More News

In rejecting BGE's original smart meters proposal, Maryland's Public Service Commission did not reject smart grid technology, innovation or cost savings, as Gazette columnist Barry Rascovar asserts ("Second chance for two regulatory boards," July 16). The commission rejected an exploitive funding scheme for the installation of smart meters that placed all of the financial risk on consumers, without any guarantee of reward.

BGE proposed increasing rates by more than $800 million to pay for the smart meters, and later was awarded a $200 million federal stimulus grant to offset some of that cost. Thankfully, the PSC did not fall into the trap of saddling consumers with more than a half-billion dollars in new costs just to win $200 million in taxpayer funding. A flawed proposal is a flawed proposal — even if it is partially subsidized by Uncle Sam.

Smart meters may be a part of a smart grid, but they do not constitute a smart grid. On their own, smart meters do not automatically save money for customers. And under BGE's original proposal, ratepayers were not provided with the tools they would need to take advantage of the technology and capitalize on any potential savings. They were simply footing the bill.

AARP commends the commissioners for protecting consumers with their decision and for encouraging BGE to reapply with a more balanced financing proposal and more evidence of benefits to ratepayers.

We are reviewing the new proposal carefully, with an eye toward improvements in value to the consumer, and will continue to participate in PSC proceedings to ensure that consumers' interests are protected in any smart meters deployment in Maryland.

Rawle Andrews Jr.

The letter writer is senior state director

of AARP Maryland.