PG&E Suggested “Prozac” for Those Injured by Smart Meters– SCE Schemed Higher Fees to Force Smart Meters on the Poor

Rate this post

Written by
New e-mails brought to light between Pacific Gas and Elec­tric (PG&E), South­ern Cal­i­for­nia Edi­son (SCE), and the Cal­i­for­nia Pub­lic Util­i­ties Com­mis­sion (CPUC) reveal the extent of cor­rup­tion and back­room deal­ing that have char­ac­ter­ized the state’s smart meter pro­gram. E-mails reveal that for­mer CPUC Pres­i­dent Michael Peevey was aware of health prob­lems caused by smart meters early on in the pro­gram. Com­mis­sion­ers and staff expe­ri­enced over­charg­ing and elec­tronic inter­fer­ence issues with smart meters on their homes. Mean­while, util­i­ties schemed with reg­u­la­tors behind the scenes to raise opt-out fees to force peo­ple in poverty to stick with the unpop­u­lar meters and prop up the fail­ing multi-billion dol­lar smart grid pro­gram in Cal­i­for­nia.
For­mer CPUC Pres­i­dent Michael Peevey, who retired in Decem­ber and is cur­rently the sub­ject of a crim­i­nal probe by the U.S. Attor­ney and State Attor­ney Gen­eral who are inves­ti­gat­ing alle­ga­tions of bribery and cor­rup­tion, assured the pub­lic that the meters were accu­rate, were no fire haz­ard, and no threat to health. A dif­fer­ent pic­ture has emerged from ini­tial research into more than 65,000 e-mails and memos between CPUC and PG&E. Peevey wrote to PG&E in Sep­tem­ber of 2010 (empha­sis ours):
“The press cov­er­age was very good and helps PG&E big time, over­all, as well as other com­pa­nies, etc. One thought for the com­pany: If it were my deci­sion I would let any­one who wants to keep their old meter keep it, if they claim they suf­fer from EMF and/or related electronic-related ill­nesses… I would insti­tute such a pol­icy qui­etly and solely on an indi­vid­ual basis. There really are peo­ple who feel pain, etc., related to EMF,etc., and rather than have them become hys­ter­i­cal, etc., I would qui­etly leave them alone. Kick it around. And, it sounds like the com­pany may already have taken this step, based on a cou­ple of the com­ments at yesterday’s pub­lic hearing.”
Wellington Energy was one of the companies who profited handsomely from CPUC Corruption
Peevey says to PG&E, “if it were my deci­sion.” As Sandi Mau­rer of the EMF Safety Net­work has pointed out, being the Com­mis­sioner in charge of the smart meter opt out pro­ceed­ing, tech­ni­cally it was his deci­sion. But that does not appear to be where the true power lies accord­ing to this e-mail exchange. Appar­ently the “Com­pany” calls the shots and Com­mis­sion­ers obey. The “other com­pa­nies” Peevey refers to include GE, Lan­dis & Gyr, Sil­ver Spring Net­works, Welling­ton Energy, Ver­i­zon, Edel­man and others.
In another e-mail from 2010, Peevey’s Chief of Staff Carol Brown writes to PG&E:
“…so far I have done OK just lis­ten­ing to the sad tales of EMF poi­son­ing – and telling them thank you for bring­ing it to our atten­tion – and then not offer­ing them any solu­tion!!! I just wanted to have a resource in case!”
PG&E’s Brian Cherry
Brian Cherry, VP of Reg­u­la­tory Rela­tions at PG&E replies:
“Prozac might be a solution!”
PG&E’s solution to health problems caused by their smart meters: Prozac
Sug­gest­ing that peo­ple take phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals to treat health prob­lems caused by the company’s meters is unspeak­ably arro­gant, dan­ger­ous, and cor­rupt. The only thing that has con­sis­tently helped peo­ple suf­fer­ing health effects from EMF has been the removal of smart meters and other nearby wire­less trans­mit­ters. And the util­i­ties knew it. But to offi­cially have smart meters removed, the CPUC under Peevey, required Cal­i­for­ni­ans to pay an upfront fee and monthly charge start­ing in May 2012.
Marzia Zafar, CPUC’s Head of Policy and Planning
In pub­lic, the util­i­ties and CPUC have jus­ti­fied the $75 ini­tially and $10/ month fees for ana­log meters (to have the same thing that cus­tomers have always had) by argu­ing that indi­vid­u­als should pay for the costs they cre­ate. In pri­vate how­ever, a dif­fer­ent story emerges. In e-mails between Cal­i­for­nia util­i­ties and Marzia Zafar, CPUC’s cur­rent Direc­tor of Pol­icy and Plan­ning, a 15 year util­ity indus­try employee includ­ing 4 years as a So Cal Gas lob­by­ist who was involved in the Bill Dev­ereaux Spy Scan­dal, Zafar tells her util­ity col­leagues:
