Public Utility Commissions - Responsible for Safe and Reliable Electricity?

Houston, we have a (no good, horrible, terrible, bad awful) problem

“Not taking a stand is taking a stand.” - source unknown

Strategies for Late Lessons from Early Warnings

The European Environmental Agency published its first volume of “Late Lessons From Early Warnings” in 2001, and a follow up second report in 2013. “The case studies across both volumes of Late lessons from early warnings cover a diverse range of chemical and technological innovations and highlight a number of systemic problems. The 'Late Lessons Project' illustrates how damaging and costly the misuse or neglect of the precautionary principle can be, using case studies and a synthesis of the lessons to be learned and applied to maximising innovations whilst minimising harms.”

The preface to the second volume states, “The report has been designed, structured and written in order to, inter alia, help politicians, policymakers and the public to:

1. understand better the ways in which scientific knowledge is financed, created, evaluated, ignored, used and misused in taking timely and precautionary decisions about how to reduce harms, whilst stimulating benign innovations and generating useful employment;

2. learn from some very expensive 'mistakes' in the past so as to help societies make fewer mistakes now, and in the future, especially with some of the relatively new, largely unknown, yet already widespread technologies like nanotechnology and mobile phones;

3. be aware of less visible, important factors such as the skewed ways in which the costs of actions and inactions for hazardous technologies have been estimated, and the role that some businesses have played in ignoring early warnings and in manufacturing doubt about the science supporting such warnings;

4. consider how the law, or administrative arrangements, could be better used to deliver justice, to those people (and ecosystems) that have been, or could be, harmed by poorly designed, or badly deployed, innovations;

5. explore how best to engage the public in helping to make strategic choices over innovations, and their technological and social pathways, as well as their involvement in ecosystems management and in long term monitoring through citizen science.

Regarding smart meters, we owe a debt of gratitude to efforts from dedicated “citizen scientists” who went to great lengths to chronicle the real-world impacts and negative health consequences that have unfolded as the result of placing 21st technology on a 19th century distribution system.

Nearly every state utility commission that considered authorizing the installation of so-called ‘smart meters’ received information from the public about the risks and damages associated with installing wireless and powerline devices on the grid, either/or both before and after deployment. (I do not know of any exceptions.)

2015: CPUC President Peevey “There really are people who feel pain related to EMF”

California’s Pacific Gas & Electric was one of the first utilities to deploy next generation ‘smart’ meters, with stimulus funding during the Obama administration.

The historical record clearly portrays the evolution in thinking about direct harm by the President of the California Public Utilites Commission, from 2010 to 2015, as reported by the EMF Safety Network.

“In April 2010 the EMF Safety Network filed a CPUC application on smart meters. We asked for a moratorium, an independent technical review, evidentiary hearings on health and safety, and the right to opt out.

In December 2010 CPUC President Michael Peevey approved PG&E’s motion to dismiss our application. He stated “I believe that relying on the FCC in this case is reasonable, prudent and fully consistent with our responsibilities to provide safe and reliable electric service to ratepayers.” He concluded his statements by stating, “You should take these concerns to the FCC, it’s the proper body.”

Nearly five years later 65,000 emails between PG&E and the CPUC have been publicly released. Emails reveal the collusion between CPUC and PG&E. They discussed the smart meter problems privately, violating their own rules of procedure.

In September 2010 Peevey emailed PG&E’s Brian Cherry on smart meters. He did not say he thought we should take the issue to the FCC.

Peevey believed people were suffering from smart meters. He believed PG&E should do something about it. However, instead of regulating the utility to ensure public safety, he deferred his lawful responsibility to PG&E.

Michael Peevey wrote, “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 and they can produce a doctor’s letter saying so (or expressing concern about the likelihood of suffering same). 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 becoming 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.”- EMF Safety Network

Other states followed suit by delegating the responsibility to the utilities, figuring out how much they could surcharge customers who could be hurt or were hurt (or choosing not to provide an opt out) and ignoring the late lessons from early warnings.

How Did the Grid and the Ground Get Dirty?

In this video, Dave Stetzer and the late Martin Graham explained that utilities inherited a problem, but also identity some of the problematic choices that have been made, including allowing the use of the earth as the return (not allowed in Europe) rather than installing larger neutrals. (1 1/2 hours and an excellent primer for anyone who wants to understand the history, including the data regarding cows and dairy milk production, which cannot be dismissed as mental illness.)

Justified alarm is growing, again concerning the choices, both historical and recent, coming from an unexpected quarter: state utility regulators, who are charged with ensuring the safe and reliable delivery of electric service.

Rather than investigating and addressing the possibility of a “very expensive mistake,” utility regulators, in lock step with politicians and clean energy advocates, have reduced the meter safety issue to the question of opt out fees for health vulnerable customers, across the country.

Some states, including Pennsylvania, have ignored the health and safety issues all together.

Here is a snapshot of some recent developments.

New York: Will Not Post Any Comments Related to Health

In its 2024 summary - New York Safe Utility Meter Association (NYSUMA) New Yorkers Need the Protection of Legislation for Utility Meter Choice Summary of Relevant Facts, NYSUMA stated,

“For over a decade, the NYSPSC and utility companies have continued to ignore health, safety, security and privacy complaints about digital meters: This is documented in NYSPSC proceedings dating back to 2010.3 In 2016, the NYSPSC suddenly refused to post public comments “if they related to health”. This is a dereliction of the NYSPSC’s duty to protect and serve the best interests of New Yorkers. Presently, there is no way to know how many public comments the NYSPSC receives and simply discards.”

New Mexico: $100,000 fine for each document submitted by New Mexicans for Utility Safety that mentions either health or environment

The Cellular Phone Task Force reports: “New Mexico is the only state in the US, and possibly the only jurisdiction in the world, that has so far prevented the installation of smart meters on the basis of health and environmental protection. Beginning in 2016, NMUS has loaded successive smart meter proceedings with evidence that wireless radiation in general, and smart meters in particular, are lethal to living things — people, birds, animals, plants, insects, and everything else — and therefore should never be approved. And for the last nine years, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (NMPRC), has repeatedly denied applications for smart meters, while postponing the evaluation of that evidence.

Now, the NMPRC has refused to ever evaluate that evidence.

On October 17, 2024, the NMPRC issued its Final Order on Public Service Company of New Mexico’s (PNM’s) latest application for smart meters. In its Order, it both approved the installation of 550,000 smart meters in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and other cities, and issued a threat to NMUS: henceforth the NMPRC will fine NMUS up to $100,000 for each document submitted by NMUS that mentions either health or environment.”

Rhode Island- Company shall not be liable for damage

RI Energy has been sending documents to the RI Public Utilities Commission for the past few months regarding Opting Out from the current AMR (one-way communicating) meters prior to the rollout of the Smart Meters in early 2025.

"The Company shall not be liable for damage to the person or property of the Customer or any other persons resulting from the use of electricity or the presence of the Company’s appliances
and equipment on the Customer’s premises."

https://ripuc.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur841/files/2024-09/24-38-GE-Electric%20AMR%20%26%20AMF%20Opt-Out%20%28PUC%209-19-24%29.pdf

(Proposed, may not be approved as written)

Who is Responsible for Collecting the Data to Support Informed Decision Making?

The choice of New York’s regulator not to post health complaints into the official public record may or may not be widespread, but no one has asked.

The larger problem is that these regulatory agencies have not been held responsible for gathering and responding to the data about injuries related to non-ionizing radiation and grid infrastructure. This issue extends all the way to the FCC.

Citizens is some jurisdictions have attempted to file complaints with local and state health authorities (including for air pollution pure tone violations) - to no avail. (One noticeable exception was the advocacy for residents in Pittsfield MA harmed by a poorly placed industrial-scale cell tower.)

Coming Soon: Where Did the ‘Safety Research’ Come From in the First Place and What Was It?

There is another chapter to the tale of how utility regulators justified their assumptions that they were dealing with hysteria, mental illness, and nocebo, and not a real concern demanding action. Coming soon.

As a prelude, on November 15, Bermex published an industry-centric article “Boosting Smart Meter Adoption Through Education”, stating

“Electric smart meters bring a range of benefits to utilities and their customers, from real-time usage insights and reduced energy costs to improved grid reliability. The Edison Foundation projects a 71% increase in smart meter installations between 2017 and 2025, with 128 million meters already in use across the U.S. by 2023. Additionally, over 15 million homes and businesses joined time-varying pricing programs in 2022, highlighting the growing adoption of smart energy solutions. Smart meters provide customers with information and control over their home energy use, yet, customer adoption of these advanced meters often lags, largely due to a lack of awareness or misunderstandings about their potential. Utilities have an opportunity to engage customers and build trust by educating them on how smart meters can positively impact their energy bills, the environment, and overall service reliability. By clearly communicating the benefits, addressing common questions, and demonstrating the long-term value, utilities can help their customers make informed choices, ultimately increasing smart meter adoption and creating a more resilient energy network.” Truth: An in-depth review of the scientific literature by the World Health Organization revealed that the small amount of radio frequency (RF) energy produced by smart meters is not harmful to human health. RF emitted by smart meters is well below the limits set by the Federal Communications Commission and it is below levels produced by other common household devices like cell phones, baby monitors, satellite TVs, and microwaves. A person would have to be exposed to the RF from a smart meter for 375 years to get a dose equivalent to that of one year of 15-minute-per-day cell phone use. With over 25,000 articles published on the topic over the last 30 years, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals.” -Bermex (NOTE: this is NOT true.)

Industry talking points are misleading and unsubstantiated, and have been in use for years, without scrutiny. I contacted Bermex to ask for the source and the calculations regarding the smart meter claims. I will share soon what engaged activists know about safety claims, with the caveat that it is difficult to stomach. As a hint, the non-profit Smart Energy Consumer Collaborative has no consumers, and this video represents money spent on “messaging methods” and indoctrination that could have been spent on safety research. This can stop, now.

There are three thoughts that those new to the issue of smart meters can keep in mind.

1. Twenty years ago, researchers demonstrated that the progression towards disease diagnosis can, in many cases, be detected years in advance, via various auto-inflammatory markers, before an individual experiences any symptoms or before a disease diagnosis is available. See interview with Nathan Crane and Dr. Tom O’Bryan “Shocking: Why Alzheimer's and Dementia Diagnoses Are Rising, Dr. Tom O'Bryan | Nathan Crane Podcast.” Dementia diagnosis are rising. These are broken brains. Although ratepayers may assume that the new grid technology is benign for them and their health, we have the ability to use newer testing methods, none of which have been applied in the supposed 25,000 studies, which, upon careful reading, were not done on utility meters. Equating a smart meter to the use of a microwave oven and a cellphone is a misleading psychological manipulation.

2. One way to test for the effects of an environmental exposure is to remove the triggering agent and measure for improvements and document the results, and this is already being done.

3. As of this writing, the collective of utility commissions have no actionable data, by design. Looking at historical citizen science including surveys and personal accounts is the only avenue for consideration, along with the efforts of independent researchers and health care providers. In the next article, we will share some of that work, which needs to be emphasized and elevated.

The Ever-Revolving Door

An under-rated issue is the revolving door between regulatory appointments and lucrative industry positions. A colleague recently noted that “former CPUC Commissioner Carla Peterman is now working for Pacific Gas & Electric Company as its Executive Vice President for Corporate Affairs. Hired in 2021, she's "responsible for developing and implementing strategies for all aspects of corporate affairs, including regulatory; federal, state and local government relations; public policy; and charitable giving." She's working with President Patti Poppe (formerly of Consumers Energy in Michigan).”

Utility Regulators Are Not Alone

Utility regulators were not the only ones who looked the other way on the multitude of smart meters issues. State legislators have also cast a blind eye, with a few notable exceptions.

Here, former Senator Patrick Colbeck of Michigan, who is an aerospace engineer, discussed another problem: Security (8 minutes)

Thanks for being here.

We make corrections to these posts as needed.

1. The caption for the meter bank in the post “Smart Meter Science: If It's a Digital/Electronic Meter, It's a Problem” was corrected to read “Bank of wireless meters across from a senior living facility in Massachusetts.” The meters are across the street from, and not on, the senior center. We regret the misunderstanding.

2. In the post “Digital Meters That Look Like Analogues The Snowflake Tower, The Trojan Meter, The Stealth Meter, and Holy Moly- Is my meter a MEDUSA? we inserted a direct quote from a newspaper report about decision about a cell tower near a community devoted to serving those with environmental illnesses (MCS/EHS). The article identified Nina Beatty as a commenter at the hearing, however the actual spelling of her name is Nina Beety. We copied the text verbatim.