More Thoughts on Wednesday’s CPUC “Opt Out” Workshop

Posted on September 16, 2011 by Josh Hart

A lot has been said about the ‘opt out’ workshop on Wednesday at the California Public Utilities Commission .  Here are statements from two of those present, shedding additional light on the ways in which the PUC and the utilities are together breaking the law, forcing ‘smart’ meter mesh networks into communities who say no:

Cindy Sage, Sage Associates:

“What I can say about the CPUC hearing Sept 14th on smart meter opt-out plans is this.  The initial statement by Carol Brown, (CPUC President) Peevey’s Chief of Staff, is faulty, and should be refuted in the comments back to the Judge –  as a starting point.

The CPUC says that ratepayers should pick up the tab for a failed corporate policy, in opt-out fees.  Is that true any time a utility business plan is fatally flawed?  Badly executed? Do we reward corporate stupidity?  With ratepayer money?

With all due respect to Carol Brown, the CPUC may have authorized smart meters,
but they did not authorize PG&E or any other utility to develop a failed-from-the-start
corporate business plan and defective device.

If the CPUC authorized ‘a concept’, and PG&E implemented it in a dumb way (it is carcinogenic, consumers reject it, it is a security risk, it threatens medical implants, etc) then THE SHAREHOLDERS SHOULD PAY.

The CPUC didn’t authorize a stupid, failed corporate plan.  They authorized PG&E, and the other utilities to figure out and implement a plan that would work.  THIS ONE DOES NOT WORK.

Why reward corporate failure?  THE SHAREHOLDERS SHOULD CARRY THE BURDEN OF THE FAILURE.  They invested with a stupid corporation and didn’t watch for trouble.”

Steve Martinot:

“There are two separate processes at work here:  the enabling legislation that establishes the PUC with its powers, and the decisions that authorize the utilities to use wireless rather than wired technology. The enabling legislation is what set up the PUC in the first place, and gives the PUC the power to “do all things” necessary to regulate the utilities. I can get the citations and law numbers for you if you want them. I don’t have them handy. But the state had already given the PUC the power to make that shift in authorization.

The problem has arisen because, this enabling law refers to the relation between the PUC and the utilities, it does not refer to the relation between the utilities and the people, except insofar as the PUC can regulate utility rates charged the people. But that is all. The relation between the utilities and the people can only be regulated by the legislature, through legislation, and under the protections granted the people in the constitution. There are property protections that PG&E has consistently violated.

Now, when the PUC interprets its authorization of the utilities as giving the utilities the power to impose the technology on the people, and to claim that installation is mandatory, the PUC is entering the realm of legislation, from which it is barred. Period. That is the force of the Circuit Court decision in Koponen vs. PG&E. When the PUC comflates these two relations, and thinks that it can authorize the utilities to ignore the refusal of this technology by persons in California, it is grossly overstepping its legitimacy and authority,
because it is entering a realm that can only be regulated by legislation.

Franchise agreements  belong to the domain of the relation between the utilities and the people. They are contracts signed between the utilities and the people’s representatives. The legislature can override them by enactment, but the PUC can’t because the PUC is empowered only to regulate within its relation to the utilities. The legislature has not overridden them, and the PUC has committed gross violations of its empowerment in claiming that those contracts do not prevent installation of the technology.

It is the PUC’s overstepping its authority that is the real legal issue here.

That is why the opt-out option issue is such a farce. Opting out contains implicitly an assumption that installation is mandatory, and the option will simply create exceptions to that. But neither PG&E nor the PUC have the power to make installation mandatory, because that belongs to the relation between the utilities and the people, over which the PUC has not authority.”

Ed.  and the governor and legislature is doing what besides sitting on their hands looking the other way?

