Is this a statement from the "non-prejudicial" judge?

“It is in everyone’s interest to promote moving to smart meters.” 

- Judge Amy Yip-Kikugawa, CPUC proposed decision. 

What you can do:

1.)   Send your comments by November 18th via email to:

• Judge Amy Yip-Kikugawa at amy.yip-kikugawa@cpuc.ca.gov, and

• President Michael Peevey’s advisor Manisha Lakhanpal at ml2@cpuc.ca.gov

        Please CC info@stopOCsmartmeters.com with your public comments.

2.)  You can also request to meet with the Commissioners in person.

3.)  Go to the CPUC meetings and speak out. (The CPUC is located at 505 Van Ness Ave San Francisco CA.) The next three PUC meetings are:

• November 20th 9:30am
• December 4th 9:30am
• December 18th 9:30am

 4.)  Donate:  Please consider donating to CEP to help with the legal filings at the CPUC.  They are true heroes that work for you and your Opt Out.  Any amount helps....

SUMMARY OF CPUC PROPOSED DECISION ON OPT OUT PROCEEDING

The following is from the EMF Safety Network, intervenors in California’s Phase 2 smart meter opt out proceeding:

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Judge Amy Yip-Kikugawa and President Michael Peevey have issued two proposed decisions in the smart meter opt-out proceeding.

Here’s a recap of what they state:

• Give 37 million dollars to Investor Owned Utilities (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E and So Cal Gas) for providing the opt-out program.  (Ed.  Who audits and verifies these supposedly necessary costs?)

 

• Adopt permanent fees for residential customers who “do not wish to have a wireless smart meter”.

 

• Continue the same interim fees of $75 initial fee, plus $10 a month, and $10 initial fee and $5 a month for low income.

 

• Local governments and multi-unit dwellings may not collectively opt out of smart meter installations.

 

• Charging an opt-out fee does not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

 

• They will not address health and safety impacts in this decision.

 

• Assess fees on a per location basis, for example if you have two or more meters on your property, that will be one fee, per utility company.

 

• If you have two utilities, they can both charge you fees.  (Ed. Southern California Edison AND Southern California Gas will EACH charge fees.  PG&E and SDG&E areas only get charged one fee.)

 

• Peevey proposes putting a cap on the opt-out fees at 3 years.

 

• Both Peevey and Yip-Kikugawa refuse to consider a no fee option.

A proposed decision is not necessarily the final authority. In 2011 the proposed decision stated the opt-out meter for PG&E would be a radio-off smart meter. After strong public opposition the final decision allowed for the analog meter.

According to CEP:  Once this proceeding is closed - likely in December, 2014, the CPUC decisions will be followed. The current opt-outs could become more expensive or be taken away, at any time in the future, the way the interim CPUC plan was written. We are very concerned that what doctors say are hazardous smart meters could be forced on us all, once again. We are concerned about those who cannot afford the opt-out fees, about those subjected to large banks of meters, about commercial meters that don't even qualify now for an opt-out - about smart meters harming the public with little recourse.

CPUC PROPOSED DECISION AND RESPONSE

The Center for Electrosmog Protection (CEP) presented a strongly worded critique, pointing out that health and safety, denied as a factor by Administrative Law Judge Yip-Kikugawa and Head Commissioner Michael Peevey (see below), is required to be considered; that opt-out fees should be lowered or eliminated; and that Community Opt-outs must be allowed.

Here is the CEP Comment on the Proposed Decisions:

• ALJ Amy Yip-Kikugawa’s Proposed Decision
• Michael Peevey’s Alternate Proposed Decision
• All CEP Opt-outs filings and related documents are found onhttps://www.scribd.com/PreventElectroSmog/collections

The US Dept. of Transportation is accepting comments until midnight, Monday, Oct. 20. 

When you think things can’t get crazier, things get crazier.  If this is approved, all American-made cars will be wireless.

 Learn about wireless microwave radiation

Submit Your Comments in 3 Places:

1. Comment here:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=NHTSA-2014-0022-0002
2. Comment here (Research Report):  http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2014-0022
3. Comment here:  Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) Communications 
   

=============

From Stop Smart Meters! -

Peril on the Road: Submit Comments to Dept. of Transportation on Wireless Mandated Vehicles THIS WEEKEND

Aside from health, what are the safety implications of ramping up wireless exposures to millions of electro-intolerant drivers?
 
Not in our car!

US Department of Transportation Set to “Mandate” 5.8 GHz Wireless Antennas in all Cars proposing to require “vehicle-to-vehicle wireless communication in all light vehicles in the United States.
 
Please make a comment this weekend even if it is a brief statement.  Building a record of opposition is very important.
 
It’s not going to make our roadways any safer if we’re causing heart problems, blurry vision, or headaches in drivers.

Comments:

Document Contents : ...TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0022] RIN 2127-AL55 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Vehicle-to...
Proposed Rule by NHTSA on 08/20/2014 ID: NHTSA-2014-0022-0002

Include in the subject line and at the top of your comments:   Docket No.NHTSA–2014–0022
 
Quote from the USDOT press release:
“Safety is our top priority, and V2V technology represents the next great advance in saving lives,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. 

From a press release in February:
“V2V technology does not involve exchanging or recording personal information or tracking vehicle movements. The information sent between vehicles does not identify those vehicles, but merely contains basic safety data. In fact, the system as contemplated contains several layers of security and privacy protection to ensure that vehicles can rely on messages sent from other vehicles and that a vehicle or group of vehicles would be identifiable through defined procedures only if there is a need to fix a safety problem.”
 
Just like Smart Meters.
 
Learn more at www.safercar.gov/v2v

§Read the ANPRM
§Read “Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications: Readiness of V2V Technology for Application” research report
§The ANPRM will be available at the Regulations.gov docket (NHTSA-2014-0022) and members of the public will have the opportunity to comment for 60 days
§Go to NHTSA’s V2V Communications site for more information

Due:  Monday, Oct 20, 2014 11:59 PM EST