Smart meters were supposedly rolled out to combat climate change. Many claims of benefits have NOT been realized. In fact, the collection, storage and processing of the data comes at a great energy cost. Smart meters can be used to monitor and control our usage. The ability to remotely restrict our access to a necessity can be used for the nefarious purpose of forcing compliance. Last but not least, smart meters expose us to harmful radiation and dirty electricity.
I recommend the following:
- Halt the rollout of smart meters.
- Allow people the option to revert back to an analog meter.
- Set the maximum data transmission rate to no more than once an hour.
- Do not allow the sale of usage data.
- Release free, clean energy technology.
Below is supporting information and references. Apologies for any broken links.
There are a variety of ways in which Smart Meters can cause fires.
http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meter-arcing/
Smart meters emit high levels of harmful RF radiation that have been shown to cause health issues. The utility industry claims that smart meters are safe. However, measurements show that smart meters cause an extraordinary RF/MW antenna effect on electrical distribution systems when they are used as intended, rather than in the isolation of a testing laboratory.
http://www.stopsmartmetersny.org/debunkingutility.html
Even if you opt out, it’s important to be able to keep the analog meter because the opt out meter may simply be a digital meter with the wireless turned off. Even with the wireless turned off, the power differential between the “switched mode power supply” of the digital meter and your home electrical system creates dirty electricity throughout your home wiring and metal pipes.
https://eon3emfblog.net/new-critical-problem-with-smart-meters-a-switching-mode-power-supply/
Another issue is the invasion of privacy. The data collected from all your smart devices 24x7, can reveal what you own, when you are home, and what you are doing. The utilities themselves have said that the data they gather on you is worth more than the electricity they sell you.
Smart meters are also more vulnerable to cyber attacks that can affect the entire grid.
False Promises
According to the utility companies, the Smart Grid promises to enable utility companies and their customers to reduce U.S. energy consumption using a variety of technologies and methods. Researchers noted that customer behavior didn’t change much, regardless of peak rates nor knowledge of energy consumption. In a pilot in Chicago, the overall amount of reduction was “statistically insignificant”.
The main purpose of a system that allows a utility to remotely turn electricity on and off is to shift customers not only to tiered pricing but also to prepaid plans. The supposed energy savings of tiered pricing will be far overshadowed by the enormous energy needed to run the computers that manage the smart grid, and to cool the data centers that store and analyze the collected marketing data.
https://www.smartmetereducationnetwork.com/do-smart-meters-really-save-energy.php
Utility companies claim that Smart Meters will save customers money. Based on a pilot in Connecticut, the Attorney General warned that the pilot showed that smart meters had no beneficial impact on total energy usage or bill savings and that the advanced technology is very expensive. A pilot program of 10,000 such meters found no energy savings in 2009, but would cost ratepayers $500 million, and would not save enough electricity for its 1.2 million customers to justify the expense.
In reality, these meters and their dedicated networks are primarily for the benefit of utilities, reducing their operating costs and increasing profits by firing meter readers, ironically with federal stimulus funds, while doing essentially nothing to advance what should be the real goal of the smart grid: balancing supply and demand and integrating more renewable sources.
Peak rates can be priced up to 10 times higher than regular rates in order to deter usage. Bills generally increased after smart meters are installed as consumers continue to use energy at peak hours.
Utility companies claim smart meters will speed restoration from outages. According to the results of a 2015 utility industry survey on outage and restoration management, despite the fact that 81% of surveyed utilities claim to have Smart Meters deployed, only 16% of these utilities use their smart meters as the primary source of power failure alerts on blue sky days and 12% during storms.
A 2012 pilot report revealed that none of the claimed benefits held up in practice.
Navigant Consulting conducted a study on the 2017-2019 Rockland NJ pilot program and found a “high likelihood” that Rockland Electric’s AMI program will be cost effective. Another recent study by that same company said smart meters can detect outages, provide faster service restoration and improve billing accuracy.
However, Rate Counsel Stefanie Brand said she thought the utilities were overselling the benefits of how quickly service could be restored in storms with AMI technology. “To me, this isn’t going to solve our storm-response problems.’’ Brand also expressed concerns about costs. “These are very big numbers,’’ referring to the cost of replacing every meter in the state. “They are doing it in the most expensive way possible.’’
