Kimberly A.

Curry
Counsel

2 Center Plaza 110 W. Fayette Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 410.470.1305 443.213.3206 Fax kimberly.a.curry@constellation.com

Via Electronic Filing April 6, 2012

David J. Collins, Executive Secretary Public Service Commission of Maryland William Donald Schaefer Tower 6 St. Paul Street, 16th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Re: Case No. 9208 Application of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company for Authorization to Deploy a Smart Grid Initiative and to Establish a Surcharge Mechanism for the Recovery of Cost Comments of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Dear Mr. Collins: Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced case, please find Comments of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE), which was electronically filed this date. BGE will hand deliver an original and 17 copies by noon on the next business day in accordance with the Commission guidelines for electronic filing. The Maillog number assigned to this filing will be indicated above for your reference. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kimberly A. Curry Kimberly A. Curry Enclosures KAC:jdb cc: Case No. 9208 Service List

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

* * * * * * *

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND ______________ Case No. 9208 ______________

Comments of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

Pursuant to the Commissions February 29, 2012 Notice of Hearing and Opportunity to Comment on an Opt-out Option for Smart Meters (Notice), Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) submits these comments on issues associated with potentially providing customers with an opt-out option for smart meter installation. I. SUMMARY BGEs smart grid initiative will further the objectives of EmPOWER Maryland to achieve reductions in both peak demand and annual energy consumption, and meets the Department of Energys (DOE) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grid modernization goals. The DOE has invested much confidence in smart grid, so much in fact, that it has committed billions of dollars in grants to utilities - $200 million alone to BGE to develop it. BGE views smart meters as a critical component that will enable the utility and the consumer to meet these goals. Our collective goals cannot be fully met without customer participation, which includes the acceptance of a smart meter, and extends into the wide range of consumer benefits provided by this smart meter. For this reason, and because no credible evidence has been provided to show that smart meters are harmful, BGE encourages all customers to have a smart meter and participate in the

benefits associated with this new technology. However, in response to the Commissions directive, BGE presents in these comments a structure of a proposal for how an opt-out alternative should work, if the Commission decides as a threshold policy matter that an opt-out feature is appropriate. II. COMMENTS A. Background

On July 13, 2009, BGE filed with the Commission an application seeking approval to proceed with the deployment of its smart grid initiative, which described the initiative's substantial customer benefits, including customer bill savings, reliability improvements, service quality enhancements, and environmental benefits. On

October 27, 2009, the DOE selected BGEs smart grid project as a recipient of a $200 million grant under the ARRA, which represented the maximum level of funding available. After a series of hearings in November and December of 2009, and August 2010, BGEs smart grid initiative was approved by the Commission on August 13, 2010 in Order No. 83531. Customer benefits included in the business case supporting the initiative included greater efficiencies with regard to meter reading, handling of service orders, management of outages; enhanced customer service capabilities and quicker resolution of billing issues due to remote access to meter data; reduced meter tampering; support for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles; and access to detailed consumption data to assist customers in managing their energy usage to give them the opportunity to save on their energy bills.

-2-

The BGE Smart Energy RewardsSM (SER) component of its smart grid initiative, formerly known as smart energy pricing, provides customers with pricing options that encourage conservation and peak demand reductions. Under SER, customers will be

able to earn Peak Time Rebates (PTRs) during company-declared critical days. Customers can earn PTRs during these critical days by reducing their usage as compared to an individually calculated baseline, for which BGE uses hourly metered data. SER

will result in peak load reductions, which are monetized in the PJM capacity markets, and lead to increased capacity and energy revenues, which will flow back to customers through the PTRs. SER will also lower capacity and energy prices to levels below which would otherwise be experienced without the program, and will reduce transmission and distribution infrastructure costs. Notably, the customer satisfaction for SER pilot

participants has been consistently over 90% for the past four summers, with 97% or more customers wanting to continue to participate in subsequent programs. In sum, the new metering system that is part of smart grid will allow utilities to offer new pricing programs, a robust energy management platform and other services to help customers reduce energy use and lower bills. Given these advantages, BGE will strongly encourage all customers to have a smart meter in order to benefit from the capabilities that smart grid will offer. BGE

acknowledges that some customers have indicated concerns regarding smart meter installation from health, cybersecurity, and data privacy perspectives. BGE has

responded to each customer individually by letter, phone, or in person to help address those concerns. BGE also plans to educate customers and address misperceptions about the meters through a series of community meetings prior to meter installation in the

-3-

respective community. BGEs message to these customers includes information on the studies performed that indicate that radio frequencies (RF) exposures of the type emitted by the smart meter are far less than other everyday devices that are in our homes today, and that BGE and the industry are working diligently to mitigate security concerns and maintain data privacy. For additional support on the safety of smart meters, BGE has

appended to these comments, as Exhibit 1, testimony from Dr. Peter A. Valberg that concludes that RF exposure from smart meters is not hazardous. B. Smart Meters Show No Increased Health Risk

RF energy is a common part of our everyday life. There are many sources of low level RF in our houses including Wi-Fi routers, cordless phones, garage door openers, TVs and TV remotes, video game remotes, cell phones, microwave ovens, security systems, childrens walkie-talkies and baby monitors. Any household appliance with an electric motor such as the refrigerator, the dish washer, the clothes washer, the clothes dryer and an electric mixer will generate a low level RF signal. Even the alternating current in the wires in a house generates a very low level of RF energy. Outside our houses there are many sources of man-made RF, including broadcast TV and radio signals, CB radios, fire, ambulance, marine, aircraft, emergency response, military and police radios. RF also exists naturally. Even if you are camping far out in a remote

dessert, RF is present from natural sources such as the sun and other distant stars. Solar flares often generate large amounts of RF energy that can be seen in the aurora borealis or northern lights. These are caused by the RF energy from the sun interacting with our atmosphere. Put simply, there is constant exposure to low level RF in our everyday lives.

-4-

Although no studies have been performed specific to BGEs system, there are a number of studies that have been performed that confirm that smart meter RF frequencies present no increased health risks. The California Council on Science and Technology released in 2011 the results of its study on the health impact of RF from smart meters. 1 It concluded that, when properly installed and maintained, wireless smart meters result in less RF exposure than microwaves, and far less than cell phones. The health, safety and reliability of our system are extremely important to BGE. Smart meters are radio devices that provide less exposure to RF than many common electronic devices already installed and used in our homes. See Exhibit 1, Testimony of Dr. Valberg at 6. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has also analyzed smart meter RFs and found that the RF field levels from the smart meters studied are below the exposure limits stipulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).2 As important, the report found that as the system currently operates, nearly 99.9% of the meters transmit 1% or less of the time, and 99% of the meters transmit less than four-tenths of one percent of the time. These duty cycles are taken into account when estimating potential exposures of people in relation to FCC exposure limits for the general public, which are based on a 30-minute average of power density across the body. In early 2011, EPRI conducted an experiment consisting of a sample of ten smart meters located on a rack, that concluded even with 10 meters nominally rated at watt operating continuously the exposure level a foot from the center of the rack was a small fraction of the FCC

Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters, California Council on Science and Technology, January 2011. 2 R. Kavet, Characterization of Radio Frequency Emissions From Two Models of Wireless Smart Meters, Final Report, December 2011.

