SMART METERS MEASURE UP

The Illinois Commerce Commission approved Commonwealth Edison's advanced metering infrastructure plan and ordered the utility to install smart meters for all its customers. The smart meter measures a customer's electricity usage and wirelessly sends the information to the utility. Thus, a smart meter eliminates the necessity for a meter reader to come to the premises to read the meter. The Commission also approved an additional monthly charge of $21.53 to customers who refuse to permit installation of a smart meter on their premises. The additional charge is cost-based,including the cost of having a meter reader visiting premises to read a non-smart meter.

A customer refused to permit installation of a smart meter and also refused to pay the smart meter refusal charge. The customer filed a complaint with the Commission challenging the legality of the charge. After the Commission dismissed the complaint, the customer appealed the decision to the Appellate Court.*

On appeal, the question before the Court was whether a customer can refuse installation of a smart meter without paying the refusal charge. The customer argued that the Commission denied due process because it dismissed the complaint without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Court rejected this argument, indicating that a hearing does not need to be held in every situation of dismissal. It concluded that the customer's complaint before the Commission raised only legal issues, not factual issues, and that the legal issues were fully briefed.

The Court also held that there was no violation of state law. It stated that a smart meter simply is an upgrade replacement of an old meter. In addition, the refusal charge is a reimbursement of the additional cost for a manual meter read, not an additional metering fee. Moreover, the refusal charge was in a tariff approved by the Commission, and thereby, was a law.

The customer also asserted that the refusal charge violated federal law because there was no federal law mandating smart meters. The Court found no conflict with federal law.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Commission's decision rejecting the challenge to the smart meter refusal charge.

Although this decision involves an electric utility, it can be instructive for water utilities. For investor-owned utilities, it demonstrates the importance of prior approval by the regulatory agency for innovations such as smart meters or other infrastructure upgrades. For all types of water utilities, the issues can be relevant. For example, technology innovations may suggest replacement of conventional meters with some form of "smart" water meter. Access to change meters may come into question. Further, a refusal charge may be proposed in the event a customer declines to permit a meter change. Such a charge, it would seem, must be justified based on cost factors.

________________________________________

*Wade v. Illinois Commerce Commission,
2017 IL. App (1st) 171230

© Daniel J. Kucera 2018