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

Wisconsin Ratepayers Ask States to Consider Non-Transmission Alternatives in Planning for Peak Load

1/27/2014

0 Comments

 
Rob Danielson of SOUL of Wisconsin, and Deb Severson of Citizens' Energy Task Force, are asking state regulators to join them in supporting financially and environmentally sustainable energy solutions.

In a recent editorial in The Wisconsin State Journal, the pair of ratepayer advocates is asking the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to make utilities accountable for the financial and community costs of building more transmission, and for using the term “reliability” so loosely that ratepayers are led to think these lines are about “keeping the lights on.”

Danielson and Severson contend that energy efficiency contributes to grid reliability by reducing stress on the grid. Efficiency is also the best way to save ratepayers’ money and reduce our carbon footprint. It has no negative impacts, other than reducing utility profits.

Utilities and state regulators need to acknowledge how cost-effective it is to shave peak-demand during those very limited hours in the summer or winter when demand spikes — and that this, too, increases grid reliability. Paying customers to turn off their air conditioners for 15 minutes, or an industrial customer to use back-up diesel, makes far more economic sense than spending billions to add wires to bring in rarely needed extra power. Energy spikes can also be addressed by adding local renewables, which have the added benefit of creating additional local, ongoing jobs.

There are many ways to address need without building new transmmission, and Danielson and Severson are asking for equal consideration of them. Consumers are demanding that ratepayer and community interests — not utility and Wall Street profits — drive our future transmission planning decisions.

0 Comments

Potomac Edison's Estimated Bills Are More Screwed Up Than Ever

1/27/2014

0 Comments

 
Yeah, I know, news flash, right?  But I was actually surprised to get my most recent estimated bill.  No, it wasn't because it took 10 long days to get here after it was issued.  And, no, it wasn't because it was all bulky like it contained a small booklet of some sort.

It's because the estimated usage was much lower than I was expecting, and just over half the amount actually showing on my meter.  I was expecting the usual larger than actual estimated bill again this month, especially because the actual from the same period last year was one of those outrageously high "catch up bills" resulting from the company's failure to read meters.

So, how did the company come up with this month's ridiculously low usage estimate?  If you sat through December's PSC hearing on the General Investigation of the company's billing, meter reading and customer service practices, you'd know that the company has two estimation routines in place.  One uses same period from prior year, adjusted to current weather and days in billing period.  The other uses prior month data.

A phone call to a delightful customer service representative named Kelly advised me that my bill was based on prior year actual.  Using the handy-dandy usage history graph on my current bill, I find that my last year same period was over 4,000 kwh.  So, Kelly informs me that because the company "renumbered" me and adjusted my billing period, the current estimate also used some data from the following month on my bar graph.  That month's usage was 2,406.  So, Potomac Edison's average of 4000 and 2406 is 2,576?  No wonder there's an investigation going on.  Helpful and pleasant Kelly offered to adjust my bill because we determined that my next month actual reading will produce an outrageous bill.  But, it really doesn't matter since I am on the average payment plan.  However, many Potomac Edison customers whose bills were estimated by the same method mine was this month may not be.  Those customers are going to get gigantic bills next month, bills they may be unable to pay.  As if that's not bad enough, the unusually cold weather is going to exacerbate this problem tremendously.

I thought I heard FirstEnergy telling the PSC Commissioners that it had solved all the estimation routine problems.  It looks like that's not true, and a whole new wave of unhappy customers is quietly building and should start crashing in during the month of February.  How much longer is this going to go on?  How much longer are West Virginians supposed to put up with this stunning incompetence?  Let's get with the program here, PSC!

So, in conclusion, let's add a little levity by going back to my intro. paragraph and examining the reason for my unusually bulky bill.  That was because it contained ELEVEN (11), count 'em 11, copies of this month's bill insert.  The insert urges me to sign up for FirstEnergy's eBill program so I can "use less paper" which "is better for the environment."  Right, FirstEnergy, as soon as you take your own advice.  And to add one last giggle on top, my customer service rep., Kelly, offered to send me some energy efficiency literature because that's what she's been instructed to do when she gets a high bill call.  But, wait a sec, FirstEnergy has been fighting against energy efficiency programs in West Virginia (and many other states).  As well, maybe customers wouldn't have such high bills if the company read every meter every month until it established accurate base data and corrected its hideously inaccurate estimation routines.  Does FirstEnergy have any literature on that problem?  Probably not.

Loving those "merger synergies," FirstEnergy!
0 Comments

No Eminent Domain for Private Gain

1/24/2014

0 Comments

 
The "Right-to-Take Action" must be Settled BEFORE CPCN May be Granted
Guest blog by Pat Conway, Ontario, Wisconsin
The main purpose for the  Wisconsin Public Service Commission's approval process of the CPCN (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity) is to determine the NEED for ATC's Badger Coulee Line.  At the PSC's hearing (docket 05-CE-142), it must be proven that the  NEED for the high tension power line is so great that it justifies granting ATC the authority to condemn private property and take the land it needs under "eminent domain".

The fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states:  "No person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of the law..."  And Wisconsin Statute 32.06(5) "Right-to-take Action, provides that a private property owner may challenge a taking for any reason other than just compensation".  In the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision of July 13, 2013 it states:  The challenge to ATC's condemnation..."is not a meaningless exercise swallowed up in the compensation process," but a property owner's assertion to protect his or her rights."

Common sense tells us that any property owner who has been notified that his or her land is under consideration for ATC's Badger-Coulee line, has the right to begin a "right-to-take" action immediately, before the PSC hearing, in order to protect his or her property rights BEFORE the ROUTE for the line IS CHOSEN.  For instance, an Amish man has a right to challenge the condemnation of his land because his farm house is also a church. Or an organic farmer has the right to challenge the right to condemn any portion of his farm because ATC's taking would endanger his or her organic certification and that would threaten their livelihood.

Therefore, any property owner who is threatened by the possibility of the PSC granting ATC condemnation rights, should become an "intervener" in PSC Docket 05-CE-142 and request that the PSC postpone their consideration of ATC's application until after any challenges to ATC's possible taking of their private property, under a "right -to-take action", is settled in the courts.  That is the only way a private property owner can assert the protection of his or her private property rights.  To grant the authority to condemn before  giving the property owner his or her "day in court" is to put the cart before the horse.  Not allowing a property owner his or her right to prevent condemnation of their private property through a "right-to-take action" would be to deny them "due process under the law", which would be a violation of the fifth amendment of our Constitution.
0 Comments

Where is FirstEnergy's EPRI Report?

1/14/2014

0 Comments

 
During the West Virginia Public Service Commission's evidentiary hearing on the Potomac Edison/Mon Power Billing, Meter Reading and Customer Service Practices General Investigation, company witness Kaye Julian told the Commissioners that the EPRI report would be completed on January 6.
Q. Okay. All right. And you mentioned EPRI and the EPRI study, and I know that you --- while we’re on the subject, on page 11 of your testimony, your Direct testimony, you’d made a change at line eight. You state that the EPRI study is now expected to be completed by January 6th, 2014; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you know why it’s been pushed back from December 31st?
A. I received an e-mail this morning from them requesting a little bit more time, because they’ve been meeting with the teams that actually were on site, and after they’ve had a couple of their meetings, they just feel like they’re going to need a little more time.
Q. Now, do you participate in these meetings? A. I have been.
Q. I’m sorry, you have been?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. Now, I have not been making every single one of them, but ---.
Q. I mean, they’re weekly meetings?
A. That’s right. Recently they had me come daily.
Q. Okay. When did this --- when did the EPRI review begin? I mean, it’s been several months now in the making; correct?
A. Yeah, I believe we signed the statement of work with them in July.
Q. And what are you --- what specifically are you --- are the Companies having EPRI look at? I mean, what is the purpose?
A. What we’re doing is we’re trying to simulate the estimation routine with having lots of good data, and then going through and creating all those scenarios of every other estimate --- every other month estimate, two months in a row estimate, three months in a row estimate, and letting the routine take that data and determining --- I guess we’re trying to figure out where are those checkpoints that we might need. Are we not applying something appropriately that we should be? So we’re more or less --- we’re calling it forensics. That’s basically what they’re doing for us, trying to help us determine, you know, with the data available where we see some issues or breakdown and how can we improve our routine.
Q. And is EPRI going to tell you how it should be improved, assuming it finds breakdowns?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, is the Company’s plan to implement whatever correction EPRI recommends?
A. I think it’s a little early for me to say that, because I don’t know all of the expense associated with what they would ask us to implement or recommend we implement.
Q. Okay. So there’s a chance that EPRI may say you need to do these 20 things, for example, and the Company says we don’t have the money or the resources to do any of those; we’re just going to disregard your recommendation? That’s a possibility; correct? A. Anything’s possible.
January 6 has come and gone, with the EPRI report still missing from the public information on the case docket.

I guess we should prepare ourselves for "possible."
0 Comments

Getting the Water Back On - Who Pays?

1/14/2014

0 Comments

 
There's been a plethora of great media coverage of the Freedom Industries pollution of WV American Water's supply for 300,000 customers in nine West Virginia counties.  Read The Power Line's comparison of the public water system to West Virginia's dangerously centralized electrical system, or today's call to action for citizens.  I have no intention of adding to what has already been very succinctly written.  But, discussion with affected individuals sparked a conversation that I haven't seen the media get to... yet.

As the ban on water use is slowly lifted, area by area, water customers are being urged to flush their system.  This isn't more debate about whether the water is still safe for use, but looks forward to future grief over who will pay for all the water used to flush customer plumbing.

This article instructs water customers on flushing their system by turning on faucets and water using appliances and cycling tainted water from the system.  With the exception of outdoor spigots, tainted water is being flushed into the sewer system.

Customers pay for water and sewer usage.  West Virginia American Water rates allow for a minimum base charge for 1,500 gallons per month per customer.  Usage over that amount is based on gallons used.  Usage over the base amount is charged at the rate of $10.2911 for the first 1,000 over the base amount, up to 28,500 gallons over the base amount.  Because the company has agreed to credit customers for the cost of 1,000 gallons for flushing their system, we can assume that the cost of water necessary for flushing comes at a price of $10.2911 per customer.
At this time, West Virginia American Water reported it is prepared to offer a credit of 1,000 gallons of water to its residential customers.

“That’s not a number we just pulled out of the air,” McIntyre said, explaining that the credit should cover about 10 times the water amount necessary for customers to complete a proper flushing of their water tanks.
That sort of depends on who the customer is.  Your number of faucets, spigots and appliances to be flushed can increase or decrease your flushing usage quite significantly.

But that's not the real problem here.  All that flushing water comes at a cost.  1000 gallons per customer @ $10.2911 x 300,000 customers = $3,087,330 worth of water that WV American Water will credit on customer bills this month.

Do you think that WV American Water is just going to make that cost disappear?  Of course not.  It all has to be accounted for on the company's books.  The company could write it off as some sort of donation or goodwill, but that's unlikely.  Other options include deferring it in a special holding account to be dealt with later.  This would create a deferred regulatory asset.  This simply means the company would defer recovery of this amount until a later date.  The company will begin accruing interest on the deferral immediately.  Options for recovery would be through a claim against Freedom Industries, or a request to the WV Public Service Commission to recover it from ratepayers at a later date.  The easiest course for the company is to recover it through its West Virginia regulated rates. 

So, not only will you most likely end up paying for your 1,000 gallons of flushing water, you'll end up owing interest on it at some future time when the company and the WV PSC think you've forgotten all about the incident and they can take care of this business without your notice.

Ditto on your sewage rates for disposing of the excess water.
0 Comments

Heroes and Zeroes in Kansas

1/7/2014

3 Comments

 
I'm not sure what's gotten into the tea across the pond, but The Guardian has named Kansas Republican Governor Sam Brownback a "Climate Change Hero."
Sam Brownback, Republican Kanas Governor, and lawmakers in a dozen other US states who fought off cynical attacks to repeal state Renewable Portfolio Standards, which have catalysed thousands of wind and solar projects across the country and generated hundreds of thousands of jobs.
But, maybe it's some other Sam Brownback, the one who's the Governor of "Kanas?"  The Sam Brownback who's the Governor of Kansas is no hero, for the climate or the people of Kansas.  Sam Brownback is the "hero" of the corporations who fund his political campaigns, and just because it now happens to be wind energy corporations does not a "hero" make.
hero |ˈhi(ə)rō|
noun (pl. heroes)
1 a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities: a war hero.
Four years ago, Sam the "Climate Change Hero" said:
The recent disclosure of the manipulation of scientific evidence by climate researchers is exactly the kind of important information that needs to be brought to light. The emails and documents recently disclosed paint an alarming picture of the state of climate research. In the emails that have been disclosed we’ve seen evidence of manipulation, efforts to avoid freedom of act information requests, abuse of the peer review process and a research process that that is driven more by a political agenda than a quest for truth. [Brownback, DeMint, Ensign, Isakson, Vitter, and Wicker, 12/8/09]
Right, it's more about a political agenda than a search for truth.  So, what's the truth?  The truth is that it looks like the hugely profitable land based wind industry has convinced Sam that covering Kansas with wind turbines and transmission lines and selling the electricity produced to "states farther east" would cut his state in on the fortune to be made with "green" branding and "Saudi Arabia of Wind" claims.

For that, Sam has tossed his former campaign financiers in the oil & gas industry under the bus.  Because he's a "hero."  Right.  I'll believe Sam's climate change epiphany after examining his campaign finance reports for 2014.

"Big wind" continues to lie to politicians like Sam, encouraging him to lay waste to his own state so that energy corporations may profit producing electricity there and selling it to other states.  Isn't that what happened in West Virginia more than 100 years ago?  Look at how fine that worked out for the people of West Virginia.

The "truth" will reveal itself in the voting booth later this year.

Now let's move on to the zeroes...

The benighted Kansas Corporation Commission has intervened in the Grain Belt Express "Clean" Line application for negotiated rate authority at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.


Remember, the KCC failed to hire any experts to vet GBE's application for a siting permit in Kansas, instead relying on the testimony of GBE, verified by a couple of in-house electrical engineers opining way outside their areas of expertise.

However, the KCC found funds to hire deep-pocket law firm Andrews Kurth to represent its interests in GBE's application at FERC.
 

And hilarity ensued...


Due to an exceptional amount of pressing business, the KCC inadvertently failed to notice the subject proceeding until after the date for timely intervention had passed.

...the KCC’s failure to file a timely intervention was based upon factors outside of its control.
"Pressing business?"  What state public service commission isn't constantly embroiled in "pressing business?"  An "inadvertent failure to notice the subject proceeding" isn't really "a factor outside [KCC's] control."  But, whatever... it gets funnier....
[KCC] is the regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over the wholesale and retail rates that will be impacted by the proposed formula rate and incentive rate adders filed for approval in this docket.
Layperson Internet Energy Blog Education Moment for the KCC and Andrews Kurth:

There is no formula rate or incentives applied for in this docket!  It's an application for negotiated rate authority filed by a merchant transmission project.  That means that the developer of the project is responsible for all costs of building and operating its project and will recover them directly from customers through rates it is asking FERC for permission to negotiate, NOT FROM RATEPAYERS, in Kansas or elsewhere.  And GBE is not eligible to apply for incentives because it is not part of any coordinated transmission expansion plan, nor planning to be.

What a stupid waste of time and billable hours.

3 Comments

Residential Power Use Expected to Fall Again in 2014:  Utilities Continue Pollyanna Plans

1/4/2014

7 Comments

 
Remember Jonathan Fahey?  He wrote an article in 2011 headlined Shocker: Power demand from US homes is falling that pioneered the idea that even though we're using more electric "gadgets" than ever, power use is dropping.  Well, now he's back with a similar article, Home electricity use in US falling to 2001 levels.
The trend Fahey first reported in 2011 continues, more than 2 years later.

Have utilities gotten any smarter since then?  Partially.  It took them forever to admit that dropping demand wasn't tied to the economy and that a rebound of electric use wasn't just over the horizon.  However, some utilities have simply moved on to other unsound business plans that continue to bank on the same old ideas that are no longer sustainable. 

Now utilities have moved on to transmission investments as their savior.  This is pretty puzzling, considering that long-distance transmission champion AEP concluded a year ago that enormous projects built across multiple states were an impossible dream.
Mr. Akins said he wants to avoid the bruising battles that delayed or doomed big projects in the past, like the 275-mile Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline project from West Virginia to Maryland. AEP and partner FirstEnergy Corp. dropped development plans for the complex project in 2011.

"Sometimes, we were just dreaming" that the companies could get enormous power lines built across multiple states, Mr. Akins said. He said AEP now is focusing on shorter projects blessed by federal regulators that eliminate grid bottlenecks. "It's where you want to put your money," he said.
The transmission investment gravy train has also left the station.  The sheer number of new transmission projects proposed combined with today's ease of online information sharing and social media tools has led to an explosion of knowledgeable, interconnected transmission opposition groups who are combining resources across the country to delay or stop unneeded projects altogether.

Instead of embracing innovation and new technology to make the existing grid smarter, some utilities are intent on merely building more of the same old dumb grid, or actively attempting to stifle innovation by forcing us all into an historic "consumer" position where we must funnel money to incumbent utilities in order to survive.  Ultimately, this plan will also fail, because technology marches relentlessly on. 

How we produce and use electricity is also changing.  Not only is producing our own electricity locally better for our economy, it's also much more reliable.  Hurricane Sandy was one of the biggest wake-up calls we've had recently, and the inevitable Monday morning quarterbacking of that disaster reveals that increasing long distance, aerial transmission from remote generation is simply dangerous.
  Making our grid more reliable isn't about building more transmission.  It's about change:
This includes traditional tactics, such as upgrading power poles and trimming trees near power lines. But it also encompasses newer approaches, such as microgrids and energy storage, which allow operators to quickly reconfigure the system when portions of the grid go down. Implicit to such plans is the need to ensure uninterrupted power to critical sites such as oil and gas refineries, water-treatment plants, and telecommunication networks, as well as gasoline stations, hospitals, and pharmacies.

Some of the nation’s leaders seem receptive to such approaches.
Elected officials, progressive regulators, energy producers, energy consumers, and innovative companies embracing new technology are also increasingly joining forces to move our energy economy forward and away from the dated centralized generation and transmission business plan of the past.  Companies who continue to deny the inevitable will ultimately be the ones left behind in irrelevance.
7 Comments

I Know It's True Because I Saw It On the Internet

12/30/2013

1 Comment

 
Potomac Edison finishes up 2013 as a big joke in The Herald-Mail:
Citizens also are concerned about their power bills, as the state Public Service Commission investigates allegations that Potomac Edison has not been reading residential meters in accordance with state law. The case follows customer complaints that the company cut back on its staff of professional readers and replaced them with a band of turbaned gypsies who gaze into the meters and estimate power usage.

Citizens tell the PSC they became suspicious when a bill came with a note predicting that the customer would “find an apple tree with seven apples and after eating one would grow three stag horns and find his flesh separated from his bones.”
1 Comment

Potomac Edison/Mon Power Billing & Meter Reading Investigation Evidentiary Hearing

12/29/2013

20 Comments

 
The WV PSC's evidentiary hearing in the General Investigation of Potomac Edison and Mon Power Meter Reading, Billing and Customer Service Practices was held in Charleston December 17 -18.  If you didn't have an opportunity to watch the hearing live, never fear, we drove 12 hours, spent 2 nights in a hotel, talked to people we don't particularly like, fended off icy stares, and stayed awake for the entire thing in order to generate 13 pages of notes just so you can find out what happened.  The media took no notice of the event, even though FirstEnergy media personality Toad Meyers was there to act as their personal hearing interpreter.  Maybe they're waiting for him to share his notes...

If you've never watched one of these hearings, let's set the stage.  It's a quasi-judicial, court-like proceeding, sans robes and much of the formality.  This was an opportunity for the Commissioners to consider evidence and examine witnesses.  Witnesses sponsored by the parties to the case filed written testimony and rebuttals in advance.  At the hearing, the witnesses took the stand to have their testimony officially recognized and to give opposing parties a chance to cross examine them.  The Commissioners also took the opportunity to ask the witnesses questions.  The parties to this case are FirstEnergy's Potomac Edison and Mon Power utilities, the Staff of the PSC, and the Consumer Advocate Division of the PSC.  Between them, they produced 6 witnesses, 4 from the company, and one each from the Staff and the CAD.

