FirstEnergy and other utilities began to slide in May after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke suggested that the central bank could begin go to pull back on its stimulus measures.
FirstEnergy, which serves 6 million customers across the Midwest and the Mid-Atlantic, also got hit after the company posted a nearly 50% drop in earnings for the third quarter due to cooler than usual summer temperatures cutting the need for air conditioning. Shares have recently been trading at their lowest levels in a decade.
Wow! Looks like FirstEnergy made all sorts of important lists in 2013! Here's another stunning accomplishment for the company: The long, slow slide into irrelevance will be enjoyed by many!
0 Comments
Remember Jonathan Fahey? He wrote an article in 2011 headlined Shocker: Power demand from US homes is falling that pioneered the idea that even though we're using more electric "gadgets" than ever, power use is dropping. Well, now he's back with a similar article, Home electricity use in US falling to 2001 levels. The trend Fahey first reported in 2011 continues, more than 2 years later. Have utilities gotten any smarter since then? Partially. It took them forever to admit that dropping demand wasn't tied to the economy and that a rebound of electric use wasn't just over the horizon. However, some utilities have simply moved on to other unsound business plans that continue to bank on the same old ideas that are no longer sustainable. Now utilities have moved on to transmission investments as their savior. This is pretty puzzling, considering that long-distance transmission champion AEP concluded a year ago that enormous projects built across multiple states were an impossible dream. Mr. Akins said he wants to avoid the bruising battles that delayed or doomed big projects in the past, like the 275-mile Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline project from West Virginia to Maryland. AEP and partner FirstEnergy Corp. dropped development plans for the complex project in 2011. The transmission investment gravy train has also left the station. The sheer number of new transmission projects proposed combined with today's ease of online information sharing and social media tools has led to an explosion of knowledgeable, interconnected transmission opposition groups who are combining resources across the country to delay or stop unneeded projects altogether. Instead of embracing innovation and new technology to make the existing grid smarter, some utilities are intent on merely building more of the same old dumb grid, or actively attempting to stifle innovation by forcing us all into an historic "consumer" position where we must funnel money to incumbent utilities in order to survive. Ultimately, this plan will also fail, because technology marches relentlessly on. How we produce and use electricity is also changing. Not only is producing our own electricity locally better for our economy, it's also much more reliable. Hurricane Sandy was one of the biggest wake-up calls we've had recently, and the inevitable Monday morning quarterbacking of that disaster reveals that increasing long distance, aerial transmission from remote generation is simply dangerous. Making our grid more reliable isn't about building more transmission. It's about change: This includes traditional tactics, such as upgrading power poles and trimming trees near power lines. But it also encompasses newer approaches, such as microgrids and energy storage, which allow operators to quickly reconfigure the system when portions of the grid go down. Implicit to such plans is the need to ensure uninterrupted power to critical sites such as oil and gas refineries, water-treatment plants, and telecommunication networks, as well as gasoline stations, hospitals, and pharmacies. Elected officials, progressive regulators, energy producers, energy consumers, and innovative companies embracing new technology are also increasingly joining forces to move our energy economy forward and away from the dated centralized generation and transmission business plan of the past. Companies who continue to deny the inevitable will ultimately be the ones left behind in irrelevance.
