UPDATE ON MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS
by Vigilant Dave
July 26th, 2015
This past week we saw first an unfortunate decision in the Sheldon smart meter appeal. That was the case in which the Court had found in April of 2012 that a Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) decision on smart meters did not have any substantial factual support. The Court had ordered the MPSC to do the case over and this time to consider all aspects of smart meters, including the “risks and burdens” on customers and the ”experience in other states.” But the Commission chose to defy the court’s order and consider only the effect of smart meters on utility rates. The Commission also chose to exclude the very interveners who could have presented evidence on the issues the appeals court wanted considered.
David Sheldon brought an appeal as one of the excluded interveners, essentially arguing that the Commission was in contempt of court. A panel of three judges heard the case, which was not the panel that had earlier ordered the Commission to consider all the aspects. This panel actually found no problem with the Commission’s conduct! They failed, in their written opinion and order, to state any logical basis for finding that the Commission had carried out the earlier order and should not be found in contempt.
That decision may be read here.
A second decision this week was on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the MPSC on the Consumers Energy case. This was the case, known as Rison et al, filed by a group of 16 Consumers customers from the Muskegon area. The Commission had been ordered back in May to redo a contested case involving their decision to approve funding and an opt-out plan for Consumers Energy customers. The scope of the remand was limited to rate issues, with no indication that the Commission need consider health or privacy concerns. And no requirement that the Commission need allow the Consumers customers who brought this case to participate in the remand hearings.
The MPSC wanted the Court to reverse that decision on grounds they had already thoroughly examined smart meter issues and there was no need for further inquiry. In this matter the majority of the justices simply denied the motion, so that the earlier order remained in effect and the majority made it clear that the scope of the case would remain limited as earlier ordered.
But this time something happened that was not business as usual. Judge O’Connell, who had participated in that earlier decision, filed a dissenting opinion in which he actually expressed his view that the scope of the earlier order should be expanded to specifically include health and privacy issues. He stated that due process requires that customers who have smart meter concerns have a forum in which to present evidence to back up their concerns. He also questioned the justice of charging opt-out fees, questioned the objectivity of the MPSC, questioned the propriety of the Attorney General representing both sides in a contested case and opined that it was time for the Michigan Supreme Court to get involved. It must be stressed this was a dissenting opinion and in no way was it the order of the court. But at least it gives us some reason for hope that we are beginning to change minds.
That colorful dissenting opinion can be read here.
Analysis by David Sheldon
(July 19th, 2015)
On July 15th, 2015, a decision was handed down by the Michigan Court of Appeals that, if not appealed, will severely constrain the rights of all Michigan utility customers. This article is written, in part, as a response to an inaccurate and misleading article published a few days ago on another smart meter website. Sadly that article unfairly characterized the efforts of a couple to defend themselves against utility bullying and implied that, if only they had hired a good lawyer, the outcome would have been different.
We know there are thousands of you, in southeastern Michigan alone, who have resisted the forced installation of a “smart” electric meter. Many of you have locked your meter enclosures or otherwise limited access by utility installers bent on replacing your traditional meters.
Thousands of others who have the new smart meters are now suffering serious health effects that limit them in the use and enjoyment of their homes. The universal experience has been that, once a smart meter is installed, the utility will not remove it for any reason. At least 20 families that we know of have found it necessary to resort to self help in order to rid themselves of an intrusive and life limiting device.
Such was the case for Ralph and Donna Stenman of Farmington Hills. In early 2012, after pleading with DTE to remove a smart meter that was making Donna ill, the couple finally resorted to removing the offending device themselves and replacing it with an industry standard calibrated analog meter. The smart meter itself was in no way tampered with. It was simply removed from the meter housing (owned by the homeowner) and safely returned to DTE.
The utility objected that the meter the couple installed was not an approved device. The couple responded that DTE was welcome to replace it at any time with an analog meter of their own specifications. The utility responded with threats and repeated attempts to re-install the smart meter. The Stenmans believed they had no choice but to notify the utility that any access to their meter would have to be by appointment only and under supervised conditions. The result was that DTE sued the Stenmans seeking, among other things, an injunction that would command the couple to allow DTE installers to enter upon their property for the purpose of re-installing the smart meter.
The lawsuit was heard by Oakland Circuit Judge Rudy Nichols in the fall of 2012. The couple wound up representing themselves after approaching a number of attorneys who refused to take the case, stating either that it was hopeless to go up against a utility or that DTE would bankrupt them if they took the case. A preliminary hearing was scheduled with DTE asking for a summary judgment.
