The following is a letter from Steve, a young man who lives in an apartment right next to four of San Diego Gas & Electric's radiation-emitting smart meters. He and his doctors say these meters are making him very ill. His letter, photo, and documents are provided herein with Steve's permission.
Steve shared his story with me after we were introduced through the EMF Safety Network in Northern CA, when I asked to contact other San Diegans who were ill from these terrible devices. As with me, SDG&E seemed to show zero concern for Steve's health complaints.
Unlike other utiltiies around the nation, they didn't make a single effort to remove the offending smart meters. In fact, SDG&E has not installed them for people with pre-existing health conditions that precluded installation – but once on, they won't remove them even if the medical condition gets very serious, or one develops.
This is shocking treatment by a company that advertises itself as consumer-friendly, and there is no reason I can fathom for this, as it is definitely not true that the meters are mandatory. SDG&E has only been authorized to install them, which is a long way from mandatory. This behavior makes no sense if a person is ill and the meters, especially with a doctor confirming it, are ruining a person's health or places his life in danger.
In fact, the CPUC and SDG&E's conduct is absurd and warrants an investigation. No one would normally think that harming someone is acceptable, directly, or indirectly. But see what you think. This is Steve's letter to us, and then we'll show you the SDG&E letters, which are just like what I received, at right, in Media – Documents, pages 1 and 2.
Do you know that Governor Jerry Brown will not answer questions about the people sick and begging for help from these smart meters? Neither will any politicians except local ones, in 46 municipalities, to date, where smart meter installations have been criminalized, banned, or an opt-out requested.
We'd like to hear your commentary on this question, especially: "Do you think that a customer be treated like this by our state government agencies or ANY company, particularly if the customer has health issues already and a note from his doctor?" Are you surprised?
"To Whomever it may concern, November 10, 2010
On September 29, 2010 at least 4 Smart Meters were installed on my apartment building on the wall just below my Unit. That very day I woke up with a swollen wrist for absolutely no physical reason. I opened my front door and found the notice that the Smart Meters were installed.
My wrist and hand swelled so badly that I had to get a cortisone shot. Then, I got sick with sinus problems and a respiratory attack. One occurred after the other, and both conditions are still with me 3 weeks later. I have never been sick for more than one week in my entire life. I have heart palpitations and an erratic heart beat, along with insomnia. The latest affliction since the Meters were installed is Phantosmia, which I have never had before and will not go away.
I am EMF sensitive and these Smart Meters are ruining my health, my living conditions, and my life. We are being bombarded with Microwave EMF from these Meters from all directions without our knowledge or consent. Since I am EMF sensitive I have chosen to never use WiFi or any other wireless technology in my apartment. With these Smart Meters I have no say in the matter and I am being slowly tortured by SDGE and the CPUC. This is an outrageous intrusion into our lives and a danger to the health of everyone in San Diego and wherever these Meters operate. Those of us who are EMF sensitive have an early warning system built in and we know what these meters are doing to our health. Those who aren’t as sensitive or may not realize that they are will not realize that the Meters their utility forced upon them are making them ill and even slowly killing them.
Rest assured that word is getting out about the dangers of these Meters. I am requesting that the Meters attached to my building get replaced by the old Analogue Meters so I can get my life back. If you care about the health of all of our citizens you will see to it that the Smart Meters all get replaced by the old Analogue Meters.
Please realize that the Smart Meters aren’t smart at all and that a mistake has been made. This decision can be reversed before any more damage is done.
San Diego, CA 92109"
Steve has been suffering now for nearly exactly a year. We can only imagine how hard that has been for him, with the symptoms described above. I can imagine it well, as I have only one electric meter that is making me sick and he has four.
Steve further writes, in a letter to another publication:
"The only purpose of these Meters is to get rid of the Meter readers and to be able to watch everything we do and control it. Not only are the Meters dangerous to our health they also leave us open to hacking into the electrical grid. of all the
boneheaded, dangerous, willfully harmful and disgusting things our Government
has done this almost tops the polluting of our food supply with GMO's.
You can write to Ted Reguly, the head of the Smart Meter program for SDGE, but
he will reply with a cold blooded indifference to our health. We should all get
together and file a class action lawsuit against SDGE and CPUC."
Perhaps some of our Readers are attorneys or other professionals who would also like to respond. People are suffering by the many thousands, in our area alone, and without help. This is unprecedented, and is not something we should tolerate – or what kind of country will we have? No better than Libya has been, if ordinary citizens – or anyone – can endure unrelenting, torturous harm from utility devices paid for in part by our government, attached to our homes – with no safe place to escape.
Note: The US DOE and Congress never said wireless had to be used. In fact, they said that consumers should have a choice in the matter, and not to be heavy-handed about barging into people's homes with new smart meters (which again, were not specified to be wireless). It was the California CPUC that approved wireless after the CA utlities requested to use it. That is where the trouble began and continues to fester.
To watch an interview Steve gave last winter to Jeanne Rawdin, of San Diego Insider, click here.
Visit www.electrosmogprevention.org and www.smartmeterdangers.org for more info.
Open Letter to the La Mesa City Council: Tell SDG&E to Stop the Smart Meters http://lamesa.patch.com/articles/an-open-letter-to-the-la-mesa-city-council-stop-the-smart-meters – 29 Comments
Living Nightmare: How SDG&E Smart Meter Led to Headaches, Hearing Loss
http://lamesa.patch.com/blog_posts/living-nightmare-how-sdge-smart-meters-led-to-my-headaches-sleeping-ills-hearing-loss – 99 comments
Message for SDG&E: Allow Opt-outs from Smart Meters http://lamesa.patch.com/blog_posts/tell-sdge-allow-opt-outs-from-smart-meters-remove-all-wireless – 6 comments
Forcing Smart Meters on Citizens in Santa Cruz County, this Week:
THE FOLLOWING FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS PROVE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE SMART METERS ON OUR HOMES, DESPITE STATEMENTS TO THE CONTRARY BY THE CPUC AND SDG&E, IN WRITING AND ORALLY.
CITIZENS SHOULD DEMAND, OF SDG&E AND CPUC TO SEE THE LAWS THAT SHOW THEY MUST HAVE WIRELESS METERS ON THEIR HOMES. (THOSE LAWS DON'T EXIST.)
Federal Smart Grid Laws and Policies
1. Smart Grid not required for states or utilities, only to be considered, according to this Federal Law, part of the Energy Act of 2007. Must demonstrate societal benefit (and making people ill is not a benefit to society). Utilities not required to participate, they must only show they have considered the benefits of the smart grid, including societal benefit. (SB) ——————————————————-
Click here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf page 25 – Title XIII: Smart Grid
Click here: http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/upload/EISA-Energy-bill-110-140-TITLE-XIII.pdf SEC. 1307. STATE CONSIDERATION OF SMART GRID.
(a) Section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
`(16) CONSIDERATION OF SMART GRID INVESTMENTS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Each State shall consider
requiring that, prior to undertaking investments in
nonadvanced grid technologies, an electric utility of
the State demonstrate to the State that the electric
utility considered an investment in a qualified smart
grid system based on appropriate factors, including–
`(i) total costs;
`(iii) improved reliability;
`(v) system performance; and
`(vi) societal benefit.
`(B) RATE RECOVERY- Each
2. CEP NOTE: WIRELESS IS CLEARLY A LOCAL DECISION AND A CHOICE, ACCORDING TO NIST = National Institute of Standards and Technology – EISA specified that NIST come up with standards and guidelines ——————————
http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP02Wireless Click here: PAP02Wireless < SmartGrid < TWiki Decision making on Wireless technologies remains a local decision. This requires the industry to understand the techniques and tools available in these guidelines.
Wireless can be used in field environments across the Smart Grid including generation plants, transmission systems, substations, distribution systems, and customer premises communications. The choice of wireless or non-wireless, as well as type of wireless must be made with knowledge of the appropriate use of the technology.
CEP Note: we'd have to say that in CA, the utilities have done a very, very poor job, as the technology is making people ill.
3. US DOE (DEPT OF ENERGY) Smart Grid RFI
(see attached Media – Documents)
Titled “Addressing Policy and Logistical Challenges to Smart Grid Implementation” Submitted by the Demand Response and Smart Grid Coalition (DRSG)
November 1, 2010
p. 11 However, we note that even though universal participation is not necessary, universal access to demand response opportunities (e.g., ubiquitous HAN-enabled smart meters) is appropriate, for reasons of network connectivity and equity
p. 13 Moreover, what role do factors like the trust, consumer control, and civic participation play in shaping consumer participation in demand response, time-varying pricing, and energy efficiency programs?
Trust, consumer control, and civic participation are all important factors in these programs. Consumers have a high level of trust in information from their utilities; it is important to maintain this trust and take advantage of it in
providing new data and programs to consumers.
12. What are the implications of these insights for determining which tasks are best automated and which should be subject to consumer control?
The key point is that consumers should be making the determinations of which tasks are best automated or left to manual control; regulators should enable the infrastructure but allow consumers to decide. For those customers who choose to automate, simplicity in establishing settings and defaults is paramount, and the easier the better and the more effective.
p.17 That said, it is important to state that the key to achievement of a smart grid and the widespread adoption of smart grid practices is to not treat all customers the same and to not expect that all customers will want the same thing or accept the same thing.
p.21 How does the notion that only some customers might opt-in to consumer-facing smart grid programs affect the costs and benefits of AMI deployments?
Universal participation in smart grid programs, such as demand response, is not required to make smart meters useful, as these devices provide important benefits besides enabling demand response (e.g., operational savings from reduced meter reading, field collection, and outage detection and management costs). In fact, it is widely-recognized that neoclassical supply-and-demand economics reveals that demand response from even a subset of consumer benefits all consumers by reducing high marginal electricity prices, in addition to the even larger cost savings in the long-run associated with deferred and/or avoided peak capacity infrastructure. However, we note that even though universal participation is not necessary, universal access to demand response opportunities (e.g., ubiquitous HAN-enabled smart meters) is appropriate, for reasons of network connectivity and equity.
23. How should regulators address customer segments that might not use smart grid technologies?
We encourage engagement and education to make non-participating customers aware of the opportunities to become involved in smart grid programs, but advise that such outreach be conducted with a light hand. Universal participation in smart grid programs, such as demand response, is not required to make smart meters useful, as these devices provide important benefits besides enabling demand response that do not require customer interaction (e.g., operational savings from reduced meter reading, field collection, and outage detection and management costs). In fact, it is widely-recognized that neoclassical supply-and-demand economics reveals that demand response, from even a subset of consumers, benefits all consumers by reducing high marginal electricity prices, in addition to the even larger cost savings in the long-run associated with deferred and/or avoided peak capacity infrastructure. However, we note that even though universal participation is not necessary, universal access to demand response opportunities (e.g., ubiquitous HAN-enabled smart meters) is appropriate, for reasons of network connectivity and equity. Dan Delurey
Demand Response and Smart Grid Coalition
CA State Law:
CEP Note: The utilities and CPUC are required to implement the law that makes the smart grid a standard in CA (not mandatory, but a general standard), requires safety for customers (and workers). It was designed to be implemented incrementally and studied (we are being experimented on as a result). But despite early indications of many health problems, the smart meters were continued to be installed by SDG&E and PG&E, with SCE trailing behind. It is CEP's position that SDG&E's smart meters are not safe and therefore not in compliance with state law.
1. Senate Bill No. 17 (Smart Grid Law in CA)
An act to add Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 8360) to Division
4.1 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to electricity.
[Approved by Governor October 11, 2009. Filed with
Secretary of State October 11, 2009.] Click here: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_17_bill_20091011_chaptered.pdf 8363. This chapter shall be implemented in a manner that does not
compromise customer or worker safety or the integrity or reliability of the
electrical transmission and distribution system in this state.
2. CPUC analyzes the above law and takes a position on smart grid and smart metering:
Item 60 (8434)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Public Utilities Commission
M e m o r a n d u m
Date: April 7, 2009
To: The Commission
(Meeting of April 16, 2009)
From: Pamela Loomis, Director
Office of Governmental Affairs (OGA) — Sacramento
Subject: SB 17 (Padilla) – Electricity: Smart Grid Systems.
As Introduced: December 1, 2008
LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: SUPPORT WITH
CEP Note: The three IOU's include SDG&E, PG&E, and SCE. Helpful sections, below: 1. Section 8360 of SB17 requires that the plan be safe. That is the basis of CEP's Consoliated Protest to the three IOU deployment plans. (see Media docs) 2. This bill reveals that it - SB17 - requires IOU's deploy smart grid plans, when federal law only requires consideration of doing so. The state law is not based on federal mandate to choose smart grid, but CPUC tells us that it is a federal mandate. 3. Each IOU is authorized to deploy AMI (smart) meters (not required to, for every household). Again, misinformation coming from the CPUC and utilities. It is quite apparent that each utility could authorize optouts according to this bill, does not need permission to do otherwise, authorized does not mean required. THERE IS NO LAW THAT REQUIRES EVERYONE HAVE A SMART METER.
Publicly-owned Utilities: The bill directs publicly-owned utilities (POUs) with more than 100,000 service connections to develop a Smart Grid deployment plan by July 2011 consistent with federal law. SB 17’s requirement that POUs be compliant only with federal law could be interpreted to mean that they only consider Smart Grid
investments, and not be required to actually deploy any Smart Grid infrastructure.
IOU plans must be deployed and also be consistent with Section 8360 of SB 17. (note by CEP: this section requires it be safe)
Section 8360 establishes as state policy the modernization of the electric grid and
provides ten objectives of the Smart Grid such as the integration of renewable power, incorporation of demand-side resources, and deployment of cost-effective technologies to increase efficiency, security and reliability.
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) proceedings: In 2004, the CPUC directed the
three largest IOUs to submit AMI business cases along with full deployment proposals for the purpose of advancing the CPUC’s policy to expand demand response in the state. The AMI proceedings are now final, with each IOU being given the authorization to deploy smart meters throughout their territories. The deployment of smart meters is expected to be complete by 2012.