In his letter “PUD isn’t listening” (Leader, Nov. 6) Jim Buss commented on the recent Meter Opt-Out Policy meeting. Like others who have been asking for electric meters that don’t emit radiation, he challenged the “gift of public funds” argument being used to justify charging extra fees to PUD customers who want non-transmitting meters.
Even if the gift of public funds argument was valid, Washington law provides exceptions for “the poor or infirm.”
Our PUD commissioners have suggested waiving opt-out fees for low-income customers (poor), but not for those whose health is impaired (infirm). And health impacts are the reason many have been asking for this analog meter option.
When I raised the fact that other PUDs have mixed meter systems without charging extra fees for non-transmitting meters, and said it was wrong in principle to penalize customers who want to protect their health, Commissioner Jeff Randall posed this question to the PUD’s attorney:
“How about the lawsuit potential of the folks who feel like we are exposing them to a potential health risk?... If we chose to just say an analog meter is one of the choices that we’re offering… and one of the issues we’re concerned about is making sure that customers have a choice because one of their concerns is a health risk… it’s not even an opt out, it’s a policy that we have these meter options at our utility… it’s just one of our meter choices.”
The attorney acknowledged “that may be on more sound ground… what you’re saying essentially is that the basis for the program is because of health.”
(www.jeffpud.org/meeting-archive Oct. 16)
The question comes down to how our PUD frames this policy—opt-out, or meter choice. Rather than follow the industry model which discourages non-radiating meters through opt-out fees, we encourage our BOC to pursue Commissioner Randall’s line of inquiry for non-discriminatory meter choice.

Ana Wolpin
Port Townsend