Page 12 - the NOISE May 2013

arizona public service has recently sub- mitted a request to the arizona corpo- ration commission to charge extra fees for declininga“smart”meter. APSiscallingthese fees “opt out” fees. I call them extortion. To jus- tify the fees, APS has assembled an incredible collection of lies.
APS begins its proposal by selectively quot- ing – and actually misquoting – ACC Decision #69736 : “each electric distribution utility shall investigate advanced metering infrastructure for its service territory and shall begin implementing the technology....”
The exact quote minus APS’s editing is: “... each electric distribution utility shall investigate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of imple- menting advanced metering infrastructure for its service territory and shall begin implementing the technology if feasible and cost effective.”
By law, APS is able to recoup their up-front costs plus 8 to 10% on “capital investments.” So how could APS not come to the conclusion that blowing millions of dollars on a “smart” grid was “cost-effective”? An 8 to 10% return on many millions is extremely “cost-effective” – for APS!
But ACC Decision #69736 also reads, “Utili- ties should investigate their needs and those of their customers to determine if the benefits of AMI outweigh the costs.” APS never asked me what my needs are. APS never asked anyone I know what their needs are. Indeed, I have found no evidence that APS investigated any- one’s needs but its own.
acc decision #69736 also required the acc to consider “conservation of energy supplied by electric utilities, optimal ef- ficiency of electric utility facilities and re- sources, and equitable rates for electric consumers.” This was never done, nor was a cost/benefit analysis, despite the fact that the decision stated: “However, both the benefits and the costs of Advanced Metering and Com- munications should be considered before re- quiring full-scale implementation.”
By ignoring their own decision, the ACC has shirked its responsibility to protect ratepayers. Had the ACC done a proper, independent, fo- rensic cost/benefit analysis, this entire wasteful, toxic and discriminatory boondoggle would have never begun.
Based on thousands of real people using thousands of real “smart” meters, the Connecti- cut Attorney General conducted such an analy- sis and found the “smart” grid would cost each residential ratepayer roughly $411 in order to save about $11 over 20 years. — a whop- ping 55¢ a year per customer in savings!
APS attempts to scapegoat customers that want to keep their analog meters as financial burdens to APS and other ratepayers. The Connecticut Attorney General’s analysis shows clearly the opposite is true. Customers who do not want or cannot use “smart” meters are sub- sidizing others. He reports:
Certain types of customers, due to no fault of
their own, simply cannot shift their electricity us- age to off peak times. These customers include many elderly, those with sick or young children at home, as well as those customers who work sec- ond or third shifts. Also, many businesses simply cannot change the times that they use electric- ity. Forcing these customers to purchase AMI [“smart”] meters is punitive.
First, these customers cannot take advantage of the time-based rates that the AMI meters are intended to facilitate. Second, these customers will not only be forced to pay for their own me- ters, but they will also be required to subsidize any savings achieved by those customers that can benefit from time-of-use rates. Third, even if they could shift the times of their electric usage, many of these customers cannot afford the asso- ciated controlling technologies that are required to make the AMI meters truly effective.
Under APS’ “smart” grid scheme, people with lower incomes are subsidizing the more well-to-do. My wife recently bought a mod- est, “non-luxury” duplex rental. When signing up for electrical service, APS told her that Time Of Use (TOU) rates would not be cost effective for either the one or two bedroom units. APS said that larger dwellings were needed to real- ize savings with TOU plans. In short, her ten- ants have no use for “smart” meters, yet will be subsidizing those in larger homes who might want them.
Additionally, there is no need for “smart” or even digital meters to implement TOU rate plans. Such plans were available in the past via analog meters with time switches built in. APS flat out lied in its fee request when it said, “Cus- tomers with analog metering will be unable to take service under time-of-use (“TOU”) rate schedules due to the relatively limited technol- ogy of these meters ...”
APS lied again when it said “...a customer who elects an analog meter will not be able to track, analyze, and manage energy usage to the same extent available to customers with automated metering.” There are plenty of rea- sonably priced devices that anyone can buy to monitor their electrical use. Some gadgets will even do it in real time, not with a delay, as with the APS system.
The vast majority of people know when the meter is running anyway and they should not have to subsidize the few who feel the need to scrutinize every watt. Electrical usage is not a mystery that needs solving by APS “smart” me- ters. APS is touting an “advantage” few have asked for or need. In short, APS is engaging in hype, and we are being scammed.
APS lied again when it said people’s health concerns about being bombarded with “smart” meter microwave radio transmissions 24/7/365 were “proven unfounded” because their paid scientist, leeka kheifets, said so. Ms. Kheifets is well known as an “industry scientist” — she and her “methods” have been exposed in The Real Junk Science of EMFs and elsewhere.
APS lied again (notice a pattern yet?) when it said customers with solar would not be able to have an analog meter because “an analog meter is not able to record the bi-directional electricity flow necessary to support certain distributed generation programs.” More com- plete nonsense! Metering solar with analog electrical meters is done in one of two ways:
1) with a bi-directional analog meter that can spin in either direction depending on whether the system is using or producing power, or 2) with two analogs in tandem – one meter re- cords power in and one records power gener- ated and returned to the grid. There are proba- bly thousands of systems like this since grid-tie solar systems have been around much longer than“smart”meters.
APS has the audacity to say “customers who create increased costs due to participation in an automated meter opt-out program should bear responsibility for those increased costs or a portion thereof.” What about power compa- nies “who create increased costs”?!
The reality is APS has removed and likely ruined about a million perfectly good analog meters – meters that currently cost about $32 retail – and replaced them with meters that cost about $150, or roughly 5 times more. Add in all the “smart” grid extras: field equipment such as collectors and routers (basi- cally the “smart” grid is a cellular network) plus software, plus contractors to figure it all out and install it.
Then add in the ongoing costs – operating and maintaining the network, managing the data, back office software, servers and cyber security costs – and it is pretty clear why, in their request for added fees, APS did not pro- vide any concrete, real world examples of other companies that have reduced rates as a result of implementing the “smart” greed, I mean
“grid” – because there aren’t any!
APS wants $75 up front for anyone declining a radio broadcasting networking station (AKA “smart” meter) at their house. This is unbeliev-
ably brazen for many reasons.
If APS wants to site a radio antenna and
networking equipment (AKA “smart” meter) on people’s private property then APS should compensate the property owner for that.
People harmed by the Radio Frequency of APS’s constantly broadcasting “smart” meters should not have to pay APS to avoid harm (commonly called extortion).
People wanting to avoid the surveillance ca- pabilities of “smart” meters should not have to pay APS to avoid privacy violations (commonly called extortion).
people wanting to avoid other known risks of “smart” meters such as over-bill- ing, house fires, appliance failure, medical implant shutdowns, Gfi interference, etc. should not have to pay aps to avoid dam- ages (again, commonly called extortion).
There are no “installation” or “set-up” costs for people who already have analog meters.
There are only “installation” or “set-up” costs for customers who do not have analog meters because APS removed their analog meters. Such costs belong to APS. “You broke it, you bought it.”
There are no “higher infrastructure costs” in- volved with analog. For one thing, as previous- ly mentioned, the analog meters are 5 times cheaper.
If meter reading is such a huge expense then customers ought to receive a discount on their bills for self-reading — or APS could average electricity use like it already does for its initial service startup deposit and “equalizer” plans, and read a meter once a year.
APS also lists “development and administra- tion of an opt-out program” as a cost. Is that another joke? What kind of system did they have for, say, the last 100 years?
As part of their proposed extortion racket, APS also wants $30 a month from people with
analog meters. All the reasons listed above ap- ply again to that greed-crazed idea.
Here’s some simple math to show how out- rageous $30 a month is. There are no “smart” meters in Sedona. APS currently charges the 6,500 residences there $1.86 per month each for meter reading. This adds up to $145,080 per year to read all the residences. If no one in Sedona wanted a “smart” meter then APS’s $145,080 would jump to $2,340,000. The indi- vidual residence yearly meter reading charge would go from $22.32 to $360.
APS says that “to date less than one-half of one percent of the company’s overall customer base has requested non-transmitting analog meters.” This should not be a surprise when APS is allowed to deceive the public with lies that seem unending. This should not be a sur- prise when most media outlets do not under- stand this issue, do not deem it “newsworthy” or are on the receiving end of APS’ advertising money.
Indeed, I have proved APS was lying about how often and how strongly their “smart” me- ters were broadcasting by monitoring their me- ters myself. I also proved APS was lying about the surveillance capabilities of their “smart” meters. I brought my findings to 47 newspa- pers and TV stations in the APS service area yet only The Noise and two other independents picked up the story.
As long as public monopolies such as APS are allowed to lie with impunity, what else should we expect? As long as public monopolies such as APS are allowed to influence media through advertising dollars and influence elections and politicians via campaign contributions what else should we expect?
aps’s $7.8 million per year “charitable giv- ing” is also a form of advertising and influ- ence peddling. A city council member of one Arizona town confided to me that he did not expect others on his council to go against APS on the “smart” meter issue because of all that APS did for the community.
APS can add belligerence to its list of charac- ter flaws. As if throwing down a gauntlet, APS also says that one must “meet certain eligibility requirements” to pay “protection” (i.e. keeping your analog meter). APS then admonishes that we “must provide unassisted access” to the me- ter. Like we don’t have to do that already?
Treating us like troublemakers, and as though this was not already the law, APS fur- ther states in its request that “customers who in any way alter the accurate measurement of energy or otherwise engage in energy theft, or have exhibited threatening behavior to APS meter readers or other Company employees, will become ineligible and will be automatical- ly removed from the program by the Company.” Wow, better snap-to all you analogers! And no making faces either.
We are involved in a word game with APS and have been from the start. All along APS has been attempting to control the debate, manipulate perception and bamboozle people by using deceptive language. What they call
“opt out fees” arereally “extortion.” What they call “AMI” or “smart” meters are really “micro- wave radio broadcasting networking equip- ment.” Yes, these devices have a metering capa- bility but in reality they function as much more than a “meter.”
Republicans who usually advocate in de- fense of “private property” and “individual rights” comprise the entire ACC, have a ma- jority in both legislative houses, and hold the Governor’s office. One can only wonder, then, if their inaction on this issue is due to a certain soft spot: aps and its parent for-profit com- pany, pinnacle West, have contributed a to- tal of $777,272 to political campaigns since 2003.
| Warren Woodward has been in- vestigating smart meters for 2 years now. w6345789@yahoo.com
12 • MAY 2013 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us
READERrepOrt