Category: smart meters

SDG&E Says Smart Meter Opt-Out charge is a “Penalty Fee”

Sent from Susan Foster

Dear CPUC Commissioners and Judge Amy Yip Kikugawa:

I am an SDG&E customer writing in opposition to the $75.00 fee I must pay to SDG&E to keep my analogue meter that was never removed when smart meters were originally installed in my neighborhood in Rancho Santa Fe, CA. I wrote to SDG&E prior to installation, advising them of my medical condition along with a letter from my cardiologist, as well as a scientific study linking RF radiation to cardiac arrhythmia. SDG&E eventually decided to label my home as a “bypass”, and therefore I have retained my original analogue meters.

When I called SDG&E on April 24 to ask why I needed to pay $75 since there would be no actual work done at my home because I had retained the original meters, I was informed that for me the $75 was a “penalty fee.” I was surprised at this terminology, as I read Judge Amy Yip Kikugawa’s rulings with respect to the opt-out, and I do not see where a “penalty fee” is to be assessed. I thought we had the freedom to choose whether or not to accept a smart meter. Nowhere in the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling do I see justification for penalizing a customer with a medical condition for opting to bypass a meter that would cause harm to my health when that customer requires no work to be done on her property.

In fact, it is my understanding that I have already paid SDG&E through increased fees for installation of smart meters I never had installed, as well as through my Federal tax dollars for stimulus funds that have funded this smart meter program, at least in part. Where is the logic in a penalty fee under such circumstances?

I asked the SDG&E employee who said I was being assessed a “penalty fee” to check and see if she was using the right terminology with me. After a short time on hold, she returned to the phone to tell me her original statement was correct.

Could you please explain SDG&E’s justification for assessing a “penalty fee” when I am simply asking to protect my health, which I have every right to do.

Thank you for your prompt reply, as I must respond via certified letter before June 15, 2012.

Respectfully Yours,

Susan Foster

PG&E’s spying may cost them

Wiliam “Ralph” Devereaux, was the Senior Director of the PG&E Smart Meter program from October 2009 to November 2010.  Devereaux was the public face for the PG&E Smart Meter program and he appeared at many community meetings throughout PG&E’s service territory. Devereaux resigned from PG&E in November 2010 after he was caught trying to infiltrate an EMF Safety Network online discussion list.  Prior to being caught he had infiltrated other anti smart meter groups, including Stop Smart Meters and posted comments to discredit their views, using the fake name, “Ralph.”

PG&E tried to characterize Devereaux as a rogue employee who acted alone.  But the lengthy investigation by the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) Consumer Protection and Safety Division revealed that Devereaux forwarded emails that he collected using the false identity to his boss and other senior managers at PG&E, including a member of the legal department.  The EMF Safety Network was involved in a legal proceeding at the CPUC against PG&E at the time of PG&E’s spying.

Today the CPUC ordered an investigation into PG&E’s activities to determine if PG&E engaged in deceitful conduct towards consumer groups. The Consumer Protection and Safety Division of the CPUC concluded that:

1. PG&E violated PU Code Section 451 by failing to furnish just and reasonable service when Mr. Devereaux lied about his identity to infiltrate online smart meter discussion groups in order to spy on their activities and discredit their views; and

2. PG&E senior management knew of Mr. Devereaux’s deceit before it was reported in the press and failed to prevent and stop his inappropriate behavior.

The CPUC states, “Mr. Devereaux’s actions are considered the actions of PG&E.” and “PG&E lost the public’s trust when Mr. Devereaux was caught using a false identity to join the EMF Safety Network.”  PG&E is now notified that fines may be imposed in this matter and hearings will be held at the CPUC.

Here’s the email exchange between William Devereaux and Sandi Maurer, who received a notice from Google that manasota99@gmail.com, wanted to join the CA EMF Safety Coalition, an online anti smart meter discussion list. This is the string of emails where the computer outed the real identity of <manasota99@gmail.com>:

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:08 AM, EMF Safety Network <EMFSafe@sonic.net> wrote:

Hello,

Please let me know more about your interest in joining the CA EMF Coalition. This discussion group has been set up for county leaders focused on EMF, specifically RF Smart meters.

Please include where you live, what aspect of smart meter issue you are working on and how you came to be involved in this issue. There may be a better group that I can help connect you to, or you may be our next county lead. Please let me know.

Thanks,

Sandi

Sandi Maurer

EMF Safety Network

www.emfsafetynetwork.org

On Nov 4, 2010, at 3:23 PM, William Devereaux wrote:

Hi Sandi,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I’ve been travelling a lot.

I live in Oakland where Smart meters have been sweeping across town and wanted to learn more about them and join the conversation to see what I can do to help out here.

