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

Potomac Edison/Mon Power Billing & Meter Reading Investigation Evidentiary Hearing

12/29/2013

20 Comments

 
The WV PSC's evidentiary hearing in the General Investigation of Potomac Edison and Mon Power Meter Reading, Billing and Customer Service Practices was held in Charleston December 17 -18.  If you didn't have an opportunity to watch the hearing live, never fear, we drove 12 hours, spent 2 nights in a hotel, talked to people we don't particularly like, fended off icy stares, and stayed awake for the entire thing in order to generate 13 pages of notes just so you can find out what happened.  The media took no notice of the event, even though FirstEnergy media personality Toad Meyers was there to act as their personal hearing interpreter.  Maybe they're waiting for him to share his notes...

If you've never watched one of these hearings, let's set the stage.  It's a quasi-judicial, court-like proceeding, sans robes and much of the formality.  This was an opportunity for the Commissioners to consider evidence and examine witnesses.  Witnesses sponsored by the parties to the case filed written testimony and rebuttals in advance.  At the hearing, the witnesses took the stand to have their testimony officially recognized and to give opposing parties a chance to cross examine them.  The Commissioners also took the opportunity to ask the witnesses questions.  The parties to this case are FirstEnergy's Potomac Edison and Mon Power utilities, the Staff of the PSC, and the Consumer Advocate Division of the PSC.  Between them, they produced 6 witnesses, 4 from the company, and one each from the Staff and the CAD.

FirstEnergy's first witness was John Hilderbrand, Director of Operations Support for Mon Power, who was grilled by the attorneys for CAD and Staff, and the Commissioners, for more than three hours.  From my notes:
  1. Exigent circumstances prevented the company from making bi-monthly reads as directed in its tariff.  The dreaded "exigent circumstances," or "EC" were defined as:  weather, access issues, unplanned absences and equipment failures.  Weather = ice, snow, rain, flooding that impedes access to meters. Access issues include a broad range of items such as new gates being erected, no keys being provided, meters on the interior of the home, animals, such as dogs.  Unplanned absences = sickness or illness, or 3 personal convenience days that can be used w/24 hour notice.
  2. Because the company has limited resources, they don't attempt to read in the month following a missed read, when an estimate is scheduled.
  3. Company now has 7 substitutes, or "rovers" to cover for unplanned absences.  This process began several months ago,  However, the company did not have substitute meter readers before that.  But, there may still be missed reads due to "EC" because there are only 7 rovers.
  4. The company was not adequately staffed to read meters for some period of time due to merger organization and that contributed to the problem.
  5. As a result of the merger, meter readers are devoted to meter reading only.  (Despite the fact that FirstEnergy was recently recruiting for meter readers that would also perform collection activities and disconnects and reconnects.)
  6. When meter readers transferred to other positions after the merger, FirstEnergy had to shift resources to read meters and catch up on missed reads.  FirstEnergy shifted resources 8/15/11 and again 4/2/2012.
  7. It takes 6 months to train a meter reader (but the company wants YOU to read your own meter with no training whatsoever!)
  8. Company has not researched how the storms affected other power companies, but AEP didn't have the same problems because their meter reading is automated and is a different process.
  9. The proposal to read meters every month for one year would increase the cost to WV ratepayers $5M.  But who said WV ratepayers would be paying for that?  Nobody.
  10. Renumbering is a "short term inconvenience to customers" but will make the process better in the long run.  Why not a short term inconvenience to the company?  It's good utility practice to see that reading is as efficient as possible.
  11. The company added renumbering to the existing staffing, merger transition and storm problems.  But it results in cost savings (for the company!)
  12. Readers hired since mid 2012 must use their own vehicles.  Decision was made as part of merger integration aligning practices across FE and the company always evaluates ways to deliver product cost effectively. 
  13. Meter readers using their own vehicle are paid IRS mileage rates and must carry certain insurance, although the FirstEnergy witness doesn't know how much.  "Most" personal vehicles used by meter readers are all-wheel drive, however that is not a requirement.  The supervisor inspects the vehicle monthly to ensure the vehicle can complete the route.  If a personal vehicle breaks down the company may facilitate getting it back on the road with a tow or a jump, but does not normally provide a back-up vehicle.  If a meter reader has continued vehicle issues, that affects the ability to get the job done.  Meter readers are not compensated if they don't get the job done.
  14. When asked about missed readings due to the Derecho, Hilderbrand's logic came up short.  Staff attorney John Auville walked him through a typical storm-altered read schedule:  The Derecho caused a missed read in the first half of July.  The August read was a scheduled estimate.  The meter should have been read in September, but was not.  Hilderbrand said the company was still not recovered from the Derecho and able to read meters in September.  Hilderbrand started talking about the dreaded EC again.
  15. On renumbering:  When you reorganize routes and shift between even and odd cycle reads, that results in some customers being estimated when due an actual read, or some customers receive back-to-back reads (is there anyone this happened to?  I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to tell me they got back-to-back reads due to renumbering).  It was a poor decision to renumber the Eastern Panhandle in the winter.  Why didn’t FirstEnergy think of that beforehand?  The FirstEnergy staff had never renumbered before, so they didn’t understand it.
  16. FirstEnergy has selected 10,000 residential accounts for monthly reads between Nov. 2013 and Jan. 2014.  FirstEnergy has approximately 445,000 customers in WV.  At most, this provides one, maybe two additional reads for these customers.
  17. FirstEnergy has 16,920 "annual read" customers in WV.  An annual read customer is one whose meter is read only once per year.  Reasons for an account being designated "annual read" include:  Safety, access, customer request and seasonal.  The company is reviewing these accounts to make sure designation is correct, but has no plans to notify the customers of the review, the results, or notify them of their right to appeal the determination.  Maybe that would be a good idea.
  18. When a meter reading is considerably higher than expected based on prior reads, the reader's hand-held computer unit emits an audible tone that causes the reader to do an immediate re-check.  However, it's up to the reader and supervisor to set the parameters of error allowed.
  19. It would take up to a year to get staff in place to read every meter every month.
  20. If a reader has access issues, one of several form letters is sent to the customer to remedy the access issue.  If the customer fails to respond, the company may be more aggressive in turning off service.
  21. The company has a 3-day read window for each account during a scheduled read month.  If an unplanned absence occurs on the last day of the read window, it cannot be made up.  Note that the company can read your meter at any time within that 3-day window.
  22. Commissioner McKinney vigorously questioned this witness about meter readers driving their personal vehicles and identifying themselves and asked the company to look hard at providing some sort of "work around" in the case of a missed read.  Then he started in about renumbering, observing that the company could have chosen to read all meters during renumbering, but they didn’t choose to do that.  That’s a resource issue from Commissioner McKinney's perspective.  It was something the company made an intentional decision to do.
  23. Commissioner Albert wanted to know what was going on with the Maryland PSC billing investigation, but couldn't get a straight answer from the witness.
Second witness was Kaye Julian, Director of Customer Management.
  1. The system has calculated expected consumption and if it falls outside expectations, then it goes to billing personnel for review.  This is supposed to catch a large true up.  They could send a re-read order or a billing rep. would catch an obvious error.  But, if the reader has verified the reading (see #18 above), then they release it for billing.  Customer is not notified of the reason for such a high bill, but the company is considering doing that, along with giving the customer payment plan options.
  2. If a customer's history contains "bad data" (defined as inaccurate estimates) then it’s possible that the estimated reading is going to be inaccurate.  If there are more than 4 estimates, then "we do have issues."  The company has a levelizing routine for 4 estimates and are confident it’s correct.  But if there are more than 5 estimates in a row, it does not work.  Those customers go through an estimation routine that uses prior month usage to calculate current month estimate.  If the prior month was estimated, this would make the current estimate based on "bad data."
  3. The company's estimation routine did not perform as they intended it to.
  4. In April 2012, a computer system change (result of the company's merger) was made that changed the estimation routine.  Although Allegheny's estimation routine worked well, FirstEnergy "enhanced" it because it was not possible to retain the old and support the business environment we’re in.  In order to share resources it’s best to all be on the same platform – it’s about managing costs and best practice.
  5. Agrees that adding additional months to the levelizing routine may only add more "bad data" and that an average is only as good as the data used to create it.  If data is off, then estimate will be wrong.
  6. EPRI study of company estimation routine expected January 6.  EPRI has been meeting with FirstEnergy "team" and needs more time.  Weekly/daily meetings on review that began in July.  EPRI is trying to simulate estimation routine with good data and creating other scenarios with additional estimates.  EPRI will tell them how to improve. Too early to say if the company will do whatever EPRI recommends because the company doesn’t know how much it may cost.  Could reject EPRI's recommendation if it’s too expensive for the company.
  7. Regarding the 10,000 "special" customers who will receive monthly readings between Nov. & Jan. -- The system picked them based on the following criteria:  5 consecutive estimates in 2012 and more than 25% variance after an actual read.  Only accounts with 5 consecutive estimates because the company believes its levelizing routine for 4 or less estimates is accurate.  The purpose of actual reads is to replace "bad data" and high true-ups with actual reads because they could not be levelized.  The company will reassess these accounts at the end of January.  
  8. Doesn't think actual reads for a year would be necessary based on how the system works and based on read rates.  Not all customers were impacted like that. Not all accounts need special handling, just "anomalies" (10,000 accounts).
  9. Believes there's a difference between a high bill inquiry and a complaint.  Maybe the customer called simply because they didn't understand something about their high bill.
  10. FirstEnergy applied its own estimation routines used for monthly read accounts to Allegheny's bi-monthly read system, but doesn't believe that exacerbated the estimation problems.
  11. Chairman Albert asked what are "we" going to do with this thing?  Lots of customer issues, lack of confidence in the company’s processes.  To what extent is somebody going to suggest to us what needs to be done?  Julian responded that the company has discovered that their bills are confusing for customers.  Will enhance customer messaging on bill to let them know why there is a huge variance in the bill.  "Little idiosyncrasies"  came out.  Chairman Albert asked again about the Maryland PSC case and still got no answer.
FirstEnergy counsel helps out by asking witness on redirect if there is a similar billing problem in FirstEnergy's West Penn Power territory.  Julian says there is not because WPP didn't suffer the consequences of Hurricane Sandy.

