Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) utility Smart Meters for electric, natural gas and water are being forced onto Pennsylvania utility customers by utility companies backed up by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s (PA PUC) implementation rules and regulations, i.e., AMI SMs are “mandatory,” which are in total contradiction to the Legislative History, intent, enactment, and what was published in official public state records declaring AMI Smart Meters are not mandated! Basically, the bill SB2200, as passed by the PA Legislature, is/was an “opt IN bill”! Refer to HB2200 §2807(f)7(2)(i)!
I refused an AMI Smart Meter and have kept one off my home’s electric service for several years citing health reasons, as I’m a breast cancer survivor who does not want to be exposed to non-thermal radiation waves smart meters emit in various ways, including possible – but scientifically documented – adverse health issues attributed to non-thermal radiation harms from microwave technology per published global scientific peer review research.
As a result of the formal complaint I filed with the PA PUC, I had a two-day hearing before two PA PUC Administrative Law Court Judges (Heep and Pell in Philadelphia) and squared off against four PECO expert witness and three PECO attorneys. I must say I held my ground in spite of PECO’s objecting to the cancer studies and research regarding microwave EMF/RF/ELF radiation and cancer(s) I tried entering into the hearing record, especially the fifteen human male and female breast cancers documented as part of a compendium of almost 240 cancers studies attributed to EMF/RF/ELF. Those studies really got PECO’s attorneys’ britches twisted! They had to do everything they could to keep them out of the record, and they did.
AMI Smart Meters operate on microwaves to send, receive and collect information to and from the meter(s) at customers’ homes. Those messages can occur every 15 seconds, which can allow “dirty electricity” (harmonics or sinusoidal waves) to travel over the copper wires inside the walls of customers’ homes every 15 seconds every hour, every day of every month of every year, as customers cannot turn them off like you can your cell phone, microwave oven, etc.
What I’ve uncovered regarding the illegality of Act 129 (2008) the PA PUC states it is enforcing is totally different from, and contrary to, what the State Legislature actually passed, i.e., HB2200. Basically, the PA PUC changed the law from not mandated to mandatory while drafting implementation rules and regulations for AMI SMs in Pennsylvania.
As a result of my hearing November 2-3, 2016, I had to file a Brief due January 25, 2017 and a Respondent’s Brief due February 15th. Below is the “Argument” portion of the Respondent’s Brief, as I think Pennsylvanians ought to know the facts about what’s going on regarding forced AMI SMs when, in reality, they are not mandated, as you will see, plus other issues addressed in the Brief that reveal the underbelly of regulatory agencies and utilities working hand-in-hand, I contend.
Respondent Brief ARGUMENT
Frompovich presented, prior to the November 2-3 hearing date, 195 pages of testimony (18 pages) and Exhibits she was prepared to present at court but was not permitted to do so. Frompovich has testified before the U.S. Congress, the FDA and various states legislatures and their committee hearings so she is familiar with how to present testimony. Frompovich’s apparent damaging expert testimony and 32 Exhibits were something PECO could not allow to get on public record, so the hearing became a trial format rather than Frompovich being allowed to present her testimony as originally presented prior to the hearing.
Particular exhibits Frompovich tried introducing often were objected to, especially anything having to do with cancer(s) and EMF/RF/ELF microwave radiation exposures since her case is the “seminal case” regarding cancer and EMF/RF/ELF for not only PECO but probably the entire microwave industry.
As a Pro Se litigant Frompovich should be entitled to more tolerant construction of technicalities and procedural rules and should have been permitted to admit the numerous peer review studies showing a link between breast cancer (15 male and female human breast cancer studies 1986 to 2005) and other cancers relating to EMF/RF/ELF exposures (almost 240 total studies involved), which are highly relevant and competent evidence in Frompovich’s defense. Those studies are easily accessible at www.justproveit.net/studies (cancer). Those studies are in the public domain of which this Honorable Court can confirm and take judicial notice, since Frompovich’s health literally is at stake. So, when PECO states there is no evidence of a link between radiofrequency fields and adverse health effects—including cancers, we can see that PECO’s statement is simply false.
PECO experts presented scientific indication regarding no such thing as non-thermal radiation adverse health effects are accepted by consensus microwave industry science, however, PECO’s medical expert identified non-thermal radiation adverse health effects medically as “idiopathy environmental intolerance” (IEI). Cf. transcript
Page 278 (14-18)
PECO Attorney Watson Q. Let me ask you this. Is it generally accepted in the scientific or medical communities that idiopathic environmental intolerance to EMF and the variety of symptoms and conditions attributed to it are caused, contributed to or exacerbated by exposure to radiofrequency fields?
