April 2012 Comment: BGE

Kimberly A. Curry Counsel

Via Electronic Filing

2 Center Plaza 110 W. Fayette Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201

410.470.1305 443.213.3206 Fax

[email protected]

April 6, 2012

David J. Collins, Executive Secretary

Public Service Commission of Maryland

William Donald Schaefer Tower

6 St. Paul Street, 16th

Floor

Baltimore, MD 21202

Re: Case No. 9208

Application of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company for

Authorization to Deploy a Smart Grid Initiative and to Establish a

Surcharge Mechanism for the Recovery of Cost

Comments of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

Dear Mr. Collins:

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case, please find Comments of

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE), which was electronically filed this date.

BGE will hand deliver an original and 17 copies by noon on the next business day

in accordance with the Commission guidelines for electronic filing. The Maillog number

assigned to this filing will be indicated above for your reference.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kimberly A. Curry

Kimberly A. Curry

Enclosures

KAC:jdb

cc: Case No. 9208 Service List

IN THE MATTER OF THE

APPLICATION OF BALTIMORE GAS

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR

AUTHORIZATION TO DEPLOY A

SMART GRID INITIATIVE AND TO

ESTABLISH A SURCHARGE

MECHANISM FOR THE RECOVERY

OF COST

___________________________________

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

BEFORE THE

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

OF MARYLAND

______________

Case No. 9208

______________

Comments of

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

Pursuant to the Commission’s February 29, 2012 Notice of Hearing and

Opportunity to Comment on an “Opt-out” Option for Smart Meters (Notice), Baltimore

Gas and Electric Company (BGE) submits these comments on issues associated with

potentially providing customers with an opt-out option for smart meter installation.

I. SUMMARY

BGE’s smart grid initiative will further the objectives of EmPOWER Maryland to

achieve reductions in both peak demand and annual energy consumption, and meets the

Department of Energy’s (DOE) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grid

modernization goals. The DOE has invested much confidence in smart grid, so much in

fact, that it has committed billions of dollars in grants to utilities - $200 million alone to

BGE – to develop it. BGE views smart meters as a critical component that will enable

the utility and the consumer to meet these goals. Our collective goals cannot be fully met

without customer participation, which includes the acceptance of a smart meter, and

extends into the wide range of consumer benefits provided by this smart meter. For this

reason, and because no credible evidence has been provided to show that smart meters

are harmful, BGE encourages all customers to have a smart meter and participate in the

- 2 -

benefits associated with this new technology. However, in response to the Commission’s

directive, BGE presents in these comments a structure of a proposal for how an opt-out

alternative should work, if the Commission decides as a threshold policy matter that an

opt-out feature is appropriate.

II. COMMENTS

A. Background

On July 13, 2009, BGE filed with the Commission an application seeking

approval to proceed with the deployment of its smart grid initiative, which described the

initiative's substantial customer benefits, including customer bill savings, reliability

improvements, service quality enhancements, and environmental benefits. On

October 27, 2009, the DOE selected BGE’s smart grid project as a recipient of a $200

million grant under the ARRA, which represented the maximum level of funding

available. After a series of hearings in November and December of 2009, and August

2010, BGE’s smart grid initiative was approved by the Commission on August 13, 2010

in Order No. 83531.

Customer benefits included in the business case supporting the initiative included

greater efficiencies with regard to meter reading, handling of service orders, management

of outages; enhanced customer service capabilities and quicker resolution of billing

issues due to remote access to meter data; reduced meter tampering; support for electric

and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles; and access to detailed consumption data to assist

customers in managing their energy usage to give them the opportunity to save on their

energy bills.

- 3 -

The BGE Smart Energy RewardsSM

(SER) component of its smart grid initiative,

formerly known as smart energy pricing, provides customers with pricing options that

encourage conservation and peak demand reductions. Under SER, customers will be

able to earn Peak Time Rebates (PTRs) during company-declared critical days.

Customers can earn PTRs during these critical days by reducing their usage as compared

to an individually calculated baseline, for which BGE uses hourly metered data. SER

will result in peak load reductions, which are monetized in the PJM capacity markets, and

lead to increased capacity and energy revenues, which will flow back to customers

through the PTRs. SER will also lower capacity and energy prices to levels below which

would otherwise be experienced without the program, and will reduce transmission and

distribution infrastructure costs. Notably, the customer satisfaction for SER pilot

participants has been consistently over 90% for the past four summers, with 97% or more

customers wanting to continue to participate in subsequent programs. In sum, the new

metering system that is part of smart grid will allow utilities to offer new pricing

programs, a robust energy management platform and other services to help customers

reduce energy use and lower bills.

Given these advantages, BGE will strongly encourage all customers to have a

smart meter in order to benefit from the capabilities that smart grid will offer. BGE

acknowledges that some customers have indicated concerns regarding smart meter

installation from health, cybersecurity, and data privacy perspectives. BGE has

responded to each customer individually by letter, phone, or in person to help address

those concerns. BGE also plans to educate customers and address misperceptions about

the meters through a series of community meetings prior to meter installation in the

- 4 -

respective community. BGE’s message to these customers includes information on the

studies performed that indicate that radio frequencies (RF) exposures of the type emitted

by the smart meter are far less than other everyday devices that are in our homes today,

and that BGE and the industry are working diligently to mitigate security concerns and

maintain data privacy. For additional support on the safety of smart meters, BGE has

appended to these comments, as Exhibit 1, testimony from Dr. Peter A. Valberg that

concludes that RF exposure from smart meters is not hazardous.

B. Smart Meters Show No Increased Health Risk

RF energy is a common part of our everyday life. There are many sources of low

level RF in our houses including Wi-Fi routers, cordless phones, garage door openers,

TVs and TV remotes, video game remotes, cell phones, microwave ovens, security

systems, children’s walkie-talkies and baby monitors. Any household appliance with an

electric motor such as the refrigerator, the dish washer, the clothes washer, the clothes

dryer and an electric mixer will generate a low level RF signal. Even the alternating

current in the wires in a house generates a very low level of RF energy. Outside our

houses there are many sources of man-made RF, including broadcast TV and radio

signals, CB radios, fire, ambulance, marine, aircraft, emergency response, military and

police radios. RF also exists naturally. Even if you are camping far out in a remote

dessert, RF is present from natural sources such as the sun and other distant stars. Solar

flares often generate large amounts of RF energy that can be seen in the aurora borealis or

northern lights. These are caused by the RF energy from the sun interacting with our

atmosphere. Put simply, there is constant exposure to low level RF in our everyday lives.

- 5 -

Although no studies have been performed specific to BGE’s system, there are a

number of studies that have been performed that confirm that smart meter RF frequencies

present no increased health risks. The California Council on Science and Technology

released in 2011 the results of its study on the health impact of RF from smart meters.1 It

concluded that, when properly installed and maintained, wireless smart meters result in

less RF exposure than microwaves, and far less than cell phones. The health, safety and

reliability of our system are extremely important to BGE. Smart meters are radio devices

that provide less exposure to RF than many common electronic devices already installed

and used in our homes. See Exhibit 1, Testimony of Dr. Valberg at 6.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has also analyzed smart meter RFs

and found that the RF field levels from the smart meters studied are below the exposure

limits stipulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).2 As important, the

report found that as the system currently operates, nearly 99.9% of the meters transmit

1% or less of the time, and 99% of the meters transmit less than four-tenths of one

percent of the time. These duty cycles are taken into account when estimating potential

exposures of people in relation to FCC exposure limits for the general public, which are

based on a 30-minute average of power density across the body. In early 2011, EPRI

conducted an experiment consisting of a sample of ten smart meters located on a rack,

that concluded even with 10 meters nominally rated at ¼ watt operating continuously the

exposure level a foot from the center of the rack was a small fraction of the FCC

1 Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters, California Council on Science and

Technology, January 2011.

2 R. Kavet, Characterization of Radio Frequency Emissions From Two Models of Wireless Smart

Meters, Final Report, December 2011.

