Category:

Reason for Potomac Edison meter reading and billing failure finally revealed!

4/24/2013

It's all Todd's fault!

According to a news story filmed yesterday by WHAG:

Potomac Edison is also renumbering work routes; meaning meter-readers will work in close proximity.

"That way if I finish my route, I can come over and help you finish your route. That should help prevent some estimates on the back-end of your route, where we couldn't get to a customer," says Todd Meyers, Potomac Edison spokesperson.

Well, color me steamed! I invited Todd to come read my meter last year, and he still hasn't "finished his route" and arrived to do his job.

If you haven't seen Todd at your house either, be sure to contact him and let him know you need him to finish his route:

Todd Meyers
Maryland – Potomac Edison
West Virginia – Mon Power, Potomac Edison
Pennsylvania – West Penn Power
(724) 838-6650
email: [email protected]

What does Todd mean "help me finish my route?" I don't have a route! Is Todd insinuating that I should be reading my own meter from now on, aka "my route?" But that's what I'm paying you to do, Todd!

I'm also paying you to trim trees and maintain your equipment. That's not news. And sadly, yesterday's little drama was just that -- a play staged for the media. Oh, look at us working today! Big stinkin' deal! This hole is much, much deeper than Potomac Edison thinks.

So, what has Todd been doing with the money we've been paying him for years? Todd has a lot to answer for. This is all Todd's fault! Go ahead, give him a call!

10 Comments

"Tensions Mount" Over Widespread FirstEnergy "Potomac Edison" Billing Errors

4/19/2013

0 Comments

Ut-oh, FirstEnergy. UT-OHHHHHHH!

If I wasn't buried under a mound of your paper, I might have more to say right now, but I did NOT say the quote attributed to me in the article.

The big, uncaring, faceless corporation really ought to be ashamed of itself for the effect it is having on ordinary people who have been surprised with outrageous, inaccurate bills over the past year.

More to come...

0 Comments

Maryland Public Service Commission Opens Official Investigation into Potomac Edison Meter Reading and Billing Practices

4/12/2013

0 Comments

On April 9, 2013, the Maryland Public Service Commission opened an official investigation into FirstEnergy subsidiary Potomac Edison's meter reading, usage estimation and billing practices.

The Commission hereby initiates an investigation into PE’s meter reading frequency, estimation of bills, and compliance with its Tariff, and delegates this matter to the Public Utility Law Judge Division (“PULJD”) for appropriate proceedings.
The investigation into PE’s meter reading frequency, estimation of bills, and compliance with its Tariff is not limited to the Tufts and Sugarloaf Conservancy Complaints; the PULJD shall determine the full scope of the investigation, and designate additional issues as appropriate. The PULJD shall notify the parties, including the Office of People’s Counsel, of the date and time of a scheduling conference at which deadlines are to be set for, inter alia, PE’s production of documents. The Commission hereby initiates an investigation into PE’s meter reading frequency, estimation of bills, and compliance with its Tariff, and delegates this matter to the Public Utility Law Judge Division (“PULJD”) for appropriate proceedings.
The investigation into PE’s meter reading frequency, estimation of bills, and compliance with its Tariff is not limited to the Tufts and Sugarloaf Conservancy Complaints; the PULJD shall determine the full scope of the investigation, and designate additional issues as appropriate. The PULJD shall notify the parties, including the Office of People’s Counsel, of the date and time of a scheduling conference at which deadlines are to be set for, inter alia, PE’s production of documents.

The MD-PSC is responding to the complaints of Mr. Richard Tufts and Sugarloaf Conservancy that were filed last year. It looks like the PSC has heard its consumers loud and clear and has had enough of Potomac Edison's comedy of errors excuses. Nobody is buying Potomac Edison's lies any more.

I've been circling round this issue in my spare time looking for the company's motivation for this continual incompetence, which coincided with the Allegheny Energy/FirstEnergy merger. What's in it for FirstEnergy?

Potomac Edison's response to Mr. Tufts' complaint finally explains the game.

For more than thirty years, Potomac Edison's Maryland tariffs have provided that the
Company will read most meters every two months. This practice saves customers money, because fewer meter readers need to be used. For example, in Potomac Edison's last rate case in 1994, the expense filed for meter reading was just under $1.3 million for meter reading; if meters were going to be read every month, that requirement would have had to be significantly higher.

Footnote: In fact, even with reading every two months instead of monthly, the Company was spending $2.0 million on meter reading (even without taking into consideration the new hires and other recent measures discussed elsewhere in this response), substantially more than is collected in rates for this function.

Potomac Edison has been losing money on its meter reading function to the tune of $700,000 per year. This could be easily remedied by filing a new rate case with the Maryland PSC to collect this difference. However, the filing of a new rate case could also cause Potomac Edison to lose substantially more than $700,000 per year by setting a new rate of return for the company. The rate of return that the company is allowed to earn on fixed costs in Maryland is currently set at 11.9%, and is the second highest ROE in FirstEnergy's distribution affiliate stable. If Potomac Edison filed a new rate case, the ROE would be updated and adjusted to today's financial realities. It is in FirstEnergy's financial interest to continue to collect rates set in the 1993/1994 settlement. If it were not, the company would file a new rate case. It has not done so.

The annual loss on meter reading expense compared to the risk to ROE stemming from a new rate case was a loss Allegheny Energy was willing to accept. But when Allegheny Energy merged with FirstEnergy, apparently that was no longer true. FirstEnergy wanted the best of both worlds -- collection of the full amount of meter reading costs AND the 1993/94 rate case ROE. But because FirstEnergy couldn't collect more for meter reading AND maintain an 11.9% ROE, FirstEnergy opted to simply cut the cost of meter reading by slimming down their meter reading staff and not performing scheduled meter readings required by law. If Potomac Edison cut their meter reading expense to match the amount they were collecting, the loss would stop and the company could keep its 11.9% ROE, having its cake and eating it too!

But now it appears the game is up. If I were the Maryland PSC, I would require Potomac Edison to issue a refund to customers amounting to the difference between what Potomac Edison spent and what it would have cost to perform meter readings as required by law (around $700K per year, according to Potomac Edison.) And then, as a punitive measure, I would make them file a new rate case. :-) How about it, FirstEnergy?

FirstEnergy has also been pulling the same stunt in other states in which it operates. West Virginia's ROE is 10.5% and was set in 2007. Pennsylvania's ROE is 11.5% set in 1994. These jurisdictions are where FirstEnergy affiliates have also been failing to read meters. Coincidence? I think not.

West Virginia legislators are not happy with Potomac Edison's excuses. Could an investigation by the West Virginia PSC also be on the horizon?

0 Comments

US Dept. of Energy Misuses Eminent Domain Authority For Clean Line's Private Land Grab

4/10/2013

20 Comments

The authority to site and permit high-voltage transmission lines has historically rested with the states. However, the federal government has been trying to wrest this authority from the states for years.

The states consider local need and issues when evaluating a project. Affected stakeholders are afforded due process to participate in the debate at the state level. Occasionally, a state will deny an application for a transmission project that provides no benefit to the state. The feds, and the investor owned utilities who relentlessly lobby them, want to remove consideration of new transmission projects to Washington, DC, where due process will be smothered by national policy goals.

But it hasn't been smooth sailing for the feds. Congress has repeatedly declined to federalize transmission permitting and siting, preferring to leave authority with the states. But the feds and the utility lobbyists have found other ways to try to gain what they haven't been granted by Congress.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 hid a few little wormholes for the feds to override states and claim eminent domain to site transmission under certain conditions. One was Section 1221, the creation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors and backstop siting authority for FERC to site transmission in these corridors in the event a state failed to act. That section has been neutralized by the courts.

But, a second federal eminent domain tool that has not yet attracted much attention is about to be deployed through Section 1222, Third-Party Finance, in order to execute one of the worse abuses of federal eminent domain authority in history. Section 1222 provides:

The Secretary, acting through WAPA or SWPA, or both, may design, develop, construct, operate, maintain, or own, or participate with other entities in designing, developing, constructing, operating, maintaining, or owning, a new electric power transmission facility and related facilities (“Project”) located within any State in which WAPA or SWPA operates if the Secretary, in consultation with the applicable Administrator, determines that the proposed Project--
(1)(A) is located in an area designated under section 216(a) of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 824p(a)] and will reduce congestion of electric transmission in interstate commerce; or
(B) is necessary to accommodate an actual or projected increase in demand for electric transmission capacity;
(2) is consistent with--
(A) transmission needs identified, in a transmission expansion plan or otherwise, by the appropriate Transmission Organization (as defined in the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.]) if any, or approved regional reliability organization; and
(B) efficient and reliable operation of the transmission grid;
(3) will be operated in conformance with prudent utility practice;
(4) will be operated by, or in conformance with the rules of, the appropriate (A) Transmission Organization, if any, or (B) if such an organization does not exist, regional reliability organization; and
(5) will not duplicate the functions of existing transmission facilities or proposed facilities which are the subject of ongoing or approved siting and related permitting proceedings.

WAPA and SWPA are federal power marketing agencies set up to sell and deliver hydropower across central, western and southern states. WAPA and SWPA, as federal agencies, are endowed with federal eminent domain authority to take private property for use in their systems. Doesn't sound so bad, does it? However, Section 1222 allows the Secretary of Energy to utilize WAPA's & SWPA's eminent domain authority for benefit of third-party projects in the agencies' territories that are not connected or necessary to their systems. And this is where the slippery slope starts, friends. Congress tried to prevent this kind of bad behavior by including qualifying standards for third-party projects, such as being approved in a regional transmission plan or equivalent, which would prevent duplication of projects, and requiring a finding of increased demand necessitating such a project. Congress also put a cap on the amount of money WAPA and SWPA could accept from third parties.

(g) Maximum funding amount
The Secretary shall not accept and use more than $100,000,000 under subsection (c)(1) for the period encompassing fiscal years 2006 through 2015.

And Congress also stipulated that Section 1222 could not override existing state laws.

d) Relationship to other laws
Nothing in this section affects any requirement of--
(1) any Federal environmental law, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(2) any Federal or State law relating to the siting of energy facilities; or
(3) any existing authorizing statutes.

But, personal relationships between DOE personnel and leadership of a private, for-profit corporation made things just so cozy that an RFP for Sec. 1222 projects was issued in 2010 that coincided with the development of this company's long-haul HVDC projects.

Jimmy Glotfelty – Executive Vice President of Clean Line Energy Partners
Mr. Glotfelty brings a wealth of public and private sector transmission experience to Clean Line. He is a well-known expert in electric transmission and distribution, generation, energy policy and energy
security. He most recently held the position of Vice President, Energy Markets, for ICF Consulting. Mr. Glotfelty served in the US Department of Energy where he was the Founder and Director of the Office
of Electric Transmission and Distribution, a $100 million per year electricity transmission and distribution research and development program. Mr. Glotfelty also was the lead US representative to
the joint US-Canadian Power System Outage Task Force investigating the Blackout of August 2003.
While at the Department of Energy, Mr. Glotfelty worked extensively with utility chief executive officers and senior management in the electric power and energy sectors. He led teams that focused on researching transmission and distribution technologies, gaining Presidential permits for cross-border transmission lines, studying the impacts of Regional Transmission Organizations, identifying major transmission bottlenecks, and securing the critical energy infrastructure of the United States.

And the next thing you know, Clean Line Energy Partners became the first and only transmission developer to respond to DOE's RFP for third-party financed projects under Sec. 1222. Clean Line submitted a voluminous application for its Plains & Eastern Clean Line merchant transmission project in July 2010. In its application, Clean Line made it clear that its only interest in participating under Sec. 1222 was the ability to have SWPA condemn land for its project:

DOE and Southwestern understand and agree that their ability to acquire through condemnation proceedings property necessary for the development, construction and operation of the Project is one of the primary reasons for Clean Line’s interest in developing the Project with DOE and Southwestern and through the use of EPAct 2005 section 1222.
DOE and Southwestern agree that, if the Secretary of Energy ultimately decides upon the conclusion of such evaluation as DOE and Southwestern deem appropriate that (i) the Project complies with section 1222, and (ii) to participate in the Project’s development pursuant to section 1222, then, DOE and Southwestern will use their condemnation authority as may be necessary and appropriate for the timely, cost-effective and commercially reasonable development, construction and operation of the Project.

Clean Line Energy Partners is a privately held company owned by Michael Zilkha and ZAM Ventures that is proposing to build four HVDC merchant transmission projects originating in the midwest. A merchant transmission project is a for-profit venture that is paid for entirely by its owner. In exchange for investing billions, Clean Line's super-rich owners will earn a hefty return on their capital by selling transmission capacity on the transmission lines to both generators and load serving entities. Merchant transmission projects are speculative ventures that are proposed and built outside the regulated regional transmission planning process. Merchant lines proposed outside a planning process have not been determined to be needed by anyone other than their owners. If a transmission project is needed for reliability, economic or public policy reasons, it is approved by and included in the plan of a regional transmission operator. A merchant transmission project is the wildcatter of the transmission business.

