Smart or Stupid? Smart meters labelled ‘dumb’

Privacy issues, health concerns and national security warnings are intertwined as power companies and the state government face smart meter problems in Victoria. Martin Oliver reports.   

Australia is close to being the world’s top per-capita producer of carbon emissions, and you don’t have to look hard to see why. Electricity generation is dominated by coal-fired power stations, which make up 80 per cent of the mix, with gas being a further 11 per cent.

 

Power use patterns are characterised by spikes in demand, especially on hot summer days when air conditioner use surges upwards. At these peak times, feeding power from solar panels and solar thermal power stations into the grid can ease demands on power infrastructure. Another avenue is to manage demand via “smart meters”.

However, while smart meters are touted as offering major energy efficiency benefits, consumers in Victoria are increasingly encountering issues with them, many describing these high-tech gadgets as “dumb” or worse.

THE CASE FOR SMART METERS

When demand spikes, electricity’s market prices escalates, sometimes astronomically. Traditionally there was no way to correlate usage patterns with time of use, and those without air conditioning were inevitably cross-subsidising major air-con users. When smart meters appeared a few years ago, it became possible to charge users based on the real-time electricity price.

Smart meters can be programmed to cut off an air conditioner when the price reaches a certain level, highest during peak time between 3pm and 11pm. So at time when power bills are going up far quicker than inflation, smart meters could be a valuable tool for householders. And we are advised that non time-sensitive activities, such as ironing, vacuuming and using the clothes dryer can be moved away from peak time, to reduce peak load.

Measuring electricity at intervals of an hour or less, these meters are good at providing householders with real-time power use information, theoretically facilitating further savings. Data is accessible via in-home displays and web portals.

There are benefits for energy companies too. As the data can be accessed remotely, there is no further need for meter readers to brave vicious dogs. This means substantially reduced meter-reading costs. Estimated electricity bills become a thing of the past, and power outages can be pinpointed more easily.

Sadly this is far from being the full picture.

RADIATION CONCERNS

Once installed, a smart meter creates one more layer of electromagnetic radiation in our immediate surroundings. Meters transmit data wirelessly within the radiofrequency band, in Australia at a 2.4-gigahertz frequency. Various appliances communicate with the meter, and usage data is then relayed to the power company. Alternatives exist to running the smart meter network on wireless technology; in Idaho and Italy the meters are connected to the optic fibre network.

Victoria’s Department of Primary Industries (DPI) quotes a study indicating that smart meter radiation is well below the levels emitted by several devices including mobile phones, baby monitors and microwave ovens. This study, carried by EMC Technologies, claims that smart meters emit a lower level of radiation than the older-style analogue units. These levels are typically no more than one per cent of the Australian safety limit.

However, Australian limits are based on those set in 1998 by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP.) In turn, ICNIRP’s guideline limits have been widely criticised for ignoring biological effects at levels insufficiently high to cause a rise in temperature, despite these being confirmed by hundreds of scientific studies. One member of the 1998 committee was Anders Ahlbom, a Swede whose brother at the time worked as a telecom industry lobbyist. Over the years, Ahlbom has systematically downplayed possible health risks.

In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer changed its position on radiofrequency radiation, and categorised it as possibly carcinogenic, with a particular focus on mobile phone use.

NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS

Government reassurances are at odds with experience on the ground. A large number of householders report health effects from the meters as soon as they are installed. Furthermore, there doesn’t appear to be a negative placebo effect at work; some of those affected were initially fully supportive of the new meter. Reports include dogs restlessly moving around and whining at night, and plants and trees unexpectedly dying. Health issues so far observed include:

• Headaches
• Ringing in the ears
• Vertigo and dizziness
• Heart palpitations
• Vomiting
• Tremors
• Difficulty in concentrating
• Fatigue
• Sleep problems
• Memory loss
• Tinnitus

Why are smart meters causing so many problems when they apparently emit no more radiation than a mobile phone? The key seems to be in its pulsed quality, and in the US electromagnetic radiation consultants are finding that the units pulse far more often and more strongly than the utilities claim. Utilities’ radiation figures commonly time-averaged, causing the strongest spikes to disappear from the picture.

