I don't understand this sentiment. Utilities already can and do sacrificially shut off parts of the grid to prevent greater outages, this isn't giving them a capability they don't already have except for increased granularity and hopefully inconveniencing fewer people.
More granular targeting is potentially concerning in itself depending on your threat model - e.g. if it's only possible to attack an entire town, then you're safe as long as any actor is not willing to attack the entire town, and likely to have allies in your neighbors if they do. If it's possible to attack all of the people who I don't like in that town specifically, that changes things.
Also, the smart meters do more than just enable remote shut-off on a per unit basis, they also allow for more granular data capture around your usage patterns throughout the day, which someone might not appreciate for a number of reasons, e.g. viewing that data as private, or preferring flat-rate billing as opposed to the time of day based pricing schemes that it enables.
More generally, these sorts of systems are not without their advantages, but they are characterized by an increase in centralized control and surveillance.
The claim wasn’t that there was an increase in control beyond that which you acknowledge (improved granularity) - it was about how that new power will be used.
It could be used to avoid unnecessarily inconveniencing customers, as you suggest, or it could be used to improve the strength of utility companies’ positions in disputes. Perhaps both?
