<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/25/2011 12:42 PM, Michael Boyd wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:585129.32415.qm@web81202.mail.mud.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="font: inherit;" valign="top">Martin,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
--- On <b>Fri, 3/25/11, Martin Zehr <i><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:m_zehr@hotmail.com"><m_zehr@hotmail.com></a></i></b>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16,
255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>
From: Martin Zehr <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:m_zehr@hotmail.com"><m_zehr@hotmail.com></a><br>
Subject: RE: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of
Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:michaelboyd@sbcglobal.net">michaelboyd@sbcglobal.net</a>, "Eric Brooks"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:brookse32@aim.com"><brookse32@aim.com></a><br>
Cc: "SFGreens Sustainability"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org"><sustainability@sfgreens.org></a>, "SF Active Greens"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:active@sfgreens.org"><active@sfgreens.org></a><br>
Date: Friday, March 25, 2011, 12:38 PM<br>
<br>
<div id="yiv1490747693">
<style><!--
#yiv1490747693 .yiv1490747693hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1490747693 .yiv1490747693hmmessage
{
font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
--></style>
<font style="font-size: 16pt;" size="4">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. <br>
</font><br>
<div> </div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<hr id="yiv1490747693stopSpelling">
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:25:58 -0700<br>
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:michaelboyd@sbcglobal.net">michaelboyd@sbcglobal.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of
Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:brookse32@aim.com">brookse32@aim.com</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:m_zehr@hotmail.com">m_zehr@hotmail.com</a><br>
CC: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org">sustainability@sfgreens.org</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:active@sfgreens.org">active@sfgreens.org</a><br>
<br>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Michael E. Boyd President<br>
CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE)<br>
5439 Soquel Drive<br>
Soquel, CA 95073<br>
Phone: (408) 891-9677<br>
<br>
--- On <b>Fri, 3/25/11, Martin Zehr <i><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:m_zehr@hotmail.com"><m_zehr@hotmail.com></a></i></b>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="padding-left: 5px;
margin-left: 5px;"><br>
From: Martin Zehr <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:m_zehr@hotmail.com"><m_zehr@hotmail.com></a><br>
Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E:
Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out
Of Smart Meters<br>
To: "Eric Brooks" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:brookse32@aim.com"><brookse32@aim.com></a><br>
Cc: "SFGreens Sustainability"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org"><sustainability@sfgreens.org></a>, "SF
Active Greens" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:active@sfgreens.org"><active@sfgreens.org></a><br>
Date: Friday, March 25, 2011, 10:45 AM<br>
<br>
<div id="yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713">
<style>
#yiv1490747693 .yiv1490747693ExternalClass #yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713 .yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
#yiv1490747693 .yiv1490747693ExternalClass #yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713 .yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
</style>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.<br>
<br>
<div> </div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr
id="yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713stopSpelling">
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:03:44 -0700<br>
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:brookse32@aim.com">brookse32@aim.com</a><br>
CC: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org">sustainability@sfgreens.org</a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:active@sfgreens.org">active@sfgreens.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E:
Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt
Out Of Smart Meters<br>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
And the best way to reduce electricity
use,<br>
<br>
is to use less electricity...<br>
</font><br>
On 3/25/2011 8:17 AM, Martin Zehr wrote:
<blockquote>This is such nonsense. We need
to support measures for accurate and
timely monitoring and measurement if we
really want to reduce electricity use. <br>
<br>
<div> </div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:18:29 -0700<br>
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
rel="nofollow"
class="yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713ecxmoz-txt-link-abbreviated"
target="_blank"
href="http:///mc/compose?to=brookse32@aim.com">brookse32@aim.com</a><br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
rel="nofollow"
class="yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713ecxmoz-txt-link-abbreviated"
target="_blank"
href="http:///mc/compose?to=active@sfgreens.org">active@sfgreens.org</a>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
class="yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713ecxmoz-txt-link-abbreviated"
target="_blank"
href="http:///mc/compose?to=sustainability@sfgreens.org">sustainability@sfgreens.org</a><br>
Subject: [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of
Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart
Meters<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pges-plan-smartmeters-opt-out-pay/">http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pges-plan-smartmeters-opt-out-pay/</a><br>
Thursday, March 24, 2011<br>
<h1>PG&E's SmartMeter Plan: Opt Out,
Pay a Premium</h1>
Customers who choose to turn off radio
signals could pay as much as $270 up
front plus $14 a month<br>
By: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/profiles/john-upton/">John
Upton</a><br>
<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
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 <a moz-do-not-send="true"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
href="http://www.baycitizen.org/pge/story/pge-customers-can-now-opt-out/">ordered
PG&E to allow customers to opt out</a>
of using the technology. <br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
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.<strong></strong><br>
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.<br>
"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.<br>
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<strong></strong>;
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 <a
moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"
href="http://bayc.it/dDpY/">the
proposal</a>.<br>
Consumer advocates, meanwhile,
characterized the rates as just another
cash grab by a malevolent corporate
monopoly.<br>
“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.<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
San Francisco Green Party Active Members
List To unsubscribe or edit your
options, go here: <a
moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
class="yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713ecxmoz-txt-link-freetext"
target="_blank"
href="https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active">https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active</a>
= </blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________
Sustainability mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Sustainability@sfgreens.org">Sustainability@sfgreens.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability">https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability</a>
</div>
<br>
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<br>
<br>
<div class="yiv1490747693ecxplainMail">_______________________________________________<br>
Sustainability mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"
href="http:///mc/compose?to=Sustainability@sfgreens.org">Sustainability@sfgreens.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" rel="nofollow"
target="_blank"
href="https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability">https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability</a></div>
</blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>