PECO Energy holds out for favorable state supreme court smart meter decision
Exelon utility subsidiary PECO Energy Co. awaits a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on whether its millions of customers will retain the option to allow the investor-owned utility to continue universally installing smart meters in its service territory.
The state Commonwealth Court ruled in October that PECO smart meters are no longer mandatory for millions of customers after some of them said the wireless meters’ radio frequency (RF) emissions made them sick.
Specifically, the lower court ruled that the 12-year-old law, Pennsylvania Act 129 — which requires that utilities “shall furnish” smart-meter technology by 2023 — does not require “every customer to endure involuntary exposure” to RF emissions.
“We disagree with the Court’s legal interpretation. We believe the words “shall furnish” mean deployment of advanced meters is required. That is how the [Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission] has interpreted the language since Act 129 was passed in 2008,” said Terrance Fitzpatrick, president and CEO of the Energy Association of Pennsylvania, a trade association representing regulated electric and natural gas distribution companies operating in Pennsylvania.
Moreover, the state legislature has considered but never advanced “opt out” legislation since the law was passed, Fitzpatrick told Daily Energy Insider. “That legislation is essentially moot if this interpretation stands,” he said.
PECO Spokeswoman Alexandra Coppadge said the utility agrees, and noted that to date, PECO Energy has installed more than 1.72 million electric meters and since 2017 has substantially completed its residential deployment program.
“The Court has now determined that universal deployment is not required, and that individual customers may be able to “opt out” of receiving a smart meter,” Coppadge told Daily Energy Insider. “This decision puts at risk nearly a decade of existing smart meter design, construction, and deployment, totaling in the billions of dollars.”
That’s because the smart meter systems now in use by all electric distribution companies in Pennsylvania, including PECO Energy, were designed and constructed based on the guidance that universal deployment is required by Pennsylvania Act 129, Coppadge explained.
“Data and IT systems were built to accept meter data only from the smart meter systems,” she said. “Legacy systems that accepted other meter data, such as automatic meter reading systems, have been decommissioned or retired.”
For such reasons, both PECO Energy and the Pennsylvania PUC separately have asked the state Supreme Court to throw out the lower court’s decision, which stemmed from customer complaints that the installation of smart meters are a health concern or an invasion of privacy.
And while the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the PUC’s finding that these customers had not proven a link between their health issues and smart meters, the court did order the PUC to consider “all reasonable accommodations,” such as turning off the smart meters’ wireless function, installing a wired device, or installing the smart meters further away from customers’ homes, among others.
But PECO Energy disagrees with this interpretation and has requested that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provide further review. “If the Pennsylvania Supreme Court leaves that interpretation intact, then the matter will be remanded to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to determine next steps,” said Coppadge.
“Our smart meters help us deliver better and faster service, safely,” she added. “The use of this technology helps us identify and respond to customer outages faster during storms, allows customers to make informed choices to save energy and money, and it creates a platform to provide new solutions for customers in the future, like our new time-of-use rates that we will make available in 2021.”
The Pennsylvania PUC has made a similar request for further review that’s supported by the Energy Association of Pennsylvania, among others.
Fitzpatrick said the association thinks that the lower court’s decision will have more of an operational and practical impact than a financial one.
“We’re concerned about the precedent that utilities have to ‘accommodate’ some customers’ subjective preferences about how they receive service and the types of infrastructure serving them where they can’t prove any health or other impacts,” he said. “In other words, customers have to show that a utility is failing to provide safe, reasonable, and adequate service.”
Fitzpatrick also pointed out that smart meters have been deemed safe by the Federal Communications Commission and the industry groups that have studied it, and PECO also has submitted evidence on safety before the PUC.
“The meters have a number of benefits. They aid the utilities in restoring service more quickly following storms… they save costs… and they enable time-sensitive pricing plans,” said Fitzpatrick.
The latter may be more important in the future, he added, noting for example that PECO just obtained approval for a new rate to encourage electric vehicle owners to charge their vehicles at night.
