reason to address found” testing for legacy meters outside a SMP proceeding, and we “as decline to treat the components of smart meter deployment on a piecemeal basis. PPL, which Duquesne Light seeks to rely upon, addressed its meter testing concerns in its own SMP. In order to consider Duquesne Light’s new waiver proposal, there is no need for rescission, amendment, or reconsideration of the Waiver Order, and it would be inappropriate for us to do so. Accordingly, we will not address the merits of the new proposal at this time outside Duquesne Light’s SMP. Duquesne Light does not need an individual waiver to avoid having to test legacy meters replaced early at customer request. Waivers of any other legacy meter testing must be considered in the context of a smart meter plan which will allow a full consideration of the record, merits, benefits, and costs concerning any such alternatives. VII. Conclusion We conclude that Duquesne Light has not established any legal, justifiable, or reasonable basis for reconsideration or revision of our Waiver Order, and we shall therefore deny the Reconsideration Petition on its merits. We stand by our original interpretation in the Waiver Order that the Smart Meter did not waive all Section 57.20(h) meter testing for all legacy Implementation Order meters being replaced by smart meters. If stakeholders wish to pursue further interpretation, clarification, or reconsideration of the question regarding whether the waived all Section 57.20(h) meter testing for all Smart Meter Implementation Order legacy meters being replaced by smart meters, they are directed to do so at that docket. If Duquesne Light Company wishes to pursue an alternative to compliance with Section 57.20(h) in terms of the new proposal set out in its Reconsideration Petition or in terms of another alternative, it should do so in the context of it Smart Meter Plan proceeding; THEREFORE,
reason to address “as found” testing for legacy meters outside a SMP proceeding, and we decline to treat the components of smart meter deployment on a piecemeal basis. PPL, which Duquesne Light seeks to rely upon, addressed its meter testing concerns in its own SMP. In order to consider Duquesne Light’s new waiver proposal, there is no need for rescission, amendment, or reconsideration of the Waiver Order, and it would be inappropriate for us to do so. Accordingly, we will not address the merits of the new proposal at this time outside Duquesne Light’s SMP. Duquesne Light does not need an individual waiver to avoid having to test legacy meters replaced early at customer request. Waivers of any other legacy meter testing must be considered in the context of a smart meter plan which will allow a full consideration of the record, merits, benefits, and costs concerning any such alternatives. VII. Conclusion We conclude that Duquesne Light has not established any legal, justifiable, or reasonable basis for reconsideration or revision of our Waiver Order, and we shall therefore deny the Reconsideration Petition on its merits. We stand by our original interpretation in the Waiver Order that the Smart Meter Implementation Order did not waive all Section 57.20(h) meter testing for all legacy meters being replaced by smart meters. If stakeholders wish to pursue further interpretation, clarification, or reconsideration of the question regarding whether the Smart Meter Implementation Order waived all Section 57.20(h) meter testing for all legacy meters being replaced by smart meters, they are directed to do so at that docket. If Duquesne Light Company wishes to pursue an alternative to compliance with Section 57.20(h) in terms of the new proposal set out in its Reconsideration Petition or in terms of another alternative, it should do so in the context of it Smart Meter Plan proceeding; THEREFORE,
1494998.docx