- FortisBC is disconnecting people, and from the sounds of it this is not a rare occurrence. Bullies who are putting lives and health at risk multiple ways. How do they know that there are no people with medical devices requiring electricity living in the home? What about people suffering from the heat, with no air conditioning and perhaps no water? These people should be held responsible for putting lives at risk because people do not want to have their health and safety put at risk?
Here is their facebook page – comments are needed on both.
- Non-smeter: Corruption in Alberta Timed outages to gouge the customer. Seems none of them can be trusted. From a member:
- Further to the Michigan case about which I shared erroneous information, this has been confirmed, and is positive. The portion of the case that was refused pertained to health and safety, and that is the portion to which the dissenting judge wrote so eloquently. The opt out fees must be reviewed and justified in a contested hearing unless the utility appeals to a higher court.
In April, the Michigan Court of Appeals directed the MPSC to conduct a contested case hearing on the opt-out cost and to issue an opinion “with sufficient facts” that allows the court to review the charges. The MPSC moved for reconsideration, but their application was struck down last week.
The MPSC or Consumers Energy can appeal the state high court on the matter, or follow Judge Peter O’Connell’s order and organize a contested hearing.
Consumers Energy claims that smart meters will save the public money on their utility bills, O’Connell wrote in his decision, “but this argument is inherently illogical. How can smart meters save money when Consumers seeks to add millions of dollars to the base rate to fund the program?”
- Attached is a letter from the Auditor General in response to a recent letter I wrote with regard to fires that included the Texas briefing document. In her letter she links to planned audits for the next 1-2 years and there is nothing re. smart meters regarding health, safety or costs. There is a planned audit of BCUC to determine if they are providing appropriate oversight. Disappointing.
- I hope that everyone will take the time to write to the BCUC about the fire issue. We all know that there is more than enough evidence to recall these dangerous devices, and the BCUC has the authority – the obligation — to protect us against dangerous practices or equipment used by utility companies. They have been hiding behind the Clean Energy Act, but we must call an end to this charade. I believe that if we all put pressure on the BCUC, and ask our friends and relatives to do the same, that they will not be able to hide and will be forced to take action.
- A squeaky wheel got attention. The man who went public last week with a $4500 bill from FortisBC for a house that burned down in January got his billing “error” corrected. Just like Hydro, it’s how much attention you can get, how much noise you can make, not whether you are customer who has been overbilled.
Dear Mr. Wruck:
In your email to Sharon Noble, July 14, 2015 you state that:
“… the Commission found “there is a low-risk of fires resulting from installation of the new meters””
Why should we accept even a low risk of fires? I believe your responsibility is to protect the public from risk whether it be high or low.
Newsletter prepared by Sharon Noble