Kathy Ging’s public input at EWEB Board meeting 8.6.13

Kathy Ging Kathy at kathyging.com Public Input 8.6.13 EWEB Board

Instead of assimilating and probing MULTIFARIOUS concerns from professionals, many with advanced degrees in diverse fields, EWEB management continues to fast track AMI confounding increasingly self-educated concentric circles of ratepayers of diverse political stripes as they discover AMI+ (advanced meter infrastructure + smart enabled appliances) plans have not been fully explained or fiscally justified.

Fast tracking is evidenced in that EWEB staff overlooked or deliberately ignored several directives from the Board at the April 2012 work session and similar meetings.

ONE: Staff solicited comments within the state only and did not consult doctors or medical studies nationally and worldwide that cast doubt on antiquated FCC guidelines regarding biological effects of non-ionizing (non-thermal) radiation.

Staff secured letters from state and county health offices quoting federal agencies about Radio Frequency/Microwave effects of non-thermal radiation without initially tapping original recent research by Dr. Paul Dart’s team – staff knew that Dr. Dart had spent over a year at that time researching a report he planned to present to the Board.

TWO: The 2012 Board also asked staff to address privacy and cyber-hacking; since then, articles have emerged about the high vulnerability of smart grids; warnings by I.T. pros and government insiders have not been adequately conveyed to the board.

THREE: staff was directed to provide an ALTERNATIVE to the four AMI business case scenarios presented in the April 2012 report. Being an attentive spectator of the fiasco, I was appalled that this directive was IGNORED by staff. WHERE is the scenario staff was to assemble as to how EWEB objectives could be met without smart meters?

EWEB stated that there have been no problems with SENSUS smart meters installed by Portland’s PGE.
Yet, before I requested and paid for research to be done by Oregon PUC in July – NOBODY had requested that complaints be compiled – and several concerned health and erratic bills!

A short circuit has occurred within EWEB’s matrix by management and board in the info dissemination process.

Notice staff comments in the news and errors by some Board members nonchalantly saying: EPUD and Lane Electric have smart meters and – no problems.

Egregious in that it is still happening two years after Families for SAFE Meters tried to educate themselves about WIRELESS smart meter problems is that the media is publicizing partial and confusing info about meters installed by EPUD and Lane Electric.

To clarify, per EPUD – EPUD did NOT install smart meters – they use a LOW – not high – frequency signal carried on power lines NOT allowing time of use pricing. Their WIRED technology could be upgraded.

It is a warning to ratepayers about how they are NOT being educated by EWEB about details when the devil is in the details.

Board members had memory slips: one, forgetting he had read a letter by Julie, who had become debilitated after sleeping 28 inches from a natural gas digital smart meter for two years, continued to say that digital gas meters had no problems!

EWEB Board members have publicly and privately remarked in 2012 that 50,000 natural gas _smart_ meters have been installed locally and, again: _no problems_. This memory loss occurred again in 2013 when the same EWEB Board member repeated: there have been no problems with gas smart meters.

BTW, NW Natural Gas employee, told me: _I guarantee you that there is NO smart gas meter in the country_!

In local papers EWEB PR staff have sometimes substituted phrases like _meters capable of integrating into the advanced meter infrastructure_ for _SMART_. Strange that smart has become stigmatized and has assumed disparaging connotations.

EWEB engineering staff have sometimes been unable to provide accurate answers about numbers and types of transmissions emitted by pilot meters and by 9,000 AMR (automatic or advanced) meters already installed and those proposed by SENSUS and other vendors.

Board members may not be aware that EWEB discreetly removed the sentence _No._ from its initial FAQ on its web site for the question whether there are issues regarding RF. Fortunately, I had downloaded the page – later noticing that they removed the sentence _NO_.
See attachment.

This indicates staff ignorance about historical data about what Dr. Dart observed was called radio frequency sickness, now called electro magnetic frequency (EMF) sensitivity.

Removing the sentence _NO._ was EWEB’s tacit admission that it had been MISTAKEN in its assessment or omission of information regarding possible adverse health issues.

Finally, my brother, an attorney for 40 years educated at Georgetown Law School, said that he is seriously concerned about PRIVACY – invasion of the home and 4th Amendment issues posed by smart meters. The Harvard Journal of Law and Technology Fall, 2011 Journal, is dedicated solely to privacy and the smart grid conundrum.

Why not invite those folks from Harvard to speak since privacy invasion was a question raised and still not answered by the 2012 EWEB Board?