Consider Providing Direction to Staff on Alameda Municipal Power’s Smart Meter Program, Including Opting Out, City Manager Voting, Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation, Maintenance and Inspection.  (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)
Oh, and we have about seven speakers on this. You want to speak to a referral or introduce it? Um, you know, I think at least I'll speak for how this came about for me. And I've spoken with staff and also members of the public, but I think that there's you know, there's been a lot of conversation and questions being raised about different things. And my intent is really to allow for council to have a conversation because of the Brown Act, we can't all speak on these issues. So to be able to speak about the issues and the concerns being raised to also review. With staff, the concerns that have been raised and then, you know, see how we want to move forward on it and within the confines of the city charter and and also clarify just who has authority for what. Because I think that part of it is people don't know who to speak to and what the extent of our authority is. And that has been something that has been frustrating to me as a council member, but also I know to members of the public and and to staff. And I just want to add, I want to thank Vice Mayor Lee Avella for working with me on this. And the community has expressed concerns for a long time. And I wanted to bring the referral because there seems to be a disconnect between the communications that come to council members and myself on this issue and what is happening with AMP and AMP. As much as it's not as much as it's not the city. It is, in fact, the city. So people know we have our own utility for a reason. We want better service, not the same. We want better. If we were going to offer the same or worse or fewer options, we wouldn't need AMP, my opinion. So I think it is important that our utility be responsive to us and it seems like we've got not necessarily the communication or the response that I would like. So that was part of it. And then part of it is that our city manager is a voting member on the Privy Council is not. So my other part of this goes to is there a way for council to give any feedback? Is it possible to have the city manager report to us and regards to upcoming issues that she will be asked to vote on and get any feedback? Is that does there have to be a firewall between us so that we're getting emails, we're trying to find out what's happening? And yet she's part of the group that's voting unanimously, as my understanding, to, in fact, support AMP's policy. So that goes to, you know, to figure out what we can do. And this is similar to what the vice mayor is saying. Who has the authority? What authority does council have on this when we're trying to be responsive to our community and it's like super like not it seems impossible. So that's why I wanted to do the referral. I was very happy to work with vice mayor on this. Likewise. Thank you. And so then I'm going to go ahead and let the speakers and I want to give you all honestly and opportunities to speak here, too, so that we can figure out how we're moving forward. So I appreciate you all coming out here tonight and staying so late because that goes to show we know it's important. Christopher Raby, Shelby Sheehan and someone said in time to her and then Lisa Zapata. Hi. I'm Christopher Raby, Alameda, a native resident father of two. And I'm here tonight to inform you about the serious threats to public health and safety caused by AMP Smart Meter program and why it must be stopped. As you may know, smart meters transmit wireless information about your electric usage to AMP, but you may not be aware of as the hundreds of scientific studies that show significant adverse health effects with exposure to low levels of non-ionizing microwaves currently approved and used in wireless communication. This research has also demonstrated adverse biological effects of wireless EMF, including single and double stranded DNA breaks, immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, stress, protein synthesis in the brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD, abnormal behavior, sperm dysfunction and brain tumors. Many scientists, researchers, public health officials and agencies conclude that EMF standards established by the FCC are outdated, as they are based only on the heat effects and not biological effects of non-ionizing EMF microwave radiation, which are scientifically, scientifically demonstrated at levels hundreds of times less than current safety exposure limits, and thus current standards are inadequate to protect public health. In 2011, the World Health Organization designated wireless communications as a possible carcinogen. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics asked for a reassessment of exposure to RF limits and policies that protect children's health throughout their lifetimes and reflect current use patterns. In 2014, the California Medical Association adopted a resolution to reevaluate wireless standards, coming to the conclusion that existing public safety limits for microwave MF devices are outdated and inadequate to protect human health. Smart meters emit RF radiation much more frequently than the 1700 times per day AMP claims. Independent testing has shown that a single smart meter emits RF radiation between 9000 and 190,000 times per day. When you put five or more smart meters together, it results in a continuous stream of pulsed RF radiation 24 seven that can be detected more than 20 feet away and travels through walls and points to put a bank of 13 of these meters on the outside of my kids bedroom wall within six feet of their beds. This will transmit RF between 117,002.4 million times a day and expose my children to a constant stream of RF radiation anytime in their room. Essentially microwaving them while they sleep or play or whatever they're doing in there. Since the current opt out plan has no option for people in my situation. I have asked the Public Utility Board to make an exemption to their opt out policy. So if one person wants to opt out in a multi-unit building, the whole bank can be analog meters with no fee. It's been two months. I still haven't heard from them. I have, however, received a $125 opt out fee on my latest electric bill, which is, by the way, is wrongful use of force or fear and fits the legal definition of extortion as defined in the California Penal Code, Section 518. Aside from these issues, smart meters are also known to raise bills, explode and catch fire, and they violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution as they are unwarranted surveillance devices. In light of this information, I ask that you do anything within your power to stop amp smart meter program and to work towards the long term goal of the complete and permanent removal of all smart meters within the city of Alameda. Thank you. Thank you very much. Shelby. And she someone to chime to her. So she gets up to 6 minutes. Thank you. Oh, hi. So some of what Chris said, I'll be saying as well, and expanding on a little bit and making some recommendation. And I think Julie saw me at the last meeting. And if you can speak clearly into the memory. Okay. Okay. So just let me start. Thank you for this opportunity to speak and for taking the time to consider our concerns about the Smart Reading Program in Alameda. My name is Shelby Sheehan. I am an all nighter resident. My background is in public health. I have a master's science from UCLA in Environmental Health, and I'm a doctoral candidate in environmental science and engineering. I'm here to express my concerns about the health risks associated with electromagnetic radiation from smart meters and the compulsory smart meter installation program currently underway in Alameda. I previously submitted a letter to all of you about this issue. In it, I include references and additional links to support the statements I'm making before you tonight. I would like to use this time to summarize that information and reiterate my recommendations for the Council to give to AMP regarding the Smart Meter program. Please feel free to use my letter as a starting point and I respectfully request that you continue to do further reading to educate yourself more fully about smart meters and M-F radiation health concerns. My first recommendation is for a complete moratorium on meter installations. 5757 other counties or cities in California have already done this. For example, Marin County, the cities of Piedmont Local, Richmond local as well, Santa Phil and Sebastopol, among others. These moratoriums were adopted to protect health, safety and welfare of the residents. Alameda should follow suit. Make no mistake, this is a huge health and safety issue. Smart meters constantly emit EMF radiation that interferes with a biological functions and makes people sick. As Chris said, for example, it can cause significant acute problems such as debilitating fatigue and severe neurological issues, worsening of mental health disorders, neuropathy, and tonight, among others . Just as important, MF radiation can cause cancer. This fact is recognized by many prestigious and well-known organizations, including who that Chris mentioned and a multitude of scientific and academic organizations. All recognize the acute health effects and cancer risk from units. Most vulnerable are those that already have health problems or other sensitive populations. Included on that list are people with multiple sclerosis, autism, children, and those with cancer, just to name a few. Sensitive populations. So what is the risk associated with iems from smart meters? It is common knowledge that cell phone use, among other things, should be limited to do it due to an increased risk of cancer from EMF radiation. For example, the manufacturers say that the radiation from a smart meter is minimal, equivalent to that of a cell phone. But in real life, there's overwhelming evidence of a much greater risk. In fact, Dr. Dietrich Heart, who is an M.D. and a Ph.D. and an expert in MF Radiation, calls MF Illness the health crisis of our time. Many experts in report after report and study after study, including those published in peer reviewed journals, which is the highest scientific standard there is as well. Laypeople who videotaped the levels of radiation from smart meters in actual use demonstrate that the risk is much higher than industry states. Based on real life data. The actual risk of cancer from smart meters is 100 times that of a single cell phone. That is two orders of magnitude. It's clearly a significant risk, especially for sensitive populations and should be alarming to us all. Therefore, a moratorium on smart meter installations is warranted unless and until the known health risks are addressed. My second recommendation. With or without a moratorium is about the opt out. As Chris said presently, you can opt out of getting a meter, but it costs $125 initially and then $10 a month after that, which is prohibitive to a lot of families and discriminatory and illegal in my opinion. Furthermore, the ability to opt out sunsets after two years, which means after after two years, you can't opt out anymore. They take that right away from you and they are going to force a smart meter on you. But. And it's absolutely unacceptable given the known health risk concerns. Therefore, my second one, my second recommendation is to eliminate the opt out charge as well as a sunset clause. My third recommendation is about the issues in multifamily units. Again, I'm I'm marrying what Chris said in multifamily units. One could have five, ten, 20 or more smart meters, all constantly emitting huge amounts of EMF radiation, causing an incredible increased health risk associated with so many in one place. Many are place right outside bedrooms, a role. Children are sleeping. No one should be forced to have their children exposed to such high amounts of radiation. Therefore, because of the aforementioned known health concerns, I recommend a rule that if one resident of a multifamily unit wants to opt out, then the entire building must be exempted from all smart meter installations. In conclusion, I urge the City Council to put the health and safety of Alameda residents as the top priority by directing AMP to one halt further installations of smart meters until safety can be established to eliminate the opt out cost and the sunset clause. And three discontinue installations on multifamily units if even one resident opposes them. Thank you. Thank you. This is the Potter. And then Gabby Dolphin, another Curtis. I am. They've said a lot of the points that I wanted to make, so I'll just go on with my personal points. I've been a resident in Alameda since 2002. I was really surprised to find out that there was no way that I was going to have to pay to opt out of something that clearly has health hazards and is. Is it trespassing technology? It really. I just felt bullied into having to pay. I can't afford this opt out fee and I shouldn't have to afford this opt out fee. As a single mom, it's just ridiculous. And it's appalling. So as well. Personally, I am immunocompromised. My son. I don't want him playing by that. Technology. It's right in the children's area. My husband has passed away from cancer. This is something that clearly has health hazards and should not be. It should be with caution that we. We. Take this technology and it seems like it's being forced upon us. And I. I just really resent that. And I. Love Alameda. I love. Living here. And I've even considered moving away. And I don't want to do that. I really enjoy this community that we have. I believe that there should not be an opt out fee, that this is extortion and it. I've already sent notices of liability to Nicholas. Michael Picker and Barbara Lee and Senator Feinstein. And I am going to go forward with this. If I continue to feel like I'm being bullied into something that clearly is hazardous and is illegal. So I would hope that you could put a moratorium on this. I would appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Gabby Dolphin. Gabby Donovan once again, High City Council, August body and mayor. What's being said here is really pertinent at this time. I don't have a specific statement about smart metering. I want to say, though, that I have been working with AMP and Pub for a while, a few months and the pub board and AMP have they've really looked to change, to open up, to be more available to the community. And for that I'm really, really grateful and I really think Nico's over there because he's new here and he's stepped into not a minefield, but good lord, we're a new community to him and times are changing. We've got a lot of serious issues. But my concern again has to do with the structure of communication in the governance of this municipality. And if I were to take a huge step back and look at the large picture, we have the pub board, big business, and sitting on the pub board is our city manager and I'm only using concepts, not names. This is not about UGL, it's about roles. City managers. We've got big business in bed with our government. And and the reason I bring that up is that I feel there's a real difficulty penetrating through pub and amp in so difficult. I don't even know what questions to ask. So what I did was I submitted a four year request to AMP and they very graciously gave the information I requested. But the idea being that it should have been available to me and it should be communicable and not communicable, that's a disease. But to communicate about it, but to know beforehand what's going on with AMP, I honestly don't feel that these people are coming to you for help. But what I understand when I read the city charter and I did when I first started talking to Frank about looking at the climate change thing again, I interpreted it to be mean. See that the city council had far more weight and influence because you are our elected officials and you carry our word to staff and to pub and that's not happening. What happens is they listen, listen, listen, listen. Nice, good idea. And boom, we go straight forward with street smart meters or. I can understand the joy, but I don't see any joy in the fact that AMP is going to be a huge new revenue stream with this new killer technology business that's going in. And I do believe I saw a little bit of glee that, you know, there's going to be a big revenue stream open up because they're going to be taking electricity. What about solar? What about wind? What about geothermal? I didn't hear any talk about that alternate energy. We have a huge business coming in that's going to suck up energy was the word used. So my concern is. I know we're constrained by our charter, but surely we can give more thought to it on how we communicate and how we open up about this issue, in particular energy, the changing energy landscape, the desires, desires of the people of Alameda. And having pub and amp work with us. Not well, you know. Thanks. Thank you. Heather Curtis and then Nancy Gordon. And if you want to speak on some time, please submit your slip. Morning. And there, Curtis, that quite morning. I've been a native here for 50 years, and I cannot be as articulate as these wonderful people have. But I have grave concerns, not only about well, mostly about the health effects, whipped, sorry, surveillance and the gathering and selling of my personal data. I've heard some people say now that big data is the new big oil. Chairman former Chairman Wheeler, there's a video going around saying, you know, we're going to roll out the 5G. It's going to make us billions. We don't care who regulates it. No scientific studies being done. So we've got huge issues with this. Hacking vulnerabilities, fires, especially increasing during power surges, inaccurate billing issues, and again, the 29 sun set for the opt out. I can also not afford the opt out fee. I paid over $500 for three years to puny to keep a smart meter off of my home. At which point, after three years, emails were released between the PGA executives and the PUC, showing that they were very much aware of the liability and health problems with smart meters and they had to quit charging us for them. That's all available on stop smart meters dot org. So I should not be forced to put a dangerous device in my home. Not on it, because this technology and frequencies are coming into my home or have to pay an opt out fee to prevent one from being installed. We also do not want I do not want any, am I? Meters. Which is what they're substituting advanced meters in some cities and regions saying that they're are not smart meters, but they really are as dangerous. And just a little bit about me. I have an older flip phone, which I only use for emergencies. No cell phone, my cable and for my computers and my phone is hard wired. I haven't ever had wi fi in my home and I even got rid of my microwave once I started doing my own research in due diligence on how dangerous these technologies are . So and I think at this point, I hope if 5G is rolling out, this will become an agenda item because that's much worse than what we've got now. So I respectfully request that you, as my representatives require amp. AMP you be to do your due diligence by reviewing all of the independent studies that are out there. We can't rely on industry. They're covering all of this up and they're very much aware of the health dangers of this wi fi, smart meters, all of them. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nancy. I hope you do the right thing. And she's our last speaker on this item. Thank you, mayor and council members. Yeah. I would also like you and I corroborate what they say. I agree. And I'm a Spanish major, so I don't know all that scientific stuff. However, about eight years ago, when my two oldest granddaughters were little, they're ten and eight now. I attended I happened to get a call from a former flight attendant friend of mine and she said, you've got to go to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco and listen to these experts about EMF and damage. So I went and after that I signed up for the Commonwealth Club and I had a lot of information. These are people from not only the United States but in Europe and I believe it. I gave the notes to my son and his wife, but I believe that in France they were forbidding cell phones for kids under 12. I mean, there are developing brains and things like that. I probably already have fried my brain with cell phones and wireless and everything like that. And sometimes I can feel I used to be able to feel pains going through my head if I had my phone and that was even with a landline starting. But some of us have businesses where we can't really avoid all that. It's supposed to make it easier. But there was a lot of information. And now it's coming out on the Web sites that people have mentioned and that they've given you and their letters. I'm unsure of how it invades privacy. Again, that's not my field of expertize at all, but I trust the people who've done the research. I also watched a very informative video of a retired and highly experienced and respected fire chief about the Northern California fires and references to smart meters. It's is pretty bizarre and kind of scary. Very scary. And now we've got new fires. I'm just wondering if there's a relationship between the drones and. Smart meters. Who knows? I did hear about from my body worker who on Grand Street. She's a doctor. She gave me the Web site for special plugs that I can plug in. Is supposed to kind of neutralize EMFs in my house. I mean, I can't test it myself, but I'm starting to plug in me, and I give it to my son in his family. Let's see this supposed to filter out some of that. I mean. I'm probably older than. About everybody in this room. And when I was a kid, my parents kept saying, Nancy, don't sit so close to the TV. And then I used to stare at the microwave. I like to watch stuff happening until I heard, Oh, that's not so cool to do. So some things we learn. By accident. Other things we learn by like don't put Tupperware, don't heat your stuff in Tupperware in the microwave. I mean. So far I'm still alive, so kick in and try to kick the smart meters off my property. I happened to go out my front door and here was a guy from AMP. And anyway, I don't want to get the opt out fee. A lot of assumptions are being made and. Their health hazards up the ying yang. I don't want our young people to. Have the repercussions of all this going on. And I think it is big business and reminds me of the competition with Comcast days. Thank you. Thank you very much. She was our last speaker. So there's a referral. Um, did any council members want to make comments or. And yes, Niko Pro is here too, if you want to ask questions or he can maybe answer some of the. Did you want to share any information? Good evening again, Madam Mayor. Council members. A couple of things I wanted to just touch upon specifically related to the sunset provision, which are current rules and regulations specify that everyone has to have a smart meter starting in 2019. We have an item going to the board for our Monday meeting to lift that provision. It's actually been something we've been talking about for a couple of months. We're going to bring it to the board around January, February, in light of the concerns have been expressed. We brought it forward. We're also going to be including a low income provision in there as well. I will say that speaking to this and some of the other provisions about the charges as a municipal utility, we are subject to different rules and laws than P.G. and he is we have to provide the service at cost. So even though there's a perception that the cost might be significant, we are really constrained in terms of our flexibility to make adjustments to those charges. Regarding the city charter provisions, I would turn to the attorneys to address that. I will say that, you know, there is this process to to approve the smart meter program was a long process starting way back in 2012. It really picked up steam around 2014, 2015, 2016 with multiple items going towards the PUC discussions. Not specifically focused on this issue, but it did come up. We did do our due diligence. We go out and we talk to other utilities. We're not the first one doing this. There's currently about 90 million meters out there right now and growing, probably covering about 70% of the utilities out there. Everybody in Alameda has a smart gas meter currently. So we're we're not really at the leading edge of this. But, you know, we do recognize some of the concerns are Web page has included information on this. We did update some of the information with much more detailed analysis that some of the speakers did touch upon. But as far as the emissions associated with the meters, these meters meet all standards and we go by the standards. If there are some changes based on new scientific developments. We do monitor those and we will make adjustments accordingly. So we're very proactive about that. But so far, the regulatory agencies, the FCC, there have been no no new standards that have been promulgated. And as far as the testing goes, our meters remain well below the regulatory standards. I have a question. We heard about a more moratorium in other cities. Are you familiar with other cities adopting a moratorium on these? I'm not very familiar with with other cities adopting moratoriums. Okay. And you did say that there's going to be apparently some low income discount or something. Could you say specifically what that is? Our current low income discount is about 25%. Exactly 25%. We went to the Peavey. A couple of months ago to change the eligibility requirements because we felt that the income levels weren't keeping up with the pace of of how expensive it is in the Bay Area. So that captured more customers. And certainly anybody who meets those eligibility requirements will also be able to take advantage of that discount as it applies to the opt out fee. So is that already occurring? So people can go on the website and get the information about the income levels? Are is that already there? The income levels are available. The item is going to the pub on Mondays. So this part is also going to the p this part. Okay. I don't understand that. Okay. Right. All right. A member. Just a science question, because I wasn't a Spanish major, but I was not into science. So we did this referral on like city Wi-Fi. And then the one woman's comment about how everything she has is hard wired and no Wi-Fi and so on. I mean, I don't know what what is the difference in like I guess what is the word a mission if we had a city Wi-Fi versus what what these smart meters are emitting? I mean, is it the same? Is it more? Is it less? I mean, maybe if you don't know, you don't know. And that's perfectly understandable. But just curious. I mean, we I can't speak to that. I don't know what the what the emissions levels would be for a city wi fi. I mean, we do know that based on the testing that's been done, you know, these are far more of an issue than our smart meters. And there's other things out there as well. I mean, there's cell towers, there's microwaves, there's a lot of different contributing factors. So when we go out and we do our testing or analysis, we try to do it in as clean environment as possible in light of the fact that everybody has wireless routers in their houses, they have cellphones, they have the microwaves. There's it's really ubiquitous. So it's very difficult to kind of and I think in that particular issue, you'll run into the same situation because there will be interference from many different sources as well. So it'll be hard to tell exactly what that number would be for a a citywide wireless system. Okay. Thank you. So. So this is a referral. So they want to hear. From. Madam Mayor, if it's Assistant City Attorney Alan Cohen could also address the issues about the the difference in legalities with the pubs authority in the City Council. Thank you. Good evening. Members of the city council, Alan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney. I wanted to address the jurisdictional question about what council's authority is with regard to the Electric Utility Council's authority is very limited. And in fact, the charter in Article 12 gives the pub exclusive jurisdiction to manage the utility, to control and operate the utility, determine what services will be provided and how those services will be provided. That the Public Utilities Board in this area supersedes the Council. The council can't direct the Public Utilities Board on how to operate or implement its policies. The Council's role with regard to the Public Utilities Board is limited to appointing the members who who serve on the Public Utilities Board. But as far as the policy decisions made by the Public Utilities Board in the area of smart meters, the council does not have a role. Individual council members, just like any other member of the public, certainly could have the right to come to a public utilities board meeting and express their concerns. But the charter's very clear on this issue that that the people of the city of Alameda, when they passed that charter provision, gave the pub exclusive authority to manage the utility. And I'll also address the the issue of the city manager's authority in this regard. Before we move on, could council give feedback? Without giving direction. Is there a way for us to weigh in at all? I think the council could weigh in as individual members, but the council as a body could not pass a resolution or enact legislation basically directing POB to take specific action or even commenting on what what the council thinks that as a body the pub should take with regard to a particular matter, because that would constitute interference in the authority granted to pub by the voters. Okay. So is there a mechanism where that we could receive the agenda in advance and give feedback somehow without going to the council meetings or the pub meeting? I mean, I think I think absolutely. I think the mechanism, the agendas are made public, just like the city council's agendas and how council can get put on the mailing list to receive the agenda. And if council individual council members have questions or concerns, you can certainly speak to the individual public utilities board members, including the city manager. There is there is a there's always a segment on the agenda. Actually, at every pub meeting where the city manager updates, the Public Utilities Board, updates the Public Utilities Board on particular concerns of the council, things that are going on that are under the council's ambit so that it would be perfectly appropriate for you to express your opinion to her member matter. Could this Council make a request for information from the the. The MP. On some of the information that's been talked about tonight. I think the council could request information. I think the council could, for example. To be specific. We've heard from members of the public about safety concerns from emissions from these smart meters. We've heard from the director of the of information comparative of the emissions to a cell phone. What I'm interested in is seeing this verification of these assertions. If we have an issue and I'm perfectly fine going as an individual and talking to people, understanding what you just said, what I would like to know. Scientifically what the situation is also was asserted that there were fires related to the. So we've got a bunch of smart meters out there. How many fires have we had related to them? So, you know, I'd like to get some some verifiable information from what I've heard just verbally today. I'm not asking for it now, but I'm asking the attorney if we could request it as part of this referral. I think you can request it informally as individuals. I don't think the body as a whole could could pass a resolution saying we want this particular piece of information. But the council has expressed each of you has expressed some concerns over this. And I think we could advise Jill, the city manager, could advise the public utilities board of those concerns and pub would would. And this council and every citizen can ask for information for, you know, any department. And so I think. What. We should do with that information is make it public both for the council and the public. But you know, like. And just to finish that is in the end, I think we have to do to to evaluate our risks are based on science. And, you know, when I heard about the citywide wi fi and then this, you know, it's just like. Okay. Give us some information, because if on one hand we're saying we're going to wi fi have the whole city wi fi enabled, and then on the other hand, we don't want a smart meter that may or may not. Again, I haven't seen the publications that have been peer reviewed be be better or worse than this. We don't know. I can't reconcile those and we can't keep pointing to Washington that they ignore science and we ignore science ourselves. So I want I want peer reviewed. Information as an individual, but I'll take that offline. It sounds like we can't do that as a body. That's correct. That you cannot we could not give that. Yes. Yes. I think I think the idea is that information can be obtained and provided, but the council shouldn't be asking. Okay. So I would like copies of the information you sent to member matter. I see. And I think other councils may want copies. You should be able to give us all copies and then buy. Everything everybody else has. Yeah. You can give us all copies of We Ask Questions of Vice Mayor. So I have three questions really. And they really go, I think, mainly to Mr. Cohen. So my first question is one of the things in the charter has to do with City Council's ability to make decisions relative to litigation as it pertains to AMP. Could we. I think the underlying concern and what I've heard is also the liability aspect relative to potential litigation. So could we request information relative to our liability exposure? That is it. Litigation is one of the areas that the council and pub share authority. Only the council can can authorize us to initiate litigation or, for example, to settle a lawsuit. So we certainly could provide that information in closed session. But the Public Utilities Board would also have to be. You have to be a joint session. They'd have to be invited to attend. But first they would have to be in order to get into closed session to provide their advice, there'd have to be a very realistic and significant exposure to litigation. And I don't think we're at that point yet. Well. Let me just add that part of anything any decision that a body makes, it does risk assessment, and that that goes with. The pub's. Authority on policy decisions and understanding the utility operations, new things that are going on in the world of the utility and making some decisions about risks. They have budget, they put together budgets, all of those kinds of things. So, I mean, you could argue that everything really has a potential of some litigation at some point. But I think what Mr. Cohen is is getting at is if it gets to an actual real lawsuit or some claim, then that's when the city council has authority. So going back to that question, does the city risk manager, who does the assessment of the risk? Because you're saying that there's a risk assessment that. Well, I think any decision that gets made, you try to determine I mean, you do it sitting up here as well. You try to determine what the potential downside could be of any decisions you make. And I guess that's what I was I was taking from your question about risk. Assess my my. Questions, I guess a little more nuanced and I'll be a little more specific. I think we've heard from some people that they're claiming certain they're making certain legal claims. Who does that assessment and at what point does it come to the council and what would we be considering? Well, let me start, I think. Okay. So let me just preface this, because I think part of the concern, at least from our end or my end, I don't want to speak for my colleagues, is where we have this kind of split role with an appointed body. And I know it's a little different because of different legal restrictions that exist surrounding municipal utilities. But at least for me and bear with me because I'm a new council member, I'm trying to understand where our role lies. I mean, when you talk about potential litigation, Mr. Cohen just said it basically needs to be real. There needs to be something filed. So my question is kind of what's the lead up to that? Is there is there another assessment? I'm sure there's another assessment done, but what's the lead up to that? I think in terms of whether or not we have the authority to come to you and bring you in on a matter that involves part of that in a manner that involves significant exposure to litigation that comes from our office. This assessment is has a lawsuit. Clearly, if a lawsuit had been filed and we determined that the lawsuit was not meritorious and or we wanted to provide you with advice on that lawsuit, we would be we would do that in closed session with public and with the counsel. And counsel would ultimately have the authority to direct the city attorney in terms of the strategic handling of that lawsuit. Beyond that, I would say that sort of the day to day policy decisions are rest with the Public Utilities Board and AMP. I think it's perfectly appropriate for counsel to to to speak with the city manager and say, look, I want information in this area. And the city manager as as counsel's as one of the representatives on PCB will certainly convey that information to pop into AMP. And, you know, when the counsel asks for information, you know, it's kind of hard to say no. So, yeah, of course, we'll we'll provide. That to you. If I can just add, I think part of what I'm hearing is really a health risk. Mm hmm. No municipal body is in an Alameda. Or I would I would. Posture anywhere is in a position to determine what a health risk is. There are agencies that that do that. And I think what what the AMP executive or general managers is saying is the industry standards. And I know that's what you were trying to get at councilmember matter I see is the industry standards have not shown there is this connection. I understand the concern of the people who spoke today. But the the. Health the health assessments that are done by agencies charged with and and with the experts who can address those issues have not shown that this is a problem. And I think AMP can share that with the council to show that. And so there's no risk that connects to the health that would justify a claim. So I'll add to that one one piece, if I may. I mean, the the body the body charged with determining whether or not transmissions are legal, not legal, whether or not they create a health risk, whether they're safe for the public. Is the Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission sets emission standards. And, you know, I can let Nico speak to this, but but based on the evaluations that AMP has done, the emission standards on these smart meters are well below well below the standards set by the Federal Communications Commission. And so for that reason, it's your belief that there is no liability, legal liability, if if the technology were to change or studies were to come out that were different or the standards were to change, we would be doing another liability analysis from that, and that would be something that would the council be included in that decision relative not to the health risk, but to the legal exposure? Because my understanding is we that is what's within our jurisdiction. It's I was going to raise the objection of incomplete hypothetical. But not to cross-examine. This isn't the proper forum for that. Trying to understand. If if there were a lawsuit filed if a and we felt that the lawsuit had some merit and that there was some liability exposure, that it's at that point, you know, under the auspices of our of our Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act, that we would feel that we would have the obligation to come to counsel in closed session, inform them of the liability risk and request authority one way or the other. But we're not at that point, I can tell you from from having attended all these public utilities board meetings on smart meters and working with with the general manager every day, POB is constantly studying this issue. AMP is constantly studying this issue and constantly, you know, reviewing these studies. And if ever rises to the point where there is a real scientifically, scientifically backed request that these are exposing people to liability. We'll come forward. Okay. And then I ended up getting derailed with a couple of follow up questions. But my other question is, you know, there is my my understanding is the AMP is continuously conducting its own studies and looking into this. So rather than the FOIA requests or public information requests, what's posted and available online? Because I think rather than having all of us kind of constantly put in requests or having the public what's available and where is it available? So on our our web page, under our energy and view section, there is an FAA queue which is fairly detailed. It doesn't have a whole list of all relevant studies. It talks about the standards. It talks about some of the comparisons to other. Emitting devices like cell phones. We do compare ourselves to other municipal utilities and how they structured their web pages and how they get that information out there. And we're pretty consistent with what they do as well. So and we certainly we certainly can provide information. We have access to those we've reviewed those scientific studies. I mean, I think that Allen really highlighted it, that we go by what the regulatory standards are. Now, having said that, I think one of the benefits of having a municipal utility, a community owned utility, is we're not puny. So if something should change in the in the regulatory environment, we're going to adjust very quickly. It's not going to be a situation where we're going to actually he's going to have to get involved because we'll take it right to the pub and make any changes necessary based on those new regulations. Okay. And then two council member moderates his earlier question regarding this, the public Wi-Fi, things like that. I know it was said that we can't request information of the pub relative to a pub policy. But if the city's thinking about enacting policy relative to public Wi-Fi or smart cities, you know, one of the things that's unique about Alameda is that we have this resource, which is AMP, which is city owned, which has done studies. In those instances, could we request information that an app has relied on to help inform our decisions on policies that are within our jurisdiction? But. Not. And not within the jurisdiction of the pub. You want to you want to share? I don't think that's a legal issue. You know, because I feel like, you know, part of the question is also why duplicate the work or why go out and hire somebody to do this work when we are doing it already? Could we could we request the information in that instance where it might be relevant to a decision that we're making. And we're happy to collaborate with whichever department is going to be charged on point for that? Certainly, we've done a lot related to this particular issue. So I think we don't want to duplicate efforts and we do that on a regular basis for a variety of issues. So that's not. Okay. My final question, I promise, is the last one is, you know, the concern that we're hearing and you had spoken earlier about things that the public is considering. One thing that has been raised has been these multifamily buildings and the potential impact where there might be a number or a bank of smart meters. Can you speak a little bit about what the pub has done relative to the analysis of that and, you know, just the impact of it? Because that seems to be kind of a recurring theme. So we don't really differentiate between a single meter and multiple meters. Again, I'll fall back to the regulatory standards. So if if there was a potential issue associated with that, then that would flow through some sort of regulatory standard. Now that standard isn't there. It hasn't been established. One thing that's important to note about these meters is these meters. They're designed to go in one direction. They want to get to a device that will able to relay that information down the line and then get it aggregated. So they typically don't they're not like a wireless network in your home, which is kind of 360 degrees. They kind of they go in one direction. They're not going back into the house. So they're really going out. Now, we haven't gone in and done measurements in in houses or in an apartment buildings. But based on the regulatory standards, there's nothing that would lead us to believe that there's or would make any adjustments or a special dispensation, I guess, for a meter bank or multiple meters. Any other questions or comments from Council Member Ashcraft? This is more of a. Comment I think we've gotten some useful information about the council has in the form of emails from the city manager but about these comparative levels of of emissions or EMF from devices. What I think would be helpful because more information. Properly distilled is is better than less is to be able to put that out to the public in a number of formats that you don't have to search too hard to find. So while I appreciate that AMP has effects on your website, we have a public information officer. We can do an opinion piece in the in the newspaper and actually at the five K the other day I happened to be race walking with and MacCormack who's the public utilities board chair right now. And we we kept up a running conversation and I told her, you know, I think it might be useful to put it when I know there's an important meeting on Monday. But when some of those decisions are made, share it as widely as possible, I think that's important. And part of the problem that we all deal with his there is sometimes an abundance of information out there, the quality of the information in and this is where my scientist colleague Frank Materazzi you know, and he talks about he wants it published in peer reviewed because there's data and there's data. And but I think to the extent that we can be the purveyors of the information that we know to our own residents, we do a great public service. And it it helps, I think, all of us as council members. So and then sometimes there is misinformation in it. I'm not up on everything. But with regard to if the reference was to the recent North Bay fires and Peggy's involvement, I thought that had to do with transformers blowing. Maybe it was smart meters, but it's good to just know, you know, as much information as possible. You know, I haven't heard that it was a smart route heater related issue up there. And in fact, I think they're still investigating. So I'm not going to weighed in on that issue there. There was an issue in Stockton involving, I think, 5000 meters. They had a power surge. It was a somewhat unique situation in terms of what was happening on the distribution grid. My understanding we actually talked to our engineers about this is that that what happened with those meters would have pretty much happened with any meter. It's not specific to smart meters. So what happened with the meters? The meters, some of them essentially blew out of their socket. So and it was the way that they have their system configured. The nature of the surge, very unusual. It's not something that we would anticipate on our system. But again, the meters, whatever meter, if the old meters were in there, they expected they would have had a similar situation. Vice Mayor So one of the other things that got brought up is we are a different body obviously than the pub for contact information for members of the pub. If members of the public are trying to have a conversation or want to convey a concern. How do they how do they go about doing that? Because on our city website for the Public Utilities Board, it gives contact information for Robin, her phone number, and then an email address for Robin. But there's no contact information for the individual board members provided on this is on our city website. There is a pub mailing list and we get those on a regular basis and then we will distribute those to the hub members. And I believe that's on our web and anything that goes to Robin, he's my executive assistant. Anything that goes to her that's addressed to the pub will then get distributed to me. Is it possible to set up city email accounts for our pub members, individual ones where they because they're not, it's just and if we have them, it's just not it's not posted online. But to me, this is an access issue. So we're not making the decisions and they're the ones making the decisions. I just want to make sure that if you can't make it to the pub meeting, you can still get a hold of one of the board members and and share whatever your concerns may be. Yeah, absolutely. We can do that. And one thing I wanted to note also on Monday, in addition to this item, the lifting of the sunset provision, we are actually having an army update to the pub and it's just by chance that this is occurring at the same time as this referral. But it's amaz what do you have. About advanced. Advanced meter infrastructure, smart meters, smart meter updates? And it's it's going to cover a whole host of different issues, not really this issue, but the privacy issue, which was mentioned by one of the other speakers, is something that will touch upon that as well. So certainly there's interest. We welcome it. So I have some questions. So we had comments about the march, a potential moratorium that these other cities have done that. Is it possible, for example, to find out what about. That would be one of my requests to find out what other cities and counties have had a moratorium who currently have a moratorium and then share that information. And has AMP had a an agenda item where they had a discussion about these health concerns, given the public an opportunity to speak at an AMP meeting and discuss a potential moratorium at AMP, do that. Has that happened? Not to my knowledge. Okay. So then as an individual or the public. So has there been a petition started by the public in regards to this? Have you heard of a petition for Alameda? Okay. So that's something else our community could do to communicate the interest in our town on this. Okay. And then in regards to the smart meters at the apartment buildings, is there something that can be added somehow around these meters or something to reduce any potential RF to the residents? Is there anything that can be done to make them safer? I'm not. Aware physically. I'm not aware of anything that can be added or any utilities who are adding something we can certainly look sound like quite right. So I would like to know if there's a way to add some kind of physical something barrier behind these meters where they're against a wall that goes to someone's home. Or in in some sort of an apartment building or we have. Right. And some of this and I appreciate that a lot of this is needs to be data driven. Unfortunately, a lot of times we don't actually end up with something that we say is so black and white that everyone is going to agree until ten or 20 years down the road. When we look back and we say, oh, yeah, we now know that that did contribute. So if there's anything that we know or we think could actually help reduce the exposure, I'd like to know what that is. If if you have any information that goes to that, that would be helpful to. Any other questions on this? All right. And I also want to thank you, really, because I know you're going to be both of you going back to you've already said on the next agenda item on Monday. It is going to be coming up. So thank you very much for revisiting that. And I look forward to hearing the vote from the p b on these issues. Thank you very much. Okay. So I think that dispenses with our referral, so thank you. And then there's one more. Referral nine B 90 is. All right.