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

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

Denial. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a few customer complaints about their call center experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Long delays before a person answers."

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

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

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

"Rude, rude, rude."

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

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

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

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

The Jefferson County Commission voted 3 - 2 this morning to pass a Resolution Opposing FirstEnergy's Proposed Intra-Company Sale of the Harrison Power Plant.  This makes the third West Virginia county to pass a Resolution opposing FirstEnergy's scheme to dump the risk and financial responsibility of a 40-year old coal plant on West Virginia's captive ratepayers.

It took us four Commission meetings to get there, but our Commission has once again demonstrated that it stands with the citizens who elected them to carry out the county's business.

Public comment supporting the Resolution was given by George Rutherford, Patience Wait, and Keryn Newman.  Public comment opposing the Resolution was given by FirstEnergy's public relations guy from some other part of the state, Mr. Charlie Frid-lee (or whatever his name is, as if it matters).  Mr. Frid-lee launched into a line by line attack of the Resolution.  It pretty much went this way:  This statement is incorrect.  There's no basis for this statement.  This statement is speculation.  Our experts filed testimony at the PSC saying something else.  About halfway through, he stumbled over the item about whether or not Harrison would continue to operate if the sale is not approved.  Apparently, according to Mr. Frid-lee, merchant generators operate differently than fully regulated ones.  He helped bang home the point I had just made to the Commission, that FirstEnergy was not willing to take a risk on its merchant coal plants and has recently announced the closure of two more plants.  However, the company wants to dump the risk of Harrison on West Virginians.  If FirstEnergy wouldn't take the business risk of continuing to operate old coal plants, why should West Virginia's ratepayers?  Mr. Frid-lee was saved by the bell about halfway through the resolution.  Turns out he had friddled away his 3-minute speaking allowance before getting even halfway done.  The Commission was not willing to bend the rules for Mr. Frid-lee and he was cut off.  Frid-lee friddle FAIL, FirstEnergy!

The Commission made Mr. Frid-lee cool his heels for another hour before they got to the agenda item about the Resolution.  Chairman Manuel moved that the Resolution be adopted.  Commissioner Tabb seconded.  Discussion ensued.

Commissioner Pellish said the Resolution was political correctness, did not contain facts, and was just a "feel good" resolution not based on facts.  He would not support the language as written.  He did, however, offer to support a plain statement simply opposing the plant without all the "whereas" stuff.

Commissioner Noland said that she had been wrestling with not having enough info. to back the Resolution as written.  But then she read Jamie Van Nostrand's blog post and started to think the plant purchase maybe wasn't such a good idea.  But, in the end, Commissioner Noland can't make this kind of decision because she doesn't have enough info and has not seen any facts.

Commissioner Tabb said she originally did not have enough info., but she took the initiative to do the research and become informed.  Commissioner Tabb knows what it's like to be the ordinary citizen getting run over by the huge corporation from personal experience, and therefore she voted for the resolution, as the voice of the people who elected her to the Commission.

Chairman Manuel said that he supported the Resolution because few in West Virginia are standing up for consumers anymore and that he wanted to do so.

Commissioner Widmyer closed the show by supporting the Resolution and stating that two other counties in West Virginia had passed a similar resolution opposing the purchase of Harrison.  She pointed out that was in direct contradiction to Mr. Frid-lee's statement that "only a few individuals" were against the plant sale. 

I guess Mr. Frid-lee's statement was incorrect, had no basis, and was pure speculation.

The Resolution of the Jefferson County Commission Opposing FirstEnergy's Proposed Intra-Company Sale of the Harrison Power Plant was adopted by a 3 - 2 vote.

Thank you for supporting your citizens, Jefferson County Commission!

Potomac Edison customers are already familiar with the flat $5.00/month "customer fee" they are paying for fixed cost services such as distribution line maintenance, a customer care center to cheerfully answer their billing questions, and a staff of meter readers who will come to their home every 2 months to read their electric meters.  Potomac Edison has been collecting this $5 fee from every customer, every month, although the company has completely failed to actually provide the services, and has instead been pocketing the money to add a few pennies to the stockholder dividend.

Now the investor owned utilities and their trade association, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), have cooked up a new way to increase your monthly "customer fee," or to put in place huge new fees for new or departing customers.

A report issued by EEI back in January recognizes an emerging threat to the electric utility business model that will ultimately be its undoing.  Investor owned utilities are scared spitless and have been scrambling for ways to dig their hand into your pocket permanently.

