February 23rd, 2012 – 109 Texas Citizens Press Texas Public Utilities Commission to Act on “Smart” Meters – In a legal filing today Texas utility customers asked for legal relief against the bullying actions of a number of Texas electric utilities. They are seeking to have their case heard by an Administrative Law Judge. A key assertion was that:
“In order to persuade consumers to permit the installation of smart meters on their residences and businesses some and, perhaps all, utilities and purveyors have engaged in egregious misconduct, engaging in deliberately fraudulent representations and fraudulently withholding vital information material to the consumer’s informed consent, and where fraud was insufficient such utilities and purveyors have engaged in unlawful duress and even unlawful force.” (Does this sound familiar folks?)
Many specific examples of fraudulent statements are cited, including “implicating personnel of the PUC … by persuading them to fraudulently respond to complaints and inquiries by concerned citizens that ‘Customers do not have the opportunity to opt out of having their meter replaced with an AMS meter’ even though the PUC official could not pretend to be unaware of … “ (Texas law to the contrary) (Does this sound familiar?)
The parallels to our own situation here in Michigan seem all too obvious.
The specific remedies sought by the Texans are very enlightening. If they get even half of what they are asking for they will have killed smart meters in their state. Their filing was prepared by or under the supervision of an attorney. Click here to review their entire petition.
Where are we here in Michigan? We have a Public Services Commission which has failed to exercise proper supervision of the meter rollout in our state, and whose staff people routinely tell consumers they have no choice but to permit installation of a smart meter – even though they know that is NOT the law.
We have a Public Services Commission that was asked by the governments of 9 Michigan cities to:
- Institute a review of the health effects of the meters.
- Impose a moratorium on further installs pending results of a health study.
- Do more to educate the public about the nature of the smart meters and the risks they pose.
- Allow for individual opt-outs.
Our MPSC issued an Order on January 12th that did not include 3 of the above 4 requests by the city governments.
While our Commission “investigates” for the next 6 months, it is also permitting DTE to install possibly as many as a half million more ‘smart’ meters without the informed consent of the utility’s customers. If we take no major action to change things, all we can expect from this investigation is probably some sort of individual ‘opt-out’ involving the payment of onerous fees for the ‘privilege’. The outcome would likely be similar to what happened in California – where they must now fight the fees. What about whole communities opting out? What about the informed consent of the governed? What about the possible health damage to millions of citizens from their own or a neighbor’s smart meter?
Is it not time we Michiganders followed the example of the Texans and filed a similar legal document with our MPSC? Who is ready to add their name to such a complaint? Who is ready to attend a public meeting to discuss where we go from here? And if our complaint is denied by the Commission, who is ready to take it all the way to the State Supreme Court?
Please post a comment here and send an email to Vigilant Dave at the address shown at the bottom of this page if you are willing to participate or help in some way.
February 18, 2012 – In an interview which appeared today in MiTechNews.com, DTE spokesperson Len Singer said the utility will propose, in a filing with the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) next month, an opt-out provision for customers. He indicated that his company recognizes this is an “extremely emotional issue” for some, but that the company still believes the meters are safe and has no plan to halt or slow down ongoing installations.
A spokesman for Consumers also stated that his company will propose an opt-out in a filing due next month under the terms of the MPSC Order that opened the current investigation. This company plans to start installations of the new meters this summer.
No details are available as yet regarding either company’s opt-out proposals – such as what the alternative to the smart meter would be, who would be eligible or what fees, if any, might be charged for not accepting the smart meter.
There is much that remains to be accomplished. We still think the MPSC needs to conduct a thorough and unbiased investigation of the possible health effects of these new meters and the ‘mesh networks’ required to operate them. We also think the Commission needs to declare a moratorium on any further smart meter installations until such a health study has been completed.
We believe it is as important as ever that the legislature enact some smart meter protections for the public. There are fundamental social and moral issues – including health, privacy and property rights. These are not just details that should be worked out by a regulatory commission that seems more comfortable when dealing only with rate issues.
Still we think that today’s announcement represents a major breakthrough. We are cautiously optimistic.
Click here to read the source article.
February 16th, 2012 – Representative Tom McMillin (R) of Rochester introduced today, along with 8 co-sponsors, proposed smart meter opt-out legislation in the Michigan House of Representatives. The bill, known as H.B. 5411, contains a whole series of prohibitions against the electric utility companies of the state with regard to what are termed “advanced meters” and directs the Michigan Public Services Commission (MPSC) to enforce these prohibitions.
The bill prohibits any such utility from (a) requiring a customer to accept an “advanced meter”, (b) from refusing to remove one if already installed, or (c) from “imposing any disincentive on a customer for not accepting the installation or use of an ‘advanced meter’.”
For those customers who do accept an “advanced meter”, the bill would prohibit the utility from collecting data from the meter more often than once per month “unless requested by the customer”, and would further prohibit the giving of “any meter use data from an advanced meter to any person other than the utility.”
The bill has been referred to the Energy and Technology Committee. We are hopeful the Committee will, after due consideration, forward this bill to the full House for an up or down vote. If the bill should survive all hurdles and become law, we think some powerful protections will have been put in place to protect the property rights and the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of Michigan homeowners. We very much appreciate the effort Tom McMillin has put forward to get this bill drafted and to muster the support of so many of his colleagues to co-sponsor.
A provision we would very much like to have seen in this bill would be a “community opt-out” as well as an individual opt-out, at least for those communities where smart meters have not already been installed. The issue is that an individual who opts out only gains partial protection from the possible electro magnetic effects upon his or her health. He is still immersed in a sea of such radio radiation produced by all the smart meters of his immediate neighbors. Only a community opt-out, or a statewide ban, would provide real protection against layering more and more radiation on homes that are already bombarded with radio and tv signals, cell phone tower radiation, and WiFi radiation from all the homes in the area.
Two other provisions we don’t see in the bill are a mandate that the MPSC conduct a proper investigation of the health effects of the meters, or a moratorium on further installs pending the results of such an investigation. We know that the current investigation by MPSC has, despite the pleas of nine city governments, been designed to exclude health effects and to make no provision for halting or slowing ongoing installations.
The bill defines what “advanced meter” means. We would like to have seen a definition that would encompass all the variations of ‘smart’ metering that a utility might install – so that the utility not be able to escape the requirements of this proposed law just by, for example, turning off the radio feature, while still tracking granular usage data to be uploaded by different means. We are recommending that a definition be made that is more along the lines of that published by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Still this bill is a start – a big first step. Our hats are off to Rep. McMillin and his eight Republican colleagues who co-sponsored. They seem to have focused on the property rights and Fourth Amendment issues. We do not see smart meters as a partisan issue, however, and would hope that Democrats in the House might introduce their own proposal that would broaden the final legislation to include more focus on the health effects and possible remedies for that.
To read the actual proposed legislation, click here.
February 1st, 2012 – The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) this day enacted a regulation that permits anyone in that state to opt-out of having a ‘smart’ electric meter on their home – “for any reason or no reason at all”. Those who so decline can keep their analog meter or get back their analog meter if it has already been replaced. Today’s decision in California may be instructive in terms of options likely to be considered by our own Michigan Public Services Commission (MPSC).
This is, in one sense, a great victory for the anti ‘smart’ meter movement, but it is also a source of great dismay in that those who opt-out will be required to pay an initial fee of $75.00 plus an extra $10/month from then on. These rates are supposed to be to compensate the utility for re-installing the analog meters they took out, and the extra costs of maintaining meter readers and maintaining dual billing systems. The CPUC made it clear that these rates are only tentative and may be adjusted next year based on actual cost experience.
Many feel that charging people for exercising their Fourth Amendment and health rights is a form of extortion. They point out that they have already been charged for the cost of implementing the smart meter system. They believe they should be receiving a credit for those charges since they will not be sharing in the alleged benefits of that system.
A survey done by Pacific Gas & Electric indicated that if opting out were free, that between 40% and 60% of the population would opt out. But with today’s fee structure it is estimated only 3% will opt out.
Today’s decision is a benefit to privacy but does little to alleviate the electromagnetic radiation exposure problem since, if only 3% can afford to opt-out, those who do opt out will still be deluged with electrical radiation from their neighbor’s meters and the mesh networks required to keep those operating.
Commissioner Peevy, Chairman of the CPUC, also made it clear in his written report that the analog meter option may also be only a temporary option. They are committed to the idea that, with or without radio transmissions, electrical consumption must, in the longer run, be measured and stored in rather fine intervals – so that time of use pricing can be implemented. If this is done, of course, privacy is out the window.
Peevy has indicated the Commission would like a solution in which there would be a different kind of smart meter that stores detailed usage information that could be downloaded to a meter reader’s hand held device. But since this technology does not exist as yet, they are permitting analog meters – for now.