Santa Cruz Good Times

Thursday
Apr 24th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Town Hall with Supervisor Mark Stone

Mark StoneThe Board of Supervisors will consider extending its moratorium on PG&E’s SmartMeters at its Jan. 10 meeting. What would extending the moratorium accomplish? Does the Board have any plans to approach the installation of SmartMeters differently than it has been?

 

The Board of Supervisors voted on Dec. 13 to direct county officials to return on Jan.10, 2012 with an analysis of the existing moratorium, as well as a draft ordinance to extend that moratorium for an additional year.

As to what extending the moratorium would accomplish, you have to look back at what happened prior to, and after, the county’s first moratorium was enacted back in 2010. At that time, PG&E’s initiative to install SmartMeters in millions of homes was well under way. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which is the state agency charged with regulating PG&E, had already approved the $5 billion price tag for the plan, a cost which, as you know, is passed on to the customers as the meters are installed. But from the beginning, PG&E's rollout has been marred by complaints of billing inaccuracies, health and privacy concerns, and the company’s poor customer service in addressing these concerns. Dissatisfied with PG&E’s apparent indifference, customers began taking their complaints directly to the CPUC, whose response, unfortunately, was equally indifferent. It appeared for a time as if customers, held captive by a utility that holds a virtual monopoly on electricity, had nowhere else to turn except their representatives in local government. City and county governments soon began to add their collective voices to the individual complaints, and many passed resolutions either opposing SmartMeter installations, or banning them outright through moratorium ordinances similar to the one we enacted here in Santa Cruz County. Though PG&E has clearly demonstrated that it is not legally required to honor any moratorium passed by local governments, our opposition, ignited by the inexhaustible energy of a small but vocal group of dedicated folks, successfully convinced the CPUC to order PG&E to provide options for customers wishing to opt out of the SmartMeter program.

As to whether/how the Board of Supervisors will take a different approach to the installation of SmartMeters, I think we’ll have a clearer picture of that after our Jan. 10, 2012 meeting.

2. What are the options that the CPUC is considering?

When CPUC officials ordered PG&E to come up with an alternative plan for customers wanting to opt out of the SmartMeter program, shutting off power to a family with young children two weeks before Christmas was almost certainly not what they had in mind. What PG&E apparently failed to appreciate is that concern for one’s health or the health of one’s family trumps everything else. PG&E’s decision to cut power to folks in our community simply because their last act of desperation was to replace the SmartMeter with an analog meter was a despicable one. I’m pleased that power has been restored to these folks, and I would urge the company in the strongest possible terms not to repeat that mistake.

What is before the CPUC right now is PG&E’s “radio-off” proposal, which would allow customers to opt out by switching off the wireless function of the SmartMeter. Initially, PG&E planned to charge customers $135 to $270 up front to have the device's radio transmitter disconnected. Those customers would then pay $14 to $20 per month for a technician to read their meter. While CPUC supports PG&E’s radio-off concept, it indicated that it isn’t willing to allow the utility to charge its customers as much to do it. CPUC’s proposed ruling would allow the utility to charge an upfront fee of $90 and a monthly charge of $15 for most customers, much less than what PG&E asked for in its initial proposal. For CARE customers—lower income or elderly customers on special low rate plans—CPUC’s proposal would waive up-front fees and charge them $5 per month. Once a CPUC approved opt-out plan is put into effect, the delay list would no longer be valid, and all delay customers currently on the delay list would be transitioned to a wireless SmartMeter unless they elect to participate in the opt-out option. The earliest the proposal can come before the CPUC’s Commissioners for a vote is Jan. 12, 2012.

The Board voted unanimously on Dec. 13 to notify CPUC that it opposes any fees levied on those who choose to opt out of SmartMeters. As Supervisor Ellen Pirie and I stated in our letter to the Board, “Customers with health concerns related to SmartMeters should not be forced to buy protection from these meters.” And imposing opt-out charges on low and fixed-income customers enrolled in the CARE program is unconscionable.  

This holiday season, my wish for PG&E is that you may one day “see the light” rather than just profit from it. To the CPUC, I wish you success in your efforts at coming up with the most affordable and equitable solution to a debacle that arose from PG&E’s rotten job of explaining to its customers how the new meters could benefit them.  

Comments (1)Add Comment
...
written by Bill Smallman, January 09, 2012
I respect the right for people not to have their meters making "cell phone calls' emitting emfs. I also know that many people believe the fear of these emf having health effects is overblown. The fact is nobody really knows for sure if there are health effects. Even so, thinking it does, or creating a "negative placebo" clearly would be unhealthy. Obviously, PGE, spent a boatload on R & D on these meters, but they got it wrong in my opinion. I'm not an Electronic Engineer, but why go wireless, when they could be designed to use existing land telephone lines? I've even been told that they could possibly send a signal on the power line itself. It would be Win-Win. Not only would would it eliminate physical meter reading, but meters in rural, non cell phone areas, would work. Suggest this idea to CPUC and PGE. As an aside, there is a benefit to having physical meter reads, as often these people discover problems like gas leaks, bad connections, fire hazards etc. And, why do meter reads once a month on established accounts? Charge an average fixed amount each month, read the meter once or twice a year, and bill the balance.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

Share this on your social networks

Bookmark and Share

Share this

Bookmark and Share

 

Best of Santa Cruz County 2014

The 2014 Santa Cruz County Readers' Poll Come on in, and have a look around. There’s a lot to see—hundreds of winners selected by thousands of GT readers across Santa Cruz County. So if some of this looks familiar, it’s probably because you helped make it happen. But there are always new things to discover, too—you could go to a different winner or runner-up every day in the Food and Drink category alone, and you’d be booked just about until next year’s Best of Santa Cruz County issue comes out.

 

Something Essential Disappears

Lunar and solar eclipses follow one another. Lunar eclipses occur at full moons, and solar eclipses at new moons. Two weeks ago at the full moon we had the blood red moon—a total lunar eclipse (the next one is Oct. 8). On Monday night, April 28 (new moon), as the Sun, Moon and Earth align, a solar eclipse (Sun obscured) occurs. Eclipses signify something irrevocably is changed in our world. The Sun is our essential life force. Monday’s new moon, 9 degrees Taurus, is also an annular solar eclipse when the Moon moves centrally in front of the Sun, yet does not cover the Sun completely. The Sun's outer edges, still visible, form a “ring of fire” around the Moon.

 

Sugar: The New Tobacco?

Proposed bill would require warning labels on sugary drinks Will soda and other saccharine libations soon come with a health warning? They will if it’s up to our state senator, Bill Monning (D-Carmel). On Feb. 27, Monning proposed first-of-its-kind legislation that would require a consumer warning label be placed on sugar-sweetened beverages sold in California. SB 1000, also known as the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, was proposed to provide vital information to consumers about the harmful effects of consuming sugary drinks, such as sodas, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sweetened teas.

 

Film, Times & Events: Week of April 17

Santa Cruz area movie theaters >
Sign up for Tomorrow's Good Times Today
Upcoming arts & events

RSS Feed Burner

 Subscribe in a reader

Latest Comments

 

Palate-Stretching 101

A wine education with Soif’s experts As a veteran of many weekend wine “seminars” at Soif, I have to confess that I’ve never known less (going in) and learned more (coming out) than I did last week at the Spanish Wine Tasting with ace rep Brian Greenwood. These are classy, casual events and it’s hard to imagine having this much flavor fun anywhere for $20.

 

Martin Ranch Winery

Sauvignon Blanc 2011 One of my favorite wines is Sauvignon Blanc, and this one made by Martin Ranch is particularly lovely. Bright, crisp and refreshing, it’s perfect to pair with fish and shellfish—and good for picnics as it has an easy screw-cap bottle. There’s nothing worse than setting down your blanket, pulling out your sandwiches—and then realizing you don’t have a corkscrew.

 

Foodie File: Red Apple Cafe

Breakfast takes center stage at Gracia Krakauer's Red Apple Cafe Before they moved to Aptos, Gracia and her husband Dan Krakauer would visit friends in Santa Cruz County and eat at the Red Apple Café all the time. Then they moved up here from Santa Monica five years ago, and bought the Aptos location (there’s a separate one in Watsonville) from the family who owned it for two decades.

 

How would you feel about a tech industry boom in Santa Cruz?

I feel like it would ruin the small old-town feeling of Santa Cruz. It wouldn’t be the same Surf City kind of vacation town that it is. Antoinette BennettSanta Cruz | Construction Management