Category: Take Action!

Ban wireless smart meters- Petition to sign

Please sign this petition created by Donna Bervinchak, from San Francisco, addressed to: P.G&E., Governor Jerry Brown, C.P.U.C., President Obama:  “Remove and Ban all SmartMeters from the state of CA and the entire U.S.A. The carcinogenic emissions from SmartMeters are making once healthy, functioning Americans, sick, mentally unstable, unable to live in their homes and unable to function and hold down a job.”

Donna’s statement on why this is important:

I lived in San Francisco, CA for 22 years and l loved my life there. In October of 2011, P.G.&E. turned 12 SmartMeters on, outside my apartment without my knowledge. In November I started to sleep more than usual and I thought it was because it was getting dark early so I brushed it off. In December I broke out in hives all over my face and the skin on my face became unusually dry. Nothing like this had ever happened to me before but I brushed it off again and blamed it on stress.

By January I was sleeping so heavily I felt like I was drugged and this is when I started to think maybe someone in my apartment building started to use WiFi again (last year everyone in my apartment building stop using WiFi on my request due to my sensitivity to wireless). By the middle of January I couldn’t sleep. I also began to have trouble breathing because the air felt too thick. My face started to become numb as well as my scalp and gums of my teeth. I began to have a lump in my throat that made me loose my appetite and thirst. I developed an intense pressure headache that felt like a vise pressing on my temples.

This is when I discovered the SmartMeters and called P.G.&E. and asked them when they turned them on. I asked them to remove them because they were giving me all the symptoms I described above and they told me that they could not do that for me because they were federally approved.

I tried to stay in my apartment and over time I got weaker and sicker. I began to have trouble concentrating and thinking. I moved out of my apartment on Jan. 29, 2012 and stayed with a friend who didn’t have a SmartMeter. I slowly got better but I still would get sick walking down the street in San Francisco from all the SmartMeters emitting their microwave like waves into the streets. I started having heart palpitations and shortness of breath just from walking down the street.

I went to the country for one week in Comptche, CA and spent time with a friend on her 64 acres of land. She lived off the grid and I immediately got better. I felt like my normal, healthy self again. This is when I knew I would have to move out of San Francisco.

Please sign this petition. People may not know that SmartMeters are affecting them. People need to know that SmartMeters are dangerous to the health of all living beings. Children and animals can’t speak for themselves so I am speaking out for them now!

Donna

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

 

SMUD smart meter shenanigans

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) is implementing a smart meter opt-out program that’s intentionally designed to intimidate and discourage customers from opting opt.  The audiotape from SMUD is a unique inside look into industry plotting against their customers.

SMUD is charging $127 upfront and $39.40 per month, and they will cut off customer rights to opt out by Dec. 31, 2012.  They plan to only notify those who’ve already complained, which is 2,500 of their 600,000 customers.   SMUD will not notify the rest of their customers, nor post about the smart meter opt out program on their website, because they don’t want them to know about it.  In addition the ‘radio-off’ smart meter is their only opt out option, and if you move, you lose the right to opt-out.

Even though SMUD is very concerned about their ‘reputational risk’ at [01:51:54] the directors make fun of people who don’t want utility smart meters on their property.

One director says, “The $166 upfront will convince them they can really afford a lot of tin foil hats” [laughter]…Another director says, “But they are already wearing them!”

In closing Director Posner says, The less that’s said about this, the better off we are.”  The last thing they want is a social media campaign that exposes them as unfriendly to their customers.

Fundraiser: March 26, 7 pm Sebastopol

On Monday, March 26 we have a fundraiser event planned in Sebastopol CA.  We are raising funds for a lawsuit against Verizon who is trying to add 3G and 4G antennas to an already contentious cell tower in the heart of downtown Sebastopol.  We filed an appeal of the Sebastopol planning commission decision to allow the expansion, and the city council split 2-2 on the appeal which allowed Verizon to move ahead.  The only way to stop them was to file a lawsuit.

Theresa Melia, a Sebastopol Waldorf kindergarten teacher, is spearheading the campaign to raise the funds and she gave $1,000 towards the lawsuit.  She says, ” It is unconstitutional to be subjected against our will to constant radio frequency radiation.  This technology is a convenience that undermines everyone’s health.”

Verizon and other wireless carriers are bullies, who use the inadequate FCC radio frequency (RF) guidelines as proof of safety and intimidate local planners with the unconstitutional section 704 of the Telecommunications Act which prohibits cell tower placement decisions based on health impacts.

We need your help!  You can help us immediately by donating online, and please join us on Monday March 26, at 7 pm at the Sebastopol Vets Hall, in the Fireside Room, 282 High Street.  Documentary film “Public Exposure”, followed by Q and A with Sandi Maurer and Michael Neuert, plus a plant and art sale.  There is no cost to attend, but donations are encouraged to fund the lawsuit.

Shady smart meter cop-out

Another great video from Jerry Day, who offers his current advice on tackling utility smart meter problems. His advice- continue to refuse the meters, refuse the fee opt outs and keep detailed records of your health since installation. He encourages people to enforce the truth and stand up for our rights to safety in an environment of criminality.

CPUC votes to allow PG&E to charge fees

Today the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) voted 4-0 to allow PG&E to charge customers $75 initial fee and $10 a month for restoring or retaining their analog meter- or $10 initial fee and $5 a month for CARE customers.  Commissioner Florio was notably absent for the vote.

Everyone has paid for Smart Meters through rate hikes on our utility bills.  So, if you still have the analog, not only do you not get a refund for the Smart Meter you will not use,  but you have to pay to keep the analog meter you already have.  Michael Peevey, who wrote the proposal justified the fees, calling it a “service”.

What about the people who asked, or had signs posted stating to not have a Smart Meter, but were forced to have them?  What about banks of meters, neighbors meters, the saturation of our communities with pulsed radiation, no investigation on public health and environmental impacts, no investigation on smart meter fires or meters exploding…not even a cost evaluation of the fees?!?  The fees are arbitrary, punitive, unfair and amount to extortion.  The fees also discriminate against people for medical reasons and are therefore illegal.

For the millions of people who have been forced to have Smart Meters in California now you can legally have Smart Meters removed, and analogs restored.  For those people who have seen outrageous billing increases, are offended by privacy infringement, or are so sickened from the radiation pulses,  they are eager to have the analog meters back.   The initial fees will be less to have PG&E restore the meters, than for you to buy an analog and hire an electrician.  If you can afford it, take advantage of this opportunity, but be very careful if they require you to sign any paperwork.  PG&E may try to use this opportunity to indemnify themselves of harm.  To continue to pay $10 or $5 a month for a meter reader is another matter.  You can deduct that portion of your bill in protest.  The San Jose Mercury News reported you can call PG&E’s Smart Meter hotline (1-866-743-0263) to schedule Smart Meter removal.

For those on the delay list, or who still have analog meters, you will be receiving notice from PG&E to pay the fees, or else get a Smart Meter.  Continue to refuse the Smart Meters and the fees and demand fairness.   The opt out proceeding will be continued to evaluate cost and community wide opt-out.

REMINDER: Wed Feb 1- CPUC meeting 9 am San Francisco

Tomorrow the California Public Utilities Commission will vote on President Peeveys PG&E Smart Meter opt out proposed decision that charges customers a $75 initial fee and $10 a month, or $10 initial fee and $5 a month for CARE customers to retain, or restore an analog meter.

Peevey’s proposed decision is half baked. The Commissioners need to bring intelligence, compassion and respect to their decision making, rather than vote with good old boy politics. Please attend this important meeting.

Wed. Feb 1, 9 am 505 Van Ness Ave. San Francisco

Arrive by 8:45 to sign up to speak to the Commission on item 28. Shortly after public comments the Commission will address the issue and vote on it.

Revised PG&E smart meter opt-out proposal now available

The revised PG&E smart meter opt out proposed decision is now available.  This will come before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to be voted on at their business meeting on Wed. February 1 in San Francisco.

Here’s the highlights:  The opt out choice will only be the analog meter, not a “radio off” meter.  Customers can choose to either have a smart meter or an analog meter. The proposed interim cost is $90 initial fee per customer and $10 a month fee. For low income proposed fees are $10 initial fee and $5 a month.  This revision allows for a second proceeding to further analyze costs and community wide opt out.

For a quick review read the summary at the beginning and/or the Findings of Fact/ Conclusions of Law and the Order at the end of the paper.

Another Commissioner can submit an alternate proposal.  We will support an alternate proposal if it includes hearings on health impacts of smart meters and a no cost interim fee until the second proceeding is complete.  Failing a modification, or alternate proposal that includes these issues we will urge the Commission to reject the proposed decision.

HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Call or email the CPUC:  866-849-8390 or 415-703-2074

Refer to revised proposed decision 11-03-014.  Ask the Commissioners to:

  • Modify the revised proposed decision to include hearings on health impacts in the second proceeding, along with cost evaluation and community wide opt-out.
  • Provide immediate relief to those requesting it and restore the analog meters, however do not charge any interim fees for opting out.

Attend the CPUC meeting on Wed. February 1 at 9 am at the CPUC, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco.  Plan to arrive by 8:45 am to sign up to speak to the Commission.  Prepare a 1-2 minute statement.