Category: Government

Sebastopol stand up against PG&E Smart Meters! Come to the City Council meeting on Tuesday 2/19

Sebastopol has asked for a moratorium on Smart Meters twice.  The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is currently evaluating a Smart Meter opt-out program that includes communities.  However, recently PG&E has been installing Smart Meters in Sebastopol.

Do you want to see the City Council take a stronger stand against PG&E and ban Smart Meters Sebastopol, like they’ve been banned by a dozen other California communities including Fairfax, Santa Cruz, and Ojai?

Come to the Sebastopol city council meeting on Tuesday February 19 at the Teen center. *Arrive around 8 pm.  The Sebastopol City Council needs to see new faces and hear from more people on this issue!

The council has been asked to take the following three actions which are recommended by Fairfax councilman Larry Bragman.  Fairfax has had more success in keeping PG&E Smart Meters out of Fairfax.

  1. Have the city attorney send a strong message to CPUC President Michael Peevey, ALJ Amy Yip-Kikugawa, and PG&E regarding stopping Smart Meter installation is Sebastopol.
  2. Adopt an emergency ordinance, banning Smart Meters.
  3. Adopt a community opt-out resolution.

Smart Meter wavesSmart Meters are costing us money, privacy and our health and safety!

Smart Meter complaints include: skyrocketing utility bills, privacy invasion, vulnerable to cyber attack, interference with security systems and other wireless devices, burned out appliances, explosions, fires, health problems including headaches, tinnitus, sleep and heart problems, anxiety, nausea, and other health symptoms following installation.

Smart Meters monitor the details of your electric usage and transmit that data from meter to meter in a mesh network, using wireless radiation, classified as a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization (same as DDT and lead).  Smart Meters don’t save energy and they are not good for the environment!

 SEBASTOPOL PROTECT YOUR ANALOG METERS!

 You have a choice. If you still have analog meters, you can attach this Smart Meter Do Not Consent Sign to your meters.  You can also sign up with PG&E to opt-out, however at this time they’re charging extortion fees. The “costs” are under evaluation at the CPUC, and many are calling for a no fees.  If you have Smart Meters you can call PG&E 1-866-743-0263 to have them removed.

You can also let others know about Smart Meter problems, by circulating this flyer in Sebastopol:  FRONT: SmartMeters flyer  BACK:  Smart Meter Do Not Consent Sign

Smart Meter installers tend to leave when questioned. They drive white Ford Ranger trucks with a green “Wellington Energy” logo on the driver’s door.  It also could be a PG&E truck. Call if you see installers in Sebastopol:  824-0824

* The City council meeting starts at 6pm, so 8pm is an estimated time, based on it’s agenda item #8. It could be later, not likely earlier.

CPUC Smart Meter Judge Gets an Earful in Santa Rosa

The fifth and final California Pubic Utility Commission (CPUC) Smart Meter public participation hearing on the Smart Meter opt out program was held yesterday in Santa Rosa, California.  People came from as far away as Santa Cruz, Mendocino and Sacramento to speak to the CPUC judge, Amy Yip-Kikugawa, who allowed each person 2 minutes to talk.

Stop Smart Meters organized a bus from Santa Cruz which also picked up people from San Francisco, and Marin and Alameda counties.

An estimated 200+ people attended the hearing and 100 speakers signed up to comment on PG&E Smart Meters which many said had caused them serious health problems. Heart palpitations, headaches, tinnitus and sleep problems were common complaints. The hearing lasted fours hours, which was two hours longer than scheduled.

One meter reader from Marin told the judge that PG&E was covering up Smart Meter fires and that he lost his job for not being quiet. He said when a customer had their power remotely turned on, after a a delinquent bill was paid up, the Smart Meters were frying.

An article in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, “PG&E gets earful over SmartMeters at Santa Rosa hearing” reports on the hearing, although the article errs by stating the World Health Organization (WHO) has not found “a provable link” between SmartMeters and health.  In May 2011, the WHO classified radio frequency (RF) radiation (aka wireless) as a 2b carcinogen, same as DDT and lead.  The classification was based on long term cell phone studies, but is applicable to all wireless devices: cell phones, DECT and cordless phones, wi-fi, cell towers, baby monitors, Smart Meters and other wireless devices.

