Unanswered Questions to the WSSC About AMI $100 Million "Smart" Water Meter Fiasco

In September, the WSSC was sent a list of questions by a ratepayer. So far only a few of the questions have been answered. See below the questions and the responses, or lack of response. 

Letter sent September 2020

Dear WSSC Water Damion Lampley and WSSC Commissioners,

Please see my questions below to the WSSC. I sincerely hope each is answered before the September 16, 2020 Commissioner Meeting.

Please number your answers for each question so we can ensure full clarity in communication. I would expect WSSC Commissioners could not  move forward with any action on AMI until these questions are answered. 

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 1

Question 1: What does the research show about how many pulses a minute smart meters emit, including mesh network message management [transmissions]? I am not talking about transmissions from meters talking to the cell tower or to the collection meter but simply the total pulses of radiation each day.  Please answer the question as to exactly how many times a smart water meter emits pulses of radiation a day. 

WSSC heard testimony from their expert, who is a known industry consultant, that “Smart meters emit like a 2 minute cell phone call.” In actuality, Smart water meters, like smart electric meters, are continuously broadcasting RF waves. For example, the smart water meter Neptune E-coder R900i transmits data to the utility every 14 seconds! Neptune has 1 watt pulses (for AMI) every 7 1/2 minutes, and 100 mW pulses (for AMR) every 14 seconds. They are factory set. 

• See the Specsheet for the “smart” water meter here clearly showing pulses every 14 seconds https://smartmeterharm.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/neptune-r900-unit-spec-sheet-18-001848-ps-r900-miu-02.18.pdf
• As another example, a Department of California study found smart meters had emissions averaging 60 times a minute. That would be about one pulse a minute. PG&E, a California utility, publicly stated in all its materials that its meters transmit only 6 times a day. However, when the court ordered it to submit data on the actual number of transmissions, the utility had to admit that its smart meters transmit 9,600 to 190,000 times per day! See it here https://www.smartmetereducationnetwork.com/uploads/health/PGE%209,600%20bursts.pdf 

• Please see what PG&E submitted to the court here and an image from the report here:

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 2

Question 2. I am repeatedly reading that the industry says smart meters will be part of the internet of things (IoT) and collaborating with the 5G ecosystem. It is unclear why Leeka Kheifets, WSSC’s health expert, said they are not connected. Is it correct that these smart meters can be used later, whether intended to at this point in time or not, for the 5G “ecosystem”?  

Multiple documents talk about smart meters and 5G. 

• Please see the October 2019 article entitled LoRaWAN Will Co-exist with the 5G Ecosystem as a De Facto Unlicensed LPWAN Standard. It states, “LoRaWAN may be rolled-out on a water meter, smart city or smart building project where cellular IoT can be deployed for an electricity smart grid project requiring high throughput and frequent data transmission to feed analytics into the cloud….LoRa Alliance, supported by its members and the other partnering Alliances, already seamlessly interconnects with cellular IoT at the data management level (application layer) and will continue to look openly at the best options to interconnect and collaborate with 5G ecosystem.” 

• Please see How 5G Enables Advanced Metering Infrastructure which states, “While smart metering currently features cross-network connection capability for 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE, the coming impact of 5G for IoT solutions in enabling new applications across AMI and smart utility functionality will be felt across the globe.”
  Please see The Importance of 5G for Utilities by Jeffery Torrance in electric energy online. 

• Please see the published paper Smart Grid: a demanding use case for 5G technologies

• Please see Future Generation 5GWireless Networks for Smart Grid: A Comprehensive Review 

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 3

QUESTION 3. Is it WSSC’s expert opinion that smart meters are safe for humans after long term exposure?  Is it WSSC’s expert opinion that smart meters are safe for bees, birds and trees after long term exposure? Please answer yes or no. Then provide documentation for both the actual study showing long term safety for humans and for bees, birds and trees.  

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 4

QUESTION 4. Have any health studies been done on smart meters that have followed people for over ten years to understand if there are health impacts? If so, please share documentation. 

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 5

QUESTION 5. According to the WSSC Commissioner Meeting on August 19, 2020  at 3:02: 22 “there are some impacts of the RF to humans and what she determined was that they are minimal and low and equivalent to a cup of coffee.” My question related to this statement is: What are the  health impacts, specifically, that you are referring to in that sentence? 

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 6

QUESTION 6. Regarding the word “minimal” stated at 2:58:30 “According to the expert there seem to be minimal impacts on health.” What do you mean by “minimal”? Please specify the percentage of exact numbers that leads you to say this word so it is clear what you mean. Do you mean 1% or 2% or more?  

And please provide the data and numbers  in relation to what health endpoint for each. The report by the expert does not provide this information. For example, if cancer is an impact, what is the “minimal” impact in terms of exact numbers and provide documentation as to how you got such numbers? 

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 7

QUESTION 7. At the last Commission meeting in August, the WSSC stated that,  “Experts that have weighed in on the health impacts” . What experts are you referring to?  I only have heard from one. Please share the names of the others. 

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 8

 

QUESTION 8. How much money was spent on the consultant brought in to talk about health? Is there an ongoing contract? 

RESPONSE SENT BY WSSC TO QUESTION 9

QUESTION 9. Please attach scope of work for the consultant. 

WSSC did respond to this question.

See request for work HERE

See scope of work for Leeka Khefits PhD HERE. 

WSSC paid her 20,000. 

Note Leeka Khefits PhD is an industry consultant and has received funds from organizations funded by companies that use  smart meters and companies that have a conflict of interest. 

