All States › Evidence
Neutral Court Opinion May 01, 2026

Friedman v. Central Maine Power Company

── Friedman v. Central Maine Power Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 25-1578 ED FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. John C. Nivison, U.S. Magistrate Judge] Before Barron, Chief Judge, Howard and Rikelman, Circuit Judges. William Most, with whom David Lanser and Most & Associates were on brief, for appellant. Christopher C. Taintor, with whom Russell B. Pierce, Jr., and Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, LLC were on brief, for appellee. April 29, 2026 RIKELMAN, Circuit Judge. Central Maine Power Company (CMP) uses digital "smart meters" to track its customers' electricity usage. Ed Friedman, a former CMP customer who suffers from a rare and incurable form of blood cancer, seeks to keep his analog meter, claiming that radiation emitted from smart meters poses risks to his health. After CMP declined to waive the fee for retaining an analog meter, Friedman sued CMP for disability discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to CMP, concluding that Friedman had failed to marshal enough evidence to go to trial on a critical issue: the alleged causal connection between radiofrequency radiation from smart meters and Friedman's cancer symptoms. We agree with the district court's ruling and thus affirm. I. BACKGROUND A. Relevant Facts1 Friedman, a resident of Bowdoinham, Maine, suffers from lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, a rare form of blood cancer. Because there is no cure, his treatment has focused on palliative care to mitigate the effects of his disease. 1 "Inreviewing the district court's decision granting summary judgment to [CMP], we recite the facts in the record in the light most favorable to [Friedman] and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in [his] favor." Cruz-Cedeño v. Vega-Moral, 150 F.4th 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2025). - 2 - For many years, Friedman was a customer of CMP, which provides electricity service to Maine residents. CMP measures residential electricity usage through meters typically placed on the outside of its customers' homes. In 2010, CMP received approval from the Maine Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) to implement Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI). AMI permits automated and remote meter reading, tracks and stores customer-usage data, and allows communications to and from customers' meters. AMI devices, including the new digital smart meters, transmit data via radiofrequency (RF) signals. Shortly after approving the AMI proposal, MPUC received an initial complaint alleging that RF radiation emitted from AMI meters could potentially cause cancer. In response, MPUC directed CMP to allow customers to opt out of AMI but instructed it to charge such customers the incremental costs of the alternative metering. In the order it issued in 2011, MPUC expressly stated that it was not addressing the merits of the health concerns raised in the complaint. Based on MPUC's order, CMP permitted customers to opt out of the AMI program by using either their existing analog meters -- which do not emit any RF radiation -- or the new smart meters in a non-transmitting mode. CMP also instituted an opt-out fee: As of 2023, a customer who elected to keep their analog meter
CourtListener · Apr 29, 2026
Original link
Share on X Share on Facebook
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own address as its source and its own type. #}