In rejecting BGE's smart meter proposal, with $200 million in stimulus funding hanging in the balance, members of the Public Service Commission must have known they might be criticized ("Dumb decision on smart meters," June 23). Critics of the decision fail to recognize that the PSC did not reject smart meters — it rejected BGE's risky funding scheme.

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, on their own, do not save money. They provide real-time information on electricity usage, allowing BGE the ability to know how much energy any particular household is using hour by hour. BGE wanted to pair a new surcharge for the meters with mandatory time-of-use rates — paying more for usage during peak hours. For the consumer, that means higher electricity bills and additional costs. And people who cannot shift their electricity usage to off-peak hours would bear the brunt of this new pricing scheme.

In the end, the commission found that BGE's promised benefits to consumers were not substantiated and could not be guaranteed.

In making its decision, the PSC agreed with all of AARP's arguments on behalf of the consumer: 1) consumers would bear all the financial risk; 2) the majority of the promised benefits (cost savings) were based on assumptions that had no sound basis and were highly speculative; and 3) that consumers should not be forced into time-of-use rates.

The PSC did not reject smart grid technology, and neither does AARP. In fact, the commission invited BGE to apply again, following the guidelines in the order. Those policy guidelines represent significant consumer protections for which AARP advocated: don't rush into multi-million dollar investments without clearly showing how they help consumers; don't put all the financial risks on consumers; and don't force mandatory time of use pricing on consumers, especially when seniors, low-income and other vulnerable groups could be put at risk

We commend the commissioners for protecting consumers with this decision. For savings, stability and safety, electricity customers in Maryland need smart leaders more than smart meters.

Rawle Andrews Jr., Baltimore

The writer is senior state director of AARP Maryland.