20240201Agency Record.pdf

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
)
APPEAL FROM THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ______________________________________________
Appeal from Idaho Public Utilities Commission Commissioner Eric Anderson, Presiding ________________________________________
Attorney for Respondent Idaho PUC
RAÚL R. LABRADOR Idaho Attorney General
Adam Triplett, ISB #10221 Idaho Public Utilities Commission 11331 W. Chinden Blvd. Building 8, Suite 201-A Boise, ID 83704
Appellants, pro se
Samuel Z. and Peggy M.B. Edwards 333 Shoshone Ave. Rexburg, ID 83440
Attorneys for Respondent PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power Company
Joe Dallas Senior Attorney Rocky Mountain Power
825 NE Multnomah, Ste. 2000
IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL and PEGGY
EDWARD’S FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER COMPANY
)
)
) ) )
Supreme Court Docket No. 51238-2023
Complainants-Appellants,
v.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION and PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER COMPANY,
Respondents.
)
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) )
No. PAC-E-23-05
AGENCY RECORD ON APPEAL
Table of Contents (Chronological Index) i
DOCKET NO. 51238
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Chronological Index)
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ FORMAL COMPLAINT
dated March 23, 2023 .......................................................................................................5
IPUC STAFF DECISION MEMORANDUM
dated April 10, 2023 .......................................................................................................40
IPUC SUMMONS & COMPLAINT TO PACIFICORP d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power
dated April 19, 2023 ...................................................................................................... 41
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER’S ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS
dated May 10, 2023 ...................................................................................................... 141
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ OBJECTION TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER’S
ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS
dated May 22, 2023 ...................................................................................................... 162
IPUC ORDER NO. 35849_FINAL
dated July 11, 2023 ....................................................................................................... 164
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
dated July 31, 2023 ....................................................................................................... 172
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER’S ANSWER TO SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
dated August 4, 2023 .................................................................................................... 381
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ OBJECTION TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER’S
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
dated August 8, 2023 .................................................................................................... 385
IPUC FINAL NO. 35904_FINAL ON RECONSIDERATION
dated August 25, 2023 .................................................................................................. 386
11
Table of Contents (Chronological Index) i
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ EMAIL FILED VERSION OF AMICUS CURIAE
BRIEFING
dated September 27, 2023 ............................................................................................. 392
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL
dated September 28, 2023 ............................................................................................. 600
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
dated October 9, 2023 ................................................................................................... 620
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ ANSWER TO MOTION
dated October 9, 2023 ................................................................................................... 625
IPUC STAFF DECISION MEMORANDUM
dated October 10, 2023 ................................................................................................. 629
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL
dated October 16, 2023 ................................................................................................. 631
IPUC ORDER NO. 35972_AMENDING TITLE OF APPEAL
dated October 27, 2023 ................................................................................................. 674
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF PROPOSED AGENCY RECORD
dated November 20, 2023 ............................................................................................. 676
22
Table of Contents (Alphabetical Index) ii
DOCKET NO. 51238
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Alphabetical Index)
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL
dated October 16, 2023 ................................................................................................. 631
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF PROPOSED AGENCY RECORD
dated November 20, 2023 ............................................................................................. 676
IPUC ORDER NO. 35849_FINAL
dated July 11, 2023 ...................................................................................................... 164
IPUC ORDER NO. 35904_FINAL ON RECONSIDERATION
dated August 25, 2023 ................................................................................................. 386
IPUC ORDER NO. 35972_AMENDING TITLE OF APPEAL
dated October 27, 2023 ................................................................................................ 674
IPUC STAFF DECISION MEMORANDUM
dated April 10, 2023 .......................................................................................................40
IPUC STAFF DECISION MEMORANDUM
dated October 10, 2023 ................................................................................................. 629
IPUC SUMMONS & COMPLAINT TO PACIFICORP d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power
dated April 19, 2023 ...................................................................................................... 41
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER’S ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS
dated May 10, 2023 ...................................................................................................... 141
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER’S ANSWER TO SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
dated August 4, 2023 .................................................................................................... 381
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
dated October 9, 2023 ................................................................................................... 620
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ ANSWER TO MOTION
dated October 9, 2023 ................................................................................................... 625
33
Table of Contents (Alphabetical Index) ii
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ EMAIL FILED VERSION OF AMICUS CURIAE
BRIEFING
dated September 27, 2023 ............................................................................................. 392
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ FORMAL COMPLAINT
dated March 23, 2023 ....................................................................................................... 5
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL
dated September 28, 2023 ............................................................................................ 600
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ OBJECTION TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER’S
ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS
dated May 22, 2023 ...................................................................................................... 162
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ OBJECTION TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER’S
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
dated August 8, 2023 .................................................................................................... 385
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
dated July 31, 2023 ....................................................................................................... 172
44
COMPLAINT 20
To:Jan Noriyuki,Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Date:March 18,2023
From:Samuel and Peggy Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
RE:Installation of "Smart"Meter and threat of service disconnection
Dear Ma'am,
This COMPLAINT is a follow-upto an initial complaint which Peggy submitted to Idaho
Public Utility Commission in December 2022.Our complaint is still the same:there should be an
"opt-out"option for customers of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP who do not want
to upgrade their electric meter.
At this time,our case has become critical,and we ask for your intervention to immediately
stop the termination of our electric service by ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP
scheduled for March 28, 2023. Our COMPLAINT arises over matters concerning myself, Samuel,
and my wife,Peggy,and ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP in regard to their intention
to install a Trespassing Technology known as a "Smart"type meter on our home, located at 333
Shoshone Ave;Rexburg, ID 83440 contrary to our existing and long-standing contractual agreement,
as well as our will and consent. We further request that a traditional meter replace our existing
electronic meter,even if a reasonable surcharge for regularly checking the meter were added to our
bill or if we were responsible to report the meter reading (e.g.-text/email a picture)on a regular
basis.
Please find attached our DECLARATION in the form of an AFFIDAVIT in support of this
letter of COMPLAINT,along with supporting Exhibits A,B, and C.
We,along with our 16-year old special-needs daughter and two other children,are currently
faced with the real possibility of havingour power/electrical service disconnected on 28 March 2023
(please see disconnect letter, Exhibit A).We have attempted over and over again,in good faith to
resolve all issues with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP which have led up to this
point where they are now threatening to shut our power off,in spite of the fact that access to the
meter has never been impeded for service and that we have always paid our power bill each month
and are currently not late with payment.They,in turn,are the aggressor operating in bad faith, using
strong-arm intimidation tactics,threat,duress, and coercion in order to upgrade the meter without
consideration for the will,privacy or medical effects which this upgrade would have upon us,the
property owners.
Last year,we received an undated and unsigned letter from ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP on or around November 22,2022 instructing us to call their 800 number
within 15 days to resolve any "access"issues and set an appointment to have our meter updated with
their (Trespassing Technology). In response to this letter, Peggy called ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP multiple times,including talking with an employee Christian #36743
CASE NO. PAC-E-23-05
55
twice.During these calls, Peggy explained that a power company technician (sub-contractor)had
come to our door in October requesting to install a smart meter,and we informed her that we were
contesting the unilateral insistence to replace our current power meter with a 5G Smart Meter.Shepolitelysaidthatsheunderstoodandwouldinform ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORPofourresponse.Peggy also informed Christian #36743 that we have a special needs child who
currently sleeps about 8 feet from the location of the power meter and we are concerned about the
radio frequency waves to which she would be exposed by the 5G Smart Meter. As detailed in Exhibit
C and available in other documented medical research,non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (e.g.
wireless technologies including smart meters)can lead to electro-sensitivity requiring
accommodation'.Peggy asked for an appropriate address to send a letter responding to the unsigned,
undated letter,so that we could formallycontest the assertion that the "installer couldn't access the
meter base".Delays with verifyingthe appropriate address to send our letter resulted in the letter
being sent in late February,arriving on 2 March 2023 at ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP's CEO Gary Hoogeveen's office in Portland, OR according to UPS Ground
tracking #1ZX048R30397898301.(see Exhibit C)
On March 3, we received ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's 22 February
2023 letter,subject "SECOND NOTICE:Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 333 ShoshoneAve
Rexburg, ID 83440"(Exhibit B),and that their contractor was refused "access"to perform a meter
(Trespassing Technology)exchange.This new letter also states that they have also attempted to
reach us by telephone,and that we are to call their 800 number to resolve this issue within 15 days,
or they will refer our account to their service disconnection process.In this same letter they also
claim that we are "contractually obligated to allow"ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP
"safe and unencumbered access to our equipment.Meter service is a condition of electric service,as
expressed in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's Customer Relations Rules, namely Electric
Service Regulation No.6,..."Be noticed that the word/term "access"in ROCKY MOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP's letters to us is being improperly applied to mean something other than
what it really is (see explanationbelow).
On March 17, we received ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's 14 March 2023,
subject "FINAL NOTICE:Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 333 Shoshone Ave,Rexburg,Idaho"(Exhibit A).We are informed in this letter that our service will be terminated on 28 March,
2023.
INTRODUCTION [BRIEF HISTORY]
As it stands now, there has been in place for the past 3.5 or so years a relationship of a
"contractual"nature between us and ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP (formally
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT),who currently provides us with electrical power to our home.I,in
turn naturally,have agreed to allow ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's (formerly
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT)meter reader(s)"access"of a "specified and limited"nature,not a
general unspecified and unlimited nature,to our private property each month specifically for them
to read our electrical power meter ONLY.No other access to our private property,implied or
otherwise was ever granted to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP (formerly UTAH
POWER AND LIGHT)at any time.Any other necessary "access",including troubleshootingpower
outages and making necessary repairs to electrical equipment located on our private property is
considered "special"in nature and would only be granted at the time,we,the private property owners
reported a power outage and or requested them to troubleshoot an electrical problem and make
necessary repairs ONLY.Therefore,ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP (formally
UTAH POWER AND LIGHT)does not have autonomous authority in and of itself to access our
private property to troubleshoot and or make necessary repairs to electrical equipment or for any
I https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Brief and-Addendum-Submitted-9-14.pdf accessed3/18/2023
2
66
other reason at any time, day or night until they receive notification from us authorizingand granting
them permission at that time,on a one-time basis only for them to proceed to do the specified request.Anythingother than this is a trespass,invasion of our privacy,security, unalienable Rights,including
our private property rights which cannot be diminished,as well as a violation of our existing
contractual agreement.
Let us be clear on this issue of "access" which ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORPclaims that we are denying them.We and no one else in our home have ever
denied "access"to any of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's meter readers or their
company repair personnel as per our previously agreed upon terms of our long-standing contractual
agreement over the years.However, there has never been in place any agreement for personnel from
any third-party company to trespass on my private property and tamper with our,in this case
electrical meter at any time, whether we are at home or if no one is at home,neither has there ever
been in place any agreement with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP to "access"our
private property to make a non-repair (or install a Trespassing Technology) when no request for such
type of service was ever made,and no defective electrical equipment on my private property exists.
So,if no defective electrical equipment exists on our private property and we did not call ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORPto report any troubles/problems with our electrical service and
thus no electrical repairs were/are needed, what are there personnel doing on our private property
and or attempting to access our private property without our consent contrary to our existing
contractual agreement?
Understand that this whole issue surrounds a matter of an existing "contract" which ROCKYMOUNTAINPOWER/PACIFICORP are attempting to impair our obligation to.This contractual
relationship,as I said before has been in place since we moved in our home about 3.5 years ago
when we requested ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP(formerly UTAH POWER AND
LIGHT)supply our home with electrical power,to which they agreed. This has worked smoothlywithoutanyproblemsordisputesuntillastyear,when ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP attempted to change the terms of our previously agreed upon and long
standing "contract" without consideration of individual customers'desires or full disclosure that
they were attempting to change said terms of or initiate a new contract without my knowledge and
consent in order for them to bullytheir way onto our private property to make a non-repair (or install
a Trespassing Technology)which is not part of our existing contractual agreement.
As you well know,for any changes to be made to a contract, both parties must be, in
agreement,and both parties must have a clear understanding of any and all terms and changes in
terms of said contract to be valid and binding.This is simply not the case in this matter.To allow
this abuse to continue would be a travesty of justice.ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP
acknowledges the existence of our contractual relationship (see Exhibit A)but in a skewed and
twisted fashion,not relating the matter truthfully.They spreadpropaganda that smart meters are safe
without considering contrary evidence and portray objecting homeowners as the antagonist and an
uncooperative party for not wanting their smart meter Trespassing Technology, making us the "bad
guy".What is the marginal benefit of pressuring 100%of customers to adopt upgraded meters?If
90%of customers have already upgraded,isn't network awareness sufficiently improved to inform
outage restorations?Threatening service disconnection appears to be an overly coercive tactic to
achieve complete compliance and ignore alternatives (e.g.-self-reporting or a surcharge for meter
reading).Why does the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION/Legislature support or
sanction this coercion which has become criminal (felonious)behavior? Other states offer "opt-out"
alternatives,so that 100% compliance is demonstrably unnecessary.
There is no one person or agency in the Idaho government advocating for the
people/inhabitants in their plight with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP,but there is a
government agency advocating for ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's position -the
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION under the thumb of the state legislature.However,
the interpretationof the Commission on this matter so far does not honor the rights of the people of
3
77
Idaho to make decisions affecting their privacy or medical freedom.Where there is risk,there must
remain choice.So far as smart meter upgrades are concerned,IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION appears only to consider the best interests of the utility company,and not the public
trust.
Understand,we have committed no wrong in this instant matter and have done our due
diligence in an attempt to resolve all issues in order to keep the peace and our electric power on.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORPhas been acting in bad faith and continue to walk in
dishonor.They are a huge corporate giant with endless fmancial resources coming against this small
single family who only desires to live in peace.This huge corporate giant seems to think that because
they operate as a government sanctioned monopoly,knowing that customers have no other option
or choice in power companies,they can just run roughshod over their perceived disobedient
customers to force their unlawful will (Trespassing Technology)upon them by use of deception,
lies,strong-arm intimidation tactics,threat,duress, and coercion (criminal acts) in order to covertly
alter a previously agreed upon "contract"without my knowledge and consent -HOLDING OUR
ELECTRICAL POWER SERVICE AS RANSOM.
This is a matter of the big bully on the block going around breaching the peace,terrorizing
and strong-arming the inhabitants in the neighborhood and bullyingtheir way onto their customer's
private property and into their private lives.This is criminal behavior and it must be stopped.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
We,Samuel &Peggy Edwards,hereinafter referred to as complainant,in complaint of ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP and their Trespassing Technology, hereinafter referred to as
"violator",respectfully alleging various felonious acts being perpetrated upon complainant as
follows:
COUNT 1:Breach of the peace.ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's attempted
unlawful intrusion onto complainant's private property and into complainant's home resulting in a
breach of complainant's and other household members peace causing undue fear,emotional and
physical stress of complainant and other household members.
COUNT 2:Attempted extortion of complainant's will,consent, and rights through use of threat,
duress, and coercion in order to induce complainant to capitulate,by wrongful use of fear and
under color of official right to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's unlawful
compulsion to accept their smart meter (Trespassing Technology)while holding the threat of
electrical service disconnection over complainant's head.
COUNT 3:Impairment of complainant's obligation of an existing contract between ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP and complainant by use of threat,deception,strong-arm
intimidation tactics,trickery,duress,and coercion. Violators are attempting to change terms of an
existing contract and or create a new contract with complainant in order to install a "smart"meter
(Trespassing Technology)without the authorization/consent of complainant by wrongful use of
fear and under color of official right,hoping complainant will grant coerced or tacit agreement for
such contract changes by either omitting to perform a particular act or through the performance of
a particular act induced under compulsion in order to get their smart meter (Trespassing
Technology) installed on complainant's home.
COUNT 4:Attempted extortion and takeover of complainant's private property for commercial
use.Violators,by wrongful use of fear and under color of official right are attempting to
commandeer complainant's private property in order to install a smart Meter "relay station"
4
88
(Trespassing Technology)on complainant's property for the sole benefit of ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP and outside third-party entities without any just authorization and
compensation to complainant for such.This would amount to theft,unlawful conversion of private
property, unjust enrichment, and violation of the complainant's FIFTH AMENDMENT right to not
"be deprived of life,liberty,or property,without due process of law".
COUNT 5:Attempted illegal wiretapping and extraction of personal and private information
without a lawfully issued and or executed search warrant, through the installationof an unlawful
(as no consent is given)surveillance/buggingdevice known as a smart meter (Trespassing
Technology). Smart meter capabilities include, but not limited to monitoring,logging,storing,
transferring,and sharing of daily personal and private habits and routines of occupants of private
homes and then giving said information to unauthorized third-parties for profit,including police
and federal government snoop agents,all without the homeowner's or other occupants consent to
do so.This would amount to gross violation of complainant's FOURTH AMENDMENT right to
be "secure in their person,houses,papers,and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures",
as well as complainant's FIFTH AMENDMENT right to not "be deprived of life, liberty,or
property,without due process of law".
COUNT 6:Threat with intent to commit harm to complainant and other household members by
threatening to shut off electrical power to complainant's property/house if complainant does not
allow ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP to install a smart meter (Trespassing
Technology)on complainant's house.Terminationof electrical power will cause severe hardship,
stress,and duress,as well as severe physical and emotional harm to the complainant and other
members of this household,including family members with special medical needs.ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP, having foreknowledge of the complainant's special needs
daughter's age and physical condition,continues to acknowledge their intent to harm complainant
and complainant's child, which makes this a criminal act.
COUNT 7:Gross Negligence; Hazardous Negligence. The "gross negligence",or reckless and
wanton behavior of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP is manifest in their failure to
exercise even slight care,and evidences a reckless disregard of complainant's life and safety,as
well as of others in complainant's household,by attempting to expose us to the dangerous/
hazardous health effects of a smart meter (Trespassing Technology)which they are attempting to
install on complainant's private property against complainant's will and consent.There intentional
failure to perform a manifest duty to truthfullyinform complainant of the actual dangers of a smart
meter is in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting complainant's life and property,
including a gross want of care and regard for complainant's rights and the rights of others in
complainant's household.
Their behavior is also "hazardous negligence"due to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/
PACIFICORP's careless or reckless conduct by attempting to expose complainant and other
members of complainant's household to the very great danger of injury and imminent peril should
the installation of their smart meter (Trespassing Technology)on complainant's home take place.
COUNT 8:Actionable Fraud. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP has committed an
"actionablefraud"against complainant by use of deceptive practices in an attempt to induce
complainant to part with complainant's legal right(s),to include complainant's long-standing
existing contractual agreement with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP,as well asunlawfullyattemptingtocommandeer complainant's private property for commercial use by
installing a "relay station" (smart meter Trespassing Technology)without complainant's consent
by making false representations with the intentionto deceive.Further,it appearsthat ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP makes a material representation which is knowingly false
5
99
concerning their smart meter (Trespassing Technology),making such representation without any
knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion that smart meters are safe,and made it with the
intention that it should be acted on by complainant.If complainant acts and complies with this
false representation, complainant fears and believes an impending injurywill be suffered by
complainant and possibly others in complainant's household as well.
Note: If attempted murder is prosecutable,then attempted extortion and piracy is also prosecutable.
DEFINITIONS
From:Black's Law Dictionary,Fourth Edition
EXTORT.To compel or coerce,as a confession or information by any means serving to overcome
one's power of resistance,or making the confession or admission involuntary.Sutton v.
Commonwealth,207 Ky.597, 269 S.W.754, 757.
To gain by wrongful methods,to obtain in an unlawful manner, to compel payments by means of
threats of injuryto person, property,or reputation.McKenzie v.State,l13 Neb.576,204 N.W.60,
61; State v.Richards,97 Wash.587,167 P.47,48.To take from unlawfully;to exact something
wrongfullyby threats or putting in fear. State v.Adams,Del.,106 A. 287, 288,7 Boyce, 335.See
Extortion.
The natural meaning of the word "extort"is to obtain money or other valuable thing either by
compulsion,by actual force,or by the force of motives applied to the will,and often more
overpowering and irresistible than physical force.Com.v.O'Brien,12 Cush.,Mass.,90.
EXTORTION.Unlawful obtaining of money from another.People v.Parkinson,181 Misc. 603,41
N.Y.S.2d 331, 334.
Obtaining of property from another,with his consent,induced by wrongful use of force or fear,or
under color of official right.And see State v.Logan,104 La. 760, 29 So.336;In re Rempfer,51
S.D.393,216 N.W.355, 359,55 A.L.R.1346;Lee v.State,16 Ariz.291,145 P.244, 246,
Ann.Cas.1917B,131.Obtaining of property of another by threats to injure him and to destroy his
property,State v.Phillips,62 Idaho 656,l 15 P.2d 418,420.Taking or obtaining of anything from
another by means of illegal compulsion or oppressive exaction, Daniels v.U.S.,C.C.A.Cal.,17 F.2d
339,342;whether by an officer or otherwise,United States v.Dunkley,D.C.Cal., 235 F.1000,
1001.
A taking under color of office is of essence of offense. La Tour v.Stone,139 Fla. 681,190 So.704,
709, 710.
At common law, any oppression by color or pretense of right,and particularly and technically the
exaction or unlawful taking by an officer of money or thing of value,by color of his office,either
when none at all is due,or not so much is due,or when it is not yet due.Preston v.Bacon,4 Conn.
480.See People v.Barondess,16 N.Y.S.436,61 Hun, 571;Murray v.State,125 Tex.Cr.R. 252,
67 S.W.2d 274,275; State v.Anderson,66 N.D.522,267 N.W.121,123;Whart.Cr.L. 833.
Term in comprehensive or general sense signifies any oppression under color of right,and in strict
or technical sense signifies unlawful taking by any officer,under color of office, of any money or
thing of value not due him,more than is due,or before it is due.State v.Barts,132 N.J.L.74,38
A.2d 838,843, 844, 848; State v.Vallee,136 Me. 432,12 A.2d 421.
To constitute "extortion,"money or other thing of value must have been willfully and corruptly
received. La Tour v.Stone,139 Fla.681,190 So.709, 710.
6
1010
To constitute "extortion," the wrongful use of fear must be the operating cause producing consent. People v. Biggs, 178 Cal. 79, 172 P. 152, 153.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE. The Intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard
of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another; such a gross want of care and regard for the rights of others as to justify the presumption of willfulness and wantonness. Seelig v. First Nat. Bank, D.C.IIL, 20 F.Supp. 61, 68.
The failure to exercise slight care. Jones v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 98 Kan. 133, 157 P. 399, 400; Burton Const. Co. v. Metcalfe, 162 Ky. 366, 172 S.W. 698, 701.
In the law of torts (and especially with reference to personal injury cases), the term means such negligence as evidences a reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them. McDonald
v.Railroad Co., Tex.Civ.App,, 21 S.W. 775; Railroad Co. v. Bodemer, 139 Ill. 596, 29 N.E. 692,32 Am.St.Rep. 218; Coitv. Western Union Tel. Co., 130 Cal. 657, 63 P. 83, 53 LR.A. 678; Bremerv.Lake Erie & W.R. Co., 318 Ill. 11, 148 N. E. 862, 866, 41 A.LR. 1345.
Indifference to present legal duty and utter forgetfulness of legal obligations, so far as other persons may be affected, and a manifestly smaller amount of watchfulness and circumspection than the circumstances require of a person of ordinary prudence. Burke v. Cook, 246 Mass. 518, 141 N .E.
585,586. Negligence bordering on recklessness. People v. Adams, 289 Ill. 339, 124 N.E. 575, 577.
Words "gross negligence," are equivalent to words "reckless and wanton." Jones v. Commonwealth, 213 Ky. 356,281 S. W. 164, 167.
HAZARDOUS NEGLIGENCE. Such careless or reckless conduct as exposes one to very great danger of injury or to imminent peril. Riggs v. Standard Oil Co., C.C.Minn., 130 F. 204.
Y ACTIONABLE. That for which an action will lie, furnishing legal ground for an action.
ACTIONABLE FRAUD. Deception practiced in order to induce another to part with property or surrender some legal right; a false representation made with an intention to deceive; may be committed by stating what is known to be false or by professing knowledge of the truth of a statement
which is false, but in either case, the essential ingredient is a falsehood uttered with intent to deceive. Sawyer v. Prickett, 19 Wall. 146, 22 L Ed. 105.
To constitute "actionable fraud," it must appear that defendant made a material representation; that it was false; that when he made it he knew it was false,-or made it recklessly without any knowledge
of its truth and as a positive assertion; that he made it with intention that it should be acted on by plaintiff; that plaintiff acted in reliance on it; and that plaintiff thereby suffered injury. Blair v. McCool, 136 Or. 139, 295 P. 950, 952. Essential elements are representation, falsity, scienter, deception, and injury. Cobb v. Cobb, 211 N.C. 146, 189 S.E. 479,482.
CONCLUSION
We respectfully request that the Commissioners for the Idaho Public Utility Commission investigate this entire matter concerning this criminal and wanton behavior and the strong-arm intimidation tactics of RO CKY MOUNTAIN PO W ER/PAC IF I CO RP and why they are permitted
7
1111
to continue tu violate and interfere with my, as well as many other ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER,1f't\CIFICORP customer's existing valid contractual agreements against their will and free
consent. and their FOURTH and FIFTH AMENDMENT Rights, and other violations mentioned above, and also why the IDAHO PUC/State Legislature permits/sanctions this type of criminal behavior. As time is of the essence, we respectfully request that this matter be given priority status and a timely remedy sought in order to avoid the apparent upcoming electrical service
diswnncctin11 in just a matter of days, not just for ourselves but for many other ROCKY MOUN IAIN l'U\VER/PAClflCORP customers similarly situated.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in remedying this matter as soon as
possibk in order that justice may be done.
Vc-ry truly.
�Ji�su; Juds 8 1212
DECLARATION OF SAMUEL Z. EDWARDS
IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT
I.Samuel Fd,,ards. being of sound mind and body do make this Declaration of my own free will
11·ithout an) undue outside influence.
I declare the following:
I. On l)cccmber 17, 2021, I did receive an unsigned letter from ROCKY MOUNTAIN PO\VI :l·V
PACIFICORP staling that new digital smart meters would be installed in our neighborhood
bcgi11ning in January 2022.
2.Both my ,rife and l have grave concerns over the health affects of a sma1i meter as our 16 year
old daughter has a complex medical history including Autism Spectrum Disorder. is Wheelchair
Bound and completely dependent for care. She is cognitively between 4-6 years old with
spet·ch. hearing and physical impairments. Her sleeping space is located approximately 8 fcl't
l1·orn tile i;:·.,isti ng 111etcr base for our home ·s electric service. During 2020-2021. we renovated
this sleeping space to be suitable for our daughter's care and need to remain in our home
i ndcfinitely vvhich includes an electric ceiling lift system, electric feeding pump station. roll
under sink and roll-in shower. (Doctors' notes available upon request.)
3.On February 11. 2022. we were notified that the upgrade was happening in our neighborhood
with no option of' opting out. My wife, Peggy Edwards, communicated with ROCKY
MOI jNTt\!N POWER/ PACIFICORP and informed their representative, Alison. of our
daughter·s complex medical history, autism and the proximity of the meter base close to her
sleeping space. Peggy further told ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP that we do not
consent to tit(· met.er upgrade at our home. Alison informed Peggy that we cannot "opt-uut .. \11" tile
meter upgradl' and stated that we must move the sleeping space or move the meter bas\.'..
4.011 1-cbrumy 13. 2022, Peggy emailed our state legislator (Representative Ron Nate) and
i11t'ormcd him of the conversation that she'd had with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/
PACIFICORP. In subsequent days, we also reached out to Representatives Karey Hanks . .Ion
Weber and Senator Doug Ricks. complaining about the lack of an "opt out'' option.
5.During February and March 2022, we consulted with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/
PACI FI CORP representatives about moving the existing meter base. On March 3. 2022. Peggy
called Russell Westerberg at ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP, who put us in
cuntact with Tim Solomon to discuss moving the existing meter base. We obtained a quote from
a local ekctrician (Leroy Edwards) of about $5000 to move it, but this was too expensive for us
at that time.
6.During Summer of 2022, a ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACJFICORP subcontractor came
lo request lo S\I itch out our current meter base for the new digital smart meter. We declined the
upgrade because of concerns that the new digital smart meter would have a deleterious affect
upon our daughter's health.
7.On 10 Noveinber 2022, we received an undated and unsigned letter from ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/ P/\CIFlCORP claiming that their "installer couldn't access the meter base'" located at
our home (333 Shoshone Ave; Rexburg, ID). In response to this letter. Peggy called ROCKY
1313
I\IUUN l'AJN POWERIPACIFICORP multiple times, including talking with an ernplo)CC
Christian #36743 twice and informing him of the details of our conversation with the
subcontractur. Peggy requested a mailing address to formally dispute the claim that their
•'instal.ler couldn't access the meter base".
8. 'Ne did 1101 receive a mailing address from ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFJCORP to
submit our dispute. so we found an address for their corporate offices online and mailed our
disputation in btc February 2023. According to UPS Ground tracking
( # l ZX048 RJ(J397898301 ), our disputation was delivered to the office of CEO Gary I !oogen:cn
in Portland, OR on March 2, 2023.
9.On March 3. vvc received ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's 22 February 2023
letter. subject --SECOND NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 333 Shoshone Ave
Rexburg .. ID 83440'' (Exhibit B), and that their contractor was refused "access'" to perform a
meter (Trespassing Technology) exchange.
I 0. On l'v1mch 17. we received ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's 14 1'-larch 2023.
subject ··FIN1\L NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 333 Shoshone Ave, Re:--;burg.
Idaho .. (l·:xhihit A). We are informed in this letter that our service will be terminated on 28
rvtarch. 2023.
I.S:irnucl /. hlw:mls, affirm and certify on my own unlimited commercial liability that I lia,e rt·ad
I.he abo,·e alTida, it and do know the contents to be the truth, the whole truth, conect and complete
10 lhe best of' my knowledge, and willing to testify to this.
--�-�, Sui Juris Date
V, i tness t(½ignature
1414
CREDIBLE-WITNESS ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State/Commonwealth of i c_{ee:,Cd:,
County of (1/lf't t:li :>'?:---t-
On this the I y)t1
Day day of �Jv�i?v_· _'-_L'.'.S,�--­Month --�-A��-"_,_._7_3 ___ , before me, the undersigned NotaryYear
Public, personally appeared -�/_U-_i:.:...,.'.7_' �.,..�<-'",..../ __ ?_.:/._✓_-�,::-c�:..,,:-"t�..,...,_�-_c1:_' �'.'>�----------------­? / I Nome(s) of Document Signer(s)
Place Notary Seal/Stamp Above
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence, upon the oath or affirmation of {/,n' yl-r;:-icv ··i }\(�
Name of Credible Witness to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribedto the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same for the purposes therein contained.
Witness my hand and official seal.
,._,.-
Si natw e of Notary Public
{)/;/ ,� _7/4,,.. � j \d./.�""L
Printed Norrie of Nota,y Public
12--/-9 /zc-c.-0✓
AnyOtherRequired Information (Commission Expiration Date, etc.)
�-----------------OPTIONAL -----------------�
This section is required for notarizations performed in Arizona but it optional in other states. Completing this
information con cleter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: .M-"--'-,/-'-6 -',-...=.C....,\c', ._,,,__{ .,_): -_._\ _\-__,,o=· _e_· ---�=---+f-)_\_ce.::..·· '-'""'-'--• .c._l-________ _
Document Date: __ )+_l....,/_z,_,_/..,.Z,.""--3...,__ _________ Number of Pages: _...._( ___ 6_· ___ _
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: _5i_.,_J�:Z�?�'t--(._t-',/ __ • �£.�C"�·�:/4:_?'.�£ri�Y<'�./_:_s_· ________ _
�':2017 National Notary Association
1515
CREDIBLE-WITNESS ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State/Commonwealth of __,_J _i::::-;_,_(=c-l-'--'--l\-'-'C�1 ____ _
County of /L·/lc(C{/ Jt:!:3
On this the /<f,/4 \ day of AA£t v'GhDay Month
before me, the undersigned Notary
Year
Public, personally appeared �'-�S�0-�_�t-l4�·-,.(_,._"'z�.t:_d,_?C/�""-vr:;J __ _s_· ______________ _
Place Notary Seal/Stamp Above
Nome(s) of Document Signer(s)
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence, upon the oath or affirmation of
. jl1-.C lu:2-:) }!i',5; ,:,c..
Name of Credibie Witness to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the sc1me for the purposes therein contained.
Witness my hand and official seal.
/d{,Ld'./4fe-
Printed Nome of Notary Public
/Z/9@,z-� An� Oth�r Required Information (Commission Expiration Date, etc.)
,------------------OPTIONAL--- - - - -------- ----,
This section is required for notarizations performed in Arizona but it optional in other states. Completing this
information con deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.
Description of Attached Document 11/1 ,. Title or Type of Document: 'r-1-\'�e_�c�-u..,=·�·\�_=c:,r_t..._: __ C_'e,_·1_"-+/-'"Y_{_a.._· -�_n_-l-_________ _
Document Date: __ :;_,) /�/_.,._.f..,./_z_s ___________ Number of Pages: __ /_O ___ _I Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: --+p_..?_. ·F-,-+-L=L-"-f-1 __ ,..,.2='-_.?i_·;/,;_k�_.::K.,.r-r1>_{�S,_· ___________ _} ) I
e2017 National Notary Association
1616
.. �ROCKY MOUNTAIN� POWER
A OMSION OF PACIFICORP
SAMUEL Z EDWARDS
333 SHOSHONE AVE
REXBURG ID 83440
March 14, 2023
l407West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 8◄ 116
RE: FINAL NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 333 Shoshone Avenue, Rexburg, Idaho
Dear Samuel Z Edwards:
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. If you are not responsible for the electric
service at the site, please pass this request to the property manager or owner as soon as possible.
As required by 31.21.01-Customer Relations Rules for Gas, Electric, and Water Public Utilities ("Utility
Customer Relations Rules") -Rule 304 (Requirements for Notice to Customers Before Termination of
Service). This letter will serve as final notice of termination of electric service, which will occur on
March 28, 2023 for failure to provide access as required under Utility Customer Relations Rules-Rule
302(e). If access to property is acquired prior to this date to enable Rocky Mountain Power to install an
upgraded meter at the site, termination will be canceled.
Please contact us at 1-800-895-0631 if you wish to resolve this issue.
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
1717
REQUIRED DISCLOSURES:
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 31.21.01 Public Utilities Commission Utility Customer Relations Rules 305. CONTENTS Of NOTICE OF INTENT TO TERMINATE SERVICE (RULE 305). 01.Contents of Notice. The written or oral notice of intent to terminate service required by Rule 304 willstate: a. The reason(s), citing these rules, why service will be terminated and the proposed date oftermination.b.Actions the customer may take to avoid termination of service.c.That a certificate notifying the utility of a serious illness or medical emergency in the household maydelay tennination as prescribed by Rule 308.d.That an infonnal or formal complaint concerning termination may be filed with the utility or theCommission, and that service will not be terminated on the ground relating to the dispute between thecustomer and the utility before resolution of the complaint.
The Idaho Public Utility Commission can be reached at 208-334-0369, or 1-800-432-0369, or online at puc.idaho.gov/fonn/consumerassistance, or by mail at Idaho Public Utilities Commission, P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720-0074. A copy of the Utility Customer Relation Rules can be found at l1ltn:-.:/';idn11mu le�. idaho.gov/rules/current/31/31210 l .pdf
Para mas informaci6n, flame al 1-888-225-2611 para hablar con un especia/ista en espafiol.
1818
Samuel Z Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave
Rexburg, ID 83440 2229
1407 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84 116
February 22, 2023
RE: SECOND NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 333 Shoshone Ave Rexburg, ID 83440
Dear Samuel Z Edwards:
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. If you are not responsible for the electric service at
the site listed above, please pass this request to the property manager or owner as soon as possible.
Our contractor was refused access to perform a meter exchange at the address listed above. This is our second
written notice. We have also attempted to reach you by telephone. To avoid termination of electric service at
this address, you must contact us at the number provided below.
You are contractually obligated to allow us safe and unencumbered access to our equipment. Meter access is
a condition of electric service, as expressed in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's Customer Relation Rules,
namely Electric Service Regulation No. 6, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. Moreover, to the
extent that access was denied because of the type of meter being installed, please be aware that the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission has reviewed smart meter technology, including the prevailing scientific research
on consumer safety, and concluded that smart meters are safe and allowed for all customers in Idaho. If you
would like additional information regarding the electric regulations that governs Rocky Mountain Power's
operations, review them at the Idaho Commission's website at puc.idaho.gov.
Our new meters bring with them a host of benefits, enabling our customers to securely -
•View DailyjHourly/15-Minute interval usage data through your Rocky Mountain Power account
•Set billing thresholds and alerts through our website and mobile application
•Automatically send notifications whenever your power is interrupted and subsequently restored
Rocky Mountain Power will also be able to troubleshoot abnormal electric voltage or current issues on our
lines that could impact the quality of your service. Our meters deliver whole home usage data through a
secure LTE network and do not connect with any additional smart devices installed at your site or external
networks. Your data is safe and no personal information is ever shared with outside parties.
{Continued on reverse side)
1919
Page 2
Please contact us at 1-800-895-0631immediatelyto resolve access issues and to set an appointment to have
your meter updated.We are happy to answer any additional questions you may have regarding the new
meter and look forward to working with you.
If we do not hear from you within 15 days from the date of this letter to resolve this issue,we will refer your
account to our service disconnection process.We look forward to hearing from you and will always consider it
a privilege to serve you,
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
Para más información, llame al 1-888-225-2611 para hablar con un especialista en español.
2020
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER 1<-.:,o;o,�
I.P.ll.C. No. 1 Sttoad RttmN orStim No. 6R.I
Caacaag F"snt Rnilioe or Slam No. 6R 1
ELEC.TRIC SER\IICE REGULATION NO. 6
STATE OF IDAHO
Compa■y'1 lutaDatioa
I.COMPAN\''S INSTALLATION
E)lccpt .u othcnl·isc provided in these Regulations, an Electric Service: Agrccmcnt, or the ElectricSm·icc Schedules, the Company will install and maintain its lines and equipment on its side of the
Pom1 of Delivery. but shall not be n:quin:d to install or maintain any Im or equipment cxttptmeters and aoc:cssorics beyond that point Only the Company is authorized to make the connect.ions
al tk Point of Ddivc:ry. Electric sc:n-ice furnished under this tariff will be altc:maring current. 60
h<:rt.r_ single or thm:-phase. Primary service voltage "ill be at one of the nonunal standiird voltnscsavailable from the Company at or near the C.ustomcr's location. Scc-OOdary sctVlCC ,-oltagc will be
hmi:cd to:
Singk-phuc:, 120 wits, 2-win; grounded
Sin3le-pbuc, l2Q/240 volts., 3-•irc. grounded Singlc-pbuc:, 240/480 volts., 3-•-ue, grounded Thrcc-pbasc. 208Y/l20 ,.'Olts. 4-wirc. grounded. wyc Thn:e-ph&K, 480Y /277 \'Olts. 4-wirc, grounded. wye
2.< ·o.\U> AN\' t'ACILITIES ON CUSTOMER'S PREMISES
(111)All materials furnished and installed by the Company on the Cwtomct'l premises, shall be.
1111d remain_ the property of the Company. The CustOfflCS' shall not break the Company's
meta' seals. In the event of loss Of �e to the C-0mpany's property. arising from neglcet.
,-an:lasneu, or misuse by the: Customer. the cost of DCCll::SS4I)' repairs or rq,laccmcnt ,;hallhc 1>aid by the: Customer.
(h)
(C}
(d)
Customer without c:itpensc: to the: Company lihall make or procure c,oovcyancc to the
ComP4ny of satisfact«y Rights-of-Way Easements l:IC"'5.s the property ovmcd 01' controlledby the Customer for the Company's lines or c::xlcnsions thcn:of ncceuary or incidental 10 thefurnishing of ICTVice to the: Customer.
The Customer shall permit safe. aoccss to Company's n:prcsc:nmtives al all hours to maintainthe Company's cloctric distribution facilities. The Ciutoma wll abo pamit the Companylo trim trees and other wgc111tion lo the extent 11CCC'S5&1)' to noi.d intCJfercncc with the
Company's lines and to protect public safety.
The Customer shall provide � � accca to Company's n:prcscnllllivcs at
rca.soublc •.bl'Dcs, for the purpose:. of mtding mc:tms. .impcx.-tina. rqN.W1Di or rcmovmg
mdl::rina dcvic:ea aad wirins or die Compaoy.
Submitt«l Under Cue No. PAC-E-19-12
ISSl!U>: Scph:mbtr 13. 2019 EFFECTIVE: January 8. 2020
2121
16 February 2023
Peggy and Samuel Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave Rexburg Idaho 83440
Gary Hoogeveen
Chief Executive Officer
Rocky Mountain Power 825 NE Multnomah St
Suite 1800 Portland OR 97232
Re: Rocky Mountain Power Work Order #8314953
Dear Mr Hoogeveen,
We are responding to the undated and unsigned letter sent by Rocky Mountain Power (copy attached) received 10 November 2022. We are giving notice to
dispute your claim that your "installer couldn't access the meter base" located at
333 Shoshone Ave, Rexburg Idaho, 83440. We contest your claim and state the
basis of our objection to your claim to be that there has always been unimpeded
physical access to the meter base since taking possession of this property in October 2019.
As evidence, we present with this letter:
•Photographic evidence of clear, unimpeded physical access to the power meter•Google Maps aerial view of 333 Shoshone Ave, Rexburg Idaho 83440
•Notarized statement by Jeanne Grimmett who resides at 330 Shoshone Ave,Rexburg Idaho, 83440
•Notarized statement by Kristine Bennion, who resides at 295 Shoshone Ave,Rexburg Idaho 83440
We have spoken with Rocky Mountain Power representatives multiple times, and each time they have threatened to terminate service. According to the Idaho
Public Utility Cornmission's"ldaho Residential Utility Disconnection" (copy
attached), the grounds to make these threats credible is "you tamper with or
prevent access to your meter."
These phone calls occurred: •initiated by RMP between Sam and a RMP Rep on or around Nov 10th•initiated by Peggy between Peggy and Christian #36743 on Nov 30th at1 :59pm for 25 minutes
2222
•initiated by Peggy between Peggy, Sam and Christian #367 43 on Dec 6th at1 :31 pm for 20 minutes
In consideration of the seriousness of these threats, especially in the sub-zero
winter weather of Southeastern Idaho (initially weeks before Christmas, and still
persisting into February of temperatures going 20-30 degrees below zero), we
demand evidence of your claim that "the installer couldn't access the meter
base.'' We contest your claim and object to threats to disconnect our power.
We further object to your claim of "the prevailing scientific research on consumer
safety'' and conclusion "that smart meters are allowed in Idaho without any
alternative metering options." It is common knowledge and fully supported by
evidence, peer reviewed and published research1, science and facts that
"Advanced" utility meters including all electronic utility meters and all utility
mete1·s wl1ich contain any digital or electronic components whatsoever:
l.Emit frequencies that contribute to pathophysiological and biologically
disruptive effects on those with Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASC) which
are defined behaviorally and also involve multileveled disturbances of
underlying biology that find striking parallels in the physiological impacts ofelectromagnetic frequency and radio-frequency exposures (EMF/RFR).2 3
2.Are fire hazards due to lack of surge protectors in violation of necessary
standards for utility meters.
3.Cannot withstand typical grid surges.
4.Cause damage to, or destroy, homes, lives and structures when damaged
by grid surges. Dr. Magda Havas, Associate Professor of Environmental &f�esource Studies at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
has received emails and phone calls from occupants of properties wheresmari meters were recently installed. They complain of ill health, including
new symptoms such as headaches, insomnia, anxiety, skin rashes,tinnitus, heart palpitations, depression, fatigue, and short-term memory
loss. Many are unable to use the room closest to the smart meter.4
_). Emit biologically harmful "pulsed" EMF radiation continually (whether transmitting data or not). In May 2011, the World Health Organization's
International Agency for Research on Cancer (!ARC) classified radio-
1https://bit.!y/EfV1F221205 via www.saferemr.com and Joel M Moskowitz Ph.D. Director, Center for Falllily and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
2 https://pubrned,ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24095003/
3 Toby Rogers, The Political Economy of Autism, Doctoral Thesis, University of Sydney, 2019, 37 -38 or Q)JJy_/tobythesis
4:http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?page_id=2292
2323
frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) as a possible human
carcinogen (Group 2B) in the same classification as lead, DDT, and
chloroform.5 We do not want additional layers of pulsed radio-frequency
electromagnetic fields in our home.
6.Create and collect personal data of private activities in the home in
violation of law. Smart meters identify electrical devices inside the home
and record when and for how long they are operated, resulting in an
invasion of my privacy. Smart meters monitor household activity and
occupancy in violation of my right fo privacy in my home. According to a
February 2012 Congressional Research Service Report entitled SmartMeter: Privacy and Cybersecurity, the Department of Energy reporied that
by matching data with known appliance load signatures, smart meters will
be able to reveal people's daily schedules, their appliances and electronic
equipment, and whether they use certain types of medical equipment.6
7.Allow sharing of data of personal living habits with utility personnel andothers without authorization of the property owner and occupants. Smart
meters tr·ansmit information-carrying radio waves which can be intercepted
by unauthorized and unknown parties. The signals can be used to monitor
behavior and occupancy, and they can be used by criminals to aid criminalactivity against the occupants. Former CIA Director James Woolsey
accounted the wireless security threat on EnergyNews.com.7s.Fatally disrupt and disable medical devices such as Pacemakers.9.Cause wasted electricity and health-damaging transients by the improperplacement and use of a of a switch mode power supply within the utility
meter. Utilities claim that smart meters will cause customers to monitort11eir electrical usage to conserve more electricity. However, a British study
reported on Sept. 2, 2011 that thousands of citizens with a smart meter on
their home over the course of one year experienced little to no change inelectrical usage. We do not know if energy will be conserved with smart
meters, and it is inaccurate to assume that the use of a smart meter
causes customers to conserve energy.8
1 o. Cause heating and antenna effects upon any metal body implants which
damage body tissues.
11.Cause damage to health and life by placing high-energy radio transmittersin close proximity to human living spaces. Medical research has
5https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07 /pr208_E.pdf
6htt ps :/ /sgp. fas. org/crs/misc/R42338. pdf
7htt ps://bit.ly/ja111eswool seygridsecurity
ri Tolll HnrrJreaves, Michael Nye, Jacquelin Burgess, Making energy visible: A qualitative field
study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors, Energy Policy, Volume 38, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 6111-6119 or https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.20·10.05.06B
2424
documented that smart meters can negatively impact health. In April 2012,
the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) issued a
position paper entitled, Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health.9 According to the report, "Multiple studies correlate RF
exposure with diseases such as cancer, neurological disease, reproductive
disorders, immune dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity .....
many in vitro, in vivo and epidemiological studies demonstrate that
significant harmful biological effects occur from non-thermal RF
exposure ... Genetic damage, reproductive defects, cancer, neurological
degeneration and nervous system dysfunction, immune system
dysfunction, cognitive effects, protein and peptide damage, kidney
damage, and developmental effects have all been reported in the peer­reviewed scientific literature." In a press release, the AAEM calls for
immediate caution regarding smart meter installations due to potentially
harmful exposure to pulsed radiofrequency radiation.10
12.Represent excess equipment costs with more expensive meters and
represent more frequent replacement of the more expensive meters, all of
which costs will be passed on to ratepayers via excess and unnecessary
charges when this alternate "advanced" metering is unnecessary.
13.Represent unnecessary higher service costs in the processing and storingof data collected and general maintenance of the wireless grid network.
J ,J. Represent unlawful invasion of privacy by the harvest and exploitation of
databases of information about the personal and private activities inside
the t1orne without the consent of the owners, occupants and guests11. Data
about residents' daily routines and activities are collected, recorded, and
stored in the utility's databases, which are accessed by parties not
authorized by occupants to know and share that private data. Those
databases may be handed off to criminals, blackmailers, corrupt law
enforcement, private hackers, power company employees, and anyone
who may act against the interests of the occupants who are unde1· metered su1·veillance.
The above violations and abuses cannot be authorized by any lawful easement contract and represents unlawful and highly dangerous trespass on our property for which major liabilities will arise for which you are fully and personally
responsible as authorizing and administering the policies which brought about
9 https://www.aaemonline.org/electromagnetic-and-radiofrequency-fields-effect-on-human­health/
10 l1ttps://ww1,v.aaemonline.org/aaem-calls-for-immediate-caution-regarding-smart-meter­installation/
11 U.S. Const Amend. IV
2525
and/or rnaintain the trespass and hazards. We, as utility customers, hereby do not consent to assume such hazards and damages as a condition of receiving
electric service or as a means of extortion of additional service payments from us
in return for safe, lawful and reliable metering.
NOTICE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Your service mus� be safe and lawful, and is not safe and lawful if you are putting
electronic utility meters on homes. We invoke our right to self-defense, that in the
face of this immediate bodily injury, this is a God-given right, protected by the Law and Constitution of the United States of America12. The laws you are
violating by installing electronic utility meters on private homes and businesses
without consent and full disclosure are, in general, Public Endangerment, Trespass, Extortion, Fraud, Assault, Arson and FCC regulations requiring
consent of property owners for installation of radio transmitters.13 In light of those
violations and the hazards and harm they cause, you must provide, within 21
days of this delivery, record of insurance naming me, your account holder, as
beneficiary in order to provide full and speedy remedy, reimbursement and
penalties for all hazards and harm listed above and any others that may arise.
Absent such insurance, you are agreeing by the installation of any electronic
utility meter to personally and promptly pay all claims and satisfy all demands
which may arise from the dangers, nuisances, damages and harm that may be
caused by any such electronic utility meter and you are agreeing that the the
above list is generally true and represents intentional hazard and harm perpetrated upon any utility customer who receives an installed electronic utility
meter.
You may avoid this liability by permanently installing, at no charge, penalty or
assessrnent, a safe and lawful fully electromechanical meter to record our utility
service usage on a coarse monthly basis. Any claim that electromechanical
meters are "not available" is false. The simple issue of a purchase order to a
meter manufacturer will provide unlimited supply. If you refuse or fail to provide
or allow safe, reliable and lawful electromechanical metering timely, we require
full bonding, insurance and assurance of liability for all hazards listed above and
any hazards not yet anticipated caused by electronic metering. That insurance or assumption of liability and responsibility must include your providing a name and
address of a fully responsible and liable party where our claims may be filed and
paid WITHOUT HESITATION OR QUESTION to remedy any real or perceived harm, injury, loss, damage or violation of rights caused by the above described electronic utility metering hazards, defects and offensive features and functions.
12 U.S Const. /\mend II and IV
13 Electronics Communications Privacy Act (Title 18, USC, Sec. 2511, 2512, 2518)
2626
If you do not provide that timely, then you and all other top policy-making officers of your organization are fully liable for all risks, violations, hazards and harm
described above.
In summary:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTICED THAT YOU ARE PERSONALLY CAUSING HARM AND DAMAGE WITH YOUR NON-CONSENSUAL METERING DEVICES AND PROGRAMS, AND YOU ARE FULLY AND PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES OF THAT METERING POLICY IF YOU FAIL TO CEASE AND DESIST THE ABOVE HAZARDS AND VIOLATIONS IMMEDIATELY.
If, having failed to provide the safe and lawful metering described above, you
additionally fail or refuse to provide the above assurance of liability and
responsibility requested herein timely you will be in default and fully and
personally accountable, liable and responsible for all consequences,
damages, harm, injuries, losses, violations of rights, trespass, bad faith,
negiigence. nuisance, and malice. Your failure to timely provide insurance,
bonding and claim information described above is your agreement to personally
pay for all claims as described above. You will also, by any failure or refusal to
provide insurance and claim contacts described above, be putting up and offering
you and your company's resources for prompt and uncontested settlement of our claims whenever they may be submitted for any incident where damages occur.
Any failure to pay any our claim/s within 30 days of delivery will obligate you to
pay all collection costs, legal costs and expenses, court fees and all incidental
costs and expenses we may find necessary to secure settlement and collection
of our clairns.
We recommend providing contacts to us of your insurance carrier and providing
the wording of your policy/s immediately. Any policy that is not provided and/or does not clearly provide the protection requested will be default of this notice and obligation.
Because electronic meters represent numerous hazards, violations and potential
damages, you are liable for major penalties claims for simply installing a working
electronic utility on our property regardless of any tangible damage caused.
This notice and all terms, conditions, declarations and representations herein are superior to and supplant any and all content in easement contracts that may
have been established, proposed or presumed. Herein are the terms under which
your company may lawfully provide electric service. Any contrary terms are
unlawful and unenforceable and will cause you personally and your company
major penalty. We have made no unreasonable demand and may not be refused
2727
or penalized for requiring safe and lawful entry and occupation of our property.
This notice does not, and may not be construed to be a refusal of any kind of metering or violation of any easement or terms of service. It is simply
requirement for the necessary insurance to mitigate the risks and harm you
are causin£J.
All terms and conditions above automatically take effect upon your default on the above conditions and terms. However, a simple denial of this requirement and
notice is insufficient because the hazards are serious, real and confirmed by overwhelming evidence and you are responsible for causing those hazards and
violations. If you do not timely rebut, with fact, law and evidence, our allegations
of unlawful trespass of fire hazard, radiation emission, transient causation and
unlawful surveillance, all representations, claims, declarations, terms and conditions put forth herein will be effective as contract and obligation against you.
Bullying and threats of denial of service, penalties and "consequences" are not valid rebuttal to our allegations and serve only to expose your malfeasance and
failure of responsibility.
Any rebuttal to this notice must be submitted to us timely. Timely means prior to installation of electronic metering or, if electronic metering is installed, within 2·1 days of delivery of this notice. Urgency dictates that no "grace" period will be allowed beyond 21 days from this delivery other than reasonable time for mail deiivery. Failure to respond in writing and with supported rebuttal within 21 days
constitutes full and final default by you, agreement to all terms, conditions and
representations herein by you, your company and agents. If you require up to 15 additional days to respond you may request that in writing prior to default. We will
determine if your metering activities and policies will allow the extension and we
will notify you in writing if extension is granted.
This Notice supersedes and replaces all prior agreements, clauses, contracts
and easements which conflict with any point herein.
Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal. This is an adhesion contract with full effective power and effect by default.
Sincerely,
Peggy M. B. Edwards
2828
t-'1 Gmail
Information You Requested
t ·r',._.:,· -------------·-··-·--·--··----------------------------------------------------------
Solomon, Timnthy (PacifiCorp) <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Hoopiiaina, l<even (PacifiCorp)" <[e-mail]>
Hello, Mrs. Edwards.
Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 11 :55 AM
Thank you again for taking time with me today on the telephone. Along with the attachments, here are several links that relate to our conversation:
1.This link vvill take you to information on the meter currently installed in your meter base: CENTRON®
(itron.com)2.This link will take you to details on the upgraded meter we are installing in Idaho. Please note that, despite the
name, our system does not operate on 5G: Gen5 Riva Meter (itron.com)3.ltron's radio frequency (RF) information can be found here: Radio Frequency Resource Center I Itron
For your information. I have also followed up with Greg Andrus, the planner who will be calling you, as well as his manager. Aaron Hancock. I·ve also copied Keven Hoopiiaina into this email. Keven is the project manager for the meter upgrades
Please let me know if you have any other questions. I'll keep in touch with the Rexburg operations group to make SLffe
they have connected witl, you.
Again, thank you for your time this morning.
Tim
Timothy L Solomon
Regional Business Manager
Rocky Mountain Powc,r/PacifiCorp
;208-252-2446
2929
Samuel Z Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave
Rexburg ID 83440 2229
Dear Samuel Z Edwards:
1407 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
You can count on us to provide the affordable and consistent power you need. We're using
state-of-the-art technology to deliver dependable power as we plan for the future.
We were recently in your area to upgrade your existing electric meter, but our installer couldn't
access the meter base at 333 Shoshone Ave, Rexburg, Idaho. As required by the Idaho Public
Service Commission, clear and safe access must be available to electric meters for inspection,
maintenance, meter upgrades, and to enable us to respond to any emergencies.
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has reviewed smart meter technology, and the prevailing scientific research on consumer safety, and concluded that smart meters are allowed in Idaho
without any alternative metering options.
Please call 1-800-895-0631 within 15 days of receiving this letter to resolve any access issues
and set an appointment to have your meter updated. We are happy to answer any questions
you may have regarding the new meter and look forward to working with you.
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
Paro mas informaci6n, /lame al 1-888-225-2611 para hablar con un especiafista en espar1ol.
3030
i Gmail
(no subject)
P & S Edwards <[e-mail]> To [e-mail]
6 attachments
IMG-3971.jpg 3219K
IMG-3972.jpg
2857K
IMG-3973.jpg 3182K
Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 9 59 MJl
3131
IMG-3974.jpg 2536K
IMG-3975.jpg
3136K
IMG-3976.jpg 3018K
3232
To Whom It May Concern,
I, Kristine Bennion, do testify that The Edwards property at 333 Shoshone Ave, is unimpeded by any gates, fences, or obstacles that would inhibit access to the power meter. I was here in the summer of 2022 wllen the new smart rncters were set to be installed and the installation crew easily entered, wit11out issue, on to my property as well as the neighbor's property for installation-we both refused the new meters at tl,at
time.
Sincerely,
Krist!rH? t5(·)nninn
l //
1 -----l-��J:J\·N {;:(vl��ci�
d�✓,1/1•Y~
.-� y· .I z;✓;;/-1/--
;\t i-91 P�.LL ,c_
3333
2 November 2020
To Whom it May· Concern,
I, Jeanne Grimmett, of 330 Shoshone Ave Rexburg Idaho, 83440, do attest that the property of Samuel and Peggy Edwards at 330 Shoshone Ave, Rexburg Idaho, 83440 is open and unfenced from the street.
r have their permission to access their property including their backyard vvhere the meter base is located.
I ;1ttest that there are no physical barriers to the meter base and there have never been any physical barriers there since they moved into that home in October 201.9.
3434
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Slcltf::/Con1111011wc:!dlth of I qfqlur
I ! , • "' County of /V(Ac-{1 s(1/.>'"'
Doy Month Year
___________ {!._0__,__-....,,_-_1_�---¥--·_._-_-_1 __ �-i-fl--"·..s,=-_._·L"'---------• the undersigned Nota1·y Public, Nome of Notary Public
personally oppeared ______ ..... Jkr,_..._,...#'��,__-__ �����-�--S ____________ _ r=--rr Name(s) of Signer(s)
'1%-JJersonally known to me -OR -D proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
1"5�t;'°::�, ...... _.k-,�,t:�-:f;a,,6, ... -�., 1 cw::S,Gf"HER J DYSON f.i ,_,.. :,,,-.• ,,c - St,;te of Idaho ;'. ,0, ·,u"1bo"r 20204829
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subsu-ibed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same for the purposes therein stated.
.''.: r ,_.,·.-.,�·.::,•1•)n Ex;:,ires Dec 9, 2026
Place Notary Seal/Stamp Above
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
�/,�-Signature '6rNotryPub!ic
e1;..l f-4::;etu:J o/ot"'
Any Other Required Information
(Printed Name of Notary. Expiration Date, etc.)
----------··-······-·-·------------OPTIONAL ------------------,!This secilon is required for notarizations performed in Arizona but is optional in other states. Comr,teting this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reaHachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attacl1ed Document
� Tille or Type of Document: ---�"Fon--�--�-�--�-.... \+Cl�f&�i�t __________ _
Dcc.umr:-nt Date: ______ /_2._-�z___-_Z-._2-_______ Number of Pages: ______ _ L .. Si9ner(s) Ot11er Ti1an Named Above: _,_f:'.:v__,_"'1___,,-,)..cc...l�_· __ �_--'-..,_,'-"""-'C<A._-+!-�0-'---'=e?�c.,,,,�fl_e__�_Gn_,_·-_' -:�-""'-_l. __ �---�--
t;2020 National f\Jotary Association
.J
3535
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State/Cornm()11wec1ith of
County of �:(k,, ,r(.�-"---L...L.-----------
·-;, �- ·rel •"" -, On this t1v2 _(,,,, ___ day of ___ U,.__,_.,,R,,e.g,==<----.:.:'c..��'-------� ___ z..c.c;.._z.._�---� before me, Day Month Year C/��'.s /4..-rzh y__) l?-fJ0-:. the undersigned Notary Public. Nome of Noto,y Public
porsonal1y i'lppccned _____ ·f:��r;-�_")�\.���('�•-\$=_Q..,_-v_,_.---_�_, ________________ _ Nome(s) of Signer(s)
µs-personally known to me -OR -D proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same for t11e puq'.loscs therein stated.
Pince Notary Seal/Stomp Above
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
��� Signatf.trerNotary Public C/1;s4-;1li.rJ �-SCt.-A
Any Other Required Information (Printed Nome of Notary, Expiration Date, etc)
------------OPTIONAL---------------------
This '.;ection is required for notarizations performed in Arizona but is optional in other stoles. Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attacl1ed Document
Title or Type of Document: --�Q;_· =2?._'l�---;� ____ a_�-..,'"'-"'--r.tth __ •/-_________ _
Document Date: -----+14'2�------"'2'----=2-'--2-______ Number of Pages: ______ _
Signe1 (s) Otiw1 Tl1a11 Named Above: _ _.\'--'�='--'--"M,/'-""---�---1--<-.e.'_v�--'-v-\-\.---'-'L�i--i..---1ic---\��----�,_�1---/-<_�_--_,,_,.._�-· �-�.c_;<��=-�---
�---··-�··-------•· ·-------------------------------------�
·�·2020 I\Jvtiu11vl Nota1y Association
3636
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Stntc/Comrno11weatt11 of
7 ,,., ✓ ,,,.,,, •J,?_ -- / - ,..-.,. On this U1e __ ,,::_: ____ ' _________ day of __ ���"--�_,.....,__,•�"--'--------�"2..l=v-·_2.._, ___ , befor,� me. Day Month Year
-�{_Jh_r_r_1_-s_�-+7'.'-½�·""_0_· _C"Y_-¥�c=--�-------· the undersigned f'-Jotary Public.Nome of Notary Publ;='t
personally appeared ___ ,j
d-"'fd��t�11"-'2�<'.--C�r�-'n.'-'-'---'-'t,.t-J\---'--=--f""\.-�_..i._A-____________ _
Pfoce Notory Seal/Stamp Above
Nome(s) of Signer(s)
,;ipersonally known to me -OR -
D proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence,
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscritiecl
to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same for the purposes
therein stated.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
�� SignatureofNo �ublic
Cf-,f0;A--1c:..j �;s�---
Any Other Required Information (Printed Name of Notary. Expiration Date, etc.)
----------OPTIONAL ----------------�
This section ,s required for notarizations performed in Arizona but is optional in other states. Con1pl<cting this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.
1 Dec,cript:on of Attached Document
Title or ·rype of Document: __.,_tf_e1_,-:,_rn:z./ ___
0
__ � _ __,'-----"---"==·""·_,_(;.c..;_.,.£--_· _____________ _
Ducurnent D2.t12: _____ /.�'2�--2_-_2_2-_________ Number of Pages: _______ _
'.':,\p1(:f[s) Othu Tnan Named Above: C-i·')'--S+,-1'1.tL ___ ---------··-----,
·(:,2020 National f'Jota1y Association
(�;-1�1 1J'f'W' Zq0t-cf.s. ___ __I
3737
Idaho Residential Utility Disconnection
In Idaho, investor-owned utilities providing basic services such as electricity, gas, water and
telecon1n1unications services must follow rules that protect consumers. The rules are established
and enforced by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC). The IPUC is a state �gency charged
with re8uiating investor-owned utilities. (City-owned or cooperative utilities are not regulated by
the IPUC). The rules say when a utility can and cannot disconnect service to a customer. They
;:ilso r,?quire utilities to inform customers before service is actually shut off, so that payment pians
can be· attempted and disconnection avoided.
This fact sheet answers common questions about your rights and responsibilities as a customer
of ;:1 rcgu!dtcd g.=1'.,, eiectric, or water utility.
When can a cornpany shut off my service?
Your electric, gas, or water company may begin taking steps to shut off your service if:
o You do not pay your bill by the due date.
•You pay your bill with a dishonored check or make an electronic payment from an account
that hc1s insufficient funds.
Q You do not pay a required deposit.
•You use a false name or misrepresent yourself to get service.
•You do not pay according to an arrangement you made with the utility.
" You are wasting service through improper equipment or otherwise.
" The custorner is a minor not competent to contract (an un-emancipated minor).
.. \\Ju i,llllfJ(:>r with or prevent access to your meter.
How much notice will I get?
If the utility has grounds to shut off your service, the company must:
,.. Serid you a written notice telling you of its intention to shut off service at least SEVEI\J
DAYS before the planned date.
111 The utility may send you a final notice at least THREE DAYS before the planned date. It
must give you a final notice at least 24 HOURS before it plans to actually shut off service.
The utility rnust attempt to contact you or an adult member of your household before
shutting off service.
•The utility must shut off service within 21 DAYS after the planned date or begin the
notification process again.,.. No additional notice is required if a payment arrangement made after receiving written
notice i.s not kept, or you pay your bill with a dishonored check or make an electronic
payrncnt from an account that has insufficient funds. () If you receive your bill electronically, you may separately consent, in writing, to receive
clect1 onic notifications.
1 of 3 Updated 3/19/2020
3838
Can I be shut off without notice?
There arr tim<?s when a utility can shut off service without notifying you first. For example, no
advance notice is required if a dangerous condition exists or meter tampering is discovered.
Do I have to pay my bill in winter?
Yes. However, if you are having trouble paying the gas or electric bill, you should notify the
company and try to make special arrangements. Payment plans are available, inc!ucling a special
Winter Payment Plan.
What if I have children, elderly, or seriously ill people at home?
You are still required to make payments if possible. A special Winter Payment Plan is available if
you are unable to pay your bill in full during the winter. But if you are not able to pay AND have
childi-en. elderly, or ill people in your home, your gas or electric heat cannot be shut off during
th� months of December, January, and February. You must let the utility know you cannot pay
your bill and how you qualify. The winter disconnection moratorium, however, does not apply to
customers who don't apply for service or obtain service dishonestly.
What if I'm seriously ill?
No utility can shut off service if you provide the utility with a certificate from your doctor or a
public hc2lth official with medical training, stating that a serious illness or a medical emergency
exists or could be created for any permanent member of your household if your service is shut
off.
This certificate will postpone a shut-off for 30 days. If your service is already shut--off, the utility
must turn it back on. Within the 30-day period, you must make arrangements with the utility to
pay the bili. l"he utility may agree to renew a medical certificate for an additional 30 days if ·you
are still unable to pay the bill.
Can I get disconnected at night or on the weekends?
Even if the utility has grounds to shut off service, it may not do so at these times:
" Before 8 a.m. or after 5 p.m. Service may be shut off between 5 p.m. and 9 p. m. Monday
through Thursday if the utility is unable to gain access to the customer's meter during
normal business hours.
c Friday, Saturday, Sunday or any legal holiday recognized by the State of Idaho (New Year's
Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day,
Columbus Day, Veteran1s Day, Thanksgiving·oay, and Christmas Day).
$ The day before a legal holiday recognized by the State of Idaho.
0 Any time the utility's business offices are closed.
2 of 3 Updated 3/19/202.0
3939
DECISION MEMORANDUM 1
DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSIONER HAMMOND
COMMISSIONER LODGE
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM: DAYN HARDIE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DATE: APRIL 10, 2023
SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF SIX FORMAL COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER REGARDING SMART METER INSTALLATIONS; CASE
NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08; AND
PAC-E-23-11
Between March 22, 2023 and March 27, 2023, the Commission received six formal complaints
(collectively referred to as the “Complaints”) filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power
(“Company”). The Complaints all regard the Company’s threat to disconnect service if customers refuse to
allow the Company to install smart meters. The central theme of the Complaints focused on customers who
did not want to have smart meters installed at their homes. Reasons cited for not wanting smart meters
included age and health of the complainants, a child with special needs proximity to the home’s meter, lack
of legal authority allowing the Company to install the smart meters, data privacy, and a request for an opt-
out provision.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Commission issue a Summons to the Company directing it to answer or
otherwise respond to the Complaints within 21 days. Staff recommends that because of the similarity of
each complaint, the Company be allowed to file a single response that addresses the various issues
referenced in the Complaints in addition to the installation of smart meters and associated threat of
disconnection.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to issue a Summons to the Company directing it to answer or otherwise
respond to the Complaints within 21 days?
Dayn Hardie
Deputy Attorney General
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_RMP_dec1_dh.docx
4040
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Brad Little, Governor
P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720-0074 Eric Anderson, President John R. Hammond, Jr., Commissioner Edward Lodge, Commissioner
April 19, 2023
Via Certified Mail
PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power
1407 West North Temple, Suite 330 Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Re: Jacoba H. van Mastrigt, et al., vs. PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power Case Nos. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08;PAC-E-23-11
To Whom It May Concern,
Enclosed please find a Summons and six Complaints issued against Rocky Mountain Power in the
above-mentioned cases. As directed in the Summons, you are to file a written answer or motion indefense of said Complaints with this Commission within twenty-one (21) days of the service dateof the Summons. The answer or motion in defense should address all unique grievances againstthe Company regarding smart meter installations and the threat of disconnections described in the
complaints.
Enclosure( s)l :\Legal\ELECTRICIPAC_ RMP Smart Meter Cornplaints\Summons_ CvrLtr _dh.docx Sincerely,�­�iy� Commission Secretary
P.O. Box 83720, Boise, Idaho 83720-0074 Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Suite 201-A, Boise, Idaho 83714
4141
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al.
COMPLAINANTS,
vs.
PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER,
RESPONDENT.
) )
) SUMMONS )
) CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04
) PAC-E-23-05; PAC-E-23-06;
) PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08; ) PAC-E-23-11 )
)
-------------------)
PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power 1407 West North Temple, Suite 330 Salt Lake City, UT 84116
THE STATE OF IDAHO SENDS GREETINGS TO THE ABOVE-NAMED RESPONDENT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that six formal Complaints have been filed with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission by the above-named Complainants; and
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED to file a written answer or written motion in defense of the Complaints within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Summons; and
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that unless you do so within the time herein specified, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission may take such action against you as is prayed for in the Complaints or as it deems appropriate under Title 61 of the Idaho Code.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission this 19th
day of April 2023.
�,i;S, (SEAL) Commission Secretary
l:\Legal\ELECTRICIPAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\Summons to PAC_clh.docx
SUMMONS 1
4242
COMPLAINT
To: Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise,ID 83720-0074
Date:March 20, 2023
From: Jacoba H.van Mastrigt
5447 E Hacienda Dr.
Idaho Falls,Idaho [83406]
RE:Installation of "Smart" Meter and threat of service disconnection
Dear Sir,
This COMPLAINT was originally submitted by me to ATTORNEY GENERAL Raúl R.
Labrador at the suggestion of Peggy Edwards of Rexburg,Idaho.Peggy mentioned that she spoke
briefly with Raúl R.Labrador in Boise on January 17,2023 about her challenges with ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP and their attempt to force the installation of a smart meter on
her home against her will and consent.He encouraged her at that time to submit her COMPLAINT
to his OFFICE of the ATTORNEY GENERAL. I felt it important to submit this same COMPLAINT
to you as well for your own investigation.Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I am a 99-year old widow,legally blind,deaf,and hyper-electro sensitive,currentlyfaced
with the real possibility of having my power/electrical service disconnected in less than 15 days (see
disconnect letter, dated March 1,2023,Exhibit A).I have attempted over and over again,in good
faith to resolve all issues with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP which have led up to
this point where they are now threatening to shut my power off,in spite of the fact that I have always
paid my power bill each month and am currently not late with payment.They, in turn are the
aggressor operating in bad faith,using strong-arm intimidation tactics,threat, duress,and coercion
in order to unlawfullyforce their will upon me and my private property while silencing my legitimate
claim(s)against them.It is important for you to understand that ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP has not responded to any of my timely correspondence,which includes a
conditional offer to resolve the issues between us.They have arrogantly and contemptuously
remained silent on all my documents,documents to which they have a legal and moral obligation to
speak. Silence,as you well know is indicative of fraud and bad faith.
This COMPLAINT arises over matters concerning myself and ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP in regards to their intention to install a "Trespassing Technology"known as
a "Smart" type meter on my home, located at 5447 E Hacienda Dr., Idaho Falls,Idaho, contrary to
my existing and long-standing contractual agreement with them,as well as my will and consent.
Please find attached my DECLARATION in the form of an AFFIDAVIT in support of this
letter of COMPLAINT,along with supporting Exhibits A,B, C, D,E,F,G,and H.
Last year,I received an undated and unsigned letter from ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP (see Exhibit B)on or around November 22,2022 instructing me to call their
800 number within 15 days to resolve any "access"issues and set an appointment to have my electric
CASE NO. PAC-E-23-04
4343
meter updated with their smart meter (Trespassing Technology). Instead of calling the 800 number
I decided to write them a letter (see Exhibit C) along with my attached CONDITIONAL
ACCEPTANCE dated December 1, 2022 (see Exhibit D), conditionally accepting their offer to
install a smart meter (Trespassing Technology) on my home, giving them 15 days to respond to said CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE and other documents (see COURTESY NOTICE, Exhibit E; NOTICE OF FAULT, Exhibit F; NOTICE OF DEFAULT, Exhibit G; and NOTICE OF
ESTOPPEL, Exhibit H) which followed, all of which they have failed to answer as required, putting them in DEFAULT. Also included with my letter was their original letter, which I returned to them
with my "Returned for Cause" statement (see Exhibit B) written on it. Please note that one set of original documents was sent to the return address on their mailing envelope at P.O. Box 400,
Portland, Oregon 97207, and the other set of original documents to the address on the letterhead inside their mailing envelop at 1407 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84126. On March 12, 2023, I received another unsigned letter (see Exhibit A) stating that this is a "SECOND NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 5447 E Hacienda Dr Idaho Falls,
ID", and that their contractor was refused "access" to perform a meter (Trespassing Technology) exchange, knowing full well that they are already in DEFAULT by tacit acquiescence, therefore
having no standing to proceed. This new letter also states that I am to call their 800 number to resolve this issue within 15 days, or they will refer my account to their service disconnection process. Be
advised that this issue/matter has already been resolved as a result of ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/P ACIFICORP' s tacit acquiescence due to their silence on all my series of documents which they received. In this letter they also claim that I am "contractually obligated to allow" ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP "safe and unencumbered access to our equipment. Meter service is a condition of electric service, as expressed in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's Customer Relations Rules, namely Electric Service Regulation No.6, ... " Please be aware that the word/term "access" in ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's letters to me is being improperly applied to mean something other than what it really is (see explanation below).
INTRODUCTION [BRIEF IDSTORY]
As it stands now, there has been in place for the past 37 or so years a relationship of a
"contractual" nature between myself and ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP (formally UT AH POWER AND LIGHT), who currently provides me with electrical power to my home. I, in turn naturally, have agreed to allow ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's (formerly UT AH POWER AND LIGHT) meter reader(s) "access" of a "specified and limited" nature, not a
general unspecified and unlimited nature, to my private property each month specifically for them
to read my electrical power meter ONLY. No other access to my private property, implied or otherwise was ever granted to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP (formerly UT AH POWER AND LIGHT) at any time. Any other necessary "access", including troubleshooting power outages and making necessary repairs to electrical equipment located on my private property is
considered "special" in nature and would only be granted at the time, I, the private property owner reported a power outage and or requested them to troubleshoot an electrical problem and make necessary repairs ONLY. Therefore, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP (formally
UT AH POWER AND LIGHT) does not have autonomous authority in and of itself to access my
private property to troubleshoot and or make necessary repairs to electrical equipment or for any other reason at any time, day or night until they receive notification from me authorizing and granting them permission at that time, on a one-time case-by-case basis only for them to proceed to do the specified request. Anything other than this is a trespass, invasion of my privacy, security, unalienable
Rights, including my private property rights which cannot be diminished, as well as a violation of our long-standing and existing contractual agreement. Let me be clear on this issue of "access" which ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP claims that I am denying them. I and no one else in my home has ever denied
COMPLAINT 2 4444
"access" to any of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's meter readers or their company repair personnel as per our previously agreed upon terms of our long-standing contractual agreement
over the years. However, there has never been in place any agreement for personnel from any third­
party company to trespass on my private property and tamper with my, in this case electrical meter
at any time, whether I am at home or if no one is at home, neither has there ever been in place any agreement with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP to "access" my private property to make a non-repair (or install a Trespassing Technology) when no request for such type of service was ever made, and no defective electrical equipment on my private property exists. So, if no defective electrical equipment exists on my private property and I did not call ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP to report any troubles/problems with my electrical service and thus no electrical repairs were/are needed, what are there personnel doing on my private property and or
attempting to access my private property without my consent, which they know is contrary to our
existing contractual agreement? Understand that this whole issue surrounds a matter of an existing "contract" which ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP are attempting to impair my obligation to. This contractual
relationship, as I said before has been in place since we built our home about 37 years ago when we requested ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP (previously UT AH POWER AND LIGHT) to install an analog electric meter (not a Trespassing Technology) and supply our home with electrical power, to which they agreed. This has worked smoothly without any problems or disputes until last year, when ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP attempted to change
the terms of our previously agreed upon and long standing "contract" without any prior proper notification or full disclosure that they were attempting to change said terms of or initiate a new contract without my knowledge and consent in order for them to bully their way onto my private
property to make a non-repair ( or install a Trespassing Technology) which is not part of our existing contractual agreement. As you well know, for any changes to be made to a contract, both parties must be, in agreement, and both parties must have clear understanding of any and all terms and changes in terms
of said contract to be valid and binding. This is simply not the case in this matter. To allow this abuse to continue would be a travesty of justice. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP acknowledges the existence of our contractual relationship (see Exhibit A) but in a skewed and twisted fashion, not relating the matter truthfully. They propagate deceptions and lies that the smart meter is safe and the homeowner is the antagonist and an uncooperative party for not wanting their smart meter (Trespassing Technology), making us the "bad guy". This is like thugs attempting to break into your home and you resisting them, and then having them go to the authorities complaining that the homeowner is being uncooperative by not letting them into their home. This is indeed a criminal mentality to which the PUC/Legislature just turns a blind eye to. Why is it that the IDAHO
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION/Legislature supports/sanctions this type of criminal behavior and never comes to the aide of the customers? This seems to be a common practice from state to state and the people/inhabitants nearly always ends up with the short end of the stick. There is no one or agency in the Idaho government advocating for the people/inhabitants in
their plight with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP, but there is a government agency advocating for ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP' s position -the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. It is clear that this agency does not operate in the best interest of the people/inhabitants of Idaho primarily because their hands are tied by the legislature. This whole
picture is a one-sided equation not in my favor or other customers. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP is now assuming and presuming that they have the right to alter our existing long-standing contractual relationship without our knowledge and consent anytime they please implying that they can come onto my private property anytime they
please to do whatever they wish, which they cannot.
Understand, I have committed no wrong in this instant matter and have done my due diligence in an attempt to resolve all issues in order to keep the peace and my electric power on.
COMPLAINT 3 4545
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP on the other hand have completely ignored my timely CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE and follow-up documents, choosing to stand mute. They have acted in bad faith and continue to walk in dishonor. Their silence is palpable and unacceptable.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP is a huge corporate giant with endless
financial resources coming against this small single family who only desires to live in peace. This huge corporate giant seems to think that because they operate as a government sanctioned monopoly, knowing that customers have no other option or choice in power companies, they can just run rough shod over their perceived disobedient customers to force their unlawful will (Trespassing Technology) upon them by use of deception, lies, strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat, duress, and coercion (all criminal acts) in order to covertly alter a previously agreed upon "contract" without my knowledge and consent -HOLDING MY ELECTRICAL POWER SERVICE AS RANSOM.
This is a matter of the big bully on the block going around breaching the peace, terrorizing
and strong-arming the inhabitants in the neighborhoods and bullying their way onto their customer's private property and into their private lives. This is criminal behavior and it must be stopped.
FACTUAL COUNTS
I, Jacoba H. van Mastrigt, hereinafter referred to as complainant, in pro per, complaining of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP and their Trespassing Technology, respectfully alleging various felonious acts being perpetrated upon complainant as follows:
COUNT 1: Breach of the Peace. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's attempted unlawful intrusion onto complainant's private property and into complainant's home by way of a smart meter (Trespassing Technology) wire-tapping device, resulting in a breach of complainant's
peace causing undue fear, severe anxiety, mental fatigue, as well as physical and emotional stress.
COUNT 2: Attempted Extortion of complainant's will, consent, and rights through use of threat, duress, and coercion in order to induce complainant to capitulate, by wrongful use of fear and
under color of official right to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP' s unlawful compulsion to accept their smart meter (Trespassing Technology) while holding the threat of electrical service disconnection over complainant's head.
COUNT 3: Impairment of Contract. Impairment of complainant's obligation of an existing contract between ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP and complainant by use of threat, deception, strong-arm intimidation tactics, trickery, duress, and coercion. Violators are attempting to change terms of an existing contract and or create a new contract with complainant in order to
install a "smart" meter (Trespassing Technology) without the authorization/consent of complainant by wrongful use of fear and under color of official right, hoping complainant will grant coerced or tacit agreement for such contract changes by either omitting to perform a particular act or through the performance of a particular act induced under compulsion in order to get their smart meter
(Trespassing Technology) installed on complainant's home.
COUNT 4: Attempted Extortion. Attempted extortion and takeover of complainant's private property for commercial use. Violators, by wrongful use of fear and under color of official right
are attempting to commandeer complainant's private property in order to install a smart Meter
"relay station" (Trespassing Technology) on complainant's property for the sole benefit of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP and outside third-party entities without any just authorization and compensation to complainant for such. This would amount to theft, unlawful
conversion of private property, unjust enrichment, and violation of complainant's FIFTH AMENDMENT right to not be deprived of complainant's right to life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
COMPLAINT 4 4646
Note: If attempted murder is prosecutable, then attempted extortion by use of threat, duress, and
coercion is also prosecutable.
COUNT 5: Attempted Illegal Wiretapping. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP is attempting to illegally wiretap complainant's home and extract personal and private information without a lawfully issued and or executed search warrant, through the installation of an unlawful
(as no consent is given) surveillance/bugging device known as a smart meter (Trespassing Technology). Smart meter capabilities include, but not limited to monitoring, logging, storing, transferring, and sharing of daily personal and private habits and routines of occupants of private
homes and then giving said information to unauthorized third-parties for profit, including police and federal government snoop agents, all without the homeowner's or other occupants consent to do so. This would amount to gross violation of complainant's FOURTH AMENDMENT right to be secure in complainant's person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, as well as complainant's FIFTH AMENDMENT right to not be deprived of complainant's right to life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
COUNT 6: Threat with Intent to Commit Harm to complainant and other household members by
threatening to shut off electrical power to complainant's property/house if complainant does not
allow ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP to install a smart meter (Trespassing Technology) on complainant's house. Termination of electrical power will cause severe hardship, stress, and duress, as well as severe physical and emotional harm to this already frail 99-year-old complainant.
COUNT 7: Gross Negligence; Hazardous Negligence. The "gross negligence", or reckless and
wanton behavior of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP is manifest in their failure to
exercise even slight care, and evidences a reckless disregard of complainant's life and safety, as well as of others in complainant's household, by attempting to expose us to the dangerous/ hazardous health effects of a smart meter (Trespassing Technology) which they are attempting to install on complainant's private property against complainant's will and consent. There intentional failure to perform a manifest duty to truthfully inform complainant of the actual dangers of a smart meter is in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting complainant's life and property, including a gross want of care and regard for complainant's rights and the rights of others in
complainant's household.
Their behavior is also "hazardous negligence" due to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ P ACIFICORP' s careless or reckless conduct by attempting to expose complainant and other members of complainant's household to the very great danger of injury and imminent peril should
the installation of their smart meter (Trespassing Technology) on complainant's home take place.
COUNT 8: Actionable Fraud. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ P ACIFICORP has committed an "actionable fraud" against complainant by use of deceptive practices in an attempt to induce
complainant to part with complainant's legal right(s), to include complainant's long-standing existing contractual agreement with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ P ACIFICORP, as well as unlawfully attempting to commandeer complainant's private property for commercial use by installing a "relay station" (smart meter Trespassing Technology) without complainant's consent
by making false representations with the intention to deceive. Further, it appears that ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP makes a material representation which is knowingly false concerning their smart meter (Trespassing Technology), making such representation without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion that smart meters are safe, and made it with the
intention that it should be acted on by complainant. If complainant acts and complies with this false representation, complainant fears and believes an impending injury will be suffered by complainant and possibly others in complainant's household as well.
COMPLAINT 5 4747
COUNT 9: Elder Abuse. This amounts to knowingly and willfully doing something that a reasonable person would not do which inflicts physical and emotional pain and mental injury to an
elderly person. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP, having foreknowledge of
complainant's age (99-years-old) and physical conditions, continues to acknowledge their intent to abuse complainant by negligent infliction of physical pain and mental injury by continuing their strong-arm intimidation tactics, threats, duress, and coercion against complainant in their attempt to install a dangerous and health-hazardous smart meter against complainants will, which makes this a criminal act as per, TITLE 18-1505, subsection 2 & 4 of the Idaho Statutes.
DEFINITIONS
From: Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition
EXTORT. To compel or coerce, as a confession or information by any means serving to overcome one's power of resistance, or making the confession or admission involuntary. Sutton v. Commonwealth, 207 Ky. 597, 269 S.W. 754, 757. To gain by wrongful methods, to obtain In am unlawful manner, to compel payments by means of threats of injury to person, property, or
reputation. McKenzie v. State, 113 Neb. 576, 204 N.W. 60, 61; State v. Richards, 97 Wash. 587, 167 P. 47, 48. To take from unlawfully; to exact something wrongfully by threats or putting in fear. State v. Adams, Del., 106 A. 287, 288, 7 Boyce, 335. See Extortion.
The natural meaning of the word "extort" is to obtain money or other valuable thing either by compulsion, by actual force, or by the force of motives apP.lied to the will, and often more ove owering and irresistible than P.hysical force. Com. v. O'Brien, 12 Cush., Mass., 90.
EXTORTION. Unlawful obtaining of money from another. People v. Parkinson, 181 Misc. 603, 41 N.Y.S.2d 331, 334.
Obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right. And see State v. Logan, 104 La. 760, 29 So. 336; In re Rem pf er, 51 S.D. 393, 216 N.W. 355, 359 55 A.L.R. 1346; Lee v. State, 16 Ariz. 2� 145 P. 244, 246,Ann.Cas.1917B, 131. Obtaining of property of another by threats to injure him and to destroy hisproperty, State v. Phillips, 62 Idaho 656, 115 P.2d 418, 420. Taking or obtaining of anything fromanother by means of illegal compulsion or o pressive exaction, Daniels v. U.S., C.C.A.Cal., 17 F.2d
339, 342; whether by an officer or otherwise, United States v. Dunkley, D.C.Cal., 235 F. 1000,1001.
A taking under color of office is of essence of offense. La Tour v. Stone, 139 Fla. 681, 190 So. 704, 709, 710.
At common law, any oppression by color or pretense of right, and particularly and technically the
exaction or unlawful taking by an officer of money or thing of value, by color of his office, either when none at all is due or not so much is due, or when it is not yet due. Preston v. Bacon, 4 Conn. 480.See People v. Barondess, 16 N.Y.S. 436, 61 Hun, 571; Murray v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 252,67 S.W.2d 274, 275; State v. Anderson, 66 N.D. 522, 267 N.W. 121, 123; Whart.Cr.L. 833.
Term in comprehensive or general sense signifies any oppression under color of right, and in strict or technical sense signifies unlawful taking by any officer, under color of office, of any money or thing of value not due hi..m, more than is due, or before it is due. State v. Barts, 132 N.J.L. 74, 38 A.2d 838, 843, 844, 848; State v. Vallee, 136 Me. 432, 12 A.2d 421.
To constitute "extortion " money or other thing of value must have been willfully and corruptly received. La Tourv. Stone, 139 Fla. 681,190 So. 709,710.
ff o constitute "extortion " the wrongful use of fear must be the operating cause producing consent. People v. Biggs, 178 Cal. 79, 172 P. 152, 153.
COMPLAINT 6 4848
GROSS NEGLIGENCE. The Intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another; such a gross want of care and regard for the rights of others as to justify the resum tion of willfulness and wantonness. Seelig v. First Nat. Bank, D.C.IlL, 20 F.Supp. 61, 68.
The failure to exercise slight care. Jones v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 98 Kan. 133, 157 P. 399, 400; Burton Const Co. v. Metcalfe, 162 Ky. 366, 172 S.W. 698, 701.
In the law of torts (and especially with reference to personal injury cases), the term means such negligence as evidences a reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them. McDonald v. Railroad Co., Tex.Civ.App., 21 S.W. 775; Railroad Co. v. Bodemer, 139 Ill. 596, 29 N.E. 692,32 Arn.St.Rep. 218; Coit v. Western Union Tel. Co., 130 Cal. 657, 63 P. 83, 53 LR.A. 678; Bremerv. Lake Erie & W.R. Co., 318 Ill. 11, 148 N. E. 862, 866, 41 A.LR. 1345.
ndifference to present legal duty and utter forgetfulness of legal obligations, so far as other persons may be affected, and a manifestly smaller amount of watchfulness and circumspection than the circumstances require of a person of ordinary prudence. Burke v. Cook, 246 Mass. 518, 141 N.E. 585, 586. Negligence bordering on recklessness. People v. Adams, 289 Ill. 339, 124 N.E. 575, 577.
Words "gross negligence," are equivalent to words "reckless and wanton." Jones v. Commonwealth, 213 Ky. 356,281 S. W. 164, 167.
HAZARDOUS NEGLIGENCE. Such careless or reckless conduct as exposes one to very great danger of injury or to imminent P-eril. Riggs v. Standard Oil Co., C.C.Minn., 130 F. 204.
•ACTIONABLE.
ACTIONABLE FRAUD. Deception practiced in order to induce another to part with property or surrender some legal right; a false re resentation made with an intention to deceive; may be committed by stating what is known to be false or by professing knowledge of the truth of a statement which is false, but in either case, the essential ingredient is a falsehood uttered with intent to deceive. Sawyer v. Prickett, 19 Wall. 146, 22 L Ed. 105.
To constitute "actionable fraud," it must appear that defendant made a material representation; that it was false; that when he made it he knew it was false,-or made it recklessly without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; that he made it with intention that it should be acted on by laintiff; that laintiff acted in reliance on it; and that plaintiff thereby suffered injury. Blair v. McCool , 136 Or. 139, 295 P. 950, 952. Essential elements are representation, falsity, scienter, deception, and injury. Cobb v. Cobb, 211 N.C. 146, 189 S.E. 479,482.
CONCLUSION
It is my sincere wish that you and your OFFICE of the ATTORNEY GENERAL investigate this entire matter concerning this wicked and wanton behavior and the strong-arm intimidation tactics of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP and why they are permitted to continue to violate and interfere with my, as well as many other ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP customer's existing valid contractual agreements against their will and consent, FOURTH and FIFTH AMENDMENT Rights, and other violations as mentioned above, and also why the IDAHO PUC/State Legislature permits/sanctions this type of criminal behavior.
COMPLAINT 7 4949
As time is of the essence, I respectfully request that this matter be given priority status and a timely remedy sought in order to avoid the apparent upcoming electrical service disconnection in just a matter of days, not just for myself but for many other ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP customers similarly situated.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in remedying this matter as soon as possible in order that justice may be done.
Very truly,
Date
COMPLAINT 8 5050
DECLARATION OF Jacoba H.van Mastrigt
IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT
I,Jacoba H.van Mastrigt,being of sound mind do make this Declaration of my own free will with-
out any undue outside influence.
I declare the following:
1.On November 22,2022,I did receive an undated and unsigned letter from ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP stating that their installer couldn't "access" the meter base at 5447 E
Hacienda Dr.,Idaho Falls,Idaho in order to install a smart meter. This latter also instructed
me to call their 800 number to resolve any access issues and set an appointment to have my meter
updated.
2.On December 1,2022,I sent/served by Registered mail to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
& GARY W.HOOGEVEEN,PRESIDENT PACIFICORP at 1407 West North Temple,Salt
Lake City and the same by Certified mail to P.O.Box 400,Portland,Oregon,a CONDITIONAL
ACCEPTANCE with a cover letter addressing the letter that they sent to me.In this mailing I
also included their original letter with my "Returned for Cause" statement on it.ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER & GARY W.HOOGEVEEN,PRESIDENT PACIFICORP did not
respond to this CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE.
3.On January 6,2023,I sent/served Certified mail to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER &GARY W.
HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT PACIFICORP a COURTESY NOTICE to both addresses noted in
number 2 above giving them 3 more days to respond to my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE of
December 1,2022.They did not respond to this COURTESY NOTICE.
4.On January 26, 2023,I sent/served Certified mail to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER &GARY
W.HOOGEVEEN,PRESIDENT PACIFICORP a NOTICE OF FAULT to both addresses noted
in number 2 above giving them 5 more days to cure their error and respond to my
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE of December 1,2022.They did not respond to this NOTICE
OF FAULT which put them in DEFAULT.
5.On February 15,2023, I sent/served Certified mail to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER & GARY
W.HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT PACIFICORP a NOTICE OF DEFAULT informingthem of
their DEFAULT and tacit acquiescence to and agreement with my position as enumerated in my
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE of December 1,2022,as well as my cover letter of same date,
along with a NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL to both addresses noted in number 2 above.This NOTICE
OF ESTOPPEL notifies ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER &GARY W.HOOGEVEEN,
PRESIDENT PACIFICORP that they are estopped from any and all further action(s), claims,
counterclaims,demands,and or suits against me,concerning the matter of their attempted
installation of a smart meter on my property located at 5447 E Hacienda Dr.,Idaho Falls,Idaho.
6.My NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL of February 15,2023 includes a notice of an implied contract with
specified terms due to their tacit acquiescence agreement and subsequent DEFAULT informing
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER & GARY W.HOOGEVEEN,PRESIDENT PACIFICORP that
DECLARATION IN THE FORMOF AN AFFIDAVIT
RECEIVED
2023 March, 22 7:58AM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
5151
violation of said terms of this ESTOPPEL will be construed as an offense against me making
them liable to me for damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 U.S. (One Million Dollars) due
and payable upon demand within 30 days of such demand. This ESSTOPPEL also informs them
that this is an implied contract and self-executing contract enforceable in court and that violating
this ESTOPPEL signifies "performance" on their part constituting their acceptance of the terms
of said ESTOPPEL.
7.On or around March 12, 2023, I received an unsigned threatening letter from ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP stating that their contractor was refused access to perform
a meter exchange at my home at 5447 E Hacienda Dr., Idaho Falls, Idaho and that this was their
second written notice. This letter also instructed me to contact them at their 800 number to
resolve access issues and set an appointment to have my meter updated and then given 15 days
from date of said letter (March I, 2023) to comply or they will refer my account to their service
disconnection process, holding my electrical service hostage and threatening to shut off my
electrical power.
8.Point 7 above verifies ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER & GARY W. HOOGEVEEN,
PRESIDENT PACIFICORP's violation of my ESTOPPEL signifying "performance" on their
part, indicating acceptance of the terms of said ESTOPPEL, initiating their liability to me for
damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 U.S. (One Million Dollars).
9.At no time, past or present have I or anyone else in my household ever denied "access" toROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER to come onto my private property to read the electric meter.
10.I am a 99-year-old widow living on a fixed income who is legally blind, deaf, and hyper-electro
sensitive. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER' s threats and strong-arm intimidation tactics, has causedme a great deal of endless, anxiety, fatigue, emotional and mental distress, headaches, insomnia,and severe stomach upset. I consider ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER' s use of abusive threats,
duress, and coercion in an attempt to get me to consent to accepting a smart meter on my home, tobe negligent infliction of physical pain and mental injury as per TITLE 18-1505, subsection 2 & 4
of the Idaho Statutes.
I, Jacoba H. van Mastrigt, affirm and certify on my own unlimited commercial liability that I have
read the above affidavit and do know the contents to be the truth, the whole truth, correct and
complete to the best of my knowledge, and willing to testify to this.
DECLARATION IN TIIE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT 2 5252
March 1, 2023
Jacoba Van Mastrigt
5447 E Hacienda Dr
Idaho Falls, ID 83406 8228
1407 West North Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84 116
RE: SECOND NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 5447 E Hacienda Dr Idaho Falls, ID
Dear Jacoba Van Mastrigt:
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. If you are not responsible for the
electric service at the site listed above, please pass this request to the property manager or
owner as soon as possible.
Our contractor was refused access to perform a meter exchange at the address listed above.
This is our second written notice. We have also attempted to reach you by telephone. To avoid
termination of electric service at this address, you must contact us at the number provided
below.
You are contractual! obligated to allow us safe and unencumbered access to our equipment.
Meter access is a condition of electric service, as expressed in the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission's Customer Relation Rules, namely Electric Service Regulation No. 6, a copy of
which is enclosed for your convenience. Moreover, to the extent that access was denied
because of the type of meter being installed, please be aware that the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission has reviewed smart meter technology, including the prevailing scientific research
on consumer safety, and concluded that smart meters are safe and allowed for all customers in
Idaho. If you would like additional information regarding the electric regulations that governs
Rocky Mountain Power's operations, review them at the Idaho Commission's website at
puc.idaho.gov.
Our new meters bring with them a host of benefits, enabling our customers to securely -
•View Daily/Hourly/15-Minute interval usage data through your Rocky Mountain Power
account
•Set billing thresholds and alerts through our website and mobile application
5353
•Automatically send notifications whenever your power is interrupted and subsequently
restored
Rocky Mountain Power will also be able to troubleshoot abnormal electric voltage or current
issues on our lines that could impact the quality of your service. Our meters deliver whole
home usage data through a secure LTE network and do not connect with any additional smart
devices installed at your site or external networks. Your data is safe and no personal
information is ever shared with outside parties.
(Continued on reverse side)
5454
... ROCKY MOUNTAIN �����. 1.1'.l .( •. :'\o. J St'cond Ht',·hion ofShl't'I i\o. 6K.I C"ancclinl! Finl Hc,·i,ion of She-cl :--io. 61U EU:cnuc SEH\'ICt-: JU:(;t l.A'I 10:--i \0. 6 ST:\ n: 0� llJ:\110 Compnn�·•� ln�lall:ition I.C ·o,1t1A:\ \''S l:\S'l .-\1.l .. \'I 10�b .. cc-pt J� ,,the:'\, :�c pr,widcd m thcl,C lk;:ulJtwm .. m l:lcctn..: Scrvtec :\,!rccrncnt. or the 1.kx:tr:cScrvn:e Schcduk,. the C,,mp:my ,, 111 Jn'>tall and mamtam it,-lm::l, an l e'iuipm-.--nt on 1b !.Jd • of thePoint ,)f Delivery. but ,-h.JJI n,,1 r,c rc-:iuircd t,, ms1.1ll t>r m.Ji111.1in any lmc, or cqu1pmc:nt n..:cp1mc:cr� and a,·..:;:,,oric, !>cy,�nd th:.it P1,1in1 Only the Comp:my i, authonn<l to make the .:<>nn..-..:tion,.it the: P,,mt ,,t' lkll\cry. l.b:tn.: ,-crncc fum1sl-.-;.-d un<lcr 1h1s t:mff ,, ill b,c a!ternatm;: current. 60heru. �m1k or tlm:c-ph:1,c. Primary ,-cn·i,.:, 0lta;:c wili Ix .11 L'nc or' the n,�mmal ,1.mdard n,lt.1;:..-,:i,·�111.Jbk fr,,m the Comp.1ny a: L'r n.:.:ir the Customer"� ln..:.11ion. Sen>nJ.uy ,-er. i.:c , oh.1;:e ,, 111 heimulcd lo:Sm;:k-plu!>c. I '.;O ,,,It,.'.;-\\ ire. ;:ruundeJ Smi,:k·-ph.:i,c. I '.;O ::!4ll rnlt,-.. ,-wire. ),:f0UnJcd Smi,:k-ph.:1�,. 240 4SU, oil,-. 3-,, ire. J.!r,,undcJ I hr.::e-pha,c. 20SY 120 wit,.➔·\\ ire. i:wunJcd. wyc I hr.:e-pha,c. 4�0Y 27: n>lt,. 4-,, irc. ;:wunJcd. wyc 2.C0:\111.-\:'\ \ I-".\( 'IIJ'I !ES 0:\ ('l S'Hn1EH'S l'KE\tlSE�(a),\I! m:itenab furni,-hcd and m,1:1lled by th;:: Comp.my ,,n the Cu,-1,,mcr\ premise,. ,hJll be.and rcnum. the propcny of the Comp:iny. l hc Cu,tomcr ,hall no! brc.:ik the Comp:iny·,meter H'Jb. In the C\ cnt of le,-,- ,,r t.hmJ,!C t.1 the CompJny\ rr,,r,c::rt�. Jn,m" frum nq.:lc..:1.c.:irc.,...,,nc,,. or m1>u,e I:>: thc Cu :,,m.:r. the ..:,,,t 0f nc,:,;::,,-.irY rcp.11r, ,,r rcpt:.:cmcnt ,h:illIx: p.1:J b: th, l'u,t.•mcr.(h) (.'u<;tomcr with0ut e:1.pcn,;c w the Company ,hall make or procure com·eyan,e to theC:omp..in: uf ,-.:itist.1,k>ry Rifhh-of-Way l:a,cmcnt, :1.:rn,, th.: pr,1rcrty owned or contrvllcJby the Cu,tomcr for the (.',,mp:iny\ lmc:-;. or C'\ten,ion, thereof necc,,.:it;. N m,1dcnt:1I to thefurm,hm;: of ,-en 1cc It> the ( ·u,tt1111er.(r)I he Cu,tomcr ,h.111 r,cmut ,.itc. a.:cc�, to (.'omp.:my\ repr,·,::n!.Jll\ c, at :1ll h0ur, t,, m:11m.1mthe C \m1p.1ny\ ek'-=lri.: d1,?ribu11L,n IJc1h1ic�. ·1 he(. ·u,tomc-r ,h;.1II .:ii,,, pcrmll the (\,mpJJ1:t,1 trim tree, anJ ,llh;::r ,·c:?cl:itwn 1,, the c:1.1.-n1 nccc,-...iry to a, ,,iJ 1111crfcrcn.:c w11h th,·C,m1pany", lme� :ind to pr0te,:1 pubh.: ,aic:t:.(d)I he Cu�tomcr ,-h.Jll pr,wHk �le. uncncumbcrcJ ac..:c,� to Ctlmpany·� rcprc,-cnta11, c� alrc.1,-(lnJblc lime,. for the purpol,c ,,f rcJdmg meter�. 1mpcctm;;. n::plmnf-or ren>o\'ill,!!metering device; anJ w1rinf of the C."tm1pony.l�st 1-.1>: S;::p:cmhcr U . .'.O i'J 5555
Page 2
Please contact us at 1-800-895-0631 immediately to resolve access issues and to set an
appointment to have your meter updated. We are happy to answer any additional questions
you may have regarding the new meter and look forward to working with you.
--►.:tB� If we do not hear from you within 15 days from the date of this letter to resolve this issue, we
will refer your account to our service disconnection process. We look forward to hearing from
you and will always consider it a privilege to serve you.
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
Para mas informaci6n, /lame al 1-888-225-2611 para hablar con un especialista en espafio/.
5656
;i=d oJacoba Van Mastrigt �5447 E Hacienda Dr . V\o Idaho Falls ID 83406 8228 'J:. d 0
Dear Jacoba Van Mastrigt:
1407 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Co\A ,\-Jo..J
You can count on us to provide the affordable and consistent power you need. We're using state-of-the-art technology to deliver dependable power as we plan for the future.
We were recently in your area to upgradevour existing electric meter, but our installer couldn't access the meter base at 5447 E Hacienda Dr, Idaho Falls, Idaho. As required by the Idaho Public Service Commission, clear and safe access must be available to electric meters for inspection, maintenance, meter upgrades, and to enable us to respond to any emergencies.
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has reviewed smart meter technology, and the prevailing scientific research on consumer safety, and concluded that smart meters are allowed in Idaho without any alternative metering options.
Please call 1-800-895-0631 within 15 days of receiving this letter to resolve any access issues and set an appointment to have your meter updated. We are happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the new meter and look forward to working with you.
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
Para mas informaci6n, /lame al 1-888-225-2611 para hablar con un especialista en espanol.
5757
&h.��1+ C-• To: Whom it may concern Rocky Mountain Power 1407 West North Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84116From: Jacoba H. van Mastrigt5447 E. Hacienda Dr.Idaho Falls, IdahoRE: Smart Meter InstallationDear Sir or Mam,SL-; UT. Date: December 1, 2022This is in reply to your undated and unsigned letter I received on November 21, 2022 instructingme to call your 800 number to resolve any access issues and set an appointment to have myexisting meter updated with your "smart" of "advanced" digital utility meter. Please find attached my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE and your original undated andunsigned letter with my "Returned for Cause" statement printed thereon. Be advised that I never requested a "smart" or "advanced" digital utility meter to be installed on my private property/home and will not do so in the future. My current meter hasbeen serving me well all these years so I see no need to have it replaced. For some strange reason Rocky Mountain Power Co. wants to change terms of a long­standing agreement/contract without providing me with "full disclosure" of not only the terms ofthe proposed changes, but the truth of everything a customer has a right to know about the prosand cons of the "smart" or "advanced" digital utility meters and smart grid. Also, be advised that my private property is posted with No Trespassing signs and Lawful Notice of severe civil penalties to any would-be installers and unauthorized intruders who enter without my express written permission to come onto my private property. Further, I donot authorize any of your installers or your third-party contract installers to come upon myprivate property at any time for any reason. Please note that, YOUR METER READER(S) ONLY HOWEVER, ARE STILL WELCOME TO COME ONTO MY PRIVATE PROPERTY AS BEFORE TO READ THEEXISTING ELECTRIC METER ONLY, JUST AS IT HAS BEEN DONE OVER THE LAST 35 OR SO YEARS. Note that I have not previously requested to change any aspect ofour long-standing relationship. It is your company that is making all the fuss here! It is my desire for you to Cease and Desist in all your unlawful and unnecessary action against me immediately, including trying to sell me a stupid smart meter. You are causing me agreat deal of unnecessary stress and anxiety at my old age of 99 over something which won'tbenefit me any way. Please NO NOT TRESPASS!Very truly,a, i1 � (((L� �u:1 acoba H. van Mastrigt ()-......5858
,
To: Whom it may concern Rocky Mountain Power P.O. Box400 Portland, OR 97207
From: Jacoba H. van Mastrigt 5447 E. Hacienda Dr. Idaho Falls, Idaho
RE: Smart Meter Installation
Dear Sir or Mam,
Date: December 1, 2022
This is in reply to your undated and unsigned letter I received on November 21, 2022 instructing me to call your 800 number to resolve any access issues and set an appointment to have my existing meter updated with your "smart" of "advanced" digital utility meter. Please find attached my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE and your original undated and unsigned letter with my "Returned for Cause" statement printed thereon. Be advised that I never requested a "smart" or "advanced" digital utility meter to be installed on my private property/home and will not do so in the future. My current meter has been serving me well all these years so I see no need to have it replaced. For some strange reason Rocky Mountain Power Co. wants to change terms of a long­standing agreement/contract without providing me with "full disclosure" of not only the terms of the proposed changes, but the truth of everything a customer has a right to know about the pros and cons of the "smart" or "advanced" digital utility meters and smart grid. Also, be advised that my private property is posted with No Trespassing signs and Lawful Notice of severe civil penalties to any would-be installers and unauthorized intruders who enter without my express written permission to come onto my private property. Further, I do not authorize any of your installers or your third-party contract installers to come upon my private property at any time for any reason. Please note that, YOUR METER READER(S) ONLY HOWEVER, ARE STILL WELCOME TO COME ONTO MY PRIVATE PROPERTY AS BEFORE TO READ THE EXISTING ELECTRIC METER ONLY, JUST AS IT HAS BEEN DONE OVER THE LAST 35 OR SO YEARS. Note that I have not previously requested to change any aspect of our long-standing relationship. It is your company that is making all the fuss here! It is my desire for you to Cease and Desist in all your unlawful and unnecessary action against me immediately, including trying to sell me a stupid smart meter. You are causing me a great deal of unnecessary stress and anxiety at my old age of 99 over something which won't benefit me any way. Please NO NOT TRESPASS!
Very truly,
d· JV.� /J?uuo 47A-dJacoba H. van Mastrigt • V v
5959
To: Whom it may concern
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER& GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT PACIFICORP 1407 West North Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84116
From: Jacoba H. van Mastrigt 5447 E. Hacienda Dr.
Idaho Falls, Idaho
RE: Smart Meter Installation
Date:
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE
READ CAREFULLY
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle -Notice to Principle is Notice Agent
BE IT KNOWN, it is not my intention to harass, intimidate, offend, conspire, blackmail, coerce, or cause anxiety, alarm or distress. This document and attachments are presented with honorable and peaceful intentions.
Regarding your undated and unsigned letter received on November 21, 2022 instructing me to call your 800 number within 15 days in order to resolve any access issues to my property and set an appointment to
have my meter updated with a "smart" meter, I conditionally accept your offer to do so in order to update my electric power meter to a so named "smart" meter, upon proof of claim and satisfaction of the following points:
1.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power is not making an offer to modify a contract withoutproviding full disclosure of the true facts and terms, and further;
2.Upon proof of claim that in order for Rocky Mountain Power to modify or change the terms of a contract
with one of its customers, that they do not need to provide full disclosure and obtain consent, and further;
3.Upon proof of claim that it is not my position and wish to not have a "smart" or "advanced" digital utilitymeter installed on my private property/home at any time, and further;
4.Upon proof of claim that by you attempting to pressure me into accepting your unsafe and harmful"smart" or "advanced" digital utility meter contrary to my wishes and better judgment, is not causingthis 99-year old woman with health concerns, undue stress, worry, and a negative impact upon my health,and further;
5.Upon proof of claim that my deep concerns about the dangers and safety of"smart" or "advanced" digital
utility meters are not valid concerns, and that there is not overwhelming evidence and testimony from
credible sources from around the world confirming my concerns about the dangers and safety of suchmeters, which is completely contrary to the false, self-serving, and fraudulent information put out byRocky Mountain Power Co. that they are safe and non-harmful, and further;
6060
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE. Cont'
6.Upon proof of claim that my current electric meter is not serving me well, and that it is not true that a"smart" meter would not benefit me in any way, and that any benefits of such a meter would however,benefit Rocky Mountain Power and their third-party organizations at my detriment, and further;
7.Upon proof of claim that the Rocky Mountain Power "smart" or "advanced" digital utility meter andgrid is not a disruptive and harmful "Trespassing Technology", and further;
8.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power Co. and the Idaho PUC are not involved in collusiontogether against me to defraud me of my Rights by the forms and use of colorable law, and that theyare not in concert of action between them for fraudulent or deceitful purposes against me, and further;
9.Upon proof of claim that the Idaho PUC does not lack lawful authority or right to encourage and allowany public utility to use threat, duress, and or coercion to violate any contract(s) between the utility andcustomer or to allow a public utility to impose their unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and mono­polistic will upon their customers without their consent knowing that there are no other options/utilities for the customers to choose from, and further;
10.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power Co. can force me to purchase a product from themagainst my will and consent and hold me hostage for energy, knowing that there are no other providersor options available to customers, and further;
11.Upon proof of claim that it is not true that the PUC lacks lawful authority to mandate, order, or imposeanything upon free inhabitants and their private property, and that if they cannot do so then neither can
a public/private corporation or business impose the same, and further;
12.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power Co. and the Idaho PUC are not holding me hostage inorder to extort a Right(s) from me so that I may continue to receive the energy I need to power andheat my home, and further;
13.Upon proof of claim that my current power meter has not been paid for by my payments through mymonthly electric power bills for over 35 years, and that I do not actually own my current meter, andthat possession is not nine-tenths of the law, and further;
14.Upon proof of claim that the smart meter does not have sophisticated surveillance and control capabilitiesdesigned to gather information about me by monitoring my personal and private habits and routines byRocky Mountain Power, and that Rocky Mountain Power will not sometime in the near future use this
information against me in some way to control my habits and routines by deciding when and how muchenergy I can use, as well as how and when I can use a particular appliance, or that I must pay a fine forusing more power than the power control gods deem necessary, and further;
15.Upon proof of claim that the smart meter does not have sophisticated capability of monitoring, logging,storing, sharing, and disseminating, my personal and private information about sensitive aspects of mypersonal and private life without my knowledge and consent, and further;
16.Upon proof of claim that any government agencies, police departments, and hackers will not have freeand unfettered access to my personal information and private habits and routines as collected by thesurveillance capability of the smart meter, and further;
17.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power would not be unlawfully searching my house and ormy person, and effects and seizing such information about my personal and private habits and routines
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE 2 6161
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, Cont'
via the smart meter without a lawful search warrant or my consent and that this would not be contrary to my Fourth Amendment Right and the law, and further;
18.Upon proof of claim that your smart meter, once installed, is not a "Trespassing Technology" whichwould not only be an invasion of my privacy, but a harmful life-disrupting technology as well, andfurther;
19.Upon proof of claim that if Rocky Mountain Power installs a smart meter on my private property withoutmy consent, the original service contract between the utility and the account holder myself would not be
deemed to have been breached, and that I would not have lawful remedies for such breach of contract,
and further;
20.Upon proof of claim that I would not have substantial lawful remedy for any and all harm or loss causedby Trespassing Technology, according to tort law, criminal law, strict liability, negligence, and ultra­
hazardous activity on the part of Rocky Mountain Power regarding the installation of a smart meter onmy private property, and further;
21.Upon proof of claim that the smart meter(s) that Rocky Mountain Powers installs does not unlawfullyemit high-energy density pulsed microwave frequencies harmful to biological organisms and or emit
waste electricity in the form of voltage transients (aka "dirty electricity") also harmful to biologicalorganisms, and further;
22.Upon proof of claim that installed so named "smart" or "advanced" digital utility meters and relatednetwork technologies have not been demonstrated to cause fires, cause hacking vulnerability, andfacilitate erroneously high customer utility bills, and further;
23.Upon proof of claim that installed so named "smart" or "advanced" digital utility meters and relatednetwork technologies cannot and do not record and transmit data for the purpose of surveillance ofpersonal activities in the private dwellings and or workplaces of all utility customers without disclosure,without a lawful warrant, and without consent, and further;
24.Upon proof of claim that a U.S. Congressional Research report entitled "Smart Meter Data: Privacy and
cybersecurity" (February 3, 2012) does not state, "With smart meters, police will have access to data
that might be used to track residents' daily lives and routines while in their homes, including their
eating, sleeping, and showering habits, what appliances they use and when, and whether they
prefer the television to the treadmill, among a host of other details.", and all without a lawful searchwarrant issued, and further;
25.Upon proof of claim that in 2016, a major "smart" meter data aggregator, Onzo Ltd (UK), did not releasea marketing video stating, "We use this characterized profile to give the utility ... the ability to
monetize their customer data by providing a direct link to appropriate third-party organizations
based on the customer's identified character.", and further;
26.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power will not monetize the data they would unlawfully mineby way of a "smart" meter, from my private activity and that they will not provide a direct link to
"appropriate" third-party organizations based on my identified character, all without my knowledge,consent, of any lawful search warrant as required by law (The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution),and further;
27.Upon proof of claim that your Trespassing Technology (smart meter) and related infrastructure would
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE 3 6262
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, Cont'
not be mounted on or adjacent to my private property, including but not limited to bodies of living men and women, without first acquiring their explicit consent, and further;
28.Upon proof of claim that it is not true that Rocky Mountain Power will not justly compensate me, norconsult with me, nor even inform me that my private property would be utilized as a relay station for thenetworks related to the Trespassing Technology once a smart meter is installed, and further;
29.Upon proof of claim that your Trespassing Technology does not create a previously non-existentvulnerability and diminish my private dwelling security by functioning as an unsecured wireless digital
gateway into my private property/home, and further;
30.Upon proof of claim that I and any other inhabitants in my home would not become subject to whateverthe desires of Rocky Mountain Power, or government are, or hackers who wishes to remotely interruptor control the supply of energy to appliance(s) within my private dwelling or to my entire, dwelling, and further;
31.Upon proof of claim that there have not been any fires and deaths associated with the smart meter
Trespassing Technology such as in Vacaville, CA, Dallas, TX, and Reno, NV, and further;
32.Upon proof of claim that due to safety risks, PECO ENERGY CO (Pennsylvania) did not announce in2012, the removal of 96,000 so named "smart meters"; and that the PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN(Canada) did not announce the removal of all of their 105,000 so named "smart meters" in 2014; and thatPORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC (Oregon) did not announce removal of 70,000 so named "smart
meters" in 2014; and that CITY OF LAKELAND (Florida) did not announce removal of more than
10,000 so named "smart meters" in 2014, all for safety reasons, and further;
33.Upon proof of claim that thousands of so named "smart meters" did not simultaneously explode in
Stockton, California in 2015, and further;
34.Upon proof of claim that the "smart" meter Trespassing Technology has not caused disruptiveinterference that has resulted in injuries to living occupants, including but not limited to, men andwomen with medical implants, and that the interference has not yet been mitigated in any meaningful
way, and further;
35.Upon proof of claim that it is not true that, according to a vast body of published science, microwaveradiation is proven to be harmful and damaging to all biological organisms, down to the cellular and
molecular level, at relatively low power densities, and further;
36.Upon proof of claim that the "smart" meter Trespassing Technology has not been measured to emitpulsed radiation between hundreds and tens of thousands ohimes greater intensity than cell phones,and as a direct result, there are at least thousands of reports of individuals suffering functionalimpairment and or illness since the installation of Trespassing Technology where they live, and further;
37.Upon proof of claim that the industry claims that the "smart" meter Trespassing Technology is "safe"or "harmless" are not false and misleading; and are not based on training, propaganda techniques, andthe time-averaging of pulsed emissions, rather than the emission values of the pulses, and further;
38.Upon proof of claim that it is not true that several thousand scientific studies have concluded there are
harmful biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic frequencies at power densities lower than
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE 4 6363
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, Cont'
is emitted by the "smart" meter Trespassing Technology, and that the claims by power company and government employees that the Trespassing Technology is harmless, are self-serving and fraudulent, and further;
39.Upon proof of claim that a significant number of government agencies have not released statementsconfirming that agencies such as the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Health Canada
and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) have "safety" guidelines formicrowave radiation exposure which are insufficient for functioning as a guideline, because they arebased solely on thermal effect, and do not take into account any of the body of several thousandpublished, peer-reviewed scientific studies showing harmful non-thermal effects, and further;
40.Upon proof of claim that the "smart" meter Trespassing Technology does not create measurable voltagetransients, also known as dirty electricity, on existing electrical wiring, at levels that are harmful anddamaging to all biological organisms, and further;
41.Upon proof of claim that the "smart" meter Trespassing Technology does not cause systemicinaccuracies in billing, resulting in electricity customers paying unjust amounts for unused, or wastedenergy, and further;
42.Upon proof of claim that as a result of wasted energy caused by voltage transients due to TrespassingTechnology, that ground voltage has also not been measure in areas where "smart" meter TrespassingTechnology is deployed, and that this is also not harmful and damaging to all biological organisms, andfurther;
43.Upon proof of claim that the gathering of information by Rocky Mountain Power via a smart meter aboutmy personal and private habits and routines without my knowledge and consent would not be unlawful,and further;
44.Upon proof of claim that I do not have and hold certain natural/unalienable Rights, as well asConstitutionally secured rights, privileges and immunities, and further;
45.Upon proof of claim that I do not have a lawful right to be secure in my person, houses, papers, andeffects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that these rights shall not be violated, as statedin the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, and further;
46.Upon proof of claim that it is not true, that if tapping someone's telephone or entering their home/privateproperty without a lawful search warrant is unlawful and a crime, then it would equally be true thattapping my private electrical system by way of a "smart" or "advanced" utility meter for sensitivepersonal and private information without a lawful search warrant would also be unlawful and a crime,
and that in law, there is no difference between the two scenarios, and further;
47.Upon proof of claim that the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights does not apply to me, and further;
48.Upon proof of claim that it is not true that, I would no longer be "secure", which is my Fourth Amend­ment right, in my person, houses, and effects, once a smart meter is installed on my home, and further;
49.Upon proof of claim that Article V of the Bill of Rights does not say that I cannot "be deprived of life,
liberty (right to privacy and freedom from coercion), or property (information on my personal and private
habits and routines), without due process of law, and further;
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE 5 6464
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, Cont'
50.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power would not be denying me my right to due process oflaw by gathering/taking personal and private information about my personal and private habits androutines via the smart meter, and then using, sharing, and disseminating said information all without alawful search warrant, and without my knowledge and consent, and further;
51.Upon proof of claim that it is not true that, I did not request a "smart" meter nor did I start thiscontroversy, when in fact it was Rocky Mountain Power Co. that did so.
Your timely response (21 days) from your receipt of this Conditional Acceptance, must be in affidavit form, under your full commercial liability, rebutting each of the points of the undersigned, on a point-by-point basis, that the facts contained therein, are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Declarations are insufficient, as declarations permit lying by omission, which no honorable draft may contain. Any other response beyond the date of this CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE is unacceptable and invalid. You must provide me with a legitimate and lawful answer. Silence to this document is contempt and dishonorable.
With explicit reservation of all of my God-given unalienable Rights, my Constitutionally secured Rights, privileges, and immunities, none waived, and without prejudice.
Very Truly, In Proper Person, Special, with Assistance, ¢, i/rvr,,r-�r Jacoba H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris
T Witness to Signature
W• s· 1tness to 1gnature
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE 6
/ 7Date
7 Date
Date
6565
To: Whom it may concern ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER & GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT PACIFICORP P.O. Box 400 Portland, Oregon 97207
From: Jacoba H. van Mastrigt 5447 E. Hacienda Dr. Idaho Falls, Idaho
RE: Smart Meter Installation
���1: � I • " Date: December 1, 2022
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE
READ CAREFULLY
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle -Notice to Principle is Notice Agent
BE IT KNOWN, it is not my intention to harass, intimidate, offend, conspire, blackmail, coerce, or cause anxiety,
alarm or distress. This document and attachments are presented with honorable and peaceful intentions.
Regarding your undated and unsigned letter received on November 21, 2022 instructing me to call your 800 number within 15 days in order to resolve any access issues to my property and set an appointment to
have my meter updated with a "smart" meter, I conditionally accept your offer to do so in order to update my electric power meter to a so named "smart" meter, upon proof of claim and satisfaction of the following
points:
1.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power is not making an offer to modify a contract withoutproviding full disclosure of the true facts and terms, and further;
2.Upon proof of claim that in order for Rocky Mountain Power to modify or change the terms of a contract
with one of its customers, that they do not need to provide full disclosure and obtain consent, and further;
3.Upon proof of claim that it is not my position and wish to not have a "smart" or "advanced" digital utility
meter installed on my private property/home at any time, and further;
4.Upon proof of claim that by you attempting to pressure me into accepting your unsafe and harmful"smart" or "advanced" digital utility meter contrary to my wishes and better judgment, is not causingthis 99-year old woman with health concerns, undue stress, worry, and a negative impact upon my health,and further;
5.Upon proof of claim that my deep concerns about the dangers and safety of"smart" or "advanced" digitalutility meters are not valid concerns, and that there is not overwhelming evidence and testimony from
credible sources from around the world confirming my concerns about the dangers and safety of suchmeters, which is completely contrary to the false, self-serving, and fraudulent information put out byRocky Mountain Power Co. that they are safe and non-harmful, and further;
6666
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE. Cont'
6.Upon proof of claim that my current electric meter is not serving me well, and that it is not true that a"smart" meter would not benefit me in any way, and that any benefits of such a meter would however,benefit Rocky Mountain Power and their third-party organizations at my detriment, and further;
7.Upon proof of claim that the Rocky Mountain Power "smart" or "advanced" digital utility meter andgrid is not a disruptive and harmful "Trespassing Technology", and further;
8.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power Co. and the Idaho PUC are not involved in collusiontogether against me to defraud me of my Rights by the forms and use of colorable law, and that theyare not in concert of action between them for fraudulent or deceitful purposes against me, and further;
9.Upon proof of claim that the Idaho PUC does not lack lawful authority or right to encourage and allowany public utility to use threat, duress, and or coercion to violate any contract(s) between the utility andcustomer or to allow a public utility to impose their unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and mono­polistic will upon their customers without their consent knowing that there are no other options/
utilities for the customers to choose from, and further;
10.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power Co. can force me to purchase a product from themagainst my will and consent and hold me hostage for energy, knowing that there are no other providersor options available to customers, and further;
11.Upon proof of claim that it is not true that the PUC lacks lawful authority to mandate, order, or imposeanything upon free inhabitants and their private property, and that if they cannot do so then neither cana public/private corporation or business impose the same, and further;
12.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power Co. and the Idaho PUC are not holding me hostage inorder to extort a Right(s) from me so that I may continue to receive the energy I need to power andheat my home, and further;
13.Upon proof of claim that my current power meter has not been paid for by my payments through mymonthly electric power bills for over 35 years, and that I do not actually own my current meter, andthat possession is not nine-tenths of the law, and further;
14.Upon proof of claim that the smart meter does not have sophisticated surveillance and control capabilitiesdesigned to gather information about me by monitoring my personal and private habits and routines byRocky Mountain Power, and that Rocky Mountain Power will not sometime in the near future use this
information against me in some way to control my habits and routines by deciding when and how muchenergy I can use, as well as how and when I can use a particular appliance, or that I must pay a fine forusing more power than the power control gods deem necessary, and further;
15.Upon proof of claim that the smart meter does not have sophisticated capability of monitoring, logging,storing, sharing, and disseminating, my personal and private information about sensitive aspects of mypersonal and private life without my knowledge and consent, and further;
16.Upon proof of claim that any government agencies, police departments, and hackers will not have freeand unfettered access to my personal information and private habits and routines as collected by thesurveillance capability of the smart meter, and further;
17.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power would not be unlawfully searching my house and or my person, and effects and seizing such information about my personal and private habits and routines
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE 2 6767
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE. Cont'
via the smart meter without a lawful search warrant or my consent and that this would not be contrary to my Fourth Amendment Right and the law, and further;
18.Upon proof of claim that your smart meter, once installed, is not a "Trespassing Technology" which
would not only be an invasion of my privacy, but a harmful life-disrupting technology as well, andfurther;
19.Upon proof of claim that if Rocky Mountain Power installs a smart meter on my private property withoutmy consent, the original service contract between the utility and the account holder myself would not bedeemed to have been breached, and that I would not have lawful remedies for such breach of contract,
and further;
20.Upon proof of claim that I would not have substantial lawful remedy for any and all harm or loss causedby Trespassing Technology, according to tort law, criminal law, strict liability, negligence, and ultra­
hazardous activity on the part of Rocky Mountain Power regarding the installation of a smart meter onmy private property, and further;
21.Upon proof of claim that the smart meter(s) that Rocky Mountain Powers installs does not unlawfullyemit high-energy density pulsed microwave frequencies harmful to biological organisms and or emitwaste electricity in the form of voltage transients (aka "dirty electricity") also harmful to biologicalorganisms, and further;
22.Upon proof of claim that installed so named "smart" or "advanced" digital utility meters and relatednetwork technologies have not been demonstrated to cause fires, cause hacking vulnerability, andfacilitate erroneously high customer utility bills, and further;
23.Upon proof of claim that installed so named "smart" or "advanced" digital utility meters and relatednetwork technologies cannot and do not record and transmit data for the purpose of surveillance ofpersonal activities in the private dwellings and or workplaces of all utility customers without disclosure,without a lawful warrant, and without consent, and further;
24.Upon proof of claim that a U.S. Congressional Research report entitled "Smart Meter Data: Privacy and
cybersecurity" (February 3, 2012) does not state, "With smart meters, police will have access to datathat might be used to track residents' daily lives and routines while in their homes, including their
eating, sleeping, and showering habits, what appliances they use and when, and whether they
prefer the television to the treadmill, among a host of other details.", and all without a lawful searchwarrant issued, and further;
25.Upon proof of claim that in 2016, a major "smart" meter data aggregator, Onzo Ltd (UK), did not release
a marketing video stating, "We use this characterized profile to give the utility ... the ability tomonetize their customer data by providing a direct link to appropriate third-party organizations
based on the customer's identified character.", and further;
26.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power will not monetize the data they would unlawfully mineby way of a "smart" meter, from my private activity and that they will not provide a direct link to
"appropriate" third-party organizations based on my identified character, all without my knowledge,consent, of any lawful search warrant as required by law (The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution),and further;
27.Upon proof of claim that your Trespassing Technology (smart meter) and related infrastructure would
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE 3 6868
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, Cont' not be mounted on or adjacent to my private property, including but not limited to bodies of living men and women, without first acquiring their explicit consent, and further;
28.Upon proof of claim that it is not true that Rocky Mountain Power will not justly compensate me, norconsult with me, nor even inform me that my private property would be utilized as a relay station for the
networks related to the Trespassing Technology once a smart meter is installed, and further;
29.Upon proof of claim that your Trespassing Technology does not create a previously non-existentvulnerability and diminish my private dwelling security by functioning as an unsecured wireless digital
gateway into my private property/home, and further;
30.Upon proof of claim that I and any other inhabitants in my home would not become subject to whateverthe desires of Rocky Mountain Power, or government are, or hackers who wishes to remotely interruptor control the supply of energy to appliance(s) within my private dwelling or to my entire, dwelling, andfurther;
31.Upon proof of claim that there have not been any fires and deaths associated with the smart meter
Trespassing Technology such as in Vacaville, CA, Dallas, TX, and Reno, NV, and further;
32.Upon proof of claim that due to safety risks, PECO ENERGY CO (Pennsylvania) did not announce in2012, the removal of 96,000 so named "smart meters"; and that the PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN(Canada) did not announce the removal of all of their 105,000 so named "smart meters" in 2014; and thatPORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC (Oregon) did not announce removal of 70,000 so named "smartmeters" in 2014; and that CITY OF LAKELAND (Florida) did not announce removal of more than
10,000 so named "smart meters" in 2014, all for safety reasons, and further;
33.Upon proof of claim that thousands of so named "smart meters" did not simultaneously explode inStockton, California in 2015, and further;
34.Upon proof of claim that the "smart" meter Trespassing Technology has not caused disruptiveinterference that has resulted in injuries to living occupants, including but not limited to, men andwomen with medical implants, and that the interference has not yet been mitigated in any meaningful
way, and further;
35.Upon proof of claim that it is not true that, according to a vast body of published science, microwaveradiation is proven to be harmful and damaging to all biological organisms, down to the cellular andmolecular level, at relatively low power densities, and further;
36.Upon proof of claim that the "smart" meter Trespassing Technology has not been measured to emitpulsed radiation between hundreds and tens of thousands of times greater intensity than cell phones,
and as a direct result, there are at least thousands of reports of individuals suffering functional
impairment and or illness since the installation of Trespassing Technology where they live, and further;
37.Upon proof of claim that the industry claims that the "smart" meter Trespassing Technology is "safe"
or "harmless" are not false and misleading; and are not based on training, propaganda techniques, andthe time-averaging of pulsed emissions, rather than the emission values of the pulses, and further;
38.Upon proof of claim that it is not true that several thousand scientific studies have concluded there areharmful biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic frequencies at power densities lower thanCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE 4 6969
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, Cont'
is emitted by the "smart" meter Trespassing Technology, and that the claims by power company and government employees that the Trespassing Technology is harmless, are self-serving and fraudulent, and further;
39.Upon proof of claim that a significant number of government agencies have not released statementsconfirming that agencies such as the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Health Canadaand the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) have "safety" guidelines formicrowave radiation exposure which are insufficient for functioning as a guideline, because they arebased solely on thermal effect, and do not take into account any of the body of several thousand
published, peer-reviewed scientific studies showing harmful non-thermal effects, and further;
40.Upon proof of claim that the "smart" meter Trespassing Technology does not create measurable voltagetransients, also known as dirty electricity, on existing electrical wiring, at levels that are harmful and
damaging to all biological organisms, and further;
41.Upon proof of claim that the "smart" meter Trespassing Technology does not cause systemicinaccuracies in billing, resulting in electricity customers paying unjust amounts for unused, or wastedenergy, and further;
42.Upon proof of claim that as a result of wasted energy caused by voltage transients due to TrespassingTechnology, that ground voltage has also not been measure in areas where "smart" meter TrespassingTechnology is deployed, and that this is also not harmful and damaging to all biological organisms, and
further;
43.Upon proof of claim that the gathering of information by Rocky Mountain Power via a smart meter aboutmy personal and private habits and routines without my knowledge and consent would not be unlawful,and further;
44.Upon proof of claim that I do not have and hold certain natural/unalienable Rights, as well asConstitutionally secured rights, privileges and immunities, and further;
45.Upon proof of claim that I do not have a lawful right to be secure in my person, houses, papers, andeffects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that these rights shall not be violated, as statedin the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, and further;
46.Upon proof of claim that it is not true, that if tapping someone's telephone or entering their home/privateproperty without a lawful search warrant is unlawful and a crime, then it would equally be true thattapping my private electrical system by way of a "smart" or "advanced" utility meter for sensitive
personal and private information without a lawful search warrant would also be unlawful and a crime,
and that in law, there is no difference between the two scenarios, and further;
47.Upon proof of claim that the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights does not apply to me, and further;
48.Upon proof of claim that it is not true that, I would no longer be "secure", which is my Fourth Amend­ment right, in my person, houses, and effects, once a smart meter is installed on my home, and further;
49.Upon proof of claim that Article V of the Bill of Rights does not say that I cannot "be deprived of life,liberty (right to privacy and freedom from coercion), or property (information on my personal and private
habits and routines), without due process of law, and further;
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE 5 7070
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, Cont' 50.Upon proof of claim that Rocky Mountain Power would not be denying me my right to due process oflaw by gathering/talcing personal and private information about my personal and private habits androutines via the smart meter, and then using, sharing, and disseminating said information all without alawful search warrant, and without my knowledge and consent, and further;
51.Upon proof of claim that it is not true that, I did not request a "smart" meter nor did I start thiscontroversy, when in fact it was Rocky Mountain Power Co. that did so.
Your timely response (21 days) from your receipt of this Conditional Acceptance, must be in affidavit form, under your full commercial liability, rebutting each of the points of the undersigned, on a point-by-point basis, that the facts contained therein, are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Declarations are insufficient, as declarations permit lying by omission, which no honorable draft may contain. Any other response beyond the date of this CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE is unacceptable and invalid. You must provide me with a legitimate and lawful answer. Silence to this document is contempt and dishonorable.
With explicit reservation of all of my God-given unalienable Rights, my Constitutionally secured Rights, privileges, and immunities, none waived, and without prejudice.
Very Truly, In Proper Person, Special, with Assistance,
!l;�:��7uf:!(f1
7 Witness to Signat ,
Witness to Signature CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE 6
Bate
Date
7171
E 'i-�·� �·,·+ G c_J ur
COURTESY NOTICE
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle -Notice to Principle is Notice Agent
To: To whom it may Concern
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER &
GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT
PACIFICORP
1407 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
From: Jacoba H. van Mastrigt
5447 E. Hacienda Dr. Idaho Falls, Idaho
Dear Sir or Mam,
Date: 1/03/23
Be it known, that on the P' day of December, 2022, I sent you a CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated
December 1, 2022, giving you 21 days to respond. Thus far I have not received your response and consequently a fault has occurred.
Perhaps this is an oversight on your part or perhaps the Holidays interfered with you being able to give a timely response.
Therefore, please accept my offer of an additional three (3) days, from the date of your receipt of this COURTESY NOTICE, to respond to my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE (copy attached) of December
1, 2022. Again, your response to me must be in "affidavit" form, under your full commercial liability, that the facts contained therein, are true, conect, complete and not misleading. Declarations are insufficient, as declarations permit lying by omission, which no honorable draft may contain.
I look forward to your timely response.
With explicit reservation of all my unalienable and Constitutionally secured Rights, Privileges and Immunities (Article 4:2: 1) with none waived, and without prejudice.
1N.oo. s '.J.Qu-D whnfss Signature #2
7272
COURTESY NOTICE
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle -Notice to Principle is Notice Agent
To: To whom it may Concern ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER & GARY W. HOOGEYEEN, PRESIDENT PACIFICORP P.O. Box 400
Portland, Oregon 97207
From: Jacoba H. van Mastrigt
544 7 E. Hacienda Dr.
Idaho Falls, Idaho
Dear Sir or Mam,
Date: I /03/23
Be it known, that on the I st day of December, 2022, I sent you a CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated December I, 2022, giving you 21 days to respond. Thus far I have not received your response and consequently a fault has occurred.
Perhaps this is an oversight on your part or perhaps the Holidays interfered with you being able to give a timely response.
Therefore, please accept my offer of an additional three (3) days, from the date of your receipt of this COURTESY NOTICE, to respond to my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE (copy attached) of December l, 2022. Again, your response to me must be in "affidavit" form, under your full commercial liability, that the facts contained therein, are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Declarations are insufficient, as declarations permit lying by omission, which no honorable draft may contain.
I look forward to your timely response.
With explicit reservation of all my unalienable and Constitutionally secured Rights, Privileges and Immunities (Article 4:2: I) with none waived, and without prejudice.
Very; Truly, in Proper Person, Special, with Assistance, ;,_; j-\/ ./ ' I ! •. ., -l :, . .,, ") ·1 I �· , , ' j • ,' (.·<.-!"'-- ;' ; " <: ---· / / .r •-! I - • , r-t- � '"---�·.1-. .,
Jacoba H. van Mastrigt, In Sui Juris
1tness Signature# I
7373
-NOTICE OF FAULT
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle -Notice to Principle is Notice Agent
To: To whom it may Concern ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER & GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT
PACIFICORP 1407 West North Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84116
From: Jacoba H. van Mastrigt
5447 E. Hacienda Dr. Idaho Falls, Idaho
Dear Sir or Mam,
Date: 1/25/23
Be it known, that a fault has occurred due to your silence and failure to answer my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE of December 1, 2022, and my COURTESY NOTICE dated January 3, 2023, knowing that you have a legal and moral obligation to speak, as required by law, where an inquiry or offer left unanswered would be intentionally misleading, which can only be equated with fraud and contempt. "Silence can only be equated with.fraud when there is alegal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. " U.S. v PRUDDEN 424 F.2d 1021; U.S. v TWEEL 550 F.2d 297,299, 300 (1977)
Further, your choosing to stand mute indicates probable bc1:_q_f�tb __ Q!l you_r part (see .. ''Definition�'). -Expecting rneto • --cooperate·and·th-en·remaiiiing silent arid unwiHing to reply in return is contempt, which is dishonorable. You seem tobe operating under a double standard of arrogance and contempt, which is unacceptable.
DEFINITION: FAULT -In American Law -Negligence; an eJTor or defect of judgment or of conduct; any deviation from prudence, duty, or rectitude; any shortcoming, or neglect of care or pe1fo11nm1ce resulting ji-orn inattention, incapacity, or pe,versity; a wrong tendency, course, or act; bad faith or mismanagement; neglect of duty. In Civil Law, "Negligence; want of care. An improper act or omission, injurious to another, and transpiring through negligence, rashness, or ignorance." Black's Law Dictionary. Fourth Edition
None the less, I give you the opportunity to cure your errors, and offer you 5 more days from date ofreceipt of this NOTICE to respond to said CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE of December 1, 2022. Again, your response is required.
Failure to respond to this offer and my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE of December 1, 2022 will constitute a default on your part signifying your tacit abandonment of your attempt to install a smart meter on my private property, and agreement to vacate this matter, forever barring you from any further action or attempts to install a smart meter on my private property located a 5447 E Hacienda Dr., Idaho Falls, Idaho.
With explicit reservation of all my unalienable and Constitutionally protected Rights, Privileges and Immunities (Article 4:2: 1) with none waived, and without prejudice.
Very Truly, in Proper Person, Special, with Assistance,
J coba H. van Mashi.gt, -• ·m Juns_j
, '
I
I,
Witneis.to s°ignature #2 ,1 1 I ii \) 7474
.. NOTICE OF FAULT
G ){V\ ,\.:._', .·£ -9...:, r \c.\.._cJ
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle -Notice to Principle is Notice Agent
To: To whom it may ConcernROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER & GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT PACIFICORP P.O. Box 400
Portland, Oregon 97207
From: Jacoba H. van Mastrigt 5447 E. Hacienda Dr. Idaho Falls, Idaho
Dear Sir or Mam,
Date: 1/25/23
Be it known, that a fault has occurred due to your silence and failure to answer my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE of December 1, 2022, and my COURTESY NOTICE dated January 3, 2023, knowing that you have a legal and moral obligation to speak, as required by law, where an inquiry or offer left unanswered would be intentionally misleading, which can only be equated with fraud and contempt. "Silence can only be equated with ji·aud when there is alegal and moral duty to speak or when an inqui1y le.ft unanswered would be intentionally misleading. " U.S. v PRUDDEN 424 F.2d 1021; U.S. v TWEEL 550 F.2d 297, 299, 300 (1977)
Further, your choosing to stand mute indicates probable bad faith on your part (see "Definition"). Expecting me to cooperate and then remaining silent and unwilling to reply in return is contempt, which is dishonorable. You seem to be operating under a double standard of arrogance and contempt, which is unacceptable.
DEFINJTION: F Al.TT., T -In American Law -Negligence; an en·or or defect of judgment or of conduct; any deviation from prudence, duty, or rectitude; any shortcoming, or neglect of care or pe1fo11nance resulting_fi·om inattention, incapacity, or perversity; a wrong tendency, course, or act; bad faith or mismanagement; neglect of duty. In Civil Law, "Negligence; want of care. An improper act or omission, injurious to another, and transpiring through negligence, rashness, or ignorance." Black's Law Dictionary. Fourth Edition
None the less, I give you the opportunity to cure your errors, and offer you 5 more days from date of receipt of this NOTICE to respond to said CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE of December 1, 2022. Again, your response is required.
Failure to respond to this offer and my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE of December 1, 2022 will constitute a default on your part signifying your tacit abandonment of your attempt to install a smart meter on my private property, and agreement to vacate this matter, forever barring you from any further action or attempts to install a smart meter on my private property located a 5447 E Hacienda Dr., Idaho Falls, Idal10
With explicit reservation of all my unalienable and Constitutionally protected Rights, Privileges and Immunities (Article 4:2: 1) with none waived, and without prejudice.
{J Witness; Slgnature #2 (Iv 7575
NOTICE OF DEFAULT
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle -Notice to Principle is Notice Agent
To: To whom it may Concern ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER & GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT PACIFICORP 1407 West North Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84116
From: Jacoba H. van Mastrigt 5447 E. Hacienda Dr. Idaho Falls, Idaho
Dear Sir or Mam,
Date: February 15, 2023
Be it known, that due to your failure to respond to my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 12/01/22; my COURTESY NOTICE dated 1/03/23; and my NOTICE OF FAULT dated 1/25/23, you have shown to the world your indifference and contempt for me, which is not only dishonorable but a disgrace as well.
Therefore, this NOTICE serves to inform you, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER; GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT, PACIFICO RP that you are now in DEFAULT due to your repeated silence to my chain of documents and failure to perform a duty where you have a legal and moral obligation to speak, and this NOTICE serves as primafacie evidence of your silence, contempt, and dishonor in this matter.
"A default is an omission of that which ought to be done, and more specifically, the omission or failure to pe,form a legal duty. The term also embraces the idea of dishonesty, or an act or omission discreditable to one's profession." Black's Law Dictionary. Fourth Edition
"Silence can only be equated with ji-aud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inqui,y left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. v PRUDDEN 424 F.2d 1021; U.S. v TWEEL 550 F.2d 297,299,300 (1977)
Further, your silence to all my documents and correspondence, is your tacit agreement and acquiescence to my position as enumerated in my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE and letter of 12/01/22, and all subsequent documentation which you received from me, as well as your tacit acknowledgement and agreement that you have vacated this matter and that you have no further intention to and will not install a smart meter on my private property located at 5447 E. Hacienda Dr., Idaho Falls, Idaho.
With explicit reservation of all my unalienable and Constitutionally protected Rights, Privileges and Immunities (Article 4:2: 1) with none waived, and without prejudice.
Very Truly, in Proper Person, Special, with Assistance,
Jacoba H. van Mastrigt, In Su(Juris
Witness to signature #1 Witness to signatur� #2
7676
,
--NOTICE OF DEFAULT
Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle -Notice to Principle is Notice Agent
To: To whom it may Concern ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER & GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT PACIFICORP P.O. Box400 Portland, Oregon 97207
From: JacobaH. van Mastrigf 5447 E. Hacienda Dr. Idaho Falls, Idaho
Dear Sir or Mam,
Date: February 15, 2023
Be it known, that due to your failure to respond to my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 12/01/22; my COURTESY NOTICE dated 1/03/23; and my NOTICE OF FAULT dated 1/25/23, you have shown to the world your indifference and contempt for me, which is not only dishonorable but a disgrace as well.
ibi wt.MP
Therefore, this NOTICE serves to inform you, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER; GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT, PACIFICORP that you are now in DEFAULT due to your repeated silence to my chain of documents and failure to perfom1 a duty where you have a legal and moral obligation to speak, and this NOTICE serves as
primafacie evidence of your silence, contempt, and dishonor in this matter.
"A default is an omission of that which ought to be done, and more specifically, the omission or failure to perform a legal duty. The term also embraces the idea of dishonesty, or an act or omission discreditable to one's profession." Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition
"Silence can on(v be equated with ji-aud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inqui1:v left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. v PRUDDEN 424 F.2d 1021; U.S. v TWEEL 550 F.2d 297, 299, 300 (1977)
Further, your silence to all my documents and correspondence, is your tacit agreement and acquiescence to my position as enumerated in my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE and letter of 12/01/22, and all subsequent documentation which you received from me, as well as your tacit acknowledgement and agreement that you have vacated this matter and that you have no further intention to and will not install a smart meter on my private property located at 5447 E. Hacienda Dr., Idaho Falls, Idaho.
With explicit reservation of all my unalienable and Constitutionally protected Rights, Privileges and Immunities (Article 4:2: 1) with none waived, and without prejudice.
Very Truly, in Proper Person, Special, with Assistance,
Jacoba H. van Mastrigt, {9' S�i Juris
Witness to signature # 1 Witness to signature #2
7777
NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL
BY ACQUIESCENCE
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE -NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT
BE IT KNOWN, this 15th day of February, 2023, that you, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER and GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT, PACIFICORP, by your "SILENCE" have tacitly acquiesced in the matter concerning my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated December 1, 2022, in which you were given reasonable opportunity to respond timely to, and by your "SILENCE" to my COURTESY NOTICE, dated January 3, 2023, and your silence on my NOTICE OF FAULT dated January 25, 2023. You therefore, were found in DEFAULT, signifying that a fraud has been perpetrated upon Me, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297,299 (1977), thereby initiating the DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE,pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A 932 (1906), which is now in full force and effect upon you, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER and GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT, PACIFICORP.
BE IT FURTHER KNOWN, that you, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER and GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT, PACIFICORP are hereby estopped from any and all further action(s), claims, counterclaims, demands, and or suits against me, concerning your matter involving your attempted installation of a smart meter on my private property located at 5447 E Hacienda Dr., Idaho Falls, Idaho and myself.
NOW BE ADVISED, that you, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER and GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT, PACIFICORP hereby agree and accept that any violation(s) of this ESTOPPLE will be construed, at the very least, a "tortious" offense against me making you liable for damages to me in the amount of $1,000,000.00 U.S. (One Million Dollars) due and payable upon demand within 30 days of such demand. Understand that this is an implied and self-executing contract enforceable in court and that violating this ESTOPPEL and moving against me and or my private property hereafter is "performance" on your part, and constitutes your acceptance of the terms of this ESTOPPEL.
If you do not wish to become subject to this implied contract, then DO NOT TRESPASS upon me or my private property any further by VIOLATING this ESTOPPEL.
THIS IS AN IMPLIED CONTRACT-PERFORMANCE 15 ACCEPTANCE
With explicit reservation of all my unalienable and Constitutionally secured and protected Rights, Privileges and Immunities (Article 4:2: 1) with none waived, and without prejudice.
Very Truly, in Proper Person, Special, with Assistance,
Jacoba H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris /
Witness to signature #1 Witness to signatur� #2
7878
NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL
I? �\�',{ H­
? _, I � \ :• L 4/�
BY ACQUIESCENCE
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE -NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT
BE IT KNOWN, this 15th day of February, 2023, that you, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER and GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT, PACIFICORP, by your "SILENCE" have tacitly acquiesced in the matter concerning my CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated December 1, 2022, in which you were given reasonable opportunity to respond timely to, and by your "SILENCE" to my COURTESY NOTICE, dated January 3, 2023, and your silence on my NOTICE OF FAULT dated January 25, 2023. You therefore, were found in DEFAULT, signifying that a fraud has been perpetrated upon Me, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297,299 (1977), thereby initiating the DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE,pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906), which is now in full force and effect upon you, ROCKYMOUNTAIN POWER and GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT, PACIFICORP.
BE IT FURTHER KNOWN, that you, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER and GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT, PACIFICORP are hereby estopped from any and all further action(s), claims, counterclaims, demands, and or suits against me, concerning your matter involving your attempted installation of a smart meter on my private property located at 5447 E Hacienda Dr., Idaho Falls, Idaho and myself
NOW BE ADVISED, that you, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER and GARY W. HOOGEVEEN, PRESIDENT, PACIFICORP hereby agree and accept that any violation(s) of this ESTOPPLE will be construed, at the very least, a "tortious" offense against me making you liable for damages to me in the amount of $1,000,000.00 U.S. (One Million Dollars) due and payable upon demand within 30 days of such demand. Understand that this is an implied and self-executing contract enforceable in court and that violating this ESTOPPEL and moving against me and or my private property hereafter is "performance" on your part, and constitutes your acceptance of the terms of this ESTOPPEL.
If you do not wish to become subject to this implied contract, then DO NOT TRESPASS upon me or my private property any further by VIOLATING this ESTOPPEL.
THIS IS AN IMPLIED CONTRACT -PERFORMANCE IS ACCEPTANCE
With explicit reservation of all my unalienable and Constitutionally secured and protected Rights, Privileges and Immunities (Article 4:2: 1) with none waived, and without prejudice.
Very Truly, in Proper Person, Special, with Assistance,
., Jacoba H. van Mastrigt, Sui Juris
Witness to signature #1
_ _,,.,.. { l.;;,c-l)-' , . .. . / r -.: ,, .;..\. -'"t v" Date
itness to signature #2
7979
COMPLAINT 20
To:Jan Noriyuki,Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Date:March 18,2023
From:Samuel and Peggy Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
RE:Installation of "Smart"Meter and threat of service disconnection
Dear Ma'am,
This COMPLAINT is a follow-upto an initial complaint which Peggy submitted to Idaho
Public Utility Commission in December 2022.Our complaint is still the same:there should be an
"opt-out"option for customers of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP who do not want
to upgrade their electric meter.
At this time,our case has become critical,and we ask for your intervention to immediately
stop the termination of our electric service by ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP
scheduled for March 28, 2023. Our COMPLAINT arises over matters concerning myself, Samuel,
and my wife,Peggy,and ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP in regard to their intention
to install a Trespassing Technology known as a "Smart"type meter on our home, located at 333
Shoshone Ave;Rexburg, ID 83440 contrary to our existing and long-standing contractual agreement,
as well as our will and consent. We further request that a traditional meter replace our existing
electronic meter,even if a reasonable surcharge for regularly checking the meter were added to our
bill or if we were responsible to report the meter reading (e.g.-text/email a picture)on a regular
basis.
Please find attached our DECLARATION in the form of an AFFIDAVIT in support of this
letter of COMPLAINT,along with supporting Exhibits A,B, and C.
We,along with our 16-year old special-needs daughter and two other children,are currently
faced with the real possibility of havingour power/electrical service disconnected on 28 March 2023
(please see disconnect letter, Exhibit A).We have attempted over and over again,in good faith to
resolve all issues with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP which have led up to this
point where they are now threatening to shut our power off,in spite of the fact that access to the
meter has never been impeded for service and that we have always paid our power bill each month
and are currently not late with payment.They,in turn,are the aggressor operating in bad faith, using
strong-arm intimidation tactics,threat,duress, and coercion in order to upgrade the meter without
consideration for the will,privacy or medical effects which this upgrade would have upon us,the
property owners.
Last year,we received an undated and unsigned letter from ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP on or around November 22,2022 instructing us to call their 800 number
within 15 days to resolve any "access"issues and set an appointment to have our meter updated with
their (Trespassing Technology). In response to this letter, Peggy called ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP multiple times,including talking with an employee Christian #36743
CASE NO. PAC-E-23-05
8080
twice. During these calls, Peggy explained that a power company technician (sub-contractor) had come to our door in October requesting to install a smart meter, and we informed her that we were contesting the unilateral insistence to replace our current power meter with a 5G Smart Meter. She
politely said that she understood and would inform ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP of our response. Peggy also informed Christian #36743 that we have a special needs child who currently sleeps about 8 feet from the location of the power meter and we are concerned about the radio frequency waves to which she would be exposed by the 5G Smart Meter. As detailed in Exhibit C and available in other documented medical research, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (e.g.
wireless technologies including smart meters) can lead to electro-sensitivity requiring accommodation 1. Peggy asked for an appropriate address to send a letter responding to the unsigned,undated letter, so that we could formally contest the assertion that the "installer couldn't access the meter base". Delays with verifying the appropriate address to send our letter resulted in the letter
being sent in late February, arriving on 2 March 2023 at ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's CEO Gary Hoogeveen's office in Portland, OR according to UPS Ground tracking #IZX048R30397898301. (see Exhibit C) On March 3, we received ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's 22 February
2023 letter, subject "SECOND NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 333 Shoshone Ave Rexburg, ID 83440" (Exhibit B), and that their contractor was refused "access" to perform a meter
(Trespassing Technology) exchange. This new letter also states that they have also attempted to reach us by telephone, and that we are to call their 800 number to resolve this issue within 15 days,
or they will refer our account to their service disconnection process. In this same letter they also claim that we are "contractually obligated to allow" ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP "safe and unencumbered access to our equipment. Meter service is a condition of electric service, as expressed in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's Customer Relations Rules, namely Electric
Service Regulation No.6, ... " Be noticed that the word/term "access" in ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP's letters to us is being improperly applied to mean something other than
what it really is (see explanation below). On March 17, we received ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's 14 March 2023, subject "FINAL NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 333 Shoshone Ave, Rexburg, Idaho" (Exhibit A). We are informed in this letter that our service will be terminated on 28 March,
2023.
INTRODUCTION [BRIEF HISTORY)
As it stands now, there has been in place for the past 3.5 or so years a relationship of a "contractual" nature between us and ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP (formally UT AH POWER AND LIGHT), who currently provides us with electrical power to our home. I, in turn naturally, have agreed to allow ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's (formerly UTAH POWER AND LIGHT) meter reader(s) "access" of a "specified and limited" nature, not a general unspecified and unlimited nature, to our private property each month specifically for them
