Background
Pamela Scott, a Duquesne Light customer in Pittsburgh, objected to installation of a smart meter at her residence. Pennsylvania’s Act 129 directed electric distribution companies to deploy smart meters, and the Public Utility Commission approved Duquesne’s implementing plan and Tariff Rule 9B requiring customers to accept installation.
After Duquesne pursued installation, Scott filed a complaint with the PUC. An administrative law judge rejected her objections, and the Commission adopted that decision and required installation. In Commonwealth Court, Scott challenged the mandate on constitutional, health, privacy, and statutory grounds, including an argument that the tariff conflicted with authority recognizing limits on forced medical treatment.
The Court’s Holding
The Commonwealth Court affirmed. Judge Dumas explained that Act 129 requires universal smart-meter deployment and does not create an individual opt-out. A utility’s lawfully filed and approved tariff has the force of law in its relationship with customers, so Duquesne’s Rule 9B bound Scott unless it conflicted with superior law.
The court found no such conflict. Installing metering equipment is not medical treatment, and the authorities Scott invoked did not convert the utility requirement into the practice of medicine. Her generalized constitutional and health objections did not overcome the statutory mandate, the approved tariff, or the evidentiary record accepted by the Commission. The PUC therefore acted within its authority in denying the complaint and directing compliance.
Key Takeaways
- Act 129’s smart-meter program does not provide residential customers a personal opt-out.
- A PUC-approved utility tariff is legally binding on both the utility and its customers.
- Objections framed as medical autonomy claims do not make meter installation medical treatment.
Why It Matters
The ruling gives Pennsylvania utility practitioners a concise application of the Supreme Court’s smart-meter cases at the customer-enforcement stage. Challenges must identify a cognizable statutory or constitutional defect; disagreement with the technology or asserted health concerns alone will not displace the deployment mandate.
Utilities still need to proceed under their tariffs and Commission orders, while customers with accommodation issues should build a record around any relief the tariff or PUC regulations actually authorize. The decision is nonprecedential, but it signals that broad opt-out theories remain foreclosed.