Next witness was Gary Grant, FirstEnergy's Director of Customer Contact Centers:

  1. Companies have voluntarily implemented modified guidelines for payment plan procedures for high bills with no financial qualification.  Gives the customer a repayment period similar to the estimation period that caused the high bill.  Customer Service Reps. offer payment plans as an "opportunity" for customers, but only when they call and ask because each customer is "unique".  Hand-out refers to customers as "business partners."
  2. West Penn Power doesn't have high bill payment plans "at this scale" (not that they don't have the same high bill problems - see paragraph above).
  3. Disagrees that customers got rude treatment from customer service reps. Wait times at call center have decreased, and the company's robust quality assurance process ensures CSRs are not rude.  But did customers in fact express concern during the public hearings?  Yes, they said that.
  4. The company does not inform new customers about the company's bi-monthly reading practices, and if they did it would be an additional cost.
  5. Commissioner Palmer questioned this witness about hold times once initial contact is made.  These hold times are not counted in the company's ASA statistics.  The company tracks handle time for individual reps. as well as overall call center, and any hold time would count in the handle time metric.  They don't keep track of how long customers are on hold once answered.  The supervisor can see how long customer is on hold.  When asked if there will be any changes to the process, the witness said just payment plan and high bill refreshers for the CSRs.
  6. Chairman Albert asked what the harm was in informing the customer about bi-monthly reading when they apply for new service over the phone.  The witness said it would add seconds to the call.  Chairman Albert speculated that it would add about 3 seconds.
Next witness was Kevin Wise, Director of Rates and Regulatory Somethingorother:
  1. Witness claimed he had not seen the lawsuit filed by Potomac Edison customer John Kilroy in Jefferson County the day before.
  2. Said the company would never accept the $5 customer refund for a missed reading, even if exceptions were made for exigent circumstances.  Was asked how many times the company would be paying this fine.  Said there will always be meters that aren't read and would be estimated.
  3. Commissioner Palmer asked if the company had future renumbering projects planned.  Witness has no idea what the company's future plans may be.
Next witness, Suzanne Akers, Utility Analyst with the Consumer Advocate Division, was cross examined by FirstEnergy's counsel.
  1. Acknowledged that if the company were to read meters monthly for a year, it would take time to increase staff.  Could not answer if the cost of the extra readings would be recoverable in rates.  
  2. Was asked what she would do with those extra meter readers after the year.  Said perhaps they may still be needed.  Was asked if she would lay off those meter readers, because that might affect FirstEnergy's ability to hire workers.  (Hey, I didn't write this comedy, I'm just reporting here.)  Akers noted that many current meter readers are contract employees.
Final witness was Michael Fletcher, Deputy Director of Consumer Operations Section at the PSC:
  1. Part of his concern about changing to FirstEnergy's new estimation routine is that under Allegheny’s estimation process, the company did an analysis on the specific customer and had 5 estimating routines to fit different scenarios.  Allegheny used to look at what routine is appropriate and current system does not.
  2. Concerned that sequence of estimates are adjusted for weather, until there are too many estimates and then the routine changes to levelized midstream.
  3. FirstEnergy's counsel asked if the linear routine uses prior year historic data, and witness said it varied, either prior year or prior month, but neither estimate may be accurate.
  4. Witness said that the weather-adjusted estimates were put in place in a settlement in the 1990s and if the company wants to change them they should file a new tariff.
  5. The customer supplied meter reading should be used as supplied if within the company's 3-day read window.  (Note #21 under Hilderbrand.)  However, the company has been adjusting the customer-supplied reading to their scheduled read date within the window and then marking it as an estimate on the customer's bill.  The tariff supports Fletcher's interpretation.  Fletcher said that when the customer calls in a reading and the bill shows a different number coded as an estimate, that increases customer anger and complaints.
  6. FirstEnergy counsel asked Fletcher about several missed read situations and whether they would count as missed reads where the $5 refund applied.  Fletcher agreed that some would be exceptions.  Fletcher said the company needs to have enough back up meter readers to cover absences.  Sick or vacation excuses for not reading meters are not acceptable.  He understands the company can’t plan for every eventuality, but needs additional rovers to take up the slack for planned absences. If it’s the same problem that has brought us here because of poor planning, then the refund would apply.  The company says they have increased meter readers and fixed all the other problems, and if they have, it wouldn’t apply to anyone.
  7. The $5 customer charge includes the cost of reading, billing, maintenance, and parties may agree to include charges in there that are not direct customer costs. However, it's primarily related to those items in the Uniform System of Accounts that can be tied to the customer, even if the customer had zero usage.  The company’s cost to serve that customer, according to Wise’s testimony says the cost of meter reading is $1.19 (or $1.56 later in the testimony).  Meter reading has a $3.7M yearly cost.  There are other costs recovered in addition to meter reading.  Fletcher is not trying to compensate customer for company’s cost – he was picking easy number to reference ($5).
  8. FirstEnergy's counsel contends that the $5 refund is performance rate making (where there are penalties and rewards), but Fletcher's proposal has no reward.  Fletcher said the reward is not incurring the penalty. 
  9. Fletcher said if a customer got 5 consecutive estimates, it sends incorrect signals to the customer about energy use and is not fair to the customer.
  10. Chairman Albert questioned witness about exigent circumstances (EC) and whether or not EC can be verified how do we avoid more EC circumstances and whether discount should apply.  Aren’t we setting up a system with a penalty that would result in a bunch of contested cases?
If you found this summary interesting, or laughable, check back for links to the hearing transcripts, when they are available.

And now we wait for the Commission to issue an Order to fix this mess.  At some point, FirstEnergy has to right its wrongs and make amends to its customers.  Otherwise, this saga will simply continue in another venue.
20 Comments

A Very Supercilious FirstEnergy Christmas

12/24/2013

0 Comments

 
As a FirstEnergy customer, I'm thrilled to know that my Board of Directors won't be bombarded with cheap foreign junk or moldy fruitcakes this holiday season.  Oh no, only the best for the folks who approve the compensation packages of the management that continues to send me inaccurate bills every other month!

The State Journal tells us:
When FirstEnergy selects gifts for its Board members at Christmas, they have one very firm requirement: They must be handmade in America.

"Not only are we supporting American artists, but we are also giving a unique, not mass-produced, American made gift to each of our board members. I urge all American businesses to look towards supporting American artists," says Tony Alexander, President & CEO.


Ho, Ho, Flippin' Ho.  I hope this doesn't end up in my bill.  But, it probably will.
0 Comments

Find Out More About Potomac Edison and Mon Power Mass Action Billing Lawsuit

12/22/2013

1 Comment

 
If you're one of the thousands of Potomac Edison or Mon Power customers who have experienced problems with your billing over the past couple of years, fill out this quick and easy online form to consult with an attorney about your unique situation.

As we noted last week, a Jefferson County customer has filed a civil suit against Potomac Edison.  When WHAG asked viewers if they had also been over billed on its Facebook page, response was overwhelming!  More than 160 people posted comments, many claiming to have received bills in the hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Now Charles Town attorney Andrew Skinner says, "...more suits may follow against the electric company."

The FirstEnergy subsidiary's billing practices have been the subject of numerous consumer complaints and several public hearings this year. While Skinner says a class-action lawsuit is unlikely, customers may be able to file a mass-action lawsuit, in which there are many individual plaintiffs."

An article in the Martinsburg Journal explains the progression of the initial suit filed by Shepherdstown resident John Kilroy.  After many months of wrangling with Potomac Edison, and after going through the formal complaint process at the WV Public Service Commission (where the company signed a settlement agreement forgiving half of the amount in question), the company continued to bill Kilroy the full amount.  Every avenue short of a lawsuit was explored, but the company continued to insist that Kilroy owed more than $3000.
Before filing the lawsuit, Skinner sent a letter to Potomac Edison, asking the company to correct its billing inaccuracies as required by the Consumer Credit and Protection Act. Potomac Edison representatives failed to respond.
FirstEnergy's Potomac Edison and Mon Power subsidiaries continue to ignore customer complaints.  After all, the legislative interim investigation of utility billing practices has come to an end with nothing being done.  Perhaps it was nothing more than grandstanding by Senator Herb Snyder in the first place, but maybe we can try again to get something accomplished when the legislative session begins in January. 

After sitting through the evidentiary hearing last week, it looks like the company lacks a healthy and respectful fear of our Public Service Commission.  Why does the company treat regulation like it's something that can be "fixed?"  When I arrived at the PSC for day 2 of the evidentiary hearing last Wednesday, someone asked me if I happened to notice Sammy Gray on my way in.  Sammy Gray is FirstEnergy's West Virginia lobbyist.  What would a lobbyist be doing trying to influence an impartial, quasi-judicial regulatory board?  Why would he ever set foot in that building?  Is our PSC just another corporate apologist? 