-5-

exposure limit for the general public and diminished with increasing distance from the rack.3 The Edison Electric Institute, Association of Edison Illuminating Companies, and the Utilities Telecom Council published a white paper, which provides an overview of the various FCC RF standards. That white paper found that the RF exposure effects of smart meters are very small compared to exposure from other sources in the home and that smart meters operate significantly below FCC exposure limits.4 The Utilities Telecom Council published an article in 2010 that provided a review of the safety standards dealing with radio frequency energy and safety, and concluded that smart utility devices pose no health threat.5 BGEs own experience with the prior generation of AMR (automatic meter reading) meters is telling. Virtually every residential and small commercial electric meter located inside of the Baltimore Beltway has been read by a low wattage radio for two decades. The radio is located in the AMR meter and transmits the usage data to either a small computer carried by a meter reader on foot or to a drive by van. BGE currently has 637,816 electric and 473,972 gas AMR meters on our system, which contain this low wattage radio. BGE is unaware of any reported RF health effects from our legacy AMR metering system which has been in place for many years. The Maryland Smart Meter Awareness Organization (MSMA) has raised the concern that the World Health Organization has classified the radiation coming from smart meters as a Category 2B carcinogen and that FCC guidelines do not address nonRadio-Frequency Exposure Levels from Smart Meters: A Case Study of One Model, EPRI, February 2011, provided as Exhibit 2. 4 A Discussion of Smart Meters and RF Exposure Issues, an EEI-AEIC-UTC White Paper, March 2011. 5 Klaus Bender, No Health Threat from Smart Meters, Utilities Telecom Council, 2010, provided as Exhibit 3.
3

-6-

thermal effects of radiation.

See Petition to Intervene of Maryland Smart Meter

Awareness Organization at 2, Case No. 9208 (April 2, 2012). Category 2B is one of the lowest levels on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) scale of possibly carcinogenic products and includes such every day products and activities as carpentry and joinery work, coconut oil, coffee, talc-based body powder, nickel coins, pickled vegetables and certain teas. The attached testimony of Dr. Valberg specifically rebuts these claims. See Exhibit 1, Direct Testimony of Dr. Valberg at 8-9. MSMA has also challenged as vague and misleading statements on the BGE website that BGEs smart meters have been thoroughly tested for safety and reliability. Meters are tested against rigorous ANSI standards that include provisions to ensure the meter operates reliably and that the meters can operate safely under varied physical conditions. Also, the communications components are designed to meet FCC guidelines. Research shows consumers will experience no increased health risk with a smart meter, and with its installation, can participate in tremendous smart meter benefits related to energy management tools, reduced energy bills, quicker response to outages and greater overall reliability of their service (e.g., voltage monitoring, fault location, load management). BGE believes that a customer should be able to opt-out of any service that poses a demonstrable risk to their health and safety; however, the facts show that smart meters do not present such a risk, and can deliver real, tangible benefits to the customer through safe, reliable technology common to our daily lives. C. Cyber-security and Data Privacy

Because security is of primary importance to BGE, smart meters are rigorously tested by the manufacturer and BGE, and have undergone extensive tests by other utilities

-7-

and security specialists across the country. Additionally, BGE hired a cyber security firm with expertise in Smart Grid technologies to conduct an independent security assessment of the Smart Grid system that included an assessment of the smart meters. During our security assessment testing, professional security penetration testers (commonly referred to as white hat hackers) attempt to identify vulnerabilities. The entire smart grid is

being built to meet the same stringent security standards and guidelines developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and required by organizations that have rigorous and demanding security needs, such as the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and many financial institutions. Over 27 million smart meters have been installed across the country, according to the Institute for Energy Efficiency (IEE), a figure which will grow to 65 million meters by 2015, representing 54% of all households. BGEs smart meter program has made significant investments in encryption technology and security practices. Usage data coming over the network is encrypted using the latest technology and has no customer identifiable information associated to it. One smart grid myth circulating is that someone could easily intercept the radio data coming from the smart meter and determine if a person is home or not. One variation of this shows a graph with usage on one axis and time on the other axis. This is certainly not the case for BGEs smart grid meter system, nor do we believe this to be the norm for the industry. Below is a sample of the encrypted usage data being transmitted from a Silver Spring Networks smart meter:

-8-

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

Regulatory agencies are actively engaged in the protection of data and the security of the system. The DOE is closely examining cyber-security. The DOE requires a detailed cyber-security system plan review each year that is conducted at BGEs annual DOE site visit. As part of this system plan review, DOE includes their outside cyber-

security expert to assist with the review and confidential evaluation of our system plan. The Commission-convened smart grid working group is addressing data privacy and cyber-security, and BGE will continue to adhere to applicable laws and regulations as

-9-

they relate to data privacy. All data being sent to and from the meter will be encrypted to insure security and accuracy. There is no Personably Identifiable Information, such as name, address, bill account number, credit/collection information or social security number, being transmitted to or from the meter. Given that no credible evidence has been advanced that demonstrates that smart meters pose a health risk, and that utilities, regulatory agencies, and the industry are working to maintain security and data privacy, BGE submits that smart meters are safe, secure and that all customers will benefit from their deployment, directly or indirectly. D. Responses to the Commissions Inquiry on the Effect of an Opt-out Option

This section provides responses to the items raised in the Commissions Notice that sought input on the effect of an opt-out option on BGEs business case and operations, as well as how an opt-out program could be structured. 1. The effect of such an option on the overall smart meter projects costs and benefits, including the effect on energy savings, outage detection, and management and incremental costs

The BGE smart grid business case is built on savings achieved through peak load reductions and energy conservation plus BGE operations and maintenance savings, for example, the elimination of meter reading costs. An opt-out provision, if not designed in a manner to minimize the impacts of the loss of tangible savings and to assign costs to those who elect that option, could have a significant adverse effect on the cost and benefits of the smart grid initiative. Assuming that any opt-out provision would be designed such that appropriate costs are assigned to customers that elect this option, a feature we believe is absolutely essential, we expect an opt-out rate could be 1% or less

- 10 -

of eligible customers. Using 1% opt-out rate as an example, the annual operational cost impact to the smart grid business case is projected to exceed $1.3M in higher meter reading costs and additional meter reading infrastructure expenses per year. Additionally, we estimate there would be approximately $12 million in incremental capital costs including; o Upgrade of current meter reading system o Cost to update customer care, metering and billing systems with opt-out functionality o Cost to upgrade and operate additional network communications In the above scenario, the collective estimated impact of these costs could exceed $28 million over 10 years. Consistent with sound rate design practices, customers who elect to opt-out should contribute to the cost associated with this option through a onetime set up fee and a monthly charge commensurate with the costs of setting up the new process and maintaining meter readers and the meter reading system. This demonstrates why an opt-out tariff rate must be developed for these customers, if an opt-out provision is allowed, so as to offset the increased costs. In addition to the increased capital and operational costs noted above, we also project that there would be proportionately reduced benefits realized from peak demand reductions, energy conservation impacts, and associated capacity and energy price mitigation savings. These adverse impacts would not only apply to the customers opting out of Smart Grid but also to all other BGE customers.

- 11 -

2. How such an option might affect the current schedule for installing the smart meters BGE will begin high volume installation of smart meters over the coming months. As part of the installation process, BGE plans to defer the installation of smart meters to those customers who object to its installation until this opt-out question is resolved. Assuming that this practice is continued, an opt-out option would not significantly impact the schedule or installation rates of smart meters assuming a 1% opt-out rate. If an optout process were required by the Commission to be implemented before smart meter installations could continue, then a significant delay would result. To implement opt-out, the communications plan would have to be re-developed to include information on opting-out. Enrollment channels for the opt-out program would have to be created, which would include sending a notification letter, followed by an open enrollment period during which customers could choose the option. BGE would have to develop new rates for the population who elects to opt-out and those rates would undergo the regulatory review process, which would include input from stakeholders, after the rates are submitted to the Commission for approval. Finally, new identifiers in BGEs billing and meter data management system would have to be created so that these customers could continue to have their meters read and be billed properly. All of these processes are

estimated to take up to 12 months to implement. A significant delay in the start of the installation of the meters could jeopardize any or all of the DOE grant funds. As a result of these significant impacts to the schedule and benefits delivery, BGE strongly advises that development of any opt-out provision, if determined by the Commission to be appropriate, need not be a prerequisite to beginning AMI deployment.

- 12 -

3.

Whether such an option will affect the types, components and/or configuration of the meters available to customers who choose to opt out of a smart meter; for example, whether an opt-out option would be limited to not enabling some or all of the communications capability of a smart meter

Customers who elect to opt-out would be given BGEs current standard meter, which is a digital meter that provides monthly reads through a short range transmitter to a meter reader that walks or drives by the premises. This meter would not be capable of 2way remote communications with BGE offices nor would it have the capability to record hourly interval usage data; therefore, the customer would not have access to the significant benefits associated with a smart meter. Also, BGE feels strongly that an analog meter is not a viable option given that it is old technology that vendors have largely abandoned in favor of digital meters. In fact, there is no major US supplier that offers the sale of new analog meters. 4. The effect such an option might have upon future meter reading

BGE would have to maintain a meter reading workforce and the meter reading IT system that supports this function, both of which reduce program benefits and add ongoing operational costs. 5. The effect such an option might have upon the communication of data between the utility and customers

Assuming customers that elect to opt-out contribute to the related incremental costs, the AMI communications infrastructure could continue to transmit data at or near the same rates prior to an opt-out being offered. However, it would require some additional investment in network equipment to fill in the holes left by opt-out customers. If customers were not required to contribute to the cost of opting-out, the opt-out rate could well exceed 1% and could seriously jeopardize the ability of the mesh

- 13 -

communications network to perform to the point where it may be unworkable in certain areas without significantly disproportionate network infrastructure upgrades and associated costs. To BGEs knowledge, no other state has allowed customers to opt-out without some increased distribution charges to cover the increased costs of service. 6. The effect such an option might have upon the utilitys future billing practices

An opt-out program would require BGE to change its customer care, metering and billing systems to maintain and manage opt-out customers and to assign charges associated with this option. components: New opt-out case management, meter qualification, enrollment, billing and collections processes New Field Activity processes to inspect, install and/or remove alternative meters New opt-out rate components for each applicable rate class, any required bill print changes and related exception management functionality New setup or enrollment customer charge, any required bill print changes and related exception management functionality New cost recovery and/or fee tracking mechanism New opt-out program communication plan and any required enrollment terms, conditions and considerations The effect to the customer would be additional complexity added to interactions with call center representatives to enroll customers in opt-out, compare or adjust rates or troubleshoot billing inquiries, changes to the printed bill to note the new charges, and Effects may include any number of the following

- 14 -

possible changes in meter reading practices that may lead to higher rates of estimated bills. 7. The effect such an option might have upon the utilitys electric tariff rate structures as well as any energy programs

A new rate and/or rider structure would have to be created across multiple customer classes to allow customers to be billed for their opt-out election. BGEs initial assessment identified over 40 rates that would need to be modified to apply any customer charges associated to opt-out. From a customer perspective, the most significant impact would be the lost opportunity to earn energy savings discounts or rebates. Customers without a smart meter could not participate in SER and have the opportunity to earn peak time rebates. Also, these customers would not have the benefit of interval usage data, high bill alerts and running bill totals that will be available through the new customer web portal functionality that is expected to help customers conserve energy and save on their bill. 8. The structure of any opt-out program, including the effect on customer education, the means by which customers might opt out, the means by which customers might re-enroll, how such an option would be administered to new customers within the utilitys service area, and any charges that should be imposed on customers who choose to opt out

If the Commission decides to move forward with an opt-out program, BGE would seek to work with the Commission and other stakeholders to design a balanced opt-out program that meets the needs of our customers while also protecting the majority of conservation and operational benefits which are a foundational basis for the nearly $500 million investment in Smart Grid. The structural components discussed in this section are preliminary and are expected to change as the Commission, its member utilities and market stakeholders discuss the various opt-out options that may be appropriate for - 15 -

Marylands situation and interests. BGE analyzed the practices, lessons learned and decisions from other states to draft the structural framework outlined in this section. BGE expects any opt-out provision would have three critical components discussed below including: a) Communications and enrollment, b) Administration, and c) Pricing. a. Communications and enrollment

During an opt-out open enrollment period, customers would enroll on line, contact BGEs contact center or send a response letter to BGE indicating their desire to opt-out. BGE would attempt direct customer outreach and education to ensure that the customer is making an informed decision. If the customer confirms that he or she would like to opt-out, an information packet would be sent explaining the applicable tariffs, rates and/or participation acknowledgements. For system reliability and safety, BGE would inspect the meter of customers requesting to opt-out and install a standard BGE meter if an obsolete meter exists. Upon completion of the meter inspection, the

customers opt-out election would be approved and they would be removed from the AMI installation program until such time that they elect to receive a meter or move out of the premise. b. Administration

If an opt-out customer elects to have a smart meter installed at some later time, there may be additional charges and the opt-out rate/rider would be removed from the customers service agreement. New homes built within the deployed area would get a smart meter by default; however, after the customer moves in, they could elect to opt-out. For new owners of existing homes in the deployed area, the customer may elect to have a

- 16 -

smart meter installed at no charge or may elect to have a smart meter removed for a charge under the opt-out program. If an opt-out customer fails to pay any fees or charges related to their opt-out elections, BGE would continue to honor their opt-out status while referring any non-paid items into the standard credit and collections processes currently used and in effect for other billable items. c. Pricing

For purposes of this filing, BGE performed a high-level analysis of a rate design approach to appropriately charge customers who choose to opt out of their smart meter. BGE researched four other utilities smart meter opt-out rate designs and then initiated the process of assessing BGEs specific incremental costs. If directed by the Commission to offer an opt-out alternative, BGE recommends that the opt-out program have the following pricing characteristics: An initial fee to recover a meaningful portion of initial capital setup costs, the majority of which are fixed IT system and back-office administrative process related, which will occur regardless of the level of opt-out participation. A fixed monthly charge to recover remaining capital costs and other ongoing costs, the majority of which are meter-reading related. While it is far too early in the process to comfortably calculate BGEs rates with specificity, BGE would like to provide a range of possibilities over several modeled levels of opt-out participation (Table 1). Our design is based on participants assuming

- 17 -

the cost to operate the opt-out program. Some of these costs are fixed so pricing would vary based on the number of customers who choose to opt-out.
Initial Fee Opt-out Percentage $50 $100 Monthly Fee Range 0.1% 0.5% 1.0%
$135-$185 $22 - $34 $11 - $17 $134-$184 $21 - $33 $10 - $16 $133-$183 $19 - $31 $9 - $15

$250

Table 1: Opt-Out Pricing Table

For example, assuming a 1% opt-out rate,6 and a set-up fee of approximately $100, the monthly fee may be between $10 - $16,7 which is similar to the ranges observed for other utilities.8 In sum, the costs for administering the opt-out program should ideally be borne by those who participate in the program, with an annual review to ensure that impacts to all ratepayers are minimized. Again, BGE emphasizes that this is a very preliminary analysis, and is subject to change if the Commission directs that BGE offer an opt-out option. The table also illustrates the challenges of setting the appropriate charges for customers opting out without knowing in advance what the opt-out participation levels will be. For example, if the rates were initially set based upon the presumption of a 1.0% opt-out level, and then it turned out that only 0.1% of customers opted out, the rates would need to increase nearly ten-fold to be fully compensatory.

The utilities researched by BGE had opt-out rates of 0.25% to 2%. With a 1% opt-out, BGE assumed 12,000 customer opt-outs for the rate analysis. 7 The one-time set-up fee assumes an initial capital contribution of $1.2 million; and the monthly fee assumes ongoing capital carrying costs and operations and maintenance costs. 8 The set-up fees for the other utilities ranged from $20 to $270, with monthly fees from $10 to $50.

- 18 -

III.

