Good job. Thanks for writing this. The Sacramento Bee article accurately presented the issue from my point of view.

Next up is that I will meet with the SMUD attorney to “meet and confer” as required by the California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 before SMUD files its demurrer.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&division=&title=6.&part=2.&chapter=3.&article=1.

Here is a sneak preview. SMUD’s attorney wrote, in part: “2. Under Cal. Gov. Code § 818.2, SMUD has statutory immunity from damages arising from the adoption of enactments, such as the resolutions underlying the smart meter program.”

However the Government Code’s definition of “enactment” does not include resolutions passed by the board of directors. The Government Code, section 810.6 says: “‘Enactment’ means a constitutional provision, statute, charter provision, ordinance or regulation.”

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=3.6.&title=1.&part=1.&chapter=&article=

Occasionally SMUD passes ordinances, such as Ordinance 15-1 passed last year to change the way they handle the hearing prior to a rate increase. However all of the policy documents I challenged in my lawsuit are resolutions: Res 07-08-10 and Attachment E, Res 12-03-09 and its attachment, and Res 13-03-08.

Thanks again for all your support. To all those who are opposing smart meters, keep up the great work.

Mark