FirstEnergy's first witness was John Hilderbrand, Director of Operations Support for Mon Power, who was grilled by the attorneys for CAD and Staff, and the Commissioners, for more than three hours.  From my notes:
  1. Exigent circumstances prevented the company from making bi-monthly reads as directed in its tariff.  The dreaded "exigent circumstances," or "EC" were defined as:  weather, access issues, unplanned absences and equipment failures.  Weather = ice, snow, rain, flooding that impedes access to meters. Access issues include a broad range of items such as new gates being erected, no keys being provided, meters on the interior of the home, animals, such as dogs.  Unplanned absences = sickness or illness, or 3 personal convenience days that can be used w/24 hour notice.
  2. Because the company has limited resources, they don't attempt to read in the month following a missed read, when an estimate is scheduled.
  3. Company now has 7 substitutes, or "rovers" to cover for unplanned absences.  This process began several months ago,  However, the company did not have substitute meter readers before that.  But, there may still be missed reads due to "EC" because there are only 7 rovers.
  4. The company was not adequately staffed to read meters for some period of time due to merger organization and that contributed to the problem.
  5. As a result of the merger, meter readers are devoted to meter reading only.  (Despite the fact that FirstEnergy was recently recruiting for meter readers that would also perform collection activities and disconnects and reconnects.)
  6. When meter readers transferred to other positions after the merger, FirstEnergy had to shift resources to read meters and catch up on missed reads.  FirstEnergy shifted resources 8/15/11 and again 4/2/2012.
  7. It takes 6 months to train a meter reader (but the company wants YOU to read your own meter with no training whatsoever!)
  8. Company has not researched how the storms affected other power companies, but AEP didn't have the same problems because their meter reading is automated and is a different process.
  9. The proposal to read meters every month for one year would increase the cost to WV ratepayers $5M.  But who said WV ratepayers would be paying for that?  Nobody.
  10. Renumbering is a "short term inconvenience to customers" but will make the process better in the long run.  Why not a short term inconvenience to the company?  It's good utility practice to see that reading is as efficient as possible.
  11. The company added renumbering to the existing staffing, merger transition and storm problems.  But it results in cost savings (for the company!)
  12. Readers hired since mid 2012 must use their own vehicles.  Decision was made as part of merger integration aligning practices across FE and the company always evaluates ways to deliver product cost effectively. 
  13. Meter readers using their own vehicle are paid IRS mileage rates and must carry certain insurance, although the FirstEnergy witness doesn't know how much.  "Most" personal vehicles used by meter readers are all-wheel drive, however that is not a requirement.  The supervisor inspects the vehicle monthly to ensure the vehicle can complete the route.  If a personal vehicle breaks down the company may facilitate getting it back on the road with a tow or a jump, but does not normally provide a back-up vehicle.  If a meter reader has continued vehicle issues, that affects the ability to get the job done.  Meter readers are not compensated if they don't get the job done.
  14. When asked about missed readings due to the Derecho, Hilderbrand's logic came up short.  Staff attorney John Auville walked him through a typical storm-altered read schedule:  The Derecho caused a missed read in the first half of July.  The August read was a scheduled estimate.  The meter should have been read in September, but was not.  Hilderbrand said the company was still not recovered from the Derecho and able to read meters in September.  Hilderbrand started talking about the dreaded EC again.
  15. On renumbering:  When you reorganize routes and shift between even and odd cycle reads, that results in some customers being estimated when due an actual read, or some customers receive back-to-back reads (is there anyone this happened to?  I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to tell me they got back-to-back reads due to renumbering).  It was a poor decision to renumber the Eastern Panhandle in the winter.  Why didn’t FirstEnergy think of that beforehand?  The FirstEnergy staff had never renumbered before, so they didn’t understand it.
  16. FirstEnergy has selected 10,000 residential accounts for monthly reads between Nov. 2013 and Jan. 2014.  FirstEnergy has approximately 445,000 customers in WV.  At most, this provides one, maybe two additional reads for these customers.
  17. FirstEnergy has 16,920 "annual read" customers in WV.  An annual read customer is one whose meter is read only once per year.  Reasons for an account being designated "annual read" include:  Safety, access, customer request and seasonal.  The company is reviewing these accounts to make sure designation is correct, but has no plans to notify the customers of the review, the results, or notify them of their right to appeal the determination.  Maybe that would be a good idea.
  18. When a meter reading is considerably higher than expected based on prior reads, the reader's hand-held computer unit emits an audible tone that causes the reader to do an immediate re-check.  However, it's up to the reader and supervisor to set the parameters of error allowed.
  19. It would take up to a year to get staff in place to read every meter every month.
  20. If a reader has access issues, one of several form letters is sent to the customer to remedy the access issue.  If the customer fails to respond, the company may be more aggressive in turning off service.
  21. The company has a 3-day read window for each account during a scheduled read month.  If an unplanned absence occurs on the last day of the read window, it cannot be made up.  Note that the company can read your meter at any time within that 3-day window.
  22. Commissioner McKinney vigorously questioned this witness about meter readers driving their personal vehicles and identifying themselves and asked the company to look hard at providing some sort of "work around" in the case of a missed read.  Then he started in about renumbering, observing that the company could have chosen to read all meters during renumbering, but they didn’t choose to do that.  That’s a resource issue from Commissioner McKinney's perspective.  It was something the company made an intentional decision to do.
  23. Commissioner Albert wanted to know what was going on with the Maryland PSC billing investigation, but couldn't get a straight answer from the witness.
Second witness was Kaye Julian, Director of Customer Management.
  1. The system has calculated expected consumption and if it falls outside expectations, then it goes to billing personnel for review.  This is supposed to catch a large true up.  They could send a re-read order or a billing rep. would catch an obvious error.  But, if the reader has verified the reading (see #18 above), then they release it for billing.  Customer is not notified of the reason for such a high bill, but the company is considering doing that, along with giving the customer payment plan options.
  2. If a customer's history contains "bad data" (defined as inaccurate estimates) then it’s possible that the estimated reading is going to be inaccurate.  If there are more than 4 estimates, then "we do have issues."  The company has a levelizing routine for 4 estimates and are confident it’s correct.  But if there are more than 5 estimates in a row, it does not work.  Those customers go through an estimation routine that uses prior month usage to calculate current month estimate.  If the prior month was estimated, this would make the current estimate based on "bad data."
  3. The company's estimation routine did not perform as they intended it to.
  4. In April 2012, a computer system change (result of the company's merger) was made that changed the estimation routine.  Although Allegheny's estimation routine worked well, FirstEnergy "enhanced" it because it was not possible to retain the old and support the business environment we’re in.  In order to share resources it’s best to all be on the same platform – it’s about managing costs and best practice.
  5. Agrees that adding additional months to the levelizing routine may only add more "bad data" and that an average is only as good as the data used to create it.  If data is off, then estimate will be wrong.
  6. EPRI study of company estimation routine expected January 6.  EPRI has been meeting with FirstEnergy "team" and needs more time.  Weekly/daily meetings on review that began in July.  EPRI is trying to simulate estimation routine with good data and creating other scenarios with additional estimates.  EPRI will tell them how to improve. Too early to say if the company will do whatever EPRI recommends because the company doesn’t know how much it may cost.  Could reject EPRI's recommendation if it’s too expensive for the company.
  7. Regarding the 10,000 "special" customers who will receive monthly readings between Nov. & Jan. -- The system picked them based on the following criteria:  5 consecutive estimates in 2012 and more than 25% variance after an actual read.  Only accounts with 5 consecutive estimates because the company believes its levelizing routine for 4 or less estimates is accurate.  The purpose of actual reads is to replace "bad data" and high true-ups with actual reads because they could not be levelized.  The company will reassess these accounts at the end of January.  
  8. Doesn't think actual reads for a year would be necessary based on how the system works and based on read rates.  Not all customers were impacted like that. Not all accounts need special handling, just "anomalies" (10,000 accounts).
  9. Believes there's a difference between a high bill inquiry and a complaint.  Maybe the customer called simply because they didn't understand something about their high bill.
  10. FirstEnergy applied its own estimation routines used for monthly read accounts to Allegheny's bi-monthly read system, but doesn't believe that exacerbated the estimation problems.
  11. Chairman Albert asked what are "we" going to do with this thing?  Lots of customer issues, lack of confidence in the company’s processes.  To what extent is somebody going to suggest to us what needs to be done?  Julian responded that the company has discovered that their bills are confusing for customers.  Will enhance customer messaging on bill to let them know why there is a huge variance in the bill.  "Little idiosyncrasies"  came out.  Chairman Albert asked again about the Maryland PSC case and still got no answer.
FirstEnergy counsel helps out by asking witness on redirect if there is a similar billing problem in FirstEnergy's West Penn Power territory.  Julian says there is not because WPP didn't suffer the consequences of Hurricane Sandy.

