Has anything more come of PG&E smartmeter opt-out?

[ubaru]

PG&E’s Opt Out Fees Mired in Dispute and Procedural Flaws

Posted on May 1, 2012 by onthelevelblog

Happy May Day everyone. Get away from your computer and get out in the streets- it’s a beautiful day, at least in Northern California! Revolutionary spirit (and tear gas) is in the air. Apart from a historical day to celebrate and defend workers rights, May 1^st also happens to be the “deadline” for signing up for PG&E’s opt out program. Yet it’s not really a deadline. You can opt in or out at any time according to PG&E. And lacking justification for charging the fees or forcing a smart meter, our domineering monopoly utility is left with empty threats, legal ambiguities, and cheap intimidation tactics to force their unwanted meters.

Let’s take a look at where this issue stands as of today:

PG&E’s legal ability to charge $75 up front and $10/ month for keeping your old analog meter, or having your smart meter replaced with an analog, is under a cloud of uncertainty today after Marin County attorneys filed a motion at the CA Public Utilities Commission (pdf) to halt any further deployment of smart meters and demanded a moratorium on the collection of opt out fees, citing the mishandling of Edward Hasbrouck’s protest.

Hasbrouck- an SF activist and author- filed a protest against PG&E’s advice letter- containing the opt out policy and the provision that those who did not respond to certified mail requests- would be ‘deemed to have elected’ to pay more for the analog meter. As it turns out, that crucial addition was suggested by CPUC staffer Marzia Zafar who urged PG&E to include it in an e-mail dated Feb. 13^th.

Marin’s motion states:

“Until further disposition of this suspension by the Commission and appropriate notice to the parties in this proceeding and the public generally, and subject to any subsequent requests for review thereof, the rates, terms and conditions contained in this Advice Letter are not in effect. These terms and conditions of service include not only the interim rates set forth in the Decision, but also PG&E’s proposed tariff provisions defining the procedures set forth in OP 2 (a) and (b) of the Decision. If, for example, a Smart Meter is installed while there is no effective tariff provision governing the service provided, legal uncertainty — at a minimum — results regarding what, if any, rates would apply and what right, if any, PG&E had to install the meter if the customer did not affirmatively agree.”

Read the full post here: https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002006.html

The CPUC initially stated on April 20th that PG&E’s opt out fee program advice letter was suspended. Then they retracted that, listing the advice letter on their website as “no action.” Then, when utility customers started citing the published status of the advice letter to refuse the fees, yesterday the CPUC took the extraordinary step of removing the listing of the advice letter altogether!

So in other words, the official sanction that PG&E is leaning on to charge hundreds in millions of fees to millions of Californians retaining their analog meter- is simply not in place. It’s in the throes of legal dispute. At the very least there is a necessary procedural delay to the fees, yet the CPUC- a public agency we fund through our tax dollars- refuses to admit that they screwed up, mishandled a timely and relevant protest against an ill-conceived punitive charging plan, and do what needs to be done- officially put a hold on the fees.

Like they did in Vermont, at the very least California needs a one year moratorium on any fees, while unresolved issues are pending. CA regulators are on the right track further investigating the PG&E spying scandal. Now it’s time for them to wise up to PG&E’s violations of the state utility code in charging unjustified and unsubstantiated punitive smart meter opt out fees. They just don’t seem to be able to wrap their heads around this fact- we never opted IN!

Andrew Kotch at the CPUC News and Information Office had this to say: “The opt-out program and its fees have never been suspended. The program continues as approved by the CPUC in February: https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/N...SE/158621.htm”

Funnily enough that’s not what your legal division has been saying!

As a California utility customer in PG&E territory, you would be entirely justified in refusing to participate in this half-baked policy or pay the punitive fees. Or write “paid under duress” on your check. Report any unauthorized installations or illegal power disconnections to us immediately at [email protected]
If you are upset about PG&E’s continuing abuses, come and PROTEST PG&E at their Annual Shareholder Meeting on Monday May 14^th 9:30am at 77 Beale St. (Financial District) San Francisco. Details forthcoming.

