Investigative, Medical, and Legal Disclaimer
This article presents documented government policy, utility filings, public funding, technical infrastructure, privacy concerns, cybersecurity risks, and my personal observations.
It does not establish that the smart grid, BGE, a smart meter, a power facility, or any government agency caused my reported symptoms or deliberately targeted me.
My experiences are presented as my firsthand account. The possible causes remain unverified and require address-specific records, equipment records, engineering data, environmental testing, medical evaluation, and evidence connecting a particular system to a particular event.
My Personal Timeline
In approximately 2008, unusual and disturbing experiences became obvious enough that I began recognizing a pattern.
I was living at 1304 Cox Cove Court in the Annapolis area of Anne Arundel County, Maryland. The property was near electrical and utility infrastructure associated with Baltimore Gas and Electric.
I experienced events that I interpreted as increasing surveillance, interference, environmental disturbance, physical symptoms, device problems, and other forms of targeting.
At the time, I did not know that the United States was simultaneously creating a national smart-grid policy, expanding digital utility communications, funding advanced metering, building cybersecurity structures, expanding intelligence and military infrastructure around Fort Meade, and transforming ordinary electrical distribution into a two-way data and communications network.
That overlap does not prove causation.
It does make the 2007–2010 period important enough to investigate in detail.
If this article sparks your curiosity, challenges your perspective, teaches you something new, or inspires you to learn more, please consider subscribing and becoming a paid subscriber to Targeted Community. Your support helps keep this research and independent journalism alive and growing.
The First Critical Finding: BGE’s Full Smart-Grid Proposal Came After 2008
BGE formally submitted its Maryland Smart Grid Initiative to the Maryland Public Service Commission on July 13, 2009.
The proposal sought permission to deploy approximately 2.1 million advanced electric and gas meters throughout BGE’s service territory. BGE described a system involving advanced metering infrastructure, communications networks, data management, automated meter reading, outage information, remote service functions, and customer energy-management programs. (The Department of Energy’s Energy.gov)
This chronology matters.
If my experiences became obvious during 2008, BGE’s later systemwide smart-meter deployment cannot, by itself, explain everything that occurred before the July 2009 filing.
However, a formal regulatory filing is not necessarily the beginning of planning, engineering, vendor discussions, communications testing, pilot work, meter-replacement activity, or related infrastructure development.
The address-level investigation must therefore determine whether BGE or its contractors operated earlier automated-meter-reading systems, radio equipment, utility telemetry, substations, communications links, pilot programs, or other projects near Cox Cove Court before the full smart-grid application was filed.
The Federal Smart-Grid Policy Began in 2007
Congress established a national smart-grid policy in Title XIII of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
The law declared that the United States would modernize the transmission and distribution grid through increased use of digital information, automated controls, communications technologies, distributed resources, smart devices, demand-response systems, storage, consumer information, interoperability standards, and cybersecurity protections. (The Department of Energy’s Energy.gov)
This means the federal legal foundation existed before 2008.
The smart grid was not simply a collection of new household meters.
It was a national transformation of the electrical system into a connected cyber-physical network capable of collecting information, exchanging instructions, remotely managing equipment, monitoring demand, and coordinating numerous devices across the power system.
Congress Created the Federal Smart Grid Task Force
The Energy Independence and Security Act also established the Federal Smart Grid Task Force.
The Department of Energy leads the task force, which was designed to coordinate federal policy, research, standards, deployment, and security efforts across government agencies. (The Department of Energy’s Energy.gov)
This is significant because the smart grid was never solely a private utility project.
It involved federal legislation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, state regulators, utilities, technology vendors, cybersecurity organizations, communications providers, universities, and federal grant programs.
Why the Department of Commerce Keeps Appearing
The Department of Commerce was assigned an essential role through the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
NIST was directed to coordinate a framework for smart-grid interoperability, including standards governing how meters, sensors, control systems, utilities, networks, consumer devices, and energy-management technologies communicate with one another.
This helps explain why Commerce repeatedly appears in smart-grid records.
The project required far more than electrical engineering. It required national communications standards, cybersecurity rules, device compatibility, data formats, privacy analysis, networking protocols, and integration between utility and information-technology systems.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Accelerated Everything
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided the Department of Energy with approximately $4.5 billion for electric-grid modernization.
The Smart Grid Investment Grant program eventually supported 99 cost-shared projects involving advanced metering, distribution automation, communications, transmission monitoring, customer systems, and related technologies. (The Department of Energy’s Energy.gov)
The federal government announced approximately $3.4 billion in competitive smart-grid grants in October 2009.
BGE was selected for one of the largest potential grants, worth up to $200 million. Industry participants were expected to provide matching funds, creating a national public-private investment exceeding the federal contribution alone. (Washington Energy Report)
BGE Proposed a Project Costing Hundreds of Millions of Dollars
Contemporary reporting described BGE’s initial proposal as an approximately $500 million project for which the utility sought a $200 million Department of Energy grant. (Maryland Daily Record)
Later Maryland regulatory records placed BGE’s actual advanced-metering deployment costs at approximately $653.8 million. After the federal grant, the net smart-grid cost discussed in subsequent proceedings was approximately $344 million. (Public Service Commission of Maryland)
This was not a small meter-replacement program.
It was a major transformation of BGE’s operating infrastructure, communications systems, data collection, customer interfaces, billing functions, outage management, and distribution-grid operations.
What Advanced Metering Infrastructure Actually Does
Advanced metering infrastructure, commonly called AMI, combines digital meters with communications networks and data-management systems.
Unlike a traditional meter that merely records cumulative consumption for periodic manual reading, an advanced meter may collect time-based energy-use information and communicate it automatically to the utility.
Depending on system design, AMI can support:
Interval consumption measurements
Automated meter reading
Remote service connection and disconnection
Outage notifications
Restoration verification
Voltage monitoring
Demand-response programs
Dynamic pricing
Distribution-system analysis
Customer energy portals
Firmware and configuration management
Utility-to-meter commands
Meter-to-utility reporting
BGE’s public comments described a proposed deployment of approximately 2.1 million gas and electric meters and stated that the company already used automatic meter-reading technology for a substantial portion of customers before the full AMI deployment. (The Department of Energy’s Energy.gov)
That earlier automated-meter-reading activity is especially important to my investigation.
It shows that digital or radio-assisted meter collection existed before the statewide smart-grid rollout was completed.
Automatic Meter Reading Came Before the Full Smart Grid
BGE stated that roughly 60 percent of its customers’ meters were already being read using drive-by automatic-meter-reading technology when it described its smart-grid plans.
That system was different from full two-way AMI, but it involved meters transmitting information that utility vehicles could collect remotely. (The Department of Energy’s Energy.gov)
Therefore, the correct investigative question is not simply:
“When was a modern smart meter installed?”
The broader questions are:
When was an automatic meter installed at or near 1304 Cox Cove Court?
What frequency did it use?
How often did it transmit?
What company manufactured it?
Did BGE use fixed receivers, drive-by receivers, or both?
Were repeaters installed nearby?
Was the neighboring utility facility involved in meter communications?
Did BGE operate telemetry or supervisory-control systems in the area?
Were communications cabinets, antennas, or fiber installed between 1999 and 2010?
Were there pilot or demonstration programs before the formal 2009 filing?
Were older meters replaced before the publicized smart-grid deployment?
The Smart Grid Is a Communications Network
The term “grid” can make the system sound purely electrical.
In reality, smart-grid deployment depends heavily on communications.
Technical literature describes near-real-time communication among generation facilities, transmission systems, distribution equipment, meters, control centers, and customer devices as a defining feature of smart-grid operation. (arXiv)
Communications can occur through various technologies, including:
Radio-frequency mesh networks
Cellular systems
Fiber-optic networks
Power-line communications
Fixed wireless systems
Licensed or unlicensed spectrum
Utility-owned private networks
Public telecommunications networks
Neighborhood collectors or access points
Backhaul links to utility data centers
The precise communications architecture used by BGE at the requested location must be obtained from technical filings, vendor records, FCC licenses, procurement documents, engineering diagrams, and utility infrastructure records.
The Privacy Concern Was Recognized From the Beginning
Advanced meters can reveal far more detailed patterns than a monthly analog reading.
Interval data can potentially show when electricity use rises or falls, when a property may be occupied, when major appliances operate, and how household behavior changes over time.
The degree of detail depends on how often measurements are recorded, what additional systems are connected, how data are processed, and who receives access.
