Discussion

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, we construe the facts favorably to the party against whom the motion is directed. Thus, in this case, we assume for purposes of the motion that there is a sub-set of PG&E customers who are so sensitive to EMF radiation that operation of a smart meters at their places of residence makes them ill, and that Wilner's other allegations regarding the amount of energy emitted by smart meters and the potential for adverse health effects of EMF exposure are true. We also assume, as alleged by Wilner, that we made no findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding health impacts of EMF radiation in any decision in any other docket. On those assumptions, the question before us is whether D.12-02-014, permitting any customer to obtain an analog meter in place of a smart meter upon payment of the charges set out therein, moots this proceeding. We conclude that it does.

D.12-12-014 gives all PG&E customers, not just those who believe themselves to be adversely affected by the presence of a smart meter at their residences, the option of having the smart meter replaced by an analog meter. In that decision, we imposed charges on customers who exercise that option in recognition of the fact that PG&E incurs both an additional one-time expense in replacing a smart meter with an analog meter and an on-going expense of manually reading the analog meter. The charges compensate PG&E for these additional expenses and are appropriately levied on those customers who exercise the smart meter replacement option rather than on ratepayers generally. As a result of D.12-02-014, all persons whose interests Wilner claims to represent can avoid smart-meter produced EMF radiation by exercising the smart meter replacement option. Exercise of the smart meter replacement option renders any other relief unnecessary and therefore moots this proceeding.