PG&E’s Lying and Spying May Cost Them

Posted on April 26, 2012 by Josh Hart

Yesterday, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) ordered an investigation into PG&E’s activities to determine if PG&E engaged in illegal and deceitful conduct towards consumer groups.  The investigation centers around William “Ralph” Devereaux, the Senior Director of PG&E’s Smart Meter program from October 2009 to November 2010.  Devereaux was the public face of Smart Meters in California and he appeared at many community and local government meetings throughout PG&E’s service territory.  He resigned from PG&E in November 2010 after he was caught trying to infiltrate an EMF Safety Network online discussion list, and outed to the media.  Prior to being exposed, he infiltrated other anti smart meter groups, including this one and posted comments in an attempt to discredit our views, using the fake name, “Ralph Florea.”

Yesterday, the Consumer Protection and Safety Division of the CPUC announced the findings of an initial investigation that concluded:

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

William Devereaux led a double life as "Ralph" the smart meter activist

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

Where is “Ralph” now?  Turns out he’s working for Oracle as “VP of Industry Strategy helping to define how Oracle supports the rapidly changing Utilities industry.”  Apparently falsifying your identity and spying on consumer groups shows you are a real “go-getter”  in the cutthroat smart grid deployment field.  His motto- fry, lie, and spy!

We’ll be watching the investigation unfold and will bring you news as it happens.  Particularly interesting will be whether the commission publicly releases full, unredacted copies of internal e-mails from PG&E showing that “Ralph” acted not alone, but with the full approval of PG&E’s senior executives.

Heads could roll.  And they should.

Thanks to EMF Safety Network for contributing to this post.

Posted in California, CPUC, PG&E | 2 Comments

CPUC: PG&E Smart Meter Opt Out Fees “Suspended”

Posted on April 25, 2012 by Josh Hart

Utility Lacks Authority to Force Smart Meters or Charge Fees to Keep Analog Meters

San Francisco, CA- Though PG&E’s arbitrary “deadline” of May 1st for signing up for their smart meter opt out program is fast approaching, the future of the charges is uncertain due to legal challenges and a series of procedural errors by both PG&E and the CPUC, who have failed to provide crucial documents to members of the public protesting the opt out policy, as required by law.  The regulatory agency has issued conflicting statements about the approval status of the policy, and has refused to divulge e-mail communications with PG&E about the issue, in violation of the CA Public Records Act.

Edward Hasbrouck, a San Francisco resident, grassroots activist and author of the travel book The Practical Nomad, submitted a protest in February against the legality of the opt out fees.  Mr. Hasbrouck’s protest is simple, but cuts to the heart of whether utilities like PG&E’s have a right to install a smart meter against the will of a homeowner and to charge a fee for retaining an analog meter.  Despite being required by law to serve Mr. Hasbrouck a copy of the PUC and PG&E responses, this never occurred.   Because of this “procedural error” PG&E’s Advice Letter containing the opt out policy has therefore been suspended, according to CPUC General Order 96-B 7.5.2.   This was confirmed in an e-mail dated April 20th from Elizabeth Dorman, Principal Counsel at CPUC’s Legal Division to Mr. Hasbrouck:

Legal Division has instructed Energy Division that the Advice Letter filing is suspended, and requested that they include such label on our website.

CPUC General Order 96-B 7.5.2 states:

For any advice letter that may not be deemed approved, suspension is automatic if disposition of the advice letter has not occurred by the end of the initial review period.

Because the CPUC’s disposition of the advice letter was invalid due to their failure to serve Mr. Hasbrouck, suspension (according to the CPUC’s own rules) is automatic.

But the CPUC’s Energy Division has disputed this, essentially saying that they made a ‘mistake’ and deserve a ‘do over.’ Meanwhile, PG&E operators have been telling customers that they will be charged starting May 1st, even though the policy has been suspended.  Critics of the utility accuse PG&E of fraud in asserting that the opt out fees are still valid, and working behind the scenes to obscure the suspension of the policy.