Next witness was Gary Grant, FirstEnergy's Director of Customer Contact Centers:

  1. Companies have voluntarily implemented modified guidelines for payment plan procedures for high bills with no financial qualification.  Gives the customer a repayment period similar to the estimation period that caused the high bill.  Customer Service Reps. offer payment plans as an "opportunity" for customers, but only when they call and ask because each customer is "unique".  Hand-out refers to customers as "business partners."
  2. West Penn Power doesn't have high bill payment plans "at this scale" (not that they don't have the same high bill problems - see paragraph above).
  3. Disagrees that customers got rude treatment from customer service reps. Wait times at call center have decreased, and the company's robust quality assurance process ensures CSRs are not rude.  But did customers in fact express concern during the public hearings?  Yes, they said that.
  4. The company does not inform new customers about the company's bi-monthly reading practices, and if they did it would be an additional cost.
  5. Commissioner Palmer questioned this witness about hold times once initial contact is made.  These hold times are not counted in the company's ASA statistics.  The company tracks handle time for individual reps. as well as overall call center, and any hold time would count in the handle time metric.  They don't keep track of how long customers are on hold once answered.  The supervisor can see how long customer is on hold.  When asked if there will be any changes to the process, the witness said just payment plan and high bill refreshers for the CSRs.
  6. Chairman Albert asked what the harm was in informing the customer about bi-monthly reading when they apply for new service over the phone.  The witness said it would add seconds to the call.  Chairman Albert speculated that it would add about 3 seconds.
Next witness was Kevin Wise, Director of Rates and Regulatory Somethingorother:
  1. Witness claimed he had not seen the lawsuit filed by Potomac Edison customer John Kilroy in Jefferson County the day before.
  2. Said the company would never accept the $5 customer refund for a missed reading, even if exceptions were made for exigent circumstances.  Was asked how many times the company would be paying this fine.  Said there will always be meters that aren't read and would be estimated.
  3. Commissioner Palmer asked if the company had future renumbering projects planned.  Witness has no idea what the company's future plans may be.
Next witness, Suzanne Akers, Utility Analyst with the Consumer Advocate Division, was cross examined by FirstEnergy's counsel.
  1. Acknowledged that if the company were to read meters monthly for a year, it would take time to increase staff.  Could not answer if the cost of the extra readings would be recoverable in rates.  
  2. Was asked what she would do with those extra meter readers after the year.  Said perhaps they may still be needed.  Was asked if she would lay off those meter readers, because that might affect FirstEnergy's ability to hire workers.  (Hey, I didn't write this comedy, I'm just reporting here.)  Akers noted that many current meter readers are contract employees.
Final witness was Michael Fletcher, Deputy Director of Consumer Operations Section at the PSC:
  1. Part of his concern about changing to FirstEnergy's new estimation routine is that under Allegheny’s estimation process, the company did an analysis on the specific customer and had 5 estimating routines to fit different scenarios.  Allegheny used to look at what routine is appropriate and current system does not.
  2. Concerned that sequence of estimates are adjusted for weather, until there are too many estimates and then the routine changes to levelized midstream.
  3. FirstEnergy's counsel asked if the linear routine uses prior year historic data, and witness said it varied, either prior year or prior month, but neither estimate may be accurate.
  4. Witness said that the weather-adjusted estimates were put in place in a settlement in the 1990s and if the company wants to change them they should file a new tariff.
  5. The customer supplied meter reading should be used as supplied if within the company's 3-day read window.  (Note #21 under Hilderbrand.)  However, the company has been adjusting the customer-supplied reading to their scheduled read date within the window and then marking it as an estimate on the customer's bill.  The tariff supports Fletcher's interpretation.  Fletcher said that when the customer calls in a reading and the bill shows a different number coded as an estimate, that increases customer anger and complaints.
  6. FirstEnergy counsel asked Fletcher about several missed read situations and whether they would count as missed reads where the $5 refund applied.  Fletcher agreed that some would be exceptions.  Fletcher said the company needs to have enough back up meter readers to cover absences.  Sick or vacation excuses for not reading meters are not acceptable.  He understands the company can’t plan for every eventuality, but needs additional rovers to take up the slack for planned absences. If it’s the same problem that has brought us here because of poor planning, then the refund would apply.  The company says they have increased meter readers and fixed all the other problems, and if they have, it wouldn’t apply to anyone.
  7. The $5 customer charge includes the cost of reading, billing, maintenance, and parties may agree to include charges in there that are not direct customer costs. However, it's primarily related to those items in the Uniform System of Accounts that can be tied to the customer, even if the customer had zero usage.  The company’s cost to serve that customer, according to Wise’s testimony says the cost of meter reading is $1.19 (or $1.56 later in the testimony).  Meter reading has a $3.7M yearly cost.  There are other costs recovered in addition to meter reading.  Fletcher is not trying to compensate customer for company’s cost – he was picking easy number to reference ($5).
  8. FirstEnergy's counsel contends that the $5 refund is performance rate making (where there are penalties and rewards), but Fletcher's proposal has no reward.  Fletcher said the reward is not incurring the penalty. 
  9. Fletcher said if a customer got 5 consecutive estimates, it sends incorrect signals to the customer about energy use and is not fair to the customer.
  10. Chairman Albert questioned witness about exigent circumstances (EC) and whether or not EC can be verified how do we avoid more EC circumstances and whether discount should apply.  Aren’t we setting up a system with a penalty that would result in a bunch of contested cases?
If you found this summary interesting, or laughable, check back for links to the hearing transcripts, when they are available.

