5. Discussion and Analysis
We deny CCSF's Petition and close this proceeding because neither CCSF nor any other party has identified material new facts that justify suspension of the SmartMeter program, and because other issues concerning customer service and program costs included in the subsequent filings of parties to this proceeding have had, have, or will likely have other procedural homes.
On the central issue before us, the Petition offers no facts concerning the inaccuracy of the SmartMeters or PG&E's billing system that warrant the modification of D.09-03-026.63 PG&E, summarizing the data in the very same reports cited by the Petition, shows that the problems do not warrant the suspension of the installation program and that the new meters are functioning better than older meters.64 More specifically, PG&E's analysis of the data in the reports cited by CCSF, shows that the SmartMeters were more accurate, led to fewer estimated bills, and produced more timely bills than traditional meters.65 Moreover, even the data cited by CCSF - that there are "hundred's of complaints" in a program that has installed "5.8 million meters"66- would suggest a complaint rate of less than 0.02%.67
Concerning other issues relating to installation costs and customer service mentioned by CCSF, PG&E's General Rate Cases, which occur on a regular schedule, already offer a procedural home in which the Commission can consider the issues concerning the costs and customer service issues that CCSF, DRA, and TURN would now have us address in this proceeding. In particular, D.09-03-026, the decision that the Petition asks us to modify, states in Ordering Paragraph 6:
6. In its next general rate case (GRC) for test year 2011, PG&E shall make an affirmative showing that it has avoided double recovery of any authorized SmartMeter Upgrade costs, and that any requested costs in its 2011 GRC are consistent with the limits of recovery adopted in this decision.68
Consistent with this directive, some SmartMeter issues relating to costs are being addressed in PG&E's test year 2011 General Rate Case, Application (A.) 09-12-020, which is nearing conclusion. A pending settlement agreement, filed on October 15, 2010, proposes that Commission staff oversee an independent audit of SmartMeter costs. The pending settlement agreement also addresses SmartMeter cost recovery and benefit recognition for the 2011 through 2013 period.
Thus, cost issues associated with the SmartMeter program already have had a procedural home and are the subject of a pending settlement now under consideration in A.09-12-020. In addition, issues concerning customer service always constitute a part of a GRC, and these occur on a regular schedule.
Furthermore, we note that other issues concerning SmartMeters are also before the Commission. A.10-04-018 has recently addressed issues concern EMF arising from SmartMeter operation. Rulemaking 08-12-009, concerning the Smart Grid, is addressing many issues concerning customer privacy and access to energy usage data produced by SmartMeters. Thus, we see no reason to continue this proceeding.
63 We note that the Structure Report has examined the issues of meter and billing system accuracy and found that both are accurate. We do not, however, need to take this report into evidence or rely on it because in a petition to modify, it is the petitioner who must provide the new facts that justify granting the petition. As noted above, there are no facts before us that warrant suspension of the SmartMeter program.
64 PG&E Opposition at 4.
65 PG&E Opposition at 4 shows that of 17,340 Smart Meters tested during the period covered by reports, only 10 meters were inaccurate but of 28, 033 non-SmartMeters tested, 320 meters were inaccurate; of 3,984, 346 bills produced in the prior month using Smart Meters, only .08% were estimated but of 4,990,425 produced with non-SmartMeters, 1.01% were estimated; 99.88% of SmartMeter bills were on time, but only -99.7% of non-SmartMeter bills.
66 Petition at 1.
67 This rough calculation uses that fact that there were 5.8 million meters installed and, based on the assertion that there "hundreds" (not thousands) of complaints, assumes there are fewer than 1000 complaints. Moreover, if there are less than 5,800 complaints, the rate would be less than 0.1%.
68 D.09-03-026, Ordering Paragraph 6 at 196.
