About Vigilant Dave

David Sheldon, B.S. in physics and economics, MBA, Certified in Software Engineering Concerned about all kinds of technology and laws that impinge on our freedom and privacy, or take away the choices we should have as free men and women.

Link

May 29th, 2017 – Lloyd Burrell’s Electric Sense newsletter has many articles that will be of interest to our readers.

Nine Tips to Cut Down on Exposure  to Computer Radiation: All computers emit radiation or electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on many different frequencies. These EMFs can be extremely harmful to your health. Cancer and other serious diseases have been linked to these exposures – studies indicate pregnant women and small children are particularly vulnerable.  Whether you are electrosensitive or just eager to take protective measures to protect you and your family here are my (started off as 9 tips but has now grown) computer radiation protection tips.  More

Cordless Phones Even More Dangerous than Cell Phones: If you thought you could solve the problem of cell phone radiation by switching back to your landline phone and your landline is a cordless phone, think again. Studies (1) show that cordless phones emit radiation just the same as cell phones. In some cases cordless phones are more dangerous than cell phones. Most cordless phones use DECT (Digital European Cordless Telephone) technology. The handset and the base of the phone, emit pulsed microwave radiation. In this article I explain what you can do to minimize your exposure to these harmful EMFs. More

 

Link

(Updated May 29th, 2017)

May 27th, 2017 – An Opportunity to Show Support for Chairman Glenn’s Efforts to Move Michigan Toward a Freer Energy Environment – We strongly encourage all smart meter activists who can to attend the hearing of the Michigan House Energy Committee on Tuesday May 30th at 9 am in the Anderson House Office Building, Room 519, at 124 North Capitol Avenue, Lansing. There is a parking ramp 2 blocks north of the Anderson building on Capitol Avenue.

Chairman Gary Glenn has arranged for two of the leading proponents of replacing some of the regulation with more competition in the energy markets. This program should be quite different from some of the industry and state government people who have testified up to now.

Smart meters are just one example of what happens when there is too much monopoly power. Utilities in Michigan are forcing us to take these unwanted meters while at the same time charging us some of the highest rates in the midwest and providing less reliability and fewer choices.

The experts Glenn is bringing in can provide competent testimony about what happens when utility customers have more choices:

Todd Snitchler is former Chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). He was first appointed in 2011 by Governor John Kasich and served on that commission until 2014. He is now a practicing attorney. Under Snitchler’s leadership Ohio made major progress in moving its utility industry away from a highly regulated model toward more competition and innovation. A scholarly article discussing utility deregulation in that state with many citations to his contributions can be found here:

http://cua6.urban.csuohio.edu/publications/center/center_for_economic_development/ElectricityMarketsInOhio

Dr. Gary L. Wolfram, an adjunct scholar at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, is a Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College. In 2015 he released his new study Improving Michigan’s Electric Utility Industry. In the study, Wolfram highlights inefficiencies in Michigan’s regulated energy sector and recommends that legislative action is needed to control costs, reduce pollution and improve outcomes. A discussion of his work may be found here:

http://www.micef.org/press/2015/9/17/hillsdale-economist-gary-wolfram-releases-energy-study-improving-michigans-electric-utility-industry-released-today

Link

Analysis of the Michigan Court of Appeals Decision
May 24th, 2017

by David Sheldon*

(This case illustrates the difficulties of fighting a utility in court over smart meters, particularly when there is
perceived to be judicial bias in our courts in favor of
large corporations. It is presented at this time in view
of the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear this case and to underscore the necessity for our present efforts to secure legislation to protect utility customers.)

NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The defendant’s in this case, Ralph and Donna Stenman, having experienced some health symptoms from installation of a DTE smart meter, and concerned about further damage to their health and loss of privacy, strenuously objected to the installation of the smart meter, asking for return of their analog meter. When DTE ignored their pleas, the couple went ahead and replaced the smart meter with an analog meter they had purchased. DTE brought suit against them, asking the Oakland County Circuit Court for a “summary judgment” against the couple. A court can legally make a summary judgment when there are ‘no material issues of fact’ that might require a trial to resolve.

The Stenmans interviewed several attorneys and were unable to find one willing to take on DTE. Accordingly they represented themselves in the original proceeding. They requested a jury trial. Circuit Judge Rudy Nichols granted the summary judgment, so that the Stenmans were denied any kind of trial or opportunity to develop their defense. An appeal was taken to the Michigan Court of Appeals, File No 321203, over the fact they had been denied a trial. The Stenmans again filed their own appellate brief. A reply brief and oral argument were presented for them by attorney Robert Igrasin. The appeals court, judges Patrick M. Meter, Mark J. Cavanagh and Kurtis T. Wilder, issued an opinion and order in favor of DTE on July 14th, 2015 and awarded DTE its costs and decided to publish their decision, which is now in all the law libraries as a precedent for similar cases in the future.

(1) STENMAN ARGUMENT ON METER DEFINITION – DISMISSED:

The Opinion of the Court: “In the trial court and on appeal, defendants assert that a “meter” installed by a regulated public utility may only perform the functions that it is authorized by law to perform, arguing that the smart meter installed by plaintiff violated the “lawful definition of meter’ ” because it was capable of performing functions other than measuring electricity use. However, based on the plain language of the definition of “meter” in R 460.3102(g), there is no indication that electricity-measuring devices that have radio transmitters or other additional capabilities do not constitute “meters.” … The mere fact that the definition does not expressly state that a meter with a radio transmitter still constitutes a meter does not indicate that a meter with such a feature is not included under the definition. … Accordingly, we conclude that reasonable minds could not differ in finding that the smart meter installed by plaintiff qualified as a “meter.”7

Comment: The Court is saying, in effect, that the definition of ‘meter’ that is in the statute does not preclude the forced installation of any device by a monopoly utility so long as that device is called a ‘meter’ and actually does, among other things, measure electricity consumed. There is, therefore, potentially no limit on what could be forcibly installed on a private home.

(2) STENMAN ARGUMENT THAT SMART METERS WERE NEVER AUTHORIZED AS A CONDITION FOR RECEIVING ELECTRICAL SERVICE – DISMISSED:

The Opinion of the Court: “First, there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the smart meter installed by plaintiff was lawful under the definition of “meter” applicable to the relevant administrative rules and tariff. Plaintiff is a public utility that is regulated by the MPSC. With regard to the regulation of public utilities, MCL 460.6(1) provides:

“The [MPSC] is vested with complete power and jurisdiction to regulate all public utilities in the state except a municipally owned utility, the owner of a renewable resource power production facility as provided in [MCL460.6d], and except as otherwise restricted by law. The [MPSC] is vested with the power and jurisdiction to regulate all rates, fares, fees, charges, services, rules, conditions of service, and all other matters pertaining to the formation, operation, or direction of public utilities. The [MPSC] is further granted the power and jurisdiction to hear and pass upon all matters pertaining to, necessary, or incident to the regulation of public utilities, including electric light and power companies, whether private, corporate, or cooperative . . . . [Emphasis added.]”

Comment: The court is arguing, in effect, that smart meters are legal as a mandatory condition for receiving electrical service because the MPSC made them so. But the panel in this case is conveniently ignoring a ruling of a different panel of the same appeals court, on February 19th, 2015, only five months earlier. In the earlier (unpublished) case, File No. 316728, consolidated appellants Kurtz, Edwards and Cusumano had argued that MPSC had erred in authorizing a type of smart meter “opt-out meter” that did not address public concerns about privacy and health. Appellants in that case had argued the MPSC had erred in authorizing this opt-out meter without allowing any evidence to be admitted concerning privacy and health issues. This was the court’s answer to that:

PSC has only the authority granted to it by statute. The PSC has broad authority to regulate rates for public utilities, but that authority does not include the power to make management decisions for utilities. … Apellants correctly point out that the PSC has no statutory authority to enable DTE to require all customers to accept an AMI meter, even if some customers choose to opt-out of the AMI program. However, no such statute exists because the decision regarding what type of equipment to deploy can only be described as a management prerogative.”

It seems to this writer that the Michigan Court of Appeals cannot have it both ways. If the earlier panel was correct that the MPSC had no jurisdiction over meter type and hence no obligation to allow evidence on privacy or health issues before approving DTE’s “opt-out” program, then the Stenman court cannot also be correct in ruling that DTE’s meter had been established as a lawful condition for receiving electrical service. Yet the Stenman court made no reference to the earlier decision, even though one of its judges had also been on the earlier panel. When one panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals overrules an earlier panel on an issue, there is a procedure for resolving the disagreement – a procedure not followed in this case.

