google-site-verification=wKUCdb2vUG52kkOWQB1wJ2X8FS2spmZScBWWvph7SdY
 

Warning:  Opt Out Decision
Coming Dec. 4th...


and it's NOT good news.

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:



        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:
 


Comments


Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply

    Archives

    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All
    Cpuc
    Dept. Of Transportation
    Health Effects
    Opt Out
    Safety
    Wireless Radiation