CORRECTION: In update 2015-10-02 I made an error when I said
New Chair of BCUC – another Bennett. We can rest assured that there has been no nepotism involved….!!
He was appointed chair of the board of BC HYDRO. After all these years, they all blend in my mind. Sorry.
- ALERT: Over the last week I’ve received phone calls and emails from more than 30 people who are being harassed by Hydro in the same manner, being told they must accept a smeter within 10 days or else their power will be cut. ( These are in addition to the many people who are getting unclear, threatening letters which fail to say that Hydro wishes to exchange the expired meter.)
None ever agreed to have a smart meter, and ever since Dec. 1, 2013, when Hydro began charging the extortion fees as ordered by Bill Bennett, all have been paying every cent they’ve been billed. Oddly many never received a bill including the legacy fees. Now suddenly Hydro seems to have discovered its billing error and is telling people that because they never paid fees they must have a smart meter. This is not how the Tariff (the contract written by Hydro which we are told we must accept if we want to have electricity) is worded.
When the Meter Choice program was being implemented, everyone who had refused to accept the smart meter received several letters (some registered), some phone calls – on the weekends, at nights – telling us we had until Dec. 1, 2013 to make our choice. The first letter I received is attached. In all the letters and notices we were told that if we did not return the letter signifying we accepted the smart meter then we would, by default, be part of the “legacy” program, be allowed to keep our “legacy” meters and would be billed the legacy fees. See http://tinyurl.com/oaboyv4 Section 4.2.2
Letter from Greg Reimer BCHydro ExecVP Transmission Distribution 2013 to customer.
https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/projects/smart-metering/meter-choices-customer-letter.pdf
Nowhere does it say we must pay the fees even if we are not billed. Hydro has demonstrated its incompetence in many ways. If they failed to bill correctly, according to the Tariff they can collect outstanding fees for the prior 6 months, maximum. Nowhere does it say if Hydro fails to bill correctly then the customer must have a radiation-emitting fire hazard put on his/her home.
Hydro is saying that the people agreed to have a smart meter, nearly 2 years ago. Really? Where is the proof? Make Hydro provide the form that was to be completed and signed by you agreeing to have a smart meter. If someone had agreed, why would Hydro have waited nearly 2 years to install this device?
If this is happening to you, please know that you still have some rights. If you believe Hydro is lying and trying to intimidate you into allowing them to force you to do something you do not want to do, say no, call them on it. Write to Patrick Wruck, BCUC’s complaint officer, Patrick.wruck@bcuc.com. copy John.Horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca, Adrian.Dix.mla@leg.bc.ca, your MLA, and the media telling what Hydro is doing, how you are being treated, and how you feel. There are email addresses for many newspapers at www.stopsmartmetersbc.com under “contacts”, and please copy me using director@stopsmartmetersbc.com
I ask, if Hydro were not a monopoly, would it be treating its customers this way? In addition to being its customers, we are also their employers. They must be reminded that they work for us. We pay their salaries and Hydro is still a crown corporation.
- Non-smart meter but important with regards to Hydro and our taxes/electricity costs. Please see article by David Bond which is below in letters, circulated by Rafe Mair.
- Study finds large proportion of young men “infertile” according to WHO criteria. Many things could be contributing, but one known risk is exposure to RF from wireless devices like cell phones.
One of the warnings on labels should warn that exposure, e.g. carrying in a pocket, has been shown to reduce motility and number of sperm in young men. ( http://tinyurl.com/l22n95m )
- In the US new Comcast wifi modems are making people sick. Public “Hot spots” are being created, making RF levels higher. If this isn’t happening in BC already, it’s just a matter of time.
“Comcast is “upgrading” their system and replacing the cable modems in Florida. The new cable modems contain two wifi antennas – one for personal use and the second intended to be used as a public wifi hot spot. Shutting off the wifi is a difficult if not impossible process as many have reported that the system resets itself after periods of time and/or outages.
