New e-mails brought to light between Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E), Southern California
Edison (SCE), and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
reveal the extent of corruption and backroom dealing that have characterized
the state’s smart meter program. E-mails reveal that former CPUC President
Michael Peevey was aware of health problems
caused by smart meters early on in the program. Commissioners and
staff experienced overcharging and electronic interference issues with
smart meters on their homes. Meanwhile, utilities schemed with regulators
behind the scenes to raise opt-out fees to force people in poverty to stick
with the unpopular meters and prop up the failing multi-billion dollar
smart grid program in California.
Former CPUC President Michael Peevey, who retired in
December and is currently the subject of a criminal probe by the U.S.
Attorney and State Attorney General who are investigating
allegations of bribery and corruption,
assured the public that the meters were accurate, were no fire hazard, and
no threat to health. A different picture has emerged from initial research
into more than 65,000 e-mails and memos between CPUC and PG&E. Peevey
wrote to PG&E in September of 2010 (emphasis ours):
“The press coverage was very
good and helps PG&E big time, overall, as well as other companies, etc.
One thought for the company: 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 and/or related electronic-related
illnesses… 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., and rather than have them become hysterical, etc., I would quietly
leave them alone. Kick it around. And, it sounds like the company may already
have taken this step, based on a couple of the comments at yesterday’s public
hearing.”
Peevey says to PG&E,
“if it were my decision.”
As Sandi Maurer of the EMF Safety Network has
pointed out, being the Commissioner in charge
of the smart meter opt out proceeding, technically it was his decision. But that does not appear to be where
the true power lies according to this e-mail exchange. Apparently the
“Company” calls the shots and Commissioners obey. The “other companies”
Peevey refers to include GE, Landis &
Gyr, Silver Spring Networks, Wellington Energy, Verizon, Edelman and
others.
In another e-mail from 2010, Peevey’s Chief of Staff Carol
Brown writes
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!!! I just wanted to have a resource in case!” Brian
Cherry, VP of Regulatory Relations at PG&E replies: “Prozac might be a solution!”
Suggesting that people take pharmaceuticals to treat
health problems caused by the company’s meters is unspeakably arrogant, dangerous,
and corrupt. The only thing that has consistently helped people suffering
health effects from EMF has been the
removal of smart meters and other nearby wireless transmitters.
And the utilities knew it. But to officially have smart meters removed, the
CPUC under Peevey, required Californians to pay an upfront fee and monthly
charge starting in May 2012.
In public, the utilities and CPUC have justified the
$75 initially and $10/ month fees for analog meters (to have the same thing
that customers have always had) by arguing that individuals should pay for the costs they create.
In private however, a different story emerges. In e-mails between California
utilities and Marzia Zafar, CPUC’s current Director of Policy and Planning,
a 15 year utility industry employee including 4 years as a So Cal Gas lobbyist
who was involved in the Bill
Devereaux Spy Scandal, Zafar tells
her utility colleagues: “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.
This e-mail demonstrates clearly that the opt out fee is intended not to
“cover costs” but to suppress choice, prop up a failing and dangerous smart
grid and penalize people for disobeying a forced, corporate and undemocratic
deployment.
Making it more difficult for those in poverty to opt out
seemed to be a particular priority for Southern California Edison,
Peevey’s former employer. Many low-income customers live in apartment buildings
where banks of smart meters expose residents to high levels of pulsed RF
radiation that the World
Health Organization considers a Class 2B Carcinogen. “CARE” is a reduced utility rate program for families
living below the federal poverty line. In January 2012, Michael
Hoover of SCE wrote to Zafar of CPUC and Cherry of PG&E:
“We need an up front fee that is
significant, or a path to achieve that. 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?”
Could using financial screws to force hazardous meters on
those in poverty be too toxic even for Brian Cherry, who replies: “No” Then Zafar, like a bully in the playground, chides
Cherry for being soft: “That’s because PG&E’s judgment is suspect…”
In November of 2011, CPUC officials internally circulated
a press release from Stop Smart Meters! that made reference to the fact that PG&E had recently replaced a smart
meter with an analog on a woman’s house in Santa Cruz whose family was suffering health impacts from the new
microwave-emitting meter. Zafar
rebukes PG&E and orders them to keep smart meters on homes, even after
residents have demanded and given legal notice that they be removed, and even
for those with physician’s letters or those suffering so badly they could no
longer occupy their homes (“this blog” is StopSmartMeters.org):
“See below. Please do not replace smart meters with analog
meters; I’m assuming this blog is delusional and they’re lying. The
Commission will issue a (Proposed Decision) sometime this month or early
next month to consider an opt-out program; until such time you have the
delay list.”
Despite Zafar’s hard line stance, it turns out she knew from
personal experience that there were serious problems with the meters. She
wrote in January 2011 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.”
According to the LA Times,
when a smart meter was installed on former CPUC President Michael Peevey’s
3118 sq. foot second home in Sea Ranch on the Sonoma County coast (where
Peevey and PG&E’s VP of Regulatory
Relations Brian Cherry shared bottles of Johnny Walker Blue Label according
to e-mails) Peevey’s bills went through the roof and he complained
to PG&E in November 2011:
“Please check something out for
me. Just had a “smart meter” installed at Sea Ranch. And, now I have the bill
for the first month. Something is screwy. The bill says we used 973 KWH versus
438 for the same time period one year ago. Yet, there was no one at the house
during the most recent 30 day period. Nor was there anyone there one
year ago. Obviously something is wrong. I would like an explanation.”
Apparently Peevey wasn’t the only Commissioner who
reported significant overcharging. PG&E wrote in an e-mail that two commissioners in one night complained about inaccuracies on their bills after smart
meters were installed.
In September 2011, after a fire
started in a smart metered electrical panel in a Santa Rosa Mall, Cherry wrote to CPUC Executive Director Paul
Clanon. There was not the slightest concern about whether the smart
meters were actually starting fires, or whether and how the CPUC and/ or PG&E should investigate this
potentially serious public safety hazard. Instead the
focus was on spinning the story in the media:
“We have also contacted several
fire chiefs who are sympathetic and may comment on the most recent
meter issue.”
What exactly is meant by “sympathetic” given that hundreds of thousands
of smart meters have now been recalled due to fire risk and people
have lost their lives?
In November 2013, PG&E
was again scolded by Zafar after their call center staff advised a customer
who had problems with smart meters to (gasp!)
contact the CPUC. Sidney
Dietz of PG&E responds:
“We found the call, and indeed
our customer-service representative (CSR) advised, in error, the customer
to call the CPUC. One of the managers contacted this particular CSR and
her supervisor and made sure she understands the problem, and we will be
updating the script to make it absolutely clear that we should not pass the
problem to the CPUC. This same manager is one of the trainers for the
CSRs (they train constantly), and will maintain an emphasis on not passing
the buck. As you know, the group at PG&E that works on complaints and
speaks regularly with the CPUC complaints group understand that this is not
the right way to handle customers, and works to get this kind of thing
correct.”
The task of the California Public Utilities
Commission’s Consumer Affairs Branch — according
to the CPUC’s website - is to:
“assist consumers in resolving disputes
with their utility company.” Yet, Ms. Zafar chided PG&E for “passing the problem” when customer service representatives
suggested that people with smart meter problems contact the CPUC.
These e-mails confirm what watchdog groups have been claiming for years—that
the CPUC literally has become a satellite office for the investor
owned utility and telecom corporations - a “rogue agency” as
former CPUC President Loretta Lynch now refers to the agency she once led.
While CPUC officials privately grappled with problems caused
by smart meters at their own homes, publicly they denied these problems
existed despite thousands
of complaints to the contrary confirming these were systemic problems. An unfair and extortionate opt out policy was approved in
violation of the CA Public Utility Code,
charging customers hundreds of dollars a year to protect their
safety. Thousands still refuse to pay this extortion.
Those responsible for this criminal
activity should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and the California
legislature needs to do its job and hold hearings to get to the bottom of
these criminal relationships that have cost Californians their
lives. All redacted e-mails must immediately be made public.
Peevey
and company should be put behind bars. Given the lies, recklessness and betrayal
of trust that has characterized the forced smart meter deployment, the
extortionate opt out fee policy should immediately be eliminated and
past fees that have been paid by ratepayers refunded with an apology. Excessive
charges paid by utility customers based on inaccurate smart meter readings
must likewise be refunded. A truly independent investigation
into fires, health hazards, and the calibration and accuracy of smart
meters must be carried out. Smart meters must be recalled and replaced
with safe, electromechanical analog meters NOW. At the end of the day,
human life is more important than protecting this corrupt power structure
and the egos of PG&E and CPUC executives.
Special Thanks to the following groups for ongoing collaborative
research efforts that have led to the discovery of these e-mails. There
will be more to come!
EMF Safety
Network, Sebastopol, CA
Center for Electrosmog Prevention, La Mesa, CA
Ecological Options Network, Bolinas, CA
Center for Electrosmog Prevention, La Mesa, CA
Ecological Options Network, Bolinas, CA
Take
a look at the slimy e-mails for yourself–
it ain’t pretty. Drop
us a line if you find something juicy or
incriminating.
Related Posts
-
Filed Under: Smart Grid
No comments:
Post a Comment