1) Navigant, an industry company providing info to support smeter growth, has listed as an advantage the “short lifespans” of smeters, 5-10 years, and this will grow shorter with improved technology.
Would you all please send this to John Horgan <Oppositionleader@leg.bc.ca>
He and the NDP have always argued about costs but refused to cancel contracts when presented with health concerns, the fact the meters emit a 2b carcinogen, and are fire hazards. NOW, will he stand with us since he now has to admit, as he was told, that this is a bottomless pit? No end of costs. The only thing green is the money going into corporate pockets.
While new smart meter deployments will continue throughout the forecast period, notice should be given to the burgeoning replacement and upgrade market. Naturally, as the installed base of smart meters continues to grow, the market for replacement and upgrade units will grow as well. Looking forward, these replacement units will account for an increasingly large share of overall smart meter shipments and associated revenue throughout the forecast period. This market is further sustained by the shorter lifecycles attached to smart meters relative to traditional electromechanical meters. While traditional meters may have lasted for 20-plus years, modern smart meters are typically replaced or upgraded after only 5-10 years. These shorter lifespans are a product of multiple factors, including consumer awareness, technological advancement, and product standards.
Consumers can play a role in smart meter lifecycles through the voicing of safety and privacy concerns, which in turn may sway the utility to upgrade their technologies sooner than anticipated. The rapid pace at which smart meter technology is evolving also creates the potential for shorter replacement rates in the future as new functionalities and applications promote the business case for upgraded smart meter fleets. Another potential market driver includes emerging product standards, which may force utilities to upgrade their smart meters in order to meet the criteria set forth by local governments or independent safety organizations.
2) In Arizona, the utilities are applying to the Public Utilities Commission to allow “demand rates”, which will result in higher bills, higher than time of use. In Letters is an explanation of how it will work in Arizona.
3) In 1971/72, the US military’s Zory Glaser categorized 2,300 studies that showed biological effects from exposure to low levels of RF radiation. The biological effects have been confirmed over and over again, so why and how can Health Canada and officials like Perry Kendall deny they occur? Please, take a minute and send this along with your questions/demands to your MLAs, MP, and Health Minister Jane Philpott. Remember, silence is taken as agreement. WE MUST NOT BE SILENT.
“More than 2000 references on the biological responses to radio frequency and microwave radiation, published up to June 1971, are included in the bibliography.* Particular attention has been paid to the effects on man of non-ionizing radiation at these frequencies. The citations are arranged alphabetically by author, and contain as much information as possible so as to assure effective retrieval of the original documents. An outline of the effects which have been attributed to radio frequency and microwave radiation is also part of the report.”
The US report is available at the embedded link: (US Naval Research Institute) [www.justproveit.net/sites/default/files/prove-it/files/military_radiowave.pdf -106 pages].
4) An article a few days ago about how the Liberals are giving our money to oil and gas companies to take the resources from BC, raping and pillaging our land.
“Payments for rights to use renewable and nonrenewable natural resources are fairly equivalent to rents we pay routinely for homes, offices, work sites, cars, hotel rooms and even the interest when we borrow money from the bank. We pay for using someone else’s stuff.
However, Christy Clark’s Liberal Government turned the resource royalty and rights program upside down. In 2016, BC started paying gas producers to remove and sell BC gas. By ordinary accounting standards, natural gas cost the province more than $400 million in fiscal year 2016.
With the Liberal plan to provide massive amounts of electricity to gas producers at a fraction of the price BC Hydro pays to acquire power, the gas industry is at the centre of a looming financial disaster like no other before it in BC history…
While the royalty accounts are in deficit, receipts from sale of gas and petroleum rights have almost disappeared. In three years (2008-2010) when Gordon Campbell was Premier, monthly rights sales brought in $142 million a month. In the last 20 months, the sales averaged $1.4 million.”
5) Wi-Fi has been used to allow a paralyzed leg to move. Hopefully, this sort of beneficial use of Wi-Fi will not cause people to ignore or forget the harmful effects.
“An implant that beams instructions out of the brain has been used to restore movement in paralysed primates for the first time, say scientists.”
6) Many women fear having mammograms because of the RF to which we’re exposed. There is a “lower” radiation-emitting machine at the Victoria General Hospital. I don’t know how low it is but when I told my doctor about my concerns, he told me there was one “low” emitter in our city.
[http://www.viha.ca/medical_imaging/services/mammography.htm & http://www.viha.ca/breast_health_services/ & http://www.viha.ca/breast_health_services/breast_cancer_treatments/breast_health_patient_navigator.htm]
APS’s Startling Confession
Information & Perspective by Warren Woodward
Sedona, Arizona ~ November 5, 2016
APS has been presenting what they call “Technical Conferences” for all intervenors in the APS rate case. The ostensible purpose of the meetings is to explain various aspects of APS’s rate case, but the meetings are mostly just APS propaganda.
As most everyone knows, APS wants to make “demand rates” mandatory for all residential customers except those using 600 kilowatts hours or less per month (up to 7,200 kilowatt hours per year). The “demand rate” would apply between 3 pm and 8 pm weekdays, and would be based on your highest one hour average demand during that time. In other words, the most electric appliances you use during a particular hour will determine your “demand charge” for the entire month, regardless of what the rest of your demand during the month might be. Conserve all you want, but that one hour will set your “demand charge” for the month.
The rationale is that APS must have the juice available to meet your “demand” whether you are always using that amount or not. A “demand rate” is supposed to make you think twice about how you use electricity. According to demand theory, if everyone lowers their demand during peak hours then APS won’t have to build more power plants and we’ll all live happily every after.
One would think then, that APS would have a goal in mind as to how much they wanted to reduce overall demand during peak time — 10%? 20%? 30%? What?
At the “Technical Conference” last Thursday, an intervenor asked what APS’s goal was for reducing demand. Amazingly, the APS speaker said APS has no goal!
By that confession, what APS unwittingly admitted is that their “demand rate” is not at all about reducing demand, but about increasing customers’ bills by playing a sick game of “gotcha,” and that APS’s real goal is to rely on this “gotcha” charge to meet APS’s demand for more money.
What’s worse is that there are many people who simply cannot shift laundry and cooking and other essentials to different, off-peak times, and many of those same people can least afford to give greedy APS more money.
APS constantly refers to their “gotcha” charge as “rate design modernization,” but monopolies ripping people off is as old as the hills.