Del. Glass Smart Meter Bills Given Unfavorable Reports

From Del. Glen Glass:

Dear Constituent:

The issue of privacy and customer choice in regards to smart meters has been one of my top priorities this session. I will not delve into the health, privacy, and safety concerns of smart meters, but will update you on the status of my smart meter bills.

I introduced two bills concerning smart meters: House Bill (HB) 331 and HB 332. HB 331, which is entitled “Electricity – Smart Meters – Disclosure of Usage Data,” sought to prohibit the data from smart meters to be sold to third parties. HB 332, which is entitled “Electricity – Consumer Relations – Smart Meters,” addressed the issue of opt-out fees. Both bills were heard in the House Economic Matters Committee last Thursday, March 6, 2014. On March 11, 2014, both bills were given unfavorable reports.

There are two Senate bills that address the issues raised in HB331 and HB332, which are SB 280 and SB 880. Both bills were heard in the Senate Finance Committee last Tuesday, March 4, 2014. SB 280 and SB 880 have not been put to a vote. I encourage you to contact the committee members (via email and/or telephone) and express your thoughts on SB 280 and/or SB 880. The number to the Maryland General Assembly switchboard line is 410-841-3000. Kindly ask them to connect you to a specific Senator.

Senators Middleton, Astle, Brinkley, Glassman, Feldman, Kelley, Kittleman, Klausmeier, Mathias, Pugh, and Ramirez are the members of the Senate Finance Committee. The number to call the Senate Finance Committee is 410-841-3677.

You can also call the House Economic Matters Committee and express your thoughts on SB 280 and SB 880. Their number is 410-841-3519.

Thank you again for your continuing support and for taking the time to read this email.

Your Delegate and Servant,

Delegate Glen Glass

Comments

  1. Watcher says

    Dear Del. Glass,

    Please quit wasting our time and do something useful.

    Your Constituent

    Well-loved. Thumb up 16 Thumb down 11
    • Erasmus says

      Too bad the RINO’s on the Economic Matters Committee left Glass to twist in the wind. Only Pub supported the bill. One of those RINO’s on the ECM thinks she is Lt. Guv material. Right. She voted against the bill in committee last year too. I thought the GOP was FOR property rights.

      Expect.them all to be out on the campaign trail telling us how conservative they are and we need more of them to stop the Democrats. They’re all in it together.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
  2. Taxpayer Ted says

    I dont want the dam thing on my house. I have seen people in other states go to jail for trying to keep them from putting it on their homes. It emits a strong RF signal, I dont want it. So I appreciate someone trying to keep it off my house.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14
    • Watcher says

      Do you own a cell phone? If so, you are carrying a much stronger RF emitter around everyday and putting it right next to your brain. Why are literally BILLIONS of cell phone users not suffering brain tumors or whatever nonsense you think RF wave cause?

      Well-loved. Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7
      • Samuel says

        The person doesn’t want the thing on their house. Plain and simple. It doesn’t matter what reason he or she gives. Nice again to see so many of you “open minded” people out there trashing those who don’t agree with you. Eight states in the Northeast have already passed laws allowing customers to opt out. I had one on my house and found the utility company turning up my thermostat during the hot summer last year. I had the thing yanked out after coming home and finding the inside of my house as hot as it was outside.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5
        • Rasputin says

          A smart meter cannot turn up your thermostat!!! You are probably talking about one of BGE’s USER REQUESTED programs where YOU ASKED THEM to put in a remote thermostat or switch on your A/C unit so they can turn up your thermostat during periods of peak usage. They give you a credit on your bill for the privilege of cycling your A/C system. As far as I know, the only way BGE can install one of those things is if YOU ASKED THEM TO! so don’t whine about it.

          Well-loved. Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5
        • Bright Oak says

          “The person doesn’t want the thing on their house. Plain and simple. It doesn’t matter what reason he or she gives. ” Except, the meter doens’t belong to the homeowner. It belongs to the utility. So if they want to upgrade their equipment, they can.

          “Nice again to see so many of you “open minded” people out there trashing those who don’t agree with you.” So many? Really. One guy voiced an opposing viewpoint.

          Eight states in the Northeast have already passed laws allowing customers to opt out.” MD residents will be able to pay a one time fee and monthly fees to keep the old meter. That’s called opting out.

          “I had one on my house and found the utility company turning up my thermostat during the hot summer last year.” How so? The electric meter isn’t tied directly into the thermostat. Maybe you’re talking about the BGE Peak Rewards, which is a totally different program. Is that what you’re talking about?

          “I had the thing yanked out after coming home and finding the inside of my house as hot as it was outside.” BGE isn’t going to yank out a smart meter. They’ll take out a Peak Rewards thermostat though.

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
        • Because says

          I’m so opened minded I urge you to get off the grid so you don’t have to suffer from being in society anymore. The electricity is clearly giving you nightmares about unwanted home intrusion.

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
          • says

            There is legal precedent for utility service being considered essential in a modern society, so in that sense it is very close to being considered a “right.” Issues relate to the utility collecting more data than required for billing purposes and thus exposing the consumer to unnecessary privacy risks, among other concerns.

            See Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 1565 (1978) (“Utility service is a necessity of modern life; indeed, the discontinuance of water or heating for even short periods of time may threaten health and safety.”)

            Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
      • Jarvis says

        Wireless smart meters typically produce atypical, relatively potent and very short pulsed RF/microwaves whose biological effects have never been fully tested. They emit these millisecond-long RF bursts on average 9,600 times a day with a maximum of 190,000 daily transmissions and a peak level emission two and a half times higher than the stated safety signal [Perlingieri’s italics], as the California utility Pacific Gas & Electric recognized before that State’s Public Utilities Commission. Thus people in proximity to a smart meter are at risk of significantly greater aggregate exposure than with a cell phone, not to mention the cumulative levels of RF/microwaves that people living near several meters are exposed to.

        People are exposed to cell phone microwaves primarily in the head and neck, and only when they use their device. With smart meters, the entire body is exposed to the microwaves, which increases the risk of overexposure to many organs.

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
    • Taxpayer Ted says

      I do not use a cell phone or wifi inside of my home. My elderly mother now lives with me and has a pacemaker, is RF sensitive and both have caused problems with it.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
      • Because says

        Damn that infernal electricity. Aren’t you worried about the emissions from the microwave?

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
        • jack Rabbit says

          Imagine going back to a corded wall phone but anything for Mom and her pacemaker, Kids today probably wouldn’t even recognize one. How 80′s

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
          • Concerned says

            So jack Rabbit, are you telling us that if your Mom had a pacemaker, and the smart meter or cell phones interfered with it, that you would just write her off, in order to avoid being too “80′s”? You would honor your smart meter over your elderly mother?

            Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
      • harfordresident says

        We don’t have WiFi either. I use so much technology in work, that I “disconnect” at home.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Freedom Concerned says

    Seems to me that most of you are just missing the point. The concern is about what BGE will be doing with the information that they collect. If they will be giving or selling it to 3rd parties, that’s where the rub come in. Who do you want to have your electrical usage given to? For using it to reduce billing costs and determining future electrical requirements, there shouldn’t be many other folks that need this information. Do you want Big Brother knowing everything that you do or don’t do? That is the question. That needs to be limited limited access information or you are just giving up another one of your freedoms. Why should you have to pay a premium for opting out of something that you don’t need?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9
    • BillH says

      BGE can sell the information now, a smart meter does not suddenly open up a new market for them. You are worried about big brother knowing what your dryer is doing while you are using the internet which do you think is more informational about what you do? Do you remove the battery from your cell phone when you aren’t using it? Big brother can listen in anytime they want.

      The reason you should pay more for opting out is there needs to be an incentive to get you to join a plan otherwise everyone would just opt out because people are basically lazy and adverse to change….

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8
  4. Harford Girl says

    There is nothing quite like a liberal. The ones above who are trying to quiet dissent about the smart meters probably consider themselves liberal, but that liberal thought process does not include allowing other people to have different views. They always know best!!! What a bunch of hypocrites!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
    • Because says

      No… not quieting dissent… merely suggesting you are nuts. Like climate change and evolution and the Flat Earth Society.

      It’s not hypocritical to tell you that you are grasping at conspiracy theories.