[ubaru]

The EMF Safety Network has retained James Hobson, an attorney with Best, Best and Kreiger (BBK) from Washington DC. BBK represents jurisdictions in California and has 200+ attorneys in California and DC. Hobson worked with Janet Newton, the director of EMR Policy Institute on FCC litigation. He is highly recommended by our advisors. He is helping primarily with the CPUC Application for Rehearing, has reviewed commercial opt-out letters, and provides counsel for the opt-out proceeding. Our current goals are to obtain Smart Meter customer rights, which include free opt-out, community wide opt-out, commercial opt-out, full disclosure, informed consent, and health and safety hearings. We are participating in the CPUC proceeding that is now consolidated with all the utilities involved. The CPUC pre-hearing conference to determine the scope of the second phase of the proceeding begins on May 16 in SF. With Hobson's help, we are adding information to the Application for Rehearing and the CPUC has stated they will decide on this in June. If they reject it, then we can sue the CPUC, and PG&E. We have also retained an expert in RF calculations to evaluate and refute PG&E's technical claims. It would be helpful to raise an additional $25,000 for the year, for attorney fees and to hire a private investigator to expose the fire hazards of Smart Meters. This year the EMF Safety Network has received over $58,000 in donations and have an additional $30,000 pledged. You can help in two ways. 1. Direct people to fill out and send in Declarations: https://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=7684 2. Direct people to financially support our legal efforts. They can specify where they want their funds to go towards: smart meter, fire investigation, or the Sebastopol cell tower lawsuit. https://emfsafetynetwork.org/?page_id=2127 Donations payable to EMF Safety Network: EMF Safety Network PO Box 1016 Sebastopol CA 95473 Donations over $100 can be tax deductible but should be made payable to EON, and sent to the above address. EMF Safety Network is a sponsored project of Ecological Options Network (EON) a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. With tremendous gratitude for all the work you have each contributed to making our campaign successful. Thank you, Sandi Maurer www.emfsafetynetwork.org

[ubaru]

I want to invite you all to make a quick phone call to the CPUC at 1-800-789-0550 24/7 and Harold Williams at 1-800-649-7570 who is the one Public Utilities Commissioner who takes calls on Smart Meters. His number is available M-F 8:30-4:30. You may get his voice mail.

They are tabulating the public's opinion about smart meters, so the more calls they get, the better.

Talking points:

Smart Meters emit dangerous amounts of radiation

We don't like them spying on us

Shouldn't be mandatory

The whole program should be scrapped...like DDT, asbestos, and cigarettes

No opt-out fees, we never opted in, discriminatory against those with disabilities, low income, and the uninformed

Whole communities and counties should be allowed to opt-out for free

They should not be allowed in multiple numbers on apartment buildings and condos.

The P in CPUC stands for public. Get back to serving the public, not PG&E.

Let them hear from many of us.
Thanks, your 2 minutes makes a difference.

Liz

[ubaru]

Dear Friends

Our efforts in Public Education are taking hold and beginning to pay
dividends! According to Bloomberg in May 10th's San Francisco Chronicle (Front page
Business Report), to date 9 states are offering electric utility
customers procedures to opt out of "Smart"meters or are considering same.

This is happening, not only in the United States, but worldwide, as a result of
community led insistence on our right to choose and social conscious-raising
in regard to the numerous deleterious aspects of this multi-billion dollar
stealth deployment!

Remember, all it takes is for each of us to discuss the smartmeter issue
with one new person a day.

Thanks to all of you, we have the right to choose.

Best Regards,

Linda

[Sabrina]

Done!

I want to invite you all to make a quick phone call to the CPUC at 1-800-789-0550 24/7 and Harold Williams at 1-800-649-7570 who is the one Public Utilities Commissioner who takes calls on Smart Meters. His number is available M-F 8:30-4:30. You may get his voice mail.

They are tabulating the public's opinion about smart meters, so the more calls they get, the better.

Talking points:

Smart Meters emit dangerous amounts of radiation

We don't like them spying on us

Shouldn't be mandatory

The whole program should be scrapped...like DDT, asbestos, and cigarettes

No opt-out fees, we never opted in, discriminatory against those with disabilities, low income, and the uninformed

Whole communities and counties should be allowed to opt-out for free

They should not be allowed in multiple numbers on apartment buildings and condos.

The P in CPUC stands for public. Get back to serving the public, not PG&E.

Let them hear from many of us.
Thanks, your 2 minutes makes a difference.

Liz

[Runningbare]

This might have been a good idea, except for the fact that Harold Williams is not a Commissioner, and thus has no decisive power. He's only a PUC frontman, put there to take flak and vent steam. The PUC sent him to one of the earlier Sebastopol meetings called by Efren Carrillo, where PG&E stood us all up by not showing up after they had agreed to come and answer questions. Harold acted and looked sympathetic to our plight, even pretended to be indignant that PG$E failed to show up, but afterwards nothing happened in the way of positive changes of PUC policy.

Yes, the public's opinion will be duly collected and tabulated, then put in the dumpster. Sorry to be so cynical and untrusting. Just yesterday in his KGO report of the PG$E shareholders meeting in San Francisco, Michael Finney described the choreographed process of going through the motions very apty:"We asked PG&E what will happen to those petitions.
"'The petitions are not part of the regulatory process; we do understand they're a statement from our customers of interest and concern and we do want those customers to call us,'" PG&E spokesperson Greg Snapper said.
"'Hopefully someone will be willing to accept the petition, if not I'll keep trying,'" Smith said.
"PG&E did invite SmartMeter opponents to contact PG&E directly and take their case to the California Public Utilities Commission. PG&E promises it will help customers get their voices heard at the PUC."

The only way to rattle their cages is through procedural challenges on statutory issues. Witness the waves made among internal regulatory communications obtainable through public record, by the legal challenges of Edward Hasbrouck alone: https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002001.html
Brown and/or the State Legislature needs to put the present commissioners in the dumpster, and start over with real people free of industry connections and commitments. But Brown is mute on this issue.

Disclaimer: Preceding commentary not to be misconstrued as an endorsement of Efren Carrillo.

I want to invite you all to make a quick phone call to the CPUC at 1-800-789-0550 24/7 and Harold Williams at 1-800-649-7570 who is the one Public Utilities Commissioner who takes calls on Smart Meters. His number is available M-F 8:30-4:30. You may get his voice mail.

They are tabulating the public's opinion about smart meters, so the more calls they get, the better.

Talking points:

Smart Meters emit dangerous amounts of radiation

We don't like them spying on us

Shouldn't be mandatory

The whole program should be scrapped...like DDT, asbestos, and cigarettes

No opt-out fees, we never opted in, discriminatory against those with disabilities, low income, and the uninformed

Whole communities and counties should be allowed to opt-out for free

They should not be allowed in multiple numbers on apartment buildings and condos.

The P in CPUC stands for public. Get back to serving the public, not PG&E.

Let them hear from many of us.
Thanks, your 2 minutes makes a difference.

Liz

[ubaru]

California PUC Stonewalls on Smart Meter Health Damage; Attempts to Cover Up Testimony Demanding Health Hearings

Posted on May 31, 2012 by onthelevelblog







In California, the second phase of the smart meter ‘opt out’ proceeding took place at the California Public Utilities Commission in San Francisco on May 16th, overseen by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Amy Yip Kikugawa. This is the same judge who nearly cleared the room after we asked questions about the peak pulse of radiation from smart meters on September 15^th of last year. After Sue Brinchman of the San Diego based Center for Electrosmog Prevention posted the transcript of the recent public proceeding on her website, the CPUC wrote to her by e-mail and asked her to remove it- that the transcript was not allowed to be posted online:
.

“…it has come to our attention that you have posted transcripts on your web site. Please do not post any transcripts on your web site or any web site.”

Why would the CPUC want to suppress the transcript of a public, judicial proceeding paid for by the taxpayer and critical to the outcome of how the smart meter ‘opt out’ is paid for, who pays, and how it is structured?

Well it’s pretty clear from reading the transcript why they don’t want the public to know what’s going on in these proceedings. Again and again, parties in the proceeding raise the health issue (more than 14 times according to our count) and each time Judge Amy dismisses it. It’s fairly obvious she has her marching orders; she has shown herself to be a reliable ally of corporate stooge and president of the Commission Michael Peevey.

Imagine (just for arguments sake) that someone ends up in court after murdering someone. The district attorney and a long string of witnesses all tell the judge that the perpetrator must be charged with murder and a trial must be held. The evidence is strong and compelling, and each witness can testify to the crime from different angles. Yet the judge refuses to acknowledge the evidence, insisting on reviewing the perpetrator’s parking tickets, and telling the DA and the crowd of witnesses that they should seek a separate trial for the murder case.

“But we have, your honor!” they exclaim. “No one else has agreed to hear the case- we’ve been turned back every time.” The Judge nods, and proceeds to discuss the “critical” issue of how much the accused will have to pay for illegally parking his gold Mercedes while he committed the murder.

