Pittsburgh – ‘Smart meters’ on electricity are not so smart and State Rep Mark Mustio agrees

We need more politicians like Mark Mustio to jump ship…Sandaura

‘Smart meters’ on electricity are not so smart

Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Share with others:

Those in Duquesne Light’s service area are already paying a small fee for the new smart meters, but the worst is yet to come. These devices are required by law and Duquesne must install them unless the law is changed.

In some cases, smart meters add 20 percent to the electric cost and do not save money for customers or reduce the amount of electricity used. That’s the clear finding wherever they’ve been studied: California, Michigan, Illinois, Connecticut, Ontario and Germany also agree that they are a bad deal. Some communities have stopped them or let the homeowner opt out.

The Pennsylvania Legislature has not studied the costs or benefits, but members will soon consider removing this requirement in Act 129 (2008), which requires installation of smart meters in all our homes.

They are not cost effective and, worse yet, the utility can observe what you are doing and control your air conditioning and heat.My state representative, Mark Mustio (R-Moon), agrees that smart meters should be stopped. Do your state senator and state representative want to add another cost and control — or do they work for you?

Peter K. Sour
Sewickley

The Wise Grid Series, Part 1: Smart Meters Are Not Smart by Camilla Rees

The Wise Grid Series, Part 1: Smart Meters Are Not Smart

5/27/2015 9:48:00 AM

Tags: smart meters, electricity, clean energy, smart grids, Camilla Rees

Smart Meter

When we look at important issues facing our nation today, we inevitably find commercial interests influencing policy. Industries, understandably, are eager to advance their own agendas. Briefings and impact analyses presented to policymakers can be incomplete for this reason. They can tell a narrow, limited story to attract government support—whether for a contract, funding, or legislation. Unfortunately, important sides to the story that are highly relevant to quality of life in America are often left out.

This scenario is playing out today in the U.S. electricity sector, where federal spending to help the utility industry is having unintended negative consequences for our economy, privacy, the environment, safety, security and health, while stalling our transition to a renewable energy economy, with consequences of its own.

As was explained in the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy’s Getting Smarter About the Smart Grid report by Timothy Schoechle, PhD, the new meters help the utility industry’s bottom line, as by a law the utilities can charge ratepayers enough to recoup their investment, plus an additional a 10-13 percent return, depending on the state. But the billions spent on meters is wasting federal tax dollars, increasing ratepayer utility bills and, importantly, not delivering on the benefits claimed.

The ‘story’ about the value of the “smart” meters is that the meters are necessary to upgrade the electricity grid, that they have energy efficiency benefits, and that installing them will facilitate integration of renewable energy technologies. This is what communities across the country are being told. None of these claims are true.

Wasting billions of taxpayer money on unneeded new meters would have been bad enough if the meters had been safely hard-wired. But the meters are wireless, which means they come with additional risks, such as privacy, security, health, fire and safety risks. The former head of the CIA James Woolsey called the vulnerability of the new grid using wireless technology a “really, really stupid grid”. It is no wonder there are protests about the “smart” meters in dozens of states today. The award-winning film on this topic, Take Back Your Power, of which I was an Executive Producer, is a must-watch film to get up to speed on this whole topic.

There will be national economic consequences from propping up utilities set on resisting transformation to a renewable energy economy. As other countries race ahead to tap into the potential for clean energy abundance, our industries in the end will suffer in the global marketplace if the U.S. does not reconfigure its electricity system to embrace distributed, renewable energy and the rooftop revolution.

More than likely, fortunately, as Tim Schoechle, PhD discusses in Getting Smarter About the Smart Grid, the revolution will happen from the bottom up through innovative communities moving to secure their renewable energy future, like Boulder, CO is doing. And, through innovative technologies, such as advances in storage.

Very recently, Tesla announced a battery for the home, the Powerwall, a leapfrog forward offering consumers the ability to store backup power, minimize peak time use of utilities’ electricity at high prices and even get off the power grid entirely.

Transformation of the electricity sector may be able to be delayed by wasting billions of federal tax dollars on unnecessary meters, and large long-distance transmission lines, but it cannot be stopped. It may be a politically rocky transition for the foreseeable future, but I am confident America will certainly achieve energy independence and clean energy abundance.