      Your ignorance is not equal to anyone else’ knowledge, regardless of where you think your place is in this democracy.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6
  5. tiredofthe bullsh#t says

    I just had one installed on my house, and to tell you the truth, I don’t think we know enough about the long-term effects. I did some research on smart meters, and the evidence about long-term health effects is not there, but that does not mean that none exists…just that none has been found yet. You don’t have to be outside your home to be affected. There are some people who are sensitive to the emissions and have been plagued with unnerving constant pitch sounds, headaches, difficulty sleeping. Part of it could be from anxiety, but we shouldn’t conclude that they are totally safe.
    I know, we have cell phones, microwave ovens and wifi in our homes. Not sure they are comparable for numerous reasons. Until I see evidenced-based research from a respected source, I’m going to be wary. Wish I could have the thing removed, as I didn’t even know they were going to install it and would have liked to opt out. It really is a shame that we have to pay not to have something that we do not want.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
    • says

      It is nice to find some at least open minded about the health effects. I initially opposed smart meters regarding privacy issues but upon research have found merit to issues related to health as well. I don’t oppose wireless smart meters in isolation. I now oppose the exponential expansion of all wireless technologies without corresponding health impact studies. FCC rules only address short-term effects of heating or electric shock. They have no applicability or relevance for low level chronic exposure. There are documented peer reviewed studies showing adverse effects well below FCC exposure guidelines. The wireless (and smart grid) industry as well as highly influenced scientific organizations just refuse to acknowledge these studies or will just offer the subjective judgment that the studies are not “convincing” enough to them. And I am not just talking about brain cancer which is almost a straw man argument to just focus on that one possible outcome. Humans are bioelectric in nature. In some people, RF emissions have been shown to cause heart arrhythmia under controlled conditions as one example “adverse effect.” When people talk about cell phone comparisons it is important to also mention that use of a cell phone is intermittent in nature and voluntary. Smart meter exposure is being mandated on a person’s own home. In many cases overall exposure may be very low but there are instances in apartment buildings or where a smart meter is placed on or near a bedroom wall that long-term exposure (based upon occupancy) can exceed what one would get from typical cell phone use. At a minimum, people deserve the right to refuse a smart meter free of charge.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
    • KarinD says

      I feel like I’m being strong armed. Yesterday I got an email from FPL (Florida Power and Light) saying:

      March 24, 2014

      Dear Customer,

      You have a choice of meter.

      We are writing to advise you that the Florida Public Service Commission has approved Florida Power & Light Company’s proposal to offer a Non-Standard Meter Option to eligible customers who prefer not to have a smart meter.

      Our records show that you currently have a non-standard meter. If you wish to keep the non-standard meter, you will need to sign up for the Non-Standard Meter Option, which includes additional fees.

      Please choose your meter option no later than April 13th, 2014.

      Making your choice is easy. Just follow three simple steps:

      (1) Know the facts. Smart meters provide important customer benefits and an enhanced level of service at no additional charge. They provide you with more information to help you manage your electricity use and bills, and they help us prevent power outages and get the lights back on faster if outages do occur. That is why they are now the standard meter FPL provides.
      (2) Compare the costs and benefits. The benefits of smart meters are not available with non-standard meters. In addition, if you choose the Non-Standard Meter Option, you will pay an enrollment fee of $95 and a monthly surcharge of $13 to help cover FPL’s costs of providing this non-standard service. These charges would be included in your electric bill. For more information please go to http://www.FPL.com/meteroption.
      (3) Make your choice. Please complete the meter option form at http://www.FPL.com/meteroption by April 13th, 2014.

      For your convenience, we have also sent you information in the mail.

      Thank you in advance for making your choice.

      Sincerely,

      Florida Power & Light Company
      ____________________________________________
      Make note that they do NOT address health concerns at all, but rather push their opinion of HOW GREAT THIS WILL BE FOR YOU and the “benefits”. Then TODAY, one day later, I get another letter from them in my regular outdoor mailbox. AGAIN, telling me all the benefits of this crap. Now I have an extortion deadline…with NO option for a payment plan on the $95 fee…they want it UP FRONT and they want it NOW regardless of ones income! EXTORTION AT ITS FINEST. Just like Obamacare…its forced upon us and if we dont do what they want, we will be FINED or possibly even jailed, or better yet, lose our homes. Hopefully 10 years from now, some of you wont be sick from these things, but hey, go ahead and have your Smart Meters and then complain about it AFTERWARDS when its too late and the damage has been done.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
      • says

        Yes, I agree the notice you get is basically propaganda advertising the hypothetical benefits of the smart meter. For my utility, I analyzed the economic business case justifying the smart meters and calculated that they were only showing a savings to the utility per customer of $2.50 per month for using a smart meter. I proposed they give people who want the smart meter a $2.50 per month discount on their utility bill as an incentive to assume the additional risks involved with a smart meter. Those who want “same level of traditional service” would see no penalty fee to keep that service. There was no response from the utility, but the proposal made a lot of sense to me. Plus, my utility is a non-profit municipal utility. Instead, I now pay an extra $25 per month to have a “non-standard” meter.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  6. BillH says

    The science and reseach has been done. Those that claim smart meters are destroying their lives have been proved to be nucking futs.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
    • tiredofthebullsh#t says

      “The science and research” has not been done as there are no controlled trial studies done over a very long period of time. I am connected w a major research university and I am telling you that we really do not yet know enough about the long term effects of this technology. It is plausable that there are harmful effects and until we can rule that out (not rule it in) we should be erring on the side of caution.
      A previous poster is correct about the body and its electrical signals. Our heart and brain operates through electrical impulse.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
    • ah more general nonsense says

      Really? Where is that research? Another lemming. Probably thinks we caused the ice age to end because of all those suv’s the wolly mammoths drove.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
      • tiredofthebullsh#t says

        Take anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology and you will be enlightened. Good luck, you’ll probably need it.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  7. BillH says

    Oh no… the studies have been done the information is out there and it all points to a bunch of foil wearing nutzos with over active imaginations.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
    • says

      I am sorry that you are so closed minded and that you are misinformed. Open your mind to the truth and maybe some of it will seep in. The evidence is overwhelming that RF emissions cause biological effects. There is a legitimate debate as to what extent those effects are adverse or pathological. In the face of the evidence that does exist for adverse effects, precaution if warranted. This is something that the wireless industry ignores as a legitimate option that would be in the best interest of the public, i.e., prudent avoidance or taking a precautionary approach.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
      • BillH says

        If there was evidence RF waves had any effect on humans someone surely would have revealed it, unfortunately there is none. Science will always destroy your myths and fairy tales. Embrace the world of science we are here to make you look more intelligent, seriously.

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
        • says

          Evidence has been “revealed” from many sources. For now I will quote from just one source … the government of India:

          “The review of existing literature shows that the EMRs are interfering with the biological systems in more ways than one and there had already been some warning bells sounded in the case on bees and birds, which probably heralds the seriousness of this issue and indicates the vulnerability of other species as well. Despite a few reassuring reports, a vast majority of published literature indicate deleterious effects of EMFs in various species.”

          “Microwave and radiofrequency pollution appears to constitute a potential cause for the decline of animal populations and deterioration of health of plants and humans living near radiation sources such as phone masts. Studies have indicated the significant non-thermal long-term impacts of EMFs on species, especially at genetic level which can lead to various health complications including brain tumours (glioma), reduction in sperm counts and sperm mobility, congenital deformities, psychiatric problems (stress, ‘ringxity’, sleep disorders, memory loss etc.) and endocrine disruptions.”

          I could quote peer-reviewed studies all day long. The US government, highly influenced by the telecommunications industry, will not reveal such information to its people. This is not a conspiracy theory, just the facts.

          Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
    • tiredofthebullsh#t says

      Reputable studies, from respected scientific sources, have not been done and India is not a source upon which I would soley rely. Nevertheless, no one can say with credibility that smart meters do not pose a health risk to humans. Plain and simple.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
      • says

        I used the India source for purposes of my blog posting comment because it represented the results of a fairly recent expert committee review of available peer-reviewed literature (world-wide). Specifically, the results were that out of the 919 research papers collected on birds, bees, plants, other animals, and humans, 593 showed impacts, 180 showed no impacts, and 196 were inconclusive studies. This represents evidence in favor of biological impacts from RF exposure. Other study results could be quoted from Russia, China, and even the U.S. military from back in the 1970s.

        One of my principal points is that people should treat with skepticism the pronouncements of the wireless or smart grid industry that there is no “credible” evidence that RF emissions can cause harm. And unfortunately, our U.S. government is heavily influenced by the wireless industry and has a former telecommunications lobbyist as the FCC chairman.

        On smart meters I agree that no “respected” health impact studies have been performed, but “unknown” does not mean safe. Results might be expected based upon the results of available studies conducted with cell phone radiation or Wi-Fi, and hence the need for precaution.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
      • more general bs says

        Again more general statements and he refuses to site any of them. His TV set told him its all good so like a good lemming thats all the reassurance he needs.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • ah more general nonsense says

      Wow more bold lemming statements without any facts. Emitting RF means emitting radio waves. Something that is radio active means it also emits radiation. Which is also RF ie radiation. So under your brilliant research if something that emits RF is proven safe, then why not be for opening more nuke plants. After all you have proof its safe. You know they used to teach this in school. But you were probably too busy getting finger banged by your uncle. I hope you win a Nobel prize for your world changing research proving radio frequency waves are really safe.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
  8. says

    My information was extracted from the original source documents which include the Indian study [refer to page 21 of report] and a published article (links below). My quotes are accurate even if you happen not to like the “InfoWars” website which I do not visit unless someone like you directs me there.

    http://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/indian-rf-study.pdf

    http://biolmedonline.com/Articles/Vol4_4_2012/Vol4_4_202-216_BM-8.pdf

    Additionally regarding India, both the State of Rajasthan and the City of Mumbai have passed laws prohibiting the placement of cellular antennae on the roofs of hospitals and schools and in playgrounds because they are “hazardous to life.” Even the Indian Supreme Court has held that the radiations are hazardous and rejected an appeal filed against an interim order for relocation of towers away from schools. The bench relied upon the inter-ministerial meeting of Central government of May 2012, wherein it was emphasized that the electromagnetic radiations emitted from cellphones as well as towers erected for mobile communication have both thermal and non-thermal effects. It has further been held on the basis of report of the inter-ministerial committee that RF radiations are harmful, causing cancer, brain tumors, digestive disorder, tachycardia, and other diseases and disorders in the human body. Furthermore, the Indian court stated that a mobile phone should not be used for more than 20-25 minutes per day but that consumers were not being made aware of this fact by the mobile manufacturing as well as service providing company, and for which mass awareness is required. [Source article at the following link: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/294813/no-mobile-towers-near-schools.html

    As for myself, I do not claim to be electrosensitive and initially objected to smart meters solely on privacy grounds. At this point however I have become convinced of the long-term adverse effects of RF emissions from all wireless devices. Such devices offer modern conveniences but should be used cautiously. Certainly no person should be forced into using such devices or to be exposed to RF unnecessarily in their own homes.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
    • BillH says

      A health study from India? This is where people drink and bath in the Ganges river, Hell they ride on the outside of trains for gods sake. I’ll get my health and public safety studies else where thanks anyway.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
    • ah more general nonsense says

      This is what happens when you allow people to operate microwave transmitters (ovens) without proper shielding.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
        • says

          I see we have someone making a bunch of extraneous comments. I am not even sure what side of the argument the person is supporting. But I did have something to add. A letter was just forwarded to me written by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). Here are some excerpts:

          “[T]he electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.”

          “Radiation studies at cellular communication towers were begun circa 2000 in Europe and continue today on wild nesting birds. Study results have documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship, and death (e.g., Balmori 2005, Balmori and Hallberg 2007, and Everaert and Bauwens 2007). Nesting migratory birds and their offspring have apparently been affected by the radiation from cellular phone towers in the 900 and 1800 MHz frequency ranges – 915 MHz is the standard cellular phone frequency used in the United States.”

          Under laboratory ‘conditions, DiCarlo et al. (2002) raised troubling concerns about impacts of low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on domestic chicken embryos – with some lethal results (Manville 2009). Given the findings of the studies mentioned above, field studies should be conducted in North America to validate potential impacts of communication tower radiation both direct and indirect – to migratory birds and other trust wildlife species.”

          For the full letter, refer to the following link, supportive of my earlier comments about the study of peer-reviewed literature conducted by the government of India. If RF affects birds, it can affect people. As stated in one of the back-up references listed in the DOI letter: “Litovitz noted deformities, including some deaths of the [chicken] embryos … under extremely low radiation doses. These included doses as low as 1/10 000 below the allowable EPA ‘safe’ level of radiation.”

          http://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/us-dept-of-interior-letter-2014.pdf

          Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*