- 6 -

exposure limit for the general public and diminished with increasing distance from the

rack.3

The Edison Electric Institute, Association of Edison Illuminating Companies, and

the Utilities Telecom Council published a white paper, which provides an overview of the

various FCC RF standards. That white paper found that the RF exposure effects of smart

meters are very small compared to exposure from other sources in the home and that

smart meters operate significantly below FCC exposure limits.4

The Utilities Telecom Council published an article in 2010 that provided a review

of the safety standards dealing with radio frequency energy and safety, and concluded

that smart utility devices pose no health threat.5

BGE’s own experience with the prior generation of AMR (automatic meter

reading) meters is telling. Virtually every residential and small commercial electric meter

located inside of the Baltimore Beltway has been read by a low wattage radio for two

decades. The radio is located in the AMR meter and transmits the usage data to either a

small computer carried by a meter reader on foot or to a drive by van. BGE currently has

637,816 electric and 473,972 gas AMR meters on our system, which contain this low

wattage radio. BGE is unaware of any reported RF health effects from our legacy AMR

metering system which has been in place for many years.

The Maryland Smart Meter Awareness Organization (MSMA) has raised the

concern that the World Health Organization has classified the radiation coming from

smart meters as a Category 2B carcinogen and that FCC guidelines do not address non-

3 Radio-Frequency Exposure Levels from Smart Meters: A Case Study of One Model, EPRI, February

2011, provided as Exhibit 2.

4 A Discussion of Smart Meters and RF Exposure Issues, an EEI-AEIC-UTC White Paper, March 2011.

5 Klaus Bender, No Health Threat from Smart Meters, Utilities Telecom Council, 2010, provided as

Exhibit 3.

- 7 -

thermal effects of radiation. See Petition to Intervene of Maryland Smart Meter

Awareness Organization at 2, Case No. 9208 (April 2, 2012). Category 2B is one of the

lowest levels on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) scale of

“possibly” carcinogenic products and includes such every day products and activities as

carpentry and joinery work, coconut oil, coffee, talc-based body powder, nickel coins,

pickled vegetables and certain teas. The attached testimony of Dr. Valberg specifically

rebuts these claims. See Exhibit 1, Direct Testimony of Dr. Valberg at 8-9.

MSMA has also challenged as vague and misleading statements on the BGE

website that BGE’s smart meters have been thoroughly tested for safety and reliability.

Meters are tested against rigorous ANSI standards that include provisions to ensure the

meter operates reliably and that the meters can operate safely under varied physical

conditions. Also, the communications components are designed to meet FCC guidelines.

Research shows consumers will experience no increased health risk with a smart

meter, and with its installation, can participate in tremendous smart meter benefits related

to energy management tools, reduced energy bills, quicker response to outages and

greater overall reliability of their service (e.g., voltage monitoring, fault location, load

management). BGE believes that a customer should be able to opt-out of any service that

poses a demonstrable risk to their health and safety; however, the facts show that smart

meters do not present such a risk, and can deliver real, tangible benefits to the customer

through safe, reliable technology common to our daily lives.

C. Cyber-security and Data Privacy

Because security is of primary importance to BGE, smart meters are rigorously

tested by the manufacturer and BGE, and have undergone extensive tests by other utilities

- 8 -

and security specialists across the country. Additionally, BGE hired a cyber security firm

with expertise in Smart Grid technologies to conduct an independent security assessment

of the Smart Grid system that included an assessment of the smart meters. During our

security assessment testing, professional security penetration testers (commonly referred

to as “white hat hackers”) attempt to identify vulnerabilities. The entire smart grid is

being built to meet the same stringent security standards and guidelines developed by the

National Institute of Standards and Technology and required by organizations that have

rigorous and demanding security needs, such as the Department of Defense, the

Department of Energy, and many financial institutions. Over 27 million smart meters

have been installed across the country, according to the Institute for Energy Efficiency

(IEE), a figure which will grow to 65 million meters by 2015, representing 54% of all

households. BGE’s smart meter program has made significant investments in encryption

technology and security practices. Usage data coming over the network is encrypted

using the latest technology and has no customer identifiable information associated to it.

One smart grid myth circulating is that someone could easily intercept the radio

data coming from the smart meter and determine if a person is home or not. One variation

of this shows a graph with usage on one axis and time on the other axis. This is certainly

not the case for BGE’s smart grid meter system, nor do we believe this to be the norm for

the industry. Below is a sample of the encrypted usage data being transmitted from a

Silver Spring Networks smart meter:

- 9 -

16:15:38.871 [nicnac-worker-2] TRACE com.ssn.nicnac.nio.Coordinator - tx:426C057A Received 537 bytes tx:426C057A 00000000: 06 03 00 0e 01 f1 00 02 1c 1c 00 0a 4f 97 3d fe tx:426C057A 00000010: ae 54 96 65 97 19 10 db 5d e3 57 7b 42 dd 6b a1 tx:426C057A 00000020: ee 7c 45 69 22 52 59 00 ea 29 60 dd f0 59 25 82 tx:426C057A 00000030: e3 ff f9 1e ce 91 21 dc 4b dd 81 91 dc 19 9c 70 tx:426C057A 00000040: 51 2b ee a3 1c d4 e6 60 34 0d 00 7c da cf 8f 73 tx:426C057A 00000050: fb ff f7 45 45 cd 7f 4c 84 10 93 ca 22 d0 29 c1 tx:426C057A 00000060: 69 a7 af 91 20 f9 e7 9a 2c d5 b3 50 d0 4b 61 2a tx:426C057A 00000070: 4e a1 d0 2e d5 d9 5f 23 93 f3 0f 07 de 99 27 fe tx:426C057A 00000080: 1f 4a 70 10 6a 3c e1 95 eb 4e a7 43 20 ab 67 dd tx:426C057A 00000090: 93 cf 7e 2d a1 92 97 15 e2 85 72 e3 30 26 03 e6 tx:426C057A 000000a0: dd a8 90 06 a4 c0 5e 93 65 bb 8c 11 90 2f 74 13 tx:426C057A 000000b0: 4b 42 5e c9 3b a5 db 9c e3 f4 83 f4 a0 77 7a 52 tx:426C057A 000000c0: 63 a7 8a d5 b0 09 79 4b 0d a9 8c d9 db 77 1e af tx:426C057A 000000d0: 23 6c f7 7c c9 dd 8e fe ff 3c 3f 85 44 77 27 03 tx:426C057A 000000e0: 4d f3 c0 25 87 41 df 4c 34 5b 17 f1 53 a4 31 22 tx:426C057A 000000f0: 69 31 ab 37 a3 86 ba fc a8 56 31 bf 05 da e2 3b tx:426C057A 00000100: 6b c4 f7 43 0d 9e 58 48 ae 48 6e 2a 25 94 a5 f0 tx:426C057A 00000110: c0 f1 97 da db de 95 d7 51 dd fd 1f 46 2c 39 eb tx:426C057A 00000120: d2 4d b2 46 9d 25 ff 1f 8a 9a b8 e3 73 58 e1 48 tx:426C057A 00000130: c3 10 c6 ba be d0 8a a0 b6 05 cd 3c 67 1d e3 32 tx:426C057A 00000140: 03 0e 19 a3 bd 1d 52 5d ff 8c 8a 6f b8 0f db af tx:426C057A 00000150: 65 60 7b 03 d5 99 08 72 68 0a 68 81 94 8b 3c 1c tx:426C057A 00000160: 69 98 13 21 c6 99 c1 6f ef 7b a1 bc 0d d3 6d 5f tx:426C057A 00000170: 6c 01 c8 85 58 27 d3 a5 b8 80 bc 56 b9 3d 1b c3 tx:426C057A 00000180: 87 ab 3e 12 b3 a8 af ce b0 c2 cd cd f0 52 85 78 tx:426C057A 00000190: 28 86 59 b6 dc c3 50 8e 22 9b d2 ca 98 f3 71 41 tx:426C057A 000001a0: 57 c5 d8 98 1a 87 d5 93 77 f3 8b ac a6 9d ef c2 tx:426C057A 000001b0: 50 34 70 7f 3c 7b 5a 29 5c e7 0b d4 3f 4f 32 7f tx:426C057A 000001c0: ba 70 bd d2 ec fd 3f dc af 64 0d 11 4e 4c fb 33 tx:426C057A 000001d0: 58 aa f9 3f 21 15 e9 2d 5c 3e 8d 06 f6 93 95 33 tx:426C057A 000001e0: 7c c6 bc ad a4 cb 08 e1 ae f8 2a a7 21 64 86 a7 tx:426C057A 000001f0: b0 7a a0 6d be 97 2c 72 4f 86 31 3e 28 9a ad f0 tx:426C057A 00000200: 9d c5 9d 6a 72 74 22 a3 70 92 0c fe af d2 2a d3 tx:426C057A 00000210: f7 f4 f8 3f c5 07 83 3d de

Regulatory agencies are actively engaged in the protection of data and the security

of the system. The DOE is closely examining cyber-security. The DOE requires a

detailed cyber-security system plan review each year that is conducted at BGE’s annual

DOE site visit. As part of this system plan review, DOE includes their outside cyber-

security expert to assist with the review and confidential evaluation of our system plan.

