Firewall: Getting smarter about smart meters
Posted: Saturday, November 30, 2013 12:00 am
Since my smart meter article appeared in the Courier several weeks ago, I’ve been asked by various people if smart meter technology is as safe as advertised, and are there really legitimate health and privacy concerns involved?
To each question I simply say — maybe and yes — depending upon whom you talk to.
With the City of Safford Utility Department busily removing the old analog type meters and replacing them with so-called digitized smart meters, Safford has joined a growing list of statewide communities switching from the century-old analog meter system to the more modern electronic meters, in which business or household utility consumption information is electronically transmitted wirelessly by radio waves to a central receiving location.
In theory, this process is supposed to be more cost-efficient since the data is instantly transmitted, recorded and stored in some computer system within the city’s jurisdiction. Additionally, it is no longer necessary to have a utility employee physically read the meters. Which, I’m told, will save the city — aka ratepayers — additional money.
I usually get a little queasy when a government entity assures the public it is going to “save them money.” But that’s another story.
However, not everyone is a smart meter fan. Actually, there is growing distrust of the newfangled gadgets based upon privacy and health questions and the utility companies' bully attitude in forcing the new meters upon their consumer base.
Personally, my biggest concern rests in the fact I wasn’t previously informed by the city that it was going to replace my older meters with the newer ones, nor did it bother explaining the possible privacy and health issues related to the new meters. To my knowledge, no city employee, manager or supervisor informed me of the impending switch. Even after six months of using the new meters, I still haven’t been consulted.
In addition to the privacy and health aspects involving smart meters, there has now arisen the question that if a customer doesn’t want the digital meters, for whatever reasons, then shouldn’t he have the right to refuse them and insist the older-style meters be reinstalled without suffering monetary penalties? Since he wasn’t charged when the new meters were installed, why should he be compelled to pay a fee to have the original meters returned?
This question quickly advances to another inquiry: Is everyone on the Safford Utility system going to be smart metered, or are only select businesses and certain residential customers involved?
Also, how much is the meter change, transmission equipment and supporting computer system costing the city, and is the city receiving any compensation from outside sources?
Several public utilities have agreed to remove the smart meters and replace them with the older analog style — at a cost. Tucson Electric Power will reinstall the old meters but is considering a $10 monthly charge to read them, in addition to a one-time $20 reinstallation fee. Tucson Electric Power, however, will offer a $5 monthly discount if the customer decides to read his own meters.
Arizona Public Service, which has already installed about a million of the new meters, is charging three times as much as Tucson Electric if a customer wishes to opt out: $75 to reinstall the old meter and $30 monthly fee to have it read.
Salt River Project has decided upon a $20 extra monthly charge to have its meters manually read.
The Village of Oak Creek has asked the Arizona Corporation Commission to permit its APS customers to bow out of its smart meter system without invoking fines, penalties or monthly fees.
In September, the Bisbee City Council notified APS, the primary electricity provider for the community, and the state Corporation Commission that no more smart meters may be installed until certain privacy and health issues are resolved. Council members also objected to the residents being forced to pay additional fees to have the new meters removed and then charged again to have the old meters read.
The “charge what you want” mentality of some utility companies has stirred the ire of several state legislators. Rep. Bob Thorpe, of Flagstaff, has notified the Arizona Corporation Commission that “I am opposed to APS being allowed to charge any fees for customers wishing to keep their old meters. My constituents should not be singled out and penalized for wanting to keep the older-style meters that, in most cases, came installed on their home and is a proven technology that has been in use for over 100 years.”
Arizona Corporation Commission member Brenda Burns, in a somewhat politically correct reply to Thorp’s inquiry, indicated that while she understands the utility companies' cost concerns of replacing the smart meters, she also wants to make sure the customers who wish to have their meters replaced “are treated in an equitable and fair manner.”
In an effort to better understand the health- related risks of smart meters, the Corporation Commission has recently requested that the Arizona Department of Health Services conduct a study of microwave radiation and possible health threats caused from the smart meters. Many utility customers and professionals insist radio waves and low-level electromagnetic radiation emitted from the meters pose health concerns to certain people sensitive to radio wave transmissions.
The utilities counter that the meters are not any more dangerous than cell phones, Wi-Fi or microwave ovens. Possibly, except smart meters automatically transmit radio waves on a continuous basis, 24 hours a day, whereas an individual has the option to use or not use his personal cell phone or microwave. A public utility customer has no choice when a smart meter is permanently attached to his residence or business — he will be exposed to the transmissions. No getting around it.
When figured mathematically, the proliferation of smart meters in a residential area is staggering. For instance, with three digital meters to a residence — electric, gas, water — in addition to my own home’s meters, I’m surrounded by at least a dozen smart meters in the adjoining lots and probably several hundred more in the neighborhood, each broadcasting their own particular microwave transmissions. These transmissions do not stop at a customer’s property line but can travel a substantial distance. Can exposure to all this be a healthy thing?
In the meantime, I’m of the opinion the Safford Utility Department should honor the requests of its customers desiring to have the smart meters replaced.
Also, no additional charges should be imposed. The customer is already paying his monthly bill — just like before the smart meters were installed — and should not be financially punished because the city must have an employee read the meters. Wasn’t meter reading the established practice before the city decided to change the meters?
In all likelihood, and as is usually the case, a class-action lawsuit will eventually be brought against the utilities. But wouldn’t paying a city meter reader be much more simpler, less costly and consumer friendly?
No comments:
Post a Comment