Based on the YouTube presentation by
Josh del Sol and Cal Washington
by Warren Woodward
October 14th, 2017
Please be aware that what I have to say is nothing personal against Josh del Sol or anyone else featured in the youtube. I have no personal grudges or axes to grind. But I do have a working BS detector.
Josh is a good filmmaker. Take Back Your Power was a great, fact-based tool for awakening people. But this one — and I will back this up with specifics — is propaganda. I would love for the theory it espouses to work, but I don’t think it will or has.
I am going to go through the YouTube InPower presentation now in the order that various things were presented.
The video gets off to a bad start when Cal Washington makes the point that one of the basic InPower premises is that, by switching to smart meters (SMs), the utility has changed the contract they have with you. That’s both right and wrong. Technically he is right because what they have installed is not a meter. It’s a transceiver and computer. I have made that point repeatedly here in AZ for years. I have proved it with an exploded conceptual rendering of a SM from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that shows metering to be 1/5 of what a SM is. I have proved it by providing documentation that the IRS classifies smart meters as computers. I have proved it by providing the Congressional testimony of utility exec. Bennett Gaines saying SMs are computers. But guess what? In the “real” world, to the utility and PUC type people, it’s a meter. They won’t budge off that. If you accept service from the utility, you accept their equipment. Period.
Cal says that Kevin Lynch resigned on the day he got a Notice of Liability. This is supposed to be huge because Kevin holds the most senior non-political office in the gov. of Canada, Clerk of the Privy Council. Now this is something we will see throughout the YouTube: A news article is put on screen (11:17) and most of it is greyed out, with what Josh wants to emphasize lightened up and highlighted. But if you read the grey it says that “there has been much speculation in the civil service that he wanted out.” From my perspective, that’s a lot different than Cal’s exclamation at the end of the sequence that “He ran!” And again, this is something we will see a lot of in the YouTube: Drawing a false cause and effect relationship between Notices sent and people resigning or not seeking re-election. What we should be looking at is if policy changes, not if someone resigns or does not seek re-election.
Carol Taylor — Another person who resigned, supposedly because she received a Notice. But if you read the greyed out part the reason given is “So she can focus on her new job of chairing a federal economic advisory panel.” She has not been knocked out of the game. People like her make those kind of career moves all the time.
Cal talked about a judge he had running out of the courtroom. The bailiff (or sheriff or whoever was running the court) then says “All rise. I guess we’re having a break.” The problem is, Cal just leaves it at that. What happened after the break is not divulged. Outcome of the case not divulged. Maybe the Judge had a bathroom emergency. Who knows? One upshot was that Cal got arrested a year later, that he made sound as though it was some kind of revenge (and may well have been) for driving without insurance, and he spent 60 days in jail. Cal then talked about what happened after he got out and went to court again. Long story short, we are titillated with a $300M demand he put on the judge but the outcome of that is not divulged. It is left open ended. We don’t know what happened. And I don’t know about you, but I have better things to do than spend 60 days in jail. I’ve been there a couple times overnight. That was enough.
Kevin Falcon, is given as another example of someone who stepped down. What really happened in the greyed out bit is that he announced he was not going to seek re-election. As part of that announcement he did “step down” from some posts he held. But he did not quit altogether. The last line you can see on the screen is that his reason for not seeking re-election is “he and his wife are expecting.” Since the next line is not seen, I can only assume they are expecting a baby. What else would they be expecting together? A new car? Cancer? A Notice of Demand? I don’t think so. People resign all the time for family changes.
Next, examples of results of specific “seed groups” utilizing the Notice theory are presented.
Kelowna, BC action — The SM installer company CEO resigned on the day he got a Notice of Default, and Chair of the BC Utilities Commission who also got the same notices resigned. That sounds impressive but did SM policy change? No. Did the installation company fold up shop and stop installing SMs? No.
Seattle — same thing. People did not seek reelection and a couple of people resigned but did policy change? No. And BTW, people resign and don’t seek reelection all the time. Since I have been on the ACC’s case here in AZ (6 years), the ACC Executive Director resigned. 2 Utilities Division Directors have resigned. The so-called “Ethics Officer” resigned. Other various people there have resigned. Was that because they got Notice letters? No. Was that because I was such a relentless PITA? No. They resigned for a number of different reasons. A couple of them went to work for APS. Oh, and the Exec. Director of the AZ Dept. of Health Services, the guy who was in charge when the fraudulent SM health study they did came out, also resigned. Was that because I savaged his stupid SM study? No. Was it because he got a Notice? No. He moved on to a university teaching gig in Tucson. People do get sick of Phoenix. People do make career changes.
MI — AG Bill Shuette calls for free right of SM refusal after being sent the Notices. Total nonsense. Schuette has been hip to the SM scam since at least 2012! At the bottom of this email I reproduced the statement he issued in 2012.
About 4 people at the MI PUC are no longer listed at the website. Big deal! See my point above about the ACC resignations here. Happens all the time.
If you read the greyed out part, you can see that the Warren city attorney statement was taken out of context. Josh made it sound like he resigned and in so doing blew the whistle on DTE’s campaign donations. Campaign donations are a matter of public record. I look up APS’s all the time. It’s not major whistleblower stuff. The point the Warren city attorney was making (again, in grey) is that, for people who want to change SM policy there are steps that must be taken, and that some venues are appropriate and others aren’t. In his opinion for example, the Council can’t do it. Also, DTE is the beneficiary of a certain law which he cited and then, saying that the law could be changed, he mentions that would be hard because of DTE’s campaign donations. That’s not whistle blowing. It’s a statement of political reality. In short, the city attorney was being frank.
13 people have saved their analogs. That’s great, but for how long will that last? Were they given any guarantees? If they wrote Notices, where are the responses? Also, there’s a lot of people in MI who held on to their analog meters — until they didn’t. In other words, they were defiant and that worked for quite a while but eventually DTE came around to either cut them off or install a SM. If the 13 Josh mentioned still have their analogs a year or 2 from now, then I might be convinced.
NY — The speaker says he sent a $300M liability letter to not have a “smart” water meter and got a letter back saying “We’re sorry; you don’t have to have one.” But would he have gotten that letter anyway had he written something less shrill? The details of how to refuse a SM in his location are not provided. Were the meters mandatory? We don’t know.
Maui — This is another false cause and effect. The electric company switched from wanting to blanket the islands with “smart” meters to an “opt in” proposal. That was actually the result of the PUC rejecting the company’s huge proposed budget. The company had to make cuts. Blanket “smart” meter installation was one of them, but it remains a long term company goal. Also, that decision was made well before any Notice letters were sent out.
Lastly we get the voice of a “utility insider” who says that his utility has a “war room” dedicated to keeping track of SM resistance. Big deal. Of course they do! Josh is flattering himself if he thinks that’s the result of Notice letters being sent out. I am sure just about all the utilities have war rooms or at least have someone whose job it is to keep track of resistance. I know for a fact for example that APS has pictures of my meter cage. Does anyone think these companies just sit on their thumbs in the face of a threat like SM resistance of any kind? PG&E had VP “Ralph” infiltrate some anti-SM chat group years ago. In response to her request not to have a transmitting gas meter, someone I know actually got an email from UNS gas here telling her she’d been “brainwashed by Warren Woodward.” So of course these companies are keeping track of us, Notices or no Notices.
Comments are welcome as always. Please also visit our home page:
Footnote: Opt-Out Provisions From MI A.G. Bill Schuette in 2012:
Given the questionable benefit of smart meter program to customers, as well as the extensive public concern about the effect and potential intrusiveness of smart meter infrastructure acknowledged in the Commission’s January 12, 2012 Order in this matter, the Commission appropriately directed Michigan’s electrical utilities deploying or proposing to deploy smart meters to provide information about their plans for allowing customers to opt out of having a smart meter, and how they intend to recover the cost of such an opt-out program.
The Attorney General respectfully submits that utility customers should be given a meaningful choice of whether to have smart meters installed and operated on their property. An “opt-out” program that requires those customers who opt out to pay an unwarranted economic penalty for doing so does not afford customers such a meaningful choice.
The information provided by Detroit Edison, and Consumers [Consumers Energy Company] in response to the Commission’s Order does not sufficiently establish that they intend to offer customers a fair choice of whether to accept smart meters on their property. Detroit Edison’s response on this subject is based upon the assertion that “Edison’s AMI [Advanced Meter Infrastructure] program is beneficial for all customers.” (Document No. 0148, p. 7). Proceeding from the unsubstantiated assertion, Detroit Edison apparently proposes to impose what it broadly describes as “all incremental costs” solely upon customers who choose not to accept installation of smart meters. (Document 0148, pp. 8-9). Consumers’ submission similarly states that while it proposes to provide customers with the option to retain their existing meter equipment, it apparently intends to subject customers making such a choice to additional charges, including charges for “maintaining ready testing and billing traditional meters”. (Document No. 0146, pp.16-17). While neither Detroit Edison nor Consumers provide details regarding their opt-out proposals and associated charges, both of their comments suggest that they intend to effectively penalize customers who choose to opt-out of smart meters. Presumably, under the utilities proposals, customers who opt-out of smart meters would be required to pay rates covering both the costs of the smart meter program, and expansively defined incremental costs “of retaining traditional meters. These proposals raise substantial questions as to whether their respective customers would, in fact, be afforded a fair and meaningful choice to “opt-out”.
Another argument which may be important for the Commission to consider is whether a financial incentive to homeowners who allow smart meters to be installed in their home might be an alternative approach to a rate increase if a homeowner refuses to permit a smart meter to be installed.
Respectively submitted, Bill Schuette
[From: ATTORNEY GENERAL’S COMMENTS PURSUANT TO THE MPSC ORDER DATED JANUARY 12, 2012 – http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/17000/0408.pdf]