edwards block

The recent hubbub being stirred up by those who have set their own hair on fire over the introduction of smart meters is refreshing in one respect: it’s a nice change from reports of suspicious chem-trails and inside jobs on 9/11.

British Columbians are probably right to be apprehensive about BC Hydro’s motivations and future intent, particularly as the utility is controlled by a provincial government that already seems determined to govern more from an ideological imperative (or to satisfy the demands of crony capitalists) than from interest in the common good. When decisions are being made behind closed doors by cabinet – or politically appointed bureaucrats – with little or no independent oversight, we should not be surprised by hoi polloi expectations of conspiracy (see BC Rail, HST, et al). However, as far as I can see most of the anti-smart meter bleating is just annoying and politically counterproductive.

What are Smart Meters?

If you’re not aware, BC Hydro, the publicly owned utility that provides electricity to British Columbian homes and businesses (and exports electricity to the United States), has launched a project to replace all of the old analogue meters currently in use with new digital meters equipped with wireless signalling technology. This has inspired a minor movement in opposition, with people threatening to blockade their analogue meters in order to prevent replacement.

They’re called smart meters because – unlike the old analogue meters, which only recorded the total electricity usage and had to be read manually every month or two – the new meters can record usage on an hourly basis, detect power failures and irregular voltage levels, and contain two radio transmitters. One of these radios transmits data hourly to a receiver located in the same neighbourhood (which then relays the data to BC Hydro’s mainframe). The other radio, disabled unless the customer requests activation, allows that customer to use in-home or in-business technology to manage his or her own electrical conservation.

I expect that the new meters are also capable of recording bi-directional power transfers. I’m sure there’s a more technically accurate phrase to describe that, but basically it means that if you are generating your own electricity on your property, you’ll be able to “upload” it to the grid and be paid for it. BC Hydro doesn’t make this very clear in their promotional propaganda, beyond one sentence that reads “The measurement technology determines how much power is being consumed and produced.” I’m too lazy to read the technical specs to find out for sure, but that “produced” sounds promising.

If you think that the likelihood of your generating any power, let alone surplus power, is science fiction, just think of a product that is getting a lot of hype (and taxpayer subsidies) lately: the electric car. Personally, I have a lot of concerns with the electric car (at least from an metro-urban planning perspective – see pending separate rant on this topic), but if you want to know why you might soon be in a position to sell electricity, check out another smart concept, the smart grid, in this Wikipedia article.

Speaking of smart grid, the smart meter program isn’t just about individual meters. All of those individual meters collectively provide additional functionality as well, within neighbourhoods, within regions, and across the province. For instance, if one of your neighbours is by-passing the meter in order to steal electricity to secretly provide lighting to his basement hydroponic herb garden (a problem that can increase the likelihood of electrocution, fire, power failures, and electrical interference), the aggregated meters will record a discrepancy between the amount of power used on one block compared to the amount of power recorded by meters, making it easier to track down the leak. It’s only fair, after all, that everyone pays for what they use, regardless of the nature of that use.

Of course, it should be pointed out that this wouldn’t be as significant an issue if governments hadn’t put BC Hydro in the absurd position of being forced to fink to the police on anyone with higher-than-average power usage, effectively using a public utility as a law enforcement investigation unit. That few would bother to steal the electricity in the first place if they were just left to grow their herbs in peace is a detail that merits no official recognition.

There are undoubtedly larger-network benefits to the smart grid as well. For instance, the ability to manage the overall power network based on demand and supply is desirable. Power might be shifted across different transmission systems based on higher or lower demand in one region, or in order to react to supply problems in the form of generation outages (ie: dam maintenance or transmission line damage). An intelligent grid can potentially better manage electricity and promote better conservation, with less waste. Besides potentially relieving upward pressure on domestic electricity prices, it’s possible that better resource management might also reduce the need to generate extra electricity through the burning of coal and other polluting resources at times when systems near, or exceed, capacity.

The Opposition

There are certainly questions to be asked about any new technology being introduced, particularly when one has no choice over whether one uses the technology. “Is it safe?” and “Will my privacy be protected?” are two that immediately spring to mind.