Page 278 (25) Dr. Israel A. It is not generally accepted.
Page 272 (14-16)
Dr. Israel A. We typically refer to them as IEI, idiopathy environmental intolerance, and followed by whatever that intolerance is, EMF, some chemical, whatever.
Page 274 (8-9)
PECO Attorney Watson Q. Do I understand that you’re telling us that IEI is simply neutral, a neutral way to describe –
Page 274 (10-12)
Dr. Israel A. That’s the way the World Health Organization proposed, and I think that’s what’s generally used amongst physicians today.
Idiopathy is a disease or condition that arises spontaneously or for which the cause is unknown, according to medicine. Dr. Israel even admitted [on page 272 (14-16)] EMF could be a cause of cancer, by enumerating EMF as one of the possible causes followed by his disinterested “whatever” comment – all being instances of “uncertain science” admissions from PECO.
Furthermore, the above example of “uncertain science” is emphasized with regard to PECO’s “pulse” vs “no pulse” internal contradictions regarding their AMI Smart Meter demonstrating even from PECO’s viewpoint, PECO really has not shown the FlexNet meters to be “safe.” That brings up the “Burden of Proof” argument.
PECO, through its expert Dr. Mark Israel, takes the position the only views which “count” are its own, and then, after discounting the contrary evidence, it denies that any such evidence even exists. Cf. PECO Brief Pg. 13 (89)
PECO completely discounts the fact that Frompovich was qualified as an expert witness and author in “nutrition and natural healing, and treating cancer from that perspective.” Therefore, what PECO denigrates as Frompovich’s mere “beliefs” are actually legally admissible expert testimony, which weighs against exposing Frompovich to any further radiation burden upon her health and body, in Frompovich’s expert opinion.
As a recognized expert witness, Frompovich was legally entitled to present her expert testimony regarding the adverse effects upon her, based upon her research and review of the scientific literature. Frompovich established herself with this Honorable Court’s approval as an expert qualified to give expert testimony and not mere “beliefs.” PECO also failed to present any contradictory evidence on those points, as PECO failed to have its own expert in the same field.
Expert witnesses are entitled to present their expert opinions based upon their research and review of the scientific literature, other documents, etc., as PECO’s Dr. Mark Israel was permitted to do, within the scope of their court-recognized expertise. Frompovich’s testimony was not mere lay “beliefs.”
PECO, a huge corporation, bears the burden of proof to document via meter icons or signage openly displayed, just not hearsay testimony from PECO employees, or paid expert witnesses Israel and Davis, the PECO FlexNet AMI Smart Meters are absolutely safe. PECO has failed to do that in view of their admitted uncertainty about science. Furthermore, Frompovich, an older (almost 79 years old) American cancer survivor, should not have to bear the burden of proof to show that the PECO FlexNet Smart Meters are unsafe.
In general, PECO has not shown the FlexNet AMI Smart Meters to be safe other than by testimony from PECO’s employee Mr. Pritchard and their paid expert witness Dr. Davis testimony, and with no outside third party certification on the meters, e.g., Underwriters Laboratories (UL) seal of approval. The PECO litany “there is no danger,” and “there is no relationship between radiofrequency and bioeffects” are belied by the admittedly “idiopathic” (unknown) nature of the maladies discussed above, and by the information readily available in the public domain cited above and in the footnote documentary “Take Back Your Power” by Josh del Sol on YouTube.
PECO, as such, is attempting to inflict their unsafe meters upon Frompovich, against Frompovich’s consent; against basic fundamental property rights; and in excess of PECO’s regulatory authority granted by both federal and Pennsylvania law. Both those government authorities make the smart meter program voluntary only. Cf. Pub. L. 109-58 the Energy Policy Act of 2005 §1252. Smart Metering; Pennsylvania HB2200 §2807(f)7(2) and PA P.L. 1592, No. 129.
That action by PECO, a huge Exelon-owned corporation, is forcefully making Frompovich to gamble with her health, home, wellbeing, and serenity. Therefore, PECO, a huge corporation, bears the burden of proof, which they have failed to carry.
PECO’s “burden of proof” argument, i.e.., Frompovich failed to prove she is a cancer survivor when, in fact, Frompovich presented her very competent testimony as an expert in her field, as recognized by this Honorable Court, on the record that she is a breast cancer survivor; wrote a book [A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatment] about it, which PECO introduced to the Court; and also provided PECO with a letter from her treating physician as to her cancer patient status.
Therein resides the entire legal premise and disconnect in the Frompovich case: denial by PECO of the existence of non-thermal radiation waves adverse health effects, i.e., Electrosensitivity, EHS 1932; Microwave hearing (tinnitus) 1962; Blood-brain barrier leakage 1979; Depression, suicide 1979; Alzheimer’s disease 2009; Brain tumors, glioma, etc. 2009; Tumor production 2015, which are contrary to PECO’s expert Dr. Mark Israel’s consensus findings, and other adverse human health effects, one of which is cancer(s), as documented in world-wide research and publications which PECO and apparently the PA PUC accept as not valid science despite 32% of industry-sponsored studies found non-thermal effects. Cf. Frompovich Exhibit O; Brief pp. 31-32 (82-83)
Frompovich introduced into the hearing record Exhibit O, Cf. Complainant Exhibit No. 2 (Tr. Pp. 232 & 250) a graphic with two pie charts indicating the state of industry-sponsored versus independent, non-industry-sponsored research findings. Thirty-two percent (32%) industry-sponsored research found non-thermal adverse effects and 68% found no non-thermal effects; whereas non-industry-sponsored research found 70% non-thermal adverse health effects and 30% no non-thermal effects. One of the key criteria of fact-based science is any scientific finding that contradicts a majority of findings must be given standing. “Negative findings are a valuable component of the scientific literature because they force us to critically evaluate and validate our current thinking, and fundamentally move us towards unabridged science.”
Frompovich, furthermore, in her Brief introduced the apparent scientific mischief, conflicts of interest and probable fraud regarding EMF/RF/ELF ‘science’ as propagandized by industrial professional societies, e.g., ICNIRP, which PECO experts used as their scientific expertise and industry proof. Cf. Frompovich Brief pp. 39-45 (100-115)
Frompovich introduced into the hearing record the fact that AMI Smart Meters are not safe, and questioned why an Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certificate of compliance and safety icon is not provided with each PECO AMI Smart Meter. Cf. Brief pp. 24-27; (70 for UL reference); Transcript p. 158 (12-21)
As a result of the retrofit of PECO AMI Smart Meters, “hot sockets” can and do occur. PECO has a built-in monitoring system in its FlexNet AMI Smart Meters using microwave technology they can adjust for “alarms” and “false alarms” regarding heat buildup in smart meters, specifically to avoid sun beating down on to PECO meters causing excess heat. Special transmissions back to PECO alarm notification indicate whether a meter is heating up. On hot summer days, however, PECO ‘tweaks’ the system to adjust for ‘sunburn’ on smart meters in order to avoid “false alarms,” which actually jeopardizes the safety of PECO’s smart meters and the households to which they are attached. Hot sockets result from meter jaws being tampered with during retrofitting of PECO’s AMI Smart Meters. Furthermore, the new PECO smart meters do not have the safety features of analog meters, e.g., Bakelite (heat/fire-proof) backs and glass domes.
Current standard AMI Smart Meters contain numerous plastic parts, which are prone to overheating (thus the built-in PECO “alarm system”), especially if or when PECO sends out microwave message instructions to their meters to raise temperature monitoring levels to prevent summer heat buildup “false alarms.” Standard AMI Smart Meters are not built with surge resistors. Frompovich questioned whether surge resistors were built into PECO FlexNet meters and Mr. Pritchard (PECO employee) said they were. cf. Transcript p. 157 (3) However, if PECO’s FlexNet AMI Smart Meters are not built with surge resistors (is that the reason for PECO’s FlexNet meters’ “alarm system”), then that is/becomes a functionally unsafe meter, especially in view of PECO’s actions to prevent “false alarms,” as discussed above.
That PECO signal-action alone to prevent “false alarms,” plus flammable plastic meter parts, establishes PECO’s legal culpability for supplying unsafe and unreliable utility service, something violating the PA PUC Mission statement: “The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission balances the needs of consumers and utilities; ensures safe and reliable utility service at reasonable rates; protects the public interest…” by retrofitting new unsafe plastic-parts AMI Smart Meters on to customers’ homes. The PA PUC should mandate safe, non-plastic-parts meters for all utility customers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with Underwriters Laboratories certification certificates or icons attached, or PA PUC is not doing their administrative due diligence, Frompovich contends.
PECO states its FlexNet AMI Smart Meters do not operate on a mesh network. Cf. Transcript
Frompovich respectfully disagrees and challenges PECO’s semantical premise asserting a non-mesh network. A mesh network has two decentralized connection arrangements, i.e., full mesh topology and partial mesh topology [the way in which constituent parts are arranged, integrated and/or operate].
Frompovich introduces as Respondent Exhibit No. 4, Page 8, “PECO’s Multi-Tiered Smart Grid Network” diagram from Glenn Pritchard’s presentation before the IEEE cf. Transcript p. 127 (3-7) titled “PECO delivers a Reliable and Resilient Smart Grid” wherein several complex networks called “communication tiers” are described: Tier 1, the 375 miles of fiber optic communications; Tier 2, the WiMAX wireless communication network; Tier 3, the low bandwith network; and Tier 4, HAN the in-home communications network. WiMAX is a 3.5 gigahertz communication. Cf. Transcript Pg. 148 (17-19)
Note: one gigahertz equals one billion or 1^9 cycles per second. Megahertz equals one million cycles per second. Hertz denotes cycles per second.
Based upon PECO employee Mr. Pritchard’s Page 8 chart discussed above, PECO’s FlexNet AMI Smart Meters operate on a partial mesh topology. If the ZigBee radio cf. Transcript 132 (19-24) is 2.4 gigahertz frequency cf. Transcript p. 135 (10-12) and the WiMAX is a 3.5 gigahertz communication network, something is totally disproportionate regarding the figures PECO states relating to EMF safety of FlexNet meters, Frompovich contends. Consumers are forcefully subjected to 3.5 GHz and an added 2.4 GHz without their knowledge or consent with unknown side effects, which basically is an experiment on the human organism. Only part of the PECO FlexNet meter communication tier transmits at 901-901.1 megahertz—probably Tier 3.
Mr. Pritchard apparently misrepresented or misstated the power of the ZigBee radio on Page 163 (23-24) when he said, “That would be the purpose of the low power ZigBee radio itself.” The ZigBee, according to Mr. Pritchard at Pg. 134 (17), “…would be putting out a message every 30 seconds,” not only ten times a day, as PECO expert Glenn Pritchard previously testified, “On average most meters transmit less than ten times a day with the FlexNet radio.” Cf. Transcript Pg. 133 ((15-17) That indicates yet another misrepresentation of the facts by PECO regarding its AMI Smart Meter(s) made during the Frompovich hearing and which this Honorable Court needs to make note of and factor into its decision-making processes.
Furthermore, Mr. Pritchard in answering His Honor Judge Pell’s questioning stated, “It could be once every five minutes to once every hour or maybe once a day depending on what the device – whether it would be a smart thermostat, a dishwasher as you mentioned or maybe an in-home display device.” Cf. Transcript Pg. 169 (1-5)
Judge Pell then remarked, “I understand you to say that, if it doesn’t connect with anything, it pulses every 30 seconds?” PECO employee and expert Pritchard states, “It continues to seek that, yes.” Whereas, His Honor Judge Pell then asks, “Indefinitely or will it decide, okay, I’m not finding anything, stop? Can that be adjusted?” Mr. Pritchard replied, “No.” Judge Pell queries further, “No. Does it have to be that way?” Mr. Pritchard replied, “We have no options with that.” Cf. Transcript Pg. 169 (1-17)
Frompovich respectfully points out to this Honorable Court the grossly contradictory PECO expert’s sworn testimony regarding ZigBee radios transmission/communications from and by PECO AMI FlexNet Smart Meters.
2.4 gigahertz frequency is the power at which Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) operates. The WiMAX, then, at 3.5 gigahertz is a more powerful Wi-Fi—a network more vulnerable to hack attack than wired connections. The ‘low’ Mr. Pritchard refers to apparently is the lower end of the billion cycle transmission range. Frompovich contends obfuscation on the part of PECO experts inadvertently confusing this Honorable Court while establishing a public record and, hopefully, case law to cite later.
His Honor Judge Pell asks some probing questions regarding ZigBee at Transcript pages 168 to 170, which ought to be revisited by this Honorable Court, in view of the above information about PECO’s Multi-Tiered Smart Grid Network. [Note to readers: You can see the PECO Grid Network in color on page 8 at this link http://sites.ieee.org/isgt2014/files/2014/03/Day2_Panel1C_Pritchard.pdf ]
Christopher Davis, Ph.D., at Transcript Pg. 195 (16-20) states: “In the middle of that region, part of the radiofrequency spectrum is quite often referred as microwaves, and that covers part of the radiation that’s not at the low end of radiofrequencies but it’s not at the very high end of radiofrequencies either.”
