A class action lawsuit alleges that Con Edison charged customers a $100 monthly “No Access Fee” for smart meter installation without providing proper notification or legal authority to do so. Although the underlying tariff rate received approval from the New York Public Service Commission, the lawsuit challenges whether Con Edison had the right to implement and collect the fee given that many customers claim they never received notice of the appointment scheduling requirement. For example, customers who were unable to or chose not to schedule a meter access appointment found unexpected $100 charges on their bills without clear explanation of why or how to resolve the issue.
This article explains what the Con Edison smart meter fee lawsuit is about, who is affected, what rights customers have, and what steps you should take if you’ve been charged. The dispute highlights an important distinction in utility regulation: tariff approval does not necessarily mean a fee can be collected without proper notice, customer consent procedures, or compliance with other regulatory requirements. Millions of Con Edison customers have been impacted by the smart meter rollout, making this a potentially significant class action with substantial damages at stake.
Table of Contents
- What Is Con Edison’s $100 No Access Fee and Why Are Customers Being Sued?
- How Did This Fee Get Approved If It’s Now Being Challenged?
- How Many Con Edison Customers Are Affected by This Smart Meter Rollout?
- What Should You Do If You’ve Been Charged the $100 No Access Fee?
- What Are the Key Problems with How Con Edison Implemented the Fee?
- What About the Alternative: The $9.50 Monthly Meter Opt-Out Fee?
- What Is the Current Status of the Litigation and What Are Potential Outcomes?
What Is Con Edison’s $100 No Access Fee and Why Are Customers Being Sued?
Con Edison charges a $100 monthly “No Access Fee” to customers who do not schedule an appointment allowing utility technicians to access their meter for installation or reading. This fee appears on the customer’s electric bill and, according to the class action allegations, was often imposed without customers receiving clear notice about the appointment scheduling requirement or the consequences of not scheduling. For example, a customer might receive a vague notice about smart meter installation deadlines but not understand that failing to cooperate would result in a $100 monthly charge, or the notice might not have been delivered at all.
The class action lawsuit argues that Con Edison lacked adequate legal authority to charge the fee given the way it was implemented and communicated. While the tariff that includes the $100 rate did receive approval from the New York Public Service Commission, the lawsuit focuses on whether Con Edison followed proper procedures for notifying customers and whether the absence of clear notice makes the fee improper and subject to refund. This is a critical distinction—regulatory approval of a rate does not shield a utility from liability if it collects that rate through improper means, inadequate notice, or violation of customer rights.
How Did This Fee Get Approved If It’s Now Being Challenged?
Con Edison’s “No Access Fee” is included in the company’s tariff schedule, which has been approved by the New York Public Service Commission. However, tariff approval does not end the legal analysis. The class action challenge centers on the implementation and disclosure, not the PSC’s initial authorization of the rate itself. Many customers alleege they were charged the fee without receiving proper notification about the appointment scheduling requirement or without understanding that non-compliance would trigger monthly charges.
A key limitation to understand is that just because a utility has received regulatory approval for a rate structure does not mean it can collect that rate under any circumstances or through any method. If the utility fails to provide adequate notice, or if customers could not reasonably understand the requirement or its consequences, the fee collection may be deemed improper even if the tariff itself is lawful. This is particularly important for vulnerable customers, non-English speakers, or those with accessibility needs who may not have received notice in a format they could understand. The lawsuit is essentially arguing that Con Edison’s execution fell short of legal and regulatory standards, regardless of the tariff approval.
How Many Con Edison Customers Are Affected by This Smart Meter Rollout?
Con Edison has installed approximately 5 million smart meters across its service territory. These meters measure and record electricity use in real-time, replacing the older analog meters that required manual reading. The smart meter deployment represents one of the largest infrastructure modernization efforts by the utility in recent decades, affecting millions of households and small businesses in New York City and surrounding areas.
