Read breaking news by Pam Kasey in The State Journal.
The West Virginia Legislature is not satisfied that the state's Public Service Commission will get the job done with its general investigation of FirstEnergy subsidiaries Potomac Edison and Mon Power, and has announced its own independent, parallel investigation of electric utility billing practices in the state. The Joint Standing Committee on Government Organization's investigation will give the hairy eyeball to all electric utilities in the state. So, other companies, like Appalachian Power, can give a great, big "thank you" to their compatriots at FirstEnergy who made all this possible.
Read breaking news by Pam Kasey in The State Journal.
0 Comments
Briefs filed in federal court by environmental groups seeking to have a National Park Service permit to destroy the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area overturned contained some damning quotes from minutes of meetings between Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Park Service Officials and representatives of investor-owned utilities PSEG and PPL, owners of the proposed Susquehanna Roseland transmission line. During an August 4, 2011 meeting, Salazar is quoted as saying: "So here's the deal: I want $60 m [million] and I want it now." An expose in the New Jersey Herald tells what happened next: ...the companies "choked/came back in/ and said it's a deal ... only ask is completion of NEPA by Oct '12." And guess whose money the companies were giving away? Yours, little ratepayer, your $60M in increased electric bills, plus 12.9% interest yearly.
The "mitigation fund" extorted from the utilities will be reimbursed to them by all electric consumers in the 13-state PJM region, plus a 12.93% yearly return on equity on the unpaid balance. The utilities are using YOUR money to pay their "blood money" bribes needed for permission to destroy YOUR park, and earning interest on it. PSEG representative Karen Johnson explains: Johnson said the rate of return is in fact 12.93 percent and said it is true PSE&G would earn a rate of return on the land purchase. "The current rules say the cost of a project such as this will be shared by electric customers who will benefit," she said. Want to challenge the possible collection of bribe money in your electric bill? PSEG recently filed its trueup of 2102 rates at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the filing is open to your examination and questions. Any bribe money that was paid in 2012 would be contained in this filing. FERC does not review and audit the filing. If you want to ask questions and challenge it, you must take the initiative. And be sure to sign up to continue to question the components of the utility's transmission rate going forward, because you're going to continue to pay for Salazar's bribe for many, many years to come. This kind of shakedown perpetrated on the public by government officials and regulated utilities is nothing short of completely outrageous! The Seventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a ruling last week that can only be interpreted as one judge's preference for renewables legislating from the bench. Several years ago, the same court and same judge ruled that FERC and PJM had not done enough to justify the RTO's postage stamp cost socialization scheme. In October of 2009, the Court remanded the rate methodology back to FERC, finding that the Commission had not provided sufficient record evidence to justify its findings that the existing allocation practice for new facilities at and above 500 kV was unjust and unreasonable, and the Commission had not adequately supported its conclusion that the postage-stamp methodology was just and reasonable. The court found that the Commission’s reliance on the difficulty of measuring benefits for above 500 kV facilities, and the resulting likelihood of litigation, failed to justify the Commission’s decision. The court stated that the Commission had failed to show “the absence of any indication that the difficulty exceeds that of measuring benefits to particular utilities of a smaller-capacity transmission line.” The court further found that the Commission failed to justify requiring PJM to adopt a region-wide, postage-stamp cost allocation methodology for new transmission facilities that operate at or above 500 kV. This time, the court affirmed MISO's MVP cost socialization scheme, and remanded FERC's denial of export pricing to PJM.