Posted in Citizen rebellion, Class Issues and Social Equality, CPUC, Democracy, Electro-Hyper-Sensitivity, PG&E, San Francisco | 7 Comments

Public Grills Utility Execs at CA PUC

Posted on September 15, 2011 by Josh Hart

Yesterday utility executives were grilled by members of the public, angry about the health damage from wireless "smart" meters (from l to r: San Diego Gas and Electric, SoCal Gas, PG&E, and Southern California Edison)

San Francisco- Yesterday, as part of an “opt out” judicial proceeding at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) the public had a chance to pose tough questions to a panel of utility and “smart” meter  supplier executives, who responded at times by giving false information, vague, tight lipped reassurances, often refusing to answer relevant questions about the power of wireless radiation being emitted by the meters. The judge refused to allow expert medical testimony or public comment on the record or any questions regarding widespread health effects of the pulsing meters.

Outside at lunch, a boisterous crowd chanted “Pull the Plug,” demanding that the entire wireless “smart” meter mesh network be scrapped, and insisting that any charges to “opt out” of the health damaging “smart” meter program would be akin to charging disabled people to access a wheelchair ramp.

Photos courtesy Helene Robertson

Don’t Ask Why People Want  to “Opt Out”

Judge Yip-Kikugawa, who presided over the workshop- was assisted by several CPUC staffers, who circulated wireless microphones throughout the audience of about 100 people, a slap in the face to electrosensitive people who were already suffering from the pervasive wi-fi and cell phone radiation in the room, forcing several to leave the building.  The judge attempted to rule out questions about “why” the opt out was necessary in the first place, requiring that the discussion focus on “how” various opt out proposals would be structured.  Without addressing the reasons behind the widespread opposition to the smart meter program (largely due to adverse health effects) it quickly became apparent that it would be difficult to identify a solution.

Power of the Meters a Touchy Subject

Judge Yip-Kikugawa threatened to shut down the proceedings twice after participants posed difficult questions about the power of the transmitters.  Stop Smart Meters! Director Joshua Hart asked PG&E and Silver Spring Networks how they were complying with FCC regulations that state that “all persons must be kept at least 20cm from the meters” and that meters “must not be co-located.”  Silver Spring Networks replied that it was up to PG&E to ensure that FCC requirements were being met.   Jim Meadows of PG&E replied with a short statement: “PG&E is complying with all FCC regulations.”   Clearly however, the company is in violation of these requirements, failing to warn residents to keep their distance from the meters and installing more than 100 meters in the same location.

Majority of Radiation Pulses Aren’t Even Transmitting Customer Data

Later in the afternoon, Silver Spring Networks executives  admitted that the SmartMeters are transmitting continuously 24/7.  Even though the meters only upload usage information 6 times per day to PG&E, the meters are continuously ‘chatting’ with each other 24/7 every few seconds in order to authenticate and keep the network synchronized.  From their comments, it appears that potentially 90% of the meter chatter has nothing to do with uploading data to PG&E, it is chatter to keep the network synched up – radiation that has nothing to do with customer energy use.   It now appears likely that much of the radiation that is making people sick is simply to maintain the mesh wireless network itself.

Yesterday, PG&E also confirmed that the individual home SmartMeter data is NOT used on a real-time basis for predicting power generation.  The PG&E substations are what communicate the power needs on a real time basis.  They also confirmed that turning off every wireless SmartMeter transmission would have zero impact on how the smart grid functions on a daily basis.

According to PG&E, the SmartMeter time-of-use data is analyzed later (sometimes months later) to make more accurate and precise power generation predictions, but the real-time nature of this data is not used in anyway by PG&E for operating the “smart” grid.  In fact, the individual SmartMeter data is only uploaded 6 times per day to PG&E, and usually many hours after the power is used.  So according to PG&E, the individual SmartMeters are completely unnecessary for communicating real time data and running the “smart” grid.