Simply put, small scale renewable electricity generation developed at point of use is going to make the utility's centralized generation and transmission of electricity about as useful as teats on a bull.  Rooftop solar, battery storage, fuel cells, geothermal energy systems, wind, micro turbines, and electric vehicle enhanced storage are becoming what the industry calls "disruptive challenges."  A "disruptive challenge" is defined as “an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology. The term is used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically first by designing for a different set of consumers in the new market and later by lowering prices in the existing market.”  An example of this would be cell phones, which have made made traditional land line phones all but obsolete as technology marches relentlessly onward.  The report notes that it only took 10 years for cell phones and deregulation to destroy the telephone company business model.

The graphic on page 12 of the report tells the story at a glance.  Technology Innovation and Energy Efficiency combine to produce lost revenue for the company.  This requires the company to raise rates to continue to make money and pay stockholder dividends.  As rates rise, customers assess the cost of implementing additional energy efficiency or investing in their own point of use generation system against continued passive purchases from the company's centralized system.  As customers cut their usage or simply check out of the utility's system altogether, lost revenues result.  Back to square one.  It's a vicious cycle, and it's one the utility cannot win.

In order to survive, the utility industry needs to find new products and services that customers need in this brave, new, point of use renewables world, such as positioning themselves as solar leasing companies.  But that's only one of the options presented to investor owned utilities in EEI's report.  Much higher on the list are tactics such as:

1.    Instituting a monthly service charge to make sure that the company can continue to recover its fixed costs and investments, even when customers use less electricity.  Right now, these costs are being recovered through a cost of service rate scheme where customers pay a portion based on their share of system use (per kwh).  Switching these costs over to a monthly service charge allows the utility to collect a fixed cost for a service it does not provide, such as Potomac Edison's current $5/month service charge.

2.    Accelerate the recovery of investment.  In current ratemaking schemes, the cost of utility assets are recovered from customers over the asset's useful life (30 or more years).  This makes the monthly cost to each ratepayer very low.  But, because the utilities fear those customers may disappear before the asset is fully depreciated and paid for, it proposes to accelerate the repayment period and charge you much more each month.

3.    Institute a "stranded cost charge" for each customer who departs.  In that case, you would pay a big fee to stop your electric service.

4.      Institute a "customer advance in aid of construction" fee, which is nothing more than a big fee you would need to pay up front before starting electric service.  Unlike a security deposit however, this fee is not refundable when you move or stop taking service from the grid.

EEI advises its member utilities to begin putting these new regulatory structures in place in your state right now.  I advise you to oppose them.

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:

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 friend, 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...

On July 3, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission dismissed a complaint brought by Wisconsin-based citizen/consumer groups Citizens' Energy Task Force and Save Our Unique Lands against MISO, the Midwest Reliability Organization, and a long list of utilities.  You can read FERC's Order here.  The complaint alleged that a transmission line included in MISO's MTEP plan in 2008 violated reliability standards and would make the bulk electricity system unstable.

The Commission did not launch an investigation into the reliability of the MISO transmission system, and no testimony by an expert alleging reliability violations was submitted with the complaint.  Instead, FERC treated the complaint as an unsubstantiated allegation, upon which it is not required to act. 

FERC's dismissal was also based on the premise that the citizens are RTO/ISO stakeholders, and should have been participating in MISO's transmission planning process that approved the subject transmission line all the way back in 2008.  FERC gives great deference to the decisions of its regional transmission organizations.  If FERC started second guessing RTO/ISO decisions, it would be a never-ending spiral into micro-managing approval and siting of transmission projects, something FERC has no authority to do.

FERC's authority extends to ensuring that the regional transmission planning process is open and transparent. MISO (and other RTOs/ISOs) are complying with the spirit of FERC's Order No. 890 by theoretically making their planning process open to citizen participation.  If the citizens choose not to participate, they cannot complain about the process later.  Let's make an analogy here:  It's not okay to violate a law and then claim you were unaware of the law, so therefore you are innocent of breaking the law.

However, citizen "stakeholder" participation in the regional transmission planning process only works on paper (or in theory).  It doesn't translate to real life.  Regional transmission organizations are not consumer friendly.

An RTO/ISO is an association of manufacturers or suppliers (of electricity) with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition in order to promote their own self-interest.  Coincidentally, this is also the defined construct of a cartel.  Only members of the regional planning cartels are permitted to vote on inclusion of transmission projects in the regional plan.  Consumers can never legally be members entitled to vote.  Consumer participation is limited to attempts to convince the voting membership to see things differently and in what may not be the company's financial best interests (which is the functional equivalent of screaming into a pillow).  A consumer can never be a stakeholder with footing equal to that of an investor owned utility with a planned for-profit transmission project.

