Dear Attorney General Rosenblum,

Oregon citizens were not adequately informed about the State’s plans and deliberations related to the Smart Meter rollout in Oregon in a manner that would allow the public to actually be a part of the decision-making process. 

The Oregon Revised Statutes are clear:

192.620 Policy. The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made. It is the intent of ORS 192.610 to 192.690 that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly. [1973 c.172 §1]

We, like other interested members of the public, attended information meetings in 2018 held in preparation for, and during the actual smart meter rollout. Multiple times we found that the majority of people attending were never informed during the deliberation stages leading to the rollout, leaving them unable to provide comments or have any effect on policies that would soon have a significant impact on them.  They were consistently coming to information meetings held only weeks prior to the installations in their area, and learning at that time that smart meter installations were imminent. Many were also learning for the first time that if they refused the meters (opted out) there would be a sizeable financial penalty amounting to an $137 up front future replacement fee, as well as a $36/month meter reading fee. If the customer’s analog meter was already removed, then a $169 fee would be imposed for replacement of the smart meter with a digital non-standard meter, as well as a $36/month meter reading fee. These fees were enough to discourage most from even considering alternatives such as keeping their analog meter by opting out. In addition, the decision space was rushed, as if the utility companies purposefully decided to provide too little information, too late to allow for informed decision-making. This appears to amount to extortion. Pacific Power even admits in it’s own docket reports that it’s customers will not be notified prior to installation of smart meters: “To help support a smoother transition for the Company and its customers during smart meter installation and recognizing customers with smart meter installations during the normal course of business will not receive notice prior to the installation; the Company proposes that installation charges apply only after January 1, 2018, and after a smart meter has been installed.” (Advice No. 17-001 – Rule 8 – Metering and Schedule 300 – Charges as Defined by Rules and Regulations, 01/04/17)

Every Oregon energy customer should have been made aware of plans being made by Pacific Power and the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (OPUC), in widely publicized ways, and in time to have their concerns addressed before the rollout. The smart meter rollout is something that affects everyone and everyone should have had ample opportunity to become informed and be heard regarding it! Why weren’t there any widely advertised meetings around the State in which power company officials and utility commissioners listened to individual members of the public? We were unable to find evidence that non-stakeholder public persons provided feedback, except very rarely. IT APPEARS THAT THERE WAS NO PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS THAT ACTUALLY INVOLVED THE PUBLIC!

In other states, New Mexico for example, the utility commissions provided for abundant and true public input state-wide, and based on that input, determined that a smart meter program was not in the public interest. Many in Oregon feel the same way. 

This letter provides evidence that the OPUC disregarded Oregon Law requiring an informed public by instituting a false "public input process" that relied almost entirely on stakeholders – mostly government agencies, and single purpose or agenda-driven organizations, that by design prevented genuine public input.

This raises questions about why the Oregon public was not informed…questions we are asking of you Attorney General Rosenblum! Why did the installation of smart meters in Oregon happen so quickly? Was the haste incentivized by a desire to complete the smart meter rollout with minimum public resistance? How much of the money that paid for Pacificorp’s Smart Grid program came from Federal grants like the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants made available through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? Many billions of dollars were distributed, including here in Oregon. It is unlikely that Pacificorp would have even invested in the smart grid without this taxpayer provided funding! What were the conditions and requirements for performance with these funding sources? Trust in the OPUC and Pacific Power can easily be eroded when there appears to be a lack of transparency regarding the utility companies’ financial motivations! With the monopoly that Pacific Power holds, the public relies on the OPUC to have the integrity to keep them in check. 

The OPUC uses Service Lists to engage stakeholders in the process, by inviting them to respond with feedback at meetings or in writing. These Service Lists are perennially evolving over time. The process to become a stakeholder involves petitioning the OPUC for a hearing at an OPUC public meeting for a yes or no vote by Commissioners. It’s the same to be removed. Attachment 1 is a service list that was used for OPUC Docket # UM 1460, addressed in an October, 2011 request for feedback by OPUC staff. The content of this agenda item still continues to control a lot of actions and outcomes regarding the smart meter rollout. The organizations and representatives on this list became, starting around 2009, the usual suspects for stakeholder involvement on many activities by the OPUC. A lot of them still are. It is provided in Attachment 1 below.

The OPUC is also responsible for ensuring that planning processes engaged in by the utility providers such as Pacific Power, Portland General Electric, and Idaho Power Company, among others, meet the letter of Oregon Law regarding an informed public. As an example, Pacificorp, Pacific Power’s parent corporation provides an annual public meeting to present their yearly Integrated Resource Plan, which dictates activities and actions for the coming year. They receive “public feedback” using stakeholder involvement. These IRP’s cover the activities of Pacificorp over their entire six state operating area, but provide for input from Oregon stakeholders. A meeting report for such an event can be found at: http://www.freedom2sayno2smartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Example-of-a-PP-public-meeting-from-2012.pdf 

Attachment 2 provides the specific list of attendees from the document provided in the link above. It shows that only stakeholders, not the public at large, were in attendance. 

As another example, all of the utility providers in Oregon are required to provide annual Smart Grid Reports on recent and projected actions for a given year. A public input process needs to be a part of the generation of the reports and all of these providers use a stakeholder involved public input process. There is abundant evidence in the public records of Pacific Power and the OPUC showing that the OPUC approves the stakeholder model of input. Attachment 3 contains excerpts from two OPUC meetings showing how Commission approvals commonly happen. The first excerpt details a common example of a rubber stamp approach to meeting requirements for public process on the part of the OPUC, and there is still zero public involvement! The full document can be found at: http://www.freedom2sayno2smartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SPM-Minutes-UM-1657-PGE-Smart-Grid-Update-09232014.pdf The second excerpt shows an OPUC commissioner explicitly indicating that input from stakeholders is sufficient to meet requirements! The full document is accessible at: https://edocs.puc.state.or.us/efdocs/HAU/um1667hau85148.pdf (page 8).

Is the OPUC then complicit with Pacific Power in creating the appearance of a public input process that only seems to meet the letter of the law in order to reduce resistance to the rollout?

We assert that citizens are the ultimate stakeholders, but citizens not associated with and/or beholden to government agencies, single purpose groups, or agenda-driven organizations were not informed of or present at these so-called public meetings!

We are demanding, Attorney General Rosenblum, that you honor the mission of your office and investigate: 1) whether or not the OPUC did due diligence to ensure that actual public persons without a personal or financial stake in decisions could provide feedback; 2) whether or not taking “public input” from only stakeholders leads to an informed public whose feedback can actually affect policy decisions, as the law requires; and 3) whether or not the process that was used is even legal. Our assertion is that it was not!

We are further demanding, that if the public input process that occurred is, in fact, not sufficient per Oregon law, that: 1) decisions made based on the failed public input process be revoked; 2) that the OPUC and Pacificorp re-engage a public input process regarding smart meters in Oregon that actually includes the Oregon public; 3) that the OPUC be required in the future to institute public input processes that include the Oregon public for any activities in the State that involve public exposure to microwave radiation, including radiofrequency radiation from smart meters, cell phones and their infrastructure; 4) that all possibilities for remedy be considered seriously, including removal of smart meters state-wide, re-installation of analog meters at the demand of the customer, and 5) that rules be in place to ensure that public input actually influences decision making regarding the future placement of transmission infrastructure.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this very important matter, and we look forward to your response to these questions!

Tim Westfeldt

Dale Benjamin

Attachment 1 – OPUC Service List for UM 1460

Citizen's Utility Board of Oregon:

Gordon Feighner 

Robert Jenks

G. Catriona McCracken 

Community Action Partnership of Oregon:

Jess Kincaid

Energy Trust of Oregon:

John M Volkman

Grid Net:

John Cooper

Idaho Power Company:

Christa Bearry

Jan Bryant

Lisa D. Nordstrom

Michael Youngblood

McDowell, Rackner & Gibson PC:

Adam Lowney 

Wendy McIndoo

Lisa F. Rackner 

NW Energy Coalition:

Wendy Gerlitz 

Oregon Department of Energy:

Deanna Henry

Vijay A Satyal

Oregon Department of Justice:

Janet Prewitt

Pacific Power and Light:

Michelle R. Mishoe

Pacificorp:

Doug Marx

Portland General Electric:

J Richard George

Doug Kuns

Public Utility Commission of Oregon:

Maury Galbraith

PUC Staff – Department of Justice:

Michael T Weirich

Smart Grid Oregon /Ecotality Counsel:

Barry T Woods

Smart Grid Oregon:

Robert Frisbee

Roy Hemmingway

Phil Keisling

Attachment 2 – Example of a Attendance List for an Annual IRP Meeting

Alpern Myers Stuart LLC (Interwest Energy Alliance) 

Hickey, Lisa 

Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon


Jenks, Bob 

CRD Management Inc. (Encana)


Belland, Roger 

Washington Customer (WA Customer) 

Klingele, John 

Energy Strategies, LLC


Hendrickson, Don 

enXco


Sandvig, Nate 

Hatch, James & Dodge (For UAE)


Dodge, Gary 

Idaho Public Service Commission (ID-PSC)


Sterling, Rick 

Magnum Energy


Webster, Rob 

Monsanto Company


Geddes, Bob

Northwest Pipeline GP (NWPGP)


Hagins, Teresa 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) 

Schilmoeller, Michael 

Northwest Energy Coalition (NWEC) 

Gerlitz, Wendy 

Heutte, Fred 

Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) 

Colville, Erik

PacifiCorp 

Andrews, Ian


Bird, Stefan 

Bishop, Jeff 

Bolton, Scott 

Bumgarner, Jeff 

Edmonds, Sarah 

Gerrard, Darrell 

Hegewald, Andrew 

Heng, Irene 

Hogle, Yvonne 

Hunter, Carol 

Jones Jr., Don 

Kusters, Stacey 

Liljenwall, Michael 

Link, Rick 

Pacificorp continued

Moghadam, BJ 

Osborn, Brian 

Scott, Cory 

Tallman, Mark 

Taylor, Dave 

Warnken, Pete 

Weston, Ted 

Wienke, Mary 

Portland General Electric (PGE) 

Bettis, Ty 

Powder River Basin Resource Council (PRBRC)

 Anderson, Shannon 

Renewable Northwest Project (RNP) 

Decker, Megan 

Lindsay, Jimmy 

Salt Lake Community Action Program 

Wolf, Betsy 

Utah Clean Energy (UCE)

Hayes, Sophie 

Wright, Sarah 

Utah Division of Public Utilities (DPU) 

Liu, Sam


Peterson, Charles 

Powell, William "Artie" 

Zenger, Joni 

Wheelwright, Doug 

Utah Office Of Consumer Services (OCS) 

Beck, Michele 

Gimble, Dan 

Vastag, Bela 

Utah Public Service Commission (UT-PSC) 

Dalton, Jamie 

Harvey, John 

Holland, Joseph 

Revelt, Carol 

Wilson, Rebecca 

Western Resource Advocates (WRA)

Dubuc, Rob 

Kelly, Nancy 

Michel, Steven 

Wyoming Public Service Commission - Staff 

Norby, Marci 

Walker, Dave 

Attachment 3 – Excerpts from Two Annual Smart Grid Report Meetings

Excerpt 1

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON MINUTES OF SPECIAL 

PUBLIC MEETING DATE: September 23, 2014 


SUBJECT: PORTLAND GAS AND ELECTRIC: (Docket No. UM 1657) Smart Grid Update 2014

“Motion was made by Commissioner Bloom to adopt Staff’s Recommendations with Commissioner Savage’s additions: 

Staff recommends the Commission acknowledge PGE’s 2014 Smart Grid Report as having met the requirements of Order No. 12-158 in Docket UM 1460.” (from page 1)

Excerpt 2

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON STAFF REPORT


PUBLIC MEETING DATE: October 15, 2013 

ITEM NO. 1 

SUBJECT: PACIFICORP: (Docket No. UM 1667) Annual Smart Grid Report 2013. 

 “Stakeholder Involvement – Order No. 12-158 (B)(1)(b) requires that utilities provide the public with opportunities to contribute information and ideas on smart-grid
investments and applications. PacifiCorp held a workshop and provided opportunity for comments on June 11, 2013. Staff believes this technically was sufficient to meet the requirement, however it does not meet the spirit of the requirement. Staff would like to see more regular stakeholder involvement earlier in the process.” (from page 8)