Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Smart Meters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Longmont residents press city to allow analog meters after months-long displacement over electromagnetic-sensitivity claims
Summary
Dozens of residents urged Longmont officials to make accommodations for people reporting electromagnetic hypersensitivity and to allow non-digital electromechanical meters; speakers described personal health impacts and asked the city to change its opt-out policy and rules for Longmont Power & Communications.
At the April 1 Longmont City Council meeting, more than a dozen residents urged the city to allow permanent alternatives to digital smart meters and to remove or alter opt-out fees after several people said they were unable to live in their homes because of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).
Why it matters: Multiple speakers described disabling health problems they attributed to radiofrequency emissions from smart meters and mesh networks. The City’s current Longmont Power & Communications (LPC) smart-meter program requires an opt-out fee for analog meters; speakers urged the council and LPC to permit electromechanical analog meters without charge for residents who present documented disability claims.
Public testimony: Nancy McKenna, a local resident, spoke for a group supporting Zoe Galloway and said Galloway has been unable to live in her home for eight months after a smart meter installation. “I am urging the City to make disability accommodations to her home by installing a non digital electromechanical analog meter to allow her to move back into her home without being harmed,” McKenna said.
Other residents described similar symptoms and urged staff to reexamine the city’s opt-out rules and fees. Barbara Muser called a home “a sanctuary” and said Galloway had “a right to her home.” Doe Kelly and several other speakers referenced scientific literature and a 2021 Ninth Circuit decision in the Environmental Health Trust v. FCC matter, which they said directed the FCC to explain its exposure rules.
What the city said: City staff did not take immediate action at the meeting. Several speakers said they had submitted medical documentation and formal disability accommodation requests to LPC. Council members and staff asked city staff to gather additional information; no ordinance or immediate policy change was reported during the meeting.
Ending: Multiple residents said they would return to the council if the city did not act; several asked for staff to develop an accommodation process that would not require residents to pay an opt-out penalty.