At (21-25) Dr. Davis is asked, “And smart meters would fit where on Exhibit CD1?” Dr. Davis answered, “Well, smart meters, for example the PECO AMI meters, they actually have two places on this chart. They emit near 900 megahertz and they also emit near 2,400 megahertz. So they’re in the RF part of the spectrum.” Dr. Davis’s remark confirms PECO’s FlexNet AMI Smart Meters are in the radiofrequency (“RF”) part of the spectrum.
At Pg. 196 (1-2) Dr. Davis is asked, “Is that in the same vicinity as cell phones?” Dr. Davis answers, “Very similar to the range used by cell phones.”
The National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a preliminary report May 27, 2016 on “some important study findings” http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/23/055699 which, in part, stated:
“This report presents partial findings from these studies. The occurrences of two tumor types in male Harlan Sprague Dawley rats exposed to RFR, malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas of the heart, were considered of particular interest and are the subject of this report.”
Note both of the above findings indicate carcinomas (cancers).
The argument Dr. Christopher Davis, Ph.D., gave that PECO’s smart meter emits less radiation than everyday life, is illogical. He is neither a physician nor a natural healing expert. Radiation is cumulative and impedes natural healing, in Frompovich’s expert opinion, based upon her research and review of the scientific literature. Therefore, smart meters add to the radiation present in everyday life and, therefore, increase the total amount of radiation to which Frompovich would be or is exposed. Arguing that radiation does not contribute to cancers of all types is sadly reminiscent of the argument that smoking does not cause cancer either. The extra smart meter EMF radiation becomes an added burden upon already overstressed everyday life.
However, another report coming out of the Ramazzini Institute of Bologna, Italy, during the Forum held in Jerusalem, Israel, in late January 2017, states the Institute’s “Rethinking the classification on the carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields” RFR study will be published by the end of 2017 regarding the waves emitted from the cell phone antenna and the cell phone itself using guinea pigs as the laboratory rats, with findings that parallel similar findings of the NTP’s 2016 preliminary study report.
Regarding the lack of a preponderance of evidence concerning Frompovich’s health status and not producing medical records, etc. as frequently stated in the PECO Brief, Frompovich did not need to produce a preponderance of evidence since such activity would conflict with the HIPPA Act’s Privacy Rule in Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191. However, Frompovich provided PECO with an authentic letter from her managing physician as to the status of her condition as a breast cancer patient/survivor, which should be more than satisfactory in view of not violating HIPPA’s requirements considering the Frompovich case is in the public record and published online. Frompovich further contends her right to redress is abrogated by the actions of PA House Consumer Affairs Chairman Robert Godshall’s actions not calling for a vote several Opt-out bills Pennsylvania legislators introduced to fix the PA PUC’s administrative overreach mandating AMI Smart Meters, cf. Frompovich Brief IV. Summary of the Argument With Statement of Facts Pg. 10 (22) when the PA Legislature originally passed a non-mandatory smart meter bill, HB2200, as published of public record.
Furthermore, this Honorable Court and the PA PUC should censure Representative Robert Godshall, plus demand Godshall recuse himself from his position as Committee Chair regarding Smart Meter Opt-out bills in the House Consumer Affairs Committee since Godshall’s son, Grey, is an employee of PECO/Exelon (originally reported at http://www.linkedin.com/pub/grey-godshall/33/ba7/58 but that LinkedIn site is no longer available), as there is an apparent conflict of interest involved. Here’s what was on Grey Godshall’s LinkedIn site:
Frompovich introduces as Respondent Brief Exhibit No. 2, the March 20, 2015 letter she received from Robert W. Godshall, State Representative, stating “I am not going to continue a dialog on the issue as you have your preconceived opinions on the issue and I have mine based on the evidence I have,” which indicates Godshall’s “preconceived opinions” and intent to deprive Frompovich of her right to redress government officials, especially a state legislator whose son is an employee of Exelon, the parent company of PECO, and who adamantly refuses to call Opt-out bills for a vote, leaving them to become sine die for four years.
