Link

by David Sheldon

September 17th, 2017 – WE NEED HELP!  Michigan Stop Smart Meters has been working for more than 6 years to fight the forced installation of ‘smart’ utility meters by Michigan’s two largest utilities.

In 2015, when we brought in world renowned expert, Dr. David Carpenter, to testify before the Michigan Public Service Commission, we appealed for your financial support and many of you gave generously to make that event happen!  We are now at a juncture where there is much more to be done and we cannot do it without your support!

Our efforts to date have been in the political, educational, legal and regulatory arenas, and has resulted in much media coverage. Our efforts have also had much to do with the introduction of several bills in our legislature designed to protect utility customers – including the Opsommer bill, the McMillin bill and, most recently, the introduction of House Bill 4220 by current Michigan House Energy Chairman Gary Glenn.  But now we need to make a full court press to see that this bill is passed on by the Energy Committee to the full House. This will involve radio ads, print ads and extensive flyering. There are also some legal battles in the works. With your support we can do a lot. Without such support we cannot.

OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS SO FAR!
We at Michigan Stop Smart Meters have, in concert with others, been struggling for more than six years now to raise health, safety and privacy issues with respect to so called “smart meters” now being deployed by DTE on the east side of state, and by Consumers Energy on the west side.

OUR POLITICAL WORK: In concert with others we petitioned city and county governments to endorse our cause, put on special PowerPoint presentations before city councils and got the backing of 34 local governments.  This resulted in a sham MPSC investigation, but also led to the introduction of three proposed new meter choice laws – the Opsommer bill, the McMillin bill and now under consideration House Bill 4220, also know as the Glenn bill.  It also led to the spectacularly successful hearing before the House Oversight Committee on December 2nd, 2014 and a series of hearings before the House Energy Committee in 2017.

OUR EDUCATIONAL WORK: We sponsored this website and public educational meetings in Allen Park, Cheboygan, Clinton Township, East Detroit, Detroit, Ferndale, Fraser, Grand Blanc, Grand Rapids, Holland, Midland, Muskegon, Parchment, Plymouth, Rochester, Romeo, Romulus and Taylor   We have been interviewed by Macomb Daily, Oakland Press, Detroit News, Hometown Newspapers, by Holland radio’s “Talk of the Town” program, by Fox17 News in Grand Rapids, by Channel 13 in Grand Rapids and most recently this year by Guy Gordon on WJR Radio and by WXYZ TV.

OUR LEGAL WORK: We closely followed and supported two cases in Oakland Circuit Court where Detroit Edison had sued local couples who changed their own meters when they became ill and could get no relief from the utility.  In one of the cases the couple had suffered an unjust decision early on from a circuit judge and was in need of our help to mount an appeal. We provided that help. That was the Stenman case and is reported elsewhere on this website. In the other case the couple needed some initial assistance at the circuit court level, but the case ultimately settled without an appeal. We also assisted the Cusumanos in appealing the DTE ‘Opt-Out’ Plan. We assisted some residents of the Muskegon area in mounting a 16 person appeal of the Consumers Energy ‘Opt-Out’ Plan. This was the case known as Rison et al. Our support won for them a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeals that allowed the case to survive a Motion for Summary Dismissal. That in turn led to the group receiving a financial donation that enabled them to hire attorneys to finish the case. The case was ultimately joined to one brought by the Attorney General and the two joined cases resulted in a remand of the opt-out plan back to MPSC for a redo.

OUR REGULATORY WORK: In 2015 we intervened in DTE’s general rate case before the Michigan Public Service Commission. This case included a review of the details of the smart meter opt-out program as well as cost justification for the overall smart meter program in Michigan. As part of that case we brought in world renowned Dr. David Carpenter of the State University of New York to testify before the commission. That case is reported elsewhere on this website. Many of you contributed generously to cover the expenses of bringing Dr. Carpenter in.

OUR PLANS GOING FORWARD: Our focus right now is primarily on educating more citizens to demand of their elected representatives that they pass meter choice legislation, such as the current House Bill 4220, introduced by Energy Chairman Gary Glenn, with 16 co-sponsors, and supported on the Senate floor by Senator Patrick Colbeck who has launched a campaign to be Michigan’s next Governor. This educational campaign will require funds for intensive flyering in many districts, and for newspaper and radio ads. How successful we will be with this will depend very much on the generosity of our activists with this fund raising effort.

Other legal efforts are also under consideration, including:

(1) an appeal of a particularly egregious harassment by a Michigan utility of a woman whose very life was threatened by a forced installation of a digital meter. This is a case that could set a crucial precedent to help all those whose health is endangered by smart or digital meters.

(2) a possible Fourth Amendment, multi-plaintiff lawsuit in federal court to defend the rights of all Michigan utility customers who have been forced to take a smart meter or have their power turned off.

Again, how much we can do will depend on your generosity in donating to us at this time.

If you are angry at what DTE, Consumers Energy and their cronies in state offices are doing to Michigan utility customers, and you appreciate all that we are doing to fight these injustices, then PLEASE HELP US by donation or by volunteering your time!

click to Donate

Advertisements

Link

Movie Producer Offers False Hope to Thousands
by David Sheldon
Revised August 8th, 2017

Most of us were very impressed with the quality of the film ‘Take Back Your Power’ by Josh del Sol. It has been effective in motivating people whenever it has had a showing. This movie producer undoubtedly has a talent for dramatizing the smart meter issue.

In December of 2014 Mr. del Sol came to speak following a showing of his film at the Royal Oak Art Theater. He and an associate, Cal Washington, used this time for an illustrated presentation in some detail, of a process for (supposedly) stopping utilities from installing smart meters. Documents to be used were presented on the big screen and discussed in some detail. In these documents, liberally punctuated by biblical references, there was much about holding individual utility executives and politicians personally liable financially by using merchant law, and sending them a series of letters which would ‘notify them of their liability’.  At the end of this meeting some 20 or so individuals were persuaded to attend a follow-up meeting for the purpose of putting the process to work in their own situations.

Now Mr. Del Sol has sent out an email indicating his intention to go nationwide and perhaps even worldwide with this process. He has also setup a web site where he is soliciting funds to support his activities. He indicates the process has been tested with three “seed groups”. Apparently the Michigan group he formed in 2014 is one of those three seed groups.

There is a problem with all this: the process does not work. Despite my own visibility in the smart meter choice movement through this website and in many other ways, I have not heard from even one of the 20 people in that Michigan seed group stating that, after following del Sol’s process, they were successful in keeping a smart meter off their home.

The process is inherently flawed because it is based on the assumption that officials can be forced to deal with us on our terms and become individually liable just because we assert in letters that they are individually liable. The process also assumes that one can form a binding contract with officials by making an offer which they refuse or neglect to answer. Contract law does not work that way. A valid contract requires an offer and an acceptance. Ignoring an offer does not constitute acceptance. And for the process to mean anything there would have to be some real concern by the officials that courts would, in fact, hold them personally liable for their actions.

There is a problem with that as well. From what we have seen so far, the courts here in Michigan are not about to rule against the utilities no matter what arguments are presented to them. We have had four cases now reach the Michigan Court of Appeals. Issues such as property rights, privacy, health, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment (takings clause) and Michigan’s own felony surveillance law, and others have been argued with thorough support from the Constitution, the statutes and case law. But the appeals court has ignored all of that and ruled against us at every turn. We have seen similar disregard of the law in some other states and in the federal court system.

Smart meters are clearly a world wide threat, being forced on people in every industrialized country. This, despite the fact these meters are not “green” but actually increase overall energy usage and add to the amount of carbon dioxide being produced. There is clearly an agenda in play, emanating from policy makers at the international level, through our federal government to our state government. Policy makers at the federal and state level are driving the agenda, essentially bribing utilities by creating vast opportunities for the utilities and the technology companies that supply them to participate in this bonanza. And our judges are not going to get in the way of that agenda. Perhaps they have been bribed or warned of consequences to themselves if they side with us.

All that said, there may still be opportunities for individuals whose very lives have been placed in jeopardy to obtain limited relief from our courts – providing they seek remedies that only carve out very narrow exceptions to the program, leaving the overall agenda intact.

Now if our courts are not going to uphold the Fourth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or Michigan’s own felony surveillance law because of an agenda from on high, then why on earth would they enforce merchant law when it conflicts with the same agenda? It makes no sense whatever. The officials who are supposed to be scared straight by the various documents and letters in this process will simply laugh at them.

I believe it is important for me to publish an article exposing this process, which is akin to the Emperor’s Clothes in the old fable, because I believe that otherwise many in our Michigan smart meter resistance movement will be tempted to sign on, invest heavily of their time, and make donations to a process that is not going to help them in their individual situations and certainly not help our movement.

Why is Mr. del Sol promoting a process that he must know does not and cannot work? Who can say? His intentions may be the best but perhaps he has been misled in some way.

Our focus as a movement now needs to be on getting meter choice legislation passed. Those who can afford to make a donation or do volunteer work should be directing their time and money to help the various Michigan groups that are working toward that goal.

Those groups are:

Smart Meter Education Network                           smartmetereducationnetwork.com

Michigan Stop Smart Meters                                  michiganstopsmartmeters.com

Analog Meter Choice                                              analogmeterchoice@gmail.com

Utility Meter Choice 4 Michigan                           mysmartmeterdoeswhat.com

************************

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

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)

Link

by David Sheldon

February 27th, 2017 – All of us who care about the meter choice issue owe a debt of gratitude to Mark Lerner and the organization he represents, Constitutional Alliance. Mark has given generously of his time and experience in legislative matters to assist us in achieving meter choice legislation. Constitutional Alliance has, as its main issue, a campaign against forced biometrics. One of the central principles of his group is A free society and a surveillance society cannot be reconciled. Biometrics is the linchpin to a surveillance society.”

Forced biometrics involves the Real ID Act, any requirement that people submit to high resolution facial photographs or retina scans for id purposes. These technologies pose an unprecedented threat to human freedom, in a society where there are high resolution cameras on every street corner. Individuals can be tracked with precision and all their movements stored in a central database. The ability of individuals to participate freely in political discourse or protest demonstrations becomes chilled in direct proportion to this breakdown of anonymity.

Mark saw in our smart meter movement issues and positions, particularly those dealing with privacy, freedom from surveillance and property rights, very much in harmony with what those for which his organization stands. Mark regularly works with legislators in many states to resolve issues involving privacy and biometrics. He has worked with us in recent years to help persuade Michigan legislators of the need for meter choice legislation. His efforts, along with our own, have brought us to the point where we have House Bill 4220 being heard by the House Energy Committee and a real shot at getting this legislation passed – at least by the House.

Michigan Stop Smart Meters is and has been from the beginning a non-partisan organization. We are not right or left. We have not so far endorsed any candidate for political office. If we do so in future, we will pick candidates who have helped us in our smart meter fight, regardless of party. Mark has written an excellent commentary on similar principles his organization follows titled My own appreciation for the organizations that work together to protect our freedom” here.

Again, thank you Mark for all you have done!