JCP&L minimized the impact of the new technology on customers, saying it will only increase monthly bills for typical customers by 65 cents, effective on Jan. 1, 2022, if approved by the BPU, according to Cliff Cole, a spokesman. Over the duration of the program, costs will rise $4.01, or approximately 3.8 percent.
With all the other filings dealing with clean energy, such as solar, offshore wind and nuclear, Brand said somebody had to pay attention to this. “If we keep piling on, it is going to be an unaffordable system.’’
https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/08/smart-meters-ami-electric-utilities-nj-power-grid-advanced-metering-infrastructure/
They rolled out smart meters where I live in NJ in 2023. I measured the RF radiation coming from my neighbor’s meter and observed that it pulsed harmful levels of RF radiation every 15 seconds. As a gardener who spends a lot of time outdoors, it is unacceptable to be subjected to harmful bursts of radiation every 15 seconds. But JCP&L has ignored my request to reduce the transmission rate to once an hour.
In 2013, a group of doctors in Oregon, wrote a report to the Eugene Water and Electric Board detailing the health impacts of AMI technology, and their recommendations to minimize the health effects. As a result, the EWEB agreed to reduce the frequency of transmission to once per hour. So I know this is doable.
I have a Cornet ED-88TPlus Tri-Mode Electrosmog Meter[1]. Readings within approximately 20’ of the meter showed up in the red zone on the Cornet meter. Readings between 20’ and 40’ away, showed up in the amber zone. At the smart meter, I took a reading of a pulse that measured at 21 mW/m^2. At 20’ away, I took a reading of .258 mW/m^2. At 40’ away, I took a reading of .102 mW/m^2. While the measurements are below the FCC guidelines[2], the FCC regulation was designed to protect against the thermal effects of high exposure. Many studies show that biological harm is caused at much lower levels of radiation.
The FCC guidelines[3] have not been updated since 1996 even though there have been massive changes in technology in the past 27 years. In 2018, a 10 year, $25 million NTP study[4] showed clear evidence of heart & brain damage from long term exposure.
In fact, there is a recent legal case[5] where the Court found[6] that the FCC ignored the scientific evidence indicating harmful biological impacts and ordered the FCC to review the evidence.
Many countries have guidelines that are far lower than the US[7]. The Building Biology Evaluation Guideline[8] is based on the biological effects of exposure[9]. Anything over .01 mW/m^2 is considered of concern for RF exposure[10]. Much of my garden is being pulsed far above this level.
References:
[1] Cornet ED-88TPlus Tri-Mode Electrosmog Meter http://electrosmog.org/resources/ED-88TPlusUserManualQeng-V2.pdf
[2] FCC Guideline
Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular Antenna Sites | Federal Communications Commission
[3] FCC guidelines have not been updated since 1996. Physicians for Safe Technology | Telecommunications Act of 1996
[4] National Toxicology Program study of cell phone radiation and cancer
“Clear Evidence” of Cancer Risk: NTP Cell Phone Study Results Complete and Reproducible | Physicians for Safe Technology and
Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation
[5] Environmental Health Trust vs FCC Lawsuit
What Evidence of People Injured by Wireless Radiation was Ignored by the FCC – Historic Lawsuit EHT et al. v FCC - Environmental Health Trust
[6] Court Findings on the EHT vs FCC Lawsuit USCA-DC Opinions
[7] RF radiation guidelines for various countries. https://mdsafetech.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/conversion-chart-microwave-electromagnetic-radiation-pdf.pdf
[8] Building Biology Evaluation Guideline
https://buildingbiology.com/building-biology-standard/
[9] Biological effects of RF exposure
https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/BioInitiativeReport-RF-Color-Charts.pdf
[10] Anything over .01 mW/m^2 is considered “of concern” for RF exposure. https://buildingbiology.com/site/downloads/richtwerte-2015-englisch.pdf
[11] “Biological and Health Effects of Microwave Radio Frequency Transmissions, A Report to the Staff and Directors of the Eugene Water and Electric Board”.
