CMP asks state panel to dismiss complaints about 'smart' meters

SCARBOROUGH — Central Maine Power Co. has asked the Maine Public Utilities Commission to dismiss two complaints intended to short-circuit the company's installation of "smart" electrical meters on homes and businesses throughout southern Maine.

Last week, the utility asked the PUC to dismiss one complaint, which claimed the new meters could cause fires in homes with older wiring, as "clearly unreasonable."

On Wednesday, CMP filed a response to another complaint, filed by Scarborough resident Elisa Boxer-Cook and 11 other residents, who cited health and cyber security concerns about the wirelessly networked meters.

The response contains expert testimony from three physicians who said the meters operate in compliance with federal guidelines that limit radio frequency exposure and are appropriate for protection of human health. "There is no scientific basis to conclude that adverse health effects would occur," they said.

In the initial complaint, several local doctors provided testimony of their own arguing that not enough research has been done on the technology and that there were people in the area diagnosed with sensitivity to the radiation the meters emit.

"Local doctors who have nothing to gain financially are coming out asking for the project to be slowed down," Boxer-Cook said Thursday, "while CMP's hired scientists from out of state are saying smart meters are healthy and dismissing our concerns."

Boxer-Cook said the majority of the data CMP's expert testimony cites comes from Exponent, a California engineering company that has come under fire from critics for delivering results that companies want to hear, including providing tobacco companies with testimony that second-hand smoke does not cause cancer.

"All of the health testimony has come from this firm that has a reputation for minimizing health risks," Boxer-Cook said.

In addition to expert testimony, CMP stated that the complainants' argument that not enough research had been done was "flat wrong."

"The agency responsible for ensuring the safety of such devices (namely the FCC) has extensively and repeatedly reviewed the issue of safety and set standards which these devices meet," the response states.

The company said it received more than 400 inquiries about health and safety concerns from customers and municipalities, including the towns of Cape Elizabeth, Falmouth, Gorham, Portland, Scarborough, South Portland, Westbrook and Yarmouth, and that is has been responsive to those concerns.

CMP also argued that allowing people to opt out of the service will render the technology "inoperable."

"That is not true," Boxer-Cook said. "People could be hard-wired if they wanted to be."

A hard-wired smart meter communicates through the phone lines, Boxer-Cook said, and does not emit radiation or carry as many cyber security risks.

"At least let people choose," she said.

Now that the company has made its argument, the PUC will consider both sides and decide whether to dismiss the complaints or open an investigation.

Meanwhile, the smart meters have been installed on more than 70,000 homes and businesses.

After the Scarborough Town Council passed a resolution in October asking for a 90-day moratorium on the installation of the meters, CMP agreed to hold a public meeting to speak with residents about their concerns.

In the Nov. 17 response to Boxer-Cook's complaint, CMP said the company offered to provide information, however that "the (Scarborough) Council voted their resolution that evening without requesting any additional information or a briefing from CMP."

The public meeting has been scheduled for Nov. 29 at 7 p.m. at Scarborough Town Hall. The format has not been decided, but members of the public will be invited to speak and representatives from CMP will be there to answer questions and respond.

The towns of Cape Elizabeth and Sanford have passed similar resolutions, however public forums have not been scheduled.

Emily Parkhurst can be reached at 781-3661 ext. 125 or eparkhurst@theforecaster.net

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

Dave in Maine's picture

you're wrong.

dnw's picture

Recent Complaint to PCU

Partial exerpt from Complaint to PCU
In response to your e-mail below, we would like our previously submitted complaint to be filed and have a docket number assigned to our case. We believe that our complaint is different from the docketed case #2010-132 that you mentioned in your e-mail below and should be addressed separately. According to the U.S. National Institute of Health that was commissioned by the FDA in 2003 to study the safety issue of r.f. radiation, the FCC safety guidelines for radio frequency radiation were only designed/intended to protect the public from "acute injury", caused by "short-term exposure at high levels of radio frequency (r.f.) radiation resulting in thermal (heating)" effects to the body, as further described in the FDA commissioned report by NIEHS, National Toxicology Program Fact Sheet 2003 - Studies on Radiofrequency Emitted by Cellular Phones. The FCC safety guidelines, relied upon by CMP, do not consider or even address and were not designed to protect against "constant/frequent, long-term exposure to r.f. radiation at lower intensities that do not cause thermal effects" as is produced by the the new smart phones used by CMP. Our complaint is different from case #2010-132 in that we claim that the current safety guidelines relied upon by CMP, are not valid for this type of radiation and do not apply to long- term exposure to low-frequency radiation emitted by smart meters.
This past August, 2010, Dr. H. Lai of the University Washington, Department of Bioengineering and Dr. B.B. Levitt of New Preston, CT published a study to review the existing studies of people living or working near cellular infrastructure and other pertinent studies that apply to long-term, low-level radio frequency radiation exposures in Envoiron. Rev. 18: 369-395 (2010), copy available at the the NRC Research Press web site, er.nrc.ca or http://www.emrnetwork.org/news.htm. In Section 5 - Transmission Facilities, page 373-374, this study also concludes that all existing standards, including the ICNIRP, IEEE, NCRP, and the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards are for whole-body exposures averaged over a short duration, and are based on results from short-term exposures studies, not long-term, low level exposures such as those that will be experienced by people that have smart meters involuntarily attached to their homes. As also explained in this section, these studies on which our current standards are based, have not answered the relevant questions that would determine any health risk associated with the long-term, low level exposures. Questions such as "Do biological and/or health effects occur after exposure to low-intensity r.f. radiation?," "Do effects accumulate over time, since the exposure is of a long duration and is intermittent?" "What precisely is the definition of low-intensity r.f. radiation?" "What might its biological effects be and what does the science tell us about such exposures?" The study goes on, in Section 7-Biological effects at Low Intensities, to list the toxic biological effects that have already been documented by various studies including genetic, growth, and reproductive abnormalities; increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier; behavioral; molecular, cellular, metabolic; and increases in cancer risk.
We have chosen to limit our family's exposure to long-term, low frequency and high frequency r.f. radiation by not using cell phone except for emergencies, not letting children use cell phones, locating our home far from cell towers and in other ways. We do not want to be forced to expose our family to what we consider untested, experimental, smart meter technology that is highly likely to endanger our health, just to provide CMP with a cost saving benefit.
Sincerely,
The Wilkins Family

citygirl's picture

companies that do not adapt

companies that do not adapt to change die, if you dont want the smart meter call cmp and tell them to shut your power off. please dont call on your cell phone though.

concerned KD's picture

How about the health concerns

How about the health concerns to our wallets...Heres a test eveyone can participate in to give an example of how ell these weters will work.. Take the computer you ae currently using and stick it outside during a blizzard or -5 degree temps.. Then when its nice and frozen boot it up and see how well it works... Essentially this is what they are asking us to put our faith in... Technology placed in subzero temps and all kinds of weather is what will be sending the data to the main office that dictates your monthly bill... Have you ever tried to dispute a bill with CMP? Not very easy is it? So what happens when this technology fails and drives our bill through the roof and subsequently, customers get disconnected due to inability to pay a bill that is wrong due to faulty equipment provided by the powere co? We dont have the right to test thier equipment.. They will tell people the gear is working properly and customers will have no choice but to pay in order to keep power coming into thier homes..

Heres the equation:
(Technology + water + subzero temps= Broken technology) X CMP=screwed ,powerless customers with huge bogus bills

tdbahr's picture

Welcome to the 21st century

I am always amazed at how slow many of us are when it comes to life in the 21st century. If these people had there way we would be living as our ancestors did 200-years ago. Most of us want the comforts that come from today's technology and the free time that is derived from all the products and services we have come to expect.
Let's not be too hard on the naysayers... they are good for the occasional laugh. Let's just be thankful that, for the time being, they are in the minority.

burnell's picture
verified

Interesting

I don't live in Maine anymore, but noticed on my power bill a charge for a "smart" meter. Funny thing is, the meter I have is the same old meter that has been there since I moved in. I didn't know what it was until I read this article. You can bet, I'll be calling them and getting an explanation. Might explain why my bill was twice as high as it should have been. Too bad I didn't see this before their office closed on a Friday night. Now I'll have to wait until Monday.

