The SMARTER Act (H.R. 1148) amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to add a new ratemaking standard that would prohibit electric utilities from recovering from ratepayers any capital, operating, or other costs related to deploying "any smart grid system." The bill also repeals an existing PURPA subsection tied to smart grid treatment and directs state regulators and nonregulated utilities to open and conclude proceedings on the new standard within one and two years of enactment, respectively, subject to limited carve‑outs for states that already acted.
This matters because it directly targets how utilities finance grid‑modernization projects. If states adopt the new standard, utilities would lose a common ratemaking pathway to fund advanced metering, distribution automation, communications networks, and similar investments through tariffs — shifting financial risk onto utilities, their investors, or other cost recovery strategies, while altering planning incentives for integrating distributed energy resources and reliability upgrades.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new PURPA standard that flatly disallows recovering any smart‑grid related costs from ratepayers. It repeals a prior PURPA subsection addressing smart grid and requires each State regulatory authority and nonregulated utility to open consideration within one year and complete a determination within two years, unless the State already implemented a comparable standard.
Who It Affects
Investor‑owned electric utilities that rely on rate recovery for capital and operating costs; vendors and integrators of smart‑grid hardware and software; state utility commissions and nonregulated utilities responsible for ratemaking; and residential and commercial customers who currently pay tariffs that include grid‑modernization costs.
Why It Matters
The bill changes the default financial model for grid modernization: rather than enabling cost recovery through regulated rates, it pushes utilities to bear deployment costs or find alternative funding. That shift has implications for pace of modernization, vendor markets, utility balance sheets, and planning for reliability and DER integration.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R. 1148 makes two interconnected moves. First, it removes a current PURPA provision related to smart grid treatment and then adds a sweeping new ratemaking standard stating that utilities may not recover from ratepayers any costs—capital, operating, or otherwise—connected to deploying "any smart grid system." The statutory language is broad: it does not define "smart grid system" or carve out categories of projects (for example, advanced metering infrastructure, distribution automation, or communications networks), so the scope will depend on later regulatory interpretation.
Second, the bill leverages PURPA’s state‑centered process by forcing a timetable for consideration and decisions. Each state regulatory authority and each nonregulated utility must commence a proceeding or set a hearing within one year, and must reach a determination within two years after enactment, unless the State has already implemented or considered a comparable standard (including a legislative vote within the prior three years).
The deadlines are procedural but carry bite: the bill amends the PURPA timing and ‘‘date of enactment’’ cross‑references to make this national review mandatory.Because the bill treats the prohibition as a PURPA standard, its practical effect will vary by state: a state could adopt the new standard and eliminate rate recovery for smart‑grid spending within its jurisdiction, or the state could reject it and leave existing ratemaking in place. For nonregulated utilities (where states lack jurisdiction), the bill still requires a proceeding, signaling Congress’s intent that these entities not use tariffed rates to recover smart‑grid costs either.
The lack of definitions and transition rules — for projects already in ratebase, partially completed deployments, or multi‑state utilities — creates implementation questions that regulators and courts would have to resolve.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals section 111(d)(18)(B) of PURPA and adds a new paragraph (22) to section 111(d) that prohibits any electric utility from recovering from ratepayers any capital, operating, or other costs related to deploying "any smart grid system.", State regulatory authorities and nonregulated electric utilities must commence consideration of the new standard within 1 year of enactment and complete a determination within 2 years, creating binding procedural deadlines under PURPA.
The bill includes a prior‑action carve‑out: if a State already implemented the standard (or a comparable standard), conducted a proceeding, or the legislature voted on it within the prior 3 years, the new timing requirements do not apply to that utility in that State.
The prohibition is categorical and covers more than capital costs — it expressly includes operating expenditures and "other costs," broadening the types of expenses excluded from rate recovery.
The statute does not define "smart grid system," nor does it set transition rules or address cost recovery for investments already approved or placed in ratebase, leaving major interpretive issues to state commissions and courts.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short title: the "Stop Misappropriating Ratepayer Tariffs for Excessive Resources Act" or the "SMARTER Act." This is purely caption language but signals congressional intent and the policy framing behind the substantive amendments.
Repeal of existing smart‑grid PURPA subsection
Repeals PURPA section 111(d)(18)(B). Practically, this removes whatever statutory language previously guided state treatment of smart grid cost recovery and clears the way for insertion of the new, contrary standard. Repeal narrows the textual landscape and may affect prior legal interpretations that relied on the deleted provision.
New prohibition on rate recovery for smart‑grid investments (111(d)(22))
Adds a new paragraph to PURPA declaring that "No electric utility may recover from ratepayers any capital, operating expenditure, or other costs... relating to the deployment of any smart grid system." This creates a categorical prohibition as a PURPA standard; whether it binds a utility depends on the state’s subsequent determination under section 112. The provision’s breadth — covering operating and "other" costs — increases the range of spending that could be excluded from tariffs if a state adopts the standard.
Deadlines for state and nonregulated utility proceedings (112(b) amendments)
Adds new subsection (8) to section 112(b), requiring state regulatory authorities and nonregulated utilities to commence consideration (or set a hearing date) on the new standard within one year and to complete the consideration and make a determination within two years. The mechanics impose a national timetable on the typically state‑driven PURPA process, pressuring commissions to act and limiting indefinite delay.
Carve‑outs and date‑of‑enactment cross‑references (112 amendments)
Creates a specific exception so the one‑ and two‑year deadlines do not apply where a State already implemented an equivalent standard, conducted a proceeding, or the legislature voted on implementation during the prior three years. It also amends cross‑references to treat the effective date for this standard as the date of enactment of paragraph (22), ensuring prior‑action determinations are assessed against that date. The carve‑out limits redundant proceedings but raises questions about what counts as "comparable" and how to evaluate prior legislative or administrative action.
Application to prior and pending proceedings (124 amendment)
Adjusts section 124 so that references to the Act’s date of enactment include the new paragraph (22). This means ongoing or recent proceedings addressing smart‑grid ratemaking must be evaluated in light of the new standard’s effective date, potentially reopening or affecting active cases depending on timing and whether a State falls within the prior‑action carve‑out.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residential and small‑commercial electricity customers — If states adopt the prohibition, these customers avoid having smart‑grid capital and operating costs added to their tariffs, potentially lowering bills or preventing future increases tied to grid modernization projects.
- Consumer and low‑income advocacy groups — The ban narrows the categories of utility spending eligible for rate recovery, giving advocates leverage to argue against tariffed cost allocation for smart‑grid deployments that they view as risky or of limited direct customer benefit.
- States that prefer slower modernization — Regulators or jurisdictions skeptical of rapid smart‑grid rollouts gain a statutory tool to block ratepayer funding, effectively shifting the policy balance toward more conservative investment pacing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Investor‑owned electric utilities — Utilities lose a common pathway to recover smart‑grid investment costs through rates, pressuring them to absorb costs, seek shareholder funding, delay projects, or pursue alternative cost‑recovery mechanisms (e.g., riders or affiliate arrangements) that could be contested.
- Smart‑grid vendors and integrators — Suppliers of meters, sensors, communications, and software face reduced demand if states adopt the prohibition, slowing market growth and contract pipelines tied to tariffed deployments.
- State utility commissions and legal staffs — Commissions must open, litigate, and decide numerous proceedings within compressed timelines; they will also face complex interpretive tasks (defining "smart grid system," handling in‑flight projects), increasing workload and potential litigation.
- Ratepayer classes in the longer term (through reliability or efficiency losses) — If modernization stalls, customers may bear indirect costs from less efficient operations, delayed DER integration, or higher outage risk that the bill does not address directly.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting ratepayers from paying for contested or high‑risk smart‑grid deployments and preserving utilities’ ability to fund grid modernization that can deliver reliability, efficiency, and DER integration; the bill solves one problem (ratepayer exposure) by removing a standard financing route, but in doing so it risks underinvestment, slower modernization, and complex legal fights over what counts as a "smart grid system."
The bill raises significant practical and interpretive questions. First, it never defines "smart grid system," leaving state commissions to sort the boundary between traditional distribution investments and covered smart‑grid spending.
That ambiguity invites litigation and regulatory gaming (utilities could reclassify projects to avoid the label). Second, the statutory ban lacks transition rules for projects already approved, under construction, or placed in ratebase; absent explicit stranded cost or amortization language, disputes over whether prior approvals permit recovery are likely.
The procedural deadlines compress often lengthy integrated resource planning and rate proceedings into a one‑ to two‑year window, which may produce rushed decisions or inconsistent determinations across states. The prior‑action carve‑out mitigates redundancy but uses the vague phrase "comparable standard," so parties will contest whether earlier statutes, rulings, or legislative votes qualify.
Finally, because the prohibition covers "other costs," regulators must decide whether indirect expenses (program administration, cyber‑security tied to communications networks, or costs allocated from shared systems) are off limits — an outcome that will materially affect cost allocations and investment incentives.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.