Thanks,

Ralph

From: EMF Safety Network <EMFSafe@sonic.net>

Date: November 4, 2010 7:10:36 PM PDT

To: William Devereaux <manasota99@gmail.com>

Cc: california-emf-safety-coalition <california-emf-safety-coalition@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Your interest in joining the California EMF Coalition?

Hi,

Aren’t you the head of the Smart Meter program at PG&E? We’d love your help!

Can you help us obtain a Smart Meter moratorium ASAP? People who are asking for meters not to be installed are being bullied, signs on meters are being disregarded and the CPUC has received 2000 Smart Meter complaints from Aug 15-Oct 15. We need a moratorium ASAP and the opportunity to be heard at the CPUC.

Your help would be invaluable. Thanks for contacting us.

Sandi

Commercial PG&E smart meter opt-out letter

TO:  PG&E Senior Vice President and Chief Customer Officer, Helen Burt, and Agents of Pacific Gas and Electric Company,                                                                                                  PO Box 997315, Sacramento, CA. 95899-9900

[Today’s date]

NOTICE OF NON-CONSENT TO INSTALL A MICROWAVE TRANSMITTER, (SMART METER) ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, NOTICE OF LIABILITY

Dear Helen Burt, PG&E agents, officers, employees, contractors and interested parties:

The installation of a utility smart meter that transmits or emits microwave radiation on the commercial property located at [INSERT BUSINESS ADDRESS], is hereby refused and prohibited.  Because the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) order is silent on opt-out for PG&E commercial customers, we are expecting and asserting the same rights as residential customers, who may opt-out for any reason, or no reason. [1]

While my reasons include [INSERT REASONS], I would expect my request to be honored without a stated reason.

If you refuse our request and place a smart meter at our business, we will have no choice but to promptly remove the meter ourselves and restore the analog meter.

Thank you for respecting our request.

Your signature

Your name

Your address

[1] Decision 12-02-014, released February 9, 2012, Conclusion of Law #1.

Note from admin: Send this letter by certified mail.

Today’s Special: Smart Meter with Ketchup…Photo by Armand Caputi

SCE and SDG&E- smart meter opt-out approved!

The California Public Utilities Commission approved a smart meter opt out program for Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) customers, similar to the PG&E opt out program approved in February.

SCE:  Starting May 9, customers may opt out by calling 1-800-810-2369.  For customers already on the delay list, calling the number will enable them to enroll in the opt-out program and keep their current meters. Customers who have a smart meter, but would like to opt out, can have their meter exchanged for the type (i.e., electro-mechanical analog meter or non-analog, non-smart digital meter) that was previously in place.

SDG&E: Similar opt out program approved, using analog meters.  SDG&E will begin removing smart meters within 20 days.  Call 1-800-411-7343

Unfortunately, the punitive, arbitrary, and likely illegal fees to opt out continue to be imposed by the CPUC.  Approval was given to interim fees of $75 for set-up and $10 per month for meter reading, and CARE fees of $10 for set-up and $5 per month. A second phase of the CPUC proceeding will be held to evaluate cost, and community wide opt-outs.

Meanwhile the CPUC also approved new metrics to track how the smart grid projects are delivering value to customers. These metrics include tracking: load and demand response programs, home area network usage, customer complaints, malfunctioning meters, and others.

What to do-PG&E’s May 1* smart meter opt-out deadline

If you have a smart meter: Tell PG&E  to remove it!  1-866-743-0263 

If you have an analog meter:  Tell PG&E you plan to keep your analog meter. When they ask you to agree to the charges tell them,  “NO,  the fees are arbitrary, punitive, likely illegal, and the fees are being legally contested at the CPUC!”

Be assertive. Here’s the legal scoop:  PG&Es Advice letter 3278-G/4006-E was posted on the CPUC Energy Division website as NO ACTION.   NO ACTION means they cannot act on the advice letter, therefore we believe they cannot legally charge the fees at this time.  If they ask you about access to your property, tell them they need to make an appointment.

If you agree to the fees, you can express that you are only agreeing under duress.  If and when they charge, write “paid under protest” on your check, and keep a copy. Or don’t pay.**  PG&E’s online opt out form does not force you to explicitly agree to the charges.

You can also send PG&E a certified letter to: Pacific Gas and Electric, PO Box 997315, Sacramento Ca 95899-9900.

* May 1 is a PG&E deadline for people on the “delay list”.  Any PG&E customer can opt out for any reason at any time.

**RISKS and BENEFITS of NOT paying the fees:  This is a form of direct action that can be helpful.  PG&E may turn off your utilities, or install a smart meter. If this happens we can bring media attention to the issue.

*** The advice letter was removed from the CPUC website on April 30.

Neighbors meters: Talk to your neighbors about these choices. Some people,  if needed-will offer to cover the costs of neighbors opt out, to protect themselves and their children. Print out this flyer and talk to your neighbors: Neighborhood flyer

PG&E smart meter assessment report

In a recent Smart Meter Semi-Annual Report PG&E provides an overview of their current smart meter deployment status.

Highlights of this report include:

  • By the end of 2011 PG&E had nearly 9 million electric and gas smart meters installed in California. (roughly 91% of its customers)
  • There are 835,711 meters remaining that have not been replaced with smart meters.
  • PG&E claims to have “pioneered” an opt out alternative for their customers.
  • Customers protesting smart meters are principally concerned with the radio frequency (RF) smart meters emit.
  • In April 2011 PG&E established an extended delay list that includes customers who:    1) refused PG&E’s attempts to install;  2) notified PG&E that they intended to remove their smart meter upon installation;  3) failed to provide PG&E with access to their residences (e.g. locked gate, unleashed dog), despite multiple attempts;  4) called PG&E to request the smart meter be removed;  5) removed their smart meter on their own.
  • Roughly 175,000 customers were sent a certified letter informing them of the opt out program.
  • 14,904 customers have asked to opt out of smart meters, and 6,730 have agreed to have a smart meter.
  • 5,042,000 smart meters are “activated” which means the wireless data is transmitting and recording properly. [That leaves over 3.5 million smart meters  NOT performing as intended]
  • The PG&E smart meter program is expected to exceed the CPUC authorized cost cap of 2.206 million.
  • 22,000 customers showed an interest in accessing their utility data online.  [In the CPUC Decision that authorized smart meters the CPUC expected a 21% customer participation in monitoring utility use through the Home Area Network ]
  • [Supposed] Benefits of “activated” smart meters totaled just under $2.00 per meter per month for electric and just over $1.00 for gas.  [The benefits is mainly due to “meter-reading savings”, ie:  jobs lost]
  • In 2011, roughly 33,000 electric smart meters were removed due to suspected hardware failures, and approximately nearly 16,000 gas smart meters have failed.  (see chart p.26)
  • PG&E is also having problems with billing and data collection failure. They note thousands of meters where complete data was not retrieved.  [Although they point out that an “accurate bill can be generated in most cases.”

[In all the PG&E documents I have read they always put the best case scenario on paper.  I believe we are now starting to see an indication that millions of CA customers have footed the bill for a program doomed to fail,  due to cost overruns, consumer revolt and disinterest, and poor equipment performance…and there’s no mention of the inevitable security problems, yet…]

Open letter to the Premier from a doctor

The health complaints from wireless radiation utility smart meters are a global problem. Here’s an open letter to the Premier from a doctor in Victoria Australia:

Posted on Stop Smart Meters Australia:

22nd February 2012

To the Premier of Victoria

Mr Baillieu,

Since the completion of the smart meter roll-out in my area, I have been very, very sick.  I have continuous palpitations, chest pain, a weird taste in my mouth, loss of appetite, lethargy, dizziness, faint attacks, inability to concentrate and complete insomnia.

I have the feelings at home, in the street, in all the streets of my area and at the shops. I am not able to function. I can’t work, I can’t look after my family, I need my husband, who is now the only breadwinner, to take care of me.

My symptoms only disappear when I am in an area without smart meters, in a large park or on the beach. When my husband drives me through the Melbourne suburbs, I tell him when I feel my symptoms abate, he stops the car and looks at house fronts and, sure enough, he sees the old-style meters. This can be reproduced very predictably.

We now have to sell our home and find a place to live, where I get few or no symptoms. In the long-term, we have no choice but to leave the state of Victoria, as even if I find a ‘symptom free’ home, my life would still be very limited, as I could not roam most streets, go to most shops, visit friends, work etc.

My family’s life has been completely ruined. We have lost everything we had worked for. My two teenage kids have to cope with the trauma and grief of the overwhelming loss that awaits us on a daily basis. I already can no longer work as a doctor, eventually my kids will have to leave their school, university, grandparents and friends behind.

This is all senseless and monstrous. Even in the big scheme of things, my life matters and so do the lives of those who depend on me, especially my family and friends, for whom I am not replaceable.

What happened to me was avoidable and clearly a breach of human rights – the right to health and the right not to be subjected to experimentation without my consent.

The community has never been consulted on the need for smart meters, or even well-informed.  With the mandatory Victorian smart meter roll-out we will have irreversibly compromised those democratic values that have defined Australia so far.

Dr Federica Lamech

Dear Ms. Burt

Ms. Helen Burt
Senior Vice President and Chief Customer Officer
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
PO Box 997315
Sacramento, California 95899-9900

Second address: PO Box 770000   Mail Code B27L
San Francisco, California  94177

April 29, 2012

Dear Ms. Burt:

We received your unsigned certified letter about your SmartMeter Program. This letter is to inform you that, despite your coercive attempts to force ratepayers into your program, we refuse to have SmartMeters installed at our house. The so-called “choices” you offer are no choices at all. Since we have never had Smart Meters, we find it outrageous that you should now try to charge us initial plus monthly fees for a service that we have paid for and you have delivered trouble free (and at minimal costs) for decades!

