Read and watch these reports and video on the Sept. 14th CA PUC Smart Meter Options workshop

21 Sep

There are some four major organizations here in California that have produced excellent summary reports about the recent September 14, 2011, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Smart Meter Options workshop.

Please read and watch them to get caught up on what the utilities finally admitted (including how constant the RF emissions from smart meters really are, SCE’s Smart Connect Director Ken Devore saying  SCE customers should call 800-810-2369 if they want to be added to the “Delay” list) and what the workshop failed to accomplish (address smart meter health concerns, among other things):

1. From Sandi Maurer of the EMF Safety Network, which is a party in the  CPUC Smart Meter Options proceeding, who wrote “CPUC Smart Meter opt-out workshop follow-up,” posted Sept. 16, 2011.  Excerpts:

  • SCE said they will now allow opt out and set up a delay list.
  • Silver Springs representative admitted that power line carrier (PLC) adds microwaves (RF) (aka dirty electricity) to the home’s wiring.
  • The truth about how Smart Meters transmit data finally has been publicly exposed and admitted by the utilities. Smart Meters “chatter” all day, all night long. PG&E said transmissions occur 6X a day, but the Silver Springs representative admitted the network needs to talk to itself to function well.
  • I pointed out according to an ITRON study the pulses could be as many as 2 per second, the rep did not consider that “constant” (as defined by the FCC). They time average the RF peak pulses, minimize the duty cycle (rather than 100%) and claim they only transmit for a minute or so a day. What do you think…is 2 pulses per second constant?
  • Utilities stated that an analog cost $20 and a SM cost $100.

Go here to read more:

2.  Joshua Hart of Stop Smart Meters writes, “Public Grills Utility Execs at CA PUC,” posted September 15, 2011.  Excerpts:

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…

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…

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. 

Read more and watch related VIDEO clips here:

Also read, “More Thoughts on Wednesday’s CPUC “Opt-Out” Workshop, posted September 16, 2011, which features Comments by environmental health expert Cindy Sage and Steve Martinot, who represents Alameda County Residents opposed to smart meters (which is a party in the CPUC Smart Meter Opt Out proceeding):

3. Susan Brinchman of the Center for Electrosmog Prevention (CEP),, and Southern Californians Against Smart Meters writes, “The Great CPUC Dog and Pony Show (aka Smart Meter Opt Out Workshop), posted September 14, 2011 on the La Mesa Patch.   CEP is a party in the CPUC Smart Meter Opt Out proceedings.  Excerpts:

Judge Yip-Kikugawa explained that the purpose of the meeting was to establish which options might be used in an opt-out scenario—the technologies (wired meters, radio-off meters and/or analog meters). The second factor to be established was the cost and viability of these options. There would be no discussion of the reasons for choosing any of these. As it turned out, this was not followed to the letter, leading to an interesting day, with much brought to light.

The four major utilities—SDG&E, Southern CA Gas, Southern CA Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric—and their suppliers presented information about their proposed or potential opt-out plans, including costs for those opting out, with justifications. For instance, they described charging ratepayers up to $600 to opt-out and $40 monthly.

These executives, including Ted Reguly of SDG&E, then answered questions from the audience and webcast/phone participants, who submitted theirs by email to Marzia Zafar, the CPUC gatekeeper. These included the following (paraphrased):

Q: “Why should ratepayers pay more for something they’ve had all along, such as (keeping) analog meters?” (asked in different ways by about five individuals, including me)

A: “It is an incremental cost, due to the changes in the way we are doing business. Now, we use smart meters. We no longer use meter readers.” (Long justifications for gouging ratepayers with high fees for opting out were given by each utility. SDG&E said it had deployed 98% of its smart meters and there were only about 100 people who didn’t want one. SCE said it had deployed 60%, PG&E reported 86%, and Southern CA Gas reported it had not yet started, would start deployment in about a year. The number of deployments were used as a reason for charging people to opt-out of the “new normal.”)…

By the time 4:30 rolled around, Judge Amy Yip-Kikugawa looked like she was anxious to leave, after functioning more as a circus master and less-than-impartial referee. She said that the staff and Commissioners would meet and review all that was discussed, would develop a CPUC Opt-Out Proposal that people could respond to, formally.

Then, Judge Y. said, it was likely that additional meetings would ensue.

For those suffering, it was not good news. They’ll be subjected to more bureaucratic tangles that could go on for many more months, meanwhile allowing the utilities to continue their rate of 6,000 radiation-emitting installation of smart meters a day.

Read more here:

4.    James Heddle of the Environmental Options Network writes “CPUC ‘Smart’ Meter Opt-Out Workshop in 6 Parts,” posted September 18, 2011.  Watch VIDEO of all 6 parts of the workshop, thanks to EON’s professional documentary production talent, cameras and editing.  EON”s documentary video far surpasses the CPUC”s archive video of the meeting

Go here to watch VIDEO of each of the 6 parts:

Applause, applause to these parties above for providing this public service.

Please donate today to the (1) EMF Safety Network, (2) Stop Smart Meters, (3) the Center for Electrosmog Prevention, and the (4) Environmental Options Network, so they can continue their important work on this front that is helping ALL of us.


3 Responses to “Read and watch these reports and video on the Sept. 14th CA PUC Smart Meter Options workshop”


  1. CPUC Exec Director Michael Peevey issues ruling on Smart Meter delay programs « Burbank ACTION - September 22, 2011

    […] Is your utility offering you the opportunity to delay installation of smart meters at your home until the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) makes a decision about smart meter options? […]

  2. If California PUC supports the return of the analog meters, what’s Burbank doing? « Burbank ACTION - September 23, 2011

    […] smart meters only produce RF emissions for less than a minute, yet smart meter manufacturers at the CPUC Smart Meter Opt-Out Workshop on Sept. 14 admitted that the microbursts of RF radiation occur 24/7 because the smart meters need to chatter […]

  3. Major utilities and GWP offer Smart Meter Delay List and pursue options while BWP falls short on both fronts « Burbank ACTION - October 11, 2011

    […] be added to its Smart Meter Delay List program.  It will hold off installation of the smart meter until the CPUC decides on smart meter options.   As part of its customer service, SCE will even send you or deliver to you a yellow tag telling […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: