StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

7th Circuit Remands PJM's Old Cost Allocation Methodology to FERC -- Deja Vu!

6/27/2014

0 Comments

 
In a predictable move, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit kicked the Illinois Commerce Commission v. FERC can back to Washington today.

This case has been dragging on for nearly 5 years.  When it first started, ratepayers in PJM's Illinois territory were looking at sharing a huge chunk of the cost of PJM's multi-billion dollar Project Mountaineer collection of unneeded transmission projects.  Although the bill has shrunk considerably with the cancellation of PATH and MAPP, the argument has only grown.

It centers on PJM's 2006 adoption of the "postage stamp" cost allocation methodology.  This method assigned costs of new transmission 500kV or greater to all ratepayers in the region based on their share of regional electricity sales.  The more power an area used, the greater its share.  PJM did this to spread out (socialize) the cost of its Project Mountaineer venture over more customers so it could get that transmission built before the hoi polloi noticed, "before it became common dinner table talk."

However, it's important to realize that PJM no longer uses the 100% "postage stamp" cost allocation method and hasn't since last year.  Today's 7th Circuit decision will have no effect on any proposed or future transmission projects in PJM, or any other RTO.  Today's decision will only affect those projects that were built (or not!) before last year's new allocation method went into effect.  PJM's new, FERC-approved cost allocation methodology relies on a 50-50 split of two different methods for transmission lines of at least double-circuited 345kV or greater.  The first 50% is allocated according to the old postage stamp method, and the remaining 50% is allocated either to the cost causers or the beneficiaries, depending on the reason for the project.  Costs for transmission projects based on "public policy" clean energy state laws will be allocated to the states that require them under PJM's "State Agreement Approach."  If a state doesn't agree to shoulder the cost burden for a project designed to meet its renewable portfolio standard, then it will not be built.

Today's decision echoed the first remand from the 7th Circuit, that found that FERC had not done enough to show that utilities in "western PJM" received benefit from Project Mountaineer that was commensurate with their cost responsibility under the old "postage stamp" allocation method.


FERC dealt with the first remand by rolling its eyes and making up more crap about how "western PJM" benefited from Project Mountaineer.
  It pulled an even bigger diva act on rehearing.  But FERC just can't out-diva Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit.

Posner hates coal, and transmission lines that carry it.  But, he loves postage stamp rates for transmission lines that are supposed to be "for wind."


This Sybil act must also be confusing to FERC, but hopefully they can get it right this time... because third time's a charm, right?

Go ahead, read today's decision.  It's quite chatty and reads like some guy's geeky blog post about electricity and cost-benefit analyses, until you get to the 9-page dissent by
Judge Cudahy, who seems to be writing from the other side of the political spectrum.  It's fairly entertaining.  However, I suspect FERC is not as amused as you are.

0 Comments

FERC Changes The Way It Calculates Electric Transmission Return on Equity

6/27/2014

2 Comments

 
Sorry, you're going to have to do your own analysis on this one.

A story in the New Haven Register reports that the ruling is a setback for New England ratepayers.

Here's the dissent of Commissioner Norris mentioned in the article:

He's concerned, "...that this determination subjects consumers to unjust and unreasonable rates in this proceeding and potentially in future ROE proceedings."

Here's a geekier article about it.

Here's the entire Order, for those with "super geek" status.
2 Comments

PJM Continues Making Poor Choices About Transmission Line "Constructability"

6/22/2014

1 Comment

 
Nearly 10 years ago, PJM's management made a very poor choice approving Project Mountaineer, a scheme to build more than $3B worth of new transmission in order to increase the transfer of 5,000MW of coal-fired generation to the east coast.  Project Mountaineer caused PJM to approve four new high-voltage transmission projects and add them to its RTEP:  TrAIL, Susquehanna Roseland, PATH and MAPP.  Only two of these highly controversial projects were ever built, and at a very high cost.  The other two were abandoned without ever turning a shovel of dirt.