In preparation for that hearing much research was done on the law to determine what sort of evidence the couple would need. Michigan Stop Smart Meters provided assistance. The couple filed a formal response to the suit, explaining why the smart meter had to be removed, and providing an affidavit from a doctor that an identical smart meter installed on another home had caused severe illness. Also presented was a government document explaining how these meters would invade privacy and that they should be installed only with consent of the homeowner. The couple fully expected that this preliminary evidence would be enough that the judge would schedule a trial. Instead, in December of 2012, the judge granted DTE a summary judgment with no opportunity for the couple to present any further evidence.
Judge Nichols stated in his decision that the Stenmans had not met their burden to present evidence showing that, if a trial were held, they had a reasonable chance to prevail. Yet another Oakland Circuit Judge had heard an identical lawsuit by DTE against another couple a month earlier, been presented with the identical evidence, and found that evidence sufficient to warrant scheduling a trial. Judge Nichols also ignored the fact that DTE had not presented any evidence that their smart device had ever been authorized by either the legislature or the Michigan Public Service Commission. The law is clear that a summary judgment is only legal when there are no material facts in controversy. The law is also clear that any ambiguity in the factual situation must be resolved in favor of the non moving party – in this case the Stenmans. Judge Nichols decision was clearly contrary to law.
An appeal was filed. The Stenmans filed their appeal brief without benefit of an attorney. The wheels of justice turn slowly. It took from December of 2012 until June of 2015 for oral argument to be scheduled. The Stenmans finally found an attorney to represent them at the oral argument. Some of you had the opportunity to hear that.
On July 15th a decision was finally issued that upheld Judge Nichols’ decision in all respects and provided no relief to the Stenmans. In reaching this conclusion the Court of Appeals found that:
- That even though the burden of proving the necessary elements of a complaint always (by law) falls on the plaintiff, that burden can be cast, when convenient, upon the defendant.
- That, although DTE had never presented any evidence, or even an assertion, that their smart meters were lawful, these meters were nonetheless lawful.
- That, even though the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) had no jurisdiction to tell a privately owned utility what kind of meters to use(*), the MPSC nevertheless had the authority to authorize the new smart meters, and the utility could rely on that authority to force installation of the new meters.
- That, even though a private utility is required to have its rules and conditions of service approved by the MPSC, and no such approval had actually been given for the utility to make smart meters a condition of service, that the utility could, nonetheless, mandate smart meters.
- That, even though the MPSC has consistently refused to hold any evidentiary hearings on the possible health dangers of smart meters, they were entitled to conclude, as a matter of law, that health effects of smart meters are negligible.
- That, even though the “opt-out” plan offered by DTE allows nobody to avoid having a smart meter and was not even an available plan when the Stenmans resorted to self help, this plan is cited as one of the reasons Judge Nichols was justified in his ruling.
- That even though there is no practical alternative to DTE service for most people in southeastern Michigan, nonetheless being a DTE customer is “voluntary”.
- That even though evidence was provided the court that an identical smart meter had made a child severely ill, this did not constitute evidence that it might endanger the lives of an elderly couple.
- That even though the issue of the “opt-out” plan being an opt-out in name only was fully discussed in the Stenmans’ original pleadings before Judge Nichols, the Court of Appeals finds that this issue was not raised in the trial court.
- That, although the Stenmans provided an official publication of the U.S. government in which the National Institute for Standards and Technology concluded that smart meters will violate the privacy of homeowners wherever they are installed, the Court of Appeals finds that such concerns with privacy are merely “conjectural and hypothetical”, and that there has been no showing of “actual or imminent harm”. Therefore the Stenmans “have no standing” to raise the Fourth Amendment issue.
Whether one reaches this point fully represented by an attorney or reaches it through one’s own efforts makes little difference in the end.
What we see in this Appeals Court decision is not respect for or observance of law. What we see is a politically motivated decision based on the idea that nothing should get in the way of the smart grid agenda. Or that nothing should get in the way of powerful interest groups.
This is not to say that our legal system is hopeless or that we shouldn’t try to defend our rights through lawful means. Not every panel of the Court of Appeals will be as unreasonable as this one, and not every trial judge will be as unreasonable as Judge Nichols.
———————————————————————————————
* Another panel of this same Court of Appeals so ruled in March, 2015 in the case of Cusumano v. MPSC.
DO YOU WANT TO SEE MORE EXPERTS
TESTIFY AGAINST SMART METERS?
Last week many of you made the trip to Lansing to hear the cross-examination of our witness, Dr. David O. Carpenter, before the Michigan Public Service Commission. Most said having him here was a major achievement for our movement against forcible installation of health damaging smart meters. He donated his time to our cause, asking of us only reimbursement for his out-of-pocket travel expenses.
Michigan Stop Smart Meters advanced the $1,000 for the travel costs. We made an appeal for donations to cover these costs so that we might replenish our treasury and be in a position to arrange for other witnesses to testify in other upcoming proceedings. Some of you responded generously. So far 5 individuals have covered $400 of our expenses. But we are in need of more people to contribute. If we raise in excess of our expenses for this event any surplus will go toward either bringing in more witnesses or toward our ongoing program of putting on public educational lectures all over Michigan!
So please decide if our effort against smart meters is something you want to support. We can use contributions of $100, $50, $25 or whatever you can afford. Please mail contributions to: Michigan Stop Smart Meters, 215 West Troy #4004, Ferndale, MI 48220.
Gives very strong and credible testimony on the health problems caused by “smart” meters in DTE’s current rate case.
July 6th, 2015
We were and are convinced that having the testimony of a highly credible and seasoned professional could help us strike a blow against “smart” meters in this rate case. More importantly the testimony will help us to make our case before the legislature and for our upcoming battles with DTE in the regular courts.
DTE brought the current rate case to the Michigan Public Service Commission. In this case, U-17767, DTE is seeking across the board rate increases for most of its services but also requesting the Commission to approve continued customer funding of “smart meters.”
Dr. Carpenter is known in professional circles all over the world. He is known for his view that smart meters represent a real threat to the health of utility customers. Dr. Carpenter was the leader of a group of 45 doctors and scientists who signed the “Toronto Statement” warning of the dangers of smart meters in 2012. He was one of the authors of the Bio-initiative Report and about 350 articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals. He is currently the Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, State University of New York at Albany.
The doctor generously contributed his time for this case, asking only to be reimbursed for his out-of-pocket expenses for travel from New York. Even so, Michigan Stop Smart Meters is out about $1000 for the trip expenses so that we need to appeal to you, our fellow smart meter activists. You all now have a better shot at keeping a smart meter off your own homes because of the facts this doctor got on the record this week!
In accordance with the Commission’s normal procedures, all witnesses submit their direct testimony in written form many weeks prior to a hearing. They are required to be present at the hearing so that opposing parties may cross-examine them on that testimony. Dr. Carpenter’s cross-examination gave him an opportunity to make his written testimony come alive and to establish his credibility with the judge as a seasoned and highly credible professional.
Our thanks go to all of you activists, who made the trip from Detroit to Lansing to show support for our issue and for the doctor’s testimony. About half the people in the room were activists known to us. The other half were MPSC staff people, including all of the ones directly involved in the planning of smart grid.
Our thanks also go to smart meter activist Richard Meltzer, who conducted the primary cross-examination of the doctor, lasting more than two hours. This was necessary because we had advance indications that the attorneys for DTE and MPSC staff were going to waive cross. We think they made that choice in hopes of denying the doctor an opportunity to establish his bona fides. As it turned out DTE did not cross and staff’s cross was limited to about 3 questions. But their strategy ultimately failed because of Richard’s outstanding questions.
Richard was allowed only to ask questions designed to clarify the original testimony, not to expand on it. There were many objections from the attorneys for DTE and MPSC staff. Despite all the objections we wound up getting more than enough of the critical facts developed on the record. DTE and staff did not put any evidence into the record that would establish that smart meters do not cause harm.
In the end what we got on the record was that smart meters will adversely impact about 5% of the population almost immediately following installation, and are likely to cause cancers or neurological illnesses in the long run for a much larger share of the public. We got on record that the first cause of harm is the pulse modulation of the microwave radio carrier. This makes smart meters very different than am or fm radio broadcasting. We also got on record the fact these meters, even with radio off, put dirty electricity on the wiring of homes and businesses. This is critical because it shows that the so called “opt-out” meter DTE is offering is no true opt-out at all!
Michigan Stop Smart Meters asks you to consider if you are not better off because we finally got some real testimony on the record. This event set us back about $1000. Some have already made generous contributions. If you can send in a contribution of $100, $50, $25 or whatever you can afford, we will be made whole for the expense of this event. Any excess of contributions that come in will put us in a position to undertake other projects to advance the goals we all share of protecting our health and our privacy and forcing DTE to stop the bullying.
Please mail contributions to:
Michigan Stop Smart Meters 215 West Troy #4004
Ferndale, MI 48220
A Message from the
Ad Hoc Committee for Smart Meter Legislation*
If we do what we have always done,
we will get what we have always gotten.
We think we have a righteous cause. We become discouraged at times, or even frantic, when legislators do not always immediately see the issue as we see it. But the key to selling any new idea, product or suggested course of action, in politics as in any other area of life, is to discover the prospect’s possible objections, including those objections that may not be plainly stated.
We often hear it said “if the politicians do not do what we want then vote them out of office”. How often does that solve the major problems of the day? Sure, once in a while there is an issue that so captures the public imagination that a party is swept out of power. And does that solve the problem? Or do we just have the ones we perceived to be rascals replaced by new “rascals”?
Legislators must deal with many worthy causes, and plenty more that are not so worthy. One thing the politicians know for sure is that they will not be in a position to help anyone or fix any problem if they cannot stay in office.
There are legislators in Lansing who understand our smart meter issue and are working quietly, behind the scenes, to come up with a bill and a strategy to pass the bill. They have and are listening to us. They took notice when 200 of us appeared before the House Oversight Committee last December. They are aware of the bullying that is going on, the confrontations with DTE employees, the shortcomings of our Public Service Commission and the fact that some of us have lost electrical service over this issue. They are also aware that to fix our problem, or any other problem, will require compromise and require being a team player.
There may be a few legislators who will be deterred from helping us by the idea of displeasing a powerful interest. For others the task of getting up to speed on our issue may be the major factor, or the time it will take to sell the issue to colleagues. All of this may be worth it if they are going to gain the appreciation and loyalty of a grass roots movement. For that to happen we must clearly communicate what it is we are asking them to do. We may not always speak with one voice, but there must be enough of a common thread they can pick out of our different voices so they can fashion a remedy that will satisfy most of us.
We hear reports from time to time that some of our activists, in their passion for the cause, are less than courteous to legislative staff. That needs to change. Rudeness will get us nowhere and the rude among us are effectively undoing the efforts of the rest of us. We want our elected representatives and their staffers to know that we care very much about our issue and that we are not going away. But pounding our fists on the table and saying “I want it NOW” does not get us very far. Nor does casting blame.
Beyond simple civility, we need also to be ready to remember those who helped us at election time. They will need our support, our votes, our willingness to volunteer as campaign workers and, when possible, our campaign contributions. Sure we are not going to support someone who agreed with us on this one issue if their positions are intolerable on several other issues that are of even greater importance to us. But neither should we be blinded by a party label or by an often misleading label like “liberal” or “conservative.” If this issue really matters to us we must look beyond labels and support those who helped us. And we must let our elected representatives know this is what we will do.
Everyone should be aware that there is a process going on with the legislators who are on our side. We need to be patient, be civil at all times, and be certain we do nothing that could sabotage that process.
David Lonier, Chairman, Richard Meltzer, David Sheldon
* Please also see excellent essay by Pam Wallace on
‘Using Our Grace’ in Contacting Legislators https://michiganstopsmartmeters.com/using-our-grace-when-contacting-legislators/
Dr. David O. Carpenter to Testify Against “Smart Meters”
in Utility Rate Case before Michigan Public Service Commission.
Dr. Carpenter’s position is that the current smart meter technology poses health risks both because of the microwave radiation and because of the low frequency “dirty electricity” these meters put
on the wiring of homes and businesses.
Cross Examination of Dr. Carpenter Michigan Public Service Commission 7109 West Saginaw Highway
Lansing, MI
Monday July 6th, 9 AM
Dr. Carpenter is currently Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, State University of New York at Albany. He has published some 350 papers in peer reviewed journals.
We would like to see as many as possible attend the above hearing before the administrative judge to show support for Dr. Carpenter and for the testimony he is providing that will
be so helpful to our cause.
Directions from Detroit area: Follow I-96 from Detroit to Lansing and continue up the west side of Lansing, then exit to Saginaw Highway
and proceed about 3 blocks east.
If you care about putting the brakes on this harmful technology, consider making a donation of $100, $50, $25 or whatever you
can afford to cover Dr. Carpenter’s travel expenses.
The doctor is, apart from reimbursement of out of pocket expenses, receiving no payment for his testimony. It is costing about $1,000
for air fare and rental car to bring him to this hearing. This money
has been advanced by Michigan Stop Smart Meters. Any money
raised in excess of these travel expenses will go toward our ongoing
legal efforts and toward cost of travel to put on smart meter
lectures all over the state.
Please send contributions by check or money order to:
Michigan Stop Smart Meters
215 West Troy #4004
Ferndale, MI 48220