When
I arrived in the General Assembly Room B, the auditorium was packed with attorneys
and lobbyists. I had to wait patiently two hours until the Senate adjourned its
daily session; the Senators took a half hour break, and finally came to our
hearing. It was an interesting two hours because I was able to see my
government in action for which I voted and paid taxes
The
Virginia Senate Commerce and Labor Committee held the hearing on SB 797
introduced by Senator Thomas A. Garrett. This bill would have prohibited any
utility company from installing an advanced meter (Smart Meter) on private
property or requiring the installation of one unless the customer requested it.
If the utility had already installed a Smart Meter, they would have been
required to replace it with an analog meter if the customer demanded it. If the
customer refused the advanced meter (Smart Meter), the utility company would
not have been allowed to charge a penalty or a higher rate.
It
sounded too good to be true and it was. No sooner than the hearing started, we
found out that the language of the bill had been changed at the last minute
because it no longer agreed with the copies of the bill which the Senators had
received in advance. We had copies as well and the language was no longer the
same. The bill was now asking that people be given the right to opt-out or
opt-in, whichever the committee decided.
Twenty
private citizens lined up to testify in support of the bill. Each had been
promised three minutes. Inexplicably, the Chairman of the committee ruled that
only four could speak for a total of eight minutes! How would four people
encapsulate the many issues with the smart meters in eight minutes? How could
the other 16 who traveled from places far across the state to be there, be
denied their right to be heard? One distraught lady started shouting at the
chairman that she was losing her hearing because of the smart meter on her
house. “I am the only one with a smart meter on my house. I want that meter off
my property!” Showing no compassion, the chairman asked her to leave her
prepared statement with the clerk.
As
we testified, we were cross-examined by some Senators as if we were fabricating
complaints like conspiracy theorists. A few smirks among the members were
observed. One gentleman was asked if his very ill wife had a doctor’s written
statement that her illness was caused by smart meters (she did).
I
was asked by Senator Saslaw (Fairfax) if I was aware that having a cell phone
from Sprint and putting it to my ear causes radiation exposure equal to smart
meters. I immediately responded that I can make a choice whether I have a cell
phone from Sprint or not or whether I put it to my ear. However, I do not have
a choice in having a spying device such as the smart meter attached to my house
by a monopolist supplier of electricity.
The
utilities executives were allowed plenty of time, without interruptions or a
time constraint. A larger utility company’s executive was asked if he knew of
any instance where a smart meter caused a fire – the answer was no. PECO in
Philadelphia had to halt smart meter installations because several fire
officials found smart meters to have started home fires by exploding. The next
question was if he knew of anyone who complained of health issues from smart
meters – the answer was no. That is news to the many organizations who have
conducted studies and tests on people who suffer debilitating illnesses from smart
meters. (www.bioinitiative2012.org)
A
second utility executive testified that they are saving money with smart
meters, $2 million per year, by not having to send a meter reader to each home.
Such savings are given back to consumers, he said, via lower rates. As a matter
of fact, that is not true. There is a huge class action lawsuit in California
in which citizens complain that rates have gone up by as much as ten times
since the installation of smart meters.
None
of the executives told the truth about the vulnerability of smart meters and
the smart grid to solar flares and hackers. They concentrated on how much
easier it would be to detect power outages. No mention was made of the fact
that, cutting power and thermostat temps to homes during high demand via smart
meters controlled from afar, enables utilities to save billions a year by not
having to build extra capacity plants to store electricity in times of peak
usage. One smaller utility company (from Danville) stated to the chairman that
their customers will be allowed in their area to opt-out of smart meters.
No
statement was made that the installation of smart meters is largely paid by
consumers with taxpayer dollars and through higher rates. We have met last year
with utilities regulators when utilities petitioned them to increase rates per
kWh on a scale that would punish those who are careful with their consumption
and reward those who are not.
The
SB 797 bill to allow consumers to opt out of smart meters and not pay higher
rates for their use of analog meters was passed by indefinitely in spite of
all the evidence the sponsor, Senator Thomas A. Garrett, provided to the
committee, and in spite of thousands of cases, lawsuits across the country, and
official studies by reputable organization, such as the Bioinitiative 2012,
Congressional Report Service, American Cancer Society, that smart meters cause
negative health effects from radiation, house fires when the meters explode,
serious cyber security issues, privacy issues in which information gathered
through smart meters and obtained without a warrant is sold to third parties,
higher electricity rates, and incorrect billing.
The
nays recorded were: Senators Newman, Martin, and Obenshain.
The
yeas recorded were: Watkins, Colgan, Saslaw, Norment, Stosch, Edwards, Wagner,
Puckett, Herring, Stanley, and Alexander.
The
mighty dollar rules; corporations are not interested in what happens to the
little people and neither do politicians whom they support. The bill failed for
now, but “we the people” are not giving up yet.
On
a positive note, HB 1430, The Boneta Bill, the amendment to the Right to Farm
Bill, passed with minor changes from subcommittee to full committee. It will be
heard tomorrow. If it advances, it will be one victory against U.N. Agenda 21
and its local government proponents. Farmers will be allowed to sell whatever
produce they grow without huge fines from supervisors who passed onerous regulations.
No comments:
Post a Comment