SMART METERS new safety finding: THEY ARE NOT UL CERTIFIED

New Info found on the Un-Safety of smart meters. Read below:
_______________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Joshua Hart, Director, Stop Smart Meters!
February 15, 2011 [email protected] 831.440.9814



CITY COUNCIL DISCOVERS ‘SMART’ METERS ARE NOT UL CERTIFIED
Underwriters Laboratory Confirms Meters Not Safety Tested, Raising Fire Safety Fears


Capitola- During a meeting last week in which they joined six other local governments* who have passed laws criminalizing the installation of wireless ‘smart’ meters, the Capitola City Council discovered that the wireless ‘smart’ meters that CA utilities are trying to install are in fact not certified by Underwriters Laboratory, a certification that is required under the state electrical code for all electrical appliances and equipment within the home.

The lack of certification was confirmed by Karl Moeller, a senior engineer with UL earlier today:

Product certifications can be verified by going to www.UL.com then scroll down to the bottom and click on "on-line certifications directory". You can search for active certifications at the On-line Certifications Directory. In this case I did a keyword search for:
- Landis* There were a few matches, but nothing looks like a direct match.
- Silver spring* No matches came back.

In summary, I am unable to confirm these devices as being UL certified.

Best Regards,

Karl E. Moeller
Senior Customer Service Engineer II
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HVAC, Appliances, and Lighting
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
1285 Walt Whitman Road
Melville, NY 11747

The revelation came after Council member Termini, who is an electrician by trade, asked PG&E about the certification. After PG&E staff went to their car to fetch a ‘smart’ meter, the council and PG&E spent several minutes unsuccessfully trying to locate the UL symbol on the meter. This convinced Council member Termini that an immediate ordinance was required to protect public safety.

A number of fires that started in the new wireless meters have been reported, and last month a whistle-blower from Wellington Energy- PG&E’s installation contractor- alleged serious breaches in safety procedures by installers, who are temp workers- not trained professionals as required by the Federal Communications Commission. Reports of fires, shorts, and electrocutions are also being reported in other countries where ‘smart’ meters are being installed, such as Australia. (see https://bit.ly/fWUqA7)

“Gov. Brown must immediately act to remove President of the CPUC Michael Peevey, a former executive with Southern California Edison, who has been a symbol of the agency’s coziness with utility companies, a coziness that contributed to the San Bruno disaster as well as the current ‘smart’ meter debacle. The CPUC simply isn’t doing its job and it needs a change of leadership.” said Joshua Hart, Director of Stop Smart Meters!

A Protest is planned tomorrow- Wednesday Feb. 16^th Noon-1:30pm at the CA Public Utilities Commission, corner of McAllister and Van Ness in San Francisco. Representatives from grassroots organizations fighting the smart meter onslaught will be available for interview. Visuals include protesters with signs.

*Counties of Santa Cruz, Marin, Mendocino, and Cities of Watsonville, Fairfax, and Rio Dell have criminalized smart meter installations. A total of 26 local governments in California have demanded an immediate moratorium. More information: https://stopsmartmeters.org

OMIGOD, could this be the silver bullet? Do we grasp the full implications of this incredible development, or am I delusional?

Has smalltown Capitola electrician/City Councilman Termini become the dragonslayer?

The discovery of this major safety certification shortcoming completely removes the wind from the sails of all industry claims of safety and legality used to advance the onslaught of Schmart Meters. Furthermore, the sails are loosely mounted on a huge drifting Chinese false green flag barge overloaded beyond the gills with uncertified Schmart Meters, and the listing barge has just taken on enough water that it's heading down to join the Titanic.

If indeed UL is "a certification that is required under the state electrical code for all electrical appliances and equipment within the home", then PG&E's failure to comply with that requirement alone suffices to mandate a state order not only for a moratorium on further installations, but likewise an order to remove all those already installed. Moreover, all the so-called "symbolic" municipal and county resolutions for moratoriums just became enforceable.

Sebastopol Mayor Guy Wilson's timid contention that "the legal landscape (for a moratorium) hasn't changed since the last time we considered the subject” has now been rendered totally obsolete. He further noted that “Different communities have done moratoriums, but I am not aware of any changes in the law.” Yes, Mayor Wilson, no changes in the law, but now we are obliged to actually observe and comply with the law.

“I want to get us to a point where the community would understand the city government cannot enact a moratorium that is enforceable,” Wilson said. “Nevertheless, there are people who want to see these passed, even if there is no jurisdiction, as a political statement. I don't think it is appropriate. It invites disrespect for the laws we do pass.”

Now we see that Mayor Wilson strives to get us to a point of no return, because it turns out there is substantial jurisdiction, that the enforceable position reaches significantly beyond the political arena, and that if there is any real disrespect for the law, it would be engendered by the failure to pass both local and statewide moratoriums.

Bottom line: These technological Rube Goldberg paragons of efficiency are unacceptably dangerous, and constitute a major blight on public safety.

And even despite this, the Sebastopol City Council has voted against a Moratorium: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...874#post129874

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Runningbare:

OMIGOD, could this be the silver bullet? Do we grasp the full implications of this incredible development, or am I delusional?

...
If indeed UL is "a certification that is required under the state electrical code for all electrical appliances and equipment within the home",

---

Very likely this is considered PGE plant material (like the poles, transformers, switches) and not subscriber equipment or an electrical appliance. And the meters are typically not "within the home".

For the record, I was very clear and strong in my anti-smart meter position during the last City Council election. The outcome of Tuesday's vote may have been reversed if the anti-Smart Meter supporters, had chosen to support me.

There is much more to be revealed about the shady politics of this council, law enforcement, and so-called progressive/environmentalist influencing outcomes.

When you settle for diluted principles, progress on important issues slides backwards.

I am very sad to see Sebastopol lose its integrity, and my trust in its officials be so betrayed.

No, I'm not a sore loser; I was campaigning while in the middle of a very ugly custody situation, and recovering from sexual assault. I did not expect to win under those circumstances; I stayed in the race, as always, unattached to the outcome, determined to raise the bar on what it takes to get votes, by framing the debate from a strong position on environmental & progressive values.

So, all you anti-smart meter folks who turned your backs on me, are you happy with the outcome?

You have no idea how much my outspoken positions on all social and environmental issues has cost me. I expect those on the other side of the issue to do all they can to suppress & harm people like me. When it comes from the "enlightened ones", hope for building an optimal community is burned.

I have a long way to go until I can get all the knives out of my back. Please contact me if you'd like to help. I'm still breathing, and promoting social and political solutions; because that's the only way I know how to help our country and community recover from the post traumatic stress we continue to suffer from since 9/11, and the false solutions being funded for our environmental crisis.

Either the rest of the world is waking up to effectively speaking truth to power, or it's part of synthetic regime change, perhaps a way to spin things uncovered through wikileaks. America, and Sebastopol; it's your turn to pull back the curtain and see who is really at the controls of OZ.

Seriously singed (but fanning a few embers of hope),
:tourch:


Colleen Fernald

Here's a link to UL Smart Meter testing certification.

https://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/...s/smartmeters/

In general, I am surprised if this is a LEGAL requirement for California. All PG&E equipment is under their own master license as
no city or county department really has the expertise to supervise PG&E's internal distribution systems.
UL in general discusses low and medium power testing, not the high power on the main PG&E system.

That said, I am not sure why PG&E would not insist on this UL certificate prior to purchasing the equipment.
This is part of the junction between the homeowner and PG&E - PG&E is 100% responsible for the meter and
the linkage to the home. The homeowner is responsible for everything after the meter.

It could be that there are no or very few applicable UL standards for a meter.
It would be good to get some clear information from PG&E about this question.

Brian,

Who exactly issues a "master license"? Can I get one? Sounds a little like the fox, with his expertise in poultry management, issuing passes to the henhouse.
Good luck getting clear information from PG&E about anything.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Bryan:

Here's a link to UL Smart Meter testing certification.

https://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/...s/smartmeters/

In general, I am surprised if this is a LEGAL requirement for California. All PG&E equipment is under their own master license as
no city or county department really has the expertise to supervise PG&E's internal distribution systems.
UL in general discusses low and medium power testing, not the high power on the main PG&E system.

That said, I am not sure why PG&E would not insist on this UL certificate prior to purchasing the equipment.
This is part of the junction between the homeowner and PG&E - PG&E is 100% responsible for the meter and
the linkage to the home. The homeowner is responsible for everything after the meter.

It could be that there are no or very few applicable UL standards for a meter.
It would be good to get some clear information from PG&E about this question.

---

Rob States is arguably one of the more technically qualified engineers to comment on the onslaught of Schmart Meters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLeCTaSG2-U

Here's what he has to say about the nuances around the recent discovery of the lack of UL Certification, and it's potential significance:

"UL is required for consumer purchased items - it is the basic fire safety test. The meters are PG&E owned, but they are on YOUR
PROPERTY, so they are a fire risk. That brings in the building code, national (NBC) and California (CBC), and all the codes they reference, particularly NFPA (National Fire Protection Agency). This is a mile of codes, and I am only familiar with the NFPA and CBC codes that pertain to subways. So, we need HELP!

