Posts Tagged ‘smart meters’

Comment by 4/20 by Patricia Burke  re: Smart Meter Pilot Cost Overruns

April 20 is the deadline for comments to the Department of Public Utilities regarding surcharging ratepayers $15M for cost overruns for the $45M Worcester smart meter pilot.

National Grid’s pilot did not include health monitoring, but featured safety testimony from a tobacco scientist.  In Arizona’s current utility rate case, Dr. Sam Milham M.D. M.P.H. stated,  “It is my professional opinion that smart meters are a public health hazard.”

 

Expert testimony indicates that electrical noise due to the switch mode power and radio frequency transmissions being conducted along house wiring and re-radiated into the home are causing biological harm.  Sleep deprivation (recognized by the UN as torture) is a primary health complaint associated with smart meters.

 

As reported by Lynne Weycherly in the Ecologist, “they emit as many as 14,000 short bursts of intense microwave radiation a day, disrupting cellular electrochemistry and causing health symptoms from migraine to tinnitus, insomnia, dizziness, anxiety, chest pain, palpitations and memory loss.”

 

Michigan’s Senator Colbeck testified that smart meters are at risk from EMPs (electromagnetic pulses), fires, and hacking due to: no surge protection, no conducted emissions filters, no circuit breaker between the meter and power source, and the cyber security “back door.” He endorses analogues.

 

Ratepayers should not be on the hook for excessive costs. Instead, the pilot should be investigated for violating prohibitions on human experimentation without informed consent, misrepresentation, and as a case study in misguided decision-based evidence-making that manipulated community consent. Be heard. Please comment.

http://170.63.40.34/DPU/FileRoomAPI/api/Attachments/Get/?path=17-53%2fOrder_of_Notice.pdf

The State of Maine Public Utility Commission recently received what it thinks is the ultimate verdict in the issue of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court agreed with the PUC that utility companies’ smart meters are safe and not harmful to human health and safety.

Perhaps the judge who rendered that decision ought to reconsider what’s going on regarding EHS, especially at the United Nations and their conference where EHS issues were discussed.

See http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/01/environmental-refugees-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-ehs-sufferers.html

The House deadline for co-sponsors to sign on to this session’s smart meter opt out bill, SD344, is next Friday, February 3rd. Senators have more time to sign on, but all legislators are currently deep in the process of deciding which bills to co-sponsor, so now is the time to make contact. As of Thursday, January 26, Representative Diana DiZoglio and Representative David Linsky had officially signed on as co-sponsors. (For those of you who may be reading about the bill for the first time, the new bill, if passed, will assure the right to choose what type of utility meter will be installed and operated on one’s home or place of business, and to do so without incurring any fees. The text of the bill can be found here: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/SD344 .)

If you have already contacted your Representative and your Senator, now is the time when a follow up email, or a phone call together with a follow-up email, can make a difference. We have been told that legislative aides print out all email requests for co-sponsorship and gather them into a great pile for their Representative or Senator to review. (My own Representative reportedly has around 6000 bills to review!) An email can be fairly brief. (e.g., Dear Senator/ Representative, I hope you will sign on as a co-sponsor of SD344, the smart meter opt out bill. Wireless utility meters raise concerns about security, privacy, and health which are not being properly addressed. All Massachusetts ratepayers should have the right to choose what type of utility meters they will have and to do so without paying any fees.) If you have more time, you are welcome to send a one-page introduction to the subject, complete with references. But please consider sending something to be printed out and physically placed in front of the legislator. Legislators can send requests to be co-sponsors of the new bill, SD344, through the online system LAWS.

 

analogamrmeterThis meter looks like a safe analog. But it has a wireless transmitter hidden inside. It appears that utility companies have been hiding wireless transmitters  in so-called ‘analog’ meters, without informing the public.  If you are paying a surcharge for a meter reader to come and a safe analog with a spinning disc or dials, but it is still pulsing microwave radiation.  To make sure your analog is not a ‘trojan horse’ is to use an RF meter and test it yourself.

A Trojan horse ‘analog’ meter (L&G MX model) has been linked with a case of throat cancer in California that is currently the subject of litigation.

