Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. --
US social anthropologist (1901 - 1978)
It appears that EUCI has knuckled under from citizen pressure and kicked Clean Line's executives off the speakers line up for its 8th Annual Public Participation for Transmission Siting Conference
scheduled for January 23-24, 2014 in Houston. Clean Line is also no longer sponsoring the conference.
The original agenda put together by Clean Line included offensive sessions entitled "Going BANANAS with NIMBYs - Best Practices in Dealing with Community Based Opposition Groups" and "Marketing to Mayberry: Communicating with Rural America."
The new agenda has been "cleansed" of Clean Line influence and the offensive sessions have been renamed "Best Practices in dealing with community based opposition groups" and "Communicating with rural America," dispensing with the offensive and cutsey-poo insults of transmission opposition groups.
But, does this make EUCI's continuing education conference any more useful? Probably not. It still more closely resembles a transmission industry echo chamber, where industry blowhards make crap up and feed it to the attendees as a successful example to follow. The truth is that "the public" continues to laugh at these idiots' attempts to "participate" with us to successfully site their projects. It's not about "participating" with the public at all... it's about sharing ideas for ways to lie and cheat the public in order to win project approval.
The only way to successfully "participate" with the public is to actually dirty your hands consorting with them, and EUCI isn't about to let THAT happen. Offhand, I can't think of a more useless conference for the industry. For the opposition, however, it's a fun opportunity, as protestors at a Missouri EUCI conference found out a couple months ago. See you there!
The PSC staff
, the Consumer Advocate
all filed testimony in the General Investigation of the company's billing and meter reading practices on Friday. While a satisfactory solution could possibly be cobbled together from the staff and consumer advocate testimony, they both overlooked the obvious.
The change in meter reader duties and the resulting employee exodus was a direct result of Allegheny Energy's merger with FirstEnergy. The computer system change was a direct result of the merger. The "renumbering" of meter reading routes was a direct result of the merger. None of these causes of (excuses for?) FirstEnergy's billing and meter reading failure would have happened but for the merger.
FirstEnergy told the WV PSC that "...the Merger would not have any adverse impact on Allegheny, the West Virginia customers of Mon Power and Potomac Edison, other public utilities in West Virginia, or the public in general, Rather, Joint Petitioners projected that the Merger would result in a stronger combined company and would benefit the public generally, the WV Subs, and Allegheny’s West Virginia customers."
This is reality: FirstEnergy's merger integration has caused great harm to hundreds of thousands of its West Virginia customers in the form of inaccurate bills. These bills resulted in financial hardships and service shutoffs. End of story. It is now FirstEnergy's financial responsibility to right its wrongs and make amends to its customers.
From the FirstEnergy merger settlement (not that any of these stipulations have been enforced by the PSC):
During the Merger integration process, FirstEnergy and Allegheny will review existing procedures and policies to determine “best practices” and how to implement them, ensuring that customer benefits appropriately outweigh the associated costs and considering any related effects on customer service and customer satisfaction levels.
FirstEnergy failed to "consider" the effects of its failure to read electric meters on customer satisfaction. Customers are so thoroughly disgusted with this company and its regulators that a mere slap on the wrist and promise to do better just aren't going to cut it.
The WV PSC staff fails to grasp the real causes and magnitude of the problem. The Consumer Advocate does better, but both of these regulators have only seen the tip of the iceberg. The failure to read electric meters has been going on since the fall of 2011, shortly after the merger. The high "catch up bill" complaints actually began in the spring of 2012, months before any "storms." "Storms" is just an excuse.
The staff also seems to fail to grasp that no matter which estimation routine is used, FirstEnergy's estimations will be inaccurate because they are based on inaccurate prior estimates. A weather-adjusted estimate based on garbage is still going to be garbage, no matter how much FirstEnergy or EPRI tweak it. No amount of mathematical tweaking can overcome a lack of accurate base data.
Although the staff seems content to wait and see if the inaccurate estimates trigger another billing charlie foxtrot this winter, I'm not. I'm going to start handing out staff's phone number because I've heard and seen enough. The inaccurate bills continue. Perhaps the WV PSC would rather let the legislators solve this problem through their own investigation and enactment of new legislation?
As well, none of the regulators seem to notice or care how FirstEnergy is fudging their monthly statistical reports.
And isn't it interesting that FirstEnergy keeps slipping down the slope toward reading every meter every month? Just last month, the company admitted that it had selected "several thousand" accounts for monthly reading. In its testimony filed Friday, the number of monthly read accounts has ballooned to 10,000. Give up, FirstEnergy: Every meter, every month, one year.
So, what can we do to cobble together something good out of the recommendations in the testimony?
- The Consumer Advocate recommends "...that the Companies increase their number of meter readers in order to perform actual reads every month for at least a year to obtain 12 months worth of actual reliable data for every customer. Once there is reliable customer usage data, it can be determined whether there are systemic problems with the new FE software estimation procedures that should be addressed." However, it should be stipulated that the company bears the financial responsibility for the monthly read expenses and that they shall not be recovered from customers nor included in any cost of service study for a future rate case.
- The Staff recommends "If a customer’s scheduled actual meter read is instead estimated for any reason other than demonstrable inclement weather or Federal or State Emergency Declaration, the customer shall receive a refund of the applicable customer charge for each month estimated usage occurs between utility performed actual meter readings. Applicable customer charge means the tariff customer charge for the customer’s class of service. For example, a residential customer receiving three (3) consecutive estimated meter readings would receive a $15 credit on his next actual bill." However this should be applied retroactively from the date of FirstEnergy's merger and refunded to customers to act as a punitive measure to mollify public anger.
That's it! Can we stop screwing around here and just get this over with? I'm pretty sure that FirstEnergy and its regulators have wasted way more time and money on this investigation than the company would have incurred to simply fix the problem months ago by reading meters every month. It's simply obvious.
Well, there they go again… the geniuses at FirstEnergy have devised another not so ingenious way to encourage you to pull their money-losing corporate keister out of the fire.
If you live in FirstEnergy's JCP&L or MetEd service territories, the company invites you to engage in some holiday excess that will put some excess cash in its own pocket. The company's "Merry & Bright"
Christmas lights contest invites you to create an electrical charlie foxtrot on your home and front yard that would put Clark Griswold
to shame and then "like" the company Facebook page
to enter a photo of your creation.
You could win a $250 gift card! I don't think the company accepts gift cards to pay your $250 Christmas lights extravaganza electric bill though.
Ho, Ho, Ho, Big Daddy Tony
needs a new Rolex for Christmas!
"It is clear that the Alliance will seek to make this process unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated before the board can even make its initial determination on whether the franchise should be granted," the company's lawyers conclude.
Let's take a look at who is making the process "unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated," shall we?
Each state has a different process for transmission line permitting. In Iowa, a hearing must be held if objections are filed, or when a petition involves the taking of property by eminent domain. The Alliance has helped lots of landowners file objections, therefore a hearing is guaranteed. Also, Iowa law requires informational meetings for landowners before they can be approached by RICL's land agents. But, because RICL will stretch across nearly 400 miles of Iowa, eminent domain will most likely be needed to secure easements. When a company files an application for its project, it must also state whether eminent domain will be sought. If so, the applicant must provide an "Exhibit E" with specific information on each property it expects to take by eminent domain, to include specific ownership, legal description, a map of the property showing buildings, electric lines, and other features, as well as the names of any tenants on the property.
Clean Line can't be bothered to spend this much time and money on each property it wants to acquire, so they have asked the IUB to bifurcate (separate) the franchise process into two separate proceedings. First, Clean Line wants the IUB to determine if its project is needed and serves a public purpose. That way Clean Line can try to keep affected landowners out of that part of the process. Only after that determination has been made would Clean Line bother to spend the money to provide "Exhibit E" information for eminent domain takings. Clean Line also states that an affirmative determination granting it the requested franchise would "put Clean Line in a better position" to spend the money. What they really mean is that it would put them into a better position to threaten landowners and tell them it's a done deal, hoping that would result in less eminent domain takings and less "Exhibit E" material.
Let's take a minute here to talk about Clean Line's "RSVP" for the initial public hearings. I'm not sure why the IUB let them get away with this, but landowner notice of the project and meetings included a superfluous "RSVP" for the meeting, and a "request for information." What kind of information does RICL want? "Exhibit E" info. it would have a hard time gathering on its own, the names of any tenants. This is the same info. it is whining about having to supply in order to apply for eminent domain.
Much to Clean Line's chagrin, however, the Alliance has some very smart attorneys who have filed a motion to resist the motion to bifurcate. First of all, they argue that a motion to bifurcate is premature until the actual application for the franchise is filed because it deprives any potential intervenors of due process to object to the bifurcation. They also note that Clean Line unsuccessfully lobbied for legislation to bifurcate the franchise process in 2011. What Clean Line was unsuccessful at legislatively, they are now trying to acquire through the IUB. They also point out how Clean Line intends to use any potential approval of the franchise before eminent domain proceedings to coerce landowners to voluntarily sign easement agreements.
Now, here's where it gets funny. Clean Line starts to squeal and whine. First, they want to limit the Alliance's participation in the case. I'm sure our friends in Kansas, who were denied due process by having their own participation limited by the KCC, will identify with this tactic:
Clean Line does not object to the Alliance's limited intervention at this stage; however, Clean Line reserves the right to request specific limitations be placed on such participation depending upon the participation of other parties who may have the same interest as the Alliance. Such limitations may include but shall not be limited to prohibiting the Alliance from preparing direct testimony, submitting exhibits or other evidence, or conducting cross examination of witnesses. If the Alliance seeks to "advance the mutual arguments of all its members" as stated in its Petition to Intervene, limiting its participation to briefing legal arguments will satisfy the Alliance's goal.
And then Clean Line starts whining
about how it got outsmarted by quoting information it harvested from the Alliance's website:
...the motive of the Alliance is clear: to make sure Clean Line does not build this transmission line. A recent statement
from the Alliance Board President Carolyn Sheridan to the Alliance members concisely details the strategy:
"From the Board President
Think about it: Imagine you're [Rock Island Clean Line ("RICL")] and you have to file all
this information about a parcel of land in a distant location: How much time would it take
you to learn the names and addresses of all persons with an ownership interest in the land?
How much work would it be for you to prepare a map showing the location of all electric
lines and supports within the proposed easement; and the location of and distance to any building w/in 1OOft. of the proposed line? A lot of work. Multiply that by hundreds; and
you have an idea of how important it is to the success of RICL's project that it obtains.
The more parcels upon which RICL has to do all this work, the less likely this project is to
succeed. Every parcel upon which it has to do all this work is one more shovel of dirt on
the grave of this RICL line. Join the opponents of the line. DO NOT sign an easemnts
[sic] with RICL.
Without bifurcation, it is clear that the Alliance will seek to make this process unnecessarily burdensome and overly complicated before the Board can even make its initial determination on whether the Franchise should be granted.
Umm... so? The Alliance is just using existing laws that were put in place to protect Iowa landowners from out-of-state speculators like Clean Line. If the process is "overly complicated" Clean Line ought to be taking its whining to the Iowa legislature, who made this law.
Clean Line also gives away another one of its strategies: to financially break the Alliance by requiring them to participate in two separate legal processes, hoping they'll run out money and determination somewhere along the way.
I really don't think Clean Line's strategy is working. It's only encouraging landowners to dig in even deeper and resist a voluntary easement. If Clean Line is going to be met with a brick wall in either case, why bother with two different hearings? That doesn't serve administrative efficiency.
And this about sums up Clean Line's little pity party:
The Alliance seeks to force Clean Line to waste time and resources, and consequently also the time and resources of the IUB, with the hope that Clean Line eventually gives
up on the project.
Well, if Clean Line wants to waste the time and resources of the people of Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Indiana, as well as regulatory boards in all these states, adjudicating and opposing its unneeded, speculative projects, I'd say Dr. Karma is making a long overdue house call to Clean Line headquarters!
Give up, Clean Line. You've been completely outsmarted by the people of Iowa!
See the following newslinks about Clean Line's public meetings in Iowa this week:
Clean Line's Beth Conley tells a BIG LIE in this story:
Landowners Skeptical of Wind Energy Transmission Line
"...other states to the east that have little wind power potential but a strong demand for clean, reliable energy." First of all, we have a better wind power resource 12 miles off the Atlantic coast, and furthermore, we are not "demanding" this project.
Clean Line Opponents Speak Out
Crowds Grow at Clean Line Public Meetings
Proposed Power Line Leaves Farmers Concerned
The faces and snarky comments from the anchor and reporter in this story are worth watching!
Details on Transmission Line Aired Out
Proposed Power Line Project Sparks Controversy in Northeast Iowa
Property owners sound off on Clean Line plan
Well, isn't this cozy?
FirstEnergy is "sponsoring" a 2014 Legislative Outlook luncheon, and charging the people $15 a head to come talk to their elected officials.
Sort of lets you know who's in charge, doesn't it? FirstEnergy pulls the strings and the legislators line up like trick ponies at the circus... a circus that you must pay to attend.
I got my Potomac Edison bill yesterday. I found out I'm not "special" because my bill was estimated. But that's not the half of it. My bill was overestimated by hundreds of kwh... again! So I had to make a phone call to ask for a correct re-billing... again.
My Happy Town guide was overjoyed to do the grunt work of recalculating my bill and doing whatever it is he does to instigate a re-billing. Aside from that, he was completely useless to provide any insight or assistance into the root problem that causes me to have to call and ask for a re-bill every other month, other than the suggestion that I read my own meter every other month and call it in before the estimated bill is calculated.
No. Just no.
He did admit that all Potomac Edison's estimated bills are wrong because it is based on last year's data that may be inaccurate. But he thinks that's okay because it will all even out the next time Potomac Edison comes to read my meter and issues me a correct bill.
But I did ask how much they were paying him that it doesn't matter in his own household if his utility bills fluctuate hundreds of dollars every month. Silence. Does he realize that seniors and people just barely hanging on month-to-month are on budgets and can't afford these monthly fluctuations caused by the fact that Potomac Edison hasn't been doing its job? More silence.
And then he had the audacity to ask if there was anything else he could do to "help" me.
Nope, this bi-monthly comedy routine makes me almost as giddy as a wagon full of puppies. :-)
Patience and I met two very delightful new friends today. Hyosil Kim, a reporter for Korean newspaper The Hankyoreh
, and her translator Brian Kim, spent the day with us touring Jefferson County and learning about PATH's spectacular, flaming failure to get its transmission project sited and permitted.
PATH's failure is interesting to the people of South Korea because they are engaged in their own furious battle with transmission developer Kepco over a 765kV line intended to export nuclear power out of the country.
The concept of social justice is being debated in Korea, just as it is here. Why should any person have to sacrifice their home and well-being to serve the energy or environmental needs of others?
We took a fond trip down memory lane with many of our fellow PATH opponents during our tour of PATH's proposed route, recalling funny and touching moments during our successful David v. Goliath struggle to take control of our own energy future.
You'll be happy to know that the story of The Coalition for Reliable Power is just as funny when translated into Korean!
The message Hyosil will take back to Korea is encouragement for the people to persevere and refuse to give up!
We'll be posting a link to Hyosil's story here when it's written...
The WV PSC issued an Order
today setting an evidentiary hearing for December 17 - 19 on its General Investigation into meter reading, billing and customer service practices.
An evidentiary hearing will allow interested parties to intervene, file testimony and cross examine witnesses. At the end of the process, the PSC will order remedies, if it determines that any are necessary.
The Commission has set a deadline of November 27 for petitions to intervene in the case.
In addition, FirstEnergy filed its response to the PSC Staff's recommendations.
FirstEnergy is now admitting that maybe we're right. It's the legal equivalent of being "a little pregnant," I suppose.
...the Companies identified accounts in the Potomac Edison and Mon Power territories that we deemed necessary for reading on a monthly basis through at least January 2014 in order to help address the situation. If the Companies are unable to obtain an actual reading for those accounts during that period, the billing department is reviewing the history to manually determine an estimate. If a manual estimate cannot be calculated or other problems are discovered, the account is escalated to a Meter Reading supervisor.
How do you suppose these accounts were "identified?" In its monthly statistical filing
, FirstEnergy states that there are only "several thousand" problem accounts (out of more than 500,000). I guess that must mean I've heard from every one of those customers over the past year and a half because I'm sure they didn't leave out any of the people who've told me their billing horror story.
After last month's review of accounts with multiple estimates during last year's storms and winter heating season, we have identified several thousand customer accounts for special handling. This is a proactive attempt to mitigate compounding issues from a year ago. These accounts will be downloaded for reading on a monthly basis starting November through January 2014. These accounts also have a hold placed OR billing to first allow for an internal review if an actual read cannot be obtained. The review includes a billing representative's analysis of last year's estimation through the winter heating period to manually determine an estimate. If a manual estimate cannot be calculated or other problems are discovered the account is escalated to the Meter Reading supervisor for further handling.
So, are you "special?" FirstEnergy still hasn't gotten it right. We are ALL "special."
How much money is this company going to waste on uninspired, half-assed "fixes" and denial of the problem? Will they end up spending MORE than it would have cost to just do it right in the first place?
I just had to click that link on my facebook feed yesterday. After months of trying to ignore the PJM Market Monitor's State of the Market Reports because it's like being sucked into an alternative universe and it makes my brain hurt, I saw a link to this
DOH! It’s worth it just for this sentence:
"Markets do not automatically provide competitive and efficient outcomes."
Here it is, with the full all-in-one option or separate sections:
3Q PJM State of the Market Report Page
Here’s the full version: 2013 3Q PJM State of the Market Report
And the short version, oh, how I love it when this happens:
"The market design should permit market prices to reflect underlying supply and demand fundamentals. Significant factors that result in capacity market prices failing to reflect fundamentals should be addressed, including better LDA definitions, the effectiveness of the transmission interconnection queueprocess, the 2.5 percent reduction in demand that suppresses market prices, the continued inclusion of inferior demand side products that also suppress market prices and the role of imports."
Got that: … the 2.5 percent reduction in demand that suppresses market prices…
Gee, sounds like we ought to pay to build some more power plants and transmission lines…
Okay, you got me, Carol. I clicked.... and soon found myself poking through the entire multi-volume set and reaching for my Magic 8 Ball translator.
Here's where I went first: Section 12, Planning
Blah, blah, generation queue, backbone transmission, blah, blah *screech*
The goal of PJM market design should be to enhance competition and to ensure that competition is the driver for all the key elements of PJM markets. But transmission investments have not been fully incorporated into competitive markets. The construction of new transmission facilities has significant impacts on energy and capacity markets. But when generating units retire, there is no market mechanism in place that would require direct competition between transmission and generation to meet loads in that area. In addition, despite Order No. 1000, there is not yet a robust mechanism to permit competition among transmission developers to build transmission projects.4 The addition of a planned transmission project changes the parameters of the capacity auction for the area, changes the amount of capacity needed in the area, changes the capacity market supply and demand fundamentals in the area and effectively forestalls the ability of generation to compete. There is no mechanism to permit a direct comparison, let alone competition, between transmission and generation alternatives. There is no evaluation of whether the generation or transmission alternative is less costly or who bears the risks associated with each alternative. Creating such a mechanism should be a goal of PJM market design.
Well, hot damn! Someone's been paying attention! But wait... the following paragraph indicates that the MMU's "solution" may just tip the scales toward imported transmission:
The PJM queue evaluation process needs to be enhanced to ensure that barriers to competition are not created. There appears to be a substantial amount of non-viable MW in the queues, which increase interconnection costs for projects behind them. The MMU recommends the establishment of a PJM review process to ensure that projects are removed from the queue, if they are not viable.
Perhaps this plan is intended to clear the way for viable generation in the queue to come online, but maybe its actually clearing the way for merchant transmission from other regions
, which acts as a generator at the interconnection point.
Big, mean frowny face! And he's serious, after helping to kill new generation in Maryland and New Jersey? So, let's go back to Carol's favorite quote: "Markets do not automatically provide competitive and efficient outcomes."
That's right! Because we need a "market monitor" to artificially adjust the markets to fit a pre-determined pecuniary outcome.
And the next little point to ponder comes here: Section 8, Environmental and Renewables.
Most interesting are the graphs near the end showing real time wind and solar generation by month. The graphs show that wind generation peaks late at night in winter months, when we don't need it. Solar, on the other hand, peaks in the middle of the day during the hottest months of the year.
I'm not even going to bother to search for the MMU's recommendation on that because it probably urges us to build more transmission lines to import wind for summer peak, instead of what would be logically obvious to a normal person -- to take advantage of on-site solar resources to reduce peak usage. How many roofs could we cover with solar panels for the cost of just one of these "clean" transmission line monsters? And why are the people who are supposedly served by all this market monitoring mumbo-jumbo disenfranchised from having any say in their own energy future?
Do the people at FirstEnergy ever have an original idea? Or do they run their company based mostly on ideas they find on my blogs? If that's the case, I suggest that FirstEnergy self report its transgressions to every jurisdictional regulatory agency and try to make amends for all the funny accounting and other dishonest ways it has made money off the backs of struggling electric consumers.
