Give Me That Old Fashioned Analog Meter?!!?

Michael Giberson

Worthy of note, but still mostly puzzling: continuing, low-level, organized opposition to smart electric meters. I can understand concerns over data privacy, but that is about it. Sure, in some states the roll-out came with a sense that the regulated utility was gaining more control over consumer electrical consumption and making customers pay for the privilege, but that is pretty much the nature of the state regulated electric utility business and not new with advanced metering.

13 thoughts on “Give Me That Old Fashioned Analog Meter?!!?

  1. I am going to give you the same answer I gave Lynne. I do not understand why you don’t understand it.

    OMDB. We put those things in our houses and the Federal Government will be running our thermostats and turning off our lights.

    If it were just AEP and me, I wouldn’t worry about a thing. The problem here is that you are a good and nice person who thinks that everybody in the government is like you. That their motives are pure, and they play by the rules. I, unfortunately, am saddled with the knowledge that they are $o8s and their mothers. In particular, the folks who are now running the Federal government are what we, in flyover country, call watermelons. Green on the outside, and red on the inside.

    Underneath their pronouncements about saving the planet, and giving peace and justice to everyone, (blather for the rubes) lives their raw, red, beating hearts that are motivated solely by their will to power. Anyone who can keep a straight face and tell you that the Federal government has the power to order you to buy insurance, or those hideous light-bulbs, laughs at the Constitution and the history of the USA.

    Their ultimate goal is a world in which they are the philosopher kings, and we are the plebes. They believe that their right and duty is to order the most minute details of our lives. In that world, they will attend glittering parties in penthouse apartments, travel by Gulfstream, and eat natural organic food prepared by french chefs, and we will walk, and when their limousines drive by we will scatter away like so many little birds, remove our cloth caps, and bow toward them as we should to our betters.

    This is not a partisan story. The other team were the ones who imposed the light bulb ban. They are little better, just slower, more tongue tied, and less facile with the malarkey.

    A smart meter is, to them, not an instrument for making us all equal in a great marketplace. It is another chance for them to control us. “You plebes will get electricity when we think it is in your best interest to get it. Now stop whining about being cold, and put on another sweater.”

    So, I must conclude that a smart meter is a neat idea, but. My electric bill is $200/m. A smart meter might save me $50/mo. My freedom is worth more than that, so I must conclude that I will refuse a smart meter, unless I am ordered to use one at the point of a cocked and loaded gun. When they do that, as they most assuredly will, I will use my best efforts to hack and sabotage the thing.

    Are there any conditions under which I would accept a smart meter. Well, restore the Federal government to its constitutional role by shutting down about two thirds of the agencies in Washington, voiding the heinously overreaching laws that have been passed since the Wilson (may his name be blotted out) Administration, return to constitutional money (specie), and close the “entitlement” programs. Then we can talk. But not before then.


    1. Smart Meters emit radiation almost continuously, day and night, seven days a week.

    2. Family safety is uncertain with a smart meter attached to a home.

    3. It is impossible to know how close a consumer is to their RF Radiation limit, making safety an uncertainty with installation of a mandatory Smart Meter.

    4. Smart Meters can exceed the whole body radiation exposure of cell phones by 60-150 times.

    5. Radiation exposure from Smart Meters at non-thermal levels shows accumulating evidence of human cell damage, DNA chain breaks, breaches in the blood-brain barrier, sperm damage, toxin exposure, cancer, miscarriage, birth defects, semen degradation, autoimmune diseases, etc.

    6. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a real and sometimes debilitating neurological problem for the affected persons (Mild et al., 2004).

    7. FCC guidelines do not protect the public and cannot be used for any claims of Smart Meter safety.

    8. Smart Meters exceed the RF Microwave Radiation standards of many other countries by 12 to 60 million times.

    9. SUMMARY: Given the evidence of existing and potential harm from Smart Meters, governmental agencies for protecting public health and safety should be much more vigilant towards Smart Meter electromagnetic radiation exposures because governmental agencies are the only defense against such involuntary exposure.

  3. Kudos: Ron is a lunatic, whose views on foreign policy are so dangerous as to unfit him for public office. But, that does not mean he is wrong about everything.

  4. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has submitted a letter calling for a halt to wireless smart meters on January 19, 2012.

    American Academy of Environmental Medicine.
    6505 E Central • Ste 296 • Wichita, KS 67206 Tel: (316) 684-5500 • Fax: (316) 684-5709.

    Decision Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey (Mailed 11/22/2011) BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, On the proposed decision 11-03-014.

    Dear Commissioners:

    The Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine opposes the installation of wireless “smart meters” in homes and schools based on a scientific assessment of the current medical literature (references available on request). Chronic exposure to wireless radiofrequency radiation is a preventable environmental hazard …that is sufficiently well documented to warrant immediate preventative public health action.

