"How can smart meters save money when Consumers seeks to add millions of dollars to the base rate to fund the AMI program?"
--Judge Peter O'Connell--
"A cost-benefit analysis [of smart meters] should include
health, safety, and privacy issues.”
--Judge Peter O'Connell--
Michigan
Court of Appeals Judge Peter O’Connell has issued a mind-blowing
opinion that is very supportive of the anti-smart-meter community.
Basically, O’Connell says that the MPSC and Consumers Energy have not
proved their side of the case for smart meters, and puts forth many of
the same questions and arguments that we in the anti-smart-meter
community have been positing. He supports further investigation of the
health and privacy issues.I highly recommend reading his opinion.
Background:
A group of Consumers Energy customers and the Attorney General had
appealed the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (MPSC's) decision to
allow Consumers to implement smart meters. The Court of Appeals decided
that the MPSC had not properly decided all the issues and sent the case
back (“remanded” it) to the MPSC. The MPSC didn’t like this, and it
asked the court to “reconsider” its remand. In commenting on the denial
of the motion for reconsideration, Judge O'Connell writes, “[The
MPSC] contends that no further hearings are necessary concerning the
advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) smart meter program.” The court disagreed, and has stuck by its original decision to remand the case. However, the court did not agree with Judge O'Connell's opinion that the remand should consider any issues other than the fairness of the cost of the opt-out program. This is extremely unfortunate, but we now know that we have a friend on the court, and someone who can see the issues with great clarity. It is inevitable that the case that is once again before the MPSC will be appealed once the MPSC makes a decision, because if we lose, we will appeal, and if Consumers and the MPSC lose, they will appeal. Hopefully, the Attorney General (who supports us on this issue) will also appeal if we lose.
Judge O’Connell's Opinion on Costs
“The
PSC and Consumers Energy advance the notion that smart meters will save
the
public money on their utility bills. Unfortunately, this argument
is inherently illogical: how can smart meters save money when Consumers
seeks to add millions of dollars to the base rate to fund the AMI
program? It appears, as the Attorney General argues and as in other
states, that the smart meter program actually increases rates.”
“I
am concerned that under the opt-out program, those who opt-out must pay
either a penalty, tax, or a fee for the privilege of retaining their
non-smart meters. This Court, in its prior opinion, approved the PSC's
order allowing costs to fund the AMI smart meter program to be added to
the utility's base rate. At first glance, it appears the opt-outers are required to pay twice for the privilege of retaining their non-smart meter.
The first payment is in the form of a penalty, tax, or fee to avoid
having a smart meter installed on their home,5 and the second payment is
of continued costs associated with the AMI smart meter program that
eventually will be added to the base rate.”
“Why
both charges? On remand, the PSC should answer that question. In the
case of the opt-outers, they receive no benefit from the AMI smart meter
program and must actually pay to be excluded from it, but then the
opt-outer must also share in the costs of the program because of the
increase to the base rate.”
“From this lower court record I am unable to discern the genesis, the reasons, or the rational for such an unprecedented double tariff.”
“I am also greatly concerned that the opt-out costs are actually a penalty
imposed to force the opt-outers to comply with the AMI program. . . .
The PSC's implied finding that it is a fee/tariff rather than a penalty
or a tax is not supported by even a scintilla of evidence in this lower
court record. Just because the PSC says it is so on appeal does not make it so.”
Judge O’Connell's Opinion on Health, Safety,
Privacy, Citizen Rights & Costs
- “for the reasons stated in this opinion, I conclude that a cost-benefit analysis [of smart meters] should include health, safety, and privacy issues”; in other words, the MPSC must consider more than just monetary aspects of the smart meter program
- all the issues surrounding smart meters have not been heard and should be; despite its claims, the MPSC has not “thoroughly” addressed the smart-meter issue
- the
customers who appealed have not had an opportunity to present evidence
(he is very curious to see what proof will be presented, which leads us
to ask the question whether the lawyers for the customers will gather
the proper and adequate evidence, not just make grandiose claims)
- citizens have a right to be heard
- a very recent U.S. Supreme Court decision held that “‘cost’
includes more than the expense of complying with regulations; any
disadvantage could be termed a cost. ... including, for instance, harms
that regulation might do to human health or the environment" (Michigan v
EPA, 576 US ___, at 7 (2015)).
- “because
the PSC has not weighed the burdens, benefits, costs, and advantages of
the entire AMI program, I am convinced that its decision is not
supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence” [This
argument is similar to the argument the court made with regard to the
smart water meter case which is discussed in an earlier blogpost today: You have
to present sufficient evidence. In this case, he feels, the MPSC and
Consumers Energy did not. In the smart water meter case, the court of
appeals panel felt that the customer did not. We cannot emphasize enough—extreme
detail and presentation of every possible piece of evidence is
absolutely necessary to have even a hope of winning in court. In
addition, you have to cover all the legal bases.]
- “the
individual appellants argue that the opt-out program violates federal
and state laws governing disability and ask the PSC to consider
additional health, safety, privacy, and disability-related cost issues,
including that smart meters may place individuals with
electro-sensitivity issues, pacemakers, and heart-related issues in
danger”
- “supplementing
this record with additional facts and conclusions of law that actually
support the PSC's ultimate decision and giving the individual appellants
their day in court is a fundamental requirement of our form of
government”
There is no
guarantee as to what the MPSC will do, nor as to what the Court of
Appeals will do if this case comes before it again after the MPSC
reconsiders it. At a minimum, we have a clear articulation of some basic
rights and basic guidelines the courts and the MPSC should follow. And
Judge O'Connell is the first judge to state the obvious: How can smart
meters be saving us money when the utilities have had to raise rates (or
get lots of free money from the government) to put them in? How can
charging people an up-front fee to keep their opt-out meter be fair? The
MPSC has never really considered the health and privacy issues, except
by selectively considering industry and a few other publications.
Judge
O'Connell took the MPSC to task for failing to submit adequate evidence to back
up its claims. It is this same failure to present adequate evidence that has,
at least in part, caused some Michigan smart meter cases to fail. We cannot
emphasize enough the importance of having competent
legal counsel.
Read the opinion here.
health
problems, concerns, effects, radiation, dirty electricity, electromagnetic
interference, EMFs, sick, ill, chronic health conditions, concerns ,
electric, gas, advanced meter, sickened, cancer, risks, effects, affects, hurt,
heart palpitations, anxiety, brain fog, scattered, pain, TMJ, muscle, memory
problems, insomnia, pvcs, high blood sugar, blood pressure, symptoms, Michigan,
DTE, Consumers Energy, Michigan Public Service Commission, action, alerts ruling case
Consumers Energy shut off power to a woman who is disabled and highly electrosensitive. After she removed her meter, her health improved dramatically. Her doctors said the digital meter was causing the problem. Channel 4&7 (upnorthlive.com) spent 1 1/2 hours interviewing Jaime Chimner as she awaited the Consumers Energy employees who came to shut her off.
electromagnetic frequencies.
Jaime Chimner was severely disabled by a chemical accident in Lewiston,
Michigan in the 1990s. She developed numerous health problems, suffered
a stroke, and has to use a breathing machine. In 2009, she moved to
Cheboygan, Michigan. Her symptoms began to worsen, and she developed
many new ones, including pain, great difficulty walking, tinnitus, balance issues, swelling, and more. She
has two doctors who have treated her for years. They pinpointed the
genesis of her new and worsening symptoms to the digital meter on her
new home. Her old home had an analog meter.
The City of Detroit forces customer to pay to upgrade their plumbing to accommodate a smart water meter. That's right--you have to pay a plumber if your current plumbing, which works just fine with an analog water meter--won't accept a smart meter. What if you can't afford a plumber?
Did you utility company tell you that your smart gas meter signals for only 1 1/2 minutes per day? Is that true? If you average all the pulses over the course of a day, then yes, it's true. But here's the real story. Each pulse is 5.86 milliseconds long. There are 90,000 milliseconds in 1.5 minutes. That amounts to 15,358.36 pulses per day of 5.86 millisecond each, or 639.93 pulses per hour.
Consumers Energy customers in a rural area of Van Buren County are
outraged after getting bills that they say are more than 13 times the
normal charge. “My bill went from $300 a month to $4,887 and I was like
what the hell happened?” said Christina McCaid in an interview with Fox17.
SEMCO Gas is trying to force customers to put gas smart meters on their home. SEMCO says that in order to ensure that customers are receiving accurate bills, it periodically needs to change the meter! You don't need to change a meter unless it is inaccurate. This is a ploy to get smart meters on people's homes. The letter then goes on to say: "If we don't hear from you, it may become necessary to change the gas meter when you are not at home."
of you have been following. Plaintiff rightly refused to
let the City of Warren install a smart water meter on his home, and the
city shut off his water. Plaintiff filed suit against the city. Like
with another smart meter case, the plaintiff’s motives and reasons were
good, but his legal arguments were lacking. This case should in no way
be taken as a verdict on the legality or morality of smart water meter
installation. The court itself said that if the plaintiff had
properly presented the argument (the argument being that the city does
not have the authority to install smart meters against the will of the
residents), “it would be a question of law subject to de novo review” [p 2 of decision]. In other words, if you put your case together properly, you could win.
