UPDATE (May 17, 2012) to PUC Activity regarding Stopping the Smart Meter Installations

I have been slow in posting this update, please forgive!  (I have a business to run, and it took a little time for the dust to settle after the Mar. 30 deadline for your letters + 16 copies!)

By the way, Don’t keep this website a secret – tell everyone you know – use our Facebook buttons for convenience, or email the link to your friends – the more people actively in the resistance, the better chance we have to get these ‘stupid’meters banned!  You can also link this website from any that you might own or be a part of, like a Tea Party or 9-12 etc. website.  Ok, enough about us…Well, just one more plug…you too can own a bumper sticker like this one…email me at Cindy@bantexassmartmeters.com.

No to Privacy Invasion, Say NO to Smart Meters, BanTexasSmartMeters.com

Say NO to Privacy Invasion! NO to Smart Meters!


I will try to summarize briefly.

If you don’t know about the recent activity at the PUC concerning smart meters, read any of the previous entries here: (Devvy Kidd Formal Complaint, What’s the PUC got to do with it?, PUC-Open for Public Comments on Devvy Kidd ‘case’ til Mar. 30th )

Where are we NOW?

“Formal Complaint from John and Devvy Kidd, DISMISSED (on technicality)”

Copy of PUC Order to Deny (last paragraph gives their formal & FLIMSY ‘reasons’ why they deny)

Response by Atty Tommy Cryer – objecting since there was one day notice to deny, and no time given to make amendment to their complaint as should be afforded them.

The PUC seems to be playing ‘Hardball’.  There was some wording that was not quite procedurally correct.  So, instead of giving them (Devvy and her Atty) time to make the corrections, they decided to dismiss it altogether.  They justified this since they had opened a project  (Project No. 40190), to look in to the need for an Opt Out program, which they did prior to Mrs. Kidd filing her ‘Formal Complaint’, also referred to in short as a “Petition for Rulemaking”.  I believe they did this knowing that this action was forthcoming, in an effort to make it appear they already have a project underway regarding Smart Meter installations, so there’s no need to open or introduce another.  In fact, when they rejected her filings, they stated that almost exactly, (see last paragraph of above linked doc.)

Devvy Kidd to Re-file her Formal Complaint and gain a Public Hearing

Any day now, Devvy is heading to Austin to re-submit her ‘Formal Complaint’ to the PUC in hopes that with the corrections that were indicated in the Denial Order, they won’t have an excuse to deny her so easily this time around.  She still has with her the rest of the ‘complainant’s’, which number 117, plenty to require the PUC to have to hold a hearing.   Here’s an excerpt from correspondence I received from Devvy showing the ‘rules’ regarding when the PUC is required to hold hearings, as in our case.

“We know the PUC does not want to give us our public hearings. 

Texas Administrative Code, Title 16, Part II, § 22.282

‘RULE §22.282 – Notice and Public Participation in Rulemaking Procedures

  1. Public Hearing. The commission may schedule workshops or public hearings on the proposed rule. An opportunity for public hearing shall be granted if requested by at least 25 persons, by a governmental subdivision or agency, or by an association having at least 25 members.The request for public hearing must be made no later than 30 days after the date the proposed rule is published in the Texas Register, unless the commission establishes a different date for requesting a public hearing.’

The request was published in the Texas Register on March 9, 2012. We filed February 23, 2012, with 117 petitioners. That more than exceeds the required number under Title 16 above.”

Stand by to start the next “Letter Writing Tsunami”  (check our website often, or send me an email at Cindy@BanTexasSmartMeters.com so I can email you when time to act).

More links for your research on Devvy Kidd’s complaint.

  • Read any and all of the comments etc. regarding Devvy Kidd’s filing- The PUC opened what they called Project 40199 for the “Petition for Rulemaking”.  You can even see where Centerpoint submitted their objections to the filing.  If you wrote a letter, you can go see your letter, too, as well as see who else sent in comments etc.   When you go to this PUC Projects link, put in the project no. 40199 into the Control No. box, (ignore all the other boxes and just hit “SEARCH”.  Also, if you want to see what is going on with the OPT OUT Project, put in the number 40190 into the same box.
  • Centerpoint’s counter claims – (this is also under the above link, but putting it here for your convenience!)
  • Mr. Sage’s Letter – he was disconnected for 56 days.  I am not sure of the details, but I think it may have been because he took the smart meter off, and re-installed an analog meter…may have been told he was tampering with their meter or something…again, I am not sure of the details.
  • John and Devvy Kidd’s FULL  Formal Complaint – formally named “Petition for Initiation of Rulemaking Procedures Regarding Smart Meters”.  This is a long document, but worth reading if you want to see all the documentation they have built their case upon.
  • Author of Tx HB 2129 Dennis Bonner sends letter (see it here) to the PUC to correct their oversight by making the meters mandatory, as this was not the intent nor language in the bill passed in the 79th Legislature. 
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to UPDATE (May 17, 2012) to PUC Activity regarding Stopping the Smart Meter Installations

  1. Jeff M. Burandt says:

    When my contractor built my home, itemized with his billing was the cost for the metal box in which my analog meter was installed by the utility coop. Therefore I believe I own the box. Therefore can I secure the box that I own with various locks to prevent it from being opened which is necessary to install a smart meter?

    Thank you for your reply in advance.

    • ccarriger says:

      You can do it, but it is a battle of resistance, (of which that can be a part)- but eventually if the PUC doesnt stop Oncor’s bad behavior of making this a mandatory step to getting electricity from their lines, then, eventually you could be without electricity. That will most likely be later rather than sooner, depends on how aggressive the Onocr installers are in your area. I first refused mine about 5 weeks ago or so, and they came back 2x that I know of…I am figuring they will send me something in the mail asking me to “remedy” the situation by removing my locks on the meter…my gate is also locked and a No Trespassing sign is up. Some have come home to find all those things ignored…and even some have had their locks cut.
      What we can hope for is the PUC will rule to hold off on further installations or offer an OPT OUT until cases like Devvy Kidd’s formal complaint are hashed out. So, hopefully if you avoid it long enough, and then they declare a way to opt-out, then maybe you won’t have one.
      We also need people doing things like writing the PUC etc. as we have outlined in several of the posts on this website. So, look under the tab that says TAKE ACTION, and/or “CAN I AVOID A SMART METER” and do some of the suggestions there. This is a fight that takes every willing person, and then some!
      Thanks- keep checking back, and or, send me an email to Cindy@bantexassmartmeters.com and I will try to add you to my list so that when stuff comes up, I can alert you via email.
      God Bless Texas, and God Bless you!

  2. Greg lu says:

    Want something expert opinion? please read reference 2 in this website, recommended by
    American Academy of Environmental Medicine
    6505 E Central • Ste 296 • Wichita, KS 67206
    Tel: (316) 684-5500 • Fax: (316) 684-5709

    Title: The American Academy of Environmental Medicine Calls for Immediate Caution regarding Smart Meter Installation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *