December 2011

By the end of 2011, all homes and small businesses across Ontario will be billed for electricity using Time-of-Use rates. Through this program, consumers are billed more for the electricity they use during periods of greatest power demand (called "on-peak") and substantially less for the electricity they use during those times of day when demand is at its lowest (called "off-peak").

Such incremental monitoring and billing of electricity use in the individual home or business is possible with the use of a "smart meter." There are various types of smart meters, but the type which is being used by power utilities across Ontario uses wireless technology. Every 15 minutes, the meter transmits its latest reading with a burst of wireless data to a network of collectors which relay the information back to computer systems in the utility's office. When consumers receive their bill, they see a breakdown of how much electricity they have consumed during the on-peak, mid-peak and off-peak periods and how much they have been charged accordingly.

Ontario's rollout of this so-called "smart grid" technology is the most widespread thus far in North America. It is an initiative of the McGuinty Liberal government designed to alleviate the demand on the provincial power grid by reducing consumption, encouraging conservation and empowering consumers to take control of their usage and costs.

Nonetheless, the initiative has provoked intense criticism from Opposition parties and special interest groups who assert that it only serves to increase utility costs for consumers. Some have even claimed that the wireless signals generated by a smart meter pose a health hazard and increase cancer risk.

In this article, we will address two key questions:

• Does a utility have the authority to cut service to a customer who refuses to allow the installation of a smart meter?
• What does the quantitative evidence from the mainstream medical community say about the health risks of smart meters?

An obligation to serve?

The debate for and against smart meters and Time-of-Use billing has unfolded in local media over the past year. A common question is whether or not a consumer has the right to refuse the installation of a smart meter on their premises without fear of having their service terminated by their local utility.

Ontario's Electricity Act, which governs the policies and practices of public utilities across the province, does state that utilities have an obligation to serve:

"A distributor shall sell electricity to every person connected to the distributor's distribution system, except a person who advises the distributor in writing that the person does not wish to purchase electricity from the distributor."

And:

"(If) a person has advised a distributor that the person does not wish to purchase electricity from the distributor, the person may at any time thereafter request the distributor in writing to sell electricity to the person and the distributor shall comply with the request in accordance with its licence."

This suggests that consumers have the upper hand, unless, of course, they are in arrears and the utility has fair grounds to terminate service for non-payment. However, a utility can also terminate or refuse a connection on other grounds. For example, under its terms of service, Hydro Ottawa "reserves the right to disconnect or refuse to connect a customer or consumer at any time" in 14 different circumstances, including:

"Hazardous conditions or an adverse effect on the reliability or safety of Hydro Ottawa's distribution system as determined by Hydro Ottawa and/or in accordance with section 31.1 of the Electricity Act, or as amended from time-to-time."

And:

"Failure of the customer to comply with Hydro Ottawa's Conditions of Service or license obligations."

Hydro Ottawa also has the "sole right" to "set standards, specifications and designs for its distribution system."

These various provisions are open to interpretation. A utility could, in theory, terminate, or threaten to terminate, service to a customer who refuses to allow a smart meter installation on the grounds that it has an "adverse effect" on the effectiveness of the overall conservation effort by both the local utility and the province's Hydro One.

On the other hand, Hydro Ottawa's "non-exclusive" right to enter a property to install equipment and cabling on the customer's or consumer's premises to obtain meter readings, perform meter changes or inspections must be "specifically permitted by the customer, consumer, or property owner."

Do consumers, customers or property owners have the right to refuse the installation of a smart meter without fear of having their service cut? It's difficult to say with certainty until a dispute arises between a utility and a consumer which leads to a court proceeding that results in a legal precedent.

Reasonable risk, or groundless fear mongering?

I do not claim to be a scientist, but as a communications regulatory lawyer, I have worked in the area of equipment certification for a number of years in relation to radiocommunication equipment. My work sometimes involves ensuring that various products which transmit some kind of signal meet government standards for health and safety, and operate within their designated frequency band or bands to avoid interference with other devices.

A key area of related research that is under constant review by Health Canada is Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR. This is a measure of the rate at which energy is absorbed by the body when exposed to a radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic field, or other forms of energy, such as that produced by an ultrasound.

Any device that transmits such an RF signal – such as a cell phone, wireless modem, or smart meter – must meet Health Canada standards, which are included in the myriad of RF standards issued by Industry Canada. There are also distinctions made between where a device will be located and how it will be used, such as a satellite receiver installed on a roof, as opposed to a cell phone which is normally held to the ear.

Wireless devices that operate at low power and over a short range, such as smart meters and the wireless modems many of us use in our homes and offices to create a local area network, operate in licence-exempt frequency bands such as 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, or 5 GHz. The signal strength of these devices, especially a smart meter which operates for only a few seconds at specific intervals, is miniscule to what is normally produced by a cell phone.

All of these devices produce non-ionizing, rather than ionizing, radiation. Why is this significant? It is the latter type that has been proven to increase cancer risk. Non-ionizing radiation does not; while it can warm human cells, it does not affect the cells' DNA. Ionizing radiation, on the other hand, such as that produced by X-rays or CT scanners, can affect DNA.

A joint report by the Edison Electric Institute, the Association of Edison Illuminating Companies and the Utilities Telecom Council in the U.S., published earlier this year, reviewed a host of independent medical studies. It concluded that the amount of signal exposure from a smart meter is less than other wireless devices typically used in the home, and far below the safety threshold set by government regulators such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. The report also found that signal exposure is substantially reduced by the shielding materials used in the device and because it only transmits a signal intermittently.

"An RF exposure comparison of a person talking on a cell phone and a person three to 10 feet from a continuously operating smart meter would result in smart meter radio frequency exposure 125 to 1,250 times less than the cell phone," the report concluded.

Moreover to date, there has been no scientific evidence — as opposed to pseudo-science and plain bunkum — linking cell phone use, or the presence of a smart meter, to various cancers. As is sometimes the case with the mass deployment of a new technology, alarmist fears often garner too much attention at the expense of hard science.

Stephen Acker practises primarily in the areas of communications and public law. His communications practice focuses on spectrum policy and radiocommunication issues. He has represented a wide range of terrestrial and satellite providers in respect of radio licensing, spectrum auctions, international and domestic spectrum allocation, Canadian ownership rules, equipment certification and related matters.