Select Page

JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington  98036
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
James@JamesDeal.com

December 4, 2018
SNOHOMISH PUD SHOULD RECONSIDER
ELECTRONIC AND SMART METERS

To read the latest version of this letter and follow links, go to:
www.JamesRobertDeal.org/12-4-2018-Letter-To-Sno-PUD

Snohomish County PUD
Attention: Kathleen Vaughn, Sidney Logan, Tanya Olson, Rebecca Wolf
2320 California Street
Everett WA 98201

Hand Delivered
Sent by email to: emailcommisioners@snopud.com; rebecca@wolfeforgoodenergypud.com;

 

Copy sent to
John Gregory, Distribution Services manager
Sent by email only to: jrgregory@snopud.com

 

Copy sent to
Mike Kreidler, Insurance Commissioner
5000 Capitol Blvd SE Tumwater WA 98501
PO Box 40257 Olympia WA 98504-0257
Sent by email only to: licinfo@oic.wa.gov

Copy sent to Attorney Anne L. Spanger
Sent by email only to: alspangler@snopud.com

 

Dear PUD Commissioners and others,

 

I am writing today to address two issues. The first relates to the fact that I installed a solar roof on our home. PUD is requiring that I allow the PUD to install have two unsafe and shoddy non-communicating electronic meters to our home attached to our home as a pre-condition for connecting our new solar roof to the grid.

 

The second issue is that the PUD is planning to install communicating smart meters on all its customers in the near future.

 

On January 9, 2018, I sent a letter to Snohomish County PUD, which is available online at www.jamesrobertdeal.org/avoid-GE-digital-electronic-meters. The letter included 24 requests for production of documents pursuant to RCW 42.56.

 

PUD attorney Anne L. Spangler responded with the attached letter, which is available at www.jamesrobertdeal.org/response-from-snopud-to-deal-1-10-18.

 

Although Attorney Spangler said that PUD would respond to my request for production of documents, PUD has not done so.

 

 

To give the PUD For your general enlightenment information regarding the profitable fraud known as smart meters, I am also sending you a May 4, 2018, letter which I sent to Seattle officials. It is available online at www.JamesRobertDeal.org/demand-that-seattle-ban-smart-meters-and-5G.

 

In her response, Attorney Spangler made numerous incorrect arguments, however, and my initial assertions go unrebutted.

 

The most serious and revealing problem with both non-communicating and communicating electronic meters is that they both both belch out electromagnetic radiation. Non-broadcasting meters emit dirty electricity in kilohertz lower frequency bansrange, which sickens many people. Broadcasting smart meters emit both dirty electricity and also microwave radiation in the gigahertz range, which is even more sickening and harmful.

 

The World Health Organization has declared that electromagnetic radiation causes cancer, and that includes radiation from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, microwave ovens, baby monitors, self-driving cars, satellite TV, non-communicating electronic meter, and smart meters, the new 5G, and Elon Musk’s proposed 5,000 5G satellites. We have already overdone it when it comes to electromagnetic radiation, and electronic meters add to the problem. Smart meters will inundate us with electromagnetic radiation. 5G will fry us all. Musk’s 5G satellites will electrify the entire atmosphere.

 

The PUD has been put on notice by Lloyds of London that what I am saying is true.  because the PUD cannot buy insurance against the harms that these meters will cause. This includes harm both to property and harm to health.

 

Lloyds of London and other ultimate reinsurance underwriters refuse to cover injury or damage from electromagnetic radiation (EMF). Lloyd’s of London writespolicy is:

 

“The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion … is applied across the market as standard.”

 

The exclusion includes:

 

“Bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury…provided that such injury or damage results from or is contributed to by the pathological properties of electromagnetic radiation.”

 

This information comes from CFC Underwriting, UK agent for Lloyd’s of London.

 

Thus, the PUD cannot buy insurance against the harms that these meters will cause. This includes both harm to property and harm to health.

 

Electromagnetic radiation does cause cancer. It may take many years for the cancer to appear, but it will appear. And PUD will have no insurance to cover the many claims which will be filed.

