Application No: A.11-03-014, and Related Matters Exhibit No.

: CEP-2 Witness: Susan Brinchman

Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of Modifications to its SmartMeterTM Program and Increased Revenue Requirements to Recover the Costs of the Modifications (U39M).

Application 11-03-014 (Filed March 24, 2011)

And Related Matters.

Application 11-03-015 Application 11-07-020

REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF SUSAN BRINCHMAN ON BEHALF OF CENTER FOR ELECTROSMOG PREVENTION

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA October 26, 2012 CEP Rebuttal Testimony 1

CENTER FOR ELECTROSMOG PREVENTION...................................................................................... 3 I. SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................... 3 II. CEP PROPOSAL ............................................................................................................................... 3 A. TURN...............................................................................................................................................7 B. AGLET............................................................................................................................................. 7 C. CLECA............................................................................................................................................. 8 D. DRA ................................................................................................................................................. 8 E. EMF SAFETY NETWORK.............................................................................................................8

CEP Rebuttal Testimony

REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF SUSAN BRINCHMAN ON BEHALF OF CENTER FOR ELECTROSMOG PREVENTION

I. SUMMARY The Center for Electrosmog Prevention (CEP) proposes an opt-out program allowing all electric and natural gas customers of PG&E, SoCalGas, SCE, and SDG&E to decline the use of smart meter technology, utilizing analog meters1 on their premises without being charged an initial or exit fee and being able to read their meters to provide cost-effective monthly readings to their electric and gas service providers. This would allow all ratepayers to choose whether they are exposed to the emissions from smart meter technology or to opt-out for other reasons, including concerns about inaccuracies and overbilling, safety (ex. fires, theft), privacy and security (hacking potential, data being collected and potentially shared and/or misused). CEP makes additional requests related to the opt-out fees and accommodations required by those with disabilities and/or medical conditions, or related to safety and security for the general public. II. CEP PROPOSAL 2 1. NO-COST OPT-OUT: Immediate free, self-read3 opt-out for anyone requesting for reason of medical condition or risks, with "zone-of-safety"4 to the degree customer requests., including all wireless infrastructure and collector meters to be removed within the distance requested by customer with medical condition reason for opting out. 2. LOW RATES: No associated extra costs for those opting out, including punitive or increased rates. Tiered rating system shall remain in place for those using analog meters, to reward conservation. Those opting out for medical reasons who use electricity associated with medical condition during daytime hours or extra electricity shall receive lowest and discounted rates.
CEP defines "analog" to be used in this document: exclusively electro-mechanical, not electronic, no chip inserted, non-hybridized, zero RF radiation or EMF emissions.
2 3 1

based on accommodations, discrimination, safety, environmental considerations

The utility ratepayers should not have to pay for meter reading, instead the CPUC should allow self-reading on postcard to be sent in to utility by customers (or by computer), with meter readers to go to residence or commercial property 2-4 times yearly to verify, using appointment method if customer desires. "Zone of safety", recommended as medically necessary by AAEM.)www.aaemonline.org/AAEMEMFmedicalconditions.pdf;
4

CEP Rebuttal Testimony

3. REFUND: A full refund or credit for anyone who has paid for opt-out previously. 4. ESTABLISH COMMERCIAL OPT-OUT: Immediate inclusion of no-cost commercial opt-out to be able to accommodate disabled and medically ill in public places. 5. REDUCTION OF RF RADIATION EXPOSURES STATEWIDE: a. REMOVAL OF BANKS OF METERS: Removal of all banks of meters and replacement with analogs as a precautionary measure to prevent increased RF exposures for sensitive populations. b. 2ND RADIO NOT ACTIVATED: Second radio (Zigbee, or for HAN) not be activated (or be deactivated immediately) in any neighborhoods or communities anywhere in the state, permanently. c. SYSTEMATIC TRANSITION OF ALL AMI/AMR SMART OR ELECTRONIC METERS TO ANALOG d. EXPLORE USE OF FIBEROPTIC NETWORK FOR COMMUNICATIONS, UTILIZING CEQA e. ADOPT AND APPLY PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE5 INSTITUTE A BIOLOGICALLY-BASED GUIDELINE Apply biologically-based public exposure RF guidelines, per BioInitiative Report6, adopting the recommendations of the related Seletun Scientific Panel7 as the initial maximum for exposure to wireless and RF/EMF, with continuous efforts to lower RF exposures further, with even lower and more flexible levels for more sensitive populations, w/ natural background levels as goal.

6. CUSTOMER INFORMATION: Continuous, prominent, positive advertisement of the opt-out program so all customers know about it, especially those with medical conditions and disabilities mentioned in the AAEM and scientific literature who might benefit from RF avoidance.
5
5

CPUC adopts a policy of utilizing and enforcing the use of the Precautionary Principle with regards to safety, defined as the following: "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be take even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically, with the addition: "When the science is conflicted or unresolved the most restrictive approach in favor of a precautionary shall be taken." http://www.bioinitiative.org/freeaccess/index.htm

6 7

Based on power density measurements, the Seletun Scientific Panel finds sufficient evidence for a whole-body scientific benchmark for adverse health effect exists down to 0.17 mW/m2 (also 0.000017 mW/cm2 = 0.017 W/cm2). It is approx. 50,000 60,000 times lower than the current ICNIRP/FCC standards. This may need to be lowered in the future [and adjusted for sensitive populations]. http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetichealth-blog/the-seletun-statement/

CEP Rebuttal Testimony

7. REIMBURSEMENT: Payment for associated costs, losses, suffering related to smart meter for anyone with a medical condition or disability who was impacted by that RF exposure.

The California Public Utilities Code section 701.1 (701.1) states in part: 701.1(a) The Legislature finds and declares that, in addition to other ratepayer protection objectives, a principal goal of electric and natural gas utilities' resource planning and investment shall be to minimize the cost to society of the reliable energy services that are provided by natural gas and electricity . . .. And, further states in 701.1(c): In calculating the cost effectiveness of energy resources, including conservation and load management options, the commission shall include, in addition to other ratepayer protection objectives, a value for any costs and benefits to the environment . . . CEP believes that allowing opt-outs without charging fees will comply with section 701.1 while forcing ratepayers to accept placement of smart meter technology at their premises will violate section 701.1. This is because an opt-out from using smart meters improves the environment by reducing RF radiation emissions which constitute a form of manmade electrosmog pollution. So, the monetary cost of removing a smart meter is offset by the environmental benefits of not having smart meter emissions. Significantly, CA State Public Utility Code 328(b) clearly forbids charging separate fees for utilizing services that protect public or customer safety. 8 Since physicians recommend avoidance of RF radiation for certain medical conditions and disabilities, fees must be stricken for those reasons. RF radiation, the same type emitted virtually constantly by smart meters into residences and commercial buildings is considered to be a potential carcinogen9 by the World Health Organization, for instance. This is just one of many safety reasons to avoid RF radiation, based on clear medical recommendations and tens of thousands of independent peer-reviewed studies. Forcing people to be exposed to a potential carcinogen or agent that they should avoid for medical reasons, or when they do not wish it for safety's sake, and making them pay to avoid it is clearly illegal
8

Section 328(b) of the CA Public Utility Code states: No customer should have to pay separate fees for utilizing services that protect public or customer safety.
9

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

CEP Rebuttal Testimony

under multiple California laws. This concern is corroborated by the recent position statement " Smart Meters: Correcting the Gross Misinformation" signed by 54(+) independent, international researchers with peer-reviewed published articles concerning RF radiation10, as well as the recent Italian Supreme Court decision11 that addresses the health risks associated with longer exposure to RF radiation from cell phones, which are voluntary and exposure is still only a portion of the day vs. virtually 24 hours, 7 days a week12 for smart meters..,. The charges for the meters, meter reading and related charges that would not be incurred but for the opt-out should be paid for by the utility company and its investors, without any extra costs to those opting out. Both federal13 and state14 discrimination laws state that services provided to the public must be available to everyone regardless of their disability to the extent that it is practical. This means that people who may not wish to use RF-emitting utility technologies associated with services, for medical reasons, should be accommodated if there is a practical means to do so. Allowing a no-cost smart meter opt-out is a practical solution to the problem. CEP asserts that neither the CPUC nor the utilities have the authority to delay or deny rights secured under discrimination and other laws, but rather must recognize these without any further delay and follow-up with directives and policies in alignment with the clear intentions of these statutes, including approval of an immediate settlement plan that recognizes and applies

10 11 12

http://maisonsaine.ca/smart-meters-correcting-the-gross-misinformation/ http://microwavenews.com/news-center/italian-supreme-court-affirms-tumor-risk

"SDG&Es document reveals technical data showing that its customers are being subjected to virtually continuous pulses of microwave radiation (up to 23,000+ pulses in a 24 hour period, up to every 3 seconds)." http://lamesa.patch.com/blog_posts/revealed-sdge-smart-meter-technical-data-and-bio-effects-of-microwaveradiation#_ftn1, RESPONSE OF SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 902 E) ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES RULING SEEKING CLARIFICATION (Nov. 1, 2011) 28 CFR 35.130

13

14

California Public Utilities Code 453, CA Government Codes Civil Code Section 51 (Unruh Civil Rights Act), Section 11135, Section 12926

CEP Rebuttal Testimony

these broadly, forthwith. Indeed, several of the discrimination laws essentially inform agencies that they must follow them, without any conspiring or question.15 A substantial segment of the population, considered as people with disabilities (on record or regarded as having physical or mental impairments), and/or medical conditions, and/or specific mental and physical characteristics are clearly protected by either or both the ADA and California Public Utilities Code 453(b) (Section 453), as well as a host of other, similar federal and state discrimination laws, including, but not limited to CA Government Codes Civil Code Section 51 (Unruh Civil Rights Act), Section 11135, Section 12926, Section 508 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794d), and regulations implementing that act as set forth in Part 1194 of Title 36 of the Federal Code of Regulations, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-112, 87 Stat. 394 (29 U.S.C. 794), as amended, from being charged extra fees and costs to opt-out from wireless smart meters. California Public Utilities Code 453 additionally protects every individual or corporation from prejudice or disadvantage, so it is protective of non-disabled as well as disabled persons. CEP asserts that all citizens and thus, all residential customers, are protected from paying opt-out fees by California Public Utilities Code 453. Therefore, any ratepayer who desires an analog meter instead of a smart meter should be given an analog meter without any charge or change in rates.

A. TURN CEP is concerned that TURN doesnt address the reason for ratepayers wanting to optout from smart meter use. B. AGLET CEP disagrees with AGLETs recommendation number 1 for a minimum opt-out charge.

15

CA Government Code Section 12948 states: It is an unlawful practice under this part for a person to deny or to aid, incite, or conspire in the denial of the rights created by Section 51 .... of the Civil Code." (no immunity provided for CPUC staff who violate this law)

CEP Rebuttal Testimony

C. CLECA CEP disagrees with the CLECA recommendation to separate costs of residential and nonresidential ratepayers. D. DRA CEP is concerned that DRA doesnt address the reason for ratepayers wanting to opt-out from smart meter use.

E. EMF SAFETY NETWORK CEP supports EMF Safety Network's position.

CEP Rebuttal Testimony