PATH was re-routed within months of being introduced to the public, because PJM's approved plan for it called for "twin" 500kV circuits through densely populated, high-growth areas of West Virginia's eastern panhandle, northern Virginia, and Maryland's Washington, D.C. suburbs.  It just wasn't physically and politically possible to construct the project.  PJM's determination of the "constructability" of PATH was wrong.  Even its second choice of a single 765kV line through the area failed.

And PJM hasn't gotten any smarter about constructability since.  Its first major transmission project since the PATH/MAPP failure is also destined to "constructability" failure.  PJM recently selected PSE&G's proposal for a new 500kV line to parallel an existing line in Salem County, New Jersey to solve its Artificial Island problem.  PJM claimed its decision was based on the "constructability" of PSE&G's project.

So, what standard did PJM use?  PJM hired a company that does work for the companies bidding on this project to do a "Constructability Study."

The study accounts for environmental permitting, historical commission review, federal environmental review, and a host of other "risks."  It gave little moment to state utility commission review and permitting, and paid absolutely no attention to possible public opposition and its impact on permits necessary from local government.

I guess PJM and GAI Consultants have already forgotten what killed the PATH project they both had a hand in.  GAI opines that paralleling existing transmission lines will dampen opposition because there's no need to involve "new" landowners.  Right... because transmission lines are like potato chips... one is never enough!

The routing study and mapping shows urban and residential areas being crossed, and at one point the line runs practically right over top of a school.  Although all projects needed to acquire new right of way adjacent to the current one, GAI and PJM reason that PSE&G has an advantage here because of some old agreement over ownership of transmission assets.  I just don't see this agreement being helpful convincing landowners to agree to expand the current right of way.  Maybe PJM has forgotten what happened when TrAILCo attempted to utilize old right of way in Pennsylvania?  In that instance, trying to force old agreements on new landowners using unscrupulous land agents blew up in TrAILCo's face and most likely contributed to its eventual denial by the PA PUC.  In the end, TrAILCo had to abandon that old right of way and give it back to the landowners. 

The selected project also proposes an overhead river crossing in a very busy shipping lane, instead of the submarine crossing proposed by other projects.

This is a public opposition bonfire in the making!

So, what else could PJM have done here?  What other projects were in the running?  Projects choosing a route through Delaware were evaluated for "constructability" by a different company that actually considered public opposition, and none of that was very encouraging.  All projects will garner public opposition, some more than others.  DUH.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

But, wait a tick here.  There's one project on PJM's bid list that doesn't seem to have been evaluated in either "constructability" report.  I guess PJM batted it aside instantly, like a distasteful mint.

Atlantic Grid (yes, the ones who have been patiently trying to construct an offshore backbone transmission line to gather offshore wind generation and funnel it to shore at strategic locations) submitted something called the Garden State Reliability Project.
  It looks like this project was going to do something entirely different than the rest of the contenders.

The Artificial Island-related challenges to grid reliability and operational flexibility that PJM describes in its Problem Statement can be solved with the Garden State Reliability Project (GSRP), a proposed voltage source converter (VSC) high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission system that connects Artificial Island to the Cardiff AC Substation near Atlantic City, New Jersey. GSRP has the capacity to controllably transmit 1,000 MW of power on its approximately 60-mile underground circuit. GSRP also incorporates static VAR compensator (SVC) facilities. The project is estimated to cost $1,012 million and to be in service by December 31, 2018.
Not only was this project going to fix PJM's little Artificial Island problem, it was also going to tie into Atlantic Grid's New Jersey Energy Link to provide a way to move nuclear power into the congested northern New Jersey load zone.  It would also provide backup, baseload power to balance the eventual offshore wind generation's variability.

But, Atlantic Grid's GSRP was proposed to cost 4 times as much as PJM's favored project.  However, GSRP provided many other benefits the other project didn't, such as black start capability for Artificial Island, and it was designed to meet future needs, instead of simply fixing today's little problem.  Low cost may be the easy choice for today, but sometimes it's just not as efficient.