The analogy is not exact, but the level of corruption, injustice, and betrayal of public service is even worse in this case. PG&E and the other utilities are responsible for a quiet public health catastrophe, and the CPUC- fuelled by our tax dollars- is looking the other way, betraying their responsibility to protect public health and safety . Fines that sound large to the public are levied for violations that led to the San Bruno explosion, but these amounts pale in comparison to the huge profits energy companies are making off our backs. Executives who place profit over people’s lives one day are on to their next position making millions the next.

These psychopathic individuals should be criminally prosecuted and sent to jail for a long time. That’s the only thing that might make future execs think twice before gambling with public health and safety. Instead, ordinary people taking peaceful action to defend themselves against microwave violence end up in jail.

The Orwellian doublethink evident in this proceeding would be comical if it wasn’t so tragic. When you see the system so broken that it won’t even admit to a blatant crime in progress, the public is left no other option than to take matters into their own hands.

Any opt out program that ignores its own raison d’etre is destined to be discriminatory, illegal and ineffective.
Above is the video of the proceeding courtesy of EON. Below are edited sections of the transcript from this proceeding. In defiance of the CPUC’s attempt to quash public access to this document, we have posted the full version here in the public interest.

Thank you to the brave, eloquent intervenors in this case. We admire their patience and keen sense of justice. May the people prevail against the technocratic smart grid. As Steve Martinot says, “people are more important than technology.”

We’re not so sure that the system agrees.

Second Phase Opt Out Proceeding CPUC– Excerpts from Transcript (including many of our local smart meter activists).

[mamaj]

I believe it is totaly wrong for P.G.&E. to charge people for removing smart meters for a fee and a monthly fee applied to our bills every month for not using one on top of our regular bills. What is Effren Carrillo doing about this?? I found out through P.G.&E. that the P.U.C. made this decision and customers need to contact them for anything to change . Why should we be charged extra for something we did not want or request?

[broadbandersnatch]

I believe it is totaly wrong for P.G.&E. to charge people for removing smart meters for a fee and a monthly fee applied to our bills every month for not using one on top of our regular bills. What is Effren Carrillo doing about this?? I found out through P.G.&E. that the P.U.C. made this decision and customers need to contact them for anything to change . Why should we be charged extra for something we did not want or request?

I got my bill with the $75 fee tacked on, I paid the bill, leaving off the fee. I understand we have three months to pay the fee. I am hoping this will die in the courts before that. I just believe this kind of extortion can't be legal. We, the consumers paid for the roll out of the smart meters. Surely the cost of not having one is relatively insignificant to such a behemoth. The last I heard was there are only around 10,000 people who opted out in northern CA . And you know, they could've put us on an honor system, ie we couldve reported our own usage with maybe a reader coming out once a year to keep tabs on us. I mean really, this is wrong people.

[Runningbare]

Attached (I hope) is what Carrillo wrote to the CPUC back in April.


Last week the CPUC suspended opt-out fees for Southern California Edison. PG&E here we come.
https://burbankaction.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/consumer-power-puts-sce-smart-meter-fees-on-temporary-hold/


California Public Utilities Code Section 745 (d) (1) is fairly explicit about prohibition of opt-out fees:
"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. Prohibited charges include, but are not limited to, administrative fees for switching away from time-variant pricing . . ."


Defiance of the above-quoted Code Section by CPUC approval of opt-out fees establishes the commission as a rogue, outlaw agency acting without authority. Suspending opt-out fees for Southern California Edison is probably the first step to bringing the commission back into compliance. PG$E most likely comes next.

I believe it is totaly wrong for P.G.&E. to charge people for removing smart meters for a fee and a monthly fee applied to our bills every month for not using one on top of our regular bills. What is Effren Carrillo doing about this?? I found out through P.G.&E. that the P.U.C. made this decision and customers need to contact them for anything to change . Why should we be charged extra for something we did not want or request?

[ubaru]

I got my bill with the $75 fee tacked on, I paid the bill, leaving off the fee. I understand we have three months to pay the fee. I am hoping this will die in the courts before that. I just believe this kind of extortion can't be legal. We, the consumers paid for the roll out of the smart meters. Surely the cost of not having one is relatively insignificant to such a behemoth. The last I heard was there are only around 10,000 people who opted out in northern CA . And you know, they could've put us on an honor system, ie we couldve reported our own usage with maybe a reader coming out once a year to keep tabs on us. I mean really, this is wrong people.

