Saturday, July 23, 2016

Consumers Energy Uses 4G Cell Tower Network to Transmit Readings

Just like DTE smart meters, Consumers Energy smart meters transmit radiofrequency radiation 24/7. This is because the meters "chatter" with each other. You can read more about that on our Smart Meters 101 page. Unlike DTE, Consumers Energy ultimately collects the data via cell phone towers. The signal is sent to the towers once a day. The data sent currently is of hourly meter reads. That can be changed via software updates.

Note that one of the reasons the utility companies have instituted smart meters is so that they can charge time-of-use rates, meaning you will pay more for electricity at certain times of the day. Consumers freely admits this.

4G is a very intense radiofrequency signal that is quite deleterious to health.

Consumers was originally using meters made by GE and by SmartSynch.  Itron acquired SmartSynch, so it is now Itron that provides the meters. The utility's deal with Itron includes a 20-year maintenance agreement-though much of that maintenance will be in the form of automatic, over-the-air firmware updates similar to those that cellphones receive, said Moore.

With regard to other providers, Energybiz says: "California's Pacific Gas and Electric, for example, has deployed more than 9 million smart meters that collect daily gas readings and electricity readings every 15 minutes, sending them to the utility through the company's own wireless communication network. And Tennessee's Memphis Light, Gas and Water is in the midst of a project to install smart meters to track all three services, which the utility says also have the potential to quickly detect outages, leaks and other problems. "

Itron brochure.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

EMFs Likely Contribute to Obesity

PACKING ON THE POUNDS? There's more to it than diet and exercise. "Growing scientific evidence indicates that the imbalance of caloric consumption and exercise does not fully explain the obesity epidemic. Nor can DNA... since there are now numerous animal and epidemiological studies indicating that environmental pollutants [including radiation from wireless technologies] could contribute to the global obesity epidemic, there is an urgent need to reduce the burden of environmental contaminants so that obesity does not become the normal outlook in the future."
SEMINAR - Obesity, Electrosensitivity, Mycotoxicosis and the Clinical Practice of Environmental Medicine, with Magda Havas
National Institute of Environmental Health Science, North Carolina

Thursday, July 7, 2016

Court Sides with Consumers Energy--What a Surprise!

No surprise, given the corruption of our state government, and of the MPSC in particular. Did you know that one of the chairs of the Michigan Public Service Commission is a former Consumers Energy lobbyist?

From the Associated Press:
"The Michigan appeals court has upheld a 2013 decision by state regulators to allow Consumers Energy to roll out high-tech meters. The attorney general's office had challenged the utility's ability to recover the costs of the so-called smart meters. But in a 2-1 decision this week, the appeals court says state regulators relied on sufficient evidence supplied by the company.

"Judge Peter O'Connell wasn't swayed. In dissent, he says the Public Service Commission didn't do enough work, and the appeals court as a result can't conduct a 'meaningful review.' O'Connell says fellow judges Michael Gadola and Karen Fort Hood didn't follow the orders of the Michigan Supreme Court in taking a solid look at the case."

In a 2015 unpublished opinion, Judge O'Connell made cogent points regarding the program:

"How can smart meters save money when Consumers seeks to add millions of dollars to the base rate to fund the AMI program?"

"A cost-benefit analysis [of smart meters] should include health, safety, and privacy issues.”

I am concerned that under the opt-out program, those who opt-out must pay either a penalty, tax, or a fee for the privilege of retaining their non-smart meters. This Court, in its prior opinion, approved the PSC's order allowing costs to fund the AMI smart meter program to be added to the utility's base rate. At first glance, it appears the opt-outers are required to pay twice for the privilege of retaining their non-smart meter. The first payment is in the form of a penalty, tax, or fee to avoid having a smart meter installed on their home,5 and the second payment is of continued costs associated with the AMI smart meter program that eventually will be added to the base rate.”

“Why both charges? On remand, the PSC should answer that question. In the case of the opt-outers, they receive no benefit from the AMI smart meter program and must actually pay to be excluded from it, but then the opt-outer must also share in the costs of the program because of the increase to the base rate.”

“From this lower court record I am unable to discern the genesis, the reasons, or the rational for such an unprecedented double tariff.”

“I am also greatly concerned that the opt-out costs are actually a penalty imposed to force the opt-outers to comply with the AMI program. . .  . The PSC's implied finding that it is a fee/tariff rather than a penalty or a tax is not supported by even a scintilla of evidence in this lower court record. Just because the PSC says it is so on appeal does not make it so.”

“It appears, as the Attorney General argues and as in other states, that the smart meter program actually increases rates.”
Unpublished opinion, July 22, 2015 (Docket Nos 317434 and 317456)

See news articles on 2016 decision (all the articles are the same) at: