Category:

Who's Looking Out For You?

9/11/2013

The State Journal tells us that PSC Chairman Michael Albert "appointed" a new Consumer Advocate today.

The Consumer Advocate is supposed to represent YOUR interests, little ratepayer. The Consumer Advocate is supposed to be an "independent" division of the West Virginia Public Service Commission, created back in the 1980s. The advocate's duties are set out under WV Code.

However, there's no actual language regarding any "appointment" in the code. After all, what kind of an idiot would allow a guy who used to represent utility interests (some argue that he still does) to appoint someone to represent the interests of consumers? The PSC has been advertising the job of Director of the Consumer Advocate Division all summer. And now Chairman Albert has "appointed" someone under authority granted in some obscure PSC Orders from 1980/81.

This begs the question... how is the Consumer Advocate Division "independent" from the PSC, when the PSC controls the Director's employment?

And does this mean that the Governor's Office is soon going to be advertising for the job of Public Service Commissioner? Sweet!

Anyhow, let's hope our new "advocate" starts representing our interests real soon.... and fixes that ridiculously unprofessional website. Maybe she has her own chili recipe that will help consumers.

0 Comments

Qu'est-ce que c'est "Annual Meter Reading Accounts," FirstEnergy?

8/26/2013

2 Comments

Don't you just love it when the mouth-breathers at FirstEnergy explain themselves into a corner?

On August 15, FirstEnergy filed its first monthly statistical report. The Commission had previously ordered FirstEnergy to submit monthly data for at least a year so they could keep an eye on these shysters.

In its first report, "FirstEnergy stated that its data 'excludes annual meter reading accounts up through 11 months'.”

Now the Commission has ordered FirstEnergy to explain just what an "annual meter reading account" is, and provide statistical data on these accounts as well.

Shhh... if you know why the Commission did this, keep it to yourself. I want to see if FirstEnergy's brain trust can figure this out on their own...

Too bad stupidity isn't painful. Ha ha ha!

2 Comments

West Virginia Citizens Action Group Files Objection to FirstEnergy Harrison Settlement

8/23/2013

0 Comments

West Virginia Citizens Action Group, the only party to refuse to sign FirstEnergy's Harrison settlement, filed an Objection to the settlement with the PSC this afternoon. The Objection asks that the Commission "...disapprove the proposed settlement and that the Companies’ petition be denied in its entirety."

WVCAG is the only party that didn't cave in and go along with that sugarcoated flashing blue light special settlement the others were pressured into signing.

What? Pressured? That's what I think. Some people accuse me of having too much imagination, but if you pick up a crayon and start connecting the dots, a perplexing picture begins to form.

The public has been increasingly dissatisfied with the actions of the WV PSC over the past several years. It's not just some obscure agency nobody has ever heard of anymore. High profile rate cases, the PATH project, and now the intra-company coal plant sale cases have promoted the WV PSC to common dinner table talk. As well, public anger over the FirstEnergy/Potomac Edison billing investigation has raised the ire of legislators. The WV PSC, with one expired Commissioner and another re-appointed but not yet confirmed by the Senate, does not want any nasty utility public relations poo stuck to its shoe. Any decision it would have made on FirstEnergy's Harrison transfer (other than a denial) would have produced more citizen and legislative scorn, possibly turning into the straw that broke the camel's back. So, the Commission slunk out of the emergency exit by not having to make a real decision. Because the case was "settled," blame for what went wrong can be foisted off on the settling parties.

The Consumer Advocate will be retiring at the end of next month. A new one will be appointed by the Chairman of the PSC (let's not even worry about what a very stupid idea this is right now!) Any consumer advocate division employees who may be hopeful of moving up to the top spot and filling the vacancy would be beholden to pleasing the Chairman right now. Perhaps one way to cement the Chairman's approval would be a willingness to divert public anger from the Chairman (who doesn't need anymore public disapproval before his re-appointment is confirmed).

Once the PSC staff and Consumer Advocate rolled over for FirstEnergy, the rest of the parties just went on a feeding frenzy to pick up what stray crumbs they could (with the exception of WVCAG, who exhibited good, old fashioned ethics).

Maybe I just think too much... or maybe I just know too much. Anyhow, that's my theory of why this happened.

But... here's something else to think about!

How did a proposal that FirstEnergy said would raise your electric rates 6% settle for a 1.5% decrease in your rates?

The settlement changed the amount of the $1.1B purchase price consumers will pay by requiring Mon Power to book a $300M+ impairment for a portion of the purchase price. The cost ratepayers will have to pay is $795M. An impairment is an amount that comes out of shareholder dividends, instead of out of your pocket.

In addition, the $25M credit for the included sale of Pleasants will be amortized over the first 16 months of new rates, which causes an artificial and temporary rate reduction that will expire at the end of 2014. Without this Magic Math, there would be no "decrease."

This resulted in a yearly surcharge (rate increase) of $113.4M.

However, this rate increase was offset by a $129.5M yearly credit that FirstEnergy will include in their projected rates through the end of 2014. This $129.5M is based on projections, not reality. At the end of 2014, this projection will be trued up with actual expenditures and the resulting shortfall will turn into a rate increase. From the look of FirstEnergy's unrealistic projections (cooked for the transaction proposal to show what FirstEnergy wanted them to show), it's going to be a BIG rate increase of a magnitude never before experienced.

The difference between $129.5M and 113.4M is only $16M. While $16M sounds like a lot of money, it's a very small margin for error at a company whose annual coal costs are estimated at well over $500M and whose annual revenue from off-system sales of Harrison's excess electricity are nearly $300M. If FirstEnergy's calculations are off just $16M, then your rate decrease completely disappears. If they're off by more than $16M, the rate increase starts.

In addition, as the proud new owner of a creaking, old coal plant, you're now fully responsible for the expected $244M cost of retrofits to comply with EPA rules. FirstEnergy opted to close other coal plants rather than spend their own money to retrofit, but in this case, they're spending YOUR money. This $244M cost will also translate to more rate increases.

So, enjoy your temporary "rate decrease," because the rate increase you're going to receive on January 1, 2015 is going to be a shocker. But, Chairman Albert hopes his re-appointment will be safely in the bag by that time and that you all will have forgotten all about this crappy deal he handed you.

0 Comments

Powering America for Tomorrow Act, HR 2762 -- Will the Third Time be the Charm?

8/11/2013

0 Comments

The piggish Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has once again resurrected his twice-trounced "Powering America for Tomorrow Act." We caught this piece of scary legislation the last time he introduced it. It hasn't gotten any better this time around.

This legislation would establish regional transmission planners that would take over CPCN permitting and siting for interstate transmission projects.

‘‘(d) CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.--
‘‘(1) PROPOSED FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY BY REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLANNER.--
‘‘(A) INCLUSION OF PROPOSED FINDING IN REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLAN.—As part of a regional transmission plan submitted to the Commission under subsection (c)(3), a regional transmission planner may identify a regional transmission project or projects that such regional transmission planner finds, based on the record of the regional transmission planning process, is required by, and consistent with, the public convenience and necessity.
‘‘(B) PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY CERTIFICATE REQUEST.—A regional transmission planner may submit to the Commission a request to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a regional transmission project identified in a regional transmission plan submitted under subsection (c)(3). Such request shall include a summary of the record developed for such project during the regional transmission planning process. The request shall be based on whether such regional transmission project is or will be--
‘‘(i) necessary to ensure regional compliance with reliability standards or remedy violations of such reliability standards;
‘‘(ii) necessary to provide significant relief from electric transmission congestion as measured by objective criteria, including consideration of the total cost of congestion, hours of congestion, and the lack of feasible economic alternative means to relieve congestion;
‘‘(iii) important to the diversification of energy supply throughout the designated region, including by meeting the goals of applicable renewable portfolio standards; or
‘‘(iv) important to the development of smart grid technology that is consistent with the policy under title XIII of the En-
ergy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17381 et seq.).
‘‘(2) ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.—The Commission may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, find that a regional transmission project is in the public convenience and necessity and issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the ownership and operation of such regional transmission project and the provision of any related services under the jurisdiction of the Commission if the Commission
finds that—
‘‘(A) a regional transmission planner included a proposed finding of public convenience and necessity for such proposed regional trans- mission project in one or more relevant regional transmission plans submitted to the Commission under subsection (c)(3);
‘‘(B) a regional transmission planner submitted a request for the issuance of such a certificate;
‘‘(C) the proposed regional transmission project will be used for the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce;
‘‘(D) the proposed regional transmission
project is consistent with the public interest in terms of its engineering, reliability, and other economic characteristics and the purposes of this section; and
‘‘(E) the proposed regional transmission project will maximize, to the extent reasonable and economical, existing rights-of-way and the transmission capabilities of existing towers and structures.
‘‘(3) CONSIDERATIONS.—In issuing a certificate of public convenience and necessity under this subsection, the Commission shall give substantial deference to any proposed finding of public convenience and necessity by a regional transmission planner in a regional transmission plan submitted under subsection (c)(3).

Oh, and environmental reviews? We throw those out the window:

‘‘(6) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.— ‘‘(A) PROPOSED FINDING BY REGIONAL
TRANSMISSION PLANNER.—A proposed finding by a regional transmission planner of public convenience and necessity regarding a regional transmission project is excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), provided an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required to be prepared by the Commission under such Act.

I think Sensenbrenner got a hold of a bad batch of cheese curds, like maybe some from ALEC Farms. Lest you think he's nothing but a mindless corporate flunkie though, Porky gave a speech at a recent WIRES lobbyist meeting that would have removed any doubt.

Just like when the little pig cried wolf (oh, am I mixing my fables again?) we probably shouldn't pay any attention to this. Govtrack gives this bill a 2% chance of getting out of committee, but stranger things have happened. Keep an eye on this piece of pork.

0 Comments

Potomac Edison's Charm Offensive is Out of Whack

7/27/2013

0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Comments

WV's 5-Year Energy Plan: A Circus of Fantasy and Denial

7/24/2013

0 Comments

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

A story in The Journal says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the music played on...

0 Comments

WV PSC Refuses to Dismiss Potomac Edison Investigation and Orders Monthly Monitoring, Public Comment Hearings -- Punitive Fines a Future Possibility

7/19/2013

0 Comments

The WV PSC issued an Order today refusing to dismiss the Potomac Edison/Mon Power general investigation of billing and meter reading practices as requested by the companies.

The PSC was unconvinced by the companies' claim that the matter has been resolved and should be dismissed. The Commission believes the data Staff and FirstEnergy filed indicate the need for further investigation and do not justify dismissing this matter as resolved and therefore FirstEnergy's request to dismiss is denied.

The Commission made the following FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. The Commission opened a general investigation into the meter reading, billing and customer service practices of FirstEnergy. June 7, 2013 Commission Order.
2. FirstEnergy reported that 5.3 percent of its customers received two consecutive estimated bills and a further 2.2 percent received three consecutive estimated bills in the May 2013 billing cycle. July 1, 2013 FirstEnergy Filing at 8.
3. Approximately 44 percent of FirstEnergy customers in West Virginia were unable to resolve a billing problem in their first customer service call in 2013. Id. at 12.
4. Staff reported that it has received an increasing number of informal complaints regarding FirstEnergy billing practices. July 15, 2013 Staff Reply.

The Commission was unconvinced by FirstEnergy's desperate posturing attempting to show that everything is hunky dory, and tells the company who's boss:

"The Commission also takes this opportunity to emphasize that the purpose of this proceeding is to ensure that FirstEnergy takes the steps necessary to provide reliable service and accurate billing. The Commission will not prematurely rush this matter or
close the proceeding until FirstEnergy demonstrates that its billing accurately reflects customer usage on a consistent basis and has implemented responsive service practices."

The Commission intends to stop FirstEnergy's reign of terror, therefore FirstEnergy must now be monitored like a wayward teenager:

"In this case, the Commission believes that it should immediately begin collecting data to allow it to monitor certain aspects of FirstEnergy customer service. This data will assist the Commission and the parties in this proceeding by generating a statistical benchmark for determining improvement or decline in service quality and providing empirical data that demonstrates whether the problems have been resolved as contended by FirstEnergy."