Here's why the "stakeholder" premise does not work for consumers:

1.    Most consumers are unaware that regional transmission organizations exist.  The RTO/ISO does nothing to foster understanding or recruit the interest and participation of consumers.

2.    The regional planning process is highly technical and incomprehensible to nearly every consumer.

3.    The regional planning process is time consuming and getting more so every day.  As recently reported in the former PJM Insider, PJM is hav­ing trou­ble pro­vid­ing enough facil­i­ta­tors to run meet­ings on the prob­lem state­ments (because there are too many of them).  Consumers don't have the kind of time necessary to participate as a fully-engaged stakeholder.

4.    State agencies tasked with protecting residential consumers are too underfunded and understaffed to effect meaningful stakeholder participation (see #3 above).

Therefore, consumers are not, and can never be, equal stakeholders, except on paper in FERC orders.

What's the solution? 

PJM states have formed The Consumer Advocates of PJM States (CAPS) group and have been recruiting for someone to serve as a PJM monitor/participant on their behalf.  While this is a step in the right direction, it still doesn't solve problems 1, 2 and 3 above.  The same majority of consumers who don't know regional transmission organizations exist also don't know that state consumer advocates exist (which makes their jobs thankless, sort of like wetting your pants in a dark suit -- it gives you a warm feeling, but no one notices).  We'll have to wait to see if this approach is effective.

There is no designated or funded consumer advocate on a federal level.  While consumers have state advocates to participate on their behalf, there is no federal counterpart to help with the regional or federal workload.  Congress has flirted with setting up a consumer advocate at FERC, but nothing has ever been accomplished.

Must the townsfolk storm the regional planning castle in huge numbers?  They'll probably come fully decked out with torches and pitchforks... and stakes, they'll be holding stakes that they intend to pound through the heart of the transmission building cartel beast that taxes, frustrates and confounds them.

Not a day goes by anymore without an email, phone call, or website comment from an unhappy Potomac Edison customer.  Yesterday, I found this in my email (and it's by far the funniest complaint I've heard to date!):

Just how hated must FirstEnergy/Potomac Edison be for sassy seniors like Martha to do something like this?  Do busy ladies usually pose with apes holding derogatory signs when they're happy?  I don't think so!

After reading FirstEnergy's response to the WV PSC's initial twelve General Investigation questions, I gotta admit, Martha has a point!  Among other spurious responses that I'm just not going to deal with here (Potomac Edison can figure this crap out on their own without my help this time), FirstEnergy assures the PSC that:

1.    There were only 420 complaints about billing/excessive estimates from 522,882 customers in 2013.  Only 420 customers were unhappy enough to complain to the company.

2.    Potomac Edison/Mon Power have 5 more meter service personnel now than they did back in 2011, before the Allegheny/FirstEnergy merger.

3.    Mon Power and PE obtain actual meter readings, in accordance with their tariffs, on a bi-monthly
basis.

4.    FirstEnergy believes that the short term integration issues have been remedied and that customer complaints should decline over the remaining part of 2013. FirstEnergy is continuing to investigate all customer complaints and proactively contacting customers with known concerns.  (How does a "concerned" customer make himself known?  Is there some special mental telepathy signal distressed customers emit that can be picked up by company equipment?)

5.    Customer satisfaction:  A combined 73% of WV customers rated FirstEnergy with 9 or 10 with 10 being the highest. (Scale is 1 to 10).

Say what??  73% of FirstEnergy's West Virginia customers give the company a 9 or 10?  Where are these folks?  I could stand on any sidewalk in Jefferson County and ask 10 people if they've had problems with their electric bill, and if all 10 of them don't say yes, the ones who haven't had a personal problem know someone else who has.  I think FirstEnergy needs some new customer satisfaction statistics.  Can you help them out?

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.

Chairman Albert's bias toward FirstEnergy is readily apparent.

Chairman Albert is not interested in helping West Virginians.

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

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!

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.

...and by the end of FirstEnergy's little inquisition before the Jefferson County Commission this morning, Sammy was looking a little gray.

The real Jefferson County small town community "family" turned out this morning to defend their community and their wallets against FirstEnergy's stuffed suits from elsewhere pushing the company's plan to increase rates by 6% to pay for the purchase of the Harrison power station.

First item on the Jefferson County Commission's agenda this morning was a presentation by Charlene Gilliam of FirstEnergy intended to provide the Commission with more information regarding the carried over agenda item known as "First Energy Resolution regarding opposing the "Intra-Sale" of Harrison Power Plant for possible adoption - Discussion/Action.  Charlene either wasn't prepared, or simply wasn't permitted, to present anything to the Commission because she never said a word.  Instead, Charlene's two corporate suit "daddies" (Charlie Friddle, Director, External Affairs at FirstEnergy Corp. and Sammy Gray, Manager State Affairs, WV, FirstEnergy Corp.) were clearly making a desperate attempt to bamboozle the Jefferson County Commission like they were an easily handled gaggle of insipid rubes.

However, before Charlie took the microphone to demonstrate his complete cluelessness about Jefferson County and its citizens, the public was allowed to make comment.  At least five people spoke against the Harrison plant transfer, and no one showed up to speak for it.  Also at issue was Potomac Edison's lack of concern for its customers in Jefferson County, and the sad fact that despite a whole lot of lip service from the company about how its merger with Allegheny Energy would provide benefit for West Virginians, and that we're all just one big, happy "family," customers have experienced nothing but insult and injury since the merger.  The community, and the Commission, is a long, long way from forgiving FirstEnergy for blowing off the Citizens' Public Hearing in Charles Town on May 22.

Charlie told the Commission that the invitation the company received only mentioned billing, and that billing is an individual issue that can't be solved at a group meeting.  Charlie also told the Commission that the company knew well before the May 22 hearing that the PSC would be opening an investigation.  Then he tried to point the finger at the PSC in order to take the heat off himself in a most juvenile manner -- "But the PSC didn't show up either!" *whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiineeeeeeeeeeeeeee*

Let's dissect this LIE.  The invitation mentioned both the billing AND Harrison transfer.  But FirstEnergy couldn't be bothered to send a representative to explain it to the community until a resolution from the Commission opposing the transfer was imminent?  FirstEnergy just doesn't give a crap about any of you unless you reach over and grab their hand that's worming its way into your pocket to steal you blind.  As well, revealing a customer's personal billing information publicly is okay when it suits FirstEnergy's purposes.  And finally, the PSC had emphatically stated that it would not open an investigation prior to the public hearing.  If the PSC was in cahoots with Potomac Edison attempting to head off an imminent investigation before the May 22 hearing, I'm sure we'd all like to hear more about that, Charlie.

Next, Charlie told the Commission that there wasn't enough time to explain all the facts to them and insinuated that they were too stupid to ever understand the transaction anyhow, and therefore, *pat, pat, on the head* go away and let the experts at the power company and the PSC handle the matter.  Charlie feels that FirstEnergy's PSC testimony proves that the transaction is needed.  (Did Charlie watch the same evidentiary hearing the rest of us did?  Because I saw FE's case and witnesses getting shredded).  Charlie basically told the Commission that it's up to the PSC to make a decision, and the Commission should mind their own business.  Last time I checked, West Virginia was still a democracy, and if Jefferson County has an opinion on a matter before the PSC, they are free to express it.  The PSC does not have to clear their decision with Jefferson County, so I'm really not sure what all the hoo-haw was about this morning.  Why did FirstEnergy waste all that time and money this morning trying to prevent a simple resolution from Jefferson County opposing their proposal before the PSC?  Have we lost sight of the prize, Charlie and Sammy?  News Flash!  Next week, I'm thinking of passing my own personal resolution against your plant transfer.  Why don't you three stooges come on over and we'll have a party?

Charlie informed the Commission that his company was "pursuing excellence through quality" and attempting to increase business and economic development.  Charlie assured the Commission that "everything has a cost" and proceeded to go on a crazed rant against energy efficiency programs in Ohio.  Yes, we know FirstEnergy has been trying to kill efficiency programs in Ohio, but why should we care?  Charlie said that Ohio consumers have been charged half a billion dollars for a 2.3% reduction in consumption and that energy efficiency is too expensive.*  The only problem is that nobody who spoke really belabored the fact that energy efficiency should be an important part of a properly prepared integrated resource plan, and is always the cheapest resource when compared to buying or building new generation. 

Charlie also called the Commission's attention to the handout he had given them before the meeting showing that West Virginia's electric rates are lower than those in surrounding states.  I'm not really sure how this bolstered his case that West Virginians should support unnecessary increases, such as the 6% increase this transfer will cause to their electric bills.  Charlie whined that nobody who spoke mentioned the 5% rate decrease that went into effect on January 1.  Would this be the same decrease that FirstEnergy proposed that the PSC not approve, and instead let the company keep as a promise payment on the Harrison scheme that had not yet been approved?  The 5% decrease only came about because the PSC turned down FirstEnergy's proposal to steal your 5% decrease.  That decrease, Charlie?

Charlie finished up by telling the Commission that lots of groups supported the Harrison sale, and so should they.  Charlie was proud to share that the WV Coal Association and Consol supported the proposal.  Just where in West Virginia did you think you were this morning, Charlie?  Brilliant!  I'm proud that our Commissioners were polite enough not to laugh in his face.

And then it was time for the Commission to ask FirstEnergy questions and make comment.  Every one of them chewed Charlie a new one for the company's failure to show up for the citizens' public hearing and complete and utter failure to address the billing and meter reading issues.  Commissioner Pellish went on a particularly vicious rant (although Pellish didn't bother to show up at the public hearing either!).  He called FirstEnergy's decision to blow off the hearing a "public relations disaster" and opined that "someone should have lost their job" for making that decision.  That's okay, Walt, I hear Sammy is a short-timer now anyhow...

Charlie finally admitted what I know a lot of you have been waiting to hear... "We blew it!"  But then he turned right around and started again with the computer system malfunction and storm excuses, which he characterized as "the perfect storm" for which the company should be held blameless.  Look, Charlie, this isn't a couple of teenaged geeks blowing up an old useless microsoft laptop in the garage, ooops!  This is the careless incompetence of one of the largest electric utilities in the country that has caused severe injury to its customers. OOOOPS!

So, let's get to the vote.  There wasn't one.  The resolution got tabled until the next meeting because some of the Commissioners still didn't have enough information to approve it as written.  The Commissioners will consider revisions to the resolution before trying again at the next meeting.

Charlie said that his frustrated little trio would be present at the next meeting, although when asked if they would be better prepared next time, he stomped off like he was mad or something.  Do have a nice trip back to wherever you drove in from and be sure to visit us in Jefferson County again soon, fellas!

*Addendum:  A friend of mine in Ohio has identified a verbatim match between Charlie's energy efficiency rant today and the April 2013 Testimony before the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee of Leila L. Vespoli, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, FirstEnergy, entitled "Revisiting Ohio’s Energy Efficiency Mandates":

"I’m sure your constituents would be surprised to learn that since 2009, Ohio’s electric customers have paid more than a half-billion dollars in monthly charges for energy efficiency programs. And so far, this mountain of customer charges has only achieved a 2.3 percent reduction in usage..."

This has got to be today's ultimate insult to the Jefferson County Commission.  FirstEnergy didn't even think enough of them to spend the time preparing an original presentation for today.  They just recycled old material and called it good enough.  No wonder it struck me as odd, disjointed and irrelevant.  Thanks for the heads up, D.!

There they go again.

AEP and FirstEnergy are back at it, engaged in another regulatory hair-pulling, wedgie-yanking, silly girl slapdown in Ohio.  The last time these two went at it like this, the public was treated to a remarkably unfocused and confused public relations campaign featuring front groups, high-priced lobbyists smoking cigars, and TV commercials about gigantic checks, scary cafeteria ladies and dodge ball.  This time I simply must demand a crying Indian!  First company to use the Indian in a commercial wins!

Read the story in the Columbus Dispatch:

It seems that FirstEnergy has managed to steal 49% of AEP's customers.  In response, AEP has required FirstEnergy (and other competitors) to provide collateral to meet credit requirements in the event that FirstEnergy goes belly up and AEP has to take over serving their former customers.  In retaliation, FirstEnergy has filed a complaint at the Public Utilities Commission, alleging that AEP is being unreasonable and is causing harm to FirstEnergy.

Of course FirstEnergy has no intention of playing well with others.  AEP is just now figuring this out?  Where ya been, AEP?

Anyhow, AEP has now launched a collateral attack by intervening very late in the game in PUCO's investigation of FirstEnergy's renewable energy credit ripoff.  It seems that FirstEnergy bought renewable energy credits from itself at outrageous prices, and then recovered these costs from consumers in Ohio, instead of paying a much cheaper fine for failure to buy the credits in the first place.  FirstEnergy's reasoning is suspected to be that the cost of buying the credits could be foisted off on ratepayers, while the cost of fines would be the shareholders' responsibility.  AEP makes another stunning realization in its brief:

What?  AEP is just now accusing FirstEnergy of unnecessary and obstructive claims of confidentiality?  Surely you jest, AEP?

While this bitch-slapping contest is fun to watch (and even more fun when accompanied by an advertising campaign) FirstEnergy has lately been finding that Karma is a cruel master.  Just last year, FirstEnergy was on top of the heap.  What a difference a year makes.  All that scheming and conniving seems to have caught up with FirstEnergy and the company is now caught in a spinning death spiral of increasing velocity.  Nothing is going FirstEnergy's way.  But that's not unexpected.  In addition to my services manipulating advertising campaigns in other states from afar, I also do a little fortune-telling on the side...with the help of my Magic 8 Ball.