Showing posts with label act 129. Show all posts
Showing posts with label act 129. Show all posts
Friday, February 17, 2017
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Council to address Monroeville residents' smart meter concerns
Monroeville officials plan to reach out to the state Public Utility Commission after hearing residents' concerns that smart meters measuring electrical usage may be a health hazard and a cause for other concerns.
A state law requires utilities to install the new electronic meters for customers.
But residents urged council at separate meetings this month to help stop utility companies from installing the meters.
“We're looking into it and looking into what the smart meters are really all about,” Mayor Greg Erosenko said Monday. “We heard from some residents and have (our) solicitor looking on his end.”
The issue was first brought up by resident Francis Hriadil at council's Oct. 6 workshop meeting. He said he has health, safety, privacy and security concerns about the meters. Critics say health concerns are rooted in the radio frequency emitted by the meters.
“I think this is a public safety issue and a serious one,” he said.
Saturday, September 3, 2016
Man Chains Electric Meter To Prevent Utility From Installing Smart Meter
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — It’s obvious Norbert Sliwinski of Monroeville does not want Duquesne Light to install a so-called smart meter on his property.
A lock and chain secures his old analog meter with a clear notice: “Attention Do Not Install Smart Meter.”
The retired mechanical engineer says smart meters are dangerous.
“The smart meter is not safe for the following reasons. It emits high frequency radio waves. You don’t feel them. You don’t know about them, but they can penetrate your body and they can cause health problems later on,” Sliwinski told KDKA money editor Jon Delano on Thursday.
Sliwinski says the radio waves go through concrete walls.
“My bedroom is right next door, and it will emit high frequency waves. I worry about my health and my children’s health.”
Read more and see video at this link... http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/09/01/man-chains-electric-meter-to-prevent-utility-from-installing-smart-meter/
Read more and see video at this link... http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/09/01/man-chains-electric-meter-to-prevent-utility-from-installing-smart-meter/
Thursday, September 24, 2015
PASMA SmartMeter Press Release #21
Pennsylvania Smart Meter Awareness * PASMA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 9-8-15
Contact: Tom McCarey
Telephone: 610-687-7607
CONSUMER AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CHAIR GODSHALL HELD HEARINGS FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES TO OPT-OUT FROM SMART METER ACT 129 REGULATIONS AS HE REFUSES TO RELEASE SMART METER RATEPAYER OPT-OUT BILLS FOR A COMMITTEE VOTE
September 1st, 2015, a true anomaly occurred in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the right of redress for grievances before government, its legislature and regulating agencies. PA House of Representatives Consumer Affairs Committee Chair Robert W Godshall acquiesced to corporate demands by staging a hearing wherein testimony was presented by numerous vested corporate interests, i.e., EDCs (electric distribution companies) to air their grievances regarding relief from penalties ranging from $1 million to $20 million regardless of fault in not meeting energy efficiency and peak demand reduction mandates contained in Act 129 of 2008, AND their requests for opt-out privileges, which Godshall said the committee and the PA PUC would take under advisement.
The irony of the hearing that Representative Godshall chaired is that he REFUSES to allow committee voting for various opt-outs bills (past and present) for ratepayer consumers regarding Smart Meters (SMs) that 7 utilities are forcing on to them without regard for, nor concerns about, the problems AMI Smart Meters cause: fires, explosions, EMF/RF health problems due to non-thermal adverse reactions, plus consumers being liable for fire damage caused by SMs that insurance companies refuse coverage for and which utility companies blame on homeowners, when fires occurred after SM retrofits.
Contrasting the two situations listed above, one has to wonder where Godshall’s interests are to be found: with consumers’ affairs or with vested corporate interests, especially since his son, Grey Godshall, works as a manager for PECO/Exelon, the largest electric and natural gas supplier in the USA.
An issue that seems paramount to utilities is that “Act 129 allows EDCs to recover only the costs of implementing energy efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements and caps the cost of the combined programs at 2% of the EDC’s total annual revenues as of December 31, 2006. The law specifically precludes EDCs from recovering the revenue they lose due to customer usage reductions,” as the Energy of Pennsylvania Association president testified.
The Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Manager of Government Affairs dropped this little hint as to what ratepayers can expect: “It can then be reasonably projected that over the next three years, utilities will spend roughly an additional $735 million to comply with the new targets – all of which will be borne by ratepayers [consumers].”
Representative Evankovich, a member of the Consumer Affairs Committee, questioned the inequity in the system for business customers—not homeowner customers’ inequities—and how businesses that were energy efficient in the first place are now penalized under Act 129. Nothing was questioned regarding how consumers/ratepayers, who dramatically and negatively are impacted by SMs under Act 129, was ever addressed. It was all about corporate interests and “follow the money.”
Newly-appointed PA PUC Chairman, Gladys M Brown, testified that there are five changes coming to Act 129, all of which seemingly may have favorable impacts for Pennsylvania utilities and EDCs. However, nothing was said about favorably impacting ratepayers/consumers. Why?
The Director of Regulatory and Government Affairs for EnerNOC testified that “While EDCs can recover the direct costs of the Act 129 programs [apparently from grants and ratepayer rate hikes], they are not able to recover the lost revenue that results from less energy being used.” He went on to say, “If utilities can’t earn a return on this technology, they will be less likely to deploy it relative to traditional infrastructure investments for which they can earn a return.” What about ratepayers?
The Director of PennFuture Energy Center pointed to “Protect our existing gains—Any action that lowers the Act 129 budgets or lowers the EDC’s targets means that another program will have to do more. At a minimum, we should avoid weakening the program.” With regard to “Rethink our rate designs—In our restructured market, our electric utilities are in the business of selling electric distribution services, not electricity itself. They should be paid a fair price for the service they provide, but the rate design should encourage energy efficiency not waste.”
However, it was the testimony of the Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania (IECPA) that delineated what’s involved when he presented Slide 6 of his PowerPoint presentation regarding “Concerns and Facts About the Opt-Out,” which applies to power company suppliers, not ratepayer consumers—a BIG difference regarding the word “consumers.” Those Opt-Out Concerns, as appeared in the PP presentation, include:
• “Opt-Out reduces Residential & Small Business Participation
• Opt-Out will reduce large consumer energy efficiency
• Opt-Out allows consumers to collect grants & leave the Program without paying
• Opt-Out reduces energy industry jobs in the Commonwealth
• Opt-Out reduces funding to large consumer market segment
• Opt-Out allows large consumers to avoid investment in PA or energy efficiency”
How can EDCs present their grievances and be taken seriously regarding the impacts of Act 129 of 2008 when homeowners/ratepayers/
PASMA respectfully asks the Pennsylvania legislature to enforce Robert W Godshall’s recusing himself, as he apparently is playing favorites in not allowing Smart Meter Opt-out Bills to be called for a vote and also has a conflict of interest in his son’s employment with PECO/Exelon. Should there be a recall referendum instituted against Godshall?
###
If you would like more information about this topic, or to schedule an interview with a member of PASMA, please call Tom McCarey at 610-687-7607.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 9-8-15
Contact: Tom McCarey
Telephone: 610-687-7607
CONSUMER AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CHAIR GODSHALL HELD HEARINGS FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES TO OPT-OUT FROM SMART METER ACT 129 REGULATIONS AS HE REFUSES TO RELEASE SMART METER RATEPAYER OPT-OUT BILLS FOR A COMMITTEE VOTE
September 1st, 2015, a true anomaly occurred in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the right of redress for grievances before government, its legislature and regulating agencies. PA House of Representatives Consumer Affairs Committee Chair Robert W Godshall acquiesced to corporate demands by staging a hearing wherein testimony was presented by numerous vested corporate interests, i.e., EDCs (electric distribution companies) to air their grievances regarding relief from penalties ranging from $1 million to $20 million regardless of fault in not meeting energy efficiency and peak demand reduction mandates contained in Act 129 of 2008, AND their requests for opt-out privileges, which Godshall said the committee and the PA PUC would take under advisement.
The irony of the hearing that Representative Godshall chaired is that he REFUSES to allow committee voting for various opt-outs bills (past and present) for ratepayer consumers regarding Smart Meters (SMs) that 7 utilities are forcing on to them without regard for, nor concerns about, the problems AMI Smart Meters cause: fires, explosions, EMF/RF health problems due to non-thermal adverse reactions, plus consumers being liable for fire damage caused by SMs that insurance companies refuse coverage for and which utility companies blame on homeowners, when fires occurred after SM retrofits.
Contrasting the two situations listed above, one has to wonder where Godshall’s interests are to be found: with consumers’ affairs or with vested corporate interests, especially since his son, Grey Godshall, works as a manager for PECO/Exelon, the largest electric and natural gas supplier in the USA.
An issue that seems paramount to utilities is that “Act 129 allows EDCs to recover only the costs of implementing energy efficiency and peak demand reduction requirements and caps the cost of the combined programs at 2% of the EDC’s total annual revenues as of December 31, 2006. The law specifically precludes EDCs from recovering the revenue they lose due to customer usage reductions,” as the Energy of Pennsylvania Association president testified.
The Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry Manager of Government Affairs dropped this little hint as to what ratepayers can expect: “It can then be reasonably projected that over the next three years, utilities will spend roughly an additional $735 million to comply with the new targets – all of which will be borne by ratepayers [consumers].”
Representative Evankovich, a member of the Consumer Affairs Committee, questioned the inequity in the system for business customers—not homeowner customers’ inequities—and how businesses that were energy efficient in the first place are now penalized under Act 129. Nothing was questioned regarding how consumers/ratepayers, who dramatically and negatively are impacted by SMs under Act 129, was ever addressed. It was all about corporate interests and “follow the money.”
Newly-appointed PA PUC Chairman, Gladys M Brown, testified that there are five changes coming to Act 129, all of which seemingly may have favorable impacts for Pennsylvania utilities and EDCs. However, nothing was said about favorably impacting ratepayers/consumers. Why?
The Director of Regulatory and Government Affairs for EnerNOC testified that “While EDCs can recover the direct costs of the Act 129 programs [apparently from grants and ratepayer rate hikes], they are not able to recover the lost revenue that results from less energy being used.” He went on to say, “If utilities can’t earn a return on this technology, they will be less likely to deploy it relative to traditional infrastructure investments for which they can earn a return.” What about ratepayers?
The Director of PennFuture Energy Center pointed to “Protect our existing gains—Any action that lowers the Act 129 budgets or lowers the EDC’s targets means that another program will have to do more. At a minimum, we should avoid weakening the program.” With regard to “Rethink our rate designs—In our restructured market, our electric utilities are in the business of selling electric distribution services, not electricity itself. They should be paid a fair price for the service they provide, but the rate design should encourage energy efficiency not waste.”
However, it was the testimony of the Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania (IECPA) that delineated what’s involved when he presented Slide 6 of his PowerPoint presentation regarding “Concerns and Facts About the Opt-Out,” which applies to power company suppliers, not ratepayer consumers—a BIG difference regarding the word “consumers.” Those Opt-Out Concerns, as appeared in the PP presentation, include:
• “Opt-Out reduces Residential & Small Business Participation
• Opt-Out will reduce large consumer energy efficiency
• Opt-Out allows consumers to collect grants & leave the Program without paying
• Opt-Out reduces energy industry jobs in the Commonwealth
• Opt-Out reduces funding to large consumer market segment
• Opt-Out allows large consumers to avoid investment in PA or energy efficiency”
How can EDCs present their grievances and be taken seriously regarding the impacts of Act 129 of 2008 when homeowners/ratepayers/
PASMA respectfully asks the Pennsylvania legislature to enforce Robert W Godshall’s recusing himself, as he apparently is playing favorites in not allowing Smart Meter Opt-out Bills to be called for a vote and also has a conflict of interest in his son’s employment with PECO/Exelon. Should there be a recall referendum instituted against Godshall?
###
If you would like more information about this topic, or to schedule an interview with a member of PASMA, please call Tom McCarey at 610-687-7607.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Conflict-of-Interest Smart Meter Politicking in Pennsylvania
Catherine J Frompovich
Activist Post
Otto von Bismarck, the conservative Prussian statesman, who dominated German and European affairs from the 1860s until 1890 [1], supposedly is attributed with saying, “If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made.” How true, especially in the case of the shenanigans that apparently have gone on in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding House Bill 2200 that became Act 129 in 2008.
House Bill 2200 had amendments, and the Freeman Amendment in particular, is discussed in the House Journal. Were Smart Meters (SMs) really mandated or actually supposed to be voluntary, since the history of that bill, according to the House and Senate Journals, seems to indicate something totally different than what is being forced upon electric power company customers like PECO, an Exelon company.
Here’s a brief, but clear account, of the history of PA House Bill 2200 as it worked its way into becoming Act 129 of 2008.
...
Read the rest of this article at this link.
Activist Post
Otto von Bismarck, the conservative Prussian statesman, who dominated German and European affairs from the 1860s until 1890 [1], supposedly is attributed with saying, “If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made.” How true, especially in the case of the shenanigans that apparently have gone on in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding House Bill 2200 that became Act 129 in 2008.
House Bill 2200 had amendments, and the Freeman Amendment in particular, is discussed in the House Journal. Were Smart Meters (SMs) really mandated or actually supposed to be voluntary, since the history of that bill, according to the House and Senate Journals, seems to indicate something totally different than what is being forced upon electric power company customers like PECO, an Exelon company.
Here’s a brief, but clear account, of the history of PA House Bill 2200 as it worked its way into becoming Act 129 of 2008.
...
Read the rest of this article at this link.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
About the law in PA - part 1
PA Act 129 started out in the House of Representatives as HB 2200.
This was a comprehensive bill that was ammended to include a provision
for utility companies to furnish smart meter technology, so only part of
the bill applies to this issue.
I will be posting excerpts from the Legislative Journals that show some of the process of how HB 2200 became Act 129. It shows some of what was being discussed about the issues surrounding the introduction of a law on smart meters.
Check the link below to see the whole history of the bill.
House Bill 2200 History
The bill went through several changes in wording before the final version that was passed into law.
I've decided to start with the end of the process, and later post the House remarks and PUC implementation order.
This is the final version of the bill, the wording is exactly the same as Act 129 of 2008.
PN 4526
(2) ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES SHALL FURNISH SMART
23 METER TECHNOLOGY AS FOLLOWS:
24 (I) UPON REQUEST FROM A CUSTOMER THAT AGREES TO PAY
25 THE COST OF THE SMART METER AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST.
26 (II) IN NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
27 (III) IN ACCORDANCE WITH A DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE NOT
28 TO EXCEED 15 YEARS.
The bill meets with it's final approval in the Senate...
(Remarks see Senate Journal Page 2626-2631), Oct. 8, 2008
p 2626
Senator TOMLINSON. (contact info) (website)
Mr. President, I rise to ask for support
for House Bill No. 2200 as amended by the Senate. I think this
is very, very important legislation for our consumers today who
consume power and energy in Pennsylvania. House Bill No.
2200 is, I think, a large step forward. The Governor of the State
of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, has been a leader in a new energy
policy, and this legislation contains many of those items in there.
It includes demand-side reduction, conservation, that I think
is going to help the consumer, in the long run, to reduce the
demand on power. We are requiring a reduction of 3 percent by the
year 2013 and 4 1/2 percent for peak power, and I think that is
extremely important as we go forward with an energy policy, Mr.
President. It also contains language in there that we will have
smart meters. It is not mandated, but it allows for the deployment
of smart meters through a depreciation process, through new
home construction process, and through the depreciation of 15
years, and for anyone who wants to purchase a smart meter which
they feel will help them manage their electric load better.
Senator BOSCOLA. (contact info) (facebook) (twitter)
So-called smart meters by themselves are not
magically -- anyone's monthly electric bill is not going to go
down just because you are getting a smart meter. That will not
happen. But this new technology will reward customers who are
smart enough to realize that they can use electricity when it is
cheapest during off-peak hours and pay a lower rate. We also
made sure that smart meters would not be mandated for every
single ratepayer. Not only is that a smarter approach to smart
meter deployment, but it will also save electric customers
hundreds of millions of dollars paying for something that will not
provide a real benefit in their own households.
Senator FUMO (wikipedia info)
In addition, we did not mandate smart meters,
but we made them optional. We did say in new construction,
where they really are practical, they will be put in.
It goes back to the House. The discussion does not mention anything about whether the meters are mandated or not, so I haven't posted any excerpts here. The journal is at this link if you want to read them yourself. (Remarks see House Journal Page 2323-2328), Oct. 8, 2008
HB 2200 is signed into law as Act 129 by Governer EDWARD G. RENDELL
More to come...
I will be posting excerpts from the Legislative Journals that show some of the process of how HB 2200 became Act 129. It shows some of what was being discussed about the issues surrounding the introduction of a law on smart meters.
Check the link below to see the whole history of the bill.
House Bill 2200 History
The bill went through several changes in wording before the final version that was passed into law.
I've decided to start with the end of the process, and later post the House remarks and PUC implementation order.
This is the final version of the bill, the wording is exactly the same as Act 129 of 2008.
PN 4526
(2) ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES SHALL FURNISH SMART
23 METER TECHNOLOGY AS FOLLOWS:
24 (I) UPON REQUEST FROM A CUSTOMER THAT AGREES TO PAY
25 THE COST OF THE SMART METER AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST.
26 (II) IN NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
27 (III) IN ACCORDANCE WITH A DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE NOT
28 TO EXCEED 15 YEARS.
The bill meets with it's final approval in the Senate...
(Remarks see Senate Journal Page 2626-2631), Oct. 8, 2008
p 2626
Senator TOMLINSON. (contact info) (website)
Mr. President, I rise to ask for support
for House Bill No. 2200 as amended by the Senate. I think this
is very, very important legislation for our consumers today who
consume power and energy in Pennsylvania. House Bill No.
2200 is, I think, a large step forward. The Governor of the State
of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, has been a leader in a new energy
policy, and this legislation contains many of those items in there.
It includes demand-side reduction, conservation, that I think
is going to help the consumer, in the long run, to reduce the
demand on power. We are requiring a reduction of 3 percent by the
year 2013 and 4 1/2 percent for peak power, and I think that is
extremely important as we go forward with an energy policy, Mr.
President. It also contains language in there that we will have
smart meters. It is not mandated, but it allows for the deployment
of smart meters through a depreciation process, through new
home construction process, and through the depreciation of 15
years, and for anyone who wants to purchase a smart meter which
they feel will help them manage their electric load better.
Senator BOSCOLA. (contact info) (facebook) (twitter)
So-called smart meters by themselves are not
magically -- anyone's monthly electric bill is not going to go
down just because you are getting a smart meter. That will not
happen. But this new technology will reward customers who are
smart enough to realize that they can use electricity when it is
cheapest during off-peak hours and pay a lower rate. We also
made sure that smart meters would not be mandated for every
single ratepayer. Not only is that a smarter approach to smart
meter deployment, but it will also save electric customers
hundreds of millions of dollars paying for something that will not
provide a real benefit in their own households.
Senator FUMO (wikipedia info)
In addition, we did not mandate smart meters,
but we made them optional. We did say in new construction,
where they really are practical, they will be put in.
It goes back to the House. The discussion does not mention anything about whether the meters are mandated or not, so I haven't posted any excerpts here. The journal is at this link if you want to read them yourself. (Remarks see House Journal Page 2323-2328), Oct. 8, 2008
HB 2200 is signed into law as Act 129 by Governer EDWARD G. RENDELL
More to come...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)