Thompson – On Wednesday of last week, Mrs. George Stoddard, who lives alone on the corner of Main Street, was terribly burned and died as the result of her injuries the next day.  Earl Jenkins, the Borden milk carrier, was on his way to care for his horses when he discovered a fire and upon entering the house found Mrs. Stoddard unconscious on the floor.  She was taken to Mr. McNamara’s and everything possible done for her until the end came.  It is supposed the fire was caused by the explosion of a lamp, but nothing definite is known. ALSO The Thompson regulars challenge the Starrucca regulars to a series of 5 games of basket ball for a side bet of $100.00.

Montrose – Miss Rose Horton, daughter of Calvin Horton of Lathrop street, is on her way to the heart of Africa, where she will serve as a missionary to the natives, under the direction of the Africa Inland Missionary Society.  It will require a period of six weeks to make the long journey.

ALSO J. Wesley Gavitt, having finished the fall term at the Ithaca Conservatory of Music, is now at the home of his parents, Mr. & Mrs. Fred Gavitt, of Bridgewater.  Mr. Gavitt speaks very highly of the conservatory and is contemplating continuing a full course in music next year. He will teach anyone desiring instruction on the violin.

Lanesboro – The application of Earl Hendrickson for a retail liquor license was refused Monday morning by Judge H. A. Denney.  This, as in all other licenses that were not granted, were refused on the charge of violations.  The charges in the Lanesboro case were sales on credit and selling to persons of intemperate habits.

Little Meadows – Kathryn Hickey has returned to Binghamton to work in the shoe factory.

Union Hill – F. D. Bennett, an aged resident of this place, was found dead in his home last Saturday by neighbors.  He had left a note stating that on account of his advanced age and being no longer able to care for himself, he had taken strychnine to end it all. He also gave directions for his burial.  Mr. Bennett was 71 years old and unmarried.  For several years he had lived alone, making his living by hunting, trapping and doing odd jobs for his neighbors. 

Dimock – Jesse Kitchen, a veteran of the Civil War, died at his home, January 12, 1917, and was buried in the Dimock cemetery.  He was nearly 79 years old. ALSO The old school house where the young boys and girls were tutored and where they enjoyed riding down hill on the meadow of W. L. Stillwill, is now vacated.

Jackson – The Jackson Band has re-organized and will furnish music for skating in the I. O. O. F. Hall.  ALSO  The Northeastern Telephone Co. has purchased the Chas. Wakefield house and will use it for the Jackson Exchange.  ALSO The annual meeting of the Jackson Library Association was held at the Central Hotel last Tuesday evening.

Susquehanna – Born to District Attorney and Mrs. John Ferguson, on Monday, Jan. 15, 1917, a daughter, Mary Elizabeth. ALSO A sacred concert was given by the Erie band, at Hogan’s opera house. This is the second concert of the kind to be given and was largely attended.

Forest Lake – A sleigh load party from here attended the box social and dance at the Turnpike School, of Apalachin, taught by Miss Genevieve McManus.  Those in the load were the following: Misses Rose Whalen, Jennie Kelly, Catherine Donlin, Irene Quinlivan, Marie Curley, Francis Quinlivan, Messrs. Will, John and Paul Quinlivan and Joe Kelly.  All reported a fine time.

Hickory Grove, Great Bend Twp. – Miss Fordice Dixon, age 12, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. J. Ford Dixon, was quite seriously injured last week.  The young lady, with a number of companions, was riding down hill on the creek road when they observed a team coming up the hill.  Miss Dixon turned her sled into the ditch to avoid a collision, and in doing so was thrown to the ground, striking her head and face on the ice, badly cutting and bruising her.

Herrick Center – Acetylene lights are soon to be installed in the M. E. Church.

Forest City – The borough solicitor will, this week, enter liens against Main street property owners who have not paid their paving assessment.  The ordinance provided that payment could be made in 5 annual installments, liens being entered to protect the bonds on installments unpaid.

Franklin Twp. – W. J. Sisson is the youngest old man in this section.  He was 92 years old last October.  Last fall he took out a hunting license and in five trips out bagged two foxes and two rabbits.  Many men at 80 look far older than Mr. Sisson.

Silver Lake – Henry W. Hill has been afflicted with rheumatism for the past year and it has cost him some pangs to be compelled to lay aside his violin, of which he is very fond, but he can use the fife just as good as in the days of the old Silver Lake drum corps, of which he was an enthusiastic member.

Harford – People here speak in praise of the untiring efforts made during and following last week’s fire by Miss Julia Moore, operator in the Northeastern telephone exchange.  Miss Moore gave the alarm to all the surrounding towns and cities, being indefatigable in her efforts to get physicians and aid for the unfortunate victims, doing much to relieve their sufferings speedily. We have become accustomed to the capable, courteous exchange operator and many times demand of her time, energy and patience as a matter of course and it is invariably given willingly and cheerfully.

200 Years Ago from the Centinel, Montrose, Pa., January 25, 1817.

*Almon H. Read, Esq., has been appointed by Amos Ellmaker, Esq., Attorney General of this State, Prosecuting Attorney for this County, vice Charles Catlin, Esq., removed.

*The progress of the Post Office Department shows with what rapid strides the United States are augmenting their territory and population.  In 1793 the Post Offices in number were 195; in 1801, they were 957, and in 1816 they are 3620.  The mail is transported, in every day of the year, more than 20,000 miles.

*New Milk and lye from hickory ashes, of equal quantities, is said to be an infallible remedy for the hooping [whooping] cough.  To a child 7 or 8 years old, give a table spoonful every hour thro’ the day—and in this proportion according to the age of the child.

Last week, we discussed the recent Superior Court case of Commonwealth v. Lambert, where the defendant had violated a protective order by posting items of his social media page.  The protective order had prohibited the defendant from referencing or commenting upon the victim on any social media platform, but the defendant proceeded to make a variety of posts commenting upon his lost love, lamenting his mistreatment, decrying the injustice of his circumstances, and insulting the justice system.  The defendant was charged and convicted of violating the protective order, he was sentenced to a period of incarceration of 30 days followed by a probationary period of 5 months, and he filed an appeal.

On appeal, the defendant asserted a First Amendment argument contending that his right to free speech was violated by the provision in the protective order that prohibited him from commenting upon the victim on his personal social media page.  The defendant contended that the protective order impermissibly limited the content of his speech, that there was no government justification for prohibiting him from making comments about the victim on his personal social media page, that the government was impermissibly attempting to place a prior-restraint upon his speech before they even knew what he was going to say, and that the protective order was too vague and overbroad.

In response, the Superior Court rejected each of these arguments.  As to the suggestion that the protective order impermissibly restrain the “content” of the defendant’s speech, it only prohibited him from making remarks directed at the victim.  In other words, the Superior Court noted “the proscription is not concerned with the content of [defendant’s] speech but with, instead, the target of his speech, namely . . . the victim of his abusive conduct.”  Because the use of electronic media in today’s world would likely result in the victim learning of whatever is posted, the Court found that this had nothing to do with speech itself, but with the larger prohibition that a defendant refrain from having any “contact” with an abuse victim.

The Court noted the strong government interest behind protective orders – the need to assure that a victim is free from contact between herself (or himself) and the abuser.  Thus, the Court stated: “For an adjudged abuser to refer to a victim in publicly trafficked electronic forums, for whatever reason, is to exercise control over the victim in public, thus perpetuating the abuse of the victim.  Whether the remark is patently innocuous or offensive, informational or nonsensical is of no moment under the order as written, it is the mere reference to the victim, alone, that triggers the proscription.”

Thus, the Superior Court found that there was no First Amendment violation.  While the defendant’s speech was curtailed to some degree, the Superior Court found that the trial court had narrowly-tailored its prohibition to relate solely to communication on electronic social media as opposed to private conversations, private emails, letters or correspondences wherein the defendant might mention the victim to family and friends without the prospect of the victim learning it.  The Superior Court also found that this speech prohibition “advanced the important government interest at stake, i.e., the cessation of abuse in intimate or formerly intimate relationship.”  For these reasons, the Superior Court rejected the defendant’s First Amendment challenge and his conviction was sustained.

Social media has certainly changed the nature of communications in America – and the technology continues to advance at an astonishing rate.  The courts are left with the challenge in crafting protective orders that are designed in a manner that protects abuse victims from abusers but also assures that the First Amendment rights of the abusers are likewise preserved.