PJM's "low cost" choices presume that a select set of landowners must be forced to sacrifice their private property for the good of society.  When is the rest of society going to make a sacrifice for its own good?  Adequately compensating landowners and/or building higher cost projects that don't require as much sacrifice from host landowners should be a sacrifice society is willing to make for its own good!  Want cleaner power?  Want your lights to stay on?  You need to pay for it, not some other landowners miles away who are not benefiting from the project.

And you know what was really innovative about Atlantic Grid's project?  It was completely underground and routed along road rights of way!  Minimal sacrifice for host landowners, minimal public opposition, minimal risk, minimal time to complete.
Another key GSRP project objective was to demonstrate timely constructability with a practical right of way (ROW) approach and low construction and environmental impact. GSRP is distinguished from high voltage AC line solutions to the grid reliability and operating issues at Artificial Island because GSRP has a more predictable in-service date. GSRP’s HVDC cable system would be buried underground in state and local road ROW, rather than being constructed as an overhead transmission line. Accordingly, building GSRP requires simple rights of access to existing road ROW granted by public entities. In comparison, AC overhead transmission solutions will require new or expanded ROW acquisition involving tree and brush clearing, high towers, aesthetic and environmental impacts, public opposition and litigation. All of these challenges associated with overhead lines cause less predictability and greater cost.
Instead, PJM seems to prefer continuing its old status quo of selecting projects proposed by its incumbents that are environmental, permitting and public opposition nightmares.  And we all pay for PJM's mistakes.
1 Comment

Hey, Salem County, New Jersey:  PJM Wants to Drop a New Transmission Line in Your Back Yard!

6/16/2014

2 Comments

 
The Pollyanna Planners of PJM Interconnection are at it again.  Today, PJM announced it had made a decision about the building of a new 18-mile 500kV transmission line in Salem County, New Jersey.  As the first project awarded under FERC's new "competitive" transmission building system, PJM proved that old habits die hard by awarding the $250M project to incumbent transmission builder PSEG. 

PJM kicked a plan by independent transmission builder LS Power to the curb.  LS Power's plan was to build a 5.5-mile 230-kV line and a new transformer and switchyard by mid-2017 for $116 million to $148 million.  But, PJM's delusions of grandeur made it decide in favor of a longer, bigger and more expensive plan proposed by one of its incumbents.

PJM says that siting and permitting prospects were one of several factors it considered when making the recommendation, although the selected project may have issues securing a permit for a river crossing and will cross the Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, the Alloway Creek Watershed Wetland Restoration Site and the Abbotts Meadow and Mad Horse Creek Wildlife Management Areas. 
PJM officials said that while this solution was comparable to other projects based on such factors as cost, schedule and the ability to address the reliability concerns, the Hope Creek-Red Lion 500-kV line was superior in terms of constructability.
Seriously, PJM?  Who's giving you advice about "constructability?"  The same geniuses who thought PATH and MAPP were good ideas?  Those two projects turned out not to be so "constructable" after all, and have left PJM ratepayers footing a bill for more than $350M for projects that never even put a shovel in the ground!

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities said PJM’s analysis of the 500-kV option underestimated likely public opposition.

Ya think?  Just because the new transmission line parallels an existing one does NOT mean that affected landowners will welcome it with open arms.  In fact, these landowners already know what it's like to live with a transmission line across their land, and feel they have already made the ultimate sacrifice for "the public good."  They will NOT want another one, and will fight tooth and nail to kill this project.

And, guess what?  They'll have plenty of help from other transmission opposition groups that have perfected the art of public opposition.  After all, we've had some of the best teachers in the world to show us all the ins and outs of transmission project strategy, and we like to "pay it forward."

So, if you're a landowner in Salem County, New Jersey, who already has a 500kV transmission line in your backyard, check out the map at RTO Insider to see if you're one of "the chosen."  I am looking forward to meeting you!
2 Comments

Potomac Edison/Mon Power Monthly Meter Reading Will Cost YOU an additional $7.5M Every Year

6/13/2014

3 Comments

 
FirstEnergy's Potomac Edison and Mon Power subsidiaries finally got around to filing their testimony in the rate increase case last week.  As instructed by the WV PSC, the company has added the additional cost of rectifying its own failure to the increase it is seeking.

