BREAKING: SaskPower ordered to remove all 105,000 Smart Meters in province (VIDEO)

Government Minister Bill Boyd stated that people’s lives and their family’s lives can’t be compromised.

SaskPower ordered to remove all smart meters in the province
30 July 2014 at 7:16pm |
by Shawn Knox, Global News

Fires prompt full recall & investigation of why testing never happened

Video:   http://globalnews.ca/video/1483691/saskpower-removing-smart-meters
The removal of the smart meters over the next six to nine months will cost around $15 million, according to SaskPower.

REGINA – SaskPower has announced that they are removing all the smart meters that were installed in the province.

The minister responsible for SaskPower Bill Boyd said the utility company will be taking out all 105,000 smart meters around Saskatchewan.

“I think the concerns about safety are paramount here, the concerns are significant enough, anytime families are at risk in Saskatchewan, actions have to be taken and that’s why we’ve directed SaskPower accordingly,” said Minister Boyd.

The removal of the smart meters over the next six to nine months will cost around $15 million, according to SaskPower.

“We view it as similar to a recall situation and the people of Saskatchewan shouldn’t be responsible for the costs of this and we’ll do everything we can to recover those costs,” said Boyd.

Boyd will also be reviewing why the new meters weren’t properly studied or tested before they were installed in homes.

“I don’t know whether there was enough testing done. We’ll certainly be conducting, along with SaskPower, an internal review of the procurement procedures around this around the safety concerns people had,” added Boyd.

“We want to determine when these were originally ordered, if there were safety concerns known at that point in time, so we have a lot of questions we’re going to be discussing with SaskPower about how this came to be.”

Earlier this month SaskPower temporarily suspended its installation of smart meters around the province after half a dozen caught fire.

Source: http://globalnews.ca/news/1483134/saskpower-ordered-to-remove-all-smart-meters-in-the-province/

Related stories:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1477802/saskpower-smart-meter-explodes-in-colonsay-sask/

SaskPower installer requirements questioned after smart meter fires

NDP raises questions as 8th SaskPower smart meter fails

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PG&E charged with lying to regulators in San Bruno explosion

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Pacific Gas & Electric was charged Tuesday with lying to regulators in connection with a fatal pipeline explosion that killed eight people and leveled a suburban Northern California neighborhood in 2010.

The U.S. attorney in San Francisco announced the obstruction of justice charge and 27 related counts, which are in a new indictment charging the utility with felonies. It replaces a previous indictment that contained 12 counts related to PG&E’s safety practices, but not obstruction.

Prosecutors say PG&E hampered the investigation by lying to regulators soon after the blast. In particular, PG&E officials are accused of telling National Transportation Safety Board investigators that the safety procedures being followed were correct and approved.

The other charges accuse the utility of failing to act on threats in its pipeline system even after the problems were identified by its own inspectors. The indictment charges PG&E with keeping shoddy records, failing to identify safety threats and failing to act when threats were found.

…No employees or executives have been charged in the San Bruno disaster. Prosecutors could still file another indictment charging individuals.

The utility announced in June that it was expecting the new indictment. PG&E spokesman Greg Snapper said company officials had not yet seen it.

“However, based on all of the evidence we have seen to date, we do not believe that the charges are warranted and that, even where mistakes were made, employees were acting in good faith to provide customers with safe and reliable energy,” he said in a prepared statement.

… On Tuesday, San Bruno City Manager Jim Ruane said “the new criminal charges demonstrate a pattern of deceit by PG&E.”

Complete article:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/news/ci_26240331/pg-amp-e-charged-obstruction-over-san-bruno
PG&E charged with obstruction over San Bruno blast
Santa Cruz Sentinel
July 29, 2014

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PG&E reports minimal customer conservation overall, 2010-2013; zero savings for web monitoring customers in 2013

“Analysis: Smart Meter and Smart Grid Problems” (p. 116 – 117) showed PG&E’s 2010 and 2011 “SmartMeter™ Program Enabled Energy Conservation Program” charts from their annual reports. Here are now the charts for 2012 and 2013.