I'm starting to think that consumers (or "business partners," as FirstEnergy training manuals call us) could be mistaken if they believe that West Virginia's legislative or regulatory processes are designed to serve them.

Because we can't get justice through our government
, it's time to take it to a higher level and quit wasting our time at a PSC that will not exercise its authority.

What's a consumer to do when the legislators and regulators fail him?  Take the matter up with a judge in your own county and seek justice through the court system.

Go ahead, fill out the form.  It's your only path to justice in West Virginia.
1 Comment

Civil Suit Filed Against Potomac Edison

12/17/2013

1 Comment

 
Ut-oh, Potomac Edison!

Just when the company thinks it has its problems at the WV PSC and the WV legislature solved... one of its unhappy customers has escalated the battle to the courtroom!

John Kilroy received a bill for over $3,000 earlier this year, because the company had estimated his bill month after month, and even when they did read his meter, they read it wrong.

Mr. Kilroy did the right thing and filed a complaint at the PSC, eventually reaching a settlement with the company to split the bill.  However, Potomac Edison has completely ignored the PSC settlement and continued to bill Kilroy for the full amount.

Today, Kilroy filed a civil suit in Jefferson County circuit court.

Let the avalanche of lawsuits begin :-)
1 Comment

Watch PSC Potomac Edison/Mon Power Billing Case Hearing Live

12/15/2013

0 Comments

 
The West Virginia Public Service Commission's evidentiary hearing in the General Investigation of Potomac Edison and Mon Power Meter Reading, Billing and Customer Service Practices is scheduled to take place this week, December 17 - 19.

The hearing will be held in the PSC hearing room in Charleston.  The hearing is open to the public as spectators only
.  There will be no opportunity for the public to make comments during the hearing.  The public comment hearings were held in October in Shepherdstown and Fairmont.

If you would like to watch the hearing, but don't have the time or money to travel to Charleston, you can watch the hearing live on the PSC's webcast.


Click here to watch the hearing.

The hearing begins at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, December 17 and will probably run the entire day.  If needed, the hearing will continue at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 18, and if still more time is needed, continue again on Thursday, December 19.  I really can't imagine it taking that long, there are only 6 witnesses.

The witness order will be:

1.  Mon Power/Potomac Edison
a) John C. Hilderbrand
b) Kaye G. Julian
c) Gary W. Grant
d) Kevin Wise

2.  Consumer Advocate Division
a)  Suzanne Akers

3.  Public Service Commission Staff
a)  Michael L. Fletcher


Read more about the case and the testimony that has been filed here.

And be sure to check back here, or on the Coalition's Facebook page
, for updates during the hearing.

Will justice be done?


0 Comments

FirstEnergy Shows Last Minute Desperation in Potomac Edison/Mon Power Investigation Case

12/12/2013

1 Comment

 
Give up, FirstEnergy.  You're not going to win this one.  Why not try to go out with a little dignity and customer goodwill, instead of as a flaming failure, kicking and screaming all the way to the door?

FirstEnergy filed rebuttal testimony in the General Investigation case yesterday that can only be described as desperate.

FirstEnergy even stoops so low as to single out its customers by name and call them liars.  I really hope that FirstEnergy's electronic billing data was not adjusted to hide the truth, as one of those accused of being a liar claims.  Does FirstEnergy really want to put its computerized data up against someone's paper bills in a civil suit?

FirstEnergy also admits that it was taking names at the hearings and browsed through its call recordings to see who was rude to who.  Without giving any examples, FirstEnergy claims that the customers were rude because they didn't like the answers they were given.  Maybe that's because the answers were factually incorrect or completely unhelpful?

FirstEnergy's customer service supervisor guy comes across as arrogant and hateful toward the customers he's supposed to serve.  Nice touch!  That pretty much illustrates the source of the customer service bad attitude.  That's a shame, because there actually are (or were?) a couple of nice people at the call center.

One last thought, FirstEnergy, but I'm sure you're well aware of this already.  The long hold times do not come at the beginning of the call under your ASA statistics.  They come after your "rude" customers get an incorrect or unhelpful answer from the CSR and ask to speak to a supervisor.  That's when they are put on hold for periods up to one hour, hoping they will hang up and go away before a supervisor deigns to pick up the phone.  Go ahead... listen to a few calls... you desperate little creatures.

What an admirably nasty, last ditch effort to pull your corporate keister out of the fire.  It's hot, isn't it? 

It's guaranteed to be quite a drama.  Don't miss it!
1 Comment

FERC's TrAILCo Audit

12/12/2013

2 Comments

 
FERC issued its findings in the TrAILCo audit yesterday.  No big surprises, if you've been following along the FirstEnergy audit trail with us.

As noted in the FirstEnergy merger audit last month, FERC spanked the company for recovering merger costs in its transmission formula rate.  But today's audit report contains some details that the other one lacked and is just plain funny in spots.

For instance, here's FERC's description of the TrAIL line. 
The TrAIL Project originated in 2005 as part of PJM’s Project Mountaineer, whose objective was to enhance west-to-east transfer capability in the PJM transmission system.  PJM planned to use its RTEP process to identify a comprehensive plan for the project.  Following PJM’s announcement, Allegheny began reviewing transmission enhancement opportunities within the AP Zone of PJM that could expand west-to-east transfer capability and be incorporated in the RTEP.  On February 28, 2006, Allegheny formally proposed TrAIL to PJM as an effective solution to long-term reliability needs in the PJM region, and requested that PJM include this proposal in the RTEP as part of a major expansion of the PJM system.

Allegheny’s proposal described TrAIL as a 330-mile, 500-kV line stretching from the Wylie Ridge substation in the western panhandle of West Virginia to a new substation on the eastern side of the AP Zone in Frederick County, MD.  The project included installation of a static VAR compensator (SVC) of approximately 500-megavolt-ampere reactive power at Allegheny’s Meadow Brook Substation south of Winchester, VA.  The entire line would be in the AP Zone.  Allegheny proposed to begin initial engineering and planning in 2007, and to place the first phase in service in 2013.

On May 19, 2006, PJM released the 2006 RTEP Baseline report presenting its first 15-year regional transmission plan.  The report identified numerous facility overloads, voltage and thermal violations, and contingency overloads on Allegheny’s transmission system, and recommended enhancements to resolve them.  On June 22, 2006, the PJM Board approved the RTEP and directed construction of TrAIL with an in-service date of June 2011.
Allegheny filed its request for incentives for the TrAIL Project, in Docket No. EL06-54-000, concurrently with its proposal to PJM.

I wonder where they got that cart before horse description?

Reviewed materials on the Allegheny and FirstEnergy web sites and other key industry and news sources.
Oh, right.

Along those lines, FERC also wanted to find out how the merger cost recovery error was discovered:
Analyzed the revised reconciliation that TrAILCo submitted December 19, 2011 to remove certain transaction costs related to the FirstEnergy-Allegheny merger improperly included in its 2011 formula rate.  Issued data requests to understand Allegheny’s procedures for tracking, accounting for, and allocating such merger-related costs to TrAILCo.  Examined how merger-related costs were improperly included in TrAILCo’s revenue requirement, how the error was detected, how TrAILCo worked with PJM to revise customer billings and refund the costs to customers.  Scheduled conference calls and interviewed TrAILCo staff during the site visit to clarify our understanding of these matters.

Imagining how a certain someone must have looked twitching his way through that is a never ending giggle fest.  I'm going to enjoy it immensely for a long, long time.  :-)

And here's what FERC's audit determined:
Audit staff found that TrAILCo included three categories of merger costs in its 2011 formula rate:  (1) $14,823 in postage, hotel rooms, security, and other outside services incorrectly charged to operating costs rather than to the special, non-recoverable accounts established for merger costs; (2) $347,654 in executive bonuses charged to recoverable accounts based on an incorrect determination by Allegheny’s accounting department that the bonuses were not merger-related; and (3) $43,718 in 2010 merger integration costs charged to recoverable accounts due to an incorrect interpretation that the Merger Order required only transaction-related costs to be excluded from rates.

Sounds familiar.

Another problem FERC discovered is that TrAILCo was filing erroneous data in its Form 730, Report of Transmission Investment Activity.
Audit staff’s review showed that TrAILCo reported cumulative spending on TrAIL in its FERC-730 reports rather than actual spending in the latest calendar year, as the FERC-730 instructions on the Commission’s web site require.  For example, in its first FERC-730, TrAILCo reported spending $2.3 million on TrAIL during 2006.  For 2007 through 2011, TrAILCo reported spending $32.9 million, $105.9 million, $546.0 million, $930.6 million, and $1.009 billion, respectively.  These figures total $2.63 billion, 2.6 times the amount TrAILCo charged to Project work orders in 2006-2011.
In other words, TrAILCo made a really dumb mistake because they didn't bother to read and follow instructions readily available on FERC's website.  I think they've discovered the root cause of FirstEnergy's accounting problems!

And that about sums it up.
2 Comments

FERC Report Details Formula Rate Foibles

12/11/2013

3 Comments

 
Every year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issues a report of its enforcement actions.  The 2013 report was issued last month.

There was an interesting section of the report about formula rates.  A formula rate is a type of rate setting that involves a forward-looking collection of rates based on a projected budget.  Interstate electric transmission rates are set under FERC's federal jurisdiction and simply passed through unscathed in your state ratemaking process to your electric bill.  A formula rate is a blank template that calculates the rate
according to set formula in compliance with FERC's accounting and ratemaking guidelines.  Each year, the transmission owner populates the formula with numbers from its projected budget to arrive at the amount it is permitted to charge for service, and then collects that amount from its customers during the year.  At the end of the year, the transmission owner must file another formula rate calculation that trues up the projected rate by comparing it to actual spending.  The company then adjusts the following rate year to make up any difference between the two, whether an over-collection or under-collection.

Now, here's the rub.  This is all being done on the honor system.  And, as the old saying goes, there's no honor among thieves
.  FERC audits a small percentage of formula rates every year, either on its own initiative or through referral when a problem is reported.  FERC does not audit every formula rate every year.  Instead, FERC relies on the people who pay these rates to raise the red flag if something is amiss.  There are special protocols (instructions) attached to each formula rate that detail the procedures to be followed to review the formula rate and file a legal challenge if any discrepancies between transmission owner and customer cannot be resolved.  So, who is doing this job for you, little ratepayer?  Is it your local electric company?  Is it your state public service commission?  Is it your state consumer protection office?  Chances are it's none of the above, and NOBODY is reviewing the transmission rates you are paying.  It's not that these entities don't care that you may be being ripped off, it's that they don't have the resources or knowledge to do the job, so they simply skip it and hope for the best.  This situation does not serve your interests.

Transmission owners know that nobody is minding the store, therefore they have been taking advantage of the situation to "accidentally" include all sorts of expenses and incorrect calculations that jack up rates and cost you extra money.  I say "accidentally" because there's always the chance that they will get fingered for a FERC audit, or get challenged by a couple of housewives from West Virginia.  In case they are caught by FERC, they pretend any misdeeds were an "accident" and promise to issue refunds.  It's a gamble the transmission owner is willing to take because chances are they won't get caught.  If they do get caught, they may not have to refund the whole amount they stole from customers, either because the entire amount of the thievery isn't discovered, isn't proven, or is negotiated through a settlement.  It's a risk that's profitable to take.  Therefore, transmission owners are routinely ripping us off.  


FERC notes that certain trends are developing in the way transmission owners rip us off.
Compliance Trends
During the past several years, DAA observed noncompliance in certain areas that warrant highlighting for jurisdictional entities and their corporate officials. Although there are other areas of noncompliance associated with the topics presented below, the areas discussed relate to areas where DAA has found consistent patterns of noncompliance. Greater attention is needed in these areas to prevent noncompliance and to avoid enforcement action.

Formula Rate Matters. DAA rigorously examines the accounting that populates formula rate recovery mechanisms that are used in determining billings to wholesale customers. In recent formula rate audits, DAA observed certain patterns of noncompliance in the following areas:
Merger Goodwill – including goodwill in the equity component of the capital
structure absent Commission approval;
Depreciation Rates – using state-approved, rather than Commission-approved,
depreciation rates;
Merger Costs – including merger consummation costs (e.g., internal labor and other general and administrative costs) without Commission approval;
Tax Prepayments – incorrectly recording tax overpayments which are not applied
to a future tax year’s obligation as a prepayment leading to excess recoveries
through working capital;
Asset Retirement Obligation (ARO) – including ARO amounts in formula rates,
without explicit Commission approval;
Below-the-Line Costs – attempting to move below-the-line costs into formula rates (e.g., lobbying, charitable contributions, fines and penalties, and compromise settlements arising from discriminatory employment practices); and
Improper Capitalization – seeking to include in rate base (and earn a return on) costs that should be expensed.
This is completely unsurprising to me, since I've seen (and challenged) many of these incorrect practices.  But what does continue to surprise me is that nobody has the inclination to stop it.  If formula rates are to be used to set transmission rates, and FERC knows that they are subject to manipulation and purposeful over recovery, then there simply must be some entity designated to monitor them in the interest of consumer protection.  While states have agencies designated to protect their consumers from greedy utilities, there is no federal counterpart at FERC.

FERC's mission is to "assist consumers in obtaining reliable, efficient and sustainable energy services at a reasonable cost through appropriate regulatory and market means."  FERC is failing us on formula rates.
3 Comments

Torturing FirstEnergy

12/11/2013

0 Comments

 
“This company’s going to experience a thousand points of pain,” UWUA Local 102 President Bob Whalen said.
And FirstEnergy thinks I'm mean?  Good one, Bob!

According to a news report, the standoff between FirstEnergy and locked out union employees in Pennsylvania continues.
Whalen said, however, that after a 20-minute preliminary meeting, representatives only spent five minutes around the negotiating table on Monday. He said after reading the first item on the union’s list of contract change requests, the extension of health care benefits for retirees, FirstEnergy ended the discussion.

“They said, ‘No, the meeting is over.’ They did not listen to the rest of our proposals,” Whalen said.
FirstEnergy says it can continue to operate indefinitely with its managers and supervisors doing the work of the locked out employees.  That will last until someone wants the afternoon off to go Christmas shopping...