Jim51's picture

Smart Meter

It's interesting to watch the cyclic reporting of Parkhurst/Boxer-Cook articles and letters to editors. As John Stewart observed, Fox "News" people chant, then wait for their viewers to rechant, then report that as 'news'. After the Republican 'war on science', we are bound to see more of this tripe. To be safe, we should rid ourselves of any cellphones, telephones, magnets, televisions, two way radios, microwave ovens, electrical wiring, flashlight batteries, electrical appliances, power lines, and the like. Or at least wear some tin foil.

kailee123's picture

smart meters

I had mine installed yesterday and was told I had no choice of whether I wanted it or not.

Pirate's picture
verified

When I read the initial

When I read the initial listing of cities that would be first to get these meters, I was a little miffed at the absence of Lewiston on the list. Now, the more I read and hear, the more I say keep Lewiston off the list. Who needs these smart meters (except CMP) anyway?

fixit001's picture

the PUC is just a puppet of

the PUC is just a puppet of CMP!!!!!

jimfrommaine's picture

Dont let CMP get away with this

CMP and the maine polititians have made Maine a guinnipig as 7 states have sued to stop these meters there dangerous to health. And Maine is allowing it and its wrong do not allow CMP to cause anyone health issues its wrong and I for one am tired of big Companys getting away with risking our health to save a few bucks for there bottom line. We the Miane people weren't even allowed to cast a vote on wheter we wanted this safety issue or not its been forced on us by the polititians in CMPs pocket. The scary part though is PUC sides with CMP a lot more then people know. I have had past issues with CMP and every time PUC sided with them including trying to tell me CMP wasnt raising rates twice this year in January the first time and in July the second time. Corruption is here in Maine and all ya need to do is open your eyes.

Dave in Maine's picture

They aren't dangerous.

Publikwerks's picture

LOL

Do you have a cell phone?
Cause Smart meters emit as much rf energy as a cellphone, and are on about 10% of the time. And you will feet away from it, unlike a cell phone.

And the PUC sides with CMP because your side has no evidence, only hyperbole and fear. Smart meters will make power distribution cheaper, so chill out

Kailee123's picture

Will it?

Smart meters will make distribution cheaper....but will it filter down to the consumers? Since the smart meter sends out data a few times an hour CMP can gather info on peak hours of usage. Which in returns CMP can tailor the rate costs per every hour of the day. Meaning if you run your AC in the afternoon when it's a 100 degrees it will cost you more than running your AC at 2 AM when the sun is gone. The old meters it didn't matter what time of day you ran your AC. I was told eventually you could go online and chart your usage to get cost savings. Sounds like they will eventually be changing the way we receive power! Our stimulus at work!

Special_Interest_Group's picture

How will we ever be taken seriously?

How do you expect anyone to ever take Maine seriously? Complaints filed with the PUC against CMP’s Smart Meters? People you drive down the road with cellphones braced against your heads with one hand. You people try to walk down the street while chitchatting away or texting. Many of you don’t even have a hard wired house phone anymore. You have wireless internet in your homes, offices, at the library, and town hall, you even tote laptops to internet cafés and hookup while lying in hospital beds for crying out loud. Some of the more sophisticated of you are even running your TVs wirelessly online or with wireless cable and we now have doctors we are to take seriously whose offices’ are wireless, a pager strapped to their belt, with cellphones in their pockets, and something stuck in their ear, claiming that Smart Meters might be a problem when scientists and the FCC say otherwise; give me a break. We have Select Boards and City Councils slapping up moratoriums left and right on this and that, grow up people, get a life; God knows this state is going down fast, and you are only adding to the rate of descent. If this weren’t so ridiculous it would be funny. Next time someone tries to file a complaint with the PUC on one of these devices, find out if they have or use a cellphone, wireless internet, wireless cable, a computer, go to the library, town hall, every hook-up at a friend’s. . . then hand them back their bogus complaint and send them home with instructions they owe you two aspirin and don’t call you in the morning.

Advertisement