Justices grill attorneys over PUC decision on 'smart' meters

Forecaster: Justices grill attorneys over PUC decision on 'smart' meters

E-mail and share

PORTLAND — Justices responded skeptically Thursday morning to arguments on behalf of the Maine Public Utilities Commission as the Maine Supreme Judicial Court heard an appeal of a commission decision that allowed installation of wireless "smart" electric meters.

In a 40-minute hearing on an appeal brought by Bowdoinham resident Ed Friedman and 18 other plaintiffs, justices were asked to overturn the PUC's rejection of a complaint filed last summerabout health, safety and constitutional issues raised by the Central Maine Power Co. program.

The so-called "smart" meters transmit usage and other data via radio frequency waves sent through a grid of receivers and transmitters. CMP, using money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, began installing them in its coverage area in late summer 2010.

Attorney Bruce A. McGlauflin, who represents the plaintiffs, said he hopes for a decision next month on whether the commission properly dismissed the complaint.

Friedman was more direct. "We would like to overturn the whole program," he said.

At the outset of the hearing, McGlauflin was grilled by justices on why they, instead of a Superior Court judge, were hearing the appeal of the PUC decision. Chief Justice Leigh Sauffley also asked McGlauflin if the complaint rejected by the PUC last summer, after an earlier PUC decision requiring an opt-out program, presented new evidence.

McGlauflin conceded there was no new information in the complaint, but asserted the right of citizens to file an additional complaint while saying it was not a specific appeal of the earlier PUC decision.

The complaint rejected by the PUC last summer also argued that the opt-out plan, which charges customers extra fees for keeping conventional meters or having the wireless capability of new ones disabled, violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because customers are paying fees to avoid the potential dangers and invasion of privacy the meters represent.

Friedman and McGlauflin said they were disappointed justices did not ask more about constitutional issues, but McGlauflin said the overall line of questioning was fine with him.

"They are very fair beating up on everybody," he said.

PUC attorney Catherine Connors and CMP attorney Jordan McColman declined comment after the hearing. They faced even sharper questions from the justices on whether the PUC needed to be on the record regarding the safety of smart meters in order to fully protect consumers.

The attorneys argued the PUC relied on information from the Maine Center for Disease Control and Federal Communications Commission to establish there were no health concerns caused by smart meters.

But the lack of a specific declaration especially troubled Sauffley and Justice Jon D. Levy.

"What they could have added was their judgment," Sauffley told Connors in regard to the PUC decision requiring the opt-out program for CMP customers.

Customers who want to keep their current meters must pay a one-time $40 fee and monthly $12 fee. Customers requesting a new meter with the wireless transmission capabilities disabled are assessed a one-time $20 fee and a $10.50 monthly charge.

Levy asked Connors and McColman how the PUC could reject the complaint from Friedman and others based on the idea it felt health questions were adequately resolved.

"I can't find that in any of the orders," he said.

Justice Ellen Gorman asked McColman directly if the PUC considered meters safe, and Sauffley remained unsatisfied with his answer that the commission relied on other information without making a specific determination.

"Does that not misapprehend commission duties?" she asked.

The article continues here.

Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Views: 145

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service