Beginning August 15, 2013, and continuing for one year, the required monthly submissions should include the following information:

1. Current customer contact center metrics collected by FirstEnergy.
2. The number and percentage of customers with two or more consecutive estimated bills rendered.
3. The current number of budgeted meter reader positions and the current number of meter readers employed.
4. The current status of the project to re-number meters and adjust meter routes.
5. The steps taken to adjust or improve the current enhanced estimation algorithm.
6. The number and percentage of meter rereads.
7. The number of complaints handled by the customer contact center with a breakdown by complaint type.
8. The number and percentage of customer complaints resolved on the first call to the FirstEnergy call center.
9. The number of customers placed on a deferred payment plan and note the percentage of those with two or more consecutive estimated bills.

The Commission also ordered:

"Further, Staff must review the reports FirstEnergy will file and promptly submit an analysis of the new data after three and six months of those filings. The Commission, however, expects Staff to continue to investigate this matter beyond the analysis prescribed by this Order and recommend further steps as needed.

The Commission will monitor the monthly filings and expects FirstEnergy to demonstrate improvement consistent with its representations in the July 1, 2013 filing that the underlying problems are resolved. The Commission will determine the need for further action after approximately six months of statistical filings and will issue a subsequent Order that may either call this matter for an evidentiary hearing or prescribe an appropriate alternative. The Commission will also hold public comment hearings in the FirstEnergy service areas after it receives and reviews the first two monthly reports."

The Commission reasserts its authority and hopefully strikes a little fear in FirstEnergy's flippant little corporate heart by reciting possible future outcomes:

"The Commission cannot at this time conclusively determine what future action might be necessary if
current trends continue, possible future interventions may include (i) requiring more costly monthly meter reading instead of bimonthly readings, (ii) fixing minimum meter reading staff levels and practices, (iii) creating financial rate penalties tied to statistical performance or (iv) requiring FirstEnergy to retain a consultant to revise its integration process."

The Commission has even issued a press release.

It's time to stop playing around now, FirstEnergy, quit denying there is a problem, and get down to the serious business of making amends with your customers.

0 Comments

FirstEnergy's Political Investment in West Virginia

7/5/2013

0 Comments

There's been a lot of interest recently in FirstEnergy's political giving and its relationship to political and regulatory actions favorable to the company.

Ohio-based FirstEnergy and its employees spent $94,000 supporting the campaign of West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin over the past 2 years. In the same story, The Journal reports:

Tomblin appoints members to West Virginia's Public Service Commission, a regulatory body that oversees utility companies including First Energy and its subsidiary, Potomac Edison.

Tomblin's office reported that the governor re-appointed Chairman Michael Albert [a former member of FirstEnergy's preferred regulatory law firm, Jackson Kelly] to oversee the three-person commission, effective July 1.

"FirstEnergy works with numerous elected officials in West Virginia and all the states where we have operations," company spokesperson Mark Durbin said. "The company does not comment on political contributions made by FirstEnergy employees other than they have the right to participate in the political process just like any other U.S. citizen."

The Governor and his Yoda-lady also find themselves too verklempt to talk about FirstEnergy's campaign contributions and the Governor's appointments to the PSC.

Of course FirstEnergy has no comment. What is there to say when you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar? Since FirstEnergy can't or won't explain itself, it's up to the citizens of West Virginia, who will have to live under the rule of Earl Ray for the next 4 years, to investigate and try to make some sense out of the fact that out of $96,450.00 contributed to the Governor's campaign by FirstEnergy and its employees, only $3,250.00 came from employees who are also citizens of West Virginia who will have to live with the consequences of their personal political giving.

Here's how the $96,450 breaks down:

FirstEnergy Corporate Donations:    $4,000
FE Employees who live in OH:        $73,750
FE Employees who live in PA:        $12,450
FE Employees who live in MD:        $750
FE Employees who live in NJ:           $1,250
FE Employees who retired to FL:    $1,000
FE Employees who live in WV:        $3,250

Why do the good citizens of Ohio care so much about what happens in West Virginia? And why do these employees of a public utility have so much disposable income in these uncertain economic times that they are able to give so freely to a cause that's going to spend their hard-earned dollars on annoying TV commercials and junky campaign trinkets in another state where many of them won't even set foot? That just doesn't make sense.

I think it looks like FirstEnergy has bought themselves a Governor in a state where the company does business. Maybe it's worth it for these Ohio residents to have their day-to-day business dealings in West Virginia made smoother by having Earl Ray as their frien d, too. I wonder if they got a picture signed by Earl Ray's purple pen in exchange for their generous contributions? You don't suppose that companies like FirstEnergy reimburse their employees for making these kind of personal out-of-state political contributions in order to get around limits on corporate contributions, do you? I wonder...

What else would explain the interest of homemaker Mrs. Becky Alexander of Akron, Ohio, in the campaign of Earl Ray Tomblin to the tune of $3,000? How many Prada purses could she have bought instead? Or maybe she just intends to stuff cash into all Earl Ray's openings and carry him around by the ears for the next 4 years? Personally, I would have chosen the Prada bag simply from a style perspective. What do you suppose Mr. Vincent Alexander of Akron, Ohio, got in return for his $3,000 donation to Tomblin? Or the $1,000 donations of Ohio residents Victor Alexander, Lauren Alexander, Jonathan Alexander and Abby Alexander? Are we sure they're not just being used to funnel FirstEnergy corporate cash into the West Virginia gubernatorial campaign? Thanks for your concern, Alexander family, but I would have rather you used that $10K to reduce the outrageous electric bills of a few senior citizens, or low income Potomac Edison customers, who have had their service shut off lately when they were unable to pay a huge bill resulting from FirstEnergy's merger "synergies."

And while we're exploring FirstEnergy's influence, I'd be remiss if I didn't share some of the tidbits that popped up that can only be categorized as just downright funny. For instance, did you know that Anthony Alexander, Jr., works at FirstEnergy as an analyst and still lives at home with Daddy Big Tony? I bet he's a favorite around the office, although he probably doesn't get invited to Friday afternoon happy hour too often. What do you suppose he "analyzes?" I'm picturing him as a work-at-home who carefully analyzes the effect of FirstEnergy's electricity supply on World of Warcraft in Daddy's basement, but then again I've never been short on imagination.

Or perhaps it would give you a giggle to realize how politically flexible the Alexander household appears to be. Republican or Democrat, it matters not when there's the personal satisfaction of an election well influenced to be had.

Or how about the fact that FirstEnergy's West Virginia elected official whisperer (aka "lobbyist") hails from Looneyville. Well, that explains a lot, Sammy.

Or maybe the fact that a whole bunch of these FirstEnergy employee contributions to Earl Ray were made on the same day at a fundraiser in Morgantown. Company road trip, everyone!!

And Earl Ray Tomblin isn't the only political pet of FirstEnergy and its employees... many of the same folks also contributed to the campaigns of West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and Ohio governor John Kasich.

Isn't it funny that FirstEnergy contributed $250,000 to some outfit called "Protect Your Vote Ohio" when the company was busy funneling money into West Virginia that would nullify the votes of actual West Virginians?

Hysterical -- FirstEnergy gave $10,000 to some astroturf-sounding outfit named Clean Affordable Renewable Energy for Michigan Coalition, when the company doesn't have any business interests in Michigan and seems to hate clean, affordable, renewable energy for its own home state of Ohio?

But even with all this money being shelled out, it appears that the opportunity of a lifetime has been overlooked by FirstEnergy! According to an article in today's Charleston Daily Mail, the West Virginia PSC is falling apart. The State Purchasing Department is currently soliciting bids for a design to fix the building's crumbling facade. Why doesn't FirstEnergy cover the cost of fixing the building? Then it could own the WV PSC, both literally and figuratively. Just a helpful little suggestion...

0 Comments

West Virginia Public Service Commission Skulduggery: Time for Citizens to Act!

7/1/2013

4 Comments

On May 20, Governor Tomblin quietly reappointed Michael Albert as Chairman of the Public Service Commission. The appointment was not announced publicly, in fact, State Journal reporter Pam Kasey had to go on a hunt for this information. Kasey also found out that the Governor has done nothing about filling the expired term of PSC Commissioner McKinney, two years after his seat expired.

Yesterday, The Journal's Rachel Molenda reported that FirstEnergy (under the guise of its employees and political action committee) has become Governor Tomblin's biggest campaign contributor. It sure looks like FirstEnergy has bought itself a seat on the Public Service Commission. And according to The Journal, it only cost $94,000. It only took $94,000 in campaign contributions for your Governor to throw you under the bus by "fixing" a supposedly independent commission with a corporate insider.

Chairman Albert "previously served as a Manager and Member in the Business Law Department of Jackson Kelly, PLLC, in Charleston, West Virginia, focusing on public utilities and business and commercial transactions." In this capacity, Albert represented Allegheny Energy (now FirstEnergy) in all their cases before the PSC. Chairman Albert is FirstEnergy's boy.

Commissioner McKinney is AEP's boy.

One of these two has to go. The Public Service Commission is not fulfilling its mission.

We will work tirelessly to assure:
1. Impartial and efficient resolution of all jurisdictional issues;
2. Public safety through inspections of motor carriers, railroads, and natural gas pipelines;
3. An increase in business investment, job creation/retention and the state’s overall competitiveness;
4. An improvement in the standard of living and quality of life for the people of West Virginia;
5. That consumers receive the best value in utility service from financially viable and technically competent companies; and,
6. That utilities receive an opportunity to earn a fair return on their investment in regulated services.

Chairman Albert's bias toward FirstEnergy is readily apparent.

Chairman Albert is not interested in helping West Virginians.

PSC Chairman Michael Albert’s recent remarks before a West Virginia legislative Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary epitomize the stagnant and captive nature of our current PSC leadership. Albert told the committee that the days of cheap utilities are over and that the only remedies for consumers who cannot afford higher utility costs are conservation or budget and consumer assistance programs. Instead of investigating creative solutions, which the PSC is empowered by law to do, Mr. Albert throws in the towel and goes along with the claims of West Virginia’s Ohio-based electric companies.

Governor Tomblin is empowered to appoint the members of the Public Service Commission "with the advice and consent of the Senate."

§24-1-3. Commission continued; membership; chairman; compensation; quorum.

(b) The Public Service Commission shall consist of three members who shall be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The commissioners shall be citizens and residents of this state and at least one of them shall be duly licensed to practice law in West Virginia, with not less than ten years' actual work experience in the legal profession as a member of a state bar.

Governor Tomblin has appointed Chairman Albert. Albert has not yet been confirmed by the Senate.

The Governor makes hundreds of appointments every year. The appointments are gathered up periodically and forwarded to the Senate for confirmation. The next set is expected to come before the Senate for confirmation in January 2014. The Senate has a Confirmations Committee to deal with this function. The Senate can confirm the Governor's appointment, or the Senate can reject the appointment, in which case the Governor must appoint someone else.

It has become crystal clear, both to the citizens of West Virginia and their elected representatives, that change is desperately needed at the Public Service Commission. We simply cannot afford another 6 years of uninspired, bought and paid for, corporate-influenced leadership. Let your senator know that you want change!

4 Comments

Taking Charge of Your Electric Bill: Citizens' Groups share ways ratepayers can protect their wallets while WV PSC investigates Potomac Edison

6/28/2013

1 Comment

CHARLES TOWN, W.V., June 28, 2013 -- The Jefferson County NAACP and the Coalition for Reliable Power are pleased that the WV Public Service Commission has opened a General Investigation of Potomac Edison’s billing and meter reading practices following the Citizens’ Public Hearing we hosted in Charles Town on May 22. The West Virginia Legislature’s Joint Standing Committee on Government Organization also has announced its own independent, parallel investigation of electric utility billing practices in the state. These investigations are the direct result of community action.

The investigations are expected to take many months to complete and will examine company business practices on a system-wide level, but they will not address individual customer complaints. In the meantime, many in our community are wondering what they can do about inaccurate electric bills, or how they can most effectively participate in the PSC’s investigation.

“We are providing guidelines for ways that Potomac Edison ratepayers can seek help when they receive excessive bills. We also have suggestions for ratepayers who want to share their experiences with the PSC as its investigation gets under way,” said Keryn Newman of the Coalition for Reliable Power. “The direction and outcome of this investigation is up to each one of you. Please take a few minutes to participate and assist the PSC in its fact-finding. Help the PSC help you. Every customer voice matters,” she added.

One protective measure moving forward is to check your own electric meter once a month, to keep an eye on how closely Potomac Edison’s estimates track actual usage.

“Ratepayers should learn to read their own meters,” said Mike Nemec, a retired Pennsylvania utilities commission judge who now lives in Charles Town. “I understand that it’s the utility’s job to read the meter, but the analogy would be to checking your monthly credit card statement or bank statement for any errors.”

Potomac Edison or Mon Power customers who would like to sign up to receive periodic email news updates from the citizens’ organizations as the investigations progress, as well as other recommended customer actions, may contact the Coalition via email at [email protected]

How consumers can get assistance and relief

We encourage every Potomac Edison customer to familiarize themselves with the location and operation of their electric meter so that they may monitor the company’s accuracy monthly. Instructions for reading your own meter can be found on the back of your monthly bill. Just as you review charges on any bill to verify its accuracy, customers can compare monthly usage printed on their bill to actual usage recorded on their meter.

Potomac Edison customers who have received an inaccurate or troublesome electric bill and need immediate, individual relief should take the following steps:

1.     Call Potomac Edison at 1-800-686-0011. The company encourages customers to call to clear up disputes and/or set up a reasonable payment plan.

2.     If you are not satisfied after speaking with the company, contact a WV PSC Consumer Affairs Technician at 1-800-642-8544 to begin a formal or informal dispute process.

3.     In the event of a large discrepancy or successive estimated bills, customers should call the company at 1-800-686-0011 to report their own meter readings and request an adjustment and re-billing. You do not have to wait for a certain day of the month to ask the company for an accurate bill. This method is not a long-term solution, but being a proactive consumer can be your first line of defense until the investigations are completed and the PSC orders improvements to the company’s meter reading practices.

For those who have had excessive estimates, larger than normal bills, and/or poor customer service, and are not looking for individual billing relief, we ask that you take part in the PSC General Investigation:

1.     For online comments, select case number 13-0830-E-GI from the “High Profile Cases” drop-down list at http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/onlinecomments/formalDisclaimer.cfm. Online comments are limited to 2500 characters and may not include attachments.

2.     Submit written comments via fax or U.S. mail. Be sure your comments and any attachments are marked with case number 13-0830-E-GI. Send to:

By mail:
Public Service Commission of West Virginia
P.O.Box 812                                                                        Charleston, WV 25323

By fax:        304-340-0325

3.     Tips for composing comments: The PSC investigation is focused on Potomac Edison’s and Mon Power’s meter reading, billing and customer service practices. You should focus on these topics.

a.     Tell the PSC if your electric meter has not been read every other month as required by the company’s tariff. Your monthly electric bill contains a graph in the bottom left corner showing estimated and actual reads. If you can, send the PSC a copy of this graph, being sure to copy the entire left hand side of your bill that shows your name and address and the billing period dates. (see sample here) One graph contains a 13-month history, so you don’t need to send multiple copies.

b.     If you received a bill that was much higher than normal, let the PSC know when and how much. Include copies of bills that show the problem, if possible.

c.      If you are not happy with the customer service you received from Potomac Edison’s call center, tell the PSC, providing as much detail of the situation as possible, including dates and names, if you have them.

d.     Any other related problems or issues.

Be as concise and factual as possible; avoid getting bogged down in too much detail. Remember, your individual issue won’t be solved or noted in the investigation, you are providing the PSC with a general example of your experience with the company, to be combined with other customer examples and considered as evidence.

1 Comment

<<Previous

Forward>>

Who's Looking Out For You?

Qu'est-ce que c'est "Annual Meter Reading Accounts," FirstEnergy?

West Virginia Citizens Action Group Files Objection to FirstEnergy Harrison Settlement

Powering America for Tomorrow Act, HR 2762 -- Will the Third Time be the Charm?

Potomac Edison's Charm Offensive is Out of Whack

WV's 5-Year Energy Plan: A Circus of Fantasy and Denial

WV PSC Refuses to Dismiss Potomac Edison Investigation and Orders Monthly Monitoring, Public Comment Hearings -- Punitive Fines a Future Possibility

FirstEnergy's Political Investment in West Virginia

West Virginia Public Service Commission Skulduggery: Time for Citizens to Act!

Taking Charge of Your Electric Bill: Citizens' Groups share ways ratepayers can protect their wallets while WV PSC investigates Potomac Edison

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog