Comments for http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com Sun, 12 May 2013 05:22:56 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Oncor Calls on Grand Prairie Chamber of Commerce to Rally it’s Members Against SB 241 by Eldon Burr http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/2013/oncor-calls-grand-prairie-chamber-commerce-rally-members-sb-241/#comment-710 Eldon Burr Sun, 12 May 2013 05:22:56 +0000 http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/?p=707#comment-710 A friend told me that the way she read the bill, that it prevented fees associated with opting out, but not meter reading fees. She called Oncor and a "tech" told her that yes she would have to pay a $98/mo.(!) meter reading fee. I wonder if they are saying that to scare people from getting this through, or if they can actually do that. To me, it's murky legally as to whether such a fee could be considered a fee for opting out. To me a high meter reading fee is a fee associated with opting out of computerized meters. I told her that if she has a problem with it that she should tell them to amend it to include limits on meter reading fees etc. It should cost no more than having the "smart" one. A friend told me that the way she read the bill, that it prevented fees associated with opting out, but not meter reading fees. She called Oncor and a “tech” told her that yes she would have to pay a $98/mo.(!) meter reading fee.

I wonder if they are saying that to scare people from getting this through, or if they can actually do that.

To me, it’s murky legally as to whether such a fee could be considered a fee for opting out. To me a high meter reading fee is a fee associated with opting out of computerized meters.

I told her that if she has a problem with it that she should tell them to amend it to include limits on meter reading fees etc. It should cost no more than having the “smart” one.

]]> Comment on Smart Meter Opt-Out Bill voted OUT of Committee! Now “Full Court Press” your Senators for YES Vote! by Dr and mrs John D Listi http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/2013/smart-meter-opt-out-bill-voted-committee-full-court-press-senators-vote/#comment-694 Dr and mrs John D Listi Mon, 06 May 2013 14:53:06 +0000 http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/?p=701#comment-694 people should pay extra to avoid a health hazard with this much evidence behind it. Third, the cost of the deployment is socialized, which means I’m paying for others to have the privilege of using a smart meter. Therefore, the cost of opting out of this deployment must be socialized. Either we all share the cost of using or not using OR we each pay individually for using or not using. We shouldn’t have one standard for one group and a different standard for another group! No basis can be found to justify paying for a consumer’s right to not participate in a regulated monopoly’s technological deployment where no statutory mandate exists. The socialized cost of the deployment, the discriminatory and punitive nature of the charge, and the hindrances to free market competition leave no doubt that an opt out charge is indefensible. Fourth, Electric transmission and distribution utilities (TDUs such as Oncor, CenterPoint, AEP, TNMP) have a regulated monopoly, with no options or flexibility as one would have in a free market exchange; therefore, opt out fees are incompatible with this business model. Contrast this business model and forceful deployment of smart meters to the cell phone industry’s business model. Cell phones were people should pay extra to avoid a health hazard with this much evidence behind it.

Third, the cost of the deployment is socialized, which means I’m paying for others to have the privilege of using a smart meter. Therefore, the cost of opting out of this deployment must be socialized. Either we all share the cost of using or not using OR we each pay individually for using or not using. We shouldn’t have one standard for one group and a different standard for another group!

No basis can be found to justify paying for a consumer’s right to not participate in a regulated monopoly’s technological deployment where no statutory mandate exists. The socialized cost of the deployment, the discriminatory and punitive nature of the charge, and the hindrances to free market competition leave no doubt that an opt out charge is indefensible.

Fourth, Electric transmission and distribution utilities (TDUs such as Oncor, CenterPoint, AEP, TNMP) have a regulated monopoly, with no options or flexibility as one would have in a free market exchange; therefore, opt out fees are incompatible with this business model. Contrast this business model and forceful deployment of smart meters to the cell phone industry’s business model. Cell phones were

]]> Comment on PUC of Texas says “Let them Opt-Out”! Really? by Bettye Parker http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/2012/puc-texas-let-opt-out-really/#comment-687 Bettye Parker Sun, 05 May 2013 23:53:44 +0000 http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/?p=643#comment-687 I am interested in the PUC final decision on opt out. I am interested in the PUC final decision on opt out.

]]> Comment on PUC of Texas says “Let them Opt-Out”! Really? by Bettye Parker http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/2012/puc-texas-let-opt-out-really/#comment-686 Bettye Parker Sun, 05 May 2013 23:52:34 +0000 http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/?p=643#comment-686 Am interested in the opt out in Texas Am interested in the opt out in Texas

]]> Comment on Smart Meter Refusal/Removal Letter by rafael rangel http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/smart-meter-refusal-letter/#comment-685 rafael rangel Sun, 05 May 2013 23:41:26 +0000 http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/?page_id=33#comment-685 this letter work in state of TN? this letter work in state of TN?

]]> Comment on PUC Hearing Considers Watered Down Opt-Out Measure-Commenters Needed by Donna Stenman http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/2013/puc-hearing-considers-watered-opt-out-measure-commenters-needed/#comment-601 Donna Stenman Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:22:51 +0000 http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/?p=686#comment-601 Some good information here, we are presently in a law suite with our electric co. for changing back to our Analog meter after they install a smart meter and I got sick. So many are not aware of the danger of these meters on their health, plus the other violations they present. We must keep going and get the word out.......people need to be aware and fight for their rights. Some good information here, we are presently in a law suite with our electric co. for changing back to our Analog meter after they install a smart meter and I got sick. So many are not aware of the danger of these meters on their health, plus the other violations they present. We must keep going and get the word out…….people need to be aware and fight for their rights.

]]> Comment on PUC Hearing Considers Watered Down Opt-Out Measure-Commenters Needed by Liz Moser http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/2013/puc-hearing-considers-watered-opt-out-measure-commenters-needed/#comment-597 Liz Moser Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:37:24 +0000 http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/?p=686#comment-597 You must provide and opt out for the smart meters (electric or water) and allow people to remove the smart meter (electric or water) if they already have one on their house. You must provide and opt out for the smart meters (electric or water) and allow people to remove the smart meter (electric or water) if they already have one on their house.

]]> Comment on Preparation for Class Action Lawsuit in Texas against Mandatory Smart Meter Installation by Ray Donald Pratt http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/2012/preparation-class-action-lawsuit-texas-mandatory-smart-meter-installation/#comment-519 Ray Donald Pratt Thu, 28 Mar 2013 01:26:29 +0000 http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/?p=635#comment-519 I have knowledge about the over-billing of electricity customers in Texas, and I believe that the problem is related to "smart meters," the relatively new digital meters that can be read and operated remotely by utility companies. I worked for APAC Customer Services, Inc., 1650 S. Research Loop, Suite 160, Tucson, AZ 85710, which is a call center that contracts to provide customer service for Texas customers of Direct Energy and its subsidiaries, such as CPL, WTU, First Choice Power, and the pre-paid versions of Direct Energy Power to Go and CPL Power to Go (there are other Direct Energy companies being served, such as New Leaf, etc., but I did not serve those customers). I began employment with APAC in November of 2011, and APAC later started providing customer service for Direct Energy companies around May of 2012, and I started working as a customer service representative in that capacity a couple of months or more later, and I worked in that capacity for over six months. Over time, I observed that there is a pattern of when Texas electricity customers get overcharged. Many of the customers call in because they have gotten an extremely high bill, often double, triple or even higher than the bill that they would have normally received for that time of year. Some of the customers knew that their bill was wrong because they had been out of town during a significant part of the reading period, or because they they knew that they had not used significantly more electricity than usual. These overcharges occurred during periods of high usage by the general public due to weather. Although I am not an electrical or electronics engineer, I began to suspect that the smart meters were allowing too much electricity to pass through them when there is more current in the lines to meet the higher demand during extreme weather. The extra demand from all the meters around an affected meter requires more current in the lines, and that or a related condition is apparently causing more electricity to be forced through the affected meters. (For meters connected in a parallel circuit, the voltage supplied to each meter would be the same, and the current through each meter would only be what's drawn at each particular meter, and so there should be no problem unless the voltage is being increased during high usage or because the increased overall current in the lines is somehow affecting the smart meters.) Even though a smart meter may or could pass a test individually, I don't know if they have been tested hundreds or more at a time in a real network. During the record heat in Texas last summer in 2012, and during the cold period in Texas starting around late December of 2012, a very large number of customers called in about their extremely high bills. In particular, this occurred quite frequently with the pre-paid customers starting late last December because they saw their usage and charges on a daily basis within a day or two of use. I saw daily charges as high as $26 a day (one account), or as high as $20 a day (several accounts) in what were usually small apartments where the normal charges for most customers were around or below $5 a day. Again, many of these customers were not home during the holidays, and they called because they knew that the charges were wrong. I would explain to both pre-paid and monthly post-pay customers that I only have two tools in my tool box: I could either submit a request for (1) a meter re-read, or (2) a meter test. I would also explain that Direct Energy itself and its subsidiaries do not have the right or power to re-read or test a meter since all the lines and meters are wholly owned by a separate company in the customer's area (whether that company is Oncor, Centerpoint, American Electric Power, Texas New Mexico Power, or Sharyland). I also explained that switching to a new “retail electric provider” (REP) instead of Direct Energy or its subsidiary would not cure the problem since the readings would still come from the same company in the customer's area that separately owns the lines and meters. (The lines-and-meters company for a given area receives a small portion of the amount charged by any REP in the same area). I would also point out to affected customers that requesting a meter re-read or a meter test may be like asking the fox in the hen-house to count the chickens, for it may not be in the lines-and-meters company's interest to admit that there is a problem with their readings or their meters. An honest business that cares about its reputation would see it otherwise, but the more I saw this problem occur, the more I suspected that outside intervention is necessary, and I shared the crux of that opinion with affected customers. As to a meter re-read, I eventually learned and would explain that the lines-and-meters company cannot actually re-read the meter as it was, for those numbers have since changed, and they can only 're-read' what the meter shows later when they read it again. I would explain, and essentially guess, that the lines-and-meters company could make a change in the bill if there was some gross disparity between the daily average in the full reading period as compared to the daily average from the end of that last reading up to a later reading that is very close in time. I sometimes pointed out, however, that there is no guideline for when and how the lines-and-meters company would adjust the bill (no one ever told me such a guideline to share with the customers). And, if the current reading and charges were already grossly disparate, it's hard to imagine how much more disparity would need to be shown. Another frustrating fact is that the orders for a meter re-read that have already been submitted often get a later status update of “closed and success” without giving any explanation or price change, and I often shared that fact with affected customers. That subject came up at a meeting at APAC where I worked, and I recollect it being said that the bulk of these meter re-read orders are simply being updated to “closed and success” rather than being passed on to the lines-and-meters company because there are just too many of such requests being submitted. My memory does not extend beyond the sight of the area I was in, the standing female and her voice, and her stated position as being on the correspondence team, but I believe that this is what I heard, which means that most of the customers who request a meter re-read are being ignored. I may have some of the facts wrong, but the great bulk of the meter re-read requests that have had their status updated to “closed and success” without so much as stating the new meter reading number is a fact that speaks for itself. Between the choices of a meter re-read or a meter test, I would point out to customers that the lines-and-meters company will charge a fee for either choice if that company decides that the reading or the meter was okay, but that the fee for the meter test would be much more expensive and might even be a source of profit for the lines-and-meters company. As such, most customers chose to risk being charged for the meter re-read, but not the meter test. The affected customers would often ask me what else they could do, and I would explain that the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) still has regulatory power over both Direct Energy and its subsidiaries and over the lines-and-meters companies, and I would suggest to affected customers that they complain to the PUCT, and I would give them the phone number for the PUCT, and I would transfer the customer to the PUCT if the customer desired. In fact, in response to the surge of calls complaining about high billing starting in late December of 2012, I advised at least 30 affected customers to complain to the PUCT. However, all the calls at APAC where I worked are recorded and are sometimes reviewed and graded for quality. So, sometime in January 2013, I was given a written first-and-final warning by APAC management to stop suggesting to customers that they could complain to the PUCT. (And, some weeks later, the phone number for the PUCT was removed from our contacts list.) Conscience would not let me obey that order, and I continued to suggest to affected customers that they could complain to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT). As a result, I was fired on 3-19-2013 for disobeying the order to not tell customers that they could complain to the PUCT about erroneously high electricity bills. I was willing to be fired for caring about those customers and telling them the truth, and so I feel a responsibility to now find and share this information with anyone who can help solve the problem. Please let me know if you need an affidavit or any other information from me. I have knowledge about the over-billing of electricity customers in Texas, and I believe that the problem is related to “smart meters,” the relatively new digital meters that can be read and operated remotely by utility companies.
I worked for APAC Customer Services, Inc., 1650 S. Research Loop, Suite 160, Tucson, AZ 85710, which is a call center that contracts to provide customer service for Texas customers of Direct Energy and its subsidiaries, such as CPL, WTU, First Choice Power, and the pre-paid versions of Direct Energy Power to Go and CPL Power to Go (there are other Direct Energy companies being served, such as New Leaf, etc., but I did not serve those customers).
I began employment with APAC in November of 2011, and APAC later started providing customer service for Direct Energy companies around May of 2012, and I started working as a customer service representative in that capacity a couple of months or more later, and I worked in that capacity for over six months.
Over time, I observed that there is a pattern of when Texas electricity customers get overcharged. Many of the customers call in because they have gotten an extremely high bill, often double, triple or even higher than the bill that they would have normally received for that time of year. Some of the customers knew that their bill was wrong because they had been out of town during a significant part of the reading period, or because they they knew that they had not used significantly more electricity than usual.
These overcharges occurred during periods of high usage by the general public due to weather. Although I am not an electrical or electronics engineer, I began to suspect that the smart meters were allowing too much electricity to pass through them when there is more current in the lines to meet the higher demand during extreme weather. The extra demand from all the meters around an affected meter requires more current in the lines, and that or a related condition is apparently causing more electricity to be forced through the affected meters. (For meters connected in a parallel circuit, the voltage supplied to each meter would be the same, and the current through each meter would only be what’s drawn at each particular meter, and so there should be no problem unless the voltage is being increased during high usage or because the increased overall current in the lines is somehow affecting the smart meters.) Even though a smart meter may or could pass a test individually, I don’t know if they have been tested hundreds or more at a time in a real network.
During the record heat in Texas last summer in 2012, and during the cold period in Texas starting around late December of 2012, a very large number of customers called in about their extremely high bills. In particular, this occurred quite frequently with the pre-paid customers starting late last December because they saw their usage and charges on a daily basis within a day or two of use. I saw daily charges as high as $26 a day (one account), or as high as $20 a day (several accounts) in what were usually small apartments where the normal charges for most customers were around or below $5 a day. Again, many of these customers were not home during the holidays, and they called because they knew that the charges were wrong.
I would explain to both pre-paid and monthly post-pay customers that I only have two tools in my tool box: I could either submit a request for (1) a meter re-read, or (2) a meter test. I would also explain that Direct Energy itself and its subsidiaries do not have the right or power to re-read or test a meter since all the lines and meters are wholly owned by a separate company in the customer’s area (whether that company is Oncor, Centerpoint, American Electric Power, Texas New Mexico Power, or Sharyland). I also explained that switching to a new “retail electric provider” (REP) instead of Direct Energy or its subsidiary would not cure the problem since the readings would still come from the same company in the customer’s area that separately owns the lines and meters. (The lines-and-meters company for a given area receives a small portion of the amount charged by any REP in the same area).
I would also point out to affected customers that requesting a meter re-read or a meter test may be like asking the fox in the hen-house to count the chickens, for it may not be in the lines-and-meters company’s interest to admit that there is a problem with their readings or their meters. An honest business that cares about its reputation would see it otherwise, but the more I saw this problem occur, the more I suspected that outside intervention is necessary, and I shared the crux of that opinion with affected customers.
As to a meter re-read, I eventually learned and would explain that the lines-and-meters company cannot actually re-read the meter as it was, for those numbers have since changed, and they can only ‘re-read’ what the meter shows later when they read it again. I would explain, and essentially guess, that the lines-and-meters company could make a change in the bill if there was some gross disparity between the daily average in the full reading period as compared to the daily average from the end of that last reading up to a later reading that is very close in time. I sometimes pointed out, however, that there is no guideline for when and how the lines-and-meters company would adjust the bill (no one ever told me such a guideline to share with the customers). And, if the current reading and charges were already grossly disparate, it’s hard to imagine how much more disparity would need to be shown.
Another frustrating fact is that the orders for a meter re-read that have already been submitted often get a later status update of “closed and success” without giving any explanation or price change, and I often shared that fact with affected customers. That subject came up at a meeting at APAC where I worked, and I recollect it being said that the bulk of these meter re-read orders are simply being updated to “closed and success” rather than being passed on to the lines-and-meters company because there are just too many of such requests being submitted. My memory does not extend beyond the sight of the area I was in, the standing female and her voice, and her stated position as being on the correspondence team, but I believe that this is what I heard, which means that most of the customers who request a meter re-read are being ignored. I may have some of the facts wrong, but the great bulk of the meter re-read requests that have had their status updated to “closed and success” without so much as stating the new meter reading number is a fact that speaks for itself.
Between the choices of a meter re-read or a meter test, I would point out to customers that the lines-and-meters company will charge a fee for either choice if that company decides that the reading or the meter was okay, but that the fee for the meter test would be much more expensive and might even be a source of profit for the lines-and-meters company. As such, most customers chose to risk being charged for the meter re-read, but not the meter test.
The affected customers would often ask me what else they could do, and I would explain that the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) still has regulatory power over both Direct Energy and its subsidiaries and over the lines-and-meters companies, and I would suggest to affected customers that they complain to the PUCT, and I would give them the phone number for the PUCT, and I would transfer the customer to the PUCT if the customer desired.
In fact, in response to the surge of calls complaining about high billing starting in late December of 2012, I advised at least 30 affected customers to complain to the PUCT. However, all the calls at APAC where I worked are recorded and are sometimes reviewed and graded for quality. So, sometime in January 2013, I was given a written first-and-final warning by APAC management to stop suggesting to customers that they could complain to the PUCT. (And, some weeks later, the phone number for the PUCT was removed from our contacts list.)
Conscience would not let me obey that order, and I continued to suggest to affected customers that they could complain to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT). As a result, I was fired on 3-19-2013 for disobeying the order to not tell customers that they could complain to the PUCT about erroneously high electricity bills.
I was willing to be fired for caring about those customers and telling them the truth, and so I feel a responsibility to now find and share this information with anyone who can help solve the problem. Please let me know if you need an affidavit or any other information from me.

]]> Comment on SMART METER ACTION ALERT – UPDATE!!! CONTACT THE PUC BY MAR 30TH!!! by Beverly Reese http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/2012/smart-meter-action-alert-update-contact-puc-mar-30th/#comment-465 Beverly Reese Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:51:35 +0000 http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/?p=484#comment-465 I am a resident of Friendswood, TX and I and my husband would like to sign the Smart Meter petition that Devvy Kid has formed. Can you give me information regarding this petition and how to sign up. Thank you for this great letter sample I am going to write a letter to the PUC. I have already written a formal complaint to the PUC regarding smart meters. I am a resident of Friendswood, TX and I and my husband would like to sign the Smart Meter petition that Devvy Kid has formed. Can you give me information regarding this petition and how to sign up.

Thank you for this great letter sample I am going to write a letter to the PUC. I have already written a formal complaint to the PUC regarding smart meters.

]]> Comment on Interim Senate Committee to take up Smart Meter Health Issues! Oct. 9, 2012 by Peggy Ploss http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/2012/interim-senate-committee-smart-meter-health-issues-oct-9-2012/#comment-460 Peggy Ploss Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:33:58 +0000 http://www.bantexassmartmeters.com/?p=617#comment-460 Mr. Cook, Below is an email that was sent to my state senator. As the chair of the "State Affairs Committee", I urge you to bring this to the floor YESTERDAY. Having discovered only this morning that I do in fact have a "smart-meter" was devastating to me. I had no idea. When the issue came up while in Medical Clinic yesterday, I responded that I do not have a smart meter... WRONG... As mentioned below, I AM APPALLED that our state legislators would pass such a bill allowing this to go into effect without choice by its citizens to opt out... THIS ACTION IS CONDEMNED... TO FIX THE ISSUE YOU CREATED, I URGE YOU TO BRING THIS TO THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY. I placed more confidence in our TEXAS Body than I should have and YOU ALL should be held accountable for such action as representation of the people... I would also like you to be prepared to deal with "weather modification" issues that are taking place over Texas via high altitude spraying... STOP IMPLEMENTING THINGS THAT ARE EFFECTING THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF OUR CITIZENS FOR A DOLLAR. Thanking you in advance for your SWIFT action regarding this issue. PS.. I called Oncor this morning to verify if I have the meter and if so to have the meter removed. I do have the meter and was informed the state passed a bill allowing them to place the meter and they do not have to remove the meter by state law. FIX THIS ISSUE IMMEDIATELY. Mr. Carona, As my State Senator, I am contacting you regarding the smart meter that was placed on my home June 8, 2011 without my knowledge or permission. Not only has my privacy been violated, my freedom of choice has been violated as well as my health by exposure to low frequency EMF emissions. I am a very health conscious individual even to the point of growing my own food right here in Addison, TX. I urge you to do whatever is necessary to be in contact with the State Affairs Committee to urge them to push the bill of freedom of choice regarding the "Smart Meter OPT-Out or removal" forward and in place ASAP. Yesterday was too late. It is appalling that our state legislation passed the bill to allow mass implementation of this grid on the public without opportunity of choice. I condemn this action on your part as well as any other legislation on the books that would violate freedom of choice for the individual. This action on behalf of the state and the utility has forced me to rethink my need for public utility as I am sure it is doing for many individuals. One form of protest would be mass opt out of utility use for a period of time... for extended periods of time with backup options in place. We do have options... Perhaps not easy at first .... however, they do exist. Thank you for responding to my note. I would like to know your position on "Smart Meters" as well as "weather Modification programs".... Pj Ploss 10:38 AM (1 hour ago) to Stefani.carter, Harry Representative Carter, Below is an email that was sent to the Chair of the State Affairs Committee as well as the State Senator. I trust you are on top of this and will push the Bill forward. I personally have developed a blood cancer since last summer and feel this is a part of the issue. I want the thing off my house immediately... Thank you for fixing this thing that was created by state legislation in the first place. Peggy Ploss Pj Ploss 11:28 AM (1 hour ago) to Evelina this is the correspondence with the state legislators... Pj Ploss 11:37 AM (54 minutes ago) to mark Mark, Below is correspondence regarding Smart Meters... Not sure if you are involved with the removal of them or just a reporter. Please clarify and if you would, I would like to know your position on smart meters as well as "weather modification" through the use of high altitude spraying otherwise know as chemtrails. Thank you Peggy Ploss Mark Lisheron 11:47 AM (44 minutes ago) to me Peggy, I am a reporter. I don't have a position on smart meters. I have reported on them. Mr. Cook,

Below is an email that was sent to my state senator. As the chair of the “State Affairs Committee”, I urge you to bring this to the floor YESTERDAY. Having discovered
only this morning that I do in fact have a “smart-meter” was devastating to me. I had no idea. When the issue came up while in Medical Clinic yesterday, I responded that I do not have a smart meter… WRONG…

As mentioned below, I AM APPALLED that our state legislators would pass such a bill allowing this to go into effect without choice by its citizens to opt out… THIS ACTION IS CONDEMNED… TO FIX THE ISSUE YOU CREATED, I URGE YOU TO BRING THIS TO THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY.

I placed more confidence in our TEXAS Body than I should have and YOU ALL should be held accountable for such action as representation of the people…

I would also like you to be prepared to deal with “weather modification” issues that are taking place over Texas via high altitude spraying… STOP IMPLEMENTING THINGS THAT ARE EFFECTING THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF OUR CITIZENS FOR A DOLLAR.

Thanking you in advance for your SWIFT action regarding this issue.

PS.. I called Oncor this morning to verify if I have the meter and if so to have the meter removed. I do have the meter and was informed the state passed a bill allowing them to place the meter and they do not have to remove the meter by state law. FIX THIS ISSUE IMMEDIATELY.

Mr. Carona,

As my State Senator, I am contacting you regarding the smart meter that was placed on my home June 8, 2011 without my knowledge or permission. Not only has my privacy been violated, my freedom of choice has been violated as well as my health by exposure to low frequency EMF emissions.

I am a very health conscious individual even to the point of growing my own food right here in Addison, TX. I urge you to do whatever is necessary to be in contact with the State Affairs Committee to urge them to push the bill of freedom of choice regarding the “Smart Meter OPT-Out or removal” forward and in place ASAP. Yesterday was too late.

It is appalling that our state legislation passed the bill to allow mass implementation of this grid on the public without opportunity of choice. I condemn this action on your part as well as any other legislation on the books that would violate freedom of choice for the individual.

This action on behalf of the state and the utility has forced me to rethink my need for public utility as I am sure it is doing for many individuals. One form of protest would be mass opt out of utility use for a period of time… for extended periods of time with backup options in place. We do have options… Perhaps not easy at first …. however, they do exist.

Thank you for responding to my note. I would like to know your position on “Smart Meters” as well as “weather Modification programs”….
Pj Ploss

10:38 AM (1 hour ago)

to Stefani.carter, Harry
Representative Carter,

Below is an email that was sent to the Chair of the State Affairs Committee as well as the State Senator.
I trust you are on top of this and will push the Bill forward. I personally have developed a blood cancer since
last summer and feel this is a part of the issue. I want the thing off my house immediately…

Thank you for fixing this thing that was created by state legislation in the first place.

Peggy Ploss
Pj Ploss

11:28 AM (1 hour ago)

to Evelina
this is the correspondence with the state legislators…
Pj Ploss

11:37 AM (54 minutes ago)

to mark
Mark,

Below is correspondence regarding Smart Meters… Not sure if you are involved with the removal of them or just a
reporter. Please clarify and if you would, I would like to know your position on smart meters as well as
“weather modification” through the use of high altitude spraying otherwise know as chemtrails.

Thank you
Peggy Ploss
Mark Lisheron

11:47 AM (44 minutes ago)

to me
Peggy,

I am a reporter. I don’t have a position on smart meters. I have reported on them.

]]>