2016-07-12 Class action was not certified.

1)    The decision is in and the Judge has refused to certify the class action. I am still working my way through the document and will have a link to the decision and comments soon.

BC Smart Meter Lawsuit.CA

In the meantime, BC Hydro is saying that people in the Meter Choices Program can keep their legacy meters.  The lies will never stop.  No shame.  And CKNW, as usual, missed the entire point of the Class Action – that our Charter Rights to not allow the government to put something that we believe to be dangerous on our homes is being infringed upon. You can email responses to:  nwnews@cknw.com    

But Hydro representative Simi Heer says that’s not the case.

“Those people are in our meter choices program, so those people have elected to either get a radio off meter or a legacy meter, we’re not threatening to cut them off.”

http://www.cknw.com/2016/07/12/bc-supreme-court-rejects-smart-meter-class-action-lawsuit/

2)    New York man without electricity for 3 years (power cut by Fortis when he removed the smeter) is suing the CEOs for trespass and infringing on his rights.

Romine… and his mate, Ms. Nicole Nevin, have been cut off from Central Hudson’s electrical service for three years because he sought replacement of a new electric meter the utility company placed on his home without his consent.

Romine says he and Nevin were suffering from separate ailments which ceased when he replaced the new digital meter with an older analog meter which he said supplied the electric company with the information it needed for accurate billing. The replacement became unavoidable, Romine said, when Nevin suffered a mini-stroke while standing in front of the GE I-210 meter for which she was hospitalized and cautioned that she was now at risk of a major stroke within the next 90 days, whereupon Romine researched the meter issue for himself and removed the transmitter meter, which he returned to the company along with a video documenting its removal.

This action apparently prompted Central Hudson, which had been acquired by the transnational corporation Fortis Inc. in 2013, to disconnect Romine’s electricity in May of that year.

http://www.woodstockx.com/2016/05/28/woodstock-resident-three-years-without-service-sues-central-hudson-executives-over-meters/

3)    Here is the transcript for the BCUC public input meeting in Vancouver June 16. Again, few attended.

http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Transcripts/2016/DOC_46566_06-16-2016-Transcript-CIS-Vancouver-Vol-5.pdf

4)    Many utilities in the USA offer people the choice of refusing a $$meter, even to keep their analog, some with no fee. Some people have had $$meters removed due to health issues. Why can’t BC Hydro allow this type of choice? Are they afraid that too many people now know how dangerous and invasive these things are?

A doctor certified that Davidson was sensitive to the radio frequency of the meter and it was removed by his power company after he lobbied the Ohio Public Utilities Commission. Slowly, he started to feel better.

Now an Ohio state senator is pushing legislation that would require that utility companies get permission from property owners before installing smart meters.

Based on surveys from the Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative, worries about safety and health are the biggest consumer qualm about smart meters, director Durand said.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/02/05/amid-health-privacy-fears-states-are-letting-people-reject-smart-meters

5)    Segment #3 of the BCUC draft re smart meter fires is below. BCUC still has released no information about this report.

Letters:

From: X
Sent: July 11, 2016
To: scott.fraser.mla@leg.bc.ca; director@stopsmartmetersBC.COM; coordinator3@stopsmartmetersbc.ca; adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca; elizabeth.may@greenparty.ca; ted@stopsmartmetersBC.COM
Subject: BC Hydro

Hello Mr. Fraser,

My name is X, we spoke a few weeks ago about the analog electric meter on my property. As you may recall I do not consent to having what BC Hydro are calling a “smart meter” installed on my property. BC Hydro earlier sent me a letter telling me that I was part of a “Meter Choice” program, which allowed me to keep the analog meter on my property, this goes along with the extortive, what BC Hydro are calling a “legacy meter charge”. The very fact that BC Hydro are billing me for this choice for a “legacy meter” and are taking my money is evidence that BC Hydro are aware that I have in compliance with their “Meter Choice” program chosen not to have a smart meter. I will provide this letter (“Meter Choice” program letter) if you require it. BC Hydro clearly know that I am part of their “Meter Choice” program as I am billed for it by them, so they clearly knew that I am not going to have a smart meter, yet they sent a contractor to my property to change the analog meter to a smart meter. BC Hydro’s contractor came onto my property walking past the clearly obvious “No Trespassing” sign and in spite of a registered letter advising BC Hydro and their agents that I do not consent to having an illegal microwave radio transmitter meter owned by others put on my property AND I am clearly part of their “Meter Choice” program. BC Hydro have now on my latest bill from them are charging me for a failed meter installation charge of $68.25. How is this type of business practise allowed to occur in British Columbia.

In a nutshell – BC hydro have told me I can opt out and pay their extortive charge to keep an analog meter, now they are telling me since I didn’t let them take the meter they have told me I can keep by paying extra for I will be charged $68.25, WTF!!

How and why is an unsafe meter program not ok in Saskatchewan for my fellow Canadians but it is considered by some to be ok for British Columbians. This is illegal, unfair and unconstitutional. This microwave transmitting meter is an experiment on me without my consent which is not compliant with international law and specifically the Nuremberg Code.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
X

__________________________________________________________________________

Risky Business?

RESPONSE TO “BCUC’s Staff Report on Smart Meter Fire Safety Concerns”  Segment #3.

KEY:  Highlighted text is from Sharon Noble   Non-highlighted text is the draft report as written by BCUC staff.

= = =

BCUC

Investigation Scope

The scope of the investigation, a culmination of allegations made by a concerned citizen, is detailed below.

This investigation addresses the following questions concerning the fire hazard potential of smart meters:

1)  Are smart meters compatible with the meter sockets2 into which they are plugged? Do smart meters have thinner blades than legacy meters?

Comments: The later reference on Page 5 to CSA standard describing compatibility does not mention the meter “stabs” and whether there is adequate quality control or quality assurance during the design, manufacture, testing and installation of the meter and the meter stabs, e.g. Texas Court Case. A serious random check of the meter and the stabs may well have discovered discrepancies. These tests which do not appear to have taken place in Texas, seem to point to delegation of task with limited verification by the Utilities. What is meant by ‘legacy’ needs to be clarified.  In this report it’s being used as a synonym for ‘analog’, which implies non-combustibility, whereas in the Tariff ‘legacy’ includes first generation ‘non-smart’ digital meters which are combustible.  The two meter categories being considered when investigating fire safety should be ‘incombustible’ (analog or electro-mechanical) and ‘combustible (digital or electronic).

2)  Do smart meters have design flaws which result in meters being a fire hazard?

Among other issues, the BCUC questions and answers do not address the  design, testing, certification and the operation nor the legality of the meter’s built-in disconnect switch. It is being used by the Utilities as a “Service Disconnect Device” at the Customer Service Point, and therefore it must satisfy the all of the Code requirements for such a device. I suspect that the switch will more often be a point of catastrophic failure because of its moving parts, its design and as the meters remain in service, and the switch is being used for un-approved application, its failure rate will increase. Note that Quebec Hydro has issued in 2014 an alert warning that 24,760 smart meters need to be removed and that meters must not be installed closer than 3 metres from a source of natural gas or propane due to the possible ignition from the disconnect switch.

3)    Is the meter installation process and/or training of meter installers a factor in the incident rate?

Needs adding: The CSA C22.2 Standard No.115  for the homeowners’ meter base specifically prohibits the base from being used as a load current-carrying interruption device, but it is being used for that during the meter change-outs. This was brought to BC Hydro attention by Registered letter dated May 2014, and to the CSA, but BC Hydro (and Fortis) continue to use the homeowner’s meter base as a load-current disconnecting device, leading to premature failures and fires. Contractors cannot carry out a safe meter alignment check when the system is energized. The use of non-electricians, granted by the Government to use non-IBEW qualified electrician members, and applying minimal training, guaranteed that the meter base and meter stabs would suffer arcing damage during the hasty meter change-outs. This is so fundamental to the common problem of fires and overheating that it must be examined properly, and the whole methodology of meter change-out must be re-thought.

4)    Are the smart meter components and materials more flammable than previous meters and if so does this materially impact their safety?3

NOTE: Because of the almost unlimited fault energy available from the Grid, this question needs to be re-framed to address what happens during a meter-related incident. This report does not address the obvious potential for, and actual experiences of, the catastrophic failures exacerbated by unrestricted fault energy, because the primary Utility HV fuse does not provide adequate protection for the failing electronic meter and arcing in the meter base. Whether it is safe to add an unprotected electronic device to the service point downstream of the Utility transformer is an ongoing issue that does not appear to have been examined with adequate diligence. The result has been some catastrophic failures due non-operation of the existing HV electrical protective devices. A specific technical engineering review with peer-reviewed results need to be urgently completed.

This investigation addresses the following questions concerning tracking and investigation of fires and thermal incidents originating in the vicinity of smart meters.

1 See section 23 of the Utilities Commission Act.

2 An enclosure that has matching jaws to accommodate the bayonet-type (blade or stab) electrical terminals of a detachable watthour meter and has a means of connection for the termination of the utility and building circuit conductors.

3 This question was raised by staff and in the interest of completeness included in the scope of the investigation.

5)    How are the utilities tracking fires and thermal incidents originating in the vicinity of smart meters?

This report states that BC Hydro is not tracking the after-installation incidents, so BC Hydro/BCUC are not aware of the scale of the problem, nor is BC Hydro able to share data with stakeholders such as IBEW, Homeowners, BCSA, CSA, BCUC, Fire Commissioners, Municipalities and the Public, or anyone else involved in meter problems.

  6)    Are fires and thermal incidents originating in the vicinity of smart meters being adequately investigated?

The answer is NO.  See the above comment.  The incident data are spread over several different organizations with gaps due to the non-reporting of incidents. What scant information is being gathered is inadequately coded and is not being investigated forensically and is not being shared.

 

 

Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

“Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.”
~ World Health Organization