[Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters

Fri Mar 25 12:25:58 PDT 2011

My issue is real simple and has nothing to do with "electro-smog" the Smart Meter has no UL Mark on it so they [PG&E] can't say its safe. Under the Uniform Building Code the City and County can Red-TAG those meters just for it having no UL Mark and fine PG&E up to $500 per day until they remove it. 

Now I have this proceeding open at the CPUC [Application 10-09-012] asking for PG&E original Smart Meter proceeding to be modified to require PG&E to analyze the health risk of their meters because I have proof that their Smart Meter(s) sparked the San Bruno pipeline explosion that killed 8.

So what is needed is two things: 1) Get the City and County to start enforcing the building codes and fine PG&E, and 2)tell the CPUC no more Smart Meters until PG&E produces the Smart Meter data from San Bruno.

Michael E. Boyd President
CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE)
5439 Soquel Drive
Soquel, CA 95073
Phone: (408) 891-9677

--- On Fri, 3/25/11, Martin Zehr <m_zehr at hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters
To: "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at aim.com>
Cc: "SFGreens Sustainability" <sustainability at sfgreens.org>, "SF Active Greens" <active at sfgreens.org>
Date: Friday, March 25, 2011, 10:45 AM

This is simply fear mongering. At a time when San Francisco Greens should be demanding monitoring of radiation from japan they are working to undermine valid science and technology that would empower efforts at conservation of electricity. You follow the ignorant instead of leading the aware.

Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:03:44 -0700
From: brookse32 at aim.com
CC: sustainability at sfgreens.org; active at sfgreens.org
Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters

    Message body

    Not if it gives people
      higher cancer risk and raises their bills because PG&E as a
      private corporation is gaming the meters to jack up rates.
      PG&E has no intention whatsoever of using these meters to
      lower electricity use; and it will do everything in its power to
      obfuscate their use for that purpose (making them bad for
      conservation goals).

      If the meters were hooked into a more environmentally and health
      safe fiber optic system and run by the city instead of the
      corporation, -then- smart meters would be good and effective.
      Until we get PG&E out of the picture, its smart meters will be
      a bad thing.

      And the best way to reduce electricity use,

      is to use less electricity...

    On 3/25/2011 8:17 AM, Martin Zehr wrote:

      This is such nonsense. We need to support measures for accurate
      and timely monitoring and measurement if we really want to reduce
      electricity use. 

      Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:18:29 -0700

      From: brookse32 at aim.com

      To: active at sfgreens.org; sustainability at sfgreens.org

      Subject: [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To
      Opt Out Of Smart Meters

      http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pges-plan-smartmeters-opt-out-pay/

      Thursday, March 24, 2011

      PG&E's SmartMeter Plan: Opt Out, Pay a Premium
      Customers who choose to turn off radio signals could pay as much
      as $270 up front plus $14 a month

      By: John Upton

      Pacific Gas and Electric Company plans to charge customers
      hundreds of dollars on top of their regular gas and electricity
      bills if they choose to switch off radio signals emitted by
      SmartMeters, which are being installed in businesses and homes
      throughout Northern California.

      SmartMeters are being installed by PG&E as part of an
      industry-led effort to replace the nation's aging electrical
      infrastructure with digital equipment that can track and manage
      customers' energy consumption. Already, PG&E has replaced 7.7
      million analog electricity and gas meters with the new devices.

      Following years of public outcry about rollout of the meters,
      which some customers say have caused serious illnesses and
      incorrect energy consumption readings, the California Public
      Utilities Commission earlier this month ordered
        PG&E to allow customers to opt out of using the
      technology. 

      PG&E submitted a proposal to the CPUC Thursday that, instead
      of allowing customers to continue using analog meters, would see
      radio signals switched off from their SmartMeters. The SmartMeters
      would continue to monitor a customers' energy use, but they would
      not transmit the results to PG&E through radio signals.
      Instead, a PG&E official would visit the customers' home to
      manually read the meter for billing purposes.

      Customers who select the “radio-off” option would pay a $135
      up-front fee followed by a $20 monthly charge, or a $270 up-front
      fee followed by a $14 monthly charge, PG&E proposed.
      Low-income customers would pay 20 percent less.

      Instead of the fixed monthly fee, customers could choose to pay a
      monthly rate that varies with the amount of gas and electricity
      that they use. That option could be less expensive for customers
      who use little electricity or gas.

      PG&E justified the seemingly high rates by saying that its
      anticipated costs in deploying the “radio-off” option for an
      expected 146,000 opt-out customers would exceed $80 million over
      two years.

      "We wanted to make sure that those who elected that option would
      bear the costs associated with that option, as opposed to the rest
      of our customers," PG&E spokesman Jeff Smith said.

      The opt-out program costs will include expenses associated with
      turning customers’ SmartMeter radios off; switching radios back on
      if customers change their mind or new tenants move into the
      premises; modifying PG&E’s existing
      SmartMeter-related information technology programs and radio
      networks; and communicating with customers about alternatives to
      the opt-out option, PG&E told the CPUC in the proposal.

      Consumer advocates, meanwhile, characterized the rates as just
      another cash grab by a malevolent corporate monopoly.

      “I’m definitely going to ask for the data to support their
      forecasts for how much it’s going to cost to do all this stuff,”
      said Marcel Hawiger, energy attorney for The Utility Reform
      Network, a consumer watchdog.

      Hawiger said that PG&E should give its customers the option of
      reading their own meters instead of paying PG&E a monthly fee.
      Some customers with dogs and fences already read their own meters,
      he said, suggesting that program be expanded.

      Public hearings will be held in the coming months to discuss the
      proposal, and a CPUC ruling on PG&E's proposed opt-out pricing
      system is expected by mid-September.

      _______________________________________________ San Francisco
      Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your
      options, go here:
      https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active =

_______________________________________________
Sustainability mailing list
Sustainability at sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability 		 	   		  

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Sustainability mailing list
Sustainability at sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/attachments/20110325/27db9309/attachment.html>