2. Background
In Decision (D.) 08-09-039, the Commission adopted a settlement between Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) to implement SCE's Advanced Metering Infrastructure Project, the Edison SmartConnect Program. As part of the program, SCE would replace existing meters with advanced digital meters capable of measuring energy usage on a time-differentiated basis and transmitting this data to SCE through radio transmission.1
On July 26, 2011, the Consumers Power Alliance, Public Citizen, Coalition of Energy Users, Eagle Forum of California, Neighborhood Defense League of California, Santa Barbara Tea Party, Concerned Citizens of La Quinta, Citizens Review Association, Palm Springs Patriots Coalition Desert Valley Tea Party, Menifee Tea Party - Hemet Tea Party - Temecula Tea Party, Rove Enterprises, Inc., Schooner Enterprises, Inc., Eagle Forum of San Diego, Southern Californians For Wired Solutions To Smart Meters, and Burbank Action2 (collectively, Joint Applicants), filed Application (A.) 11-07-020 seeking modification of D.08-09-039 and an order requiring SCE to file an application for approval of a smart meter opt-out plan (Joint Application). Joint Applicants note that citizens in Santa Barbara County are served by both Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and SCE. They contend that failing to require SCE to file an opt-out option "would result in an arbitrary denial of opt-out rights to some California citizens based solely on which side of a service territory line they live.3 SCE filed a timely response to the Joint Application.
A combined workshop to consider opt-out options for SCE, PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) was held on September 14, 2011. In response to comments made at the workshop, the Assigned Commissioner issued a ruling on September 21, 2011 specifying the minimum requirements that SDG&E, PG&E and SCE must follow in response to customer requests to delay the installation of a wireless smart meter.4 Additionally, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling on October 18, 2011, seeking clarification concerning the frequency and duration of radio frequency (RF) emissions from wireless smart meters.5
On November 16, 2011, the Commission issued D.11-11-006, which directed SCE to file a proposal for Commission consideration that would provide an alternative to customers who do not wish to have a smart meter with wireless radio transmission. This decision, however, denied Joint Applicants' proposed modifications to D.08-09-039.
SCE filed its proposal on November 28, 2011. Pursuant to the assigned ALJ's electronic ruling on December 16, 2011, DRA and Consumer Power Alliance (CPA) filed comments on SCE's proposal on January 17, 2012.6 SCE filed reply comments on January 27, 2012.
1 These meters are referred to in this decision as "wireless smart meters."
2 The Joint Application originally included three other applicants - the County of Santa Barbara, California; Montecito Association; and Stop Smart Meters. Decision 11-11-006 granted a Motion to Amend Application, filed on August 8, 2011, to remove these three entities as applicants.
3 Joint Application at 14.
4 See Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Concerning Customer Requests to Delay Installation of a Smart Meter, issued September 21, 2011.
5 See Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Seeking Clarification, issued October 18, 2011. This ruling also applied to PG&E, SDG&E and SoCalGas.
6 Southern Californians for Wired Solutions to Smart Meters (SCWSSM) submitted its comments to the ALJ in an ex parte communication on January 17, 2012. Pursuant to 8.3(k) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure: "The Commission shall render its decision based on the evidence of record. Ex parte communications, and any notice filed pursuant to Rule 8.3, are not a part of the record of the proceeding." Accordingly, we have not considered SCWSSM's comments in this decision.