9 Problems with the Smart Meters and Present Electricity Approach

1. Data to be collected by the smart meters, including intimate personal details of citizens’ lives, is not necessary to the basic purpose of the smart grid, such as supply/demand balancing, demand response (DR), dynamic pricing, renewable integration, or local generation and storage, as promoters of the meters, and uninformed parties, routinely claim.

2. Federal, state and local governments have mistakenly believed that the installation of smart meters will somehow lead to reduction in use of fossil fuels, greater electricity efficiency and long-term energy economy benefits for the U.S. In fact, efforts to further develop and standardize those technologies that could achieve those goals have languished, while investments with stimulus funding have instead been made in technologies that merely serve the short-term economic interests of the utility industry and its suppliers instead of the interests of a true smart grid which could economically integrate renewable technologies and distributed, or decentralized, power generation.

3. Much of the multi-billion dollar federal subsidy for smart meters does not benefit ratepayers, nor support economic growth, but primarily benefits meter and meter networking manufacturers, while financially propping up unsustainable Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs). Regulated utilities can charge back their capital investments to ratepayers, with a guaranteed 10-13 percent rate of return (ROR) on assets, by law. Thus, investors in utilities gain from the smart meter deployment, as they would from any other capital expenditure, while there is no clear gain and significant new risks (privacy, security, health & safety, costs) for the ratepayer. The allocation of stimulus dollars to subsidize smart meters has also been a net job destroyer, eliminating meter readers and creating manufacturing jobs overseas, while being an egregious waste of federal resources that only supports corporate interests and delays the needed transformation of the electricity grid.

4. Because Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) are paid on a per-kilowatt-of-energy-sold basis, and also receive a guaranteed rate of return on assets, they do not have a financial incentive to encourage less energy usage, or to invest in technologies that would help citizens reduce energy consumption.

5. Because coal plants must run at near capacity to achieve necessary economies of scale, adding renewable energy to the power mix may be in fact cost-additive for utilities, not cost-reducing, and ultimately cost-additive for ratepayers. Thus, there is an inherent conflict between coal-based power generation, the dominant means of electricity generation in the U.S., and a transition to renewable energy technologies that could lead to sustainability. The report recommends the U.S. “move away from dependency on baseload generation, particularly coal, as quickly as possible” to facilitate renewable integration and reach our potential for energy independence.

6. Despite paying lip service to the public’s interest in incorporating renewable energy, as evidence in their marketing materials, utilities actually ‘curtail’, or waste, much of the renewable energy now generated in order to protect the economics of investor-owned coal plants. This explains why state initiatives wanting to fulfill the promise of a 30 percent or higher renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is practically impossible in a coal baseload system. The paper suggests that decommissioning coal plants, possibly through a public bailout, may be required to move the United States to a renewable energy future.

7.  U.S. policy statements “reflect the mistaken belief that the basic solutions involve fixing or modernizing the existing electricity grid, rather than complete structural transformation of electrical service, which goes beyond particular ‘smart’ technologies.” In reality, shaving peak energy usage by shifting loads may actually increase energy bills as well as CO2 emissions by increasing dependency on coal baseload generation—the most expensive generation there is when considering the totality of subsidies and externalized costs. Increasing baseload dependency will not lower energy costs, as it appears our Administration believes, and it will further obstruct integration of renewable sources.

8.  Expected growth in electric vehicles within a coal-based system will only worsen the nation’s baseload dependency, thus making the needed shift away from coal to a renewable energy future that much more pressing.

9.  Leadership in the energy sector is unlikely to come from the top, due to conflicts of interest and ‘regulatory capture’ unless forced by a catastrophic event or consequence. At present, there appears to be little evidence utilities and their regulators want to or know how to make the needed changes to the utility business model, leaving it to the American public, through community-based initiatives and municipalization efforts, to drive the needed change toward renewable technologies and distributed, non-centralized power generation—as is now happening in such places as Boulder, Colorado.

When I learned billions of dollars were wasted on meters purporting to be “smart,” I realized how desperately we need accountability in Washington. The magnitude of the misspending is mind-boggling. I wonder how policymakers could not have understood the technology’s limitations. Did they just not do their homework, swayed by utility industry lobbyists? Did they not realize stimulus funding could have been better spent on other investments to move us forward faster toward a clean energy economy? Is there any mechanism at all in Washington to independently evaluate the impact of potential spending, and to make decisions strategically with long-term impacts in mind?

In the next blog post in The Wise Grid series, my colleague, Tim Schoechle, PhD will summarize his critique of the recent “Future of the Grid” report by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Gridwise Alliance. Stay tuned!


All MOTHER EARTH NEWS community bloggers have agreed to follow our Blogging Best Practices, and they are responsible for the accuracy of their posts. To learn more about the author of this post, click on the byline link at the top of the page.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/renewable-energy/smart-meters-are-not-smart-zbcz1505.aspx

Anti-smart meter campaigner’s electromagnetic pain claim rejected, ordered to pay legal costs

There is a  universal principle “The Bigger the front the larger the back.  This will come back to bite the criminals who are forcing the RF/emf radiation pollution on humanity.  How disgustingly vile and apprehensible the actions of  political systems trickling down to those financially and the politically aligned who are harming the entire population; without conscience or any sensitivity toward those already suffering in their own homes!!  You are counting on the majority who are by choice and some by ignorance ignoring their responsibility that being, standing up to the soulless creatures who have this corrupt power over us.  I say soulless because your actions prove this issue is bigger than just one person’s voice or one person pain and anguish.  How dare you punish those who are simply trying to protect themselves.   I express this with such loathing for the collective consciousness that has no face or accountability, but all those who are complicit in contributing to that destructive machine; you are part of the problem and part of the crime being committed on humanity.  For that, there is a price that you will pay, call it judgment, karma, selling your soul to the devil.  It is not worth it in the end.  Criminals always get caught eventually…..  Sandaura

Anti-smart meter campaigner’s electromagnetic pain claim rejected, ordered to pay legal costs 

Troels Sommerville

  • From: Moorabbin Kingston Leader
  • April 29, 2015 12:00AM

Sofia Telemzouguer. Picture: Tanya Fry

Sofia Telemzouguer. Picture: Tanya Fry Source: News Limited

ANTI-smart meter campaigner Sofia Telemzouguer has been slapped with $9500 legal costs after failing to turn up to a tribunal hearing because she was worried about being exposed to electromagnetic radiation.

The Cheltenham woman was taking United Energy to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in a bid to get compensation from the electricity provider for disconnecting her power after she removed a new smart meter and reinstalled her old analog one.

Ms Telemzouguer asked for the hearing to be heard in Moorabbin because of her claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation.

She said “wi-fi hot spots and cell phone towers” in Melbourne’s CBD, where the case was to be heard, would cause her pain.

But the tribunal did not accept her excuse and Ms Telemzouguer has been ordered to pay United Energy’s legal costs for “failing to comply with an order without a reasonable excuse”.

“I was just asking for a little bit of consideration for my disability,” she said.

Ms Telemzouguer and daughter Larissa, 15, had to live by candlelight from March to August 2014. Ms Telemzouguer said she removed the smart meter because it made her ill.

Her power was switched on again when the tribunal issued an interim order in August for United Energy to keep her connected until the matter was decided.

But the case has been put on hold until she pays the $9500.

Ms Telemzouguer ran as the Bentleigh candidate for People Power Victoria — No Smart Meters in last year’s state election.

The tribunal said it could not comment on an ongoing case.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/anti-smart-meter-campaigners-electromagnetic-pain-claim-rejected-ordered-to-pay-legal-costs/story-fngnvli9-1227324301485

For those with fears about smart meters even the opt-out device is a concern

For those with fears about smart meters even the opt-out device is a concern

Suzanne Somers Recognizes that Smart Meters are part of the “ellectrification of America”

I often wonder why celebrities are not using their power and influence to speak out about these issues.  Holding a cell phone to your ear in a scripted scene is irresponsible and not accurate.  What about celebrities personal life?  Do they have wired phones and computers, but keep it quiet because they don’t want to lose work for socio or political stances that aren’t popular?  I commend you Suzanne for even mention smart meters in your piece.  Electro pollution is the cause of so many of the illnesses you describe, but because misinformation is industry driven it keeps things unresolved.  The truth is in front of every one who takes the time to do their own research and you will wake up to the reality that is needing our attention. This is not a situation one can simply manage or cope with; it is a situation that if ignored humanity will be destroyed…..Sandaura
 

