StopPATH WV
  • News
  • StopPATH WV Blog
  • FAQ
  • Events
  • Fundraisers
  • Make a Donation
  • Landowner Resources
  • About PATH
  • Get Involved
  • Commercials
  • Links
  • About Us
  • Contact

NYT Mainstreams Consumer Grid Exodus

7/28/2013

3 Comments

 
The media's favorite, new energy story centers on how traditional utilities are panicking over the ever-shrinking pool of customers created by on-site renewable generation and energy efficiency.  Now the New York Times has also jumped on the bandwagon.  This is it utility friends, change or die!

The smart companies are finding new niche markets that will secure their longevity.  The stupid companies are wasting a whole bunch of money trying to lobby solar out of existence.  Do I have to start handing out  my own series of Utility Darwin Awards?

I'm so happy that the media has now picked up on something we wrote in June 2012.  In comments to the FERC, consumer groups put utilities on notice:

"Because transmission is such a long-term asset, we must be extremely mindful of how new projects relate to each other to achieve comprehensive energy policy goals. If we continue to approach transmission as a hodgepodge, knee-jerk reaction to serve short-term goals and provide sustainable revenue streams to investor-owned utilities, we risk setting ourselves up for a possible future where a huge investment in transmission becomes the financial responsibility of a shrinking pool of ratepayers. Technological advances and affordability are making it possible for an increasing number of consumers to produce their own power and feed it into the local distribution grid by making their own smart, fuel-free, power producing investments. Energy efficiency and demand management gains continue to shatter future demand projections, further decreasing the need for billions of dollars of investment in new transmission infrastructure."


It only took just over a year to get this observation mainstreamed into the pages of the New York Times.    Perhaps NYT isn't getting timely information while worshipping at the alter of for-profit utilities?
3 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

Clueless Blogger Silverstein Pretends He Knows What Consumers Want

7/17/2013

6 Comments

 
The arrogant energy industry and their paid media pimps continually pretend they know what consumers want.  They believe that if they write and publish enough lies that consumers will start to believe them.

Not.

Forbes "contributor" Ken Silverstein tells us that "Utilities would have an easier time building transmission lines if it were not for a feisty public, which generally feels that those ugly lines ought to be built somewhere else."

Really?  This guys bills himself as "editor-in-chief for Energy Central's EnergyBiz Insider. With a background in economics and public policy, I've spent two decades writing about the issues that touch the energy and financial sectors. My EnergyBiz column has twice been named Best Online Column by two different media organizations."  However, his NIMBY name calling merely showcases his complete ignorance of the dynamics of current transmission policy debate.  Is he really this clueless, or is he merely posturing for the crowd to parrot power company propaganda?

Let's take a look at just a few of the facts Silverstein gets wrong:

1.    "...the transmission grid is aging and it needs to be updated and expanded so that it can fulfill the needs of consumers — many of whom don’t want those unsightly lines near them."

WRONG!  The transmission grid was not designed to wheel energy from coast to coast to fill the pockets of greedy traders.  The industry is not spending enough capital "upgrading" for any real need, but has been banging its head against a brick wall attempting to "expand."  Let's look at just one example:  While PATH was shooting blanks attempting to get its new build project approved, Dominion slipped in and quietly punked AEP/FirstEnergy with the rebuild of an existing line that completely obviated the PATH project.

Consumer issues center on NEED and COST.  It's not about NIMBY anymore.  How loud do you suppose Silverstein would squeal if someone routed a transmission line through his own backyard?  Silverstein loves new transmission... as long as there's no personal sacrifice on his part involved and it's not in his backyard, therefore, Silverstein is the real NIMBY.

2.    "Inevitably, disputes emerge that typically center on the potential ecological harm that a given line may take. In other instances, the arguments are that the development is occurring in states that will not get the benefit of the added electricity, or that it would increase the usage of coal.

Such was the case when American Electric Power and FirstEnergy Corp. tried to build the so-called Potomac Appalachian Transmission High-Line, which would have stretched 275 miles from West Virginia into Maryland. The PJM Interconnection, which coordinates the transmission planning for the MidAtlantic states, has now withdrawn the project. It has done the same for Pepco Holding’s Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway, although both concepts could get resurrected once the economy is in full swing."


