PAULA M. CARMODY PEOPLES COUNSEL THERESA V.

CZARSKI DEPUTY PEOPLES COUNSEL

STATE OF MARYLAND

ASSISTANT PEOPLES COUNSEL CYNTHIA GREEN-WARREN WILLIAM F. FIELDS PETER SAAR GARY L. ALEXANDER RONALD HERZFELD ANNE JOHNSON RICHARD S. GRATZ

OFFICE OF PEOPLES COUNSEL

April 6, 2012

Mr. David J. Collins Executive Secretary Maryland Public Service Commission 6 St. Paul Street, 16th Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Re: Case Nos. 9207 9208

Dear Mr. Collins: Enclosed please find an original and seventeen (17) copies of the Comments of the Office of People's Counsel in response to the Commissions Notice of Hearing and Opportunity to Comment on an Opt-out Option for Smart Meters issued in the above-referenced cases. A copy of the Comments has been provided via e-mail to all parties of record. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

/electronic signature/ Richard S. Gratz Assistant Peoples Counsel RSG/bl Enclosure cc: All Parties of Record

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND IN THE MATTER OF POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY AND DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY REQUEST FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED METER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE MATTER OF BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR AUTHORIZATION TO DEPLOY A SMART GRID INITIATIVE AND TO ESTABLISH A SURCHARGE MECHANISM FOR THE RECOVERY OF COST * * * * * * * * * * *

CASE NO. 9207

CASE NO. 9208

COMMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF PEOPLES COUNSEL I. On INTRODUCTION February 29, 2012, the Maryland Public Service Commission

(Commission) issued a Notice of Hearing and Opportunity to Comment on an optout option for smart meters, which among other things, requested that written comments be filed by April 6, 2012. The Office of Peoples Counsel (OPC) hereby offers these timely filed comments. In its Notice, the Commission noted the activities in other states1 regarding the opportunities for an opt-out option for smart meters, and the correspondence received by the Commission from some Maryland ratepayers identifying health and/or data privacy concerns associated with smart meters. The purpose of the Commission hearing is to consider issues relevant to or associated with providing customers with an opt-out

OPC is aware of proposals for or adoption of opt-out programs in Maine, California, Nevada and Michigan. The Georgia legislature is considering legislation requiring the opt-out option to be provided at no charge.

option as well as the appropriate structure for any such opt-out requirement should the Commission determine the option to be in the public interest. Notice, p. 1. The Commission posed a number of questions related to such an option, including the effect on (1) a smart meter projects costs and benefits; (2) the current installment schedule; (3) the types, components and/or configuration of meters available for customers who opt out; (4) future meter reading; (5) communication of data between the utility and customers; (6) future billing practices; and (7) electric tariff rate structures and energy programs. Additionally, the Commission identified issues related to the structure of any opt-out program, including customer education, notice, deployment to existing and new customers, and potential charges. POSITION OPC is not specifically proposing the adoption of an opt-out option at this time, but does not oppose the adoption of such an option as long as such a program does not have a detrimental impact on residential ratepayers as a whole. COMMENTS The Office of Peoples Counsel is not in a position at this time to assess the validity of the claims made by individuals of adverse health effects from radiofrequency exposure associated with wireless smart meter technology. OPC does note that the International EMF Project of the World Health Organization (WHO) was established in 1996 as a large multi-disciplinary research effort to examine the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation associated with transmission and distribution facilities, electric appliances in the household, televisions and computer screens, microwave ovens, security

systems, and cell phones.2 Telecommunications equipment (including cell phones), TV and radio antennas and microwave ovens, in addition to smart meters, are examples of higher frequency (radiofrequency or RF) electromagnetic fields, According to the WHO, [t]o date, no adverse health effects from low level, long-term exposure to radiofrequency or power frequency fields have been confirmed, but scientists are actively continuing to research this area.3 If the Commission seeks a more definitive state of the research literature regarding potential adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields in making its determination whether to order an opt-out option, OPC believes that an independent literature review would need to be conducted through an appropriate state agency or an independent consultant and provided to the Commission. However, it appears to OPC that such a scientific literature review may lead the Commission to an absence of a definitive conclusion regarding health risks of long-term exposure.4 We therefore may be at the same point we are at today. In light of potential uncertainty in the state of scientific research, some individuals have argued that ratepayers should have the ability to decide whether the smart meters are installed on their homes, just as they can decide whether to use cell phones, microwaves, computers and other devices. The Commission could decide that permitting an opt-out option is in the public interest, without any determination of the validity of the claims of adverse health risks, if it can be accomplished without adverse financial or other impacts on ratepayers who do not opt out of the smart meter installation. In that regard, the utility responses to questions posed by the Commission regarding the impacts of the opt-out option on smart
2 3

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF_Project/en/index.html. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html. 4 An absence of a definitive conclusion does not mean that there are adverse health effects from exposure.

meter deployment can help in determining whether an opt-out option can be reasonably implemented, regardless of an individual customers reason for requesting an opt-out option. However, if the Commission concludes that the opt-out option would present significant technological, administrative or cost impacts, to the detriment of the ratepayers generally, OPC believes that the Commission may then need to confront the issue of adverse health impacts and make a determination thereon, before approving the option. In addition to claims of adverse health impacts, a number of customers have identified privacy concerns related to release of the additional data collected once the smart meters are fully operational. While the Commission is not in a position to address the concerns related to utility collection and release of information to law enforcement, the issues related to data security and third-party access to customer data do fall within the Commissions purview.5 Even if the Commission declines to adopt an opt-out option for smart meters, the ratepayer concerns about the security and privacy of customer data can and should be addressed through the adoption of comprehensive regulations regarding the collection, retention and use of data by the utilities, and release of that data to third parties. OPC has not conducted any studies to date related to the impact of the opt-out option on costs, installation, administration, billing and rate structures of the electric companies deploying smart meters, but expects that BGE and PEPCO will provide information during this proceeding. OPC expects that the utilities will preliminarily identify specific impacts related to the completed and future installation of smart meters

House Bill 771, currently before the Senate Finance Committee, would require the utilities to release energy usage data to energy suppliers if the ratepayer does not opt out. OPC has opposed this Bill.

and related administration, and incremental costs associated with installation of different meters. Since the hearing is a legislative-style proceeding, OPC believes that further proceedings will be needed to determine how to address those impacts and quantify cost impacts. To the extent there is an incremental cost impact resulting from the opt-out option, OPC would support the adoption of appropriate fee structures to cover the cost of these opt-out meter options. Additional proceedings will be needed to establish the structure of an opt-out program, including: 1. The type of alternative meter(s) to be made available to opt-out customers: analog, digital or non-communicating AMI meters 2. New customer communication plan a. Revision of existing utility consumer education materials 3. Customer communications: a. Notice of option to existing customers w/ smart meters b. Notice to existing customers w/out smart meters c. Notice to new customers 4. Process for selection of opt-out option 5. Arrangements for removal and replacement of smart meters for customers who opt out 6. Determination of incremental costs and calculation of any one-time or monthly fees deemed necessary a. Possible waivers for low-income customers

Finally, upon approval of any opt-out programs, the electric companies will need to make the necessary compliance filings to reflect the programs and any fees in there tariffs.

Respectfully submitted, Paula M. Carmody Peoples Counsel Theresa V. Czarski Deputy Peoples Counsel

/electronic signature/ Richard S. Gratz Assistant Peoples Counsel April 6, 2012 Maryland Office of Peoples Counsel 6 St. Paul Street, Suite 2102 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 410-767-8150

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 6th day of April 2012, the foregoing Comments of the Office of Peoples Counsel was either hand-delivered, e-mailed or mailed first-class, postage prepaid to all parties on the Service List for PSC Case Nos. 9207 - 9208.

Respectfully submitted,

/electronic signature/ Richard S. Gratz Assistant Peoples Counsel