[Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters
Richard Knee
rak0408 at earthlink.net
Fri Mar 25 15:04:45 PDT 2011
FYI, I phoned and got Wellington Energy (866-671-1001), the company that
PG&E has hired to install the SharkMeater, to send the installation work
order back to PG&E with a notation that I do not want the device. It was
a bit of a convoluted conversation but it worked, and it took only 4
minutes, including the 1-minute wait for a Wellington rep to come on the
line.
BTW, the SharkMeater program also promises to put hundreds, maybe
thousands of meter readers out of work. So it's very interesting that
Hunter Stern, the long-time PR guy for the IBEW, is shilling for the
program in TV ads.
On 3/25/2011 12:42 PM, Michael Boyd wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Unfortunately your wrong or I would have went to Court a long time
> ago. The CPUC has jurisdiction over PG&E and I have to exhaust my
> administrative remedies there first before I can go to Court. That's
> the law as I understand it.
>
> --- 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: michaelboyd at sbcglobal.net, "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, 12:38 PM
>
> Go for it Michael. I await review of your evidence in a court.
> This is a matter for the courts and not a matter for a political
> party.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:25:58 -0700
> From: michaelboyd at sbcglobal.net
> Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per
> Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters
> To: brookse32 at aim.com; m_zehr at hotmail.com
> CC: sustainability at sfgreens.org; active at sfgreens.org
>
> 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
>
> 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
> <http:///mc/compose?to=brookse32@aim.com>
> To: active at sfgreens.org
> <http:///mc/compose?to=active@sfgreens.org>;
> sustainability at sfgreens.org
> <http:///mc/compose?to=sustainability@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
> <http://www.baycitizen.org/profiles/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
> <http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pge-customers-can-now-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 <http://bayc.it/dDpY/>.
> 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
> <http:///mc/compose?to=Sustainability@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/20110325/290b4c63/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Sustainability
mailing list