WRONG!  PJM cancelled the PATH project because it was not needed, not because of cost allocation, environmental or coal-related issues.  The opposition to PATH was ALWAYS based on the fact that the project was not needed. 

PATH and MAPP are not going to be "resurrected," and neither is an energy-wasting economy that increases energy demand.  Consumers in the PJM region are already on the hook for the quarter billion dollars wasted developing the unneeded PATH project, a project that will never provide consumers with any benefits.  None.  Zero.  PATH and MAPP were part of an industry money-making scheme named Project Mountaineer and were never needed for reliability or market efficiency.

3.    "While the concerns and the subsequent legal battles are well intended, they oftentimes perpetuate uncertainty. That is, investors are skeptical because they can make more money in alternative investments while the delays impede reliability. And if brownouts or rolling blackouts occur, the financial toll can mount."

WRONG! Brownouts and blackouts?  I haven't heard that kind of fear-mongering since PATH got shelved.  Get a grip, Silverstein.  You and I both know that is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.  Silverstein goes on about new transmission needed for renewables and then tosses in the blackouts invective?  Sorry, but the lights will not go out if renewables can't be transported coast-to-coast. 

Investors are salivating at the prospect of plunking their dollars into transmission investments making double-digit returns, despite the industry's "the sky is falling" whining.  As well, transmission projects can and do request formula rates and incentives that provide them with a continual return during the development and construction period.  There's absolutely no risk to transmission investors.  None.  Zero. 

Maybe Silverstein should do some research before he approaches a keyboard in the future.  There's plenty of information to be had on this website.  Maybe Silverstein could learn a few things about his topic here?  And maybe, just maybe, he might want to consult a consumer before writing more folderol about what they want.


6 Comments

PJM's New Transmission Feeding Frenzy

7/12/2013

4 Comments

 
The smartly renamed RTO Insider brings us word of a new feeding frenzy that has erupted at PJM: 
PJM’s first com­pet­i­tive trans­mis­sion project under FERC Order 1000 attracted pro­pos­als from five util­i­ties and three inde­pen­dent developers.

The pro­pos­als – to cor­rect sta­bil­ity issues at Arti­fi­cial Island, home of the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear plants, in Han­cocks Bridge N.J. – ranged from a new 230 kV line and sta­tion (esti­mated cost $54 mil­lion) to two new 500 kV lines (a pro­jected $1.5 bil­lion price tag).
Ever seen one of those TV clips where sharks go berserk feeding on the incapacitated corpse of a helpless animal?  The similarities are stunning.  Transmission builders are hungry, hungry, hungry for new projects where they can plunk down their "transmission spend" and spin the Wheel of Regional Cost Allocation and Incentive Returns to win big!

RTO Insider provides a run down of the proposals and a link to the July 10 PJM TEAC slide deck with more details and maps of each proposal (beginning on page 61).  I'm loving the way that RTO Insider makes the job of babysitting PJM so much easier for me!  No more random, inconvenient urges to go wade through PJM's webmaze to see what's new, and then going through all the trouble of running my find through the geek translator.  RTO Insider does all that for you!  Go get yourself a subscription now... because if you don't, I may know something you don't.

According to the RTO Insider's proposal list, all the proposals for Artificial Island include new transmission lines of various sizes.

It's just colorful lines on a map right now, isn't it?  It looks like someone at PJM had fun with their mouse and an RGB color chart, drawing proposed transmission lines across Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey.

Reality Check:  Each one of those lines runs through hundreds or thousands of backyards.  Real people, real property, real lives.  Will PJM spend any time contemplating the people whose way of life they are blithely sacrificing for the needs of others?  Will PJM consider the likelihood of opposition, environmental considerations, land values, or the welfare of affected individuals when choosing the winning proposal?  Will PJM notify the affected communities that there is a problem that needs to be solved by building new transmission lines in their area?  Will PJM consult with the communities to allow those possibly affected by the new project to weigh in on the proposal that is selected?

Of course not!  What do you think this is, a transparent democracy?  PJM will make its selection based on cost, or engineering, or other considerations (like which transmission company schmoozes best).  And then the winning bidder will begin planning their project and greasing the proper palms, carefully keeping their plans under wraps until they are ready to pull the rip cord and hold their public "open houses."  At that point, the transmission owner tells the people that the mysterious, unseen, regional transmission authority has ordered the company to build this project across the peoples' land and that there's nothing the transmission owner or the people can do about it.  The transmission owner's hands are tied and the peoples' fate is sealed!  What a load of crap!

These front-loaded fait accompli approaches never work.  The people will always want to backtrack to where the decision to build the transmission line was made in the first place.  They want to determine for themselves that there truly is no other option.  Meanwhile, the transmission owner pours buckets of ratepayer cash into astroturf front groups, dishonest TV commercials, smarmy land agents, political palm greasing, and celebrity spokeswhores, trying to convince the people, and ultimately the state regulators, that the project really is needed. 

There's got to be a better way.

Good luck with that, PJM.

Residents of Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey -- we'll get to know each other real soon, won't we?  *sigh*
4 Comments

And The Survey Says...

7/11/2013

3 Comments

 
A recent article in Greentech Media says that 76% of consumers don't trust their utility.  
Two years ago, Greentech Media asked if utilities could rebuild trust with customers. According to a recent study by Accenture, it appears that it hasn't happened yet.

Less than one-fourth of consumers trust their utility, 9 percent below last year and the lowest figure since Accenture began the annual survey four years ago. Globally, customer satisfaction also dropped 12 percentage points to 47 percent in the past year alone.
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?
The result is that people are increasingly looking past the utility for energy-related services. Home services providers, security companies and commercial retailers are all taking a piece of what could be new revenue streams for utilities. More than 70 percent of consumers surveyed by Accenture said they would consider a provider other than the utility for energy services if it were available.

“Utilities need to consider radically rethinking their customer satisfaction investments with a targeted approach to simplifying the consumer energy experience, addressing the concerns of dissatisfied consumers and closing the expectation gap,” said Greg Guthridge, managing director for Accenture Energy Consumer Services, in a statement. Increasingly, consumer engagement cannot just be a panel topic at smart grid conferences, but instead must become a core undertaking for utilities.
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.
In the next few years, utilities will not only have to build out those platforms while also maintaining and upgrading an aging electrical grid, but also do it all while providing a level of customer service many have never had to provide before.

“Many utilities are at an inflection point at which they should redefine their role in consumers’ lives and refocus on building a base of trust,” said Guthridge. “The first step is making interactions simple, and in particular, getting the basics right the first time."
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!
Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey , the world's leading questionnaire tool.
3 Comments

Jefferson County Commission Resolves to Oppose FirstEnergy's Harrison Plant Purchase Scheme

7/11/2013

7 Comments

 
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!
7 Comments

Potomac Edison Spokesman:  "We Blew It!"

6/27/2013

8 Comments

 
...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.!


8 Comments

TVA Having Second Thoughts About Importing Midwest Wind?

6/24/2013

1 Comment

 
The Tennessee Valley Authority, the government owned independent corporation that supplies electricity to 9 million people in parts of 7 states, signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Clean Line Energy way back in 2011.  The MOU obligated the TVA to "...continue to perform collaborative and/or independent technical wind integration studies to support identification and quantification of benefits to TVA from the Plains & Eastern Clean Line."  And Clean Line has been spinning it as government support for its project ever since, the same way the company has been spinning an agreement with DOE to study whether or not to "participate" in the project and abuse its federal eminent domain authority to take land for the private gain of Clean Line Energy as "support" for its project.  Clean Line has been overeager to encourage the misconception that the federal government backs their project in order to attempt to bully its opposition into submission.

Since the signing of the MOU with the TVA, Clean Line has cut the size of its Plains & Eastern Clean Line project in half.  And now another setback for the project seems to be in the works.

The TVA has announced the preparation of a new integrated resource plan, which is a plan developed to define the short and long term capacity additions (supply side) and demand side management programs that it will undertake to meet projected energy demands.

"TVA spokesman Duncan Mansfield said Friday the 2015 planning session is expected to begin in the fall and likely will last 18 months. Members of the advisory panel have not been selected yet, he said."


If TVA is planning to import Clean Line's 3500 MW of Midwest wind, it would be a big part of this plan, right?  Instead:

"Generally, the agency expects to back off coal and step up nuclear production. But nuclear increases will depend on whether regulators approve plans for new nuclear reactors for the Watts Bar and Bellefonte plants.

Other expected power demands will be met mostly by increased efficiency, Mansfield said.

"Right now, coal makes up about 40 percent of our power generation. That will come down to about one-third, and nuclear will come up to about 40 percent [by 2027]," Mansfield said.

The remaining 30 percent will come mainly from hydroelectric dams, natural gas, efficiency gains and -- to a much lesser degree -- solar and wind energy, Mansfield said."


Looks like Clean Line's puffery about TVA's "support" of  its project didn't fool the most important "stakeholder" of all, the TVA.

So now Clean Line has "...issued a request for information to wind farm owners in the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles to help gauge their demand for new high voltage transmission capacity to export power."  In other words, Clean Line is now looking to shore up its case with the TVA by collecting data, no matter how dubious, to show that Clean Line's wind energy will be price competitive with all those other resources TVA is intending to include in its plan. 

In keeping with what Skelly probably imagines is his look of "confidence" (that actually more closely resembles puckering up to kiss his project goodbye and have himself a good cry), the company continues to pretend that reality doesn't matter:

"TVA also recently announced that it will update its Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), a framework that specifies target levels for generation types to meet projected electric demand. Rapid developments in the electric sector prompted TVA to update its IRP sooner than expected to account for low natural gas prices, new regulations on coal, and the falling cost of wind and solar. TVA is just beginning its current IRP process, which is on schedule to be finalized by the end of 2014. As part of the IRP, TVA has committed to carry out a detailed review of renewable options. TVA’s recent efforts to incorporate more wind from outside its footprint suggest that it will continue to give low-cost renewable energy due consideration in its IRP. Clean Line expects wind energy from the Great Plains to be highly competitive in this consideration. Also encouraging is the fact that TVA invited Clean Line, along with wind generators and turbine manufacturers to provide data for the current effort. Information gathered from this RFI can help increase TVA’s confidence in additional wind purchases as viable options."

There's no guarantee that any of these wind resources will develop, or will develop at the price submitted in this information response.

"Clean Line acknowledges that none of the information provided by Respondents is binding and that it is provided solely for informational purposes."

So how can the aggregated "information" be verified?

"Clean Line will maintain the confidentiality of all submissions."

I suppose we should just trust Clean Line to be honest about information that can make or break the company?

"Clean Line acknowledges that pricing is indicative, not binding, and provided only for informational purposes."

Then what good is anything produced out of this silly exercise?

And which price do you suppose Clean Line is going to use:  the levelized price with or without the PTC (production tax credit -- taxpayer subsidies)?  Is Clean Line seriously expecting to make the case to TVA that its product is cheaper than other resources because it's being subsidized by taxpayers?

Clean Line is no charity.  It's a for profit enterprise financed by billionaires and a foreign corporation.  Its investors are going to make a bundle of money if Clean Line can glad-hand and hoodwink its way to project completion.  But every speculative venture has its tipping point where even the most patient investors have to cut their losses and fold.

Clean Line asks in its RFI:  Is there an increasing demand for transmission service from the wind resource area of the Oklahoma panhandle?

I think the most obvious answer is no.
1 Comment

FirstEnergy's Game of Truth or Consequences

6/19/2013

5 Comments

 
On February 25, 2011, Allegheny Energy was merged into and swallowed up by Ohio-based, investor owned utility, FirstEnergy.  As a result, the "Allegheny Power" dba company name West Virginia and Maryland customers had gotten used to ceased to exist.  FirstEnergy reverted the operating companies to their historical legal names.  Maryland and West Virginia's eastern panhandle became known as "Potomac Edison," which is a name old-timers may remember from the 1980s.  It's still the same company.  Nothing much has changed, except for the company's top management and profit goals.

Just two short months after the merger, Mark Clark, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, had this to say about the "benefits" of the merger to the company's shareholders during a May 3, 2011, earnings call with investment analysts:
Merger benefits increased significantly from '11 to '12 to '13. As I said, Gary's going to speak more to that, but this is the pretax earnings impact associated with those and you'll see that, that's in excess of $1 billion.

We're also targeting O&M reductions beyond the synergies of between $75 million and $175 million in 2012 and 2013. We expect asset sales in the range of $800 million to $900 million per year, and we expect to reduce debt by $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion over this time period.
Let's translate this out of "1% speak" and make it understandable.  The benefits of the merger were expected to provide shareholders with earnings in excess of $1B in the first 3 years after the merger.  The company was also looking to reduce its "O&M" between $75M and $175M.  O&M is the acronym for operations and maintenance expense.  Operations and maintenance expense is the company's cost of operating and maintaining their systems.  In the case of a regulated electric company, like Potomac Edison, this means expenses for things like maintaining their distribution lines, operating their customer service center, sending you monthly bills, and reading your electric meter in accordance with their legal obligations as a regulated utility in the state of West Virginia.  A regulated utility is permitted to recover its cost of service, plus a reasonable return on its investment, from its customers.  A utility's cost of service includes O&M expense. 

Now let's take a look at how this amount is recovered from you and why a reduction in the amount spent would be a benefit to shareholders and increase their earned dividend.  A utility recovers its fixed costs through its base rate.  Fixed costs are the costs that remain the same year after year, such as the company's investment in a power station like Harrison.  O&M is a fixed cost.  The amount Potomac Edison is collecting from all of you for O&M was set in its last rate base case in 2007.  A base rate case also sets the company's rate of return, the amount of interest it is permitted to collect from you on its fixed costs.  Potomac Edison's rate of return in West Virginia is 10.5%.  A company is not required to file base rate cases on a regular basis.  A company will do so when it can financially benefit from doing so.  The rate set in 2007 will continue to be collected until the company takes the initiative to file a new base rate case.  A new base rate case will trigger a new battle over the current 10.5% return, most likely setting it lower.

The utility is collecting a fixed amount from you to be used to operate and maintain its system.  If it doesn't spend all it collects in one month, it can set it aside to spend later.  Conversely, some months it must spend more than it collects.  It's supposed to roughly equal out eventually, however, there is no true up mechanism that ensures that the company actually spends every penny on actual O&M expenses.  If a company ends up with a positive O&M balance at the end of the quarter, it adds that amount to its profit (dividend).  Therefore, whatever Potomac Edison can save on operating and maintaining its system is a direct profit.

So, FirstEnergy's first order of business after the merger was to cut O&M to produce more profit from the combined business.  During a subsequent earnings call on February 29, 2012, Mark Clark had this to say:
...we continue to look for opportunities to reduce O&M. I just want to give you one, very quick example, of what we're doing on the O&M side.

We closed the transaction February 28 of last year. There are roughly 75 major applications that have to get integrated between the 2 companies. For some of the operating savings to occur, those systems have to be integrated. I'm pleased to say that our IT folks are basically going to integrate all of those applications in record time, and they'll make their cut-over shortly. They've had 5 test runs, so you'll see that some of the synergy has been accelerated and some of the synergies too, become, as we integrate our systems. And we're quite pleased with where we are. We'll continue to look for incremental costs. It's kind of our nature. But we're not going to do anything simply for a short-term benefit that puts the company at a longer-term risk. That's just not something we are going to do. Everything we are doing is to place FirstEnergy in the best possible forward position.
Right, Mark.  Don't do anything crazy like reorganize and cut your meter reading positions because something like that could have unforeseen consequences that squander Potomac Edison's community goodwill and put the company at a longer-term risk.  After all, an unhappy customer base could do something unexpected, like turn out in record numbers to oppose a proposed generation transfer that was planned as part of the company's strategy to "...expect asset sales in the range of $800 million to $900 million per year, and we expect to reduce debt by $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion over this time period."  Remember, you must always place FirstEnergy in the best possible forward position!

Fast forward another year.  The company's penny-pinching has reduced/reorganized its meter reading staff to less than half of its former level.  The company is still collecting the same amount of O&M, but now they're spending half the amount!  The extra gets added to the dividend to show the shareholders a profit.  Shareholders are the only ones who truly matter.  Its not about responsibly providing a needed service in a monopoly construct.  Because the company has reduced its staff by more than half, meters are only getting read less than half as often as they should.  This means that the company is relying on more estimates to calculate monthly bills.  Perhaps the company thinks that it can train its customers to read their own meters and call it in to the company, allowing for more accuracy while also maintaining the meter reading staff cuts.  But that's not what happens... oh, no.  Some customers simply refuse to do the job they are paying the company to do, and the inaccurate usage estimates continue to pile up.  You all know what happens when you add too many inaccurate numbers to an equation -- the answer becomes hopelessly skewed.  And that's exactly what has happened to customers' bills.  Depending on the number of actual v. estimated readings currently in the queue of averaged billings, bills can swing wildly from month to month, resulting in some customers receiving outrageous bills for thousands of dollars that they simply cannot pay.  Potomac Edison's customer service staff simply doesn't care.  Pay up or be cut off.  And then the service shut-offs begin...

And the community took action.


The WV PSC opened an investigation into the company's business practices on June 7.  The West Virginia legislature announced its own parallel, independent investigation of the company on June 13.

All of this stemmed from the cost of a very small staff of meter readers?  How much did they save?  How much does a meter reader cost?  Recently, Potomac Edison placed a help wanted ad on Craig's List for temporary meter readers.  Yes, Craig's List!  Always my first choice when job hunting...anyhow... I guess they're even too cheap to advertise in more mainstream venues, or perhaps they don't really intend to actually hire anyone.  They certainly don't intend to hire anyone to solve the problem long term, after the regulators quit breathing down their neck.  The fewer people who see the ad, the fewer applicants Potomac Edison has to blow off.  Potomac Edison is offering a starting wage of $12.31 per hour for a meter reader in Frederick, Maryland.  That's about $24K per year.  Frederick's average per capita income is $36K per year.  Compare the meter reader's salary with the recently approved annual compensation of FirstEnergy CEO Tony Alexander of $23M for 2013.

Meter reader:          $12.31/hr.
Tony Alexander:    $11,454.18/hr.

I think we've found the place where cuts can be made to place FirstEnergy in the best possible forward position.  More meter readers, less Tony Alexander.

But will the company turn a corner and put sincere effort into righting its wrongs?  Or will it continue to make excuses for its failure, and continue to lie to regulators and the community?  What's it going to be, FirstEnergy, truth or consequences?

Image courtesy of meme-master Joe Solomon.  Share it on Facebook and show your solidarity with other Potomac Edison/Mon Power/West Penn Power customers who are being victimized by this giant Ohio-based energy conglomerate!
5 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the Author

    Keryn Newman blogs here at StopPATH WV about energy issues, transmission policy, misguided regulation, our greedy energy companies and their corporate spin.
    In 2008, AEP & Allegheny Energy's PATH joint venture used their transmission line routing etch-a-sketch to draw a 765kV line across the street from her house. Oooops! And the rest is history.

    About
    StopPATH Blog

    StopPATH Blog began as a forum for information and opinion about the PATH transmission project.  The PATH project was abandoned in 2012, however, this blog was not.

    StopPATH Blog continues to bring you energy policy news and opinion from a consumer's point of view.  If it's sometimes snarky and oftentimes irreverent, just remember that the truth isn't pretty.  People come here because they want the truth, instead of the usual dreadful lies this industry continues to tell itself.  If you keep reading, I'll keep writing.


    Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
    Email me


    Search This Site

    Got something to say?  Submit your own opinion for publication.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    $$$$$$
    2023 PJM Transmission
    Aep Vs Firstenergy
    Arkansas
    Best Practices
    Best Practices
    Big Winds Big Lie
    Can Of Worms
    Carolinas
    Citizen Action
    Colorado
    Corporate Propaganda
    Data Centers
    Democracy Failures
    DOE Failure
    Emf
    Eminent Domain
    Events
    Ferc Action
    FERC Incentives Part Deux
    Ferc Transmission Noi
    Firstenergy Failure
    Good Ideas
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Land Agents
    Legislative Action
    Marketing To Mayberry
    MARL
    Missouri
    Mtstorm Doubs Rebuild
    Mtstormdoubs Rebuild
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    Newslinks
    NIETC
    Opinion
    Path Alternatives
    Path Failures
    Path Intimidation Attempts
    Pay To Play
    Potomac Edison Investigation
    Power Company Propaganda
    Psc Failure
    Rates
    Regulatory Capture
    Skelly Fail
    The Pjm Cartel
    Top Ten Clean Line Mistakes
    Transource
    Valley Link Transmission
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wind Catcher
    Wisconsin

Copyright 2010 StopPATH WV, Inc.