Without Section 1222 and SWPA's ability to take land for Clean Line via eminent domain, the company would have to apply for and receive public utility status and the power to condemn private property for its private gain from each individual state that it crosses. This could prove onerous to the super-rich and muck up or delay their profit.

In exchange for stealing private property from citizens to be used for a private company's gain, SWPA could be granted a certain amount of transmission capacity on Clean Line's project, however, SWPA isn't in the wind business. But DOE can use authority it was granted under Sec. 1222 to pick winners and losers in the renewable energy business, and Clean Line's investors put together a team with strong DOE connections. Coincidence? Probably not.

So, does Clean Line's project meet the requirements of Sec. 1222?

(1)(A) is located in an area designated under section 216(a) of the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 824p(a)] and will reduce congestion of electric transmission in interstate commerce; or
(B) is necessary to accommodate an actual or projected increase in demand for electric transmission capacity;

Sec. 216(a) has been nullified by the courts, so (A) isn't even an option. Here's Clean Line's justification for qualifying for (B) from their application:

"In addition to the general demand for more transmission oriented to renewables, there is and will be a specific demand for transmission to address the following concerns:
Additional Transmission is Needed to Develop Wind Resources in the Southwest Power Pool;
Additional Transmission is Needed to Relieve Congestion in Western SPP;
Additional Export Capability is Needed from SPP; and
Additional Transmission is Needed to Import Power in the Southeast.
The Plains & Eastern Clean Line meets each of these needs."

No actual projected demand for the project from any official authority tasked with determining same was included. The company points to bits and pieces of out-of-date studies that it feels justifies its desire to build this project, along with studies privately commissioned by the company. I don't think this is the kind of "actual or projected increase in demand" that Congress had in mind. It's pure posturing of the worst kind.

Other requirements stipulate that the project:

(2) is consistent with--
(A) transmission needs identified, in a transmission expansion plan or otherwise, by the appropriate Transmission Organization (as defined in the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.]) if any, or approved regional reliability organization; and (5) will not duplicate the functions of existing transmission facilities or proposed facilities which are the subject of ongoing or approved siting and related permitting proceedings.

Clean Line's idea of compliance with this requirement?

"SPP repeatedly has identified the need to build additional transmission to fully develop wind potential in
the region and to export it to neighboring regions." Right, but SPP did not identify Clean Line as the solution in its transmission expansion plan, or otherwise determine its project was needed.

Clean Line also relies on:

"The Plains & Eastern Clean Line is consistent with transmission needs identified in the Joint Coordinated
System Plan 2008 (JCSP). The JCSP was the first inter-regional transmission planning effort in the
Eastern Interconnection. The JCSP was a collaborative effort and involved most of the major
transmission operators in the Eastern Interconnection, including, MISO, SPP, PJM Interconnection, TVA,
Mid-Continent Area Power Pool and several key members of SERC."

And this 5 year old plan has been scrapped. Also not what Congress had in mind for this requirement.

When DOE questioned Clean Line's eligibility under Sec. 1222, the company submitted an "updated application" that contained the same old lack of convincing evidence of qualification.

Nevertheless, DOE issued a letter entering into an agreement with Clean Line to move forward with the NEPA process. DOE has not completely committed to the project yet, but if it does:

Clean Line will agree that eminent domain authority would be used only as a last resort after negotiations in good faith have concluded with all affected landowners;
Clean Line will agree that the Department will retain the option to select and oversee any land acquisition company required for the Project.

In that case, DOE needs to take a look at the complete and utter mess Clean Line has made out of the public information and land acquisition process. Clean Line's idea of good faith negotiations with landowners, according to its updated application, put landowner notification last. Clean Line makes much of meeting with "stakeholders" such as environmental organizations, state agencies, state legislators, members of the governors’ teams, and federal congressional delegations. But only after all these entities, who are not personally affected and will not have to live with a Clean Line in their own backyard, have drunk the Clean Line Koolaid, does Clean Line consult with landowners:

"After the workshops, Clean Line will host public
open houses to gather feedback on the preferred and alternative routes from landowners and other
affected parties. These outreach efforts are designed to assure that relevant stakeholders have early and multiple opportunities to provide feedback..." except for landowners. Landowners are not considered "relevant stakeholders" by Clean Line.