“I think if there is not an ini­tial fee your esti­mate of 2% opt out goes out the door and you’ll have more like 20% or 50% opt out which will then make the whole project that we spent over $7 bil­lion on a com­plete and total waste.”
A Sept. 2011 demonstration outside the CPUC in San Francisco
Zafar is say­ing if they elim­i­nate the ini­tial opt out charge for ana­log meters, up to half of California’s elec­tric cus­tomers may refuse smart meters, given all the pub­lic­ity around safety and inac­cu­racy prob­lems, and that needs to be avoided at all costs – by ensur­ing fees remain unaf­ford­able. This e-mail demon­strates clearly that the opt out fee is intended not to “cover costs” but to sup­press choice, prop up a fail­ing and dan­ger­ous smart grid and penal­ize peo­ple for dis­obey­ing a forced, cor­po­rate and unde­mo­c­ra­tic deployment.
Mak­ing it more dif­fi­cult for those in poverty to opt out seemed to be a par­tic­u­lar pri­or­ity for South­ern Cal­i­for­nia Edi­son, Peevey’s for­mer employer. Many low-income cus­tomers live in apart­ment build­ings where banks of smart meters expose res­i­dents to high lev­els of pulsed RF radi­a­tion that the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion con­sid­ers a Class 2B Car­cino­gen. “CARE” is a reduced util­ity rate pro­gram for fam­i­lies liv­ing below the fed­eral poverty line. In Jan­u­ary 2012, Michael Hoover of SCE wrote to Zafar of CPUC and Cherry of PG&E:
“We need an up front fee that is sig­nif­i­cant, or a path to achieve that. This is espe­cially true for CARE cus­tomers. This is a big deal for us and I think the poten­tial for sig­nif­i­cant increases in opt out is rather large if the fee is set too low. Are we all on the same page?”
Could using finan­cial screws to force haz­ardous meters on those in poverty be too toxic even for Brian Cherry, who replies:
No”
Then Zafar, like a bully in the play­ground, chides Cherry for being soft:
“That’s because PG&E’s judg­ment is suspect…”
In Sept. 2011, CPUC’s Marzia Zafar was angry at PG&E for removing smart meters that were making a woman sick.
In Novem­ber of 2011, CPUC offi­cials inter­nally cir­cu­lated a press release from Stop Smart Meters! that made ref­er­ence to the fact that PG&E had recently replaced a smart meter with an ana­log on a woman’s house in Santa Cruz whose fam­ily was suf­fer­ing health impacts from the new microwave-emitting meter. Zafar rebukes PG&E and orders them to keep smart meters on homes, even after res­i­dents have demanded and given legal notice that they be removed, and even for those with physician’s let­ters or those suf­fer­ing so badly they could no longer occupy their homes (“this blog” is StopSmartMeters.org):
“See below. Please do not replace smart meters with ana­log meters; I’m assum­ing this blog is delu­sional and they’re lying. The Com­mis­sion will issue a (Pro­posed Deci­sion) some­time this month or early next month to con­sider an opt-out pro­gram; until such time you have the delay list.”
Smart meters were interfering with electronic equipment at the homes of CPUC staff we now know (and the homes of many others like this woman from Marin County, CA)
Despite Zafar’s hard line stance, it turns out she knew from per­sonal expe­ri­ence that there were seri­ous prob­lems with the meters. She wrote in Jan­u­ary 2011 to PG&E:
“I’m also copy­ing Cliff to this e-mail as I spoke with him this morn­ing; he came to my house :-). I have a smart meter and a motion light inter­fer­ence that is hope­fully now resolved.”
Accord­ing to the LA Times, when a smart meter was installed on for­mer CPUC Pres­i­dent Michael Peevey’s 3118 sq. foot sec­ond home in Sea Ranch on the Sonoma County coast (where Peevey and PG&E’s VP of Reg­u­la­tory Rela­tions Brian Cherry shared bot­tles of Johnny Walker Blue Label accord­ing to e-mails) Peevey’s bills went through the roof and he com­plained to PG&E in Novem­ber 2011:
“Please check some­thing out for me. Just had a “smart meter” installed at Sea Ranch. And, now I have the bill for the first month. Some­thing is screwy. The bill says we used 973 KWH ver­sus 438 for the same time period one year ago. Yet, there was no one at the house dur­ing the most recent 30 day period. Nor was there any­one there one year ago. Obvi­ously some­thing is wrong. I would like an explanation.”
SmartMeterMeltdown
Appar­ently Peevey wasn’t the only Com­mis­sioner who reported sig­nif­i­cant over­charg­ing. PG&E wrote in an e-mail that two com­mis­sion­ers in one night com­plained about inac­cu­ra­cies on their bills after smart meters were installed.
