Are PG&E’s estimated utility bills costing you more?

If you are a smart meter opt-out customer you might want to call PG&E to find out if they’ve correctly billed you. People are getting higher bills because PG&E is reading meters every other month. PG&E estimates one month’s bill “supposedly” based on your previous usage.  The next month they read your meter and true up the cost. If PG&E underestimated the previous month your usage will be substantially higher for the 2nd month.  This could be placing you in a higher tier, rather than spreading usage over the 2 months, and billing you in a lower tier.

I called PG&E (1-866-743-0335) and found out they underestimated our December bill by a third, so we were billed in a higher, more expensive tier in January.  The Supervisor asked me to read the meters and told me how to do it. Then she re-calculated our bill.  PG&E gave us a refund of about $90.

I asked if we could self read so we have more accurate bills in the future and was told no, the only recourse is to call PG&E every other month to have the bill recalculated!

Another PG&E customer said she called PG&E and found out her December bill was estimated from the summer months usage which caused a huge January bill.  PG&E told her they would submit a request for correction, but didn’t follow up. She writes, “PG&E has found a way to punish us opt-out customers by playing this little game and then making us call in, be on hold forever, make this request and then make sure they follow up.” 

Another customer has called PG&E about this for a year and she just received a $268 refund. She writes, “How much money has PG&E taken and kept by their slick accounting methods?”

The Utility Reform Network (TURN) states, “TURN is hearing from consumers that high P&GE rates combined with cold temperatures are freezing them out.  Customers say their gas bills have doubled or tripled this winter!” 

In 2012 about a third of all smart meters were still being read by meter readers. PG&E stopped filing public reports on how their smart meter program is working so I can only guess there are still many smart meters being read by meter readers. Are they read bi-monthly too and therefore getting estimated bills?

People have paid for the right to keep the safer analog meter, and now they are at risk for higher bills because the California Public Utility Commission ordered the bi-monthly meter reading and PG&E has a faulty estimated and tiered billing system.

Here’s what you can do if you think you’ve been overcharged: 1. Call PG&E 1-866-743-0335 and ask them about your bill and what the previous month’s estimate was based on. Ask for a supervisor to re-calculate your bill for you.

2. You can also send a complaint to the CPUC: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov

Nerve disrupting frequencies radiating from “smart” meters

Warren Woodward:  Everyone knows that wireless “smart” meters communicate via microwaves. What was unknown until now is that additional frequencies are transmitted in the 2 to 50 kilohertz range. Numerous studies have shown repeatedly that those very same frequencies disrupt the human nervous system. Indeed, “nerve block” is the phrase used in the studies to describe what occurs.

The studies are not controversial. In others words, there are no studies that show otherwise. Nerve block induced by frequencies in the 2 to 50 kilohertz range is an established fact. The studies that show this nerve block are all from reputable sources including the epitome of “establishment” science when it comes to electricity, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

So the demonstration you will see in the video is groundbreaking, or more accurately, “smart” meter breaking.

Unless they cease, desist, and bring down the wireless “smart” grid at once, “smart” meter manufacturers and the utilities that use them are going to be facing massive liability and personal injury lawsuits because, unlike the microwave radiation that anti-“smart” meter advocates have been calling attention to for years, there is no scientific dispute regarding the biological effects of 2 to 50 kilohertz frequencies.

Additionally, state utility regulators and public health departments will need to actually do their jobs which always used to include protecting the public and promoting public health and safety.

Lastly, the U.S. Department of Energy will have to bring an immediate halt to the promotion and subsidization of the wireless “smart” grid.

Every day of delay will bring greater liability for the aforementioned corporations and agencies and the individuals involved. It’s one thing to act in ignorance, quite another not to act once knowledge is received.

To everyone reading, send this video to your utilities, your state utility regulators, your state health departments, and to hungry lawyers everywhere. Links to studies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NTSejgsjTcnerve-block-frequenciesrev1

 

 

PG&E 2 Watt smart meters

PGE Cone HeadPG&E now has on it’s website a description of a new type of smart meter that transmits up to 2 watts of radio frequency radiation. They call it a “meter connector.”  Years ago activists warned there was a meter like this, some called it a “mother” or a “medusa” meter”,  but PG&E didn’t admit to it. In June 2011 PG&E wrote “PG&E’s network design does not use a ‘mother’ meter concept; relay devices and access point collectors are pole-top devices.”

In November 2011, when the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) judge asked for technical details about smart meters, there was no mention of a smart meter that transmitted up to 2 watts.  PG&E only reported using 1 watt meters. The table below is the technical description of the smart meters PG&E reported to the CPUC judge.
Screen Shot 2016-02-13 at 8.02.20 AMWhen did PG&E start using 2 watt meters on people’s homes?  How would someone know if they had one?  Do they look different?

This is from PG&E’s website: http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/customerservice/smartmeter/facts/index.page

“If a standard SmartMeter™ is unable to connect to PG&E’s dedicated radio frequency (RF), a Meter-Connector is installed to act as both a SmartMeter™ and a cellular electric network access point (so it can collect information from neighboring non-communicating meters)… The Meter-Connector either transmits 1.25 watts or 2 watts depending on the speed of the cellular network in your area, compared to a standard SmartMeter that transmits 1 watt.”