Note: this info was not in the letter but was added on by us for your information---------

Professor Leeka Kheifets has has frequently been hired by utility company funded organizations to vouch for Smart Meter and wireless and non ionizing EMF safety- for years. 

For example, her study “Race/ethnicity and the risk childhood leukemia: a case-control study in California states, “This project was supported by a research contract from the Electric Power Research Institute to UCLA”

“Prior to UCLA, she was “a Technical Executive” at the Electric Power Research Institute, “where she directed a multi-disciplinary electric and magnetic fields (EMF) research program”

Examples of research she did funded by industry. 

• The study Magnetic fields exposure from high-voltage power lines and risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in two Italian populations states, “Dr. received funding from EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) for other research activity and not for the present study. All the remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.”

• Residential magnetic fields exposure and childhood leukemia: a population-based case–control study in California funded by EPRI 

• The study Race/ethnicity and the risk childhood leukemia: a case-control study in California states, “This project was supported by a research contract from the Electric Power Research Institute to UCLA”

Leeka Kheifets was an expert consultant to SDG&E on the health effects of smart meters.

“PG&E flew Leeka Kheifets, a University of California Los Angeles professor and epidemiology authority, to the event to address health concerns.” UCLA Public Health Professor Responds to Smart Meter Questions Industry scientist paid $14,681 for one day of testimony promoting Smart Meters

Examples of her research that found effects associated with non-ionizing EMF exposure. 

• Associations of Maternal Cell-Phone Use During Pregnancy With Pregnancy Duration and Fetal Growth in 4 Birth Cohorts. Maternal cell-phone use during pregnancy may be associated with shorter pregnancy duration and increased risk of preterm birth, 

• Maternal cell phone use during pregnancy and child behavioral problems in five birth cohorts.Maternal cell phone use during pregnancy may be associated with an increased risk for behavioral problems, particularly hyperactivity/inattention problems, in the offspring. 

• Prenatal and Postnatal Cell Phone Exposures and Headaches in Children.cell phone exposures were associated with headaches in children, 

• Cell phone exposures and hearing loss in children in the Danish National Birth Cohort.We observed weak associations between cell phone use and hearing loss at age 7,

• Cell phone use and behavioural problems in young children.The findings of the previous publication were replicated in this separate group of participants demonstrating that cell phone use was associated with behavioural problems at age 7 years in children, and this association 

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20877339Conclusions:Our results are in line with previous pooled analyses showing an association between magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia was not limited to early users of the technology. Although weaker in the new dataset, even with further control for an extended set of potential confounders, the associations remained.

Note: this info was not in the letter but was added on---------

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 10

QUESTION 10. To date, $1.1 million towards the AMI project has been spent. Would you detail that $1.1 million expenditure? 

 

QUESTION 11. As I understand it, there was 8.6 million dollars awarded to a consulting firm to guide WSSC through the AMI process. What is the name of the consulting firm? What is the scope of work for the awarded contract? 

WSSC did respond to this question.

Download the contract with Arcadis HERE. WSSC paid over 8 Million dollars to this company!

NO FULL RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 12

QUESTION 12. How are you publicising the virtual public hearings for AMI smart meters? In addition to social media which gets little attention from ratepayers, will you be informing ratepayers with a notice of the 100 million dollar project hearing? 

WSSC HAS NOT RESPONDED AS TO HOW RATEPAYERS ARE INFORMED ABOUT THE 100 M. 

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 13

QUESTION 13. There seems to be some confusion regarding if the Commission or WSSC ever did vote for AMI or not. A WSSC Commissioner stated at 3:39:40, “It is my understanding that this was put in the budget in 2011... And it has been carried forward in the budget...”  However I do not se a vote by Commissioners with an understanding of the details of AMI, for example with information shared with the Commission that smart meters would emit radiation? Am I correct that commissioners never actually voted on implementation of “smart” radiofrequency emitting meters? 

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 14

QUESTION 14. WSSC has been putting videos on their social media promoting the AMI program. See it here https://twitter.com/WSSCWaterNews/status/1296537604184301569. I cannot believe it is legal or ethical for the WSSC - paid for my tax dollars - to promote a project that customers have not been a part of deciding.  Why is only one side of the story showcased, as several customers testified against AMI meters in this meeting? If public input is welcomed, why not share the inclusive events of the meeting? Please explain why testimony against AMI meters from ratepayers was not posted on your social media. 

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 15

QUESTION 15. At 3:37: 40 The issue of the county council and their opinion was raised in the August 19, 2020 meeting. It seemed there was an assumption that the Council approved this in some way. Can you specify when there was a discussion on smart meters with the Council? 

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 16

QUESTION 16. Residential meters are located on or in our property. In my case, I have the meter in my basement and the place where the “smart” meter would be is directly outside my basement door. This is where my family congregates outside..  Once a transmitting meter is set up, WSSC cannot control how it is used.  Is it your opinion that smart meters are safe? I am not asking if you think harm is established but rather if you are sure it is safe for my children who will be standing near the meter and having outdoor meals near the meter. 

NO RESPONSE BY WSSC TO QUESTION 17

QUESTION 17. What is the process by which ratepayers will file their need for medical accommodations related to radio frequency emitting devices? My daughter has a letter from her doctor stating that electromagnetic fields should be reduced. Clearly we should not have to pay for not having a device we cannot have. Who do we send these to?

IT IS OCTOBER 1 AND THIS RATEPAYER HAS NOT ANY MORE ANSWERS.