1. No category

SUPPORT HB 3421 AND SB 1044
SMART METER NO-COST OPT-OUT
For PUCT regulated, Cooperative and Municipally Owned Utility Customers
In the 79th Texas Legislative Session, Dennis Bonnen authored HB 2129 that requires electric
utility providers to consider establishing certain consumer option programs that encourage the
reduction of air contaminant emissions. The bill was later amended by the Senate to require the PUC to
develop a plan for deployment of advanced meter infrastructure (AMI), “smart meter” data networks.
The bill did not create a mandate; however, the PUCT created rules and regulations mandated smart
meter installations for Texans. No cost/benefit analysis was done. No human health impact studies
were conducted. No input from citizens was received. In a February 2012 letter, Bonnen wrote, “I am
greatly concerned that providers are acting beyond the purview of the HB 2129 for forcing smart
meter on customers. This was not the intent of the legislation.” (See 1-Bonnen)
Current investigations in California have exposed significant concerns related to their AMI
smart meter implementation. The US Attorney General and the California State Attorney General are
investigating Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) due to a 2010 gas explosion which killed eight people.
During this investigation, 120,000 emails were released revealing collusion and corruption involving
California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Chairman Michael Peevey and PG&E executives.
Their emails expose smart meter health issues, over-billing complaints, excessive initial and
monthly opt-out fees designed to inhibit individuals from opting out, and the intentional delay of
CPUC public hearings until full smart meter deployment was complete.
The activities and incriminating statements from the CPUC are relevant to Texas given that
PG&E, uses Silver Springs Network AMI and mesh network which is the same technology used by
ONCOR (Dallas/Ft Worth and NTX regions), San Antonio’s municipally owned CPS Energy, AEP
Texas (North/Central Texas) and CenterPoint servicing the Houston area and in millions of homes
across Texas. In the 2012 and 2013 Texas Senate Business and Commerce and PUC hearings, Texans
testified to the exact same problems being experienced in California.
Another smart meter technology used in Texas is from the Sensus Corporation, provider of the
FlexNet AMI, which uses “endpoint to base station” signals that transmit two watts of energy per
transmission. Citing overheating and fires, in October 2012, 190,000 Sensus meters were removed by
Pennsylvania Electric Company. In July 2014, 70,000 Sensus meters were removed in Portland and
105,000 in Saskatchewan Canada resulting in the resignation of SASKPOWER CEO Robert
Watson. In addition, Nevada’s NV Energy and APS in Arizona are currently being investigated due to
recent fires.
http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/smart-meter-fires-and-explosions/
Silver Springs Network, Sensus and other AMI systems are deployed in over seven million
homes across Texas. Billions of taxpayer dollars were spent on an infrastructure that includes smart
meters, touting a mere 10-15 year service life, replacing analogs with a 25-30 year service life. Smart
meters require perpetual software upgrades as evidenced by Austin Energy’s 2013, $60 million
software upgrade. http://etsinsights.com/news/austin-texas-council-approves-smart-meter-contract-with-landisgyr/
A multitude of issues and risks associated with the implementation of AMI are outlined in this
document including: health, overbilling, cost prohibitive opt-out fees, lack of cost-benefit analysis,
customer disinterest in utility usage data, misleading the public, inadequate FCC standards, and failure
to disclose public health and safety risks.
Document collated by Sheila Hemphill
| 325.226.3683 |
[email protected]
1 of 8
SUPPORT HB 3421 AND SB 1044
SMART METER NO-COST OPT-OUT
For PUCT regulated, Cooperative and Municipally Owned Utility Customers
Below are emails between CPUC Chairman Michael Peevey and utility executives, City of San
Antonio Council meeting minutes, and other pertinent information regarding smart meter issues.
1.
HEALTH ISSUES:
On September 3, 2010 Chairman Peevey emailed PG&E’s Brian Cherry stating,
“… If it were my decision I would let anyone who wants to keep their old meter keep it, if they claim
they suffer from *EMF ... I would institute such a policy quietly and solely on an individual basis.
There really are people who feel pain, etc., related to EMF etc.” (*Note: electromagnetic frequencies)
ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20150130ResponseToA1312012Ruling/2010/09/SB_GT&S_0000529.pdf%20
In another e-mail from 2010, Peevey’s Chief of Staff Carol Brown wrote to PG&E:
“…so far I have done OK just listening to the sad tales of EMF poisoning – and telling them thank
you for bringing it to our attention – and then not offering them any solution!!!...”
Brian Cherry, VP of Regulatory Relations at PG&E replies, “Prozac might be a solution!”
ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20150130ResponseToA1312012Ruling/2010/06/SB_GT&S_0009206.pdf
According to Dr. Magda Havas, 1 in 33 people are disabled from electromagnetic
hypersensitivity (EHS). http://www.magdahavas.com/em-hypersensitivity-awareness-month-harbour-grace-nfl/ In
the attached “Symptoms After Exposure to Smart Meters” by Ronald M. Powell, Harvard PhD in
Applied Physics, this report documents 410 patients from different parts of the world who experience
the same cluster of symptoms: 1) sleep disruption, 2) headaches, 3) ringing or buzzing in the ears,
4) fatigue, 5) loss of concentration, memory or learning disability, 6) disorientation, loss of
balance. (See 3-Symptom_Suvey) In fact, in February 2015, Lloyds of London’s updated renewal
clause (32) excludes any liability coverage for claims, “Directly or indirectly arising out
of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic
radiation…” http://emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/InsuranceAEWordingCanadav17Feb2015.pdf
In May 2011, the World Health Organization classified radio frequency electromagnetic fields
as a Class 2B Possible Carcinogen in the same class as lead and DDT. Utilities are not required to give
customers disclosure regarding this public health hazard, so symptomatic customers have no idea they
may be suffering from EMF exposure resulting in healthcare costs and loss of income due to illness.
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
2. HIGHER BILLS:
Peevey stated after a “smart” meter was installed on his vacation home, his bill more than
doubled. Peevey wrote to Cherry in 2011,
“Obviously something is wrong…I would like an explanation.”
ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20150130ResponseToA1312012Ruling/2011/11/SB_GT&S_0593072.pdf
In the June 11, 2014 San Antonio City Council minutes, Councilmember Gallagher asked about
compliance issues from other cities when implementing said technology. Mr. Eugster of CPS replied,
“one of the biggest complaints were those of high bills”.
http://www.sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/Files/Clerk/Minutes/2014/2014.06.11-minutes.pdf
On February 11, 2015, at the San Antonio City Council meeting, George Alejos with LULAC
Document collated by Sheila Hemphill
| 325.226.3683 |
[email protected]
2 of 8
SUPPORT HB 3421 AND SB 1044
SMART METER NO-COST OPT-OUT
For PUCT regulated, Cooperative and Municipally Owned Utility Customers
#4383 testified about one of his HUD renters, whose utility bill doubled after smart meter
installation and she was unable to pay the bill. He stated that if her utilities were cut off due to
nonpayment, “she would lose her HUD housing voucher.”
3. INTENTIONAL CPUC HEARING DELAYS:
Peevey and Cherry colluded to permanently delay hearings until the “smart” meter rollout
was complete. As noted in the EMF Safety Network’s January 22 appeal for rehearing, an email from
PG&E Brian Cherry to Tom Bottorff, a senior VP, outlined CPUC’s intent to delay “smart” meter
hearings until all “smart” meters had already been installed: When residents wanted to delay
SmartMeter implementation. Mr. Peevey replied,
“this wasn’t going to happen and that by the time the Commission got around to acting on it, we
would have installed all of our meters.”
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M144/K897/144897236.PDF
4. HIGH OPT OUT FEES WITH INTENT TO D INDIVIDUALS FROM OPTING OUT:
In emails between California utilities and CPUC’s current Director of Policy and Planning,
Marzia Zafar, (a 15 year utility industry and So Cal Gas lobbyist), stated to utilities,
“I think if there is not an initial fee your estimate of 2% opt out goes out the door and you’ll have
more like 20% or 50% opt out which will then make the whole project that we spent over $7 billion
on a complete and total waste.”
Zafar is saying if they eliminate the initial opt out charge for analog meters, up to half of
California’s electric customers may refuse smart meters, given all the publicity around safety and
inaccuracy problems, and that needs to be avoided at all costs – by ensuring fees remain
unaffordable. Her email clearly demonstrates how opt-out fees are not intended to “cover costs” but
to suppress choice and penalize customers.
In January 2012, Michael Hoover of Southern California Edison (SCE) wrote to Ms. Zafar of
CPUC and Cherry of PG&E,“We need an up front fee that is significant, or a path to achieve hat. This
is especially true for *CARE customers. This is a big deal for us and I think the potential for
significant increases in opt out is rather large if the fee is set too low. Are we all on the same page?”
(*Note: “CARE” is a reduced utility rate program for families living below the federal poverty line.)
ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20150130ResponseToA1312012Ruling/2012/01/SB_GT&S_0218646.pdf
In the June 11, 2014 San Antonio City Council minutes, Councilmember Saldana asked about
the Opt-Out Option. Mr. Eugster of CPS replied, “they did not believe that many individuals would
choose to opt-out due to the cost.”
During the 2013 Texas Legislative session, efforts failed to pass the following smart meter
defense bills; Simpson’s HB 1171, Bonnen’s HB 3590, and Carona’s SB 241. On August 9, 2013, the
PUCT conducted a hearing and adopted rules relating to advanced meter alternatives, Project 41111:
http://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/projects/rules/41111/41111adt.pdf
The CPUC established a $75 initial and $10/month opt-out fee as in California, in contrast, the
PUCT allowed each Transmission Delivery Utility (TDU) to establish their own rates which are much
Document collated by Sheila Hemphill
| 325.226.3683 |
[email protected]
3 of 8
SUPPORT HB 3421 AND SB 1044
SMART METER NO-COST OPT-OUT
For PUCT regulated, Cooperative and Municipally Owned Utility Customers
higher. CPUC emails revealed that the intent of opt-out fees was to primarily preserve the utilities’
investment instead of considering customers’ health, and over-billing complaints, and violations
of 4th amendment rights to privacy.
The rates established by each TDU, cooperative or municipally owned utility are unregulated
and varied. All utilities and TDUs, such as Oncor, CenterPoint, Sharyland, AEP, TNMP etc., can set
their own fees and are responsible for communicating opt-out options to the utility customer rather
than Retail Electric Providers (REP). Texas TDU opt-out rates are as follows:
Transmission Delivery Utility Exchange SM for Analog Keep Analog
Monthly fee
ONCOR
$167.22
$168.54
$27.00
CENTERPOINT
$171.00
NA
$32.80
SHARYLAND
$190.12
$167.04
$39.01
TDUs claim they cannot afford to offer a no-cost, opt-out option while they pay out multimillions in bonuses to executives. In December 2012, PUCT regulated ONCOR paid 51 executives,
$82 million in bonuses, including $18 million in deferred dividends to CEO Robert Shapard, plus his
$2.7 million annually salary – all paid with profits paid for by ratepayers. In April 2014, ONCOR’s
parent company Energy Future Holdings declared a $49.7 billion bankruptcy. (See 4-Opt-Out Detail)
5.
SMART METER INTERFERENCE WITH ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AND METER FIRES:
Ms. Zafar with the CPUC knew from experience that there were serious problems with the
meters. In January 2011 she wrote to PG&E,
“I’m also copying Cliff to this e-mail as I spoke with him this morning; he came to my house
:-). I have a smart meter and a motion light interference that is hopefully now resolved.”
ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20150130ResponseToA1312012Ruling/2011/01/SB_GT&S_0299732.pdf
Similar complaints have been reported about smart meters interfering with ground fault and arc fault
electrical breakers. http://smartgridawareness.org/2014/08/03/smart-meters-increase-the-risk-of-fires/
Bobby Reed, Business Manager for the Dallas/Ft. Worth International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and trouble shooter for ONCOR, testified in the 2012 Senate and PUCT hearings
about being called out on jobs and finding numerous ONCOR meters that had over heated or
burned and required replacing. Other workers in his position reported the same problems, as did
union members in Houston. Reed also testified about an uptick in cases of meter bases burning after
smart meter installation. He stated that one issue was that the new meters are a bit bigger than the old
ones. “These things are causing damage to people’s homes,” Reed told the committee, adding that
homeowners were held responsible for repairs.
On February 3, 2015, a 74 year old Dallas resident died in a fire suspected to be linked to an
ONCOR smart meter which was installed three weeks before the blaze.
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/dallas-county/2015/02/03/74-year-old-killed-house-fire-dallas/22786269/
6. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ACTUAL NUMBER OF RADIO FREQUENCY TRANSMISSIONS:
On October 18, 2011, a CA Administrative Law Judge passed a ruling directing PG&E to
clarify radio frequency emissions. The following table documents that while PG&E meters transmit
Document collated by Sheila Hemphill
| 325.226.3683 |
[email protected]
4 of 8
SUPPORT HB 3421 AND SB 1044
SMART METER NO-COST OPT-OUT
For PUCT regulated, Cooperative and Municipally Owned Utility Customers
data 6 times a day, the actual number of radio frequency transmissions is 10,000 (average) and 190,000
(maximum) per 24-hour day, with total transmission durations of 45 seconds (average) and 875
seconds (maximum) per 24-hour day. The number and duration of transmissions is not being
disclosed to utility customers. (See Table 2-1 and attached 2-PG&E 190,000)
7. ATTORNEY GENERALS AND CIA DIRECTOR COMMENTS ON SMART METERS:
a) Connecticut Attorney General, George Jepsen claimed, “The pilot results showed no beneficial
impact on total energy usage. And, the savings that were seen in the pilot were limited to certain types
of customers and would be far outweighed by the cost of installing the new meter systems.”
http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2011/020811clpmeters.pdf
b) Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Chicago Tribune, June 2012 wrote, “The utilities have
shown no evidence of billions of dollars in benefits to consumers from these new meters, but they
have shown they know how to profit. “I think the only real question is: How dumb do they think we
are?”
c) Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette stated, “DTE Energy customers shouldn’t have to pay
$87 to have a smart meter taken off their home … What the record sadly lacks is a discussion of
competing considerations regarding the program or the necessity of the program and its costs as
related to any net benefit to customers.”
http://www.annarbor.com/news/attorney-general-says-dte-energys-smart-meter-opt-out-fees-not-justified/am
d) Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey stated, “No one is in charge
of security for the grid…They're constructing a smart grid that will make it easier for you or me to call
our homes on our cell phones and turn down our air conditioner on a hot afternoon. But that may well
mean that a hacker in Shanghai can do the same thing with his cell phone, or worse. The so-called
smart grid that's as vulnerable as what we've got is not smart at all. It's a really, really stupid grid.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfNBk7H2AYI
8. CUSTOMERS FAIL TO SEE “BENEFIT” FROM UTILITY USAGE DATA:
Customer interaction with their smart meter usage data has been touted as a major benefit of
smart meter technology. From the July 2014, SPEER Report, “Update on Smart Energy in Texas”,
“Four years later, few customers use the ‘tools available to manage energy costs.”
Document collated by Sheila Hemphill
| 325.226.3683 |
[email protected]
5 of 8
SUPPORT HB 3421 AND SB 1044
SMART METER NO-COST OPT-OUT
For PUCT regulated, Cooperative and Municipally Owned Utility Customers
https://eepartnership.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/update-on-smart-energy-in-texas1.pdf
9. MAJOR UTILITY REJECTS ADVANCED METER INFRASTRUCTURE (AMI):
In January 2014, Northeast Utilities, New England’s largest utility provider, filed a written
submittal with the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, which was highly critical of a
proposed state plan that would require utilization of AMI in Massachusetts. The submittal states,
“There is no rational basis for this technology choice, … An Advance Metering System is not a
basic technology platform for grid modernization, … Costs associated with AMI are currently
astronomical while incremental benefits to customers are small.”
http://haltmasmartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NSTAR_R12-76-Comments-7986-POSTED01172014_HIGHLIGHTED.pdf
10. INADEQUATE FCC SAFETY STANDARDS TO PROTECT LIVING ORGANISMS:
The current FCC safety standard for human exposure to Smart Meters (and many other wireless
devices) is the Maximum Permitted Exposure (MPE) limit. It is based on the thermal heating effects
and does not account for non-thermal biological effects on humans and other living entities that occur
at far lower exposure levels. (See 5-AAEM) These biological effects are substantiated in the
BioInitiative 2012 Report, which collated the findings of 1800 peer-reviewed studies. A synopsis of
the report by Ronald M. Powell, Harvard PhD in Applied Physics, contains the chart below which
shows that many biological effects were found at exposure levels far below the FCC MPE, and that
smart meters can produce exposure levels above many of those levels. (see 6-BioInitiative) These
studies have been ignored by the Texas legislative bodies from the 79th to the present.
In addition, in May 2014, Richard Conrad, PhD John Hopkins University Biochemistry, wrote,
“For Legislators on Wireless Smart Meters: Health and Safety Issues” (See 7-Letter-Legislators)
Specific Absorption Rate
uses a
Mannequin head
used to determine cell
phone safety standards
11. RADIO FREQUENCY CONCERNS FROM DOI and DIA:
On February 7, 2014, the Department of Interior wrote to the National Telecommunications and
Information Association (NTIA), "The second significant issue associated with communication towers
Document collated by Sheila Hemphill
| 325.226.3683 |
[email protected]
6 of 8
SUPPORT HB 3421 AND SB 1044
SMART METER NO-COST OPT-OUT
For PUCT regulated, Cooperative and Municipally Owned Utility Customers
involves impacts from nonionizing electromagnetic radiation emitted by these structures. Radiation
studies at cellular communication towers were begun circa 2000 in Europe and continue today on wild
nesting birds. Study results have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration,
locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death.” (See 8-DOI-NTIA)
In the 1976 Defense Intelligence Agency report on the “Biological Effect of Electromagnetic
Radiation”, implies that the current FCC standards are designed to protect industry profits at the
expense of public health. (See 9-DIA-1976 report)
These comments clearly demonstrate that concerns regarding exposure to non-ionizing radiation have
historically been acknowledged as well as recently recognized by various federal agencies.
12. UTILITIES’ MISREPRESENTATION OF RADIATION EXPOSURE INTENSITY FROM
CELL PHONES VERSUS SMART METERS:
The California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) developed the “Health Impacts of
Radio Frequency from Smart Meters” report which states that individuals receive more radiation from
a cell phone than from a smart meter. The CCST cut and pasted the following chart from an industry
front group, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The CCST published this highly misleading
chart, which was presented as fact by many utilities and media outlets. When the data was evaluated
by Dr. Daniel Hirsch, Professor of Nuclear Policy at University of California, it was determined that the
radiation measurements from the cell phone were limited to the head and not whole body exposure as
was measured from the smart meter. When the report is corrected to represent cumulative, whole
body exposure reflecting the same units of measurement, it appears that smart meters are at least
100x more powerful than cell phones.
http://stopsmartmeters.org/2011/04/20/daniel-hirsch-on-ccsts-fuzzy-math/
CCST Chart
Document collated by Sheila Hemphill
HIRSCH Chart
| 325.226.3683 |
[email protected]
7 of 8
SUPPORT HB 3421 AND SB 1044
SMART METER NO-COST OPT-OUT
For PUCT regulated, Cooperative and Municipally Owned Utility Customers
ACTION REQUESTS FOR THE 2015 TEXAS LEGISLATURE
AND THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
2015 TEXAS LEGISLATURE REQUESTS FOR:
1. Support of HB 3421 and SB 1044 - a no-cost smart meter opt-out following the precedent set in
Vermont, with added consumer protection laws for all PUC regulated, cooperative and municipally
owned utilities recognizing the rights of property owners and customers with consent of property
owners to retain or choose an analog mechanical, non-activity recording meter.
2. Monthly notification in utility bills, including:
a. Instructions for invoking consumer utility rights to receive an analog mechanical, nonactivity recording meter,
b. Disclosure of potential public health risks as recognized by the World Health Organization
(WHO) who classified radio frequencies (RF) such as those emitted by smart meters as a
Class 2B possibly carcinogenic to humans,
c. Disclosure of possible biological effects and symptoms from electromagnetic / RF radiation
exposure as identified by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine and the 2012
BioInitiative Report (see attached).
3. Restriction of smart meter utility usage transmissions to once per month.
4. A smart meter phase out so that when a smart meter reaches its service life in 10-15 years it will be
replaced with an analog meter with a 25-30 year service life.
5. TDU requirement to present a cost of benefit analysis to municipalities and utility customers.
6. TDU requirement to provide proof of liability for property damage and/or injury due to RF
exposure or fires.
TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL INQUIRY REQUESTS REGARDING:
1. The PUCT’s conduct with respect to the intentional delay and cancellation of hearings on smart
meter issues and possible abuse of power.
2. The Office of Public Utilities Counsel’s failure to advocate and represent the interests of residential
and small commercial consumers when the PUCT allowed TDUs to establish unaffordable, opt-out
fees with possible intent to inhibit a customer’s ability to opt-out.
3. Silver Springs Network (SSN) and possible fraud through misrepresentation of the accuracy and
safety of their advanced meter infrastructure technology sold to Texas TDUs.
4. Third party evaluation and administrative judge hearing on all smart meter technology used in
Texas to determine a) biological effects related to RF emissions and EMF on plants, animals,
insects and humans, b) potential for smart meter devices to overheat and catch fire, c) potential for
disaggregation of private utility data, d) potential for meter dysfunction causing overbilling due to
temperature conditions e) potential for harmonic disruption from the smart meter’s switch mode
power supply and 900MHz and 2.4GHz transmissions into the 60 Hz circuitry creating higher
intensities of electromagnetic fields causing electrical motors and appliances to use more energy,
shortening equipment service life, and the potential to adverse health effects.
Document collated by Sheila Hemphill
| 325.226.3683 |
[email protected]
8 of 8