Home » From The Readers, Letters to the Editor » Consumer Fraud Complaints Filed Against Utilities

Consumer Fraud Complaints Filed Against Utilities

Navajo Generating Station

Navajo Generating Station

Sedona AZ (March 18, 2014)The following is a letter to the SedonaEye.com editor:

On March 4, 2014, I filed consumer fraud complaints with the Arizona Attorney General’s (A.G.) office against both Navopache Electric Cooperative and APS for lying about their “smart” meter transmissions as proved in my two recent videos (here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BjMGaQdmxY and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_TLCd3Litg).

Today I got letters from the A.G.’s office saying my complaint “appears to fall within the jurisdiction and authority” of the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC). In my opinion, it “appears” the A.G.’s office is avoiding their statutory responsibility under A.R.S. 44-1522 to protect consumers from fraud.

Here is A.R.S. 44-1522. Note that there is no exception made for utilities.

44-1522. Unlawful practices; intended interpretation of provisions

  • A. The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive or unfair act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice.

On the same day as I filed complaints with the A.G.’s office I also filed an informal complaint against Navopache and APS with the ACC. True to form, the ACC ignored me. So today I have filed a formal complaint of fraud against APS with the ACC.

navopache electricBelow is my formal complaint.

Warren Woodward
55 Ross Circle
Sedona, Arizona 86336
928 204 6434
 
March 18, 2014 
Arizona Corporation Commission
Utilities Division, Steven Olea, Director
1200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007 

Re: Formal Complaint Against APS

Mr. Olea,

aps logoSince my informal complaint of March 4th was ignored, consider this a formal complaint.

For several years, APS has been distributing a “Myth vs Fact” sheet about “smart” meters to their ratepayers. APS also has a “Myth vs Fact” page at their “Meter Information Center” website, apsmeters.com.

Unfortunately, almost every “Myth vs Fact” claim made by APS is either misleading or an outright lie.

In my opinion, these APS deceptions are in clear violation of consumer fraud statute A.R.S. 44-1522. Note that there is no exception made for utilities in the statute.

44-1522. Unlawful practices; intended interpretation of provisions

  • A. The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive or unfair act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice. 
59 yr old Donald E. Brandt Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer; Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, APS at Pinnacle West Capital

59 yr old Donald E. Brandt
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer; Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, APS at Pinnacle West Capital

Despite being made aware of most these lies over the years, and despite both A.R.S. 40-203 and A.R.S. 40-422, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) has done nothing.

40-203. Power of commission to determine and prescribe rates, rules and practices of public service corporations

When the commission finds that the rates, fares, tolls, rentals, charges or classifications, or any of them, demanded or collected by any public service corporation for any service, product or commodity, or in connection therewith, or that the rules, regulations, practices or contracts, are unjust, discriminatory or preferential, illegal or insufficient, the commission shall determine and prescribe them by order, as provided in this title.

40-422. Action by commission to enjoin violations or threatened violations; venue; time for answer; joinder of parties

  • A. When the commission is of the opinion that a public service corporation is failing or about to fail to do anything required of it by law or an order or requirement of the commission, or is doing or about to do or permitting or about to permit anything to be done contrary to law or any order or requirement of the commission, it shall commence a proceeding in the name of the state to have such violations or threatened violations prevented, either by mandamus or injunction. The commission shall bring the action in the superior court in the county in which the claim arose, or in which the corporation complained of has its principal place of business or an agent for any purpose, or in which the commission has its office.

How can ratepayers make an informed choice when their utility is allowed to mislead, lie and defraud them with impunity?

As we review the lies and deceptions, note that APS also calls “smart” meters “automated meters”. Both terms, however, are industry “public relations” terminology and are misleading. While having metering capabilities, the devices are actually utility networking equipment, antennas and transceivers (they receive and transmit other people’s data as well as that of the location where they are installed). By calling the devices “meters”, utilities have been able to skirt the fact that they are taking the antenna/transceiver siting rights of property owners without compensating those property owners. Shouldn’t that be considered theft?

