Smart meter shenanigans
There are three bills in the state House Consumer Affairs Committee that would permit captive ratepayers to opt out of the various Smart Meter programs. But committee Chairman Robert Godshall, R-Montgomery County, refuses to release the bills for a vote, saying he sees no value in them.
According to votesmart.org , Godshall received $28,100 in campaign contributions from electric utilities so far this year. Could that be a reason he sees no value?
Or could it be that his son, Grey, has been promoted to manager of the smart meter program for PECO, the state's largest utility? Not too long ago, Grey was the manager of PECO's tree trimming.
There's at least an appearance of impropriety here. It seems that Rep. Godshall is putting the interests of PECO ahead of the citizens of Pennsylvania. And PECO stands to receive $200 million from the federal government if it installs 660,000 smart meters.
We need to bury our senators and representatives in an avalanche of letters, faxes, emails and phone calls to demand that our interests be put ahead of the people and businesses that are benefiting from foisting the smart meter disaster on all of us.
Get them to pay attention. Remember, it's an election year.
Berwyn, Chester County
Show commenting policy
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.
- An Obama clone
- Good ‘friends,’ good food
- White House not playing to win
- Write-in alternative
- Farewell, my Springdale
- Hospital’s hero & more
- U.S. Steel worthy of grant
- Better in long run
- Unworthy of high office
- Not clean enough
- Working hard in fast food