I totally agree, and yes the CPUC is acting so far from being a public advocacy group. But the pressure is on them to make things right. Could you please share where you got the information that we have three months to pay the extortion fee? Knowing this would be helpful to many folks as we buy time to fight it.

[Runningbare]

We are not limited to three months. Our time has already been bought, by us. Consider the following clue:

It is curious if not revealing to compare previous and current PG$E billing statements for those of us who have "chosen" to opt out. The easiest way to show this would be to submit copies of bills. But since account numbers, etc. appear there, and Waaco isn't exactly private, a more belabored description is appropriate. Check it out, and see if this observation matches your own bills:

On the bill for the month of March, the various charges are itemized and added up resulting in "TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES" (X amount). Following that, noting full payment for the previous bill, appears the bold-print bottom line in a box:
"TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (same amount)
DUE DATE - 4/(XX)/2012"

Now comes the first bill (May's) to include a $75 charge for "SmartMeter Opt-Out Initial Fee", accompanied by more nauseating hype about how they "believe in choice when it comes to the meter at (y)our home." Here the billing format has changed significantly. Same itemization of the various standard charges (without yet listing the opt-out fee), but now instead of "TOTAL CURRENT CHARGES", it states "Current Charges Due 06/(XX))2012" (X amount, exclusive of the opt-out fee). Then again noting previous balance payed, then under that comes the $75 opt-out fee. Finally comes the big bold bottom line in the box, visually the biggest attention grabber:
"TOTAL AMOUNT DUE" (Sum of above-listed current charges + $75 opt-out fee)
So here's the kicker: There is no due date stated on this bill for "TOTAL AMOUNT DUE", only for current charges exclusive of the opt-out fee!

Implicit/complicit in this odd change in billing format are issues of corporate authority and customer consent. If we read between the lines, it says "We don't have the authority to charge you this fee, but if you're gullible/compliant enough to pay, we'll accept it anytime you're ready. And by the way, we believe in money."
In view of last week's CPUC suspension of opt-out fees for Southern California Edison, let the waiting game commence.

I totally agree, and yes the CPUC is acting so far from being a public advocacy group. But the pressure is on them to make things right. Could you please share where you got the information that we have three months to pay the extortion fee? Knowing this would be helpful to many folks as we buy time to fight it.

[ubaru]

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will hold Smart Meter public participation hearings in four different locations sometime next fall. The hearings will provide an opportunity for people to speak to the CPUC about Smart Meters, and the Smart Meter opt-out program. The CPUC has asked the EMF Safety Network to determine the locations by July 16. If you are a California utility customer, please take this survey, which will help decide which four locations will be chosen: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YRFZRM9

[ubaru]

Vermont Offering Free Smart Meter Opt-Out~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Last month the State Legislators of Vermont voted to allow utility customers a no fee Smart Meter opt-out!

Specifically, the bill says that customers must be allowed "to choose not to have a wireless smart meter installed, at no additional monthly or other charge".

The legislation also calls for future reports related to smart meters to be submitted on: cost-savings associated with smart meters; whether any security breaches occurred because of the wireless technology; and the health effects of smart meters.

In California, the Public Utilities Commission approved arbitrary and punitive opt-out fees, and is forcing customers who do not want Smart Meters to agree to the charges- even though they've never evaluated the charges! Seems like Vermont has a few smarter people in charge.

Call for Smart Meter Declarations~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We are collecting declarations from California utility customers who've been impacted by Smart Meters. These declarations will be included in CPUC proceedings, and/or future civil lawsuits. This is a legal document that you believe is true to the best of your knowledge and you will testify to. Copy and paste the declaration template (below) into a Word document or download a Word template by clicking here. Follow the prompts in the template. Click here for an example. Email completed form to [email protected]. You will receive a confirmation by email, with a final copy converted into PDF/A format. Print out and sign two copies of the PDF/A format. Mail one signed copy to: EMF Safety Network, PO Box 1016, Sebastopol CA 95473 and keep one signed copy in a safe place for your own records. Please circulate this call for declarations to others who have been impacted by Smart Meters. Thank you for your help! PG&E and SCE Commercial Opt-Out Letter Templates~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Do you have a place of business and want to write a letter to PG&E or SCE to tell them you do not want a smart meter installed? To access both letter templates, click here. EMF Safety Network Contact Information~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ p: 707-824-0824 e: [email protected] w: www.emfsafetynetwork.org

[alanora]

I did the telephone opt out. Though I have had a meter reader presumably all along, only since opting out have I actually seen her, monthly. It takes her a second to read the meter from the street. I have yet to see the charge on my bill.