The CPUC held five hearings in all: Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, San Clemente and Santa Rosa. Here’s a media report from Santa Barbara: Edison Customers Express Concern, Frustration Over Installation of Smart Meters. 

Speakers comments will become part of the record in the Smart Meter opt out proceeding. Parties in the proceeding will next file briefs which are due January 11, 2013. A Commission decision is expected sometime next spring, or early summer of 2013.

If you were unable to attend these hearings, you may submit written comments to the to the CPUC’s Public Advisor’s Office at the address noted below. Please refer to the application filing number, A.11-­03-­014 et al, when writing. Please state if you would like a response, otherwise no response will be sent. Your comments will become a part of the formal file for public comment in this proceeding. The Public Advisor’s Office will circulate your comments to the five Commissioners, the ALJ, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), and to CPUC staff assigned to this proceeding.

Nevada PUC set to vote against utility customers

Nevadans arguments for keeping their analog meters have fallen on deaf ears as the three person Nevada Public Utilities Commission is set to vote on Tuesday November 27, to charge utility customers extortion fees to avoid a Smart Meter- only to obtain a radio off Smart Meter.

Radio off Smart Meters still capture intimate details of a customers utility usage and emit radio frequency (RF) radiation onto electrical wiring. Customers want to retain or restore the analog utility meter!  So why is the Nevada PUC ignoring what customers want?

Angel DeFazio, of NV Energy Stop Smart Meters says, “Anyone with any modicum of concern for their health, the health of their children and future children, will be impacted by this regulatory agency. With Commissioners such as these, it’s much more prudent to avoid moving to Nevada than have a future of health problems and higher utility bills.”

Michael Hazard of NV ENergy Stop Smart Meters who criticizes the utility for double dipping also says, “NV PUC needs to hold NVE accountable for the huge profit they are making from their ratepayers. Along with the need to stop rubber stamping requests from NVE. ”

Meanwhile a Nevada customer was left in the dark when her power was shut off for refusing a Smart Meter.  In addition, a recent article recognizes the connection between  installations in Nevada and Smart Meters exploding and catching fire.  According to the article NV Energy Gary Smith admitted to problems with arcing and burnt out appliances, stating, “What happens is sometimes in the panel itself, you can get heating in those clips (where the smart meter’s prongs plug in) if they’re worn out or damaged,” Smith said. “Then we get what we call a ‘hot socket’ and you’ll have arcing and you’ll have a flashover.”

Has the Nevada PUC ever held evidentiary hearing on the safety of Smart Meters? Were the utilities safety claims ever cross examined?  No…just like in California, the utilities safety claims are rubber stamped by the “so called” utility regulators.

CPUC Evidentiary Hearings

Last week evidentiary hearings were held in San Francisco in the Smart Meter Opt Out proceeding. On behalf of the EMF Safety Network I prepared questions for, and cross examined nine witnesses with a focus on who should pay the costs of customers retaining or restoring analog utility meters. We say shareholders should pay, but most other parties said individuals should pay.

PG&E wants to keep the current interim rates of $75/$10 and $10/$5 and socialize the rest. SCE, SDG&E and So Cal Gas want to charge even more. For customers with two utility companies, they could be charged twice.

The seasoned consumer advocates in the proceeding do not support our position. The DRA did not address cost allocation. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) changed it’s public position radically, from boycott the meters, to require 50% shareholder responsibility, and now to  individuals should pay 100% of the costs. Aglet Consumer Alliance is advocating for no cost for medical conditions, but for all others he suggests individuals pay $30 and $3 a month.

We need to prove that its wrong to charge individuals for not having a Smart Meter and why shareholders should pay.  This will be done through filing of briefs which are due January 14.

You can help by filing a complaint about the fees first with your utility, then with the Consumers Affairs Branch.  The Consumer Protection and Safety Division (CPSD) will likely investigate this issue if there are hundreds of complaints. Also please attend a public participation hearing in your area.

PG&E currently estimates over 237,000 utility meters are/or will be unable to complete. May of these customers are refusing to choose between accepting a Smart Meter or paying to keep the analog meter, or they are denying access. PG&E says they plan to place these customers in the opt-out program after several attempts to get them to decide.

