Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CPUC Denial of CEP Rehearing Request (12/20/2012)

CPUC Denial of CEP Rehearing Request (12/20/2012)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 751|Likes:

On Dec. 20th, 2012, CPUC Commissioner Michael Peevey denied the May 22, 2012 request of CEP for a rehearing concerning opt-outs, fees, zone of safety, and the health impacts of smart meters. The reasons for denial are false - CEP provided solid medical and legal grounds, which may be viewed in its original rehearing request. This is yet an example of a corrupted CPUC that is non-responsive to the pain and suffering that smart meters are causing the public, and one that caters to the Industry.

On Dec. 20th, 2012, CPUC Commissioner Michael Peevey denied the May 22, 2012 request of CEP for a rehearing concerning opt-outs, fees, zone of safety, and the health impacts of smart meters. The reasons for denial are false - CEP provided solid medical and legal grounds, which may be viewed in its original rehearing request. This is yet an example of a corrupted CPUC that is non-responsive to the pain and suffering that smart meters are causing the public, and one that caters to the Industry.

More info:

Published by: Center for Electrosmog Prevention on Jan 01, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/17/2013

pdf

text

original

 
L/cdl
Date of IssuanceDecember 27, 2012
34302407
1
 
Decision 12-12-040 December 20, 2012
B
EFORE
T
HE
P
UBLIC
U
TILITIES
C
OMMISSION
O
F
T
HE
S
TATE
O
F
C
ALIFORNIA
 
Application of Consumers Power Allianceet al. for Modification of D.08-09-039 anda Commission Order Requiring SouthernCalifornia Edison Company to File anApplication for Approval of a Smart Meter Opt-Out Plan.Application 11-07-020(Filed July 26, 2011)
 
A
 pplication of Utility Consumers’ Action
 Network for Modification of Decision 07-04-043 so as to Not Force ResidentialCustomers to Use Smart Meters.
 
Application 11-03-015(Filed March 24, 2011) Not Consolidated
 
ORDER DENYING REHEARING OF DECISIONS(D.)12-04-018 AND D.12-04-019I.
 
INTRODUCTION
In this Order we dispose of the applications for rehearing of Decision(D.) 12-04-018 and D.12-04-019 (or 
“Decision
s
”) filed by
the Center for Electrosmog
Prevention (“CEP”).
 In D.12-02-014, issued prior to the two decisions challenged herein, the
Commission modified Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (“PG&E’s”) AdvancedMetering Infrastructure (“AMI or SmartMeter”) Program to approve an option for 
residential customers who, for whatever reason, do not wish to have a wireless
SmartMeter with radio frequency (“RF”) transmission capability (“opt
-
out option” or “o
 pt-
out service”). (D.12
-02-014, at p. 2.)
1
Opt-out service allows a customer to retain
1
 
 Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of Modifications to its SmartMete Program and Increased Revenue Requirements to Recover the Costs of the Modifications
(“PG&E
Opt-Out
Decision”) [D.12
-02-014] (2012) __ Cal.P.U.C.3d __.
 
A.11-03-015, et al. L/cdl
34302407
2any non-SmartMeter currently at their residence, or have an existing SmartMeter replacedwith an analog electric and/or gas meter. The Commission also adopted interim fees and
charges to cover PG&E’s costs to provide the opt
-out service.
2
(D.12-02-014, at pp. 1,29-32.)
3
 In D.12-04-018 and D.12-04-019, we adopted corresponding opt-outservice modifications to the AMI Programs already in place for Southern California
Edison Company (“SCE”) and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”),
respectively.
4
 
The Center for Electrosmog Prevention (“CEP”) filed timely applications
for rehearing of both Decisions asserting that each Decision is unlawful based on:(1) health and safety issues; (2) cost considerations; and (3) miscellaneous policy issues.A response to the application for rehearing of D.12-04-018 was filed by SCE.We have carefully considered the arguments raised in the applications for rehearing and are of the opinion that good cause has not been established to grantrehearing. Accordingly, we deny the applications for rehearing of D.12-04-018 andD.12-04-019 because no legal error has been shown.
II.
 
DISCUSSION
CEP lodges identical challenges to D. 12-04-018 and D.12-04-019.However, CEP fails to specify, analyze, or explain how the Decisions violate any legal
authority or requirement. Even CEP characterizes its allegations as merely “areas of 
2
Utility costs include: purchasing a new meter; going to the customer location to install and service themeter; monthly meter reading costs; and labor involved in rendering the existing SmartMeter non-communicative. (PG&E Opt-Out Decision [D.12-02-014],
 supra
, at p. 29.).
3
The interim fees and charges are subject to adjustment once a decision on costs and cost allocation for the opt-out option is issued. (PG&E Opt-Out Decision [D.12-02-014],
 supra,
at p. 32.)
4
 
Southern California Edison Company’s Application for Approval of Advanced Metering Infrastructure
 Deployment Activities and Cost Recovery Mechanism
(“Decision Approving SCE AMI Deployment”)
[D.08-09-039] (2008) __ Cal.P.U.C.3d __;
 Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company for  Approval of an Advanced Metering Infrastructure Deployment Scenario and Associated Cost Recoveryand Rate Design
(“Opinion Approving SDG&E AMI Project”) [D.07
-04-043] (2007) __ Cal.P.U.C.3d __.
 
A.11-03-015, et al. L/cdl
34302407
3
disagreement or strong concern.” And the rehearing applicati
ons do no more than restatevarious recommendations CEP proposed during the proceedings.Rehearing applications are not a proper vehicle to merely reargue positionstaken during a Commission proceeding. Further, the rehearing applications fail becausethey do not comply with the statutory requirement under Public Utilities Code section1732. Section 1732 states:The application for rehearing
 shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds
on which the applicant considers thedecision or order 
to be unlawful 
….
 (Pub. Util. Code, § 1732.)Even if we were
inclined to consider the rehearing applications, CEP’s
objections are flawed and without merit for the reasons briefly discussed below.
A.
 
Health and Safety Issues
Virtually every issue CEP raises stems from
CEP’s
fundamental concernregarding the health and safety impacts of RF transmissions attendant to wirelessSmartMeter technology. To the extent that issue was relevant at all, it was at the time of the original decisions approving deployment of the utility AMI Programs. However,those decisions are now final and not subject to challenge pursuant to Public UtilitiesCode sections 1709 and 1732(b).
5
 As we explained in D.12-04-018 and D.12-04-019, any alleged negativehealth effects of SmartMeters was outside the scope of these proceedings because it wasnot material to determining what opt-out option (non RF emitting meter) should beapproved.
Thus, CEP’s challenges are without merit.
6
 
5
Pub. Util. Code §
1709 [“In all collateral actions or proceedings, the orders and decisions of thecommission which have become final shall be conclusive.”]; Pub. Util. Code § 1731, subd. (b) [Challenge
required within 30 days of a decision.]. (See also
Coast Truck Line v. Asbury Truck Company
(1933) 218Cal. 337, 340.). All subsequent section references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise stated.
6
CEP also alleges that the Commission wrongly denied the Motion of Southern Californians for WiredSolutions to Smart Meters
(“SCWSSM”) to ask the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) to
review the health effects of SmartMeters. (CEP 5/22 Rhg. App., at p. 14; CEP 5/24 Rhg. App., at p. 12.)This allegation is without merit. Because alleged SmartMeter health effects issues were beyond the scopeof the proceedings, CDPH participation and review was not warranted. (D.12-04-018, at pp. 21-23;
(footnote continued on next page)
 

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
0mShiva0m liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->