The entities that stand to profit from building hundreds of billions of dollars worth of new high voltage electric transmission are at it again.  In the wake of FERC’s Order 1000 requiring cost allocation to be “at least roughly commensurate with estimated benefits,” and that those who receive no benefit shall not be allocated costs involuntarily, the industry has simply redefined the term “benefit” to suit their pecuniary purposes while toeing the line with FERC.  This is exactly what my Magic 8 Ball told me would happen, so we shouldn’t be surprised.

WIRES, which is a group of industry lobbyists and their sycophants, has bought a study prepared by The Brattle Group (proud industry whore since 1990) that supposedly identifies and analyzes a whole bunch of “new” benefits of building transmission that they feel will, when added to current planning evaluations, ensure that transmission wins every time!  *cha-ching $$$$* WIRES pretends that it is only concerned about the good of society.  Baloney.  It’s all about the money!

WIRES and their well-paid former FERC Commissioner counsel have submitted this study to FERC because, “It is our expectation that this new analysis will be helpful to the Commission and to parties filing in compliance with the regional and interregional planning provisions of Order No. 1000.  Although Order No. 1000 compliance involves numerous additional dockets, we believe the report should at least be part of the record in the overarching rulemaking proceeding so that parties are able to access and use its contents.” 

Right, let’s allow WIRES buy some new FERC policy with our money.  You know how I know this report is made-up crap?  Because it uses sources such as Clean Line Energy Partners’ self-serving analyses and other industry-commissioned “studies,” as well as clueless NYT blogger Matt Wald and other biased media sources.  Any trained monkey can compile a whole bunch of dubious sources to come to pre-determined conclusions.   Congratulations, Brattle Group!  I wonder how much they charged WIRES for something a 3rd grader could have accomplished?

So, how speculative are all these new “benefits” that transmission planners must consider in order to force unneeded transmission?

WIRES says, “An analysis that ignores or rejects benefits that are not measured with precision implicitly assumes that the value of such benefits is zero. This will systematically understate the overall value of transmission investments.  It will also, in turn, lead to the unintended consequence of rejecting valuable transmission projects that offer a broad set of long-term benefits with total values that exceed project costs.”

Or, perhaps there’s a reason these “benefits” have historically been given a value of zero in order to ensure that only cost-effective and needed transmission projects are actually built?

Here are the “benefits” that WIRES insists be calculated, no matter how specious they may be:

1. Production cost savings;
2. Reliability and resource adequacy benefits;
3. Generation capacity cost savings;
4. Market benefits, such as improved competition and market liquidity;
5. Environmental benefits;
6. Public policy benefits; employment and economic development benefits; and
7. Other project-specific benefits such as storm hardening, increased load serving capability, synergies with future transmission projects, increased fuel diversity and resource planning flexibility, increased wheeling revenues, increased transmission rights and customer congestion-hedging value, and HVDC operational benefits.

Production cost savings are one of the traditional ways transmission “benefits” are derived.  However, “As noted earlier, production cost savings only measure the reduction in variable production costs, including fuel, variable O&M costs, and emission costs.  This means that production cost savings, even if the simulations capture the additional factors discussed above, will not capture the benefits associated with reliability, capital costs, increased competition, certain environmental benefits and other public policy benefits, or economic development benefits. These benefits provide additional value to electricity customers and to the economy as a whole.”

WIRES would rather have us concentrate on those hard to quantify “economy-wide benefits” that can be concocted out of whole cloth and come in handy to tip the scales in favor of questionable projects.  In addition, WIRES recommends that regions bundle a whole bunch of such dubious projects into “project portfolios” (as MISO has done).  When “benefits” of many projects are combined into an impossible to separate mega-project for regional transmission organization approval, WIRES believes this sleight-of-hand spread of “benefits” among a wider pool of consumers makes cost allocation easier. 

“We also suggest aggregating beneficial transmission projects into larger portfolios of projects to simplify the necessary cost allocation analyses, reduce misperceptions that benefits appear to accrue only to a limited subset of market participants, and facilitate less contentious cost allocation processes.”

And although the report fails to mention it, this combination of many small projects, owned by many different entities, into one big mega-project also allows for convenient re-separation of each smaller segment in order to sail through state or local approvals while shepherded by incumbent utilities that have developed relationships with communities, legislators and regulators.

Here are a couple of spurious gems from the WIRES “report” that had me snorting with laughter.  Do they actually think that intelligent people will fall for this dreck?

“For example, transmission lines that allow for increased imports of lower-cost generation from a neighboring region can provide benefits to both regions: the importing region through a lower cost of delivered power [to consumers] and the exporting region through increased revenues to the exporting suppliers. The increased export revenue can also be a benefit to electricity customers in the exporting region if these additional revenues are used to offset the cost of regulated generation assets or if wheeling out the revenues paid by exporting merchant generators can be used to offset the exporting region’s transmission revenue requirements.”

That’s right… new transmission simply levelizes electricity prices between regions.  While the importing region gets the benefit of lower electricity prices, the exporting region gets the “benefit” of higher electricity prices PLUS a share of the cost of the transmission project that raised their electric rates.  What a bargain!  All benefits to an exporting region go right into the coffers of generation companies.  And here’s a perfect example from the report:

“The economy-wide benefit of the deferred generation investments was estimated at $320 million, about half of which was estimated to accrue to customers in Texas, with the other half of the benefit to accrue to merchant generators in Louisiana and Arkansas.” 

Building transmission to import renewables from coast-to-coast is not economic, and when given a choice between high-priced renewables or affordable "dirty power" utility bills, consumers overwhelmingly vote with their wallet.  In spite of also being motivated by its collective wallet, WIRES just doesn’t get it:

“In such cases, despite the fact that both transmission and retail electricity rates may increase, the transmission investment can reduce the overall cost of satisfying public policy goals.”

Sometimes, new transmission has unintended effects.  Perhaps our Pollyanna environmental warrior friends, who are backing transmission expansion that they optimistically believe will result in renewable energy super-highways, should take a lesson:

“Similarly, the CREZ projects in Texas have also provided new opportunities for fossil generation plants to be located away from densely populated load centers where it may be difficult to find suitable sites for new generation facilities, where environmental limitations prevent the development of new plants, or where developing such generation is significantly more costly.”

In addition, new transmission can perpetuate environmental and social injustice whereby the poor and politically under-represented continue to bear a disproportionate share of the burden to supply the needs of the rich and politically connected in their own or other regions.

WIRES tried to give their dubious “report” more credibility by having it peer reviewed.  Despite being able to choose its reviewers and having sole power to approve or disapprove the content of the review, WIRES still couldn’t prevent a little sanity from sneaking in at the end of the report.  The peer reviewers opined: 

“The electric power system is a complex, interconnected whole. While the interconnection may be argued to be the transmission system, the whole incorporates generation (both central and distributed), storage (again central and potentially distributed), distribution in all of its complexity, and the interaction with end users at all levels and at all levels of complexity in use and control.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to fully evaluate the benefits of transmission without reaching into the competing benefits of investments in other sub-systems of the power system. Technology is not standing still in terms of the transmission system or in terms of the other sub-systems of the power system. Two examples of changes whose impacts upon asset growth in transmission have yet to be quantified are:

• The impact of significant investment in distributed generation and potentially storage within the distribution system. These changes are being brought about by public policy decisions combined with a dramatic expansion in communications and controls allowing for the development of distributed energy systems that interact with the larger utility system

• The impact of sensing and control of the transmission system that allows for dynamic reconfiguration of the topology of the transmission system. Often referred
to as “line switching,” the benefits have been known by system operators for decades. It is only with increased monitoring, advances in analytic techniques, and computation speed that these concepts can be brought into the operational time frame.

Technological changes are adding points of pressure to the power system in general and specifically to the transmission sub-system as the interchange network that allows the system to remain balanced.”

While WIRES is trying to hurry along the filling of its members’ pockets, the electric utility industry is undergoing a sea change that’s going to make most of this new transmission obsolete before it becomes used and useful.  But these guys don’t care if a huge investment in unneeded transmission is left for their grandchildren to repay, as long as the money comes rolling in today.