DOE should think long and hard about making the federal government liable for the legal mistakes of a private company. Just because the feds were successful in asserting federal eminent domain in another dissimilar situation, does not mean that helping the rich get even richer at the expense of the common man is a good idea. How much money does Congress have budgeted for another federal court beatdown over eminent domain takings?

And DOE needs to take a good, hard, objective look at Clean Line's "qualifications" under Sec. 1222. The company doesn't qualify without torturing the language in the statute, and a finding that it does qualify is also likely to lead to a separate, but equally vicious, court showdown.

Sometimes, it's just not worth the risk to help your "friends" by overstepping your legal authority and bending federal law. Maybe the incoming Energy Secretary needs to do a little housekeeping before Congress does it for him, or he finds himself explaining DOE's taking of ordinary citizens' private property for use by super-rich investors. Congress has resolutely rejected federal transmission siting authority over and over again and will likely continue to do so.

20 Comments

FERC Issues Order on PJM O1000 Compliance

4/7/2013

0 Comments

On March 22, FERC issued an Order on PJM's Order No. 1000 compliance filings. Earlier, we featured some of the posturing and nonsense going on that probably made the Commissioners want to just send everyone to bed without supper. Honestly... every time there's a new rule, the usual suspects are right on top of it trying to figure out a way to twist it to serve their own interests. Order 1000 is no exception.

I'm sure you just can't wait to jump right to it and read the entire 215 page order yourself. No? Don't need a sleeping pill? Okay... here are some highlights.

Cost Allocation:

Despite FERC sticking with 100% postage stamp allocation in its rehearing of the Illinois Commerce Commission 7th Circuit remand, FERC agreed a hybrid cost allocation method going forward.

The new method will apply to all lines approved that are at least double-circuited 345kV or higher voltages, which means more lines will qualify to be socialized across the entire PJM region. These lines will be allocated 50% via the postage stamp method, which assigns costs based on regional load share. This is supposed to recognize "benefits" everyone in the region receives from PJM's interconnected transmission system. Right. The other 50% will be allocated via two different DFAX methods, depending on the driver for the line. The other fifty percent of economic projects (those that are "needed" to reduce congestion and prices) will be allocated proportionally among those loads that receive the economic benefit of the lower energy costs. The other fifty percent of reliability projects (those that are "needed" to relieve future reliability violations) will be allocated proportionally among those who use the new facility, and allocations will be updated yearly to account for changes in load flows over time.

And I suppose getting kicked in the behind is better than getting kicked in the head.

And speaking of getting kicked in the behind... "Clean" Line's proposal to regionally allocate a portion of its merchant transmission projects got soundly punted.

In response to Clean Line’s request that the Commission allow partial cost allocation for merchant transmission projects found to meet economic or public policy needs, we note that, while Order No. 1000 requires each public utility transmission provider to have in place a method, or set of methods, for allocating the costs of new transmission facilities selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation, it does not require a public utility transmission provider to establish a cost allocation method that would apply to any portion of the costs of a merchant transmission project not recovered through negotiated rates. Therefore, we deny Clean Line’s request that the Commission require PJM to allow for partial allocation of the costs of a merchant transmission facility through the regional transmission cost allocation method as beyond the scope of Order No. 1000.

Clean Line got resoundingly (and satisfyingly) slapped down on all fronts. PJM (and FERC) don't love Clean Line the right way... but who can blame them? Clean Line is suddenly discovering that the four merchant transmission projects it dreamed up aren't a sustainable business plan and now it's desperate for some ratepayer subsidies to continue the farce. Because "Clean" Lines aren't needed, they're not going to be approved in a regional plan, and therefore cannot be regionally allocated. Clean Line tried to tell FERC that if it built these unneeded projects that they would magically provide some regional reliability and economic benefit and therefore should be partially allocated to captive ratepayers who wouldn't use any of the electricity carried by the lines. A merchant transmission project is paid for 100% by generators on one end and load on the other. There's no such thing as a quasi-merchant project. Quit your whining, Clean Line, pull up your big boy pants, and get on with wasting your investors' money. You're not getting any help from PJM ratepayers.

Further, while Order No. 1000 established the information requirement discussed above, the Commission also concluded that, because a merchant transmission developer assumes all financial risks for developing its transmission project and constructing the proposed transmission facilities, a merchant transmission developer is not required to participate in a regional transmission planning process for purposes of identifying the beneficiaries of its transmission project that would otherwise be the basis for securing eligibility to use a regional cost allocation method. Thus, a transmission developer is not required to submit a merchant transmission project into the regional transmission planning process, and the regional transmission planning process is not required to evaluate a merchant transmission project for potential selection in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation. However, nothing prevents a transmission developer from submitting its transmission project into the regional transmission planning process for potential selection in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation. In that case, the regional transmission planning process would evaluate the proposed transmission project as it would any other proposed project and, if the transmission project is selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation, it would be eligible to use the regional cost allocation method. If the proposed transmission facility is not selected in the regional transmission plan for purposes of cost allocation, then the transmission developer could choose to move forward as a merchant transmission facility.

Right of First Refusal: I'm finding it really hard to care about this issue at all. Why don't you all fight about it quietly and let me know when you're done? The only thing I found even remotely interesting was that the Market Monitor was trying to get FERC to make transmission owners stick to the submitted cost of their projects as approved in PJM's RTEP. Good idea! However, FERC slapped that down too. The cost of an approved transmission project -- one of the factors that made it the preferred, cost effective option in the selection process -- is mere suggestion and bears no resemblance to how much such project may cost to build. This allows incumbent transmission owners to undercut every other project developer on price, and then spend twice as much actually building the project. Remember Primary Power?

"Public Policy" and PJM's State Agreement Approach: A handful of "clean" energy companies and their big green Pollyanna sycophants submitted comments whining about PJM's State Agreement approach to "public policy" projects driven by individual state renewable portfolio standards. These cleaniacs think that they can force PJM to turn individual state policies into regional transmission needs, and socialize the cost as broadly as possible. The energy companies, of course, want this because they make money off renewables. The Pollyannas want this because they think they're saving the world, and they don't care how much it costs. Greedy and Clueless got slapped down.

FERC determined that PJM's "consideration" of public policy requirements in planning sensitivities is adequate (although frighteningly opaque) and the State Agreement approach to cost allocation is supplemental to O1000. This means that a project "needed" solely to meet "public policy" goals will be driven by the state officials whose policy requires it, and voluntarily paid for by those states whose policies cause it.

But, never fear, I'm sure Greedy and Clueless aren't done with their whining yet -- they do it so well -- and will continue attempts to force everyone to consume socialized utility scale renewables when better options such as distributed generation of local renewables are the more viable, sustainable choice.

0 Comments

Ut-oh, Clean Line! Grain Belt Express Opposition Explodes!

4/5/2013

0 Comments

It seems that citizen opposition to its "Clean" Line projects is increasing!

"Clean" Line tried the "I elect transmission lines to public office" strategy by schmoozing and making empty promises to businesses, legislators, local governments and other groups long before the affected landowners who would have to sacrifice their land for this project got wind of it.

How effective was "Clean" Line's "community consultation" when the ones most affected by its projects were never consulted?

Approaching a community with a front-loaded fait accompli is a big, bad no-no. Tsk, tsk, tsk, "Clean" Line!

Also, the political strategy playbook has been outed, studied and neutralized by transmission opponents. How effective is a "playbook" when the other team has a copy, "Clean" Line?

Introducing -- Block Grain Belt Express!

Now affected communities in Kansas, Missouri and Illinois have their own sister group to the original Block Rock Island Clean Line.

Coming soon... even more opposition!

Nobody needs or wants your "clean" projects, arrogant Texas and New York entrepreneurs. Go wreck your own backyards in your own states. Fail!

0 Comments

FirstEnergy & AEP Propose West Virginia Generation Sale at Five Times Going Rate for Coal Plants

4/5/2013

2 Comments

Here's just one more reason to oppose the current proposals to the PSC by Mon Power and APCo, who each wish to purchase coal plants from their parent company's unregulated subsidiaries.

FirstEnergy and AEP are charging West Virginia consumers FIVE TIMES the current market value of similar coal plants!

Just like real estate is evaluated by comparing it to comparable sales, FirstEnergy's and AEP's proposed sale prices can be compared to recent coal plant sales by other companies in a free market situation with a willing buyer and a willing seller. However, the comparable sales were not intercompany transactions, which conjures up questions regarding self-dealing in the proposed West Virginia sales.

The average cost of three recent, similar coal plant sales is $162.2 per kW.

FirstEnergy's proposed $1.16B price tag for Harrison will cost $785.91 per kW.

