HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/12/2011 - MODERNIZING WATER AND ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTUREDATE: July 12, 2011
STAFF: Brian Janonis, Steve
Catanach, Kraig Bader
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Modernizing Water and Electric Infrastructure.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this work session item is to provide City Council with an update on the Advanced
Meter Fort Collins project. The project involves the upgrade of all of the electrical and water meters
within the City utilities service territories. The project will improve current operations within
Utilities, help meet the goals established in the Energy Policy, enhance our ability to serve
customers, and ensure that Utilities is well positioned to support the current evolution of the
traditional electric utility.
The opportunities available to customers surrounding involve their energy choices are growing.
Looking towards the future, industry predictions suggest that the life-cycle cost of installing solar
panels will be the same as, or less than, electrical prices from the utility within the decade. In
addition, consumers have expressed a strong interest in the adoption of electric vehicles. In
response, manufacturers are investing heavily in the development of electric vehicles; there are
currently 34 all-electric vehicle manufacturers in the United States. A recent report from the
Department of Energy addressing the progress toward the President’s goal of “One Million Electric
Vehicles By 2015” indicates that the manufacturing capability already exists and the next necessary
step is educating and supporting the consumer.
The installation of advanced metering technology provides a foundation that will enable Fort Collins
Light & Power to support, inform and empower our community by providing energy choices while
maintaining the same level of quality service and high reliability provided to customers today. The
key benefits defined include:
• use information and technology to maintain high system reliability
• make utility operations even more cost-effective
• provide more timely customer service
• prepare the utility and the community for emerging technologies.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Utilities is providing several options for customers.
• Option 1: Standard mode with full functionality
• Option 2: Limited mode collects data only once per day
• Option 3: Manual mode: meter read manually once per month (added monthly cost)
July 12, 2011 Page 2
The table below summarizes the features.
1. Is Council comfortable with the options?
2. The technology that has been selected for the AMI communication system is expandable.
It will provide an opportunity to support current, future and new applications within Utilities,
the City and the community. Should staff pursue opportunities within the City and
community and bring back to Council?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2008, the City adopted the Climate Action Plan. One of the strategies identified in the Plan
included the installation of Advanced Meters to provide customers with information on their energy
usage. Starting in January 2009, Utilities staff worked in cooperation with R.W. Beck to develop
a business case for the installation of an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system for both
the water and electrical systems. The business case analysis supported the decision to move forward
with installation of the system. As Utilities moved the budget offer through the Budgeting For
Outcomes (BFO) process, the availability of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
funding for grid modernization projects was announced. In addition to the AMI system, Utilities
reviewed the Utilities Long Range Information Technology Plan for projects that would be
applicable to the ARRA grants funded by the Department of Energy (DOE). The grant application
requested funding for the electrical AMI system infrastructure improvements to support the system
such as installation of additional fiber optics, cyber security improvements, grid modernization
equipment and, in support of the Climate Action Plan goals, a greatly enhanced demand response
program. The total program proposed for funding the Smart Grid Investment Grant program for the
electrical system was approximately $32 million. In October 2009, Utilities was notified it had been
awarded a matching grant of $15.7 million.
Considerations
Option 1
Standard
Option 2
Limited
Option 3
Manual
Functionality and ability to take advantage of
new technology; allows full customer benefits
High Limited Minimal
Data collected in 15-minute to one-hour intervals 9
Data collected once per day 9
Data collected once per month via manual read 9
Data transmitted 4 to 6 times per day via a 1.5
second signal 9 9
Additional customer cost 9 9
Additional system cost 9
Requires monthly service call 9
Ability to support Energy Policy High Limited Minimal
Optional
July 12, 2011 Page 3
In April and May of 2010, Council approved both the appropriation and the sale of bonds in order
to providing matching funds for the Smart Grid Investment Grant (SGIG) awarded to the City from
the Department of Energy and for the installation of the AMI system. In July 2010, Council
approved the appropriation of funds for water meters. The Advanced Meter Fort Collins program
(AMFC) includes citywide deployment of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), which will
provide two-way communication between the Utility and the electrical and water meters and from
the meters to customers. The information collected can then be shared with the customers by a web
portal or other device, allowing them to make more informed decisions on how they use energy and
water.
As noted, the AMFC program also includes:
• The installation of approximately 5 remotely operated high voltage switches. This gives
Light & Power the opportunity to gain experience in developing the appropriate safety
regulations, standards, process and procedures related to the automation of the distribution
system.
• Installation of additional fiber optic cable in order to connect the new Portner and Timberline
Substations.
• The development of Cyber Security guidelines consistent with the National Institute of
Standards (NIST), standard 800-53. The NIST standards provide a roadmap for the
development of policies and procedures that are best practices in the management of
computer systems.
• The expansion of the existing demand response and energy efficiency programs.
The City’s current Energy Policy and the Climate Action Plan establish goals that are directly served
by the AMFC project – high reliability and reduction of carbon footprint, as detailed below.
Goal #1: Provide highly reliable electric service.
The bullets below are a truncated list of the Objective and Metrics defined in the Energy Policy for
Goal #1 that are supported by the AMFC program.
• Demonstrate and communicate the high reliability of the Fort Collins electric system by
maintaining annual reliability metrics of:
N Average System Availability Index (ASAI) greater than 99.9886%;
N Customer Average Interruption Index (CAIDI) less than 60 minutes; and
N System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) less than 1.0.
• Manage peak loads to reduce demands on the distribution system, optimize infrastructure
investment and reduce purchased power costs.
N Maintain energy efficiency and demand side management programs targeting peak
loads.
N Increase the power managed by load management, smart grid and distributed
generation to at least 5% of 2005 system peak demand by 2015 and at least 10% by
July 12, 2011 Page 4
2020. Develop a methodology for tracking load management as a percentage of peak
demand, considering utility programs, customer response and weather normalization.
N Support customer efforts to reduce electric costs through managing peak loads.
Goal #2: Support the community’s carbon emissions goal of reducing the City’s carbon
footprint 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
The bullets below are a truncated list of the Objective and Metrics defined in the policy for Goal #2
that are supported by the AMFC program.
• Continuously reduce energy use through verifiable energy efficiency programs, independent
of population growth and economic trends.
N Achieve annual energy efficiency and conservation program savings of at least 1.5%
of annual energy use (based on a three year average history).
• For renewable energy resource investments, balance the interrelated factors of carbon
reduction, cost-effectiveness, impact on power plant operations, and local economic benefits.
N Maintain a minimum fraction of renewable energy in compliance with State of
Colorado requirements. In coordination with Platte River Power Authority, develop
generation resources and the delivery of renewable energy to meet minimum
requirements.
N Offer voluntary renewable energy programs whereby customers can support
renewable energy and local renewable energy projects through opt-in premium
pricing.
N Increase the contribution of renewable energy to reach the 20% by 2020 carbon
reduction goal, after accounting for the contributions of resource mix, energy
efficiency, conservation, minimum renewable energy requirements and voluntary
renewable energy programs.
N Include renewable energy sources that can be scheduled to maintain system stability
and reliability.
The AMFC program provides support for the cited goals in several ways as described below.
Background on the AMI System and Operation
The AMI system that will be installed is fundamentally similar to the network communication
systems that are installed in homes and businesses across the community. The network provides and
exchanges information through local area networks (LAN) which are analogous to the wireless
networks in most of our homes. The LAN then connects to a service provider through a Wide Area
Network (WAN), which is the high capacity, high-speed collector. The WAN is typically a high-
speed broadband connection provided to homes through the cable, phone or other providers. In the
case of the AMI system, the LAN is a Neighborhood Local Area Network (NLAN), providing
communications with the meter. The WAN is a Distribution Wide Area Network (DWAN) that
carries the information to the Utilities’ “back-office” systems, such as the Meter Data Management
System (MDMS), Customer Information System (CIS), Billing System, Outage Management
System (OMS), etc.
July 12, 2011 Page 5
How does this relate to achieving the City’s energy policy goals and how it currently operates?
Today, the information we have relative to the operation of our electrical system is mathematically
modeled. We have very detailed information about electrical demand at our electrical substations.
Unfortunately, with today’s technology, that is where it stops. Both the design and operation of our
electric distribution system are based on a worse-case scenario.
The integration of the communications and metering system provides detailed information about the
operation of the utility. Looking forward towards the evolution of the electrical system, the
installation of large amounts of solar panels on homes and businesses, the purchases of more and
more electric vehicles, and the information and communication desires of our customers, the
information provided by the AMI meters becomes critical in the service to our customers and the
operation of the electrical system.
As with the electrical system, the information provided to both the Utilities and customer relative
to water usage will be valuable. The system will provide an opportunity to better model the water
system operations by providing a clearer picture related to system losses through leaks. Today there
is no clear data that supports how much water might be lost on the system. The measurement of
water delivered takes approximately 30 days for all the meters to be read. This does not provide a
way to balance production with delivery. AMI will provide an opportunity to compare the output
of the plant to the water being consumed at a relative window in time. In other words, the amount
of water leaving the plant at midnight can be compared to the amount of water being delivered at
midnight. The additional data can then be used to model the system better and identify losses.
The customer benefit is more timely information on water use over the course of the billing period
which allows them to make informed decisions on their use.
Meeting the Reliability Goal
The electric delivery system has been designed as a one-way delivery system. Historically, power
is generated at a central plant, such as Platte River Power Authority’s Rawhide Plant. That energy
is then transmitted over high voltage power lines to local distribution utilities. Voltage can be
thought of as pressure in a water line. In order to move the energy greater distances the pressure,
or voltage, is increased. The distribution utility transforms the high voltage power to a medium
voltage more suitable for delivery through a community. The distribution utility then reduces the
voltage again for delivery into the home. Using the pressure analogy, the pressure is again reduced
to a more suitable level for the home or business.
Note, the generation and transmission systems across the western U.S. are interconnected, which
supports highly reliable delivery from the transmission system. In similar fashion to the transmission
system, circuits in our electric distribution system are designed to be interconnected to reduce the
impact of outages on our customers. This interconnected system is typically referred to as the grid.
Today, when there is a problem on the distribution system the utility relies on customers to call in
to report that they have no power. The integration of a communications system on top of the
delivery system will provide immediate information that an outage has occurred and will give us
information on where the problem may be. The new electric meters have a function called a “last-
gasp”. This “last-gasp” is sent as a high priority message to the utility indicating power is out.
Rather than waiting on a phone call, the utility will immediately know there is a problem.
July 12, 2011 Page 6
In addition to the automated notification system, Light & Power will be installing devices called
fault indicators. Using the water analogy, a fault is like “a break in the line”. A fault indicator is
a device which provides a visual or remote indication that a fault has passed a particular point in
the electric power system. Fault indicators help reduce the outage duration because they help to
“narrow down” the possible locations of a fault. By using fault indicators, the line crews no longer
have to “guess” where the fault may be. Today we have fault indicators throughout the system, but
they do not communicate back to the utility. Line crews must drive to strategically selected points
along the circuit and open vaults containing fault indicators to see if the fault has passed through that
vault. The fault indicators proposed for this project will communicate via the enhanced
communications network to report to the utility. The AMFC project will strategically place
additional devices on the system allowing communications from the fault indicators to our System
Control and Operations (SCO) center helping them dispatch crews to the suspected problem site
more quickly.
The network communications system being installed as part of the AMI system provides a
foundation technology that will help achieve the goals of the energy policy. The enhanced
communication system will help us maintain the high level of reliability and lower the length of
outage time.
Managing Peak Loads to Reduce System Peak
A significant component of the AMFC program is the adoption of technologies to help reduce
system peak demands. Electric power demand is measured in watts and is more commonly
discussed using the terms kilowatt (1000 watts = 1 kilowatt, or 1kW) or megawatt (1,000,000 watts
= 1 megawatt, or 1 MW). A peak demand is the maximum level of power required over a given
period. An analogy for electrical demand and its relationship to the electric distribution system is
the maximum speed a driver achieves while driving across town. Although the car is traveling
below the peak speed the majority of the time, it must be capable of reaching that maximum speed
for driver safety and satisfaction. Similarly, an electrical system must be designed to meet the peak
demand, although the majority of the time the system operates well below the peak demand. The
Fort Collins electrical system typically operates at about 60% of the maximum peak on an annual
basis. There are daily peaks, monthly peaks and annual peaks. Customers and the City are billed
monthly for peak demand. The graph below is a typical peak day curve for both summer and winter
for the Platte River system. The summer peak is the higher of the two. The peak value may change
but the load shape over the course of the day is very typical for each season.
July 12, 2011 Page 7
Peak Load Winter and Summer Graph
The Energy Policy goal of reducing the peak demand, translates to a reduction of approximately
15,000 kilowatts (kW). Fort Collins’ maximum peak demand has been 292,000 kW. In relative
terms, a house typically uses between 3 – 6 kilowatts, a small business such as a retail shop has a
peak demand of 15 – 25 kW, a retail space such as a grocery store is between 500 and 750 kW.
Since 1982, the Light and Power utility has offered demand reduction programs which include
customer incentives. Customers volunteer to have a device installed on their electric water heater
unit and then, during peak periods, Light and Power will cycle the unit off and on for 15 minutes
at a time throughout the peak period, thereby reducing the overall system peak. In return, the utility
applies a customer credit of $4.00 per month to their account. In 2005, the program was expanded
to include air-conditioning units. During the four-month period surrounding summer, the customer
is paid an incentive of $4.00 per month for their participation in the program. It is currently
estimated the program reduces peak by approximately 1,800 kW. The AMFC program will provide
an upgrade of the existing demand response programs. This upgrade, along with the communication
system and the advanced meters, will allow customers to utilize in-home displays, smart
thermostats, and other emerging technologies, such as Home Energy Management Systems.
Customers are not required to participate in these programs. The programs will be voluntary as they
have always been.
One of the identified risks in the project is associated with the implementation of the demand
reduction and efficiency related technologies. The standards by which these technologies integrate
with AMI systems are still under development and are more in the domain of the consumer
electronics arena. Historically, utilities have invested in equipment with an expectation that it will
last for decades. In the consumer electronics arena, the equipment becomes obsolete every three to
five years. Additional risks exist due to lack of a clear perspective on what the types of programs
and equipment the consumer wants.
As part of AMFC program, the Utility is working with the Department of Energy (DOE) on a
Customer Behavior Study (CBS), which includes up-front work to determine what technologies and
July 12, 2011 Page 8
information customers desire and will be most responsive to. This study may include focus groups,
surveys, interviews, and pilot programs of the technologies that are currently evolving in the demand
response and energy management area. Programs will then be developed to support the customer’s
needs and to help the Utilities achieve the maximum level of demand reduction, energy efficiency,
and conservation.
As part of AMFC program, the communications system will provide valuable information allowing
us to integrate higher levels of distributed generation onto the distribution system, allowing the
system to be designed and operated more efficiently. The system knowledge gained will help us
maintain the high reliability our customers expect.
Goal #2: Support the community’s carbon emissions goal of reducing the City’s carbon
footprint 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
AMFC program will achieve some direct carbon reduction. It is estimated that the AMI system will
eliminate approximately 198,000 vehicle miles per year with a net carbon reduction of, 147,559 lbs
of CO2, 241.6 lbs of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), 11.5 lbs of Particulate Matter (PM-10), and 2.6 lbs
of Sulfur Oxide (Sox) per year because of reduced meter reads, special reads and service calls.
The Energy Policy set a goal of achieving a 1.5% reduction in annual energy use (based on a three-
year average history). The AMFC program will allow customers who are interested to view their
usage data on-line or via an in-home display. It is anticipated that this feature will be available to
customers late in phase 2, approximately the 3rd quarter of 2012.
Today, residential customers receive their energy usage for the previous month about nine days after
the end of their billing cycle. It is difficult for customers to be actively engaged and informed about
their energy and water usage, their cost, and what choices they may make differently, when the
information they receive is 9 days or further in the past. The information that the AMFC system will
provide via the internet will be about one day old. Once, the meter information is transmitted
through the mesh network, it goes through a Validation, Estimation and Editing (VEE) process, and
is then posted to a web portal. Those customers who choose to use an in-home display, smart
thermostat, or a home energy management system will have data that is much closer to
instantaneous. The information will be updated as often as the meter records data, which currently
is planned for fifteen minutes or one-hour.
The provision of more timely data, along with customer education and outreach on how this
information can be used by customers to help them save, is part of the program. One example, of
how a customer might benefit from the information might be that they receive a notification, via an
email, text, page, or however they wish, when they have used 4000 gallons of water in a given
billing cycle, and that they will soon enter the higher cost second-tier water rate at 5000 gallons.
This is an example of a system that can provide the customer with information that allows them to
make an informed decision about their water use. The same is true for electrical usage, whether it
is a tiered demand rate, inclining block rate or Time-of-Use (TOU) rate. Customers can be informed
as they reach higher-priced periods. The desired outcome is that the information provided through
the AMI systems can be leveraged by customers to control their usage and costs and, in turn, help
the Utilities reach their conservation and efficiency goals.
July 12, 2011 Page 9
Goal #2 - Objectives and metrics speak to the need to meet the State Renewable Energy Standards,
provide voluntary programs to help customers meet their renewable energy goals, increase the
contribution of renewable energy to help meet our carbon reduction goals and include renewable
energy sources that can be scheduled to maintain system stability and reliability.
Utilities are working towards meeting all the goals summarized above. As we anticipate the many
changes that the future will bring, we know the installation of solar panels (PV) will continue to
come down in cost; within the decade, the cost of PV energy is expected to be the same or lower
than utility prices; new technology and applications for existing distributed generation are becoming
more attractive and affordable. Information about how the electrical system is operating becomes
critical. As noted above, the current electrical grid is designed as a one-way delivery system. In
order to manage multiple sources of energy on the complex mesh of electrical circuits, and to ensure
the safe, reliable and efficient operation of the system, the information provided by the AMI system
becomes critical.
Council recently received a letter recommending that we establish new standards for the electrical
system's construction, in anticipation and support of future distributed generation. The challenge
is that the distribution system is designed and operated using mathematical models that view the
design requirements from a 50,000-foot perspective. This methodology has worked well in the
development of a robust and reliable system that serves customers today. However, when we start
to consider changing construction practices, we cannot clearly define how the system should be
designed and operated without detailed information in the portions of the distribution system where
the greatest changes will be occurring. The implementation of the AMFC technology will provide
us with the system operational information that will help us understand the time-of-day cyclic nature
of the different elements of the system. AMFC helps us prepare for the future that our customers
are already building.
Project Update - Technology Selected
The Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) and the Meter Data Management System (MDMS)
vendor have both been selected. Contract negotiations with both vendors are currently underway.
The AMI system has several specific components. Specifically, the system includes the meters, the
communication systems, the Information Technology (IT) components and the collection software,
which is referred to as the Head End System (HES). The AMI system vendor that we have selected
is Elster Inc. Elster is a well-established and experienced vendor in both the metering and AMI
space. Elster has been providing metering to utilities for over 170 years. They currently have
approximately 5 million AMI meters deployed and operating in the field and have completed over
90 installation projects.
The AMI meters are a solid-state meter with a two way radio communication card, a remote connect
/ disconnect device, and a Home Area Network (HAN) communication card within the meter. The
Home Area Network device is what communicates with in-home displays, smart thermostats or
other consumer devices. All communications with the in-home device will be initiated by the
customer and will be the customer’s choice. Figure 1, (Attachment 3), shows both residential and
commercial Elster meters.
July 12, 2011 Page 10
In order to bring information back to the utility, the meters communicate with a device called a
Gatekeeper. The Gatekeeper serves as the conductor for the Neighborhood Local Area Network
(NLAN) by controlling the network interconnection efficiency and collecting the metering data from
the individual meters. A Gatekeeper can communicate with over 2000 meters. Typically, the
Gatekeepers will be mounted on existing street light poles. A typical Gatekeeper is shown in
attached Figure 2 (Attachment 3).
The Gatekeeper communicates with the Distribution Wide Area Network (DWAN) router. The
DWAN router will then pass the information to centralized routers that will send the information
back to the utility via our existing fiber optic network. The DWAN routers will be mounted on the
arms of existing streetlight and intersection light poles. Pictures of a DWAN router on a street light
and being mounted are shown in Figure 3 (see Attachment 3).
Attached Figure 4 (see Attachment 3) provides a graphic illustration of the communication system.
The Utility has selected Siemens to supply of the Meter Data Management System (MDMS).
Siemens has collaborated with E-meter to supply and configure the system. With the installation
of the AMI system, the volume of data that the utility will be receiving will increase significantly.
Currently, we receive one data point, once a month from each of our residential customer accounts
and our small commercial General Service Accounts. In contrast, we currently receive 15-minute
data from approximately 500 of our largest customers. With the installation of AMI meters, we
expect to have the capability to get this level of resolution from all customers in the future. The
MDMS is designed to help manage the information the AMI meters will provide. The system will:
• Effectively manage the AMI provisioning/commissioning process
• Reduce revenue loss through use of real-time validation algorithms and reporting that:
N Detect unauthorized consumption
N Detect leaks/tamper events
N Identify failed meters and registers
N Detect dead or dying meters
• Track key infrastructure assets: meters, communication modules, pumps, valves, including
compound meters
• Systematically monitor events and issue work orders i.e. on pressure when maximum limits
are exceeded/potential revenue protection issue, etc.
• Support a systematic repair and replace program that extends infrastructure life and
optimizes leak control programs through precise tracking
• VEE (Validation – Error checking – and Editing) real-time the 15 minute, hourly and/or
daily usage allowing for variable pricing options (TOU, CPP, CPR)
• Manage events generated by the AMI system
July 12, 2011 Page 11
A general outline of the current project schedule is provided below.
Project timeline
Completed
• Nov. 22, 2010 – Jan 11, 2011: Prepare and Release Request for Proposal (RFP) for AMI and
MDMS
• January 2011 Through March 23, 2011: Evaluate Vendor RFP Responses, Conduct Vendor
Interviews, Recommend Vendor Selection
To Be Completed
• March through June 2011: Contract negotiations with AMI & MDMS vendors
• July 2011 through September 2011: Develop deployment contractor (RFP), release RFP
select vendor
• July 2011 through September 2011: Define requirements with AMI and MDMS vendors
• September 2011 through December 2011: IT infrastructure installation, MDMS system
installation and testing
• September 2011 through November 2011: Contract negotiations with installation vendor
• November 2011 through January 31, 2012: Deployment Planning and staging
• February 1, 2012 through April 2012: Phase 1 - Installation of 4000 Electric meters, 2000
Water meters (end-to-end, or meter-to-bill test)
• April through May 2012: System Functional test (prior to release to move to Phase 2)
• May 24 through November 8, 2012: Phase 2 - Installation; (‘Interval’ Billing Tests, Mass
Deployment)
• November. 9, 2012 through June 7, 2013: Phase 3 - Installation; (‘Advanced’ Rates ,
Continued Mass Deployment)
There are currently three primary concerns that have been voiced nationally related to AMI or smart
meters. There are over 18 million AMI meters installed in the US and approaching 100 million
worldwide. The upgrade of existing utility meters has raised concerns for some customers about
the costs, health effects and privacy and security of the information broadcast by the meters.
July 12, 2011 Page 12
Health effects
• National concerns related to health effects have included:
N The meters cause cancer
N People suffering from electromagnetic sensitivity are being adversely affected by the
meters.
The meters selected operate in a frequency range between 902 megahertz (MHZ) and 928 MHZ.
Other devices that operate in this spectrum are cell phones, cordless phones, wireless routers, TV
and radio broadcasts, and other common devices. Figure 5 (Attachment 3) is a graphical
representation of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Health effects from Radio Frequency electromagnetic fields are a topic that has been raised across
the country. A recent report released by the World Health Organization (WHO) International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently classified Cell phones as a Group 2B carcinogen.
Group 2B elements are classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans. As noted above, the Elster
AMI meters operate in the same frequency range as cell phones and other devices.
Other studies specifically related to AMI technology such as a meta-study performed by the
California Council on Science and Technology found the following:
July 12, 2011 Page 13
The table below is from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). EPRI is an independent,
non-profit company that performs research, development and demonstrations in the electricity
sector for the benefit of the public. The table represents the relative strengths associated with
different devices that operate within the microwave frequency range. The EPRI information is
also attached in graphical form as Figure 6 (Attachment 3). As shown the meters exposure
levels are significantly less than those of a cell phone or other common devices.
In order to support our community, Utilities is working with Dr. Bruce Cooper, Executive Director
of the Health District of Northern Colorado, to provide an independent and informed risk analysis
to the community. Dr. Cooper will be in attendance at the upcoming work session. Additionally,
Dr. Cooper has provided the following statement:
“I was asked by Patty Bigner, Customer and Employee Relations Manager of the
City of Fort Collins, to help the City interpret information on the potential adverse
health effects of the radio-frequency electromagnetic fields emitted by “smart
meters” after some concerns were expressed by several residents.
I have focused my review on recent assessments of radiofrequency radiation and
health effects conducted by major public health authorities and other government
July 12, 2011 Page 14
agencies—the World Health Organization, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and National Toxicology
Program, the University of Ottawa McLaughlin Center for Population Health Risk
Assessment in Canada, the Health Protection Agency of the United Kingdom, and
the comprehensive 2009 review by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing
Radiation. I have also examined technical documents on smart meters published by
the Electrical Power Research Institute, and very recent reviews on smart meter
health effects produced by the California Council on Science and Technology, April
2011, and State of Maine Center for Disease Control, November, 2010.
Brief Summary of my Findings:
Smart meters are a new technology but they use the same radio frequency (RF) fields
as cell phones, cordless phones, WiFi equipment, and other communication devices
used around the home. Emissions of RF from these sources are regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with advisory support from the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency. The RF
exposure limits adopted by the FCC were established by the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) with a wide margin of safety, and according to the
FDA, are based on detailed and continuously updated assessments of the available
scientific evidence. Published research indicates that exposure to RFs from smart
meters is very low—1000 times or more below the exposure guidelines established
by the FCC.
There is a large body of evidence that has accumulated over the past 20 years
examining the potential adverse health effects of exposure to low level RF emissions
below the established exposure guidelines, much of it focused on RF from mobile
phones. Mobile phone RF exposures are qualitatively similar to smart meters and
wireless local area networks, but because typical use of cell phones results in
exposures much closer to the body, the resulting exposures are of much higher
intensity. Many public health authorities, agencies and expert panels in the US and
other countries are periodically reviewing this research and from the documents I
have reviewed, they have all concluded that the weight of evidence indicates that
there are no adverse health effects from RF emissions below current guidelines.
However, all have noted that the published research has limitations, particularly in
addressing long-term exposures to low-level RF.
Just a few weeks ago, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) announced that they were classifying the
electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones as “possibly carcinogenic”.
Although this could be seen as a departure from previous assessments, it is important
to interpret it in perspective. The classification is consistent with previous reviews
that have found no clear scientific evidence of cancer risk, but it acknowledges that
the possibility exists based on “limited evidence” of a small increase in risk of a rare
form of brain cancer among heavy users of cell phones. According to IARC, the
classification indicates that “there could be some risk” and therefore “it is important
that additional research be conducted into the long-term, heavy use of mobile
phones.” (IARC press release, May 31, 2011).
July 12, 2011 Page 15
The Federal Drug Administration is the U.S. agency charged with monitoring the
research on health effects of EMF. The FDA web site (accessed 7/1/2011) calls
attention to the fact that other agents that are currently classified as “possibly
carcinogenic to humans” by IARC include coffee, talcum powder and
electromagnetic fields around power lines and states, “According to current data, the
FDA believes that the weight of scientific evidence does not show an association
between radiofrequency from cell phones and adverse health outcomes”. Likewise,
the World Health Organization’s updated fact sheet on mobile phones acknowledges
the recent IARC determination, but states, “To date, no adverse health effects have
been established as being caused by mobile phone use”. While no adverse health
effects have been established from exposure to low-level RF, these authorities have
echoed those of previous reviews and called for more research to reduce the
uncertainty about the impacts of long-term exposure to RF on health, and this
research is on-going.
Conclusion
Based on the City of Fort Collins Utilities smart grid implementation plan it appears
that residential smart meters and the connecting network to the utility in Fort Collins
will contribute a relatively small amount to the total RF emissions from broadcast
sources, cell phone base stations, WiFi routers and other devices now in common
usage in households and much less than typical use of cell phones. Because of the
very low exposure to RFs associated with the planned use of smart meters in Fort
Collins, it is not likely to lead to health effects in residents of homes with these
devises. There appears to be no health reason to avoid the use of smart meters.
Nevertheless, given the uncertainty that still exists regarding the potential long-term
health effects of cumulative exposure to RF fields, residents who remain concerned
about potential risks may appreciate alternatives to installing smart meters with
wireless transmitters.
Limitations
My assessment of the potential health effects of smart meters has several limitations:
First, I am not an expert in non-ionizing radiation health effects. I am trained and
board certified in public health/general preventive medicine and family medicine.
Preventive medicine specialists have core competencies in biostatistics,
epidemiology, environmental medicine, and research into causes of disease and
injury in population groups. Second, I have not examined the extensive body of
literature on this topic, but instead relied on recent summaries of reviews produced
by expert panels, agencies and public health authorities we normally rely on to sort
out complicated science.”
Privacy and Security
• National concerns related to privacy have included:
N Placing customer information at risk
N “The Utility will know what I’m doing when”
N The meters can be hacked
July 12, 2011 Page 16
The City of Fort Collins Utilities takes customer privacy very seriously and has for many years. We
recognize that emerging technologies open new avenues of risk. We are undertaking an extensive
program to make sure that customer data is secure, confidential, and accurate in accordance with our
existing policy that details how customer’s information is managed. Other than through a formal
request from law enforcement customer information is not shared with anyone, unless formally
released by the customer.
The Utilities complies with all local, state and federal regulations to protect personal data and
information. All customer information – including personal information, bill payment type or status,
utility use - are strictly protected. Specifically:
• Fort Collins Utilities is subject to the Colorado Open Records Act & Fort Collins Municipal
Code 26-26, which govern the accessibility of public records
• Fort Collins Utilities is subject to the FACT Act (Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
of 2003), which requires federal agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC),
to establish guidelines for use by creditors to prevent identity theft. In 2007, the FTC
published the “Red Flags Rules” requiring that creditors create and implement a program to
address the detection, prevention and mitigation of identity theft. As a creditor, Fort Collins
Utilities implemented an identity theft prevention program under the Red Flag Rules,
effective December 31, 2011.
The City has already met generally accepted best practices for cyber security. Through this project,
the City is taking additional measures to secure its network and data by fully implementing the
Cyber Security Plan submitted to, and approved by, the federal government. The City is also
enforcing the same stringent standards on all project/utility vendors. Additionally, the City will be
audited by the federal government to ensure all necessary precautions have been implemented.
Utilities have conducted a risk assessment related to the AMFC communications system. The
system was deemed as a low risk, low value cyber system. The data that will be communicated by
the meters will be encrypted by the meter and then again, with a different encryption key at the
gatekeeper and then again, as it moves thought the wide area network back to Utilities. The
information that will be broadcasted will not have any customer information in it. The data will
have to do with the operational health of the meter, energy and demand information, and a premise
identifier. Even if intercepted, and decrypted there is little value to the data.
Although Utilities is implementing best practices in relation to protecting privacy, we will also offer
those concerned with privacy the option of having their meter information measured and recorded
only once per day.
As shown in Figure 7 (Attachment 3), the data received via the advanced meters does not provide
information at a level of detail that would provide insight into specific activities. In addition, the
data received is representing activity that occurred in the past. It does confirm what utilities across
the country have known for years; that is, at certain times of the day households use more utility
services than other times.
The benefit of the higher resolution data is that it offers customers precisely the kind of information
that will allow them to make choices that impact their energy consumption.
July 12, 2011 Page 17
Lastly, Utilities is offering options to customers that would receive daily usage data transmitted from
the meter or to have a meter manually read once per month; this would address the needs of those
customers who still have continued privacy concerns. Note there is a cost associated with manually
reading a meter once per month. Utilities estimate that it will cost approximately an additional $10
per month to read the meter. There may also be a one time up-front cost of $60 if the meter is
replaced after initial deployment.
Business Case and Project Cost
• National concerns related to cost have included:
N The meters are just another added expense to customers
N The meters are inaccurate and bills will increase.
The Utilities started researching the business case for an advanced metering project approximately
three years ago to explore its viability from an economic, environmental and social standpoint. At
that time, R.W. Beck a nationally recognized utility consulting firm worked closely with Utility staff
to understand the benefits, risks and return on investment. Using best practices in business case
analysis, that results showed a payback period of approximately 10-11 years.
Although several project aspects have changed since this early analysis, it showed a positive return
and a viable project on its own merits. Then, the federal government announced American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding to upgrade the electric grid throughout the nation.
Due to the early work that Fort Collins Utilities had done, we successfully competed for a matching
grant.
Black & Veatch / Enspiria, another nationally recognized firm, recently vetted the original business
case at a high level and validated the conclusions. Although the scope of the project has increased
and the grant money is part of the equation and other factors have changed in the years since the
initial business case was developed, the payback period was modified only slightly to an 11-12 year
payback.
As noted above, the cost of the electric portion of the AMFC project is $31.4 million. A three-year,
$15.7 million matching grant through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
is helping to finance the project. The balance of the electric project expense is being covered by
project savings. Bonds were issued to spread the costs over a longer time period.
The water meter project is budgeted for $4 million. Grant funds are not available for the water
portion of the project, but including them in the project is critical to the return on investment
identified in the business case analysis.
The financial savings realized through advanced meter systems are derived primarily from four
sources, as follows:
• Meter reading labor and expenses
• Detection of service diversion
July 12, 2011 Page 18
• Engineering and system benefits
• Meter accuracy and registration
It is worth commenting on the savings derived from the labor and operational expense of manual
meter reading. Initially, investing in advanced meters will save the labor and operational expenses
of reading meters. Fort Collins Utilities is working with meter readers to provide training and skill
development for other jobs; several have already found new positions.
In addition, there is information from national sources that speak to the business merits of advanced
metering. For example, the Department of Energy finds that although the electricity system is 99.97
percent reliable, it still allows for power outages and interruptions that cost Americans at least $150
billion each year – about $500 for every man, woman and child in the country. This fact
underscores the broader need to maintain the high level of reliability our system enjoys.
System efficiency is very important to maximize the most efficient use of resources. The
Department of Energy estimates that 25% of distribution infrastructure and 10% of all generation
assets are required less than 400 hours per year or roughly 5% of the time. Platte River’s peaking
units typically run less than this average. While advanced metering projects cannot eliminate the
need for all new infrastructure, such systems will help defer or avoid some of it.
After the development of a thorough business case, we are confident that this clearly shows a
positive economic return and represents a solid investment for the community’s future. As such, it
is a sound financial decision that will continue to support the needs of Fort Collins Utilities
customers for many years beyond the payback horizon.
ATTACHMENTS
1. “One Million Electric Vehicles By 2015” Report
2. Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters by the California Council on Science
and Technology
3. Figures 1 thru 7. Pictures and color graphics
4. Powerpoint presentation
1
One Million Electric Vehicles By 2015
February 2011 Status Report
ATTACHMENT 1
2
Introduction
In his 2011 State of the Union address,
President Obama called for putting one million
electric vehicles on the road by 2015 –
affirming and highlighting a goal aimed at
building U.S. leadership in technologies that
reduce our dependence on oil.1 Electric
vehicles (“EVs”) – a term that includes plug-in
hybrids, extended range electric vehicles and
all- electric vehicles -- represent a key pathway
for reducing petroleum dependence, enhancing
environmental stewardship and promoting
transportation sustainability, while creating
high quality jobs and economic growth. To
achieve these benefits and reach the goal,
President Obama has proposed a new effort that
supports advanced technology vehicle adoption
through improvements to tax credits in current
law, investments in R&D and competitive
programs to encourage communities to invest
in infrastructure supporting these vehicles.
While several high profile vehicle market
introductions such as the Chevrolet Volt and
the Nissan Leaf have been initiated, questions
“With more research and incentives,
we can break our dependence on oil
with biofuels, and become the first
country to have a million electric
vehicles on the road by 2015”
- President Barack Obama, 2011 State
of the Union
Executive Summary
President Obama’s goal of putting one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015
represents a key milestone toward dramatically reducing dependence on oil and ensuring
that America leads in the growing electric vehicle manufacturing industry. Although the
goal is ambitious, key steps already taken and further steps proposed indicate the goal is
achievable. Indeed, leading vehicle manufacturers already have plans for cumulative
U.S. production capacity of more than 1.2 million electric vehicles by 2015, according to
public announcements and news reports. While it appears that the goal is within reach in
terms of production capacity, initial costs and lack of familiarity with the technology
could be barriers. For that reason, President Obama has proposed steps to accelerate
America’s leadership in electric vehicle deployment, including improvements to existing
consumer tax credits, programs to help cities prepare for growing demand for electric
vehicles and strong support for research and development.
3
remain regarding the potential to reach the 2015 goal. Production capacity must be
established, and technology, vehicle cost and infrastructure barriers must be addressed to
achieve large-scale market introduction. This report provides a progress update toward
achieving the goal:
• The status of vehicle sales and future production volume estimates
• Current federal government policies, investments, research and development, and
demonstration efforts supporting the deployment of EVs
• EV consumer demand
This is an exceedingly dynamic and competitive field. Major announcements by
companies and governments worldwide are made on a frequent basis. The plans of global
companies and the policy initiatives of governments will surely change and shape the
development of technology and markets during the next five years.
Where We Are Today
In 2010, the U.S. economy continued recovery from recession. As part of that recovery,
sales of U.S. light-duty vehicles rebounded to approximately 12 million in 2010 from less
than 10 million in 2009. Historically, U.S. sales of new light duty passenger vehicles
ranged from 15-16 million per year from 2005-2008.2 Conventional hybrid electric
vehicles (HEVs) have been on sale in the U.S. for over ten years, and today sales have
grown to almost three percent of total light-duty vehicles. Over 1.6 million HEVs have
been sold over the past six years.3 To reach the one million vehicle goal, EVs will need to
average just under 1.7 percent of sales through 2015 (assuming sales of 12 million light-
duty vehicles per year).
With increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, vehicle
manufacturers are required to increase fuel economy through 2016, with further increases
beyond 2016 under consideration. On March 30, 2009, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) published the final rule raising CAFE standards for both
cars and light trucks. These new standards will encourage the expanded market entry of
electric drive technologies.
Market for Electric Drive Vehicles Expected to Increase
Over the past few years, interest in EVs in the U.S. auto industry has surged, with
manufacturers beginning to introduce new generations of EVs. For example, in 2010
General Motors introduced the Chevrolet Volt extended range electric vehicle into the U.S.
market. The Volt can travel up to 40 miles using power from its lithium-ion battery pack.
After that, the Volt can travel up to 375 miles in extended range using its internal
combustion engine electric generator. GM has announced plans to build 15,000 Chevy
Volts in 2011 and 45,000 in 2012. Based on news reports, the company is working on
plans to increase its production target for 2012 to 120,000. (See Table references.) In late
2010, Nissan introduced the Leaf, a 100-mile range all-electric vehicle that incorporates an
advanced lithium-ion battery as its sole power source.
4
The production capacity of EV models announced to enter the U.S. market through 2015
should be sufficient to achieve the goal of one million EVs by 2015. The table below
shows EVs expected to enter the U.S. commercial market over the next few years,
including the production capacity by year, based on manufacturer announcements and
media reports. Major auto manufacturers such as Chrysler, BYD, Coda, Honda,
Mitsubishi, Hyundai, Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo are not included in this table, but
have announced or are expected to introduce EVs in this time period. Because the U.S. is a
major market for these automakers, it is likely that additional production capacity of
several hundred thousand EVs is not accounted for in this table.
Estimated U.S. Supply of Electric Vehicles from 2011 through 2015
Manufacturer and
Model 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total
Fisker Karma PHEV 1,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 36,000
Fisker Nina PHEV 5,000 40,000 75,000 75,000 195,000
Ford Focus EV 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 70,000
Ford Transit Connect
EV 400 800 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,200
GM Chevrolet Volt 15,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 505,000
Navistar eStar EV
(truck) 200 800 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000
Nissan LEAF EV 25,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 300,000
Smith Electric Vehicles
Newton EV (truck) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000
Tesla Motors Model S
EV 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 55,000
Tesla Motors Roadster
EV 1,000 1,000
Think City EV 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 57,000
Cumulative Total 1,222,200
Note: The above numbers have been taken from announced production figures and media reports. In some
cases more conservative estimates have been used due to: delays that have occurred since announced
The 2011 Chevrolet Volt The 2011 Nissan Leaf
5
production levels, ramp rates to reach full production, consideration of the size of the market segment for that
vehicle, and possible exportation of vehicles manufactured in the U.S. See the reference table for citations.
Policy
In recent years there have been a number of federal and state policy initiatives to
encourage the introduction and sales of EVs. Industry can achieve its planned production
with the support of policies that encourage investment in manufacturing facilities, enable
technology demonstration and deployment and provide incentives to promote adoption and
drive consumer demand.
Manufacturing Investments
Through the Recovery Act, the United States made an unprecedented investment to build
our domestic manufacturing capacity and secure our position as a global leader in
advanced lithium-ion battery technology. This investment includes:
• $2.4 billion in loans to three of the world’s first electric vehicle factories in Tennessee,
Delaware, and California.
• $2 billion in grants to support 30 factories that produce batteries, motors, and other EV
components. Companies are matching the funding dollar for dollar, doubling the
impact of taxpayer investments. These grants are enabling companies to build the
capacity to produce 50,000 EV batteries annually by the end of 2011 and 500,000 EV
batteries annually by December 2014.
Deployment, Demonstration, and Outreach
Recovery Act funds are also supporting the largest-ever coordinated demonstration of EVs,
including nearly 13,000 vehicles and more than 22,000 electric charging points in more
than 20 cities across the country. Companies are matching this $400 million public
investment dollar for dollar. This effort will provide important and detailed real-world
operational data on vehicle usage, time-of-use and charging patterns, and potential impacts
on our nation’s electrical grid. The demonstrations will document lessons learned that help
streamline infrastructure permitting processes and make data available that can alleviate
consumer uncertainty and help transition EVs from clusters of early adopters to national,
mainstream use. Coordinated with this large-scale demonstration are programs to educate
code officials, first responders, technicians, and engineers, who are critical components of
the human infrastructure needed for a successful transition to electric-drive transportation,
both in terms of consumer acceptance and public safety.
The Department of Energy is also working with local leaders in their efforts to encourage
EV adoption and drive consumer demand. Through a new competitive program, seed
funding will help communities across the country with regulatory streamlining,
infrastructure investments, vehicle fleet conversions, deployment of EV incentives,
partnerships with major employers/retailers, and workforce training. The FY12 budget
request seeks to expand this initiative so that up to 30 communities could receive grants of
up to $10 million to help catalyze EV deployment (see text box on page 6).4
6
Incentives
Tax incentives and other measures have been proven effective in providing the additional
boost needed for mainstream consumers to choose EVs. The Recovery Act established tax
credits for purchasing electric vehicles ($2,500 - $7,500 per vehicle, depending on the
battery capacity) and conversion kits to retrofit conventionally powered vehicles with
electric vehicle capability ($4,000 per vehicle, maximum). The President has also
proposed transforming the existing $7,500 EV tax credit into a more accessible and even
more attractive rebate at the dealership.5 In addition, nearly 40 U.S. states and the District
of Columbia have adopted other measures promoting electric-drive vehicle usage,
including high occupancy vehicle (HOV) privileges and waived emissions inspections, as
well as tax credits/rebates and preferred purchase programs.6
Advancing Technologies through R&D
The President has announced that the FY 2012 Budget will include enhanced R&D
investments in battery and other electric drive technologies.7 Investments will support
R&D initiatives through DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Program, as well as a new Energy
Innovation Hub devoted to developing better batteries and energy storage capacity to
support electric vehicles and other technologies. This focus on continued innovation
complements ongoing R&D to support the development of critical technologies needed for
New Initiatives to Support Advanced Technology Vehicles
President Obama is proposing three steps to address consumer demand and
position the United States as a global leader in manufacturing and deploying next-
generation vehicle technologies:
• Make electric vehicles more affordable with a rebate up to $7,500: The
President is proposing to transform the existing $7,500 tax credit for electric
vehicles into a rebate that will be available to all consumers immediately at
the point of sale.
• Advance innovative technologies through new R&D investments: Building
on Recovery Act investments, the President’s Budget proposes enhanced
R&D investments in electric drive, batteries, and energy storage technologies.
• Reward communities that invest in electric vehicle infrastructure through
competitive grants: To provide an incentive for communities to invest in EV
infrastructure and remove regulatory barriers, the President is proposing a new
initiative that will provide grants to up to 30 communities that are prioritizing
advanced technology vehicle deployment.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/26/vice-president-
biden-announces-plan-put-one-million-advanced-technology-
7
the widespread introduction of electric drive vehicles. These efforts include battery
development, power electronics and electric motors, and electric drive vehicle systems.
Battery technology today is greatly different from
that of the 1990s. The General Motors EV-1 had a
range of 80 to 140 miles, but initially used lead-acid
batteries having limited energy density, which
resulted in a two-passenger vehicle, relatively short
battery life, and a long recharging time. By contrast,
today’s lithium-ion battery technology allows the
Leaf, Volt, and other EVs to be 4- or 5-passenger
vehicles, with an extended warranty on battery life,
and much faster charging times. The Volt's lithium-
ion battery technology is over 70 percent lighter than
the EV-1's original lead-acid battery technology.