“It is the life of the crystal, the architect of the flake, the fire of the frost, the soul of the sunbeam. This crisp winter air is full of it.” ~John Burroughs, "Winter Sunshine"

Many of you probably received or have already been using some sort of tablet/e-reader. Were you aware that you can borrow eBooks or Audiobooks from your local library location? Well, it is true! Thanks to the new “OverDrive”, which is a completely refreshed website and app experience that makes your digital library faster and easier to use than ever before, you are able to enjoy such classics as “Great Expectations” by Charles Dickens, “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” by Mark Twain, or Louisa May Alcott’s “Little Women”, as well as recent works by such authors as Paula Hawkins, Lee Child, Susan Wiggs, Harlen Coben, Sue Grafton, Lisa Scottoline and many, many more. Please go to the Susquehanna County Library’s website, www.susqcolibrary.org  and click on “Borrow eBooks and Audiobooks” on the homepage. It will answer many questions you may have about accessing and using the OverDrive program. We're currently updating all OverDrive libraries to the new OverDrive for your convenience. As always, if you need help, the staff members at any of the library locations will be more than happy to assist you.

There is news for those Joanne Fluke/Hannah-ites in our audience. The newest Hannah Swensen Mystery, “Banana Cream Pie Murder” will be released in late February, 2017. Our favorite cookie baker/sleuth Hannah will once again don her criminal detector cap and discover the bad guys (or gals). Author Fluke includes mouth-watering recipes you’ll want to try. A piece of exciting news, this will not be the last Hannah Swensen Murder Mystery, as “The Raspberry Danish Mystery” is being written as you read this, with a tentative release date of February, 2018. Also, if you have enjoyed the “Murder, She Baked” movies on the Hallmark “HMM” channel, be watching for another one this year that will be following Joanne’s “Strawberry Shortcake Murder”, which was the second book in the Hannah series. The movie will again star Alison Sweeney and Cameron Mathison as Hannah and Police Detective Mike, one of Hannah’s on again, off again heart throbs.

The Susquehanna Branch Library Reader’s Group recently met to discuss January’s selection, “Storied Life of A.J. Fikry: A Novel” by Gabrielle Zseum. A.J. lives alone, his bookstore is experiencing the worst sales in its history, and now his prized possession, a rare collection of Edgar Allen Poe poems, has been stolen. But, when a mysterious package appears at the bookstore, its unexpected arrival gives Fikry the chance to make his life over and see everything anew.

February’s meeting will be on Thursday, February 9th, starting at 2:00 PM. The group will be discussing “The Lilac Girls” by Martha Hall Kelly. This is a tale of three women a New York Socialite, Caroline Ferriday, who has her hands full with her post at the French consulate and a new love on the horizon. But Caroline’s world is forever changed when Hitler’s army invades Poland in September 1939—and then sets its sights on France-- Kasia Kuzmerick, a Polish teenager, who senses her carefree youth disappearing as she is drawn deeper into her role as courier for the underground resistance movement—and a young German doctor, Herta Oberheuser, who, in answering an ad for a government medical position figures it may be her ticket out of a desolate life. Once hired, though, she finds herself trapped in a male-dominated realm of Nazi secrets and power. who are on a collision course as their stories cross continents as they strive to bring justice to those history has forgotten. If you would like to join the Susquehanna Branch Library reading group, please stop by or call and talk with Laura, Pam, Deb or Elizabeth, who will be more than happy to add you to the group.

As I warm up with a hot cup of tea and enjoy the flurry of bird-feeder activity, I leave you with this thought:

“We feel cold, but we don’t mind it, because we will not come to harm. And if we wrapped up against the cold, we wouldn’t feel other things, like the bright tingle of the stars, or the music of the Aurora, or best of all the silky feeling of moonlight on our skin. It’s worth being cold for that.” ~Philip Pullman, Northern Lights

Shimmering Icicles—Homemade Soup—School Delays

Enjoy!!

Will we ever beat cancer?

The pharmacist heard this from several people: Ken, the beloved town mailman, died in his sleep. He was 75. The coroner concluded that he had a stroke during the night. The pharmacist thought that if one has to leave this earth, dying in one’s sleep would be the ideal way to depart. Conversely, cancer can be one of the worst ways to go. Rounds and rounds of chemotherapy. The side effects of the drugs. The erosion of one’s quality of life. The fatigue, loss of appetite and increase in pain. Yes, people can beat cancer. Oncologists will declare a remission if the person can hang on for 5 years. Note the word “remission.” It does not mean cure.”

Cancer is simply a catchall phrase for dozens of different diseases that have the same endpoint—uncontrolled growth of tissue driven by mutated cells. Each cancer is complex and different, and even within a tissue there are distinct forms of cancer—different kinds of colon, breast, liver and brain cancers, for example, all driven by unique mutations and behaviors.

Some types of cancer might be cured—prostate, testicular, thyroid, melanoma, and breast cancer are the most “curable” with 5-year survival rates between 90% and 100%, depending on whether they are detected early into the disease. Once these cancers metastasize to other parts of the body, the survival rates plummet precipitously. Yet, new drugs for fighting cancer are rare. Over the next century, the chances are very remote that we will find a single “cure for cancer.” Instead, treatments will become more refined and targeted, informed by the science and technologies that are available so that cancer can be managed much like other diseases, such as heart disease, HIV, and diabetes.

Some cancers are difficult to eradicate because they are very good at two things: hiding and adapting. For example, when a patient undergoes a cycle of chemotherapy, often a tumor will shrink. The problem is the residual disease, in which individual cells not killed by chemo are free to roam the general circulation in search for another target, like your pancreas or brain. Through several different mechanisms, the residual disease can become resistant to the therapy. So it can lie dormant and then re-emerge—more often than not with the same properties that made it resistant to the first-round of therapy.

In many of the clinical studies that have been published, Drug A is compared with Drug B or placebo in study subjects who have a particular type of cancer. The investigators of that study will conclude that Drug A is better than Drug B or placebo because it has lengthened life by, say, 8.3 weeks. Weeks? Not years? Big deal! How close are we to making survival rates that are decades long? Will there be a cure for cancer in our lifetimes? No. It’s still going to be a long road, but there is good news for cancer patients.

Research continues to expand our knowledge about cancer. We are a long way to understanding cancer than we were 20 years ago. But with every new step, comes troubles. Research and the new drug development are incredibly expensive. Also, some patients do not have time to wait months for the required animal studies to be completed. Then there is the lengthy FDA approval process. Individual patients can consent to the use of experimental drugs, but the clinical trials needed to bring new drugs to the market takes years.

The pharmacist started to think that all you can do to minimize your chances of getting cancer is to take good care of yourself and listen to your body before things get out of hand. Then, maybe, we could all die peacefully in our sleep, like good old Ken.

Ron Gasbarro, PharmD is a registered pharmacist, medical writer, and principal at Rx-Press.com. Visit him at www.rx-press.com. 

Catherine J Frompovich is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting. In this article, originally entitled, “Conflict-of-Interest Smart Meter Politicking in Pennsylvania,” and published online at “Activist Post,” on April 14, 2015, Catherine laid out her research into how Act 129 became law and is being enforced, DESPITE the original intent of Pennsylvania's legislators. By special arrangement with the author her article is reprinted herewith.

Otto von Bismarck, the conservative Prussian statesman, who dominated German and European affairs from the 1860s until 1890 [1], supposedly is attributed with saying, “If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made.” How true, especially in the case of the shenanigans that apparently have gone on in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding House Bill 2200 that became Act 129 in 2008.

House Bill 2200 had amendments, and the Freeman Amendment in particular, is discussed in the House Journal. Were Smart Meters (SMs) really mandated or actually supposed to be voluntary, since the history of that bill, according to the House and Senate Journals, seems to indicate something totally different than what is being forced upon electric power company customers like PECO, an Exelon company.

Here’s a brief, but clear account, of the history of PA House Bill 2200 as it worked its way into becoming Act 129 of 2008.

February 11, 2008 House Journal pp. 386-403

PN 3218, p. 388

PA State Rep. Mr. Freeman addresses the Speaker:

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would require that all public utilities, electric utilities, install smart meters for residential and business customers across the Commonwealth. [….] by allowing the customer to be able to opt in – and it is optional – in to a purchasing process where they could purchase their electricity at off-peak hours, thereby saving on cost.

PN 3218, p.390

PA State Rep. Mr. Hutchinson addresses the Speaker:

Mr. Speaker, [….] The consumers of Pennsylvania are about to experience an increase in the electricity costs over the next couple of years because rate caps will be phasing out in various areas over the next 2 or 3 years, and with that, consumers are going to see their electric rated increased. [….], they will be mandated to pay for these new meters to be installed in their home whether they save on their electric costs or not.

It only makes sense to say smart meters should go to consumers who can save money by installing them. Those who can save by having a smart meter, it would make sense for them to have smart meters in their home. Mandating it across the board mandates that everybody pays whether they save or not, and that just does not make sense.

I am very concerned that we continue to ignore the consumers by making more mandates and increasing their costs, whether it is through mandating meters, through trying to have some kind of a surcharge, all these things at a time when their electric costs are going up anyways.

So although on a case-by-case basis, smart meters might be a good thing to do, making a 100-percent mandate does not make sense. So I am opposing this amendment.

PA State Rep. Mr. Godshall states:

In this case are we not taking the choice away from the consumer by saying you have to put this in service in your district rather than you may or you have a choice? Are we not saying that you must do it? We are taking that choice away from the consumer, I believe, and I would have no problem with this if we do it on a choice basis, as you used the word “choice” before. We are taking that choice away.

PN3218, p.391

PA State Rep. Mr. Freeman

Well, I would only point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are requiring the utility company to install the meter, not the customer, and it is the utility company.

PA State Rep. Mr. Godshall 

[….] What I am not in full agreement on in any way is that everyone is mandated to, whether they intend to use it or not, whether they know how to use it or not, everyone is mandated, under this legislation, to go ahead with the smart meter technology.

[….], but then if there was a question at the bottom that says you are going to be paying $300 for the installation through your utility bill for this meter and the software that goes with it, I am not sure what the answer would be.

PN3218, p.393

The Speaker says, The Chair recognizes the minority leader, Representative Smith, who says.

If we really want to encourage people to use it, I think we ought to allow them to engage it themselves as opposed to forcing them to pay for something they may not use, and that is really the difference, Mr. Speaker, in what I think is right or wrong with the amendment. While I certainly appreciate the direction it is trying to go, I think the fact that it forces the cost of the meters onto every consumer of electricity in Pennsylvania, I think that is the wrong direction to go and would ask for a vote against the amendment.

PA State Rep. Mr. Saylor says,

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to everybody, this is a mandate. This is not voluntary; it is a mandate required to use smart meters in Pennsylvania. [….], the choice is up to the consumer to use that technology and whether they want that smart meter installed on their house. The key is, should we in the General Assembly mandate something on consumers that is going to cost them more dollars in their electric bill?

This issue in particular should be a choice by consumers, not a mandate by the General Assembly onto an additional cost to electric bills in Pennsylvania. So remember, voting for this amendment, while I think it has great goals and where the gentleman wants to get to is very admirable and where we need to get to at some point in time, it still needs to be a consumer choice, not a General Assembly mandate onto consumers that is going to cost them more in their electric bills. 

PN3218, p.395

PA State Rep. Mr. Benninghoff

I guess my reservation, obviously, is do we want a statewide mandate? Do we want the government telling you that you have to have a meter put in your property? [….] I think it is important that we are smart about our energy use, but I also think we have to think about what government’s role is in mandating such a thing.

PN3218, p.397

PA State Rep. Mr. Gabig 

The problem I am having with the amendment is [….] But if they start saying, well, for the smart legislator you are going to pay five times more money and for the dumb legislator you are going to pay five times less money, for the smart card you are going to pay five times more money and for the dumb card you are going to pay five times less money, for the smart meter you are going to pay we do not know how much more money because we will not tell you, but it is not going to be the utilities that pay for it because we took care of them in our amendment; they are taken care of in this Freeman amendment. The big utility companies and corporations, they are all right with it; they support this, but the customer, well, you are going to pay the freight for this mandate, this State mandate.

February 12, 2008 House Journal, pp. 430-432

PN3233 Pg. 431

PA State Rep. Mr. Hutchinson

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to passage of HB2200, and let me tell you why. I believe in its original unamended form, before it came to the House floor, there were a lot of redeeming qualities in the bill. It did promote conversation, and that is a laudable goal for Pennsylvania, to try to conserve energy.

However, by the amendments passed yesterday, which mandated universal smart meters across Pennsylvania, that is a fatal flaw that makes this bill a bad idea for Pennsylvania. It is bad for the consumers of Pennsylvania who will have to pay for those smart meters, whether they save on their electric bills or not. It makes no sense whatsoever to force people to pay for those smart meters and then, in addition, still pay higher and higher utility bills. It was said yesterday that if only 1 percent of the people used smart meters, we would have huge savings in energy use in Pennsylvania, and, Mr. Speaker, I agree with that statement. But my idea is, let us get the smart meters only to those 1 percent of the people and get this same savings in energy use. That is the smart way to move forward to promote energy conservation, to use technology like smart meters in a targeted and commonsense way instead of a mandated, across-the-board consumer tax – that is what it is, a couple hundred dollars per person – that will have to be paid to pay for these smart meters. So after adding that fatal flaw to this bill, I think it is incumbent upon everyone in this chamber to vote against HB2200, and I ask them to join me in that vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HB2200 made its way through the PA House and went to the Senate for their consideration and more amending.

PN4429

(2) Electric distribution companies shall furnish smart 

28  meter technology as follows:

29  (I) Upon request to a customer that agrees to pay

30  the cost of the smart meter.

1    (II) In the construction of a new residence or new

2    building to be used by a commercial customer.

3    (III) In accordance with a schedule of replacement

4    of full d

PN4526

(2) Electric distribution companies shall furnish smart 

23  meter technology as follows:

24  (I) Upon request from a customer that agrees to pay

25  the cost of the smart meter at the time of the request.

26  (II) In new building construction.

27  (III) In accordance with a depreciation schedule not

28  to exceed 15 years.

The bill meets with final approval in the Senate!

October 8, 2008 Senate Journal, pp. 2626-2631

PA State Senator Mr. Tomlinson (p.2626)

Mr. President, I rise to ask for support for House Bill No. 2200 as amended by the Senate. [….] It also contains language in there that we will have smart meters. It is not mandated, but it allows for the deployment of smart meters through a depreciation process, through new home construction process, and through the depreciation of 15 years, and for anyone who wants to purchase a smart meter which they feel will help them manage their electric load better.

Question: So, why are PECO and other utility companies sending out shut off notices to customers who don’t want them and don’t have to have them in accordance with the above statement by State Senator Tomlinson? Apparently, utility companies are not abiding by the law, or its proper interpretation as written, as these discussions of the bill and amendments document.

PA State Senator Mr. Boscola

So-called smart meters by themselves are not magically – anyone’s monthly electric bill is not going to go down just because you are getting a smart meter. That will not happen. [….] We also made sure that smart meters would not be mandated for every single ratepayer. Not only is that a smarter approach to smart meter deployment, but it will also save electric customers hundreds of millions of dollars paying for something that will not provide a real benefit in their own households.

Question: If Pennsylvania State Senators feel they passed a bill that would not mandate smart meters for every single ratepayer, how come PECO and other utility companies can break the law and shut off electric power to fully-paid customers?

PA State Senator Mr. Fumo

In addition, we did not mandate smart meters, but we made them optional. We did say in new construction, where they really are practical, they will be put in.

The Senate approved-bill goes back to the Pennsylvania House. The discussion does not mention anything about whether the meters are mandated or not.

HB2200 is signed into law as Act 129 by Governor Edward G. Rendell.

An Implementation Order is then devised by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

Smart Meter Procurement and Installation Implementation Order was adopted at the June 18, 2009 Public Meeting. Entered June 24, 2009. Docket No. M-2009-209655.

Question: What gives the PA PUC the totalitarian right to interpret the law using this language?

The Commission believes that it was the intent of the General Assembly to require all covered EDCs to deploy smart meters system-wide when it included a requirement for smart meter deployment “in accordance with a depreciation schedule not to exceed 15 years.”

This Writer’s Comments: 

No other intent can be construed from the language of the Pennsylvania Senators and Representatives as printed in both the House and Senate Journals of record.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission acted under false pretenses thereby imposing burdens of all sorts, including financial, that the state legislators did not want and genuinely expressed concerns about.

PA Act 129 of 2008 is, therefore, an illegal act for many reasons, including violating an individual’s constitutional rights, but more importantly because the PA PUC interpreted law by its “belief,” which is contrary to the legal method of law-crafting in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Consequently, Act 129 of 2008 must be rescinded and stricken from Pennsylvania State Law as it violates Pennsylvania citizens’ legal rights to redress, due process, and to function as an informed consumer with consumer protection rights that must be exercised by a state agency, the PA PUC, and a corporate business, PECO.

Furthermore, the PA PUC by making its interpretation on “belief” with regard to mandatory smart meter installation, created possible conflicts of interest for utility companies including mandating services to consumers be on a “take it or leave it” basis without giving customers realistic opportunities for choice, as PA legislators voiced and amended the bill to state, or to negotiate terms that would benefit their specific needs, especially for those who have medical issues and legitimate fire/explosion safety concerns since so many smart meters cause house fires. 

The PUC’s interpretation consequently interferes with customers being able to obtain the service they want, i.e., RF-free analog meters. Therefore, PECO will shut off their electric power service, even if all their bills are paid in full. That’s not what the state legislature wanted!

In law there’s what’s known as an “Adhesion Contract.” The obvious draconian ‘enforcement’ actions taken by the PA PUC and PECO seem to be implementing Adhesion principles like a legal sledge hammer. 

Since, the PA PUC’s belief and interpretation of what Act 129 actually says and state legislators intended, wrote and said on record is printed in the House and Senate Journals—and contrary to PECO’s and the PA PUC’s actions—it should be incumbent upon the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State’s Attorney General to investigate immediately if possible collusion occurred between the utility companies and the PA PUC in order that the smart meter roll out could be enforced mandatorily so as to allow PECO to procure the federal funding if PECO met a certain criteria for installing smart meters, regardless of consumers’ wishes, concerns, and complaints. 

Someone in Harrisburg has to explain why this ought not to be investigated as probable cause for collusion regarding smart meter mandatory roll outs in Pennsylvania:

[PECO] is supported by a $200 million federal smart-grid grant. Under terms of the stimulus Grant, PECO promised to install 600,000 smart meters by April, 2014.” [Source: -Philly.com, “After tests, Peco to resume smart-meter installations”, 10 October 2012]

Furthermore, to reiterate what Pennsylvania state legislators said:

Representative Saylor: “..it still needs to be a consumer choice, not a General Assembly mandate onto consumers that is going to cost them more in their electric bills.”

Representative Benninghoff: “I think it is important that we are smart about our energy use, but I also think we have to think about what government’s role is in mandating such a thing.”

Representative Gabig: “…but it is not going to be the utilities that pay for it because we took care of them in our amendment; they are taken care of in this Freeman amendment. The big utility companies and corporations, they are all right with it; they support this, but the customer, well, you are going to pay the freight for this mandate, this State mandate.”

Senator Tomlinson: “It also contains language in there that we will have smart meters. It is not mandated, but allows for the deployment of smart meters through a depreciation process, through new home construction process, and through the depreciation of 15 years, and for anyone who wants to purchase a smart meter which they feel will help them manage their electric load better.”

Senator Boscola: “We also made sure that smart meters would not be mandated for every single ratepayer.”

Senator Fumo: “In addition, we did not mandate smart meters, but we made them optional.”

The Pennsylvania State Legislature immediately must resolve this totally illegal, un-American, totalitarian, tyrannical approach to consumerism as erroneously interpreted in PA Act 129 of 2008, plus the unlawful subjugation of consumers’ rights by PECO and the PA PUC in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

What the PA PUC ‘believes’ and what are the facts surrounding the amendments, etc. to the passage of HB2200 actually are, are at total variance. Pennsylvanians are suffering dramatically in many aspects of their daily lives because of the over-reach by the PA PUC and PECO, an Exelon company.

Who in Harrisburg will correct this over-reach and abuse by a state agency by introducing legislation to prevent such consumer abuse from ever happening again?

References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck