[Sustain] 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.
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@aim.com To: active@sfgreens.org; 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 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
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@aim.com To: active@sfgreens.org; 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 =
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@aim.com CC: sustainability@sfgreens.org; active@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@aim.com To: active@sfgreens.org; 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 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@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
To put it bluntly Martin, you apparently know nothing about PG&E or its history with these 'smart' meters (which have been causing huge rate spikes for some of the customers that have them installed. Frankly you don't know what you are talking about. PG&E is using its 'smart' meters to raise rates both to individual customers, and by using them as an excuse for a general rate increase to cover the costs of the meters (even though they are going to save PG&E money). And the way that PG&E is rolling out these meters is causing them to exceed federal limits for radiation exposure to customers. So the radiation concern is real and based on current science and standards. Eric B On 3/25/2011 10:45 AM, Martin Zehr wrote:
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@aim.com CC: sustainability@sfgreens.org; active@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@aim.com <mailto:brookse32@aim.com> To: active@sfgreens.org <mailto:active@sfgreens.org>; sustainability@sfgreens.org <mailto: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@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability =
To emphasize the point on why PG&E's 'smart' meters are actually bad for rolling out clean energy see this comment from a customer with solar panels who recently had direct experience with the meters. http://www.sfbg.com/2011/03/22/smart-meters-stupid-company#comment-28941 *Another problem is no support for solar systems <http://www.sfbg.com/2011/03/22/smart-meters-stupid-company#comment-28941>* So I refused a Smartmeter for my place in Oakland, but not for EMF reasons. Smartmeters cannot run “backwards”, which means if you have solar you can’t sell back power to PGE. I was told I would have to pay them $500 to get bi-directional meter. I talked to a staff person at the PGE solar program and she was very upset at the Smartmeters, saying "they are anything but smart". Note the old meter works just fine for solar. It is really hard to find a digital meter that doesn’t work bi-directionally anywhere else in the Country, which means at worst PGE is purposely making it as difficult as possible to sell back power, and at best they are incompetent as they also promote solar. Their opt-out plan only covers EMF complaints. I still can't use solar with their crippled Smartmeter. On 3/25/2011 11:30 AM, Eric Brooks wrote:
To put it bluntly Martin, you apparently know nothing about PG&E or its history with these 'smart' meters (which have been causing huge rate spikes for some of the customers that have them installed. Frankly you don't know what you are talking about.
PG&E is using its 'smart' meters to raise rates both to individual customers, and by using them as an excuse for a general rate increase to cover the costs of the meters (even though they are going to save PG&E money).
And the way that PG&E is rolling out these meters is causing them to exceed federal limits for radiation exposure to customers. So the radiation concern is real and based on current science and standards.
Eric B
On 3/25/2011 10:45 AM, Martin Zehr wrote:
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@aim.com CC: sustainability@sfgreens.org; active@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@aim.com <mailto:brookse32@aim.com> To: active@sfgreens.org <mailto:active@sfgreens.org>; sustainability@sfgreens.org <mailto: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@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability =
_______________________________________________ Sustainability mailing list Sustainability@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
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@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Martin Zehr <m_zehr@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] PG&E: Hundreds Of Dollars Per Customer To Opt Out Of Smart Meters To: "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com> Cc: "SFGreens Sustainability" <sustainability@sfgreens.org>, "SF Active Greens" <active@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@aim.com CC: sustainability@sfgreens.org; active@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@aim.com To: active@sfgreens.org; 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 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@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Sustainability mailing list Sustainability@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
Glitches hamper radiation warning system in California By Jack Dolan and Rong-Gong Lin II | Los Angeles Times The federal government’s radiation alert network in California is not fully functional, leaving the stretch of coast between Los Angeles and San Francisco without the crucial real-time warning system in the event of a nuclear emergency.Six of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 12 California sensors — including the three closest to the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant — are sending data with "anomalies" to the agency’s laboratory in Montgomery, Ala., said Mike Bandrowski, manager of the EPA’s radiation program. Similar stories: Feds deploy more radiation monitors in western US Feds deploy more radiation monitors in western US Growing concern by Americans over exposure from damaged nuclear plants in Japan has prompted officials to deploy more radiation monitors in the western United States and Pacific territories, federal environmental regulators say. Feds deploy more radiation monitors in western US Feds deploy more radiation monitors in western US Growing concern by Americans over exposure from damaged nuclear plants in Japan has prompted officials to deploy more radiation monitors in the western United States and Pacific territories, federal environmental regulators say. EPA deploys more radiation monitors to the West Coast EPA deploys more radiation monitors to the West Coast As public concern grows about radiation from Japan possibly drifting to the West Coast of the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday announced that it will deploy more electronic monitors that measure radiation levels in the air. Testing finds no health threat along West Coast Testing finds no health threat along West Coast Minuscule amounts of radiation from Japan's stricken nuclear plant have reached the west coast but federal and state officials say it poses no health risk. Testing finds no health threat along West Coast Testing finds no health threat along West Coast Minuscule amounts of radiation from Japan's stricken nuclear plant have reached the west coast but federal and state officials say it poses no health risk. The problem delays from 30 minutes to several hours the updating of a database that would be critical for warning the public in case of a sudden radiation danger from air wafting to the United States from a foreign country, for example, or from a radiation leak at a domestic nuclear facility.The lag has not been a concern during the Japanese nuclear crisis because the minuscule amounts of radiation that have reached California have posed no threat to human health, and the plume of irradiated air from Japan is so widespread that other equipment from Washington to Los Angeles has been able to monitor it in real time, Bandrowski said.The agency’s critics, however, say the weakness in the EPA system could pose a public health concern."The unreliability of the EPA monitoring effort revealed by this event raises troubling questions about whether Californians would receive timely warning to evacuate, or take other protective actions, in case of a nuclear accident here," said Dan Hirsch, a nuclear policy lecturer at UC Santa Cruz and president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, an anti-nuclear group.The troubled transmissions are part of the federal RadNet system, which is "designed to protect the public by notifying scientists, in near real time, of elevated levels of radiation so they can determine whether protective action is required," according to a recent press release from the agency.Without immediate information from RadNet, state and local emergency managers would be dependent on the private owners of nuclear power facilities to alert them in the first hours of a dangerous radiation leak from a domestic source. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2011/03/25/1535784/california-radiation-warning... Read more of this story at latimes.com » Read more: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2011/03/25/1535784/california-radiation-warning... Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:03:44 -0700 From: brookse32@aim.com CC: sustainability@sfgreens.org; active@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@aim.com To: active@sfgreens.org; 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 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@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 08:17:26AM -0700, 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.
We should, but these meters aren't it. They're partly a vehicle for delivering kickbacks to a politically connected company: http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-06-30/bay-area/17164725_1_smart-meters-goldm... They're also a roadblock to solar power, as Eric explained, as well a means for PG&E to jack its customers for even higher fees. In other words, a win-win-win, for them. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
participants (4)
-
Eric Brooks -
John-Marc Chandonia -
Martin Zehr -
Michael Boyd