Vehicle manufacturers currently employ lithium-ion batteries with excess capacity to
ensure the batteries meet a ten-year battery life target. As greater confidence in battery life
under real-world driving conditions develops, the amount of excess capacity installed is
expected to decrease, and thus cost should decrease as well. GM recently announced that
the Chevrolet Volt battery will now be operated using more than 65 percent of total
capacity, instead of 50 percent, demonstrating continued improvement in today’s lithium-
ion batteries.8 Next-generation lithium-ion batteries are likely to employ advanced
electrodes such as silicon-based nanostructured anodes (instead of graphite), and high-
capacity manganese-based cathodes, resulting in a significant increase in energy density
and reduction in cost. New technologies continue to move from DOE laboratories to
market– most recently Argonne National Laboratory has licensed advanced cathode
technology to General Motors and battery suppliers LG Chem and Envia. These
companies will now have the opportunity to build on DOE’s technology innovation with
further improvements and specific market applications.
Recovery Act investments will help cut battery costs. DOE and U.S. industry have
invested over $3 billion in battery manufacturing facilities using Recovery Act and
matching funds. Increasing the production output of a battery plant from 10,000
units/year to 100,000 units/year can directly reduce battery costs by 30-40 percent.9
DOE’s established cost target of $300/kWh by 2015 is an aggressive but achievable goal
for lithium-ion batteries. Electric vehicle battery prices are expected to drop due to
increased manufacturing know-how and economies-of-scale, learning curve improvements,
lower-cost battery materials, and technical advancements in battery design.
DOE supports a broad portfolio of electric drive vehicle battery R&D that spans basic
research to applied development. The Office of Science supports fundamental basic
energy research on enabling materials through the Energy Frontiers Research Centers. The
Applied Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) conducts transformational research
on revolutionary, “game-changing” energy storage technology. And the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) battery R&D is focused on applied
A123 Systems Battery Module
8
development and demonstration of advanced batteries to enable a large market penetration
of electric drive vehicles.
Consumer Demand
While leading manufacturers already have plans for cumulative U.S. production capacity
of more than one million electric vehicles by 2015, according to public announcements and
news reports, production will only reach levels supported by consumer demand. What
issues will influence purchasing decisions?
Fleet buyers tend to make vehicle purchasing decisions based on the total cost of vehicle
ownership; retail vehicle consumers tend to focus on initial price. The Boston Consulting
Group report on “Batteries for Electric Vehicles” concluded that with current incentives
and oil prices in the United States, EV purchasers will reach lower total ownership costs
within 3 to 5 years of operation.10 These increasingly favorable economics for EVs aren’t
going unnoticed by fleet buyers. General Electric announced that they will purchase 25,000
EV by 201511 – a strong indication that as EV total cost of ownership falls below that of
conventional vehicles, fleet purchasers will respond positively.
With the exception of a small segment of the new car buyer population, automobile
consumers tend to be risk-averse, preferring well-proven technology. With automotive
purchases generally the second largest financial purchase most families make, behind only
housing, cost is considered carefully. And while automobile consumers do consider fuel
consumption, they tend to discount future fuel savings. Studies have shown that consumers
tend to assume that current fuel prices are good estimates of future prices.12 Thus
purchasers during periods of high fuel prices value fuel efficiency more than purchasers
during periods of low fuel prices.
While availability of the current $7,500 tax credit is attractive to consumers, the
President’s proposal to convert this credit to benefit the consumer at the point-of-sale will
likely make the incentive even more attractive since consumers will not have to wait until
the end of the year to receive the credit.13
Although consumers have proven to be highly sensitive to initial price, they are also
willing to pay premiums for vehicle options or attributes that resonate with them. EVs
have unique attributes which may appeal to consumers. Exceptionally quiet operation,
high torque (good acceleration), and low lifetime operating costs are examples of attributes
that will attract consumers. Other features may also prove attractive to consumers, such as
avoiding the gasoline refueling experience. In addition, car purchasing decisions are
influenced by style and statements of personal identity; the powertrain configurations of
EVs will provide styling options not available to conventionally powered vehicles.
Fuel price matters when consumers make automobile purchasing decisions. If oil prices
increase, or expectation of further oil price increases becomes prevalent,14 interest in EVs
will likely increase as well.
9
There is clearly substantial consumer interest in electric vehicles, as demonstrated by the
larger-than-anticipated pre-orders for the Nissan Leaf and the Chevrolet Volt. Whether this
interest translates into sales beyond the initial “early adopter” market will depend on initial
consumer experience with these early vehicles, and on how that experience is
communicated and perceived by the rest of the car buying public. Uncertainties about EVs
– including their resale value, range and availability of convenient charging facilities --
may impose sales barriers.
As noted earlier, there is considerable work underway to develop data on performance and
reliability of EVs, and to communicate that information to the public. The performance and
cost effectiveness of the early EVs in the market will be a major but unknowable factor in
how many EVs are on the road by 2015. The cumulative impacts of the various policy
initiatives, the experience of the early purchasers of electric-drive vehicles and future oil
prices will all play a role in determining future consumer demand.
Summary
In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama called for putting one million
electric vehicles on the road by 2015 – affirming and highlighting a goal aimed at building
U.S. leadership in technologies that reduce our dependence on oil. This goal represents a
key milestone in transforming our national vehicle fleet, a transformation that will deliver
significant benefits for the American people, including:
• Dramatically reducing petroleum dependence and improving transportation
sustainability;
• Improved environmental stewardship;
• Job creation and economic growth.
Government policies are critical enablers which influence the rate that advanced vehicles
are adopted on a large scale. In addition to existing policies, the Administration’s new
three-part plan supports electric vehicle manufacturing and adoption through
improvements to tax credits in current law, investments in R&D, and a new competitive
program to encourage communities to invest in electric vehicle infrastructure. These
policies will help attain the 2015 goal.
Reaching the goal is not likely to be constrained by production capacity. Major vehicle
manufacturers have announced (or been the subject of media reports) that indicate a
cumulative electric drive vehicle manufacturing capacity of over 1.2 million vehicles
through 2015.
Strong incentives, research and development, and assistance in establishing manufacturing
and infrastructure is underway or planned. These activities directly support consumer
demand of these technologies, and mitigate some of the uncertainty associated with the
large-scale adoption of electric drive vehicles.
10
References
Notes and References for Estimated U.S. Supply of Electric Vehicles from 2011 through
2015
Manufacturer and Model References
Fisker Karma PHEV http://media.fiskerautomotive.com/about_fisker/in_the_new
s/and_the_strangest_paint_award_goes_to_fisker/, October
1, 2010
Fisker Nina PHEV http://media.fiskerautomotive.com/about_fisker/in_the_new
s/and_the_strangest_paint_award_goes_to_fisker/, October
1, 2010
Ford Focus EV The estimates are pushed back one year from the reference
initial year of production of 2011.
Reference: http://green.autoblog.com/2010/10/22/ford-sets-
2011-electric-focus-2011-production-target-at-10-000-2/,
October 22, 2010
Ford Transit Connect EV http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1009_ford
_transit_connect_electric/specs.html, October 4, 2010
GM Chevrolet Volt http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-21/gm-said-to-
plan-doubling-2012-production-capacity-of-chevrolet-volt-
hybrid.html, January 21, 2011
Navistar eStar EV (truck) The 2011 total of 200 trucks includes the 78 trucks already
built during 2010. The 2012 number is a conservative
extrapolation from the goal of selling 700 eStars by mid-
2012.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2011/
tc20110120_063762.htm, January 20, 2011
Nissan Leaf EV http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1054255_nissan-2011-
leaf-will-reach-full-production-by-march, January 25, 2011;
http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/25/japan-autos-electric-
technology-nissan-leaf.html, October 25, 2010
Smith Electric Vehicles
Newton EV (truck)
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2011/
tc20110120_063762.htm, January 20, 2011
Tesla Motors Model S EV http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tesla-files-
for-ipo-it-wants-100-million/, January 10, 2010
Tesla Motors Roadster EV http://www.plugincars.com/tesla-roadster/review, March 9,
2010; http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/teslas-
roadster-to-exit-in-2011/#, January 29, 2010
Think City EV http://gigaom.com/cleantech/the-think-citys-u-s-price-
launch-plans/, November 16, 2010;
http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=24433, November
25, 2010
11
1 The President first announced this goal as a candidate in a speech in Lansing, Michigan on August 4, 2008.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5zCW. He first reiterated the goal as
President at a speech in Pomona, California on March 19, 2009. http://www.energy.gov/7067.htm.
2 Transportation Energy Data Book, 29th Edition, Stacy C. Davis, et.al.
3 IEA Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Implementing Agreement, “Hybrid and Electric Vehicles: the Electric
Drive Advances,” March 2010
4 White House Press Release “Vice President Biden Announces Plan to Put One Million Advanced
Technology Vehicles on the Road by 2015,” January 26, 2010,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/26/vice-president-biden-announces-plan-put-one-
million-advanced-technology-
5 White House Press Release “Vice President Biden Announces Plan to Put One Million Advanced
Technology Vehicles on the Road by 2015,” January 26, 2010,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/26/vice-president-biden-announces-plan-put-one-
million-advanced-technology-
6 IEA Hybrid and Electric Vehicle Implementing Agreement, “Hybrid and Electric Vehicles: the Electric
Drive Advances,” March 2010
7 White House Press Release “Vice President Biden Announces Plan to Put One Million Advanced
Technology Vehicles on the Road by 2015,” January 26, 2010,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/26/vice-president-biden-announces-plan-put-one-
million-advanced-technology-
8 http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/26/chevrolet-volt-will-utilize-10-4-kwh-of-battery-to-achieve-ev-range/
9 Santini, et.al., “Modeling of Manufacturing Costs of Lithium-Ion Batteries for HEVs, PHEVs and EVs,”
Proceedings of the 25th Electric Vehicle Symposium, November 2010.
10 The Boston Consulting Group, “Batteries for Electric Vehicles: Challenges, Opportunities, and the Outlook
to 2020”, January, 2010
11 http://www.gereports.com/in-largest-single-commitment-ge-to-buy-25000-electric-vehicles/
12 See EPA-420-R-10-008, “How Consumers Value Fuel Economy: A Literature Review,” March 2010
13 Kelly Sims Gallagher and Erich Muehlegger “Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer
adoption of hybrid vehicle technology” in Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 61 (2011)
p. 1-15
14 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html
JANUARY 2011
HEALTH
IMPACTS OF RADIO FREQUENCY
FROM SMART METERS
ATTACHMENT 2
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We
would
like
to
thank
the
many
people
who
provided
input
and
feedback
towards
the
completion
of
this
report.
Without
the
insightful
feedback
that
these
individuals
generously
provided,
this
report
could
not
have
been
completed.
We
would
like
to
give
special
thanks
to
the
California
Smart
Grid
Center,
College
of
Engineering
and
Computer
Science
at
the
California
State
2
Table
of
Contents
Letter
from
CCST
............................................................................................................................
3
Key
report
findings
.........................................................................................................................
4
Other
considerations
......................................................................................................................
4
Legislative
request
.........................................................................................................................
6
Approach
........................................................................................................................................
6
Two
types
of
radio
frequency
effects:
Thermal
and
Non-‐thermal
.................................................
7
Findings
..........................................................................................................................................
7
What
are
smart
meters?
................................................................................................................
9
Why
are
smart
meters
being
installed
throughout
California?
....................................................
11
What
health
concerns
are
associated
3
Letter
from
CCST
With
rapidly
emerging
and
evolving
technologies,
lawmakers
at
times
find
themselves
pressed
to
make
policy
decisions
on
complex
technologies.
Smart
meters
are
one
such
technology.
Smart
meters
are
being
deployed
in
many
places
in
the
world
in
an
effort
to
create
a
new
generation
of
utility
service
based
on
the
concepts
of
a
smart
grid,
one
4
Health
Impacts
of
Radio
Frequency
from
Smart
Meters
Response
to
Assembly
Members
Huffman
and
Monning
California
Council
on
Science
and
Technology
January
2011
KEY
REPORT
FINDINGS
1. Wireless
smart
meters,
when
installed
and
properly
maintained,
result
in
much
smaller
levels
of
radio
frequency
(RF)
exposure
than
many
existing
common
household
electronic
devices,
particularly
cell
phones
and
microwave
ovens.
2. The
current
5
Figure
1.
Comparison
of
Radio-‐Frequency
Levels
from
Various
Sources
in
μW
/cm2
Note:
Exposure
levels
in
µW/cm2
obtained
from
Table
2
and
converted
from
mW/cm2.
Smart
meter
figures
represent
100%
duty
cycle
(i.e.,
always
on)
as
hypothetical
maximum
use
case.
Minimum
Maximum
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1000
50 40
4 0.2
0.005
5000
200
6
Legislative
Request
On
July
30,
2010,
California
Assembly
Member
Jared
Huffman
wrote
to
the
California
Council
on
Science
and
Technology
(CCST)
to
request
that
the
Council
perform
an
“independent,
science-‐
based
study…[that]
would
help
policy
makers
and
the
general
public
resolve
the
debate
over
whether
smart
meters
present
a
significant
risk
of
adverse
health
effects.”
California
Assembly
Member
Bill
7
Two
Types
of
Radio
Frequency
Effects:
Thermal
and
Non-‐thermal
Household
electronic
devices,
such
as
cellular
and
cordless
telephones,
microwave
ovens,
wireless
routers,
and
wireless
smart
meters
produce
RF
emissions.
Exposure
to
RF
emissions
may
lead
to
thermal
and
non-‐thermal
effects.
Thermal
effects
on
humans
have
been
extensively
studied
and
appear
to
be
well
understood.
The
Federal
Communications
Commission
(FCC)
8
2. At
this
time
there
is
no
clear
evidence
that
additional
standards
are
needed
to
protect
the
public
from
smart
meters
or
other
common
household
electronic
devices.
No
clear
causal
relationship
between
RF
emissions
and
non-‐thermal
human
health
impacts
has
been
scientifically
established,
nor
have
the
mechanisms
that
might
lead
to
such
a
biological
impact
been
clearly
identified.
Additional
research
9
What
are
Smart
Meters?
Smart
meters
measure
attributes
of
electricity,
natural
gas,
or
water
as
delivered
to
consumers
and
transmit
that
information
(e.g.,
usage)
digitally
to
utility
companies.
Some
smart
meters
are
also
designed
to
transmit
real-‐time
information
to
the
consumer.
These
smart
meters
replace
traditional,
analog
meters
and
meter
readers
with
an
automated
process
that
is
expected
to
10
Figure
3.
Simplified
depiction
of
Smart
Meter
system
network.
Arrows
show
the
use
of
radiofrequency
(RF)
signals
for
automated
meter
reading,
communications
among
electric
power
meters,
relays,
access
points,
the
company’s
enterprise
management
systems.
The
future
home
access
network
will
operate
within
the
house.
Smart
meters
have
evolved
from
automatic
meter
reading
(AMR;
i.e.,
replacing
meter
readers)
to
a
11
cycle.
For
purposes
of
this
report
we
include
a
hypothetical
scenario
where
the
smart
meter
is
continually
transmitting.
Even
in
this
100%
duty
cycle
situation
the
power
output
would
be
well
below
the
FCC
limits.
Smart
meters
are
designed
to
transmit
data
to
a
utility
access
point
that
is
usually
25
feet
above
ground,
on
utility
or
light
poles.
12
Figure
4.
Illustration
of
components
of
the
PG&E
Smart
Meter
Program
Upgrade
showing
the
use
of
radiofrequency
(RF)
signals
for
communications
among
electric
power
meters,
relays,
access
points
and,
ultimately,
the
company’s
enterprise
management
systems.
(Source
Silver
Spring
Network4)
Smart
meters
will
also
allow
utilities
to
communicate
grid
conditions
to
customers
through
price
signals,
so
that
consumers,
via
their
13
grid
networks,
including
the
use
of
smart
meters.5
After
review
and
authorization
from
the
California
Public
Utilities
Commission,6
utilities
in
California
have
begun
to
install
smart
meters
throughout
the
state.
Some
California
utilities
(such
as
Sacramento
Municipal
Utility
District)
have
received
significant
federal
funding
for
smart
meter
deployment
from
the
American
Recovery
and
Reinvestment
Act
(federal
stimulus
package).
Many
14
meters
are
unlikely
to
produce
thermal
effects;
however
it
is
not
scientifically
confirmed
whether
or
what
the
non-‐thermal
effects
on
living
organisms,
and
potentially,
human
health
might
be.
These
same
concerns
over
potential
impacts
should
apply
to
all
other
electronic
devices
that
operate
with
similar
frequency
and
power
levels,
including
cell
phones,
computers,
cordless
phones,
televisions,
and
wireless
routers.
15
the
cumulative
impact
from
all
RF
emitting
devices
including
that
of
a
network
of
smart
meters
operating
throughout
a
community.12
There
currently
is
no
conclusive
scientific
evidence
pointing
to
a
non-‐thermal
cause-‐and-‐effect
between
human
exposure
to
RF
emissions
and
negative
health
impacts.
For
this
reason,
regulators
and
policy
makers
may
be
prudent
to
call
for
more
research
while
continuing
16
The
FCC
guidelines
measure
exposure
to
RF
emissions
in
two
ways.
Specific
absorption
rate
(SAR)
measures
the
rate
of
energy
absorption
and
is
measured
in
units
of
watts-‐per-‐kilogram
of
body
weight
(W/kg).
It
accounts
for
the
thermal
effects
on
human
health
associated
with
heating
body
tissue
and
is
used
as
a
limiting
measurement
for
wireless
devices,
such
as
mobile
17
the
human
body
absorbs
even
less
energy,
and
the
threshold
for
the
2.4
GHz
transmitter
for
home
area
network
communications
is
consequently
higher,
1000
μW/cm2.
PG&E
commissioned
a
2008
study
by
Richard
Tell
Associates,
“Supplemental
Report
on
An
Analysis
of
Radiofrequency
Fields
Associated
with
Operation
of
the
PG&E
Smart
Meter
Program
Upgrade
System.”
In
this
study
of
PG&E’s
proposed
18
Figure
5.
FCC
maximum
permissible
exposure
limits
on
power
density
rise
with
frequency
because
the
human
body
can
safely
absorb
more
energy
at
higher
frequencies.
The
estimated
maximum
exposure
from
a
1-‐Watt
AMR
transmitter
at
5%
duty
cycle
(i.e.,
72
minutes/day)
and
one-‐foot
distance
is
18
μW/cm2,
or
3%
of
the
FCC
limit.
Even
if
a
meter
malfunctioned
and
19
Figure
6.
Power
density
from
a
sample
smart
meter
versus
distance;29
1-‐Watt
emitter
at
50%
duty
cycle.
Typical
smart
meter
AMR
transmitter
power
density
declines
rapidly
with
distance.
The
rapid
drop
of
power
density
with
distance
(inverse-‐square
law)
is
similar
for
various
duty
cycles
and
different
sets
of
source
data.
Comparison
of
Electromagnetic
Frequencies
from
Smart
Meters
and
Other
20
fields
of
about
0.2
–
1.0
μW
/cm2.31,
32,33
People
in
metropolitan
areas
are
exposed
to
radiofrequency
from
radio
and
television
antennas,
as
well,
although
for
most
of
the
population,
exposure
is
quite
low,
around
0.005
μW
/cm2.34
Figure
7.
Comparison
of
Radio-‐Frequency
Levels
from
Various
Sources
in
μW
/cm2
Note:
Exposure
levels
in
µW/cm2
obtained
from
Table
2
21
Table
2:
Radio-‐Frequency
Levels
from
Various
Sources
Source Frequency Exposure
Level
(mW/cm2)
Distance Time Spatial
Characteristic
Mobile
phone 900
MHz,
1800
MHz 1—5 At
ear During
call Highly
localized
Mobile
phone
base
station
900
MHz,
1800
MHz 0.000005—0.002 10s
to
a
few
thousand
feet
Constant Relatively
uniform
Microwave
oven 2450
MHz ~50.05-‐0.2 2
inches2
feet During
use Localized,
non-‐
uniform
Local
area
networks 2.4—5
GHz 0.0002—0.001
0.000005—0.0002
3
feet Constant
when
nearby
Localized,
non-‐
uniform
Radio/TV
broadcast Wide
spectrum 0.001
(highest
22
What
is
Duty
Cycle
and
How
Does
it
Affect
Human
Health?
Duty
cycle
refers
to
the
fraction
of
time
a
device
is
transmitting.
For
instance,
a
duty
cycle
of
1%
means
the
device
transmits
RF
energy
1%
of
a
given
time
period.
One
percent
of
the
time
in
a
day
is
equivalent
to
14.4
minutes
per
day.
The
duty
23
What
About
Exposure
Levels
from
a
Bank
of
Meters
and
from
Just
Behind
the
Wall
of
a
Single
Meter?
In
a
November
2010
study
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI)35
field
tested
exposure
levels
from
a
bank
of
10
meters
of
250
mW
power
level
at
one
foot
distance
in
order
to
simulate
a
bank
of
smart
meters
located
at
24
Public
Information
and
Education
It
is
important
that
consumers
have
clear
and
easily
understood
information
about
smart
meter
emissions
as
well
as
readily
available
access
to
clear,
factual
information
and
education
on
known
effects
of
RF
emissions
at
various
field
strengths
and
distances
from
an
array
of
devices
commonly
found
in
our
world.
Equipped
with
this
information,
people
can
25
meters
would
not
address
the
significantly
greater
challenge
presented
by
the
billions
of
mobile
phones
in
use
globally.
Key
Factors
to
Consider
When
Evaluating
Exposure
to
Radiofrequency
from
Smart
Meters
1.
Signal
Frequency Compare
to
devices
in
the
900
MHz
band
and
2.4
GHz
band
Frequency
similar
to
mobile
phones,
Wi-‐Fi,
laptop
computers,
walkie-‐talkies,
baby
monitors,
microwave
ovens
2.
Signal
26
Conclusion
The
CCST
Project
Team,
after
carefully
reviewing
the
available
literature
on
the
current
state
of
science
on
health
impacts
of
radiofrequency
from
smart
meters
and
input
from
a
wide
array
of
subject
matter
experts,
concludes
that:
1. The
FCC
standard
provides
a
currently
accepted
factor
of
safety
against
known
thermally
induced
health
impacts
of
smart
meters
and
other
electronic
27
Appendix
A
–
Letters
Requesting
CCST
28
29
30
31
32
Appendix
B
–
Project
Process
CCST
Smart
Meter
Project
Approach
Assembly
Member
Huffman
(Marin)
(July
30,
2010
letter)
and
Assembly
Member
Monning
(Santa
Cruz)
(September
17,
2010
letter)
requested
CCST’s
assistance
in
determining
if
there
are
health
safety
issues
regarding
the
new
SMART
meters
being
installed
by
the
utilities.
