This is exactly what is happening in RI: "Rather than investigating and addressing the possibility of a “very expensive mistake,” utility regulators, in lock step with politicians and clean energy advocates, have reduced the meter safety issue to the question of opt out fees for health vulnerable customers, across the country."
Here is the comment from the Chair of the RI Public Utilities Commission just prior to announcing authorization of RI Energy's proposal to deploy Smart Meters in every RI home and business. Docket: https://ripuc.ri.gov/Docket-22-49-EL
At about minute 11, Chair Gerwatowski made the following comments about the safety "concerns" that had been raised during public comment and via written testimony. Describing the role of the RI PUC, he stated, "We are an economic regulator, rate making." ...
"When while we would certainly be concerned if we had a record of witnesses coming in saying that the company was proposing to invest in something that created a significant health and safety issue [which they did], we would certainly consider that in the context of whether it's prudent to go forward with that particular technology, but we are not a safety agency that evaluates and studies whether a particular technology is right or wrong or raises safety issues. We rely on a record to be developed by parties that may raise things like that, and we would evaluate them in the context of being an economic regulator as to whether it's prudent to invest in them. I know that many, [sic] there were several members of the public, some out of state, who raised concerns about health, privacy, and meter safety issues, and those issues were addressed in the testimony in a way that was indicate [sic] that the company put testimony in defending the choices they've made. And there's certainly information that we've had that would indicate--that would not indicate anything in the record that there's any kind of issue that we would be saying No, don't do this because there's a problem. There's nothing in the record that indicates that, and so and I do believe that the company has made an effort to also discuss some of these issues in its testimony and in its filing. And there is no party that was actually intervened in this docket that raised any safety concerns and certainly no party has opposed the investment in AMF. [about minute 13:15--meaning the formal "intervenors."] And so where again the bottom line is that we're not equipped to do a safety review unless somebody brings that to our attention, and I think that it was brought to our attention in public comments and the company has responded, and no other party has taken issue with that who was an intervenor. I wanted to raise that first [in the hearing] because I know that it has been some concerns,[sic] but I'm just going to stop there for a second. We don't have any decisions to make on that, but I thought it was important to address that."
Neither of the other two Commissioners had anything to add.
During the final decision-making, Chair Gerwatowski emphasized that RI Energy's plan was authorized but not required. He hoped that the company would move forward with the plan, which they have.
Thanks for posting the video with Stetzer and Graham - this will be a good one to cite.
This is exactly what is happening in RI: "Rather than investigating and addressing the possibility of a “very expensive mistake,” utility regulators, in lock step with politicians and clean energy advocates, have reduced the meter safety issue to the question of opt out fees for health vulnerable customers, across the country."
Here is the comment from the Chair of the RI Public Utilities Commission just prior to announcing authorization of RI Energy's proposal to deploy Smart Meters in every RI home and business. Docket: https://ripuc.ri.gov/Docket-22-49-EL
September 27, 2023
livestream archived at: https://video.ibm.com/recorded/133064331
At about minute 11, Chair Gerwatowski made the following comments about the safety "concerns" that had been raised during public comment and via written testimony. Describing the role of the RI PUC, he stated, "We are an economic regulator, rate making." ...
"When while we would certainly be concerned if we had a record of witnesses coming in saying that the company was proposing to invest in something that created a significant health and safety issue [which they did], we would certainly consider that in the context of whether it's prudent to go forward with that particular technology, but we are not a safety agency that evaluates and studies whether a particular technology is right or wrong or raises safety issues. We rely on a record to be developed by parties that may raise things like that, and we would evaluate them in the context of being an economic regulator as to whether it's prudent to invest in them. I know that many, [sic] there were several members of the public, some out of state, who raised concerns about health, privacy, and meter safety issues, and those issues were addressed in the testimony in a way that was indicate [sic] that the company put testimony in defending the choices they've made. And there's certainly information that we've had that would indicate--that would not indicate anything in the record that there's any kind of issue that we would be saying No, don't do this because there's a problem. There's nothing in the record that indicates that, and so and I do believe that the company has made an effort to also discuss some of these issues in its testimony and in its filing. And there is no party that was actually intervened in this docket that raised any safety concerns and certainly no party has opposed the investment in AMF. [about minute 13:15--meaning the formal "intervenors."] And so where again the bottom line is that we're not equipped to do a safety review unless somebody brings that to our attention, and I think that it was brought to our attention in public comments and the company has responded, and no other party has taken issue with that who was an intervenor. I wanted to raise that first [in the hearing] because I know that it has been some concerns,[sic] but I'm just going to stop there for a second. We don't have any decisions to make on that, but I thought it was important to address that."
Neither of the other two Commissioners had anything to add.
During the final decision-making, Chair Gerwatowski emphasized that RI Energy's plan was authorized but not required. He hoped that the company would move forward with the plan, which they have.