Review of EWEB board meeting by Jack Dresser – Why EWEB Should be Investigated

Review of EWEB board meeting by Jack Dresser – Why EWEB Should be Investigated

Posted Oct. 2, 2013 by Jack Dresser, PhD

The EWEB meeting last night was carefully staged.  The EWEB board room was packed with over 100 persons and 30 persons testified.  Everyone demonstrating knowledge about these devices from study of state-of-the-art critical data who testified was opposed unequivocally to smart meters.

Event orchestrators then paraded out EWEB manager Roger Gray – previously a vice president of PG&E in California (about 13 years ago) that is now being sued for “fraud and deceit,” “negligence” and “products liability” due to smart meter installation. Each board member asked him questions reflecting only a few of the concerns citizens had raised.

Mr. Gray, assuming his position of managerial authority, provided suave but glib rehearsed responses with minimal genuine intellectual inquiry (not a refutation likely to ever stand up to cross-examination) providing the Commissioners cover to vote for the predetermined agenda.

It was a predictably pro-forma, unanimous approval of an “opt-in,” slowly phased-in alternative plan proposed in the memorandum distributed to them on Sept. 24.

See EWEB.org for past agendas and links to smart meter documents and videos of Dr. Paul Dart.  This option was undoubtedly chosen to disarm the opposition and provide EWEB a modicum of protection from liability – which will prove illusory if they continue to withhold full disclosure of equipment and program and potential negative effects to prospective smart meter customers.

Their history in providing accurate information has been appalling. Staff have repeatedly dodged questions about the number of transmission from the AMR (advanced or automatic reader meters) of which EWEB has installed 7,000 of these digital meters that can be read remotely from the meter reader outside a vehicle in the past decade.

In reality, it is being revealed now by those with testing equipment that these meters put out variable multiple transmissions which could have been affecting ratepayers’ health without their being aware that the technology may not be as benign as EWEB posits.  Remember: these 7,000 meters are already installed with little or no disclosure to ratepayers that a radio antenna was a component of this new convenient “non-smart” but digital meter.

The well-informed and vigorous opposition of our Families for SAFE Meters group undoubtedly forced EWEB into this compromise choice of OPT IN for the forthcoming generations of wireless smart meters and pilot programs, but Mr. Gray with characteristic arrogance and didacticism, stated that our opposition “was not a factor at all.”

We don’t believe that or several other substantive statements made by Gray. EWEB has moved away from an intent to install smart meters community-wide without consent to the significantly revised, currently adopted plan.  This modification is almost certainly in response to Families For SAFE Meters and friends opposition over the last two+ years, which has provided to EWEB substantive information not “hype and hysteria” as EWEB’s public relations staff person Joe Harwood stated to broadcast media after the Board meeting.  Advisories provided to the Board from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEMonline.org) that RF/MW emissions from wireless smart meters are potentially carcinogenic.

We have provided statements from two former CIA directors, James Woolsey and David Petraeus, that smart meters and their networking into a hacking-vulnerable smart grid would result in a “really, really stupid grid” and that smart meters will undoubtedly be used by the government to spy along with other appliances on US citizens (not an inconsequential concern in post-Snowden America).

We have also provided documentation about inevitable grid insecurity by cybersecurity experts; evidence of cost increases rather than cost savings reported by other communities; audits of utilities by state attorneys general; awareness of large class-action lawsuits filed against utilities that have installed smart meters; a list of other communities that are rejecting smart meters; and copies of the film, Take Back Your Power, which presents a persuasive and rather alarming case against smart meters interviewing 70 persons including many professionals in four nations.

These are but a few of the salient facts we have presented to EWEB that Mr. Gray declared were “not a factor at all.”  This complete devaluation of contributions by owner-ratepayers of course led to questions by several speakers about EWEB’s integrity in addition to a perceived neglect of fiduciary responsibility to the public it serves and to which it is accountable.

And why, people questioned, is EWEB stubbornly persisting in the WRONG direction by promoting smart meters even if it at a slower pace despite overwhelming empirical and authoritative evidence against them?  Why did EWEB not provide objective data and allow open forums with members of FAMILIES FOR SAFE METERS presenting?   Owner-ratepayers had to perform the necessary research review themselves.

Arrogance and contempt for the public interest were evident in EWEB’s transparent manipulation to justify a predetermined outcome. EWEB has forgotten or chooses to ignore for whom they work as a ratepayer-owned utility.

EWEB clearly has an undisclosed agenda that needs to be investigated.

Many community stakeholders think that EWEB needs investigate.