On May 16, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prehearing conference was held in San Francisco to establish the scope of the second phase of the Smart Meter opt-out proceeding. The scope was intended to address opt-out cost, allocation of cost (who pays) and the rights of whole communities to opt-out. Parties are also asking for hearings on Smart Meter health and safety impacts, and commercial rights to be included in the scope of phase two. EMF Safety Network’s comments can be heard at 24:50. Read the Network PHC Statement. More information including part 2 of the video taping of this proceeding visit Ecological Options Network.
SCE Commercial Smart Meter opt-out letter
[Insert date]
NOTICE OF NON-CONSENT TO INSTALL A MICROWAVE TRANSMITTER, (SMART METER) ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, NOTICE OF LIABILITY
To: SCE customer service, SCE 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 SCE 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 12-04-018, date of issuance, 4/30/2012 Conclusion of Law #1.
Vermont Legislature Adopts Free Smart Meter Opt-Out
Last week the State Legislators of Vermont voted to allow utility customers a no fee Smart Meter opt-out! Specifically, the bill says that customers must be allowed “to choose not to have a wireless smart meter installed, at no additional monthly or other charge”.
*From the proposed House of Representatives bill: Sec. 15. 30 V.S.A. § 2811 SMART METERS; CUSTOMER RIGHTS; REPORTS (b) Customer rights. Notwithstanding any law, order, or agreement to the contrary, an electric company may install a wireless smart meter on a customer’s premises, provided the company: (1) provides prior written notice to the customer indicating that the meter will use radio or other wireless means for two-way communication between the meter and the company and informing the customer of his or her rights under subdivisions (2) and (3) of this subsection;
(2) allows a customer to choose not to have a wireless smart meter installed, at no additional monthly or other charge; and (3) allows a customer to require removal of a previously installed wireless smart meter for any reason and at an agreed-upon time, without incurring any charge for such removal.
The legislation also calls for future reports related to smart meters to be submitted on: cost-savings associated with smart meters; whether any security breaches occurred because of the wireless technology; and the health effects of smart meters.
Meanwhile, the Vermont Public Service Board who regulate the Vermont utilities had already approved delaying opt-out charges until April 2013. The purpose of suspending the fees were to evaluate the real costs, instead of arbitrary numbers.
In California, the Public Utilities Commission approved arbitrary and punitive opt-out fees, and is forcing customers who do not want Smart Meters to agree to the charges- even though they’ve never evaluated the charges! Seems like Vermont has a few smarter people in charge.
Matt Levin, Outreach and Development Director for Vermonters for a Clean Environment stated they were “pleased the Legislature made such a strong statement on this issue”, however he also expressed caution as the Public Service Board and utilities will continue to evaluate the costs associated with opting out in upcoming proceedings and he said, “our enthusiasm is tempered by the realities and struggles of past experiences”.
However, there will be NO fees charged for at least one year and the legislature has banned the fees altogether. For now, Vermonters have been provided with relief and a victory! CONGRATULATIONS!
Call for Smart Meter Declarations
We are collecting declarations from California utility customers who’ve been impacted by Smart Meters. These declarations will be included in CPUC proceedings, and/or future civil lawsuits. This is a legal document, that you believe is true to the best of your knowledge and you will testify to.
- Copy and paste the declaration template (below) into a word document, or download in word.
- Follow the prompts in the template. Click here for an example.
- Email completed form to legal@emfsafetynetwork.org
- You will receive a confirmation by email and further instructions.
Please circulate this call for declarations to others who have been impacted by Smart Meters.
Thank you for your help!
* * * declaration template * * * *
Declaration of <insert full name>
I, <insert full name>, have personal knowledge of all facts set forth in this declaration and am competent to testify thereto if called upon to testify in a court of law. I hereby declare:
1. My name is <insert full name>, and I reside at <insert address, city state and zip>
2. I am a utility customer of <insert name of gas and or electric company>
3. <Continue using a numbered List- write out point by point your situation and complaint against the utility, the Smart Meters, or any aspect of the program, or deployment that impacted you. This is a legally binding document. You must be truthful to the best of your knowledge. End your declaration with the following wording:>
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of <insert state> that the facts set forth above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. This declaration was executed this <insert date> day of <insert month>, <insert year> at <insert city>, <insert state>.
/s/
<insert full name here>
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
Sonic.net Inc. Internet Provider CEO: “I Hate Wireless.”
*Sonic.net Inc, CEO Dane Jasper writes, on his blog:
“Wireless is magic. You point two antennas at each other over a span of miles, and broadband comes out the other end. Most of the time.
I hate wireless.
Today, we sold our wireless network.”
Several years ago, Sonic had hoped to install a free public wi-fi network in Sebastopol. But after months of campaigning against Sonic’s wi-fi, the Sebastopol city council decided to terminate their contract based on health and safety risks of wireless. Sonic now states it is retiring all of their public wi-fi projects!
CEO Jasper contends the wireless is difficult and their focus is changing to wireline services, which include fiber optics!
*About Sonic.net Inc: Sonic.net, founded in 1994, provides broadband access to consumers and wholesale ISP partners in a thirteen state region. Sonic.net’s flagship product is “Fusion”, which combines unlimited broadband and local and long distance home telephone service. For $39.95, every Fusion customer gets the maximum Internet speed possible at their location — up to 20Mbps — plus a traditional phone line with U.S. and Canadian calling included.
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.