Given the scale of the smart meter deployment, the potential affected class is enormous. If even a fraction of these 5 million customers were charged the $100 “No Access Fee” without proper notice, the total damages could reach tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. This is why the class action has attracted the attention of multiple law firms and why joining the lawsuit as a class member could be valuable if you’ve been charged. The class period typically covers customers charged the fee going back several years, so even if you were charged years ago, you may still have a claim.
What Should You Do If You’ve Been Charged the $100 No Access Fee?
If you received a $100 “No Access Fee” charge on your Con Edison bill, document everything: keep copies of your bills showing the charge, any notices Con Edison sent you about smart meter access or installation, and any communications (emails, letters, or calls) attempting to schedule the meter access. This documentation is crucial if you decide to join the class action lawsuit, as it proves you were a customer and were charged the fee. To join the class action, you can contact one of the law firms investigating the matter, such as Finkelstein Blankinship Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP or Wittels McInturff Palikovic Law.
These firms handle class actions on a contingency basis, meaning you pay nothing upfront; they recover their fees from the settlement or judgment if the case succeeds. You can also wait for a settlement notice if a settlement is reached, which will outline your options to claim a refund or credit. However, acting early—gathering your documentation and contacting a law firm—ensures you don’t miss any deadlines or forget the details of what happened.
What Are the Key Problems with How Con Edison Implemented the Fee?
The primary legal problem is inadequate notice. The class action alleges that many customers were charged the $100 monthly fee without ever receiving notification that scheduling a meter access appointment was required or what the consequences of non-compliance would be. This is a critical failure: you cannot charge customers a penalty for not complying with a requirement they did not know about. Some customers may have received a general notice about smart meter installation but not understood it applied to them, or the notice may have been sent only once, making it easy to miss.
A related problem is the lack of opportunity to comply before being charged. If Con Edison did not give customers a reasonable grace period, multiple notices, or an easy way to schedule appointments, then the fee is arguably unjust. Additionally, if customers who wanted to comply but could not reach Con Edison or schedule appointments were still charged, that further undermines the company’s argument that the fee was a legitimate incentive to cooperate. Customers who were disabled, elderly, working multiple jobs, or otherwise unable to accommodate a specific appointment window may have been caught by the fee through no fault of their own.
What About the Alternative: The $9.50 Monthly Meter Opt-Out Fee?
Con Edison also offers customers the option to refuse smart meter installation and instead pay a $9.50 monthly charge for bimonthly manual meter readings. This creates an interesting comparison: some customers might argue that if they’re being charged for not having smart meters, they should not also be charged $100 for not immediately scheduling smart meter installation. The $9.50 fee is clearly disclosed as an opt-out cost, whereas the $100 “No Access Fee” has been charged without clear explanation in many cases.
However, the $9.50 alternative is not a solution to the $100 fee problem. If you were charged the $100 “No Access Fee” under the claim that you didn’t schedule smart meter access, that is a separate issue from the opt-out fee. You should not have been charged either fee if you were not properly notified of your options and the consequences. The existence of a discounted opt-out option does not retroactively justify charging customers who did not understand or could not comply with the initial smart meter installation requirement.
What Is the Current Status of the Litigation and What Are Potential Outcomes?
The Con Edison smart meter fee litigation is ongoing, with multiple law firms investigating claims and preparing class action filings. Settlements are possible at any stage: Con Edison may agree to refund the $100 fees charged, establish a fund for affected customers, or implement new notice and billing procedures going forward. In other utility cases involving similar fee disputes, settlements have ranged from refunds of the disputed charges plus interest to negotiated credits on customer accounts.
The litigation landscape for utility billing disputes has shifted in recent years, with regulators and courts increasingly skeptical of hidden or inadequately disclosed fees. If the class action moves forward, there is a reasonable chance customers will recover something, whether through settlement or judgment. Even if Con Edison wins at trial, the company may face regulatory scrutiny from the Public Service Commission, which could lead to rate adjustments or new rules about how the $100 fee must be disclosed and implemented in the future. Affected customers should stay alert for settlement notices and claim deadline announcements.