This raises the question as to why PG&E is deploying meters which are transmitting every few seconds 24/7.  A SmartMeter which could upload the customers’ time-of-use data one time per month (or be read by a PG&E meter reader employee) would serve the exact same purpose.  PG&E would use this data in the exact same way for their billing and energy producing predictions, so the 24/7 wireless mesh network that is saturating our neighborhoods serves zero purpose for billing or energy conservation.

Frivolous Radiation Permeating Our Neighborhoods

It was confirmed by the PG&E representative that a SmartMeter system which uploads the customers’ time-of-use data for the entire month could be uploaded just one single time per month, and this would serve the same purpose for PG&E as the current 24/7 wireless transmissions which take place every 4 seconds.  It is completely unnecessary and serves no purpose for our neighborhoods to be saturated in a Class 2B carcinogen 24/7.

It became starkly apparent from the proceeding yesterday that a simple time-of-use NON-wireless meter read by a meter reader once per month would supply PG&E with the exact same data they need to make their calculations.  The wireless aspect of the SmartMeter program seems only designed to eliminate human meter readers.  The wireless saturation by the PG&E mesh network in our homes has zero impact on conserving energy.  The truth is that the public in California are being exposed to wireless radiation from “Smart” Meters because PG&E does not want to pay meter reader employees and technicians to activate and de-activate power at homes and businesses, transforming reliable jobs and benefits into extra shareholder profits.

Full video of the workshop is available here.   See ABC7 news Coverage here.

Credit: Ellen Cecil

 

Posted in Citizen rebellion, CPUC, Democracy, Electro-Hyper-Sensitivity, FCC, PG&E, San Francisco | 13 Comments

Santa Cruz Man Assaulted By Installer, Camera Broken

Posted on September 15, 2011 by Josh Hart

Wellington employee accused of assaulting a Santa Cruz resident and breaking his camera

This account came in this morning and it is very alarming.   It’s clear that PG&E is getting desperate and is resorting to physical violence to force their meters into our communities.  Alan is currently at the police station filing a police report about this incident.  We must come together and refuse to go along with these illegal, violent installations.

Today, September 14, 2011  – Alan Fischer Chestnut St,  Santa Cruz, CA

SMART METER INSTALLATION

I received a ring on my doorbell at about 10:45 AM and when I went outside I realized that a technician from Wellington corporation (working for PG&E) was already installing “smart” meters on my building which is only several feet from where I sleep. He was working rapidly and would not stop to acknowledge me throughout most of our interaction. I told him that I am disabled and had been assured when I talked to PGE representatives that I could “opt out”, at least temporarily, from having smart meters replaced on my building until a later date, if at all, (which I understood meant the whole building, but now am told that what I was told was incorrect.) I informed that although I was upset about the violation of my rights and well-being that I knew he was just a worker and did not consider him my enemy.

I asked him to stop and consult with his manager or boss before continuing since it was my understanding that this installation would not happen at this time and I am extremely sensitive to EMF frequencies among other things which make me ill. He refused to stop and ridiculed my concerns. He commented that if anyone interfered with his work he was instructed to call the police. I requested he call the police and stop work until the police arrived. He ignored me and continued working. I then went inside and returned with my camera and took several pictures of him installing, along with my sign protesting such installation thrown on the ground. I then attempted to get a photo of his front showing his name badge. He immediately grabbed my camera and squashed it in his fist, breaking the lens out (the lens extends when on) and destroying it. He then shoved me on the right shoulder. My neighbor had arrived in the middle of this and I demanded my camera back and he gave it back. He did not apologize and continued with a menacing attitude. I demanded he call the police and said I would if he did not. He then called the police. I called a number for legal support in front of the technician and asked my neighbor to stay, hoping that would deter any further assault. The technician ridiculed me for using a cell phone.

POLICE COLLUSION

When the police officer (Ken Deeg, Officer 135) arrived, I noted again my disability and request that the technician stop and call his boss or PG&E and that local ordinances legally prohibit smart meters. The officer said the legality issue had nothing to do with him and stated the technician was authorized to do everything he was doing. I asked to file a police report regarding my camera and the assault. He told me to leave so he could talk to the technician in private. After a lengthy consult, he then spoke with me and gave me his card. He recommended I not take action against the technician because the technician would also press charges and I “would lose.” I asked if this meant if I did not press charges, the technician also would not and he agreed. He then pushed up close to me several times to demonstrate how I was in the “technicians space” apparently to indicate that I was at fault in this way. This was inappropriate, especially as he did not say, “the technician claims you did…” such and such, but seemed to take his side as truth without question. He was not interested in hearing details from me, only the technician. I am concerned because although he was generally professional, he seemed to be taking sides without investigating all the facts first and seemed to be already prejudiced against me or my position. Although I requested to file a report asking what I needed to do about three times, he left without that happening. When I called the police station later in the day, I was told I need to follow up with the same officer – possible case #7848, but am told this is probably the “installers case against me.” Still haven’t been able to file a report…

Editor’s Note: You have the right to demand that any installer leave your property and they are compelled to do so by law.   If they refuse, you can call the police and report a trespasser.  These are your basic property rights, whether you are an apartment dweller, a homeowner or a worker at a business.

Update from Alan Fischer Friday Sept. 16th:

Several things: (1) after two nights I am amazed and devastated at how bad these are. I feel like I am being electrocuted, subtle but not subtle – in other words nervous system assault intense, but on a initially imperceptible level. I am extremely sensitive, canary in the coal mine. 8 meters several feet from my bed…exhuastion making it hard to think clearly. (2) The same worker is still working on this complex. I am shocked that after I told PGE about this, the police were informed (police report) that not only have they not pulled him off installation, the still have him working here! (3) I appreciate the support and I need help figuring this out – hard to think clearly and get rest under the circumstances.

Posted in Citizen rebellion, Democracy, Installer Threats and Assaults, PG&E | 20 Comments

“Smart” Meter Opponents Cry Foul on Charging Plan

Posted on September 13, 2011 by Josh Hart

Generous donors allowed us to place this full page ad (in 3 parts- see below) in our local weekly paper. Can you step forward and help us place this ad in mainstream newspapers to warn people what utilities are up to?

Electrosensitive Rights Groups Call Meter Opt Out Fees Extortionate, Illegal, and Immoral

San Francisco- An alliance of environmental health groups, disability rights organizations, and elected officials from throughout California will rally on the front steps of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) from 12:30 to 1:15pm on Wednesday to call for a halt to ‘smart’ meter deployment, a free and fair “opt out” plan that is not discriminatory against people suffering from electrosensitivity, and respects legal rights of local jurisdictions that have passed legislative moratoriums banning further wireless smart meter radiation.  Inside the CPUC, an all day workshop will be held from 9:30am to 5pm- with Administrative Law Judge Yip-Kikugawa presiding- to discuss options for allowing CA residents to “opt out” of the wireless “smart” meter program.    The workshop is the closest thing yet to a statewide public hearing on the ‘smart’ meter program, which was approved without an environmental impact report. There are concerns that the workshop does not provide an opportunity for public comment, or a chance for medical experts (many of whom have written to the CPUC warning of potentially serious health damage from ‘smart’ meters) to speak on the record.

The new meters have been a public relations nightmare for utilities around the country as well as the state commissions that regulate them.  The public rebellion has been especially heated in California as residents flood utility call centers with demands to remove the broadcasting meters from their property.   Some who have been sickened by the pulses of radiation are increasingly turning to private electricians to remove the wireless meters and replace them with analog meters commonly available from electrical supply shops.

According to CPUC documents obtained through FOIA requests, wireless meters are cited in thousands of reports of adverse health effects. The SmartMeter program has also raised concerns of privacy advocates who believe that the devices’ data collection capabilities violate constitutional privacy protections. There have been a growing number of reports linking the meters to instances of fires, explosions, and surges. On August 25th a power surge hit East Palo Alto and disabled hundreds of new smart meters leading to questions by major utility watchdogs about the safety of the ‘smart’ grid being rushed into place without adequate safety precautions or testing.  Utilities have rushed to dispose of solid state analog meters that often lasted eighty years or more without incident.

CA Utilities Code 328.2(b) states: “No customer should have to pay separate fees for utilizing services that protect public or customer safety.”

Speakers will be calling for an immediate halt to further deployment, and free, retroactive, individual and community wide analog meter opt outs.  Forty-six local governments representing more than 2.5 million people throughout the state have gone on record demanding a halt to ‘smart’ meter deployment.  Because the powerful signals from the meters travel up to a mile or more, an individual opt out plan has been ridiculed, as neighbors’ meters expose residents to radiation from all sides anyway.

UC nuclear policy lecturer Dan Hirsch has determined that the wireless meters emit 100-150 times the radiation of a cell phone, invalidating utility claims that the radiation is insignificant.

On May 31st, the World Health Organization declared non-ionizing radiation of the kind emitted by smart meters as a class 2B carcinogen – the same category as DDT, based on cell phone brain tumor studies.  Last week, an article in the peer-reviewed Journal of Neuroscience concluded that “EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally-inducible neurological syndrome.”

CA Utilities Code 453. (b) states that: No public utility shall prejudice, disadvantage, or require different rates or deposit amounts from a person because of medical condition”

Many of the growing number of Californians who are suffering from electrosensitivity strongly object to any plan that does not include community wide opt outs and affirm the right to retain or have analog meters replaced at no charge.  “Charging people with a known disability an extra fee to simply be safe in their homes is equivalent to charging those in wheelchairs to access a ramp.  It’s immoral – even illegal under state utilities code.  What we need to do is pull the plug on the whole wireless “smart” meter network” and stop hurting people.” said Joshua Hart, director of StopSmartMeters.Org.

PG&E and other utilities have been violating local laws, coming into communities that have refused permission and installing wireless “mesh” networks in their jurisdictions.  As a result, there have been skirmishes between installers and residents in areas of Santa Cruz, Marin, Mendocino, San Francisco Counties, and elsewhere around the state.  In Santa Cruz, PG&E has had to rely on local police to assist in forcing ‘smart’ meters into declared smart meter free zones, while elsewhere there have been reports of threats, intimidation- even assaults on residents as installers scale 8 foot high walls and fences, trespassing on private property to install the meters.

If a judge ultimately rules in favor of community wide opt out, PG&E will potentially be forced to remove millions of “smart” meters and associated infrastructure it has installed in areas that have objected to their installation or made them illegal, a huge financial blow to the firm’s shareholders as well as a national embarrassment for the utility and telecommunications industries.

A press conference and rally will be held on the steps of the CA Public Utilities Commission- 505 Van Ness Ave, in San Francisco this Wednesday Sept. 14th at 12:30pm Visuals include protesters holding signs and representatives from local governments joining to demand a halt to “smart” meter installations.

The following individuals will be available to speak to the media between 12:30pm and 1:15pm:

Joshua Hart is the Director of StopSmartMeters.Org, an organization working to halt the forced deployment of wireless utility meters.   StopSmartMeters.Org has been a grassroots leader in the increasingly contentious fight with the utilities over their health damaging and privacy violating “smart” meter project.

Sandi Maurer is the founder of the EMF Safety Network,  which filed an application for modification against PG&E Smart Meters in April of 2010 and formally appealed the dismissal of that application in January of 2011. The EMF Safety Network is calling for dismantling of the wireless grid and a return to the analog meters based on numerous reported health and safety problems.

Larry Bragman is currently the Mayor of Fairfax, CA.  An attorney, he helped craft the first of more than a dozen anti-smart meter ordinances throughout CA. He will discuss violation of local jurisdictional ordinances, equal protection of utilities and customers, and rights of way issues.