May 29, 2016 — ALBANY, N.Y. (May 27, 2016) – A second New York Assembly committee has passed a bill that would allow customers to opt out of installing “smart meter” technology on their homes and businesses. Final passage of this bill would allow New Yorker’s to protect their own privacy, and it would take a step toward blocking a federal program in effect.

$7,000 is too much for an electric meter
BE HEARD!
 
National Grid’s run-amok Worcester area
WiMax
‘smart’ meter pilot is $29M (65%) over-budget at $7,000 per meter, & does not represent Massachusetts demographics.
The many

egregious ahhem, 
misrepresentations in National Grid’s FEB 2016 ‘Interim Report‘ need to come to light before we all end up with $7,000 ‘smart’ electric meters.
 
The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office will listen to ratepayer concerns on 
June 13th in Worcester (see details below)
—————————
INTERIM REPORT

CLAIM: 98% retention & 72% satisfied but the 4,000 – 6,000 

subjects who quit were conveniently not counted

CLAIM: In a ‘portion of Worcester’  

NOT: Groton, Auburn, etc.

CLAIM: ‘smart’ meters installed April ’14 

NOT: Installed in ’12 & ’13

CLAIM: Worcester Library usage 

Overstated Worcester’s Main Branch usage by 71%

 CLAIM: Not enough lower income subjects available
though half of Worcester meets National Grid’s threshold
CLAIM: 0.2% electricity “saved” on average
CLAIM: $1,250,0000 “saved” –  total (see chart below)

IRRECONCILABLE:

– 0.2% of the average annual MA home’s bill is less than $3

– Less than 11,000 subjects remain in the pilot

– $3 x 11,000 = $33,000

 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES DOCS

 $29,000,000 (65%) over budget (and counting)

 Sustainability Hub: $700k / 1,400% over budget 

 Cost:  $7,000 per meter and rising

 Vegetation decimated for ‘smart’ networks

 National Grid bought ratepayer private financial

& lifestyle data without their permission


—————————

National Grid and MA Department of Public Utilities rely on 
career tobacco testifier and outdated health data.
v Adverse symptoms ignored or scorned: headaches, sleep 
issues, ear ringing, neurological, etc.

 

 
Questions/Comments/Suggestions: HaltMAsmartMeters@gmail.com
 

Page 11 of Interim Report

Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office Public Listening Session
Monday, June 13, 2016: 6 – 8 pm
Energy & Environment Listening Session
devoted to hearing directly from YOU about issues
important to Greater Worcester & the Commonwealth.

Broad Meadow Brook Center & Sanctuary
414 Massasoit Road, Worcester
Open to the public: RSVP
Questions for the AG:  AGOcommunityEngagement@state.ma.us 

 

 

Guess who is paying for the cost overrun…. yup.. us!
The Company’s filing is designed to recover $14,791,900 in smart grid pilot program costs both incurred in 2015 and under-recovered from prior years. To recover these costs, the Company seeks approval of the following for effect May 1, 2016: (1) revised Smart Grid Customer Cost Adjustment Factors (“SGCCAF”) pursuant to its basic service tariff, M.D.P.U. No. 1250; and (2) revised Smart Grid Distribution Adjustment Factors (“SGDAF”) pursuant to its smart grid adjustment provision tariff, M.D.P.U. No. 1238. The Department docketed this matter as D.P.U. 16-28.
In this proceeding, the Company proposes to recover $8,954,786 in customer-facing pilot program costs from its basic service customers, which includes $6,781,437 in customer-facing pilot program costs incurred in 2015 plus an under-recovery of $2,173,348 in customer-facing costs from prior years (Exh. MHK-3, at 1). 2 To collect these customer-facing costs, the Company proposes following revised SGCCAFs for effect May 1, 2016: Table 1: Proposed SGCCAFs 3 Customer Group SGCCAFs ($/kWh) Residential/Streetlight $0.00120 Commercial $0.00118 Industrial $0.00155 In addition, the Company proposes to recover $5,837,114 in grid-facing pilot program costs from its distribution customers, which includes $5,744,486 in grid-facing pilot program