PG&E’s numbers are confusing and contradictory from year to year. There are obvious errors, such as “0” under total enrolled customers for 2010. Customers enrolled in two programs are double counted in 2012, as PG&E notes.

The net result is that during these four years, there has been very minimal conservation savings by consumers, less than what could have been achieved without the expense and considerable problems of the Smart Meter program.

The web program, greatly hyped by PG&E and other utilities, and their premiere PR tool, appears to be a failure, especially for 2010 and 2013, as far as energy conservation.

Demand reduction is not happening at all.

This data is compared below with PG&E’s own suggestions from their literature. Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Austrian Medical Association opposes Smart Meter roll-out, warns of serious health problems from Smart Meters (including Powerline Carrier — PLC)

In January 2012, the Austrian Medical Association (literal translation: Austrian Chamber of Physicians) — ÖÄK — opposed the mandatory introduction of Smart Meters in Austria.

They issued a letter to the Austrian government, followed by a press release in February, warning of the health consequences they expected would result.

Press Release

 “The planned area-wide introduction of so-called ‘smart meters’, can lead to health consequences, in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Medicine of the Austrian Medical Association (ÖÄK)… The available transmission options such as radio or transmission over the power grid itself (Powerline Communication, short PLC) lead to electrosmog that is harmful to health. Additionally, with Power Line Communication the existing electrical lines and the connected devices now emit increasing electrosmog (electric fields in the Kilohertz range).
Press release, German, 2-4-2012
Press release, English translation

Letter to Austrian Federal Ministry for Economics, Family and Youth, 1-18-2012

The expected health consequences would be an increase in symptoms and diseases that fall into the category of so-called multi-system diseases. This illness is characterized by involving several organs or functional systems at the same time and in interaction…

Who is liable in the event of health problems and diseases caused by the increased field exposure on the part of the Smart Meter?…

From the perspective of the Austrian Medical Association, the planned timetable of mandatory introduction of ‘smart meters’ should be reconsidered or suspended until pending clarification and solution of open questions.”
German
English

Austrian Medical Association website: http://www.aerztekammer.at

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

AARP Oklahoma argues against PSO’s “flawed smart meter program”; citizen groups oppose program and rate hike, call for moratorium and state investigation

Tuesday, July 22, AARP Oklahoma representatives testified in court that the Smart Meter plan proposed by American Electric Power-Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (PSO) is flawed and unproven.

Sean Voskuhl, state director for AARP, said his group tried to make its case that the smart meter plan is flawed and unproven. He said that AEP-PSO did not include data from its smart meter pilot project in Owasso that could prove the cost-benefit analysis.

“We weren’t able to find evidence that this is a great deal for ratepayers,” Voskuhl said Tuesday after the hearing.[i]

Earlier in the month, Joe Ann Vermillion, AARP Oklahoma Executive Council Member, wrote this editorial on the AARP website [ii]—

Giving PSO an Open Check Book for its Flawed Smart Meter Expansion Not a Smart Idea

Right now, our electric company – Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO) – is asking the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to approve its flawed smart meter expansion program.

They want customers like you and me to pay for their $133 million expansion, even though their own analysis fails to show their smart meter program will reduce either operational expenses or the price of electricity for customers.

AARP Oklahoma opposes PSO’s flawed smart meter program and is urging the Corporation Commission to reject their plan.

We shouldn’t give PSO an open check book for its expensive smart meter expansion, especially when many older Oklahomans already have trouble paying for their monthly utility bills. Instead, AARP is asking PSO to create a low-income program, much like one already in use by OG&E, which would help older Oklahomans afford to pay their electric bills.

PSO’s smart meter costs outweigh the benefits that will occur as a result of this investment. Under their costly plan, residential customer bills will increase by $3 to $4 per month for three years or more – $135 over three years– without any way to determine if cost reductions or bill savings will actually occur as they predict.

This is not a bargain that ratepayers should accept.

PSO’s flawed smart meter expansion plan is anything but smart. It’s a dumb way to shift almost all the risks associated with its estimated costs and benefits to the customer.

And it’s simply not fair to ask us to pay for this expensive project.

I urge you to call the Oklahoma Corporation Commission at 1-800-944-6708 and ask them to reject PSO’s flawed smart meter expansion program.

(Joe Ann Vermillion, a resident of McAlester, is a member of the AARP Oklahoma Executive Council.)

Meanwhile, two citizen groups issued a press release July 21, opposing the PSO’s request for a rate hike and deployment of Smart Meters.

The Tulsa 9-12 Project cited privacy, data use, health problems, program cost, and liability from lawsuits in their opposition. They also said:

If approved, “Smart Meters” will blanket 30,000 square miles of Oklahoma with pulsing non-ionizing radiation (a class 2B Carcinogen). The unsuspecting public will be radiated 24 hours a day by a wireless technology that can neither be seen nor heard. There are 3 cases currently before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission due to severe health effects associated with AMI (Smart Meters).

Amanda Teegarden, executive director of OK-SAFE, Inc. said

“OK-SAFE opposes PSO’s proposed rate increase, and the related rollout of AMI (smart meters) in their service area. Having followed this issue for a while now, we have come to believe that PSO is willfully and intentionally disregarding the public’s legitimate privacy, health and cost concerns associated with the installation of these types of meters. We strenuously oppose this rollout.

Further, we ask the legislature to issue a moratorium on the installation of any more AMI meters until expert testimony on the risks and costs has been made public.”

Tulsa 9.12 Project additionally stated

Corporation Commissioner Patrice Douglas, candidate for U.S. Congress, should recuse herself from voting on the PSO rate case. Douglas has accepted campaign contributions from several utility companies, including PSO, leading to possible conflict of interest and bias in the PSO rate case.

———————————————————————–

[i] http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/energy/aarp-challenges-aep-pso-smart-meter-plan/article_43e0ed62-121d-511c-96c0-02fd31a1608f.html
AARP challenges AEP-PSO smart meter plan;
AEP-PSO plans to increase customer rates to pay for new meters

http://www.bnd.com/2014/07/23/3315167/judge-considers-utilitys-plan.html
Judge considers utility’s plan for smart meters

[ii] http://states.aarp.org/giving-pso-an-open-check-book-for-its-flawed-smart-meter-expansion-not-a-smart-idea/

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Take Back Your Power — upcoming screenings

07/30/2014     06:30 pm         Huntington Beach, CA, USA

08/15/2014     07:00 pm         Seattle, WA, USA

08/22/2014     07:00 pm         Park Forest, IL, USA

08/30/2014     08:10 pm         Saugerties, NY, USA

09/14/2014     07:00 pm         Vero Beach, FL, USA

More information at
http://www.takebackyourpower.net/screenings/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Florida report on energy company influence over legislature and Public Service Commission

In Florida (and elsewhere), utility companies certainly wield a lot of power. This shows up as rate increases, hidden fees, fees for nuclear power plants that don’t exist, municipal utility buy-up controversies, Smart Meter and Smart Grid problems (including time-of-use rates) which are ignored, and new power plants pushed when capacity is not needed. At a hearing this week, they’ll lobby for most energy conservation goals to be terminated.

All of this is to the industry’s advantage. None of it is for the consumer.

Integrity Florida put out the report “Power Play: Political Influence of Florida’s Top Energy Corporations” in March 2014 [here and http://www.integrityflorida.org/powerplay/]

“…between 2004 and 2012, the companies infused more than $18 million into legislative and state political campaigns and spent more than $12 million over the past five years hiring lobbyists. The report also detailed a pattern of favoritism toward utilities by regulators at the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Legislature.

The report contends the investments of power companies have paid legislative dividends.

For example, Progress Energy, now known as Duke Energy, charged its customers more than $1.5 billion for the now-canceled Levy County nuclear power plant and, even though it will never be built, the law allows Duke Energy to keep the money, including $150 million in profit.

The cost to the company, the report found: an estimated $300,000 to hire 15 lobbyists in 2006 to push for the bill, and more than $3.6 million in campaign contributions for lawmakers to keep the charges intact.

…The report also suggested that a “revolving door” is commonly used “to lure former government regulators and officials into more lucrative lobbying and consulting jobs” for the industry.

It cites news reports that found 18 former state officials with current ties to FPL. Some worked for FPL, while others joined lobbying firms that represented the company. In addition, five former PSC commissioners, including the current executive director [Braulio Baez], have worked or are working for FPL.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/03/30/4027893/group-says-power-companies-wield.html
Group says power companies wield too much influence in Legislature

In 2010, two PSC commissioners, appointed by then Gov. Crist, were rejected by the legislature. Their crime? They voted against rate increases and represented independence from utility companies.

Klement and Stevens were appointed by Crist in October after revelations that some PSC members and staffers had become too close to the utilities the agency regulates. A legislatively controlled nominating panel sent Crist six possible appointees for two positions, only two of whom had not worked in the utility industry or at the PSC.

Crist said he was “deeply disappointed” by the votes, particularly claims that the two were not qualified.

“I don’t know how you can [say] that with a straight face — when it’s the Legislature that submitted the names to me in the first place,” he said. “It’s hard to pass the smell test.”

Klement, a former editorial page editor for the Bradenton Herald, released a strongly worded statement calling the confirmation process a farce.

“Today’s vote by the Florida Senate was an example of government at its worst — using vital public regulatory appointments to get back at the governor and to satisfy the wishes of the utility industry,” Klement said.

He warned that utility customers should “hold on to your wallets. Because it seems clear that the Senate leadership is bent on appointing utility-friendly commissioners to the PSC. Make no mistake, this vote was not about ability, it was about money — and politics.”

… Pushing lawmakers to reject Crist’s appointees was a priority for Florida’s largest electric utilities, particularly Florida Power & Light and Progress Energy, whose requests for rate increases were rejected by the PSC in January after Klement and Stevens took office.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/two-crist-psc-appointees-who-said-no-to-electric-companies-get-legislative/1090899

March 30, 20214:

The current Public Service Commission has never rejected a request by utilities to collect the nuclear fee and has approved every rate increase request sought by the four companies.

That track record won praise from the Senate Communications, Energy and Public Utilities Committee two weeks ago, when it unanimously supported the reappointment of two PSC commissioners, Art Graham and Ronald Brise.

Sen. Joseph Abruzzo, a Democrat from West Palm Beach who serves on the legislator-controlled nominating council, told Graham: “I cannot commend you enough for really getting a grasp on the board, working together and making Florida a better place for all our utilities and most of all our consumers.”

“We have a lovefest,” said Sen. Anitere Flores, R-Miami, the committee’s chairwoman.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/watchdog-report-says-power-companies-wield-too-much-influence-in-florida/2172513

A lovefest at the Public Service Commission? A love fest in Tallahassee? Is that really what Florida residents want happening at the PSC and the state capitol between legislators and the energy industry?

This is a part of a wider scandal involving Florida government officials.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/a-history-of-floridas-gift-ban-scandal-reform-repeat/2190090
A history of Florida’s gift ban: Scandal. Reform. Repeat.

Information on hunting trips to King Ranch in Texas are stonewalled.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/why-wont-florida-gop-leaders-talk-about-hunting-trips-to-king-ranch-in/2190083

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/back-and-forth-slugfest-between–rick-scott-and-charlie-crist-intenstifies/2189924
Back-and-forth slugfest between Rick Scott and Charlie Crist intensifies

Fortunately, the Florida news media is covering these issues.

In other states, the public is not so lucky. A rare investigative article on telecom industry dominance in California appeared in the Los Angeles Times.[i] And this Sacramento Bee blog was written on PG&E executives in Gov. Jerry Brown’s top staff.[ii] However, despite or because of the influence of utility, telecom, and other industries in California governance, little is reported in the media.

Meanwhile, the Florida energy companies will ask the PSC tomorrow to eliminate energy conservation goals, and the public is not allowed to speak at the hearing.

 The state’s energy future depends almost exclusively on construction of expensive new power plants, the utilities argued in preparation for the Public Service Commission hearing and in their previous public statements.

The utilities see little merit in any other strategy.

