BATH — An April 2 notice from Central Maine Power to Bath customers who had not yet indicated whether they preferred a so-called “Smart Meter” or — for a fee — an “electro-mechanical” meter prompted Bath city councilors to accuse CMP of “serious and fundamental misrepresentations” of a city ordinance on the meters.

An April 23 letter, signed by all nine city councilors, requests that CMP rescind the notice it sent customers earlier this month and send a corrected version stating that the April 2 letter was based on “unilateral actions” of the company and not a Bath city ordinance regarding a moratorium on installation of smart meters.

But CMP spokesman John Carroll said Tuesday that the company has no plans to do so. He argued that CMP made five attempts to contact customers about the smart meter installations.

“We really feel like we have done everything we could do or should do to contact the people of Bath,” Carroll said.

In June 2011, the Bath City Council voted 5-3 to enact a 180-day moratorium on installation of smart meters in the city, blocking CMP from installing the meters without advance permission from individual property owners.

In December, the council renewed that ordinance, restricting CMP’s ability to install the meters in the city until June.

Opponents of the wireless meters allege that the devices interfere with wireless Internet and medical devices, and that the radio signals can cause health problems.

CMP officials and their supporters assert that the meters are efficient and accurate — and no more dangerous than many other day-to-day items not similarly limited in Bath, such as baby monitors.

The April 2 notice from CMP — a “final attempt to reach you regarding your meter selection” — states that “An ordinance passed by the Bath City Council requires that you let us know that we can install the standard meter. According to this ordinance, if you do not indicate that you want a smart meter, you have chosen to keep an electro-mechanical meter.”

The notice continues, in part, “Per the ordinance in Bath, if you do not respond to this letter by April 12, 2012, we will not install a smart meter. You will be charged the approved rate for the nonstandard electro-mechanical meter.”

That monthly rate is $12, plus a one-time fee of $40, to begin with the bill following this last notice — although Carroll said some customers in Bath received a final notice with a later deadline of April 27.

David Sinclair, chairman of the Bath City Council, said Tuesday, “The letter they sent out was a clear mischaracterization of what the ordinance says. It’s misleading to the point of possibly coercing their customers into adopting a service their customers had no intention of adopting. Our intention is to say, 1, you don’t speak for the city of Bath; 2, you mischaracterized the ordinance; and 3, you misled our constituents in a way that may lead to their economic or health detriment.”

Sinclair said Tuesday that after nearly every councilor was approached by at least one constituent who received the letter from CMP, “It was clear that enough people had contacted enough councilors that we needed (to address the issue),” he said.

City attorney Roger Therriault said the council discussed the matter in executive session.

On April 17, the council held a special meeting for the sole purpose of meeting in executive session to discuss legal action. No discussion of the letter took place in regular session, and no formal public action on the letter was taken by the council.

The council’s letter, dated April 23, said that councilors determined the CMP letter “mischaracterizes and misrepresents the purpose and scope of the Bath ordinance, ascribes duties to CMP customers that are not imposed by the ordinance, and leads to the unfounded conclusion that the ordinance forms a basis to impose fees and charges.”

Councilors wrote that “the conditions for the moratorium still exist,” and refer to its request for the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) to address questions raised in the ordinance.

It also refers to an appeal of an MPUC decision currently pending in the Maine Supreme Judicial Court regarding the case, and notes, “therefore, there has been no finality in the PUC’s involvement in the smart meters issue.”

Carroll said Tuesday that CMP “has really done our best to comply with the Bath ordinance.”

He said the company sent a 30-day notice in December, as required by the MPUC, notifying customers that they must decide about the meters. Two phone calls followed, with a second letter on Jan. 11 and another earlier this month.

“We have already made five efforts to contact them,” Carroll said. “This is all on a project that has been very much a public project since September 2010. We really feel like we have done everything we could do or should do to contact the people of Bath.”

Asked about the charge that the CMP notice “mischaracterized” the ordinance, Carroll said the ordinance itself “created confusion” for CMP and its customers, but that CMP’s actions “have been consistent with the terms and conditions of our service, specifically if a customer doesn’t respond to a request for access or permission to install a meter, they are deemed to opt out.”

Carroll said the council’s letter suggests that the MPUC has “unresolved issues” regarding smart meters and refers to an appeal of litigation before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, but noted, “The PUC, to the extent that it was ever going to address those issues, addressed them in May 2011. The fact that Bath continues to await an answer may be a question for them to address with the PUC. We’ve been operating under a very clear set of regulatory requirements since May 2011. The fact that the city of Bath seems not to accept or agree with the commission doesn’t alter our obligations to the commission or to our customers.”

Asked what action the council might take should CMP decline to rescind the letter, Sinclair said, “We haven’t decided what, if any, next step might be because we’re hoping they’ll do the responsible thing with regard to their customers’ expectations of accurate information.”

bbrogan@timesrecord.com

• Asked about the charge that the CMP notice “mischaracterized” the ordinance, a CMP spokesman said the ordinance itself “created confusion” for CMP and its customers, but that CMP’s actions “have been consistent with the terms and conditions of our service, specifically if a customer doesn’t respond to a request for access or permission to install a meter, they are deemed to opt out.”