I recently had the opportunity to interview the Chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Robert F. Powelson, regarding his views on smart meter opt-outs and other issues affecting Pennsylvania’s energy future. Because I live and practice in Pennsylvania, I may be biased but I think Smart Grid Legal News readers will agree it is refreshing and rare to hear regulators like Chairman Powelson promote smart meters, energy efficiency and other practices that advance our energy future.

Evers: Chairman Powelson, thank you for taking the time to discuss smart meters with me. Why is it important for customers to have smart meters?

Powelson: Act 129 of 2008 has really paved the way for the rollout of smart meters, also referred to as Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), and the implementation of Act 129 continues to benefit Pennsylvania customers. As I see it, smart meter technology is a “win-win” situation for the Commonwealth – both electricity customers and electricity providers alike reap the benefits of advanced meters. 

Smart meters give customers greater control over their energy consumption by allowing them to measure their energy usage, monitor real-time electricity prices, and adjust their consumption and behavior in order to realize significant savings on monthly bills. Customers can even shut down appliances during peak periods or pre-program appliances and devices to operate only at predetermined (and lower cost) timeframes if they so choose.

Similarly, electricity providers also benefit from increased smart meter deployment. The two key concepts here are efficiency and reliability. AMI makes meter reading quicker and more efficient by eliminating the current practice of estimated meter readings. Additionally, with smart meters, utilities have the ability to monitor distribution networks to allow for the immediate detection of irregularities, which leads to drastically reduced response time in addressing outages. 

Finally, smart meters can help reduce both overall electricity use and peak demand use, leading to lower emissions from fossil power plants that will not have to generate as much power – a direct environmental benefit.

Evers: Chairman, across the country several states have implemented an opt-out process due to customers concerns about health and privacy. I am concerned about the impact of an opt-out process as people relocate in and out of homes with smart meters. I call it a smart meter mosaic. I joke that real estate disclosure forms will soon have to start indicating the home’s level of smartness. Seriously, I think the implementation and long-term management of such a process could eventually put upward pressure on rates for everyone. What are your views regarding a smart meter opt-out process?

Powelson: In May, I testified before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives Consumer Affairs Committee on a proposal to partially repeal Act 129 and permit smart meter “opt-out” programs in the Commonwealth. My testimony addressed two pieces of legislation – House Bill 2186, which would allow consumers to opt out of having smart meters installed at their premises, and House Bill 2188, which would require consumer consent in order to share information from electric meters with government agencies. These bills represent a significant step backward in policy, with the potential to negate all of the reductions already achieved under Act 129.

The proliferation of opt-out requirements for AMI deployment has the potential to cripple efforts to modernize grid technology. Maine has received a lot of attention regarding its AMI opt-out, and Central Maine Power (CMP) has considered, analyzed and provided substantial cost information relating to a variety of potential solutions or mitigation measures for customers seeking to opt out of CMP’s Smart Meter Program. CMP estimates these incremental infrastructure and support costs to be as high as $70 million over the life of the AMI project – and that is assuming only 1 to 2 percent of CMP customers opt out. At an opt-out level of 10 percent, these incremental costs grow to hundreds of millions of dollars – exceeding the costs of CMP’s advanced meter project.

While I appreciate that there are consumers who have security and privacy concerns with respect to AMI, the PUC, legislature, and Electric Distribution Companies (EDCs) may be able to help alleviate these concerns through increased education and outreach. It is worth noting that many EDCs and their customers have had AMI in place for years, namely PPL and PECO. Additionally, we are already facilitating the continued implementation of smart grid technology by establishing rules that more precisely address conduct in the areas of reliability, privacy and security. California and Ontario have undertaken similar efforts through a “Privacy by Design” rulebook, which was integral to customer support for advanced meter roll out.

In sum, opt-outs cause operational gaps that will lead to additional costs for companies and their customers, defeating the stated purposes of Act 129. Such a system reduces reliability for all customers, as well as the benefits of a completely modernized electric grid. Simply put, there is no compelling reason for an “opt-out” program.

Evers: Smart meters have received a lot of attention but there is so much more to the concept of smart grid. Beyond smart meters, what do you see as other benefits as utilities upgrade their systems?

Powelson: Nationally, billions of dollars are being invested in smart grid technology because of the many benefits to consumers and utilities, as well as the positive impact on the environment through increased energy efficiency. (By way of background, federal support for the development of smart meter systems began with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, was supplemented with passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – which set aside $11 billion for the creation of a smart grid.)

For me it is not just about the technology. The most important objective is to better serve the needs of consumers and build stronger, more vibrant communities in which to live, work, and play. Smart meter and smart grid programs will be much more efficient in delivering electricity to homes and businesses; responding to outages and other emergencies; monitoring and seeking to curtail usage, especially during peak periods; preventing theft and fraud; and helping electric customers save dollars on their monthly bill. In short, the benefits to Pennsylvanians will continue to grow.

Evers: Recently many utilities have partnered with Opower and Facebook to allow customers to form teams for energy saving contests and compare energy usage with friends, hopefully creating positive peer pressure. Why are innovations like this important to our energy future?

Powelson: Any method of educating consumers and raising consumer awareness is vital. The real benefits will come when people start to realize that we are all in this together, and everyone contributing a little adds up to significant decreases in demand, which then puts a downward pressure on prices.

I particularly like this idea of comparing energy usage with neighbors and friends, as it dovetails nicely with the idea of “competition” in Pennsylvania’s electricity market. The more customers learn about competitive electricity providers, and the benefits and potential price savings available in the marketplace, the better. Increased dialogue that leads to decreased energy usage is exactly what we are looking for under Act 129.

Evers: Are there any other thoughts regarding Pennsylvania’s energy future you would like to share?

Powelson: Pennsylvania has really embraced a two-pronged approach in considering its energy future. On one hand, we are doing all that we can as regulators, providers, and consumers to comply with Act 129 and become more energy efficient. On the other hand, we are strengthening Pennsylvania’s competitive marketplace to increase competition among electric generation suppliers and produce better pricing and greater savings for the Commonwealth’s 5.6 million electric customers.

In addition to fulfilling its regulatory and oversight responsibilities, the Pennsylvania PUC will continue to educate consumers on the benefits of both energy efficiency and conservation, including smart meter technology, as well the advantages of shopping with competitive suppliers for their electric generation.

Although 2010 has been a mixed bag across the nation when it comes to implementing elements of the smart grid, the major Electric Distribution Companies (“EDCs”) in Pennsylvania have all received PaPUC approval of their smart meter implementation plans. And while the Commission appears eager to embrace the new technology, the common denominator among most of these electric distribution companies is a slow prudent rollout:

  • Allegheny Power – By December 31,2010, Allegheny will have trained personnel, installed support equipment and software, established network designs and tested and certified Electronic Data Interchange transaction capability, paving the way for the first batch of 93,100 smart meters to be deployed in March of 2011.  Allegheny’s Smart Meter Plan may be found on the Public Utility Commission’s website by entering docket number M-2009-2123951 in the search box.
  • Duquesne Light – Duquesne will extend and complement its existing advanced meter capabilities based on analysis and evaluation of several key issues.  The Company is conducting studies on smart meter network design, smart meter installation and training, and information technology systems and software upgrades. Like other utilities’ plans, much of Duquesne’s final deployment plan will be shaped by the outcomes of these assessments. Duquesne has a contractual obligation with Itron for Automatic Meter Reading infrastructure maintenance, which does note expire until the end of 2013.  Once the Itron contract expires, it will begin its 5-year major deployment of smart meters beginning in 2014 to be completed by January 2019, according to its 2009 smart meter plan. 
  • FirstEnergy – Before one meter is installed, the company will take the time necessary to address issues regarding personnel training, equipment procurement, software and testing. By the end of 2013, a pilot batch of 5,000 to 10,000 smart meters will be deployed;this technical trial will feature an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) test laboratory. Following a successful trial, it will deploy up to 60,000 smart meters to “de-bug” the system before full deployment. FirstEnergy’s Smart Meter Plan on behalf of Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn Power may be found on the Public Utility Commission’s website by entering docket number M-2009-2123950 in the search box. 
  • PECO – In October 2009, the company was awarded $200 million dollars in a Smart Grid Investment Grant from the federal government, which will be used to defray the costs of smart meter procurement and installation. PECO has already selected vendors and smart meter technology, and is currently field testing its Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) as well as developing the technology necessary to support smart meters and related systems. You can expect to see the first batch of smart meters for PECO be deployed in October 2011.  PECO’s Smart Meter Plan will ramp up deployment starting in August of 2012.  
  • PPL – The company is a leader among Pennsylvania EDCs when it comes to smart meters.  PPL was an early adopter of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), having installed the meters several years before there was a legal requirement to even submit a plan. Accordingly, PPL states that its current meters either meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of Act 129 under the Public Utility Commission’s order.  Notwithstanding, beginning in January 2011, PPL will launch pilot programs for bidirectional data communications capability, direct customer access to price and usage data and remote disconnection and reconnection. PPL will evaluate semiannually next-generation AMI technologies and smart-grid integration.  PPL’s Smart Meter Plan may be found on the Public Utility Commission’s website  by entering docket number M-2009-2123945 in the search box.

Based on PPL’s experience when it implemented AMI, it does not appear that Pennsylvania EDCs will have to deal with the customer backlash currently taking place in California.  Time and full deployment will tell.

Edward P. Yim contributed to this post.