In
addition,
the
City
of
Mill
Valley
sent
a
letter
33
Peer
Review:
After
the
draft
report
was
vetted
in
great
detail
by
the
Smart
Meter
Project
Team,
it
was
forwarded
to
the
CCST
Board
and
Council
for
peer
review.
Public
Comment:
The
report
is
being
posted
to
the
CCST
website
that
will
allow
the
general
public
to
comment.
34
Appendix
C
–
Project
Team
The
California
Council
on
Science
and
Technology
adheres
to
the
highest
standards
to
provide
independent,
objective,
and
respected
work.
Board
and
Council
Members
review
all
work
that
bears
CCST’s
name.
In
addition,
CCST
seeks
peer
review
from
external
technical
experts.
The
request
for
rigorous
peer
review
results
in
a
protocol
that
ensures
the
specific
35
Patrick
Mantey
Director,
UC
Center
for
Information
Technology
Research
in
the
Interest
of
Society
(CITRIS)
@
Santa
Cruz,
University
of
California,
Santa
Cruz
Mantey
holds
the
Jack
Baskin
Chair
in
Computer
Engineering
and
was
the
founding
Dean
of
the
Jack
Baskin
School
of
Engineering.
He
is
now
the
director
of
CITRIS
at
UC
Santa
Cruz
and
of
ITI,
the
36
Vice
President
at
Southern
California
Edison.
Papay
received
a
B.S.
in
Physics
from
Fordham
University,
a
M.S.
in
Nuclear
Engineering
from
MIT,
and
a
Sc.D.
in
Nuclear
Engineering
from
MIT.
He
is
a
member
of
the
National
Academy
of
Engineering
and
served
on
its
Board
of
Councilors
from
2004-‐2010.
He
served
as
CCST
Council
Chair
from
2005
through
2008,
37
Appendix
D
–
Written
Submission
Authors
Written
Input
Received
from:
Physical
Sciences/Engineers
Kenneth
Foster,
Professor,
Department
of
Bioengineering,
University
of
Pennsylvania
Rob
Kavet,
Physiologist/Engineer,
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI)
Biologists/medical
De-‐Kun
Li,
MD,
Ph.D.,
Senior
Reproductive
and
Perinatal
Epidemiologist,
Division
of
Research,
Kaiser
Foundation
Research
Institute,
Kaiser
Permanente
Asher
Sheppard,
Ph.D.,
Asher
Sheppard
Consulting,
trained
in
physics,
environmental
medicine,
38
Appendix
E
–
Additional
Materials
Consulted
All
sources
can
be
accessed
through
the
CCST
website
at
http://ccst.us
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics
• The
Sensitivity
of
Children
to
Electromagnetic
Fields
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics
(August
3,
2005)
Australian
Radiation
Protection
and
Nuclear
Safety
Agency
(ARPANSA)
• www.arpansa.gov.au
Australian
Radiation
Protection
and
Nuclear
Safety
Agency
(ARPANSA)
• Radiation
Protection
-‐
Committee
on
Electromagnetic
Energy
39
Radiofrequency
and
Microwave
Energy
IEEE
Engineering
in
Medicine
and
Biology
Magazine
(April
2005)
Commonwealth
Club
of
California
• Commonwealth
Club
of
California
-‐
The
Health
Effects
of
Electromagnetic
Fields
(Video)
(November
18,
2010)
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI)
• emf.epri.com
EMF/RF
Program
at
EPRI
• Radio-‐Frequency
Exposure
Levels
from
SmartMeters
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(November
2010)
-‐
accessed
via
the
Internet
December
40
• Radio
Frequency
Safety
FAQ's
• RF
Safety
Page
• Federal
Communications
Commission
Response
to
Cindy
Sage
(August
6,
2010)
• FCC
Certifications
o FCC
Certification
for
the
Silver
Spring
Networks
Devices
-‐
September
28,
2009
o FCC
Certification
for
the
Silver
Spring
Networks
Devices
-‐
September
28,
2009
o FCC
Certification
for
the
Silver
Spring
Networks
Devices
-‐
September
4,
2007
o FCC
Certification
for
the
41
International
Commission
on
Non-‐Ionizing
Radiation
Protection
(2009)
National
Academies
Press
• Identification
of
Research
Needs
Relating
to
Potential
Biological
or
Adverse
Health
Effects
of
Wireless
Communication
National
Academies
Press
(2008)
• An
Assessment
of
Potential
Health
Effects
from
Exposure
to
PAVE
PAWS
Low-‐
Level
Phased-‐Array
Radiofrequency
Energy
(9.9MB
PDF)
National
Academies
Press
(2005)
National
Cancer
Institute
• Cell
Phones
and
Cancer
Risk
42
Swedish
State
Radiation
Protection
Authority
(SSI)
• The
Nordic
Radiation
Safety
Authorities
See
no
Need
to
Reduce
Public
Exposure
Generated
by
Mobile
Bas
Stations
and
Wireless
Networks
Swedish
State
Radiation
Protection
Authority
(SSI)
(2009)
University
of
Ottawa
• Wireless
Communication
and
Health
-‐
Electromagnetic
Energy
and
Radiofrequency
Radiation
FAQ's
University
of
Ottawa,
RFcom
World
Health
Organization
• Database
of
Worldwide
EMF
Standards
43
o Bioinitiative
Report:
The
Interphone
Brain
Tumor
Study
(1.6MB
PDF)
Cindy
Sage,
Editorial
Perspective
o Bioinitiative
Report:
Steps
to
the
Clinic
with
ELF
EMF
(1.0MB
PDF)
o Mobile
Phone
Base
Stations
-‐
Effects
on
Wellbeing
and
Health
Pathophysiology
(August
2009)
o Increased
Blood-‐Brain
Barrier
Permeability
in
Mammalian
Brain
7
Days
after
Exposure
to
the
Radiation
from
a
GSM-‐900
Mobile
Phone
Pathophysiology
(August
2009)
44
• NIOSH
Program
Portfolio
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
(CDC)
• Radio
Frequency
RF
Safety
and
Antenna
FAQs
• Smart
Grid
Information
Clearinghouse
(SGIC)
• stopsmartmeters.org
45
Appendix
F
–
Glossary
Access
point
-‐
A
term
typically
used
to
describe
an
electronic
device
that
provides
for
wireless
connectivity
via
a
WAN
to
the
Internet
or
a
particular
computer
facility.
Duty
cycle
–
A
measure
of
the
percentage
or
fraction
of
time
that
an
RF
device
is
in
operation.
A
duty
cycle
of
100%
corresponds
to
continuous
46
Microwatt
per
square
centimeter
(µW/cm2)
-‐
A
measure
of
the
power
density
flowing
through
an
area
of
space,
one
millionth
(10-‐6)
of
a
watt
passing
through
a
square
centimeter.
Radiofrequency
(RF)
-‐
The
RF
spectrum
is
formally
defined
in
terms
of
frequency
as
extending
from
0
to
3000
GHz,
the
frequency
range
of
interest
is
3
kHz
to
300
47
Appendix
G
–
CCST
2011
BOARD
MEMBERS
Karl
S.
Pister,
Board
Chair;
Chancellor
Emeritus,
UC
Santa
Cruz;
and
Dean
and
Roy
W.
Carlson
Professor
of
Engineering
Emeritus,
UC
Berkeley
Bruce
M.
Alberts,
Professor,
Department
of
Biochemistry
&
Biophysics,
UC
San
Francisco
Ann
Arvin,
Vice
Provost
and
Dean
of
Research,
Lucile
Salter
Packard
Professor
of
Pediatrics
and
Professor
of
Microbiology
48
Appendix
H
–
CCST
2011
COUNCIL
MEMBERS
Miriam
E.
John,
Council
Chair
and
Emeritus
Vice
President,
Sandia
National
Laboratories,
California
Peter
Cowhey,
Council
Vice
Chair
and
Dean,
School
of
International
Relations
and
Pacific
Studies,
UC
San
Diego
Wanda
Austin,
President
and
CEO,
The
Aerospace
Corporation
Julian
Betts,
Professor
of
Economics,
UC
San
Diego
George
Blumenthal,
Chancellor,
UC
Santa
Cruz
49
Appendix
I
–
Report
Credits
CCST
Smart
Meters
Project
Team:
Rollin
Richmond
(Chair),
President
Humboldt
State
University,
CSU
Jane
Long,
Associate
Director
at
Large,
Global
Security
Directorate
Fellow,
Center
for
Global
Security
Research
Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory
Emir
Macari,
Dean
of
Engineering
and
Computer
Science,
California
State
University,
Sacramento
and
Director
of
the
California
Smart
Grid
Center
Patrick
Mantey,
ATTACHMENT 3
Figure 1: Elster residential and commercial meters
Figure 2: Elster Gatekeeper
Figure 3: Distribution wide area network (DWAN) Tropos router.
ATTACHMENT 3
Figure 4 – System Solution diagram
Figure 5 Electromagnetic Spectrum
ATTACHMENT 3
Figure 6
ATTACHMENT 3
15 minute data over 1 day 1 hour data over 1 day
daily data over 1 day Monthly data over 1 day
Typical Residential Load Profile
April 2011- Day 4
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:0100:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00
kW
kW 15 minute
Typical Residential Load Profile
April 2011- Day 4
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00
kW
kW hour
Typical Residential Load Profile
April 2011- Day 4
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:0100:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00
kW
kW Day
Typical Residential Load Profile
April 2011- Day 4
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:0100:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00
kW
kW month
Figure 7: Sample Data for 15 minute, hourly, daily and monthly over 1 day
1
1
Modernizing Electric & Water
Infrastructure
July 12, 2011
Work Session
2
Objectives
Background info
Detail how Advanced Meter Fort Collins supports Policies and Goals
Show the three faces of Advanced Meter Fort Collins
Provide a project update
Discuss the issues resolution and communication around national hot
topics:
Price/Cost
Privacy
Health
Discuss Customer Options
Detail Broadband Communications Network Opportunities
ATTACHMENT 4
2
3
Background
• 2008 City Council Adopts the Climate Action Plan - Advanced
Metering Infrastructure (AMI) identified as one of the strategies for
achieving goals.
• 1/2009 – Utilities Staff works with R.W. Beck to develop a
business case for an AMI system.
• 3/2009 – Business case for AMI is positive. AMI proposed as
part of Budgeting For Outcomes (BFO) process.
• 6/2009 – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
Smart Grid Investment Grants (SGIG) announced..
4
Background
• 7/2009 – Utilities bundles Long Range IT Strategic Plan
elements with AMI project and submits grant application
• 10/2009 – Department of Energy notifies City of matching grant
award for $15.7 million ($31.4 M total project)
• 11/2009 – Utilities pulls BFO offer for AMI and returns with
financing options to match the grant funding in April of 2010.
• 4/2010 – 5/2010 Council approves appropriation for AMI and
sale of bonds to finance Light and Powers match to DOE grant.
• 6/2010 – 7/2010 Council approves $4 million appropriation for
Water meter portion of AMI.
3
5
Background
• 6/2010 – City signs Agreement with DOE – three year deadline
to spend grant funds begins
• 8/2010 – Utilities contracts with Enspiria Inc. to act as the City’s
technical advisor through Smart Grid Investment Grant program.
• 9/2010 – 11/2010 – Utilities works with Enspiria to develop and
release AMI and Meter Data Management System Request for
Proposal’s (RFP).
• 1/2011 – 3/2011 Evaluate RFP’s, conduct interviews and select
vendor
• 3/2011 – Present – Contract negotiations with selected vendors
– Elster for AMI
– Siemens / Emeter for Meter Data Management System
6
Council Established Goals
• 2008 Climate Action Plan
– 20% Greenhouse gas reduction below 2005 levels
by 2020, 80% by 2050
• Advanced Metering Infrastructure first proposed in
Climate Action Plan
4
7
Council Established Goals
• Energy Policy
– 1.5% energy savings
– Reduce system peak by 5% by 2015 10% by 2020
– Provide Highly reliable electric service
• Average System Availability Index greater than
99.9886% (2010 – 99.9967%)
• Customer Average Interruption Index less than 60
minutes (2010
• System Average Interruption Frequency Index less than
1.0 ( 2010 -
– Develop renewable resources to meet the Colorado
Renewable Energy Standard
8
Achieving the Goals
• How does the AMI system help achieve the Climate
Action Plan and Energy Policy Goals?
• The communication system installed as part of the
AMI system provides a foundation for future
technologies and programs plus it provides
efficiencies today.
5
9
The 3 Faces of Advanced Meter Fort Collins
Ongoing Utility Modernization
(e.g. Advanced Meter Fort Collins)
Local Green Energy
(e.g. FortZED, Solar Incentives)
New Customer Options
(e.g. Smart Energy Pioneer Program)
10
Ongoing Utility Modernization
6
11
Fort Collins ongoing Modernization
1968 Under-ground Distribution System
1979 Remote System Monitoring (SCADA)
1982 Demand Side Management
1985 Underground Conversion
1990 Remote Commercial Meter Reading
1999 Substation Automation
2012 Small Commercial & Residential Remote Meter
Reading, Advanced Meters Fort Collins
(Advanced Metering Infrastructure – AMI)
12
Advanced Meter Fort Collins
•• New electronic meters (electric and water)
•• $32M total cost, $16M from a Department of Energy
Grant
•• 10-10 -year payback from operational savings
(i.e. meter reading)
•• Most meters installed from mid-mid -2012 through mid-mid -2013
•• Smart Meters enable many options for customers
7
13
Typical Home Wireless Network
The AMI system is much like
the wireless computer network
in our homes. The Local Area
Network (LAN) is made up of
computers, game machines,
video, television and other
wireless devices. The LAN
connects to the rest of the
world through a Wide Area
Network (WAN).
LAN
WAN
Elster EnergyAxis Backbone
control
A field proven (Tried & True) end-to-end Network offering providing required
Smart Grid characteristics;
• Authentication
• Confidentiality
• Data Integrity
• Reliability
• Security
firewall
Gatekeeper meters
meter/repeater
router EAMS
DDWWAANN
NNLLAANN
Utility
Network
HAN
Enterprise
Network
DA Devices
Standalone
Gatekeeper
8
15
Remote Meter Reading iissnn’’t t New to Us
16
But it might be new to you
9
17
Ongoing Utility Modernization
Results: Higher Reliability &
Lower Operating Costs
Our customers have some of the lowest bills in the
state
Our 99.9967% reliability attracts and keeps tech
business
Remote monitoring speeds repair and reduces truck-
rolls
Remote meter reading reduces operational costs
A smart grid is an integral part of our past and future
18
Local Green Energy
lowering the cost of adding renewables
More of this... Less of this...
10
19
Local Green Energy
Clouds with a Solar Lining
Solar energy (photovoltaic) is getting cheaper, and cheaper.
But, when a cloud passes between the sun and a solar panel,
output can drop in just seconds.
Balancing the grid traditionally means adding backup
generators (e.g. peakers).
With a smarter grid, we can balance the grid with existing load
and generation – saving money!
20
Today (without smart grid)
11
21
Today (without smart grid)
22
Today (without smart grid)
12
23
With Smart Grid
Tomorrow
24
Tomorrow
With Smart Grid
13
25
Tomorrow
With Smart Grid
26
New Customer Options & Choices
14
27
New Customer Options & Choices
Consumers – know what your
bill is before you get it
Rate Options:
Recharge your electric vehicle when it is cheapest
Sell your solar energy to the grid when it is more
valuable
Smart Home – emerging smart appliances will
automatically run to save you money
28
New Electronic Meters
Can Provide a Wealth of Info
– or Not
Can be programmed to communicate...
Daily total usage
Every 15 minutes – detailed usage
Can integrate with a Home Area
Network
Or can be completely silent – just like
today
15
29
“Smart Energy Pioneer” Pilot Program
A simple Time-of-Use
Rate
Don’t need EV or PV to
do this – but it helps!
Integrate with Home
Area Networks
Limited enrollment
(first 50?)
Conceptual Pioneer Smart Rate
30
Lower Cost Electric Vehicle Charging
Charge at night – and save!
We have enough generation and distribution for lots of
EVs, but not if they charge at the same time. So this helps
all of us.
16
31
Lower Cost Electric Vehicle Charging
Charge at night – and save!
We have enough generation and distribution for lots of
EVs, but not if they charge at the same time. So this helps
all of us.
Charge at Night!
32
Photovoltaics More Valuable
17
33
Smarter Homes – can automatically use
electricity when it is cheaper if it works
with your schedule.
34
New Customer Options: Results
Saving your petunias from the meter reader
Manage Energy Use – gives engaged consumers
access to more information about their usage.
Lower Cost Electric Vehicle charging
Higher Value Solar PV
Enabling new Smart Appliances and Home Devices to
automatically save money
New Pricing Options like the “Smart Energy Pioneer
Rate”
18
35
Update on Project Status
Technology & System Update
Project Schedule
Stakeholder Engagement
Internal: Organizational Change Management
External: Public Involvement & Communications
A3 ALPHA
Meter/Gatekeeper
EnergyAxis: Plug & Play,
Auto-Optimizing (Controlled Mesh),
Redundant
Level 1
Level 1
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 5
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 4
Level 4
Level 1
Level 3
DWANs
Controlled Mesh vs. Uncontrolled
= Preserves Bandwidth
19
Elster EnergyAxis Backbone
A field proven (Tried & True) end-to-end Network offering providing required
Smart Grid characteristics;
• Authentication
• Confidentiality
• Data Integrity
• Reliability
• Security
firewall
Gatekeeper meters
meter/repeater
control router EAMS
DDWWAANN
NNLLAANN
Utility
Network
HAN
Enterprise
Network
Meters w/DWAN
Direct connection
DA Devices
Standalone
Gatekeeper
38
Status: Project Schedule
20
39
Status: Organizational Change
Management (OCM)
Plan Developed
Process & leads identified
Impacted Functions Identified
Implementation Started
40
PICP: Customer
Segmentation
Status: Public Involvement
21
41
Public Involvement & Communications
Methods: Electronic & Traditional Media
Internet
Website
Research
FAQ’s
Flyer
Presentations
Advisory Panel
Others under development per plan
Graphic Identity/Sub-branding
Issues Resolution & Communications
Communications Underway with “Home Base” Messaging
General information
Price/cost
Privacy
Health
45
22
43
Issues: Price/Cost
Cost issues
Utilities has presented a positive business case that was
prepared using nationally recognized standards to
Council and the community.
The original business case was prepared by staff and R.W.
Beck;
reviewed and validated at a high level by Enspiria.
Headline cases such as those in CA and TX claiming the
meters are inaccurate have proved unwarranted by
independent laboratories.
The meters open the door for new rate forms that reflect cost of
energy at time of use along with other new opportunities, such
as increased energy efficiencies.
44
Issues: Privacy & Security
Privacy issues related to customer information
Utilities adheres to strict policies regarding the
protection of customer information;
Federal Regulation “Red Flags; FACT Act”
Colorado open records
Internal policies
How the data is handled
How it is released
Security
23
45
Issues: Health
Health effects from Radio Frequency
electromagnetic fields.
Levels are much less than those from cell
phones, microwaves, wireless routers, cordless
phones etc..
Utilities is working with Dr. Bruce Cooper from
the Health District to provide an independent and
informed risk communication to the community.
46
24
47
Options for Advanced Meter Fort Collins
What is the default meter setup?
How often will the meters record data?
Options
How often are the meters
read?
Pilot programs
Manual reading
48
Customer Options
25
49
Customer Option 1
Standard Mode with Full Functionality
Data Collection & Transmission
Collects data in 15-minute or one-hour intervals
Transmits 4 to 6 times per day via a 1.5-second signal
Costs
Installation and operating costs included in project budget
Considerations
Allows full benefits of new technology (for both the
customers and the system)
Creates optimal performance
50
Customer Option 2
Limited Mode with Lower Functionality
Data Collection & Transmission
Collects data only once per day
Transmits 4 to 6 times per day via a 1.5-second signal
Costs
May include customer cost to program meter
Specific costs under development
Considerations
Collects data less frequently and on a less detailed basis
Limits customer benefits and adds cost
Diminished ability to support Energy Policy
26
51
Customer Option 3
Manual Mode with Minimal Functionality
Data Collection & Transmission
Meter read manually once per month
Costs
Will include customer cost for manual read
Specific system and customer costs under development
Considerations
Automatic data transmission is disabled
Requires monthly service call (technician and vehicle trip)
Limits customer benefits and adds cost
Diminished ability to support Energy Policy
52
Customer Options Summary
Considerations
Option 1
Standard
Option 2
Limited
Option 3
Manual
Functionality and ability to take advantage of
new technology; allows full customer benefits
High Limited Minimal
Data collected in 15-minute to one-hour intervals 9
Data collected once per day 9
Data collected once per month via manual read 9
Data transmitted 4 to 6 times per day via a 1.5
second signal 9 9
Additional customer cost 9 9
Additional system cost 9
Requires monthly service call 9
Ability to support Energy Policy High Limited Minimal
Optional
27
Tropos Network Opportunities
Distribution
Automation
HAN Meter LAN
Distribution Wide
Area Network Core Network
Mobile
Applications
Power Quality
Sensors
Outage
Management
AMI Network
Demand
Response
PHEV Charging
Station
Utility Core
Systems
Distributed
Generation
DWAN
54
Other Local AMI Projects
• Poudre Valley REA – Fort Collins/Loveland - 2009
– 36,000 Landis & Gyr Automated Meters
• Fort Collins Loveland Water District / South Fort Collins Sanitation
District - 2010
– Sensus & FlexNet14,000 Automated Meters
• Cheyenne Light, Fuel & Power - 2010
– 38,000 Elster Meters
• Black Hills Energy – Pueblo - 2008
– 56,500 Elster Meters
– 750,000 utility customers in CO, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, SD, WY
• Xcel Energy – 2008
– 50,000 Meters
• City of Fountain - 2011
– Cooper Meters
• Colorado Springs - 2009
– 530,000 Landis & Gyr Meters
28
55
Other City Projects
• Oklahoma City, OK –Public Safety (Policy & Fire), Building
Inspectors, Mobile Workforce and Traffic Control
• Corpus Christi, TX – AMI Metering, Mobile Workforce, Building
Inspectors, Public Safety, Public Works, Schools
• Glendale Water and Power-AMI Metering, Mobile workforce
• Burbank Water & Power-AMI Metering, Mobile Workforce,
Demand Response, other city services
• Rock Hill, SC- AMR, AMI, Mobile Public Safety, Video Security,
Public Access Hot Zones
• Phoenix, AZ - Traffic Controller Management, signal
management, adaptive traffic profiles, predefined event profile,
Future signal communications
• Tucson, AZ - Mobile Telemedicine, Traffic Controllers, Police
Services, Future Intersection Video Surveillance
• Ponca City, OK - City workforce, Public Safety, mobile water,
energy, SCADA use for work orders, Transportation, Ponca City
Free Wi-Fi Service
56
Other City Projects
• Savannah, GA- Public Safety, Video Surveillance, Future AMR,
ITS, mobile city operations, asset tracking
• Lompoc, CA- AMI, Public Internet Access Service, Police,
Future Fire, building inspectors
• Baton Rouge, LA- Gunshot Location System, Video
Surveillance, Future Public Safety Applications
• ADWEA – Abu Dhabi, U.A.E-AMR, AMI, Street Lighting Control,
Mobile broadband for field workers, Remote SCADA control &
monitoring
• Avista – Spokane, WA – Distribution Automation, Future AMI,
mobile workforce
• Vancouver, BC - Public Transit Signal Prioritization
• Redwood City, CA - Automated Parking Meters
• Mountain View, CA - Free Community Access, AMR
• Laguna Beach, CA - Video Fire Watch, Video Lifeguard, Free
Public Internet Access Service
29
57
Conclusions
Advanced Meter Fort Collins is currently behind
schedule by approximately 2 weeks due to contract
negotiations with Elster.