CONCLUSION BGEs smart grid project furthers DOE and Maryland conservation goals, and

provides customers with information that will assist them in managing their usage in order to lower their bills. In light of these benefits, and because smart meters have not been shown to produce any increased health risk, BGE encourages that all customers receive the benefits of smart meters. However, given the concerns raised by some customers, BGE understands the rationale for an investigation of an opt-out option for Maryland.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kimberly A. Curry _________________________________ Kimberly A. Curry Baltimore Gas & Electric Company 2 Center Plaza 110 West Fayette Street, 13th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 (410) 470-1305 (phone) (443) 213-3206 (fax) kimberly.a.curry@constellation.com

April 6, 2012

- 19 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 6th day of April 2012, a copy of the foregoing Comments of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company was mailed first-class, postage prepaid, to all parties on the Official Service List in this proceeding.

/s/ Kimberly A. Curry Kimberly A. Curry

EXHIBIT 1

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

* *
* * * * *

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND ______________ Case No. 9208 ______________

TESTIMONY OF DR. PETER A. VALBERG

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR BUSINESS ADDRESS. A. My name is Peter A. Valberg and my business address is Gradient, 20 University Road, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138-5156. Q. BY WHOM ARE YOU EMPLOYED AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? A. I am a Principal for Environmental Health at Gradient, an environmental consulting firm specializing in quantitative assessment of environmental impact and human health risk. I specialize in quantitative analysis of exposure and toxicology of environmental agents, including ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. I have extensively researched and studied the links between human health and peoples exposure to specific agents such as radio-wave frequencies (RF), and electric and magnetic fields (EMF). Q: WHY ARE YOU PROVIDING THIS TESTIMONY? A: I have been asked by BGE to analyze the health effects of RF exposure from smart meters. I conclude that RF from smart meters do not present a hazard to health. Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND. A. My educational background includes an A.B. degree, summa cum laude, in Physics and Mathematics from Taylor University, both an M.A. and Ph.D. degree in Physics from

Gradient

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Harvard University, and an M.S. degree in Human Physiology from the Harvard University School of Public Health (Harvard SPH). My Ph.D. thesis work at Harvard University was carried out in the laboratories of Dr. Norman F. Ramsey, winner of the 1989 Nobel Prize in Physics. Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE AND

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS? A. After finishing my Ph.D. work, I was for 5 years in the Physics Department faculty of Amherst College, where I taught physics, electricity, and magnetism. Then, for 25 years, I served as a faculty member in the Department of Environmental Health at Harvard SPH, where I conducted government-funded research and taught human physiology, toxicology, cell biology, environmental health, and public health. I am presently an environmental health scientist at Gradient. I have served on advisory panels for the National Institutes of Health, the Health Effects Institute, Department of Energy, National Academy of Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the World Health Organization (WHO). I am a member of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, the Health Physics Society, the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and the Society of Toxicology. I have served on the Board of Directors of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and on the Committee on Man and Radiation (COMAR). I am a Fellow of the Academy of Toxicological Sciences. Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE AREA OF ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS (EMF) AND RADIOFREQUENCY (RF) FIELDS? A. In-depth study of these areas was part of my training at both Taylor University and Harvard University. I also taught electromagnetism at Amherst College and Harvard University. Among the research grants that I directed at Harvard SPH (funded by the National Cancer Institute) was one on Magnetic Fields Effects on Macrophages (where macrophages are lung cells that clean the lung of particles deposited there from dust present in the air we breathe). I also served on the Harvard Advisory Committee on EMF and Human Health and the Peer Review Board on Cellular Technology and Human Health committees during the period of time when Harvard University (Center for Risk Analysis) had those as active committees. Additionally, I assisted the Health Effects Institute (Boston, MA) in determining
Gradient 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

the feasibility of launching an EMF research program, and published a summary document on EMF Mechanisms in the peer-reviewed journal Radiation Research. I have made numerous presentations on health effects at RF- and EMF-related conferences. At the request of the International Congress on Radiation Research (ICRR), I organized and chaired a symposium on Physical aspects of RF effects on Biological Systems, at the 11th Annual ICRR meeting in Dublin, Ireland. I helped organize a conference in the Boston area on Childhood Leukemia: Electric and Magnetic Fields as Possible Risk Factors. A summary of this workshop was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives. In 2006, I was asked to present a lecture on how electric and magnetic fields interact with living organisms by the Cyprus International Institute for the Environment and Public Health in a symposium on Electromagnetic Fields: Sources, Health Effects, and Regulations, which took place in Nicosia, Cyprus. I worked with the World Health Organization (Geneva, Switzerland) on the health effects on EMF as they apply to cellular telephone technology. An article summarizing some of my WHO work was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives, and a more complete discussion appeared in the book: Base Stations and Wireless Networks: Exposures and Health Consequences. International Workshop on Base Stations and Wireless Networks: Exposures and Health Consequences. (Eds.: Repacholi, M; van Deventer, E; Ravazzani, P), WHO, Geneva, Switzerland (2007). Q. DESCRIBE HOW YOU MAINTAIN YOUR EXPERTISE IN THE AREA OF HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO RADIOFREQUENCY FIELDS (RF) AND EMF. A. On a continuing basis, the librarians at Gradient provide me with recently published articles related to EMF health effects. I review those publications that are relevant to health risks potentially attributed to RF and power-line EMF exposure. Also, I participate in professional societies that discuss matters related to EMF. I am a member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) and read the societys peer-reviewed journal Bioelectromagnetics, which publishes articles relevant to RF / EMF health effects. Through being a member of COMAR, I receive additional updates on developments in the RF / EMF area. I am a member of the Health Physics Society, read their newsletter, and subscribe to their peerGradient 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

reviewed journal Health Physics. Important RF and EMF articles are published in this journal, and I review them as they appear. I am also a full member of the Society of Toxicology (SOT), and at each annual meeting, I identify and attend any talks or abstracts dealing with RF. I subscribe to the SOTs peer-reviewed journal, Toxicological Sciences, and review those articles relevant to RF / EMF. Q. IS THE RF FROM SO-CALLED SMART METERS DANGEROUS TO HEALTH? A. No. Sometimes the RF is called radiation, which people may confuse with the ionizing radiation associated with X-rays and nuclear medicine. But, this is incorrect. The electromagnetic spectrum encompasses frequencies from the kilohertz 1 range up through microwaves and on into infrared, light, ultraviolet, and X-rays. Visible light is the major source of electromagnetic energy in our environment. The human body, by virtue of being alive and warm, generates heat energy (electromagnetic energy in the infrared portion of the spectrum), which can be seen by an infrared or night-vision camera, i.e., in complete darkness. Importantly, those electromagnetic waves with a frequency below that of visible light (including RF), cannot damage molecules, and hence are called non-ionizing.
For the smart meter RF band around 910 MHz, the allowable RF level is 610 W/cm2.
2

By

comparison, summertime sunlight at noon bathes us with about 150,000 W/cm of electromagnetic energy. These energy comparisons are shown in the following Table: 2 Electromagnetic energy in sunlight at the earths surface (noon, summer day) 150,000 W/cm2 Applicable FCC standard for 910 MHz RF wave energy (public and residential areas) 610 W/cm2 Typical RF levels measured near (at 10 feet) smart meters that are actually transmitting ~ 4 W/cm2

19 20

The ~ 4 W/cm2 for the smart meter is at 10 feet in front of it. Behind the meter (i.e., inside the residence), the RF levels would be about 10-fold lower.

Radio-wave frequencies are expressed in Hertz (Hz), a term which is equivalent to cycles per second. For example, voice frequencies (i.e., sound waves in the air) cover the range from about 50 Hz to 15,000 Hz. Radio-wave frequencies cover the range from about 300,000 Hz (i.e., 0.3 megahertz, or 0.3 MHz) to 30,000,000,000 Hz (i.e., 30 gigahertz, or 30 GHz). For smart meters, the RF frequencies are in the range 900 to 920 MHz. Figure 1 (page 5) of CCST, 2011.

Gradient

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

For smart meters, the RF levels are far below health-protective standards and guidelines developed for public exposure to RF. No public health agency has identified the RF from smart meters as hazardous to health. In fact, a large number of scientific groups have reviewed research findings on potential health effects of RF waves. These independent scientific consensus groups, composed of research, engineering, medical, and public health scientists, have produced blue-ribbon reports that have examined all aspects of RF safety, for example: American National Standards Institute (ANSI / IEEE, 2003, 2006), Federal Communications Commission (FCC, 1999, 2007), 3 Health Canada, Safety Code 6 (2009) 4 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 2011), 5 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protect. (ICNIRP, 1998, 2004, 2009, 2011), 6 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP, 2002), 7 National Radiation Protection Board [Health Protection Agency], UK (NRPB, HPA, 2000, 2004), Netherlands Health Council (NHC, 2002, 2003, 2007), World Health Organization (WHO, 1993, 2000, 2007) Presidents Cancer Panel (PCP, 2010), Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk 8

20 21

The reports of these groups, written by researchers, medical doctors, biologists, engineers, and toxicologists, are voluminous, thorough, and even-handed. These blue-ribbon panels, in

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf (p. 15). Health Canada, March, 2010: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/radio_guide-lignes_direct-eng.php IARC: In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency fields (RF) as Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic) on the IARC scale of carcinogenic risk to humans. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf IARC uses the possibly carcinogenic category when talking about both cell phones and power-line magnetic fields (EMF), and the IARC category 2B includes possible carcinogens such as coconut oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel oil, power-line EMF, carpentry and joinery, coffee, carbon black (car tires), car-engine exhaust, surgical implants, talcbased body powder, iron supplement pills, mothballs, nickels, pickled vegetables, safrole (sassafras) tea, titanium dioxide, chloroform, etc. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsGroupOrder.pdf ICNIRP: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/StatementEMF.pdf ; http://www.icnirp.de/documents/RFReview.pdf http://www.icnirp.de/documents/SCIreview2011.pdf NCRP: http://www.ncrppublications.org/Reports/119 Presidents Cancer Panel, http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf

4 5

7 8

Gradient

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

general, concur that the current guidelines for RF exposure protect the safety of the public and of residents living in our present-day RF environment. Q. HOW DO RADIO WAVES FROM SMART METERS COMPARE TO RF EXPOSURE FROM COMMON DEVICES USED AND EXPERIENCED BY MOST CONSUMERS? A. The radio-wave levels from smart meters are very low. First of all, its important to

recognize that our environment has a multitude of radio-wave sources including: Commercial radio (AM & FM) and commercial TV (VHF & UHF & digital) Marine and aviation radio services, military and weather radar, police radar Public emergency, fire, and police dispatch services Amateur (ham) radio operators, wireless paging services, remote-control devices Cell phones, Personal Communications Systems (PCS), Smartphones, iPads Cordless telephones, baby monitors, wireless toys, walkie-talkies, Internet routers Computers (and game controllers), TV sets, CD players, DVD players, iPods Microwave ovens (RF leakage) Microwave links for computers, radio, television, and telephones Satellite radio / television / communications, global positioning system (GPS) Medical procedures such as diathermy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Common sources of electromagnetic energy can be listed according to the power they emit into our electromagnetic spectrum environment. The list below is mostly for RF, but, for perspective, I have included some sources in the heat and light part of the spectrum. In fact, the energy waves (photons) from heat and light are more energetic than for RF waves. Utility smart meters --Handheld cell phones, cordless phones --Remote control toys and nursery monitors --Flashlight --Walkie-talkies --Cellular telephone base stations --Standard light bulb --The human body Microwave oven Electric space heater Radio and television stations 1watt or less , typically watt below 2 watts about 3 watts about 5 watts (light + heat) about 10 watts about 80 watts about 100 watts (light + heat) about 100 watts ([infrared]) about 1,500 watts (heat + RF) about 1,500 watts (light + heat) about 50,000 to 1,000,000 watts

Gradient

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
9

The importance of this list is to demonstrate that radio waves have been used for communications in highly populated regions for over one hundred years, and we have no indication that this use of RF has adversely affected human health. A useful reference point is to realize that the smart-meter integrated RF dose over a day is far lower than that from using a cellular phone for, say, 15 minutes throughout a day. RF doses can be expressed either as a fraction of maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits or as a fraction of specific absorption rate (SAR) limits. These two biologically-based benchmarks can be used to rank the RF doses of different devices relative to FCC guidelines. The duration of RF exposure from smart meters is very short, i.e., the meters transmit data on electricity consumption several times per day, for periods on the order of 0.1 seconds, with a mean duty cycle of 0.14%, giving a total transmit time of about 2 minutes per day (Tell et al., 2012; EPRI 2011). In terms of RF intensity, at a 10-ft distance in front of the smart meter, the RF intensity of smart meters (when on) is below 1% of the FCC MPE limit (see table above, of course, behind the meter, i.e., inside the home, the levels are far lower), 9 whereas, for a cell phone held at the head (and being used), the RF doses are below the FCC SAR, 10 but are greater than 25 to 90% of the FCC SAR limit. 11 Thus, for cell phone use of 15 minutes per day, the integrated RF daily dose (900 seconds 0.50 SAR) is about 375 times greater than the RF exposure from one day of standing continuously within 10 feet of a smart meter (120 seconds 0.01 MPE). Put another way, you would have to be exposed to the RF from a smart meter for 375 years to get a dose equivalent to that of one year of 15minutes-per-day cell phone use. 12 Q. HOW SHOULD WE INTERPRET THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS (WHO) REPORT STATING THAT CELL-PHONE EXPOSURE IS A POSSIBLE CARCINOGEN?
The less than 1% of the MPE (~ 4 W/cm2) for the smart meter is at 10 feet in front of it. Behind the meter (i.e., inside the residence), the RF levels would be about 10-fold lower. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that phones sold in the US have a SAR level at or below 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg), averaged over a volume containing a mass of 1 gram of tissue that is most highly exposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate (900 seconds 0.50) / (120 seconds 0.01) = 375

10

11 12

Gradient

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. First of all, it should be noted that the WHO endorses the same ICNIRP international guidelines for public RF exposure that are recognized by ICNIRP as safe. The WHO states: To date, all expert reviews on the health effects of exposure to RF fields have reached the same conclusion: There have been no adverse health consequences established from exposure to RF fields at levels below the international guidelines on exposure limits published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.13 In an abundance of precaution, on May 31, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). 14 The classification assigned to RF by IARC was one of the lowest on IARCs scale of cancer classifications. The IARC category 2B includes possible carcinogens that we all encounter, such as coconut oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel oil, power-line EMF, carpentry and joinery, coffee, carbon black (car tires), car-engine exhaust, surgical implants, talc-based body powder, iron supplement pills, mothballs, nickels, pickled vegetables, safrole tea, titanium dioxide, chloroform, and many other substances. 15 Moreover, IARC classifications are made with reference to the quantity of exposure, e.g., no quantitative estimate as to how various uses of RF contribute to human exposure. As shown above, smart meters constitute one of the weakest sources of our RF exposure. Q. DO FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) REGULATIONS ONLY ADDRESS THE THERMAL EFFECTS OF SMART METERS? ARE

THERE NON-THERMAL EFFECTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS? A. RF exposure limits were developed by the FCC specifically to protect against all known hazards of RF energy. The limits were established after a thorough review and evaluation of the scientific literature and ample opportunity for comment by all interested parties. They have been adopted by federal health agencies, have withstood repeated scrutiny, and are similar to European regulations. For example, the World Health Organization has endorsed
13

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

14 15

Gradient

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

health-protective guidelines: The main conclusion from the WHO reviews [of RF bioeffects data] is that EMF exposures below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health 16 and the Health Council of the Netherlands has endorsed this viewpoint as well. 17 The level of RF exposure from smart meters is a tiny fraction of FCC, IEEE and ICNIRP guidelines. It is also small or comparable relative to other exposures to RF energy that we experience over the course of a day from other technologies that emit RF energy, as listed above. There are no regulations for non-thermal effects, because these remain speculative and have not been demonstrated to lead to adverse health effects. Q. ARE CERTAIN PEOPLE HYPER-SENSITIVE TO RF EXPOSURE SUCH THAT THEY EXHIBIT SIGNS OF DISTRESS AND ILLNESS WHEN EXPOSED TO RF FIELDS? A. Although such claims regarding sensitivity are often asserted, their validity has never been demonstrated. In fact, numerous investigators have searched for evidence of such RF hypersensitivity effects in people, but the research has demonstrated that the adverse symptoms reported by individuals believing themselves to be electrosensitive are due to the belief of harm from RF rather than to the low-level RF exposure itself (Eltiti et al. 2007; Rubin et al. 2011; van Rongen et al. 2009). Q. SOME OPPONENTS OF SMART METERS STATE THAT We didnt know that smoking and asbestos was bad, now look! IS THIS ANALOGY USEFUL AND VALID? A. No. First of all, use of radio waves, and the RF spectrum for communication, predate the widespread use of asbestos and commercial cigarettes, but no one has demonstrated any health risks from societys use of RF communications for more than 100 years. No parallel can be drawn between the development of medical and health-effects understanding in these two areas. For RF, extensive scientific research has been used to identify intensity levels,

16 17

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

Gradient

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

i.e., standards and guidelines, below which no adverse health effects are anticipated. And, as I have already noted, these safety guidelines allow RF levels much higher than those associated with smart meters. Some individuals call for reduction in exposure limits to levels far below ICNIRP limits, due to fears that some as-yet undemonstrated hazard may exist from exposure to RF energy at low levels. But, such an approach ignores the extensive body of science that supports the ICNIRP limits and, in fact, the WHO strongly discourages arbitrary adjustments to the limit values to account for the extent of scientific uncertainty, 18 which this approach exemplifies. Q. SOME OPPONENTS OF SMART METERS STATE THAT Smart meters are always on and exposure people to constant pulsating RF energy. LEGITIMATE CONCERN? A. No. Smart meters transmit at a very low duty cycle (that is, the devices transmit for a very small fraction of the time). As calculated above, the approximate, full-day RF exposure to a resident of a house from a smart meter is comparable to that produced by use of a cellular telephone for about 10 seconds. Typically, the smart meters transmit less than about 2 minutes a day on average, and less than about 16 minutes a day for 99.9% of meters. IS THIS A

18

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

Gradient

10

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

Gradient

11

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

NoHealthThreat FromSmartMeters
by KlausBender.PE DirectorofStandards&Engineering UtilitiesTelecomCouncil Asutilitiesseektomodernizetheiraginginfrastructureandupgradetoasmartelectricgrid,wireless communicationswillplayaneverincreasinglyimportantroleinthefacilitatingtheseenhancements. Severalconsumergroupshaveraisedconcernsaboutthepotentialhealtheffectsofatwoway communicationsdevice,thenextgenerationelectricmeterorsmartmeter,ontheirhomes. Thisarticleprovidesabriefreviewofthesafetystandardsdealingwithradiofrequencyenergyand safetyandshowsthatsmartutilitydevicesposenohealththreat.Wecompareotherhouseholdwireless devicestosmartmeterstoshowtheenergyfromameterisactuallylessthancommonlyuseddevices. Smartgriddeploymentsusedevicesthatfallintothesamecategoryasmanywirelessdevicesfoundin thehome,suchaswirelessroutersusedforinternetconnectivityandwirelessbabymonitors.And unlikethelaptoporWiFirouterinthehomethatarealwaystransmitting,smartmeterstransmitfor onlyafractionofthedayforshortdurations.

Introduction
SmartGridisatransformedelectricitytransmissionanddistributionnetworkor"grid"thatusesrobust twowaycommunications,advancedsensors,anddistributedcomputerstoimprovetheefficiency, reliabilityandsafetyofpowerdeliveryanduse.DeployingtheSmartGridbecamethepolicyofthe UnitedStateswithpassageoftheEnergyIndependenceandSecurityActof2007(Title13).TheSmart GridisalsobeingpromotedbytheEuropeanUnionandothernations. Thesmartgridwillrelyontheuseofradiofrequenciestoprovidewirelessconnectivitytothevarious componentsofthenewelectricdistributionsystem.Wirelesscommunicationstechnologyhasbecome ubiquitousinourlives,enablingmobileconnectivitywithcellphones,wirelessinternetservicesand homeareanetworkingwithWiFitechnologyandevencookingourfoodwithmicrowaveovens.Yet
UTILITIESTELECOMCOUNCIL
1901PENNSYLVANIAAVENUE,NW|FIFTHFLOOR|WASHINGTON,DC20007USA|+1.202.872.0030|WWW.UTC.ORG

 NoHealthThreatfromSmartMeters 2 thereareunsubstantiatedconcernsthatthesmartmetersbeinginstalledaroundthecountryandthe worldwillcauseillhealtheffectstomembersofthehouseholdwherethemetersareinstalled. Therefore,weexaminethefactsabouttheimpactofradiofrequencyenergyonthebody,showingthat thedevicesutilitiesseektoinstallposenothreatofharmtohumans.Weshowthatthetypeofradio energyusedandemittedbysmartmeters,cellphone,wirelessroutersandmicrowaveovenscanonly damagethebodyatextremelyhighlevels.Whileresearchcontinuesintolongtermeffects,therehas beennoconclusiveevidencethatlowlevelRFenergyhasalongtermnegativeimpact.Weconcentrate onRFenergyandacknowledgethatelectricmetersareconnectedtothepowersystemand unauthorizedtamperingordismantlinganelectricmetercouldposeelectricshockdangertoanyone comingindirectcontactwithenergizedelectricconductors.

FederalJurisdictionforSafetyofRadioFrequencyDevices
TheFederalCommunicationsCommission(FCC)hasjurisdictionovertheapprovalanduseofradio frequencydevices,whetheralicenseisrequiredforthedevicesorifunlicensedoperationisallowed. FCCregulationsarebasedonstandardssetbytheInstituteofElectricalandElectronicEngineers(IEEE) basedonyearsofresearchbyhealthprofessionals.TheFCChasatwofoldroleinensuringsafety.First, theFCChasallocatedtheradiospectrumintoavarietyofpieces,mostofwhichneedcoordinationanda licensebeforeoperationispermitted.Examplesofthisincludetelevision,satelliteandradiobroadcast channels,avarietyofcellularandpersonalcommunicationsservicefrequencies,andmicrowave frequenciesthattransmithugeamountsofinformationfromonepointtoanotherusingdishstyle antennas.Atthesametime,theFCChasallocatedsomefrequenciesforunlicensedoperation,allowing consumerstopurchaseproductsatBestBuyorWalMartandinstallthemintheirhomes.Thesedevices operateatlowpowerlevels,enablingcommunicationsbutposingnothreatofhealtheffectstohumans. ExamplesincludetheWiFiroutersalreadydiscussed,wirelessbabymonitorsandgaragedooropeners. TheFCCssecondroleistoapproveradiodevicesformanufacture,importandsale.Regardlessof whethertheequipmentoperatesonlowpowerunlicensedchannelsorathigherpoweroperationsthat requireanauthorization,eachdevicemustbetestedtomeetFCCstandards.Thesaleofuntestedand unapprovedequipmentisaseriousoffenseandtheFCCaggressivelyprosecutesviolators.

