20180313reconsideration_order_no_34003.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
March 13,2018
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
MARY BAENEN,)
)CASE NO.AVU-E-17-11COMPLAINANT,)
)ORDER NO.34003
v.)
AVISTA CORPORATION,)
RESPONDENT.)
On October 10,2017,Avista Corporation customer Mary Baenen filed an "Urgent
Petition"that asked the Commission to order the Company to allow customers a choice in meters
used to monitor their utility service.Baenen expressed health,privacy,and security concerns
regarding the Company's radio frequency/electromagnetic radiation-emitting meters ("smart
meters").See Commission Rule of Procedure 54 (IDAPA 31.01.01.054,discussing formal
Complaints).On November 17,2017,the Commission issued a Summons directing the
Company to answer Baenen's Complaint within 21 days.Avista filed a timely Answer on
December 8,2017.
On February 2,2018,the Commission issued a Final Order denying Baenen's
requested relief.The Commission found that "there is not sufficient demonstrable,credible
factual evidence to support a finding that the meters present legitimate safety or potentially
inappropriate communication concerns."Order No.33979 (citing Order No.32500).The
Commission stated that "smart meters now being utilized by Idaho utilities are safe and
otherwise comply with Idaho Code §61-302."Id.
On February 9,2018,Baenen filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration.She has
amended her Petition for Reconsiderationtwice.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
In her Petition for Reconsideration (second amended),Baenen claims that the
Commission misinterpreted her original Petition.She thus,filed a revised version of the original
Petition to clarify her requested relief.Therein,she states that rather than effectively banning
ORDER NO.34003 1
smart meters,she would like the Commission to allow customers to opt-out from smart meters
and require Avista to remove and replace smart meters with analog meters at no fee or cost.
Baenen also contends that the Commission did not adequately address the issues in
her complaint-thatsmart meters pose a serious health risk.To support her claim,Baenen listed
various internet links to sources that study or report on the effects of radio frequency and
electromagnetic radiation.Most of the links relate to the use of mobile phones.
Baenen claims the Commission erred in two ways.First,the Commission
misinterpreted her prayer for relief,that she was asking for an opt-out,and not a ban on smart
meters.Second,the Commission did not fully understand or appreciate the health risks posed by
the smart meters,as indicated by the internet links.
Notably,since the Commission issued Final Order No.33979,it has received 57
public comments from individuals throughout the country supporting Baenen's request for an
opt-out option.Most of the comments are brief and many appear to be identical.The commenters
generally allege that the smart meters are a health concern,and request that the Commission
reverse its decision.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of reconsideration is to bring to the Commission's attention alleged
procedural errors or errors of fact and law made.Baenen's contention that the Commission
misinterpreted her request for relief,and that its Order did not adequately address the issues
raised in her complaint,are proper arguments for a petition for reconsideration.However,upon
review of Baenen's revised Petition for Reconsideration,we fmd that her request must be denied.
Baenen's contention that the Commission misinterpreted her requested relief is
distinction without consequence.The core of her claim is a belief that smart meters are a
potential health risk.The Commission fully considered this argument,but found that the meters
present no legitimate health or safety concern and comply with Idaho Code §61-302 (requiring
public utilities to furnish service,instrumentalities,equipment,and facilities that adequately,
efficiently,and reasonably "promote the safety,health,comfort,and convenience of patrons,
employees,and the public").Likewise,there is no justification for an opt-out as requested.
Furthermore,the Commission's decision was based on record evidence and "shows that the
smart meters now being utilized by Idaho utilities are safe."Order No.33979 at 2.
ORDER NO.34003 2
Baenen's Complaint contends that the World Health Organization (WHO)has
classified radio frequencies and electromagnetic fields as a "Class 2B carcinogen,"making smart
meters a known health concern.The WHO defines Class 2B carcinogens as "possibly
carcinogenic to humans"and "a category used when a causal association is considered credible,
but when chance,bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence."World
Health Org.,Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health:Fact Sheet No.193 (October 2014),
available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/.Additionally,the WHO noted
that "to date,no adverse health effects have been established ...."See id.Moreover,the WHO
has concluded there is "no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link
[electromagnetic hypersensitivity]symptoms to electromagnetic field exposure."World Health
Org.,Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health:Electromagnetic HypersensitivityBackgrounder
(December 2005),available at http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/.
In conclusion,after reviewing Baenen's arguments,the Commission finds she has not
raised a legitimate Commission error to be corrected on reconsideration.The Commission thus
denies her Petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Baenen's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION.Any party aggrieved
by this Order or other final or interlocutoryOrders previouslyissued in this Case No.AVU-E-
17-11 may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the
Idaho Appellate Rules.See Idaho Code §61-627.
ORDER NO.34003 3
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this day of
of March 2018.
PA KJELLÀNDÉR,PRESIDENT
K I IINE RAPER,COMMISSIONER
ERIC ANDERSON,COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Diane M.Hanian
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\LORDERS\AVUE171l_bk(finalorderonrecon)doc
ORDER NO.34003 4