Solar energy? Not reliable. Increased efforts to encourage use of energy efficient appliances and building practices? Not “cost effective.” Studies that show it is cheaper to conserve power than to generate it? Misleading.

Given the pattern of recent decisions, there’s a good chance the PSC will approve the requests from Duke Energy, Tampa Electric Co. and Florida Power & Light to gut conservation goals.

Ratepayers alarmed at that prospect will have no opportunity to object at Monday’s hearing. The proceedings will be too ”technical,” the PSC said.

The stakes are high. For the utilities, there’s the prospect of big, guaranteed returns on investments in new plants. Those returns would come from the pockets of utility customers. They, according to economist Shawn LeMond, “are going to get hosed.”

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/utilities-will-ask-psc-for-permission-to-gut-energy-saving-goals/2189192

PSC Chairman Ronald Brise said,

“Given the technical nature of this goal-setting procedure and no legislative directive to take public testimony, I do not find it necessary to hold a public hearing.” He suggested the public submit comments in writing.

Too technical for the public to provide testimony? No directive from the state legislature for the public’s input and involvement in this important hearing?

Will Florida residents allow this “members only” club to continue, or will there be protests inside and outside the hearing room, demanding the public’s right to participate in this hearing?

In California, the Bagley-Keene Act governing state agencies was enacted in a rare fit of wisdom. It is often ignored, but it stands, nevertheless.

It states,

Section 11120: It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed. In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.

Florida residents can say, “Enough is enough.” They can take back the PSC and the state legislature.

Will they?

 

[i] www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-att-20120422,0,4280264.story
AT&T wields enormous power in Sacramento, April 22, 2012

“No other single corporation has spent more trying to influence legislators in recent years. It dispenses millions in political donations and has an army of lobbyists. Bills it opposes are usually defeated.”

Also http://www.derekcressman.com/cancelspeakerscup

[ii] http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/11/jerry-brown-names-pge-official-dana-williamson-senior-adviser.html#ixzz1ciLUiXdy

Note: PG&E exec Nancy McFadden was in charge of PG&E’s Proposition 16 campaign to stop municipal utility district formation which jeopardizes PG&E’s monopoly. This proposition was defeated by California voters, yet Brown picked McFadden to be his executive secretary/chief of staff when he took office. Jerry Brown appointed both of these PG&E executives after the San Bruno disaster.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Smart Meters violate FCC rules

Filed in 2011 with the California Public Utilities Commission:

The EMF Safety Network alleges that PG&E Smart Meters violate one or more FCC conditions that determine RF exposure compliance. The FCC Grants of Equipment Authorization, which govern the rules upon which FCC compliance is based, warns that RF exposure compliance depends on specific conditions. The conditions include one or more of the following, depending on the specific make and model of Smart Meter.

• limited single module approval requires professional installation;

• antenna(s) must provide a separation distance of at least 20 cm from all persons;

• antenna(s) must not be co-located or operating in conjunction with any other antenna or transmitter;

• end-users and installers must be provided with antenna installation and transmitter operating conditions for satisfying RF exposure compliance

Smart Meters are widely co-located in banks of multiple meters. Co-location also occurs within Smart Meters because electric Smart Meters include at least two internal RF antennas. One antenna is used for the mesh network system and the other is for the Home Area Network (HAN) systems. Antennas are designed to work in conjunction with the HAN and RF appliances and with other Smart Meters in a mesh network. Antennas have separate Grants of Equipment Authorization, which suggests that manufacturers have tested antennas in isolation and individually, and not in combination, which is how the Smart Meter and the Smart Grid system were designed to operate….

…Network alleges one or more FCC exposure compliance violations for the following meters PG&E is deploying: FCC ID numbers: OWS-NIC514, OWS-NIC507, and LLB6327PWM.

EMF Safety Network, A. 10-04-018, Declaration, Jan. 5, 2011
http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/129162.pdf

Furthermore, “antenna(s) must provide a separation distance of at least 20 cm (8 in.) from all persons,” yet there are no warning labels on Smart Meters, and PG&E has actually encouraged people to get close to their meters to read them.

Many Smart Meters are installed within 20 cm of public access. In some cases the meters are installed inside homes and businesses. In many situations Smart Meters are easily accessible to the public. This rule is clearly violated.

EMF Safety Network, A. 10-04-018, Declaration, Jan. 5, 2011
http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/129162.pdf

Sage Associates, January 2011:

FCC compliance violations are likely to occur under normal conditions of installation and operation of smart meters and collector meters in California.

Assessment of Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Emissions from Smart Meters ITRON Smart Meter (SKAMI-4)
http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/

Sage Associates, February 2011:

Violations of FCC safety limits for uncontrolled public access are identified at distances out to a distance of more than one foot for a single meter, and several feet for multiple meters, even under the most restrictive FCC formula using only a 60% reflection factor.

Smart Meter Addendum Report, PG&E Smart Meter (Silver Springs OWS-NIC514)
http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page_id=429

Environmental Health Coalition of West Marin:

“The emissions from one meter are strong enough that the public is put at risk from exposures outward from the meter from approximately one foot to over six feet, depending on the reflection factor,” says Cindy Sage, Sage Associates. “For multiple meters at the same location, the zone of impact where FCC limits may be violated is somewhere between three feet and 19 feet, depending on the reflection factor.”

Press release,  February 18, 2011

EMF Safety Network legal filings at the California PUC are here:

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Health Department report on Smart Meter health risks

On January 24, 2012, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors in California received a report from the County Health Officer on the health risks of Smart Meters.

The report, written by Santa Cruz County Health Officer Dr. Poki Stewart Namkung, discusses the scientific research as well as the inadequacy of FCC guidelines in protecting public health. She states that governmental agencies for protecting public health and safety, such as health departments, “are the only defense against such involuntary exposure.”

This report was included in a Smart Meter proposal delivered to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisor that day. In a letter to the Board, Chief Administrative Officer Susan Mauriello listed five actions which county staff recommended. The complete proposal, including the Health Dept. report is here, as well as at this link: http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/agendas/2012/20120124/PDF/041.pdf

Dr. Namkung’s report is separately here.

After hearing public testimony, the Supervisors approved all these actions that day, including renewing the county’s Smart Meter moratorium.

Excerpts of Health Department report:

“Meeting the current FCC guidelines only assures that one should not have heat damage from SmartMeter exposure…When it comes to nonthermal effects of RF [radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation], FCC guidelines are irrelevant and cannot be used for any claims of SmartMeter safety unless heat damage is involved.”

“There are no current, relevant public safety standards for pulsed RF involving chronic exposure of the public, nor of sensitive populations, nor of people with metal and medical implants that can be affected by localized heating and by electromagnetic interference…”

“Evidence is accumulating on the results of exposure to RF at non-thermal levels, including increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier in the head, harmful effects on sperm, double strand breaks in DNA which could lead to cancer genesis, stress gene activation indicating an exposure to a toxin, and alterations in brain glucose metabolism.”

This report also discusses the phenomenon known as electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and its prevalence, and states: “Currently, research has demonstrated objective evidence to support the EHS diagnosis defining pathophysiological mechanisms including immune dysregulation in vitro, with increased production of selected cytokines and disruption and dysregulation of catecholamine physiology.”

The report includes ways for the public to reduce their exposure to EMF from cell phones, wireless internet, and other wireless and EMF devices.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Illinois and Massachusetts require Smart Meters. Isn’t that illegal?

The federal 2005 Energy Act is very clear – Smart Meters are to be offered to customers and only installed if they request them.

SEC. 1252. SMART METERING.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(a) (14) Time-Based Metering and Communications.—(A) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this paragraph, each electric utility shall offer each of its customer classes, and provide individual customers upon customer request, a time-based rate schedule under which the rate charged by the electric utility varies during different time periods and reflects the variance, if any, in the utility’s costs of generating and purchasing electricity at the wholesale level. The time-based rate schedule shall enable the electric consumer to manage energy use and cost through advanced metering and communications technology.

(B) The types of time-based rate schedules that may be offered under the schedule referred to in subparagraph (A) include, among others— (i) time-of-use pricing…,(ii) critical peak pricing…,(iii) real-time pricing…, and (iv) credits…

(C) Each electric utility subject to subparagraph (A) shall provide each customer requesting a time-based rate with a time-based meter capable of enabling the utility and customer to offer and receive such rate, respectively.

(f) FEDERAL ENCOURAGEMENT OF DEMAND RESPONSE DEVICES.—It is the policy of the United States that time-based pricing and other forms of demand response, whereby electricity customers are provided with electricity price signals and the ability to benefit by responding to them, shall be encouraged…

That hasn’t stopped states from running roughshod over the public.

In California, the PUC exceeded its legal authority by requiring Californians to accept Smart Meters. It then backtracked and illegally, offered an opt-out, when the Smart Meter program is actually opt-in. In Oregon, the opt-out fee for Portland General Electric is so high that only a handful of customers are enrolled.

In at least two states, Illinois and Massachusetts, public officials are flatly stating the public must have Smart Meters.

The Illinois Commerce Commission has mandated Smart Meters. Their “delay” list is only temporary.

“If customers make the decision to refuse a [smart] meter now and incur monthly charges associated with this choice, it should be with full knowledge that this refusal is simply deferring the inevitable.”
http://smartgridawareness.org/2014/02/07/comed-smart-meter-opt-outs/#more-6031

 The full ICC press release is here.

And in Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick is under the same illusion that he can require Smart Meters, perhaps because he is from Illinois.

Pick up a copy of “Take Back Your Power” and show it in your community. We need to take back our power and stop this costly, invasive, and hazardous program now.

As stated in the Smart Grid Awareness article above, “A lot can change in the months and years ahead. Continued push-back on smart meters by consumers is essential.“

http://nomasssmartmeters.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/is-gov-patricks-smart-meter-mandate-illegal/

Is Gov. Patrick’s Smart Meter Mandate illegal?

Posted: April 30, 2014

The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) has issued an order that will require the state’s major utilities to submit a 10-year grid modernization plan (GMP) by summer 2014 that includes smart metering with advanced functionality such as outage detection and restoration, smart appliance communication and control, and power quality support, and voltage reduction. [Note that National Grid’s pilot results will not meet this deadline as the pilot installation hasn’t yet been completed]

To speed up the smart meter program, in January of this year, Governor Patrick announced that the state will pour millions of dollars into “demand response systems” that will advance a mandate to install wireless so-called “smart meters” in Massachusetts.

The federal government has set goals for states and utilities to upgrade their electrical grids, and has awarded $4.5 billion in grants to encourage this.  However, the federal government does not mandate the installation of smart meters, or even wireless smart meters.

On February 1, 2011, press officer Thomas Welch of the U.S. Department of Energy press officer responded to questions about whether the federal government has made the installation of wireless smart meters mandatory.  He wrote:

No.  The Federal government, including DOE, does not have any role in regulating the installation of smart meters, nor does it have a policy about the mandatory adoption of smart meters.

THERE IS NO FEDERAL SECURITY MANDATE FOR SMART METERS, according to George W. Arnold the national coordinator for smart-grid interoperability at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This agency of the U.S.  Department of Commerce is said not to be involved in regulations but is only tasked with promoting standards among industries.

While both the 2005 and 2007 energy bills were codified into public laws, NO part of them creates a federal law pertaining to individual consumers or dictating that the public must be forced to comply with provisions of SMART Grid.

Contrary to the bleating of manufacturers and utility talking heads,  who claim there is no “opt out”, the fact is you, the consumer must be offered the meter, or request a meter and “OPT IN”.  No one can be forced to comply with an unrevealed contract between private corporations, and to which you were never a party and had no knowledge of.

Massachusetts has approximately three and a half million electricity customers, the vast majority of which are served by an investor-owned utility. NStar, which serves most of the greater Boston area and National Grid (NGG) are the state’s largest utilities. NStar’s pilot results determined the utilities response that there is no rational basis for smart meter program going forward. National Grid hasn’t completed installation of its pilot so no data is available.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment