Link

By James F. Tracy
(Link to original article on Memory Hole website)

Over the past several years a conspiracy of silence has surrounded the implementation of the Smart Grid across the United States, perhaps with Smart grid cartoon imagegood reason. If the public was aware of what lay behind this agenda there would likely be considerable outcry and resistance.

“Smart meters”–the principal nodes of the Smart Grid network–are being installed on homes and businesses by power utilities across the United States under the legal and fiscal direction of the United States government. In December 2007 both houses of the US Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).

This 310-page piece of legislation employs the dubious science of anthropogenic CO2-based climate change science to mandate an array of policies, such as fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and “green” energy initiatives. Tucked away in the final pages of this law is the description and de facto mandate for national implementation of the Smart Grid that the Bush administration promised …  More

Editor’s note: We have been battling smart meters in Michigan for 4 years now – in the courts, before the Public Service Commission and now in the legislature. To the best of our knowledge, Channel 4 in Detroit (WDIV), has never run a story about there being any problem or controversy surrounding smart meters.

Related Story: ‘Media Blackout on Smart Meter Dangers’ Wins Project Censored Award    More

 

 

Link

Poisoning of Drinking Water, Schools and Homes
By David Sheldon

There is much in the news about the Flint Water Crisis and rightly so. But the countless individuals and families who have been forced to accept a cancer causing surveillance device in their homes are not being so reported by our major news media. Nor are those who, refusing such a glass of polluted drinking waterhome invasion, have had their electric service cutoff! Even senior citizens dependent on medical machinery! What do a water crisis, a school health crisis and utility crisis have in common? A Michigan Governor we fault, not on partisan grounds, but because of his repeated tendency to make dangerous decisions through surrogates while assuming no responsibility for consequences!

News media following the water crisis are constantly asking the question about our Governor “What did he know and when did he know it?” It seems clear now that he knew for many months that the people of Flint were being poisoned with bad water and did nothing to remedy the situation. At the same time the news media is much reporting the situation with Detroit Public Schools where children are routinely exposed to mold and rats. Both of these crisis scenarios are apparently the result of decisions made by Emergency Managers our Governor appointed to make decisions that arguably should have been made by others closer to the scene, or by others democratically elected.

But there is a third crisis-in-the-making not much reported by our mass media. That is the sickness, breach of privacy and utility shutoffs caused by the so called “smart” electric meter programs. Countless individualsLogo of Liz Barris website and paper and families have had their lives turned upside down. Some by questionable devices forcibly installed on their homes without their informed consent. Other families, who refused these devices, are enduring a severe Michigan winter without electric service. Both DTE and Consumers Energy are doing this with the complicity of the Michigan Public Service Commission, the regulatory body that is supposed to protect utility customers.

The Governor’s hand can be seen in this too as the MPSC consists of commissioners appointed by the Governor who quite apparently are taking their marching orders from the Governor and his hand picked Energy Czar, Valerie Brader. The MPSC will allow no hearing on any of the health or privacy violations of the new utility meters. The Governor’s energy policies are also being advanced by the Chairman of the House Energy Committee, Aric Nesbitt, who refuses to allow any hearing concerning the new utility meters or of any energy legislation not favored by the Governor.

Where is this third crisis-in-the-making taking us? Not only to unjust utility shutoffs but to a future of ruined lives – of people who can no longer live in their own homes and those who have or will contract cancer or neurological illnesses such as Parkinsons disease or dementia. There are 12 members of the Michigan House that have cosponsored legislation to stop this violation of human rights. We think this too will lead once more to the question about our Governor “What did he know and when did he know it?”

Link

A Message from the Ad Hoc Committee for Smart Meter Legislation

THIS FALL A NEW SMART METER BILL
WILL BE INTRODUCED TO PROTECT THE
RIGHT OF CHOICE FOR ALL UTILITY CUSTOMERS!

We need to make an all out effort NOW to
reach all members of the House Energy Committee!

It is a new day now for smart meter legislation. We have more support for such a law now than we ever had before. To win this fight, it is critical that Lower Peninsula Overviewwe persuade as many of the House Energy Committee members as possible. If enough are convinced of the necessity of such a law, a hearing will be scheduled on the law that has been drafted by some representatives who are on our side! After such a hearing will come a vote of the Committee to report the proposed law out to the full House with a recommendation that it be passed there or not. Later, of course, we will have to introduce a companion bill on the Senate side and follow that bill through a hearing and, hopefully, a favorable report out of the bill to the full Senate.

We desperately need volunteers! We need people who care enough about this issue to spend a day going into one or more of the districts of the 25 reps who are on that Energy Committee. You will find above a map of the lower peninsula of this state with all the district locations marked. Most of these districts are within a few hours driving distance. Find a friend to go with you and make a day of it!

We have three different flyers linked here:

Flyer No. 1                             Flyer No. 2                             Flyer No. 3

Each of these flyers has a reverse side that is different according to what districts you plan to work. Contact Dave Lonier (248) 373-9111, or Dave Sheldon (248) 604-7545 and we will send you a flyer customized to your district(s).

If you would like to do this as part of an organized group emaill Linda Kurtz at smartmetereducationnetwork@gmail.com

Once in district, the task will be to find a highly trafficked location, which could be a supermarket, library or post office, and hand out flyers. Those who receive the flyer will be asked to phone their state House representative and tell him or her that they don’t want a smart meter on their home AND ask that rep to back a new smart meter bill soon to be introduced.

PLEASE CONTACT DAVID LONIER (248) 373-9111. Let him know which district you will be working and he will coordinate to avoid duplicated efforts.

Click here to reach web page where we have detailed maps and a complete list of House Energy Committee members,and their contact information.

Link

UPDATE ON MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS

by Vigilant Dave
July 26th, 2015

Justice iconsThis 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.

Link

David_O_Carpenter_from_the_University_at_AlbanyGives 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

 

Link

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.

Legislation image ID-100289358

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/

 

 

Link

TWO MORE SMART METER APPEALS
MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION

by David Sheldon
May 31st, 2015

Early in 2015 the Michigan Court of Appeals (MCOA) handed smart meter resisters what can only be regarded as two major setbacks, denying nearly all claims against the DTE “opt-out” plan and the Consumers Energy Justice icons“opt-out” plan. We have analyzed these decisions in earlier articles on this site. Suffice it to say we think that, in the DTE case at least, it is very clear that the three judge panel hearing that case did not follow existing case law and chose instead to make new law to suit the needs of the smart grid political agenda.

Image above courtesy of digitalart.

Early in June we have oral arguments for two more smart meter appeal cases. Since different panels of judges will hear these cases we remain hopeful that we will finally see a just outcome. We are hopeful that this time the Court will finally rule according to the statutes and the existing body of case law. We encourage all of you who can to attend. We would like to pack the courtroom for both of these events. Location details and maps for both events, including parking information, can be found at this link: http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/COA/clerksoffice/Pages/Locations.aspx

 Stenman Appeal
Oral argument Tuesday June 9th at 10 am
Detroit branch of MCOA
3020 West Grand Boulevard
Suite 14-300

Sheldon Appeal
(Two errors corrected below)
Oral argument Wednesday June 10th at 11 am
Lansing branch of MCOA
Hall of Justice
925 West Ottawa Street
2nd Floor

 (1) Stenman Appeal: This case is unique among our cases in that it is the first appeal to be heard of a case that originated in a circuit court. All our other appeals have been cases that originated in the Public Service Commission. The Court of Appeals has much more latitude when reviewing a circuit court case than it does when reviewing the actions of an administrative agency.

For those of you who have changed your own meter, or have a plan to do so or have suffered a disconnection of service, this case is particularly relevant. If this appeal goes well we may finally have a way to stop DTE from forced installations all over their service territory!

Early in 2012 Ralph and Donna Stenman, of Farmington Hills, pleaded with DTE to remove a smart meter that had caused health problems for Donna, who is a cancer survivor, and was concerned, not only for her immediate symptoms, but also because the World Health Organization had rated in 2012 the type of microwave radiation that cellphones and smart meters produce “a possible carcinogen”. Their pleas to DTE were also based on a smart meter being a hazard for Ralph because the atrial fibrillation in his heart, put him at risk for blood clots and a stroke. The cause of Afib, per WebMD.com, is “rapid, disorganized electrical signals”. Smart meters put out very brief but high energy pulses about every 15 seconds that cause many people to experience irregular heartbeats.

Pleas were first made by letters to DTE – to no avail. In March of 2012, following a method that had been encouraged by Jerry Day and using a modified version of his suggested form, the couple sent DTE a document titled “Affidavit Notice and Demand for Removal of all “Smart Meters”, radiation emitting and surveillance devices.” The document stated that if DTE would not remove the smart meter within 21 days, the couple would do so, replacing it with a “safe and legally compliant meter, rated and calibrated to common metering standards”.

Upon refusal of DTE to remove the offending meter the couple found it necessary to take that action themselves. A licensed electrician was engaged for the job, readings of the smart and analog replacement meter were duly recorded and the smart meter safely shipped back to DTE. The utility responded first with threats and intimidation. Then a letter indicating that power would be disconnected, but ultimately sued the Stenmans instead in the Oakland Circuit Court. Attempts were made to find an attorney for their defense, but every attorney contacted stated that if he took on the case DTE would bankrupt him.

Ultimately the Stenmans found it necessary to represent themselves in court. Michigan Stop Smart Meters was pleased to arrange some assistance for them in the drafting of needed documents. In the fall of 2012 the case was heard by Circuit Judge Rudy Nichols.

The essence of the case was a demand for a “Partial Summary Judgment” which would include an injunction forcing the Stenmans to allow DTE employees back on their property to reinstall a smart meter. The injunction was to be permanent but the judgment would be considered partial only in the sense that a DTE claim against Stenmans for money damages would remain open to possibly be determined by a trial later.

A “Summary Judgment” is a judgment made without allowing for any trial or evidentiary hearing. There are long established legal principles that allow for this type of judgment when there are no material factual issues in controversy and the judgment can be rendered purely as a matter of law, based on facts agreed to by both sides.

We agree with the Stenmans that there were facts that had been explicitly placed in controversy that should render Judge Nichols decision contrary to law. They are:

  • Whether a “smart meter” is actually a lawful device that conforms to the definition of meter in the statute and in the regulations.
  • Whether the “digital meter” then being offered as an alternative would be any more lawful than the smart meter.
  • Whether either a smart or digital meter would threaten the Stenmans privacy. Preliminary evidence was offered in the form of a document authored by the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) to establish that smart meters are a threat to customer privacy and that they should only be installed on request of the customer.
  • Whether either a smart or digital meter would threaten the Stenman health. Preliminary evidence was offered in the form of an affidavit from Dr. Donald Hillman, retired MSU professor, relating the story of a little girl whose health had been severely compromised by the installation of a DTE smart meter.

Judge Nichols, in his Order of November 11th 2012, stated that the Hillman affidavit was irrelevant because it described what happened to another family, not what happened to the Stenmans. He ignored the other three arguments entirely, granted DTE’s motion for partial summary judgment and ordered the Stenmans to permit DTE employees to enter their property for the purpose of reinstalling a smart meter.

We agree with the Stenmans that Judge Nichols order was outrageous.

An appeal was filed. Again this had to be done with the Stenmans representing themselves as no attorney could be found willing to take on DTE. Again Michigan Stop Smart Meters was able to arrange some needed assistance in the preparation of an appeal brief and the drafting of other documents.

By agreement of both sides Judge Nichols put a stay on his order pending a decision by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) regarding an “opt-out tariff” proposed by DTE where the only “opt-out meter” to be provided was a smart meter with one of its two transmitters turned off. In May of 2013 the MPSC approved DTE’s proposal that opt-out customers must pay an initial fee and monthly fees and receive only a “non-transmitting meter”.

Following this DTE moved to have the stay lifted. This might have made the installation of a smart meter follow in short order. Stenmans argued that there was an appeal of the opt-out plan before the Michigan Court of Appeals and other appeals also pending. They brought in letters from their doctors to establish the harm a smart meter would cause them. Mr. Stenmans cardiologist provided a signed letter stating that installation of a smart meter “could lead to a bad outcome” for Mr. Stenman. They brought in evidence that DTE had accommodated other families in their neighborhood with analog meters. Yet Judge Nichols lifted the stay.

As it happened DTE did not enforce the court order. We suspect the company was more interested in the legal precedent this case established than in actually getting a smart meter installed.