Utilities have easements for meters, simple place-specific measuring devices, not for transceivers or antennas that are installed without permission or compensation and for the purpose of moving data from other locations to implement the utility’s business plan. It’s as though a company branch office, albeit “automated”, has been set up on each customer’s property.

From APS:

MYTH: Automated meters pose a safety risk to APS customers

Sedona City Council Smart Meter meeting draws unexpectedly large crowd overwhelmingly in opposition to to APS citywide installation of meters

Sedona City Council Smart Meter meeting draws unexpectedly large crowd overwhelmingly in opposition to to APS citywide installation of meters

FACT: Automated meters are safe. They use wireless technology to communicate information about electricity usage to APS. The meters transmit this information through radio frequency signals. Wireless smart meters result in much smaller levels of radio frequency than many existing common household electronic devices such as cell phones and microwave ovens. According to a study by the Electric Power Research Institute, a cell phone held against one’s ear exposes someone to more than 1,000 times the radio frequency as an APS automated meter from a distance of 10 feet.

The Actual Truth: APS’s claim that “Automated meters are safe” is unsubstantiated. “Smart” meters have not been proved safe. The Arizona Corporation Commission docket has numerous testimonials from Arizonans injured by “smart” meters. Doctors have also posted to the docket advising against “smart” meters.

In testimony to the Maine Public Utilities Commission, Dr. De-Kun Li, MD, PhD, MPH, senior research scientist at the Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, stated:

I am not aware of any studies that have shown that exposure to smart meters is safe for the human population. Anyone who wants to install smart meters to every household needs to demonstrate that such massive installation is safe ….”

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is an industry advocacy group. Their “study” mentioned by APS is not a peer-reviewed scientific study. It is seriously flawed.

Daniel Hirsch of U. C. Santa Cruz found that EPRI had neglected to consider the duty cycle of cell phones. Also according to Hirsch, “EPRI … compared a whole body average exposure to SmartMeter radiation to peak exposure to the ear for the cell phone. One needs to compare apples and apples, or whole body exposures to whole body exposures.” [Italics in original]

Taking those factors in account, Hirsch found that, from a distance of 10 feet, “smart” meters actually expose people to over 5 times the microwave radiation of a cell phone. In short, APS is misleading the public by repeating EPRI’s industry propaganda that, “… a cell phone held against one’s ear exposes someone to more than 1,000 times the radio frequency as an APS automated meter from a distance of 10 feet.”

Analog mechanical meters do not collect personal data or pulse radiation

Analog mechanical meters do not collect personal data or pulse radiation

Read Hirsch’s 11 page document here: http://www.ccst.us/projects/smart2/documents/letter8hirsch.pdf.

Additionally, the “common household devices” to which APS compares their “smart” meters are used voluntarily. “Smart” meters are forced on people. No one tells you the only way you can not have a microwave oven or a cell phone is to “opt out”.

Also, unlike other “common household devices” “smart” meters are often in close proximity to people for long periods of time (such as on a bedroom wall). “Smart” meters are in use 24/7/365, not infrequently like the other “common household devices”. So APS’s comparison is misleading in many ways.

By clicking “Learn more” at the APS site (or on the flip side of APS’s “Myth vs Fact” sheet), APS claims their “smart” meters transmit at a strength of .0009 milliwatts per centimeter squared measured at 10 feet away. I disproved that by measuring APS “smart” meters using a Gigahertz Solutions HF35C microwave analyzer. I found APS “smart” meters transmitting at 432% more than what APS claimed. Search Youtube for APS Caught Lying to see the video proof (or click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_TLCd3Litg).

APS claims their “smart” meters “… send signals at brief intervals throughout the day, averaging just a few minutes exposure over a 24-hour period.” That is misleading. Because “smart” meters transmit in bursts measured in milliseconds, “just a few minutes” can mean hundreds of thousands of transmissions per day. For example, PG&E “smart” meters transmit as many as 190,000 times per day, and those of Sacramento Municipal Utility District transmit as many as 240,396 times per day. APS has avoided giving a specific number of transmissions.

Also, on the “Myth vs Fact” webpage is a video by Peter Valberg. According to APS:

Dr. Peter Valberg, Ph.D. of Gradient Corp discusses the health effects of Smart Meters and Radio frequencies. Gradient is an environmental and risk science consulting firm.” Gradient could be more accurately described as a product defense firm employing scientists-for-hire. Valberg is quite literally a “tobacco scientist” having worked for Phillip Morris in their “light cigarettes” lawsuit. He also worked for R.J. Reynolds.

smart meters

Opponents to smart meters cite various levels of health, safety and surveillance issues

From APS:

MYTH: APS will use automated meters to monitor customers.

FACT: Automated meters do not have this capability. Like the old mechanical meters, automated meters measure how much energy customers use, not how they use energy. The automated meter does not store or transmit any personal identification information. The automated meters give APS no indication of who our customers are, what they are doing, nor can they determine what appliances customers are using.

The Actual Truth: If the meters did not “transmit any personal identification information” or gave “no indication of who our customers are” then how would APS know who to bill?

More importantly, it is an established fact that “smart” meters are surveillance devices. Read the Congressional Research Service’s 45 page report, CRS Report for Congress, Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress, Smart Meter Data: Privacy and Cybersecurity (here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/84773482/Smart-Meter-Data-Privacy-and-Cybersecurity-2-3-2012).

From the CRS report: “By examining smart meter data, it is possible to identify which appliances a consumer is using and at what times of the day, because each type of appliance generates a unique electric load “signature.””

From APS:

MYTH: Customer usage data collected by APS will be sold or accessible to third parties

The ACC is tasked with the responsibility to protect AZ ratepayers by weighing the costs and benefits of all state utility requests.

The ACC is tasked with the responsibility to protect AZ ratepayers by weighing the costs and benefits of all state utility requests.

FACT: APS places the highest priority on the security of customer account information. We continue to work with automated meter vendors, electric utilities and governmental agencies to refine security standards and practices to ensure that security remains at the highest level. APS also has outside security firms audit and review our automated meter system to validate our security practices. APS does not sell customer automated meter data. The usage data collected is intended for customers to make choices that enable them to pay the least amount possible for their electric service. APS considers all customer information to be confidential.

The Actual Truth: Note how cleverly misleading this portion of the “Myth vs Fact” sheet is. APS has proclaimed data sharing with third parties to be a “myth”. But nowhere in the “FACT” part is this explained or substantiated. Instead there are many high sounding words and phrases carefully crafted to create a favorable impression. However, on APS bills there is an asterisk next to Metering, Meter Reading, and Billing (as well as other categories). The asterisk corresponds to: “These services are currently provided by APS but may be provided by a competitive supplier.” A “competitive supplier” is a third party.

More cleverly misleading language: “APS considers all customer information to be confidential.” APS may consider it confidential but is it really? Also, confidential does not mean private. Once your information leaves you it is no longer private.

APS’s promises of “security standards” and “security practices” are what’s myth. According to the previously mentioned Congressional Research Service report, “Even privacy safeguards, such as “anonymizing” data so that it does not reflect identity, are not foolproof. By comparing anonymous data with information available in the public domain, it is sometimes possible to identify an individual—or, in the context of smart meter data, a particular household.”

Moreover, the Congressional Research Service warns, “… consumer data moving through a smart grid becomes stored in many locations both within the grid and within the physical world. Thus, because it is widely dispersed, it becomes more vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties and to accidental breach. The movement of data also increases the potential for it to be stolen by unauthorized third parties while it is in transit, particularly when it travels over a wireless network ….”

ACC Chairman Bob Stump sits on NAURC

ACC Chairman Bob Stump sits on NAURC

APS has admitted in front of the ACC that they do not have the source codes for their “smart” meters. So APS cannot say with certainty what data is being gathered or who has access.

From APS:

MYTH: Automated meters will drive up my bill.