Reached by telephone today, Ms. Dorman agreed that there is no law mandating smart meter installation- and that the right to install a smart meter was “just an assumption” by the PUC and the utilities, and not based in law.

“CPUC’s legal division is correct- there is no law that says smart meters are mandatory” says Joshua Hart, Director of Santa Cruz County based Stop Smart Meters! “PG&E and the other utilities cannot legally charge a fee unless people actively agree to the charges.  It is all a bluff by the utility who are running from the reality that their smart meter program has been a full fledged debacle and is being rejected by the public.  Mr. Hasbrouck is asking some fairly inconvenient questions and the powers that be are attempting to silence him.”

The ‘opt out’ policy itself has been described by those close to the issue as being “half baked.”  No accommodation has been made for apartment dwellers, business owners, or to provide for community wide opt outs as requested by dozens of local governments throughout the state, and thousands of people who have complained directly to the agency of health impacts, fires, and higher bills.  Fifty-six cities and counties in CA have now gone on record as opposing the current installations.  The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has demanded that the CPUC halt smart meter installation immediately to protect the public’s health. (pdf)

Under State Utility Code, utilities may not charge extra to people to protect their safety and health.  Smart meters are threats to both according to scientific studies (pdf).

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

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

In accordance with the CPUC’s rules, Hasbrouck has requested that the full CPUC review the CPUC Energy Division’s mishandling of his protest and order that a formal proceeding be conducted to consider whether PG&E’s gas and electric delivery easements give the utility the right to install wireless telecommunications infrastructure on customer premises.

“If PG&E can put a base station for its mesh network on my gas or electric meter, without having to ask for permission from the owner of the building, does that mean AT&T has the right to add a cellphone antenna and transceiver to the telephone junction box on my wall, without permission and without having to pay for those rights?” Hasbrouck asks. He points out that Proposition J, enacted by San Francisco voters in 2007, set conditions for wireless network infrastructure on city streets that aren’t met by the mesh network bundled with PG&E’s “SmartMeters”.

Regardless of the status of the opt out fees, customers of PG&E are being urged to inform the utility of their choice to reject the smart meters by May 1st and to either protest the fees or write “paid under protest” on their check.   PG&E customers should call 1-866-743-0263 immediately to opt out.

Mr. Hasbrouck has covered this evolving issue on his website:

PG&E twists “SmartMeter” opt-out into involuntary opt-in to higher fees

CPUC withdraws approval of PG&E “SmartMeter” opt-out fees

PG&E “SmartMeter” opt-out fees are suspended

Contacts for further information:

Edward Hasbrouck:  415 824 0214

Elizabeth Dorman, CPUC Legal Division: 415.703.1415

###

Posted in California, Citizen rebellion, CPUC, Democracy, legal issues, PG&E, San Francisco, Smart Grid | 22 Comments

Action Needed: Opt Out of PG&E’s Smart Meters Today!

Posted on April 23, 2012 by Josh Hart

CALL PG&E: OPT OUT NOW! 1-866-743-0263

If you have a smart meter:Tell PG&E  to remove it!

If you have an analog meter: Tell PG&E you plan to keep your analog meter. When they ask you to agree to the charges tell them,  “NO,  the fees are arbitrary, punitive, likely illegal, and the fees are being legally contested at the CPUC!”

Be assertive. Here’s the legal scoop:  ***PG&Es Advice letter 3278-G/4006-E was posted on the CPUC Energy Division website as NO ACTION.   NO ACTION means they cannot act on the advice letter, therefore we believe they cannot legally charge the fees at this time.  If they ask you about access to your property, tell them they need to make an appointment.

If you agree to the fees, you can express that you are only agreeing under duress.  If and when they charge, write “paid under protest” on your check, and keep a copy. Or don’t pay.** Don’t just ignore PG&E, either call or write a letter, or sign up online. PG&E’s online opt out form does not force you to explicitly agree to the charges.

You can also send PG&E a certified letter to: Pacific Gas and Electric, PO Box 997315, Sacramento Ca 95899-9900. See sample letter.

* May 1 is a PG&E deadline for people on the “delay list”.  Any PG&E customer can opt out for any reason at any time.

**RISKS and BENEFITS of NOT paying the fees:  This is a form of direct action that can be helpful.  PG&E may turn off your utilities, or install a smart meter. If this happens we can bring media attention to the issue.

*** The advice letter was removed from the CPUC website on April 30.

Neighbors meters: Talk to your neighbors about these choices. Some people,  if needed-will offer to cover the costs of neighbors opt out, to protect themselves and their children. Print out this flyer and talk to your neighbors:Neighborhood flyer

For more info see: Understanding PG&E Smart Meter Opt-Out fees

See also: CPUC: PG&E Smart Meter Opt Out Fees “Suspended”

(Adapted from EMF Safety Network post)

Posted in California, PG&E | 15 Comments

Southern CA “Opt Out” Approved

Posted on April 23, 2012 by Josh Hart

From EMF Safety Network April 20th post:

On April 19th, the California Public Utilities Commission approved a smart meter opt out program for Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) customers, similar to the PG&E opt out program approved in February.

SCE:  Starting May 9, customers may opt out by calling 1-800-810-2369.  For customers already on the delay list, calling the number will enable them to enroll in the opt-out program and keep their current meters. Customers who have a smart meter, but would like to opt out, can have their meter exchanged for the type (i.e., electro-mechanical analog meter or non-analog, non-smart digital meter) that was previously in place.

SDG&E: Similar opt out program approved, using analog meters.  SDG&E will begin removing smart meters within 20 days.  Call 1-800-411-7343

Unfortunately, the punitive, arbitrary, and likely illegal fees to opt out continue to be imposed by the CPUC.  Approval was given to interim fees of $75 for set-up and $10 per month for meter reading, and CARE fees of $10 for set-up and $5 per month. A second phase of the CPUC proceeding will be held to evaluate cost, and community wide opt-outs.

Meanwhile the CPUC also approved new metrics to track how the smart grid projects are delivering value to customers. These metrics include tracking: load and demand response programs, home area network usage, customer complaints, malfunctioning meters, and others.

Posted in California, CPUC, Los Angeles, San Diego County, SCE | 9 Comments

FightTheFees.Org Sends a Message to Utilities: We Won’t Pay

Posted on April 17, 2012 by Josh Hart

Watsonville, CA mom Diane Dutton has had enough.  After reading the recent Santa Cruz County Public Health Department report that states that the “evidence is accumulating on the results of exposure to RF at non-thermal levels” and then getting a notice from her utility that she would have to pay a fee to not have a device that emits (what PG&E admits is) up to 190,000 bursts of radiation per day- radiation that the World Health Organization now considers a Class 2B carcinogen – she felt it just isn’t right.

“Something just doesn’t add up” she says. “We should not have to pay a fee to protect our health.  There is enough science that says this is dangerous- I don’t want my family exposed to it.”  So she set out to find others who are similarly alarmed about the smart meter situation and the extortionate opt out fees. The response so far has been very positive.

She says she set up FightTheFees.Org so that people don’t feel so alone when defying their utility.  “There are thousands- millions of people opposed to the so-called smart grid- together we’re stronger than any utility company.”

Diane encourages people to defend their analogs, and submit photos of themselves and their families holding a protest sign next to their meters to add to her website.  No names or addresses are needed- just your town and a photo under 500kb- you can send to fightsmartmeterfees@gmail.com

Posted in California, Citizen rebellion, health effects, Health studies, neighborhood organizing, PG&E, radio-frequency radiation, Santa Cruz County, World Health Organization | 20 Comments