WORCESTER, Massachusetts — A Worcester City Council subcommittee is calling for a one-year postponement in National Grid’s “smart grid” pilot program.
This article and video will demonstrate that the utility company doesn't care about the canary in the coal mine … or anybody else.
The three member Public Service and Transportation Committee unanimously voted Wednesday night to ask National Grid, the state Department of Public Utilities and the city Zoning Board of Appeals to consider a one-year delay in the installation of any more smart meters and the construction of any communications towers associated with the program. Committee members argued that a postponement is warranted because there are too many unanswered questions related to public health, security and privacy associated with the smart meter/grid program.
District 5 Councilor Gary Rosen, who requested the delay, said National Grid would do the city and its residents well by “slowing down” the program so the council and city officials could have time to further look into issues that have been raised. “National Grid should slow down the program,” Mr. Rosen said. “It’s like when you go back to the old mines, the canary in the mines. If they [the miners] looked over and the canary was dead, they knew there was something wrong. We’ve got some guinea pigs in this system already. People are saying smart meters are causing health issues. Do what’s right and look at all the concerns that people have. Take a year off. You are trying to ram this down our throats.”
“Back in the 1950s, the tobacco industry told Congress there was no health impact from smoking, but look what ended up happening,” said Councilor-at-Large Konstantina B. Lukesshe. “I feel the same way when it comes to smart meters; there’s simply not enough data to answer serious questions that have been raised.”
After being presented with a long list of smart grid-related issues and concerns, a National Grid representative at the meeting stated, “All those points you made, we have looked at the information that’s been put in front of us, and if there was any validity, we would have addressed it.”
Notice the language used by the utility representative about looking at information “put in front of us,” as if the utility is being fed information from an outside source to rubber stamp and not actually seriously evaluating concerns that are raised.
The City Councilor delivered a passionate plea on smart meter-related issues by a City Councilor, followed by a bureaucratic and disingenuous response that the utility would have addressed any points that had “validity.”
At one point in the proceedings, Councilor Rosen speaks about how 50% of the experts think smart meters are great, and 50% of the experts think they are not so great. What the Councilor doesn't happen to mention is that most “experts” who support smart meters are either on the industry’s payroll directly or have some other political or financial connection with the smart grid or telecommunications industry, such as through industry sponsored research or government grants.