Overview of PG&E/CPUC emails on smart meters

SMARTtower100PG&E deployed over nine million utility “smart meters” on homes and businesses in California. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) supported the multi-billion dollar deployment despite lawsuits and complaints about overcharges, privacy and security risks, fires and explosions, and health problems from the electromagnetic radiation (RF) smart meters emit.

The CPUC is responsible for regulating the utilities to ensure safe and reliable utility service. Instead, they partnered with PG&E and marketing companies on a smart meter propaganda campaign. CPUC President Michael Peevey intentionally delayed the legal process for years so PG&E could complete their deployment, despite knowing smart meters were overcharging and harming customers.

Thousands of emails between PG&E and the CPUC made public this year, illustrate their collusion and corruption. Together they concocted a punitive pay to opt out program, and ignored substantive complaints. The CPUC must address these issues by holding safety hearings, and restoring analog meters without coercive fees.

READ THE REPORT:  http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Overview-of-PGECPUC-emails-on-smart-meters.pdf

2 thoughts on “Overview of PG&E/CPUC emails on smart meters”

  1. 4/17/2015
    Below is a response to an email submission by me from The Office for Human Research Protections, a Federal agency that is part of HHS, and it’s creation, was modeled on the “Nuremberg Code”. Below the OHRP missive is my email to the OHRP.
    The Nuremberg Code was, as well, incorporated in to California state law in the 1950’s.
    What good are laws created to protect the population from abuse if those holding the controlling official positions in those enforcement agencies of government abdicate their enforcement responsibility?
    Apr 16 at 7:22 AM
    Dear Mr. _______
    The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) has received your April 8 & 15, 2015 emails concerning wifi smart meters.
    OHRP has responsibility for oversight of compliance with the Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations for the protection of human research subjects (see 45 CFR Part 46 at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html). In carrying out this responsibility, OHRP evaluates, at OHRP’s discretion, substantive allegations of noncompliance involving human subject research projects conducted or supported by HHS or that are otherwise subject to the regulations (see OHRP memorandum dated October 14, 2009 at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/compliance/ohrpcomp.pdf for an explanation of OHRP’s jurisdiction).
    OHRP has determined that it does not have jurisdiction over the matters referenced in your letter. Therefore, OHRP will not be able to pursue this matter on your behalf. You may wish to consult legal counsel.
    OHRP appreciates your concern about the protection of human research subjects.
    Kristina C. Borror, Ph.D.
    Division of Compliance Oversight


    Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 5:34 PM
    Subject: I have a question….
    April 15, 2015
    Hello OHRP,
    I wrote a letter to you last week asking about this matter though
    I did not receive a reply; and upon re-reading it now I saw that what
    I wrote was not very clearly expressed and so I have made it clearer
    and am submitting this new email request today. It is a simple question but
    not a usual one and so I had to include details of the context.
    I hope You [you being some legitimate agent of the OHRP] will take a moment
    to review my concern, illuminated below, and respond.
    Thank you in advance for any information you may provide!

    I have a question that I hope you may be able to readily answer.
    Does a state agency that was created to regulate privately owned
    utility companies, each a monopoly in a specified geographical
    segment of the state and together comprising a cartel regulated
    by a state agency that is endowed with the mission of protecting the safety
    and interests of the captive ratepayers of the cartel, have a presumed
    authority to allow the said utility cartel to conduct experiments
    on the bodies of the captive ratepayer customers with a presumption that said
    state regulatory agency may act as agent for said captive ratepayers
    in giving “informed consent” for a specified experimentation to be conducted
    upon the captive ratepayers. Specifically, to deploy utility devices to
    the walls of homes, schools etc. that emit a kind of radiation claimed
    to be safe by a US government agency in 1992, and not significantly
    re-evaluated by that agency in the twenty odd years since; notwithstanding the
    emergence of evidence of harm from prolonged exposure to such radiation which
    is a relatively novel type of radiation to which the human body has had minimal
    exposure during it’s millions of years of development.
    The new utility devices, wifi smart meters, being deployed to homes, schools
    etc. to replace meters whose reliability and relative safety has been well established
    over time, will initially transform dwellings, especially, into de facto laboratory
    environments where the inhabitants will be exposed to periodic and sometimes frequent
    spiked pulsations of ULF non-ionizing radiation, with the most intense activity of the meter technology
    to occur at late night hours when normally all residents will be present.
    If the intended grid should come to fruition, then the degree and density of such
    radiation will be enormously magnified with all appliances in homes beaming
    information to the wifi meter devices. This would be an environment that is
    alien to human, animal and insect life, and to the plant kingdom as well; and, in the
    last twenty years published research into the non-ionizing low frequency
    type of RF radiation emitted by wifi smart meters, in pulsed spiked discharges,
    has been shown to cause harm to humans; damage to DNA and damage to the
    Blood Brain Barrier; causing increased permeability of the BBB, are two particularly
    important causes for serious concern.
    In the view of OHRP, whether or not OHRP may view itself as having
    jurisdiction in the matter, does any state agency, charged with being the official
    agent for protecting the interests of the utility captive ratepayers living in the
    areas serviced by a privately owned utility cartel, have the implicit or explicit
    authority to consign the said ratepayers, by acting as their putative agent in giving
    informed consent for said ratepayers to be used as [essentially unwitting] subjects
    in a de facto experiment involving deployment to the walls of homes etc.
    novel utility devices utilizing experimental ultra low frequency,
    non-ionizing, RF radiation technology. Yet not openly acknowledging that the new
    devices utilize experimental technology, nor informing the captive ratepayers
    that they are in fact subjects in a long term exposure experiment.

