Wise up on Smart Meters. Florida Power & Light is going to charge $95 to anyone choosing NOT to have a SMART METER and then $13 each month. What is SMART about Smart meters?! Follow the $$$... who benefits from advanced metering infrastructure (“AMI”). $3.5 billion to 99 recipients, one being Florida Power & Light. The Florida State Constitution is one of the few to explicitly guarantee the right to privacy, i.e., the right to be let alone, in Article 1, Section 23. The deployment of s-meters throughout Florida is a very expensive project that should have warranted its own docket and public proceedings; but this did not occur. FPSC was petitioned for demonstration projects early on, but there was no public review of the actual or potential harm to Floridians of a roll-out. FPSC and the utilities acted without authority. In contrast to the FPSC, Clay Electric Co-op, serving 14 North Florida counties, did its own analysis. It found installing and maintaining the network to be of no economic benefit to their ratepayers. This company will not install any such equipment unless the Federal government mandates it to do so. Currently, I have a non reporting digital meter. I personally will not accept a Smart Meter on my house. The FCC, Florida Public Service Commission and Florida Power & Light have not proved Smart Meter are safe, legal or a cost savings to rate payers. Connecticut and Michigan attorney generals have concerns for cost savings to consumers. Lack of FPSC oversight may expose customers to unnecessary loss of person information, due to the vulnerabilities of the AMI system, and the absence of clear privacy policy protections and objectives. Contrary to FPLs statements, the sanctity of the home is violated where wireless communications can acquire data of various types without the occupants data knowledge or consent, and often even in ways that are inconceivable to occupants. The American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 allocated a Smart Grid Investment Grant of nearly $3.5 billion to 99 recipients nationwide, one of which was FPL. The World Health Organization, has classified RF emissions as a group 2B carcinogen, which is the same class as DDT, lead, dioxin, chloroform, gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel oils, welding fumes, and ethylbenzine. The AAEM calls for “[a]n immediate caution on Smart Meter Installation due to potentially harmful RF exposure,” as well as “[a]ccommodation for health considerations regarding EMF and RF exposure, including exposure to wireless Smart Meter technology.” In an August 30, 2013 letter to the FCC, the AAEM urged the FCC to “recognize that non-thermal effects of RF exposure exist and cause symptoms and disease. (citation omitted) The AAEM also requests that the FCC base guidelines of RF exposure on measurements of non-thermal effects and lower the limits of RF exposure to protect the health of the public.” FPSC, on its website, professes its “authority does not extend to health issues related to meters,” but then provides what can only be considered as health-related information about RF emissions are ostensibly misleading: • “Smart meters periodically transmit a low power signal.” • “RF emissions from smart meters are well below the FCC standard.” • “Smart meter transmitters are certified for compliance with RF emission standards by the FCC.” � • “The FCC deems that meters in compliance with these emission standards do not have adverse health impacts.” In 2011 the Connecticut attorney general conducted a study aimed at whether the replacement of existing electric meters with advanced technology would result in energy cost savings that would justify the expense. Michigan attorney general questioned the benefits to rate payers. Mr. Rubin’s comments are particularly striking. First, there is a presupposition that installation of smart meters is in the best interests of all customers. While that may be the case for FPL and the smart meter manufacturers, FPL customers were not involved in the decision to employ smart meters. Rather, the only choice they are able to make is whether to opt-out, which comes at significant costs, both financial and potentially physiological. A second, unstated presupposition is that the smart meters pose no health risks. Because the FSPC has apparently delegated its safety jurisdiction to the nonparticipating FCC, the issue of the health risks posed by RF emissions has not received fair treatment throughout the course of this discussion. Again, the FCC does not regulate non-thermal RF emissions, and thus, any standards it sets with regard to RF emissions cannot be indicative of their relative safety. Rather than having their valid health concerns investigated, those who have voiced opposition to smart meter installation have been branded “cost-causers,” and burdensome on all otherwise assimilating customers. By no means is it a foregone conclusion that smart meters are safe, but any evidence to the contrary has been summarily ignored. It is, thus, in the “best interests” of customers to protect their health by declining the installation of AMI meters until this matter has been sufficiently addressed. stopsmartmeters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FL-PSC-filing-00582-14.pdf
Posted on: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 03:14:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015