1. The BCA has not been signed off on by a professional engineer registered as being in “responsible charge.” That’s a legal requirement for a plan to be considered safe.
2. If they roll this out without an engineering report showing it’s safe, we will file complaints with the PRC and sue if necessary.
3. What is PNM hiding? Why did they duck (with the OK of the Hearing Examiner) relevant discovery requests by Dr. Bruno? The Commission should delay next week’s hearing and do a bench request for PNM to comply with all discovery requests.
4. Under “conservative” scenario 1, the value of the smart meter portion is only 94% of the costs. The project should be stopped unless PNM can prove the benefits will outweigh the costs.
5. The Grid Modernization Act does not invalidate other laws that require safety. Legislators indicated that safety is to be determined by the Commission.
6. What is the cost of the Highland’s cyber attack? What would the cost be of a PNM cyber attack? The old meters don’t have computers built-in like the new ones. Where is the cyber attack cost to be found in the CBA? Keep us safe!
7. In 2015 PNM also proposed smart meters. Experts were allowed to testify that the wireless signals are not safe, and that they are an IARC-listed carcinogen. The proposal was denied. The Grid Mod Act does not change reality.
8. Hundreds of thousands of smart meters had to be removed because that model, though ANSI certified, was found to cause fires. I should not have to pay to opt out of putting a fire hazard on my house.
9. Thousands of smart meters were removed due to overbilling. Research in Europe found that certified meters could overbill by over 500% on nonlinear loads. What protection do I have from that?
10. It’s too expensive, especially for poor people who don’t use much electricity, but still have to pay the same “rider” as everyone else (except industrial high-voltage users).

MY VIEW
Smart meter hearing coming up next week
By William Bruno Apr 12, 2024

In 2008, many utilities nationwide used stimulus funds to pay for smart meters, which are electric meters with built-in transmitters, similar to a cell phone and Wi-Fi router. These meters eliminated jobs and created problems like fires, overbilling and also a surprising number of health complaints.

Public Service Company of New Mexico at the time was against using smart meters, but in 2015 evidently realized its shareholders would benefit if customers paid for new smart meters, plus the allowed profit percentage. The Public Regulatory Commission rejected that $95 million project, ruling there was no public benefit.

In 2020, PNM helped write the Grid Modernization Act, a law intended to ensure New Mexicans have safe, affordable, reliable and green electricity. The current PRC hearing examiner has interpreted the law to mean that smart meters must have a public benefit, banning as irrelevant experts who would state otherwise. In a subsequent ruling the hearing examiner wrote the statute does not authorize the PRC “to evaluate how much death and suffering will occur” due to smart meter deployment (per Order 3/8/2023 22-00058-UT).

The PRC has ordered PNM to file a cost-benefit analysis to go with its new $330 million smart meter application, and the public now has a chance to weigh in on it. What’s in the analysis is occasionally interesting (e.g., people with time-of-use billing in the report’s pilot project didn’t shift their usage to when rates are lower; off-peak usage stayed constant).

But what’s glaring is what’s left out. There are zero costs for damages or legal expenses associated with fires, overbilling or cyber attacks. Money is included for cybersecurity, but according to Albuquerque cyber expert Dick Wilkinson, those measures will not protect us from hackers. Certainly no costs are included to reflect the controversial health and environmental effects, even though, since 2011, wireless radiation from cellphones is a listed class 2b “possible” carcinogen. Most glaringly, no costs for an engineering analysis to certify whether this newest generation of smart meters will be electrically safe in our meter sockets, on PNM’s grid. Engineering analysis must be done prior to completing a cost benefit analysis; otherwise costs of making the project safe will be left out.

I believe PNM has neglected its responsibility under the Engineering and Surveying Practices Act to put a licensed engineer in “responsible charge” of the project. Such an engineer would determine the best choice among feasible options for meeting the goals of the Grid Modernization Act and make sure we don’t have a repeat of events elsewhere in the United States and Canada, when hundreds of thousands of meters were removed due to fire hazard, billing errors or premature obsolescence.

PNM’s cost benefit analysis assumes the Linux computers inside the meters will run for 20 years without overheating, breaking, becoming obsolete or being hacked. The Grid Modernization Act requires PNM’s plan to be reasonable. You be the judge.

The public hearing on the cost benefit analysis is from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Thursday (to be extended as necessary). Comments up to three minutes can be made in person at 142 W. Palace Ave.; attendance over Zoom or phone can be prearranged with the PRC at [email protected] or 505-490-7910. Also, send written comments with subject 22-00058-UT to [email protected].

Link to the article for SF New Mexican subscribers: https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/smart-meter-hearing-coming-up-next-week/article_978f1b8c-f8f7-11ee-bd44-e7efb9b4283b.html

B. Blake Levitt is an award-winning journalist who has specialized in medical and science writing for three decades. She has researched the biological effects of nonionizing radiation since the late 1970’s. A former New York Times freelance contributor, she has written widely on medical issues for both the lay and professional audience. Her work has appeared in numerous national publications and has been translated into Russian and Chinese. READ MORE