Our Mission

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is the association that represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies. Our members provide electricity for 220 million Americans, and operate in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a whole, the electric power industry supports more than 7 million jobs in communities across the United States. In addition to our U.S. members, EEI has more than 60 international electric companies as International Members, and hundreds of industry suppliers and related organizations as Associate Members.
 
Organized in 1933, EEI provides public policy leadership, strategic business intelligence, and essential conferences and forums.

Our Vision
EEI will be the best trade association.

We will be the best because we are committed to knowing our members and their needs. We will provide leadership and deliver services that consistently meet or exceed their expectations.

We will be the best because we will attract and retain employees who have the ambition to serve and will empower them to work effectively as individuals and in teams.

Above all, we will be the best trade association because, in the tradition of Thomas Edison, we will make a significant and positive contribution to the long-term success of the electric power industry in its vital mission to provide electricity to foster economic progress and improve the quality of life.

When third-party organizations or public service commission staffs have attempted to protect ratepayers from funding political organizations in recent years, their attempts have met with fierce resistance from the utility companies.

This report explores how regulated utility companies are including their Edison Electric Institute (EEI) annual payments, along with payments to other trade associations, in their operating expenses. The widespread practice forces ratepayers to pay for political and public relations activities with which they may not agree, and from which they do not benefit. It also has the effect of ratepayers subsidizing the political activities of EEI and other trade associations. Utility commissions have a responsibility to protect ratepayers from paying for industry groups and their political work along with public relations activities. But utilities have become adroit at using EEI, and other organizations, to effectively and quietly influence policy while sheltering their shareholders from the bulk of the associated costs. Almost no other political organizations have the luxury of subsidization enjoyed by EEI and other representatives of the regulated utility industry.

The evidence in this report reveals that EEI is primarily and inherently a political organization, and that much of its work targets policymakers throughout all levels of government to build influence, specifically for their member companies but also for the industry at large. While many states have their established practices of how to code trade association dues, they should revisit outdated guidelines due to the nature of EEI’s modern activities to ensure that they are adequately protecting ratepayers. Throughout the past three decades, some regulators and consumer advocates have acted to protect ratepayers, but scrutiny has waned dramatically. Precedent exists for public officials to act in every state to investigate whether or not EEI’s inherently political work ought to be funded by ratepayers.

For years the citizens of Maryland have been waiting to find out whether the Public Service Commission really cares about justice and protecting the public. We have our answer. The answer is NO!

The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) in their recent Order has taken a position in support of Potomac Edison (PE) on the major issue, against ratepayers’ interests. The Commissioners’ decision is in conflict with both their own Judge’s determination and the West Virginia Public Service Commissioners on the same issue.

The most important decision on this matter was whether or not to require PE to read meters monthly. The PSC Commissioners, as usual, supported the utility company when they overturned the Order issued by the Judge who heard the case.

This should have been expected because in every meeting and mediation, PE’s attorney would declare that PE will not do monthly reads! Apparently lawyers and attorneys trump justice every time! We now know our PSC stands for money in politicians’ and big businesses’ pockets without concern for the problems and concerns of the people or justice at all.

As a brief history, in May 2012, as President of Sugarloaf Conservancy (Doug) filed a formal complaint with the PSC asking them to “establish a formal case to investigate this matter” in response to members’ complaints about PE meter reading practices.  These practices included the failure of the company to read meters bimonthly as required, using inaccurate estimations, which caused substantial over and under billings. Both situations have negative ramifications causing harm to those who can least afford to pay overcharges or large catch-up bills.

A case was finally opened in April 2013. After years of delay the Judge in May 2016 ruled against PE. In part of his Order he stated, “I find that PE's meter reading tariff must be modified to require an actual reading on a monthly schedule...” (as is the case with all other electric utilities in Maryland).  PE appealed the Judge’s Order. A year passed without any decision by the Commissioners. On May 16th, in a letter sent to the PSC, we insisted they fulfill their obligation. Finally on June 19th, the PSC issued an Order.

The Order upholds most of the findings of the Judge’s ruling, including that PE must submit a monthly report for 24 months; pay a minor penalty of $25,000; offer a payment plan to those customers who receive a substantially low estimate bill, followed by a substantial catch up bill the following month; modify their bill to clearly show when an estimate occurs and the reason for not reading the meter.  The reversal of the Judge’s Order to require PE to read meters monthly is in stark contrast to a similar case in West Virginia. West Virginia took less than a month to open a case after the issue was raised whereas the Maryland PSC waited a year after we asked for an investigation; Maryland dragged out the case for four years before the Commissioners issued a final Order; West Virginia issued a comprehensive ruling against PE including the requirement that they read meters on a monthly basis after only a year.  Maryland PSC Order required PE address only 4 areas of concern whereas in West Virginia their PSC hit PE on twelve major requirements.

There is great concern that this slap on the wrist will embolden PE to resume their past business practices, which have caused severe harm to so many.  Unfortunately the losers will be the senior citizens on a fixed income and the poor who can least afford to either pay for electricity they have not consumed or be hit with a sizable catch-up bill.  The Commissioners, through this Order, confirmed their past history of supporting utility companies at the expense of ratepayers in Maryland. This pattern should be disturbing to everyone and unfortunately will not likely change.

"There's blood in the water," Jones said in an October interview.

He added, "We've reduced benefits, we've reduced 401(k) matches, we froze wages. We've done a lot of things to try and offset lost revenue, but couldn't offset it entirely … We're evaluating everything we do as a company to try and find a way to close that gap. Because (what's been done so far) is not enough to get us into the position with the credit rating agencies that we need to be in."

Pleasants, currently owned by a Mon Power sister company, Allegheny Energy Supply, is an aging, coal-fired plant that hasn’t been generating the returns investors want in Ohio’s deregulated energy marketplace. FirstEnergy CEO Charles E. Jones, on at least two occasions in 2016, told analysts the company wanted to shift plants like Pleasants that weren’t making investors enough money in Ohio into West Virginia’s regulated market, saying, “I think later this year, they’ll start (looking) at it seriously, and it’s up to (the West Virginia Public Service Commission) to decide, would Pleasants be the appropriate solution.”

If the Companies determine in any annual PJM Base Residual Auction (“BRA”) that their combined capacity obligations for the delivery year covered by the BRA (“Delivery Year”) exceed the Companies’ owned or contracted-for capacity resources for the Delivery Year by 100 MW or more (“Capacity Shortfall”), then not later than the end of the calendar year following the BRA, the Companies will develop an RFP for capacity resources to address the Capacity Shortfall and submit the RFP to the Commission and the Parties for their review and comment. The RFP will allow proposals from both supply-side and demand-side resources.

Mon Power’s Long Term Load Forecast indicates a capacity shortfall starting in 2016, with the shortfall exceeding 700 MW by 2020 and extending to over 850 MW by 2027.

We will continue to seek opportunities both within the competitive realm and the states to further de-risk the business and convert megawatts from competitive markets to a regulated or regulated-like construct.

We also plan to work with the West Virginia Public Service Commission when they are ready to address the generation shortfall included in Mon Power's integrated resource plan.

So we previously filed the IRP. It showed a need for generation going out a couple of years from now. But that case right now is concluded. So there is nothing that would, unless we were to file something, initiate something, that would come out of that case. So we would be looking as we go forward and continue to monitor the forecast for that company to see how we might want to present something consistent with the IRP in terms of bringing additional generation to Mon Power.

Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.

Got it. So there's no formal like RFP process that's about to kick off or that will be undertaken in 2016 or 2017?

Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer

Correct. There's no time line associated with that. We would initiate it when we believe it to be the appropriate time.

The decisive regulator makes decisions (1) required by the public interest, (2) when the public interest requires it, (3) regardless of discomfort felt, (4) using a logical method and an active approach.

At this time, however, we do not see any short-term solutions to the current challenging market situation. Longer-term, we do not believe competitive generation is a good fit for FirstEnergy and are focused regulated operations. And we cannot put investors and our company at risk as we wait for the country and PJM to address the issues with the current construct.

Todd Meyers, a spokesperson for MonPower, responded to questions about the study by saying the company believes the purchase benefits their customers and that it supports coal mining.

“It continues to provide reliable, low-cost power to our customers, and has preserved the opportunity to use more than 5 million tons of West Virginia produced coal annually, supporting hundreds of coal miners with solid, family-sustaining wages,” he said.

“We cannot put investors and our company at risk.”

“Is it frustrating that we’re shutting down tens of thousands of megawatts of generation in our country that’s got life left in it because of the way this market is working?” Jones said. “That is very frustrating to me.”

However, most the attendees at the Bell Schoolhouse Fire Station meeting opposed the project. Dennis Daniels, who organized the meeting, said he has already been a victim of eminent domain once and does not want to go through the process again.
 
"Honestly I don't have any questions for (representatives)," he said. "I just don't want them to come through my property."
 
He's concerned that the power line will decrease property values, restrict further development on his land and be an eyesore.
 
"It bothers me most that it's a private, for-profit company," he said. "They're going to use eminent domain to take our property rights away to give to a company in San Francisco to make millions of dollars off of each year."

In a public meeting at the Bell Schoolhouse Fire Station just outside Starkville Thursday, Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley urged residents to reach out to representatives from Southern Cross Transmission if they have questions about the company's proposed wind energy transmission line.
 
"Let it not be said of you that you didn't call on these people and that you didn't file an objection," Presley said at the meeting.

While eminent domain is not out of the question, Presley said he believes the company will do everything in its power to avoid having to use it. Southern Cross representatives have told him they have put in similar lines in other parts of the country without resorting to eminent domain.

Presley said his office received a plethora of letters, emails and phone calls from property owners who received letters. In a meeting with company representatives, Presley said someone from the company has to meet with property owners one-on-one at the time and place of the landowner's choosing.
 
In an interview with The Dispatch Thursday, Presley said a Southern Cross representative had already begun meeting with landowners individually. Presley also had the company designate a point of contact for landowners to call. Since then, his office has received fewer calls from concerned citizens.
 
In June, Southern Cross Transmission sent letters to landowners whose property is within 500 feet of one of the proposed routes and promised to hold meetings and answer questions from landowners. The company then hosted an open house for property owners, but many left that meeting with more questions than answers, Presley said.
 
Legally, Southern Cross Transmission doesn't have to communicate with the public at all until it has decided on a route and filed a proposal with the Public Service Commission. But Presley wants to ensure that the company shows landowners the dignity and respect they deserve.

FERC has previously found that the interconnection of the Southern Cross Project to the ERCOT transmission system is in the public interest and that the Project will create substantial benefits both for the ERCOT and the Southeast regions.

Southern Cross Transmission plans to settle on a route and file its proposal with the commission this fall. Once that happens, Presley said, citizens have 20 days to file an objection, which gives them legal rights in the case.

He requested landowners write down whatever questions they have, take those questions directly to the company and wait until they had met with Southern Cross representatives before deciding whether to oppose the project.

Presley has also said he will not approve the project unless the company can prove it has some benefit to Mississippi.
 
"I'm as much for clean air and clean energy as the next guy, but it's got to be about more than renewable energy," he said. "For us, that's a plus, but there has to be other things."

"At the end of the day, the ability to connect into wind energy, which does not cost anything as far as burning coal, burning natural gas, (is) obviously an energy source that could have a benefit to the state," Presley said.
 
"That's the benefit," he added. "But also obviously if this electricity is low cost, I'm not going to be supporting trucking it through Mississippi to pump it to Atlanta, Georgia, and our people have cheap electricity ran over the top of their property and not being able to take advantage of it."

Another challenge facing the industry is the need to insulate state utility regulators from political pressure.

In instances around the country, he said, "you're seeing the confluence of politics challenging that independent regulatory model."

It's a reason the California Public Utilities Commission was located in San Francisco instead of Sacramento back in the 1800s when it was the California Railroad Commission, to protect regulators from the political influence of the powerful monopoly railroads.

Clark cited the Nevada Public Utilities Commission decision late last year in which regulators posted fixed charges for NV Energy customers with solar energy systems and slashed rates for compensation for excess energy put back on the grid (ClimateWire, Jan. 11).

He quoted a solar industry executive who told reporters that Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval should "get control of his appointees."

The comment, Clark said, "drives home that large segments of the public -- and sometimes fairly sophisticated people that operate in this space -- view regulatory commissions as just another extension of politics."