As the time for oral argument began to draw near the Stenmans were finally able to find an attorney to file a reply brief and take on the job of oral argument.

Those interested in more details on this case will find the most important documents and briefs here: https://michiganstopsmartmeters.com/the-stenman-case/

It has taken nearly two years, including an initial period where both sides filed briefs, for this appeal to reach the stage where oral argument will be heard.

Please come and show, not only your support for the Stenmans, but your support for the principle that nobody should be forced to have a health damaging surveillance device on their home. Pack the courtroom in downtown Detroit on Tuesday, June 9th.

(2) Sheldon Appeal: This case, while originating in the MPSC, is also unique in that it is the first case in which the Court of Appeals (MCOA) is being asked to hold the MPSC in contempt of court for failing to carry out a previous order of MCOA. It is also the only case to reach MCOA where the overall funding of smart meters in DTE’s service territory is called into question.

This is the case for those of you who have been appalled that the MPSC, without ever holding an evidentiary hearing on the privacy or health implications, would give DTE permission to charge back the costs of 2.4 million smart meters to its customers!

Some of you may recall that in April of 2012 the Court of Appeals issued a decision remanding the case that allowed this funding back to the MPSC for a redo. That appeal had been brought by ABATE (an association of large business users of electricity) and by then Attorney General Cox. In the remand order to the MPSC the court directed as follows:

“… we remand this matter for the PSC to conduct a full hearing on the AMI program, during which it shall consider, among other relevant matters, evidence related to the benefits, usefulness, and potential burdens of the AMI, specific information gleaned from pilot phases of the program regarding costs, operations, and customer response and impact, an assessment of similar programs initiated here or in other states, risks associated with AMI, and projected effects on rates. In other words, a real record, with solid evidence, should support whatever decision the PSC makes upon remand. “ (Emphasis added)

This order went beyond what the appellants had asked of the court. Does it sound like the Court of Appeals was instructing the MPSC to just consider the rates that utility customers would have to pay to fund smart meters? Incredibly that is all the MPSC did, in complete defiance of the court’s order. Not only that but four smart meter resisters who wanted to participate as interveners in the reopened case were denied that right – mainly on the basis that we wanted to raise issues having to do with the risks of AMI technology which the administrative judge said were “beyond the scope” of the remand proceeding. I was one of those who tried to participate and was shut out. The others were Linda Kurtz and Dominic and Lillian Cusumano. Three of us then protested the decision of the administrative judge to the Commission and were denied again.

On October 17th 2013 the Commission issued its final decision in the reopened case. To nobody’s surprise they only re-justified the decision they had made the first time around. With no new kinds of evidence being allowed, how could the outcome be any different the second time? Michigan’s current Attorney General Bill Schuette did not appeal this decision nor did ABATE.

On November 16th 2013 David Sheldon did appeal that MPSC decision. He asked the appeals court to find that MPSC should be held in contempt of court for failing to carry out the court’s previous order, and that the case should again be sent back to MPSC for another redo – but this time allowing for the scope of the case to include the health, privacy and safety issues, and allowing new interveners to join the case and introduce evidence concerning the issues that had previously been neglected.

The issues that will be argued in this case are:

  • That it was wrong of MPSC to limit the scope of the case to just determining the amount of cost recovery for DTE on this investment and thereby denying the opportunity for anyone to introduce evidence regarding health, privacy and safety issues.
  • That it was wrong for MPSC to exclude the very interveners in the remanded case who would raise the issues the Court of Appeals required MPSC to address.
  • That even if the MPSC’s authority be limited to setting rates (as some have argued) the Commission could still have used that rate setting authority to deny rate recovery of smart meter costs after a finding that the technology harms the customers and the public. Denial of rate recovery would almost certainly have meant no smart meter program in Michigan.
  • Moreover the MPSC had jurisdiction from the legislature to directly order DTE to correct health and privacy abuses when acting in response to written complaints. And there were written complaints from 35 city and county governments and from over 400 utility customers.

As with the Stenman case, it has taken nearly two years, including the time for filing briefs, for this case to reach the stage of oral argument.

Please come and show your support for a case that seeks to have MPSC “held in contempt” for its dereliction of duty in approving the entire smart meter program without hearing the evidence. Pack the courtroom in Lansing on Wednesday June 10th.