Cindy Sage Challenges the “Smart” in LADWP’s “Smart” Grid (VIDEO)

Note: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) is using Itron Smart Meters. The information on Itron emissions is here: https://smartmeterharm.org/2014/07/13/how-many-rf-pulses-per-day-from-a-smart-meter/

From EMF Safety Network, posted on May 13, 2013:

LADWP project manager guarantees “smart” meters are optional!

Last week at a Woodland Hills City Council meeting, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) presented information about their Smart Meter deployment plans, while environmental consultant Cindy Sage, co-editor of the BioInitiative Report, presented information warning of the deployment risks.

Marcelo Di Paolo, manager of the LADWP Smart Grid project said they received a $60 million dollar federal grant and that the research institutes of USC, UCLA and Cal Tech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) doubled the project funding for a total of $120 million dollars.  Hmmm… what does a Jet Propulsion Lab have to do with smart meters?

Di Paolo stated this is a demonstration project and would be in three areas around UCLA, USC, and Chatsworth.  LADWP is planning to deploy 52,000 Itron smart meters.  Hmmm, 52,000 meters is a demonstration project?

He also said the meters only transmit 3 times a day! Hmmm….Haven’t we heard that before?  PG&E used to say their meters only transmitted 6 times a day. Then they admitted up to 190,000 times a day, per meter.

Di Paolo also said that the project is “purely a volunteer optional program” and that the community can “pick and actually choose whether or not to participate.”

In stark contrast to Di Paolo’s optimism was Cindy Sage who warned about the evidence for health problems from the  pulsed radiation Smart Meters emit.  She stated,  “Those wireless impacts are biologically very similar to the impacts you would have from a cell tower.”  She wisely urged them to learn from the mistakes the Investor Owned Utilities have made.  She asks, “Is this a smart business model, to provide a device for energy conservation…if there are going to be unintended consequences in terms of health impacts for people?”

Di Paolo said the deployment would start in a couple weeks, but two LADWP customers  said they already had Smart Meters on their home, that they were sick from the exposure and that when they complained, LADWP refused to remove it!

Meanwhile, although the manager claims LADWP sent out letters stating at the bottom of the letter that participation was voluntary, nowhere in the Smart Grid L.A. Letter  does it say the meters are optional. At the end of the meeting Di Paolo guaranteed the meters were optional and provided his direct line for people to call: 213-367-1388.

PastedGraphic-1-9Deploying Smart Meters at a time when multitudes of people worldwide are complaining about the health and safety impacts is beyond super dumb, and reckless endangerment of innocent lives.  Our children are the most vulnerable.  Chronic exposure to pulsed radiation is harming everyone’s health.

Thanks to Ecological Options Network for providing the videos of the event. Here’s Part 2 of the meeting:

Cindy Sage Challenges the “Smart” in LADWP’s “Smart” Grid

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Take Back Your Power 2014” released; screenings this week

The documentary “Take Back Your Power” about Smart Meters and the Smart Grid was released worldwide on September 5, 2013, winning several film awards. This informative and powerful film by Director Josh del Sol takes the viewer on an investigation into the controversies, with interviews and amazing footage.

Now, an updated version Take Back Your Power 2014 has been released. The trailer is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXDFllquOMw.

At 88 minutes running time, this new version has English, French, and Spanish subtitles, as well as 100+ minutes of bonus material.

Two upcoming showings will be at:

EUGENE, OR – Wed July 23 @ 6:30pm.
Flyer: http://bit.ly/1qqBx73

PAGOSA SPRINGS, CO – Thu July 24 @ 6:30pm.
Flyer: http://bit.ly/1n4TpjU

Director Josh del Sol will be present at both screenings and participating in panel discussions.

The film’s website www.takebackyourpower.net has information on how to host a screening in your community of this important film.

Buy the DVD or rent it online. Show the film for your family, your neighborhood, your community group,  your church, and for the public.

The 2014 launch information and specials are here: http://www.takebackyourpower.net/news/2014/07/20/official-release-2014-edition-major-launch-discounts/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“No rational basis” for Smart Meters, says Massachusetts utility company

In this startling document submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Northeast Utilities in Massachusetts lays out its objections to the Smart Meter program, including that Smart Meters are not needed to achieve grid modernization or achieve energy savings.

It states: “There is no rational basis for the implementation of AMI.”

AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) meters are Smart Meters.

The document states that

  • Meters do not reduce the number of outages;
  • Metering systems are not the only option for
      • optimizing demand
      • reducing system costs, or
      • reducing customer costs;
  • Metering systems are not necessary
      • to integrate distributed resources,
      • to improve workforce management, or
      • to improve asset management.

It discusses the rising cost to consumers.

In this document, it is very troubling to read that there was a 6 month technical review by DPU but that it was conducted “off the record”.

A few excerpts are below.
Full document is here under docket 12-76.
http://web1.env.state.ma.us/DPU/FileRoomAPI/api/Attachments/Get/?path=12-76%2f12-76-Commen ts-7986.pdf

Letter and formal comments

From: NSTAR Electric Company and Western Massachusetts Electric Company (collectively known as Northeast Utilities)

To: Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU)

There Is No Rational Basis for Department-Mandated Implementation of AMI

An Advance Metering System is not a “basic technology platform” for grid modernization and is not needed to realize “all of the benefits of grid modernization.”

…[T]there is no evidence that this is a good choice for customers.

The Department identified four objectives for grid modernization, all of which can be achieved without the implementation of an advanced metering system.

Therefore, it is not correct that advanced metering functionality is a “basic technology platform” that must be in place before all of the benefits of grid modernization can be fully realized, as the Department suggests. Id. at 12.

Finite capital resources available for grid modernization should be aimed at this integration effort before any additional monies are expended on metering capabilities that provide limited and/or speculative incremental benefits over current metering technology (following many years of investment in those systems).5

Moreover, the growth of distributed generation and current subsidies results in the bypass of the electric distribution system by potential electric customers leaving fewer and fewer customers to pay for it. This creates a pricing crisis in practical terms for both residential and business customers remaining on the system. Huge additional investments to the distribution system will only have the effect of exacerbating the issue for customers.

The decision to implement AMI goes against the best business judgment of the Companies and cannot be rationally cost justified in terms of a net benefit for the overall customer base that will pay for the investment over the long term.

The mandated implementation of AMI is not a prerogative within the Department’s discretion. The specification of particular technologies or technological platforms is an issue within the management judgment of the Companies and which would only be undertaken on the basis of all relevant investigation and analysis.

Where is the public investigation?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

52 scientists call on Canadian govt. to protect the public from wireless radiation exposure

On July 9, 2014, 52 international scientists submitted a declaration to Health Canada, urgently calling on government to minimize the public’s exposure to the radiation emitted by wireless devices including cell and cordless phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters and baby monitors.

Currently, RF exposure guidelines in four countries. China, Russia, Italy, and Switzerland, based on biological effects, are 100 times more stringent than Canadian and U.S. guidelines.

Declaration: Scientists call for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure

[Note: This includesbut is not limited toradiofrequency radiation-emitting devices, such as cell phones and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters and baby monitors.]

We are scientists engaged in the study of electromagnetic fields (EMF) radiofrequency radiation (RFR) health and safety. We have serious concerns regarding Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline.

Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline is fundamentally flawed.

Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 is based on an obsolete account and analysis of RFR research and has disregarded or minimized certain recent studies, such as cancer, DNA damage, protein synthesis, stress response, and detrimental biological and health effects in humans that occur at RFR intensities below the existing Code 6 Guideline.

The World Health Organization classified electromagnetic fields at both extremely low frequency (2001) and radiofrequency (2011) ranges as a “Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans” and included reviews and studies reporting low-intensity biological effects.

Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline does not protect people.

Currently, RF exposure guidelines in various countries (China, Russia, Italy, Switzerland), based on biological effects, are 100 times more stringent than the guidelines based on an outdated understanding of RFR that relies primarily on thermal effects that includes Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. Following a recent review of Safety Code 6 (Royal Society of Canada Report entitled, “A Review of Safety Code 6 (2013): Health Canada’s Safety Limits for Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields”), Health Canada has decided not to lower the existing guidelines and arbitrarily to include a maximum exposure that is 1000 times higher than the 6-minute average exposure.

Furthermore, Health Canada does not adhere to the Precautionary Principle used by states when serious risks to the public or the environment exist but lack scientific consensus.

