That is where this account breaks down. If the article was meant to be persuasive, this is where the writer should have done that.

The writer of this article should have described the “administrative process” that the woman went through. In detail. If the writer’s goal was to generate support for the Mancini woman. 

My reaction to this omission is automatically against the woman and in favor of the power company. Because this looks for all the world like an attempt to hide the power company’s numerous offers to settle things amicably, which they undoubtedly made. It’s a co-op, for Heaven’s sake!

This strikes me as a feeble attempt to vilify this co-op, of which the Mancini woman is both a member and a customer. That’s how power co-ops are organized. The article–as written–is just not persuasive.

I’ve been a member and customer of two power co-ops myself, and what the article describes is just not how co-ops function.

The Mancini woman might at the very least have a valid complaint of some kind, but the writer of this article did her case no good at all.

Dear Commission Secretary,

I work in Sandpoint in buildings with Avista’s Itron meters (also known as Smart Meters). I am posting this comment because I am most concerned about the IPUC DENYING AN OPT-OUT PROGRAM due to their reasoning that these Smart Meters are basically consistent with industry standards and the standards of other wireless devices. Just because another product is available for the public, does not necessitate that Itron Smart Meters are TRULY SAFE. The IPUC is playing with words here.

I am not finding the IPUC mentioning any specific data that has been acquired by non-industry, highly qualified, third parties that state that Avista’s meters are “safe.” Why isn’t the IPUC stating that Avista’s Itron meters are SAFE, and that all the electrical and wireless components involved with these Itron meters are truly NOT biologically interfering with a human’s health and safety?

By law, the UPUC is responsible to regulate utilities to ensure public safety. Please review the dictionary’s definition of SAFETY: the condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger, risk, or injury.

The IPUC might want to take note of the former CPUC President Michael Peevey’s email that he sent to Brian K. Cherry of PG&E. Michael Peevey wrote, “One thought for the company: If it were my decision I would let anyone who wants to keep their old meter keep it, if they claim they suffer from EMF and/or related electronic-related illnesses….I would institute such a policy quietly and solely on an individual basis. There really are people who feel pain, etc., related to EMF,etc., and rather than have them becoming hysterical, etc., I would quietly leave them alone. Kick it around. . . .”

This email first states that people’s health are at risk, and that there is INJURY (pain) – mentally, emotionally, and physically. Second, does this email sound like Mr. Peevey is deferring his lawful responsibility to PG&E, the very industry that he and his commissioners and staff are to regulate?

Last year posted on the web: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-sanonofre-criminal-20170202-story.html
Criminal probe of utilities commission may get new life. February 2, 2017

This article states, “A PG&E natural gas pipeline exploded in 2010, killing eight people and destroying an entire neighborhood in San Bruno. The Northern California city sued the utility for access to emails and other records related to the accident.”

Note: It is from these investigations I was able to acquire Peevey’s email which I just shared above.

Also in this article: “Two months later, investigators convinced a judge they needed to search the Los Angeles area home of Michael Peevey, the longtime commission president who had decided in late 2014 not to seek reappointment as the state’s top utility regulator. . . .The Attorney General’s Office sought and received at least six warrants related to possible corruption at the utilities commission. For each, a judge decided there was probable cause to believe felonies had been committed.”

I am sharing this above information with you because there have been public utility commissioners in the past who have ignored their responsibilities to the very people they are to PROTECT!

Does the IPUC stand for individual rights and the safety and comfort of individuals living in Idaho, or does the IPUC disregard individual rights and strictly adhere to the policies of the Department of Energy and the demands of industry?

As Secretary, many of the comments you are receiving from case number (AVU-E-17-11) are from good citizens who are repeatedly stating that Avista’s Itron Meters are NOT SAFE for them. People’s health, sanity, and livelihoods are at stake here. Therefore, deny the government’s policies and industries’ standards, and make public, even though Michael Peevey wanted PG&E to make it private, and form an “OPT-OUT” program to allow Idahoans to have analog meters on their homes, apartments, and buildings, especially if they claim that they suffer from EMF and/or related electronic-related illnesses….

Your attention to my words is most appreciated, and your ability to help us who want an analog meter on our buildings so that WE MAY TRULY BE SAFE is even more appreciated.