A Los Angeles CA teacher, dressed in a bright yellow T shirt and carrying a bullhorn, disrupted a FCC Senate hearing to tell Chairman Wheeler and others that wireless radiation is harmful. CSPAN made a special video excerpt of the protest.
Author: Admin
Structure Report: Smart meter conflict of interest and cover up
Emails between utility giant PG&E and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) expose conflict of interest and cover up of skyrocketing smart meter bills. The consultant the CPUC hired in 2010 to investigate the complaints, Structure, had worked for PG&E for the previous five years, and was not “independent” (as claimed in CPUC and PG&E’s misrepresentations). CPUC President Peevey knew the results of Structure’s investigation long before it was complete, and shared that information with PG&E. CPUC’s Peevey was aware smart meters were overcharging through personal experience.
The coordinated propaganda campaign between the CPUC, PG&E and marketing firms that resulted in the smart meter deployment couldn’t tolerate news such as the fact that 500,000 smart meters were at risk for overcharging in hot weather. Peevey’s own bill doubled when a smart meter was installed on his vacation home, causing him to joke about making The Sea Ranch a smart meter free zone.
The CPUC and PG&E used the Structure report to cover up smart meter problems, and to defend the deployment at the customers’ expense. These emails suggest that returning to the tried and true analog meters is a viable remedy to avoid future skyrocketing utility costs, and that observant meter readers are a cost-effective way to ensure public and environmental safety.
PG&E threatens to disconnect 84 yr. old woman’s power for refusing smart meter extortion fees
Santa Cruz CA- Utility giant PG&E is threatening to turn off the power to Lois Robin, an 84 year old woman from Santa Cruz because she’s refusing to pay “opt-out” fees for keeping an analog meter.
PG&E sent Lois a 15 day shut off notice in February, stating she owed $115. On Friday she received a message they will cut off her power today if she doesn’t pay.
Lois writes, “I have always paid all my bills, except the opt-out fees. I insisted on keeping my old meter. They did not give me a new one. I have been on record all along as refusing a smart meter. I am 84 years old, with rapidly deteriorating vision. I would not want them to disconnect me as I get along poorly without light. Yet, I would rather they turned me off than pay their extractive fees.”
PG&E claims they have legal authority granted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to collect the fees. Emails between PG&E and the CPUC recently made public expose collusion, cover-up, multiple exparte violations and the broken regulatory process by which smart meter opt-out fees were concocted. Smart meter opt-out fees were fabricated between the CPUC and PG&E long before the evidentiary hearings on costs began.
For example, PG&E’s Brian Cherry, Vice President of Regulatory Relations, emails Marzia Zafar, a CPUC Program and Project Supervisor, that PG&E wants to eliminate the initial smart meter opt out fee of $75. He writes, “They never received a SmartMeter and therefore, we can’t really charge them an upfront removal fee since we haven’t removed anything yet.” Cherry goes on to explain that PG&E also did not feel people who were forced to have a smart meter should pay either, because of the delay list was created after the deployment. Emails show Zafar was the informant to the Commissioners. CPUC President Peevey had an intimate role in deciding the fees. The CPUC ignored PG&E’s request to eliminate the initial fee. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Eliminate-initial-smart-meter-fee.pdf
In 2011, The County of Santa Cruz passed an ordinance banning smart meters, but PG&E deployed smart meters anyway. Lois Robin is one of many, who refuse to be coerced into paying the fees. Lois says, “This has been very stressful. PG&E doesn’t listen to you. Talking to PG&E is like talking to automatons.”
CPUC President Peevey “There really are people who feel pain related to EMF”
In April 2010 the EMF Safety Network filed a CPUC application on smart meters. We asked for a moratorium, an independent technical review, evidentiary hearings on health and safety, and the right to opt out.
In December 2010 CPUC President Michael Peevey approved PG&E’s motion to dismiss our application. He stated “I believe that relying on the FCC in this case is reasonable, prudent and fully consistent with our responsibilities to provide safe and reliable electric service to ratepayers.” He concluded his statements by stating, “You should take these concerns to the FCC, it’s the proper body.”
Nearly five years later 65,000 emails between PG&E and the CPUC have been publicly released. Emails reveal the collusion between CPUC and PG&E. They discussed the smart meter problems privately, violating their own rules of procedure.
In September 2010 Peevey emailed PG&E’s Brian Cherry on smart meters. He did not say he thought we should take the issue to the FCC.
Peevey believed people were suffering from smart meters. He believed PG&E should do something about it. However, instead of regulating the utility to ensure public safety, he deferred his lawful responsibility to PG&E.
Michael Peevey wrote, “One thought for the company: If it were my decision I would let anyone who wants to keep their old meter keep it, if they claim they suffer from EMF and/or related electronic-related illnesses and they can produce a doctor’s letter saying so (or expressing concern about the likelihood of suffering same). I would institute such a policy quietly and solely on an individual basis. There really are people who feel pain, etc., related to EMF,etc., and rather than have them becoming hysterical, etc., I would quietly leave them alone. Kick it around. And, it sounds like the company may already have taken this step, based on a couple of the comments at yesterday’s public hearing.
He writes, “If it were my decision”. As the Commissioner assigned to the proceeding- it was HIS decision. Yet, Peevey defers his lawful duty to PG&E. And he delayed on this case for years.
Peevey wanted PG&E to keep it quiet– didn’t want other customers, or the rest of the world to know there’s a problem with smart meters causing customers pain, etc.
President Michael Peevey email to PG&E
UCSD doctor launches new survey for EMF injured
This survey is now closed
View Dr. Golomb’s Curriculum Vitae: http://cnl.salk.edu/~bgolomb/
Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe- EMR, Health and Children
Making technology safer in schools- Petition to sign
“WHERE DO OUR CHILDREN SPEND MOST OF THEIR WAKING MOMENTS? AT SCHOOL, THEREFORE SCHOOL RADIATION SHOULD BE AT THE TOP OF OUR CONCERNS AND ENSURING THE REMOVAL OF WIFI EXPOSURE SHOULD BE OUR TOP PRIORITY FOR IMPROVING CALIFORNIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
HARD WIRED INTERNET CONNECTIONS OFFER A SAFE OPTION FOR ALL STUDENTS AND STAFF.”
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-microwave-radiation-1?source=s.icn.em.mt&r_by=549012
My comments on the above petition:
Wireless computers and routers at school transmit microwave and radar frequencies (EMR). Studies show EMR disrupts cellular communication, damages immune and nervous systems, desynchonises brain and heart rhythms, and causes headaches, sleep problems, tinnitus, anxiety and other health effects. The WHO IARC classifies EMR as a 2B carcinogen, in the same category as DDT and lead.
Children are more vulnerable to EMR because their skulls are thinner and bodies are still growing. Health authorities are calling for reduced screen time, for elementary and junior high ages: less than one hour a day. For high school age, less than two hours a day.
Using technology responsibly would require schools to:
1) Remove wireless routers, and wireless phone systems from schools.
2) Use only hardwired computers with wireless turned off, and wired phones.
3) Screen time should be limited to one hour a day.
4) Homework on the computer must be optional.
5) Failing the above steps, schools should, at the very least: a) notify parents they are using EMR, b) measure exposure levels in the school and make the info public; and c) provide a map as to the locations of all routers and wireless infrastructure; and d) Teachers notify parents of children’s screen time.
Sandi Maurer, EMF Safety Network