Declaration

Many Canadians and people worldwide share a growing perception of risk due to the proliferation of RF sources encountered in daily life and reports of adverse health effects. Since the start of the Wireless Age in the 1990s, health studies show more people reacting adversely to electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation. Epidemiological studies show links between RF exposure and cancers, neurological disorders, hormonal changes, symptoms of electrical hypersensitivity (EHS) and more. Laboratory studies show increased cancers, abnormal sperm, learning and memory deficits, and heart irregularities.

People who suffer from functional impairment due to RF exposure and those who prefer to live, work and raise their children in a low EMF environment are increasingly unable to find such places. Worker productivity, even the capacity to make a living, is diminishing. Some people are being forced into an isolated, nomadic lifestyle, with few resources to sustain them. The medical community in North America is largely unaware of the biological responses to RF exposure and does not know how to treat those who have become ill. The typical methods to alleviate symptoms and promote healing are not working due, in part, to ubiquitous exposure.

Our urgent call for public health protection.

The public’s health and the health of the environment are threatened by ever-evolving RF emitting technologies, without due consideration for what the potential cumulative impacts on biological systems are likely to be in the future.

We urgently call upon Health Canada . . .

i) to intervene in what we view as an emerging public health crisis;

ii) to establish guidelines based on the best available scientific data including studies on cancer and DNA damage, stress response, cognitive and neurological disorders, impaired reproduction, developmental effects, learning and behavioural problems among children and youth, and the broad range of symptoms classified as EHS; and

iii) To advise Canadians to limit their exposure and especially the exposure of children.

Signed,

Dr. Franz Adlekofer, MD, Pandora Foundation, Germany

Dr. Bahriye Sırav Aral, Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biophysics, Turkey

Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Italy

Prof. Dr. Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH, Prof, Med. Oncol. Paris Univ. Hospital; Dir., European Cancer & Environment Research Inst., France

Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University, USA

Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, PhD, Faculty of Sciences, Free University of Brussels, Belgium

Dr. Ayşe G. Canseven, Gazi University, Medical Faculty, Biophysics Department, Turkey

Dr. David Carpenter, MD, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, USA

Dr. Simona Carrubba, PhD, Daemen College, Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo (Neurology), USA

Dr. Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA

Dr. Adilza C. Dode, PhD, MSc, Prof. EMF Pollution Control, Environ. Eng. Dept, Minas Methodist Univ. Ctr. Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Dr. Meric Arda Esmekaya, PhD, Gazi University, Biophysics Department, Turkey

Dr. Arzu Firlarer, MSc, PhD, Senior Researcher & Instructor, Occupational Health and Safety Department, Baskent University, Turkey

Dr. Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, MSc, PhD, Postdoc. Research Assoc., Dept. Cell Biology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, Univ. of Athens, Greece

Dr. Christos Georgiou, Prof. Biochemistry, Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece

Dr. Livio Giuliani, PhD, Director of Research, Italian Health National Service, Rome-Florenze-Bozen, Italy

Prof. Yury Grigoriev, MD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russia

Dr. Settimio Grimaldi, PhD, Associate Scientist, National Research Council, Italy

Dr. Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, PhD, Hospital Universitario la fe Valencia, Spain

Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden

Dr. Magda Havas, PhD, Environmental and Resource Studies, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada

Dr. Paul Héroux, PhD, Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University Medical; InvitroPlus Labs., Royal Victoria Hospital, Canada

Dr. Donald Hillman, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, USA

Dr. Martha R. Herbert, PhD, MD, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA

Dr. Tsuyoshi Hondou, Tohoku University, Japan

Dr. Olle Johansson, Associate Professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Dr. Florian M. Koenig, DrSc, Director of Fl. König Enterprises GmbH, Sferics & Meteorosensitivity Research Inst., Germering, Germany

Dr. Kavindra Kumar Kesari, MBA, PhD; Res. Sci., Dept. Environmental Sciences, Univ. Eastern Finland, Finland: Jaipur Nat. Univ., India

Prof. Girish Kumar, IIT Bombay – microwaves and antennas, India

Dr. Henry Lai, PhD, University of Washington, USA

Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc, Editor-in-Chief: Frontiers in Radiation and Health, Switzerland; Prof, Univ. of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Ying Li, PhD, InVitroPlus Laboratory, Department of Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital McGill University Medicine, Canada

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Löscher, Head, Dept. Pharmacology & Toxicology, Univ. Veterinary Medicine; Center for Neuroscience, Hannover, Germany