In Sep­tem­ber 2011, after a fire started in a smart metered elec­tri­cal panel in a Santa Rosa Mall, Cherry wrote to CPUC Exec­u­tive Direc­tor Paul Clanon. There was not the slight­est con­cern about whether the smart meters were actu­ally start­ing fires, or whether and how the CPUC and/ or PG&E should inves­ti­gate this poten­tially seri­ous pub­lic safety haz­ard. Instead the focus was on spin­ning the story in the media:
“We have also con­tacted sev­eral fire chiefs who are sym­pa­thetic and may com­ment on the most recent meter issue.”
What exactly is meant by “sym­pa­thetic” given that hun­dreds of thou­sands of smart meters have now been recalled due to fire risk and peo­ple have lost their lives?
In Novem­ber 2013, PG&E was again scolded by Zafar after their call cen­ter staff advised a cus­tomer who had prob­lems with smart meters to (gasp!) con­tact the CPUC. Sid­ney Dietz of PG&E responds:
“We found the call, and indeed our customer-service rep­re­sen­ta­tive (CSR) advised, in error, the cus­tomer to call the CPUC. One of the man­agers con­tacted this par­tic­u­lar CSR and her super­vi­sor and made sure she under­stands the prob­lem, and we will be updat­ing the script to make it absolutely clear that we should not pass the prob­lem to the CPUC. This same man­ager is one of the train­ers for the CSRs (they train con­stantly), and will main­tain an empha­sis on not pass­ing the buck. As you know, the group at PG&E that works on com­plaints and speaks reg­u­larly with the CPUC com­plaints group under­stand that this is not the right way to han­dle cus­tomers, and works to get this kind of thing correct.”
Former CPUC President Loretta Lynch: “CPUC is a rogue agency”
The task of the Cal­i­for­nia Pub­lic Util­i­ties Commission’s Con­sumer Affairs Branch — accord­ing to the CPUC’s web­site – is to: “assist con­sumers in resolv­ing dis­putes with their util­ity com­pany.” Yet, Ms. Zafar chided PG&E for “pass­ing the prob­lem” when cus­tomer ser­vice rep­re­sen­ta­tives sug­gested that peo­ple with smart meter prob­lems con­tact the CPUC. These e-mails con­firm what watch­dog groups have been claim­ing for years—that the CPUC lit­er­ally has become a satel­lite office for the investor owned util­ity and tele­com cor­po­ra­tions – a “rogue agency” as for­mer CPUC Pres­i­dent Loretta Lynch now refers to the agency she once led.
While CPUC offi­cials pri­vately grap­pled with prob­lems caused by smart meters at their own homes, pub­licly they denied these prob­lems existed despite thou­sands of com­plaints to the con­trary con­firm­ing these were sys­temic prob­lems. An unfair and extor­tion­ate opt out pol­icy was approved in vio­la­tion of the CA Pub­lic Util­ity Code, charg­ing cus­tomers hun­dreds of dol­lars a year to pro­tect their safety. Thou­sands still refuse to pay this extortion.
Those respon­si­ble for this crim­i­nal activ­ity should be pros­e­cuted to the fullest extent of the law, and the Cal­i­for­nia leg­is­la­ture needs to do its job and hold hear­ings to get to the bot­tom of these crim­i­nal rela­tion­ships that have cost Cal­i­for­ni­ans their lives. All redacted e-mails must imme­di­ately be made public.
Peevey and com­pany should be put behind bars.
Given the lies, reck­less­ness and betrayal of trust that has char­ac­ter­ized the forced smart meter deploy­ment, the extor­tion­ate opt out fee pol­icy should imme­di­ately be elim­i­nated and past fees that have been paid by ratepay­ers refunded with an apol­ogy. Exces­sive charges paid by util­ity cus­tomers based on inac­cu­rate smart meter read­ings must like­wise be refunded. A truly inde­pen­dent inves­ti­ga­tion into fires, health haz­ards, and the cal­i­bra­tion and accu­racy of smart meters must be car­ried out. Smart meters must be recalled and replaced with safe, electro­mechan­i­cal ana­log meters NOW. At the end of the day, human life is more impor­tant than pro­tect­ing this cor­rupt power struc­ture and the egos of PG&E and CPUC executives.
We mean it literally.
Spe­cial Thanks to the fol­low­ing groups for ongo­ing col­lab­o­ra­tive research efforts that have led to the dis­cov­ery of these e-mails. There will be more to come!
EMF Safety Net­work, Sebastopol, CA
Cen­ter for Elec­tros­mog Pre­ven­tion, La Mesa, CA
Eco­log­i­cal Options Net­work, Boli­nas, CA
Take a look at the slimy e-mails for your­self– it ain’t pretty. Drop us a line if you find some­thing juicy or incriminating.

Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “PG&E Suggested “Prozac” for Those Injured by Smart Meters– SCE Schemed Higher Fees to Force Smart Meters on the Poor

  1. Kevin J Lankford

    Sounds like the same kind of people that are running our government.

     
  2. Thanks for an excellent update. I had studied smart meters a few years ago and last year the owners of the property of 1500 homes where we lived installed meters on each house, making the number of three meters on each house. There was no withdrawing out of it since we were renting. I had called the managers and asked them to investigate problems arising, but zilch was done.
    I recently found out the company is headquartered in San Fran. Go figure.
    After several years with excellent rental history, we sadly moved.

     
  3. A smart meter was installed outside my home without our consent. So we asked that it be removed. Months later, PG&E finally sent a woman to take it down. We are now charged extra for NOT having a smart meter, but it’s worth it.

     
    • you save money and health by not having it…..they have various charges for everything plugged in and charge more for what is used more, like blowdryers, electric stoves, and washing machines. It’s all a scam.

       
  4. For folks without a smart meter, go to this link: http://www.rockytopfreedom.com/topics/agenda21.htm
    Scroll down to SMART METERS, and click on the SAMPLE LETTER TO SEND TO YOUR POWER COMPANY. Several people used that letter, (sent return receipt requested) and never got smart meters in their area when other homes did. Also, there is a ton of information as to how to get rid of a smart meter if you’ve had one installed.
    We used the sample letter, and it worked for us, as well as having my husband make a stainless steel cage that is locked over our analog meter. Our local Knoxville Utility Board (KUB) got 3.6 million grant from DOE for smart meter installations.
    Also, please check all the other info under smart meters. This website is run by ROCKY TOP FREEDOM CAMPAIGN, and I am their secretary. Peter runs the website and does an amazing job of collecting information for public use.

     
  5. thankyou very much for the info Kelleigh, they are up to more evil,nazi tricks. They should all be behind bars. These smart meters report everything that goes on in your house right back to the power co.

     
  6. Excellent post, Kelleigh!

     
  7. From testimonies I have read and seen smart meters also have nasty habit of causing fires besides all of the negative medical side effects or their EM RF smog.
    This makes me think back to Lucifer’s first term where he forced through the digital TV agenda to the point of having gubmint subsidized digital converter boxes. Being a techie from wayyyyyy back one thing I know is that digital offers those in power increased ability to spy and gather data on viewers. I am not connected to cable for TeeVee and covered the cam and mic in my 9 year old flat screen TV with duct tape, as well as laptop and desktop monitor cam and mic……you’re getting veeryyyy sleepy, yessss sleeeeppppp

     
  8. I taped a big notice on my meter telling them I DIDN’T want their smart meter. When they came around to install,they left the old one,but I was told it’d cost me $5.00/month to have someone come from Battle Mountain (74 miles West) to read it. THEN they decided to replace the meter with another one just like it,and billed me $50.00 for that. Apparently everything else is business as usual.

     
    • oh yeah, they want to gouge everyone. What’s interesting is a fireman or a KUB fella came to the door one day (I don’t recall which) and told me that having the meter locked up was dangerous inasmuch as if there was a fire, they couldn’t turn off the electric. I said to him, “I know that’s not true, and how easy it would be to break the box anyway. As well, it prevents the changing of my meter to a spy meter.” He just smiled and I don’t know if it was a smile that I’d get one whether I liked it or not, or that he agreed with me. At any rate, that’s been a few years and still no smart meter.

       

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *