From Iris Atzmon
Supreme Court: smart meter opponents celebrate Maine victory
Maine Supreme Court Proceedings Now Online
Index to our listing and related material:
Filing Press Release 2/6/13
Attorney Bruce McGlauflin cover letter for filing
Exhibit 1 Dr. Hardell (at Dr. Hardell”™s request, his listing is not posted here)
Exhibit 2 Dr. De-Kun Li
Exhibit 3 Dr. Leszczynski
Exhibit 4 Dr. Carpenter
Exhibit 5 Dr. Phillips
Exhibit 6 Morgan
Exhibit 7 Dr. Rea
Exhibit 8A Dr. Kumar, part 1
Exhibit 8B Dr. Kumar, part 2
Exhibit 9 Dr. Conrad
Exhibit 10 Smart Meter Health Effects Survey (while the PUC-filed version is included in Ex. 9, this version may include more recent analyses or additions, edits for clarity or, periodically, additional data if we reopen the survey. Current version date: 2/6/13)
Exhibit 11 Hart
Exhibit 12 Maurer
Exhibit 13 Lay Witnesses 1 (lay witness testimony was scanned continuously, so documents may continue in the following Exhibit)
Exhibit 14 Lay Witnesses 2
Exhibit 15 Lay Witnesses 3
Exhibit 16 Lay Witnesses 4
Exhibit 17 Lay Witnesses 5
Exhibit 18 Lay Witnesses 6
Exhibit 19 Lay Witnesses 7
Exhibit 20 Lay Witnesses 8
Maine Smart Meter Appeal Summary History [as of 1/29/13]
On August 3, 2011, a group of 19 customers of Central Maine Power [CMP] filed a “10 Person Complaint” with the Maine Public Utilities Commission [PUC]. Our initial complaint, followed the PUC”™s order of the nation”™s first pay-to-opt-out-of-smart-meters plan. In fact, this was the first opt out plan period, and resulted from negotiations involved with several earlier complainants. Complainants in the new case issued a press release on 4/4/11 providing an excellent summary of the issues directed at both the PUC who ordered the smart meter program and CMP, Maine”™s largest utility provider.
The Complaint was dismissed by the PUC on 8/31/11 without an investigation on grounds that issues raised had previously come before the PUC and been decided. In response, Complainants filed a Petition for Reconsideration on 9/9/11. With the PUC failing to respond within 20 days, the Petition was by PUC Rules, deemed denied.
On 10/31/11, Complainants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, also known as the Law Court. Because the PUC is considered quasi-judicial, all PUC appeals go straight to the Law Court as opposed to a Superior Court where a normal agency appeal would first go. While appealed to the high court, the actual notice of filing is sent to the PUC, as it would be to a lower court in a normal appeal. The PUC then files all papers with the high court. The group issued a press release on 11/4/11 detailing the Notice of Appeal filing.
The actual Appeal Brief was filed on 1/10/12 accompanied by the required Supplement of Legal Authorities and Appendix. A press release on the Brief filing was issued 1/11/12. Several weeks later the US Supreme Court decided unanimously in US v. Jones that the attachment of a detailed information gathering device [in this case a GPS tracker on a car] by the government without a warrant was illegal. Appellants submitted a letter re. Jones to the Law Court, this being a situation quite similar to a smart meter attached to ones”™ home.
Reply briefs were filed with the court on 2/28/12 by the PUC (PUC Reply Brief) and by CMP (CMP Reply Brief). Appellants filed their Response Brief on 3/13/12. Oral arguments were heard by the court on May 10 at 9:50am EST. Arguments can be heard via live streaming available through the Maine Supreme Judicial Court web site. Click on link to audio of oral arguments. Click on link to courtroom video footage.
The Maine Court published its decision on July 12, 2012 remanding our case to the Maine PUC for a determination of smart meter safety, another first in the nation. Here is our 7/16 Press Release on Decision. The Court did not rule on constitutional claims and on 7/25/12 we filed a Motion for Reconsideration addressing these issues and also requesting a stay on opt out fees pending results of the upcoming lengthy PUC investigation. Motions for reconsideration are never granted [after all, the court just decided and they”™d have to admit they were wrong]. Ours was no exception and we received a denial of our Motion for Reconsideration on 8/9/12.Leave a reply →