    As representatives of physician specialists in the field of environmental medicine, we have an obligation to urge precaution when sufficient scientific and medical evidence suggests health risks which can potentially affect large populations. The literature raises serious concern regarding the levels of radio frequency (RF – 3 KHz – 300 GHz) or extremely low frequency (ELF – o- 300 Hz) exposures produced by “smart meters” to warrant an immediate and complete moratorium on their use and deployment until further study can be performed. The board of the American Board of Environmental Medicine wishes to point out that existing FCC guidelines for RF safety that have been used to justify installation of “smart meters” only look at thermal tissue damage and are obsolete, since many modern studies show metabolic and genomic damage from RF and ELF exposures below the level of intensity which heats tissues. The FCC guidelines are therefore inadequate for use in establishing public health standards. More modern literature shows medically and biologically significant effects of RF and ELF at lower energy densities. These effects accumulate over time, which is an important consideration given the chronic nature of exposure from “smart meters”. The current medical literature raises credible questions about genetic and cellular effects, hormonal effects, male fertility, blood/brain barrier damage and increased risk of certain types of cancers from RF or ELF levels similar to those emitted from “smart meters”. Children are placed at particular risk for altered brain development, and impaired learning and behavior. Further EMF/RF adds synergistic effects to the damage observed from a range of toxic chemicals. Given the widespread, chronic and essentially inescapable ELF/RF exposure of everyone living near a “smart meter”, the Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine finds it unacceptable from a public health standpoint to implement this technology until these serious medical concerns are resolved. We consider a moratorium on installation of wireless “smart meters” to be an issue of the highest importance.

    The Board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine also wishes to note that the US NIEHS National Toxicology Program in 1999 cited radiofrequency radiation as a potential carcinogen. Existing safety limits for pulsed RF were termed “not protective of public health” by the Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group (a federal interagency working group including the FDA, FCC, OSHA, the EPA and others). Emissions given off by “smart meters” have been classified by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Possible Human Carcinogen.

    Hence, we call for:

    • An immediate moratorium on “smart meter” installation until these serious public.
    health issues are resolved. Continuing with their installation would be extremely.

    • Modify the revised proposed decision to include hearings on health impact in the.
    second proceedings, along with cost evaluation and community wide opt-out.

    • Provide immediate relief to those requesting it and restore the analog meters.

    Members of the Board.
    American Academy of Environmental Medicine.

  5. The Public Health Officer for the County of Santa Cruz has released his report of January 13, 2012:

    Health Risks Associated With SmartMeters by Poki Stewart Namkung, M.D., M.P.H., Health Officer, Public Health Division, County of Santa Cruz, Health Services Agency, California, USA – January 13, 2012.

    You can find it here:

    Santa Cruz County, California, US Website:
    Public health official report on smart meters – EM Facts Consultancy – January 22, 2012:
    Public health official report on smart meters – EMF Safety Network – January 19, 2012: –

    Public health official report on smart meters.
    Santa Cruz County, CA Board of Supervisors directed its public health officer to prepare an analysis of the research on the health effects of Smart Meters in Dec…ember 2011. Poki Stewart Namkung, M.D. M.P.H., prepared this report: Health Risks Associated With SmartMeters. (see pages 9-18).

    Dr. Namkungs report recognizes:

    * Smart Meters transmit pulsed electromagnetic field radiation (RF) almost continuously 24/7.

    * There are evidence-based health risks of RF.

    * RF exposure can be cumulative and additive.

    * The massive increase in RF public exposures since the mid-1990′s.

    * The controversy between independent and industry science, including lack of funding for independent research.

    * Evidence to support an Electrical Sensitivity (EHS) diagnosis.

    * The public health issue is that Smart Meters are involuntary RF exposures.

    * FCC thermal guidelines are irrelevant for non-thermal public exposures.

    * The lack of relevant safety standards for chronic pulsed RF

    etc., etc.

    “In summary, there is no scientific data to determine if there is a safe RF exposure level regarding its non-thermal effects.”.

    This is an excellent report and a must read for all public policy decision makers, and especially utility regulators. Many thanks to Dr. Stewart Namkung, the Santa Cruz Supervisors and to the EMF educators in their area.

  6. Fat Man just has a paranoid government conspiracy theory, but methinks there are some untruths in these other freaky posts. Or maybe my wireless router is just eating into my brain.

  7. “Fat Man just has a paranoid government conspiracy theory,”

    Kudoes: I am not paranoid. You are not paying attention.

    Read this:

    April 22, 2009
    Energy Regulatory Chief Says New Coal, Nuclear Plants May Be Unnecessary

    No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said today.

    * * *

    Wellinghoff said renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands. Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive, he added.

    * * *

    “What you have to do, is you have to be able to shape it,” he added. “And if you can shape wind and you can effectively get capacity available for you for all your loads. So if you can shape your renewables, you don’t need fossil fuel or nuclear plants to run all the time. And, in fact, most plants running all the time in your system are an impediment because they’re very inflexible. You can’t ramp up and ramp down a nuclear plant. And if you have instead the ability to ramp up and ramp down loads in ways that can shape the entire system, then the old concept of baseload becomes an anachronism.”

    * * *

    “I think it’s being settled by the digital grid moving forward,” he said. “We are going to have to go to a smart grid to get to this point I’m talking about. But if we don’t go to that digital grid, we’re not going to be able to move these renewables, anyway. So it’s all going to be an integral part of operating that grid efficiently.”

    * * *

    There’s enough renewable energy to meet energy demand, Wellinghoff said. “There’s 500 to 700 gigawatts of developable wind throughout the Midwest, all the way to Texas. There’s probably another 200 to 300 gigawatts in Montana and Wyoming that can go West.”

    He also cited tremendous solar power in the Southwest and hydrokinetic and biomass energy, and said the United States can reduce energy usage by 50 percent. “You combine all those things together … I think we have great resources in this country, and we just need to start using them,” he said.

    Problems with unsteady power generation from wind will be overcome, he said. “That’s exactly what all the load response will do, the load response will provide that leveling ability, number one,” he said. * * *

  8. Wellinghoff doesn’t want to control your consumption, he just wants to overpay you so much that you are willing to do it. At any rate, he quickly backed off of those baseload comments:

    ‘Markets will decide,’ Wellinghoff says of baseload’s future

    Jon Wellinghoff continues to clarify and elaborate on what he said two weeks ago that created quite the conversationstarter:
    There may never be a need for more coal and nuclear plants and baseload generation may be an artifact of the
    past. As some people said, “this from the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission!”
    Today Wellinghoff explained himself some more. At a Washington news breakfast sponsored by Access Intelligence and
    the Compete Coalition, he said he believes electricity markets will decide the future of new coal and nuclear power
    During a press conference in Washington April 22, Wellinghoff said he believes renewable energy resources coupled
    with demand-side management and energy efficiency might well eliminate the need for new conventional power plants.
    “Ultimately, I was talking about a scenario” involving demand response and other technologies “where there may be a
    point where it would be feasible to utilize what are thought of as variable resources to really meet peak loads
    in a very reliable way,” Wellinghoff said today. “Reliability is the key.”
    “But ultimately that was a scenario,” he continued. “What is the future role of coal and nuclear in this country? The
    markets will decide.”
    The markets might respond that indeed they hope to decide, but there are an awful lot of people wanting to define the
    decision-making factors. Climate change bill-writers, state plant-siting authorities, utility rate regulators, and FERC,
    whose rate and industry structure policies make a lot of difference in how things work. Some might say Wellinghoff’s
    strong leaning to renewables and demand-side measures could create confusion about whether markets really rule.
    Others might say markets, especially in the power sector, are always seriously hamstrung by the structural issues that
    are significantly determined by regulatory decisions.

  9. I need to add this. kudos does not give a link for his attempt to dissemble on behalf of Wellinghoff and the administration.

    It doesn’t make any difference. Wellinghoff committed a gaffe, which what they call the truth in Washington. He may have attempted to cover it up with a lot of squid ink, but we should not be distracted. The cat is out of the bag. Wellinghoff told us what the administration’s real policy is, and they have followed up on it for the intervening three years. Keystone was not a surprise to those who have been paying attention.

    The administration, and its allies among the environmentalists and watermelons, want to decrease the amount of energy (and its corollary wealth) that Americans, particularly the low sloping foreheads in flyover country, use. They want us to freeze in the dark, and assume that they will be exempt from the misery by reason of their superior morality and abundant compassion. Smart meters are an important tool for them, and look for them to continue to push for smart meters even if they are justly turfed out in November.

  10. Fat Man,

    This thread is stale, but just between you and me:

    1. I am not a Wellinghoff fan.
    2. After reading your post on Wellinghoff, I recalled reading about his quick about-face. I used “The Google” to quickly find many links documenting that, but I didn’t post the links. I assume you know how to use “The Google,” notwithstanding your low sloping forehead.
    3. Your paranoid responses about “smart meters” are inconsistent. The smart meter movement was moving before Wellinghoff and Obama were here. Take a look at Texas, a clear leader in the effort, and the effort has nothing to do with the crazy shit you apparently fear.
    4. Good day.

Comments are closed.