PECO states at 47 (Pg. 8) in its Brief, “The FlexNet communication module, which communicates from the AMI meter to the Tower Gateway Basestation [is that part of a network], operates at a licensed frequency of 901.1 MHz. In its service territory, PECO is the sole user of its licensed spectrum.” Shouldn’t that radio frequency license number be exhibited on PECO’s FlexNet AMI Smart Meter along with the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certification PECO states it has obtained? Without such public documentation, Frompovich, all PECO customers and even this Honorable Court should be questioning whether that is fact or fiction, since there is no legitimate proof on PECO’s meters to substantiate their claims. Where is compliance with “truth in advertising”?
Frompovich invokes her Constitutional right(s) regarding PECO’s Brief statement at Pg. 16, lines 7-8: “It is axiomatic in all Commission formal complaint proceeding that the Complainant has the burden of proof” since she is being singled out specifically 1) because of her breast cancer and PECO/PA PUC wanting to make this a “seminal case” regarding cancers and EMF/RF/ELF/ Smart Meters; and 2) she has provided more than a preponderance of evidence that it is not she who is breaking the law (Act 129) but PECO and the PA PUC who are in violation of Act 129/SB2200 as published in the public record along with U.S. Public Law 109-58 (Aug. 8, 2005) the Energy Policy Act of 2005, specifically Sec. 1252. Smart Metering, which does not mandate smart meters. Therefore, Frompovich has no burden of proof regarding her breast cancer patient/survivor status, medical records, etc., as she is not violating Act 129.
Furthermore, Frompovich contends she is being harassed regarding having had breast cancer to the point where PECO wants to make a public spectacle of her health issues for their gains and benefits. She alleges discrimination on the part of PECO.
Furthermore, PECO expert Dr. Mark Israel “…concluded that there is no basis to consider that radiofrequency fields could affect the immune system. Tr. 269-70.” Cf. Brief Pg. 33.
In July 1991, J. Walleczek, Research Medicine and Radiation Biophysics Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, published “Electromagnetic field effects on cells of the immune system: the role of calcium signaling,” a 47-page paper, of which Frompovich submits the PubMed Abstract as Respondent’s Exhibit No. 3. Contrary to Dr. Israel’s statement, there is scientific basis regarding EMF fields effects on the immune system. Immune system effects studies include Boscolo et al. 2001; Novoselova et al. 1999.
PECO stipulates at Brief Pp. 37-39 that various states utilities commissions find “…the use of such meters is reasonable.” Note the word “safe” is not used, but the term “reasonable.” However, PECO omitted very important and most significant facts regarding each of the states mentioned, to wit:
California has OPT-OUT from AMI Smart Meters provisions
Florida has OPT-OUT from AMI Smart Meters provisions
Maine has OPT-OUT from AMI Smart Meters provisions
Massachusetts has OPT-OUT from AMI Smart Meters provisions
Michigan has OPT-OUT from AMI Smart Meters provisions
Nevada has OPT-OUT from AMI Smart Meters provisions
New Hampshire has OPT-IN required
Texas has OPT-OUT from AMI Smart Meters provisions
Vermont has OPT-OUT from AMI Smart Meters provisions
Cf. Frompovich Brief p. 4
However, PECO fails to provide additional incriminating information: the Port Angeles City Council Public Works and Utilities in Washington State ended the Smart Meter program and approved a $1.8 million settlement so that “All water and electric meters will be free of the controversial, electromagnetic Smart Meter components.” Cf. Frompovich Brief p. 4
PECO in its “Proposed Conclusions of Law” states in No. 3, Pg. 40:
“The complainant has not met her burden of proof of establishing an offense in violation of the Public Utility Code, the Commission’s regulations or an outstanding order of the Commission. 66 Pa.C.S. § 701.”
Based upon the preponderance of evidence Frompovich has provided to this Honorable Court, she is not violating Act 129 (2008).
Based upon the preponderance of evidence presented and of public record, Act 129/SB2200 as published in the public record did not mandate AMI Smart Meters.
Based upon the preponderance of evidence that the Pennsylvania State Legislature did not vote into law a mandatory smart meter bill/act, as published in the public record, the PA PUC is guilty of administrative agency overreach in creating regulations contradictory to legislation passed by the only law-making entity in the state—the State Legislature. For several years Smart Meter Opt-out bills have been introduced by PA legislators only to be maneuvered to sine die by apparent conflicts of interest from Consumer Affairs Committee Robert W. Godshall, whose son Grey is a PECO/Exelon employee.
Therefore, according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America, Frompovich should not be made to accept an uncertified as ‘safe” PECO FlexNet AMI Smart Meter, nor have her electric service terminated because Frompovich is not in violation of Act 129/SB2200.
Furthermore, the PA PUC must correct its egregious lawmaking overreach protocol, which the PA Legislature has tried to correct by introducing numerous Opt-out bills only to be hindered from becoming law by the actions of one specific person, House Consumer Affairs Committee Chairman Robert W. Godshall, who should be censured and mandated to recuse himself immediately, considering a conflict of interest exists within Godshall’s family since his son Grey works for Exelon, parent company of PECO.
Now, here’s that part of the Respondent Brief where I have to tell the Court what I think it should do regarding my case.
CONCLUSION AND PROPOSED ORDERING PARAGRAPHS
Whereas, Frompovich comes before this Honorable Court seeking a decree of relief from legal and customer harassment tactics by PECO and the PA PUC regarding the mandated retrofitting of an AMI Smart Meter on to her property at 23 Cavendish Drive, Ambler, Pennsylvania.
That Frompovich is not in violation of Act 129 with no termination of electric power service to her home as she has provided a preponderance of evidence that Act 129/HB2200 is illegally enforced due to the administrative overreach of the PA PUC which, therefore, makes the act as implemented and administered by the PA PUC not enforceable.
Whereas, Frompovich seeks her U.S. Constitution and Pennsylvania Constitution rights to remain intact; enforced; not violated; nor impinged upon by PECO and/or the PA PUC.
Whereas the ADAAA requires, Frompovich should at minimum be reasonably accommodated, and not forced to have a smart meter, which may kill her or adversely affect her health, as so many other cases before this Honorable Court have claimed but have been overruled.
Furthermore, Frompovich’s electricity (as an older American in winter cold and summer heat and humidity) should not be disconnected. This is a threat against Frompovich’s very life. PECO seems unaware of the consequences of their draconian demands. Reasonable accommodation on the part of PECO, including the PA PUC’s erroneous interpretation of HB2200/Act 129 (2008), are required at minimum.
Whereas, Act 129 (2008) implementation regulations generated by the PA PUC and PECO’s smart meter retrofits are at legal variance with HB2200 §2807(f)7(2) Legislative History as published of public record and enacted into law, and must be enforced retroactively for all utility customers in the Commonwealth:
(2) Electric distribution companies shall furnish smart meter technology as follows:
(i) Upon request from a customer that agrees to pay the cost of the smart meter at the time of the request.
(ii) In new building construction.
(iii) In accordance with a depreciation schedule not to exceed 15 years.
Frompovich requests this Honorable Court to instruct the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to issue immediately revised and corrected implementation rules and regulations for AMI Smart Meters for electric, natural gas and water utilities customer services to reflect the non-mandatory status of smart meters the Pennsylvania State Legislature intended, enacted and was published of public record in the Pennsylvania House and Senate Journals, and further issue automatic opt-outs with no special service fees, as Pennsylvania consumers have suffered greatly due to misinformation and faulty implementation rules and regulations, including utility company harassment in some cases, as various Complainants had and still have pending cases before the PA PUC and this Honorable Court.
It is well established under federal and state law that administrative agencies are creatures of statute and may not establish regulations outside the boundaries established by the legislature. 
PA State Senator Fumo is on record in PA Senate Journal October 8, 2008 (pp. 2626-2631) stating, “In addition we did not mandate smart meters, but we made them optional.” Therefore, the PA PUC, PECO and all public utilities in Pennsylvania by law must adhere to and abide by the optional smart meter mandate enacted by the Pennsylvania State Legislature, as only the Pennsylvania State Legislature can make law, not the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, a state administrative agency.
Whereas, a preponderance of evidence exists that the PA PUC overreached its administrative powers when formulating implementation regulations for HB2200/Act 129 (2008) thereby causing much physical, emotional, mental and health harms to utility customers who are sensitive to EMF/RF/ELF electronic pollution and or persons with health issues which can be impacted by EMF/RF/ELF non-thermal radiation waves.
Whereas, Frompovich believes she is denied her constitutional right to include relevant published medical-scientific studies regarding 15 human breast cancer studies (1986 to 2005) and other cancers citing EMF/RF/ELF exposures in a compendium of almost 240 studies she tried introducing as Exhibit A-3 but was overruled. That has to be corrected and those studies should be permitted into the record.
Whereas, PECO medical expert Dr. Mark Israel, MD, admitted the science is not certain, therefore, theoretical, prejudices Frompovich’s constitutional rights to a fair hearing before this Honorable Court cf. Transcript Pg. 290 (22-25).
“Number two, non-thermal health effects have been widely studied but are still theoretical and have not been recognized by experts as a basis for changing regulatory exposure limits.”
Whereas, Frompovich’s Exhibit of published cancer studies, which counter Dr. Israel’s medical opinion, should have been admissible evidence because they were relevant to Frompovich’s main case, however, Frompovich contends those studies now should be made a part of this record.
Whereas, PECO expert Dr. Israel’s testimony stating the science is uncertain, i.e., “theoretical,” (e.g., speculative, hypothetical, uncertain) cannot be accepted by this Honorable Court as factual, as that action prejudices Frompovich before this Honorable Court and can make Frompovich the subject of an experiment without her consent, something prohibited by the Nuremberg Code and it also denies Frompovich of her U.S. Constitutional and Pennsylvania Constitutional rights as set forth in her Brief. Cf. Pp. 4, 12, 14, 17, 19
PECO has no right, nor authority, to make personal decisions for Frompovich, especially regarding her status as a breast cancer survivor wanting to protect her health from further onslaughts that can and will compromise her immune system and general wellbeing. PECO proffers in its Brief Pg. 36, IV. “State public utility commissions that have examined whether AMI meters cause or contribute to health effects have concluded that AMI meters are safe and that their use is reasonable.” Cf. this Brief Pg. 19 (56) referring to PECO’s Brief various states utilities commissions find “…the use of such meters is reasonable.” Nothing is said about “safe.”
However, PECO’s opinionated legalese proffers ‘safe’ and inserts that word. The very fact that PECO’s FlexNet AMI Smart Meter does not have the Underwriters Laboratories icon prominently displayed anywhere on its display or housing indicates ‘safety’ is dubious and, therefore, not proven. Consequently, PECO cannot make nor offer spurious decisions regarding Frompovich’s mandated acceptance of an unsafe AMI Smart Meter to or by this Honorable Court and/or the PA PUC, which essentially is in violation of Act 129 as published of public record and enacted by the PA Legislature, the only law-making entity in the Commonwealth.
There is the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in Article 3 states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
Article 8: “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”
Article 19: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” That right, Frompovich contends, was denied her in presenting published peer review studies regarding EMF/RF/ELF and breast and other cancer(s) by PECO’s incessant objections to her Exhibits.
Article 30 “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”
Catherine J Frompovich, Pro Se
Pro Se means I did not have a lawyer representing me; I represented myself before the Court.
As you can see from my Argument, Conclusion and Ordering Paragraphs there’s a lot that’s not legally correct regarding AMI Smart Meters in Pennsylvania and utility customers have had the “wool pulled over our eyes” by utility companies harassment techniques, which has to stop, as many people are suffering from and with electromagnetic hypersensitivity and other health issues since AMI Smart Meters were retrofitted on to their utility meters. Some customers have three: electric, natural gas and water!
Shortly after PECO started retrofitting AMI SMs, numerous meters exploded and/or caught fire damaging homes, which homeowners’ insurance policies did not and don’t cover! Did you know that? However, to PECO’s credit, they suspended the retrofit program while they sought different supposedly ‘safe’ replacement meters. PECO replaced between 180,000 and 200,000 AMI SMs.
Pennsylvania is rather unique insofar as utility customers are not permitted to have an Opt-out from AMI SMs, which is not necessary, since the original HB2200 bill was signed into law as Act 129 (2008) as “NOT mandatory,” and basically it is an “Opt-IN” law; see HB2200 §2807(f)7(2)(i).
However, since the PA PUC changed HB2200/Act 129 law during their implementation writing process, that administrative agency overreach, which is a legal No-No!, has to be corrected. PA legislators have tried to do that by introducing Opt-out bills over four years, only to have them scuttled by the deliberate maneuverings of PA House Consumer Affairs Committee Chairman Robert Godshall, whose son Grey works for Exelon, PECO’s parent company. Are there any conflicts of interest there?
Pennsylvanians ought to march on Harrisburg to demand what the PA legislature passed into law regarding AMI Smart Meters—not mandatory, and not be forced to accept what the PA PUC thought, “believed” or rewrote as implementation regulations. The PUC’s implementation regulations have caused health harms to numerous utility customers and family members, so the Commonwealth must be made accountable for the untenable wrong committed by one of its administrative agencies.
 HB2200 §2807(f)7(2)(i)
 The Legal Intelligencer http://www.cohenseglias.com/library/files/the_legal_intel_-_evaluating,_challenging_regulatory_overreach_-_c._caursone_-_4.20.2016.pdf