Unfortunately, rather than have constructive conversations about these subjects, we seem to have a bunch of people with varying political agendas who would rather scream “It’s going to give me brain cancer!” and “They want to track how often I recharge my vibrator!” Most of these people are quite rational about most other things, and have legitimate political concerns about many topics, yet resort to irrational histrionics about smart meters.

Not only does this behaviour call into question their general credibility about other topics, but more importantly it occupies the space that should be used for more constructive conversations about resource management, public ownership and privatisation, environmental stewardship, open government, and equitable and fair cost recovery.

Considering its history, it is highly likely that the provincial government, in collusion with vested interests and foreign powers, is incrementally working toward the privatisation of British Columbia’s electrical grid. In all likelihood, the universal use of smart meters will make BC Hydro and/or its component parts more attractive to private investors. This presumed fact does not mean that the adoption of smart meters is the wrong decision any more than offering free wifi on BC Ferries will make it easier to privatise the ships. A strong case for smart meters can be made even if continued public ownership were certain.

British Columbians who are genuinely interested in continuing to have a publicly owned electrical utility would do well to aggressively promote that idea. Instead, people seem content to fritter away their increasingly limited political capital on absurd-sounding claims, like how smart meters “will effectively blanket homes and neighbourhoods with radiation”¹, “[...]what you are doing at any moment can be intercepted by market researchers, insurance investigators, saboteurs, would-be burglars[...]², or one American site that says “Smart Meters is a grid designed to control and incarcerate the public”³.

It’s not just anonymous cranks and semi-literate Facebookers, though. Opposition to smart meters seems to be the thing to do for some NDP activists. Take Bill Tieleman, for instance. His Tyee article on the subject last summer resorted to a lot of the same sort of panicmongering. He quotes a New York doctor who speaks of “exposure to radiofrequency radiation at elevated levels for long periods of time”. It seems that the doctor is either speaking out of context, or doesn’t understand how smart meters work, and Tieleman only impairs his own credibility by quoting him.

One thing Tieleman does mention, which is quite important to any discussion about ethics in government and about the implementation of the smart meter program, is the allegation by journalist Will McMartin about possible Liberal-party graft in the awarding of the smart meter contract⁴. This is certainly an issue of concern, and both McMartin and Tieleman are right to raise it. However, it is only an issue of implementation, not about the value of the program itself. If city council awards the garbage collection contract to one of the mayor’s political cronies, it does not therefore mean that garbage collection should be abandoned.

At least the NDP’s energy critic, John Horgan, seems to be staying away from the loonier claims of the anti-smart meter folk, which is probably tricky since many of them are probably people who vote NDP. At a public meeting in Kelowna, he avoided appearing to agree with those making hysterical health claims but tried to sound sympathetic by saying “But I do know, with absolute certainty, that the anxiety that these smart meters are creating are leading to health issues for people.”

In other words, if I may creatively paraphrase Horgan, “you people are making yourselves sick worrying about something that emits a mere fraction of the radio frequency power of that iPhone in your pocket, and you’ll never have to hold it up to your head. Get over it and let’s talk about something important.”⁵. Horgan can’t say so, but no doubt he thinks that that the crazy lefties who rail against smart meters for health reasons are as loony as the crazy rightists who rail against fluoridated drinking water and polio vaccination.

The NDP is well advised not to jump on the bandwagon of the irrationally discontent, unless they want to further drive away the environmentalist voters that they alienated in the last election by opportunistically opposing the carbon tax, a decision that cost them more votes than they gained.

It is difficult to comprehend how people can get worked up about a meter that sends out a two second signal once an hour, compared to all of the other much more intensive signals surrounding them. At this moment, there are, within detectable range of the chair in my living room, no fewer than twenty-eight detectable wireless modems all beaming signals, many probably doing so continuously, 24 hours a day. And then there are the cellular signals. Here’s a cell tower map of greater Vancouver:

Add to that the satellites beaming cable television throughout the city, the commercial radio signals, the two-way radios, the ham radios, the microwave transmitters on the mountains… even if you add up all the smart meters on your street, their output is minuscule by comparison.

Effectiveness of implementation

I’ve already mentioned the increased opportunity for privatisation. I’m not going to launch into a discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of a privatised utility, other than to say that I doubt that most British Columbians are enthusiastic about the prospect. Privatisation is not an issue with meters per se, and some might call it a slippery-slope sort of suggestion, but if the subject is relevant, it relates to implementation. I’m uneasy about appearing to engage in conspiracy-mongering myself, but with this government almost anything sounds plausible, especially after the BC Rail fiasco.

With that in mind, it occurs to me that having the population in an uproar that appears to be caused by BC Hydro (even though BC Hydro is effectively forced to do whatever the provincial cabinet decides) serves very conveniently to cause deterioration of the traditionally good relationship between BC Hydro and its customers. Is the smart meter controversy eroding the pride that British Columbians feel about their utility? Even among those who don’t care much about the meter question, just being peripherally aware of controversy may be erosive. In business terms, it’s damaging the brand, and a damaged brand will be easier to dispose of, politically.

BC Hydro has provided on their FAQ, in my opinion, sufficient information about the health and privacy concerns that customers might have about how the meters will be operated at the time of implementation. Rather than report total electrical usage once a month, the meters will report total electrical usage once an hour. No one reasonable is going to have a problem with that.

One thing BC Hydro probably did wrong was to call them “smart meters.” The word smart evokes the concept of intelligence – artificial intelligence, in this regard. Who wants one of Ridley Scott’s replicants hanging on the wall outside her bedroom window? “Smart” vaguely suggests “sinister”, or “spying”, at least when applied to a cold machine of efficient calculation that doesn’t play games or have a “like” button. It’s no wonder there’s resistance. They should have stuck a fruit decal on it and called it an “iMeter.” Then, instead of launching anti-meter websites, the citizenry would be lined up outside of BC Hydro’s Dunsmuir Street headquarters, holding up fists full of cash and clamouring to be the first on their blocks to take home the new iMeter.

Though I found many of the answers on BC Hydro’s FAQ candid and informative, I also felt that a couple of the answers were potentially less than honest. Oddly, though, I kind of hope that they are lying. The first questionable question is “Will my rates go up because of smart meters?”, to which they provide an unqualified “no” as an answer.

The second question is “Will BC Hydro be introducing time-of-use rates?”. The answer here is also negative, ostensibly because time-of-use rating is generally only used in markets where the risk of exceeding capacity is high and time-of-use helps prevent it.

The paranoid in me thinks that they mean what they say, that “they” will not raise rates, but who can say what the government will force them to do, or what a future private owner might do? But the fact is, rates are almost certain to rise, eventually. It’ll just be for some other reason, of course.

But really, I’m nor terribly concerned. I think that they should raise rates.

As citizens of British Columbia, and therefore as investors in the utility, I think every residential household should be entitled to a base amount of electricity, regardless of the size of dwelling or the number of occupants, for free. Yes, that’s right – for free. But just a base amount. I’m talking about just enough to power a minimal number of energy-efficient lights and appliances necessary for basic survival and comfort. Any electrical usage above that basic amount would be charged for, at graduated rates based on a usage scale, so that the more you use, the more you pay.

(BC Hydro should stick to its commitment to avoid a time-of-use scheme as much as possible, unless capacity issues make it necessary. However, I would not favour time-of-use if capacity issues arise as a result of selling excessive quantities of power to jurisdictions outside of British Columbia, especially those who have no conservation incentives of their own.)

The result? Customers would have a much stronger incentive to conserve energy than currently exists, and the incentive would apply to all users, regardless of economic station, without unduly burdening (and even helping) the low income. This could mean everything from turning out a light when you leave the room to investing in energy efficient appliances and better insulation.

Now that’s something I’d like to see the anti-meter crowd redirect their energies toward.

1. http://www.notosmartmeters.com/health-issues/ [↩]
2. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Smart-Meters-in-BC/104594719619502?sk=info [↩]
3. http://ppjg.me/2012/01/21/icleis-murder-meters-and-spy-grid-turning-mr-roger-neighborhood-into-electronic-internment-camps/ [↩]
4. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/07/SmartMeterProfits/ [↩]
5. http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/134976123.html [↩]

Remembrance Day, as it is called in much of the commonwealth, is coming up again, about a month from today. In the US it is called Veterans Day; in France, Armistice Day (Jour de l’Armistice). Officially, it marks the end of World War I, though in modern convention it is a remembrance of life lost in both world wars, as well as to those who died in other military activities, such as the one currently taking place in Afghanistan.

Remembrance has probably been in constant decline since World War II, and that’s unfortunate. I’m talking about real remembrance, not just throwing a plastic flower on our lapels on the way to the mall, an act which for many of us is probably inspired more by habitual adherence to custom, or sub-conscious concern for what others will think, than by a truly conscious act of remembrance.

This Remembrance Day, why not try to remember in a more attentive way? I’m not talking about getting in your car to drive downtown to stand around at the Cenotaph for a few minutes trying to listen to barely audible speeches while shivering. If that’s your bag, go ahead, but if it isn’t your thing, that’s OK. I understand fully. Standing around in a crowd of inattentive, latte-sipping people while parades of tragically militarised children are marched up Cordova Street and warplanes are buzzed overhead isn’t my thing either. I just ask that you replace it with something that is meaningful to you.

It need not involve going downtown, or being an all-day project. In fact, perhaps the best thing you could do is just sit down in your living room, or your yard (perhaps just after 11am, but whenever is good too), and spend a few minutes thinking about war, and peace, and grandparents, and great grandparents and what it was like, regardless of whether they were getting shot at in western France or supporting the effort from home and facing an uncertain and terrifying future. Think about all the legless, armless and headless children of those wars, and of wars occurring right now. Do it alone, or sit with your family or friends and talk about it, or read something. Even if all you do is Google war and spend twenty minutes following and reading Wikipedia links, that’s twenty minutes thoughtfully and productively invested in real remembrance.

One of the more commonly heard expressions about war and remembrance refers to men and women “who gave their lives that freedom might prevail”.¹  Yes, it’s vitally important to take the time to remember those people who gave their own lives, limbs, or health to preserve those freedoms that provide us with all of the privileges that we enjoy today. But simply remembering is not enough. Along with the moral responsibility to remember and honour, there is also a responsibility to continue to preserve and defend those freedoms. Failure to do so, in my opinion, makes all the cenotaphs, wreath-laying, plastic poppies, and war-amps key tags worthless.

When I speak of continuing to defend freedom, I do not refer to the act of sending troops to overseas countries to, ostensibly, fight for the freedom of others and, by extension, all of us. That addresses an area of foreign policy that deserves open and thoughtful debate, but that I am not attempting to address here at this time.

Rather, I refer to the defense of freedom here at home.

It is easy for us to overlook, when it does not affect us personally and directly, the ways that our freedoms – that others died to preserve for us – are being abused and eroded.

In British Columbia, local governments are stomping all over our freedoms with barely a peep of protest from the bulk of citizens. For instance, the Liberal government introduced in the legislature a bill, innocuously titled the Miscellaneous Statutes and Amendment Act, that contains the subsection The Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. This act will allow municipalities in which olympic events are taking place (Vancouver, Richmond, and Whistler) to enter private property to remove or cover up signs.

Although the act does not specifically mention the olympics or indicate what kind of signs are subject to censorship, it does specify that the municipalities will be granted these powers for a fixed period of time, from February 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010, the period during which the olympics will take place. For more info, see the CBC report, and the text of Bill 13.

The city of Vancouver (led by BC’s own Marshall Pétain, Mayor Gregor Robertson, who speaks publicly about being “pissed” when cyclists hold up traffic but is remarkably quiet about the destruction of liberty) is collaborating by introducing bylaws to complement the provincial act. In addition, bylaws have been prepared that will limit the rights of citizens to carry out certain activities on city streets. Among these are handing out leaflets, holding signs or advertising anything at all that isn’t VANOC approved.

But that’s not all. The Vancouver Police have been hanging out in the downtown eastside of Vancouver, site of Canada’s poorest urban neighbourhood, engaging in a campaign of harassment against the residents of that community. They’re writing jaywalking tickets, filing charges for simple drug possession, and requiring that beat cops stop a minimum of four people per block for “street checks”, which apparently involves identification checks. If you think that’s acceptable, just imagine the same thing happening to you while walking down your own street.

Meanwhile, the special amalgamation of police that is being amassed for the olympics, the Integrated Security Unit, is busy establishing a reputation for being Canada’s ‘light’ version of Stasi. Police are showing up to question people for any kind of olympic criticism. For instance, 73-year old Peter Scott, who wrote a critical letter to the editor, had police come to his door. Or there’s Danika Surm, who had the ISU show up at her class at Langara College, just for being the friend of someone who is an olympics opponent. Just google “olympics 2010 harassment” and you’ll get lots more examples.

The police claim that they are simply trying to uncover any potential threats to the physical security of the olympics – preventing terrorism, in other words. However, I am sceptical. It sounds to me, and to many others, like the police are being used for political purposes. Having “law enforcement” agents visit people who express political opinions is nothing more than an intimidation tactic intended to stifle dissent. It is an unjust, immoral, and completely inapproriate use of state power against citizens that one would expect more from a totalitarian state than one would from good old Canada.

The provincial government has also proposed a law that would empower the Vancouver police to force homeless people into a shelters or other “safe alternatives” during cold or wet conditions. This being Vancouver, cold or wet conditions can be expected at pretty much any time of year, but most especially during the winter olympics.

I doubt that housing minister Rich Coleman has any genuine interest in the safety of the homeless. On the other hand, rounding them all up and stuffing them into makeshift jails will be a highly convenient way of hiding them from the sensitive eyes of olympic tourists. Unless this is just the first step in a more general re-institutionalisation process (following the de-institutionalisation process of the 80s on the alleged grounds of civil liberties) I’m fairly certain that once the five-ring circus has packed up and left town, the homeless will once again be allowed to (or even encouraged to) die quietly in dark corners.

Most of us are not homeless. Most of us have no desire to publicly oppose the olympics. Most of us will not get a ticket for speeding through a red light at Main and Hastings while the police are on the sidewalk reinforcing respect for the rule of law among those poor and weak enough to be bullied.

When the provincial government introduced photo radar, a mass of motorists rose up in protest to defend what they perceived to be an assault on their constitutional rights, such as the right to hurtle through a school zone in two tons of steel with impunity, and photo radar was abandoned.

The fact that a minority does not have sufficient numbers or sufficient resources to rise up against a perceived injustice is not an indication that the injustice is imaginary. We must look out for each other’s rights, even if we don’t always agree with or understand them.

Remember the words of Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

When the winter olympics was first being proposed, I was opposed to it. I didn’t like the effect it would have on the city and I thought it was a massive use of taxpayers dollars being used as a subsidy to corporate interests, little of which would trickle back down to the source. As a return on investment, it seemed unappealling. However, once it became official, I resigned myself to it, and I can say, hoped it would succeed, at least enough so that we wouldn’t get stiffed for another few billion. And I would be cooperating with it today, if it were not for the unprecedented attack on civil liberties that is taking place as a result.

The olympics may be a very desirable event to many, but if we can’t hold an olympics, or any other event, without depriving citizens of their rights to free speech and free assembly, we have no business holding it at all.

Now, I know that in this age of information overload and overwork, it is difficult to pay attention to, let alone be involved in, all of our civic responsibilities. But citizenship and responsibility are work. We owe our forbears the responsibility of carrying out that work. I ask you, not to give all your time to saving the world, but to take just a few moments here and there to do something, anything. To do the right thing. To remember. To remember why.

One great way that you can take some meaningful action, with minimal work or expense, is to join the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. The BCCLA does an admirable job of defending freedom of speech and the other liberties that we take for granted and advocating on behalf of those who are being deprived of those liberties. You may not – in fact, I guarantee that you will not – agree with all of the people and organisations that the BCCLA defends. You may not agree with any of them at all. But free speech isn’t always pretty or convenient. I might also add that the BCCLA will not spam you endlessly for more money or send you reams of junk mail (I wouldn’t be a member if they did), and you don’t actually have to participate in any of their activities, but you are also more than welcome to do so.

Please, join. It’s easy. It’s cheap. Do it now, not tomorrow. On November 11, be able to say “I remember. I’m doing my part to honour and preserve what they died for”.

If you don’t live in British Columbia, consider joining one of these complementary organisations:

Canadian Civil Liberties Association

American Civil Liberties Union

1. http://legion.ca/About/remembrance_e.cfm [↩]