Providing a timely, truthful and transparent dialogue
related to the issues of Cost, Health and Privacy with
Council on July 12.
Need direction on pursuing opportunities related to
the Tropos Broadband Distribution Wide Area
Network
58
…Thank you!
For more information go to: fcgov.com/advancedmeter
Director,
CITRIS
@
Santa
Cruz
Ryan
McCarthy,
2009
CCST
Science
and
Technology
Policy
Fellow
Larry
Papay,
CEO,
PQR,
LLC,
mgmt
consulting
firm
David
Winickoff,
Assistant
Professor
of
Bioethics
and
Society,
Department
of
Environmental
Science,
Policy
and
Management,
UC
Berkeley
Paul
Wright,
Director,
UC
Center
for
Information
Technology
Research
in
the
Interest
of
Society
(CITRIS)
With
Additional
Assistance
From:
JD
Stack,
Administrator,
California
Smart
Grid
Center,
College
of
Engineering
and
Computer
Science,
California
State
University,
Sacramento
CCST
Executive
Director:
Susan
Hackwood
Project
Manager:
Lora
Lee
Martin,
Director,
S&T
Policy
Fellows
CCST
Staff:
Donna
King,
Executive
Assistant
and
Accountant
Sandra
Vargas-‐De
La
Torre,
Project
Coordinator,
Layout
Susan
Bryant,
Former
Vice
Chancellor
for
Research,
UC
Irvine
Charles
Elachi,
Director,
Jet
Propulsion
Laboratory
David
Gollaher,
President
and
CEO,
California
Healthcare
Institute
Corey
Goodman,
Former
President,
Biotherapeutics
and
Bioinnovation
Center,
Pfizer
M.R.C.
Greenwood,
President,
The
University
of
Hawai’i
System
Susan
Hackwood,
Executive
Director,
California
Council
on
Science
and
Technology
Bryan
Hannegan,
Vice
President
of
Environment
and
Renewables,
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
Sung-‐Mo
“Steve”
Kang,
Chancellor,
University
of
California,
Merced
Charles
Kennedy,
Vice
President
for
Health
Information
Technology,
WellPoint,
Inc.
Jude
Laspa,
Deputy
Chief
Operating
Officer,
Bechtel
Group,
Inc.
William
Madia,
Former
Senior
Executive
Vice
President
of
Laboratory
Operations,
Battelle
David
W.
Martin,
Jr.,
M.D.,
Chairman
&
CEO,
AvidBiotics
Corporation
Fariborz
Maseeh,
Founder
and
Managing
Principal,
Picoco
LLC
George
H.
Miller,
Director,
Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory
Michael
Nacht,
Dean,
Goldman
School
of
Public
Policy,
UC
Berkeley
Stephen
D.
Rockwood,
Executive
Vice
President,
Science
Applications
International
Corporation
Jeffrey
Rudolph,
President
and
CEO,
California
Science
Center
Shankar
Sastry,
Dean,
College
of
Engineering,
University
of
California,
Berkeley
Soroosh
Sorooshian,
Distinguished
Professor
and
Director,
Center
for
Hydrometeorology
&
Remote
Sensing
(CHRS),
UC
Irvine
James
L.
Sweeney,
Director,
Precourt
Institute
for
Energy
Efficiency,
and
Professor
of
Management
Science
and
Engineering,
Stanford
University
S.
Pete
Worden,
Director,
NASA
Ames
Research
Center
Julie
Meier
Wright,
President
and
CEO,
San
Diego
Economic
Development
Corporation
Kathy
Yelick,
Director,
National
Energy
Research
Scientific
Computing
Center
(NERSC),
Lawrence
Berkeley
National
Laboratory
and
Immunology,
Stanford
University
Warren
J.
Baker,
Emeritus,
President,
California
Polytechnic
State
University,
San
Luis
Obispo
Peter
Cowhey,
Council
Vice-‐Chair
and
Dean,
School
of
International
Relations
and
Pacific
Studies,
UC
San
Diego
Bruce
B.
Darling,
Executive
Vice
President,
University
of
California
Susan
Hackwood,
Executive
Director,
California
Council
on
Science
and
Technology
Randolph
Hall,
Vice
Provost
for
Research
Advancement,
University
of
Southern
California
Charles
E.
Harper,
Executive
Chairman,
Sierra
Monolithics,
Inc.
Miriam
E.
John,
Council
Chair
and
Emeritus
Vice
President,
Sandia
National
Laboratories,
California
Mory
Gharib,
Vice
Provost,
California
Institute
of
Technology
Bruce
Margon,
Vice
Chancellor
of
Research,
University
of
California,
Santa
Cruz
Tina
Nova,
President,
CEO,
and
Director,
Genoptix,
Inc.
Lawrence
T.
Papay,
CEO
and
Principal,
PQR,
LLC
Patrick
Perry,
Vice
Chancellor
of
Technology,
Research
and
Information
Systems,
California
Community
Colleges
Rollin
Richmond,
President,
Humboldt
State
University
Sam
Traina,
Vice
Chancellor
of
Research,
University
of
California,
Merced
GHz.
Repeater
unit
-‐
A
device
that
can
simultaneously
receive
a
radio
signal
and
retransmit
the
signal.
Repeater
units
are
used
to
extend
the
range
of
low
power
transmitters
in
a
geographical
area.
Router
-‐
An
electronic
computer
device
that
is
used
to
route
and
forward
information,
typically
between
various
computers
within
a
local
area
network
or
between
different
local
area
networks.
Smart
meter
-‐
A
digital
device
for
measuring
consumption,
such
as
for
electricity
and
natural
gas,
and
sending
the
measurement
to
a
utility
company.
Automated
meter
reading
(AMR)
meters
send
information
one-‐way
only.
Automated
meter
infrastructure
(AMI)
meters
are
capable
of
two-‐way
communications.
Specific
absorption
rate
(SAR)
-‐
The
incremental
energy
absorbed
by
a
mass
of
a
given
density.
SAR
is
expressed
in
units
of
watts
per
kilogram
(or
milliwatts
per
gram,
mW/g).
Transmitter
-‐
An
electronic
device
that
produces
RF
energy
that
can
be
transmitted
by
an
antenna.
The
transmitted
energy
is
typically
referred
to
a
radio
signal
or
RF
field.
Wide
area
network
(WAN)
-‐
A
computer
network
that
covers
a
broad
area
such
as
a
whole
community,
town,
or
city.
Commonly,
WANs
are
implemented
via
a
wireless
connection
using
radio
signals.
High-‐speed
Internet
connections
can
be
provided
to
customers
by
wireless
WANs.
Wi-‐Fi
-‐
An
name
given
to
the
wireless
technology
used
in
home
networks,
mobile
phones,
and
other
wireless
electronic
devices
that
employ
the
IEEE
802.11
technologies
(a
standard
that
defines
specific
characteristics
of
wireless
local
area
networks).
operation
(e.g.,
24
hours/day).
A
duty
cycle
of
1%
corresponds
to
a
transmitter
operating
on
average
1%
of
the
time
(e.g.,
14.4
minutes/day).
Electromagnetic
field
(EMF)
-‐
A
composition
of
both
an
electric
field
and
a
magnetic
field
that
are
related
in
a
fixed
way
that
can
convey
electromagnetic
energy.
Antennas
produce
electromagnetic
fields
when
they
are
used
to
transmit
signals.
Federal
Communications
Commission
(FCC)
-‐
The
Federal
Communications
Commission
(FCC)
is
an
independent
agency
of
the
US
Federal
Government
and
is
directly
responsible
to
Congress.
The
FCC
was
established
by
the
Communications
Act
of
1934
and
is
charged
with
regulating
interstate
and
international
communications
by
radio,
television,
wire,
satellite,
and
cable.
The
FCC
also
allocates
bands
of
frequencies
for
non-‐government
communications
services
(the
NTIA
allocates
government
frequencies).
The
guidelines
for
human
exposure
to
radio
frequency
electromagnetic
fields
as
set
by
the
FCC
are
contained
in
the
Office
of
Engineering
and
Technology
(OET)
Bulletin
65,
Edition
97-‐01
(August
1997).
Additional
information
is
contained
in
OET
Bulletin
65
Supplement
A
(radio
and
television
broadcast
stations),
Supplement
B
(amateur
radio
stations),
and
Supplement
C
(mobile
and
portable
devices).
Gigahertz
(GHz)
-‐
One
billion
Hertz,
or
one
billion
cycles
per
second,
a
measure
of
frequency.
Hertz
-‐
The
unit
for
expressing
frequency,
one
Hertz
(Hz)
equals
one
cycle
per
second.
Megahertz
(MHz)
-‐
One
million
Hertz,
or
one
million
cycles
per
second,
a
unit
for
expressing
frequency.
Mesh
network
-‐
A
network
providing
a
means
for
routing
data,
voice
and
instructions
between
nodes.
A
mesh
network
allows
for
continuous
connections
and
reconfiguration
around
broken
or
blocked
data
paths
by
“hopping”
from
node
to
node
until
the
destination
is
reached.
Milliwatt
per
square
centimeter
(mW/cm2)
-‐
A
measure
of
the
power
density
flowing
through
an
area
of
space,
one
thousandth
(10-‐3)
of
a
watt
passing
through
a
square
centimeter.
o Public
Health
Implications
of
Wireless
Technologies
Pathophysiology
(August
2009)
o Genotoxic
Effects
of
Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic
Fields
Pathophysiology
(August
2009)
o Epidemiological
Evidence
for
an
Association
Between
Use
of
Wireless
Phones
and
Tumor
Diseases
Pathophysiology
(August
2009)
o Public
Health
Risks
from
Wireless
Technologies:
The
Critical
Need
for
Biologically-‐based
Public
Exposure
Standards
for
Electromagnetic
Fields
(2.9MB
PDF)
BioInitiative
Briefing
for
President-‐Elect
Obama
Transition
Team
o The
BioInitiative
Report:
A
Rationale
for
A
Biologically-‐based
Public
Exposure
Standard
for
Electromagnetic
Fields
(ELF
and
RF)
(3.6MB
PDF)
Cindy
Sage
PowerPoint
Presentation
(November
2007)
Wilner
&
Associates
o SmartMeters
and
Existing
Electromagnetic
Pollution
Wilner
&
Associates
(January
2011)
-‐
This
report
was
not
commissioned
by
CCST
o Application
for
Modification
Before
the
California
Public
Utilities
Commission
(3.5MB
PDF)
Other
Documents
• Health
Canada
Safety
Code
6
and
City
of
Toronto's
Proposed
Prudent
Avoidance
Policy
(2010)
• Transmitting
Smart
Meters
Pose
A
Serious
Threat
To
Public
Health
(2010)
• RF
Safety
and
WiMax
FAQ's:
Addressing
Concerns
About
Perceived
Health
Effects
(April
2008)
Relevant
Websites
• EMF
-‐
Portal
• emfacts.com
• emfsafetynetwork.org
• lbagroup.com
• WHO
-‐
Electromagnetic
Fields
• Electromagnetic
Fields
and
Public
Health
-‐
Base
Stations
and
Wireless
Networks
(Fact
Sheet
N°304)
World
Health
Organization
(May
2006)
• Electromagnetic
Fields
and
Public
Health
-‐
Electromagnetic
Hypersensitivity
(Fact
Sheet
N°296)
World
Health
Organization
(December
2005)
• Electromagnetic
Fields
and
Public
Health
-‐
Mobile
phones
(Fact
Sheet
N°193)
World
Health
Organization
(May
2010)
Unsolicited
Submissions
Documents
Provided
by
Alexander
Blink,
Executive
Director
of
the
DE-‐Toxics
Institute,
Fairfax
CA
o Points
and
Sources
Submitted
for
Consideration
by
Alexander
Blink
2
o Points
and
Sources
Submitted
for
Consideration
by
Alexander
Blink
1
o Public
Health
Implications
of
Wireless
Technologies,
Cindy
Sage
o Memory
and
Behavior,
By
Henry
Lai,
Bioelectromagnetics
Research
Laboratory,
University
of
Washington
Sage
Consulting
o Assessment
of
Radiofrequency
Microwave
Radiation
Emissions
from
Smart
Meters
Sage
Associates
(January
2011)
o Cindy
Sage
Letter
to
Julius
Knapp
(FCC)
(September
22,
2010)
o Response
Letter
to
Cindy
Sage
from
Julius
Knapp
(FCC)
(August
6,
2010)
o Cindy
Sage
Letter
to
Edwin
D.
Mantiply
(FCC)
(March
15,
2010)
o Bioinitiative
Report:
A
Rational
for
a
Biologically-‐based
Public
Exposure
Standard
for
Electromagnetic
Fields
(ELF
and
RF)
(3.1MB
PDF)
o Bioinitiative
Report:
What
is
the
BioInitiative
Report?
o Bioinitiative
Report:
Myocardial
Function
Improved
by
Electromagnetic
Field
Induction
of
Stress
Protein
hsp70
(1.1MB
PDF)
(Fact
Sheet)
National
Cancer
Institute
• Cell
Phones
and
Brain
Cancer:
What
We
Know
(and
Don't
Know)
National
Cancer
Institute
(September
23,
2008)
National
Institute
of
Environmental
Health
Sciences
• Electric
and
Magnetic
Fields
National
Institute
of
Environmental
Health
Sciences
PG&E
• Understanding
Radio
Frequency
(RF)
PG&E
• Supplemental
Report
on
An
Analysis
of
Radiofrequency
Fields
Associated
with
Operation
of
PG&E
SmartMeter
Program
Upgrade
System
Richard
A.
Tell,
Richard
Tell
Associates,
Inc.
(October
27,
2008)
• Smart
Grid:
Utility
Challenges
in
the
21st
Century
(7.4MB
PDF)
Andrew
Tang,
Smart
Energy
Web,
Pacific
Gas
and
Electric
Company
(September
18,
2009)
• Summary
Discussion
of
RF
Fields
and
the
PG&E
SmartMeter
System
Richard
A.
Tell,
Richard
Tell
Associates,
Inc.
(2005
Report
and
2008
Supplemental
Report)
• Analysis
of
RF
Fields
Associated
with
Operation
of
PG&E
Automatic
Meter
Reading
Systems
Richard
A.
Tell,
Richard
Tell
Associates,
Inc.
and
J.
Michael
Silva,
P.E.
Enertech
Consultants
(April
5,
2005)
Provided
by
Raymond
Neutra
• www.ehib.org/emf
The
California
Electric
and
Magnetic
Fields
(EMF)
Program
• Should
the
World
Health
Organization
(WHO)
Apply
the
Precautionary
Principal
to
Low
and
High
Frequency
Electromagnetic
Fields?
Raymond
Richard
Neutra
Society
for
Risk
Analysis
• Risk
Governance
for
Mobile
Phones,
Power
Lines
and
Other
EMF
Technologies
Society
for
Risk
Analysis
(2010)
Silver
Spring
Networks
Devices
-‐
July
6,
2007
• Questions
and
Answers
about
Biological
Effects
and
Potential
Hazards
of
Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic
Fields
Federal
Communications
Commission
Office
of
Engineering
&
Technology
(August
1999)
• Evaluating
Compliance
with
FCC
Guidelines
for
Human
Exposure
to
Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic
Fields
Federal
Communications
Commission
Office
of
Engineering
&
Technology
(August
1997)
Food
and
Drug
Administration
• No
Evidence
Linking
Cell
Phone
Use
to
Risk
of
Brain
Tumors
U.S.
Food
and
Drug
Administration
(May
2010)
Health
Protection
Agency
• Wi-‐Fi
Health
Protection
Agency
(Last
reviewed:
October
26,
2009)
• Cordless
Telephones
-‐
Digital
Enhanced
Cordless
Telecommunications
(DECT)
and
other
Cordless
Phones
Health
Protection
Agency
(Last
reviewed:
September
4,
2008)
International
Commission
on
Non-‐Ionizing
Radiation
Protection
(ICNIRP)
• www.icnirp.de
International
Commission
on
Non-‐Ionizing
Radiation
Protection
(ICNIRP)
• International
Commission
on
Non-‐Ionizing
Radiation
Protection
(ICNIRP)
on
the
Interphone
Publication
International
Commission
on
Non-‐Ionizing
Radiation
Protection
(May
18,
2010)
• ICNIRP
Statement
on
the
"Guidelines
for
Limiting
Exposure
to
Time-‐Varying
Electric,
Magnetic,
and
Electromagnetic
Fields
(up
to
300
GHz)"
International
Commission
on
Non-‐Ionizing
Radiation
Protection
(September
2009)
• Epidemiologic
Evidence
on
Mobile
Phones
and
Tumor
Risk
International
Commission
on
Non-‐Ionizing
Radiation
Protection
(September
2009)
• Exposure
to
High
Frequency
Electromagnetic
Fields,
Biological
Effects
and
Health
Consequences
(100
kHz
-‐
300
GHz)
2010
• Perspective
on
Radio-‐Frequency
Exposure
Associated
With
Residential
Automatic
Meter
Reading
Technology
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI)
(February
22,
2010)
• Testing
and
Performance
Assessment
for
Field
Applications
of
Advanced
Meters
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI)
(December
4,
2009)
• Overview
of
Personal
Radio
Frequency
Communication
Technologies
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI)
(September
9,
2008)
• Characterizing
and
Quantifying
the
Societal
Benefits
Attributable
to
Smart
Metering
Investments
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI)
(July
2008)
• Metering
Technology
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(June
20,
2008)
• The
BioInitiative
Working
Group
Report
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI)
(November
23,
2007)
• An
Overview
of
Common
Sources
of
Environmental
Levels
of
Radio
Frequency
Fields
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI)
(September
2002)
Environmental
Protection
Agency
• United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
Response
to
Janet
Newton
(March
8,
2002)
• United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
Response
to
Jo-‐Anne
Basile
(September
16,
2002)
Epidemiology
• Prenatal
and
Postnatal
Exposure
to
Cell
Phone
Use
and
Behavioral
Problems
in
Children
Epidemiology
July
2008
-‐
Volume
19
-‐
Issue
4
-‐
pp
523-‐529
European
Journal
of
Oncology
-‐
Ramazzini
Institute
• Non-‐Thermal
Effects
and
Mechanisms
of
Interaction
between
Electromagnetic
Fields
and
Living
Matter
(2010)
Federal
Communications
Commission
Public
Health
Issues
(Fact
Sheet)
Australian
Radiation
Protection
and
Nuclear
Safety
Agency
(ARPANSA)
(May
2010)
• Radiation
Protection
-‐
Mobile
Telephones
and
Health
Effects
Australian
Radiation
Protection
and
Nuclear
Safety
Agency
(ARPANSA)
(June
25,
2010)
Documents
From
the
California
Department
of
Public
Health
(CDPH)
• Mixed
Signals
About
Cellphones'
Health
Risks
Hang
Up
Research
The
Chronicle
(September
26,
2010)
• Summary
of
the
Literature:
What
do
we
Know
About
Cell
Phones
and
Health?
(July
20,
2010)
• Brain
Tumor
Risk
in
Relation
to
Mobile
Telephone
Use:
Results
of
the
INTERPHONE
International
Case
-‐
Control
Study
Oxford
University
Press
(March
8,
2010)
• Mobile
Phones
and
Health
U.K.
Department
of
Health
• Late
Lessons
from
Early
Warnings:
Towards
Realism
and
Precaution
with
EMF?
David
Gee,
European
Environment
Agency,
(January
30,
2009)
• Statement
of
Finnish
Radiation
and
Nuclear
Safety
Authority
(STUK)
Concerning
Mobile
Phones
and
Health
Radiation
and
Nuclear
Safety
Authority
-‐
STUK
(January
7,
2009)
• Fact
Sheet:
Children
and
Safe
Cell
Phone
Use
Toronto
Public
Health
(July
2008)
• Children
and
Mobile
phones:
The
Health
of
the
Following
Generations
in
Danger
Russian
National
Committee
on
Non-‐Ionizing
Radiation
Protection
(April
14,
2008)
• AFSSE
Statement
on
Mobile
Phones
and
Health
French
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Agency
-‐
AFSSE
(April
16,
2003)
Committee
on
Man
and
Radiation
(COMAR)
• IEEE
Engineering
in
Medicine
and
Biology
Society
Committee
on
Man
and
Radiation
(COMAR)
• COMAR
Technical
Information
Statement
the
IEEE
Exposure
Limits
for
and
neuroscience
Magda
Havas,
B.Sc.,
Ph.D.,
Environmental
&
Resource
Studies,
Trent
University,
Peterborough,
Canada
Cindy
Sage,
MA,
Department
of
Oncology,
University
Hospital,
Orebro,
Sweden
and
Co-‐
Editor,
BioInitiative
Report
Ray
Neutra,
MD,
Ph.D.,
Epidemiologist,
retired
Chief
of
the
Division
of
Environmental
and
Occupational
Disease
Control,
California
Department
of
Public
Health
(CDPH)
after
which
he
was
appointed
to
the
Board.
David
E
Winickoff
Associate
Professor
of
Bioethics
and
Society,
Department
of
Environmental
Science,
Policy
and
Management,
UC
Berkeley
David
Winickoff
(JD,
MA)
is
Associate
Professor
of
Bioethics
and
Society
at
UC
Berkeley,
where
he
co-‐directs
the
UC
Berkeley
Science,
Technology
and
Society
Center.
Trained
at
Yale,
Harvard
Law
School,
and
Cambridge
University,
he
has
published
over
30
articles
in
leading
bioethics,
biomedical,
legal
and
science
studies
journals
such
as
The
New
England
Journal
of
Medicine,
the
Yale
Journal
of
International
Law,
and
Science,
Technology
&
Human
Values.
His
academic
and
policy
work
spans
topics
of
biotechnology,
intellectual
property,
geo-‐engineering,
risk-‐based
regulation,
and
human
subjects
research.
Paul
Wright
Director,
UC
Center
for
Information
Technology
Research
in
the
Interest
of
Society
(CITRIS)
As
Director
of
CITRIS
Wright
oversees
projects
on
large
societal
problems
such
as
energy
and
the
environment;
IT
for
healthcare;
and
intelligent
infrastructures
such
as:
public
safety,
water
management
and
sustainability.
Wright
is
a
professor
in
the
mechanical
engineering
department,
and
holds
the
A.
Martin
Berlin
Chair.
He
is
also
a
co-‐director
of
the
Berkeley
Manufacturing
Institute
(BMI)
and
co-‐
director
of
the
Berkeley
Wireless
Research
Center
(BWRC).
Born
in
London,
he
obtained
his
degrees
from
the
University
of
Birmingham,
England
and
came
to
the
United
States
in
1979
following
appointments
at
the
University
of
Auckland,
New
Zealand
and
Cambridge
University
England.
He
is
also
a
member
of
the
National
Academy
of
Engineering.
Ryan
McCarthy
Science
and
Technology
Policy
Fellow,
California
Council
on
Science
and
Technology
McCarthy
recently
completed
the
CCST
Science
and
Technology
Policy
Fellowship
in
the
office
of
California
Assembly
Member
Wilmer
Amina
Carter,
where
he
advised
on
issues
associated
with
energy,
utilities,
and
the
environment,
among
others.
McCarthy
holds
a
master
and
doctorate
degree
in
civil
and
environmental
engineering
from
UC
Davis,
and
a
bachelor’s
degree
in
structural
engineering
from
UC
San
Diego.
His
expertise
lies
in
transportation
and
energy
systems
analysis,
specifically
regarding
the
electricity
grid
in
California
and
impacts
of
electric
vehicles
on
energy
use
and
emissions
in
the
state.
Information
Technologies
Institute
in
the
Baskin
School
of
Engineering.
In
1984,
he
joined
the
UCSC
faculty
to
start
the
engineering
programs,
coming
from
IBM
where
he
was
a
senior
manager
at
IBM
Almaden
Research.
His
research
interests
include
system
architecture,
design,
and
performance,
simulation
and
modeling
of
complex
systems,
computer
networks
and
multimedia,
real-‐time
data
acquisition,
and
control
systems.
Mantey
is
a
Fellow
of
the
Institute
of
Electrical
and
Electronics
Engineers.
His
current
projects
at
CITRIS
include
the
Residential
Load
Monitoring
Project
and
work
on
power
distribution
system
monitoring
and
reliability.
Mantey
received
his
B.S.
(magna
cum
laude)
from
the
University
of
Notre
Dame,
his
M.S.
from
the
University
of
Wisconsin-‐Madison,
and
his
Ph.D.
from
Stanford
University,
all
in
electrical
engineering.
He
is
a
Fellow
of
the
Institute
of
Electrical
and
Electronics
Engineers
(IEEE).
Emir
José
Macari
Dean
of
Engineering
and
Computer
Science,
California
State
University,
Sacramento
and
Director
of
the
California
Smart
Grid
Center
Prior
to
his
appointment
as
dean
at
CSU
Sacramento,
Macari
was
dean
of
the
College
of
Science,
Mathematics
and
Technology
at
the
University
of
Texas
at
Brownsville.
Prior
to
that,
he
served
as
the
program
director
for
the
Centers
of
Research
Excellence
in
Science
and
Technology
at
the
National
Science
Foundation.
He
spent
five
years
as
the
Chair
and
Bingham
C.
Stewart
Distinguished
Professor
in
the
Department
of
Civil
and
Environmental
Engineering
at
Louisiana
State
University.
At
the
Georgia
Institute
of
Technology
he
taught
both
engineering
and
public
policy
and
at
the
University
of
Puerto
Rico
he
was
a
professor
and
director
of
Civil
Infrastructure
Research
Center.
He
has
also
worked
as
a
civil
engineer
in
private
industry
and
has
been
a
fellow
at
NASA.
Macari
holds
both
a
doctorate
and
a
master’s
degree
in
civil
engineering
geomechanics
from
the
University
of
Colorado.
He
has
a
bachelor’s
degree
in
civil
engineering
geomechanics
from
Virginia
Tech
University.
Larry
Papay
CCST
Board
Member
CEO,
PQR,
LLC,
mgmt
consulting
firm
Papay
is
currently
CEO
and
Principal
of
PQR,
LLC,
a
management
consulting
firm
specializing
in
managerial,
financial,
and
technical
strategies
for
a
variety
of
clients
in
electric
power
and
other
energy
areas.
His
previous
positions
include
Sector
Vice
President
for
the
Integrated
Solutions
Sector,
SAIC;
Senior
Vice
President
and
General
Manager
of
Bechtel
Technology
&
Consulting;
and
Senior
issue
being
addressed
is
done
so
in
a
targeted
way
with
results
that
are
clear
and
sound.
In
all,
this
report
reflects
the
input
and
expertise
of
nearly
30
people
in
addition
to
the
project
team.
Reviewers
include
experts
from
academia,
industry,
national
laboratories,
and
non-‐profit
organizations.
We
wish
to
extend
our
sincere
appreciation
to
the
project
team
members
who
have
helped
produce
this
report.
Their
expertise
and
diligence
has
been
invaluable,
both
in
rigorously
honing
the
accuracy
and
focus
of
the
work
and
in
ensuring
that
the
perspectives
of
their
respective
areas
of
expertise
and
institutions
were
taken
into
account.
Without
the
insightful
feedback
that
these
experts
generously
provided,
this
report
could
not
have
been
completed.
Rollin
Richmond,
Smart
Meter
Project
Chair,
CCST
Board
Member
President
Humboldt
State
University,
CSU
Prior
to
Richmond’s
appointment
at
Humboldt
State
University
in
2002,
he
had
a
distinguished
career
as
a
faculty
member,
researcher
in
evolutionary
biology
and
academic
administrator.
Richmond
received
a
Ph.D.
in
genetics
from
the
Rockefeller
University
and
a
bachelor’s
degree
in
zoology
from
San
Diego
State
University.
Dr.
Richmond’s
career
has
included:
Chairperson
of
biology
at
Indiana
University,
founding
Dean
of
the
College
of
Arts
and
Sciences
at
the
University
of
South
Florida,
Provost
at
the
State
University
of
New
York
at
Stony
Brook,
and
Provost
and
Professor
of
Zoology
and
Genetics
at
Iowa
State
University.
He
was
named
the
sixth
President
of
Humboldt
State
University
in
July
of
2002.
Dr.
Richmond
is
a
fellow
of
the
American
Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Science
and
a
member
of
Phi
Beta
Kappa.
His
research
interests
are
in
evolutionary
genetics.
Jane
Long,
CCST’s
California’s
Energy
Future
Project
Co-‐Chair
and
CCST
Sr.
Fellow
Associate
Director
at
Large,
Global
Security
Directorate
Fellow,
Center
for
Global
Security
Research
Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory
Dr.
Long
is
the
Principal
Associate
Director
at
Large
for
Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory
working
on
energy
and
climate.
She
is
also
a
Fellow
in
the
LLNL
Center
for
Global
Strategic
Research.
Her
current
interests
are
in
reinvention
of
the
energy
system
in
light
of
climate
change,
national
security
issues,
economic
stress,
and
ecological
breakdown.
She
holds
a
bachelor's
degree
in
engineering
from
Brown
University
and
Masters
and
Ph.D.
from
UC
Berkeley.
to
CCST
(September,
2010)
in
support
of
Mr.
Huffman’s
request.
(Appendix
A
-‐
letters)
The
CCST
Executive
Committee
appointed
a
Smart
Meter
Project
Team
that
oversaw
the
development
of
a
response
on
the
issue
(Appendix
C):
• Rollin
Richmond
(Chair),
President
Humboldt
State
University,
CSU
• Jane
Long,
Associate
Director
at
Large,
Global
Security
Directorate
Fellow,
Center
for
Global
Security
Research
Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory
• Emir Macari, Dean of Engineering and Computer Science, California State
University,
Sacramento
and
Director
of
the
California
Smart
Grid
Center
• Patrick
Mantey,
Director,
CITRIS
@
Santa
Cruz
• Ryan
McCarthy,
2009
CCST
Science
and
Technology
Policy
Fellow
• Larry
Papay,
CEO,
PQR,
LLC,
mgmt
consulting
firm
• David Winickoff, Assistant Professor of Bioethics and Society, Department of
Environmental
Science,
Policy
and
Management,
UC
Berkeley
• Paul Wright, Director, UC Center for Information Technology Research in the
Interest
of
Society
(CITRIS)
In
addition
to
those
on
the
project
team,
CCST
approached
over
two
dozen
technical
experts
to
contribute
their
opinion
to
inform
CCST’s
response.
The
experts
were
referred
from
a
variety
of
sources
and
were
vetted
by
the
Smart
Meter
Project
Team.
Efforts
were
made
to
include
both
biological
and
physical
scientists
and
engineers
to
help
provide
broad
context
and
perspective
to
the
response.
Many
of
the
experts
approached
indicated
they
did
not
time
to
provide
a
written
response
however
they
provided
references
to
additional
experts
and/or
literature
for
review.
A
few
experts
identified
were
not
asked
to
contribute
due
to
affiliations
that
were
felt
to
be
a
conflict
of
interest.
Experts
were
asked
to
provide
written
comment
on
two
issues,
to
provide
referral
to
other
experts,
and
to
suggest
literature
that
should
be
reviewed.
Appendix
D
provides
a
list
of
those
experts
who
provided
written
comment.
Smart
Meter
Project
Team
members
and
the
experts
providing
written
technical
input
completed
a
conflict
of
interest
disclosure
form
to
reveal
any
activities
that
could
create
the
potential
perception
of
a
conflict.
In
addition
to
written
and
oral
input
from
technical
experts,
CCST
identified
relevant
reports
and
other
sources
of
information
to
inform
the
final
report.
This
material
can
be
found
listed
in
Appendix
E
and
on
a
CCST
website:
http://ccst.us/projects/smart/.
devices
in
the
same
range
of
RF
emissions.
Exposure
levels
from
smart
meters
are
well
below
the
thresholds
for
such
effects.
2. There
is
no
evidence
that
additional
standards
are
needed
to
protect
the
public
from
smart
meters.
The
topic
of
potential
health
impacts
from
RF
exposure
in
general,
including
the
small
RF
exposure
levels
of
smart
meters,
continues
to
be
of
concern.
This
report
has
been
developed
to
provide
readers
and
consumers
with
factual,
relevant
information
about
the:
• Scientific
basis
underpinning
current
RF
limits
• Need
for
further
research
into
RF
effects
• Relative
nature
of
RF
emissions
from
a
wide
array
of
devices
commonly
used
throughout
world
(e.g.,
cellular
and
cordless
phones,
Wi-‐Fi
devices,
laptop
computers,
baby
monitors,
microwave
ovens).
CCST
encourages
the
ongoing
development
of
unbiased
sources
of
readily
available
and
clear
facts
for
public
information
and
education.
A
web-‐based
repository
of
written
reports,
frequently
asked
questions
and
answers,
graphics,
and
video
demonstrations
would
provide
consumers
with
factual,
relevant
information
with
which
to
better
understand
RF
effects
in
our
environment.
Strength
(or
Power
Density)
Microwatts/square
centimeter
(µW/cm2)
Meter
signal
strength
very
small
compared
to
other
devices
listed
above
3.
Distance
from
Signal Signal
strength
drops
rapidly
(doubling
distance
cuts
power
density
by
four)
Example:
1
ft.
–
8.8
µW/cm2
3
ft.
–
1.0
µW/cm2
10
ft.
–
0.1
µW/cm2
4.
Signal
Duration -‐
Extremely
short
amount
of
time
(2.0-‐5.0%,
max.)
-‐
No
RF
signal
95-‐98%
of
the
time
(over
23
hours/day)
-‐
Often
overlooked
factor
when
comparing
devices.
-‐
Short
duration
combined
with
weak
signal
strength
yields
tiny
exposures
5.
Thermal
Effects -‐
Scientific
consensus
on
proven
effects
from
heat
at
high
RF
levels
-‐
FCC
“margin-‐of-‐safety”
limits
50
times
lower
than
hazardous
exposure
level
-‐
Typical
meter
operates
at
70
times
less
than
FCC
limit
and
3,500
times
less
than
the
demonstrated
hazard
level
6.
Non-‐thermal
Effects -‐
Inconclusive
research
to
date
-‐
No
established
cause-‐and-‐effect
pointing
to
negative
health
impacts
Continuing
research
needed
make
knowledgeable
judgments
about
how
to
prudently
minimize
possible
risks
to
themselves
and
their
families
by
utilizing
standards-‐
compliant
devices
at
known
safe
distances.
Also,
people
will
be
better
able
to
gauge
relative
field
strengths
of
various
RF
sources
in
our
everyday
environment
(e.g.,
mobile
phones,
electric
blankets,
clock
radios,
TV
and
radio,
computers,
smart
meters,
power
lines,
microwave
ovens,
etc.).
An
ongoing
regularly
updated
source
of
unbiased
information
on
the
state
of
scientific
research,
both
proven
and
as-‐yet-‐unproven
causal
effects
being
studied,
if
presented
by
an
independent
entity,
would
provide
consumers
a
credible
and
transparent
source
from
which
to
obtain
facts
about
RF
in
our
environment.
CCST
is
not
currently
aware
of
a
single
website
with
up-‐to-‐date
consumer
information
which
we
are
able
to
endorse
as
impartial.
Alternatives
to
Wireless?
Assembly
Member
Huffman
has
inquired
about
potential
alternatives
to
wireless
communication
with
smart
meters.
There
are
currently
several
other
methods
of
transmitting
data
from
some
smart
meters
to
the
utility
company.
These
methods
include
transmitting
over
a
power
line
or
wired
through
phone
lines,
fiber-‐optic
or
coaxial
cable.
Each
method
has
tradeoffs
among
cost
and
performance
(e.g.,
how
much
data
can
be
carried,
how
far,
how
fast).
The
ability
to
have
a
transmission
protocol
alternative
to
wireless
depends
upon
the
type
and
configuration
of
the
meter
used.
Some
existing
smart
meters
can
be
hard-‐wired,
while
others
would
have
to
be
modified
or
replaced.
The
communications
board
plugs
into
a
digital
meter.
The
current
PG&E
meters
use
a
SilverSpring
communications
board
that
only
supports
wireless
protocol.
SilverSpring
or
another
vendor
could
provide
an
alternative
communications
means
if
such
were
warranted
and
cost
effective.
The
related
costs
of
an
alternative
approach
would
need
to
be
factored
into
the
decision
making
process
related
to
different
options.
If
future
research
were
to
establish
a
causal
relationship
between
RF
emissions
and
negative
human
health
impacts,
industries
and
governments
worldwide
may
be
faced
with
difficult
choices
about
practical
alternatives
to
avoid
and
mitigate
such
effects.
This
would
greatly
affect
the
widespread
use
of
mobile
phones,
cordless
phones,
Wi-‐Fi
devices,
smart
meters,
walkie-‐talkies,
microwave
ovens,
and
many
other
everyday
appliances
and
devices
emitting
RF.
If
such
a
hypothetical
scenario
were
to
occur,
smart
meters
could
conceivably
be
adapted
to
non-‐wireless
transmission
of
data.
However,
retrofitting
millions
of
smart
meters
with
hard-‐
wired
technology
could
be
difficult
and
costly.
Perhaps
more
importantly,
retrofitting
smart
a
multifamily
building,
such
as
an
apartment
house.
The
exposure
level
was
equivalent
to
8%
of
the
FCC
standard.
In
the
same
study
EPRI
measured
exposure
of
one
meter
from
eight
inches
behind
the
meter
panel
box
in
order
to
simulate
proximity
on
the
opposite
site
of
the
meter
wall.
At
5%
duty
cycle
it
yielded
an
exposure
of
only
0.03%
of
the
FCC
standard.
Even
at
100%
duty
cycle
(i.e.,
always
transmitting),
exposure
at
eight
inches
behind
the
meter
was
0.6%
of
the
FCC
limit.
Is
the
FCC
Standard
Sufficient
to
Protect
Public
Health?
The
FCC
guidelines
do
provide
a
significant
factor
of
safety
against
thermal
impacts
the
only
currently
understood
human
health
impact
that
occurs
at
the
power
level
and
within
the
frequency
band
that
smart
meters
use.
In
addition
to
the
factor
of
safety
built
into
the
guidelines,
at
worst,
human
exposure
to
RF
from
smart
meter
infrastructure
operating
at
even
50%
duty
cycle
will
be
significantly
lower
than
the
guidelines.
While
additional
study
is
needed
to
understand
potential
non-‐thermal
effects
of
exposure
to
RF
and
effects
of
cumulative
and
prolonged
exposure
to
several
devices
emitting
RF,
given
current
scientific
knowledge
the
FCC
guideline
provides
an
adequate
margin
of
safety
against
known
thermal
effects.
Are
Additional
Technology-‐specific
Standards
Needed?
The
FCC
guidelines
protect
against
thermal
effects
of
RF
exposure.
Many
non-‐thermal
effects
have
been
suggested,
and
additional
research
is
needed
to
better
understand
and
scientifically
validate
them.
Given
the
scientific
uncertainty
around
non-‐thermal
effects
of
all
RF
emitting
equipment,
at
this
time
there
is
no
clear
indication
of
what,
if
any,
additional
standards
might
be
needed.
Neither
is
there
a
basis
from
which
to
understand
what
types
of
standards
could
be
helpful
or
appropriate.
Without
a
clear
understanding
of
the
biological
mechanisms
at
play,
the
costs
and
benefits
of
additional
standards
for
RF
emitting
devices
including
smart
meters,
cannot
be
determined
at
this
time.
35
EPRI
(2010)
“A
perspective
on
radio-‐frequency
exposure
associated
with
residential
automatic
meter
reading
technology,”
Electric
Power
Research
Institute,
February.
cycle,
or
signal
duration
is
an
often-‐overlooked
factor
when
comparing
exposures
from
different
kinds
of
devices
(e.g.,
mobile
phones,
Wi-‐Fi
routers,
smart
meters,
microwave
ovens,
FM
radio/TV
broadcast
signals).
Duty
cycles
of
various
devices
vary
considerably.
The
duty
cycle
of
AM/FM
radio/TV
broadcasts,
are
100%;
in
other
words,
they
are
transmitting
continuously.
Mobile
phones
usage
varies
widely
from
user
to
user,
of
course.
However,
the
national
average
use
is
about
450
minutes
per
month.
This
usage
equates
to
a
1%
duty
cycle
for
the
“average”
user.
From
information
that
CCST
was
able
to
obtain
we
understand
that
the
smart
meter
transmitter
being
used
by
PG&E
operates
with
a
maximum
power
output
of
1
W
(watt)
and
within
the
902-‐928
MHz
(mega-‐hertz)
frequency
band.
Each
smart
meter
is
part
of
a
broader
“mesh”
network
and
may
act
as
a
relay
between
other
smart
meters
and
utility
access
points.
The
transmitter
at
each
smart
meter
will
be
idle
some
of
the
time,
with
the
percent
of
time
idle
(not
transmitting)
depending
on
the
amount
and
schedule
of
data
transmissions
made
from
each
meter,
the
relaying
of
data
from
other
meters
that
an
individual
meter
does,
and
the
networking
protocol
(algorithm)
that
manages
control
and
use
of
the
communications
paths
in
the
mesh
network.
Theoretically
the
transmit
time
could
increase
substantially
beyond
today’s
actual
operation
level
if
new
applications
and
functionality
are
added
to
the
meter’s
communication
module
in
the
future.
For
a
hypothetical
“worst
case”
illustration
(i.e.,
if
the
meter
malfunctioned
and
was
stuck
in
the
transmit
mode),
an
absolute
upper
end
duty
cycle
would
be
100%,
where
the
transmitter
is
always
on.
The
table
below
compares
the
effect
of
different
duty
cycles
against
the
FCC
guidelines
for
human
exposure
limits.
Typical
Smart
Meter
Operation
With
Repeater
Activity
Scaled
Hypothetical
Maximum
Use
Case
(i.e.,
always
on)
5%
Duty
Cycle 100%
Duty
Cycle
72
minutes/day 24
hours/day
3%
of
FCC
limit 60%
of
FCC
limit
Source
data
on
operating
duty
cycles
(i.e.,
first
column)
from
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI)
actual
field
testing
of
smart
meters,
as
reported
in
Radio
Frequency
Exposure
Levels
from
Smart
Meters,
November
2010.
Second
column
hypothetical
maximum
case
derived
through
extrapolation
of
first
column
data.
Both
exposure
levels
at
1
foot
distance.
In
summary,
the
duty
cycles
of
smart
meters
in
typical
meter-‐read
operation
and
added
maximum-‐case
repeater
operation
result
in
exposures
that
are
3%
of
the
FCC
exposure
guidelines.
Even
in
a
hypothetical
always-‐on
scenario
the
maximum
exposure
would
be
about
60%
of
the
FCC
limit,
which
provides
a
wide
safety
margin
from
known
thermal
effects
of
RF
emissions.
1%
of
population)
0.000005
(50%
of
population)
Far
from
source
(in
most
cases)
Constant Relatively
uniform
Smart
meter 900
MHz,
2400
MHz 0.0001
(250
mW,
1%
duty
cycle)
0.002
(1
W,
5%
duty
cycle)
0.000009
(250
mW,
1%
duty
cycle)
0.0002
(1
W,
5%
duty
cycle)
3
feet
10
feet
When
in
proximity
during
transmission
Localized,
non-‐
uniform
Source:
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI),
Radio
Frequency
Exposure
Levels
from
Smart
Meters
(November
2010)
and
converted
from
mW/cm2.
Smart
meter
figures
represent
100%
duty
cycle
(i.e.,
always
on)
as
hypothetical
maximum
use
case.
31
“Radio-‐Frequency
Exposure
Levels
from
Smart
Meters”,
white
paper
by
Rob
Kavet
and
Gabor
Mezei
of
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI).
November
2010.
32
Foster,
K.R.
(2007)
Radiofrequency
exposure
from
wireless
LANS
utilizing
WI-‐FFI
technology.
Health
Physics,
Vol.
92,
No.
3,
March,
pp.
280-‐282.
33
Schmidt,
G.
et
al.
(2007)
Exposure
of
the
general
public
due
to
wireless
LAN
applications
in
public
Places,
Radiation
Protection
Dosimetry,
Vol.
123,
No.
1,
Epub
June
11,
pp.
48-‐52.
34
EPA
(1986)
The
Radiofrequency
Radiation
Environment:
Environmental
Exposure
Levels
and
RF
Radiation
Emitting
Sources,
EPA
520/1-‐85-‐014,
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
July.
0 Minimum Maximum
1000 500
2000 1500
3000 2500
4000 3500
5000 4500
1000
50 40 4 0.2 0.005
5000
200 40 4 1 1
Devices
Health
concerns
surrounding
RF
from
smart
meters
are
similar
to
those
from
many
other
devices
that
we
use
in
our
daily
lives,
including
cordless
and
mobile
telephones,
microwave
ovens,
wireless
routers,
hair
dryers,
and
wireless-‐enabled
laptop
computers.
In
addition
to
slight
differences
in
frequency
and
power
levels,
which
affect
human
absorption
of
RF
from
these
devices,
the
primary
difference
among
them
is
how
they
are
used.
Cell
phones,
for
example,
are
often
used
for
many
minutes
at
a
time,
several
times
over
the
course
of
a
day,
and
held
directly
next
to
one’s
head.
For
perspective,
microwave
ovens
operate
at
a
similar
frequency
as
the
HAN
transmitter
of
smart
meters
(2.45
GHz),
and
the
U.S.
Food
and
Drug
Administration
has
set
limits
on
leakage
levels
that
are
five
times
higher
(5,000
μW
/cm2)
than
the
FCC
limit
for
smart
meters
and
other
devices 29
EPRI
(2010)
operating
“Radio
Frequency
at
2.4
GHz.
Exposure 30
Wireless
Levels
routers
from
Smart
and
Meters,
Wi-‐Fi ”
equipment
Electric
Power
produce
Research
radiofrequency
Institute,
November
2010.
30
FDA,
“Summary
of
the
Electronic
Product
Radiation
Control
Provisions
of
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act,”
U.S.
Food
and
Drug
Administration.
(http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-‐
EmittingProducts/ElectronicProductRadiationControlProgram/LawsandRegulations/ucm118156.htm)
180
20 1.8 0.2 0.018
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1 3 10 30 100
μW/cm2
Distance
in
Feet
was
stuck
in
the
always-‐on
transmit
mode
(i.e.,
100%
duty
cycle),
exposure
levels
would
be
60%
of
the
FCC
limit
for
an
AMR
transmitter.
For
a
250mW
HAN
transmitter
at
a
5%
duty
cycle,
the
level
would
be
.45%
of
the
FCC
limit
and
9%
of
the
FCC
limit
if
the
transmitter
were
on
100%.
Exposure
figures
derived
from
November
2010
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(EPRI)
field
measurement
study
entitled
“Radio
Frequency
Exposure
Levels
from
Smart
Meters”.28
Power
Density
(and
Exposure
Level)
Declines
Rapidly
with
Distance
The
power
density
from
smart
meters,
or
other
devices
that
emit
RF,
falls
off
dramatically
with
distance.
Figure
6
illustrates
this
affect
for
an
example
smart
meter.
While
the
estimated
maximum
exposure
level
at
1
foot
from
the
meter
with
a
duty
cycle
of
50%
is
180
μW/cm2
(far
below
the
FCC
guidelines),
at
a
distance
of
about
10
feet,
the
power-‐density
exposure
approaches
zero.
28
EPRI
(2010)
“Radio
Frequency
Exposure
Levels
from
Smart
Meters,”
Electric
Power
Research
Institute,
November
2010.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Max.
permissible
exposure
(MPE)
(μW/cm2
)
Frequency
(MHz)
FCC
Limit
If
on
50%
Max
exposure
from
smart
meter
HAN
transmi�er
at
5%,
50%
and
100%
duty
cycle
FCC
Limit
100%
if
always
on
Max
exposure
from
smart
meter
AMR
transmi�er
at
5%
duty
cycle
smart
meter
network
it
is
noted
that
the
FCC
limits
on
MPE
include
a
factor
of
safety,
and
the
perceived
hazardous
exposure
level
is
50
times
higher
than
the
FCC
limits.26
The
study
estimates
that
the
highest
exposure
from
smart
meters,
if
an
individual
were
standing
directly
in
front
of
and
next
to
the
meter,
would
be
8.8
μW/cm2
transmitting
at
2
to
4%
of
the
time.
The
study
notes
that
this
is
almost
70
times
less
than
the
FCC
limit
and
3,500
times
less
than
the
demonstrated
hazard
level.
In
all
likelihood,
individuals
will
be
much
farther
away
from
smart
meters
and
likely
behind
them,
(within
a
structure)
where
power
density
will
be
much
lower.
The
highest
exposure
from
the
entire
smart
meter
system
would
occur
immediately
adjacent
to
an
access
point.
It
is
very
unlikely
that
an
individual
would
be
immediately
adjacent
to
an
access
point,
as
they
are
normally
located
25
feet
above
the
ground
on
a
telephone
or
electrical
pole
or
other
structure.
The
peak
power
density
from
an
access
point
is
estimated
to
be
24.4
μW/cm2,
or
about
25
times
less
than
the
FCC
limit.
From
the
ground,
exposure
to
power
density
from
access
points
is
estimated
to
be
15,000
times
less
than
the
FCC
limit
in
great
part
due
to
the
distance
from
the
device.
The
PG&E
commissioned
report
by
Richard
Tell
Associates
is
based
only
on
an
AMR
duty
cycle
of
transmitting
data
once
every
four
hours
which
results
in
this
very
low
estimated
peak
power.
However,
we
are
not
aware
of
the
justification
for
using
averaging
over
a
four-‐hour
period.
We
do
know
the
FCC27
allows
averaging
of
exposure
over
a
designated
period
(30
minutes).
To
truly
be
a
smart
grid
the
data
will
be
transmitted
at
a
much
more
frequent
rate
than
this.
In
this
report
we
look
at
the
worst-‐case
scenario,
a
meter
that
is
stuck
in
the
“on”
position,
constantly
relaying,
at
a
100%
duty
cycle.
Even
in
this
100%
scenario
the
RF
emissions
would
be
measurably
below
the
FCC
limits
for
thermal
effects.
26
Tell,
R.
(2008)
“Supplemental
Report
on
An
Analysis
of
Radiofrequency
Fields
Associated
with
Operation
of
the
PG&E
Smart
Meter
Program
Upgrade
System,”
Prepared
for
Pacific
Gas
&
Electric
Company,
Richard
Tell
Associates,
Inc.,
October
27.
(http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/edusafety/systemworks/rfsafety/rf_fields_supplemental_report
_2008.pdf)
27
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf
phones,
that
are
used
in
close
proximity
to
human
tissue.19
The
FCC
limits,
as
well
as
the
underlying
ANSI
and
NCRP
limits,
are
based
on
a
SAR
threshold
of
4
W/kg.
At
the
time
of
the
FCC
rulemaking,
and
still
today,
behavioral
disruption
in
laboratory
animals
(including
non-‐
human
primates)
at
this
absorption
rate
is
the
only
adverse
health
impact
that
has
been
clearly
linked
to
RF
at
levels
similar
to
those
emitted
by
smart
meters.
This
finding
is
supported
in
scientific
literature20,
21
and
by
the
World
Health
Organization
and
many
health
agencies
in
Europe.22,
23
The
FCC
limit
of
1.6
W/kg
provides
a
significant
factor
of
safety
against
this
threshold.
Limits
on
SAR
provide
the
basis
for
another
measurement
of
exposure,
maximum
permissible
exposure
(MPE).
MPE
limits
average
exposure
over
a
given
time
period
(usually
30
minutes
for
general
exposure)
from
a
device
and
is
often
used
for
exposure
to
stationary
devices
and
where
human
exposure
is
likely
to
occur
at
a
distance
of
more
than
20
cm.
It
is
measured
in
micro
(106)
watts-‐per-‐square-‐centimeter
(μW/cm2),
and
accounts
for
the
fact
that
the
human
body
absorbs
energy
more
efficiently
at
some
radiofrequencies
than
others.
The
human
body
absorbs
energy
most
efficiently
in
the
range
of
30-‐300
MHz,
and
the
corresponding
MPE
limits
for
RF
emissions
in
this
range
are
consequently
the
most
stringent.
In
the
frequency
bands
where
smart
meters
operate,
including
PG&E’s,
namely
the
902-‐928
MHz
band
and
2.4
GHz
range,
the
human
body
absorbs
energy
less
efficiently,
and
the
MPE
limits
are
less
restrictive.
The
FCC
limits
on
MPE
are
summarized
in
Figure
5.24,
25
At
902
MHz,
appropriate
for
operation
of 19
FCC
the
(
AMR 2001)
“Additional
transmitter
Information
of
the
smart
for
Evaluating
meter,
Compliance
the
FCC
limit
of
Mobile
is
601
and
μW/
Portable cm2.
Devices
At
higher
with
frequencies,
FCC
Limits
for
Human
Exposure
to
Radiofrequency
Emissions,”
Supplement
C
(Edition
01-‐01)
to
OET
Bulletin
65
(Edition
97-‐01),
Federal
Communications
Commission,
June.
(http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65c.pdf)
20
D'Andrea,
J.A.,
Adair,
E.R.,
and
J.O.
de
Lorge
(2003)
Behavioral
and
cognitive
effects
of
microwave
exposure,
Bioelectromagnetics
Suppl
6,
S39-‐62
(2003).
21
Sheppard,
A.R,
Swicord,
M.
L.,
and
Q.
Balzano
(2008)
Quantitative
evaluations
of
mechanisms
of
radiofrequency
interactions
with
biological
molecules
and
processes,
Health
Phys
95,
365-‐96
(2008).
22
The
World
Health
Organization
has
reviewed
international
guidelines
for
limiting
radiofrequency
exposure
and
scientific
studies
related
to
human
health
impacts
and
concludes
that
exposure
below
guideline
limits
don’t
appear
to
have
health
consequences.
(http://www.who.int/peh-‐emf/standards/en/)
23
Committee
on
Man
and
Radiation
(COMAR)
(2009)
“Technical
Information
Statement:
Expert
reviews
on
potential
health
effects
of
radiofrequency
electromagnetic
fields
and
comments
on
The
Bioinitiative
Report,”
Health
Physics
97(4):348-‐356
(2009).
24
FCC
(1997)
“Evaluating
Compliance
with
FCC
Guidelines
for
Human
Exposure
to
Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic
Fields,”
OET
Bulletin
65
(Edition
97-‐01),
Federal
Communications
Commission,
August.
(http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf)
25
FCC
(1999)
“Questions
and
Answers
about
Biological
Effects
and
Potential
Hazards
of
Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic
Fields,"
OET
Bulletin
56
(Fourth
Edition),
Federal
Communications
Commission,
August.
(http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf)
to
base
acceptable
human
RF
exposure
limits
on
currently
proven
scientific
and
engineering
findings
on
known
thermal
effects,
rather
than
on
general
concerns
or
speculation
about
possible
unknown
and
as
yet
unproven
non-‐thermal
effects.
Such
questions
will
likely
take
considerable
time
to
resolve.
The
data
that
are
available
strongly
suggest
that
if
there
are
non-‐thermal
effects
of
RF
absorption
on
human
health,
such
effects
are
not
so
profound
as
to
be
easily
discernable.
FCC
Guidelines
Address
Known
Thermal
Effects
Only,
not
Non-‐thermal
Effects
In
1985,
the
FCC
first
established
guidelines
to
limit
human
exposure
and
protect
against
thermal
effects
of
absorbed
RF
emissions.
The
guidelines
were
based
on
those
from
the
American
National
Standards
Institute
(ANSI)
that
were
issued
in
1982.13
In
1996,
the
FCC
modified
its
guidelines,14
based
on
a
rulemaking
process
that
began
in
1993
in
response
to
a
1992
revision
of
the
ANSI
guidelines15,
16
and
findings
by
the
National
Council
on
Radiation
Protection
and
Measurements
(NCRP).17
The
1996
guidelines
are
still
in
place
today.
In
its
rulemaking
process
to
set
SAR
and
MPE
limits,
the
FCC
relied
on
many
federal
health
and
safety
agencies,
including
the
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration.
While
the
FCC
guidelines
appear
to
provide
a
large
factor
of
safety
against
known
thermal
effects
of
exposure
to
radiofrequency,
they
do
not
necessarily
protect
against
potential
non-‐thermal
effects,
nor
do
they
claim
to.18
Without
additional
understanding
of
these
effects,
there
is
inadequate
basis
to
develop
additional
guidelines
at
this
time.
12
National
Research
Council
(2008)
Identification
of
Research
Needs
Relating
to
Potential
Biological
or
Adverse
Health
Effects
of
Wireless
Communication,
The
National
Academies
Press,
Washington,
D.C.
(http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12036.html)
13
American
National
Standards
Institute
(1982)
“American
National
Standard
Radio
Frequency
Radiation
Hazard
Warning
Symbol,”
ANSI
C95.2-‐1982,
Institute
of
Electrical
and
Electronics
Engineers,
Inc.
14
FCC
(1997)
“Evaluating
Compliance
with
FCC
Guidelines
for
Human
Exposure
to
Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic
Fields,”
OET
Bulletin
65
(Edition
97-‐01),
Federal
Communications
Commission,
August.
(http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf)
15
American
National
Standards
Institute
(1992)
“Safety
Levels
with
Respect
to
Human
Exposure
to
Radio
Frequency
Electromagnetic
Fields,
3
kHz
to
300
GHz,”
ANSI/IEEE
C95.1-‐1992
(previously
issued
as
IEEE
C95.1-‐1991),
Institute
of
Electrical
and
Electronics
Engineers,
Inc.
16
American
National
Standards
Institute
(1992)
“Recommended
Practice
for
the
Measurement
of
Potentially
Hazardous
Electromagnetic
Fields
–
RF
and
Microwave,”
ANSI/IEEE
C95.3-‐1992,
Institute
of
Electrical
and
Electronics
Engineers,
Inc.
17
NCRP
(1986)
“Biological
Effects
and
Exposure
Criteria
for
Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic
Fields,”
NCRP
Report
No.
86
(1986),
National
Council
on
Radiation
Protection
Measurements.
18
The
U.S.
EPA
confirmed
this
in
a
letter
to
The
Electromagnetic
Radiation
Policy
Institute,
dated
March
8,
2002.
(http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf)
Any
difference
in
health
impacts
from
these
devices
is
likely
to
be
a
result
of
differences
in
usage
patterns
among
them.
Thermal
Effects
Electromagnetic
waves
carry
energy,
and
EMF
absorbed
by
the
body
can
increase
the
temperature
of
human
tissue.
The
scientific
consensus
is
that
body
temperatures
must
increase
at
least
1oC
to
lead
to
potential
biological
impacts
from
the
heat.
The
only
scientifically
verified
effect
that
has
been
shown
to
occur
in
the
power
and
frequency
range
that
smart
meters
are
designed
to
occupy
is
a
disruption
in
animal
feeding
behavior
at
energy
exposure
levels
of
4
W/kg
and
with
an
accompanying
increase
in
body
temperature
of
1oC
or
more.7
The
exposure
levels
from
smart
meters
even
at
close
range
are
far
below
this
threshold.
The
FCC
has
set
limits
on
power
densities
from
electronic
devices
that
are
well
below
the
level
where
demonstrated
biological
impacts
occur,
and
the
limits
are
tens
or
hundreds
of
times
higher
than
likely
exposure
from
smart
meters.8
Non-‐thermal
Effects
There
are
emerging
questions
in
the
medical
and
biological
fields
about
potential
harmful
effects
caused
by
non-‐thermal
mechanisms
of
absorbed
RF
emissions.
Complaints
of
health
impacts
from
“electromagnetic
stress”
have
been
reported,
with
symptoms
including
fatigue,
headache,
and
irritability.
Some
studies
have
suggested
that
RF
absorption
from
mobile
phones
may
disrupt
communication
between
human
cells,
which
may
lead
to
other
negatives
impacts
on
human
biology.9,10
While
concerns
of
brain
cancer
associated
with
mobile
phone
usage
persist,
there
is
currently
no
definitive
evidence
linking
cell
phone
usage
with
increased
incidence
of
cancer.11
But
due
to
the
recent
nature
of
the
technology,
impacts
of
long-‐term
exposure
are
not
known.
Ongoing
scientific
study
is
being
conducted
to
understand
non-‐
thermal 7
D'Andrea,
effects
J.A.,
Adair,
from
E.R.
long-‐,
and term
J.O.
de
exposure
Lorge
(2003)
to
Behavioral
mobile
phones
and
cognitive
and
smart
effects
meters,
of
microwave
etc.,
exposure,
especially
Bioelectromagnetics
Suppl
6,
S39-‐62
(2003).
8
Tell,
R.
(2008)
“Supplemental
Report
on
An
Analysis
of
Radiofrequency
Fields
Associated
with
Operation
of
the
PG&E
Smart
Meter
Program
Upgrade
System,”
Prepared
for
Pacific
Gas
&
Electric
Company,
Richard
Tell
Associates,
Inc.,
October
27.
(http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/edusafety/systemworks/rfsafety/rf_fields_supplemental_report
_2008.pdf)
9
Markova,
E.,
Malmgren,
L.,
and
I.Y.
Belyaev
(2009)
Microwaves
from
mobile
phones
inhibit
53PB1
focus
formation
in
human
stem
cells
stronger
than
in
differentiated
cells:
Possible
mechanistic
link
to
cancer
risk.
Environmental
Health
Perspectives,
doi:10.1289/ehp.0900781.
10
Nittby,
H.,
Grafstrom,
G.,
Eberhardt,
J.L.,
Malmgren,
L.,
Brun,
A.,
Persson
B.R.R.,
and
L.G.
Salford
(2008)
Radiofrequency
and
Extremely
Low-‐Frequency
Electromagnetic
Field
Effects
on
the
Blood-‐Brain
Barrier
Electromagnetic
Biology
and
Medicine,
27:
103–126,
2008.
11
Ahlbom,
A.,
Feychting,
M.,
Green,
A.,
Kheifets,
L.,
Savitz,
D.
A.,
and
A.
J.
Swerdlow
(2009)
Epidemiologic
evidence
on
mobile
phones
and
tumor
risk:
a
review.
Epidemiology
20,
639-‐52
(2009).
countries
around
the
world
are
actively
deploying
smart
meters
as
well.
Digital
smart
meters
are
generally
considered
to
be
the
fundamental
technology
required
to
enable
widespread
integration
of
information
technology
(IT)
into
the
power
grid
(i.e.,
the
smart
grid).
The
following
table
(table
1)
summarizes
some
potential
societal
benefits
expected
to
result
from
the
smart
grid.
Table
1:
Smart
Grid
Benefits
Consumers
1.
Cost
Savings
Resulting
from
Energy
Efficiency
2.
Increased
Consumer
Choice
and
Convenience
3.
More
Transparent,
Real-‐Time
Information
and
Control
for
Consumers
Environment
1.
Widespread
Deployment
of
Renewable
Energy
(Solar,
Wind,
Biofuels)
and
Electric
Vehicles
(EVs)
2.
Reduced
Need
to
Build
More
Fossil
Fueled
Power
plants
3.
Reduced
Carbon
Footprint
and
Other
Pollutants
(via
Renewables,
Energy
Efficiency,
Electric
Vehicles)
Utilities
1.
Reduced
Cost
Due
to
Increased
Efficiencies
in
Delivering
Electricity
and
Reduction
in
Manpower
to
Read
Meters.
2.
Improved
Reliability
and
More
Timely
Outage
Response
3.
Increased
Customer
Satisfaction
Due
to
Cost
Savings
and
Self-‐Control
Source:
California
Smart
Grid
Center
Economy
1.
Creates
New
Market
for
Goods
and
Services
(i.e.,
New
Companies,
New
Jobs)
2.
Up-‐skilling
Workforce
to
be
Prepared
for
New
Jobs
3.
Reduced
Dependence
on
Foreign
Oil,
Keeps
Dollars
at
Home
What
Health
Concerns
are
Associated
with
Smart
Meters?
Human
health
impacts
from
exposure
to
electromagnetic
frequency
(EMF)
emissions
vary
depending
on
the
frequency
and
power
of
the
fields.
Smart
meters
operate
at
low
power
and
in 5
The
the
federal
RF
portion
Energy
of
Independence
the
electromagnetic
and
Security
Act
spectrum.
of
2007
directs
At
these
states
levels,
to
encourage
RF
emissions
utilities
to
from
initiate
smart
smart
grid
programs,
allows
recovery
of
smart
grid
investments
through
utility
rates,
and
reimburses
20%
of
qualifying
smart
grid
investments.
The
American
Recovery
and
Reinvestment
Act
of
2009
provided
$4.5
billion
to
develop
smart
grid
infrastructure
in
the
U.S.
For
more
information,
see:
Congressional
Research
Service
(2007)
“Energy
Independence
and
Security
Act
of
2007:
A
Summary
of
Major
Provisions,”
CRS
Report
for
Congress,
Order
Code
RL34l294,
December
21.
(http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/RL342941.pdf)
6
California
Public
Utilities
Commission
decision
on
Application
07-‐12-‐009
(March
12,
2009).
Decision
on
Pacific
Gas
and
Electric
Company’s
Proposed
Upgrade
to
the
Smartmeter
Program.
HAN,
can
delay
non-‐time
sensitive
demands
(such
as
clothes
drying)
to
a
time
when
electricity
is
cheapest
or
has
the
most
benefit
to
the
reliability
of
the
system.
In
some
cases
wireless
signals
interior
to
the
structure
will
also
be
able
to
automatically
adjust
the
heating
and
ventilation
systems
and
to
adjust
heat
or
air
conditioning
units.
This
adaptation
to
price
or
reliability
signals
could
reduce
overall
electricity
costs
for
customers,
improve
the
utilization
of
renewable
and
non-‐renewable
power
plants,
and
cut
costs
associated
with
adding
intermittent
wind
and
solar
resources
to
the
grid.
While
such
long-‐term
value
of
smart
meters
will
take
years
to
fully
realize,
they
are
sufficiently
promising
that
the
federal
government
has
required
utilities
to
take
steps
to
implement
smart
4
See
http://www.silverspringnet.com/products/index.html
for
component
descriptions.
Network
infrastructure
includes
the
Silver
Spring
Access
Points
(APs)
and
Relays
that
forward
data
from
endpoints
across
the
utility’s
backhaul
or
WAN
infrastructure
into
the
back
office.
The
UtilityIQ
application
suite
incorporates
both
utility
applications
such
as
Advanced
Metering
and
Outage
Detection
as
well
as
administrative
programs
for
managing
and
upgrading
the
network.
GridScape
provides
management
for
DA
communications
networks.
The
CustomerIQ
web
portal
enables
utilities
to
directly
communicate
usage,
pricing,
and
recommendations
to
consumers.
Silver
Spring
works
with
each
utility
to
customize
the
information
portrayed
and
to
import
utility-‐
specific
information
such
as
rate
schedules.
These
access
points
are
designed
to
transmit
data
from
up
to
5,000
smart
meters
to
the
utility
company.
Access
points
have
a
similar
AMR
transmitter
as
smart
meters,
as
well
as
an
additional
AirCard,
which
communicates
with
utilities
and
is
similar
to
wireless
cards
used
in
laptop
computers.
AirCards
typically
operate
at
0.25-‐1
W,
in
the
800-‐
900
MHz
or
1.9
GHz
range.
In
some
cases,
data
is
moved
through
the
mesh
network,
relaying
the
data
through
other
meters
to
the
utility
access
point.
This
may
occur
when
the
topography
or
built
environment
interferes
with
the
transmission
of
data
from
a
smart
meter
to
the
access
point.
In
these
cases,
the
relaying
of
data
may
occur
between
one
smart
meter
and
another
before
the
signal
is
sent
to
the
utility
access
point
(e.g.,
hops
along
a
set
of
meters).
Additionally,
some
non-‐meter
data
relays
will
also
exist
in
the
system
to
connect
some
smart
meters
to
utility
access
points.
Many
smart
meters,
including
those
from
PG&E,
also
have
a
second
transmitter
that,
at
some
future
point
in
time,
will
allow
customers
to
enable
a
home
access
network
(HAN).
The
HAN
will
allow
increased
consumer
monitoring
of
electricity
use
and
communication
among
appliances
and
the
future
smart
grid.
This
functionality
is
important
to
achieve
the
full
potential
of
the
smart
grid.
This
second
internal
transmitter,
for
delivery
of
smart
meter
data
to
the
consumer,
reportedly
will
operate
at
a
rated
power
of
0.223W,
at
frequency
of
about
2.4
GHz
(again,
similar
to
that
of
cell
phones
and
wireless
phones).
The
actual
duty
cycle
of
this
transmitter
will
depend
on
the
design
and
operation
of
the
home
area
network.
Why
are
Smart
Meters
Being
Installed
Throughout
California?
It
is
anticipated,
when
fully
operational,
that
smart
electricity
meters
are
a
key
enabling
technology
for
a
“smart
grid”
that
is
expected
to
become
increasingly
clean,
efficient,
reliable,
and
safe
(see
Figure
3)
at
a
potential
lower
cost
to
the
consumer.
(Digital
meters
are
also
being
used
for
reading
of
natural
gas
and
water
consumption).
Smart
electrical
meters
allow
direct
two-‐way
communication
between
utilities
and
customers,
which
is
expected
to
help
end
users
adjust
their
demand
to
price
changes
that
reflect
the
condition
of
the
electricity
grid.
These
end
user
adjustments
can
help
to
protect
the
overall
reliability
of
the
electricity
grid,
cut
costs
for
utility
customers,
and
improve
the
operation
and
efficiency
of
the
electricity
grid.
The
smart
grid
will
enable
grid
operators
to
better
balance
electricity
supply
and
demand
in
real-‐time,
which
becomes
increasingly
important
as
more
intermittent
wind
and
solar
generation
resources
are
added
to
the
grid.
Figure
4
depicts
the
potential
operation
of
a
smart
grid.
real
time
monitoring
of
power
as
delivered
to
the
consumer
by
the
utility
company.
CCST
obtained
from
PG&E
the
Richard
Tell
Associates
report,
which
describes
the
operation
of
the
smart
meter
from
the
2008
perspective
of
AMR,
not
a
fully
deployed
real
time
smart
grid.
The
Richard
Tell
Associates
reports
describe
the
use
of
the
smart
meter
radios
being
deployed
by
PG&E
as
licensed
by
the
FCC
for
a
maximum
power
output
of
1
W
(watt)
and
within
the
902-‐
928
MHz
(mega-‐hertz)
frequency
band.
In
its
initial
deployment,
PG&E
reports
that
it
will
configure
the
radios
to
transmit
data
from
the
meter
to
the
access
point
once
every
four
hours,
for
about
50
milliseconds
at
a
time.3
Accounting
for
this,
the
current
duty
cycles
of
the
smart
meter
transmitter
(that
is,
the
percent
of
time
that
the
meter
operates)
would
then
typically
be
1
percent,
or
in
some
cases
where
the
meter
is
frequently
used
as
a
relay,
as
much
as
2-‐4
percent.
This
means
that
the
typical
smart
meter
in
this
initial
(AMR)
use
would
not
transmit
any
RF
signal
at
least
96-‐98
percent
of
the
time.
It
is
important
to
note
that
any
one
smart
meter
is
part
of
a
broader
“mesh”
network
and
may
act
as
a
relay
among
other
smart
meters
and
utility
access
points.
In
addition,
when
the
smart
grid
is
fully
functional
the
smart
meters
would
be
expected
to
be
transmitting
much
more
than
once 3
Tell,
R.
every
(2008)
four
“Supplemental
hours,
providing
Report
on
data
An
Analysis
in
near
of
real-‐
Radiofrequency time,
which
Fields
will
Associated
result
in
with
a
much
Operation
higher
of
duty
the
PG&E
Smart
Meter
Program
Upgrade
System,”
Prepared
for
Pacific
Gas
&
Electric
Company,
Richard
Tell
Associates,
Inc.,
October
27.
http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/edusafety/systemworks/rfsafety/rf_fields_supplemental_report
_2008.pdf)
reduce
operating
costs
for
utilities,
and
potentially,
costs
for
customers
(see
Figure
2).
a.
Analog
Meter
b.
Digital
Meter
Figure
2.
a)
An
analog,
conventional
meter
and
a
(b)
digital
smart
meter
(Source:
PG&E)
Each
of
California’s
major
electricity
utilities
has
begun
deploying
smart
meter
infrastructure.
There
are
many
kinds
of
smart
meters
manufactured
by
a
variety
of
companies.
The
meter,
including
sensors
and
the
housing
or
casing,
may
be
manufactured
by
one
company
while
the
communications
device
(installed
within
the
meter)
is
manufactured
by
another.
Depending
upon
the
internal
communications
device
employed,
meters
are
configured
to
operate
in
a
wired
or
in
wireless
environment.
The
smart
meters
used
by
PG&E
are
made
by
General
Electric
and
Landis
+
Gyr
and
use
a
wireless
communications
technology
from
Silver
Spring
Networks.
Each
of
these
PG&E
meters
has
two
transmitters
to
provide
two
different
communications
of
data
from
these
meters.2
The
first
provides
for
the
“automatic
meter
reading”
(AMR)
function
of
the
meter
(and
for
more
detailed
and
real
time
monitoring
of
the
characteristics
of
the
electrical
energy
delivered
to
the
consumer)
and
sends
this
data
to
an
access
point,
where
it
is
collected
along
with
data
from
many
other
customers
and
transmitted
to
PG&E
using
a
wireless
area
network
(WAN)
(similar
to
the
way
cell
phone
communication
works).
2
Tell,
R.
(2008)
“Supplemental
Report
on
An
Analysis
of
Radiofrequency
Fields
Associated
with
Operation
of
the
PG&E
Smart
Meter
Program
Upgrade
System,”
Prepared
for
Pacific
Gas
&
Electric
Company,
Richard
Tell
Associates,
Inc.,
October
27.
is
needed
to
better
understand
and
verify
these
potential
mechanisms.
Given
the
existing
significant
scientific
uncertainty
around
non-‐thermal
effects,
there
is
currently
no
generally
accepted
definitive,
evidence-‐based
indication
that
additional
standards
are
needed.
Because
of
the
lack
of
generally
accepted
evidence,
there
is
also
not
an
existing
basis
from
which
to
understand
what
types
of
standards
could
be
helpful
or
appropriate.
Without
a
clearer
understanding
of
the
biological
mechanisms
involved
identifying
additional
standards
or
evaluating
the
relative
costs
and
benefits
of
those
standards
cannot
be
determined
at
this
time.
CCST
notes
that
in
some
of
the
studies
reviewed,
contributors
have
raised
emerging
questions
from
some
in
the
medical
and
biological
fields
about
the
potential
for
biological
impacts
other
than
the
thermal
impact
that
the
FCC
guidelines
address.
A
report
of
the
National
Academies
identifies
research
needs
and
gaps
and
recommended
areas
of
research
to
be
undertaken
to
further
understanding
of
long-‐term
exposure
to
RF
emissions
from
communication
devices,
particularly
from
non-‐thermal
mechanisms
that
are
not
currently
addressed
by
the
FCC
guidelines.1
In
our
increasingly
wireless
society,
smart
meters
account
for
a
very
small
portion
of
RF
emissions
to
which
we
are
exposed.
Concerns
about
human
health
impacts
of
RF
emissions
from
smart
meters
should
be
considered
in
this
broader
context.
“Scientifically
established”,
“generally
accepted
scientific
knowledge”
and
other
such
references
throughout
this
document
are
referencing
information
obtained
through
the
scientific
method.
A
scientific
method
consists
of
the
collection
of
data
through
observation
and
experimentation,
and
the
formulation
and
testing
of
hypotheses.
These
steps
must
be
repeatable
in
order
to
predict
future
results.
Scientific
inquiry
is
generally
intended
to
be
as
objective
as
possible,
to
reduce
biased
interpretations
of
results.
Another
basic
expectation
is
to
document,
archive
and
share
all
data
and
methodology
so
they
are
available
for
careful
scrutiny
by
other
scientists,
giving
them
the
opportunity
to
verify
results
by
attempting
to
reproduce
them.
This
practice,
called
full
disclosure,
also
allows
statistical
measures
of
H
ealth
concerns the
reliability
surrounding
of
these
data
RF
to
from
be
established.
smart
meters
are
similar
to
those
from
many
other
devices
that
we
use
in
our
daily
lives,
including
cordless
and
cellular
telephones,
microwave
ovens,
wireless
routers,
hair
dryers,
and
wireless-‐enabled
laptop
computers.
As
detailed
in
the
report,
a
comparison
of
electromagnetic
frequencies
from
smart
meters
and
other
devices
shows
that
the
exposure
level
is
very
low.
1
National
Research
Council
(2008)
Identification
of
Research
Needs
Relating
to
Potential
Biological
or
Adverse
Health
Effects
of
Wireless
Communication,
The
National
Academies
Press,
Washington,
D.C.
has
established
guidelines
to
protect
public
health
from
known
hazards
associated
with
the
thermal
impacts
of
RF:
tissue
heating
from
absorbing
energy
associated
with
radiofrequency
emissions.
Non-‐thermal
effects,
however,
including
cumulative
or
prolonged
exposure
to
lower
levels
of
RF
emissions,
are
not
well
understood.
Some
studies
have
suggested
non-‐thermal
effects
may
include
fatigue,
headache,
irritability,
or
even
cancer.
But
these
findings
have
not
been
scientifically
established,
and
the
mechanisms
that
might
lead
to
non-‐thermal
effects
remain
uncertain.
Additional
research
and
monitoring
is
needed
to
better
identify
and
understand
potential
non-‐thermal
effects.
Findings
Given
the
body
of
existing,
generally
accepted
scientific
knowledge
regarding
smart
meters
and
similar
electronic
devices,
CCST
finds
that:
1. The
FCC
standard
provides
an
adequate
factor
of
safety
against
known
thermally
induced
health
impacts
of
smart
meters
and
other
electronic
devices
in
the
same
range
of
RF
emissions.
The
potential
for
behavioral
disruption
from
increased
body
tissue
temperatures
is
the
only
biological
health
impact
that
has
been
consistently
demonstrated
and
scientifically
proven
to
result
from
absorbing
RF
within
the
band
of
the
electromagnetic
spectrum
(EMF)
that
smart
meters
use.
The
Federal
Communications
Commission
(FCC)
has
set
a
limit
on
the
Standard
Absorption
Rate
(SAR)
from
electronic
devices,
which
is
well
below
the
level
that
has
been
demonstrated
to
affect
behavior
in
laboratory
animals.
Smart
meters,
including
those
being
installed
by
Pacific
Gas
and
Electric
Company
(PG&E)
in
the
Assembly
Members’
districts,
if
installed
according
to
the
manufacturers
instructions
and
consistent
with
the
FCC
certification,
emit
RF
that
is
a
very
small
fraction
of
the
exposure
level
established
as
safe
by
the
FCC
guidelines.
The
FCC
guidelines
provide
a
significant
factor
of
safety
against
thermal
impacts
that
occur
at
the
power
levels
and
within
the
RF
band
used
by
smart
meters.
Given
current
scientific
knowledge,
the
FCC
guideline
provides
a
more
than
adequate
margin
of
safety
against
the
known
thermal
effects.
Monning
signed
onto
the
request
with
his
own
letter
to
CCST
on
September
15,
2010.
The
City
of
Mill
Valley
also
sent
a
letter
on
September
20th
supporting
Assembly
Member
Huffman’s
request
for
the
study.
Approach
Reflecting
the
requests
of
the
Assembly
Members,
CCST
agreed
to
compile
and
assess
the
evidence
available
to
address:
1.
Whether
Federal
Communications
Commission
(FCC)
standards
for
smart
meters
are
sufficiently
protective
of
public
health,
taking
into
account
current
exposure
levels
to
radiofrequency
and
electromagnetic
fields.
2.
Whether
additional
technology-‐specific
standards
are
needed
for
smart
meters
and
other
devices
that
are
commonly
found
in
and
around
homes,
to
ensure
adequate
protection
from
adverse
health
effects.
CCST
convened
a
Smart
Meter
Project
Team
composed
of
CCST
Council
and
Board
members
supplemented
with
additional
experts
in
relevant
fields
(see
Appendix
A
for
Project
Team
members).
The
Project
Team
identified
and
reviewed
over
100
publications
and
postings
about
smart
meters
and
other
devices
in
the
same
range
of
emissions,
including
research
related
to
cell
phone
RF
emissions,
and
contacted
over
two
dozen
experts
in
radio
and
electromagnetic
emissions
and
related
fields
to
seek
their
opinion
on
the
two
identified
issues.
It
is
important
to
note
that
CCST
has
not
undertaken
primary
research
of
its
own
to
address
these
issues.
This
response
is
limited
to
soliciting
input
from
technical
experts
and
to
reviewing
and
evaluating
available
information
from
past
and
current
research
about
health
impacts
of
RF
emitted
from
electric
appliances
generally,
and
smart
meters
specifically.
A
subset
of
those
contacted
provided
written
input
on
the
issues
to
CCST.
This
report
has
been
extensively
reviewed
by
the
Project
Team,
experts
in
related
fields,
and
has
been
subject
to
the
CCST
peer
review
process
(see
Appendix
B).
It
has
also
been
made
available
to
the
public
for
comment.
40
4 1
1
FCC
standard
provides
an
adequate
factor
of
safety
against
known
thermally
induced
health
impacts
of
existing
common
household
electronic
devices
and
smart
meters.
3. To
date,
scientific
studies
have
not
identified
or
confirmed
negative
health
effects
from
potential
non-‐thermal
impacts
of
RF
emissions
such
as
those
produced
by
existing
common
household
electronic
devices
and
smart
meters.
4. Not
enough
is
currently
known
about
potential
non-‐thermal
impacts
of
radio
frequency
emissions
to
identify
or
recommend
additional
standards
for
such
impacts
OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS
Smart
electricity
meters
are
a
key
enabling
technology
for
a
“smart
grid”
that
is
expected
to
become
increasingly
clean,
efficient,
reliable,
and
safe
at
a
potentially
lower
cost
to
the
consumer.
The
CCST
Smart
Meter
Project
Team
offers
the
following
for
further
consideration
by
policy
makers,
regulators
and
the
utilities.
We
appreciate
that
each
of
these
considerations
would
likely
require
a
cost/benefit
analysis.
However,
we
feel
they
should
be
considered
as
the
overall
cumulative
exposure
to
RF
emissions
in
our
environment
continues
to
expand.
1. As
wireless
technologies
of
all
types
increase
in
usage,
it
will
be
important
to:
(a)
continue
to
quantitatively
assess
the
levels
of
RF
emissions
from
common
household
devices
and
smart
meters
to
which
the
public
may
be
exposed;
and
(b)
continue
to
investigate
potential
thermal
and
non-‐thermal
impacts
of
such
RF
emissions
on
human
health.
2. Consumers
should
be
provided
with
clearly
understood
information
about
the
radiofrequency
emissions
of
all
devices
that
emit
RF
including
smart
meters.
Such
information
should
include
intensity
of
output,
duration
and
frequency
of
output,
and,
in
the
cases
of
the
smart
meter,
pattern
of
sending
and
receiving
transmissions
to
and
from
all
sources.
3. The
California
Public
Utilities
Commission
should
consider
doing
an
independent
review
of
the
deployment
of
smart
meters
to
determine
if
they
are
installed
and
operating
consistent
with
the
information
provided
to
the
consumer.
4. Consideration
could
be
given
to
alternative
smart
meter
configurations
(such
as
wired)
in
those
cases
where
wireless
meters
continue
to
be
concern
to
consumers.
that
is
agile,
efficient
and
cost
effective.
The
electricity
crisis
of
2000
and
2001
helped
force
the
issue
here
in
California,
lending
significant
urgency
to
the
need
for
better
management
of
power
generation
and
distribution.
In
2006,
the
California
Public
Utilities
Commission
authorized
the
Pacific
Gas
and
Electric
Company
to
implement
a
relatively
new
technology,
smart
meters,
to
gather
much
more
precise
information
about
power
usage
throughout
the
state.
The
process
of
installing
the
meters
throughout
the
state
is
still
underway.
As
with
any
new
technology,
there
are
unknowns
involved.
Smart
meters
generally
work
by
transmitting
information
wirelessly.
Some
people
have
expressed
concerns
about
the
health
effects
of
wireless
signals,
particularly
as
they
become
virtually
ubiquitous.
These
concerns
have
recently
been
brought
to
the
attention
of
state
legislators,
with
some
local
municipalities
opting
to
ban
further
installation
of
the
meters
in
their
communities.
We
are
pleased
that
Assembly
Members
Huffman
and
Monning
have
turned
to
CCST
for
input
on
this
issue.
It
is
CCST’s
charge
to
offer
independent
expert
advice
to
the
state
government
and
to
recommend
solutions
to
science
and
technology-‐related
policy
issues.
In
this
case,
we
have
assembled
a
succinct
but
comprehensive
overview
of
what
is
known
about
human
exposure
to
wireless
signals
and
the
efficacy
of
the
FCC
safety
standards
for
these
signals.
To
do
so,
we
assembled
a
project
team
that
consulted
with
over
two
dozen
experts
and
sifted
through
over
a
hundred
articles
and
reports,
providing
a
thorough,
unbiased
overview
in
a
relatively
rapid
manner.
In
situations
where
public
sentiment
urges
policy
makers
to
make
policy
decisions
with
potentially
long-‐term
consequences,
access
to
the
best
information
possible
is
critical.
This
is
the
role
that
CCST
was
created
to
fulfill.
Susan
Hackwood Rollin
Richmond
Executive
Director,
CCST Project
Team
Chair,
CCST
with
smart
meters?
..........................................................
13
FCC
guidelines
address
known
thermal
effects
only,
not
non-‐thermal
effects
...........................
15
Power
density
(and
exposure
level)
declines
rapidly
with
distance
............................................
18
Comparison
of
electromagnetic
frequencies
from
smart
meters
and
other
devices
..................
19
What
is
duty
cycle
and
how
does
it
affect
human
health?
..........................................................
22
What
about
exposure
levels
from
a
bank
of
meters
and
from
just
behind
the
wall
of
a
single
meter?
...........................................................................................................
23
Is
the
FCC
standard
sufficient
to
protect
public
health?
..............................................................
23
Are
additional
technology-‐specific
standards
needed?
...............................................................
23
Public
information
and
education
................................................................................................
24
Alternatives
to
wireless?
..............................................................................................................
24
Key
factors
to
consider
when
evaluating
exposure
to
radiofrequency
from
smart
meters?
.......
25
Conclusion
....................................................................................................................................
26
Appendix
A
–
Letters
requesting
CCST
assistance
........................................................................
27
• Assembly
Member
Huffman’s
Letter
...............................................................................
27
• Assembly
Member
Monning’s
Letter
...............................................................................
29
• City
of
Mill
Valley
Letter
...................................................................................................
30
Appendix
B
–
Project
Process
.......................................................................................................
32
Appendix
C
–
Project
Team
..........................................................................................................
34
Appendix
D
–
Written
Submission
Authors
..................................................................................
37
Appendix
E
–
Materials
Consulted
...............................................................................................
38
Appendix
F
–
Glossary
..................................................................................................................
45
Appendix
G
–
CCST
2010
Board
Members
...................................................................................
47
Appendix
H
–
CCST
2010
Council
Members
.................................................................................
48
Appendix
I
–
Report
Credits
.........................................................................................................
49
University,
Sacramento
and
to
the
University
of
California’s
Center
for
Information
Technology
Research
in
the
Interest
of
Society
(CITRIS).
This
report
was
conducted
with
the
oversight
of
a
CCST
Smart
Meter
Project
Team,
whose
members
include:
Rollin
Richmond
(Chair),
Emir
Macari,
Patrick
Mantey,
Paul
Wright,
Ryan
McCarthy,
Jane
Long,
David
Winickoff,
and
Larry
Papay.
We
also
thank
J.D.
Stack
for
his
technical
contributions
and
Lora
Lee
Martin
for
the
overall
coordination
of
this
report
response.
We
express
gratitude
to
CCST’s
members
and
colleagues
for
their
many
contributions
to
the
report.
COPYRIGHT
Copyright
2010
by
the
California
Council
on
Science
and
Technology.
Library
of
Congress
Cataloging
Number
in
Publications
Data
Main
Entry
Under
Title:
Health
Impacts
of
Radio
Frequency
From
Smart
Meters
January
2011
ISBN-‐13:
978-‐1-‐930117-‐42-‐6
CCST
is
a
non-‐profit
organization
established
in
1988
at
the
request
of
the
California
State
Government
and
sponsored
by
the
major
public
and
private
postsecondary
institutions
of
California
and
affiliate
federal
laboratories
in
conjunction
with
leading
private-‐sector
firms.
CCST's
mission
is
to
improve
science
and
technology
policy
and
application
in
California
by
proposing
programs,
conducting
analyses,
and
recommending
public
policies
and
initiatives
that
will
maintain
California's
technological
leadership
and
a
vigorous
economy.
Note:
The
California
Council
on
Science
and
Technology
(CCST)
has
made
every
reasonable
effort
to
assure
the
accuracy
of
the
information
in
this
publication.
However,
the
contents
of
this
publication
are
subject
to
changes,
omissions,
and
errors,
and
CCST
does
not
accept
responsibility
for
any
inaccuracies
that
may
occur.
For
questions
or
comments
on
this
publication
contact:
California
Council
on
Science
and
Technology
1130
K
Street,
Suite
280
Sacramento,
California
95814
(916)
492-‐0996
ccst@ccst.us