Privacy concerns therefore involve:
Collection frequency
Retention periods
Utility employee access
Contractor access
Law-enforcement requests
Subpoenas and court orders
Data sharing
Cyber intrusions
Consumer profiling
Third-party analytics
Device identification
Unauthorized account access
Use for purposes unrelated to billing
These concerns do not prove that BGE used energy data to target customers.
They establish that smart-grid systems created a more detailed and centralized record of household activity than older monthly meter-reading systems.
The Cybersecurity System Was Not Fully Settled Before Deployment
A major controversy arose because the federal government was funding rapid smart-grid deployment while researchers were still developing and evaluating cybersecurity protections.
Contemporary reporting noted that smart meters and other networked grid components could introduce vulnerabilities as utility infrastructure became increasingly connected to information networks.
Security researchers demonstrated simulated attacks capable of spreading malicious code among vulnerable meters, while critics questioned whether paper cybersecurity plans were sufficient without real-world audits. (WIRED)
The Department of Energy said grant applicants were required to submit cybersecurity plans and that experts reviewed those plans.
However, the identities and detailed qualifications of the reviewers were not publicly disclosed in that reporting, and critics warned that rapid deployment could outpace security testing. (WIRED)
GAO Later Confirmed Persistent Cybersecurity Concerns
The Government Accountability Office later reported that modernization increasingly connected electrical systems to information and communications technology.
GAO warned that these smart-grid technologies could be vulnerable to cyberattacks and other threats capable of disrupting the electricity system. (GAO)
This supports a legitimate public-policy concern:
A system designed to improve monitoring and control can also create new points of access, exploitation, manipulation, and failure.
That does not establish that such exploitation occurred at my home.
It establishes that cybersecurity risk was recognized by federal investigators and was not merely a theory invented by concerned customers.
Maryland Regulators Initially Raised Serious Concerns
The Maryland Public Service Commission did not simply approve BGE’s original proposal without question.
Later testimony describing the procedural history states that the Commission’s initial Order No. 83410 identified concerns about BGE’s business case.
The Commission ultimately allowed deployment under conditions and deferred some cost recovery until BGE could demonstrate that the project produced the promised benefits. (Synapse Energy)
This is important because it contradicts the idea that the smart grid was an unquestionably proven project from the beginning.
Regulators debated:
Whether projected benefits were realistic
Whether customers would actually save money
How costs should be allocated
Whether federal funding would be obtained
Whether operational savings would materialize
Whether customers should bear deployment costs
How meter failures should be handled
How opt-outs should operate
Whether communication and education were adequate
The Cost-Benefit Dispute Continued for Years
In later rate proceedings, Maryland’s Office of People’s Counsel challenged aspects of BGE’s cost-benefit analysis.
One analysis concluded that the initiative’s benefits might be lower than its costs, calculating a benefit-cost ratio of approximately 0.82 under that witness’s assumptions.
The Public Service Commission ultimately reached a different conclusion and accepted that the system was cost-beneficial under its chosen methodology. (Public Service Commission of Maryland)
The disagreement proves that smart-grid benefits were not self-evident.
Different assumptions about customer behavior, avoided infrastructure, operational savings, equipment failures, pricing programs, and meter-dependent benefits produced materially different results.
Meter Failures Exceeded an Earlier Projection
The same Maryland proceeding recorded testimony that BGE’s meter-failure rate was reportedly twice the original projection at that stage of the program.
The witness also argued that BGE had difficulties completing installations and that additional cost-effectiveness monitoring was needed. (Public Service Commission of Maryland)
This does not show that failed meters caused illness or targeting.
It does show that real-world deployment differed from some original expectations and that equipment performance was contested during regulatory review.
Maryland Required Customers to Pay to Opt Out
Maryland ultimately created an opt-out system for customers who did not want a communicating smart meter.
BGE customers who opted out were initially directed to pay a one-time fee and a recurring monthly charge because the utility said manual meter reading and associated systems created additional costs. (Maryland Public Service Commission)
This policy generated an important fairness concern.
People who objected because of privacy, cybersecurity, health, personal autonomy, or technological concerns had to pay additional charges to retain noncommunicating meter service.
The existence of an opt-out did not necessarily provide a financially equal choice.
Maryland Later Required Cybersecurity Reporting
Maryland’s Public Service Commission continued addressing cybersecurity after deployment.
A later order directed development of a cybersecurity reporting framework covering smart-grid systems used by BGE and other Maryland utilities. (Maryland Public Service Commission)
The timing is revealing.
The system was deployed while cybersecurity procedures, reporting expectations, vulnerabilities, and oversight continued evolving.
That is common in technological development, but it underscores why the public should receive complete records about the architecture placed around homes and communities.
Smart-Grid Data Can Be Valuable Beyond Billing
Detailed energy data can support legitimate utility operations.
It can also potentially be valuable to:
Law enforcement
Intelligence analysts
Insurers
Landlords
Marketing companies
Data brokers
Litigants
Government regulators
Cybercriminals
Abusive insiders
Domestic abusers
Burglars
Researchers
Artificial-intelligence systems
The issue is not that every one of these parties automatically receives access.
The issue is that centralized data exist and therefore require enforceable limits, access logs, retention rules, customer notice, cybersecurity protections, warrant requirements, and remedies for misuse.
Smart Grid, Section 702, and Surveillance Should Not Be Conflated
The smart grid and Section 702 are different systems.
Section 702 concerns foreign-intelligence surveillance directed at non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be abroad.
BGE’s advanced-metering system concerns utility operations and customer energy data.
The enactment of Section 702 in July 2008 does not prove that smart-grid infrastructure was installed to conduct intelligence surveillance.
However, both developments belong to the same broader period in which government and industry were rapidly expanding:
Large-scale data collection
Automated monitoring
Digital communications
Searchable databases
Remote system control
Cybersecurity authorities
Public-private technical partnerships
Infrastructure modernization
Information sharing
Analytical systems
The historical overlap is worthy of investigation without claiming that one program secretly operated as the other.
Fort Meade and Regional Infrastructure Also Expanded
During the same general period, Fort Meade and the Maryland intelligence corridor were undergoing expansion associated with the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure process.
That growth involved military, intelligence, communications, cyber, contractor, transportation, utility, and support infrastructure throughout Anne Arundel County and nearby jurisdictions.
The regional transformation increases the importance of identifying the precise projects, easements, substations, fiber routes, radio licenses, contractors, and government partnerships near Cox Cove Court.
It does not establish that those systems were directed at me.
What Would Count as Real Evidence?
A credible investigation cannot stop with overlapping dates.
Evidence connecting infrastructure to my experience would require records such as:
A meter-installation record for the property
The make and model of the meter
Its communications frequency and power
Installation, replacement, and maintenance dates
Network diagrams for the neighborhood
Locations of collectors and repeaters
BGE facility maps
Utility telemetry records
FCC radio licenses
Microwave-link coordinates
Fiber installations
Vendor contracts
Equipment inventories
Work orders
Incident reports
Environmental-test results
Electromagnetic-field measurements
Data-access logs
Law-enforcement requests
Government contracts mentioning the location
Witnesses or contemporaneous complaints
Medical records documenting symptoms and timing
Technical evidence showing abnormal emissions, unauthorized access, or misuse
Without those records, the relationship remains a hypothesis.
The Records That Must Be Requested From BGE
BGE should be asked to provide records for 1304 Cox Cove Court and surrounding infrastructure from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2010, including:
All meter installation and replacement records
Meter manufacturer, model, and serial number
Automatic-meter-reading capabilities
Advanced-metering capabilities
Transmission frequencies
Power output
Transmission intervals
Network type
Drive-by reading equipment
Fixed collection equipment
Neighborhood collectors
Repeaters
Gateways
Antennas
Backhaul systems
Fiber connections
Cellular connections
Power-line communications
Firmware histories
Maintenance records
Failure records
Remote service records
Account-access histories
Data requests by outside entities
Subpoenas and court orders
Nearby substation records
SCADA and telemetry systems
Environmental complaints
Transformer incidents
Stray-voltage investigations
Electromagnetic-field testing
Construction records
Easements and rights-of-way
Vendor and contractor identities
The Records That Must Be Requested From Maryland
The Maryland Public Service Commission, Office of People’s Counsel, Maryland Energy Administration, Department of the Environment, Department of Information Technology, and Anne Arundel County should be asked for:
Complete Case No. 9208 records
BGE’s original application
Supporting testimony
Technical exhibits
Communications architecture
Cybersecurity plans
Privacy evaluations
Health-related submissions
Opt-out testimony
Pilot-program records
Deployment maps
Meter-installation schedules
Contractor records
Grant documents
Environmental complaints
Utility permits
Substation projects
Fiber projects
Tower and antenna permits
Electrical permits
County infrastructure maps
Historical aerial photography
Complaints near Cox Cove Court
Records identifying the neighboring BGE facility
The Records That Must Be Requested From the Federal Government
The Department of Energy should produce:
BGE’s Smart Grid Investment Grant application
Award documents
Statement of project objectives
Cybersecurity plan
Privacy plan
Cost-share documentation
Milestones
Technical reports
Vendor information
Deployment maps
Performance reports
Final evaluation
Communications with BGE
Communications with Maryland regulators
Security assessments
Known vulnerabilities
Incident reporting
The Department of Commerce and NIST should produce:
Smart-grid interoperability records involving BGE
Maryland demonstration projects
Communications standards
Meter security standards
Privacy analyses
Cybersecurity working-group materials
Vendor participation
Testing records
Public-safety or government interoperability projects
Wireless and radio communications standards
Smart-grid stakeholder submissions
The FCC should produce:
Antenna registrations
Microwave licenses
Land-mobile radio licenses
Experimental licenses
Utility frequencies
Fixed wireless systems
License modifications
Special temporary authorizations
Enforcement complaints
Coordinates of registered systems near the requested address
The Department of Homeland Security should produce:
Smart-grid cybersecurity assessments
Critical-infrastructure protection records
Utility vulnerability reports
Maryland exercises
BGE coordination records
Fusion-center communications involving utility systems
Emergency-communications projects
Public-safety interoperability grants
Reports concerning smart-meter vulnerabilities
The Most Important Unanswered Questions
The investigation must determine:
What type of meter was installed at 1304 Cox Cove Court in 2008?
Did it transmit information wirelessly?
When was automatic meter reading first introduced at the property?
When was the meter replaced?
What equipment was located at the neighboring BGE facility?
Did that facility contain antennas, telemetry, SCADA equipment, relays, microwave links, fiber, repeaters, or communications gateways?
Were any systems added or modified between 1999 and 2010?
Did BGE operate a pilot program in Anne Arundel County before July 2009?
Were any federal smart-grid tests conducted in Maryland before the Recovery Act grant?
Did NIST, DOE, DHS, Commerce, or a federal contractor participate?
Were nearby systems connected to Fort Meade or government communications networks?
Did the address fall within a particular communications mesh or collection zone?
Were environmental, stray-voltage, electromagnetic-field, or transformer complaints filed?
Did any residents report unusual interference, noise, vibration, illness, or device effects?
Who had access to interval or meter data?
Were data ever disclosed to law enforcement, intelligence agencies, contractors, insurers, researchers, or third parties?
What cybersecurity vulnerabilities existed in the deployed equipment?
Did BGE document unauthorized access, compromised meters, communications failures, or abnormal transmissions?
Were customers adequately informed about what the meters collected and transmitted?
Why were cybersecurity systems and reporting frameworks still evolving after deployment?
My Opinion
In my opinion, the smart grid is one of the most important leads in understanding what changed around me during the period when my experiences became unmistakable.
I am not stating that a smart meter caused everything I experienced, however, once it was determined to be connected to a cigar shaped metal DVR recorder and communications wire going directly to the grid, I removed the Smart meter and had it replaced with the old meter. Since then, and many other actions I took, I have not felt anything.
The chronology may not support such a simple conclusion because BGE’s full smart-grid application was filed in 2009, while my concerns became obvious in approximately 2008, however, the painful experiences that I had, started after the grid was in place.
However, federal smart-grid policy was enacted in 2007.
BGE already used automatic meter-reading technology before its full AMI deployment.
Electrical utilities already operated telemetry, control systems, substations, communications equipment, and remote-monitoring infrastructure.
Maryland was also undergoing military, intelligence, cybersecurity, communications, and infrastructure expansion.
Therefore, the relevant question is larger than when a modern BGE smart meter appeared on one house.
The real question is:
What combination of utility communications, automated metering, federal infrastructure, regional military expansion, digital surveillance, telecommunications systems, and experimental modernization existed around Cox Cove Court between 1999 and 2010?
The public records may answer part of that question.
Conclusion
The smart grid was not created overnight and did not begin with the installation of one visible meter.
Congress established national smart-grid policy in 2007.
The federal government created a coordinated task force and assigned NIST a central role in technical standards.
The Recovery Act then supplied billions of dollars to accelerate deployment.
BGE formally proposed its Maryland system in July 2009, sought a federal grant of up to $200 million, and planned approximately 2.1 million advanced gas and electric meters.
Maryland regulators raised questions about cost, benefits, customer education, equipment performance, cybersecurity, and opt-out rights.
Federal investigators and security researchers warned that connecting electrical infrastructure to communications and information systems created new cybersecurity risks.
These are documented facts.
What remains unproven is whether any part of this infrastructure was used improperly against me or caused the effects I experienced.
That is why the next phase must focus on the address, the equipment, the neighboring BGE facility, the frequencies, the licenses, the contracts, the construction records, the utility systems, and the exact dates.
The smart grid is not proof.
It is a serious investigative lead.
References
United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. (The Department of Energy’s Energy.gov)
United States Department of Energy. Federal Smart Grid Task Force. (The Department of Energy’s Energy.gov)
United States Department of Energy. Recovery Act Smart Grid Investment Grant Program. (The Department of Energy’s Energy.gov)
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. Comments Concerning Smart Grid Deployment and Advanced Metering Infrastructure. (The Department of Energy’s Energy.gov)
Maryland Public Service Commission. BGE Smart Grid Initiative, Case No. 9208. (Maryland Public Service Commission)
Maryland Public Service Commission. BGE Rate Case and Smart Grid Cost-Benefit Findings. (Public Service Commission of Maryland)
Government Accountability Office. Smart Grid Cybersecurity Guidelines and Oversight. (GAO)
Wired. Federal Smart Grid Deployment and Cybersecurity Concerns. (WIRED)
Support Independent Journalism
Independent journalism requires time, research, document review, source verification, writing, editing, and the courage to investigate subjects that are frequently ignored. Your subscription helps Targeted Community continue publishing investigations, personal accounts, public-interest analysis, technology reporting, and human-rights advocacy.
Subscription Options
Free subscription: Receive public articles and updates from Targeted Community.
Paid subscription: $5 per month or $50 per year.
Subscribe or become a paid member:
https://targetedcommunity.substack.com
Petition: The Fight for Survival
Humanity vs. AI, Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Directed Energy Weapons, 5G Abuses, Gangstalking & More:
https://c.org/SxWHvTgHgH
Guardians Global Code Foundation Resources
Guardians Global AI Code & Human Rights Constitution, Full Version:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-alLJU9smauyg_-LKUmPoI3896bgojLWUOjilr079kE/edit?usp=drivesdk
Citizens Edition:
Annexes on Technologies and American and International Violations
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NUkPUvTF0ayzVz1MEjcjh17Qo_TZmKTvOYG-youIAeg/edit?usp=drivesdk
My Personal Story:
Comparative Charts and Supporting Analysis:
1000+ Most Dangerous AI & Emerging Technologies:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TOl47BuLAg4BgPtJLgeBUAxA_cxWCet-ZhgxtQZZrck/edit?usp=drivesdk
Targeted Community:
https://targetedcommunity.substack.com
Global Survivor:
Thank you for reading, questioning, investigating, and standing with those whose experiences deserve to be heard. Every subscription, share, and referral helps independent research reach more people.
Christine Wolking
Founder, Guardians Global Code Foundation
Publisher, Targeted Community
Author, Guardians Global AI Code & Human Rights Constitution
Searchable Keywords and Hashtags
#SmartGrid #BGESmartGrid #BGE #SmartMeters #AdvancedMeteringInfrastructure #AMI #AutomaticMeterReading #AMR #MarylandPublicServiceCommission #Case9208 #DepartmentOfEnergy #DepartmentOfCommerce #NIST #EnergyIndependenceAndSecurityAct #RecoveryAct #SmartGridInvestmentGrant #Cybersecurity #CriticalInfrastructure #UtilityPrivacy #EnergyData #DataPrivacy #SCADA #UtilityTelemetry #RadioFrequency #RF #ElectromagneticFields #EMF #AnneArundelCounty #Annapolis #CoxCoveCourt #FortMeade #NSA #CyberCommand #InfrastructureInvestigation #GovernmentContracts #FederalGrants #PublicRecords #FOIA #MarylandPIA #TargetedIndividual #TargetedIndividuals #TargetedCommunity #ElectronicHarassment #DirectedEnergyWeapons #DEW #Surveillance #GovernmentTransparency #Whistleblowers #HumanRights #CivilRights #GuardiansGlobalCode #GlobalSurvivor
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.