AEP's proposed $1.4B price tag for Amos & Mitchell will cost $833.33 per kW.

Do West Virginians really need the capacity these plants will provide, especially at that price? Or do FirstEnergy and AEP really need the boost to their balance sheets that these plant transfers will provide more than we need this capacity? Have the companies proposed a reasonable price for these plants?

Let the West Virginia Public Service Commission know that you do not want to purchase FirstEnergy's and AEP's overpriced coal plants! Submit your comments online now. Be sure to include Case No. 12-1571 for FirstEnergy (Mon Power or Potomac Edison customers) or Case No.. 12-1655 for AEP (Appalachian or Wheeling Power customers).

2 Comments

News Flash!

4/4/2013

1 Comment

We were right. About everything.

That is all.

1 Comment

FirstEnergy Pays $1.25M to Buy Union Advocacy for Harrison Plant Sale

4/2/2013

7 Comments

Just how important is the PSC's approval of FirstEnergy's plan to sell its Harrison coal plant from its competitive Ohio affiliate to its uncompetitive West Virginia affiliates Mon Power and Potomac Edison?

I dunno, but I think FirstEnergy just shelled out $1.25M to meet the demands of the UWUA 304 in exchange for a letter from UWUA to the WV PSC supporting the plant sale.

Must be pretty important then. In that case, I suggest that all struggling industry or citizen groups (if you don't have a group, you can just make one up!) get aboard the shakedown train and sell their advocacy to FirstEnergy. It's like growing your own money tree!!*

I'm not going to beat the union up about their deal with the devil. They're just regular guys trying to make a living and FirstEnergy had been giving them a royal screwing.

What I do find absolutely hilarious though is how the threat of cozying up with StopPATH and Calhoun Powerline was used by the union to get its way. Scaring FirstEnergy is our specialty. Glad we could help ;-)

However the plant sale is STILL a bad idea. I'm sure the union guys would much rather work at a plant that's financially subsidized by Mon Power and Potomac Edison customers than a plant owned by Allegheny Generation which is subject to the vagaries of competitive electric markets, and whose future is uncertain. Can't blame them for wanting job security.

But this plant sale will cost electric consumers over a billion dollars. There are only 150 union guys but there are half a million Mon Power and Potomac Edison customers. Be sure to let the WV PSC know that you do not support the plant sale. Just click here. (submit comment on Formal Case and be sure to type in Case No. 12-1571-E-PC)

*(click here for FirstEnergy advocacy recruitment website to see how much your advocacy is worth to the company!)

7 Comments

Formal Challenge to PATH's 2011 Revenue Requirement Filed

4/1/2013

0 Comments

Keryn and Ali filed a third Formal Challenge to PATH's rates at FERC today. The previous two Challenges, which were granted in part and set for settlement and hearing by FERC last fall, covered PATH's spending in 2009 and 2010. The Challenge filed today covers PATH's 2011 expenses.

Remember, the project wasn't put into abeyance until Feb. 28, 2011, and then PATH had the rest of the year to wind down its unneeded project and wallow in the financial and logistical mess it had made.

The total of this third challenge is $4.4M, and when added to the $5.7M set for hearing in the previous challenges, the amount challenged totals more than $10 million dollars. What could you have done instead with that $10M?

The Challengers ask for the Commission to grant the Challenge and consolidate it with the existing Challenges, which were consolidated with PATH's abandonment.

We do hope you enjoyed your April Fool's day as much as we did...

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Reason for Potomac Edison meter reading and billing failure finally revealed!

"Tensions Mount" Over Widespread FirstEnergy "Potomac Edison" Billing Errors

Maryland Public Service Commission Opens Official Investigation into Potomac Edison Meter Reading and Billing Practices

US Dept. of Energy Misuses Eminent Domain Authority For Clean Line's Private Land Grab

FERC Issues Order on PJM O1000 Compliance

Ut-oh, Clean Line! Grain Belt Express Opposition Explodes!

FirstEnergy & AEP Propose West Virginia Generation Sale at Five Times Going Rate for Coal Plants

News Flash!

FirstEnergy Pays $1.25M to Buy Union Advocacy for Harrison Plant Sale

Formal Challenge to PATH's 2011 Revenue Requirement Filed

About the Author

About
StopPATH Blog

Need help opposing unneeded transmission?
Email me

Archives

Categories

About the Author

AboutStopPATH Blog

Archives

Categories

About
StopPATH Blog