I didn't go out looking to take issue with FirstEnergy's billing scam. In fact, I tried to ignore it, or find someone else who wanted to lead the charge, for nearly a year before I just gave up and added it to an already rather full plate of power company shenanigans. I don't call or email people asking them to take issue with what FirstEnergy does to its customers. But when people contact me about how FirstEnergy has hurt them, I will listen and try to help them to the best of my ability. FirstEnergy ought to try it... an honest effort to help people.
So, tonight a friend messages me to tell me he got a "billing tutorial" in his electric bill. This isn't a surprise. I've been waiting for it ever since we announced community meetings with an electric billing tutorial presentation. I knew that would drive my FirstEnergy friends crazy. Kind of like locking them in a round room and telling them there's a penny in the corner. But, really, I expected them to cobble something together before the PSC public comment hearings. Don't you think FirstEnergy's billing tutorial should have been an appropriate part of the company's presentation at the hearings? Customers might have found it useful, at least more useful than that sorry litany of excuses they got instead.
Because I expected FirstEnergy to be a little copy cat, I purposefully did not put our tutorial online until after the public comment hearings. No matter, FirstEnergy managed to download it as soon as it was available and combine it with other advice we had for their customers to pretend it was all their idea. What a bunch of posers!
So, how did FirstEnergy do with their tutorial? Do you know what your electric rate is and how it is calculated to arrive at the amount you must pay? No, it's just more confusing crap that does nothing to create customer understanding.
From Meters to the Mailroom
A lot of effort goes into creating your monthly bill, and our goal is to make it as accurate and easy to understand as possible. From meter reading to the mailroom, everything needs to operate effectively to deliver your bill.
The process begins with our meter readers who attempt to read your meter every other month. On the months that your meter is not read, your bill is estimated, which typically is based on daily usage from the same period during the prior year. Any difference between your estimated usage and actual usage is automatically adjusted the next time your meter is read.
After the reading is obtained, it is entered into our computer system, which compares your reading with previous readings. If it is outside of the expected usage, the reading is flagged for closer examination by our Customer Accounting associates. Inaccurate estimated readings either are adjusted, or we obtain another reading. Finally, the bill is calculated and sent to you.
We provide electricity to millions of customers and strive to deliver accurate bills every month. However, if you feel you’ve received a bill that is not accurate, you can read your meter and compare that reading with the one on your bill. For more information, visit www.firstenergycorp.com/aboutyourbill, or call our customer contact center – Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
FirstEnergy's goal is to make your bill accurate and understandable? In that case, they get a big FAIL. If they had been meeting their goal, there would have been no need for my billing tutorial. FirstEnergy "attempts" to read your meter every other month. In that case, should we all "attempt" to pay them every month? Your estimated bill is based on your usage from the same period last year, when the company failed to read your meter. This means that your usage from last year is inaccurate. You know what happens when you estimate based on inaccurate data? The estimate is inaccurate, of course! If FirstEnergy is flagging bills "outside of the expected usage" and the expected usage is inaccurate, then that means they will only flag a bill that is accurate? This does not prevent an inaccurate bill from being sent to you. FirstEnergy calculates your bill -- in some mysterious way that you don't understand and can't replicate at home. You have no idea how your bill is calculated and FirstEnergy isn't going to tell you in their billing tutorial. You're just supposed to trust that their "calculation" is correct?
But, if your bill is not accurate, you should do what I've been advising you to do with every estimated bill you've received for the last several months -- go read your own meter and compare it to the amount billed. FirstEnergy's tutorial stops here. What are people supposed to do after they read their meter and compare it to their inaccurate bill, FirstEnergy? Just go ahead and pay it? The rest of my advice tells the customer to call FirstEnergy and ask for an accurate re-billing when they discover a discrepancy.
FirstEnergy's meter reading tutorial is even worse. Not only is it bogged down with unneeded, tedious detail, it provides senseless instruction that a meter must be read from right to left. Why? Won't the numbers be the same if read from left to right? It's not like a math problem where numbers are carried over from one dial to the next. It's a number. Instead of encouraging customers to read their meters, FirstEnergy's explanation only confuses them further.
Some days it's harder than normal to resist the urge to post completely bogus information on my blog just to see it blow up in FirstEnergy's face when they attempt to use it. Instead, I amuse myself thinking about a gigantic corporation making decisions based on my blog. Idiots.