Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The NV PUC Commissioners Alaina Burtenshaw, Rebecca Wagner and David Wagner appear to be on the path to nonfeasance and or malfeasance complaints filed by ratepayers.

Since they opened a Docket regarding smart meters in October 2011, Docket Number 11-10007, they have heard and read complaints about 4th Amendment violations.

Retired USAF Col., Robert Frank, has submitted numerous written comments and has personally appeared before the Commission notifying them of this concern. [1,2].

Chairwoman Burtenshaw and another Commissioner at the October 11, 2012, consumer session were informed about problems with the smart meters that they approved. Specifically, that another utility company, PECO, found Sensus meters to be problematic. [3]

Because information discussed at a consumer session is not acted upon, a formal comment was submitted to an open docket to incorporate the exhibits from the consumer session, as the exhibits were highly relevant to the current docket. [4]

Burtenshaw was caught on videotape taking notes while being notified about the meters being replaced in Pennsylvania. [5] If she was taking notes, then she obviously 'learned' about the issue, does she believe that she can ignore what she felt warranted note taking? Will she try to feign plausible deniability, that since the exhibits were not entered into the current docket, she was not required to take them into consideration?

They have been notified about this issue.They have also received industry reports and other documentation showing there is a problem with the meters they approved in 2010. The same company they listened to on December 6, 2011, stated the meters were safe. Then, less than one year later, they found the same Sensus meters to be a problem.

Are these Commissioners going to take into account what they heard and read, or are they going to ignore the facts because the information was disclosed in a consumer session?

They knew there was no federal ruling on the constitutionality of the smart meters and the 4th Amendment, as referenced in Congressional Research Service CRS Report for Congress- Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress "Smart Meter Data: Privacy and Cybersecurity" [6]

Will they actually listen to consumers on November 27, 2012, or will it be like previous hearings where they merely placated consumers by giving them time to speak but never really considered their input?

If they do not allow the ratepayers the option to keep their analogs and protect their rights under the 4th Amendment, they should be charged with nonfeasance, or possibly even malfeasance, as they failed to act in line with the facts provided and in accordance with their duty to act in good faith when they issued their final ruling on this matter.

References

1. http://www.pucwatchdogs.com/BobFrankConSession.MPG

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f72RCWjwNQ&feature=colike

3. http://www.pucwatchdogs.com/COnSessionexhibits.pdf

4. http://www.pucwatchdogs.com/PUCreccombo.pdf

5. http://www.pucwatchdogs.com/AD1stConSession.MPG

6. www.pucwatchdogs.com/congressreport.pdf