[ubaru]

Join Multi-Unit Residents Speaking Out About Smart Meters! CPUC June 21

Posted on June 14, 2012 by admin

Residents of multi-unit dwellings and interested others: COME JOIN PG&E CUSTOMERS WHO WILL SPEAK AT THE CPUC on Thursday, June 21.

A group of residents from low-income senior housing communities in Marin will protest opt-out fees, calling attention to unfair challenges that a punitive, extortionate opt-out program presents to multi-unit building residents who want to live in a SmartMeter-free environment.
Where: California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness, S.F.

When: Thursday, June 21, 9:00 a.m.. Sign in from 8:30 to 8:50.

More info: [email protected]

[sbridge]

My meter reader told me PG&E is avoiding changing meters in the West County.

[ubaru]

To P.G&E., Governor Jerry Brown, C.P.U.C., President Obama: Ban all Wireless SmartMeters from the state of CA and the entire U.S.A.‏

Our goal is to reach 200 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:
https://www.change.org/petitions/p-g-e-governor-jerry-brown-c-p-u-c-president-obama-ban-all-wireless-smartmeters-from-the-state-of-ca-and-the-entire-u-s-a

Thanks!

[tammatha]

This petition is great but it does not give us anymore information to date. We are being billed on our PG&E statements for opting out, what do we do about it?

To P.G&E., Governor Jerry Brown, C.P.U.C., President Obama: Ban all Wireless SmartMeters from the state of CA and the entire U.S.A.‏

Our goal is to reach 200 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:
https://www.change.org/petitions/p-g-e-governor-jerry-brown-c-p-u-c-president-obama-ban-all-wireless-smartmeters-from-the-state-of-ca-and-the-entire-u-s-a

Thanks!

[tammatha]

Don't believe your meter reader, I recently had two changed out to analog and live in West County.

My meter reader told me PG&E is avoiding changing meters in the West County.

[Runningbare]

This petition is great but it does not give us anymore information to date. We are being billed on our PG&E statements for opting out, what do we do about it?

What to do about it? In a word, wait. See full scoop above, #42

[broadbandersnatch]

What to do about it? In a word, wait. See full scoop above, #41

I'm simply not paying anything but my bill. I'm holding off paying The opt out fee and the $10 monthly fees because I have the feeling these extortionist's shenanigans will not be upheld in a court of law.

[ubaru]

We are suing the CPUC!

Posted on July 3, 2012 by admin

Cartoon by Jim Heddle EON

On June 7th, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) denied the EMF Safety Network Rehearing Request on the grounds that, “the evidence does not support re-opening a review of Smart Meters.” Because the Rehearing Request is denied we can now sue the CPUC for failing to address serious Smart Meter issues, including health and safety impacts, and FCC compliance.

The CPUC has buried it’s head in the sand!

The CPUC rubber stamped PG&E claims of Smart Meter safety!

Although no new evidence can be added to the lawsuit in Appeals court, this lawsuit is important because it could force the CPUC to address the issues it has been ignoring.


The CPUC has NEVER addressed the health and safety impacts of Smart Meters. They’ve only provided an opt out with a penalty!

We need to raise $25,000 for legal costs ASAP!

Attorneys James Hobson and Joshua Nelson of Best, Best and Krieger will represent us in the California First Court of Appeals. The lawsuit will be filed by the July 11 deadline.

If every customer on PG&E’s delay list would donate 15 cents, we’d have it covered! Considering we probably won’t reach those 177,000 people, if people donate $10-$100 this will help! Please give whatever amount you can!

Three ways to donate:

1. Donate online- click on the Donate button. (You do not need a Paypal account to donate! See the ‘Don’t have a PayPal account?’ section to the left of login box and click on link to use your credit card.)

2. Send a check payable to EMF Safety Network PO Box 1016, Sebastopol CA 95473
3. If you are donating $100 or more and want a tax deduction make your check payable to EON and mail to EMF Safety Network PO Box 1016, Sebastopol CA 95473. Online donations will not be tax deductible.

The results of suing the CPUC, if we win, will be that the Court will mandate the CPUC to address our original EMF Safety Network Application which includes:

• Re-opening both of the Smart Meter proceedings (D.06-07-027 and D.09-03-026)
  
• Evidentiary hearings on radiation health, environmental, and safety impacts
  
• Review of actual Smart Meter program performance
  
• An independently prepared RF Emissions Study

Your contributions will enable us to step up and challenge the CPUC!!

