Betreff:
Help eliminate
electrical ground currents - Support WI LRB 1641/1, The Electrical Consumers
Bill of Rights |
Von: Martin Weatherall |
Datum: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:08:29 –0400 |
|
Ground current electrical pollution is a major
environmental problem in North America. Ontario has recently
announced that it will eliminate the problem. This message is about the
situation in the United States and an important proposal from Representative
Barbara Gronemus, to eliminate ground current pollution.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July
16, 2007 10:48 AM Subject: Help
eliminate electrical ground currents - Support WI LRB 1641/1, The Electrical
Consumers Bill of Rights Representative Barbara Gronemus is circulating
her bill to eliminate electrical ground currents for co-sponsors. It is LRB
1641/1, the Electrical Consumers Bill of Rights. Please call your legislators
and ask that they co-sponsor it. <<Co-sponsorship
of LRB 1641/1>>/smaller>/fontfamily> Electrical Wiring Configurations and Childhood
Cancer http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/wiring_config_child_cancer-1.pdf
The Possible Role of Contact Current in Cancer
Risk Associated With Residential Magnetic Fields http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/kavet_et_al._contact_current_10_00_1.pdf
The bill is elegant in its simplicity. It merely codifies the National
Electrical Safety Code requirement that the earth not be used as a continuous
return path for electricity. The legislation requires that the utilities stop
using the ground as a return path for electrical current. (At this time over
70% of electrical current returns via the ground, travelling uncontrolled on
lawns, plumbing, playground equipment, us, and anything else conductive in its
path, which is not necessarily anywhere near electrical wires.) It allows the
utilities to determine the most effective and least costly method to use in
each situation. There are a number of methods available see EPRI Publication
TR-106003 Handbook for the Assessment and Management of Magnetic Fields Caused
by Distribution Lines for details. It also provides recourse for citizens,
besides lawsuits, if the utilities are not responsive to notification of
current returning on the ground.
While the human health effects of exposure to electrical ground currents have
gotten little media attention, that is not because they are non-existent. Electrical
ground currents are pretty conclusively linked to an increase in the risk of
childhood leukemia. The high frequencies that pollute our electricity and cause
the electrical ground currents have been linked to increased blood glucose
levels, ms symptoms, asthma, allergies, migraines, chronic fatigue syndrome and
an assortment of other symptoms, see www.electricalpollution.com/Research.html
for details. Dirty power cannot be totally cleaned up until we get all the
electricity back under control on a wire.
The problem of electrical ground currents was noticed first by farmers for two
main reasons. One, farmyards with animals are very conductive due to the urine
and manure. Two, cows deliver a product that is quantifiable with an expected
yield for certain care practices. When this is no longer being achieved, it is
obvious something is wrong, especially if the cows are also dying right and
left. When electrical ground currents are the culprit, milk production often
varies wildly and only correlates to the electrical environment, see dose
response curve, toward bottom of the page at http://www.electricalpollution.com
. The dose response curve and repeatability, 50 or more cows per herd, makes it
obvious. With humans, each one of us is viewed in isolation. There has been
extreme reluctance to examine electrical exposure via plumbing, ground
currents, dirty power on wires or any other source. People are much more likely
to be treated symptom by symptom, illness by illness.
The increasing body of research on exposure to electrical pollution shows
humans are profoundly affected. For the health of our society we should require
electricity remain on electrical wires during normal operation of the
electrical grid. Please support LRB 1641/1, The Electrical Consumers Bill of
Rights. We are already paying for the illness caused by this problem wouldn't
it make more sense to pay a pittance to get the electricity back on the wire. (Last
time the legislation was introduced, it was estimated it would cost
$1.20/ratepayer/month to implement.)
Below are links to the Assembly and Senate email directories, remember to
include you name and address if you email. I am attaching both phone
directories.
Please contact your WI Representatives and Senators as soon as possible and ask
your family and friends to do likewise. This affects us all. (People out of
state can contact their state representatives and have them introduce the
legislation in their own state. Previous versions can be found at http://www.electricalpollution.com/legislation.html
. They only differ in dates and such that need to update from version to
version.) Never underestimate the power of contacting your representative.
Catherine
P.S. Please contact your legislators even if it is after July 18 when you
receive this.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/leginfo/contact/EmailDirectory.aspx?house=senate
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/leginfo/contact/EmailDirectory.aspx?house=assembly
From: /color>"Rep.Gronemus"
<Rep.Gronemus@legis.wisconsin.gov>
Date: /color>July 11, 2007 2:30:24 PM
CDT
To: /color>"*Legislative All Assembly"
<ALLASM@legis.wisconsin.gov>, "*Legislative All Senate"
<ALLSEN@legis.wisconsin.gov>
Subject: /color>Co-sponsorship of LRB
1641/1
TO:
ALL LEGISLATORS/fontfamily>
FROM: REPRESENTATIVE
BARBARA “BOBBY” GRONEMUS/fontfamily>
/fontfamily>
DATE: JULY 11, 2007/fontfamily>
RE: CO-SPONSORSHIP
OF LRB-1641/1 RELATING TO THE REMEDIATION OF OBJECTIONABLE FLOWS OF ELECTRIC
CURRENT, BURDEN OF PROOF AND DAMAGES IN CERTAIN ACTIONS AGAINST PUBLIC
UTILITIES, MAKING AN APPROPRIATION, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES./fontfamily>
I am introducing legislation relating to
objectionable flows of electrical current. The intent of this proposal is
to provide better consumer rights, to set forth standard procedure for the
utility folks to follow, and to advance the elimination of objectionable flows
of current./fontfamily>
Based upon recent court cases in which
producers and consumers have spent thousands, for both sides, dealing with
objectionable electrical flows under this proposal could be dealt with without
spending all of one’s time and financial recourses in court. This
proposal offers consumers the option to take action, and provides a progressive
time table for remedial action./fontfamily>
If you are interested in co-sponsoring
this bill, please contact my office at/fontfamily> 6-7015/fontfamily>
by/fontfamily> July
18, 2007. /fontfamily>
Analysis by the Legislative
Reference Bureau/fontfamily>
This bill prohibits electric utilities and
cooperatives from causing objectionable flows of current on the property of
others. The bill states that the legislature finds that objectionable flows of
current are detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare and that the
bill’s purpose is to advance substantially the state’s legitimate interest
in eliminating, and providing remedies for, objectionable flows of
current. “Objectionable flow of current” is defined as a steady state
of load electrical current for five seconds or more on a grounding conductor or
any other conductor that normally does not carry electric current. However,
certain temporary flows of current that result from the performance of a
grounding conductor’s protective functions are excluded from the definition. A
“grounding conductor” is defined as a conductor that connects the
distribution system of an electric utility or cooperative to a grounding
electrode or electrodes./fontfamily>
The bill allows a person who owns, leases,
or occupies property on which an electric utility or cooperative violates the
prohibition to bring an action in court to enjoin the violation and for any
damages resulting from the violation. In addition, if the person prevails in
the court action, the court is required to award the person attorney fees and
costs. Also, if the person provided written notice to the electric utility or
cooperative about the violation before bringing the court action, and the
electric utility or cooperative failed to remedy the violation within 30 days
after receiving the notice, the court must award treble the damages resulting
from the violation./fontfamily>
In addition, the bill requires each
electric utility and cooperative to remedy all problems associated with its plant
or equipment that cause objectionable flows of current on the property of
others. The deadline for meeting this requirement is January 1, 2012. However,
if an objectionable flow of current is discovered in 2011, the electric utility
or cooperative must remedy problems with plants and equipment no later than one
year after the discovery. The penalty for failing to comply with the 2012
deadline is a forfeiture of between $500,000 and $1,000,000. The penalty for
failing to remedy problems discovered in 2011 within the one/fontfamily>-/fontfamily>year
deadline is a forfeiture of $1,000 for each day of failure to comply./fontfamily>
The bill provides that an objectionable
flow of current that an electric utility or provider causes on the property of
another person is a trespass on that property. If a person brings an action for
a preliminary injunction to enjoin the trespass, the bill provides that the
person is not required to show irreparable harm for the court to grant the
preliminary injunction. Under current law, a person seeking a preliminary
injunction must show irreparable harm and satisfy other requirements. The bill
also prohibits an electric utility or cooperative from obtaining a prescriptive
right to cause, or an easement or other property interest for causing, an
objectionable flow of current on the property of another person./fontfamily>
The bill allows a person to bring a
products liability action against an electric utility or cooperative that
causes an objectionable flow of current on property owned, leased, or occupied
by the person. Under current law, Wisconsin courts have specified the elements
that must be satisfied for a plaintiff to prevail in a product’s liability
action. The first two elements are 1) the product sold must be in a defective
condition; and 2) the product must be unreasonably dangerous. In addition, in/fontfamily>
Koplin v. Pioneer Power & Light Co.,
Inc./fontfamily>, 154 Wis. 2d. 487,
500 (1990), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff could not
bring a products liability action against an electric utility for stray
voltage. (The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed/fontfamily>
the court of appeals on other grounds and
did not address the products liability holding.) This bill reverses the court
of appeals holding regarding products liability by specifying that, in a
products liability action, an electric utility or cooperative that causes an
objectionable flow of current on the property of another person is considered
to have provided a product in a defective condition that is unreasonably
dangerous. As a result, the first two elements required for a products
liability action are satisfied./fontfamily>
Finally, the bill does all of the
following:/fontfamily>
1. The bill allows the attorney general to
enforce the prohibition regarding objectionable flows of current and the
requirements regarding the deadlines for remedying problems with plants and
equipment. A court is allowed to award the attorney general prosecution
expenses, including attorney fees./fontfamily>
2. The bill provides that an electric
utility that causes an objectionable flow of current on the property of another
is considered to have violated its duty under current law to provide reasonably
adequate service./fontfamily>
3. The bill allows a person who shows, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the person is injured by a public
utility’s violation of laws enforced by the Public Service Commission to
collect treble the damages resulting from the injury. Under current law, treble
damages are allowed only if the violation is willful, wanton, or reckless. In
addition, under current law, the evidentiary standard that applies is clear and
convincing evidence, which requires more evidence than the standard under the
bill./fontfamily>
For further information see the/fontfamily>
state and local/fontfamily> fiscal
estimate, which will be/fontfamily>
printed as an appendix to this bill./fontfamily>
Christopher Kent/fontfamily>
Office of State Representative Barbara
Gronemus /fontfamily>
Room 114 North, State Capitol/fontfamily>
Madison, WI 53707/fontfamily>
608.266.7015/fontfamily>
christopher.kent@legis.wisconsin.gov/fontfamily>