to read our electrical power meter ONLY. No other access to our private property, implied or otherwise was ever granted to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP (formerly UTAH POWER AND LIGHT) at any time. Any other necessary "access", including troubleshooting power outages and making necessary repairs to electrical equipment located on our private property is
considered "special" in nature and would only be granted at the time, we, the private property owners
reported a power outage and or requested them to troubleshoot an electrical problem and make necessary repairs ONLY. Therefore, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP (formally UTAH POWER AND LIGHT) does not have autonomous authority in and of itself to access our private property to troubleshoot and or make necessary repairs to electrical equipment or for any
1 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Brief-and-Addendum-Submitted-9-14.pdf, accessed 3/18/2023 2
8181
other reason at any time, day or night until they receive notification from us authorizing and granting them permission at that time, on a one-time basis only for them to proceed to do the specified request.
Anything other than this is a trespass, invasion of our privacy, security, unalienable Rights, including our private property rights which cannot be diminished, as well as a violation of our existing contractual agreement.
Let us be clear on this issue of "access" which ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP claims that we are denying them. We and no one else in our home have ever denied "access" to any of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's meter readers or their company repair personnel as per our previously agreed upon terms of our long-standing contractual
agreement over the years. However, there has never been in place any agreement for personnel from any third-party company to trespass on my private property and tamper with our, in this case electrical meter at any time, whether we are at home or if no one is at home, neither has there ever been in place any agreement with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP to "access" our
private property to make a non-repair (or install a Trespassing Technology) when no request for such type of service was ever made, and no defective electrical equipment on my private property exists. So, if no defective electrical equipment exists on our private property and we did not call ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP to report any troubles/problems with our electrical service and
thus no electrical repairs were/are needed, what are there personnel doing on our private property and or attempting to access our private property without our consent contrary to our existing contractual agreement? Understand that this whole issue surrounds a matter of an existing "contract" which ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP are attempting to impair our obligation to. This contractual
relationship, as I said before has been in place since we moved in our home about 3.5 years ago when we requested ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP (formerly UTAH POWER AND LIGHT) supply our home with electrical power, to which they agreed. This has worked smoothly
without any problems or disputes until last year, when ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP attempted to change the terms of our previously agreed upon and long standing "contract" without consideration of individual customers' desires or full disclosure that they were attempting to change said terms of or initiate a new contract without my knowledge and consent in order for them to bully their way onto our private property to make a non-repair ( or install
a Trespassing Technology) which is not part of our existing contractual agreement. As you well know, for any changes to be made to a contract, both parties must be, in agreement, and both parties must have a clear understanding of any and all terms and changes in terms of said contract to be valid and binding. This is simply not the case in this matter. To allow this abuse to continue would be a travesty of justice. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP acknowledges the existence of our contractual relationship (see Exhibit A) but in a skewed and
twisted fashion, not relating the matter truthfully. They spread propaganda that smart meters are safe without considering contrary evidence and portray objecting homeowners as the antagonist and an uncooperative party for not wanting their smart meter Trespassing Technology, making us the "bad guy". What is the marginal benefit of pressuring 100% of customers to adopt upgraded meters? If 90% of customers have already upgraded, isn't network awareness sufficiently improved to inform
outage restorations? Threatening service disconnection appears to be an overly coercive tactic to
achieve complete compliance and ignore alternatives (e.g.-self-reporting or a surcharge for meter reading). Why does the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION/Legislature support or sanction this coercion which has become criminal (felonious) behavior? Other states offer "opt-out"
alternatives, so that 100% compliance is demonstrably unnecessary. There is no one person or agency in the Idaho government advocating for the people/inhabitants in their plight with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP, but there is a government agency advocating for ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's position -the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION under the thumb of the state legislature. However, the interpretation of the Commission on this matter so far does not honor the rights of the people of
3
8282
Idaho to make decisions affecting their privacy or medical freedom. Where there is risk, there must
remain choice. So far as smart meter upgrades are concerned, IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION appears only to consider the best interests of the utility company, and not the public trust. Understand, we have committed no wrong in this instant matter and have done our due diligence in an attempt to resolve all issues in order to keep the peace and our electric power on.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP has been acting in bad faith and continue to walk in dishonor. They are a huge corporate giant with endless financial resources coming against this small single family who only desires to live in peace. This huge corporate giant seems to think that because they operate as a government sanctioned monopoly, knowing that customers have no other option
or choice in power companies, they can just run roughshod over their perceived disobedient customers to force their unlawful will (Trespassing Technology) upon them by use of deception, lies, strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat, duress, and coercion ( criminal acts) in order to covertly alter a previously agreed upon "contract" without my knowledge and consent -HOLDING OUR
ELECTRICAL POWER SERVICE AS RANSOM. This is a matter of the big bully on the block going around breaching the peace, terrorizing and strong-arming the inhabitants in the neighborhood and bullying their way onto their customer's private property and into their private lives. This is criminal behavior and it must be stopped.
Ill
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
We, Samuel & Peggy Edwards, hereinafter referred to as complainant, in complaint of ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP and their Trespassing Technology, hereinafter referred to as "violator", respectfully alleging various felonious acts being perpetrated upon complainant as follows:
COUNT 1: Breach of the peace. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's attempted
unlawful intrusion onto complainant's private property and into complainant's home resulting in a breach of complainant's and other household members peace causing undue fear, emotional and physical stress of complainant and other household members.
COUNT 2: Attempted extortion of complainant's will, consent, and rights through use of threat, duress, and coercion in order to induce complainant to capitulate, by wrongful use of fear and under color of official right to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's unlawful compulsion to accept their smart meter (Trespassing Technology) while holding the threat of
electrical service disconnection over complainant's head.
COUNT 3: Impairment of complainant's obligation of an existing contract between ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP and complainant by use of threat, deception, strong-arm intimidation tactics, trickery, duress, and coercion. Violators are attempting to change terms of an existing contract and or create a new contract with complainant in order to install a "smart" meter (Trespassing Technology) without the authorization/consent of complainant by wrongful use of
fear and under color of official right, hoping complainant will grant coerced or tacit agreement for such contract changes by either omitting to perform a particular act or through the performance of a particular act induced under compulsion in order to get their smart meter (Trespassing Technology) installed on complainant's home.
COUNT 4: Attempted extortion and takeover of complainant's private property for commercial use. Violators, by wrongful use of fear and under color of official right are attempting to commandeer complainant's private property in order to install a smart Meter "relay station"
4
8383
(Trespassing Technology) on complainant's property for the sole benefit of ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP and outside third-party entities without any just authorization and compensation to complainant for such. This would amount to theft, unlawful conversion of private property, unjust enrichment, and violation of the complainant's FIFTH AMENDMENT right to not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
COUNT 5: Attempted illegal wiretapping and extraction of personal and private information without a lawfully issued and or executed search warrant, through the installation of an unlawful (as no consent is given) surveillance/bugging device known as a smart meter (Trespassing Technology). Smart meter capabilities include, but not limited to monitoring, logging, storing, transferring, and sharing of daily personal and private habits and routines of occupants of private
homes and then giving said information to unauthorized third-parties for profit, including police and federal government snoop agents, all without the homeowner's or other occupants consent to do so. This would amount to gross violation of complainant's FOURTH AMENDMENT right to be "secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", as well as complainant's FIFTH AMENDMENT right to not "be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law".
COUNT 6: Threat with intent to commit harm to complainant and other household members by
threatening to shut off electrical power to complainant's property/house if complainant does not allow ROCKY MOUNTAJN POWER/PACIFICORP to install a smart meter (Trespassing Technology) on complainant's house. Termination of electrical power will cause severe hardship, stress, and duress, as well as severe physical and emotional harm to the complainant and other members of this household, including family members with special medical needs. ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP, having foreknowledge of the complainant's special needs daughter's age and physical condition, continues to acknowledge their intent to harm complainant and complainant's child, which makes this a criminal act.
COUNT 7: Gross Negligence; Hazardous Negligence. The "gross negligence", or reckless and wanton behavior of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP is manifest in their failure to exercise even slight care, and evidences a reckless disregard of complainant's life and safety, as well as of others in complainant's household, by attempting to expose us to the dangerous/ hazardous health effects of a smart meter (Trespassing Technology) which they are attempting to install on complainant's private property against complainant's will and consent. There intentional
failure to perform a manifest duty to truthfully inform complainant of the actual dangers of a smart meter is in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting complainant's life and property, including a gross want of care and regard for complainant's rights and the rights of others in complainant's household.
Their behavior is also "hazardous negligence" due to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP's careless or reckless conduct by attempting to expose complainant and other members of complainant's household to the very great danger of injury and imminent peril should the installation of their smart meter (Trespassing Technology) on complainant's home take place.
COUNT 8: Actionable Fraud. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP has committed an "actionable fraud" against complainant by use of deceptive practices in an attempt to induce complainant to part with complainant's legal right(s), to include complainant's long-standing existing contractual agreement with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP, as well as unlawfully attempting to commandeer complainant's private property for commercial use by
installing a "relay station" (smart meter Trespassing Technology) without complainant's consent by making false representations with the intention to deceive. Further, it appears that ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP makes a material representation which is knowingly false
5
8484
concerning their smart meter (Trespassing Technology), making such representation without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion that smart meters are safe, and made it with the intention that it should be acted on by complainant. If complainant acts and complies with this
false representation, complainant fears and believes an impending injury will be suffered by complainant and possibly others in complainant's household as well.
Note: If attempted murder is prosecutable, then attempted extortion and piracy is also prosecutable.
DEFINITIONS
From: Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition
EXTORT. To compel or coerce, as a confession or information by any means serving to overcome
one's power of resistance, or making the confession or admission involuntary. Sutton v. Commonwealth, 207 Ky. 597, 269 S.W. 754, 757. To gain by wrongful methods, to obtain in an unlawful manner, to compel payments by means of threats of injury to person, property, or reputation. McKenzie v. State, 113 Neb. 576,204 N.W. 60,
61; State v. Richards, 97 Wash. 587, 167 P. 47, 48. To take from unlawfully; to exact something wrongfully by threats or putting in fear. State v. Adams, Del., 106 A. 287,288, 7 Boyce, 335. See Extortion.
The natural meaning of the word "extort " is to obtain money or other valuable thing either by compulsion, by actual force, or by the force of motives applied to the will, and often more overpowering and irresistible than physical force. Com. v. O'Brien, 12 Cush., Mass., 90.
EXTORTION. Unlawful obtaining of money from another. People v. Parkinson, 181 Misc. 603, 41 N.Y.S.2d 331, 334.
Obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right. And see State v. Logan, 104 La. 760, 29 So. 336; In re Rem pf er, 51 S.D. 393, 216 N.W. 355, 359, 55 A.L.R. 1346; Lee v. State, 16 Ariz. 291, 145 P. 244, 246,Ann.Cas.1917B, 131. Obtaining of property of another by threats to injure him and to destroy his
property, State v. Phillips, 62 Idaho 656, 115 P.2d 418, 420. Taking or obtaining of anything from
another by means of i lie gal compulsion or oppressive exaction, Daniels v. U. S., C.C.A.Cal., 17 F .2d339, 342; whether by an officer or otherwise, United States v. Dunkley, D.C.Cal., 235 F. 1000,1001.
A taking under color of office is of essence of offense. La Tour v. Stone, 139 Fla. 681, 190 So. 704, 709,710.
At common law, any oppression by color or pretense of right, and particularly and technically the exaction or unlawful taking by an officer of money or thing of value, by color of his office, either when none at all is due, or not so much is due, or when it is not yet due. Preston v. Bacon, 4 Conn. 480.See People v. Barondess, 16 N.Y.S. 436, 61 Hun, 571; Murray v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 252,67 S.W.2d 274,275; State v. Anderson, 66 N.D. 522,267 N.W. 121, 123; Whart.Cr.L. 833.
Term in comprehensive or general sense signifies any oppression under color of right, and in strict or technical sense signifies unlawful taking by any officer, under color of office, of any money or thing of value not due him, more than is due, or before it is due. State v. Barts, 132 N.J.L. 74, 38
A.2d 838,843,844,848; State v. Vallee, 136 Me. 432, 12 A.2d 421.
To constitute "extortion," money or other thing of value must have been willfully and corruptly received. La Tourv. Stone, 139 Fla. 681, 190 So. 709,710.
6
8585
To constitute "extortion," the wrongful use of fear must be the operating cause producing consent. People v. Biggs, 178 Cal. 79, 172 P. 152, 153.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE. The Intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard
of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another; such a gross want of care and regard for the rights of others as to justify the presumption of willfulness and wantonness. Seelig v. First Nat. Bank, D.C.IIL, 20 F.Supp. 61, 68.
The failure to exercise slight care. Jones v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 98 Kan. 133, 157 P. 399, 400; Burton Const. Co. v. Metcalfe, 162 Ky. 366, 172 S.W. 698, 701.
In the law of torts (and especially with reference to personal injury cases), the term means such negligence as evidences a reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them. McDonald
v.Railroad Co., Tex.Civ.App,, 21 S.W. 775; Railroad Co. v. Bodemer, 139 Ill. 596, 29 N.E. 692,32 Am.St.Rep. 218; Coitv. Western Union Tel. Co., 130 Cal. 657, 63 P. 83, 53 LR.A. 678; Bremerv.Lake Erie & W.R. Co., 318 Ill. 11, 148 N. E. 862, 866, 41 A.LR. 1345.
Indifference to present legal duty and utter forgetfulness of legal obligations, so far as other persons may be affected, and a manifestly smaller amount of watchfulness and circumspection than the circumstances require of a person of ordinary prudence. Burke v. Cook, 246 Mass. 518, 141 N .E.
585,586. Negligence bordering on recklessness. People v. Adams, 289 Ill. 339, 124 N.E. 575, 577.
Words "gross negligence," are equivalent to words "reckless and wanton." Jones v. Commonwealth, 213 Ky. 356,281 S. W. 164, 167.
HAZARDOUS NEGLIGENCE. Such careless or reckless conduct as exposes one to very great danger of injury or to imminent peril. Riggs v. Standard Oil Co., C.C.Minn., 130 F. 204.
Y ACTIONABLE. That for which an action will lie, furnishing legal ground for an action.
ACTIONABLE FRAUD. Deception practiced in order to induce another to part with property or surrender some legal right; a false representation made with an intention to deceive; may be committed by stating what is known to be false or by professing knowledge of the truth of a statement
which is false, but in either case, the essential ingredient is a falsehood uttered with intent to deceive. Sawyer v. Prickett, 19 Wall. 146, 22 L Ed. 105.
To constitute "actionable fraud," it must appear that defendant made a material representation; that it was false; that when he made it he knew it was false,-or made it recklessly without any knowledge
of its truth and as a positive assertion; that he made it with intention that it should be acted on by plaintiff; that plaintiff acted in reliance on it; and that plaintiff thereby suffered injury. Blair v. McCool, 136 Or. 139, 295 P. 950, 952. Essential elements are representation, falsity, scienter, deception, and injury. Cobb v. Cobb, 211 N.C. 146, 189 S.E. 479,482.
CONCLUSION
We respectfully request that the Commissioners for the Idaho Public Utility Commission investigate this entire matter concerning this criminal and wanton behavior and the strong-arm intimidation tactics of RO CKY MOUNTAIN PO W ER/PAC IF I CO RP and why they are permitted
7
8686
to continue tu violate and interfere with my, as well as many other ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER,1f't\CIFICORP customer's existing valid contractual agreements against their will and free
consent. and their FOURTH and FIFTH AMENDMENT Rights, and other violations mentioned above, and also why the IDAHO PUC/State Legislature permits/sanctions this type of criminal behavior. As time is of the essence, we respectfully request that this matter be given priority status and a timely remedy sought in order to avoid the apparent upcoming electrical service
diswnncctin11 in just a matter of days, not just for ourselves but for many other ROCKY MOUN IAIN l'U\VER/PAClflCORP customers similarly situated.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in remedying this matter as soon as
possibk in order that justice may be done.
Vc-ry truly.
�Ji�su; Juds 8 8787
DECLARATION OF SAMUEL Z. EDWARDS
IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT
I.Samuel Fd,,ards. being of sound mind and body do make this Declaration of my own free will
11·ithout an) undue outside influence.
I declare the following:
I. On l)cccmber 17, 2021, I did receive an unsigned letter from ROCKY MOUNTAIN PO\VI :l·V
PACIFICORP staling that new digital smart meters would be installed in our neighborhood
bcgi11ning in January 2022.
2.Both my ,rife and l have grave concerns over the health affects of a sma1i meter as our 16 year
old daughter has a complex medical history including Autism Spectrum Disorder. is Wheelchair
Bound and completely dependent for care. She is cognitively between 4-6 years old with
spet·ch. hearing and physical impairments. Her sleeping space is located approximately 8 fcl't
l1·orn tile i;:·.,isti ng 111etcr base for our home ·s electric service. During 2020-2021. we renovated
this sleeping space to be suitable for our daughter's care and need to remain in our home
i ndcfinitely vvhich includes an electric ceiling lift system, electric feeding pump station. roll
under sink and roll-in shower. (Doctors' notes available upon request.)
3.On February 11. 2022. we were notified that the upgrade was happening in our neighborhood
with no option of' opting out. My wife, Peggy Edwards, communicated with ROCKY
MOI jNTt\!N POWER/ PACIFICORP and informed their representative, Alison. of our
daughter·s complex medical history, autism and the proximity of the meter base close to her
sleeping space. Peggy further told ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP that we do not
consent to tit(· met.er upgrade at our home. Alison informed Peggy that we cannot "opt-uut .. \11" tile
meter upgradl' and stated that we must move the sleeping space or move the meter bas\.'..
4.011 1-cbrumy 13. 2022, Peggy emailed our state legislator (Representative Ron Nate) and
i11t'ormcd him of the conversation that she'd had with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/
PACIFICORP. In subsequent days, we also reached out to Representatives Karey Hanks . .Ion
Weber and Senator Doug Ricks. complaining about the lack of an "opt out'' option.
5.During February and March 2022, we consulted with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/
PACI FI CORP representatives about moving the existing meter base. On March 3. 2022. Peggy
called Russell Westerberg at ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP, who put us in
cuntact with Tim Solomon to discuss moving the existing meter base. We obtained a quote from
a local ekctrician (Leroy Edwards) of about $5000 to move it, but this was too expensive for us
at that time.
6.During Summer of 2022, a ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACJFICORP subcontractor came
lo request lo S\I itch out our current meter base for the new digital smart meter. We declined the
upgrade because of concerns that the new digital smart meter would have a deleterious affect
upon our daughter's health.
7.On 10 Noveinber 2022, we received an undated and unsigned letter from ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/ P/\CIFlCORP claiming that their "installer couldn't access the meter base'" located at
our home (333 Shoshone Ave; Rexburg, ID). In response to this letter. Peggy called ROCKY
8888
I\IUUN l'AJN POWERIPACIFICORP multiple times, including talking with an ernplo)CC
Christian #36743 twice and informing him of the details of our conversation with the
subcontractur. Peggy requested a mailing address to formally dispute the claim that their
•'instal.ler couldn't access the meter base".
8. 'Ne did 1101 receive a mailing address from ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFJCORP to
submit our dispute. so we found an address for their corporate offices online and mailed our
disputation in btc February 2023. According to UPS Ground tracking
( # l ZX048 RJ(J397898301 ), our disputation was delivered to the office of CEO Gary I !oogen:cn
in Portland, OR on March 2, 2023.
9.On March 3. vvc received ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's 22 February 2023
letter. subject --SECOND NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 333 Shoshone Ave
Rexburg .. ID 83440'' (Exhibit B), and that their contractor was refused "access'" to perform a
meter (Trespassing Technology) exchange.
I 0. On l'v1mch 17. we received ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's 14 1'-larch 2023.
subject ··FIN1\L NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 333 Shoshone Ave, Re:--;burg.
Idaho .. (l·:xhihit A). We are informed in this letter that our service will be terminated on 28
rvtarch. 2023.
I.S:irnucl /. hlw:mls, affirm and certify on my own unlimited commercial liability that I lia,e rt·ad
I.he abo,·e alTida, it and do know the contents to be the truth, the whole truth, conect and complete
10 lhe best of' my knowledge, and willing to testify to this.
--�-�, Sui Juris Date
V, i tness t(½ignature
8989
CREDIBLE-WITNESS ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State/Commonwealth of i c_{ee:,Cd:,
County of (1/lf't t:li :>'?:---t-
On this the I y)t1
Day day of �Jv�i?v_· _'-_L'.'.S,�--­Month --�-A��-"_,_._7_3 ___ , before me, the undersigned NotaryYear
Public, personally appeared -�/_U-_i:.:...,.'.7_' �.,..�<-'",..../ __ ?_.:/._✓_-�,::-c�:..,,:-"t�..,...,_�-_c1:_' �'.'>�----------------­? / I Nome(s) of Document Signer(s)
Place Notary Seal/Stamp Above
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence, upon the oath or affirmation of {/,n' yl-r;:-icv ··i }\(�
Name of Credible Witness to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribedto the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same for the purposes therein contained.
Witness my hand and official seal.
,._,.-
Si natw e of Notary Public
{)/;/ ,� _7/4,,.. � j \d./.�""L
Printed Norrie of Nota,y Public
12--/-9 /zc-c.-0✓
AnyOtherRequired Information (Commission Expiration Date, etc.)
�-----------------OPTIONAL -----------------�
This section is required for notarizations performed in Arizona but it optional in other states. Completing this
information con cleter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: .M-"--'-,/-'-6 -',-...=.C....,\c', ._,,,__{ .,_): -_._\ _\-__,,o=· _e_· ---�=---+f-)_\_ce.::..·· '-'""'-'--• .c._l-________ _
Document Date: __ )+_l....,/_z,_,_/..,.Z,.""--3...,__ _________ Number of Pages: _...._( ___ 6_· ___ _
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: _5i_.,_J�:Z�?�'t--(._t-',/ __ • �£.�C"�·�:/4:_?'.�£ri�Y<'�./_:_s_· ________ _
�':2017 National Notary Association
9090
CREDIBLE-WITNESS ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State/Commonwealth of __,_J _i::::-;_,_(=c-l-'--'--l\-'-'C�1 ____ _
County of /L·/lc(C{/ Jt:!:3
On this the /<f,/4 \ day of AA£t v'GhDay Month
before me, the undersigned Notary
Year
Public, personally appeared �'-�S�0-�_�t-l4�·-,.(_,._"'z�.t:_d,_?C/�""-vr:;J __ _s_· ______________ _
Place Notary Seal/Stamp Above
Nome(s) of Document Signer(s)
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence, upon the oath or affirmation of
. jl1-.C lu:2-:) }!i',5; ,:,c..
Name of Credibie Witness to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the sc1me for the purposes therein contained.
Witness my hand and official seal.
/d{,Ld'./4fe-
Printed Nome of Notary Public
/Z/9@,z-� An� Oth�r Required Information (Commission Expiration Date, etc.)
,------------------OPTIONAL--- - - - -------- ----,
This section is required for notarizations performed in Arizona but it optional in other states. Completing this
information con deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.
Description of Attached Document 11/1 ,. Title or Type of Document: 'r-1-\'�e_�c�-u..,=·�·\�_=c:,r_t..._: __ C_'e,_·1_"-+/-'"Y_{_a.._· -�_n_-l-_________ _
Document Date: __ :;_,) /�/_.,._.f..,./_z_s ___________ Number of Pages: __ /_O ___ _I Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: --+p_..?_. ·F-,-+-L=L-"-f-1 __ ,..,.2='-_.?i_·;/,;_k�_.::K.,.r-r1>_{�S,_· ___________ _} ) I
e2017 National Notary Association
9191
.. �ROCKY MOUNTAIN� POWER
A OMSION OF PACIFICORP
SAMUEL Z EDWARDS
333 SHOSHONE AVE
REXBURG ID 83440
March 14, 2023
l407West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 8◄ 116
RE: FINAL NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 333 Shoshone Avenue, Rexburg, Idaho
Dear Samuel Z Edwards:
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. If you are not responsible for the electric
service at the site, please pass this request to the property manager or owner as soon as possible.
As required by 31.21.01-Customer Relations Rules for Gas, Electric, and Water Public Utilities ("Utility
Customer Relations Rules") -Rule 304 (Requirements for Notice to Customers Before Termination of
Service). This letter will serve as final notice of termination of electric service, which will occur on
March 28, 2023 for failure to provide access as required under Utility Customer Relations Rules-Rule
302(e). If access to property is acquired prior to this date to enable Rocky Mountain Power to install an
upgraded meter at the site, termination will be canceled.
Please contact us at 1-800-895-0631 if you wish to resolve this issue.
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
9292
REQUIRED DISCLOSURES:
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 31.21.01 Public Utilities Commission Utility Customer Relations Rules 305. CONTENTS Of NOTICE OF INTENT TO TERMINATE SERVICE (RULE 305). 01.Contents of Notice. The written or oral notice of intent to terminate service required by Rule 304 willstate: a. The reason(s), citing these rules, why service will be terminated and the proposed date oftermination.b.Actions the customer may take to avoid termination of service.c.That a certificate notifying the utility of a serious illness or medical emergency in the household maydelay tennination as prescribed by Rule 308.d.That an infonnal or formal complaint concerning termination may be filed with the utility or theCommission, and that service will not be terminated on the ground relating to the dispute between thecustomer and the utility before resolution of the complaint.
The Idaho Public Utility Commission can be reached at 208-334-0369, or 1-800-432-0369, or online at puc.idaho.gov/fonn/consumerassistance, or by mail at Idaho Public Utilities Commission, P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720-0074. A copy of the Utility Customer Relation Rules can be found at l1ltn:-.:/';idn11mu le�. idaho.gov/rules/current/31/31210 l .pdf
Para mas informaci6n, flame al 1-888-225-2611 para hablar con un especia/ista en espafiol.
9393
Samuel Z Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave
Rexburg, ID 83440 2229
1407 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84 116
February 22, 2023
RE: SECOND NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 333 Shoshone Ave Rexburg, ID 83440
Dear Samuel Z Edwards:
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. If you are not responsible for the electric service at
the site listed above, please pass this request to the property manager or owner as soon as possible.
Our contractor was refused access to perform a meter exchange at the address listed above. This is our second
written notice. We have also attempted to reach you by telephone. To avoid termination of electric service at
this address, you must contact us at the number provided below.
You are contractually obligated to allow us safe and unencumbered access to our equipment. Meter access is
a condition of electric service, as expressed in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's Customer Relation Rules,
namely Electric Service Regulation No. 6, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. Moreover, to the
extent that access was denied because of the type of meter being installed, please be aware that the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission has reviewed smart meter technology, including the prevailing scientific research
on consumer safety, and concluded that smart meters are safe and allowed for all customers in Idaho. If you
would like additional information regarding the electric regulations that governs Rocky Mountain Power's
operations, review them at the Idaho Commission's website at puc.idaho.gov.
Our new meters bring with them a host of benefits, enabling our customers to securely -
•View DailyjHourly/15-Minute interval usage data through your Rocky Mountain Power account
•Set billing thresholds and alerts through our website and mobile application
•Automatically send notifications whenever your power is interrupted and subsequently restored
Rocky Mountain Power will also be able to troubleshoot abnormal electric voltage or current issues on our
lines that could impact the quality of your service. Our meters deliver whole home usage data through a
secure LTE network and do not connect with any additional smart devices installed at your site or external
networks. Your data is safe and no personal information is ever shared with outside parties.
{Continued on reverse side)
9494
Page 2
Please contact us at 1-800-895-0631 immediately to resolve access issues and to set an appointment to have
your meter updated. We are happy to answer any additional questions you may have regarding the new
meter and look forward to working with you.
If we do not hear from you within 15 days from the date of this letter to resolve this issue, we will refer your
account to our service disconnection process. We look forward to hearing from you and will always consider it
a privilege to serve you.
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
Para mas informaci6n, J/ame al 1-888-225-2611 para hablar con un especialista en espanol.
9595
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER 1<-.:,o;o,�
I.P.ll.C. No. 1 Sttoad RttmN orStim No. 6R.I
Caacaag F"snt Rnilioe or Slam No. 6R 1
ELEC.TRIC SER\IICE REGULATION NO. 6
STATE OF IDAHO
Compa■y'1 lutaDatioa
I.COMPAN\''S INSTALLATION
E)lccpt .u othcnl·isc provided in these Regulations, an Electric Service: Agrccmcnt, or the ElectricSm·icc Schedules, the Company will install and maintain its lines and equipment on its side of the
Pom1 of Delivery. but shall not be n:quin:d to install or maintain any Im or equipment cxttptmeters and aoc:cssorics beyond that point Only the Company is authorized to make the connect.ions
al tk Point of Ddivc:ry. Electric sc:n-ice furnished under this tariff will be altc:maring current. 60
h<:rt.r_ single or thm:-phase. Primary service voltage "ill be at one of the nonunal standiird voltnscsavailable from the Company at or near the C.ustomcr's location. Scc-OOdary sctVlCC ,-oltagc will be
hmi:cd to:
Singk-phuc:, 120 wits, 2-win; grounded
Sin3le-pbuc, l2Q/240 volts., 3-•irc. grounded Singlc-pbuc:, 240/480 volts., 3-•-ue, grounded Thrcc-pbasc. 208Y/l20 ,.'Olts. 4-wirc. grounded. wyc Thn:e-ph&K, 480Y /277 \'Olts. 4-wirc, grounded. wye
2.< ·o.\U> AN\' t'ACILITIES ON CUSTOMER'S PREMISES
(111)All materials furnished and installed by the Company on the Cwtomct'l premises, shall be.
1111d remain_ the property of the Company. The CustOfflCS' shall not break the Company's
meta' seals. In the event of loss Of �e to the C-0mpany's property. arising from neglcet.
,-an:lasneu, or misuse by the: Customer. the cost of DCCll::SS4I)' repairs or rq,laccmcnt ,;hallhc 1>aid by the: Customer.
(h)
(C}
(d)
Customer without c:itpensc: to the: Company lihall make or procure c,oovcyancc to the
ComP4ny of satisfact«y Rights-of-Way Easements l:IC"'5.s the property ovmcd 01' controlledby the Customer for the Company's lines or c::xlcnsions thcn:of ncceuary or incidental 10 thefurnishing of ICTVice to the: Customer.
The Customer shall permit safe. aoccss to Company's n:prcsc:nmtives al all hours to maintainthe Company's cloctric distribution facilities. The Ciutoma wll abo pamit the Companylo trim trees and other wgc111tion lo the extent 11CCC'S5&1)' to noi.d intCJfercncc with the
Company's lines and to protect public safety.
The Customer shall provide � � accca to Company's n:prcscnllllivcs at
rca.soublc •.bl'Dcs, for the purpose:. of mtding mc:tms. .impcx.-tina. rqN.W1Di or rcmovmg
mdl::rina dcvic:ea aad wirins or die Compaoy.
Submitt«l Under Cue No. PAC-E-19-12
ISSl!U>: Scph:mbtr 13. 2019 EFFECTIVE: January 8. 2020
9696
16 February 2023
Peggy and Samuel Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave Rexburg Idaho 83440
Gary Hoogeveen
Chief Executive Officer
Rocky Mountain Power 825 NE Multnomah St
Suite 1800 Portland OR 97232
Re: Rocky Mountain Power Work Order #8314953
Dear Mr Hoogeveen,
We are responding to the undated and unsigned letter sent by Rocky Mountain Power (copy attached) received 10 November 2022. We are giving notice to
dispute your claim that your "installer couldn't access the meter base" located at
333 Shoshone Ave, Rexburg Idaho, 83440. We contest your claim and state the
basis of our objection to your claim to be that there has always been unimpeded
physical access to the meter base since taking possession of this property in October 2019.
As evidence, we present with this letter:
•Photographic evidence of clear, unimpeded physical access to the power meter•Google Maps aerial view of 333 Shoshone Ave, Rexburg Idaho 83440
•Notarized statement by Jeanne Grimmett who resides at 330 Shoshone Ave,Rexburg Idaho, 83440
•Notarized statement by Kristine Bennion, who resides at 295 Shoshone Ave,Rexburg Idaho 83440
We have spoken with Rocky Mountain Power representatives multiple times, and each time they have threatened to terminate service. According to the Idaho
Public Utility Cornmission's"ldaho Residential Utility Disconnection" (copy
attached), the grounds to make these threats credible is "you tamper with or
prevent access to your meter."
These phone calls occurred: •initiated by RMP between Sam and a RMP Rep on or around Nov 10th•initiated by Peggy between Peggy and Christian #36743 on Nov 30th at1 :59pm for 25 minutes
9797
•initiated by Peggy between Peggy, Sam and Christian #367 43 on Dec 6th at1 :31 pm for 20 minutes
In consideration of the seriousness of these threats, especially in the sub-zero
winter weather of Southeastern Idaho (initially weeks before Christmas, and still
persisting into February of temperatures going 20-30 degrees below zero), we
demand evidence of your claim that "the installer couldn't access the meter
base.'' We contest your claim and object to threats to disconnect our power.
We further object to your claim of "the prevailing scientific research on consumer
safety'' and conclusion "that smart meters are allowed in Idaho without any
alternative metering options." It is common knowledge and fully supported by
evidence, peer reviewed and published research1, science and facts that
"Advanced" utility meters including all electronic utility meters and all utility
mete1·s wl1ich contain any digital or electronic components whatsoever:
l.Emit frequencies that contribute to pathophysiological and biologically
disruptive effects on those with Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASC) which
are defined behaviorally and also involve multileveled disturbances of
underlying biology that find striking parallels in the physiological impacts ofelectromagnetic frequency and radio-frequency exposures (EMF/RFR).2 3
2.Are fire hazards due to lack of surge protectors in violation of necessary
standards for utility meters.
3.Cannot withstand typical grid surges.
4.Cause damage to, or destroy, homes, lives and structures when damaged
by grid surges. Dr. Magda Havas, Associate Professor of Environmental &f�esource Studies at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
has received emails and phone calls from occupants of properties wheresmari meters were recently installed. They complain of ill health, including
new symptoms such as headaches, insomnia, anxiety, skin rashes,tinnitus, heart palpitations, depression, fatigue, and short-term memory
loss. Many are unable to use the room closest to the smart meter.4
_). Emit biologically harmful "pulsed" EMF radiation continually (whether transmitting data or not). In May 2011, the World Health Organization's
International Agency for Research on Cancer (!ARC) classified radio-
1https://bit.!y/EfV1F221205 via www.saferemr.com and Joel M Moskowitz Ph.D. Director, Center for Falllily and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
2 https://pubrned,ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24095003/
3 Toby Rogers, The Political Economy of Autism, Doctoral Thesis, University of Sydney, 2019, 37 -38 or Q)JJy_/tobythesis
4:http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?page_id=2292
9898
frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) as a possible human
carcinogen (Group 2B) in the same classification as lead, DDT, and
chloroform.5 We do not want additional layers of pulsed radio-frequency
electromagnetic fields in our home.
6.Create and collect personal data of private activities in the home in
violation of law. Smart meters identify electrical devices inside the home
and record when and for how long they are operated, resulting in an
invasion of my privacy. Smart meters monitor household activity and
occupancy in violation of my right fo privacy in my home. According to a
February 2012 Congressional Research Service Report entitled SmartMeter: Privacy and Cybersecurity, the Department of Energy reporied that
by matching data with known appliance load signatures, smart meters will
be able to reveal people's daily schedules, their appliances and electronic
equipment, and whether they use certain types of medical equipment.6
7.Allow sharing of data of personal living habits with utility personnel andothers without authorization of the property owner and occupants. Smart
meters tr·ansmit information-carrying radio waves which can be intercepted
by unauthorized and unknown parties. The signals can be used to monitor
behavior and occupancy, and they can be used by criminals to aid criminalactivity against the occupants. Former CIA Director James Woolsey
accounted the wireless security threat on EnergyNews.com.7s.Fatally disrupt and disable medical devices such as Pacemakers.9.Cause wasted electricity and health-damaging transients by the improperplacement and use of a of a switch mode power supply within the utility
meter. Utilities claim that smart meters will cause customers to monitort11eir electrical usage to conserve more electricity. However, a British study
reported on Sept. 2, 2011 that thousands of citizens with a smart meter on
their home over the course of one year experienced little to no change inelectrical usage. We do not know if energy will be conserved with smart
meters, and it is inaccurate to assume that the use of a smart meter
causes customers to conserve energy.8
1 o. Cause heating and antenna effects upon any metal body implants which
damage body tissues.
11.Cause damage to health and life by placing high-energy radio transmittersin close proximity to human living spaces. Medical research has
5https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07 /pr208_E.pdf
6htt ps :/ /sgp. fas. org/crs/misc/R42338. pdf
7htt ps://bit.ly/ja111eswool seygridsecurity
ri Tolll HnrrJreaves, Michael Nye, Jacquelin Burgess, Making energy visible: A qualitative field
study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors, Energy Policy, Volume 38, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 6111-6119 or https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.20·10.05.06B
9999
documented that smart meters can negatively impact health. In April 2012,
the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) issued a
position paper entitled, Electromagnetic and Radiofrequency Fields Effect on Human Health.9 According to the report, "Multiple studies correlate RF
exposure with diseases such as cancer, neurological disease, reproductive
disorders, immune dysfunction, and electromagnetic hypersensitivity .....
many in vitro, in vivo and epidemiological studies demonstrate that
significant harmful biological effects occur from non-thermal RF
exposure ... Genetic damage, reproductive defects, cancer, neurological
degeneration and nervous system dysfunction, immune system
dysfunction, cognitive effects, protein and peptide damage, kidney
damage, and developmental effects have all been reported in the peer­reviewed scientific literature." In a press release, the AAEM calls for
immediate caution regarding smart meter installations due to potentially
harmful exposure to pulsed radiofrequency radiation.10
12.Represent excess equipment costs with more expensive meters and
represent more frequent replacement of the more expensive meters, all of
which costs will be passed on to ratepayers via excess and unnecessary
charges when this alternate "advanced" metering is unnecessary.
13.Represent unnecessary higher service costs in the processing and storingof data collected and general maintenance of the wireless grid network.
J ,J. Represent unlawful invasion of privacy by the harvest and exploitation of
databases of information about the personal and private activities inside
the t1orne without the consent of the owners, occupants and guests11. Data
about residents' daily routines and activities are collected, recorded, and
stored in the utility's databases, which are accessed by parties not
authorized by occupants to know and share that private data. Those
databases may be handed off to criminals, blackmailers, corrupt law
enforcement, private hackers, power company employees, and anyone
who may act against the interests of the occupants who are unde1· metered su1·veillance.
The above violations and abuses cannot be authorized by any lawful easement contract and represents unlawful and highly dangerous trespass on our property for which major liabilities will arise for which you are fully and personally
responsible as authorizing and administering the policies which brought about
9 https://www.aaemonline.org/electromagnetic-and-radiofrequency-fields-effect-on-human­health/
10 l1ttps://ww1,v.aaemonline.org/aaem-calls-for-immediate-caution-regarding-smart-meter­installation/
11 U.S. Const Amend. IV
100100
and/or rnaintain the trespass and hazards. We, as utility customers, hereby do not consent to assume such hazards and damages as a condition of receiving
electric service or as a means of extortion of additional service payments from us
in return for safe, lawful and reliable metering.
NOTICE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Your service mus� be safe and lawful, and is not safe and lawful if you are putting
electronic utility meters on homes. We invoke our right to self-defense, that in the
face of this immediate bodily injury, this is a God-given right, protected by the Law and Constitution of the United States of America12. The laws you are
violating by installing electronic utility meters on private homes and businesses
without consent and full disclosure are, in general, Public Endangerment, Trespass, Extortion, Fraud, Assault, Arson and FCC regulations requiring
consent of property owners for installation of radio transmitters.13 In light of those
violations and the hazards and harm they cause, you must provide, within 21
days of this delivery, record of insurance naming me, your account holder, as
beneficiary in order to provide full and speedy remedy, reimbursement and
penalties for all hazards and harm listed above and any others that may arise.
Absent such insurance, you are agreeing by the installation of any electronic
utility meter to personally and promptly pay all claims and satisfy all demands
which may arise from the dangers, nuisances, damages and harm that may be
caused by any such electronic utility meter and you are agreeing that the the
above list is generally true and represents intentional hazard and harm perpetrated upon any utility customer who receives an installed electronic utility
meter.
You may avoid this liability by permanently installing, at no charge, penalty or
assessrnent, a safe and lawful fully electromechanical meter to record our utility
service usage on a coarse monthly basis. Any claim that electromechanical
meters are "not available" is false. The simple issue of a purchase order to a
meter manufacturer will provide unlimited supply. If you refuse or fail to provide
or allow safe, reliable and lawful electromechanical metering timely, we require
full bonding, insurance and assurance of liability for all hazards listed above and
any hazards not yet anticipated caused by electronic metering. That insurance or assumption of liability and responsibility must include your providing a name and
address of a fully responsible and liable party where our claims may be filed and
paid WITHOUT HESITATION OR QUESTION to remedy any real or perceived harm, injury, loss, damage or violation of rights caused by the above described electronic utility metering hazards, defects and offensive features and functions.
12 U.S Const. /\mend II and IV
13 Electronics Communications Privacy Act (Title 18, USC, Sec. 2511, 2512, 2518)
101101
If you do not provide that timely, then you and all other top policy-making officers of your organization are fully liable for all risks, violations, hazards and harm
described above.
In summary:
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTICED THAT YOU ARE PERSONALLY CAUSING HARM AND DAMAGE WITH YOUR NON-CONSENSUAL METERING DEVICES AND PROGRAMS, AND YOU ARE FULLY AND PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES OF THAT METERING POLICY IF YOU FAIL TO CEASE AND DESIST THE ABOVE HAZARDS AND VIOLATIONS IMMEDIATELY.
If, having failed to provide the safe and lawful metering described above, you
additionally fail or refuse to provide the above assurance of liability and
responsibility requested herein timely you will be in default and fully and
personally accountable, liable and responsible for all consequences,
damages, harm, injuries, losses, violations of rights, trespass, bad faith,
negiigence. nuisance, and malice. Your failure to timely provide insurance,
bonding and claim information described above is your agreement to personally
pay for all claims as described above. You will also, by any failure or refusal to
provide insurance and claim contacts described above, be putting up and offering
you and your company's resources for prompt and uncontested settlement of our claims whenever they may be submitted for any incident where damages occur.
Any failure to pay any our claim/s within 30 days of delivery will obligate you to
pay all collection costs, legal costs and expenses, court fees and all incidental
costs and expenses we may find necessary to secure settlement and collection
of our clairns.
We recommend providing contacts to us of your insurance carrier and providing
the wording of your policy/s immediately. Any policy that is not provided and/or does not clearly provide the protection requested will be default of this notice and obligation.
Because electronic meters represent numerous hazards, violations and potential
damages, you are liable for major penalties claims for simply installing a working
electronic utility on our property regardless of any tangible damage caused.
This notice and all terms, conditions, declarations and representations herein are superior to and supplant any and all content in easement contracts that may
have been established, proposed or presumed. Herein are the terms under which
your company may lawfully provide electric service. Any contrary terms are
unlawful and unenforceable and will cause you personally and your company
major penalty. We have made no unreasonable demand and may not be refused
102102
or penalized for requiring safe and lawful entry and occupation of our property.
This notice does not, and may not be construed to be a refusal of any kind of metering or violation of any easement or terms of service. It is simply
requirement for the necessary insurance to mitigate the risks and harm you
are causin£J.
All terms and conditions above automatically take effect upon your default on the above conditions and terms. However, a simple denial of this requirement and
notice is insufficient because the hazards are serious, real and confirmed by overwhelming evidence and you are responsible for causing those hazards and
violations. If you do not timely rebut, with fact, law and evidence, our allegations
of unlawful trespass of fire hazard, radiation emission, transient causation and
unlawful surveillance, all representations, claims, declarations, terms and conditions put forth herein will be effective as contract and obligation against you.
Bullying and threats of denial of service, penalties and "consequences" are not valid rebuttal to our allegations and serve only to expose your malfeasance and
failure of responsibility.
Any rebuttal to this notice must be submitted to us timely. Timely means prior to installation of electronic metering or, if electronic metering is installed, within 2·1 days of delivery of this notice. Urgency dictates that no "grace" period will be allowed beyond 21 days from this delivery other than reasonable time for mail deiivery. Failure to respond in writing and with supported rebuttal within 21 days
constitutes full and final default by you, agreement to all terms, conditions and
representations herein by you, your company and agents. If you require up to 15 additional days to respond you may request that in writing prior to default. We will
determine if your metering activities and policies will allow the extension and we
will notify you in writing if extension is granted.
This Notice supersedes and replaces all prior agreements, clauses, contracts
and easements which conflict with any point herein.
Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal. This is an adhesion contract with full effective power and effect by default.
Sincerely,
Peggy M. B. Edwards
103103
t-'1 Gmail
Information You Requested
t ·r',._.:,· -------------·-··-·--·--··----------------------------------------------------------
Solomon, Timnthy (PacifiCorp) <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Hoopiiaina, l<even (PacifiCorp)" <[e-mail]>
Hello, Mrs. Edwards.
Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 11 :55 AM
Thank you again for taking time with me today on the telephone. Along with the attachments, here are several links that relate to our conversation:
1.This link vvill take you to information on the meter currently installed in your meter base: CENTRON®
(itron.com)2.This link will take you to details on the upgraded meter we are installing in Idaho. Please note that, despite the
name, our system does not operate on 5G: Gen5 Riva Meter (itron.com)3.ltron's radio frequency (RF) information can be found here: Radio Frequency Resource Center I Itron
For your information. I have also followed up with Greg Andrus, the planner who will be calling you, as well as his manager. Aaron Hancock. I·ve also copied Keven Hoopiiaina into this email. Keven is the project manager for the meter upgrades
Please let me know if you have any other questions. I'll keep in touch with the Rexburg operations group to make SLffe
they have connected witl, you.
Again, thank you for your time this morning.
Tim
Timothy L Solomon
Regional Business Manager
Rocky Mountain Powc,r/PacifiCorp
;208-252-2446
104104
Samuel Z Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave
Rexburg ID 83440 2229
Dear Samuel Z Edwards:
1407 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
You can count on us to provide the affordable and consistent power you need. We're using
state-of-the-art technology to deliver dependable power as we plan for the future.
We were recently in your area to upgrade your existing electric meter, but our installer couldn't
access the meter base at 333 Shoshone Ave, Rexburg, Idaho. As required by the Idaho Public
Service Commission, clear and safe access must be available to electric meters for inspection,
maintenance, meter upgrades, and to enable us to respond to any emergencies.
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has reviewed smart meter technology, and the prevailing scientific research on consumer safety, and concluded that smart meters are allowed in Idaho
without any alternative metering options.
Please call 1-800-895-0631 within 15 days of receiving this letter to resolve any access issues
and set an appointment to have your meter updated. We are happy to answer any questions
you may have regarding the new meter and look forward to working with you.
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
Paro mas informaci6n, /lame al 1-888-225-2611 para hablar con un especiafista en espar1ol.
105105
i Gmail
(no subject)
P & S Edwards <[e-mail]> To [e-mail]
6 attachments
IMG-3971.jpg 3219K
IMG-3972.jpg
2857K
IMG-3973.jpg 3182K
Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 9 59 MJl
106106
IMG-3974.jpg 2536K
IMG-3975.jpg
3136K
IMG-3976.jpg 3018K
107107
To Whom It May Concern,
I, Kristine Bennion, do testify that The Edwards property at 333 Shoshone Ave, is unimpeded by any gates, fences, or obstacles that would inhibit access to the power meter. I was here in the summer of 2022 wllen the new smart rncters were set to be installed and the installation crew easily entered, wit11out issue, on to my property as well as the neighbor's property for installation-we both refused the new meters at tl,at
time.
Sincerely,
Krist!rH? t5(·)nninn
l //
1 -----l-��J:J\·N {;:(vl��ci�
d�✓,1/1•Y~
.-� y· .I z;✓;;/-1/--
;\t i-91 P�.LL ,c_
108108
2 November 2020
To Whom it May· Concern,
I, Jeanne Grimmett, of 330 Shoshone Ave Rexburg Idaho, 83440, do attest that the property of Samuel and Peggy Edwards at 330 Shoshone Ave, Rexburg Idaho, 83440 is open and unfenced from the street.
r have their permission to access their property including their backyard vvhere the meter base is located.
I ;1ttest that there are no physical barriers to the meter base and there have never been any physical barriers there since they moved into that home in October 201.9.
109109
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Slcltf::/Con1111011wc:!dlth of I qfqlur
I ! , • "' County of /V(Ac-{1 s(1/.>'"'
Doy Month Year
___________ {!._0__,__-....,,_-_1_�---¥--·_._-_-_1 __ �-i-fl--"·..s,=-_._·L"'---------• the undersigned Nota1·y Public, Nome of Notary Public
personally oppeared ______ ..... Jkr,_..._,...#'��,__-__ �����-�--S ____________ _ r=--rr Name(s) of Signer(s)
'1%-JJersonally known to me -OR -D proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
1"5�t;'°::�, ...... _.k-,�,t:�-:f;a,,6, ... -�., 1 cw::S,Gf"HER J DYSON f.i ,_,.. :,,,-.• ,,c - St,;te of Idaho ;'. ,0, ·,u"1bo"r 20204829
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subsu-ibed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same for the purposes therein stated.
.''.: r ,_.,·.-.,�·.::,•1•)n Ex;:,ires Dec 9, 2026
Place Notary Seal/Stamp Above
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
�/,�-Signature '6rNotryPub!ic
e1;..l f-4::;etu:J o/ot"'
Any Other Required Information
(Printed Name of Notary. Expiration Date, etc.)
----------··-······-·-·------------OPTIONAL ------------------,!This secilon is required for notarizations performed in Arizona but is optional in other states. Comr,teting this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reaHachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attacl1ed Document
� Tille or Type of Document: ---�"Fon--�--�-�--�-.... \+Cl�f&�i�t __________ _
Dcc.umr:-nt Date: ______ /_2._-�z___-_Z-._2-_______ Number of Pages: ______ _ L .. Si9ner(s) Ot11er Ti1an Named Above: _,_f:'.:v__,_"'1___,,-,)..cc...l�_· __ �_--'-..,_,'-"""-'C<A._-+!-�0-'---'=e?�c.,,,,�fl_e__�_Gn_,_·-_' -:�-""'-_l. __ �---�--
t;2020 National f\Jotary Association
.J
110110
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State/Cornm()11wec1ith of
County of �:(k,, ,r(.�-"---L...L.-----------
·-;, �- ·rel •"" -, On this t1v2 _(,,,, ___ day of ___ U,.__,_.,,R,,e.g,==<----.:.:'c..��'-------� ___ z..c.c;.._z.._�---� before me, Day Month Year C/��'.s /4..-rzh y__) l?-fJ0-:. the undersigned Notary Public. Nome of Noto,y Public
porsonal1y i'lppccned _____ ·f:��r;-�_")�\.���('�•-\$=_Q..,_-v_,_.---_�_, ________________ _ Nome(s) of Signer(s)
µs-personally known to me -OR -D proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same for t11e puq'.loscs therein stated.
Pince Notary Seal/Stomp Above
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
��� Signatf.trerNotary Public C/1;s4-;1li.rJ �-SCt.-A
Any Other Required Information (Printed Nome of Notary, Expiration Date, etc)
------------OPTIONAL---------------------
This '.;ection is required for notarizations performed in Arizona but is optional in other stoles. Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attacl1ed Document
Title or Type of Document: --�Q;_· =2?._'l�---;� ____ a_�-..,'"'-"'--r.tth __ •/-_________ _
Document Date: -----+14'2�------"'2'----=2-'--2-______ Number of Pages: ______ _
Signe1 (s) Otiw1 Tl1a11 Named Above: _ _.\'--'�='--'--"M,/'-""---�---1--<-.e.'_v�--'-v-\-\.---'-'L�i--i..---1ic---\��----�,_�1---/-<_�_--_,,_,.._�-· �-�.c_;<��=-�---
�---··-�··-------•· ·-------------------------------------�
·�·2020 I\Jvtiu11vl Nota1y Association
111111
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Stntc/Comrno11weatt11 of
7 ,,., ✓ ,,,.,,, •J,?_ -- / - ,..-.,. On this U1e __ ,,::_: ____ ' _________ day of __ ���"--�_,.....,__,•�"--'--------�"2..l=v-·_2.._, ___ , befor,� me. Day Month Year
-�{_Jh_r_r_1_-s_�-+7'.'-½�·""_0_· _C"Y_-¥�c=--�-------· the undersigned f'-Jotary Public.Nome of Notary Publ;='t
personally appeared ___ ,j
d-"'fd��t�11"-'2�<'.--C�r�-'n.'-'-'---'-'t,.t-J\---'--=--f""\.-�_..i._A-____________ _
Pfoce Notory Seal/Stamp Above
Nome(s) of Signer(s)
,;ipersonally known to me -OR -
D proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence,
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscritiecl
to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same for the purposes
therein stated.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
�� SignatureofNo �ublic
Cf-,f0;A--1c:..j �;s�---
Any Other Required Information (Printed Name of Notary. Expiration Date, etc.)
----------OPTIONAL ----------------�
This section ,s required for notarizations performed in Arizona but is optional in other states. Con1pl<cting this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.
1 Dec,cript:on of Attached Document
Title or ·rype of Document: __.,_tf_e1_,-:,_rn:z./ ___
0
__ � _ __,'-----"---"==·""·_,_(;.c..;_.,.£--_· _____________ _
Ducurnent D2.t12: _____ /.�'2�--2_-_2_2-_________ Number of Pages: _______ _
'.':,\p1(:f[s) Othu Tnan Named Above: C-i·')'--S+,-1'1.tL ___ ---------··-----,
·(:,2020 National f'Jota1y Association
(�;-1�1 1J'f'W' Zq0t-cf.s. ___ __I
112112
Idaho Residential Utility Disconnection
In Idaho, investor-owned utilities providing basic services such as electricity, gas, water and
telecon1n1unications services must follow rules that protect consumers. The rules are established
and enforced by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC). The IPUC is a state �gency charged
with re8uiating investor-owned utilities. (City-owned or cooperative utilities are not regulated by
the IPUC). The rules say when a utility can and cannot disconnect service to a customer. They
;:ilso r,?quire utilities to inform customers before service is actually shut off, so that payment pians
can be· attempted and disconnection avoided.
This fact sheet answers common questions about your rights and responsibilities as a customer
of ;:1 rcgu!dtcd g.=1'.,, eiectric, or water utility.
When can a cornpany shut off my service?
Your electric, gas, or water company may begin taking steps to shut off your service if:
o You do not pay your bill by the due date.
•You pay your bill with a dishonored check or make an electronic payment from an account
that hc1s insufficient funds.
Q You do not pay a required deposit.
•You use a false name or misrepresent yourself to get service.
•You do not pay according to an arrangement you made with the utility.
" You are wasting service through improper equipment or otherwise.
" The custorner is a minor not competent to contract (an un-emancipated minor).
.. \\Ju i,llllfJ(:>r with or prevent access to your meter.
How much notice will I get?
If the utility has grounds to shut off your service, the company must:
,.. Serid you a written notice telling you of its intention to shut off service at least SEVEI\J
DAYS before the planned date.
111 The utility may send you a final notice at least THREE DAYS before the planned date. It
must give you a final notice at least 24 HOURS before it plans to actually shut off service.
The utility rnust attempt to contact you or an adult member of your household before
shutting off service.
•The utility must shut off service within 21 DAYS after the planned date or begin the
notification process again.,.. No additional notice is required if a payment arrangement made after receiving written
notice i.s not kept, or you pay your bill with a dishonored check or make an electronic
payrncnt from an account that has insufficient funds. () If you receive your bill electronically, you may separately consent, in writing, to receive
clect1 onic notifications.
1 of 3 Updated 3/19/2020
113113
Can I be shut off without notice?
There arr tim<?s when a utility can shut off service without notifying you first. For example, no
advance notice is required if a dangerous condition exists or meter tampering is discovered.
Do I have to pay my bill in winter?
Yes. However, if you are having trouble paying the gas or electric bill, you should notify the
company and try to make special arrangements. Payment plans are available, inc!ucling a special
Winter Payment Plan.
What if I have children, elderly, or seriously ill people at home?
You are still required to make payments if possible. A special Winter Payment Plan is available if
you are unable to pay your bill in full during the winter. But if you are not able to pay AND have
childi-en. elderly, or ill people in your home, your gas or electric heat cannot be shut off during
th� months of December, January, and February. You must let the utility know you cannot pay
your bill and how you qualify. The winter disconnection moratorium, however, does not apply to
customers who don't apply for service or obtain service dishonestly.
What if I'm seriously ill?
No utility can shut off service if you provide the utility with a certificate from your doctor or a
public hc2lth official with medical training, stating that a serious illness or a medical emergency
exists or could be created for any permanent member of your household if your service is shut
off.
This certificate will postpone a shut-off for 30 days. If your service is already shut--off, the utility
must turn it back on. Within the 30-day period, you must make arrangements with the utility to
pay the bili. l"he utility may agree to renew a medical certificate for an additional 30 days if ·you
are still unable to pay the bill.
Can I get disconnected at night or on the weekends?
Even if the utility has grounds to shut off service, it may not do so at these times:
" Before 8 a.m. or after 5 p.m. Service may be shut off between 5 p.m. and 9 p. m. Monday
through Thursday if the utility is unable to gain access to the customer's meter during
normal business hours.
c Friday, Saturday, Sunday or any legal holiday recognized by the State of Idaho (New Year's
Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day,
Columbus Day, Veteran1s Day, Thanksgiving·oay, and Christmas Day).
$ The day before a legal holiday recognized by the State of Idaho.
0 Any time the utility's business offices are closed.
2 of 3 Updated 3/19/202.0
114114
RECEIVED
2023 March, 24 2:02PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. PAC-E-23-06
COMPLAINT
To: Jan Noriyuki, Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Date: March 20, 2023
From: Judy Twede
1392 Newton Circle
Idaho Falls, Idaho
RE: Installation of "Smart" Meter and threat of service disconnection
Dear Sir,
This COMPLAINT was originally submitted by me to ATTORNEY GENERAL Raul R.
Labrador at the suggestion of Peggy Edwards of Rexburg, Idaho. Peggy mentioned that she spoke
briefly with Raul R. Labrador in Boise on January 17, 2023 about her challenges with ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP and their attempt to force the installation of a smart meter on
her home against her will and consent. He encouraged her at that time to submit her COMPLAINT
to his OFFICE of the ATTORNEY GENERAL. I felt it important to submit this same COMPLAINT
to you as well for your own investigation. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I am an 82-year-old widow currently faced with the real possibility of having my
power/electrical service disconnected in less than 15 days (please see disconnect letter, Exhibit A).
I have attempted over and over again, in good faith to resolve all issues with ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/P ACIFICORP which have led up to this point where they are now threatening to shut my
power off, in spite of the fact that I have always paid my power bill each month and am currently
not late with payment. They, in turn are the aggressor operating in bad faith, using strong-arm
intimidation tactics, threat, duress, and coercion in order to unlawfully force their will upon me and
my private property.
This COMPLAINT arises over matters concerning myself and ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/P ACIFICORP in regards to their intention to install a "Trespassing Technology" known
as a "Smart" type meter on my home, located at 1392 Newton Circle, Idaho Falls, Idaho, contrary
to my existing and long-standing contractual agreement, as well as my will and consent.
Please find attached my DECLARATION in the form of an AFFIDAVIT in support of this
letter of COMPLAINT, along with supporting Exhibits A & B.
Last summer, I received an undated and unsigned letter from ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/P ACIFICORP on or around instructing me to call their 800 number within 15 days to
resolve any "access" issues and set an appointment to have my meter updated with their (Trespassing
Technology). A few days later I called the 800 number and spoke with a young man from Tacoma,
Washington and I explained why I was refusing a smart meter to be installed on my home. He told
me that smart meters were not harmful but I told him that's not true because I have been adversely
affected by them previously. He was obviously was uneducated on the subject of smart meters and
was just parroting what ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP instructed him to say to
customers.
115115
Sometime after my conversation with the man in Tacoma, a man came to my property and told me that he was here to change out your meter. I pointed out the Notices on my existing meter
to not install a smart meter here and why. He ended up not making the change out and told me that
the power company would be contacting me after he notified them that I was refusing the smart meter. On or around March 4, 2023, I received another unsigned letter (see Exhibit A) stating that
this is a "SECOND NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 1392 Newton Cir Idaho Falls, ID", and that their contractor was refused "access" to perform a meter (Trespassing
Technology) exchange. This new letter also states that I am to call their 800 number to resolve this issue within 15 days, or they will refer my account to their service disconnection process. In this same letter they also claim that I am "contractually obligated to allow" ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP "safe and unencumbered access to our equipment. Meter service is a
condition of electric service, as expressed in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's Customer
Relations Rules, namely Electric Service Regulation No. 6, ... " Be noticed that the word/term "access" in ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP' s letters to me is being improperly applied to mean something other than what it really is (see explanation below).
On or around March 19, 2023 I received a FINAL NOTICE (please see Exhibit B) or "threat" from ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP informing me that my power will be terminated on March 29, 2023 for "failure to_provide access" to install a smart meter_..
INTRODUCTION (BRIEF HISTORY)
As it stands now, there has been in place for the past 15 or so years a relationship of a "contractual" nature between myself and ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP, who
currently provides me with electrical power to my home. I, in turn naturally, have agreed to allow ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's (meter reader(s) "access" of a "specified and limited" nature, not a general unspecified and unlimited nature, to my private property each month specifically for them to read my electrical power meter ONLY. No other access to my private
property, implied or otherwise was ever granted to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP at any time. Any other necessary "access", including troubleshooting power outages and making necessary repairs to electrical equipment located on my private property is considered "special" in
nature and would only be granted at the time, I, the private property owner reported a power outage
and or requested them to troubleshoot an electrical problem and make necessary repairs ONLY. Therefore, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP (formally UT AH POWER AND
LIGHT) does not have autonomous authority in and of itself to access my private property to troubleshoot and or make necessary repairs to electrical equipment or for any other reason at any time, day or night until they receive notification from me authorizing and granting them permission at that time, on a one-time basis only for them to proceed to do the specified request. Anything other than this is a trespass, invasion of my privacy, security, unalienable Rights, including my private property rights which cannot be diminished, as well as a violation of our existing contractual
agreement.
Let me . be dear. on this _ issue oL '.'access" which ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP claims that I am denying them. I and no one else in my home has ever denied "access" to any of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP' s meter readers or their company repair personnel as per our previously agreed upon terms of our long-standing contractual agreement over the years. However, there has never been in place any agreement for personnel from any third-party company to trespass on my private property and tamper with my, in this case electrical meter at any time, whether I am at home or if no one is at home, neither has there ever
been in place any agreement with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP to "access" my
private property to make a non-repair (or install a Trespassing Technology) when no request for
such type of service was ever made, and no defective electrical equipment on my private property
2 116116
exists. So, if no defective electrical equipment exists on my private property and I did not call ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP to report any troubles/problems with my electrical service and thus no electrical repairs were/are needed, what are there personnel doing on my private property and or attempting to access my private property without my consent contrary to our existing contractual agreement?
Understand that this whole issue surrounds a matter of an existing "contract" which ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP are attempting to impair my obligation to. This contractual relationship, as I said before has been in place since we moved in our home about 15 years ago when we requested ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP to connect my home with electrical power, to which they agreed. This has worked smoothly without any problems or disputes until last year, when ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP attempted to change the terms of our
previously agreed upon and long standing "contract" without any prior proper notification or full
disclosure that they were attempting to change said terms of or initiate a new contract without my knowledge and consent in order for them to bully their way onto my private property to make a non­repair ( or install a Trespassing Technology) which is not part of our existing contractual agreement.
As you well know, for any changes to be made to a contract, both parties must be, in agreement, and both parties must have clear understanding of any and all terms and changes in terms of said contract to be valid and binding. This is simply not the case in this matter. To allow this abuse to continue would be a travesty of justice. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP acknowledges the existence of our contractual relationship (see Exhibit A) but in a skewed and
twisted fashion, not relating the matter truthfully. They propagate deceptions and lies that the smart meter is safe and the homeowner is the antagonist and an uncooperative party for not wanting their
smart meter Trespassing Technology, making us the "bad guy". This is like thugs attempting to
break into your home and you resisting them, and then having them go to the authorities complaining that the homeowner is being uncooperative by not letting them into their home. This is indeed a criminal mentality to which the PUC/Legislature just turns a blind eye to. Why is it that the IDAHO
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION/Legislature supports/sanctions this type of criminal behavior? This seems to be a common practice from state to state and the people/inhabitants nearly always ends up with the short end of the stick. There is no one or agency in the Idaho government advocating for the people/inhabitants in
their plight with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP, but there is a government agency advocating for ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's position -the IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION under the thumb of the state legislature. It is clear that this agency does not operate in the best interest of the people/inhabitants of Idaho. This whole picture is a one-sided equation not in my favor or other customers.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP is now assuming and presuming that they
have the right to alter my existing long-standing contractual relationship without my knowledge and consent anytime they please implying that they can come onto my private property anytime they wish to do whatever they wish, which they cannot. Understand, I have committed no wrong in this instant matter and have done my due
diligence in an attempt to resolve all issues in order to keep the peace and my electric power on.
They have been acting in bad faith and continue to walk in dishonor. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP is a huge corporate giant with endless financial resources coming against this small single family who only desires to live in peace. This huge corporate giant seems to think that because they operate as a government sanctioned monopoly,
knowing that customers have no other option or choice in power companies, they can just run rough shod over their perceived disobedient customers to force their unlawful will (Trespassing Technology) upon them by use of deception, lies, strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat, duress, and
coercion (criminal acts) in order to covertly alter a previously agreed upon "contract" without my knowledge and consent -HOLDING MY ELECTRICAL POWER SERVICE AS RANSOM. This is a matter of the big bully on the block going around breaching the peace, terrorizing
3 117117
and strong-arming the inhabitants in the neighborhood and bullying their way onto their customer's private property and into their private lives. This is criminal behavior and it must be stopped.
FACTUAL COUNTS
I, Judy Twede, hereinafter referred to as complainant, in pro per, complaining of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP and their Trespassing Technology, hereinafter referred to as "violator", respectfully alleging various felonious acts being perpetrated upon complainant as follows:
COUNT 1: Breach of the peace. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's unreasonable and attempted unlawful intrusion onto my private property and into my home resulting in a breach
of complainant's and other household members peace causing undue fear, emotional and physical stress of this 82-year-old complainant and other household members.
COUNT 2: Attempted extortion of complainant's will, consent, and rights through use of threat, duress, and coercion in order to induce complainant to capitulate, by wrongful use of fear and under color of official right to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP' s unlawful compulsion to accept their smart meter (Trespassing Technology) while holding the threat of electrical service disconnection over complainant's head.
COUNT 3: Impairment of Contract. Impairment of complainant's obligation of an existing contract between ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP and complainant by use of threat, deception, strong-arm intimidation tactics, trickery, duress, and coercion. Violators are attempting to change terms of an existing contract and or create a new contract with complainant in order to install a "smart" meter (Trespassing Technology) without the authorization/consent of complainant by wrongful use of fear and under color of official right, hoping complainant will grant coerced or tacit agreement for such contract changes by either omitting to perform a particular act or through the performance of a particular act induced under compulsion in order to get their smart meter (Trespassing Technology) installed on complainant's home.
COUNT 4: Attempted Extortion. Attempted extortion and takeover of complainant's private property for commercial use. Violators, by wrongful use of fear and under color of official right are attempting to commandeer complainant's private property in order to install a smart Meter "relay station" (Trespassing Technology) on complainant's property for the sole benefit of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP and outside third-party entities without any just authorization and compensation to complainant for such. This would amount to theft, unlawful conversion of private property, unjust enrichment, and violation of complainant's FIFTH AMENDMENT right to not be deprived of complainant's right to life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Note: If attempted murder is prosecutable, then attempted extortion by use of threat, duress, and coercion is also prosecutable.
COUNT 5: Attempted Illegal Wiretapping. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP is attempting to illegally wiretap complainant's home and extract personal and private information without a lawfully issued and or executed search warrant, through the installation of an unlawful (as no consent is given) surveillance/bugging device known as a smart meter (Trespassing Technology). Smart meter capabilities include, but not limited to monitoring, logging, storing, transferring, and sharing of daily personal and private habits and routines of occupants of private homes and then giving said information to unauthorized third-parties for profit, including police
4 118118
and federal government snoop agents, all without the homeowner' s or other occupants consent to do so. This would amount to gross violation of complainant's FOURTH AMENDMENT right to be secure in complainant's person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as complainant's FIFTH AMENDMENT right to not be deprived of complainant's right to life, liberty, or property, without due process oflaw.
COUNT 6: Threat with Intent to Commit Harm to complainant and other household members by threatening to shut off electrical power to 82-year old complainant's property/house if complainant does not allow ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP to install a smart meter (Trespassing Technology) on complainant's house. Termination of electrical power will cause severe hardship, stress, and duress, as well as severe physical and emotional harm to this already frail 82-year-old complainant.
COUNT 7: Gross Negligence; Hazardous Negligence. The "gross negligence", or reckless and wanton behavior of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP is manifest in their failure to exercise even slight care, and evidences a reckless disregard of complainant's life and safety, as well as of others in complainant's household, by attempting to expose us to the dangerous/ hazardous health effects of a smart meter (Trespassing Technology) which they are attempting to install on complainant's private property against complainant's will and consent. There intentional failure to perform a manifest duty to truthfully inform complainant of the actual dangers of a smart meter is in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting complainant's life and property, including a gross want of care and regard for complainant's rights and the rights of others in complainant's household. Their behavior is also "hazardous negligence" due to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP' s careless or reckless conduct by attempting to expose complainant and other members of complainant's household to the very great danger of injury and imminent peril should the installation of their smart meter (Trespassing Technology) on complainant's home take place.
COUNT 8: Actionable Fraud. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP has committed an "actionable fraud" against complainant by use of deceptive practices in an attempt to induce complainant to part with complainant's legal right(s), to include complainant's long-standing existing contractual agreement with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP, as well as unlawfully attempting to commandeer complainant's private property for commercial use by installing a "relay station" (smart meter Trespassing Technology) without complainant's consent by making false representations with the intention to deceive. Further, it appears that ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP makes a material representation which is knowingly false concerning their smart meter (Trespassing Technology), making such representation without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion that smart meters are safe, and made it with the intention that it should be acted on by complainant. If complainant acts and complies with this false representation, complainant fears and believes an impending injury will be suffered by complainant and possibly others in complainant's household as well.
COUNT 9: Elder Abuse. This amounts to knowingly and willfully doing something that a reasonable person would not do which inflicts physical and emotional pain and mental injury to an elderly person. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP, having foreknowledge of complainant's age (82-years-old) and physical conditions, continues to acknowledge their intent to abuse complainant by negligent infliction of physical pain and mental injury by continuing their strong-arm intimidation tactics, threats, duress, and coercion against complainant in their attempt to install a dangerous and health-hazardous smart meter against complainants will, which makes this a criminal act as per, TITLE 18-1505, subsection 2 & 4 of the Idaho Statutes.
5 119119
DEFINITIONS
From: Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition
EXTORT. To compel or coerce, as a confession or information by any means serving to overcome one's power of resistance, or making the confession or admission involuntary. Sutton v. Commonwealth, 207 Ky. 597, 269 S.W. 754, 757. To gain by wrongful methods, to obtain In am unlawful manner, to compel payments by means of threats of injury to person, property, or reputation. McKenzie v. State, 113 Neb. 576, 204 N.W. 60, 61; State v. Richards, 97 Wash. 587, 167 P. 47, 48. o take from unlawfully; to exact something wrongfully by threats or putting in fear. State v. Adams, Del., 106 A 287, 288, 7 Boyce, 335. See Extortion.
The natural meaning of the word "extort" is to obtain money or other valuable thing either by compulsion, by actual force, or by the force of motives applied to the will, and often more overpowering and irresistible than physical force. Com. v. O'Brien, 12 Cush., Mass., 90.
EXTORTION. Unlawful obtaining of money from another. People v. Parkinson, 181 Misc. 603, 41 N.Y.S.2d 331, 334.
Obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right. And see State v. Logan, 104 La. 760, 29 So. 336; In re Rempfer, 51 S.D. 393, 216 N.W. 355, 359, 55 A.L.R. 1346; Lee v. State, 16 Ariz. 291, 145 P. 244, 246, Ann.Cas.1917B, 131. Obtaining of P.ro erty of another by threats to injure him and to destroy his property, State v. Phillips, 62 Idaho 656, 115 P.2d 418, 420. ffaking or obtaining of anything from another by means of illegal compulsion or oppressive exaction, Daniels v. U. S., C.C.A.Cal., 17 F.2d 339, 342; whether by an officer or otherwise, United States v. Dunkley. D.C.Cal., 235 F.1000, 1001.
A taking under color of office is of essence of offense. La Tour v. Stone, 139 Fla. 681, 190 So. 704, 709, 710.
At common law, any oppression by color or retense of right, and particularly and technically the exaction or unlawful taking by an officer of money or thing of value, by color of his office either when none at all is due, or not so much is due, or when it is not yet due. Preston v. Bacon, 4 Conn. 480.See People v. Barondess, 16 N.Y.S. 436, 61 Hun, 571; Murray v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 252,67 S.W.2d 274, 275; State v. Anderson, 66 N.D. 522, 267 N.W. 121, 123; Whart.Cr.L. 833.
Term in comprehensive or general sense signifies any oppression under color of right, and in strict or technical sense signifies unlawful taking by any officer, under color of office, of any money or thing of value not due him, more than is due, or before it is due. State v. Barts, 132 N.J.L. 74, 38 A.2d 838, 843, 844, 848; State v. Vallee, 136 Me. 432, 12 A.2d 421.
To constitute "extortion," money or other thing of value must have been willfully and corruptly received. La Tour v. Stone, 139 Fla. 681, 190 So. 709, 710.
To constitute "extortion," the wrongful use of fear must be the operating cause reducing consent.
People v. Biggs, 178 Cal. 79, 172 P. 152, 153.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE. he Intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another; such a gross want of care and regard for the rights of others as to justify the resumption of willfulness and wantonness. Seelig v. First Nat. Bank, D.C.IIL, 20 F.Supp. 61, 68.
The failure to exercise slight care. Jones v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 98 Kan. 133, 157 P. 399, 400; Burton Const. Co. v. Metcalfe, 162 Ky. 366, 172 S.W. 698, 701.
6 120120
In the law of torts (and especially with reference to personal injury cases), the term means such negligence as evidences a reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them. McDonald v. Railroad Co., Tex.Civ.App., 21 S.W. 775; Railroad Co. v. Bodemer, 139 Ill. 596, 29 N.E. 692, 32 Am.St.Rep. 218; Coit v. Western Union Tel. Co., 130 Cal. 657, 63 P. 83, 53 L.R.A. 678; Bremer v. Lake Erie & W. R Co., 318 Ill. 11, 148 N. E. 862, 866, 41 A.L.R. 1345.
Indifference to present legal duty and utter forgetfulness oflegal obligations, so far as other persons may be affected, and a manifestly smaller amount of watchfulness and circums ection than the circumstances require of a person of ordinary prudence. Burke v. Cook, 246 Mass. 518, 141 N.E. 585, 586. Negligence bordering on recklessness. People v. Adams, 289 Ill. 339, 124 N.E. 575, 577.
Words "gross negligence," are e uivalent to words "reckless and wanton." Jones v. Commonwealth, 213 Ky. 356, 281 S. W. 164, 167.
HAZARDOUS NEGLIGENCE. Such careless or reckless conduct as exposes one to very grea danger of injury or to imminent peril. Riggs v. Standard Oil Co., C.C.Minn., 130 F. 204.
ACTIONABLE FRAUD. Deception practiced in order to induce another to part with property or surrender some legal right; a false representation made with an intention to deceive; may be committed by stating what is known to be false or by professing knowledge of the truth of a statement which is false, but in either case, the essential ingredient is a falsehood uttered with intent to deceive. Sawyer v. Prickett, 19 Wall. 146, 22 L. Ed. 105.
To constitute "actionable fraud," it must appear that defendant made a material representation; that it was false; that when he made it he knew it was false,-or made it recklessly without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; that he made it with intention that it should be acted on by plaintiff; that laintiff acted in reliance on it; and that plaintiff thereby suffered injury. Blair v. McCool, 136 Or. 139, 295 P. 950, 952. Essential elements are representation, falsity, scienter, deception, and injury. Cobb v. Cobb, 211 N.C. 146, 189 S.E. 479, 482.
CONCLUSION
It is my sincere wish that you and your OFFICE of the ATTORNEY GENERAL investigate this entire matter concerning this wicked and wanton behavior and the strong-arm intimidation tactics of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP and why they are permitted to continue to violate and interfere with my, as well as many other ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP customer's existing valid contractual agreements against their will and free consent, and their FOURTH and FIFTH AMENDMENT Rights, and other violations mentioned above, and also why the IDAHO PUC/State Legislature permits/sanctions this type of criminal behavior.
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
7 121121
As time is of the essence, I respectfully request that this matter be given priority status and a timely remedy sought in order to avoid the apparent upcoming electrical service disconnection in just a matter of days, not just for myself but for many other ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP customers similarly situated.
Ill
Ill
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in remedying this matter as soon as possible in order that justice may be done.
Very truly,
�Tfu�Date
Witness to signature #2
8 122122
DECLARATION OF JUDITH LYNN TWEDE IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT
I, Judith Lynn Twede, being of sound mind and body do make this Declaration ofmy own free will without any undue outside influence.
Last fall, I received an undated and unsigned letter from ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWERJPACIFICORP STATING THAT their installer couldn't access my analog
meter at my address at 1392 Newton Circle. Never at any time has my meter been
unaccessible. It is mounted on the front side of my garage and can be seen from my front yard and has always been accessible since I moved into my home in 2008. From that time, I have had a sign posted to not install a smart meter since I am very EMF sensitive and can't be around wi fi, smart meters, cell towers, etc. My eye hemorrhages and
bulges with blood as a result and my home has no wi fi and is hard wired. I have two doctors in Idaho Falls who can vouch for this and they said they could write a letter to verify my sensitivity if needed.
Upon receiving the first letter, I called the phone number provided and talked to a young
man from Tacoma and I explained why I was refusing a smart meter to be installed. He was uneducated and just told me smaii meters are not harmful.
Last summer, I was in my front yard when a man walked up to say he was there to
change out my meter. I pointed out the notices I've had on my analog meter to not install a smart meter and why, He said the company would be contacting me and he would tell them I was refusing a smart meter.
When I purchased this home, I contracted with the power company to use the analog meter and I have no smart appliances and my microwave has not ever been in use and is not hooked up and is used for storage in my home. Because my neighbor received a
smart meter on his home last summer, I have not been able to sleep in either of my two bedrooms across from his smart meter which is just over the fence on his garage. I am sleeping on the floor near my kitchen to be as far away as possible from his meter but when I test with a Safe and Sound Pro II Broadband RF meter meter, it is still pulsing and
emitting EMF. At my age, it is very difficult and I don't ever get a good nights sleep
since my neighbor's meter was installed last year.
I have never been late in paying my bill and I request that I can have my analog meter as long as I'm able to live in this house.
I am a 82-year-old widow living on a fixed income who is hyper-electro sensitive. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER's strong-arm intimidation tactics, has caused me a great deal of endless, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, emotional and mental distress, headaches, and severe stomach upset. I consider ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER's use of abusive
123123
threats, duress, and coercion in an attempt to get me to consent to accepting a smart meter
on my home, to be a negligent infliction of physical pain and mental injury as per TITLE 18-1505, subsection 2 & 4 of the Idaho Statutes.
I, Judith L. Twede affirm and certify on my own unlimited commercial liability that I have read the above affidavit and do know the contents to be the truth, the whole truth,
correct and complete to the best of my knowledge, and I'm willing to testify to this.
Date
Witness to signature #2
124124
February 28, 2023
Judy Twede
1392 Newton Cir
Idaho Falls, ID 834013790
£xlA� ¼t'-f A 1407West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84i 16
RE: SECOND NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 1392 Newton Cir Idaho Falls, ID
Dear Judy Twede:
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter, If you are not responsible for the electric service at
the site listed above, please pass this request to the property manager or owner as soon as possible.
Our contractor was refused access to perform a meter exchange at the address listed above. This is our second
written notice. We have also attempted to reach you by telephone. To avoid termination of electric service at
this address, you must contact us at the number provided below.
You are contractually obligated to allow us safe and unencumbered access to our equipment. Meter access is
a condition of electric service, as expressed in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission;s Customer Relation Rules,
namely Electric Service Regulation No. 6, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. Moreover, to the
extent that access was denied because of the type of meter being installed, please be aware that the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission has reviewed smart meter technology, including the prevailing scientific research
on consumer safety, and concluded that smart meters are safe and allowed for all customers in Idaho. If you wouicl iike additional information regarding the electric reguiations that governs Rocky Mountain Power's
operations, review them at the Idaho Commission's website at puc.idaho.gov.
Our new meters bring with them a host of benefits, enabling our customers to securely-
•View Daily/Hourly/15-Minute interval usage data through your Rocky Mountain Power account
•Set billing thresholds and alerts through our website and mobile application•Automatically send notifications whenever your power is interrupted and subsequently restored
Rocky Mountain Power will also be able to troubleshoot abnormal electric voltage or current .issues on our
lines that could impact the quality of your service. Our meters deliver whole home usage data through a
secure LTE network and do not connect with any additional smart devices installed at your site or external
networks. Your data is safe and no personal information is ever shared with outside parties.
(Continued on reverse side)
125125
Page 2
Please contact us at 1-800-895-0631 immediately to resolve access issues and to set an appointment to have
your meter updated. We are happy to answer any additional questions you may have regarding the new
meter and look forward to working with you.
If we do not hear from you within 15 days from the date of this letter to resolve this issue, we will refer your
account to our service disconnection process. We look forward to hearing from you and will always consider it
a privilege to serve you.
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
Para mas informacion, /lame al 1-888-225-2611 para habfar con un especiafista en espafiol.
126126
JudyTwede
1392 Newton Cir
Idaho Falls, ID 83401 3790
Ex�1, � ,'t e 1407West North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
March 15, 2023
RE: FINAL NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at 1392 Newton Cir Idaho Falls, ID
Dear Judy Twede:
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. If you are not responsible for the electric
service at the site, please pass this request to the property manager or owner as soon as possible.
As required by 31.21.01 -Customer Relations Rules for Gas, Electric, and Water Public Utilities ("Utility
Customer Relations Rules") -Rule 304 (Requirements for Notice to Customers Before Termination of
Service). This letter will serve as final notice of termination of electric service, which will occur on
March 29, 2023 for failure to provide access as required under Utility Customer Relations Rules-Rule
302(e). If access to property is acquired prior to this date to enable Rocky Mountain Power to install an
upgraded meter at the site, termination will be canceled.
Please contact us at 1-800-895-0631 if you wish to resolve this issue.
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
127127
REQUIRED DISCLOSURES:
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAP A 31.21.01 Public Utilities Commission Utility Customer Relations Rules 305.
CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO TERMINATE SERVICE (RULE 305). 01.Contents of Notice. The written or oral notice of intent to terminate service required by Rule 304 willstate: a. The reason(s), citing these rules, why service will be terminated and the proposed date oftermination.b.Actions the customer may take to avoid termination of service.c.That a certificate notifying the utility of a serious illness or medical emergency in the household maydelay termination as prescribed by Rule 308.d.That an informal or formal complaint concerning termination may be filed with the utility or theCommission, and that service will not be terminated on the ground relating to the dispute between thecustomer and the utility before resolution of the complaint.
The Idaho Public Utility Commission can be reached at 208-334-0369, or 1-800-432-0369, or online at puc.idaho.gov/form/consumerassistance, or by mail at Idaho Public Utilities Commission, P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720-0074. A copy of the Utility Customer Relation Rules can be found at https://admimules.idaho.gov/rules/current/31/312101.pdf
Para mas informaci6n, flame al 1-888-225-2611 para hablar con un especialista en espafio/.
128128
RECEIVED
Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:37:24 AM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. PAC-E-23-07
Jan Noriyuki, Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Date: March 24, 2023
From: Karen Lane
PO Box 362
Rigby, ID 83442
FORMAL COMPLAINT
RE: Installation of "Smart1' Meter and threat of service disconnection
Dear Ma'am,
This FORMAL COMPLAINT is a follow-up to an initial complaint which i, Karen Lane submitted to Idaho
Public Utility Commission on March 20,2023. I have received from Rocky Mountain Power a FINAL
NOTICE of intent to terminate service on March 27, 2023. Rocky Mountain's notice claims that we have
refused access to the meter. On the contrary, we solemnly affirm that at no time has access to the
meter been denied, and the claim by Rocky Mountain Power that we have is knowingly and intentionally
false. To be clear: at no time have we prevented Rocky Mountain Power from accessing the existing
meter attached to our home for any purpose, and our account is paid in full and up to date.
What we have done is require that the meter--which is attached to our house--remain a meter that does
not emit radio wave frequencies. We have concerns about such meters, on physical health grounds as
well as legal privacy concerns. To date, Rocky Mountain has refused to address the issue or enter into a
dialogue with us in good faith. Instead, Rocky Mountain Power has resorted to bullying and strong-arm
techniques to try to force us to accept a so-called "smart meter" attached onto our private property
without our consent.
129129
However, having objections to installation of a particular type of meter, a so-called "smart meter," is
NOT legal grounds for disconnecting our current electrical service. This is crucial legal fact that has been ignored both by Rocky Mountain Power and by Idaho Public Utilities Commission's Utilities Compliance Investigator, Chris Hecht, who cited Electric Service Regulation No. 6 as Rocky Mountain Power's authority to threaten to terminate our electrical service.
Electric Service Regulation No. 6 says, "The Customer shall provide safe, unencumbered access to Company's representatives at reasonable times, for the purpose of reading meters, inspecting, repairing, or removing metering devices and wiring of the Company." We have done precisely that. At no time have we denied access to the meter. As we have always provided the required access, neither Electric Service Regulation No. 6 nor IDAPA 31.21.01, Rule 302.01.e apply to our case, and Rocky Mountain Power does not have legal authority to terminate our electrical service on those grounds.
If there is a law or regulation that specifically authorizes termination of electrical service for objecting to the installation of a smart meter in the place of an analog meter, we respectfully request that it be shown to us. Otherwise, because we have never denied access to the meter, we respectfully request that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission intervene to prevent Rocky Mountain Power from unlawfully disconnecting our electrical service and to require Rocky Mountain Power to engage in respectful, good faith dialogue with us about an acceptable solution that addresses our concerns.
Respectfully,
Karen Lane
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this __ p""--+/-'--:;2._.....z__./4...;;;;2::,3J--"'------by
DANIEL PECK
COMMISSION NUMBER 62322
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF IDAHO
Signature of Notary Publi� --� ?
C...<:> .-,.r-c,'F'-- �r-�jl!...S.
£.;x:p I� C> .--J �
/
130130
RECEIVED
2023 March, 27 4:00PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. PAC-E-23-08
COMPLAINT
To: Jao Noiiyuki, Com1nisslo11 Secretary
ldaho Public Utilities Co1nmission
PO Box 83720
Boise. ID 83720-0074
Dote: March 25. 2023
Fro1n: Christy Anubruster
3807 E 120 N
Rigby. Idaho 83442
RE: bi$h\llalion of"Smart" Meter on n1y borne
Dear Ms. Noriyuki.
•
Please Hnd attached my DEC:LARATlON in the foan of an AFFIDAVIT in support of this
letter ofC'OMPLAfNT, along with supporting Exhibits A and 8.
This COMPLAINT arises over matte1·s concerning myself and ROCKY MOlTNTAfN
PO\VER/PAClFICORP in regards to the installation of a Trespassing Technology kno\vn aS a
"Smart'' type meter on n1y home. located nt 3807 E 120 N. Rigby, Idaho 83442, contrary to the
conrraorual agrco,ncnt 1 had prior to the. coerced installation of a smart 1ueter (Trespassing
Technology). as well as against my will and conseol which were extorted fro1n me.
Early in 2022, s01neone from ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACTFICORP came to my
house to install a smart meter. After decliniog to have tbe meter changed because of my concen1
regarding the health risks. the 01an explah1ed that if [ did not allo,v the current meter to be
changed. the po,ver company would send me a notice tl1at my po,ver n1ay be turned off if I did not
have an appointme11l to change U1e metet within 15 days of the notice.
On Novc111bcr 18. 2022 my husband received an email 1vithout the name of a person 1ve
could contact about our concerns from ROCKY ~lOUNTAlN POWER/PAClFICORP (see £xhibtt
AJ instructing, me,. Christy Annbruster, to call U1eir 800 nun1ber 1vitbin 15 days to reso lve any
"access" issues aud set an appointment to have my electric meter updated with, 1vhat I cali their
"T,-espassing Technology". My husband fonvarded the etnail to 1ue on November 22, 2022.
Because ] fell threatened ,,~th loss of power. wh.iuh ,vould include loss of heating ru.id the
loss ,vater in 111y hon1e for n1yself and my family; 1 relucl<Ultly called. During my conversation I
agnin explained that I did not want to have a Sn1ar1 Meter on Dl.Y home but I ,vas told that if l did
not have one. the po1ver could be turned o·JI An appo1nhnent ,¥as set dtu·ing the call.
When the man i:an1e to change 1he meter. I tlxplained for a third time that I did not 1vno1 the
Smart Meter. He agreed that be didn't ,vant one 011 his house but because of the laws in Idaho. ,ve
are not pennitted to keep our old meter.
Although [ did end llP accepting the installation of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/
PACJ.rlCORP's smmi ineter (Trespassing Technology) on my home by giving thel:ll "conseor-. Lltls
"consent'· was extracted ot extorted fron1 me lhl'ough the wrongful use of fear and under color of
otliciaJ righr. Th.is fca.r ,vas precipitated by ROCKY lv!OUNTAIN POWER/PACJFICORP's
rell"ntless strong-arm intimidation tactics, thre-at, duress, and coercic,>n, i111pressing 11pon me that my
po~1er service ,vould be shut off/tern1ioated if consent 1vas not given the1n to install said smart
1neter (Trespassing Tel:lmology). lt was n1y original intent to not accept a sn1art n1eler due lo the
safety and healtlt concerns surrounding smart meters. and it i$ still my 11/isb not lo bave one.
ho1vever the overpo1vering aggression of ROCKY MOUNTAIN P0\\1ER/ PACIFJCORP and the
131131
threat of no electrical power compromised my position to my detriment. It has recently come to my attention that a crime or crimes may have been committed by ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP in the manner by which and under the circumstances their smart meter was i nstal I ed on my home.
INTRODUCTION
Prior to the installation of a smart meter (Trespassing Technology) on my home, there ,vas in place for the past 1 year a re]ationship of a ucontractual" nature between myself and ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP, who currently provides me with electrical power to my home. I., in turn naturally, agreed to allow ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PAClFICORPts meter
reader(s) "accessJ' of a "specified and limitedt' nature, not a general unspecified and unlimited nature, to my private property each month specifically for them to read my electrica] power meter ONLY. No other access to my private propeny, implied or otherwise was ever granted to ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP at any time. Any other necessary "accesst\ • including troubleshooting power outages and making necessary repairs to e]ectrical equipment located on my
private property is considered uspecialn in nature and would only be granted at the time, I, the private property owner reported a power outage and or requested them to troubleshoot an electricaJ problem and make necessary repairs ONLY. Therefore,. ROCKY MOUNTAlN POWER/PACIFICORP does not have autonomous authority in and of itself to access my private property to troubleshoot and or make necessary repairs to electrical equipment or for any other reason at any time, day or night until they receive notification from me authorizing and granting them permission at that time, on a one-time case-by-case basis only for them to proceed to do the specified request Anythjng other than this is a trespass, invasion of my privacy .. security, unalienable Rights.. including my private property rights which cannot be diminished� as wen as a violation of our existing contractual agreement. Let 1ne be clear on this issue of '�access'' which ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP claims that I denying them. I and no one else in my home has ever denied .. access'� to any of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's meter readers or their company repair personnel as per our previously agreed upon terms of our contractual agreement. However, there has never been in place any agreement for personnel from any third-party company to trespass on my private property and tamper with my electrical meter at any time� whether I am at home or if no one is at home, neither has there ever been in place any agreement with ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP to ''access� my private property to make a non-repair (or install a Trespassing Technology) when no request for such type of service was ever made, and no defective electricaJ equipment on my private property existed. So� if no defective electrical equipment existed on my private property and I did not call ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFJCORP to report any troub]es/problems with my electrical servjce and thus no electrical repairs were needed, what were there personnel doing on my private property without my consent which was contrary to our then existing contractual agreement? Understand that this whole issue surrounds a matter of a then existing �'contract,, which ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP impaired my ob1igation to. This contractual relationship has been in place since we moved in our home about 1 year ago when we requested ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP to supply our home with electrical power, to whicb they agreed. This has worked smoothly without any problems or disputes until last year, when ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP attempted to change the tenns of our previously agreed upon "'contract"' without any prior proper notification or full disclosure that they were attempting to change said terms of or initiate a new contract without my knowledge and consent in
order for them to bully their way onto my private property to make a non-repair ( or insta1 l a Trespassing Technology) which was not part of my then existing contractual agreement with them. As you well know, for any changes to be made to a contract, both parties must be, in agreement, and both parties must have clear understanding of any and a11 terms and changes in
2
132132
terms of said contract to be valid and binding. This is simply not the case in this matter. To allow this abuse to continue would be a travesty of justice. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP acknowledges the existence of our contractual relationship (see Exhibit B)
then and now but in a skewed and twisted fashion, not relating the matter truthfully. They propagate deceptions and lies that the smart meter is safe and the homeowner is the antagonist and an uncooperative party for not wanting their smart meter, making me the "bad guyn. This is like thugs attempting to break into your home and you resisting them't and then having them go to the authorities complaining that the homeowner is being uncooperative by not letting them into their
home. This is indeed a criminal mentality+ ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP is now assuming and preswning thnt they have the right to alter an existing long-standing contractual relationship without my knowledge and consent anytime they please implying that they can come onto my private property anytime they wish to do whatever they wish, \Vhich they cannot.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP is a huge corporate giant with endless financia1 resources coming against this smaU single family who only desires to live in peace. This huge corporate giant seems to think that because they operate as a government sanctioned monopoly. knowing that customers have no other option or choice in power companies, they can just run rough shod over their perceived disobedient customers to force their unlawful wi1 l (Trespassing Technology) upon them by use of deception, lies, strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat. duress., and coercion (criminal acts) in order to covertly alter a previously agreed upon
'�contract'' without my knowledge and consent -HOLDING MY ELECTRICAL POWER SERVICE AS RANSOM.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I,. Christy Armbruster, hereinafter referred to as complainant, in pro per� comp1aining of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFlCORP and their Trespassing Technology, hereinafter referred to as ''violator", respectfully alleging various felonious acts being perpetrated upon complainant as follows�
COUNT 1: Breach of the peace+ ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP!ls unlawfu1intrusion onto comp.lainant's private property and into complainant�s home has resulted in a breach of complainant"s and other household members peace causing undue fear, emotional and physical stress of complainant and other household members, as a result of the installation of the smart meter.
COUNT 2: Extortion of compla.inant,s will, consent, and rights through use of threat, duress, and coercion which induced complainant to accept, by wrongful use off ear, and under color of official right ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's smart meter (frespassing Technology) while holding the threat of e]ectrical service disconnection over complainant's head.
COUNT 3: Impairment of compi ainant 's obligation of a previously existing contract between ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PAClFICORP and comp1ainant by use of threat, deceptiontstrong-amt intimidation tactics, trickery. duress, and coercion causing complainant to accept a
change in the terms of complainant's existing contract in order to install a ''smart", meter (Trespassing Technology) which was induced by -wrongful use of fear and under color of officiaJ right against complainant ,s better judgment
COUNT 4: Extortion and takeover of complainant's private property for commercial use.
Violato� by wrongful use of fear and under color of official right,. utilizing deception, strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat, duress, and coercion,. did cause complainant to accept a smart meter to
3
133133
avoid termination of complainant ts electrical service for non-compliance. This resulted in ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP ability to take over con1plmnantts private property in order to insta.11 a smart Meter "relay station', (Trespassing Technology) on complainant"s property, for the sole benefit of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POW R/PACIFICORP and outside third-party entities with out any just authorization and compensation to complainant for such. This amounts to the� unJ.awfuJ conversion of private property, unjust enrichment, and violation of complainant's FIFTH AMENDME T right to not be deprived of complainant's right to life,, liberty, or property, withoutdue process of Jaw. '
COUNTS: Illegal wiretapping and extraction of personal and private infonnation without a lawfully issued and or executed search warrant, through the installation of an unlawful (as no free consent was given) surveillance/wiretapping device known as a smart meter (Trespassing
Technology)p Smart meter capabilities include but not limited to monitoring, Jogging, storing, transferring, and sharing of daily personal and priva1e ha bi ts and routines of occupants of private homes and then giving said infonnation to unauthorized third-parties for profit, including police and federal government snoop agents� a.1 l without the homeowner 's or other occupants consent (consent, in this case was g·ven through wrongful use of fear) to do so. This amounts to gross violation of complainant's FOURTH AMENDMENT right to be secure in complainant's perso�
houses, paperst and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as complainant's FIFTI-I AMENDMENT right to not be deprived of complainant's right to life, liberty� or property, with out due proce s of Jaw.
CO NT 6: Threat with intent to commit harm to complainant and other household members by
shutting off electrical power to complainant's home if complainant did not allow ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICO RP to install a smart meter {Trespassing Technology) on complainanf1s house. This threat and intent to commit harm by ROCKY MOUNTA1N POWER/PACIFICORP constitutes wrongfi.d use of fear to induce consent, causing complainant to accept installation of said smart meter to avoid tennination of complainant"s power even though
complainant did not want the smart meter. Termination of electrical power would have caused severe hardship stress, and duress, as ,vell as severe physical and emotional harm to complainant and other members of complainant's household.
DEFINITIONS
From: Black ts Law Oictiomu·¾.&!urth Edition
EXTORT. To compel or coerce, as a confession or infonnation by any means serving to overcome one's po,ver of resistance� or making the confession or adm is: ion in voluntary� a • 207 Ky. 597, 269 S.W, 754t 757. To gain by wrongful methodsJ to obtain In am unlawful manner .. to compel payments by means of threats of injury to person, property, or reputation. McKenzie V� State, 113 Neb. 576. 204 N. W. 60,, 61 � State v. Richards, 97 Wash. 5871 167 P. 47, 48. To take from unlawfuJly; to exact something wrongfully by threats or putting in fear. State . Adams1 Del., l06 A. 287, 2881 7 Boyce,. 335. Sec Extortion.
The natural meaning of the word 11extort� is to obtain money or other valuable thing either by compu]sion.,by actual force, or by the force of motives applied to the wil1, and often more overpowering and irresistibl than physical tbrce. Com. v. O'Brien, 12 Cush., Mass.1 90.
EXTORTION. Unlawful obtaining of money from another .. People v. Parkinson, 181 Misc. 603,, 41 N.Y.S.2d 331, 334.
Obtaining of property from anothert with his consent. induced by wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right. And see State v. Loean, 104 La ?60, 29 So. 336; In re Rem pf er, S l S.D. 393] 216 N.W. 35S, 359, 55 A.L.R. l 346; Lee vLState, I 6 Ariz. 291 ,. 145 P. 244, 246, Ann.Cas.1917B,13 I. Obtaining of property of another by threats to jnjure him and to destroy his property� State v. Phillips.
4
134134
62 Idaho 656, 115 P.2d 418, 420. Taking or obtaining of anything from another by means of illegal
compulsion or oppressive exaction. Daniels v. U. S., C.C.A.CaJ . ., 17 J-:2d 3 39, 342; whether by an officer or
otherwise, United States v. Dunkley. D.C.CaJ., 235 F. 1000, l0OL
'A taking under color of office is of essence of offense4 La Tour v. Stone, 1 :39 Fla. 681, 190 So. 704� 709,
710.
At common Jaw, any oppression by color or pretense of righ� and particularly and techn • caHy the exaction
or unlawful taking by an officer of money or thing ofvaJue� by color of his office either when none at all is
due. or not so much is due or when it is not yet due. Preston v. Bacon. 4 Conn. 480. See People v.
-..;..x.;;;y-.--16 N. Y.S. 43 6, 61 Hun, 571; r v. ----�. 125 Tex:.Cr. R. 252, 6 7 S. W.2d 274; 2 7 5; State v. Ande!r■sott, 66 N.D. S22, 267 N.W. 121. 123� Whart.Cr4L. 833.
Term in comprehensive or general sense signifies ooy oppression under color of right, and in strict
or technical sense signifies unlawful taking by any officert under color of office, of any money or thing of
value not due him. more than is duet or before it is due. State y., Bara, 132 N.J.L. 74, JS A.2d 838t 843. 844, 848; State v. Vallee. 136 Me. 432, 12 A.2d 421 ..
To constitute uextortio� H money or other thing of value must have been wiHfully and oomJptly received. La.Tourv. Stonet 139 Fla+ 681,. 190 So. 709, 710.
To constitute "extortio� t1 the wrongful use of fear must be the operating cause producing consent. People v.
Bless. 178 Cal. 79,. 172 P. 152, 153.
---------------------------------------------------�---------------------------------------------------------·-·-----
CONCLUSION
I respectfully request that your OFFICE of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission inves.tigate this entire matter concerning this wicked and wanton behavior and the stron,g-ann
intimidation tactics of ROCKY MOUNTAI 0WER/PACIFICORP and why they are permitted
to continue to vioJate and interfere with customer's va] id contractual agreements against their will and free consent, as well as violating their FOURTH and FIFTH AMENDMENT rughts, and other
violations mentioned above.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in remedy·ng this uiatter as soon as
possible in order that justice may be done�
Very truly1
Ch stv Armbruster
5
135135
Fw: Important information about your electric meter
From: a [e-mail] (armbrujl@frontfemetnet)
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 06:19 AM MST
---Forwarded Message ---From: Rocky Mountain Power <[e-mail]> To: "[e-mail] <armbrujt@frontlemelnet> Sent: Friday1 November 18, 2022, 04: 10:21 PM MST SubJact: Important information about your electric meter
Dear Christy Armbruster*
You can count on us to provide the affordable and consistent
power you need. We're using state-of-the-art technology to
deliver dependable power as we plan for the future.
We were recently in your area to upgrade your existing electric
meterll but our installer couldn't access the meter base at 3807 E
120 N Rigby ID. As required by the Idaho Public Service
Commission ! clear and safe access must be available to electric meters for inspecr on, maintenance, meter upgrades. and to
enable us to respond to any emergencies.
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has reviewed smart meter
technology, and the prevai1ing scientific research on consumer
safety, and cone uded that smart meters are allowed in Idaho
without any alternative metering options.
Please call 1-800-895.0631 within 15 days of rece ·ving this
letter to resolve any access Issues and set an appointment
to have your meter updated. We are happy to answer any
136136
questions you may have regarding the new meter and look
forward to working with you.
Kind Regards, Rocky Mountain Power
Para mas informaci6n. Ila me al 1-888-22S..2611 para hablar con
un especialista en espanol.
C
137137
Rocky Mountain Power has processed your request
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: 1Monday, October 18, 2021 at 06:51 PM MDT
Dear Chrjsty Armbruster:
Rocky Mountain Power completed your online request to start service at 3807 E 120 N RIGBY JD 83442 effective 10/25/2021. No further action is necessary.
If you have questions, please send us a message at https://www.rockymountainpower.net/contact or call us at 1-888-221-7070. Any of our customer care specialists will be happy to assist you.
Set up and ma1nage your account the way you like with these convenient solutions:
Download our mobHe app Our mobile app makes it easy to pay your billsl track power outages and more. Simply use your existing online log in for our mobile app. Download the Rocky Mountain Power app today.
Choose account alerts Let us provide you courtesy updates your way. right away. Customize text and emai1 alerts for your account at https://www.rockymountainpower.net/alerts
Find ways to save Need helpful tips on energy savings or rebates? Visit https://www.rockymountainpower.net/save
Register ,online account at https://csapps.rockymountainpower.net/idm/create-profUe or connect to an existing account at https://csapps.rockymountainpower.netlsecure/my-account/manage/add­account
Thank you for being our customer.
Rocky Mountain Power
138138
March 26, 2023
Jan Noriyuki, Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Dear Jan Noriyuki,
I am writing to submit a formal complaint with the IPUC in regards to being forced/coerced to
accept a “smart meter.” It is not in my or my family's best interest to have a smart meter
installed. At this point we have been left with little choice as we are being threatened to have our
power terminated on the 29th of March, 2023. We have children in the home and over twenty
head of livestock (horses, cows, and goats) and numerous chickens that depend on daily water
to live. Most of my waterers consist of automatic waterers that supply water on demand. If the
power is off they are immediately out of water. Our house is heated with electricity with no other
means to heat it. It is my understanding that the power cannot be shut off when temperatures
are 32° or below. Most of the weather has been consistently below 32°. Much of my business is
run from home. Without electricity I am unable to conduct my business. My daughter is
homeschooled and without electricity she is unable to continue with her schooling.
We have lived the past 23 years in this home with an analog meter. We have never missed or
been late with a payment. Our past payments total somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000.
Our agreement with the power company never consisted of an agreement to allow “smart
meters.”
We do not own a cell phone, use a microwave oven and limit our exposure to EMFs as much as
possible. And while we recognize EMF exposure comes in many forms and not all of it can be
avoided, we certainly feel it is our right to be able to avoid adding additional exposure via
technologies such as “smart meters.” There are numerous studies to support the fact that EMF’s
may be carcinogenic and that caution is advised.
I have been informed multiple times, including your office that Idaho does not offer any opt outs
from “smart meters.” It would appear that is not an entirely true statement. It is my
understanding that Idaho Falls Power customers are not required to have smart meters nor are
customers of Fall River Rural Electric. So by this fact, there are opt outs. Why have they been
allowed for only a select or rather elect group of people? This is neither fair nor equitable.
There are many organizations and peoples that are cautioning of the dangers, health hazards,
risks and loss of privacy from “smart meters.” It is reasonable and expected due to the lack of
consensus of the safety and privacy of said meters that Idahoans should be granted the
freedom to opt out. Our Idaho Public Utilities and Idaho Legislature have clearly not made any
real effort to advocate for the citizenry of Idaho. At a minimum we should be granted the same
privileges afforded Idaho Falls Power and Fall River Rural Electric.
RECEIVED
2023 March, 27 9:16aM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. PAC-E-23-11
139139
Our ultimate goal is to ensure that we can have the ability to opt out of a “smart meter” like other
Idahoans who are not being forced to submit to the installation of a “smart meter” due to their
affiliation to municipal and co-op sources of power.
Regards,
Diane Huskinson
12450 N 65th E
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
[phone]
140140
May 10, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission 11331 W Chinden Blvd. Building 8 Suite 201A Boise, ID 83714
RE: CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08; PAC-E-23-11 FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT ET AL
Dear Ms. Noriyuki:
Please find Rocky Mountain Power’s Answer in the above referenced matter.
Informal inquiries may be directed to Mark Alder, Idaho Regulatory Manager at [phone].
Very truly yours,
Joelle Steward Senior Vice President of Regulation and Customer Solutions
RECEIVED
Wednesday, May 10, 2023 11:12:35 AM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
141141
Joe Dallas (ISB# 10330) 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97232
Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JACOBA H.
PACIFICORP ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-23-05;
-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08; -E-23-11
ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS
1. In accordance with Rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission (“Commission”), Rocky Mountain Power, a division of PacifiCorp (“Rocky
Mountain Power” or the “Company”) hereby provides its answer to the formal complaint
(“Complaints”) filed by six (“Complainants”) described as:
Name: Jacoba H. van Mastrigt
Case No: PAC-E-23-04 Formal Complaint Date: March 22, 2023
Name: Samuel and Peggy Edwards
Case No: PAC-E-23-05
Formal Complaint Date: March 23, 2023
Name: Judy Twede Case No: PAC-E-23-06
Formal Complaint Date: March 24, 2023
Name: Karen Lane Case No: PAC-E-23-07 Formal Complaint Date: March 28, 2023
Name: Christy Armbruster Case No: PAC-E-23-08 Formal Complaint Date: March 27, 2023 Name: Diane Huskinson
142142
Case No: PAC-E-23-11 Formal Complaint Date: March 30, 2023
2. The Company also moves to dismiss the Complaints in their entirety because
Complainants have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As provided in more
detail below, the Complaints do not identify any specific administrative rule, order, statute, or
applicable provision of the Company’s tariff that Rocky Mountain Power violated. The Company
has acted in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations in providing notice and seeking
termination of service for customers who refuse access to the meter. Accordingly, the Company
requests that the Commission dismiss the Complaints with prejudice.
3. Communications regarding this Case should be addressed to:
By e-mail (preferred):
[e-mail]
[e-mail] [e-mail]
By mail: Data Request Response Center
Rocky Mountain Power
825 NE Multnomah St., Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97232
Mark Alder
Idaho Regulatory Affairs Manager
Rocky Mountain Power 1407 West North Temple, Suite 330 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Joe Dallas (ISB# 10330) Senior Attorney Rocky Mountain Power
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232 Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
143143
II.BACKGROUND
4.The Company has carefully planned and communicated its advanced metering
infrastructure (“AMI”) rollout over the last several years and began formally communicating its
plans to the Commission with a presentation on December 18, 2018. Formal presentations were
also presented to the Commission on May 2019, March 2021, October 2022, and March 2023. In
the presentations, the Company communicated to Commission staff that there would not be an opt-
out option available to customers in the state of Idaho. The Commission has supported the
Company’s no opt-out approach throughout this process.
5.AMI installations began in Idaho in October 2021 and the Company has completed
84,926 meter exchanges. The Company has communicated with customers throughout this process
with letters, emails, and outbound phone calls informing customers of the Company’s AMI
installation process. AMI allows for cost savings by reducing meter reading costs and provides
improved customer service through enhanced information and billing options.
6.On August 16, 2022, the Commission issued Order No. 35504 dismissing the
complaint of Tami Thatcher in Case No. PAC-E-22-09. This complaint requested the ability to
opt-out of AMI installation based on safety claims. The Commission found that the allegations
made against AMI safety went “against well-established evidence on smart meter safety” and that
the Federal Communications Commission has approved smart meters as safe for consumers.1 As
a result, the Commission dismissed the complaint and found that an opt-out option for AMI
installation was not required in that proceeding.2
1 Tami Thatcher v. PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power Company, Case No. PAC-E-22-09, Order No. 35504 at 3 (August 16, 2022). 2 Id.
144144
7.Over the course of the AMI installation project, approximately 160 customers
refused AMI installations for various reasons – primarily due to fears of radio frequency or privacy
of customer data. A team of trained customer service representatives fielded calls from customers
and worked with customers to reach a resolution. The agents explained to customers that the
Company was willing accommodate customers by relocating the meter to a different location of
the property. However, any costs associated with doing so would be at the customer’s expense.
Beginning in December 2022, PacifiCorp employees began working with utilities compliance
investigators from the Commission to resolve issues raised by these customers. In those
investigations, the Company clarified that customers were not allowing the Company to access the
meter for the purposes of AMI installation and were asking the Company representatives to leave
when attempting to exchange the meter. Additionally, the Company expressed a willingness to
continue working directly with these customers to find a resolution. However, keeping their current
meter is not an option for any of our customers in Idaho, and disconnection of service will only be
used as a last resort after proper notice has been provided.
8.The Company successfully addressed the concerns of 110 customers and
exchanged their meters. For the remaining 50 customers, the Company began the noticing
requirements for termination of service under the Utility Customer Relations Rules (“UCRR”) of
the Commission in February of 2023. The UCRR, which was approved by the Commission and
reflected within the Company’s approved tariffs,3 “provide a set of fair, just, reasonable, and non-
discriminatory rules with regard to … termination of service.” According to UCRR 302, the denial
of access to the meter is a ground for termination of service. UCRR 304 and 305 specify the notice
3 Electric Service Regulation No. 10 – Termination of Service and Payment Arrangement.
145145
requirements that a utility must follow before termination of service for failure to grant utility
access to the meter.
9. The Company initially sent a letter (“First Letter”) to the customers, notifying them
of the Company’s inability to access the meter for the AMI installation. A second letter (“Second
Letter”) was sent to explain the customer benefits of the AMI installation and the privacy
protections in place for the meters. A final letter (“Final Letter”), which included the notice
requirements in UCRR 304 and 305, was sent approximately 20-30 days from the date of the
Second Letter. The Second and Third Letters were drafted with input from Commission staff.
Following the delivery of the Final Letter, PacifiCorp employees began delivering doorhangers
notices in person in a final attempt to resolve the customers’ issues before termination of service.
10.On April 21, 2023, the Company received by certified-mail Complainants’
Complaints from the Commission. Complainants’ formal complaints make several allegations:
(a)The Company attempted unlawful intrusion onto Complainants’ property and into
Complainants’ home by way of a wiretapping device. This is referred to as a
“Breach of the Peace” in Case Nos. PAC-E-23-04, PAC-E-23-05, PAC-E-23-06,
and PAC-E-23-08.
(b)The Company used threats, duress, and coercion to induce Complainants to accept
AMI installation with the threat of disconnection. This is referred to as “Attempted
Extortion of complainant’s will” in Case Nos. PAC-E-23-04, PAC-E-23-05, PAC-
E-23-06, and PAC-E-23-08.
(c)The Company is violating its contract with the customer by unilaterally requiring
AMI installation without the authorization of the customer. This is referred to as
“Impairment of Contract” in Case No. PAC-E-23-04, PAC-E-23-05, PAC-E-23-
146146
06, and PAC-E-23-08. In Case No. PAC-E-23-07 the complainant argues that
Electric Service Regulation No. 6 does not apply because the complainant will
allow access to the property but will not allow AMI installation.
(d)The Company is attempting a takeover of Complainants’ private property for
commercial use in reference to AMI installation. This is referred to as “Attempted
Extortion” in Case Nos. PAC-E-23-04, PAC-E-23-05, PAC-E-23-06, and PAC-E-
23-08.
(e)The Company is attempting to illegally wiretap Complainants’ homes and extract
personal and private information without a search warrant. This is referred to as
“Attempted Illegal Wiretapping” in Case Nos. PAC-E-23-04, PAC-E-23-05, PAC-
E-23-06, and PAC-E-23-08.
(f)The Company is threatening with the intent to commit harm by threatening to shut
off electrical power to Complainants’ house since termination could cause severe
physical and emotional harm. This is referred to as “Threat with Intent to Commit
Harm” in Case Nos. PAC-E-23-04, PAC-E-23-05, PAC-E-23-06, and PAC-E-23-
08.
(g)The Company is being reckless by failing to inform Complainants of the actual
dangers of AMI technology. Also, the Company’s behavior is “hazardous
negligence” since the Company is attempting to expose Complainants to the “very
great danger" of AMI technology. This is referred to as “Gross Negligence;
Hazardous Negligence” in Case Nos. PAC-E-23-04, PAC-E-23-05, and PAC-E-
23-06.
147147
(h)The Company has made “a material representation which is knowingly false” about
the safety of AMI. This is referred to as “Actionable Fraud” in Case Nos. PAC-E-
23-04, PAC-E-23-05, and PAC-E-23-06.
(i)The Company “continues to acknowledge their intent to abuse complainant by
negligent infliction of physical pain and mental injury by continuing their strong-
arm intimidation tactics, threats” etc. This is referred to as “Elder Abuse” in Case
Nos. PAC-E-23-04 and PAC-E-23-06.
11.In addition to the allegations listed above, the complainant in Case Nos. PAC-E-
23-11 requests the Company to allow an opt-out option for AMI installation because it is offered
by Idaho Falls Power and Fall River Rural Electric.
12.As of April 27, 2023, no customer has yet to have their service terminated for
refusing AMI installation, although the Company does still plan to pursue termination of service
for customers that fail to allow an AMI meter on their site.
III.ANSWER TO COMPLAINANT’S ALLEGATIONS
13.Rocky Mountain Power operates in compliance with the rules and regulations
approved by the Commission. The Company has followed the applicable rules under the UCRR at
all relevant times in providing notice and seeking to terminate service due to the failure to grant
access to meters for AMI installation. The Company has also sought the input from Commission
staff in the notices contained in the Second and Final Letters sent to customers. The First, Second
and Final Letters are provided with this Answer as Attachment A.
14.Contrary to the allegations in the Complaints, the Company has not used threats,
duress, or coercion to induce Complainants to accept AMI installation, which is the basis for the
allegations of “Attempted Extortion of complainant’s will” and “Elder Abuse.” In the Second
148148
Letter, Rocky Mountain Power requested that customers contact the Company to allow access to
their meters for AMI installation and informed customers that if access was not allowed, the
Company would initiate the termination of service process for their account. The Final Letter also
warned customers that their service would be terminated if the Company were not allowed access.
Both the Final Letter and the Second Letter informed customers of the actions required to avoid
termination of service. Additionally, the Final Letter also stated that “a certificate notifying the
utility of a serious illness or medical emergency in the household may delay termination of service
as prescribed by Rule 308.”
15. The Final Letter and the Second Letter were developed in accordance with the
UCRRs approved by the Commission and were reviewed by Commission staff. These letters
clearly informed customers of the possibility of termination of service if they refused access to the
meter for AMI installation, without including any threats, duress, or coercion. The Complainants’
have failed to provide any evidence that the Company has violated any other rule or law. The
Company is allowed to terminate service of customers who deny the Company access to the meter,
and there is no opt-out option available for such customers in the State of Idaho.4 The Final Letter
further explains that termination may be delayed with a certificate for those with a serious illness.
In certain cases, the Company has discussed alternate options for the customers, such as relocating
the meter to a different location on the property at the customer’s expense. These actions do not
violate any rule or law and are not classified as elder abuse, a “threat with intent to commit harm,”
or extortion as alleged by the Complainants.
4 See Tami Thatcher v. PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power Company, Case No. PAC-E-22-09, Order No. 35504 at 3 (August 16, 2022).
149149
16.The Complaints allege unlawful entry, but customers who receive service from the
Company agree to abide by the Company’s tariff, including Electric Service Regulation No.
6(2)(d) which states:
The Customer shall provide safe, unencumbered access to Company’s representatives at reasonable times, for the purpose of reading meters, inspecting, repairing or removing
metering devices and wiring of the Company.
The Complainants further argue that the Company can access the meter, so they are not in violation
of the tariff. However, the Complainants have also explained, despite physical access to the meter,
that they do not want AMI installation. The Company believes that having a meter that is
physically accessible but where the customer is refusing a meter upgrade is not safe and
unencumbered access as defined in Electric Service Regulation No. 6.
17.Electric Service Regulation No. 7 allows for the Company to “furnish and maintain
all meters and other metering equipment.” The rule does not prohibit the upgrade of any meters.
Electric Service Regulation No. 6 and No. 7 allow for the Company to upgrade its meters and
requires customers to provide physical and actual access to the meters for this process. The
implementation of AMI is an upgrade that allows for cost savings by reducing meter reading costs
and provides improved customer service through enhanced information and billing options.
Therefore, the Company is operating consistent with its approved tariff by requiring access to
meters for AMI installation.
18.Safety is Rocky Mountain Power’s first concern, for customers, the community,
and our employees. The Complainants allege the Company’s behavior is “hazardous negligence”
since the Company is attempting to expose Complainants to the “very great danger and imminent
peril” of AMI technology and the Company has made “a material representation which is
knowingly false” about the safety of AMI meters. While the Company respects our customers’
150150
input and health concerns, we strongly disagree with Complainants’ claim that AMI meters are
unsafe.
19.The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has jurisdiction over the
approval and use of radio frequency devices, including AMI meters. One of the FCC’s roles is to
ensure the safety of equipment that produces radio frequencies. The FCC is required by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, among other laws, to evaluate the effect of emissions
from FCC‐regulated transmitters on the quality of the human environment.
20.Industry research and standards agencies, such as the American National Standards
Institute (“ANSI”) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (“IEEE”) have
compiled the research associated with human exposure of radio frequencies energy and created
guidelines that the FCC and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
have adopted.
21.These standards incorporate frequency of the energy to define maximum
permissible exposure levels (“MPE”) correlated to frequency. The standards are most conservative
at frequencies where the wavelength of the energy is near humans. The FCC defined two
categories: the occupational or controlled environment, intended for workers and other trained
professionals that have the most potential for whole body exposure, and the general public or
uncontrolled environment. The resulting MPE levels incorporated by the FCC into the safety
requirements included a 10:1 safety ratio to account for variations in size, weight, and physical
condition of the person. Therefore, exposure even at 100 percent of the MPE level authorized by
the FCC for the occupational or controlled environment level will not cause physical harm.
151151
22.As a precautionary step for the general public or uncontrolled environment criteria,
the FCC added an additional 5:1 safety factor over the occupational safety level. Thus, the FCC’s
MPE limit for the general public is 50 times less than the level research shows could cause harm.
23.AMI meters emit 100 times less radio frequency density than a laptop computer,
300 times less than a cell phone, and 50,000 times less than standing next to your microwave oven
while it’s in use. All of these devices have been approved by the FCC as safe for human use. In
sum, and consistent with a prior finding of the Commission, the safety allegations in the
Complaints go “against well-established evidence on smart meter safety.”5
24.Complainants also allege that the Company has attempted unlawful intrusion onto
Complainants’ property and into Complainants’ home through the installation of a wiretapping
device, and that Rocky Mountain Power is attempting to illegally wiretap their’ homes in order to
extract personal and private information without a search warrant. The Complainants further allege
the Company is attempting a takeover of Complainants’ private property for commercial use by
installing an AMI meter. However, the Complainants have failed to provide any evidence to
support these allegations. The Company denies these allegations, takes customer data privacy
seriously, and does not engage in the sale of customer data.
25.The Company respectfully requests that the Commission dismiss the Complaints
and not allow an opt-out option for several reasons.
26.First, the Company’s AMI project is not new to the state of Idaho as other public
utilities, such as Idaho Power Company and Avista Corporation, have installed AMI. Instead of
installing AMI meters almost two decades ago, when first available, the Company chose to wait
5 Tami Thatcher v. PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power Company, Case No. PAC-E-22-09, Order No. 35504 at 3 (August 16, 2022).
152152
until it was confident that the technology had fully matured and that AMI meters would exceed all
the Company’s safety and security standards.
27. Second, the Company provided five presentations6 regarding its AMI project to the
Commission, noting in each presentation that there would not be an opt-out option available to
customers in the state of Idaho. The Commission has supported the Company’s no opt-out
approach throughout this process and the Company has already successfully completed 84,926
meter exchanges.
28.Third, previous Commission orders have dismissed complaints pertaining to AMI
meters, and the Commission has upheld the utilities’ installation of AMI meters and disallowed
the complainants’ ability to opt-out of AMI installation. See Thatcher v. Rocky Mountain Power
Company, Case No. PAC-E-22-09, Order No. 35504 (August 16, 2022), Baenen v. Avista
Corporation, Case No. AVU-E-17-11, Order No. 33979 (February 2, 2018), and Menth v. Idaho
Power Company, Case No. IPC-E-12-04, Order No. 32500 (March 27, 2012). Despite previous
complaints, at no time has the Commission ruled that a public utility’s AMI project, which does
not include an opt-out option, violates an administrative rule, order, statute, or applicable provision
of the Company’s tariff.
29.Finally, as noted previously industry research and standards agencies such as ANSI,
IEEE, the FCC, and OSHA have all determined that AMI meters are safe and provide no threat or
harm to the public. The Company has not threatened Complainants by following required noticing
requirements, the Company has not and does not intend to wiretap Complainants’ homes, and the
Company has not violated any contract, rule, or procedure by requiring AMI installations.
6 See Rocky Mountain Power Idaho Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project (December 2018, May 2019, March
2021, October 2022, and March 2023).
153153
30. The Company denies all factual allegations in the Complaint not specifically
admitted herein.
III.MOTION TO DISMISS
31.Rocky Mountain Power incorporates by reference paragraphs 4 through 30 as if set
forth herein.
32.Based on the foregoing, Rocky Mountain Power moves to dismiss the Complaints
under Rule 256 of the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission for failure to
state a claim. The Complaints do not identify any specific administrative rule, order, statute, or
applicable provision of the Company’s tariff that Rocky Mountain Power violated. The Company
has acted in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations in providing notice and seeking
termination of service for customers who refuse access to the meter. Accordingly, the Company
requests that the Commission dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
IV.CONCLUSION
33. The Company respectfully requests that the Commission deny the relief sought in
the Complaints, dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, and not allow an opt-out option for AMI
installation. In the event the Commission dismisses the Complaints, the Company also respectfully
requests that the Commission waive the noticing requirements under Rule 304 and 305 of the
Utility Customer Relations Rules, consistent with the principals of Rule of Procedure 13.7
Complainants have already received the required notices and restarting the process will result in
unnecessary expenses for the Company. Moreover, Complainants may use the notices as a basis
for additional complaints, which will further increase costs and create additional administrative
burden for the Commission.
7 Rule of Procedure 13: (“Unless prohibited by statute, the Commission may permit deviation from these rules when it finds compliance with them is impracticable, unnecessary or not in the public interest.”).
154154
DATED this 10th day of May, 2023.
Respectfully submitted,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
______________________________ Joe Dallas (ISB# 10330) Senior Attorney Rocky Mountain Power
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97232 Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power
155155
ATTACHMENT A
156156
(Customer Name)
(Mailing Address)
(City, State Zip)
Dear (Customer Name):
You can count on us to provide the affordable and consistent power you need. We’re using
state-of-the-art technology to deliver dependable power as we plan for the future.
We were recently in your area to upgrade your existing electric meter, but our installer couldn’t
access the meter base at (Site Address). As required by the Idaho Public Service Commission,
clear and safe access must be available to electric meters for inspection, maintenance, meter
upgrades, and to enable us to respond to any emergencies.
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has reviewed smart meter technology, and the prevailing
scientific research on consumer safety, and concluded that smart meters are allowed in Idaho
without any alternative metering options.
Please call 1-800-895-0631 within 15 days of receiving this letter to resolve any access issues
and set an appointment to have your meter updated. We are happy to answer any questions
you may have regarding the new meter and look forward to working with you.
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
Para más información, llame al 1-888-225-2611 para hablar con un especialista en español.
157157
DATE
(Customer Name)
(Mailing Address)
(City, State Zip)
RE: SECOND NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at {SITE ADDRESS}
Dear (Customer Name):
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. If you are not responsible for the electric service at
the site listed above, please pass this request to the property manager or owner as soon as possible.
Our contractor was refused access to perform a meter exchange at the address listed above. This is our second
written notice. We have also attempted to reach you by telephone. To avoid termination of electric service at
this address, you must contact us at the number provided below.
You are contractually obligated to allow us safe and unencumbered access to our equipment. Meter access is
a condition of electric service, as expressed in the Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s Customer Relation Rules,
namely Electric Service Regulation No. 6, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. Moreover, to the
extent that access was denied because of the type of meter being installed, please be aware that the Idaho
Public Utilities Commission has reviewed smart meter technology, including the prevailing scientific research
on consumer safety, and concluded that smart meters are safe and allowed for all customers in Idaho. If you
would like additional information regarding the electric regulations that governs Rocky Mountain Power’s
operations, review them at the Idaho Commission’s website at puc.idaho.gov.
Our new meters bring with them a host of benefits, enabling our customers to securely –
•View Daily/Hourly/15-Minute interval usage data through your Rocky Mountain Power account
•Set billing thresholds and alerts through our website and mobile application
•Automatically send notifications whenever your power is interrupted and subsequently restored
Rocky Mountain Power will also be able to troubleshoot abnormal electric voltage or current issues on our
lines that could impact the quality of your service. Our meters deliver whole home usage data through a
secure LTE network and do not connect with any additional smart devices installed at your site or external
networks. Your data is safe and no personal information is ever shared with outside parties.
(continued on reverse side)
158158
Page 2
Please contact us at 1-800-895-0631 immediately to resolve access issues and to set an appointment to have
your meter updated. We are happy to answer any additional questions you may have regarding the new
meter and look forward to working with you.
If we do not hear from you within 15 days from the date of this letter to resolve this issue, we will refer your
account to our service disconnection process. We look forward to hearing from you and will always consider it
a privilege to serve you.
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
Para más información, llame al 1-888-225-2611 para hablar con un especialista en español.
159159
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER • OM$ION Ot-MQAC(W'
I.P.U.C. No. I
Second Rt'vision nfShttt No. 6R.I
Cancclint fint Rt'vision ofShttt No. 6R.I
ELECTRIC SERVICE REGULATION NO. 6
STAT£ Of lDAHO
Company's Installation
I.COMPANY'S INSTALLATIONExcepl as otherwise provided in these Regulations, an Elcc,tric Service Agreement, or the ElectricService Schedules, the Company will install and main lain its lines and equipment on its side of the
Point of Delivery, but shall not be required to install or maintain any lines or equipment exceptmeters and accessories beyond that point Only the Company is authorized to make the connections
at the Point ofDdivery. Electric service furnished under this tariff will be alternating current, 60
hertz. single or three-phase. Primary service voltage will be at one of the nominal standard "-ohagesavailable from the Company at or near the Customer's location. Secondary seivic.e voltage will be
limited to:
Single-phase, 120 \'Olts, 2-wire, grounded
Single-phase, 120/240 \.-O)ts, 3-wire, grounded Single-phase, 240/480 \.-O)ts, 3-wire, grounded
Three-phase, 208Y/120 \'Olts, 4-wire, grounded, wye Three-phase, 4WJY/277 \'Olts, 4-wire, grounded, wye
2.COMPANY FACILITIES ON CUSTOMER'S PREMISES
(a)All materials furnished and installed by the Company on the Customer's premises, shall be,
and remain, the property of the Company. The Customer-shall n04 break the Company'smeter seals. In the event of loss or damage to the Company's property, arising from neg.Ject,carelessness, or misuse by the Customer, the cost of necessary repairs or replacement shallbe pa.id by the Customer.
(b)Customer without expense to the Company shall make or procure conveyance to the
Company of satisfactory Rights-of-Way Easements across the property ov.Tied or controlled
by the Customer for the Company's lines or extensions thereof necessary or incidental to thefurnishing of ser.,.ice to the Customer.
(c)The Customer shall pennit safe, aocess to Company's representatives at all hours to mainlainthe Company's eloc,tric distribution facilities. The Customer shall also pennit the Companyto trim trees and other vegetation to the extent necessary to a\'oid interference with the
Company's lines and to protoc,t public safety.
( d)1!1'<,,Cus om<u11iltp,<W,<IQ!f < ." J!n<n<umi><T<d.;a«osQ<>-£' ompo.•Y.Lrcpr<sentnljveQljffiBonntilClimes=--for thc purpose ofl'cooingmeters. 1nspcc mg. rcpamng or rcmcmnmctcnns. devices and w1rins. of the Company
Submitted Under Case No. PAC-E-19-12
ISSUED: September 13, 2019 EFFECTIVE: January 8, 2020
160160
(Customer Name) DATE
(Mailing Address)
(City, State Zip)
RE: FINAL NOTICE: Required Access for Meter Upgrade at (SITE ADDRESS)
Dear (Customer Name):
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. If you are not responsible for the electric service at the site,
please pass this request to the property manager or owner as soon as possible.
As required by 31.21.01 – Customer Relations Rules for Gas, Electric, and Water Public Utilities (“Utility Customer
Relations Rules”) – Rule 304 (Requirements for Notice to Customers Before Termination of Service). This letter will
serve as final notice of termination of electric service, which will occur on (DATE) for failure to provide access as
required under Utility Customer Relations Rules- Rule 302(e). If access to property is acquired prior to this date to enable
Rocky Mountain Power to install an upgraded meter at the site, termination will be canceled.
Please contact us at 1-800-895-0631 if you wish to resolve this issue.
Kind Regards,
Rocky Mountain Power
REQUIRED DISCLOSURES:
IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 31.21.01 Public Utilities Commission Utility Customer Relations Rules 305.
CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO TERMINATE SERVICE (RULE 305). 01. Contents of Notice. The written or oral notice of intent to terminate service required by Rule 304 will state: a. Thereason(s), citing these rules, why service will be terminated and the proposed date of termination.b. Actions the customer may take to avoid termination of service.c. That a certificate notifying the utility of a serious illness or medical emergency in the household may delay terminationas prescribed by Rule 308.d. That an informal or formal complaint concerning termination may be filed with the utility or the Commission, and that
service will not be terminated on the ground relating to the dispute between the customer and the utility before resolutionof the complaint.
The Idaho Public Utility Commission can be reached at 208-334-0369, or 1-800-432-0369, or online at puc.idaho.gov/form/consumerassistance, or by mail at Idaho Public Utilities Commission, P.O. Box 83720, Boise, ID 83720-0074. A copy of the Utility Customer Relation Rules can be found at
https://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/31/312101.pdf
Para más información, llame al 1-888-225-2611 para hablar con un especialista en español.
161161
RECEIVED
2023 May 22, 8:00AM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
162162
As can be seen in Appendix A of the "Answer and Motion to Dismiss", ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWERIPACIFICORP's interpolation was communicated to customers: "as required by the Idaho Public Service Commission 1, clear and safe access must be available to electric meters for inspection, maintenance, meter upgrades, and to enable us to respond to any emergencies" (see first notice, emphasis added). Then, in ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/P ACIFICORP 's final notice, the interpolation reaches maturity as justification under UCRR 302.0l(e) to terminate customers' power for declining a meter upgrade, an assertion ungrounded in the company's tariff. According to paragraph 8 of the "Answer and Motion to Dismiss", about 50 customers who objected to smart
meter upgrades have been strong-armed into receiving the meter against their will due to this
interpolation of Electric Service Regulations No. 6 & 7. Our meter is not damaged, and we have provided company representatives with safe, unencumbered access for the purposes required in Electric Service Regulation No. 6. Yet, ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWERIPACIFICORP has threatened our family with service disconnection because we wish to decline ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's "Advanced Metering
Infrastructure" (AMI) program. Termination of our family's service is not justified by UCRR 302. We seek relief by Idaho Public Utility Commission in the following ways: 1)Decline ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWERIPACIFICORP's motion to dismiss our case "withprejudice".2)Require ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP to correct their interpolation by
updating customers of the correct requirements for "safe, unencumbered access" to utility
meters and wiring.3) Relieve ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP and other public utility companiesserving Idaho of the unreasonable burden of 100% meter upgrades by allowing customers to
opt-out and companies to negotiate alternative metering arrangements.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in remedying this matter as soon as possible in fulfillment of public trust. In the case of pulsed radio frequencies, as used in electric
metering (measuring/trespassing) devices, company profit motives cause a disregard for the health and privacy concerns of a minority of citizens2. We call upon Idaho Public Utility Commission to protect the minority of consumers from "one-size-fits-all" meter upgrades.
Very truly, ��uris 1 Google search "Idaho Public Service Commission" (conducted 5/21/2023) raises top results as links of"Idaho Public Utilities Commission", including https://ballotpedia.org/Idaho Public Utilities Commission, where both terms used.
2 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Brief-and-Addendum-Submitted-9-14.pdf, accessed 5/20/2023 2
163163
ORDER NO. 35849 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 11, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al,
COMPLAINANTS,
vs.
PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER,
RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-
23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07;
PAC-E-23-08; AND PAC-E-23-11
ORDER NO. 35849
Between March 22, 2023, and March 27, 2023, the Commission received six formal
customer complaints (collectively the “Complaints”)1 filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power (“Company”) by the Company’s customers (collectively the “Complainants”).
The Complaints concern the Company’s notification to terminate electric service if customers
refuse to allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters (“AMI meter(s)”) at
their residences.
On April 19, 2023, the Commission issued a Summons directing the Company to file an
answer to the Complaints within 21 days of service. On May 10, 2023, the Company filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss (“Answer”) countering the issues cited in the Complaints and
asking that the Complaints be dismissed with prejudice.
On May 22, 2023, the Commission received five objections to the Company’s request for
dismissal and two “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”2
Having reviewed the record in these cases, we now issue this Final Order dismissing the
Complaints.
THE COMPLAINTS
In their Complaints, the Complainants presented various reasons for not wanting an AMI
meter installed on their property including the age and health of the complainants, a claimed lack
of legal authority allowing the Company to install AMI meters, and concerns over data privacy.
Some Complainants also requested the ability to opt-out of having an AMI meter. Five of the
1 The Complaints were filed by the Company’s electric service customers Jacoba H. van Mastright, Samuel and Peggy
Edwards, Judy Twede, Karen Lane, Christy Armbruster, and Diane Huskinson. The Complainants all appeared pro se.
2 Jacoba H. van Mastrigt and Judy Twede filed the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”
164164
ORDER NO. 35849 2
Complainants refused to have an AMI meter installed on their residence, the sixth provided consent
to allow an AMI meter to be installed but alleged that the consent was unlawfully obtained. Several
of the Complainants presented almost identical “Factual Counts” that allege that the Company: (1)
breached the peace by attempting to install AMI meters on their residence; (2) attempted extortion
of Complainant’s will; (3) impaired contracts; (4) attempted extortion by trying to take over the
Complainant’s private property for commercial use; (5) attempted illegal wiretapping; and (6)
threatened the Complainant’s with intent to commit harm. Some of the complainants allege
additional “Factual Counts” of (1) gross and hazardous negligence; and (2) “actionable fraud.”
Two of the Complainants also alleged the Company was committing elder abuse.3
The Complainants all asserted that they have attempted in good faith to resolve their issues
with the Company regarding the deployment of AMI meters, and the Complainants alleged the
Company is operating in bad faith, and using strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat, duress, and
coercion. See, e.g., Complaint of Jacoba H. van Mastrigt at 1. The Complainants also argued that
they have paid their bills for electric service they receive from the Company on time.
Several of the Complainants argued the Company only has the authority to enter their
properties for specific reasons (i.e., meter reading) and that any other access must be authorized
by the property owner for certain matters including troubleshooting and making repairs to
electrical equipment. The Complainants further claim they do allow the Company to access their
properties to read meters but are not granting the Company access to exchange meters.
COMPANY ANSWER
The Company responded to the Complaints by first describing the notification process it
engaged in and its discussions of alternatives for customers who did not want an AMI meter on
their residences. Then the Company described the allegations and requests made by the
Complainants. Lastly, the Company answered the Complaints lodged against its AMI meter roll-
out and moved to dismiss the Complaints with prejudice.
Communication
The Company represented that it started deploying AMI meters in Idaho in the fall of 2021
and has since completed over 84,000 exchanges. The Company stated that it communicated with
customers during AMI meter deployment with “letters, emails, and outbound phone calls
3 Most of these claims are civil tort claims or criminal. The Commission is not the appropriate body to the extent the
Complaints seek any damages or the imposition of criminal liability.
165165
ORDER NO. 35849 3
informing customers of the Company’s AMI installation process.” Company Answer at 3. The
Company asserted that “AMI allows for cost savings by reducing meter reading costs and provides
improved customer service through enhanced information and billing options.” Id. During the
deployment of the AMI meters, the Company stated that about 160 customers objected to the
installation of AMI meters, and the Company then worked with those customers to reach a
resolution. The Company explained it “was willing accommodate customers by relocating the AMI
[meter] to a different location of the property” at the customer’s expense. Id. at 4. The Company
represented it “expressed a willingness to continue working directly with these customers to find
a resolution. However, keeping their current meter is not an option for any of our customers in
Idaho, and disconnection of service will only be used as a last resort after proper notice has been
provided.” Id. The Company represented that it successfully resolved the concerns of 110 of the
customers who had initially objected, and the Company exchanged those meters. Id.
For the 50 remaining customers, the Company represented that it began to formally notify
them that, pursuant to the Utility Customer Relations Rules (“UCRR”), their service would be
terminated if they continued to refuse the installation of an AMI meter. Id. The Company cited
UCRR 302, IDAPA 31.21.01.302, which allows for termination of service if meter access is
denied, as the Company’s primary argument for its formal process to begin disconnection. Id.
Along with UCRR 302, the Company cited UCRRs 304 and 305, IDAPA 31.21.01.304-.305, for
the notification requirements to disconnect a customer under UCRR 302. Id.
The Company asserted it sent an initial letter (“First Letter”) to the customers who refused
the meter exchange informing them of the Company’s inability to access the meter for a meter
exchange, and the Company followed that letter with additional correspondence (“Second Letter”)
providing an explanation of the benefits and customer privacy protections afforded by AMI meters.
Id. at 5 and 7-8. The Company then sent a final letter (“Final Letter”) notifying customers that their
service would be terminated. The Company also stated that the Second and Final Letters informed
customers, including the Complainants, how to avoid termination of service. Id. The Company
represented that the Final Letter also stated that “a certificate notifying the utility of a serious
illness or medical emergency in the household may delay termination of service as prescribed by
Rule 308.” Id. Finally, the Company stated that its employees began delivering notices in person
and attempting to resolve the issues customers cited regarding AMI meters before it planned on
terminating service. Id. at 8.
166166
ORDER NO. 35849 4
Answer and Motion
The Company: (1) denied all factual allegations in the Complaints that were not admitted
in its Answer; (2) explained its belief that industry standards have determined AMI meters do not
provide a threat of harm to customers; and (3) claimed that the required UCRR notices it sent to
customers who refused access were not threats and the Company did not violate any contract,
procedure, rule or law with its requirement for AMI meter installations. The Company asked the
Commission to dismiss the Complaints with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
The Company denied using “threats, duress, or coercion to induce Complainants to accept
AMI [meter] installation.” Id. at 7. The Company discussed its communication efforts where it
ultimately warned customers that without access to meters, the Company would initiate the
termination process and terminate service if unable to resolve the issue of meter access. The
Company noted that those communications were “developed in accordance with the UCRR’s
approved by the Commission…” and merely warned customers of the possibilities if access was
refused. Id at 8.
The Company maintained that it is allowed to terminate customers’ service if not allowed
to access the meters, and without an opt-out in Idaho, that is the only option available. The
Company stated that it did discuss alternatives available to customers like relocating the new AMI
meter on the customer’s property.
The Company cited Electric Service Regulation (“ESR”) No. 6(2)(d), which provides that
“[t]he Customer shall provide safe, unencumbered access to Company’s representatives at
reasonable times, for the purpose of reading meters, inspecting, repairing or removing metering
devices and wiring of the Company,” and which its customers agree to as a condition of service.
Id. at 9 quoting ESR No. 6(2)(d). The Company disputed the assertion in the Complaints that the
Company does have physical access to the meters stating that “refusing a meter upgrade is not safe
and unencumbered access” under ESR 6(2)(d). Id. Further the Company stated that ESR No. 7
requires the Company “to furnish and maintain all meters and other metering equipment” and does
not prohibit or proscribe a specific type of meter. Id. quoting ESR No. 7.
The Company discussed the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC”) jurisdiction
over devices emitting radio frequency, like AMI meters. The Company represents that the FCC
ensures the safety of these devices pursuant to “the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
among other laws.” Id. at 10.
167167
ORDER NO. 35849 5
The Company also asserted “[i]ndustry research and standards agencies, such as the
American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. (“IEEE”) have compiled the research” concerning exposure to radio frequencies
energy and created guidelines that the FCC and federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration have adopted. Id. The Company stated those standards define the maximum
permissible exposure (“MPE”) standards and the two categories they are assigned to, the controlled
and uncontrolled environments. Id. The uncontrolled environment applies to the general public,
like residential homes, and includes heightened safety requirements by FCC standards. The MPE
for the controlled environment is 5:1, meaning the FCC’s MPE limit for the general public is 50X
less than research shows can cause harm to humans. Id. at 11.
The Company discussed the history of AMI meters in Idaho and represented that the
Company is the last major electric utility to install this infrastructure. The Company noted that
AMI meters first became available almost 20 years ago. The Company cited previous cases for
Avista, Idaho Power, and itself where the Commission dismissed complaints about AMI and/or
denied a request to require public utilities to provide an opt-out provision. Case Nos. PAC-E-22-
09, AVU-E-17-11, and IPC-E-12-04. The Company stated that the Commission has never “ruled
that a public utility’s AMI project, which does not include an opt-out option, violates an
administrative rule, order, statute, or applicable provision of the Company’s tariff.” Id. at 12.
The Company stated the Complaints “do not identify any specific administrative rule,
order, statute, or applicable provision of the Company’s tariff” violated by the Company. Id. at 13.
Further, the Company claimed it acted in compliance with rules and regulations that apply to notice
and termination for complainants’ refusal to grant access to meters.
Objection and Amendments
In their Objection and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (“Objections”), van Mastrigt and
Twede stated that until the Company produces a rule that specifically authorizes termination for
refusing to accept an AMI meter, the Company cannot install the AMI meter or terminate service.
The Objections reiterated several points first addressed in the original Complaints about access,
safety, data acquisition, and trespassing technology. The Objections also argued matters raised in
168168
ORDER NO. 35849 6
the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)” filed by each.4 The Objections also ask the
Commission to address all criminal counts they allege have been committed by the Company.
The Commission received various other documents in response to the Company’s Answer
that essentially restated the same claims from the original Complaints and asked the Commission
to reject the Company’s Motion.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code Title 61 and IDAPA
31.01.01. The Commission is charged with determining all rules and regulations of a public utility
are just and reasonable. Idaho Code § 61-303. The Commission is empowered to investigate rates,
charges, rules, regulations, practices, and contracts of all public utilities and to determine whether
they are just, reasonable, preferential, discriminatory, or in violation of any provisions of law, and
to fix the same by order. Idaho Code §§ 61-501 through 503.
The Commission addresses informal and formal complaints through the process outlined
in its administrative rules and does not provide preferential treatment to any party participating in
the process. IDAPA 31.01.01.054 and .057.02. The Commission has had previous opportunities to
review AMI meter complaints and the prevailing scientific research on customer safety, and in
each instance the Commission has concluded that AMI meters do not pose a risk to the safety and
health of customers, comply with Idaho Code § 61-302, and should be allowed in Idaho. See Case
Nos. IPC-E-12-04, AVU-E-17-11, and PAC-E-22-09. The Commission has also recognized that
the FCC has jurisdiction over what constitutes a safe level of radio frequency radiation that is
permitted by AMI meters, and that the FCC has found it to be safe. See Order No. 35544 at 2. The
Commission has also never required a utility to offer an opt-out for AMI meters.
The Complainants in these cases raise similar claims as those previously reviewed and
decided by the Commission, claims that go against well-established evidence on AMI meter safety
and seek an outcome that is not required under state or federal law. As we have stated previously,
the FCC has jurisdiction over the approval of devices that use radio frequency, like AMI meters,
and the FCC has approved AMI meters as safe for consumer use.
The Commission is authorized to ensure that every public utility furnishes service,
instrumentalities, equipment, and facilities as shall promote the safety, health, comfort, and
4 The “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)” generally allege the same facts and “FACTUAL COUNTS” as
the Complaints.
169169
ORDER NO. 35849 7
convenience of its customers and the public. Idaho Code § 61-302. The Commission is once again
asked to weigh the FCC’s safety approval of the use of AMI meters and similar devices and
withhold the benefits and efficiencies that customers derive from the use of such devices, and the
history of AMI meter use by electric utilities in Idaho, against the claims presented in the
Complaints.
Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted materials, the
Commission finds that the Complainants have not provided evidence to support a finding that AMI
meters present a legitimate safety concern, or that public utilities in Idaho should be required to
provide an opt-out option for AMI meters.
The Commission finds the record demonstrates that the Company and the Complainants
have been in contact with each other about the issues surrounding the Company’s deployment of
AMI meters. The record also shows that the Company intends to replace meters that it owns, and
the Company has complied with the UCRR through its communications with the Complainants.
We find that refusing to allow the Company’s representatives access to replace existing
meters with AMI meters is a violation of the ESR agreed to as a condition of receiving the
Company’s service. ESR No. 6(2)(d) requires Complainants to provide access to the Company
representatives “for the purposes of . . . [among other things] repairing or removing metering
devices . . . .” Under this ESR, the Company may remove the existing meter to replace it with an
AMI meter. If Complainants refuse to allow the Company to remove the Company-owned meters,
they are violating the ESR. Further, ESR No. 7(1) requires the Company to “furnish and maintain
all meters and metering equipment.” When read together, ESR Nos. 6 and 7 require that the
Company provide its customers with the meter and associated metering equipment and requires
the customer to provide the Company with access to the meter to accomplish this. Based on the
foregoing, the Company has the necessary authority to install an AMI meter on the Complainants’
property in its furnishing of electric service as a public utility.
The Commission also finds that the Company has been clear about its willingness to
relocate AMI meters to a different location on the Complainants’ property at the Complainants’
expense if requested to. ESR No. 12 provides information on the Company’s line extension and
relocation policies. The Commission finds that the Complainants have been offered an opportunity
to resolve this matter, and they have chosen not to do so. The Commission finds that the facts in
170170
ORDER NO. 35849 8
these cases do not justify ordering the Company to provide an option to opt-out of receiving an
AMI meter. Accordingly, the Complainants’ Complaints are dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaints filed in the above captioned cases are
dismissed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order regarding any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 11th day of
July 2023.
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_AMI meters_final_dh.docx
171171
RECEIVED
2023 JULY 31, 2023 8:00AM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
To: Jan Noriyuki, Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Date: July 28, 2023
From: Samuel and Peggy Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
RE : Petition to Reconsider Idaho Public Utilities Commission Final Order of Case JD "PAC-E-23-
05" issued on 11 July 2023
Dear Ma'am,
We petition for reconsideration ofldaho Public Utilities Commission's Final Order
dismissing our complaint (case ID "PAC-E-23-05"). Since the Commission packaged six different
complaints submitted from six individual situations, a single Final Order has been issued which
overlooks material substance of our Complaint. Did the Commission read the amicus brief
referenced in my Complaint? This 2021 evidence was provided to the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court to advocate for reasonable accommodation for those electro-sensitive persons who must
otherwise suffer deleterious harm as with our special needs daughter or with the case of Judy
Twede (ID PAC-E-23-06) or sell their house as with the case of Karen Lane (ID PAC-E-23-07).
Legal Clarification:
The Commission finds that "refusing to allow the Company 's representatives access to
replace existing meters with advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) meters is a violation of [ESR
No. 6(2)(d)] agreed to as a condition ofreceiving the Company's service." Is declining
replacement of our meter with a meter of substantively different capability equivalent to denying
access to the meter, per UCRR 302? Where is the law that authorizes ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP to disconnect our electric power?
We contest that the AMI meters represent a substantive change of metering capability to
r,esidents' electric meters, and that changes of capability are different in nature from the activities
of "furnish and maintain all meters and metering equipment". Whereas AMI advances certain
advanced wireless and monitoring capabilities, smart meters lack surge protection and from this
perspective must be recognized as a downgrade when compared to electromechanical metering. In
our case, the AMI initiative would be a change of metering capability against our will,
demonstrating that residents have no recognized voice in the metering technology that is attached
to our home.
By allowing no opt-outs in Idaho, AMI meters are not just an allowance, but a requirement
for utility service. Qui bona: who benefits from requiring l 00% of Idahoans to receive their
electric utilities through AMI meters? Why is 99.812% voluntary AMI upgrades (as reported in
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP "Motion to Dismiss") not "just and reasonable"
benefit to Company profit motives (efficiencies) and public infom1ation benefits so that the
Commission must ignore the safety, health, comfort and convenience of a tiny minority of the
172172
public? By not allowing opt-out, the Commission has made disconnection the only option for a medically sensitive minority of the public, as emphasized by the Company. (see Final Order, pg 4)
Evidence of a legitimate safety concern: "The Commission is once again asked to weigh ... the claims presented in the Complaints." Since the Commission has "reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted
materials" and yet "finds that the Complainants have not provided evidence to support a finding that AMI meters present a legitimate safety concern," therefore we infer that the Commission does not read references and provides only summary consideration uf our Complaints: just under a page in the Final Order, as compared with three pages reviewing the Company's Answer. The aforementioned amicus brief is therefore enclosed as an addendum to this petition for
reconsideration. It has been referenced (as a footnote) in multiple of our previous communications and expresses several salient facts and inferences regarding safety concerns which justify a reasonable accommodation from the AMI initiative. A more complete list of published research findings pertaining to AMI metering was included in our letter to Mr. Gary Hoogeveen (Rocky Mountain Power CEO) of 02/16/2023 which was included with our Complaint. •On August 13, 2021, a divided D.C. Circuit panel found that the FCC's decision notto revisit its 1996 limits on Radio Frequency (RF) exposure was "arbitrary andcapricious" because it did not adequately respond to evidence in the administrativerecord to determine whether the FCC's guidelines "adequately protect against theharmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer."(USCA Case #20-1025, aka Guidelines Remand)•FCC guidelines cannot be a basis for any conclusions regarding RF safety includingfor smart meters. No proper review was conducted by any of the responsible federalagencies regarding non-cancer harm from exposure to radiation levels below theFCC's guidelines. (Amicus Brief, pg 11)•The human body responds to pulsed RF radiation, even at non-thermal levels.Doctors routinely use pulsed RF/EMF for medical treatment and chronic exposurecan lead to significant health problems, including oxidative stress. (ibid, pp 13-14)•FCC has also admitted there are neurological harms from RF exposures, at least inthe range of 3 Hz and 10 MHz, including adverse neural stimulation effects such asperception of tingling, shock, pain, or altered behavior. "These harms occurinstantaneously, which means the FCC's current method of averaging exposurelevels over 30 minutes -which completely obscures pulsation effects -is entirelyinappropriate." (ibid, pp 140-141)•Pulsed RF emissions from the smart meter's transmitting antenna not only enter thehouse wirelessly but also enter into and are conducted along the house's electricalwiring. Other RF frequencies besides the RFs from the transmitting antennas alsoenter the house electric system. These RFs are a byproduct of the AC/DCconversion process done in the Switch Mode Power Supply (SMPS). Pulses canoccur up to 150,000 times per second ( or 150 KHz), creating observed noise spikes
imposed on the 60 Hz house electricity wave. These frequencies are present all thetime but are worse when less electricity is being used and when the smart meterneeds more power (e.g. during RF transmissions). Smart and digital meters createpulsed RF emissions transmitted through the entire home's electric system. (ibid, pp174-175)•"Unlike wireless smart meters and digital meters, analog meters do not contain anSMPS or other electronic components that create unintended RF frequencies. NoAC/DC conversion is necessary, and unlike smart and digital meters, analog meters
2
173173
(<$100 value) have a separate wired grounding rod that eliminates much of the
"noise" that may come from the energy feed." (ibid, pp 176-177) •Over 90% of studies on RF and oxidative stress have established that indeed
exposure to RF/EMFs (Electro-magnetic fields) induces an increase in free radicals,and chronic exposure causes oxidative stress which leads to several adverse health
effects: disease, dysfunction, including electro-sensitivity, cancer, and DNA
damage. (ibid, pg 145)•"Anyone who claims smart meters cannot produce the symptoms described by the
customers is ignorant of the FCC's recent admission. They either do not understandor are misrepresenting the science on biological and adverse effects from pulsed
RF/EMF. Many have reported getting ill following the installation of these smart
meters. Considering the way smart meters operate and the multitude of complex
emissions they create, it is no wonder. Forcing these meters on people who havebecome affected by RF/EMF is unconscionable. Those with Electro-sensitivity and
others who are affected by RF /EMF must be allowed to secure analog metersbecause it is the only type of meter th'at does not cause or worsen their condition."
(ibid, pg 160)•See also discussions covering "federal government recognizes electro-sensitivity;federal and state law requires effectiye accommodation" (ibid, pp 20-27) and that
the "only reasonable and effecti_v'e accommodation is analog meter." (ibid, pp 31-33)
Where there is danger1 there must be choice .. We call upon the Commission to offer a
reasonable accommodation to objecting customers in the form of an electromechanical meter (value <$100). Specifically, we petition that ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/ PACIFICORP be ordered to replace our digital meter with an electromechanical meter.
Thank you for granting some of the relief requested in our Objection by declining ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP's motion to dismiss our case "with prejudice". We asked the
other Complainants to not file a petition for reconsideration to reduce the confusion or
generalization which has been caused while the Commission simultaneously considered multiple Complaints. Other Complainants with whom we've been able to speak are also interested in a clear
response to a single Petition for Reconsideration. We hope that the Commission will now answer our Legal question and carefully review the evidence provided which supports "a finding that AMI
meters present a legitimate safety concern, and that public utilities in Idaho should be required to
provide an opt-out option for AMI reters."
Very truly,
Samuel Z. Edwards, Sui Juris
Witness to signature #1 Witness to signature #2
3
174174
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
Appellee
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSION,
: : : : :
:
Appellee
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,
: : : : : :
ALBRECHT, Appellees v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,
: : : : : :
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
APPEAL OF: PECO ENERGY
:
: : : : : :
175175
LAURA SUNSTEIN MURPHY
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
APPEAL OF: PECO ENERGY
: : : : : : :
ALBRECHT
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
APPEAL OF: PECO ENERGY
: : : : : : :
:
Cross-Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Appellee
: : : : : : :
Cross-Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,
: : : : : :
176176
CYNTHIA RANDALL AND PAUL ALBRECHT, Cross-Appellants v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,
: : : : : :
Cross-Appellant v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, PECO ENERGY COMPANY,
: : : : : :
Cross-Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, PECO ENERGY COMPANY,
:
: : : : : :
ALBRECHT,
Cross-Appellants
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, PECO ENERGY COMPANY,
:
: : : : : : :
177177
BRIEF OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, AND BUILDING BIOLOGY INSTITUTE, ET AL AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS “CUSTOMERS”
Brief of Amicus Curiae Supporting the Appellees/Cross-Appellant “Customers” in
the Appeals from the Commonwealth Court’s October 8, 2020 Order at Docket
Nos. 492 C.D. 2019, 606 C.D. 2019, and 607 C.D. 2019, which affirmed in part,
reversed and remanded in part, and vacated and remanded in part the
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s Opinion and Orders entered at Docket
Nos. C-2015-2475023, C-2015-2475726, and C-2016-2537666
Andrea L. Shaw (ID 89333) Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw, P.C.

