ShareThis Page

PUC overreach

| Monday, March 27, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

For numerous reasons not limited to health concerns, data collection and bureaucratic overreach, I, as a Pennsylvania resident, do not want a smart meter for my utilities.

Original legislation (Act129/House Bill 2200) established that smart meter technology would be installed upon request of the customer, in new construction or in accordance with depreciation. Act 129 did not require universal installation of smart meters.

However, subsequently, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, an administrative agency with no lawmaking powers, conceived of regulations mandating universal installation. The PUC has no authority to make law forcing residents to accept and purchase a product.

For many years, residents have fought for legislation supporting consumer choice and eliminating the illegal PUC smart meter mandate, yet some legislators have blocked the legislation from a vote.

Pennsylvanians deserve a choice in technology being installed at their residences, particularly when there are concerns of radiation and unauthorized data collection and sharing.

Administrative agencies have no legal right to usurp freedom to choose in a functioning free-market system, no matter their good intentions.

Ask your legislator to demand a vote for opt-out legislation on smart meters if, for no other reason, to uphold your right to choose.

Stacey West

Sewickley Heights

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.