FCCMandatesonRFExposureandImpactonHumans
TheFCCisrequiredbytheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1969,amongotherthings,toevaluate theeffectofemissionsfromFCCregulatedtransmittersonthequalityofthehumanenvironment. Severalorganizations,suchastheAmericanNationalStandardsInstitute(ANSI),theInstituteof ElectricalandElectronicsEngineers,Inc.(IEEE),andtheNationalCouncilonRadiationProtectionand Measurements(NCRP)haveissuedrecommendationsforhumanexposuretoRFelectromagneticfields. OnAugust1,1996,theCommissionadoptedtheNCRP'srecommendedMaximumPermissibleExposure limitsforfieldstrengthandpowerdensityforthetransmittersoperatingatfrequenciesof300kHzto 100GHz.Inaddition,theCommissionadoptedthespecificabsorptionrate(SAR)limitsfordevices operatingwithincloseproximitytothebodyasspecifiedwithintheANSI/IEEEC95.11992guidelines.
ExcerptedfromtheFourthQuarter2010IssueoftheUTCJOURNAL.Copyright2010UtilitiesTelecomCouncil.AllRightsReserved.

 NoHealthThreatfromSmartMeters 3 (SeeReportandOrder,FCC96326)TheCommission'srequirementsaredetailedinParts1and2ofthe FCC'sRulesandRegulations[47C.F.R.1.1307(b),1.1310,2.1091,2.1093].Thepotentialhazards associatedwithRFelectromagneticfieldsarediscussedinFCCsOfficeofEngineeringandTechnology (OET)BulletinNo.56,"QuestionsandAnswersAbouttheBiologicalEffectsandPotentialHazardsof RadiofrequencyElectromagneticFields."1 TheFCCalsooffersOETBulletin65onthistopic.TherevisedOETBulletin65hasbeenpreparedto provideassistanceindeterminingwhetherproposedorexistingtransmittingfacilities,operationsor devicescomplywithlimitsforhumanexposuretoradiofrequency(RF)fieldsadoptedbytheFederal CommunicationsCommission(FCC).Thebulletinoffersguidelinesandsuggestionsforevaluating compliance.

UnderstandingtheImpactofRFEnergyonHumans
RFsignalsareknowntopropagateaswaves,andoneofthekeycharacteristicsofthewaveisits frequency.Frequencyisthemostsignificantcontrolfactorinradiotransmissionandimpactshowthe wavestravelthroughspace,whethertheypassthroughwallsorbounceoffthem,thewavesinteraction withfoliage,etc.Useofthetransitfrequencyiscommonknowledgeinoursociety,ascommercialradio andtelevisionstationsoftenusethisparameteraspartofthepublicpersona. FrequencyalsodeterminestheimpactofRFenergyonthehumanbody.Onlyveryhighfrequencies, ultravioletraysandabove,havethecapabilityofmutatinglivingcellstocausecancerandsimilarillness. ThisfrequencyrangeisknownasionizingradiationbecausetheRFenergycreatesionsoutoflivingcells byremovingoraddingelectronsatthecellularlevel. Nonionizingradioenergyfallbelowthisfrequencyrangeandtheprimaryinteractionwithhumancells istoheatthem.Thisisthebasisforthemicrowaveoven.Nonionizingenergy,atahighenoughlevel, willheathumancellsuntiltheydie,butnonionizingenergyissimplyincapableofmutatingcellsand causingdiseaseslikecancer. Industryresearchandstandardsagencies,suchasANSIandIEEE,havecompiledtheresearchassociated withhumanexposureofRFenergyandcreatedguidelinesthattheFCCandtheFederalOccupational SafetyandHealthAdministration(OSHA)haveadopted.Thestandardsincorporatefrequencyofthe energytodefinemaximumpermissibleexposurelevels(MPE)correlatedtofrequency.Thestandards aremostconservativeatfrequencieswherethewavelengthoftheenergyisnearthesizeoftheaverage humanandhavethemostpotentialforwholebodyimpact.TheresultingMPElevelsincorporatedinto therequirementsincludea10:1safetyratiotoaccountforvariationsinsize,weightandphysical conditionofthesubject.Therefore,exposureevenat100%oftheMPElevelwillnotcausephysical harm. InordertofurtherprotectthepublicfromexposuretoRFenergy,theFCCsettheMPElevelsdiscussed aboveastheoccupationalorcontrolledenvironment,intendedforworkersandotherprofessional
1

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/
ExcerptedfromtheFourthQuarter2010IssueoftheUTCJOURNAL.Copyright2010UtilitiesTelecomCouncil.AllRightsReserved.

 NoHealthThreatfromSmartMeters 4 previouslytrainedinsafetyrelatedtoRFenergy.TheFCCthencreatedageneralpublicor uncontrolledenvironmentcriteriathataddedanadditional5:1safetyfactorovertheoccupational level.ThustheFCCsMPElimitforthegeneralpublicis50timeslessthanthelevelresearchshowscan actuallycauseharm.ThetablesbelowshowthelimitsforoccupationalandgeneralpublicMPE.

Table1.LIMITSFORMAXIMUMPERMISSIBLEEXPOSURE(MPE) (A)LimitsforOccupational/ControlledExposure Frequency ElectricField MagneticField PowerDensity AveragingTime Range Strength(E) Strength(H) (S) |E|2,|H|2orS 2 (minutes) (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm ) 0.33.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 6 3.030 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 30300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 3001500 f/300 6 1500100,000 5 6 (B)LimitsforGeneralPopulation/UncontrolledExposure Frequency ElectricField MagneticField PowerDensity AveragingTime Range Strength(E) Strength(H) (S) |E|2,|H|2orS 2 (MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm ) (minutes) 0.31.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 30 1.3430 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 3001500 f/1500 30 1500100,000 1.0 30 f=frequencyinMHz *Planewaveequivalentpowerdensity NOTE1:Occupational/controlledlimitsapplyinsituationsinwhichpersonsareexposedasaconsequenceoftheir employmentprovidedthosepersonsarefullyawareofthepotentialforexposureandcanexercisecontrolover theirexposure.Limitsforoccupational/controlledexposurealsoapplyinsituationswhenanindividualistransient throughalocationwhereoccupational/controlledlimitsapplyprovidedheorsheismadeawareofthepotential forexposure. NOTE2:Generalpopulation/uncontrolledexposuresapplyinsituationsinwhichthegeneralpublicmaybe exposed,orinwhichpersonsthatareexposedasaconsequenceoftheiremploymentmaynotbefullyawareof thepotentialforexposureorcannotexercisecontrolovertheirexposure.

ExcerptedfromtheFourthQuarter2010IssueoftheUTCJOURNAL.Copyright2010UtilitiesTelecomCouncil.AllRightsReserved.

 NoHealthThreatfromSmartMeters 5

Figure1.MPELevelbyFrequencyandClass(Source:Sitesafe,Inc.,ArlingtonVA)

TheFCCsOET65documentalsodefinesconceptsliketimeaveraging.Asshowninthetablesabove,the averagingtimeforoccupational/controlledexposuresis6minutes,whiletheaveragingtimeforgeneral population/uncontrolledexposuresis30minutes.Itisimportanttonotethatforgeneral population/uncontrolledexposuresitisoftennotpossibletocontrolexposurestotheextentthat averagingtimescanbeapplied.Inthosesituations,itisoftennecessarytoassumecontinuous exposure.2SincetheknowndangerinRFenergyistissueheating,ifthesubjectmovesoutoftheareaof highRFlevels,thecellswillreturntonormaltemperature.At100%orlessofMPE,thereisnodangerin continuousexposure.Timeaveragesaysthatifoneisanareaidentifiedas200%oftheoccupational MPE,uptothreeminutesofexposureissafeaslongasthreeminuteselapseinanareaatlessthan 100%MPE. Insummary,thereisnoknownlongtermhealtheffectfromexposuretoRFenergyatlevelsbelowthose designatedbytheFCC.Thisenergyisallaroundandtheenergyassociatedwithsmartmetersisfarless thanthoseofothercommonservicesandequipment.
2

FCCOETBulletin65
ExcerptedfromtheFourthQuarter2010IssueoftheUTCJOURNAL.Copyright2010UtilitiesTelecomCouncil.AllRightsReserved.

 NoHealthThreatfromSmartMeters 6

Comparison of RF Power Density in the Everyday Environment

Device Relative Power Density in microwatts per square centimeter (W/cm2)

FMradioorTVbroadcaststationsignal SmartMeterdeviceat10feet Cybercafe(WiFi) Laptopcomputer Cellphonehelduptohead WalkieTalkieathead Microwaveoven,twoinchesfromdoor

Source: Richard Tell Associates, Inc.
3

0.005 0.1 1020 1020 3010,000 50042,000 5,000

MeterReadingSystemConfigurations
Residentialandindustrialelectricmetersallowutilitiestoaccuratelybillfortheenergyconsumed.These deviceshavebeenusedaslongastheelectricindustryhasbeeninplace.Earlymetersrequiredmanual reading,withautilityemployeewritingdowntheusedataandreturningtotheofficetoenterthat informationintotheutilitybillingsystem.Theuseofradiofrequenciestointerrogatemetersbeganin theearly1980s.Thesesystemsusedaninterrogationsignalsentfromautilityemployeeeitherwalking ordrivingthroughtheareaofinterest.Aradiosignalpingsthemeterswithinrangeandthedevices respondwithconsumptioninformation,alsousingradiosignals. Aspreviouslynoted,theelectricinfrastructureintheUSisgoingthroughamajortransition,replacing equipmentthatcanbe40to50yearsold.Atthesametime,variablerenewableenergysourceslike solarandwindmustbeintegratedintothisnewgrid.Increasedcommunicationwithconsumersthat allowscustomerstoadjusttheirenergyusageinresponsetopricingorreliabilitybasedsignals.Remote meterreadingandcutoff,aswellasothersmartgridapplicationsareallkeycomponentsofthesmart gridandthesecapabilitiesrelyonsmartmeters. Smartmetersystemsvaryinginimplementationdependingontheutilitysneedsandthevender selected.Mostutilitiesareelectingtoinstallradiobasedsmartmetersystems.Radiobasedsystems alsovaryinconfiguration,buteachsystemismadeupofthefollowingcomponents: 1. Meter:Themeterdevicemeasuresconsumptionandstorestheinformationforretrievalby theutility.
3

PacificGasandElectric:http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/rf/
ExcerptedfromtheFourthQuarter2010IssueoftheUTCJOURNAL.Copyright2010UtilitiesTelecomCouncil.AllRightsReserved.

 NoHealthThreatfromSmartMeters 7 2. MeterTransceiver:Thetransceiverisaradiothatreceivesinstructionsfromtheutilitynetwork andtransmitsnecessaryinformationtotheutility.Thetransceiverisoftenanintegralpartof themeter,especiallyinthecaseofelectricmeters.Often,waterandgasmeterstransceivers aremountednearthedevice.Themetersradiosystemcanalsocommunicatewithhome energymanagementsystemsusedbycustomerstocontrolandmonitorappliancepower consumption.Themetertransceiversoperateonlowpowerunlicensedchannels,orinsome cases,usingcellularradiochannels. 3. DataAggregationPoints:Themetertransceivertransmitsinformationtonearbycollection devices,oftencalleddataaggregationpoints(DAPs).Thesedevicesareoftenmountedon nearbypowerpolesatheightsof20to30feetaboveground.TheDAPscollectinformation andtransmitthatinformationtotheutility.Iftheutilityhashighcapacityfiberinfrastructure, thatresourcecarriesinformationfromtheDAPs.Typically,theDAPwillcommunicatewith centerreceivestationsonradiofrequenciesintheunlicensedbands,orusingcellular technology. Acommonmisconceptionaboutsmartmetersisthattheyarealwaysonortransmitting.Thisisfar fromthecase.Untilrecently,waterandgasutilitiesusuallyreadmetersonceortwiceamonthand thetimeneededtotransmitinformationislessthan1second.Onlyrecentlyhavegasandwater utilitiesinitiatedmorefrequencymeterqueries.Electricutilitiesareimplementingtimeofusebilling structuresbutrarelyneedtoreadthemetermorethanonceevery15minutes.Again,thetimeto transmitconsumptiondataislessthan1second.Thismeans,inthisscenario,theselowpowerdevices aretransmittingapproximately0.11%oftheday4,atshortburstsoflessthanonesecond.Evenifthe metertransmitsonceevery15seconds,asisthecasewhennointerrogationsignalisused, transmissionwouldstillonlyby6.7%oftheday WeknowfromourdiscussionofRFexposure,eveniftheRFlevelsfromthesedeviceswouldexceed 100%oftheFCCMPE,theimpactonthebodytakestime.FortheRFsignalfromasmartmetertobe powerfulenoughtoharmthehuman,thatsignalwouldhavetobesopowerfulthetransmissionwould beontheorderofTVorradiobroadcaststations.Thisisclearlynotthecaseforsmartmeters.

Dailyexposurepercentage=[(4seconds/hour)/(24hours/day*60minutes/hour*60seconds/minute)]*100
ExcerptedfromtheFourthQuarter2010IssueoftheUTCJOURNAL.Copyright2010UtilitiesTelecomCouncil.AllRightsReserved.

 NoHealthThreatfromSmartMeters 8

Summary
Inthisarticle,wedefinedtheconceptofthesmartgridandthebenefitstosociety.Wealsohighlighted theimportanceofradionetworkstothesuccessfuldeploymentofthesmartgrid.Wediscussthe importantconceptsofRFenergyandtheimpactonhumans.Specifically,thereisnodemonstratedlong termimpactoflowlevelnonionizingenergyonhumans.Ionizingenergy,beginningwiththeultraviolet componentofsunlight,hasbeendemonstratedtohavelongtermimpact,butthefrequenciescitingin thisreportarehundredsofordersofmagnitudebelowthatofsunlight.Therefore,thisshowsthatthe oftenquotedsourcesinthemediaexpressingconcernabouttheRFsafetyfromsmartmetersareshown tobebasedonfaultylogic,orfaultyfactsandmisrepresentations. Weshowthataspecificanalysisofthecomponentusedinthissmartgriddeploymentaresignificantly belowgeneralpopulationMPEandnote,again,thatFCClimitsforMPEofgeneralpopulationare alreadyatleast50timeslowerthanlevelsthatcancausetissueheating. Anexaminationofamajorityofsmartmetersbeingdeployedtodaywillshowthesedevicesuselow powerlevelsassociatedwithunlicenseddevices,ontheequivalentmagnitudeasthedevicesthat provideWiFiconnectivityinthehome.Millionsoflaptopcomputersareusedinhomeseverydaythat transmitatlevelssimilartothesmartmeterandthetransmittersfromthesedevicesarealwayson. Someutilitiesaredeployingmeterreadingsystemsthatusecommercialwirelessproviderstogather data.Thesemetershavethesameradiocomponentsascellphones,thesamephoneconsumersraiseto theirheadeveryday. Sowhenconfrontedwithcomplaintsthatsaysmartmeterscauseavarietyofhealtheffects,askthe complainanttoproducethesciencetosupporttheclaim.Theconversationshouldendshortly thereafter. #

ExcerptedfromtheFourthQuarter2010IssueoftheUTCJOURNAL.Copyright2010UtilitiesTelecomCouncil.AllRightsReserved.

 NoHealthThreatfromSmartMeters 9 AppendixUsefulLinks http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rffaqs.html http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/Welcome.html#56 http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/Welcome.html#65 Formoreinformation,pleasecontact: KlausBender,PE DirectorofStandards&Engineering UtilitiesTelecomCouncil klaus.bender@utc.org +1.202.833.6803

ExcerptedfromtheFourthQuarter2010IssueoftheUTCJOURNAL.Copyright2010UtilitiesTelecomCouncil.AllRightsReserved.