Michael Boyd President of Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE) will discuss possible legal action in reference to violations of federal civil rights under color of state law in violation of County Ordinances.

Jim Tobin is an attorney working for a coalition of individuals, organizations, and local governments seeking a free, retroactive, individual and community analog opt out solution as part of the CPUC proceedings as well as compliance by the CPUC with CEQA requirements and utility compliance with applicable local government ordinances.   He will be available for questions about the proceeding and what his clients are seeking.

Mary Beth Brangan, James Heddle Co-Direct EON – the Ecological Options Network.  EON is an intervenor in the CPUC’s ‘opt-out’ proceeding.  EON’s protest filing emphasizes that other components in the ‘smart meter’ for instance, the switching mode power supply (SMPS), in addition to the 2 RF (radio frequency antennas,) may also be causing adverse health effects.  Therefore, the radio-off or radio-out opt out options are inadequate and irrelevant.

David Wilner of Wilner & Associates filed a protest on April 25, 2011 to PG&E’s SmartMeter opt-out proposal because the “radio off” alternative offered by the utility may not solve health problems reported by their clients.  They recommend a conventional analog meter option for people that suffer from electrical sensitivity because based on experience, this will address their problems. Our question to the CPUC is:  Why can’t people in California have an analog meter just like utility customers in Maine?

Steve Martinot lives in Berkeley, He has worked as a machinist and truck driver. He has taught literature and cultural studies at the Univ. of Colorado and San Francisco State Univ. He has published poetry, short stories, and several books of philosophy and political analysis.  Steve will talk about the extortionary character of the PG&E proposal, and the fact that it is the people who have been adversely affected by these Smartmeters who are due costs and compensations.

Documents that are part of this proceeding can be viewed at: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/proceedings/A1106006.htm

Posted in Citizen rebellion, CPUC, Democracy, Electro-Hyper-Sensitivity, Health studies, PG&E, Police, Privacy, Safety, San Francisco, Santa Cruz County, World Health Organization | 5 Comments

Lompoc Woman Defies PG&E, Puts on Gloves and Removes “Smart” Meter

Posted on September 12, 2011 by Josh Hart

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XLL33eg4jk

(from EMF Safety Network)

Susan Beckman, a children’s TV show producer (above is her latest production) who lives near Lompoc in Santa Barbara County, has removed a Smart Meter from her home and replaced it with an analog meter to protect her husband, a WWII Veteran.  In response to this act Susan stated a PG&E representative has threatened  to “bring the police and turn off her power.”

Misled by PG&E into thinking she could refuse the new meter when the installers arrived, a Smart Meter was installed without her knowledge.  She started to hear a buzz  and a loud hum in the house and noticed feeling extremely fatigued with aching joints, a rash and feeling flu-like.  After some investigation she discovered the new meter on her house.  She was also very concerned about her husband.  She writes, “My 89 year old husband has had cancer removed and the smart meter installed a few feet from where he spends about 80% of his time in his den.”

Susan then called PG&E and spoke to several representatives with whom she said made “demeaning comments” and they refused to remove the meter.  Finally, she talked with one who was actually sympathetic who told her she could buy an analog meter and replace it, which she did, with her own hands, with guidance from an electrician.  She said she, “wore gloves, turned the main power off, clipped the lock, took the collar off and used a lot pressure to pull it off.” The electrician checked it out and verified it was done correctly.

She then sent registered letters, reviewed by her attorney to PG&E.  In an email to the California Public utilities Commission Susan writes that PG&E Smart Meter agent “Dennis Weidman, before losing his patience and hanging up on me, said tomorrow he will bring the police and turn off our electricity.”

We will update our readers on any developments with this developing situation. -SSM!

Posted in Citizen rebellion, Democracy, Electro-Hyper-Sensitivity, Health studies, Police, Santa Barbara | 5 Comments