A long-anticipated decision was handed down late Monday afternoon granting a rehearing on the 160 ft. tall, 345 kV power lines that Southwestern Power Company (SWEPCO) insisted were needed for additional electricity. The power lines were to transmit electricity to other states, not Arkansas, and would transect Carroll County and Eureka Springs. The APSC wrote that insufficient evidence for need of the transmission line was presented.

“This is what we were looking for,” Pat Costner, director of Save the Ozarks, said. “We did a solid job. This is a first in Arkansas, no one has ever challenged these lines on basis of need and brought the project to a halt.”

“Considering all the evidence provided to date, the Arkansas Public Service Commission found that while some transmission development in the area appears warranted, the record is presently insufficient to determine: the need for the particular 345 kV project that has been proposed, whether that project is consistent with the public convenience and necessity, and whether the project represents an “acceptable adverse environmental impact, considering… the various alternatives, if any, and other pertinent considerations.” Accordingly, the Commission grants rehearing for consideration of additional evidence on the need for, and the potential environmental impact of, the proposed 345 kV project, The parties should provide additional testimony and more recent, comprehensive evidence on whether the proposed 345 kV project is needed, whether transmission requirements in the region might be met by alternative options, such as expanding, upgrading, or building lower capacity facilities, including 161 kV lines, and if not why not, the comparative costs associated with the options, the environmental impact of the options, and the long term sufficiency of the options.
“The Commission also grants rehearing for consideration of additional evidence on the routing of the proposed transmission line. The parties should provide additional evidence on SWEPCO’s proposed routes. If SWEPCO chooses to propose or modify a route, it should submit proof that all landowners have received the statutory notice.
“With regard to routing, the parties should provide evidence whether existing 161 kV lines could be upgraded or existing rights-of-way used or expanded so as to limit adverse environmental impacts.
“Because the Commission grants rehearing for consideration of additional evidence, the prior grant of the CECPN for Route 109 is vacated. Whether a CECPN for transmission facilities should be granted and, if so, along what route will be determined after consideration of all the evidence.”

I'm disturbed to see that you're regarding Lu Nelsen and Center for Rural Affairs as a primary source.  Center for Rural Affairs is not an intervenor in this project.  Center for Rural Affairs is a paid transmission advocate, through the RE-AMP program, it is paid to to promote transmission.

A CfRA Director also sits on the RE-AMP Steering Committee.   It's unfortunate that these facts are not included in your article -- this interest should be disclosed, because they are neither objective nor representing public interests or farmer interests.  If their paid advocacy was not disclosed to you, that's an even more significant problem.

Converting from bimonthly to monthly meter reading in the territory of both FirstEnergy operating companies in West Virginia will require a transition period that allows FirstEnergy time to procure additional  equipment, hire and train new meter readers and make any necessary changes to its billing platform. Therefore, the Commission will require that FirstEnergy implement monthly meter reading as quickly as possible, and no later than July 1, 2015. The Commission will monitor the transition as part of the adjustment to its metrics discussed below. The Commission will be watching for continued improvement and consistent performance. The handling of current annual read customers will also be discussed in the relevant section below. FirstEnergy should file amendments to the tariffs of each West Virginia operating company that provide for monthly meter reading and billing for residential customers. Finally, FirstEnergy may request to amend its filings in the pending general rate proceeding and provide evidence of the reasonable increase in the estimated cost of service.

FirstEnergy, the parent company of West Penn Power and the employer of 695 workers in the several local unions in the area, is engaged in a contract negotiating process right now.

As FirstEnergy moves to negotiate, it’s clear that they are fully invested in reforming the way that the former Allegheny Energy has done business and they are fully invested in bargaining for a contract that favors only one side.  The company is now proposing sweeping changes in every aspect of ‘work life’ for their union employees.

Previously employees in the bargaining unit were afforded the ability to work hard and be rewarded for that work.  These are men and women with families who have spent time in the classroom and they’ve spent countless hours learning and relearning safety procedure after safety procedure.  They’ve moved up from one job to another to secure the job they have now.  They have earned the privilege of seniority, providing the company with an extremely valuable experienced, safe and dedicated work staff. 

FirstEnergy would like to modify the job requirements effective immediately.  Employees who’ve worked hard to put themselves in positions with set schedules would be subject to working at the will of the company.   Jobs which have weekends and nights off now – jobs that these men and women have competed for – will be scheduled by shifts or even worse with no considered pre-planning.  Workers will be forced to work a 16 hour shift and told to not report the following day, with no predictability and not a dime of overtime pay, effectively eliminating their ability to plan quality time with their families and completely discounting the effort, time and planning that it’s taken these employees to put themselves in these positions.

I fully support the company’s right to efficiently and effective manage and schedule their staff.  They do have obligation to make the company profitable and provide a decent return on investment.  I do find it hard to believe that the best solution for all is to put the burden on the people who come to work, learn their job, put themselves in harm’s way and earn their wage in the field.  I believe, however, that it is the easiest way to do it and the way that is the least painful for the upper levels of management.  It’s the way that keeps their salaries intact.  It’s the way that does not force them to review efficient conduct of business logistics, from inefficient orders and computer systems that don’t make sense to a top heavy management structure. 

 I just don’t see how the public can continue to believe that the company tasked with keeping our lights on is continuing to act from any other motivation than management’s greed.

Added messaging informing customer as to payment options when an actual bill is received (after multiple estimates) if the bill is > 25% than the customer's prior year bill informing customers of some payment options at receipt of the bill reducing dissatisfaction with catch-up bills.

Electric utilities… are seen by many investors as a sturdy and defensive subset of the investment grade universe. Over the next few years, however, we believe that a confluence of declining cost trends in distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) power generation and residential-scale power storage is likely to disrupt the status quo. Based on our analysis, the cost of solar + storage for residential consumers of electricity is already competitive with the price of utility grid power in Hawaii. Of the other major markets, California could follow in 2017, New York and Arizona in 2018, and many other states soon after.

We believe that solar + storage could reconfigure the organization and regulation of the electric power business over the coming decade.

We believe that sector spreads should be wider to compensate for the potential risk of regulator missteps and/or a permanent change in the utility business model.

Whether because of biases or analytical complexity, the market (and its constituent prognosticators) has tended to be late in pricing technology-driven shifts, particularly in industries that have had stable operating models (such as telcos and airlines).