By Cassandra Anderson 

EMF Consultant & Regulatory Advisor David Wilner of Novato California filed a lawsuit against utility provider PG&E concerning SmartMeters that have been deployed to over 8 million homes, at a cost of $2.2 billion.  PG&E contends that SmartMeters are safe, yet they have asked the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to give customers an opt-out choice of radio-free SmartMeters or returning to analog meters.  The CPUC’s decision is still pending.

It is hard to imagine how PG&E could defend itself against the following causes of action in Wilner’s lawsuit:

•  SmartMeters emit radio frequency (RF) radiation which is a health danger.

•  PG&E said that their SmartMeters emit only 1 watt of RF radiation, but they really emit more than 2 watts, so the radiation cloud in the entire network area is more than 16 million watts of RF pulsed radiation!  Wilner’s lawsuit seeks to reduce the radiation down to PG&E’s stated level of 1 watt.

•  The mesh network is a 2-way data collection system with collection points on some homes that may serve up to 5000 customers’ meters.  The collection points are assigned to certain homes without customers’ knowledge or consent; the customer is exposed to higher levels of continuous radiation.  Additionally, it is unlawful to use one customer’s premises to service another customer.

•  Some customers who complained on video at PG&E meetings were offered replacement analog meters while others were discriminated against and refused a return to analog meters. 

•  PG&E failed to consider the health risks and complaints against their SmartMeters.  

•  SmartMeters pose other dangers that include dirty electricity that can interfere with home wiring, some of the meters were defective and some were not registered with the Underwriters Laboratory to ensure safety and reliability.

•  The Home Area Network (HAN) is an option that allows appliances enabled to communicate with SmartMeters to shut down remotely to save energy during peak energy use times.  The HAN duty cycle is 100 times greater than the SmartMeter duty cycle because it is on 100% of the time.  PG&E has failed to warn people about the additional radiation.

PG&E has offered to replace SmartMeters with analog meters as an opt-out if the CPUC approves it. 

PG&E may have made the offer because they would have trouble defending their actions listed above and  the lawsuit threatens other monopolies like cell phone communications towers and the Wi-Fi industry that also emit RF radiation.  

PG&E has also run into opposition from local governments that have banned SmartMeters, which are supposedly voluntary.  The PUC in Maine backed down from forcing SmartMeters on citizens because they have not been proven safe, so they offered an opt-out (for a price) to limit avoid liability. 

PG&E does not want to admit any liability as there will likely be future injury claims from the radiation, so the opt-out is a way around assuming responsibility. 

Even if analog meters are offered as an opt-out, Mr. Wilner will still pursue the reduction of RF emissions to 1 watt. 

The analog meter option may cost customers a $90 fee and monthly charge of $15, which is a form of extortion.   Analog meters were safe and perfectly efficient in billing customers, so why should the customer assume the cost of PG&E’s mess?

 The big picture threat of SmartMeters is that they are planned for electricity, gas and water with a remote shut off feature designed for power over resources.  Imagine a utility company and the government rationing your water, which is a stated strategy/goal for control under UN Agenda 21.