KIUC hanky panky

SUBHEAD: After agreement with concerned co-op members, KIUC balks and rewords ballot on charges for no Smart Meter.

By Jonanthan Jay on 15 January 2013 in Island Breath -

Image above: Example of utility company customer who chose to opt out of a Smart Meter. From (

Just so all of you know, even thought KIUC has not announced it yet, the closing date for the special ballot, the due-date for the ballots and the subsequent counting of the ballots will be the 4th Saturday in January, the 25th, 2014.

However, this is an email I received from KIUC on Friday, December 13th, 2013 at 3:58 PM, from Jim Kelly :
Aloha Jonathan:

The agenda for the Tuesday meeting has been posted at along with the ballot wording proposed by the board.

Jim Kelly
Communications Manager
Kauai Island Utility Cooperative
Tel: (808) 246-4308
Cell: (808) 635-2681
Fax: (808) 246-8257
As a result some bad news to report:  It turns out our initial meeting with KIUC about the ballot language was a farce, and KIUC simply do what they wish.  When we sat down, with KIUC officials in a private meeting three weeks ago to hammer out the initial ballot language, we wanted a ballot that was:

1) sim­ple,
2) easy to under­stand,
3) nar­rowly focused on the action the board took to approve new fees, and
4) to say what those new fees were.

What KIUC originally agreed to was three out of those four.  Zero enumeration of the fees was included.  At the Public Meeting on Monday night, KIUC Management heard numerous testimony from people calling for the full figure of the fees to be included on the ballot.

However, KIUC has moved backward on the ballot language, and included little of what was requested.  Once again, KIUC is demonstrating they  know little to nothing of what a fair election looks like.  Click here to see how they have moved firmly to stack the deck of the ballot language:

The very language that we originally objected to - and they agreed with - is BACK IN!  The language we requested - that they enumerate the fees - is MOSTLY ABSENT!  And now they have even introduced a hypothetical  "could" onto the ballot, all to try to steer the outcome of the election.  That is not what democracy looks like!

Danny asked me that Monday night what recourse we might have if KIUC management did exactly what we feared....  Since the rules that KIUC wrote give them the 'sole discretion' to determine the ballot language, it might appear we have NO recourse.  But I think we can do better than standing dumbly by.  What say YOU to this challenge?

We must rise and not let this go unanswered!
KIUC management will do whatever they damn well please, then they will go through the motions of pretending to listen, hearing only what they wish... what supports what they are gonna do anyway.  we delude ourselves to think otherwise.  only by acting off-script can we hope to entangle them into a substantially different narrative, because they have set up the game and rigged it to win.  the bias of the ballot is a perfect example of this.

This is my response concerning change of wording of the ballot:

Aloha Jim Kelly,
 I have several questions for you regarding the biased new ballot language KIUC management has unilaterally crafted and posted online for the agenda of the 5pm meeting on Dec 17th:
1)   Who exactly was party to the crafting of this new language?
2)   How were these choices made?
3)   Why does the ballot now include an 'endorsement' from the PUC for the new fees?
4)   Why is there language back on the ballot that was already rejected by the joint Committees of the Board and Petitioners?
5)   Why is there now a hypothetical "could..." scenario attached to the NO choice on the ballot?
6)   Why does is the ballot question now cluttered with extraneous information not necessary to a YES/NO vote on the new fees?
7)   Why is only the lowest of the new fees included in the ballot? What about the $50.64 and the $138.80 set up fees for residential and business accounts?
8)   Why did KIUC management bother to bargain in such bad faith with the Petition drafters, if you were intent on unilaterally drafting your own ballot language ?
9)   Why does KIUC management feel it has to bias the wording of the ballot in order to get the desired vote outcome?
10) Why is KIUC so afraid of a fair, balanced and neutral ballot?
11)  Will KIUC allow an agreed upon neutral third party like the Oahu League of Women's Voters to arbitrate the questions of bias about this ballot?

I am sure I am not the only person who would like to hear the answers to these questions. Perhaps there are many readers of our island's newspaper of record who would also like to get some clarity, transparency and accountability from our utility cooperative.

Mahalo for your considered attention in this matter,

jonathan jay
Below is an example of testimony that is being sent to KIUC from its co-op members  who opposed to smart meters:
Aloha KIUC Board Members and to all concerned,

As you are all aware, many KIUC members have opted out of having a wireless smart meter at their home or business. As I work on this issue I hear from many people, here in Kaua'i and the world over who have decided to take this action as there are serious privacy and health issues with a wireless smart meter system.

