tangent4ronpaul
02-27-2014, 11:24 AM
The solution reminds me of the "opt out" on the individual mandate... :mad:
Analysis of PSC's Opt Out Decision
As many of you know already, the Maryland Public Service Commission issued its final order regarding smart meter opt outs today. The PSC decided to allow permanent opt outs from the smart meter program, but all opt out ratepayers will have to pay fees. All opt out customers will pay $75 up front split up into 3 monthly payments. Then BGE customers will pay $11 per month, Pepco customers $14 per month, and Delmarva Power & Light and SMECO customers will pay $17 per month. Considering where the PSC was prior to 2012, it is quite remarkable that it granted any opt out. Just last January, it issued an order indicating only three of its five commissioners even wanted to consider opt outs. The other two said there should be no opt outs under any circumstances. Now the Commission has made them a permanent feature in Maryland. While the fees are a problem, we have achieved a great victory. With a budget of only $15,000, we defeated two multibillion dollar corporations at their own game. Of course there were some other folks who played a major role. The two that come to mind most are Delegate Glen Glass and radio talk show host Tom Marr.
It is clear that the PSC accepted the utilities highly defective cost proposals in making their decision, although the fees the PSC granted are much lower than the utilities requested, particularly Pepco, Delmarva Power & Light and SMECO. Commissioner Harold Williams issued a strong dissent on the opt out fees. He referred to the up-front fees as exorbitant. He acknowledged in footnote 1 of his dissent that he recognized the privacy, health and safety issues we raised. This a marked contrast to the majority opinion in the January 2013 order that essentially rejected all our concerns. Although he did say his main concern was the impact of the opt out fees on the low-income, poor and fixed income ratepayers. He described the imposition of such fees “egregious.” He also recognized the need to review the utilities actual costs “rather than the highly speculative costs that have been presented and considered to date.” It is heartening to see how well Commission Williams understood what was really going on.
Next Steps
So where does that leave our legislative effort? We still need to move forward for three reasons: 1) this order can be appealed and reversed on appeal wiping out the opt out program. Any of the other parties can appeal, even the Maryland Energy Administration; 2) this order does not address any of the privacy issues in the legislation; 3) the unsubstantiated, unfair out fees will essentially eliminate the opt out choice for a large number of ratepayers. Even the majority recognized that many customers will accept a smart meter once the fees are imposed. We need to adjust our messaging and revise the letters we are sending our elected representatives, but we are going to move forward with this effort. Thanks again for all your support over these last three years.
Jonathan Libber
-t
Analysis of PSC's Opt Out Decision
As many of you know already, the Maryland Public Service Commission issued its final order regarding smart meter opt outs today. The PSC decided to allow permanent opt outs from the smart meter program, but all opt out ratepayers will have to pay fees. All opt out customers will pay $75 up front split up into 3 monthly payments. Then BGE customers will pay $11 per month, Pepco customers $14 per month, and Delmarva Power & Light and SMECO customers will pay $17 per month. Considering where the PSC was prior to 2012, it is quite remarkable that it granted any opt out. Just last January, it issued an order indicating only three of its five commissioners even wanted to consider opt outs. The other two said there should be no opt outs under any circumstances. Now the Commission has made them a permanent feature in Maryland. While the fees are a problem, we have achieved a great victory. With a budget of only $15,000, we defeated two multibillion dollar corporations at their own game. Of course there were some other folks who played a major role. The two that come to mind most are Delegate Glen Glass and radio talk show host Tom Marr.
It is clear that the PSC accepted the utilities highly defective cost proposals in making their decision, although the fees the PSC granted are much lower than the utilities requested, particularly Pepco, Delmarva Power & Light and SMECO. Commissioner Harold Williams issued a strong dissent on the opt out fees. He referred to the up-front fees as exorbitant. He acknowledged in footnote 1 of his dissent that he recognized the privacy, health and safety issues we raised. This a marked contrast to the majority opinion in the January 2013 order that essentially rejected all our concerns. Although he did say his main concern was the impact of the opt out fees on the low-income, poor and fixed income ratepayers. He described the imposition of such fees “egregious.” He also recognized the need to review the utilities actual costs “rather than the highly speculative costs that have been presented and considered to date.” It is heartening to see how well Commission Williams understood what was really going on.
Next Steps
So where does that leave our legislative effort? We still need to move forward for three reasons: 1) this order can be appealed and reversed on appeal wiping out the opt out program. Any of the other parties can appeal, even the Maryland Energy Administration; 2) this order does not address any of the privacy issues in the legislation; 3) the unsubstantiated, unfair out fees will essentially eliminate the opt out choice for a large number of ratepayers. Even the majority recognized that many customers will accept a smart meter once the fees are imposed. We need to adjust our messaging and revise the letters we are sending our elected representatives, but we are going to move forward with this effort. Thanks again for all your support over these last three years.
Jonathan Libber
-t