The Smart Meter Fights for Wireless Air Space
Utilities Want More Spectrum, Too
By Katie Fehrenbacher, gigaom.com

Wireless spectrum: It’s the air that mobile service providers breathe, and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission as of late has been actively freeing up chunks of wireless spectrum for our insatiable appetite for wireless services. But turns out it’s not just the cell phone companies, ambitious new ventures (LightSquared!) or Google that want more spectrum; utilities want more, too.

This week, the trade group the Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) says it has filed a request with the FCC to seek shared use of spectrum that will likely be allocated for public safety use (so, say police and firemen in your area could use mission-critical wireless services over the spectrum to get their jobs done). The chunk of spectrum is out of the 700 MHz band, and the UTC says that utilities should be eligible to share the spectrum with public safety services because they provide “public safety services.”
Read more…

Backlash Against Smart Meters: Are the Green Gizmos Really a Threat to Public Health and Privacy?
By Cameron Scott – AlterNet
Smart meters were designed to help reduce energy consumption, but some California residents claim the technology does more harm than good.

…As the state continues down the long, windy path toward a smart grid, if demand drops and backup power plants begin to close their doors, the smart meter dust-up will fall into the dustbin of history. But if energy consumption doesn’t budge, the state’s precipitous embrace of wireless smart meters may garner more attention.

Chris Danforth, a smart meter expert with the PUC’s own Division of Ratepayer Advocates, noted that PG&E’s initial proposal to the PUC would have relied on a “power-line carrier.” But the company couldn’t transmit data fast and reliably enough, according to Danforth, “so they had to change to a radio carrier — and then all these issues developed with radio.”

The PUC is deliberating over privacy concerns, but Danforth also acknowledges that the PUC’s report “may not have gone far enough with non-thermal impacts” and that “the commission should continue to look at this issue in some kind of public forum.”

Which is a big part of what Hart’s and Sandizell’s groups are demanding — so maybe they aren’t so crazy after all.

SMARTMETERS ARE A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
By David L. Wilner

…There is no question that today’s spread spectrum technology used for SmartMeter radio transmission and reception is greatly advanced using complex algorithms and clever frequency hiding schemes, but these advancements are just as vulnerable as the less sophisticated ones that were introduced during World War II and used throughout the intervening years. No matter how well you design and build a security system, someone will figure out how to hack it. Read more…

Should the Wireless Sector be Concerned with Increasing EMF Militancy ?
from StimulatingBroadband.com, which bills itself as ‘Portal for the New American Broadband Economy’
“…Today’s arrests mark a new flash point among anti-smart meter groups scattered around the nation and electric utilities installing the terminals which are key elements of the emerging American smart grid infrastructure….

“When fellow Americans, no matter how few and no matter how vilified, are going into the streets to get arrested about something our industry is doing, is that really a good thing for us? Anyone that thinks it is a good thing has never actually done the hard work of permitting, licensing, or deploying the technologies that drive our country’s economy.

“Let’s drop back and listen, do some more studies, allow opt outs when necessary. The big power monopolies, like PG&E, trace their ancestry back to the robber baron era. They often remind us of that. Let’s remember that many of us in competitive telecom grew up fighting another monopoly called the Bell System. We had the American consumer on our side as we did. Let’s remember that too.”

From TIME:
Rage Against the Machine
By TOM MCNICHOL

CPUC cozies up even closer to for-profit utilities
By Dennis Wyatt – Managing Editor – Manteca Bulletin
“…Maybe, just maybe, the $20,000 a table event may have been the last supper for cronyism that has turned the CPUC into a geriatric lapdog for the Big Three of California for-profit utilities.”

Michael Laybourn: PG&E ‘Smart Meters’ — Dumb Idea

2 DOE Reports
Following on the Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Plan recommendations on energy and the environment, in October of 2010, DOE released two reports addressing Smart Grid policy issues.

(1) Report: Communications Requirements of Smart Grid Technologies

This report addresses communications issues related to the Smart Grid, including policy recommendations to provide utilities with increased flexibility and choice in communications options. It addresses the capability of both proprietary and commercial networks to serve the communications needs of utilities, and notes that identifying the most appropriate communications technology or network will require the consideration of a variety of factors, including the particular application in question and the location in which a technology is being deployed.

(2) Report: Data Access and Privacy Issues Related to Smart Grid Technologies

This report examines how legal and regulatory regimes are evolving to better accommodate innovation, privacy, and data-security in the development of Smart Grid technologies that could potentially draw upon personal energy-usage data. The report surveys industry, state, and federal practices in this evolving area to alert industry leaders, state regulators, and federal policy makers to trends and practices that seem most likely to accommodate all of these values and maximize the value of Smart Grid technologies. The report discusses issues on which there is broad consensus, such as the need to educate consumers about the benefits of Smart Grid technologies, and issues on which there is not yet agreement, such as the type of data that utilities should be allowed to collect and disclose to third parties, and frames these issues for further discussion.
===========
Please remember, your bite-size contributions on our Donate Page are what help keep us going

From Sandi Mauher at EMF Safety Network:

EXPERTS COMMENT ON SMART METER STUDY
International Scientists Challenge CCST Conclusions
February 1, 2011

Yesterday was the deadline for comments on the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) Smart Meter Report, “Health Impacts of Radio Frequency From Smart Meters.” This report was produced in response to California Assembly members Jared Huffman (Marin) and Bill Monning (Santa Cruz) inquiry into the safety of smart meter wireless technology and the possible inadequacy of the federal radio frequency radiation (RF) safety standards.
International science and medical experts from Israel, Sweden, Canada, Greece and the US criticize the CCST findings. Although previous headlines varied about the results of the study, these experts agree, the study fails to protect public health.

Elihu D Richter MD, MPH from Israel is “a medical epidemiologist who has assessed source-exposure-effect relationships for many chemical and physical agents over the past 40 years.” Dr. Richter writes, “ It is fair to say that we are no longer talking about mere precaution of uncertain risk, but about prevention of highly probable and known risks. Based on the accumulating evidence, it is now fairly certain that there will be widespread adverse public health impacts.”

Dr. David Carpenter, public health physician and former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany, New York writes, “This document is not an accurate description of the state of the science on the issue of radiofrequency fields, and is full of inaccuracies.” He calls the report “faulty” and states, “The evidence for adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation is currently strong and grows stronger with each new study.”

Olle Johansson, PhD, Swedish Professor from the Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute writes, “Many smart meters are close to beds, kitchens, playrooms, and similar locations. These wireless systems are never off, and the exposure is not voluntary. The smart meters are being forced on citizens everywhere. Based on this, the inauguration of smart meters with grudging and involuntary exposure of millions to billions of human beings to pulsed microwave radiation should immediately be prohibited…”

Lukas H. Margaritis, Professor of Cell Biology and Electron Microscopy and Adamantia F. Fragopoulou, Biologist and Researcher from the University of Athens, Greece, comment, “The California Council of Science and Technology has released a report on WIRELESS SMART METERS, in which any relation with health hazards has been bypassed. It is however ‘common secret’ between the researchers in the field of electromagnetic biology that such a statement has absolutely no scientific validity…”

Raymond Richard Neutra MD, DrPH, (CA EMF program) concludes his comments by stating, “This is not the way I would like to see public policy pursued. Unfortunately you are not alone in this pattern of language use, hidden assumptions and making the uncertain seem certain so a to provide cover for policy.”

These and more expert comments can be found at Sage Reports.

The Wireless World Wetdream

Reminiscent of the clueless Sherwin-Williams Paint logo, ‘smart’ grid enthusiasts fantasize about a future world with a ‘smart’ meter on every condo, yurt and mud hut wall.

There’s even a Google Map where you can watch the SMeter pandemic spread across the globe. [see below]

The following grab of the interactive map, zoomed in on the U.S., shows locations of smart-meter deployments around the world. Red icons show electricity, green shows gas, blue is water, triangles are trials, and circles are projects.
(Credit: Energy Retail Association)

Here’s a grab of the global map:

For more on the implications of this for national security, see:
Money trumps security in smart-meter rollouts, experts say
by Elinor Mills

SMARTMETERS ARE A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
By David L. Wilner

The Next-Up Organization has posted an inspiring photo essay on EMF-Free Zones being established in the EU. Click here to view it.

Who’s In Charge Here?

This from our colleague Kiku Lani, who reports:

To help me with some research on a project I’m working on, I asked the Dept. of Energy’s media relations to clarify what rights consumers have to opt out of smart meters, and what role the federal government has, if any, in mandating them. Here are responses (in italics) to my questions:

1. What advice and recommendations does the DOE have to consumers who want to refuse or opt out of a wireless smart meter that their utility company says is mandatory? Do they have the right to opt out? If so, do you know a law or regulation that allows for this?

The States through their public utility commission or similar state regulatory body regulate electric utilities at the retail level, so we would recommend that consumers that want to opt out contact their State public utility commission. Any utility requirement for mandatory adoption of smart meters would be a State matter.

2. Has the DOE (or Congress or both) made it mandatory for consumers to adopt wireless smart meters or is the DOE not setting policy regarding federal mandates, and instead leaving that up to each state and/or utility?

No. The Federal government, including DOE, does not have any role in regulating the installation of smart meters, nor does it have a policy about the mandatory adoption of smart meters.

What specific regulations or sections of law can I find or look up that explains this division of power or responsibility?

The Federal Power Act and amendments is the primary source that delineates the Federal responsibilities.

3. One utility making the headlines in particular, CMP in Maine, is saying that it could lose its DOE grant if they allow consumers to opt out. Is this correct? Or would the DOE grants allow for exceptions (opt outs)?

DOE awards a grant, based on a specific scope of work and the functionality that would be achieved with the grant. This includes the Smart Grid Investment Grants made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. If a recipient’s scope of work changes, those changes would be subject to DOE’s review and approval.