 

I cringe when I see people holding their cell phones up to their temples. Think of Ted Kennedy and John McCain whose brain cancer was clearly caused by electromagnetic radiation. I cringe when I see children playing with cell phones and tablets. Their skulls are thinner and even more prone to harm than those of adults. A cell phone or tablet should be put in airplane mode if a child is to hold it. For all, cell phones should be turned off or switched to airplane mode most of the time. It is sad indeed that so many schools and work places irradiate students and teachers with Wi-Fi radiation. The computers in schools and most business do not move around. They should mostly be hard wired, and Wi-Fi should mostly be turned off.

 

I work from my home office. I have two property insurance policies. One covers my personal property and the other covers my business equipment. My business policy excludes coverage for surges. This is now standard in policies covering businesses.

 

Attorney Spangler makes the standard Big Wireless false assertion that PUD’s liability ends at the meter and that property owners are responsible for everything that happens past the meter. She cites PUD’s Terms and Conditions for Service. However, these are neither laws nor court holdings. They are wishful thinking, and they cannot change the law of torts.

 

PUD is proposing to force me to replace an all-metal meter which does not get hot, cannot catch fire, which does not produce stray current, which is grounded, which contains a robust spark gap protector, which is low in cost, which will last for 40 years, and which does not devalue our property. PUD is proposing that I replace it with two flimsy electronic meters which get hot, which catch fire, which produce stray current, which are not grounded, which have an inadequate absorptive varistor as its only surge protection, which are expensive, which only last five to seven years, and which will reduce the value of my propoerty.

 

Attorney Spangler says that the easement I gave is open-ended. However, the law says otherwise. My predecessor in ownership gave PUD a utility easement which was against our property. However, that easement was not open ended. It is limited to the uses “originally contemplated”. The general rule according to the Washington courts regarding limitations on the extent of easements is:

 

We believe the servient owner [the property owner] is entitled to impose reasonable restraints on the right-of-way to avoid a greater burden on the servient owner’s estate than that originally contemplated in the easement grant, so long as such restraints do not unreasonably interfere with the dominant owner’s use”…. Rupert v. Gunter, 31 Wn. App. 27, (1982)”.

 

The burden originally contemplated was for an all-metal meter which does not get hot, which cannot catch fire, which does not produce stray current, which is grounded, and which contains a robust spark gap surge protector. It also contemplated a meter which would be low in cost, and last a long time, and not devalue our property.

 

To exceed the scope of the easement is to violate my property rights. It is an impermissible taking of my property. It is a trespass.

 

Attorney Spangler argues that I cannot now claim that electronic meters should not be installed because I signed a net metering agreement with PUD before installation of our solar roof began. That agreement requires me to “comply with all applicable provisions of the District’s Electrical Service Requirements and Customer Service Regulations. This is incorrect because the Customer Service Regulations themselves are illegal.

 

Attorney Spangler says,

 

I would note that the National Electric Code explicitly does not cover and exempts ((Installations under the exclusive control of an electric utility where such installation … Consist of service drops or service laterals, and associated metering.” NEC Handbook Article 90, Section 90.2, Scope (2014).

 

This is incorrect. The only exemption from the NEC is for an industrial building and within that building only, not for service drops in general.

 

Attorney Spangler sayssays, “a meter is not a protective device”. She makes the following incredible statements, all of which show a complete lack of concern for the welfare of customers and a lack of understanding regarding the limitations on the scope of an easement:

 

The protective equipment installed throughout the District’s electric system is all designed to protect the distribution system and substations, or in other words, only the District’s equipment. The District is not responsible for the design, installation, or inspection of grounding or surge protection for a customer’s premises or its equipment.

 

The design, installation and inspection of grounding, wiring, and surge protection for a customer’s premises and equipment would be the responsibility of the customer, and his or her licensed electrician.

 

A meter is not a protective device. Although, as you point out, analog meters have contained devices sometimes called surge protectors, they are not true surge protectors, they are devices whose purpose is to divert current from a power surge to avoid damaging the meter itself. The electronic meters fulfill a similar function with varistors, as you noted, and they, like analog meters, are only surge resistant.

 

TV and radio stations spend enormous sums to get almost total surge protection against lightning strikes. I am not claiming that an analog meter is completely protective against lightning strikes. A direct lightning strike will blast through an analog meter. However, an analog meter is much more protective than electronic meters with their inferior, absorptive varistor. A lightning strike which hits a hundred feet away from my house might be shunted to ground by my spark gap surge protector, whereas the same strike would be much more likely to penetrate an electronic meter and fry all my wiring, equipment, and appliances.

 

Following Attorney Spangler’s line of reasoning, every customer with an electronic meter should hope and pray that he will never experience a surge or a nearby lightning strike or spend thousands of dollars to hire an electrician to design and install a grounding system that would be installed in front of the electronic meter. She is saying, “You’re on your own, buddy”.

 

As I explain in my January 9 letter, the absorptive surge protection in an electronic meter is good only up to 300 volts, and small surges will use up part of that protection. Crossed wires can double voltage from 240 to 480 volts. A spark gap surge protector can pass this level of surge to ground whereas an electronic meter will catch on fire and let the surge into the house.   

 

Attorney Spangler is making the standard Big Wireless false assertion that PUD’s liability ends at the meter and that property owners are responsible for everything that happens past the meter. She cites PUD’s Terms and Conditions for Service. However, these are neither laws nor court holdings. They are wishful thinking, and they cannot change the law of torts, the law of trespass, and the law of taking of property.

 

The flaw in her contention is the doctrine that the scope of an easement is limited by the burden originally contemplated. Although tHowever, the easement my predecessor gave did not contemplate a totally protective meter, it did contemplated one which was a much more protective devicethan PUD’s new electronic meters. The flimsy electronic meters PUD proposes to put on our home could lead to all of our appliances, equipment, and wiring being fried.

 

 

For me to connect my solar roof to the grid, PUD would require me to replace my all-metal analog meter, which consumes virtually no electricity to turn its aluminum wheels, which does not get hot, which cannot catch fire, which does not produce stray current, which is grounded, which contains a robust spark gap protector, which is low in cost, which will last for 40 years, and which does not devalue our property.

 

PUD is proposing that I replace my analog meter with two flimsy electronic meters which consume more electricity just to operate, which get hot, which can catch fire, which produce stray current, which are not grounded, which have an inadequate absorptive varistor as their only surge protection, which are much more expensive, which only last only five to seven years, and which will reduce the value of our property.

 

 

Regarding the requests for production of documents which I submitted, one purpose for submitting them was to wake up prod members of the PUD and compel them to study these issues.

 

The previous city council and mayor of Seattle ignored these issues despite the mountain of evidence that smart meter opponents presented. They were apparently put into some kind of manipulative marketing trance. They voted ten to zero to install smart meters. Seattle floated a $100 million bond issues to do this. Since then it Seattle has had to raise rates. It will have to raise rates over and over to replace meters which burn out. continue raising rates. They are replacing analog meters with Because electronic smart meters that are always running, receiving and broadcasting 24/7, and which , they consume more total electricity. That’s not green. The only savings will be that fewer employees will be needed to read meters. This savings will be far exceeded by the higher cost of electronic meters, the fact that they must be replaced more frequently, and because Seattle will have to set up a sinking fund so that in 10 or 15 years, which Seattle will be flooded with suits for cancer caused by the meters. There will be no insurance coverage against these suits. , it will be able to cover the damages that insurance will not cover.

 

I am challenging the PUD to be on guard against meter salesmen with a defective and illegal product. Mark Twain said it is easier to defraud a person than to convince him he has been defrauded. Most of us want to believe what federal agencies tell us. But we must bear in mind that federal agencies have scammed us in the past. There have been many profitable frauds inflicted on the American people.

 

The PUD needs to understand that eElectronic meters and smart meters and smart meters are the latest profitable frauds. To drive home my point, I ask you to look at other notable profitable frauds.

 

There are many profitable frauds. The most famous one profitable fraud was tetraethyl lead. It , which poisoned our streets for around 60 years and is still sold in poor countries such as Afghanistan. It was added to gasoline to prevent knocking, although ethanol accomplishes the same thing. www.Ffluoride-Cclass-Aaction.com/lead.

 

Roundup is another profitable fraud. www.JamesRobertDeal.org/tag/roundup. conspicuous example. It is a known carcinogen but Monsanto – now owned by Bayer – has not pulled it from the market. It kills essential bacteria in the digestive system and sickens people.It is in virtually all foods that are not organic. It is in anything containing non-organic wheat or non-organic soy or non-organic sugar. It is in the meat of animals fed non-organic corn and soy. It is used to kill weeds, but there are now robots which kill weeds, so Roundup is effectively obsolete. It kills essential bacteria in the digestive track and sickens people.  It does the same thing to the digestive track of salmon and is a big reason why salmon runs are declining. www.jamesrobertdeal.org/tag/roundup. www.JamesRobertDeal.org/roundup-kills-fish.

 

The addition of industrial grade fluoride to drinking water is another exampleprofitable fraud, along with fluoride toothpaste and fluoride used in dental practice. Fluoride It does little or nothing to strengthen teeth. It, weakens bones, causes low thyroid condition, impairs kidney function, causes miscarriages, and causes causes a host of additional other health problems. There are much better ways to prevent tooth decay. Fluoridation was promoted by Big Sugar, which wanted a way to allow people to keep eating sugar without rotting their teeth.  www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Safewater. Industrial fThe industrial grade fluoride contains so much lead and arsenic that it adds reliable sources show that fluoridation adds around 3.0 trillion atoms of lead and 3.0 trillion atoms of arsenic to each liter of Everett drinking water. www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/what-is-in-it.

 

Electronic meters and smart meters are another profitable fraud. Their implementation came about because President Obama was looking for shovel ready projects on which to spend money and reboot the economy. Big Wireless , and the smart meter people rushed in with their bad idea. The Department of Energy subsided much of the transition.

 

PUD members need to understand that they cannot trust the revolving door federal agencies. They have all been taken over by the industries they regulate. It works like this: Big Wireless contributes to members of Congress. Congress enacts favorable legislation and appoints Big Wireless cronies to the Department of Energy. The cronies get big bonuses before they go to work for the Department of Energy, government, and they get big bonuses after they return to their jobs with Big WirelessWireless they get more big bonuses.

 

We hold frequent elections, but none of these green issues are discussed.

 

There are many other profitable frauds, such as fracking and the fact that the US government removed EPA jurisdiction over frack water.

 

PUD members need to understand that once a cash flow gets going and once a corporate shell is erected around it, the cash flow is hard to stop. A corporation lacking a strong code of ethics can become a malignant form of artificial intelligence. A corporation is capable of eternal life.

 

I reserve the right to update this letter with additional information.I urge you to rethink your push to implement electronic meters and smart meters. 

 

Beware.

 

Sincerely,

James Robert Deal, Attorney

WSBA Number 8103

 

Request for Production of Documents Pursuant to RCW 42.56

 

When I ask for “items”, I am asking for any correspondence, letters, research, studies reports, writings, emails, recordings, memos, notes, or documents of any kind, whether in printed or electronic form, and whether in your possession or under your control.

 

When I refer to “you” I am referring to all executive and staff of the Snohomish County PUD.

 

When I refer to “GE digital meter”, I am referring to the meters which Snohomish County PUD proposes to attach to our home.

 

When I refer to “agents” or “your agents”, I am referring to all agents of Snohomish County PUD, including those vendors, resellers, contractors, sub-contractors, and installers of the meters referred to herein, from which you have the contractual right to obtain documents. I am referring to any sub-contractors which install said GE digital meters.

 

1. Please supply the PUD Terms and Conditions for Service, including Schedule 82.

 

2. Please provide a copy of NEC Handbook Article 90.

 

3. Please provide a copy of NEC Handbook Article 240.

 

4. Again, please supply responses to requests made in my January 9, 2018, letter and Request.              

 

Sincerely,

James Robert Deal, Attorney

WSBA Number 8103

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share This
%d bloggers like this: