of this proceeding,” according to the SDG&E filing.

That very argument was dismissed by the Maine Public Utilities Commission in May, when it ruled that Central Maine Power (CMP) must provide an opt-out program to customers that included an analog option. Commissioner Vendean Vafiades wrote after the ruling that it had been a matter of “sound public policy.” Opt-out programs “shift the focus” of the conversation from the criticisms against smart meters to the economic and environmental benefits of the meters, he wrote.

A seemingly similar sentiment was stated in PG&E’s Dec. 19 filing, which states that the utility “firmly believes that ‘choice’ is both important and necessary, and that the choice that this commission authorizes should be a meaningful one for all customers.”

PG&E spokesman Greg Snapper said last week that “it’s important that our customers have a choice when it comes to the meter on their home.”

The cost that customers will have to pay for the analog option hasn’t been determined. The California commission has expressed its opinion that “it is appropriate that all ratepayers share in a portion” of the costs of an opt-out program rather than structuring fees in a way that would make the opt-out program revenue-neutral.

In March, PG&E proposed an initial fee of $128 and a monthly charge of $10.69 for the “non-wireless” option, but the PUC rejected those figures. Instead, regular customers will be charged an initial fee of $90 and a monthly charge of $15, according to the November preliminary ruling. Meanwhile, customers enrolled in the state’s low-income program – California Alternate Rates for Energy, or CARE – would pay only a $5 monthly charge, with no initial fee.

While some utilities estimate that only about 1% of customers are likely to take advantage of an opt-out program, others – such as Southern California Edison – have said that fees must be set high in order to discourage participation.

The fate of opt-out rates in California remains to be seen. These discussions will undoubtedly be central as the commission prepares for its decision next month. More information on related developments may be found in Chartwell’s recent report Smart Meter Opt-Out Programs 2012.