-243-7135
-243-7872
Children’s Health Defense 48 Dewitt Mills Road 1227 North Peachtree Pkwy, Suite 202
Peachtree City, GA 30269
NY Bar No. 1999994
[e-mail]
TEL: [phone]
W. Scott McCollough*McCollough Law Firm, P.C.2290 Gatlin Creek Rd.Dripping Springs, TX 78620Texas Bar No. 13434100
[e-mail]
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
*Pro hac vice motion pending
178178
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
I.IDENTIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI
CURIAE...................................................................................................................... 1
II.STATEMENT OF SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................... 4
III.STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................................... 8
IV.SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................... 8
V.ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................10
A.Guidelines Remand Decision ......................................................................10
B.Medical, Scientific and Engineering/Technical Information ......................11
C.FCC Admits Adverse Effects ......................................................................18
D.Pulsed RF Affects at Least Some People ....................................................19
E.The Federal Government Recognizes Electro-Sensitivity; Federaland State Law Requires Effective Accommodation ............................................20
1.CDC, U.S. Justice Department and Other Agencies Recognize
Electro-sensitivity Can Lead to Major Life Impairments Requiring
Accommodation ...............................................................................................21
2.ADA, FHA, Rehabilitation Act and PHRA Require
Accommodations to Disabled/Handicapped Individuals Who Would beNegatively Affected by a Smart Meter ............................................................23
3.The PUC is Bound by ADA Title II, the FHA and PHRA; PECO isBound by the FHA and the Rehabilitation Act ................................................25
F.The PUC’s “Burden of Proof” is Inconsistent with the Disabilitylaws 28
1.PUC Applied Wrong Standard .................................................................28
2.Burden of Proof Inconsistent With Disabilities Laws .............................29
VI.Only Reasonable and Effective Accommodation is Analog Meter ...............31
A.Placement in Yard is Not Reasonable Accommodation .............................32
B.Placement in Yard Does Not Eliminate Harmful RF “Noise” in
House....................................................................................................................32
179179
VII.CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................33
APPENDIX ..............................................................................................................36
LIST OF ADDITIONAL AMICI CURIAE ..........................................................36
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................59
CERTIFICATION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ..................................60
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................61
ADDENDUM .......................................................................................................... 62
Physicians Statement …………………………………………….. ................... 64
Scientists Statement ……………………………………………. .................... 136
Engineer Report ………………………………………………… ................... 168
Building Biologist Institute Report ……………………………. .................... 184
180180
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Cases
Astralis Condo. Ass’n v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 620 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................... 29
Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. DOJ, 355 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004) .......................................... 29
Crissman v. Dover Downs Entm’t Inc., 289 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2002) ..................... 24
Dodge v. Comptroller of the Currency, 744 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................... 8
Envtl. Health Tr., et al v. FCC, Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138, 2021 U.S. App.
LEXIS 24138 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021) ............................................................... 2
Friedman v. Cent. Me. Power Co., No. 2:20-cv-00237-JDL, 2021 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 62585 (D. Me. Mar. 31, 2021) ..................................................... 29, 31, 32 Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974) ............................................... 24 Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S.Ct. 2400 (2019) ...................................................................... 7 Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982) .......................................................... 24
Theriault v. Flynn, 162 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1998) ....................................................... 29
Federal Statutes
29 U.S.C. §794 ......................................................................................................... 25
42 U.S.C. §§3613 ..................................................................................................... 27
42 U.S.C. §12101 ..................................................................................................... 24
42 U.S.C. §12102 ..................................................................................................... 24
42 U.S.C. §12112 ..................................................................................................... 29
42 U.S.C. §3601 ....................................................................................................... 24 42 U.S.C. §3631 ....................................................................................................... 27
Federal Administrative Rules
24 C.F.R. §100.400 .................................................................................................. 25 28 C.F.R. §35.108 .................................................................................................... 29 28 C.F.R. §35.130 .................................................................................................... 24
28 C.F.R. §36.101 .................................................................................................... 29
28 C.F.R. §36.105 .................................................................................................... 24
28 CFR Appendix A to Part 36 - Guidance on Revisions to ADA Regulation
on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities ...................................................... 30 Architectural Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Final Rule, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; Recreation Facilities, 67 Fed. Reg. 56352, 56353 (Sept. 3, 2002) ...................................................................................................... 21
181181
Part 36, Appendix C - Guidance to Revisions to ADA Title II and Title III Regulations Revising the Meaning and Interpretation of the Definition of “Disability” and Other Provisions in Order to Incorporate the Requirements of the ADA Amendments Act ...................................................... 30
State Cases
Clay v. Advanced Comput. Applications, 522 Pa. 86, 559 A.2d 917 (1989) ........... 26
Crown Castle NG E. LLC v. Pa. PUC, 234 A.3d 665 (Pa. 2020) ............................. 4
Lazer Spot, Inc. v. Pa. Human Rels. Comm’n, 184 A.3d 200 (Pa. Commw.
Ct. 2018) ............................................................................................................... 29
Phila. Elec. Co. v. Human Rels. Comm’n, 5 Pa. Commw. 329, 290 A.2d 699
(1972 .................................................................................................................... 26 Popowsky v. Pa. PUC, 910 A.2d 38 (Pa. 2006) ........................................................ 7 Povacz v. Pa. PUC, 241 A.3d 481, 491 & n13 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020) ................ 10
Federal Agency Decisions
Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rule Regarding Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, 34 FCC Rcd 11687 (2019) ........... 18, 19
State Statutes
1 Pa.C.S. §1921 .......................................................................................................... 9
1 Pa.C.S. §1922 ........................................................................................................ 10
43 Pa. Stat. Ann. §951.............................................................................................. 24
State Administrative Rules
16 Pa.Code §45.9 ..................................................................................................... 25 52 Pa. Code Chapter 57, Subchapter O ..................................................................... 7 6 Pa.Code §44.4 ....................................................................................................... 24
State Administrative Decisions
Catherine J. Frompovich v. PECO Energy Company, Docket No. C-2015-2474602, 2018 Pa. PUC LEXIS 160 (Pa. P.U.C. May 3, 2018) ........................... 6
Catherine J. Frompovich v. PECO Energy Company, Docket No. C-2015-
2474602, Initial Decision (May 11, 2017),
https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1522025.pdf ....................................................... 6
Edward Lucey v. Metropolitan Edison Company, Docket No. C-2018-3003679, 2020 PA. PUC LEXIS 522 (Pa. P.U.C. October 8, 2020) ................... 26
182182
Letter of Notification of Philadelphia Electric Company Relative to the Reconstructing and Rebuilding of the Existing 138 kV Line to Operate as the Woodbourne-Heaton 230 kV Line in Montgomery and Bucks Counties 1992 Pa. PUC LEXIS 160 (Pa. P.U.C., No. A-110550F0055, filed Mar. 26, 1993) .............................................................................................................. 28
Negley v. Metropolitan Edison Company, Docket No. C-2010-2205305,
2010 Pa. PUC LEXIS 1919 (Pa. P.U.C. December 15, 2010) .............................. 5
Other Authorities
154 Cong. Rec. S8842 (daily ed. Sept. 16, 2008) (Statement of the
Managers) ............................................................................................................. 29
FCC OET Bulletin 56 .............................................................................................. 13 International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM), https://icd10cmtool.cdc.gov/ ................................. 21 National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Final Report (July 14, 2005) ......................................................... 22 The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division - Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Technical Assistance Manual Covering State and
Local Government Programs and Services .......................................................... 27
183183
I.IDENTIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICICURIAE1
Children’s Health Defense (“CHD”) is a national non-profit 501(c)(3)
organization. CHD has no parent corporation. No publicly-held company has a
10% or greater ownership interest.
CHD’s mission is to end the epidemic of children’s chronic health
conditions by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures to
environmental toxins via education, to obtain justice for those already injured and
to promote protective safeguards. The emissions from pulsed radio-frequency (RF)
based wireless technologies including from Wi-Fi, cell towers and smart meters are
a major contributory factor in the growing epidemic of sickness among adults and
children. Many CHD members and their children are sick from wireless
technology and are adversely affected by smart meters. For some, the exposure
aggravates other conditions. We are approached daily by adults and children who
have become sick and ask for our help.
In May 2020, 6,231 people who declared that they and/or their children are
sick from wireless joined a CHD submission to the FCC. 182 of them were from
1 No person or entity other than the named amici, their members or counsel has (i)
paid in whole or in part for the preparation of this brief; or (ii) authored in whole or
in part this brief.
184184
Pennsylvania.2 The decision in this case will directly affect CHD and its
Pennsylvania members. The court’s decision will also affect nationwide policy and
therefore, our members throughout the country.
We also have taken legal action to protect the injured. Most recently, on
August 13, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit ruled for CHD and other petitioners in a case challenging the FCC’s 2019
decision affirming the adequacy of its RF guidelines for public health purposes.
Envtl. Health Tr., et al v. FCC, Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS
24138 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021) (Guidelines Remand). The court held that the
FCC decision denying non-cancer harm was arbitrary, capricious and not evidence
based. This decision is highly relevant to the issues before the Court. See Part V.A.
Building Biology Institute
The Building Biology Institute (“BBI”) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation
now in its twenty-eighth operating year. BBI does not have a parent corporation.
No publicly-held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest.
BBI’s mission is to help meet the public demand for proven methods that
secure homes, schools and workplaces from toxins including RF radiation (RFR).
BBI’s experts work with doctors and patients to remediate exposures in patients’
homes. They are on the ground, seeing widespread sickness from RFR exposure.
2 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/105191672708448.
185185
They have witnessed the effects of smart meters and the tremendous health
improvements after these meters are removed. BBI’s experts are critical in
addressing electro-sensitivity and RF related injuries.3
Seventy-nine (79) other health and environmental organizations promoting
safe-tech, join in this Amicus. They are further described in the Appendix.
All Amici have local, national and global experience and expertise relating to
the underlying and broader legal, technical, scientific, medical issues before the
Court. Even more important, Amici see – every day – the enormous difficulty faced
by individuals who, for whatever reason, simply cannot tolerate the radiation
emitted from pulsed radio-frequency based wireless technologies including smart
meters.
3https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/assets/pdf/environmental/Preliminary%20
Clinical%20Guidelines%20%20for%20EHS.pdf#page=8.
186186
II.STATEMENT OF SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Amici adopt the “Customers” Statement of Scope and Standard of Review,
but provide this supplement:
“While this Court has never expressly adopted the federal Chevron
approach, we have recognized that ‘[t]he Chevron approach to such cases at the
federal level, however, is indistinguishable from our own approach to agency
interpretations of Commonwealth statutes.’” Crown Castle NG E. LLC v. Pa. PUC,
234 A.3d 665, 679 n.11 (Pa. 2020). Chevron and this Court’s jurisprudence both
require that the PUC’s interpretation be granted little to no deference, for several
reasons.
The first reason is simple: the statute is unambiguous4 and therefore no
deference is due. Crown Castle, 234 A.3d at 677-78 (Pa. 2020). The
Commonwealth Court correctly held (p.13) that “nothing in the language of Act
129 facially requires every customer to endure involuntary exposure to RF
emissions from a smart meter.”
Section 807(f)(2) could not be clearer:
(f)Smart meter technology and time of use rates.…. (2)Electric distribution companies shall furnish smart meter technologyas follows:
4 PUC Br. pp. 8, 16-19 and Energy Association Amicus at pp. 13-15 so contend.
187187
(i)Upon request from a customer that agrees to pay the cost of the smartmeter at the time of the request.5
(ii)In new building construction.(iii)In accordance with a depreciation schedule not to exceed 15 years.”[emphasis added].
Smart Meter Implementation Order Para B.4 contains the PUC’s entire
analysis: “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.’” See also, Negley v. Metropolitan Edison
Company, Docket No. C-2010-2205305 pg. 4-5, 2010 Pa. PUC LEXIS 1919, *6
(Pa. P.U.C. December 15, 2010). The PUC therefore contends that the legislature
intended to mandate ubiquitous, non-optional deployment when it required a 15-
year depreciation schedule in Section 807(f)(2)(iii).
The conclusion does not follow. The statute’s provision requiring a 15-year
depreciation schedule says (and implies) nothing about mandatory placement. It
just means that whatever capital investment is required to obtain enough meters to
satisfy customer demand must be depreciated over 15 years. Utilities routinely
5 The legislative history confirms that the legislation was not intended to require placement. House Bill 2200 as passed would have obtained that result. But the Senate deleted the relevant House language and substituted the current language.
The House then concurred. The authors of the Senate changes stated that one of
their specific intentions was to allow customers to choose whether to obtain a
smart meter and make placement not mandatory. See Sen. Journal, Oct. 8, 2008 at
2626-27 (Remarks of Senators Tomlinson and Boscola).
188188
make capital investments for utility plant that does not directly affect every
ratepayer. All such investments are recovered through depreciation expense until
fully recovered. Depreciation concerns how overall rates are set and has nothing to
do with the utility’s customer rules. See, e.g., Pa. Power & Light Co. v. Pa. Pub.
Util. Com., 10 Pa. Commw. 328, 311 A.2d 151 (1973). The reliance on that part of
Act 129 was misplaced.
The PUC’s brief interpretive analysis in the Smart Meter Implementation
Order did not address the far more relevant and truly unambiguous language in
807(f)(2)(i). This provision clearly contemplates an individual customer request
and commitment to pay the cost. The PUC has admitted that “[a] plain reading of
the statute may suggest that there is an ‘opt-in’ or ‘opt out’ available.” Catherine J.
Frompovich v. PECO Energy Company, Docket No. C-2015-2474602, Initial
Decision p. 24 (May 11, 2017), https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1522025.pdf,
adopted, Catherine J. Frompovich v. PECO Energy Company, Docket No. C-
2015-2474602, 2018 Pa. PUC LEXIS 160 (Pa. P.U.C. May 3, 2018), but it insists
on not following the plain reading in favor of a strained interpretation of a different
subsection that has nothing to do with the question.
Second, the Commission’s interpretation of Act 129 has admittedly been
officially held and consistent, but it did not arise from rulemaking procedures. The
Commission first reached its conclusion that Act 129 contemplates mandatory
189189
deployment with no opt-out in Smart Meter Procurement and Installation, Docket
No. M-2009-2092655, 2009 Pa. PUC LEXIS 265, 274 P.U.R.4th 238 (Order
entered June 24, 2009) (Smart Meter Implementation Order). That proceeding did
not employ formal rulemaking processes or conclude with a legislative rule or
regulation.6 The PUC’s reading is an interpretive rule. Crown Castle, 234 A.3d at
667-678.7 The Commission’s reading of Act 129 is at best entitled to Skidmore-
type deference (muddled as that federal doctrine may be) and resolution requires
recourse to basic statutory construction tools. Crown Castle, 234 A.3d at 694
(Wecht, J. Concurring), citing Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S.Ct. 2400, 2415-2416 (2019).
Third, agencies do not receive Chevron-type deference when an agency
claims its organic statute overrides other statutory provisions entirely outside the
statute the Commission is charged with administering, especially when, as is the
case with the ADA, FHA and PHRA, they are administered by several agencies.
The court “must decide for [itself] the best reading.” Dodge v. Comptroller of the
Currency, 744 F.3d 148, 155 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
6 This distinguishes Popowsky v. Pa. PUC, 910 A.2d 38 (Pa. 2006), which involved a legislative rule.
7 The only extant legislative rules or regulations on the topic of Advanced
Metering Deployment clearly contemplate voluntary customer participation and
customer-driven selection of the particular meter to be used. See 52 Pa. Code
Chapter 57, Subchapter O. These legislative rules predate Act 129, but have not
been repealed or amended.
190190
III.STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Amici adopt the Statements of Questions Presented set forth in the
“Customers’” Briefs.
IV.SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
1.Smart meter deployment has been allowed and considered safe
because the meters comply with the Federal Communications Commission
(“FCC”) radiofrequencies exposure guidelines. As a result of the Guidelines
Remand ruling, the FCC guidelines can no longer be relied on for an assurance of
safety as to non-cancer harm and harm to the environment. Further, the FCC has
now admitted to an adverse neurological response and symptoms similar to those
suffered by people with electro-sensitivity.
2.Knowledge has significantly advanced in the five years since 2016
when the administrative record below was created. It is now quite clear exposure
can lead to negative health effects. Those who suffer an RF-related impairment
must be afforded reasonable accommodation.
3.The PUC’s interpretation is wrong. First, the statute cannot be read
to contain a universal mandate; it clearly envisions customer consent. Second,
regardless of the legislature’s word choice the state cannot lawfully force a
customer to accept a smart or digital meter when mandatory installation results in
disability discrimination, exacerbates existing impairments or forces people to
191191
abandon their home. There must be effective accommodation. Third, neither the
Commission nor the utility can or should second-guess an attending physician’s
finding of impairment and the need for RFR avoidance. That too is prohibited by
disability laws.
4.The impaired cannot be required to endure an interminable and
expensive proceedings that requires them to meet an irrelevant and almost
impossible evidentiary burden when the accommodation itself costs less than
$100. Disability laws flatly prohibit imposing this burden. The rule is simple:
accommodation in the form of an analog meter is required if a customer presents
a professional assessment of impairment and a need for RF avoidance.
5.The Court can dispose of this case without directly wading into
health effects. All that is required is a holding that Act 129 does not mandate
smart meter placement absent customer consent. This outcome results from both
the unambiguous terms in the legislation and proper application of statutory
interpretation, including but not limited to “the consequences of a particular
interpretation.” 1 Pa.C.S. §1921(6).
6.If it does reach the health issues, the Court should ensure that those
with electro-sensitivity receive accommodation in the form of an analog meter.
Any reading that requires an impaired customer to accept a smart or digital meter
will conflict with other state and federal laws. 1 Pa.C.S. §1922(3) states that
192192
legislation should not be interpreted in a way that renders the provision
unconstitutional. Thus, Act 129 cannot be interpreted to obtain a result that
would conflict with the rights, remedies and venue provisions in other state or
federal disability laws. These other laws require reasonable accommodation in
the form of an analog meter.
V. ARGUMENT
A.Guidelines Remand Decision
The Guidelines Remand is highly relevant to this case. The PUC decisions
below extensively relied on the FCC’s guidelines as part the “safety” findings.
Murphy Order, p. 68 and 84-85, R.197a and 213a-14a. The utility did so as well.
PECO Br. 1, 4, 6, 26-28, 34.8
As the Guidelines Remand court noted, the FCC’s emissions limits do not
satisfactorily consider electro-sensitivity9 or the effects of pulsation and
modulation10 used by wireless technologies (like smart meters).11 The FCC
8 The Commonwealth Court disclaimed any such reliance, Povacz v. Pa. PUC, 241 A.3d 481, 491 & n13 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020), but the PUC and utilities’ briefseach rely on the FCC guidelines.
9 2021 U.S.App.LEXIS 24134 at *10-*14.
10 2021 U.S.App.LEXIS 24134 at *29-*30.
11 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Corrected-Brief-and-
Hyperlinks-Table-Postable-pdf-A1.pdf#page=58.
193193
guidelines cannot be a basis for any conclusions regarding RF safety including for
smart meters, yet that is a primary foundation for the PUC’s conclusions below.
The case exposed that no proper review was conducted by any of the
responsible federal agencies regarding non-cancer harm from exposure to radiation
levels below the FCC’s guidelines.12 The petitioners in that case filed 11,000 pages
of evidence of non-thermal harm including of electro-sensitivity; neurological
effects; humans’ biological response to pulsation and modulation; and effects of
smart meters.13 The court ruled the FCC erroneously dismissed this extensive
evidence without adequate explanation14 and remanded the decision to the FCC to
conduct a review and provide reasoned explanations.15
B.Medical, Scientific and Engineering/Technical Information
To support their arguments, Amici are providing:
(1) A Statement by 57 physicians who combined have over 3,000
patients suffering from electro-sensitivity like the “customers,” or other
conditions aggravated by RF exposure. The physicians explain recent
12 2021 U.S.App.LEXIS 24134 at *14-*20.
13 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Corrected-Brief-and-
Hyperlinks-Table-Postable-pdf-A1.pdf.
14 2021 U.S.App.LEXIS 24134 at *13-*14, *24-30.
15 2021 U.S.App.LEXIS 24134 at *43-*45.
194194
medical developments, diagnosis guidelines and the effects of smart meters
on their patients.16
(2)A Statement by scientists with expert knowledge of pulsed RFR
effects. Combined they published hundreds of studies on RF/EMF effects
and reviewed thousands. They explain recent developments and the
scientific evidence as it applies to smart meters. They emphasize that smart
meters generated pulsed RF is a significant harm agent.17
(3)An expert engineer Report addressing smart meters’ operation.
This report explains how smart meters generate constant RF pulses that are
also conducted through electrical wiring, thereby creating a whole-home
antenna.18
(4) A Report by the Building Biology Institute’s President. BBI’s
experts work with the injured to mitigate their homes from RF exposure.
They see the torture smart meters cause to those who are affected and the
health transformations after the smart meter is removed. The Report also
explains why it is impossible to sufficiently mitigate homes with smart or
16 Addendum Physicians Statement¶¶17-42.
17 Addendum Scientists Statement, ¶¶13-25.
18 Addendum Engineer Report, ¶¶9-17.
195195
digital meters and concludes that the only reasonable accommodation is a
$100 analog meter.19
The Engineering and Science experts explain how pulsation injects RF
“bursts” or turns the signal on/off.20 The FCC emissions guidelines protect only
from emissions that are so high they create a heating or “thermal effect.”21 They do
not protect or recognize biological responses to non-thermal pulsed and modulated
RF emissions.22 The problem is that the factual premise – the non-existence of
non-thermal biological and adverse effects – underlying the current RF guidelines
is outdated and demonstrably false. This was one of the major drivers behind the
Guidelines Remand decision. 2021 U.S.App.Lexis 24138 *10-*12, *30.
Despite the claims by the utilities and the PUC, there is no doubt the human
body responds to pulsed RF radiation, even at non-thermal levels. The FCC has
now agreed. Doctors routinely use pulsed RF/EMF for medical treatment because
they generate biological responses.23 With chronic exposure these biological
19 Addendum BBI Report at ¶¶27-34.
20 The utility’s witnesses assert the meters do not employ pulsation, but they do so by mischaracterizing what a “pulse” is. It is uncontested that the meters are not in constant communications mode, so they obviously turn on and off. That is “pulsation.”
21 FCC OET Bulletin 56, at 6-7 (August 1999), available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5mbsymn.
22 See Scientists’ Statement for expiation of RF basics ¶¶1-4.
23 Scientists Statement ¶43.
196196
responses can lead to significant health problems.24 The mechanisms of harm from
RF exposure that transforms these biological effects into adverse effects are also
known and include oxidative stress.25, 26 These adverse effects can rise to the level
of functional impairment. For some they are life-threatening.27
Since 2016, the scientific and medical consensus regarding non-thermal
harms has become even more conclusive.28 In January 2021 the Swiss
government’s expert advisory committee on EMF and non-ionizing radiation,
BERENIS,29 concluded an evaluation of the scientific literature on non-thermal
RF/EMF.30 The committee’s paper concludes that exposure could cause or worsens
several chronic illnesses and acknowledged oxidative stress as the underlying
causal harm mechanism.
24 Scientists Statement ¶¶7-11.
25 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-golomb-
diplomats-3.pdf.
26 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2015-yakymenko-oxidative-stress.pdf; https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/3-RFR-Free-Radical-Oxidative-Damage-Abstracts-2020.pdf.
27 Physicians Statement ¶¶14, 26, 40.
28 Scientists Statement ¶¶13-31; Physicians Statement ¶¶16-20, 27-32.
29 https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/electrosmog/newsletter-of-the-
swiss-expert-group-on-electromagnetic-fields-a/beratende-expertengruppe-nis-
berenis.html.
30https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-swiss-berenis-2021-
report.pdf.
197197
In 2020, New-Hampshire’s legislative-appointed committee investigated 5G
and wireless harms and published findings. It concluded that non-thermal harms
are established, acknowledged electro-sensitivity and stressed the need for
accommodations.31
Electro-sensitivity is a condition whereby the patients manifest a
constellation of mainly neurological symptoms after RFR exposure. The scientific
literature recites a host of symptoms, including headaches, memory and cognitive
problems, sleep problems, heart palpitations and/or increased heart rate, ringing in
the ears, exhaustion, skin rashes, tingling, nose bleeds, dizziness, and burning
sensations.32 RF exposure has been directly connected to these symptoms in
hundreds of studies.33 Official diagnosis guidelines have existed since 2011.34
31 New Hampshire is the only US state that has conducted an independent investigation as to the harms of these technologies.
32 Note the overlap with the FCC’s 2019 list of symptoms in FCC RF/EMF
Proposed Changes, 34 FCC Rcd at 11744, ¶122, n.328. Part V.C.
33 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-golomb-
diplomats-3.pdf; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-
neurological-lai-book-chapter.pdf; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-
content/uploads/rf-2014-electrosensitivity-dr-blythe.pdf.
34 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2011-austrian-medical-
association-guidelines.pdf.
198198
They were updated in 2016,35 to include biomarkers36 and genetic predispositions37
found by studies on many hundreds of electro-sensitive patients. Additional
biomarkers were identified in 2020.38
These studies establish that electro-sensitivity is not a sensitivity, nor is it
“idiopathic.” It involves severe physiological injuries directly associated with
pulsed RF exposure, including blood-brain barrier leakage; damage to the immune
system; chronic inflammation; impaired melatonin production and impaired blood
flow to the brain.39 A 2017 fMRI study shows clear evidence of impaired blood
flow in 10 electro-sensitive subjects.40
Electro-sensitivity is a “spectrum condition.” Some experience discomfort
while others are entirely debilitated. Those affected become progressively
35 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2016-europaem-
guidelines.pdf.
36 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613326/.
37 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24812443/.
38 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2020-Belpomme-guidelines.pdf.
39https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/assets/pdf/environmental/Preliminary%2
0Clinical%20Guidelines%20%20for%20EHS.pdf;
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-golomb-diplomats-
3.pdf; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2020-Belpomme-
guidelines.pdf.
40 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28678737/.
199199
intolerant to radiation levels they could previously tolerate. Exposure avoidance is
the only effective treatment.41
In December 2020, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and
Medicine (NAS) concluded that the diplomats’ “mystery illness” is likely caused
by pulsed RF.42 Prof. Beatrice Golomb MD PhD,43 2018 paper44 was the first to
analyze the science in detail and to show that pulsed RF is the likely cause of the
symptoms suffered by some US diplomats in Cuba and China.45 She concluded
that the diplomats essentially suffer from electro-sensitivity (which she refers to as
“Microwave Illness”).46 Her analysis included case studies on people sickened by
smart meters.47 She gave a detailed scientific analysis to each of the diplomats’ and
41 Physicians Statement ¶¶7, 38; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2016-europaem-guidelines.pdf#page=24; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2020-Belpomme-
guidelines.pdf#page=14; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-
2018-golomb-diplomats-3.pdf#page=21; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-
content/uploads/rf-2014-electrosensitivity-dr-blythe.pdf#page=5.
42 https://www.nap.edu/read/25889/chapter/1.
43 Prof. Golomb signed the Scientists Statement.
44 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-golomb-diplomats-3.pdf.
45 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30183509/.
46 This Brief uses “Electro-sensitivity” but the syndrome is also called “Electromagnetic Hyper-Sensitivity” (“EHS”), “Microwave Sickness,” and
“Radiation Sickness.” PECO calls it “Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance.”
47 Prof. Golomb signed the Scientists Statement.
47 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-golomb-
diplomats-3.pdf pages: 15, 18-22, 25, 37, 38.
200200
electro-sensitivity symptoms and showed how they can result from RF exposure.
She was invited to present to the NAS committee.48
Smart meters can be the original cause or a subsequent aggravating cause.
They are, however, undoubtedly harmful to anyone with electro-sensitivity.49 As
the guidelines for diagnosis and the physicians’ statement emphasize, the only
mitigation and treatment for those affected by RF is rigid, constant RF exposure
avoidance, in every aspect of their lives. This is particularly so when it comes to
peoples’ last refuge: their home. For all these reasons any regime that forces
people to choose between a mandatory smart meter or not having electric (or
water, or gas) utility service, is especially pernicious.50
C.FCC Admits Adverse Effects
The FCC admitted in 2019 that at least some RFs can cause non-thermal
adverse effects with RF frequencies ranging between 3 KHz and 10 MHz.51 Pulsed
48 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/rf-nas-agenda-golomb/;
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-nas-golumb-email.pdf.
49 This is part of the problem with the PUC’s burden of proof requirements. The issue is not what caused the impairment; it is whether the smart or digital meter interferes in any manner with a person’s ability to engage in major life activities. See Part V.F.
50 Some people with electro-sensitivity also have other health issues and use medical treatment devices that require electricity.
51 Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rule Regarding Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, 34 FCC Rcd 11687, 11743-11745, ¶¶122-
124 & nn. 322-335 (2019). It also noted that these harms occur instantaneously.
The FCC currently averages exposure levels over 30 minutes, which completely
201201
RF created by the AC/DC conversion performed by smart and digital meters’
Switch Mode Power Supply (SMPS), generates frequencies between 2-50 KHz,
which fall squarely in the range identified by the FCC as problematic.52 The FCC
noted that “[a]dverse neural stimulation effects…include acute effects such as
perception of tingling, shock, pain, or altered behavior due to excitation of tissue in
the body’s peripheral nervous system.” 34 FCC Rcd at 11743-11744, ¶122 n.328.
These are the same symptoms suffered by the “customers” and by others who
report adverse health effects from smart meters. 34 FCC Rcd at 11742-11744,
¶¶119-122.
D.Pulsed RF Affects at Least Some People
The FCC guidelines can no longer be said to provide any assurance
regarding the public’s health for non-cancer harms. The FCC has expressly
acknowledged that RF emissions such as those from smart and digital meters can
cause the very same symptoms reported by the Customer Petitioners and those who
have developed electro-sensitivity or suffer from other conditions that are
aggravated by RFR exposure. Those affected have a right to accommodation,
regardless of what is “deemed safe” for the general population.
obscures pulsation effects. It has admitted instantaneous effects for the RF
frequency band involved in smart meter wire conduction.
52 Engineer Report ¶¶14-17.
202202
To analogize, the U.S. Agriculture Department and Food and Drug
Administration each regulate peanut and peanut product quality. They ensure
peanuts and peanut products are safe for most people. Additional protective steps
are taken, to ensure those with nut allergies are not inadvertently (or purposefully)
exposed to “deemed safe” nuts.53 Similarly, measures must be taken to allow those
adversely affected by RF to avoid exposure from even general population “deemed
safe” emissions.
A state electric utility regulator certainly should not issue a mandate that
someone with an impairment made worse by pulsed RFR must have a smart or
digital meter as a condition of utility service unless they fund a costly lawsuit and
satisfy a burden of proof that is inappropriate and almost impossible to meet given
the nature of the condition. The regulator cannot base lawful findings on utility-
funded “expert” doctors that never examined the customer.
E.The Federal Government Recognizes Electro-Sensitivity; Federaland State Law Requires Effective Accommodation
As noted above, the FCC has now agreed that RF can evoke a non-thermal
adverse neural response to at least some RF emissions. The CDC has diagnosis and
injury codes for exposure related injuries. Various federal agencies recognized the
53 See, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Questions and Answers
About the Lesley University Agreement and Potential Implications for Individuals
with Food Allergies, available at https://www.ada.gov/q&a_lesley_university.htm.
203203
condition. Three federal laws and a state law directly require accommodations. The
federal government has outlined the proof required for those who seek
accommodation.
1.CDC, U.S. Justice Department and Other AgenciesRecognize Electro-sensitivity Can Lead to Major Life
Impairments Requiring Accommodation
The federal government recognizes RF/EMF radiation exposure related
sickness. The Centers for Disease Control’s 2022 Classification of Diseases Codes
Clinical Modification and Procedural Classification System implements the
International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification
(ICD-10-CM) .54 The “diagnosis code” for Radiation Sickness” is “T66.” The
“injury” code for “Exposure to Other Nonionizing Radiation” is “W90.” These
codes cover Electro-sensitivity along with other RF exposure-related injuries and
maladies.
The “Access Board,” the federal agency responsible for publishing
Accessibility Guidelines used by the Justice Department to enforce the ADA, has
held that “electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the
ADA.”55 The Access Board contracted with the National Institute of Building
54 Available at https://icd10cmtool.cdc.gov/.
55 Architectural Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Final Rule, Americans
With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities;
Recreation Facilities, 67 Fed. Reg. 56352, 56353 (Sept. 3, 2002) (“The Board
recognizes that multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities
204204
Sciences (NIBS) 2005 to recommend accommodations. NIBS concluded that RF
could render buildings “inaccessible” to those “who are electromagnetically
sensitive.”56
The US. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy
issued guidelines for accommodations in 2015.57 They state:
…the nature of electromagnetic sensitivity is such that even levels that are deemed safe for the general public can cause trigger symptoms for individuals who are hypersensitive...and therefore may need accommodation. … Individuals with electromagnetic sensitivity may experience … fatigue, weakness, neurological issues, immunological issues,
gastrointestinal issues, increased irritability, lack of ability to think clearly
and quickly, sleep disturbance, overall malaise, and anxiety…Common
workplace issues involve exposure to Wi-Fi, cell phones.
General considerations include: ...Relocate workplace away from areas where symptoms are triggered…limiting certain types of devices in the vicinity of the employee’s workstation... Provide wired telephones and network connections.
The US Department of Education (“DOE”) agrees that people with other
conditions may also develop intolerance to RF/EMF. In a memorandum regarding
may be considered disabilities under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities.”).
56 National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Indoor Environmental Quality
(IEQ) Final Report (July 14, 2005), © 2005, National Institute of Building
Sciences. A web-based version of the NIBS IEQ Final Report is available at
https://www.access-board.gov/research/building/indoor-environmental-quality/.
57 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-accomodation-
labor.pdfNetwork-EMS.pdf.
205205
accommodation of people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (“MCS”), they
recommend minimizing exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiation because it
may trigger MCS symptoms. The memo emphasizes the importance of their home
as a refuge and sanctuary free of EMF.
…[I]ndividuals affected by MCS have created “sanctuaries” relatively free
from chemical emissions and electromagnetic fields in their homes. Because
of the serious impact of even an accidental unavoidable exposure, people often spend as much time at home as possible and often cannot participate fully in society. As a result, they may experience intense isolation, loss of self-esteem, and depression from not being able to have an active work, family, or social life.58
2. ADA, FHA, Rehabilitation Act and PHRA RequireAccommodations to Disabled/Handicapped Individuals WhoWould be Negatively Affected by a Smart Meter
Electricity is the “service” offered by PECO. The meter facilitates billing
and demand response, but it is not the “service.” If PECO’s wireless smart meter
cannot be tolerated due to a medical condition related to a disability or handicap,
forced installation as a condition of utility service will discriminate against the
customer who is “otherwise qualified” but will suffer disconnection and loss of
utility service.
58 https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/rsa/im/2002/im-02-04.pdf. A study
published in 2020 on 2,000 people with electro-sensitivity and/or chemical
sensitivity showed that once a person developed one of these conditions, they are
highly likely to develop the other. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-
content/uploads/rf-2020-Belpomme-guidelines.pdf.
206206
The Fair Housing Act (“FHA”),59 Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”),60 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA)61 require
accommodations relating to a “physical or mental impairment” that “substantially
limits one or more of the major life activities.” See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §12102(1)(A);
28 C.F.R. §36.105; 16 Pa.Code §44.4.
ADA Title II and the PHRA apply insofar as the PUC is establishing binding
practices the utility must implement. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(a), (b)(1), (6), (7).62 State
agency prescribed practices cannot discriminate against the disabled by denying
access to essential electric utility service. Id. The PUC’s regulations must allow for
“reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the
modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability,
unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.” 28 C.F.R.
§35.130(b)(7).
59 42 U.S.C. §3601, et seq.
60 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq. ADA Title II prohibits a state-level regulatory requirement that mandates discrimination. USDOJ Title II TAM, supra.
61 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. §951, et seq.
62 Amici are not asserting that the utility has become a state actor and subject to
Title II. C.f. Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 842 (1982); Jackson v. Metro.
Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 350 (1974); Crissman v. Dover Downs Entm’t Inc., 289
F.3d 231, 243 (3d Cir. 2002). The PUC and the state – the ones allegedly imposing
mandatory smart meters – are the state actors for purposes of ADA Title II.
207207
A mandatory smart meter program also fails muster under the FHA. It
“objectively” interferes with the “exercise or enjoyment of rights granted or
protected by” 42 U.S.C. §§3604 or 3605: it makes the occupants sick or sicker, and
therefore violates 42 U.S.C. §3617. See 24 C.F.R. §100.400(b), (c)(1), (2). 42
U.S.C. §3604(f)(1) and 16 Pa.Code §45.9 make it unlawful to “make unavailable
or deny, a dwelling” and that is exactly what a smart meter effectively does to
those who cannot tolerate the radiation emitted from the device. They will be
constructively evicted.
The Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794 prohibits disability discrimination
by any entity receiving federal financial assistance.63 PECO obtained a federal
SmartGrid Investment Grant. PECO Principal Br. p. 18, n.39,64 so it is subject to
the Rehabilitation Act nondiscrimination mandate.
3.The PUC is Bound by ADA Title II, the FHA and PHRA;PECO is Bound by the FHA and the Rehabilitation Act
The PUC has consistently erred by refusing to consider the impact of federal
and state disability/handicap laws. It is true the PUC “lacks jurisdiction to enforce”
63 “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability...shall, solely by reason of
her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits
of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance….” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
64 Nothing in the grant requires a mandate that all customers accept smart meter
installation.
208208
the ADA, FHA, Rehabilitation Act or PHRA as a general matter. See Edward
Lucey v. Metropolitan Edison Company, Docket No. C-2018-3003679, 2020 PA.
PUC LEXIS 522, *15 (Pa. P.U.C. October 8, 2020), citing Catherine J.
Frompovich v. PECO Energy Company, Docket No. C-2015-2474602, 2018 Pa.
PUC LEXIS 160 *69 (Pa. P.U.C. May 3, 2018)(emphasis added).65 But what
everyone involved has missed is that the PUC is bound by ADA Title II and cannot
impose practices or policies in derogation of ADA requirements. Act 129 should
not be read to impose a regulatory mandate that would directly violate the ADA
Title II prohibition on state-level policies and practices that lead to disability
discrimination without reasonable and effective accommodation.
65 These orders state the complainant should go to state or federal court to raise the
disability claim. The problem is that the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission is a mandatory prerequisite to any state court action seeking a remedy for disability discrimination. Clay v. Advanced Comput. Applications, 522 Pa. 86, 559 A.2d 917 (1989). On the other hand, Phila. Elec. Co. v. Human Rels. Comm’n, 5 Pa. Commw. 329, 290 A.2d 699 (1972) holds the PHRC could not entertain any such complaint; the petitioner would be sent back to the PUC. The Commission’s interpretation therefore leads to an endless “no state jurisdiction” loop. Statutes
should not be construed to lead to such absurd results. The answer to this seeming
conundrum is simple, however. The Commission needs to merely acknowledge it
cannot impose a practice or policy that violates the disabilities laws and ensure that
the utilities offer reasonable and effective accommodations.
209209
The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division’s Americans with
Disabilities Act Title II Technical Assistance Manual Covering State and Local
Government Programs and Services66 makes this eminently clear:
…a public entity may not establish requirements for the programs or
activities of licensees that would result in discrimination against qualified
individuals with disabilities
If the PUC’s interpretation of Act 129 is upheld on appeal and becomes
final, the Commission (the state) is subject to suit under ADA Title II. Similarly,
under the FHA the state might be subject to damages under 42 U.S.C. §§3613(c),
3631(a), (a)(1), since a state regulatory mandate constitutes “color of law” under
which handicapped individuals may suffer grievous harm. The statute should not
be construed to impose a mandate because it would result in direct conflict with
federal law and expose the state to liability.
The Commission and the Court must consider the impact of the ADA, FHA,
Rehabilitation Act and the PHRA on these issues as part of any interpretative
analysis whether Act 129 can be reasonably interpreted as mandatory. The statute
should not be read to compel a violation of other federal and state law. The PUC’s
willful blindness to disability laws prohibiting its attempt to mandate smart meters,
constitutes legal error that must be corrected.
66 Available at https://www.ada.gov/taman2.html#II-3.7200.
210210
F.The PUC’s “Burden of Proof” is Inconsistent with the Disabilitylaws
The proper outcome does not depend on whether a smart meter “causes”
someone to suffer “adverse health effects.” The applicable law turns on entirely
different considerations. The only questions are whether someone has a functional
“impairment” and then what accommodation is due.
1.PUC Applied Wrong Standard
The utility and PUC each argue that the Petitioners failed to “demonstrate by
a preponderance of the evidence that a ‘conclusive causal connection’ between the
low-level RF exposure from a PECO smart meter and the alleged adverse human
health effects.” 67 But the PUC/utility have consistently focused on the wrong type
of “causal connection” and demanded too much by way of “alleged adverse human
health effects.” The stated burden of proof is virtually impossible to meet for
almost any Complainant because it would require resources no average person can
amass, especially someone who is already sick and likely low-income or with
limited means. A demand for rigorous scientific and medical support for the
67 This standard was first established in Letter of Notification of Philadelphia
Electric Company Relative to the Reconstructing and Rebuilding of the Existing
138 kV Line to Operate as the Woodbourne-Heaton 230 kV Line in Montgomery
and Bucks Counties 1992 Pa. PUC LEXIS 160, at *7-8 (Pa. P.U.C., No. A-
110550F0055, filed Mar. 26, 1993). This standard is inappropriate for those who
are RF/EMF impaired since the disability laws require a different and much lower
standard.
211211
proposition the Complainant has some generally-accepted disease and then direct
causation from the smart meter is unlawful for many reasons.
The determination of whether an individual is disabled is not necessarily
based on a finding that matches a generally-accepted and named disease in a
Diagnosis and Treatment Manual. The question is simply whether a person has an
“impairment” and then the effect of that impairment on the life of the individual.
42 U.S.C. §12112(a)(5)(A); 28 C.F.R. §35.108(vii).68
2.Burden of Proof Inconsistent With Disabilities Laws
Covered entities like the PUC cannot impose the level and burden of proof
applied below. Congress rejected the idea that the disability determination should
be “an onerous burden for those seeking accommodations or modifications” when
it amended the ADA and FHA. 154 Cong. Rec. S8842 (daily ed. Sept. 16, 2008)
(Statement of the Managers). The federal agencies overseeing these acts have
implemented rules of construction that make this plain. 28 C.F.R. §36.101; Part 36,
68 The analysis for a disability or handicap is the same for each of the three ADA Titles, FHA handicap purposes and Rehabilitation Act claims. That is why courts routinely address discrimination claims together. Friedman v. Cent. Me. Power
Co., No. 2:20-cv-00237-JDL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62585, at *5 n.2 (D. Me. Mar. 31, 2021), citing Astralis Condo. Ass’n v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Housing &
Urban Dev., 620 F.3d 62, 66 (1st Cir. 2010), Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. DOJ, 355 F.3d
6, 19 (1st Cir. 2004) and Theriault v. Flynn, 162 F.3d 46, 53 n.10 (1st Cir. 1998)
(Lipez, J., concurring). Pennsylvania generally uses the same tests and criteria for
purposes of the PHRA. See Lazer Spot, Inc. v. Pa. Human Rels. Comm’n, 184 A.3d
200 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
212212
Appendix C - Guidance to Revisions to ADA Title II and Title III Regulations
Revising the Meaning and Interpretation of the Definition of “Disability” and
Other Provisions in Order to Incorporate the Requirements of the ADA
Amendments Act. An individualized assessment is necessary,69 but the Guidance
directly states that once there is an individualized professional assessment “there is
no need for further inquiry into the nature of the disability:”
…Reports from experts who have personal familiarity with the candidate should take precedence over those from, for example, reviewers for testing agencies, who have never personally met the candidate or conducted the requisite assessments for diagnosis and treatment.70
None of the utility’s expert witnesses performed an in-person individualized
assessment of any of the Complainants before the Court. Doctor Israel did his
“evaluation” remotely and merely compared reported symptoms to “databases” and
“studies.” Murphy Order, p. 61 (R.190a). Thus, the PUC erred by giving the
utility’s testimony overriding weight to that from the Complainants’ medical
evidence. The PUC also erred in its evaluation of the Complainants’ evidence. The
69 See 28 CFR Appendix A to Part 36 - Guidance on Revisions to ADA Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities: “The question of whether an individual meets the definition
of disability should not demand extensive analysis… determining whether an
impairment substantially limits a major life activity requires an individualized
assessment.”
70 AG Order No. 3181-2010, 75 FR 56258, Sept. 15, 2010; 76 FR 13287, Mar. 11,
2011. The block-quoted sentence appears at 75 FR 56297.
213213
Complainants clearly described an impairment that substantially limits major life
activities and showed that installation of a smart meter would significantly
interfere with their medically-affirmed need for avoidance. In other words,
consistent with the NIBS report finding smart meters can render homes
“inaccessible” to those who are electromagnetically-sensitive.
VI.Only Reasonable and Effective Accommodation is Analog Meter
Requiring a smart meter unlawfully discriminates against those who are
exposure intolerant.71 The service here is electricity, and utilities were able to
provide that service for many decades without smart or digital meters. Allowing
opt-out for the disabled will not impose an impossible or even overly difficult
burden. The RF-impaired cannot be required to sacrifice their health, worsen their
impairments. and live in an intolerable home environment in order to have
essential utility service.
Once an “impairment” and its “limitations” are shown the question then
turns to what “accommodations” are appropriate. Here, the PUC offers an
“accommodation” in the form of moving the meter away from the home. This
“accommodation” does not resolve the problem since it will not fully prevent RF
exposure despite the additional distance from the wireless transmitting antenna.
71 Friedman v. Cent. Me. Power Co., supra held that the plaintiff had adequately
plead discrimination when he had to pay a smart meter opt-out fee. An inability to
opt-out at all is clearly worse.
214214
A.Placement in Yard is Not Reasonable Accommodation
Moving the smart meter to a more distant location in the yard would reduce
the wireless RF exposure level inside the home. There would, however, still be RF
emissions in the house and on the property. Anyone with electro-sensitivity will
have to stay far away from the meter. As a result, the person will not have full use
and enjoyment of a significant part of their property. This is still unlawful
discrimination under the FHA and Rehabilitation Act, because customers who are
not electro-sensitive do have full use and enjoyment of all their property, including
the part near the utility meter. Friedman v. Cent. Me. Power Co., supra. Thus, the
proffered “accommodation” is not “reasonable” and neither the PUC nor PECO
can impose that outcome. Further, installing the meter further away merely reduces
but does not eliminate the emissions that will enter the house. The customers will
still have to expend resources to shield the house from the radiation.72
B.Placement in Yard Does Not Eliminate Harmful RF “Noise” inHouse
The smart meter’s AC/DC conversion process by the SMPS generates
variable RF spikes that enter the house electric wiring, transforming the house into
a whole house antenna. Installing the smart meter further away from the house
72 BBI Report ¶¶29-31.
215215
would not eliminate this problem. Digital meters also contain SMPS and therefore
generate RF and cannot be considered a reasonable accommodation.73
The only reasonable and effective accommodation is an analog meter – the
kind that has been used for many decades. It does not have a SMPS and will cost
the utility less than $100.74 Accommodating the “customers” in this case and all
the hundreds of people who requested accommodation would have been cheaper
than this case.
VII.CONCLUSION
Act 129 does not compel smart meters absent customer consent; it clearly
envisions affirmative customer request (Opt-In). Regardless of the legislature’s
word choice the state cannot lawfully force a customer to accept a smart or digital
meter when mandatory installation results in disability discrimination, exacerbates
existing impairments or forces people to abandon their home. There must be
effective accommodation.
The rule is simple: accommodation in the form of an analog meter is
required if a customer presents a professional assessment of impairment and a need
for RF/EMF avoidance.
73 Engineer Report ¶¶18-19; BBI Report ¶¶27-34.
74 BBI Report ¶36.
216216
The Court can dispose of this case without directly wading into health
effects or even disability by merely applying the statute according to its plain
terms. If it does go farther the Court should ensure that those with electro-
sensitivity can receive accommodation in the form of an analog meter. Any other
outcome will be inhumane. No decent society purposefully punishes the innocent
for conditions they cannot control. The Court cannot allow an outcome that will
lead to even more sickness and homelessness for those who cannot tolerate a smart
or digital meter.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Andrea L. Shaw Andrea L. Shaw (I.D. No. 89333) Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw, P.C. 2011 W. Trindle Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.* Children’s Health Defense 48 Dewitt Mills Road 1227 North Peachtree Pkwy, Suite 202 Peachtree City, GA 30269 Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
NY Bar No. 1999994
[e-mail]
217217
W. Scott McCollough*McCollough Law Firm, P.C.2290 Gatlin Creek Rd.Dripping Springs, TX 78620Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]
Texas Bar No. 13434100
[e-mail]
*Pro hac vice motion pending
218218
APPENDIX
LIST OF ADDITIONAL AMICI CURIAE
PENNSYLVANIANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is a volunteer grassroots
organization that seeks to educate and inform Pennsylvanians about ways to
protect health and the environment through the safer, more secure use of
technology, especially wired connections.
PENNSYLVANIA SMART METER WORK GROUP is an organization in
Pennsylvania which acts as a support group for utility customers with Formal
Complaints entered with the PA Public Utilities Commission objecting to the
installation of smart meters on their properties. Their members, pro-se litigants,
help each other get through the legal and bureaucratic tangle of utility and
administrative law. Their mission has broadened to include 5G and other
wireless devices and systems as the ramifications of wireless extend beyond
smart meters.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE is a
501(c)(6) national medical organization based in Washington that provides
clinical guidelines and specialization in environmental medicine for naturopathic
physicians and allied primary care providers.
219219
MOMS ACROSS AMERICA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with national
networks based in North Carolina which reaches millions of people every month.
Its mission is to educate and empower mothers and others with actions and
solutions to create healthy communities.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CHILDREN AND SAFE TECHNOLOGY
is an organization whose mission statement is to advance policies regarding
technology that protect children’s health and well-being in order to ensure a
strong future for the United States of America.
MASSACHUSETTS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is a public interest advocacy
group based in Massachusetts and is a project under the 501(c)(3) nonprofit
Concerned Citizens for the Appropriate Placement of Telecommunications
Facilities, Inc., which serves as its fiscal agent. Its mission is to educate citizens,
public servants, lawmakers and health care professionals on the risks of wireless
radiation exposure to children, adults and our environment and to promote the
use of biologically safe and fiscally responsible technology in our homes,
schools, communities, and workplaces.
220220
VIRGINIANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY LLC is based in Virginia. Its
mission is to advocate for safe, accessible, affordable, and ethical technology for
all and provide information, education, resources, and support to empower
consumers and lawmakers to make informed decisions and act as stewards of
their communities.
NEW YORK SAFE UTILITY METER ASSOCIATION is a nonprofit
corporation whose mission is dedicated to the continued use of mechanical
analog utility meters. NYSUMA educates the public about the hazards
associated with electronic digital utility meters (aka: AMR, ERT, AMI, "smart,"
and "opt-out digital"). They are also very concerned about the unchecked privacy
invasion of digital utility meters and skyrocketing utility rates. NYSUMA
advocates for the rate payer’s right to choose the safest meter without penalties.
NYSUMA also works to raise awareness about the dangers of other wireless
radiation technologies, including Wi-Fi, cell phones, 3G, 4G, 5G cell towers and
their negative impact on public health and the environment.
RHODE ISLANDERS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is an organization based in
Rhode Island that envisions a world in which computer and telecommunications
technology is safer. Its mission is to educate the public regarding wireless health
risks and best practices.
221221
ARIZONANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is a group seeking to protect
Arizona neighborhoods through better, safer technologies.
UTILITY METER CHOICE FOR 4 MICHIGAN is an organization whose
mission is to inform the public of the harm of wireless radiation from smart
meters and pass legislation which will provide utility customers with the right to
choose not to be exposed to the dangers caused by smart meters.
MARYLAND SMART METER AWARENESS is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
corporation out of Baltimore, MD, whose mission includes education of the
public regarding smart meters, wireless technology and the health impacts of
radio frequency microwave radiation, as well as to provide and advocate for
alternatives to wireless smart meters and to engage in litigation to protect
Maryland residents from the harmful effects of smart meters. They have about
1,000 members.
AUTISM AGE is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation based in Connecticut that
gives voice to those who believe autism is an environmentally-induced illness
that is treatable, and that children can recover. They believe that autism is the
defining disorder of our age, is man-made and therefore preventable. Smart
meters are an environmental risk to health that is preventable.
222222
COLORADANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is an advocacy group based in
Colorado whose mission is to educate the public and public representatives of the
risks and downsides of wireless technology and to promote the implementation
of safe, efficient alternatives.
SAFE TECHNOLOGY MINNESOTA, a project of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit
corporation Minnesota Natural Health Coalition, has as its mission to educate
and support the public regarding the health and environmental hazards of
electromagnetic radiation, especially from wireless technology.
CONNECTICUT RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE TECHNOLOGY is a
grassroots organization based in Connecticut consisting of 1,500 members, most
of whom have suffered from radiofrequency radiation. Their mission is to
increase community awareness of the negative health effects of macro cell
towers in close proximity to homes, schools, health centers and workplaces, and
to stop the irradiation of citizens.
MICHIGAN FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is an organization in Michigan whose
mission is to educate, inform, and advocate for the safe use of wireless
technology.
223223
IDAHOANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit corporation whose mission is to provide educational and financial
support for statewide efforts toward deployment of responsible broadband
technology to our communities and throughout the State of Idaho.
MALIBU FOR SAFE TECH is an organization in California that consists of
active local residents fighting to protect the community and environment from
the threats of wireless telecommunication. Its mission is to raise awareness of
these immediate issues and actively participate in local government to stop the
spread of 5G before its effects become detrimental to residents.
MANHATTAN NEIGHBORS FOR SAFER TELECOMMUNICATIONS is an
educational initiative whose mission is to bring awareness to the harmful
physical and mental health effects of cell phones, Wi-Fi, wireless computer
equipment, portable phones, excessive screen time, too-early technology use,
wireless utility equipment and neighborhood cell towers and antennas.
ELECTROMAGNETIC SAFETY ALLIANCE, INC. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
corporation based in Arizona whose mission is to advocate for and educate others
about the health risks of electromagnetic fields. Their fiscal sponsor is Vitalyst
Health Foundation.
224224
ALLIANCE FOR MICROWAVE RADIATION ACCOUNTABILITY, INC.
(AMRA) is a nonprofit corporation based in New York that seeks to improve
public health and safety through the advocacy of tougher standards and safer
technology. AMRA works for greater awareness of Microwave Radiation
Syndrome and the health impact on its victims.
A VOICE FOR CHOICE ADVOCACY, INC. is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit
corporation based in California that advocates for people’s rights to be fully
informed about the composition, quality, and short- and long-term health effects
of all products that go into people’s bodies, such as food, water, air,
pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, as well devices such as smart meters.
SAFE TECH FOR SANTA ROSA is an advocacy group in California whose
mission is to post relevant information about current and planned wireless
transmission facilities and "small" cell sites in Santa Rosa, California and
provide resources on the biological effects of microwave radiation as supported
by scientific studies.
SAFE TECH SANTA BARBARA COUNTY is an unincorporated association
and advocacy group whose mission is to educate the community about the
adverse cumulative effects of invisible wireless Radio Frequency Radiation
(RFR) and advocate for safe technology.
225225
SAFE TECH TUCSON is comprised of residents, business owners and respected
members of the various communities within Pima County and the City of Tucson
who are committed to working in partnership with elected officials to enact a
telecommunications ordinance that protects public safety, privacy and property
values.
BEE HEROIC LLC is a nonprofit, limited liability company located in Colorado
whose mission is to provide an information-to-action platform for initiating
practices that will save and protect Earth's bees and other pollinators from near-
term extinction. It is focused on agrochemical threats,
telecommunication/5G/IoT, and other environmentally and biologically
destructive industries that contribute to the mass extinction of a key indicator
species.
CALIFORNIA BRAIN TUMOR ASSOCIATION is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization whose mission is to educate the public about environmental health
threats including those from exposure to electromagnetic radiation.
CALIFORNIANS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY (CARE) is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to offer legal advice and appear before
administrative bodies to help enforce environmental laws through court actions.
226226
CENTERVILLE CONCERNED CITIZENS is a grassroots advocacy group in
Massachusetts focused on advancing environmental health and protecting the
community of Centerville. It was founded to stop the powering of a
telecommunications cell tower in the historic village of Centerville. The initial
group of nine neighbors has grown to hundreds of supporters who work to keep
the community free of dangerous, untested wireless technology. “We have
children and grandchildren that will one day look to us and be grateful we fought
so strongly for their future health and well-being.”
CLEAR WIDBY is an organization in Washington state. CLEAR (Citizen
League Encouraging Awareness of Radiation) is dedicated to the safety from
electronics of wildlife, flora, fauna, and insects that experience 24/7 radiation
from towers, as well as from humans who carelessly install and use their
electronics. They assist citizens with wireless issues: town and county
ordinances, 5G developers, smart meter issues, wildlife protection from EMF
excesses, helping the human population use wireless more safely, calling for
increased protections for the electromagnetically sensitive, and encouraging
fiber-optic hookups for broadband coverage for all.
COALITION AGAINST SMART METERS AND 5G is an organization in the
state of Washington whose purpose is first to prevent installation of smart meters
227227
in Snohomish County, Washington, and also to prevent installation of 5G small
cell towers in Edmonds, Washington.
FRIENDS OF MERRYMEETING BAY is a Maine-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit
engaged in research, advocacy, education, and land conservation. Because of its
inordinate proliferation and its biological effects on people and the environment,
FOMB considers radiofrequency radiation (RFR) the most significant
environmental toxin of our time. Smart meters dramatically increase rural
presence and effects of RFR. FOMB filed an Amicus Curiae Brief with the
Commonwealth Court in support of petitioners Povacz, Murphy, Randall and
Albrecht (NO. 606 CD 2019).
ECOLOGICAL OPTIONS NETWORK is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization in
California. Since 1999 they have been actively organizing, informing, and
producing media and to influence policy that protects people’s right to health in
the midst of cell towers, cell phones, smart meters, and 5G. They organized in
their county and region for a smart meter opt-out. They also served as official
public intervenors in the smart meter proceeding at the California Public Utilities
Commission.
DAMS (Dental Amalgam Mercury Solutions), INC. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
corporation based in Minnesota whose mission is to educate the public about
228228
biological dentistry and the dental-health connection. It is also concerned about
the proliferation of wireless radiation causing biological harm. DAMS has about
2,000 members, and approximately half are health care professionals.
EMF WELLNESS LLC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation in Arizona
comprised of residents, business owners and members of the various
communities within Pima County and the City of Tucson who are committed to
working in partnership with elected officials to enact a telecommunications
ordinance that protects public safety, privacy, and property values.
DR. OLINDO FLORO PA is a clinical practice out of Minnesota that provides
natural health care and education to their patients so that they can be happy,
healthy and pain free. They educate and treat patients that have symptoms of
wireless radiation exposure.
EARTH PROTECTOR LICENSING CORPORATION is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
environmental and health organization based in Minnesota whose mission is to
improve life and to be an earth protector. It is concerned about the proliferation
of wireless technology, including smart meters, and the harmful effects of this
radiation.
229229
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE is a nonprofit organization in
New York with a mission to educate the residents of the Butternut Valley on the
dangers of, and ways to mitigate, environmental pollution from all sources,
currently focusing on the dangers of wireless microwave radiation-emitting
devices.
5G FREE CALIFORNIA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation based in California
whose mission is to engage in education, outreach and advocacy on the health
effects of wireless radiation and on support for safer technology; to enhance the
vision that people have the right to be protected from harm and that those already
injured are acknowledged, respected and supported; and that people have the
right to make informed choices about exposure to radiation and health
sovereignty.
5G FREE MARIN is a nonprofit coalition in California composed of local
Marin-based groups fighting to stop unnecessary, unsafe and excessive wireless
technologies from being imposed on local communities by the
telecommunications industry.
5G FREE OREGON is a nonprofit volunteer organization based in Portland,
Oregon, dedicated to raising awareness of the critical issue of radio and
microwave radiation technologies and their adverse effects on health.
230230
5G FREE RHODE ISLAND is a group of private individuals with a common
interest in protecting humans and the environment from the harms of wireless
radiation. Its mission is to continue to actively educate communities and public
officials at the city, state, and federal levels. It takes action in furtherance of the
foregoing by holding their cities and towns accountable for protecting all
residents and stopping the 5G rollout.
FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCEMENT IN CANCER THERAPY is an
educational 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. Their goal is to educate physicians
and patients about a different concept of treatment and prevention of cancer and
chronic degenerative conditions. They are concerned about the health impacts of
electromagnetic radiation-producing devices such as smart meters.
HANDS ACROSS THE RIVER COALITION is incorporated in the state of
Massachusetts with about 600 members. Their primary focus is the health-
conscious cleanup of the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site contaminated
primarily with PCBs which can affect public health. Their fiscal sponsor is
People Acting in Community Endeavors, PACE, in New Bedford, MA. They are
concerned about smart meters and other emitters of harmful electromagnetic
radiation.
231231
KEEP BALDY WILD is an organization based in California that is committed to
projects and education that support the unique ecosystem of the San Antonio
Canyon watershed for current and future generations. Their group distributed the
summary of the BioInitiative Report of 2012 to community members and did
educational outreach regarding smart meters, cell phones and cell towers.
KEEP CELL ANTENNAS AWAY is an informal group of residents in
California, united by a common goal of keeping cell antennas away from homes.
Their mission is to influence 5G roll-out in their cities by building a large and
active movement of residents.
KEEP YOUR POWER is an advocacy group in Hawaii that consists of a
coalition of educated, concerned citizens whose mission is to stop harmful
wireless technologies from being deployed in the Hawaiian islands and to
advocate for safe technology.
KUNZE PRODUCTIONS, LLC is a for-profit company based in California
which presents an investigative documentary called “Mobilize” that explores the
potential long-term health effects from cell phone radiation, including cancer and
infertility.
232232
LAST TREE LAWS is an informal group for advocacy based in Massachusetts
and is also organized as a Massachusetts state ballot question committee,
focusing on lobbying and ballot question work. Its mission is to lobby for
environmental and social justice, as well as reducing wireless exposures.
NATIONAL HEALTH FEDERATION (NHF) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization whose mission is to educate consumers, producers, healthcare
professionals, government and other leaders regarding freedom of choice and
informed consent in healthcare, and to protect the health rights and freedom of
individuals and healthcare practitioners regarding freedom of choice and true
informed consent in all matters concerning healthcare.
NATIONAL TOXIC ENCEPHALOPATHY FOUNDATION is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide education and services to the
growing segment of the population who are adversely affected by everyday
chemicals and toxins in our environment, and to provide education on cell phone
safety that is showing a correlation with the increase of brain tumors and cancer.
NEVADA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE PUBLIC
WORKING GROUP is a group of individuals in Nevada, California, whose
mission is to amend the city's telecommunication ordinance and strengthen the
City’s legal authority to protect residents and the quiet enjoyment of their streets.
233233
NEW YORKERS 4 WIRED TECH is a group of grassroots advocates in New
York whose mission is to alert the public to the serious biological harm caused
by wireless communications infrastructure’s pulsed-modulated microwave
radiation, and support municipally-owned and controlled wireline solutions (fiber
optic broadband direct to homes and businesses as a basic public infrastructure, a
public necessity and a public good) in the public rights-of-way. It advocates for
the preservation and maintenance of existing legacy copper, switched telephone
landlines.
NORTH CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is a
nonprofit organization in West Virginia whose mission is to reflect the feelings
and actions of like-minded people in West Virginia and around the world, to
make our area on the planet one of the healthiest (low radiation) places to live in
the USA.
ONCE A FOREST is a community organization based in Santa Fe, NM,
supporting living forests and community-inclusive decision-making about forest
health with a mission to inform the public about forest service cut and burn
plans. They are concerned about the impact of harmful electromagnetic radiation
on the health of the forests.
234234
ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION is based in Minnesota and is an
online and grassroots 501(c)(3) nonprofit public interest organization, and the
only organization in the U.S. focused exclusively on promoting the views and
interests of the nation's estimated 50 million consumers of organically and
socially responsibly produced food and other products. Their mission statement
is to protect and advocate for consumers' right to safe, healthful food and other
consumer products, a just food and farming system and an environment rich in
biodiversity and free of pollutants.
PATRONS OF THE PLANET is an environmental group in Connecticut
working to bring awareness and information to residents about the importance of
protecting the lands, water, insects and air from the harmful effects of “small
cells,” cell towers and smart meters. They advocated against a bill that would
extend the rollout of “small cells.”
PLUMAS WIRED! is an advocacy group of Plumas County residents in
California, with hundreds of members, whose mission is to support safer,
affordable, wired telecommunications for the public.
SAINT CROIX APPRAISALS is an organization that offers appraisal services
for residential homes and educates people about the destructive effects of Wi-Fi
and electromagnetic energies in their homes.
235235
SANTA BARBARA PERMACULTURE NETWORK is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization in California that helps Santa Barbara design systems to reconcile
human communities with the ecological imperatives of a living planet.
SECOND LOOK is a nonprofit organization whose main goal is to facilitate full
public and scientific examinations of public policy issues that have become
obscured by media treatment (or lack thereof), or by political rhetoric, or because
of the inaccessibility of accurate information to relevant constituencies. Their
primary environmental health concerns are fluoride toxicity, fluoride poisoning
in individuals, and electromagnetic field toxicity science.
SOCIAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE is a faith-based committee of the Berkeley
Fellowship of Universalist Unitarians, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based
in California, whose mission is to support inclusion and diversity, environmental
stewardship, fair labor practices, and general peace, democracy, and human
rights in the U.S. and abroad.
SOUTH CAROLINA COALITION FOR WIRELESS SAFETY STANDARDS
is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation whose mission is to educate and advocate on
the dangers that wireless technology poses to human health and the environment.
The SCCWSS represents thousands of people across South Carolina. The
Coalition embraces and supports getting safe, connected technology to every
236236
citizen in South Carolina while reducing the man-made electromagnetic pollutant
of radio frequency, microwave and millimeter wave radiation.
STOP 5G CARLSBAD is a grassroots movement of residents in Carlsbad,
California who are deeply concerned about the pending construction of 5G
“small cell” towers every 300-500 feet throughout their neighborhoods. They are
also concerned with such harmful devices as smart meters.
STOP 5G ENCINITAS is a California organization that envisions and seeks to
ensure a world where 4G, 5G, 6G or any other "G" is implemented by safe
technology standards that has undergone scrutiny to ensure the health and well-
being of all life on the planet before being unleashed. They also envision and
seek to ensure a world where the health and well-being of all life takes
precedence over corporate self-gain.
STOP 5G INTERNATIONAL is a voluntary association of individuals from
around the world with about 5,000 members from multiple countries whose
mission is to support the global effort to stop 5G because it poses an immediate
threat to life on earth. They rely on evidence-based information and non-violent
actions in keeping with the vision of Stop 5G International. Their financing is
through Ecological Options Network, a 501(c)(3) organization.
237237
STOP 5G JAX is an activist group of citizens whose mission is education and
opposition to 5G in Jacksonville, FL and in the rest of Florida.
STOP SMART METERS! is based in California and their fiscal sponsor is
California for Renewable Energy. It is an advocacy, media outreach and direct
action network providing activism, consultation and advice to dozens of local
groups who are opposing wireless smart utility meter deployments for health,
privacy, safety and other reasons.
STOP SMART METERS NEW YORK was created in 2013 as an information
hub and help line for New York State residents who are concerned about the
forced installation of digital utility meters in the state. This step was required due
to the absence of any state-provided consumer protection for utility
customers. Their mission is to secure a no-fee safe analog utility meter choice
for all New York State residents.
SWEETWATER COLLABORATIVE is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit from California
whose mission is to demonstrate how to live in balance with their local
watershed using regenerative, waterwise landscape practices. They provide
education, workshops, and training for sustainable water management as well as
consultations, design, and installations of greywater and rainwater harvesting
systems, food forests and drought-tolerant and edible landscapes. They work
238238
with homeowners, organizations, businesses and neighborhoods in a variety of
capacities. They are concerned about the impact of wireless radiation on
landscapes and ecosystems.
TOXICS INFORMATION PROJECT (TIP) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation
based in Rhode Island which strongly opposes deployment of 5G systems and
informs residents about the high radiation installations and their dangerous and
unhealthy effects.
VERMONTERS FOR A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT is an organization whose
mission is fighting for the economic well-being of all Vermonters assuring
appropriate use of their resources — our people, our land, our air and our water.
They are united in the belief that Vermont’s future lies in conserving its clean,
rural, small-town environment. They have joined together to pursue the common
goals of encouraging economic development with minimal environmental
impacts and preserving Vermont’s natural beauty. VCE is committed to
providing facts and information so that people can make informed decisions.
WINDHEIM EMF SOLUTIONS is an organization from California that believes
that fewer electromagnetic fields lead to better health and longer life.
239239
WIRE AMERICA is a citizen journalist and advocacy organization in California,
working to preserve local control over wired broadband and wireless
telecommunications infrastructure. Local communities must retain the freedom
to integrate the best broadband options for their residents. It has worked at the
federal, state and local levels to tame the unnecessarily dense deployment of
4G/5G so-called “small” wireless telecommunications facilities (sWTFs) in
residential neighborhoods.
WiRED is an organization based in California that exists to educate the public
about wireless radiation and to defend communities against it. They are the local
embodiment of a state-wide, national and worldwide movement advocating for
safer technology and resisting the corporate imposition of wireless and cellular
technologies on the public without fully-informed consent. They seek to inform
the public via independent, evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific studies.
They seek to awaken and empower ordinary folks to unite to take back the
autonomy of our communities from the colonizing control of transnational
telecommunications corporations.
WIRED BROADBAND, INC. is a nonprofit corporation in New York whose
mission is to educate the public and government officials about the dangers
associated with radio frequency radiation from wireless facilities and to advocate
240240
for the use of fiber optics as a safer, faster and more secure solution to broadband
deployment in New York City and throughout the United States.
WIRELESS EDUCATION ACTION is an educational organization based in
Oregon whose mission is education regarding the potential health effects of
wireless technology and how to reduce exposure, education of local and federal
representatives, and of health practitioners. They wish to build a greater and
greater grass root movement to affect change in Oregon.
WIRELESS RADIATION EDUCATION & DEFENSE is a grassroots nonprofit
organization based in California composed of concerned scientists, educators,
parents, and activists. This organization is a fiscal project of Ecological Options
Network (EON), which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. Its mission is to
empower the public to regain autonomy and rights over adverse
telecommunication company interests.
241241
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Pa. R. App. P. 531(b)(3) and 2135(d), the undersigned certifies
that this Brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Pa. R. App. P.
531(b)(3) because this Brief contains 6,985 words, excluding those parts
exempted by Pa. R. App. P. 2135(b).
/s/ Andrea L. Shaw Andrea L. Shaw (I.D. No. 89333) Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw, P.C. 2011 W. Trindle Road Carlisle, PA 17013
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Amici Curiae
242242
CERTIFICATION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
I hereby certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Case
Records Public Access Policy of the United Judicial System of Pennsylvania that
require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-
confidential information and documents.
/s/ Andrea L. Shaw Andrea L. Shaw (I.D. No. 89333) Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw, P.C. 2011 W. Trindle Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Amici Curiae
243243
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 14th day of September 2021, I electronically filed
the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts using the PACFile appellate court electronic
filing system, which will send notice of such filing to all registered PACFile users.
/s/ Andrea L. Shaw Andrea L. Shaw (I.D. No. 89333) Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw, P.C. 2011 W. Trindle Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Amici Curiae
244244
ADDENDUM
245245
ADDENDUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Physicians Statement …………………………………………………... 64
Exhibit 1 ………………………………………………………….. 86
Exhibit 2 …………………………………………………………. 122
Scientists Statement ……………………………………………………. 136
Engineer Report ……………………………………………………….. 168
Building Biology Institute Report ……………………...……………… 184
246246
PHYSICIANS STATEMENT
247247
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
RE: No. 34 MAP 2021, Povacz, M, et al. v. PUC
Associated Case(s):
35 MAP 2021 Consolidated
36 MAP 2021 Consolidated
37 MAP 2021 Consolidated
38 MAP 2021 Consolidated
39 MAP 2021 Consolidated
40 MAP 2021 Consolidated
41 MAP 2021 Consolidated
42 MAP 2021 Consolidated
43 MAP 2021 Consolidated
44 MAP 2021 Consolidated
45 MAP 2021 Consolidated
PHYSICIANS STATEMENT
SMART METER EFFECTS ON PATIENTS WHO ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY
EXPOSURE TO RADIOFREQUENCY AND ELECTROMAGNETIC EMISSIONS
Purpose of Statement
1.The undersigned are physicians - medical doctors (MDs) and Doctor
of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs). Our duty as physicians is to help our patients and
protect our community’s public health. The American Medical Association’s Code
of Medical Ethics also demands that we seek legal outcomes that are in the best
interests of the patient. Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 8.1 states that “While a
physician’s role tends to focus on diagnosing and treating illness once it occurs,
physicians also have a professional commitment to prevent disease and promote
248248
health and well-being for their patients and the community.” Our Hippocratic Oath
requires that we take all necessary steps to “prevent disease whenever we can.”
Our professional ethics therefore demand that we participate in efforts to prevent
patient harm.
2.We file this statement to share with the Court our knowledge of the
scientific and medical literature and our experience working with those of our
patients, adults and children, who are adversely affected by exposure to wireless-
based technologies, including smart meters. Combined we have over 3,000 patients
who suffer from electro-sensitivity and/or other conditions which are aggravated
by exposure. We hope our statement will help the Court reach an informed and
equitable decision in this extremely important case that may have widespread
implications on the lives of those adults and children who are adversely affected
across the country.
3.It is our unequivocal opinion that Smart meters must not be forced on
patients who experience a negative response to RF/EMF, and the only reasonable
and humane accommodation is analog meters, the same meters we have had for
many decades.
Introduction and Summary of Filing
4.Wireless-based technologies such as cell phones, Wi-Fi and smart
meters use and emit pulsed electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and radiofrequency
249249
(RF) radiation (collectively RF/EMF). Exposure to RF/EMF can be harmful, at
least to some people. It can directly injure; it can exacerbate pre-existing
conditions; and it can interfere with treatment.
5.The undersigned doctors have patients who suffer adverse reactions to
RF/EMF, and some of the undersigned doctors themselves are adversely affected
and personally experience the painful and debilitating effects of exposure.
6.Adverse effects from RF/EMF are real, proven and a major threat to
some people’s health. Human physiology has many bioelectric elements, and this
is especially true of the heart, brain, nervous system, and intercellular
communication. Pulsed and modulated RF/EMF are stressors that directly affect
this physiology. Humans vary in their physiology and in their resilience to
stressors. Some people lose the ability to cope at a lower level of exposure to
toxins than others and some may never get sick.
7.The only treatment for those who suffer impairments worsened by
RF/EMF exposure is avoidance. However, with the ever-growing ubiquitous,
involuntary exposure to RF/EMF from wireless technology and infrastructure,1
their home environment is the only place they have some ability to control
exposure. It is their last place of refuge.
1 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-
3/fulltext.
250250
8.Mandatory smart meter deployment in homes, without a meaningful
accommodation for those adversely affected by RF/EMF, will frustrate our ability
to maintain or improve our patients’ well-being; cause them intolerable harm; and
take away from them their only possible refuge, the only place to which they have
some control over exposure, and which must be a sanctuary.
9.For those who are adversely affected, having a wireless or digital
smart meter is not an option. The only reasonable accommodation is an analog
meter. It does not create the adverse elements on the electric system created by the
operation of the digital/wireless “smart” meters that adversely affect them.
Electro-Sensitivity
10.The most widespread sickness associated with exposure to pulsed
RF/EMF is likely “electro-sensitivity.”2 The condition is also referred to in the
scientific literature as “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” (EHS), “microwave
sickness” and “radiation sickness.”
11.The condition is characterized by a constellation of mostly
neurological symptoms that occur as a result of exposure to RF/EMF. Common
symptoms include headaches, cognitive and memory problems, exhaustion, heart
palpitations, anxiety-like symptoms, seizures, sleep issues, ringing in the ears,
2 https://www.aaemonline.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/AAEMEMFmedicalconditions.pdf.
251251
tingling, nausea, skin reactions, dizziness, noise sensitivity, digestive problems,
and nosebleeds.
12.Electro-sensitivity is not truly a sensitivity; it is a sickness caused
and/or aggravated by exposure to pulsed RF/EMF, with serious physiological
complications. Many hundreds of studies have proven that RF/EMF exposure can
cause and/or aggravate these symptoms3 and the underlying injuries4 and establish
the causal mechanisms of harm.5
13.There are diagnosis guidelines and International Codes of Diseases
classifications. Doctors and scientists warn that it is widespread, and the rates are
growing. It is recognized as a disability by US agencies.6
3 Neurological effects: https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/6-
RFR-Neurological-Effects-Abstracts-2020.pdf; https://bioinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/13-Neurological-Effects-Studies-Percent-Comparison-
2020.pdf.
4 https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article/30/11/2882/8424/Diplomats-Mystery-Illness-
and-Pulsed.
5 Mechanism of harm: https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/3-
RFR-Free-Radical-Oxidative-Damage-Abstracts-2020.pdf (oxidative stress);
https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article/30/11/2882/8424/Diplomats-Mystery-Illness-
and-Pulsed’; https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article/30/11/2882/8424/Diplomats-
Mystery-Illness-and-Pulsed.
6 See further discussion in the Amicus Brief. Also:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-accomodation-nibs.pdf;
Dept. of Education: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-
accomodation-education.pdf; Dept. of Labor:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-accomodation-labor.pdf.
252252
14.For many of our patients, RF/EMF exposure adversely and severely
affects their ability to physically and mentally function. Exposure can interfere
with brain wave operation and impair blood flow to the brain. These effects can
cause interference with various brain functions including sleep and cognitive
functions. Exposure can also damage the blood-brain barrier (BBB) which can
lead to brain damage and neurodegenerative conditions. RF/EMF interfere with the
nervous system and bioelectric functions.7
15.Those affected react to RF/EMF exposures they were able to tolerate
previously and at levels that may not evoke a negative response in others. With
avoidance, the symptoms decrease and can even completely disappear. But with re-
exposure they reappear. Continued exposure leads to increase in symptom
frequency, severity and additional symptoms may appear. It can also worsen the
underlying injuries.
16.The scientific evidence explaining causation and mechanisms of harm
associated with RF/EMF injuries is now robust. Oxidative stress is an established
7 https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article/30/11/2882/8424/Diplomats-Mystery-Illness-
and-Pulsed.
253253
mechanism of harm for RF/EMF-related injuries;8 known physiological biomarkers
and genetic predispositions9 help us in our diagnoses.
Diagnosis Guidelines
17.There are reliable diagnostic guidelines that we use and rely on in our
practice. In 2016 the European Academy for Environmental Medicine’s
(EUROPAEM) “EMF Working Group” developed official diagnosis guidelines:
“EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of
EMF-related health problems and illnesses”10 (Exhibit 1). These guidelines were
developed by the world leading experts; they were peer-reviewed and published
and are used by doctors in the US and around the world. They provide a
comprehensive review of the scientific evidence regarding the symptoms, the
physiological damage, mechanisms of harm and biomarkers associated with
RF/EMF-related health effects, and they reference 235 peer-reviewed studies. The
guidelines are based on the Austrian Medical Association’s guidelines.11
18.When diagnosing the condition, we use the World Health
Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases’ Code T-66 for a
8 https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article/30/11/2882/8424/Diplomats-Mystery-Illness-
and-Pulsed.
9 https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mi/2014/924184/.
10 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27454111/.
11 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1092912632123/48-Attachment%2048-
%20Austrian%20Medical%20Assoc%20Guideline%20EMF%20Disease.pdf.
254254
diagnosis of “Radiation Sickness” and Code W90 which recognizes that “Exposure
to Other Nonionizing Radiation” can cause injury.
19.The knowledge regarding the etiology of the condition is constantly
evolving. Professor Dominique Belpomme is a member of the EMF Working
Group that developed the diagnosis guidelines. Since 2009, he and his team have
been conducting extensive testing on people who suffer from electro-sensitivity to
identify the underlining injuries and biomarkers. They have tested over 700 people.
Some of the lab tests recommended by the EUROPAEM’s guidelines are based on
his work.12 To keep doctors appraised of the newly identified biomarkers, in 2020
he published peer-reviewed guidelines13 to reflect the most current findings and
biomarkers to help doctors diagnose, treat, and prevent this condition.14
20.We also consult with guidelines from clinics specializing in diagnosis
of RF/EMF-related injuries such as those developed by Professor Riina Bray, MD,
BASC, MSC, FFCP, MHSC. Prof. Bray leads the largest government hospital
12 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613326/.
13 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139347/.
14 Belpomme’s studies provide clear evidence of physiological biomarkers indicating
serious physiological injuries, and he concludes that these findings negate the
hypothesis that electro-sensitivity could be psychosomatic or caused by a “nocebo”
effect. These studies include objective tests that measure physiological reactions, not
subjective perception, and prove that electro-sensitivity and exposure can lead to
severe injuries.
255255
clinic specializing in diagnosing electro-sensitivity.15 Her diagnosis guidelines16
are based on the knowledge she and the seven doctors in the clinic accumulated
over the past 23 years seeing many hundreds of patients with electro-sensitivity
(Exhibit 2).
Clinical Diagnosis
21.Those who suffer from electro-sensitivity develop symptoms from
RF/EMF exposure. However, the underlying physical injury may be different from
one patient to another, because pulsed RF/EMF can cause various physiological
injuries.
22.For example, a peer-reviewed study on 675 subjects with electro-
sensitivity17 showed that 28% had leakage of the blood-brain barrier; 40% had
chronic inflammation indicating oxidative stress; 23% had autoimmune antibodies;
and 100% had reduced melatonin levels. Substantive scientific evidence shows that
each of these injuries can be caused by pulsed RF/EMF exposure.
23.For this reason, there is no one test for diagnosis and therefore, as
with many other conditions, the diagnosis must be clinical, involve direct
15 https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/care-programs/environmental-health-
clinic/.
16https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/assets/pdf/environmental/Preliminary%20
Clinical%20Guidelines%20%20for%20EHS.pdf.
17 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613326/.
256256
evaluation of the patient, and requires medical judgment. Diagnosis is based on
identifying the underlying cause of the patient’s complaints based on symptoms
and medical history rather than on one specific test. Not all ailments have classic
signs from blood tests or imaging, and in lieu of these, a physician must use
clinical judgment to draw a reasonable and sensible conclusion based on personal
and direct observation and the scientific literature.18
24.When taking a patient’s medical history, we look for description of
situations which would be the equivalent of a blinded test, i.e., situations in which
the patient was unaware of the exposure and the appearance of symptoms was a
clear result of the exposure; and vice versa, where the source of exposure was
removed without the knowledge of the patient and the symptoms improved. We
also look for evidence of physiological reactions which are not based on subjective
perception and on “natural experiment”: if exposure elimination/reduction leads to
diminished symptoms, then avoidance is the recommended treatment.
25.When relevant and possible, we support our clinical diagnosis with
the lab tests suggested by the diagnosis guidelines. These lab tests are based on
18 We understand that the utility’s medical expert’s opinion was formed and expressed
without any direct contact or personal evaluation of the Complainants below, whereas
the Complainants’ medical evidence was based on personal knowledge, at least in part.
Remote diagnostics are contra-indicated, especially in this area. The Commission’s
decision to accept the utility’s medical evidence over that of an actual attending
physician is highly questionable. We note that the federal disabilities rules expressly
discount remote “records-only” evaluations.
257257
biomarkers that have been associated with exposure to RF/EMF. For example, we
use blood tests for free radicals that indicate oxidative stress damage because
oxidative stress is a well-recognized mechanism of harm of RF/EMF exposure.19
26.Our patients’ symptoms can be very severe and debilitating and for
many, they significantly affect major life functions. This is so regardless of the
name attached to the condition or its alleged controversial nature.
Recognition
27.US agencies have recognized the condition as a disability entitled to
accommodations including: the US Access Board;20 National Institute of Buildings
Science;21 the Department of Labor;22 the Department of Education;23 and the
19 Many studies have shown that RF/EMF cause oxidative stress, and it is a
recognized underlying mechanism for EMF-related sicknesses, including electro-
sensitivity. https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/3-RFR-Free-
Radical-Oxidative-Damage-Abstracts-2020.pdf;
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26151230/.
20 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-accomodation-access-
board.pdf#page=3.
21 The report concludes that RF/EMF is an “access barrier” and can render buildings
“inaccessible” to those with electro-sensitivity and provides accessibility guidelines.
https://www.access-board.gov/research/building/indoor-environmental-quality/;
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-accomodation-nibs.pdf.
22 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-accomodation-
labor.pdf.
23 In 2011, DOE issued a memorandum regarding accommodation of people with
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (“MCS”). It included recommendations to minimize
exposure to EMFs and to ensure the home environment is a “sanctuary,” free from
258258
Social Security Administration. In their publications some of these agencies
explain that accommodation of those affected by RF/EMF should be
removal/minimizing exposure and that their home should be a sanctuary free from
EMF.
28.In the past couple of decades, and mainly in the past 10 years, the
number of patients we see in our clinics who suffer greatly from RF/EMF has
grown.24 This is not surprising given the exponential increase in wireless
deployment and use. The general public faces constant saturation in all public
places and in the workplace.25
29.This sickness has been recognized by courts and by many medical and
official international organizations such as the Council of Europe26 and the
EMFs because they may trigger symptoms. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-
content/uploads/rf-accomodation-education.pdf#page=5.
24 See statement from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine:
https://www.aaemonline.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/AAEMEMFmedicalconditions.pdf.
25 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-
3/fulltext.
26 Resolution 1815 (2011) Section 8.1.4: “pay particular attention to “electrosensitive”
people who suffer from a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and
introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas
not covered by the wireless network.” Available at
http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&.
259259
European Parliament which stated in a resolution that the rates of electro-
sensitivity are growing “exponentially.”27
30.In 2019, the New-Hampshire legislature voted unanimously to
establish a committee to study the effects of 5G and wireless radiation. The
committee was comprised of scientists, public officials, and representatives of the
wireless industry (through CTIA, the wireless industry lobby association).
Following a year of hearing expert testimony and reviewing the science, the
committee’s majority report, published in October 2020, concluded that wireless
radiation can be harmful. The report acknowledged electro-sensitivity and the need
to accommodate those who suffer from the condition. It emphasized the need to
educate doctors.28
31.Indeed, doctors’ awareness of RF/EMFs harms is constantly growing.
The California Medical Association passed a Resolution which highlighted
RF/EMF effects consistent with electro-sensitivity. In 2021, close to 200
physicians participated in a medical conference about health effects associated
27 European Parliament Written declaration on the recognition of multiple chemical
sensitivity and electrohypersensitivity in the International Statistical Classification of
Diseases and Related Health Problems. Available at
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/DCL-7-2012-
0014_EN.pdf?redirect.
28http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20
final%20report.pdf.
260260
with RF/EMF exposure.29 Participants received continued medical education
(CME) credits.
32.We have no doubt that for some of our patients, RF/EMF are the
cause of their symptoms. Only those who have not had patients who are affected,
have not performed direct evaluations or are ignorant of the scientific and medical
literature and the operation of the human body, can doubt these patients and their
suffering from pulsed RF/EMFs.
Smart Meter Specific Issues
33.The problems with smart meters arise not only from the RF signal
used to wirelessly transfer the data to the utility company. A major problem is that
smart meters inject pulsed RF and extremely low-frequency (ELFs) EMFs over a
house’s electric wiring, effectively turning the entire home into a radiating antenna.
Locating the smart meter further away from the house is not an acceptable solution
or reasonable accommodation because it does not eliminate this “antenna” effect.30
34.This problem is exacerbated because the RF/EMF that enter the
electric system are intensely pulsed,31 and pulsation has consistently been
29 https://emfconference2021.com/.
30 See expert engineer Erik Anderson statement which is part of the amicus brief.
31 https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/EFILE/BRIEF/171336.PDF.
261261
identified as a central element in RF/EMF related injuries.32 EMFs used for
medical treatments are pulsed because the pulsation makes the signal more
bioactive.33
35.Some of our patients reported symptom onset after a smart meter was
installed on their homes. Many were not aware of the installation at the time, did
not suffer from adverse effects from wireless devices and had no idea that these
meters or any wireless device can cause harm. In many of the cases, the association
between the meter installation and the appearance of symptoms is clear.34
36.However, the best evidence of the adverse effects of these meters is
the changes we see almost immediately after a smart meter is removed and
replaced with an analog meter. Our patients’ symptoms usually disappear or at
least significantly lessen.
37.Adverse reactions which are not affected by subjective perception
disappear and thus the evidence is indisputable and cannot be deemed a “nocebo”
effect. It establishes clear and direct causation. For example, a common symptom
we see in patients from smart meters is nosebleeds, including in children. When the
32https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10709642227609/Carlo%20paper%20%20Real%20vers
us%20Simulated%20Mobile%20Phone%20Exposures%20in%20Experimental%20St
udies.pdf.
33 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520940777.pdf.
34 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958363.pdf.
262262
family has the smart meter removed, the nosebleeds usually disappear almost
overnight. Studies have explained the mechanism behind pulsed RF/EMF exposure
and nosebleeds.35
38.We must emphasize that the question of initial causation is irrelevant.
The smart meter may or may not be the source that first generates symptom onset.
What is relevant is that once a person begins to react to pulsed RF/EMFs, any and
all exposure must be avoided, since avoidance is the primary and only truly
effective treatment. People can turn off a cell phone, but they cannot turn off the
smart meter or shield themselves from its effects.
39.People with major life function impairments require accommodation,
without regard to initial cause. The accommodation requirement merely allows
them to better function and have some chance of a tolerable life.
40.Forcing smart meters on our patients who are adversely affected by
RF/EMF, in their homes, means exposing them 24/7 to a toxin that instigates
dysfunction, tormenting pain and severe physiological injuries and reactions, some
of which can be life-threatening.
41.Our patients and those like them cannot be required to endure
exposure that is toxic and can be even deadly to them in their own home as a
35 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091442657471/Cuban%20Embassy-
Beatrice%20Golomb%20PhD-Microwave%20Attack.pdf#page=20.
263263
condition of utility service. If they cannot have a safe environment in their homes,
their condition will undoubtedly worsen and can result in death. Their home is
their only refuge.
42.The main recommendation to our patients beyond avoidance is to
contact professionals who specialize in EMF mitigation, to help them mitigate
RF/EMF exposure and shield the home from outside exposure sources. However,
no amount of shielding can protect those who are sick from the effects of smart
meters, since they turn the home’s electric wiring into a transmitting antenna. This
is the worst-case scenario for the electro-sensitive.
Summary
43.Based on our knowledge and experience, we unequivocally determine
that wireless and digital “smart” meters must not be forced on those who suffer
adverse reactions from RF/EMF exposure. Those who are affected must have the
choice of mechanical analog meters. Any other outcome will lead to immense
suffering and even death. It would be unconscionable.
44.This accommodation is necessary, simple and reasonable. All that is
required is to allow them to use the same mechanical analog utility meter that was
installed for many decades on homes.
Respectfully Submitted,
264264
Physicians Statement Signatories
Prashanthi Atluri, MD, Cardiology, OH
Tiffany Baer, MD, Internal Medicine, TX
Sunil Bhat, DO, Family Medicine, PA
Anthony Bianco, DO, Family Medicine, OH
Michael Blahut, DO, Family Medicine, PA
Mark Brody, MD, Primary Care, Integrative Medicine, RI
Larry Burk, MD, Radiology, NC
Maria Carrascal, MD, Pediatrics, Puerto Rico
David Calderwood, MD, Family Medicine, AL
Lora Chamberlain, DO, Family Medicine, IL
Jaqueline Chan, DO, Family and Integrative Medicine, CA
Barbara A. Crothers, DO, Pathology, MD
Diane Culik, MD, Family Medicine, MI
Paul Dart, MD, Family Practice Physician, OR
265265
Sandra Denton, MD, Family Medicine, Alternative Medicine, Emergency
Medicine, AK
Tim Dooley, MD, Integrative Medicine, CA
Robyn Dreibelbis, DO, Family Medicine, OR
Victoria Dunckley, MD, Psychiatry, CA
Ben Edwards, MD, Functional Medicine, TX
Erica Elliot, MD, Family and Environmental Medicine, NM
Tracy Freeman, MD, Internal Medicine, MD
Deborah Ginsburg, MD, Family Medicine, Special Needs, NJ
Melanie Gisler, DO, Family Medicine, CA
Sharon Goldberg, MD, Internal and Integrative Medicine, NM
Stephen Grable, MD, Internal Medicine, FL
Margaret Heinze, MD, Family Medicine, WI
Martha Herbert, MD PhD, Pediatric Neurologist, MA
Michael Hilts, MD, Family Medicine, NC
Jeanne Hubbuch, MD, Family Medicine, MA
Toril Jelter, MD, Pediatrics, CA
266266
Lyn Johnson, DO, Family Medicine, FL
Bob Kaplan, MD, Diagnostic Radiology, AZ
Stacy Kuhns, MD, Pediatrics, PA
Christopher Lawinski, MD, Integrative Medicine, HI
Janet Levatin, MD, Pediatrics, OH
Stephanie McCarter, MD, Internal Medicine, TX
Lawrence McKnight, MD, Internal Medicine, PA
Jorge Moreno, DO, Family Medicine, CA
Leah Morton, MD, Family Medicine, NM
Gerald Natzke, DO, Assistant Clinical Professor, Michigan State University,
Environmental Medicine, Allergies, MI
Raymond Oenbrink, DO, Family Medicine, NC
Kara Parker, MD, Family Medicine, Functional Medicine, and Integrative
Health, MN
Jessica Peatross, MD, Internal and Functional Medicine, NC
Michelle Perro, MD, Pediatrics, Integrative Medicine, CA
Diane Powell, MD, Psychiatry, OR
267267
Peter Prociuk, MD, Internal Medicine, PA
Kirsten Reynolds, MD, Family Medicine, WI
David G. Schwartz, MD, Family Medicine, VA
Jennifer Shaw, MD, Obstetrics and Gynecology, AZ
Pam Shervanick, DO, Psychiatry, ME
Frank Sievert, MD, Family Medicine, OR
Ana-Maria Temple, MD, Pediatrics, NC
Robert Turner, MD, Neurology, SC
Kevin Wand, DO, Family Medicine, MN
Jane Williams, MD, General Surgery, CA
Savely Yurkovsky, MD, Cardiology, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, NY
James Ziobron, DO, Family Medicine, MI
268268
PHYSICIANS STATEMENT – Exhibit 1
269269
Rev Environ Health 2015; 30(4): 337–371
European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) – EMF
working group:*Corresponding author: Gerd Oberfeld, Department of Public
Health, Government of Land Salzburg, Austria,
E-mail: [e-mail] Belyaev: Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science,
Bratislava, Slovak Republic; and Prokhorov General Physics
Institute, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, RussiaAmy Dean: American Academy of Environmental Medicine,
Wichita, Kansas, USAHorst Eger: Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians
of Bavaria, Medical Quality Circle “Electromagnetic Fields in
Medicine – Diagnostic, Therapy, Environment”, Naila, GermanyGerhard Hubmann: Center for Holistic Medicine “MEDICUS”, Vienna,
Austria; and Wiener Internationale Akademie für Ganzheitsmedizin
(GAMED), Vienna, AustriaReinhold Jandrisovits: Medical Association Burgenland,
Environmental Medicine Department, Eisenstadt, AustriaOlle Johansson: The Experimental Dermatology Unit,
Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm,
Sweden
Markus Kern: Medical Quality Circle “Electromagnetic Fields in
Medicine – Diagnosis, Treatment and Environment”, Kempten,
Germany; and Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch,
Umwelt u. Demokratie e.V, Kempten, GermanyMichael Kundi and Hanns Moshammer: Institute of Environmental
Health, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, AustriaPiero Lercher: Medical Association Vienna, Environmental Medicine
Department, Vienna, AustriaWilhelm Mosgöller: Institute of Cancer Research Medical University
Vienna, Vienna, AustriaKurt Müller: European Academy for Environmental Medicine,
Kempten, GermanyPeter Ohnsorge: European Academy for Environmental Medicine,
Würzburg, GermanyPeter Pelzmann: Department of electronics and computer science
engineering, HTL Danube City, Vienna, AustriaClaus Scheingraber: Working Group Electro-Biology (AEB), Munich,
Germany; and Association for Environmental- and Human-Toxicology
(DGUHT), Würzburg, GermanyRoby Thill: Association for Environmental Medicine (ALMEN)
Beaufort, Luxembourg
Igor Belyaev, Amy Dean, Horst Eger, Gerhard Hubmann, Reinhold Jandrisovits, Olle Johansson, Markus Kern, Michael Kundi, Piero Lercher, Wilhelm Mosgöller, Hanns Moshammer, Kurt Müller, Gerd Oberfeld*, Peter Ohnsorge, Peter Pelzmann, Claus Scheingraber and Roby ThillEUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses
DOI 10.1515/reveh-2015-0033
Received October 1, 2015; accepted October 13, 2015
Abstract: Chronic diseases and illnesses associated
with unspecific symptoms are on the rise. In addition to
chronic stress in social and work environments, physi-
cal and chemical exposures at home, at work, and during
leisure activities are causal or contributing environmen-
tal stressors that deserve attention by the general practi-
tioner as well as by all other members of the health care
community. It seems certainly necessary now to take “new
exposures” like electromagnetic field (EMF) into account.
Physicians are increasingly confronted with health prob-
lems from unidentified causes. Studies, empirical obser-
vations, and patient reports clearly indicate interactions
between EMF exposure and health problems. Individual
susceptibility and environmental factors are frequently
neglected. New wireless technologies and applications
have been introduced without any certainty about their
health effects, raising new challenges for medicine and
society. For instance, the issue of so-called non-thermal
effects and potential long-term effects of low-dose expo-
sure were scarcely investigated prior to the introduction of
these technologies. Common EMF sources include Wi-Fi
access points, routers and clients, cordless and mobile
phones including their base stations, Bluetooth devices,
ELF magnetic fields from net currents, ELF electric fields
from electric lamps and wiring close to the bed and office
desk. On the one hand, there is strong evidence that long-
term-exposure to certain EMF exposures is a risk factor
for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease
and male infertility. On the other hand, the emerging
electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is more and more
recognized by health authorities, disability administra-
tors and case workers, politicians, as well as courts of
law. We recommend treating EHS clinically as part of the
group of chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI) leading to
a functional impairment (EHS), but still recognizing that
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
270270
338   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
the underlying cause remains the environment. In the
beginning, EHS symptoms often occur only occasionally,
but over time they may increase in frequency and severity.
Common EHS symptoms include headaches, concentra-
tion difficulties, sleeping problems, depression, lack of
energy, fatigue and flu-like symptoms. A comprehensive
medical history, which should include all symptoms and
their occurrences in spatial and temporal terms and in
the context of EMF exposures, is the key to the diagnosis.
The EMF exposure can be assessed by asking for typical
sources like Wi-Fi access points, routers and clients, cord-
less and mobile phones and measurements at home and
at work. It is very important to take the individual suscep-
tibility into account. The primary method of treatment
should mainly focus on the prevention or reduction of
EMF exposure, that is, reducing or eliminating all sources
of EMF at home and in the workplace. The reduction of
EMF exposure should also be extended to public spaces
such as schools, hospitals, public transport, and libraries
to enable persons with EHS an unhindered use (accessi-
bility measure). If a detrimental EMF exposure is reduced
sufficiently, the body has a chance to recover and EHS
symptoms will be reduced or even disappear. Many exam-
ples have shown that such measures can prove effective.
Also the survival rate of children with leukemia depends
on ELF magnetic field exposure at home. To increase the
effectiveness of the treatment, the broad range of other
environmental factors that contribute to the total body
burden should also be addressed. Anything that supports
a balanced homeostasis will increase a person’s resilience
against disease and thus against the adverse effects of EMF
exposure. There is increasing evidence that EMF exposure
has a major impact on the oxidative and nitrosative regu-
lation capacity in affected individuals. This concept also
may explain why the level of susceptibility to EMF can
change and why the number of symptoms reported in the
context of EMF exposures is so large. Based on our current
understanding, a treatment approach that minimizes the
adverse effects of peroxynitrite – as has been increasingly
used in the treatment of multisystem disorders – works
best. This EMF Guideline gives an overview of the current
knowledge regarding EMF-related health risks and pro-
vides concepts for the diagnosis and treatment and acces-
sibility measures of EHS to improve and restore individual
health outcomes as well as for the development of strate-
gies for prevention.
Keywords: accessability measures; alternating;
Alzheimer’s; cancer; chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI);
diagnosis; electric; electromagnetic field (EMF); electro-
magnetic hypersensitivity (EHS); functional impairment;
infertility; leukemia; magnetic; medical guideline; nitro-
sative stress; nonionizing; oxidative stress; peroxynitrite;
prevention; radiation; static; therapy; treatment.
Current state of the scientific and
political debate from a medical
perspective
Introduction
The Environmental Burden of Disease Project assessed
the influence of nine environmental stressors (benzene,
dioxins including furans and dioxin-like PCBs, second-
hand smoke, formaldehyde, lead, noise, ozone, particu-
late matter and radon) on the health of the population of
six countries (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,
and the Netherlands). Those nine environmental stressors
caused 3%–7% of the annual burden of disease in the six
European countries (1).
The Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer (BPtK) study
in Germany showed that mental disorders had increased
further and especially burnout as a reason of inability
to work escalated seven-fold from 2004 to 2011 (2). In
Germany, 42% of early retirements in 2012 were caused by
mental disorders, depression being the leading diagnosis
(3). In Germany, psychotropic drugs are at third place for
the prescriptions of all drugs (4).
The consumption of methylphenidate (Ritalin,
Medikinet, Concerta), a psychotropic drug prescribed as
a treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) especially for young children and adolescents,
has increased alarmingly since the early 1990s. Accord-
ing to statistics of the German Federal Institute for Drugs
and Medical Devices (Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel
und Medizinprodukte), prescriptions have increased
even more dramatically since 2000 and reached a climax
in 2012. In 2013, only a slight decline in the number of
prescriptions was observed (5). Interestingly the rapid
increase in the use of methylphenidate coincides with
the enormous expansion of mobile telecommunication
and other related technologies, posing an open research
question.
In Germany, work disability cases and absence days
due to mental health disorders more than doubled from
1994 to 2011 (6). In OECD countries, a huge variability
in the prescription of antidepressants has occurred and
generally an increasing trend has been observed. Socio-
economic status and therapeutic standards cannot fully
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
271271
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   339
explain these observations (7). Functional disturbances
like chronic inflammation and changes of neurotransmit-
ter functions caused by environmental influences are not
investigated.
A steady increase in the prevalence of allergic/asth-
matic diseases globally has occurred, with about 30%–
40% of the world population now being affected by one or
more allergic/asthmatic conditions (8).
It is suspected that environmental conditions such
as the increasing exposure of the population to electro-
magnetic fields (EMFs) like radio-frequency radiation
(RF), emanating from e.g. cordless phones (DECT), mobile
phone base stations and cell phones (GSM, GPRS, UMTS,
LTE) – especially smartphones, data cards for laptop and
notebook computers, wireless LAN (Wi-Fi), wireless and
powerline communication-based smart meters, but also
exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and
magnetic fields including “dirty electricity”, emanating
from disturbances on the electric wiring, power lines, elec-
tric devices, and other equipment, do play a causal role
for EMF-related health effects (9–12). For the society and
the medical community, all of this raises new challenges.
Chronic diseases and illnesses associated with unspe-
cific symptoms are on the rise. In addition to chronic stress
in social and work environments, physical and chemical
exposures at home, at work, and during leisure activities
are causal or contributing environmental stressors that
deserve attention by the general practitioner as well as by
all other members of the health care community. It seems
certainly necessary now to take “new exposures” like EMF
into account.
Worldwide statements of organizations regarding EMF
The recommendations of the World Health Organization
(WHO) regarding extremely low frequency (ELF) electric
and magnetic fields and radio-frequency radiation, com-
piled by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) (13, 14), are based on induc-
tions of currents in the body and thermal effects (SAR
values). These recommendations were adopted by the EU
in its Council Recommendation of 1999 without taking into
account long-term nonthermal effects. However, it should
be stressed that at an international EMF conference in
London (2008), Professor Paolo Vecchia, head of ICNIRP,
said about the exposure guidelines “What they are not”:
“They are not mandatory prescriptions for safety”, “They
are not the ‘last word’ on the issue”, and “They are not
defensive walls for industry or others” (15).
Even for short-term effects, the application of
specific absorption rate (SAR) estimates seems to be not
appropriate (16).
In contrast to the WHO headquarter in Geneva, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) , a
WHO-affiliated specialized agency in Lyon, classified
extremely low frequency magnetic fields as possibly car-
cinogenic to humans (Group 2B) in 2002 (17) and radio-
frequency radiation in 2011 (18).
In August 2007 and December 2012, the BioInitia-
tive Working Group, an international group of experts,
published comprehensive reports calling for preventive
measures against EMF exposure based on the available
scientific evidence (9, 10).
Since it is mostly neglected as a health hazard, the
European Environment Agency compared the risks of non-
ionizing radiation (EMF) to other environmental hazards
such as asbestos, benzene and tobacco, urgently recom-
mending to implement a precautionary approach regarding
EMF (19). This position was confirmed and elaborated more
deeply in further publications in 2011 and 2013 (20, 21).
In September 2008, a statement of the European
Parliament called for a review of the EMF limits set out
in the EU Council Recommendation of 1999, which was
based on the ICNIRP guidelines, with reference to the
BioInitiative Report (22). This was further strengthened in
the European Parliament resolution of April 2009 (23).
In November, 2009, a scientific panel met in Seletun,
Norway, for 3 days of intensive discussion on existing
scientific evidence and public health implications of the
unprecedented global exposures to artificial electromag-
netic fields. Such electromagnetic field exposures (static
to 300 GHz) result from the use of electric power and from
wireless telecommunications technologies for voice and
data transmission, energy, security, military and radar use
in weather and transportation.
At the meeting, the Seletun Scientific Panel adopted a
Consensus Agreement (24) that recommends preventative
and precautionary actions that are warranted now, given
the existing evidence for potential global health risks.
It recognizes the duty of governments and their health
agencies to educate and warn the public, to implement
measures balanced in favor of the Precautionary Princi-
ple (25), to monitor compliance with directives promoting
alternatives to wireless, and to fund research and policy
development geared toward prevention of exposures and
development of new public safety measures.
The Scientific Panel recognizes that the body of evi-
dence on electromagnetic fields requires a new approach
to protection of public health; the growth and develop-
ment of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
272272
340   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
preventative actions. These conclusions are built upon
prior scientific and public health reports documenting the
following:
1) Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse
health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly
below existing exposure standards.
2)ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inad-
equate and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-
intensity exposures.
3) New, biologically-based public exposure stand-
ards are urgently needed to protect public health
world-wide.
4) It is not in the public interest to wait.
The Panel also strongly recommends that persons with
electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms (EHS) be clas-
sified as functionally impaired in all countries rather than
with “idiopathic environmental disease” or similar indis-
tinct categories. This terminology will encourage govern-
ments to make adjustments in the living environment to
better address social and well-being needs of this subpop-
ulation of highly sensitive members of society, and – as
a consequence – protect everyone now as well as in the
coming generations from toxic environmental exposures.
It is important to note that numeric limits recom-
mended by the Seletun Scientific Panel, as well as by
other bodies of society, do not yet take into account sensi-
tive populations (EHS, immune-compromised, the fetus,
developing children, the elderly, people on medications,
etc.). Another safety margin is, thus, likely justified further
below the numeric limits for EMF exposure recommended
by the Panel.
In May 2011, the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe adopted the report “The potential
dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effects on
the environment” (26). The Assembly recommended
many preventive measures for the member states of the
Council of Europe with the aim to protect humans and
the environment, especially from high-frequency electro-
magnetic fields such as: “Take all reasonable measures
to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially
to radiofrequencies from mobile phones, and particularly
the exposure of children and young people who seem
to be most at risk from head tumors” or “Pay particular
attention to “electrosensitive” people who suffer from a
syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and
introduce special measures to protect them, including
the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wire-
less network.”
Recognizing that patients are being adversely
affected by EMF exposure, the American Academy of
Environmental Medicine published recommendations
regarding EMF exposure in July 2012. The AAEM called
for physicians to consider electromagnetic exposure in
diagnosis and treatment and recognize that EMF expo-
sure “may be an underlying cause of the patient’s disease
process” (27).
Since 2014 the Belgium government has prohibited
the advertising of cell phones for children under the age of
seven and has required the specific absorption rate (SAR)
of cell phones be listed. Furthermore, at the point of sale,
well-marked warnings must be posted that instruct users
to use headsets and to minimize their exposure (28).
In January 2015, the French parliament adopted a
comprehensive law that protects the general public from
excessive exposure to electromagnetic waves. Among
other things, it was passed to ban Wi-Fi in nurseries for
children under the age of three and to enable Wi-Fi at
primary schools with children under the age of 11 only
when used specifically for lessons. Public places offer-
ing Wi-Fi must clearly advertise this fact on a sign. At
the point of sale of cell phones, the SAR value must be
clearly shown. In the future, any cell phone advertise-
ment must include recommendations on how users can
reduce RF radiation exposure to the head such as the use
of headsets. Data on local EMF exposure levels shall be
made more easily accessible to the general public, among
others, through country-wide transmitter maps. Also, the
French government will have to submit a report on elec-
tromagnetic hypersensitivity to the parliament within a
year (29).
In May 2015 almost 200 scientists directed an interna-
tional appeal to United Nations (UN) and WHO and called
for protection from nonionizing electromagnetic field
exposure. In the appeal the scientifically proven effects
on health and the hitherto inadequate international
guidelines (ICNIRP) and their use by WHO had been
addressed. In addition, various demands were made in
nine points, such as that: “the public be fully informed
about the potential health risks from electromagnetic
energy and taught harm reduction strategies” and “that
medical professionals be educated about the biological
effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided train-
ing on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensi-
tivity” (30).
Finally, in 2015 Pall (12) published a comprehen-
sive paper with the title “Scientific evidence contradicts
findings and assumptions of Canadian Safety Panel 6:
microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel
activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal
levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower
frequency electromagnetic field action”.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
273273
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   341
EMF and cancer
Except for a few investigations in occupational settings,
epidemiological research of EMF started in 1979 when
Wertheimer and Leeper published their study about the
relationship between the proximity to so-called power
line poles with “service drop” wires and the occurrence of
childhood cancer (specifically leukemia and brain tumors)
(31). At the same time Robinette et al. studied mortality in
a cohort of Korean War veterans having been trained on
military radars in the early 1950s (32). Both studies found
indications of increased risks and initiated a new era of
studying health-relevant effects from exposure to EMFs.
In the following years, a large number of investiga-
tions about the relationship between childhood leuke-
mia and extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF
MF) have been published. However, the results seemed
inconsistent until in 2000 two pooled analyses (33, 34)
were conducted, providing little indication of inconsist-
ency and demonstrating an increase of leukemia risk with
increasing average exposure levels that was significant for
levels above 0.3 or 0.4 µT relative to averages below 0.1 µT
but without indication of a threshold. Based on these
findings, the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) classified ELF MF in 2002 as a Group 2B (possible)
carcinogen (17). To this category belong e.g. lead, DDT,
welding fumes, and carbon tetrachloride.
Since then additional epidemiological studies have
been conducted that gave essentially the same results (35,
36). In a review on childhood leukemia and ELF MF, Kundi
concluded that there is sufficient evidence from epidemio-
logical studies of an increased risk for childhood leuke-
mia from exposure to power-frequency MF that cannot
be attributed to chance, bias, or confounding. Therefore,
according to the rules of IARC, such exposures ought to be
classified as a Group 1 (definite) carcinogen (10).
The prognosis of certain diseases can be influenced
by EMF-reduction. For example, children who have leuke-
mia and are in recovery have poorer survival rates if their
ELF magnetic field exposure at home (or where they are
recovering) is between 1 mG [0.1 µT] and 2 mG [0.2 µT] or
above 2 mG [0.2 µT] in one study, over 3 mG [0.3 µT] in
another study (9).
Epidemiological studies of radio-frequency fields
before the general rise in exposure to mobile telecom-
munication networks was quite restricted and only a few
studies had been conducted in the vicinity of radio trans-
mitters, radar stations, other occupational exposures, a
in radio amateurs. After the introduction of digital mobile
telephony, the number of users of mobile phones increased
dramatically and it was recommended in the 1990s to
perform epidemiological studies with a focus on intrac-
ranial tumors. Since the first publication in 1999 by the
Swedish group around Prof. Lennart Hardell (37), about
40 studies have been published. The majority of these
studies investigated brain tumors, but also salivary gland
tumors, uveal melanoma, nerve sheath tumors, testicular
cancer, and lymphoma. Many of these studies are incon-
clusive because of too short exposure durations; however,
two series of investigations, the international Interphone
study conducted in 13 countries and the Swedish studies
of the Hardell group, had a significant proportion of long-
term mobile phone users and could in principle be used
for risk assessment. In 2011, IARC classified radio-fre-
quency electromagnetic fields (RF) as a Group 2B carcino-
gen based on evidence from epidemiological studies and
animal experiments (18). Since then, additional studies
have corroborated the assumption of a causal relationship
between mobile phone use and cancer (38–40). Hardell
and Carlberg (41) concluded that RF-EMF ought to be clas-
sified as a definitive human carcinogen (IARC Group 1).
The evidence for a causal relationship between long-term
mobile and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma has
increased further in 2015 (42).
In Italy, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling in October
2012 for an 80% disability rating and permanent disabil-
ity pension due to a tumor, which was causally connected
with the occupation-related heavy use of cell and cordless
phones (43).
EMF and neurodegeneration
Neurological effects are caused by changes in the nervous
system, including direct damage (neurodegeneration) to
nerve cells and their processes, the axons and dendrites, as
well as their terminal common functional entities, the syn-
apses with their receptors, ion channels and comodulators.
Factors that act directly or indirectly on the nervous system
causing morphological, chemical, and/or electrical changes
in the nervous system can lead to neurological alterations.
The final manifestation of these effects can be seen in neu-
rocognitive changes, e.g. memory, learning and perception,
as well as in primary sensory and motor incapacities.
The nervous system is an electrical organ based on a
very complex chemistry. Thus, it should not be surprising
that exposure to electromagnetic fields could lead to neu-
rodegeneration and concomitant or consecutive neuro-
logical changes. Morphological, chemical, electrical, and
behavioral changes have been reported in animals, cells
and tissues after exposure to electromagnetic fields across
a range of frequencies.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
274274
342   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
The consequences of physiological changes in the
nervous system are very difficult to assess. We do not
fully understand how the nervous system functions and
reacts to external perturbations. The neuronal plastic-
ity of the nervous system could compensate for external
disturbances, at least to a certain degree. On the other
hand, the consequence of neural perturbation is also
situation-dependent. An EMF-induced severe change in
brain performance, for instance, could lead to different
consequences depending on whether a person is sitting in
a sofa watching TV or driving a car. The latter could very
well end dramatically, even fatally.
It should be noted that analyses of the recent neuro-
logical literature show that there are more publications
showing effects than no effects. So the question is not if
EMFs cause effects, but rather how serious they will be for
a given person.
Neurological effects of radio-frequency radiation (RFR)
There are many studies on human subjects. Many of the
published papers are on changes in brain electrical activi-
ties, the EEG, as well as impacts on sleep, after acute expo-
sure to cell phone radiation.
Bak et al. (44) reported effects on event-related
potentials. Maganioti et al. (45) further reported that RFR
affected the gender-specific components of event-related
potentials [see also Hountala et al. (46)]. Croft et al. (47)
reported changes of the alpha wave power in the EEG.
The same authors (48) further reported that effects dif-
fered between various new cell phone transmission
systems, which have different signaling characteristics.
They observed effects after exposure to second genera-
tion (2G), but not third generation (3G) radiation, whereas
Leung et al. (49) found similar EEG effects with both 2G
and 3G types of radiation. Lustenberger et al. (50) found
increased slow-wave activity in humans during exposure
to pulse-modulated RF EMF toward the end of the sleep
period. Vecchio and associates reported that cell phone
RFR affected EEG and the spread of neural synchroniza-
tion conveyed by interhemispherical functional coupling
of EEG rhythms (51) and enhanced human cortical neural
efficiency (52). An interesting finding is that RFR could
interact with the activity of brain epileptic foci in epilep-
tic patients (53, 54). However, no significant effect on EEG
was reported by Perentos et al. (55) or Trunk et al. (56).
And Kleinlogel et al. (57, 58) also reported no significant
effects on resting EEG and event-related potentials in
humans after exposure to cell phone RFR. Furthermore,
Krause et al. (59) reported no significant effect of cell
phone radiation on brain oscillatory activity, and Inomata-
Terada et al. (60) concluded that cell phone radiation does
not affect the electrical activity of the motor cortex.
There are studies on the interaction of cell phone
radiation on EEG during sleep. Changes in sleep EEG have
been reported by Hung et al. (61), Regel et al. (62), Lowden
et al. (63), Schmid et al. (64, 65), and Loughran et al. (66),
whereas no significant effect was reported by Fritzer et al.
(67), Mohler et al. (68, 69) and Nakatani-Enomoto et al.
(70). Loughran et al. (66) provided an interesting conclu-
sion in their paper: “These results confirm previous find-
ings of mobile phone-like emissions affecting the EEG
during non-REM sleep”. Importantly, this low-level effect
was also shown to be sensitive to individual variability. Fur-
thermore, this indicates that “previous negative results are
not strong evidence for a lack of an effect…” Increase in
REM sleep was reported by Pelletier et al. (71) in developing
rats after chronic exposure. Mohammed et al. (72) reported
a disturbance in REM sleep EEG in the rat after long term
exposure (1 h/day for 1 month) to a 900-MHz modulated
RFR. A Swiss Study revealed that, under pulse-modulated
radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure, sleep slow-
wave activity is increased and – fitting to that – the sleep-
dependent performance improvement is decreased (50).
Among the very many effects reported in the ever
increasing number of scientific papers are also reduction
in behavioral arousal, sleep latency alterations, effects on
cognitive functions and EEG, on spatial working memory,
on well-being, influences on overall behavioral problems
in adolescents, alteration of thermal pain threshold and
visual discrimination threshold, respectively, induced
hyperactivity, hypoactivity and impaired memory, respec-
tively, contextual emotional behavior deficit, olfactory
and/or visual memory deficit, impact on food collection
behavior (in ants), decreased motor activity, learning
behavior deficit, induction of stress behavioral patterns,
passive avoidance deficit, and reduced memory functions.
Almost all the animal studies reported effects, whereas
more human studies reported no effects than effects. This
may be caused by several possible factors: (a) Humans are
less susceptible to the effects of RFR than are rodents and
other species. (b) Non-thermal effects of RFR depend on
a number of physical and biological parameters (73). The
same exposure can induce effects in certain biological
species while being ineffective in others. IARC also admits
that some of the discrepancies between RFR studies could
be due to differences in species [(18), p. 416]. (c) It may
be more difficult to do human than animal experiments,
since, in general, it is easier to control the variables and
confounding factors in an animal experiment. (d) In the
animal studies, the cumulative exposure duration was
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
275275
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   343
generally longer and studies were carried out after expo-
sure, whereas in the human studies, the exposure was
generally at one time and testing was done during expo-
sure. This raises the question of whether the effects of
RFR are cumulative. This consideration could have very
important implications on real-life human exposure to
EMF. However, it must be pointed out that neurophysi-
ological and behavioral changes have been reported in
both animals and humans after acute (one-time) exposure
to RFR, and most of the EEG studies mentioned above are
acute exposure experiments.
Neurological effects of extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF)
A number of authors have reported effects of ELF-EMF on
various animal transmitter receptors in the brain such as
NMDA receptors, dopamine and serotonin receptors, includ-
ing the 5HT(2A) subtype of serotonin receptors. The latter
is classically, particularly in the frontal cortex, believed to
be related to the psychiatric syndromes of depression in
humans. Kitaoka et al. (74) and Szemerszky et al. (75) did
report depression-like behavior in both mice and rats, after
chronic exposure to ELF magnetic fields. There are two
reports on dopamine receptors. Shin et al. (76, 77) reported
an increase in D-1 dopamine receptors and activity in the
striatum of the rat after ELF magnetic field exposure. Dopa-
mine in the striatum is, of course, involved in Parkinson’s
disease. Wang et al. (78) reported that ELF magnetic fields
potentiated morphine-induced decrease in D-2 dopamine
receptors. Both D-1 and D-2 dopamine receptors in the brain
are involved in depression and drug addiction. Ravera et al.
(79) reported changes in the enzyme acetylcholinesterase
in cell membrane isolated from the cerebellum after ELF
magnetic field exposure. Interestingly, these researchers
also reported “frequency window” effects in their experi-
ment. Window effects, i.e. effects are observed at a certain
range(s) of EMF frequencies or intensities, were first
reported by Ross Adey, Susan Bawin, and Carl Blackman in
the 1980s. A study by Fournier et al. (80) reported an ‘inten-
sity window’ effect of ELF magnetic field on neurodevelop-
ment in the rat. The cholinergic systems in the brain play a
major role in learning and memory functions.
Behavioral effects of ELF-EMF have been further sub-
stantiated in recent research. These include: changes in
locomotor activity (76, 77, 81–86), learning and memory
functions (80, 87–95), anxiety (81, 93, 96–98), depression-
like behavior (74, 75), perception (99), cognitive dysfunc-
tion (100), emotional state (101), sleep onset (61), and
comb building in hornets (102). As different behavioral
effects have been observed in different exposure condi-
tions, species of animals, and testing paradigms, they
provide the strongest evidence that exposure to ELF-EMF
can affect the nervous system.
The possible medical applications of ELF-EMF should
also be given more attention. Several studies indicate
that ELF-EMF (however, mostly at high exposure levels)
could enhance recovery of functions after nervous system
damage and have protective effects against development
of neurodegenerative diseases. The majority of the studies
used magnetic fields above 0.1 mT (1 gauss; the highest
was 8 mT). The intensities are much higher than those in
the public environment. Thus, caution should be taken in
extrapolating the high-intensity cell and animal studies to
long-term environmental human exposure situations.
In addition, however, there are studies at low or very
low magnetic field exposure levels. Humans are sensi-
tive to magnetic fields at levels <1 µT. A study by Ross
et al. (99) showed “perception” alteration in human
subjects exposed to a magnetic field at 10 nT (0.00001
mT), a study by Fournier et al. (80) showed an effect on
brain development in the rat at 30 nT (0.00003 mT), and
a study by Stevens (101) indicated changes in emotional
states in humans exposed to 8–12 Hz magnetic fields at 5
µT (0.005 mT). These data do suggest magnetic fields at
very low intensities could cause neurological effects in
humans. In the 1990s, there was a series of more than 20
studies published by Reuven Sandyk, showing that pulsed
magnetic fields at picotesla levels (1 pT = 0.000000001 mT)
could have therapeutic effects on Parkinson’s disease and
multiple sclerosis [see e.g. (103)]. However, Sandyk’s find-
ings have never been independently confirmed.
The above mentioned therapeutic applications of EMF
elicit that different EMF-exposures have biological effects
under certain conditions for short-term use.
Alzheimer’s disease
Amyloid beta (Aβ) protein is generally considered the
primary neurotoxic agent causally associated with Alzhei-
mer’s disease. Aβ is produced by both brain and periph-
eral cells and can pass through the blood brain barrier.
The BioInitiative review 2012 (10) summarized the evi-
dence concerning Alzheimer’s disease as follows:
1) There is longitudinal epidemiologic evidence that
high peripheral blood levels of Aβ, particularly Aβ1-
42, are a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.
2)There is epidemiologic evidence that extremely low
frequency (ELF, 50–60 Hz) magnetic field (MF) expo-
sure upregulates peripheral blood levels of Aβ.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
276276
344   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
3) There is evidence that melatonin can inhibit the
development of Alzheimer’s disease and, thus, low
melatonin levels may increase the risk of Alzheimer’s
disease.
4) There is strong epidemiologic evidence that signifi-
cant (i.e. high), occupational ELF-MF exposure can
lead to the downregulation of melatonin production.
The precise components of the magnetic fields caus-
ing this downregulation are unknown. Other factors
which may influence the relationship between ELF-
MF exposure and melatonin production are unknown,
but certain medications may play a role.
5) There is strong epidemiologic evidence that high
occupational ELF MF exposure is a risk factor for
Alzheimer’s disease, based on case-control studies
which used expert diagnoses and a restrictive classifi-
cation of ELFMF exposure.
6) There are only single epidemiologic studies of Alzhei-
mer’s disease and radio-frequency electromagnetic
field exposure, and only one epidemiology study
of non-acute radio-frequency electromagnetic field
exposure and melatonin. So, no final conclusions
concerning health consequences due to RF exposure
and Alzheimer’s disease are currently possible.
Hallberg and Johansson (104) demonstrated that the mor-
tality in Alzheimer’s disease appears to be associated
with mobile phone output power. Deeper studies in this
complex area are still necessary.
There is epidemiological evidence that also residen-
tial exposure to ELF magnetic fields is associated with an
increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease (105, 106).
Earlier reviews of the association between exposure to
ELF MF and neurodegenerative diseases came to different
conclusions (107, 108). The discrepancy is mainly due to two
aspects: the assessment of a possible publication bias and
the selection and classification of exposed groups. Since
most studies are about occupational exposure, it is manda-
tory to avoid misclassification. If care is taken to avoid such
ambiguity, there is a clear meta-analytical relationship and
an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease and amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS). This association shows little het-
erogeneity across studies if the different methodologies
are considered and publication bias has been detected for
studies relying on mortality registries only (109).
EMF and infertility and reproduction
Infertility and reproduction disorders are on the rise. The
BioInitiative review 2012 (10) summarized the evidence
concerning infertility and reproduction as follows – with
small adaptations by the authors:
Human sperm are damaged by cell phone radiation at
very low intensities, in the low microwatt and nanowatt
per cm2 range (0.00034–0.07 µW/cm2 = 3.4–700 µW/m2).
There is a veritable flood of new studies reporting sperm
damage in humans and animals, leading to substantial
concerns for fertility, reproduction, and health of the off-
spring (unrepaired de novo mutations in sperm). Expo-
sure levels are similar to those resulting from wearing a
cell phone on the belt or in a pants pocket, or from using
a wireless laptop computer on the lap. Sperm lack the
ability to repair DNA damage.
Several international laboratories have replicated
studies showing adverse effects on sperm quality, motil-
ity, and pathology in men who use cell phones and partic-
ularly those who wear a cell phone, PDA, or pager on their
belt or in a pocket (110–115). Other studies conclude that
the use of cell phones, exposure to cell phone radiation, or
storage of a cell phone close to the testes of human males
affect the sperm count, motility, viability, and structure
(110, 116, 117). Animal studies have demonstrated oxida-
tive and DNA damage, pathological changes in the testes
of animals, decreased sperm mobility and viability, and
other measures of deleterious damage to the male germ
line (118–122).
There are fewer animal studies that have studied
effects of cell phone radiation on female fertility para-
meters. Panagopoulos (123) report decreased ovarian
development and size of ovaries, and premature cell death
of ovarian follicles and nurse cells in Drosophila mela-
nogaster. Gul et al. (124) report rats exposed to standby
level RFR (phones on but not transmitting calls) caused
decrease in the number of ovarian follicles in pups born
to these exposed dams. Magras and Xenos (125) reported
irreversible infertility in mice after five (5) generations of
exposure to RFR at cell phone tower exposure levels of
less than one microwatt per centimeter squared ( < 1 µW/
cm2 =  < 10 mW/m2).
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)
An increasing number of human beings are continuously
exposed in their daily life to increasing levels of a com-
bination of static, ELF and VLF electric and magnetic
fields and RF electromagnetic fields. These exposures
are of different signal patterns, intensities, and techni-
cal applications for varying periods of time. All these
fields are summarized as EMF, colloquially referred to as
“electrosmog”.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
277277
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   345
In a questionnaire survey in Switzerland in 2001,
which was addressed to persons attributing specific
health problems to EMF exposure, of the 394 respondents
58% suffered from sleep problems or disorders, 41% from
headaches, 19% from nervousness, 18% from fatigue and
16% from difficulties with concentration. The respondents
attributed their symptoms, e.g. to mobile phone base sta-
tions (74%), cell phones (36%), cordless phones (29%),
and high-voltage power lines (27%). Two thirds of the
respondents had taken measures to reduce their symp-
toms, the most frequent one being to avoid exposure (126).
In a survey conducted 2009 in a Japanese EHS and
multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) self-help group (n = 75),
45% of the respondents had EHS as a medical diagnosis,
49% considered themselves EHS. Every second responder
had medically diagnosed MCS (49%) and self-diagnosed
MCS had 27%. The main EHS-related symptoms were
fatigue (85%), headache (81%), concentration problems
(81%), sleeping disorders (76%) and dizziness (64%). The
most frequent causes include: base stations (71%), other
persons mobile phones (64%), PC (63%), power lines
(60%), television (56%), own mobile phone (56%), public
transportation (55%) , cordless phones (52%), air condi-
tioner (49%) and car (49%). Suspected EMF source of EHS
onset were: mobile phone base stations (37%), PC (20%),
electric home appliances (15%), medical equipment (15%),
mobile phones (8%), power lines (7%) and induction
cookers (7 %) (127).
In 2001, 63 persons who attributed health prob-
lems to environmental exposure were counseled in an
interdisciplinary environmental medicine pilot project
in Basel. An interdisciplinary expert team assessed the
individual symptoms by a medical psychological-psychi-
atric and environmental examination, including visits
and environmental measurements at home. With respect
to the 25 persons with EHS, the expert team attested that
in one third of them, at least one symptom was plausi-
bly related to electrosmog, although the EMF exposure
was within the Swiss limits. They concluded that persons
with EHS should be advised interdisciplinary, not only
medically and psychologically but also environmentally
(128, 129).
A representative telephone survey (n = 2048; age  > 14
years) carried out in 2004 in Switzerland yielded a fre-
quency of 5% (95% CI 4%–6%) for having symptoms
attributed to electrosmog, so-called electromagnetic
hypersensitivity. Remarkably, only 13% consulted their
family doctor. Individuals with a past history of symp-
toms attributable to EMF gave “turned off the source” as
the answer three times as often as the ones who still had
symptoms (130).
In a Swiss questionnaire study of GPs in 2005, two-
thirds of the doctors were consulted at least once a year
because of symptoms attributed to EMF. Fifty-four percent
of the doctors assessed a relation as possible. The doctors
in this questionnaire asked for more general information
about EMF and health and instructions on how to deal
with persons with EHS (131).
In another questionnaire study, also mandated by the
Swiss Federal Government and performed by the Univer-
sity of Bern in 2004, Swiss doctors working with comple-
mentary diagnostic and therapeutic tools reported that
71% of their consultations related to EMF. Remarkably,
not only the patients, but even more so the doctors sus-
pected a possible relation between illness and EMF. The
reduction or elimination of environmental sources was
the main therapeutic instrument in treating symptoms
related to EMF (132).
A questionnaire study of Austrian doctors yielded
similar results. In this study, the discrepancy between the
physicians’ opinions and established national and inter-
national health risk assessments was remarkable, consid-
ering that 96% of the physicians believed to some degree
in or were totally convinced of a health-relevant role of
environmental electromagnetic fields (133).
The question, whether EHS is causally associated
with EMF exposure remains controversial. On the one
hand, physicians judge a causal association between EMF
exposures as plausible based on case reports, on the other
hand, national and international health risk assessments
mostly claim that there is no such causal association,
because provocation studies under controlled blinded
conditions mostly failed to show effects. However, all
these studies used a very limited number of exposure con-
ditions, the exposure duration and the examined effects
were short, and the recruitment of the persons with EHS
was not medically assessed.
The WHO, for example, does not consider EHS as a
diagnosis and recommends to medical doctors that the
treatment of affected individuals should focus on the
health symptoms and the clinical picture, and not on a
person’s perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF
in the workplace or home (134).
The evaluation report about electromagnetic hyper-
sensitivity mandated by the Swiss federal government
assessed the evidence of a causal relationship between
EMF exposure and biological and health effects. It took
into account not only experimental, observational studies
and meta-analyses, but also individual experiments and
case reports. For the evaluation of the scientific evidence,
the GRADE criteria were applied. Individual case reports
were considered to be of great importance because it is
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
278278
346   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
likely that, at the same exposure level, not all people react
the same as rare cases may be misunderstood by otherwise
statistically reliable scientific methods of investigation,
and since habituation and sensitization processes of a
person’s reaction can change during the time of exposure.
The significance of case reports with regard to scientific
evidence based on the strict GRADE criteria used in this
evaluation, however, was considered to be limited, mainly
because of the distortion due to methodological flaws. It
was noted in the report that individual case experiments
with repeated testing of an EHS person under double-
blind conditions and controlled exposure would be more
revealing than experimental studies with larger groups.
Ideally, a test of the person concerned should be carried
out in their familiar surroundings (e.g. at home) with a
reliable and accurate measurement of exposure. With pos-
itive test results, a re-evaluation would be required also
from a scientific perspective (135).
The paper “Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: fact
or fiction” by Genius and Lipp (136) offers an instructive
review of studies of the last decades concerning EHS,
including historical milestones, reviews, pathogenesis,
biochemical markers, therapeutic management, as well
as the debate about the legitimacy of EHS.
In Sweden, EHS is an officially fully recognized func-
tional impairment (i.e. it is not regarded as a disease).
Survey studies show that somewhere between 230,000
and 290,000 Swedish men and women out of a population
of 9,000,000 – report a variety of symptoms when being in
contact with EMF sources. With reference to UN Resolution
48/96, Annex, of 20 December 1993, the Swedish govern-
ment grants support to individuals with EHS. Employees
with EHS have a right to support from their employers so
as to enable them to work despite this impairment. Some
hospitals in Sweden provide rooms with low-EMF expo-
sure (137).
In Sweden, impairments are viewed from the point of
the environment. No human being is in itself impaired;
there are instead shortcomings in the environment that
cause the impairment (as with the lack of ramps for
the person in a wheelchair or rooms requiring low-EMF
remediation for the person with EHS). Furthermore, this
environment-related perspective of the impairment EHS
means that – even though we do not have a complete
scientific explanation, and, in contrast, to what many
individuals involved in the EMF discourse at present
think – any person with EHS shall always be met in a
respectful way and with all necessary support required
to eliminate the impairment. This implies that the person
with EHS shall have the opportunity to live and work in a
low-EMF environment (138).
In Sweden, the City of Stockholm offers low-EMF
housing on its outskirts to electrosensitive individuals.
In France, the first low-EMF zone has been established
at Drôme in July 2009 (139). In Austria, the construction
of a multi-family house has been planned for 2015, which
was designed by a team of architects, building biology
professionals, and environmental medicine health care
professionals to provide a sustainable healthy living envi-
ronment. Both the outdoor and indoor environments were
explicitly chosen and designed to meet low-EMF require-
ments (140). The implementation of low-EMF zones for
electrosensitive individuals is pursued in numerous coun-
tries. The realization of such projects greatly depends
on the understanding, knowledge, and tolerance of the
members of the chosen community.
In a human provocation study, Johansson (141), using a
controlled, double-blind pilot setup, found one EHS person
that correctly identified the presence of a mobile phone
nine times out of nine provocations (p < 0.002), both in the
“acute” phase as well as in the “chronic” phase (p < 0.001).
In facial skin samples of electrohypersensitive persons,
the most common finding has been a profound increase of
mast cells (142). From this and other studies, it is clear that
the number of mast cells in the upper dermis is increased in
the EHS group. A different pattern of mast cell distribution
also occurred in the EHS group. Finally, in the EHS group,
the cytoplasmic granules were more densely distributed
and more strongly stained than in the control group, and
the size of the infiltrating mast cells was generally found to
be larger in the EHS group as well. It should be noted that
increases of similar nature later on were demonstrated in
an experimental situation, employing normal healthy vol-
unteers in front of cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors, includ-
ing ordinary household television sets (143).
In one of the early papers, Johansson et al. (144)
made a sensational finding when they exposed two elec-
trically sensitive individuals to a TV monitor situated at
a distance of 40–50 cm away from them. The scientists
used an open-field provocation in front of an ordinary TV
set with persons regarding themselves as suffering from
skin problems due to work at video display terminals.
Employing fluorescence microscopy-based immunohisto-
chemistry, in combination with a wide range of antisera
directed towards cellular and neurochemical markers,
they were able to show a high to very high number of
somatostatin-immunoreactive dendritic cells as well as
histamine-positive mast cells in skin biopsies from the
anterior neck taken before the start of the provocation. At
the end of the provocation, however the number of mast
cells was unchanged and the somatostatin-positive cells
had seemingly disappeared. The reason for this latter
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
279279
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   347
finding could be discussed in terms of loss of immunore-
activity, increase of breakdown, etc. The high number of
mast cells present may explain the clinical symptoms of
itch, pain, edema, and erythema.
Against this background, it is interesting to see that
the early Swedish findings from the 1980s and 1990s are
supported by the latest work of Belpomme and Irigaray
(145). Since 2009, Belpomme and Irigaray prospectively
investigated clinically and biologically 1200 consecu-
tive EHS and/or MCS-self reported cases in an attempt to
establish objective diagnosis criteria and to elucidate the
pathophysiological aspects of these two disorders.
In their preliminary results, as presented at the Fifth
Paris Appeal Congress in Belgium in 2015 – based on the
analysis of 839 originally enrolled cases of which 810 met
the inclusion criteria and 727 were evaluable – 521 were
diagnosed with EHS, 52 with MCS, and 154 with both
EHS and MCS. Concomitant multiple food intolerance
was found in 28.5%, 41.9%, and 70.4% of the cases in the
three groups, respectively. Histamine levels were ana-
lyzed in the blood of patients, and 37%, 36.7% and 41.5%
of the persons respectively in the three above individual-
ized groups showed a significant increase in histamine-
mia ( > 10 nmol/L), meaning that a chronic inflammatory
response can be detected in these patients.
They also measured nitrotyrosin (NTT), a marker
of both peroxynitrite (ONOO.-) production and opening
of the blood brain barrier (BBB). NTT was increased in
the blood ( > 0.90 µg/mL) in 29.7%, 26%, and 28% of the
cases in the three groups, respectively. Likewise protein
S100B, another marker of BBB opening was found to be
increased in the blood ( > 0.105 µg/L) in 14.7%, 19.7%, and
10.7% of their cases, respectively. Circulating antibodies
against O-myelin, heat shock protein (Hsp) 27, and/or Hsp
70 protein were also found to be increased in 43.1%, 25%,
and 52% of their cases, respectively, indicating that EHS
and MCS are associated with some autoimmune response.
Since most patients reported chronic insomnia and
fatigue, they also determined the 24-h urine melatonin/
creatinine ratio and found it was decreased ( < 0.8) in all
investigated cases.
Finally, in order to gain further information about the
underlying mechanisms of EHS and MCS, they serially
measured the brain blood flow in the temporal lobes of each
patient by using pulsed brain echodoppler. They found
that both EHS and MCS were associated with a hypop-
erfusion in the capsulo-thalamic area of the brain, sug-
gesting that the inflammatory process may in fact involve
the limbic system and the thalamus. Both EHS and MCS
thus appear to paint a common picture of inflammation-
related hyper-histaminemia, oxidative stress, autoimmune
response, and BBB opening, and a deficit in melatonin
excretion. According to Belpomme and Irigaray, EHS and
MCS probably share a common pathological mechanism
mainly involving the central nervous system (145).
While a 2006 study by Regel et al. (146) described no
exposure effects, two provocation studies on exposure
of “electrosensitive” individuals and control subjects to
mobile phone base station signals (GSM, UMTS or both)
found a significant decline in well-being after UMTS expo-
sure in the individuals reporting sensitivity (147, 148). Most
so-called provocation studies with EHS show no effects.
However, all these studies used a very limited number
of exposure conditions. Taking in account the strong
dependence of EMF effects on a variety of physical and
biological variables (73), available provocation studies are
scientifically difficult to interpret and, in fact, are not suit-
able to disprove causality.
There is increasing evidence in the scientific literature
of various subjective and objective physiological altera-
tions, e.g. heart-rate variability (HRV) as apparent in some
persons with EHS claiming to suffer after exposure to
certain frequencies of EMR like DECT or Wi-Fi (149–153).
Analysis of the data available on the exposure of
people living near mobile phone base stations has yielded
clear indications of adverse health effects like fatigue,
depression, difficulty in concentrating, headaches, dizzi-
ness, etc. (154–158).
The frequency spectrum between ELF and RF is
referred as kHz range or intermediate frequency range.
Residential exposures in this range are often due to “dirty
power”/ “dirty electricity” originating from voltage and/or
current perturbations from diverse sources like electronic
power supplies for TVs, monitors, PCs, motor drives,
inverters, dimmers, CFLs, phase-angle control devices,
as well as sparking and arcing from switching operations
and from electric motors with brushes. The kHz waves/
transients travel along the electric wiring and grounding
systems (conducted emissions) and radiate electric and/
or magnetic fields into free space (radiated emissions),
leading to human exposures in the vicinity.
Epidemiological evidence links dirty electricity to
most of the diseases of civilization including cancer,
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, suicide, and attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder in humans (159).
When it comes to health effects of static magnetic
fields, this type of EMF exposure is frequently underesti-
mated. Blackman reports in the 2007 BioInitiative Report
(9): “The magnetic field of the earth at any given location
has a relatively constant intensity as a function of time.
However, the intensity value, and the inclination of the
field with respect to the gravity vector, varies considerable
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
280280
348   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
over the face of the earth. More locally, these features of
the earth’s magnetic field can also vary by more than 20%
inside man-made structures, particularly those with steel
support structures. There are many reports of EMF-caused
effects being dependent on the static magnetic field
intensity (cf. Blackman et al., 1985) and of its orientation,
with respect to an oscillating magnetic field (Blackman
et al., 1990; Blackman et al., 1996). One aspect common
to many of these reports is that the location in the active
frequency band is determined by the intensity of the
static magnetic field. There have been many attempts to
explain this phenomenon but none has been universally
accepted. However, it is clear that if a biological response
depends on the static magnetic field intensity, and even
its orientation with respect to an oscillating field, then the
conditions necessary to reproduce the phenomenon are
very specific and might easily escape detection (cf. Black-
man and Most, 1993). The consequences of these results
are that there may be exposure situations that are truly
detrimental (or beneficial) to organisms but that are insuf-
ficiently common on a large scale that they would not
be observed in epidemiological studies; they need to be
studied under controlled laboratory conditions to deter-
mine impact on health and wellbeing”.
On July 8, 2015, a court in Toulouse, France, ruled in
favor of a woman with the diagnosis “syndrome of hyper-
sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation” and determined
her disability to be 85% with substantial and lasting
restrictions on access to employment (160).
Possible mechanism of EHS
Based on the scientific literature on interactions of EMF
with biological systems, several mechanisms of interac-
tion are possible. A plausible mechanism at the intracel-
lular and intercellular level, for instance, is an interaction
via the formation of free radicals or oxidative and nitrosa-
tive stress (161–169). A review by Pall (12, 170, 171) provides
substantial evidence for a direct interaction between static
and time varying electric fields, static and time varying
magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation with volt-
age-gated calcium channels (VGCCs). The increased intra-
cellular Ca2+ produced by such VGCC activation may lead
to multiple regulatory responses, including increased
nitric oxide levels produced through the action of the
two Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent nitric oxide synthases,
nNOS and eNOS. In most pathophysiological contexts,
nitric oxide reacts with superoxide to form peroxynitrite,
a potent nonradical oxidant, which can produce radical
products, including hydroxyl and NO2 radicals.
Peroxynitrite is by far the most damaging molecule in
our body. Although not a free radical in nature, peroxyni-
trite is much more reactive than its parent molecules NO
and O2-. The half-life of peroxynitrite is short (10–20 ms),
but sufficiently long to cross biological membranes,
diffuse one to two cell diameters, and allow significant
interactions with most critical biomolecules and struc-
tures (cell membranes, nucleus DNA, mitochondrial DNA,
cell organelles), and a large number of essential metabolic
processes (165). Elevated nitrogen monoxide, formation
of peroxynitrite, and induction of oxidative stress can be
associated with chronic inflammation, damage of mito-
chondrial function and structure, as well as loss of energy,
e.g. via the reduction of adenosine triphosphate (ATP).
The importance of ATP has been shown for CFS (172)
and for stress control (173). Those patients describe the
same symptoms as those suffering from CMI. This could
indicate similarities in the pathomechanisms. Similar
disturbances in neurotransmitter expression had been
described both with chronic exposure to EMF (174) and in
CMI patients (163, 175).
Redmayne and Johansson (176) published a review
considering the evidence for an association between
myelin integrity and exposure to low-intensity radiofre-
quency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) typical in the
modern world, pointing to that RF-EMF-exposed animals/
humans show: 1) significant morphological lesions in the
myelin sheath of rats; 2) a greater risk of multiple sclerosis
in a study subgroup; 3) effects in proteins related to myelin
production; and 4) physical symptoms in individuals with
the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity, many
of which are the same as if myelin were affected by RF-EMF
exposure, giving rise to symptoms of demyelination. In the
latter, there are exceptions; headache is common only in
electrohypersensitivity, while ataxia is typical of demyeli-
nation but infrequently found in the former group. Overall,
evidence from in vivo and in vitro and epidemiological
studies suggests an association between RF-EMF exposure
and either myelin deterioration or a direct impact on neu-
ronal conduction, which may account for many electrohy-
persensitivity symptoms. The most vulnerable are likely to
be those in utero through to at least mid-teen years, as well
as ill and elderly individuals.
Complaints in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS),
fibromyalgia (FM), multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS),
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and Gulf War syn-
drome (GWS) are almost the same. But the cardinal symp-
toms are different. Meanwhile, they are summarized as
chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI) (175). In all of them,
various disturbances of functional cycles have been
shown as activation of nitrogen oxide and peroxynitrite,
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
281281
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   349
chronic inflammation by activation of NF-kB, IFN-y, IL-1,
IL-6, and interaction with neurotransmitter expression
(163, 175, 177). We recommend classifying EHS as part of
CMI (170, 178) leading to a functional impairment (EHS),
but still recognizing that the underlying cause remains
only the environment (see Figure 1).
Other diseases that require attention with respect to EMF
There is some evidence that transient electromagnetic
fields (dirty electricity), in the kilohertz range on electrical
wiring, may be contributing to elevated blood sugar levels
among diabetics and pre-diabetics. In an electromagneti-
cally clean environment, Type 1 diabetics required less
insulin and Type 2 diabetics had lower levels of plasma
glucose. Dirty electricity, generated by electronic equip-
ment and wireless devices, is ubiquitous in the environ-
ment. Exercise on a treadmill, which produced dirty
electricity, increased plasma glucose. These findings may
explain why brittle diabetics have difficulty regulating
blood sugar. Based on estimates of people who suffer from
symptoms of electrohypersensitivity (3%–35%), as many
as 5–60 million diabetics worldwide may be affected (179).
The Bioinitiative Report 2012 (10) concluded: Fetal
(in-utero) and early childhood exposures to cell phone
radiation and wireless technologies in general may be a
risk factor for hyperactivity, learning disorders and behav-
ioral problems in school. Common sense measures to
limit both ELF-EMF and RF EMF in these populations is
needed, especially with respect to avoidable exposures
like incubators that can be modified; and where educa-
tion of the pregnant mother with respect to laptop com-
puters, mobile phones and other sources of ELF-EMF and
RF EMF are easily instituted.
This section deserves special attention in order to
respond timely to the rapid technological development
leading to more and more complex EMF exposures.
Recommendations for action
EUROPAEM has developed guidelines for differential
diagnosis and potential treatment of EMF-related health
problems with the aim to improve/restore individual
health outcomes and to propose strategies for prevention.
Evidence of treatment strategies for EMF-related illness including EHS
There are only a few studies assessing evidence-based
therapeutic approaches to EHS. The interdisciplinary
based assessing and counseling of EHS in the Swiss envi-
ronmental pilot project performed in 2001 showed in an
evaluation interview half a year after counseling, that 45%
of persons with EHS had benefitted from realizing certain
advice, for example, changing the bedroom (128, 129).
In the 2005 Swiss questionnaire study of physi-
cians working with complementary therapeutic tools,
two-thirds chose exposure reduction as a principal tool,
Figure 1: Pathogenesis of inflammation, mitochondriopathy, and nitrosative stress as a result of the exposure to trigger factors (177).
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
Bacteria
Viruses
Industrial pollutants
Nitrosative Stress
/ Nitric i°Kide "
Superoxid t Peroxynitrite t iNOS t
l " Mitochondriopathy
ATP j ~ Oxidative Stress /
Solvents
EMF
Plastizisers
Food
Severe psycho-social Stress
Impaired
Inflammation -Immune -Tolerance
TNF-o.
lnterferon-y
Histamine
TH2 dominance
Loss of
T,09 cells
282282
350   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
whereas complementary therapeutics were only chosen
as a supplement (132).
Since 2008, the Swiss Society of Doctors for the Envi-
ronment has run a small interdisciplinary environmen-
tal medicine counseling structure for persons with EHS,
which is embedded in everyday practice with a central
coordination and consultation office as well as a network
of general practitioners interested in environmental medi-
cine who perform environmental medical assessments
and consultations based on a standard protocol. If nec-
essary, environmental experts are consulted and home
inspections are conducted. The aim of the assessments is
to detect or rule out common diseases and to analyze the
impact of suspected environmental burdens on the com-
plaints in order to find individual therapeutic approaches.
The main instrument of the assessment is an extensive
medical and psycho-social history with an additional
environmental history, including a systematic question-
naire and environmental key questions.
In the first years, the project was scientifically
assessed. In a questionnaire one year after counseling,
70% of the persons recommended the interdisciplinary-
based counseling structure and 32% of them considered
the counseling as being helpful. Therefore, a model based
on such an interdisciplinary concept, embedded in the
family doctor’s holistic and lasting concept of treatment,
seems to be promising for a better therapeutic approach to
EHS, also including accessibility measures targeted at the
actual environment (180).
In Finland, psychotherapy is the officially recom-
mended therapy of EHS. In a questionnaire study of EHS
people in Finland, symptoms, perceived sources and
treatments, the perceived efficacy of medical and comple-
mentary alternative treatments (CAM) in regards to EHS
were evaluated by multiple choice questions. According to
76% of the 157 respondents, the reduction or avoidance of
EMF helped in their full or partial recovery. The best treat-
ments for EHS were given as weighted effects: “dietary
change” (69.4%), “nutritional supplements” (67.8%), and
“increased physical exercise” (61.6%). The official treat-
ment recommendations of psychotherapy (2.6%) were
not significantly helpful, or for medication (–4.2%) even
detrimental. The avoidance of electromagnetic radiation
and fields effectively removed or lessened the symptoms
in persons with EHS (181, 182).
The prognosis of certain diseases can be influenced by
EMF-reduction. For example, children who have leukemia
and are in recovery have poorer survival rates if their ELF
magnetic field exposure at home (or where they are recover-
ing) is between 1 mG [0.1 µT] and 2 mG [0.2 µT] or above 2 mG
[0.2 µT] in one study, over 3 mG [0.3 µT] in another study (9).
Response of physicians to this development
In cases of unspecific health problems (see Questionnaire)
for which no clearly identifiable cause can be found –
beside other factors like chemicals, nonphysiological
metals, mold – EMF exposure should, in principle, be
taken into consideration as a potential cause or cofactor,
especially if the person presumes it.
A central approach for a causal attribution of symp-
toms is the assessment of variation in health problems
depending on time and location and individual suscep-
tibility, which is particularly relevant for environmental
causes such as EMF exposure.
Regarding such disorders as male infertility, mis-
carriage, Alzheimer’s, ALS, blood sugar fluctuations,
diabetes, cancer, hyperactivity, learning disorders and
behavioral problems in school, it would be important to
consider a possible link with EMF exposure. This offers
an opportunity to causally influence the course of the
disease.
How to proceed if EMF-related health problems are suspected
The recommended approach to diagnosis and treatment
is intended as an aid and should, of course, be modified
to meet the needs of each individual case (see Figure 2).
1.History of health problems and EMF exposure
2.Examination and findings
3.Measurement of EMF exposure
4.Prevention or reduction of EMF exposure
5.Diagnosis
6.Treatment
History of health problems and EMF exposure
In order to put later findings into a larger context, a
general medical history is necessary. In the next steps, we
focus only on EMF-related health effects.
A questionnaire to take a systematic history of health
problems and EMF exposure, compiled by the EUROPAEM
EMF Working Group, is available in the Annex of this EMF
Guideline.
The questionnaire consists of three sections:
a) List of symptoms
b) Variation of health problems depending on time,
location, and circumstances
c) Assessment of certain EMF exposures that can be esti-
mated by questionnaire
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
283283
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   351
List of symptoms
The list of symptoms in the questionnaire serves to
systematically quantify health problems regardless of
their causes. It also includes questions as to when the
health problems first occurred. Most EMF-related symp-
toms are nonspecific and fall within the scope of health
problems due to inadequate regulation (decompensa-
tion), e.g. sleep problems, fatigue, exhaustion, lack of
energy, restlessness, heart palpitations, blood pressure
problems, muscle and joint pain, headaches, increased
risk for infections, depression, difficulty concentrating,
disturbances of coordination, forgetfulness, anxiety,
urinary urgency, anomia (difficulty finding words), diz-
ziness, tinnitus, and sensations of pressure in the head
and ears.
The health problems may range in severity from
benign, temporary symptoms, such as slight headaches or
paresthesia around the ear, e.g. when using a cell phone,
or flu-like symptoms after maybe some hours of whole
body EMF exposure, to severe, debilitating symptoms
that drastically impair physical and mental health. It has
to be stressed that, depending on the individual state of
Take special medical history, including the assessment of symptoms, diseases, and
circumstances regarding the times and places of appearance of symptoms
(see Annex Patient Questionnaire)
Differential diagnosis including
diagnostic tests Assessment of EMF exposure
Reduction and prevention of
EMF exposure
EMF exposure presented by the patient / person
or
EMF exposure suspected by the physician
Relevance and conclusion
Possible association
with EMF
Association with other
environmental factors
Reduction and
prevention of other
environmental factors
No relevant association
with environmental factors
Consultation of other
disciplines
Medical treatment
Figure 2: Flowchart for the handling of EMF-related health problems
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
D
D
~-I .______I _
D D
D D
~l~I_II~
D D D
~I I II._______
D
284284
352   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
susceptibility, EHS symptoms often occur only occasion-
ally, but over time they may increase in frequency and
severity. On the other hand, if a detrimental EMF exposure
is sufficiently reduced, the body has a chance to recover
and EHS symptoms will be reduced or will vanish.
Variation of health problems depending on time,
location, and circumstances
The answers to questions of when and where the health
problems occur or recede, and when and where the
symptoms increase or are particularly evident, provide
only indications. They must be interpreted by the inves-
tigator (e.g. regarding the correct attribution between
location/EMF sources and health problems). Special
attention should be drawn to sleeping areas, because of
the duration of influence and the vital role of sleep for
regeneration.
Assessment of certain EMF exposures that can be
estimated by questionnaire
The assessment of EMF exposure usually starts with
certain questions of usual EMF sources. Regardless of
whether or not the patient suspects EMF exposure as a
cause, these questions should be used to assess the exist-
ing exposure level, at least as a rough estimate. It is impor-
tant to note that only certain types of EMF exposure can
be assessed by means of questions, such as the use of
compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), cell phones, and cord-
less phones. Detection of other types of EMF exposure,
e.g. due to RF transmitter sites or the electric or magnetic
fields from electric wiring, generally requires measure-
ments. In principle, questions should be asked to assess
EMF exposure at home and at work and when on holidays
and so on, keeping in mind that the degree of EMF expo-
sure may vary at different times.
Examination and findings
We do not have any clinical findings yet that are specific
to EMF, which makes diagnosis and differential diagnosis
a considerable challenge.
A method that has proven useful is to use stress-
associated findings for diagnosis and followup and to
evaluate them synoptically. Basic diagnostic tests should
be carried out as a first step, followed by measurements
of EMF exposure as a second step. The core diagnosis
should focus on investigations of nitric oxide production
(nitrotyrosine), mitochondriopathy (intracellular ATP),
oxidative stress-lipid peroxidation (MDA-LDL) and inflam-
mation (TNF-alpha, INF-G (IP-10), IL-1b).
Then additional diagnostic tests can be considered.
Functional tests
Basic diagnostic tests
– Blood pressure and heart rate (in all cases resting
heart rate in the morning while still in bed), including
self-monitoring, possibly several times a day, e.g. at
different locations and with journaling of subjective
well-being for a week.
Additional diagnostic tests
– 24-h blood pressure monitoring (absence of nighttime
decline)
– 24-h ECG (heart rhythm diagnosis)
– 24-h heart rate variability (HRV) (autonomous nerv-
ous system diagnosis)
– Ergometry under physical stress
– Sleep EEG at home
Laboratory tests
Basic diagnostic tests
– Blood
– Bilirubin
– Blood count and differential blood count
– BUN
– Cholesterol, LDL, HDL, triglycerides
– Creatinine kinases (CK-MB, CK-MM)
– CRP
– Cystatin C (glomerular filtration rate)
– Electrolytes
– Fasting blood glucose
– Ferritin
– HBA1c
– Histamine and diaminoxidase (DAO)
– INF-G (IP-10)
– Interleukin-1 (e.g. IL-1a, IL-1b)
– Intracellular ATP
– Liver enzymes (e.g. ALT, AST, GGT, LDH, AP )
– Magnesium (whole blood)
– malondialdehyde-LDL
– Nitrotyrosine
– Potassium (whole blood)
– Selenium (whole blood)
– TSH
– Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα)
– Vitamin D
– Zinc (whole blood)
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
285285
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   353
– Standard urine
– Leucocytes, erythrocytes, albumin, urobilinogen,
pH, bacteria, glucose, microalbumin
– Second morning urine
– 6-OH melatonin sulfate
– Adrenaline
– Dopamine
– Noradrenaline
– Noradrenaline/adrenaline quotient
– Serotonin
– Saliva
– Cortisol (8 a.m., 12 a.m., and 8 p.m.)
Additional diagnostic tests
– Urine
– Metals
– Second morning urine
– Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)
– Glutamate
– Kryptopyrrole
– Saliva
–Dehydroepiandrosterone DHEA (8 a.m. and 8 p.m.)
– Blood
– 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine (DNA oxidation)
– Biotin
– Differential lipid profile
– Folate
– Holotranscobolamin
– Homocysteine
– Interferon-gamma (IFNγ)
– Interleukin-10 (IL-10)
– Interleukin-17 (IL-17)
– Interleukin-6 (IL-6)
– Interleukin-8 (IL-8)
– Intracellular glutathione (redox balance)
– Lactate, pyruvate incl. ratio
– Lipase
– NF-kappa B
– Ubiquinone (Q10)
– Vitamin B6 (whole blood)
Provocation tests
Special facilities with the use of a variety of signals, e.g.
DECT or Wi-Fi exposure (e.g. 20–60 min, depending on
the individual regulation capacity, susceptibility, and
observed response)
– Heart rate variability (HRV) (autonomous nervous
system diagnosis)
– Microcirculation
–Oxidative stress (lipid peroxidation, malondialdehyde-
LDL)
Individual susceptibility
– Blood (genetic parameters and actual function)
– Glutathione S transferase M1 (GSTM1) –
detoxification
– Glutathione S transferase T1 (GSTT1) –
detoxification
– Superoxide dismutase 2 (SOD2) – protection of
mitochondria
– Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) – stress
control
Measurement of EMF exposure
The evolutionary development of the human species took
place under the presence of the natural electromagnetic
spectrum (Earth’s magnetic field, Earth’s electric field,
spherics, Schumann resonance). Those influences have
been part of our biosphere like the oxygen content in the
air or the visible light spectrum, and they have been inte-
grated into the biological functions.
By now, nearly all nonionizing parts of the electro-
magnetic spectrum are filled with artificial, technical EMF
sources due to electrification and (wireless) communica-
tion technologies, but are very rarely found in nature (see
Figure 3). EMF measurements and/or exposure damages
are usually not covered by statutory health care insurance.
In general, a wide variety of EMF exposure types
should be considered: cordless phones (DECT), wireless
Internet access (Wi-Fi), electrical wiring and electrical
devices in buildings, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs),
mobile phone base stations, radio and TV transmitters,
high-voltage power lines or transformer stations, and
“dirty electricity”.
In the sleeping area, the most important exposure
point is the head and trunk region followed by all other
points with chronic or high exposure.
EMF measurements should be planned and carried
out by specially trained and experienced testing special-
ists and always in accordance with relevant standards,
e.g. the VDB Guidelines of the German Association of
Building Biology Professionals (184). In addition to the
measurement results, the measurement report should
also include suggestions on how to possibly reduce the
EMF exposure.
To clarify certain issues, personal dosimeters with a
data logging function are available to measure ELF mag-
netic fields and radio-frequency radiation.
After the measurements have been commissioned
by the person and carried out, the results should be dis-
cussed with a physician familiar with the EMF issue.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
286286
354   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
EMF guidance values
In each case, the following aspects should be individually
taken into account when evaluating EMF measurement
results (73):
– The person’s individual susceptibility
– The person’s individual total body burden (e.g. expo-
sure to noise, chemicals)
– Duration of EMF exposure
– EMF exposure during the night and day
– Multiple exposure to different EMF sources
– Signal intensity (W/m2, V/m, A/m)
– Signal characteristics (was taken into account in the
EMF guidance values – see Supplement 3)
– Frequency
– Risetime (∆T) of bursts, transients, etc.
– Frequency and periodicity of bursts, e.g. cer-
tain GSM base stations (8.3 Hz), Wi-Fi networks
(10 Hz), DECT cordless phones (100 Hz)
– Type of modulation (frequency modulation,
amplitude modulation, phase modulation)
Regardless of the ICNIRP recommendations for specific
acute effects, the following guidance values apply to
sensitive locations with long-term exposure of more than
20 h per week (185). They are based on epidemiological
studies (9, 10, 73, 186–189), empirical observations, and
measurements relevant in practice (190, 191) as well as
recommendations by the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe (26). The proposed guidance values
are based on scientific data including a preventive com-
ponent and aim to help restore health and well-being in
already compromised patients/functionally impaired
persons.
Basic measurementsELF magnetic fields (extremely low frequency) (ELF MF)Measurement specifications
Frequency range:50/60 Hz mains electricity, up to 2 kHz
16.7 Hz railroad systems in Austria, Germany,
Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway
Type of measurement:Magnetic induction or flux density
[T; mT; µT; nT]
Field probe:Isotropic magnetic field probe (three
orthogonal axes)
Detector mode: RMS (root mean square)
Measurement volume:Short-term: Bed: Complete sleeping area of bed
Short-term: Workplace: Complete working
space of workplace (e.g. sitting position)
Long-term: e.g. point close to the head/trunk in
bed or at workplace
Electromagnetic spectrum
Natural and artificial sources
1 Hz
100 10 Hz
101 100 Hz
102 1 kHz
103 10 kHz
104 100 kHz
105 1 MHz
106 10 MHz
107 100 MHz
108 1 GHz
109 10 GHz
1010 100 GHz
1011 1 THz
1012 10 THz
1013 100 THz
1014 1 PHz
1015 10 PHz
1016 100 PHz
1017 1 EHz
1018 10 EHz
1019 100 EHz
1020 1 ZHz
1021 10 ZHz
10220Hz20
Electromagnetic fields and radiation Ionizing radiationOptical radiation
ELF RF / MW RadiationVLF
Figure 3: Examples of natural (green) and artificial (red and blue) EMF sources along the electromagnetic spectrum (183).
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
287287
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   355
Measurement period:Short-term measurements to identify field
sources
Long-term measurements during sleep and
work shift
Basis for evaluation:Long-term measurements: maximum (MAX) and
arithmetic mean (AVG)
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to ELF magnetic fields to levels
as low as possible or below the precautionary guidance
values specified below.
ELF magnetic
field
 Daytime
exposure
Nighttime
exposure
Sensitive
populations
Arithmetic
mean (AVG)
100 nT
(1 mG)1),2)
100 nT
(1 mG)1),2)
30 nT
(0.3 mG)4)
Maximum
(MAX)
1000 nT
(10 mG)2),3)
1000 nT
(10 mG)2),3)
300 nT
(3 mG)4)
Based on: 1)BioInitiative (9, 10); 2)Oberfeld (189); 3)NISV (192);
4) precautionary approach by a factor 3 (field strength).
Evaluation guidelines specifically for sleeping areas
Higher frequencies than the mains electricity at 50/60 Hz
and distinct harmonics should be evaluated more critically.
See also the precautionary guidance values for the interme-
diate frequency range further below. If applicable, mains
current (50/60 Hz) and traction current (16.7 Hz) should be
assessed separately but added (squared average). Long-
term measurements should be carried out especially at
nighttime, but at least for 24 h.
ELF electric fields (extremely low frequency) (ELF EF)
Measurement specifications
Frequency
range:
50/60 Hz mains electricity, up to 2 kHz
16.7 Hz railroad systems in Austria, Germany,
Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway
Type of
measurement:
Electric field [V/m] without ground reference
(potential-free) and/or body-current [A/m2] see
separate paragraph
Field probe: Isotropic electric field probe (three orthogonal axes)
Detector mode: RMS (root mean square)
Measurement
volume:
Bed: nine points across sleeping area
Workplace: Complete working space (e.g. sitting
position three or six points)
Measurement
period:
Spot measurements to asses the exposure as well as
to identify field sources. Since electric field exposure
levels in the ELF frequency range usually do not
change, long-term measurements are not needed.
Basis for
evaluation:
Spot measurements (maximum) at relevant points
of exposure
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to ELF electric fields to levels
as low as possible or below the precautionary guidance
values specified below.
ELF electric field  Daytime exposure Nighttime exposure  Sensitive populations
Maximum
(MAX)
10 V/m1),2) 1 V/m2)0.3 V/m3)
Based on: 1)NCRP Draft Recommendations on EMF Exposure
Guidelines: Option 2, 1995 (188); 2)Oberfeld (189); 3)precautionary
approach by a factor 3 (field strength).
Evaluation guidelines specifically for sleeping areas
Higher frequencies than the mains electricity at 50/60 Hz
and distinct harmonics should be evaluated more critically.
See also the precautionary guidance values for the interme-
diate frequency range further below.
Radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR)
Measurement specifications
Frequency range:Radio and TV broadcast transmitters
Mobile phone base stations, e.g. TETRA (400 MHz),
GSM (900 and 1800 MHz), UMTS (2100 MHz),
LTE (800, 900, 1800, 2500–2700 MHz),
Cordless phone base stations, e.g. DECT (1900)
Wi-Fi access points and clients (2450 and
5600 MHz)
WiMAX (3400–3600 MHz)
(above frequencies in MHz refer to European
networks)
Type of measurement:Electric field [V/m] - >  calculated power density
[W/m2; mW/m2; µW/m2]
Field probe:Isotropic, biconical, logarithmic-periodic
antennas
Detector mode: Peak detector with max hold
Measurement volume:Point of exposure across bed and working
space
Measurement period:Usually short-term measurements to identify
RF field sources (e.g. acoustic analysis) and
peak readings
Basis for evaluation:Band-specific or frequency-specific spot
measurements (peak detector with max hold)
of common signals at relevant points of
exposure (e.g. with spectrum analyzer or at
least band-specific RF meter)
Precautionary guidance values for selected RF sources
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to radio-frequency electro-
magnetic radiation to levels as low as possible or below the
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
288288
356   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
precautionary guidance values specified below. Frequencies
to be measured should be adapted to each individual case.
The specific guidance values take the signal charac-
teristics of risetime (∆T) and periodic ELF “pulsing” into
account (191). Note: Rectangular signals show short rise-
times and consist of a broad spectrum of frequencies. The
body current density increases with increasing frequency in
an approximately linear relationship (Vignati and Giuliani,
1997).
RF sourceMax Peak/Peak Hold Daytime exposure Nighttime exposure Sensitive populations1)
Radio broadcast
(FM)
10,000 µW/m2 1000 µW/m2 100 µW/m2
TETRA 1000 µW/m2 100 µW/m2 10 µW/m2
DVBT 1000 µW/m2 100 µW/m2 10 µW/m2
GSM (2G)
900/1800 MHz
100 µW/m2 10 µW/m2 1 µW/m2
DECT (cordless
phone)
100 µW/m2 10 µW/m2 1 µW/m2
UMTS (3G)100 µW/m2 10 µW/m2 1 µW/m2
LTE (4G)100 µW/m2 10 µW/m2 1 µW/m2
GPRS (2.5G) with
PTCCH*
(8.33 Hz pulsing)
10 µW/m2 1 µW/m2 0.1 µW/m2
DAB+
(10.4 Hz pulsing)
10 µW/m2 1 µW/m2 0.1 µW/m2
Wi-Fi
2.4/5.6 GHz
(10 Hz pulsing)
10 µW/m2 1 µW/m2 0.1 µW/m2
*PTCCH, Packet Timing Advance Control Channel.
Based on: BioInitiative (9, 10); Kundi and Hutter (186); Leitfaden
Senderbau (187); Belyaev (73); PACE (26). 1)Precautionary approach
by a factor 3 (field strength) = factor 10 power density.
Conversion of RF measurement units
mW/m2 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
µW/m2  10,000 1000 100 10 1 0.1
 µW/cm2 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 0.00001V/m  1.9 0.6 0.19 0.06 0.019 0.006
Additional measurements
Body-current (extremely low frequency) (ELF BC)
The type of body current measurement has been devel-
oped in Germany (193) and is used by so-called electrobiol-
ogists (194). The methodology offers the possibility to assess
directly the relevant effect – the body current – caused by
electric and magnetic fields (195). To date, the effects of
electric fields on human health with a view to their distri-
bution and relevance to increase the body current density
are massively underestimated. We strongly recommend
to perform epidemiological studies (e.g. intervention,
case-control, cohort) for the health endpoints discussed
and – besides other EMF exposures – to take the follow-
ing measurements in this order: 1) body current (A/m2),
2) electric field (V/m) without ground reference (poten-
tial-free) without and with a person or a 3D dummy (not
grounded!) to simulate the conductive body. In order to
distinguish as to whether the measured body currents
are caused by electric or magnetic fields, the magnetic
fields have to be measured as well in all three axes. Long-
term measurements of ELF magnetic fields should be
performed with an isotropic magnetic field probe (three
orthogonal axes) according to the corresponding para-
graph in this chapter.
Measurement specifications
Frequency range:50/60 Hz mains electricity, up to 2 kHz
16.7 Hz railroad systems in Austria,
Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and
Norway
Type of measurement: Body-current [A/m2]
Field probe:Magnetic field probe (one orthogonal axis)
Detector mode:RMS (root mean square)
Measurement volume: 10 specific points close to the body
(head, trunk and limbs)
Measurement period:Spot measurements to asses the
exposure as well as to identify field
sources. As electric field exposure levels
in the ELF frequency range usually do not
change, long-term measurements are
not needed.
Basis for evaluation:Spot measurements (maximum) at
relevant points of exposure
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to ELF body-current to levels
as low as possible or below the precautionary guidance
values specified below.
ELF body-current Daytime
exposure
Nighttime
exposure
Sensitive
populations
Maximum(MAX) 0.25 µA/m2 1) 0.25 µA/m2 1) 0.05 µA/m2 2),3)
Based on: 1)0.25 µA/m2 corresponds to 100 nT (RMS, AVG);
2)0.05 µA/m2 corresponds to 20 nT (RMS, AVG), Arbeitskreis
Elektrobiologie (194), based on empirical observations; 3)precau-
tionary approach by a factor 5 (field strength).
Evaluation guidelines specifically for sleeping areas
Higher frequencies than the mains electricity at 50/60 Hz
and distinct harmonics should be evaluated more critically.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
µ µ JJ.
µ µ II.
µ µ II.
µ µ II.
µ µ II.
µ µ II.
µ µ II.
µ µ µ
µ µ µ
µ µ µ
µ
289289
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   357
See also the precautionary guidance values for the inter-
mediate frequency range further below.
Magnetic fields in the intermediate frequency range
(VLF) (IF MF)
Measurement specifications
Frequency range:3 kHz–3 MHz
Frequency-specific measurements
(spectrum analyzer/EMF meter), e.g. “dirty
power,” powerline communication (PLC),
radio-frequency identification transmitters
(RFID), compact fluorescent lamps (CFL)
Type of measurement:Magnetic field [A/m] - >  calculated magnetic
induction [T; mT; µT; nT]
Field probe:Isotropic or anisotropic magnetic field probe
Detector mode: RMS (root mean square)
Measurement volume:Point of exposure across bed and working
space
Measurement period:Short-term measurements to identify field
sources
Long-term measurements during sleep and
work shift
Basis for evaluation:Long-term measurements: RMS detector
arithmetic mean and maximum at relevant
points of exposure
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time
( > 4 h per day), minimize exposure to intermediate fre-
quency magnetic fields to levels as low as possible or
below the precautionary guidance values specified
below.
4)The body current density increases with increas-
ing frequency in an approximately linear relationship
(Vignati and Giuliani, 1997). Therefore, the guidance
value of the magnetic field in the intermediate frequency
range should be lower than the one of the 50/60 Hz mag-
netic field, e.g. assuming 100 nT RMS/100 = 1 nT.
IF magnetic field  Daytime exposure Nighttime exposure Sensitive populations
Arithmetic
mean
1 nT
(0.01 mG)1),2)
1 nT
(0.01 mG)1),2)
0.3 nT
(0.003 mG)4)
Maximum 10 nT
(0.1 mG)2),3)
10 nT
(0.1 mG)2),3)
3 nT
(0.03 mG)4)
Based on: 1)BioInitiative (9, 10); 2)Oberfeld (189); 3)NISV (192);
4) precautionary approach by a factor 3 (field strength).
Electric fields in the intermediate frequency range
(VLF) (IF EF)
Measurement specifications
Frequency range:3 kHz–3 MHz
Frequency-specific measurements
(spectrum analyzer/EMF meter), e.g.
“dirty power,” powerline communication
(PLC), radio-frequency identification
transmitters (RFID), compact fluorescent
lamps (CFL)
Type of measurement: Electric field [V/m]
Field probe:Isotropic, biconical, logarithmic-periodic
electric field probe
Detector mode:RMS arithmetic mean
Measurement volume: Point of exposure across bed and
working space
Measurement period: Short-term measurements to identify
field sources
Long-term measurements during sleep
and work shift
Basis for evaluation:Long-term measurements: arithmetic
mean at relevant points of exposure
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to intermediate frequency
electric fields to levels as low as possible or below the pre-
cautionary guidance values specified below.
4)The body current density increases with increasing
frequency in an approximately linear relationship (Vignati
and Giuliani 1997). Therefore, the guidance value of the
magnetic field in the intermediate frequency range should
be lower than the one of the 50/60 Hz magnetic field,
e.g. assuming 10 V/m RMS arithmetic mean/100 = 0.1 V/m.
IF electric field Daytime
exposure
Nighttime
exposure
Sensitive
populations
Arithmetic mean  < 0.1 V/m1),2)  < 0.01 V/m2)  < 0.003 V/m3)
Based on: 1)NCRP Draft Recommendations on EMF Exposure
Guidelines: Option 2, 1995 (188); 2)Oberfeld (189); 3)precautionary
approach by a factor 3 (field strength).
Static magnetic fields
Measurement specifications
Frequency range:0 Hz
Type of measurement: Magnetic induction or flux density
[T; mT; µT; nT]
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
< < <
290290
358   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
Field probe:Anisotropic magnetic field probe (for one
spatial axis – vertical) or Isotropic magnetic
field probe (three orthogonal axes)
Detector mode:RMS (root mean square)
Measurement volume:Point of exposure across bed and working
space
Measurement period:Short-term measurements to identify field
sources that distort the Earth’s magnetic
field
Basis for evaluation: Spot measurements (RMS maximum) at
relevant points of exposure
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to static magnetic fields that
distort the naturally occurring Earth’s magnetic field to
levels as low as possible.
Evaluation guidelines specifically for sleeping areas
First determine the natural background level in a reference
location, e.g. close to the bed. The field probe must not be
moved during the measurement process in order to prevent
false readings due to induced currents by the Earth’s mag-
netic field. The guidance values below are meant in addi-
tion to the Earth’s magnetic field.
Static magnetic field  No anomaly Slight anomaly Significant anomaly Extreme anomaly
Deviation
from natural
background
  ≤  1 µT 
≤  10 mG
1–2 µT
10–20 mG
2–10 µT
20–100 mG
 > 10 µT 
> 100 mG
Based on: Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines (SBM-2015) (190),
which are based on empirical observations.
Static electric fields
Measurement specifications
Frequency range:0 Hz
Type of measurement: Electric field [V/m]
Field probe:Anisotropic or isotropic electric field probe
Detector mode:RMS (root mean square)
Measurement volume: Point of exposure across bed and
working space
Measurement period:Short-term measurements to identify
field sources
Basis for evaluation:Spot measurements (maximum) at
relevant points of exposure
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to static electric fields that
exceed the naturally occurring fair-weather atmospheric
electric field.
Evaluation guidelines specifically for sleeping areas
Static electric field No anomaly Slight anomaly Significant anomaly  Extreme anomaly
Maximum  < 100 V/m  100– 500 V/m 500– 2000 V/m  > 2000 V/m
Based on: Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines (SBM-2015) (190),
which are based on empirical observations.
Prevention or reduction of EMF exposure
Preventing or reducing EMF exposure after consulting a
testing specialist is advantageous for several reasons:
a) To prevent and reduce risks to individual and public
health,
b) To identify any links to health problems,
c) To causally treat the EMF-related health problems.
There are numerous potential causes of relevant EMF
exposures, and this EMF Guideline can only give a
few examples. Further information can be found, for
instance, in the document “Options to Minimize EMF/
RF/Static Field Exposures in Office Environments” (196)
and “Elektrosmog im Alltag” (197). For detailed informa-
tion on physics, properties and measurement of EMF, see
Virnich (198); regarding reduction of radio-frequency
radiation (RFR) in homes and offices, see Pauli and
Moldan (199).
In most cases, it will be necessary to consult an expert
(e.g. building biology testing specialist, EMF/RF engineer)
and/or electrician who will advise the person on what
measures could be taken to reduce EMF exposure.
EMF exposure reduction – First steps
As a first step, it might be useful to recommend to persons
that they take certain actions (also as preventive meas-
ures) to eliminate or reduce typical EMF exposures, which
may help alleviate health problems within days or weeks.
The following actions may be suggested:
Preventing exposure to radio-frequency radiation
(RFR)
– Disconnect (unplug) the power supply of all DECT
cordless phone base stations. So called “ECO Mode” or
“zero-emission” DECT phones are only conditionally
recommended because the exposure by the handset is
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
< >
> µ
291291
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   359
not or not substantially reduced. Therefore, the use of
“traditional” corded phones is recommended.
– Disconnect (unplug) the power supply to all Wi-Fi
access points or Wi-Fi routers. Many LAN routers
now come equipped with additional Wi-Fi. Call the
provider of the LAN router and ask to have the Wi-Fi
deactivated. It is usually also possible to do so online
by following the provider’s instructions.
– Avoid wearing the cell phone/smartphone close to the
body.
– Deactivate all nonessential wireless cell phone apps,
which cause periodic radiation exposure.
– Keep cell phones/smartphones in “airplane mode”
whenever possible.
– In case of external RF radiation sources, rooms – espe-
cially sleeping rooms – facing away from the source
should be chosen.
– Avoid powerline communication for Internet access
(dLAN) and instead use a hardwired Ethernet cable
(LAN).
– Avoid exposure to RF radiation (e.g. Bluetooth, Wi-Fi)
at home (e.g. home entertainment, headsets), in
offices, and in cars.
Preventing exposure to ELF electric and magnetic
fields
– Move the bed or desk away from the wiring in the
walls and power cords. A minimum distance of 30 cm
(1 ft) from the wall is recommended.
– Another simple complementary action is to discon-
nect the power supply to the bedroom (turn off cir-
cuit breaker or fuse) for the nighttime while sleeping;
try it for a test phase of, e.g. 2 weeks. In general, this
measure is not always successful because circuits of
adjacent rooms contribute to the electric field lev-
els. ELF electric field measurements are required
to know exactly which circuit breakers need to be
disconnected.
The benefits should be weighed against the potential
risk of accidents; therefore, the use of a flashlight for
the test phase should be recommended.
– Disconnect the power supply to all nonessential elec-
tric circuits, possibly in the entire apartment or house.
(N.B. See note above.)
– Avoid using an electric blanket during sleep; not only
turn it off, but also disconnect it.
Preventing exposure to static magnetic fields
– Sleep in a bed and mattress without metal.
– Avoid to sleep close to iron materials (radiator, steel,
etc.)
EMF exposure reduction – second steps
As a second step, EMF measurements and mitigation
measures should be carried out. Typical examples are:
– Measure the ELF electric field in the bed or the body
current density of the person while in bed. Based on
the measurement results, have automatic demand
switches in those circuits installed that increase the
exposure.
– Measure the ELF electric field at all other places that
are used for extended periods at home and at work. If
necessary, choose lamps used close to the body with
a shielded electric cable and a grounded lamp fixture
(metal). Especially in lightweight construction (wood,
gypsum board), electrical wiring without ground-
ing (two-slot outlets) might have to be replaced with
grounded electrical wiring or shielded electrical wir-
ing. In special cases, the whole building might have
to have shielded wiring and shielded outlets installed.
– Measure the ELF magnetic field close to the bed, e.g.
for 24 h. If net currents are detected, the electrical wir-
ing and grounding system of the building must be cor-
rected as to reduce the magnetic fields.
– Install a residual current device (RCD) or ground-fault
circuit interrupter (GFCI) to prevent electric shocks
(safety measure).
– Measure radio-frequency radiation and mitigate high
exposure levels by installing certain RF shielding
materials for the affected walls, windows, doors, ceil-
ings, and floors.
– Measure dirty electricity/dirty power (electric and
magnetic fields in the intermediate frequency range)
and identify the sources in order to remove them. If
this is not possible, appropriate power filters in line
with the source may be used.
Diagnosis
We will have to distinguish between EHS and other EMF-
related health problems like certain cancers, Alzheimer’s,
ALS, male infertility etc. that might have been induced,
promoted, or aggravated by EMF exposure. An inves-
tigation of the functional impairment EHS and other
EMF-related health problems will largely be based on a
comprehensive case history, focusing, in particular, on
correlations between health problems and times, places,
and circumstances of EMF exposure, as well as the pro-
gression of symptoms over time and the individual sus-
ceptibility. In addition, measurements of EMF exposure
and the results of additional diagnostic tests (labora-
tory tests, cardiovascular system) serve to support the
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
292292
360   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
diagnosis. Moreover, all other potential causes should be
excluded as far as possible.
In 2000 the Nordic Council of Ministers (Finland,
Sweden, and Norway) adopted the following ICD-10 code
for EHS: Chapter XVIII, Symptoms, signs and abnormal
clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified,
code R68.8 “Other specified general symptoms and signs”
(Nordic ICD-10 Adaptation, 2000) (200).
Regarding the current International Classification of
Diseases (ICD), ICD-10-WHO 2015, we recommend at the
moment:
a) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS): to use the
existing diagnostic codes for the different symptoms
plus code R68.8 “Other specified general symptoms
and signs” plus code Z58.4 “Exposure to radiation”
and/ or Z57.1 “Occupational exposure to radiation”.
b) EMF-related health problems (except EHS): to use the
existing diagnostic codes for the different diseases/
symptoms plus code Z58.4 “Exposure to radiation”
and/or Z57.1 “Occupational exposure to radiation”.
Regarding the next ICD-update (ICD-11 WHO) to be pub-
lished 2018), we recommend to:
a) Create ICD codes for all chronic environmentally
induced chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI) like mul-
tiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), chronic fatigue syn-
drome (CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), and electromagnetic
hypersensitivity (EHS).
b) Expand Chapter XIX, Injury, poisoning and certain
other consequences of external causes (T66-T78) to
include/distinguish effects of EMF (static magnetic
field, static electric field, ELF magnetic field, ELF
electric field, VLF/LF magnetic field, VLF/LF electric
field, Radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation)
infrared, visible light, UV-light and ionizing radiation.
c) Expand Chapter XXI, Factors influencing health status
and contact with health services (Z00-Z99) to include/
distinguish factors as EMF (static magnetic field,
static electric field, ELF magnetic field, ELF electric
field, VLF/LF magnetic field, VLF/LF electric field,
Radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation), infra-
red, visible light, UV-light, and ionizing radiation.
Treatment/accessibility measure
The primary method of treatment should mainly focus on
the prevention or reduction of EMF exposure that is reduc-
ing or eliminating all sources of EMF at home and in the
workplace. The reduction of EMF exposure should also be
extended to schools, hospitals, public transport, public
places like libraries, etc. in order to enable EHS persons
an unhindered use (accessibility measure). Many exam-
ples have shown that such measures can prove effective.
With respect to total body load of other environmental
influences, they must also be regarded.
Beside EMF reduction, other measures can and must
be considered. These include a balanced homeostasis in
order to increase the “resistance” to EMF. There is increas-
ing evidence that a main effect of EMF on human beings
is the reduction of oxidative and nitrosative regulation
capacity. This hypothesis also explains observations of
changing EMF sensitivity and the large number of symp-
toms reported in the context of EMF exposure. From the
current perspective, it appears useful to recommend a
treatment approach, as those gaining ground for multi-
system disorders, that aims at minimizing adverse perox-
ynitrite effects.
It should be stressed, that psychotherapy has the
same significance as in other diseases. Products that are
offered in the form of plaques and the like to “neutralize”
or “harmonize” electrosmog should be evaluated with
great restraint.
In summary, the following treatment and accessibility
measures appear advantageous, depending on the indi-
vidual case:
Reduction of EMF exposure
This should include all types of EMF exposures relevant to
the person, especially during sleep and at work. For more
information, see e.g. “Options to Minimize EMF/RF/Static
Field Exposures in Office Environment” (196) and “Elek-
trosmog im Alltag” (197).
Environmental Medicine treatments
Until now, no specific treatment of EHS has been estab-
lished. Controlled clinical trials would be necessary to
assess optimal treatment and accessibility measures.
Actual data indicate that the functional deficits, which can
be found in persons with EHS, correspond to those we can
find in CMI such as MCS, CFS, and FM. The target of the
therapy is the regulation of the physiological dysfunction
detected by diagnostic steps (Examination and findings).
The main therapeutic target includes both general and
adjuvant procedures and specific treatments. The latter
are challenging and need special knowledge and experi-
ence in clinical environmental medicine treatments. Main
therapeutic targets include:
–Control of total body burden
Besides the reduction of EMF exposure, the
reduction of the total body burden by various
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
293293
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   361
environmental pollutants (home, working place,
school, hobby), food additives, and dental materi-
als is indicated.
–Reduction of oxidative and/or nitrosative stress
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen
species (RNS) are free radicals naturally produced
in cells. Scavengers guarantee the balance between
the production of free radicals and the rate of their
removal. Many biologically important compounds
with antioxidant (AO) function have been identified
as endogenous and exogenous scavengers. Among the
endogenous AO, we distinguish between enzymatic
AO (catalase, glutathione peroxidase, glutathione
reductase, superoxide dismutase) and nonenzymatic
AO (bilirubin, ferritin, melatonin, glutathione, metal-
lothionin, N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), NADH, NADPH,
thioredoxin, 1,4,-bezoquinine, ubiquinone, uric acid).
They interact with exogenous dietary and/or synthetic
AO (carotenoids, retinoids, flavonoids, polyphenols,
glutathione, ascorbic acid, tocopherols). The complex
regulation and use of these substances is the thera-
peutic challenge (163, 201).
–Regulation of intestinal dysfunction
Endogenous and exogenous scavengers act synergis-
tically to maintain the redox homeostasis. Therefore,
dietary or natural antioxidants play an important role
to stabilize this interaction.
Treatment of a leaky gut, food intolerance, and food
allergy is a prerequisite for maintaining redox homeo-
stasis (202) and also requires special knowledge and
experience.
–Optimizing nutrition
Bioactive food is the main source of antioxidant com-
ponents such as vitamin C, vitamin E, NAC, carot-
enoids, CoQ10, alpha-lipoic acid, lycopene, selenium,
and flavonoids (203, 204). For instance, the regenera-
tion of vitamin E by glutathione or vitamin C is needed
to prevent lipid peroxidation. The dietary antioxidants
only can have beneficial effects on the redox system
if they are present in sufficient concentration levels
(201). Alpha-lipoic acid acts directly and indirectly as
a scavenger of free radicals including peroxynitrite,
singlet oxygen, superoxide, peroxyl radicals, and the
breakdown radicals of peroxynitrite (163). It had been
shown that the number of free electrons in micronu-
trients determines how effective they are. In organic
food, the number of free electrons is higher than in
conventionally produced food (205). Especially in
the case of food intolerances, the tailored substitu-
tion of micronutrients in the form of supplements is
necessary.
–Control of (silent) inflammation
Elevated nitric oxide levels and the reaction with
superoxide always leads to elevated peroxynitrate
levels, which induce ROS levels as no other substance
does (NO/ONOO− cycle). As a result, the nuclear
factor κB (NF-κB) is activated, inducing inflammatory
cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α),
interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interkeu-
kin-8 (IL-8), and interferon gamma (IFNγ) and acti-
vating various NO synthases (163). Tocopherols (206,
207), carotinoids at low concentration levels (208),
vitamin C (209, 210), NAC (211), curcumin (212), res-
veratrol (213, 214), flavonoids (215) have shown to
interrupt this inflammatory cascade at various points.
–Normalization of mitochondrial function
Mitochondrial function may be disturbed in two ways.
First: the high amount of free radicals may block pro-
duction of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), leading to
muscle pain and fatigue. Second: in the case of silent
(smoldering) inflammation, the demand for more
energy is elevated by 25% (167), causing a high con-
sumption of ATP. In this case, NADH, L-carnitine and
CoQ10 are essential for ATP synthesis.
Due to the lack of ATP, the stress regulation of catecho-
lamines especially norepinephrine (NE) is reduced
because catabolism of NE by S-adenosylmethionine
is ATP dependent (216–218). Furthermore, stress regu-
lation has a high demand for folate, vitamin B6, and
methylcobalamine. Genetic polymorphisms of COMT
and MTHFR influence the individual need for those
substances (173, 219).
–Detoxification
In humans, the accumulation of environmental toxi-
cants has an individual profile of many different inor-
ganic and organic chemicals, which make up the total
body load (220).
Among the inorganic substances, metals and their
salts play the dominant role and might be of impor-
tance to persons with EHS. Elemental mercury (Hg°)
and other heavy metals such as lead (Pb) accumu-
late in the brain (221), especially at chronic low
dose exposure. They may have toxic effects and can
induce various immune reactions (222, 223). Whereas,
generally, no specific active substance exists for the
detoxification of chemicals, there are two groups of
substances with more specific effects that can be used
for the detoxification of metals.
1.Substances with nonspecific physiological
effects:
Glutathione, NAC, alpha-lipoic acid, vitamin C
and selenium.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
294294
362   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
2.Chelating agents for detoxification of metals
(224–226)
The most important chelating agents are:
Sodium thiosulfate 10%
DMPS (2,3-dimercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid)
DMSA (meso-dimercaptosuccinic acid)
EDTA (2,2′,2″,2″′-ethane-1,2-diyldinitrotetraacetic
acid)
It should be noted that these substances should
be used only by those designated as experts in
this particular field.
–Adjuvant therapies
1. Drinking water
For detoxification reasons, a higher intake of high-
quality drinking water with low mineral content and
no CO2 is needed. The intake quantity should range
from 2.5 to 3.0 L (10–12 8-oz glasses) daily.
2. Light
Most of the people in central and northern Europe
are depleted of vitamin D. Sufficient natural daylight
exposure during the vitamin D-producing months
(spring to fall) is one important factor. At the same
time, prevention of actinic damage to the skin is
necessary.
3. Sauna
Sauna and therapeutic hyperthermia is an adjuvant
therapy for the detoxification of almost all xenobi-
otics. These therapies have to be carefully used. An
interaction with detoxifying drugs takes place. Sauna
helps to regenerate tetrahydrobiopterin from dihyd-
robiopterin, which is essential for the metabolism of
catecholamines and serotonin (163).
4. Oxygen
A part of persons with EHS suffer from mitochondrial
dysfunction. Sufficient natural oxygen is helpful. As
both hypoxia and hyperbaric oxygen can produce oxi-
dative stress, hyperbaric oxygen therapy should only
be performed if the persons are treated with sufficient
antioxidants at the same time.
5. Exercise
The optimal amount of exercise is still being debated.
A person’s physical capacity should be assessed by
ergometry in order to prescribe an individual exercise
regime. Environmental medicine experience indicates
that for sick people only low-impact aerobic exercise
should be used. In general, start with a work load of
20–30 watts that often can be finished at 60–70 watts.
Exercise on an ergometer allows better control of
the consumption of energy compared to walking or
running. No fatigue should result from exercising, at
least after half an hour.
6. Sleep
Sleeping disorders are very common in persons with
EHS. Sleep disturbance is associated with reduced
melatonin level. In the case of chronic inflammation,
the activation of IDO (indolamine-2,3-dioxygenase)
reduces the production of serotonin and, in turn, it
also reduces melatonin levels. EMF exposure might
block the parasympathetic activity while sympathetic
activity persists. Concerning sleep disturbances, any
therapy has to follow the pathogenic causes. Optimal
sleep is necessary to save energy and to regulate
the functions of the immune and neuroendocrine
systems.
7. Protection from blue light
Wavelengths of visible light below 500 nm are called
“blue light”. Low doses of blue light can increase feel-
ings of well-being, but larger amounts can be harmful
to the eyes. In natural daylight, the harmful effects
of “blue light” are balanced out by the regenerative
effect of the red and infrared content. The escalating
use of electronic light sources – such as fluorescent
tubes and compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), computer
screens, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and certain
LED bulbs – has increased our exposure to “blue
light”, which at this level is suspected of playing a
role in the development of age-related macular degen-
eration and circadian misalignment via melatonin
suppression, which is associated with the increased
risk of sleep disturbance, obesity, diabetes melli-
tus, depression, ischemic heart disease, stroke, and
cancer. Extended exposure to artificial “blue light”
in the evening should therefore be limited. Antioxi-
dants, especially melatonin (227, 228) and blue light
screen filters (229–231) could be helpful.
Dental medicine
Dental medicine still works with toxic or immunoreactive
materials, e.g. mercury, lead oxide, gold, and titanium.
Environmental dental medicine demands that these mate-
rials not be used (232–235). The removal of toxic dental
materials must take place under maximum safety condi-
tions (avoid inhalation!). The elimination of particularly
heavy metals from the body might be indicated. In general
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
295295
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   363
terms, endoprosthetic materials should be inert with
respect to immunoreactivity. Based on our current knowl-
edge, zirconium dioxide seems to be a neutral material.
However, mechanical abrasion of the coated surface by
the dentist should be avoided.
Immunotoxic metals show a similar pathophysiology
with respect to oxidative stress, mitochondriopathy, and
inflammation.
Lifestyle coaching
Lifestyle coaching may include balanced exercise,
nutrition, reduction of addictive substances, change
of sleeping habits, etc. and stress reduction measures
(reduction of general stress and work stress), as well as
methods to increase stress resistance via, e.g. autogenic
training, yoga, progressive muscle relaxation, breathing
techniques, meditation, tai chi, and qigong.
Treatment of symptoms
A well-balanced treatment of symptoms is justified until
the causes have been identified and eliminated. However,
it is of paramount importance to realize that the reduction
of symptoms may put the person at risk for an increased
environmental EMF-load, thus generating possible future,
long-term health effects, including neurological damage
and cancer. It is a very difficult ethical task for the physi-
cian to risk such, and they must be pointed out – in an
equally well-balanced way – to the patient in question.
Ethically, to treat the symptoms is, of course, a very good
start in the immediate sense but without a parallel envi-
ronmental exposure reduction and lifestyle coaching it
may prove counter-productive in the long run. For a stand-
ardly trained physician this might seem a very new way
of reasoning, but is the only way to a successful and ever-
lasting symptom alleviation and complete clinical remedy
when dealing with chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI)
and EHS.
References
1. Hänninen O, Knol AB, Jantunen M, Lim TA, Conrad A, et al.
Environmental burden of disease in Europe: assessing
nine risk factors in six countries. Environ Health Perspect
2014;122(5):439–46.
2. Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer. BPtK-Studie zur Arbeitsun-
fähigkeit – Psychische Erkrankungen und Burnout [Internet].
Berlin (DE): Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer, 2012:29.
Report 2012. Available from: http://www.bptk.de/uploads/
media/20120606_AU-Studie-2012.pdf.
3. Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer. BPtK-Studie zur Arbeits-
und Erwerbsunfähigkeit – Psychische Erkrankungen und
gesundheitsbedingte Frühverrentung [Internet]. Berlin (DE):
Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer, 2013:66. Report 2013.
Available from: http://www.bptk.de/uploads/media/20140128_
BPtK-Studie_zur_Arbeits-und_Erwerbsunfaehigkeit_2013_1.pdf.
4. Fritze J. Psychopharmaka-Verordnungen: Ergebnisse
und Kommentare zum Arzneiverordnungsreport 2011.
Psychopharmakotherapie 2011;18:245–56.
5. Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte. Erstmals
seit 20 Jahren kein Anstieg beim Methylphenidat-Verbrauch
[Internet]. Bonn (DE): Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und
Medizinprodukte, 2014 Apr 1. Pressemitteilung Nummer
05/14; Available from: https://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/
Pressemitteilungen/DE/mitteil2014/pm05-2014.html.
6. Badura B, Ducki A, Schröder H, Klose J, Meyer M, editors.
Fehlzeiten-Report 2012. Berlin, Heidelberg (DE): Springer
Verlag, 2012:528 p.
7. OECD. Health at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators [Internet]. Paris
(FR): OECD Publishing, 2013 Nov 21. 212 p. DOI: 10.1787/health_
glance-2013-en. Available from: http://dx.DOI.org/10.1787/
health_glance-2013-en.
8. Pawankar R, Canonica GW, Holgate ST, Lockey RF, editors. WAO
White book on Allergy 2011–2012 [Internet]. Milwaukee, WI (US):
World Allergy Organization, 2013:228. Available from: http://
www.worldallergy.org/UserFiles/file/WAO-White-Book-on-
Allergy.pdf.
9. BioInitiative Working Group, Carpenter D, Sage C,
editors. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-
based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic
Fields (ELF and RF). 2007. Available from: http://www.
bioinitiative.org/.
10. BioInitiative Working Group, Carpenter D, Sage C, editors.
BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public
Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF).
2012. Available from: http://www.bioinitiative.org/.
11. Levitt B, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electro-
magnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and
other antenna arrays. Environ Rev 2010;18:369–95.
12. Pall ML. Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assump-
tions of Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through
voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological
impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for
microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev
Environ Health 2015;30(2):99–116.
13. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protec-
tion. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric,
magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health
Physics 1998;74(4):494–522.
14. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying
electric and magnetic fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz). Health Phys
2010;99(6):818–36.
15. Vecchia P. ICNIRP and international standards. London (GB):
Conference EMF and Health, 2008:28. Available from: http://
archive.radiationresearch.org/conference/downloads/021145_
vecchia.pdf.
16. Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. Evaluation of specific
absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic
fields bioeffects. PLoS One 2013;8(6):e62663.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
296296
364   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
17. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely
Low-Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields. Lyon (FR):
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2002:445.
IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans, VOL 80. Available from: http://monographs.iarc.fr/
ENG/Monographs/vol80/.
18. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks
to Humans. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency
Electro magnetic Fields. Lyon (FR): International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC), 2013:480. IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol 102. Available
from: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/.
19. European Environmental Agency. Radiation risk from everyday
devices assessed [Internet]. Copenhagen (DK): 2007 Sept 17.
Available from: www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/radiation-risk-
from-everyday-devices-assessed.
20. European Environmental Agency. Health risks from mobile
phone radiation – why the experts disagree [Internet]. Copenha-
gen (DK): 2011 Oct 12. Available from: http://www.eea.europa.
eu/highlights/health-risks-from-mobile-phone.
21. European Environmental Agency. Late lessons from early
warnings: science, precaution, innovation [Internet].
Copenhagen (DK): 2013 Jan 23. EEA Report No 1/2013. Available
from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2.
22. EU Parliament. Report on health concerns associated with
electro magnetic fields. Brussels (BE): Committee on the Environ-
ment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European Parliament.
Rapporteur: Frederique Ries (2008/2211(INI) [Internet]. Available
from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//
EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2009-0089+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN.
23. EU Parliament. European Parliament resolution of 2 April
2009 on health concerns associated with electromagnetic
fields [Internet]). Brussels (BE): European Parliament, 2009
Apr 2. Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-
0216+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.
24. Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH,
Morgan L, et al. Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health
risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales.
Environ Health 2010;25(4):307–17.
25. Dämvik M, Johansson O. Health risk assessment of electro-
magnetic fields: a conflict between the Precautionary Principle
and environmental medicine methodology. Rev Environ Health
2010;25(4):325–33.
26. Council of Europe – Parliamentary Assembly. The potential
dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the envi-
ronment. Resolution, Doc. 1815, Text adopted by the Standing
Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 27 May 2011
[Internet]. Available from: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/
XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&lang=en.
27. Dean AL, Rea WJ. American Academy of Environmental Medicine
Recommendations Regarding Electromagnetic and Radiofre-
quency Exposure [Internet]. Wichita, KS (US): Executive Com-
mittee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine,
2012 July 12. Available from: https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/
AAEMEMFmedicalconditions.pdf.
28. Federal Public Service (FPS) Health, Food Chain Safety and
Environment. New regulation for the sale of mobile phones as
of 2014 [Internet]. Brussels (BE): Federal Public Service (FPS)
Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, 2014 Feb 07.
Available from: http://health.belgium.be/eportal/19089508_
EN?fodnlang=en#.VQ6qlo6GPN6.
29. Assemblėe Nationale. PROPOSITION DE LOI relative à la
sobriété, à la transparence, à l’information et à la concertation
en matière d’exposition aux ondes électromagnétiques. Paris
(FR): Assemblėe Nationale, France, 2015 Jan 29. Available from:
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/pdf/ta/ta0468.pdf.
30. Blank M, Havas M, Kelley E, Lai H, Moskowitz JM. International
EMF Scientist Appeal [Internet]. 2015 May 11. Available from:
https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal.
31. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and
childhood cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1979;109(3):273–84.
32. Robinette CD, Silverman C, Jablon S. Effects upon health of
occupational exposure to microwave radiation (radar). Am J
Epidemiol 1980;112:39–53.
33. Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M, Roman E, Skinner J, et al.
A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia.
Br J Cancer 2000;83(5):692–8.
34. Greenland S, Sheppard AR, Kaune WT, Poole C, Kelsh MA. A
pooled analysis of magnetic fields, wire codes, and childhood
leukemia. Childhood Leukemia-EMF Study Group. Epidemiology
2000;11(6):624–34.
35. Kheifets L, Ahlbom A, Crespi CM, Draper G, Hagihara J, et al.
Pooled analysis of recent studies on magnetic fields and child-
hood leukaemia. Br J Cancer 2010;103(7):1128–35.
36. Zhao L, Liu X, Wang C, Yan K, Lin X, et al. Magnetic fields expo-
sure and childhood leukemia risk: a meta-analysis based on
11,699 cases and 13,194 controls. Leuk Res 2014;38(3):269–74.
37. Hardell L, Näsman A, Påhlson A, Hallquist A, Hansson Mild K.
Use of cellular telephones and the risk for brain tumours: a
case-control study. Int J Oncol 1999;15(1):113–6.
38. Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, Fabbro-Peray P, Gruber A, et al.
Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-con-
trol study. Occup Environ Med 2014;71(7):514–22.
39. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Mild KH. Case-control study
of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed
between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. Int
J Oncol 2013;43(6):1833–45.
40. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Mild KH. Pooled analysis of
case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997–2003
and 2007–2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. Int J
Oncol 2013;43(4):1036–44.
41. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for
evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors
associated with use of mobile and cordless phones. Rev Environ
Health 2013;28:97–106.
42. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phone and cordless phone use
and the risk for glioma – Analysis of pooled case-control stud-
ies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009. Pathophysiology
2015;22(1):1–13.
43. Soffritti M, Giuliani L. ICEMS Position Paper on the Cerebral
Tumor Court Case [Internet]. Rome (IT), Bolgna (IT), Chicago,
IL (US): International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety,
2012 October 23. Available from: http://www.icems.eu/docs/
Sentenza_integrale_n17438_13577519.pdf?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/
MNHJ1B49KH.DTL.
44. Bak M, Dudarewicz A, Zmyślony M, Sliwinska-Kowalska M.
Effects of GSM signals during exposure to event related poten-
tials (ERPs). Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2010;23(2):191–9.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
297297
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   365
45. Maganioti AE, Hountala CD, Papageorgiou CC, Kyprianou MA,
Rabavilas AD, et al. Principal component analysis of the P600
waveform: RF and gender effects. Neurosci Lett 2010;478(1):
19–23.
46. Hountala CD, Maganioti AE, Papageorgiou CC, Nanou ED,
Kyprianou MA, et al. The spectral power coherence of the EEG
under different EMF conditions. Neurosci Lett 2008;441(2):
188–92.
47. Croft RJ, Hamblin DL, Spong J, Wood AW, McKenzie RJ, et al.
The effect of mobile phone electromagnetic fields on the alpha
rhythm of human electroencephalogram. Bioelectromagnetics
2008;29(1):1–10.
48. Croft RJ, Leung S, McKenzie RJ, Loughran SP, Iskra S, et al.
Effects of 2G and 3G mobile phones on human alpha rhythms:
resting EEG in adolescents, young adults, and the elderly.
Bioelectromagnetics 2010;31(6):434–44.
49. Leung S, Croft RJ, McKenzie RJ, Iskra S, Silber B, et al.
Effects of 2G and 3G mobile phones on performance and
electrophysiology in adolescents, young adults and older
adults. Clin Neurophysiol 2011;122(11):2203–16.
50. Lustenberger C, Murbach M, Durr R, Schmid MR, Kuster N, et al.
Stimulation of the brain with radiofrequency electromagnetic
field pulses affects sleep-dependent performance improvement.
Brain Stimul 2013;6(5):805–11.
51. Vecchio F, Babiloni C, Ferreri F, Curcio G, Fini R, et al. Mobile
phone emission modulates interhemispheric functional coupling
of EEG alpha rhythms. Eur J Neurosci 2007;25(6):1908–13.
52. Vecchio F, Buffo P, Sergio S, Iacoviello D, Rossini PM, et al.
Mobile phone emission modulates event-related desynchroni-
zation of α rhythms and cognitive-motor performance in healthy
humans. Clin Neurophysiol 2012;123(1):121–8.
53. Tombini M, Pellegrino G, Pasqualetti P, Assenza G, Benvenga A,
et al. Mobile phone emissions modulate brain excitability in
patients with focal epilepsy. Brain Stimul 2013;6(3):448–54.
54. Vecchio F, Tombini M, Buffo P, Assenza G, Pellegrino G, et al.
Mobile phone emission increases inter-hemispheric functional
coupling of electroencephalographic alpha rhythms in epileptic
patients. Int J Psychophysiol 2012;84(2):164–71.
55. Perentos N, Croft RJ, McKenzie RJ, Cvetkovic D, Cosic I.
Comparison of the effects of continuous and pulsed mobile
phone like RF exposure on the human EEG. Australas Phys Eng
Sci Med 2007;30(4):274–80.
56. Trunk A, Stefanics G, Zentai N, Kovács-Bálint Z, Thuróczy G,
et al. No effects of a single 3G UMTS mobile phone exposure
on spontaneous EEG activity, ERP correlates, and automatic
deviance detection. Bioelectromagnetics 2013;34(1):31–42.
57. Kleinlogel H, Dierks T, Koenig T, Lehmann H, Minder A, et al.
Effects of weak mobile phone – electromagnetic fields (GSM,
UMTS) on well-being and resting EEG. Bioelectromagnetics
2008;29(6):479–87.
58. Kleinlogel H, Dierks T, Koenig T, Lehmann H, Minder A, et al.
Effects of weak mobile phone – electromagnetic fields (GSM,
UMTS) on event related potentials and cognitive functions.
Bioelectromagnetics 2008;29(6):488–97.
59. Krause CM, Pesonen M, Haarala Björnberg C, Hämäläinen H.
Effects of pulsed and nuous wave 902 MHz mobile phone expo-
sure on brain oscillatory activity during cognitive processing.
Bioelectromagnetics 2007;28(4):296–308.
60. Inomata-Terada S, Okabe S, Arai N, Hanajima R, Terao Y, et al.
Effects of high frequency electromagnetic field (EMF) emitted by
mobile phones on the human motor cortex. Bioelectromagnetics
2007;28(7):553–61.
61. Hung CS, Anderson C, Horne JA, McEvoy P. Mobile phone ‘talk-
mode’ signal delays EEG-determined sleep onset. Neurosci Lett
2007;421(1):82–6.
62. Regel SJ, Tinguely G, Schuderer J, Adam M, Kuster N, et al.
Pulsed radio-frequency electromagnetic fields: dose-dependent
effects on sleep, the sleep EEG and cognitive performance.
J Sleep Res 2007;16(3):253–8.
63. Lowden A, Akerstedt T, Ingre M, Wiholm C, Hillert L, et al. Sleep
after mobile phone exposure in subjects with mobile phone-
related symptoms. Bioelectromagnetics 2011;32(1):4–14.
64. Schmid MR, Loughran SP, Regel SJ, Murbach M,
Bratic Grunauer A, et al. Sleep EEG alterations: effects of
different pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic
fields. J Sleep Res 2012;21(1):50–8.
65. Schmid MR, Murbach M, Lustenberger C, Maire M, Kuster N,
et al. Sleep EEG alterations: effects of pulsed magnetic fields
versus pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields.
J Sleep Res 2012;21(6):620–9.
66. Loughran SP, McKenzie RJ, Jackson ML, Howard ME, Croft RJ.
Individual differences in the effects of mobile phone exposure
on human sleep: rethinking the problem. Bioelectromagnetics
2012;33(1):86–93.
67. Fritzer G, Göder R, Friege L, Wachter J, Hansen V, et al. Effects
of short- and long-term pulsed radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields on night sleep and cognitive functions in healthy sub-
jects. Bioelectromagnetics 2007;28(4):316–25.
68. Mohler E, Frei P, Braun-Fahrländer C, Fröhlich J, Neubauer G,
et al. Effects of everyday radiofrequency electromagnetic-field
exposure on sleep quality: a cross-sectional study. Radiat Res
2010;174(3):347–56.
69. Mohler E, Frei P, Fröhlich J, Braun-Fahrländer C, Röösli M, et al.
Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and sleep
quality: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One 2012;7(5):e37455.
70. Nakatani-Enomoto S, Furubayashi T, Ushiyama A, Groiss SJ,
Ueshima K, et al. Effects of electromagnetic fields emitted
from W-CDMA-like mobile phones on sleep in humans.
Bioelectromagnetics 2013;34(8):589–98.
71. Pelletier A, Delanaud S, Décima P, Thuroczy G, de Seze R, et al.
Effects of chronic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields on energy balance in developing rats. Environ Sci Pollut
Res Int 2013;20(5):2735–46.
72. Mohammed HS, Fahmy HM, Radwah NM, Elsayed AA. Non-
thermal continuous and modulated electromagnetic radiation
fields effects on sleep EEG of rats. J Adv Res 2013;4(2):181–7.
73. Belyaev I. Dependence of non-thermal biological effects of
microwaves on physical and biological variables: implications
for reproducibility and safety standards [Internet]. In: Giuliani
L, Soffritti M, editors. Non-thermal effects and mechanisms of
interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matter.
Bologna (IT): Ramazzini institute, 2010. European Journal of
Oncology – Library Vol. 5. pp 187–218. Available from: http://
www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.
DTL.
74. Kitaoka K, Kitamura M, Aoi S, Shimizu N, Yoshizaki K. Chronic
exposure to an extremely low-frequency magnetic field induces
depression-like behavior and corticosterone secretion without
enhancement of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in
mice. Bioelectromagnetics 2013;34(1):43–51.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
298298
366   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
75. Szemerszky R, Zelena D, Barna I, Bárdos G. Stress-related
endocrinological and psychopathological effects of short- and
long-term 50Hz electromagnetic field exposure in rats. Brain
Res Bull 2010;81(1):92–9.
76. Shin EJ, Jeong JH, Kim HJ, Jang CG, Yamada K, et al. Exposure to
extremely low frequency magnetic fields enhances locomotor
activity via activation of dopamine D1-like receptors in mice.
J Pharmacol Sci 2007;105(4):367–71.
77. Shin EJ, Nguyen XK, Nguyen TT, Pham DT, Kim HC. Exposure to
extremely low frequency magnetic fields induces fos-related
antigen-immunoreactivity via activation of dopaminergic D1
receptor. Exp Neurobiol 2011;20(3):130–6.
78. Wang X, Liu Y, Lei Y, Zhou D, Fu Y, et al. Extremely low-frequency
electromagnetic field exposure during chronic morphine treat-
ment strengthens downregulation of dopamine D2 receptors in
rat dorsal hippocampus after morphine withdrawal. Neurosci
Lett 2008;433(3):178–82.
79. Ravera S, Bianco B, Cugnoli C, Panfoli I, Calzia D, et al. Sinu-
soidal ELF magnetic fields affect acetylcholinesterase activity
in cerebellum synaptosomal membranes. Bioelectromagnetics
2010;31(4):270–6.
80. Fournier NM, Mach QH, Whissell PD, Persinger MA.
Neurodevelopmental anomalies of the hippocampus in rats
exposed to weak intensity complex magnetic fields throughout
gestation. Int J Dev Neurosci 2012;30(6):427–33.
81. Balassa T, Szemerszky R, Bárdos G. Effect of short-term 50 Hz
electromagnetic field exposure on the behavior of rats. Acta
Physiol Hung 2009;96(4):437–48.
82. Dimitrijević D, Savić T, Anđelković M, Prolić Z, Janać B. Extremely
low frequency magnetic field (50 Hz, 0.5 mT) modifies fitness
components and locomotor activity of Drosophila subobscura.
Int J Radiat Biol 2014;90(5):337–43.
83. Janać B, Selaković V, Rauš S, Radenović L, Zrnić M, et al. Tempo-
ral patterns of extremely low frequency magnetic field-induced
motor behavior changes in Mongolian gerbils of different age.
Int J Radiat Biol 2012;88(4):359–66.
84. Legros A, Corbacio M, Beuter A, Modolo J, Goulet D, et al.
Neurophysiological and behavioral effects of a 60 Hz,
1800 µT magnetic field in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol
2012;112(5):1751–62.
85. Rauš S, Selaković V, Radenović L, Prolić Z, Janać B. Extremely
low frequency magnetic field induced changes in motor
behaviour of gerbils submitted to global cerebral ischemia.
Behav Brain Res 2012;228(2):241–6.
86. Todorović D, Marković T, Prolić Z, Mihajlović S, Rauš S, et al. The
influence of static magnetic field (50 mT) on development and
motor behaviour of Tenebrio (Insecta, Coleoptera). Int J Radiat
Biol 2013;89(1):44–50.
87. Che Y, Sun H, Cui Y, Zhou D, Ma Y. Effects of exposure to 50 Hz
magnetic field of 1 mT on the performance of detour learning
task by chicks. Brain Res Bull 2007;74(1–3):178–82.
88. Corbacio M, Brown S, Dubois S, Goulet D, Prato FS, et al. Human
cognitive performance in a 3 mT power-line frequency magnetic
field. Bioelectromagnetics 2011;32(8):620–33.
89. Cui Y, Ge Z, Rizak JD, Zhai C, Zhou Z, et al. Deficits in water maze
performance and oxidative stress in the hippocampus and
striatum induced by extremely low frequency magnetic field
exposure. PLoS One 2012;7(5):e32196.
90. Duan Y, Wang Z, Zhang H, He Y, Lu R, et al. The preventive effect
of lotus seedpod procyanidins on cognitive impairment and
oxidative damage induced by extremely low frequency electro-
magnetic field exposure. Food Funct 2013;4(8):1252–62.
91. Fu Y, Wang C, Wang J, Lei Y, Ma Y. Long-term exposure to extremely
low-frequency magnetic fields impairs spatial recognition memory
in mice. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2008;35(7):797–800.
92. Harakawa S, Nedachi T, Hori T, Takahashi K, Tochio K, et al.
Effect of electric field in conditioned aversion response. J Vet
Med Sci 2008;70(6):611–3.
93. He LH, Shi HM, Liu TT, Xu YC, Ye KP, et al. Effects of extremely
low frequency magnetic field on anxiety level and spatial
memory of adult rats. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011;124(20):3362–6.
94. Liu T, Wang S, He L, Ye K. Chronic exposure to low-intensity
magnetic field improves acquisition and maintenance of
memory. Neuroreport 2008;19(5):549–52.
95. Sun H, Che Y, Liu X, Zhou D, Miao Y, et al. Effects of prenatal
exposure to a 50-Hz magnetic field on one-trial passive
avoidance learning in 1-day-old chicks. Bioelectromagnetics
2010;31(2):150–5.
96. Korpinar MA, Kalkan MT, Tuncel H. The 50 Hz (10 mT) sinusoidal
magnetic field: effects on stress-related behavior of rats.
Bratisl Lek Listy 2012;113(9):521–4.
97. Liu T, Wang S, He L, Ye K. Anxiogenic effect of chronic exposure
to extremely low frequency magnetic field in adult rats.
Neurosci Lett 2008;434(1):12–7.
98. Salunke BP, Umathe SN, Chavan JG. Involvement of NMDA
receptor in low-frequency magnetic field-induced anxiety in
mice. Electromagn Biol Med 2014;33(4):312–26.
99. Ross ML, Koren SA, Persinger MA. Physiologically patterned
weak magnetic fields applied over left frontal lobe increase
acceptance of false statements as true. Electromagn Biol Med
2008;27(4):365–71.
100. Davanipour Z, Tseng CC, Lee PJ, Markides KS, Sobel E. Severe
Cognitive dysfunction and occupational extremely low
frequency magnetic field exposure among elderly Mexican
Americans. Br J Med Med Res 2014;4(8):1641–62.
101. Stevens P. Affective response to 5 microT ELF magnetic
field-induced physiological changes. Bioelectromagnetics
2007;28(2):109–14.
102. Ishay JS, Plotkin M, Volynchik S, Shaked M, Schuss Z, et al.
Exposure to an additional alternating magnetic field affects
comb building by worker hornets. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR
2007;39(1):83–8.
103. Sandyk R. Reversal of cognitive impairment in an elderly
Parkinsonian patient by transcranial application of picotesla
electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci 1997;91(1–2):57–68.
104. Hallberg Ö, Johansson O. Alzheimer mortality – why does
it increase so fast in sparsely populated areas? Europ Biol
Bioelectromag 2005;1:225–46.
105. Huss A, Spoerri A, Egger M, Röösli M; Swiss National Cohort
Study. Residence near power lines and mortality from
neurodegenerative diseases: longitudinal study of the Swiss
population. Am J Epidemiol 2009;169(2):167–75.
106. Frei P, Poulsen AH, Mezei G, Pedersen C, Cronberg Salem L,
et al. Residential distance to high-voltage power lines and risk
of neurodegenerative diseases: a Danish population-based
case-control study. Am J Epidemiol 2013;177(9):970–8.
107. Zhou H, Chen G, Chen C, Yu Y, Xu Z. Association between
extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields occupations
and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One
2012;7(11):e48354.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
299299
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   367
108. Vergara X, Kheifets L, Greenland S, Oksuzyan S, Cho YS, et al.
Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic
fields and neurodegenerative disease: a meta-analysis.
J Occup Environ Med 2013;55(2):135–46.
109. Kundi M, Hutter HP. Umwelthygienische Bewertung des
Berichtes zur Bestimmung der Feldstärken niederfrequenter
magnetischer Wechselfelder im Bereich der 110 kV Hochspan-
nungsleitung im Siedlungsbereich der Gemeinde Kottingbrunn
von Dr.-Ing. Dietrich Moldan vom 20.8.2014 [Internet]. Kot-
tingbrunn (AT): Gemeinde Kottinbrunn, 2014:69–104. Available
from: www.kottingbrunn.or.at/system/web/GetDocument.
ashx?fileid=972861.
110. Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J. Effect of cell
phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility
clinic: an observational study. Fertil Steril 2008;89(1):124–8.
111. Agarwal A, Desai NR, Makker K, Varghese A, Mouradi R, et al.
Effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMF) from
cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro study.
Fertil Steril 2009;92(4):1318–25.
112. Wdowiak A, Wdowiak L, Wiktor H. Evaluation of the effect of
using mobile phones on male fertility. Ann Agric Environ Med
2007;14(1):169–72.
113. De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ. Mobile phone
radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and
DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. PLoS One
2009;4(7):e6446.
114. Fejes I, Zavacki Z, Szollosi J, Koloszar Daru J, Kovacs L, et al.
Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen
quality? Arch Androl 2005;51(5):385–93.
115. Aitken RJ, Bennetts LE, Sawyer D, Wiklendt AM, King BV. Impact
of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on DNA integrity
in the male germline. Int J Androl 2005;28(3):171–9.
116. Aitken RJ, Koopman P, Lewis SEM. Seeds of concern. Nature
2004;432(7013):48–52.
117. Erogul O, Oztas E, Yildirim I, Kir T, Aydur E, et al. Effects of
electro magnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm
motility: an in vitro study. Arch Med Res 2006;37(7):840–3.
118. Dasdag S. Whole-body microwave exposure emitted by
cellular phones and testicular function of rats. Urol Res
1999;27(3):219–23.
119. Yan JG, Agresti M, Bruce T, Yan YH, Granlund A, et al. Effects of
cellular phone emissions on sperm motility in rats. Fertil Steril
2007;88(4):957–64.
120. Otitoloju AA, Obe IA, Adewale OA, Otubanjo OA, Osunkalu VO.
Preliminary study on the reduction of sperm head abnor-
malities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency
radiations from global system for mobile communication base
stations. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2010;84(1):51–4.
121. Behari J, Kesari KK. Effects of microwave radiations on
reproductive system of male rats. Embryo Talk 2006;
1(Suppl. 1):81–5.
122. Kumar S, Behari J, Sisodia R. Impact of microwave at X-band
in the aetiology of male infertility. Electromagn Biol Med
2012;31(3):223–32.
123. Panagopoulos DJ. Effect of microwave exposure on the ovarian
development of Drosophila melanogaster. Cell Biochem
Biophys 2012;63(2):121–32.
124. Gul A, Celebi H, Ugras S. The effects of microwaves emitted
by cellular phones on ovarian follicles in rats. Arch Gynecol
Obstet 2009;280(5):729–33.
125. Magras IN, Xenos TD. RF Radiation-induced changes in
the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics
1997;18(6):455–61.
126. Röösli M, Moser M, Baldinini Y, Meier M, Braun-Fahrländer C.
Symptoms of ill health ascribed to electromagnetic field
exposure – a questionnaire survey. Int J Hyg Environ Health
2004;207(2):141–50.
127. Kato Y, Johansson O. Reported functional impairments of
electrohypersensitive Japanese: a questionnaire survey.
Pathophysiology 2012;19(2):95–100.
128. Huss A, Küchenhoff J, Bircher A, Heller P, Kuster H, et al.
Symptoms attributed tot he environment- a systematic
interdisciplinary assessment. Int J Hyg Environ Health
2004;207(3):245–54.
129. Huss A, Küchenhoff J, Bircher A, Niederer M, Tremp J, et al.
Elektromagnetische Felder und Gesundheitsbelastungen –
Interdisziplinäre Fallabklärungen im Rahmen eines
umweltmediznischen Beratungsprojektes. Umweltmed
Forsch Prax 2005;10(1):21–8.
130. Schreier N, Huss A, Röösli M. The prevalence of symptoms
attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional
representative survey in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed
2006;51(4):202–9.
131. Huss A, Röösli M. Consultations in primary care for symptoms
attributed to electromagnetic fields–a survey among general
practitioners. BMC Public Health 2006;6:267.
132. Ausfeld-Hafter B, Manser R, Kempf D, Brändli I.
Komplementärmedizin. Eine Fragebogenerhebung in sch-
weizerischen Arztpraxen mit komplementärmedizinischem
Diagnostik- und Therapieangebot. Studie im Auftrag vom
Bundesamt für Umwelt. Universität Bern. Kollegiale Instanz
für Komplementärmedizin (KIKOM) [Internet]. Bern (CH):
Bundesamt für Umwelt. 2006 Oct 5. Available from: http://
www.bafu.admin.ch/elektrosmog/01095/01099/index.
html?lang=de&download.
133. Leitgeb N, Schröttner J, Böhm M. Does “electromagnetic
pollution” cause illness? An inquiry among Austrian general
practitioners. Wien Med Wochenschr 2005;155(9–10):237–41.
134. World Health Organization. Factsheet Nr. 296, Elektromag-
netische Felder und Öffentliche Gesundheit – Elektromag-
netische Hypersensitivität (Elektrosensibilität) [Internet]. Genf
(CH): WHO, 2005 Dec. Available from: http://www.who.int/
peh-emf/publications/facts/ehs_fs_296_german.pdf.
135. Hug K, Röösli M. Strahlung von Sendeanlagen und Gesundheit.
Bewertung von wissenschaftlichen Studien im Niedrigdosis-
bereich. Stand: Dezember 2012 [Internet]. Bern (CH): Bundes-
amt für Umwelt, 2013. Available from: http://www.bafu.admin.
ch/publikationen/publikation/01739/index.html?lang=de.
136. Genius SJ, Lipp CT. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: fact or
fiction? Sci Total Environ 2012;414:103–12.
137. Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a func-
tional impairment. Electromagn Biol Med 2006;25(4):245–58.
138. Johansson O. Aspects of studies on the functional impairment
electrohypersensitivity. In: Proceedings of Electromagnetic
Phenomena and Health – A Continuing Controversy? In: Jamie-
son IA, Holdstock, editors. A one day international conference
organised by the Electrostatics Group of the Institute of Phys-
ics and held at the Institute of Physics, London (UK) 2008 Sept
10. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
IoP Publishing, Bristol/Philadelphia, Volume 10:1–7.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
300300
368   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
139. Abelous D. France has its first radiation-free refuge in the
Drôme [Internet]. EURRE/Drôme (FR): Agence France Presse
(AFP), 2009 Oct 9. Available from: http://www.next-up.org/
pdf/AFP_France_has_its_first_radiation_free_refuge_in_the_
Drome_09_10_2009.pdf.
140. Ecoforma. Mit einem schadstofffreiem Haus gegen
Schlafprobleme [Internet]. Sarleinsbach (AT): Ecoforma, 2014
Sept 9. Available from: http://www.ecoforma.co.at/holzbau-
ecobau-lehrbaustelle.
141. Johansson O. Elöverkänslighet samt överkänslighet mot
mobiltelefoner: Resultat från en dubbel-blind provokations-
studie av metodstudiekaraktär (Electrohypersensitivity and
sensitivity to mobile telephones: Results from a double-blind
provocation study of pilot character, in Swedish), Enheten för
Experimentell Dermatologi, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm,
Rapport No. 2, 1995, ISSN 1400-6111.
142. Johansson O, Liu P-Y. “Electrosensitivity”, “electrosupersen-
sitivity” and “screen dermatitis”: preliminary observations
from on-going studies in the human skin. In: Simunic D, editor.
Proceedings of the COST 244: Biomedical Effects of Electro-
magnetic Fields – Workshop on Electromagnetic Hypersensitiv-
ity. Brussels/Graz: EU/EC (DG XIII) 1995:52–57.
143. Johansson O, Gangi S, Liang Y, Yoshimura K, Jing C, et al.
Cutaneous mast cells are altered in normal healthy volunteers
sitting in front of ordinary TVs/PCs – results from open-field
provocation experiments. J Cutan Pathol 2001;28(10):513–9.
144. Johansson O, Hilliges M, Björnhagen V, Hall K. Skin changes
in patients claiming to suffer from “screen dermatitis”:
a two-case open-field provocation study. Exp Dermatol
1994;3(5):234–8.
145. Belpomme D, Irigary P. Electrohypersensitivity and multiple
chemical sensitivity: two clinic-biological entities of the same
disorder? [Internet]. Brussels [BE]: In: Idiopathic environ-
mental intolerance: what role for electromagnetic fields and
chemicals? 5th Paris Appeal Congress, Royal Academy of Medi-
cine, Belgium, 2015 May 18:p 34. Available from: http://www.
ehs-mcs.org/fichiers/1432301961_Paris_Appeal_2015.pdf.
146. Regel SJ, Negovetic S, Röösli M, Berdiñas V, Schuderer J, et al.
UMTS base station-like exposure, well-being, and cognitive
performance. Environ Health Perspect 2006;114(8):1270–5.
147. Zwamborn APM, Vossen SHJA, van Leersum BJAM, Ouwens MA,
Mäkel WN. Effects of Global Communication system radio-fre-
quency fields on Well Being and Cognitive Functions of human
subjects with and without subjective complaints. The Hague
(NL): TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory, 2003 Sept, 86 p.
TNO-report FEL-03-C148. Available from: http://www.salzburg.
gv.at/tno_study_2003.pdf.
148. Eltiti S, Wallace D, Ridgewell A, Zougkou K, Russo R, et al. Does
short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals
increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to
electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provoca-
tion study. Environ Health Perspect 2007;115(11):1603–8.
149. McCarty DE, Carrubba S, Chesson AL, Frilot C, Gonzalez-Toledo
E, et al. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel
neurological syndrome. Int J Neurosci 2011;121(12):670–6.
150. Havas M, Marrongelle J, Pollner B, Kelley E, Rees CRG, et al.
Provocation study using heart rate variability shows micro-
wave radiation from 2.4 GHz cordless phone affects auto-
nomic nervous system [Internet]. In: Giuliani L, Soffritti M,
editors. Non-thermal effects and mechanisms of interaction
between electromagnetic fields and living matter. Bologna
(IT): Ramazzini institute, 2010. European Journal of Oncology –
Library Vol. 5. pp 187–218. Available from: http://www.icems.
eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL.
151. Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood,
the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Rev Environ
Health 2013;28(2–3):75–84.
152. Tuengler A, von Klitzing L. Hypothesis on how to measure
electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Electromagn Biol Med
2013;32(3):281–90.
153. Klitzing L. Einfluss elektromagnetischer Felder auf
kardiovaskuläre Erkrankungen. umwelt medizin gesellschaft
2014;27(1):17–21.
154. Santini R, Santini P, Danze JM, Le Ruz P, Seigne M.
Investigation on the health of people living near mobile
telephone relay stations: I/Incidence according to distance
and sex. Pathol Biol (Paris) 2002;50(6):369–73.
155. Navarro EA, Segura J, Portolés M, Gómez-Perretta de Mateo C.
The microwave syndrome: a preliminary study in Spain.
Electromagn Biol Med 2003;22(2–3):161–9.
156. Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. Subjective
symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance
in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup
Environ Med 2006;63(5):307–13.
157. Abdel-Rassoul G, El-Fateh OA, Salem MA, Michael A, Farahat F,
et al. Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around
mobile phone base stations. Neurotoxicology 2007;28(2):
434–40.
158. Blettner M, Schlehofer B, Breckenkamp J, Kowall B,
Schmiedel S, et al. Mobile phone base stations and adverse
health effects: phase 1 of a population-based, cross-sectional
study in Germany. Occup Environ Med 2009;66(2):118–23.
159. Milham S, Stetzer D. Dirty electricity, chronic stress,
neurotransmitters and disease. Electromagn Biol Med
2013;32(4):500–7.
160. Schlegel P. Elektrosensible Französin als Behinderte anerkannt
[Internet]. Stuttgart (DE): Diagnose Funk, 2015 Sep 7. Available
from: http://www.diagnose-funk.org/themen/mobilfunkver-
sorgung/gesundheit-und-elektrosensibilitaet/elektrosensible-
franzoesin-als-behinderte-anerkannt.php.
161. Friedmann J, Kraus S, Hauptmann Y, Schiff Y, Seger R. Mechanism
of short-term ERK activation by electromagnetic fields at mobile
phone frequencies. Biochem J 2007;405(3):559–68.
162. Simkó M. Cell type specific redox status is responsible
for diverse electromagnetic field effects. Curr Med Chem
2007;14(10):1141–52.
163. Pall ML. Explaining “Unexplained Illnesses”: Disease Paradigm
for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity,
Fibromyalgia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Gulf War
Syndrome, and Others. New York, NY (US), London (GB):
Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-7890-
2388-9.
164. Bedard K, Krause KH. The NOX Family of ROS-Generating
NADPH oxidases: physiology and pathophysiology. Physiol Rev
2007;87(1):245–313.
165. Pacher P, Beckman JS, Liaudet L. Nitric oxide and peroxynitrite
in health and disease. Physiol Rev 2007;87(1):315–424.
166. Desai NR, Kesari KK, Agarwal A. Pathophysiology of cell phone
radiation: oxidative stress and carcinogenesis with focus on
male reproductive system. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2009;7:114.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
301301
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   369
167. Straub RH, Cutolo M, Buttgereit F, Pongratz G. Energy regula-
tion and neuroendocrine-immune control in chronic inflamma-
tory diseases. J Intern Med 2010;267(6):543–60.
168. Gye MC, Park CJ. Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on
the reproductive system. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2012;39(1):1–9.
169. Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel D, Kyrylenko O,
et al. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-
intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med
2015;19:1–16.
170. Pall ML. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-
gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse
effects. J Cell Mol Med 2013;17(8):958–65.
171. Pall ML. Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects
including depression. J Chem Neuroanat 2015. pii: S0891-
0618(15)00059-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.08.001. [Epub
ahead of print].
172. Myhill S, Booth NE, McLaren-Howard J. Chronic fatigue
syndrome and mitochondrial dysfunction. Int J Clin Exp Med
2009;2(1):1–16.
173. Müller KE. Stressregulation und Mitochondrienfunktion. Zs f
Orthomol Med 2012;1:1–13.
174. Buchner K, Eger H. Veränderung klinisch bedeutsamer
Neurotransmitter unter dem Einfluss modulierter
hochfrequenter Felder – Eine Langzeiterhebung unter
lebensnahen Bedingungen. umwelt medizin gesellschaft
2011;24(1):44–57.
175. Hill HU, Huber W, Müller KE. Multiple-Chemikalien-Sensitivität
(MCS) – Ein Krankheitsbild der chronischen Multisystemer-
krankungen, umweltmedizinische, toxikologische und sozial-
politische Aspekte. Aachen (DE): Shaker-Verlag, 2010 Apr, 3rd
edition, 500p. ISBN: 978-3-8322-9046-7.
176. Redmayne M, Johansson O. Could myelin damage from
radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure help explain
the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity? A
review of the evidence. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev
2014;17(5):247–58.
177. Von Baehr V. Rationelle Labordiagnostik bei chronisch
entzündlichen Systemerkrankungen. umwelt medizin
gesellschaft 2012;25(4):244–7.
178. Warnke U, Hensinger P. Steigende „Burn-out“-Inzidenz durch
technisch erzeugte magnetische und elektromagnetische
Felder des Mobil- und Kommunikationsfunks. umwelt-medizin-
gesellschaft 2013;26(1):31–8.
179. Havas M. Dirty electricity elevates blood sugar among
electrically sensitive diabetics and may explain brittle
diabetes. Electromagn Biol Med 2008;27(2):135–46.
180. Steiner E, Aufdereggen B, Bhend H, Gilli Y, Kälin P, et al.
Erfahrungen des Pilotprojektes „Umweltmedizinisches Bera-
tungsnetz“ des Vereins Aerztinnen und Aerzte für Umwelts-
chutz (AefU). Therapeutische Umschau 2013;70(12):739–45.
181.Hagström M, Auranen J, Johansson O, Ekman R. Reducing
electromagnetic irradiation and fields alleviates experienced
health hazards of VDU work. Pathophysiology 2012;19(2):
81–7.
182. Hagström M, Auranen J, Ekman R. Electromagnetic
hypersensitive Finns: symptoms, perceived sources and
treatments, a questionnaire study. Pathophysiology
2013;20(2):117–22.
183. Oberfeld G. Die Veränderung des EMF Spektrums und ihre
Folgen. In: Baubiologische EMF-Messtechnik. München,
Heidelberg (DE): Hüthig & Pflaum Verlag, 2012. ISBN 1438-8707.
184. Berufsverband Deutscher Baubiologen. VDB-Richtlinien, Physi-
kalische Untersuchungen, Band 1: Fürth (DE): Verlag AnBUS eV,
2006. 2nd Edition. Available at: http://www.baubiologie.net/
publikationen/vdb-richtlinien.html.
185. Bundesamt für Umwelt. Orte mit empfindlicher Nutzung
(OMEN) [Internet]. Bern (CH): Bundesamt für Umwelt, 2010
Mar 4. Available from: http://www.bafu.admin.ch/elektros-
mog/07136/07420/index.html?lang=de.
186. Kundi M, Hutter HP. Mobile phone base stations – Effects on
wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology 2009;16(2–3):123–35.
187. Molla-Djafari H, Witke J, Poinstingl G, Brezansky A, Hutter HP,
et al. Leitfaden Senderbau -Vorsorgeprinzip bei Errichtung,
Betrieb, Um- und Ausbau von ortsfesten Sendeanlagen. Wien
(AT): Ärztinnen und Ärzte für eine gesunde Umwelt e.V. (Hrsg.),
2014 Oct. 2. Auflage, 42 p, Available from: www.aegu.net/pdf/
Leitfaden.pdf.
188. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
(NCRP). Draft Report of NCRP Scientific Committee 89-3
on Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields
[Internet]. 1995 Jun 13. Available from: http://www.salzburg.
gv.at/ncrp_draft_recommendations_on_emf_exposure_
guidelines_1995.pdf.
189. Oberfeld G. Umweltverträglichkeitsgutachten für die
Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung nach UVP-G 2000 für das
Vorhaben 380 kV Freileitung von St. Peter am Hart zum
Umspannwerk Salzach Neu (Salzburgleitung), Befund und
Gutachten Umweltmedizin (Salzburg) [Internet] Salzburg (AT):
Land Salzburg, 2006, p241-360. Available from: http://www.
salzburg.gv.at/salzburgleitung-uvg-endvers.pdf.
190. Baubiologie Maes/Institut für Baubiologie + Nachhaltigkeit
(IBN). Baubiologische Richtwerte für Schlafbereiche (Ergänzung
zum SBM-2015). Neuss, Rosenheim (DE): Baubiologie Maes,
IBN., 2015 May, 3 p. Available from: http://www.maes.de/3%20
STANDARD/maes.de%20STANDARD-2015%20RICHTWERTE.PDF.
191. Virnich M. Gutachten über die messtechnische Untersuchung
der Charakteristik von Funksignalen [Internet]. Salzburg (AT):
Land Salzburg, 2015 Jun 26, 141 p. Available from: http://www.
salzburg.gv.at/elektrosmog_und_gesundheit/technik.htm.
192. Der Schweizerische Bundesrat. Verordnung über den Schutz
vor nichtionisierender Strahlung (NISV) vom 23. Dezember
1999 [Internet]. Bern (CH): Der Schweizerische Bundesrat,
2012 Jul 1. Available from: https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/
classified-compilation/19996141/index.html.
193. Zeisel L. Ein Meßverfahren zur Bestimmung der Körperbelas-
tung durch das elektrische Wechselfeld bei tiefen Frequenzen.
Wohnung und Gesundheit 1993;69:20.
194. Arbeitskreis Elektrobiologie eV. Available from: http://www.
elektrobiologie.com/index.html.
195. Gralla F. Estimation of 50-Hz electrically vs. magnetically
generated body currents in sleeping subjects. Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine Jan 1997;16(3):235–41.
196. Gustavs K. Options to inimize non-ionizing electromagnetic
radiation exposures (EMF/RF/Static fields) in office environ-
ments [Internet]. Victoria, BC (CA): Katharina Consulting,
2008 Nov 14. Available from: http://www.katharinaconsulting.
com/s/2008_Gustavs_Low_EMF_Office_Environment.pdf.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
302302
370   Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
197. Oberfeld G, Gutbier J. Elektrosmog im Alltag [Internet].
Stuttgart (DE): Diagnose Funk, 2013 Nov 10, 44 p. Available
from: http://www.salzburg.gv.at/df_ratgeber_1.pdf.
198. Virnich M. Baubiologische EMF-Messtechnik –
Grundlagen der Feldtheorie, Praxis der Feldmesstechnik.
München, Heidelberg (DE): Hüthig & Pflaum Verlag, 2012. ISBN
1438-8707.
199. Pauli P, Moldan D. Reduzierung hochfrequenter Strahlung im
Bauwesen: Baustoffe und Abschirmmaterialien. Fürth (DE):
Hrsg. Berufsverband Deutscher Baubiologen VDB e.V., Verlag
AnBUS e.V. 2015. ISBN 978-3-9814025-9-9.
200. Levy F, Wannag A, editors. Nordic Adaptation of Classification
of Occupationally Related Disorders (Diseases and
Symptoms) to ICD-10 [Internet]. Oslo (NO): Nordic council of
ministers, 2000, 53 p. DIVS: 2000:839, ISBN: 92-893-0559-2.
Available from: http://www.nordclass.se/ICD-10_Nordic%20
Occupational_2000.pdf.
201. Bansal M, Kaushal N. Oxidative stress mechanisms and their
modulation. New Delhi (IN): Springer, 2014:167 p.
202. Brostoff J, Challacombe S. Food allergy and intolerance.
London (GB): Ballière Tindall, 1987.
203. Andrè CM, Larondelle Y, Eners D. Dietary antioxidants and
oxidative stress from a human and plant perspective, a review.
Curr Nutr Food Sci 2010;6(1):2–12.
204. Bouayed J, Bohn T. Exogenous antioxidants-double edged
swords in cellular redox state; health beneficial effects at
physiological doses versus deleterious effects at high doses.
Oxid Med Cell Longev 2010;3(4):228–37.
205. Hoffmann W, Staller B. Prävention durch richtige Ernährung.
umwelt medizin gesellschaft 2012;25(2):115–7.
206. Suzuki YJ, Packer L. Inhibition of NFkB activation by vitamin E
derivates. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1993;193(1):277–83.
207. Zingg JM. Modulation of signal transduction by vitamin E. Mol
Aspects Med 2007;28(5–6):481–506.
208. Yeh SL, Wang HM, Chen PY, Wu TC. Interaction of ß-Carotin
and flavonoids on the secretion of inflammatory mediators in
an in vitro system. Chem Biol Interact 2009;179(2–3):
386–93.
209. Cárcamo JM, Pedraza A, Bórquez-Ojeda O, Golde DW. Vitamin C
suppresses TNF alpha-induced NF kappa B activation by
inhibiting I kappa B alpha phosphorylation.Biochemistry
2002;41(43):12995–3002.
210. Cárcamo JM, Pedraza A, Bórquez-Ojeda O, Zhang B, Sanchez R,
et al. Vitamin C is a kinase inhibitor: dehydroascorbic acid
inhibits IkappaBalpha kinase beta. Mol Cell Biol 2004;
24(15):6645–52.
211. Kyaw M, Yoshizumi M, Tsuchya K, Suzaki Y, Abe S, et al.
Antioxidants inhibit endothelin-1 (1-31)-induced proliferation
of vascular smooth muscle cells via the inhibition of mitogen-
activated protein (MAP) kinase and activator protein-1 (AP-1).
Biochem Pharmacol 2002;64(10):1521–31.
212. Lubbad A, Oriowo MA, Khan I. Curcumin attenuates
inflammation through inhibition of TLR-4 receptor in
experimental Colitis. Mol Cell Biochem 2009;322(1–2):
127–35.
213. Woo JH, Lim JH, Kim YH, Soh SI, Min DS, et al. Resveratrol
inhibits phorbol myristate acetate-induced matrix metallopro-
teinase-9 expression by inhibiting JNK and PKC delta signal
transduction. Oncogene 2004;23(10):1845–53.
214. Nonn L, Duong D, Pechl DM. Chemopreventive antiinflamma-
tory activities of curcumin and other phytochemicals mediated
by MAP kinase phosphatase-5 in prostata cells. Carcinogenesis
2007;28(6):1188–96.
215. Khan N, Mukhtar H. Multitargeted therapy of cancer by green
tee polyphenols. Cancer Lett 2008;269(2):269–80.
216. Roskoski R. Biochemistry. Philadelphia, PA, USA:
W.B. Saunders Company, 1996:530.
217. Devlin TM, editor. Textbook of Biochemistry with
Clinical Correlations. 5th ed. New York, NY (US): Wiley-Liss,
2002.
218. Rassow J, Hauser K, Netzker, Deutzmann R. Biochemie. 2nd ed.
Stuttgart (DE): Thieme, 2008:872.
219. Müller KE. Genetische Polymorphismen der Catechol-O-
Methyltransferase (COMT). umwelt medizin gesellschaft
2007;20(4):282–8.
220. Rea WJ. Chemical Sensitivity, Vol. 2: Sources of Total Body
Load. 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL (US): CRC Press/Lewis Publishers,
1994:569.
221. Schäfer SG, Elsenhans B, Forth W, Schümann K. Metalle.
In: Marquardt H, Schäfer SG, editors. Lehrbuch der
Toxikologie. Heidelberg (DE): Spektrum Akademischer Verlag,
1997:504–49.
222. Goyer RA, Cherian GM, editors. Toxicology of Metals. Berlin,
Heidelberg (DE): Springer-Verlag, 1995:467.
223. Müller KE. Immuntoxikologie der Metalle. umwelt medizin
gesellschaft 2004;17(4):299–301.
224. Aposian HV, Malorino RM, Gonzales-Ramirez D,
Zuniga-Charles M, Xu Z, et al. Mobilization of heavy metals
by newer, therapeutically useful chelating agents. Toxicology
1995;97(1–3):23–38.
225. Flora SJ, Pachauri V. Chelation in Metal Intoxication. Int J
Environ Res Public Health 2010;7(7):2745–88.
226. Jennrich P. Detoxifikation von Schwermetallen. umwelt medizin
gesellschaft 2012;25(4):24–7.
227. Rózanowska M, Jarvis-Evans J, Korytowski W, Boulton ME,
Burke JM, Sarna T. Blue-light induced reactivity of retinal age
pigment. In vitro generation of oxygen-reactive species. J Biol
Chem 1995;270(32):18825–30.
228. Tolentino M, Morgan G. Popularity of electronic devices,
“greener” light bulbes increases blue light exposure. Pri Care
Optometry News 2012;18–9.
229. van der Lely S, Frey S, Garbazza C, Wirz-Justice A, Jenni OG,
et al. Blue blocker glasses as a countermeasure for alerting
effects of evening light-emitting diode screen exposure in male
teenagers. J Adolesc Health 2015;56(1):113–9.
230. Narimatsu T, Negishi K, Miyake S, Hirasawa M, Osada H, et al.
Blue light-induced inflammatory marker expression in the
retinal pigment epithelium-choroid of mice and the protective
effect of a yellow intraocular lens material in vivo. Exp Eye Res
2015;132:48–51.
231. Nishi T, Saeki K, Obayashi K, Miyata K, Tone N, et al.
The effect of blue-blocking intraocular lenses on
circadian  biological rhythm: protocol for a randomised
controlled trial (CLOCK-IOL colour study). BMJ Open
2015;5(5):e007930.
232. Mutter J, Naumann J, Schneider R, Walach H, Haley B. Mercury
and autism: accelerating evidence? Neuro Endocrinol Lett
2005;26(5):439–46.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
303303
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015   371
233. Mutter J, Naumann J, Guethlin C. Comments on the article
“the toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds”
by Clarkson and Magos (2006). Crit Rev Toxicol
2007;37(6):537–49; discussion 551–2.
234. Mutter J, Curth A, Naumann J, Deth R, Walach H. Does inorganic
mercury play a role in Alzheimer’s disease? A systematic
review and an integrated molecular mechanism. J Alzheimers
Dis 2010;22(2):357–74.
235. Geier DA, King PG, Sykes LK, Geier MR. A comprehensive
review of mercury provoked autism. Indian J Med Res
2008;128(4):383–411.
Supplemental Material: The online version of this article
(DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0033) offers supplementary material,
available to authorized users.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
DE GRUYTER
304304
PHYSICIANS STATEMENT – Exhibit 2
305305
PRELIMINARY
Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Diagnosis and Management of Electromagnetic Field
Hypersensitivity (EHS)
Dr. Riina Ines Bray BASc, MSc, MD, FCFP, MHSc
Medical Director, Environmental Health Clinic, Women’s College Hospital
Assistant Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Dalla Lana School of
Public Health, University of Toronto
[e-mail]
www.womenscollegehospital.ca/care-programs/environmental-health-clinic/
October, 2020
Introduction
Environmental health is the study of effects upon human beings of external physical/ electromagnetic,
chemical and biological factors in air, water, soil, food and other environmental media which impact on
the general population as well as genetic aberrations and psychosocial stressors.1 Environmental health is
an evidence- and public- health-based discipline. The physical environment is a determinant of health and
is interrelated with socioeconomic, social-justice and equity issues. The impact of the environment is an
especially important part of our public health domain.2
In 2014, a systematic review of 63 studies3 revealed that despite heterogeneity, the criteria predominantly
used to identify idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF)
individuals were:
1.Self-report of being (hyper)sensitive to electromagnetic fields (EMF)
2.Attribution of non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) to at least one EMF source
3.Absence of medical or psychiatric/psychological disorder capable of accounting for these
symptoms
4.Symptoms should occur soon (up to 24 hours) after the individual perceives an exposure source
or exposed area
Electromagnetic Field Hypersensitivity (EHS) is a spectrum disorder in which there is an awareness
and/or adverse response to electromagnetic fields.4 Environmental Sensitivities are recognized as a
disability under the Canadian Human Rights Commission (Federal).5
Demographics
EHS can occur in all age groups, genders (women are more genetically predisposed6), races and income
levels. Since 2005, the physicians at the Environmental Health Clinic at Women’s College Hospital have
assessed an increasing number of patients who, due to co-morbid conditions coupled with chronic
1 NEHA. Definitions of Environmental Health. https://www.neha.org/about-neha/definitions-environmental-health.
2 Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: fact or fiction? Genuis SJ. Lipp CT. Sci Total Environ. 2012; 414:103-12. 3 Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF): A systematic review of identifying criteria.
Baliatsas C. Van Kamp I. Lebret E. et al. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12(1).
4 Electrosensibility and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Leitgeb N. Schrottner J. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003; 24(6):387-94.
5 Canadian Human Rights Commission. Environmental sensitivity and scent-free policies. https://www.chrc-
ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/policy-environmental-sensitivities. 2019. 6 Belpomme, D.; Irigaray, P. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder:
How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1915.
306306
exposures to electromagnetic fields. Patients present to the clinic after become unwell with a pattern of
functional impairments, some becoming disabled, losing their jobs or becoming homeless. Prolonged
and/or excessive exposures to these factors cause functional impairments in individuals, and a huge
burden of suffering.7
Etiology and Pathophysiology
The pathophysiology is poorly characterized. The degree of functional impairment caused by EMF
exposure is dependent upon genetic polymorphisms8 that predispose the individual to a poor
detoxification profile and therefore an increased total body burden (Figure 1). A poor detoxification
profile can also lead to co-morbid illnesses such as Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS), nervous,
cardiac and immune system dysfunction which renders a person vulnerable to EMF exposures. Most
commonly, patients have had prolonged chronic exposures to radiofrequency radiation, microwaves,
electrical and/or magnetic fields from either wired or wireless technology. Patients can react to electric
fields (measured in volts per meter), magnetic fields (measured in milligauss or nano Tesla), dirty
electricity (high frequency voltage transients, which are deviations from a pure 50-60H Hz sine wave),
radiofrequency radiation, microwave radiation, ground currents and electrosmog.
The severity of the impact appears to depend upon the nature, dose, and timing of exposures, as well as a
person’s allostatic load, which is the maximum tolerated dose for combined environmental stressors.9
Patients can be identified as having environmental sensitivities, electrical sensitivities or as being “EMF
sensitive” or “EMF susceptible” rather than “hyper” in order to decrease stigmatization potential.
Radiofrequency radiation can cause the following adverse biological effects:10 11
•Cerebral hypoperfusion/ hypoxia-related neuroinflammation
•Histamine release causing oxidative stress in biological systems12
•Peroxidation, DNA damage, changes to antioxidant enzymes
•Voltage gated calcium channel dysregulation effecting the cardiac and nervous system
•Peroxynitrite formation which causes chronic inflammation, damage to mitochondrial function
and structure and reduction of ATP
•Reduced glutathione and CoQ10
•TRPV1 receptor activation13 14
Radiofrequency radiation and microwaves can cause thermal (heat related) or non-thermal effects. Under
the non-thermal category, adverse physiological effects have been identified including DNA damage,
immune system suppression, increased blood-brain barrier permeability, increased blood viscosity with
rouleaux formation.
7 Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: a functional impairment due to an inaccessible environment. Reviews on environmental
health. 2015 Dec 1;30(4):311-21.
8 De Luca C, Thai JC, Raskovic D, Cesareo E, Caccamo D, Trukhanov A, Korkina L. Metabolic and genetic screening of
electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects as a feasible tool for diagnostics and intervention. Mediators Inflamm. 2014;2014:924184 9 Selye H. (1946). The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases of adaptation. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and
metabolism, 6, 117–230. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-6-2-117
10 Martin Pall; De Luca/ Herbert and Sage
11 Belpomme, Dominique, Philippe Irigaray. “Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic
Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It” Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020; 21,1915. 12 Yakymenko I. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Bio Med.
2016;35(2):186-202
13 Ertilav K, Uslusoy F, Ataizi S, Nazıroğlu M. Long term exposure to cell phone frequencies (900 and 1800 MHz) induces
apoptosis, mitochondrial oxidative stress and TRPV1 channel activation in the hippocampus and dorsal root ganglion of rats. Metab
Brain Dis. 2018 Jun;33(3):753-763 14 Ghazizadeh V, Nazıroğlu M. Electromagnetic radiation (Wi-Fi) and epilepsy induce calcium entry and apoptosis through
activation of TRPV1 channel in hippocampus and dorsal root ganglion of rats. Metab Brain Dis. 2014 Sep;29(3):787-99.
307307
Figure 1: Total Toxic Load (Bray and Marshall, 2005)
History
The clinician is advised to:
1.Conduct a complete exposure history using the CH2OPD2 mnemonic15 16 to determine total
toxic load in the form of EMF/ RFR exposure, toxic metal exposure sources (diet, water,
prosthetics, implants, gadolinium), mould, and other potentially toxic chemical exposures.
15 Marshall et al, 2002
16 Bray, 2020
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/593f8894e3df288fc64b6cf0/t/598bbabdf14aa18c52a6dcce/1502329836033/Environmental+H
ealth+Clinic+Pre-Visit+Questionnaire.pdf
Total Load
Symptoms
Medi tio
Mold
·1~no·,
R.idhtboa
molmUt / AICOIM>l
Dl!l OXIFICATION
308308
CH2OPD2 mnemonic
•Community
•Home
•Hobby
•Occupation
•Personal habits
•Diet
•Drugs
2.Determine specific community, work, school and home exposures to EMFs: proximity of cell
phone towers, routers, DECT cordless phones, any other wireless technology. Most importantly,
determine if the sleeping area is affected.17 18
A helpful mnemonic to determine the parameters of exposure is (F.I.N.D.)19
•F- frequency (Hertz)
•I- intensity (Power in µW/m2)
•N- nearness
•D- duration
3.Have a high index of suspicion for immune deficiencies (which can, for example, lead to candida
infection), gut dysbiosis and possible mast cell activation disorder (MCAS).
Symptoms Commonly Occurring Singularly or in Combination:
•Irritability, lack of appetite, memory problems, vertigo; visual, skin and vascular problems20
•Tinnitus, sleep disorders (disrupted stage 4 sleep with alpha wave intrusions and reduced
REM21) mood changes (anxiety, depression, irritability, panic attacks)22
•Headache, weakness, pressure in the head, racing or fluttering heart23
•Dermatological: itch, pain, edema, erythema secondary to elevated transthyretin concentrations24
•Neurasthenic and vegetative symptoms: fatigue, tiredness, cognitive problems, concentration
difficulties, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitations (tachycardia, PACs and PVCs), and digestive
disturbances25
Etiology of Common Clinical Presentations
Category I
Patients can present with a toxic metal body burden, most commonly mercury, due to the
overconsumption of aquatic, contaminated seafood. Methylmercury (half-life of 27 years in the brain) is
neurotoxic causing axonal demyelination and inflammation. Zinc/nickel/mercury dental amalgams also
release elemental mercury vapour which enters the brain through the olfactory bulb, and then is converted
to methylmercury. Patients can present with cardiac and neurological manifestations. Those with metallic
17 Maes B. Standard of building biology testing methods. Inst. Building Biol.+ Sustainability IBN, Rosenheim, Germany, Tech. Rep.
SBM-2008. 2008. 18 Maes B. Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines. Inst. Building Biol.+ Sustainability IBN, Rosenheim, Germany. SBM-2015.
2015.
19 Havas, M. (2014). Electrosmog and Electrosensitivity: What Doctors Need to Know to Help their Patients Heal. Anti-Aging
Therapeutics Volume XV. 20 Gomez-Perretta et al. Subjective symptoms related to GSM radiation from mobile phone base stations, BMJ, 2014 21 EUROPAEM Guideline 2015 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Belyaev
I.Dean A. Eger H. Hubmann G. Jandrisovits R. et al. Rev Environ Health. 2015; 30(4):337-371.
22 Bhat, Kumar and Gupta. Effects of mobile phone and mobile phone tower radiations on human health. 2013
23 Park and Knudson. Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms. Statistics Canada 200724 Johnansson O, Disturbances 2009
25 WHO, Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, December 2005
309309
hardware implants such Harrington rods, braces, wire meshes, pins and screws can potentially be affected.
Those with excessive gadolinium from multiple contrast studies are also at risk. Other toxic metals
include nickel (jewelry, cookware), lead (old water pipes), cadmium (smokers), aluminum(soy products,
contaminated water, medications) and arsenic (rice, fish, almonds, well water), all of which increase total
load. First Nations populations are at high risk given exposure to contaminated fish with methylmercury.
Patients present with headaches (lancinating and heaviness), brain fog, fatigue and anxiety when exposed
to EMFs.
Category II
Patients fall into this category if they suffer from infectious diseases such as Lyme disease, co-infections
of Lyme, and other infections which affect the nervous system. These patients have central or peripheral
nervous system vulnerability, neuroborreliosis, cerebral vasculitis, polyneuropathy, chronic
encephalomyelitis and cranial neuropathy (all late manifestations of Lyme). They present with tremor,
dysarthria, ataxia, extreme fatigue, headache, cognitive dysfunction, presyncope and mood disturbances.
It is important to reduce body burden through detoxification in order to decrease inflammation. Oxygen
therapy is useful in order to help with hypoxia from compromised cerebral blood flow to the bi-frontal
cortices and temporal lobes, but provides only short, temporary relief. This may help to confirm the
diagnosis, however. fMRI, SPECT, and PET scans can help further reveal pathology. Treatment of Lyme
with antibiotics can potentially decrease EHS symptoms.26
Category III
This category of patients suffer from lesions of the brain (including tumours such as pituitary adenomas),
demyelination, microangiopathic changes, diffuse ischemia, inflammation (from neurotoxic pesticides)
and neurodegenerative diseases (multiple sclerosis and ALS for example).27 Nonspecific white matter
findings due to simple aging and dementia should also be considered. They present with headaches, brain
fog, fatigue, restlessness and low mood, tinnitus(+/-) and potentiation of their already pre-existing signs
and symptoms related to their disease. The mechanism of action is associated with the impact of EMFs on
voltage gated calcium channel (VGCC) integrity, causing increases in intracellular calcium and thus
increase of oxidative stress from ONOO- formation.28
Category IV
These patient suffer from heart rhythm disturbances: either exacerbations of existing conditions or new
onset caused by radio and microwaves.29 There are periods of poor blood circulation at the capillary level
due to rouleaux formation and there is a disturbance of heart conduction because of effects on VGCC.
Tachycardic spells, especially at night, can occur. People also experience premature ventricular
contractions, premature atrial contractions, atrial flutter and fibrillation. Those with Wolff Parkinson
White syndrome are especially at risk for sudden cardiac death due to EMF exposures.30 Conduction
problems also affect the autonomic nervous system, causing increased sympathetic tone. A Holter monitor
will show rhythm disturbances near cellphone towers and in areas with high Wi-Fi usage. These
symptoms are very alarming to the patient and causes severe, prolonged anxiety. Sleep time can be also
particularly difficult causing frequent awakenings due to hyper-vigilance with tachycardic spells or PAC/
PVCs.
26 Belpomme, Dominique, Philippe Irigaray. “Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic
Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It” Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020; 21,1915.
27 De Luca C, Thai JC, Raskovic D, et al. Metabolic and genetic screening of electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects as a feasible
tool for diagnostics and intervention. Mediators Inflamm. 2014;2014:924184. doi:10.1155/2014/924184 28 Pall, Martin L. “Wi-Fi Is an Important Threat to Human Health.” Environmental Research 164 (July 1, 2018): 405–
16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.035
29 Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Reviews on
Environmental Health. 2013 Nov 1;28(2-3):75-84.
30 Reversed reciprocating paroxysmal tachycardia controlled by guanethidine in a case of Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. Harris
WE. Semler HJ. Griswold HE. American heart journal 67.6 (1964): 812-816.
310310
Category V
These patients include students and teachers. University, college, high school, and grade school students
are all being exposed to high levels of radiation. They frequently work under fluorescent lights. They get
eye strain, and sometimes develop rashes related to exposure of this radiation. The epidemic of anxiety,
depression, and suicide at universities and colleges is in part being fuelled by the increased level of
agitation and anxiety caused by radio and microwave radiation on mood. Students have extremely high
levels of nighttime exposure to RFR or electric fields/ dirty electricity. Before prescribing
methylphenidate or amphetamines, reducing EMFs in the workspace is critical.
Category VI
A minority of patients, approximately 1%, exhibit a nocebo response in which inert substances or mere
suggestions of substances actually bring about negative effects, i.e. feelings of malaise and anxiety. This
is understandable, given the ubiquitous nature of electrical devices in our everyday lives which is
unnatural. These patients tend to feel better using wearable jewellery, stickers on cellphones, and special
rocks (shungite).
Category VII
There are many clinical similarities and overlapping comorbid conditions between EHS and multiple
chemical sensitivities (MCS) that are reflected in similar genetic polymorphism profiles. Inflammation
resulting from impaired detoxification biochemical processes create illness and functional impairment.31
32
Physical Examination
Do a complete physical looking for dental amalgam load, metal appliances in the mouth, rashes on the
face and/or hands, signs of inflammation and edema, arrhythmias, autoimmunity. Abdomen may be tender
due to peristaltic abnormalities and bacterial dysbiosis. Usually a physical exam will reveal neurological,
dermatological and/or cardiac signs in the way of arrhythmia and/or poor circulation. Tremor of the
tongue and hands may be indicative of mercury overload.
There is no gold standard for EHS diagnosis except for elimination of the source and reintroduction/
provocation to confirm if the signs and symptoms are reproduced.
Laboratory and Diagnostic Tests
Studies have shown that approximately 30% of patients with EHS have no abnormal laboratory
biomarkers,33 but genetic polymorphisms are likely prevalent and need further investigation. Some blood
tests are expensive and not sensitive or specific but can help guide management if deficiencies or other
disease states exist that must be corrected.34 The following laboratory tests will help shed light on the total
toxic load and detoxification profile, and it is the combination that allows for the best management of the
patient:
•Essential mineral and toxic metal panel (RBC)
•GGT
•Bilirubin
•ALP
•Chromogranin A
31 De Luca C, Thai JC, Raskovic D, et al. Metabolic and genetic screening of electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects as a feasible
tool for diagnostics and intervention. Mediators Inflamm. 2014;2014:924184. doi:10.1155/2014/924184 32 Belpomme, Dominique, Christine Campagnac, and Philippe Irigaray. "Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying
electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder." Reviews
on environmental health 30.4 (2015): 251-271.
33 Belpomme D, Irigaray P. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How
to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020 Jan;21(6):1915.
34 Europaem 2015/ Oberfeld, 2016/ Belpomme, 2015
311311
•Tryptase.35
•Vitamin D2-D3
•IgE, IgG, IgM, IgA
•Inflammatory markers (ESR, hsCRP, CRP, interleukins)
•Histamine
•Autoimmune markers (including thyroid antibodies)
•Presence of infectious diseases – screen for Lyme and co-infections (ELISA and Western blot)
•Mitochondriopathy (intracellular ATP)
•Oxidative stress lipid peroxidation markers
•Anti-myelin-O antibodies
•Nitrotyrosin (NTT) - Nitric oxide production increasing BBB permeability
•Melatonin (hydroxy-melatonin sulfate – 6-OHMS)
•SPEP – effects on bone marrow
•Salivary cortisol
•Alpha-amylase
•Transthyretin
•Blood sugar levels after provocation
Figure 2: (Belpomme et al., 2015)
To further aid in diagnosis:36
•Genetic testing to determine SNPs related to detoxification37
•Weighted MRI showing hypoperfusion in limbic system and thalamus
•Ultrasonic cerebral tomosphygmography (UCTS) and Transcranial Doppler US (TDU)38
showing temporal lobe hypoperfusion due to decreased flow in the middle cerebral artery
35 Belpomme, et al, 2015
36 Havas, 2010
37 The DNA Company. https://www.thednacompany.com/ 38 Belpomme, Dominique, Philippe Irigaray. “Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic
Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It” Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020; 21,1915.
Biomarker
High-sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP)
Vitamin 02-03
Histamine
lgE
Protein S100B
Nitrotyrosine (NTT)
Heat shock protein 70 (HSP70)
Heat shock protein 27 (HSP27)
Anti-0-myelin autoantibodies
Hydroxy-melatonin sulfate (6-0HMS)
6-0HMS/creatinine
Normal range
$ 3 mg/L
~ 30 ng/ml
$10 nmol/L
$100 Ul/ml
$ 0.105 µg/L
~ 0.6 µg/L and$ 0.9 µg/ml
$ 5 ng/mL
$ 5 ng/ml
Negative
~ 5 ng/L and$ 40 ng/L
~ 0.8 and$ 8
312312
•BP and heart rhythm monitoring for 24 hours (night-time changes) for heart rate variability and
heart rate abnormalities39
•Sleep study showing abnormalities due to wireless technology in the sleep labs. Alpha wave
intrusions and reduced REM sleep are the most likely finding.40
Co-Morbid Conditions
1.Toxic metal overload – mercury
2.Infectious diseases causing neural inflammation – e.g. Lyme disease
3.Toxic Mold Syndrome
4.Cardiac conduction abnormalities – PVC, PAC, atrial fibrillation
5.Neurodegenerative diseases
6.Multiple chemical Sensitivities (MCS)
Management
Allopathic
All co-morbid conditions need to be investigated further and treated. Referrals to specialists may be
required to address medial issues that may have been overlooked.
Pharmacological
Sleep restoration is paramount, and pharmaceuticals can be used if natural remedies are not effective.
Antihistamines with sedative effects are the drug of choice. For heart palpitations and arrhythmias,
especially those occurring at night, bisoprolol 1.25-2.5mg QHS helps. For sudden tachycardic spells,
waves of anxiety, and sympathetic overdrive, propranolol 2.5-5mg po QID PRN is also helpful.
Acetylsalicylic acid 81mg daily prevents coagulation secondary to high intensity effects due to the close
proximity of routers, DECT base stations and other potent emitters and combinations thereof. A calcium
channel blocker, such as diltiazem 15-30mg daily PRN, could help reduce symptoms. Gentle chelation
therapy may be required if toxic metal load is too high41.
Remediation
Health-care providers need to encourage patients to seek help from building biologists. These technicians
can assess the degree of EMF exposure a person is receiving in their home and make sensible
recommendations. The impacts of cell phone towers, smart meters and hydro wires on living spaces can
be determined, as well as anything internally generating EMFs. Voltage, power density and magnetic
fields, as well as dirty electricity can be measured. Proximity to wind turbines which, due to poor
enforcement of safety standards, emit ground currents that increase symptoms of EHS, can be identified.
Advise patients to use only corded phones without any electronic features. DECT cordless phones emit
RFR and need to be removed altogether.
Metallic paint on interior or exterior walls can be used to reflect radiation coming in from neighbours, cell
towers or other emitting devices. Any other type of shielding using metallic reflective surfaces can help
attenuate the signals.
Advise patients to turn off all wireless devices in the home and replace with ethernet cables or hardwire
everything were possible. Smartmeter removal or shielding installed by a technician is recommended.
39 Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Reviews on
Environmental Health. 2013 Nov 1;28(2-3):75-84.
40 Andrianome S, Hugueville L, de Seze R, Hanot‐Roy M, Blazy K, Gamez C, Selmaoui B. Disturbed sleep in individuals with
idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI‐EMF): Melatonin assessment as a biological marker.
Bioelectromagnetics. 2016 Apr;37(3):175-82. 41 Sears ME. Chelation: harnessing and enhancing heavy metal detoxification—a review. The Scientific World Journal. 2013 Jan
1;2013.
313313
Integrative
A diet rich in antioxidants and low in pro-inflammatory foods is strongly recommended. Eat organic if
possible. Omega-3 (balanced DHA:EPA 1:1) 1500mg daily will help with inflammation and neural
health. Vitamin D3 is also neuroprotective and should be taken at a dose of at least 4000IU per day.
Electrolytic imbalances for whatever reason (i.e. low K+, Na+, Cl-, etc.) need to be corrected with oral
rehydration solutions. To manage adrenal fatigue, adaptogen herbs and mindfulness based stress
reduction (MBSR) can be useful. Homeopathic treatments are useful for those with chemical sensitivities.
Enhance Natural Detoxification to Reduce Body Burden
•Natural detoxification strategies include: sauna therapies (depuration), MBSR, balanced diet,
supplements, exercise.
•To decrease body burden of oxidative stress (peroxynitrite ONOO-) or methylmercury take
antioxidants: vitamins E and C, glutathione, alpha-lipoic acid, N-acetyl-cystine, B vitamin
complex, zinc, resveratrol, CoQ10, selenium, turmeric. A high fibre diet (especially in the form
of bran) will assist with elimination of methylmercury.
•Correct any dental work with toxic or immunoreactive materials such as mercury, lead oxide,
gold or titanium and replace with zirconium dioxide, porcelain or composite.
•Mercury amalgams (mercury (50%), silver (~22–32%), tin (~14%), copper (~8%)) need to be
removed using proper protocol. 42 43
Fasting is not recommended due to the possibility of already existing poor nutritional status thus
inadequate supplies of vitamins, minerals and other antioxidant substrates in their body.44 Food
sensitivities/intolerances must be addressed.
Lifestyle
Tell patients to hold the cell phone away from their heads when in use and keep it in airplane mode when
not in use. The Bluetooth, data and Wi-Fi functions should be off if they are not being used. Extended
videogaming and high electronic equipment use can exacerbate symptoms and must be curtailed. Laptop
use in wireless mode needs to be switched to ethernet cable connectivity to decrease exposure.
Clothing (including the lining of hats) made of cotton fabric with copper or silver weave provides relief
during travel at airports, in hotels, etc., when shielding the torso and head. This can reduce palpitations
and headaches. Blankets/sheets with similar construction can be used to block out in-coming radiation
into habitable spaces during travel or at work.
A Faraday cage (canopy) can be used at night to reduce radiation on the body which can seriously
interfere with sleep quality. For sleep, herbal remedies and supplements are helpful. Magnesium
bisglycinate 100mg po QHS, increasing by 100mg weekly to bowel tolerance, can help with palpitations
and shock sensations.
Grounding practices are important to balance out the electron shifts. This should not be done under hydro
wires, where magnetic fields are extraordinarily strong. There will be a depletion of electrons. The aim is
to replenish lost electrons. Therefore, placing one’s bare feet on a special grounding mat, walking
barefoot on grass and sand or in lake shallows, pools or a bath tub can help. Grounding can be important
to balance out the electrons and replenish the electrons that have been depleted from the body.
Airpods and other wireless earpieces should not be used due to the proximity and intensity of the
radiation to the brain.
42 De Luca, 2014 43 Institute for Functional Medicine. Textbook of Functional Medicine. 2010.
44 Institute for Functional Medicine. Textbook of Functional Medicine. 2010.
314314
Remove all harmful substances used in personal care products, cleaning and other household products, as
well as unnecessary medications.
Psychological
Finally, patients need a lot of psychosocial support in dealing with and removing stress triggers.
Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction, and CBT can be useful to decrease sympathetic nervous system
overdrive.
Connecting with support groups such C4ST, EPIC, WEEP and Electrosensitive Society, all of which are
Canadian based, can decrease social isolation.
Advocacy for Public Health Protection
•Accommodation at work, school or any learning institution should be supported thereby
respecting a person’s right to work and live in a space that is free of any potentially harmful
EMF exposure impacting on their biopsychosocialspiritual well-being.
•Students should be given letters/notes informing teachers of the need to be at a maximal distance
from routers and that laptops need ethernet access.
•People must be able to exercise their rights to refuse harm from EMFs which may be impacting
them, their children and loved ones or their fetus/embryo, if that be the situation. Each person,
should know exactly how much and what sort of radiation is impacting on their bodies.45 46
•Recommendations presented in the HESA report to the House of Commons – Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians, 2010 and 2015 – can be used for
guidance in community events.
•Ontario wide, mandatory physician surveys, of how many patients they see in their roster who
complain of possible EMF-related signs and symptoms, should be implemented.
•Validated screening tools need to be developed through further research studies.
•Physician education through CME is critical.
References
Andrianome S, Hugueville L, de Seze R, Hanot‐Roy M, Blazy K, Gamez C, Selmaoui B. Disturbed sleep
in individuals with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI‐EMF):
Melatonin assessment as a biological marker. Bioelectromagnetics. 2016 Apr;37(3):175-82.
Baliatsas C, Van Kamp I, Lebret E, et al. Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to
electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF): A systematic review of identifying criteria. BMC Public Health.
2012;12(1).
Belpomme, Dominique, Christine Campagnac, and Philippe Irigaray. "Reliable disease biomarkers
characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as
two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder." Reviews on environmental health 30.4
(2015): 251-271.
Belpomme D, Irigaray P. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic
Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. International Journal of Molecular
Sciences. 2020 Jan;21(6):1915.
45 Right to Know, CCOHS https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/responsi.html
46 Government of Canada. Guide for Assessing Persons with Disabilities - How to determine and implement assessment
accommodations - Environmental Sensitivities. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-
guides/guide-assessing-persons-disabilities/guide-assessing-persons-disabilities/guide-assessing-persons-disabilities-determine-
implement-assessment-accommodations-environmental-sensitivities.html. 2007.
315315
Bhat, Kumar and Gupta. Effects of mobile phone and mobile phone tower radiations on human health.
2013
Bray RI, Fancy DH. Clinical Practice Guidelines for EHS - Proceedings of a Symposium of the Impacts
of Wireless Technology on Health. Environmental Health Clinic, Women’s College Hospital, University
of Toronto. October, 2020.
Bray RI, Marshall LM Total Toxic Load. Teaching Tool.
Canadian Human Rights Commission. Environmental sensitivity and scent-free policies.
https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/policy-environmental-sensitivities. 2019.
De Luca C, Thai JC, Raskovic D, et al. Metabolic and genetic screening of electromagnetic
hypersensitive subjects as a feasible tool for diagnostics and intervention. Mediators Inflamm.
2014;2014:924184. doi:10.1155/2014/924184
The DNA Company. https://www.thednacompany.com/
EUROPAEM Guideline 2015 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems
and illnesses. Belyaev I. Dean A. Eger H. Hubmann G. Jandrisovits R. et al. Rev Environ Health. 2015;
30(4):337-371.
Genuis SJ, Lipp CT. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: fact or fiction? Sci Total Environ. 2012;414:103-
12.
Gomez-Perretta et al. Subjective symptoms related to GSM radiation from mobile phone base stations,
BMJ, 2014
Government of Canada. Guide for Assessing Persons with Disabilities - How to determine and
implement assessment accommodations - Environmental Sensitivities.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/guide-
assessing-persons-disabilities/guide-assessing-persons-disabilities/guide-assessing-persons-
disabilities-determine-implement-assessment-accommodations-environmental-sensitivities.html.
2007.
Hallberg Ö, Oberfeld G. Letter to the editor: will we all become electrosensitive?. Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine. 2006 Jan 1;25(3):189-91.
Harris, W. E., Herbert J. Semler, and Herbert E. Griswold. "Reversed reciprocating paroxysmal
tachycardia controlled by guanethidine in a case of Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome." American heart
journal 67.6 (1964): 812-816.
Havas, M. (2014). Electrosmog and Electrosensitivity: What Doctors Need to Know to Help their Patients
Heal. Anti-Aging Therapeutics Volume XV.
Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous
system. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2013 Nov 1;28(2-3):75-84.
Institute for Functional Medicine. Textbook of Functional Medicine. 2010.
Johansson O. Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields—A potentially underlying
cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment. Volume
16. Issue 2-3. August 2009.
316316
Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: a functional impairment due to an inaccessible environment.
Reviews on environmental health. 2015 Dec 1;30(4):311-21.
Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment. Electromagnetic
biology and medicine. 2006 Jan 1;25(4):245-58.
Leitgeb N, Schrottner J. Electrosensibility and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Bioelectromagnetics.
2003;24(6):387-94.
Maes B. Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines. Inst. Building Biol.+ Sustainability IBN, Rosenheim,
Germany. SBM-2015. 2015.
Maes B. Standard of building biology testing methods. Inst. Building Biol.+ Sustainability IBN,
Rosenheim, Germany, Tech. Rep. SBM-2008. 2008.
Marshall LM, Bray RI Assessment Questionnaire and Exposure History
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/593f8894e3df288fc64b6cf0/t/598bbabdf14aa18c52a6dcce/1502329
836033/Environmental+Health+Clinic+Pre-Visit+Questionnaire.pdf
Marshall L, Weir E, Abelsohn A, Sanborn MD. Identifying and managing adverse environmental health
effects: 1. Taking an exposure history. Cmaj. 2002 Apr 16;166(8):1049-55.
NEHA. Definitions of Environmental Health. https://www.neha.org/about-neha/definitions-
environmental-health.
Pall ML. How to approach the challenge of minimizing non-thermal health effects of microwave radiation
from electrical devices. Int. J. Innov. Res Eng. Manag (IJIREM). 2015 Sep;2(5):71-6.
Pall ML. Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric
effects including depression. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy. 2016 Sep 1;75:43-51.
Pall ML. Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environmental research. 2018 Jul 1;164:405-16.
Park and Knudson. Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms. Statistics Canada 2007
Rea WJ. Chemical Sensitivity. Vol 1. Boca Raton. Lewis Publishers. 1992.
Right to Know, CCOHS https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/responsi.html
Sanborn M, Grierson L, Upshur R, Marshall L, Vakil C, Griffith L, Scott F, Benusic M, Cole D. Family
medicine residents’ knowledge of, attitudes toward, and clinical practices related to environmental health:
Multi-program survey. Canadian Family Physician. 2019 Jun 1;65(6):e269-77.
Sears ME. Chelation: harnessing and enhancing heavy metal detoxification—a review. The Scientific
World Journal. 2013 Jan 1;2013.
Canadian Human Rights Commission. Environmental sensitivity and scent-free policies.
https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/policy-environmental-sensitivities. 2019.
Selye H. (1946). The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases of adaptation. The Journal of clinical
endocrinology and metabolism, 6, 117–230. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-6-2-117
317317
Stein Y, Udassin IG. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS, microwave syndrome)–Review of
mechanisms. Environmental Research. 2020 Mar 30:109445.
Tran MT, Arendt-Nielsen L, Kupers R, Elberling J. Multiple chemical sensitivity: on the scent of central
sensitization. International journal of hygiene and environmental health. 2013 Mar 1;216(2):202-10.
WHO, Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, December 2005
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/593f8894e3df288fc64b6cf0/t/598bbabdf14aa18c52a6dcce/1502329
836033/Environmental+Health+Clinic+Pre-Visit+Questionnaire.pdf
Peer Reviewers: Dr. John Molot, Dr. Kathleen Kerr, Dr. Sarah Selke, Dr. Jennifer Swales,
318318
SCIENTISTS STATEMENT
319319
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
RE: No. 34 MAP 2021, Povacz, M, et al. v. PUC
Associated Case(s):
35 MAP 2021 Consolidated
36 MAP 2021 Consolidated
37 MAP 2021 Consolidated
38 MAP 2021 Consolidated
39 MAP 2021 Consolidated
40 MAP 2021 Consolidated
41 MAP 2021 Consolidated
42 MAP 2021 Consolidated
43 MAP 2021 Consolidated
44 MAP 2021 Consolidated
45 MAP 2021 Consolidated
SCIENTISTS’ STATEMENT
RF/EMF & SMART METERS HARM
THE EFFECTS OF PULSED RADIOFREQUENCY AND
ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION EMISSIONS OF SMART METERS;
ESPECIALLY AS IT PERTAINS TO THOSE ADVERSELY AFFECTED
General Statement
We, the undersigned scientists, have cumulatively published hundreds of
peer-reviewed papers on biological effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields (EMFs)
and radiofrequency (RF) radiation and reviewed thousands more. For all of us the
study of the effects of pulsed RF/EMFs is one of our main areas of study; for some,
it is the main one. (A short bio for each of the undersigned is attached.)
320320
We are filing this statement to clarify the state of the current science
regarding RF/EMF-based wireless technology adverse health effect and to explain
why smart meters can be harmful, at least to some people. Pulsed RF/EMF-based
wireless technology harms are not hypothetical. They are scientifically established,
and a significant number of people have already been seriously injured. Therefore,
we cannot stand by and allow the science to be misrepresented, especially in a case
of such importance involving public safety, where lives are at stake, the harms are
irreparable, and people are injured and could die.
RF Basics
1.Wireless technology uses electromagnetic waves to carry
information.1 A wave “frequency” is the number of wave cycles per second. Each
cycle per second equals a “Hertz” (“Hz”).2 Example: A 60 Hz frequency used for
home electricity has 60 wave cycles per second. The smart meter antenna that
1 An electromagnetic field (EMF”) is created by electric and magnetic components
emitted by moving charges and propagated through “waves” at the speed of light.
The interaction between the electric and magnetic fields “radiates” energy
(“radiation”). The electromagnetic spectrum is divided into classes: Extremely
Low Frequencies (ELFs), radio frequencies (microwaves are a subgroup of RFs),
infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays. RFs have a wave-cycle
between 3 kilohertz and 300 gigahertz
2 1,000 Hz is a kilohertz (“KHz”). 1,000,000 Hz is a megahertz (“MHz”).
1,000,000,000 Hz is a gigahertz (“GHz”).
321321
transmits the usage data uses frequencies around 900 MHz, or about 900 million
wave cycles per second.
2.The Radio-Frequency (“RF”) “signal” is the “carrier wave.” But
communications require carrier wave manipulation to “encode” the data. Two main
techniques are used: “pulsation” and “modulation.” Modulation places additional
“mini”-waves on the RF. Pulsation injects “bursts” or turns the signal on/off.
Different technologies have their own protocols or “code.” Two devices using the
same code can “communicate” and exchange information.
3.Smart meters operate in the same way. They contain an RF antenna
that wirelessly transmits the usage data to the utility company. The antenna’s
carrier wave is around 900 MHz, but the data usage is transferred by modulating
the carrier wave. Furthermore, the communications occur every few seconds, so
the transmissions alternate between “silent” and “active.” This leads to an intensely
pulsed signal that has a jarring “on/off” effect on the body.
4.RFs emit “non-ionizing” radiation. Non-ionizing radiation does not
have sufficient energy to directly pull electrons from atoms and molecules to create
“ionization.” The FCC guidelines assume that non-ionizing radiation is not
harmful, unless it has high intensity power that causes tissue to heat as it absorbs
the radiated energy. This is called the “thermal effect.” The FCC’s regulations
322322
acknowledge only thermal effects. Considering many thousands of studies have
proven non-thermal effects, this assumption cannot be defended.
CHD v. FCC and FCC Admission of Harm
5.On August 13, 2021, in a case amici Children’s Health Defense
brought against the FCC, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the
FCC failed to adequately consider and address the scientific and medical evidence
showing that its 1996 thermally-based guidelines do not sufficiently protect the
public. The Court held the FCC did not fully consider non-thermal harms other
than cancer effects, and as a result failed to engage in reasoned decision making.3
6.The FCC will have a hard time sticking to its current “no non-thermal
harm” construct on remand since it recently admitted there are neurological harms
from RF exposures, at least in the range between 3 Hz and 10 MHz.4 The FCC
noted “[a]dverse neural stimulation effects …such as perception of tingling, shock,
pain, or altered behavior due to excitation of tissue in the body’s peripheral
nervous system.” It also admitted that these harms occur instantaneously, which
3 Envtl. Health Tr., et al v. FCC, Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS
24138 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021).
4 Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rule Regarding Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Reassessment of Federal Communication
Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies, ¶¶122-124 & nn. 322-
335, 34 FCC Rcd 11687, 11743-11745 (2019).
323323
means the FCC’s current method of averaging exposure levels over 30 minutes –
which completely obscures pulsation effects – is entirely inappropriate.5
The Scientific Consensus of Non-Thermal Harms
7.Some of the scientists who signed below published the evidence
presented in the DC Circuit court case, including the BioInitiative Report
(BioInitiative).6 The Bioinitiative is the most comprehensive scientific review on
the biological and health effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and RF-based
wireless technology by independent scientists (those with no conflict of interests).
The Bioinitiative concluded that bioeffects are established and can occur within
minutes of exposure to even very low levels of RF, including those emitted by
smart meters. With chronic exposures the biological effects can become adverse
effects and result in illness.7
8.Humans are bioelectrical beings. Our bodies use internally-generated
non-thermal EMFs to function. Our physiology is dependent on very sensitive
bioelectric systems, especially the heart, brain, nervous system, and intercellular
5 The Engineer’s Report attached to the amicus brief reveals that smart meters
pulse RF frequencies within this range (3 kHz – 50 KHz). The utility’s evidence
below relied in part on the FCC’s 30-minute averaging as the basis to deny any
negative pulsation effects.
6 https://bioinitiative.org/participants/.
7 https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions/.
324324
communication.8 As the FCC stated in its admission, externally generated EMF
interferes with humans’ internal electrical communications system, and evokes
internal biological responses. These responses have nothing to do with power level
or tissue heating. The direct effect of pulsed RF/EMFs on humans’ physiology are
indisputable.
9.A 2011 National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) study9 is sufficient by
itself to destroy any denial of RF biological effects. Brain scans of 47 human
participants revealed that pulsed non-thermal RF radiation induced biological brain
glucose metabolism changes in every subject. See image below.
8 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-martin-blank.pdf.
9 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21343580/.
0 60
325325
10.Denial of biological effects of RF/EMFs cannot co-exist with the fact
that physicians routinely use FDA-approved, non-thermal pulsed EMF devices to
treat diseases, bone fractures10 and chronic pain,11 or that RF/EMF is used to treat
cancer.12
11.The only question is whether the biological responses can be adverse.
Numerous studies show indisputable evidence of adverse responses to pulsed
RF/EMF exposure on various bodily functions, especially when the RF exposure is
chronic and pulsed (like the exposure to smart meters).
12.Biological and even positive effects can become adverse effects. RF
signals affect living tissue and stimulate biochemical and bioelectrical changes,
which can generate biological effects which then, with chronic exposure, can
become adverse effects and cause various symptoms and may lead to sickness.13 A
good example of this mixed effect comes from the immune system: “short-term
exposure… may temporarily stimulate certain humoral or cellular immune
functions, while prolonged irradiation inhibits the same functions.”14
10 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3441225/.
11 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf19/K190251.pdf “the application
of electromagnetic energy to non-thermally treat pain.”
12 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-medical-treat-
cancer.pdf.
13https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions/.
14 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969713003276.
326326
Scientific Consensus
13.Numerous scientists,15 doctors, and medical and scientific
organizations from the US and around the world have warned of the negative non-
thermal effects of RF/EMF and the growing sickness it has been causing. They
include the EMF Scientist organization (250 scientists who combined published
over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on the effects of RF/EMF);16 the American
Academy of Pediatrics; 17 the Austrian Medical Association;18 and doctors’ appeals
from the US;19 Belgium;20 and Germany.21 In 2021, close to 200 physicians
participated in a medical conference about RF/EMF effects, for which they
received medical continuing education credits.22
15 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2017-expert-letters-
compilation.pdf.
16https://www.emfscientist.org;https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916233196437/Interna
tional_EMF_Scientist-Appeal%208-25-2019.pdf.
17 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2013-american-
academy-of-pediatrics.pdf.
18 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2011-austrian-medical-
association-guidelines.pdf.
19 Baby Safe Project: https://www.babysafeproject.org/joint-statement.
20 Appeal of 539 Belgium Doctors: https://en.hippocrates-electrosmog-
appeal.be/medical.
21 Appeal of 1,000 German doctors http://freiburger-appell-
2012.info/media/International_Doctors_Appeal_2012_Nov.pdf.
22 https://emfconference2021.com/faculty/.
327327
14.A California Medical Association resolution23 concludes that the peer-
reviewed research demonstrates wireless RF/EMF adverse effects, including
“single and double stranded DNA breaks, creation of reactive oxygen species,
immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, stress protein synthesis in the
brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD,
abnormal behavior, sperm dysfunction, and brain tumors.”
15.Causal mechanisms of harms have been established. Oxidative Stress
is one such mechanism. Over 90% of studies on RF and oxidative stress24, 25 have
established that indeed exposure to RF/EMFs induces an increase in free radicals,
and chronic exposure causes oxidative stress which leads to several adverse health
effects: disease, dysfunction, including electro-sensitivity, cancer, and DNA
damage.
16.Even though RF does not have the energy to directly break chemical
bonds (the way ionizing radiation does), there is strong scientific evidence that this
energy can indirectly cause DNA damage.26 Dr. Ron Melnick PhD, a retired
23 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2014-ca-medical-
association-resolution.pdf.
24 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/3-RFR-Free-Radical-
Oxidative-Damage-Abstracts-2020.pdf.
25 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2015-yakymenko-
oxidative-stress.pdf.
26 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/10.-Comet-Assay-Studies-
Percent-Comparison-2020.pdf.
328328
National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS) scientist, was the
Senior Toxicologist and Director of Special Programs in the National Toxicology
Program (NTP).27 He stated that the old notion that non-ionizing RF cannot break
DNA “should [be] put to rest.”28
17.Many thousands of studies, including US government and military
studies and reports, show the biological and adverse effects of pulsed RF/EMFs.29
In 2014 the US Department of Interior concluded that the FCC’s thermally-based
guidelines are “nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.”30
18.The clear majority of studies show adverse effects.31 For example, 244
of the 335 total studies (73%) published on neurological effects of RF Radiation
between 2007 and 2020 found effects.32 Of the 261 total studies on RF radiation
27 https://emfconference2021.com/speaker/ronald-l-melnick-phd/.
28 https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-comet-assay.
29 Navy report includes 2,300 studies. Pages 10-14 list the RF effects found.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-1971-navy-2300-
studies.pdf; Air-Force: https://electroplague.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/rf-
microwave-radiation-biological-effects-rome-labs.pdf; NASA
https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/_____nasa_emf_field_interaction
s_-_observed_effects___theories_1981.pdf.
30https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XqbMLFUkVNUZIB5AFJAjr6KWqL6vK8ud/vi
ew.
31 https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/.
32 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/13-Neurological-Effects-
Studies-Percent-Comparison-2020.pdf.
329329
and oxidative stress, 240 (91%) show effects.33 224 of 346 total studies (65%)
show DNA damage. See image below.34, 35
19.The evidence is getting even stronger. Since 2016, when the
evidentiary record in this case was generated, hundreds more published peer-
reviewed studies, including by the US government, have established RF/EMF
effects.36
33 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.-Free-Radical-Studies-
Percent-Comparison-2020.pdf.
34 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/11-Genetics-Percent-
Graphic-Sept-1-2020.pdf.
35 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/10.-Comet-Assay-Studies-
Percent-Comparison-2020.pdf.
36Abstract of over 700 papers (positive and negative published 2016-2019)
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-jmm-2016-2019-
studies.pdf; US Government NTP DNA Study
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/em.22343.
Majority of Studies Show Non-Thermal Effects (2020)
■ No Effect ■ Effects
-..------~----------------------
-
1111
Oxidativ Stress DNA Neurological
330330
20.For example, in 2021 the Swiss government expert advisory group on
electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation, BERENIS,37 evaluated the
scientific literature on non-thermal RF/EMF.38 The committee published a
preliminary paper which concludes that exposure could cause or worsen several
chronic illnesses, and that children, the elderly and people with immune
deficiencies or diseases are especially at risk. It also acknowledged that oxidative
stress is the underlying causal mechanism of harm.
21.In 2019, the New-Hampshire (NH) legislature voted unanimously to
establish a committee to learn the effects of 5G and wireless radiation. The
committee included scientists, public representatives, and representatives of the
wireless industry (through CTIA, the wireless industry lobby association). After a
year of hearing experts on both sides and reviewing the science, in October 2020,
the committee’s report was published. It concluded that wireless radiation non-
thermal harms are established. The committee recognized Electro-sensitivity and
the right for accommodation of those who suffer and emphasized the need to
37 https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/electrosmog/newsletter-of-the-
swiss-expert-group-on-electromagnetic-fields-a/beratende-expertengruppe-nis-
berenis.html.
38https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-swiss-berenis-2021-
report.pdf.
331331
educate doctors. NH is the only state in the US that has conducted an independent
full-scale investigation as to the harms of these technologies.
22.Former senior experts from government agencies responsible for this
issue are also part of the consensus on non-thermal harms. In addition to Dr.
Melnick, they also include: Dr. Linda Birnbaum, the former director (2009-2019)
of the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences (NIEHS); 39 Dr.
Christopher Portier, 40 former director of the National Center for Environment
Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who also carried
various senior positions in the NIEHS, including Associate Director of the
National Toxicology Program (NTP). He wrote: “Most scientists consider non-
thermal effects as well established;”41, Dr. Carl Blackman,42 a biophysicist who
worked as a research scientist for the EPA from 1970 until his recent retirement.
Dr. Blackman’s research on RF/EMF resulted in several discoveries including
39 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/sandri-birnbaum-amicus-
motion-and-brief-correct-final-8-6-2020.pdf#page=20.
40 https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/PORTIER_Bio.pdf;
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27656641/.
41 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2016-portier-
consensus.pdf#page=1.
42 http://www.icems.eu/docs/Bios_Blackman.pdf.
332332
multiple pulsation effects43 and treatment using RF/EMF.44 He is part of the
BioInitiative Working Group and wrote the 2007 Report’s section on pulsation and
modulation;45 Dr. Alan Frey,46 a US navy funded scientist was the first to show
non-thermal auditory effects and blood-brain barrier leakage. His studies tie
pulsation to the aggravating effects of RF signals.
Electro-Sensitivity
23.Electro-sensitivity is the earliest reported and likely the most direct
manifestation of RF/EMF-induced sickness. The condition, described by the
appearance of mostly neurological symptoms caused by RF/EMF exposure, has
been documented in the scientific literature for many decades, including by many
US government and military studies and reports.47 Many hundreds of studies
43 https://www.emfanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/blackman-
modulation-2009.pdf.
44 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28930547/.
45 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/sec15_2007_Modulation_Blackman.pdf.
46 https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/the-work-of-allan-h-frey/.
47 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/rf-1971-navy-2300-studies/;
https://electroplague.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/rf-microwave-radiation-
biological-effects-rome-labs.pdf;
https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/_____nasa_emf_field_interaction
s_-_observed_effects___theories_1981.pdf.
333333
confirm the neurological effects and other symptoms48 reported by those who
suffer from the condition, and they have identified a genetic predisposition.49
24.The understanding of etiology, mechanisms and underlying injuries
involved with this condition has significantly progressed since 2016. New
diagnosis guidelines by leading EMF scientists and medical doctors have been
developed and published 50,51 There are more known biomarkers for diagnosis.52
25.Professor Beatrice Golomb, MD PhD was to the first to show
compelling evidence in a 2018 paper that the “mystery illness” (aka “Havana
Syndrome”) suffered by some US diplomats in Cuba and China was likely caused
by pulsed RF/EMF.53 She concluded that the diplomats suffer from Electro-
sensitivity, which she refers to as Microwave Illness.54
48https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-neurological-lai-
book-chapter.pdf.
49 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24812443/.
50 https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011/html.
51https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/assets/pdf/environmental/Preliminary%2
0Clinical%20Guidelines%20%20for%20EHS.pdf.
52 https://emf-experts.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Belpomme-
EHSdiagnosis-Study2020.pdf.
53 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30183509/.
54 “Microwave” is a subclass of RF, and generally comprises frequencies between
300 MHz and 300 GHz. From an FCC nomenclature perspective, the “microwave”
portion is anything above 890 MHz.
334334
26.The US State Department asked the National Academy of Sciences,
Engineering and Medicine (NAS) to analyze and provide input on the diplomats’
“mystery illness.” Prof. Golomb was invited to present to the committee.55 In
December 2020, The NAS report was published. 56 It concluded that many of the
observed symptoms are consistent with the scientific literature on the effects of
pulsed RF exposure, and that it is likely the cause of the diplomats’ sickness.
27.Not all the diplomats became ill, only some, similar to Electro-
sensitivity in the general population. Human physiology varies, and as with other
stressors, some people get sick sooner than others or at lower levels of exposure
than others, and some will never become ill.
28.Prof. Golomb’s paper shows Electro-sensitivity can occur as the
byproduct of wireless technology, whether the result of an intentional assault
through a pulsed RF/EMF weapon or by commercial wireless technology. The
harm caused by these weapons comes primarily from the pulsation, not the
intensity of the RF/EMF. Indeed, it would be possible for RF/EMF weapons to
operate entirely within FCC guidelines and still cause harm from pulsation.
Pulsation is also a driver of the harm flowing from commercial RF/EMF-emitting
55 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-golomb-
diplomats-3.pdf; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-nas-
golumb-email.pdf.
56 https://www.nap.edu/read/25889/chapter/1.
335335
technology, including smart meters. Nevertheless, FCC rules regarding wireless
technology ignore their effects.
29.Electro-sensitivity is not a mere “sensitivity.” Studies have shown that
the symptoms indicate severe physiological injuries associated with exposure to
RF/EMF.57
30.A 2017 functional MRI study observed brain injury in persons with
Electro-sensitivity. 58 The scans for each of the 10 subjects had similar
abnormalities, all resembling those flowing from traumatic brain injury. The
diplomats had the same abnormalities. This injury indicates impaired blood flow in
certain regions of the brain.
57 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613326/.
58 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28678737/.
Brain Differences In EHS compared to non-EHS
0--ffl'I fMRI of Adult, no (HS fMRI of Mull, with (HS
336336
31.A 202059 and a 201560 papers confirm the blood flow effects and show
additional injuries. They are based on a study of 700 people with electro-sensitivity
showing the subjects suffered from permeability of the blood-brain barrier,
depressed melatonin levels, oxidative stress and aggravated auto-immune response.
These effects were shown to be connected to RF exposure61. In CHD’s case against
the FCC, the court specifically mentioned that the FCC failed to respond to the
evidence showing these effects.62
32.Those who want to propagate this technology have consistently
generated perceived “controversy” as a method to deny Electro-sensitivity. They
do so by funding negative subjective-perception provocation studies so they can
claim that it is psychological or fear-induced (the “nocebo effect”). These studies
suffer from numerous fatal design flaws.63
33.The most ironic design flaw in these studies is that they do not control
for the nocebo effect, which is a prerequisite to the validity of any provocation
59 https://emf-experts.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Belpomme-
EHSdiagnosis-Study2020.pdf.
60 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613326/.
61 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/sec01_2012_summary_for_public.pdf#page=10;
https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/.
62 Envtl. Health Tr. v. FCC, Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24138,
at *12-*16 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021).
63 Many of those provocation studies were heavily funded by mobile phone carriers
and led by James Rubin PhD, a psychologist (not EMF expert).
337337
study. Then they conclude that the symptoms are likely a result of a nocebo
effect.64
34.Another primary flaw in these studies is the illogical assumption that
all people with Electro-sensitivity should be able to immediately “detect” when the
RF signal is on/off. But those affected do not typically “sense” radiation. They
develop symptoms that take time to appear and subside. There are many other
flaws. Nevertheless, properly conducted studies without predetermined agenda
show that some sufferers can detect the signal.65
35.Subjective-perception provocation studies are considered the worst
science because they can be easily manipulated.66 Industry uses these studies to
produce the required results to divert attention from hundreds of high-quality peer-
reviewed credible studies that do not depend on subjective-perception and confirm
the symptoms people develop, the corresponding physiological injuries and
established causal mechanisms.67, 68
64 https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/332/7546/886.full.pdf.
65 For example, a large scale study by the Dutch government, known as the TNO
study: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-electrosensitivity-
provocation-tno.pdf.
66 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520940903.pdf#page=25.
67 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/rf-2018-Golomb-Diplomats-2/#page=9.
68https://childrenshealthdefense.org/rf-2014-electrosensitivity-dr-blythe/.
338338
36.It is important to emphasize that while widely quoted and used to
deny Electro- sensitivity, subjective-provocation studies are not used to diagnose
any condition and are definitely “not suitable to disprove causality.”69 A person’s
inability to detect the pathogen that causes the reaction does not mean the
individual is unaffected by the pathogen. “Human RF-detector” is not a mandatory
symptom for Electro-sensitivity.
Smart Meters’ Effects
37.Beyond individual predisposition, the appearance of adverse effects
can depend on signal intensity, exposure duration; specific frequencies involved;
exposure to multiple frequencies and sources which create high exposure
variability; on-off pulsation and sharp “peaks and valleys.”
38.Expert smart meter testing indicates there are three primary RF
exposure issues.70, 71, 72,73 First, the RF antennas within the meter send usage data
and communicate with other meters and smart devices. They wirelessly emit
69 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2016-europaem-
guidelines.pdf #page=11.
70 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-amicus-sage-smart-
meters.pdf.
71 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-pa-amicus-engineer-
expert-erik-anderson-report.pdf.
72 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-amicus-isotrope.pdf.
73 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-amicus-bathgate-pa-
smart-meters.pdf.
339339
intensely pulsed RF/EMF. Second, these antennas’ RF emissions also conduct over
the home electric wiring,74 transforming the entire house into a “repeater” antenna.
39.Finally, the switch mode power supply (SMPS) creates RF
frequencies as a byproduct of the AC/DC conversion process. The traditional
analog meters used for decades do not have SMPS and do not create these
emissions. SMPS-generated emissions are typically in the range of 2-150 KHz.
They enter the house’s electric wiring and then radiate RF in various parts of the
house. Digital meters also use SMPS; therefore, they too create RF frequencies,
even though they do not have transmitting RF antennas.
40.As noted, the FCC admitted there are neurological effects from non-
thermal RF emissions75 and its admission applies to frequencies in the kilohertz
range created by the SMPS. The symptoms the FCC recites are similar to those
reported by those who assert adverse effects from smart meters including tingling,
shock, pain, or altered behavior due to excitation of tissue in the body’s peripheral
nervous system.76 The FCC explained that the presence of these frequencies
outside the body induce “internal electric fields” within the human body.
74 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-amicus-isotrope.pdf.
75 Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rule Regarding Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Reassessment of Federal Communication
Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies, ¶¶122-124 & nn. 322-
335, 34 FCC Rcd 11687, 11743-11745 (2019).
76 FN. 328, p.58.
340340
41.A single smart meter antenna can emit up to 190,000 short but intense
RF pulses (bursts/spikes) each day to transmit the usage data to the utility. These
bursts can be two and a half times above the FCC’s limits, if you do not apply the
30-minute “averaging” used in the FCC testing. The D.C. Circuit questioned77 this
averaging and the FCC proposes to abandon it, at least in part.78 Depending on how
close the meter is to occupied space within a home, a smart meter can cause very
high intensity RF/EMF exposures.
42.People in proximity to a smart meter are at risk of significantly high
aggregate whole-body exposure to RF/EMF. This is especially true regarding
people living near multiple meters mounted together in an apartment complex or
those who have a utility collector meter installed on their home which relays RF
signals of up to 5,000 homes.79 The cumulative 24/7 exposure is never measured
but undoubtedly harmful, at least to some.
43.Studies have consistently shown that the pulsing is a major element in
the creation and/or aggravation of effects from RF exposure. It is possibly more
77 Envtl. Health Tr. v. FCC, Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24138,
at *12 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021).
78 Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rule Regarding Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Reassessment of Federal Communication
Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies, ¶¶122-124 & nn. 322-
335, 34 FCC Rcd 11687, 11743-11745 (2019).
79 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/pa-amicus-sage-smart-meters/#page=3.
341341
important than the radiation levels.80 EMF-based medical treatments, for example,
recognize the higher bio-active nature of pulsation; they purposefully pulse the
signal to obtain a higher biological response.
44.The effects of continuous exposure and the on/off pulsation effects
were shown in a 2011 study.81 The study tested a physician with Electro-
sensitivity. She developed temporal pain, headache, muscle twitching, and skipped
heartbeats within 100 seconds after each signal exposure. The study showed that
the symptoms appeared in response to the on-off pulsing of the signal rather than
the presence of a continuous EMF field or its intensity. “EMF hypersensitivity can
occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome.”
45.The energy emitted by the RF antennas and from the operation of the
SMPS enters the wiring system through “high variability” spikes in various RF
frequencies. This has an on/off effect on the body. Studies have shown that the
body is especially sensitive to “high variability” emissions.82
80 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/sec15_2007_Modulation_Blackman.pdf;
https://bioinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/sec15_2012_Evidence_Disruption_Modulation.pdf.
81https://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/McCarty%20Marino%202011%20EMF%20ES%20
&%20neurological%20syndrome%20Int%20J%20Neurosci%20July.pdf.
82https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2015-Panagopoulos-
variability-effects.pdf.
342342
Conclusion
46.Anyone who claims smart meters cannot produce the symptoms
described by the customers is ignorant of the FCC’s recent admission. They either
do not understand or are misrepresenting the science on biological and adverse
effects from pulsed RF/EMF. Many have reported getting ill following the
installation of these smart meters. Considering the way smart meters operate and
the multitude of complex emissions they create, it is no wonder. Forcing these
meters on people who have become affected by RF/EMF is unconscionable. Those
with Electro-sensitivity and others who are affected by RF/EMF must be allowed
to secure analog meters because it is the only type of meter that does not cause or
worsen their condition.
Respectfully Submitted,
Scientists Statement Signatories
Professor David O. Carpenter, MD, Professor of Environmental Health
Sciences, and Director, Institute for Health and the Environment at the
University of Albany, a collaborating center for the World Health Organization
(WHO). Dr. Carpenter is a Harvard trained public health expert who focuses on
the study of environmental causes of human disease with expertise in
electrophysiology, low-frequency electromagnetic field and radiofrequency
(RF) radiation bioeffects. He was Chairman of the Neurobiology Department of
343343
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute at the Defense Nuclear Agency
in Washington DC; the Director of Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and
Research of the New York State Department of Health; and Executive Secretary
of the NY State Power Line Project regarding health effects associated with
exposure to EMFs. After the project concluded, he became spokesperson for
NY state on all matters associated with EMFs. He is the Co-Editor of the
BioInitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard
for Electromagnetic Fields. Dr. Carpenter has authored more than 400 scientific
papers.
Professor Igor Belyaev, DSc, Head, Department of Radiobiology; Cancer
Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center, Slovak Republic. He has an
MSc. Degree in Radiation Physics and Dosimetry; PhD in Radiobiology; and
DSc. degree in Genetics. He was an Associate Professor of Toxicological
Genetics at the Stockholm University, Sweden, as well as a senior research
scientist and group leader in the departments of Radiobiology, Molecular
Genome Research, Genetic and Cellular Toxicology, Genetics, Toxicology and
Microbiology. He is now or formerly a member of: The Working Group of the
International EMF Project of the World Health Organization; the Working
Group for the evaluation of RF carcinogenicity of the International Agency on
Research in Cancer (IARC); the Swedish National Committee for Radio-
Science; the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection; the EMF Working Group of the European Academy for
Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM). He serves as Associate Editor for the
International Journal of Radiation Biology and on the Editorial Board of
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. He published over 100 scientific papers
and was awarded by the Bioelectromagnetics Society for the most influential
344344
paper in Bioelectromagnetics 2006-2010. He is a member of the BioInitiative
Working Group and authored the BioInitiative’s 2012 Section on the effects of
Pulsation and Modulation.
Professor Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine at the
University of California, San Diego. She also leads a research group which
focuses on the relation of oxidative stress and mitochondrial function to health,
aging, behavior, illness, environmental and medication effects, nutrition, and
bioenergetics. She served as a primary care doctor of veteran patients for over
15 years. She is known for her work on Gulf War Illness, statins and placebos
and for her 2018 paper “Diplomats’ Mystery Illness and Pulsed
Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation” which concludes, “Reported facts
appear consistent with pulsed RF/MW as the source of injury in affected
diplomats.” She was invited to present to the National Academy of Sciences
about these findings. She has published 136 scientific papers.
Professor Reba Goodman, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Clinical Pathology
at Columbia University. Dr. Goodman received an MA and a PhD in
Developmental Genetics from Columbia University. She has authored a great
many studies, including at least 76 studies on effects of electromagnetic fields.
Early on, in her paper in Science entitled “Pulsed electromagnetic fields induce
cellular transcription,” (1983), she showed how even weak, pulsing
electromagnetic fields could modify biological processes.
Professor Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, is a retired Professor of Oncology
and Cancer Epidemiology, from Örebro University Hospital in Sweden. Dr.
Hardell continues his work through his involvement with the Environment and
Cancer Research Foundation. His research focus has been the environmental
345345
risk factors for cancer. Prof. Hardell has been awarded several scientific prizes
for his research. In recent decades his research focused on the effects of RFR
exposure, especially on mobile phones and the risk of brain tumours. The
research by the Hardell group influenced IARC’s 2011 classification of
radiofrequency radiation as a possible 2B carcinogen. Dr. Hardell was also a
member of IARC’s evaluating group. He has published more than 350 peer-
reviewed scientific papers, including many on the biological effects of
electromagnetic radiation.
Professor Paul Héroux, PhD, Director of the Occupational Health Program,
Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Canada. Dr. Heroux is a toxicologist
with a PhD in Physics. He teaches courses at McGill University about the
adverse health effects of EMFs. He has published 42 scientific papers, 27 of
them on the effects of EMFs. He also authored several text books. His most
recent paper is “Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology
under real-life conditions.” (Toxicol. Let 2020). He is a member of the
BioInitiative Working Group and was a member of the committee appointed by
the New Hampshire legislature to review the effects of 5g and wireless
technologies.
Professor Olle Johansson, PhD, retired associate professor at the Karolinska
Institute, Department of Neuroscience, and head of The Experimental
Dermatology Unit from the Karolinska Institute, and the Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He has published more than 800 papers,
conference reports, book chapters, commentaries, and debate articles. His main
focus was basic and applied neuroscience. Starting in 1977, his research
focused on the adverse health and biological effects of man-made pulsed RF-
346346
based wireless technologies. He has published more than 330 papers in that
field, many with a focus on the effects on the skin.
Professor Anthony B. Miller, MD, CM, FRCP, FRCP(C), Professor Emeritus,
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto. He was the
Director, Epidemiology Unit, National Cancer Institute of Canada; Professor,
and Chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics,
University of Toronto; Special Expert in the Division of Cancer Prevention, US
National Cancer Institute; Senior Epidemiologist, International Agency for
Research on Cancer; Head, Division of Epidemiology, German Cancer
Research Centre; Associate Director Research, Dalla Lana School of Public
Health, University of Toronto. In 2019 he was elected a Member of the Order
of Canada for his work on Cancer Control. He has published 354 peer-reviewed
papers. In the past few years he has focused on RF/EMF effects. He has
published six papers on the topic of RF/EMF and has presented in many
conferences on this issue.
Professor Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic
Medical Sciences at Washington State University. Dr. Pall is a published and
widely cited scientist on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields and
speaks internationally on this topic. His expertise includes how RF/EMF
impacts the electrical systems in our bodies with a focus on the VGCC injury
mechanism. He published seven papers showing that pulsed RF/EMF interferes
with the operation of the voltage-gated calcium channel, a sensor that is
responsible for the entry of calcium into our cells.
347347
Alfonso Balmori, BSc, M.S.Ed, is a world renowned biologist, with a
master in environmental education. He has published more than 50 scientific
papers published in peer-reviewed journals on environment, ecology, and
biodiversity conservation issues. He is known worldwide for his work on the
effects of electromagnetic RF radiation on animals and plants, mainly on the
effects of cell towers. His papers were quoted in the US Department of the
Interior 2014 letter concluding that cell towers harm migratory birds and that
the FCC guidelines are 30 years out of date. This letter was referenced by the
Court in the Remand Guidelines decision.
Professor Kent Chamberlin, PhD, Past Chair and Professor Emeritus,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New
Hampshire. The focus of his research has been Computational
Electromagnetics. He also investigated the interaction of electromagnetic fields
and the human body, which resulted in seven publications. He was appointed by
the Chancellor to the New Hampshire Commission to Study the Environmental
and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology, which concluded that 5G and
pulsed RF-based wireless technologies are harmful to health.
Dr. Priyanka Bandara, PhD, is a scientist with a PhD in Biochemistry and
Molecular Genetics. She served as senior manager of a research team and a
clinical team at Westmead Children’s Hospital, Australia. She then became
involved in environmental health and disease prevention. Her current focus is
the impact of pulsed RF-based wireless technologies on health. Dr. Bandara has
published 13 papers on the effects of electromagnetic radiation in international
scientific journals, and has presented at major conferences and academic
institutions. She serves as Associate Editor of the Journal of the Australasian
I
348348
College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine and as peer-reviewer for
several international medical journals.
Dr. Frédéric Greco, MD, is a practitioner in the neuro-intensive care unit at
the University Hospital of Montpellier, France, and teaches at the university’s
Faculty of Medicine. He is a member of the working group set up by the French
government's health department to implement national recommendations for the
medical care of electrosensitive people. He is the principal investigator of the
ongoing clinical study "Migraine in Electrohypersensitive Patients."
Dr. Yael Stein, MD, is head of the Electromagnetic Radiation Research Clinic
at Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel, focusing on electro-sensitivity
diagnosis and treatment. She is a certified Anesthesiologist at Hadassah
Medical Center and researcher at the Hebrew University Medical School. She
also specializes in Pain Medicine and is currently completing an MPH at the
Hebrew University School of Public Health. She has extensive experience in
research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields on humans from the
epidemiologic and biological/medical points of view, and has worked in this
field since 2007.
Cindy Sage, MA, is an environmental sciences consultant and researcher on
electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation. She is the founder of the
international BioInitiative Working Group, and the co-editor of the BioInitiative
Reports (2007 and 2012). Ms. Sage has provided expert testimony and
scientific testimony on non-ionizing radiation to the Federal Communications
Commission, the US Food and Drug Administration, the California Public
Utility Commission, the European Commission’s Directorate of Public Health -
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
349349
(SCENIHR). She has advised numerous state and federal agencies on wireless
health risks, smart meter emissions and safety limit inadequacies. She has
published 24 peer-reviewed papers on the evidence of health risks from
electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation, and she studies the effects
of smart meters.
Dr. Cindy Russell, MD, is a surgeon and Executive Director of Physicians
for Safe Technology. Since 1995, she has been a member of the Santa Clara
County Medical Association Environmental Health Committee. Dr. Russell has
published several peer-reviewed papers on the impacts of wireless technology
on human health and the environment with hundreds of scientific references.
Her focus continues to be disease prevention and environmental health through
toxics reduction.
Dr. Mary Redmayne, PhD, is a researcher, educator and consultant with
Adjunct Research Fellowships at Victoria University of Wellington and at
Monash University, Melbourne. Her research interests and experience include
children’s use of wireless devices and their effect on health and well-being.
She has many peer-reviewed papers, with at least 22 on health and
electromagnetic fields and RF radiation. She lectures on these issues both in
New Zealand and internationally. Dr. Redmayne is a Participating Member of
Standards Australia Committee on Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields,
a technical committee responsible for standards settings. She is a scientific
advisor for the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, and
for the Building Biology and Ecology Institute, NZ.
350350
ENGINEER REPORT
351351
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
RE: No. 34 MAP 2021, Povacz, M, et al. v. PUC
Associated Case(s):
35 MAP 2021 Consolidated
36 MAP 2021 Consolidated
37 MAP 2021 Consolidated
38 MAP 2021 Consolidated
39 MAP 2021 Consolidated
40 MAP 2021 Consolidated
41 MAP 2021 Consolidated
42 MAP 2021 Consolidated
43 MAP 2021 Consolidated
44 MAP 2021 Consolidated
45 MAP 2021 Consolidated
Engineer Report – Smart Meters Operation & RF Emissions
Purpose of Statement
1.My name is Erik S. Anderson, P.E. I am a forensic electrical engineer
working on root cause failure analysis of matters that cause loss of property,
personal injury, and loss of life.
2.I am submitting my expert opinion regarding the operation of smart
meters and digital meters and in support of the amici.
352352
Credentials
3.I am the president of an engineering firm that offers professional
engineering and investigation services across the United States and manufactures
current transformers.83
4.It is my expert opinion that these smart and digital meters cause a
significant amount of radio-frequency (RF) “noise” on homes’ electric wiring
system, thereby transforming them into a whole house antenna.
5.I have a Bachelor’s of Science degree from North Dakota State
University, Fargo, North Dakota, in Electrical and Electronic Engineering. I am a
licensed Professional Engineer in the states of Minnesota, Illinois, Arizona,
Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, California, Kentucky,
Michigan, and Nevada. I am a licensed Class A Master Electrician in the state of
Minnesota. I also hold a Private Investigator License in Arizona and I am a
Certified Fire and Explosion Investigator.
6.I have 30 years of experience as a forensic engineer. I have over 20
years of experience of design and manufacture of current transformers. I have been
involved in many thousands of matters concerned with determining the root cause
of failures of electrical devices that may have caused a loss of property, personal
injury, or loss of life. I have given expert witness testimony in approximately 113
83 https://www.aenpi.com/
353353
separate matters. I personally have tested smart meters and given expert testimony
regarding their operation and emissions. My curriculum vitae is attached (Exhibit
1).
7.As a designer and manufacturer of transformers, their operation is one
of my main areas of expertise. Switch Mode Power Supply modules used by smart
and digital meters are merely another type of transformers. I have investigated the
involvement of the operation of the Switch Mode Power Supply in these meters
and their involvement in the creation of radio frequency (RF) emissions.84
8.My expert determination principally relies on my own smart meter
testing. I do also rely on reviews by other experts, their’ testing reports and my
professional education and vast experience.
Smart Meter Operation
9.Smart meters create intense exposure to pulsed radio frequencies (RF)
in a few ways. RF antennas are embedded within the smart meter to transmit data
usage to utility companies and/or to communicate with other smart meters or with
other “smart” devices like home thermostats. These antennas emit pulsed RF
radiation. The various radiofrequencies emitted by these antennas also conduct
through the home electric wiring. RF “wire conducted” frequencies come also
84 An explanation of what are radio frequencies and about the electromagnetic
spectrum can be found in the scientists’ statements which is also attached to the amicus
brief as well as in the amicus brief itself.
354354
from the conversion process from alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC)
handled by the Switch Mode Power Supply (SMPS).85 Non-transmitting digital
meters also use SMPS, and therefore they too create RF, even though they do not
contain a transmitting RF antenna for communications. These radio frequencies are
transmitted on the residence’s electrical distribution system and conduct over the
internal wiring, thereby turning the home into a whole-house antenna.
RF Emissions from the Transmitting Antennas
10.The RF antennas that wirelessly transmit the consumer’s electrical
power usage data to the utility company use frequencies in the 900 MHz & 2,400
MHz range. These emissions are intense and can occur often, up to 190,000 times a
day.86 From my experience and testing done by others, these meters transmit more
times than the electric companies report. This can easily be shown by measuring
the emissions with a simple RF meter.
11.“Isotrope Wireless,”87 which provides industry and municipalities
with design, specification, evaluation, and construction support for wireless
facilities, tested smart meters in three houses.88 This testing showed that RF
emission from the smart meters’ transmitting antennas could be detected
85 In some meters the conversion is done using capacitators instead of SMPS.
86 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/pa-amicus-sage-smart-meters/.
87 https://www.isotrope.im/about-2/.
88 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/pa-amicus-isotrope/.
355355
throughout the house and were “well above” the ambient RF radiation levels.89
These pulsed RF emissions exceed the absolute energy output limits90 stated in
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines (if the emissions are not
averaged over a 30-minute exposure as prescribed by those guidelines).91
RF from Wireless Antennas Enter the House’s Electrical System
12.The Isotrope testing also showed that the house’s electrical wiring
conducted substantial levels of the RF emissions at 915 MHz – the
communications-related frequency for that meter92 – and this frequency was then
radiated from outlets (electrical power delivery points) and along the house wiring
(branch circuitry).
89https://childrenshealthdefense.org/pa-amicus-isotrope/#page=12.
90 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/pa-amicus-sage-smart-meters/#page=3.
91 On August 13, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the FCC’s
2019 decision that its guidelines adequately protect the public’s health are arbitrary,
capricious and not evidence-based. The Children’s Health Defense is a Petitioner in
this case. Envtl. Health Tr., et al v. FCC, Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS
24138 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021). The opinion specifically questioned whether the
FCC’s testing procedures adequately captured the effect of pulsation or modulation.
2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24138, *12, *29.
92 Smart meters use a variety of frequencies for communications depending on the
manufacturer’s choice. PECO’s meters operate at around 901 MHz. They also contain
a “Zigbee” antenna that can be turned on and then communicate with nearby wireless
smart devices. Zigbee uses 2400 MHz band.
356356
13.Thus, the pulsed RF emissions from the smart meter’s transmitting
antenna not only enter the house wirelessly but also enter into and are conducted
along the house’s electrical wiring
RF “Noise” From the Switch Mode Power Supply
14.Other RF frequencies besides the RFs from the transmitting antennas,
also enter the house electric system. In my testing I have witnessed and analyzed
smart meters’ effects on the incoming electrical power voltage waveform. These
frequencies are a byproduct of the AC/DC conversion process which is done by the
Switch Mode Power Supply (SMPS). The conversion process is necessary because
utility service employs alternating current whereas the electrical components in
smart meters use direct current.93
15.SMPS converts the 240 Volt AC power coming into the meter from
the main power transformer, into the much lower DC voltage that the electronic
devices require to function. The rapid back-and-forth conversion process used to
remove the “alternating” aspect creates unintended RF frequencies. The on/off,
back-and-forth, pulses can occur up to 150,000 times per second, which means
frequencies of up to 150,000 Hz (150 KHz94), are created. These kilohertz
93 Smart meters also rely on AC for some of the non-electronic functions they
perform.
94 1,000 Hz is a kilohertz (“KHz”). 1,000,000 Hz is a megahertz (“MHz”).
1,000,000,000 Hz is a gigahertz (“GHz”).
357357
frequencies are within the RF band of frequencies.95 Most of the observed “noise”
spikes are in the range of 2 to 50 kHz (2,000 to 50,000 Hz).96 The switching RF
“spikes” are variable, and they are being imposed on the 60 Hz house electricity
wave,97 creating significant unintended RF “noise.”
16.These frequencies are present all the time but are worse when less
electricity is being used (e.g., at night) and when the smart meter’s electronics need
more power, for example, when transmitting RF bursts to the utility. These RF
transmission bursts cause spikes over the electric wiring, and they are created
because the SMPS has to suddenly supply more DC power.
Digital Meters Use SMPS and Therefore Also Created Unintended RF
17.Digital meters also use SMPS. Therefore, even though they do not
contain an RF communications antenna, the AC/DC conversion process creates
significant and variable RF spikes over the electrical wiring, which is then radiated
into the house.
95 FCC defines RF as frequencies between 3 KHz – 300 GHz.
96 Finding of Fact 87 in McKnight v. PECO (once of the cases on hold below) states
that “PECO’s AMI meters do not produce 5 Hz, 3 kilohertz, or 5 megahertz fields.
(April 13, Tr. 75-76).” While I have some doubt this is actually so, this finding does
not rule out emissions in the other frequencies I list.
97 Electricity comes to the house at a frequency of 60 Hz.
358358
Analog Meters Do Not Have SMPS and Do Not Create RF Spikes
18.In contrast, unlike wireless smart meters and digital meters, analog
meters do not contain an SMPS or other electronic components that create
unintended RF frequencies. No AC/DC conversion is necessary, and unlike smart
and digital meters, analog meters have a separate wired grounding rod that
eliminates much of the “noise” that may come from the energy feed.
19.The images below compare a smart meter like that used by PECO98
with an analog meter. The red waveform is the 60 Hz house electricity frequency.
The yellow waveform indicates the RF frequencies imposed over the 60 Hz. Image
1shows that an analog meter does not create RF spikes. Image 2 shows the smart
meter causing significant RF spikes “noise” over the 60 Hz frequency house electric
wiring system. 99
98 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-amicus-bathgate-pa-
smart-meters.pdf. Pages 17-18.
99 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-amicus-bathgate-pa-
smart-meters.pdf#page=14.
359359
Image 1: Analog Meter – No RF Spikes
Image 2: Smart Meter – Intense RF spikes.
My Smart Meter Testing:
20.My test setup consisted of a meter socket enclosure suitable for
120/240 Volt, single-phase, three-wire connection. A smart meter, Landis & Gyr,
·~ (kt
l,:0.Jl,.-19 ,;;;;;;;
,,,. -,_ .... ,,..,.,
<.'l.hop .... ,... ... c--J\,~~ ...
<>co-..
"' * ..
~ .. -l•~.J.01 .... .... .....
<Hl r-,o... ... ~ .:l
(MlV<'l/0,., ... ,,.,
·-,..,. ...... ,...., ...
HlD»V
-..
'""""' ., ,, ,._ ..
4 .. -l·l4,.:4f ...
"" -
(M ... , .. ... ~ .. -.. -------
, .. .... .... _,. ......
360360
Gridstream RF, Focus AXR-SD, Form 2S, CL200, 240 V, 3 W, 60 Hz, power
meter was used.100 The voltage waveform was captured with a Fluke 215C
Scopemeter. One input to the Scopemeter was connected to the incoming voltage,
120 Volts-to-Ground, unfiltered. The other input to the Scopemeter was connected
to the incoming voltage with the 60 Hz waveform filtered out. A radiofrequency
emissions meter was also used to indicate when an RF signal increase was
detected.
21.When the test equipment was connected to the incoming power, the
waveform of the incoming electrical power was observed. The 60 Hz signal was
recognized as the dominant frequency with some noise observed on the waveform.
The 60 Hz was filtered out to analyze the noise on the signal.
22.When the smart meter was not connected, the noise level was
approximately 45 milliVolts at its peak. When the smart meter was added to the
circuit, the noise on the 60 Hz sine wave was noticeably larger, approximately 85
milliVolts. This is nearly double the amount of noise than without the smart meter.
23.The dominant frequencies are in the range of 2 to 50 kHz. These are
the frequencies that the “smart meter” generates when it is transmitting.
100 PECO uses this meter, or one quite like it. R995a, 1046a.
361361
Conclusion and Opinion
24.There is no doubt that smart and digital meters create pulsed RF
emissions and these emissions, from the smart meters’ antennas and the RF created
by the SMPS, both enter the house’s electric system. The result is that the entire
house is transformed into a radiating RF antenna.
25.Any meter with a switch mode power supply will create RF
frequencies in the Kilohertz range that enter the electrical wiring system of the
house. Smart meters and digital meters inject significant levels of RF onto the
home’s electrical distribution system.
26.This report is based on information learned to date. I reserve the right
to amend, clarify, or change my opinions based on more work or information
learned.
Respectfully Submitted:
Erik S. Anderson, P.E.
362362
ENGINEER REPORT – Exhibit 1
363363
ANDERSON ENGINEERING OF NEW PRAGUE, INC.
9007 S. Third Street Phoenix, Arizona 85042
Office: [phone] Mobile: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
ERIK S. ANDERSON Registered Professional Engineer
REGISTRATION:
State of Minnesota 1991 21471
State of Illinois 1999 062052733 State of Arizona 2003 39627 State of Wisconsin 2008 39418-006 State of Indiana 2008 PE.10809314
State of Iowa 2008 18758
State of New Mexico 2008 19001 State of Texas 2009 102714 State of Louisiana 2009 PE.0034787 State of California 2010 105359
State of Kentucky 2012 28492
State of Michigan 2013 6201060247 State of Nevada 2013 022690
Licensed Class A Master
Electrician – State of
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1981-
364364
CONTINUING
EDUCATION:
Hazardous Materials: HAZWOPER: 40-hour worker 2008
Annual 8-Hr. HAZWOPER Refresher Course: 2009, 2010,
Minnesota Electrical Association – National Electrical Code
Instructor: Forensic Electrical Engineering Principles & Practices,
01/05 - Present President & Forensic Electrical Engineer. Responsible for all
aspects of business operations including engineering services
to clients, analysis.
365365
Our case load also includes construction defect cases
involving the evaluation of the workmanship of the electrical
subcontractor and personal injury cases involvi
Electrical Engin
failure analysis.
Midwest Current Transform
Engineering of New Prague, Inc., New Prague, MN.
Designer, manufacturer, and quality
Research and Design Coordinator. Duties included work on
(Summers) Assistant Engineer. Designed software for and compiled data of E-fields generated by high voltage tassisted in investigations of various cases involving questions
AFFILIATIONS: Member National Society of Professional Engineers. Member Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers.
Member International Association of Arson Investigators.
Member National Fire Protection Association. Member National Association of Fire Investigators. Member American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
TESTIFYING WITNESS:
Corporation
366366
BUILDING BIOLOGY INSTITUTE
REPORT
367367
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
RE: No. 34 MAP 2021, Povacz, M, et al. v. PUC
Associated Case(s):
35 MAP 2021 Consolidated
36 MAP 2021 Consolidated
37 MAP 2021 Consolidated
38 MAP 2021 Consolidated
39 MAP 2021 Consolidated
40 MAP 2021 Consolidated
41 MAP 2021 Consolidated
42 MAP 2021 Consolidated
43 MAP 2021 Consolidated
44 MAP 2021 Consolidated
45 MAP 2021 Consolidated
THE BUILDING BIOLOGIST INSTITUTE REPORT
General Statement
1.My name is Lawrence James Gust. I am the President of the Board of
Directors of the Building Biology Institute (BBI).1 I have a degree in electrical
engineering and an MBA. I have been an environmental consultant for over 20
years and have trained hundreds of environmentally safer buildings consultants via
the BBI.
2.The Building Biology Institute (BBI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit
corporation. BBI was founded in the US in 1993 and it follows the Principles of
1 https://buildingbiologyinstitute.org/about/our-mission/
368368
the Institute fur Baubiologie und Ecologie in Germany.2 Our mission is to help
meet the ever-increasing public demand for proven methods that secure homes,
schools, and workplaces from toxic indoor air, tap-water pollutants, and hazards
posed by electromagnetic fields (“EMF”) and radiofrequency radiation (“RFR”)
exposure.
3.BBI offers three professional certifications: (1) Building Biology
Environmental Consultant (BBEC); (2) Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist
(EMRS); and (3) Building Biology New Build Consultant (BBNC). Each
certification requires the participants to complete online courses, participate in a
multi-day on-site seminar, undergo a mentored final project and pass various tests.
To be listed as a practicing professional on the BBI website,3 certified BBEC
professionals must obtain approved continuing education credits.
4.Our trained RF/EMF mitigation consultants measure the
electromagnetic fields and radiation at the site, provide a plan on how to mitigate
these emissions and work with other professionals such as electricians and IT
professionals to put in place the identified mitigating measures.
2 https://www.ibo.at/en/
3 https://buildingbiologyinstitute.org/find-an-expert/certified-
consultants/electromagnetic-radiation-specialists/.
369369
5.Most of our clients are people who are sick or have family members
who have adverse reactions to RFR exposure. As with other environmental toxins,
and according to doctors, avoidance is the main and most effective treatment for
those who are affected. Our services help them mitigate exposures in their homes,
so they are part of the medical regimen prescribed by doctors. Many physicians
encourage their patients to contact building biologists to optimize their living
environment.4
6.We have a unique perspective and specific protocols driven by our
extensive science-based knowledge, methods as well as experience working with
those who suffer. Every day we see the widespread sickness caused by wireless
devices and infrastructure. We personally witness how devastating this sickness is.
Most important, we know our methods significantly improve the health and well-
being of those who must avoid RFR. Remediation efficacy is well documented and
undeniable.
7.Our knowledge and experience will provide the court valuable and
important information necessary to reach a just decision in this case.
Smart Meters
4https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/assets/pdf/environmental/Preliminary%20
Clinical%20Guidelines%20%20for%20EHS.pdf#page=18.
370370
8.We often confront sickness caused or exacerbated by smart meters.
Simply removing the meter often leads to immediate and consequential health
improvement. Unfortunately, we also routinely witness intolerable suffering by
those forced to have smart meters as a condition of service without any means to
opt-out.
9.People can turn off their cell phones, they can turn off the Wi-Fi in the
router and use hard-wired internet. They cannot turn off the smart meters and
therefore are forced to be exposed to the toxin that caused them to be sick 24/7, in
their home. It is a torture.
Demand increase correlates with exposure growth
10.There has been a significant increase in requests for our RFR
mitigation services over the last 20 years. Wireless services were first
commercialized for the mass market in the mid-1980s. Back then and for around
10 years RFR mitigation was a very small part of our work. But that began to
change in the early 2000s. Demand for our services has skyrocketed. RFR
mitigation is now the most frequently requested service in our portfolio and
constitutes about 75% of what we do. BBI consultants have a hard time fulfilling
the demand. This directly correlates with and is the clear result of with the
exponential growth in public exposure to wireless related pulsed RFR from
wireless devices and infrastructure. Pervasive and chronic exposure leads to
371371
endemic sickness. We see it every day in our work, and it is devastating for those
who are afflicted.
11.This increase in demand is also reflected in the number of
professionals who are taking the certification course and become a certified
“building biologist.” Since we started to operate, 27 years ago, we have certified
approximately 308 building biologists. Thirty percent of them, approximately 100,
were certified in 2020/2021.
Collaborating With Treating Physicians
12.We collaborate with doctors whose patients suffer from electro-
sensitivity. The only effective treatment is avoidance and in many cases the house
is the cause or at least an aggravating factor for their patients’ illness. Doctors refer
their patients to us, as ensuring that the home environment of those affected is as
clean as possible from pulsed RF radiation is critical for any improvement.
Human Consequences
13.The human dimension of electro-sensitivity is tragic. People with the
condition call me and other building biologists in ever increasing numbers. In
many cases, people who used the technology “normally” and had no medical issues
suddenly become ill. They share with me the overwhelming and life-altering
changes confronting them when they or their children become sick. They literally
beg us to help them return to a normal life.
372372
14.These people endure tremendous physical suffering. Frequent and
debilitating headaches. Inability to sleep. Heart arrhythmia. Pain in extremities.
Burning skin. Mental confusion, cognitive problems, and memory loss. Non-stop
ringing in the ears. Persistent nosebleeds are also common, especially with
children. For many the symptoms are disabling and prevent them from functioning.
They endure social isolation. They cannot work, go or be anywhere. Their lives are
becoming increasingly impossible. In addition, they have to deal with ignorant and
cruel denial of their condition because their sickness is an inconvenient problem to
those promoting wireless technology.
15.The problem is real and overwhelming. BBI’s certified practitioners
operate at ground zero. They alleviate the suffering of a rapidly growing number of
people across the United States. Building Biologists often care for clients who are
severely ill and desperately struggling simply to survive even in their own homes.
For these individuals and their families, the implementation of mitigative measures
recommended by BBI’s certified consultants offer the first and last resort. For
these clients and thousands like them, the services of Building Biologists are
lifesaving.
16.Many of our clients are unable to work because places of employment
are saturated with wireless devices. They are unable to drive to work because
roadways are flanked by cell towers irradiating passing vehicles with very high and
373373
ever-growing RF levels. They are unable to live in urban and suburban areas
because houses are being irradiated by ever increasing numbers of cell phone
antennas, neighbors’ wireless devices and – as here – from utility smart meters.
17.However, when remediation reduces pulsed RFR radiation by
shielding the residence, symptoms usually abate or reduce, depending on the initial
power density and the overall ability of the shield.
RF Levels
18.The levels of pulsed RF radiation we measure (shown in power
density) are usually well below the FCC guidelines. However, power density is
still significantly millions and trillions of times above natural environmental
levels,5 and sometimes millions and more times higher than the levels that can
cause adverse health effects reported in peer-reviewed research.
19.The FCC guidelines are not biologically-based and not evidence-
based. The FCC guidelines do not address non-thermal effects or pulsation and
they average exposure over 30 minutes (which hides the true biological response to
exposure) and test for exposure from only one device. They do not protect from
chronic long-term exposure or from exposure to multiple devices, radiation
sources, frequencies, and modulations. They do not protect the public health, or at
5 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-
3/fulltext.
374374
least not for a significant part of the population. Our clients are the evidence, and
the growing sickness is a clear proof this is so.
20.The FCC’s averaging does not account for pulsed digital signals
occurring in milliseconds. Therefore, they vastly underate the power density
(typically measured in milliwatts per square centimeter, or mW/cm2) that the
human body must deal with on account of unremitting exposure to pulsed,
modulated radiofrequency radiation. We see the peaks and pulses hidden by
averaging, and witness first-hand what it does to people. BBI practitioners measure
the aggregate RF exposure on the human body when in clients’ homes.
Shielding
21.Those affected by RF/EMF face a living hell. They cannot be or go
anywhere. Their home is their only refuge. Even this refuge is constantly under
threat, and many are required to shield their homes. Reducing RF levels enough to
be effective is a costly process. Unfortunately, the expense prevents many people
from effecting the best remediation plan or any plan at all.
22.Shielding is expensive because the shielding materials are metal
based, as metal blocks radiation. For example, shielding a parent’s queen size bed
with an RF protection tent ranges from $1,250 to $1,700 depending on the
shielding capability of the material. Shielding a child’s single bed will cost
between $1,000 to $1,400. Instead, it is possible to shield the bedroom itself by
375375
painting the walls with RF protection paint and putting RF protection film on the
windows instead of tenting the bed. The cost for an average 12’ x 12’ bedroom is
$2,450. A family with two children would have to spend about $7,350.
23.Building Biologists focus on shielding sleeping areas because this is
where people are most vulnerable to RF radiation. But this alone does not
adequately protect people who are home all day.
24.Whole-house RF Radiation reduction requires painting the outside of
the house and the inside ceiling on the top floor with an RF protection paint. The
cost for 2,000 square feet is approximately $14,000. This cost is for two coats of
paint. But with growing RF levels, three coats are often needed, so the cost is
higher.
25.Metal reflects RF back into a shielded area. Therefore, whenever these
materials are applied, a careful analysis is required to ensure the materials do not
actually increase exposure. Shielding requires experts to do the job and this
increases total cost.
26.People sick from environmental exposure should not be forced to be
exposed in their home to the toxin that makes them severely sick. The considerable
cost of creating a livable environment is unfairly shifted to the injured, who have
no ability to recover from those who caused the injury.
376376
Shielding & Smart Meters
27.Shielding materials attenuate the radiation, they do not entirely block
it. Reducing exposure enough to have a salutary effect is becoming increasingly
difficult because of the densification of wireless infrastructure including 5G, and
because home devices are becoming more powerful.
28.Smart Meters are without a doubt one of the most significant problem
sources. In 2013 I filed a letter with the FCC in response to the agency’s 2013
inquiry whether it should review its 1996 guidelines. I wrote to the FCC that the
most significant frequent initial sensitizing event we have seen over the last two
years has been the installation of smart meters. Now, 8 years later, this is still true.
Smart meters are the most significant sickness agent we must confront. 5G
antennas near homes is yet another major sickness agent, but they, at least, do not
typically also cause conduction through the homes’ over the cage of wiring that
encircles the entire living space– in the walls, ceiling and floor.
29.Smart meters’ antennas send intense RF pulses every few seconds and
these emissions affect the entire house. Proximity of the RF radiation-emitting
source directly impacts our ability to attenuate the radiation, as radiation drops
with distance. Smart meters’ location on or in close proximity to the house is why
they are the worst offenders for those who suffer from pulsed RFR.
377377
30.The radiation from meters installed further away from the house still
creates RF inside the house. The RF frequencies from the antenna and from the
switch mode power supply are conducted through the house electric wiring. This
pulsed RF radiation enters the living spaces through the floors, walls, and ceilings
and via the power cords on all plugged-in electrical devices.
31.While one can take measures to reduce the radiation from smart
meters’ antennas, shielding from the RF emissions that go into the house electric
wiring system from the RF antenna and from the switch mode power supply
(SMPS) is complex, expensive, and not very effective.
32.There are filters that help reduce the RF “noise” created by the
meter’s switch mode power supply that conducts through the electric wiring.
However, some are very expensive. Others emit high magnetic fields that are also
problematic for those who are sick. Filters provide only partial solution as many
reduce higher frequencies while creating new, lower frequencies that are below the
typical measurement range of the meter.
33.Shielding is used to block radiation coming from the outside.
Shielding materials should be installed only when no pulsed RF-based wireless
devices are in the house.6 Otherwise, the shielding would be counterproductive and
6 Part of our remediation includes eliminating all other emission sources inside the
house, including things like SMPS used in laptop computers or other electronic
devices or wireless “Internet of Things” devices. Our clients can control such
378378
even increase exposure because the inside-home emissions become “trapped”
within the house because of the shielding. For that reason, shielding the house from
outside sources can aggravate the problem caused by smart and digital meters.
34.A smart or digital meter on a house with resident adults and children
who adversely react to RF/EMF harms them both directly and indirectly. They
directly suffer from the meter effects, and they cannot shield emissions from the
outside like from cell towers, or neighbors’ smart meters and Wi-Fi networks.
Conclusion
35.People are being told that wireless technology is safe. That smart
meters are safe. They trust the government and the equipment manufacturers to
have their best interests and safety at heart. Nothing is further from the truth as the
recent case of the Children’s Health Defense against the FCC exposed. We see the
devastating sickness daily in our work. We hope this court will protect those who
need it the most.
36.The only reasonable accommodation for those who suffer from pulsed
RF radiation is an analog meter. They are the only meters that do not emit RFs and
do not aggravate the situation of those whose life is already a torturous nightmare.
Analog meters are inexpensive, last much, much longer than digital meters - they
things. But they cannot control what the smart or digital meter does nor can they
turn it off.
379379
cost less than $100, and they have served us reliably for many decades. There
cannot be any justified reason not to accommodate the sick when the solution
exists.
cost less than $100, and they have served us reliably for many decades. There
cannot be any justified reason not to accommodate the sick when the solution
exists.
cost less than $100, and they have served us reliably for many decades. There
cannot be any justified reason not to accommodate the sick when the solution
exists.
lly Submitted:
a,,,,}(J,e,Y'Jce., . I~ k-
9, 7 .. 2(
Lawrence James Gust
380380
1407 West North Temple, Suite 330 Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
August 4, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
Jan Noriyuki Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W Chinden Blvd. Building 8 Suite 201A Boise, ID 83714
Re: CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08; PAC-E-23-11 FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT ET AL
Dear Ms. Noriyuki:
Please find Rocky Mountain Power’s Answer to Petition for Reconsideration in the above referenced matter.
Informal inquiries may be directed to Mark Alder, Idaho Regulatory Affairs Manager at [phone].
Very truly yours,
Joelle R. Steward Senior Vice President, Regulation and Customer & Community Solutions
Enclosures
RECEIVED
Friday, August 4, 2023 2:07:37 PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
381381
Joe Dallas (ISB# 10330) 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
FORMAL COMPLAINT OF JACOBA H.
PACIFICORP ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-23-05;
-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08; -E-23-11
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1.In accordance with Rule 331 of the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission (“Commission”), Rocky Mountain Power, a division of PacifiCorp (“Rocky
Mountain Power” or the “Company”), hereby responds to the petition for reconsideration
(“Petition”) submitted by Samuel and Peggy Edwards (collectively “the Petitioners”). The
Petitioners are seeking reconsideration of Order No. 35849 issued on July 11, 2023, which
dismissed their complaint against the Company. Rocky Mountain Power respectfully requests that
the Commission deny the Petition, as the Petition fails to provide sufficient reasoning as to why
Order No. 35849 is unreasonable or unlawful, and the Petitioners have not presented any new
evidence to substantiate their concerns regarding advanced metering infrastructure (“AMI”)
meters.
2.On March 23, 2023, the Petitioners submitted a complaint against Rocky Mountain
Power, alleging that the Company improperly notified them of termination of electric service due
to their refusal to allow the installation of an AMI meter at their residence.
382382
3.On July 11, 2023, the Commission issued Order No. 35849, dismissing the
Petitioners’ complaint. The Order stated that Rocky Mountain Power has the necessary authority,
as a public utility, to install an AMI meter on the Petitioners’ property under the Electric Service
Regulations (“ESR). The Order also concluded that the Petitioners failed to provide sufficient
evidence to support their claim that AMI meters pose a legitimate safety concern or that there
should be an opt-out option for AMI meters for public utilities in Idaho. Additionally, the
Commission found that the Company had complied with the Utility Customer Relations Rules
(UCRRs).
4.In accordance with Rule 331 of the Rules of Procedure of the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission, a petition for reconsideration “must specify (a) why the order or any issue decided
in it is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and (b) the nature and
quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.” The
Petition fails to provide any new evidence or reason as to why the findings in Order No. 35849 are
unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous, or not in conformity with laws. UCRR 302 explicitly provides
that denial of access to the meter is grounds for termination of service. The Commission found
that failing to provide Rocky Mountain Power access to replace an existing meter with an AMI
meter is a violation of ERS 6(2)(d), which requires customers to provide unencumbered access to
the meter. Rocky Mountain Power agrees with this finding by the Commission and the Petition
fails to provide any reasoning as to why this finding in unreasonable or unlawful.
5.The Petition alleges that the AMI meters are a “downgrade” due to alleged health
concerns associated with them. However, these allegations are not supported in the record. AMI
meters offer substantial benefits to customers by reducing meter reading costs and providing
improved customer service through enhanced information and billing options. Moreover, in Order
383383
No. 35849, the Commission has already addressed the Petitioners’ health concerns, stating that
they “go against well-established evidence on AMI meter safety.”
6.The Company’s motion to dismiss further reinforces the safety of AMI meters, as
they have been deemed safe by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). It is important
to note that AMI meters emit 100 times less radio frequency density than a laptop computer, 300
times less than a cell phone, and 50,000 times less than standing next to a microwave oven. All
these devices have been approved by the FCC as safe for human use. The Petitioners’ claims, that
contradict findings of the FCC, lacks credible evidence and the Petition merely cites evidence
already referenced in the record and the initial complaint. Consequently, the Commission’s
determination that the Petitioners have not provided sufficient evidence to support the idea that
AMI meters pose a legitimate safety concern or that Rocky Mountain Power should be obliged to
provide an opt-out option is reasonable and well-supported by the record in this proceeding.
7.For the foregoing reasons, the Company respectfully requests that the Commission
deny the relief sought in the Petition.
DATED this 4th day of August, 2023.
Respectfully submitted,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
______________________________
Joe Dallas (ISB# 10330) Senior Attorney Rocky Mountain Power 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power
384384
RECEIVED
2023 AUGUST 8, 2023 8:00AM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
OBJECTION TO COMPANY'S ANSWER
To: Jan Noriyuki, Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83 720-007 4
Date: August 7, 2023
From: Samuel and Peggy Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
RE: Objection to Rocky Mountain Power's "Answer to Petition for Reconsideration", Idaho Public
Utilities Commission Final Order of Case TD "PAC-E-23-05"
Dear Ma'am,
I ask the Commission's indulgence for a brief summary note . ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP ("Company") has written an "Answer to Petition for Reconsideration"
which misconstrues my Petition as not complying with Rule 331 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission. The Company claims that I failed to "provide sufficient
reasoning as to why Order No. 35849 is unreasonable or unlawful, and the Petitioners have not
presented any new evidence ... "
In order to avoid confusion, I would briefly summarize that our Petition of July 28, 2023
offered new evidence that advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) meters include a capability
downgrade, that 100% compliance is unreasonable, arid that allowing ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP to disconnect our electric service is not lm1iful. My question regarding the
lawfulness of the Commission's order is grounded upon our objection to the Company's
replacement of our meter with an inferior metering technology, which is not a covered purpose for
meter access under Electric Service Regulation (ESR) 6(2)(d). Utility Customer Relations Rules
(UCRR) 302 defines the conditions for termination of Service and is not enforceable if the purpose
of Company access to the meter does not comply with ESR 6(2)(d). ESR 7(1), also cited in Order
No. 35849, applies to installation of meters, and the Company's responsibility to maintain the
meter cannot give the Company sole discretion to replace it with any technology (even inferior)
without Customer approval.
Please protect the minority of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP 's customers
and the public by reconsidering the lawfulness of your order that effectively mandates AMI meter
installations in Idaho.
Respectfully,
~~--E~i Juris
385385
ORDER NO. 35904 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 25, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al,
COMPLAINANTS,
vs.
PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER,
RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-
23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07;
PAC-E-23-08; AND PAC-E-23-11
ORDER NO. 35904
Between March 22, 2023, and March 27, 2023, the Commission received six formal
customer complaints (collectively the “Complaints”)1 filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power (“Company”) by the Company’s customers (collectively the “Complainants”).
The Complaints concerned the Company’s notification to terminate electric service if the
customers refused to allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters (“AMI
meter(s)”) at their residences. The central theme of the Complaints focused the customers’ desire
to avoid installation of AMI meters at their homes. Reasons cited for not wanting AMI meters
included age and health of the complainants, a child with special needs in proximity to the home’s
meter, lack of legal authority allowing the Company to install the AMI meters, data privacy, and
a request for an opt-out provision.
On April 19, 2023, the Commission issued a Summons directing the Company to file
an answer to the Complaints within 21 days of service. On May 10, 2023, the Company filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss (“Answer”) countering the issues cited in the Complaints and
asking that the Complaints be dismissed with prejudice. Subsequently, the customers filed five
objections to the Company’s request for dismissal and two “AMENDED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT(s).”2
On July 11, 2023, the Commission entered a Final Order dismissing the Complaints.
Order No. 35849. The Final Order provides, in pertinent part:
The Complainants in these cases raise similar claims as those previously reviewed
and decided by the Commission, claims that go against well-established evidence
1 The Complaints were filed by the Company’s electric service customers Jacoba H. van Mastright, Samuel and Peggy
Edwards, Judy Twede, Karen Lane, Christy Armbruster, and Diane Huskinson. The Complainants all appeared pro se.
2 Jacoba H. van Mastrigt and Judy Twede filed the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”
386386
ORDER NO. 35904 2
on AMI meter safety and seek an outcome that is not required under state or federal
law. As we have stated previously, the FCC has jurisdiction over the approval of
devices that use radio frequency, like AMI meters, and the FCC has approved AMI
meters as safe for consumer use. . . .
Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted
materials, the Commission finds that the Complainants have not provided evidence
to support a finding that AMI meters present a legitimate safety concern, or that
public utilities in Idaho should be required to provide an opt-out option for AMI
meters. . . .
We find that refusing to allow the Company’s representatives access to replace
existing meters with AMI meters is a violation of the ESR agreed to as a condition
of receiving the Company’s service. ESR No. 6(2)(d) requires Complainants to
provide access to the Company representatives “for the purposes of . . . [among
other things] repairing or removing metering devices . . . .” Under this ESR, the
Company may remove the existing meter to replace it with an AMI meter. If
Complainants refuse to allow the Company to remove the Company-owned meters,
they are violating the ESR. Further, ESR No. 7(1) requires the Company to “furnish
and maintain all meters and metering equipment.” When read together, ESR Nos.
6 and 7 require that the Company provide its customers with the meter and
associated metering equipment and requires the customer to provide the Company
with access to the meter to accomplish this. Based on the foregoing, the Company
has the necessary authority to install an AMI meter on the Complainants’ property
in its furnishing of electric service as a public utility.
Id. In the Final Order, the Commission also found that the Company had communicated its
willingness, upon request, to relocate the AMI meter to a different location on the Complainants’
property at their expense. Accordingly, the Commission determined that the facts in each case did
not justify ordering the Company to provide an option to opt-out of receiving an AMI meter and
dismissed the complaints. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626 and IDAPA 31.01.01.331, the
Complainants were given twenty-one (21) days following entry of the Final Order in which to
petition for reconsideration.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 31, 2023, Complainants Samuel and Peggy Edwards filed a Petition for
Reconsideration (“Petition”) of Order No. 35849.3 The Edwards base their claim that the
Commission erred in Order No. 35849 upon two contentions: (1) that the Commission
3 Mr. Edwards represents that he requested the other complainants refrain from seeking reconsideration to “reduce
confusion or generalization” from consideration of multiple complaints. Pet. for Recon. at 3.
387387
ORDER NO. 35904 3
misinterpreted the relevant Electronic Service Regulations (“ESR”) applicable to the Company;
and (2) that requiring 100 percent compliance AMI metering requirement is unreasonable. In their
Petition, the Edwards contend that AMI meters lack surge protection and, therefore, constitute a
“downgrade” from the electromechanical metering already installed at their property. According
to the Edwards, ESR 6(2)(d) does not authorize meter access for purposes of installing technology
to replace that already in place, nor does ESR 7(1) provide the Company sole discretion to replace
a meter with any technology. The Edwards also suggest something less than 100 percent customer
compliance with the Company’s AMI metering initiative would be just and reasonable.
As evidence that AMI meters pose a safety concern, the Edwards attached a document
purporting to be an amicus brief filed by Children’s Health Defense, and Building Biology Institute
in a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Povacz v. Penn. Pub. Utility Comm., 280 A.3d
975 (Pa. 2022).4 Included in an addendum to the purported brief are a “Physicians Statement,”
“Scientists Statement,” and reports by engineers expressing opinions regarding the function and
health risks associated with AMI meters. However, it does not appear that the statements or reports
were given under oath or otherwise certified true and correct under penalty of perjury, nor does the
purported brief bear a file stamp indicating it was in fact filed in the Pennsylvania case.5
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has the authority to grant or deny reconsideration under Idaho Code
§ 61-626(2). Reconsideration provides an opportunity for any interested person to bring to the
Commission’s attention any question previously determined, and thereby affords the Commission
an opportunity to rectify any mistake or omission. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai
Environmental Alliance, 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979); see also Eagle Water
Company v. Idaho PUC, 130 Idaho 314, 317, 940 P.2d 1133, 1136 (1997). Consistent with the
purpose for reconsideration, Commission Rules require a Petition for Reconsideration to specify
“why the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in
conformity with the law.” IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Commission Rule of Procedure 331 further
requires the petitioner to indicate “the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner
4 In Povacz, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed a challenge by electric customers to the installation of AMI
meters (termed “smart meters” in the opinion) on their property. In that case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held
that the customers failed to show that the AMI meters were unsafe or that forced exposure to AMI meters constituted
unreasonable service. Id. at 1009-13.
5 On August 4, 2023, the Company filed an Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration (“Answer”) requesting that it
be denied. On August 8, 2023, the Edwards filed an Objection to the Company’s Answer.
388388
ORDER NO. 35904 4
will offer if reconsideration is granted.” Id. A petition must state whether reconsideration should
be conducted by “evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories.” IDAPA
31.01.01.331.03. Grounds for reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that are not supported
by specific explanation may be dismissed. IDAPA 31.01.01.332. As discussed below, the Edwards
have not shown in their Petition that Order No. 35849 (or an issue decided in it) is unreasonable,
unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Nor have the Edwards identified evidence
that warrants granting their petition.
The Edwards’ argument that the Commission misinterpreted the ESR is, at best, a slight
variation of their previous argument that the ESRs do not obligate them to permit the Company to
upgrade their existing meter. Rather than characterizing installation of an AMI meter as an
upgrade, the Edwards contend it would be a downgrade because such meters lack surge protection.
However, the Edwards did not present evidence supporting their conclusory assertion that the AMI
meter the Company seeks to install would lack surge protection, even if the absence of such
protection renders an AMI meter a downgrade in the Edwards’ opinion. More importantly, beyond
the conclusory assertion that “a substantive change of metering capability to residents’ electric
meters” differs from furnishing and maintaining meters and equipment under the ESR, the
Edwards have not supported their argument that the Commission misinterpreted the ESR with
cogent argument or citation to legal authority.
Similarly, the Edwards have failed to show declining customers an opt-out option is
unreasonable. According to the Edwards, failing to allow opt-outs has left disconnection as the
only option open to “a medically sensitive minority of the public.” Ostensibly, the Edwards are
concerned about adverse medical effects resulting from radio frequency (“RF”) radiation that AMI
meters emit. As noted in previous Commission orders (e.g., Order Nos. 32500, 33979, and 35544),
the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has adopted safety limits for RF devices
operating near humans. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, 2.1093. The Edwards do not
contend that the Company intends to install an AMI meter that does not comply with FCC
requirements. Rather, the Edwards ostensibly assert that AMI meters pose a safety concern,
regardless of FCC requirements. In support of this contention, the Edwards attached the
aforementioned amicus brief filed by Children’s Health Defense, and Building Biology Institute.
However, the Edwards have not authenticated the document as being what they claim it to be, nor
does the purported brief bear a file stamp indicating it was in fact filed in the Pennsylvania appeal.
389389
ORDER NO. 35904 5
Moreover, although an addendum to the purported brief includes a “Physicians Statement,”
“Scientists Statement,” and reports by engineers expressing opinions regarding the function and
health risks associated with AMI meters, the reports and statements do not appear to have been
given under oath or otherwise certified true and correct under penalty of perjury. Such
unauthenticated and unsworn evidence is insufficient to overcome the conclusions of the FCC
regarding generally safe levels of RF radiation.6 Even if it were, the Edwards have not presented
evidence indicating AMI meters pose a demonstrable, credible health and safety concern to those
residing in their home to suggest that our decision in Order No. 35849 was unreasonable, unlawful,
erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Finally, the Edwards have not addressed why placing
such a meter away from their home as the Company agreed to do would not sufficiently address
their health and safety concerns about and AMI meters.
In sum, despite the sincerity of the Edwards concerns, the Commission will continue
adhering to the FCC’s position on safe levels of RF radiation. Accordingly, the Commission
concludes that the Edwards’ Petition should be denied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved
by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Idaho within forty-two (42) days pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the
Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14.
///
6 In their Petition, the Edwards cite an argument presented in the amicus brief that FCC guidelines cannot support
conclusions regarding RF safety because a federal court remanded a decision by the FCC not to revisit the limits on
RF radiation established in 1996. Specifically, in Env't Health Tr. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, a divided panel of the
D.C. Circuit held that the FCC failed to respond to evidence in the record indicating that exposure to RF radiation
below current FCC limits may case negative health effects unrelated to cancer. 9 F.4th 893, 906 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
Although Environmental Health Trust suggests that relevant scientific knowledge has evolved since the FCC last
updated the limits for RF radiation, the case does not support a claim that RF radiation at, or below, current FCC limits
causes adverse health effects in humans.
390390
ORDER NO. 35904 6
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 25th day
of August 2023.
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_AMI meters_recon_at.docx
391391
From: Samuel Edwards <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 8:57 PM
To: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Jon Kruck
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Filed Version of Amicus Curiae Briefing
CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and attachmentsBEFORE you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agencyservice desk with any concerns.
Good evening, Ms. Noriyuki.
I have recently received the attached "filed version" of the Amicus Curiae Brief which was provided to
Idaho Public Utilities Commission with my Petition for Reconsideration. I am passing it to you to be
included in my file as a matter of fact, since the lack of a "filed version" was specifically cited in the
Commission's recent Order #35904.
Also, I need to inform the Idaho Public Utilities Commission that Rocky Mountain Power has issued our
family a notice that they will disconnect our utility service on 2 October 2023, despite our Open Case
with the Commission.
I am in receipt of a warning from Rocky Mountain Power dated 9/6/2023 informing my family that if
they did not hear from us "within 15 days from the date of this letter to resolve this issue, we will refer
your account to our service disconnection process." We called the number provided and informed
Kenna (Employee #37017) that we still have an Open Case with the Commission. Further, I decided to
inform Rocky Mountain Power in writing of their error to pursue disconnection while our case is still
Open. For some reason, the shipping company (Zippy Ship N'Copy of Rexburg, ID) which sent our letter
by USPS Ground Advantage chose to put a packing peanut in the envelope to give it some thickness.
Consequently, on last Friday evening (22 September), we received a call from Kevin who identified
himself as a Rocky Mountain Power executive from the Salt Lake City area. He informed us of a
suspicious package in their mailing room which had a bulge about the size and feel of a gummy bear. He
asked what this was, and I informed him of the packing peanut. He told me that the letter would be
destroyed, unread. I acknowledged this decision and told him again that the letter was to inform Rocky
Mountain Power that we have an Open Case with the Commission. He told me that all further
communication should be directed to the Commission and the Idaho Supreme Court, and the Court
would notify them if we appeal.
I interpreted this to mean that Rocky Mountain Power would cease their intent to disconnect our
electric utility while we still have an Open Case. After all, the 42 day appeal period from the
Commission's 25 August 2023 Order runs through 6 October 2023. However, today, I was physically
served the FINAL Notice from Rocky Mountain Power by an employee, Jared, which says that my
electric utility is due to be disconnected on 2 October 2023. I handed this letter back to Jared, showing
him our Open Case on the Commission's website and telling him the story of our previous attempts to
respond to Rocky Mountain Power's disconnection notices. I asked him to please inform his managers
of the error, since Kevin had directed me to no longer respond to their letters, but to direct all my
communications to the Commission. The irony is not lost on me: apparently, this communication of
disconnecting my electric utility is "one way".
392392
So, at Rocky Mountain Power's explicit request and since my own sincere efforts to respond to their
letters have apparently been ignored, I now request that the Commission intercede on our behalf and
remind Rocky Mountain Power that no change to our utility status must be effected while we have an
Open Case. I am nearly finished with my Notice of Appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court.
Thank you,
Sam
Samuel Z. Edwards
cell: [phone]
[e-mail]
393393
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
395
Appellee v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSION,
: : : : :
:
Appellee v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,
: : : : : :
ALBRECHT, Appellees v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,
: : : : : :

v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION APPEAL OF: PECO ENERGY
:
: : : : : :
Received 9/14/2021 1:53:09 PM Supreme Court Middle District
Filed 9/14/2021 1:53:00 PM Supreme Court Middle District34 MAP 2021
394

LAURA SUNSTEIN MURPHY
396
v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION APPEAL OF: PECO ENERGY
: : : : : : :
ALBRECHT v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
APPEAL OF: PECO ENERGY
: : : : : : :
:
Cross-Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Appellee
: : : : : : :
Cross-Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,
: : : : : :
395

CYNTHIA RANDALL AND PAUL ALBRECHT,
397
Cross-Appellants v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,
: : : : : :
Cross-Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, PECO ENERGY COMPANY,
: : : : : :
Cross-Appellant
v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, PECO ENERGY COMPANY,
:
: : : : : :
ALBRECHT,
Cross-Appellants v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, PECO ENERGY COMPANY,
:
: : : : : : :

396

BRIEF OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, AND BUILDING BIOLOGY INSTITUTE, ET AL AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS “CUSTOMERS”
398

Brief of Amicus Curiae Supporting the Appellees/Cross-Appellant “Customers” in
the Appeals from the Commonwealth Court’s October 8, 2020 Order at Docket
Nos. 492 C.D. 2019, 606 C.D. 2019, and 607 C.D. 2019, which affirmed in part,
reversed and remanded in part, and vacated and remanded in part the
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s Opinion and Orders entered at Docket
Nos. C-2015-2475023, C-2015-2475726, and C-2016-2537666

Andrea L. Shaw (ID 89333) Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw, P.C.

-243-7135
-243-7872

Children’s Health Defense 48 Dewitt Mills Road 1227 North Peachtree Pkwy, Suite 202
Peachtree City, GA 30269
NY Bar No. 1999994
[e-mail]
TEL: [phone]
W. Scott McCollough* McCollough Law Firm, P.C. 2290 Gatlin Creek Rd. Dripping Springs, TX 78620 Texas Bar No. 13434100
[e-mail]
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
*Pro hac vice motion pending
397
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i
399

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
I. IDENTIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI
CURIAE...................................................................................................................... 1
II. STATEMENT OF SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................... 4
III. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................................... 8
IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................... 8
V. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................10
A. Guidelines Remand Decision ......................................................................10
B. Medical, Scientific and Engineering/Technical Information ......................11
C. FCC Admits Adverse Effects ......................................................................18
D. Pulsed RF Affects at Least Some People ....................................................19
E. The Federal Government Recognizes Electro-Sensitivity; Federal and State Law Requires Effective Accommodation ............................................20
1. CDC, U.S. Justice Department and Other Agencies Recognize
Electro-sensitivity Can Lead to Major Life Impairments Requiring
Accommodation ...............................................................................................21
2. ADA, FHA, Rehabilitation Act and PHRA Require
Accommodations to Disabled/Handicapped Individuals Who Would be Negatively Affected by a Smart Meter ............................................................23
3. The PUC is Bound by ADA Title II, the FHA and PHRA; PECO is Bound by the FHA and the Rehabilitation Act ................................................25
F. The PUC’s “Burden of Proof” is Inconsistent with the Disability laws 28
1. PUC Applied Wrong Standard .................................................................28
2. Burden of Proof Inconsistent With Disabilities Laws .............................29
VI. Only Reasonable and Effective Accommodation is Analog Meter ...............31
A. Placement in Yard is Not Reasonable Accommodation .............................32
B. Placement in Yard Does Not Eliminate Harmful RF “Noise” in
House....................................................................................................................32
398
ii

VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................33
APPENDIX ..............................................................................................................36
LIST OF ADDITIONAL AMICI CURIAE ..........................................................36
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................59
CERTIFICATION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ..................................60
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................61
ADDENDUM .......................................................................................................... 62
Physicians Statement …………………………………………….. ................... 64
Scientists Statement ……………………………………………. .................... 136
Engineer Report ………………………………………………… ................... 168
Building Biologist Institute Report ……………………………. .................... 184

400399
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Cases
Astralis Condo. Ass’n v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 620 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................... 29
Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. DOJ, 355 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004) .......................................... 29
Crissman v. Dover Downs Entm’t Inc., 289 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2002) ..................... 24
Dodge v. Comptroller of the Currency, 744 F.3d 148 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................... 8
Envtl. Health Tr., et al v. FCC, Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138, 2021 U.S. App.
LEXIS 24138 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021) ............................................................... 2
Friedman v. Cent. Me. Power Co., No. 2:20-cv-00237-JDL, 2021 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 62585 (D. Me. Mar. 31, 2021) ..................................................... 29, 31, 32 Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974) ............................................... 24 Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S.Ct. 2400 (2019) ...................................................................... 7 Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982) .......................................................... 24
Theriault v. Flynn, 162 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1998) ....................................................... 29
401
Federal Statutes
29 U.S.C. §794 ......................................................................................................... 25
42 U.S.C. §§3613 ..................................................................................................... 27
42 U.S.C. §12101 ..................................................................................................... 24
42 U.S.C. §12102 ..................................................................................................... 24
42 U.S.C. §12112 ..................................................................................................... 29
42 U.S.C. §3601 ....................................................................................................... 24 42 U.S.C. §3631 ....................................................................................................... 27
Federal Administrative Rules
24 C.F.R. §100.400 .................................................................................................. 25 28 C.F.R. §35.108 .................................................................................................... 29 28 C.F.R. §35.130 .................................................................................................... 24
28 C.F.R. §36.101 .................................................................................................... 29
28 C.F.R. §36.105 .................................................................................................... 24
28 CFR Appendix A to Part 36 - Guidance on Revisions to ADA Regulation
on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities ...................................................... 30 Architectural Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Final Rule, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; Recreation Facilities, 67 Fed. Reg. 56352, 56353 (Sept. 3, 2002) ...................................................................................................... 21
400
iv

Part 36, Appendix C - Guidance to Revisions to ADA Title II and Title III Regulations Revising the Meaning and Interpretation of the Definition of “Disability” and Other Provisions in Order to Incorporate the Requirements of the ADA Amendments Act ...................................................... 30
State Cases
Clay v. Advanced Comput. Applications, 522 Pa. 86, 559 A.2d 917 (1989) ........... 26
Crown Castle NG E. LLC v. Pa. PUC, 234 A.3d 665 (Pa. 2020) ............................. 4
Lazer Spot, Inc. v. Pa. Human Rels. Comm’n, 184 A.3d 200 (Pa. Commw.
Ct. 2018) ............................................................................................................... 29
Phila. Elec. Co. v. Human Rels. Comm’n, 5 Pa. Commw. 329, 290 A.2d 699
(1972 .................................................................................................................... 26
402
Popowsky v. Pa. PUC, 910 A.2d 38 (Pa. 2006) ........................................................ 7 Povacz v. Pa. PUC, 241 A.3d 481, 491 & n13 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020) ................ 10
Federal Agency Decisions
Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rule Regarding Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, 34 FCC Rcd 11687 (2019) ........... 18, 19
State Statutes
1 Pa.C.S. §1921 .......................................................................................................... 9
1 Pa.C.S. §1922 ........................................................................................................ 10
43 Pa. Stat. Ann. §951.............................................................................................. 24
State Administrative Rules
16 Pa.Code §45.9 ..................................................................................................... 25 52 Pa. Code Chapter 57, Subchapter O ..................................................................... 7 6 Pa.Code §44.4 ....................................................................................................... 24
State Administrative Decisions
Catherine J. Frompovich v. PECO Energy Company, Docket No. C-2015-2474602, 2018 Pa. PUC LEXIS 160 (Pa. P.U.C. May 3, 2018) ........................... 6
Catherine J. Frompovich v. PECO Energy Company, Docket No. C-2015-
2474602, Initial Decision (May 11, 2017),
https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1522025.pdf ....................................................... 6
Edward Lucey v. Metropolitan Edison Company, Docket No. C-2018-3003679, 2020 PA. PUC LEXIS 522 (Pa. P.U.C. October 8, 2020) ................... 26
401
v

Letter of Notification of Philadelphia Electric Company Relative to the Reconstructing and Rebuilding of the Existing 138 kV Line to Operate as the Woodbourne-Heaton 230 kV Line in Montgomery and Bucks Counties 1992 Pa. PUC LEXIS 160 (Pa. P.U.C., No. A-110550F0055, filed Mar. 26, 1993) .............................................................................................................. 28
Negley v. Metropolitan Edison Company, Docket No. C-2010-2205305,
2010 Pa. PUC LEXIS 1919 (Pa. P.U.C. December 15, 2010) .............................. 5
Other Authorities
154 Cong. Rec. S8842 (daily ed. Sept. 16, 2008) (Statement of the
Managers) ............................................................................................................. 29
FCC OET Bulletin 56 .............................................................................................. 13 International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM), https://icd10cmtool.cdc.gov/ ................................. 21 National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Final Report (July 14, 2005) ......................................................... 22 The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division - Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Technical Assistance Manual Covering State and
Local Government Programs and Services .......................................................... 27

403

402
1

I. IDENTIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1
Children’s Health Defense (“CHD”) is a national non-profit 501(c)(3)
organization. CHD has no parent corporation. No publicly-held company has a
10% or greater ownership interest.
CHD’s mission is to end the epidemic of children’s chronic health
conditions by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures to
environmental toxins via education, to obtain justice for those already injured and
to promote protective safeguards. The emissions from pulsed radio-frequency (RF)
based wireless technologies including from Wi-Fi, cell towers and smart meters are
a major contributory factor in the growing epidemic of sickness among adults and
children. Many CHD members and their children are sick from wireless
technology and are adversely affected by smart meters. For some, the exposure
aggravates other conditions. We are approached daily by adults and children who
have become sick and ask for our help.
In May 2020, 6,231 people who declared that they and/or their children are
sick from wireless joined a CHD submission to the FCC. 182 of them were from

1 No person or entity other than the named amici, their members or counsel has (i)
paid in whole or in part for the preparation of this brief; or (ii) authored in whole or
in part this brief.
404403
2

Pennsylvania.2 The decision in this case will directly affect CHD and its
Pennsylvania members. The court’s decision will also affect nationwide policy and
therefore, our members throughout the country.
We also have taken legal action to protect the injured. Most recently, on
August 13, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit ruled for CHD and other petitioners in a case challenging the FCC’s 2019
decision affirming the adequacy of its RF guidelines for public health purposes.
Envtl. Health Tr., et al v. FCC, Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS
24138 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021) (Guidelines Remand). The court held that the
FCC decision denying non-cancer harm was arbitrary, capricious and not evidence
based. This decision is highly relevant to the issues before the Court. See Part V.A.
Building Biology Institute
The Building Biology Institute (“BBI”) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation
now in its twenty-eighth operating year. BBI does not have a parent corporation.
No publicly-held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest.
BBI’s mission is to help meet the public demand for proven methods that
secure homes, schools and workplaces from toxins including RF radiation (RFR).
BBI’s experts work with doctors and patients to remediate exposures in patients’
homes. They are on the ground, seeing widespread sickness from RFR exposure.

2 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/105191672708448.
405404
3

They have witnessed the effects of smart meters and the tremendous health
improvements after these meters are removed. BBI’s experts are critical in
addressing electro-sensitivity and RF related injuries.3
Seventy-nine (79) other health and environmental organizations promoting
safe-tech, join in this Amicus. They are further described in the Appendix.
All Amici have local, national and global experience and expertise relating to
the underlying and broader legal, technical, scientific, medical issues before the
Court. Even more important, Amici see – every day – the enormous difficulty faced
by individuals who, for whatever reason, simply cannot tolerate the radiation
emitted from pulsed radio-frequency based wireless technologies including smart
meters.

3https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/assets/pdf/environmental/Preliminary%20
Clinical%20Guidelines%20%20for%20EHS.pdf#page=8.
406405
4

II. STATEMENT OF SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Amici adopt the “Customers” Statement of Scope and Standard of Review,
but provide this supplement:
“While this Court has never expressly adopted the federal Chevron
approach, we have recognized that ‘[t]he Chevron approach to such cases at the
federal level, however, is indistinguishable from our own approach to agency
interpretations of Commonwealth statutes.’” Crown Castle NG E. LLC v. Pa. PUC,
234 A.3d 665, 679 n.11 (Pa. 2020). Chevron and this Court’s jurisprudence both
require that the PUC’s interpretation be granted little to no deference, for several
reasons.
The first reason is simple: the statute is unambiguous4 and therefore no
deference is due. Crown Castle, 234 A.3d at 677-78 (Pa. 2020). The
Commonwealth Court correctly held (p.13) that “nothing in the language of Act
129 facially requires every customer to endure involuntary exposure to RF
emissions from a smart meter.”
Section 807(f)(2) could not be clearer:
(f) Smart meter technology and time of use rates. …. (2) Electric distribution companies shall furnish smart meter technology as follows:

4 PUC Br. pp. 8, 16-19 and Energy Association Amicus at pp. 13-15 so contend.
407406
5

(i) Upon request from a customer that agrees to pay the cost of the smart meter at the time of the request.5 (ii) In new building construction. (iii) In accordance with a depreciation schedule not to exceed 15 years.” [emphasis added].
Smart Meter Implementation Order Para B.4 contains the PUC’s entire
analysis: “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.’” See also, Negley v. Metropolitan Edison
Company, Docket No. C-2010-2205305 pg. 4-5, 2010 Pa. PUC LEXIS 1919, *6
(Pa. P.U.C. December 15, 2010). The PUC therefore contends that the legislature
intended to mandate ubiquitous, non-optional deployment when it required a 15-
year depreciation schedule in Section 807(f)(2)(iii).
The conclusion does not follow. The statute’s provision requiring a 15-year
depreciation schedule says (and implies) nothing about mandatory placement. It
just means that whatever capital investment is required to obtain enough meters to
satisfy customer demand must be depreciated over 15 years. Utilities routinely

5 The legislative history confirms that the legislation was not intended to require placement. House Bill 2200 as passed would have obtained that result. But the Senate deleted the relevant House language and substituted the current language.
The House then concurred. The authors of the Senate changes stated that one of
their specific intentions was to allow customers to choose whether to obtain a
smart meter and make placement not mandatory. See Sen. Journal, Oct. 8, 2008 at
2626-27 (Remarks of Senators Tomlinson and Boscola).
408407
6

make capital investments for utility plant that does not directly affect every
ratepayer. All such investments are recovered through depreciation expense until
fully recovered. Depreciation concerns how overall rates are set and has nothing to
do with the utility’s customer rules. See, e.g., Pa. Power & Light Co. v. Pa. Pub.
Util. Com., 10 Pa. Commw. 328, 311 A.2d 151 (1973). The reliance on that part of
Act 129 was misplaced.
The PUC’s brief interpretive analysis in the Smart Meter Implementation
Order did not address the far more relevant and truly unambiguous language in
807(f)(2)(i). This provision clearly contemplates an individual customer request
and commitment to pay the cost. The PUC has admitted that “[a] plain reading of
the statute may suggest that there is an ‘opt-in’ or ‘opt out’ available.” Catherine J.
Frompovich v. PECO Energy Company, Docket No. C-2015-2474602, Initial
Decision p. 24 (May 11, 2017), https://www.puc.pa.gov/pcdocs/1522025.pdf,
adopted, Catherine J. Frompovich v. PECO Energy Company, Docket No. C-
2015-2474602, 2018 Pa. PUC LEXIS 160 (Pa. P.U.C. May 3, 2018), but it insists
on not following the plain reading in favor of a strained interpretation of a different
subsection that has nothing to do with the question.
Second, the Commission’s interpretation of Act 129 has admittedly been
officially held and consistent, but it did not arise from rulemaking procedures. The
Commission first reached its conclusion that Act 129 contemplates mandatory
409408
7

deployment with no opt-out in Smart Meter Procurement and Installation, Docket
No. M-2009-2092655, 2009 Pa. PUC LEXIS 265, 274 P.U.R.4th 238 (Order
entered June 24, 2009) (Smart Meter Implementation Order). That proceeding did
not employ formal rulemaking processes or conclude with a legislative rule or
regulation.6 The PUC’s reading is an interpretive rule. Crown Castle, 234 A.3d at
667-678.7 The Commission’s reading of Act 129 is at best entitled to Skidmore-
type deference (muddled as that federal doctrine may be) and resolution requires
recourse to basic statutory construction tools. Crown Castle, 234 A.3d at 694
(Wecht, J. Concurring), citing Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S.Ct. 2400, 2415-2416 (2019).
Third, agencies do not receive Chevron-type deference when an agency
claims its organic statute overrides other statutory provisions entirely outside the
statute the Commission is charged with administering, especially when, as is the
case with the ADA, FHA and PHRA, they are administered by several agencies.
The court “must decide for [itself] the best reading.” Dodge v. Comptroller of the
Currency, 744 F.3d 148, 155 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

410
6 This distinguishes Popowsky v. Pa. PUC, 910 A.2d 38 (Pa. 2006), which involved a legislative rule.
7 The only extant legislative rules or regulations on the topic of Advanced
Metering Deployment clearly contemplate voluntary customer participation and
customer-driven selection of the particular meter to be used. See 52 Pa. Code
Chapter 57, Subchapter O. These legislative rules predate Act 129, but have not
been repealed or amended.
409
8

III. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Amici adopt the Statements of Questions Presented set forth in the
“Customers’” Briefs.
IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
411
1. Smart meter deployment has been allowed and considered safe
because the meters comply with the Federal Communications Commission
(“FCC”) radiofrequencies exposure guidelines. As a result of the Guidelines
Remand ruling, the FCC guidelines can no longer be relied on for an assurance of
safety as to non-cancer harm and harm to the environment. Further, the FCC has
now admitted to an adverse neurological response and symptoms similar to those
suffered by people with electro-sensitivity.
2. Knowledge has significantly advanced in the five years since 2016
when the administrative record below was created. It is now quite clear exposure
can lead to negative health effects. Those who suffer an RF-related impairment
must be afforded reasonable accommodation.
3. The PUC’s interpretation is wrong. First, the statute cannot be read
to contain a universal mandate; it clearly envisions customer consent. Second,
regardless of the legislature’s word choice the state cannot lawfully force a
customer to accept a smart or digital meter when mandatory installation results in
disability discrimination, exacerbates existing impairments or forces people to
410
9

abandon their home. There must be effective accommodation. Third, neither the
Commission nor the utility can or should second-guess an attending physician’s
finding of impairment and the need for RFR avoidance. That too is prohibited by
disability laws.
4. The impaired cannot be required to endure an interminable and
expensive proceedings that requires them to meet an irrelevant and almost
impossible evidentiary burden when the accommodation itself costs less than
$100. Disability laws flatly prohibit imposing this burden. The rule is simple:
accommodation in the form of an analog meter is required if a customer presents
a professional assessment of impairment and a need for RF avoidance.
5. The Court can dispose of this case without directly wading into
health effects. All that is required is a holding that Act 129 does not mandate
smart meter placement absent customer consent. This outcome results from both
the unambiguous terms in the legislation and proper application of statutory
interpretation, including but not limited to “the consequences of a particular
interpretation.” 1 Pa.C.S. §1921(6).
6. If it does reach the health issues, the Court should ensure that those
with electro-sensitivity receive accommodation in the form of an analog meter.
Any reading that requires an impaired customer to accept a smart or digital meter
will conflict with other state and federal laws. 1 Pa.C.S. §1922(3) states that
412411
10

legislation should not be interpreted in a way that renders the provision
unconstitutional. Thus, Act 129 cannot be interpreted to obtain a result that
would conflict with the rights, remedies and venue provisions in other state or
federal disability laws. These other laws require reasonable accommodation in
the form of an analog meter.
V. ARGUMENT
A. Guidelines Remand Decision
The Guidelines Remand is highly relevant to this case. The PUC decisions
below extensively relied on the FCC’s guidelines as part the “safety” findings.
Murphy Order, p. 68 and 84-85, R.197a and 213a-14a. The utility did so as well.
PECO Br. 1, 4, 6, 26-28, 34.8
As the Guidelines Remand court noted, the FCC’s emissions limits do not
satisfactorily consider electro-sensitivity9 or the effects of pulsation and
modulation10 used by wireless technologies (like smart meters).11 The FCC

8 The Commonwealth Court disclaimed any such reliance, Povacz v. Pa. PUC, 241 A.3d 481, 491 & n13 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020), but the PUC and utilities’ briefs each rely on the FCC guidelines.
9 2021 U.S.App.LEXIS 24134 at *10-*14.
10 2021 U.S.App.LEXIS 24134 at *29-*30.
11 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Corrected-Brief-and-
Hyperlinks-Table-Postable-pdf-A1.pdf#page=58.
413412
11

guidelines cannot be a basis for any conclusions regarding RF safety including for
smart meters, yet that is a primary foundation for the PUC’s conclusions below.
414
The case exposed that no proper review was conducted by any of the
responsible federal agencies regarding non-cancer harm from exposure to radiation
levels below the FCC’s guidelines.12 The petitioners in that case filed 11,000 pages
of evidence of non-thermal harm including of electro-sensitivity; neurological
effects; humans’ biological response to pulsation and modulation; and effects of
smart meters.13 The court ruled the FCC erroneously dismissed this extensive
evidence without adequate explanation14 and remanded the decision to the FCC to
conduct a review and provide reasoned explanations.15
B. Medical, Scientific and Engineering/Technical Information
To support their arguments, Amici are providing:
(1) A Statement by 57 physicians who combined have over 3,000
patients suffering from electro-sensitivity like the “customers,” or other
conditions aggravated by RF exposure. The physicians explain recent

12 2021 U.S.App.LEXIS 24134 at *14-*20.
13 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Corrected-Brief-and-
Hyperlinks-Table-Postable-pdf-A1.pdf.
14 2021 U.S.App.LEXIS 24134 at *13-*14, *24-30.
15 2021 U.S.App.LEXIS 24134 at *43-*45.
413
12

medical developments, diagnosis guidelines and the effects of smart meters
on their patients.
415
16
(2) A Statement by scientists with expert knowledge of pulsed RFR
effects. Combined they published hundreds of studies on RF/EMF effects
and reviewed thousands. They explain recent developments and the
scientific evidence as it applies to smart meters. They emphasize that smart
meters generated pulsed RF is a significant harm agent.17
(3) An expert engineer Report addressing smart meters’ operation.
This report explains how smart meters generate constant RF pulses that are
also conducted through electrical wiring, thereby creating a whole-home
antenna.18
(4) A Report by the Building Biology Institute’s President. BBI’s
experts work with the injured to mitigate their homes from RF exposure.
They see the torture smart meters cause to those who are affected and the
health transformations after the smart meter is removed. The Report also
explains why it is impossible to sufficiently mitigate homes with smart or

16 Addendum Physicians Statement¶¶17-42.
17 Addendum Scientists Statement, ¶¶13-25.
18 Addendum Engineer Report, ¶¶9-17.
414
13

digital meters and concludes that the only reasonable accommodation is a
$100 analog meter.
416
19
The Engineering and Science experts explain how pulsation injects RF
“bursts” or turns the signal on/off.20 The FCC emissions guidelines protect only
from emissions that are so high they create a heating or “thermal effect.”21 They do
not protect or recognize biological responses to non-thermal pulsed and modulated
RF emissions.22 The problem is that the factual premise – the non-existence of
non-thermal biological and adverse effects – underlying the current RF guidelines
is outdated and demonstrably false. This was one of the major drivers behind the
Guidelines Remand decision. 2021 U.S.App.Lexis 24138 *10-*12, *30.
Despite the claims by the utilities and the PUC, there is no doubt the human
body responds to pulsed RF radiation, even at non-thermal levels. The FCC has
now agreed. Doctors routinely use pulsed RF/EMF for medical treatment because
they generate biological responses.23 With chronic exposure these biological
19 Addendum BBI Report at ¶¶27-34.
20 The utility’s witnesses assert the meters do not employ pulsation, but they do so by mischaracterizing what a “pulse” is. It is uncontested that the meters are not in constant communications mode, so they obviously turn on and off. That is “pulsation.”
21 FCC OET Bulletin 56, at 6-7 (August 1999), available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5mbsymn.
22 See Scientists’ Statement for expiation of RF basics ¶¶1-4.
23 Scientists Statement ¶43.
415
14

responses can lead to significant health problems.24
417
The mechanisms of harm from
RF exposure that transforms these biological effects into adverse effects are also
known and include oxidative stress.25, 26 These adverse effects can rise to the level
of functional impairment. For some they are life-threatening.27
Since 2016, the scientific and medical consensus regarding non-thermal
harms has become even more conclusive.28 In January 2021 the Swiss
government’s expert advisory committee on EMF and non-ionizing radiation,
BERENIS,29 concluded an evaluation of the scientific literature on non-thermal
RF/EMF.30 The committee’s paper concludes that exposure could cause or worsens
several chronic illnesses and acknowledged oxidative stress as the underlying
causal harm mechanism.

24 Scientists Statement ¶¶7-11.
25 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-golomb-
diplomats-3.pdf.
26 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2015-yakymenko-oxidative-stress.pdf; https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/3-RFR-Free-Radical-Oxidative-Damage-Abstracts-2020.pdf.
27 Physicians Statement ¶¶14, 26, 40.
28 Scientists Statement ¶¶13-31; Physicians Statement ¶¶16-20, 27-32.
29 https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/electrosmog/newsletter-of-the-
swiss-expert-group-on-electromagnetic-fields-a/beratende-expertengruppe-nis-
berenis.html.
30https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-swiss-berenis-2021-
report.pdf.
416
15

In 2020, New-Hampshire’s legislative-appointed committee investigated 5G
and wireless harms and published findings. It concluded that non-thermal harms
are established, acknowledged electro-sensitivity and stressed the need for
accommodations.31
Electro-sensitivity is a condition whereby the patients manifest a
constellation of mainly neurological symptoms after RFR exposure. The scientific
literature recites a host of symptoms, including headaches, memory and cognitive
problems, sleep problems, heart palpitations and/or increased heart rate, ringing in
the ears, exhaustion, skin rashes, tingling, nose bleeds, dizziness, and burning
sensations.32 RF exposure has been directly connected to these symptoms in
hundreds of studies.
418
33 Official diagnosis guidelines have existed since 2011.34

31 New Hampshire is the only US state that has conducted an independent investigation as to the harms of these technologies.
32 Note the overlap with the FCC’s 2019 list of symptoms in FCC RF/EMF
Proposed Changes, 34 FCC Rcd at 11744, ¶122, n.328. Part V.C.
33 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-golomb-
diplomats-3.pdf; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-
neurological-lai-book-chapter.pdf; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-
content/uploads/rf-2014-electrosensitivity-dr-blythe.pdf.
34 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2011-austrian-medical-
association-guidelines.pdf.
417
16

They were updated in 2016,35 to include biomarkers36 and genetic predispositions37
419

found by studies on many hundreds of electro-sensitive patients. Additional
biomarkers were identified in 2020.38
These studies establish that electro-sensitivity is not a sensitivity, nor is it
“idiopathic.” It involves severe physiological injuries directly associated with
pulsed RF exposure, including blood-brain barrier leakage; damage to the immune
system; chronic inflammation; impaired melatonin production and impaired blood
flow to the brain.39 A 2017 fMRI study shows clear evidence of impaired blood
flow in 10 electro-sensitive subjects.40
Electro-sensitivity is a “spectrum condition.” Some experience discomfort
while others are entirely debilitated. Those affected become progressively

35 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2016-europaem-
guidelines.pdf.
36 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613326/.
37 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24812443/.
38 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2020-Belpomme-guidelines.pdf.
39https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/assets/pdf/environmental/Preliminary%2
0Clinical%20Guidelines%20%20for%20EHS.pdf;
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-golomb-diplomats-
3.pdf; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2020-Belpomme-
guidelines.pdf.
40 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28678737/.
418
17

intolerant to radiation levels they could previously tolerate. Exposure avoidance is
the only effective treatment.41
420

In December 2020, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and
Medicine (NAS) concluded that the diplomats’ “mystery illness” is likely caused
by pulsed RF.42 Prof. Beatrice Golomb MD PhD,43 2018 paper44 was the first to
analyze the science in detail and to show that pulsed RF is the likely cause of the
symptoms suffered by some US diplomats in Cuba and China.45 She concluded
that the diplomats essentially suffer from electro-sensitivity (which she refers to as
“Microwave Illness”).46 Her analysis included case studies on people sickened by
smart meters.47 She gave a detailed scientific analysis to each of the diplomats’ and

41 Physicians Statement ¶¶7, 38; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2016-europaem-guidelines.pdf#page=24; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2020-Belpomme-
guidelines.pdf#page=14; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-
2018-golomb-diplomats-3.pdf#page=21; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-
content/uploads/rf-2014-electrosensitivity-dr-blythe.pdf#page=5.
42 https://www.nap.edu/read/25889/chapter/1.
43 Prof. Golomb signed the Scientists Statement.
44 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-golomb-diplomats-3.pdf.
45 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30183509/.
46 This Brief uses “Electro-sensitivity” but the syndrome is also called “Electromagnetic Hyper-Sensitivity” (“EHS”), “Microwave Sickness,” and
“Radiation Sickness.” PECO calls it “Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance.”
47 Prof. Golomb signed the Scientists Statement.
47 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-golomb-
diplomats-3.pdf pages: 15, 18-22, 25, 37, 38.
419
18

electro-sensitivity symptoms and showed how they can result from RF exposure.
She was invited to present to the NAS committee.
421
48
Smart meters can be the original cause or a subsequent aggravating cause.
They are, however, undoubtedly harmful to anyone with electro-sensitivity.49 As
the guidelines for diagnosis and the physicians’ statement emphasize, the only
mitigation and treatment for those affected by RF is rigid, constant RF exposure
avoidance, in every aspect of their lives. This is particularly so when it comes to
peoples’ last refuge: their home. For all these reasons any regime that forces
people to choose between a mandatory smart meter or not having electric (or
water, or gas) utility service, is especially pernicious.50
C. FCC Admits Adverse Effects
The FCC admitted in 2019 that at least some RFs can cause non-thermal
adverse effects with RF frequencies ranging between 3 KHz and 10 MHz.51 Pulsed

48 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/rf-nas-agenda-golomb/;
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-nas-golumb-email.pdf.
49 This is part of the problem with the PUC’s burden of proof requirements. The issue is not what caused the impairment; it is whether the smart or digital meter interferes in any manner with a person’s ability to engage in major life activities. See Part V.F.
50 Some people with electro-sensitivity also have other health issues and use medical treatment devices that require electricity.
51 Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rule Regarding Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, 34 FCC Rcd 11687, 11743-11745, ¶¶122-
124 & nn. 322-335 (2019). It also noted that these harms occur instantaneously.
The FCC currently averages exposure levels over 30 minutes, which completely
420
19

RF created by the AC/DC conversion performed by smart and digital meters’
Switch Mode Power Supply (SMPS), generates frequencies between 2-50 KHz,
which fall squarely in the range identified by the FCC as problematic.52 The FCC
noted that “[a]dverse neural stimulation effects…include acute effects such as
perception of tingling, shock, pain, or altered behavior due to excitation of tissue in
the body’s peripheral nervous system.” 34 FCC Rcd at 11743-11744, ¶122 n.328.
These are the same symptoms suffered by the “customers” and by others who
report adverse health effects from smart meters. 34 FCC Rcd at 11742-11744,
¶¶119-122.
D. Pulsed RF Affects at Least Some People
The FCC guidelines can no longer be said to provide any assurance
regarding the public’s health for non-cancer harms. The FCC has expressly
acknowledged that RF emissions such as those from smart and digital meters can
cause the very same symptoms reported by the Customer Petitioners and those who
have developed electro-sensitivity or suffer from other conditions that are
aggravated by RFR exposure. Those affected have a right to accommodation,
regardless of what is “deemed safe” for the general population.

