Residents ask Shakopee leaders to review utility policy after denied meter opt-out appeal

Two residents told the Shakopee City Council on April 1 that they want the city to review a Public Utilities Commission decision that denied their appeal of a requirement to accept an advanced meter infrastructure (AMI) meter.

David and Jeanne Gavin, residents of 613 Fourth Avenue East, said their appeal to Shakopee Public Utilities was denied under “resolution number 20 20 five-six” and that the utility informed them it would impose a $100 monthly penalty for three months and could eventually shut off service if they refuse the new meter. The Gavins said they provided a medical necessity letter and scientific materials during the utility appeal process, but that those materials were not accepted.

The Gavins said they believe the city council appoints members of the Public Utilities Commission and therefore asked the council to investigate whether the utility’s AMI policy and the commission’s handling of appeals are consistent with the council’s authority and with customers’ rights. “We have a medical condition ... do not have it attached to your home,” David Gavin said, citing a physician’s letter. He also said the couple had asked for written answers to questions during the appeal and did not receive them.

City staff and council members said they would look into the jurisdictional question. A council member asked staff to examine whether appeals of utility decisions properly come before the council and to report back. “I need to look into it to see what jurisdiction the council has,” a staff member said. The city attorney/legal counsel will review whether the council has any authority to order changes or to suspend penalties while the council investigates.

Shakopee Public Utilities staff described the options the utility offered customers who objected to in-home AMI meters: installing the meter on the outside of the house, trenching a new line and placing the communication equipment across the alley at the customer’s expense, or locating the meter at the property edge or on a pole when feasible. The utility also said it had chosen to phase out meter-reader positions and move to automated reading and billing systems; that operational decision was offered as a reason the utility would not keep an analog meter-reading workforce in place.

Utility staff said the AMI devices transmit brief, infrequent radio-frequency (RF) bursts to collect reads and that typical RF exposure from the meters is well below the Federal Communications Commission limits; they also noted many U.S. utilities already use automatic meter-reading systems. The staff member added that the utility had an older study on AMI that informed the board’s decision and that documentation could be located on request.

Council members asked for follow-up on several points the Gavins raised: (1) whether the council has authority over the public utility or the commission given the utility’s separate governance and past ballot questions; (2) whether a suspension of penalties could be ordered while a review occurs; and (3) whether the city could face future liability if the technology were later shown to cause harm. Council members directed legal staff to review the matter and report back to the council.

The council did not take any formal vote or direct the utility to change its policy at the meeting. City staff confirmed they have the Gavins’ contact information if individual council members or staff need to follow up.

Why it matters: The dispute centers on a utility decision that could affect many households if Shakopee completes an AMI rollout and enforces penalties for refusal. Council review could clarify the scope of municipal oversight of Shakopee Public Utilities, rights of customers with medical claims, and whether an opt-out or relocation policy should be available.