Smart meter update: the PG&E opt-out and Edison energy-tracking delays

The California Public Utilities Commission was supposed to be voting on Thursday on whether to approve a smart meter opt-out plan for Pacific Gas & Electric customers — but I just learned, the vote has been pushed back to Feb. 1.

That probably means there’s still tinkering on what the final opt-out plan will be. And while the PG&E decision will only affect its Northern California customers, here in the southland, both Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric are paying close attention.  Whatever the PUC decides for PG&E will likely be the model for the opt-out plans they will have to formulate in the near future.

The PUC already ordered all three utilities to create delay-installation lists for any customers who don’t want the new meters.

So where are we now? A quick recap –  PG&E’s original proposal, submitted last March, would have had customers paying upfront charges of $135-$270 to have the radio technology on their smart meters turned off, plus $14-$20 a month extra.

But, responding to criticism from consumer groups, PUC President Michael Peevey, in a proposed decision released in November, pared down and leveled those costs to $90 up front and $15 per month, with low-income customers paying no upfront costs and $5 extra per month. That’s the plan the commissionwas supposed to be voting on Thursday, but it looks like Peevey and company want to take another look at the final decision in light of continued lobbying from both advocates and utilities.

If you’re a total techno-geek like me, you get a blow-by-blow on the situation by looking at all the filings on the PG&E opt-out plan on the PUC website by clicking here.

In one surprising move, in a Dec. 19 filing, PG&E bowed to customers who have said they want their analog meters back and asked the PUC to include that choice in the opt-out plan.

On the other hand, consumer advocates are pushing hard on the issue of who should pay for opt-out, whether the utilities will be allowed to shift all the costs to ratepayers or whether PG&E shareholders should pick up at least part of the tab. 

The PUC’s own Division of Ratepayer Advocates challenged a PG&E assertion that it has ample documentation of what the costs of the opt-out will be and so shouldn’t have to file an extra application to the PUC on the costs it will be able to bill to ratepayers.

“None of these documents has even been formally entered into the record,” the DRA argues in its own Dec. 19 filing. “No party has been afforded any opportunity to submit even comments on any of PG&E’s cost estimates—let alone to challenge them through cross-examination or by offering expert testimony on reasonable costs to implement an opt-out program. The only opportunity parties have had to address PG&E’s cost estimates has been in response to the Proposed Decision. And as these comments clearly show, there are in fact many ‘significant disputes’ about the appropriate costs to impose for the opt-out option. Finally, the PD made no findings of fact and reached no conclusions of law about the reasonableness of PG&E’s cost estimates – the only relevant conclusion states that thereare ‘significant cost uncertainties associated with providing an opt-out option.’”

The Utilities Reform Network, or TURN, wants PG&E shareholders to pick up at least part of the costs. Its argument, in a Dec. 12 filing, is that PG&E should take some financial responsibility for deploying the meters before gauging customer’s willingness to have them installed and before the utility was sure the meters would function properly.

The utilities, “ jumped the gun,” said Mindy Spatt, spokeswoman for TURN.  ”Why did they rush to put meters in over customers objections when they weren’t ready for prime time.  It was a rush to make an investment they could book profits from regardless whether there were any benefits for customers.”

“We would like to see that some of the costs of the opt-out come out of shareholders pockets not customers,” she said. ”We think customers have already paid an arm and a leg for these meters.”

In the meantime, on the local front, another issue on smart meters is the delay in the roll-out of energy use-tracking services that were promised to consumers when Edison started installing the meters in the Coachella Valley in November 2010. Then Ken Devore, director of Edison’s smart meter program, told me by spring 2011 customers would be able to go online to monitor their hourly energy use so they could see when they were using the most power, which appliances were chewing up kilowatts, etc.

More than a year later, the only information we are getting on energy use is the monthly totals available on our bills. I’m working on an article on this, and the impact of smart meters on folks’ electric bills.

You can share your stories with me at k.kaufmann@thedesertsun.com