** FILE ** In this May 24, 2010, file photo, actress Suzanne Somers attends the premiere of "Sex And The City 2" at Radio City Music Hall in New York. (AP Photo/Peter Kramer, file)
** FILE ** In this May 24, 2010, file photo, actress Suzanne Somers attends the premiere of “Sex And The City 2” at Radio City Music Hall in New York. (AP Photo/Peter Kramer, file) more >

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/6/suzanne-somers-getting-toxic-not-sick/#ixzz3bfl3sARi
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

– – Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Excerpts from Getting From Toxic To Not Sick

Many Americans are making poor dietary and lifestyle choices. Then factor in that cell phone sitting on your night table, emitting electromagnetic radiation, equivalent to putting a microwave oven next to your ear. And what about EMF’s emitting from your computer screen or your ‘smart meter’ installed by your electric company designed to make our lives ‘easier’ (no meter man), yet putting a grid of an electromagnetic field over your entire house.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/6/suzanne-somers-getting-toxic-not-sick/#ixzz3bfjfpPgR
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Attention deficit disorder, attention deficit hyper-activity disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, asthma, autism, bipolarity, autoimmune diseases, multiple sclerosis, lupus, fibromyalgia and the epidemic of cancer. When did these conditions become so utterly commonplace, and why aren’t we more alarmed?

The answer is clear. We are under the greatest environmental assault in history. We have blindly believed that chemicals produced to make our lives easier were safe. But you don’t ‘get something for nothing,’ and now the chickens have come home to roost.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/6/suzanne-somers-getting-toxic-not-sick/#ixzz3bfjVKQPF

INSIDE ENERGY: Why Smart Meters Don’t Make A Smart Grid

Power transmission lines march across the Shirley Basin in central Wyoming.<img src=”/sites/wpr/files/styles/default/public/201505/transmission-lines-2.png” alt=”Power transmission lines march across the Shirley Basin in central Wyoming.”>

Power transmission lines march across the Shirley Basin in central Wyoming.

INSIDE ENERGY: Why Smart Meters Don’t Make A Smart Grid

On an overcast Florida afternoon five years ago, standing in front of a vast array of solar panels, President Obama pledged to modernize the nation’s power grid. He compared its current state to the road system before interstate highways. “It was a tangled maze of poorly maintained back roads that were rarely the fastest or the most efficient way to get from point A to point B,” he said.

On that Friday, Obama promised $3.4 billion dollars of stimulus money from the 2009 Recovery Act to do for power what the Eisenhower administration did for the roads. The new grid would be smart and efficient, bringing the tech revolution to electricity. It would incorporate more renewable energy. It would have the ability to fix blackouts more quickly. And, it would save customers a whole lot of money.

So whatever happened to that plan?

In practice, the President’s lofty goals have taken shape mostly in the form of a technology called smart meters. Like a FitBit for your house, the meters collect data about a home’s electricity use several times an hour and then send that data to your power company. In his Florida speech, Obama declared they would lay the foundation for a modern grid—and be good for customers too.

“Coupled with other technologies, this is going to help you manage your electricity use and your budget at the same time,” the President said.

Those are things Cole Manlove would like to do. He’s a high school math teacher, married, two kids—an average American guy.  He is also a customer of Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power, which like many other utilities, received stimulus money to install smart meters for all of its nearly 40,000 customers.

Cole Manlove is a customer of Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power, which received stimulus funding to install smart meters for all of its 40,000 customers.<img src=”/sites/wpr/files/styles/default/public/201505/colemanlove.png” alt=”Cole Manlove is a customer of Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power, which received stimulus funding to install smart meters for all of its 40,000 customers.”>

Cole Manlove is a customer of Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power, which received stimulus funding to install smart meters for all of its 40,000 customers.
Credit Stephanie Joyce / Wyoming Public Media

At his house on a recent snowy spring afternoon, I told him about smart meters and he pulled out his electricity bill to see what kind of information it contained about his electricity use. Not much.  The bill displayed a graph of his family’s month-to-month usage, but nothing to indicate the availability of the treasure trove of data promised by Obama. So, Manlove decided to call up his utility and ask: Was there somewhere else he could access that data?

The young man who answered the call was helpful, if perhaps slightly surprised by Manlove’s interest. It turned out that Manlove could log onto the Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power website to see his electricity use, by the hour. Initially, that seemed exciting, at least for a math teacher.