    I should mention how it occurred to me that the said state agency commissioners, [consisting currently of five ‘commissioners’ two of whom are attorneys and one is a former CEO of one of the privately owned utility monopolies] may have armed themselves with a rationale that they have the authority to give ‘informed consent’, on behalf of the ratepayers, for the utility cartel to experiment on their captive ratepayers using the novel wifi smart meter technology.
    In reading a report – [a report claiming that the wifi smart meter technology is safe]-
    produced by the California Council on Science and Technology circa 2010-11, headed by individuals who are also former contract employees of the said state agency for whom the report was produced, I saw that, though there were no specialists in the area of health effects from the type of radiation involved in the wifi smart meter technology on the CCST Team, there was included, perhaps instead, an attorney who was described as a specialist in ‘ethics and the law’. In looking at his website, I saw he had been involved in writing some articles for legal journals on the matter of BIOBANKS and who should have authority to give consent for the use made of the human tissues in the tissue repositories called Biobanks.
    The attorney argued that a ‘trusted’ agency or organization such as one of the large
    established charitable foundations should be consigned the authority to provide consent as to who may access, and for what purposes, the Biobank tissues; living tissues maintained alive for long periods in Biobanks or tissue repositories. That attorney argued that the individuals from whom the tissues were obtained, usually as by-products of surgery or other medical procedures, should not have any say in who should have access to the tissue nor for what research or other purpose the tissue
    may be utilized. A legal debate on this matter occurred in the UK some years ago and research into genetic-targeted bioweapons was part of the concern raised by people whose tissue had ended up in Biobanks.
    In the US, whatever decisions that have been made about this matter were not reached in a public or publicized manner.
    This raised, in my mind, the possibility that the state agency that putatively exists
    to protect the interests of captive rate payers of the privately owned utility cartel
    from potentially harmful actions of that cartel, and whose Mission statement specifically included protection of captive ratepayers from deployment of dangerous machinery, may see itself, [or it’s current commissioners may view themselves], as endowed with an authority to give ‘informed consent’ on behalf of said captive ratepayers.
    If the geographical grouping of ratepayers were viewed as being, in-effect, Biobanks, by the utility cartel and by the commissioners of the regulatory state agency involved, then the utility cartel need only have a plausible unanimous ‘informed consent’ from the commissioners to embark on a program of experimentation on it’s Biobank/captive ratepayers [though the de facto experiment aspect and the de facto Biobanking of the captive ratepayer populations are not publicly acknowledged]; with novel technology which officially is deemed safe, though in fact is not, and has not been proven to be safe.

    Also, I would note that the medical organization whose specialized sphere includes health effects from emerging technologies including electromagnetic radio frequency technology, The American Academy of Environmental Medicine, [AAEM], wrote and made public a letter to the state agency commissioners urging them to stop deployment of the wifi smart meters and to remove those already installed as evidence exists that they are likely to cause harm to people exposed over extended periods of time.
    The commissioners were invited to contact the AAEM for the documentation that was the basis of their position.
    The commissioners ignored the AAEM, preferring, evidently, to cherry pick their sources and liking what their former contract employees heading the CCST contrived. [I should note that I contacted the AAEM to inquire as to whether the CPUC commissioners had responded to their letter and was told no]
    There are multiple types of damage that can be reasonably expected to occur from long term exposure to the wifi smart meter technology but most prominent among them, to my mind, is DNA breakage/damage and damage to the Blood-Brain-barrier [BBB] causing increased permeability, implying substances in the blood that normally would be blocked by the BBB from access to the brain will no longer be blocked from
    such access.
    In my view, the captive rate payers of the privately owned utility cartel in California are being used as if they are population Biobanks being exploited for experimentation using this novel and slowly harmful technology while discarding relatively very safe and efficient meters that were already in place.
    The CPUC complicity is quite apparent.

    From the view of OHRP, does such a state regulatory agency, specifically the California Public Utility Commission, [CPUC], have the authority to act as an agent for the population in it’s regulatory sphere and give ‘informed consent’
    on behalf of that population to permit the private utility cartel to use it’s captive ratepayers as experimental subjects?
    Please advise.

Comments are closed.