House committee narrows smart‑meter bill to guarantee opt‑outs, seeks PUC oversight of charges

The House Energy & Digital Infrastructure committee on April 22 debated changes to a bill that would create a consistent statewide opt‑out for water and electric advanced meters, and directed staff to draft clarifying language on how fees would be regulated.

The chair said the bill should guarantee that customers who want meters removed can opt out, but questioned which regulator would oversee fees charged to customers who choose to opt out. Committee members agreed electric utilities should use the Public Utility Commission (PUC) tariff or rate process for any charges while many municipal water systems currently lack a comparable state oversight mechanism.

Committee members raised technical and policy questions that shaped the requested edits. They asked staff to revise definitions so the bill covers both current one‑way water meters and two‑way advanced meters, to add findings citing Department of Health reporting on radio‑frequency studies, and to specify that electric utility opt‑out fees be subject to PUC review or the tariff process. The chair asked staff (Ellen) to clarify whether state oversight already exists for municipal water utilities and how a cap or "actual average cost" standard suggested in testimony (attributed to Lewis Porter) might be written into statute.

Members also debated health and cyber‑security concerns tied to wireless meter communications. Several members said evidence presented to the committee shows the studies do not identify a public‑health hazard; others urged retaining a cyber‑security reporting or guidance mechanism but agreed that adding legislators to the Cyber Security Advisory Council belongs in a different bill.

The committee decided to remove the council‑membership language from this meter bill for now and asked Rep. Cibilia to seek another vehicle for those proposals. The chair instructed staff to post the smart‑meter and Department of Health reports to the committee bill folder and to invite the Department of Public Service (DPS) back to testify on whether its ongoing RFP and October report overlap with the bill’s study language.

Next steps: staff will incorporate agreed edits (definitions, PUC/tariff language on electric fees, an "actual cost" or similar cap on water fees, and findings about RF studies), ask Ellen and DPS for clarifications, and return the revised draft to the committee for final consideration.