422
obscures pulsation effects. It has admitted instantaneous effects for the RF
frequency band involved in smart meter wire conduction.
52 Engineer Report ¶¶14-17.
421
20

To analogize, the U.S. Agriculture Department and Food and Drug
Administration each regulate peanut and peanut product quality. They ensure
peanuts and peanut products are safe for most people. Additional protective steps
are taken, to ensure those with nut allergies are not inadvertently (or purposefully)
exposed to “deemed safe” nuts.53 Similarly, measures must be taken to allow those
adversely affected by RF to avoid exposure from even general population “deemed
safe” emissions.
A state electric utility regulator certainly should not issue a mandate that
someone with an impairment made worse by pulsed RFR must have a smart or
digital meter as a condition of utility service unless they fund a costly lawsuit and
satisfy a burden of proof that is inappropriate and almost impossible to meet given
the nature of the condition. The regulator cannot base lawful findings on utility-
funded “expert” doctors that never examined the customer.
E. The Federal Government Recognizes Electro-Sensitivity; Federal and State Law Requires Effective Accommodation
As noted above, the FCC has now agreed that RF can evoke a non-thermal
adverse neural response to at least some RF emissions. The CDC has diagnosis and
injury codes for exposure related injuries. Various federal agencies recognized the

53 See, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Questions and Answers
About the Lesley University Agreement and Potential Implications for Individuals
with Food Allergies, available at https://www.ada.gov/q&a_lesley_university.htm.
423422
21

condition. Three federal laws and a state law directly require accommodations. The
federal government has outlined the proof required for those who seek
accommodation.
1. CDC, U.S. Justice Department and Other Agencies Recognize Electro-sensitivity Can Lead to Major Life
Impairments Requiring Accommodation
The federal government recognizes RF/EMF radiation exposure related
sickness. The Centers for Disease Control’s 2022 Classification of Diseases Codes
Clinical Modification and Procedural Classification System implements the
International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification
(ICD-10-CM) .54 The “diagnosis code” for Radiation Sickness” is “T66.” The
“injury” code for “Exposure to Other Nonionizing Radiation” is “W90.” These
codes cover Electro-sensitivity along with other RF exposure-related injuries and
maladies.
The “Access Board,” the federal agency responsible for publishing
Accessibility Guidelines used by the Justice Department to enforce the ADA, has
held that “electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the
ADA.”55 The Access Board contracted with the National Institute of Building

54 Available at https://icd10cmtool.cdc.gov/.
55 Architectural Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Final Rule, Americans
With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities;
Recreation Facilities, 67 Fed. Reg. 56352, 56353 (Sept. 3, 2002) (“The Board
recognizes that multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities
424423
22

Sciences (NIBS) 2005 to recommend accommodations. NIBS concluded that RF
could render buildings “inaccessible” to those “who are electromagnetically
sensitive.”56
The US. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy
issued guidelines for accommodations in 2015.57 They state:
…the nature of electromagnetic sensitivity is such that even levels that are deemed safe for the general public can cause trigger symptoms for individuals who are hypersensitive...and therefore may need accommodation. … Individuals with electromagnetic sensitivity may experience … fatigue, weakness, neurological issues, immunological issues,
gastrointestinal issues, increased irritability, lack of ability to think clearly
and quickly, sleep disturbance, overall malaise, and anxiety…Common
workplace issues involve exposure to Wi-Fi, cell phones.
General considerations include: ...Relocate workplace away from areas where symptoms are triggered…limiting certain types of devices in the vicinity of the employee’s workstation... Provide wired telephones and network connections.
The US Department of Education (“DOE”) agrees that people with other
conditions may also develop intolerance to RF/EMF. In a memorandum regarding
may be considered disabilities under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities.”).
56 National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Indoor Environmental Quality
(IEQ) Final Report (July 14, 2005), © 2005, National Institute of Building
Sciences. A web-based version of the NIBS IEQ Final Report is available at
https://www.access-board.gov/research/building/indoor-environmental-quality/.
57 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-accomodation-
labor.pdfNetwork-EMS.pdf.
425424
23

accommodation of people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (“MCS”), they
recommend minimizing exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiation because it
may trigger MCS symptoms. The memo emphasizes the importance of their home
as a refuge and sanctuary free of EMF.
…[I]ndividuals affected by MCS have created “sanctuaries” relatively free
from chemical emissions and electromagnetic fields in their homes. Because
of the serious impact of even an accidental unavoidable exposure, people often spend as much time at home as possible and often cannot participate fully in society. As a result, they may experience intense isolation, loss of self-esteem, and depression from not being able to have an active work, family, or social life.58
2. ADA, FHA, Rehabilitation Act and PHRA Require Accommodations to Disabled/Handicapped Individuals Who Would be Negatively Affected by a Smart Meter
Electricity is the “service” offered by PECO. The meter facilitates billing
and demand response, but it is not the “service.” If PECO’s wireless smart meter
cannot be tolerated due to a medical condition related to a disability or handicap,
forced installation as a condition of utility service will discriminate against the
customer who is “otherwise qualified” but will suffer disconnection and loss of
utility service.

58 https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/rsa/im/2002/im-02-04.pdf. A study
published in 2020 on 2,000 people with electro-sensitivity and/or chemical
sensitivity showed that once a person developed one of these conditions, they are
highly likely to develop the other. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-
content/uploads/rf-2020-Belpomme-guidelines.pdf.
426425
24

The Fair Housing Act (“FHA”),59 Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”),60 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA)61 require
accommodations relating to a “physical or mental impairment” that “substantially
limits one or more of the major life activities.” See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. §12102(1)(A);
28 C.F.R. §36.105; 16 Pa.Code §44.4.
ADA Title II and the PHRA apply insofar as the PUC is establishing binding
practices the utility must implement. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(a), (b)(1), (6), (7).62 State
agency prescribed practices cannot discriminate against the disabled by denying
access to essential electric utility service. Id. The PUC’s regulations must allow for
“reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the
modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability,
unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.” 28 C.F.R.
§35.130(b)(7).
59 42 U.S.C. §3601, et seq.
60 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq. ADA Title II prohibits a state-level regulatory requirement that mandates discrimination. USDOJ Title II TAM, supra.
61 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. §951, et seq.
62 Amici are not asserting that the utility has become a state actor and subject to
Title II. C.f. Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 842 (1982); Jackson v. Metro.
Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 350 (1974); Crissman v. Dover Downs Entm’t Inc., 289
F.3d 231, 243 (3d Cir. 2002). The PUC and the state – the ones allegedly imposing
mandatory smart meters – are the state actors for purposes of ADA Title II.
427426
25

A mandatory smart meter program also fails muster under the FHA. It
“objectively” interferes with the “exercise or enjoyment of rights granted or
protected by” 42 U.S.C. §§3604 or 3605: it makes the occupants sick or sicker, and
therefore violates 42 U.S.C. §3617. See 24 C.F.R. §100.400(b), (c)(1), (2). 42
U.S.C. §3604(f)(1) and 16 Pa.Code §45.9 make it unlawful to “make unavailable
or deny, a dwelling” and that is exactly what a smart meter effectively does to
those who cannot tolerate the radiation emitted from the device. They will be
constructively evicted.
The Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794 prohibits disability discrimination
by any entity receiving federal financial assistance.63 PECO obtained a federal
SmartGrid Investment Grant. PECO Principal Br. p. 18, n.39,64 so it is subject to
the Rehabilitation Act nondiscrimination mandate.
3. The PUC is Bound by ADA Title II, the FHA and PHRA; PECO is Bound by the FHA and the Rehabilitation Act
The PUC has consistently erred by refusing to consider the impact of federal
and state disability/handicap laws. It is true the PUC “lacks jurisdiction to enforce”

63 “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability...shall, solely by reason of
her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits
of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance….” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
64 Nothing in the grant requires a mandate that all customers accept smart meter
installation.
428427
26

the ADA, FHA, Rehabilitation Act or PHRA as a general matter. See Edward
Lucey v. Metropolitan Edison Company, Docket No. C-2018-3003679, 2020 PA.
PUC LEXIS 522, *15 (Pa. P.U.C. October 8, 2020), citing Catherine J.
Frompovich v. PECO Energy Company, Docket No. C-2015-2474602, 2018 Pa.
PUC LEXIS 160 *69 (Pa. P.U.C. May 3, 2018)(emphasis added).
429
65 But what
everyone involved has missed is that the PUC is bound by ADA Title II and cannot
impose practices or policies in derogation of ADA requirements. Act 129 should
not be read to impose a regulatory mandate that would directly violate the ADA
Title II prohibition on state-level policies and practices that lead to disability
discrimination without reasonable and effective accommodation.

65 These orders state the complainant should go to state or federal court to raise the
disability claim. The problem is that the Pennsylvania Human Relations
Commission is a mandatory prerequisite to any state court action seeking a remedy for disability discrimination. Clay v. Advanced Comput. Applications, 522 Pa. 86, 559 A.2d 917 (1989). On the other hand, Phila. Elec. Co. v. Human Rels. Comm’n, 5 Pa. Commw. 329, 290 A.2d 699 (1972) holds the PHRC could not entertain any such complaint; the petitioner would be sent back to the PUC. The Commission’s interpretation therefore leads to an endless “no state jurisdiction” loop. Statutes
should not be construed to lead to such absurd results. The answer to this seeming
conundrum is simple, however. The Commission needs to merely acknowledge it
cannot impose a practice or policy that violates the disabilities laws and ensure that
the utilities offer reasonable and effective accommodations.
428
27

The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division’s Americans with
Disabilities Act Title II Technical Assistance Manual Covering State and Local
Government Programs and Services66
430
makes this eminently clear:
…a public entity may not establish requirements for the programs or
activities of licensees that would result in discrimination against qualified
individuals with disabilities
If the PUC’s interpretation of Act 129 is upheld on appeal and becomes
final, the Commission (the state) is subject to suit under ADA Title II. Similarly,
under the FHA the state might be subject to damages under 42 U.S.C. §§3613(c),
3631(a), (a)(1), since a state regulatory mandate constitutes “color of law” under
which handicapped individuals may suffer grievous harm. The statute should not
be construed to impose a mandate because it would result in direct conflict with
federal law and expose the state to liability.
The Commission and the Court must consider the impact of the ADA, FHA,
Rehabilitation Act and the PHRA on these issues as part of any interpretative
analysis whether Act 129 can be reasonably interpreted as mandatory. The statute
should not be read to compel a violation of other federal and state law. The PUC’s
willful blindness to disability laws prohibiting its attempt to mandate smart meters,
constitutes legal error that must be corrected.

66 Available at https://www.ada.gov/taman2.html#II-3.7200.
429
28

F. The PUC’s “Burden of Proof” is Inconsistent with the Disability laws
431
The proper outcome does not depend on whether a smart meter “causes”
someone to suffer “adverse health effects.” The applicable law turns on entirely
different considerations. The only questions are whether someone has a functional
“impairment” and then what accommodation is due.
1. PUC Applied Wrong Standard
The utility and PUC each argue that the Petitioners failed to “demonstrate by
a preponderance of the evidence that a ‘conclusive causal connection’ between the
low-level RF exposure from a PECO smart meter and the alleged adverse human
health effects.” 67 But the PUC/utility have consistently focused on the wrong type
of “causal connection” and demanded too much by way of “alleged adverse human
health effects.” The stated burden of proof is virtually impossible to meet for
almost any Complainant because it would require resources no average person can
amass, especially someone who is already sick and likely low-income or with
limited means. A demand for rigorous scientific and medical support for the

67 This standard was first established in Letter of Notification of Philadelphia
Electric Company Relative to the Reconstructing and Rebuilding of the Existing
138 kV Line to Operate as the Woodbourne-Heaton 230 kV Line in Montgomery
and Bucks Counties 1992 Pa. PUC LEXIS 160, at *7-8 (Pa. P.U.C., No. A-
110550F0055, filed Mar. 26, 1993). This standard is inappropriate for those who
are RF/EMF impaired since the disability laws require a different and much lower
standard.
430
29

proposition the Complainant has some generally-accepted disease and then direct
causation from the smart meter is unlawful for many reasons.
432
The determination of whether an individual is disabled is not necessarily
based on a finding that matches a generally-accepted and named disease in a
Diagnosis and Treatment Manual. The question is simply whether a person has an
“impairment” and then the effect of that impairment on the life of the individual.
42 U.S.C. §12112(a)(5)(A); 28 C.F.R. §35.108(vii).68
2. Burden of Proof Inconsistent With Disabilities Laws
Covered entities like the PUC cannot impose the level and burden of proof
applied below. Congress rejected the idea that the disability determination should
be “an onerous burden for those seeking accommodations or modifications” when
it amended the ADA and FHA. 154 Cong. Rec. S8842 (daily ed. Sept. 16, 2008)
(Statement of the Managers). The federal agencies overseeing these acts have
implemented rules of construction that make this plain. 28 C.F.R. §36.101; Part 36,

68 The analysis for a disability or handicap is the same for each of the three ADA Titles, FHA handicap purposes and Rehabilitation Act claims. That is why courts routinely address discrimination claims together. Friedman v. Cent. Me. Power
Co., No. 2:20-cv-00237-JDL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62585, at *5 n.2 (D. Me. Mar. 31, 2021), citing Astralis Condo. Ass’n v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Housing &
Urban Dev., 620 F.3d 62, 66 (1st Cir. 2010), Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. DOJ, 355 F.3d
6, 19 (1st Cir. 2004) and Theriault v. Flynn, 162 F.3d 46, 53 n.10 (1st Cir. 1998)
(Lipez, J., concurring). Pennsylvania generally uses the same tests and criteria for
purposes of the PHRA. See Lazer Spot, Inc. v. Pa. Human Rels. Comm’n, 184 A.3d
200 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
431
30

Appendix C - Guidance to Revisions to ADA Title II and Title III Regulations
Revising the Meaning and Interpretation of the Definition of “Disability” and
Other Provisions in Order to Incorporate the Requirements of the ADA
Amendments Act. An individualized assessment is necessary,69
433
but the Guidance
directly states that once there is an individualized professional assessment “there is
no need for further inquiry into the nature of the disability:”
…Reports from experts who have personal familiarity with the candidate should take precedence over those from, for example, reviewers for testing agencies, who have never personally met the candidate or conducted the requisite assessments for diagnosis and treatment.70
None of the utility’s expert witnesses performed an in-person individualized
assessment of any of the Complainants before the Court. Doctor Israel did his
“evaluation” remotely and merely compared reported symptoms to “databases” and
“studies.” Murphy Order, p. 61 (R.190a). Thus, the PUC erred by giving the
utility’s testimony overriding weight to that from the Complainants’ medical
evidence. The PUC also erred in its evaluation of the Complainants’ evidence. The
69 See 28 CFR Appendix A to Part 36 - Guidance on Revisions to ADA Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities: “The question of whether an individual meets the definition
of disability should not demand extensive analysis… determining whether an
impairment substantially limits a major life activity requires an individualized
assessment.”
70 AG Order No. 3181-2010, 75 FR 56258, Sept. 15, 2010; 76 FR 13287, Mar. 11,
2011. The block-quoted sentence appears at 75 FR 56297.
432
31

Complainants clearly described an impairment that substantially limits major life
activities and showed that installation of a smart meter would significantly
interfere with their medically-affirmed need for avoidance. In other words,
consistent with the NIBS report finding smart meters can render homes
“inaccessible” to those who are electromagnetically-sensitive.
VI. Only Reasonable and Effective Accommodation is Analog Meter
Requiring a smart meter unlawfully discriminates against those who are
exposure intolerant.71 The service here is electricity, and utilities were able to
provide that service for many decades without smart or digital meters. Allowing
opt-out for the disabled will not impose an impossible or even overly difficult
burden. The RF-impaired cannot be required to sacrifice their health, worsen their
impairments. and live in an intolerable home environment in order to have
essential utility service.
434
Once an “impairment” and its “limitations” are shown the question then
turns to what “accommodations” are appropriate. Here, the PUC offers an
“accommodation” in the form of moving the meter away from the home. This
“accommodation” does not resolve the problem since it will not fully prevent RF
exposure despite the additional distance from the wireless transmitting antenna.

71 Friedman v. Cent. Me. Power Co., supra held that the plaintiff had adequately
plead discrimination when he had to pay a smart meter opt-out fee. An inability to
opt-out at all is clearly worse.
433
32

A. Placement in Yard is Not Reasonable Accommodation
Moving the smart meter to a more distant location in the yard would reduce
the wireless RF exposure level inside the home. There would, however, still be RF
emissions in the house and on the property. Anyone with electro-sensitivity will
have to stay far away from the meter. As a result, the person will not have full use
and enjoyment of a significant part of their property. This is still unlawful
discrimination under the FHA and Rehabilitation Act, because customers who are
not electro-sensitive do have full use and enjoyment of all their property, including
the part near the utility meter. Friedman v. Cent. Me. Power Co., supra. Thus, the
proffered “accommodation” is not “reasonable” and neither the PUC nor PECO
can impose that outcome. Further, installing the meter further away merely reduces
but does not eliminate the emissions that will enter the house. The customers will
still have to expend resources to shield the house from the radiation.72
B. Placement in Yard Does Not Eliminate Harmful RF “Noise” in House
The smart meter’s AC/DC conversion process by the SMPS generates
variable RF spikes that enter the house electric wiring, transforming the house into
a whole house antenna. Installing the smart meter further away from the house

72 BBI Report ¶¶29-31.
435434
33

would not eliminate this problem. Digital meters also contain SMPS and therefore
generate RF and cannot be considered a reasonable accommodation.73
The only reasonable and effective accommodation is an analog meter – the
kind that has been used for many decades. It does not have a SMPS and will cost
the utility less than $100.74 Accommodating the “customers” in this case and all
the hundreds of people who requested accommodation would have been cheaper
than this case.
VII. CONCLUSION
Act 129 does not compel smart meters absent customer consent; it clearly
envisions affirmative customer request (Opt-In). Regardless of the legislature’s
word choice the state cannot lawfully force a customer to accept a smart or digital
meter when mandatory installation results in disability discrimination, exacerbates
existing impairments or forces people to abandon their home. There must be
effective accommodation.
The rule is simple: accommodation in the form of an analog meter is
required if a customer presents a professional assessment of impairment and a need
for RF/EMF avoidance.

73 Engineer Report ¶¶18-19; BBI Report ¶¶27-34.
74 BBI Report ¶36.
436435
34

The Court can dispose of this case without directly wading into health
effects or even disability by merely applying the statute according to its plain
terms. If it does go farther the Court should ensure that those with electro-
sensitivity can receive accommodation in the form of an analog meter. Any other
outcome will be inhumane. No decent society purposefully punishes the innocent
for conditions they cannot control. The Court cannot allow an outcome that will
lead to even more sickness and homelessness for those who cannot tolerate a smart
or digital meter.

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Andrea L. Shaw Andrea L. Shaw (I.D. No. 89333) Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw, P.C.
437
2011 W. Trindle Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.* Children’s Health Defense 48 Dewitt Mills Road 1227 North Peachtree Pkwy, Suite 202 Peachtree City, GA 30269 Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
NY Bar No. 1999994
[e-mail]

436
35

W. Scott McCollough* McCollough Law Firm, P.C. 2290 Gatlin Creek Rd. Dripping Springs, TX 78620 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Texas Bar No. 13434100
[e-mail]

438
*Pro hac vice motion pending

437
36

APPENDIX
LIST OF ADDITIONAL AMICI CURIAE

PENNSYLVANIANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is a volunteer grassroots
organization that seeks to educate and inform Pennsylvanians about ways to
protect health and the environment through the safer, more secure use of
technology, especially wired connections.
PENNSYLVANIA SMART METER WORK GROUP is an organization in
Pennsylvania which acts as a support group for utility customers with Formal
Complaints entered with the PA Public Utilities Commission objecting to the
installation of smart meters on their properties. Their members, pro-se litigants,
help each other get through the legal and bureaucratic tangle of utility and
administrative law. Their mission has broadened to include 5G and other
wireless devices and systems as the ramifications of wireless extend beyond
smart meters.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE is a
501(c)(6) national medical organization based in Washington that provides
clinical guidelines and specialization in environmental medicine for naturopathic
physicians and allied primary care providers.
439438
37

MOMS ACROSS AMERICA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with national
networks based in North Carolina which reaches millions of people every month.
Its mission is to educate and empower mothers and others with actions and
solutions to create healthy communities.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CHILDREN AND SAFE TECHNOLOGY
is an organization whose mission statement is to advance policies regarding
technology that protect children’s health and well-being in order to ensure a
strong future for the United States of America.
MASSACHUSETTS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is a public interest advocacy
group based in Massachusetts and is a project under the 501(c)(3) nonprofit
Concerned Citizens for the Appropriate Placement of Telecommunications
Facilities, Inc., which serves as its fiscal agent. Its mission is to educate citizens,
public servants, lawmakers and health care professionals on the risks of wireless
radiation exposure to children, adults and our environment and to promote the
use of biologically safe and fiscally responsible technology in our homes,
schools, communities, and workplaces.
440439
38

VIRGINIANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY LLC is based in Virginia. Its
mission is to advocate for safe, accessible, affordable, and ethical technology for
all and provide information, education, resources, and support to empower
consumers and lawmakers to make informed decisions and act as stewards of
their communities.
NEW YORK SAFE UTILITY METER ASSOCIATION is a nonprofit
corporation whose mission is dedicated to the continued use of mechanical
analog utility meters. NYSUMA educates the public about the hazards
associated with electronic digital utility meters (aka: AMR, ERT, AMI, "smart,"
and "opt-out digital"). They are also very concerned about the unchecked privacy
invasion of digital utility meters and skyrocketing utility rates. NYSUMA
advocates for the rate payer’s right to choose the safest meter without penalties.
NYSUMA also works to raise awareness about the dangers of other wireless
radiation technologies, including Wi-Fi, cell phones, 3G, 4G, 5G cell towers and
their negative impact on public health and the environment.
RHODE ISLANDERS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is an organization based in
Rhode Island that envisions a world in which computer and telecommunications
technology is safer. Its mission is to educate the public regarding wireless health
risks and best practices.
441440
39

ARIZONANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is a group seeking to protect
Arizona neighborhoods through better, safer technologies.
UTILITY METER CHOICE FOR 4 MICHIGAN is an organization whose
mission is to inform the public of the harm of wireless radiation from smart
meters and pass legislation which will provide utility customers with the right to
choose not to be exposed to the dangers caused by smart meters.
MARYLAND SMART METER AWARENESS is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
corporation out of Baltimore, MD, whose mission includes education of the
public regarding smart meters, wireless technology and the health impacts of
radio frequency microwave radiation, as well as to provide and advocate for
alternatives to wireless smart meters and to engage in litigation to protect
Maryland residents from the harmful effects of smart meters. They have about
1,000 members.
AUTISM AGE is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation based in Connecticut that
gives voice to those who believe autism is an environmentally-induced illness
that is treatable, and that children can recover. They believe that autism is the
defining disorder of our age, is man-made and therefore preventable. Smart
meters are an environmental risk to health that is preventable.
442441
40

COLORADANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is an advocacy group based in
Colorado whose mission is to educate the public and public representatives of the
risks and downsides of wireless technology and to promote the implementation
of safe, efficient alternatives.
SAFE TECHNOLOGY MINNESOTA, a project of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit
corporation Minnesota Natural Health Coalition, has as its mission to educate
and support the public regarding the health and environmental hazards of
electromagnetic radiation, especially from wireless technology.
CONNECTICUT RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE TECHNOLOGY is a
grassroots organization based in Connecticut consisting of 1,500 members, most
of whom have suffered from radiofrequency radiation. Their mission is to
increase community awareness of the negative health effects of macro cell
towers in close proximity to homes, schools, health centers and workplaces, and
to stop the irradiation of citizens.
MICHIGAN FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is an organization in Michigan whose
mission is to educate, inform, and advocate for the safe use of wireless
technology.
443442
41

IDAHOANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit corporation whose mission is to provide educational and financial
support for statewide efforts toward deployment of responsible broadband
technology to our communities and throughout the State of Idaho.
MALIBU FOR SAFE TECH is an organization in California that consists of
active local residents fighting to protect the community and environment from
the threats of wireless telecommunication. Its mission is to raise awareness of
these immediate issues and actively participate in local government to stop the
spread of 5G before its effects become detrimental to residents.
MANHATTAN NEIGHBORS FOR SAFER TELECOMMUNICATIONS is an
educational initiative whose mission is to bring awareness to the harmful
physical and mental health effects of cell phones, Wi-Fi, wireless computer
equipment, portable phones, excessive screen time, too-early technology use,
wireless utility equipment and neighborhood cell towers and antennas.
ELECTROMAGNETIC SAFETY ALLIANCE, INC. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
corporation based in Arizona whose mission is to advocate for and educate others
about the health risks of electromagnetic fields. Their fiscal sponsor is Vitalyst
Health Foundation.
444443
42

ALLIANCE FOR MICROWAVE RADIATION ACCOUNTABILITY, INC.
(AMRA) is a nonprofit corporation based in New York that seeks to improve
public health and safety through the advocacy of tougher standards and safer
technology. AMRA works for greater awareness of Microwave Radiation
Syndrome and the health impact on its victims.
A VOICE FOR CHOICE ADVOCACY, INC. is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit
corporation based in California that advocates for people’s rights to be fully
informed about the composition, quality, and short- and long-term health effects
of all products that go into people’s bodies, such as food, water, air,
pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, as well devices such as smart meters.
SAFE TECH FOR SANTA ROSA is an advocacy group in California whose
mission is to post relevant information about current and planned wireless
transmission facilities and "small" cell sites in Santa Rosa, California and
provide resources on the biological effects of microwave radiation as supported
by scientific studies.
SAFE TECH SANTA BARBARA COUNTY is an unincorporated association
and advocacy group whose mission is to educate the community about the
adverse cumulative effects of invisible wireless Radio Frequency Radiation
(RFR) and advocate for safe technology.
445444
43

SAFE TECH TUCSON is comprised of residents, business owners and respected
members of the various communities within Pima County and the City of Tucson
who are committed to working in partnership with elected officials to enact a
telecommunications ordinance that protects public safety, privacy and property
values.
BEE HEROIC LLC is a nonprofit, limited liability company located in Colorado
whose mission is to provide an information-to-action platform for initiating
practices that will save and protect Earth's bees and other pollinators from near-
term extinction. It is focused on agrochemical threats,
telecommunication/5G/IoT, and other environmentally and biologically
destructive industries that contribute to the mass extinction of a key indicator
species.
CALIFORNIA BRAIN TUMOR ASSOCIATION is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization whose mission is to educate the public about environmental health
threats including those from exposure to electromagnetic radiation.
446
CALIFORNIANS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY (CARE) is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to offer legal advice and appear before
administrative bodies to help enforce environmental laws through court actions.
445
44

CENTERVILLE CONCERNED CITIZENS is a grassroots advocacy group in
Massachusetts focused on advancing environmental health and protecting the
community of Centerville. It was founded to stop the powering of a
telecommunications cell tower in the historic village of Centerville. The initial
group of nine neighbors has grown to hundreds of supporters who work to keep
the community free of dangerous, untested wireless technology. “We have
children and grandchildren that will one day look to us and be grateful we fought
so strongly for their future health and well-being.”
CLEAR WIDBY is an organization in Washington state. CLEAR (Citizen
League Encouraging Awareness of Radiation) is dedicated to the safety from
electronics of wildlife, flora, fauna, and insects that experience 24/7 radiation
from towers, as well as from humans who carelessly install and use their
electronics. They assist citizens with wireless issues: town and county
ordinances, 5G developers, smart meter issues, wildlife protection from EMF
excesses, helping the human population use wireless more safely, calling for
increased protections for the electromagnetically sensitive, and encouraging
fiber-optic hookups for broadband coverage for all.
COALITION AGAINST SMART METERS AND 5G is an organization in the
state of Washington whose purpose is first to prevent installation of smart meters
447446
45

in Snohomish County, Washington, and also to prevent installation of 5G small
cell towers in Edmonds, Washington.
FRIENDS OF MERRYMEETING BAY is a Maine-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit
engaged in research, advocacy, education, and land conservation. Because of its
inordinate proliferation and its biological effects on people and the environment,
FOMB considers radiofrequency radiation (RFR) the most significant
environmental toxin of our time. Smart meters dramatically increase rural
presence and effects of RFR. FOMB filed an Amicus Curiae Brief with the
Commonwealth Court in support of petitioners Povacz, Murphy, Randall and
Albrecht (NO. 606 CD 2019).
ECOLOGICAL OPTIONS NETWORK is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization in
California. Since 1999 they have been actively organizing, informing, and
producing media and to influence policy that protects people’s right to health in
the midst of cell towers, cell phones, smart meters, and 5G. They organized in
their county and region for a smart meter opt-out. They also served as official
public intervenors in the smart meter proceeding at the California Public Utilities
Commission.
DAMS (Dental Amalgam Mercury Solutions), INC. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
corporation based in Minnesota whose mission is to educate the public about
448447
46

biological dentistry and the dental-health connection. It is also concerned about
the proliferation of wireless radiation causing biological harm. DAMS has about
2,000 members, and approximately half are health care professionals.
449
EMF WELLNESS LLC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation in Arizona
comprised of residents, business owners and members of the various
communities within Pima County and the City of Tucson who are committed to
working in partnership with elected officials to enact a telecommunications
ordinance that protects public safety, privacy, and property values.
DR. OLINDO FLORO PA is a clinical practice out of Minnesota that provides
natural health care and education to their patients so that they can be happy,
healthy and pain free. They educate and treat patients that have symptoms of
wireless radiation exposure.
EARTH PROTECTOR LICENSING CORPORATION is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
environmental and health organization based in Minnesota whose mission is to
improve life and to be an earth protector. It is concerned about the proliferation
of wireless technology, including smart meters, and the harmful effects of this
radiation.
448
47

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE is a nonprofit organization in
New York with a mission to educate the residents of the Butternut Valley on the
dangers of, and ways to mitigate, environmental pollution from all sources,
currently focusing on the dangers of wireless microwave radiation-emitting
devices.
450
5G FREE CALIFORNIA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation based in California
whose mission is to engage in education, outreach and advocacy on the health
effects of wireless radiation and on support for safer technology; to enhance the
vision that people have the right to be protected from harm and that those already
injured are acknowledged, respected and supported; and that people have the
right to make informed choices about exposure to radiation and health
sovereignty.
5G FREE MARIN is a nonprofit coalition in California composed of local
Marin-based groups fighting to stop unnecessary, unsafe and excessive wireless
technologies from being imposed on local communities by the
telecommunications industry.
5G FREE OREGON is a nonprofit volunteer organization based in Portland,
Oregon, dedicated to raising awareness of the critical issue of radio and
microwave radiation technologies and their adverse effects on health.
449
48

5G FREE RHODE ISLAND is a group of private individuals with a common
interest in protecting humans and the environment from the harms of wireless
radiation. Its mission is to continue to actively educate communities and public
officials at the city, state, and federal levels. It takes action in furtherance of the
foregoing by holding their cities and towns accountable for protecting all
residents and stopping the 5G rollout.
451
FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCEMENT IN CANCER THERAPY is an
educational 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. Their goal is to educate physicians
and patients about a different concept of treatment and prevention of cancer and
chronic degenerative conditions. They are concerned about the health impacts of
electromagnetic radiation-producing devices such as smart meters.
HANDS ACROSS THE RIVER COALITION is incorporated in the state of
Massachusetts with about 600 members. Their primary focus is the health-
conscious cleanup of the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site contaminated
primarily with PCBs which can affect public health. Their fiscal sponsor is
People Acting in Community Endeavors, PACE, in New Bedford, MA. They are
concerned about smart meters and other emitters of harmful electromagnetic
radiation.
450
49

KEEP BALDY WILD is an organization based in California that is committed to
projects and education that support the unique ecosystem of the San Antonio
Canyon watershed for current and future generations. Their group distributed the
summary of the BioInitiative Report of 2012 to community members and did
educational outreach regarding smart meters, cell phones and cell towers.
KEEP CELL ANTENNAS AWAY is an informal group of residents in
California, united by a common goal of keeping cell antennas away from homes.
Their mission is to influence 5G roll-out in their cities by building a large and
active movement of residents.
452
KEEP YOUR POWER is an advocacy group in Hawaii that consists of a
coalition of educated, concerned citizens whose mission is to stop harmful
wireless technologies from being deployed in the Hawaiian islands and to
advocate for safe technology.
KUNZE PRODUCTIONS, LLC is a for-profit company based in California
which presents an investigative documentary called “Mobilize” that explores the
potential long-term health effects from cell phone radiation, including cancer and
infertility.
451
50

LAST TREE LAWS is an informal group for advocacy based in Massachusetts
and is also organized as a Massachusetts state ballot question committee,
focusing on lobbying and ballot question work. Its mission is to lobby for
environmental and social justice, as well as reducing wireless exposures.
NATIONAL HEALTH FEDERATION (NHF) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization whose mission is to educate consumers, producers, healthcare
professionals, government and other leaders regarding freedom of choice and
informed consent in healthcare, and to protect the health rights and freedom of
individuals and healthcare practitioners regarding freedom of choice and true
informed consent in all matters concerning healthcare.
NATIONAL TOXIC ENCEPHALOPATHY FOUNDATION is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide education and services to the
growing segment of the population who are adversely affected by everyday
chemicals and toxins in our environment, and to provide education on cell phone
safety that is showing a correlation with the increase of brain tumors and cancer.
NEVADA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE PUBLIC
WORKING GROUP is a group of individuals in Nevada, California, whose
mission is to amend the city's telecommunication ordinance and strengthen the
City’s legal authority to protect residents and the quiet enjoyment of their streets.
453452
51

NEW YORKERS 4 WIRED TECH is a group of grassroots advocates in New
York whose mission is to alert the public to the serious biological harm caused
by wireless communications infrastructure’s pulsed-modulated microwave
radiation, and support municipally-owned and controlled wireline solutions (fiber
optic broadband direct to homes and businesses as a basic public infrastructure, a
public necessity and a public good) in the public rights-of-way. It advocates for
the preservation and maintenance of existing legacy copper, switched telephone
landlines.
NORTH CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY is a
nonprofit organization in West Virginia whose mission is to reflect the feelings
and actions of like-minded people in West Virginia and around the world, to
make our area on the planet one of the healthiest (low radiation) places to live in
the USA.
ONCE A FOREST is a community organization based in Santa Fe, NM,
supporting living forests and community-inclusive decision-making about forest
health with a mission to inform the public about forest service cut and burn
plans. They are concerned about the impact of harmful electromagnetic radiation
on the health of the forests.
454453
52

ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION is based in Minnesota and is an
online and grassroots 501(c)(3) nonprofit public interest organization, and the
only organization in the U.S. focused exclusively on promoting the views and
interests of the nation's estimated 50 million consumers of organically and
socially responsibly produced food and other products. Their mission statement
is to protect and advocate for consumers' right to safe, healthful food and other
consumer products, a just food and farming system and an environment rich in
biodiversity and free of pollutants.
PATRONS OF THE PLANET is an environmental group in Connecticut
working to bring awareness and information to residents about the importance of
protecting the lands, water, insects and air from the harmful effects of “small
cells,” cell towers and smart meters. They advocated against a bill that would
extend the rollout of “small cells.”
PLUMAS WIRED! is an advocacy group of Plumas County residents in
California, with hundreds of members, whose mission is to support safer,
affordable, wired telecommunications for the public.
SAINT CROIX APPRAISALS is an organization that offers appraisal services
for residential homes and educates people about the destructive effects of Wi-Fi
and electromagnetic energies in their homes.
455454
53

SANTA BARBARA PERMACULTURE NETWORK is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization in California that helps Santa Barbara design systems to reconcile
human communities with the ecological imperatives of a living planet.
SECOND LOOK is a nonprofit organization whose main goal is to facilitate full
public and scientific examinations of public policy issues that have become
obscured by media treatment (or lack thereof), or by political rhetoric, or because
of the inaccessibility of accurate information to relevant constituencies. Their
primary environmental health concerns are fluoride toxicity, fluoride poisoning
in individuals, and electromagnetic field toxicity science.
SOCIAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE is a faith-based committee of the Berkeley
Fellowship of Universalist Unitarians, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based
in California, whose mission is to support inclusion and diversity, environmental
stewardship, fair labor practices, and general peace, democracy, and human
rights in the U.S. and abroad.
SOUTH CAROLINA COALITION FOR WIRELESS SAFETY STANDARDS
is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation whose mission is to educate and advocate on
the dangers that wireless technology poses to human health and the environment.
The SCCWSS represents thousands of people across South Carolina. The
Coalition embraces and supports getting safe, connected technology to every
456455
54

citizen in South Carolina while reducing the man-made electromagnetic pollutant
of radio frequency, microwave and millimeter wave radiation.
STOP 5G CARLSBAD is a grassroots movement of residents in Carlsbad,
California who are deeply concerned about the pending construction of 5G
“small cell” towers every 300-500 feet throughout their neighborhoods. They are
also concerned with such harmful devices as smart meters.
STOP 5G ENCINITAS is a California organization that envisions and seeks to
ensure a world where 4G, 5G, 6G or any other "G" is implemented by safe
technology standards that has undergone scrutiny to ensure the health and well-
being of all life on the planet before being unleashed. They also envision and
seek to ensure a world where the health and well-being of all life takes
precedence over corporate self-gain.
STOP 5G INTERNATIONAL is a voluntary association of individuals from
around the world with about 5,000 members from multiple countries whose
mission is to support the global effort to stop 5G because it poses an immediate
threat to life on earth. They rely on evidence-based information and non-violent
actions in keeping with the vision of Stop 5G International. Their financing is
through Ecological Options Network, a 501(c)(3) organization.
457456
55

STOP 5G JAX is an activist group of citizens whose mission is education and
opposition to 5G in Jacksonville, FL and in the rest of Florida.
STOP SMART METERS! is based in California and their fiscal sponsor is
California for Renewable Energy. It is an advocacy, media outreach and direct
action network providing activism, consultation and advice to dozens of local
groups who are opposing wireless smart utility meter deployments for health,
privacy, safety and other reasons.
STOP SMART METERS NEW YORK was created in 2013 as an information
hub and help line for New York State residents who are concerned about the
forced installation of digital utility meters in the state. This step was required due
to the absence of any state-provided consumer protection for utility
customers. Their mission is to secure a no-fee safe analog utility meter choice
for all New York State residents.
SWEETWATER COLLABORATIVE is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit from California
whose mission is to demonstrate how to live in balance with their local
watershed using regenerative, waterwise landscape practices. They provide
education, workshops, and training for sustainable water management as well as
consultations, design, and installations of greywater and rainwater harvesting
systems, food forests and drought-tolerant and edible landscapes. They work
458457
56

with homeowners, organizations, businesses and neighborhoods in a variety of
capacities. They are concerned about the impact of wireless radiation on
landscapes and ecosystems.
TOXICS INFORMATION PROJECT (TIP) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation
based in Rhode Island which strongly opposes deployment of 5G systems and
informs residents about the high radiation installations and their dangerous and
unhealthy effects.
VERMONTERS FOR A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT is an organization whose
mission is fighting for the economic well-being of all Vermonters assuring
appropriate use of their resources — our people, our land, our air and our water.
They are united in the belief that Vermont’s future lies in conserving its clean,
rural, small-town environment. They have joined together to pursue the common
goals of encouraging economic development with minimal environmental
impacts and preserving Vermont’s natural beauty. VCE is committed to
providing facts and information so that people can make informed decisions.
WINDHEIM EMF SOLUTIONS is an organization from California that believes
that fewer electromagnetic fields lead to better health and longer life.
459458
57

WIRE AMERICA is a citizen journalist and advocacy organization in California,
working to preserve local control over wired broadband and wireless
telecommunications infrastructure. Local communities must retain the freedom
to integrate the best broadband options for their residents. It has worked at the
federal, state and local levels to tame the unnecessarily dense deployment of
4G/5G so-called “small” wireless telecommunications facilities (sWTFs) in
residential neighborhoods.
WiRED is an organization based in California that exists to educate the public
about wireless radiation and to defend communities against it. They are the local
embodiment of a state-wide, national and worldwide movement advocating for
safer technology and resisting the corporate imposition of wireless and cellular
technologies on the public without fully-informed consent. They seek to inform
the public via independent, evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific studies.
They seek to awaken and empower ordinary folks to unite to take back the
autonomy of our communities from the colonizing control of transnational
telecommunications corporations.
WIRED BROADBAND, INC. is a nonprofit corporation in New York whose
mission is to educate the public and government officials about the dangers
associated with radio frequency radiation from wireless facilities and to advocate
460459
58

for the use of fiber optics as a safer, faster and more secure solution to broadband
deployment in New York City and throughout the United States.
WIRELESS EDUCATION ACTION is an educational organization based in
Oregon whose mission is education regarding the potential health effects of
wireless technology and how to reduce exposure, education of local and federal
representatives, and of health practitioners. They wish to build a greater and
greater grass root movement to affect change in Oregon.
WIRELESS RADIATION EDUCATION & DEFENSE is a grassroots nonprofit
organization based in California composed of concerned scientists, educators,
parents, and activists. This organization is a fiscal project of Ecological Options
Network (EON), which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. Its mission is to
empower the public to regain autonomy and rights over adverse
telecommunication company interests.
461460
59

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Pa. R. App. P. 531(b)(3) and 2135(d), the undersigned certifies
that this Brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Pa. R. App. P.
531(b)(3) because this Brief contains 6,985 words, excluding those parts
exempted by Pa. R. App. P. 2135(b).

/s/ Andrea L. Shaw Andrea L. Shaw (I.D. No. 89333) Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw, P.C. 2011 W. Trindle Road Carlisle, PA 17013
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Amici Curiae
462461
60

CERTIFICATION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
I hereby certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Case
Records Public Access Policy of the United Judicial System of Pennsylvania that
require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-
confidential information and documents.
/s/ Andrea L. Shaw Andrea L. Shaw (I.D. No. 89333) Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw, P.C. 2011 W. Trindle Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

463
Counsel for Amici Curiae

462
61
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 14th day of September 2021, I electronically filed
the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts using the PACFile appellate court electronic
filing system, which will send notice of such filing to all registered PACFile users.
/s/ Andrea L. Shaw Andrea L. Shaw (I.D. No. 89333) Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw, P.C. 2011 W. Trindle Road
464
Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Amici Curiae
463
465
ADDENDUM
62 464
ADDENDUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Physicians Statement …………………………………………………... 64
Exhibit 1 ………………………………………………………….. 86
Exhibit 2 …………………………………………………………. 122
Scientists Statement ……………………………………………………. 136
Engineer Report ……………………………………………………….. 168
Building Biology Institute Report ……………………...……………… 184
46663465
PHYSICIANS STATEMENT
64 467466
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
RE: No. 34 MAP 2021, Povacz, M, et al. v. PUC
Associated Case(s):
35 MAP 2021 Consolidated
36 MAP 2021 Consolidated
37 MAP 2021 Consolidated
38 MAP 2021 Consolidated
39 MAP 2021 Consolidated
40 MAP 2021 Consolidated
41 MAP 2021 Consolidated
42 MAP 2021 Consolidated
43 MAP 2021 Consolidated
44 MAP 2021 Consolidated
45 MAP 2021 Consolidated

PHYSICIANS STATEMENT
SMART METER EFFECTS ON PATIENTS WHO ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY
EXPOSURE TO RADIOFREQUENCY AND ELECTROMAGNETIC EMISSIONS

Purpose of Statement
1. The undersigned are physicians - medical doctors (MDs) and Doctor
of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs). Our duty as physicians is to help our patients and
protect our community’s public health. The American Medical Association’s Code
of Medical Ethics also demands that we seek legal outcomes that are in the best
interests of the patient. Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 8.1 states that “While a
physician’s role tends to focus on diagnosing and treating illness once it occurs,
physicians also have a professional commitment to prevent disease and promote
65 468467
health and well-being for their patients and the community.” Our Hippocratic Oath
requires that we take all necessary steps to “prevent disease whenever we can.”
Our professional ethics therefore demand that we participate in efforts to prevent
patient harm.
2. We file this statement to share with the Court our knowledge of the
scientific and medical literature and our experience working with those of our
patients, adults and children, who are adversely affected by exposure to wireless-
based technologies, including smart meters. Combined we have over 3,000 patients
who suffer from electro-sensitivity and/or other conditions which are aggravated
by exposure. We hope our statement will help the Court reach an informed and
equitable decision in this extremely important case that may have widespread
implications on the lives of those adults and children who are adversely affected
across the country.
3. It is our unequivocal opinion that Smart meters must not be forced on
patients who experience a negative response to RF/EMF, and the only reasonable
and humane accommodation is analog meters, the same meters we have had for
many decades.
Introduction and Summary of Filing
4. Wireless-based technologies such as cell phones, Wi-Fi and smart
meters use and emit pulsed electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and radiofrequency
66 469468
(RF) radiation (collectively RF/EMF). Exposure to RF/EMF can be harmful, at
least to some people. It can directly injure; it can exacerbate pre-existing
conditions; and it can interfere with treatment.
5. The undersigned doctors have patients who suffer adverse reactions to
RF/EMF, and some of the undersigned doctors themselves are adversely affected
and personally experience the painful and debilitating effects of exposure.
6. Adverse effects from RF/EMF are real, proven and a major threat to
some people’s health. Human physiology has many bioelectric elements, and this
is especially true of the heart, brain, nervous system, and intercellular
communication. Pulsed and modulated RF/EMF are stressors that directly affect
this physiology. Humans vary in their physiology and in their resilience to
stressors. Some people lose the ability to cope at a lower level of exposure to
toxins than others and some may never get sick.
7. The only treatment for those who suffer impairments worsened by
RF/EMF exposure is avoidance. However, with the ever-growing ubiquitous,
involuntary exposure to RF/EMF from wireless technology and infrastructure,1
their home environment is the only place they have some ability to control
exposure. It is their last place of refuge.
1 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-
3/fulltext.
67 470469
8.Mandatory smart meter deployment in homes, without a meaningful
accommodation for those adversely affected by RF/EMF, will frustrate our ability
to maintain or improve our patients’ well-being; cause them intolerable harm; and
take away from them their only possible refuge, the only place to which they have
some control over exposure, and which must be a sanctuary.
9.For those who are adversely affected, having a wireless or digital
smart meter is not an option. The only reasonable accommodation is an analog
meter. It does not create the adverse elements on the electric system created by the
operation of the digital/wireless “smart” meters that adversely affect them.
Electro-Sensitivity
10.The most widespread sickness associated with exposure to pulsed
RF/EMF is likely “electro-sensitivity.”2 The condition is also referred to in the
scientific literature as “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” (EHS), “microwave
sickness” and “radiation sickness.”
11.The condition is characterized by a constellation of mostly
neurological symptoms that occur as a result of exposure to RF/EMF. Common
symptoms include headaches, cognitive and memory problems, exhaustion, heart
palpitations, anxiety-like symptoms, seizures, sleep issues, ringing in the ears,
2 https://www.aaemonline.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/AAEMEMFmedicalconditions.pdf.
68 470
tingling, nausea, skin reactions, dizziness, noise sensitivity, digestive problems,
and nosebleeds.
12. Electro-sensitivity is not truly a sensitivity; it is a sickness caused
and/or aggravated by exposure to pulsed RF/EMF, with serious physiological
complications. Many hundreds of studies have proven that RF/EMF exposure can
cause and/or aggravate these symptoms3 and the underlying injuries4 and establish
the causal mechanisms of harm.5
13. There are diagnosis guidelines and International Codes of Diseases
classifications. Doctors and scientists warn that it is widespread, and the rates are
growing. It is recognized as a disability by US agencies.6
3 Neurological effects: https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/6-
RFR-Neurological-Effects-Abstracts-2020.pdf; https://bioinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/13-Neurological-Effects-Studies-Percent-Comparison-
2020.pdf.
4 https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article/30/11/2882/8424/Diplomats-Mystery-Illness-
and-Pulsed.
5 Mechanism of harm: https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/3-
RFR-Free-Radical-Oxidative-Damage-Abstracts-2020.pdf (oxidative stress);
https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article/30/11/2882/8424/Diplomats-Mystery-Illness-
and-Pulsed’; https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article/30/11/2882/8424/Diplomats-
Mystery-Illness-and-Pulsed.
6 See further discussion in the Amicus Brief. Also:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-accomodation-nibs.pdf;
Dept. of Education: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-
accomodation-education.pdf; Dept. of Labor:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-accomodation-labor.pdf.
69 471
14. For many of our patients, RF/EMF exposure adversely and severely
affects their ability to physically and mentally function. Exposure can interfere
with brain wave operation and impair blood flow to the brain. These effects can
cause interference with various brain functions including sleep and cognitive
functions. Exposure can also damage the blood-brain barrier (BBB) which can
lead to brain damage and neurodegenerative conditions. RF/EMF interfere with the
nervous system and bioelectric functions.7
15. Those affected react to RF/EMF exposures they were able to tolerate
previously and at levels that may not evoke a negative response in others. With
avoidance, the symptoms decrease and can even completely disappear. But with re-
exposure they reappear. Continued exposure leads to increase in symptom
frequency, severity and additional symptoms may appear. It can also worsen the
underlying injuries.
16. The scientific evidence explaining causation and mechanisms of harm
associated with RF/EMF injuries is now robust. Oxidative stress is an established
7 https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article/30/11/2882/8424/Diplomats-Mystery-Illness-
and-Pulsed.
70 472
mechanism of harm for RF/EMF-related injuries;8 known physiological biomarkers
and genetic predispositions9 help us in our diagnoses.
Diagnosis Guidelines
17.There are reliable diagnostic guidelines that we use and rely on in our
practice. In 2016 the European Academy for Environmental Medicine’s
(EUROPAEM) “EMF Working Group” developed official diagnosis guidelines:
“EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of
EMF-related health problems and illnesses”10 (Exhibit 1). These guidelines were
developed by the world leading experts; they were peer-reviewed and published
and are used by doctors in the US and around the world. They provide a
comprehensive review of the scientific evidence regarding the symptoms, the
physiological damage, mechanisms of harm and biomarkers associated with
RF/EMF-related health effects, and they reference 235 peer-reviewed studies. The
guidelines are based on the Austrian Medical Association’s guidelines.11
18.When diagnosing the condition, we use the World Health
Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases’ Code T-66 for a
8 https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article/30/11/2882/8424/Diplomats-Mystery-Illness-
and-Pulsed.
9 https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mi/2014/924184/.
10 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27454111/.
11 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1092912632123/48-Attachment%2048-
%20Austrian%20Medical%20Assoc%20Guideline%20EMF%20Disease.pdf.
71 473
diagnosis of “Radiation Sickness” and Code W90 which recognizes that “Exposure
to Other Nonionizing Radiation” can cause injury.
19. The knowledge regarding the etiology of the condition is constantly
evolving. Professor Dominique Belpomme is a member of the EMF Working
Group that developed the diagnosis guidelines. Since 2009, he and his team have
been conducting extensive testing on people who suffer from electro-sensitivity to
identify the underlining injuries and biomarkers. They have tested over 700 people.
Some of the lab tests recommended by the EUROPAEM’s guidelines are based on
his work.12 To keep doctors appraised of the newly identified biomarkers, in 2020
he published peer-reviewed guidelines13 to reflect the most current findings and
biomarkers to help doctors diagnose, treat, and prevent this condition.14
20. We also consult with guidelines from clinics specializing in diagnosis
of RF/EMF-related injuries such as those developed by Professor Riina Bray, MD,
BASC, MSC, FFCP, MHSC. Prof. Bray leads the largest government hospital
12 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613326/.
13 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139347/.
14 Belpomme’s studies provide clear evidence of physiological biomarkers indicating
serious physiological injuries, and he concludes that these findings negate the
hypothesis that electro-sensitivity could be psychosomatic or caused by a “nocebo”
effect. These studies include objective tests that measure physiological reactions, not
subjective perception, and prove that electro-sensitivity and exposure can lead to
severe injuries.
72 474
clinic specializing in diagnosing electro-sensitivity.15 Her diagnosis guidelines16
are based on the knowledge she and the seven doctors in the clinic accumulated
over the past 23 years seeing many hundreds of patients with electro-sensitivity
(Exhibit 2).
Clinical Diagnosis
21. Those who suffer from electro-sensitivity develop symptoms from
RF/EMF exposure. However, the underlying physical injury may be different from
one patient to another, because pulsed RF/EMF can cause various physiological
injuries.
22. For example, a peer-reviewed study on 675 subjects with electro-
sensitivity17 showed that 28% had leakage of the blood-brain barrier; 40% had
chronic inflammation indicating oxidative stress; 23% had autoimmune antibodies;
and 100% had reduced melatonin levels. Substantive scientific evidence shows that
each of these injuries can be caused by pulsed RF/EMF exposure.
23. For this reason, there is no one test for diagnosis and therefore, as
with many other conditions, the diagnosis must be clinical, involve direct
15 https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/care-programs/environmental-health-
clinic/.
16https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/assets/pdf/environmental/Preliminary%20
Clinical%20Guidelines%20%20for%20EHS.pdf.
17 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613326/.
73 475
evaluation of the patient, and requires medical judgment. Diagnosis is based on
identifying the underlying cause of the patient’s complaints based on symptoms
and medical history rather than on one specific test. Not all ailments have classic
signs from blood tests or imaging, and in lieu of these, a physician must use
clinical judgment to draw a reasonable and sensible conclusion based on personal
and direct observation and the scientific literature.18
24. When taking a patient’s medical history, we look for description of
situations which would be the equivalent of a blinded test, i.e., situations in which
the patient was unaware of the exposure and the appearance of symptoms was a
clear result of the exposure; and vice versa, where the source of exposure was
removed without the knowledge of the patient and the symptoms improved. We
also look for evidence of physiological reactions which are not based on subjective
perception and on “natural experiment”: if exposure elimination/reduction leads to
diminished symptoms, then avoidance is the recommended treatment.
25. When relevant and possible, we support our clinical diagnosis with
the lab tests suggested by the diagnosis guidelines. These lab tests are based on
18 We understand that the utility’s medical expert’s opinion was formed and expressed
without any direct contact or personal evaluation of the Complainants below, whereas
the Complainants’ medical evidence was based on personal knowledge, at least in part.
Remote diagnostics are contra-indicated, especially in this area. The Commission’s
decision to accept the utility’s medical evidence over that of an actual attending
physician is highly questionable. We note that the federal disabilities rules expressly
discount remote “records-only” evaluations.
74 476
biomarkers that have been associated with exposure to RF/EMF. For example, we
use blood tests for free radicals that indicate oxidative stress damage because
oxidative stress is a well-recognized mechanism of harm of RF/EMF exposure.19
26. Our patients’ symptoms can be very severe and debilitating and for
many, they significantly affect major life functions. This is so regardless of the
name attached to the condition or its alleged controversial nature.
Recognition
27. US agencies have recognized the condition as a disability entitled to
accommodations including: the US Access Board;20 National Institute of Buildings
Science;21 the Department of Labor;22 the Department of Education;23 and the
19 Many studies have shown that RF/EMF cause oxidative stress, and it is a
recognized underlying mechanism for EMF-related sicknesses, including electro-
sensitivity. https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/3-RFR-Free-
Radical-Oxidative-Damage-Abstracts-2020.pdf;
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26151230/.

20 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-accomodation-access-
board.pdf#page=3.
21 The report concludes that RF/EMF is an “access barrier” and can render buildings
“inaccessible” to those with electro-sensitivity and provides accessibility guidelines.
https://www.access-board.gov/research/building/indoor-environmental-quality/;
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-accomodation-nibs.pdf.
22 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-accomodation-
labor.pdf.
23 In 2011, DOE issued a memorandum regarding accommodation of people with
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (“MCS”). It included recommendations to minimize
exposure to EMFs and to ensure the home environment is a “sanctuary,” free from
75 477
Social Security Administration. In their publications some of these agencies
explain that accommodation of those affected by RF/EMF should be
removal/minimizing exposure and that their home should be a sanctuary free from
EMF.
28. In the past couple of decades, and mainly in the past 10 years, the
number of patients we see in our clinics who suffer greatly from RF/EMF has
grown.24 This is not surprising given the exponential increase in wireless
deployment and use. The general public faces constant saturation in all public
places and in the workplace.25
29. This sickness has been recognized by courts and by many medical and
official international organizations such as the Council of Europe26 and the
EMFs because they may trigger symptoms. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-
content/uploads/rf-accomodation-education.pdf#page=5.
24 See statement from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine:
https://www.aaemonline.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/AAEMEMFmedicalconditions.pdf.
25 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-
3/fulltext.
26 Resolution 1815 (2011) Section 8.1.4: “pay particular attention to “electrosensitive”
people who suffer from a syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and
introduce special measures to protect them, including the creation of wave-free areas
not covered by the wireless network.” Available at
http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&.
76 478
European Parliament which stated in a resolution that the rates of electro-
sensitivity are growing “exponentially.”27
30. In 2019, the New-Hampshire legislature voted unanimously to
establish a committee to study the effects of 5G and wireless radiation. The
committee was comprised of scientists, public officials, and representatives of the
wireless industry (through CTIA, the wireless industry lobby association).
Following a year of hearing expert testimony and reviewing the science, the
committee’s majority report, published in October 2020, concluded that wireless
radiation can be harmful. The report acknowledged electro-sensitivity and the need
to accommodate those who suffer from the condition. It emphasized the need to
educate doctors.28
31. Indeed, doctors’ awareness of RF/EMFs harms is constantly growing.
The California Medical Association passed a Resolution which highlighted
RF/EMF effects consistent with electro-sensitivity. In 2021, close to 200
physicians participated in a medical conference about health effects associated
27 European Parliament Written declaration on the recognition of multiple chemical
sensitivity and electrohypersensitivity in the International Statistical Classification of
Diseases and Related Health Problems. Available at
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/DCL-7-2012-
0014_EN.pdf?redirect.
28http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/committees/1474/reports/5G%20
final%20report.pdf.
77 479
with RF/EMF exposure.29 Participants received continued medical education
(CME) credits.
32. We have no doubt that for some of our patients, RF/EMF are the
cause of their symptoms. Only those who have not had patients who are affected,
have not performed direct evaluations or are ignorant of the scientific and medical
literature and the operation of the human body, can doubt these patients and their
suffering from pulsed RF/EMFs.
Smart Meter Specific Issues
33. The problems with smart meters arise not only from the RF signal
used to wirelessly transfer the data to the utility company. A major problem is that
smart meters inject pulsed RF and extremely low-frequency (ELFs) EMFs over a
house’s electric wiring, effectively turning the entire home into a radiating antenna.
Locating the smart meter further away from the house is not an acceptable solution
or reasonable accommodation because it does not eliminate this “antenna” effect.30
34. This problem is exacerbated because the RF/EMF that enter the
electric system are intensely pulsed,31 and pulsation has consistently been
29 https://emfconference2021.com/.
30 See expert engineer Erik Anderson statement which is part of the amicus brief.
31 https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/EFILE/BRIEF/171336.PDF.
78 480
identified as a central element in RF/EMF related injuries.32 EMFs used for
medical treatments are pulsed because the pulsation makes the signal more
bioactive.33
35. Some of our patients reported symptom onset after a smart meter was
installed on their homes. Many were not aware of the installation at the time, did
not suffer from adverse effects from wireless devices and had no idea that these
meters or any wireless device can cause harm. In many of the cases, the association
between the meter installation and the appearance of symptoms is clear.34
36. However, the best evidence of the adverse effects of these meters is
the changes we see almost immediately after a smart meter is removed and
replaced with an analog meter. Our patients’ symptoms usually disappear or at
least significantly lessen.
37. Adverse reactions which are not affected by subjective perception
disappear and thus the evidence is indisputable and cannot be deemed a “nocebo”
effect. It establishes clear and direct causation. For example, a common symptom
we see in patients from smart meters is nosebleeds, including in children. When the
32https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10709642227609/Carlo%20paper%20%20Real%20vers
us%20Simulated%20Mobile%20Phone%20Exposures%20in%20Experimental%20St
udies.pdf.
33 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520940777.pdf.
34 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520958363.pdf.
79 481
family has the smart meter removed, the nosebleeds usually disappear almost
overnight. Studies have explained the mechanism behind pulsed RF/EMF exposure
and nosebleeds.35
38. We must emphasize that the question of initial causation is irrelevant.
The smart meter may or may not be the source that first generates symptom onset.
What is relevant is that once a person begins to react to pulsed RF/EMFs, any and
all exposure must be avoided, since avoidance is the primary and only truly
effective treatment. People can turn off a cell phone, but they cannot turn off the
smart meter or shield themselves from its effects.
39. People with major life function impairments require accommodation,
without regard to initial cause. The accommodation requirement merely allows
them to better function and have some chance of a tolerable life.
40. Forcing smart meters on our patients who are adversely affected by
RF/EMF, in their homes, means exposing them 24/7 to a toxin that instigates
dysfunction, tormenting pain and severe physiological injuries and reactions, some
of which can be life-threatening.
41. Our patients and those like them cannot be required to endure
exposure that is toxic and can be even deadly to them in their own home as a
35 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1091442657471/Cuban%20Embassy-
Beatrice%20Golomb%20PhD-Microwave%20Attack.pdf#page=20.
80 482
condition of utility service. If they cannot have a safe environment in their homes,
their condition will undoubtedly worsen and can result in death. Their home is
their only refuge.
42. The main recommendation to our patients beyond avoidance is to
contact professionals who specialize in EMF mitigation, to help them mitigate
RF/EMF exposure and shield the home from outside exposure sources. However,
no amount of shielding can protect those who are sick from the effects of smart
meters, since they turn the home’s electric wiring into a transmitting antenna. This
is the worst-case scenario for the electro-sensitive.
Summary
43. Based on our knowledge and experience, we unequivocally determine
that wireless and digital “smart” meters must not be forced on those who suffer
adverse reactions from RF/EMF exposure. Those who are affected must have the
choice of mechanical analog meters. Any other outcome will lead to immense
suffering and even death. It would be unconscionable.
44. This accommodation is necessary, simple and reasonable. All that is
required is to allow them to use the same mechanical analog utility meter that was
installed for many decades on homes.

Respectfully Submitted,
81 483

Physicians Statement Signatories

Prashanthi Atluri, MD, Cardiology, OH
Tiffany Baer, MD, Internal Medicine, TX
Sunil Bhat, DO, Family Medicine, PA
Anthony Bianco, DO, Family Medicine, OH
Michael Blahut, DO, Family Medicine, PA
Mark Brody, MD, Primary Care, Integrative Medicine, RI
Larry Burk, MD, Radiology, NC
Maria Carrascal, MD, Pediatrics, Puerto Rico
David Calderwood, MD, Family Medicine, AL
Lora Chamberlain, DO, Family Medicine, IL
Jaqueline Chan, DO, Family and Integrative Medicine, CA
Barbara A. Crothers, DO, Pathology, MD
Diane Culik, MD, Family Medicine, MI
Paul Dart, MD, Family Practice Physician, OR
82 484
Sandra Denton, MD, Family Medicine, Alternative Medicine, Emergency
Medicine, AK

Tim Dooley, MD, Integrative Medicine, CA
Robyn Dreibelbis, DO, Family Medicine, OR
Victoria Dunckley, MD, Psychiatry, CA
Ben Edwards, MD, Functional Medicine, TX
Erica Elliot, MD, Family and Environmental Medicine, NM
Tracy Freeman, MD, Internal Medicine, MD
Deborah Ginsburg, MD, Family Medicine, Special Needs, NJ
Melanie Gisler, DO, Family Medicine, CA
Sharon Goldberg, MD, Internal and Integrative Medicine, NM
Stephen Grable, MD, Internal Medicine, FL
Margaret Heinze, MD, Family Medicine, WI
Martha Herbert, MD PhD, Pediatric Neurologist, MA
Michael Hilts, MD, Family Medicine, NC
Jeanne Hubbuch, MD, Family Medicine, MA
Toril Jelter, MD, Pediatrics, CA
83 485
Lyn Johnson, DO, Family Medicine, FL
Bob Kaplan, MD, Diagnostic Radiology, AZ
Stacy Kuhns, MD, Pediatrics, PA
Christopher Lawinski, MD, Integrative Medicine, HI
Janet Levatin, MD, Pediatrics, OH
Stephanie McCarter, MD, Internal Medicine, TX
Lawrence McKnight, MD, Internal Medicine, PA
Jorge Moreno, DO, Family Medicine, CA
Leah Morton, MD, Family Medicine, NM
Gerald Natzke, DO, Assistant Clinical Professor, Michigan State University,
Environmental Medicine, Allergies, MI

Raymond Oenbrink, DO, Family Medicine, NC
Kara Parker, MD, Family Medicine, Functional Medicine, and Integrative
Health, MN

Jessica Peatross, MD, Internal and Functional Medicine, NC
Michelle Perro, MD, Pediatrics, Integrative Medicine, CA
Diane Powell, MD, Psychiatry, OR
84 486
Peter Prociuk, MD, Internal Medicine, PA
Kirsten Reynolds, MD, Family Medicine, WI
David G. Schwartz, MD, Family Medicine, VA
Jennifer Shaw, MD, Obstetrics and Gynecology, AZ
Pam Shervanick, DO, Psychiatry, ME
Frank Sievert, MD, Family Medicine, OR
Ana-Maria Temple, MD, Pediatrics, NC
Robert Turner, MD, Neurology, SC
Kevin Wand, DO, Family Medicine, MN
Jane Williams, MD, General Surgery, CA
Savely Yurkovsky, MD, Cardiology, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, NY
James Ziobron, DO, Family Medicine, MI

85 487
PHYSICIANS STATEMENT – Exhibit 1
86 488
Rev Environ Health 2015; 30(4): 337–371
European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) – EMF
working group:*Corresponding author: Gerd Oberfeld, Department of Public
Health, Government of Land Salzburg, Austria,
E-mail: [e-mail] Belyaev: Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science,
Bratislava, Slovak Republic; and Prokhorov General Physics
Institute, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, RussiaAmy Dean: American Academy of Environmental Medicine,
Wichita, Kansas, USAHorst Eger: Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians
of Bavaria, Medical Quality Circle “Electromagnetic Fields in
Medicine – Diagnostic, Therapy, Environment”, Naila, GermanyGerhard Hubmann: Center for Holistic Medicine “MEDICUS”, Vienna,
Austria; and Wiener Internationale Akademie für Ganzheitsmedizin
(GAMED), Vienna, AustriaReinhold Jandrisovits: Medical Association Burgenland,
Environmental Medicine Department, Eisenstadt, AustriaOlle Johansson: The Experimental Dermatology Unit,
Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm,
Sweden
Markus Kern: Medical Quality Circle “Electromagnetic Fields in
Medicine – Diagnosis, Treatment and Environment”, Kempten,
Germany; and Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch,
Umwelt u. Demokratie e.V, Kempten, GermanyMichael Kundi and Hanns Moshammer: Institute of Environmental
Health, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, AustriaPiero Lercher: Medical Association Vienna, Environmental Medicine
Department, Vienna, AustriaWilhelm Mosgöller: Institute of Cancer Research Medical University
Vienna, Vienna, AustriaKurt Müller: European Academy for Environmental Medicine,
Kempten, GermanyPeter Ohnsorge: European Academy for Environmental Medicine,
Würzburg, GermanyPeter Pelzmann: Department of electronics and computer science
engineering, HTL Danube City, Vienna, AustriaClaus Scheingraber: Working Group Electro-Biology (AEB), Munich,
Germany; and Association for Environmental- and Human-Toxicology
(DGUHT), Würzburg, GermanyRoby Thill: Association for Environmental Medicine (ALMEN)
Beaufort, Luxembourg
Igor Belyaev, Amy Dean, Horst Eger, Gerhard Hubmann, Reinhold Jandrisovits, Olle Johansson, Markus Kern, Michael Kundi, Piero Lercher, Wilhelm Mosgöller, Hanns Moshammer, Kurt Müller, Gerd Oberfeld*, Peter Ohnsorge, Peter Pelzmann, Claus Scheingraber and Roby ThillEUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses
DOI 10.1515/reveh-2015-0033
Received October 1, 2015; accepted October 13, 2015
Abstract: Chronic diseases and illnesses associated
with unspecific symptoms are on the rise. In addition to
chronic stress in social and work environments, physi-
cal and chemical exposures at home, at work, and during
leisure activities are causal or contributing environmen-
tal stressors that deserve attention by the general practi-
tioner as well as by all other members of the health care
community. It seems certainly necessary now to take “new
exposures” like electromagnetic field (EMF) into account.
Physicians are increasingly confronted with health prob-
lems from unidentified causes. Studies, empirical obser-
vations, and patient reports clearly indicate interactions
between EMF exposure and health problems. Individual
susceptibility and environmental factors are frequently
neglected. New wireless technologies and applications
have been introduced without any certainty about their
health effects, raising new challenges for medicine and
society. For instance, the issue of so-called non-thermal
effects and potential long-term effects of low-dose expo-
sure were scarcely investigated prior to the introduction of
these technologies. Common EMF sources include Wi-Fi
access points, routers and clients, cordless and mobile
phones including their base stations, Bluetooth devices,
ELF magnetic fields from net currents, ELF electric fields
from electric lamps and wiring close to the bed and office
desk. On the one hand, there is strong evidence that long-
term-exposure to certain EMF exposures is a risk factor
for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease
and male infertility. On the other hand, the emerging
electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is more and more
recognized by health authorities, disability administra-
tors and case workers, politicians, as well as courts of
law. We recommend treating EHS clinically as part of the
group of chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI) leading to
a functional impairment (EHS), but still recognizing that
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
87 489
338      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
the underlying cause remains the environment. In the
beginning, EHS symptoms often occur only occasionally,
but over time they may increase in frequency and severity.
Common EHS symptoms include headaches, concentra-
tion difficulties, sleeping problems, depression, lack of
energy, fatigue and flu-like symptoms. A comprehensive
medical history, which should include all symptoms and
their occurrences in spatial and temporal terms and in
the context of EMF exposures, is the key to the diagnosis.
The EMF exposure can be assessed by asking for typical
sources like Wi-Fi access points, routers and clients, cord-
less and mobile phones and measurements at home and
at work. It is very important to take the individual suscep-
tibility into account. The primary method of treatment
should mainly focus on the prevention or reduction of
EMF exposure, that is, reducing or eliminating all sources
of EMF at home and in the workplace. The reduction of
EMF exposure should also be extended to public spaces
such as schools, hospitals, public transport, and libraries
to enable persons with EHS an unhindered use (accessi-
bility measure). If a detrimental EMF exposure is reduced
sufficiently, the body has a chance to recover and EHS
symptoms will be reduced or even disappear. Many exam-
ples have shown that such measures can prove effective.
Also the survival rate of children with leukemia depends
on ELF magnetic field exposure at home. To increase the
effectiveness of the treatment, the broad range of other
environmental factors that contribute to the total body
burden should also be addressed. Anything that supports
a balanced homeostasis will increase a person’s resilience
against disease and thus against the adverse effects of EMF
exposure. There is increasing evidence that EMF exposure
has a major impact on the oxidative and nitrosative regu-
lation capacity in affected individuals. This concept also
may explain why the level of susceptibility to EMF can
change and why the number of symptoms reported in the
context of EMF exposures is so large. Based on our current
understanding, a treatment approach that minimizes the
adverse effects of peroxynitrite – as has been increasingly
used in the treatment of multisystem disorders – works
best. This EMF Guideline gives an overview of the current
knowledge regarding EMF-related health risks and pro-
vides concepts for the diagnosis and treatment and acces-
sibility measures of EHS to improve and restore individual
health outcomes as well as for the development of strate-
gies for prevention.
Keywords: accessability measures; alternating;
Alzheimer’s; cancer; chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI);
diagnosis; electric; electromagnetic field (EMF); electro-
magnetic hypersensitivity (EHS); functional impairment;
infertility; leukemia; magnetic; medical guideline; nitro-
sative stress; nonionizing; oxidative stress; peroxynitrite;
prevention; radiation; static; therapy; treatment.
Current state of the scientific and
political debate from a medical
perspective
Introduction
The Environmental Burden of Disease Project assessed
the influence of nine environmental stressors (benzene,
dioxins including furans and dioxin-like PCBs, second-
hand smoke, formaldehyde, lead, noise, ozone, particu-
late matter and radon) on the health of the population of
six countries (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,
and the Netherlands). Those nine environmental stressors
caused 3%–7% of the annual burden of disease in the six
European countries (1).
The Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer (BPtK) study
in Germany showed that mental disorders had increased
further and especially burnout as a reason of inability
to work escalated seven-fold from 2004 to 2011 (2). In
Germany, 42% of early retirements in 2012 were caused by
mental disorders, depression being the leading diagnosis
(3). In Germany, psychotropic drugs are at third place for
the prescriptions of all drugs (4).
The consumption of methylphenidate (Ritalin,
Medikinet, Concerta), a psychotropic drug prescribed as
a treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) especially for young children and adolescents,
has increased alarmingly since the early 1990s. Accord-
ing to statistics of the German Federal Institute for Drugs
and Medical Devices (Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel
und Medizinprodukte), prescriptions have increased
even more dramatically since 2000 and reached a climax
in 2012. In 2013, only a slight decline in the number of
prescriptions was observed (5). Interestingly the rapid
increase in the use of methylphenidate coincides with
the enormous expansion of mobile telecommunication
and other related technologies, posing an open research
question.
In Germany, work disability cases and absence days
due to mental health disorders more than doubled from
1994 to 2011 (6). In OECD countries, a huge variability
in the prescription of antidepressants has occurred and
generally an increasing trend has been observed. Socio-
economic status and therapeutic standards cannot fully
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
88 490
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      339
explain these observations (7). Functional disturbances
like chronic inflammation and changes of neurotransmit-
ter functions caused by environmental influences are not
investigated.
A steady increase in the prevalence of allergic/asth-
matic diseases globally has occurred, with about 30%–
40% of the world population now being affected by one or
more allergic/asthmatic conditions (8).
It is suspected that environmental conditions such
as the increasing exposure of the population to electro-
magnetic fields (EMFs) like radio-frequency radiation
(RF), emanating from e.g. cordless phones (DECT), mobile
phone base stations and cell phones (GSM, GPRS, UMTS,
LTE) – especially smartphones, data cards for laptop and
notebook computers, wireless LAN (Wi-Fi), wireless and
powerline communication-based smart meters, but also
exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and
magnetic fields including “dirty electricity”, emanating
from disturbances on the electric wiring, power lines, elec-
tric devices, and other equipment, do play a causal role
for EMF-related health effects (9–12). For the society and
the medical community, all of this raises new challenges.
Chronic diseases and illnesses associated with unspe-
cific symptoms are on the rise. In addition to chronic stress
in social and work environments, physical and chemical
exposures at home, at work, and during leisure activities
are causal or contributing environmental stressors that
deserve attention by the general practitioner as well as by
all other members of the health care community. It seems
certainly necessary now to take “new exposures” like EMF
into account.
Worldwide statements of organizations regarding EMF
The recommendations of the World Health Organization
(WHO) regarding extremely low frequency (ELF) electric
and magnetic fields and radio-frequency radiation, com-
piled by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) (13, 14), are based on induc-
tions of currents in the body and thermal effects (SAR
values). These recommendations were adopted by the EU
in its Council Recommendation of 1999 without taking into
account long-term nonthermal effects. However, it should
be stressed that at an international EMF conference in
London (2008), Professor Paolo Vecchia, head of ICNIRP,
said about the exposure guidelines “What they are not”:
“They are not mandatory prescriptions for safety”, “They
are not the ‘last word’ on the issue”, and “They are not
defensive walls for industry or others” (15).
Even for short-term effects, the application of
specific absorption rate (SAR) estimates seems to be not
appropriate (16).
In contrast to the WHO headquarter in Geneva, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) , a
WHO-affiliated specialized agency in Lyon, classified
extremely low frequency magnetic fields as possibly car-
cinogenic to humans (Group 2B) in 2002 (17) and radio-
frequency radiation in 2011 (18).
In August 2007 and December 2012, the BioInitia-
tive Working Group, an international group of experts,
published comprehensive reports calling for preventive
measures against EMF exposure based on the available
scientific evidence (9, 10).
Since it is mostly neglected as a health hazard, the
European Environment Agency compared the risks of non-
ionizing radiation (EMF) to other environmental hazards
such as asbestos, benzene and tobacco, urgently recom-
mending to implement a precautionary approach regarding
EMF (19). This position was confirmed and elaborated more
deeply in further publications in 2011 and 2013 (20, 21).
In September 2008, a statement of the European
Parliament called for a review of the EMF limits set out
in the EU Council Recommendation of 1999, which was
based on the ICNIRP guidelines, with reference to the
BioInitiative Report (22). This was further strengthened in
the European Parliament resolution of April 2009 (23).
In November, 2009, a scientific panel met in Seletun,
Norway, for 3 days of intensive discussion on existing
scientific evidence and public health implications of the
unprecedented global exposures to artificial electromag-
netic fields. Such electromagnetic field exposures (static
to 300 GHz) result from the use of electric power and from
wireless telecommunications technologies for voice and
data transmission, energy, security, military and radar use
in weather and transportation.
At the meeting, the Seletun Scientific Panel adopted a
Consensus Agreement (24) that recommends preventative
and precautionary actions that are warranted now, given
the existing evidence for potential global health risks.
It recognizes the duty of governments and their health
agencies to educate and warn the public, to implement
measures balanced in favor of the Precautionary Princi-
ple (25), to monitor compliance with directives promoting
alternatives to wireless, and to fund research and policy
development geared toward prevention of exposures and
development of new public safety measures.
The Scientific Panel recognizes that the body of evi-
dence on electromagnetic fields requires a new approach
to protection of public health; the growth and develop-
ment of the fetus, and of children; and argues for strong
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
89 491
340      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
preventative actions. These conclusions are built upon
prior scientific and public health reports documenting the
following:
1) Low-intensity (non-thermal) bioeffects and adverse
health effects are demonstrated at levels significantly
below existing exposure standards.
2) ICNIRP and IEEE/FCC public safety limits are inad-
equate and obsolete with respect to prolonged, low-
intensity exposures.
3) New, biologically-based public exposure stand-
ards are urgently needed to protect public health
world-wide.
4) It is not in the public interest to wait.
The Panel also strongly recommends that persons with
electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms (EHS) be clas-
sified as functionally impaired in all countries rather than
with “idiopathic environmental disease” or similar indis-
tinct categories. This terminology will encourage govern-
ments to make adjustments in the living environment to
better address social and well-being needs of this subpop-
ulation of highly sensitive members of society, and – as
a consequence – protect everyone now as well as in the
coming generations from toxic environmental exposures.
It is important to note that numeric limits recom-
mended by the Seletun Scientific Panel, as well as by
other bodies of society, do not yet take into account sensi-
tive populations (EHS, immune-compromised, the fetus,
developing children, the elderly, people on medications,
etc.). Another safety margin is, thus, likely justified further
below the numeric limits for EMF exposure recommended
by the Panel.
In May 2011, the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe adopted the report “The potential
dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effects on
the environment” (26). The Assembly recommended
many preventive measures for the member states of the
Council of Europe with the aim to protect humans and
the environment, especially from high-frequency electro-
magnetic fields such as: “Take all reasonable measures
to reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially
to radiofrequencies from mobile phones, and particularly
the exposure of children and young people who seem
to be most at risk from head tumors” or “Pay particular
attention to “electrosensitive” people who suffer from a
syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields and
introduce special measures to protect them, including
the creation of wave-free areas not covered by the wire-
less network.”
Recognizing that patients are being adversely
affected by EMF exposure, the American Academy of
Environmental Medicine published recommendations
regarding EMF exposure in July 2012. The AAEM called
for physicians to consider electromagnetic exposure in
diagnosis and treatment and recognize that EMF expo-
sure “may be an underlying cause of the patient’s disease
process” (27).
Since 2014 the Belgium government has prohibited
the advertising of cell phones for children under the age of
seven and has required the specific absorption rate (SAR)
of cell phones be listed. Furthermore, at the point of sale,
well-marked warnings must be posted that instruct users
to use headsets and to minimize their exposure (28).
In January 2015, the French parliament adopted a
comprehensive law that protects the general public from
excessive exposure to electromagnetic waves. Among
other things, it was passed to ban Wi-Fi in nurseries for
children under the age of three and to enable Wi-Fi at
primary schools with children under the age of 11 only
when used specifically for lessons. Public places offer-
ing Wi-Fi must clearly advertise this fact on a sign. At
the point of sale of cell phones, the SAR value must be
clearly shown. In the future, any cell phone advertise-
ment must include recommendations on how users can
reduce RF radiation exposure to the head such as the use
of headsets. Data on local EMF exposure levels shall be
made more easily accessible to the general public, among
others, through country-wide transmitter maps. Also, the
French government will have to submit a report on elec-
tromagnetic hypersensitivity to the parliament within a
year (29).
In May 2015 almost 200 scientists directed an interna-
tional appeal to United Nations (UN) and WHO and called
for protection from nonionizing electromagnetic field
exposure. In the appeal the scientifically proven effects
on health and the hitherto inadequate international
guidelines (ICNIRP) and their use by WHO had been
addressed. In addition, various demands were made in
nine points, such as that: “the public be fully informed
about the potential health risks from electromagnetic
energy and taught harm reduction strategies” and “that
medical professionals be educated about the biological
effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided train-
ing on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensi-
tivity” (30).
Finally, in 2015 Pall (12) published a comprehen-
sive paper with the title “Scientific evidence contradicts
findings and assumptions of Canadian Safety Panel 6:
microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel
activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal
levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower
frequency electromagnetic field action”.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
90 492
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      341
EMF and cancer
Except for a few investigations in occupational settings,
epidemiological research of EMF started in 1979 when
Wertheimer and Leeper published their study about the
relationship between the proximity to so-called power
line poles with “service drop” wires and the occurrence of
childhood cancer (specifically leukemia and brain tumors)
(31). At the same time Robinette et al. studied mortality in
a cohort of Korean War veterans having been trained on
military radars in the early 1950s (32). Both studies found
indications of increased risks and initiated a new era of
studying health-relevant effects from exposure to EMFs.
In the following years, a large number of investiga-
tions about the relationship between childhood leuke-
mia and extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF
MF) have been published. However, the results seemed
inconsistent until in 2000 two pooled analyses (33, 34)
were conducted, providing little indication of inconsist-
ency and demonstrating an increase of leukemia risk with
increasing average exposure levels that was significant for
levels above 0.3 or 0.4 µT relative to averages below 0.1 µT
but without indication of a threshold. Based on these
findings, the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) classified ELF MF in 2002 as a Group 2B (possible)
carcinogen (17). To this category belong e.g. lead, DDT,
welding fumes, and carbon tetrachloride.
Since then additional epidemiological studies have
been conducted that gave essentially the same results (35,
36). In a review on childhood leukemia and ELF MF, Kundi
concluded that there is sufficient evidence from epidemio-
logical studies of an increased risk for childhood leuke-
mia from exposure to power-frequency MF that cannot
be attributed to chance, bias, or confounding. Therefore,
according to the rules of IARC, such exposures ought to be
classified as a Group 1 (definite) carcinogen (10).
The prognosis of certain diseases can be influenced
by EMF-reduction. For example, children who have leuke-
mia and are in recovery have poorer survival rates if their
ELF magnetic field exposure at home (or where they are
recovering) is between 1 mG [0.1 µT] and 2 mG [0.2 µT] or
above 2 mG [0.2 µT] in one study, over 3 mG [0.3 µT] in
another study (9).
Epidemiological studies of radio-frequency fields
before the general rise in exposure to mobile telecom-
munication networks was quite restricted and only a few
studies had been conducted in the vicinity of radio trans-
mitters, radar stations, other occupational exposures, a
in radio amateurs. After the introduction of digital mobile
telephony, the number of users of mobile phones increased
dramatically and it was recommended in the 1990s to
perform epidemiological studies with a focus on intrac-
ranial tumors. Since the first publication in 1999 by the
Swedish group around Prof. Lennart Hardell (37), about
40 studies have been published. The majority of these
studies investigated brain tumors, but also salivary gland
tumors, uveal melanoma, nerve sheath tumors, testicular
cancer, and lymphoma. Many of these studies are incon-
clusive because of too short exposure durations; however,
two series of investigations, the international Interphone
study conducted in 13 countries and the Swedish studies
of the Hardell group, had a significant proportion of long-
term mobile phone users and could in principle be used
for risk assessment. In 2011, IARC classified radio-fre-
quency electromagnetic fields (RF) as a Group 2B carcino-
gen based on evidence from epidemiological studies and
animal experiments (18). Since then, additional studies
have corroborated the assumption of a causal relationship
between mobile phone use and cancer (38–40). Hardell
and Carlberg (41) concluded that RF-EMF ought to be clas-
sified as a definitive human carcinogen (IARC Group 1).
The evidence for a causal relationship between long-term
mobile and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma has
increased further in 2015 (42).
In Italy, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling in October
2012 for an 80% disability rating and permanent disabil-
ity pension due to a tumor, which was causally connected
with the occupation-related heavy use of cell and cordless
phones (43).
EMF and neurodegeneration
Neurological effects are caused by changes in the nervous
system, including direct damage (neurodegeneration) to
nerve cells and their processes, the axons and dendrites, as
well as their terminal common functional entities, the syn-
apses with their receptors, ion channels and comodulators.
Factors that act directly or indirectly on the nervous system
causing morphological, chemical, and/or electrical changes
in the nervous system can lead to neurological alterations.
The final manifestation of these effects can be seen in neu-
rocognitive changes, e.g. memory, learning and perception,
as well as in primary sensory and motor incapacities.
The nervous system is an electrical organ based on a
very complex chemistry. Thus, it should not be surprising
that exposure to electromagnetic fields could lead to neu-
rodegeneration and concomitant or consecutive neuro-
logical changes. Morphological, chemical, electrical, and
behavioral changes have been reported in animals, cells
and tissues after exposure to electromagnetic fields across
a range of frequencies.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
91 493
342      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
The consequences of physiological changes in the
nervous system are very difficult to assess. We do not
fully understand how the nervous system functions and
reacts to external perturbations. The neuronal plastic-
ity of the nervous system could compensate for external
disturbances, at least to a certain degree. On the other
hand, the consequence of neural perturbation is also
situation-dependent. An EMF-induced severe change in
brain performance, for instance, could lead to different
consequences depending on whether a person is sitting in
a sofa watching TV or driving a car. The latter could very
well end dramatically, even fatally.
It should be noted that analyses of the recent neuro-
logical literature show that there are more publications
showing effects than no effects. So the question is not if
EMFs cause effects, but rather how serious they will be for
a given person.
Neurological effects of radio-frequency radiation (RFR)
There are many studies on human subjects. Many of the
published papers are on changes in brain electrical activi-
ties, the EEG, as well as impacts on sleep, after acute expo-
sure to cell phone radiation.
Bak et al. (44) reported effects on event-related
potentials. Maganioti et al. (45) further reported that RFR
affected the gender-specific components of event-related
potentials [see also Hountala et al. (46)]. Croft et al. (47)
reported changes of the alpha wave power in the EEG.
The same authors (48) further reported that effects dif-
fered between various new cell phone transmission
systems, which have different signaling characteristics.
They observed effects after exposure to second genera-
tion (2G), but not third generation (3G) radiation, whereas
Leung et al. (49) found similar EEG effects with both 2G
and 3G types of radiation. Lustenberger et al. (50) found
increased slow-wave activity in humans during exposure
to pulse-modulated RF EMF toward the end of the sleep
period. Vecchio and associates reported that cell phone
RFR affected EEG and the spread of neural synchroniza-
tion conveyed by interhemispherical functional coupling
of EEG rhythms (51) and enhanced human cortical neural
efficiency (52). An interesting finding is that RFR could
interact with the activity of brain epileptic foci in epilep-
tic patients (53, 54). However, no significant effect on EEG
was reported by Perentos et al. (55) or Trunk et al. (56).
And Kleinlogel et al. (57, 58) also reported no significant
effects on resting EEG and event-related potentials in
humans after exposure to cell phone RFR. Furthermore,
Krause et al. (59) reported no significant effect of cell
phone radiation on brain oscillatory activity, and Inomata-
Terada et al. (60) concluded that cell phone radiation does
not affect the electrical activity of the motor cortex.
There are studies on the interaction of cell phone
radiation on EEG during sleep. Changes in sleep EEG have
been reported by Hung et al. (61), Regel et al. (62), Lowden
et al. (63), Schmid et al. (64, 65), and Loughran et al. (66),
whereas no significant effect was reported by Fritzer et al.
(67), Mohler et al. (68, 69) and Nakatani-Enomoto et al.
(70). Loughran et al. (66) provided an interesting conclu-
sion in their paper: “These results confirm previous find-
ings of mobile phone-like emissions affecting the EEG
during non-REM sleep”. Importantly, this low-level effect
was also shown to be sensitive to individual variability. Fur-
thermore, this indicates that “previous negative results are
not strong evidence for a lack of an effect…” Increase in
REM sleep was reported by Pelletier et al. (71) in developing
rats after chronic exposure. Mohammed et al. (72) reported
a disturbance in REM sleep EEG in the rat after long term
exposure (1 h/day for 1 month) to a 900-MHz modulated
RFR. A Swiss Study revealed that, under pulse-modulated
radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure, sleep slow-
wave activity is increased and – fitting to that – the sleep-
dependent performance improvement is decreased (50).
Among the very many effects reported in the ever
increasing number of scientific papers are also reduction
in behavioral arousal, sleep latency alterations, effects on
cognitive functions and EEG, on spatial working memory,
on well-being, influences on overall behavioral problems
in adolescents, alteration of thermal pain threshold and
visual discrimination threshold, respectively, induced
hyperactivity, hypoactivity and impaired memory, respec-
tively, contextual emotional behavior deficit, olfactory
and/or visual memory deficit, impact on food collection
behavior (in ants), decreased motor activity, learning
behavior deficit, induction of stress behavioral patterns,
passive avoidance deficit, and reduced memory functions.
Almost all the animal studies reported effects, whereas
more human studies reported no effects than effects. This
may be caused by several possible factors: (a) Humans are
less susceptible to the effects of RFR than are rodents and
other species. (b) Non-thermal effects of RFR depend on
a number of physical and biological parameters (73). The
same exposure can induce effects in certain biological
species while being ineffective in others. IARC also admits
that some of the discrepancies between RFR studies could
be due to differences in species [(18), p. 416]. (c) It may
be more difficult to do human than animal experiments,
since, in general, it is easier to control the variables and
confounding factors in an animal experiment. (d) In the
animal studies, the cumulative exposure duration was
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
92 494
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      343
generally longer and studies were carried out after expo-
sure, whereas in the human studies, the exposure was
generally at one time and testing was done during expo-
sure. This raises the question of whether the effects of
RFR are cumulative. This consideration could have very
important implications on real-life human exposure to
EMF. However, it must be pointed out that neurophysi-
ological and behavioral changes have been reported in
both animals and humans after acute (one-time) exposure
to RFR, and most of the EEG studies mentioned above are
acute exposure experiments.
Neurological effects of extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF)
A number of authors have reported effects of ELF-EMF on
various animal transmitter receptors in the brain such as
NMDA receptors, dopamine and serotonin receptors, includ-
ing the 5HT(2A) subtype of serotonin receptors. The latter
is classically, particularly in the frontal cortex, believed to
be related to the psychiatric syndromes of depression in
humans. Kitaoka et al. (74) and Szemerszky et al. (75) did
report depression-like behavior in both mice and rats, after
chronic exposure to ELF magnetic fields. There are two
reports on dopamine receptors. Shin et al. (76, 77) reported
an increase in D-1 dopamine receptors and activity in the
striatum of the rat after ELF magnetic field exposure. Dopa-
mine in the striatum is, of course, involved in Parkinson’s
disease. Wang et al. (78) reported that ELF magnetic fields
potentiated morphine-induced decrease in D-2 dopamine
receptors. Both D-1 and D-2 dopamine receptors in the brain
are involved in depression and drug addiction. Ravera et al.
(79) reported changes in the enzyme acetylcholinesterase
in cell membrane isolated from the cerebellum after ELF
magnetic field exposure. Interestingly, these researchers
also reported “frequency window” effects in their experi-
ment. Window effects, i.e. effects are observed at a certain
range(s) of EMF frequencies or intensities, were first
reported by Ross Adey, Susan Bawin, and Carl Blackman in
the 1980s. A study by Fournier et al. (80) reported an ‘inten-
sity window’ effect of ELF magnetic field on neurodevelop-
ment in the rat. The cholinergic systems in the brain play a
major role in learning and memory functions.
Behavioral effects of ELF-EMF have been further sub-
stantiated in recent research. These include: changes in
locomotor activity (76, 77, 81–86), learning and memory
functions (80, 87–95), anxiety (81, 93, 96–98), depression-
like behavior (74, 75), perception (99), cognitive dysfunc-
tion (100), emotional state (101), sleep onset (61), and
comb building in hornets (102). As different behavioral
effects have been observed in different exposure condi-
tions, species of animals, and testing paradigms, they
provide the strongest evidence that exposure to ELF-EMF
can affect the nervous system.
The possible medical applications of ELF-EMF should
also be given more attention. Several studies indicate
that ELF-EMF (however, mostly at high exposure levels)
could enhance recovery of functions after nervous system
damage and have protective effects against development
of neurodegenerative diseases. The majority of the studies
used magnetic fields above 0.1 mT (1 gauss; the highest
was 8 mT). The intensities are much higher than those in
the public environment. Thus, caution should be taken in
extrapolating the high-intensity cell and animal studies to
long-term environmental human exposure situations.
In addition, however, there are studies at low or very
low magnetic field exposure levels. Humans are sensi-
tive to magnetic fields at levels <1 µT. A study by Ross
et al. (99) showed “perception” alteration in human
subjects exposed to a magnetic field at 10 nT (0.00001
mT), a study by Fournier et al. (80) showed an effect on
brain development in the rat at 30 nT (0.00003 mT), and
a study by Stevens (101) indicated changes in emotional
states in humans exposed to 8–12 Hz magnetic fields at 5
µT (0.005 mT). These data do suggest magnetic fields at
very low intensities could cause neurological effects in
humans. In the 1990s, there was a series of more than 20
studies published by Reuven Sandyk, showing that pulsed
magnetic fields at picotesla levels (1 pT = 0.000000001 mT)
could have therapeutic effects on Parkinson’s disease and
multiple sclerosis [see e.g. (103)]. However, Sandyk’s find-
ings have never been independently confirmed.
The above mentioned therapeutic applications of EMF
elicit that different EMF-exposures have biological effects
under certain conditions for short-term use.
Alzheimer’s disease
Amyloid beta (Aβ) protein is generally considered the
primary neurotoxic agent causally associated with Alzhei-
mer’s disease. Aβ is produced by both brain and periph-
eral cells and can pass through the blood brain barrier.
The BioInitiative review 2012 (10) summarized the evi-
dence concerning Alzheimer’s disease as follows:
1) There is longitudinal epidemiologic evidence that
high peripheral blood levels of Aβ, particularly Aβ1-
42, are a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.
2) There is epidemiologic evidence that extremely low
frequency (ELF, 50–60 Hz) magnetic field (MF) expo-
sure upregulates peripheral blood levels of Aβ.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
93 495
344      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
3) There is evidence that melatonin can inhibit the
development of Alzheimer’s disease and, thus, low
melatonin levels may increase the risk of Alzheimer’s
disease.
4) There is strong epidemiologic evidence that signifi-
cant (i.e. high), occupational ELF-MF exposure can
lead to the downregulation of melatonin production.
The precise components of the magnetic fields caus-
ing this downregulation are unknown. Other factors
which may influence the relationship between ELF-
MF exposure and melatonin production are unknown,
but certain medications may play a role.
5) There is strong epidemiologic evidence that high
occupational ELF MF exposure is a risk factor for
Alzheimer’s disease, based on case-control studies
which used expert diagnoses and a restrictive classifi-
cation of ELFMF exposure.
6) There are only single epidemiologic studies of Alzhei-
mer’s disease and radio-frequency electromagnetic
field exposure, and only one epidemiology study
of non-acute radio-frequency electromagnetic field
exposure and melatonin. So, no final conclusions
concerning health consequences due to RF exposure
and Alzheimer’s disease are currently possible.
Hallberg and Johansson (104) demonstrated that the mor-
tality in Alzheimer’s disease appears to be associated
with mobile phone output power. Deeper studies in this
complex area are still necessary.
There is epidemiological evidence that also residen-
tial exposure to ELF magnetic fields is associated with an
increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease (105, 106).
Earlier reviews of the association between exposure to
ELF MF and neurodegenerative diseases came to different
conclusions (107, 108). The discrepancy is mainly due to two
aspects: the assessment of a possible publication bias and
the selection and classification of exposed groups. Since
most studies are about occupational exposure, it is manda-
tory to avoid misclassification. If care is taken to avoid such
ambiguity, there is a clear meta-analytical relationship and
an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease and amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS). This association shows little het-
erogeneity across studies if the different methodologies
are considered and publication bias has been detected for
studies relying on mortality registries only (109).
EMF and infertility and reproduction
Infertility and reproduction disorders are on the rise. The
BioInitiative review 2012 (10) summarized the evidence
concerning infertility and reproduction as follows – with
small adaptations by the authors:
Human sperm are damaged by cell phone radiation at
very low intensities, in the low microwatt and nanowatt
per cm2 range (0.00034–0.07 µW/cm2 = 3.4–700 µW/m2).
There is a veritable flood of new studies reporting sperm
damage in humans and animals, leading to substantial
concerns for fertility, reproduction, and health of the off-
spring (unrepaired de novo mutations in sperm). Expo-
sure levels are similar to those resulting from wearing a
cell phone on the belt or in a pants pocket, or from using
a wireless laptop computer on the lap. Sperm lack the
ability to repair DNA damage.
Several international laboratories have replicated
studies showing adverse effects on sperm quality, motil-
ity, and pathology in men who use cell phones and partic-
ularly those who wear a cell phone, PDA, or pager on their
belt or in a pocket (110–115). Other studies conclude that
the use of cell phones, exposure to cell phone radiation, or
storage of a cell phone close to the testes of human males
affect the sperm count, motility, viability, and structure
(110, 116, 117). Animal studies have demonstrated oxida-
tive and DNA damage, pathological changes in the testes
of animals, decreased sperm mobility and viability, and
other measures of deleterious damage to the male germ
line (118–122).
There are fewer animal studies that have studied
effects of cell phone radiation on female fertility para-
meters. Panagopoulos (123) report decreased ovarian
development and size of ovaries, and premature cell death
of ovarian follicles and nurse cells in Drosophila mela-
nogaster. Gul et al. (124) report rats exposed to standby
level RFR (phones on but not transmitting calls) caused
decrease in the number of ovarian follicles in pups born
to these exposed dams. Magras and Xenos (125) reported
irreversible infertility in mice after five (5) generations of
exposure to RFR at cell phone tower exposure levels of
less than one microwatt per centimeter squared ( < 1 µW/
cm2 =  < 10 mW/m2).
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)
An increasing number of human beings are continuously
exposed in their daily life to increasing levels of a com-
bination of static, ELF and VLF electric and magnetic
fields and RF electromagnetic fields. These exposures
are of different signal patterns, intensities, and techni-
cal applications for varying periods of time. All these
fields are summarized as EMF, colloquially referred to as
“electrosmog”.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
94 496
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      345
In a questionnaire survey in Switzerland in 2001,
which was addressed to persons attributing specific
health problems to EMF exposure, of the 394 respondents
58% suffered from sleep problems or disorders, 41% from
headaches, 19% from nervousness, 18% from fatigue and
16% from difficulties with concentration. The respondents
attributed their symptoms, e.g. to mobile phone base sta-
tions (74%), cell phones (36%), cordless phones (29%),
and high-voltage power lines (27%). Two thirds of the
respondents had taken measures to reduce their symp-
toms, the most frequent one being to avoid exposure (126).
In a survey conducted 2009 in a Japanese EHS and
multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) self-help group (n = 75),
45% of the respondents had EHS as a medical diagnosis,
49% considered themselves EHS. Every second responder
had medically diagnosed MCS (49%) and self-diagnosed
MCS had 27%. The main EHS-related symptoms were
fatigue (85%), headache (81%), concentration problems
(81%), sleeping disorders (76%) and dizziness (64%). The
most frequent causes include: base stations (71%), other
persons mobile phones (64%), PC (63%), power lines
(60%), television (56%), own mobile phone (56%), public
transportation (55%) , cordless phones (52%), air condi-
tioner (49%) and car (49%). Suspected EMF source of EHS
onset were: mobile phone base stations (37%), PC (20%),
electric home appliances (15%), medical equipment (15%),
mobile phones (8%), power lines (7%) and induction
cookers (7 %) (127).
In 2001, 63 persons who attributed health prob-
lems to environmental exposure were counseled in an
interdisciplinary environmental medicine pilot project
in Basel. An interdisciplinary expert team assessed the
individual symptoms by a medical psychological-psychi-
atric and environmental examination, including visits
and environmental measurements at home. With respect
to the 25 persons with EHS, the expert team attested that
in one third of them, at least one symptom was plausi-
bly related to electrosmog, although the EMF exposure
was within the Swiss limits. They concluded that persons
with EHS should be advised interdisciplinary, not only
medically and psychologically but also environmentally
(128, 129).
A representative telephone survey (n = 2048; age  > 14
years) carried out in 2004 in Switzerland yielded a fre-
quency of 5% (95% CI 4%–6%) for having symptoms
attributed to electrosmog, so-called electromagnetic
hypersensitivity. Remarkably, only 13% consulted their
family doctor. Individuals with a past history of symp-
toms attributable to EMF gave “turned off the source” as
the answer three times as often as the ones who still had
symptoms (130).
In a Swiss questionnaire study of GPs in 2005, two-
thirds of the doctors were consulted at least once a year
because of symptoms attributed to EMF. Fifty-four percent
of the doctors assessed a relation as possible. The doctors
in this questionnaire asked for more general information
about EMF and health and instructions on how to deal
with persons with EHS (131).
In another questionnaire study, also mandated by the
Swiss Federal Government and performed by the Univer-
sity of Bern in 2004, Swiss doctors working with comple-
mentary diagnostic and therapeutic tools reported that
71% of their consultations related to EMF. Remarkably,
not only the patients, but even more so the doctors sus-
pected a possible relation between illness and EMF. The
reduction or elimination of environmental sources was
the main therapeutic instrument in treating symptoms
related to EMF (132).
A questionnaire study of Austrian doctors yielded
similar results. In this study, the discrepancy between the
physicians’ opinions and established national and inter-
national health risk assessments was remarkable, consid-
ering that 96% of the physicians believed to some degree
in or were totally convinced of a health-relevant role of
environmental electromagnetic fields (133).
The question, whether EHS is causally associated
with EMF exposure remains controversial. On the one
hand, physicians judge a causal association between EMF
exposures as plausible based on case reports, on the other
hand, national and international health risk assessments
mostly claim that there is no such causal association,
because provocation studies under controlled blinded
conditions mostly failed to show effects. However, all
these studies used a very limited number of exposure con-
ditions, the exposure duration and the examined effects
were short, and the recruitment of the persons with EHS
was not medically assessed.
The WHO, for example, does not consider EHS as a
diagnosis and recommends to medical doctors that the
treatment of affected individuals should focus on the
health symptoms and the clinical picture, and not on a
person’s perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF
in the workplace or home (134).
The evaluation report about electromagnetic hyper-
sensitivity mandated by the Swiss federal government
assessed the evidence of a causal relationship between
EMF exposure and biological and health effects. It took
into account not only experimental, observational studies
and meta-analyses, but also individual experiments and
case reports. For the evaluation of the scientific evidence,
the GRADE criteria were applied. Individual case reports
were considered to be of great importance because it is
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
95 497
346      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
likely that, at the same exposure level, not all people react
the same as rare cases may be misunderstood by otherwise
statistically reliable scientific methods of investigation,
and since habituation and sensitization processes of a
person’s reaction can change during the time of exposure.
The significance of case reports with regard to scientific
evidence based on the strict GRADE criteria used in this
evaluation, however, was considered to be limited, mainly
because of the distortion due to methodological flaws. It
was noted in the report that individual case experiments
with repeated testing of an EHS person under double-
blind conditions and controlled exposure would be more
revealing than experimental studies with larger groups.
Ideally, a test of the person concerned should be carried
out in their familiar surroundings (e.g. at home) with a
reliable and accurate measurement of exposure. With pos-
itive test results, a re-evaluation would be required also
from a scientific perspective (135).
The paper “Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: fact
or fiction” by Genius and Lipp (136) offers an instructive
review of studies of the last decades concerning EHS,
including historical milestones, reviews, pathogenesis,
biochemical markers, therapeutic management, as well
as the debate about the legitimacy of EHS.
In Sweden, EHS is an officially fully recognized func-
tional impairment (i.e. it is not regarded as a disease).
Survey studies show that somewhere between 230,000
and 290,000 Swedish men and women out of a population
of 9,000,000 – report a variety of symptoms when being in
contact with EMF sources. With reference to UN Resolution
48/96, Annex, of 20 December 1993, the Swedish govern-
ment grants support to individuals with EHS. Employees
with EHS have a right to support from their employers so
as to enable them to work despite this impairment. Some
hospitals in Sweden provide rooms with low-EMF expo-
sure (137).
In Sweden, impairments are viewed from the point of
the environment. No human being is in itself impaired;
there are instead shortcomings in the environment that
cause the impairment (as with the lack of ramps for
the person in a wheelchair or rooms requiring low-EMF
remediation for the person with EHS). Furthermore, this
environment-related perspective of the impairment EHS
means that – even though we do not have a complete
scientific explanation, and, in contrast, to what many
individuals involved in the EMF discourse at present
think – any person with EHS shall always be met in a
respectful way and with all necessary support required
to eliminate the impairment. This implies that the person
with EHS shall have the opportunity to live and work in a
low-EMF environment (138).
In Sweden, the City of Stockholm offers low-EMF
housing on its outskirts to electrosensitive individuals.
In France, the first low-EMF zone has been established
at Drôme in July 2009 (139). In Austria, the construction
of a multi-family house has been planned for 2015, which
was designed by a team of architects, building biology
professionals, and environmental medicine health care
professionals to provide a sustainable healthy living envi-
ronment. Both the outdoor and indoor environments were
explicitly chosen and designed to meet low-EMF require-
ments (140). The implementation of low-EMF zones for
electrosensitive individuals is pursued in numerous coun-
tries. The realization of such projects greatly depends
on the understanding, knowledge, and tolerance of the
members of the chosen community.
In a human provocation study, Johansson (141), using a
controlled, double-blind pilot setup, found one EHS person
that correctly identified the presence of a mobile phone
nine times out of nine provocations (p < 0.002), both in the
“acute” phase as well as in the “chronic” phase (p < 0.001).
In facial skin samples of electrohypersensitive persons,
the most common finding has been a profound increase of
mast cells (142). From this and other studies, it is clear that
the number of mast cells in the upper dermis is increased in
the EHS group. A different pattern of mast cell distribution
also occurred in the EHS group. Finally, in the EHS group,
the cytoplasmic granules were more densely distributed
and more strongly stained than in the control group, and
the size of the infiltrating mast cells was generally found to
be larger in the EHS group as well. It should be noted that
increases of similar nature later on were demonstrated in
an experimental situation, employing normal healthy vol-
unteers in front of cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors, includ-
ing ordinary household television sets (143).
In one of the early papers, Johansson et al. (144)
made a sensational finding when they exposed two elec-
trically sensitive individuals to a TV monitor situated at
a distance of 40–50 cm away from them. The scientists
used an open-field provocation in front of an ordinary TV
set with persons regarding themselves as suffering from
skin problems due to work at video display terminals.
Employing fluorescence microscopy-based immunohisto-
chemistry, in combination with a wide range of antisera
directed towards cellular and neurochemical markers,
they were able to show a high to very high number of
somatostatin-immunoreactive dendritic cells as well as
histamine-positive mast cells in skin biopsies from the
anterior neck taken before the start of the provocation. At
the end of the provocation, however the number of mast
cells was unchanged and the somatostatin-positive cells
had seemingly disappeared. The reason for this latter
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
96 498
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      347
finding could be discussed in terms of loss of immunore-
activity, increase of breakdown, etc. The high number of
mast cells present may explain the clinical symptoms of
itch, pain, edema, and erythema.
Against this background, it is interesting to see that
the early Swedish findings from the 1980s and 1990s are
supported by the latest work of Belpomme and Irigaray
(145). Since 2009, Belpomme and Irigaray prospectively
investigated clinically and biologically 1200 consecu-
tive EHS and/or MCS-self reported cases in an attempt to
establish objective diagnosis criteria and to elucidate the
pathophysiological aspects of these two disorders.
In their preliminary results, as presented at the Fifth
Paris Appeal Congress in Belgium in 2015 – based on the
analysis of 839 originally enrolled cases of which 810 met
the inclusion criteria and 727 were evaluable – 521 were
diagnosed with EHS, 52 with MCS, and 154 with both
EHS and MCS. Concomitant multiple food intolerance
was found in 28.5%, 41.9%, and 70.4% of the cases in the
three groups, respectively. Histamine levels were ana-
lyzed in the blood of patients, and 37%, 36.7% and 41.5%
of the persons respectively in the three above individual-
ized groups showed a significant increase in histamine-
mia ( > 10 nmol/L), meaning that a chronic inflammatory
response can be detected in these patients.
They also measured nitrotyrosin (NTT), a marker
of both peroxynitrite (ONOO.-) production and opening
of the blood brain barrier (BBB). NTT was increased in
the blood ( > 0.90 µg/mL) in 29.7%, 26%, and 28% of the
cases in the three groups, respectively. Likewise protein
S100B, another marker of BBB opening was found to be
increased in the blood ( > 0.105 µg/L) in 14.7%, 19.7%, and
10.7% of their cases, respectively. Circulating antibodies
against O-myelin, heat shock protein (Hsp) 27, and/or Hsp
70 protein were also found to be increased in 43.1%, 25%,
and 52% of their cases, respectively, indicating that EHS
and MCS are associated with some autoimmune response.
Since most patients reported chronic insomnia and
fatigue, they also determined the 24-h urine melatonin/
creatinine ratio and found it was decreased ( < 0.8) in all
investigated cases.
Finally, in order to gain further information about the
underlying mechanisms of EHS and MCS, they serially
measured the brain blood flow in the temporal lobes of each
patient by using pulsed brain echodoppler. They found
that both EHS and MCS were associated with a hypop-
erfusion in the capsulo-thalamic area of the brain, sug-
gesting that the inflammatory process may in fact involve
the limbic system and the thalamus. Both EHS and MCS
thus appear to paint a common picture of inflammation-
related hyper-histaminemia, oxidative stress, autoimmune
response, and BBB opening, and a deficit in melatonin
excretion. According to Belpomme and Irigaray, EHS and
MCS probably share a common pathological mechanism
mainly involving the central nervous system (145).
While a 2006 study by Regel et al. (146) described no
exposure effects, two provocation studies on exposure
of “electrosensitive” individuals and control subjects to
mobile phone base station signals (GSM, UMTS or both)
found a significant decline in well-being after UMTS expo-
sure in the individuals reporting sensitivity (147, 148). Most
so-called provocation studies with EHS show no effects.
However, all these studies used a very limited number
of exposure conditions. Taking in account the strong
dependence of EMF effects on a variety of physical and
biological variables (73), available provocation studies are
scientifically difficult to interpret and, in fact, are not suit-
able to disprove causality.
There is increasing evidence in the scientific literature
of various subjective and objective physiological altera-
tions, e.g. heart-rate variability (HRV) as apparent in some
persons with EHS claiming to suffer after exposure to
certain frequencies of EMR like DECT or Wi-Fi (149–153).
Analysis of the data available on the exposure of
people living near mobile phone base stations has yielded
clear indications of adverse health effects like fatigue,
depression, difficulty in concentrating, headaches, dizzi-
ness, etc. (154–158).
The frequency spectrum between ELF and RF is
referred as kHz range or intermediate frequency range.
Residential exposures in this range are often due to “dirty
power”/ “dirty electricity” originating from voltage and/or
current perturbations from diverse sources like electronic
power supplies for TVs, monitors, PCs, motor drives,
inverters, dimmers, CFLs, phase-angle control devices,
as well as sparking and arcing from switching operations
and from electric motors with brushes. The kHz waves/
transients travel along the electric wiring and grounding
systems (conducted emissions) and radiate electric and/
or magnetic fields into free space (radiated emissions),
leading to human exposures in the vicinity.
Epidemiological evidence links dirty electricity to
most of the diseases of civilization including cancer,
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, suicide, and attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder in humans (159).
When it comes to health effects of static magnetic
fields, this type of EMF exposure is frequently underesti-
mated. Blackman reports in the 2007 BioInitiative Report
(9): “The magnetic field of the earth at any given location
has a relatively constant intensity as a function of time.
However, the intensity value, and the inclination of the
field with respect to the gravity vector, varies considerable
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
97 499
348      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
over the face of the earth. More locally, these features of
the earth’s magnetic field can also vary by more than 20%
inside man-made structures, particularly those with steel
support structures. There are many reports of EMF-caused
effects being dependent on the static magnetic field
intensity (cf. Blackman et al., 1985) and of its orientation,
with respect to an oscillating magnetic field (Blackman
et al., 1990; Blackman et al., 1996). One aspect common
to many of these reports is that the location in the active
frequency band is determined by the intensity of the
static magnetic field. There have been many attempts to
explain this phenomenon but none has been universally
accepted. However, it is clear that if a biological response
depends on the static magnetic field intensity, and even
its orientation with respect to an oscillating field, then the
conditions necessary to reproduce the phenomenon are
very specific and might easily escape detection (cf. Black-
man and Most, 1993). The consequences of these results
are that there may be exposure situations that are truly
detrimental (or beneficial) to organisms but that are insuf-
ficiently common on a large scale that they would not
be observed in epidemiological studies; they need to be
studied under controlled laboratory conditions to deter-
mine impact on health and wellbeing”.
On July 8, 2015, a court in Toulouse, France, ruled in
favor of a woman with the diagnosis “syndrome of hyper-
sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation” and determined
her disability to be 85% with substantial and lasting
restrictions on access to employment (160).
Possible mechanism of EHS
Based on the scientific literature on interactions of EMF
with biological systems, several mechanisms of interac-
tion are possible. A plausible mechanism at the intracel-
lular and intercellular level, for instance, is an interaction
via the formation of free radicals or oxidative and nitrosa-
tive stress (161–169). A review by Pall (12, 170, 171) provides
substantial evidence for a direct interaction between static
and time varying electric fields, static and time varying
magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation with volt-
age-gated calcium channels (VGCCs). The increased intra-
cellular Ca2+ produced by such VGCC activation may lead
to multiple regulatory responses, including increased
nitric oxide levels produced through the action of the
two Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent nitric oxide synthases,
nNOS and eNOS. In most pathophysiological contexts,
nitric oxide reacts with superoxide to form peroxynitrite,
a potent nonradical oxidant, which can produce radical
products, including hydroxyl and NO2 radicals.
Peroxynitrite is by far the most damaging molecule in
our body. Although not a free radical in nature, peroxyni-
trite is much more reactive than its parent molecules NO
and O2-. The half-life of peroxynitrite is short (10–20 ms),
but sufficiently long to cross biological membranes,
diffuse one to two cell diameters, and allow significant
interactions with most critical biomolecules and struc-
tures (cell membranes, nucleus DNA, mitochondrial DNA,
cell organelles), and a large number of essential metabolic
processes (165). Elevated nitrogen monoxide, formation
of peroxynitrite, and induction of oxidative stress can be
associated with chronic inflammation, damage of mito-
chondrial function and structure, as well as loss of energy,
e.g. via the reduction of adenosine triphosphate (ATP).
The importance of ATP has been shown for CFS (172)
and for stress control (173). Those patients describe the
same symptoms as those suffering from CMI. This could
indicate similarities in the pathomechanisms. Similar
disturbances in neurotransmitter expression had been
described both with chronic exposure to EMF (174) and in
CMI patients (163, 175).
Redmayne and Johansson (176) published a review
considering the evidence for an association between
myelin integrity and exposure to low-intensity radiofre-
quency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) typical in the
modern world, pointing to that RF-EMF-exposed animals/
humans show: 1) significant morphological lesions in the
myelin sheath of rats; 2) a greater risk of multiple sclerosis
in a study subgroup; 3) effects in proteins related to myelin
production; and 4) physical symptoms in individuals with
the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity, many
of which are the same as if myelin were affected by RF-EMF
exposure, giving rise to symptoms of demyelination. In the
latter, there are exceptions; headache is common only in
electrohypersensitivity, while ataxia is typical of demyeli-
nation but infrequently found in the former group. Overall,
evidence from in vivo and in vitro and epidemiological
studies suggests an association between RF-EMF exposure
and either myelin deterioration or a direct impact on neu-
ronal conduction, which may account for many electrohy-
persensitivity symptoms. The most vulnerable are likely to
be those in utero through to at least mid-teen years, as well
as ill and elderly individuals.
Complaints in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS),
fibromyalgia (FM), multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS),
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and Gulf War syn-
drome (GWS) are almost the same. But the cardinal symp-
toms are different. Meanwhile, they are summarized as
chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI) (175). In all of them,
various disturbances of functional cycles have been
shown as activation of nitrogen oxide and peroxynitrite,
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
98 500
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      349
chronic inflammation by activation of NF-kB, IFN-y, IL-1,
IL-6, and interaction with neurotransmitter expression
(163, 175, 177). We recommend classifying EHS as part of
CMI (170, 178) leading to a functional impairment (EHS),
but still recognizing that the underlying cause remains
only the environment (see Figure 1).
Other diseases that require attention with respect to EMF
There is some evidence that transient electromagnetic
fields (dirty electricity), in the kilohertz range on electrical
wiring, may be contributing to elevated blood sugar levels
among diabetics and pre-diabetics. In an electromagneti-
cally clean environment, Type 1 diabetics required less
insulin and Type 2 diabetics had lower levels of plasma
glucose. Dirty electricity, generated by electronic equip-
ment and wireless devices, is ubiquitous in the environ-
ment. Exercise on a treadmill, which produced dirty
electricity, increased plasma glucose. These findings may
explain why brittle diabetics have difficulty regulating
blood sugar. Based on estimates of people who suffer from
symptoms of electrohypersensitivity (3%–35%), as many
as 5–60 million diabetics worldwide may be affected (179).
The Bioinitiative Report 2012 (10) concluded: Fetal
(in-utero) and early childhood exposures to cell phone
radiation and wireless technologies in general may be a
risk factor for hyperactivity, learning disorders and behav-
ioral problems in school. Common sense measures to
limit both ELF-EMF and RF EMF in these populations is
needed, especially with respect to avoidable exposures
like incubators that can be modified; and where educa-
tion of the pregnant mother with respect to laptop com-
puters, mobile phones and other sources of ELF-EMF and
RF EMF are easily instituted.
This section deserves special attention in order to
respond timely to the rapid technological development
leading to more and more complex EMF exposures.
Recommendations for action
EUROPAEM has developed guidelines for differential
diagnosis and potential treatment of EMF-related health
problems with the aim to improve/restore individual
health outcomes and to propose strategies for prevention.
Evidence of treatment strategies for EMF-related illness including EHS
There are only a few studies assessing evidence-based
therapeutic approaches to EHS. The interdisciplinary
based assessing and counseling of EHS in the Swiss envi-
ronmental pilot project performed in 2001 showed in an
evaluation interview half a year after counseling, that 45%
of persons with EHS had benefitted from realizing certain
advice, for example, changing the bedroom (128, 129).
In the 2005 Swiss questionnaire study of physi-
cians working with complementary therapeutic tools,
two-thirds chose exposure reduction as a principal tool,
Figure 1: Pathogenesis of inflammation, mitochondriopathy, and nitrosative stress as a result of the exposure to trigger factors (177).
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
99 501
350      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
whereas complementary therapeutics were only chosen
as a supplement (132).
Since 2008, the Swiss Society of Doctors for the Envi-
ronment has run a small interdisciplinary environmen-
tal medicine counseling structure for persons with EHS,
which is embedded in everyday practice with a central
coordination and consultation office as well as a network
of general practitioners interested in environmental medi-
cine who perform environmental medical assessments
and consultations based on a standard protocol. If nec-
essary, environmental experts are consulted and home
inspections are conducted. The aim of the assessments is
to detect or rule out common diseases and to analyze the
impact of suspected environmental burdens on the com-
plaints in order to find individual therapeutic approaches.
The main instrument of the assessment is an extensive
medical and psycho-social history with an additional
environmental history, including a systematic question-
naire and environmental key questions.
In the first years, the project was scientifically
assessed. In a questionnaire one year after counseling,
70% of the persons recommended the interdisciplinary-
based counseling structure and 32% of them considered
the counseling as being helpful. Therefore, a model based
on such an interdisciplinary concept, embedded in the
family doctor’s holistic and lasting concept of treatment,
seems to be promising for a better therapeutic approach to
EHS, also including accessibility measures targeted at the
actual environment (180).
In Finland, psychotherapy is the officially recom-
mended therapy of EHS. In a questionnaire study of EHS
people in Finland, symptoms, perceived sources and
treatments, the perceived efficacy of medical and comple-
mentary alternative treatments (CAM) in regards to EHS
were evaluated by multiple choice questions. According to
76% of the 157 respondents, the reduction or avoidance of
EMF helped in their full or partial recovery. The best treat-
ments for EHS were given as weighted effects: “dietary
change” (69.4%), “nutritional supplements” (67.8%), and
“increased physical exercise” (61.6%). The official treat-
ment recommendations of psychotherapy (2.6%) were
not significantly helpful, or for medication (–4.2%) even
detrimental. The avoidance of electromagnetic radiation
and fields effectively removed or lessened the symptoms
in persons with EHS (181, 182).
The prognosis of certain diseases can be influenced by
EMF-reduction. For example, children who have leukemia
and are in recovery have poorer survival rates if their ELF
magnetic field exposure at home (or where they are recover-
ing) is between 1 mG [0.1 µT] and 2 mG [0.2 µT] or above 2 mG
[0.2 µT] in one study, over 3 mG [0.3 µT] in another study (9).
Response of physicians to this development
In cases of unspecific health problems (see Questionnaire)
for which no clearly identifiable cause can be found –
beside other factors like chemicals, nonphysiological
metals, mold – EMF exposure should, in principle, be
taken into consideration as a potential cause or cofactor,
especially if the person presumes it.
A central approach for a causal attribution of symp-
toms is the assessment of variation in health problems
depending on time and location and individual suscep-
tibility, which is particularly relevant for environmental
causes such as EMF exposure.
Regarding such disorders as male infertility, mis-
carriage, Alzheimer’s, ALS, blood sugar fluctuations,
diabetes, cancer, hyperactivity, learning disorders and
behavioral problems in school, it would be important to
consider a possible link with EMF exposure. This offers
an opportunity to causally influence the course of the
disease.
How to proceed if EMF-related health problems are suspected
The recommended approach to diagnosis and treatment
is intended as an aid and should, of course, be modified
to meet the needs of each individual case (see Figure 2).
1. History of health problems and EMF exposure
2. Examination and findings
3. Measurement of EMF exposure
4. Prevention or reduction of EMF exposure
5. Diagnosis
6. Treatment
History of health problems and EMF exposure
In order to put later findings into a larger context, a
general medical history is necessary. In the next steps, we
focus only on EMF-related health effects.
A questionnaire to take a systematic history of health
problems and EMF exposure, compiled by the EUROPAEM
EMF Working Group, is available in the Annex of this EMF
Guideline.
The questionnaire consists of three sections:
a) List of symptoms
b) Variation of health problems depending on time,
location, and circumstances
c) Assessment of certain EMF exposures that can be esti-
mated by questionnaire
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
100 502
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      351
List of symptoms
The list of symptoms in the questionnaire serves to
systematically quantify health problems regardless of
their causes. It also includes questions as to when the
health problems first occurred. Most EMF-related symp-
toms are nonspecific and fall within the scope of health
problems due to inadequate regulation (decompensa-
tion), e.g. sleep problems, fatigue, exhaustion, lack of
energy, restlessness, heart palpitations, blood pressure
problems, muscle and joint pain, headaches, increased
risk for infections, depression, difficulty concentrating,
disturbances of coordination, forgetfulness, anxiety,
urinary urgency, anomia (difficulty finding words), diz-
ziness, tinnitus, and sensations of pressure in the head
and ears.
The health problems may range in severity from
benign, temporary symptoms, such as slight headaches or
paresthesia around the ear, e.g. when using a cell phone,
or flu-like symptoms after maybe some hours of whole
body EMF exposure, to severe, debilitating symptoms
that drastically impair physical and mental health. It has
to be stressed that, depending on the individual state of
Take special medical history, including the assessment of symptoms, diseases, and
circumstances regarding the times and places of appearance of symptoms
(see Annex Patient Questionnaire)
Differential diagnosis including
diagnostic tests Assessment of EMF exposure
Reduction and prevention of
EMF exposure
EMF exposure presented by the patient / person
or
EMF exposure suspected by the physician
Relevance and conclusion
Possible association
with EMF
Association with other
environmental factors
Reduction and
prevention of other
environmental factors
No relevant association
with environmental factors
Consultation of other
disciplines
Medical treatment
Figure 2: Flowchart for the handling of EMF-related health problems
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
101 503
352      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
susceptibility, EHS symptoms often occur only occasion-
ally, but over time they may increase in frequency and
severity. On the other hand, if a detrimental EMF exposure
is sufficiently reduced, the body has a chance to recover
and EHS symptoms will be reduced or will vanish.
Variation of health problems depending on time,
location, and circumstances
The answers to questions of when and where the health
problems occur or recede, and when and where the
symptoms increase or are particularly evident, provide
only indications. They must be interpreted by the inves-
tigator (e.g. regarding the correct attribution between
location/EMF sources and health problems). Special
attention should be drawn to sleeping areas, because of
the duration of influence and the vital role of sleep for
regeneration.
Assessment of certain EMF exposures that can be
estimated by questionnaire
The assessment of EMF exposure usually starts with
certain questions of usual EMF sources. Regardless of
whether or not the patient suspects EMF exposure as a
cause, these questions should be used to assess the exist-
ing exposure level, at least as a rough estimate. It is impor-
tant to note that only certain types of EMF exposure can
be assessed by means of questions, such as the use of
compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), cell phones, and cord-
less phones. Detection of other types of EMF exposure,
e.g. due to RF transmitter sites or the electric or magnetic
fields from electric wiring, generally requires measure-
ments. In principle, questions should be asked to assess
EMF exposure at home and at work and when on holidays
and so on, keeping in mind that the degree of EMF expo-
sure may vary at different times.
Examination and findings
We do not have any clinical findings yet that are specific
to EMF, which makes diagnosis and differential diagnosis
a considerable challenge.
A method that has proven useful is to use stress-
associated findings for diagnosis and followup and to
evaluate them synoptically. Basic diagnostic tests should
be carried out as a first step, followed by measurements
of EMF exposure as a second step. The core diagnosis
should focus on investigations of nitric oxide production
(nitrotyrosine), mitochondriopathy (intracellular ATP),
oxidative stress-lipid peroxidation (MDA-LDL) and inflam-
mation (TNF-alpha, INF-G (IP-10), IL-1b).
Then additional diagnostic tests can be considered.
Functional tests
Basic diagnostic tests
–Blood pressure and heart rate (in all cases resting
heart rate in the morning while still in bed), including
self-monitoring, possibly several times a day, e.g. at
different locations and with journaling of subjective
well-being for a week.
Additional diagnostic tests
– 24-h blood pressure monitoring (absence of nighttime
decline)
– 24-h ECG (heart rhythm diagnosis)
– 24-h heart rate variability (HRV) (autonomous nerv-
ous system diagnosis)
– Ergometry under physical stress
– Sleep EEG at home
Laboratory tests
Basic diagnostic tests
– Blood
– Bilirubin
– Blood count and differential blood count
– BUN
– Cholesterol, LDL, HDL, triglycerides
– Creatinine kinases (CK-MB, CK-MM)
– CRP
– Cystatin C (glomerular filtration rate)
– Electrolytes
– Fasting blood glucose
– Ferritin
– HBA1c
– Histamine and diaminoxidase (DAO)
– INF-G (IP-10)
– Interleukin-1 (e.g. IL-1a, IL-1b)
– Intracellular ATP
– Liver enzymes (e.g. ALT, AST, GGT, LDH, AP )
– Magnesium (whole blood)
– malondialdehyde-LDL
– Nitrotyrosine
– Potassium (whole blood)
– Selenium (whole blood)
– TSH
– Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα)
– Vitamin D
– Zinc (whole blood)
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
102 504
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      353
– Standard urine
– Leucocytes, erythrocytes, albumin, urobilinogen,
pH, bacteria, glucose, microalbumin
– Second morning urine
– 6-OH melatonin sulfate
– Adrenaline
– Dopamine
– Noradrenaline
– Noradrenaline/adrenaline quotient
– Serotonin
– Saliva
– Cortisol (8 a.m., 12 a.m., and 8 p.m.)
Additional diagnostic tests
– Urine
– Metals
– Second morning urine
– Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)
– Glutamate
– Kryptopyrrole
– Saliva
–Dehydroepiandrosterone DHEA (8 a.m. and 8 p.m.)
– Blood
– 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine (DNA oxidation)
– Biotin
– Differential lipid profile
– Folate
– Holotranscobolamin
– Homocysteine
– Interferon-gamma (IFNγ)
– Interleukin-10 (IL-10)
– Interleukin-17 (IL-17)
– Interleukin-6 (IL-6)
– Interleukin-8 (IL-8)
– Intracellular glutathione (redox balance)
– Lactate, pyruvate incl. ratio
– Lipase
– NF-kappa B
– Ubiquinone (Q10)
– Vitamin B6 (whole blood)
Provocation tests
Special facilities with the use of a variety of signals, e.g.
DECT or Wi-Fi exposure (e.g. 20–60 min, depending on
the individual regulation capacity, susceptibility, and
observed response)
– Heart rate variability (HRV) (autonomous nervous
system diagnosis)
– Microcirculation
–Oxidative stress (lipid peroxidation, malondialdehyde-
LDL)
Individual susceptibility
– Blood (genetic parameters and actual function)
– Glutathione S transferase M1 (GSTM1) –
detoxification
– Glutathione S transferase T1 (GSTT1) –
detoxification
– Superoxide dismutase 2 (SOD2) – protection of
mitochondria
– Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) – stress
control
Measurement of EMF exposure
The evolutionary development of the human species took
place under the presence of the natural electromagnetic
spectrum (Earth’s magnetic field, Earth’s electric field,
spherics, Schumann resonance). Those influences have
been part of our biosphere like the oxygen content in the
air or the visible light spectrum, and they have been inte-
grated into the biological functions.
By now, nearly all nonionizing parts of the electro-
magnetic spectrum are filled with artificial, technical EMF
sources due to electrification and (wireless) communica-
tion technologies, but are very rarely found in nature (see
Figure 3). EMF measurements and/or exposure damages
are usually not covered by statutory health care insurance.
In general, a wide variety of EMF exposure types
should be considered: cordless phones (DECT), wireless
Internet access (Wi-Fi), electrical wiring and electrical
devices in buildings, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs),
mobile phone base stations, radio and TV transmitters,
high-voltage power lines or transformer stations, and
“dirty electricity”.
In the sleeping area, the most important exposure
point is the head and trunk region followed by all other
points with chronic or high exposure.
EMF measurements should be planned and carried
out by specially trained and experienced testing special-
ists and always in accordance with relevant standards,
e.g. the VDB Guidelines of the German Association of
Building Biology Professionals (184). In addition to the
measurement results, the measurement report should
also include suggestions on how to possibly reduce the
EMF exposure.
To clarify certain issues, personal dosimeters with a
data logging function are available to measure ELF mag-
netic fields and radio-frequency radiation.
After the measurements have been commissioned
by the person and carried out, the results should be dis-
cussed with a physician familiar with the EMF issue.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
103 505
354      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
EMF guidance values
In each case, the following aspects should be individually
taken into account when evaluating EMF measurement
results (73):
–The person’s individual susceptibility
– The person’s individual total body burden (e.g. expo-
sure to noise, chemicals)
– Duration of EMF exposure
– EMF exposure during the night and day
– Multiple exposure to different EMF sources
– Signal intensity (W/m2, V/m, A/m)
–Signal characteristics (was taken into account in the
EMF guidance values – see Supplement 3)
–Frequency
– Risetime (∆T) of bursts, transients, etc.
– Frequency and periodicity of bursts, e.g. cer-
tain GSM base stations (8.3 Hz), Wi-Fi networks
(10 Hz), DECT cordless phones (100 Hz)
– Type of modulation (frequency modulation,
amplitude modulation, phase modulation)
Regardless of the ICNIRP recommendations for specific
acute effects, the following guidance values apply to
sensitive locations with long-term exposure of more than
20 h per week (185). They are based on epidemiological
studies (9, 10, 73, 186–189), empirical observations, and
measurements relevant in practice (190, 191) as well as
recommendations by the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe (26). The proposed guidance values
are based on scientific data including a preventive com-
ponent and aim to help restore health and well-being in
already compromised patients/functionally impaired
persons.
Basic measurementsELF magnetic fields (extremely low frequency) (ELF MF)Measurement specifications
Frequency range: 50/60 Hz mains electricity, up to 2 kHz
16.7 Hz railroad systems in Austria, Germany,
Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway
Type of measurement: Magnetic induction or flux density
[T; mT; µT; nT]
Field probe: Isotropic magnetic field probe (three
orthogonal axes)
Detector mode: RMS (root mean square)
Measurement volume: Short-term: Bed: Complete sleeping area of bed
Short-term: Workplace: Complete working
space of workplace (e.g. sitting position)
Long-term: e.g. point close to the head/trunk in
bed or at workplace
Electromagnetic spectrum
Natural and artificial sources
1 Hz
100 10 Hz
101 100 Hz
102 1 kHz
103 10 kHz
104 100 kHz
105 1 MHz
106 10 MHz
107 100 MHz
108 1 GHz
109 10 GHz
1010 100 GHz
1011 1 THz
1012 10 THz
1013 100 THz
1014 1 PHz
1015 10 PHz
1016 100 PHz
1017 1 EHz
1018 10 EHz
1019 100 EHz
1020 1 ZHz
1021 10 ZHz
10220Hz20
Electromagnetic fields and radiation Ionizing radiationOptical radiation
ELF RF / MW RadiationVLF
Figure 3: Examples of natural (green) and artificial (red and blue) EMF sources along the electromagnetic spectrum (183).
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
104 506
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      355
Measurement period: Short-term measurements to identify field
sources
Long-term measurements during sleep and
work shift
Basis for evaluation: Long-term measurements: maximum (MAX) and
arithmetic mean (AVG)
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to ELF magnetic fields to levels
as low as possible or below the precautionary guidance
values specified below.
ELF magnetic
field
 Daytime
exposure
 Nighttime
exposure
 Sensitive
populations
Arithmetic
mean (AVG)
 100 nT
(1 mG)1),2)
 100 nT
(1 mG)1),2)
 30 nT
(0.3 mG)4)
Maximum
(MAX)
 1000 nT
(10 mG)2),3)
 1000 nT
(10 mG)2),3)
 300 nT
(3 mG)4)
Based on: 1)BioInitiative (9, 10); 2)Oberfeld (189); 3)NISV (192);
4) precautionary approach by a factor 3 (field strength).
Evaluation guidelines specifically for sleeping areas
Higher frequencies than the mains electricity at 50/60 Hz
and distinct harmonics should be evaluated more critically.
See also the precautionary guidance values for the interme-
diate frequency range further below. If applicable, mains
current (50/60 Hz) and traction current (16.7 Hz) should be
assessed separately but added (squared average). Long-
term measurements should be carried out especially at
nighttime, but at least for 24 h.
ELF electric fields (extremely low frequency) (ELF EF)
Measurement specifications
Frequency
range:
 50/60 Hz mains electricity, up to 2 kHz
16.7 Hz railroad systems in Austria, Germany,
Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway
Type of
measurement:
 Electric field [V/m] without ground reference
(potential-free) and/or body-current [A/m2] see
separate paragraph
Field probe: Isotropic electric field probe (three orthogonal axes)
Detector mode: RMS (root mean square)
Measurement
volume:
 Bed: nine points across sleeping area
Workplace: Complete working space (e.g. sitting
position three or six points)
Measurement
period:
 Spot measurements to asses the exposure as well as
to identify field sources. Since electric field exposure
levels in the ELF frequency range usually do not
change, long-term measurements are not needed.
Basis for
evaluation:
 Spot measurements (maximum) at relevant points
of exposure
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to ELF electric fields to levels
as low as possible or below the precautionary guidance
values specified below.
ELF electric field  Daytime exposure  Nighttime exposure  Sensitive populations
Maximum
(MAX)
 10 V/m1),2) 1 V/m2) 0.3 V/m3)
Based on: 1)NCRP Draft Recommendations on EMF Exposure
Guidelines: Option 2, 1995 (188); 2)Oberfeld (189); 3)precautionary
approach by a factor 3 (field strength).
Evaluation guidelines specifically for sleeping areas
Higher frequencies than the mains electricity at 50/60 Hz
and distinct harmonics should be evaluated more critically.
See also the precautionary guidance values for the interme-
diate frequency range further below.
Radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR)
Measurement specifications
Frequency range: Radio and TV broadcast transmitters
Mobile phone base stations, e.g. TETRA (400 MHz),
GSM (900 and 1800 MHz), UMTS (2100 MHz),
LTE (800, 900, 1800, 2500–2700 MHz),
Cordless phone base stations, e.g. DECT (1900)
Wi-Fi access points and clients (2450 and
5600 MHz)
WiMAX (3400–3600 MHz)
(above frequencies in MHz refer to European
networks)
Type of measurement: Electric field [V/m] - >  calculated power density
[W/m2; mW/m2; µW/m2]
Field probe: Isotropic, biconical, logarithmic-periodic
antennas
Detector mode: Peak detector with max hold
Measurement volume: Point of exposure across bed and working
space
Measurement period: Usually short-term measurements to identify
RF field sources (e.g. acoustic analysis) and
peak readings
Basis for evaluation: Band-specific or frequency-specific spot
measurements (peak detector with max hold)
of common signals at relevant points of
exposure (e.g. with spectrum analyzer or at
least band-specific RF meter)
Precautionary guidance values for selected RF sources
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to radio-frequency electro-
magnetic radiation to levels as low as possible or below the
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
105 507
356      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
precautionary guidance values specified below. Frequencies
to be measured should be adapted to each individual case.
The specific guidance values take the signal charac-
teristics of risetime (∆T) and periodic ELF “pulsing” into
account (191). Note: Rectangular signals show short rise-
times and consist of a broad spectrum of frequencies. The
body current density increases with increasing frequency in
an approximately linear relationship (Vignati and Giuliani,
1997).
RF sourceMax Peak/Peak Hold Daytime exposure  Nighttime exposure  Sensitive populations1)
Radio broadcast
(FM)
 10,000 µW/m2 1000 µW/m2 100 µW/m2
TETRA  1000 µW/m2  100 µW/m2  10 µW/m2
DVBT  1000 µW/m2  100 µW/m2  10 µW/m2
GSM (2G)
900/1800 MHz
 100 µW/m2  10 µW/m2  1 µW/m2
DECT (cordless
phone)
 100 µW/m2  10 µW/m2  1 µW/m2
UMTS (3G) 100 µW/m2  10 µW/m2  1 µW/m2
LTE (4G) 100 µW/m2  10 µW/m2  1 µW/m2
GPRS (2.5G) with
PTCCH*
(8.33 Hz pulsing)
 10 µW/m2  1 µW/m2  0.1 µW/m2
DAB+
(10.4 Hz pulsing)
 10 µW/m2  1 µW/m2  0.1 µW/m2
Wi-Fi
2.4/5.6 GHz
(10 Hz pulsing)
 10 µW/m2  1 µW/m2  0.1 µW/m2
*PTCCH, Packet Timing Advance Control Channel.
Based on: BioInitiative (9, 10); Kundi and Hutter (186); Leitfaden
Senderbau (187); Belyaev (73); PACE (26). 1)Precautionary approach
by a factor 3 (field strength) = factor 10 power density.
Conversion of RF measurement units
 mW/m2  10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
 µW/m2  10,000 1000 100 10 1 0.1
 µW/cm2 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 0.00001
 V/m  1.9 0.6 0.19 0.06 0.019 0.006
Additional measurements
Body-current (extremely low frequency) (ELF BC)
The type of body current measurement has been devel-
oped in Germany (193) and is used by so-called electrobiol-
ogists (194). The methodology offers the possibility to assess
directly the relevant effect – the body current – caused by
electric and magnetic fields (195). To date, the effects of
electric fields on human health with a view to their distri-
bution and relevance to increase the body current density
are massively underestimated. We strongly recommend
to perform epidemiological studies (e.g. intervention,
case-control, cohort) for the health endpoints discussed
and – besides other EMF exposures – to take the follow-
ing measurements in this order: 1) body current (A/m2),
2) electric field (V/m) without ground reference (poten-
tial-free) without and with a person or a 3D dummy (not
grounded!) to simulate the conductive body. In order to
distinguish as to whether the measured body currents
are caused by electric or magnetic fields, the magnetic
fields have to be measured as well in all three axes. Long-
term measurements of ELF magnetic fields should be
performed with an isotropic magnetic field probe (three
orthogonal axes) according to the corresponding para-
graph in this chapter.
Measurement specifications
Frequency range: 50/60 Hz mains electricity, up to 2 kHz
16.7 Hz railroad systems in Austria,
Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and
Norway
Type of measurement: Body-current [A/m2]
Field probe: Magnetic field probe (one orthogonal axis)
Detector mode: RMS (root mean square)
Measurement volume: 10 specific points close to the body
(head, trunk and limbs)
Measurement period: Spot measurements to asses the
exposure as well as to identify field
sources. As electric field exposure levels
in the ELF frequency range usually do not
change, long-term measurements are
not needed.
Basis for evaluation: Spot measurements (maximum) at
relevant points of exposure
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to ELF body-current to levels
as low as possible or below the precautionary guidance
values specified below.
ELF body-current Daytime
exposure
 Nighttime
exposure
 Sensitive
populations
Maximum(MAX) 0.25 µA/m2 1) 0.25 µA/m2 1) 0.05 µA/m2 2),3)
Based on: 1)0.25 µA/m2 corresponds to 100 nT (RMS, AVG);
2)0.05 µA/m2 corresponds to 20 nT (RMS, AVG), Arbeitskreis
Elektrobiologie (194), based on empirical observations; 3)precau-
tionary approach by a factor 5 (field strength).
Evaluation guidelines specifically for sleeping areas
Higher frequencies than the mains electricity at 50/60 Hz
and distinct harmonics should be evaluated more critically.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
106 508
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      357
See also the precautionary guidance values for the inter-
mediate frequency range further below.
Magnetic fields in the intermediate frequency range
(VLF) (IF MF)
Measurement specifications
Frequency range: 3 kHz–3 MHz
Frequency-specific measurements
(spectrum analyzer/EMF meter), e.g. “dirty
power,” powerline communication (PLC),
radio-frequency identification transmitters
(RFID), compact fluorescent lamps (CFL)
Type of measurement: Magnetic field [A/m] - >  calculated magnetic
induction [T; mT; µT; nT]
Field probe: Isotropic or anisotropic magnetic field probe
Detector mode: RMS (root mean square)
Measurement volume: Point of exposure across bed and working
space
Measurement period: Short-term measurements to identify field
sources
Long-term measurements during sleep and
work shift
Basis for evaluation: Long-term measurements: RMS detector
arithmetic mean and maximum at relevant
points of exposure
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time
( > 4 h per day), minimize exposure to intermediate fre-
quency magnetic fields to levels as low as possible or
below the precautionary guidance values specified
below.
4)The body current density increases with increas-
ing frequency in an approximately linear relationship
(Vignati and Giuliani, 1997). Therefore, the guidance
value of the magnetic field in the intermediate frequency
range should be lower than the one of the 50/60 Hz mag-
netic field, e.g. assuming 100 nT RMS/100 = 1 nT.
IF magnetic field  Daytime exposure  Nighttime exposure  Sensitive populations
Arithmetic
mean
 1 nT
(0.01 mG)1),2)
 1 nT
(0.01 mG)1),2)
 0.3 nT
(0.003 mG)4)
Maximum  10 nT
(0.1 mG)2),3)
 10 nT
(0.1 mG)2),3)
 3 nT
(0.03 mG)4)
Based on: 1)BioInitiative (9, 10); 2)Oberfeld (189); 3)NISV (192);
4) precautionary approach by a factor 3 (field strength).
Electric fields in the intermediate frequency range
(VLF) (IF EF)
Measurement specifications
Frequency range: 3 kHz–3 MHz
Frequency-specific measurements
(spectrum analyzer/EMF meter), e.g.
“dirty power,” powerline communication
(PLC), radio-frequency identification
transmitters (RFID), compact fluorescent
lamps (CFL)
Type of measurement: Electric field [V/m]
Field probe: Isotropic, biconical, logarithmic-periodic
electric field probe
Detector mode: RMS arithmetic mean
Measurement volume: Point of exposure across bed and
working space
Measurement period: Short-term measurements to identify
field sources
Long-term measurements during sleep
and work shift
Basis for evaluation: Long-term measurements: arithmetic
mean at relevant points of exposure
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to intermediate frequency
electric fields to levels as low as possible or below the pre-
cautionary guidance values specified below.
4)The body current density increases with increasing
frequency in an approximately linear relationship (Vignati
and Giuliani 1997). Therefore, the guidance value of the
magnetic field in the intermediate frequency range should
be lower than the one of the 50/60 Hz magnetic field,
e.g. assuming 10 V/m RMS arithmetic mean/100 = 0.1 V/m.
IF electric field  Daytime
exposure
 Nighttime
exposure
 Sensitive
populations
Arithmetic mean  < 0.1 V/m1),2)  < 0.01 V/m2)  < 0.003 V/m3)
Based on: 1)NCRP Draft Recommendations on EMF Exposure
Guidelines: Option 2, 1995 (188); 2)Oberfeld (189); 3)precautionary
approach by a factor 3 (field strength).
Static magnetic fields
Measurement specifications
Frequency range: 0 Hz
Type of measurement: Magnetic induction or flux density
[T; mT; µT; nT]
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
107 509
358      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
Field probe: Anisotropic magnetic field probe (for one
spatial axis – vertical) or Isotropic magnetic
field probe (three orthogonal axes)
Detector mode: RMS (root mean square)
Measurement volume: Point of exposure across bed and working
space
Measurement period: Short-term measurements to identify field
sources that distort the Earth’s magnetic
field
Basis for evaluation: Spot measurements (RMS maximum) at
relevant points of exposure
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to static magnetic fields that
distort the naturally occurring Earth’s magnetic field to
levels as low as possible.
Evaluation guidelines specifically for sleeping areas
First determine the natural background level in a reference
location, e.g. close to the bed. The field probe must not be
moved during the measurement process in order to prevent
false readings due to induced currents by the Earth’s mag-
netic field. The guidance values below are meant in addi-
tion to the Earth’s magnetic field.
Static magnetic field  No anomaly  Slight anomaly  Significant anomaly  Extreme anomaly
Deviation
from natural
background
   ≤  1 µT 
 ≤  10 mG
 1–2 µT
10–20 mG
 2–10 µT
20–100 mG
  > 10 µT 
> 100 mG
Based on: Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines (SBM-2015) (190),
which are based on empirical observations.
Static electric fields
Measurement specifications
Frequency range: 0 Hz
Type of measurement: Electric field [V/m]
Field probe: Anisotropic or isotropic electric field probe
Detector mode: RMS (root mean square)
Measurement volume: Point of exposure across bed and
working space
Measurement period: Short-term measurements to identify
field sources
Basis for evaluation: Spot measurements (maximum) at
relevant points of exposure
Precautionary guidance values
In areas where people spend extended periods of time ( > 4 h
per day), minimize exposure to static electric fields that
exceed the naturally occurring fair-weather atmospheric
electric field.
Evaluation guidelines specifically for sleeping areas
Static electric field No anomaly Slight anomaly  Significant anomaly  Extreme anomaly
Maximum   < 100 V/m  100– 500 V/m 500– 2000 V/m   > 2000 V/m
Based on: Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines (SBM-2015) (190),
which are based on empirical observations.
Prevention or reduction of EMF exposure
Preventing or reducing EMF exposure after consulting a
testing specialist is advantageous for several reasons:
a) To prevent and reduce risks to individual and public
health,
b) To identify any links to health problems,
c) To causally treat the EMF-related health problems.
There are numerous potential causes of relevant EMF
exposures, and this EMF Guideline can only give a
few examples. Further information can be found, for
instance, in the document “Options to Minimize EMF/
RF/Static Field Exposures in Office Environments” (196)
and “Elektrosmog im Alltag” (197). For detailed informa-
tion on physics, properties and measurement of EMF, see
Virnich (198); regarding reduction of radio-frequency
radiation (RFR) in homes and offices, see Pauli and
Moldan (199).
In most cases, it will be necessary to consult an expert
(e.g. building biology testing specialist, EMF/RF engineer)
and/or electrician who will advise the person on what
measures could be taken to reduce EMF exposure.
EMF exposure reduction – First steps
As a first step, it might be useful to recommend to persons
that they take certain actions (also as preventive meas-
ures) to eliminate or reduce typical EMF exposures, which
may help alleviate health problems within days or weeks.
The following actions may be suggested:
Preventing exposure to radio-frequency radiation
(RFR)
– Disconnect (unplug) the power supply of all DECT
cordless phone base stations. So called “ECO Mode” or
“zero-emission” DECT phones are only conditionally
recommended because the exposure by the handset is
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
108 510
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      359
not or not substantially reduced. Therefore, the use of
“traditional” corded phones is recommended.
– Disconnect (unplug) the power supply to all Wi-Fi
access points or Wi-Fi routers. Many LAN routers
now come equipped with additional Wi-Fi. Call the
provider of the LAN router and ask to have the Wi-Fi
deactivated. It is usually also possible to do so online
by following the provider’s instructions.
– Avoid wearing the cell phone/smartphone close to the
body.
– Deactivate all nonessential wireless cell phone apps,
which cause periodic radiation exposure.
– Keep cell phones/smartphones in “airplane mode”
whenever possible.
– In case of external RF radiation sources, rooms – espe-
cially sleeping rooms – facing away from the source
should be chosen.
– Avoid powerline communication for Internet access
(dLAN) and instead use a hardwired Ethernet cable
(LAN).
– Avoid exposure to RF radiation (e.g. Bluetooth, Wi-Fi)
at home (e.g. home entertainment, headsets), in
offices, and in cars.
Preventing exposure to ELF electric and magnetic
fields
– Move the bed or desk away from the wiring in the
walls and power cords. A minimum distance of 30 cm
(1 ft) from the wall is recommended.
– Another simple complementary action is to discon-
nect the power supply to the bedroom (turn off cir-
cuit breaker or fuse) for the nighttime while sleeping;
try it for a test phase of, e.g. 2 weeks. In general, this
measure is not always successful because circuits of
adjacent rooms contribute to the electric field lev-
els. ELF electric field measurements are required
to know exactly which circuit breakers need to be
disconnected.
The benefits should be weighed against the potential
risk of accidents; therefore, the use of a flashlight for
the test phase should be recommended.
– Disconnect the power supply to all nonessential elec-
tric circuits, possibly in the entire apartment or house.
(N.B. See note above.)
– Avoid using an electric blanket during sleep; not only
turn it off, but also disconnect it.
Preventing exposure to static magnetic fields
– Sleep in a bed and mattress without metal.
– Avoid to sleep close to iron materials (radiator, steel,
etc.)
EMF exposure reduction – second steps
As a second step, EMF measurements and mitigation
measures should be carried out. Typical examples are:
– Measure the ELF electric field in the bed or the body
current density of the person while in bed. Based on
the measurement results, have automatic demand
switches in those circuits installed that increase the
exposure.
– Measure the ELF electric field at all other places that
are used for extended periods at home and at work. If
necessary, choose lamps used close to the body with
a shielded electric cable and a grounded lamp fixture
(metal). Especially in lightweight construction (wood,
gypsum board), electrical wiring without ground-
ing (two-slot outlets) might have to be replaced with
grounded electrical wiring or shielded electrical wir-
ing. In special cases, the whole building might have
to have shielded wiring and shielded outlets installed.
– Measure the ELF magnetic field close to the bed, e.g.
for 24 h. If net currents are detected, the electrical wir-
ing and grounding system of the building must be cor-
rected as to reduce the magnetic fields.
– Install a residual current device (RCD) or ground-fault
circuit interrupter (GFCI) to prevent electric shocks
(safety measure).
– Measure radio-frequency radiation and mitigate high
exposure levels by installing certain RF shielding
materials for the affected walls, windows, doors, ceil-
ings, and floors.
– Measure dirty electricity/dirty power (electric and
magnetic fields in the intermediate frequency range)
and identify the sources in order to remove them. If
this is not possible, appropriate power filters in line
with the source may be used.
Diagnosis
We will have to distinguish between EHS and other EMF-
related health problems like certain cancers, Alzheimer’s,
ALS, male infertility etc. that might have been induced,
promoted, or aggravated by EMF exposure. An inves-
tigation of the functional impairment EHS and other
EMF-related health problems will largely be based on a
comprehensive case history, focusing, in particular, on
correlations between health problems and times, places,
and circumstances of EMF exposure, as well as the pro-
gression of symptoms over time and the individual sus-
ceptibility. In addition, measurements of EMF exposure
and the results of additional diagnostic tests (labora-
tory tests, cardiovascular system) serve to support the
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
109 511
360      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
diagnosis. Moreover, all other potential causes should be
excluded as far as possible.
In 2000 the Nordic Council of Ministers (Finland,
Sweden, and Norway) adopted the following ICD-10 code
for EHS: Chapter XVIII, Symptoms, signs and abnormal
clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified,
code R68.8 “Other specified general symptoms and signs”
(Nordic ICD-10 Adaptation, 2000) (200).
Regarding the current International Classification of
Diseases (ICD), ICD-10-WHO 2015, we recommend at the
moment:
a) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS): to use the
existing diagnostic codes for the different symptoms
plus code R68.8 “Other specified general symptoms
and signs” plus code Z58.4 “Exposure to radiation”
and/ or Z57.1 “Occupational exposure to radiation”.
b) EMF-related health problems (except EHS): to use the
existing diagnostic codes for the different diseases/
symptoms plus code Z58.4 “Exposure to radiation”
and/or Z57.1 “Occupational exposure to radiation”.
Regarding the next ICD-update (ICD-11 WHO) to be pub-
lished 2018), we recommend to:
a) Create ICD codes for all chronic environmentally
induced chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI) like mul-
tiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), chronic fatigue syn-
drome (CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), and electromagnetic
hypersensitivity (EHS).
b) Expand Chapter XIX, Injury, poisoning and certain
other consequences of external causes (T66-T78) to
include/distinguish effects of EMF (static magnetic
field, static electric field, ELF magnetic field, ELF
electric field, VLF/LF magnetic field, VLF/LF electric
field, Radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation)
infrared, visible light, UV-light and ionizing radiation.
c) Expand Chapter XXI, Factors influencing health status
and contact with health services (Z00-Z99) to include/
distinguish factors as EMF (static magnetic field,
static electric field, ELF magnetic field, ELF electric
field, VLF/LF magnetic field, VLF/LF electric field,
Radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation), infra-
red, visible light, UV-light, and ionizing radiation.
Treatment/accessibility measure
The primary method of treatment should mainly focus on
the prevention or reduction of EMF exposure that is reduc-
ing or eliminating all sources of EMF at home and in the
workplace. The reduction of EMF exposure should also be
extended to schools, hospitals, public transport, public
places like libraries, etc. in order to enable EHS persons
an unhindered use (accessibility measure). Many exam-
ples have shown that such measures can prove effective.
With respect to total body load of other environmental
influences, they must also be regarded.
Beside EMF reduction, other measures can and must
be considered. These include a balanced homeostasis in
order to increase the “resistance” to EMF. There is increas-
ing evidence that a main effect of EMF on human beings
is the reduction of oxidative and nitrosative regulation
capacity. This hypothesis also explains observations of
changing EMF sensitivity and the large number of symp-
toms reported in the context of EMF exposure. From the
current perspective, it appears useful to recommend a
treatment approach, as those gaining ground for multi-
system disorders, that aims at minimizing adverse perox-
ynitrite effects.
It should be stressed, that psychotherapy has the
same significance as in other diseases. Products that are
offered in the form of plaques and the like to “neutralize”
or “harmonize” electrosmog should be evaluated with
great restraint.
In summary, the following treatment and accessibility
measures appear advantageous, depending on the indi-
vidual case:
Reduction of EMF exposure
This should include all types of EMF exposures relevant to
the person, especially during sleep and at work. For more
information, see e.g. “Options to Minimize EMF/RF/Static
Field Exposures in Office Environment” (196) and “Elek-
trosmog im Alltag” (197).
Environmental Medicine treatments
Until now, no specific treatment of EHS has been estab-
lished. Controlled clinical trials would be necessary to
assess optimal treatment and accessibility measures.
Actual data indicate that the functional deficits, which can
be found in persons with EHS, correspond to those we can
find in CMI such as MCS, CFS, and FM. The target of the
therapy is the regulation of the physiological dysfunction
detected by diagnostic steps (Examination and findings).
The main therapeutic target includes both general and
adjuvant procedures and specific treatments. The latter
are challenging and need special knowledge and experi-
ence in clinical environmental medicine treatments. Main
therapeutic targets include:
–Control of total body burden
Besides the reduction of EMF exposure, the
reduction of the total body burden by various
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
110 512
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      361
environmental pollutants (home, working place,
school, hobby), food additives, and dental materi-
als is indicated.
–Reduction of oxidative and/or nitrosative stress
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen
species (RNS) are free radicals naturally produced
in cells. Scavengers guarantee the balance between
the production of free radicals and the rate of their
removal. Many biologically important compounds
with antioxidant (AO) function have been identified
as endogenous and exogenous scavengers. Among the
endogenous AO, we distinguish between enzymatic
AO (catalase, glutathione peroxidase, glutathione
reductase, superoxide dismutase) and nonenzymatic
AO (bilirubin, ferritin, melatonin, glutathione, metal-
lothionin, N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), NADH, NADPH,
thioredoxin, 1,4,-bezoquinine, ubiquinone, uric acid).
They interact with exogenous dietary and/or synthetic
AO (carotenoids, retinoids, flavonoids, polyphenols,
glutathione, ascorbic acid, tocopherols). The complex
regulation and use of these substances is the thera-
peutic challenge (163, 201).
–Regulation of intestinal dysfunction
Endogenous and exogenous scavengers act synergis-
tically to maintain the redox homeostasis. Therefore,
dietary or natural antioxidants play an important role
to stabilize this interaction.
Treatment of a leaky gut, food intolerance, and food
allergy is a prerequisite for maintaining redox homeo-
stasis (202) and also requires special knowledge and
experience.
–Optimizing nutrition
Bioactive food is the main source of antioxidant com-
ponents such as vitamin C, vitamin E, NAC, carot-
enoids, CoQ10, alpha-lipoic acid, lycopene, selenium,
and flavonoids (203, 204). For instance, the regenera-
tion of vitamin E by glutathione or vitamin C is needed
to prevent lipid peroxidation. The dietary antioxidants
only can have beneficial effects on the redox system
if they are present in sufficient concentration levels
(201). Alpha-lipoic acid acts directly and indirectly as
a scavenger of free radicals including peroxynitrite,
singlet oxygen, superoxide, peroxyl radicals, and the
breakdown radicals of peroxynitrite (163). It had been
shown that the number of free electrons in micronu-
trients determines how effective they are. In organic
food, the number of free electrons is higher than in
conventionally produced food (205). Especially in
the case of food intolerances, the tailored substitu-
tion of micronutrients in the form of supplements is
necessary.
–Control of (silent) inflammation
Elevated nitric oxide levels and the reaction with
superoxide always leads to elevated peroxynitrate
levels, which induce ROS levels as no other substance
does (NO/ONOO− cycle). As a result, the nuclear
factor κB (NF-κB) is activated, inducing inflammatory
cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α),
interleukin-1β (IL-1β), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interkeu-
kin-8 (IL-8), and interferon gamma (IFNγ) and acti-
vating various NO synthases (163). Tocopherols (206,
207), carotinoids at low concentration levels (208),
vitamin C (209, 210), NAC (211), curcumin (212), res-
veratrol (213, 214), flavonoids (215) have shown to
interrupt this inflammatory cascade at various points.
–Normalization of mitochondrial function
Mitochondrial function may be disturbed in two ways.
First: the high amount of free radicals may block pro-
duction of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), leading to
muscle pain and fatigue. Second: in the case of silent
(smoldering) inflammation, the demand for more
energy is elevated by 25% (167), causing a high con-
sumption of ATP. In this case, NADH, L-carnitine and
CoQ10 are essential for ATP synthesis.
Due to the lack of ATP, the stress regulation of catecho-
lamines especially norepinephrine (NE) is reduced
because catabolism of NE by S-adenosylmethionine
is ATP dependent (216–218). Furthermore, stress regu-
lation has a high demand for folate, vitamin B6, and
methylcobalamine. Genetic polymorphisms of COMT
and MTHFR influence the individual need for those
substances (173, 219).
–Detoxification
In humans, the accumulation of environmental toxi-
cants has an individual profile of many different inor-
ganic and organic chemicals, which make up the total
body load (220).
Among the inorganic substances, metals and their
salts play the dominant role and might be of impor-
tance to persons with EHS. Elemental mercury (Hg°)
and other heavy metals such as lead (Pb) accumu-
late in the brain (221), especially at chronic low
dose exposure. They may have toxic effects and can
induce various immune reactions (222, 223). Whereas,
generally, no specific active substance exists for the
detoxification of chemicals, there are two groups of
substances with more specific effects that can be used
for the detoxification of metals.
1. Substances with nonspecific physiological
effects:
Glutathione, NAC, alpha-lipoic acid, vitamin C
and selenium.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
111 513
362      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
2. Chelating agents for detoxification of metals
(224–226)
The most important chelating agents are:
Sodium thiosulfate 10%
DMPS (2,3-dimercapto-1-propanesulfonic acid)
DMSA (meso-dimercaptosuccinic acid)
EDTA (2,2′,2″,2″′-ethane-1,2-diyldinitrotetraacetic
acid)
It should be noted that these substances should
be used only by those designated as experts in
this particular field.
–Adjuvant therapies
1. Drinking water
For detoxification reasons, a higher intake of high-
quality drinking water with low mineral content and
no CO2 is needed. The intake quantity should range
from 2.5 to 3.0 L (10–12 8-oz glasses) daily.
2. Light
Most of the people in central and northern Europe
are depleted of vitamin D. Sufficient natural daylight
exposure during the vitamin D-producing months
(spring to fall) is one important factor. At the same
time, prevention of actinic damage to the skin is
necessary.
3. Sauna
Sauna and therapeutic hyperthermia is an adjuvant
therapy for the detoxification of almost all xenobi-
otics. These therapies have to be carefully used. An
interaction with detoxifying drugs takes place. Sauna
helps to regenerate tetrahydrobiopterin from dihyd-
robiopterin, which is essential for the metabolism of
catecholamines and serotonin (163).
4. Oxygen
A part of persons with EHS suffer from mitochondrial
dysfunction. Sufficient natural oxygen is helpful. As
both hypoxia and hyperbaric oxygen can produce oxi-
dative stress, hyperbaric oxygen therapy should only
be performed if the persons are treated with sufficient
antioxidants at the same time.
5. Exercise
The optimal amount of exercise is still being debated.
A person’s physical capacity should be assessed by
ergometry in order to prescribe an individual exercise
regime. Environmental medicine experience indicates
that for sick people only low-impact aerobic exercise
should be used. In general, start with a work load of
20–30 watts that often can be finished at 60–70 watts.
Exercise on an ergometer allows better control of
the consumption of energy compared to walking or
running. No fatigue should result from exercising, at
least after half an hour.
6. Sleep
Sleeping disorders are very common in persons with
EHS. Sleep disturbance is associated with reduced
melatonin level. In the case of chronic inflammation,
the activation of IDO (indolamine-2,3-dioxygenase)
reduces the production of serotonin and, in turn, it
also reduces melatonin levels. EMF exposure might
block the parasympathetic activity while sympathetic
activity persists. Concerning sleep disturbances, any
therapy has to follow the pathogenic causes. Optimal
sleep is necessary to save energy and to regulate
the functions of the immune and neuroendocrine
systems.
7. Protection from blue light
Wavelengths of visible light below 500 nm are called
“blue light”. Low doses of blue light can increase feel-
ings of well-being, but larger amounts can be harmful
to the eyes. In natural daylight, the harmful effects
of “blue light” are balanced out by the regenerative
effect of the red and infrared content. The escalating
use of electronic light sources – such as fluorescent
tubes and compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), computer
screens, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and certain
LED bulbs – has increased our exposure to “blue
light”, which at this level is suspected of playing a
role in the development of age-related macular degen-
eration and circadian misalignment via melatonin
suppression, which is associated with the increased
risk of sleep disturbance, obesity, diabetes melli-
tus, depression, ischemic heart disease, stroke, and
cancer. Extended exposure to artificial “blue light”
in the evening should therefore be limited. Antioxi-
dants, especially melatonin (227, 228) and blue light
screen filters (229–231) could be helpful.
Dental medicine
Dental medicine still works with toxic or immunoreactive
materials, e.g. mercury, lead oxide, gold, and titanium.
Environmental dental medicine demands that these mate-
rials not be used (232–235). The removal of toxic dental
materials must take place under maximum safety condi-
tions (avoid inhalation!). The elimination of particularly
heavy metals from the body might be indicated. In general
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
112 514
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      363
terms, endoprosthetic materials should be inert with
respect to immunoreactivity. Based on our current knowl-
edge, zirconium dioxide seems to be a neutral material.
However, mechanical abrasion of the coated surface by
the dentist should be avoided.
Immunotoxic metals show a similar pathophysiology
with respect to oxidative stress, mitochondriopathy, and
inflammation.
Lifestyle coaching
Lifestyle coaching may include balanced exercise,
nutrition, reduction of addictive substances, change
of sleeping habits, etc. and stress reduction measures
(reduction of general stress and work stress), as well as
methods to increase stress resistance via, e.g. autogenic
training, yoga, progressive muscle relaxation, breathing
techniques, meditation, tai chi, and qigong.
Treatment of symptoms
A well-balanced treatment of symptoms is justified until
the causes have been identified and eliminated. However,
it is of paramount importance to realize that the reduction
of symptoms may put the person at risk for an increased
environmental EMF-load, thus generating possible future,
long-term health effects, including neurological damage
and cancer. It is a very difficult ethical task for the physi-
cian to risk such, and they must be pointed out – in an
equally well-balanced way – to the patient in question.
Ethically, to treat the symptoms is, of course, a very good
start in the immediate sense but without a parallel envi-
ronmental exposure reduction and lifestyle coaching it
may prove counter-productive in the long run. For a stand-
ardly trained physician this might seem a very new way
of reasoning, but is the only way to a successful and ever-
lasting symptom alleviation and complete clinical remedy
when dealing with chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI)
and EHS.
References
1. Hänninen O, Knol AB, Jantunen M, Lim TA, Conrad A, et al.
Environmental burden of disease in Europe: assessing
nine risk factors in six countries. Environ Health Perspect
2014;122(5):439–46.
2. Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer. BPtK-Studie zur Arbeitsun-
fähigkeit – Psychische Erkrankungen und Burnout [Internet].
Berlin (DE): Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer, 2012:29.
Report 2012. Available from: http://www.bptk.de/uploads/
media/20120606_AU-Studie-2012.pdf.
3. Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer. BPtK-Studie zur Arbeits-
und Erwerbsunfähigkeit – Psychische Erkrankungen und
gesundheitsbedingte Frühverrentung [Internet]. Berlin (DE):
Bundespsychotherapeutenkammer, 2013:66. Report 2013.
Available from: http://www.bptk.de/uploads/media/20140128_
BPtK-Studie_zur_Arbeits-und_Erwerbsunfaehigkeit_2013_1.pdf.
4. Fritze J. Psychopharmaka-Verordnungen: Ergebnisse
und Kommentare zum Arzneiverordnungsreport 2011.
Psychopharmakotherapie 2011;18:245–56.
5. Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte. Erstmals
seit 20 Jahren kein Anstieg beim Methylphenidat-Verbrauch
[Internet]. Bonn (DE): Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und
Medizinprodukte, 2014 Apr 1. Pressemitteilung Nummer
05/14; Available from: https://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/
Pressemitteilungen/DE/mitteil2014/pm05-2014.html.
6. Badura B, Ducki A, Schröder H, Klose J, Meyer M, editors.
Fehlzeiten-Report 2012. Berlin, Heidelberg (DE): Springer
Verlag, 2012:528 p.
7. OECD. Health at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators [Internet]. Paris
(FR): OECD Publishing, 2013 Nov 21. 212 p. DOI: 10.1787/health_
glance-2013-en. Available from: http://dx.DOI.org/10.1787/
health_glance-2013-en.
8. Pawankar R, Canonica GW, Holgate ST, Lockey RF, editors. WAO
White book on Allergy 2011–2012 [Internet]. Milwaukee, WI (US):
World Allergy Organization, 2013:228. Available from: http://
www.worldallergy.org/UserFiles/file/WAO-White-Book-on-
Allergy.pdf.
9. BioInitiative Working Group, Carpenter D, Sage C,
editors. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-
based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic
Fields (ELF and RF). 2007. Available from: http://www.
bioinitiative.org/.
10. BioInitiative Working Group, Carpenter D, Sage C, editors.
BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public
Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF).
2012. Available from: http://www.bioinitiative.org/.
11. Levitt B, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electro-
magnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and
other antenna arrays. Environ Rev 2010;18:369–95.
12. Pall ML. Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assump-
tions of Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through
voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological
impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for
microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Rev
Environ Health 2015;30(2):99–116.
13. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protec-
tion. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric,
magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health
Physics 1998;74(4):494–522.
14. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying
electric and magnetic fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz). Health Phys
2010;99(6):818–36.
15. Vecchia P. ICNIRP and international standards. London (GB):
Conference EMF and Health, 2008:28. Available from: http://
archive.radiationresearch.org/conference/downloads/021145_
vecchia.pdf.
16. Panagopoulos DJ, Johansson O, Carlo GL. Evaluation of specific
absorption rate as a dosimetric quantity for electromagnetic
fields bioeffects. PLoS One 2013;8(6):e62663.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
113 515
364      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
17. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely
Low-Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields. Lyon (FR):
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2002:445.
IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans, VOL 80. Available from: http://monographs.iarc.fr/
ENG/Monographs/vol80/.
18. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks
to Humans. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency
Electro magnetic Fields. Lyon (FR): International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC), 2013:480. IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol 102. Available
from: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol102/.
19. European Environmental Agency. Radiation risk from everyday
devices assessed [Internet]. Copenhagen (DK): 2007 Sept 17.
Available from: www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/radiation-risk-
from-everyday-devices-assessed.
20. European Environmental Agency. Health risks from mobile
phone radiation – why the experts disagree [Internet]. Copenha-
gen (DK): 2011 Oct 12. Available from: http://www.eea.europa.
eu/highlights/health-risks-from-mobile-phone.
21. European Environmental Agency. Late lessons from early
warnings: science, precaution, innovation [Internet].
Copenhagen (DK): 2013 Jan 23. EEA Report No 1/2013. Available
from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2.
22. EU Parliament. Report on health concerns associated with
electro magnetic fields. Brussels (BE): Committee on the Environ-
ment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European Parliament.
Rapporteur: Frederique Ries (2008/2211(INI) [Internet]. Available
from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//
EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2009-0089+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN.
23. EU Parliament. European Parliament resolution of 2 April
2009 on health concerns associated with electromagnetic
fields [Internet]). Brussels (BE): European Parliament, 2009
Apr 2. Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-
0216+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.
24. Fragopoulou A, Grigoriev Y, Johansson O, Margaritis LH,
Morgan L, et al. Scientific panel on electromagnetic field health
risks: consensus points, recommendations, and rationales.
Environ Health 2010;25(4):307–17.
25. Dämvik M, Johansson O. Health risk assessment of electro-
magnetic fields: a conflict between the Precautionary Principle
and environmental medicine methodology. Rev Environ Health
2010;25(4):325–33.
26. Council of Europe – Parliamentary Assembly. The potential
dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the envi-
ronment. Resolution, Doc. 1815, Text adopted by the Standing
Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 27 May 2011
[Internet]. Available from: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/
XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994&lang=en.
27. Dean AL, Rea WJ. American Academy of Environmental Medicine
Recommendations Regarding Electromagnetic and Radiofre-
quency Exposure [Internet]. Wichita, KS (US): Executive Com-
mittee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine,
2012 July 12. Available from: https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/
AAEMEMFmedicalconditions.pdf.
28. Federal Public Service (FPS) Health, Food Chain Safety and
Environment. New regulation for the sale of mobile phones as
of 2014 [Internet]. Brussels (BE): Federal Public Service (FPS)
Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, 2014 Feb 07.
Available from: http://health.belgium.be/eportal/19089508_
EN?fodnlang=en#.VQ6qlo6GPN6.
29. Assemblėe Nationale. PROPOSITION DE LOI relative à la
sobriété, à la transparence, à l’information et à la concertation
en matière d’exposition aux ondes électromagnétiques. Paris
(FR): Assemblėe Nationale, France, 2015 Jan 29. Available from:
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/pdf/ta/ta0468.pdf.
30. Blank M, Havas M, Kelley E, Lai H, Moskowitz JM. International
EMF Scientist Appeal [Internet]. 2015 May 11. Available from:
https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal.
31. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and
childhood cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1979;109(3):273–84.
32. Robinette CD, Silverman C, Jablon S. Effects upon health of
occupational exposure to microwave radiation (radar). Am J
Epidemiol 1980;112:39–53.
33. Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M, Roman E, Skinner J, et al.
A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia.
Br J Cancer 2000;83(5):692–8.
34. Greenland S, Sheppard AR, Kaune WT, Poole C, Kelsh MA. A
pooled analysis of magnetic fields, wire codes, and childhood
leukemia. Childhood Leukemia-EMF Study Group. Epidemiology
2000;11(6):624–34.
35. Kheifets L, Ahlbom A, Crespi CM, Draper G, Hagihara J, et al.
Pooled analysis of recent studies on magnetic fields and child-
hood leukaemia. Br J Cancer 2010;103(7):1128–35.
36. Zhao L, Liu X, Wang C, Yan K, Lin X, et al. Magnetic fields expo-
sure and childhood leukemia risk: a meta-analysis based on
11,699 cases and 13,194 controls. Leuk Res 2014;38(3):269–74.
37. Hardell L, Näsman A, Påhlson A, Hallquist A, Hansson Mild K.
Use of cellular telephones and the risk for brain tumours: a
case-control study. Int J Oncol 1999;15(1):113–6.
38. Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, Fabbro-Peray P, Gruber A, et al.
Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-con-
trol study. Occup Environ Med 2014;71(7):514–22.
39. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Mild KH. Case-control study
of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed
between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use. Int
J Oncol 2013;43(6):1833–45.
40. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Mild KH. Pooled analysis of
case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997–2003
and 2007–2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. Int J
Oncol 2013;43(4):1036–44.
41. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for
evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors
associated with use of mobile and cordless phones. Rev Environ
Health 2013;28:97–106.
42. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phone and cordless phone use
and the risk for glioma – Analysis of pooled case-control stud-
ies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009. Pathophysiology
2015;22(1):1–13.
43. Soffritti M, Giuliani L. ICEMS Position Paper on the Cerebral
Tumor Court Case [Internet]. Rome (IT), Bolgna (IT), Chicago,
IL (US): International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety,
2012 October 23. Available from: http://www.icems.eu/docs/
Sentenza_integrale_n17438_13577519.pdf?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/
MNHJ1B49KH.DTL.
44. Bak M, Dudarewicz A, Zmyślony M, Sliwinska-Kowalska M.
Effects of GSM signals during exposure to event related poten-
tials (ERPs). Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2010;23(2):191–9.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
114 516
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      365
45. Maganioti AE, Hountala CD, Papageorgiou CC, Kyprianou MA,
Rabavilas AD, et al. Principal component analysis of the P600
waveform: RF and gender effects. Neurosci Lett 2010;478(1):
19–23.
46. Hountala CD, Maganioti AE, Papageorgiou CC, Nanou ED,
Kyprianou MA, et al. The spectral power coherence of the EEG
under different EMF conditions. Neurosci Lett 2008;441(2):
188–92.
47. Croft RJ, Hamblin DL, Spong J, Wood AW, McKenzie RJ, et al.
The effect of mobile phone electromagnetic fields on the alpha
rhythm of human electroencephalogram. Bioelectromagnetics
2008;29(1):1–10.
48. Croft RJ, Leung S, McKenzie RJ, Loughran SP, Iskra S, et al.
Effects of 2G and 3G mobile phones on human alpha rhythms:
resting EEG in adolescents, young adults, and the elderly.
Bioelectromagnetics 2010;31(6):434–44.
49. Leung S, Croft RJ, McKenzie RJ, Iskra S, Silber B, et al.
Effects of 2G and 3G mobile phones on performance and
electrophysiology in adolescents, young adults and older
adults. Clin Neurophysiol 2011;122(11):2203–16.
50. Lustenberger C, Murbach M, Durr R, Schmid MR, Kuster N, et al.
Stimulation of the brain with radiofrequency electromagnetic
field pulses affects sleep-dependent performance improvement.
Brain Stimul 2013;6(5):805–11.
51. Vecchio F, Babiloni C, Ferreri F, Curcio G, Fini R, et al. Mobile
phone emission modulates interhemispheric functional coupling
of EEG alpha rhythms. Eur J Neurosci 2007;25(6):1908–13.
52. Vecchio F, Buffo P, Sergio S, Iacoviello D, Rossini PM, et al.
Mobile phone emission modulates event-related desynchroni-
zation of α rhythms and cognitive-motor performance in healthy
humans. Clin Neurophysiol 2012;123(1):121–8.
53. Tombini M, Pellegrino G, Pasqualetti P, Assenza G, Benvenga A,
et al. Mobile phone emissions modulate brain excitability in
patients with focal epilepsy. Brain Stimul 2013;6(3):448–54.
54. Vecchio F, Tombini M, Buffo P, Assenza G, Pellegrino G, et al.
Mobile phone emission increases inter-hemispheric functional
coupling of electroencephalographic alpha rhythms in epileptic
patients. Int J Psychophysiol 2012;84(2):164–71.
55. Perentos N, Croft RJ, McKenzie RJ, Cvetkovic D, Cosic I.
Comparison of the effects of continuous and pulsed mobile
phone like RF exposure on the human EEG. Australas Phys Eng
Sci Med 2007;30(4):274–80.
56. Trunk A, Stefanics G, Zentai N, Kovács-Bálint Z, Thuróczy G,
et al. No effects of a single 3G UMTS mobile phone exposure
on spontaneous EEG activity, ERP correlates, and automatic
deviance detection. Bioelectromagnetics 2013;34(1):31–42.
57. Kleinlogel H, Dierks T, Koenig T, Lehmann H, Minder A, et al.
Effects of weak mobile phone – electromagnetic fields (GSM,
UMTS) on well-being and resting EEG. Bioelectromagnetics
2008;29(6):479–87.
58. Kleinlogel H, Dierks T, Koenig T, Lehmann H, Minder A, et al.
Effects of weak mobile phone – electromagnetic fields (GSM,
UMTS) on event related potentials and cognitive functions.
Bioelectromagnetics 2008;29(6):488–97.
59. Krause CM, Pesonen M, Haarala Björnberg C, Hämäläinen H.
Effects of pulsed and nuous wave 902 MHz mobile phone expo-
sure on brain oscillatory activity during cognitive processing.
Bioelectromagnetics 2007;28(4):296–308.
60. Inomata-Terada S, Okabe S, Arai N, Hanajima R, Terao Y, et al.
Effects of high frequency electromagnetic field (EMF) emitted by
mobile phones on the human motor cortex. Bioelectromagnetics
2007;28(7):553–61.
61. Hung CS, Anderson C, Horne JA, McEvoy P. Mobile phone ‘talk-
mode’ signal delays EEG-determined sleep onset. Neurosci Lett
2007;421(1):82–6.
62. Regel SJ, Tinguely G, Schuderer J, Adam M, Kuster N, et al.
Pulsed radio-frequency electromagnetic fields: dose-dependent
effects on sleep, the sleep EEG and cognitive performance.
J Sleep Res 2007;16(3):253–8.
63. Lowden A, Akerstedt T, Ingre M, Wiholm C, Hillert L, et al. Sleep
after mobile phone exposure in subjects with mobile phone-
related symptoms. Bioelectromagnetics 2011;32(1):4–14.
64. Schmid MR, Loughran SP, Regel SJ, Murbach M,
Bratic Grunauer A, et al. Sleep EEG alterations: effects of
different pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic
fields. J Sleep Res 2012;21(1):50–8.
65. Schmid MR, Murbach M, Lustenberger C, Maire M, Kuster N,
et al. Sleep EEG alterations: effects of pulsed magnetic fields
versus pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields.
J Sleep Res 2012;21(6):620–9.
66. Loughran SP, McKenzie RJ, Jackson ML, Howard ME, Croft RJ.
Individual differences in the effects of mobile phone exposure
on human sleep: rethinking the problem. Bioelectromagnetics
2012;33(1):86–93.
67. Fritzer G, Göder R, Friege L, Wachter J, Hansen V, et al. Effects
of short- and long-term pulsed radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields on night sleep and cognitive functions in healthy sub-
jects. Bioelectromagnetics 2007;28(4):316–25.
68. Mohler E, Frei P, Braun-Fahrländer C, Fröhlich J, Neubauer G,
et al. Effects of everyday radiofrequency electromagnetic-field
exposure on sleep quality: a cross-sectional study. Radiat Res
2010;174(3):347–56.
69. Mohler E, Frei P, Fröhlich J, Braun-Fahrländer C, Röösli M, et al.
Exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and sleep
quality: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One 2012;7(5):e37455.
70. Nakatani-Enomoto S, Furubayashi T, Ushiyama A, Groiss SJ,
Ueshima K, et al. Effects of electromagnetic fields emitted
from W-CDMA-like mobile phones on sleep in humans.
Bioelectromagnetics 2013;34(8):589–98.
71. Pelletier A, Delanaud S, Décima P, Thuroczy G, de Seze R, et al.
Effects of chronic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields on energy balance in developing rats. Environ Sci Pollut
Res Int 2013;20(5):2735–46.
72. Mohammed HS, Fahmy HM, Radwah NM, Elsayed AA. Non-
thermal continuous and modulated electromagnetic radiation
fields effects on sleep EEG of rats. J Adv Res 2013;4(2):181–7.
73. Belyaev I. Dependence of non-thermal biological effects of
microwaves on physical and biological variables: implications
for reproducibility and safety standards [Internet]. In: Giuliani
L, Soffritti M, editors. Non-thermal effects and mechanisms of
interaction between electromagnetic fields and living matter.
Bologna (IT): Ramazzini institute, 2010. European Journal of
Oncology – Library Vol. 5. pp 187–218. Available from: http://
www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.
DTL.
74. Kitaoka K, Kitamura M, Aoi S, Shimizu N, Yoshizaki K. Chronic
exposure to an extremely low-frequency magnetic field induces
depression-like behavior and corticosterone secretion without
enhancement of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in
mice. Bioelectromagnetics 2013;34(1):43–51.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
115 517
366      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
75. Szemerszky R, Zelena D, Barna I, Bárdos G. Stress-related
endocrinological and psychopathological effects of short- and
long-term 50Hz electromagnetic field exposure in rats. Brain
Res Bull 2010;81(1):92–9.
76. Shin EJ, Jeong JH, Kim HJ, Jang CG, Yamada K, et al. Exposure to
extremely low frequency magnetic fields enhances locomotor
activity via activation of dopamine D1-like receptors in mice.
J Pharmacol Sci 2007;105(4):367–71.
77. Shin EJ, Nguyen XK, Nguyen TT, Pham DT, Kim HC. Exposure to
extremely low frequency magnetic fields induces fos-related
antigen-immunoreactivity via activation of dopaminergic D1
receptor. Exp Neurobiol 2011;20(3):130–6.
78. Wang X, Liu Y, Lei Y, Zhou D, Fu Y, et al. Extremely low-frequency
electromagnetic field exposure during chronic morphine treat-
ment strengthens downregulation of dopamine D2 receptors in
rat dorsal hippocampus after morphine withdrawal. Neurosci
Lett 2008;433(3):178–82.
79. Ravera S, Bianco B, Cugnoli C, Panfoli I, Calzia D, et al. Sinu-
soidal ELF magnetic fields affect acetylcholinesterase activity
in cerebellum synaptosomal membranes. Bioelectromagnetics
2010;31(4):270–6.
80. Fournier NM, Mach QH, Whissell PD, Persinger MA.
Neurodevelopmental anomalies of the hippocampus in rats
exposed to weak intensity complex magnetic fields throughout
gestation. Int J Dev Neurosci 2012;30(6):427–33.
81. Balassa T, Szemerszky R, Bárdos G. Effect of short-term 50 Hz
electromagnetic field exposure on the behavior of rats. Acta
Physiol Hung 2009;96(4):437–48.
82. Dimitrijević D, Savić T, Anđelković M, Prolić Z, Janać B. Extremely
low frequency magnetic field (50 Hz, 0.5 mT) modifies fitness
components and locomotor activity of Drosophila subobscura.
Int J Radiat Biol 2014;90(5):337–43.
83. Janać B, Selaković V, Rauš S, Radenović L, Zrnić M, et al. Tempo-
ral patterns of extremely low frequency magnetic field-induced
motor behavior changes in Mongolian gerbils of different age.
Int J Radiat Biol 2012;88(4):359–66.
84. Legros A, Corbacio M, Beuter A, Modolo J, Goulet D, et al.
Neurophysiological and behavioral effects of a 60 Hz,
1800 µT magnetic field in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol
2012;112(5):1751–62.
85. Rauš S, Selaković V, Radenović L, Prolić Z, Janać B. Extremely
low frequency magnetic field induced changes in motor
behaviour of gerbils submitted to global cerebral ischemia.
Behav Brain Res 2012;228(2):241–6.
86. Todorović D, Marković T, Prolić Z, Mihajlović S, Rauš S, et al. The
influence of static magnetic field (50 mT) on development and
motor behaviour of Tenebrio (Insecta, Coleoptera). Int J Radiat
Biol 2013;89(1):44–50.
87. Che Y, Sun H, Cui Y, Zhou D, Ma Y. Effects of exposure to 50 Hz
magnetic field of 1 mT on the performance of detour learning
task by chicks. Brain Res Bull 2007;74(1–3):178–82.
88. Corbacio M, Brown S, Dubois S, Goulet D, Prato FS, et al. Human
cognitive performance in a 3 mT power-line frequency magnetic
field. Bioelectromagnetics 2011;32(8):620–33.
89. Cui Y, Ge Z, Rizak JD, Zhai C, Zhou Z, et al. Deficits in water maze
performance and oxidative stress in the hippocampus and
striatum induced by extremely low frequency magnetic field
exposure. PLoS One 2012;7(5):e32196.
90. Duan Y, Wang Z, Zhang H, He Y, Lu R, et al. The preventive effect
of lotus seedpod procyanidins on cognitive impairment and
oxidative damage induced by extremely low frequency electro-
magnetic field exposure. Food Funct 2013;4(8):1252–62.
91. Fu Y, Wang C, Wang J, Lei Y, Ma Y. Long-term exposure to extremely
low-frequency magnetic fields impairs spatial recognition memory
in mice. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2008;35(7):797–800.
92. Harakawa S, Nedachi T, Hori T, Takahashi K, Tochio K, et al.
Effect of electric field in conditioned aversion response. J Vet
Med Sci 2008;70(6):611–3.
93. He LH, Shi HM, Liu TT, Xu YC, Ye KP, et al. Effects of extremely
low frequency magnetic field on anxiety level and spatial
memory of adult rats. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011;124(20):3362–6.
94. Liu T, Wang S, He L, Ye K. Chronic exposure to low-intensity
magnetic field improves acquisition and maintenance of
memory. Neuroreport 2008;19(5):549–52.
95. Sun H, Che Y, Liu X, Zhou D, Miao Y, et al. Effects of prenatal
exposure to a 50-Hz magnetic field on one-trial passive
avoidance learning in 1-day-old chicks. Bioelectromagnetics
2010;31(2):150–5.
96. Korpinar MA, Kalkan MT, Tuncel H. The 50 Hz (10 mT) sinusoidal
magnetic field: effects on stress-related behavior of rats.
Bratisl Lek Listy 2012;113(9):521–4.
97. Liu T, Wang S, He L, Ye K. Anxiogenic effect of chronic exposure
to extremely low frequency magnetic field in adult rats.
Neurosci Lett 2008;434(1):12–7.
98. Salunke BP, Umathe SN, Chavan JG. Involvement of NMDA
receptor in low-frequency magnetic field-induced anxiety in
mice. Electromagn Biol Med 2014;33(4):312–26.
99. Ross ML, Koren SA, Persinger MA. Physiologically patterned
weak magnetic fields applied over left frontal lobe increase
acceptance of false statements as true. Electromagn Biol Med
2008;27(4):365–71.
100. Davanipour Z, Tseng CC, Lee PJ, Markides KS, Sobel E. Severe
Cognitive dysfunction and occupational extremely low
frequency magnetic field exposure among elderly Mexican
Americans. Br J Med Med Res 2014;4(8):1641–62.
101. Stevens P. Affective response to 5 microT ELF magnetic
field-induced physiological changes. Bioelectromagnetics
2007;28(2):109–14.
102. Ishay JS, Plotkin M, Volynchik S, Shaked M, Schuss Z, et al.
Exposure to an additional alternating magnetic field affects
comb building by worker hornets. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR
2007;39(1):83–8.
103. Sandyk R. Reversal of cognitive impairment in an elderly
Parkinsonian patient by transcranial application of picotesla
electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci 1997;91(1–2):57–68.
104. Hallberg Ö, Johansson O. Alzheimer mortality – why does
it increase so fast in sparsely populated areas? Europ Biol
Bioelectromag 2005;1:225–46.
105. Huss A, Spoerri A, Egger M, Röösli M; Swiss National Cohort
Study. Residence near power lines and mortality from
neurodegenerative diseases: longitudinal study of the Swiss
population. Am J Epidemiol 2009;169(2):167–75.
106. Frei P, Poulsen AH, Mezei G, Pedersen C, Cronberg Salem L,
et al. Residential distance to high-voltage power lines and risk
of neurodegenerative diseases: a Danish population-based
case-control study. Am J Epidemiol 2013;177(9):970–8.
107. Zhou H, Chen G, Chen C, Yu Y, Xu Z. Association between
extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields occupations
and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One
2012;7(11):e48354.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
116 518
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      367
108. Vergara X, Kheifets L, Greenland S, Oksuzyan S, Cho YS, et al.
Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic
fields and neurodegenerative disease: a meta-analysis.
J Occup Environ Med 2013;55(2):135–46.
109. Kundi M, Hutter HP. Umwelthygienische Bewertung des
Berichtes zur Bestimmung der Feldstärken niederfrequenter
magnetischer Wechselfelder im Bereich der 110 kV Hochspan-
nungsleitung im Siedlungsbereich der Gemeinde Kottingbrunn
von Dr.-Ing. Dietrich Moldan vom 20.8.2014 [Internet]. Kot-
tingbrunn (AT): Gemeinde Kottinbrunn, 2014:69–104. Available
from: www.kottingbrunn.or.at/system/web/GetDocument.
ashx?fileid=972861.
110. Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J. Effect of cell
phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility
clinic: an observational study. Fertil Steril 2008;89(1):124–8.
111. Agarwal A, Desai NR, Makker K, Varghese A, Mouradi R, et al.
Effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMF) from
cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro study.
Fertil Steril 2009;92(4):1318–25.
112. Wdowiak A, Wdowiak L, Wiktor H. Evaluation of the effect of
using mobile phones on male fertility. Ann Agric Environ Med
2007;14(1):169–72.
113. De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ. Mobile phone
radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and
DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. PLoS One
2009;4(7):e6446.
114. Fejes I, Zavacki Z, Szollosi J, Koloszar Daru J, Kovacs L, et al.
Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen
quality? Arch Androl 2005;51(5):385–93.
115. Aitken RJ, Bennetts LE, Sawyer D, Wiklendt AM, King BV. Impact
of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on DNA integrity
in the male germline. Int J Androl 2005;28(3):171–9.
116. Aitken RJ, Koopman P, Lewis SEM. Seeds of concern. Nature
2004;432(7013):48–52.
117. Erogul O, Oztas E, Yildirim I, Kir T, Aydur E, et al. Effects of
electro magnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm
motility: an in vitro study. Arch Med Res 2006;37(7):840–3.
118. Dasdag S. Whole-body microwave exposure emitted by
cellular phones and testicular function of rats. Urol Res
1999;27(3):219–23.
119. Yan JG, Agresti M, Bruce T, Yan YH, Granlund A, et al. Effects of
cellular phone emissions on sperm motility in rats. Fertil Steril
2007;88(4):957–64.
120. Otitoloju AA, Obe IA, Adewale OA, Otubanjo OA, Osunkalu VO.
Preliminary study on the reduction of sperm head abnor-
malities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency
radiations from global system for mobile communication base
stations. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2010;84(1):51–4.
121. Behari J, Kesari KK. Effects of microwave radiations on
reproductive system of male rats. Embryo Talk 2006;
1(Suppl. 1):81–5.
122. Kumar S, Behari J, Sisodia R. Impact of microwave at X-band
in the aetiology of male infertility. Electromagn Biol Med
2012;31(3):223–32.
123. Panagopoulos DJ. Effect of microwave exposure on the ovarian
development of Drosophila melanogaster. Cell Biochem
Biophys 2012;63(2):121–32.
124. Gul A, Celebi H, Ugras S. The effects of microwaves emitted
by cellular phones on ovarian follicles in rats. Arch Gynecol
Obstet 2009;280(5):729–33.
125. Magras IN, Xenos TD. RF Radiation-induced changes in
the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics
1997;18(6):455–61.
126. Röösli M, Moser M, Baldinini Y, Meier M, Braun-Fahrländer C.
Symptoms of ill health ascribed to electromagnetic field
exposure – a questionnaire survey. Int J Hyg Environ Health
2004;207(2):141–50.
127. Kato Y, Johansson O. Reported functional impairments of
electrohypersensitive Japanese: a questionnaire survey.
Pathophysiology 2012;19(2):95–100.
128. Huss A, Küchenhoff J, Bircher A, Heller P, Kuster H, et al.
Symptoms attributed tot he environment- a systematic
interdisciplinary assessment. Int J Hyg Environ Health
2004;207(3):245–54.
129. Huss A, Küchenhoff J, Bircher A, Niederer M, Tremp J, et al.
Elektromagnetische Felder und Gesundheitsbelastungen –
Interdisziplinäre Fallabklärungen im Rahmen eines
umweltmediznischen Beratungsprojektes. Umweltmed
Forsch Prax 2005;10(1):21–8.
130. Schreier N, Huss A, Röösli M. The prevalence of symptoms
attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional
representative survey in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed
2006;51(4):202–9.
131. Huss A, Röösli M. Consultations in primary care for symptoms
attributed to electromagnetic fields–a survey among general
practitioners. BMC Public Health 2006;6:267.
132. Ausfeld-Hafter B, Manser R, Kempf D, Brändli I.
Komplementärmedizin. Eine Fragebogenerhebung in sch-
weizerischen Arztpraxen mit komplementärmedizinischem
Diagnostik- und Therapieangebot. Studie im Auftrag vom
Bundesamt für Umwelt. Universität Bern. Kollegiale Instanz
für Komplementärmedizin (KIKOM) [Internet]. Bern (CH):
Bundesamt für Umwelt. 2006 Oct 5. Available from: http://
www.bafu.admin.ch/elektrosmog/01095/01099/index.
html?lang=de&download.
133. Leitgeb N, Schröttner J, Böhm M. Does “electromagnetic
pollution” cause illness? An inquiry among Austrian general
practitioners. Wien Med Wochenschr 2005;155(9–10):237–41.
134. World Health Organization. Factsheet Nr. 296, Elektromag-
netische Felder und Öffentliche Gesundheit – Elektromag-
netische Hypersensitivität (Elektrosensibilität) [Internet]. Genf
(CH): WHO, 2005 Dec. Available from: http://www.who.int/
peh-emf/publications/facts/ehs_fs_296_german.pdf.
135. Hug K, Röösli M. Strahlung von Sendeanlagen und Gesundheit.
Bewertung von wissenschaftlichen Studien im Niedrigdosis-
bereich. Stand: Dezember 2012 [Internet]. Bern (CH): Bundes-
amt für Umwelt, 2013. Available from: http://www.bafu.admin.
ch/publikationen/publikation/01739/index.html?lang=de.
136. Genius SJ, Lipp CT. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: fact or
fiction? Sci Total Environ 2012;414:103–12.
137. Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a func-
tional impairment. Electromagn Biol Med 2006;25(4):245–58.
138. Johansson O. Aspects of studies on the functional impairment
electrohypersensitivity. In: Proceedings of Electromagnetic
Phenomena and Health – A Continuing Controversy? In: Jamie-
son IA, Holdstock, editors. A one day international conference
organised by the Electrostatics Group of the Institute of Phys-
ics and held at the Institute of Physics, London (UK) 2008 Sept
10. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
IoP Publishing, Bristol/Philadelphia, Volume 10:1–7.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
117 519
368      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
139. Abelous D. France has its first radiation-free refuge in the
Drôme [Internet]. EURRE/Drôme (FR): Agence France Presse
(AFP), 2009 Oct 9. Available from: http://www.next-up.org/
pdf/AFP_France_has_its_first_radiation_free_refuge_in_the_
Drome_09_10_2009.pdf.
140. Ecoforma. Mit einem schadstofffreiem Haus gegen
Schlafprobleme [Internet]. Sarleinsbach (AT): Ecoforma, 2014
Sept 9. Available from: http://www.ecoforma.co.at/holzbau-
ecobau-lehrbaustelle.
141. Johansson O. Elöverkänslighet samt överkänslighet mot
mobiltelefoner: Resultat från en dubbel-blind provokations-
studie av metodstudiekaraktär (Electrohypersensitivity and
sensitivity to mobile telephones: Results from a double-blind
provocation study of pilot character, in Swedish), Enheten för
Experimentell Dermatologi, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm,
Rapport No. 2, 1995, ISSN 1400-6111.
142. Johansson O, Liu P-Y. “Electrosensitivity”, “electrosupersen-
sitivity” and “screen dermatitis”: preliminary observations
from on-going studies in the human skin. In: Simunic D, editor.
Proceedings of the COST 244: Biomedical Effects of Electro-
magnetic Fields – Workshop on Electromagnetic Hypersensitiv-
ity. Brussels/Graz: EU/EC (DG XIII) 1995:52–57.
143. Johansson O, Gangi S, Liang Y, Yoshimura K, Jing C, et al.
Cutaneous mast cells are altered in normal healthy volunteers
sitting in front of ordinary TVs/PCs – results from open-field
provocation experiments. J Cutan Pathol 2001;28(10):513–9.
144. Johansson O, Hilliges M, Björnhagen V, Hall K. Skin changes
in patients claiming to suffer from “screen dermatitis”:
a two-case open-field provocation study. Exp Dermatol
1994;3(5):234–8.
145. Belpomme D, Irigary P. Electrohypersensitivity and multiple
chemical sensitivity: two clinic-biological entities of the same
disorder? [Internet]. Brussels [BE]: In: Idiopathic environ-
mental intolerance: what role for electromagnetic fields and
chemicals? 5th Paris Appeal Congress, Royal Academy of Medi-
cine, Belgium, 2015 May 18:p 34. Available from: http://www.
ehs-mcs.org/fichiers/1432301961_Paris_Appeal_2015.pdf.
146. Regel SJ, Negovetic S, Röösli M, Berdiñas V, Schuderer J, et al.
UMTS base station-like exposure, well-being, and cognitive
performance. Environ Health Perspect 2006;114(8):1270–5.
147. Zwamborn APM, Vossen SHJA, van Leersum BJAM, Ouwens MA,
Mäkel WN. Effects of Global Communication system radio-fre-
quency fields on Well Being and Cognitive Functions of human
subjects with and without subjective complaints. The Hague
(NL): TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory, 2003 Sept, 86 p.
TNO-report FEL-03-C148. Available from: http://www.salzburg.
gv.at/tno_study_2003.pdf.
148. Eltiti S, Wallace D, Ridgewell A, Zougkou K, Russo R, et al. Does
short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals
increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to
electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provoca-
tion study. Environ Health Perspect 2007;115(11):1603–8.
149. McCarty DE, Carrubba S, Chesson AL, Frilot C, Gonzalez-Toledo
E, et al. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel
neurological syndrome. Int J Neurosci 2011;121(12):670–6.
150. Havas M, Marrongelle J, Pollner B, Kelley E, Rees CRG, et al.
Provocation study using heart rate variability shows micro-
wave radiation from 2.4 GHz cordless phone affects auto-
nomic nervous system [Internet]. In: Giuliani L, Soffritti M,
editors. Non-thermal effects and mechanisms of interaction
between electromagnetic fields and living matter. Bologna
(IT): Ramazzini institute, 2010. European Journal of Oncology –
Library Vol. 5. pp 187–218. Available from: http://www.icems.
eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL.
151. Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood,
the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Rev Environ
Health 2013;28(2–3):75–84.
152. Tuengler A, von Klitzing L. Hypothesis on how to measure
electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Electromagn Biol Med
2013;32(3):281–90.
153. Klitzing L. Einfluss elektromagnetischer Felder auf
kardiovaskuläre Erkrankungen. umwelt medizin gesellschaft
2014;27(1):17–21.
154. Santini R, Santini P, Danze JM, Le Ruz P, Seigne M.
Investigation on the health of people living near mobile
telephone relay stations: I/Incidence according to distance
and sex. Pathol Biol (Paris) 2002;50(6):369–73.
155. Navarro EA, Segura J, Portolés M, Gómez-Perretta de Mateo C.
The microwave syndrome: a preliminary study in Spain.
Electromagn Biol Med 2003;22(2–3):161–9.
156. Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. Subjective
symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance
in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup
Environ Med 2006;63(5):307–13.
157. Abdel-Rassoul G, El-Fateh OA, Salem MA, Michael A, Farahat F,
et al. Neurobehavioral effects among inhabitants around
mobile phone base stations. Neurotoxicology 2007;28(2):
434–40.
158. Blettner M, Schlehofer B, Breckenkamp J, Kowall B,
Schmiedel S, et al. Mobile phone base stations and adverse
health effects: phase 1 of a population-based, cross-sectional
study in Germany. Occup Environ Med 2009;66(2):118–23.
159. Milham S, Stetzer D. Dirty electricity, chronic stress,
neurotransmitters and disease. Electromagn Biol Med
2013;32(4):500–7.
160. Schlegel P. Elektrosensible Französin als Behinderte anerkannt
[Internet]. Stuttgart (DE): Diagnose Funk, 2015 Sep 7. Available
from: http://www.diagnose-funk.org/themen/mobilfunkver-
sorgung/gesundheit-und-elektrosensibilitaet/elektrosensible-
franzoesin-als-behinderte-anerkannt.php.
161. Friedmann J, Kraus S, Hauptmann Y, Schiff Y, Seger R. Mechanism
of short-term ERK activation by electromagnetic fields at mobile
phone frequencies. Biochem J 2007;405(3):559–68.
162. Simkó M. Cell type specific redox status is responsible
for diverse electromagnetic field effects. Curr Med Chem
2007;14(10):1141–52.
163. Pall ML. Explaining “Unexplained Illnesses”: Disease Paradigm
for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity,
Fibromyalgia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Gulf War
Syndrome, and Others. New York, NY (US), London (GB):
Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-7890-
2388-9.
164. Bedard K, Krause KH. The NOX Family of ROS-Generating
NADPH oxidases: physiology and pathophysiology. Physiol Rev
2007;87(1):245–313.
165. Pacher P, Beckman JS, Liaudet L. Nitric oxide and peroxynitrite
in health and disease. Physiol Rev 2007;87(1):315–424.
166. Desai NR, Kesari KK, Agarwal A. Pathophysiology of cell phone
radiation: oxidative stress and carcinogenesis with focus on
male reproductive system. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2009;7:114.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
118 520
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      369
167. Straub RH, Cutolo M, Buttgereit F, Pongratz G. Energy regula-
tion and neuroendocrine-immune control in chronic inflamma-
tory diseases. J Intern Med 2010;267(6):543–60.
168. Gye MC, Park CJ. Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on
the reproductive system. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2012;39(1):1–9.
169. Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel D, Kyrylenko O,
et al. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-
intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med
2015;19:1–16.
170. Pall ML. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-
gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse
effects. J Cell Mol Med 2013;17(8):958–65.
171. Pall ML. Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects
including depression. J Chem Neuroanat 2015. pii: S0891-
0618(15)00059-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.08.001. [Epub
ahead of print].
172. Myhill S, Booth NE, McLaren-Howard J. Chronic fatigue
syndrome and mitochondrial dysfunction. Int J Clin Exp Med
2009;2(1):1–16.
173. Müller KE. Stressregulation und Mitochondrienfunktion. Zs f
Orthomol Med 2012;1:1–13.
174. Buchner K, Eger H. Veränderung klinisch bedeutsamer
Neurotransmitter unter dem Einfluss modulierter
hochfrequenter Felder – Eine Langzeiterhebung unter
lebensnahen Bedingungen. umwelt medizin gesellschaft
2011;24(1):44–57.
175. Hill HU, Huber W, Müller KE. Multiple-Chemikalien-Sensitivität
(MCS) – Ein Krankheitsbild der chronischen Multisystemer-
krankungen, umweltmedizinische, toxikologische und sozial-
politische Aspekte. Aachen (DE): Shaker-Verlag, 2010 Apr, 3rd
edition, 500p. ISBN: 978-3-8322-9046-7.
176. Redmayne M, Johansson O. Could myelin damage from
radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure help explain
the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity? A
review of the evidence. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev
2014;17(5):247–58.
177. Von Baehr V. Rationelle Labordiagnostik bei chronisch
entzündlichen Systemerkrankungen. umwelt medizin
gesellschaft 2012;25(4):244–7.
178. Warnke U, Hensinger P. Steigende „Burn-out“-Inzidenz durch
technisch erzeugte magnetische und elektromagnetische
Felder des Mobil- und Kommunikationsfunks. umwelt-medizin-
gesellschaft 2013;26(1):31–8.
179. Havas M. Dirty electricity elevates blood sugar among
electrically sensitive diabetics and may explain brittle
diabetes. Electromagn Biol Med 2008;27(2):135–46.
180. Steiner E, Aufdereggen B, Bhend H, Gilli Y, Kälin P, et al.
Erfahrungen des Pilotprojektes „Umweltmedizinisches Bera-
tungsnetz“ des Vereins Aerztinnen und Aerzte für Umwelts-
chutz (AefU). Therapeutische Umschau 2013;70(12):739–45.
181. Hagström M, Auranen J, Johansson O, Ekman R. Reducing
electromagnetic irradiation and fields alleviates experienced
health hazards of VDU work. Pathophysiology 2012;19(2):
81–7.
182. Hagström M, Auranen J, Ekman R. Electromagnetic
hypersensitive Finns: symptoms, perceived sources and
treatments, a questionnaire study. Pathophysiology
2013;20(2):117–22.
183. Oberfeld G. Die Veränderung des EMF Spektrums und ihre
Folgen. In: Baubiologische EMF-Messtechnik. München,
Heidelberg (DE): Hüthig & Pflaum Verlag, 2012. ISBN 1438-8707.
184. Berufsverband Deutscher Baubiologen. VDB-Richtlinien, Physi-
kalische Untersuchungen, Band 1: Fürth (DE): Verlag AnBUS eV,
2006. 2nd Edition. Available at: http://www.baubiologie.net/
publikationen/vdb-richtlinien.html.
185. Bundesamt für Umwelt. Orte mit empfindlicher Nutzung
(OMEN) [Internet]. Bern (CH): Bundesamt für Umwelt, 2010
Mar 4. Available from: http://www.bafu.admin.ch/elektros-
mog/07136/07420/index.html?lang=de.
186. Kundi M, Hutter HP. Mobile phone base stations – Effects on
wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology 2009;16(2–3):123–35.
187. Molla-Djafari H, Witke J, Poinstingl G, Brezansky A, Hutter HP,
et al. Leitfaden Senderbau -Vorsorgeprinzip bei Errichtung,
Betrieb, Um- und Ausbau von ortsfesten Sendeanlagen. Wien
(AT): Ärztinnen und Ärzte für eine gesunde Umwelt e.V. (Hrsg.),
2014 Oct. 2. Auflage, 42 p, Available from: www.aegu.net/pdf/
Leitfaden.pdf.
188. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
(NCRP). Draft Report of NCRP Scientific Committee 89-3
on Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields
[Internet]. 1995 Jun 13. Available from: http://www.salzburg.
gv.at/ncrp_draft_recommendations_on_emf_exposure_
guidelines_1995.pdf.
189. Oberfeld G. Umweltverträglichkeitsgutachten für die
Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung nach UVP-G 2000 für das
Vorhaben 380 kV Freileitung von St. Peter am Hart zum
Umspannwerk Salzach Neu (Salzburgleitung), Befund und
Gutachten Umweltmedizin (Salzburg) [Internet] Salzburg (AT):
Land Salzburg, 2006, p241-360. Available from: http://www.
salzburg.gv.at/salzburgleitung-uvg-endvers.pdf.
190. Baubiologie Maes/Institut für Baubiologie + Nachhaltigkeit
(IBN). Baubiologische Richtwerte für Schlafbereiche (Ergänzung
zum SBM-2015). Neuss, Rosenheim (DE): Baubiologie Maes,
IBN., 2015 May, 3 p. Available from: http://www.maes.de/3%20
STANDARD/maes.de%20STANDARD-2015%20RICHTWERTE.PDF.
191. Virnich M. Gutachten über die messtechnische Untersuchung
der Charakteristik von Funksignalen [Internet]. Salzburg (AT):
Land Salzburg, 2015 Jun 26, 141 p. Available from: http://www.
salzburg.gv.at/elektrosmog_und_gesundheit/technik.htm.
192. Der Schweizerische Bundesrat. Verordnung über den Schutz
vor nichtionisierender Strahlung (NISV) vom 23. Dezember
1999 [Internet]. Bern (CH): Der Schweizerische Bundesrat,
2012 Jul 1. Available from: https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/
classified-compilation/19996141/index.html.
193. Zeisel L. Ein Meßverfahren zur Bestimmung der Körperbelas-
tung durch das elektrische Wechselfeld bei tiefen Frequenzen.
Wohnung und Gesundheit 1993;69:20.
194. Arbeitskreis Elektrobiologie eV. Available from: http://www.
elektrobiologie.com/index.html.
195. Gralla F. Estimation of 50-Hz electrically vs. magnetically
generated body currents in sleeping subjects. Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine Jan 1997;16(3):235–41.
196. Gustavs K. Options to inimize non-ionizing electromagnetic
radiation exposures (EMF/RF/Static fields) in office environ-
ments [Internet]. Victoria, BC (CA): Katharina Consulting,
2008 Nov 14. Available from: http://www.katharinaconsulting.
com/s/2008_Gustavs_Low_EMF_Office_Environment.pdf.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
119 521
370      Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015
197. Oberfeld G, Gutbier J. Elektrosmog im Alltag [Internet].
Stuttgart (DE): Diagnose Funk, 2013 Nov 10, 44 p. Available
from: http://www.salzburg.gv.at/df_ratgeber_1.pdf.
198. Virnich M. Baubiologische EMF-Messtechnik –
Grundlagen der Feldtheorie, Praxis der Feldmesstechnik.
München, Heidelberg (DE): Hüthig & Pflaum Verlag, 2012. ISBN
1438-8707.
199. Pauli P, Moldan D. Reduzierung hochfrequenter Strahlung im
Bauwesen: Baustoffe und Abschirmmaterialien. Fürth (DE):
Hrsg. Berufsverband Deutscher Baubiologen VDB e.V., Verlag
AnBUS e.V. 2015. ISBN 978-3-9814025-9-9.
200. Levy F, Wannag A, editors. Nordic Adaptation of Classification
of Occupationally Related Disorders (Diseases and
Symptoms) to ICD-10 [Internet]. Oslo (NO): Nordic council of
ministers, 2000, 53 p. DIVS: 2000:839, ISBN: 92-893-0559-2.
Available from: http://www.nordclass.se/ICD-10_Nordic%20
Occupational_2000.pdf.
201. Bansal M, Kaushal N. Oxidative stress mechanisms and their
modulation. New Delhi (IN): Springer, 2014:167 p.
202. Brostoff J, Challacombe S. Food allergy and intolerance.
London (GB): Ballière Tindall, 1987.
203. Andrè CM, Larondelle Y, Eners D. Dietary antioxidants and
oxidative stress from a human and plant perspective, a review.
Curr Nutr Food Sci 2010;6(1):2–12.
204. Bouayed J, Bohn T. Exogenous antioxidants-double edged
swords in cellular redox state; health beneficial effects at
physiological doses versus deleterious effects at high doses.
Oxid Med Cell Longev 2010;3(4):228–37.
205. Hoffmann W, Staller B. Prävention durch richtige Ernährung.
umwelt medizin gesellschaft 2012;25(2):115–7.
206. Suzuki YJ, Packer L. Inhibition of NFkB activation by vitamin E
derivates. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1993;193(1):277–83.
207. Zingg JM. Modulation of signal transduction by vitamin E. Mol
Aspects Med 2007;28(5–6):481–506.
208. Yeh SL, Wang HM, Chen PY, Wu TC. Interaction of ß-Carotin
and flavonoids on the secretion of inflammatory mediators in
an in vitro system. Chem Biol Interact 2009;179(2–3):
386–93.
209. Cárcamo JM, Pedraza A, Bórquez-Ojeda O, Golde DW. Vitamin C
suppresses TNF alpha-induced NF kappa B activation by
inhibiting I kappa B alpha phosphorylation.Biochemistry
2002;41(43):12995–3002.
210. Cárcamo JM, Pedraza A, Bórquez-Ojeda O, Zhang B, Sanchez R,
et al. Vitamin C is a kinase inhibitor: dehydroascorbic acid
inhibits IkappaBalpha kinase beta. Mol Cell Biol 2004;
24(15):6645–52.
211. Kyaw M, Yoshizumi M, Tsuchya K, Suzaki Y, Abe S, et al.
Antioxidants inhibit endothelin-1 (1-31)-induced proliferation
of vascular smooth muscle cells via the inhibition of mitogen-
activated protein (MAP) kinase and activator protein-1 (AP-1).
Biochem Pharmacol 2002;64(10):1521–31.
212. Lubbad A, Oriowo MA, Khan I. Curcumin attenuates
inflammation through inhibition of TLR-4 receptor in
experimental Colitis. Mol Cell Biochem 2009;322(1–2):
127–35.
213. Woo JH, Lim JH, Kim YH, Soh SI, Min DS, et al. Resveratrol
inhibits phorbol myristate acetate-induced matrix metallopro-
teinase-9 expression by inhibiting JNK and PKC delta signal
transduction. Oncogene 2004;23(10):1845–53.
214. Nonn L, Duong D, Pechl DM. Chemopreventive antiinflamma-
tory activities of curcumin and other phytochemicals mediated
by MAP kinase phosphatase-5 in prostata cells. Carcinogenesis
2007;28(6):1188–96.
215. Khan N, Mukhtar H. Multitargeted therapy of cancer by green
tee polyphenols. Cancer Lett 2008;269(2):269–80.
216. Roskoski R. Biochemistry. Philadelphia, PA, USA:
W.B. Saunders Company, 1996:530.
217. Devlin TM, editor. Textbook of Biochemistry with
Clinical Correlations. 5th ed. New York, NY (US): Wiley-Liss,
2002.
218. Rassow J, Hauser K, Netzker, Deutzmann R. Biochemie. 2nd ed.
Stuttgart (DE): Thieme, 2008:872.
219. Müller KE. Genetische Polymorphismen der Catechol-O-
Methyltransferase (COMT). umwelt medizin gesellschaft
2007;20(4):282–8.
220. Rea WJ. Chemical Sensitivity, Vol. 2: Sources of Total Body
Load. 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL (US): CRC Press/Lewis Publishers,
1994:569.
221. Schäfer SG, Elsenhans B, Forth W, Schümann K. Metalle.
In: Marquardt H, Schäfer SG, editors. Lehrbuch der
Toxikologie. Heidelberg (DE): Spektrum Akademischer Verlag,
1997:504–49.
222. Goyer RA, Cherian GM, editors. Toxicology of Metals. Berlin,
Heidelberg (DE): Springer-Verlag, 1995:467.
223. Müller KE. Immuntoxikologie der Metalle. umwelt medizin
gesellschaft 2004;17(4):299–301.
224. Aposian HV, Malorino RM, Gonzales-Ramirez D,
Zuniga-Charles M, Xu Z, et al. Mobilization of heavy metals
by newer, therapeutically useful chelating agents. Toxicology
1995;97(1–3):23–38.
225. Flora SJ, Pachauri V. Chelation in Metal Intoxication. Int J
Environ Res Public Health 2010;7(7):2745–88.
226. Jennrich P. Detoxifikation von Schwermetallen. umwelt medizin
gesellschaft 2012;25(4):24–7.
227. Rózanowska M, Jarvis-Evans J, Korytowski W, Boulton ME,
Burke JM, Sarna T. Blue-light induced reactivity of retinal age
pigment. In vitro generation of oxygen-reactive species. J Biol
Chem 1995;270(32):18825–30.
228. Tolentino M, Morgan G. Popularity of electronic devices,
“greener” light bulbes increases blue light exposure. Pri Care
Optometry News 2012;18–9.
229. van der Lely S, Frey S, Garbazza C, Wirz-Justice A, Jenni OG,
et al. Blue blocker glasses as a countermeasure for alerting
effects of evening light-emitting diode screen exposure in male
teenagers. J Adolesc Health 2015;56(1):113–9.
230. Narimatsu T, Negishi K, Miyake S, Hirasawa M, Osada H, et al.
Blue light-induced inflammatory marker expression in the
retinal pigment epithelium-choroid of mice and the protective
effect of a yellow intraocular lens material in vivo. Exp Eye Res
2015;132:48–51.
231. Nishi T, Saeki K, Obayashi K, Miyata K, Tone N, et al.
The effect of blue-blocking intraocular lenses on
circadian  biological rhythm: protocol for a randomised
controlled trial (CLOCK-IOL colour study). BMJ Open
2015;5(5):e007930.
232. Mutter J, Naumann J, Schneider R, Walach H, Haley B. Mercury
and autism: accelerating evidence? Neuro Endocrinol Lett
2005;26(5):439–46.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
120 522
Belyaev et al.: EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015      371
233. Mutter J, Naumann J, Guethlin C. Comments on the article
“the toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds”
by Clarkson and Magos (2006). Crit Rev Toxicol
2007;37(6):537–49; discussion 551–2.
234. Mutter J, Curth A, Naumann J, Deth R, Walach H. Does inorganic
mercury play a role in Alzheimer’s disease? A systematic
review and an integrated molecular mechanism. J Alzheimers
Dis 2010;22(2):357–74.
235. Geier DA, King PG, Sykes LK, Geier MR. A comprehensive
review of mercury provoked autism. Indian J Med Res
2008;128(4):383–411.
Supplemental Material: The online version of this article
(DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0033) offers supplementary material,
available to authorized users.
Brought to you by | Karolinska Institute
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/3/15 7:14 PM
121 523
PHYSICIANS STATEMENT – Exhibit 2
122 524
PRELIMINARY
Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Diagnosis and Management of Electromagnetic Field
Hypersensitivity (EHS)
Dr. Riina Ines Bray BASc, MSc, MD, FCFP, MHSc
Medical Director, Environmental Health Clinic, Women’s College Hospital
Assistant Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Dalla Lana School of
Public Health, University of Toronto
[e-mail]
www.womenscollegehospital.ca/care-programs/environmental-health-clinic/
October, 2020
Introduction
Environmental health is the study of effects upon human beings of external physical/ electromagnetic,
chemical and biological factors in air, water, soil, food and other environmental media which impact on
the general population as well as genetic aberrations and psychosocial stressors.1 Environmental health is
an evidence- and public- health-based discipline. The physical environment is a determinant of health and
is interrelated with socioeconomic, social-justice and equity issues. The impact of the environment is an
especially important part of our public health domain.2
In 2014, a systematic review of 63 studies3 revealed that despite heterogeneity, the criteria predominantly
used to identify idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF)
individuals were:
1.Self-report of being (hyper)sensitive to electromagnetic fields (EMF)
2.Attribution of non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) to at least one EMF source
3.Absence of medical or psychiatric/psychological disorder capable of accounting for these
symptoms
4.Symptoms should occur soon (up to 24 hours) after the individual perceives an exposure source
or exposed area
Electromagnetic Field Hypersensitivity (EHS) is a spectrum disorder in which there is an awareness
and/or adverse response to electromagnetic fields.4 Environmental Sensitivities are recognized as a
disability under the Canadian Human Rights Commission (Federal).5
Demographics
EHS can occur in all age groups, genders (women are more genetically predisposed6), races and income
levels. Since 2005, the physicians at the Environmental Health Clinic at Women’s College Hospital have
assessed an increasing number of patients who, due to co-morbid conditions coupled with chronic
1 NEHA. Definitions of Environmental Health. https://www.neha.org/about-neha/definitions-environmental-health.
2 Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: fact or fiction? Genuis SJ. Lipp CT. Sci Total Environ. 2012; 414:103-12. 3 Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF): A systematic review of identifying criteria.
Baliatsas C. Van Kamp I. Lebret E. et al. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12(1).
4 Electrosensibility and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Leitgeb N. Schrottner J. Bioelectromagnetics. 2003; 24(6):387-94.
5 Canadian Human Rights Commission. Environmental sensitivity and scent-free policies. https://www.chrc-
ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/policy-environmental-sensitivities. 2019. 6 Belpomme, D.; Irigaray, P. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder:
How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1915.
123 525
exposures to electromagnetic fields. Patients present to the clinic after become unwell with a pattern of
functional impairments, some becoming disabled, losing their jobs or becoming homeless. Prolonged
and/or excessive exposures to these factors cause functional impairments in individuals, and a huge
burden of suffering.7

Etiology and Pathophysiology

The pathophysiology is poorly characterized. The degree of functional impairment caused by EMF
exposure is dependent upon genetic polymorphisms8 that predispose the individual to a poor
detoxification profile and therefore an increased total body burden (Figure 1). A poor detoxification
profile can also lead to co-morbid illnesses such as Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS), nervous,
cardiac and immune system dysfunction which renders a person vulnerable to EMF exposures. Most
commonly, patients have had prolonged chronic exposures to radiofrequency radiation, microwaves,
electrical and/or magnetic fields from either wired or wireless technology. Patients can react to electric
fields (measured in volts per meter), magnetic fields (measured in milligauss or nano Tesla), dirty
electricity (high frequency voltage transients, which are deviations from a pure 50-60H Hz sine wave),
radiofrequency radiation, microwave radiation, ground currents and electrosmog.

The severity of the impact appears to depend upon the nature, dose, and timing of exposures, as well as a
person’s allostatic load, which is the maximum tolerated dose for combined environmental stressors.9
Patients can be identified as having environmental sensitivities, electrical sensitivities or as being “EMF
sensitive” or “EMF susceptible” rather than “hyper” in order to decrease stigmatization potential.

Radiofrequency radiation can cause the following adverse biological effects:10 11
• Cerebral hypoperfusion/ hypoxia-related neuroinflammation
• Histamine release causing oxidative stress in biological systems12
• Peroxidation, DNA damage, changes to antioxidant enzymes
• Voltage gated calcium channel dysregulation effecting the cardiac and nervous system
• Peroxynitrite formation which causes chronic inflammation, damage to mitochondrial function
and structure and reduction of ATP
• Reduced glutathione and CoQ10
• TRPV1 receptor activation13 14

Radiofrequency radiation and microwaves can cause thermal (heat related) or non-thermal effects. Under
the non-thermal category, adverse physiological effects have been identified including DNA damage,
immune system suppression, increased blood-brain barrier permeability, increased blood viscosity with
rouleaux formation.

7 Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: a functional impairment due to an inaccessible environment. Reviews on environmental
health. 2015 Dec 1;30(4):311-21.
8 De Luca C, Thai JC, Raskovic D, Cesareo E, Caccamo D, Trukhanov A, Korkina L. Metabolic and genetic screening of
electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects as a feasible tool for diagnostics and intervention. Mediators Inflamm. 2014;2014:924184 9 Selye H. (1946). The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases of adaptation. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and
metabolism, 6, 117–230. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-6-2-117
10 Martin Pall; De Luca/ Herbert and Sage
11 Belpomme, Dominique, Philippe Irigaray. “Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic
Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It” Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020; 21,1915. 12 Yakymenko I. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Bio Med.
2016;35(2):186-202
13 Ertilav K, Uslusoy F, Ataizi S, Nazıroğlu M. Long term exposure to cell phone frequencies (900 and 1800 MHz) induces
apoptosis, mitochondrial oxidative stress and TRPV1 channel activation in the hippocampus and dorsal root ganglion of rats. Metab
Brain Dis. 2018 Jun;33(3):753-763 14 Ghazizadeh V, Nazıroğlu M. Electromagnetic radiation (Wi-Fi) and epilepsy induce calcium entry and apoptosis through
activation of TRPV1 channel in hippocampus and dorsal root ganglion of rats. Metab Brain Dis. 2014 Sep;29(3):787-99.
124 526
Figure 1: Total Toxic Load (Bray and Marshall, 2005)

History

The clinician is advised to:

1. Conduct a complete exposure history using the CH2OPD2 mnemonic15 16 to determine total
toxic load in the form of EMF/ RFR exposure, toxic metal exposure sources (diet, water,
prosthetics, implants, gadolinium), mould, and other potentially toxic chemical exposures.

15 Marshall et al, 2002
16 Bray, 2020
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/593f8894e3df288fc64b6cf0/t/598bbabdf14aa18c52a6dcce/1502329836033/Environmental+H
ealth+Clinic+Pre-Visit+Questionnaire.pdf
125 527
CH2OPD2 mnemonic
• Community
• Home
• Hobby
• Occupation
• Personal habits
• Diet
• Drugs

2. Determine specific community, work, school and home exposures to EMFs: proximity of cell
phone towers, routers, DECT cordless phones, any other wireless technology. Most importantly,
determine if the sleeping area is affected.17 18

A helpful mnemonic to determine the parameters of exposure is (F.I.N.D.)19
• F- frequency (Hertz)
• I- intensity (Power in µW/m2)
• N- nearness
• D- duration

3. Have a high index of suspicion for immune deficiencies (which can, for example, lead to candida
infection), gut dysbiosis and possible mast cell activation disorder (MCAS).

Symptoms Commonly Occurring Singularly or in Combination:

• Irritability, lack of appetite, memory problems, vertigo; visual, skin and vascular problems20
• Tinnitus, sleep disorders (disrupted stage 4 sleep with alpha wave intrusions and reduced
REM21) mood changes (anxiety, depression, irritability, panic attacks)22
• Headache, weakness, pressure in the head, racing or fluttering heart23
• Dermatological: itch, pain, edema, erythema secondary to elevated transthyretin concentrations24
• Neurasthenic and vegetative symptoms: fatigue, tiredness, cognitive problems, concentration
difficulties, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitations (tachycardia, PACs and PVCs), and digestive
disturbances25

Etiology of Common Clinical Presentations

Category I
Patients can present with a toxic metal body burden, most commonly mercury, due to the
overconsumption of aquatic, contaminated seafood. Methylmercury (half-life of 27 years in the brain) is
neurotoxic causing axonal demyelination and inflammation. Zinc/nickel/mercury dental amalgams also
release elemental mercury vapour which enters the brain through the olfactory bulb, and then is converted
to methylmercury. Patients can present with cardiac and neurological manifestations. Those with metallic
17 Maes B. Standard of building biology testing methods. Inst. Building Biol.+ Sustainability IBN, Rosenheim, Germany, Tech. Rep.
SBM-2008. 2008. 18 Maes B. Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines. Inst. Building Biol.+ Sustainability IBN, Rosenheim, Germany. SBM-2015.
2015.
19 Havas, M. (2014). Electrosmog and Electrosensitivity: What Doctors Need to Know to Help their Patients Heal. Anti-Aging
Therapeutics Volume XV. 20 Gomez-Perretta et al. Subjective symptoms related to GSM radiation from mobile phone base stations, BMJ, 2014 21 EUROPAEM Guideline 2015 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Belyaev
I. Dean A. Eger H. Hubmann G. Jandrisovits R. et al. Rev Environ Health. 2015; 30(4):337-371.
22 Bhat, Kumar and Gupta. Effects of mobile phone and mobile phone tower radiations on human health. 2013
23 Park and Knudson. Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms. Statistics Canada 2007 24 Johnansson O, Disturbances 2009
25 WHO, Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, December 2005
126 528
hardware implants such Harrington rods, braces, wire meshes, pins and screws can potentially be affected.
Those with excessive gadolinium from multiple contrast studies are also at risk. Other toxic metals
include nickel (jewelry, cookware), lead (old water pipes), cadmium (smokers), aluminum(soy products,
contaminated water, medications) and arsenic (rice, fish, almonds, well water), all of which increase total
load. First Nations populations are at high risk given exposure to contaminated fish with methylmercury.
Patients present with headaches (lancinating and heaviness), brain fog, fatigue and anxiety when exposed
to EMFs.

Category II
Patients fall into this category if they suffer from infectious diseases such as Lyme disease, co-infections
of Lyme, and other infections which affect the nervous system. These patients have central or peripheral
nervous system vulnerability, neuroborreliosis, cerebral vasculitis, polyneuropathy, chronic
encephalomyelitis and cranial neuropathy (all late manifestations of Lyme). They present with tremor,
dysarthria, ataxia, extreme fatigue, headache, cognitive dysfunction, presyncope and mood disturbances.
It is important to reduce body burden through detoxification in order to decrease inflammation. Oxygen
therapy is useful in order to help with hypoxia from compromised cerebral blood flow to the bi-frontal
cortices and temporal lobes, but provides only short, temporary relief. This may help to confirm the
diagnosis, however. fMRI, SPECT, and PET scans can help further reveal pathology. Treatment of Lyme
with antibiotics can potentially decrease EHS symptoms.26

Category III
This category of patients suffer from lesions of the brain (including tumours such as pituitary adenomas),
demyelination, microangiopathic changes, diffuse ischemia, inflammation (from neurotoxic pesticides)
and neurodegenerative diseases (multiple sclerosis and ALS for example).27 Nonspecific white matter
findings due to simple aging and dementia should also be considered. They present with headaches, brain
fog, fatigue, restlessness and low mood, tinnitus(+/-) and potentiation of their already pre-existing signs
and symptoms related to their disease. The mechanism of action is associated with the impact of EMFs on
voltage gated calcium channel (VGCC) integrity, causing increases in intracellular calcium and thus
increase of oxidative stress from ONOO- formation.28

Category IV
These patient suffer from heart rhythm disturbances: either exacerbations of existing conditions or new
onset caused by radio and microwaves.29 There are periods of poor blood circulation at the capillary level
due to rouleaux formation and there is a disturbance of heart conduction because of effects on VGCC.
Tachycardic spells, especially at night, can occur. People also experience premature ventricular
contractions, premature atrial contractions, atrial flutter and fibrillation. Those with Wolff Parkinson
White syndrome are especially at risk for sudden cardiac death due to EMF exposures.30 Conduction
problems also affect the autonomic nervous system, causing increased sympathetic tone. A Holter monitor
will show rhythm disturbances near cellphone towers and in areas with high Wi-Fi usage. These
symptoms are very alarming to the patient and causes severe, prolonged anxiety. Sleep time can be also
particularly difficult causing frequent awakenings due to hyper-vigilance with tachycardic spells or PAC/
PVCs.

26 Belpomme, Dominique, Philippe Irigaray. “Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic
Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It” Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020; 21,1915.
27 De Luca C, Thai JC, Raskovic D, et al. Metabolic and genetic screening of electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects as a feasible
tool for diagnostics and intervention. Mediators Inflamm. 2014;2014:924184. doi:10.1155/2014/924184 28 Pall, Martin L. “Wi-Fi Is an Important Threat to Human Health.” Environmental Research 164 (July 1, 2018): 405–
16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.035
29 Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Reviews on
Environmental Health. 2013 Nov 1;28(2-3):75-84.
30 Reversed reciprocating paroxysmal tachycardia controlled by guanethidine in a case of Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. Harris
WE. Semler HJ. Griswold HE. American heart journal 67.6 (1964): 812-816.
127 529
Category V
These patients include students and teachers. University, college, high school, and grade school students
are all being exposed to high levels of radiation. They frequently work under fluorescent lights. They get
eye strain, and sometimes develop rashes related to exposure of this radiation. The epidemic of anxiety,
depression, and suicide at universities and colleges is in part being fuelled by the increased level of
agitation and anxiety caused by radio and microwave radiation on mood. Students have extremely high
levels of nighttime exposure to RFR or electric fields/ dirty electricity. Before prescribing
methylphenidate or amphetamines, reducing EMFs in the workspace is critical.

Category VI
A minority of patients, approximately 1%, exhibit a nocebo response in which inert substances or mere
suggestions of substances actually bring about negative effects, i.e. feelings of malaise and anxiety. This
is understandable, given the ubiquitous nature of electrical devices in our everyday lives which is
unnatural. These patients tend to feel better using wearable jewellery, stickers on cellphones, and special
rocks (shungite).

Category VII
There are many clinical similarities and overlapping comorbid conditions between EHS and multiple
chemical sensitivities (MCS) that are reflected in similar genetic polymorphism profiles. Inflammation
resulting from impaired detoxification biochemical processes create illness and functional impairment.31
32

Physical Examination

Do a complete physical looking for dental amalgam load, metal appliances in the mouth, rashes on the
face and/or hands, signs of inflammation and edema, arrhythmias, autoimmunity. Abdomen may be tender
due to peristaltic abnormalities and bacterial dysbiosis. Usually a physical exam will reveal neurological,
dermatological and/or cardiac signs in the way of arrhythmia and/or poor circulation. Tremor of the
tongue and hands may be indicative of mercury overload.

There is no gold standard for EHS diagnosis except for elimination of the source and reintroduction/
provocation to confirm if the signs and symptoms are reproduced.

Laboratory and Diagnostic Tests

Studies have shown that approximately 30% of patients with EHS have no abnormal laboratory
biomarkers,33 but genetic polymorphisms are likely prevalent and need further investigation. Some blood
tests are expensive and not sensitive or specific but can help guide management if deficiencies or other
disease states exist that must be corrected.34 The following laboratory tests will help shed light on the total
toxic load and detoxification profile, and it is the combination that allows for the best management of the
patient:
• Essential mineral and toxic metal panel (RBC)
• GGT
• Bilirubin
• ALP
• Chromogranin A
31 De Luca C, Thai JC, Raskovic D, et al. Metabolic and genetic screening of electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects as a feasible
tool for diagnostics and intervention. Mediators Inflamm. 2014;2014:924184. doi:10.1155/2014/924184 32 Belpomme, Dominique, Christine Campagnac, and Philippe Irigaray. "Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying
electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder." Reviews
on environmental health 30.4 (2015): 251-271.
33 Belpomme D, Irigaray P. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic Pathological Disorder: How
to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020 Jan;21(6):1915.
34 Europaem 2015/ Oberfeld, 2016/ Belpomme, 2015
128 530
• Tryptase.35
• Vitamin D2-D3
• IgE, IgG, IgM, IgA
• Inflammatory markers (ESR, hsCRP, CRP, interleukins)
• Histamine
• Autoimmune markers (including thyroid antibodies)
• Presence of infectious diseases – screen for Lyme and co-infections (ELISA and Western blot)
• Mitochondriopathy (intracellular ATP)
• Oxidative stress lipid peroxidation markers
• Anti-myelin-O antibodies
• Nitrotyrosin (NTT) - Nitric oxide production increasing BBB permeability
• Melatonin (hydroxy-melatonin sulfate – 6-OHMS)
• SPEP – effects on bone marrow
• Salivary cortisol
• Alpha-amylase
• Transthyretin
• Blood sugar levels after provocation

Figure 2: (Belpomme et al., 2015)

To further aid in diagnosis:36
• Genetic testing to determine SNPs related to detoxification37
• Weighted MRI showing hypoperfusion in limbic system and thalamus
• Ultrasonic cerebral tomosphygmography (UCTS) and Transcranial Doppler US (TDU)38
showing temporal lobe hypoperfusion due to decreased flow in the middle cerebral artery
35 Belpomme, et al, 2015
36 Havas, 2010
37 The DNA Company. https://www.thednacompany.com/ 38 Belpomme, Dominique, Philippe Irigaray. “Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic
Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It” Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020; 21,1915.
129 531
• BP and heart rhythm monitoring for 24 hours (night-time changes) for heart rate variability and
heart rate abnormalities39
• Sleep study showing abnormalities due to wireless technology in the sleep labs. Alpha wave
intrusions and reduced REM sleep are the most likely finding.40

Co-Morbid Conditions

1. Toxic metal overload – mercury
2. Infectious diseases causing neural inflammation – e.g. Lyme disease
3. Toxic Mold Syndrome
4. Cardiac conduction abnormalities – PVC, PAC, atrial fibrillation
5. Neurodegenerative diseases
6. Multiple chemical Sensitivities (MCS)

Management

Allopathic
All co-morbid conditions need to be investigated further and treated. Referrals to specialists may be
required to address medial issues that may have been overlooked.

Pharmacological
Sleep restoration is paramount, and pharmaceuticals can be used if natural remedies are not effective.
Antihistamines with sedative effects are the drug of choice. For heart palpitations and arrhythmias,
especially those occurring at night, bisoprolol 1.25-2.5mg QHS helps. For sudden tachycardic spells,
waves of anxiety, and sympathetic overdrive, propranolol 2.5-5mg po QID PRN is also helpful.
Acetylsalicylic acid 81mg daily prevents coagulation secondary to high intensity effects due to the close
proximity of routers, DECT base stations and other potent emitters and combinations thereof. A calcium
channel blocker, such as diltiazem 15-30mg daily PRN, could help reduce symptoms. Gentle chelation
therapy may be required if toxic metal load is too high41.

Remediation
Health-care providers need to encourage patients to seek help from building biologists. These technicians
can assess the degree of EMF exposure a person is receiving in their home and make sensible
recommendations. The impacts of cell phone towers, smart meters and hydro wires on living spaces can
be determined, as well as anything internally generating EMFs. Voltage, power density and magnetic
fields, as well as dirty electricity can be measured. Proximity to wind turbines which, due to poor
enforcement of safety standards, emit ground currents that increase symptoms of EHS, can be identified.

Advise patients to use only corded phones without any electronic features. DECT cordless phones emit
RFR and need to be removed altogether.

Metallic paint on interior or exterior walls can be used to reflect radiation coming in from neighbours, cell
towers or other emitting devices. Any other type of shielding using metallic reflective surfaces can help
attenuate the signals.

Advise patients to turn off all wireless devices in the home and replace with ethernet cables or hardwire
everything were possible. Smartmeter removal or shielding installed by a technician is recommended.
39 Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Reviews on
Environmental Health. 2013 Nov 1;28(2-3):75-84.
40 Andrianome S, Hugueville L, de Seze R, Hanot‐Roy M, Blazy K, Gamez C, Selmaoui B. Disturbed sleep in individuals with
idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI‐EMF): Melatonin assessment as a biological marker.
Bioelectromagnetics. 2016 Apr;37(3):175-82. 41 Sears ME. Chelation: harnessing and enhancing heavy metal detoxification—a review. The Scientific World Journal. 2013 Jan
1;2013.
130 532

Integrative
A diet rich in antioxidants and low in pro-inflammatory foods is strongly recommended. Eat organic if
possible. Omega-3 (balanced DHA:EPA 1:1) 1500mg daily will help with inflammation and neural
health. Vitamin D3 is also neuroprotective and should be taken at a dose of at least 4000IU per day.

Electrolytic imbalances for whatever reason (i.e. low K+, Na+, Cl-, etc.) need to be corrected with oral
rehydration solutions. To manage adrenal fatigue, adaptogen herbs and mindfulness based stress
reduction (MBSR) can be useful. Homeopathic treatments are useful for those with chemical sensitivities.

Enhance Natural Detoxification to Reduce Body Burden
• Natural detoxification strategies include: sauna therapies (depuration), MBSR, balanced diet,
supplements, exercise.
• To decrease body burden of oxidative stress (peroxynitrite ONOO-) or methylmercury take
antioxidants: vitamins E and C, glutathione, alpha-lipoic acid, N-acetyl-cystine, B vitamin
complex, zinc, resveratrol, CoQ10, selenium, turmeric. A high fibre diet (especially in the form
of bran) will assist with elimination of methylmercury.
• Correct any dental work with toxic or immunoreactive materials such as mercury, lead oxide,
gold or titanium and replace with zirconium dioxide, porcelain or composite.
• Mercury amalgams (mercury (50%), silver (~22–32%), tin (~14%), copper (~8%)) need to be
removed using proper protocol. 42 43

Fasting is not recommended due to the possibility of already existing poor nutritional status thus
inadequate supplies of vitamins, minerals and other antioxidant substrates in their body.44 Food
sensitivities/intolerances must be addressed.

Lifestyle
Tell patients to hold the cell phone away from their heads when in use and keep it in airplane mode when
not in use. The Bluetooth, data and Wi-Fi functions should be off if they are not being used. Extended
videogaming and high electronic equipment use can exacerbate symptoms and must be curtailed. Laptop
use in wireless mode needs to be switched to ethernet cable connectivity to decrease exposure.

Clothing (including the lining of hats) made of cotton fabric with copper or silver weave provides relief
during travel at airports, in hotels, etc., when shielding the torso and head. This can reduce palpitations
and headaches. Blankets/sheets with similar construction can be used to block out in-coming radiation
into habitable spaces during travel or at work.

A Faraday cage (canopy) can be used at night to reduce radiation on the body which can seriously
interfere with sleep quality. For sleep, herbal remedies and supplements are helpful. Magnesium
bisglycinate 100mg po QHS, increasing by 100mg weekly to bowel tolerance, can help with palpitations
and shock sensations.

Grounding practices are important to balance out the electron shifts. This should not be done under hydro
wires, where magnetic fields are extraordinarily strong. There will be a depletion of electrons. The aim is
to replenish lost electrons. Therefore, placing one’s bare feet on a special grounding mat, walking
barefoot on grass and sand or in lake shallows, pools or a bath tub can help. Grounding can be important
to balance out the electrons and replenish the electrons that have been depleted from the body.

Airpods and other wireless earpieces should not be used due to the proximity and intensity of the
radiation to the brain.
42 De Luca, 2014 43 Institute for Functional Medicine. Textbook of Functional Medicine. 2010.
44 Institute for Functional Medicine. Textbook of Functional Medicine. 2010.
131 533

Remove all harmful substances used in personal care products, cleaning and other household products, as
well as unnecessary medications.

Psychological
Finally, patients need a lot of psychosocial support in dealing with and removing stress triggers.
Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction, and CBT can be useful to decrease sympathetic nervous system
overdrive.

Connecting with support groups such C4ST, EPIC, WEEP and Electrosensitive Society, all of which are
Canadian based, can decrease social isolation.

Advocacy for Public Health Protection

• Accommodation at work, school or any learning institution should be supported thereby
respecting a person’s right to work and live in a space that is free of any potentially harmful
EMF exposure impacting on their biopsychosocialspiritual well-being.
• Students should be given letters/notes informing teachers of the need to be at a maximal distance
from routers and that laptops need ethernet access.
• People must be able to exercise their rights to refuse harm from EMFs which may be impacting
them, their children and loved ones or their fetus/embryo, if that be the situation. Each person,
should know exactly how much and what sort of radiation is impacting on their bodies.45 46
• Recommendations presented in the HESA report to the House of Commons – Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians, 2010 and 2015 – can be used for
guidance in community events.
• Ontario wide, mandatory physician surveys, of how many patients they see in their roster who
complain of possible EMF-related signs and symptoms, should be implemented.
• Validated screening tools need to be developed through further research studies.
• Physician education through CME is critical.

References

Andrianome S, Hugueville L, de Seze R, Hanot‐Roy M, Blazy K, Gamez C, Selmaoui B. Disturbed sleep
in individuals with idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI‐EMF):
Melatonin assessment as a biological marker. Bioelectromagnetics. 2016 Apr;37(3):175-82.

Baliatsas C, Van Kamp I, Lebret E, et al. Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to
electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF): A systematic review of identifying criteria. BMC Public Health.
2012;12(1).

Belpomme, Dominique, Christine Campagnac, and Philippe Irigaray. "Reliable disease biomarkers
characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as
two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder." Reviews on environmental health 30.4
(2015): 251-271.

Belpomme D, Irigaray P. Electrohypersensitivity as a Newly Identified and Characterized Neurologic
Pathological Disorder: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It. International Journal of Molecular
Sciences. 2020 Jan;21(6):1915.
45 Right to Know, CCOHS https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/responsi.html
46 Government of Canada. Guide for Assessing Persons with Disabilities - How to determine and implement assessment
accommodations - Environmental Sensitivities. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-
guides/guide-assessing-persons-disabilities/guide-assessing-persons-disabilities/guide-assessing-persons-disabilities-determine-
implement-assessment-accommodations-environmental-sensitivities.html. 2007.
132 534

Bhat, Kumar and Gupta. Effects of mobile phone and mobile phone tower radiations on human health.
2013

Bray RI, Fancy DH. Clinical Practice Guidelines for EHS - Proceedings of a Symposium of the Impacts
of Wireless Technology on Health. Environmental Health Clinic, Women’s College Hospital, University
of Toronto. October, 2020.

Bray RI, Marshall LM Total Toxic Load. Teaching Tool.

Canadian Human Rights Commission. Environmental sensitivity and scent-free policies.
https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/policy-environmental-sensitivities. 2019.

De Luca C, Thai JC, Raskovic D, et al. Metabolic and genetic screening of electromagnetic
hypersensitive subjects as a feasible tool for diagnostics and intervention. Mediators Inflamm.
2014;2014:924184. doi:10.1155/2014/924184

The DNA Company. https://www.thednacompany.com/

EUROPAEM Guideline 2015 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems
and illnesses. Belyaev I. Dean A. Eger H. Hubmann G. Jandrisovits R. et al. Rev Environ Health. 2015;
30(4):337-371.

Genuis SJ, Lipp CT. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: fact or fiction? Sci Total Environ. 2012;414:103-
12.

Gomez-Perretta et al. Subjective symptoms related to GSM radiation from mobile phone base stations,
BMJ, 2014

Government of Canada. Guide for Assessing Persons with Disabilities - How to determine and
implement assessment accommodations - Environmental Sensitivities.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/public-service-hiring-guides/guide-
assessing-persons-disabilities/guide-assessing-persons-disabilities/guide-assessing-persons-
disabilities-determine-implement-assessment-accommodations-environmental-sensitivities.html.
2007.

Hallberg Ö, Oberfeld G. Letter to the editor: will we all become electrosensitive?. Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine. 2006 Jan 1;25(3):189-91.

Harris, W. E., Herbert J. Semler, and Herbert E. Griswold. "Reversed reciprocating paroxysmal
tachycardia controlled by guanethidine in a case of Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome." American heart
journal 67.6 (1964): 812-816.

Havas, M. (2014). Electrosmog and Electrosensitivity: What Doctors Need to Know to Help their Patients
Heal. Anti-Aging Therapeutics Volume XV.

Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous
system. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2013 Nov 1;28(2-3):75-84.

Institute for Functional Medicine. Textbook of Functional Medicine. 2010.

Johansson O. Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields—A potentially underlying
cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment. Volume
16. Issue 2-3. August 2009.
133 535

Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: a functional impairment due to an inaccessible environment.
Reviews on environmental health. 2015 Dec 1;30(4):311-21.

Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment. Electromagnetic
biology and medicine. 2006 Jan 1;25(4):245-58.

Leitgeb N, Schrottner J. Electrosensibility and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Bioelectromagnetics.
2003;24(6):387-94.

Maes B. Building Biology Evaluation Guidelines. Inst. Building Biol.+ Sustainability IBN, Rosenheim,
Germany. SBM-2015. 2015.

Maes B. Standard of building biology testing methods. Inst. Building Biol.+ Sustainability IBN,
Rosenheim, Germany, Tech. Rep. SBM-2008. 2008.

Marshall LM, Bray RI Assessment Questionnaire and Exposure History
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/593f8894e3df288fc64b6cf0/t/598bbabdf14aa18c52a6dcce/1502329
836033/Environmental+Health+Clinic+Pre-Visit+Questionnaire.pdf

Marshall L, Weir E, Abelsohn A, Sanborn MD. Identifying and managing adverse environmental health
effects: 1. Taking an exposure history. Cmaj. 2002 Apr 16;166(8):1049-55.

NEHA. Definitions of Environmental Health. https://www.neha.org/about-neha/definitions-
environmental-health.

Pall ML. How to approach the challenge of minimizing non-thermal health effects of microwave radiation
from electrical devices. Int. J. Innov. Res Eng. Manag (IJIREM). 2015 Sep;2(5):71-6.

Pall ML. Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric
effects including depression. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy. 2016 Sep 1;75:43-51.

Pall ML. Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. Environmental research. 2018 Jul 1;164:405-16.

Park and Knudson. Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms. Statistics Canada 2007

Rea WJ. Chemical Sensitivity. Vol 1. Boca Raton. Lewis Publishers. 1992.

Right to Know, CCOHS https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/responsi.html

Sanborn M, Grierson L, Upshur R, Marshall L, Vakil C, Griffith L, Scott F, Benusic M, Cole D. Family
medicine residents’ knowledge of, attitudes toward, and clinical practices related to environmental health:
Multi-program survey. Canadian Family Physician. 2019 Jun 1;65(6):e269-77.

Sears ME. Chelation: harnessing and enhancing heavy metal detoxification—a review. The Scientific
World Journal. 2013 Jan 1;2013.

Canadian Human Rights Commission. Environmental sensitivity and scent-free policies.
https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/policy-environmental-sensitivities. 2019.

Selye H. (1946). The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases of adaptation. The Journal of clinical
endocrinology and metabolism, 6, 117–230. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-6-2-117

134 536
Stein Y, Udassin IG. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS, microwave syndrome)–Review of
mechanisms. Environmental Research. 2020 Mar 30:109445.

Tran MT, Arendt-Nielsen L, Kupers R, Elberling J. Multiple chemical sensitivity: on the scent of central
sensitization. International journal of hygiene and environmental health. 2013 Mar 1;216(2):202-10.

WHO, Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health, December 2005

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/593f8894e3df288fc64b6cf0/t/598bbabdf14aa18c52a6dcce/1502329
836033/Environmental+Health+Clinic+Pre-Visit+Questionnaire.pdf

Peer Reviewers: Dr. John Molot, Dr. Kathleen Kerr, Dr. Sarah Selke, Dr. Jennifer Swales,
135 537
SCIENTISTS STATEMENT
136 538
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
RE: No. 34 MAP 2021, Povacz, M, et al. v. PUC
Associated Case(s):
35 MAP 2021 Consolidated
36 MAP 2021 Consolidated
37 MAP 2021 Consolidated
38 MAP 2021 Consolidated
39 MAP 2021 Consolidated
40 MAP 2021 Consolidated
41 MAP 2021 Consolidated
42 MAP 2021 Consolidated
43 MAP 2021 Consolidated
44 MAP 2021 Consolidated
45 MAP 2021 Consolidated

SCIENTISTS’ STATEMENT
RF/EMF & SMART METERS HARM
THE EFFECTS OF PULSED RADIOFREQUENCY AND
ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION EMISSIONS OF SMART METERS;
ESPECIALLY AS IT PERTAINS TO THOSE ADVERSELY AFFECTED

General Statement
We, the undersigned scientists, have cumulatively published hundreds of
peer-reviewed papers on biological effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields (EMFs)
and radiofrequency (RF) radiation and reviewed thousands more. For all of us the
study of the effects of pulsed RF/EMFs is one of our main areas of study; for some,
it is the main one. (A short bio for each of the undersigned is attached.)
137 539
We are filing this statement to clarify the state of the current science
regarding RF/EMF-based wireless technology adverse health effect and to explain
why smart meters can be harmful, at least to some people. Pulsed RF/EMF-based
wireless technology harms are not hypothetical. They are scientifically established,
and a significant number of people have already been seriously injured. Therefore,
we cannot stand by and allow the science to be misrepresented, especially in a case
of such importance involving public safety, where lives are at stake, the harms are
irreparable, and people are injured and could die.
RF Basics
1. Wireless technology uses electromagnetic waves to carry
information.1 A wave “frequency” is the number of wave cycles per second. Each
cycle per second equals a “Hertz” (“Hz”).2 Example: A 60 Hz frequency used for
home electricity has 60 wave cycles per second. The smart meter antenna that
1 An electromagnetic field (EMF”) is created by electric and magnetic components
emitted by moving charges and propagated through “waves” at the speed of light.
The interaction between the electric and magnetic fields “radiates” energy
(“radiation”). The electromagnetic spectrum is divided into classes: Extremely
Low Frequencies (ELFs), radio frequencies (microwaves are a subgroup of RFs),
infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays. RFs have a wave-cycle
between 3 kilohertz and 300 gigahertz
2 1,000 Hz is a kilohertz (“KHz”). 1,000,000 Hz is a megahertz (“MHz”).
1,000,000,000 Hz is a gigahertz (“GHz”).
138 540
transmits the usage data uses frequencies around 900 MHz, or about 900 million
wave cycles per second.
2. The Radio-Frequency (“RF”) “signal” is the “carrier wave.” But
communications require carrier wave manipulation to “encode” the data. Two main
techniques are used: “pulsation” and “modulation.” Modulation places additional
“mini”-waves on the RF. Pulsation injects “bursts” or turns the signal on/off.
Different technologies have their own protocols or “code.” Two devices using the
same code can “communicate” and exchange information.
3. Smart meters operate in the same way. They contain an RF antenna
that wirelessly transmits the usage data to the utility company. The antenna’s
carrier wave is around 900 MHz, but the data usage is transferred by modulating
the carrier wave. Furthermore, the communications occur every few seconds, so
the transmissions alternate between “silent” and “active.” This leads to an intensely
pulsed signal that has a jarring “on/off” effect on the body.
4. RFs emit “non-ionizing” radiation. Non-ionizing radiation does not
have sufficient energy to directly pull electrons from atoms and molecules to create
“ionization.” The FCC guidelines assume that non-ionizing radiation is not
harmful, unless it has high intensity power that causes tissue to heat as it absorbs
the radiated energy. This is called the “thermal effect.” The FCC’s regulations
139 541
acknowledge only thermal effects. Considering many thousands of studies have
proven non-thermal effects, this assumption cannot be defended.
CHD v. FCC and FCC Admission of Harm
5. On August 13, 2021, in a case amici Children’s Health Defense
brought against the FCC, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the
FCC failed to adequately consider and address the scientific and medical evidence
showing that its 1996 thermally-based guidelines do not sufficiently protect the
public. The Court held the FCC did not fully consider non-thermal harms other
than cancer effects, and as a result failed to engage in reasoned decision making.3
6. The FCC will have a hard time sticking to its current “no non-thermal
harm” construct on remand since it recently admitted there are neurological harms
from RF exposures, at least in the range between 3 Hz and 10 MHz.4 The FCC
noted “[a]dverse neural stimulation effects …such as perception of tingling, shock,
pain, or altered behavior due to excitation of tissue in the body’s peripheral
nervous system.” It also admitted that these harms occur instantaneously, which
3 Envtl. Health Tr., et al v. FCC, Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS
24138 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021).
4 Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rule Regarding Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Reassessment of Federal Communication
Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies, ¶¶122-124 & nn. 322-
335, 34 FCC Rcd 11687, 11743-11745 (2019).
140 542
means the FCC’s current method of averaging exposure levels over 30 minutes –
which completely obscures pulsation effects – is entirely inappropriate.5
The Scientific Consensus of Non-Thermal Harms
7. Some of the scientists who signed below published the evidence
presented in the DC Circuit court case, including the BioInitiative Report
(BioInitiative).6 The Bioinitiative is the most comprehensive scientific review on
the biological and health effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and RF-based
wireless technology by independent scientists (those with no conflict of interests).
The Bioinitiative concluded that bioeffects are established and can occur within
minutes of exposure to even very low levels of RF, including those emitted by
smart meters. With chronic exposures the biological effects can become adverse
effects and result in illness.7
8. Humans are bioelectrical beings. Our bodies use internally-generated
non-thermal EMFs to function. Our physiology is dependent on very sensitive
bioelectric systems, especially the heart, brain, nervous system, and intercellular
5 The Engineer’s Report attached to the amicus brief reveals that smart meters
pulse RF frequencies within this range (3 kHz – 50 KHz). The utility’s evidence
below relied in part on the FCC’s 30-minute averaging as the basis to deny any
negative pulsation effects.
6 https://bioinitiative.org/participants/.
7 https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions/.
141 543
communication.8 As the FCC stated in its admission, externally generated EMF
interferes with humans’ internal electrical communications system, and evokes
internal biological responses. These responses have nothing to do with power level
or tissue heating. The direct effect of pulsed RF/EMFs on humans’ physiology are
indisputable.
9. A 2011 National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) study9 is sufficient by
itself to destroy any denial of RF biological effects. Brain scans of 47 human
participants revealed that pulsed non-thermal RF radiation induced biological brain
glucose metabolism changes in every subject. See image below.

8 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-martin-blank.pdf.
9 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21343580/.
142 544
10. Denial of biological effects of RF/EMFs cannot co-exist with the fact
that physicians routinely use FDA-approved, non-thermal pulsed EMF devices to
treat diseases, bone fractures10 and chronic pain,11 or that RF/EMF is used to treat
cancer.12
11. The only question is whether the biological responses can be adverse.
Numerous studies show indisputable evidence of adverse responses to pulsed
RF/EMF exposure on various bodily functions, especially when the RF exposure is
chronic and pulsed (like the exposure to smart meters).
12. Biological and even positive effects can become adverse effects. RF
signals affect living tissue and stimulate biochemical and bioelectrical changes,
which can generate biological effects which then, with chronic exposure, can
become adverse effects and cause various symptoms and may lead to sickness.13 A
good example of this mixed effect comes from the immune system: “short-term
exposure… may temporarily stimulate certain humoral or cellular immune
functions, while prolonged irradiation inhibits the same functions.”14
10 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3441225/.
11 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf19/K190251.pdf “the application
of electromagnetic energy to non-thermally treat pain.”
12 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-medical-treat-
cancer.pdf.
13https://bioinitiative.org/conclusions/.
14 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969713003276.
143 545
Scientific Consensus
13. Numerous scientists,15 doctors, and medical and scientific
organizations from the US and around the world have warned of the negative non-
thermal effects of RF/EMF and the growing sickness it has been causing. They
include the EMF Scientist organization (250 scientists who combined published
over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on the effects of RF/EMF);16 the American
Academy of Pediatrics; 17 the Austrian Medical Association;18 and doctors’ appeals
from the US;19 Belgium;20 and Germany.21 In 2021, close to 200 physicians
participated in a medical conference about RF/EMF effects, for which they
received medical continuing education credits.22
15 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2017-expert-letters-
compilation.pdf.
16https://www.emfscientist.org;https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10916233196437/Interna
tional_EMF_Scientist-Appeal%208-25-2019.pdf.
17 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2013-american-
academy-of-pediatrics.pdf.
18 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2011-austrian-medical-
association-guidelines.pdf.
19 Baby Safe Project: https://www.babysafeproject.org/joint-statement.
20 Appeal of 539 Belgium Doctors: https://en.hippocrates-electrosmog-
appeal.be/medical.
21 Appeal of 1,000 German doctors http://freiburger-appell-
2012.info/media/International_Doctors_Appeal_2012_Nov.pdf.
22 https://emfconference2021.com/faculty/.
144 546
14. A California Medical Association resolution23 concludes that the peer-
reviewed research demonstrates wireless RF/EMF adverse effects, including
“single and double stranded DNA breaks, creation of reactive oxygen species,
immune dysfunction, cognitive processing effects, stress protein synthesis in the
brain, altered brain development, sleep and memory disturbances, ADHD,
abnormal behavior, sperm dysfunction, and brain tumors.”
15. Causal mechanisms of harms have been established. Oxidative Stress
is one such mechanism. Over 90% of studies on RF and oxidative stress24, 25 have
established that indeed exposure to RF/EMFs induces an increase in free radicals,
and chronic exposure causes oxidative stress which leads to several adverse health
effects: disease, dysfunction, including electro-sensitivity, cancer, and DNA
damage.
16. Even though RF does not have the energy to directly break chemical
bonds (the way ionizing radiation does), there is strong scientific evidence that this
energy can indirectly cause DNA damage.26 Dr. Ron Melnick PhD, a retired
23 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2014-ca-medical-
association-resolution.pdf.
24 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/3-RFR-Free-Radical-
Oxidative-Damage-Abstracts-2020.pdf.
25 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2015-yakymenko-
oxidative-stress.pdf.
26 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/10.-Comet-Assay-Studies-
Percent-Comparison-2020.pdf.
145 547
National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS) scientist, was the
Senior Toxicologist and Director of Special Programs in the National Toxicology
Program (NTP).27 He stated that the old notion that non-ionizing RF cannot break
DNA “should [be] put to rest.”28
17. Many thousands of studies, including US government and military
studies and reports, show the biological and adverse effects of pulsed RF/EMFs.29
In 2014 the US Department of Interior concluded that the FCC’s thermally-based
guidelines are “nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.”30
18. The clear majority of studies show adverse effects.31 For example, 244
of the 335 total studies (73%) published on neurological effects of RF Radiation
between 2007 and 2020 found effects.32 Of the 261 total studies on RF radiation
27 https://emfconference2021.com/speaker/ronald-l-melnick-phd/.
28 https://microwavenews.com/news-center/ntp-comet-assay.
29 Navy report includes 2,300 studies. Pages 10-14 list the RF effects found.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-1971-navy-2300-
studies.pdf; Air-Force: https://electroplague.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/rf-
microwave-radiation-biological-effects-rome-labs.pdf; NASA
https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/_____nasa_emf_field_interaction
s_-_observed_effects___theories_1981.pdf.
30https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XqbMLFUkVNUZIB5AFJAjr6KWqL6vK8ud/vi
ew.
31 https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/.
32 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/13-Neurological-Effects-
Studies-Percent-Comparison-2020.pdf.
146 548
and oxidative stress, 240 (91%) show effects.33 224 of 346 total studies (65%)
show DNA damage. See image below.34, 35

19. The evidence is getting even stronger. Since 2016, when the
evidentiary record in this case was generated, hundreds more published peer-
reviewed studies, including by the US government, have established RF/EMF
effects.36
33 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.-Free-Radical-Studies-
Percent-Comparison-2020.pdf.
34 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/11-Genetics-Percent-
Graphic-Sept-1-2020.pdf.
35 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/10.-Comet-Assay-Studies-
Percent-Comparison-2020.pdf.
36Abstract of over 700 papers (positive and negative published 2016-2019)
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-jmm-2016-2019-
studies.pdf; US Government NTP DNA Study
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/em.22343.
147 549
20. For example, in 2021 the Swiss government expert advisory group on
electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation, BERENIS,37 evaluated the
scientific literature on non-thermal RF/EMF.38 The committee published a
preliminary paper which concludes that exposure could cause or worsen several
chronic illnesses, and that children, the elderly and people with immune
deficiencies or diseases are especially at risk. It also acknowledged that oxidative
stress is the underlying causal mechanism of harm.
21. In 2019, the New-Hampshire (NH) legislature voted unanimously to
establish a committee to learn the effects of 5G and wireless radiation. The
committee included scientists, public representatives, and representatives of the
wireless industry (through CTIA, the wireless industry lobby association). After a
year of hearing experts on both sides and reviewing the science, in October 2020,
the committee’s report was published. It concluded that wireless radiation non-
thermal harms are established. The committee recognized Electro-sensitivity and
the right for accommodation of those who suffer and emphasized the need to
37 https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/home/topics/electrosmog/newsletter-of-the-
swiss-expert-group-on-electromagnetic-fields-a/beratende-expertengruppe-nis-
berenis.html.
38https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-swiss-berenis-2021-
report.pdf.
148 550
educate doctors. NH is the only state in the US that has conducted an independent
full-scale investigation as to the harms of these technologies.
22. Former senior experts from government agencies responsible for this
issue are also part of the consensus on non-thermal harms. In addition to Dr.
Melnick, they also include: Dr. Linda Birnbaum, the former director (2009-2019)
of the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences (NIEHS); 39 Dr.
Christopher Portier, 40 former director of the National Center for Environment
Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who also carried
various senior positions in the NIEHS, including Associate Director of the
National Toxicology Program (NTP). He wrote: “Most scientists consider non-
thermal effects as well established;”41, Dr. Carl Blackman,42 a biophysicist who
worked as a research scientist for the EPA from 1970 until his recent retirement.
Dr. Blackman’s research on RF/EMF resulted in several discoveries including
39 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/sandri-birnbaum-amicus-
motion-and-brief-correct-final-8-6-2020.pdf#page=20.
40 https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/PORTIER_Bio.pdf;
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27656641/.
41 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2016-portier-
consensus.pdf#page=1.
42 http://www.icems.eu/docs/Bios_Blackman.pdf.
149 551
multiple pulsation effects43 and treatment using RF/EMF.44 He is part of the
BioInitiative Working Group and wrote the 2007 Report’s section on pulsation and
modulation;45 Dr. Alan Frey,46 a US navy funded scientist was the first to show
non-thermal auditory effects and blood-brain barrier leakage. His studies tie
pulsation to the aggravating effects of RF signals.
Electro-Sensitivity
23. Electro-sensitivity is the earliest reported and likely the most direct
manifestation of RF/EMF-induced sickness. The condition, described by the
appearance of mostly neurological symptoms caused by RF/EMF exposure, has
been documented in the scientific literature for many decades, including by many
US government and military studies and reports.47 Many hundreds of studies
43 https://www.emfanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/blackman-
modulation-2009.pdf.
44 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28930547/.
45 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/sec15_2007_Modulation_Blackman.pdf.
46 https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/the-work-of-allan-h-frey/.
47 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/rf-1971-navy-2300-studies/;
https://electroplague.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/rf-microwave-radiation-
biological-effects-rome-labs.pdf;
https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/_____nasa_emf_field_interaction
s_-_observed_effects___theories_1981.pdf.
150 552
confirm the neurological effects and other symptoms48 reported by those who
suffer from the condition, and they have identified a genetic predisposition.49
24. The understanding of etiology, mechanisms and underlying injuries
involved with this condition has significantly progressed since 2016. New
diagnosis guidelines by leading EMF scientists and medical doctors have been
developed and published 50,51 There are more known biomarkers for diagnosis.52
25. Professor Beatrice Golomb, MD PhD was to the first to show
compelling evidence in a 2018 paper that the “mystery illness” (aka “Havana
Syndrome”) suffered by some US diplomats in Cuba and China was likely caused
by pulsed RF/EMF.53 She concluded that the diplomats suffer from Electro-
sensitivity, which she refers to as Microwave Illness.54
48https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-neurological-lai-
book-chapter.pdf.
49 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24812443/.
50 https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2016-0011/html.
51https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/assets/pdf/environmental/Preliminary%2
0Clinical%20Guidelines%20%20for%20EHS.pdf.
52 https://emf-experts.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Belpomme-
EHSdiagnosis-Study2020.pdf.
53 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30183509/.
54 “Microwave” is a subclass of RF, and generally comprises frequencies between
300 MHz and 300 GHz. From an FCC nomenclature perspective, the “microwave”
portion is anything above 890 MHz.
151 553
26. The US State Department asked the National Academy of Sciences,
Engineering and Medicine (NAS) to analyze and provide input on the diplomats’
“mystery illness.” Prof. Golomb was invited to present to the committee.55 In
December 2020, The NAS report was published. 56 It concluded that many of the
observed symptoms are consistent with the scientific literature on the effects of
pulsed RF exposure, and that it is likely the cause of the diplomats’ sickness.
27. Not all the diplomats became ill, only some, similar to Electro-
sensitivity in the general population. Human physiology varies, and as with other
stressors, some people get sick sooner than others or at lower levels of exposure
than others, and some will never become ill.
28. Prof. Golomb’s paper shows Electro-sensitivity can occur as the
byproduct of wireless technology, whether the result of an intentional assault
through a pulsed RF/EMF weapon or by commercial wireless technology. The
harm caused by these weapons comes primarily from the pulsation, not the
intensity of the RF/EMF. Indeed, it would be possible for RF/EMF weapons to
operate entirely within FCC guidelines and still cause harm from pulsation.
Pulsation is also a driver of the harm flowing from commercial RF/EMF-emitting
55 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2018-golomb-
diplomats-3.pdf; https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-nas-
golumb-email.pdf.
56 https://www.nap.edu/read/25889/chapter/1.
152 554
technology, including smart meters. Nevertheless, FCC rules regarding wireless
technology ignore their effects.
29. Electro-sensitivity is not a mere “sensitivity.” Studies have shown that
the symptoms indicate severe physiological injuries associated with exposure to
RF/EMF.57
30. A 2017 functional MRI study observed brain injury in persons with
Electro-sensitivity. 58 The scans for each of the 10 subjects had similar
abnormalities, all resembling those flowing from traumatic brain injury. The
diplomats had the same abnormalities. This injury indicates impaired blood flow in
certain regions of the brain.

57 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613326/.
58 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28678737/.
153 555
31. A 202059 and a 201560 papers confirm the blood flow effects and show
additional injuries. They are based on a study of 700 people with electro-sensitivity
showing the subjects suffered from permeability of the blood-brain barrier,
depressed melatonin levels, oxidative stress and aggravated auto-immune response.
These effects were shown to be connected to RF exposure61. In CHD’s case against
the FCC, the court specifically mentioned that the FCC failed to respond to the
evidence showing these effects.62
32. Those who want to propagate this technology have consistently
generated perceived “controversy” as a method to deny Electro-sensitivity. They
do so by funding negative subjective-perception provocation studies so they can
claim that it is psychological or fear-induced (the “nocebo effect”). These studies
suffer from numerous fatal design flaws.63
33. The most ironic design flaw in these studies is that they do not control
for the nocebo effect, which is a prerequisite to the validity of any provocation
59 https://emf-experts.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Belpomme-
EHSdiagnosis-Study2020.pdf.
60 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613326/.
61 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/sec01_2012_summary_for_public.pdf#page=10;
https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/.
62 Envtl. Health Tr. v. FCC, Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24138,
at *12-*16 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021).
63 Many of those provocation studies were heavily funded by mobile phone carriers
and led by James Rubin PhD, a psychologist (not EMF expert).
154 556
study. Then they conclude that the symptoms are likely a result of a nocebo
effect.64
34. Another primary flaw in these studies is the illogical assumption that
all people with Electro-sensitivity should be able to immediately “detect” when the
RF signal is on/off. But those affected do not typically “sense” radiation. They
develop symptoms that take time to appear and subside. There are many other
flaws. Nevertheless, properly conducted studies without predetermined agenda
show that some sufferers can detect the signal.65
35. Subjective-perception provocation studies are considered the worst
science because they can be easily manipulated.66 Industry uses these studies to
produce the required results to divert attention from hundreds of high-quality peer-
reviewed credible studies that do not depend on subjective-perception and confirm
the symptoms people develop, the corresponding physiological injuries and
established causal mechanisms.67, 68
64 https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/332/7546/886.full.pdf.
65 For example, a large scale study by the Dutch government, known as the TNO
study: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-electrosensitivity-
provocation-tno.pdf.
66 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520940903.pdf#page=25.
67 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/rf-2018-Golomb-Diplomats-2/#page=9.
68https://childrenshealthdefense.org/rf-2014-electrosensitivity-dr-blythe/.
155 557
36. It is important to emphasize that while widely quoted and used to
deny Electro- sensitivity, subjective-provocation studies are not used to diagnose
any condition and are definitely “not suitable to disprove causality.”69 A person’s
inability to detect the pathogen that causes the reaction does not mean the
individual is unaffected by the pathogen. “Human RF-detector” is not a mandatory
symptom for Electro-sensitivity.
Smart Meters’ Effects
37. Beyond individual predisposition, the appearance of adverse effects
can depend on signal intensity, exposure duration; specific frequencies involved;
exposure to multiple frequencies and sources which create high exposure
variability; on-off pulsation and sharp “peaks and valleys.”
38. Expert smart meter testing indicates there are three primary RF
exposure issues.70, 71, 72,73 First, the RF antennas within the meter send usage data
and communicate with other meters and smart devices. They wirelessly emit
69 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2016-europaem-
guidelines.pdf #page=11.
70 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-amicus-sage-smart-
meters.pdf.
71 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-pa-amicus-engineer-
expert-erik-anderson-report.pdf.
72 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-amicus-isotrope.pdf.
73 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-amicus-bathgate-pa-
smart-meters.pdf.
156 558
intensely pulsed RF/EMF. Second, these antennas’ RF emissions also conduct over
the home electric wiring,74 transforming the entire house into a “repeater” antenna.
39. Finally, the switch mode power supply (SMPS) creates RF
frequencies as a byproduct of the AC/DC conversion process. The traditional
analog meters used for decades do not have SMPS and do not create these
emissions. SMPS-generated emissions are typically in the range of 2-150 KHz.
They enter the house’s electric wiring and then radiate RF in various parts of the
house. Digital meters also use SMPS; therefore, they too create RF frequencies,
even though they do not have transmitting RF antennas.
40. As noted, the FCC admitted there are neurological effects from non-
thermal RF emissions75 and its admission applies to frequencies in the kilohertz
range created by the SMPS. The symptoms the FCC recites are similar to those
reported by those who assert adverse effects from smart meters including tingling,
shock, pain, or altered behavior due to excitation of tissue in the body’s peripheral
nervous system.76 The FCC explained that the presence of these frequencies
outside the body induce “internal electric fields” within the human body.
74 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-amicus-isotrope.pdf.
75 Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rule Regarding Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Reassessment of Federal Communication
Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies, ¶¶122-124 & nn. 322-
335, 34 FCC Rcd 11687, 11743-11745 (2019).
76 FN. 328, p.58.
157 559
41. A single smart meter antenna can emit up to 190,000 short but intense
RF pulses (bursts/spikes) each day to transmit the usage data to the utility. These
bursts can be two and a half times above the FCC’s limits, if you do not apply the
30-minute “averaging” used in the FCC testing. The D.C. Circuit questioned77 this
averaging and the FCC proposes to abandon it, at least in part.78 Depending on how
close the meter is to occupied space within a home, a smart meter can cause very
high intensity RF/EMF exposures.
42. People in proximity to a smart meter are at risk of significantly high
aggregate whole-body exposure to RF/EMF. This is especially true regarding
people living near multiple meters mounted together in an apartment complex or
those who have a utility collector meter installed on their home which relays RF
signals of up to 5,000 homes.79 The cumulative 24/7 exposure is never measured
but undoubtedly harmful, at least to some.
43. Studies have consistently shown that the pulsing is a major element in
the creation and/or aggravation of effects from RF exposure. It is possibly more
77 Envtl. Health Tr. v. FCC, Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24138,
at *12 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021).
78 Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rule Regarding Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Reassessment of Federal Communication
Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies, ¶¶122-124 & nn. 322-
335, 34 FCC Rcd 11687, 11743-11745 (2019).
79 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/pa-amicus-sage-smart-meters/#page=3.
158 560
important than the radiation levels.80 EMF-based medical treatments, for example,
recognize the higher bio-active nature of pulsation; they purposefully pulse the
signal to obtain a higher biological response.
44. The effects of continuous exposure and the on/off pulsation effects
were shown in a 2011 study.81 The study tested a physician with Electro-
sensitivity. She developed temporal pain, headache, muscle twitching, and skipped
heartbeats within 100 seconds after each signal exposure. The study showed that
the symptoms appeared in response to the on-off pulsing of the signal rather than
the presence of a continuous EMF field or its intensity. “EMF hypersensitivity can
occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome.”
45. The energy emitted by the RF antennas and from the operation of the
SMPS enters the wiring system through “high variability” spikes in various RF
frequencies. This has an on/off effect on the body. Studies have shown that the
body is especially sensitive to “high variability” emissions.82

80 https://bioinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/sec15_2007_Modulation_Blackman.pdf;
https://bioinitiative.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/sec15_2012_Evidence_Disruption_Modulation.pdf.
81https://www.stopumts.nl/pdf/McCarty%20Marino%202011%20EMF%20ES%20
&%20neurological%20syndrome%20Int%20J%20Neurosci%20July.pdf.
82https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rf-2015-Panagopoulos-
variability-effects.pdf.
159 561
Conclusion
46. Anyone who claims smart meters cannot produce the symptoms
described by the customers is ignorant of the FCC’s recent admission. They either
do not understand or are misrepresenting the science on biological and adverse
effects from pulsed RF/EMF. Many have reported getting ill following the
installation of these smart meters. Considering the way smart meters operate and
the multitude of complex emissions they create, it is no wonder. Forcing these
meters on people who have become affected by RF/EMF is unconscionable. Those
with Electro-sensitivity and others who are affected by RF/EMF must be allowed
to secure analog meters because it is the only type of meter that does not cause or
worsen their condition.

Respectfully Submitted,
Scientists Statement Signatories
Professor David O. Carpenter, MD, Professor of Environmental Health
Sciences, and Director, Institute for Health and the Environment at the
University of Albany, a collaborating center for the World Health Organization
(WHO). Dr. Carpenter is a Harvard trained public health expert who focuses on
the study of environmental causes of human disease with expertise in
electrophysiology, low-frequency electromagnetic field and radiofrequency
(RF) radiation bioeffects. He was Chairman of the Neurobiology Department of
160 562
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute at the Defense Nuclear Agency
in Washington DC; the Director of Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and
Research of the New York State Department of Health; and Executive Secretary
of the NY State Power Line Project regarding health effects associated with
exposure to EMFs. After the project concluded, he became spokesperson for
NY state on all matters associated with EMFs. He is the Co-Editor of the
BioInitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard
for Electromagnetic Fields. Dr. Carpenter has authored more than 400 scientific
papers.
Professor Igor Belyaev, DSc, Head, Department of Radiobiology; Cancer
Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center, Slovak Republic. He has an
MSc. Degree in Radiation Physics and Dosimetry; PhD in Radiobiology; and
DSc. degree in Genetics. He was an Associate Professor of Toxicological
Genetics at the Stockholm University, Sweden, as well as a senior research
scientist and group leader in the departments of Radiobiology, Molecular
Genome Research, Genetic and Cellular Toxicology, Genetics, Toxicology and
Microbiology. He is now or formerly a member of: The Working Group of the
International EMF Project of the World Health Organization; the Working
Group for the evaluation of RF carcinogenicity of the International Agency on
Research in Cancer (IARC); the Swedish National Committee for Radio-
Science; the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection; the EMF Working Group of the European Academy for
Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM). He serves as Associate Editor for the
International Journal of Radiation Biology and on the Editorial Board of
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. He published over 100 scientific papers
and was awarded by the Bioelectromagnetics Society for the most influential
161 563
paper in Bioelectromagnetics 2006-2010. He is a member of the BioInitiative
Working Group and authored the BioInitiative’s 2012 Section on the effects of
Pulsation and Modulation.
Professor Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine at the
University of California, San Diego. She also leads a research group which
focuses on the relation of oxidative stress and mitochondrial function to health,
aging, behavior, illness, environmental and medication effects, nutrition, and
bioenergetics. She served as a primary care doctor of veteran patients for over
15 years. She is known for her work on Gulf War Illness, statins and placebos
and for her 2018 paper “Diplomats’ Mystery Illness and Pulsed
Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation” which concludes, “Reported facts
appear consistent with pulsed RF/MW as the source of injury in affected
diplomats.” She was invited to present to the National Academy of Sciences
about these findings. She has published 136 scientific papers.
Professor Reba Goodman, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Clinical Pathology
at Columbia University. Dr. Goodman received an MA and a PhD in
Developmental Genetics from Columbia University. She has authored a great
many studies, including at least 76 studies on effects of electromagnetic fields.
Early on, in her paper in Science entitled “Pulsed electromagnetic fields induce
cellular transcription,” (1983), she showed how even weak, pulsing
electromagnetic fields could modify biological processes.
Professor Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, is a retired Professor of Oncology
and Cancer Epidemiology, from Örebro University Hospital in Sweden. Dr.
Hardell continues his work through his involvement with the Environment and
Cancer Research Foundation. His research focus has been the environmental
162 564
risk factors for cancer. Prof. Hardell has been awarded several scientific prizes
for his research. In recent decades his research focused on the effects of RFR
exposure, especially on mobile phones and the risk of brain tumours. The
research by the Hardell group influenced IARC’s 2011 classification of
radiofrequency radiation as a possible 2B carcinogen. Dr. Hardell was also a
member of IARC’s evaluating group. He has published more than 350 peer-
reviewed scientific papers, including many on the biological effects of
electromagnetic radiation.
Professor Paul Héroux, PhD, Director of the Occupational Health Program,
Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Canada. Dr. Heroux is a toxicologist
with a PhD in Physics. He teaches courses at McGill University about the
adverse health effects of EMFs. He has published 42 scientific papers, 27 of
them on the effects of EMFs. He also authored several text books. His most
recent paper is “Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology
under real-life conditions.” (Toxicol. Let 2020). He is a member of the
BioInitiative Working Group and was a member of the committee appointed by
the New Hampshire legislature to review the effects of 5g and wireless
technologies.
Professor Olle Johansson, PhD, retired associate professor at the Karolinska
Institute, Department of Neuroscience, and head of The Experimental
Dermatology Unit from the Karolinska Institute, and the Royal Institute of
Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He has published more than 800 papers,
conference reports, book chapters, commentaries, and debate articles. His main
focus was basic and applied neuroscience. Starting in 1977, his research
focused on the adverse health and biological effects of man-made pulsed RF-
163 565
based wireless technologies. He has published more than 330 papers in that
field, many with a focus on the effects on the skin.
Professor Anthony B. Miller, MD, CM, FRCP, FRCP(C), Professor Emeritus,
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto. He was the
Director, Epidemiology Unit, National Cancer Institute of Canada; Professor,
and Chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics,
University of Toronto; Special Expert in the Division of Cancer Prevention, US
National Cancer Institute; Senior Epidemiologist, International Agency for
Research on Cancer; Head, Division of Epidemiology, German Cancer
Research Centre; Associate Director Research, Dalla Lana School of Public
Health, University of Toronto. In 2019 he was elected a Member of the Order
of Canada for his work on Cancer Control. He has published 354 peer-reviewed
papers. In the past few years he has focused on RF/EMF effects. He has
published six papers on the topic of RF/EMF and has presented in many
conferences on this issue.
Professor Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic
Medical Sciences at Washington State University. Dr. Pall is a published and
widely cited scientist on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields and
speaks internationally on this topic. His expertise includes how RF/EMF
impacts the electrical systems in our bodies with a focus on the VGCC injury
mechanism. He published seven papers showing that pulsed RF/EMF interferes
with the operation of the voltage-gated calcium channel, a sensor that is
responsible for the entry of calcium into our cells.

164 566
Alfonso Balmori, BSc, M.S.Ed, is a world renowned biologist, with a
master in environmental education. He has published more than 50 scientific
papers published in peer-reviewed journals on environment, ecology, and
biodiversity conservation issues. He is known worldwide for his work on the
effects of electromagnetic RF radiation on animals and plants, mainly on the
effects of cell towers. His papers were quoted in the US Department of the
Interior 2014 letter concluding that cell towers harm migratory birds and that
the FCC guidelines are 30 years out of date. This letter was referenced by the
Court in the Remand Guidelines decision.
Professor Kent Chamberlin, PhD, Past Chair and Professor Emeritus,
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New
Hampshire. The focus of his research has been Computational
Electromagnetics. He also investigated the interaction of electromagnetic fields
and the human body, which resulted in seven publications. He was appointed by
the Chancellor to the New Hampshire Commission to Study the Environmental
and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology, which concluded that 5G and
pulsed RF-based wireless technologies are harmful to health.
Dr. Priyanka Bandara, PhD, is a scientist with a PhD in Biochemistry and
Molecular Genetics. She served as senior manager of a research team and a
clinical team at Westmead Children’s Hospital, Australia. She then became
involved in environmental health and disease prevention. Her current focus is
the impact of pulsed RF-based wireless technologies on health. Dr. Bandara has
published 13 papers on the effects of electromagnetic radiation in international
scientific journals, and has presented at major conferences and academic
institutions. She serves as Associate Editor of the Journal of the Australasian
165 567
College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine and as peer-reviewer for
several international medical journals.
Dr. Frédéric Greco, MD, is a practitioner in the neuro-intensive care unit at
the University Hospital of Montpellier, France, and teaches at the university’s
Faculty of Medicine. He is a member of the working group set up by the French
government's health department to implement national recommendations for the
medical care of electrosensitive people. He is the principal investigator of the
ongoing clinical study "Migraine in Electrohypersensitive Patients."
Dr. Yael Stein, MD, is head of the Electromagnetic Radiation Research Clinic
at Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel, focusing on electro-sensitivity
diagnosis and treatment. She is a certified Anesthesiologist at Hadassah
Medical Center and researcher at the Hebrew University Medical School. She
also specializes in Pain Medicine and is currently completing an MPH at the
Hebrew University School of Public Health. She has extensive experience in
research on the health effects of electromagnetic fields on humans from the
epidemiologic and biological/medical points of view, and has worked in this
field since 2007.
Cindy Sage, MA, is an environmental sciences consultant and researcher on
electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation. She is the founder of the
international BioInitiative Working Group, and the co-editor of the BioInitiative
Reports (2007 and 2012). Ms. Sage has provided expert testimony and
scientific testimony on non-ionizing radiation to the Federal Communications
Commission, the US Food and Drug Administration, the California Public
Utility Commission, the European Commission’s Directorate of Public Health -
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
166 568
(SCENIHR). She has advised numerous state and federal agencies on wireless
health risks, smart meter emissions and safety limit inadequacies. She has
published 24 peer-reviewed papers on the evidence of health risks from
electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation, and she studies the effects
of smart meters.
Dr. Cindy Russell, MD, is a surgeon and Executive Director of Physicians
for Safe Technology. Since 1995, she has been a member of the Santa Clara
County Medical Association Environmental Health Committee. Dr. Russell has
published several peer-reviewed papers on the impacts of wireless technology
on human health and the environment with hundreds of scientific references.
Her focus continues to be disease prevention and environmental health through
toxics reduction.
Dr. Mary Redmayne, PhD, is a researcher, educator and consultant with
Adjunct Research Fellowships at Victoria University of Wellington and at
Monash University, Melbourne. Her research interests and experience include
children’s use of wireless devices and their effect on health and well-being.
She has many peer-reviewed papers, with at least 22 on health and
electromagnetic fields and RF radiation. She lectures on these issues both in
New Zealand and internationally. Dr. Redmayne is a Participating Member of
Standards Australia Committee on Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields,
a technical committee responsible for standards settings. She is a scientific
advisor for the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, and
for the Building Biology and Ecology Institute, NZ.

167 569
ENGINEER REPORT
168 570
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
RE: No. 34 MAP 2021, Povacz, M, et al. v. PUC
Associated Case(s):
35 MAP 2021 Consolidated
36 MAP 2021 Consolidated
37 MAP 2021 Consolidated
38 MAP 2021 Consolidated
39 MAP 2021 Consolidated
40 MAP 2021 Consolidated
41 MAP 2021 Consolidated
42 MAP 2021 Consolidated
43 MAP 2021 Consolidated
44 MAP 2021 Consolidated
45 MAP 2021 Consolidated

Engineer Report – Smart Meters Operation & RF Emissions

Purpose of Statement
1. My name is Erik S. Anderson, P.E. I am a forensic electrical engineer
working on root cause failure analysis of matters that cause loss of property,
personal injury, and loss of life.
2. I am submitting my expert opinion regarding the operation of smart
meters and digital meters and in support of the amici.
169 571
Credentials
3. I am the president of an engineering firm that offers professional
engineering and investigation services across the United States and manufactures
current transformers.83
4. It is my expert opinion that these smart and digital meters cause a
significant amount of radio-frequency (RF) “noise” on homes’ electric wiring
system, thereby transforming them into a whole house antenna.
5. I have a Bachelor’s of Science degree from North Dakota State
University, Fargo, North Dakota, in Electrical and Electronic Engineering. I am a
licensed Professional Engineer in the states of Minnesota, Illinois, Arizona,
Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, California, Kentucky,
Michigan, and Nevada. I am a licensed Class A Master Electrician in the state of
Minnesota. I also hold a Private Investigator License in Arizona and I am a
Certified Fire and Explosion Investigator.
6. I have 30 years of experience as a forensic engineer. I have over 20
years of experience of design and manufacture of current transformers. I have been
involved in many thousands of matters concerned with determining the root cause
of failures of electrical devices that may have caused a loss of property, personal
injury, or loss of life. I have given expert witness testimony in approximately 113
83 https://www.aenpi.com/
170 572
separate matters. I personally have tested smart meters and given expert testimony
regarding their operation and emissions. My curriculum vitae is attached (Exhibit
1).
7. As a designer and manufacturer of transformers, their operation is one
of my main areas of expertise. Switch Mode Power Supply modules used by smart
and digital meters are merely another type of transformers. I have investigated the
involvement of the operation of the Switch Mode Power Supply in these meters
and their involvement in the creation of radio frequency (RF) emissions.84
8. My expert determination principally relies on my own smart meter
testing. I do also rely on reviews by other experts, their’ testing reports and my
professional education and vast experience.
Smart Meter Operation
9. Smart meters create intense exposure to pulsed radio frequencies (RF)
in a few ways. RF antennas are embedded within the smart meter to transmit data
usage to utility companies and/or to communicate with other smart meters or with
other “smart” devices like home thermostats. These antennas emit pulsed RF
radiation. The various radiofrequencies emitted by these antennas also conduct
through the home electric wiring. RF “wire conducted” frequencies come also
84 An explanation of what are radio frequencies and about the electromagnetic
spectrum can be found in the scientists’ statements which is also attached to the amicus
brief as well as in the amicus brief itself.
171 573
from the conversion process from alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC)
handled by the Switch Mode Power Supply (SMPS).85 Non-transmitting digital
meters also use SMPS, and therefore they too create RF, even though they do not
contain a transmitting RF antenna for communications. These radio frequencies are
transmitted on the residence’s electrical distribution system and conduct over the
internal wiring, thereby turning the home into a whole-house antenna.
RF Emissions from the Transmitting Antennas
10. The RF antennas that wirelessly transmit the consumer’s electrical
power usage data to the utility company use frequencies in the 900 MHz & 2,400
MHz range. These emissions are intense and can occur often, up to 190,000 times a
day.86 From my experience and testing done by others, these meters transmit more
times than the electric companies report. This can easily be shown by measuring
the emissions with a simple RF meter.
11. “Isotrope Wireless,”87 which provides industry and municipalities
with design, specification, evaluation, and construction support for wireless
facilities, tested smart meters in three houses.88 This testing showed that RF
emission from the smart meters’ transmitting antennas could be detected
85 In some meters the conversion is done using capacitators instead of SMPS.
86 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/pa-amicus-sage-smart-meters/.
87 https://www.isotrope.im/about-2/.
88 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/pa-amicus-isotrope/.
172 574
throughout the house and were “well above” the ambient RF radiation levels.89
These pulsed RF emissions exceed the absolute energy output limits90 stated in
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines (if the emissions are not
averaged over a 30-minute exposure as prescribed by those guidelines).91
RF from Wireless Antennas Enter the House’s Electrical System
12. The Isotrope testing also showed that the house’s electrical wiring
conducted substantial levels of the RF emissions at 915 MHz – the
communications-related frequency for that meter92 – and this frequency was then
radiated from outlets (electrical power delivery points) and along the house wiring
(branch circuitry).
89https://childrenshealthdefense.org/pa-amicus-isotrope/#page=12.
90 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/pa-amicus-sage-smart-meters/#page=3.
91 On August 13, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the FCC’s
2019 decision that its guidelines adequately protect the public’s health are arbitrary,
capricious and not evidence-based. The Children’s Health Defense is a Petitioner in
this case. Envtl. Health Tr., et al v. FCC, Nos. 20-1025, 20-1138, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS
24138 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2021). The opinion specifically questioned whether the
FCC’s testing procedures adequately captured the effect of pulsation or modulation.
2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24138, *12, *29.
92 Smart meters use a variety of frequencies for communications depending on the
manufacturer’s choice. PECO’s meters operate at around 901 MHz. They also contain
a “Zigbee” antenna that can be turned on and then communicate with nearby wireless
smart devices. Zigbee uses 2400 MHz band.
173 575
13. Thus, the pulsed RF emissions from the smart meter’s transmitting
antenna not only enter the house wirelessly but also enter into and are conducted
along the house’s electrical wiring
RF “Noise” From the Switch Mode Power Supply
14. Other RF frequencies besides the RFs from the transmitting antennas,
also enter the house electric system. In my testing I have witnessed and analyzed
smart meters’ effects on the incoming electrical power voltage waveform. These
frequencies are a byproduct of the AC/DC conversion process which is done by the
Switch Mode Power Supply (SMPS). The conversion process is necessary because
utility service employs alternating current whereas the electrical components in
smart meters use direct current.93
15. SMPS converts the 240 Volt AC power coming into the meter from
the main power transformer, into the much lower DC voltage that the electronic
devices require to function. The rapid back-and-forth conversion process used to
remove the “alternating” aspect creates unintended RF frequencies. The on/off,
back-and-forth, pulses can occur up to 150,000 times per second, which means
frequencies of up to 150,000 Hz (150 KHz94), are created. These kilohertz
93 Smart meters also rely on AC for some of the non-electronic functions they
perform.
94 1,000 Hz is a kilohertz (“KHz”). 1,000,000 Hz is a megahertz (“MHz”).
1,000,000,000 Hz is a gigahertz (“GHz”).
174 576
frequencies are within the RF band of frequencies.95 Most of the observed “noise”
spikes are in the range of 2 to 50 kHz (2,000 to 50,000 Hz).96 The switching RF
“spikes” are variable, and they are being imposed on the 60 Hz house electricity
wave,97 creating significant unintended RF “noise.”
16. These frequencies are present all the time but are worse when less
electricity is being used (e.g., at night) and when the smart meter’s electronics need
more power, for example, when transmitting RF bursts to the utility. These RF
transmission bursts cause spikes over the electric wiring, and they are created
because the SMPS has to suddenly supply more DC power.
Digital Meters Use SMPS and Therefore Also Created Unintended RF
17. Digital meters also use SMPS. Therefore, even though they do not
contain an RF communications antenna, the AC/DC conversion process creates
significant and variable RF spikes over the electrical wiring, which is then radiated
into the house.
95 FCC defines RF as frequencies between 3 KHz – 300 GHz.
96 Finding of Fact 87 in McKnight v. PECO (once of the cases on hold below) states
that “PECO’s AMI meters do not produce 5 Hz, 3 kilohertz, or 5 megahertz fields.
(April 13, Tr. 75-76).” While I have some doubt this is actually so, this finding does
not rule out emissions in the other frequencies I list.
97 Electricity comes to the house at a frequency of 60 Hz.
175 577
Analog Meters Do Not Have SMPS and Do Not Create RF Spikes
18. In contrast, unlike wireless smart meters and digital meters, analog
meters do not contain an SMPS or other electronic components that create
unintended RF frequencies. No AC/DC conversion is necessary, and unlike smart
and digital meters, analog meters have a separate wired grounding rod that
eliminates much of the “noise” that may come from the energy feed.
19. The images below compare a smart meter like that used by PECO98
with an analog meter. The red waveform is the 60 Hz house electricity frequency.
The yellow waveform indicates the RF frequencies imposed over the 60 Hz. Image
1shows that an analog meter does not create RF spikes. Image 2 shows the smart
meter causing significant RF spikes “noise” over the 60 Hz frequency house electric
wiring system. 99
98 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-amicus-bathgate-pa-
smart-meters.pdf. Pages 17-18.
99 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/pa-amicus-bathgate-pa-
smart-meters.pdf#page=14.
176 578
Image 1: Analog Meter – No RF Spikes

Image 2: Smart Meter – Intense RF spikes.

My Smart Meter Testing:
20. My test setup consisted of a meter socket enclosure suitable for
120/240 Volt, single-phase, three-wire connection. A smart meter, Landis & Gyr,
177 579
Gridstream RF, Focus AXR-SD, Form 2S, CL200, 240 V, 3 W, 60 Hz, power
meter was used.100 The voltage waveform was captured with a Fluke 215C
Scopemeter. One input to the Scopemeter was connected to the incoming voltage,
120 Volts-to-Ground, unfiltered. The other input to the Scopemeter was connected
to the incoming voltage with the 60 Hz waveform filtered out. A radiofrequency
emissions meter was also used to indicate when an RF signal increase was
detected.
21. When the test equipment was connected to the incoming power, the
waveform of the incoming electrical power was observed. The 60 Hz signal was
recognized as the dominant frequency with some noise observed on the waveform.
The 60 Hz was filtered out to analyze the noise on the signal.
22. When the smart meter was not connected, the noise level was
approximately 45 milliVolts at its peak. When the smart meter was added to the
circuit, the noise on the 60 Hz sine wave was noticeably larger, approximately 85
milliVolts. This is nearly double the amount of noise than without the smart meter.
23. The dominant frequencies are in the range of 2 to 50 kHz. These are
the frequencies that the “smart meter” generates when it is transmitting.

100 PECO uses this meter, or one quite like it. R995a, 1046a.
178 580
Conclusion and Opinion
24. There is no doubt that smart and digital meters create pulsed RF
emissions and these emissions, from the smart meters’ antennas and the RF created
by the SMPS, both enter the house’s electric system. The result is that the entire
house is transformed into a radiating RF antenna.
25. Any meter with a switch mode power supply will create RF
frequencies in the Kilohertz range that enter the electrical wiring system of the
house. Smart meters and digital meters inject significant levels of RF onto the
home’s electrical distribution system.
26. This report is based on information learned to date. I reserve the right
to amend, clarify, or change my opinions based on more work or information
learned.
Respectfully Submitted:

Erik S. Anderson, P.E.

179 581

ENGINEER REPORT – Exhibit 1

180 582
ANDERSON ENGINEERING OF NEW PRAGUE, INC.
9007 S. Third Street Phoenix, Arizona 85042
Office: [phone] Mobile: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
ERIK S. ANDERSON Registered Professional Engineer REGISTRATION:
State of Minnesota 1991 21471
State of Illinois 1999 062052733 State of Arizona 2003 39627 State of Wisconsin 2008 39418-006 State of Indiana 2008 PE.10809314
State of Iowa 2008 18758
State of New Mexico 2008 19001 State of Texas 2009 102714 State of Louisiana 2009 PE.0034787 State of California 2010 105359
State of Kentucky 2012 28492
State of Michigan 2013 6201060247 State of Nevada 2013 022690
Licensed Class A Master
Electrician – State of

EDUCATION: B.S. in Electrical and Electronic Engineering North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, 1987.
Chemical Engineering Course Work
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1981-
181 583
CONTINUING
Annual 8-Hr. HAZWOPER Refresher Course: 2009, 2010,
Minnesota Electrical Association – National Electrical Code
Instructor: Forensic Electrical Engineering Principles & Practices,
01/05 - Present

President & Forensic Electrical Engineer. Responsible for all
aspects of business operations including engineering services
to clients, analysis.
182 584
Our case load also includes construction defect cases
involving the evaluation of the workmanship of the electrical
subcontractor and personal injury cases involvi
Electrical Engin
failure analysis. Midwest Current Transform
Engineering of New Prague, Inc., New Prague, MN.
Designer, manufacturer, and quality
Research and Design Coordinator. Duties included work on
(Summers) Assistant Engineer. Designed software for and compiled data of E-fields generated by high voltage tassisted in investigations of various cases involving questions
AFFILIATIONS: Member National Society of Professional Engineers. Member Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers.
Member International Association of Arson Investigators.
Member National Fire Protection Association. Member National Association of Fire Investigators. Member American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
TESTIFYING WITNESS:
Corporation

183 585
BUILDING BIOLOGY INSTITUTE
REPORT
184 586
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
RE: No. 34 MAP 2021, Povacz, M, et al. v. PUC
Associated Case(s):
35 MAP 2021 Consolidated
36 MAP 2021 Consolidated
37 MAP 2021 Consolidated
38 MAP 2021 Consolidated
39 MAP 2021 Consolidated
40 MAP 2021 Consolidated
41 MAP 2021 Consolidated
42 MAP 2021 Consolidated
43 MAP 2021 Consolidated
44 MAP 2021 Consolidated
45 MAP 2021 Consolidated

THE BUILDING BIOLOGIST INSTITUTE REPORT

General Statement
1. My name is Lawrence James Gust. I am the President of the Board of
Directors of the Building Biology Institute (BBI).1 I have a degree in electrical
engineering and an MBA. I have been an environmental consultant for over 20
years and have trained hundreds of environmentally safer buildings consultants via
the BBI.
2. The Building Biology Institute (BBI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit
corporation. BBI was founded in the US in 1993 and it follows the Principles of

1 https://buildingbiologyinstitute.org/about/our-mission/
185 587
the Institute fur Baubiologie und Ecologie in Germany.2 Our mission is to help
meet the ever-increasing public demand for proven methods that secure homes,
schools, and workplaces from toxic indoor air, tap-water pollutants, and hazards
posed by electromagnetic fields (“EMF”) and radiofrequency radiation (“RFR”)
exposure.
3. BBI offers three professional certifications: (1) Building Biology
Environmental Consultant (BBEC); (2) Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist
(EMRS); and (3) Building Biology New Build Consultant (BBNC). Each
certification requires the participants to complete online courses, participate in a
multi-day on-site seminar, undergo a mentored final project and pass various tests.
To be listed as a practicing professional on the BBI website,3 certified BBEC
professionals must obtain approved continuing education credits.
4. Our trained RF/EMF mitigation consultants measure the
electromagnetic fields and radiation at the site, provide a plan on how to mitigate
these emissions and work with other professionals such as electricians and IT
professionals to put in place the identified mitigating measures.

2 https://www.ibo.at/en/
3 https://buildingbiologyinstitute.org/find-an-expert/certified-
consultants/electromagnetic-radiation-specialists/.
186 588
5.Most of our clients are people who are sick or have family members
who have adverse reactions to RFR exposure. As with other environmental toxins,
and according to doctors, avoidance is the main and most effective treatment for
those who are affected. Our services help them mitigate exposures in their homes,
so they are part of the medical regimen prescribed by doctors. Many physicians
encourage their patients to contact building biologists to optimize their living
environment.4
6.We have a unique perspective and specific protocols driven by our
extensive science-based knowledge, methods as well as experience working with
those who suffer. Every day we see the widespread sickness caused by wireless
devices and infrastructure. We personally witness how devastating this sickness is.
Most important, we know our methods significantly improve the health and well-
being of those who must avoid RFR. Remediation efficacy is well documented and
undeniable.
7.Our knowledge and experience will provide the court valuable and
important information necessary to reach a just decision in this case.
Smart Meters
4https://www.womenscollegehospital.ca/assets/pdf/environmental/Preliminary%20
Clinical%20Guidelines%20%20for%20EHS.pdf#page=18.
187 589
8. We often confront sickness caused or exacerbated by smart meters.
Simply removing the meter often leads to immediate and consequential health
improvement. Unfortunately, we also routinely witness intolerable suffering by
those forced to have smart meters as a condition of service without any means to
opt-out.
9. People can turn off their cell phones, they can turn off the Wi-Fi in the
router and use hard-wired internet. They cannot turn off the smart meters and
therefore are forced to be exposed to the toxin that caused them to be sick 24/7, in
their home. It is a torture.
Demand increase correlates with exposure growth
10. There has been a significant increase in requests for our RFR
mitigation services over the last 20 years. Wireless services were first
commercialized for the mass market in the mid-1980s. Back then and for around
10 years RFR mitigation was a very small part of our work. But that began to
change in the early 2000s. Demand for our services has skyrocketed. RFR
mitigation is now the most frequently requested service in our portfolio and
constitutes about 75% of what we do. BBI consultants have a hard time fulfilling
the demand. This directly correlates with and is the clear result of with the
exponential growth in public exposure to wireless related pulsed RFR from
wireless devices and infrastructure. Pervasive and chronic exposure leads to
188 590
endemic sickness. We see it every day in our work, and it is devastating for those
who are afflicted.
11. This increase in demand is also reflected in the number of
professionals who are taking the certification course and become a certified
“building biologist.” Since we started to operate, 27 years ago, we have certified
approximately 308 building biologists. Thirty percent of them, approximately 100,
were certified in 2020/2021.
Collaborating With Treating Physicians
12. We collaborate with doctors whose patients suffer from electro-
sensitivity. The only effective treatment is avoidance and in many cases the house
is the cause or at least an aggravating factor for their patients’ illness. Doctors refer
their patients to us, as ensuring that the home environment of those affected is as
clean as possible from pulsed RF radiation is critical for any improvement.
Human Consequences
13. The human dimension of electro-sensitivity is tragic. People with the
condition call me and other building biologists in ever increasing numbers. In
many cases, people who used the technology “normally” and had no medical issues
suddenly become ill. They share with me the overwhelming and life-altering
changes confronting them when they or their children become sick. They literally
beg us to help them return to a normal life.
189 591
14.These people endure tremendous physical suffering. Frequent and
debilitating headaches. Inability to sleep. Heart arrhythmia. Pain in extremities.
Burning skin. Mental confusion, cognitive problems, and memory loss. Non-stop
ringing in the ears. Persistent nosebleeds are also common, especially with
children. For many the symptoms are disabling and prevent them from functioning.
They endure social isolation. They cannot work, go or be anywhere. Their lives are
becoming increasingly impossible. In addition, they have to deal with ignorant and
cruel denial of their condition because their sickness is an inconvenient problem to
those promoting wireless technology.
15.The problem is real and overwhelming. BBI’s certified practitioners
operate at ground zero. They alleviate the suffering of a rapidly growing number of
people across the United States. Building Biologists often care for clients who are
severely ill and desperately struggling simply to survive even in their own homes.
For these individuals and their families, the implementation of mitigative measures
recommended by BBI’s certified consultants offer the first and last resort. For
these clients and thousands like them, the services of Building Biologists are
lifesaving.
16.Many of our clients are unable to work because places of employment
are saturated with wireless devices. They are unable to drive to work because
roadways are flanked by cell towers irradiating passing vehicles with very high and
190 592
ever-growing RF levels. They are unable to live in urban and suburban areas
because houses are being irradiated by ever increasing numbers of cell phone
antennas, neighbors’ wireless devices and – as here – from utility smart meters.
17. However, when remediation reduces pulsed RFR radiation by
shielding the residence, symptoms usually abate or reduce, depending on the initial
power density and the overall ability of the shield.
RF Levels
18. The levels of pulsed RF radiation we measure (shown in power
density) are usually well below the FCC guidelines. However, power density is
still significantly millions and trillions of times above natural environmental
levels,5 and sometimes millions and more times higher than the levels that can
cause adverse health effects reported in peer-reviewed research.
19. The FCC guidelines are not biologically-based and not evidence-
based. The FCC guidelines do not address non-thermal effects or pulsation and
they average exposure over 30 minutes (which hides the true biological response to
exposure) and test for exposure from only one device. They do not protect from
chronic long-term exposure or from exposure to multiple devices, radiation
sources, frequencies, and modulations. They do not protect the public health, or at

5 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-
3/fulltext.
191 593
least not for a significant part of the population. Our clients are the evidence, and
the growing sickness is a clear proof this is so.
20. The FCC’s averaging does not account for pulsed digital signals
occurring in milliseconds. Therefore, they vastly underate the power density
(typically measured in milliwatts per square centimeter, or mW/cm2) that the
human body must deal with on account of unremitting exposure to pulsed,
modulated radiofrequency radiation. We see the peaks and pulses hidden by
averaging, and witness first-hand what it does to people. BBI practitioners measure
the aggregate RF exposure on the human body when in clients’ homes.
Shielding
21. Those affected by RF/EMF face a living hell. They cannot be or go
anywhere. Their home is their only refuge. Even this refuge is constantly under
threat, and many are required to shield their homes. Reducing RF levels enough to
be effective is a costly process. Unfortunately, the expense prevents many people
from effecting the best remediation plan or any plan at all.
22. Shielding is expensive because the shielding materials are metal
based, as metal blocks radiation. For example, shielding a parent’s queen size bed
with an RF protection tent ranges from $1,250 to $1,700 depending on the
shielding capability of the material. Shielding a child’s single bed will cost
between $1,000 to $1,400. Instead, it is possible to shield the bedroom itself by
192 594
painting the walls with RF protection paint and putting RF protection film on the
windows instead of tenting the bed. The cost for an average 12’ x 12’ bedroom is
$2,450. A family with two children would have to spend about $7,350.
23.Building Biologists focus on shielding sleeping areas because this is
where people are most vulnerable to RF radiation. But this alone does not
adequately protect people who are home all day.
24.Whole-house RF Radiation reduction requires painting the outside of
the house and the inside ceiling on the top floor with an RF protection paint. The
cost for 2,000 square feet is approximately $14,000. This cost is for two coats of
paint. But with growing RF levels, three coats are often needed, so the cost is
higher.
25.Metal reflects RF back into a shielded area. Therefore, whenever these
materials are applied, a careful analysis is required to ensure the materials do not
actually increase exposure. Shielding requires experts to do the job and this
increases total cost.
26.People sick from environmental exposure should not be forced to be
exposed in their home to the toxin that makes them severely sick. The considerable
cost of creating a livable environment is unfairly shifted to the injured, who have
no ability to recover from those who caused the injury.
193 595
Shielding & Smart Meters
27.Shielding materials attenuate the radiation, they do not entirely block
it. Reducing exposure enough to have a salutary effect is becoming increasingly
difficult because of the densification of wireless infrastructure including 5G, and
because home devices are becoming more powerful.
28.Smart Meters are without a doubt one of the most significant problem
sources. In 2013 I filed a letter with the FCC in response to the agency’s 2013
inquiry whether it should review its 1996 guidelines. I wrote to the FCC that the
most significant frequent initial sensitizing event we have seen over the last two
years has been the installation of smart meters. Now, 8 years later, this is still true.
Smart meters are the most significant sickness agent we must confront. 5G
antennas near homes is yet another major sickness agent, but they, at least, do not
typically also cause conduction through the homes’ over the cage of wiring that
encircles the entire living space– in the walls, ceiling and floor.
29.Smart meters’ antennas send intense RF pulses every few seconds and
these emissions affect the entire house. Proximity of the RF radiation-emitting
source directly impacts our ability to attenuate the radiation, as radiation drops
with distance. Smart meters’ location on or in close proximity to the house is why
they are the worst offenders for those who suffer from pulsed RFR.
194 596
30. The radiation from meters installed further away from the house still
creates RF inside the house. The RF frequencies from the antenna and from the
switch mode power supply are conducted through the house electric wiring. This
pulsed RF radiation enters the living spaces through the floors, walls, and ceilings
and via the power cords on all plugged-in electrical devices.
31. While one can take measures to reduce the radiation from smart
meters’ antennas, shielding from the RF emissions that go into the house electric
wiring system from the RF antenna and from the switch mode power supply
(SMPS) is complex, expensive, and not very effective.
32. There are filters that help reduce the RF “noise” created by the
meter’s switch mode power supply that conducts through the electric wiring.
However, some are very expensive. Others emit high magnetic fields that are also
problematic for those who are sick. Filters provide only partial solution as many
reduce higher frequencies while creating new, lower frequencies that are below the
typical measurement range of the meter.
33. Shielding is used to block radiation coming from the outside.
Shielding materials should be installed only when no pulsed RF-based wireless
devices are in the house.6 Otherwise, the shielding would be counterproductive and

6 Part of our remediation includes eliminating all other emission sources inside the
house, including things like SMPS used in laptop computers or other electronic
devices or wireless “Internet of Things” devices. Our clients can control such
195 597
even increase exposure because the inside-home emissions become “trapped”
within the house because of the shielding. For that reason, shielding the house from
outside sources can aggravate the problem caused by smart and digital meters.
34.A smart or digital meter on a house with resident adults and children
who adversely react to RF/EMF harms them both directly and indirectly. They
directly suffer from the meter effects, and they cannot shield emissions from the
outside like from cell towers, or neighbors’ smart meters and Wi-Fi networks.
Conclusion
35.People are being told that wireless technology is safe. That smart
meters are safe. They trust the government and the equipment manufacturers to
have their best interests and safety at heart. Nothing is further from the truth as the
recent case of the Children’s Health Defense against the FCC exposed. We see the
devastating sickness daily in our work. We hope this court will protect those who
need it the most.
36.The only reasonable accommodation for those who suffer from pulsed
RF radiation is an analog meter. They are the only meters that do not emit RFs and
do not aggravate the situation of those whose life is already a torturous nightmare.
Analog meters are inexpensive, last much, much longer than digital meters - they
things. But they cannot control what the smart or digital meter does nor can they
turn it off.
196 598
cost less than $100, and they have served us reliably for many decades. There
cannot be any justified reason not to accommodate the sick when the solution
exists.
cost less than $100, and they have served us reliably for many decades. There
cannot be any justified reason not to accommodate the sick when the solution
exists.
cost less than $100, and they have served us reliably for many decades. There
cannot be any justified reason not to accommodate the sick when the solution
exists.
197 599
RECEIVED
2023 SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 5:25PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
600
Samuel & Peggy Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave.
Rexburg, ID 83440
208-270-7937
[e-mail]
In Sui Juris
IN THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al, CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04;
APPELLANTS, ) PAC-E-23-05; PAC-E-23-06;
vs. ) PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08;
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AND PAC-E-23-11
AND PACIFICORP, )
d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
RESPONDENTS. )
TO: THE ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENTS: PACIFICORP d/b/a ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER ("COMPANY") AND THE PARTY'S ATTORNEYS:
NAME: JOE DALLAS
ADDRESS: 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
NAME: MARK ALDER
ADDRESS: 1407 West North Temple, Suite 330
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
AND THE SECRETARY OF THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
MS. JAN NORIYUKI.
601
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1.The above named appellants appeal against the above named
Respondents to the Idaho Supreme Court from Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Order #35904 recorded on the 25th day of August 2023,
signed by President Eric Anderson, Commissioner John R. Hammond Jr.,
and Commissioner Edward Lodge. A copy of the order (#35904) being
appealed is attached to this notice, as well as a copy of the order (#35849)
which preceded it. Hereafter, the term 'Appellants' in this Notice refers
particularly to Case No. PAC-E-23-05 of Samuel and Peggy Edwards.
2.Appellants have a right to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, and the
orders described in paragraph 1 above are appealable orders under and
pursuant to Idaho Code§ 61-627 and Rule 11 (e), I.A.R.
3.Orders #35904 and #35849 have carefully avoided key legal issues raised
by the Appellants, which are first: that merely objecting to installation of
advanced metering infrastructure ("AMI meter") at their residence is
grounds for denial or termination of service under IDAPA 31.21.01 (Utility
Customer Relations Rules, UCRR 302). The Appellants have stated and
repeated this objection on multiple occasions:
a.Complaint, received 23 March 2023: "We have attempted over and
over again, in good faith to resolve all issues with ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP which have led up to this point
where they are now threatening to shut our power off, in spite of the
fact that access to the meter has never been impeded for service
and that we have always paid our power bill each month and are
currently not late with payment. They, in turn, are the aggressor
operating in bad faith, using strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat,
602
duress, and coercion in order to upgrade the meter without
consideration for the will, privacy or medical effects which this
upgrade would have upon us, the property owners."
b.Objection to Motion to Dismiss, received 22 May 2023: "CLAIM ...
our family has fulfilled our contract responsibilities for electric
service and not given reason for termination of service as described
by Utility Customer Relations Rules (UCRR) 302."
c.Also stated in Objection to Motion to Dismiss: "Our meter is not
damaged, and we have provided company representatives with
safe, unencumbered access for the purposes required in Electric
Service Regulation No. 6. Yet, ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP has threatened our family with service
disconnection because we wish to decline ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP's "Advanced Metering Infrastructure" (AMI)
program. Termination of our family's service is not justified by
UCRR 302."
d.Petition for Reconsideration, received 31 July 2023: "Is declining
replacement of our meter with a meter of substantively different
capability equivalent to denying access to the meter, per UCRR
302? Where is the law that authorizes ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP to disconnect our electric power?"
4. Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") has found that "refusing
to allow the Company's representatives access to replace existing meters
with AMI meters is a violation of the [Electric Service Regulation, ESR]
agreed to as a condition of receiving the Company's service." The
Appellants disagree. Agreeing to installation of AMI meters is not one of
the purposes listed in ESR 6(2)(d) "reading meters, inspecting, repairing or
removing metering devices and wiring of the Company", and is only
loosely inferred in ESR No. 7(1) "repairing or removing metering devices".
603
5.Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, assuming the Commission's
finding is correct, the second legal issue is whether violating UCRR 302 is
grounds for termination of electrical service under IDAPA 31.21.01?
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP has alleged, but never
proven, that Appellants have denied or willfully prevented the utility's
access to the meter, stating that "refusing a meter upgrade is not safe and
unencumbered access". The fact is that Appellants have never denied any
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP representatives physical
access to the meters. Further, the Commission has never found as a
matter of fact that Appellants are refusing access to the meter.
6.Third, as a matter of law, is objecting to the installation of AMI meters the
legal and factual equivalent of denying physical access to the meter, given
that Appellants have never prevented the Company from physically
accessing the meter -as evidenced in the original Complaint (particularly
pictures and notarized statements of two neighbors) and by regular and
full monthly payments based on the Company's readings of the meters?
7.No order has been entered sealing all or any portion of the record.
8.Is a reporter's transcript requested? No.
9.The Appellants request that the Commission Secretary file this Notice of
Appeal and case record PAC-E-23-05 with the Idaho Supreme Court,
including all documentation listed under Rule 28(b)(3), I.A.R., including
"Objection to Motion to Dismiss" dated 5/22/2023 and "Objection to
PACIFICORP Answer" dated 8/8/2023.
10.1 certify:
(a)That the estimated fee for preparation of the agency's record has
been paid.
604
(b)That the appellate filing fee has been paid.
(c)That service has been made upon all parties required to be
served pursuant to Rule 20.
DATED THIS 28th day of September , 2023 .
Samuel Z. Edwards, Sui Juris
605
ORDER NO. 35849 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 11, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al,
COMPLAINANTS,
vs.
PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER,
RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-
23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07;
PAC-E-23-08; AND PAC-E-23-11
ORDER NO. 35849
Between March 22, 2023, and March 27, 2023, the Commission received six formal
customer complaints (collectively the “Complaints”)1 filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power (“Company”) by the Company’s customers (collectively the “Complainants”).
The Complaints concern the Company’s notification to terminate electric service if customers
refuse to allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters (“AMI meter(s)”) at
their residences.
On April 19, 2023, the Commission issued a Summons directing the Company to file an
answer to the Complaints within 21 days of service. On May 10, 2023, the Company filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss (“Answer”) countering the issues cited in the Complaints and
asking that the Complaints be dismissed with prejudice.
On May 22, 2023, the Commission received five objections to the Company’s request for
dismissal and two “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”2
Having reviewed the record in these cases, we now issue this Final Order dismissing the
Complaints.
THE COMPLAINTS
In their Complaints, the Complainants presented various reasons for not wanting an AMI
meter installed on their property including the age and health of the complainants, a claimed lack
of legal authority allowing the Company to install AMI meters, and concerns over data privacy.
Some Complainants also requested the ability to opt-out of having an AMI meter. Five of the
1 The Complaints were filed by the Company’s electric service customers Jacoba H. van Mastright, Samuel and Peggy
Edwards, Judy Twede, Karen Lane, Christy Armbruster, and Diane Huskinson. The Complainants all appeared pro se.
2 Jacoba H. van Mastrigt and Judy Twede filed the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”
606
ORDER NO. 35849 2
Complainants refused to have an AMI meter installed on their residence, the sixth provided consent
to allow an AMI meter to be installed but alleged that the consent was unlawfully obtained. Several
of the Complainants presented almost identical “Factual Counts” that allege that the Company: (1)
breached the peace by attempting to install AMI meters on their residence; (2) attempted extortion
of Complainant’s will; (3) impaired contracts; (4) attempted extortion by trying to take over the
Complainant’s private property for commercial use; (5) attempted illegal wiretapping; and (6)
threatened the Complainant’s with intent to commit harm. Some of the complainants allege
additional “Factual Counts” of (1) gross and hazardous negligence; and (2) “actionable fraud.”
Two of the Complainants also alleged the Company was committing elder abuse.3
The Complainants all asserted that they have attempted in good faith to resolve their issues
with the Company regarding the deployment of AMI meters, and the Complainants alleged the
Company is operating in bad faith, and using strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat, duress, and
coercion. See, e.g., Complaint of Jacoba H. van Mastrigt at 1. The Complainants also argued that
they have paid their bills for electric service they receive from the Company on time.
Several of the Complainants argued the Company only has the authority to enter their
properties for specific reasons (i.e., meter reading) and that any other access must be authorized
by the property owner for certain matters including troubleshooting and making repairs to
electrical equipment. The Complainants further claim they do allow the Company to access their
properties to read meters but are not granting the Company access to exchange meters.
COMPANY ANSWER
The Company responded to the Complaints by first describing the notification process it
engaged in and its discussions of alternatives for customers who did not want an AMI meter on
their residences. Then the Company described the allegations and requests made by the
Complainants. Lastly, the Company answered the Complaints lodged against its AMI meter roll-
out and moved to dismiss the Complaints with prejudice.
Communication
The Company represented that it started deploying AMI meters in Idaho in the fall of 2021
and has since completed over 84,000 exchanges. The Company stated that it communicated with
customers during AMI meter deployment with “letters, emails, and outbound phone calls
3 Most of these claims are civil tort claims or criminal. The Commission is not the appropriate body to the extent the
Complaints seek any damages or the imposition of criminal liability.
607
ORDER NO. 35849 3
informing customers of the Company’s AMI installation process.” Company Answer at 3. The
Company asserted that “AMI allows for cost savings by reducing meter reading costs and provides
improved customer service through enhanced information and billing options.” Id. During the
deployment of the AMI meters, the Company stated that about 160 customers objected to the
installation of AMI meters, and the Company then worked with those customers to reach a
resolution. The Company explained it “was willing accommodate customers by relocating the AMI
[meter] to a different location of the property” at the customer’s expense. Id. at 4. The Company
represented it “expressed a willingness to continue working directly with these customers to find
a resolution. However, keeping their current meter is not an option for any of our customers in
Idaho, and disconnection of service will only be used as a last resort after proper notice has been
provided.” Id. The Company represented that it successfully resolved the concerns of 110 of the
customers who had initially objected, and the Company exchanged those meters. Id.
For the 50 remaining customers, the Company represented that it began to formally notify
them that, pursuant to the Utility Customer Relations Rules (“UCRR”), their service would be
terminated if they continued to refuse the installation of an AMI meter. Id. The Company cited
UCRR 302, IDAPA 31.21.01.302, which allows for termination of service if meter access is
denied, as the Company’s primary argument for its formal process to begin disconnection. Id.
Along with UCRR 302, the Company cited UCRRs 304 and 305, IDAPA 31.21.01.304-.305, for
the notification requirements to disconnect a customer under UCRR 302. Id.
The Company asserted it sent an initial letter (“First Letter”) to the customers who refused
the meter exchange informing them of the Company’s inability to access the meter for a meter
exchange, and the Company followed that letter with additional correspondence (“Second Letter”)
providing an explanation of the benefits and customer privacy protections afforded by AMI meters.
Id. at 5 and 7-8. The Company then sent a final letter (“Final Letter”) notifying customers that their
service would be terminated. The Company also stated that the Second and Final Letters informed
customers, including the Complainants, how to avoid termination of service. Id. The Company
represented that the Final Letter also stated that “a certificate notifying the utility of a serious
illness or medical emergency in the household may delay termination of service as prescribed by
Rule 308.” Id. Finally, the Company stated that its employees began delivering notices in person
and attempting to resolve the issues customers cited regarding AMI meters before it planned on
terminating service. Id. at 8.
608
ORDER NO. 35849 4
Answer and Motion
The Company: (1) denied all factual allegations in the Complaints that were not admitted
in its Answer; (2) explained its belief that industry standards have determined AMI meters do not
provide a threat of harm to customers; and (3) claimed that the required UCRR notices it sent to
customers who refused access were not threats and the Company did not violate any contract,
procedure, rule or law with its requirement for AMI meter installations. The Company asked the
Commission to dismiss the Complaints with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
The Company denied using “threats, duress, or coercion to induce Complainants to accept
AMI [meter] installation.” Id. at 7. The Company discussed its communication efforts where it
ultimately warned customers that without access to meters, the Company would initiate the
termination process and terminate service if unable to resolve the issue of meter access. The
Company noted that those communications were “developed in accordance with the UCRR’s
approved by the Commission…” and merely warned customers of the possibilities if access was
refused. Id at 8.
The Company maintained that it is allowed to terminate customers’ service if not allowed
to access the meters, and without an opt-out in Idaho, that is the only option available. The
Company stated that it did discuss alternatives available to customers like relocating the new AMI
meter on the customer’s property.
The Company cited Electric Service Regulation (“ESR”) No. 6(2)(d), which provides that
“[t]he Customer shall provide safe, unencumbered access to Company’s representatives at
reasonable times, for the purpose of reading meters, inspecting, repairing or removing metering
devices and wiring of the Company,” and which its customers agree to as a condition of service.
Id. at 9 quoting ESR No. 6(2)(d). The Company disputed the assertion in the Complaints that the
Company does have physical access to the meters stating that “refusing a meter upgrade is not safe
and unencumbered access” under ESR 6(2)(d). Id. Further the Company stated that ESR No. 7
requires the Company “to furnish and maintain all meters and other metering equipment” and does
not prohibit or proscribe a specific type of meter. Id. quoting ESR No. 7.
The Company discussed the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC”) jurisdiction
over devices emitting radio frequency, like AMI meters. The Company represents that the FCC
ensures the safety of these devices pursuant to “the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
among other laws.” Id. at 10.
609
ORDER NO. 35849 5
The Company also asserted “[i]ndustry research and standards agencies, such as the
American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. (“IEEE”) have compiled the research” concerning exposure to radio frequencies
energy and created guidelines that the FCC and federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration have adopted. Id. The Company stated those standards define the maximum
permissible exposure (“MPE”) standards and the two categories they are assigned to, the controlled
and uncontrolled environments. Id. The uncontrolled environment applies to the general public,
like residential homes, and includes heightened safety requirements by FCC standards. The MPE
for the controlled environment is 5:1, meaning the FCC’s MPE limit for the general public is 50X
less than research shows can cause harm to humans. Id. at 11.
The Company discussed the history of AMI meters in Idaho and represented that the
Company is the last major electric utility to install this infrastructure. The Company noted that
AMI meters first became available almost 20 years ago. The Company cited previous cases for
Avista, Idaho Power, and itself where the Commission dismissed complaints about AMI and/or
denied a request to require public utilities to provide an opt-out provision. Case Nos. PAC-E-22-
09, AVU-E-17-11, and IPC-E-12-04. The Company stated that the Commission has never “ruled
that a public utility’s AMI project, which does not include an opt-out option, violates an
administrative rule, order, statute, or applicable provision of the Company’s tariff.” Id. at 12.
The Company stated the Complaints “do not identify any specific administrative rule,
order, statute, or applicable provision of the Company’s tariff” violated by the Company. Id. at 13.
Further, the Company claimed it acted in compliance with rules and regulations that apply to notice
and termination for complainants’ refusal to grant access to meters.
Objection and Amendments
In their Objection and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (“Objections”), van Mastrigt and
Twede stated that until the Company produces a rule that specifically authorizes termination for
refusing to accept an AMI meter, the Company cannot install the AMI meter or terminate service.
The Objections reiterated several points first addressed in the original Complaints about access,
safety, data acquisition, and trespassing technology. The Objections also argued matters raised in
610
ORDER NO. 35849 6
the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)” filed by each.4 The Objections also ask the
Commission to address all criminal counts they allege have been committed by the Company.
The Commission received various other documents in response to the Company’s Answer
that essentially restated the same claims from the original Complaints and asked the Commission
to reject the Company’s Motion.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code Title 61 and IDAPA
31.01.01. The Commission is charged with determining all rules and regulations of a public utility
are just and reasonable. Idaho Code § 61-303. The Commission is empowered to investigate rates,
charges, rules, regulations, practices, and contracts of all public utilities and to determine whether
they are just, reasonable, preferential, discriminatory, or in violation of any provisions of law, and
to fix the same by order. Idaho Code §§ 61-501 through 503.
The Commission addresses informal and formal complaints through the process outlined
in its administrative rules and does not provide preferential treatment to any party participating in
the process. IDAPA 31.01.01.054 and .057.02. The Commission has had previous opportunities to
review AMI meter complaints and the prevailing scientific research on customer safety, and in
each instance the Commission has concluded that AMI meters do not pose a risk to the safety and
health of customers, comply with Idaho Code § 61-302, and should be allowed in Idaho. See Case
Nos. IPC-E-12-04, AVU-E-17-11, and PAC-E-22-09. The Commission has also recognized that
the FCC has jurisdiction over what constitutes a safe level of radio frequency radiation that is
permitted by AMI meters, and that the FCC has found it to be safe. See Order No. 35544 at 2. The
Commission has also never required a utility to offer an opt-out for AMI meters.
The Complainants in these cases raise similar claims as those previously reviewed and
decided by the Commission, claims that go against well-established evidence on AMI meter safety
and seek an outcome that is not required under state or federal law. As we have stated previously,
the FCC has jurisdiction over the approval of devices that use radio frequency, like AMI meters,
and the FCC has approved AMI meters as safe for consumer use.
The Commission is authorized to ensure that every public utility furnishes service,
instrumentalities, equipment, and facilities as shall promote the safety, health, comfort, and
4 The “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)” generally allege the same facts and “FACTUAL COUNTS” as
the Complaints.
611
ORDER NO. 35849 7
convenience of its customers and the public. Idaho Code § 61-302. The Commission is once again
asked to weigh the FCC’s safety approval of the use of AMI meters and similar devices and
withhold the benefits and efficiencies that customers derive from the use of such devices, and the
history of AMI meter use by electric utilities in Idaho, against the claims presented in the
Complaints.
Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted materials, the
Commission finds that the Complainants have not provided evidence to support a finding that AMI
meters present a legitimate safety concern, or that public utilities in Idaho should be required to
provide an opt-out option for AMI meters.
The Commission finds the record demonstrates that the Company and the Complainants
have been in contact with each other about the issues surrounding the Company’s deployment of
AMI meters. The record also shows that the Company intends to replace meters that it owns, and
the Company has complied with the UCRR through its communications with the Complainants.
We find that refusing to allow the Company’s representatives access to replace existing
meters with AMI meters is a violation of the ESR agreed to as a condition of receiving the
Company’s service. ESR No. 6(2)(d) requires Complainants to provide access to the Company
representatives “for the purposes of . . . [among other things] repairing or removing metering
devices . . . .” Under this ESR, the Company may remove the existing meter to replace it with an
AMI meter. If Complainants refuse to allow the Company to remove the Company-owned meters,
they are violating the ESR. Further, ESR No. 7(1) requires the Company to “furnish and maintain
all meters and metering equipment.” When read together, ESR Nos. 6 and 7 require that the
Company provide its customers with the meter and associated metering equipment and requires
the customer to provide the Company with access to the meter to accomplish this. Based on the
foregoing, the Company has the necessary authority to install an AMI meter on the Complainants’
property in its furnishing of electric service as a public utility.
The Commission also finds that the Company has been clear about its willingness to
relocate AMI meters to a different location on the Complainants’ property at the Complainants’
expense if requested to. ESR No. 12 provides information on the Company’s line extension and
relocation policies. The Commission finds that the Complainants have been offered an opportunity
to resolve this matter, and they have chosen not to do so. The Commission finds that the facts in
612
ORDER NO. 35849 8
these cases do not justify ordering the Company to provide an option to opt-out of receiving an
AMI meter. Accordingly, the Complainants’ Complaints are dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaints filed in the above captioned cases are
dismissed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order regarding any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 11th day of
July 2023.
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_AMI meters_final_dh.docx
613
ORDER NO. 35904 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 25, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al,
COMPLAINANTS,
vs.
PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER,
RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-
23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07;
PAC-E-23-08; AND PAC-E-23-11
ORDER NO. 35904
Between March 22, 2023, and March 27, 2023, the Commission received six formal
customer complaints (collectively the “Complaints”)1 filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power (“Company”) by the Company’s customers (collectively the “Complainants”).
The Complaints concerned the Company’s notification to terminate electric service if the
customers refused to allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters (“AMI
meter(s)”) at their residences. The central theme of the Complaints focused the customers’ desire
to avoid installation of AMI meters at their homes. Reasons cited for not wanting AMI meters
included age and health of the complainants, a child with special needs in proximity to the home’s
meter, lack of legal authority allowing the Company to install the AMI meters, data privacy, and
a request for an opt-out provision.
On April 19, 2023, the Commission issued a Summons directing the Company to file
an answer to the Complaints within 21 days of service. On May 10, 2023, the Company filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss (“Answer”) countering the issues cited in the Complaints and
asking that the Complaints be dismissed with prejudice. Subsequently, the customers filed five
objections to the Company’s request for dismissal and two “AMENDED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT(s).”2
On July 11, 2023, the Commission entered a Final Order dismissing the Complaints.
Order No. 35849. The Final Order provides, in pertinent part:
The Complainants in these cases raise similar claims as those previously reviewed
and decided by the Commission, claims that go against well-established evidence
1 The Complaints were filed by the Company’s electric service customers Jacoba H. van Mastright, Samuel and Peggy
Edwards, Judy Twede, Karen Lane, Christy Armbruster, and Diane Huskinson. The Complainants all appeared pro se.
2 Jacoba H. van Mastrigt and Judy Twede filed the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”
614
ORDER NO. 35904 2
on AMI meter safety and seek an outcome that is not required under state or federal
law. As we have stated previously, the FCC has jurisdiction over the approval of
devices that use radio frequency, like AMI meters, and the FCC has approved AMI
meters as safe for consumer use. . . .
Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted
materials, the Commission finds that the Complainants have not provided evidence
to support a finding that AMI meters present a legitimate safety concern, or that
public utilities in Idaho should be required to provide an opt-out option for AMI
meters. . . .
We find that refusing to allow the Company’s representatives access to replace
existing meters with AMI meters is a violation of the ESR agreed to as a condition
of receiving the Company’s service. ESR No. 6(2)(d) requires Complainants to
provide access to the Company representatives “for the purposes of . . . [among
other things] repairing or removing metering devices . . . .” Under this ESR, the
Company may remove the existing meter to replace it with an AMI meter. If
Complainants refuse to allow the Company to remove the Company-owned meters,
they are violating the ESR. Further, ESR No. 7(1) requires the Company to “furnish
and maintain all meters and metering equipment.” When read together, ESR Nos.
6 and 7 require that the Company provide its customers with the meter and
associated metering equipment and requires the customer to provide the Company
with access to the meter to accomplish this. Based on the foregoing, the Company
has the necessary authority to install an AMI meter on the Complainants’ property
in its furnishing of electric service as a public utility.
Id. In the Final Order, the Commission also found that the Company had communicated its
willingness, upon request, to relocate the AMI meter to a different location on the Complainants’
property at their expense. Accordingly, the Commission determined that the facts in each case did
not justify ordering the Company to provide an option to opt-out of receiving an AMI meter and
dismissed the complaints. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626 and IDAPA 31.01.01.331, the
Complainants were given twenty-one (21) days following entry of the Final Order in which to
petition for reconsideration.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 31, 2023, Complainants Samuel and Peggy Edwards filed a Petition for
Reconsideration (“Petition”) of Order No. 35849.3 The Edwards base their claim that the
Commission erred in Order No. 35849 upon two contentions: (1) that the Commission
3 Mr. Edwards represents that he requested the other complainants refrain from seeking reconsideration to “reduce
confusion or generalization” from consideration of multiple complaints. Pet. for Recon. at 3.
615
ORDER NO. 35904 3
misinterpreted the relevant Electronic Service Regulations (“ESR”) applicable to the Company;
and (2) that requiring 100 percent compliance AMI metering requirement is unreasonable. In their
Petition, the Edwards contend that AMI meters lack surge protection and, therefore, constitute a
“downgrade” from the electromechanical metering already installed at their property. According
to the Edwards, ESR 6(2)(d) does not authorize meter access for purposes of installing technology
to replace that already in place, nor does ESR 7(1) provide the Company sole discretion to replace
a meter with any technology. The Edwards also suggest something less than 100 percent customer
compliance with the Company’s AMI metering initiative would be just and reasonable.
As evidence that AMI meters pose a safety concern, the Edwards attached a document
purporting to be an amicus brief filed by Children’s Health Defense, and Building Biology Institute
in a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Povacz v. Penn. Pub. Utility Comm., 280 A.3d
975 (Pa. 2022).4 Included in an addendum to the purported brief are a “Physicians Statement,”
“Scientists Statement,” and reports by engineers expressing opinions regarding the function and
health risks associated with AMI meters. However, it does not appear that the statements or reports
were given under oath or otherwise certified true and correct under penalty of perjury, nor does the
purported brief bear a file stamp indicating it was in fact filed in the Pennsylvania case.5
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has the authority to grant or deny reconsideration under Idaho Code
§ 61-626(2). Reconsideration provides an opportunity for any interested person to bring to the
Commission’s attention any question previously determined, and thereby affords the Commission
an opportunity to rectify any mistake or omission. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai
Environmental Alliance, 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979); see also Eagle Water
Company v. Idaho PUC, 130 Idaho 314, 317, 940 P.2d 1133, 1136 (1997). Consistent with the
purpose for reconsideration, Commission Rules require a Petition for Reconsideration to specify
“why the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in
conformity with the law.” IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Commission Rule of Procedure 331 further
requires the petitioner to indicate “the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner
4 In Povacz, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed a challenge by electric customers to the installation of AMI
meters (termed “smart meters” in the opinion) on their property. In that case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held
that the customers failed to show that the AMI meters were unsafe or that forced exposure to AMI meters constituted
unreasonable service. Id. at 1009-13.
5 On August 4, 2023, the Company filed an Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration (“Answer”) requesting that it
be denied. On August 8, 2023, the Edwards filed an Objection to the Company’s Answer.
616
ORDER NO. 35904 4
will offer if reconsideration is granted.” Id. A petition must state whether reconsideration should
be conducted by “evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories.” IDAPA
31.01.01.331.03. Grounds for reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that are not supported
by specific explanation may be dismissed. IDAPA 31.01.01.332. As discussed below, the Edwards
have not shown in their Petition that Order No. 35849 (or an issue decided in it) is unreasonable,
unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Nor have the Edwards identified evidence
that warrants granting their petition.
The Edwards’ argument that the Commission misinterpreted the ESR is, at best, a slight
variation of their previous argument that the ESRs do not obligate them to permit the Company to
upgrade their existing meter. Rather than characterizing installation of an AMI meter as an
upgrade, the Edwards contend it would be a downgrade because such meters lack surge protection.
However, the Edwards did not present evidence supporting their conclusory assertion that the AMI
meter the Company seeks to install would lack surge protection, even if the absence of such
protection renders an AMI meter a downgrade in the Edwards’ opinion. More importantly, beyond
the conclusory assertion that “a substantive change of metering capability to residents’ electric
meters” differs from furnishing and maintaining meters and equipment under the ESR, the
Edwards have not supported their argument that the Commission misinterpreted the ESR with
cogent argument or citation to legal authority.
Similarly, the Edwards have failed to show declining customers an opt-out option is
unreasonable. According to the Edwards, failing to allow opt-outs has left disconnection as the
only option open to “a medically sensitive minority of the public.” Ostensibly, the Edwards are
concerned about adverse medical effects resulting from radio frequency (“RF”) radiation that AMI
meters emit. As noted in previous Commission orders (e.g., Order Nos. 32500, 33979, and 35544),
the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has adopted safety limits for RF devices
operating near humans. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, 2.1093. The Edwards do not
contend that the Company intends to install an AMI meter that does not comply with FCC
requirements. Rather, the Edwards ostensibly assert that AMI meters pose a safety concern,
regardless of FCC requirements. In support of this contention, the Edwards attached the
aforementioned amicus brief filed by Children’s Health Defense, and Building Biology Institute.
However, the Edwards have not authenticated the document as being what they claim it to be, nor
does the purported brief bear a file stamp indicating it was in fact filed in the Pennsylvania appeal.
617
ORDER NO. 35904 5
Moreover, although an addendum to the purported brief includes a “Physicians Statement,”
“Scientists Statement,” and reports by engineers expressing opinions regarding the function and
health risks associated with AMI meters, the reports and statements do not appear to have been
given under oath or otherwise certified true and correct under penalty of perjury. Such
unauthenticated and unsworn evidence is insufficient to overcome the conclusions of the FCC
regarding generally safe levels of RF radiation.6 Even if it were, the Edwards have not presented
evidence indicating AMI meters pose a demonstrable, credible health and safety concern to those
residing in their home to suggest that our decision in Order No. 35849 was unreasonable, unlawful,
erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Finally, the Edwards have not addressed why placing
such a meter away from their home as the Company agreed to do would not sufficiently address
their health and safety concerns about and AMI meters.
In sum, despite the sincerity of the Edwards concerns, the Commission will continue
adhering to the FCC’s position on safe levels of RF radiation. Accordingly, the Commission
concludes that the Edwards’ Petition should be denied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved
by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Idaho within forty-two (42) days pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the
Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14.
///
6 In their Petition, the Edwards cite an argument presented in the amicus brief that FCC guidelines cannot support
conclusions regarding RF safety because a federal court remanded a decision by the FCC not to revisit the limits on
RF radiation established in 1996. Specifically, in Env't Health Tr. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, a divided panel of the
D.C. Circuit held that the FCC failed to respond to evidence in the record indicating that exposure to RF radiation
below current FCC limits may case negative health effects unrelated to cancer. 9 F.4th 893, 906 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
Although Environmental Health Trust suggests that relevant scientific knowledge has evolved since the FCC last
updated the limits for RF radiation, the case does not support a claim that RF radiation at, or below, current FCC limits
causes adverse health effects in humans.
618
ORDER NO. 35904 6
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 25th day
of August 2023.
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_AMI meters_recon_at.docx
619
RECEIVED
2023 OCTOBER 9, 2023 5:57PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
620
PER I.AR. 17(M), AMENDED NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1.The above named appellants appealed -as recorded by Idaho Public
Utilities Commission ("Commission") on 28 September -against the
above named Respondents to the Idaho Supreme Court from the
Commission's Order #35904 recorded on the 25th day of August 2023. It
was signed by President Eric Anderson, Commissioner John R. Hammond
Jr., and Commissioner Edward Lodge. A copy of the order (#35904) being
appealed is attached to this notice, as well as a copy of the order (#35849)
which preceded it. Hereafter, the term 'Appellants' in this Notice refers
particularly to Case Numbers PAC-E-23-05 and SUP-E-23-02 of Samuel
and Peggy Edwards.
2.Appellants have a right to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, and the
orders described in paragraph 1 above are appealable orders under and
pursuant to Idaho Code§ 61-627 and Rule 11(e), I.AR.
3.We appeal the orders (#35904 and #35849) of Idaho Public Utilities
Commission which should regulate the electric utilities monopoly
corporation known as ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP in
promotion of the "safety, health, comfort and convenience of its patrons,
employees and the public." Grounds for this appeal are that the
Commission's orders have carefully avoided key legal issues raised by the
Appellants, which are first: that merely objecting to installation of advanced
metering infrastructure ("AMI meter") at their residence is grounds for
denial or termination of service under IDAPA 31.21.01, specifically Utility
Customer Relations Rules, UCRR 302. The Appellants have stated and
repeated this objection on multiple occasions:
621
a.Complaint, received 23 March 2023: "We have attempted over and
over again, in good faith to resolve all issues with ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP which have led up to this point
where they are now threatening to shut our power off, in spite of the
fact that access to the meter has never been impeded for service
and that we have always paid our power bill each month and are
currently not late with payment. They, in turn, are the aggressor
operating in bad faith, using strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat,
duress, and coercion in order to upgrade the meter without
consideration for the will, privacy or medical effects which this
upgrade would have upon us, the property owners."
b.Objection to Motion to Dismiss, received 22 May 2023: "CLAIM ...
our family has fulfilled our contract responsibilities for electric
service and not given reason for termination of service as described
by Utility Customer Relations Rules (UCRR) 302."
c.Also stated in Objection to Motion to Dismiss: "Our meter is not
damaged, and we have provided company representatives with
safe, unencumbered access for the purposes required in Electric
Service Regulation No. 6. Yet, ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP has threatened our family with service
disconnection because we wish to decline ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP's "Advanced Metering Infrastructure" (AMI)
program. Termination of our family's service is not justified by
UCRR 302."
d.Petition for Reconsideration, received 31 July 2023: "Is declining
replacement of our meter with a meter of substantively different
capability equivalent to denying access to the meter, per UCRR
302? Where is the law that authorizes ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP to disconnect our electric power?"
622
4.The Commission has found that "refusing to allow the Company's
representatives access to replace existing meters with AMI meters is a
violation of the [Electric Service Regulation, ESR] agreed to as a condition
of receiving the Company's service." The Appellants disagree. Agreeing to
installation of AMI meters is not one of the purposes listed in ESR 6(2)(d)
"reading meters, inspecting, repairing or removing metering devices and
wiring of the Company", and is only loosely inferred in ESR No. 7(1)
"repairing or removing metering devices".
5.Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, assuming the Commission's
finding is correct, the second legal issue is whether violating UCRR 302 is
grounds for termination of electrical service under IDAPA 31.21.01?
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP has alleged, but never
proven, that Appellants have denied or willfully prevented the utility's
access to the meter, stating that "refusing a meter upgrade is not safe and
unencumbered access". The fact is that Appellants have never denied any
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP representatives physical
access to the meters. Further, the Commission has never found as a
matter of fact that Appellants are refusing access to the meter.
6.Third, as a matter of law, is objecting to the installation of AMI meters the
legal and factual equivalent of denying physical access to the meter, given
that Appellants have never prevented the Company from physically
accessing the meter -as evidenced in the original Complaint (particularly
pictures and notarized statements of two neighbors) and by regular and
full monthly payments based on the Company's readings of the meters?
7.No order has been entered sealing all or any portion of the record.
8.Is a reporter's transcript requested? No.
623
9.The Appellants request that the Commission Secretary file this Notice of
Appeal and case records SUP-E-23-02 and PAC-E-23-05 with the Idaho
Supreme Court, including all documentation listed under Rule 28(b)(3),
I.AR., including particularly:
a."Objection to Motion to Dismiss" dated 5/22/2023
b."Objection to PACIFICORP Answer" dated 8/8/2023
c.Our email of 9/27/2023 notifying the Commission Secretary and
representatives of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP of
Final Notices served to appellants, and its attachment: the file­
stamped Amicus Curiae Briefing mentioned (and dismissed) in
Order 35904
d."Answer to Motion" dated 10/9/2023
10.1 certify:
(a)That the estimated fee for preparation of the agency's record has
been paid.
(b)That the appellate filing fee has been paid.
(c)That service has been made upon all parties required to be
served pursuant to Rule 20.
DATED THIS 9th day of October , 2023 .
624
October 9, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W Chinden Blvd.
Building 8 Suite 201A
Boise, ID 83714
RE: ANSWER TO MOTION AND AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
Dear Ms. Noriyuki:
Please find enclosed our Answer to Motion and our Amended Notice of Appeal of
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Order #35904.
Informal inquiries may contact us at 208-2~0-7937. We are also available via
email at [e-mail].
Respectfully,
RECEIVED
2023 OCTOBER 9, 2023 5:53PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
625
Samuel & Peggy Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave.
Rexburg, ID 83440
208-270-7937
[e-mail]
In Sui Juris, a son and daughter of God.
IN THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Jacoba H. Van Mastrigt, et al, ) CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04;
Appellants, ) PAC-E-23-05; PAC-E-23-06;
vs. ) PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08;
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ) AND PAC-E-23-11
AND PACIFICORP, )
d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, ) ANSWER TO MOTION
RESPONDENTS. )
As Idaho Public Utilities Commission ('Commission') considers the Deputy
Attorney General's recommendation, dated 10 October 2023, to change the title
of our Notice of Appeal, we offer a counterpoint for consideration. We noted in
our PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, received by the Commission on 31
July 2023, that packaging six different complaints resulted in a single FINAL
ORDER that "overlooks material substance of our Complaint". A common theme
reflected in most of the six complaints is that each objects to ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP installing advanced metering infrastructure
("AMI meter") at our residences while simultaneously not impeding access and
continuing to pay utility bills. Therefore, the legal question for which we have
appealed to Idaho Supreme Court materially affects the other appellants included
in the current 'Notice of Appeal' title, despite the Commission having closed their
626
individual cases. That legal question is whether merely objecting to installation of
an AMI meter at their residence is grounds for denial or termination of service
under IDAPA 31.21.01? (see paragraph #3 of our Notice of Appeal)
Given that the six different cases were bundled together and received the same
Orders (#35904 and #35849) at the convenience of the Commission, how is
separating these cases during this appeal respectful of Idaho citizens' rights to
due process of law? It would seem that separating other appellants from the
Notice of Appeal would now compound the error, since appellants have a mutual
interest to retain an electric utility connection in the face of approaching winter
and premature disconnection would risk lawsuit, property damage and lives. The
Commission and ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP representatives
were notified on 9/27/2023 -the same email in which we submitted the Amicus
Curiae briefing with requested file stamp -that ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP lost no time after Order #35904 with issuing Final Notices
to us (and all appellants) that our electric utility connection would be terminated
on 2 October 2023. Since our power has not yet been disconnected, ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP must have taken notice that our appeals are
bound together with one voice and the same legal question already mentioned.
The monopoly corporation known as ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP has already revealed their intention to disconnect utility
service of appellants prior to winter. We think this would be a most unfortunate
mistake and a violation of Idaho Code 61-302: "every public utility shall furnish,
provide and maintain such service, instrumentalities, equipment and facilities as
shall promote the safety, health, comfort and convenience of its patrons,
employees and the public, and as shall be in all respects adequate, efficient, just
and reasonable."
Further, Idaho Appellate Rule (I.AR.) No. 6 states that "the original title of an
action or proceeding, with the names of the parties in the same order, shall be
retained on appeal by adding the designations of 'appellant' and 'respondent."'
627
The only title deviation made in our Notice of Appeal was to include Idaho Public
Utilities Commission as a co-respondent with ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the Commission
deny the Deputy Attorney General's recommendation to "correct the title of the
appeal as recommended by Staff." If the Commission is not required to be a co­
respondent or other appellants must be removed, then we are assured by I.AR.
#6 that "the Supreme Court may amend a title of an appeal or proceeding before
it at any time."
By the way, we have noticed that the Amicus Curiae Briefing which we mention
above has not yet been entered into our Case Record. Also, we noticed that the
(now closed) cases of Jacoba H. Van Mastrigt (PAC-E-23-04) and Judy Twede
(PAC-E-23-06) omit the Notices of Violation and Notices of Demand that were
served to Commissioners and Mr. Gary Hoogeveen (CEO of ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP), with copies to the Deputy Attorney
Generals and Rocky Mountain Power/Pacificorp's lawyers. Such omissions to
our case records seem to be correlated with the subsequent attempt to
separate/close our cases. In respect of your oaths of office, we demand that
complete case records be provided to the Idaho Supreme Court, consistent with
our rights to due process.
Since the Commission has opened a new case for our Appeal documentation, an
amended 'Notice of Appeal' is herein attached, per I.AR 17(m), to request that
the Commission Secretary include case record SUP-E-23-02, along with PAC-E-
23-05, to the Idaho Supreme Court.
DATED THIS 9th day of October , 2023 .
628
DECISION MEMORANDUM 1
DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSIONER HAMMOND
COMMISSIONER LODGE
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM: ADAM TRIPLETT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2023
SUBJECT: SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS’ APPEAL OF ORDER NO. 35904 TO
THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT; IPUC CASE NO. SUP-E-23-02.
On September 28, 2023, Samuel and Peggy Edwards filed a Notice of Appeal from Order
No. 35904 in Case No. PAC-E-23-05. The appeal is currently titled “JACOBA H. VAN
MASTRIGT, et al, APPELLANTS, vs. IADHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AND
PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, RESPONDENTS.” The caption of the
Notice of Appeal also lists the case numbers of the other five formal complaints that were
consolidated simultaneously with the Edwards’ complaint (Case No. PAC-E-23-05).1 Per Idaho
Appellate Rule 6, and Idaho Public Utilities Commission Rules of Procedure 343, the agency may,
by order, correct the title of an appeal at any time before the agency’s record is lodged with the
Idaho Supreme Court.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission issue an order correcting the title of the appeal to
“SAMUEL and PEGGY EDWARDS, Appellants, v. IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION and PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER COMPANY,
Respondents on Appeal” and deleting the other five case numbers relating to the cases that were
consolidated with the Edward’s complaint to better reflect the parties’ positions on appeal. Staff
also recommends that the Commission’s order direct the Commission Secretary to file a copy of
the order with the Idaho Supreme Court.
1 The Commission Processed this case along with Case Nos. PAC-E-23-04, PAC-E-23-06, PAC-E-23-07, PAC-E-23-
08, and 11 and issued Final Order No. 35849 dismissing each. Only Case No. PAC-E-23-05 was reconsidered by the
Commission and thus is the only case that can be appealed.
629
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to issue an order:
1)Correcting the title of the appeal as recommended by Staff, and
2)Directing the Commission Secretary to file a copy of the order with the Idaho Supreme
Court?
Adam Triplett
Deputy Attorney General
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\SUP-E-23-02\SUPE2302_dec1_at.docx
630
P.O. Box 83720, Boise, Idaho 83720-0074 Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Suite 201-A, Boise, Idaho 83714
October 16, 2023
Via E-Mail and Interagency Mail
[e-mail]
Melanie Gagnepain
Clerk of the Courts
Supreme Court
451 W. State Street
Boise, Idaho 83720-0101
Re: PUC Clerk’s Certificate of Appeal
Supreme Court Docket No.: ______________
Dear Ms. Gagnepain,
Enclosed for your information and action is the Clerk’s Certificate of Appeal from the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission. Also enclosed is Samuel and Peggy Edwards’ Notice
of Appeal filed on September 28, 2023, the Amended Notice of Appeal filed on October
9, 2023, and the $94 filing fee.
I have also enclosed copies of the two PUC Orders appealed from: Final Order No. 35849
and Reconsideration Order No. 35904.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Enclosures
cc: Adam Triplett, Deputy Attorney General
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter\SUP-E-23-02\SC_CvrLtr_20231016.docx
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
631
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL – 1
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al,
COMPLAINANTS,
vs.
PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER,
RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Supreme Court Docket
No. ________________
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Case Nos. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-23-
05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07;
PAC-E-23-08; and PAC-E-23-11
Appeal from the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, The Honorable Eric Anderson presiding.
Case Number from Idaho Public Utilities Commission: PAC-E-23-05
Order or Judgment Appealed from: Final Order No. 35849 and Final Reconsideration Order
No. 35904
Attorney for Appellant: N/A
Samuel and Peggy Edwards, pro se
333 Shoshone Ave.
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
[e-mail]
Attorney for Respondent Idaho Public Utilities Commission:
Adam Triplett
Deputy Attorney General
P. O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
[e-mail]
Attorney for Respondent PacifiCorp:
Joe Dallas
Senior Attorney
Rocky Mountain Power
825 NE Multnomah, Ste. 2000
Portland, OR 97232
[e-mail]
632
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL – 2
Appealed by: Samuel and Peggy Edwards
Appealed against: Idaho Public Utilities Commission and PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky
Mountain Power
Notice of Appeal Filed: September 28, 2023
Amended Notice of Appeal filed: October 9, 2023
Notice of Cross-appeal Filed: N/A
Amended Notice of Cross-appeal Filed: N/A
Appellate Fee Paid: $94.00 (October 2, 2023)
Respondent or Cross-Respondent’s Appeal Request for Additional Record Filed: N/A
Respondent or Cross-Respondent’s Request for Additional Reporter’s Transcript Filed:
N/A
Was Agency Reporter’s Transcript Requested: No
Estimated Number of Pages: N/A
If so, name of each reporter of whom a transcript has been requested as named below at
the address set out below: N/A
Dated this 16th day of October 2023.
________________________________
Jan Noriyuki
Secretary of the Public Utilities Commission
633
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF APPEAL – 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 16th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023, SERVED
THE FOREGOING Clerk’s Certificate of Appeal, in IPUC Case No. PAC-E-23-05, ON THE
FOLLOWING PERSONS, AS INDICATED BELOW:
Appellants, pro se:
Samuel and Peggy Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave.
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
E-Mail to [e-mail]
Respondent, PacifiCorp:
Joe Dallas
825 NE Multnomah, Ste. 2000
Portland, OR 97232
E-Mail to [e-mail]
[e-mail]
__________________________
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
634
RECEIVED
2023 SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 5:25PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
635
Samuel & Peggy Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave.
Rexburg, ID 83440
208-270-7937
[e-mail]
In Sui Juris
IN THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al, CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04;
APPELLANTS, ) PAC-E-23-05; PAC-E-23-06;
vs. ) PAC-E-23-07; PAC-E-23-08;
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AND PAC-E-23-11
AND PACIFICORP, )
d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
RESPONDENTS. )
TO: THE ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENTS: PACIFICORP d/b/a ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER ("COMPANY") AND THE PARTY'S ATTORNEYS:
NAME: JOE DALLAS
ADDRESS: 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
NAME: MARK ALDER
ADDRESS: 1407 West North Temple, Suite 330
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
AND THE SECRETARY OF THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
MS. JAN NORIYUKI.
636
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1.The above named appellants appeal against the above named
Respondents to the Idaho Supreme Court from Idaho Public Utilities
Commission Order #35904 recorded on the 25th day of August 2023,
signed by President Eric Anderson, Commissioner John R. Hammond Jr.,
and Commissioner Edward Lodge. A copy of the order (#35904) being
appealed is attached to this notice, as well as a copy of the order (#35849)
which preceded it. Hereafter, the term 'Appellants' in this Notice refers
particularly to Case No. PAC-E-23-05 of Samuel and Peggy Edwards.
2.Appellants have a right to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, and the
orders described in paragraph 1 above are appealable orders under and
pursuant to Idaho Code§ 61-627 and Rule 11 (e), I.A.R.
3.Orders #35904 and #35849 have carefully avoided key legal issues raised
by the Appellants, which are first: that merely objecting to installation of
advanced metering infrastructure ("AMI meter") at their residence is
grounds for denial or termination of service under IDAPA 31.21.01 (Utility
Customer Relations Rules, UCRR 302). The Appellants have stated and
repeated this objection on multiple occasions:
a.Complaint, received 23 March 2023: "We have attempted over and
over again, in good faith to resolve all issues with ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP which have led up to this point
where they are now threatening to shut our power off, in spite of the
fact that access to the meter has never been impeded for service
and that we have always paid our power bill each month and are
currently not late with payment. They, in turn, are the aggressor
operating in bad faith, using strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat,
637
duress, and coercion in order to upgrade the meter without
consideration for the will, privacy or medical effects which this
upgrade would have upon us, the property owners."
b.Objection to Motion to Dismiss, received 22 May 2023: "CLAIM ...
our family has fulfilled our contract responsibilities for electric
service and not given reason for termination of service as described
by Utility Customer Relations Rules (UCRR) 302."
c.Also stated in Objection to Motion to Dismiss: "Our meter is not
damaged, and we have provided company representatives with
safe, unencumbered access for the purposes required in Electric
Service Regulation No. 6. Yet, ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP has threatened our family with service
disconnection because we wish to decline ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP's "Advanced Metering Infrastructure" (AMI)
program. Termination of our family's service is not justified by
UCRR 302."
d.Petition for Reconsideration, received 31 July 2023: "Is declining
replacement of our meter with a meter of substantively different
capability equivalent to denying access to the meter, per UCRR
302? Where is the law that authorizes ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP to disconnect our electric power?"
4. Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") has found that "refusing
to allow the Company's representatives access to replace existing meters
with AMI meters is a violation of the [Electric Service Regulation, ESR]
agreed to as a condition of receiving the Company's service." The
Appellants disagree. Agreeing to installation of AMI meters is not one of
the purposes listed in ESR 6(2)(d) "reading meters, inspecting, repairing or
removing metering devices and wiring of the Company", and is only
loosely inferred in ESR No. 7(1) "repairing or removing metering devices".
638
5.Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, assuming the Commission's
finding is correct, the second legal issue is whether violating UCRR 302 is
grounds for termination of electrical service under IDAPA 31.21.01?
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP has alleged, but never
proven, that Appellants have denied or willfully prevented the utility's
access to the meter, stating that "refusing a meter upgrade is not safe and
unencumbered access". The fact is that Appellants have never denied any
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP representatives physical
access to the meters. Further, the Commission has never found as a
matter of fact that Appellants are refusing access to the meter.
6.Third, as a matter of law, is objecting to the installation of AMI meters the
legal and factual equivalent of denying physical access to the meter, given
that Appellants have never prevented the Company from physically
accessing the meter -as evidenced in the original Complaint (particularly
pictures and notarized statements of two neighbors) and by regular and
full monthly payments based on the Company's readings of the meters?
7.No order has been entered sealing all or any portion of the record.
8.Is a reporter's transcript requested? No.
9.The Appellants request that the Commission Secretary file this Notice of
Appeal and case record PAC-E-23-05 with the Idaho Supreme Court,
including all documentation listed under Rule 28(b)(3), I.A.R., including
"Objection to Motion to Dismiss" dated 5/22/2023 and "Objection to
PACIFICORP Answer" dated 8/8/2023.
10.1 certify:
(a)That the estimated fee for preparation of the agency's record has
been paid.
639
(b)That the appellate filing fee has been paid.
(c)That service has been made upon all parties required to be
served pursuant to Rule 20.
DATED THIS 28th day of September , 2023 .
Samuel Z. Edwards, Sui Juris
640
ORDER NO. 35849 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 11, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al,
COMPLAINANTS,
vs.
PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER,
RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-
23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07;
PAC-E-23-08; AND PAC-E-23-11
ORDER NO. 35849
Between March 22, 2023, and March 27, 2023, the Commission received six formal
customer complaints (collectively the “Complaints”)1 filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power (“Company”) by the Company’s customers (collectively the “Complainants”).
The Complaints concern the Company’s notification to terminate electric service if customers
refuse to allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters (“AMI meter(s)”) at
their residences.
On April 19, 2023, the Commission issued a Summons directing the Company to file an
answer to the Complaints within 21 days of service. On May 10, 2023, the Company filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss (“Answer”) countering the issues cited in the Complaints and
asking that the Complaints be dismissed with prejudice.
On May 22, 2023, the Commission received five objections to the Company’s request for
dismissal and two “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”2
Having reviewed the record in these cases, we now issue this Final Order dismissing the
Complaints.
THE COMPLAINTS
In their Complaints, the Complainants presented various reasons for not wanting an AMI
meter installed on their property including the age and health of the complainants, a claimed lack
of legal authority allowing the Company to install AMI meters, and concerns over data privacy.
Some Complainants also requested the ability to opt-out of having an AMI meter. Five of the
1 The Complaints were filed by the Company’s electric service customers Jacoba H. van Mastright, Samuel and Peggy
Edwards, Judy Twede, Karen Lane, Christy Armbruster, and Diane Huskinson. The Complainants all appeared pro se.
2 Jacoba H. van Mastrigt and Judy Twede filed the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”
641
ORDER NO. 35849 2
Complainants refused to have an AMI meter installed on their residence, the sixth provided consent
to allow an AMI meter to be installed but alleged that the consent was unlawfully obtained. Several
of the Complainants presented almost identical “Factual Counts” that allege that the Company: (1)
breached the peace by attempting to install AMI meters on their residence; (2) attempted extortion
of Complainant’s will; (3) impaired contracts; (4) attempted extortion by trying to take over the
Complainant’s private property for commercial use; (5) attempted illegal wiretapping; and (6)
threatened the Complainant’s with intent to commit harm. Some of the complainants allege
additional “Factual Counts” of (1) gross and hazardous negligence; and (2) “actionable fraud.”
Two of the Complainants also alleged the Company was committing elder abuse.3
The Complainants all asserted that they have attempted in good faith to resolve their issues
with the Company regarding the deployment of AMI meters, and the Complainants alleged the
Company is operating in bad faith, and using strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat, duress, and
coercion. See, e.g., Complaint of Jacoba H. van Mastrigt at 1. The Complainants also argued that
they have paid their bills for electric service they receive from the Company on time.
Several of the Complainants argued the Company only has the authority to enter their
properties for specific reasons (i.e., meter reading) and that any other access must be authorized
by the property owner for certain matters including troubleshooting and making repairs to
electrical equipment. The Complainants further claim they do allow the Company to access their
properties to read meters but are not granting the Company access to exchange meters.
COMPANY ANSWER
The Company responded to the Complaints by first describing the notification process it
engaged in and its discussions of alternatives for customers who did not want an AMI meter on
their residences. Then the Company described the allegations and requests made by the
Complainants. Lastly, the Company answered the Complaints lodged against its AMI meter roll-
out and moved to dismiss the Complaints with prejudice.
Communication
The Company represented that it started deploying AMI meters in Idaho in the fall of 2021
and has since completed over 84,000 exchanges. The Company stated that it communicated with
customers during AMI meter deployment with “letters, emails, and outbound phone calls
3 Most of these claims are civil tort claims or criminal. The Commission is not the appropriate body to the extent the
Complaints seek any damages or the imposition of criminal liability.
642
ORDER NO. 35849 3
informing customers of the Company’s AMI installation process.” Company Answer at 3. The
Company asserted that “AMI allows for cost savings by reducing meter reading costs and provides
improved customer service through enhanced information and billing options.” Id. During the
deployment of the AMI meters, the Company stated that about 160 customers objected to the
installation of AMI meters, and the Company then worked with those customers to reach a
resolution. The Company explained it “was willing accommodate customers by relocating the AMI
[meter] to a different location of the property” at the customer’s expense. Id. at 4. The Company
represented it “expressed a willingness to continue working directly with these customers to find
a resolution. However, keeping their current meter is not an option for any of our customers in
Idaho, and disconnection of service will only be used as a last resort after proper notice has been
provided.” Id. The Company represented that it successfully resolved the concerns of 110 of the
customers who had initially objected, and the Company exchanged those meters. Id.
For the 50 remaining customers, the Company represented that it began to formally notify
them that, pursuant to the Utility Customer Relations Rules (“UCRR”), their service would be
terminated if they continued to refuse the installation of an AMI meter. Id. The Company cited
UCRR 302, IDAPA 31.21.01.302, which allows for termination of service if meter access is
denied, as the Company’s primary argument for its formal process to begin disconnection. Id.
Along with UCRR 302, the Company cited UCRRs 304 and 305, IDAPA 31.21.01.304-.305, for
the notification requirements to disconnect a customer under UCRR 302. Id.
The Company asserted it sent an initial letter (“First Letter”) to the customers who refused
the meter exchange informing them of the Company’s inability to access the meter for a meter
exchange, and the Company followed that letter with additional correspondence (“Second Letter”)
providing an explanation of the benefits and customer privacy protections afforded by AMI meters.
Id. at 5 and 7-8. The Company then sent a final letter (“Final Letter”) notifying customers that their
service would be terminated. The Company also stated that the Second and Final Letters informed
customers, including the Complainants, how to avoid termination of service. Id. The Company
represented that the Final Letter also stated that “a certificate notifying the utility of a serious
illness or medical emergency in the household may delay termination of service as prescribed by
Rule 308.” Id. Finally, the Company stated that its employees began delivering notices in person
and attempting to resolve the issues customers cited regarding AMI meters before it planned on
terminating service. Id. at 8.
643
ORDER NO. 35849 4
Answer and Motion
The Company: (1) denied all factual allegations in the Complaints that were not admitted
in its Answer; (2) explained its belief that industry standards have determined AMI meters do not
provide a threat of harm to customers; and (3) claimed that the required UCRR notices it sent to
customers who refused access were not threats and the Company did not violate any contract,
procedure, rule or law with its requirement for AMI meter installations. The Company asked the
Commission to dismiss the Complaints with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
The Company denied using “threats, duress, or coercion to induce Complainants to accept
AMI [meter] installation.” Id. at 7. The Company discussed its communication efforts where it
ultimately warned customers that without access to meters, the Company would initiate the
termination process and terminate service if unable to resolve the issue of meter access. The
Company noted that those communications were “developed in accordance with the UCRR’s
approved by the Commission…” and merely warned customers of the possibilities if access was
refused. Id at 8.
The Company maintained that it is allowed to terminate customers’ service if not allowed
to access the meters, and without an opt-out in Idaho, that is the only option available. The
Company stated that it did discuss alternatives available to customers like relocating the new AMI
meter on the customer’s property.
The Company cited Electric Service Regulation (“ESR”) No. 6(2)(d), which provides that
“[t]he Customer shall provide safe, unencumbered access to Company’s representatives at
reasonable times, for the purpose of reading meters, inspecting, repairing or removing metering
devices and wiring of the Company,” and which its customers agree to as a condition of service.
Id. at 9 quoting ESR No. 6(2)(d). The Company disputed the assertion in the Complaints that the
Company does have physical access to the meters stating that “refusing a meter upgrade is not safe
and unencumbered access” under ESR 6(2)(d). Id. Further the Company stated that ESR No. 7
requires the Company “to furnish and maintain all meters and other metering equipment” and does
not prohibit or proscribe a specific type of meter. Id. quoting ESR No. 7.
The Company discussed the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC”) jurisdiction
over devices emitting radio frequency, like AMI meters. The Company represents that the FCC
ensures the safety of these devices pursuant to “the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
among other laws.” Id. at 10.
644
ORDER NO. 35849 5
The Company also asserted “[i]ndustry research and standards agencies, such as the
American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. (“IEEE”) have compiled the research” concerning exposure to radio frequencies
energy and created guidelines that the FCC and federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration have adopted. Id. The Company stated those standards define the maximum
permissible exposure (“MPE”) standards and the two categories they are assigned to, the controlled
and uncontrolled environments. Id. The uncontrolled environment applies to the general public,
like residential homes, and includes heightened safety requirements by FCC standards. The MPE
for the controlled environment is 5:1, meaning the FCC’s MPE limit for the general public is 50X
less than research shows can cause harm to humans. Id. at 11.
The Company discussed the history of AMI meters in Idaho and represented that the
Company is the last major electric utility to install this infrastructure. The Company noted that
AMI meters first became available almost 20 years ago. The Company cited previous cases for
Avista, Idaho Power, and itself where the Commission dismissed complaints about AMI and/or
denied a request to require public utilities to provide an opt-out provision. Case Nos. PAC-E-22-
09, AVU-E-17-11, and IPC-E-12-04. The Company stated that the Commission has never “ruled
that a public utility’s AMI project, which does not include an opt-out option, violates an
administrative rule, order, statute, or applicable provision of the Company’s tariff.” Id. at 12.
The Company stated the Complaints “do not identify any specific administrative rule,
order, statute, or applicable provision of the Company’s tariff” violated by the Company. Id. at 13.
Further, the Company claimed it acted in compliance with rules and regulations that apply to notice
and termination for complainants’ refusal to grant access to meters.
Objection and Amendments
In their Objection and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (“Objections”), van Mastrigt and
Twede stated that until the Company produces a rule that specifically authorizes termination for
refusing to accept an AMI meter, the Company cannot install the AMI meter or terminate service.
The Objections reiterated several points first addressed in the original Complaints about access,
safety, data acquisition, and trespassing technology. The Objections also argued matters raised in
645
ORDER NO. 35849 6
the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)” filed by each.4 The Objections also ask the
Commission to address all criminal counts they allege have been committed by the Company.
The Commission received various other documents in response to the Company’s Answer
that essentially restated the same claims from the original Complaints and asked the Commission
to reject the Company’s Motion.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code Title 61 and IDAPA
31.01.01. The Commission is charged with determining all rules and regulations of a public utility
are just and reasonable. Idaho Code § 61-303. The Commission is empowered to investigate rates,
charges, rules, regulations, practices, and contracts of all public utilities and to determine whether
they are just, reasonable, preferential, discriminatory, or in violation of any provisions of law, and
to fix the same by order. Idaho Code §§ 61-501 through 503.
The Commission addresses informal and formal complaints through the process outlined
in its administrative rules and does not provide preferential treatment to any party participating in
the process. IDAPA 31.01.01.054 and .057.02. The Commission has had previous opportunities to
review AMI meter complaints and the prevailing scientific research on customer safety, and in
each instance the Commission has concluded that AMI meters do not pose a risk to the safety and
health of customers, comply with Idaho Code § 61-302, and should be allowed in Idaho. See Case
Nos. IPC-E-12-04, AVU-E-17-11, and PAC-E-22-09. The Commission has also recognized that
the FCC has jurisdiction over what constitutes a safe level of radio frequency radiation that is
permitted by AMI meters, and that the FCC has found it to be safe. See Order No. 35544 at 2. The
Commission has also never required a utility to offer an opt-out for AMI meters.
The Complainants in these cases raise similar claims as those previously reviewed and
decided by the Commission, claims that go against well-established evidence on AMI meter safety
and seek an outcome that is not required under state or federal law. As we have stated previously,
the FCC has jurisdiction over the approval of devices that use radio frequency, like AMI meters,
and the FCC has approved AMI meters as safe for consumer use.
The Commission is authorized to ensure that every public utility furnishes service,
instrumentalities, equipment, and facilities as shall promote the safety, health, comfort, and
4 The “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)” generally allege the same facts and “FACTUAL COUNTS” as
the Complaints.
646
ORDER NO. 35849 7
convenience of its customers and the public. Idaho Code § 61-302. The Commission is once again
asked to weigh the FCC’s safety approval of the use of AMI meters and similar devices and
withhold the benefits and efficiencies that customers derive from the use of such devices, and the
history of AMI meter use by electric utilities in Idaho, against the claims presented in the
Complaints.
Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted materials, the
Commission finds that the Complainants have not provided evidence to support a finding that AMI
meters present a legitimate safety concern, or that public utilities in Idaho should be required to
provide an opt-out option for AMI meters.
The Commission finds the record demonstrates that the Company and the Complainants
have been in contact with each other about the issues surrounding the Company’s deployment of
AMI meters. The record also shows that the Company intends to replace meters that it owns, and
the Company has complied with the UCRR through its communications with the Complainants.
We find that refusing to allow the Company’s representatives access to replace existing
meters with AMI meters is a violation of the ESR agreed to as a condition of receiving the
Company’s service. ESR No. 6(2)(d) requires Complainants to provide access to the Company
representatives “for the purposes of . . . [among other things] repairing or removing metering
devices . . . .” Under this ESR, the Company may remove the existing meter to replace it with an
AMI meter. If Complainants refuse to allow the Company to remove the Company-owned meters,
they are violating the ESR. Further, ESR No. 7(1) requires the Company to “furnish and maintain
all meters and metering equipment.” When read together, ESR Nos. 6 and 7 require that the
Company provide its customers with the meter and associated metering equipment and requires
the customer to provide the Company with access to the meter to accomplish this. Based on the
foregoing, the Company has the necessary authority to install an AMI meter on the Complainants’
property in its furnishing of electric service as a public utility.
The Commission also finds that the Company has been clear about its willingness to
relocate AMI meters to a different location on the Complainants’ property at the Complainants’
expense if requested to. ESR No. 12 provides information on the Company’s line extension and
relocation policies. The Commission finds that the Complainants have been offered an opportunity
to resolve this matter, and they have chosen not to do so. The Commission finds that the facts in
647
ORDER NO. 35849 8
these cases do not justify ordering the Company to provide an option to opt-out of receiving an
AMI meter. Accordingly, the Complainants’ Complaints are dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaints filed in the above captioned cases are
dismissed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order regarding any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 11th day of
July 2023.
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_AMI meters_final_dh.docx
648
ORDER NO. 35904 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 25, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al,
COMPLAINANTS,
vs.
PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER,
RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-
23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07;
PAC-E-23-08; AND PAC-E-23-11
ORDER NO. 35904
Between March 22, 2023, and March 27, 2023, the Commission received six formal
customer complaints (collectively the “Complaints”)1 filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power (“Company”) by the Company’s customers (collectively the “Complainants”).
The Complaints concerned the Company’s notification to terminate electric service if the
customers refused to allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters (“AMI
meter(s)”) at their residences. The central theme of the Complaints focused the customers’ desire
to avoid installation of AMI meters at their homes. Reasons cited for not wanting AMI meters
included age and health of the complainants, a child with special needs in proximity to the home’s
meter, lack of legal authority allowing the Company to install the AMI meters, data privacy, and
a request for an opt-out provision.
On April 19, 2023, the Commission issued a Summons directing the Company to file
an answer to the Complaints within 21 days of service. On May 10, 2023, the Company filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss (“Answer”) countering the issues cited in the Complaints and
asking that the Complaints be dismissed with prejudice. Subsequently, the customers filed five
objections to the Company’s request for dismissal and two “AMENDED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT(s).”2
On July 11, 2023, the Commission entered a Final Order dismissing the Complaints.
Order No. 35849. The Final Order provides, in pertinent part:
The Complainants in these cases raise similar claims as those previously reviewed
and decided by the Commission, claims that go against well-established evidence
1 The Complaints were filed by the Company’s electric service customers Jacoba H. van Mastright, Samuel and Peggy
Edwards, Judy Twede, Karen Lane, Christy Armbruster, and Diane Huskinson. The Complainants all appeared pro se.
2 Jacoba H. van Mastrigt and Judy Twede filed the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”
649
ORDER NO. 35904 2
on AMI meter safety and seek an outcome that is not required under state or federal
law. As we have stated previously, the FCC has jurisdiction over the approval of
devices that use radio frequency, like AMI meters, and the FCC has approved AMI
meters as safe for consumer use. . . .
Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted
materials, the Commission finds that the Complainants have not provided evidence
to support a finding that AMI meters present a legitimate safety concern, or that
public utilities in Idaho should be required to provide an opt-out option for AMI
meters. . . .
We find that refusing to allow the Company’s representatives access to replace
existing meters with AMI meters is a violation of the ESR agreed to as a condition
of receiving the Company’s service. ESR No. 6(2)(d) requires Complainants to
provide access to the Company representatives “for the purposes of . . . [among
other things] repairing or removing metering devices . . . .” Under this ESR, the
Company may remove the existing meter to replace it with an AMI meter. If
Complainants refuse to allow the Company to remove the Company-owned meters,
they are violating the ESR. Further, ESR No. 7(1) requires the Company to “furnish
and maintain all meters and metering equipment.” When read together, ESR Nos.
6 and 7 require that the Company provide its customers with the meter and
associated metering equipment and requires the customer to provide the Company
with access to the meter to accomplish this. Based on the foregoing, the Company
has the necessary authority to install an AMI meter on the Complainants’ property
in its furnishing of electric service as a public utility.
Id. In the Final Order, the Commission also found that the Company had communicated its
willingness, upon request, to relocate the AMI meter to a different location on the Complainants’
property at their expense. Accordingly, the Commission determined that the facts in each case did
not justify ordering the Company to provide an option to opt-out of receiving an AMI meter and
dismissed the complaints. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626 and IDAPA 31.01.01.331, the
Complainants were given twenty-one (21) days following entry of the Final Order in which to
petition for reconsideration.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 31, 2023, Complainants Samuel and Peggy Edwards filed a Petition for
Reconsideration (“Petition”) of Order No. 35849.3 The Edwards base their claim that the
Commission erred in Order No. 35849 upon two contentions: (1) that the Commission
3 Mr. Edwards represents that he requested the other complainants refrain from seeking reconsideration to “reduce
confusion or generalization” from consideration of multiple complaints. Pet. for Recon. at 3.
650
ORDER NO. 35904 3
misinterpreted the relevant Electronic Service Regulations (“ESR”) applicable to the Company;
and (2) that requiring 100 percent compliance AMI metering requirement is unreasonable. In their
Petition, the Edwards contend that AMI meters lack surge protection and, therefore, constitute a
“downgrade” from the electromechanical metering already installed at their property. According
to the Edwards, ESR 6(2)(d) does not authorize meter access for purposes of installing technology
to replace that already in place, nor does ESR 7(1) provide the Company sole discretion to replace
a meter with any technology. The Edwards also suggest something less than 100 percent customer
compliance with the Company’s AMI metering initiative would be just and reasonable.
As evidence that AMI meters pose a safety concern, the Edwards attached a document
purporting to be an amicus brief filed by Children’s Health Defense, and Building Biology Institute
in a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Povacz v. Penn. Pub. Utility Comm., 280 A.3d
975 (Pa. 2022).4 Included in an addendum to the purported brief are a “Physicians Statement,”
“Scientists Statement,” and reports by engineers expressing opinions regarding the function and
health risks associated with AMI meters. However, it does not appear that the statements or reports
were given under oath or otherwise certified true and correct under penalty of perjury, nor does the
purported brief bear a file stamp indicating it was in fact filed in the Pennsylvania case.5
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has the authority to grant or deny reconsideration under Idaho Code
§ 61-626(2). Reconsideration provides an opportunity for any interested person to bring to the
Commission’s attention any question previously determined, and thereby affords the Commission
an opportunity to rectify any mistake or omission. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai
Environmental Alliance, 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979); see also Eagle Water
Company v. Idaho PUC, 130 Idaho 314, 317, 940 P.2d 1133, 1136 (1997). Consistent with the
purpose for reconsideration, Commission Rules require a Petition for Reconsideration to specify
“why the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in
conformity with the law.” IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Commission Rule of Procedure 331 further
requires the petitioner to indicate “the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner
4 In Povacz, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed a challenge by electric customers to the installation of AMI
meters (termed “smart meters” in the opinion) on their property. In that case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held
that the customers failed to show that the AMI meters were unsafe or that forced exposure to AMI meters constituted
unreasonable service. Id. at 1009-13.
5 On August 4, 2023, the Company filed an Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration (“Answer”) requesting that it
be denied. On August 8, 2023, the Edwards filed an Objection to the Company’s Answer.
651
ORDER NO. 35904 4
will offer if reconsideration is granted.” Id. A petition must state whether reconsideration should
be conducted by “evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories.” IDAPA
31.01.01.331.03. Grounds for reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that are not supported
by specific explanation may be dismissed. IDAPA 31.01.01.332. As discussed below, the Edwards
have not shown in their Petition that Order No. 35849 (or an issue decided in it) is unreasonable,
unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Nor have the Edwards identified evidence
that warrants granting their petition.
The Edwards’ argument that the Commission misinterpreted the ESR is, at best, a slight
variation of their previous argument that the ESRs do not obligate them to permit the Company to
upgrade their existing meter. Rather than characterizing installation of an AMI meter as an
upgrade, the Edwards contend it would be a downgrade because such meters lack surge protection.
However, the Edwards did not present evidence supporting their conclusory assertion that the AMI
meter the Company seeks to install would lack surge protection, even if the absence of such
protection renders an AMI meter a downgrade in the Edwards’ opinion. More importantly, beyond
the conclusory assertion that “a substantive change of metering capability to residents’ electric
meters” differs from furnishing and maintaining meters and equipment under the ESR, the
Edwards have not supported their argument that the Commission misinterpreted the ESR with
cogent argument or citation to legal authority.
Similarly, the Edwards have failed to show declining customers an opt-out option is
unreasonable. According to the Edwards, failing to allow opt-outs has left disconnection as the
only option open to “a medically sensitive minority of the public.” Ostensibly, the Edwards are
concerned about adverse medical effects resulting from radio frequency (“RF”) radiation that AMI
meters emit. As noted in previous Commission orders (e.g., Order Nos. 32500, 33979, and 35544),
the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has adopted safety limits for RF devices
operating near humans. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, 2.1093. The Edwards do not
contend that the Company intends to install an AMI meter that does not comply with FCC
requirements. Rather, the Edwards ostensibly assert that AMI meters pose a safety concern,
regardless of FCC requirements. In support of this contention, the Edwards attached the
aforementioned amicus brief filed by Children’s Health Defense, and Building Biology Institute.
However, the Edwards have not authenticated the document as being what they claim it to be, nor
does the purported brief bear a file stamp indicating it was in fact filed in the Pennsylvania appeal.
652
ORDER NO. 35904 5
Moreover, although an addendum to the purported brief includes a “Physicians Statement,”
“Scientists Statement,” and reports by engineers expressing opinions regarding the function and
health risks associated with AMI meters, the reports and statements do not appear to have been
given under oath or otherwise certified true and correct under penalty of perjury. Such
unauthenticated and unsworn evidence is insufficient to overcome the conclusions of the FCC
regarding generally safe levels of RF radiation.6 Even if it were, the Edwards have not presented
evidence indicating AMI meters pose a demonstrable, credible health and safety concern to those
residing in their home to suggest that our decision in Order No. 35849 was unreasonable, unlawful,
erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Finally, the Edwards have not addressed why placing
such a meter away from their home as the Company agreed to do would not sufficiently address
their health and safety concerns about and AMI meters.
In sum, despite the sincerity of the Edwards concerns, the Commission will continue
adhering to the FCC’s position on safe levels of RF radiation. Accordingly, the Commission
concludes that the Edwards’ Petition should be denied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved
by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Idaho within forty-two (42) days pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the
Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14.
///
6 In their Petition, the Edwards cite an argument presented in the amicus brief that FCC guidelines cannot support
conclusions regarding RF safety because a federal court remanded a decision by the FCC not to revisit the limits on
RF radiation established in 1996. Specifically, in Env't Health Tr. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, a divided panel of the
D.C. Circuit held that the FCC failed to respond to evidence in the record indicating that exposure to RF radiation
below current FCC limits may case negative health effects unrelated to cancer. 9 F.4th 893, 906 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
Although Environmental Health Trust suggests that relevant scientific knowledge has evolved since the FCC last
updated the limits for RF radiation, the case does not support a claim that RF radiation at, or below, current FCC limits
causes adverse health effects in humans.
653
ORDER NO. 35904 6
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 25th day
of August 2023.
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_AMI meters_recon_at.docx
654
RECEIVED
2023 OCTOBER 9, 2023 5:57PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
655
PER I.AR. 17(M), AMENDED NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1.The above named appellants appealed -as recorded by Idaho Public
Utilities Commission ("Commission") on 28 September -against the
above named Respondents to the Idaho Supreme Court from the
Commission's Order #35904 recorded on the 25th day of August 2023. It
was signed by President Eric Anderson, Commissioner John R. Hammond
Jr., and Commissioner Edward Lodge. A copy of the order (#35904) being
appealed is attached to this notice, as well as a copy of the order (#35849)
which preceded it. Hereafter, the term 'Appellants' in this Notice refers
particularly to Case Numbers PAC-E-23-05 and SUP-E-23-02 of Samuel
and Peggy Edwards.
2.Appellants have a right to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, and the
orders described in paragraph 1 above are appealable orders under and
pursuant to Idaho Code§ 61-627 and Rule 11(e), I.AR.
3.We appeal the orders (#35904 and #35849) of Idaho Public Utilities
Commission which should regulate the electric utilities monopoly
corporation known as ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP in
promotion of the "safety, health, comfort and convenience of its patrons,
employees and the public." Grounds for this appeal are that the
Commission's orders have carefully avoided key legal issues raised by the
Appellants, which are first: that merely objecting to installation of advanced
metering infrastructure ("AMI meter") at their residence is grounds for
denial or termination of service under IDAPA 31.21.01, specifically Utility
Customer Relations Rules, UCRR 302. The Appellants have stated and
repeated this objection on multiple occasions:
656
a.Complaint, received 23 March 2023: "We have attempted over and
over again, in good faith to resolve all issues with ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP which have led up to this point
where they are now threatening to shut our power off, in spite of the
fact that access to the meter has never been impeded for service
and that we have always paid our power bill each month and are
currently not late with payment. They, in turn, are the aggressor
operating in bad faith, using strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat,
duress, and coercion in order to upgrade the meter without
consideration for the will, privacy or medical effects which this
upgrade would have upon us, the property owners."
b.Objection to Motion to Dismiss, received 22 May 2023: "CLAIM ...
our family has fulfilled our contract responsibilities for electric
service and not given reason for termination of service as described
by Utility Customer Relations Rules (UCRR) 302."
c.Also stated in Objection to Motion to Dismiss: "Our meter is not
damaged, and we have provided company representatives with
safe, unencumbered access for the purposes required in Electric
Service Regulation No. 6. Yet, ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP has threatened our family with service
disconnection because we wish to decline ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP's "Advanced Metering Infrastructure" (AMI)
program. Termination of our family's service is not justified by
UCRR 302."
d.Petition for Reconsideration, received 31 July 2023: "Is declining
replacement of our meter with a meter of substantively different
capability equivalent to denying access to the meter, per UCRR
302? Where is the law that authorizes ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER/PACIFICORP to disconnect our electric power?"
657
4.The Commission has found that "refusing to allow the Company's
representatives access to replace existing meters with AMI meters is a
violation of the [Electric Service Regulation, ESR] agreed to as a condition
of receiving the Company's service." The Appellants disagree. Agreeing to
installation of AMI meters is not one of the purposes listed in ESR 6(2)(d)
"reading meters, inspecting, repairing or removing metering devices and
wiring of the Company", and is only loosely inferred in ESR No. 7(1)
"repairing or removing metering devices".
5.Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, assuming the Commission's
finding is correct, the second legal issue is whether violating UCRR 302 is
grounds for termination of electrical service under IDAPA 31.21.01?
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP has alleged, but never
proven, that Appellants have denied or willfully prevented the utility's
access to the meter, stating that "refusing a meter upgrade is not safe and
unencumbered access". The fact is that Appellants have never denied any
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP representatives physical
access to the meters. Further, the Commission has never found as a
matter of fact that Appellants are refusing access to the meter.
6.Third, as a matter of law, is objecting to the installation of AMI meters the
legal and factual equivalent of denying physical access to the meter, given
that Appellants have never prevented the Company from physically
accessing the meter -as evidenced in the original Complaint (particularly
pictures and notarized statements of two neighbors) and by regular and
full monthly payments based on the Company's readings of the meters?
7.No order has been entered sealing all or any portion of the record.
8.Is a reporter's transcript requested? No.
658
9.The Appellants request that the Commission Secretary file this Notice of
Appeal and case records SUP-E-23-02 and PAC-E-23-05 with the Idaho
Supreme Court, including all documentation listed under Rule 28(b)(3),
I.AR., including particularly:
a."Objection to Motion to Dismiss" dated 5/22/2023
b."Objection to PACIFICORP Answer" dated 8/8/2023
c.Our email of 9/27/2023 notifying the Commission Secretary and
representatives of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER/PACIFICORP of
Final Notices served to appellants, and its attachment: the file­
stamped Amicus Curiae Briefing mentioned (and dismissed) in
Order 35904
d."Answer to Motion" dated 10/9/2023
10.1 certify:
(a)That the estimated fee for preparation of the agency's record has
been paid.
(b)That the appellate filing fee has been paid.
(c)That service has been made upon all parties required to be
served pursuant to Rule 20.
DATED THIS 9th day of October , 2023 .
659
ORDER NO. 35849 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 11, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al,
COMPLAINANTS,
vs.
PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER,
RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-
23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07;
PAC-E-23-08; AND PAC-E-23-11
ORDER NO. 35849
Between March 22, 2023, and March 27, 2023, the Commission received six formal
customer complaints (collectively the “Complaints”)1 filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power (“Company”) by the Company’s customers (collectively the “Complainants”).
The Complaints concern the Company’s notification to terminate electric service if customers
refuse to allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters (“AMI meter(s)”) at
their residences.
On April 19, 2023, the Commission issued a Summons directing the Company to file an
answer to the Complaints within 21 days of service. On May 10, 2023, the Company filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss (“Answer”) countering the issues cited in the Complaints and
asking that the Complaints be dismissed with prejudice.
On May 22, 2023, the Commission received five objections to the Company’s request for
dismissal and two “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”2
Having reviewed the record in these cases, we now issue this Final Order dismissing the
Complaints.
THE COMPLAINTS
In their Complaints, the Complainants presented various reasons for not wanting an AMI
meter installed on their property including the age and health of the complainants, a claimed lack
of legal authority allowing the Company to install AMI meters, and concerns over data privacy.
Some Complainants also requested the ability to opt-out of having an AMI meter. Five of the
1 The Complaints were filed by the Company’s electric service customers Jacoba H. van Mastright, Samuel and Peggy
Edwards, Judy Twede, Karen Lane, Christy Armbruster, and Diane Huskinson. The Complainants all appeared pro se.
2 Jacoba H. van Mastrigt and Judy Twede filed the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”
660
ORDER NO. 35849 2
Complainants refused to have an AMI meter installed on their residence, the sixth provided consent
to allow an AMI meter to be installed but alleged that the consent was unlawfully obtained. Several
of the Complainants presented almost identical “Factual Counts” that allege that the Company: (1)
breached the peace by attempting to install AMI meters on their residence; (2) attempted extortion
of Complainant’s will; (3) impaired contracts; (4) attempted extortion by trying to take over the
Complainant’s private property for commercial use; (5) attempted illegal wiretapping; and (6)
threatened the Complainant’s with intent to commit harm. Some of the complainants allege
additional “Factual Counts” of (1) gross and hazardous negligence; and (2) “actionable fraud.”
Two of the Complainants also alleged the Company was committing elder abuse.3
The Complainants all asserted that they have attempted in good faith to resolve their issues
with the Company regarding the deployment of AMI meters, and the Complainants alleged the
Company is operating in bad faith, and using strong-arm intimidation tactics, threat, duress, and
coercion. See, e.g., Complaint of Jacoba H. van Mastrigt at 1. The Complainants also argued that
they have paid their bills for electric service they receive from the Company on time.
Several of the Complainants argued the Company only has the authority to enter their
properties for specific reasons (i.e., meter reading) and that any other access must be authorized
by the property owner for certain matters including troubleshooting and making repairs to
electrical equipment. The Complainants further claim they do allow the Company to access their
properties to read meters but are not granting the Company access to exchange meters.
COMPANY ANSWER
The Company responded to the Complaints by first describing the notification process it
engaged in and its discussions of alternatives for customers who did not want an AMI meter on
their residences. Then the Company described the allegations and requests made by the
Complainants. Lastly, the Company answered the Complaints lodged against its AMI meter roll-
out and moved to dismiss the Complaints with prejudice.
Communication
The Company represented that it started deploying AMI meters in Idaho in the fall of 2021
and has since completed over 84,000 exchanges. The Company stated that it communicated with
customers during AMI meter deployment with “letters, emails, and outbound phone calls
3 Most of these claims are civil tort claims or criminal. The Commission is not the appropriate body to the extent the
Complaints seek any damages or the imposition of criminal liability.
661
ORDER NO. 35849 3
informing customers of the Company’s AMI installation process.” Company Answer at 3. The
Company asserted that “AMI allows for cost savings by reducing meter reading costs and provides
improved customer service through enhanced information and billing options.” Id. During the
deployment of the AMI meters, the Company stated that about 160 customers objected to the
installation of AMI meters, and the Company then worked with those customers to reach a
resolution. The Company explained it “was willing accommodate customers by relocating the AMI
[meter] to a different location of the property” at the customer’s expense. Id. at 4. The Company
represented it “expressed a willingness to continue working directly with these customers to find
a resolution. However, keeping their current meter is not an option for any of our customers in
Idaho, and disconnection of service will only be used as a last resort after proper notice has been
provided.” Id. The Company represented that it successfully resolved the concerns of 110 of the
customers who had initially objected, and the Company exchanged those meters. Id.
For the 50 remaining customers, the Company represented that it began to formally notify
them that, pursuant to the Utility Customer Relations Rules (“UCRR”), their service would be
terminated if they continued to refuse the installation of an AMI meter. Id. The Company cited
UCRR 302, IDAPA 31.21.01.302, which allows for termination of service if meter access is
denied, as the Company’s primary argument for its formal process to begin disconnection. Id.
Along with UCRR 302, the Company cited UCRRs 304 and 305, IDAPA 31.21.01.304-.305, for
the notification requirements to disconnect a customer under UCRR 302. Id.
The Company asserted it sent an initial letter (“First Letter”) to the customers who refused
the meter exchange informing them of the Company’s inability to access the meter for a meter
exchange, and the Company followed that letter with additional correspondence (“Second Letter”)
providing an explanation of the benefits and customer privacy protections afforded by AMI meters.
Id. at 5 and 7-8. The Company then sent a final letter (“Final Letter”) notifying customers that their
service would be terminated. The Company also stated that the Second and Final Letters informed
customers, including the Complainants, how to avoid termination of service. Id. The Company
represented that the Final Letter also stated that “a certificate notifying the utility of a serious
illness or medical emergency in the household may delay termination of service as prescribed by
Rule 308.” Id. Finally, the Company stated that its employees began delivering notices in person
and attempting to resolve the issues customers cited regarding AMI meters before it planned on
terminating service. Id. at 8.
662
ORDER NO. 35849 4
Answer and Motion
The Company: (1) denied all factual allegations in the Complaints that were not admitted
in its Answer; (2) explained its belief that industry standards have determined AMI meters do not
provide a threat of harm to customers; and (3) claimed that the required UCRR notices it sent to
customers who refused access were not threats and the Company did not violate any contract,
procedure, rule or law with its requirement for AMI meter installations. The Company asked the
Commission to dismiss the Complaints with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
The Company denied using “threats, duress, or coercion to induce Complainants to accept
AMI [meter] installation.” Id. at 7. The Company discussed its communication efforts where it
ultimately warned customers that without access to meters, the Company would initiate the
termination process and terminate service if unable to resolve the issue of meter access. The
Company noted that those communications were “developed in accordance with the UCRR’s
approved by the Commission…” and merely warned customers of the possibilities if access was
refused. Id at 8.
The Company maintained that it is allowed to terminate customers’ service if not allowed
to access the meters, and without an opt-out in Idaho, that is the only option available. The
Company stated that it did discuss alternatives available to customers like relocating the new AMI
meter on the customer’s property.
The Company cited Electric Service Regulation (“ESR”) No. 6(2)(d), which provides that
“[t]he Customer shall provide safe, unencumbered access to Company’s representatives at
reasonable times, for the purpose of reading meters, inspecting, repairing or removing metering
devices and wiring of the Company,” and which its customers agree to as a condition of service.
Id. at 9 quoting ESR No. 6(2)(d). The Company disputed the assertion in the Complaints that the
Company does have physical access to the meters stating that “refusing a meter upgrade is not safe
and unencumbered access” under ESR 6(2)(d). Id. Further the Company stated that ESR No. 7
requires the Company “to furnish and maintain all meters and other metering equipment” and does
not prohibit or proscribe a specific type of meter. Id. quoting ESR No. 7.
The Company discussed the Federal Communication Commission’s (“FCC”) jurisdiction
over devices emitting radio frequency, like AMI meters. The Company represents that the FCC
ensures the safety of these devices pursuant to “the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
among other laws.” Id. at 10.
663
ORDER NO. 35849 5
The Company also asserted “[i]ndustry research and standards agencies, such as the
American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. (“IEEE”) have compiled the research” concerning exposure to radio frequencies
energy and created guidelines that the FCC and federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration have adopted. Id. The Company stated those standards define the maximum
permissible exposure (“MPE”) standards and the two categories they are assigned to, the controlled
and uncontrolled environments. Id. The uncontrolled environment applies to the general public,
like residential homes, and includes heightened safety requirements by FCC standards. The MPE
for the controlled environment is 5:1, meaning the FCC’s MPE limit for the general public is 50X
less than research shows can cause harm to humans. Id. at 11.
The Company discussed the history of AMI meters in Idaho and represented that the
Company is the last major electric utility to install this infrastructure. The Company noted that
AMI meters first became available almost 20 years ago. The Company cited previous cases for
Avista, Idaho Power, and itself where the Commission dismissed complaints about AMI and/or
denied a request to require public utilities to provide an opt-out provision. Case Nos. PAC-E-22-
09, AVU-E-17-11, and IPC-E-12-04. The Company stated that the Commission has never “ruled
that a public utility’s AMI project, which does not include an opt-out option, violates an
administrative rule, order, statute, or applicable provision of the Company’s tariff.” Id. at 12.
The Company stated the Complaints “do not identify any specific administrative rule,
order, statute, or applicable provision of the Company’s tariff” violated by the Company. Id. at 13.
Further, the Company claimed it acted in compliance with rules and regulations that apply to notice
and termination for complainants’ refusal to grant access to meters.
Objection and Amendments
In their Objection and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (“Objections”), van Mastrigt and
Twede stated that until the Company produces a rule that specifically authorizes termination for
refusing to accept an AMI meter, the Company cannot install the AMI meter or terminate service.
The Objections reiterated several points first addressed in the original Complaints about access,
safety, data acquisition, and trespassing technology. The Objections also argued matters raised in
664
ORDER NO. 35849 6
the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)” filed by each.4 The Objections also ask the
Commission to address all criminal counts they allege have been committed by the Company.
The Commission received various other documents in response to the Company’s Answer
that essentially restated the same claims from the original Complaints and asked the Commission
to reject the Company’s Motion.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code Title 61 and IDAPA
31.01.01. The Commission is charged with determining all rules and regulations of a public utility
are just and reasonable. Idaho Code § 61-303. The Commission is empowered to investigate rates,
charges, rules, regulations, practices, and contracts of all public utilities and to determine whether
they are just, reasonable, preferential, discriminatory, or in violation of any provisions of law, and
to fix the same by order. Idaho Code §§ 61-501 through 503.
The Commission addresses informal and formal complaints through the process outlined
in its administrative rules and does not provide preferential treatment to any party participating in
the process. IDAPA 31.01.01.054 and .057.02. The Commission has had previous opportunities to
review AMI meter complaints and the prevailing scientific research on customer safety, and in
each instance the Commission has concluded that AMI meters do not pose a risk to the safety and
health of customers, comply with Idaho Code § 61-302, and should be allowed in Idaho. See Case
Nos. IPC-E-12-04, AVU-E-17-11, and PAC-E-22-09. The Commission has also recognized that
the FCC has jurisdiction over what constitutes a safe level of radio frequency radiation that is
permitted by AMI meters, and that the FCC has found it to be safe. See Order No. 35544 at 2. The
Commission has also never required a utility to offer an opt-out for AMI meters.
The Complainants in these cases raise similar claims as those previously reviewed and
decided by the Commission, claims that go against well-established evidence on AMI meter safety
and seek an outcome that is not required under state or federal law. As we have stated previously,
the FCC has jurisdiction over the approval of devices that use radio frequency, like AMI meters,
and the FCC has approved AMI meters as safe for consumer use.
The Commission is authorized to ensure that every public utility furnishes service,
instrumentalities, equipment, and facilities as shall promote the safety, health, comfort, and
4 The “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s)” generally allege the same facts and “FACTUAL COUNTS” as
the Complaints.
665
ORDER NO. 35849 7
convenience of its customers and the public. Idaho Code § 61-302. The Commission is once again
asked to weigh the FCC’s safety approval of the use of AMI meters and similar devices and
withhold the benefits and efficiencies that customers derive from the use of such devices, and the
history of AMI meter use by electric utilities in Idaho, against the claims presented in the
Complaints.
Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted materials, the
Commission finds that the Complainants have not provided evidence to support a finding that AMI
meters present a legitimate safety concern, or that public utilities in Idaho should be required to
provide an opt-out option for AMI meters.
The Commission finds the record demonstrates that the Company and the Complainants
have been in contact with each other about the issues surrounding the Company’s deployment of
AMI meters. The record also shows that the Company intends to replace meters that it owns, and
the Company has complied with the UCRR through its communications with the Complainants.
We find that refusing to allow the Company’s representatives access to replace existing
meters with AMI meters is a violation of the ESR agreed to as a condition of receiving the
Company’s service. ESR No. 6(2)(d) requires Complainants to provide access to the Company
representatives “for the purposes of . . . [among other things] repairing or removing metering
devices . . . .” Under this ESR, the Company may remove the existing meter to replace it with an
AMI meter. If Complainants refuse to allow the Company to remove the Company-owned meters,
they are violating the ESR. Further, ESR No. 7(1) requires the Company to “furnish and maintain
all meters and metering equipment.” When read together, ESR Nos. 6 and 7 require that the
Company provide its customers with the meter and associated metering equipment and requires
the customer to provide the Company with access to the meter to accomplish this. Based on the
foregoing, the Company has the necessary authority to install an AMI meter on the Complainants’
property in its furnishing of electric service as a public utility.
The Commission also finds that the Company has been clear about its willingness to
relocate AMI meters to a different location on the Complainants’ property at the Complainants’
expense if requested to. ESR No. 12 provides information on the Company’s line extension and
relocation policies. The Commission finds that the Complainants have been offered an opportunity
to resolve this matter, and they have chosen not to do so. The Commission finds that the facts in
666
ORDER NO. 35849 8
these cases do not justify ordering the Company to provide an option to opt-out of receiving an
AMI meter. Accordingly, the Complainants’ Complaints are dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaints filed in the above captioned cases are
dismissed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order regarding any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 11th day of
July 2023.
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_AMI meters_final_dh.docx
667
ORDER NO. 35904 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 25, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, et al,
COMPLAINANTS,
vs.
PACIFICORP, d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER,
RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-04; PAC-E-
23-05; PAC-E-23-06; PAC-E-23-07;
PAC-E-23-08; AND PAC-E-23-11
ORDER NO. 35904
Between March 22, 2023, and March 27, 2023, the Commission received six formal
customer complaints (collectively the “Complaints”)1 filed against PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power (“Company”) by the Company’s customers (collectively the “Complainants”).
The Complaints concerned the Company’s notification to terminate electric service if the
customers refused to allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters (“AMI
meter(s)”) at their residences. The central theme of the Complaints focused the customers’ desire
to avoid installation of AMI meters at their homes. Reasons cited for not wanting AMI meters
included age and health of the complainants, a child with special needs in proximity to the home’s
meter, lack of legal authority allowing the Company to install the AMI meters, data privacy, and
a request for an opt-out provision.
On April 19, 2023, the Commission issued a Summons directing the Company to file
an answer to the Complaints within 21 days of service. On May 10, 2023, the Company filed an
Answer and Motion to Dismiss (“Answer”) countering the issues cited in the Complaints and
asking that the Complaints be dismissed with prejudice. Subsequently, the customers filed five
objections to the Company’s request for dismissal and two “AMENDED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT(s).”2
On July 11, 2023, the Commission entered a Final Order dismissing the Complaints.
Order No. 35849. The Final Order provides, in pertinent part:
The Complainants in these cases raise similar claims as those previously reviewed
and decided by the Commission, claims that go against well-established evidence
1 The Complaints were filed by the Company’s electric service customers Jacoba H. van Mastright, Samuel and Peggy
Edwards, Judy Twede, Karen Lane, Christy Armbruster, and Diane Huskinson. The Complainants all appeared pro se.
2 Jacoba H. van Mastrigt and Judy Twede filed the “AMENDED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT(s).”
668
ORDER NO. 35904 2
on AMI meter safety and seek an outcome that is not required under state or federal
law. As we have stated previously, the FCC has jurisdiction over the approval of
devices that use radio frequency, like AMI meters, and the FCC has approved AMI
meters as safe for consumer use. . . .
Having reviewed the record, the arguments of the parties, and all submitted
materials, the Commission finds that the Complainants have not provided evidence
to support a finding that AMI meters present a legitimate safety concern, or that
public utilities in Idaho should be required to provide an opt-out option for AMI
meters. . . .
We find that refusing to allow the Company’s representatives access to replace
existing meters with AMI meters is a violation of the ESR agreed to as a condition
of receiving the Company’s service. ESR No. 6(2)(d) requires Complainants to
provide access to the Company representatives “for the purposes of . . . [among
other things] repairing or removing metering devices . . . .” Under this ESR, the
Company may remove the existing meter to replace it with an AMI meter. If
Complainants refuse to allow the Company to remove the Company-owned meters,
they are violating the ESR. Further, ESR No. 7(1) requires the Company to “furnish
and maintain all meters and metering equipment.” When read together, ESR Nos.
6 and 7 require that the Company provide its customers with the meter and
associated metering equipment and requires the customer to provide the Company
with access to the meter to accomplish this. Based on the foregoing, the Company
has the necessary authority to install an AMI meter on the Complainants’ property
in its furnishing of electric service as a public utility.
Id. In the Final Order, the Commission also found that the Company had communicated its
willingness, upon request, to relocate the AMI meter to a different location on the Complainants’
property at their expense. Accordingly, the Commission determined that the facts in each case did
not justify ordering the Company to provide an option to opt-out of receiving an AMI meter and
dismissed the complaints. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626 and IDAPA 31.01.01.331, the
Complainants were given twenty-one (21) days following entry of the Final Order in which to
petition for reconsideration.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 31, 2023, Complainants Samuel and Peggy Edwards filed a Petition for
Reconsideration (“Petition”) of Order No. 35849.3 The Edwards base their claim that the
Commission erred in Order No. 35849 upon two contentions: (1) that the Commission
3 Mr. Edwards represents that he requested the other complainants refrain from seeking reconsideration to “reduce
confusion or generalization” from consideration of multiple complaints. Pet. for Recon. at 3.
669
ORDER NO. 35904 3
misinterpreted the relevant Electronic Service Regulations (“ESR”) applicable to the Company;
and (2) that requiring 100 percent compliance AMI metering requirement is unreasonable. In their
Petition, the Edwards contend that AMI meters lack surge protection and, therefore, constitute a
“downgrade” from the electromechanical metering already installed at their property. According
to the Edwards, ESR 6(2)(d) does not authorize meter access for purposes of installing technology
to replace that already in place, nor does ESR 7(1) provide the Company sole discretion to replace
a meter with any technology. The Edwards also suggest something less than 100 percent customer
compliance with the Company’s AMI metering initiative would be just and reasonable.
As evidence that AMI meters pose a safety concern, the Edwards attached a document
purporting to be an amicus brief filed by Children’s Health Defense, and Building Biology Institute
in a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Povacz v. Penn. Pub. Utility Comm., 280 A.3d
975 (Pa. 2022).4 Included in an addendum to the purported brief are a “Physicians Statement,”
“Scientists Statement,” and reports by engineers expressing opinions regarding the function and
health risks associated with AMI meters. However, it does not appear that the statements or reports
were given under oath or otherwise certified true and correct under penalty of perjury, nor does the
purported brief bear a file stamp indicating it was in fact filed in the Pennsylvania case.5
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Commission has the authority to grant or deny reconsideration under Idaho Code
§ 61-626(2). Reconsideration provides an opportunity for any interested person to bring to the
Commission’s attention any question previously determined, and thereby affords the Commission
an opportunity to rectify any mistake or omission. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai
Environmental Alliance, 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979); see also Eagle Water
Company v. Idaho PUC, 130 Idaho 314, 317, 940 P.2d 1133, 1136 (1997). Consistent with the
purpose for reconsideration, Commission Rules require a Petition for Reconsideration to specify
“why the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in
conformity with the law.” IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Commission Rule of Procedure 331 further
requires the petitioner to indicate “the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner
4 In Povacz, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed a challenge by electric customers to the installation of AMI
meters (termed “smart meters” in the opinion) on their property. In that case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held
that the customers failed to show that the AMI meters were unsafe or that forced exposure to AMI meters constituted
unreasonable service. Id. at 1009-13.
5 On August 4, 2023, the Company filed an Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration (“Answer”) requesting that it
be denied. On August 8, 2023, the Edwards filed an Objection to the Company’s Answer.
670
ORDER NO. 35904 4
will offer if reconsideration is granted.” Id. A petition must state whether reconsideration should
be conducted by “evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories.” IDAPA
31.01.01.331.03. Grounds for reconsideration or issues on reconsideration that are not supported
by specific explanation may be dismissed. IDAPA 31.01.01.332. As discussed below, the Edwards
have not shown in their Petition that Order No. 35849 (or an issue decided in it) is unreasonable,
unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Nor have the Edwards identified evidence
that warrants granting their petition.
The Edwards’ argument that the Commission misinterpreted the ESR is, at best, a slight
variation of their previous argument that the ESRs do not obligate them to permit the Company to
upgrade their existing meter. Rather than characterizing installation of an AMI meter as an
upgrade, the Edwards contend it would be a downgrade because such meters lack surge protection.
However, the Edwards did not present evidence supporting their conclusory assertion that the AMI
meter the Company seeks to install would lack surge protection, even if the absence of such
protection renders an AMI meter a downgrade in the Edwards’ opinion. More importantly, beyond
the conclusory assertion that “a substantive change of metering capability to residents’ electric
meters” differs from furnishing and maintaining meters and equipment under the ESR, the
Edwards have not supported their argument that the Commission misinterpreted the ESR with
cogent argument or citation to legal authority.
Similarly, the Edwards have failed to show declining customers an opt-out option is
unreasonable. According to the Edwards, failing to allow opt-outs has left disconnection as the
only option open to “a medically sensitive minority of the public.” Ostensibly, the Edwards are
concerned about adverse medical effects resulting from radio frequency (“RF”) radiation that AMI
meters emit. As noted in previous Commission orders (e.g., Order Nos. 32500, 33979, and 35544),
the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has adopted safety limits for RF devices
operating near humans. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, 2.1093. The Edwards do not
contend that the Company intends to install an AMI meter that does not comply with FCC
requirements. Rather, the Edwards ostensibly assert that AMI meters pose a safety concern,
regardless of FCC requirements. In support of this contention, the Edwards attached the
aforementioned amicus brief filed by Children’s Health Defense, and Building Biology Institute.
However, the Edwards have not authenticated the document as being what they claim it to be, nor
does the purported brief bear a file stamp indicating it was in fact filed in the Pennsylvania appeal.
671
ORDER NO. 35904 5
Moreover, although an addendum to the purported brief includes a “Physicians Statement,”
“Scientists Statement,” and reports by engineers expressing opinions regarding the function and
health risks associated with AMI meters, the reports and statements do not appear to have been
given under oath or otherwise certified true and correct under penalty of perjury. Such
unauthenticated and unsworn evidence is insufficient to overcome the conclusions of the FCC
regarding generally safe levels of RF radiation.6 Even if it were, the Edwards have not presented
evidence indicating AMI meters pose a demonstrable, credible health and safety concern to those
residing in their home to suggest that our decision in Order No. 35849 was unreasonable, unlawful,
erroneous or not in conformity with the law. Finally, the Edwards have not addressed why placing
such a meter away from their home as the Company agreed to do would not sufficiently address
their health and safety concerns about and AMI meters.
In sum, despite the sincerity of the Edwards concerns, the Commission will continue
adhering to the FCC’s position on safe levels of RF radiation. Accordingly, the Commission
concludes that the Edwards’ Petition should be denied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved
by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case may appeal to the
Supreme Court of Idaho within forty-two (42) days pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the
Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627; I.A.R. 14.
///
6 In their Petition, the Edwards cite an argument presented in the amicus brief that FCC guidelines cannot support
conclusions regarding RF safety because a federal court remanded a decision by the FCC not to revisit the limits on
RF radiation established in 1996. Specifically, in Env't Health Tr. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, a divided panel of the
D.C. Circuit held that the FCC failed to respond to evidence in the record indicating that exposure to RF radiation
below current FCC limits may case negative health effects unrelated to cancer. 9 F.4th 893, 906 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
Although Environmental Health Trust suggests that relevant scientific knowledge has evolved since the FCC last
updated the limits for RF radiation, the case does not support a claim that RF radiation at, or below, current FCC limits
causes adverse health effects in humans.
672
ORDER NO. 35904 6
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 25th day
of August 2023.
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\PAC_RMP Smart Meter Complaints\PAC_AMI meters_recon_at.docx
673
ORDER NO. 35972 1
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
October 27, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
SAMUEL AND PEGGY EDWARDS,
Complainants-Appellants,
v.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION and PACIFICORP, d/b/a
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER COMPANY,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Idaho Supreme Court
Docket No. 51238-2023
IPUC CASE NOS. PAC-E-23-05
SUP-E-23-02
IPUC ORDER NO. 35972
On September 28, 2023, Samuel and Peggy Edwards filed a Notice of Appeal from Order
No. 35904 in Case No. PAC-E-23-05. The appeal is currently titled “SAMUEL and PEGGY
EDWARDS, Complainants-Appellants, and JACOBA H. VAN MASTRIGT, JUDY TWEDE,
KAREN LANE, CHRISTY ARMBRUSTER, and DIANE HUSKINSON, Complainants, v.
PACIFICORP, dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, Respondent.”1 Per Idaho Appellate Rule 6,
and Idaho Public Utilities Commission Rules of Procedure 343, the agency may, by order, correct
the title of an appeal at any time before the agency’s record is lodged with the Idaho Supreme
Court.
Having considered the record in this case, the Commission finds that an amendment to the
title is necessary to appropriately reflect the positions of the parties on appeal. The Edwards’
formal complaint, filed in Case No. PAC-E-23-05, was consolidated with five other complaints all
concerning the Company’s notification to terminate electric service if the customers refused to
allow the installation of advanced metering infrastructure meters (“AMI meter(s)”) at their
residences.2
However, only the Edwards sought reconsideration of Order No. 35849, which dismissed
the complaints. Accordingly, the Edwards are the only party aggrieved by Order No. 35904, which
denied their petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-627 (authorizing parties aggrieved
1 The original caption that appeared in the Notice of Appeal filed by the Edwards titled the case “JACOBA H. VAN
MASTRIGT, et al, APPELLANTS vs. IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AND PACIFICORP, d/b/a
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, RESPONDENTS.” However, the Idaho Supreme Court subsequently issued a notice
setting a due date for the submission of the Agency Record using the title described in the first paragraph of this order.
2 The Commission assigned the Edwards’ formal complaint Case No. PAC-E-23-05, and processed the case along
with Case Nos. PAC-E-23-04, PAC-E-23-06, PAC-E-23-07, PAC-E-23-08, and PAC-E-23-11. Ultimately, the
Commission issued Order No. 35849, dismissing each.
674
ORDER NO. 35972 2
by order denying a petition for reconsideration to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court); see also
Procedural Rule 341.02 (providing that no person is aggrieved by an order denying reconsideration
unless the party petitioned for reconsideration). IDAPA 31.01.01.341.02. Additionally, only the
Edwards have filed a notice of appeal from Order No. 35904 within 42 days of the issuance of
Order No. 35904. Consequently, only the Edwards have an appeal pending before the Idaho
Supreme Court. See I.A.R. 14(b) (providing a party 42 days from the date evidenced by the filing
stamp of the secretary of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission on the order denying rehearing to
file a notice of appeal).
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the title of the appeal in this matter shall be corrected as
reflected above to show Samual and Peggy Edwards as the Appellants, with the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission and PacifiCorp, d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power as the Respondents on Appeal.
Likewise, all Idaho Public Utilities Commission Case Numbers shall be deleted from the caption
except for the those corresponding to the Edwards’ formal complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission Secretary shall file a copy of this Order
changing the title of the appeal with the Idaho Supreme Court.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 27th day of
October 2023.
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\SUP-E-23-02\SUPE2302_OrderReTitle_at.docx
675
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
OF PROPOSED AGENCY RECORD ON APPEAL
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 20th day of November, 2023, served the foregoing
Proposed Agency Record on Appeal, in Supreme Court Docket No. 51238-2023, by forwarding a copy
thereof, to the following, via e-mail to the e-mail address listed:
Appellants, pro se:
Samuel Z. and Peggy M.B. Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave.
Rexburg, ID 83440
✓via email [e-mail]
Attorney for Respondent on Appeal
Idaho Public Utilities Commission:
Adam Triplett
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd.
Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, Idaho 83714
✓via email [e-mail]
Attorney for Respondent, PacifiCorp:
Joe Dallas
Rocky Mountain Power
825 NE Multnomah, Ste. 2000
Portland, OR 97232
✓via email [e-mail]
_________________________________
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
676