PG&E backs down

PG&E restores power to customers refusing smart meter

Today PG&E restored power to customers who removed the smart meter and restored the analog meter on their homes.  They removed the meters because they or their children were suffering health problems since the new meters were installed.

Earlier today Diane from Calaveras County said PG&E contacted her and said they will “jump” her meter to deliver her electricity (till they can find an analog).  She said they’d estimate her bills and they will do the same for others.

Diane confirmed PG&E has now restored her electricity.  News from Santa Cruz County also confirms PG&E has backed down:  “Santa Cruz Smart Meter Rebels 1, PG&E 0”

They did not install the analog meter, instead they used this device (see photo below) which does not measure electricity.   SF Chronicle reports: “Moving to end an embarrassing standoff, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. on Friday said it would restore power to a small group of customers… and  that PG&E spokesman Greg Snapper said, “This is a temporary solution for a very unique circumstance”.

 

PG&E cuts power for Smart Meter refusal

This week PG&E has cut power to at least four homes for customers who removed Smart Meters and restored the analog utility meter. Bianca in Santa Cruz county told KSBW news that she restored the analog because her children, who’s bedroom is near the utility meter, were suffering from headaches and bloody noses since the Smart Meter was installed.

Accusing Diane of Calaveras County of tampering, PG&E workers turned off this grandmothers electricity on Monday shortly after noon. Diane removed the Smart Meter and restored the analog meter because she was having sleeping problems, heart palpitations and tinnitus. When PG&E arrived she called the sheriff who told her PG&E was supposed to show her the work orders and PG&E refused to show her any work orders.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) President Michael Peevey told a PG&E customer that he could have an analog meter back at the Commission business meeting on September 22, 2011.  EMF Safety Network lawyer Rose Zoia sent the following letter to PG&E in response.

Santa Cruz Supervisors recently grilled PG&E representative Wendy Sarsfield about PG&E’s actions calling them unbelievable and unacceptable. (see video)

PG&E Rep. “As soon as we can replace with a Smart Meter, the power will be restored.”

Supervisor: ” So you’re holding them hostage in order to make the point.”

PG&E Rep. ” This situation is because of the public safety issue that’s involved.”

Supervisor:” Its just a couple of weeks before the holidays. I would seriously hope that PG&E would take another look at their policy.

Supervisor:'”This can’t be right that we can have a public utility refusing utility service to somebody who wants service, who will pay for service, who’s wiling to have an analog meter. I am having trouble believing that that is actually a legal position for PG&E to take.”

With  the recent release of Jerry Days’ video Replacing a Smart Meter and the threat of more customers removing Smart Meters in California its likely this recent show of force by PG&E is an attempt to intimidate and quash the peoples movement to restore analog meters.  In a recent SF Chronicle article PG&E spokesperson Jeff Smith admitted, “If this dangerous practice is allowed to continue without some sort of consequence, other people could do the same thing, and that’s what we’re trying to deter.”

 

“Smart Meters should be banned”

On December 7, Josh Hart of StopSmartMeters.org led about a dozen women to return smart meters to the PG&E Capitola office where they told their stories to reporters about why they removed the smart meters and restored analog meters.

One woman spoke on behalf of her family stating, ” We’ve been a guinea pig for a year and a half” and ” I believe from my experience that they should not just have an opt-out, they should be banned.”  Six police officers showed up in response to PG&E’s request and they closed the office.

PG&E is sending letters to people who’ve swapped smart meters for analogs and is threatening to turn off their power, however their letter does not include any legal codes to justify their threats. In a letter dated Dec.2, 2011, PG&E writes, “Given the public safety issues, if we do not hear from you, we will have no choice but to terminate your electric service.” It’s clearly bullying tactics.

EMF Safety Network lawyer who defined tampering for us is drafting a letter to PG&E to inquire about their legal authority to turn off people’s utility service.

Help is on the Way! Submit Your Complaint Today at SmartMeterHelp.Com

Today, the EMF Safety Network and Stop Smart Meters! are excited to announce the official launch of our new joint *project: SmartMeterHelp.Com  This is a website was designed with the sole purpose of burying our elected officials, utilities commissions, and health departments with complaints about the debacle that has resulted from the poorly planned, undemocratic, and ill-advised rollout of ‘smart’ meters into our communities.

Even if you have already submitted a complaint, please take 5 minutes now to fill out the form and tell your story.  This will make it that much easier for advocates working to put a stop to this program to demonstrate that these meters are having a detrimental effect on thousands, if not millions of people.

Were you forced to have a Smart Meter when you didn’t want one?  Have you been overcharged? Were you on the “delay” list and they installed anyway? Have Smart Meters caused you headaches, sleep problems, tinnitus or other health problems? Have you had interference problems or burned out appliances, since a new meter was installed? A meter catch on fire? Have the utilities lied to you, or made false claims about their service? Did you feel threatened or intimated by installers?  Did they assault you or your pets? Do you think it’s wrong to have to pay to not have one?  We’ve heard complaints about all of the above happening to members of the public.

We are fed up, and we’re not going to take it anymore!    Spread the word about this new website to your friends, family, and co-workers.  Post on social media and encourage others to take action.

Together, we can put a stop to ‘smart’ meter abuse!

*This project is now closed.

Industry safety assurances unwise

Sage Associates recently published An Assessment of the EPRI Technical Report An Investigation of Radiofrequency Fields Associated With the Itron Smart Meter – Richard Tell Associates, Inc., December, 2010 by Sage Associates, November 11, 2011″

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) commissioned a report by Richard Tell Associates Inc. that has assessed radiofrequency (RF) emissions from an Itron ‘smart meter’.  The Itron meter is being installed in California by two electric utilities (SCE and SDG&E) and is similar to others being installed by other utilities. EPRI bases its report primarily on field measurements at the Itron meter test farms in southern California and South Carolina, two homes in Downey, CA, a drive-around street test in Downey, CA, and test results from two utilities.

The EPRI report concludes that no violations of current FCC public safety limits are predicted to occur. However, our analysis shows that this conclusion is unsupported and in error, according to the FCC OET Bulletin 65 rules for predicting public exposures.

The EPRI report does not address compliance of multiple meters, at 100% duty cycle (which is required under FCC OET 65 formulas), and our calculations show violations at 60% reflection factor (the lowest level the FCC regulations specify). Multiple meters will also violate FCC OET 65 public safety limits for calculations using 50% to 100% duty cycle at 100% reflection factor, which are reasonable, worst-case assumptions.

The EPRI report provides a generic, best-case assessment of RF emissions since it focuses on ‘typical’ meters rather than a broad range of conditions of location, installation and operation of Itron meters under real-world conditions.  It does not provide a reasonable, worst-case analysis, nor take into account the way in which utilities are actually locating meters in neighborhoods, nor address that the public cannot be excluded from very close proximity to meters on their own homes.

The author says that only approximations of RF exposures for ‘typical’ meters, in ‘common’ installations applying to ‘common’ exposures of individuals, are ‘likely’ to comply with FCC exposure limits. This report ignores meters that are being installed outside these highly limiting parameters, where duty cycles may be far higher, installations within or very close to occupied spaces of a home, and where there may be less shielding and more reflection of building materials that amplify exposures rather than reduce them. Tell discusses many problems with predicting RF emissions and the need for long-term statistical monitoring of matured (read fully deployed and operational) smart meter networks across regions. He says this testing cannot be done today.

Utilities are hoping for the best, and deploying at full speed, regardless of the clear ‘between-the-lines’ warnings, from their own highly regarded expert.

Deploying millions of wireless utility meters on such limited testing and questionable assertions of safety is unwise. Given that RF has recently been classified as a Possible Human Carcinogen, and this wireless utility meter initiative imposes the most extensive RF blanket yet created over every living resident that is electrified, ratepayers and the decision-makers will not know what irretrievable commitments of health and resources have been made until it is too late. Where even the best industry study cannot give more reliable and defensible evidence of compliance with FCC safety limits, public utility commissions should halt the rollout, pending demonstration that RF emissions meet FCC public safety limits under a reasonable worst-case assessment as determined by FCC OET 65 formulas. As a consequence, no positive assertion of safety can be made by the parties involved in this issue, nor are any solid answers provided by this EPRI report.

Opt-out OUTRAGE!

Today the President of the California the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Michael Peevey issued a Proposed Decision on what to do with the thousands of complaints against the (dumb, too smart, not smart, spy, murder, dirty, hazardous, merd, smeter)  microwave computer utility meters that companies are stealthily installing with support from government and environmentalists.

The CPUC, whose mission is to provide safe and reliable utility service at reasonable rates, and regulate the utilities has once again rubber stamped PG&E’s demands. Peevey’s proposed decision says we must pay $90 upfront and $15 a month for a “radio off” meter. Analog meters are not included.  The fees are an obvious punishment, and likely illegal.

What can we do about this outrage in California?  Here’s an idea: We can REFUSE to pay. Deduct it from the utility bill in protest.

Here’s what others think about the concept of opt-out:

“We should not have to pay for NO CHANGE in electric service. We don’t pay for not getting cable. We don’t pay for not getting satellite. We don’t pay for gas if we don’t use gas appliances. What the heck is going on when we have to pay MORE for something we don’t want, don’t need, won’t use and can’t get out of. When the vacuum salesman comes to the door, and I don’t want to buy a vacuum, I don’t buy it and he doesn’t get into my wallet.” Anonymous survey comment

Just removing the meter from our home I don’t think will restore the peace and freedom from harm. As you know with all the homes having the meters on them, the amount of radiation is substantial. I don’t think I am overstating this. I am beginning to think they are trying to do a slow kill, so we don’t wake up to it. It is interesting that some of us have a super sensitivity to the radiation while others no less being slowly harmed by it are clueless because they don’t sense anything. CMC, Riverside County CA

“These folks are way better organized than the power industry, they are creating converts every day and they’re not going to stop with a puny opt-out option.” Phil Carson, Editor-in-chief, Intelligent Utility Daily