These modems may contain up to 4 transmitters. Jeromy Johnson (a smart meter opponent in California) has written an excellent article on these new modems called, which appears in full below.”
http://microwavechasm.org/2015/09/28/why-is-xfinity-wifi-harming-people/
- A revolt in the Dominican Republic this week, with many smart meters being taken off homes. The video’s translation is awful but in the article it is explained that the anger results from the many prolonged outages and high bills blamed on the smart meters.
http://stopsmartmeters.org/2015/10/02/smart-meter-revolt-spreads-to-dominican-republic/
- A member highly recommends this video which has been sent out at various times, most recently in Jerry Flynn’s last letter.
“This video has added credibility, since Dr. Dart MD, spoke to the Oregon State Legislature. People might come realize, that this is a not a minor municipal issue, but a global one.
Dr. Dart shows easy to understand statistics, to which he adds superb comments.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQegD1D34k
March 2014: Wireless Radiation Health Effects- Dr. Dart, speaking to the Oregon State Legislature
******************************************
Letters:
Herewith a column by well known Canadian economist David Bond
A MUST READ – Please circulate widely; Rafe
From: David Bond
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 2:48 PM
The evidence is now overwhelming. BC’s current energy policies, centred on the LNG export strategy and BC Hydro’s site C, are likely to fail at great cost to taxpayers.
Under regulations set by the provincial government, LNG development will result in significant emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Moreover, liquefying the gas once it reaches tidewater to enable shipment overseas will more than double the pollution produced because the province has approved burning gas to power the cooling operation.
In short, our clean air policy has been sacrificed to the LNG dream. Happily for the environment, actual production and shipment of LNG may not come online anytime soon. But, of course, that means that the much-anticipated flow of taxes and royalties that Ms. Clark promised would retire the provincial debt by 2020 is not coming online either.
BC Hydro has been forbidden from examining alternative ways of generating electricity and focuses solely on hydroelectric developments. This is why it is pushing ahead with the site C dam on the Peace River. The government waived the normal requirement that the cost figures provided by BC Hydro ($8 billion) be examined by the BC Utilities Commission. The fear was that such an examination would show the projected cost could be as much as 50% more.
Even at $8 billion, the annual interest costs of this dam will be about $260 million per annum which will have to be recovered from our monthly hydro bills. Moreover, given the amount of borrowing required, the average interest cost on all additional BC debt can be expected to rise making new bridges, schools and hospitals more expensive. Ironically, site C capacity will exceed demand for least a decade – and BC Hydro will likely have to sell excess cheaply.
There is an alternative to LNG and site C which will be less costly, less detrimental to the environment and more flexible in allowing generating capacity to grow with demand
A natural-gas-fired electricity generator with an 800 megawatts capacity (73% of site C) has recently opened in Alberta. It cost $1.4 billion. Two such plants in BC, costing about $3 billion, would produce more electricity than site C while generating less pollution than any single LNG project. In addition, gas-fired plants of 400 or even 100 megawatt capacity can be built at proportionately lower costs.
It seems doubtful, however, that the Liberal government will change course. Why? Because they could be accused of having been wrong when they decided to bet the farm on LNG and site C.
But, given the context in which those decisions were made, they appeared reasonable at the time. China was booming, fracking was opening up vast new fields of natural gas in Northeast BC and the potential market appeared promising; LNG seemed like a golden opportunity. And pushing for site C made sense to BC Hydro because their mandate precluded examining a broader range of alternatives to meet growing demands for power.
Things have changed. China’s economic growth has slowed, opposition to pipelines has increased and the Supreme Court has given aboriginals a near-veto on development on lands they claim. What’s more, the world supply of natural gas appears to be far in excess of demand and the price has declined sharply. Finally, any LNG project in BC will only come on stream long after other producers are already established in Asian markets. In the language of business, the risks for any potential LNG project in BC have increased markedly while potential yields have declined.
When well-governed businesses face change, they revise their strategies. Royal Dutch Shell, having spent $7 billion, abandoned drilling for oil in the Arctic when it became uneconomic.