Smart meters are of concern for the estimated three to five per cent of the population who suffer from electrosensitivity. Laboratory testing has verified this condition.

Some sufferers are experimenting with EMF shielding strategies, including protective paint, and some are living inside special tents or improvised structures within their homes. In desperation, some have resorted to sleeping in their vehicles or workplaces to get respite from symptoms. They often find they have no option other than to move, but if every dwelling in their hometown has a meter, they have to relocate to a different town or state. It is ridiculous that anybody should have to go to such lengths to make their life bearable.

A RANGE OF OTHER CONCERNS

Other issues have been uncovered. At the start of 2012, the Victorian DPI confirmed to the Herald Sun that 40 per cent of the meters were not working properly, because of “an absence of fully working communications infrastructure”.

Smart meters have been observed to interfere with the operation of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cordless phones, security lights, alarm systems and baby monitors, while interference is sometimes heard on FM radio.

Working appliances are more likely to fail soon after a smart meter is installed than at other times. Installers insist this is always caused by an existing fault. Where the wiring of the house is old, some homeowners are spending thousands of dollars on a major rewiring job.

In Australia and the US, there have been a number of fires and explosions linked to the new meters, and in rare cases explosions have injured the installers. An Alabama whistle-blowing engineer who alleged a fire risk from his company’s meters was sacked for refusing to shut up.

Curiously, although smart meters save power companies substantial amounts of money and their ownership remains with the power companies, the consumer pays for installation and running costs.

In Victoria, installation typically costs $170, and recurrent annual costs (for the smart meter) are between $100 and $220.

You can’t help sympathising with consumers who immediately following installation of a smart meter have found their electricity bills have risen, in some cases shooting up two- to three-fold. This has led to accusations of price gouging.

Having deregulated its electricity sector, Victoria in the only state without government oversight over electricity price increases. The UK’s largest consumer group, Which?, has called for an end to Britain’s roll-out over concerns that the meters offer no protection against escalating bills.

There are subtle ways in which smart meter technology gives the power supplier the upper hand over the householder. It becomes easier to disconnect power where bills remain unpaid and in a future era of fuel shortages, it would be possible for consumers to have their electricity rationed.

Raising privacy concerns, these meters have the capacity to establish a detailed profile of householders’ living habits. The European Data Protection Supervisor has echoed these privacy concerns. There is a risk that data could be hacked, and the British intelligence agency GCHQ recently warned that hackers working for foreign powers could use smart meters to cut off electricity to key targets.

Although Victoria’s Bailieu Government criticised the meters while in opposition, it changed its position once in government. With costs blowing out from $0.8 billion to $2.3 billion and still rising, no other Australian state is rushing to implement a smart meter program.

A GROWING REBELLION

In North America, resolutions against smart meters have been passed by 15 cities in Michigan, 45 cities in British Columbia, and by 56 local government authorities in California, where the laws mean that installation would be a criminal offence. However, a recently announced opt-out program in the US requires consumers to pay an upfront cost of US $75 (AUD $74) a month, with a monthly charge of US $10 (AUD $10).

In Victoria, authorities feel everyone should get a smart meter whether they want one or not. And in an act of mass disobedience, a large number of householders are refusing to have a meter installed, often sticking notices to the front gate and the meter box and putting a heavy-duty lock on the meter box, cutting out a window for meter readers.

According to Stop Smart Meters Australia, some installers meeting resistance from householders are making a variety of threats, including disconnections, and threatening to break into meter boxes.

DON’T FIX IT

Polls in the media suggest that most Victorians would prefer to stick with their analogues.

While there is no counterargument against energy efficiency, the risks for smart meters seem to outweigh the benefits on many fronts.