“I can go on it and see my peak usage during the day and maybe I can adjust my power usage. That would be cool!” Manlove said. After looking at the data though, he was less enthused. “[I] was expecting more. [It’s] the bare minimum on daily usage. That’s it,” he said later.

Even so, just accessing the data puts Manlove in a very select crowd—just 5 percent of all Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power’s customers have looked at their usage on the website.

Smart meters may not have delivered the promised revolution for customers, but they’ve proven a boon for the utility companies.

“For the past 128 years or 129 years, we’ve been going out and manually reading meters,” says Matt Seidel, who is charge of the Utility of the Future vision for Black Hills Corporation, which owns Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power. “Now we’re able to gather significantly improved data.”

Moreover, Seidel notes that the smart meters save the company money by eliminating the need for human meter readers. Moreover, smart meters let the the utility know quickly when there’s an outage, instead of depending on a customer phone call as in the past. When it comes to the bigger goals outlined by Obama, though, like transforming how we receive and consume energy, Seidel is less sure.

“As far as what we can and can’t do with it, I think we’re still in the infancy stages of seeing that,” he says.

Therein lies the rub. The government spent a lot of the stimulus money on installing hardware—the smart meters—but focused less attention on the next steps, like making sure that that hardware would be useful for customers and integrating the data into the operations of the entire grid. Which is not to say there isn’t enormous potential.

“People talk about the internet of things, and what the smart grid is really about is the internet of energy,” says Tom Seibel, CEO of C3 Energy, a company that helps utilities use all the new data they’ve collected from devices like smart meters.

But such a web is still a long way off. It requires huge, systemic changes to the way utilities work, and right now, there’s little business incentive to make those changes in the absence of government grants.

If all smart meters accomplish, though, is cutting costs for utilities and telling us when the power is out, then maybe the smart grid isn’t so smart after all.

http://wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/inside-energy-why-smart-meters-dont-make-smart-grid

Bernie Sanders response to Smart meter issues in Vermont shows his true colors

Looks like Bernie has sold his soul for a bid for the White House….Sandaura

Lockheed Martin in Vermont: Senator Bernie Sanders’ Corporate Conundrum

Bernie-Sanders-Vermont

Originally published in December 2011: Progressive Eclipse – Chapter Ten: Sandia, Citizens United, and Smart Meters

Everyone was talking about the one percent, the few with most of the wealth. The inequality that Bernie Sanders had railed against since his first campaign was becoming indisputable. Therefore, it wasn’t surprising that he was one of the first elected officials to back the Occupy Wall Street movement. Sanders offered practical proposals to address some of its complaints and praised protesters for “shining a national spotlight on the most powerful, dangerous and secretive economic and political force in America.”

EXCERPT:

We have an extraordinary opportunity to show the nation how to use smart grid, how to use energy efficiency to save money for businesses, and for consumers. And how to insure that Vermont is the leader in getting off our addiction to oil.”

He noted that when people asked him how Vermont had snagged so much money for the project, his answer was the partnership the center would represent. “It’s a huge opportunity and a huge accomplishment.”

On the other hand, there was little dispute that having so many interactive devices on two-way networks would create new risks. In fact, Kenneth van Meter, Lockheed’s manager of energy and cyber services, admitted it, predicting that by 2015 there would be “440 million new hackable points on the grid. Nobody’s equipped to deal with that today.”

Asked about cyber threats, Stulen acknowledged that “more portals” certainly did create more potential threats, but countered that “we think this is a manageable situation. In fact, the benefits far outweigh the risks.” The main benefit was the potential for lower utilities bills by monitoring home energy use. But security would also be a focus. “We don’t see it as an overriding issue right now, but as a national laboratory our job is to anticipate the future,” he said.

Smart Meters, the basic unit of a smart grid, are digital, usually wireless utility meters with the ability to collect information and transmit it to a central location. Supporters claim their widespread use will improve energy efficiency, service reliability, and the environment. Critics counter that they also make the power grid more vulnerable to hacking, have potential radiation-related health effects, and don’t really reduce energy consumption. They also charge that “time-of-use” pricing penalizes people who can least afford it, while a centralized grid threatens privacy and gives corporations more access to private data.

Smart meters have also been linked to fires and other damage, but aren’t covered by homeowners insurance because the devices haven’t been industry-approved. Needless to say, such problems and potential side effects didn’t come up at Sanders’ press conference.

Instead, the Senator explained that

“the federal government has invested $4 billion in smart grid technology, and they want to know that we’re going to work out some of the problems as other states follow us. So Vermont, in a sense, becomes a resource for other states to learn how to do it, how to overcome problems that may arise.”

Another way to put that: Vermont would be a testing ground, Sandia’s smart grid guinea pig.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/lockheed-martin-in-vermont-senator-bernie-sanders-corporate-conundrum/5452106

The evidence provided by independent (non-industry affiliated) scientists is overwhelming……

Letters to the Editor

Letter: Ok-Similkameen smart meter moratorium

  • posted May 29, 2015 at 10:00 AM

To the editor:

Re: Regional Distric of Okanagan-Similkameen moratorium on smart meters.

I would like to congratulate and thank the board of the RDOS on passing the resolution asking for the cessation of the smart meter program. This district becomes the 61st municipal body in B.C. asking for caution regarding the installation of these potentially dangerous devices on homes.

The evidence provided by independent (non-industry affiliated) scientists is overwhelming, and has led to more than 200 experts submitting a petition to the United Nations asking for a similar cessation of the proliferation of wireless devices http://www.emfscientist.org/. These 200 scientists have performed more than 2000 peer reviewed studies showing that serious harmful effects are suffered after prolonged exposure to even low levels of microwave radiation. Certain groups are especially vulnerable—the unborn, children, and those with compromised immune systems.

Director Brydon says that if what director Tom Siddon presented is correct then Health Canada is corrupt or incompetent. He is right. A quick look at the recent review of Safety Code 6 Health Canada’s guideline for exposure to microwave radiation, will confirm this consensus by the scientific community http://www.cmaj.ca/site/earlyreleases/7may15_scientists-decry-canadas-outdated-wi-fi-safety-rules.xhtml.

The process itself was mired in controversy. The chair of the Royal Society Panel resigned after his conflicts of interests, taking money from the telecommunication industry, were exposed. Several other members of the panel have long-standing affiliation with the industry and other members have no expertise in the biological effects of wireless radiation.

Health Canada itself selected the studies to be reviewed, cherry picking those that supported the status quo while neglecting more than 150 recent studies, many of which explain causation. The Parliamentary committee reviewing the Royal Panel’s report, chided Health Canada, accusing it of bias and incompetence.

The report has been criticized by many, including Dr. Lennart Hardell, a world renowned researcher on the topic who described Health Canada’s guideline as “a disaster to public health” and based on a scientific analysis “unwilling or not competent to make evaluation of the current literature.”

Yes, Brydon may have inadvertently hit on the crux of the matter. Even though he has no expertise relevant to the biological effects of exposure to microwave radiation he has summarized it well. Health Canada is corrupt and incompetent. This is its history—remember asbestos, lead, tobacco and now microwave radiation.

A shameful history that we must not allow to continue.

Hans Karow, Summerland

http://www.lakecountrycalendar.com/opinion/letters/305489011.html

Smart water meters do not detect a leak, only knows after the leak, any other problems it has no idea!!!

Guest column

Drought ‘Solutions’ Deserve Closer Scrutiny

By JJ Gasparotti

How do all us water wise Lagunatics feel now? We saved and saved water while our neighbors in New porsche Beach kept their sprinklers going full blast right up till the end. The result is they must cut back 28% from their profligate consumption and water wise Laguna has to cut back 24% from our already low consumption level. Doesn’t seem fair does it?

Puts me in mind of an old Murphy’s law, “No good deed goes unpunished.”

Well don’t worry too much because what is going on now is more like a government shutdown before they raise taxes rather than a rational response to drought.

Our use of water in the urban areas is about 10% of the total surface waters in the state. When we multiply the 25% cutback asked of us to by the 10% of the total water that urban areas use, we get a net contribution to the total solution of 2.5%. Not much of a contribution from all those dead lawns, two second showers and flushed every other day toilets.

It sort of seems like when they close the state parks and DMV during a financial crisis. More like they want you to feel the pain, not solve the problem.

Agriculture uses 40% of our surface waters and produces 2% of our economic activity. To really solve a water shortage you could stop flood irrigating monsoon crops in the desert so you can send alfalfa pellets to China’s dairy industry. That would save as much water as we use in all of urban southern California. That isn’t happening.

What is happening is we are being subjected to an old adage in the water industry, “Don’t waste a good drought.” Don’t be surprised when another big water bond is floated in time for the next election. Even though they haven’t found ways to spend the money from the last bond we passed.

The issue with this is a lot of money gets raised and spent in ways that don’t address the real problem.

A local example is the water district’s plans to spend $3 million on smart meters. How will that help?  It won’t. Sure, we’ll be able to check our consumption on line just like the instant MPG reading in our car. Has that improved your gas mileage? Didn’t mine.

A meter reader costs around a $100,000 a year, including benefits. If we fire the meter reader and put in automatic meters, it’ll take 30 years to recover the $3 million cost. But we won’t fire the meter reader; we’ll find something else for them to do. When before they were doing something very important. They were our eyes and ears visiting every water meter in the district six times a year. That smart meter only knows about a leak after the leak, not before. Any other problems, it has no idea.

And that $3 million, wouldn’t it be better spent on building a way to use all that water we dump in the ocean from the Aliso Creek sewer plant? This is millions and millions of gallons a day just going to waste. We need to clean it to potable standards and put it back in our existing distribution system.

Orange County Water District finds this source so valuable that when San Bernardino County wanted to start reclaiming the sewage they dump in the Santa Ana River, reducing that flow, Orange County sued to stop them and won.

Don’t get me wrong. This drought is real and we need to adjust. But we also need to watch out we aren’t sold a bill of goods during that adjustment.

Mark Twain once said, “Water is a funny thing. Money can make it run uphill.”

Let’s make sure our money makes it do that.

Retired general contractor JJ Gasparotti served five years on the Design Review Board and two terms on the Laguna Beach County Water District board.

http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/guest-column-30/

Lloyd’s of London excludes liability coverage for RF/EMF claims including NOISE!

RF NOISE CAN BE WON IN A COURT OF LAW.  THE NOISE HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY MEASURED AND CONFIRMED.  IT IS IN OUR AIR 24/7-NONSTOP!  THE UTILITIES CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES AND WIN IN A COURT OF LAW FIGHTING AGAINST THE NOISE POLLUTION.  IT IS REAL!  LLOYD’S OF LONDON IS WORRIED ABOUT IT, OBVIOUSLY.  BECAUSE ANYONE EXPOSED TO THE GRID IS A POTENTIAL COMPLAINTANT!  WE CAN DO THIS PEOPLE!  THIS IS A CONCRETE CASE FOR US TO WIN AND FOR THE UTILITY TO FINALLY BE BROUGHT DOWN AND MADE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE AUDIBLE TORTURE AND PUBLIC HAZARD THEY HAVE PERPETRATED WITH THEIR SMART GRID TECHNOLOGY….Sandaura

Lloyd’s of London excludes liability coverage for RF/EMF claims

Credit to Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia, for bringing this information to the public. 

Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims,

Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” (Exclusion 32)

This information is from CFC Underwriting Limited, which is a Lloyd’s of London underwriter (page 12-13 of policy document, page 13-14 of pdf), and was posted by Citizens for Safe Technology:

[This] is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s:

“‘The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”
http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168

The policy document is here: http://emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/InsuranceAEWordingCanadav17Feb2015.pdf
Also http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/scribd/Insurance%20AE%20Wording%20Canada%20v1%207%20Feb%202015.pdf

From the Lloyd’s of London policy:

“Exclusions (starting on Page 6 of policy, Page 7 of pdf):

We will not

a) make any payment on your behalf for any claim, or
b) incur any costs and expenses, or
c) reimburse you for any loss, damage, legal expenses, fees or costs sustained by you, or
d) pay any medical expenses:

32. Electromagnetic fields (General Insurance Exclusions –Page 7 of policy):

directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.”

This would include the microwave radiation and electromagnetic radiation emitted from Smart Meters (AMR, AMI, PLC), from Home Area Network devices and appliances (including AC and thermostats), from Wi-Fi transmitters, from wireless devices in schools, offices, and homes, and from wireless sensors and wireless-connected fire alarms.

“This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada.

“Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors’ insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors’ insurance applies when people are performing their duties “in good faith”. It is hard to argue they are acting “in good faith” after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer.

“Consider yourself notified once again that you could be held legally responsible for the decisions you have made.”

Yours truly,
Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

The full letter with policy document is here: http://www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168