Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 383

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #91
    Sieglinde's Avatar
    Sieglinde
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Take a look at this from https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...lds-fact-sheet. The wifi is at too low of level of exposure to be a carcinogen.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-22-2016 at 02:59 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  3. TopTop #92
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    It takes time for government to catch up with the science. The National Toxicology Program published a 25 million dollar study which is one of the largest and most comprehensive studies on cell phone radiation and cancer. In the study the rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed two types of cancers, glioma, a brain tumor, and schwannoma, a tumor in the heart. The summary includes, “Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to RFR could have broad implications for public health.”
    “Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer” “It’s the moment we’ve all been dreading.”-Mother Jones
    “A major U.S. government study on rats has found a link between cellphones and cancer, an explosive finding in the long-running debate about whether mobile phones cause health effects.”- Wall Street Journal
    You can find the full study here: https://biorxiv.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html
    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde: View Post
    Take a look at this from https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...lds-fact-sheet. The wifi is at too low of level of exposure to be a carcinogen.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  5. TopTop #93
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sasu: View Post
    ...”
    “Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer” It’s the moment we’ve all been dreading.”-Mother Jones
    “A major U.S. government study on rats has found a link between cellphones and cancer, an explosive finding in the long-running debate about whether mobile phones cause health effects.”- Wall Street Journal
    You can find the full study here: https://biorxiv.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html
    The Mother Jones article you cited also includes the following paragraph:
    Potentially confounding the results, the rats exposed to radiation on average lived longer than those that weren't. Some outside reviewers argued that the study's authors should have given more weight to that caveat. Reviewers were also puzzled that the unexposed control rats didn't exhibit the usual number of brain tumors. "I am unable to accept the authors' conclusions," wrote Michael Lauer, the deputy director of the National Institute of Health's office of extramural research.

    So maybe cellphone radiation helps you live longer!

    The study had a variety of other problems, as pointed out by ARS Technica:

    Study that found cell phones cause cancer in rats is riddled with red flags

    Here's an excerpt:
    The study, which was not properly peer reviewed—despite what some outlets have reported—is chock full of red flags: small sample sizes, partially reported results, control oddities, statistical stretches, and a slim conclusion. In short, “there is nothing in this report that can be regarded to be statistically significant," Donald Berry, a biostatistics professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, told Ars. "The authors should have used the 'black box warning.'"

    Full article is here.

    Beyond that, as someone else pointed out, there hasn't been a spike in cancers since cellphones and wifi showed up. If indeed they cause a small incremental cancer risk, it would pale in comparison to the risk we expose ourselves to every day by stepping into a motor vehicle.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-23-2016 at 12:35 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  7. TopTop #94
    Sieglinde's Avatar
    Sieglinde
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Also in rat studies the rats may be exposed to more than a person would be exposed to in order to see effects. Remember the old cyclomate studies that resulted in it being banned in the US? I remember the rats were given the equivalent dose to a human drinking gallons of the stuff.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    ...The study had a variety of other problems, as pointed out by ARS Technica:...
    Last edited by Barry; 12-23-2016 at 12:36 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by:

  9. TopTop #95
    Runningbare's Avatar
    Runningbare
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Apart from the health detriments consequent to chronic, undue exposure to EMF radiation, the dangers and hazards of structural fires associated with Smart Meters are daunting.

    Alarming empirical peer reviews coming from meter readers, installers, fire marshalls, civic authorities, and other personnel with direct experience in the field have already resulted in massive recalls of Smart Meters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Lest we become overconfident that these fires can't/don't occur here, remember that close to the time when smeters were first being "deployed", within the same month of April 2011, both Coddingtown and the Santa Rosa Mall had mysterious "electrical" fires and explosions in their panel boxes. Being active commercial establishments, it is unlikely these fires could be blamed on old faulty wiring.

    Electrical fire causes power outage at Coddingtown JC Penney store

    ‘Smart’ Meters Explode, Cause Fire in Santa Rosa Mall

    Fast forward to December 18, 2012, at a CPUC hearing in Santa Rosa, where long-time meter reader Pat Wrigley blew the whistle in no uncertain terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINK4U0g02o

    Fires caused by superior old-style mechanical analog meters are unheard of. They last virtually forever. There are multiple reasons why Smart meters and their installation cause fires. One is the materials themselves. Analog meters had Bakelite backing plates, with glass covers, able to withstand higher temperatures. Whereas Smart meters of Chinese manufacture have cheap plastic backing plates, with plastic covers. Inferior seals leak, allowing moisture to enter and corrode electrical connections and electronic components.

    Unlike analog meters, Smart meters have no surge protection. Where surges have occurred, whole blocks of smeters exploded. Typically when this happens, the utility rushes out to remove evidence from the crime scene, and quickly replaces the burnt out meter with guess what? --another not-so Smart meter. Any damage beyond the meter to the toasted household wiring, is the responsibility of the homeowner.
    Furthermore, unlike analog meters, Smart meters are susceptible to voltage transients.

    The main culprit in smeter fires is arcing, for which there are at least four separate causes. Arcing can be a very fickle phenomenon, and can take years to fully develop into a fire. To save money (think Flint water), smeter installations are contracted out to unqualified technicians with minimal training, not to duly certified electricians. They are paid not by the hour, but by the number of installations. So they have an incentive to hurry. When they disconnect an analog meter from its base, then quickly plug in a new Smeter to the same base, they twice cause momentary arcing at the plugs if there is any electrical load underway inside the home or business--which there usually is. Due to arcing, the electrical plug connections are no longer clean. This may be of no consequence in the short run, but gradually those damaged connections will surely deteriorate to the point of further arcing and eventual kindling. It's like a ticking time bomb on the side of your house--you never know when it will go off. Installations under load are just the first cause of arcing.

    The second cause is poor installation resulting in distortions of the female tabs of the plug, especially when the old meter is yanked out and/or the new one jammed in carelessly.

    A third cause is that the (male) blades of the new smeters are often thinner than those of the analog meters they replace, resulting in a loose, potentially arcing fit.

    A fourth cause is the not-so-smart remote disconnect feature of smeters--hear Pat Wrigley's testimony cited above.

    For an excellent summary, less theoretical and more technical, of this incendiary predicament and its ominous implications for electrical safety, a must-see is Brian Thiesen's succinct and informative presentation:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MfiNYzdi24

    Sebastopol, you're already in a fortunate position. Stay ahead of the game by keeping your analog meters and avoiding tragic fires resulting in the trouble and expense of eventual smeter recalls.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-25-2016 at 11:10 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by 8 members:

  11. TopTop #96
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Ronald L Melnick, PhD, led the design of the NTP/NIEHS Rodent Study. Melnick was a Senior Toxicologist and Director of Special Programs in the Environmental Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health, and is now retired.
    ________________

    Correcting Misinformation About Health Effects Studies on Cell Phone Radiation


    I am compelled to write this letter because of the numerous incorrect and misleading statements made by Aaron Carroll, a pediatric professor at Indiana University School of Medicine (Upshot, New York Times, May 31, 2016) in his critique of the cell phone study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

    1) The statement that the NTP report had been “shopped for review, but had not been accepted by any editors” is blatantly wrong and makes one wonder where Carroll obtained such false information or did he simply decide to make up his own facts.

    2) While Carroll notes that this was a study in rats, he neglects to note that every known human carcinogen induced tumors in animals when adequately tested. Animals are used as models in toxicity and carcinogenicity studies because it is unethical to intentionally expose humans to agents that might cause an adverse health effect such as cancer that has a long latency period between exposure and manifestation of disease.

    3) The finding of significant increases of cancer in male rats but not in female rats is presented as contempt of the data; however, Carroll neglects to note that such findings are common in animal studies especially at sites that have higher background rates in male rats than females. This gender difference might be a consequence of low statistical power, an issue that I comment on below.

    4) Carroll claims that control rats “dying early could be responsible for all the significant results of the study.” This statement is wrong for at least two reasons: First, there was no statistical difference in survival between control male rats and those exposed to CDMA at 6 W/Kg (the group with the highest rate of gliomas and heart schwannomas); at week 94, survival of rats in these two groups were the same. Second, no glial cell hyperplasias (potential pre-cancerous lesions) or heart schwannomas were observed in any control rat, even though glial cell hyperplasia was detected in a CDMA-exposed rat as early at week 58 and heart schwannomas were detected as early as week 70 in exposed rats.

    5) Carroll seems to endorse the incorrect view that because the study had low statistical power, it is likely to have “an increased risk of being a false positive.” However, having low statistical power means that there is a greater chance for a false negative rather than a false positive result. That is, there is a high probability of accepting the no-effect hypothesis even when a true effect exists.

    6) Carroll warns against accepting results from the NTP study, which he refers to as an “imperfect rat study.” He is probably unaware that the design of this study was presented at an annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society prior to the start of these studies. The overwhelming opinion expressed by the meeting participants was that this would be the largest and most comprehensive study in animals exposed to cell phone radiation, and that the results from this study would trump all other animal carcinogenicity studies of this agent.

    7) Carroll criticizes the usefulness of human case-control studies while praising cohort studies. Actually both types of studies are important, though each has its own limitations. Carroll neglects to note that cohort cancer studies are reliable if they adequately capture the long latency period for cancer development as well as the actual characteristic of cell phone use by individuals in these studies (e.g., use of speakers, head sets, frequency and duration of calls, type of phone, etc.). Exposure misclassifications in cohort studies tend to increase the chances of a negative result.

    8) While Carroll argues against a relationship between brain cancer and cell phone use because the incidence of brain cancers have not increased in the United States since the late 1980s, he neglects to note that unfortunately the incidence of highly lethal glioblastomas has increased during that same time period.

    In my view, a pediatrician would be acting irresponsibly if he or she knew and understood the implications of the human and animal cancer data on cell phone radiation and did not offer precautionary advice to the parents of his or her patients.

    —Ronald L Melnick, PhD

    https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-nyt


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    The Mother Jones article you cited also includes the following paragraph:
    Potentially confounding the results, the rats exposed to radiation on average lived longer than those that weren't. Some outside reviewers argued that the study's authors should have given more weight to that caveat. Reviewers were also puzzled that the unexposed control rats didn't exhibit the usual number of brain tumors. "I am unable to accept the authors' conclusions," wrote Michael Lauer, the deputy director of the National Institute of Health's office of extramural research.

    So maybe cellphone radiation helps you live longer!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  13. TopTop #97
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    I am still not very concerned about EMF risks of smart meters, but I do have concerns about their electrical safety and privacy issues. I also think users should have a choice about accepting one (or more) to be installed at their home if they are willing to pay the increased cost of having a "dumb" meter read by hand.

    In any case, the Sebastopol City Council established a moratorium on any installations of smart meters "until such time as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) completes its Phase 2 hearings on community opt-out" .

    I think the council should address whether the moratorium is still in place, and if so, it should be enforced.

    Barry
    Last edited by Barry; 12-28-2016 at 11:52 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  15. TopTop #98
    OldGranddad
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    I don't have a strong opinion about radiation dangers. If forced, I would say it's very Sebastopolian. The danger that I see doesn't seem to be discussed. That danger is the taking over of our society by large corporations.

    PGE went to smart meters to lower their costs. They can get rid of all the meter readers and their vehicles for the one time cost of installing the smart meters. In a normal business some of the savings would be passed on to customers. Not only haven't they done that, but they are using the smart meters to raise the amount we pay for electricity by billing according to overall hourly usage. That means the more we all use, the more we all pay. Now you know where the term "smart meter" came from.

    We have been betrayed by the PUC. They are supposed to be the watchdog that protects us. Instead, they have been purchased lock, stock and barrel by PGE. Can you think of another reason PGE can get away with such behavior?

    In the next four years things will get even worse for us. When do we make a stand? The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be and the stronger the government forces will be.

    Please let me know if you see merit in my argument.

    Old Granddad
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  16. Gratitude expressed by 8 members:

  17. TopTop #99
    Runningbare's Avatar
    Runningbare
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    PGE can get rid of all the meter readers and their vehicles for the one time cost of installing the smart meters.

    One time cost? I don't think so:

    Congressional Testimony: ‘Smart’ meters have a life of 5 to 7 years.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-28-2016 at 10:16 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  19. TopTop #100
    Sieglinde's Avatar
    Sieglinde
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Ironically, these types of savings etc. may benefit our public power supplier that uses PG&E assets. Sonoma Clean Power would possibly find savings if the meter readers were replaced. I would be sorry to see possibly good paying jobs go away in my community though. The Smartmeters would allow me to more carefully monitor my power usage. Even though my power all comes from the Geysers since the electrons come from all sorts of power plants, any savings I could add would be beneficial. But I certainly see your point. Just remember that the majority of Sonoma County has this hybrid power scheme.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by OldGranddad: View Post
    I don't have a strong opinion about radiation dangers. If forced, I would say it's very Sebastopolian. The danger that I see doesn't seem to be discussed. That danger is the taking over of our society by large corporations....
    Last edited by Barry; 12-28-2016 at 10:17 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. TopTop #101
    Sieglinde's Avatar
    Sieglinde
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    For one thing, since you can opt out there will still be customers who have the older meters and a meter reader will have to go to that neighborhood. PG&E can use the data from the meters to distribute power distribution across the grid in a more efficient manner but I don't see this as necessary in our area due to the lack of intensive use of air conditioning. I have only electric heat in my house but I use a pellet stove and other less electricity using devices to stay warm. So the grid balancing that needs to be done is Southern California is not a real issue here. I suspect this is only to get rid of the meter readers using a technology more appropriate for the deserts of Southern California. We just don't get the heat here.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-28-2016 at 10:18 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  21. TopTop #102
    joehogan
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    PGE is a horrible company. They are coddled by the the California officials because to challenge PGE is a risky move. My cousin was the auditor for PGE for many years. The old families who hold preferred stock siphon fortunes out of this public utility. They pay themselves 10% off the top. They claim this is fair because there is risk. There is no risk. They have been pulling in fortunes for a hundred years with no risk. You can't buy that stock. No one is selling. Why should they? It's a sweetheart deal.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  23. TopTop #103
    wisewomn's Avatar
    wisewomn
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by joehogan: View Post
    PGE is a horrible company. They are coddled by the the California officials because to challenge PGE is a risky move.... There is no risk. They have been pulling in fortunes for a hundred years with no risk...
    Too true, joehogan. I remember hearing years ago that PGE is guaranteed a certain percentage of profits by law/contract every year, and if they don't get those profits, then they can raise the rates until they do. There is no other corporation that is guaranteed a certain level of profits!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  24. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  25. TopTop #104
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    In 2012 PG&E reported millions of smart meters in their service areas were still being read by meter readers. People who "opt out" and keep the analog meter are forced to pay $435 over three years for a meter reader. That's just not right. Opt out fees are a penalty scam by the CPUC and PG&E.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    I also think users should have a choice about accepting one (or more) to be installed at their home if they are willing to pay the increased cost of having a "dumb" meter read by hand....
    Barry
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  26. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  27. TopTop #105
    Runningbare's Avatar
    Runningbare
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sasu: View Post
    ...People who "opt out" and keep the analog meter are forced to pay $435 over three years for a meter reader. That's just not right. Opt out fees are a penalty scam by the CPUC and PG&E.
    With their sanction of opt-out charges, outlaw CPUC violates their own code. California Public Utilities Code section 745 (d) states that "on or after January 1, 2014, the CPUC shall only approve an electrical corporation's use of default time-variant pricing in a manner consistent with the other provisions of this part, if all of the following conditions have been met:
    (1) Residential customers have the option to not receive service pursuant to time-variant pricing and incur no additional charges as a result of the exercise of that option . . ."
    Last edited by Barry; 12-29-2016 at 12:36 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  28. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  29. TopTop #106
    rossmen
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Please educate yourself so your posts make sense. Sonoma clean power might be lame competition forced on pge by the voters, but it anyt no hybrid, it just buys electrons as an alternative to pge, pge is still in charge, responsible for the grid, meters, and billing. And pge is fighting the death spiral of alternative dispersed generation and storage, guess who will win? Play the game and be in the fight for a sustainable world, otherwise be a guppy sucked into the kill screen. Money rules power... hopefully.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sieglinde: View Post
    Ironically, these types of savings etc. may benefit our public power supplier that uses PG&E assets. Sonoma Clean Power would possibly find savings if the meter readers were replaced...
    Last edited by Barry; 12-29-2016 at 12:37 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  30. Gratitude expressed by:

  31. TopTop #107
    Bill95446
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    I feel that this statement ignores some facts. We (the state) have granted P.G.&E. a monopoly on electric (and gas, where applicable) distribution because we don't want to have the electric wires and poles of competing companies all over our landscape - these are not only unsightly, but also expensive to install and maintain. In return, it is regulated - if it weren't, it could raise rates without any limit.

    The PUC determines rules by which P.G.&E. sets its rates. When P.G.&E. wants to make significant changes to its infrastructure that cost money not built into the tariffs, it petitions the PUC for a rate change - these petitions must be advertised to the public which can speak to the matter before the PUC makes a decision at its public hearing.

    In order to make this an orderly process, the PUC has established standards on what constitutes a fair return on investment for the owners (shareholders) of the company. The requests for rate change are then measured (in part) against this standard.

    P.G.&E. is not the only company so regulated - most utilities are regulated; the PUC also regulates telephone, water, and sewer providers.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn: View Post
    Too true, joehogan. I remember hearing years ago that PGE is guaranteed a certain percentage of profits by law/contract every year, and if they don't get those profits, then they can raise the rates until they do. There is no other corporation that is guaranteed a certain level of profits!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  32. Gratitude expressed by:

  33. TopTop #108
    wisewomn's Avatar
    wisewomn
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Thanks for the additional info, Bill95446. However, since the PUC is pretty much in thrall to PGE, what it comes down to is that PGE gets to set its own terms. Last I heard, they were guaranteed a return of 14%. Seems pretty outrageous to me.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  34. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  35. TopTop #109
    sharingwisdom's Avatar
    sharingwisdom
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    So I'm wondering, in having paid the $10/month for 3 years and $75 opt-out fee initially starting in Dec. 2012, if I'm due a reimbursement from January 1, 2014 according to what you wrote? I appreciate knowing that this code even existed.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Runningbare: View Post
    With their sanction of opt-out charges, outlaw CPUC violates their own code. California Public Utilities Code section 745 (d) states that "on or after January 1, 2014, the CPUC shall only approve an electrical corporation's use of default time-variant pricing in a manner consistent with the other provisions of this part, if all of the following conditions have been met:
    (1) Residential customers have the option to not receive service pursuant to time-variant pricing and incur no additional charges as a result of the exercise of that option . . ."
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  36. TopTop #110
    spam1's Avatar
    spam1
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn: View Post
    Thanks for the additional info, Bill95446. However, since the PUC is pretty much in thrall to PGE, what it comes down to is that PGE gets to set its own terms. Last I heard, they were guaranteed a return of 14%. Seems pretty outrageous to me.
    So according to CNN ( https://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=PCG ) PGE net income was 5.28%; interesting to compare with Apple at 21.3%

    As I understand it, CPUC (which is appointed by the governor of course) has the job of interpreting the results of the work of utilities to determine if they are good stewards of the monopoly they are given. The have a target percentage return but the utility takes on all the risk in any one year associated with providing electricity. The wisdom of this is that the mostly private company rewards its owners and managers with high returns when they work efficiently, such as eliminating someone driving around in a car to read a meter when it can be done remotely. If you object to that loss of jobs, I would submit you should also object to the car and have the meter readers walk around rather than drive (as walking would require even more meter readers).
    Or to the same point (attributed to Milton Freedman):
    At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

    When costs go up (higher pay, more storm damage, costlier green power) the utility applies for higher rates. So it is the CPUC that in fact carries almost all the blame for approving the work approach and setting the rates.

    The main issue I see is if the rewards to senior managers are not based on long term results, then short term thinking can cause bad decisions. I don't know if CPUC has influence on senior pay but I would guess they have substantial influence on all aspects. So, why doesn't the governor appoint better CPUC members? Mostly I guess CPUC members are chosen based on political payoff for past services rendered. So who is the CPUC: 2 white guys, an African American woman, a white women and a Hispanic woman (nicely diversified according to standard democratic norms) all appointed by Jerry Brown. They have tremendous power. Ask yourself why the don't use it to keep your rates down.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  37. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  38. TopTop #111
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    The three year cap on opt-out fees was a CPUC decision from Dec 2014. There are four appeals pending on this case. If you paid fees starting in Dec 2012, in Jan 2016 you should no longer be charged, unless you move, then the scam restarts.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom: View Post
    So I'm wondering, in having paid the $10/month for 3 years and $75 opt-out fee initially starting in Dec. 2012, if I'm due a reimbursement from January 1, 2014 according to what you wrote? I appreciate knowing that this code even existed.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  39. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  40. TopTop #112
    Runningbare's Avatar
    Runningbare
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by spam1: View Post
    The wisdom of this is that the mostly private company rewards its owners and managers with high returns when they work efficiently, such as eliminating someone driving around in a car to read a meter when it can be done remotely. If you object to that loss of jobs, I would submit you should also object to the car and have the meter readers walk around rather than drive (as walking would require even more meter readers).
    With respect to wisdom, efficiency, and the choice of how to get the meters read, we shouldn't overlook another option that is leagues ahead of the car OR the walking meter reader. Back in the day when gas was cheap, newspapers were routinely delivered by bicycle. Those beastly clunkers were loaded down with bulky canvas bags full of newspapers, pedaled around in all kinds of weather. That was before gas got expensive concurrent with an insane switch to cars for delivering newspapers.

    But now we've come full circle with really tricked-out, highly efficient bicycles. Clipboard payloads are a lot lighter than bags of newspapers. And with today's atrocious traffic congestion getting worse every year, the reality is that sleek bicycles can often get around actually faster than cars. Behold the infinite gas mileage and truly zero emissions! Not to mention the exercise--any organic couch potato can drive a car.

    However, all this fretting over the most efficient way to get the meters read, turns out to be a mostly moot issue. The utility wants to charge monthly for the cost of reading the meter. But just as it was belatedly discovered that most Californians are quite capable of pumping their own gas--ostensibly to keep costs down--we are likewise literate enough to be "allowed" to read our own meters. It is well known that monthly meter readings on the part of the utility are unnecessary, and that biannual readings on their part suffice perfectly well. Customers behind locked gates in rural and remote locations have been performing monthly readings of their own meters for decades now; the precedent is well established. We can read our own analog meters and communicate monthly readings to the utility, thereby rendering $120 annual meter-reading charges inappropriate and unwarranted.

    As noted by fired PG&E meter reader Pat Wrigley ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINK4U0g02o), CPUC has already allocated a lot of money for reading meters, ultimately reflected in rates charged to everyone. By eliminating the need for meter readers, there should rightfully be a dividend in the form of a credit applied to all customers with smeters. But in fact this allocation has never been rescinded, probably because, as Sandi noted, "In 2012 PG&E reported millions of smart meters in their service areas were still being read by meter readers." If that scenario remains unchanged, the touted promise of efficient, thrifty wireless transmission of metered data remains largely bogus and unfulfilled. Hence it is patently unfair and discriminatory to charge only people who opt out for having their meters read.

    Think bicycles, just once or twice a year . . .
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  41. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  42. TopTop #113
    rossmen
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Yes the cpuc regulates pges monopoly on power. So it is one of our true chances to influence the sustainable future of the world. Current meter tech is counting pennys on the ground at our expense. You're for that?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by spam1: View Post
    ...As I understand it, CPUC (which is appointed by the governor of course) has the job of interpreting the results of the work of utilities to determine if they are good stewards of the monopoly they are given. ..
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  43. Gratitude expressed by:

  44. TopTop #114
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn: View Post
    ..., since the PUC is pretty much in thrall to PGE, what it comes down to is that PGE gets to set its own terms.....
    has anyone ever said "the regulators are honest and fair"??? even less likely, has there ever been a situation where the consumers and the regulated body both think the regulations/regulators were fair??

    politics and public policy discussions so often just involve declaring one or the other side incompetent/dishonest/corrupt. I'm getting so that's the first thing that jumps out, way before any actual points of fact. Not that the points of fact are always forthcoming anyway.

    btw, kudos to Sasu for the way she's using this forum. You can tell she's put in her hours of homework.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  45. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  46. TopTop #115
    sharingwisdom's Avatar
    sharingwisdom
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Thanx...yes, I knew it was 3 years and I haven't paid opt-out fees since Dec. 2015; but wondered, in the ruling being Dec. '14, if there was reimbursement. From what you wrote, it's all pending in court. And those of us who don't pay the opt-out only get meter reading every other month. At first, they were going to let me read my own meter and even talked me through it over the phone. I was sent a letter and set up with a schedule. Then one of their Sacramento heads rudely called me out-of-the-blue on a Sunday night and told me that I would not be allowed to read it any longer. PG&E is such a corrupt corporation...Hinkley is still contaminated after 20 years.

    Toxic plume spreads, PG&E faces 2nd Hinkley suit

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sasu: View Post
    The three year cap on opt-out fees was a CPUC decision from Dec 2014. There are four appeals pending on this case. If you paid fees starting in Dec 2012, in Jan 2016 you should no longer be charged, unless you move, then the scam restarts.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-31-2016 at 09:08 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  47. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  48. TopTop #116
    Peacemaker's Avatar
    Peacemaker
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Just a brief query to all the participants on this thread. Have any of you considered the impact of eliminating meter readers on the people who actually read the meters? Do you keep in mind that whenever a job is eliminated due to transferring a function to the customer, or automation, someone loses his/her means of making a living? Do you ever wonder, what happens to all those people who no longer can support themselves or their families? I know the companies and utilities don't ever consider these questions. Do you?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  49. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  50. TopTop #117
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    No reimbursement in the 2014 decision, but we are asking for refunds in our appeal. When the CPUC adopts a "decision" parties to that decision can appeal, so that's where it stands now- still at the CPUC. If the CPUC denies the appeals, parties can sue the CPUC in CA appeals court. In 2012 we sued the CPUC and the CA appeals court dismissed our case without written comment. So PG&E's PR soundbite that the smart meter was just like a cell phone which they paid a PR company to invent, was allowed to stand without question or investigation. No CEQA, no safety studies, only PG&E's assurances of safety, which the CPUC parroted.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom: View Post
    Thanx...yes, I knew it was 3 years and I haven't paid opt-out fees since Dec. 2015; but wondered, in the ruling being Dec. '14, if there was reimbursement. ...
    Last edited by Barry; 01-01-2017 at 11:16 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  51. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  52. TopTop #118

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Thank you so much for raising this issue! I sure do! Was talking to someone about similar issues today...

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker: View Post
    ... Have any of you considered the impact of eliminating meter readers on the people who actually read the meters? Do you keep in mind that whenever a job is eliminated due to transferring a function to the customer, or automation, someone loses his/her means of making a living? ...
    Last edited by Barry; 01-01-2017 at 11:16 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  53. TopTop #119
    wisewomn's Avatar
    wisewomn
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    I'd lay odds that at least some of them would end up voting for someone like Donald Trump...

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by gaiasophia: View Post
    Thank you so much for raising this issue! I sure do! Was talking to someone about similar issues today...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  54. TopTop #120
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Peacemaker: View Post
    ... Have any of you considered the impact of eliminating meter readers on the people who actually read the meters?...
    oh, I think they consider it, a little. And boy, is this an important topic - but it's wayyy OT. Guaranteed minimum income, or other solutions, are better than refusing to modernize certain random jobs. Trump was mentioned - preserving jobs this way is what he's doing for publicity but it won't scale to all who need them. So... where's that other thread? probably waiting for some other political event to trigger it!!
    Last edited by Barry; 01-01-2017 at 11:18 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  55. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

Similar Threads

  1. PG&E to escalate Smart Meter deployment in Sebastopol?
    By Sasu in forum General Community
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-05-2013, 11:26 AM
  2. Sebastopol Smart Meter update: chasing off installers
    By Sasu in forum General Community
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-08-2013, 11:22 AM
  3. IJ article about Inverness resisting Smart Meter - Wireless Meter
    By daynurse in forum All Marin County Posts
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-23-2011, 05:17 PM
  4. Smart Meter issue revived in Sebastopol
    By Sabrina in forum General Community
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-14-2011, 12:30 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2010, 07:08 PM

Bookmarks