This means that all MISO ratepayers will continue to be charged for new transmission to support the integration and export of utility scale, centralized renewables, and FERC must take another look at allowing MISO to charge ratepayers in the neighboring PJM region for a portion of new transmission built entirely in the MISO region. Forcing ratepayers to subsidize the building of new transmission to the exclusion of other cheaper, localized, and more reliable energy choices effects a forced preference for "big wind" on the energy-consuming public. Big wind and MISO's broad socialization of its costs are the darlings of the court. What a difference the color of an electron makes! PJM's broadly socialized postage stamp rates were all about allocating the costs of new transmission to transport coal-fired electricity. MISO's broadly socialized MVP rates are all about allocating the costs of new transmission to transport "big wind." What's the difference? The judge's personal preferences come through loud and clear in this decision. He even quotes the opinion of utility mouthpiece Matt Wald in his ruling. When a court quotes an internet blog, that's when you know for sure that its ruling is based on conjecture, and may not withstand further scrutiny. There's one thing this decision fails to acknowledge, however, and that's the power of the people. Planning and building the new MVP transmission lines has attracted the attention and ire of thousands of landowners and ratepayers nationwide who object to the thoughtless and inefficient preclusion of smart energy choices that compulsion to sacrifice land and energy investment dollars committing to long-term transmission assets achieves. These citizens are coming together in record numbers and will not be silenced. A citizen-directed energy revolution is under way! Stay tuned... more federal court shenanigans coming up soon with news about a case recently filed a little closer to home... It's true, you can't fix stupid. FirstEnergy subsidiaries Potomac Edison and Mon Power are trying to remedy the public relations disaster they find themselves in, and shore up the companies' dishonest and negligent image, with even more dismissive arrogance. FirstEnergy just doesn't get it and continues to kick itself in the rear end. The company has deployed public relations simpleton Todd Meyers on a radio tour where he delivers lawyer-approved statements such as: Meyers said the companies have been aware of the issues and will assist the PSC. What is Todd insinuating here by downplaying the authority of the WV PSC to investigate and fix unjust and unreasonable rates as "just an exercise?" Is Todd trying to inform the public that the PSC is nothing but the company's stooge and that the investigation is mere political window dressing with a predetermined outcome?
"Our customers" will not be mollified by a token review and slap on the wrist. "Our customers" want results, and a heaping helping of tasty schadenfreude. How would y-o-u like to see Potomac Edison punished for all the misery it has caused? What, if anything, can Potomac Edison do to make it up to you? Investor owned utilities must be running scared again while FERC dithers over complaints about transmission project base ROEs. The Edison Electric Institute, an investor owned utility lobby shop, has issued a white paper and a press release telling everyone that unless its members can continue to make money hand over fist building new transmission that the lights will go out.
Bitch, please! "The EEI report comes as FERC is reviewing a number of complaints over transmission ROEs, where states and others are urging FERC to reduce the returns in light of lower interest rates and other factors. For instance, ISO New England and several states in the region are in dispute over what the region's base ROE should be." EEI states that FERC must roll over and do it their way... "Otherwise, the nation's electric utilities and their investors could divert needed capital to investments with greater returns, jeopardizing transmission reliability." The funniest part is that EEI is still using the same lame, illogical arguments it trotted out last time when FERC was considering reforming transmission incentives, including ROE adders. Those arguments got shredded by a bunch of nobodies. Do you think EEI is also doing the visits from utility CEOs routine this time? I hope not. That would definitely be an ex parte no-no in this case. "Given the numerous risks and challenges associated with developing large-scale transmission, it is critical that returns are sufficient to encourage EEI's members to focus on evaluating and building the larger, more challenging projects needed for a more robust electric grid that will provide reliability and other benefits to customers in both the short and long term," it said. What EEI is really saying is that its members prefer to build big, risky transmission projects because those projects offer the biggest profit. The transmission cash feeding frenzy continues at ratepayer expense. There's no "benefit" for customers. EEI "...believes the clear conclusion of governmental and regulatory bodies is that the public policy benefits of transmission investment are without dispute, and the need for greater transmission investments is clear." No, that's simply wishful thinking on EEI's part, and EEI believes that if it continues to hammer this lie on regulators and the public that they might some day come to believe it. After all... "But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success." ― Adolf Hitler And speaking of repetition, EEI trots out one of the oldest, most over-used lies about transmission: "Investing in transmission infrastructure also provides grid resiliency, which helps to avoid major electricity blackouts that can result in significant economic losses. For example, due to a transmission issue starting on August 14, 2003, an estimated 50 million people in the Midwest and Northeast United States and Ontario, Canada, experienced an area-wide blackout lasting up to four days in some areas." The "transmission issue" was not caused by lack of sufficient, reliable transmission. It was caused by human error and lack of right-of-way maintenance on the part of utility stooge FirstEnergy. Building new transmission won't prevent another blackout, and, in fact, more interconnected transmission actually increases the risk of future blackouts over wider areas. Now, EEI's just getting downright silly: "As the Nation’s Demand for Reliable, Affordable Electricity Grows, EEI Members Remain Committed to Developing the Transmission Needed to Provide Reliable Electricity." I guess EEI missed all those news reports about tanking demand. This doesn't even deserve the 2 seconds it would take for me to find a reference link. Google it yourself. EEI whines about the "riskiness" of projects that are approved by the regional electricity cartels, like PJM, and then subsequently proven unneeded by states and citizen opponents. The way I see it, the states and opposition groups saved us nearly $2B on wasteful construction of the PATH project, which turned out not to be "needed" after all. Quit your bellyaching, EEI -- all "risk" is heaped on the backs of consumers, who find themselves reimbursing transmission owners for cancelled projects that should never have been approved in the first place. PATH was never anything more than a $$ generator for its parent companies and it got what it deserved. "Prior to construction, transmission projects generally are evaluated using a Commission-approved transmission planning process, which rigorously evaluates the costs and benefits of each project, assesses the forecasted changes in regional supply and demand, and considers alternative solutions such as new generation or demand-side energy-efficiency measures. Once projects are selected, they still are subject to additional evaluations as part of federal agency and state commission reviews and siting processes. In some jurisdictions, projects also are subject to additional reviews in subsequent planning cycles and may be delayed, scaled back, or cancelled. In addition, there is a wide disparity in how different planning processes evaluate the benefits of transmission, with some jurisdictions evaluating a significant number of the benefits while others rely mainly on reliability or narrowly defined analyses. However, these reviews and benefit analyses contribute to the riskiness of developing efficient transmission projects. Lengthy, complicated, and costly siting and permitting processes continue to be major barriers to installing new transmission lines and upgrading existing lines. Since multiple federal, state, and local government agencies often are involved in right-of-way authorizations and related environmental permitting, the lack of inter-agency coordination forms another obstacle to permitting and siting. The challenge of locating lines across states and across federal lands, coupled with targeted, strong opposition from a variety of public interest groups, make the process even more daunting. Rerouting lines occurs with regularity, which increases construction costs." Since regulators have been loathe to restrain out-of-control IOU greed, EEI offers you this suggestion: "Congress has not amended or taken other action to diminish the importance of transmission investment since EPAct 2005..." YET. Contact your congressional representative today and tell him/her that it's time to bring our country's energy policy in line with today's realities. As promised, the WV PSC issued an Order yesterday "initiat[ing] a general investigation, on its own motion, pursuant to Rule 6.3.a of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, 150 C.S.R. Series 1, to investigate current FirstEnergy meter reading, billing and customer service practices." The Order finds: FINDINGS OF FACT The Commission astutely recognizes that the problems appear to have originated from the Allegheny Energy/FirstEnergy merger it approved in 2011. The merger was touted as beneficial to West Virginia's electric consumers, with promised grand savings from "merger synergies" and "economies of scale." In retrospect, these benefits have not materialized, and in fact, "merger synergies" have actually caused great harm to numerous customers. The Commission has asked FirstEnergy twelve initial questions: 1. Following the acquisition of Mon Power and PE in 2010, what changes, if any, to meter reading and customer billing has FirstEnergy implemented? FirstEnergy must supply its answer to these questions by July 1, 2013. PSC Staff will review FirstEnergy's answers and file a report with the Commission NLT July 15. The Commission begs individuals not to intervene in this case. The quickest resolution to an individual billing problem is through an individual complaint with the PSC. To do so, call the PSC at 1-800-642-8544. The purpose of this general investigation is not to address individual customer bills directly. We recognize that considering the high level of formal and informal filings by individual customers to date, there may be a tendency for individuals to want to address their grievances in this proceeding. Each customer is entitled to specific evaluation of the particulars of individual billing and payment issues and such evaluation is best accomplished through the formal and informal review processes available for individual complaints. Customer-specific, formal and informal matters will continue to be resolved individually. This proceeding will focus on the practices, policies and procedures in place at Mon Power and PE and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses at a structural level. You may read the Commission's Order here. We are pleased that the Commission has recognized the issue that the Coalition for Reliable Power and Jefferson County NAACP raised in their recent letter: that the meter reading and billing problems are most likely caused by post-merger cost-cutting that violated the companies' tariff. We recommended: We feel that the current billing problems are an unanticipated consequence of the company’s efforts to reduce expenses that can only be corrected by making sure that the company is being adequately funded to read meters with the frequency stipulated by the tariff. This deficiency can only be remedied through a new base rate case. We also request that amounts necessary to read meters as required that were not spent by the company over the past two years be refunded to ratepayers, and that the Commission impose any and all fines, penalties and reprimands available under its authority consistent with its findings, among other relief measures. Stay tuned as this case develops!
The media outlets that failed to report on this development last week when the PSC first announced an investigation was pending have suddenly sprung into action. WHAG's story features NAACP President George Rutherford, who tells the story of a local woman who called him in tears after receiving an $800 electric bill. She has been forced to seek help from local charities in order to keep her lights on. In the same story, Delegate Paul Espinosa proselytizes about how "responsive" Potomac Edison has been to all the billing and meter reading problems. Huh? If Potomac Edison had been "responsive," we wouldn't be here and the PSC would not have been forced to launch an investigation. During the interview Delegate Espinosa alludes to the fact that he can "fix" billing problems for his constituents with his buddies at FirstEnergy. In that case, give Del. Espinosa a call if you need your bill "taken care of." We're also treated to an appearance by Potomac Edison spokesflack Todd Meyers, who peeks out from behind his lawyers' skirts to make the lawyer-approved statement that the company will cooperate with the PSC's investigation. Well, that's a relief. I fully expected the company to tell the WV PSC to go pound sand with their silly investigation. Thanks, Todd, you're my hero! However, if either one of these guys truly gave a rat's behind about any of this, George's friend in Fox Glen wouldn't be crying about an $800 electric bill. I think that Paul and Todd, with their big utility company salaries, can afford to personally pay this lady's bill off and turn her tears into smiles. Or maybe they'd just rather continue to posture for the media and make excuses for a company that recently voted to pay its CEO $23M per year. It's that time again, PJM ratepayers! PATH's yearly shuckin' and jivin' about how they spent your money last year is coming up on August 1.
On June 3, PATH filed their 2012 Annual Update to true up the amount it collected from you during the year to the amount it actually spent. It looks like PATH made an inaccurate estimate and now your bill is much, much higher than you expected. PATH says you owe them an extra $5M that they will collect from you in 2014. If you have questions about PATH's filing, send in your RSVP to join the phone "meeting" to get answers. Just follow the instructions in the meeting notice. You must RSVP before July 26 so our friends at PATH can have enough imaginary food, drinks, and goodie bags on hand for all telephonic participants. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted Ali & Keryn's third Formal Challenge (2011 rate year) and consolidated it with the other two Challenges (2009 and 2010 rate years) for settlement and hearing.
The third Challenge added another $4.4M to the total amount in dispute. You can read a copy of the Commission's Order here. In an interview with State Journal's Pam Kasey on Saturday about Potomac Edison's failure to read meters, FirstEnergy spokesman Todd Meyers told the reporter: The problems stem from a series of issues connected with several large storms and with FirstEnergy's acquisition of the utilities' former parent, Allegheny Energy in early 2011, according to company spokesman Todd Meyers. Meyers wants you to believe that the company's failure to read meters was a result of "Act of God" weather events, and therefore the company should be blameless. I'm not buying it. Meyers suggests that weather has caused more downed lines since the Allegheny Energy/FirstEnergy merger and suggests that the company's failure to read meters is caused by meter readers being reassigned to babysit downed wires. My pile of bills from the last five years doesn't lie. Weather is what it is. Extreme weather that takes down power lines comes and goes. Extreme weather never caused numerous successive estimates on my bill before the merger. In fact, it looks like the Allegheny Energy meter reader showed up faithfully through all kinds of weather to read my meter, even when he had to wade through deep snow to do it. My meter was read every other month like clockwork until the fall of 2011. Regular meter readings stopped abruptly in October of 2011, and what had been fairly uniform monthly bills began to get wackier and wackier as time went on, climbing up or down without rhyme or reason by as much as $100. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Some Potomac Edison customers had their bills jump by thousands of dollars in one month's time. As well, during two of the storms Todd mentions in his excuse for the company's failure, one of Potomac Edison's distribution lines came down in my neighborhood and NOBODY showed up to babysit it until repairs could be made, even though it was lying in a busy street. The local fire department placed traffic cones around it to keep vehicles from driving over it, but no meter reader showed up to direct traffic. At one point, we were fortunate enough to catch a FirstEnergy employee at the site while driving by. He explained that he was there simply to evaluate the problem and would not be staying. He also informed us that it would be days before the line would be repaired and power restored. Where was my meter reader during all this? Oh, that's right... he had been "reassigned" and not replaced. That's most likely because the new boss at FirstEnergy had ordered that the former Allegheny companies' yearly loss on meter reading functions be remedied. And, since the companies did not want to file new rate cases to increase the amount recovered for this function, they simply cut the amount being spent on it to align with the amount being recovered. Seems fair, right? There's only one little problem... cutting services meant that meters would be read with less frequency, and the frequency of meter reading is set out in the companies' state jurisdictional tariffs. In order to cut services, the company had to willfully violate its tariff. And next thing you know, the "storm excuse" was born. Everything still might have turned out okay, except that the company didn't think their action through. Numerous estimates skewed the companies' estimation algorithm. If you add enough false data to any computer program, it's going to start producing false results. Garbage in, garbage out! In addition, something went horribly wrong with the companies' transition from Allegheny Energy's computerized billing system to FirstEnergy's computerized billing system. Anyone who has worked with computers knows what a joke this is. A huge transition like this should have been carefully planned and tested and both systems should have been run in parallel for a period of time so that a backup existed in case of major error. Instead, FirstEnergy wants us to believe there were no backups and that they have not managed to work the bugs out of their system for over a year. This isn't an "Act of God," it's sheer incompetence. And then the elaborate "transition" excuses were born. The more elaborate the excuse, the greater the chance that it's simply not true. FirstEnergy needs some new lies and new excuses. The old ones just don't make sense.
Delegate Stephen Skinner has delivered on the promise he made to all of you during the Citizens' Public Hearing on May 22.
Today, the WV Public Service Commission notified Delegate Skinner that it has determined, "...a general investigation should be initiated into the practices and procedures of both Potomac Edison Company and Monongahela Power Company as it relates to meter reading, billing and practices involving estimated bills." The Commission "...intends to issue its order initializing a general investigation next week." Please join me in thanking Delegates Skinner, Lawrence, and Espinosa, and Senators Unger and Snyder, and our Jefferson County Commissioners Widmyer, Manuel and Noland for swift and successful action. And thanks also to the NAACP, the Coalition for Reliable Power and the West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club for organizing and hosting the Public Hearing, as well as thanks to every citizen who came out to the hearing, especially those who came forward to share their stories. There's still much more work to be done, but we can now pause to savor our first victory! |
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
|