2015-12-17 More on BC Hydro’s $700 reconnection punishment fee

  • Google has announced “Project Loon” which is basically balloons that will provide Wi-Fi to every inch on earth. http://www.google.com/loon/ There will be no way for those who are ill or sensitive, or who just do not want to be irradiated to escape.

People around the world are becoming very concerned about this, and in the USA, there are reminders that many government agencies have raised concerns about exposure to even low levels of RF. This will be constant!!

 

  • EPA: “FCC’s current exposure guidelines …do not apply in chronic, non-thermal exposure situations”, and that “there is uncertainty about possible risk from non-thermal, intermittent exposures that may continue for years”

http://nebula.wsimg.com/4c0f61dc30c3d6bb27d90f53a57c616e?AccessKeyId=045114F8E0676B9465FB&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

This link holds a very significant letter from the EPA written in 2002.

  • US GAO (Government Accountability Office) recommends FCC update its testing methods and revise RF radiation limits to include latest research
  • BC Hydro is proposing introducing a new charge for re-connection of service.

Within the attachment, Ms. Hamilton says the justification for the $700 fee for reconnection for those meters where BC Hydro was refused access is at: http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2015/DOC_44974_A-4_AppendixB-Submissions_G-175-15.pdfPerhaps I missed it, but I could not find the explanation for this apparently punitive charge. In it,    BC Hydro acknowledges that the Utilities Commission Act states that there must not be discrimination in rates:

“In reply to CEC, BC Hydro submits that the legal test under sections 59(1 and 2) and 60(1) of the Utilities Commission Act is that “a rate must not be unduly discriminatory” and submits that if the Commission was to set a freshet rate for RS 1823 customers it is neither unduly discriminatory or unduly preferential. BC Hydro submits that the essence of the unduly discriminatory prohibition “is that similarly situated customers must be treated similarly.”

There is time for public input, and I would suggest that concerns be made about this. The rates for reconnection fees for reasons other than access to meter was denied are either $30 or $280. It is apparent this is discriminatory and punitive. How does BC Hydro justify? Does BCUC demand a full and complete explanation? If you want to read the application, it was in my update of Dec. 13.

12-17-2015_Noble, S. – BCH Proposed Min Reconnection Charges-1

  • Below is email about a visit from 2 BC Hydro men who say they are confirming accuracy of an analog. With a stopwatch?? How could accuracy be determined without knowing what appliances are being used?   And 2 men?? This sounds similar to what has been reported as happening on Salt Spring. What is going on? How much is this costing us?  I believe we should be asking BC Hydro, BCUC why this is happening and where this cost is being budgeted.

And from Salt Spring’s Driftwood newspaper (for which there isn’t a link) there is an article below with yet different reasons for these expensive visits.  A member on Salt Spring spoke with one of the Corix men and was told that they are working by Work Order, so may be in one area for one meter and then travel many miles to the next meter, using a big truck, time for 2 men, going back and forth across the province. More and more, this program is looking like a complete and utter boondoggle just as Ontario Premier McGuinty and the Auditor General said.

 

 

  • On Ian Jessop’s show today, Ian interviewed Andrew Weaver and spent some time talking about BC Hydro. There was a caller who asked about $$meters. The interview starts at the 33 minute point and I think you will find the whole thing very interesting. The caller who asked about smeters is at about the 54 minute point. I hope you will consider sending Ian your comments: Jessop@bellmedia.ca My comments are below.

https://soundcloud.com/ian-jessop-cfax/december-17-1pm-2?in=ian-jessop-cfax/sets/ian-jessop

 

*****************************

Letters:

Couple went off grid rather than accept a smart meter and feel healthier for it: http://www.osoyoostimes.com/osoyoos-couple-enjoying-life-off-the-grid-without-electricity-the-past-seven-months/

Fortis admits to “threatening” loss of power. What about the many people who have lost power in the middle of winter??    Please comment if you can figure out how—I couldn’t.

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/article_841aa044-7c46-11e5-8ac9-b327379830ff.html#user-comment-area

 

On Tuesday, Dec. 15, around 3:45 pm my husband saw a truck stop in front of our house and 2 men got out.  They were wearing BC Hydro hardhats, but the truck wasn’t marked.  They walked up our driveway to our analogue power meter which is under a cage.  My husband went out to ask them what they were doing.  One fellow had a longer pole with a box on top.  He said they were checking the accuracy of the meter.  The other fellow had a stopwatch and timed the meter for a short period.  They said that they would check the numbers and if there was a problem they would get back to us.  Our meter was replaced with this analogue on June 4, 2014.

Meters being checked – Gulf Islands Driftwood (p.3) – December 16, 2015:

BC Hydro customers on Salt Spring Island can expect a visit from meter technicians as the utility begins an extensive province-wide inspection process.

The work has been contracted to Corix, an energy infrastructure firm whose vehicles and staff have been spotted on the island for the past few weeks.

The reason we are over there is because, over the next five years, we are visiting every BC Hydro customer’s meter at least once to ensure our equipment is operating in a safe and reliable manner,” said Greg Alexis, a BC Hydro spokesperson.

Alexis said the inspectors are looking for broken seals, unsafe conditions around the customer’s meter socket and signs of tampering with the devices.

“Before smart meters [were installed], this type of work was done regularly by our meter readers, but now with remote meter reads we no longer have this visibility to our equipment,” Alexis added.

____________________________________________

From: Sharon Noble
Sent: December 17, 2015
To: Ian Jessop <jessop@shaw.ca>
Subject: Andrew Weaver

Hi Ian,

I listened to your interview with Andrew Weaver while I was in my car. You made so many excellent points. Thank you.

I was most interested in his response to the caller re. the smart meter program. Andrew refuses to respond to any emails that I have sent him about the many problems.    A constituent wrote him asking for help because she is sensitive to EMR and is concerned about microwave radiation. He told her that as a scientist (his field is climatology as we know) he knows that this radiation is safe, and did so in a manner that was condescending and arrogant.  Of course, there are experts in the field of biological engineering who disagree. He is kind of like the professor on Gilligan’s Island who was an expert in every field.

Andrew forgets that Elizabeth May is very knowledgeable about RF radiation. In 2011, she and Dr. Magda Havas gave a joint press conference (about smart meters) speaking about the fact that microwave radiation has not been proven to be safe.

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/media-release/2011-07-27/bc-greens-say-smart-meter-health-concerns-demand-action

 

About the Royal Society of Health Canada, to which he referred. He didn’t say that the panel was criticized by many for being loaded with industry affiliated people who refused to look at many recent studies showing mechanisms. They just refused. As a consequence, the Health Subcommittee of Parliament, HESA, demanded a review of the report, the result was revised with exposure limits lowered, and HESA recommended an ongoing independent review. The Royal Panel was deemed a disgrace by many throughout the world.

Andrew is not a true scientist and I believe he has agendas about which he is not being transparent.

Thank you, Ian, for a very interesting program.

Happy Holidays.

Sharon Noble

**********************************

Newletter prepared by Sharon Noble

A:  Free radicals damage DNA
B: Non-ionizing radiation creates free radicals.
C: Therefore, non-ionizing radiation can damage DNA
DAMAGED DNA  CAN LEAD TO CANCER.