The PG&E witness James Meadows said, under oath, that breaking locks or crossing fences to force Smart Meter installation was not a practice they would approve.

To the question of whether or not SCE customers can have an analog meter SCE witness L. Oliva responded , “I think they can.”

I asked Raymond Blatter, a PG&E witness the following question, “Do you consider it reasonable that if a SmartMeter is installed on someone’s home and they’re experiencing headaches or sleep problems or ringing in the ears, that that person should have to pay not to have that device on their home?”

Mr. Blatter answered, “I think that if that customer receives a benefit of not having that meter on their home, that they should pay for that benefit or at least partially pay for it.”

Well, I don’t think that line of reasoning can hold up for long! A conclusion to this proceeding is expected by next Spring.

Public Hearings on Smart Meters December 13- 20, 2012

CPUC Holds Public Hearings on Smart Meters

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will hold a series of five “public participation hearings” from Dec 13-20, 2012 to gather public input on the Smart Meter opt out program. Currently customers who want to retain or restore the analog meters are charged  “interim fees” to not have Smart Meters.

The CPUC judge Amy Yip-Kikugawa will preside over the hearings. This is an opportunity for customers to comment on cost and cost allocation issues: costs include customer impact; fees; billing overcharges; health costs; environmental costs; interference; fires or burnt out appliances following installation; banks of Smart Meters; and the need for community Smart Meter free zones, etc.

In your comments be sure to address cost allocation: Do you think it’s unfair that individuals should have to pay to protect themselves from Smart Meter radiation? Should shareholders, everyone, or individuals pay?

  • Hearings are free and open to the pubic.
  • They are scheduled to be 2 hours long.
  • Encourage politicians to attend. They will be allowed to speak first.
  • The length of time to speak will depend on how many people show up: The more people, the less time, for example 1-2 minutes. If hundreds show up the ALJ may ask for one person to represent and speak on behalf of a group of customers…”I represent #’s of customers.”
  •  There will be a court reporter and the public comments will become a part of the record in the Smart Meter consolidated proceeding (A.11-03-014)

BAKERSFIELD December 13, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. Bakersfield City Hall Council Chambers 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301

SANTA BARBARA December 14, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. County Administration Building Board Hearing Room, 4th Floor 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101

LOS ANGELES December 17, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. Junipero Serra State Office Building Carmel Room – Auditorium, 1st Floor 320 West 4th Street Los Angeles, CA 90013

SAN CLEMENTE December 18, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. San Clemente Community Center –– Ole Hanson Fireside Room 100 N. Calle Seville San Clemente, CA 92672

SANTA ROSA December 20, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Steel Lane Community Center –– Dohn Room 415 Steele Lane Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Italian Supreme Court Rules Cell Phones Can Cause Cancer

“A landmark court case has ruled there is a link between using a mobile phone and brain tumours, paving the way for a flood of legal actions.” UK Telegraph, Oct 19, 2012

Contrary to the denial of many heath agencies in the U.S. and in some other countries, the Italian Supreme Court has recognized a “causal” link between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumor risk in a worker’s compensation case.

According to a UK news source, Innocente Marcolini, 60, an Italian businessman, fell ill after using a handset at work for up to six hours every day for 12 years.  He now will be financially compensated.

Mr Marcolini said: “This is significant for very many people. I wanted this problem to become public because many people still do not know the risks. I was on the phone, usually the mobile, for at least five or six hours every day at work. I wanted it recognised that there was a link between my illness and the use of mobile and cordless phones…Parents need to know their children are at risk of this illness.”

The Italian courts dismissed research co-financed by the mobile phone industry due to concerns about conflict of interest. Instead, the courts relied on independent research conducted by Lennart Hardell and his colleagues in Sweden which showed consistent evidence of increased brain tumor risk associated with long term mobile phone use.

Last year, the Hardell research was heavily relied upon by 31 experts convened by the World Health Organization who classified radiofrequency energy, including cell phone radiation, as “possibly carcinogenic” in humans.