Scientists Challenge SCENIHR

Cindy SageWe are in an era of unprecedented psychological manipulation of the science on potential health effects of EMF and RFR.

Over the last few years, the BioInitiative Working Group has worked many hours on the European Commission’s science reviews of EMF and RFR.  What they say matters.  It’s the expert committee for the European Union (EU) recommending whether EMF and RFR public safety limits are okay, or need substantial revision.  You know where we stand on this.  The limits are grossly inadequate in Europe and the US.

The European Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) did a bad job of it in 2009, and has unsurprisingly disappointed us again in 2015.  Through deceptive language tactics, the Committee has deliberately put out misinformation to erase what should have been clear findings of potential health effects of electromagnetic fields.  Health effects that matter greatly to millions of regular people who want to know about EMF.

What’s their NAME?

The Scientific Committee for Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, right?  Emerging (not proven).  Newly identified (not conclusively demonstrated).

What is the NAME OF THEIR REPORT?  

“Final opinion on Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)”  Not conclusively proven health effects.

What did they conclude?

That there are no conclusively proven biological effects.

How Could That Happen?

” While the scope of the Opinion [SCENIHR, 2015a] did include potential health effects, it was not SCENIHR’s objective to decide whether the possibility of an effect exists, as erroneously suggested by Sage et al. It should be noted that the term “risk” already accounts for probability of a harmful effect and that various levels”. (SCENIHR Leitgeb, 2015)

WHAT?

It would be just an academic farce if our lives didn’t depend on the outcome.  But, we do.  All around the planet, we depend on good advice from educated experts that are supposed to be independent thinkers and good analysts of what is a ‘potential health effect’. No amount of dust-kicking can obscure the basic fact that the SCENIHR failed to do what it was directed to do.

Read for yourselves. This is double-speak.  The SCENIHR’S science review that has failed to carry out the central question asked of this Committee. This is an assessment on which the fate of billions of human beings depends, and upon which global health rests.

For SCENIHR to issue an unwarranted finding of  ‘all clear’ by redefining the reporting terms and misreporting the evidence is bad for science, bad for the public and intensely bad for school children who are sitting in classrooms with WiFi all day, required to use wireless tablets for schoolwork. Read more: http://www.bioinitiative.org/rebuttal-emf-effects/

Cindy Sage

Maine Supreme Court smart meter ruling ignores evidence of harm

This week the Maine Supreme Court upheld the finding of utility regulators regarding smart meter safety.  The Court supported this difficult to follow position: “It is one thing to make a finding that evidence is credible regarding potential harm and quite another to find there is a legally credible threat of Riskyharm—that a credible threat of harm is in fact credible: likely and probable to result in harm.”  

The court weighed health and safety precautions with utilities bottom line.  “The Commission, therefore, properly rejected Friedman’s approach because it would require an impractically high threshold for ensuring safety, and as a result would render nearly all utilities unsafe.”

The Court upheld this position, even though they knew there is evidence of risk. “The Commission acknowledged that there had been some evidence presented of potential future risk posed generally by RF exposure,…” 

The key to the ruling is what the court calls, “balancing the potential for harm against the usefulness and pervasiveness of the technology at issue.”

This ruling culminates a four year legal battle in Maine over the health and safety effects of smart meters.  Even though the legal burden was on the utility (CMP) to show smart meters were safe, the Court ignored this and placed the burden on the customer to pay to avoid the risk of pulsed radiation smart meters emit.

Marlboro2Ed Friedman stated: “ The Court has miserably failed the people of Maine.  They ignored independent testimony from international experts on the credible threat of harm RF exposures at smart meter levels pose, and instead chose to believe the “Marlboro Man” that smoking is good for us.”

Maine Supreme court ruling: http://www.mainecoalitiontostopsmartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-ME-19-Friedman-Appeal-Decision-1-26-16.pdf

PG&E to beam RF waves at Sebastopol?

In 2011, Brian Cherry, PG&E’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, wrote to the CPUC’s Executive Director Paul Clanon, CPUC attorney Frank Lindh, and CPUC Interim Director of Consumer Protection and Safety Division (CPSD), Michelle Cooke:

Just a reminder, we are the first to propose a solar generator in space that will beam RF waves down to a receptor site and convert it to DC current. We have changed our receptor site from the Mojave desert to Sebastopol.”

What do you think? Is this a threat, a display of contempt, a joke?

Here’s the entire email thread. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RF-Beam-at-Sebastopol.pdf

They are commenting on the risks of space weather.  Note Clanon’s comments also.  At the time the CPSD was investigating PG&E for spying on our groups.  After researching the 65K emails between PG&E and the CPUC I believe the CPUC knew about the spying and engaged in the cover up by settling with PG&E.

Structure Report: Smart meter conflict of interest and cover up

www.briannarelle.com

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.

READ MORE:  http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/structure-report-smart-meter-conflict-of-interest-and-cover-up/

PG&E threatens to disconnect 84 yr. old woman’s power for refusing smart meter extortion fees

SMARTcutoff100Santa 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.

Lois MayaPG&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.”