The Columbus Dispatch and a couple of investment analysts gushed all over AEP CEO Nick Akins for "leading on ideas" yesterday. What's Nick's idea? Getting out of the generation business and betting AEP's future on long-distance transmission. Bad idea. ...a transformation of the company’s structure and a shifting notion of what AEP needs to do to remain relevant in a changing energy landscape. Maybe ol' Nick missed the EEI report earlier this year, Disruptive Challenges: Financial Implications and Strategic Responses to a Changing Retail Electric Business. The report cautioned electric utilities to avoid "that Kodak moment" for investors by embracing new technology and addressing competitive threats. While getting out of the competitive centralized generation business "addresses" the threat that AEP may lose some of it's golden eggs in an unpredictable market, AEP is not embracing new technology or making itself relevant in a changing energy landscape. It's simply putting even more of its golden eggs into a business plan that it will help to make obsolete. As competitive centralized generation closes, it is being replaced by independently owned distributed generation. Distributed generation doesn't need new transmission. Nick won't be collecting any eggs if he kills all the chickens. A better idea to embrace new technology and establish future relevance was adopted by competitive generation company NRG earlier this year. ...NRG is installing solar panels on rooftops of homes and businesses and in the future will offer natural gas-fired generators to customers to kick in when the sun goes down, Chief Executive Officer David Crane said in an interview. AEP loves regulated businesses. It's a guaranteed revenue stream for a bulky, staid, not-particularly-innovative company. AEP, which was reluctant to split its Ohio operations, has responded by focusing on the delivery business. Meanwhile, the Ohio power plants are a shrinking asset. Because of environmental rules and the age of some of the plants, the company has announced a series of shutdowns that will occur over the next few years. So, dumping competitive, centralized generation is a smart idea, but increasing investment in long distance transmission to support a shrinking pool of centralized generators is not sustainable. While AEP is banking on federally regulated interstate transmission to nearly double earnings from transmission activities from 2013 to 2014, AEP seems to have forgotten what happened with its PATH project. Big, interstate transmission projects with long lead times lead to big failure. That's because "need" for these projects is constantly shifting, and if opposition can delay them long enough, they become obsolete. Opposition is growing by leaps and bounds. AEP ain't seen nothing yet! It's a risky proposition and I don't think it's a particularly good idea. Akins says he’s having fun and is eager to see the work of the past two years come to fruition. We'll be "having fun" too, supporting companies embracing the new technology of distributed generation, and dragging the progress of AEP's transmission projects down like a huge anvil. Although AEP can ignore growing public discontent, it ultimately cannot be denied.
Building transmission (whether it's needed or not) has been a utility profit center for years. But now investor owned utilities are really shaking the transmission money tree to make up for the fact that the rest of their business is failing. And like all good utility money-making schemes, West Virginia's out-of-state utility tedious twins go head-to-head to see which one can make the most money doing it fastest and "bestest." Last week, FirstEnergy's Tony the Trickster made some big deal about a new transmission money making scheme approved by FirstEnergy's Board of Bamboozlers. This $2.8B "transmission spend" was given cover by being dubbed the "Transmission Reliability Excellence Plan 2014-2017," like it's all about reliability and not about "target[ing] annual transmission Net Income growth of 20+%." At what point do the reliability needs of customers intersect with FirstEnergy's need to make money? Wow, serendipity! FirstEnergy's system is going to be as "unreliable" as needed to grow income 20+%. The more "unreliable" FirstEnergy's system is, the more money FirstEnergy makes! The "near term" plan consists mainly of rebuilds and upgrades to FirstEnergy's ATSI and TrAILCo systems. FirstEnergy will concentrate on its 69 & 138kV systems in order to avoid regulatory or community opposition hurdles that could slow down the "investment." FirstEnergy also reasons that an improved system will cut down on future maintenance costs, and that will help keep O&M in check. But, wait a tick, how much of this "need" for re-building has been caused by FirstEnergy's long-term failure to maintain its system, and therefore should properly fall under the category of ordinary maintenance expense that the company has already been reimbursed for? If it were this easy, utilities could simply refuse to perform any maintenance on their transmission systems, and then wrap all the ordinary course repairs into some fancy package called a "Transmission Reliability Excellence Plan" and get reimbursed for it separately (and at higher rates) when a need to grow income arises. This isn't "reliability," it's a ratepayer shakedown. If FirstEnergy gets away with it, the company plans to increase their "reliability" to the tune of $12B "over time." FirstEnergy reasons: The majority of these projects located in the ATSI region will target 69kV lines, which are outside of the RTEP approval process, and that construction would occur on land where most rights- of-way are already secured. But, assets assigned to TrAILCo must receive PJM RTEP approval and operate at 100kV and above, therefore these will be secondary to the low-hanging fruit in ATSI. You'll be happy to know that public-money-sucker Burns & McDonnell has been hired to manage the engineering, procurement, construction and completion of the capital portfolio created for the plan and has established an office in Akron, OH. It's full steam ahead to spend as much of your money as fast as possible, little ratepayer! FirstEnergy plans to put all its "transmission spend" eggs into its FERC jurisdictional formula rate baskets -- ATSI with a return of 12.4%, and TrAILCo, with a return of 11.7% for non-TrAIL projects and 12.7% for rebuilds and upgrades to the two-year old TrAIL line. Is this really about "energizing the future by improving the health, capacity, and reliability of the transmission system for existing and new customer loads," or is it more about "energizing the future by improving the health, capacity, and reliability of the FirstEnergy balance sheet for existing and new shareholders"? Meanwhile, not to be outdone, AEP has also announced its own plan to spend around $5B on the "reliability" of its transmission systems over the next 3 years. AEP CEO Nick Akins said the company’s infrastructure investments will be aimed at improving the reliability of electric service to customers. He said the company expects to invest nearly $5 billion in its AEP Transmission Holding Co. unit through 2016, adding the holding company’s contribution to earnings will nearly double in 2014 alone. However, AEP isn't afraid to invest in joint ventures and big, new projects outside its footprint.
Both companies have also submitted numerous bids on the first two PJM transmission project bidding windows. Which transmission investment business plan will be the winner? And how much is this going to cost us before regulators catch on to the "reliability" scam and challenge it? And what if someone goes after the companies' FERC ROEs? The fun is only just beginning... Maybe we should distract their attention by challenging these two companies to see which one of them gets into the solar business first? How much money is there to be made putting solar on every residential roof and then charging the customers "rent" for the investment? Or will they continue pumping the transmission "reliability" well until it runs dry before taking any positive action to make themselves relevant in a brave, new, distributed generation world? Remember PJM's little boo-boo earlier this month that resulted in controlled little mini-blackouts of up to 8 hours for certain electric consumers in three states? PJM still refuses to call it what it was... a failure of their planning process. But, never fear, PJM and its "stakeholders" (not to include any people who were actually affected) intend to examine it ad nauseam and recommend changes. Here's PJM's official sequence of events and excuse for its own failure. PJM "sincerely regrets" their flub. See another, better written and more understandable, unbiased version of events at RTO Insider here. So, what caused this?
Why would you say we need less transmission if a transmission failure triggered a brownout or blackout. I work for a transmission company and we have been prevented from building transmission between regions designed solely to prevent situations like happened. Also, what you don't know much about is that whereever there is a lack of transmission, power plants must be run out of economic order to relieve the line congestion. This causes electric customers (everybody) to pay more. Not only are lines needed for reliability (keep the lights on) but also for economics. Economic studies determine if it's cheaper to add new lines/equipment or just redispatch generation occasionally. If done properly based on well thought out criteria, tranmission is only added when needed and is economic. Ray needs to ponder number 1 and 2 above. This "event" can probably be blamed on increased transmission, which wasn't really "economic" at all when the lights went out in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Bigger, inter-regional transmission lines aren't the answer.
Ray also needs to ponder the wonders of distributed generation microgrids, but that's not what ITC pays him to do. Who wants to guess how much time and money PJM spends "investigating" itself... and will the lights stay on while they dither over avoiding the obvious? Don't you just love that headline? Hopefully the first of many well-deserved slaps upside the head for this crooked company.
Yesterday, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) ordered that FirstEnergy refund $43.3M to its Ohio distribution affiliates' customers within 60 days. The PUCO found that Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and The Toledo Edison Company had grossly overpaid for renewable energy credits purchased from their own FirstEnergy Solutions affiliate and then recovered these exorbitant costs from consumers. In other words, FirstEnergy bought something from itself that was overpriced. That's the good news. Now for the bad news. FirstEnergy has vowed to appeal the decision. Any refunds due to customers will thus be held until the appeals process has exhausted itself. FirstEnergy intends to continue to pour millions into avoiding refunds due to struggling electric consumers, and if they are successful, consumers will end up footing the bill for the cost of that too, adding insult to injury. How long will FirstEnergy deny the consumers their refund? Maybe forever. This whole thing smacks of a badly executed bit of play acting by PUCO and FirstEnergy executives. Everyone knows that FirstEnergy has stacked PUCO with its bought and paid for "yes" men. This investigation has been going on for years. A decision was expected last week, but PUCO delayed it a week "to allow time to fine tune an order addressing whether the Akron-based utility overpaid for renewable energy credits and passed those excess costs on to customers." Fine tuning my eye, the decision was delayed until AFTER FirstEnergy's 2Q Earnings Call on Tuesday so that FirstEnergy's executives wouldn't have to suffer through questions about it, and so it wouldn't drag down FirstEnergy's already disappointing financial results for the quarter. So, FirstEnergy, where are you going to get the money to pay back this $43.3M that you stole from your customers? Inquiring minds want to know... PUCO ruled that all the financial information related to its decision must be kept secret. This prevents the public from doing its own independent calculation of just how much they were ripped off. Other parties in the case contend that the theft from consumers actually amounted to more like $130M. So, if FirstEnergy profited by selling RECs to itself in the amount of $130M, a refund of $43M is a small price to pay. FirstEnergy still comes out ahead by $87M. The company has actually been rewarded for stealing from its customers. What PUCO should really be looking into is FirstEnergy's corporate separation issues. The company is selling things to itself at outrageous prices because ratepayers are paying the bill. "Arm's length negotiation" means nothing when Tony's left arm is shaking hands with Tony's right arm, just before plunging both arms into YOUR pocket. It's well known that PUCO is stacked with bought and paid for FirstEnergy puppets. This decision and its timing evokes imagination of the negotiations that must have occurred between FirstEnergy and PUCO to set it up to look like FirstEnergy was punished, when it was actually rewarded for stealing from the customers PUCO is sworn to protect. Read about it here. Meanwhile, FirstEnergy has attacked Ohio's Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency standards as "too expensive for consumers." Maybe someone needs to look into all FirstEnergy's programs to find out why they are "too expensive." Is FirstEnergy cheating on EE recovery too? And the bad juju continues to build... Interesting article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. It seems like the locals are a bit miffed at the way Ohio-based FirstEnergy has been slowly cannibalizing former Pittsburgh energy star Allegheny Energy. That echoes an anonymous sentiment I saw in an online forum yesterday, where it was said that FirstEnergy is wrecking what used to be a good company. It's all about the stockholder dividends anymore. FirstEnergy doesn't give a damn about its customers, or the communities where it does business. FirstEnergy made all sorts of glittering promises to regulators and communities in order to get its merger approved, and has been systematically violating its promises ever since. FirstEnergy just doesn't care if you don't like it, little customers. The company has a monopoly in this state, step in line and take what you are served. But, FirstEnergy's monopoly state franchise isn't irrevocable. Look what's happening in another town that got fed up with a different out-of-state utility conglomerate...
On May 20, Governor Tomblin quietly reappointed Michael Albert as Chairman of the Public Service Commission. The appointment was not announced publicly, in fact, State Journal reporter Pam Kasey had to go on a hunt for this information. Kasey also found out that the Governor has done nothing about filling the expired term of PSC Commissioner McKinney, two years after his seat expired. Yesterday, The Journal's Rachel Molenda reported that FirstEnergy (under the guise of its employees and political action committee) has become Governor Tomblin's biggest campaign contributor. It sure looks like FirstEnergy has bought itself a seat on the Public Service Commission. And according to The Journal, it only cost $94,000. It only took $94,000 in campaign contributions for your Governor to throw you under the bus by "fixing" a supposedly independent commission with a corporate insider. Chairman Albert "previously served as a Manager and Member in the Business Law Department of Jackson Kelly, PLLC, in Charleston, West Virginia, focusing on public utilities and business and commercial transactions." In this capacity, Albert represented Allegheny Energy (now FirstEnergy) in all their cases before the PSC. Chairman Albert is FirstEnergy's boy. Commissioner McKinney is AEP's boy. One of these two has to go. The Public Service Commission is not fulfilling its mission. We will work tirelessly to assure: Chairman Albert's bias toward FirstEnergy is readily apparent. Chairman Albert is not interested in helping West Virginians. PSC Chairman Michael Albert’s recent remarks before a West Virginia legislative Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary epitomize the stagnant and captive nature of our current PSC leadership. Albert told the committee that the days of cheap utilities are over and that the only remedies for consumers who cannot afford higher utility costs are conservation or budget and consumer assistance programs. Instead of investigating creative solutions, which the PSC is empowered by law to do, Mr. Albert throws in the towel and goes along with the claims of West Virginia’s Ohio-based electric companies. Governor Tomblin is empowered to appoint the members of the Public Service Commission "with the advice and consent of the Senate." §24-1-3. Commission continued; membership; chairman; compensation; quorum. Governor Tomblin has appointed Chairman Albert. Albert has not yet been confirmed by the Senate.
The Governor makes hundreds of appointments every year. The appointments are gathered up periodically and forwarded to the Senate for confirmation. The next set is expected to come before the Senate for confirmation in January 2014. The Senate has a Confirmations Committee to deal with this function. The Senate can confirm the Governor's appointment, or the Senate can reject the appointment, in which case the Governor must appoint someone else. It has become crystal clear, both to the citizens of West Virginia and their elected representatives, that change is desperately needed at the Public Service Commission. We simply cannot afford another 6 years of uninspired, bought and paid for, corporate-influenced leadership. Let your senator know that you want change! There they go again. AEP and FirstEnergy are back at it, engaged in another regulatory hair-pulling, wedgie-yanking, silly girl slapdown in Ohio. The last time these two went at it like this, the public was treated to a remarkably unfocused and confused public relations campaign featuring front groups, high-priced lobbyists smoking cigars, and TV commercials about gigantic checks, scary cafeteria ladies and dodge ball. This time I simply must demand a crying Indian! First company to use the Indian in a commercial wins! Read the story in the Columbus Dispatch: It seems that FirstEnergy has managed to steal 49% of AEP's customers. In response, AEP has required FirstEnergy (and other competitors) to provide collateral to meet credit requirements in the event that FirstEnergy goes belly up and AEP has to take over serving their former customers. In retaliation, FirstEnergy has filed a complaint at the Public Utilities Commission, alleging that AEP is being unreasonable and is causing harm to FirstEnergy. AEP said in a filing that, “While AEP Ohio made various attempts to informally resolve this issue, both before and during commission-assisted mediation, it is clear that (FirstEnergy) has no intention to provide any collateral.” Of course FirstEnergy has no intention of playing well with others. AEP is just now figuring this out? Where ya been, AEP? Anyhow, AEP has now launched a collateral attack by intervening very late in the game in PUCO's investigation of FirstEnergy's renewable energy credit ripoff. It seems that FirstEnergy bought renewable energy credits from itself at outrageous prices, and then recovered these costs from consumers in Ohio, instead of paying a much cheaper fine for failure to buy the credits in the first place. FirstEnergy's reasoning is suspected to be that the cost of buying the credits could be foisted off on ratepayers, while the cost of fines would be the shareholders' responsibility. AEP makes another stunning realization in its brief: AEP Ohio has been monitoring the proceeding as best it could with the prevalent confidential treatment claims in the record that culminated in FirstEnergy filing its initial post-hearing brief as only a cover page with no attempt at redactions of the limited confidential material. That document was recently filed (redacted) in the docket for outside parties to examine. As an observer of this docket and a market participant, AEP Ohio questions FirstEnergy’s motives for its repeated attempts to shroud the market-related issues in this case under a veil of secrecy. What? AEP is just now accusing FirstEnergy of unnecessary and obstructive claims of confidentiality? Surely you jest, AEP?
While this bitch-slapping contest is fun to watch (and even more fun when accompanied by an advertising campaign) FirstEnergy has lately been finding that Karma is a cruel master. Just last year, FirstEnergy was on top of the heap. What a difference a year makes. All that scheming and conniving seems to have caught up with FirstEnergy and the company is now caught in a spinning death spiral of increasing velocity. Nothing is going FirstEnergy's way. But that's not unexpected. In addition to my services manipulating advertising campaigns in other states from afar, I also do a little fortune-telling on the side...with the help of my Magic 8 Ball. Can't we all just be originals who shine for our own ideas and hard work? Apparently not when you're one of Ohio's two gigantic investor-owned electric utilities. AEP and FirstEnergy are so concentrated on copying each other that it's hard to tell when either one of them has an original idea. I've lost track of how many times the tedious twins have copied each other's ideas lately.
How about the ol' selling your uncompetitive coal plants into West Virginia's regulated system trick? This was AEP's idea to save their bacon when FirstEnergy stole a whole bunch of their Ohio customers. But FirstEnergy has never seen a good idea that they aren't too proud to copy, so FirstEnergy soon found itself short on generation too! Wow, serendipity! And how about that rate case TV commercial beat down between the two companies last year? Freak show! Now it's AEP's turn to copycat FirstEnergy's sports team sponsorship idea by becoming "the official energy sponsor" of Wrigley Field, home of the Chicago Cubs. In typical fashion though, AEP improves on FirstEnergy's ham-handed public relations disaster of epic proportions. AEP actually does supply the electricity to the sports venue it sponsors! (FirstEnergy Stadium's electricity is supplied by Cleveland Public Power, not FirstEnergy - cue the irony!) AEP says, "We want all fans throughout Chicagoland to know they have a choice in who supplies their electricity." Let's hope that none of AEP's executives goes all Chatty Cathy with the media to demonstrate the way these deals get made between the filthy rich, but maybe AEP has a little more class than the buffoons at FirstEnergy. |
About the Author Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history. About
|