Is IPUC ignoring public to help industries?

Following is my modified comment posted on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission website in regards to case #AVU-E-17-11:

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 noy biologically interfering with a human’s health and safety?

By law, the IPUC 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: Criminal probe of utilities commission may get new life (http://bit.ly/2HJDAx4; Feb. 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?

Your attention to my words is most appreciated.

MARY MAIO

Sagle