Please respond to Supe Carrillo letter refusing to support county Smart Meter moratorium.

Please read the letter below from Efren Carrillo which several people received in response to requesting he support a county wide moratorium on Smart Meters in Sonoma County and follow suit by joining courageous Santa Cruz, Marin counties, and also Mendocino County, who voted yesterday to unanimously adopt a county wide moratorium!

Please write Efren today (or your own supe) and encourage him to rethink his position. Symbolic or not, he has the duty to represent and protect the 1000's of ratepayers opposed to PG&E's unruly Smart Meter deployment and help avoid a continuring and escalating public relations and public health disaster.

The www.emfsafetynetwork.org shows reports of many, many people who have become sick after installation of smart meters, others have reported fires or explosions or interference with electronics or other wireless devices, most are still concerned about billing accuracy and privacy/security issues. The CPUC had received over 8000 complaints in Oct, over 2000 on health impacts alone and many more since then.

As more counties in CA adopt a moratorium, the more our state legislators will recognize the importance of supporting and/or co-sponsoring Assemblyman Member Jared Huffman's AB 37 bill requesting a suspension of deployment until ratepayers are allowed the option to opt-out and/or remove or replace their existing wireless meter with a safe alternative.

Again, please write or call your own supe or Efren at 565-2241, [email protected] and encourage him to support a county-wide moratorium.


Thanks, Melissa Weaver

From: Efren Carrillo
Date: Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:54 PM
Subject: SmartMeter Ordinance

Dear _________:
Thank you for writing to our office regarding the Marin County Ordinance, and your request that Sonoma County adopt a similar ordinance. The Marin Board of Supervisors elected to put through an ordinance which they acknowledge is symbolic. The Ordinance that was passed in Marin has had no effect on the installation program, because the oversight on the program is through the CPUC on the State level. The initiative sponsored by Assemblyman Huffman would regulate PG&E through the CPUC. Our County does not have that authority. I'm sure that you've seen the below article about Marin's Ordinance and the response by local law enforcement.

Ordinances that are put before the Board of Supervisors require costly staff time, research along with a thorough vetting by the County's legal team. Even if we use the Marin ordinance as a model, the staff report and legal review would consume resources that the County must be very vigilant with during the current economic slump.

Our general fund is expected to have a substantial shortfall for the next few years, and vital services are in peril.

With this in mind, I must tell you that I cannot support putting a symbolic ordinance before the Board of Supervisors. I appreciate your concerns, and have spent staff time and resources this past year both on research and public meetings. I hope that your efforts with the state will result in a measure which will make a difference for those who wish to opt out of the SmartMeter program.

Kindly,
Efren Carrillo

Supervisor, Fifth District
Chair, Board of Supervisors
County of Sonoma
575 Administration Drive Room 100a
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

District Aide: Susan Upchurch
phone: (707)565-2241
fax: (707)565-3778


District attorney backs sheriff's refusal to enforce Marin SmartMeter moratorium
By Nels Johnson
Marin Independent Journal

Posted: 01/21/2011 08:32:19 AM PST

Marin County's effort to impose a moratorium on the installation of SmartMeters died on the vine this week as District Attorney Edward Berberian declared there is no way to enforce the "political statement" by county supervisors.
Berberian, backing a stand taken by Sheriff Bob Doyle, noted the California Public Utilities Commission, and not the Marin County Board of Supervisors, has authority to regulate meter installation.

Doyle last week refused to make an arrest under the county meter moratorium, saying it was not enforceable, and Berberian said he reached the same conclusion, adding that even if an arrest were made, he would not file charges to prosecute.

"Bob is correct," Berberian said of the sheriff's analysis, saying the county is pre-empted by the state from asserting jurisdiction over SmartMeters. "The Public Utilities Commission has in fact pre-empted the enforceability of the ordinance recently passed not only by the Board of Supervisors, but the town of Fairfax as well," the district attorney said.

Thus, there is no moratorium on meter installation anywhere in the county, despite contrary philosophical statements "with regard to the whole issue of meter installation and appropriateness," he said. "They have every right to make a political statement" despite the lack of legal teeth, he added.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. representatives have said they would ignore the supervisors' ordinance in any event.

The county board imposed the moratorium two weeks ago, bowing to a crowd of meter foes, although several officials conceded they were making a political statement in light of the state commission's oversight of PG&E. The issue of enforcement was left hanging, but many in the crowd left thinking they had won a battle with the utility.

Doyle said he was not informed supervisors expected him to enforce the ban, and he said he was swamped by requests from residents to block meter installations. Residents concerned that meters affect their health, Doyle said, should "direct their attention to appropriate health agencies," not the sheriff's office.

A clash between the sheriff and the county board on meter policy erupted behind closed doors last week, with Doyle and Supervisor Steve Kinsey trading pointed commentary in a session advertised as "conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation." Berberian was not invited to the session, which supervisors held after County Counsel Patrick Faulkner cited a loophole in the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state's anti-secrecy law.

The county agenda made no mention of SmartMeters or enforcement or a public policy discussion. Doyle said the session should have been held in public. Berberian said he would have to study the issue before determining whether the closed session on meter policy was appropriate.

During the session, Kinsey urged Doyle to issue a single citation against a meter installer in the expectation of prompting a lawsuit allowing "the court to make that determination" about jurisdiction. Kinsey said he regrets Doyle's "lack of collaboration with our board on a matter that many in our community are concerned about," but Doyle said supervisors need to collaborate with him about matters that require enforcement by sheriff's deputies. Doyle, saying meter foes have been misinformed that he has some sort of jurisdiction, criticized supervisors for playing politics and "hiding from the press" on the issue.

Supervisor Judy Arnold said she isn't hiding from anyone, noting she called the moratorium "a political statement, not a legal declaration" when supervisors approved it two weeks ago.

Kinsey, noting it was no secret the board was considering a meter crackdown, wondered why Doyle and Berberian didn't advise supervisors of their enforcement beliefs.

And board president Supervisor Susan Adams said that in light of the stand by top law officers, the next step may be "a civil action filed by members of the community."

In any event, Adams said, PG&E should take "another look at the public relations disaster" it has created and said she will press the issue when she next meets with utility executives.

Maybe I was under the wrong impression but I understood that part of your job (maybe a reminder is needed) is to represent and protect the 1000’s of ratepayers who are opposed to PG&E’s unruly smart meter deployment . Again…protect us against this health disaster. Since to date this has not been your objective while in office…then I would suggest you be named in all of the lawsuits that will be filed on behalf of the people who suffer these health damages.
Clearly you do not have the people of West County in your best interest by making the decision not to support a moratorium on smart meters. I know you have a couple years to go …but I certainly will have the best interest of the people when I don’t vote for you the next time you run for ANYTHING. I will also urge everyone else to do the same.
Ordinances that are put before the Board of Supervisors require costly staff time, research along with a thorough vetting by the County's legal team—Yes, this is YOUR JOB.
I agree, the general fund will probably have a shortfall within the next few years…maybe we can subsidize it-starting with your salary since clearly you do not wish to represent us.

I sent this just now:

Dear Efren:

Please, please stop making decisions that cause me to regret my support of, and vote for, you as our supervisor. It's embarrassing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mweaver:

Please read the letter below from Efren Carrillo which several people received in response to requesting he support a county wide moratorium on Smart Meters in Sonoma County and follow suit by joining courageous Santa Cruz, Marin counties, and also Mendocino County, who voted yesterday to unanimously adopt a county wide moratorium!

Please write Efren today (or your own supe) and encourage him to rethink his position. Symbolic or not, he has the duty to represent and protect the 1000's of ratepayers opposed to PG&E's unruly Smart Meter deployment and help avoid a continuring and escalating public relations and public health disaster.

...
{Efren's Letter:}

...Ordinances that are put before the Board of Supervisors require costly staff time, ...

With this in mind, I must tell you that I cannot support putting a symbolic ordinance before the Board of Supervisors. I appreciate your concerns, and have spent staff time and resources this past year both on research and public meetings. I hope that your efforts with the state will result in a measure which will make a difference for those who wish to opt out of the SmartMeter program.

Kindly,
Efren Carrillo
Supervisor, Fifth District...

---

I think an opt-out option is clearly the right answer in this mess. That's the way it should have been from the start, possibly with either a surcharge for getting your meter read manually or a discount for having a smart meter.

Efren's points are well taken (by me). Jared Huffman's AB 37 bill is the right answer and Sonoma County's ordinance would be expensive symbolism. HOWEVER, what could be done on the cheap is a letter of support from Efren, and hopefully the rest of the Supes (though that might violate the Brown Act) of Jared's bill, with a copy to the CPUC.

How about it, Efren?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I think an opt-out option is clearly the right answer in this mess. That's the way it should have been from the start, possibly with either a surcharge for getting your meter read manually or a discount for having a smart meter.

Efren's points are well taken (by me). Jared Huffman's AB 37 bill is the right answer and Sonoma County's ordinance would be expensive symbolism. HOWEVER, what could be done on the cheap is a letter of support from Efren, and hopefully the rest of the Supes (though that might violate the Brown Act) of Jared's bill, with a copy to the CPUC.

How about it, Efren?

---

Although Efren made a valid economic point, he still gives me the impression that it's just another excuse to support something other than his constituents. He does have options. Instead, in his letter, he basically says to those of us who believe in this moratorium, "Good luck. You're on your own." As usual, with Efren, there's no attempt to support us. I've emailed and called his office in the past. I even received a promise of a response......once. But, I never did receive that response. Efren is a political climber and will continue to climb, on the platforms of those that best fill his pockets.

While I do not like the Smart Meter project and believe that we should have the opt-out option, I support Efren's decision to not support a symbolic ordinance at this time. It's a waste of money and time, in my opinion.

I'm sure that he is aware that lots of Waccoites will not see this as the best decision, but I am glad to see that he is willing to stand up for what he believes is the correct thing to do and let the dust settle where it will. That's politics.

AB37 (or one like it) seems like the best way to confront the problem.
... or, you could just go Solar and not worry about it.

Tom

Every solar program I've heard of that have affordable rates are mainly affordable because of PG&E rebates because they will actually be managing your electricity any way. They've got it all set up to go into their grid. While you may save on your electricity bill, if they're setting up smart meters, it will still be metering that energy. The solar I've heard of that's off the grid is VERY expensive, which I hope one day changes, for that would be ideal.

While I know it may be actually true that moratoriums within counties or cities may at first result in only being symbolic (i.e not enough resources to actually follow through with arrests, etc), it would at least be a start, and with enough of us crying out we can better support higher levels like AB 37 Assemblyman Huffman is presenting (https://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_37/20112012/.). As Melissa points out, it is his (and other Supervisors in the county) civic duty to listen to the thousands of constituents with concerns, both health, and constitutionality, and to represent and protect them.

I have a solar system which was pretty expensive to install (needed a Tuff Shed to house the batteries and gauges and stuff, too) but it's certainly not expensive after installation; doesn't cost anything. I'll eventually have to replace the batteries, I guess, but they're fine after 7 or 8 years or so. And, I guess that if you spread out the installation cost over the years that it's been working (and continues to) it is probably less cost than a monthly PG&E bill would have been.

I don't sell back anything to PG&E, since I wasn't a customer to start with, and there aren't any of their lines coming to my house.

The main reason that I went solar, years ago, was that PG&E quoted me $32,500 to run their lines to my house.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I think an opt-out option is clearly the right answer in this mess. That's the way it should have been from the start, possibly with either a surcharge for getting your meter read manually or a discount for having a smart meter.

Efren's points are well taken (by me). Jared Huffman's AB 37 bill is the right answer and Sonoma County's ordinance would be expensive symbolism. HOWEVER, what could be done on the cheap is a letter of support from Efren, and hopefully the rest of the Supes (though that might violate the Brown Act) of Jared's bill, with a copy to the CPUC.

How about it, Efren?

---

Here's Efren's letter in support of AB37. Apparently they were already working on it at the point I requested it last week. Let's remember that Efren did a great job of holding PG&E's feet to the fire when they refused to show up for one of the early smart meter public meetings. I think he's solidly on the right side of this one:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...tingOptOut.jpg

Thank you, Efren, for taking this further step in writing in support of AB 37.