I know that smart meters were made attractive to utilities as part of the economic stimulus package and that the main purpose for this program was in fact to stimulate the economy and not to save energy. I know this because smart meters do not actually save any energy. Any projected energy savings from a smart meter is based on rate payers changing their behavior because they have more potential for monitoring their energy use. However, most rate payers are unlikely to take this path and therefore the forcing of smart meters on every home and business is for the most part a waste of our money - both taxes from the stimulus and in increased costs as we are forced to pay for the installation, upkeep and analysis of a wireless smartmeter system.

KIUC knows this too. However you have chosen to pretend that all is well in this system and that is likely due to the fact that as rate payers move to using less energy and to installing their own renewable energy, utilities profit lines are dropping. The data that is collected from smart meters and the wireless mesh networks set up by utilities are both potential money making gambits. I know that KIUC currently says they will not sell rate payer data, however KIUC policies can change at any moment. As we have seen with the rushed special board meeting where KIUC decided to apply to the PUC for a tariff on the rate payers who opted out of smart meters, KIUC board often makes hasty decisions which seem for all purposes designed to limit membership input.

Do you all really consider yourselves part of a coop? It does not appear so.

I suspect that the reason KIUC applied to the PUC for a rate tariff is due to the fact that KIUC knows that people are learning of the dangers of wireless radiation emitted by smart meters and other devices. As this knowledge grows more people will opt out of having an uncontrollable emitter on their homes.
The fees for those who opt out are punitive. KIUC is a coop and coops share costs. They do not create separate classes of rate payers. I know that members of our community have shared information on the harm from the Class 2B possibly carcinogenic microwaves emitted by smart meters to you. (Same category as lead, DDT and gasoline fumes.) -

You have chosen to ignore this information. Even further you have chosen to misrepresent to the members on this issue. You perform a great disservice to our community as more and more people start to suffer from the ever increasing electrosmog created by wireless device on top of wireless device.

It is clear that the only true recourse here is for KIUC to apply to the PUC to recall the tariff on rate payers who opt out. We all know that this member ballot is a sham as KIUC has informed us that even if the members vote to overturn the board's actions the opt out fee is not a law and the board may not break this law.
So I ask that you do the right thing. Apply to the PUC to recall the tariff. Put the truth out to our community about the dangers of wireless radiation. You have been sent the links before, but just start with posting the BioInitiative Report 2012 - - which evaluated over 1,800 studies on microwave exposure from the last five years alone.
As you know this report, put together by 29 experts in the field of microwave exposure and biological effects calls for a halt to wireless smart meters. Another item to include for our community is the comparison of a smart meter to a cell phone. These are two very different types of exposure. A cell phone typically has very high near field exposure, which is implicated in brain cancer, hence the Class 2B carcinogen classificiation.
However the Internal Agency on Research for Cancer, IARC, made it clear that the cancer risk is not limited to cell phone exposure, but is applicable to all wireless devices which emit in the microwave frequency band. The whole body exposure from a smart meter which can never be turned off is much higher than the exposure from a phone which can be turned off or every left in the car overnight.

This issue is not going away. As public knowledge grows there will be a call for accountability. KIUC cannot plead ignorance. You realize that children are suffering. I saw one poor mother at the last hearing sharing the suffering her child has endured to a smart meter.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has also called for a halt to wireless smart meters. They recently issued a press release on a study that considered 92 case studies of people who have been injured by smart meters. The stories in this study are repeated the world over. People who had no idea wireless radiation could harm them. People who suddenly found themselves suffering from insomnia, headaches, heart arrhythmias, ringing in the ears and dizziness after a smart meter was installed on their homes -

The numbers of people who have overt symptoms from wireless radiation is sure to grow. Imagine being in sunlight. 5 minutes, half an hour is no problem for most. But as exposure lengthens more and more people will suffer an adverse reaction. And after this adverse reaction they will find that they must avoid future sun exposure until their body recovers.
Well a smart meter on a home is basically 24/7 exposure. There is no time for recovery. This leads to a collapse in health. People will not allow this assault on their health to continue. It is in KIUCs and our communities best interest to either reject the smart meter system in its entirety or to more to a fiber to the home grid where the individual home owner/business owner can then choose if they want to allow a wireless option in their home. If KIUC is genuine in its desire to create a more sustainable world this is the action it will take.

Mahalo for your attention to this matter. I know that it is hard to turn things around once such a huge mistake has been made, but it is the best course for all of us.
 Angela Flynn


No comments :

Post a Comment