Post # 77 - California PUC Adopts New Smart Meter Privacy Rules

In late 2009. the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) ruled that the big three investor-owned utilities in California -- Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric -- would have to provide their customers with real-time residential usage data through smart meters by the end of 2011. Last spring, following extensive stakeholder debate, the CPUC released proposed smart meter privacy rules.

Now, in a decision issued last week, the CPUC issued final smart meter privacy rules. Among other things, the rules require the three utilities to:

1. Provide customers with detailed energy usage, bill-to-date, month-end bill forecast, and projected month-end energy price on their websites – updated daily. Moreover, the information must be available with hourly or 15-minute granularity -- matching the time granularity programmed into a smart meter.

2. Provide "tier alerts" via some form of rapid communication (email, tweets, etc.) when customers move from one price tier to the next.

3. Provide a website calculator to help consumers determine if they would save money by switching to a time-of-use rate

4. Allow consumers to authorize third parties to receive their backhauled smart meter data directly from the utility.

5. Set up a program to roll out home area networking devices to be directly connected with smart meters.

The CPUC said that data on energy consumption generated by smart meters and transmitted by the smart grid will prove critical to future conservation and grid management efforts. The CPUC asserts that enabling consumers and companies to assess and act on this information is key to advancing many of California's energy policies, such as promoting conservation, reducing demand in response to grid events and price signals, reducing summer peak demands, and efficiently incorporating renewable energy and electric vehicles into grid operations.

PG&E, SCE and SDG&E will now have six months to implement the requirements. In the meantime, the CPUC will be exploring whether the new rules should also apply to electric service providers (non-utility entities that offer electric service to customers within the service territory of an electric utility) and community choice aggregators (programs within the the service area of investor-owned utilities that allow cities and counties to buy and/or generate electricity for their residents and businesses).

Post # 54: A California Smart Meter "Opt-Out"?

In one of the latest examples of consumer-driven push back against smart meters in California (see, for example, here and here), California Assembly member Jared Huffman (D-Marin County) last week introduced a legislation (Bill AB 37) that would enable consumer to decline the smart meter installation.

According to Mr. Huffman’s statement on the proposed legislation, Bill AB 37 directs the California Public Utilities Commission to provide an “opt-out” alternative for customers who do not wish to have a smart meter installed – and to require that utilities make this option available using “wired technology that provides equivalent smart grid reliability and efficiency.”

The opt-out “alternative,” however, is not defined in the bill. Rather, AB 37 directs that by January I, 2012, the CPUC must identify alternative options for customers that decline smart meter installation and “ensure that these options are made available to customers.”

The bill also directs that utilities disclose the timing, magnitude, frequency and duration of radio frequency (RF) emissions. Finally, AB 37 directs that the CPUC temporarily suspend smart meter deployment until this opt-out alternative is in place.

In his statement, Mr. Huffman says his bill “is about giving consumers reasonable choices. Whether or not you believe RF exposures from Smartmeters are harmful, it’s only fair that consumers who are concerned about health effects be given complete technical information and the choice of another technology for devices that are installed at their homes.”

The prospects for this bill are not certain – Assembly Member Huffman represents one of localities where resistance to smart meters has been most vocal, and it is unclear how much overall support AB 37 will have in the California legislature.

Moreover, by tying the “opt-out” provision to some undefined “equivalent” alternative, this bill demonstrates the potential conflict between consumer “empowerment” and efforts to achieve energy efficiency. As one commentator has noted, “[t]he bill may offer some sense of control for consumers over how their utility information is gathered, but it could also change the effectiveness of an integrated smart grid if chunks of consumers choose not to participate.”

Of course, and this appears true of most smart meter debates in the United States, consumers generally become part of the serious debate only against the backdrop of ongoing utility smart meter installation. When the history of smart grid development is written, I expect that the record will demonstrate that utilities should have engaged their customers on these issues prior to smart meter roll outs.

Post # 13 - California Dreamin'

Pacific Gas &Electric remains in the smart meter hot seat in California, coming in for strong public criticism this week at a hearing before the state Senate’s Select Committee on the Smart Grid. PG&E’s $2 billion smart meter program presently covers over 5 million households and is scheduled to expand to nearly 10 million in 2012. But the program has been dogged by complaints of over-billing based on allegedly inaccurate smart meter data. In response, the California Public Service Commission instituted an audit of the company, with results due in the late summer (see Post # 8)

But while the CPUC waits for the audit results, many PG&E customers remain unhappy – and their state legislators are hearing about it. During the Select Committee’s hearing on April 26^th, State Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) said that many customers are still complaining of skyrocketing costs and bill estimates. He told PG&E that "this is a revolt. The tea party has nothing on smart meters in [California’s] Central Valley." Some consumer advocates, such as The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, are calling for a moratorium on PG&E’s smart meter program until the CPUC audit is complete. For its part, PG&E states that 99 percent of the installed meters have performed without problems. (For more on the state Senate hearing this week, see here and here).

As I’ve blogged before, the problems PG&E has experienced are unlikely to kill the smart meter concept in California – the long-term momentum appears just the reverse. For example, Southern California Edison today announced that it will start installing smart meters throughout communities in Orange County as part of that company’s “SmartConnect” program,” with about 5 million total installations scheduled throughout its service area by the end of 2012.

At the same time, the consumer anger referenced by Senator Florez should not be minimized. And this consumer push-back goes beyond the question of roll-out problems at a particular company. As last week’s Accenture study shows (see Post # 12), consumers around the world are by no means convinced that they will benefit from smart technology – though they may have to pay for it. And there is the further problem of what many consumers view as their lack of empowerment and exclusion from the process. For example, a notice from the local utility that someone is coming over to a customer’s house to install a smart meter may often be that customer’s first real exposure to the whole smart meter concept.

No matter the particular issue – the cost of smart appliances, utility recovery of smart grid costs, smart meter privacy – most smart technology discussions (whether before government agencies, at conferences, or on-line) have been among energy and IT insiders. As long as consumers view smart technology as a mandate effectively being imposed by an alliance of government agencies with their own agendas and private companies with their own profit motives, consumers will be in no mood to hear about overall societal benefits.