I have put out a feeler with a sensitive I am working with - they are activists, and know lawyers in the building trades. Our first step is to narrow down where to look - to figure out where the jurisdiction lies. I brought up the California Electric Code, and it is HUGE, so narrowing this down is the trick.

The key to this whole line of inquiry is the SPECIFIC WORDING in the applicable codes. PG&E's legal team would be competent at looking at the device from the perspective of THEIR OWNERSHIP, and could easily overlook a UL requirement like this, so this could be a big club if it works out. The big question is, are the UL certifications REQUIRED because it is on someone else's property? There are also jurisdiction issues with their utility easement, and which code trumps which code.

I'll send out more feelers, but WE ALL NEED TO DO THIS. Let's widen our search, to get some legal guidance. If we get the specific citations, including code paragraphs, that stipulate the UL certification is required, we're in! This is worth the trouble to investigate. So far, I just get lost in the codes - I haven't found the magic bullet yet."

Wouldn't it be logical for homeowner's Home Insurance (Fire, etc.) to have a real problem (like opt not to pay) if they knew that homeowner installed or allowed others to install/maintain any non-UL electrical/gas equipment? It may be our responsibility to stop illegal installations - just like we are prevented from tapping into power lines on our property before the PG&E metering point.

That is a really good point. Has any one had time yet to contact their home owners insurance about this question?

Tom, that's brilliant! Why not start by shifting the burden of legal research to a different corporate culprit with vast resources--namely, the home fire insurance companies? Would they not act in their own self-interest to answer the following homeowners' queries:
Will fire insurance claims be denied if policyholders have installed on their dwellings and businesses metering devices known to lack Underwriters Laboratories' Safety Certifications?
To have them deny coverage in writing would be most valuable toward gaining enforceable local and statewide moratoria.

How about this for a rough draft of a form letter to your homeowners insurance company:

We are writing to clarify a potential lapse in homeowners' fire insurance coverage due to widespread installation of new electric and gas utility meters with wireless data transmission capability. Following the recent San Bruno gas explosion disaster in which the entire neighborhood had already received the new meters, it has recently been publicly revealed that:

1. The two week training given to personnel who install these meters neither prepares nor qualifies them as State of California certified electrical contractors or plumbers. Furthermore, bonus incentives are placed on these workers to install as many meters as possible in a day, thus prioritizing quantity over quality of work accomplished.

2. The new metering devices installed on both homes and businesses lack Underwriters Laboratories Safety Certification, a certification otherwise required on all consumer appliances and equipment.

As one of your policyholders, we need to know if any future homeowners fire insurance claims will be denied/disqualified for the abovementioned reasons? In other words, will future fire insurance claims be honored in spite of the abovementioned faults?

Sincerely,

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tom95472:

Wouldn't it be logical for homeowner's Home Insurance (Fire, etc.) to have a real problem (like opt not to pay) if they knew that homeowner installed or allowed others to install/maintain any non-UL electrical/gas equipment? It may be our responsibility to stop illegal installations - just like we are prevented from tapping into power lines on our property before the PG&E metering point.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Runningbare:

Tom, that's brilliant! Why not start by shifting the burden of legal research to a different corporate culprit with vast resources--namely, the home fire insurance companies? Would they not act in their own self-interest to answer the following homeowners' queries:
Will fire insurance claims be denied if policyholders have installed on their dwellings and businesses metering devices known to lack Underwriters Laboratories' Safety Certifications?
To have them deny coverage in writing would be most valuable toward gaining enforceable local and statewide moratoria.

How about this for a rough draft of a form letter to your homeowners insurance company:

We are writing to clarify a potential lapse in homeowners' fire insurance coverage due to widespread installation of new electric and gas utility meters with wireless data transmission capability. Following the recent San Bruno gas explosion disaster in which the entire neighborhood had already received the new meters, it has recently been publicly revealed that:

1. The two week training given to personnel who install these meters neither prepares nor qualifies them as State of California certified electrical contractors or plumbers. Furthermore, bonus incentives are placed on these workers to install as many meters as possible in a day, thus prioritizing quantity over quality of work accomplished.

2. The new metering devices installed on both homes and businesses lack Underwriters Laboratories Safety Certification, a certification otherwise required on all consumer appliances and equipment.

As one of your policyholders, we need to know if any future homeowners fire insurance claims will be denied/disqualified for the abovementioned reasons? In other words, will future fire insurance claims be honored in spite of the abovementioned faults?

Sincerely,

---

There was a new report released today that confirms radiation from Smart Meters is considerably above the so called safe limit for a radius of up to 17 feet or something. KPFA ran the story in their evening news cast and maybe FSRN ran it too, can't remember... so there may be many reasons to yank them all converging now including the ones mentioned above by you.