Smart Meter Scandal in California? Emails Reveal CPUC May Have Known and Concealed Health Risks and Other Problems

Health Impact News Editor Comments

Josh Hart of Stop Smart Meters! is reporting that former California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) President Michael Peevey is currently the subject of a criminal probe by the U.S. Attorney and State Attorney General who are investigating allegations of bribery and corruption. CPUC allegedly assured the public that California’s smart meters were accurate, were no fire hazard, and no threat to health. However, research into more than 120,000 e-mails and memos between CPUC and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) seems to paint quite a different picture.

PG&E Suggested “Prozac” for Those Injured by Smart Meters– SCE Schemed Higher Fees to Force Smart Meters on the Poor

By Josh Hart, MSc
StopSmartMeters.org

Excerpts:

New e-mails brought to light between Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) reveal the extent of corruption and backroom dealing that have characterized the state’s smart meter program.

E-mails reveal that former CPUC President Michael Peevey was aware of health problems caused by smart meters early on in the program. Commissioners and staff experienced overcharging and electronic interference issues with smart meters on their homes.

Meanwhile, utilities schemed with regulators behind the scenes to raise opt-out fees to force people in poverty to stick with the unpopular meters and prop up the failing multi-billion dollar smart grid program in California.

According to the LA Times, when a smart meter was installed on former CPUC President Michael Peevey’s 3118 sq. foot second home in Sea Ranch on the Sonoma County coast (where Peevey and PG&E’s VP of Regulatory Relations Brian Cherry shared bottles of Johnny Walker Blue Label according to e-mails) Peevey’s bills went through the roof and he complained to PG&E in November 2011.

Apparently Peevey wasn’t the only Commissioner who reported significant overcharging. PG&E wrote in an e-mail that two commissioners in one night complained about inaccuracies on their bills after smart meters were installed.

In September 2011, after a fire started in a smart metered electrical panel in a Santa Rosa Mall, Cherry wrote to CPUC Executive Director Paul Clanon. There was not the slightest concern about whether the smart meters were actually starting fires, or whether and how the CPUC and/ or PG&E should investigate this potentially serious public safety hazard. Instead the focus was on spinning the story in the media.

While CPUC officials privately grappled with problems caused by smart meters at their own homes, publicly they denied these problems existed despite thousands of complaints to the contrary confirming these were systemic problems. An unfair and extortionate opt out policy was approved in violation of the CA Public Utility Code, charging customers hundreds of dollars a year to protect their safety. Thousands still refuse to pay this extortion.

In another e-mail from 2010, Peevey’s Chief of Staff Carol Brown writes to PG&E:

“…so far I have done OK just listening to the sad tales of EMF poisoning – and telling them thank you for bringing it to our attention – and then not offering them any solution!!! I just wanted to have a resource in case!”

Brian Cherry, VP of Regulatory Relations at PG&E replies:

“Prozac might be a solution!”

Suggesting that people take pharmaceuticals to treat health problems caused by the company’s meters is unspeakably arrogant, dangerous, and corrupt. The only thing that has consistently helped people suffering health effects from EMF has been the removal of smart meters and other nearby wireless transmitters. And the utilities knew it. But to officially have smart meters removed, the CPUC under Peevey, required Californians to pay an upfront fee and monthly charge starting in May 2012.

Read the Full Story here.

See Also:

“Dirty” Electricity is a National Problem Affecting Everyone’s Health in the United States

Published on March 12, 2015

2 Comments

Nancy Stennes April 13, 2018 at 6:24 pm - Reply

Great article and timely. Thank you, Josh. I have been battling PG&E over harm to my health since 2012. We moved to a home in Fairfield, CA, in December, 2010. Within a few months I noticed worsened insomnia, severe gastric problems, severe fatigue with brain fog, short term memory problems, heart arrhythmias. I began investigating the issue and happened across an article re: potential harm from smart meters. An MD (integrative and functional medicine specialist) diagnosed me with EMF sensitivity.

Battled PG&E for months to get them to replace the meter. They finally did it, and even though I was disabled, and my health was harmed by it, was forced to pay opt out fees for almost three years. Oh, and they were charging me opt out fees prior to the May, 2012 CPUC ruling, which I think may have been illegal.

Health improved IMMEDIATELY when we got the smart meter removed. It was right next to my bedroom and office. No wonder I was sick!

Then we moved to Sacramento, we paid opt out fees AGAIN. Now I have paid for almost five years. Have been battling them a third time since buying a home in Woodland, CA.

I’m wanting them to pay back ALL the opt out fees since it’s basically a form of extortion and their forcing these fees on disabled people violates their civil rights. (Or some legal experts would argue this.) AND I want them to pay back all the opt out fees past the three year period (if not all refunded due to my being disabled until late 2014).

A CPUC expert told me "portability" is supposed to ensure any customer never pays opt out fees past a three year limit. The CPUC expert told me any opt out fees should carry forward, no matter where I may move, at least in California.

Why is it every time I call PG&E they never recognize the CPUC’s ruling on "portability"? Each and every time I call them I get some argumentive twit who cannot read and interpret the ruling properly. There IS a provision stating a customer cannot be charged more than one opt out fee per lcoation or account (one residence address). This is to ensure the customer cannot be charged more than one monthly fee – say, in the case of having separate gas and electric meters.

The PG&E reps keep telling me this part of the ruling means they can charge you every time you move to a new location. How on EARTH can they interpret the verbiage that way? DOH! Can these people read and understand WRITTEN ENGLISH?

I suspect some crooked PG&E management people have told them to tell the customer this.

Am waiting to see what PG&E has to say to me now that the CPUC has contacted them re: the portability issue. I was told I could file a grievance/complaint if they don’t refund the fees paid past the three year limit (cumulative). But the CPUC deferred to PG&E so I may not be out of the woods yet.

Some of these people appear (or are) greedy, unethical monsters.

Smart meters are a health and safety nightmare.

PG&E is no doubt also going to try to gouge California consumers to pay for the infrastructure destroyed by the October, 2017 fires.

I hope they are taken to task by some massive class action lawsuits SOON. And good riddance if they just go out of business! That being said, I have some former professors and friends who work or worked there in their Mission District headquarters. I don’t want them to lose their jobs. But this company stinks and they deserve to be allowed to fail.

Bill Bathgate July 31, 2017 at 3:56 pm - Reply

How did you get the copies of the letters and emails from the CPUC and PG&E? We would love to get this information for Michigan.