The Commission-convened smart grid working group is addressing data privacy and

cyber-security, and BGE will continue to adhere to applicable laws and regulations as

- 10 -

they relate to data privacy. All data being sent to and from the meter will be encrypted to

insure security and accuracy. There is no Personably Identifiable Information, such as

name, address, bill account number, credit/collection information or social security

number, being transmitted to or from the meter.

Given that no credible evidence has been advanced that demonstrates that smart

meters pose a health risk, and that utilities, regulatory agencies, and the industry are

working to maintain security and data privacy, BGE submits that smart meters are safe,

secure and that all customers will benefit from their deployment, directly or indirectly.

D. Responses to the Commission’s Inquiry on the Effect of an Opt-out

Option

This section provides responses to the items raised in the Commission’s Notice

that sought input on the effect of an opt-out option on BGE’s business case and

operations, as well as how an opt-out program could be structured.

1. The effect of such an option on the overall smart meter

project’s costs and benefits, including the effect on energy

savings, outage detection, and management and incremental

costs

The BGE smart grid business case is built on savings achieved through peak load

reductions and energy conservation plus BGE operations and maintenance savings, for

example, the elimination of meter reading costs. An opt-out provision, if not designed in

a manner to minimize the impacts of the loss of tangible savings and to assign costs to

those who elect that option, could have a significant adverse effect on the cost and

benefits of the smart grid initiative. Assuming that any opt-out provision would be

designed such that appropriate costs are assigned to customers that elect this option, a

feature we believe is absolutely essential, we expect an opt-out rate could be 1% or less

- 11 -

of eligible customers. Using 1% opt-out rate as an example, the annual operational cost

impact to the smart grid business case is projected to exceed $1.3M in higher meter

reading costs and additional meter reading infrastructure expenses per year.

Additionally, we estimate there would be approximately $12 million in

incremental capital costs including;

o Upgrade of current meter reading system

o Cost to update customer care, metering and billing systems with opt-out

functionality

o Cost to upgrade and operate additional network communications

In the above scenario, the collective estimated impact of these costs could exceed

$28 million over 10 years. Consistent with sound rate design practices, customers who

elect to opt-out should contribute to the cost associated with this option through a one-

time set up fee and a monthly charge commensurate with the costs of setting up the new

process and maintaining meter readers and the meter reading system. This demonstrates

why an opt-out tariff rate must be developed for these customers, if an opt-out provision

is allowed, so as to offset the increased costs. In addition to the increased capital and

operational costs noted above, we also project that there would be proportionately

reduced benefits realized from peak demand reductions, energy conservation impacts,

and associated capacity and energy price mitigation savings. These adverse impacts

would not only apply to the customers opting out of Smart Grid but also to all other BGE

customers.

- 12 -

2. How such an option might affect the current schedule for installing

the smart meters

BGE will begin high volume installation of smart meters over the coming months.

As part of the installation process, BGE plans to defer the installation of smart meters to

those customers who object to its installation until this opt-out question is resolved.

Assuming that this practice is continued, an opt-out option would not significantly impact

the schedule or installation rates of smart meters assuming a 1% opt-out rate. If an opt-

out process were required by the Commission to be implemented before smart meter

installations could continue, then a significant delay would result. To implement opt-out,

the communications plan would have to be re-developed to include information on

opting-out. Enrollment channels for the opt-out program would have to be created,

which would include sending a notification letter, followed by an open enrollment period

during which customers could choose the option. BGE would have to develop new rates

for the population who elects to opt-out and those rates would undergo the regulatory

review process, which would include input from stakeholders, after the rates are

submitted to the Commission for approval. Finally, new identifiers in BGE’s billing and

meter data management system would have to be created so that these customers could

continue to have their meters read and be billed properly. All of these processes are

estimated to take up to 12 months to implement. A significant delay in the start of the

installation of the meters could jeopardize any or all of the DOE grant funds. As a result

of these significant impacts to the schedule and benefits delivery, BGE strongly advises

that development of any opt-out provision, if determined by the Commission to be

appropriate, need not be a prerequisite to beginning AMI deployment.

- 13 -

3. Whether such an option will affect the types, components and/or

configuration of the meters available to customers who choose to opt

out of a smart meter; for example, whether an opt-out option would

be limited to not enabling some or all of the communications

capability of a smart meter

Customers who elect to opt-out would be given BGE’s current standard meter,

which is a digital meter that provides monthly reads through a short range transmitter to a

meter reader that walks or drives by the premises. This meter would not be capable of 2-

way remote communications with BGE offices nor would it have the capability to record

hourly interval usage data; therefore, the customer would not have access to the

significant benefits associated with a smart meter. Also, BGE feels strongly that an

analog meter is not a viable option given that it is old technology that vendors have

largely abandoned in favor of digital meters. In fact, there is no major US supplier that

offers the sale of new analog meters.

4. The effect such an option might have upon future meter reading

BGE would have to maintain a meter reading workforce and the meter reading IT

system that supports this function, both of which reduce program benefits and add on-

going operational costs.

5. The effect such an option might have upon the communication of data

between the utility and customers

Assuming customers that elect to opt-out contribute to the related incremental

costs, the AMI communications infrastructure could continue to transmit data at or near

the same rates prior to an opt-out being offered. However, it would require some

additional investment in network equipment to fill in the holes left by opt-out customers.

If customers were not required to contribute to the cost of opting-out, the opt-out rate

could well exceed 1% and could seriously jeopardize the ability of the mesh

- 14 -

communications network to perform to the point where it may be unworkable in certain

areas without significantly disproportionate network infrastructure upgrades and

associated costs. To BGE’s knowledge, no other state has allowed customers to opt-out

without some increased distribution charges to cover the increased costs of service.

6. The effect such an option might have upon the utility’s future billing

practices

An opt-out program would require BGE to change its customer care, metering and

billing systems to maintain and manage opt-out customers and to assign charges

associated with this option. Effects may include any number of the following

components:

New opt-out case management, meter qualification, enrollment, billing

and collections processes

New Field Activity processes to inspect, install and/or remove alternative

meters

New opt-out rate components for each applicable rate class, any required

bill print changes and related exception management functionality

New setup or enrollment customer charge, any required bill print changes

and related exception management functionality

New cost recovery and/or fee tracking mechanism

New opt-out program communication plan and any required enrollment

terms, conditions and considerations

The effect to the customer would be additional complexity added to interactions

with call center representatives to enroll customers in opt-out, compare or adjust rates or

troubleshoot billing inquiries, changes to the printed bill to note the new charges, and

- 15 -

possible changes in meter reading practices that may lead to higher rates of estimated

bills.

7. The effect such an option might have upon the utility’s electric tariff

rate structures as well as any energy programs

A new rate and/or rider structure would have to be created across multiple

customer classes to allow customers to be billed for their opt-out election. BGE’s initial

assessment identified over 40 rates that would need to be modified to apply any customer

charges associated to opt-out. From a customer perspective, the most significant impact

would be the lost opportunity to earn energy savings discounts or rebates. Customers

without a smart meter could not participate in SER and have the opportunity to earn peak

time rebates. Also, these customers would not have the benefit of interval usage data,

high bill alerts and running bill totals that will be available through the new customer

web portal – functionality that is expected to help customers conserve energy and save on

their bill.

8. The structure of any “opt-out” program, including the effect on

customer education, the means by which customers might opt out, the

means by which customers might re-enroll, how such an option would

be administered to new customers within the utility’s service area,

and any charges that should be imposed on customers who choose to

opt out

If the Commission decides to move forward with an opt-out program, BGE would

seek to work with the Commission and other stakeholders to design a balanced opt-out

program that meets the needs of our customers while also protecting the majority of

conservation and operational benefits which are a foundational basis for the nearly $500

million investment in Smart Grid. The structural components discussed in this section

are preliminary and are expected to change as the Commission, its member utilities and

market stakeholders discuss the various opt-out options that may be appropriate for

- 16 -

Maryland’s situation and interests. BGE analyzed the practices, lessons learned and

decisions from other states to draft the structural framework outlined in this section.

BGE expects any opt-out provision would have three critical components discussed

below including: a) Communications and enrollment, b) Administration, and c) Pricing.

a. Communications and enrollment

During an opt-out open enrollment period, customers would enroll on line,

contact BGE’s contact center or send a response letter to BGE indicating their desire to

opt-out. BGE would attempt direct customer outreach and education to ensure that the

customer is making an informed decision. If the customer confirms that he or she would

like to opt-out, an information packet would be sent explaining the applicable tariffs,

rates and/or participation acknowledgements. For system reliability and safety, BGE

would inspect the meter of customers requesting to opt-out and install a standard BGE

meter if an obsolete meter exists. Upon completion of the meter inspection, the

customer’s opt-out election would be approved and they would be removed from the

AMI installation program until such time that they elect to receive a meter or move out of

the premise.

b. Administration

If an opt-out customer elects to have a smart meter installed at some later time,

there may be additional charges and the opt-out rate/rider would be removed from the

customer’s service agreement. New homes built within the deployed area would get a

smart meter by default; however, after the customer moves in, they could elect to opt-out.

For new owners of existing homes in the deployed area, the customer may elect to have a

- 17 -

smart meter installed at no charge or may elect to have a smart meter removed for a

charge under the opt-out program.

If an opt-out customer fails to pay any fees or charges related to their opt-out

elections, BGE would continue to honor their opt-out status while referring any non-paid

items into the standard credit and collections processes currently used and in effect for

other billable items.

c. Pricing

For purposes of this filing, BGE performed a high-level analysis of a rate design

approach to appropriately charge customers who choose to opt out of their smart meter.

BGE researched four other utilities’ smart meter opt-out rate designs and then initiated

the process of assessing BGE’s specific incremental costs.

If directed by the Commission to offer an opt-out alternative, BGE recommends

that the opt-out program have the following pricing characteristics:

– An initial fee to recover a meaningful portion of initial capital setup costs,

the majority of which are fixed IT system and back-office administrative

process related, which will occur regardless of the level of opt-out

participation.

– A fixed monthly charge to recover remaining capital costs and other

ongoing costs, the majority of which are meter-reading related.

While it is far too early in the process to comfortably calculate BGE’s rates with

specificity, BGE would like to provide a range of possibilities over several modeled

levels of opt-out participation (Table 1). Our design is based on participants assuming

- 18 -

the cost to operate the opt-out program. Some of these costs are fixed so pricing would

vary based on the number of customers who choose to opt-out. O

pt-

ou

t P

erc

enta

ge

Initial Fee $50 $100 $250

Monthly Fee Range

0.1% $135-$185

$134-$184

$133-$183

0.5% $22 - $34

$21 - $33

$19 - $31

1.0% $11 - $17

$10 - $16

$9 - $15

Table 1: Opt-Out Pricing Table

For example, assuming a 1% opt-out rate,6 and a set-up fee of approximately $100, the

monthly fee may be between $10 - $16,7 which is similar to the ranges observed for other

utilities.8 In sum, the costs for administering the opt-out program should ideally be borne

by those who participate in the program, with an annual review to ensure that impacts to

all ratepayers are minimized. Again, BGE emphasizes that this is a very preliminary

analysis, and is subject to change if the Commission directs that BGE offer an opt-out

option. The table also illustrates the challenges of setting the appropriate charges for

customers opting out without knowing in advance what the opt-out participation levels

will be. For example, if the rates were initially set based upon the presumption of a 1.0%

opt-out level, and then it turned out that only 0.1% of customers opted out, the rates

would need to increase nearly ten-fold to be fully compensatory.

6 The utilities researched by BGE had opt-out rates of 0.25% to 2%. With a 1% opt-out, BGE assumed

12,000 customer opt-outs for the rate analysis.

7 The one-time set-up fee assumes an initial capital contribution of $1.2 million; and the monthly fee

assumes ongoing capital carrying costs and operations and maintenance costs.

8 The set-up fees for the other utilities ranged from $20 to $270, with monthly fees from $10 to $50.

- 19 -

III. CONCLUSION

BGE’s smart grid project furthers DOE and Maryland conservation goals, and

provides customers with information that will assist them in managing their usage in

order to lower their bills. In light of these benefits, and because smart meters have not

been shown to produce any increased health risk, BGE encourages that all customers

receive the benefits of smart meters. However, given the concerns raised by some

customers, BGE understands the rationale for an investigation of an opt-out option for

Maryland.

Respectfully submitted,


_________________________________

Kimberly A. Curry

Baltimore Gas & Electric Company

2 Center Plaza

110 West Fayette Street, 13th

Floor

Baltimore, MD 21201

(410) 470-1305 (phone)

(443) 213-3206 (fax)

April 6, 2012 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 6th day of April 2012, a copy of the foregoing

“Comments of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company” was mailed first-class, postage

prepaid, to all parties on the Official Service List in this proceeding.


Kimberly A. Curry

EXHIBIT 1

Gradient 1

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR AUTHORIZATION TO DEPLOY A SMART GRID INITIATIVE AND TO ESTABLISH A SURCHARGE MECHANISM FOR THE RECOVERY OF COST

___________________________________

*

*

* * * * *

BEFORE THE

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

OF MARYLAND

______________

Case No. 9208

______________

TESTIMONY OF DR. PETER A. VALBERG

Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR BUSINESS ADDRESS. 1

A. My name is Peter A. Valberg and my business address is Gradient, 20 University Road, 2

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138-5156. 3

Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? 4

A. I am a Principal for Environmental Health at Gradient, an environmental consulting firm 5

specializing in quantitative assessment of environmental impact and human health risk. I 6

specialize in quantitative analysis of exposure and toxicology of environmental agents, 7

including ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. I have extensively researched and studied the 8

links between human health and people’s exposure to specific agents such as radio-wave 9

frequencies (“RF”), and electric and magnetic fields (“EMF”). 10

Q: WHY ARE YOU PROVIDING THIS TESTIMONY? 11

A: I have been asked by BGE to analyze the health effects of RF exposure from smart meters. I 12

conclude that RF from smart meters do not present a hazard to health. 13

Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND. 14

A. My educational background includes an A.B. degree, summa cum laude, in Physics and 15

Mathematics from Taylor University, both an M.A. and Ph.D. degree in Physics from 16

Gradient 2

Harvard University, and an M.S. degree in Human Physiology from the Harvard University 1

School of Public Health (“Harvard SPH”). My Ph.D. thesis work at Harvard University was 2

carried out in the laboratories of Dr. Norman F. Ramsey, winner of the 1989 Nobel Prize in 3

Physics. 4

Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE AND 5

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS? 6

A. After finishing my Ph.D. work, I was for 5 years in the Physics Department faculty of 7

Amherst College, where I taught physics, electricity, and magnetism. Then, for 25 years, I 8

served as a faculty member in the Department of Environmental Health at Harvard SPH, 9

where I conducted government-funded research and taught human physiology, toxicology, 10

cell biology, environmental health, and public health. I am presently an environmental health 11

scientist at Gradient. I have served on advisory panels for the National Institutes of Health, 12

the Health Effects Institute, Department of Energy, National Academy of Sciences, the 13

Environmental Protection Agency, and the World Health Organization (“WHO”). I am a 14

member of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, the Health Physics 15

Society, the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and the Society of Toxicology. I have served on 16

the Board of Directors of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and on the Committee on Man and 17

Radiation (“COMAR”). I am a Fellow of the Academy of Toxicological Sciences. 18

Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE AREA OF ELECTRIC AND 19

MAGNETIC FIELDS (EMF) AND RADIOFREQUENCY (RF) FIELDS? 20

A. In-depth study of these areas was part of my training at both Taylor University and Harvard 21

University. I also taught electromagnetism at Amherst College and Harvard University. 22

Among the research grants that I directed at Harvard SPH (funded by the National Cancer 23

Institute) was one on “Magnetic Fields Effects on Macrophages” (where macrophages are 24

lung cells that clean the lung of particles deposited there from dust present in the air we 25

breathe). I also served on the “Harvard Advisory Committee on EMF and Human Health” 26

and the “Peer Review Board on Cellular Technology and Human Health” committees during 27

the period of time when Harvard University (Center for Risk Analysis) had those as active 28

committees. Additionally, I assisted the Health Effects Institute (Boston, MA) in determining 29

Gradient 3

the feasibility of launching an EMF research program, and published a summary document 1

on “EMF Mechanisms” in the peer-reviewed journal Radiation Research. 2

I have made numerous presentations on health effects at RF- and EMF-related conferences. 3

At the request of the International Congress on Radiation Research (“ICRR”), I organized 4

and chaired a symposium on “Physical aspects of RF effects on Biological Systems,” at the 5

11th Annual ICRR meeting in Dublin, Ireland. I helped organize a conference in the Boston 6

area on “Childhood Leukemia: Electric and Magnetic Fields as Possible Risk Factors.” A 7

summary of this workshop was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health 8

Perspectives. In 2006, I was asked to present a lecture on how electric and magnetic fields 9

interact with living organisms by the Cyprus International Institute for the Environment and 10

Public Health in a symposium on “Electromagnetic Fields: Sources, Health Effects, and 11

Regulations,” which took place in Nicosia, Cyprus. 12

I worked with the World Health Organization (Geneva, Switzerland) on the health effects on 13

EMF as they apply to cellular telephone technology. An article summarizing some of my 14

WHO work was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives, 15

and a more complete discussion appeared in the book: “Base Stations and Wireless 16

Networks: Exposures and Health Consequences. International Workshop on Base Stations 17

and Wireless Networks: Exposures and Health Consequences.” (Eds.: Repacholi, M; van 18

Deventer, E; Ravazzani, P), WHO, Geneva, Switzerland (2007). 19

Q. DESCRIBE HOW YOU MAINTAIN YOUR EXPERTISE IN THE AREA OF 20

HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO RADIOFREQUENCY FIELDS (RF) AND EMF. 21

A. On a continuing basis, the librarians at Gradient provide me with recently published articles 22

related to EMF health effects. I review those publications that are relevant to health risks 23

potentially attributed to RF and power-line EMF exposure. Also, I participate in professional 24

societies that discuss matters related to EMF. I am a member of the Bioelectromagnetics 25

Society (“BEMS”) and read the society’s peer-reviewed journal “Bioelectromagnetics,” 26

which publishes articles relevant to RF / EMF health effects. Through being a member of 27

COMAR, I receive additional updates on developments in the RF / EMF area. I am a 28

member of the Health Physics Society, read their newsletter, and subscribe to their peer-29

Gradient 4

reviewed journal “Health Physics.” Important RF and EMF articles are published in this 1

journal, and I review them as they appear. I am also a full member of the Society of 2

Toxicology (“SOT”), and at each annual meeting, I identify and attend any talks or abstracts 3

dealing with RF. I subscribe to the SOT’s peer-reviewed journal, “Toxicological Sciences,” 4

and review those articles relevant to RF / EMF. 5

Q. IS THE RF FROM SO-CALLED “SMART METERS” DANGEROUS TO HEALTH? 6

A. No. Sometimes the RF is called “radiation,” which people may confuse with the “ionizing 7

radiation” associated with X-rays and nuclear medicine. But, this is incorrect. The 8

electromagnetic spectrum encompasses frequencies from the kilohertz 1 range up through 9

microwaves and on into infrared, light, ultraviolet, and X-rays. Visible light is the major 10

source of electromagnetic energy in our environment. The human body, by virtue of being 11

alive and warm, generates heat energy (electromagnetic energy in the infrared portion of the 12

spectrum), which can be seen by an “infrared” or “night-vision” camera, i.e., in complete 13

darkness. Importantly, those electromagnetic waves with a frequency below that of visible 14

light (including RF), cannot damage molecules, and hence are called “non-ionizing.” 15

For the smart meter RF band around 910 MHz, the allowable RF level is 610 μW/cm2. By 16

comparison, summertime sunlight at noon bathes us with about 150,000 μW/cm2 of electromagnetic 17

energy. These energy comparisons are shown in the following Table: 2 18

Electromagnetic energy in sunlight at the earth’s surface

(noon, summer day)

Applicable FCC standard for 910 MHz RF wave energy

(public and residential areas)

Typical RF levels measured near (at 10 feet) smart meters that are actually transmitting

150,000 μW/cm2 610 μW/cm2 ~ 4 μW/cm2

The ~ 4 μW/cm2 for the smart meter is at 10 feet in front of it. Behind the meter (i.e., inside the 19

residence), the RF levels would be about 10-fold lower. 20

1 Radio-wave frequencies are expressed in “Hertz” (Hz), a term which is equivalent to “cycles per second.” For

example, voice frequencies (i.e., sound waves in the air) cover the range from about 50 Hz to 15,000 Hz. Radio-wave frequencies cover the range from about 300,000 Hz (i.e., 0.3 megahertz, or 0.3 MHz) to 30,000,000,000 Hz (i.e., 30 gigahertz, or 30 GHz). For smart meters, the RF frequencies are in the range 900 to 920 MHz.

2 Figure 1 (page 5) of CCST, 2011.

Gradient 5

For smart meters, the RF levels are far below health-protective standards and guidelines 1

developed for public exposure to RF. No public health agency has identified the RF from 2

smart meters as hazardous to health. In fact, a large number of scientific groups have 3

reviewed research findings on potential health effects of RF waves. These independent 4

scientific consensus groups, composed of research, engineering, medical, and public health 5

scientists, have produced “blue-ribbon” reports that have examined all aspects of RF safety, 6

for example: 7

• American National Standards Institute (ANSI / IEEE, 2003, 2006), 8 • Federal Communications Commission (FCC, 1999, 2007), 3 9 • Health Canada, Safety Code 6 (2009) 4 10 • International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 2011), 5 11 • International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protect. (ICNIRP, 1998, 12

2004, 2009, 2011), 6 13 • National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP, 2002), 7 14 • National Radiation Protection Board [Health Protection Agency], UK (NRPB, 15

HPA, 2000, 2004), 16 • Netherlands Health Council (NHC, 2002, 2003, 2007), 17 • World Health Organization (WHO, 1993, 2000, 2007) 18 • President’s Cancer Panel (PCP, 2010), “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk” 8 19

The reports of these groups, written by researchers, medical doctors, biologists, engineers, 20

and toxicologists, are voluminous, thorough, and even-handed. These blue-ribbon panels, in 21

3 Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf (p. 15). 4 Health Canada, March, 2010: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/radio_guide-lignes_direct-eng.php 5 IARC: In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency fields (RF) as

Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic) on the IARC scale of carcinogenic risk to humans. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf IARC uses the “possibly carcinogenic” category when talking about both cell phones and power-line magnetic fields

(“EMF”), and the IARC category 2B includes “possible carcinogens” such as coconut oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel oil, power-line EMF, “carpentry and joinery,” coffee, carbon black (car tires), car-engine exhaust, surgical implants, talc-based body powder, iron supplement pills, mothballs, nickels, pickled vegetables, safrole (sassafras) tea, titanium dioxide, chloroform, etc. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsGroupOrder.pdf

6 ICNIRP: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/StatementEMF.pdf ; http://www.icnirp.de/documents/RFReview.pdf http://www.icnirp.de/documents/SCIreview2011.pdf 7 NCRP: http://www.ncrppublications.org/Reports/119 8 President’s Cancer Panel, http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf

Gradient 6

general, concur that the current guidelines for RF exposure protect the safety of the public 1

and of residents living in our present-day RF environment. 2

Q. HOW DO RADIO WAVES FROM “SMART METERS” COMPARE TO RF 3

EXPOSURE FROM COMMON DEVICES USED AND EXPERIENCED BY MOST 4

CONSUMERS? 5

A. The radio-wave levels from smart meters are very low. First of all, it’s important to 6

recognize that our environment has a multitude of radio-wave sources including: 7

Commercial radio (AM & FM) and commercial TV (VHF & UHF & digital) 8 Marine and aviation radio services, military and weather radar, police radar 9 Public emergency, fire, and police dispatch services 10 Amateur (ham) radio operators, wireless paging services, remote-control devices 11 Cell phones, “Personal Communications Systems” (PCS), “Smartphones,” iPads 12 Cordless telephones, baby monitors, wireless toys, walkie-talkies, Internet routers 13 Computers (and game controllers), TV sets, CD players, DVD players, iPods 14 Microwave ovens (RF leakage) 15 Microwave links for computers, radio, television, and telephones 16 Satellite radio / television / communications, global positioning system (GPS) 17 Medical procedures such as diathermy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) 18

Common sources of electromagnetic energy can be listed according to the power they emit 19

into our electromagnetic spectrum environment. The list below is mostly for RF, but, for 20

perspective, I have included some sources in the “heat” and “light” part of the spectrum. In 21

fact, the energy waves (photons) from heat and light are more energetic than for RF waves. 22

Utility “smart meters” --- 1watt or less , typically ¼ watt 23 Handheld cell phones, cordless phones --- below 2 watts 24 Remote control toys and nursery monitors --- about 3 watts 25 Flashlight --- about 5 watts (light + heat) 26 “Walkie-talkies” --- about 10 watts 27 Cellular telephone base stations --- about 80 watts 28 Standard light bulb --- about 100 watts (light + heat) 29 The human body – about 100 watts ([infrared]) 30 Microwave oven – about 1,500 watts (heat + RF) 31 Electric space heater – about 1,500 watts (light + heat) 32 Radio and television stations about 50,000 to 1,000,000 watts 33

Gradient 7

The importance of this list is to demonstrate that radio waves have been used for 1

communications in highly populated regions for over one hundred years, and we have no 2

indication that this use of RF has adversely affected human health. 3

A useful reference point is to realize that the smart-meter integrated RF dose over a day is far 4

lower than that from using a cellular phone for, say, 15 minutes throughout a day. RF doses 5

can be expressed either as a fraction of “maximum permissible exposure” (MPE) limits or as 6

a fraction of “specific absorption rate” (SAR) limits. These two biologically-based 7

benchmarks can be used to rank the RF doses of different devices relative to FCC guidelines. 8

The duration of RF exposure from smart meters is very short, i.e., the meters transmit data on 9

electricity consumption several times per day, for periods on the order of 0.1 seconds, with a 10

mean “duty cycle” of 0.14%, giving a total transmit time of about 2 minutes per day (Tell et 11

al., 2012; EPRI 2011). In terms of RF intensity, at a 10-ft distance in front of the smart 12

meter, the RF intensity of smart meters (when on) is below 1% of the FCC MPE limit (see 13

table above, of course, behind the meter, i.e., inside the home, the levels are far lower), 9 14

whereas, for a cell phone held at the head (and being used), the RF doses are below the FCC 15

SAR, 10 but are greater than 25 to 90% of the FCC SAR limit. 11 Thus, for cell phone use of 16

15 minutes per day, the integrated RF daily dose (900 seconds 0.50 SAR) is about 375 17

times greater than the RF exposure from one day of standing continuously within 10 feet of a 18

smart meter (120 seconds 0.01 MPE). Put another way, you would have to be exposed to 19

the RF from a smart meter for 375 years to get a dose equivalent to that of one year of 15-20

minutes-per-day cell phone use. 12 21

Q. HOW SHOULD WE INTERPRET THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION’S 22

(WHO) REPORT STATING THAT CELL-PHONE EXPOSURE IS A “POSSIBLE” 23

CARCINOGEN? 24

9 The less than 1% of the MPE (~ 4 μW/cm2) for the smart meter is at 10 feet in front of it. Behind the meter (i.e., inside

the residence), the RF levels would be about 10-fold lower. 10 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that phones sold in the US have a SAR level at or below 1.6

watts per kilogram (W/kg), averaged over a volume containing a mass of 1 gram of tissue that is most highly exposed. 11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate 12 (900 seconds 0.50) / (120 seconds 0.01) = 375

Gradient 8

A. First of all, it should be noted that the WHO endorses the same ICNIRP international 1

guidelines for public RF exposure that are recognized by ICNIRP as safe. The WHO states: 2

“To date, all expert reviews on the health effects of exposure to RF fields have reached the 3

same conclusion: There have been no adverse health consequences established from 4

exposure to RF fields at levels below the international guidelines on exposure limits 5

published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.”13 6

In an abundance of precaution, on May 31, 2011, the International Agency for Research on 7

Cancer (IARC) classified RF electromagnetic fields as “possibly” carcinogenic to humans 8

(Group 2B). 14 The classification assigned to RF by IARC was one of the lowest on IARC’s 9

scale of cancer classifications. The IARC category 2B includes “possible” carcinogens that 10

we all encounter, such as coconut oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel oil, power-line EMF, 11

“carpentry and joinery,” coffee, carbon black (car tires), car-engine exhaust, surgical 12

implants, talc-based body powder, iron supplement pills, mothballs, nickels, pickled 13

vegetables, safrole tea, titanium dioxide, chloroform, and many other substances. 15 14

Moreover, IARC classifications are made with reference to the quantity of exposure, e.g., no 15

quantitative estimate as to how various uses of RF contribute to human exposure. As shown 16

above, smart meters constitute one of the weakest sources of our RF exposure. 17

Q. DO FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (“FCC”) REGULATIONS 18

ONLY ADDRESS THE THERMAL EFFECTS OF “SMART METERS”? ARE 19

THERE “NON-THERMAL” EFFECTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS? 20

A. RF exposure limits were developed by the FCC specifically to protect against all known 21

hazards of RF energy. The limits were established after a thorough review and evaluation of 22

the scientific literature and ample opportunity for comment by all interested parties. They 23

have been adopted by federal health agencies, have withstood repeated scrutiny, and are 24

similar to European regulations. For example, the World Health Organization has endorsed 25

13 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/ and http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/ottawa_june05/en/index4.html 14 http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf 15 http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsGroupOrder.pdf

Gradient 9

health-protective guidelines: “The main conclusion from the WHO reviews [of RF bioeffects 1

data] is that EMF exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP international 2

guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health” 16 and the Health 3

Council of the Netherlands has endorsed this viewpoint as well. 17 The level of RF exposure 4

from smart meters is a tiny fraction of FCC, IEEE and ICNIRP guidelines. It is also small or 5

comparable relative to other exposures to RF energy that we experience over the course of a 6

day from other technologies that emit RF energy, as listed above. There are no regulations 7

for “non-thermal” effects, because these remain speculative and have not been demonstrated 8

to lead to adverse health effects. 9

Q. ARE CERTAIN PEOPLE HYPER-SENSITIVE TO RF EXPOSURE SUCH THAT 10

THEY EXHIBIT SIGNS OF DISTRESS AND ILLNESS WHEN EXPOSED TO RF 11

FIELDS? 12

A. Although such claims regarding “sensitivity” are often asserted, their validity has never been 13

demonstrated. In fact, numerous investigators have searched for evidence of such RF 14

“hypersensitivity” effects in people, but the research has demonstrated that the adverse 15

symptoms reported by individuals believing themselves to be electrosensitive are due to the 16

belief of harm from RF rather than to the low-level RF exposure itself (Eltiti et al. 2007; 17

Rubin et al. 2011; van Rongen et al. 2009). 18

Q. SOME OPPONENTS OF “SMART METERS” STATE THAT “We didn’t know that 19

smoking and asbestos was bad, now look!” IS THIS ANALOGY USEFUL AND 20

VALID? 21

A. No. First of all, use of radio waves, and the RF spectrum for communication, predate the 22

widespread use of asbestos and commercial cigarettes, but no one has demonstrated any 23

health risks from society’s use of RF communications for more than 100 years. No parallel 24

can be drawn between the development of medical and health-effects understanding in these 25

two areas. For RF, extensive scientific research has been used to identify intensity levels, 26

16 http://www.who.int/peh-emf/standards/en/ 17 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21591902

Gradient 10

i.e., standards and guidelines, below which no adverse health effects are anticipated. And, as 1

I have already noted, these safety guidelines allow RF levels much higher than those 2

associated with smart meters. Some individuals call for reduction in exposure limits to levels 3

far below ICNIRP limits, due to fears that some as-yet undemonstrated hazard may exist 4

from exposure to RF energy at low levels. But, such an approach ignores the extensive body 5

of science that supports the ICNIRP limits and, in fact, the WHO strongly discourages 6

“arbitrary adjustments to the limit values to account for the extent of scientific 7

uncertainty,” 18 which this approach exemplifies. 8

Q. SOME OPPONENTS OF “SMART METERS” STATE THAT “Smart meters are 9

always on and exposure people to constant pulsating RF energy.” IS THIS A 10

LEGITIMATE CONCERN? 11

A. No. Smart meters transmit at a very low duty cycle (that is, the devices transmit for a very 12

small fraction of the time). As calculated above, the approximate, full-day RF exposure to a 13

resident of a house from a smart meter is comparable to that produced by use of a cellular 14

telephone for about 10 seconds. Typically, the smart meters transmit less than about 2 15

minutes a day on average, and less than about 16 minutes a day for 99.9% of meters. 16

18 http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/publications/facts_press/EMF-Precaution.htm

Gradient 11

REFERENCES

California Council on Science and Technology (CCST), Sacramento, CA. 2011. “Health impacts of radio frequency from smart meters.” ISBN-13:978-1-930117-42-6. http://www.ccst.us/publications/2011/2011smart-final.pdf Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2011. “Characterization of radiofrequency emissions from two models of wireless smart meters.” Project 1021829: Assessment of Exposures Related to Smart Grid Technologies. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: Final Report, December 2011. www.epri.com Eltiti S, Wallace D, Ridgewell A, et al. 2007. “Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study.” Environ Health Perspect. 115:1603-8. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). 1998. “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz).” Health Phys 74:494-522. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). 2002. “General approach to protection against non-ionizing radiation.” Health Phys 82:540-548. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). 2009. “Review of the scientific evidence on dosimetry, biological effects, epidemiological observations, and health consequences concerning exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz).” ICNIRP, Oberschleißheim, Germany: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/RFReview.pdf National Council of Radiation Protection & Measurement (NCRP). 1986. “Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.” NCRP Report No. 86. National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). 2004. “Review of the scientific evidence for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (0-300 GHz).” NRPB Volume 15, No 3. Rubin GJ, Hillert L, Nieto-Hernandez R, et al. 2011. “Do people with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields display physiological effects when exposed to electromagnetic fields? A systematic review of studies.” Bioelectromagnetics 32:593-609. Tell RA, Sias GG, Vazquez A, Sahl J, et al. 2012. “Radiofrequency fields associated with the ITRON Smart Meter.” Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncr468 Valberg, PA; VanDeventer, TE; Repacholi, MH. 2007. “Base stations and wireless networks: Radiofrequency exposures and health consequences.” Environ. Health Perspect. 115:416-424. van Rongen E, Croft R, Juutilainen J, et al. 2009. “Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on the human nervous system.” J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 12:572-97.

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

UTILITIES TELECOM COUNCIL

1901 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW | FIFTH FLOOR | WASHINGTON, DC 20007 USA | +1.202.872.0030 | WWW.UTC.ORG

No Health Threat From Smart Meters

by

Klaus Bender. PE Director of Standards & Engineering

Utilities Telecom Council As utilities seek to modernize their aging infrastructure and upgrade to a “smart” electric grid, wireless communications will play an ever increasingly important role in the facilitating these enhancements. Several consumer groups have raised concerns about the potential health effects of a two way communications device, the next generation electric meter or smart meter, on their homes. This article provides a brief review of the safety standards dealing with radio frequency energy and safety and shows that smart utility devices pose no health threat. We compare other household wireless devices to smart meters to show the energy from a meter is actually less than commonly used devices. Smart grid deployments use devices that fall into the same category as many wireless devices found in the home, such as wireless routers used for internet connectivity and wireless baby monitors. And unlike the laptop or WiFi router in the home that are always transmitting, smart meters transmit for only a fraction of the day for short durations.

Introduction Smart Grid is a transformed electricity transmission and distribution network or "grid" that uses robust two‐way communications, advanced sensors, and distributed computers to improve the efficiency, reliability and safety of power delivery and use. Deploying the Smart Grid became the policy of the United States with passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Title 13). The Smart Grid is also being promoted by the European Union and other nations. The smart grid will rely on the use of radio frequencies to provide wireless connectivity to the various components of the new electric distribution system. Wireless communications technology has become ubiquitous in our lives, enabling mobile connectivity with cell phones, wireless internet services and home area networking with WiFi technology and even cooking our food with microwave ovens. Yet

No Health Threat from Smart Meters ‐ 2 ‐

Excerpted from the Fourth Quarter 2010 Issue of the UTC JOURNAL. Copyright © 2010 Utilities Telecom Council. All Rights Reserved.

there are unsubstantiated concerns that the smart meters being installed around the country and the world will cause ill health effects to members of the household where the meters are installed. Therefore, we examine the facts about the impact of radio frequency energy on the body, showing that the devices utilities seek to install pose no threat of harm to humans. We show that the type of radio energy used and emitted by smart meters, cell phone, wireless routers and microwave ovens can only damage the body at extremely high levels. While research continues into long term effects, there has been no conclusive evidence that low level RF energy has a long term negative impact. We concentrate on RF energy and acknowledge that electric meters are connected to the power system and unauthorized tampering or dismantling an electric meter could pose electric shock danger to anyone coming in direct contact with energized electric conductors.

Federal Jurisdiction for Safety of Radio Frequency Devices The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has jurisdiction over the approval and use of radio frequency devices, whether a license is required for the devices or if unlicensed operation is allowed. FCC regulations are based on standards set by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) based on years of research by health professionals. The FCC has a twofold role in ensuring safety. First, the FCC has allocated the radio spectrum into a variety of pieces, most of which need coordination and a license before operation is permitted. Examples of this include television, satellite and radio broadcast channels, a variety of cellular and personal communications service frequencies, and microwave frequencies that transmit huge amounts of information from one point to another using dish style antennas. At the same time, the FCC has allocated some frequencies for unlicensed operation, allowing consumers to purchase products at Best Buy or Wal‐Mart and install them in their homes. These devices operate at low power levels, enabling communications but posing no threat of health effects to humans. Examples include the WiFi routers already discussed, wireless baby monitors and garage door openers. The FCC’s second role is to approve radio devices for manufacture, import and sale. Regardless of whether the equipment operates on low power unlicensed channels or at higher power operations that require an authorization, each device must be tested to meet FCC standards. The sale of untested and unapproved equipment is a serious offense and the FCC aggressively prosecutes violators.

FCC Mandates on RF Exposure and Impact on Humans The FCC is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, among other things, to evaluate the effect of emissions from FCC‐regulated transmitters on the quality of the human environment. Several organizations, such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) have issued recommendations for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields. On August 1, 1996, the Commission adopted the NCRP's recommended Maximum Permissible Exposure limits for field strength and power density for the transmitters operating at frequencies of 300 kHz to 100 GHz. In addition, the Commission adopted the specific absorption rate (SAR) limits for devices operating within close proximity to the body as specified within the ANSI/IEEE C95.1‐1992 guidelines.



(See Report and Order, FCC 96‐326) The Commission's requirements are detailed in Parts 1 and 2 of the FCC's Rules and Regulations [47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, 2.1093]. The potential hazards associated with RF electromagnetic fields are discussed in FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin No. 56, "Questions and Answers About the Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields."1 The FCC also offers OET Bulletin 65 on this topic. The revised OET Bulletin 65 has been prepared to provide assistance in determining whether proposed or existing transmitting facilities, operations or devices comply with limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The bulletin offers guidelines and suggestions for evaluating compliance.

Understanding the Impact of RF Energy on Humans RF signals are known to propagate as waves, and one of the key characteristics of the wave is its frequency. Frequency is the most significant control factor in radio transmission and impacts how the waves travel through space, whether they pass through walls or bounce off them, the wave’s interaction with foliage, etc. Use of the transit frequency is common knowledge in our society, as commercial radio and television stations often use this parameter as part of the public persona. Frequency also determines the impact of RF energy on the human body. Only very high frequencies, ultraviolet rays and above, have the capability of mutating living cells to cause cancer and similar illness. This frequency range is known as ionizing radiation because the RF energy creates ions out of living cells by removing or adding electrons at the cellular level. Non‐ionizing radio energy fall below this frequency range and the primary interaction with human cells is to heat them. This is the basis for the microwave oven. Non‐ionizing energy, at a high enough level, will heat human cells until they die, but non‐ionizing energy is simply incapable of mutating cells and causing diseases like cancer. Industry research and standards agencies, such as ANSI and IEEE, have compiled the research associated with human exposure of RF energy and created guidelines that the FCC and the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have adopted. The standards incorporate frequency of the energy to define maximum permissible exposure levels (MPE) correlated to frequency. The standards are most conservative at frequencies where the wavelength of the energy is near the size of the average human and have the most potential for whole body impact. The resulting MPE levels incorporated into the requirements include a 10:1 safety ratio to account for variations in size, weight and physical condition of the subject. Therefore, exposure even at 100% of the MPE level will not cause physical harm. In order to further protect the public from exposure to RF energy, the FCC set the MPE levels discussed above as the “occupational” or “controlled” environment, intended for workers and other professional

1 http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/



previously trained in safety related to RF energy. The FCC then created a “general public” or “uncontrolled” environment criteria that added an additional 5:1 safety factor over the occupational level. Thus the FCC’s MPE limit for the general public is 50 times less than the level research shows can actually cause harm. The tables below show the limits for occupational and general public MPE. Table 1. LIMITS FOR MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE (MPE) (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure

Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Power Density Averaging Time Range Strength (E) Strength (H) (S) |E|2, |H|2 or S (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) (minutes)

0.3‐3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3.0‐30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6 30‐300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300‐1500 ‐‐ ‐‐ f/300 6 1500‐100,000 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5 6

(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure

Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Power Density Averaging Time Range Strength (E) Strength (H) (S) |E|2, |H|2 or S (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) (minutes)

0.3‐1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 1.34‐30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30 30‐300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300‐1500 ‐‐ ‐‐ f/1500 30 1500‐100,000 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.0 30

f = frequency in MHz *Plane‐wave equivalent power density NOTE 1: Occupational/controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location where occupational/controlled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. NOTE 2: General population/uncontrolled exposures apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure.



Figure 1. MPE Level by Frequency and Class (Source: Sitesafe, Inc., Arlington VA)

The FCC’s OET 65 document also defines concepts like time averaging. As shown in the tables above, the averaging time for occupational/controlled exposures is 6 minutes, while the averaging time for general population/uncontrolled exposures is 30 minutes. It is important to note that for general population/uncontrolled exposures it is often not possible to control exposures to the extent that averaging times can be applied. In those situations, it is often necessary to assume continuous exposure. 2 Since the known danger in RF energy is tissue heating, if the subject moves out of the area of high RF levels, the cells will return to normal temperature. At 100% or less of MPE, there is no danger in continuous exposure. Time average says that if one is an area identified as 200% of the occupational MPE, up to three minutes of exposure is safe as long as three minutes elapse in an area at less than 100% MPE. In summary, there is no known long term health effect from exposure to RF energy at levels below those designated by the FCC. This energy is all around and the energy associated with smart meters is far less than those of other common services and equipment.

2 FCC OET Bulletin 65



Comparison of RF Power Density in the Everyday Environment Device Relative Power Density in microwatts per square centimeter (µW/cm2)

Source: Richard Tell Associates, Inc.3

Meter Reading System Configurations Residential and industrial electric meters allow utilities to accurately bill for the energy consumed. These devices have been used as long as the electric industry has been in place. Early meters required manual reading, with a utility employee writing down the use data and returning to the office to enter that information into the utility billing system. The use of radio frequencies to interrogate meters began in the early 1980’s. These systems used an interrogation signal sent from a utility employee either walking or driving through the area of interest. A radio signal “pings” the meters within range and the devices respond with consumption information, also using radio signals. As previously noted, the electric infrastructure in the US is going through a major transition, replacing equipment that can be 40 to 50 years old. At the same time, variable renewable energy sources like solar and wind must be integrated into this new grid. Increased communication with consumers that allows customers to adjust their energy usage in response to pricing or reliability based signals. Remote meter reading and cutoff, as well as other smart grid applications are all key components of the smart grid and these capabilities rely on smart meters. Smart meter systems varying in implementation depending on the utility’s needs and the vender selected. Most utilities are electing to install radio based smart meter systems. Radio based systems also vary in configuration, but each system is made up of the following components:

1. Meter: The meter device measures consumption and stores the information for retrieval by the utility.

3 Pacific Gas and Electric: http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/rf/

FM radio or TV broadcast station signal 0.005

SmartMeter™ device at 10 feet 0.1

Cyber cafe (Wi‐Fi) 10‐20

Laptop computer 10‐20

Cell phone held up to head 30‐10,000

Walkie‐Talkie at head 500‐42,000

Microwave oven, two inches from door 5,000



2. Meter Transceiver: The transceiver is a radio that receives instructions from the utility network and transmits necessary information to the utility. The transceiver is often an integral part of the meter, especially in the case of electric meters. Often, water and gas meters’ transceivers are mounted near the device. The meter’s radio system can also communicate with home energy management systems used by customers to control and monitor appliance power consumption. The meter transceivers operate on low power unlicensed channels, or in some cases, using cellular radio channels.

3. Data Aggregation Points: The meter transceiver transmits information to nearby collection devices, often called data aggregation points (DAPs). These devices are often mounted on nearby power poles at heights of 20 to 30 feet above ground. The DAPs collect information and transmit that information to the utility. If the utility has high capacity fiber infrastructure, that resource carries information from the DAPs. Typically, the DAP will communicate with center receive stations on radio frequencies in the unlicensed bands, or using cellular technology.

A common misconception about smart meters is that they are always “on” or transmitting. This is far from the case. Until recently, water and gas utilities usually read meters once or twice a month and the time needed to transmit information is less than 1 second. Only recently have gas and water utilities initiated more frequency meter queries. Electric utilities are implementing time‐of‐use billing structures but rarely need to read the meter more than once every 15 minutes. Again, the time to transmit consumption data is less than 1 second. This means, in this scenario, these low power devices are transmitting approximately 0.11% of the day4, at short bursts of less than one second. Even if the meter transmits once every 15 seconds, as is the case when no interrogation signal is used, transmission would still only by 6.7% of the day

We know from our discussion of RF exposure, even if the RF levels from these devices would exceed 100% of the FCC MPE, the impact on the body takes time. For the RF signal from a smart meter to be powerful enough to harm the human, that signal would have to be so powerful the transmission would be on the order of TV or radio broadcast stations. This is clearly not the case for smart meters.

4 Daily exposure percentage = [(4 seconds/hour)/(24 hours/day*60 minutes/hour*60 seconds/minute)]* 100



Summary In this article, we defined the concept of the smart grid and the benefits to society. We also highlighted the importance of radio networks to the successful deployment of the smart grid. We discuss the important concepts of RF energy and the impact on humans. Specifically, there is no demonstrated long term impact of low level non‐ionizing energy on humans. Ionizing energy, beginning with the ultraviolet component of sunlight, has been demonstrated to have long term impact, but the frequencies citing in this report are hundreds of orders of magnitude below that of sunlight. Therefore, this shows that the often quoted sources in the media expressing concern about the RF safety from smart meters are shown to be based on faulty logic, or faulty “facts” and misrepresentations. We show that a specific analysis of the component used in this smart grid deployment are significantly below general population MPE and note, again, that FCC limits for MPE of general population are already at least 50 times lower than levels that can cause tissue heating. An examination of a majority of smart meters being deployed today will show these devices use low power levels associated with unlicensed devices, on the equivalent magnitude as the devices that provide WiFi connectivity in the home. Millions of laptop computers are used in homes every day that transmit at levels similar to the smart meter and the transmitters from these devices are always “on”. Some utilities are deploying meter reading systems that use commercial wireless providers to gather data. These meters have the same radio components as cell phones, the same phone consumers raise to their head every day. So when confronted with complaints that say smart meters cause a variety of health effects, ask the complainant to produce the science to support the claim. The conversation should end shortly thereafter.

#



Appendix – Useful Links http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf‐faqs.html http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/Welcome.html#56 http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/Welcome.html#65 For more information, please contact: Klaus Bender, PE Director of Standards & Engineering Utilities Telecom Council [email protected] +1.202.833.6803

April 2012 Comment: BGE

Documents

iron supplement pills

peak load reductions

peak demand reductions

world health organization

smart grid initiative

required bill print

light heat

based body powder