And now we wait for the Commission to issue an Order to fix this mess.  At some point, FirstEnergy has to right its wrongs and make amends to its customers.  Otherwise, this saga will simply continue in another venue.
20 Comments

Find Out More About Potomac Edison and Mon Power Mass Action Billing Lawsuit

12/22/2013

1 Comment

 
If you're one of the thousands of Potomac Edison or Mon Power customers who have experienced problems with your billing over the past couple of years, fill out this quick and easy online form to consult with an attorney about your unique situation.

As we noted last week, a Jefferson County customer has filed a civil suit against Potomac Edison.  When WHAG asked viewers if they had also been over billed on its Facebook page, response was overwhelming!  More than 160 people posted comments, many claiming to have received bills in the hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Now Charles Town attorney Andrew Skinner says, "...more suits may follow against the electric company."

The FirstEnergy subsidiary's billing practices have been the subject of numerous consumer complaints and several public hearings this year. While Skinner says a class-action lawsuit is unlikely, customers may be able to file a mass-action lawsuit, in which there are many individual plaintiffs."

An article in the Martinsburg Journal explains the progression of the initial suit filed by Shepherdstown resident John Kilroy.  After many months of wrangling with Potomac Edison, and after going through the formal complaint process at the WV Public Service Commission (where the company signed a settlement agreement forgiving half of the amount in question), the company continued to bill Kilroy the full amount.  Every avenue short of a lawsuit was explored, but the company continued to insist that Kilroy owed more than $3000.
Before filing the lawsuit, Skinner sent a letter to Potomac Edison, asking the company to correct its billing inaccuracies as required by the Consumer Credit and Protection Act. Potomac Edison representatives failed to respond.
FirstEnergy's Potomac Edison and Mon Power subsidiaries continue to ignore customer complaints.  After all, the legislative interim investigation of utility billing practices has come to an end with nothing being done.  Perhaps it was nothing more than grandstanding by Senator Herb Snyder in the first place, but maybe we can try again to get something accomplished when the legislative session begins in January. 

After sitting through the evidentiary hearing last week, it looks like the company lacks a healthy and respectful fear of our Public Service Commission.  Why does the company treat regulation like it's something that can be "fixed?"  When I arrived at the PSC for day 2 of the evidentiary hearing last Wednesday, someone asked me if I happened to notice Sammy Gray on my way in.  Sammy Gray is FirstEnergy's West Virginia lobbyist.  What would a lobbyist be doing trying to influence an impartial, quasi-judicial regulatory board?  Why would he ever set foot in that building?  Is our PSC just another corporate apologist? 

I'm starting to think that consumers (or "business partners," as FirstEnergy training manuals call us) could be mistaken if they believe that West Virginia's legislative or regulatory processes are designed to serve them.

Because we can't get justice through our government
, it's time to take it to a higher level and quit wasting our time at a PSC that will not exercise its authority.

What's a consumer to do when the legislators and regulators fail him?  Take the matter up with a judge in your own county and seek justice through the court system.

Go ahead, fill out the form.  It's your only path to justice in West Virginia.
1 Comment
<<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

    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.