March 2011 - Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

[Sustain] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters
by Eric Brooks 25 Mar '11

25 Mar '11

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.

4 8

Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters
by Michael Boyd 25 Mar '11

25 Mar '11

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(a)hotmail.com> wrote: From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr(a)hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters To: michaelboyd(a)sbcglobal.net, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)aim.com> Cc: "SFGreens Sustainability" <sustainability(a)sfgreens.org>, "SF Active Greens" <active(a)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(a)sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters To: brookse32(a)aim.com; m_zehr(a)hotmail.com CC: sustainability(a)sfgreens.org; active(a)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(a)hotmail.com> wrote: From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr(a)hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters To: "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)aim.com> Cc: "SFGreens Sustainability" <sustainability(a)sfgreens.org>, "SF Active Greens" <active(a)sfgreens.org> Date: Friday, March 25, 2011, 10:45 AM #yiv1490747693 .yiv1490747693ExternalClass #yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713 .yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713hmmessage P {padding:0px;} #yiv1490747693 .yiv1490747693ExternalClass #yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713 .yiv1490747693ecxyiv1555601713hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} 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(a)aim.com CC: sustainability(a)sfgreens.org; active(a)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(a)aim.com To: active(a)sfgreens.org; sustainability(a)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 PremiumCustomers 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(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Sustainability mailing list Sustainability(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability

2 1

[Sustain] Draft SFGP Parks Anti Privatization Plank
by Eric Brooks 23 Mar '11

23 Mar '11

Hi all, He is my rough draft proposal for an SF Green Party - Parks, Recreation and Common Areas Anti Privatization Platform: The San Francisco Green Party (SFGP) regards free public park and recreation spaces, freely accessible wild open space, and extensive free public commons as intrinsic to the fundamental health and sustainability of a community and its residents. To this end the SFGP: Opposes the sale or transfer of any public park, recreation properties, or commons to private ownership, and supports the progressive transfer of private land and facilities to become public park and recreation property, wild open space, public gardens, and public commons to the greatest extent possible in San Francisco Opposes any fees charged to any person for access to, or use of, public parks, recreation areas, commons, or public recreational facilities; which should all instead be paid for via San Francisco's general fund Opposes the operation of any business in public parks, recreation areas and commons, which is owned by a for-profit private corporation or partnership Supports a complete ban on formula retail establishments in public parks, recreation areas, or commons Opposes the management of any public park, recreation area, or commons, by a for-profit private corporation or partnership Opposes the leasing or renting of any part of a public park, recreation area, recreational facility, or commons to any person, private club, or for-profit corporation or partnership; such parks, areas, facilities and commons, should be perpetually open and free for public use Opposes the use of fees on any profit making private business activity in public parks, recreation areas, recreational facilities or commons, in order to gain operating funds for the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, or its facilities or operations Opposes the placement of industrial facilities of any kind in public parks, recreation areas, or commons Supports the requirement that no private donation of funds, construction, recreational facilities, equipment, or ongoing facility/equipment maintenance, may be made to City and County of San Francisco public parks, recreation areas, or commons, unless the City and County matches or exceeds each such donation in kind and value; and that such donations may only be made after very thorough public input on how any given section or facility of San Francisco public parks, recreation areas or commons should be used toward the common good of the community Supports a complete ban on the use of chemical pesticides or fertilizers in public parks and wild areas -- Ok, that's a start. Let's see where we can take it from here.. cheers Eric B

1 0

[Sustain] Emails Reveal Cover-Up of Environmental Risks at Hunters Point
by Eric Brooks 22 Mar '11

22 Mar '11

Emails show EPA, SF Health Department, and Lennar Corporation colluded to manipulate public presentations in order to conceal serious toxic construction project hazards from the public and elected officials. Emails Reveal Alleged Cover-Up of Environmental Risks at Hunters Point http://www.baycitizen.org/development/story/alleged-cover-environmental-ris… Federal and city officials announce investigations into alleged collusion with developer By John Upton <http://www.baycitizen.org/profiles/john-upton/> on March 21, 2011 - 7:41 p.m. PDT Bookmark and Share <http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250> <http://media.baycitizen.org/uploaded/images/2010/7/hunters-point-shipyard/l…> Creative Commons/smi23le <http://www.flickr.com/photos/smi23le/2365903668/> Candlestick Park and the Hunters Point shipyard, as seen from the peak of San Bruno Mountain April 14, 2008 Federal and city officials announced Monday they would investigate new allegations that government staff colluded with developer Lennar Corp. to cover up health risks associated with the redevelopment of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the San Francisco Department of Public Health announced their investigations after Bayview neighborhood activists on Monday released emails <http://bayc.it/dDlV/> from 2006 to 2009 in which officials asked the developer and its consultants to help draft public statements about the safety of dust kicked up by the controversial building project. San Francisco's Board of Supervisors approved much of the sprawling redevelopment plan last year after receiving assurances from federal and local officials that it was safe, despite toxic compounds, radioactive contamination and naturally occurring asbestos in swaths of the shuttered shipyard's soil. A 75-acre outlying chunk of the project area was transferred to Lennar in 2005, but the construction of homes has not yet begun. "I'm sure you will also want to change my wording on how I portray the problems, lack of monitors, etc.," San Francisco Department of Public Health official Amy Brownell told Lennar employees in an Oct. 13, 2006 email while preparing for a safety-related presentation. "Go ahead and change any way you want. I may change some of it back but I'm willing to read your versions." Several months later, department official David Rizzolo told Brownell and another colleague that he did not want to obtain any more data on worker exposures to asbestos. "It seems to me that the available facts are on our side, so we should stay away from trying to create more data," Rizzolo wrote in the Jan. 19, 2007 email. "More data might not help us. We can talk more about this directly." The new allegations come on top of claims <http://www.baycitizen.org/development/story/nonprofit-says-city-took-reveng…> that former Mayor Gavin Newsom's administration helped strip a state-administered environmental communications contract away from a local nonprofit that publicly criticized aspects of the redevelopment project. More recent examples of alleged collusion with Lennar released Monday by the activists involved the federal government. "I'm searching for a way to justify that the development is acceptable without getting into details of risk assessment," EPA Region 9 Remedial Project Manager Mark Ripperda told a Lennar consultant in a Nov. 3, 2009 email regarding dust that was stirred up the developer's grading operations. "I'm open to any written narrative or bullet list that you think might work." Work shutdowns occur when airborne asbestos levels at the construction site are unsafe. Lennar was fined $515,000 by air regulators in 2008 for engaging in practices that allowed dust to blanket surrounding neighborhoods. "I prefer to keep our message as simple as possible and stay away from health assessment and from shut-down days," Ripperda wrote in an Oct. 28, 2009 email to the same consultant, Iris Environmental. The U.S. EPA and San Francisco have repeatedly stated that airborne asbestos levels in the surrounding low-income neighborhoods were safe, but the emails released Monday raise questions about the veracity of those statements. Jaron Browne, a leader of the loose-knit coalition of activist groups that secured and released the emails, said the correspondence demonstrates a "consistent pattern where the regulators were repeatedly running their messaging and their communications with the community first by Lennar." The groups, organized as the SLAM Coalition of Bayview Hunters Point Community Organizations, called on the FBI and the mayor's office to investigate allegations of public corruption associated with the redevelopment project. Two nonprofit members of the coalition, POWER and Green Action, are suing to overturn certification of the redevelopment project's environmental impact report, arguing that the document didn't properly consider health impacts from soil pollution at the site. Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Region 9 director, promptly responded Monday to the release of the emails. "I take these allegations very seriously," Blumenfeld said in a statement. "Today, I initiated a comprehensive review of the entire matter." Blumenfeld said the agency "stands by" the science and conclusions published in a June 2010 report <http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dc283e6c5d6056f8825742600741…> that found that air-monitoring measures at the shipyard were protecting human health. The San Francisco Department of Public Health also announced that it would conduct a review of the matter. "All concerns regarding our regulatory responsibilities are taken very seriously," Health Officer Tomás Aragón said in a brief statement. "We will prepare a response when we have had sufficient time to study these issues." A review of the emails by the health department will be forwarded to Mayor Edwin M. Lee, spokeswoman Christine Falvey said. Lennar Urban Vice President Kofi Bonner said that residents of the Bayview and Hunters Point neighborhoods can be assured that levels of asbestos at the project are not harmful. "Nothing in these emails suggests any data was hidden, altered or covered up," Bonner said in a statement. "Lennar has cooperated and continues to cooperate with regulators to minimize exposure to this naturally occurring material. We listen and respond when regulators require us to act or seek our cooperation."

1 0

Re: [Sustain] [GIWG] Japan Nuclear Crisis
by Don Eichelberger 17 Mar '11

17 Mar '11

You can also go to this link and sign on to the NIRS letters to your representative and senators. http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=58… Can you imagine this administration saying they will use the Japan accident to help make the US nuclear industry safer? What spin! I hope we can raise a tsunami of voices to say NO NUKES! Thanks for doing what you can. Don't let it stop with one email. The nuclear industry is reeling now, but they always fight back. It won't be easy, but I think a large number of people just learned it's necessary. Don Chana Tzi wrote: >Hi! > >I posted the following "Call to Action" on every environmental Facebook page I could find, including gpusa and cagreens. >Please pass it on to anyone you think will act. > >Topanga Bird. > >Topanga Bird >Call to Action: President Obama has just been quoted as saying he "stands behind" the nuclear power industry in the U.S. It is our job as Greens to let him know he does not have our support (or anybody else's) in this position. Email the President at www.whitehouse.gov, click the "contact us" tab on the top right corner and email the President immediately. NO to Nuclear Power. >Topanga Bird/Los Angeles > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Green-issues-wg mailing list >Green-issues-wg(a)cagreens.org >http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/green-issues-wg >

1 0

[Sustain] TSUNAMI WARNING FOR 8AM!
by Eric Brooks 11 Mar '11

11 Mar '11

Hi all! An 8.9 quake hit Japan and caused a tsunami that will hit San Francisco today at 8am. Stay away from the coast and the Bay and pass the word to everyone. Here's the report: http://missionlocal.org/2011/03/tsunami-warning-issue-for-california/ Tsunami Warning Issued for California By: Octavio Lopez Raygoza <http://missionlocal.org/author/octavio/> | March 11, 2011 -- 12:51 am | Filed Under: Today's Mission <http://missionlocal.org/category/todays-mission/> An 8.9 earthquake on the coast of Japan has triggered a tsunami that is expected to hit San Francisco at 8:08 a.m. The earthquake has cause severe damage in Japan, and the ensuing tsunami has devastated farmland in the pacific island. The National Weather Service issued the warning at 12:52 a.m. for California. Hawaii has issued evacuation notices on the coastal areas. Authorities in California are actively working to assess the potential damage the tsunami may cause. The Coast Guard asks citizens to stay away from the coast as it is deemed not safe.

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: Vote on shark question in Chronicle online poll
by Eric Brooks 10 Mar '11

10 Mar '11

mksage(a)gmail.com wrote: Please vote to "BAN SHARK FIN SOUP" in the online pole that the San Francisco Chronicle is holding. Go to _http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/09/MNBB1I6GV4.DTL_ and look down the left side of the article for "THE QUESTION -- Census finds only 219 great white sharks off coast" Click the button labeled "Ban shark fin soup" and then click the "VOTE" button. -- Mike

3 4

[Sustain] Question On Transit Impact Fees (Small Residential)
by Eric Brooks 06 Mar '11

06 Mar '11

Hi all, I was just watching the replay of the March 1 MTA hearing and noticed that on the proposed Transit Impact Fee, the Residential Builders Association turned out a huge number of speakers to oppose because the fee was on both commercial -and- residential property. They were really worked up and -strongly- opposed. I thought the idea for the Transit Impact Fee was to tax large Downtown commercial property, not small residential. Are there good reasons for us to put this forward in a way that is going to freak out the small builders? It seems like we may be unnecessarily inviting opposition. thanks Eric B

1 0