Ms. Clark should summon the courage to tell us that conditions have changed and we should use our vast supplies of domestic natural gas to generate electricity rather than rather than building site C.
Please follow me on my Twitter.
https://mobile.twitter.com/rafemair
______________________________________________________________________________
Read from the bottom up.
From: “Team Terry” <teamterry@terrybeech.ca>
To: Jim
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:00:44 PM
Subject: Re: Wireless Radio Frequency Microwave Radiation (WIFI)
Dear Jim,
Thank you for your letter advocating for advancing public health education on the potential risk of wireless devices and how to use them more safely. Please forgive the lateness of my reply, this inbox is managed by a team of volunteers, and with the overwhelming amount of interest in the Burnaby North-Seymour race, our voicemails and emails have been stuffed.
A Liberal government will be committed to engaging with experts, stakeholders and civil society to ensure that our government once again is concerned with the public safety of Canadians and that the federal government rebuilds its capacity to deliver on evidence-based decision-making.
It was the Liberal Party of Canada that took the lead on bringing the issue of wireless technology safety to the House of Commons Health Committee. Liberal Party Health Critic, Dr. Hedy Fry, put forward the successful motion on March 5, 2015 requesting the Health Committee undertake a comprehensive study of Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 on human exposure to electromagnetic energy.
In line with the Health Committee’s report, the Liberal Party of Canada supports the need for an awareness campaign focused on the safe use of wireless technologies; independent scientific examination of existing measures in place in other jurisdictions; ensuring better data collection regarding electromagnetic hypersensitivity, including in the workplace; and establishing a system to support the collection of reports of adverse reactions to radiofrequency wireless devices.
Government should base its policies on facts, not make up facts based on policy. Without evidence, government makes arbitrary decisions that have the potential to negatively affect the daily lives of Canadians. A Liberal government will ensure the federal government rebuilds its capacity to deliver on evidence-based decision-making.
Thank you again for our letter. We look forward to working with you. Please visit RealChange.ca to see more of the policies and programs that form the Liberal plan for real change for Canada.
Best regards,
Team Terry
————————
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:52 PM Jim wrote:
Dear Candidate in the Burnaby-North Seymour_____Riding,
In June 2015 the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP members on the Parliamentary Health Committee (HESA) unanimously voted to educate and protect Canadians from the growing concern around wireless radiation hazards based on the growing body of evidence showing harm to DNA from exposure at exposure levels far lower than previously thought.
I am a constituent in this riding who is concerned about the issue of Wireless Radio Frequency Microwave Radiation (WIFI) hazards so I am writing to ask all candidates running in my riding, if elected, to agree to support efforts to work with Health Canada and other appropriate agencies and organizations to:
• Develop an awareness campaign relating to the safe use of wireless technologies, such as cell phones and Wi-Fi, in key environments such as the school and home.
• Investigate, and potentially adopt, measures taken in other countries to limit the exposure of vulnerable populations, including infants, and young children in the school environment to radio frequency microwave radiation (aka WIFI).
• Improve the testing, diagnosis, treatment and data collection regarding electromagnetic hypersensitivity and its possible impact on health in the workplace .
• Establish a system to report potential adverse reactions to radio frequency fields (per a Health Canada Committee recommendation some years ago).
To register your support simply sign on at the Canadians for Safe Technology website page for Candidates who Care at www.c4st.org/CandidatesWhoCare
Canadians for Safe Technology is a national volunteer organization made up of 75 Riding Representatives and thousands of citizens. This is a non-partisan issue with cross party support on the HESA Findings of the 41st parliamentary session. C4ST is registered as a Third Party with Elections Canada.
There are many resources to educate yourself and your family, available at the C4ST.org website.
Thank you for your willingness to take a stand for protecting the children in particular and for your efforts on all our behalf in general.
I have yet to hear from any candidate on this issue. So far, only the Conservative candidate, Mark Little, has actually visited me.
Best regards,
Jim Ervin (name given a author’s request)
*****************************
Newsletter prepared by Sharon Noble