Monthly meter reading will increase customer rates an additional $7.5 million annually, or 1.35% for residential customers(1.57% for non-residential).  This increase will be added to the already proposed 13.95% base rate increase, and additional estimated increase for coal plant retrofits of another 2%.  Total rate increase proposed by FirstEnergy for its West Virginia residential customers?

17.2%

According to Testimony of Raymond E. Valdes filed last week, FirstEnergy's 2013 cost of meter reading was just over $5M per year.  Dividing that number by the number of actual meter reads performed resulted in an average cost of $1.99 per meter read.  But FirstEnergy can't simply double the costs because its number of meter reads compared to estimates is not equal, even when the annual read customers are removed from the equation.  When numbers are actually put on paper, it turns out that FirstEnergy was not actually reading meters every other month, or half the time, as required.  FirstEnergy was reading meters much less than the required every other month.  Maybe the WV PSC should have asked for these numbers during the general investigation and simplified everything?

Actual Meter Readings in 2013:          2,238,832
Estimated Readings in 2013:              2,894,376

If the company had been reading meters every other month as it was supposed to, then these two numbers would be equal.  This is the plainest picture you're going to get of FirstEnergy's failure.

So, anyhow, Valdes used the $1.99 reading cost to calculate a total incremental cost to switch to monthly meter reading of $6.4M.

But, wait, the company needs to add an additional $1,074,173 in "transition costs" to rectify its own meter reading mistake.  FirstEnergy describes these costs as:  "estimated additional costs the Companies will incur related to the conversion to monthly meter reading."  The company proposed to recover this extra million over a 3-year period, so that it can earn interest on it (at your expense, of course).

This brings your additional cost to read meters monthly up to:

$7,519,213


And that is a clearest picture you will get of how your Public Service Commission has failed to protect your interests during its perfunctory "investigation" of FirstEnergy's customer abuse.

The PSC clearly found FirstEnergy to be at fault in the investigation.  But, instead of punishing the company for its failure, the PSC has punished the customers who were injured by the failure.  As my friend Kery says... when is the failure to perform under a contract ever the fault of the party who was injured?  FirstEnergy failed to perform.  They should be liable to the parties injured by their action.  End of story.

Except, this is West Virginia, where our PSC behaves like a poodle on a leash held by Ohio energy conglomerates.  Look up "regulatory capture."

The PSC could have made some token attempt at fairness in its general investigation order.  It could have ordered FirstEnergy to absorb the first year's incremental additional cost ($7.5M).  It could have ordered FirstEnergy to absorb the $1M transition costs, instead of putting them on the backs of struggling ratepayers for three years.

But it didn't.  FirstEnergy was rewarded for its failure.  Rewarded for injuring YOU, the customer.

So, what can you do?  Tell the PSC what you think!  You can submit an online comment here.  Select "high profile" case number 14-0702-E-42T from the drop down list on the comment form.

As we move forward with this rate increase case, there will also be opportunities to voice your concerns in person during various public comment hearings around the state.  Stay tuned...
3 Comments

Arkansas Public Service Commission Grants Rehearing - Another AEP Transmission Project Bites the Dust

6/9/2014

5 Comments

 
Arkansans are celebrating today's ruling by the Arkansas Public Service Commission granting rehearing of its prior Order granting a permit to AEP's SWEPCO subsidiary for a 345kV transmission line on new right of way through the scenic and beloved Ozarks.

What WERE you thinking, AEP? 

The Eureka Springs Independent continues its excellent coverage with this breaking story:
A long-anticipated decision was handed down late Monday afternoon granting a rehearing on the 160 ft. tall, 345 kV power lines that Southwestern Power Company (SWEPCO) insisted were needed for additional electricity. The power lines were to transmit electricity to other states, not Arkansas, and would transect Carroll County and Eureka Springs. The APSC wrote that insufficient evidence for need of the transmission line was presented.

“This is what we were looking for,” Pat Costner, director of Save the Ozarks, said. “We did a solid job. This is a first in Arkansas, no one has ever challenged these lines on basis of need and brought the project to a halt.”
The Commission had previously approved the project with a route that sent the majority of the project over into neighboring Missouri.  Of course that wasn't workable, and Missouri and its elected officials jumped all over rejecting the idea.  AEP didn't like that "solution," and tried to attempt a "do-over" from the PSC.

Well, AEP has once again received just what it wished for!  Only this time, the PSC is sending a different message:
“Considering all the evidence provided to date, the Arkansas Public Service Commission found that while some transmission development in the area appears warranted, the record is presently insufficient to determine: the need for the particular 345 kV project that has been proposed, whether that project is consistent with the public convenience and necessity, and whether the project represents an “acceptable adverse environmental impact, considering… the various alternatives, if any, and other pertinent considerations.” Accordingly, the Commission grants rehearing for consideration of additional evidence on the need for, and the potential environmental impact of, the proposed 345 kV project, The parties should provide additional testimony and more recent, comprehensive evidence on whether the proposed 345 kV project is needed, whether transmission requirements in the region might be met by alternative options, such as expanding, upgrading, or building lower capacity facilities, including 161 kV lines, and if not why not, the comparative costs associated with the options, the environmental impact of the options, and the long term sufficiency of the options.
“The Commission also grants rehearing for consideration of additional evidence on the routing of the proposed transmission line. The parties should provide additional evidence on SWEPCO’s proposed routes. If SWEPCO chooses to propose or modify a route, it should submit proof that all landowners have received the statutory notice.
“With regard to routing, the parties should provide evidence whether existing 161 kV lines could be upgraded or existing rights-of-way used or expanded so as to limit adverse environmental impacts.
“Because the Commission grants rehearing for consideration of additional evidence, the prior grant of the CECPN for Route 109 is vacated. Whether a CECPN for transmission facilities should be granted and, if so, along what route will be determined after consideration of all the evidence.”
Got it this time, AEP?  You should be very familiar with this game.  It's the same one you ended up playing with the PATH project, except in that instance it was rival Dominion that did the right thing and undertook a rebuild that obviated AEP's project.

Maybe a rebuild isn't what AEP had in mind, but it seems that it's what the PSC has in mind for the Ozarks, so it's time for AEP to fall on its sword and make a compromise.

Don't you just love when this happens?
5 Comments

Beware the Hurtado! and Other "Clean" Fairy Tales

6/8/2014

5 Comments

 
Our friends at Clean Line have been as busy as a nasty nest of yellow jackets this past week, while I was tied up with other things.  So, on this beautiful Sunday, let's hunker down around the campfire and catch up on some scary stories...

My multilingual, Arkansan friend, Doc, alerted me to an interesting discovery this week.  Clean Line's project manager for its Plains & Eastern "Clean" Line, slated to plow through Arkansas like Godzilla on his way to Tokyo, is a Mr. Mario Hurtado.  In the Spanish language, the word "hurtado" means "to steal."  So, Clean Line is sending out some guy named "to steal" to... ummm... steal land from Arkansans.  Brilliant!  Perhaps Clean Line watches too many old movies and expected its opponents in Arkansas to behave like movie characters...
...and not like multilingual PhD's.

So... Arkansas... Beware the Hurtado!

My friend Doc says he looks like this:
Meanwhile, in other "Clean" news from Arkansas...
"Clean" Line has submitted a second application for negotiated rate authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

I guess their first one wasn't good enough, since they didn't even bother to mention it in their new filing.  So, inquiring minds want to know... is "Clean" Line just stupid, or are they trying to pull something on FERC?

Negotiated rate authority is no big thing, though.  It simply bangs out a plan for the company to negotiate rates with potential customers in a fair and non-discriminatory fashion.  It doesn't get them any customers.  It is not an "approval" of the project.  FERC's only authority over this project is ensuring its rate structure is fair.  FERC has no authority over the siting and permitting of this project.  Big deal, Mr. To Steal.

And, news from Missouri...

"Clean" Line has been quoting industry-influenced WHO studies as "proof" that their transmission projects will have no health effects on nearby residents.  However, a well-respected, local physician has been compiling and reviewing medical research on the health risks of the proposed "Clean" Line.  The Moberly Monitor did an indepth report about what Dr. Smith has found.  Shocking and dangerous!  Dr. Smith's findings are a MUST READ for every person in proximity to one of these "Clean" Lines.

Other news outlets have also picked up on Dr. Smith's EMF research, and the truth is spreading like wildfire!  SeeABC News, the News Democrat, and about 18 other major news outlets.

"Clean" Line needs to finish watching the movie that they've been using as the basis for their arrogant expectations of the intelligence and cunning of their local opposition.  They must not have watched far enough to see this scene yet:
5 Comments

Get Your Own Potomac Edison "Must Read" Order!

6/6/2014

0 Comments

 
Good news, FirstEnergy customers!  If you're one of the thousands of customers whose electric meter is only read every other month (or longer interval), there is now a quick and easy solution to your problem!

Simply pick up your phone and call the customer service number on your bill and "inquire" about it.  Then do it again the next day.  (Like those instructions on your shampoo bottle -- lather, rinse, repeat).

According to the voice message I now have recorded on my answering machine from FirstEnergy escalation specialist (or other fun job title) "Kim" (employee number 30111):
Any time there is a bill inquiry on the account more than one occasion we do send out to verify a check reading..."
Kim was explaining why I received a "special" actual reading after my May bill was estimated.

Except I haven't made any bill inquiries since January.  So, be aware that there may be a 4 month delay in your own "special" meter reading.

My May bill was estimated on May 15, as scheduled.  Kim and her co-workers informed me that on May 16, a "must read" order for my account was issued from the company's billing office.  This delayed my bill, waiting for the "must read" to occur.  On May 27, 12 days AFTER the estimate was first calculated, FirstEnergy sent me an estimated bill anyhow.  It was actually pretty accurate this month (yay!)  The very next day, May 28, a meter reader made a special trip all the way out here just to "must read" my meter.  The "must read" was not reflected on my bill, because the company had already sent me an estimated bill the day before.

My June bill is scheduled to be an actual read, along with all the other customers in my neighborhood.  What was the purpose of the May 28 read?  Did FirstEnergy just need to waste some meter reader time coming all the way out here for nothing?

As usual, FirstEnergy's right hand doesn't know what its left hand is doing.

The effect of FirstEnergy's "must read" to make sure my bill was accurate this month served only to delay my bill by 12 days.  It did not make it any more accurate.

The company did some fine dancing and singing about what alignment of the moon and stars made its billing department roll out of bed one morning and decide to put a "must read" on my account.  It finally settled on the excuse that my multiple billing inquiries last year and early this year needed to finally be acted upon.  You da' man, FirstEnergy!

Unless, maybe, that "must read" came from somewhere else in the company and was supposed to simply shut me up until the Commission issued its Order in the meter reading & billing case?  Hmm... perhaps I should consult an att........ oh, *shhhhhhhh*

Who else has made multiple inquiries about their bill in the past and recently received a "special" extra read in an estimated month?  Anyone?
0 Comments

CFRA Does Not Represent the People

6/3/2014

0 Comments

 
The Center for Rural Affairs has pissed off a whole new bunch of people, this time in Wisconsin, by sending out a "red alert" telling them this is their "last chance" to comment on the Badger-Coulee transmission project.  Of course it's not their "last chance"!

Carol Overland, who has been fighting the legal fight against unneeded transmission for many years, tells CFRA what the people REALLY think:
I'm disturbed to see that you're regarding Lu Nelsen and Center for Rural Affairs as a primary source.  Center for Rural Affairs is not an intervenor in this project.  Center for Rural Affairs is a paid transmission advocate, through the RE-AMP program, it is paid to to promote transmission.

A CfRA Director also sits on the RE-AMP Steering Committee.   It's unfortunate that these facts are not included in your article -- this interest should be disclosed, because they are neither objective nor representing public interests or farmer interests.  If their paid advocacy was not disclosed to you, that's an even more significant problem.
Read more about transmission toadie CFRA here, and check out the organization's source of funding.  It is receiving grants from entities I like to call "the environmental 1%" -- super rich, super clueless, city folk whose environmental tyranny is not a compliment to rural interests.

CFRA does not represent the people, although they are being paid well to pretend that they do.  Tell them they don't represent you!
0 Comments

WV PSC Punishes Customers With Rate Increase in FirstEnergy Billing & Meter Reading Investigation Order

5/28/2014

24 Comments

 
The West Virginia Public Service Commission finally issued an Order in its General Investigation of FirstEnergy subsidiaries Potomac Edison and Mon Power today.  The investigation was initiated a year ago at the urging of citizens' groups and legislators, and was to examine the billing, meter reading and customer service practices of Potomac Edison and Mon Power.

However, instead of punishing the company for its transgressions, the PSC has decided to punish the customers!

The PSC has ordered Potomac Edison and Mon Power to increase meter readings from bi-monthly to monthly no later than July 1, 2015.  However, the company's customers will pay for the cost of increasing the frequency of meter reading.  FirstEnergy has estimated that monthly reading would increase yearly costs by five million dollars ($5,000,000.00).  The PSC has directed the company to recover the increased cost from you by amending its recent request for a 15% rate increase to add the additional costs for monthly meter reading.  The PSC estimates that this will add another half a percent to the upcoming rate increase, to make the total rate increase more than 16%.
Converting from bimonthly to monthly meter reading in the territory of both FirstEnergy operating companies in West Virginia will require a transition period that allows FirstEnergy time to procure additional  equipment, hire and train new meter readers and make any necessary changes to its billing platform. Therefore, the Commission will require that FirstEnergy implement monthly meter reading as quickly as possible, and no later than July 1, 2015. The Commission will monitor the transition as part of the adjustment to its metrics discussed below. The Commission will be watching for continued improvement and consistent performance. The handling of current annual read customers will also be discussed in the relevant section below. FirstEnergy should file amendments to the tariffs of each West Virginia operating company that provide for monthly meter reading and billing for residential customers. Finally, FirstEnergy may request to amend its filings in the pending general rate proceeding and provide evidence of the reasonable increase in the estimated cost of service.
Over the year long course of this investigation, customers made many constructive and useful suggestions on how FirstEnergy could improve.  The Coalition for Reliable Power and the NAACP suggested that FirstEnergy (AT ITS OWN EXPENSE) be ordered to read meters every month for one full year in order to acquire accurate readings on which to base future estimated bills.  The West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division recommended that FirstEnergy be ordered to read meters monthly for one year without addressing who would pay for it.  The WV PSC staff recommended that FirstEnergy be ordered to read meters monthly only if other recommendations for improvement were not successful.

NOBODY RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMPANY BE ORDERED TO READ METERS MONTHLY, INDEFINITELY, AND AT THE CUSTOMERS' EXPENSE.

But the PSC batted aside every constructive suggestion, in addition to your calls that the company be punished for its willful violation of its tariff.  Instead, it rewarded FirstEnergy with another $5M rate increase!

The bi-monthly meter reading system of the former Allegheny Power worked fine for many years.  It was only AFTER Allegheny Power was acquired by Ohio utility holding company FirstEnergy that the problems started.  The PSC admits that the transition to FirstEnergy business practices, in addition to poor decision making, caused the problems.  The switch to monthly reading can therefore be easily tied to the ill-advised FirstEnergy merger.  The PSC and FirstEnergy promised us that customers wouldn't have to pay higher rates as a result of the merger.  Once again, the PSC has failed us.

To add insult to injury, the PSC and FirstEnergy are in cahoots to spin this as a victory for the customers in the press.  The PSC is crowing about how they have ordered FirstEnergy to read meters monthly, without mentioning who is going to pay for it.  You are!  They must really think you're stupid.  Don't fall for it!


West Virginia electric customers have now been punished for speaking out about the abuse heaped on them by Ohio-based FirstEnergy.  It's going to cost us at least $5M.

This is the clearest example of regulatory failure I've ever witnessed.
24 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    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
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.