FACT: APS customer rates have not gone up due to the installation of automated meters. In fact, APS expects that over time the meter reading charge on the customer monthly statement will be reduced as the company’s costs to read the meters are reduced. As always, it is 100 percent up to our customers to choose the service plan they use, no matter which meter is installed on their home or business. APS customer associates are always available to help our customers select the service plan that is best for their lifestyle.

The Actual Truth: Over-billing is a common problem of “smart” meters.

California’s KION/FOX35 TV did a three month side-by-side comparison of a “smart” meter and a calibrated mechanical analog meter. After three months the “smart” meter showed an extra 37 kilowatt hours. (“PG&E Smart Meter Side By Side Test Final Results” – http://kion.membercenter.worldnow.com/story/14016659/pge-smart-meter-side-by-side-test-final-results) 

The test result is consistent with anecdotal over-billing reports I receive from Arizonans.

Over-billing, even slight over-billing, adds up. With 1.1 million customers, APS has likely received many, many millions of unearned dollars due to inaccurate “smart” meters.

APS claims, “… customer rates have not gone up due to the installation of automated meters.” True (so far), but if APS is getting extra – and “free” – multimillions of dollars per year due to faulty meters then they are already getting a hefty cash injection without having to apply for a rate increase at the ACC.

Finally, while choosing a service plan is ‘100% up to the customer’, can paying APS’s proposed fee of $75 up front and $30 per month to keep a dependable, safe analog meter and avoid the harm of a “smart” meter really be considered a choice? Or is it extortion?

Sincerely,

Warren Woodward

For the best in Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!

For the best in Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!

17 Comments

  1. Liked this article on Facebook.

  2. Liked this article on Facebook.

  3. Jana Lea says:

    Liked this article on Facebook.

  4. Liked this article on Facebook.

  5. Linda Hersey says:

    Liked this article on Facebook.

  6. Liked this article on Facebook.

  7. BRavo…i am getting nowhere with my attempts!

  8. David Sunfellow says:

    Thanks to Warren Woodward for filing this consumer fraud complaint and to Sedona Eye for publishing it.

  9. Boy…I wish I could figure out how to do business like APS. First, tell everyone that you are going to place a product on their house or business that has been shown to be potentially unsafe for health and long-term exposure because of radio frequency signals and faulty because of incorrect monitoring. Nothing to date has shown to be substantiating that “smart meters” are safe; especially in the large numbers and groupings that are proposed for communities. Let employees go that did actually “read” the existing meters and then turn around and tell people that they can “opt out” for a fee of $75.00 and monthly charge of $30.00 per meter. APS you are the worst example of corporate greed and the problem with allowing a monopoly run public service. The public gets screwed and the corporation just sits back and makes their bottom line increase. Not only should you be stopped from installing any more of these devices but you should also be made to remove the ones currently installed since you obviously pulled a “fast one” before people could become aware of the health concern and fallout…or maybe you just don’t care about anyone but yourselves. Just remember your family and business has these hanging on their walls or soon will have if you have your way. Enjoy the consequences !!!

  10. Warren says:

    @ Robert Albrecht – I don’t blame APS so much as I blame the ACC. APS is just looking out for #1; that’s to be expected. But that’s also the reason why we have a regulatory agency, the ACC. The problem is that the ACC is either incompetent or corrupt, or both.

  11. PICK A DATE? says:

    Lets pick a day before March 31. Go outside , turn off all power and spend the day in protest. Not the fridge of course but everything else applicable. All those little energy vampires, the little green light on your plugs, the doorbell. The rooms you are not using.

    Shut it all off, hit them in their pocketbook and show them that we actually know how to save money and control our power.
    Shut her down.

  12. P.D. Yerkes says:

    APS won’t be impacted by a shut it down movement unless everybody does it. Chances of everybody doing it are slim to none. Do it anyway. It will make a difference to you.

  13. I have been. My electrical panel is now labeled and when I go to sleep I shut all that is not needed. This way I get into the habit before installation in a week or so.

    I really don’t know if once the grid is formed throughout the neighborhood, that these wireless pulses could jump on my electric so I will shut it down. A new way of life but as a free American, I will fight until there is nothing left to fight as far as my freedom, privacy and health are concerned.

    Sleep time is the most dangerous for microwave radiation of any kind.

  14. Today I sent this letter to the ACC:

    April 3, 2014

    Commissioners and Executive Director
    Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC)
    1200 West Washington Street
    Phoenix, Arizona 85007

    Re: Richard Martinez & Steven Olea

    Ladies & Gentlemen,

    I am writing to express my displeasure with ACC Utilities Division Director, Steven Olea.

    On April 2, 2014 I received a letter from Mr. Olea dated March 31st. The letter contained misrepresentation of fact.

    The background:

    On March 4, 2014 I filled out an informal complaint form (available on the ACC website) and faxed it to the ACC. My informal complaint was against APS and Navopache for lying about the transmissions of their “smart” meters. My informal complaint was ignored.

    At the same time, March 4th, I also filed consumer fraud complaints against APS and Navopache (for the same reason) with the Arizona Attorney General’s office.

    When the Attorney General declined to enforce the consumer fraud statute, and since my informal ACC complaint had been ignored, I decided to file a formal complaint against APS with the ACC. I did so via a letter to Mr. Olea on March 18th. This formal complaint included other instances of fraud committed by APS and, as such, establishes a pattern.

    On March 24th, Richard Martinez from the ACC’s Utilities Division telephoned me regarding my Attorney General complaints and my formal complaint made to Mr. Olea.

    Unfortunately, in his March 31, 2014 letter Mr. Olea has misrepresented that telephone call.

    Mr. Olea wrote: “When Mr. Martinez offered to send you a copy of the Commission’s Formal Complaint packet, you refused to fill out additional paperwork and insisted the Commission utilize your March 18th letter to me as your Formal Complaint.”

    While it is true that I “insisted” the Commission utilize my March 18th letter as my formal complaint, it is not true that I refused to fill out additional paperwork.

    I balked at having to jump through bureaucratic hoops, hoops which are neither mentioned nor explained at the ACC website. Filling out more paperwork to stop a corporate crime in progress seemed just a waste of time and paper since I had already spelled everything out in my letter, much of which was information that at some point in the past 3 years the ACC has received and done nothing about anyway.

    The truth of my telephone conversation with Mr. Martinez is that Mr. Martinez said he would see if not filling out a form would be possible for me. Mr. Martinez also said he would phone me the next day to let me know. Mr. Martinez did not phone me the next day – or any day following.

    So, in actual fact, what we have here is a broken commitment by Mr. Martinez compounded by a lie from Mr. Olea. As both a ratepayer and Arizona taxpayer I do not appreciate either.

    Can’t the ACC do better than that?

    At the very least, I expect Mr. Olea to be directed by you to correct his calumny to anyone he may have shared it with, especially the administrative judge to whom my complaint was forwarded.

    Sincerely,

    Warren Woodward

    PS – I see you wasted time and money redoing the ACC’s website. Instead of substantive improvements like fleshing out the Formal Complaint section with the actual form needed (or even mentioning that a form is needed), or providing for electronic docket filing, what we get are bigger pictures of the commissioners and a video starring chairman Stump. Can’t the ACC do better than that?

  15. Mary S. says:

    Does anyone happen to know if the city funded chamber of commerce and visitors center opted out of smart meters? Funny if they haven’t. Are they to treat our tourists with the gift of radiation or whatever?

  16. @Mary S. The Chamber has indicated it supports wireless everywhere so, no, it did not opt out. However, here are some of the smart and caring businesses/locations who have; Tlaquepaque, New Frontiers, Natural Grocers. More businesses need to see the wisdom in protecting their customers of all ages. In fact, our schools should be wireless-free to protect our children and teachers.

  17. MN Lawyer says:

    I subscribed to your Feed.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2017 · Sedona Eye · All Rights Reserved · Posts · Comments · Facebook · Twitter ·