Dr. Lukas H. Margaritis, PhD, Prof. Emeritus, Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, Biology Faculty, University of Athens, Greece

Dr. Marko Markov, PhD, Research International Buffalo, USA

Dr. Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, USA

Dr. Anthony Miller, MD, University of Toronto, Canada

Dr. Hidetake Miyata, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Tohoku University, Japan

L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust, USA

Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Dr. Raymond Richard Neutra, MD, PhD, USA

Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Speaker Environmental Medicine, Austrian Medical Association; Public Health, Salzburg Government, Austria

Dr. Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, PhD, Department of Psychology (Neuroscience), University of Western Ontario, Canada

Dr. Elcin Ozgur, PhD, Biophysics Department, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Turkey

Dr. Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA

Dr. Michael A. Persinger, Professor, Behavioural Neuroscience, Biomolecular Sciences & Human Studies, Laurentian University, Canada

Dr. Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Center for Excellence in Science, Prof, Dept. Chem. & Biochem., University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA

Dr Timur Saliev, MD, PhD, Life Sciences, Nazarbayev Univ., Kazakhstan; Institute Medical Science/Technology, University of Dundee, UK

Dr. Alvaro Augusto de Salles, PhD, Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Prof. Dr. Nesrin Seyhan, Medical Faculty, Gazi University; Founding Chair, Biophysics Dept, WHO EMF Advisory Committee, Turkey

Dr. Wenjun Sun, PhD, Professor, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China

Dr. Lebrecht von Klitzing, PhD, Head of Inst., Environ. Physics; Former Head, Clinical Research, Medical Univ. Luebeck, Germany

Dr. Stelios A. Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society, Greece

Date of Issuance: July 9, 2014

http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/hc-resolutions/scientific-declaration-to-health-canada-english.pdf

Press release from Dr. Joel Moskowitz:
http://www.prlog.org/12346518-scientists-call-on-government-to-protect-public-from-wireles s-radiation-exposure.html

In addition, twenty Canadian physicians signed a statement July 9 calling on Health Canada to raise awareness about microwave radiation impacts and minimize exposure in schools and other places where children are commonly exposed http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/hc-resolutions/medical-doctors-submission-to-health-canada-english.pdf

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

How does Smart Meter radiation compare to a cell phone? (VIDEO)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Washington DC news finds Pepco Smart Meters transmit constantly (VIDEO)

Maryland utility company Pepco claimed that their GE Smart Meters transmit only once every 4 -6 hours.

Television news station WUSA 9 investigated and found these GE Smart Meters emit RF pulses every few seconds.

See also

How many RF pulses per day from a Smart Meter?https://smartmeterharm.org/2014/07/13/how-many-rf-pulses-per-day-from-a-smart-meter/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Canada: Smart Meter roll-out halted in Saskatchewan after several fires

From Saskatchewan, July 15, 2014 —
SaskPower halting smart meter installations after several fires

By Shawn Knox Global News

REGINA – SaskPower is temporarily suspending its installation of smart meters around the province after half a dozen have caught fire in recent weeks.

SaskPower has installed over 100,000 meters since they started the program back in October of 2013 but since the beginning of June, six fires have been connected to the devices.

SaskPower will not be installing any more until their investigation is complete, which could take several weeks.

“We’re just taking some extra steps to ensure we’ve done all the right things here,” said Tyler Hopson, a spokesperson for SaskPower. “And whether we can further mitigate risks or not, that’s something that we hope to learn.”

Once the investigation results are available they will be made public.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1452741/saskpower-halting-smart-meter-installations-after-several-fires/

Article provided under Fair Use Rules

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hacking: “We could have switched off everything — power, water, gas.”

From ABS CBN News, 7-16-14

‘Smart’ technology could make utilities more vulnerable to hackers

By Christoph Steitz and Harro Ten Wolde, Reuters

Smart meters and other new technology pose new risks

FRANKFURT – Last November, Felix Lindner came very close to shutting down the power supply of Ettlingen, a town of almost 40,000 people in the south of Germany.

“We could have switched off everything: power, water, gas,” Lindner, head of Berlin-based Recurity Labs, an IT security company, said.

Fortunately for residents, Lindner’s cyber attack on its energy utility, Stadtwerke Ettlingen, was simulated. But he revealed how easy it was to hack into the utility’s network through its IT grid, which gave him access to its control room.

