- Ontario utility Hydro One is admitting that many Smart meters are failing, are not able to function in rural areas and must, therefore, be manually read. The meters cannot function due to geographical issues, such as leaves on trees. Could this be why BC Hydro is reading 50,000 Smart meters manually? These are a waste of money, in addition to being dangerous and invasive.
Egan: Hydro One pulls plug on wonky smart meters in rural areas by Kelly Egan – Ottawa Citizen – January 12, 2016:
– http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/egan-hydro-one-pulls-plug-on-rural-smart-meter-signals Please comment. Some comments are below in letters.
- We all know that BC Hydro is making decisions that are irresponsible, without sound business cases, and for which we will be held financially liable for decades. Others are voicing concerns, too.
- Embedded in this French article is a video interview of Barrie Trower, a former agent for MI5 who is very familiar with RF emissions and use of RF in warfare.
- Please see the letter below written by Mr. Hans Karow to the BCUC. Hans has been an intervener in several applications by Hydro and Fortis. I strongly recommend that you read the document that he submitted to the BCUC several years ago and which is at this link, http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2005/DOC_9432_C1-2_Karow%20Comments%20&%20Preliminary%20IR%20to%20FBC.pdf . From pages 8 on there are statements concerning the lack of transparency, failure of the BCUC to support public interests, and manipulation of timing of submission of extremely complex documents to discourage public participation — the very same problems we are complaining about with this most recent application by Hydro. There is information about Citizens Utility Boards in the US which have been formed to give the public a voice. It’s time for all of us to begin to demand that we are allowed representation by capable professionals trained in such actions, with these professionals paid to present our concerns and arguments. Hydro is represented by lawyers who are paid for with our money. This entire process is completely one-sided, as far as I can see.
- I had my monthly discussion with Ian Jessop of CFAX in Victoria I spoke about the BC Hydro application that is before BCUC.
audio 00:00-09:21 & 13:18-23:35) [Bills – BC Hydro – BCUC – EMR – Fires – Health – Lawsuit] Ian Jessop CFAX – 2pm – January 12, 2016:
- We have realized that utility companies will be gathering data via the $$meter that is not needed for billing and to which they have never had a right without a legal warrant. They look at our homes as a source of business over and above the use of the commodity (electricity) which they sell – harvesting, using and selling out personal data without our knowledge or permission. This is an infringement of our Charter Rights and the Constitutional Rights of those in the US. A 23 page report written by a PhD student and professor at Port State University can be found at http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1115&context=usp_fac or an excellent summary can be found below. BC Hydro is one example for this “surveillance and profiteering.”
Technology developments have broad applications and implications, but the smart energy grid that is being implemented across the United States and Canada, like the worldwide web, we argue, is being appropriated as part of a design to draw upon higher level data from dwellers (as surplus value) in the service of industrial profiteering and in the surveillance interests of industry and the state.
The consumer’s use value of electricity consumption is thus being transformed into exchange value, as well as creating new forms of social monitoring and control by agencies of government, and of violations of constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 8 of the Canadian charter of rights and Freedoms.
Ms. Erica Hamilton
British Columbia Utilities Commission
Sixth Floor, 900 Howe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2N3
January 8, 2016
Dear Ms. Hamilton,
Re: BC Hydro 2015 Rate Design Application http://www.bcuc.com/ApplicationView.aspx?ApplicationId=511
- As stated in my request for registering as intervener ( see C1-2) I am interested and concerned about any rate changes affecting my innocent/naïve tenants and myself as non-commercial ratepayers.
I have asked for and stated the reason why I needed a hard copy of the application, however at the discretion of the BCUC’s office I have been denied a hard copy.
Having participated a few times in BCUC hearings (powerlines’-, rates’- change of ownerships’- application) for the first time a charge has been set on a hard copy— copy’s paper paid by the very ratepayers 100%. By all due respect, I found this deterrent in the first place!
Besides, I have never ever applied compensation via BCUC’s PACA program I always was rightfully entitled for as intervener.
My volunteered denials fort PACA (to mainly avoid $$$-COI) has saved the PACA reserve fund way much more over what the cost of on hard copy of the subject application would be.
- The voluminous subject application (4900+ pages) and the language used in it, makes it impossible for the laymen (who are the very ratepayers) to even be interested looking at the application and to find out how/whether someone would be affected by the application and the possible decision by the Commission.
Although I have attended and volunteered many times as reg. intervener (since 1997) I have never before come across such hard to read and to understand application like this one.
I have difficulties to understand the whole concept and mechanism of the rate application.
- Why are application procedurals allowing utility companies acting with their very ratepayers –especially residential ones – in an such an obscure way?
One must get the impression, that BCHydro and (FortisBC alike) along with the Commission (former head of BCUC was a former head of FortisBC regulatory director) like to go the path of least resistance, the very law of physics in the case of subject matter: electricity.
Although subscribing to Okanagan papers (includes weekends deliveries) I have not come over a single notification add about subject application in our area.
As also stated in my application, there was even not one notification about the application in any of previous three hydro bills (often consisting of two pages, with the second page mostly blank or not containing any important data or notices).
Just by coincidence I found out by a friend of mine I am working with regard of smart meter issues.
- In consideration of aforesaid, the Commission has been asked already years ago, that the application processes should be more transparent and with much more flexibility mainly for the ratepayers who should be able to find out quickly whether they are indeed affected or not and in case, to make himself available participating in a hearing.
Even normal notification adds in the media (with the eye-drawing BCUC coat of arms) will not attract the interests of the average ratepayer, that again due to the urbane language used.
By now I doubt about that “…The Commission’s primary responsibility is the regulation of the energy utilities under its jurisdiction to ensure that the rates charged for energy are fair, just and reasonable, and that utilities provide safe, adequate and secure service to their customers….- …The Commission values public input in the issues for which it is responsible…”(cited out of A Participant’s Guide to the B.C. Utilities Commission, http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Guidelines/2011/DOC_3939_ParticpantGuide_July2002.pdf ).
Attached comments and recommendations from a 2005 hearing submitted by
– Concerned Citizens South Slocan, Shoreacres, Glade, Tarrys & Thrums,
– Kootenay-Okanagan Electric Consumers Association, and
– Helmut Wartenberg
obviously have not been listened to nor dealt with either by the utility companies nor by the Commission’s office.
5.1. As I was not yet able to work through the voluminous application, however, what I so far understand from communications between the parties, I am concerned about the high manual reconnection charge, which I feel very unreasonable.
I also wonder why and object that the Tariff Amendments were initially not included in the application.
I strongly support Sharon Noble’s and Janis Hofmann’s letter dated December 27, 2015 and January 7, 2016 respectively, and ask to have Sharon Noble and Janis Hoffmann reinstated as reg. intervener as their expressed concern are indeed within the scope of the application.
5.2 Since I have similar concerns as Sharon Noble and Janis Hoffmann, I ask the Commission for extension of the regulatory time table so that we can seek representation by a lawyer.
A few attempts have been already made, so far however in vain.
In case we are still not able to solicit a lawyer , I ask the Commission to approve that we can join a lawyer already in this proceeding to represent our concerned issues, and that this lawyer is allotted some of the PACA due to the work share on our behalf.
5.3. In order to get the full picture of all issues that might affect ratepayers, I ask the Applicant to provide a summary of all issues . This summary in layman’s language, and very concise so that even ratepayers without accredited degrees understand what the subject application is all about.
5.4 Furthermore I respectively ask that recent correspondences between all parties being posted on the Commission’s website in a more expeditious way in the appropriate order of the particular intervenor’s “C” Exhibits number, also including the correspondences after intervenors have been rescinded.
5.5. I also herewith ask the Commission’s office that a Distribution List is posted to the application’s website below the Hearing and Other Documents section, which also contains the Email List. With a posted Distribution List (which is normally posted in hearing procedures) one is able to see easily which party or intervener is representing whom.
Hans Karow (name given with permission)
bcc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; “Rafe Mair” <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; “GI Driftwood” <email@example.com>; “Island Tides” <firstname.lastname@example.org>; “The Islands Independent” <email@example.com>
To: “S Harper” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Christy Clark” <email@example.com>, “Bill Bennett” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “BCUC” <email@example.com>
Cc: “Randall Garrison” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Elizabeth May C1” <elizabeth.may.C1@parl.gc.ca>, “James Moore” <email@example.com>, “Nycole Turmel” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Adrian Dix MLA” <email@example.com>, “Sue Hammell MLA” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Gary Holman” <email@example.com>, “John Horgan MLA” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Maurine Karagianis MLA” <email@example.com>, “Lana Popham MLA” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Andrew Weaver” <email@example.com>, “Peter Luckham, Chair” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Peter Grove SSI Local Trustee” <email@example.com>, “George Grams SSI Local Trustee” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “David Howe” <email@example.com>, “Wayne McIntyre” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:56:57 PM
Subject: [Bills – Costs – Ontario] Egan: Hydro One pulls plug on wonky smart meters in rural areas by Kelly Egan – Ottawa Citizen – January 12, 2016
How many smart meters are being read for free by BC Hydro and FortisBC?
Why do BC Hydro opt-out customers have to pay $32.40 + taxes/month to have their non-smart meters read? This is illegal extortion and discrimination against BC rate payers! The BC Utilities Act states that it is illegal to discriminate and charge some customers a different rate for the same service.
Linda R. Floyd (name given with permission)
From: Dennis and Sharon Noble [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: January 12, 2016 7:31 PM
To: ‘Commission Secretary BCUC:EX’ <Commission.Secretary@bcuc.com>; Bill Bennett (firstname.lastname@example.org) <email@example.com>; Christy Clark (firstname.lastname@example.org) <email@example.com>
Cc: ‘John.Horgan.MLA@leg.bc.ca’ <John.Horgan.MLA@leg.bc.ca>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’ <email@example.com>
Subject: Hydro One smart meters are failures
Dear Mr. Bennett, Premier Clark, and Ms. Hamilton,
Over the last many months I and others have provided evidence that the smart meter program is not functional, that the devices are dangerous to health, are invasive, putting personal security at risk, are fire hazards that have burned and failed many times – putting lives and property at risk, and are expensive beyond anything presented in the initial business case.
Utilities around the world have declared the meters and the program to be worthless and unable to save any money or energy. Now, Ontario’s Hydro One has admitted what BC Hydro has found – that these meters are not capable of working in all situations. If BC Hydro and Fortis had done their proper due diligence, they would have learned that wired smart meters are capable of functioning in all situations and locations. For the last year or longer, 50,000 smart meters have been read manually because they cannot function wirelessly.
The BC public is being saddled with a program that was not needed and has no end. ITRON sold BC Hydro a device that cannot function as promised and is defective in design with many flaws that put lives and property at risk.
Isn’t it time for this government to admit that these meters should be recalled, and the costs that have been incurred to be recouped?
Dear Ms Egan,
It is “refreshing” to have a utility admit that these meters do not work, at least with regard to the remote metering aspect.
It would be more significant if Hydro One removed all the Landis & Gyr meters from homes based upon the fact that these are fire hazards. In a Texas legal brief utility workers who are experienced and expert have testified that Landis & Gyr and ITRON smart meters have burned and failed many times. Also those involved in certification of meters have acknowledged that meter manufacturers and utilities know that these things have design flaws that make them fire hazards. It seems the utility companies across North America are playing Russian roulette with our lives and property.
There is no justification for these expensive, invasive and dangerous devices. Below are links to 2 of the sites upon which my statements are based. I have a lot more information about fires. If you like me to share it with you, please let me know.
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“… design flaws in smart meter units have been known to cause serious fire hazards and spotty performance. This has caused a lot of concern for utilities and manufacturers of smart meters.”
It is doubtful that the “voluntary” certification will address all of the fire-causing features of these devices which are mandated by governments for every home and business. UL certified the very same Sensus meters that burned and failed, and were recalled in Saskatchewan.
Legal testimony in Texas stated that the smart meters do not fit properly into the meter base, a base that was certified to hold an analog and nothing else. The smart meters’ blades leave a gap which causes arcing and fires. “Childers explained that part of the problem was a loose connection between the meter and the meter base because the smart meters had thinner “blades” than the previous analog meters. (JD slip op. at 12, LL 36-38; Tr. 265, LL. 3-6). Childers told Reed that the loose connection caused heat, which, in turn, caused an electrical arc, which resulted in “two pallets of burned up meters” in CenterPoint’s meter shop. (Tr. 265, LL. 13-22).”
(http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Reed_Answering_Brief-1.pdf pg. 8) Oncor uses Landis & Gyr meters, while Center Point uses ITRON Openway meters.
Newsletter 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.