If we’re going to make up a whole bunch of new transmission “benefits” that must be considered in any regional planning cost-benefit analysis, how about if we also now consider the true cost of building new transmission?  WIRES thinks that the true cost of building transmission is contained in the annual transmission revenue requirement of any particular project.  However, that does not consider the true costs to communities, individuals, landowners, ratepayers, or society as a whole.  But where are we going to get the money to hire an industry whore economist to make up a bunch of crap like WIRES did?  Oh, not to worry… the way transmission opposition is expanding lately, it’s only a matter of time before some transmission routing doofus uses his etch-a-sketch to draw a line through the backyard of an economist or two (or maybe that’s already happened, or maybe the opposition leadership is quite capable of preparing their own cost-effective analysis and report -- The Costs of Electric Transmission: Identifying and Analyzing the True Cost of Transmission!)  If you want to be part of our brain trust and help us identify the true cost of new transmission, just let me know!

A friend sent me a link to this article on Grist yesterday.  The five most important names in renewable energy that you’ve never heard of not only improperly ends a sentence with a preposition, but the author just plain, old makes crap up.  While waxing poetic kissing the rear ends of FERC Commissioners current and future, Bill White,  manager of the National Clean Energy Transmission Initiative for the Energy Future Coalition, contends that only Big Wind can save us:

This, of course, is incorrect, but still an arguable opinion (and it is, read the comments).  However, next Bill demonstrates his mastery of FERC finance:

What an idiot (and you will notice he gets called on his misunderstanding of ROE in the comments as well)!  ROE = Return on Equity = the percentage of yearly return (interest) investors earn on their equity (investment) in transmission projects.  It has nothing to do with how long it would take to recoup the costs of a project.  That's called depreciation, Bill.  The two have only a cursory connection in that depreciation pays back a portion of the investment every year, plus interest (ROE) on the outstanding balance.  The length of time it takes to recoup an investment is directly tied to its depreciable life.  Investments should be paid for during their used and useful life.  I'll do Bill a favor and stop there without even mentioning salvage value.

Now, don't you feel stupid, Bill?  You should.  You should also feel stupid about all those other brainless things you said in your Grist rant, like the fact that state regulators, who are complaining about FERC returns, are "misguided." What makes a financial genius like you qualified to judge the actions of professional regulators?

Yup, ol' Bill just doesn't know what he's talking about.  Crash and burn.

The media's favorite, new energy story centers on how traditional utilities are panicking over the ever-shrinking pool of customers created by on-site renewable generation and energy efficiency.  Now the New York Times has also jumped on the bandwagon.  This is it utility friends, change or die!

The smart companies are finding new niche markets that will secure their longevity.  The stupid companies are wasting a whole bunch of money trying to lobby solar out of existence.  Do I have to start handing out  my own series of Utility Darwin Awards?

I'm so happy that the media has now picked up on something we wrote in June 2012.  In comments to the FERC, consumer groups put utilities on notice:

"Because transmission is such a long-term asset, we must be extremely mindful of how new projects relate to each other to achieve comprehensive energy policy goals. If we continue to approach transmission as a hodgepodge, knee-jerk reaction to serve short-term goals and provide sustainable revenue streams to investor-owned utilities, we risk setting ourselves up for a possible future where a huge investment in transmission becomes the financial responsibility of a shrinking pool of ratepayers. Technological advances and affordability are making it possible for an increasing number of consumers to produce their own power and feed it into the local distribution grid by making their own smart, fuel-free, power producing investments. Energy efficiency and demand management gains continue to shatter future demand projections, further decreasing the need for billions of dollars of investment in new transmission infrastructure."


It only took just over a year to get this observation mainstreamed into the pages of the New York Times.    Perhaps NYT isn't getting timely information while worshipping at the alter of for-profit utilities?

In the wake of the WV PSC's refusal to dismiss its investigation of billing practices, FirstEnergy subsidiaries Potomac Edison and Mon Power have now mounted what's known as a charm offensive.  A charm offensive is a public relations campaign designed to build trust and mollify a perturbed public in order to repair a company's image.  In FirstEnergy's case, the company is  trying desperately to sweep away the mess its former Allegheny Energy subsidiaries have made of billing and meter reading in the wake of their merger with FirstEnergy in 2011.

Unfortunately, FirstEnergy's charm offensive is being carried out by a squinty-eyed, loquacious fabulist who is not well-liked, either by the public or the media.  Our friend Todd is carrying too much flaming baggage from the PATH project, and other dubious claims he has spun for the public in recent memory.  Nobody believes a thing Todd says anymore.  Looks like FirstEnergy is going to have to find a more charming spokesperson.

Here's what Todd told WV Metro News the other day:

"Customers started complaining to the PSC several months ago after meter readers with both companies fell behind following Superstorm Sandy. Meyers said they were helping with the power restoration efforts. Bills were estimated for some customers for consecutive months and the estimates were based on the previous mild winter. When the actual readings took place, customers received very expensive bills."

Customers have been complaining for a lot longer than "several months," although Potomac Edison has only acknowledged some of the complaints in recent months, after the PSC opened an investigation in response to public outrage and legislative anger.  The company's problems started following the "superstorm" of the 2011 Allegheny/FirstEnergy merger, and the ensuing spending cuts and stunning incompetence that brought bi-monthly meter reading to a screeching halt.  The PSC has called foul on Todd's excuse that meters were not read because personnel were "helping with power restoration efforts," or that estimates were made based on any logical process at all and were not, instead, made up out of whole cloth.

Todd insists that Potomac Edison should be granted more time to actually do the job that you're paying them to do every month, and that you should overlook continued erroneous billing and skipped meter readings while they "work through the issues individual customers have with double billing and estimated meter readings."

I don't think so, Todd.  Potomac Edison has had months already to clean up its act, and years to have gotten it right in the first place.  The public is done being patient.  The public has become quite bloodthirsty and a sacrifice must be made to appease them.  How about we start with Todd and his "out of whack" charm offensive?

Apparently WV's Director of Energy, Jeff Herholt, showed up at legislative interims yesterday to talk about WV's 5-Year Energy Plan.  Hilarity ensued.

A story in The Journal says:

Coal production has fallen by about 25 percent since 2001. The closing of coal-fired power plants has played a significant role in this decrease, Herdolt said.

"We don't struggle over whether our state should use coal or not," Herdolt said. "Other states, that's not the case."

Coal's inability to compete with the price of natural gas has also affected production; however, Herdolt added, there is not a "compelling drive" for utilities to completely abandon coal for natural gas.

And then a clown car roared into the meeting and several legislators poured out:

Sen. Ron Stolling, D-Boone, questioned why coal isn't lucrative enough for even power plants inside West Virginia to use the state's product. Herdolt said price is the problem. About 50 percent of the coal-fired power plants in the state use coal from other places, according to Stolling.

"It's all price," Herdolt said. "We had a lot of coal in storage. We had a mild winter last year, (and) we had a storage buildup."

Some lawmakers were concerned by what they heard at the meeting. Sen. Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, said he wanted to hear more about utilizing coal for energy by way of liquification. Referring to a TransGas coal-to-liquid plant in Mingo County, Blair said he wonders why the state isn't promoting it more.

"We're talking about a lot of jobs in West Virginia, but we're also talking about lower energy prices," Blair said. "Low energy prices give opportunity for the ability to attract businesses to the state."

Sen. Art Kirkendoll, D-Logan, said the state should be more proactive with projects like the coal-to-liquid plant.

"We're sitting on our thumbs waiting for these investors to come in with $2 billion," Kirkendoll said. "Why don't we go get the investors?"

In the next act, a daring trapeze act was attempted by someone with a brain:

The commission also heard from John Christensen, a member of the Berkeley County Economic Development Authority and employee at Mountain View Solar in Berkeley Springs. Christensen was there to make a case for fostering of the solar industry in West Virginia.

Christensen referred to HB3080, which would provide a 1 to 1.5 percent carve-out for solar technology in the state's energy portfolio.

"All the states that have this carve-out are doing great," Christensen said. "We want to be big. ... We want to be involved bringing more jobs to West Virginia."

But it wasn't enough to deflect attention away from the continual capering of the clowns:

But lawmakers questioned the worth of solar with its lower energy production in the state and its cost. Blair, who said he is supportive of renewable energy, said there should be a significant return on investment from the state, and he said it's just not there with solar.

"When government gets involved, and they start issuing tax credits ... you're subsidizing something," Blair said. "It should be cost-effective to start with."

While the Eastern Panhandle doesn't have a direct role in much of the state's energy production, Delegate Paul Espinosa, R-Jefferson, said he believes residents should know about energy issues.

"It's certainly something I think we need to be informed about and be supportive of an energy industry that can be profitable for our state," Espinosa said.

And the music played on...

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...

The arrogant energy industry and their paid media pimps continually pretend they know what consumers want.  They believe that if they write and publish enough lies that consumers will start to believe them.

Not.

Forbes "contributor" Ken Silverstein tells us that "Utilities would have an easier time building transmission lines if it were not for a feisty public, which generally feels that those ugly lines ought to be built somewhere else."

Really?  This guys bills himself as "editor-in-chief for Energy Central's EnergyBiz Insider. With a background in economics and public policy, I've spent two decades writing about the issues that touch the energy and financial sectors. My EnergyBiz column has twice been named Best Online Column by two different media organizations."  However, his NIMBY name calling merely showcases his complete ignorance of the dynamics of current transmission policy debate.  Is he really this clueless, or is he merely posturing for the crowd to parrot power company propaganda?

Let's take a look at just a few of the facts Silverstein gets wrong:

1.    "...the transmission grid is aging and it needs to be updated and expanded so that it can fulfill the needs of consumers — many of whom don’t want those unsightly lines near them."

WRONG!  The transmission grid was not designed to wheel energy from coast to coast to fill the pockets of greedy traders.  The industry is not spending enough capital "upgrading" for any real need, but has been banging its head against a brick wall attempting to "expand."  Let's look at just one example:  While PATH was shooting blanks attempting to get its new build project approved, Dominion slipped in and quietly punked AEP/FirstEnergy with the rebuild of an existing line that completely obviated the PATH project.

Consumer issues center on NEED and COST.  It's not about NIMBY anymore.  How loud do you suppose Silverstein would squeal if someone routed a transmission line through his own backyard?  Silverstein loves new transmission... as long as there's no personal sacrifice on his part involved and it's not in his backyard, therefore, Silverstein is the real NIMBY.

2.    "Inevitably, disputes emerge that typically center on the potential ecological harm that a given line may take. In other instances, the arguments are that the development is occurring in states that will not get the benefit of the added electricity, or that it would increase the usage of coal.

Such was the case when American Electric Power and FirstEnergy Corp. tried to build the so-called Potomac Appalachian Transmission High-Line, which would have stretched 275 miles from West Virginia into Maryland. The PJM Interconnection, which coordinates the transmission planning for the MidAtlantic states, has now withdrawn the project. It has done the same for Pepco Holding’s Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, although both concepts could get resurrected once the economy is in full swing."

WRONG!  PJM cancelled the PATH project because it was not needed, not because of cost allocation, environmental or coal-related issues.  The opposition to PATH was ALWAYS based on the fact that the project was not needed. 

PATH and MAPP are not going to be "resurrected," and neither is an energy-wasting economy that increases energy demand.  Consumers in the PJM region are already on the hook for the quarter billion dollars wasted developing the unneeded PATH project, a project that will never provide consumers with any benefits.  None.  Zero.  PATH and MAPP were part of an industry money-making scheme named Project Mountaineer and were never needed for reliability or market efficiency.

3.    "While the concerns and the subsequent legal battles are well intended, they oftentimes perpetuate uncertainty. That is, investors are skeptical because they can make more money in alternative investments while the delays impede reliability. And if brownouts or rolling blackouts occur, the financial toll can mount."

WRONG! Brownouts and blackouts?  I haven't heard that kind of fear-mongering since PATH got shelved.  Get a grip, Silverstein.  You and I both know that is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.  Silverstein goes on about new transmission needed for renewables and then tosses in the blackouts invective?  Sorry, but the lights will not go out if renewables can't be transported coast-to-coast. 

Investors are salivating at the prospect of plunking their dollars into transmission investments making double-digit returns, despite the industry's "the sky is falling" whining.  As well, transmission projects can and do request formula rates and incentives that provide them with a continual return during the development and construction period.  There's absolutely no risk to transmission investors.  None.  Zero. 

Maybe Silverstein should do some research before he approaches a keyboard in the future.  There's plenty of information to be had on this website.  Maybe Silverstein could learn a few things about his topic here?  And maybe, just maybe, he might want to consult a consumer before writing more folderol about what they want.

The staff of the West Virginia Public Service Commission filed their comments and initial staff memorandum yesterday regarding the general investigation of Potomac Edison's and Mon Power's billing and meter reading practices.  You may read the memo here.

The staff gets really, really close to determining the probable cause of the most recent problem. 

Ut-oh, FirstEnergy!  Maybe the company should tell the PSC what happened now, before the staff figures it out for itself?  Maybe the staff needs just a little help?  The longer this goes on, the harder it's going to be for FirstEnergy to admit to the real problem and create a story for why it's being covered up. 

The PSC isn't convinced that all the problems are "in the rearview mirror."

The staff isn't buying FirstEnergy's storm-related excuses for not reading customer meters:

The PSC staff wasn't convinced by FirstEnergy's billing fish story, so the investigation will continue.

Don't miss your opportunity to help the PSC staff out by submitting your own comments!

The smartly renamed RTO Insider brings us word of a new feeding frenzy that has erupted at PJM: 

Ever seen one of those TV clips where sharks go berserk feeding on the incapacitated corpse of a helpless animal?  The similarities are stunning.  Transmission builders are hungry, hungry, hungry for new projects where they can plunk down their "transmission spend" and spin the Wheel of Regional Cost Allocation and Incentive Returns to win big!

RTO Insider provides a run down of the proposals and a link to the July 10 PJM TEAC slide deck with more details and maps of each proposal (beginning on page 61).  I'm loving the way that RTO Insider makes the job of babysitting PJM so much easier for me!  No more random, inconvenient urges to go wade through PJM's webmaze to see what's new, and then going through all the trouble of running my find through the geek translator.  RTO Insider does all that for you!  Go get yourself a subscription now... because if you don't, I may know something you don't.

According to the RTO Insider's proposal list, all the proposals for Artificial Island include new transmission lines of various sizes.

It's just colorful lines on a map right now, isn't it?  It looks like someone at PJM had fun with their mouse and an RGB color chart, drawing proposed transmission lines across Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey.

Reality Check:  Each one of those lines runs through hundreds or thousands of backyards.  Real people, real property, real lives.  Will PJM spend any time contemplating the people whose way of life they are blithely sacrificing for the needs of others?  Will PJM consider the likelihood of opposition, environmental considerations, land values, or the welfare of affected individuals when choosing the winning proposal?  Will PJM notify the affected communities that there is a problem that needs to be solved by building new transmission lines in their area?  Will PJM consult with the communities to allow those possibly affected by the new project to weigh in on the proposal that is selected?

Of course not!  What do you think this is, a transparent democracy?  PJM will make its selection based on cost, or engineering, or other considerations (like which transmission company schmoozes best).  And then the winning bidder will begin planning their project and greasing the proper palms, carefully keeping their plans under wraps until they are ready to pull the rip cord and hold their public "open houses."  At that point, the transmission owner tells the people that the mysterious, unseen, regional transmission authority has ordered the company to build this project across the peoples' land and that there's nothing the transmission owner or the people can do about it.  The transmission owner's hands are tied and the peoples' fate is sealed!  What a load of crap!

These front-loaded fait accompli approaches never work.  The people will always want to backtrack to where the decision to build the transmission line was made in the first place.  They want to determine for themselves that there truly is no other option.  Meanwhile, the transmission owner pours buckets of ratepayer cash into astroturf front groups, dishonest TV commercials, smarmy land agents, political palm greasing, and celebrity spokeswhores, trying to convince the people, and ultimately the state regulators, that the project really is needed. 

There's got to be a better way.

Good luck with that, PJM.

Residents of Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey -- we'll get to know each other real soon, won't we?  *sigh*

A recent article in Greentech Media says that 76% of consumers don't trust their utility.  

But, but, but... Potomac Edison and Mon Power insisted to the WV PSC that 73% of their customers rate their satisfaction with the company a 9 or 10 out of 10.  How do you suppose a company that is under general investigation in two different states due to hundreds of complaints about their meter reading and billing practices is getting such stellar marks in customer satisfaction?

Denial. 

FirstEnergy clutches its phony customer satisfaction statistics tightly and pretends nothing is wrong.  That's great -- a whole bunch of nice folks will keep their jobs for the time being.  But because none of them want to tell The Emperor that he's naked, they only facilitate the demise of the company and put their personal financial situation in jeopardy over the long term.  How badly run is FirstEnergy that its employees are terrified to make suggestions for improvement?  How long has it been since anyone at FirstEnergy's Fairmont call center went home at the end of the day feeling like they made a difference and helped someone?  Or, more likely, how often do they burn rubber out of there in order to get home to the liquor cabinet as quickly as possible?

When asked recently, dozens of Jefferson and Berkeley County, West Virginia, residents overwhelmingly gave Potomac Edison a vote of non-confidence.

When asked how likely they would be to select a FirstEnergy company if given a choice, 19% said they would be somewhat unlikely, 31% said very unlikely, and an another 31% said "never in a million years."

This isn't shaping up as a bright future for FirstEnergy in West Virginia, as the utility industry remakes itself over the next decade.

It's been one screw up after another in Jefferson County, and since FirstEnergy couldn't be bothered to listen to its customers when given a chance, it has absolutely no concept of just how hated it is.  Overall, the utility's satisfaction rating has been hanging around 3.8.  Yes, that's on that same 10 point scale where FirstEnergy claimed it was receiving a 9 or 10 from 73% of its customers.  Maybe FirstEnergy is holding their statistics upside down, because it sure looks like they've got things backwards?

And if you think that's bad, FirstEnergy's "Customer Service" call center gets a rating even worse than that.  It's at an all-time high of 3.3 this morning.  It's been as low as 1.98 (also using the 10 point rating scale).

Just a few customer complaints about their call center experience:

"They state that the increase was do to square footage. When we read our meter they told us we were wrong. They refused to read our meter and continue to charge us based on estimated bills."

"Even the staff couldn't answer why my bill was so inconsistent. They have no idea how to average the use without the actual reading. It made it seem like something in my house was consuming electric at an alarming and dangerous rate."

"Horrible customer service, erratic bills (one month $170, the next month $500), not reading the meter every month instead relying on "estimating."

"As I noted above, they could not explain my bill and because I was unhappy with the inability of the customer service person, she hung up on me. I had to call back again and that person could not explain so I was given to a supervisor and while she was nicer, she could not explain it either. Unacceptable."

"Put on hold for so long I gave up."

"Got "stock" answers to questions about billing. Would not really answer questions."

"Long delays before a person answers."

"Very hard to get to the right person to answer my question. I was passed though 8 people in 1 hour to get to the person that I should have gotten in the first place, not someone in a different state who did not have a clue about what I was taking about."

"15min wait timed on hold. Don't return calls as promised. Wrong phone numbers on website."

"Would not help with payment. Resulted in loss of service."

"Rude, rude, rude."

"Promised calls back, never happened. Rude customer reps who cannot/will not answer specific questions about billing/meter reading. Ridiculous!"

"Placed on hold for over an hour, I finally gave up and hung up. My time is too valuable to sit on hold."

As long as FirstEnergy employees keep making excuses for their own laziness and failure, customer trust will continue to deteriorate.  As long as FirstEnergy keeps lying both to the WV PSC and the public, the situation will not improve.  You know what they say... trust, once broken, can never be fully repaired.

What do you think?  Take our Potomac Edison customer satisfaction survey.  There are only six questions.  You'll be finished in less than 2 minutes!  It's way past time to burst FirstEnergy's customer satisfaction fantasy bubble!