The evidence of harm from cell phone radiation has been increasing so it is only a matter of time before lawsuits filed in U.S. courts by cell phone radiation victims will be successful. The Insurance industry will not provide product liability insurance due to concerns that juries will find that the Telecom industry has behaved much like the Tobacco and Asbestos industries. So the Telecom industry could be faced with paying huge damages to individuals and governments.

Although 12 nations and the European Union have issued precautionary health warnings regarding mobile phone use, the U.S. has been in denial. The Telecom industry has blocked numerous attempts to pass cell phone warning legislation at the Federal, state, and city level. The industry even refused to support a bill in the California legislature by Senator Mark Leno that would simply remind consumers to read the safety information that is currently printed in their cell phone user manuals.

Only one city has been able to overcome intense lobbying by the Telecom industry. San Francisco adopted cell phone “right to know” legislation two years ago, but the Telecom industry (i.e., CTIA-The Wireless Association) blocked implementation of this law by filing a lawsuit claiming that the court-approved fact sheet violates the industry’s First Amendment rights. The CTIA also moved its annual conference from San Francisco to punish the city.

Since there are now more than 330 million cell phone subscribers in the U.S., an annual fee of 50 cents on each cell phone would generate sufficient resources to fund high quality, independent research that could promote safer technology development and fund a community education program about safer cell phone use.

Thanks to Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley for the press release on this issue. 

Criminal Investigation of Smart Meter Opt-Out Fees Requested in Maine!

The Maine Coalition to Stop Smart Meters filed a complaint this week requesting Maine’s Attorney General, William Schneider, open a criminal investigation into smart meter opt out fees.

The complaint alleges in order to avoid health and privacy harms from the detailed information gathering and radiation emitting meters, citizens are forced to pay extortionate fees. They request the Attorney General target Central Maine Power and the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in the extortion investigation.

Ed Friedman stated, “If I must pay to avoid actual harm or even the threat of harm, to myself, my family or my property that is extortion. The federal Hobbs Act defines it as: “…the crime of obtaining property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence or fear, or under color of official right.”

Maine has a similar definition for theft by extortion. With smart meters, the harm and threat of harm come from:

  • The emission of RF radiation known to create adverse biological effects;
  • The invasion of privacy facilitating warrant-less search and seizure of individual data by an agent of the government (utility acting under specific orders of the PUC);
  • The compromising of personal cybersecurity, and;
  • A taking of real property without due process of law or just compensation.

“In order to avoid these and other harms, we are forced to pay a coercive fee which if not paid leads to disconnection of electrical service by the monopolistic utility as well as adversely impacting credit ratings.”

The photos are from the Maine Coalition Day of Action protest this week.

 

“Smart” Water Meter or NO water!

City of Baraboo Michagan denies a request by an 80 year old widow and great-grandmother Audrey to keep her analog water meter and forces her to choose between a “smart” water meter or no water service at all.

On September 24, 2012 Audrey went before the City’s Public Safety Commission and told them she did not want a “smart” water meter for health, safety and privacy reasons, including that she’s experienced health palpitations in her kitchen, which she believes is caused by an electric Smart Meter that was installed on her home previously without her knowledge or consent.

The committee chair contends, that the “Smart” water meter is not a hazard for Audrey and he makes a motion to deny her request for an analog meter. Another member agrees, stating “I don’t see anything that’s harmful”.  The three member committee unanimously deny her request and then they confirm the timing when her “Smart” meter will be installed (in two weeks). The alternative is her water service will be turned off if she does not accept the new meter.  See the video: http://youtu.be/VfDdSCfsoqY

You can support Audrey by writing to City of Baraboo officials:
Mayor Mike Palm – mpalm@cityofbaraboo.com
City Engineer Tom Pinion – tpinion@cityofbaraboo.com
Utilities Supt Wade Peterson – wpeterson@cityofbaraboo.com
Alder Phil Wedekind – pwedekind@cityofbaraboo.com
Alder Tom Kolb – tkolb@cityofbaraboo.com
Alder Michael Plautz – mplautz@cityofbaraboo.com

In stark contrast to this situation, in Fairfield Iowa, City officials were making plans to halt the wireless water meters, and refunding customers any opt out fees they’d paid. According to the Fairfield Ledger article the “smart” water meters were transmitting RF radiation every 14 seconds.