(3) STENMAN OBJECTIONS BASED ON PRIVACY & HEALTH – DISMISSED:

Opinion of the Court: “Second, the trial court properly concluded that defendants failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether their privacy and health-related concerns constituted valid affirmative defenses that excused or justified their actions related to the smart meter … In the trial court, defendants failed to provide any authority (emphasis added) in support of their claim that their privacy and health-related concerns constituted valid affirmative defenses to their violations of the relevant statutes, regulations, and tariff. … “

Comment: The Court is saying, in effect, that it is not enough for a home owner to present evidence that a utility’s actions are in fact endangering privacy or health, but that these defendants, who were without an attorney in the original court, must also cite prior court precedents where it had previously been established that privacy or health concerns could be a valid reason for opposing a utility installation. This despite the fact that the utility (plaintiff) had not cited any court precedent that privacy and health concerns were NOT a valid basis for objecting to an installation. Nor did this court cite any precedent to establish that privacy or health concerns were irrelevant to a utility installation. Where there is no precedent for a legal principle a case is generally termed a “case of first impression” and does call for analysis, but none was done by this court.

“Furthermore, even if we assume, arguendo, that defendants’ privacy or health-related concerns constitute valid defenses to their failure to comply with the relevant rules and tariff provisions, defendants failed to establish the factual bases of those defenses. “ The party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of presenting evidence to support it.” …

“In support of their privacy defense, defendants proffered a report prepared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology entitled Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security: Vol. 2, Privacy and the Smart Grid (NISTIR 7628) (August 2010). Even assuming that this report constituted admissible evidence, see MCR 2.116(G)(6), this document does not demonstrate that the smart meter installed on defendants’ property posed an actual risk to defendants’ privacy; the report generally discussed the possibility of privacy risks related to smart meters and provided recommendations for entities participating in a smart grid. …

“In support of their health-related defense, defendants provided the affidavit of Dr. Hillman, discussing the health of a three–year -old child not involved in the instant case. The affidavit does not establish that the smart meter installed at defendants’ home operated in a similar fashion, emitted the same level of “electricity [that] permeat[ed] the house,” or caused similar health effects , and thus fails to be competent evidence that the smart meter installed on defendants’ property posed a risk to defendants’ health. Again, considering the evidence that was before the trial court, we conclude that reasonable minds could not differ in holding that defendants failed to provide a factual basis for their privacy and health -related defenses and, as a result, failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists with regard to the viability of those defenses.

Comment: The court is saying that it is never enough to show proof that a thing has harmed others or is generally acknowledged by experts to cause a risk of harm wherever installed. The court is saying that the Stenmans must wait until their health has actually been damaged or their private information has actually been sold to third parties before they can legally object to an installation (of a device never authorized by any statute and never mandated as a condition of service by our own MPSC)

(4) STENMAN OBJECTIONS BASED ON FOURTH AMENDMENT – DISMISSED:

Opinion of the Court: “Finally, defendants argue that plaintiff’s installation of a smart meter on their home constituted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We disagree. … The United States and Michigan Constitutions guarantee every person’s right to be free from unreasonable searches. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11. However, in order for Fourth Amendment protections to apply, the government must perform a search. “[T]he Fourth Amendment proscribes only government action and is not applicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, conducted by a private person not acting as an agent of the government or with the participation or knowledge of any government official.” … defendants have failed to establish that plaintiff’s installation of smart meters constitutes governmental action for Fourth Amendment purposes. Even if the state and federal governments have advocated or incentivized, as a matter of public policy, the use of smart meters, there is no indication that the government controls the operations of plaintiff, an investor-owned electric utility, or that plaintiff acts as an agent of the state or federal governments. Accordingly, we reject defendants’ claim that plaintiff’s installation of a smart meter violated their Fourth Amendment rights.”

Comment: There were ample citations in the Stenman case to situations where the government aided and abetted a private actor to commit an action later held to be a Fourth Amendment violation. In this case the federal government provided 50% of the initial funding for DTE smart meters and the MPSC mandated Michigan utilities to participate in a “Smart Meter Collaborative” to plan for the implementation of smart meters in Michigan. This court simply did not want to go there.

SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS: Application was made for the Stenmans by attorney Don Keskey to the Michigan Supreme Court to hear an appeal, and that application denied on March 8, 2016. Application was made, also by Don Keskey, to the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari and denied by that court on May 4, 2017.

The legal brief filed by the Stenmans can be found HERE.

 The decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals on this case can be found HERE.

 The conflicting decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals on the earlier, Kurtz, Edwards and Cusumano consolidated appeals can be found HERE.

 CONCLUSION: In view of this case, other utility customers wishing to fight their utility in court over a smart meter installation will have a hard road to travel. That doesn’t mean it is impossible, but any future case will need to distinguish itself from this case by rigorous presentation of evidence with the first filing or first response or by the time of a first motion hearing. A case in which actual harm, and not only hypothetical harm, can be shown conclusively, would have a distinct advantage. All that happened in this case also illustrates the importance of securing a legislative solution, as many of us are attempting to do now with Michigan House Bill 4220, sponsored by Representative Gary Glenn with 17 cosponsors.

 Text of the Glenn bill as originally introduced can be found HERE. A subsequent admendment was approved in committee that excluded water utilities from the bill.

 ************************************

* David Sheldon is not an attorney but has represented himself successfully in both federal and state courts.

Link

May 19th, 2017 – Smart Circuit Breakers: The Next Frontier of the Grid Edge?

(Editor’s Note: In the linked article, from GreenTech Media, we may be seeing the next phase of the ever increasing intrusiveness of new technology)

Most of the circuit breakers out there are fairly simple, electro-mechanical devices that sit idle the vast majority of the time. But the latest versions are coming with features like wireless connectivity and computing power that are meant to turn them into something more like a smart meter or a smartphone. 

Eaton and EPRI test smart circuit breakers
as virtual meters, load controllers

That’s the idea behind the field trial of Eaton’s energy management circuit breaker (EMCB). Last year, the electrical equipment giant started deploying its smart circuit breakers at about 500 homes with 12 U.S. utilities, including Duke Energy, Southern Company, CenterPoint, ComEd and Pepco. Over the next year, it will be working with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to see if they’re capable of collecting and sharing data accurately, receiving and sending controls to other smart equipment like thermostats or water heaters, and even shifting homes on and off of grid power during emergencies.  More

Link

MARCH 14TH, 2017 – A THIRD HEARING ON THE METER CHOICE BILL AND A GREAT PRESENTATION ON ELECTRIC CHOICE BY THE MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY.   Because there had been concerns expressed by committee members about possible shifting of costs from opt-out customers to smart meter customers, today’s hearing in the Michigan House Energy Committee began with a special presentation by Richard Meltzer, a retired PhD statistical researcher and consultant to the U.S. Department of Energy. Dr. Meltzer had also participated as an intervener in the MPSC case U-17053, the case in which the present opt-out fees for DTE were determined. Key testimony included Meltzer’s assertion that the opt-out fees determined in that case were punitive, designed not to recover costs but to discourage opt-outs, and that DTE has been very selective in attaching certain costs to classes of customers while not doing so in other cases, in order to suit its own purposes. He provided specifics in the form of exhibits from the U-17053 case to back up his assertion that the net cost shift between smart meter customers and opt-out customers had been overwhelmingly in the direction of burdening the opt-out customers.

A decision was made to defer voting on the merits of the meter choice bill to allow more time to address concerns of some committee members. Rep Glenn offered an amendment to modify the text of HB 4220,  primarily to remove water meters from this bill thereby limiting this bill to energy utilities (electric and gas) that are regulated by the Michigan Public Services Commission. The definition of “traditional meter” was also improved to remove any ambiguity that “traditional meter” could mean anything other than an analog meter. The amendment of the bill’s text was approved unanimously, with understanding that a separate bill will be introduced for the smart water meters.

The Mackinac Center presentation, by Jason Hayes, was a plea for free market principles in the electricity markets. Examples were given that in states where electric provider choice was not capped at 10% (including Michigan between 2000 and 2008) electric rates were much lower than in states where there was no choice or choice capped. In the questions following this presentation Rep Kivella asked if Mr. Hayes believed it was appropriate for smart meter opt-out rates to be set at an arbitrary figure by this legislative committee of “largely non experts” or by the Public Service Commission. The response was that “just at a gut level I don’t like the idea of trusting a Public Service Commission except where you have to, and in this case, setting electricity rates you have to.” He indicated that he would prefer a market based setting of all rates but that the PSC is the system we have.

After the Mackinac Center presentation there were more public comments on the meter choice bill. Complete video of this hearing here.

 

Link

MARCH 5TH, 2017 – The Michigan House Energy Committee will hold its second hearing Tuesday March 7th at 9 am, on House Bill 4220,energymtg2-02212017 proposed legislation that would assure utility customers (electric, gas and water) of a choice to have or keep their analog meters at a minimal fee or no fee if they self read.

please-attend-hearingPlease attend the second Analog Meter Choice hearing this coming Tuesday. If you want to present testimony, please come prepared to speak and fill out a card before start of meeting. Those who come to speak should dress professionally. However, since the hearing is only 90 minutes long, know that there may not be time for your testimony to be heard this Tuesday. More hearings may be scheduled in the future. You can always email your testimony to the members of the Energy Policy Committee before House Bill 4220 Analog Meter Choice legislation is voted on in Committee.  We don’t know when this vote will take place, but we will keep you posted.

INFORMATION FOR THOSE ATTENDING

Link

by Jeanine Deal

March 1st, 2017 – Before next Tuesday, please call one or more of the Energy Policy Committee members, and ask them to support HB 4220, Utility Meter Choice.

Then, please plan on attending the next public hearing for HB 4220 in Lansing on Tuesday, March 7th, at 9 am, in the Anderson House Office Building (across from the Lansing Capitol Building).

Please pass this message on to all you know in favor of this legislation.  Thank You!

Energy Committee members and contact information (sponsor and co-sponsors noted, no need to call them):

Gary Glenn (R) Committee Chair 98th District (Sponsor of HB 4220 – no need to call unless to say “Thank you!”)
Web page: http://gophouse.org/representatives/central/glenn/
Phone: 517-373-1791
Email: GaryGlenn@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/098.pdf
Bay County (part):  Auburn city, Beaver Township,  Fraser Township,  Garfield Township,  Gibson Township.  Midland city (part):  Mount Forest Township,  Pinconning city,  Pinconning Township,  Williams Township.  Midland County (part):  Homer Township,  Jerome Township,  Larkin Township,  Lee Township,  Lincoln Township,  Midland city (part),  Midland Township

Roger Hauck (R) Majority Vice-Chair, 99th District
Web page: http://gophouse.org/representatives/central/hauck/ Phone: (517) 373-1789
Email: RogerHauck@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://gophouse.org/representatives/central/hauck/district-map/
Isabella County, Midland County (part),  Coleman city,  Edenville Township,  Geneva Township,  Greendale Township,  Hope Township,  Ingersoll Township,  Jasper Township,  Mills Township,  Mount Haley Township,  Porter Township,  Warren Township

Tom Barrett (R) 71st District (Co-sponsor of HB 4220 – no need to call unless to say “Thank you!”)
Web page: http://gophouse.org/representatives/central/barrett/
Phone: 517-373-0853
Email: 
TomBarrett@house.mi.gov
District Map: http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/071.pdf
Eaton County (part),  Bellevue Township,  Benton Township,  Carmel Township,  Charlotte city,  Chester Township,  Delta Charter Township,  Eaton Township (part),  Eaton Rapids Township,  Grand Ledge city (part),  Kalamo Township,  Lansing city (part),  Olivet city,  Oneida Charter Township,  Potterville city,  Roxand Township,  Sunfield Township,  Vermontville Township,  Walton Township,  Windsor Charter Township

Tristin Cole (R) 105th District
Web page: http://gophouse.org/representatives/northernmi/cole/
Phone: 517-373-0829
Email: 
TristonCole@house.mi.gov
District Map: http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/105.pdf
Antrim County, Charlevoix County, Montmorency County, Oscoda County, Otsego County

Jim Tedder (R) 43rd District
Web page: http://gophouse.org/representatives/southeast/tedder/
Phone: 517-373-0615
Email: 
JimTedder@house.mi.gov
District Map: http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/043.pdf
Oakland County (part),  Independence Township,  Lake Angelus city,  Village of Clarkston city,  Waterford Township (part)

Joseph Bellino (R) 17th District
Web page: http://gophouse.org/representatives/southeast/bellino/
Phone: (517) 373-1530
Email: JosephBellino@house.mi.gov
District Map: http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/017.pdf
Monroe County (part):  Ash Township,  Berlin Township,  Exeter Township,  Frenchtown Township,  London Township,  Monroe city,  Monroe Township (part).  Wayne County (part):  Flat Rock city,  Rockwood city,  Sumpter Township

Diana Farrington (R) 30th District
Web page: http://gophouse.org/representatives/southeast/diana-farrington/
Phone: 517-373-7768
Email: DianaFarrington@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/030.pdf
Macomb County (part):  Shelby Charter Township (part),  Sterling Heights city (part),  Utica city

Beth Griffin (R) 66th District
Web page: http://gophouse.org/representatives/central/griffin/ Phone: (517) 373-0839
Email: BethGriffin@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/066.pdf
Kalamazoo County (part):  Alamo Township,  Cooper Township,  Parchment city, Van Buren County

Steven Johnson (R) 72nd District
Web page: http://gophouse.org/representatives/westmi/johnson/
Phone: (517) 373-0840
Email: StevenJohnson@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/072.pdf
Allegan County (part):  Dorr Township,  Leighton Township,  Wayland city,  Wayland Township.  Kent County (part):  Gaines Township,  Kentwood city

Beau LaFave (R) 108th District
Web page: http://gophouse.org/representatives/up/lafave/
Phone: (517) 373-0156
Email: BeauLaFave@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/108.pdf
Delta County, Dickinson County, Menominee County

James Lower (R) 70th District
Web page: http://gophouse.org/representatives/central/lower/
Phone: (517) 373-0834
Email: JamesLower@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/070.pdf
Gratiot County (part):  Alma city,  Arcada Township (part),  Bethany Township,  Emerson Township (part),  Pine River Township,  St Louis city,  Seville Township, Montcalm County

John Reilly (R) 46th District
Web page: http://gophouse.org/representatives/southeast/reilly/
Phone: 517-373-1798
Email: JohnReilly@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://gophouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/046.pdf
Oakland County (part):  Addison Township,  Brandon Township,  Oakland Charter Township (part),  Orion Township,  Oxford Township

Donna Lasinski (D) Minority Vice-Chair, 52nd District
Web page: http://housedems.com/state-rep-donna-lasinski
Phone: (517) 373-0828
Email: DonnaLasinski@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://housedems.com/district-52-map
Washtenaw County (part): Ann Arbor city (part), Bridgewater Township, Chelsea city, Dexter Township, Freedom Township, Lima Township, Lodi Township, Lyndon Township, Manchester Township, Northfield Township, Salem Township, Saline city, Saline Township, Scio Township, Sharon Township, Sylvan Township, Webster Township

Scott Dianda (D) 110th District (Co-sponsor of HB 4220 – no need to call unless to say “Thank you!”)
Web page: http://housedems.com/state-rep-scott-dianda
Phone: (517) 373-0850
Email: scottdianda@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://housedems.com/district-110-map
Baraga County, Gogebic County, Houghton County, Iron County, Keweenaw County, Marquette County (part): Ishpeming Township, Powell Township, Ontonagon County

John Kivela (D) 109th District
Web page: http://housedems.com/state-rep-john-kivela
Phone: (517) 373-0498
Email: johnkivela@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://housedems.com/district-109-map
Alger County, Luce County, Marquette County (part): Champion Township, Chocolay Township, Ely Township, Ewing Township, Forsyth Township, Humboldt Township, Ishpeming city, Marquette city, Marquette Township, Michigamme Township, Negaunee city, Negaunee Township, Republic Township, Richmond Township, Sands Township, Skandia Township, Tilden Township, Turin Township, Wells Township, West Branch Township, Schoolcraft County

LaTonya Garrett (D) 7th District (Co-sponsor to HB 4220 – no need to call unless to say “Thank you!”)
Web page: http://housedems.com/state-rep-latanya-garrett
Phone: (517) 373-2276
Email: LaTanyaGarrett@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://housedems.com/district-7-map
Wayne county (part), Detroit city (part), Highland Park city

Darrin Camilleri (D) 23rd District
Web page: http://housedems.com/state-rep-darrin-camilleri
Phone: (517) 373-0855
Email: DarrinCamilleri@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://housedems.com/district-23-map
Monroe

Brian Elder (D) 96th District
Web page: http://housedems.com/state-rep-brian-elder
Phone: (517) 373-0158
Email: BrianElder@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://housedems.com/district-96-map
Bay County (part): Bangor Township, Bay City city, Essexville city, Frankenlust Township, Hampton Township, Kawkawlin Township, Merritt Township, Monitor Township, Portsmouth Township

Patrick Green (D) 28th District
Web page: http://housedems.com/state-rep-patrick-green
Phone: (517) 373-1772
Email: PatrickGreen@house.mi.gov

District Map: http://housedems.com/district-28-map
Macomb County (part): Center Line city, Warren city (part)