RE; Bill S 1864, An Act Relative to Utilities, Smart Meters, and Ratepayer’s Rights Sponsored by Sen. Michael Moore
(also attached as a PDF)
I appreciated very much meeting with those of you who spoke with me when I visited the statehouse on June 12th to ask for support for Senator Moore’s bill S. 1864, An Act relative to Utilities, Smart Meters, and Ratepayer’s Rights.
I discussed expert testimony from smart meter proceedings underway in AZ, MI, NM, and the recent decision by Duke Energy to provide a non-transmitting analogue for a medical practice. I would like to provide the references here. I am also adding Dr. Marino’s testimony from the PN case, and testimony that was provided on behalf of the MI Attorney General.
In particular, I spoke about not only the RF emitted by the meter, but also the issues of radio frequencies riding on the power grid and home wiring and home plumbing, and ground current.
1. EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM ARIZONA, INCLUDING DR. SAM MILHAM:
As part of direct testimony filed in an electric utility rate case in Arizona, Samuel Milham, M.D., M.P.H. stated:
“It is my professional opinion that smart meters are a public health hazard.”
“Because it is at the front end of a building’s wiring, the dirty electricity from the smart meter’s SMPS has a gateway into that building’s wiring, and also into the earth via the house ground. The house wiring acts as an antenna and the fields capacitively couple to the body through the air within 6 to 8 feet of the house wiring or extension cords plugged into the outlets. …”
Pre-Filed Testimony by Samuel Milham, M.D., M.P.H on behalf of Warren Woodward, April 3, 2017; available at http://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000178631.pdf
The utility rate case in Arizona also contains testimony submitted by a professional engineer to stipulate that “the Smart Meter causes a significant amount of noise on the 60 Hz signal.”
Pre-Filed Testimony by Erik S. Anderson, P.E., C.F.E.I. on behalf of Warren Woodward, April 3, 2017; available at http://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000178630.pdf
Some of this electrical noise is due to the SMPS (switch-mode power supply) contained in the smart meter, but it is also due to radiofrequency transmissions being conducted along house wiring and re-radiated into the home.
“Study of the Effects of Smart Meter RF Transmissions on GFCI Outlets,” by Simon T. Donahue, et.al., published in the IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility(volume: 56, issue: 6, Dec. 2014); available a http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6899604/
Based upon a “Report on Examination of Selected Sources of EMF at Selected Residences in Hastings-on-Hudson” by Isotrope Wireless, dated November 23, 2013: “There was a substantial conducted 915 MHz component on the power line.” Report available at https://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/report-on-examination-of-selected-sources-of-emf-at-selected-residences.pdf.
“Therefore, based upon what has been reported, there are at least three potential sources of EMF exposure associated with smart meters:
(1) intentional RF emissions transmitted through the air from the smart meter transmitter(s) used to communicate with the utility and/or smart devices in the home;
(2) dirty electricity associated with voltage transients and harmonics from the smart meter’s switching mode power supply (SMPS); and
(3) conduction of RF emissions from the smart meter’s transmitters along the power line with re-radiation into the home.”
2. EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM MICHIGAN, SENATOR PATRICK COLBECK AND CYBER SECURITY EXPERT CYNTHIA AYERS
Michigan State Senator Patrick Colbeck is a graduate of the University of Michigan with Bachelors and Masters Degrees in Aerospace Engineering as well as a graduate of the International Space University in Strasbourg, France. Included among his over 20 years of engineering and management work in a variety of industries, he has worked on systems for the International Space Station. In his March 2017 testimony before the Michigan House Energy Policy Committee, endorsing analogue meters as a matter of national security.
“The power that’s provided to our homes, our businesses, and to our government offices here are put at risk with the addition of these smart meters. That is a risk that is not entertained when you have an analog meter.”
In his slide presentation, Senator Colbeck reviewed a number of risks that are being imposed on families with smart meters, including:
§ No surge protection with smart meters (that does exist with analog meters)
§ No conducted emissions filter
§ Cyber security “back door”
§ Infrared/ red light emissions on some meters that can tell people from the outside that the home is not occupied (not relevant in MA)
§ No circuit breaker exists between the smart meter and the power source.
Sen. Colbeck offers testimony on need for smart meter opt-out, excerpts from YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMnLZiMMfGI
Sen. Colbeck: Safety and security concerns drive need for smart meter opt-out, March 7, 2017, at http://www.senatorpatrickcolbeck.com/sen-colbeck-safety-and-security-concerns-drive-need-for-smart-meter-opt-out/
“Expert Testimony on Smart Meters/Grid: ‘Retain analog systems to the extent possible’,” https://smartgridawareness.org/2017/03/12/expert-testimony-retain-analog-systems/
Cyber-security expert Cynthia Ayers also testified in Michigan about the risk of an EMP (elecromagnetic pulse) on the grid. She is a national security threat analyst, currently working as an independent consultant within the Mission Control and Cyber Division of the Center for Strategic Leadership, U.S. Army War College. She is also serving as Deputy to the Executive Director of the Congressionally sponsored Task Force on National and Homeland Security.
“As our electric grid becomes ‘smarter’ and more networked, it also becomes more vulnerable, making it a very inviting – perhaps the most inviting – target for adversaries. Threats specific to smart grid technology range from the tactical (e.g., house-to-house, building to building) to the national strategic level. As with cyber activities world-wide, operational attacks against small, inconspicuous elements (smart meters, for example) could ultimately have a much larger, truly catastrophic impact to the grid and to the society it sustains.
Expert Testimony of Cynthia E. Ayers, before the Michigan House Energy Policy Committee, “The Cyber/Smart Grid Tech Threat to the Integrated North American Critical Electric Infrastructure,” March 7, 2017; available athttps://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/ayers-testimony-for-mi-house-committee-7-march-2017.pdf
3. EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM NEW MEXICO, ARTHUR FIRSTENBERG (attached to this email)
Expert testimony of Arthur Firstenberg before the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, Feb. 2017.
“The EPA has never issued an opinion about smart meters. It has, however, stated repeatedly that the human exposure guidelines adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) on August 1, 1996 are protective only against shocks, burns, and gross heating and do not protect against chronic, low-level exposure. It stated this before the FCC adopted the guidelines, and it repeated this after FCC adopted the guidelines.”See Page 8
Please note that Arthur Firstenberg’s testimony conflicts directly with the MA Department of Public Utility’s 2014 order 12-76B, which fraudulently claims:
“Another commenter disagrees and asserts that existing standards adequately protect public health, arguing that a number of national and international standards bodies agree on the adequacy of existing RF exposure limits, and that a number of these bodies have recently reviewed their limits.”
http://18.104.22.168/DPU/FileRoomAPI/api/Attachments/Get/?path=12-76%2fOrder_1276B.pdf page 43
The MA DPU continues to endorse wireless smart meters as the cornerstone of grid modernization by relying on their health expert tobacco scientist Peter Valberg. He was recently investigated by the Center for Public Integrity.
The MA Department of Health was never consulted on the issue of wireless utility meters.
4. INDIANA DUKE ENERGY DECISION TO PROVIDE ANALOGUE NON-TRANSMITTING METER TO SMALL BUSINESS (HEALTH CARE)
Due to intervention by legislators, Duke energy is now required to allow small businesses to opt out of digital and smart meters.
This is the text of the correspondence justifying the need for accomodation:
The building at 4320 S 7th St. Terre Haute IN 47802 is a medical office building. Anderson Management Services Duke business class account # 64202739049 requested in April 2017 to opt out of any digital or “smart” meter at this location/wishes to keep the analogue meter in place.
Brian Maynard, an employee of Duke stated today via phone call that: “Business class services are not allowed not to have an AMI meter because they are required by the IURC to have an AMI meter installed.” He stated that “Duke would get in trouble by the IURC if they were to allow this building to keep the analogue meter.”
Both daily occupants (employee) and transient occupants (patients) have medically documented- genetic mutations in their CACNA1C genes predisposing them to electromagnetic sensitivity susceptibility issues with associated symptoms aggravated and complicated by both signals put out by “smart meters” and ‘dirty electricity’ caused by both smart meters and digital meters(W90.8XXA).
Anderson Management Services will ethically have to disclose any change to the electromagnetic environment at this location to all employees, and patients receiving care here.
Due to the nature of the patients treated in this location, it is reasonable to conclude, the placement of a digital or “smart meter” at Anderson Management Services will result in loss of current and future patients and current and future employees, therefore directly affecting current and future ability to make income. We have since talked with the IURC and they explained that they do not regulate this/cannot help us. Obviously, this Duke ‘Strategic Business Specialist’ employee’s comments were incorrect at best, and simply lies at worst.
We request that you call Duke energy as soon as possible and tell them to leave our analogue meter in place at513-419-1658. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Dr. Matthew Christ DC & Dr. Kristen Walton DC 812-251-9427
5. EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM PENNSYLVANIA, DR. ANDREW MARINO
“There is a “reasonable basis” for concern regarding health risks associated with smart meter wireless emissions.”
“It is “unreasonable” to involuntarily and chronically expose consumers to the electromagnetic energy emitted by smart meters.”
Dr. Andrew Marino submitted an expert report as part of a case before the Pennsylvania PUC. In this proceeding several consumers have alleged that their health is being negatively affected by smart meters installed by PECO Energy Company.
Expert Report of Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D., dated August 8, 2016; a link for this document where some personal patient information has been redacted is available here :http://andrewamarino.com/PDFs/testimony-AAM_Report.pdf
“Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Evidence for a Novel Neurological Syndrome.” By McCarty, DE, Marino, A., et.al, International Journal of Neuroscience, December 2011, volume 121, pp 670-676; refer to link at:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784.
The conclusions reached by Dr. Andrew Marino and presented in his expert report are as follows:
“First, [there] is a reasonable basis in established science for the Complainants’ concern regarding risks to human health caused by man-made electromagnetic energy in the environment, including the type of electromagnetic energy emitted by smart meters. These health risks are heightened in the very young, the very old, and in those with preexisting diseases or disorders.
Second, electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a documented neurological condition in which the affected person experiences musculoskeletal, immunological, and/or neurological symptoms that noticeably flare or intensify upon exposure to man-made electromagnetic energy in the environment. About 5-10% of the general public are self-reported to suffer from this disorder.
Third, the Complainants were forced into the almost impossible position of conducting experiment[s] on themselves to prove to PECO’s satisfaction that their claims of a link between their symptoms and electromagnetic energy from smart meters were sufficiently credible as to warrant some remediable action by PECO.
Fourth, there is no justifiable reason for PECO to doubt the reality of the Complainants’ symptoms, to question their intentions in seeking relief, or to not respect and implement the advice they received from their physicians that exposure to smart-meter energy should be avoided.
Fifth, chronic exposure to the electromagnetic energy from smart meters causes risks to human health that go far beyond the capability of the energy to trigger hypersensitivity reactions in sensitive persons. A large literature in experimental biology indicates that man-made electromagnetic energy, including that from smart meters, causes biological effects involving every essentially physiological process that occurs in living organisms. A large literature in nonexperimental biology shows that man-made electromagnetic energy, including that from smart meters, is associated with a plethora of human diseases. People who suffer from pre-existing conditions are particularly vulnerable, and all the Complainants suffer from such conditions.
Sixth, PECO’s claim that the FCC has pronounced smart meter safe is spurious because the FCC has made that statement only with regard to the heating and cooking effects of electromagnetic energy. The Complainants have made no claims that smart meters are like microwave ovens.
Seventh, PECO has claimed that expert committees have pronounced smart meters safe, but PECO has not acknowledged the blatant conflicts-of interests that infect such committees nor the serious limitations on their reports, such as the failure to address much of the relevant literature.
Eighth, PECO proposes to expose human beings to smart-meter electromagnetic energy over their objection under conditions that would not be acceptable to any institution in the United States where human experimentation can lawfully be performed. Consequently, coercing the Complainants to endure the risks and uncertainties of such exposure is unwarranted, unjustified, and would amount to involuntary human experimentation by PECO.”
Regarding the exposure guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Dr. Marino states that:
“According to the FCC, smart meters and cellphones are safe when manufactured according to the presently mandated emission levels. But the FCC defines an emission level as ‘safe’ if it doesn’t result in adverse biological effects caused by heating or cooking of the exposed subject. Nowhere does the FCC say that smart meters are safe with regard to physiological changes [caused] by physical processes other than heating or cooking. That claim is unsupportable and counter-scientific, and has not been made by the FCC.”
To the contrary:
“There is a very large data base of empirical studies in experimental biology that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that biological effects can occur at levels of man-made electromagnetic energy actually present in the environment.”
“Consequently [there is] no rational basis to argue that PECO’s energy [levels for smart meters] is too small to matter.”
Regarding the symptomatology of the Complainants in the PUC proceeding, Dr. Marino states that:
“There is a sound basis in experimental biology that supports their concerns regarding the consequences to their health that have occurred and that may occur due to future chronic exposure to the electromagnetic energy emitted by smart meters. Under the conditions pertinent to the conditions of this case, coercing the Complainants to endure these risks and uncertainties is unwarranted, unjustified, and would amount to involuntary human experimentation by PECO.”
Again, the expert testimony in the Pennsylvania rate case conflicts with the MA DPU Order 12-76B regarding non-thermal impacts.
7. EXPERT TESTIMONY TO MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL BY DAVID STETZER
Dave Stetzer provided testimony to the Michigan Attorney General on the matter of Consumers Energy Company. Mr. Stetzer describes the electrical readings he has taken at dairy farms in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, where he detected dirty power and objectionable ground currents. He explains the cause of and solution for dirty power (harmonics, transients, voltage sags and swells) and objectionable ground currents. He explains the biological effects of these ground currents on livestock and the dairy business at large as well as the apparent coverup by the utilities.
“I am presenting evidence in support of the Michigan Attorney Generals case against Consumers Energy Company. Specifically, I will be presenting readings and measurements taken on farms that clearly demonstrate the utilitys electrical pollution, electrical poisoning, and power quality problems.”
“I have found measurable amounts of non-sinusoidal voltage waveforms riddled with harmonics and transients at cow contact points (per the Minnesota Science Advisors Study), originating from the utilitys grounded wire system. I have simultaneously recorded the electrical activity with animal reactions. This can be seen on the video I created entitled The Effects of Low Level Non-Linear Voltages and Frequencies Applied to Livestock.10 There seemed to be no noticeable change in the electrical activity (and the animals reactions) when the farm power was turned off at the main disconnect for the entire farm at the service pole. I also found measurable and dangerous amounts of current flowing down the utilitys down ground.
Essentially, I’ve found and recorded electrical phenomena that deal specifically with poor power quality supplied or caused by the utility including:
Some of these electrical phenomena have had economic impacts that directly relate to loss of production. Some of this loss of production is described in two papers I co authored entitled Milk Production of Dairy Herd Decreased by Transient Voltage Events,11 and Milk Production of Dairy Herds Decreased by Transient Voltage Events,12 both of which have been or will be published and submitted for peer review. This loss of production has further been documented by expert Forensic Economist, Michael Behr, Ph.D.13 Finally, the July 5, 1999 Industrial Edition of Fortune Magazine published an expose on the existence of dirty electricity and its affects on electrical and electronic equipment entitled Hot New Technologies for Americas Factories.14
I have recorded and measured this electrical phenomena in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. I also have taken measurements on farms in these states and recorded the reactions of more than 6000 cows and some horses simultaneous with the electrical activity.15 The reactions are clearly correlated with electrical activity hoof-to-hoof, as measured using the protocol recommended by the Final Report of the Science Advisors to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.16 The results in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan all involved the same power quality issues (harmonics, transients, sags, and swells), although the power quality in Michigan was measurably worse than in Minnesota and Wisconsin.”
“The net effect of these power quality problems is a significant amount of neutral current riddled with harmonics and transients being forced onto the earth, as the pathway back to the substation. This is dirty power or more appropriately stated, its electrical pollution (when it impacts equipment) or electrical poisoning26 (when it impacts living creatures).”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JRRMSqxcxc Video of David Stetzer
Bill S.1864 needs to be passed out of committee because
1. There is evidence that a portion of the population is vulnerable to the presence of electrosmog, including MA residents who are already suffering from chronic and acute health conditions, including Lyme and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, as well as those already diagnosed with EHS (Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity.
2. When residents appealed to the MA DPU for protection from already –installed wireless AMR meters that transmit 24-7, the MA DPU sided with National Grid allowing them to institute a punitive surcharge. Self reading could be implemented in MA, as in MI. MA is this discriminating against ratepayers based on a medical condition.
4. Eversource is presently providing no accommodation. Municipal suppliers have varied in their responses. Some have offered late installation, while others have threatened water shut off for failure to accept a transmitting water meter, creating an uneven playing field and leaving residents at risk due to arbitrary decision making.
5. The MA DPU order is fraudulent in its representation of FCC limits.
6. (photo from Gloucester MA, Essex County) The housing for utility meters in MA is in some cases extremely rusted, and will not accommodate a new meter without significant repair. This is especially true in coastal areas. Homeowners are often unaware that they own everything behind the meter. This safety hazard should be addressed regardless, but in the past, meter readers would have reported a small problem before it became a major costly repair.
7. Until the issues regarding meter safety can be addressed, and the DPU’s health claims investigated, those citizens requiring immediate relief in order to protect their health are asking the legislature to advocate on their behalf, as legislators in Indiana have done.
If there are any other resources that I mentioned that you would like me to provide for you, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your kind attention.
26 Lake Street
Millis MA 02056
508-530-4131 (corded land-line only)