Thanks to all of you who’ve already given to this cause. Legal costs are ongoing, as we are still participating in the CPUC opt-out proceeding, so any amount you can contribute is a HUGE help!

We believe that whatever the CPUC rules for PG&E, they will eventually apply to other utilities! So, please support our efforts, even if you are a customer of another California utility!

Inching towards justice! THANKS TO ALL YOUR EFFORTS!

Sandi Maurer

[sharingwisdom]

I'm not paying the opt out or monthly fee either. I wrote a note saying this as well. And I will donate to the lawyers' fund to sue CPUC.

I'm simply not paying anything but my bill. I'm holding off paying The opt out fee and the $10 monthly fees because I have the feeling these extortionist's shenanigans will not be upheld in a court of law.

[alanora]

I chose to simply write that the opt-out portion of my bill was paid under duress.

I'm not paying the opt out or monthly fee either. I wrote a note saying this as well. And I will donate to the lawyers' fund to sue CPUC.

[ubaru]

Remember folks that if you are on automatic billing with pg$e, the opt-out fee will be automatically taken from your bank account. So get back on regular billing if you want to keep your $75 + $10 a month. Also, in an age of corporate fascism, you might not want to give any corporation that much control (auto bill) in exchange for convenience. In 2006 in Germany when the fascist state was further advanced than here, my friend's phone company made an outrageous mistake and charged her $250+ more on her bill. With auto-pay it was swiped out of her account and she had no easy way to resolve it.

[BobHeisler]

I had my Smart Meters removed several months ago. Last month P G & E charged me for the one-time opt-out fee and this month for the monthly fee. I still haven't paid either bill yet and am wondering what would happen if I pay all but the opt-out fees.

Remember folks that if you are on automatic billing with pg$e, the opt-out fee will be automatically taken from your bank account. So get back on regular billing if you want to keep your $75 + $10 a month. Also, in an age of corporate fascism, you might not want to give any corporation that much control (auto bill) in exchange for convenience. In 2006 in Germany where the fascist state was further advanced than here, my friend's phone company made an outrageous mistake and charged her $250+ more on her bill. With auto-pay it was swiped out of her account and she had no easy way to resolve it.

[ubaru]

I had my Smart Meters removed several months ago. Last month P G & E charged me for the one-time opt-out fee and this month for the monthly fee. I still haven't paid either bill yet and am wondering what would happen if I pay all but the opt-out fees.

Well I'm hoping you try it and let us know what happens. My landlady who is so kindly insisting I pay the whole opt-out fee for two households is on auto-bill. She wrote, "I also discovered on poking around that any money paid to PGE goes to the outstanding balance, which would mean that the opt-out fee would be paid off before any electricity or gas charges on the next month's bill. In other words, the only thing accomplished would be the damaging of my credit record and the worst thing that could happen, although highly unlikely, would be the loss of service for non-payment." I'm figuring she got her info from Pg&e who put out a lot of disinfo. We're all experimenting.

[wendymd4]

We opted out a couple months ago and the meters were removed and replaced within a week or so. I haven't paid either the opt out fee or the monthly charge and PG&E hasn't said anything to me.

I had my Smart Meters removed several months ago. Last month P G & E charged me for the one-time opt-out fee and this month for the monthly fee. I still haven't paid either bill yet and am wondering what would happen if I pay all but the opt-out fees.

[tammatha]

I don't get why your landlady is making a tenant pay for opt-out fees? Isn't she the one that wanted to opt out, or does the tenant? I'm a landlord and told my tenant I would pay if it comes to that. I too am just paying the regular bill and not the smart meter stuff. I don't think the tenant should pay if they did not ask to opt-out.

Well I'm hoping you try it and let us know what happens. My landlady who is so kindly insisting I pay the whole opt-out fee for two households is on auto-bill. She wrote, "I also discovered on poking around that any money paid to PGE goes to the outstanding balance, which would mean that the installation fee would be paid off before any electricity or gas charges on the next month's bill. In other words, the only thing accomplished would be the damaging of my credit record and the worst thing that could happen, although highly unlikely, would be the loss of service for non-payment." I'm figuring she got her info from Pg&e who put out a lot of disinfo. We're all experimenting.