To be clear, we never opted into your SmartMeter Program. One cannot be said to “opt in” where coercion and pressure is used. And because we have never opted into it, we cannot opt out. Therefore, your proposed “choices” and associated fees do not apply to us.

Indeed, the choice whether to enroll in the program is properly left to the customer, per the Energy Policy Act of 2005, under Title Xll, Subtitle E, Section 1252, (a), (14), (C). It states:  “Each electric utility subject to subparagraph (A) shall provide each customer requesting a time-based rate with a time-based meter capable of enabling the utility and customer to offer and receive such rate, respectively.”

We hold our position because, among many other compelling reasons including data corruption, cybernetic insecurity, privacy violations, unreliability, lack of billing transparency and discrepancies, fire danger, and negative health impacts, your rollout of Smart Meters is patently illegal for several reasons:

1. The operative FCC Grant of Equipment authorization for SmartMeter installations OWS-NIC507 expressly stipulates that these meters be professionally installed. The personnel hired by your subcontractors to perform meter installations are temporary workers with minimal training, not California licensed electrical contractors.

2. The same FCC stipulations also require that the antenna(s) used for the transmitter must have a minimum “separation distance of 20 centimeters from all persons and must not be colocated . . .”

3. Moreover, “End-users and installers must be provided with antenna installation and transmitter operating conditions for satisfying RF exposure compliance.” Without barriers or written warnings/notices posted near your SmartMeters, PG&E is out of compliance with these FCC requirements.

Yes, we operate life support and other sensitive medical equipment in our home. The growing consensus supported by truly independent studies as well as World Health Organization findings is that Smart Meters operating in conjunction with a Smart Grid pose a serious and unwarranted public health hazard.

Heretofore there has never been a surcharge for having an analog meter. Our meters are the same reliable ones that have been in service here all along, unchanged. If you now insist on extorting us for our refusal to opt into your program,  you will be in further violation of California Public Utilities Code Section 453(b) which states:  “No public utility shall prejudice, disadvantage, or require different rates or deposit amounts from a person because of ancestry, medical condition, marital status or change in marital status, occupation, or any characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135 of the Government Code. A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies with the commission may institute a suit for injunctive relief and reasonable attorney’s fees in cases of an alleged violation of this subdivision. If successful in litigation, the prevailing party shall be awarded attorney’s fees.”

We do not consent to PG&E usage of existing on-premises gas and electric  meters as the basis for a claim of entitlement to install digital mesh network antennae and transceivers for third-party data at current meter locations. If PG&E wants to build out a digital wireless mesh network infrastructure for for-profit use by third parties, it can do so in the same way that every competing digital wireless data network operator has done:  by purchasing or leasing property for this purpose, and/or by negotiating and obtaining permission to place equipment on non-PG&E property.

To reiterate, we refuse to opt into your Smart Meter Program and we furthermore refuse to pay extortion fees to retain the reliable analog meters. If you ignore our refusal by proceeding with installation of Smart Meters without our consent, we shall initiate litigation  for recovery of damages. Said damages will occur when your company effectively takes valuable radio transceiver and antenna siting rights on our property without compensation, which we would otherwise be entitled to reserve, to exercise for ourselves, or to sell or rent to parties and on terms of our choosing.

Furthermore, we have not seen or received a copy of your mandatory letter to the CPUC’s Executive director requesting authority to install a SmartMeter at the affected customer’s location. Nor have we seen any written authorization from the CPUC Executive Director approving such installation at any affected customer’s location. We have learned not to trust PG&E’s word without proof. We have seen no such proof to date.

A complaint has been filed with the CPUC over this issue and the promised response has not yet been forthcoming. Until the response is made, we do not consider this issue settled.

When we consider that you long ago had rates approved by the CPUC to cover the costs to read and maintain the standard analog meters, we can only conclude that you wish to increase your profit margins with this program. Besides driving up unemployment in a severe recession, we, having no choice regarding what utility provider we wish to use, find it contrary to the concept and intent of a regulated utility to impose health and security risks on us, your clients, without our agreement.

Since you “fully support individual choice when it comes to the meter at your home,” we’re confident that you will wholeheartedly approve of our choice to send you this notice in lieu of your form, and to continue the service agreement we have had for over 30 years with the analog meters.

Notwithstanding your published schedule of meter readings, your company and any of its subcontractors will be held liable as trespassers for any violations of your written promise, “We’ll call you prior to any required work at your home.”

Sincerely,

_________________________________

Account Number
Cc: CPUC