“The experiment has shown that sensitive, critical infrastructure is not sufficiently protected,” said Eberhard Oehler, managing director of the utility, Stadtwerke Ettlingen.

Cyber attacks on infrastructure have become a major worry for utilities following the 2010 Stuxnet computer virus, which experts believe was used by Israel and the United States to make some of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges tear themselves apart.

The threat has been reinforced in recent months by the appearance of a computer virus known as the Havex Trojan, which hackers appear to have used to attack oil and gas firms.

Traditionally, energy utilities have kept infrastructure like power plants safe from cyber attack by keeping it separate from the open Internet.

But that is rapidly changing as a new generation of “smart” power meters hooks up customers to their utilities through the web, and new forms of solar and wind microgeneration supplement traditional centralised power stations.

“The risk is being underestimated outside of the industry,” Oehler said…

“We can identify three risks: outright sabotage; external, illegal control; and criminals that want to earn money with it,” said Udo Helmbrecht, executive director of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA).

The University of Cambridge said in a report that smart meters raised “several serious security issues” such as fraud through manipulated meter readings, misuse of private customer data and a threat of power outages through a large cyber attack.

Data-hubs which collect information coming from smart meters and transmit it to the utilities, including via mobile connections, could be especially vulnerable.

For the complete article:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/tech-biz/07/16/14/smart-technology-could-make-utilities-more-vulnerable-hackers

Excerpts used under Fair Use Rules.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

California government report on SCE Smart Meter program: Rising costs eliminate consumer savings

In 2007, Southern California Edison (SCE) projected a net cost benefit from their Smart Meter program  to consumers of only $9 million over the lifetime of the project. By 2012, that “very slim margin” had disappeared under increasing costs.

The Division of Ratepayer Advocates in California investigated SCE’s program (called SmartConnect) and reported their findings in 2012. Here are excerpts from their Executive Summary:

Executive Summary:

Key Findings presented in Section V of this report include:

  • According to SCE’s AMI business case, the total cost to customers will be greater than $5 billion, rather than the $1.6 billion cost explicitly approved by the CPUC, which only included nominal deployment costs;
  • Many forecasted benefits have been delayed or reduced, which erases the projected margin of net benefits as calculated in SCE’s business case [see below];
  • SmartConnect-related costs not anticipated in SCE’s original business case have already been approved by the CPUC in other proceedings, beyond the over $5 billion cost referenced above. In many cases, these costs were approved without a showing of incremental benefits, and DRA anticipates that more will be requested;
  • SmartConnect features such as remote disconnect and SmartConnect-enabled time-varying rates have a high potential for adverse impacts for low-income and other “at-risk” customers… (p. 2)

SCE was the last electric IOU to file an AMI application (2007). At the time that PG&E and SDG&E submitted their applications (2005), SCE’s business case analysis, including multiple scenarios, showed that AMI deployment was not a cost-effective endeavor. Two of its scenario analyses showed a Present Value Revenue Requirement (PVRR), largely due to the added Demand Response from large customers that already had interval meters. SCE stated that “the technology envisioned by the Ruling is unproven and commercially unavailable at this time.” (p. 7-8)

SmartConnect was adopted based on an estimate of $9.2 million in net benefits on a PVRR [Present Value Revenue Requirement) basis owing to the time-discounted value of money… (p. 10)

Conclusion:
The CPUC required California’s large IOUs to file AMI applications and required a demonstration that AMI systems could produce net customer benefits. Initially, SCE found that AMI was not cost-effective for its customers, but AMI technological developments in 2005 and 2006 led to the SmartConnect application in 2007, which forecasted a very slim margin of lifetime net benefits on a present value basis. The CPUC authorized SmartConnect deployment costs of $1.634 billion, and SCE customers in aggregate have so far experienced a revenue requirement increase in excess of $193.1 million to cover these costs. This is a real cost increase, one which will certainly rise as more meters are purchased and deployed, and as SCE begins to incur post-deployment costs.

…Total SmartConnect costs paid by customers will actually be more than $5 billion (nominally), accounting for post-deployment costs and the financing costs incurred over the 20 years life of the SmartConnect system. This total cost will be even greater if the cost of future AMI-enabled investments and programs are included. While SCE’s incremental cost requests have thus far been relatively conservative, it is important to note that PG&E and SDG&E have so far requested much higher amounts in incremental AMI funding: PG&E has requested and received approval for funding in excess of $500 million, and SDG&E has received funding approval for over $93 million. (p. 50)

Case Study of Smart Meter System Deployment: Recommendations for Ensuring Taxpayer Benefits; Hieta, Kao, Roberts, March 2012

California Looks Harder at the ‘Smart Grid

After pointing out numerous funding requests in other areas that are really for AMI, DRA summarized that “(t)he full cost of SmartConnect will be more than double the $1.6 billion approved for deployment costs.” They hardly needed to note what that does to the $9 million.

Robert Michaels, May 3, 2012 http://www.masterresource.org/2012/05/cpuc-dra-smart-grid/
(also, comment by Guillermo Jones)

DRA has repeatedly criticized Smart Meters. In 2011, they called for a halt to SoCal Gas’s rollout of Smart Meters.

“Safety, not smart meters, is the priority for consumers,” said Joe Como, acting director of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates. “Circumstances have changed since the [commission] approved these unnecessary meters and in the environment of escalating energy bills, customers should not have to foot the billion-dollar bill for technology that provides them little, if any benefits.”

Consumer advocates call SoCalGas ‘smart’ meters too costly, November 2011http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/11/consumer-advocates-call-socalgas-smart-meters-too-costly.html#comments

And in a PG&E Smart Meter upgrade proceeding in 2008 –

A few examples should set the tone for what should be a very circumspect review of many of PG&E’s claims in this Application:

• PG&E has already spent one third of its initial $1.7 billion authorization, but has only activated 2% of electric meters;

• PG&E has exhausted $70 million of its $88 million Program Management budget when the project is barely off the ground and already in need of change;

• PG&E’s information technology (IT) budget is already 33% over budget. But that should come as no surprise since history shows that PG&E has repeatedly failed in the area of IT.

Despite the fact that the Commission has clearly given California’s utilities the green light to proceed with AMI deployment, it needs to send a message to all utilities that although the sky is the limit in terms of possibilities, the reality is that ratepayers today can ill afford to spend their hard earned money fixing problems that they did not cause. It is well known now that DRA supports AMI, but only if the utilities’ business cases can reasonably assure the Commission that they will be cost beneficial. DRA is opposed to the approval of projects that are based on amorphous benefits predictions that are untested and only theoretically possible. ..

DRA would like the Commission to apply some procedural restraint on what PG&E apparently perceives to be a runaway AMI gravy train. It is respectfully submitted that a Decision approving this cost-ineffective upgrade could lead to a staggering waste of ratepayer money. Very little, in terms of PG&E’s AMI performance to date, causes DRA to have much confidence in PG&E. The jury is still out as to when, or if, its ratepayers will ever see the benefits identified in PG&E’s original, or this upgrade proposal, that would justify its enormous cost. DRA does not find this Upgrade Application to be cost-effective, and therefore respectfully recommends that the Commission reject it.

— DRA found that the associated benefits were $549 million less than the costs of the upgrade.

Opening Brief of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, August 29, 2008
Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Authority to Increase Revenue Requirements to Recover the Costs to Upgrade its SmartMeter™ Program (U 39 E); Application 07-12-009
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/EFILE/BRIEF/87392.PDF

The California Public Utilities Commission ignores their recommendations.

These results have been found over and over in other studies.

Consumers will not save money. Rates will continue increasing to cover utility company AMI/AMR costs. Energy savings will be erased by the energy use of the Smart Meter program.

Amyas Morse, head of the UK National Audit Office, said in June, 2011:

“The benefits of proceeding with this major technological and logistical undertaking are still uncertain. There is limited evidence of how much and for how long British consumers’ behaviour might change, and costs could escalate. Large-scale projects of this kind can take on a momentum of their own and so, along the way, there should be clear decision points at which the Department will need to review costs to consumers, benefits and risks and judge whether to carry on as originally planned or significantly change direction.”

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/preparations-for-the-roll-out-of-smart-meters/

More information in  “Costs exceed benefits” p. 111-115 https://smartmeterharm.org/2012/12/14/report-smart-meter-problems-dec-2012/

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

States ask: Will Smart Meters save money or reduce CO2?

In 2008, a report was prepared for the New Jersey Department of Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, entitled “Advanced Metering Infrastructure – Implications for Residential Customers in New Jersey”.

It concluded:

Savings to ratepayers. The estimates of savings to residential customers from AMI-enabled dynamic pricing, a form of time-differentiated pricing, hinge upon three major assumptions:

• the reduction in peak use per participating customer,

• the percentage of customers who will voluntarily participate, and

• the long-term persistence of the reductions per participating customer.

There is considerable uncertainty regarding each of these assumptions despite the results from pilot projects in other jurisdictions. First, most pilots entice customers to participate through some form of “appreciation” payment and therefore provide no guidance regarding the percentage of customers who will voluntarily participate in the absence of such an incentive. Second, most pilots have only operated a few years, thus they provide little guidance regarding the long-term persistence of participation and reductions per participant.

It also concluded:

…reductions from dynamic pricing will not lead to significant reductions in annual emissions of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide which are a function of annual electricity use.

Report prepared by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.,
July 8, 2008
Original link:  http://www.state.nj.us/publicadvocate/utility/docs/AMI_White_Paper-_final.pdf
The full report is here.

Not considered in the report is the increased energy use due to the Smart Meter wireless networks and infrastructure, as well as the data storage requirements. That will mean a net increase in CO2 due to the Smart Meter and Smart Grid program.

In February 2011, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepson sent out a press release:

Connecticut Light & Power Co.’s plan to replace existing electric meters with advanced technology would be very expensive and would not save enough electricity for its 1.2 million customers to justify the expense, Attorney General George Jepsen said Tuesday.

Jepsen made the comments in a brief filed Tuesday with the state Department of Public Utility Control, which is reviewing CL&P’s request to replace all existing meters with “advanced meter infrastructure.” The company also asked regulators to guarantee that the company will be allowed to recover its full cost of installation before the department actually evaluates what the costs actually were and whether those costs were reasonable.

“CL&P’s proposal would force the company’s ratepayers to spend at least $500 million on new meters that are likely to provide few benefits in return,” Jepsen said. He urged the regulators to “continue to evaluate emerging meter system technologies as well as other conservation programs” and only approve installation of the advanced meters when they are cost effective.

“The pilot results showed no beneficial impact on total energy usage,” Jepsen said. “And, the savings that were seen in the pilot were limited to certain types of customers and would be far outweighed by the cost of installing the new meter systems,” he said.
www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2011/020811clpmeters.pdf

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette had this to say in April 2012 –

 …at least two very substantial issues remain that must be further addressed before the MPSC (Michigan Public Service Commission) authorizes or approves any further deployment of smart meters by Michigan electric utilities and the recovery from ratepayers of the costs of smart meter deployment. First, there must be a sufficient demonstration that implementation of the smart meter programs will actually produce a net economic benefit to customers. Second, customers must be afforded a meaningful and fair opportunity to opt out of smart meter installation without being penalized by unwarranted and excessive costs.

A net economic benefit to electric utility ratepayers from Detroit Edison’s and Consumers smart meter programs has yet to be established. In the absence of such demonstrated benefit, the Attorney General has opposed, and will oppose any Commission action that unjustly and unreasonably imposes the costs of such programs upon ratepayers. To a significant extent, the asserted potential benefits to utility customers depend upon assumptions that a customer will consider additional “real time” data on electricity usage provided by smart meters, and adjust their electrical consumption to achieve cost savings under variable pricing programs that do not yet exist. (See Edison, Document No. 0146, p 5; and Consumers, Document No. 0148, pp. 6-7). Any assumption that large numbers of residential customers will have the time, ability and motivation to attend to, and act upon daily or even hourly changes in their electrical is questionable.
Comments, Michigan Public Service Commission Case No. U-17000, p. 3-4

What the record does reveal is that AMI is a pilot program that even Robert Ozar, Manager of the Energy Efficiency Section in the Electric Reliability Division of the PSC, concedes “is as yet commercially untested and highly capital intensive, resulting in the potential for significant economic risk and substantial rate impact.” At best, the actual evidence presented by Detroit Edison to support the rate increase was aspirational testimony describing the AMI program in optimistic, but speculative terms. What the record sadly lacks is a discussion of competing considerations regarding the program or the necessity of the program and its costs as related to any net benefit to customers.
Michigan Court of Appeals Nos. 296374, 296379, slip opinion, pp. 7-9, April 10, 2012
Cited in Attorney General Comments, Case No. U-17000, p. 4-5

 

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