Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Advanced Metering Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee reviews bill letting water systems offer smart-meter opt-outs and recoup costs
Summary
The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure committee examined S.213, which would let public water systems install advanced metering infrastructure while requiring them to offer customers an opt-out (with the utility allowed to charge for an alternative). The bill also directs the Agency of Natural Resources to obtain nonbinding cybersecurity guidance on request.
The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on March 25 reviewed S.213, a Senate bill that would change how public water systems and electric utilities handle advanced metering infrastructure devices, commonly known as smart meters.
Mike O'Grady of Legislative Council told the committee that the bill "relates to the use of advanced metering infrastructure devices," explaining the measure stemmed from a constituent concern raised with Senator Hardy about a water system installing a smart meter. O'Grady said the bill would require public water systems that use smart meters to give customers an option not to have the device installed or to have an already-installed device removed.
Under the bill as presented, a customer who refuses a proposed installation could receive an alternative (for example, a noncommunicating meter) but would be required to pay the utility's costs and any additional service charge. O'Grady contrasted that with existing law for electric companies, which previously required utilities to provide alternatives without charging customers; the electric utility provision was amended in the Senate to allow cost-recovery parity with water systems.
The bill also directs that, "upon the request of the Secretary of Natural Resources, the Cybersecurity Advisory Council shall develop nonbinding guidance for public water systems" about generally accepted cybersecurity practices relevant to metering systems and customer data, O'Grady said. He added that ANR supported a request-driven, flexible guidance approach rather than a permanent regulatory requirement because cybersecurity practices change rapidly.
O'Grady read the bill's definitions, saying an "advanced metering infrastructure device" is the meter or communications equipment on a customer's premises that enables two-way measurement and transmission of utility usage, and that the broader "infrastructure" includes the integrated system of meters, communications and data systems.
The measure would add permit-condition language allowing a public water system to install AMI only after providing written notice that the device uses radio or other wireless two-way communication and informing users of their rights. If a device has "already been previously installed," a user could require removal at an agreed-upon time without incurring a removal charge, O'Grady said; where a new installation is proposed, the customer may be charged for an alternative.
Committee members asked how the bill would treat devices installed before the act's effective date; O'Grady suggested adding an implementation clause to clarify whether "previously installed" means installations before the law takes effect and to avoid disputes about, for example, a home buyer inheriting an installed device.
O'Grady also noted the committee should hear from witnesses who testified in the Senate (including representatives from ANR, the Department of Public Service and ADS), and he said Vermont Gas had sought similar authority but that the Senate committee considered that request late; the House committee agreed to add Vermont Gas to its witness list. O'Grady recommended the committee obtain cost estimates from utilities before deciding on any charge structure.
The committee did not take formal votes during the session; members scheduled testimony from Senator Hardy and other witnesses to inform further consideration.
