Committee advances smart‑meter communications bill after amendment; industry, advocates split on scope

The House Energy and Environment Committee advanced House Bill 11 75, which requires qualified retail utilities to provide multiple, advance notices and clearer customer-facing information before installing advanced ("smart") meters and clarifies customers’ rights to accept, defer, or request non‑communicating meters.

Sponsor’s case: Representative Leader, the bill’s sponsor, said she introduced the measure after constituents reported installations without adequate notice and raised health, privacy and safety concerns. "This bill lays the foundation for communication plans," the sponsor told the committee, describing a schedule of 90‑, 60‑ and 30‑day notices and a requirement that customers be told how to defer or reject advanced metering installations.

Industry and stakeholder testimony: Xcel Energy’s regulatory policy director, Mike Pascucci, said the company is far along in meter deployment and that the Public Utilities Commission has already reviewed meters and communications plans. "Smart meters and our distribution system modernization are two parts of how we're doing that," Pascucci said, and he told the committee Xcel expects to complete deployment to most residential locations by the end of the summer. Industry groups and clean‑energy advocates said smart meters enable time‑varying rates, grid optimization and programs that reduce greenhouse‑gas emissions; they warned that broad statutory changes could increase opt‑outs and raise costs.

Supporters and opponents: Consumer and public‑health witnesses described cases of alleged health harms and property impacts they attribute to smart meters, while technical witnesses and public‑interest groups cited peer‑reviewed studies and federal guidance finding no established health hazard at the emission levels used by deployed meters. Xcel acknowledged customers may opt out of smart meters but said manual reading imposes incremental costs and is subject to safeguards; panelists said the PUC oversees meter accuracy and approves deployment plans.

Committee amendment and outcome: An amendment (L001) negotiated with utilities narrowed communication requirements to codify best practices the companies said they already follow — including advance notices and customer opt‑out information — and removed provisions that industry said would unnecessarily alarm customers. The committee adopted the amendment and voted 11–2 to send the bill, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. Roll-call names recorded two no votes and the transcript shows Representatives Brown and Vice Chair Velasco said they would vote no.

What the bill does not do: The amended bill does not ban advanced meters, does not single out vendors by origin, and does not create a new statewide registry of remediators or new safety standards; instead it focuses on communications, notice timing and clarifying customer options. Utilities will continue to report installations and communications to the Public Utilities Commission under existing regulatory processes.

Next steps: The bill moves to the Committee of the Whole. Sponsors and utilities said they will continue to work together on language if additional concerns arise in later consideration.