The thing is, FirstEnergy is quite capable of punishing itself, over and over.  A more incompetent multitude of management morons would be hard to find.  Oftentimes the only effort needed is to stand back and stifle your giggles.  For instance:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has recon$idered an earlier decision that FirstEnergy's Beaver Valley nuke failed a force on force exercise earlier this year.  Apparently they only failed because of the way the exercise was set up.
Defending against militant goldfish is just such an inexact science!  Never fear though, the NRC still wants to keep a closer eye on Beaver Valley's operations because some of the issues that convinced inspectors a violation had occurred apparently can be seen in other areas of plant operation.

In other news, another lawsuit has been filed against FirstEnergy over contamination from its Little Blue Poison Pond, this time from neighbors in Pennsylvania.

Evidentiary hearings begin next Tuesday in Charleston in the matter of FirstEnergy's failure to read meters and bill its customers properly.  The staff of the WV PSC is recommending the company issue refunds for work not performed, and the WV Consumer Advocate is recommending that the company hire enough people to read every meter every month for at least a year in order to provide accurate usage data for future estimates.

And a new legislative session opens January 8, 2014!  Won't we have fun?
0 Comments

Kansas Corp. Commission Chair "Retires" in Cloud of Ignominy

12/9/2013

1 Comment

 
Kansas citizens got rid of a huge threat to their wallets and due process rights today with the "retirement" of Kansas Corporation Commission Chairman Mark Sievers.

Sievers and his overlord, Governor Sam Brownback
, pretended that it was a "retirement" so Sievers could spend more time with his family.  Poor family.

Too bad Sievers didn't retire before stomping on the due process rights of Kansas citizens in order to approve Clean Line Energy Partners' Grain Belt Express transmission siting application.  That might have saved a whole bunch of future time and effort righting Sievers' wrongs.  And it might have prepared the arrogant leadership of Clean Line Energy Partners for the scrutiny of a state regulator not in someone's pocket so they didn't look so perplexed at the Illinois Commerce Commission last week.  They're definitely not in Kansas anymore!

Sievers leaves a tawdry legacy behind.  Some of his stellar moments as Chairman of the KCC include:
  1. Last month, a judge ruled that the panel had violated the Kansas Open Meetings Act by using a process called “pink sheeting” to approve commission orders.  The Commission was fined $500, the highest fine permissible.
    Under that process, staff members would circulate proposed orders to all three commissioners, who would sign the orders to indicate approval rather than voting in an open meeting. The process drew its name from the color of the slips of paper used to obtain commissioner signatures.
  2. In one of the last acts of Sievers’ chairmanship, he attempted to file a statement attached to a Westar Energy rate case decided late last month. Westar had originally proposed to shift tens of millions of dollars in rate costs from its large industrial and commercial customers to residential and small-business ratepayers.
    Sievers objected that the case was settled by Westar, CURB, KCC staff and other parties before the commission got to discuss the division of cost between large and small ratepayers and said the current methods for allocating those costs are deeply flawed.
    The other two commissioners approved the settlement and declined to include Sievers’ statement in the official file of the rate case.
  3. Sievers’ tenure also suffered from the departure under fire of the executive director who had been hired to lead the commission staff shortly after Sievers took over as chairman. Patti Petersen-Klein left the agency in June, shortly after the Topeka Capital-Journal disclosed results of a confidential consultant report on Petersen-Klein’s management of the agency.
    The report said Petersen-Klein ruled the agency under an assumption that its employees were lazy and unreliable and had to be driven relentlessly by management to accomplish anything. That atmosphere led to the departure of numerous longtime staff members and cratered morale for those who stayed.
  4. Sievers also clashed with fellow commissioners Thomas Wright and Shari Feist Albrecht about propriety of the chairman attaching personal statements to formal commission orders.  Oh yes, the Sievers "statement" -- like this work of fiction attached to the Grain Belt Express order.
  5. Rumors that Sievers lives in and is registered to vote in the state of Colorado.  No wonder he routinely kicked Kansans under the bus.
  6. Rumors that the KCC was tasked with providing a smokescreen for the machinations of Governor Sam Brownback so that nothing nasty would stick to ol' Sam.  Check back on that one in 2014.  I think Kansas voters haven't been fooled.
  7. Last summer KCC staff shut down a video conference feed of an open meeting to its Wichita office after an Eagle reporter tried to watch it.
  8. The Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board, a small state agency that represents residential and small-business utility customers, was already in the doghouse with KCC Chairman Mark Sievers. He recently said the KCC should investigate whether CURB’s expenses are reasonable - raising concerns that the KCC was trying to control CURB.
  9. Sievers recently proposed rubber stamping any utility rate increases less than 10%.  Sievers said he favored bypassing rate studies and implementing his 10 percent rate threshhold “because it reduces the discretion of advocates and lawyers to engage in unproductive litigation…”
So long, Sievers.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.
1 Comment
<<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.