1) Many people are upset because they were not able to attend the public meeting held by the BCUC. Below is a letter asking for more meetings than are publicized. The more people write with similar requests, the more likely it will happen.
May I please suggest that if you are attending either the Fort St. John or Vancouver meeting that you ask about the fire report? Where is it? Does BCUC believe that these meters should be recalled?
2) Here is a short summary from the BCUC Nanaimo meeting.
“The BCUC presenters did not answer the questions satisfactorily (or not at all) which were asked by us (only 5 people in the audience). All of us were much interested in Smart Meters, especially regarding their severe impact on the health of everyone – mainly children. Since the commission seemed to have nothing to do with Smart Meters, I asked THEM to direct people’s concerns about smart meters to BC Hydro, since WE do not get any decent answer from them. They suggested that the only way to make changes is by writing to our MLA. The lawyer also suggested to me that it would be worthwhile to write to the Minister of Energy and Mines. I told the lawyer that we did so already years ago and that this minister’s answer was that the smart meters are here to stay. Christy Clark answered my letter and promised she would take it to the next meeting with the Minister of Energy and Mines. This was years ago and nothing happened. No wonder to see such a lack of transparency and lack of concern for BC citizens. These authorities don’t even have the decency to listen to your in-depth knowledge, nor appreciate your far-reaching vision with regard to these dangerous devices.
Throughout the meeting it felt as though one was addressing a wall.”
3) The ITRON $$meter’s transmitter is strong, despite denial by BC Hydro. ITRON’s own information states that its external transmitter, the one that is working right off, using 900 MHz range sending hundreds, if not thousands, of signals each day, has a power density of .227 milliwatts per centimeter squared (mW/cm2) , or 227 microwatts per centimeter squared (uW/cm2) . The BioInitiative Report (2007) recommends no higher than .01 microwatt per centimeter squared inside a home, and .1 microwatt/cm squared outside. The ZigBee chip that could be turned on to communicate through homes to get data from and send data to “smart” appliances has a power density of .031 mW/cm2 or 31 uW/cm2. Combined, the power density, when both transmitters are working, will be 258 uW/cm2 !! Outrageously and terribly dangerously high. The maximum allowed by Safety Code 6 is 274 uW/cm2 for transmitters using the 900 MHz range – so the ITRON meters’ level is 83% allowed by our inadequate, outdated SC 6. ( It should be assumed that the meter will be operating at full power – it will be under BC Hydro’s control).
4) Hacking of the USA Democratic Party computer system by the Russians. Cyberattacks are becoming commonplace.
“Russia has always been a formidable foe in cyberspace, but in the past two years, “there’s been a thousand-fold increase in its espionage campaign against the West,” said Alperovitch, who is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. “They feel under siege.””
5) Utility companies are trying to entice customers into most “$$smart features” that will motivate them to accept even more – even “demand response” which allows the utility to reduce power or to even shut off appliances. “Smart” thermostats seem to be the best introduction to this new relationship between utilities and customers.
“SGCC sees smart thermostats programs as a gateway-opportunity to engage consumers and offer them information about additional smart energy products and services…
Of the 162 possible configurations tested, a program that offered a $250 rebate for consumers who self-installed a programmable/auto-adjusting smart thermostat that has no demand response enablement appealed to the largest majority, 68% of consumers. Further testing consumers’ sensitivity to the value of the incentive being offered, we reduced the incentive amount by 50% to $125. We found that consumer appeal was virtually unchanging (.03% reduction in appeal), with 68% of consumers still agreeing that this was the ideal program configuration. Further reducing the incentive to $50, we discovered only a marginal decline in appeal whereas 64% of consumers still believed this to be an ideal configuration…
In conclusion, while demand response enablement was shown to slightly reduce program appeal, we can see that a demand response enabled smart thermostat program still appeals to the majority of consumers.”
Sent: June 13, 2016
To: Patrick BCUC:EX Wruck <Patrick.Wruck@bcuc.com>
Subject: Public meetings giving people the opportunity to speak on various issues, including costs
Dear Mr. Wruck
I learned by accident of the BCUC hearings that were held in Victoria. Apparently attendance was close to zero.
The reason no doubt is because NO ONE KNEW ABOUT THE MEETINGS!
How did you publicize the meetings?
Why didn’t you send a notice to people like me who have emailed you several times about several issues?
Was it because you don’t want to hear about the problems and didn’t want people to attend?
I would have been very interested in attending. I am sure I am one of many.
Would you consider holding public meetings in Victoria again after appropriately publicizing and notifying people about the opportunity to voice their concerns which I assume was/is the purpose of your public hearings.
Date: June 13, 2016
To: “Complaints BCUC:EX” <email@example.com>
Subject: BCUC Public meetings.
Dear Mr. Wruck,
It has come to my attention this morning that BCUC are holding public meetings to provide the opportunity for customers of BC Hydro to speak out about their dissatisfaction with the treatment they are being subjected to by BC Hydro. Had I known of such meetings I would have definitely showed up for the one that was held in Nanaimo, and not alone either. Indeed, I would have been accompanied by other residents of the Parksville, Qualicum Beach area who would have welcomed the opportunity to give a voice to their concerns too.
How were these meetings advertised? I certainly did not see any advertisement, and I have a personal interest in the actions of BC Hydro, being one of their customers who have been forced to pay the legacy fee.
I have heard that both the meeting in Victoria and that held in Nanaimo were very poorly attended. Sure ’tis no wonder, if the public were not adequately informed of such an opportunity.
The form letter that was sent in response to the 2 letters above, and others:
From: “Commission Secretary BCUC:EX” <Commission.Secretary@bcuc.com>
Date: June 14, 2016
Subject: RE: Public meetings giving people the opportunity to speak on various issues, including costs
Thank you for your email. On May 16, 2016, the Commission issued Exhibit A-4 in the BC Hydro F2017 to F2019 Revenue Requirements Application proceeding with information on the Community Input Sessions (later amended by Exhibit A-4-1). The information was published on the proceeding webpage at: http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2016/DOC_46420_A-4-1_Revised-Community-Input-Sessions-Information.pdf. This information was also published in the following newspapers: the Vancouver Sun, Victoria Times-Colonist, Nanaimo News Bulletin, Alaska Highway News and the Prince George Citizen.
There are still two Community Input Sessions to take place, one today in Fort St. John from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM and one on Thursday in Vancouver from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM. The Community Input Sessions are all webcast and the link to listen into the sessions is available here: http://www.bcuc.com/WebBroadcasts.aspx. If you are unable to attend one of these sessions in-person and would like to make your comments remotely, please let our office know and we can make arrangements for you to participate through a teleconferencing service.
If you would prefer to submit your comments in writing, in accordance with the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, letters of comment must be submitted in the Letter of Comment form. A copy of the form is available online at http://www.bcuc.com/Register-Letter-of-Comment.aspx. Letters of comment are intended to provide for any member of the public to contribute views, opinions, and impact or potential impact, with respect to a matter before the Commission, to a public record. Letters of comment are part of the evidentiary record and are published with your name. All other contact information is removed before posting but remains on the proceeding’s official evidentiary record. For more information, please visit our website at the link provided above.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Manager, Information Services Division
British Columbia Utilities Commission
Phone: 604.660.4700 | Fax: 604.660.1102 | Toll Free: 1.800.663.1385
In response to your letter of June 6, 2016, whereby you advised that I was going to be charged a $65 failed installation fee. I dispute this charge for the following reasons:
You stated in your email of June 6, 2016 that when the Meter Choices program was announced on July 2013 customers could:
- Keep the old meter until it breaks down
- The Measurement Canada Seal Expires
- Or they relocate
Note not one of these items applies to my account. My meter has not broken down, the Measurement Canada seal has not expired and will not for over six months, and I haven’t relocated. Furthermore, my letter to Daren Sanders of March 2, 2016 which was forwarded to you, contained these three requests:
- Proof of my analog meter’s official expiry date.
- A replacement analog meter.
- A mutually convenient appointment with the installer when an analog meter had been located.
I explained that an appointment was necessary as no live exchange would be permitted. I now want to have an electrician in attendance to inspect the meter base as well.
Your response letter of March 3, 2016 included a computer print-out showing my analog meter expiry date of December 3 1, 2016. The letter did not contain any mention of my other two requests, and I therefore thought that you would comply with them as well. Much to my surprise, your technician showed up unannounced on May 6, 2016. I asked him if he was advised to make an appointment with me, and did he have a replacement analog meter with him. He answered no to both questions, adding that he was not permitted to install anymore analog meters.
I am puzzled why this situation results in a failed installation fee. Does this imply that you can simply send an unannounced installer any time you like to get a $65 fee? If you have added this fee to my next bill, I will file a complaint with the BCUC. I have done nothing to the meter. It is in the exact same place it was when I bought the house 30 years ago. If there is a problem with it, I wonder why this is the first I’ve heard of it?
The BCUC has advised that you are getting a supply of analogs meters soon if not already. Please make sure that I will receive a replacement analog meter when available.
I will not accept a “radio-off” smart meter as there is evidence that they are emitting electro-magnetic radiation among other issues. Please watch this video: https://vimeo.com/169954584
I have had my life-time dose of radiation as a cancer treatment and the effects of which has left me on disability. I should be allowed for my home to be where I feel my safest from further radiation which would be added onto my already life-time dose. The result of which would greatly raise the risk of cancer reoccurrence. I ask that you don’t play with my life.
In conclusion, I ask that you honour my requests 2 and 3 above. My expectations are that the next time I hear from BC Hydro will be from an installer who is willing to make an appointment with me to install a replacement analog meter.
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse”
~ Edmund Burke